1 Corinthians 9783170389045, 9783170389052, 9783170389069, 3170389041

Citation preview

Luise Schottroff

1 Corinthians Revised and with a foreword by Claudia Janssen Translated by Everett R. Kalin

Verlag W. Kohlhammer

English translation of the 2nd Revised Edition 2022 All rights reserved © W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart Production: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart Print: ISBN 978-3-17-038904-5 E-Book-Formate: pdf: ISBN 978-3-17-038905-2 epub: ISBN 978-3-17-038906-9 W. Kohlhammer bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of any external website that is linked or cited, or for that of subsequent links.

Contents

Foreword to the Second Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Introduction: Who was Paul? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Paul the Jew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Paul and the Messiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Paul among his Brothers and Sisters . . . . . . . . . 4. Everyday Life in the Cities of the Roman Empire 5. Paul the Mystic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 18 19 20 21

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Date of the Letter and the City of Corinth . . . . . . . . . . . 1:1–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concepts of Time and Eschatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10–18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Wisdom of this World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denial of the Crucifixion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:19–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Believers in the Messiah from the Nations and their Identity 1:26–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:1–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:1–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The »We« of the Congregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:6–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:1–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:1–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:5–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:12–17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:18–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4:1–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4:14–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5:1–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6:1–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6:12–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Images from Slavery to Represent God’s Act of Liberation . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 23 . 23 . 25 . 30 . 32 . 36 . 38 . 41 . 45 . 48 . 54 . 55 . 57 . 58 . 64 . 65 . 66 . 68 . 71 . 73 . 83 . 87 . 97 . 108 . 113

6 7:1–40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:1–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Social Practice of Contemptuous Sexuality (porneia) 7:8–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divorces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:12–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:17–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Torah in 1 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:25–38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:39–40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8:1–11:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8:1–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacrificial Meat—Meat Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:1–27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:1–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:4–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pay for the Teaching of the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:7–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:12–14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:15–18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:19–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sin and Torah in 1 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:24–27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sports Competitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thoughts of a Woman from a Future Generation . . . . . 10:1–11:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:1–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:14–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s Theology of the Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:23–11:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:2–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:2–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:7–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:17–34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:17–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Congregational Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:23–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »For you.« Martyrdom or Sacrifice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »Do this in remembrance of me« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:27–34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:1–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:1–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:4–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 119 120 127 128 130 133 135 138 140 147 147 148 149 160 161 162 163 166 168 170 172 174 177 177 180 180 181 186 187 193 197 199 208 213 214 215 216 225 229 234 237 240 241 243

7

Contents

12:12–27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Body of Christ: You are the body of the Messiah (12:27) . . . . . . . . . 12:28–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13:1–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13:1–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13:4–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13:8–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:1–40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:1–5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Speak with God in one’s Native Language (lalein glōssais/to Speak in Languages) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:6–19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:20–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:26–33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:34–38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:39–40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resurrection Hope in the Context of the Roman Empire (15:1–19) . . 15:1–2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:3–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appearances of the Risen One, 1 Cor 15:5–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:12–19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:20–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:23–28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:29–34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:35–38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:39–41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:42–44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:45–50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:51–53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:54–58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:1–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:1–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Gifts of the Nations for Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:5–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:10–14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:15–18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:19–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

246 246 254 255 257 259 262 265 265

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

266 272 275 278 280 286 286 292 292 294 300 303 304 308 312 314 316 321 326 329 331 332 332 338 341 344 346

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 Selective Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 I. Old Testament (including the Apocrypha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 II. New Testament (excluding 1 Corinthians) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

8 III. IV. V.

Contents

Intertestamental and post-biblical Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 Early Christian Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Non-Jewish and non-Christian Ancient Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

Foreword to the Second Edition

The commentary by Luise Schottroff to The First Letter to the Congregation in Corinth appeared in 2013. Therein she offered an easily understandable, true-tolife interpretation of this letter, which directs attention to the living conditions of the Corinthian congregation, offers a political analysis of the power structures underlying the Roman Empire and reveals the daily struggle for dignity of the people in the messianic communities. This second edition offers in extensive sections the unaltered text of the first. The bibliography was enlarged with current publications—in keeping with the wishes of Luise Schottroff, whose concern was never completeness but relevance for a socio-historical, imperium-critical and gender-conscious rereading of Paul’s writings in the context of ancient Judaism. Minor mistakes in the manuscript were corrected and a few additions were made. Her interpretation continues to be up-to-date and represents the present state of international Pauline research. Even after her death, Luise Schottroff is an important teacher for those who are seeking their own critical and life-serving access to theology and exegesis. In 2013, on the occasion of the publication of the commentary, Luise Schottroff received the Leonore Siegele-Wenschkewitz-Prize of the Protestant Church in Hessen and Nassau (EKHN) for her lifework. For this becomes clear: She puts to work in her interpretation of The First Letter to the Congregation in Corinth the yield of her more than forty-year research on Paul. The guidelines of the Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament [ThKNT] series, of which she is coeditor, are also the central themes of her own exegetical work since the late 1970s: social history, ChristianJewish dialogue and feminist theology. Her works were and still are trailblazing for a comprehensive rereading of Paul’s letters in the German speaking realm and also internationally. The appearance of the second edition of her commentary should, therefore, be taken as the occasion for a comprehensive honoring of her exegetical work in this field of research. 1.

Social History

In the introduction, Luise Schottroff writes in 2013 that she will portray Paul’s first letter to the congregation in Corinth from a socio-historical theological perspective. She assumes that the letter is addressed to specific people that Paul describes in this way: »not many wise, powerful or priviledged by birth,« rather »uneducated … weak, disadvantaged by birth, despised, things reduced to nothing« (cf. for on 1 Cor

10

Foreword to the Second Edition

1:26–28). This perspective determines how things will proceed: She thus bases her interpretation on a detailed investigation of the life-situation of the Corinthian congregation in the context of Roman-Hellenistic society in the first century, which was made up of people of diverse nations and languages, of enslaved and free, women and men. Based on her analysis, these people belonged principally to the lower classes. She does not understand the problems that are addressed in the letter as conflicts with »opponents,« but as discussions about how one lives, the backgrounds of which she develops in Basic Information Sections on themes like slavery, divorce, sacrificial meat—meat consumption, the theology of the body, eschatology. Thereby she comprehensively includes in her interpretation the open and subtle aspects of violence in the Roman Empire: crucifixions as a means of political deterrence, »games« as events for the masses in which people were tortured and executed, slavery as a structure that seizes power over people and their bodies. Paul sets in contrast to this the image of the congregation as the »body of the Messiah,« the concept of a collective body, with which God acts to effect liberation in the world (1 Cor 12:12–27) and which is not to be thought of in purely metaphorical terms. The congregation embodies the Risen One. The commentary’s manifold socio-historical data, which are based on history of religions and archeological investigations, serve to direct the gaze on the difficult lifesituations of a congregation within the structures of the Roman-Hellenistic world, on the oppressive situation of women, children, the poor and enslaved and, at the same time, to open an understanding of the attractiveness of the message of the gospel. The people experience themselves in their community as a messianic body, which promises them dignity as God’s creatures and allows eschatological visions of God’s just world to develop. In a programmatic essay in 1979, Luise Schottroff has already set forth the theological foundations for this socio-historical work: »Sin’s Reign of Terror and Liberation Through Christ According to Paul’s Letter to Rome«.1 Therein she shows that Paul’s statements on sin, on the meaning of the Torah and on Christ’s liberating activity are based on an analysis of the Roman Empire. The power of the texts then unfolds in a special way, when they are read in this way and questioned about their significance for people’s everyday life in the cities of the empire. Her analysis shows that Paul’s leading idea is that sin rules over all people as over slaves and Christ brings liberation from this dominion. The sphere of power of hamartia is the kosmos; it’s instrument of power is death. For the execution of its power, it employs the nomos. This word, according to Schottroff, does not mean the Torah but the compulsion that makes it impossible to do the will of God. Paul thinks about sin’s rule over the world within the dimensions of the Roman Empire, which are first viewed by the believers. They recognize

1 Schottroff, Luise. »Die Schreckensherrschaft der Sünde und die Befreiung durch Christus nach dem Römerbrief des Paulus.« In Schottroff, Befreiungserfahrungen. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, 57–72. Munich 1990. The article first appeared in EvTheol (1979), 497–510. Reprinted in Befreiung vom Mammon. Liberation from Mammon, Die Reformation radikalisieren/Radicalizing Reformation. Edited by Ulrich Durchrow and Hans G. Ulrich, Band/ Vol. 2, 76–94. Münster 2015.

Foreword to the Second Edition

11

that the ruler of the world makes use of the Torah. Luise Schottroff further asks what liberation from the power of sin means in concrete terms for people. Paul’s principal concern is not an improvement in general living conditions; he is thinking apocalyptically: His hope is directed to God’s final intervention, which has already begun with the resurrection of Christ. This hope in a final change of rule has had far-reaching political consequences. The people do not feel themselves loyal, in the first place, to the Roman Emperor as the Lord and his institutions, but to the God of Israel and to the Messiah God has sent. With this interpretive framework, within which she also reads Paul’s other letters, Luise Schottroff prepared the way for further studies of socio-historical exegesis in the German context and internationally in the context of studies of empirecritical Pauline research, which is now being carried on under the watchword »Paul and Empire.« There are available a multitude of publications by her in the area of social-historical biblical interpretation.2 In 2009, together with Old and New Testament colleagues, she published the Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch zur Bibel. 2.

Christian-Jewish Dialogue

To the fundamental question that Luise Schottroff posed in 2013 in the Introduction, »Who was Paul?« there first followed the heading: »Paul the Jew.« In her publications it becomes clear that Jewish-Christian dialogue decisively determines her thinking. In the commentary on the letter to the Corinthian congregation she consistently reads Paul as a Jewish author who has remained true to his theological traditions as he came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. Thereby she positions herself within an international debate that, under the watchword »Paul within Judaism,« bundles Jewish and Christian investigations on Paul.3 A central concern of her entire exegetical work is the overcoming of Christian anti-Judaism. Within the framework of a theology after Auschwitz, she sees it as an important task to recognize anti-Jewish stereotypes and ways of thinking and to develop alternatives—in recognition that in the German context there has not been until now a completely non anti-Jewish Christian theology. Since the middle of the 1960s, there arose in New Testament scholarship the beginnings of an interpretation of Paul’s writings in the context of ancient Judaism, which is now discussed under the title »New Perspective on Paul,« or »Post New

2 A list of publications is printed in the Festschrift für Luise Schottroff zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann et al. Gott ist anders. Gleichnisse neu gelesen, 381–404. Gütersloh 2014. As the first widely received publication can be named the book Jesus von Nazareth. Hoffnung der Armen. Stuttgart 1978, cowritten with Wolfgang Stegemann, which has since been reprinted frequently. 3 To the current publications belong, among others, the anthologies edited by Mark Nanos and Magnus Zetterhold, Paul Within Judaism. A Post-New Perspective Approach to the Apostle. Minneapolis 2014 and Paul Within Judaism. Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle. Minneapolis 2015.

12

Foreword to the Second Edition

Perspective on Paul,« or »Paul Within Judaism.« For the debate in the Germanspeaking realm, the book by Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (1976), was fundamental; it appeared in translation in 1978 under the title Der Jude Paulus und wir Heiden. This understanding of the Jewish Paul was taken up by Luise Schottroff very early, and she consistently developed it further in her own work. At the end of the 1980’s, in the context of German-speaking feminist theology, the question of anti-Judaism in Christian theology was carried on publicly in a broad sphere, challenged, above all, by Jewish women theologians. They criticized the fact that even feminist theologians unreflectively perpetuate anti-Jewish stereotypes of Christian theologies, as, for example, the depiction of Jesus as the »new man,« who freed women from a patriarchal, women-oppressing Judaism. The volume, Von der Wurzel getragen. Christlich-feministische Exegese in Auseinandersetzung mit Antijudaismus, which was published in 1996 by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker, fashioned the subsequent exegetical discussions and their results. The essay published by Schottroff in this volume presented alternatives to the (often antiJudaisticly connoted) construct »law-free Gentile Christianity.«4 She programmatically summarized this in 2013 in the introduction to The First Letter to the Congregation in Corinth: Paul did not through his call become a Christian but a divine messenger, who spreads the liberating message of Jesus’ resurrection. Paul proclaimed liberation from acting unjustly under the power of sin, not liberation from the Torah and the fulfilling of its instructions. So the issue is liberation to the Torah, not from the Torah.

Luise Schottroff reads not only the letters of Paul but also the gospels in the theological context of Judaism. In her book about the parables of Jesus, which appeared in 2005 and is now in the third edition of 2010 [It appeared in English as The Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis 2006; trans.], the New Testament parables, in comparison with rabbinic parables, are consistently interpreted from their Jewish backgrounds.5 Posthumously published in 2019 were her interpretations of the Gospel of Matthew.6 3.

Feminist Exegesis

Also in this field of investigation, Luise Schottroff is one of the women pioneers. Already in an essay in 1985, she raised the question, »How justified is feminist

4 Schottroff, Luise. »Gesetzesfreies Heidenchristentum—Und die Frauen? Feministische Analysen und Alternativen.« In Von der Wurzel getragen. Christlich-feministische Exegese in Auseinandersetzung mit Antijudaismus. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker, 227–245. Leiden, New York, Cologne 1996. 5 Schottroff, Luise. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. Gütersloh 2005, 2010 [English translation: The Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis 2006. Trans.] 6 Schottroff, Luise. Der Anfang des Neuen Testaments. Matthäus 1–4 neu entdeckt. Ein Kommentar im Dialog. Edited by Frank Crüsemann, Claudia Janssen and Rainer Kessler. Stuttgart 2019.

Foreword to the Second Edition

13

criticism of Paul?«7 and she analyzed therein a series of passages from his letters in which women are explicitly spoken about. She advocated interpreting these statements in the concrete context of each particular congregational situation, and to consider the history of interpretation separately (beginning with the Pastoral Epistles, continuing with the early church and up to the present). For treating Paul in the early phase of feminist theology, that was not self-evident. For, according to Schottroff, the history of discrimination against and oppression of women in Christianity is closely connected with the interpretation of the Pauline epistles. Many women have therefore rejected having anything to do with Paul, the »enemy of women,« for that would be »attempts to rescue oppressive texts incapable of being rescued.«8 This attitude also continues to be nourished in many popular interpretations of Paul, for the cliché of the authoritarian apostle, hostile to women and the body, battling against the Jewish law, holds on tenaciously to the present time. Summing the situation up in the year 1985, Luise Schottroff said: »Compared with the self-understanding of the male church and of male theology today, Paul was a feminist pioneer« (246). Since then much has fundamentally changed, not least thanks to feminist investigations and their reception in wider theological and ecclesiastical contexts. Scholarly feminist exegesis arrived at a more differentiated perspective on Pauline theology. In her overview of feminist research on Paul, Luzia Sutter Rehmann summarized that the interest has shifted: The issue is no longer presenting the suppressed history of women in the Pauline churches but a critical deconstruction of androcentric writings and a new sketch of Paul and his letters.9 Feminist theology was an essential center of gravity for Luise Schottroff in the research realm and in university political work, in which she was very involved for the advancement and networking of feminist theologians. Thus in 1986 she was involved in the establishment of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR), an interreligious network for women theologians of all disciplines. In 1991 she co-published the Wörterbuch der Feministischen Theologie, which in 2002 underwent a thorough reworking and fundamental expansion. To the standard works in the German-speaking realm also belongs the Kompendium Feministische Bibelauslegung, which in 1998 was published by her and Marie-Theres Wacker. It offers a short commentary, with the focus on questions of relationships between

7 »Wie berechtigt ist die feministische Kritik an Paulus? Paulus und die Frauen in den ersten christlichen Gemeinden im Römischen Reich.« In Schottroff, Befreiungserfahrungen. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, 229–246. Munich 1990; first published in the journal Einwürfe 1985. 8 Thus, for example, Schüssler-Fiorenza, Elisabeth. »Gleichheit und Differenz. Gal 3:28 im Brennpunkt feministischer Hermeneutik.« In BTZ 16 (1999), 212–231. 9 Cf. Sutter-Rehmann, Luzia. »Die aktuelle feministische Exegese der paulinischen Briefe. Ein Űberblick.« In Paulus. Umstrittene Traditionen—lebendige Theologie. Eine feministische Lektüre. Edited by Claudia Janssen, Luise Schottroff and Beate Wehn, 10–22. Gütersloh 2001. For current research, cf. Janssen, Claudia. »Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Bereich Feministischer Bibelauslegung und Feministischer Hermeneutik. Forschungsüberblick mit dem Schwerpunkt: Paulusforschung. In ThR 83 (2018), 189–216.

14

Foreword to the Second Edition

the sexes, on all the biblical books, including the Apocrypha, and on selected extracanonical writings. In 2012 it was published anew in an English translation under the title Feminist Biblical Interpretation. A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature. Feminist theology was for Luise Schottroff inextricably connected with liberation-theology oriented social history and questions of Jewish-Christian dialogue, which is shown in an exemplary way by her book Lydias ungeduldige Schwestern. Feministische Sozialgeschichte des frühen Christentums.10 [A year after its publication in German in 1994, the English translation appeared as Lydia’s Impatient Sisters. A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity. Louisville, Kentucky 1995; trans.] In the present commentary Luise Schottroff takes up her own interpretations from earlier times and changes them, in part fundamentally, as, for example, the interpretations of 1 Cor 11:2–16 or 1 Cor 14:34–38. From these examples it can be seen that she always took up current literature and always self-critically engaged with her own perspectives. The three perspectives that marked the work of Luise Schottroff: social history, Christian-Jewish dialogue and feminist theology determine also the concept of the Bibel in gerechter Sprache (2006, 2011), of which she was one of the editors. Therein she is responsible for the translation of the Gospel of Matthew and also of the First Letter to the Congregation in Corinth, which she developed further in the present commentary and whose backgrounds she extensively developed. I myself have worked together with Luise Schottroff for many years and discussed current projects. Thus I was able on a continuing basis to accompany the origin of this commentary, and I am especially happy, therefore, that it is now appearing in a second edition. Almost ready for the publisher is an English translation of the commentary, which will also enable its international reception. I deeply hope that in the long run the commentary will find women and men readers who will engage deeply with Luise Schottroff ’s interpretations, which are careful, inspiring, often surprising, and always borne along by a deep spirituality, and that these readers will be inspired by her interpretation of Paul’s theology. For their support in updating of commentary I thank Dr. Marlene Crüsemann and Prof. Dr. Carsten Jochum-Bortfeld. Wuppertal, August 2020 Claudia Janssen

10 Cf. Schottroff, Luise, Lydia’s Impatient Sisters. A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity. Louisville, Ky. 1995.

Foreword

Work on this book has led me on a journey of discovery into the life of a large Roman-Hellenistic city, Corinth. Paul was a tour guide into the history of the early Roman Empire. In his First Letter to Corinth it becomes evident how hard daily life in this city was, including for Paul himself. In the midst of this city a resistance community has come together, made up of Jews and those of other nations, a community that has, and lives from, a great vision. From the Torah they have learned this: Israel’s God wants all people and the whole world to experience fullness of life. Paul shares this community’s way with enthusiasm and passion. Through this letter Paul became a source of inspiration for me: it is possible, even under conditions such as those he faced, to construct a common life and to orient yourself daily on the vision of God’s justice for the whole world. On this journey of discovery, I was accompanied by a group of faithful women companions, who shared with me curiosity about a different Paul and the surprise of unexpected discoveries. Without the continuous exegetical and spiritual dialogue that I carried on with Claudia Janssen, this book would not have come into being. Marlene Crüsemann accompanied the work from the beginning and developed new ideas about the Second Letter to Corinth that are fundamental for understanding 1 Corinthians and Paul as a whole. Finally, she took upon herself the laborious task of a full editorial reading. Ute Ochtendung gave the manuscript her thorough and competent attention. Her support and sound judgment again and again gave me the courage to carry on this work. I have the great joy of being able to work regularly with a group of five women colleagues on the further development of translations in the Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Dietlinde Jessen, Luise Metzler, Friederike Oertelt, Susanne Paul and Cathrin Szameit participated with me in the considerations that went into the translation of 1 Corinthians into German—from the details about how to translate individual words to the fundamental questions about the relevance of such texts for 21st century congregations. Our common work was and is inspiring, encouraging and always enjoyable. During walks together in the Dönche [a large nature reserve in the city of Kassel, translator], I experienced many attempts to find clarity during the course of my work. Ariane Garlichs posed creative and challenging questions from the perspectives of pedagogy and psychoanalysis. The members of the »Heidelberger Arbeitskreis für sozialgeschlichtliche Bibelauslegung« have constructively and critically discussed theses and first drafts. How necessary and constructive it is to understand the New Testament and Paul from the perspectives of the Old Testament and of the history of God’s dealings with Israel became more and more clear to me during these discussions.

16

Foreword

Obtaining the literature I needed for this project lay principally in the hands of the team of the state church library in Kassel, especially in those of Mr. Thron. He tracked down mountains of new works, as well as rare and older titles. The work of the whole team was a great source of support for me. Benjamin Porps brought me, even in the snow and on icy streets, big bicycle bags full of books. I could rely on his bibliographic competence. My heartfelt thanks go to the women and men at Kohlhammer Verlag, especially Herr Florian Specker from the editorial office, who also produced the information about the illustrations. From the bottom of my heart I thank all those who accompanied me on this journey. It was a wonderful time.

Introduction: Who was Paul?

In this commentary I interpret Paul’s First Letter to the Congregation in Corinth from a sociohistorical-theological perspective.11 I would like to present briefly, in five steps, my view of Paul, which developed and gained precision as I worked on the commentary. As I do that, I point in each case to the passages in 1 Corinthians where further material on the issue can be found in the commentary.

1.

Paul the Jew

Paul was born a Jew and lived and worked as a Jew until he died. At the beginning of his work on behalf of the liberating gospel stands his call by God. His call was so important to Paul that he often refers to it in his letters, including in 1 Corinthians (1:1; 15:8–10; 9:1, 16–27 and more often). Through the call he received the divine commission to make the message known, especially among the oppressed nations of the Roman Empire, the ethnē (see on 1:22–24), that the God of Israel has raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was a Jewish man who was executed by the Romans less than twenty years earlier (see on 1:17–18; 2:6–8). That God has raised this executed one means, according to Paul’s proclamation, that the world is no longer subject to the powers that oppose life. God has fenced in the structures of death. Thereby, God has freed the people of Israel and the nations (ethnē) from slavery (15:20–22). Paul describes this slavery as the power of death (3:22; 15:22, 26, 56), as the power of sin (15:56) and of the world (kosmos 3:22). These powers force people to become accomplices in their injustice and to practice it in their lives, that is, to fail to observe the Torah (6:9–11; 5:10–11). Political analysis and mythical concepts of demonic powers ruling the world flow together here. With the concept of call, as well as with that of the power of sin, Paul is operating within the traditions of Judaism. Despair over the world-power sin, which enslaves everyone, is, for example, the theme of 4 Ezra (on sin, see the basic informa-

11 The translation printed in this volume is based on my translation for the Bibel in gerechter Sprache (the 4th expanded and improved ed. Gütersloh 2011), which during the work on the commentary was developed further. [Bibel in gerechter Sprache, henceforth BigS, means the »Bible in fitting/apt language.« A helpful introduction to this translation and its context can be found in Claudia Janssen’s section on Feminist Exegesis in her Forward to the Second Edition at the beginning of this volume. The English Bible texts try to be as close as possible to Luise Schottroff ’s German text. Trans.].

18

Introduction: Who was Paul?

tion at 9:20). For the tradition in which his call is found, Paul points to the prophetic books (see on 1:1). Only under the influence of the separation of Christianity from Judaism beginning in the second century was this call understood as the beginning of a Christian life freed from the law, that is, as a »conversion.« However, compared with the concept Paul himself uses, this one is not appropriate. Paul did not through his call become a Christian but a divine messenger, who spreads the liberating message of Jesus’ resurrection. Paul proclaimed liberation from acting unjustly under the power of sin, not liberation from the Torah and the fulfilling of its instructions. So the issue is liberation to the Torah, not from the Torah (see on 7:19–20). Paul’s First Letter to Corinth as a whole is to be understood as an interpretation of the Torah for people from the nations who have embraced the God of Israel and God’s Messiah. They do not understand themselves as Jewish. From the Jewish side, they are seen as people from the nations (ethnē) and classified among the broad spectrum of non-Jewish people who live in a Jewish manner. However, in RomanHellenistic society, and from the perspective of Roman authorities, they were generally treated Jews. The letter is part of the history of the Jewish interpretation of Scripture that unfolds its meaning for the present (halakah; see, for example at 10:1–13; 5:1–11) in the first century. It was often asked whether Paul, with his concept of the significance of the Messiah Jesus, had already sprung the boundaries of Judaism. Although this is widely assumed, even in his »Christology« Paul remains within the boundaries of Jewish concepts of his time. Decisive for him is the Shema Israel/Hear, O Israel; Israel’s God is one (see 8:5–6). For him, God’s Messiah, with his body and with his whole life, embodies divine action in the world of the people of Israel and of the nations. In his writings there are no attempts to deify the Messiah in any way (see on 8:5–6). »Messiah« is portrayed as an embodied activity on God’s part rather than as an individual person who is distinguished from other people (see on 10:4). The assumption that the word »Messiah,« in its translation into Greek as Christos/ anointed one, is in Paul already on its way to becoming a proper name, does not accord with his use of the word. For him it is not a name; when Paul says Christ/ Messiah, he is speaking of God’s presence, which frees people from enslavement by the structures of death.

2.

Paul and the Messiah

The Messiah has been raised by God, as the world power Rome had crucified him. As Paul was called by God for the gospel to the nations, he began his way as God’s representative, as an apostle (see on 1:1). He understands his commission to be part of a worldwide event (see 16:5–9), as part of the work in a network to which more and more people belong. His concern is not to establish a church or a religion, but to help spread liberation from enslavement to death and to sin in the world of his time. For him, this spread occurs where people come together and investigate with one another what their way to God’s righteous can look like. The concept

3. Paul among his Brothers and Sisters

19

»mission« can be used only when it is kept separate from the claim that it helps an institution or a teaching to come to power. By the resurrection of the crucified Jesus God has put an end to death and violence. This message is the foundation of the gospel Paul brings to the Mediterranean world. The Roman Empire enforced its rule through open and subtle violence. This violence includes crucifixions as a means of political intimidation but also »games,« that is, events for the masses in many cities, in which people were tortured and killed (see 4:9). The crowds were supposed to have an apparent role in the great decisions over death and life and to cheer about the violence in the arenas. Whoever didn’t participate in this approval of the violence was in danger of being persecuted by Rome. This anxiety over persecution, therefore, had even brought people who already belonged to the communities of the God of Israel (ekklēsiai theou) to deny the crucifixion of their Liberator, that is, to suppress the word of the cross (see 1:17, 18), and also the resurrection of the Messiah as well. Already before the appearance of the Jew Jesus, who was seen by many people as God’s Liberator/Messiah, Rome had persecuted messianic movements (see the basic information before 15:1). Paul battles to see that God’s congregations remain unambiguous about their adherence to a crucified one who was made the Messiah by God. For he understands the assembly or congregation of God as the body of the Messiah in this world. The concept of a collective body, with which God is active in the world, is not to be understood metaphorically (see on 12:12, 27). The congregation, with all its members, embodies the Messiah and acts messianically, with one another and toward those on the outside. It openly identifies violence by name and builds a community in which justice becomes a reality. Justice liberates sexuality from its use as a form of coercion (see.6:12–20; 7:1–40); it gives the poor equal rights and puts an end to privileges the rich enjoy at other people’s expense (1:26–31; 11:17–34). Women are accorded the same level of dignity as men (see 11:2–16). The ethnic diversity, the many native languages spoken by members of the congregation, should not be suppressed for the sake of the lingua franca. There is contention over a form of this speech that can be heard openly in the congregation alongside of prophecy (spoken in the common language; basic information about this is available at 14:1). The body of the Messiah, Jesus’ body, and people’s individual bodies are where God is present (11:23; 12:12, 27; 6:19). In the Lord’s Supper, these diverse dimensions of the concept »body of Christ« (sōma christou) are inseparably connected. The Lord’s Supper is the place where the bodily presence of God and of the Messiah is constantly being actualized anew.

3.

Paul among his Brothers and Sisters

Paul understands himself as an interpreter of the Torah in community. Even the people from the nations quickly became very competent in knowing and interpreting the Torah for their life in the body of Christ. Paul participated in these inter-

20

Introduction: Who was Paul?

pretative communities. But he is not accorded a place of privilege (see 5:3–5) when the gathering reaches decisions based on the Torah. Paul was not the only messenger God sent to proclaim the liberating gospel. Most of his letters were written together with others (see 1:1), and they contain a great deal that emanates from the language of the congregations, their prayers and discussions. Paul did not »have co-workers,« whom he directed, but worked together with other brothers and sisters on behalf of the gospel (16:1–24). In the body of Christ there are to be no top-down relationships. In the history of interpretation, Paul is frequently understood as a figure who has authority over others, one who authoritatively renders a verdict about doctrinal differences and »admonishes« the congregation (see 1:10). This interpretation of Paul has made a lasting impression on his image, even by means of the words chosen in translations of the Bible. In this way he became the role model for leaders who claimed authority in the church. At the same time, however, this Paul also spread fear and abhorrence among those who suffered under hierarchies and worked for just relationships in the church. Women in the congregations had equal worth for Paul as workers for the gospel. But when the issue is women and their sexuality and their relationships to the opposite sex, his ambivalence toward them becomes apparent. He certainly doesn’t want messianic men to go to prostitutes. But in this context, the prostitutes themselves remain for him practically invisible. And it remains invisible that a relevant portion of the congregations is made up of women who had to earn their living, entirely or in part, through prostitution. For the reception of Paul in the 21st century, a rediscovery of Paul the brother should be accompanied by the open discussion about his ambivalence on particular issues. Paul also spread ideas that in the history of the church, and in the societies influenced by the church, have oppressed and tormented women and men. That is true especially of those who live as homosexuals (6:9) and for women in patriarchal marriages (7:10, 36). Paul’s oppressive side has been strengthened even more through the history of interpretation. Criticism of Paul should be discussed in twentieth-century congregations, even during the worship services.

4.

Everyday Life in the Cities of the Roman Empire

Paul speaks relatively often about the conditions under which he lives. He must work hard to support himself. Above all, he is exposed to dangers (4:12; 16:5–9) as he travels on foot through the expanses of the lands north of the Mediterranean Sea. He is, moreover, constantly in political danger. As a foreigner, he needs protection in the cities. Roman authorities in the cities, in part their inhabitants as well, are quite ready to persecute, beat, imprison and threaten with death (4:11–13) proclaimers of God’s peace, which is fundamentally different from the peace offered by the pax Romana. The living conditions of most of the people in the cities become incredibly clear through many details in this letter. Paul speaks of poverty and a lack of

5. Paul the Mystic

21

education (1:26–31). He criticizes the rhetoric used in public gatherings (2:1–5) and probably the thrashing of children in the schools (4:21). He speaks knowledgably about architecture (3:9–17), about the competence of the courts and about the linguistic diversity of the cities and their problems (14). Many aspects of city life in antiquity can be found in this letter. Shocking in all this is the role violence plays in daily life, above all the role it plays in mass gatherings (4:9–13) and in the lives of slaves (7:21–24). This letter is written to give the brothers and sisters courage—through an interpretation of the Torah that applies it to their daily lives and through praise for the God of Israel. The first chapters of the letter show how difficult it is for members of the congregation to extricate themselves from their own complicities and embroilments, from competitive behavior and well-worn patterns of subordination under diverse masters and from the non-exceptionality of violence in sexual relationships. Even at the Lord’s Supper some still try to take advantage of the privileges to which they have grown accustomed. The balancing act between the city’s official cults that chapters 8–10 bring to light is striking. Then, from chapter 12 on, Paul speaks less often about the difficulties in daily life, but above all about the riches with which Israel’s God has gifted the oppressed nations in this situation. They should be assured that God has put an end to the structures of death by raising Jesus from the dead. They can enjoy new gifts, the competence to interpret the Torah, the ability to heal the sick and to speak in the assembly. All of these are gifts that God’s Spirit awakens and cultivates.

5.

Paul the Mystic

God’s Spirit, the holy Spirit, dwells in the bodies of those who belong to God (6:19). Paul speaks in the plural when he speaks of experiences with God’s Spirit: »We« all, the whole congregation, are able to put into words wisdom that God reveals, indeed, even to speak of it publicly (2:6–10). But »we,« the congregation, also speak the language of angels (13:1; 2:6–16) and search out the hidden depths of God. The language with which Paul speaks about the divine Spirit is boundless (»all,« 13:7, for example) and enthusiastic. Paul describes in a similar way his own experiences of God (15:8–10; 2 Cor 12:2–5). But he does not restrict these ecstatic experiences of God, which change one’s whole life, to himself or to a small group of people. Pauline mysticism is a democratic mysticism (13:1–13). The messianic community in Corinth consists predominately of a few who are educated, of those whose work is hard and of people damaged by violence. What a contrast between this superabundant trust in God and their everyday reality! Their experience of God, the certainty that God’s Spirit dwells within them, was their source of strength. Paul didn’t bring them a new »teaching.« He and other men and women taught them to search for God in the Torah and in their lives and to draw strength from this source. The First Letter to Corinth is an arduous read if it is undertaken in search of opponents, strife and doctrinal controversies. The letter looks very different if one

22

Introduction: Who was Paul?

listens to, and takes seriously from the start, the language of delight and happiness over their great riches. 1:4–9 is not a stereotypical thanksgiving one finds at this place in letters, but a prayer of praise transformed into an address to the brothers and sisters. You are not lacking in any gift! (1:7). Is that polite exaggeration, a linguistic tactic? It would be a shame to read in this way, for the riches would remain undiscovered. Already this first section of the letter is pervaded by words that express fullness, indeed boundlessness: you are rich—in every respect (1:5), in everything. This language permeates the letter. It is worthwhile to undertake your own search for traces of the mystic Paul, of the women and men mystics in Corinth, of a messianic group in this harbor city in Greece in the middle of the first century.

Commentary

The Date of the Letter and the City of Corinth The Date of the Letter The chronology of Paul’s journeys and letters is based on estimates. They have a relatively reliable basis through Acts 18:11–12. There it is said that 18 months after the beginning of Paul’s time in Corinth a conflict between Paul and Jewish men in Corinth is brought before Gallio, the proconsul of the Roman province of Achaia. Gallio’s time in office can be dated with a certain degree of reliability from the middle of 51 to the middle of 52.12 At the time the letter is written, Paul is in Ephesus (16:8). This stay is presumably identical with his time in Ephesus that Acts 19:1–20:1 describes. The date of composition is assessed diversely in the research tradition.13 These assessments are based on the plausible assumption that, because of what is said in 1 Cor 15:32, Paul has already been in Ephesus for some time when he writes the letter. So, his stay in Corinth already lies some years (two to four) in the past. Nevertheless, there are contacts between him and the congregation through letters (see 5:9) and travelers (see only 16:10, 12, 17). There is an »animated exchange.«14 The Congregation’s Location: Corinth Strabo (about 64 BCE–19 CE), a geographer and historian, describes Corinth’s location: Corinth is called »wealthy« because of its commerce, since it is situated on the Isthmus and is master of two harbors, of which the one leads straight to Asia, and the other to Italy; … it was a welcome alternative, for the merchants both from Italy and from Asia, to avoid the voyage to Maleae [the southern tip of the Peloponnese] and to land their cargoes here. …15 The harbor to the West is Lechaion, the one to the East is Cenchrea (mentioned in Acts 18:18 and Rom 16:1).

12 Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 34. 13 For example, Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 34: spring 54 or 55; Lindemann 2000, 17: between 54 and 56; Koester, 1980, 554: winter 53/54. 14 M, Crüsemann 2010, 108. 15 Strabo, Geogr., trans. J. R. S. Sterrett, Loeb (1927), 8.6.20.

24

Commentary

By Paul’s time Corinth’s history had already been determined by Rome for a long period. Rome had destroyed the ancient Greek city in 146 BCE in a punitive action. »Corinth remained a long time deserted, till at length it was restored [in 44 BCE] on account of its natural advantages by divus Cæsar, who sent colonists thither, who consisted, for the most part, of the descendants of free-men.«16 In 27 BCE Corinth became the capital of the Roman province of Achaia, in which the proconsul resided and held court. Acts 18:12 mentions the bēma, the judicial bench on which the proconsul conducted public hearings.17 The city, like every large Roman city, was a place for business and worship, with shops and markets, artisans’ workshops, temples, theaters and baths. The travel writer Pausanias reports in 173 CE about Roman Corinth and its magnificent buildings.18 According to Plutarch, Corinth was a center for banking and finance.19 There is information about the population of Corinth in the Roman imperial period in ancient literary sources. A graphic text by Alciphron (middle of the 3rd century CE) speaks of many who were without work and hungry alongside of great riches.20 This description agrees with the general sociohistorical estimate for the city population in the Roman Empire.21 90 percent of the population lived at or below the minimum subsistence level. Paul’s First Letter to Corinth is itself an additional document subject to sociohistorical analysis, and it shows the social and economic differences in the population and the significance of slavery for the economy.22 There was a larger Jewish share of the population in the city. Philo (30 BCE–45 CE)23 mentions a Jewish colony in Corinth (c. 41 CE). Additional witnesses to this Jewish colony in Corinth are 1 Corinthians (7:18, for example) and Acts 18:1–18. An inscription: [syna]gogē Ἑbr[aiōn]24 comes from a later period (probably the 4th century). For an understanding of the letter, it is important to keep in mind the social and cultural dislocation of many people in this city. This was conditioned both by Roman settlement policy (see the testimony of Strabo above) and the economic situation: two harbors, transit of goods, people and even ships that were dragged over the isthmus. The Roman imperial cult since the time of Augustus tried to integrate the people and coerce them into loyalty toward Rome.25

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Strabo, Geogr., trans. J. R. S. Sterrett, Loeb (1927), 8.6.23. On the bēma see Elliger 1987, 225–227; Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 26, 28. There is a collection of texts and commentary in Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 109–110. Text: Plutarch, Vit. aere al. 7.831a; text and commentary in Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 109–110. Text and commentary in Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 135–136. On the economic condition of liberated slaves see Lanci 2005a. Stegemann/Stegemann 1995, 58–94; Pickett 2007, 133–160. See on 1:26; 7:17–24;11:17–34 and Friesen 2004. On the economic situation of the city’s population see especially Engels 1990; Williams II 1993; Friesen et al.2014 Legat. 281. See Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 79. Pickett 2007, 138–139; Horsley 1998, 27; 1 Cor 8:4–7 and more frequently.

1:1–9

25

1:1–9 1 Paul, according to the will of God called as an apostle by the Messiah Jesus, and Sosthenes the brother, 2 to the congregation of God in Corinth, to the people sanctified through the Messiah Jesus, who were called to live holy lives—and likewise to all people everywhere who call on the name of Jesus Christ. He is your and our Liberator. 3 May there dwell among you grace and peace from God our Origin and from our Liberator Jesus Christ. 4 On your behalf I am offering prayers of thanksgiving to my God, because in the Messiah Jesus God’s favor has been given to you. 5 For in Christ you have become rich in every way, gifted with all speech and all knowledge. 6 You are bearing witness to the Messiah, and you are demonstrating growing strength therein. 7 Therefore, you lack no God-given ability, while you await the revelation of our Liberator, Jesus, the Messiah. 8 He will strengthen you to the end, so that you do not face any accusation on the day of our Liberator Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful. Through God you have been called into the community of God’s son, Jesus the Messiah, our Liberator. 1:1–2 This letter is the earliest Pauline letter in the New Testament.26 In his introduction to the letter Paul characterizes the senders only briefly, the addressees more extensively: the messianic assembly in Corinth. 1:1 Paul says about himself that he has been called to be an apostle by Jesus the Messiah in accord with the will of God. He speaks of his call in 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–10; Gal 1:1, 13–17. Acts narrates the event in a legendary manner as a vision of Christ (Acts 9:1–22; cf. 26:12–18 and 22:6–16). In the interpretive tradition the call is often construed as a »conversion,« in the sense of a renunciation of Judaism.27 Paul himself understands his call as God’s call to bring the gospel to the nations, that is, to the new exodus in the name of the Messiah raised by God. Thereby he turns away from his work against the messianic congregations, but he does not turn away from Judaism. Now he works for a Jewish-messianic movement to which people from the nations are added. This work happens on God’s behalf, and he acts as God’s representative/apostle. The view that Paul had understood his apostolic office in the sense of the later ecclesiastical offices is inappropriate. Paul understands himself to be in continuity with the prophets in Israel (see Gal 1:15; Isa 49:1). Right in the first line of his letter Paul mentions the Messiah/Christ Jesus. Christos is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word mashiach/anointed one, and Messiah is the Graecized form of the Hebrew word. Paul uses the word with and without the addi26 That 1 Thessalonians is not the oldest letter, as is frequently assumed, is demonstrated with convincing arguments by M. Crüsemann 2010. 27 For a criticism of this interpretation see 1976, 7–23.

26

Commentary

tional use of the proper name »Jesus« (see, for example, 1:6). Paul does not use the word Christos as a proper name, but it refers to the anointing, and thereby to a commissioning, by God. The anointed one embodies what God is doing to liberate the people. The word Christos is not a title that confers on people a super-human or divine quality that distinguishes them from all other people. The word Christos in Pauline usage should be translated by »anointed one« or »Messiah« and not exclusively by »Christ,« since in contemporary Christianity this word is frequently understood as an exclusive title und proper name of this one Messiah Jesus. The word draws on Jewish tradition.28 It plays a central role for Paul, as the nine-fold use of the term in the first nine verses demonstrates right from the start. »The anointing of Jesus is an important key to understanding that in his majesty as Messiah/Christ he is part of a community that supports him.«29 Paul can also say that God anoints the congregation (2 Cor 1:21). Paul clearly presupposes that God installs the Messiah as king. For Paul, the royal power of the Risen One is present and reaches into the future (see especially 15:20–28 and the discussion of 15:24). For Paul and the congregation, Jesus’ messiahship attains a central significance because it is the Messiah’s power that overcomes all other authorities and powers in the world (see on 8:5). Paul mentions Sosthenes as a co-author. In his letters Paul consistently understands himself as an »author in the plural.«30 Even though in 1:4 he mentions himself in the singular as the author, as he often does in 1 Corinthians, it is not right to understand him as the head of a »team of authors« or as an individual author. Instead, he understands himself to be part of a community of brothers and sisters. He calls Sosthenes brother, and, in the same way, he addresses the congregation as brothers and sisters (in 1:10, for example). This relationship as brothers and sisters is characterized by »mutual responsibility and solidarity.«31 It continues the biblical and post-biblical tradition according to which the members of the people of Israel understand themselves as brothers and sisters because of their connection to Israel’s one God.32 This relationship as brothers and sisters connects the people of non-Jewish origin not only with one another but also with the people of Israel. It opens up for them an alternative to the patriarchal family. Relationships in the patriarchal family are as a rule asymmetrical; those in the congregation are not. Whether the authority of the men and women apostles, teachers and prophets establishes an asymmetrical relationship will need to be discussed (see on 3:11). 1:2 The congregation in Corinth is characterized in four ways by Paul. He calls it an »assembly/ekklēsia of God.« The word still has its secular meaning: an assem-

28 29 30 31 32

On this see Karrer 1998, 135–140; Bunting/Kampling 2009, 380–384. Butting 2009, 495. Tamez 1998, 52–56; M. Crüsemann 2010, 88–90. Ehrensperger, 2007, 60, 48–61; Tamez 1998, 199–201. For example, Deut 3:18; 15:3, and more often; Exod 2:11, and more often; Ehrensperger 2007, 60.

1:1–9

27

bly at a concrete place—as in Corinth or also in other places (16:1, 19). To some extent, these local assemblies have active contacts with each other. And yet Paul does not yet have in mind a »church« in the comprehensive sense. For him the word signifies each individual assembly of the people of God with faith in the Messiah in this place.33 It does not become Israel’s successor, but enters into solidarity with her. The word ekklēsia is linked not only with its secular meaning but also with God’s history with Israel in the Old Testament.34 Kahal Adonai is also translated in the LXX by ekklēsia of God and designates, for example, the full assembly of Israel at Sinai (Deut 4:10) or the worshiping congregation (Ps 35:18). The word synagogē can be used in the same sense. A juxtaposition or opposition of ecclesia as a Christian church and »the« synagogue as Judaism does not yet exist at this time. In the city of Corinth there was room for large gatherings for varied political purposes (see, for example, Acts 18:12–17). Such assemblies are what people envisioned when they heard the word ekklēsia. Therefore, the word had an evident political ambiguity: God’s assembly is an alternative to the assembly of the city’s inhabitants in which those in power at any given time present and implement the things in which they are interested. Thus, the congregation, as an »alternative society, … is rooted in the history of Israel, in opposition to the pax Romana.«35 The fact that those who believe in the Messiah are designated as called and saints once again makes their relationship to the God of Israel central. God called them in the same way that God called the apostle (1:1). This call (7:17 for example) or election (1:28) has fundamentally altered their life. They now live, in keeping with their divine commission, in accord with the Torah (7:17; see there). The designation »saints« is tied to the holiness of the people of Israel (Lev 19–20). The holiness of the congregation is strongly emphasized in 1 Corinthians. The congregation is the place where God is present (3:16), and it is the body of Christ (12:12, 27). Paul concludes his detailed theological appreciation for the congregation in the letter’s salutation by incorporating this congregation into the broader fellowship of all those who call upon the name of our kyrios Jesus Christ. The expression is definitely to be taken literally: the believers openly proclaim, »Jesus is our Liberator«/kyrios Jesus (see 12:3). The name that is invoked is the name »Jesus.« Jesus is a common name for Jewish men (Joshua, Jeshua). In early Christianity, this common name is given theological significance as a proper name for this Messiah, who was crucified by Rome and raised by God.36 Jesus receives this name from God, so that in this name the knees of the »heavenly, earthly and subterranean« powers should bend (Phil 2:10). These powers designate forces that enslave the earth and humanity (see 3:22; 15:24; see a more extensive explanation at 15:24). The name Jesus embodies the liberation brought about by God, for Jesus’ fate was based on his humiliation. God put an end to his death and his humiliation.

33 34 35 36

K. L. Schmidt, Art. kaleō etc. in TDNT 3: 506. M. Crüsemann 2006b, 2364–2365. Horsley 1997, 209. On this see Karrer 1998, 45–50.

28

Commentary

He was exalted by God. A further theological reflection on Jesus’ name is found in Matt 1:21, 23. When people call on the name of Jesus, they put themselves in fellowship with the Jewish man liberated by God from violence and death. In this way he becomes their kyrios/Lord, their Liberator. The word kyrios is also a word taken from everyday life at the time of the Roman Empire. It designates common relationships of rule and hierarchy: those of master and slave, of dependents (on the pater familias) within the family, the oikos/household, and political power relationships. The emperor in Rome is kyrios/dominus of the people in the Imperium Romanum. In this context, when people declare that for them Jesus is the only kyrios (see 8:6), all other power relationships in which every woman and man lives are at least qualified and called into question. Thus, the use of this word changes the relationships in which the individuals live. In the Christian manuscripts of the LXX and in New Testament quotations of Scripture, the word kyrios is used as a substitute for the divine name.37 There is, therefore, discussion about whether the kyrios designation puts Jesus on a level with the God of Israel. This conclusion takes no account of the common use of the word. Moreover, it is problematic in the light of Jewish monotheism. It is more likely to assume that the word kyrios can be used for Jesus through its common use for power relationships without sensing an identification with the substitute word for the Tetragrammaton. It gets this meaning through its contrast with everyday power relationships. 1:3 Grace and Peace—In Paul, both words have a full theological resonance, while, at the same time, in this salutation he is also making use of the letter form and the Jewish greeting of Shalom.38 God’s favor (grace/charis) becomes effective through the actions of its recipients.39 The peace that comes from God contrasts with the peace-propaganda for the Roman peace, the Pax Romana. The peace of the Pax Romana is achieved with subject nations through military and non-military (legal and administrative) use of force. Emperor Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) says in his testament that under his leadership his goal—which he repeatedly achieved— »was a peace consolidated through victories by land and by sea in the entire domain of the Roman people.«40 According to the biblical tradition, the peace of God has an entirely different quality: it signifies a comprehensive communal well-being and happiness for people, for entire cities, for a nation—shalom. Thus, this peace is oriented toward good life for the people, not the interests of those with political control. Through Jesus the Messiah, God has turned toward humanity and made peace accessible even for the people in Corinth.

37 On this issue Howard 1977; Rösel 2008, 87–103; Karrer 1998, 344. In many New Testament texts one can see the lack of clarity in the manuscript tradition about whether kyrios is a reference to God or Jesus. See, for example, 2:16 and 10:9. 38 Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 98. 39 M. Crüsemann 2009, 111–137. 40 Augustus, Res gest. Divi Aug., trans. Frederick W. Shipley, Loeb (1924), 13.

1:1–9

29

1:4–9 In 1:4–9 Paul describes his prayers of thanksgiving, using a multi-clause sentence (from 1:4–8) to thank God for the riches the congregation in Corinth possesses: the riches consist in charismata/abilities or gifts conveyed by God. The word charisma occurs in 1:7; in 1:5 he expressly mentions speech (logos) and knowledge (gnōsis) as examples of these abilities. He will discuss them in greater detail in 12:4–11. The power of God’s Spirit effects these abilities. This section gives a positive and unqualified appreciation of the congregation, although in chapters 12–14 Paul also criticizes the way the divine gifts are employed. He there criticizes attempts to build hierarchies with their help. There are questions about whether 1:4–9 has the goal of getting the recipients to receive the letter favorably.41 And yet, the section is more likely concerned with naming the foundations of the congregation, and, therewith, of the new life of all the participants: God’s favor (1:4, 9), fellowship with the Messiah (1:4, 9, 6) and the expectation of God’s just judgment for the entire world (1:8). 1:4 God’s favor (charis) is experienced in the community of the Messiah and in the abilities effected by the Spirit’s power. The congregation consists primarily of those who work with their hands (see on 1:26). Almost all were likely illiterate or recipients of a modest education.42 When Paul emphasizes here the Spirit-worked abilities of speech and knowledge, it becomes clear how fully the messianic fellowship endows those who participate in it. 1:5 They gain the ability for free and open speech (logos), both in the congregation and in society (14:24). Chapter 14 shows how significant speaking openly in the congregation is. The letter consistently shows that experience and competence in the interpretation of Scripture can be presupposed among the addressees. There is nothing to indicate that Paul wants to restrict these abilities and competencies to men (14:34), and already on that basis 14:34—which forbids women to speak publicly—is not to be regarded as Paul’s point of view (see on 14:34). The gift of logos encompasses speech and understanding, an understanding that in society is seen as an exclusive ability of the society’s elite, since they are the ones able to plan, shape and rule. Knowledge (gnōsis) doesn’t refer to intellectual abilities alone but also the abilities brought about by the Spirit’s power: to receive and impart insights that come from divine revelation. 1:6 »You are bearing witness to the Messiah and demonstrating growing strength therein.« The translation of the NRSV reads, »just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you.« With this wording, it remains an open question who is doing the preaching and giving the testimony. There is consensus in the interpretive tradition that the answer is Paul. Along with that, the meaning of the word ebebaiōthē/(the testimony is) confirmed or strengthened, is often con-

41 See, for example, Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 111. 42 Stanley 2008, 136–146; Porter 2008, 115–118; Goodblatt 2006, 29–48.

30

Commentary

strued to be a divine passive.43 Through this interpretation the congregation is seen exclusively as the object of the action. But in 1:5 the issue is their abilities and activities. In Greek, 1:6 is a subordinate clause that begins with kathōs, which here probably means »just as.« The content of this subordinate clause wants to make clear that being endowed with spiritual abilities is a process. This involves testimony (martyrion) that liberation from bondage to domination and destruction occurs through the Messiah Jesus. What is the content of logos and gnōsis? It is the testimony to the Messiah Jesus, which the congregation is rendering publicly, which involves courage and strength that are brought about by God (see the translation above, which leaves open understanding ebebaiōthē as a divine passive here.

Concepts of Time and Eschatology The concepts of time in the ancient world and in the Bible must be understood from their context. They cannot without further ado be identified with modern concepts of time. To begin with, an important difference arises from the fact that today time is normally understood as objectively measurable and as linear— from a no longer identifiable beginning into an unending future, a time that keeps on going just that way. In the ancient world there were no clocks like ours that keep on running uniformly day and night. They are a presupposition for today’s concepts of time. In the Pauline letters the biblical concepts of time are presupposed: time is shaped and divided by what God does. Creation and exodus are divine activities that belong in the past, about which the people of the present can learn. The future is also determined by its relationship to God: it is the »future« (ta mellonta, 3:22), it brings »the end«/telos (1:8; 10:11; 15:24). And yet with the end, an end of time is not expected but the end of humanity’s suffering. In 15:24 the end is described: God deprives every authority, rule and might of their power. This is also what is thought about in 10:11. The present-day congregation is the fellowship of those »on whom the end of the ages has come,« that is, the end of the »ages of this world.« This phrase does not denote a time period but a sphere of influence, in which ruling powers act in the interest of a force hostile to life (2:7, 8; 1:20; 3:18). This »end« is longed for; it signifies the end of violence and suffering and thus the time in which »God is all in all« (15:28). The German word Ewigkeit (»eternity«) attempts to reproduce this concept of a comprehensive peace with God. This disempowerment of forces hostile to life has begun with the resurrection of the Messiah. Therefore, their destruction is already under way (2:7), and the congregation already experiences their »end« (10:11; cf. 3:22). Thus, Paul can also say, »The present time/kairos is pressing in on us, things are out of joint« (7:29). After all, God’s future is near, and it already now changes how the believers live (cf. Rom 13:11). The present is the time of our

43 For example, Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 117–119; Lindemann 2000, 31–32; Fee 1987, 40.

1:1–9

31

relationship to God and to divine action in present, past and future. God’s future activity includes the just judgment of all humanity and the consummation (15:24). Therefore, believers are those who wait (1:7). They await the final revelation, the coming of the Messiah (1:7). The resurrection of Christ is the beginning of salvation; the Messiah is present, and he is the one to come. »As long as ideological and dogmatic concepts sealed off from experience do not come from these statements, it remains natural to have an interweaving of what is expected and what is present.«44 In the present believers await the consummation (15:24), but they also await God’s just judgment (on this see 3:13–17; 4:5 and more often). The »day« of judgment (1:8; 3:13; 5:5) takes up the Old Testament concept of the day of Adonai. Paul also calls it the day of the deliverer, Jesus Christ (1:8; see also 5:5 in parts of the manuscript tradition). In this context it remains an open question whether Paul thinks of the Messiah as the judge at the end time.45 There are primarily two patterns of interpretation that have characterized the perception of this concept of time since about 1970: 1. The concept of near eschatology/delay of the parousia; 2. The concept of a non-dualistic eschatology. The first concept was predominant from the end of the 19th century until the closing days of the 20th. It interpreted the eschatology of Jesus and Paul as a near-expectation that awaited the coming of the reign of God in years rather than in decades. The »nearness« of God’s reign is thus construed in linear time. Since the reign of God did not come, the disappointment about the near-expectation led believers to adapt themselves to being in the world for the long haul.46 Through the concept of a reign of God at the end of time and history, there arose a dualism of history and eternity, this side and the other side. A second, fundamentally different interpretive pattern arose primarily among liberation theologies. Here the relevance of future expectations for the present is emphasized, and time is interpreted as time in relation to God. The statement that »the reign of God has drawn near« in this case speaks of God’s nearness in the present, from which hope for the future emerges.47 This concept incorporates into the interpretation the life situation of the people who have their say in the biblical texts. For 1 Corinthians that means that the life situation of Paul and his addressees in the Roman Empire is to be taken into account. Here people who long for an end of violence in their daily lives wait for the revelation of the Messiah (1:7). In summary, it can be said of Paul’s eschatology that it is an interpretation of the present out of one’s relationship to God.

44 M. and F. Crüsemann 2009, 673. On this approach to the eschatology of Paul and of the gospels, see also L. Schottroff 2006, 83–85 45 Wendebourg 2003, 177. 46 On this concept see the description and a critique in Erlemann 1995; L. Schottroff 1995, 152–173. 47 On this concept in the German context see, among others, Ebach 1985,1998; L. Schottroff 1995; Janssen 2005.

32

Commentary

1:7–8 Gifts given by the Spirit and public testimony to the Messiah also maintain their strength through the expectation that the Messiah will come, in order to put an end to the power of the forces hostile to God (1:8; cf. 15:24). The congregation is strengthened by Christ (or God) on the difficult path through their social reality, so that the believers gain the ability to live in accord with the Torah (see on 7:19). 1 Corinthians often speaks of these difficulties, for example, the difficulties of belonging only to one God in a city that imposes on people a multiplicity of religious claims (Chapters 8–10). The believers’ deepening fellowship with the Messiah will protect them and preserve them in the face of accusations at God’s judgment. On judgment day the Messiah will see his work of strengthening the congregation reach its goal. They will not be charged, and thus the day of judgment will become the day of liberation.48 1:9 While Paul up to now has spoken about his prayer of thanksgiving (1:4), and thereby about the congregation and to the congregation, he here speaks a different language, that of consolation: he assures the congregation about God’s faithfulness, which they have already experienced in their fellowship with the Messiah. As von der Osten-Sacken rightly emphasizes, mutual love/agapē as fulfillment of the law is the »paramount manifestation … of God’s faithfulness«49 and relates to the concrete relationships within the congregation. The continuation of the letter shows that as well.

1:10–18 10 I encourage you, sisters and brothers, to trust in the name of Jesus, our Messiah and Liberator, and to speak with one voice. Let no divisions arise between you, hold fast together in a common spirit and a common understanding. 11 Chloe’s slaves have reported to me about you, sisters and brothers, that there is conflict among you. 12 I mean by this that you all emphasize your differences: I belong to the Paul group, I to the Apollos group, I to the Cephas group, I to the Messiah group.13 Can Christ be divided? Has Paul, perhaps, been crucified on your behalf? Or were you immersed in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that, apart from Chrispus and Gaius, I did not baptize any of you. 15 So no one can claim to be immersed in my name. 16 Actually, I did also baptize all the people in the household of Stephanus. But no one else, so far as I know. 17 The Messiah has not commissioned me to baptize but to spread the good news, and that not with eloquent human wisdom, so that the cross of Christ does not lose its power. 18 For to speak about the cross of Christ is considered foolish by those who are perishing. But it is saving us, because it is allowing God’s power to become a reality.

48 On the day of judgment see Zeph 1:7–18. 49 Von der Osten-Sacken, 54; see also Bittner 2015

1:10–18

33

1:10 There is strife in the congregation in Corinth. Paul speaks of divisions or dissention (1:10) and of quarrels (1:11). In 11:18 he returns to the divisions, and it becomes clear (11:22) that they arise from the way the well-to-do demean the poor at the Lord’s Supper. About the strife to which Paul refers in 1:10–18, the contours are less clear. The extensive discussion about Paul’s »opponents« in Corinth has proven to be misleading. It operated with the concept of a group that advocated a theological point of view different from Paul’s. But in the letter itself, such a polar-opposite theological position and a thoroughgoing difference with Paul are not to be seen, but instead disputes over individual questions about proper and improper ways of living, over which there are differences of opinion within the congregation or even between Paul and the assembled congregation (5:1–13). The history of the interpretation of 1 Corinthians has been characterized by the hermeneutic assumption that this letter is battling »opponents« in Corinth. One has found therein polemics, condemnations, acrimony and irony. These assumptions rest on a pre-conception. In the interpretation that follows the text will be interpreted without this presupposition, in order to free the text from opposition to Paul’s opponents. The assumption of »opponents« rests on the battle line against heresy that orthodoxy drew up later in the history of the church. In that way, 1 Corinthians appeared to be the first document in the church’s defense of the true faith against deviants and Paul the father of the church’s orthodoxy. Paul believes that the congregation’s divisions can be healed, for all invoke the name of Jesus and entrust themselves to him as Messiah and Liberator. Therefore, it should be possible to speak with one voice, so that the mindset and intention (nous), on the one hand, and the opinions and convictions, on the other, might once again agree. 1:11 Paul says that he learned about the quarrels »from those of Chloe.«50 Chloe’s people could be slaves (cf. the genitive construction in Rom 16:10, 11), but it is also possible that Chloe serves as hostess to a group of women (cf. Acts 9:39; 1 Tim 5:16). All that is clear is the position this group takes on the issue. They are critical of the strife and know Paul to be on their side. 1:12 There are people who separate themselves from one another. Paul exaggerates when he says that »each of you« is involved, for at least the Chloe group are not going along with it. Some align themselves with Paul, some Apollos and some Cephas/Peter. Others protest against the drawing up of boundaries in that they align themselves with Christ. When all is said and done, belonging to the Messiah is the entire congregation’s foundation. Those who belong to Christ are presumably a group that rejects these in-group delineations. It can be seen in 3:3–4 that Paul regards these self-designations through which some, with the help of a particular preacher’s name, distinguish themselves from others, as a sign of arrogance that falls into line with the structures of this world.51 They ought to be overcome in

50 On this see L. Schottroff 2009b, 169–174. 51 On this see Ehrensperger 2007, 147.

34

Commentary

the congregation. In 3:1–17 Paul presents his relationship with Apollos as an alternative to this perspective: God has assigned each of them his own particular task. There are no differences in rank between them. In 4:6 he says that he has used his relationship with Apollos as an example from which those in the congregation can learn. It is also seen in 4:6 that he regards orientation to the Torah as a basis for the overcoming of arrogance (»not to have a disregard for Scripture«). One can also refer to Jer 9:22–23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24] (cf. 1 Cor 1:31) for this: the alternative to an orientation to human wisdom, strength or prosperity is an orientation that comes from praising God. Thus, there is not a great deal that can be said about the conflicts in Corinth. We only have Paul’s view of them, as they can be discerned principally from 1:12; 3:3–4; 4:6. He regards these in-group delineations to be destructive competitiveness (4:6). In God’s sight no one is more important than other brothers and sisters. Paul advocates the equality of all members of the body of Christ. Speculation about what issues or perspectives led people to connect with particular preachers (What’s on the Apollos-group’s agenda, etc.?) is pointless. Paul says nothing about this. He criticizes the in-group delineations as such. He is not interested in denouncing individual people or groups in the congregation but in giving visibility to competitive structures and criticizing them as destructive and as a product of a world marked by violence.52 How powerfully competitiveness and in-group delineations to the detriment of others underlie social order in the Hellenistic Roman world, Cicero makes clear in his praise of the behavior of boys: »How hotly they pursue their rivalries! how fierce their contests and competitions! what exultation they feel when they win, and what shame when they are beaten! How they dislike blame! how they covet praise! what toils do they not undergo to stand first among their companions! how good their memory is for those who have shown them kindness, and how eager they are to repay it!«53 This behavior is instilled in boys and where possible practiced by grown men. Women accommodate themselves to such structures, even if they do not usually actively adopt them.54 1:13 Here Paul takes the absurdity of the consequences that such competitiveness and in-group delineations would have to its (il)logical conclusion! 1:14–17 These sentences suggest that those who have performed baptisms are accorded special authority by some of their followers, allowing them to make competing ingroup delineations. We learn from a treatise by Tertullian (died after 200 CE) that he knows of conflicts about baptism that are comparable in structure to the conflict in Corinth. Tertullian would essentially like to restrict the right to baptize to the bishop and to ecclesiastical office holders authorized by him to perform it. On the 52 For an overview of the earlier discussion about the so-called parties in Corinth, see, for example, Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 142–148. 53 Cicero, Fin. trans. H. Rackham, Loeb (1951), 5.61; Merklin 1989, 459–461. 54 On this see Bartchy 2005, 49–60.

1:10–18

35

other hand, he finds himself having to accept the right of all believers to baptize. Therefore, he establishes restrictions on this universal right to baptize. He speaks with vigor against women taking upon themselves the right to baptize or having it conferred upon them. In this context it becomes clear that there were, therefore, conflicts in which the egalitarian position was maintained by appealing to Paul.55 The controversy over the right of women to baptize shows, on the one hand, that a special quality is attributed to those who baptize, but that this, on the other hand, is in conflict with the egalitarian character of the congregation. In 1 Corinthians Paul mentions no women as baptizers, only men, to whom, on account of the baptism, a special quality is ascribed, a quality that extends to those baptized by them. So Paul has nothing to say about women as baptizers. And yet, from the discussion into which Tertullian gives us a look and from Acts 18:1–3, we have grounds for supposing that Prisca also baptized people in Corinth. Paul tries in 1:14–17a to minimize as much as he can his role as a baptizer in order to prevent anyone from appealing to being baptized by Paul as a basis for special privileges. 1:14 Chrispus could be identical with the head of the synagogue in Acts 18:8, who became a believer in the messianic proclamation and appears to have had influence in Corinth. Paul does not mention—in contrast to Acts—that his »house« (his family and slaves) became members of the messianic community along with him. Gaius is probably identical with the Gaius in Rom 16:23. There he is named as the host to Paul and to the entire congregation/community. Attempts to learn something about the economic and social status of the two men from the minimal information we possess have remained quite hypothetical. Gaius is possibly one of the well-to-do members of the congregation,56 if Rom 16:23 means that he could offer a meeting place to several house congregations at the same time. 1:16 Stephanus and his household are mentioned in more detail in 16:15–18. From this information we cannot conclude that he was well-to-do but that he lived somewhat above the subsistence level economically.57 1:17 For Paul competition within the congregation stands in contradiction to the fact that Jesus the Messiah died on the cross. The congregation in Corinth, each and every one of its members, entrusted themselves to this Messiah and to the God of Israel. In a Roman city, to trust in a Messiah as liberator/kyrios who was crucified for the sake of Roman political interests, creates structures for living together and for ordering your life different from those in the society in which you grew up. In it such competition is the order of the day (3:3, etc.). In the body of Christ things are different. The theme »cross« does not make a sudden appearance, as has often been thought, nor is 17b a transition to a new theme,58 but an

55 56 57 58

Tertullian, Bapt. 17. On this see Friesen 2004, 356. On the house churches, see on 16:19. On this see Friesen 2004, 352. As asserted, for example, by Lang 1986, 22.

36

Commentary

intensification of what has been the theme since 1:10. The inner connection of the themes competition and crucifixion is also evident in chapters 3 and 4 (see, for example, 3:3 and 3:18–23). Caesuras between 1:17 and 1:18 make this connection invisible. »Not with eloquent human wisdom«/sophia logou—that’s how Paul delineates the gospel in 1:17. What kind of wisdom is Paul here (cf. 2:1) essentially excluding?

The Wisdom of this World In his discussion of the wisdom of the world Paul uses the rhetoric of negations and antitheses.59 The side characterized as negative is frequently read as a Pauline presentation of the teaching or position of the opponents. The feminist discussion also usually employs this interpretive pattern; it holds Paul’s opponents to be Corinthian women prophets with a wisdom message that grants them power and enhanced status in the congregation.60 Such concepts of the opponents are often connected with the assumption that they advocate a radical form of present eschatology (especially 4:8 is then interpreted in this way) and are, thus, »enthusiasts.«61 But if one looks at the Pauline statements about who advocates this wisdom, it becomes apparent that he has no specific individuals in mind. Thus he can speak of »eloquent wisdom« (1:17), as well as »human wisdom« (2:5; cf. 1:25, 2:9; 2:4, in a divergently worded reading) or of the »wisdom of this world« (1:20, 3:19; see 1:21 and 3:20, which use similar terminology) or of the »wisdom of this age« (2:6; 3:18). Paul designates here structures »of the world« (kosmos). It is not to be assumed that someone is asserting, »I have the wisdom of the world at my beck and call,« but instead that it is appealing to most people to be considered wise. Paul observes a society in which sophia/ wisdom is ascribed to those who express something in it, who are acknowledged. The social structures of the world that are, according to Paul, characterized by wisdom can be sketched in broad contours. Paul sees this wisdom as follows: • Wisdom involves education and eloquence (see 1:17, 19, 20; 2:4, 13; 3:20).62 • Striving for wisdom begets competition and »boasting«/kauchasthai, and the desire to be on top (1:12; 3:18–22; 4:7–8). • Wisdom impedes solidarity with the crucified Jesus/Messiah and other crucified ones (1:18). • Wisdom led to the crucifixion of Jesus by the »Archons« (2:6–8).

59 On this see especially Wire 1990, 54–58. 60 For example Wire 1990, 39–71. 61 See, for example, Lindemann 2000, 14, and compare 105 with 4:8a. In L. Schottroff 1970, I also used the interpretive model of »opponents,« who had views approximating Gnostic dualism. 62 On this see Ramsaran 2004, especially 96–97.

1:10–18

37

• Wisdom is described in social and mythical concepts at one and the same time. To the old question whether »Archons« in 2:6–8 refers to demons or to earthly rulers,63 my answer is »both of the above.« On this issue Paul is speaking the language of apocalyptic and Gnostic mythology,64 and yet the demonic powers also find embodiment in those in authority, for example, political power brokers. Those in authority are the visible tip of the invisible iceberg of the powers. On earth, under the earth and in heaven, those in authority are working to bring people into subjection and to make them instruments of death. This concept of the powers is important for Paul; see 15:24; 3:22; Rom 8:38, 39; Phil 2:10. The biographies of the congregation and of Paul himself are a testimony to the fact that the wisdom of the world and its powers oppose God’s power: 1:26–31; 2:1–5; 4:8–13; likewise, the resurrection of one crucified by Rome is God’s powerful contravening of the deadly structures of this world (1:18–31). Paul’s »counter-rhetoric,«65 which opposes the lines of ancient elite-rhetoric,66 is also part of this testimony. While elite-rhetoric desires to be a means of ruling over people and represents the ideology of imperial power, Paul’s language is directed toward justice for the poor and the sacrifice of the use of force. The biblical tradition addresses this present-day experience of the wisdom of the world and its overthrow: In 1:18 Paul refers in this regard to Isa 29:14; in 1:31to Jer 9: 22–23 [=9:23–24 in the Eng. Bible. Trans.]; in 2:9 to an unknown Scripture; in 3:19, 20 to Job 5:12, 13 and Ps 93:11[LXX; = Ps 94:11. Trans.]. Here in 3:20 Paul replaces the word used in Scripture, »humankind,« with »the wise,« in order to leave no doubt about his current reference (on Paul’s use of Scripture, see on Chapter 10). The central catchwords of the Pauline declarations—human »wisdom,« which God reduces to nothing (Isa 29:14), what the »human« heart/understanding cannot comprehend (2:9, an unknown citation) and »boasting«/kauchasthai (Jer 9:22, 23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24. Trans.])—correspond with the Scripture. 1:18 What is meant by the logos about the cross, which is usually translated by the »word or message about the cross«? Who speaks the word to whom here, and what is its content? What is meant by the cross is the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. In the years in which Pilate was the prefect of Judea (26–36 CE), Jesus was publicly executed by the Roman army. Paul also refers to the crucifixion in 2:6–8. The Roman Empire used crucifixion for politically disciplining the population, especially people from subjugated

63 On this see, for example, Fee 1987 on 2:6: political rulers; 15:24: demonic powers. Lindemann 2000 on 2:6, 8: political authorities. Schrage 1991, vol. 1, on 2:8: demonic powers and, as their tools, political authorities. The double meaning is also favored by Elliott 1997, 179. 64 An overview by Böcher 1981, and others. 65 Ramsaran 2004, 96. 66 On this also Elliott 2004, 72–75.

38

Commentary

nations whom they had enslaved.67 There were Roman crucifixions, including mass crucifixions, before Jesus’ death and for a long time thereafter. When this letter to Corinth was written, crucifixion was a real threat to the population, especially for society’s lower classes. Anxiety about attracting attention and the pressure to conform were great and kept the population in line. A word of solidarity about someone crucified or tears of sorry in public could lead to imprisonment and one’s own execution.68 To worship as raised from the dead by God someone who had been crucified was risky and politically audacious, that could at any moment put your life in danger, independent of membership in a religious community. As long as the Roman Empire carried out executions, the cross could never have been a religious symbol, except as a symbol of power (see the basic information at 11:23). Since the time of Augustus, Rome pursued a comprehensive and politically motivated politics of religion. There was a well-thought-through state religion or, better, loyalty religion that served the objectives of the pax Romana.69 It was impossible to miss in the temples in major cities, even in Corinth (see 8:10). The peoples subjugated by Rome could continue to practice their traditional religions if they did not come into conflict with state loyalty religion. Jews got into such conflicts again and again.70 Alongside of this fragile toleration there were socially deviant alignments over against a constant politics of suppression by the emperor and the senate. In this line is an edict from 19 CE that effected, and others, Rome’s Jewish population: He [Tiberius] abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all those who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia. Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city.71

To be sure, the »Jewish sects« in 19 CE are not to be correlated with groups acclaiming Jesus as Messiah, but the religio-political and legal presuppositions with which the congregation in Corinth had to reckon show themselves here.

Denial of the Crucifixion In 1:18 Paul must do battle with people within the congregation in Corinth who consider it to be mōria/foolishness, idiocy, imprudence to be in solidarity with

67 Hengel 1976, 153–165; Elliott 1994, 93–139; Wiedemann 2001, 77–84. 68 See, for example, Tacitus, Ann. 6.19.10; further material in Schottroff 1990, 136–137. 69 See, for example, Suitonius, Aug. 29–32; 52.60; Latte 1960, 294–311. I am using the word »religion,« even though the current use of this word does not exactly fit the ancient circumstances. Today religion is understood as more strictly separable from social life than it was in the ancient world. On this also see Mason 2007, 480–488. 70 A historical overview of pertinent incidents is found in Noethlichs 1996, 9–26; on the privileges of the Jewish people see especially 88–90. 71 Suetonius, Tib., trans. J. C. Rolfe, Loeb (1914), 36; cf. Tacitus, Ann. 2,85.4; on this, Stern, vol. 2, 68–69, 112–113, with an English translation.

1:10–18

39

Jesus’ crucifixion and, thereby, also with crucifixions. The pressure was so great that again and again people denied that they belonged to Jesus (aparneō or arneō, for example Matt 26:34, 70). Another Greek word for this is skandalidzō/to take offense. In the figure of Peter, the Synoptic Gospels have established an empathic monument to this shocking danger of solidarity with Jesus and with one another. Peter had betrayed Jesus, though he had not wanted to do so. His fear was too great (Mark 14:66–72 and parallels). This account was written and handed on long after Jesus’ death, not because Peter should be remembered as a weak character, but because it evokes courage that he succumbed to his fear and then, in spite of that, stood up again and was found to be at the side of the Risen One. The danger posed by political pressure plays a significant role in the gospels; see the flight of all the disciples after Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:50) or also Mark 4:17; Mark 8:34–38 and parallels. These traditions are not recounted with the conviction, »This can’t happen to us.« Those involved knew that the fear of brutal executions and persecution was not some remote possibility. When Paul did battle with people in the Corinthian congregation who found it foolish or imprudent to hold up the Risen One for all to see as the one who had been crucified, he didn’t have in mind »opponents« or heretics who believed something different from what he believed, but instead people who asked whether fellowship with the Messiah was possible without political peril. From testimonies about persecutions of Christian congregations we learn that believers during their trials or even earlier renounced the faith and then even betrayed their brothers and sisters.72 In addition to these testimonies from 64 and about 110 CE, there are discussions from within the congregations arising in the second century. Here one also finds the argument that taking upon oneself the peril of being associated with the Crucified One is »madness.« Thus, Tertullian reports that there were »opponents of martyrdom« who argue that it is »pointless« to sacrifice one’s own life by publicly testifying adherence to the crucified Messiah Jesus. »But the unsophisticated souls know not what is written, and what meaning it bears, where and when and before whom we must confess, or ought, save that this, to die for God, is, since He preserves me, not even artlessness, but folly, nay madness.«73 The »foolishness« of speaking about the crucifixion in Corinth becomes understandable from this text, even if it comes from the period around 200 CE, »in every case, the attitude toward martyrdom corresponds to the interpretation of Christ’s suffering and death.«74 If it has become so obvious why people betrayed Christ, it needs to be asked why others did not do that, why they resisted the pressure. What did they gain

72 Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.4; trans. Yardley, Oxford World’s Classics 2008; on the problems of translating this material, see Wlosok 1970, 15–22. See also Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96.4b–6; see also other passages in this letter, trans. P.G. Walsh, Oxford World’s Classics 2009. 73 Tertullian, Scorp. 1, trans. S. Thelwall, ANF, vol. 3, 634. 74 Pagels 1979, 90.

40

Commentary

by belonging to the Messiah? The messianic community had together summoned the strength to forge a way of life that stood in opposition to the one society offered. In this way the »wisdom of the world« and the might of the of this world’s powers were overcome. The Christian Justin Martyr wrote with reference to his community (before 165 CE): and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into plowshares …— and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy … For it is plain that, though beheaded and crucified, … we do not give up our confession.75

A legend about the venerable Polycarp (executed on February 22, 156 CE) reports that after his arrest he was brought to an arena in which wild beasts had already been assembled to tear people limb from limb. In this situation he was urged to save his skin: »Swear by the fortune of Caesar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists.«76 The »Atheists« is a reference to the enemies of Rome who because of their rejection of the official Roman religion were branded as godless atheists. »But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, ›Away with the Atheists.‹ Then, the proconsul [urged] him … saying, ›Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ.‹« As we can see, the proconsul was not taken in by Polycarp’s cunning. Polycarp could in all honesty label as atheists the people in the arena waiting for the murders. Nevertheless, the proconsul demanded that Polycarp curse Christ, distance himself from Rome’s enemies (the atheists) and acknowledge Rome’s official religion. Polycarp died; his concern was his own liberation from the powers and the liberation of his brothers and sisters.77 The message about the cross is the proclamation about the crucifixion and about the crucifixions foisted on society by those in power day after day. This proclamation exposes the power and testifies that God has put in place its end. The resurrection of the Crucified One has enabled him to become the power that conveys life. When those who believe remember, they consummate anew God’s act of resurrection. The dynamis in 1:18b is at one and the same time the power of God that did not let death have the Messiah and that also transforms those who put themselves into the hands of the crucified and risen Messiah. With this, a group (the believers) is not defining itself as those already saved in the context of God’s coming and God’s judgment. Far beyond that, they have been set free to new life even as they are the waiting ones, rising from the dead, who yearn for God’s salvation for the whole earth (see the basic information before 1:7, 8). Their transformed life is already now an experience of future salvation—that’s the reason for the formula75 Justin, Dial. 110, 3–4, trans. A. C. Coxe, ANF, vol. 1, 254. 76 Mart. Pol. 9, trans. A. C. Coxe, ANF, vol. 1, 41. 77 Mart. Pol. 1, trans. A. C. Coxe, ANF, vol. 1, 39.

1:19–25

41

tion in the present tense (sōdzomenoi).78 What is essential is to ponder the theological core of the Pauline talk about the »we« with reference to the congregation. The »we« are the people who comprise the congregation as it really exists and who in this reality allow the completeness of God’s future to become visible. Again and again, Paul himself experienced on his own body the threat and the battle to overcome it (see 15:30–34; 4:9–13).

1:19–25 19 For it is written in the Scripture: I am destroying the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the seekers I am putting in the wrong. 20 Where are the wise? Where are those who have the say? Where are those who in this world do the talking? Hasn’t God shown the wisdom of the world to be short-sighted? 21 Surrounded by God’s wisdom, the world with its wisdom has not recognized God, Therefore God has granted it to believers to save them through the foolish proclamation. 22 There are Jews who ask God for signs, and Greeks who seek wisdom; 23 and we proclaim the crucified Messiah. Some Jews consider that dangerous, some from the nations consider it unwise. 24 To those who are called by God, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, the Messiah embodies divine power and divine wisdom. 25 For God’s foolishness is wiser than humans are, and God’s weakness is stronger than humans are. To his critique of the social structures which are to be overcome in the church of God, Paul appends in 1:19–31 a theological reflection on the crucifixion of the Messiah. 1:19–20 Paul begins by quoting Scripture (Isa 29:14). For him, Scripture is not a formal authority that ends debate before it starts.79 For him, as for other Jews, Scripture directly addresses his own present situation, providing instruction for the present (see on 10:1). Isa 29:14 says what happened through the resurrection of the Crucified One: God has set a limit to the »wisdom of the world,« this all-encompassing social and political power (see on 1:17). Paul speaks of this divine activity with strong words. What God does is destroy/apollymi and invalidate/nullify (atheteō; here Paul inserts a more destructive word than in Isa 29:14, krypsō/to hide) and expose as foolish/myopic (mōrainō). These words can be compared with katargeō, which describes the disempowering of all authorities and powers (2:6; 15:24, 26). He asks in 1:20, as after a radical political upheaval (making use of the language of 78 68 Cf. the present tense formulations in 6:14 and 15:49, in each case in part of the textual tradition, and the »is«/estin in 15:44; on this see Janssen 2005, 217–224. 79 Ehrensperger 2008, 291–319.

42

Commentary

Scripture80): Where have they remained, the proponents of the wisdom of the world? They are the wise, the educated elite, the linguistically competent authorities (grammateus—in the Corinthian context, this is not a specific reference to the Jewish scribes; see Acts 19:35). They have the say in critical questions about the organization of the city’s life and commerce. Moreover, Paul uses the Greek word sydzētētēs to designate people who argue in public and in some contexts have the power to render decisions (see a scene of this kind in Acts 17:19, 20).81 Since the time of Augustus public speech was controlled.82 Tacitus reports about a discussion, probably from the year 75 CE, in which the decline of rhetoric is lamented: speech has lost the requisite libertas/freedom, and a rhetorical education leads to discussions only of topics far removed from reality.83 Tacitus wrote this lament only at a later time, when he must have feared less repression. 1:21 In the first half of this verse, the interpretation of the prepositional phrase en tē sophia tou theou poses problems. Does it mean that God, on account of God’s wisdom, prevented knowledge? In 1:20 it says emōranen, God caused the foolishness. The en in 1:21a would in that case be interpreted as causal. Another interpretation understands the en as local. The world is surrounded by God’s wisdom, God’s creation, God’s Torah, and still doesn’t know God. This interpretation takes up the thoughts from Rom 1:18–31.84 A definitive clarification is not possible. In 1:21b mōria/foolishness raises questions. Does the message about the cross seem stupid to those who find the way of the cross unnecessary (see 1:18)? In that case it would only be perceived to be foolish. Or is the message about the cross unwise/myopic/dumb/foolish? A look at 1:26–31 helps with the decision. Through the resurrection of the Crucified One, God takes sides on behalf of those who have been humiliated. They are taken for stupid—by those who, as much as possible, denied them chances for education. Actually, many cannot read and write. God had called many uneducated people in Corinth. Paul wants to make it clear that these calls have an inner connection with the resurrection of someone crucified. Therefore, he speaks about the mōria/foolishness of the proclamation. The choice of words is brought about by the negative assessment of the crucifixion (see 1:18). So now Paul takes this positively: yes, God is so foolish as to choose the humiliated, the crucified and the uneducated. So, Paul is playing rhetorically here (and in 1:25) with the word mōria/foolishness. 1:22–24 Paul uses here the conceptual pairing Ioudaioi and Hellēnes or Ioudaioi and ethnē. Who is meant by these designations, and how are they to be translated?

80 On this see, for example, Lindemann 2000, 45. 81 On the meaning of the rare word sydzētētēs, see above all the meaning of the corresponding verb in Liddell and Scott 1968. 82 Shelton 1998, 232–234; on Acts 17:19–20, see Janssen 2006, 25–37; see also the basic information above at 1:17. 83 Tacitus, dial., trans. W. Peterson, Loeb (1914), 27.35. On questions about the date and political context of this writing by Tacitus, see Volkmer, no date, 95–97). 84 For a discussion of this ambiguous prepositional phrase in 1:21a see L. Schottroff 1970, 196–206; Lindemann 2000, 45. In BigS 2006 I was still interpreting the en causally. Since then I have come to believe that the local meaning is more likely.

1:19–25

43

Ioudaios is at this time and far beyond85 an ethnic-regional concept that must be translated by »Judean.«86 This ethnic-regional concept includes the religious dimension. Like other ethnē/peoples, the Jewish people share, for example, land, blood ties, history, law, religion, custom. Josephus, Against Apion 1.6 can serve as an example from the pertinent sources:87 The Jewish nation is comparable to other nations. The regional sense of the word is also preserved when Jewish people live far from the motherland. This is true of other peoples as well. This finding is consistent with Pauline usage, also in 1 Corinthians. Ioudaioi are an ethnos, even if this does not explicitly occur (but see, for example, John 11:48), for it is associated with being Jewish: circumcision (7:18), the law/nomos (7:19) and sacrifice/altar (10:18) in Jerusalem. The concept Israel kata sarka (10:18)/the Israel that actually exists, with the temple in Jerusalem, corresponds to the concept of the Jewish ethnos. The followers of Israel’s Messiah who are non-Jewish ally themselves fully with Israel’s God (see below the basic information on those who believe in the Messiah at 1:24), but they do not become Jews, as 1:24 shows. At that time there was no concept that defined a people with respect to a »religion.« A concept of religion that does not include the material-physical realm is modern.88 For Paul and his time being Jewish entails a way of life, a history, the land of Judea and the God of Israel. The question of who is Ioudaios and who is not does not play an institutional role, either internally or externally.89 Only the later fiscus Judaicus, a Roman tax meant to exploit and humiliate Jews, gives birth to Roman investigations about who is actually Jewish.90 Now, how can the word Ioudaios be translated? »Judean« would be historically correct, since an English word like »Jew« and the concept of »Judaism« are primarily associated with a religion. The concepts of »Judaism« and »religion« in the modern sense do not exist at this time.91 However, the continuity of Jewish history over the centuries would be invisible today if the historically correct translation were used. Therefore, the translation »Jew« will continue to be used here. In the German context, with the history of the Shoah, the persecution and murder of millions of Jews by Germans, the continuity of the history of the Jewish people then and now must continue to be visible.92 Hellēnes designates the Greek ethnos/people, in a way fully analogous to the concept of the Jewish people. Here in 1:22–24 Corinthian believers in the Messiah who deny the discipleship of the cross are especially in view, as 1:23 shows. What

85 Mason 2007, 489–510. 86 Cohen 1999 assumes an earlier change from a primarily ethnic to a primarily religious concept than does Mason 2007, 489–510. For 1 Corinthians an ethnic-regional understanding of the word Ioudaios is to be assumed. 87 Trans. Thackeray 1976, 175; Mason 2007, 492, see also 491. 88 On this see W. Stegemann 2010, 222–236. 89 Boyarin 2004; on this see also the basic information on believers in Christ at 1:24. 90 Suet., Dom. 12; Heinemann 1957, 485–486; see also the basic information below at 1:25. 91 See also Mason 2007, 457–488; W. Stegemann 2010, 222–236. 92 On this see also Elliott 2007, 333, note 1, with a note by the publisher, and W. Stegemann 2010, 234–235.

44

Commentary

is said in 1:22 is not a generalized characterization of the Greek and Jewish peoples as such, as those who seek wisdom and »demand« signs, as the translation often puts it (on this, see below). No, it is about specific people and their objections to solidarity with one who has been crucified. A distinction needs to be made in these verses between what Paul has to say about specific people—or to them—and what the text reveals about presuppositions that go beyond the words themselves. First, about the presuppositions: 1. Paul uses the concepts Hellēnes and ethnē here and in 1 Cor 10:32; 12:13 analogously to the concept of the Jewish people. In the social context of that time, their meanings overlap, although the concepts are not coterminous. People who speak Greek are called Hellēnes even if, as here, it is to be assumed that Greek is the language in which they communicate with one another, even though they are not Greek ethnically.93 From Rome’s perspective, ethnē are the peoples who have submitted or should submit themselves to the Roman Empire.94 From a Jewish perspective, ethnē are the non-Jewish peoples who serve false gods and do not live according to the Torah. This Jewish usage is found in 1 Corinthians (5:1, 10:20 and 12:2). Davina Lopez uses good arguments to show that in order to understand Paul’s gospel for the ethnē/Nations one needs to consider not only the Jewish perspective but also the Roman.95 God’s call sends Paul to the Nations (Gal 1:16), who are ruled by Rome’s might. God has raised the Messiah to open the way of liberation for the people of Israel and the Nations. As God once sent Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations (Jer 1:5),96 now Paul and other Jews and non-Jews are sent to the nations in the Roman Empire. By means of official Roman works of art Davina Lopez shows how the nations are portrayed in Roman propaganda as inferior, effeminate and threatening in order to impress upon the masses how wise and necessary their subjugation by the Romans is. Thus, the gospel for the nations is one of the presuppositions that can be recognized in 1 Cor 1:22–24 (see especially v. 24). The congregation in Corinth is made up of Jews and Greek-speaking people from the nations whom God called into fellowship with the crucified and raised Messiah. 2. The precise conflict that Paul addresses in 1 Cor 1:22–24 concerns solidarity with the Crucified One. There are Jews who are seeking signs that a person who has been crucified is actually the Messiah. The issue is not that Jewish people in general »demand« signs (as 1:22 is so frequently translated). It is also not the case that Paul is fundamentally opposed to signs (see Rom 15:19, for example). Rather,

93 Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 8: The predominate language in inscriptions from Corinth in this period is Latin; see also the Roman settlement policy for Corinth in the basic information above, before 1:1; at the same time, graffiti show that there is a Greek-speaking »substructure«: Bookidis 2005, 151–152. On the population of Corinth in this period, which is not only of Roman or Greek origin, see Engels 1990, 70–73; about a use of Hellēnes for people who are not ethnically Greek in origin, see Cohen 1999, 132; see also the basic information at 14:1. 94 Deissmann 1927, 98; in detail, D. Lopez 2008, 1–118. 95 D. Lopez 2008, 1–118. 96 D. Lopez 2008, 134.

1:19–25

45

the resurrection of the Messiah by God is this sign (cf. Matt 12:38–42) that must be recognized. And yet, there are people who do not understand this and consider the crucifixion to be a victory for Roman might that God has not contradicted. Therefore, for them the crucifixion becomes a skandalon. Going the way of the cross appears to them merely as incriminating behavior that unnecessarily provokes Roman might (cf. John 11:48). From today’s perspective, considering the threat Roman might posed for daily existence in Corinth, the fear these Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Jesus the Messiah had should be taken seriously. Those called by God into the messianic fellowship (1:24) are for Paul without restriction part of the diverse peoples from whom they came. In that the Messiah, as the one who was crucified, reveals for them God’s power and wisdom, they not only affirm Christ’s resurrection in their heads but put it into effect in their lives. 1:25 With the resurrection of the Crucified One, God rendered »human« social structures null and void. Strength/power and wisdom happen in life through the resurrection brought about by God and not through success in a society built on violence (see also the basic information on »The Wisdom of this World«). »God’s foolishness …« refers to the crucifixion, but also to people (see 1:26–28). The genitive is a genitive of possession.

Believers in the Messiah from the Nations and their Identity In 1:24 Paul calls believers in the Messiah from the [non-Jewish/Gentile] nations in the Corinthian congregation Hellēnes (»Greeks«) and distinguishes them from Jewish believers in the Messiah. The expression »Heidenchristen,« used in earlier literature is inappropriate because of the pejorative sense of the word Heiden [»heathen/pagan«], which corresponds neither to Jewish usage (goyim, ethnē [Hebrew and Greek for »nations,« respectively]) nor to Paul’s. The word christlich [»Christian«] is not yet applicable for that period, as what follows also shows. The believers in the Messiah from the nations do not become Jews through their call by the God of Israel. Ethnically (for this is the way the concepts Ioudaioi [»Jews«] and Hellēnes [»Greeks«] in 1 Cor 1:22–24 are to be interpreted), nothing about their identity changes. Strictly speaking, however, modes of worship are also part of ethnic identity, and they have indeed changed their modes of worship. Apparently, it is no concern of Paul’s to ponder questions of identity with any precision. The difficulty and imprecision connected with the concept Hellēnes (see on 1:22–24) cannot be resolved. It is possible that these people stem neither from Greek nor Roman peoples. They live in Corinth and participate in the culture, language and imperial cults that predominate there.97 Paul’s letter makes reference to the cults and cult meals in the temples (8:10)98 and to food

97 On this see Schowalter/Friesen 2005. 98 On this see Bookidis 2005, 158–159.

46

Commentary

offered to idols and sold at the market (see 10:25 and Chapters 8–10 as a whole). In 8:4–6 Paul mentions a multiplicity of gods, something incompatible, of course, with the oneness of the God of Israel. This oneness of God must lead to conflict when believers in the Messiah from the nations are expected to demonstrate their loyalty to the Roman Empire. The worship sites in the forum in Corinth and the games and plays in Corinth were probably the places that for the believers in the Messiah from the nations brought the possibility of conflicts with Roman expectations for loyalty.99 In this respect they were in the same situation as Jews who lived in Corinth. What can be said about the identity of the believers in the Messiah from the nations in comparison with the Jews? Almost the only thing we have at our disposal to answer this question is the perspective of Paul. To begin with, only in 5:1–13 is there a differentiated view of the congregational assembly. The congregation interprets the Scripture differently from Paul with respect to the issue of a man who is living with his stepmother (see on 5:1–13). That the Scripture/ the Torah (see nomos in 7:19) of the Jewish people is the basis for the way believers in the Messiah shape their lives is shown throughout 1 Corinthians (see on 7:19). Paul can presuppose that his addressees have detailed knowledge of the Scripture, as Chapter 10, for example, shows. Although many people in the congregation are not educated (1:26; see also what has already been said above on 1:4–9), they are accustomed to being active participants in the interpretation of Scripture going on at the time.100 They follow Jewish practices and live according to the Torah, but neither they themselves nor the Jewish people understand them to be Jews. Only after 70 CE did the fiscus Judaicus make it necessary for them and those like them to clarify for Roman authorities their status with respect to Jewish identity. The oneness of the God of Israel (8:4–6), in the sense of the »Hear, O Israel/ Shema Israel,« is acknowledged by them as well as by the Jewish people. In Chapters 8–10 Paul discusses the Halakic consequences of the uniqueness of God for everyday life in Corinth. This everyday life is defined by cults that are foreign to Israel. For believers in the Messiah, even the religions with which they were formerly associated are now alien cults in which they are no longer able to participate. The Pauline halakah/interpretation on these issues moves within the framework of the halakah of the Judaism of that period. It follows from 7:19 that Paul takes it as self-evident that the believers in the Messiah from the nations observe the Torah unreservedly, even if he just as self-evidently assumes that the males, in contrast to Jewish males, are not circumcised. He does not have in view here a limited Torah for the nations (see on 7:19). Rather, it is clear that particular aspects of Jewish life distinguish the Jewish people as ethnos and therefore are not practiced by people who belong to another ethnos, especially the temple worship in Jerusalem (10:18) and circumcision. It can be assumed

99 On these places see Bookidis 2005, 156–164. 100 Cf. also Goodblatt 2006, 29–48.

1:19–25

47

that all other aspects of Jewish life that are in accord with the Torah, in so far as they are not mentioned in the Pauline text, also apply to the lives of the nonJewish people of the Messiah in Corinth: Sabbath observance, food laws and others. In Chapters 8–10 Paul discusses how to relate to other gods and not food laws, as is often assumed. The temple tax does not appear to be paid, but the collection for Jerusalem (16:1–4) is understood as an expression of the relationship to Jerusalem and therewith to Israel.101 The relationship to Israel is interpreted by Paul as an adoption by God102 or also as a joining with or turning to the God of Israel (Acts 15:19, 14:15). So, believers in the Messiah from the nations commit themselves to the oneness of the God of Israel (8:4–6) and to observing the entire Torah (7:19). Israel’s ancestors become their ancestors as well (10:1)—and yet they continue to belong to a different ethnos. From the perspective of those on the outside, they later received the name christianoi or christiani.103 This designation signifies that they are understood by those on the outside to be a Jewish messianic group, just as there were others before them and are others alongside them in Judaism. As such they are also persecuted by Rome, for there is an ongoing policy of Roman mistrust against Jewish messianism.104 In texts of the first century and the beginning of the second, the word christianoi or christiani ought to have been translated »followers of the Messiah.« The word Christian implies a separation from Judaism, which was the view neither of those within nor of those on the outside. The question about the identity of believers in the Messiah in Corinth has no simple answer. Non-Jewish people lived in a Jewish way and bound themselves unreservedly to the God of Israel. The question of their identity, in terms of inner and outside authorities, was apparently raised by no one. Correspondingly, even the question of what a Ioudaios was exactly was not the object of definitions. But when the issue was raised at all, it was answered by listing various aspects of one’s way of life.105

101 Wengst 2008, 112–113; Sze-kar Wan 2000, 200–202 calculates that Paul’s collection is to be seen against the background of political criticism by imperial authorities of the Jewish collection of the temple tax also in the diaspora. In any case, it has to evoke the mistrust of Roman authorities that one of the groups of people subject to them receives money from other peoples in Rome’s sphere of influence. On political criticism of the Jewish temple tax see Noethlichs 1996, 58–59; Wan 200–202. Nevertheless, Wan is not correct when he says that Paul intends to build a new ethnos out of Jewish and non-Jewish believers in the Messiah. The concept does not arise. On the gifts of the nations for Jerusalem see on 16:1–4. 102 2 Cor 6:16–18; on this see M. Crüsemann 2004, 368–372; Fredriksen 2010, 243. Within the spectrum of the people from the nations who turn to a Jewish way of life, Fredriksen considers unusual Paul’s demand that they reject the cults from which they came (see especially 242); Cohen 1999, 150–154 has a different view. 103 Acts 11:26; Tacitus Ann. 15.44; Suet. Nero 16.2. 104 L. Schottroff 2015. 105 Schwarz 2001, 49–50; Boyarin 2004, 21 and more often.

48

Commentary

In view of the way later Christians wrote history, also with respect to the congregation in Corinth, this much is clear: the separation from Judaism that was later practiced by those on the Christian side is often projected backward into the first century, but this view of history is false. There was neither a separation from Judaism asserted by people of the Messiah from the nations nor was there a separation asserted over against them by Jewish members of the synagogue who denied that Jesus was the Messiah. Also, from the Roman side, both groups were subject to the same social pressure and political mistrust. The politics of separation, then, was the work of certain »Church Fathers« in the second century.106 Only after the Jewish defeat against Rome in 70 CE, to make determinations for the fiscus Judaicus, did Roman authorities have an interest in knowing exactly who was Jewish and who wasn’t.107 In this context, short descriptions emerge that could fit believers in the Messiah from the nations: »inprofessi Judaicam viverent vitam/people who, without professing to be Jewish, lived in accord with Jewish ritual.«108 Cassius Dio reports about two relatives of the emperor who were condemned as atheists and then appends a generalizing notice about »alloi es ta tōn Ioudaiōn ēthē exokellontes/others who drifted into Jewish ways.«109 Even if it is not possible to conclude with certainty whether this is about believers in the Messiah from the nations or about others from the nations who were sympathetic to Judaism, these references are of interest for 1 Corinthians. They show what the views on such groups from the outside look like. Shaye Cohen (1999, 140–174) has listed six heuristic categories for the »Beginnings of Jewishness« (for example, to acknowledge the power of the Jewish God and/or to practice some or several Jewish rituals). They show how we can envision the way of life of people from the nations who in some way or other lived as Jews without being Jewish. They were amorphous, undefined and decentralized processes. The findings for the Corinthian congregation merely add a variant to this picture, one variant among many, which, however, does fit into the picture as a whole.

1:26–31 26 Consider yourselves, sisters and brothers; you are called. There are, namely, among you not many educated by background, not many powerful, not many from elite families. 27 Much rather, God has chosen the uneducated of the world in order to shame the educated; and the weak of the world God has chosen, in order to shame the strong. 28 And the little people and the despised of the

106 107 108 109

On this, see especially the work of Boyarin 2004. Suet., Dom. 12.2; Cass. Dio, Hist. 67.14.1–3; additional sources in Noethlichs 1996, 20–21. Suet., Dom. 12.2; on this see Heemstra 2010, 34–66. Cass. Dio, Hist., trans. Earnest Cary, Loeb (1925), 67.14.2.

1:26–31

49

world, God has chosen, those who count for nothing, to take the power of those who are something. 29 That is happening so that no human being is presumptuous before God. 30 Through God you are connected with the Messiah Jesus, who has granted us from God the capacity for wisdom and righteousness and healing and liberation. 31 Thus comes to pass what has been written: Let the one who would be great, praise the greatness of the Eternal One. The biography of the brothers and sisters belonging to the congregation in Corinth is itself a testimony to the resurrection of the one who was crucified. »Consider …,« the text begins: God’s intervention into the power structures is evident in you yourselves. God has called those who are at the bottom of the heap in the city of Corinth: the uneducated and powerless and people who already through their origin belong to society’s losers; »the nobodies« from the perspective of those on top, as v. 28 puts it. The transformation that God’s intervention has affected means for these »nobodies« that they have become the body of Christ (1:30a) and that Christ’s wisdom has taken form in them (30b; see already 1:5). In this event the educated and mighty lose their power (1:27–29). They can no longer boast in their possessions (1:29). What is the significance of all that in concrete terms? In this text Paul is reaching back into the biblical tradition: the election of the poor by God and the election of tiny Israel (see only 1 Sam 2:7–10; Deut 7:6–8). He interprets the Scripture for his own time; he applies it to the experiences of the people in the Corinthian congregation. He refers explicitly to Jer 9:22–23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24. Trans.] (in 1:29, 31), implicitly to the broad stream of tradition about the gospel for the poor in Scripture (in 1:26–28). 1:26 God had called (klēsis) the people in Corinth, God had elected them (1:27, 28). They should look at what God has done, at God’s call and election. In keeping with scriptural usage, »call« and »election« refer to the same act of God (see, for example, Isa 41:9). God’s call sets in motion a process of transformation and gives the called a mission. They are called as Paul himself is called (1:1). In the history of the interpretation of 1:26 the attempt has often been made to interpret the word klēsis statically, so that it locks the congregation member into her or his social status. Anyone poor and uneducated still keeps on being poor and uneducated.110 This interpretation is engendered by the interpretation of the same word in 7:20. In 7:20 the issue is seen to be about being locked into a given social status, which is unchanged when one becomes a member of the body of Christ (New Revised Standard Version e.g. translates, »Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called«). This translation of 7:20, like the corresponding interpretation in 1:26, serves a political interest in a social status-quo-theology and agrees neither with biblical nor Pauline thinking (see on 7:17–24). Paul uses three concepts to sketch the congregation’s social composition in 1:26: not many wise, powerful or privileged by birth. These and similar concepts (see

110 See, for example, Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 208; Lindemann 2000, 49.

50

Commentary

1:27–28) and their opposites are used in the Bible and elsewhere in various sequences to describe social distinctions.111 For these »opposites« Paul uses uneducated (mōra), weak, disadvantaged by birth, despised, »things that are not« (1:27–28). The terms are imprecise and interchangeable. Here in 1:26–31 the economic angle (rich—poor) is not explicitly mentioned and yet it is implicitly present. It is possible that with these sequences of opposites Paul intends to indicate the contrast between the small upper class, the city’s leaders, for example, and most of the population. The majority lived in poverty, hardly had access to education and medical care and, on top of that, was despised by the ruling elite.112 These imprecise terms of Paul’s can be verified socio-historically. There is no middle class. It is difficult to judge whether a few of the Corinthian elite belonged to the messianic congregation.113 The living conditions of most of the population in the cities of the Roman Empire are unhealthy and hard. The dwellings of the poor in apartment complexes have no kitchens and no sewage systems, many have no windows. The stinking filth in the streets and the violence of everyday life made life dangerous. Children grew up in the midst of the adults living under such conditions. Only half the newborns reached the age of 10.114 In 1 Corinthians these living conditions are presupposed and can be recognized directly or indirectly.115 For the interpretation of this text, however, how many people of affluence and education—or relative affluence—belong to the congregation is less decisive than which roles were assigned to them within the congregation. In western exegesis in the 20th century, in the interplay with the ideology of the cold war against the socialist East, a »new consensus« has emerged that suspects that being organized in an egalitarian way leads to a communism prone to violence. According to this »new consensus,« the assessment was championed that in the congregation the poor and the rich lived together.116 In this context the rich and educated are given

111 See, for example, 1 Sam 2:1–10; Jer 9:22–23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24]; Luke 1:46–55; Aelius Aristides, The Roman Oration 26.39; L. Schottroff 1990, 250. 112 For a socio-historical evaluation of the social relationships in the Roman Empire in this period, see Shelton 1998, 4–9; Friesen 2004, 360–361. Longenecker 2010, 220–258. 113 On this question see especially Friesen 2004, 340–359. Friesen does not believe that anyone from the small elite group belonged to the congregation, but he does estimate that there likely were social and economic differences in the congregation; a similar view is also held by Meggitt 1998, 101–106, who correctly observes that in 1:27–28 Paul assigns the whole congregation to the lower class; Engels 1990, 68–69 believes that the city’s small elite group had and cultivated »a strong Roman identity.« This also favors the view that they were not part of the congregation. 114 Laes 2011, 26; for more general information on the living conditions of the poor, see especially 22–49 and 138–143. 115 See basic information on inhumane sexuality sanctioned by society at 7:2, on meat offered to idols and meat consumption at 8:1; on the brutality in theater performances see at 4:9. 116 On the history and evaluation of the »new consensus,« see L. Schottroff 1990, 247–256; Meggitt 1998; Frieses 2004; Friesen 2010, 231–256.

1:26–31

51

the role of leading the congregation. In this manner the interpretive pattern »love patriarchalism« arose. It asserts that Christianity was able to survive because it made it possible for rich and poor, men and women to carry on a harmonious and hierarchical life together. Those who are on top in the social hierarchy turn in love to those who in obedience subject themselves to them.117 Since then, the egalitarian structure of early Christian congregations has come into view more strongly.118 1:27–28 In the following two verses Paul sketches the change that living together in the congregation signifies for the social difference between those who are above and below. The humbled are chosen by God, and the wise, strong and esteemed are deprived of their power. What do the verbs mean that Paul uses for this disempowering, kataischynein/shame and katargein/reduce to nothing? Both verbs are related to God’s eschatological judgment (see on 1:7 and the basic information on concepts of time and eschatology), which has not yet occurred but already is changing the present situation. It disillusions and deprives of power the people of privilege in society—including the few who perhaps belong to the congregation. Thereby, a way of deliverance from unjust structures opens up even for them. Paul is standing here in the tradition of the biblical gospel for the poor, advocated, for example, by many prophetic texts and Psalms. His words contain references to 1 Sam 2:1–10 (LXX). In 1 Sam 2:10 LXX the text of Jer 9:22–23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24] relates to the Song of Hannah, which sings of the strong losing their power and the exaltation of the lowly. This shows that Paul is echoing Scripture even when he does not explicitly refer to it (that doesn’t happen until 1:31) or quote it. 1 Cor 1:26–31 can be understood as a reformulation of the Song of Hannah applied to the situation in Corinth or in the Roman Empire in Paul’s time. In 1:28 we are reminded of the creation out of nothing (cf. Rom 4:17): God has chosen the things that are not (1 Cor 1:28); God has called them into existence (Rom 4:17). God makes the dead live and creates life out of nothing. Paul thinks about God’s creative power not only in terms of the creation of life in the past but just as much in the present as well. What happened in Corinth as God connected the city’s humiliated ones to the body of Christ is creation out of nothing, resurrection of the dead, exaltation of the humiliated. This should not detract from God’s past and future activity, but what is happening now should be put into the full light of God’s gracious care. When the uneducated and powerless men and women of the community, united with the Messiah, construct their lives anew, creation out of nothing is occurring, the justification of those entangled in injustice (Rom 4:5). When interpreted in this way, justification is no longer restricted to the individual’s relationship with God but is seen as God’s action for peoples’ lives as part of their world and society. God’s action includes the powerful. They also are put in a new place.119

117 On the history and evaluation of love patriarchalism, see Schüssler Fiorenza 1988, 114–120; L. Schottroff 1990, 247–256 and 1994, 15–27. 118 See, for example, Ehrensperger 2007; L. Schottroff 1999a. 119 About the critique of the »western« understanding of justification, see especially Stendahl 1976; on the contextualization of justification, see Tamez 1998, for example 48–49.

52

Commentary

In 1:28 Paul also mentions an additional aspect of the social situation of the lowly: they are despised. Here he is clearly referring to the despising of people who have to earn their daily bread by manual labor by those who boast about their education and opulence. Cicero writes: »[A]ll mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those trades which cater for sensual pleasures: ›Fishmongers, butchers, cooks, and poulterers, and fishermen,‹ …«120 In »The Dream or Lucian’s Career,« Lucian tells of two women who appeared to him: »One was like a workman, masculine, with unkempt hair, hands full of callous places, clothing tucked up, and a heavy layer of marble-dust upon her …«121 She is a stonemason, a trade that was common in Corinth.122 A second woman appeared to Lucian in the dream, education (paideia). She evaluates the stonemason and advises him not to become one: You will be nothing but a worker who struggles physically and has to put all the hopes of his livelihood on it, inconspicuous himself, with low and common (agennē) earnings, with a low disposition, an inferior person in public […] nothing more than a worker and one of the great crowd who always bows his head before the upright mighty man, shakes before the good speaker, lives like a rabbit and is the prey of the mighty.123

Cicero and Lucian show how far apart the work of a manual laborer and education are and that the educated could afford their education and derived self-assurance from their distain of those who worked with their hands.124 Against this background it becomes understandable what liberation God’s call meant for the uneducated and despised. They were now part of a community in which their dignity as saints was central and in which abilities and acumen accrued to them. 1:29 The feeling of superiority that the educated and wealthy have at the expense of the uneducated and poor is worthless in the sight of God. Because of their wisdom, their power and their riches (see Jer 9:22 [Eng. Bible, 9:23]), they have boasted/bragged. It’s all about the elite’s feeling of superiority and the freedom to do as they please that goes along with it. It’s true that the city is still under their control, but as far as the messianic congregation is concerned, they have lost their power. The »wisdom of the world« evokes structures of bragging/kauchasthai (for the basic information on the »wisdom of the world,« see above at 1:17). It would be inappropriate to make a moral judgment about this bragging and strutting. It is the elite’s job to preserve society’s hierarchical structure. For this reason, a formative process for the responsibility that comes with being superior is begun already on the bodies of the elite’s newborn children.125

120 121 122 123 124

Cicero, Off., trans. Walter Miller, Loeb (1913), 1.150; on this see Laes 2011, 150–151. Lucian, Somn. 7, trans. A. M. Harmon, Loeb (1921), 6. Engels 1990, 42–47. Lucian, Somn. 9,; Mras 1954, 13. See additional parallels, for example, in Seneca, ep. 88.21; Xenophon, Oec. 4.2 speak disparagingly of the trades: banausikai technai. See also Weeber 1995, 19. 125 D. Martin 1995, 25–34.

1:26–31

53

The ontologizing of »boasting«126 that frequently occurs in the history of interpretation bypasses the social realities, as well as their destructive power for the congregation in Corinth, which Paul points out in 1:10–17. This ontologizing of »boasting« is also frequently used for Christian anti-Semitism: the hubris »of the [pious] Jew« represents the hubris of »humanity« before God.127 1:30 In 1:30 Paul displays the full abundance in which believers in the Messiah live as a community. This abundance they have received from God, who formed them into the body of Christ. The expression en Christō Iēsou, which Paul uses frequently, looks simultaneously at God’s action of raising the one whom Rome crucified and at the result of God’s action: the presence of the Messiah in the form of a community of people at a specific place, Corinth, as well as at many others. The expression is almost identical with the Pauline language about the body of Christ (sōma Christou). The uneducated and humiliated people who are the body of Christ in Corinth now have wisdom from God (cf. 1:24; see at 1:5 and the basic information after 1:25): they recognize God’s action in Corinth, they live in accord with the Torah (see at 7:19) and they constitute a highly competent community of Torah interpreters, even though they are more or less illiterate. Righteousness—that God imparts to »us« as a gift, although even the dock workers and street peddlers in Corinth see how deeply enmeshed they are in unjust structures. They suffer injustice through the misuse of power, thus becoming its victims. However, they are themselves also the ones who act. The gift of righteousness guides the believers in the Messiah in the fulfillment of the Torah. To differentiate between »our« righteousness and God’s righteousness prevents us from recognizing the connection between the two. God’s righteousness is God’s liberating action, which makes the believers in the Messiah capable of keeping the Torah. Sanctification—through their fellowship with Christ people become saints (see above on 1:2). Redemption—cf. Rom 3:24. The word used here, apolytrōsis, refers in the social sphere to the buying of the freedom of prisoners through the payment of a ransom,128 but at the same time the word brings to mind the liberation from Egypt of the enslaved people of Israel.129 This is shown by the fact that the metaphor is not focused on what the cost of the liberation was. God’s action has freed the believers in the Messiah from slavery. In the context of 1 Cor 1:30 the liberation from the structures of this world is in view, which are in Romans called »sin.« Life under the conditions of the Roman Empire is designated as slavery, even for the freeborn.130 It is clear that slaves belong to the Corinthian congregation, even if it is difficult to demonstrate that in individual cases. The names of individuals and groups

126 127 128 129 130

Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 213 »Humanity’s primal sin.« See, for example, Bultmann, art. kauchaomai, etc., in TDNT 1965, vol. 3, 648–649. See the basic information at 6:20. Procksch and Büchsel in TDNT 1967, vol. 4, 333, 352 on lytroō Tacitus, Agr. 30; cf. Matt 17:25–26; Philo, Legat. 119; L. Schottroff 1990, 63–69.

54

Commentary

(Chloe’s people, 1:11; the household of Stephanus, 1:16) can be indications of slavery.131 So, if belonging to the Messiah in 1:30 brings apolytrōsis, what is meant is liberation from slavery in the sense of structural sin and of life in a system characterized by violence. Liberation from the legal status of slavery is not in view, but rather life as a »freed person belonging to Christ« (7:22). They are equal to the freeborn in the congregation. The congregation’s members work together in the congregation and beyond for a mode of living that puts an end to the wisdom of the world and its hostility to life. 1:31 Paul introduces as a quote from Scripture a sentence based on Jer 9:23 (LXX) [Eng. Bible, 9:24] or 1 Sam 2:10 (LXX). Paul has a concept of Scripture citation that is different from that of modern historical criticism (see basic information at 7:19). The introduction to the citation is also shorthand, saying only hina kathōs, and indicates his hermeneutic of Scriptural interpretation: God speaks in Scripture »for our sake,« (Rom 4:23–24; 1 Cor 9:10). God’s word in Scripture is meant to be experienced by »us« (see the basic information before 2:6). To boast of the kyrios/ praise the kyrios—has led to different interpretations. Is it referring to God or Christ? Paul wanted the sentence to be understood as a Scripture quotation. Therefore, he should have been referring to God and using kyrios as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton.132 To praise God is the true and inexhaustible source of strength— but not one’s own possession or attainment to play off against others.

2:1–16 2:1–16 is made up of two sections with interrelated content. The first section, 2:1–5, sets Paul’s life before the congregation, especially his appearance before the congregation as God’s messenger, and how this relates to their own cross-centered discipleship (1:26–31). The message of God (katangellein, 2:1; kerygma, 2:4) that he conveys is a word of revelation (2:1) and a word in which divine power is at work (2:5). In 2:6–16 the fundamental meaning of the word of revelation is explained. Now the congregation itself becomes the subject of the word of revelation. The »we« in 2:6 already merges Paul as God’s messenger with the congregation. This section speaks of the endless riches of experiencing the power of God’s Spirit and God’s wisdom in a congregation that separates itself from »human wisdom« (2:5), the »wisdom of this age« (2:6) and the »spirit of this world« (2:12, 13). This separation has huge consequences for the way they live (see above on 1:2). The wisdom and the power of God’s Spirit that come from God enable the congregation to see Jesus’ crucifixion for what it is, a violent act of the mighty that follows the logic of the »wisdom of this age« (2:6–8). And: it enables the congregation to celebrate their own riches, which the power of God’s Spirit brings: We have God’s Spirit (2:16). 131 See Bartchy 1973, 60. 132 On this see Howard 1977, 77–78.

2:1–5

55

2:1–5 1 As I came to you, sisters and brothers, I did not appear as a brilliant speaker and teacher of wisdom, in order to proclaim to you God’s mystery. 2 For I became convinced that in your case nothing was so important as Jesus the Messiah, and he, indeed, as a crucified one. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear and with great anxiety. 4 My speech and my message did not consist in winning words of wisdom but came out of the experience of the Spirit and of God-given power. 5 Thus your faith does not rest on human wisdom but on the power of God. 2:1, 4 In distancing himself from an »excess« of rhetorical skill and wisdom, as society thinks of them, Paul repeats what he had already said in 1:17, 20: there is in Corinthian society—as in the Hellenistic Roman public culture in general—a rhetoric that serves the self-presentation and ideology of the empire.133 Such public discourse is also the sphere for the preservation of masculinity, which is meant to give expression to the system of domination and serve it. What Paul is here distancing himself from is not opponents in the congregation; rather he is distancing himself and the congregation from the public culture, which is in the service of violence. The very first word in this section, kagō/»I also,« already links Paul and the congregation together. In 2:3 he uses it once more. They are a congregation of the uneducated, who are living out God’s wisdom, and that’s how Paul presents himself as well. What does he mean by that? There is no doubt that Paul has a rigorous education as an interpreter of the Torah under a famous Pharisaic teacher in Jerusalem, Gamaliel (cf. Acts 22:3). Nevertheless, he does not have a particular rhetorical gift or an education in public speaking and presence. In 2 Cor 10:10 we learn that there are members of the congregation who criticize him for his weak bodily presence.134 It appears to them that he is hiding behind his letters, for they »are weighty and full of power« (BigS). Doubts have been raised about whether his letters, which were read aloud in the assembly, were easy to understand, even though the congregation could recognize much that was in them. But the fact remains that he played a decisive role in the building of messianic communities in the Roman Empire, and so, despite a lack of rhetorical education, through his »counter-rhetoric«135 he reached many people and won them over to adopting a new goal for their lives.

133 See at 1:19–20 and the basic information »The Wisdom of this World« at 1:17. On the word peithois/persuasive [v. 4], which is not attested elsewhere, and on its manuscript tradition, see Lietzmann 1949, 11. On the connection between public discourse and the demonstration of control and masculinity, see Larson 2004, 85–97; Mayordomo 2008, 103–104. Essential on Paul’s masculinity is D. Lopez 2008, 138–140; 147–153. 134 »His personal appearance is weak and his speech worthless«’ (Trans. BigS). 135 See the basic information above on »The Wisdom of this World« at 1:17.

56

Commentary

2:2 When he first appeared in Corinth, Paul consciously and emphatically put the Messiah Jesus, and him as crucified, at the center. He does not mention here that God raised the crucified Messiah, nor that God had not abandoned him to death and violence. And yet without this miracle by God, Jesus’ crucifixion remains merely a sign of political oppression, meant to act as a deterrent to the populace. That Paul here names the crucifixion in such isolation as the content of his message is understandable in the context of 1:17–25. This public solidarity with the crucified, and thereby with the many victims of crucifixion, dare not be swept under the rug (see the basic information on denial of the crucifixion at 1:18 above). And yet, finally, his message does not consist solely in communicating the mere fact of the crucifixion. Therefore, the message that tells of Jesus’ crucifixion, already in itself, makes powerfully present in the congregations the resurrection and the Risen One—even without the need for explicit words about them. 2:3 Paul is speaking very personally here: back when he first came to the congregation (see 2:1), he came »in weakness.« If in 2:3, as also in 2:1, he is referring to the situation in which he first came to Corinth, which is linguistically possible, the question arises whether he actually understands himself to be the founder of the Corinthian congregation, because he is here presupposing the existence of a congregation before he began. In 3:6 he compares his initial work to planting a crop, in 3:10 to laying a foundation, and in 4:14, 15 he calls himself a father who has given birth to or sired the congregation (cf. Gal 4:19). Does Acts 18:2–4 contradict these assertions? It is reported there that Paul is living with the couple Prisca and Aquila during his stay in Corinth. There are reasons to surmise that they are already part of a messianic house church before his arrival in Corinth (see on 16:19). Thus, Paul’s work in Corinth could also have first found its footing in this congregation. What he says in 1 Cor 3:6, 10 and 4:14–15 does not have to contradict this. In any case, he played a decisive role in the building of the congregation. To designate him as the founder of the congregation is more important to the church’s interpretive tradition than it is to him. For Paul, his weakness is a concern that comes up again and again.136 He must have had a severe chronic illness. What exactly it was that made him so frail cannot be determined. Wherever he mentions or laments his weakness, he speaks at the same time of the experience of the power of God—precisely at the times of weakness. That’s the case here as well. Despite his weakness at the beginning of his time in Corinth, his proclamation was full of the Spirit and of demonstrations of that power (2:4–5). Thus, the fate of Jesus, who died on the cross and was summoned to life anew by God, is repeated with respect to his body (cf. 2 Cor 4:10). The vitality and presence of the Messiah is a miracle of God that can be repeated in people’s lives, in the life of Paul as in that of the congregation (1:26–31). The expression »fear and trembling,« takes up the language of the Old Testament. It can refer to the awe God’s power evokes (Isa 19:16; Exod 15:16; Deut 11:25), but also to the horror that human violence unleashes (Ps 55:6 [Eng. Bible: 55:5]). Yet 136 See 4:10 and especially 2 Cor 12:9–10; on this see M. Crüsemann 2009, 126–134.

2:1–5

57

here the phrase refers to the time when Paul came on the scene and clarifies his experience of frailty: he was afraid of failure, of being unable to fulfill what he was sent to do. In the history of interpretation there are theological generalizations for Paul’s description of weakness and fear, for example, as »humble acceptance … of the will of God,«137 as dependence on God. In this way the physical and psychic affliction becomes a minor matter. Paul is concerned here not with the humility and conformity to Christ of those who proclaim Christ but with a personal experience of affliction that the congregation in Corinth remembers. 2:5 In Greek, 2:5 begins with hina, usually translated this way: »so that« your faith (might not stand on human wisdom, for example). However, as is frequently the case in the language of the New Testament, the Greek hina here does not indicate the goal or purpose, but the result.138 If the hina is interpreted as a final clause, expressing purpose, then what emerges is that it was God’s (or Paul’s) intention to set Paul before the congregation with a lack of rhetorical skills and suffering from illness: his weakness was then the means to an end. This produces absurd consequences, for example, that those who are healthy are unfit for proclaiming the message about the cross. It is important to take the individual affliction of this person Paul as that which he says about it: as a great burden and hindrance. That the congregation, despite this, by means of this proclamation came to trust God, is a miracle worked by God’s power. Faith is the confidence »that God makes the dead alive« (Rom 4:17). The translation of words about faith can be given to misunderstanding, for example, in the sense of taking certain doctrines to be true.139

The »We« of the Congregation In his letters, Paul frequently changes from the second person plural, which corresponds to the form of a letter to a congregation, to a »we.« That is also true of 1 Cor 2:6.140 God is the Father of this »we« and the Messiah its Liberator (1:3, 8, 9, 10). This »we« say the Shema Israel (8:6; cf. Deut 6:4) and thereby set limits for the powers (8:6). The »we« are people who receive power and wisdom from God (1:18, 30). They are the ones who love God (2:9) and are saved by God (1:18). They receive God’s revelation (2:10, 12) and pass it on (2:6, 13; cf. 1:5). They are gifted with divine understanding (2:16). In Chapter 10 Paul relates the »we« of his time and place to Israel in the wilderness. The »we« learn from »our fathers and mothers« who went out of Egypt (10:1). This »We« of the present are the sōma Christou (10:16; 12:27). Paul includes himself in this »we« (for example, 2:6). In 10:11; 1:18; 2:6, he defines the »we« eschatologically. He speaks of »us who are being saved«/sōdzomenoi (1:18). The verdict at God’s judgment, about which no one can know anything, 137 138 139 140

Balz in TDNT 1974, vol. 9, 214. See BDAG on hina 3. On this see F. Crüsemann 2006, 2352–2356. Cf. also earlier, 1:3, 8, 9, 10, 18, 30, and what follows in Chapter 2: 2:7, 10, 12, 13, 16.

58

Commentary

is for them a hope and source of strength (1:18). They are experiencing already now the beginning of the end of the power and might of the »aeons« of this world (10:11; on this see the basic information on Concepts of Time and Eschatology at 1:7 above). Therefore the »we« of the congregation has become identical with God’s Messiah and, as the body of Christ, it is the authority for deciding the legitimacy of all God’s ambassadors (3:17, 22, 23). Statements like these show that, in the present and in the everyday world and its power structures, the body of Christ/the sōma Christou is the Messiah. The emphatic language about the »we« in 2:6–16 or 3:17, 22, 23 does not exclude the fact that Paul also sharply criticizes the congregation.

2:6–16 6 We do, however, speak about wisdom, a wisdom among those who are perfect. But this is a wisdom that does not depend on this world, nor on those ruling this world. They are in the process of losing their power. 7 We are speaking about divine wisdom, hidden in a mystery that God has prepared before all time, in order to enable us to share in the divine presence. 8 None of the rulers of this world has known it. For if they had known wisdom, they would not have crucified the representative of divine wisdom. 9 Much more, what has happened is what has been written: »What no eye saw and no ear heard and what arose in no human heart, that is what God has prepared for those who love God.« 10 God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit fathoms everything, even the depths of God. 11 What people can understand other people, if the human spirit is not within them? So it is also true that no one understands God without God’s Spirit. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that comes from God, by which we understand what God has given us. 13 We pass on this experience, not in the learned language of human wisdom, but in the language that the Spirit teaches. To the people who are filled with the Spirit, we open the gifts of the Spirit. 14 People who simply live for themselves, do not accept the gift of the divine Spirit, because they consider it to be foolish. They cannot comprehend the gift, for it can be effective only with the assistance of the Spirit. 15 But those with the Spirit examine everything, although their divine spirit can be evaluated by no human. 16 For, »Who has known the thoughts of the Eternal One, who will teach them?« We have the thoughts of the Eternal One. This section has often been felt to be an alien element within the letter. The primary causes for that were, first, the concept of the mature (teleioi) in 2:6 conflicting with 3:1–4, and second, the language as a whole. Parallels to this language are found in Jewish wisdom literature, in Gnosticism and in Hellenistic cults.141 Never141 For details and examples see L. Schottroff 1970, 201–216; Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 242–245.

2:6–16

59

theless, I am already here setting forth the following conclusions: the text is from Paul, and it is not helpful to assume that he is arguing with opponents (see on 1:10). The »we« of the text is of central significance to what is being discussed. It refers to the congregation as the body of Christ (see the basic information after 2:5). The »we« does not refer exclusively to especially qualified proclaimers or to a group within the congregation who see themselves as set apart by God’s revelation. Paul is speaking in this section about the overwhelming happiness experienced by the »we,« the congregation. Adolf Deissmann (1957, 106, n.2) correctly wrote about 2:6–16 that these sentences were »one of the greatest of Paul’s confessions.« He said that they had to be »the starting-point for an understanding of Paul on the great scale.« 2:6 The experience of happiness in the body of Christ is broached (2:6, 7, 13). The word lalein includes not only rational interpersonal speaking but also the babble of children, music, chatter and the language of animals.142 1 Corinthians 12–14, the three chapters about experiences of the pneuma, God’s Spirit, can be read as a commentary on 2:6–16. It is true that in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul criticizes chaotic worship services, but he does not render a categorical critique of glōssolalein, the Spirit-empowered speaking in many native tongues (see the basic information on 14:1). In 14:15 it becomes clearer and more detailed what he means here in 2:6–16 by the Spirit-empowered speaking (lalein): to pray and sing with the heart143 and the mind, that is, with pneuma and nous. For example, there are songs and prayers in one’s native language, which are incomprehensible to others (14:14). In German we can say about this: they are coming from the bottom of one’s heart; Paul calls this »praying with the pneuma.« He doesn’t want to distinguish this praying and speaking from, or, indeed, play it off against, a praying and singing in the lingua franca. Both are important. The lalein in 2:6 refers not only to communicatory speaking but also to praying from the bottom of one’s heart and to singing. Paul is no stranger to singing in the »language of angels« (see 13:1). It is not erroneous also to include visions in the experience of lalein.144 2:6–16 also includes rational speech, as especially 2:16 shows, where Paul emphasizes the word nous. In order to demonstrate the riches of Spirit-empowered lalein, we should therefore already here take into consideration a text that is traditionally used to elucidate the »speaking in tongues« discussed in 1 Corinthians 14: The Testament of Job. It is a Jewish writing from the time of the Roman Empire, a writing whose precise date cannot be determined. This document narrates revelatory experiences. Job speaks with his three daughters at the end of his life and bequeaths them three

142 Albert Debrunner in TDNT 1967, vol. 4, 76–77. 143 In German the metaphor heart encompasses the whole person, even with respect to emotions and non-rational aspects. In the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament the heart is primarily the seat of understanding. Therefore, in German I am using the metaphor heart differently from the way Paul uses the metaphor kardia. 144 All of the senses are involved, even seeing (2:9; see 13:12); on this see especially Dautzenberg 1975, 185–225.

60

Commentary

sashes, which God had given him when he was in great distress. He had laid them on his daughters, and immediately all their sicknesses disappeared: 47.7 And then my body got strength through the Lord as if I actually had not suffered a thing. 8 I also forgot the pains in my heart. 9 And the Lord spoke to me in power, showing me things present and things to come. 10 Now then, my children, since you have these objects you will not have to face the enemy at all, 11 but neither will you have worries of him in your mind, since it is a protective amulet of the Father. Rise then, gird yourselves with them before I die in order that you may be able to see those who are coming for my soul, in order that you may marvel over the creatures of God. 48.1 Thus when the one called Hemera arose, she wrapped around her own string just as her father said. 2 And she took on another heart—no longer minded toward earthly things— 3 but she spoke ecstatically in the angel dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the angels.145

The two other daughters of Job also wrap sashes around themselves and speak and sing in the language of angels. Here also rational language and the language of angels are not differentiated from one another. Both belong together. Job passes his revelatory experience on to his daughters. As he speaks he makes it clear that the revelation is an encounter with God, who heals the body and frees the inner person from thoughts about the devil (47.10) or about earthly things (48.2)/ the things of the kosmos (49.1, 50.1). Paul also immediately addresses this liberation from the structures of the kosmos/the world in 22:6b, 8: revelatory experiences have nothing to do with the wisdom of this age and the archons/the rulers of this age (on this, see the discussion on 2:8). He provides a positive definition of the content of the revelation and of the lalein, the speaking and the singing about it, as wisdom among the mature (2:6; on this see also 14:20). Maturity has two dimensions: 1. When people meet God »face to face« (13:12), this encounter changes them into new creatures. Everything that one longs for from God’s future is already happening now—in the midst of the world ruled by death and by the authority of the powers. Maturity is not a status people have,146 but an unendingly rich experience of happiness and liberation. It is the direct experience of God’s care (2:9; 13:2) for those who love God. 2. In 2:9 the second dimension of maturity comes into view. Love for God expresses itself in doing the will of God. It is the Torah as the will of God, as that which is mature (Rom 12:2), that brings about maturity. In the Sermon on the Mount is a statement in full accord with this aspect of the issue: »Now, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect« (Matt 5:48). The Torah makes it possible to imitate God in that humans in their actions model God’s actions. The Babylonian Talmud elucidates this aspect of perfection:

145 T.Job 47.7—48.3; trans. R. P. Spittler, in Charlesworth, vol 1, 1983, 865–866. On the »language of angels« here in The Testament of Job and in 1 Cor 13:1, see Zerhusen 1997, 142–144. The language of angels is to be envisioned as an understandable language, not as one unintelligible for others. 146 Only if one makes such an assumption is there a contradiction with 3:1–4 (see there).

2:6–16

61

R. Hama son of R. Hanina further said: What means the text [Deut 13:5]: Ye shall walk after the Lord your God? 4 Is it, then, possible for a human being to walk after the Shechinah; for has it not been said: For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire? 5 But [the meaning is] to walk after the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He. As He clothes the naked, … 6 so do thou also clothe the naked. The Holy One, blessed be He, visited the sick, … 7 so do thou also visit the sick (bSota 14a).147

In 2:7 the divine wisdom, which is revealed to the mature in the encounter with God, is called, »hidden in a mystery« (cf. 14:2). The content of the revelation is the eschatological mystery in the sense of 14:1; 13:2; 15:51; cf. Rom 11:25, 33. The mystery is God’s own self and God’s action in the past, present and future.148 In the encounter with God the mystery of God is revealed in such a way that paths into the future are opened for those who see and hear. The mysteries are hidden, but God reveals them to those who love God. They receive the pneuma, the Spirit, which gives them eyes and ears for God. In Rom 11:33–36 there is a hymn of praise to God and God’s hiddenness that is related in content. 1 Cor 2:9, 10 can also be understood as words of praise. No one can make God an object of investigation, God makes God’s-self known, providing the Spirit’s power and the understanding (nous) for this (2:16). The content of the lalein of the wisdom of God can be filled in by Rom 11:33: »What immeasurable riches of God, what deep wisdom and inexhaustible knowledge …« That is language about the mystery of God that can be sung and prayed. The wisdom of God is expressed again a second time in 2:7b as an encounter with God, using two quite emphatic thoughts: from eternity God decreed it would go to its recipients, and it thereby enables people to share God’s doxa (kavod), divine splendor, God’s presence, God’s very Self;149 (on 2:8b, cf. Rom 8:29). 2:8 The rulers of this age, whose power has already been broken by God (see 2:6), are the authorities and rulers responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion (see above on 1:18). But these political rulers are merely the visible players in a network of power and destruction that Paul and many people of his time can also ascribe to demonic powers. Political structures reveal mythic dimensions and, thereby, their structural might. The word aiōn encompasses time and space as power structures that God opposes. That the rulers crucified Jesus shows how far the present ruling structures are from God. The Roman Empire is analyzed in 2:8 as a system of violence (on this see above, the basic information »The wisdom of this world« before 1:18). At the same time, the limit God has set for this system becomes visible. The fact that the Crucified One is called the kyrios tēs doxēs emphasizes the same thought found in 1 Cor 8:5–6: there is one kyrios, who sets limits for the lords of this world. In him

147 Translation from the Soncino English Babylonian Talmud, http://www.halakhah.com. 148 On the rootedness of this thought in the Jewish tradition, see Janssen 2005, 239–241. She relates en mysteriō in 2:7 to the lalein: »We proclaim the hidden wisdom mysteriously, in the language of mystery« (240). I relate the phrase to apokekrymmenēn: the wisdom is »hidden in a mystery,»—it is a hidden mystery, which, however, God reveals; see also 2:1. See also Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 251 on this. 149 On this see M. Crüsemann 2006a, 2365–2366.

62

Commentary

God is present (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6).150 God’s doxa provides the qualifications for this kyrios, distinguishing him from all the other kyrioi of this world. The genitive is genitive of quality.151 As the Risen One, this kyrios has enabled believers to participate in the divine presence. There is no allusion here to kyrios tēs doxēs as an attribute of God (which is found, above all, in 1 Enoch 22.14 and more frequently). It is not a question of ascribing divinity to Christ. In 2:9 Paul is quoting from Scripture, but the citation has not been identified.152 2:10a So its origin is unknown. And yet Paul has fully integrated its content and language into the context: the principal clause is in 2:10a, and the citation specifies the object of divine revelation: »That which no eye has seen …, God has revealed … to us.« In 2:10b–15 Paul writes a brief discourse about the pneuma/the Spirit. 2:10b: The Spirit is given to us by God so that we can encounter God (on mystērion/ mystery, see 2:7 above). 2:11 elucidates, through the understanding one person has of another, the equality with God that has been given, which makes knowing God possible. 2:12 contrasts the spirit of the world with the Spirit that comes from God; compare the distinction between the wisdom that comes from God and that from the rulers of this age, 2:6–7. On the practical consequences of such a distinction, see the basic information »The wisdom of this world« before 1:18. 2:12b: the power of God’s Spirit makes us able to recognize the gifts of God: liberation through the Messiah, who makes the new life as the body of Christ possible. 2:13 The Spirit is the teacher of a new language (see on 1:5). To this new language belongs the ability to interpret Spirit-imparted seeing, hearing and lalein, translating it into understandable language or into the situation one is experiencing. The word sygkrinein, which I am translating by »interpret,« is often translated by »compare,« »examine« or similar words. One assumed that ecstatic utterances and prophesies had to be subjected to a critical testing by making comparisons (for example, »in that we test the spiritual by what is spiritual«153). This is correctly criticized by Dautzenberg: »This is really a strange view, assuming that a ProtoInquisition was already underway in the Pauline congregations.«154 Dautzenberg has put forward extensive and for me convincing arguments for translating sygkrinein (and diakrinein/diakrisis in 12:10; 14:29) as »interpret.«155 I resolve the problem of whether the dative plural pneumatikois is neuter or an anthropocentric masculine by choosing the latter, in the light of 2:14–15: the interpretation is directed to »the people who are filled with the Spirit.«

150 151 152 153 154 155

Hegermann 1980, 838. Blass/Debrunner 1984, § 165. For a discussion of its possible origin, see, for example, Lindemann 2000, 66–67. Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 235. Dautzenberg 1975, 129. Dautzenberg 1975, 44–45, 138–140. Counter-arguments are given in Meier 1998, 217, for example.

2:6–16

63

2:14 speaks of psychikoi. This term has led to the question of whether Paul’s concept of humanity is dualistic: the psychē classifies humans negatively, and it is only the pneuma that makes them people who are in relationship with God. But the »physical« body is for Paul the body/person created by God (see 1 Cor 15:44–45);156 and the spiritual body/person is the one who is raised into a new life in the midst of the experiences of violence and humiliation in daily life. »When Paul speaks about resurrection, he has these tangible bodies in mind. He assures these mangled, despised, tormented bodies that they are very valuable, temples of the sacred power of the Spirit … (cf. 1 Cor 6:19).«157 In 2:14b and 15 Paul uses the word anakrinein three times. The discernment (anakrinein) effected by the Spirit is lacking in people who are not reached by God’s call (2:14). For that reason, they consider the power of God’s Spirit and the resurrection of one crucified (see 1:18) to be foolish, to be idiotic. 2:15 People filled with the Spirit have special discernment (anakrinein). They understand human hearts158 and everyday experiences. God’s Spirit enables them to recognize the entanglements in which others and they themselves are caught up and to change them. The ultimate judgment about people, however, is left to God alone, and so those filled with the Spirit cannot by judged (anakrinein) by anyone, cf. 4:1–4, not even by other people of the Spirit. That does not mean that members of the congregation do not criticize themselves and one another, for the letter is a document of reciprocal critique between Paul and the congregation. This critique, however, is clearly different from God’s judgment. God’s judgment sets boundaries for the mutual critique: God’s Spirit in others is not the object of critique and judgment. And yet all questions about how life is to be lived are to be dealt with in a common interpretation of Scripture and mutual critique. 2:16 brings up once again and summarizes the decisive thought of the whole section, the great good fortune to be the sōma Christou. Paul first cites Isa 40:13, »Who has known the understanding of the Eternal One …?« The depths of God (2:10) are hidden from all (cf. Rom 11:34–35). The answer to the rhetorical question from Isa 40:13 in 2:16a is: no one. The same thing is also said in the quote of uncertain origin in 2:9: no eye has seen it; no ear has heard it. 2:16b: And yet »we,« the body of Christ, through God’s care for us (2:12), are gifted with the greatest good fortune (cf. 2:10). As members of the body of Christ we see God face to face (13:12), even if we find ourselves enmeshed in structures of violence, surrounded by suffering and death. We see God’s justice, for which we hope. We hear God’s self-revelation in the words of the Torah. Without God’s power, all that people see is the victory of violence, when they look upon the Crucified One and the crucified. They say: it is not wise to enter into solidarity with those who are crucified (2:14). Those gifted with God’s Spirit see that the Crucified One has been snatched away from death by God, he is risen. We see and experience the

156 Janssen 2005, 201–215. 157 Janssen 2005, 207. 158 Dautzenberg, 1975, 250.

64

Commentary

resurrection of all the dead, for which we hope. The triumphant brief concluding statement summarizes all that: »We have the understanding/thinking of the Eternal One.« Paul gives importance here to the word nous/mind/thinking (see also 14:14–15 and above on 2:6). God’s gift brings eyes for the resurrection and for God’s new creation, but also the critical mind that searches everything (2:10), even one’s own entanglement in worldwide sin, in the structures of the world (see above 2:6, 8 and the basic information on »The wisdom of this world« at 1:17). The congregation is the place where God is present. 1 Corinthians is filled with such felicitous assertions (see also the introduction to 3:1–23). In Isa 40:13 LXX the word kyrios refers to God. In the Pauline response, we find in some Greek manuscripts: We have the mind of the Messiah. Other manuscripts have … the mind of the kyrios. On the basis of texts from Paul’s time, Howard (1977, 80) shows convincingly that people like Paul do not yet replace the Tetragrammaton with kyrios but insert the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters into the Greek text. In sentences that then comment on the Scripture quotes, references to the Tetragrammaton were rendered by kyrios. So, in his response to Isa 40:13, Paul can have written kyrios and thereby assumed God (the Tetragrammaton of the citation). In the second century the word kyrios was increasingly applied to Christ. The manuscripts that in this place have Christos instead of kyrios wanted to achieve a greater Christological clarity: »We have the mind of the Messiah«—as a response to the question, »Who has known the mind of the Eternal One?« It must remain hypothetical what Paul wrote in place of the Tetragrammaton. But he did not yet use kyrios for Jesus/the Messiah in the sense of referring to God by using this word.159 It is likely that in his response (2:16b) he was referring to God. In interpreting Paul, the post-Pauline process of Christologizing that is visible here needs to be taken into account. Paul does not understand the Messiah to be a divine figure.

3:1–23 In 3:1–23 (and Chapter 4) Paul explains in detail that for which he has laid the foundations in 1:10–2:16, namely, that their common bond with the Messiah Jesus— who was crucified by Rome and raised by the God of Israel, and who is now vibrantly alive in the congregation—has consequences for their life together. Competitive structures and other power struggles for dominance in the congregation are, it is true, depictions of the »world« and its wisdom, but they contradict the Messiah and God’s election of the humble. Paul understands his letter to be a paternal word of encouragement and instruction to address this situation. With 3:1–4 he connects with 1:10–18. He offers a fundamental critique of power struggles in the congregation. His principal goal is that the congregation takes seriously the divine riches with which the body of Christ has been gifted, and he draws from them the power to bring about justice. The great expressions of encouragement are core elements 159 L. Schottroff 2009c, 81–94.

3:1–4

65

of this paternal word of instruction in 1:10–4:21: they are found in 1:30–31; 2:6–16; 3:16, 21b–23. They continue 1:4–9. Here he had reported about his gratitude to God for the way they had been enriched, and he adopted for the first time the enthusiastic tone that is sustained in his expressions of encouragement. In 3:5–11 Paul speaks about his relationship to Apollos, which plays are role in the rivalries that are evident. For this discussion Paul employs two spheres for his imagery, one from gardening and the other from building houses. In 3:12–17 it then is shown that he understands the edifice, that is, the congregation, to be God’s temple and dwelling place. The issue here is the great responsibility possessed by all who are working on this building. In 3:18–23 Paul summarizes his earlier thoughts about the rivalries and about the holiness of the congregation.

3:1–4 1 And yet, sisters and brothers, I could not address you as people who are filled with the Spirit. You were children of your time, infants in Christ. 2 I have given you mother’s milk to drink, not solid food. You were not that far along, and even now that is still the case. 3. For your life is still entrapped in its limitations. If there are still controversies and strife in your midst, are you not then children of your time, who are living in a way that is common in society? 4 If some say, »I belong to the Paul group,« others, »I belong to the Apollos group,« are you not, then, behaving like all the others? Essentially, they should have been able to live as people of the Spirit: 3:1 connects with 2:15, but, in fact, how they live contradicts their relationship with God. They live out their daily lives as though they had not experienced messianic liberation: they accommodate themselves to the structures of this world (sarkinoi; cf. 3:3). In 3:1–2 Paul employs this image: Like a nursing mother or a wet nurse, he lets the congregation drink milk, since they were like breastfeeding infants, unable to handle solid food; indeed, that’s the situation up to that very moment. That he gives steps in childrearing that start with milk and then go to solid food, has extrabiblical parallels.160 What is unusual with respect to this background is that Paul applies this image to himself161 and compares himself to a nursing mother or a wet nurse. In the few passages in which Paul places himself in a parental relationship with the congregation, when he calls himself father, he also brings the mother

160 For example, Philo, Congr. 19 and Prob. 160; Dio Chrysostom Or. 4.41.74. On the issue, see Ehrensperger 2007, 1 26–128; Gaventa 2007, 43–45. 161 See also Gaventa 2007, 41–50; on Paul’s body and this passage see Janssen 2005, 77 and 76. Gerber 2005, 374 correctly observes that here the discussion is about a mother or a wet nurse, but takes the view that Paul’s role is »unimportant.« On the nurture of breastfeeding children, see Krauss 1911, vol. 2, 10: they depend on milk from their mothers; see also Gaventa 2007, 45–46.

66

Commentary

into play (here, 4:14–16).162 In a society in which masculinity serves the ideology of the empire and is to be publicly displayed as a representation of control, his portrayal of himself is clearly non-masculine (cf. his relationship to public rhetoric in 2:1). Thereby his work as the congregation’s tutor is consciously kept clear of claims of dominance.163 Beyond all that, Paul makes himself, as a non-virile man, vulnerable and ridiculous: he carries out a conscious »queering,«164 that is, he does not observe the ordering of sexual and authority identities demanded by society. Milk and solid food relate to the different levels of clarity Paul provides in his criticism of power struggles, not to two versions of the gospel, as is frequently discussed. 3:3–4 should not have been understood as a polemic but as a critique that points to the kind of structures revealed in conflicts and strife: the clueless accommodation to societal power struggles aimed at oppressing other people. Kata anthrōpon (cf. the use of the word anthrōpos in 1:25; 2:5 and 3:4), »the way people usually operate,« is not devaluing human life as such. Rather it deals with societal structures that destroy rather than edify: being human apart from God. Persuasiveness gets its illuminating argument from the fact that it can presuppose that is precisely what the hearers do not want. They want to live in accord with God’s will. 3:4 refers to 1:11–13. Here he is clearly criticizing them; that is the solid food (3:2) that to this point Paul has served up only in smaller portions.

3:5–11 5 For who is Apollos, and who is Paul? We have both labored to see that your trust in God grows, both just as we were commissioned by the Eternal One. 6 I have planted, Apollos has watered, but it is God that has given the growth. 7 God gives the growth, so it is not important who plants or who waters. 8 The one who plants or the one who waters does it in community. Yet both will receive their own reward in accord with their work. 9 We are working together with God. God’s field, God’s edifice, that’s what you are. 10 Since the grace has been given to me by God, I have worked on the foundation like a clever master-builder. Others are continuing to build. The one who is continuing to build should think about how the work is proceeding. 11 No

162 Ehrensperger 2007, 128 emphasizes that Paul’s concepts of parenting are in continuity with those of Judaism, which has the understanding that the mother and father raise the children. On this see also the material about 4:14–16. 163 Ehrensperger 2007, 126–128. M. Crüsemann 2010, 145–46 observes in 1 Thessalonians, in contrast to 1 Corinthians, the predominant condescension in the corresponding metaphor (adopting the variant ēpioi) in 1 Thess 2:7, which supports her thesis that Paul did not write 1 Thessalonians. 164 D. Lopez 2008, 142: Gal 4:19—Paul as a mother giving birth—»is a provocative (trans)gendered image that should be just ›sat with‹ in its complexity.« On queer theory in biblical studies see Burke 2011, 288, 301.

3:5–11

67

one can lay a foundation other than the one that has already been laid by God. That foundation is Jesus the Messiah. 3:5 Paul’s view is that in the controversies he and Apollos were played off over against one another. Therefore, Paul now lays out in detail his relationship to Apollos and the significance of both for the congregation in Corinth (until 4:6). His intention with this is to make clear that they have not been in competition and are also not suitable candidates for serving as the basis of competition among members of the congregation. He says that clearly toward the end of his exposition on the theme of Paul and Apollos (in 4:6). His exposition contains fundamental statements about his theological view of a congregation and of his relationship to it. Apollos is also known from Acts (18:24–28; 19.1). He was a highly educated Jew who knew that he belonged to the Messiah Jesus. He spoke about this in the synagogue in Ephesus and met there Prisca and Aquila. They helped him gain additional insight, likely through precise instruction about baptism in the name of Jesus. The messianic congregation in Ephesus gave him a letter of introduction to the congregation in Corinth. There he was found to be very helpful, since through Torah interpretation he showed Jews in Corinth that Jesus was the Messiah of Israel (and of the nations?). This account in Acts agrees with what Paul himself reports. In 1 Cor 3:5 he identifies himself and Apollos in equal measure as servants assigned by God for the sake of the congregation (diakonoi; cf. 3:9, coworkers for God). Both have differing mandates from God. What »serving« means here is shown by what follows, beginning with 3:6. In 3:6–11 Paul uses two images that are meant to elucidate 3:5: one image from gardening and the other from building houses. Apollos and Paul are peers in their work in the garden or on the house. What is decisive in both cases, however, is what comes from God: the growth (3:6) and the foundation (3:11). 3:6 The planting and watering likely refer to gardening, since agricultural fields are as a rule not watered artificially.165 It is doubtful that it was important for Paul to say that he had founded the congregation (see above on 2:3). Here his only concern is the chronological sequence of his work and that of Apollos. That Paul was in Corinth before Apollos is also said by Acts. 3:7 stresses that their work was of equal value and the decisive importance for that work of what God does. 3:8 Once again the solidarity of the two workers is expressed: they are one, but they will be rewarded individually, based on what they have done; cf. 3:12–15. 3:9 Apollos and Paul are God’s coworkers in God’s planting and in God’s building. In the history of interpretation there have been dogmatic reservations about seeing people as God’s coworkers, and therefore there are interpretations that apply the syn- (with/[»co«-]) in the word synergoi [»coworkers«] to the working together of

165 Dalman 1964, vol. 2, 31; cf. Deut 11:10–11.

68

Commentary

Paul and Apollos.166 But this interpretation is linguistically unconvincing. Moreover, in the context it is important to recognize the presence of God’s activity even in the work of humans; see 3:10–11. Beyond all that, in the history of interpretation there have been interpretive models that depict Paul, in his relationship to the congregation as an absolute authority. 3:6–9 speaks a different language: the land/ the planting and the building are God’s work, and God’s coworkers are those who carry out the work in obedience to God’s command, diakonoi (3:5).167 3:10–11 In 3:9b Paul has begun a comparison in which a building depicts the congregation. It continues until 3:17. From 3:12 on, it is seen that he understands the building to be God’s temple. In 3:10 Paul begins by saying that as a wise master builder he laid the building’s foundation. The foundation168 is the first part of the building; the architektōn is the master builder.169 Paul was commissioned by God and was the first to work on this building. It is not his intention in saying this to attribute to himself, as the one who founded the congregation, a greater role than that of others who have continued to work on the building, as he himself has also. He began, others are continuing. In 3:11 he then speaks of the foundation »that has been laid.« He doesn’t say »that I have laid.« Thus, it is no big leap to interpret keimenon/»that has been laid« as a passivum divinum: God has laid the foundation. For Paul, this does not contradict 3:10. He is speaking of the subject under discussion, not the image used to speak of it. God was at work when the edifice »congregation« came into being. The foundation, the first part of the building, is Jesus, the Messiah. He does not say: the foundation is the proclamation about the Messiah Jesus. The foundation is the Messiah himself. The image is shattered. Something similar occurs with the image of the body of Christ in Chapter 12 (see on 12:12–27). The congregation is the body of Christ—it is not merely compared with a body. The Messiah is the foundation; the congregation is not merely compared with a building. It is the house, in which God dwells (see 3:16).

3:12–17 12 Whoever builds upon the foundation, with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, straw, reeds—13 the share of all individuals will become visible. The day will bring it to light. For it will be revealed in the fire. The fire will test the quality of the work of all. 14 For the part that you have added on, you will receive a 166 For example, Lindemann 2000, 82. 167 For a critique of the interpretive pattern that emphasizes Paul’s superiority and absolute authority over the congregation, see D. Martin 1995, 64; Gaventa 2007, 49–50. 168 With the word foundation he is referring to a building’s substructure, both below and above the ground; on this see Blümner 1969, vol. 3, 87–88. 169 Krauss 1966, vol. 1 (1910), 20–23; Rosenzweig 1907, 14–19. Vitruv, vol. 1,1, in Fensterbusch 2 1965, 23–37 describes the high scientific and practical educational demands imposed on architects; see also Blümner 1969, vol. 3, 87–88.

3:12–17

69

reward, if it remains standing. 15 For the part that burns up, you will bear the consequences, but you will nevertheless be saved, as out of a burning house. 16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and God’s Spirit dwells within you? 17 Whoever destroys God’s temple, will him- or herself experience destruction. For the temple of God is holy, and that temple is you. All those who are involved in the building of the congregation must give an account before God. God tests the quality of the building—Paul is speaking parabolically here. The building catches fire. From God’s perspective, that is a moment of truth for those who are doing the building. Paul takes this image from the reality of fires in the large Hellenistic-Roman cities. He calls this test by fire the »Day« (3:13). The concept of the Day of God and of the fire of judgment is part of the biblical tradition. Paul is thinking here of a testing by fire—being put to the test by God. But it should not be equated with God’s judgment at the end time (see 3:15; cf. 11:32). Rather, he envisions a test by God that instructs those who have failed. In his image of the congregation as a building, Paul has in view the work of building a temple, as he had presumably seen, for example, in the ongoing construction of the Herodian temple in Jerusalem.170 He shows that he has knowledge of the topic he is discussing as 3:12 and other verses show. Here he enumerates building materials in the awareness that the builders must take their flammability into account. So, what is built on the foundation also requires competence in those who direct the construction, for only such builders can make those kinds of decisions. From this we learn that he, as the architect (3:10), has no desire to set himself above the other builders. He names the following materials: gold and silver—they were, for example, used for temples.171 Then he mentions »costly stones.« The Septuagint speaks of the use of »great costly stones« for a foundation or superstructure of a temple and a royal palace (3 Kings 6:2; 7:46–50).172 Therefore, it seems natural, with reference to the »costly stones,« not to think of precious stones. Also favoring this view is the fact that Paul speaks so knowledgably about his images. Finally, stone is the crucial building material for each building. The process of working on the great blocks of stone before their use is elaborate,173 so that the word »costly« for the blocks of stone is appropriate. The precious stones used to adorn the Jerusalem that is to come, as in Rev 21:19–21, are, to be sure, also to be taken into consideration for determining the interpretation of the stones in 3:12. However, Paul is speaking here of large buildings he has seen with his own eyes; therefore, the interpretation that settles on blocks of stone is to be preferred. The last three

170 Deissmann 1925, 164. A summary of the history of the temple in Jerusalem is given in Schaper/Tilly 2009, 581–586. 171 Examples for gold on the Herodian temple in Jerusalem can be found in Josephus, J.W. 6.264; 5.201, 205. In descriptions of the temple in the Old Testament gold and silver are frequently mentioned; see Fee 1987, 140, n. 29. 172 Deissmann 1925, 245–246; Joachim Jeremias in TDNT 1967, vol. 4, 269, n. 5. 173 Blümner 1969, vol. 3, 138–145.

70

Commentary

words enumerating construction materials refer to roofing shingles,174 hay and straw. In Hellenistic construction they were not used for large urban buildings but for »rural dwellings in poorer regions.«175 Paul speaks about the materials and about fire safety like an ancient builder.176 3:16–17 are concluding solemn sentences about the congregation as God’s temple. 3:13 The fire of God’s judicial judgment,177 a mythic notion, and the image of a building threatened by fire are combined here. With this, the reference to everyday experiences continues to be in view. The danger of fire and the burning of houses and sections of a city were daily occurrences.178 In interpreting the metaphor about (temple) building (3:9b–17), on the one hand, life experience is to be taken into account as the basis of the image. On the other hand, attention must be given to the text’s explicit bridges to the issue that is to be interpreted. For 3:13, that means: The building goes up in flames, and now one sees whose work survives through their use of non-flammable building materials. It is not the point here to depict God’s judgment as a trial by fire for the congregation. What is being discussed is the builders’ accountability before God. 3:14 The builders whose contribution to the building survives in the fire receive a reward. Here the image does not square with reality, for those who work with their hands need to get their pay at the end of the workday. 3:15 Correspondingly, those whose contribution to the work goes up in flames suffer loss. But Paul doesn’t want to say by this that the people whose contribution to the building of the congregation lacks quality will for that reason be consigned to eternal death at the last judgment. They are compared with people who were barely saved from a burning building (cf. Jude 23: similarly, Amos 4:11). It is not spelled out what the loss is; it’s not important. In 11:32 there is a similar thought: God disciplines people but has no desire to annihilate them. 3:16 Now Paul explicitly states the theological basis for his metaphor about the building: the congregation is God’s temple. Paul provides assurance: »Do you not know?« The temple image signifies: This is where God/God’s Spirit dwells (cf. 2 Cor 6:16). Here the issue is not about a claim of contrasting the true temple, the congregation,179 with the temple in Jerusalem, as was assumed in earlier interpretation. The issue is the incorporation of the messianic congregation in Corinth into the people of Israel’s relationship to God and God’s relationship to Israel. The people

174 It is worth wondering whether Paul with xyla means lumber, which was also used for the roof in building the temple; see Blümner 1969, vol. 3, 157. Rather, Paul here will be thinking of wooden shingles for a rural building. To use this material for large buildings is a construction defect from the perspective of Hellenistic-Roman architecture; see Blümner 1969, vol. 3, 315. The continuation with »hay and straw« supports this interpretation. 175 Blümner 1969, vol. 3, 158; vol. 2, 315. 176 On fire danger, see Vitruv, vol. 2, 9 and 20, in Fensterbusch 1964, 117. 177 A collection of materials on the fire of judgment by F. Lang is found in TDNT 1990, vol. 6, 936–946 178 Weeber 1995, 62–63, 90–91; Friedländer 1964, vol. 1, 25–26. 179 Kirchhoff 1994, 183; see also Weyssenrieder 2012.

3:18–23

71

from the nations also belong to the God of Israel. Something similar happens, for example, with the designation of the congregation as »holy« and »assembly of God« (see on 1:2). An image like the one here is found at Qumran: the community is called a »holy house« for Israel.180 The notion that the congregation as a community is the place where God is present ascribes to the community an incomparable dignity and power. The sharp tone of 3:17, compared with 3:15, has repeatedly led to a certain puzzlement and to questions about what horrible internal threat through »opponents« could be meant. It is more likely that Paul is thinking about the destruction of the messianic community by Roman authorities, or officials in the city of Corinth, thus about a threat from outside. In the historical situation the congregation faces, that is not a remote possibility. The congregation could be driven out of the city, members could be accused and convicted, or the congregation could dissolve because the members are too afraid (see above on 1:18). Paul then puts the destruction of the congregation as God’s temple in the context of the history of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Of course, as Paul wrote the second temple was still standing, but there were gloomy fears and prophecies of its destruction through foreign rulers, for example Dan 9:26 LXX, where the verb phtheirein/destroy is also used. This temple of the God of Israel in Corinth is also threatened, and God will avenge its destruction. The sentence uses the lex talionis form (see, for example, Exod 21:24), a law according to which the punishment fits the crime. 3:17 stands in the prophetic tradition of the book of Daniel (see, for example, 7:11–12). The »destruction« of the destroyer that is announced should not primarily be interpreted to apply to an individual person but to the downfall of an unjust regime at the hand of God. 3:17b summarizes once again the thoughts about God’s presence. The brief concluding phrase, »… and that temple is you,« makes the following clear: The people in the congregation are holy (cf. 1:2; Lev 19:2); they are the place where God is present. Every day these people who live in Corinth pass magnificent temples dedicated primarily to Roman gods. Paul assures them: Not these marble temples, but you yourselves, in the fellowship of your fragile bodies, are a temple in which the one God of Israel dwells.

3:18–23 18 Do not deceive yourselves. Those who think themselves to be wise in this world, in order to be truly wise, should not accommodate themselves to it. 19 The wisdom of this world is actually balderdash before God. It stands in Scripture: »God ensnares the wise in their own cleverness.« 20 And this also

180 1QS VIII, 5; IX, 6. Trans. Lohse 1964, 29: 33; Maier 1981, 241; Braun 1966, 190 on the building symbolism and the idea of the community as a holy temple in Qumran. It is primarily used in conjunction with cultic concepts.

72

Commentary

stands in Scripture: »The Eternal One knows the plans of the wise and knows how futile they are.« 21 Therefore, no one should put on airs with the people. You are subject to no one: 22 Whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or the present, or the future. Everything is yours, 23 but you belong to the Messiah, and the Messiah to God. Paul summarizes what in the preceding, by a critical analysis of the structures of this world, he has already called by name. People deceive themselves in that they do not want to acknowledge the force of their participation in society. 3:21b–23 are majestically formulated phrases about the holiness of the congregation. 3:18 Self-deception, even for believers in the Messiah, is the way into insidious accommodation to the structures of the world. That leads to complicity that does not recognize its own corruption. A conscious process of change is necessary: away from the wisdom that society values and toward mōria/foolishness, which puts itself publicly on the side of those who are victims of violence (cf. Rom 12:2). 3:19 Paul once again plays with the word mōria: In God’s eyes the »wisdom of the world« is mōria/foolishness—conformist talk that reinforces the structures in control. Paul quotes Scripture on this, first Job 5:12–13, in which the issue for him is especially the panourgia of the wise, their craftiness at the cost of others. In 3:20 Paul continues with another Scripture quote (Ps 94:11), in which he substitutes the word »wise« for the biblical word »humankind« in order to make the reference to the present situation more clear: God sees right through the wisdom of the world. 3:21a names the hubris that accompanies lust for power, as does 1:29 (Jer 9:22 [Eng. Bible, 9:23]). With 3:21b, triumphal praise for the congregation’s holiness begins. In tone and solemnity, it is comparable to Rom 8:38–39. »Everything belongs to you,« on the one hand, turns on its head the power structure that has arisen in the congregation (»I belong to the Paul group,« etc., 1:12), and, on the other, relates to the reality of belonging to God (3:23): Those who are set free from all domination belong to God alone. 3:22 The hymn praises a consummation that is anticipated from God’s future and can already be experienced in the present: liberation from oppressive structures in the congregation (3:22a) and in society (3:22b). Society’s tyranny is wielded by powers Paul here calls »world,« »death and life« and »present and future.« The two word pairs are also found in Rom 8:38. Everything is poisoned, even life, for people become slaves to power, and the present is a time of terror.181 God put an end to this reign of terror by raising Jesus from the dead. 3:23 Our slavery is over, we belong to Christ and thus to God. In the final word of this hymn of triumph—God—sound forth both the Shema Israel (see 8:6; cf. Deut 181 The commentary on Romans by Ernst Käsemann 1973, who in the interpretation of Rom 8:35–39 is clearly processing experiences under National Socialism (see 239–240), and Fee 1987, 155–156, in their interpretation of the text also make particular reference to society in their own time, which, sad to say, is otherwise often lacking.

4:1–13

73

6:4) and the consummation, when all the powers are brought into subjection and »God is all in all« (15:25–28). It is the work of the one God that the healing of the world can already be experienced: in humanity’s communion with the Messiah.

4:1–13 1 You should evaluate us in this way: We are serving the Messiah, and to us has been entrusted responsibility for the divine mysteries. 2 Now, those entrusted with a responsibility must be trustworthy. 3 For me, it is not decisive if I am judged by you or any human court as it deliberates. Nor do I render a judgment about myself. 4 I am not aware of being guilty of anything, but that does not yet mean I have been declared innocent. The Eternal One alone judges me. 5 Therefore do not judge prematurely, before the Eternal One comes, who will bathe in the light what has been hidden by the darkness and reveal the purpose of the hearts. Then all will receive their acknowledgment from God. 6 For your sakes, sisters and brothers, I have made all that clear by applying it to myself and Apollos, so that through us you learn that this principal applies, »Nothing beyond the Scripture.« Then you won’t play the one side against the other, promoting your self-importance. 7 For who is making you so special? What do you have that you have not received? Since you received it as a gift, why are you selling your self-importance, as though you had not received it as a gift? 8 Are you really already full? Are you already rich? Have you, apart from us, already attained regal honor? If only that were true. Then we could share in your regal honor. 9 But it appears to me that God has put us ambassadors at the very end of the procession in the arena, in the place of those who have been condemned to die. We end up a spectacle for the world, for angels and mortals. 10 We have become fools for the Messiah’s sake. And what about you? Are you Christ’s clever ones? We are weak, and you, are you strong? Are you esteemed? We are despised. 11 To this very hour we are suffering hunger and thirst, we run around in rags, we are getting beaten up, and we are homeless. 12 We are working hard with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we see it through. 13 When we are slandered, we cheerfully set things straight. We have become like the scum of the earth, dregs in people’s eyes, until this very day! 4:1–5 Paul follows the praise of the body of Christ in 3:21b–23 with sober thoughts about the competence of the congregation in legal matters. The congregation possesses judicial competence (cf. 2:15; see on 6:1; 5:1–13), but it has clear boundaries when it comes to decisions that God alone will make. Thus, the congregation can pass judgment on people who are commissioned by God to teach, prophesy, etc., but the congregation must continue to be aware of the limited nature of its judgment.

74

Commentary

The interpretive history of this passage is burdened by the frequent presupposition that in Corinth Paul was dealing with opponents whom he vehemently opposed (in 4:3, for example). 4:1 gives the theme for the brief section (4:1–5): The issue is the congregation’s evaluation of the work of people like Paul and Apollos. It is possible that the word Paul chose (anthrōpos): »A person (or human)/anthrōpos should think of/evaluate …« is meant to point to the difference between divine and human judgment (cf. 4:3, 5). In the translation above, I have decided in favor of an interpretation in which Paul is thinking about the congregation and therefore chose the plural: »You [pl.] should evaluate us in this way ….« The subject of the evaluation can only be the work done at the behest of the Messiah. For himself and others, therefore, Paul points to the commission: to serve the Messiah and to deal responsibly with God’s secrets (on this see at 2:7). 4:2 That means that the evaluation can deal only with the trustworthiness with which the Messianic commission is fulfilled. 4:3 Paul would like to call the criteria to mind. The congregation has a right to judge him, but his salvation does not depend on what they decide, because the verdict is rendered by a human court [Literally, a human day—Trans.]. The concept of a human day of judgment/anthrōpinē hēmera is probably an ad hoc neologism based on biblical language about the day (of judgment), but it does not refer to judicial proceedings before municipal or Roman authorities (such as those in Acts 18:12–17). Here the concept refers to a congregational assembly and makes clear the distinction between its judgment and God’s. Is 4:3 meant to disparage their judgment? One can read the sentence this way, but also quite differently: Paul wants to clarify the criteria. The issue is evaluation by humans (not by God), be it by the congregation or another human court, be it he himself doing it through self-examination, something he rejects. What that produces, according to 4:4, is the impression of being aware of no guilt. The result of such alleged self-examination has no relevance for the question of whether he is righteous in the sight of God. Of that, God alone is judge. In 4:5 criticism of what’s been going on in the congregation emerges. In the congregation, there could be people who proleptically arrogate to themselves God’s judgment with respect to Paul, Apollos and people like them. It could be that that relates to the competence of the congregation to render a judgment about people battling one another; indeed, Paul returns to these rivalries in 4:6–7. 4:5b says that God’s judgment makes things right: Everything that is hidden will be brought to light, and God encounters the truth about every single person. The »purpose of the hearts« stands for the person as a whole and encompasses the mind, decision-making, desire and trust.182 The »reward« for what one does in life (3:8, 14) is God’s approval. Here, as well as in 3:14–15, God’s judgment is not depicted as a punitive event but as a place of ultimate salvation. In the formulations

182 Schlier 1971, vol. 3, 184–200.

4:1–13

75

»the things now hidden in darkness« and the »plans/desire/purposes of the heart,« Paul is varying biblical language.183 4:1–5 makes clear the significance of the comprehensive justice of God’s judgment for our life-together in the present: Where people lose the proper criteria, that is where God’s future judgment sets necessary limits. 4:1–5 is not all-purpose instruction, but a protest evoked by what’s been stated: the accommodation to the »world’s« power-structures that is going on within the congregation. 4:6–13 This section begins with a concluding argument against the profiling and rivalry that Paul rejects for the congregation, since they are the power structures that characterize the world (4:6–7). In 4:8–13 he sets in opposition to these structures a different image, that of a congregation that shares a common fate with those who are the least in society and is in solidarity with them. These least ones can be seen when the festive processions enter the circus or the amphitheater. Within the processions are people about whom the spectators—and they themselves— already know that their death is planned for the hours to come, all to please the crowd. 4:6 The assertion, surfacing again and again in the history of interpretation, that there was a controversial relationship between Paul and Apollos, has no basis in the Pauline texts themselves. In view of 4:6, it is absurd. He says here that he has regarded the relationship between the two as an alternative to controversy and presented it in just that way. In this context, »Do not resist Scripture« refers primarily to Jer 9:22–23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24] (see 1:29–31), since from this text he repeatedly (1:29, 31; 3:21), as also in 4:7, takes up the key word kauchasthai/be arrogant/boast. Jer 9:22–23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24] reads: »Do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their riches; but let those who boast boast in this: to comprehend and recognize me, that I, namely God, bring about steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, …« For Paul, this text is a kind of red thread that runs through the discussion of the competitive structures: people gain power not by using their superiority against one another but by living in a mutuality that grows out of the nearness of God (see above on 1:29–31). But Paul here is also basically going beyond the reference to Jer 9:22–23 [Eng. Bible, 9:23–24]: Scripture, interpreted and lived in that same mutuality, is the source and measure of learning.184 To this, he and Apollos have held fast. 4:7 is the key to the comparison of »you« and »we« that follows, beginning with 4:8. The »you [plural]« that begins in 4:8 and the »you [singular]« in 4:7 belong together: an alleged counterpart in the congregation who would like to see himself 183 A collection of the material can be found, for example, in Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 326; Fee 1987, 163, n. 33. 184 See Wilk 2018.

76

Commentary

or herself as superior to other members of the congregation and claims to have greater power than others. In Paul’s view this behavior presupposes that people forget that the good gifts they have received are an abundance supplied by God (see 1:4–5; 2:12). And they ignore reality. And so, in 4:8 he asks skeptically: Are you satisfied? Are you rich? Those addressed know that in the eyes of those around them they are neither satisfied nor rich (see 1:26–28) and that there are many people in addition to themselves that suffer from hunger, poverty, and violence. Paul’s questions are meant make them aware that every claim to superiority (kauchasthai) is unrealistic and isolating. The »we« in 4:8–12 is the »we« of the congregation, the body of Christ (on this see the basic information above after 2:5). The »you« does not refer to opponents, but individuals or small groups in the congregation who let themselves be enticed into a behavior from which they promise themselves more security than from their proximity to one who has been crucified. Here, in a society shaped by power struggles and violence, a congregation seeks a way to an alternative. And that is not so simple, for people do not yet know a life together in solidarity, and the structures of society impede it. Paul mocks them in 8b: It would be useful if you were already holding the reins of power, for then we could rule with you. But the reality is that neither you nor we are at the helm; quite the contrary (see 1:26–28). I rather doubt that these questions should be seen as ironic or, indeed, caustically ironic.185 It is more likely that they reveal, given the reality, the absurd consequences of the power struggles. 4:9 To all attempts at accommodation with the structures of violence, Paul now opposes a shocking image.186 We have been sent by God as the last of all in society. We can be compared to and identified with the ones condemned to death in the processions of Rome’s violent mass gatherings. First, we turn to the details in 4:9a: The ones Paul is naming as »we« in 4:9a are the »male and female apostles.« God has put us, the male and female apostles, on exhibition (apedeixen) in the place of those who are the last of all in society. Here the concept of the apostolate is applied to all who are sent by God to proclaim the gospel. To the men and women who serve as God’s messengers, proclaiming and spreading the peace of Israel’s God for all nations in the world,187 God has assigned the place of the last ones in society. That is their reality and the place assigned them by God. Being an apostle does not

185 That is a widespread way of interpreting 4:8 that goes back to the time of the Reformation; see Schrage 1991, vol 1, 338, n. 136. 186 The exegetical tradition operates with the assumption of a literary category called a »Peristasis catalogue,« which Paul is using here. On this, see Merklein 1992, 311–312. Lists of adverse circumstances (peristasis) are extensive in ancient texts. But the text 4:8–13, at best 4:11, is shaped by an enumeration, thoroughly oriented on the present, of the experiences of those involved. It contains no statements that owe their presence to the Peristasis catalog form, rather than to experience. 187 On Paul’s concept of the apostolate, which he understands as analogous to the prophetic mission in the Old Testament tradition, see Ehrensperger 2007, 81–97.

4:1–13

77

entail having a special role in the congregation.188 All members of the body of Christ have an analogous task to fulfill for the sake of the gospel. The description of the God-given place of the male and female apostles fits all members of the congregation in Corinth (see below). It is both reality and divine determination. They stand in this place as messengers sent by God. So that there is absolute clarity about what kind of place this is, Paul says: We are »last of all,« like those »sentenced to death« in the violent games. The rare word epithanatios189 (those »sentenced to death«) refers to those who are condemned to die and whose execution is part of the public displays of violence. In these events for the masses in amphitheaters, theaters and other locations for extravaganzas, they staged a person’s public humiliation and execution as a climax of what was offered.190 Paul compares himself and those like him with these people, truly the »last« in a society based on dictatorial violence. The doomed are either prisoners of war or people condemned to death because of deeds that are in Rome’s view crimes (see 15:32). In 4:9b Paul gives the reason he made this comparison: he, those like him and these »last ones« are publicly humiliated and despised. They are a »spectacle« (theatron). Then he names the horrific spectators: »the world (kosmos), angels and mortals.« He has before his eyes the sight of these spectators at the games of violence, gluttons for lust and death, and he sees more than just a group of people. He sees the entire world as gluttons for murder, and even mythological beings—angels191—are taking part. In 4:13b Paul returns to these spectators once more. Violent extravaganzas before hordes of spectators had a fundamental significance for the Roman Empire. They got people used to murder and humiliation: »The empire’s rulers had learned to use for their own purposes festivals formerly initiated for religious reasons, in order to control the masses all the more securely.«192 Carcopino 1979

188 In 12:28 Paul says that not all are apostles, thus he appears to assume that there is a specific apostolic task. On the other hand, this text, 4:8–13, does not limit the apostolate to a specific group of people; see, for example, on this also Lindemann 2000, 106: »the ones that are in view are simply those to whom what is said in what follows applies.« Paul has no interest in viewing the apostolate as a function with superiority or exclusivity. His all-consuming interest is understanding the apostolate as entrusted with the proclamation of the gospel to the nations and therewith being with many others on the same path. 189 The lions into whose den Daniel is said to have been thrown, have a daily diet of two humans who have been condemned to death, LXX Daniel 14:31–32, Bel and the Dragon. 190 A triumphal procession in Rome after the Jewish War, 66–70 CE: Simon bar Giora is mistreated and executed, Josephus, J.W., 7.154; Plutarch, Mar. 12: the death of Jurgutha; see also Plutarch, Aem. 31–37. On circus processions (pompae), executions in amphitheaters and in mythological presentations, see Wiedemann 2001, 77–108; Carcopino 1979, 317–335; Paoli 1979, 278–284. 191 For Paul, angels can be associated with God but also with mythological powers that separate people from God; see also Rom 8:38, for example. 192 Carcopino 1979, 284; on this see especially Wiedemann 2001, 162–183 and Kahl 2010, 156–167.

78

Commentary

also rightly points to the tokenism involved in these games in the face of the actual powerlessness of the people: »In a period in which the assemblies were inactive and the senate merely parroted what they had been told, what the people were thinking could only come out in the frenzied atmosphere of the munera and the ludi.«193 Along with the gladiators, the people were supposed to get caught up in the moment. »The people were brutalized, and their choosing sides heightened the rush that always grabs people when they go to a game. They cheered on one or the other of the gladiators.«194 With this as background, it once again becomes clearer why Paul is criticizing the rivalry within the congregation and why he regards solidarity with the Crucified One, and with those who are being crucified, as irreconcilable with power struggles. In Corinth, the Roman colony, violent games were even more frequently held than in other cities and had great relevance for the life of the city.195 Paul directs our attention in 4:9 (and 4:13) to the victims of the executions and to the spectators. The following text from Seneca (died 65 CE) also deals with the spectators at the violent games, even if from an elite distance. Seneca also presupposes that he can stay away from mass gatherings of this sort. Very likely few people would have envisioned for themselves such an option. The public pressure to attend and to participate was enormous.196 Seneca describes a midday event at which it wasn’t gladiators but criminals condemned to death who killed one another until no one was left. This slaughter was even more popular with the spectators than the battles between gladiators, according to Seneca. He went to the midday event because he thought the slaughters only took place at the morning and afternoon programs. At midday he expected a sanguine interlude. … the greater the mob with which we mingle, the greater the danger. But nothing is so damaging to good character as the habit of lounging at the games; for then it is that vice steals subtly upon one through the avenue of pleasure. What do you think I mean? I mean that I come home more greedy, more ambitious, more voluptuous, and even more cruel and inhuman,—because I have been among human beings. By chance I attended a mid-day exhibition, expecting some fun, wit, and relaxation, —an exhibition at which men’s eyes have respite from the slaughter of their fellow-men. But it was quite the reverse. The previous combats were the essence of compassion; but now all the trifling is put aside and it is pure murder. The men have no defensive armour. They are exposed to blows at all points, and no one ever strikes in vain. Many persons prefer this programme to the usual pairs and to the bouts »by request.« Of course they do; there is no helmet or shield to

193 Carcopino 1979, 289. The Jewish people had a tradition of explicit criticism of violent games, despite which they were held since the time of Herod. See on this Brändl 2006, 140–185. There is a collection of the materials also in Billerbeck, vol. 4, 1, 401–405. 194 Paoli 1979,283–284. 195 Lucian, Demon. 57; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.22; Dio Chrysostum, Or. 31.121; Apuleius, Metam. 10.18–35 (on this see also below on 4:9). On a text by Pseudo-Julian, see MurphyO’Connor 2002, 96–98. The issue here is the high cost of obtaining wild animals; see also Engels 1990, 48. 196 Indirectly this emerges especially from Tertullian’s De Spectaculis, which shows that even Christians offered many arguments showing why they wanted, despite the violence, to attend the gory games; on this see Ebner 2012, 24.

4:1–13

79

deflect the weapon. What is the need of defensive armour, or of skill? All these mean delaying death. In the morning they throw men to the lions and the bears; at noon, they throw them to the spectators. The spectators demand that the slayer shall face the man who is to slay him in his turn; and they always reserve the latest conqueror for another butchering. The outcome of every fight is death, and the means are fire and sword. This sort of thing goes on while the arena is empty. You may retort: »But he was a highway robber; he killed a man!« And what of it? Granted that, as a murderer, he deserved this punishment, what crime have you committed, poor fellow, that you should deserve to sit and see this show? In the morning they cried »Kill him! Lash him! Burn him! Why does he meet the sword in so cowardly a way? Why does he strike so feebly? Why doesn’t he die game? Whip him to meet his wounds! Let them receive blow for blow, with chests bare and exposed to the stroke!« And when the games stop for the intermission, they announce: »A little throat-cutting in the meantime, so that there may still be something going on!« … The young character, which cannot hold fast to righteousness, must be rescued from the mob; it is too easy to side with the majority. Even Socrates, Cato, and Laelius might have been shaken in their moral strength by a crowd that was unlike them …197

The perspective of the victim can only be surmised. The following text by Apuleius (born 125 CE) comes from a novel. It recounts the fate of a man who through sorcery is turned into an ass. Despite its genre as a novel, the text offers valuable socio-historical information. The author provides an insight into the presentation of a violent game in Corinth. What is planned for the climax of the presentation is the public rape by an ass of a woman condemned to death, followed by her being torn to pieces by wild animals. The text provides the opportunity of pondering the perspective of the victim.198 The ass narrates (Book 10, excerpts): But first I should do what I ought to have done in the first place and tell you now who my master was and where he was from. His name was Thiasus and he came from Corinth, the capital of the province of Achaea. As one would expect of a man of his birth and rank, he had passed through the different grades of office to the quinquennial magistracy; and to honour the occasion in a suitably brilliant manner and by way of displaying his munificence to the full he had undertaken to provide a three-day gladiatorial show. So eager indeed was he for popularity that he had been as far afield as Thessaly to procure wild beasts and celebrated gladiators, and now that he had acquired and arranged all he needed he was preparing to return to Corinth.199

One sees here how expensive the games were and how connected they were with political offices. Corinth was a stronghold of the games. Apuleius continues, describing how one such event in Corinth played out. Back in Corinth: … and decided to make a public exhibition of me. Since, however, my noble ›wife‹ was ineligible because of her rank, and nobody else could be found to take her place at any price, he brought in a degraded creature whom the governor had condemned to the beasts to prostitute her virtue with me in front of the people …

197 Seneca, Ep., trans. Richard M. Gummere, Loeb (1917), 1.7.2–6; on this see Wiedemann 2001, 145–146. 198 An additional text that can be used for the victim’s perspective is Pseudo-Quintilian, Decl. 9.6 (English trans. Shelton 1998, 357), even if it is fictitious. 199 From Apuleius, Met., trans. E. J. Kennedy (London: Penguin Books, 1998), 10. 18.

80

Commentary Now the day of the games had arrived, and l was led to the theatre in ceremonial procession, escorted by crowds of people. While the show was being formally inaugurated by a troupe of professional dancers, I was left for a while outside the gate, where I had the pleasure of cropping the lush grass which was growing in the entrance. At the same time, as the gates were left open, I was able to feast my eyes on the very pretty sight inside. First I saw boys and girls in the very flower of their youth, handsome and beautifully dressed, expressive in their movements, who were grouping themselves to perform a pyrrhic dance in Greek style. In the graceful mazes of their ballet they now danced in a circle, now joined hands in a straight line, now formed a hollow square, now divided into semichoruses. Then a trumpet-call signalled an end to their complicated manoeuvres and symmetrical interweavings, the curtain was raised and the screens folded back to reveal the stage.

Preparations are made for the show’s climax: Now, in response to the demands of the crowd, a soldier came out and along the street to fetch the woman who, as I said, had for her series of crimes been condemned to the beasts and was to partner me in these brilliant nuptials of ours. Already what was to be our marital bed was being lovingly made up, an affair of polished Indian tortoiseshell, heaped high with cushions stuffed with down and bright with silken coverlets. Apart from the shame of having to do this act in public, and apart from the pollution of contact with this loathsome and detestable woman, I was in acute and grievous fear for my life. For I thought: there we should be, locked together in a loving embrace, and whatever animal was let loose to devour the woman was hardly likely to be so discriminating or well trained or so firmly in control of its appetites as to tear to pieces the woman at my side and spare me as the uncondemned and innocent party. It was therefore no longer my honour but my life about which I was concerned. My master was fully occupied in seeing that the bed was properly set up, and the slaves were all either engaged in looking after the animals or lost in admiring enjoyment of the spectacle. That left me free to come to a decision. Nobody thought that much of a watch need be kept on so docile an ass; so I began to move step by step towards the nearest door, then once outside I took off at my fastest gallop and kept it up for six whole miles, until I arrived at Cenchreae. This town belongs to the famous colony of Corinth and lies beside the Aegean sea, on the Saronic gulf. It is a very safe harbour for shipping and has a large population. I steered clear of the crowds and found a secluded spot on the shore; and there in a soft sandy hollow near the breaking waves I stretched out and rested my weary limbs. By now the sun’s chariot had covered the last leg of its course, and surrendering myself to the evening hush I was overcome by sweet sleep.200

The victims suffer rape and death. The spectators give themselves over to a frenzy of lust, death and violence. The text is not describing a one-time occurrence but a typical occurrence. The text comes from a novel. The ass could flee, not the woman. Men and women were victims at the games. The spectators were seduced into complicity. Paul sees himself and the congregation in a situation that in the public’s view is comparable to the lot of those who are the last of all, those who are doomed to die.

200 From Apuleius, Met., trans. E. J. Kennedy (London: Penguin Books, 1998), 10.18, 23, 29, 34–35.

4:1–13

81

4:10 explains why he and others are consigned to this place: because they are so »foolish« as to align themselves with someone who has been crucified. They are therefore despised and weak, and Paul once again offers a critical challenge: Do you really see yourselves on the winners’ side, clever, strong and respected? 4:11 describes the reality: hunger, thirst, rags for clothes, suffering beatings and homelessness. Paul speaks about this often (2 Cor 6:5; 11:23, 27).201 This is not only the experience of those who are frequently on the move in the Roman Empire, but it also applies to those who live in a city for a longer period. For people who live in Corinth, a Roman colony, that’s certainly the case. There are vast numbers of immigrates searching for work. At the beginning of the verse Paul emphasized: »To this very hour«—this hardscrabble life is our reality, right this very minute. In 4:12–13a it becomes clear: In all this we are not passive victims; we work with our own hands to support ourselves, and, even when we are reviled and beaten, we spread God’s peace on earth: We bless those who revile us; we endure persecution, and when we are slandered, with kindness we refute the lies. 4:13b In the eyes of the world/kosmos, in the eyes of all, we are until this very moment garbage and scum.202 Paul returns here to the situation of public humiliation that he made the starting point in 4:9. The execution victims in the triumphal and circus processions and other violent games are the »last of all« (4:9), the despised »scum« (4:13). Their death is the celebratory high point of the show. Now, allegedly, the spectators’ world is back in order, for the »evil ones« have been annihilated. In 4:9–13 Paul is speaking of actual experiences that he and others have. He is describing the reality in the lives of many people as the reality of the place in which God has put them. God has sent them out to proclaim liberation to the nations and to establish alternatives to the terror of the empire. The bloodthirsty hordes of spectators are also a part of the nations/ethnē to which the God of Israel is now sending the men and women who are his messengers of liberation. Later on, Paul himself died in the way he here foresees: as one condemned to death, as a convicted criminal, in the arena. It is true that we only find hints about his death in our sources (1 Clem 5:5–7), but there is a great possibility that he perished during the persecution of followers of the Messiah by Nero in Rome (about 65 CE). Tacitus (died 120 CE) wrote about this persecution and the executions carried out for the people’s amusement: First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the

201 On the social and economic situation of Paul and majority of the congregation in Corinth, see above on 1:26 and especially Meggitt 1998; Friesen 2004. 202 Elliott 2004, 78 sees in these words a reference to »apotropaic rituals,« pointing to a ritual of driving out a sacrificial animal. In some circumstances, the executions in the games surely still had such a cultic (secondary) significance. Nilsson 1967, vol. 1, 103: »the fact that … peripsema and katharma are the worst curse words in the Greek language points to a religious background.«

82

Commentary human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.203

1 Clem 6:2 also reports about the spectacles that were presented with the men and women condemned to death: Women were also persecuted, »who, like the Danaids and Dirce,204 suffered horrible and heinous indignities …«205 The myths about the Danaids and Dirce provided the theatrical material for the public humiliation, torment and death of these women. Paul’s concern in 4:9–13 is not to train people to be heroes,206 but to enable people to take the place in which they find themselves, the place of the »last ones,« and shape it as the place in which God has put them, so that they can proclaim the message of liberation to the oppressed nations and live it out themselves. He sees the congregation and himself in the Scripture’s prophetic tradition: as God’s ambassadors, who despair at being subjected to people’s derision and to their violence. All they can do is maintain a mutual commitment and reassure themselves about what Paul says again and again in this letter: Death will lose its power (15:26; 3:21–23 and frequently). A prophetic text that can be brought into the discussion of 4:9–13 is Jer 20:7–13.

203 Tacitus, Ann., trans. John Jackson, Loeb (1962), 15.44.4–5. 204 The Greek myth tells of 50 daughters of Danaus who flee from a forced marriage. When they then are nevertheless compelled to get married, they murder their husbands and are punished. Dirce is also a mythical figure, rumored to have been cruel, who was then brutally murdered. 205 Translation following Fischer 1986, 33. 206 In the interpretive tradition, especially of 4:9, there is often no distinction made between gladiators and the criminals who are publicly executed in the violent games. The gladiators could by all means be people celebrated for their bravery, and they were also trained for their endeavor. The criminals were condemned to death, and these verdicts were acknowledged by the spectators to be just. In their eyes they are scum. Since the gladiatorial games are also criticized by many philosophers, the gladiators are »controversial« (Wiedemann 2001, 52): In some contexts the word emerges as an expletive, as, for example in Tertullian, Pud. 14.7. He applies 1 Cor 4:9 to bestiarii/gladiators, because he regards the text as a strong admonition to be humble, directed against Paul’s opponents in Corinth. For Tertullian the word has negative connotations. The fact remains that in 4:9 Paul is thinking of people who are condemned to death. He compares the congregation and himself with people who are humiliated and executed as criminals. It was reported about them that as morituri/»those who are about to die,« they were required to salute the emperor; see Suetonius, Claud. 21.6. On this see Wiedemann 2001, 48, 100–101.

4:14–21

83

4:14–21 14 I am not writing that in order to put you to shame, but in order to challenge you as my beloved children. 15 And even if you also had thousands who discipline you in Christ like children, you still do not have many fathers. Because the Messiah Jesus gave me the power, I have given birth to you through the liberating message. 16 So I ask you, do as I am doing! 17 For this reason, I have sent you Timothy, my beloved son, who is truly united with our Liberator. He will remind you about my ways with the Messiah, how I also teach them everywhere in every congregation. 18 Some have become puffed up that I am not coming to you. 19 I shall come to you quickly—if the Eternal One desires—and shall then not take seriously the words of the pompous ass, but rather the power of God. 20 God’s just world does not rest on pretentious words but on divine power. 21 So what is it that you want? That I come to you with a rod, or with love and the spirit of humility? 4:14–21 is the conclusion of the discourse (starting at 1:10) in which Paul, as a parent, encourages and instructs the community about the consequences that solidarity with the crucified Messiah will have for their common life. In this conclusion Paul ponders his own relationship with the congregation. He understands himself to be a parental (see 3:2) nurturer, whose goal is to encourage rather than to shame and punish. Throughout this section he uses concepts and ideas that are what you find in discussions about education in antiquity: pedagogue (4:15), father (4:15–17), imitation (4:16; cf. way in 4:17), remind (4:17), teach (4:17), a stick (4:21). He understands himself to be like a teacher who comes in a spirit of love and gentleness (4:21). 4:14 The critique of competitive relationships in the congregation is meant to encourage rather than to shame: You can do things differently! 4:15 Paul distinguishes his mode of nurture from that of the »pedagogues.« The word designates people at the lowest level of children’s education, predominately slaves who are themselves barely educated. Paul contrasts the instruction given by pedagogues to that which he provides as a »father.« He establishes why he understands himself as a father. He has begotten, procreated and given birth to the addressees. The Greek word gennaō has this breadth of meanings. Since Paul also designates himself as a mother to the congregation (see above on 3:2), it is also possible here that he is bringing into play the mother’s giving birth. The concepts of 4:15 belong to the context of the Jewish tradition on education. Father and mother teach the children, and their teaching is a creating anew. When the words father/mother are used metaphorically in the context of teaching, begetting/giving birth refer to the instruction. Here in 4:15, therefore, Paul’s founding of the congregation is less in view than his teaching.207 By and large, Paul is hesitant to call himself the father of the congregation, while he is calling God father again and again. In this he remains in the context of early Christian discussion: 207 Ehrensperger 2007, especially 129.

84

Commentary

The Roman Empire’s rule as a father is rejected.208 People should not be called father by the congregation (Matt 23:8–10).209 When those who teach are metaphorically called fathers or mothers, it is always clear in the context, as it is here, that this is not connected to the absolute rule of the father that one associates with the Roman Empire, but it is a restricted power. The negative dissociation from the »pedagogues« consciously presupposes the contrast between the Greco-Roman school system, on the one hand, and education through Paul or Jewish schools on the other.210 The addressees come principally from poor circumstances and will hardly have had an individual pedagogue.211 In any case their schooling will be paltry (see above on 1:4–9), since in the GrecoRoman society the parents have to pay for (school and) instructors.212 In the context of Jewish life, the congregation as a rule took care of the costs.213 So Paul says: Though you might have many »pedagogues« in your life in the congregation (»in Christ«), they couldn’t impart to you the instruction that a father/teacher of the Torah teaches. I am teaching you as my children and encouraging you through my instruction (4:14). The countless »pedagogues« »in Christ« are probably to be understood this way: The addresses desire an education/training like the one the rich people can afford for themselves. Paul would like to make it clear that »in Christ« education involves methods and subjects different from those operative in society. That’s what his teaching as a father is all about. 4:16–17 clarify the content and methods of fatherly-motherly teaching. »The ways« (the halakah) of Paul in the Messiah are the content. He teaches the Torah in relation to what God is doing right now through the Messiah (cf. the gospel in 4:15; on the significance of the Torah see also on 7:19). His teaching is also expressed by the way he lives. Therefore »imitating« and »remembering« Paul’s ways are themselves integral to the methods. The remembering and the mimesis belong to the tradition of imitation in Scripture. The concept of imitation is expressed differently there: »You shall be holy, for I, Adonai, am holy« (Lev 19:2 and more often), cf. Matt 5:48. What is meant is not copying God or, here in 4:16, the teacher, but a way of life that accords with one’s relationship with God or the teacher.214 208 Cicero, De re publica offers a representative account of the father’s rule in the house and in the public sphere; on this see L. Schottroff 1995, 24–29. 209 Ehrensperger 2007,127. 210 Krauss 1966, vol. 3, 205–206 offers rabbinic material on this account of pedagogues for the Hellenistic-Roman educational system in contrast to that of Judaism; see also Billerbeck, vol. 3, 339–340; Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1976, 957. 211 Weeber 1995, 235; Christes, et al. 2006, 103. 212 Weeber 1995, 233–236. 213 Schürer 1970, vol. 2, 493–494; Safrai/Stern 1976, 956–957. Hezser in: Hezser 2010, 469–471, however, expresses doubt about whether this was already the case before 70 CE. 214 On mimesis see especially Ehrensperger 2007, 137–154; Gerber 2015, 79–90. See also Quintilian 1.3.1. Whether the cultural differences on the concept of imitation in education between the Hellenistic-Roman culture, on the one hand, and Jewish culture, on the other, are so strong as it often appears as it is discussed in the research, can be left open here. Paul is clearly rooted in the Jewish tradition.

4:14–21

85

The teaching method further includes the building of teaching networks. Timothy (see also 16:10) is a pupil and teaching colleague, who hands on the same content and methods, often also as a co-author of Paul’s letters (2 Cor 1:1, Phil 1:1, Phlm 1). Paul worked with him as an equal (for information about him see especially Acts 16:1–3). In 4:17 he calls him my beloved child (that is, pupil), who is faithful in his connection with the Messiah. According to Acts 16 Timothy was already a follower of the Messiah before he joined Paul. To be someone’s pupil does not involve the idea that the teacher has won the pupil for the message about the Messiah (see also above on 4:15 and the question of whether Paul presents himself as the one who founded the congregation). He has sent Timothy to Corinth because he can be an advocate for the same teaching and practice. 4:18–19 Several people in the congregation criticized Paul for not coming to Corinth himself. They expect him to regard himself as a person of preeminent authority. He announces that on his next visit he will address this reproach. Is the work of these people based on the power that God supplies, so that justice increases? 4:20 He moves to a discussion of God’s power. Where it is present, God’s just world is present. According to the gospels, the concept of the basileia tou theou is central in the message of Jesus. It occurs less frequently in Paul, but it is just as important. It is a concept in Jewish tradition that expresses hope for a new creation: God alone is king, working in heaven and on earth. It is an all-encompassing vision of hope for the whole earth, heaven and earth, all of humanity. In a congregation in which God’s power is present, this future can be experienced now. This power of God needs no pretentious words or elevated positions of power. 4:21 Paul concludes his long discourse about education and encouragement (which began in 1:10) with a question: Shall I come with a stick? It is clear from the question that he wouldn’t be happy to come with a stick. He is referring here to the severe corporal punishment that is omnipresent in raising children. His question cannot be meant literally, for in the education of adults corporal punishment was not used even in antiquity. What is meant in the context is that he expects that the competitive structures and power struggles in the congregation should cease. Paul presupposes that corporal punishment is used on children; it can be asked if he is criticizing it. Toward the end of the 1st century the celebrated rhetorician Quintilian215 doubted the pedagogical value of corporal punishment. But this did not change the established practice. For children school was a way of suffering, both in Hellenistic-Jewish culture216 and in Jewish culture.217

215 Quintilian 1.3.14. Additional material critical of the educational use of corporal punishment, which, despite this criticism, obviously continued, can be found in Christes et al. 2006, 43, 21. 216 Weeber 1995, 292. Weeber speaks of »punishment by shouts and lashes,« 237. A detailed controversy on the theme of violence against children, also in school, is found in Laes 2011, 137–147. 217 Krauss 1966, vol. 3, 225–226 and more often.

86

Commentary

Illustration 1: »Roman School. Flogging of a boy. Mural from Herculaneum.«218

Paul’s intention is that love and a spirit of humility (4:21) form the basis of his teaching. He probably also understands this concept as a rejection of beatings as well as the whole of society’s usual system of education (see above on paidagōgos 4:15). By way of contrast, in Heb 12:6–11 Corporal punishment is accepted as a selfevident part of education (see especially 1 Cor 4:6). Love and a spirit of humility are alternatives to a focus on domination and the arrogance of power (cf. Matt 5:5 in contrast to Luke 1:51b, »who have directed their hearts to exalting themselves over others«). It is likely that most of the members of the congregation were illiterate and had received minimal and ineffective education. Nevertheless, with the messianic congregations, there arises an opportunity for education oriented toward the dispute about the Torah and a network of teachers with newly acquired competence. Education is primarily oral219 and concerns aspects of daily life.

218 On this image see Laes 2011, 143 219 Ehrensperger 2007, 125; also see already above on 1:4–9.

5:1–13

87

5:1–13 1 It is actually being reported that there is a forbidden sexual relationship in your midst; what is more, of a kind not even occurring among those from the nations: Someone is living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are even supporting that, instead of lamenting it and removing from among you someone who is living in this way. 3 On the man who has acted in this way, I have already rendered my judgment, as if I were present. It is true that I am absent in body, but in the Spirit I am present with you. 4 When you come together in the name of Jesus, to whom we belong—my spirit will then be present with you—thus the power of Jesus, our Liberator, is present with you. 5 You are to hand this man over to Satan, so that he has to live his life without the protection of the community. For in this way he can be saved on the judgment day of the Eternal One. 6 You are not in a good place here. Do you not know that a little sourdough leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Free yourselves from the old sourdough and begin as new dough, for you are unleavened bread. Our Passover actually began with the execution of the Messiah. 8 Let us celebrate the feast not with old sourdough bread, not with the sourdough of hostility to life and meanness, but with the unleavened bread of genuine justice and sincerity. 9 In my letter I had written you that you should not get involved in living with people who deal irresponsibly with sexuality. 10 In saying that I naturally wasn’t referring to all the people who, under the conditions of the world, live like that, or those who are greedy, exploit others or worship other deities. In that case you would finally have to leave the world completely. 11 Today I am writing you that the issue really is that you do not live together with people who are called brother or sister but are living sexually irresponsible lives or are greedy, worship other gods, slander fellow human beings, drunkenly hurt others or exploit them. You should not even eat together with such people. 12 Is it my job to judge according to the Torah people outside the congregation? Isn’t it rather my responsibility to render judgments according to the Torah within the congregation? 13 God will judge those on the outside. »Remove from your midst those who are behaving unjustly«. In this chapter, 5:1–13, the issue is the holiness of the messianic congregation and the danger it faces from within. At the end, Paul quotes an idea from Deuteronomy, where it occurs many times 13:6; 17:7, et al.): »Remove from your midst those who are behaving unjustly.« (Deut 17:7). As in Deuteronomy, or then also in the rabbinic commentary on it (Sifre to Deuteronomy),220 this sentence, on which the legal decisions are based, is always cited after the discussion of an individual case that could compromise the holiness of the people as a whole. In Paul’s view the congregation

220 Deut 13:6; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7; see also Sifre to Deuteronomy on these passages. This »extirpation formula« (Blinzler 1957/58, 43) makes clear that in Paul’s legal assessment the issue is not a private offense but the endangerment of the community.

88

Commentary

is also obliged to make a joint legal assessment based on the Torah (5:12). This Deuteronomic precept is clearly recognizable in 1 Cor 5:2, 9, 11 as the basis for what Paul decides. Paul sees the congregation’s holiness endangered through a specific issue: A man »has« his stepmother. For Paul this is porneia (5:1; cf. 5:11)/a violation of the Torah through the union of a man with a woman forbidden to him by the Torah. Paul and the congregation are not in accord on this issue. He sees the community to be endangered by this union of two people; the community has made a different decision. In this case they consider the union to be legally (with respect to the Torah) permissible. Paul discusses the case in 5:1–5; in 5:6–8 he describes the holiness of the congregation using images from the Passover tradition; and in 5:9–13 he integrates this particular case into an overview of other, in his view analogous, cases of possible Torah violation within the congregation. 5:1–5 5:1 Paul has heard of a case of porneia in the congregation: of sexual misconduct221 as measured by the written Torah and its contemporary interpretation. The written Torah pertinent to this issue is found in Lev 18:8, in a list of forbidden sexual relationships (see also 20:11; Deut 23:1, 27:20). Paul does not quote the prohibition from Lev 18:8, but clearly presupposes it. A man »has« the wife of his father. He is presumably living in an established long-term relationship with his stepmother. Based on 5:11, it can be assumed that this man is a Gentile. Nothing at all is known about his wife and former stepmother.222 She could be a member of the congregation, but it is more likely that she is not a follower of the Messiah. Otherwise, in Paul’s eyes she would be a violator of the Torah, and the consequence of what is occurring would have to be applied to her as well. In Lev 20:11 the woman is included in the reference to the punishment—here that is not the case. In contexts in which polygamy is practiced, relationships of sons with a concubine of the father are relatively common, in the Old Testament, for example. Sons take possession of the wives of their father, often in order to press their claims to an inheritance and to power after his death (see Gen 35:22; 49:4; 2 Sam 16:21–22).223 About the relationship of Ruben and Bilha, his father’s concubine (Gen 35:22), the Book 221 The word porneia is often translated into German with »Unzucht« [fornication] or »Hurerei« [harlotry]. Both words fail to make it clear that the issue is violations of the Torah according to Leviticus 18 and not concerns about a moral code. Judaism at that time and Paul as well regard porneia as a violation of the Torah that has relevance for the community and as a »cardinal sin,« like the worship of other gods and the shedding of blood (on this see Tomson 1990, 99; Flusser/Safrai 1986, 178 on the concept of a »cardinal sin.« Tomson 1990, 97 suggests as a translation »verbotene sexuelle Beziehung« [a forbidden sexual relationship]. I use the word sexuality for pragmatic reasons, although it is a modern word without a Greek equivalent; on this see W. Stegemann 1998, 61–68. 222 See L. Schottroff 2003, 438–439. 223 On this see also Patai 1962:105.

5:1–13

89

of Jubilees expends harsh words: »Therefore it is written and ordered in the heavenly tablets that a man should not lie with his father’s wife,« and both shall die.224 Lev 18:8 and Jubilees 33, as well as the Mishnah and the Talmud,225 presuppose that the practice of uniting with a wife of your father who is not your own mother is still occurring. And the issue does not have to be about a concubine. It could also be wives from marriages of the father that are later226 than the one with the mother of the man in question. In the Mishnah, in another context, a family constellation appears that suggests such a relationship. A widow who is still young should be able to leave the house of the deceased husband without financial loss if the stepchildren are still young. Her possible reason: »she was but a child and they were but children.«227 The high mortality rate for young women at childbirth prompted new widowers to marry young women (as a rule, the marital age was 12 and a half to 13 years),228 and at an early age made many women widows of older men. So then, they were the right age for their husband’s sons. These social contexts prevailed for Jewish and Hellenistic-Roman relationships.229 The prohibition against relationships between stepmothers and sons safeguarded the property rights of the father, even after his death (Lev 18:8). The prohibitions look upon such connections as endangering the patriarchal order. It is misleading to call such a connection »incest.« In modern terms »incest« presupposes a blood-relationship. In discussing the prohibition of a connection with a stepmother, the ancient tradition sees the connection with a stepmother as almost equally as unlawful as that with one’s mother. This is based on social rather than biological concepts. The property rights of the fathers, which even encompass the bodies of their wives, apply both in Jewish and Hellenistic-Roman society as cornerstones on which life is structured. The conjunction of marriage, legitimate children and property is, according to Cicero, the »propagation and after-growth [from which] states have their beginnings.«230 Despite the resistance of Jewish communities to the Roman

224 Jub 33:10, trans. O. S. Wintermute, in Charlesworth, vol. 2, 1985, 119. Berger 1981, 488 dates Jubilees in the period from 167–140 BCE. There is controversy about the use of the death penalty in the first century. See, for example, Tomson 1990, 102, and, for a different view, Blinzler 1957/1958. See also the following note and what follows about 5:5. 225 Sanh. 7:4, Mishnah, 391,: »These are they that are to be stoned: he that has connection with his mother, his father’s wife, his daughter-in-law …« 11:2 adds »in the case of a man acting presumptuously« [Mishnah, 400], that is, with prior warning before witnesses; see also the Goldschmidt Edition, vol. 5, 1968, 367 of the introduction. Extermination is presumably not practiced as a bodily punishment, but instead equated with a premature death at God’s hand. Tomson 1990, 102. But these sources belong in a later period. For the earlier time of the first century, see Blinzler 1957/1958. 226 Philo, Spec. 3.20: »But our law guards so carefully … that it does not permit even a stepson, when his father is dead, to marry his step-mother, …«; trans. from Peter Kirby. Early Jewish Writings. 2015. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/. 227 Ketub. 12:3, Mishnah, 262. On the interpretation, see Wegner 1988, 140. 228 Krauss 1966, vol. 2, 29 (concerning Judaism); Pomeroy 1985, 250 for Rome). 229 Watson 1995, 137; further material in L. Schottroff 2003, 438, especially n. 28. 230 Cicero, Off., trans. Walter Miller, Loeb (1913), 1.54.

90

Commentary

Empire’s system of dealing with property and power, on the question of the father’s social rights, Paul shares Cicero’s concepts: an infringement on the father’s rights calls the community into question. This is all-the-more astounding since Paul indeed understands the congregation to be a community of brothers and sisters and is critical of the patriarchal system (see on 4:15). He is hesitant to let himself be called father in the congregation, yet here he expressly espouses sexual taboos that buttress the property rights of the father in society. This inconsistent way of doing things is comparable to the argumentation with which he wants to consign women to subordination in the traditional patriarchal relationship between the sexes, although his personal practice is different (see on 11:2–16). 5:2 reveals a conflict between Paul and the congregation. It concerns evaluating the stepmother-stepson relationship. The congregation accepts the pair in their midst and even insists on it. Thus, they do not see the relationship to be a matter of porneia / a forbidden sexual relationship, in terms of Lev 18:8, and don’t see the congregation’s holiness to be threatened. In the Jewish discussion about the law that we know from later sources (above all, the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 58a, b),231 it becomes clear that for proselytes, at least at the time of Rabbi Akiba, from a Jewish perspective it was contested whether they could have a connection with a mother-in-law. The argument for allowing such a connection was that a proselyte was no longer related to his father. Now, from Paul’s perspective, men from the nations in the Corinthian congregation are, however, not proselytes (see above on 1:22–24).232 Yet Paul understands the congregation as a whole to be bound to the Torah (see on 7:19). The congregation does not appear to question that, but does, however, question Paul’s interpretation of the Torah on this issue. This difference over Torah interpretation finds a parallel in the discussion about the relevance of this instruction from the Torah with respect to proselytes (see above). First Corinthians can be regarded as a document of Jewish interpretation of the law in the time it was written. In the Corinthian congregation people from the nations discuss the interpretation of the Torah in their social situation, and they contend with Paul about it. The question, »Are we Jewish, or, if not, what are we?« plays no role here. Rather, the issue is what the Scripture says, »for our sake« (1 Cor 9:10; see on 10:1), for us here in Corinth as a messianic congregation. 5:3 and 5:4 Paul would still like to achieve the expulsion of the man (and the woman?). From afar he would like to have a voice as a member of the assembled congregation; he would like to be present in the Spirit. The assembled congregation meets in the powerful presence of Jesus the Liberator and in his name. That is to be taken literally. The name of Jesus was presumably evoked aloud. The ruling

231 Goldschmidt 1996, vol. 6, 694–695. Tomson 1990, 99, 100, because of the prohibition of porneia also for people from the nations (from a Jewish perspective), sees a connection with a step-mother to be a general prohibition and regards the contrary view cited in b. Sanh. 58a. b. to be an exception. But it also needs to be asked how a determination is made in the individual case: Is it porneia at all? This appears to be a point of contention between Paul and the congregation. 232 See also L. Schottroff 2015.

5:1–13

91

occurs for the congregation in the congregation as an interpretive community.233 Paul’s vote has no greater authority than that of the other participants. The traditional interpretive model, »Paul and his opponents,« defines the interpretive tradition, but it does not fit the text.234 5:5 gives Paul’s decision. The infinitive paradounai / to hand over at the beginning of 5:5 can be dependent on »I have rendered judgment« in 5:3, or »ιt is necessary« (dei) is implicitly to be added in 5:5. The substance is clear either way: It is Paul’s decision, and he wants the congregation to make the same judgment and then to act on it. What does this decision mean? According to the Torah (Lev 20:11), the man and his stepmother were to be executed. According to Jubilees 33, both should be stoned (cf. also m. Sanh. 7:4; see above at 5:1). In this Mishnah tractate (9:6) it becomes clear how an interpreter (Rabbi Akiba) rendered a decision on another case (a non-priest served in the temple): he must be strangled; but the majority opinion says: death at God’s hand, so, perhaps, a premature death through an illness. The Mishnah tractate Keritot demands proven premeditation (1:2) for the punishment of a connection with a stepmother. Now from the Mishnah one can hardly come to a conclusion about actual case law and execution praxis. But it becomes clear also here that a lively exchange of opinions about Torah interpretation underlies the case law. In 1 Cor 5:5 it is apparent that using death penalties to preserve the holiness of the community, both for this community and for Paul in this context, lies totally beyond the horizon,235 although he knew

233 On this see L. Schottroff 2015. 234 Billerbeck (on 1 Cor 5:1; vol. 3, 343–358), through an exceptional wealth of material, has sought to prove that the majority opinion of the Jewish discussion about the law allowed proselytes to have this connection with the step-mother. His point is that the congregation in Corinth uses the Jewish majority opinion in their defense, »as a tranquilizer in the face of their mild and gentle attitude toward the evildoer« (vol. 3, 358). For Paul, on the contrary, »The Jewish halakah has become meaningless for deciding larger moral issues« (vol. 3, 358). Billerbeck uses here the model »Paul against Jewish halakah« and, at the same time, »Paul against the opponents,« in this case represented, indeed, by the whole congregation in Corinth. Billerbeck remains entrapped here in a traditional Christian hermeneutic that is antiJewish and that depicts Paul as a proponent of orthodoxy against heresies in the church. These hermeneutic interpretive patterns have not actually been fully overcome, yet they have by now been recognized for what they are: legitimizations of the status-quo of the church and its superiority over Judaism. Against this position of Billerbeck, see also Tomson 1990, 101. But despite the significance that this traditional interpretation had for Billerbeck, his work continues to be an often lovely and substantial collection of parallels to the New Testament from the »Talmud und Midrasch« (as it is titled). 235 One cannot conclude from this that at this time in the Jewish homeland there were no executions (on this, see what has already been said above at 5:1). The stoning of Stephen in Paul’s presence and with his approval (Acts 7:58–8:1), as well as Paul’s participation in death sentences, as Acts tells about them (22:4; 26:10), are probably historically accurate and should not too quickly be declared to be legends. The stoning of the adulterous woman in John 8:1–11 also has historical probability (L. Schottroff 1995, 177–203; a different evaluation is given by Wengst 2000, 317 and Tomson 1990, 102). There is further information on this in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20, 200 (the stoning of James and others); Blinzler 1957/58.

92

Commentary

of death penalties for violations of the Torah in the Jewish homeland. His interpretation of Lev 20:11 means handing over to Satan. We cannot get beyond making conjectures about what that means. It certainly means exclusion from the community (see 5:7, 13). The result could be physical death. But eternal death before God is excluded. Perhaps Satan makes an appearance as the angel of death sent by God.236 Above all, however, Satan is the protagonist of the aiōnos toutou / this world (2 Cor 4:4). Life in the structures of »the world,« that is, of the society, of the city of Corinth, for example, is experienced to be hostile to life. What it means in this society to survive—or not survive—is clear to all involved. The man loses the protection of the messianic community. 5:6–8 With an additional argument Paul would like to justify for the congregation the separation of the man who in his opinion violated the Torah: Just as with bread dough the fermentation is brought about by a small piece of sourdough, so the whole congregation suffers loss through a violator of the Torah. Then (5:7a) he compares the expulsion he is urging with the thorough cleaning out of the sourdough before the beginning of the Passover festival. In this way the congregation becomes unleavened bread, as befits the Passover festival. In 5:7b he once again changes the comparison but remains with the Passover image: For the congregation, the death of the Messiah connotes a Passover event. 5:8 then speaks of a Passover festival that the congregation celebrates with unleavened bread. The bread is interpreted to be truthfulness and sincerity. These verses are difficult because of the multiple changes in the point of comparison. They are made up of a chain of associations that takes its image first from bread baking (5:6) and then from the Passover festival of unleavened bread (5:7–8). Paul mentions sweeping our sourdough, unleavened bread, the Passover lamb and celebrating with unleavened bread. 5:6 The issue about which you are so convinced (kauchēma) does not deserve to be called »good.« (The Greek word kauchēma designates the object of boasting.) Yet, it is generally known, Paul continues, that a little sourdough is enough to leaven the whole batch of dough (cf. Matt 13:33, 34; Gal 5:9). Unleavened bread is the bread predominately eaten, for it is considered healthier than leavened bread.237 Paul uses everyday experience to express his argument: Even an individual person, like this man, can endanger an entire community that approves of such a Torah infraction. Since those being addressed do not regard the man in question to be a violator of the Torah, Paul’s argument is not very convincing, at best an admonition to give an ear to his point of view. The sourdough metaphor should not be read as a reference to cultic impurity. The sourdough metaphor in the New Testament 236 Heb 2:14; John 8:44; rabbinic material in Billerbeck, vol. 1, 144–149. There is no thought of the man being cursed by the congregation—the text does not say that. 237 Pliny the Elder, Nat. 18.104. On leaven in general, see Krauss 1966, vol. 1, 99–100; Dalman 1964, vol. 4, 53–54.

5:1–13

93

offers no occasion for that.238 Nor does the metaphor contain any other negative content (rot, filth, or immorality). The image concerns the ability of the sourdough to permeate the whole batch of dough. The issue is the congregation and its fidelity to the Torah. 5:7 Before the start of the Jewish Passover festival all sourdough is removed from the house and care taken that the unleavened dough for the festival matzahs does not accidentally ferment.239 Through the keyword sourdough in 5:6 Paul makes an association with this Passover festival custom (in accord with Exod 12:15). The removal of the sourdough is Paul’s point of comparison: separate yourselves from this man. In the subsequent clauses Paul does not change the Passover image, but he does change the logic of its use. In 5:7a the congregation is to clean out the sourdough. But following that they are not to bake or eat the unleavened bread; instead, they themselves are to be that bread. The contrast old—new relates more to the issue under discussion than to the Passover festival. He declares the point of comparison to be: Become new! The unleavened batch of dough (phyrama) and the unleavened bread (adzymoi) become an image for the congregation’s being something new. The new life into which the people of Corinth have entered (see Rom 6:4) is different from the old life, lived in accord with the laws of »this world.« The issue is renewal over against the service of death in this world—or, as Paul says in Romans: over against enslavement under sin’s rule over the world (Rom 6:12; 12:2). The final subordinate clause, »for you are unleavened bread,« grounds the summons on a statement of reassurance: You have been set free by the God of Israel! You have already become new—even as you are God’s temple (3:16; cf. 3:21). That the comprehensive liberation has occurred is also expressed by 5:7b. Paul remains within the image of the Passover festival, but the logic of the thought does not come from the image but from what’s being discussed: Through the Messiah God has called into being something new, for his death was not the end of hope but a beginning. With his death came the beginning of his resurrection and the resurrection of those who belong to him. The slaughter of the Passover lamb is an image for the intended idea: We—the congregation—celebrate the liberation;240 we repeat today the Passover festival of »our fathers and mothers« (10:1), we put ourselves

238 Matt 13:33; Luke 13:21; Matt 16:6, 11–12 and parallels; Gal 5:9. Even in the image of the »leaven of the Pharisees,« the issue is the power of the sourdough to leaven a greater amount of dough, which is compared with the ability of Pharisaic teaching to spread. Here also it is not a matter of negative associations connected with leaven. Dalman 1964, vol. 4, 56 incorrectly concludes from Matt 16:6, etc., that the leaven is an image of »worse and more dangerous activity.« Leaven is a part of the basic food bread. The metaphor leaven can be used for the potential to expand possessed by things that are viewed positively or negatively. 239 Information about the Passover festival of unleavened bread can be found, for example, in Weyde 2008 and Billerbeck, vol. 4, 1, 41–76. 240 Examples of post-biblical Passover interpretations along these lines: Jubilees 49: Wis 18:6–9; Philo, Spec. 2.145; Mos. 2.224–225; on this see Schlund 2005, 404–405.

94

Commentary

into this tradition (on the typology, see at 10:1). The concept of atoning death or atoning sacrifice, which in the interpretive tradition is frequently found here, is connected by Paul neither with the image (Passover lamb)241 nor with what is being discussed (liberation through the resurrection of the crucified Messiah).242 5:8 The Passover festival that the messianic congregation celebrates expresses a rejection of accommodating the world/the society shaped by violence (kakia and ponēria) and consolidates a way of life with genuine relationships (eilikrinia) and authenticity, uprightness. The violent society’s ideological structure of lies is exposed here and an alternative to it given. Tacitus has described in classic fashion the strategies for delusion exercised by imperial might in the Roman Empire: »To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire; they make a desolation and they call it peace.« (Tacitus, Agricola 30.4, written 98 CE).243 The image of the Passover festival is altered once again in 5:8: the congregation is the unleavened bread in genuine justice and sincerity. It has with right been asked if Paul presupposes that the Passover festival is celebrated in the Corinthian congregation. In any case, he thinks that the congregation knows the Passover festival legend. It is possible that the Passover festival was also celebrated. It is true that there is at this time a festival pilgrimage in Jerusalem and in the temple, but it was probably also observed in the Diaspora—perhaps in a modified form.244 Here, as in Chapter 10 of this letter, the Exodus tradition is not only assumed to be known, but it is also an essential element in the congregation’s interpretation of its present experience. It is astounding with what openness and unreserved encouragement Paul speaks in 5:6–8, after, in 5:1–5, he so uncompromisingly addressed the threat the congregation was facing, which indeed continues to be a theme here as well. It is indeed the same congregation, the one to whom in 5:7 he attributes holiness, that in 5:1–6 he harshly criticized! Essentially, he can assume that his harsh critique will be unsuccessful and that the man is going to remain in

241 Only the Passover interpretation in Ezek 45:21–23 interprets the slaughter of the Passover lamb as a guilt offering; Exod 12:21–23 treats it differently; on this see Weyde 2008. It is usually assumed that the Passover sacrifice is not a sacrifice of atonement; see, for example, McLean 1996, 43; Lindemann 2000, 129. But then Lindemann sees the sacrifice of atonement addressed in 1 Cor 5:7 through the Christological interpretation (see on this the next note). 242 In the interpretive tradition about the death of Jesus, the concept of sacrifice and sacrifice of atonement is, as a rule, ascribed to the texts without the texts themselves explicitly saying this. That’s what happens here as well, even if it is seen that Passover is, as a rule, not connected with concepts of atoning sacrifice (see the prior note). Recently there are growing numbers of people who see the multiplicity of interpretations of the death of Jesus in the New Testament and look critically at the general sacrifice or sacrifice of atonement interpretation. See Brandt 2001; Bieler/Schottroff 2007, 206–215; Janssen 2002, 429–431; Frettlöh 2001, 77–104. On sacrifice see also at 6:20. 243 Trans. Maurice Hutton, Loeb (1946). 244 On the Passover festival in the Diaspora, see Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1974, vol. 1, 808, 886, 891–892; Schürer 1970, vol. 3, 143–144.

5:1–13

95

the congregation. The congregation simply does not believe that he is violating the Torah. Despite all that, Paul calls them unleavened bread (5:7; cf. 10:17). 2 Corinthians will reveal how deep Paul’s anxiety and desperation were. He feared that God’s congregation would self-destruct. Even though the conflict appeared hopeless in 1 Corinthians, the congregation later called the man to account. At the end, then, there was an amicable solution for all concerned, even for the man himself (2 Cor 2:3–11; 7:8–13). For people of the 21st century, Paul’s desperation might well be incomprehensible, for a sexual connection between a stepson and his stepmother is no longer perceived as destructive to the community. And yet the concern that the community that exists between people who are trying to live righteously could be fragile has remained to this day. 5:9–13 In this last argument for the expulsion of the man who is living with his stepmother, Paul explains that the holiness of the congregation is endangered by social interaction, especially by common meals with people who are violating the Torah. Behind Paul’s idea are the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26) and similar regulations in the Old Testament and in postbiblical Judaism.245 They are applied here to a specific community of saints, the congregation in Corinth. In so far as the nations of the world did not live in accord with the Torah, they were considered unclean/ sinful. The issue here is their whole way of life. In this context, the word unclean relates not to ritual purity/impurity but to living without the Torah.246 Paul does not use the word unclean here, though he does in 7:14. For the uncleanness/sin of the nations of the world is only a problem for those who live in fidelity to the Torah when they through social interaction, such as eating together, become coperpetrators.247 In an earlier letter to the congregation Paul had stated a general rule for this issue (5:9–10). 5:11 applies the general rule to the specific situation: There is a brother in the congregation who, in Paul’s view, is violating the Torah. He endangers the holiness of all. 5:9 Beyond this remark, nothing is known of the earlier letter. In that letter Paul made the general statement that living with people who violate the Torah endangers one’s own holiness. As he provides examples, he first names those who do not observe the sexual requirements of the Torah (cf. 5:1). The moral or ethical construal of the concepts in 5:9–11is quite broad. But even if in individual details commands in the Torah overlap with moral precepts of other cultures, the frame of reference here is the Torah or its contemporary interpretation and not a moral code from the non-Jewish world. 245 Werman 2000, 163–179. 246 Klawans 1995 and 2000. 247 The sin/uncleanness of people from the nations is not contagious in any ritual or magic sense but could lead to one’s active participation in it; on this see Klawans 1995, 2000.

96

Commentary

5:10 The general rule needs to be applied to the concrete situation. Therefore, 5:10 emphasizes that the general rule is not to be applied absolutely and always. The discussion turns up in post-biblical Judaism again and again: When can I allow myself necessary social contact with those who do not share my faith, when must I refrain?248 Chapters 8–10 show a detailed consideration of situations in which the Torah-observant can participate or which they should avoid. Even there, the predominant theme is shared meals; see only 10:27–28. There were always contacts between people of Jewish tradition and people from the nations, but on such occasions the Torah-observant tried not to violate the Torah themselves, by drinking wine that had been consecrated to idols or by accommodation to a way of life foreign to the Torah. Paul mentions here violations of sexual laws (of the Torah), the laws against property crimes and the worship of other gods (eidōlolatria). Pleonexia/greed is regarded in postbiblical Judaism as well as the New Testament as a fundamental sin,249 for it means to worship money as a god (for example, Col 3:5; Matt 6:19–24, the worship of mammon). The criticism of the unending »desire to have more« (pleonexia) arose with the penetration of the economic system by a monetary economy. The congregation in Corinth cannot emigrate from society; it needs to deal responsibly with the society and the powers at work within it. 5:11 The whole context is clear with respect to what is being discussed: 5:11 provides the concrete application of the general rule. But linguistically the beginning of the verse is unclear if one regards the aorist as an indication of a past event. There is discussion about whether Paul is here correcting his earlier letter or clarifying what he had said (»In truth I wrote you then«). But with respect both to the language250 and content, it is obvious that 5:11 is a crystallization of his earlier statement as it applies to the issue under discussion (»Now I am writing you in order to make clear«). Paul now expands the list of dangerous situations: First, he mentions those with whom you associate, especially sharing common meals with those who participate in slandering or reviling. How one can envision that in specific terms in Corinth is shown, for example, in Matt 5:10–11 (cf. 1 Cor 4:12). One could have reviled the congregation in Corinth, as being politically suspect, for instance, and thus put it in danger. In addition, Paul names alcohol abuse and robbery. They can become issues of complicity when they are celebrated together. Alcohol abuse is also a theme in post-biblical Judaism: »In every feast and gathering in our country what is it that men admire and seek so eagerly? Freedom from the fear of punishment, from sense of restraint, from stress of business; drunkenness, tipsy rioting, routs 248 Even the sources that are used for a categorical Jewish separatism are to be applied to the actual sins committed by the people from the nations (measured against the Torah). So, for example, Jub. 22.16–22; Let. Aris. 139, 142; Dan 1:8; Jos. Asen. 7.1. On these texts see Klawans 1995, 2000; Smith 2003, 159–166, which also includes information about the opposing view, which postulates Jewish separatism. Rosenblum 2010 shows how actual living together and texts that want to establish separation are in tension with one another, for example, 42. 249 L. Schottroff 1986, 137–152; see also below at 6:9–11. 250 On the aorist see Lietzmann 1949, 25; BDAG s.v. nyn 1γ.

6:1–11

97

and revels, wantonness, debauchery; lovers thronging their mistresses’ doors, nightlong carouses, …« This is what Philo of Alexandria reports, and he probably has in view primarily the Hellenistic-Roman lifestyle of the upper classes.251 So, Paul is broadening the danger brought by the man who is living with his step-mother to danger from others who belong to the congregation and introduce excessive behavior into the community meals. They learned this way of celebrating and interacting with one another in their former life—and it was no doubt also socially acceptable in Corinth. 5:12–13 The people from the nations will be judged by God. God will establish justice. The image of the judgment in Matt 25:31–46 can serve as an illustration of what is intended here. It describes in mythic language judgment based on one’s deeds. The »judging« of members of the congregation is now the task of the congregation itself. Paul is once again playing with the word krinein, as he did in 2:13–15 and 4:1–5. The »judging« within the congregation means to judge the case in accord with the Torah and, if need be, to remove the person from the congregation’s midst. The citation from Deuteronomy (17:7 and more often; see the introduction to 5:1–13 above) names the basis for the decision. But the problem may persist, since in this particular case Paul is not of one mind with the congregation about whether the man involved is a »wicked person« who acts unjustly, in that he violates the Torah. Only later, after this letter was finished, did the conflict come to a good resolution (see above at 5:8).

6:1–11 1 When there is a controversy among you, does someone actually bring it before a court of those who act unjustly and not before the court of the holy sisters and brothers? 2 Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world will be judged by you, how can you be incapable of having criteria for handling everyday conflicts? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? Why then shouldn’t we judge about the needs of daily life? 4 When you have criteria for questions of daily life, why do you appoint for rendering judgment those who have no standing in the congregation? 5 I am saying that so that you change your ways! Is there then among you no wise man or no wise woman who would be in a position to render a judgment in conflicts among the sisters and brothers? 6 Instead, the sisters and brothers take each other to court, and that before courts of outsiders. 7 Is it not indeed already a defeat that you have legal conflicts among yourselves? Why do you not rather suffer injustice? Why do you not let yourselves be robbed? 8 Instead of that, you act unjustly and rob one another, and that among sisters and brothers.

251 Philo, Cher., trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb (1929), 92–95. Cf. T. Jud. 14–16; see also Pliny the Elder, Nat. 14.137–149; Weeber 1995, 14–15; Smith 2003, 37–38 and more often; Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 6:10; 11:21.

98

Commentary

9 Or do you not know that all who act unjustly shall have no part in shaping God’s just world? Do not be deceived! All who treat sexuality irresponsibly, who worship other deities, who in marriage or in same sex relationships violate the law of God, by employing sexual violence against dependents, 10 all who rob others or are greedy for more and more money and possessions, who in drunkenness harm others, who slander and exploit—they all shall have no part in shaping God’s just world. 11 Some of you had committed these unjust acts. Nevertheless, they have been washed away from you, you have been made holy, you have been made just in the name of our Liberator Jesus, the Messiah, and through the Spirit that comes from our God. This section connects with the previous statement about the congregation being the proper jurisdiction for handling internal issues (see especially 5:12). Paul is concerned that in an internal dispute someone from the congregation could take the issue to an external court. It appears to involve a case of fraud, robbery or theft (6:7–8, 9–10). His principal arguments about this are: You have the competence, and you have the legal grounds for deciding. As at the end of Chapter 5 (5:9–11), he recalls, in the form of a list (in 6:9–10), the legal guidelines that come from the Torah. The congregation consists in part of people who committed crimes and offenses (6:11). But now they have become holy, and God’s Spirit enables them to act in new ways. The continuation in 6:12–20 deals with an additional case of improper sexual activity within the congregation, as did 5:1–13. The Torah is the legal basis for the congregation’s action, as the individual issues discussed, and the catalog of Torah violations show. 6:1 Paul is worried. Someone in the congregation wants to go outside of the congregation to initiate a court case against another member of the congregation. Paul rejects the courts and the jurisdiction of the city and of the Roman Empire as judgment by the unrighteous (6:1),252 who are rightly despised by the whole messi-

252 Widespread is the interpretation of the terms »the unrighteous« (6:1), »those who have no standing in the congregation« (6:4) and »unbelievers« (6:6) as a general judgment about the heathen = non-Christians or also non-Jews; see Weiss (1910) 1970, 146; Lietzmann 1949, vol. 1, 25, with reference to Rom 1:18, etc. And yet, even there Paul is not making a blanket statement about the »heathen«; see only Wengst 2008, ad loc. Broadbrush judgments about a Jewish perspective on nations with other gods, and also about the assumption of a fundamental Jewish separatism, are inappropriate to the Jewish tradition; see Klawens 1995 and 2000; Cohen 1999: and Fredriksen 2010. Such concepts are thought about in concrete terms and applied to specific violations that people commit against the Torah. Here also the text makes the content of these concepts clear. In 6:1, 4, 6 the concepts are applied to people who discharge public judicial duties, i.e., Roman or municipal judges. The assumption of a blanket condemnation of the »heathen« is often connected with the inference that Paul’s concern is not to declare the public courts to be unjust; see, for example, Schrage 1991, vol. 1, 406; Lindemann 2000, 135. Fundamental for the question of the injustice of civil judgments against the poor is Winter 1991, 559–572. He assumes that in 6:1–6 we are dealing with local Corinthian legal authorities.

6:1–11

99

anic community (6:4). That is based not only on Paul’s own bad experiences (2 Cor 11:23, 25), but, above all, on the notorious injustice of these courts, precisely against the poor. Cato (234–149 BCE) called this injustice by its name: »[T]hose who commit private theft pass their lives in confinement and fetters, those who plunder the public in gold and purple.«253 Juvenal (ca. 60–130 CE) writes: The bulk of our iron is turned into fetters; you should worry about An imminent shortage of ploughshares, a lack of mattocks and hoes. … our distant ancestors [were] fortunate, … [T]hat witnessed a Rome where a single prison sufficed.]254

Petronius, Sat. 14 (died ca. 66 CE) describes further aspects of the unjust legal system: Of what avail are laws where money rules alone, and the poor suitor can never succeed? … So the lawsuit is nothing more than a public auction, and the knightly juror who sits listening to the case gives his vote as he is paid.255

The rabbinic criticism of Roman justice is no less sharp: And the swine (ḥazir) because it parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, but chewith not the cud, he is unclean to you (xi,7). Why is it [i.e. Edom or Rome] compared to a ›ḥazir‹ [swine or boar]?—To tell you this: Just as the swine when reclining puts forth its hooves as if to say: See that I am clean, so too does the empire of Edom [Rome256] boast as it commits violence and robbery, under the guise of establishing a judicial tribunal. This may be compared to a governor who put to death the thieves, adulterers, and sorcerers. He leaned over to a counselor and said: »I myself did these three things in one night.«.257

The challenge Paul raises, to adjudicate each case within the congregation rather than in public courts, is part of Jewish tradition: »Whoever forsakes Israel’s judges … first denies God and after that the Torah.«258 The criticism of the Roman judiciary does not indicate that Paul desires the violent overthrow of the Roman order. The Torah and the God of Israel stand here for a worldwide justice that can already be lived out in smaller communities within this Roman order. The perspective behind this is to win more and more people for justice and in this way to work for an end of violence and complicity. Thus, Jewish people have again and again asserted the lawful role of Roman authorities and invoked their assistance. »Behold, very good (Gen 1:30)—that is God’s realm, and very good as well—that is the Roman Empire. So is the Roman Empire very good? That should give me pause! But [it is the case], because it demands human

253 Cato fragment 70, in A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 96. 254 Juvenal, Sat. 3, 309–310, trans. A. J. Kline. http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/ Latin/JuvenalSatires3.html. 255 Petronius, Sat., trans. Michael Hezeltine, Loeb (1913), 14. The passage is cited by Wengst 1987, 40, who offers on 39–40 further sources on class justice; Knapp 2012, 43–45. 256 Edom is meant to signify Rome. 257 Midr. Rab., Lev 13.5. Trans. Israelstam, 174. 258 Midr. Tanh. on Exod 21:1.

100

Commentary

rights.«259 As with Paul in Rom 13:1–7, the Roman Empire is here understood to be established by God, and the Empire is also implicated by God’s demand for justice if people are treated badly within this legal system. The legal system is important, but it is in practice often used improperly by its courts. Paul criticizes this administration of justice for being administered by the unrighteous (6:1), but that does not conflict with the Paul of Acts, who appeals to the Imperial Court (Acts 16:37–39; 25:10–12). 6:2 The political dimension of the Jewish and Pauline concept of worldwide justice becomes entirely clear in 6:2. The issue in Corinth is not just living out God’s justice in a niche, in Jewish or messianic communities. The vision for the future is God’s worldwide justice. At its beginning stands the longed for future messianic judgment that brings an end to the unjust powers and authorities (15:24–27). With the resurrection of the crucified Messiah this worldwide event has begun. The judgment by the Messiah or the holy God brings healing justice260 over the whole of Israel and over the whole world (6:2–3). These mythic concepts of a messianic judgment261 yield no unified picture, nor are they meant to. Sometimes the judgment is brought about by a messianic figure (for example, Matt 25:31–46), sometimes also by God’s chosen ones, as here. This judgment is not yet the Last Judgment by God (see, for example 1 Cor 15:28; Rev 21:1–8/Isa 25:8). But here also there is no systematic distinction. When it says that the poor and the persecuted will inherit God’s just world/basileia tou theou (Matt 5:3, 10), then the idea is also present that God’s saints will rule and therewith judge (basileuein) along with God. Correspondingly it can mean: Those who have acted unjustly will not inherit the basileia tou theou (6:9–10). They will not, along with God, establish justice on the whole earth. The people in the Corinthian congregation are, in part, former criminals—both with respect to the Torah, but also, many with respect to Roman law: for example, thieves and robbers (6:9–11). These people have found a new home in which they live with the Torah and establish justice. This justice contains a vision for the entire world. There is an incredible contrast between the reality of these people and their immense global hope, of which Paul reminds them. They should not lose sight of this vision—not even during their arduous daily life. In the interpretive tradition there are two thought patterns that deter the reader from seeing the stirring power of this text, 6:1–11: 1. The idea that this conflict situation involves banal, everyday issues that, in the face of this great vision, are mere trifles; 2. Paul is treating the addressees ironically and sarcastically.

259 Gen. Rab. 9 end. 260 The word krinein specifically does not mean only condemning but often the healing guidance that creates justice. See on this Pss. Sol. 17:26 and Matt 19:28 (BigS: »Creating justice for the twelve tribes«); cf. also Fiedler 2006, 316. 261 Dan 7:22 or 7:18–27; Wis 3.8; 4.16; 5.1; Rev 20:4. In older Christian literature there is a negative evaluation: The expectation of the saints co-ruling along with God is »usually thought of as annihilation« (Volz [1934] 1966, 275). This evaluation only occurs when one ignores the situation of those who are speaking, who await the end of the rule of violence. It rests upon an anti-Jewish cliché: a Judaism eager for revenge.

6:1–11

101

In 6:2 Paul calls the matter under dispute elachista262 (a triviality—compared with the messianic vision); in 6:3–4 he speaks of biōtika/an everyday occurrence; in 6:7–8 Paul appears to be more specific. He speaks of being wronged and being robbed: aposterein/to withhold something from someone, to rob, defraud, embezzle, and snatch away. Perhaps the verb denotes similar issues in Sir 4:1 (»do not deprive the poor of their livelihood«) and James 5:4 (»you withheld wages from the people who tilled your fields«). It is more likely that kleptein means theft on the street (see 6:10), and the use of force during theft is called harpadzein/robbery (6:10).263 It is not possible to say what actually happened. But in the Roman Empire fraud, robbery and theft are not trifles. These crimes are punished very severely by Roman courts—at least when they are committed by the poor.264 Roman-Hellenistic literature offers depictions of the omnipresence of theft, robbery and violence, especially on the streets of the major cities.265 It was advantageous for the rich to move about with large entourages of their subordinates, who had to look out for them.266 They also spent a lot to have their houses guarded. The streets were less dangerous for the poor only when they really had nothing but rags and empty pockets. Even though these experiences of exercising violence or being its victims are daily occurrences, they still diminish life severely. Many in the congregation know about stealing from their own experience, both as victims and perpetrators. Perhaps a member of the congregation kept on doing what he or she was accustomed to doing for a long time. A poor person in the congregation had defrauded or stolen from another one of the poor. So, if Paul speaks of the criteria for calling some things elachista/trivial cases, that cannot mean that he considers theft, robbery or fraud insignificant, nor that they are regarded as trifles in society. He is making the argument from the greater to the lesser: Those who are going to judge the world can also judge everyday issues. Paul reminds the people about their vision: Those who are promised such a future of worldwide justice should be able to take small steps toward justice in everyday life! Paul is encouraging them to take these small steps. Irony and sarcasm would help no one. 262 Elachista can be an adjective modifying kritēria, but based on what kritērion means, interpreting elachistōn as an objective genitive is to be considered (cf. Aristotle, Metaph. 1065a). 6:2 means: »criteria (for judging) the most insignificant matters.« 263 Paul uses concepts here that could correspond to the distinctions in Roman law: theft, robbery, fraud; see Kaser 1962, § 51.I and IV and more often (furtum, rapina, fraus). But through the juxtaposition of aposterein in vv. 7–8 and kleptein/harpadzein in 9–10, it is more appropriate not to make sharp distinctions between the concepts and to regard aposterein/to rob as the umbrella term encompassing theft, robbery and fraud. 264 See above on 6:1. 265 Juvenal, Sat. 14.305–306; 3.268–314; Friedländer 1964, vol. 1, 22; Weeber 1995, s.v. Strassenkriminalität [street crime]: »The sources for the other cities [that is, other than Rome] are markedly less helpful. However, it can be assumed that the street crime there was still greater than in the capital.« Knapp 2012, 45–49. 266 Juvenal, Sat. 3.281; also Mark 13:33–35; Matt 6:19; 24:43 on the threat to the possessions of the rich.

102

Commentary

The word anaxios/worthless, unworthy (6:2) means that the addressees are regarded by others or by themselves as incapable of rendering just judgments within the congregation. Members of the lower class are not common in roles of judgment or leadership.267 They are social »nothings« (1:2–8). The word anaxios/unworthy refers here to kritēria. The word means: (mental) capacity to judge and to evaluate or the standard for judging, criteria for judging. It also designates, in a second meaning, the authority, for example, a court.268 Here the issue is that the addressees should not consider themselves unworthy/incapable of having and using criteria for judging. With solid unanimity the established interpretive tradition says something else with regard to this passage: »You are incapable of handling the most insignificant legal cases.«269 This meaning of the word kritēria is taken to be a special meaning of the word for 1 Cor 6:2, 4: »a forum for justice, lawcourt, tribunal.«270 But what kritēria means is, on the one hand, the mental (for example) capacities for judging and, on the other hand, the criteria for such judging. For 1 Corinthians that means: The issue is the legal capacities of the people who are despised by society as »nothings« (6:2), and it is the Torah as the rule and norm for these capacities (6:4). 6:3 Paul repeats the argument of 6:2. Angels can sometimes be messengers of God. But here they are rather messengers of invisible powers, who influence people negatively, those powers and forces for whom God sets a limit (15:24); cf. 4:9. 6:4 The standards for everyday issues are enumerated in 6:9–10. They go back to the interpretation of the Torah (see at 6:9–10). The legal authorities that are present in Corinth outside of the congregation are despised by the congregation. The reason they are despised is given in 6:1: They are unjust not only measured against the Torah but also according to Roman law (see above on 6:1–2). 6:4 speaks of someone who wants to lodge a complaint before the law »appointing« (kathidzete) a judge. This wording corresponds to the procedure in Roman civil law.271 It is possible that the congregation as a whole was involved in summoning judges from outside the congregation, for Paul speaks in the plural. 6:5 Pros entropēn is often translated »to your shame« and understood to be humiliating them, but the Greek word has a broader significance.272 It also means to

267 Bürge 1999, 77. 268 Liddell-Scott s.v. kritērion: »means for judging or trying, standard, freq. of the mental faculties and senses« [ … ] 2. court of judgment, tribunal.« BDAG does not mention the meaning named first; F. Büchsel, in TDNT 1965, vol. 3, 943 mentions it, but, along with the usual interpretive tradition on 6:2, 4, regards it as incorrect. His evidence, Diodorus Siculus 1.72.4, corresponds to Liddell-Scott’s second meaning and cannot serve as a basis for a special meaning in 1 Cor 6:2, 4. 269 Thus Lindemann 2000, 133. 270 BDAG s.v. kritērion; Cf. F. Büchsel in TDNT 1965, vol. 3, 943 and the established tradition of translation and interpretation. 271 Bürge 1999, 7 and more frequently. An overview of Roman civil law in the context of 6:1–11 can be found in Lindemann 2000, 141–42. 272 Liddell-Scott s. v. entrepō lists as the primary meaning of the metaphorically used verb: »make one turn, put him to shame.«

6:1–11

103

make someone reconsider something. That is Paul’s intention here, not humiliating the addressees. 6:6 The »unbelievers« have gods other than the God of Israel. The word refers here to the judges outside of the congregation. In any case, it does not necessarily entail a negative evaluation, like »the unrighteous« in 6:1 (cf. 6:4; see there); see only 7:12–15. 6:7–8 The Greek word krima means a (legal) judgment. It is a defeat for the solidarity within the congregation when it must come to legal judgments. Paul suggests an alternative. In cases like this it makes sense to accept being wronged. This concerns a specific case; the person concerned is part of the congregation. The more specific circumstances are known to those involved, and to Paul as well. It is unclear whom Paul is addressing in 6:8, but it is unlikely the whole congregation. Does he mean the person who acted unjustly or those who want to correct the injustice with the help of a judgment coming from outside the congregation, thereby themselves acting unjustly? The punishments meted out by public institutions were, after all, disproportionately harsh. With respect to 6:7–8, it has been assumed that Paul was striving for a total waving of rights within the congregation. But that involves the unspoken presupposition that Paul spoke as a teacher of timeless ethical norms. He had a different understanding of teaching according to the Torah: It sets its sights on concrete legal decisions; »legal« not only in the sense of legal institutions that are committed to the Torah, but also in the wider sense of a law that arises from justice that is in accord with the Torah and that is meant for the community’s life together. In such a case, to give up the right to take legal recourse, even within the congregation, can mean that for the person who acts unjustly a way is opened back into the community and its work for justice. The analogies from ancient literature to eschewing legal action273 and the renunciation of retaliation in the Jesus tradition contain similarities to and differences from this case. Matt 5:39–41 describes situations in which people are forced to do certain things and yet do not give the perpetrators a dose of their own medicine. Instead, openly and for all to see, the victims do twice as much as what is unjustly demanded of them. This effectively breaks the circle of violence.274 Comparable to 6:7 are the renunciation of possible retaliation and the attempt to give the adversary some space. The point of departure is comparable in Matt 18:15–17: an offence of one individual against another within the congregation. Here the attempt is made, first one on one and then publicly within the congregation, to move the person to make things right. The second step, going to the congregation, initially involves just a few members. The attempt to give the perpetrator space to act and to regain the person for a life in accord with the Torah is quite clear and is compa-

273 L. Schottroff 1990, 21–23 deals with the renunciation of legal recourse by the »little people«; see Lindemann 2000, 138 on the ethical-philosophical principal that it is better to suffer injustice than to practice it. 274 L. Schottroff 1990, 32–35; Sölle/Schottroff 2010, 78.

104

Commentary

rable to 6:7. Only if that process doesn’t work at all should it be possible to treat the person like an outsider, according to Matt 18:17. That likely means that the person may well be brought before a court outside of the congregation or excluded from the congregation. The rejection of going to a judge outside the congregation in 6:7 should in any case be seen against the background that people of lower social standing very easily get from the judge not justice but greater injustice (see at 6:1). 6:9–11 The exegetical tradition calls 6:9–11 a »vice list«—as it calls the lists in 5:10–11. But this concept is inappropriate. What we have are checklists of Torah violations in everyday life. The basis for such lists is the Torah and its current interpretation in the community. These lists relate to life situations that are important for those involved. They refer to a current situation and are formulated in such a way that they have in view not only individual actions by particular people but actual social structures.275 The term »vice list« doesn’t allow us to think about the foundation such lists have in the Torah but rather about moral teaching in general. Now, there are in Hellenistic-Roman literature numerous ethical lists in which formal agreements and also comparable terms can be found.276 The more educated members of the Corinthian congregation, just as Paul himself, will have known such lists. But what is decisive is the respective frame of reference that gives the mostly very general concepts their concrete center: the legal or ethical basis and the way of doing things in society at any given time. 6:9 The adikoi/unrighteous, that is, people who violate the Torah (or corresponding laws among other peoples), can be found within or outside of the congregation.277 On this concept, see already above on 6:1. To inherit the kingdom of God (6:9–10) refers not only to God’s eternity beyond individual life and history, but also and above all to God’s renewal of earth and heaven. Those who belong to the Messiah collaborate on this, now and in the future, they help it take shape (6:2–3). They work for justice, as God wants them to. While in the Old Testament the concept of the inheritance that God gives is related to the land, in post-biblical Jewish literature, as here, it is related to the vision of God’s all-encompassing righteous world. »Precisely those whose status gave them no prospect of an inheritance may have especially treasured this promise.«278 (On the later dualistic concepts of

275 Similarly Theissen 1998, 67–68 on Rom 1:18–32. Unfortunately he applies the list only to the transgressions of Rome’s elite, while such lists should also, and more readily, be applied to social structures in which the little people are also in some way included. 276 Wibbing 1959 contains a comprehensive list of parallels. 277 R. Lopez 2007,59, 73 gives an overview of the groups of people in and out of the congregation to whom 6:9–11 was applied in the interpretive tradition. Also there (66–69) is an overview of the terminology »to inherit the kingdom of God.« 278 Gerber/Viehweger 2009, 115.

6:1–11

105

»the Other Side,« see the basic information after 1:6 above.) The admonition at the beginning of the enumeration, »Do not be deceived« or »Make no mistake,« shows that even those in society who belong to the Messiah are not immune to falling in line and going along. The list in 6:9–11 contains concepts that have in view sexual relationships, injustice in dealing with possessions and money, the worship of other gods and the harm that comes from alcohol and slander. The list overlaps the one in 5:9–11 but is more extensive. Fundamental for understanding the text is the question what its perspective is: Is the mature, freeborn male the legal subject in view? Pointing in that direction is the fact that Paul names the violations of the Torah in the masculine plural throughout. Further pointing in that direction is the fact that he does not consider dependency relationships. If it applies to children or other dependents, what possibilities for making decisions are available to women and slaves? Since the congregation has a large proportion of women (including unmarried women) and slaves, such undifferentiated language needs explanation and remains unclear. Paul is envisioning the mature, freeborn male as the legal subject, as in Jewish laws and their interpretation, but also as is common in ancient legal texts. It must from case to case be considered whether women, for example, are being considered as well.279 The following can be said about the sexual relationships that Paul regards as a violation of the Torah: The concept porneia is used by Paul, and in other postbiblical texts, as the generic term for all sexual transgressions of the Torah (see on 5:1). In 1 Corinthians the relationship of a man to his stepmother is so named, and, in 6:12–20, the union of men with prostitutes.280 Here in 6:9 Paul enumerates additional types of behavior: adultery and male same-sex relationships. Moicheia/ adultery can mean adultery by a man with the wife of another free man or any sexual relationship at all that a wife has outside of her marriage. On this issue, Paul’s view is no different from that of Jewish and Hellenistic-Roman morality. So, adultery by men and women will be evaluated totally differently. Society grants men far-reaching freedom, women none at all. The subordination of women will be maintained in daily life through permanent controls over their sexuality by their husbands and by society. Husbands can have any sexual relationships they want, aside from one with another man’s wife. That means that sexual relationships are primarily understood as an expression of power and control. We are unable to say what occasioned Paul’s reference to adultery here. Although with respect to adultery there are no fundamental differences between Hellenistic-Roman and post-biblical Jewish moral teaching, the concepts of gender identity are different. Post-biblical Judaism and Paul orient themselves primarily on the creation story, according to which God created the different genders of men

279 On androcentric language in Old Testament law, see F. Crüsemann 1992, 292. 280 6:9 uses the masculine form pornoi. It would be possible that Paul has only men in view here, who, from the perspective of the Torah, are acting against the law. But more likely is an androcentric usage that includes women (as the pornē in 6:15.)

106

Commentary

and women.281 Roman-Hellenistic culture is oriented on power and penetration.282 A man is someone who penetrates others (whether man, woman or child), and he demonstrates his masculinity also in his presence, as a speaker, for example (see above on 2:1). Masculinity is a question of power. Based on this cultural difference, it can be understood that in Judaism, in contrast to Hellenistic-Roman culture, same-sex relationships are evaluated totally negatively. In Hellenistic-Roman culture they are forbidden only when they are understood to infringe upon the clear difference in the power relationship between the sexes, a free, adult male exercising a passive role and a female a penetrating, active role. In the Jewish culture homosexuality is always considered to be a commingling of God-given sexual identities.283 Paul labels same-sex relationships between men in 6:9 with the terms malakoi/ soft, unmanly and arsenokoitai/penetrators of males. The extensive exegetical discussion of the meaning of these two terms frequently tries to give a moral explanation of the terms in such a way that they are understandable also for the moral perceptions of later times: malakoi as »catamites« or »young male prostitutes« and arsenokoitai as »pederasts« or »prostitutes«.284 But it is to be taken seriously that Paul evaluates negatively same-sex relations between men in general, as does the Torah (Lev 18:22; 20:13) and its later interpretation.285 At the same time, through his choice of words, he adopts the hierarchical evaluation of the sexes common to all ancient cultures, according to which women need to be weak, passive, submissive, but men active and penetrating. Not every man who penetrates men would thereby be designated as »unrighteous« in the Hellenistic-Roman culture, as he would by Paul. Slaves or male youths were as a rule permitted for a HellenisticRoman free man. Paul evaluates negatively the same-sex relationship of men (1 Cor 6:9; Rom 1:27) and women (Rom 1:26), because he understands it to be an infringement upon creation and thereby a defilement of one’s own body (Rom 1:24–25). Through the dominance of Christian culture in many realms of the world and of history into the 20th century, and even in part up to the present time, these texts have had an inhuman effect. Honoring bodies as God’s creation, Paul’s concern here must today be expressed differently. The bottom line of the creation story today is the equal value of all people. It must be clearly said, also in the churches, that the catastrophic consequence of the Pauline text has done damage to many people and that this text can no longer be God’s word today. In my translation of 6:9, I have tried to

281 282 283 284 285

Boyarin 1995, 333–335. Gleason 1995; Burke 2011; Mayordomo 2006 and 2008. Brooten 1996, 282–284; Boyarin 1995, 333–355; Fechter/Sutter-Rehmann 2009, 520. Mayordomo 2008, 109. See, for example, Philo, Spec., trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb (1958), 3.37–42. Philo here also makes clear the different evaluation of (male) same-gender sexuality by Judaism and Roman-Hellenistic culture. D. Martin 1996 shows plausibly that the terms malakos and arsenokoitēs are ambiguous, but the likelihood that the concern here is »effeminate« men and the penetration of males and thus male homosexuality is, nevertheless, great.

6:1–11

107

draw upon Paul’s valuing of bodies as creations of God: »who in marriage or in same-sex relationships violate the law of God, who employ sexual violence against dependents.« The intention in speaking this way is, among other things, to treat marriage and the same-sex relationship as of equal value. Paul is speaking here about same-sex relationships from a Jewish perspective. He is addressing people who predominately come from and live in HellenisticRoman culture. Philo of Alexandria (born 25 BCE), a Jewish philosopher who lived in Hellenistic-Roman culture, describes the socially accepted significance and public image of same-sex relationships. He asks what the cause of male same-sex relationships is: The reason is, I think, to be found in the prizes awarded in many nations in licentiousness and effeminacy. Certainly you may see these hybrids of man and woman continuously strutting about through the thick of the market, heading the processions at the feasts, appointed to serve as unholy ministers of holy things, leading the mysteries and initiations and celebrating the rites of Demeter.286

Present in public, according to Philo, but also to other ancient authors,287 are the »male prostitutes.« They are, on the one hand,—comparable to women, who are held to be immoral—depicted as addicted to sex and in every way depraved, and, on the other hand, they have socially acknowledged functions in many cults and are therefore also able to make money. The men who penetrate them are in Hellenistic-Roman society only in exceptional cases the topic of moral discussion or even public display. They are indeed »normal.« Paul is following Jewish tradition when he also qualifies the arsenokoitai/penetrators as unrighteous (6:1). A particularly dark chapter of Christian interpretive and translational history is the translation of malakoi with catamites—or the use of similar words to indicate or include children and youth. The sexual crime of adult Christian men against boys shifted the blame onto the boys involved—totally in the style of the degradation of the passive men in the already mentioned text from The Golden Ass 8:24–31. The shift of blame to and the degrading of youths were justified by such an interpretation of 6:9. With arsenokoitai Paul himself is also thinking in general of men who penetrate men, not on the sexual misuse of children in particular. In this context, he does not take the situation of dependents into account. 6:10 On transgression by theft and robbery, see at 6:1–11; on the misuse of alcohol and on reviling, see at 5:11; on greed/pleonexia, see on 5:10. 6:11 The people of the Messiah in Corinth live in society, and they cannot and should not isolate themselves from it (5:10). They themselves can also still be led astray (6:10) and have—at least in part—a past in which they participated in the injustice of the world, as Paul names society. The washing off of sins (baptism? See below), and therewith the conscious change in their way of life, has made a decisive change: They are now, as part of the messianic body, saints (see on 1:2) and right286 Philo, Spec. 3.40 (on this see the previous note). 287 Particularly course: Apuleius, Metam. 8.24–31. On the term malakos (Latin, mollis), see especially Edwards 1993, 77 and more often.

108

Commentary

eous ones (see on 1:31). The name of the Liberator and Messiah, Jesus (see on 1:2), is in this community called upon loudly. Therewith the people who belong to the Messiah express their liberation and, at the same time, their longing for liberation in the future. Paul had performed baptisms but assigns baptism no special importance (see 1:15–17). Whether with the formulation »But you were washed« he is speaking here specifically about baptism remains unclear (on this formulation without reference to baptism, see, for example, Exod 40:12 and Lev 8:6). What is under discussion here is liberation from involvement in the structure of »sin« and of the »world.« It happens through God’s action of raising the crucified Messiah (see also on 15:3). Through fellowship with the Risen One, people have a share in this liberation. A special role for baptism and the Lord’s Supper, perhaps a predetermined sequence in the life of an individual, is unknown to Paul. Participation in the power of God’s Spirit/pneuma is another aspect of this event (on pneuma see on 12:4).

6:12–20 12 I am free to do everything—but not everything is wise. I am free to do everything. But nothing shall have power over me. 13 God gives food for the belly, and the belly needs the food. God takes them both back. Things are different with irresponsible sexuality. The body belongs to God, and God belongs to the body. 14 God has awakened the Liberator and awakens us through divine power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I take that which belongs to Christ and misuse it for irresponsible sexuality with a prostitute? Absolutely not! 16 Or do you not know that even irresponsible sex means melting into one body? For the two—so says the Scripture—become one body 17 But whoever merges with the Liberator shares the Spirit with him. 18 Avoid unjust sexual relationships. Every sin that a person commits occurs outside the body. But those who practice irresponsible sexuality sin against their own bodies. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit, which is in you and which you have received from God? You do not belong to yourself. 20 You have been bought by God. Therefore praise God with your body. In 6:12–20 the issue is the grandeur of the human body. The body has been created for God. God is there for the body (6:13b). The bodies of the people of the Messiah are members of the body of Christ—in a bodily sense, not merely in a figurative sense (6:15), and belong to God. With the body people can praise God (6:20). In this section Paul discusses the grandeur of humans and their bodies because of a particular situation. There are male believers in the Messiah who are going to prostitutes. From the perspective of the Torah, that is for Paul illegitimate sexual behavior (porneia, see on 5:1). He mentions in 6:14–15 the pornē/prostitute. To be sure, she is, as a person, of no more interest to Paul than the stepmother of the man discussed in 5:1–11. Prostitutes were a self-evident and openly visible part of Hellenistic-Roman societies. Most of them were women in economic need and/or slaves.

6:12–20

109

Some of the women in the messianic congregations, also in Corinth, will have experienced in their own bodies what it means to have to prostitute themselves. Despite Paul’s deep sensitivity about justice, he is insensitive when it comes to women in their relationship with men. He never observes that he, like many others, finds subordination of and contempt for women self-evident—even here, where the grandeur of the human body is being discussed. The body of a prostitute is also created by God, and God is there for her; Matt 21:31and Luke 7:36–50288 are clearer about that than Paul. 6:12 The proposition, »I am free to do everything« is, in the context of Paul’s way of thinking, to be understood in the sense of 3:21. The members of the body of Christ are no longer subject to the violent powers that enslave them in their everyday lives. Then 6:12b also says the same: No longer are the powers to have any power. It has been discussed whether 6:12a takes up a slogan from the congregation (meaning Paul’s »opponents« there) that placards promiscuity or the like. The construction of »opponents« in the congregation does not fit the text (see above on 1:10). The principle has a clear meaning in the textual context of this letter. 6:13 The creation gives impetus to Paul’s thinking: People need nourishment. Koilia/stomach should not be understood as a part, even a negligible one, of the body, but as an aspect of being human. God allows the things that nourish humanity to grow. Food and bodies are perishable, as God wants them to be. Katargein refers here, as in 13:8–11, to the passing away of creatures and not to God’s depriving the forces hostile to life of their power (as in 2:6 and 15:24, 26). In the interpretive tradition a conflict is frequently constructed between koilia/stomach and sōma/ body in 6:13b,289 but the issue in both cases is human tasks: people should eat (koilia/the stomach is there for nourishment), but they have not been created for illegitimate sexuality. They belong to God, they are creatures. In this sentence kyrios refers to God, who creates humanity. 6:14 Just as the whole person, as a created being, perishes, so also the whole person is raised through Gog’s power. Here the textual reading that speaks of the raising taking place in the present (God raises us/exegeirei) is to be preferred, already because of the manuscripts supporting that reading. The aorist reading substantially means the same as the present. The future reading proceeds from the idea that the raising, envisioned in a linear timeframe, happens only in the future. The future reading has the poorer manuscript attestation. The raising is for Paul an event that encompasses God’s action for the person’s life in the present and future. It is important for him here to express the present reality of the resurrection in its significance for people’s bodies in everyday life, with all its vulnerability. 6:15 Those who belong to the Messiah are melē/members, or better here, parts of his body (cf. Rom 12:4–5; 1 Cor 12:12, 27). In 6:15b Paul comes to the specific problem at issue: If you know all of that, then you cannot make the melē/parts of the body of Christ »members of a prostitute«! Paul is not thinking about individual

288 See L. Schottroff 1990, 310–323. 289 For example, Vahrenhorst 2008, 169–171; Lambrecht 2009, 481; Elliger 1987, 244.

110

Commentary

parts of a body but about the uniting of two bodies as a whole through the sexual relationship. Here pornē means a prostitute.290 The prevalence and significance of sexual power or prostitution in the society is discussed at 7:2. Although Paul says nothing about the women involved and appears to assume that they do not belong to the congregation, it is necessary to look at the situation of these women and the possible relationships between prostitutes and the congregation. Most of the members of the congregation belong to the city’s majority group, that is, the poor in various life-situations. Because of the miserable pay for women,291 freeborn women of this class were forced to prostitute themselves. Many occupations for women were in an intermediate zone: women’s jobs in restaurants, the very widespread work for women in the textile industry and the work as dancers, musicians, actresses and street merchants were all so badly paid that women supplemented their income as prostitutes or switched to prostitution completely.292 The decisive reason for this was that freeborn girls from the poor population got no education. Emancipated slave women were only in a more advantageous situation when they had received an education as slaves, for example as goldsmiths. On the other hand, slave women were also used as prostitutes and sent into brothels.293 Greek and Roman authors frequently relate the fates of prostitutes—not always with compassion. Meanwhile, about three years ago, a woman moved into the neighbourhood from Andros, driven here by poverty and the indifference of her family, a most beautiful woman and in the prime of life. … At first she lived a virtuous life, sparing and thrifty, earning her living by spinning wool. But when a lover approached her offering money, first one and then another …, she accepted the offers … (Terence, The Woman of Andros, 69–79).294

290 The Greek word pornē (corresponding to the concept porneia: see on this 5:1) has a wider frame of reference than the German word Prostituierte, but it can mean »prostitute.« On the questions of the Greek concept and its translation, see Kirchhoff 1994, 16–377. See also Ilan 1995, 214–221. With pornē Paul can be designating any woman that has illegitimate sexual relations. That he is thinking here of women who work as prostitutes and are paid for sex is, because of the self-evidence with which men have sexual intercourse with prostitutes in Greco-Roman society, likely. It is just as likely that men from the congregation find it self-evident to visit prostitutes. Therefore, Paul will be referring to prostitutes here. It is clear that prostitution is everywhere in this harbor city. To construct the existence of temple prostitution in Corinth is, however, questionable. On this see Lanci 2005b, 205–220; Elliger 1987, 237–242, especially 242. Rossner 1998, 336–351 see a connection with temple cults, but without thinking of the social reality of women. On temple prostitution see also on 7:2 below. 291 On women’s pay see L. Schottroff 1995, 91–96; Stumpp 1998, 37–60, 61. On the economic reasons for freeborn/emancipated women to prostitute themselves, see also Lamb/Janssen 1995, 275–284; Kirchhoff 1994, 48–50; Weeber 1995, 291. 292 There is abundant material on this in Stumpp 1998, 37–60. 293 Glancy 1998, 481–501. An example: »As to the breeding of herdsmen; it is a simple matter in the case of those who stay all the time on the farm, as they have a female fellow-slave in the steading.«—Varro, Rust. 2.10.6; trans. William Davis Hooper, revised by Harrison Boyd Ash, Loeb (1964), 409. 294 Trans. John Barsby, Loeb (2001), 57, 387.

6:12–20

111

Terence explains this transition: »as the disposition of all mankind has a downward tendency from industry toward pleasure.« Unfortunately, similar explanations can be found until now, even though the economic situation clearly contradicts such explanations.295 Lucian tells about a mother’s talk to her daughter after the daughter prostituted herself for the first time and earned a mina: you must realise what a miserable life we’ve had these two years since your father died, God rest his soul. But while he lived, we had plenty of everything; for he was a smith with a great name in the Piraeus, … After his death, first of all I sold his tongs, his anvil and his hammer for two minae, and that kept us for seven months; since then I’ve barely provided a starvation diet, now by weaving, now by spinning thread for woof or warp. I’ve fed you and waited for my hopes to be realized [that the daughter reaches an age at which she can earn money] (Lucian, Dialogues of the Courtesans 6).296

The life of prostitutes is then gilded by Lucian, as though they became rich. Normally the reality looked different: »The majority of women or catamites297 were in the lower ranks of the broadly-layered prostitution market, for the price for an average prostitute was normally low, and the customers came from the lower classes to match.«298 What Paul says about the social reality of the Corinthian congregation in 1:26–31 gives a clear picture. The women, who belong to those who are poor, poorly educated and without political influence (freeborn or slaves), who constitute the majority of the congregation, are in part prostitutes, and many men obviously have experience with going to prostitutes. Paul blocks this reality from his perception;299 in any case he does not bring it together with his attempt to convince Corinthian men that God has nor created their bodies for uniting with prostitutes. His selective perception is to be observed in his texts when the issue is women and their sexual relationships and their consequences, including their same-sex relationships (see on 6:9–11). He speaks in the same context of the God-given worth of human bodies and then of a pornē/ prostitute, as though he had no inkling about the life of these women and about the fact that they also have been created by God.

295 Stumpp 1998, 42. 296 Trans. M. D. Macleod, Loeb (1961). 297 On this word see above on 6:9–11. The situation of men penetrated by men corresponds that of female prostitutes (on this see above on 6:9–11). 298 Stumpp 1998, 61; cf. Weeber 1995, 290. 299 Glancy 1998 has pointed out that membership in the congregation of women and men who work as prostitutes has not been taken into consideration in exegetical research (494). Women slaves don’t have the possibility of rejecting prostitution. Glancy assumes that in Paul’s view women slaves essentially cannot belong to the congregation if they are obliged to prostitute themselves (496). She sees here an unanswered open question: »We do not know precisely how Paul responded to the situation of slaves whose masters insisted on sexual relations with them« (501). That needs to be emphasized. This needs to be added: We also learn from Paul nothing about the pressures under which even freeborn women of the population’s majority stand.

112

Commentary

In 6:15b Paul is essentially asking the addressees a question whose only answer is the one he wants to hear: Shall I unite my body, which belongs to Christ, with a prostitute? Only indirectly does it become clear that the believers in the Messiah are doing precisely that. They are thereby doing that which one does self-evidently in the society from which they come and in which they continue to live.300 6:16 Once again, as in 6:15, Paul begins the next argument with a question: »Do you not know?« He is referring to the teaching being imparted and learned in the congregation. Essentially the addressees themselves could already have drawn the consequence from Gen 2:24 and from the interpretation of a lifelong (comm)union in marriage301 as mia sarx/one body, namely, that a (comm)union of that kind with a pornē contradicts our (comm)union with Christ. A pornē, in contrast to a wife, cannot be, in the Torah’s view, a legitimate partner for marital (comm)union. So Paul assumes that the relationship to a pornē differs from a marriage only in the fact that it is illegitimate.302 The word choice of sōma/body for the relationship with the pornē and sarx/flesh for that with the wife (with Gen 2:24 LXX) is not intended to make a distinction between the two relationships. Paul uses sōma and sarx here interchangeably. Only because the relationship is illegitimate does it destroy the (comm)union of the man with the Messiah. 6:17 Essentially Paul could also say: The one who is united with the Liberator is one sōma/body with him (cf. 6:15a and 6:19). For the pneuma/God’s Spirit that he names here is an aspect of the person/sōma liberated through God’s action. He says pneuma here in order to distinguish the connection between people and the Messiah from that between a man and a prostitute (6:16). 6:18 In 6:18a Paul repeats what he often says in the reminder lists related to the Torah: Illegitimate relationships as defined by the Torah/by Torah interpretation are also for believers in the Messiah a violation of God’s way of life, the Torah (see 6:9). In contrast to other violations of the Torah, this Torah violation destroys the man’s own sōma, that is, the (comm)union of his body with the Messiah.303 6:19 Once again Paul indicates that the addressees already know what he is saying here: The body of the believers in the Messiah is the temple of the holy Spirit. As in 3:16, the temple is the image for God’s dwelling place. This image contains no dissociation from the temple in Jerusalem (see on 3:16). It has been discussed whether sōma/body here means the community or the individual

300 See, for example, Weeber 1995, 288. 301 Kirchhoff 1994, 158–167 emphasizes convincingly that the issue is not only how one construes the sexual union but how one construes the marital union, which has aspects that are, above all, familial, social and economic. Even the Greek word kollasthai, to attach to or join with, does not have primarily sexual connotations (Kirchhoff 1994, 167–172). 302 Kirchhoff 1994 shows in the post-biblical interpretation of Gen 2:24 that the text is interpreted as the fundamental ordering for marital (comm)union (for example, Jub. 3.7, Jos. Asen.20.4). In a rabbinic text there is also an evaluation of the relationship to a prostitute on the analogy of marriage: BerR 18; translation and interpretation in Kirchhoff 1994, 163. 303 Kirchhoff 1994, 187.

6:12–20

113

body.304 The issue here, as the context shows, is primarily the individual body of the people in the messianic community. The word sōma/body for the individual body is not thereby distinguished from sōma Christou/the community as the body of Christ. The interpretive word as the communion bread is offered, »My body is like this,« also encompasses this dimension of the individual body of the people at the table (see on 11:24), who are integrated into the body of Christ, the congregation. The word sōma/body has many dimensions with Paul and in the Lord’s Supper tradition. Here in 6:19 the issue is, above all, one of the dimensions. Every individual body that belongs to the Messiah is the dwelling place of the Spirit granted by God, the place of God’s presence; it is holy and capable of acting on behalf of the life of all people. »You are not your own« (6:19) and 6:20 speak of the liberation through God that transforms the bodies of those who belong to the Messiah. Paul is thereby using a striking image: God has bought the enslaved and thereby given them liberation.

Images from Slavery to Represent God’s Act of Liberation

Illustration 2: Slave auction. The slave in the loincloth on a pedestal. The slave merchant in Greek clothing (left) makes a pitch for him; the buyer in a toga (right) extends his right arm toward the slave. Relief from a gravestone, 2nd half of the first century BCE, Capua, Campano Museum.305

In 1 Cor 6:19 Paul intensifies his discussion about the holiness of the human body (sōma): You are not your own. In other words, you are slaves of God or also of the Messiah (cf. only 1 Cor 7:22; Rom 1:1; 6:22). There is no difference between slaves of God or of the Messiah. In both cases the sense is clear: Whoever is God’s slave is no 304 For an extensive discussion of the issue, see Gupta 2010. 305 From R. Müller 1978, 140. On the sale of slaves see Laes 2011, 159–163

114

Commentary

longer enslaved to any human. Through the resurrection of the crucified Messiah— for the benefit of the people of Israel and of the nations (ethnē)—God has put an end to the oppression of people by people, as once in Egypt God led the people of Israel out of bondage. The memory of the exodus/the departure from slavery in Egypt has continued through the centuries to be a living force in the people of Israel.306 With Paul as well, the remembrance of the exodus is something like a subtext of all images for liberation. In 6:20 Paul uses the image of the selling and buying of enslaved people, an image that arose from his experiences (cf. 7:23). Slave markets are part of the everyday experience in Roman cities and commercial centers. The volume of business was perhaps not so great everywhere as it was on the Greek island of Delos in the Cyclades after the destruction of Corinth by Rome in 146 BCE. There, per day, 10,000 slaves could be delivered, sold, and dispatched, as the ancient geographer Strabo reports.307 But the process was similar everywhere. Slaves were usually displayed almost naked, as a rule on a pedestal, so that in that way the slaves could be seen and handled by the potential buyers.308 Tinctures and pastes, even poisonous ones, were used to make the slaves look as young and hairless as possible.309 The slave merchants used a wide array of tricks. Witness to that is borne especially by the very detailed bills of sale,310 which specify damages for failing to disclose illnesses, for

306 On the history of the remembrance of the exodus, see F. Crüsemann 2003, 193–209. On the relationship of the Pauline concept of liberation with the exodus, see Haubeck 1985, part 2. Callender 1998, 77–79 summarizes the Old Testament interpretation of the exodus. This summary can almost be identified with the Pauline concept of liberation through God: »Israelites cannot properly serve any other lord. Israelites are ›servants‹ (›bdym‹) exclusively to YHWH, and therefore cannot rightfully be ›servants‹ of others, whether another god, a domestic or foreign king, or another Israelite« (79). Paul understands the liberation that happened through the raising of the Messiah, which is experienced quite analogously in the present in God’s call (see only 1 Cor 8:1–6). 307 Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.2 writes about the slave market on the Greek island of Delos, which, after the destruction of Corinth by Rome in 146 BCE, became Rome’s central commercial center: »The exportation of slaves induced them most of all to engage in their evil business, since it proved most profitable; for not only were they easily captured, but the market, which was large and rich in property, was not extremely far away, I mean Delos, which could both admit and send away ten thousand slaves on the same day« (English translation Jones 1970, vol. 6, 329). In Paul’s time the slave market on Delos was no longer functioning, but it operated elsewhere in a similar manner. 308 On the details of the selling at the slave market, see especially Lucian, Bion praxis [also called »Philosophies for Sale.« Trans.], a writing that used the slave market as an image for the sale of philosophical ways of life. For materials on the theme, see Marquardt 1975, vol. 1, 171–175. 309 See, for example, Pliny the Elder, Nat. 21.97.170 on the hyacinth: »The root is bulbous, and well known to slave dealers, for applied in sweet wine it checks the signs of puberty, and does not let them develop.« Trans. W. H. S. Jones, Loeb (1951), 281. Additional material in Harrill 2006, 129–130. 310 Collections of the material are found in Eck/Heinrichs 1993, 30–36 and in Thierfelder 1963, 121–128.

6:12–20

115

example. The slave merchants had a horrible reputation as notorious scoundrels.311 The slave market was for slaves a place of horror and degradation, often including sexual degradation. The new masters were as a rule no better than the old. Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:20 the image of the buying of slaves, just as he does in 7:23, because he wants to say that God (or the Messiah) is the new owner of the enslaved. Because the selling of slaves, given the realities of the slave markets, ends up in everything else but the liberation of a slave, there has been discussion in the research since Adolf Deissmann 1911, whether Paul here is selecting the image from the practice of a sacral ransoming of slaves.312 But in sacral ransoming the enslaved themselves must provide the purchase price. Today as a rule it is more common to see the image coming from the normal slave markets.313 That also makes more sense, since Paul explicitly mentions »purchase« and »price.« With this image he places importance on emphasizing the definitive transfer of ownership into new hands. The paradox about this image, and all images from slavery, is that an image for bondage is used to describe liberation. Paul has himself discovered and expressed this paradox (Rom 6:19314): »In order to do justice to your difficult life situation, I am using images from everyday human experience« [BigS]. Paul says nothing about how high the price was. The widely used rendition »ihr seid teuer erkauft« [»You were bought at great cost,« (the 1984 revision of Luther’s translation)315] first arose through the later Christian application of the purchase price to the death and blood of Christ. In 7:22 Paul uses an additional image from slavery (besides that of purchase in 7:23), that of emancipation. Slave owners had the possibility of setting slaves free. That often happened in the owners’ own interest, because as a rule the emancipated slaves stayed tied to their previous owners, and the new situation was more profitable for the former masters.316 Also in 7:22 Paul is striving to convey liberation—in this case the liberation slaves are granted by God. The

311 1 Tim 1:10; a comprehensive collection of materials is found in Harrill 2006, 119–144. A dramatic description of an attempt at deception by a slave trader who dolled up the runtish and ugly Aesop in order to get a good price for him at the market is found in Vita Aesopii 21. 312 Deissmann 1923, 275–281. He has been frequently criticized for his thesis of sacral ransoming (see Kirchhoff 1994, 189, nn. 342–343, a collection of pro and con utterances). But it should not be forgotten that he has pointed the discussion in the research to the connection of these images of Paul’s to the social reality of the selling of slaves. On the significance of this image for Paul, see also Deissmann 1925, 134–139. 313 See the authors named by Kirchhoff 1994, 189, n. 343 and, for example, Lindemann 2000, 153. 314 On this see especially M. Crüsemann 2002. 315 The translation of 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23, »You were bought with a price,« is based on the Vulgate (pretio magno) and already presupposes the interpretation of the formulation that applies it to the blood and the death of Christ as the purchase price, which perhaps is also present for 1 Pet 1:18–19. With this image Paul is interested in the change of masters, not on the issue of the purchase price. 316 On the limited freedom of emancipated slaves, see Vittinghoff in Vittinghoff 1990, 188–190; Bartchy 1973, 87–120; Eck/Heinrichs 1993, 178–239.

116

Commentary

image is of limited value, as Paul himself recognizes (6:19; see above). In 7:22 there is the additional difficulty that Paul calls the liberated person »a freed person belonging to the Lord (apeleutheros kyriou).« Normally the genitive attached to the reference to the freed person gives the name of the one who set the person free.317 But that is not what is meant by Paul. God (or the Messiah) is not the prior slave master; that is rather sin in Paul’s way of thinking. God snatches the enslaved out of sin’s grasp. In 1:30 (cf. Rom 3:24; 8:23) Paul calls the liberation apolytrōsis. This word has its background in the language about lytroun in the LXX318 for Israel’s liberation from slavery (cf. Luke 24:21; 21:28). In the New Testament period the concept of paying a ransom for the victim of an abduction is involved. Slave handlers abduct people and threaten to sell them into slavery if they are not ransomed.319 In Mark 10:45 and Matt 20:28 it is said that Jesus gives his life as a ransom for many. This statement preserves a first century CE context of abductions and ransom demands. Paul has himself observed the paradox these images for liberation contain. It is not about a new slavery but a new connection that transforms the entire body. The body now belongs to no human master but to God. Not only has this paradox become difficult today, but, beyond that, this question arises: What does such talk about liberation mean for people who, day after day, experience everything but freedom? As freeborn, under certain circumstances they experience inadequate pay or unemployment, and, as slaves, they continue to be tools in the hands of their owners. In the history of interpretation reference is often made to Stoic philosophy, according to which even slaves can experience inner freedom.320 But this answer is not satisfying, for Paul is not speaking about inner freedom, but about humanity’s full liberation, about the liberation of the body (sōma)—see only 6:19. Frank Crüsemann321 has asked about the Exodus tradition, by way of analogy: How can the people of Israel, who live under the domination of various great empires (and later of the Roman Empire), again and again speak so unreservedly about deliverance out of slavery in Egypt? His answer: »The recounting of miracles and of faith can bring about these miracles and evoke this faith, so that men and women

317 The formulation »a freed person of the kyrios« (7:22) must be understood in society as a reference to a person set free by the kyrios—see Lietzmann 1949, 33; Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 141, n. 511; on the names of those set free: Eck/Heinrichs 1993, 212–216; for example, number 330: »M(arcus) Aurelius Cottae Maximi l(ibertus) Zosimus«—»Marcus Aurelius Zosimus, a freed person of/a person set free by Cotta Maximus.« But Paul does not understand the kyrios as the freer, and thus as the former slave master, but as the giver of a new freedom, who has freed the believer from the power of the former slave masters, kosmos/the world and hamartia/sin. Paul only uses the image of the liberation very selectively. 318 See, for example, Exod 6:6 LXX; Haubeck 1985, 98–100. 319 See, for example, Quintilian, Decl. 5. For material on the issue, see also Schrage 1995, vol. 2, n. 513. 320 See, for example, Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 141 on 7:21. 321 F. Crüsemann 2003, 195: »How does a religion of freedom look under circumstances of bondage?« (He relates this to the history of the recounting of the exodus.)

7:1–40

117

can view themselves as people who are free.«322 This recounting takes place in communities. First Corinthians offers a great deal for such a community to contemplate. The people have spoken—even openly—about the crosses (see 1:18). They have spoken about liberation. In this way they developed with one another paths out of slavery, paths that could be walked even in small steps—even if that is the sharing of food at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34). They have kept in mind a glimmer of God’s just world and shown each other the steps to get there. The view of the crucified ones and of the slave markets was heightened, and, at the same time, that view’s polar opposite, the one showing God’s just world, became clearer. God has purchased human beings, but God is a master of slaves who is fundamentally different from this world’s masters.323 6:20 concludes with the summons: Praise God with your bodies. Praising God extols liberation, which is longed for and at the same time already experienced. It expresses enthusiasm about the new fellowship with a God who unconditionally battles for liberation right there at your side. In this way praising God unites Israel, the living and the dead, with the messianic community in an immense choir. Praising God in song as an expression for liberation has an extensive history in Israel. »The prophets who were among them commanded Israel that in every time and in every affliction they should sing that it does not come upon them, upon Israel. And when they are set free, then they should sing [once again] about their liberation.«324

7:1–40 Chapter 7 continues the theme of porneia/of sexual behavior that violates the will of God (see 5:1; 6:13; 7:2). In a social situation that is by and large dominated by porneia (see on 7:2), Paul now asks about the consequences for the messianic community. He sees two ways of opposing the destructive power of a misused and violent sexuality and of thereby building a good life for all. The first way is to resist the usual forms of sexuality in contemporary society, namely by practicing enkrateia325/self-control (cf. 7:9, 37) within marriage or as unmarried. This way is under consideration in 7:1, 8, 11, 26–27, 32, 34–35, 37–38, 40. The second way is the most enduring bond possible between two people—Paul is thinking here only

322 F. Crüsemann 2003, 208. 323 These images are images just as antithetical as the parables in the gospels are antithetical images. God is not a king like the king in Matt 22:1–14, who out of vengeance and lust for power destroys a city; on this see L. Schottroff 2006. 324 b. Pesaḥ. 117a. 325 The substantive is absent in 1 Corinthians 7; a form of the verb is found in 7:9. The substantive is met in Gal 5:23. 7:37 offers a thoroughgoing definition of the issue of enkrateia/self-control. An overview on the virtue of self-control, as it is valued in ancient philosophy, is offered in Chadwick 1962, for example. That can from case to case mean different things (see on 7:7).

118

Commentary

about heterosexual long-term relationships—lived out in mutuality and in dialog with one another (7:2–5, 11, 12–16, 39). Both ways of living can also be practiced simultaneously, in a partnership or during an engagement. Paul sees difficulties in both ways of relating: Self-control often goes beyond one’s limits (7:7, 9, 28). Marriage and similar relationships, on the other hand, tie people into the destructive structures of the world/kosmos, which they want to resist (7:28–35). Paul’s argumentation is especially fragile when it comes to marriage or committed relationships. On the one hand, he sees them as a gift of God/charisma (7:7); on the other hand, he is decisively negative about marriage—it entangles people in the cares and goals espoused by the world/kosmos (7:33). If one further considers that the congregation’s members also include married couples like Prisca and Aquila, to whom he owes a great deal (Rom 16:3–5; 1 Cor 16:9) and whom he clearly respects, the flaw in his pieces of advice becomes even clearer. The possibility that same-sex relationships can also be formed messianically lies outside his purview. The interpretive and reception history of 1 Corinthians 7 has construed this chapter under the preconceived notion that Paul himself was unmarried, favored lifelong and categorical sexual abstinence for all and had a negative view of sexuality. Marriage would be for him a less-than-ideal solution. This image does not correspond to what the text actually says. In 7:17–24 he names the basis for the decisions on which he has reflected: God’s call. This call enables a person to shape these decisions actively, whether in sexual relationships, the ethical situations the future brings or in one’s legal status as freeborn or slave. This shaping does not mean to codify the status quo in society but in many cases to change it. God’s call (7:17–24) incorporates people into the body of the Messiah. In this chapter Paul does not explicitly say anything about the congregation. He presupposes it as the place in which the people who forego the sexual practices common in society live together as the unmarried, the married and as children. Even those whose partners do not want to belong to the messianic congregation (7:12–16) are »sisters« and »brothers,« that is, they share their daily lives and their life-decisions with the congregation. The fundamental significance that is to be ascribed to the congregation for this chapter (as for the letter as a whole) can be shown by the following reflection: Sexual abstinence was practiced in Roman society primarily by »respectable« women from elite families when they had given birth to the number of children the husband desired.326 The husband went with his sexual needs to other woman in any case. The practice of abstinence, celebrated as chastity by »honorable« women, was a luxury that they could afford also economically. It saved them from ongoing pregnancies and abortions with their pains and dangers. They left this burden to the women who were not honorable. To be sure, there was effective contraception,327 but it appears that it was unavailable

326 Rousselle 1993, 351–352. 327 Rousselle 1993, 338–339 points to the toxicity of many methods of contraception and their unreliability. Abortions were also methods of preventing pregnancies. See also Stumpp 1998, 110–116; Treggiari 1993, 405–407.

7:1–7

119

to many women. The majority of women were not »honorable«; they had to sell themselves to survive—or, as slaves, they in any case had no right to determine what happened to their bodies. The majority of the Corinthian congregation consisted of such dis-»honorable« women. Without the social cohesion of the congregation, a life as an unmarried woman (7:34) who served God alone was unthinkable. The congregation must have helped in the search for appropriate work; they obviously offered the stability and protection without which a survival in abstinence was impossible, in any case for women. Although Chapter 7 functions first as a stringing together of individual themes revolving around sexuality, it concentrates, nevertheless, on two ways of liberation: that of self-control and that of enduring partnership. Paul argues neither from a moral nor an authoritarian perspective. Primarily, he is laying out his personal stance in relation to concrete relationships that need to be reconstructed. Precisely when he commends self-control, he repeatedly emphasizes that in this respect he is only commending his personal perspective (7:6, 12, 25, 28, 35, 40).

7:1–7 1 Now to the issue about which you wrote. It is good when a man has no relationship with a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid irresponsible sexuality, every man should have sexual relations with his wife, and every woman should have sexual relations with her husband. 3 The husband should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife, and the same is true for the wife with respect to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have the right to exercise control over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have the right to exercise control over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deny one another, except by common agreement for a limited time, in order to devote yourselves to prayer. But then come together again. Otherwise, Satan could lead you into temptation because of your lack of self-control. 6 I am saying that as my opinion, not as an interpretation of Scripture. 7 I would like all people to live the way I myself am living. Nevertheless, all have received their own gift from God, the one this, the other that. 7:1 Paul mentions a letter from the Corinthian congregation to him or perhaps also to the congregation in Ephesus that addressed the themes that follow. Whether or not 7:1b is a quotation from this letter cannot be determined. In any case, 7:1b is also in agreement with Paul’s argument as a whole (see 7:7). 7:1b is not a judgment establishing a principle; rather, it is a good way for a man (for a time?) to practice sexual self-control, but it is not the only good way. Partnership/marriage can also be a good way (7:2–5). 7:2 Whether the »having«/echein of a husband or a wife signifies marriage in any legal sense is not to be taken from the formulation. A marriage according to

120

Commentary

Roman law presupposes Roman citizenship.328 So, from a Roman perspective,329 most members of the Corinthian congregation could only cohabite without being legally married. The word »cohabitation« should not be evaluated moralistically; it only indicates that we are dealing with a union that is not matrimonium iustum/a formal marriage in the legal sense.330 The issue of the legal status of the partnership does not appear to be important to Paul. He also speaks of gamein/to marry in this context (7:9, 10, and others). It is clear here that Paul has binding relationships between a man and a woman in mind, potentially also marriages that were sealed by a marriage contract, but probably also as well committed partnerships without legal regulation of the economic relationships.331 I am using here the concepts partnership and marriage/matrimony where Paul is thinking of committed relationships between a man and a woman. In this context, however, it must always be kept in mind that potentially these marriages are not legally protected. Thus »marriage« must not be understood from the perspective of today’s marital law. Partnerships/marriages are important, says Paul, dia tēs porneias/in order to avoid irresponsible sexuality. This rationale is often read as an indication of Paul’s concept of marriage as a means of controlling the sexual drive. But more recent research on prostitution at the time of the Roman Empire and on the significance of discoveries in Pompeii show that porneia here, as in 6:12–20, should be read socio-historically: as a contemptuous social practice in Roman cities.

The Social Practice of Contemptuous Sexuality (porneia) Imperial politics and legislation concentrated on differentiating honorable (matronae) women from dishonorable (infames) ones. Among other things, an obligation to register as a prostitute presumably served this purpose.332 The taxing of 328 Treggiari 1993, 60–80; Osiek in Balch/Osiek 2003, 240. 329 We don’t know whether the messianic community followed for itself Jewish marriage law, above all the establishment of a Ketuba/an amount of money for the protection of the wives in case of separation or the death of the partner. On Jew marriage see Ilan 1995, 57–96. 330 Rawson 1974. 331 On the way marriage functioned among the underclass, about which little is known, see Treggiari 1993, 77. Strupp 1998, 251 says: »On the way marriage functioned among the underclass can … no concrete statements be made.« Pliny the Younger, Pan.: »The rich are encourages to rear children by high rewards and comparable penalties; the poor have only one inducement—a good prince.« Trans. Betty Radice, Loeb (1969), 26.5. Pliny boasts in this context that the Emperor Trajan had, in contrast to other emperors, open ears for the pleas on behalf of children and granted an educational allowance from earliest childhood. This text shows in addition how the majority of the population had to suffer under other emperors: »if he [the emperor] neglects his poorer subjects he protects in vain his leading citizens,« 26.6. The necessity of securing one’s own survival had encouraged neither getting married nor, on top of that, raising children. 332 Stumpp 1998, 346–348; Rousselle 1993, 352. On infamia see McGinn 1998, 65–69. Infamia is used not only in the legal sense but as a mark of separation: Whoever is not a matrona is infamis.

7:1–7

121

prostitutes by Caligula then built upon this registration.333 In a satire Horace makes clear the purpose of this differentiation: There are some who would not keep company with a lady, unless her modest garment perfectly conceal her feet. [30] Another, again, will only have such as take their station in a filthy brothel. When a certain noted spark came out of a stew, the divine Cato [greeted] him with this sentence: »Proceed (says he) in your virtuous course. For, when once foul lust has inflamed the veins, it is right for young fellows to come hither, in comparison of their meddling with other men’s wives.« [35] I should not be willing to be commended on such terms, says Cupiennius, an admirer of the silken veil.334

The honorable woman must safeguard her chastity; she is defended against sexual attacks by all means possible, says Horace in the continuation of his thinking (Sat. 1.2.37–63). On the other hand, to go to slave women, former slave women and prostitutes is praiseworthy and not subject to a penalty. »[P]ut a stop to your pursuit after matrons;« (Horace, Sat. 1.2.75–80). Since the legislation on marriage promulgated by Augustus, the political goal is often pursued of grooming the next generation for the imperial power apparatus from the children of the Roman citizens (and possibly also of women citizens). At the same time, the attempt was made, through controlling the sexuality of the honorable wife, to ensure that the husband’s inheritance would go to the children fathered by him. The city of Pompeii was pervaded by a network of bordellos and bordellolike dwellings—even in the apartment buildings of rich families.335 Pompeii was long considered an especially lascivious Roman city; it has become clear that all Roman cities were similar in this regard, including Corinth.336 The archaeological evidence in Pompeii is, of course, richer and easier to interpret than it is in the other cities. But the image can be confirmed based on literary sources as well. A scene from Plautus’ comedies can illustrate the situation in port cities like Corinth: [C]ourtesans have this custom; they send servant-boys and servant-girls down to the harbour; if any foreign ship comes into port, they enquire of what country it is, and what its name is; after that, at once they set themselves to work, and fasten themselves upon him; if they inveigle him, they send him home a ruined man.337

333 Suetonius, Cal., trans. John C. Rolfe, Loeb (1913), 40 writes concerning taxations by the Emperor Caligula: From daily income it was required that »on the earnings of the prostitutes, as much as each received for one embrace; and a clause was added to the chapter of the law providing that those who had ever been prostitutes or acted as panders should be liable to this public tax …« On this see Stumpp 1998, 346–348. 334 Horace, Sat. 1.2.28–36. 335 Stumpp 1998,152, n. 6; McGinn 2004,71–77. Cf. also Weeber 1995, 287–291. 336 Corinth had the reputation of being especially immoral, since many temple prostitutes were there. They are slaves that belong to the temple and have to work as prostitutes in the city as other prostitutes do; see Bömer 1960, vol. 2, 156. They do not change the fabric of the city on this issue over against other cities in the Roman Empire. There is discussion about whether the sources exaggerate about Corinth as a city of temple prostitutes; on this see Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 56–57 and above on 6:15. 337 Plautus, Men. 2.2. On prostitution in Corinth see Fotopoulos 2003, 169–174.

122

Commentary

These prostitutes have at their disposal slave children, whom they send to the harbor, and fixed location at which they ply their trade. Others work in inns, for example, or on the streets. In the poor quarter »dwelling, small business and prostitution« are mixed together.338 On the seamy side of this violent social experience live women, children and men who can be penetrated at will. Dio Chrysostom, a Greek orator (born ca. 40 CE), lamented the condition of Roman cities and wrote about women in bordellos, who »in former times [were] almost free but now live in bondage utter and complete.« The hosts of the bordellos mate »lecherous and dissolute men in an ineffectual and fruitless physical union that breeds destruction rather than life. Yes, and they respect no [human] nor god.« It is to be said in addition that many of the prostitutes are women slaves, so they have no knowledge of freedom at all. In addition, the undesired pregnancies and dangerous abortions are to be considered. Yet Dio Chrysostom is aware that this violent sexuality is carried on not only in bordellos but also in the houses of the rich. He also laments the »hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family.«339 The images publicly displayed in Roman cities were full of images of violence, murder, and pornographically depicted sexuality. Even little objects of daily life like oil lamps could bear such images.340 It is to be assumed about the people of the Corinthian congregation that the men were accustomed to paying women small sums for sex and that, to a greater extent, the women had experience with prostituting themselves. The congregation is a place to set another way of life in opposition to this economic and social structure. That is what Paul is working at in 6:12–20 and 7:1–40. The socio-historical location of Chapter 7 shows that traditional Christian interpretation of this text is working with inappropriate hermeneutical presuppositions, namely: 1. The use of prostitutes is the exception in the society and in the messianic congregation. Only men with an exaggerated craving for sex took that course. Prostitution was an exception to the rule in an otherwise honorable society. 2. Porneia/illegitimate sexuality in 7:2 designates the libido in all people, which is channeled in a marriage. 3. Poverty and sexual exploitation are two issues that are in principle separable. For example, 1:26 is, as a rule, not considered in context with Chapter 7 or 6:15–20. »The problem is that the poor are generally anything but ›decent‹ [German ›ehrbar‹] and many of the issues poor women face are sexual, such as sexual violence, back alley abortions, and prostitution.«341

338 339 340 341

Stumpp 1998, 168. Dio Chrysostom, Or., trans. J. W. Cohoon, Loeb (1932), 7.134, 139. Examples can be found in Grant 1982, 161–180. A. Ipsen 2009, 4.

7:1–7

123

Illustration 3: A map of Pompeii with alleged places of prostitution; based on McGinn 2004, map 4. Map: Peter Palm, Berlin.

This map shows places of prostitution in Pompeii. Even if this map has reference to a specific city, it can give an impression of the conditions in other cities of the Roman Empire. 7:3–5 The text turns to people who in marriage are practicing self-control. Paul recommends that they only do this in the context of mutual dialogue and agreement, and then only for a limited time. Antoinette Wire342 has espoused the convincing thesis that Paul especially wanted to convince married women that they should not one-sidedly deny their partners the right to sexual relations. Speaking for this thesis is its connection with 6:12–20. 7:5b warns against the satanic temptation of the lack of self-control. 6:12–20 could be read right along with that. So, the following overall picture emerges: Some of the married women belonging to the congregation have one-sidedly and without the partner’s consent refused to fulfill their marital »duties« (7:3). Thereupon the husbands affected by this exercised the right, self-evidentially accorded them by society, to go to prostitutes. Luzia Sutter Rehmann343 has

342 Wire 1990, 81–82; cf. Wire 1994, 169. 343 Sutter Rehmann 2002, 183.

124

Commentary

shown that married women, with this step into marital freedom344 during an existing marriage, could draw upon the Jewish practice of making a vow. Paul’s ostensibly egalitarian rhetoric in this section is then explained as an attempt to persuade wives. But that does not make Paul’s argument fundamentally questionable. The egalitarian language first occurs to him here—that is true—but in any case, he is clearly advocating a partnership of mutuality and dialogue in a world in which marriage is understood primarily as the rule of the pater familias over wife and children. He also sustains the argument supportive of partnership even when husbands want to separate from a wife who does not join them on their way into the messianic community (7:12). Nevertheless, from a 21st century perspective it needs to be asked whether the relationship between two people is appropriately described as a mutual right to say yes or no (exousiadzein, 7:4), as mutual obligation/responsibility (opheilē, 7:3; cf. aposterein/deprive, 7:5). Here Paul continues to be trapped in the language of domination. He has no knowledge of the critical issue of whether marriage even permits the rape of the wife. Given the background of the frequency and danger of pregnancies, it is natural for married women to practice abstinence and in some way or other to ask it of their husbands. More in need of an explanation is the fact that Paul, in his consideration of enduring partnerships/marriages, does not say a single word about the fact that the purpose of the partnership is to raise children. This rationale for marriage is the usual one in antiquity, particularly from the perspective of husbands focused on control.345 Today the widespread explanation for the Pauline concept of self-control and for his failure to base marriage on future offspring is his »imminent expectation« of the parousia. However, this concept of »imminent expectation« is inadequate for comprehending Paul’s eschatology (see the basic information after 1:6 above). It is easier to assume that basing marriage on the goal of producing children expresses the specific interest of the elite. They put great value on producing biological children of the head of the house for future functions of the elite and for the inheritance of their father’s possessions. From this perspective the best guarantee in marriage is to control the sexuality of the wives, so that fathers can be sure of their biological paternity. In most of the population, a shortage of children wasn’t likely a concern. The lack of means

344 On this concept see Sutter Rehmann 1994, 88–94. The concept of marital freedom is meant to show that the issue is not only sexual abstinence but also the (partial) freedom from the husband’s right to make the decisions on everyday issues. How much wives were dependent upon marital freedom in this sense is also shown by Tertullian, Ux. 2.4; on this see also 7:29. 345 See especially the marriage legislation of Augustus; information on this is found in Treggiari 1993, 60–80. For a collection of material about children as the purpose of marriage, see Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 65, n. 81. There were actually attempts to bring about an early onset of puberty: Soranus, Gynecology 1.7: »As far as control over the monthly flow is concerned, one should do all that can be done to contribute to the fact that from age thirteen on the flow occurs on its own and before marriage.« Soranus recommends, for example, restricted movement. The Greek text is available in Burguiè et al 1988, vol. 1.20; on this see Rousselle 1993, 331–332.

7:1–7

125

of birth control meant for women, often right away at puberty, an ongoing succession of pregnancies. There are enough children born, is what is being said by others, who are advocating abstinence (see on 7:7). In 7:5 it becomes clear what the issue is for wives, perhaps even husbands, when they want to practice abstinence in marriage: they want to have time and space for prayer. Essentially time and space through abstinence occurs only for women who do not become pregnant again. Prayer or also the house of prayer (proseuchē) stands here for more than a time for worship in the narrow sense.346 In 7:35 the same task is called being able to devote oneself to the things of the Lord, that is, everything God now needs from me. For the wives this means selfcontrol/abstinence within the marriage to gain the space to work on behalf of life. In any case this work is to be thought of only in the time that is left over after the work necessary for survival. Care for the sick, street children or the homeless can be taken as examples for what the people of the messianic congregation could do with such time and space. They could pray, learn, interpret Scripture and put their interpretation into practice. 7:6 Paul says here (as in 7:12, 25, 28, 35, 40) with emphasis: It is my personal opinion. A command in the Torah or its interpretation through Jesus the Liberator is not what Paul has in mind here; cf. 7:25 on epitagē (and cf. 7:10, 12, also, with respect to the issue at hand). Syngnōmē could mean his opinion that concurs with (that of) those he is addressing, or, like its non-compound form [gnōmē] in 7:40 and 2 Cor 8:10, my opinion. The traditional translation, »I say this as a concession, not as a command,«347 is based on the hermeneutical principle that Paul had the right to issue commands to the Corinthian congregation. That accords neither with the sense of 7:6 nor with the structure of the relationship between Paul and the congregations, especially not that with the Corinthian congregation. In Chapter 7 it is important for him to earmark as a personal opinion his concept that self-control is a step toward liberation from the power of the misuse of sexuality. 7:7 Paul assumes that the addressees know that he lives without a woman as his partner (cf. 9:5). Whether he is unmarried or living on his own in an existing marriage (or is a widower or divorcé) is not known. This life under self-control is important to him, and he considers it to be a gift of God—as is a life with a partner. The diversity of God’s gifts/of aptitudes and abilities, to work for the life of all, is also important for Paul elsewhere (see 12:4–31). The abilities given by God can be lived out in a partnership or apart from one (cf. also 7:17–24). Categorical and lifelong sexual abstinence or celibacy is not Paul’s practice, nor is it the object of his desire for people in the messianic communities. He also does not basically reject sexuality. It is a gift of God and should also be structured at such. That emerges from 6:15–20. 1 Corinthians 7 has often been read with the premise that Paul essentially considered categorical and lifelong rejection of sexual-

346 Sutter Rehmann 2002, 183. 347 For example, BDAG s.v. syngnōmē.

126

Commentary

ity and marriage as the ideal—and marriage as a compromise. But such concepts come from later developments in the ancient church.348 What Paul himself practices and commends as a possible way to live is self-control, which can potentially mean to forego a partnership, so long as the person him or herself and the other person involved are in agreement about it. There is nothing in the text about a categorical and lifelong decision, nor is there anything about sexuality itself already being something to view critically. What Paul is speaking about is resistance to a sexual practice that is usual in society. Even in the Jewish tradition,349 the concept is found that men or women, for the sake of the Torah or on other grounds, refrain from getting married; this was, to be sure, a marginal occurrence. Philostratus350 writes concerning Apollonius: »by dint of virtue [aretē] and temperance [sōphrosynē] never even in his youth was [he] so overcome … [H]e mastered [ekratei] and gained control of the maddening passion [despotēs—he means sexual desire], … for that he was resolved never to wed nor have any connection whatever with women.« The rejection of marriage is very often connected with a deep distain for women.351 At the same time, all the more callously, people had sex. One repeatedly finds the assertion that certain philosophers, religious communities, or »heretical« groups had practiced celibacy. Others assert about the same people that there were perhaps sexual excesses. Thus, Apollonius is accused by many of having romantic relationships (aphrodisia). This is also reported by Philostratus,352 who, on the other hand, praises Apollonius’ self-control. Philo and Josephus assert about the Essenes that they exercised self-control, going to the extent of rejecting women. But these assertions cannot be verified in the texts and archeological findings in Qumran.353 The writings of Clement of Alexandria are a rich repository of similar assertions about the sexual abstinence or sexual excesses of heretical groups.354 The only thing that is clear is that self-control was considered a great virtue in philosophy and religion. Often it concerned eating, but often also lust after other people’s bodies.355 Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians 7 about self-control but also about

348 Jensen 1992, 80–82; 64, n. 78. Cyprian, Hab. Virg. 22 champions the view, »The world has its population,« »The earth is already full.« Therefore some do well to live as eunuchs. He is thinking of lifelong absolute celibacy on the part of women. 349 Ilan 1995, 62–65; Tomson 1988, n. 32; Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 748 and n. 5. 350 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.13; English translation Conybeare 1960, 35. 351 See, for example, Theophrastus, The Golden Book of Marriage. 352 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.13. 353 See, for example, Josephus, B.J. 2.120; additional material and discussion in Ilan 1995, 67; H. Stegemann 1993, 267–274. »The Essenes are often presented as categorically living without marriage. But in the Qumran texts we never find even the mildest hint of celebracy,« H. Stegemann 1993, 267. The archeological evidence also speaks against celibacy. 354 Clement of Alexandria, Strom., 3.12.1, about Pythagoreans; see also 24.1. Concerning the followers of Basilides, see 3.1. On this see Chadwick 1962, 350, 360. 355 Chadwick 1962, 343–348.

7:8–11

127

the fact that it cannot always be maintained (7:9; 7:36). Then, »They should marry.« For widows as well, abstinence is indeed his recommendation, but if that is not possible, they should marry (7:39–40). Neither lifelong sexual abstinence nor a critical rejection of sexuality should be read into 1 Corinthians 7. It is not in the text. David Clines (2003) evaluates 1 Cor 7:7 and Paul’s way of life as an expression of a Pauline construct of his own masculinity. He lived in relationships with men like Barnabas and Silas. He preferred to live womanless, for marriage is a fetter. To have wives as though you did not have them (7:29), is the »slogan of a real man.« This thesis by Clines moves Paul into the line of Hellenistic aversion to marriage because of an aversion to women. But that is exactly what is missing in the text. Rather, Paul is concerned about furthering dialogue in a marriage and the duration of relationships. On the interpretation of 7:29, see there.

7:8–11 8 Now I am speaking to the unmarried and the widows. It is good for you if you remain as you are—as I am as well. 9 However, if you cannot control yourselves, you should live in partnerships. That is better than burning with passion. 10 I advise those who are married—this advice does not come from me but from the One to whom we belong: A wife should not separate from her husband. 11 If, however, she does separate, she should remain unmarried or reconcile again with her husband. And a husband should not send his wife away. In the style of halakic language356 Paul makes recommendations to the unmarried/widows (7:8–9) and the married (7:10–11), about how they should conduct themselves as members of the messianic congregation in Corinth. He is not speaking here in the language of a timeless ethic but in relation to a concrete social situation. 7:7–8 are explicit (see 7:7) statements of his personal opinions. The statement on divorce (7:10) is different from these; it is a halakah of the Liberator Jesus (cf. Mark 10:11–12). In 7:10 Paul uses the word parangellein. To translate this with »to command« or with similar wording is ascribing to Paul (or even Jesus) an authority »from above« that he does not have and certainly doesn’t claim.357 He or Jesus is possibly laying claim here to the authority to interpret Scripture as a halakic teacher. The recommendation to avoid divorce if possible, could be understood as an interpretation of Gen 2:24 applied to the present situation (see Mark 10:6–8 in connection with Mark 10:11–12; cf. 1 Cor 6:16). Paul recommends to those who are not married, whether they are unmarried, widowed or divorced (7:11a), that, if possible, they do not enter a new marriage but practice self-control. In this he was not seeking any unconditional conduct on the part of those in question. 356 Tomson 1990, 103–124. 357 Ehrensperger 2007, 112.

128

Commentary

If the necessary self-control was lacking, one should enter a new marriage (7:9). Remarriage to your own partner, from whom you had previously separated (7:11), presupposes, in accord with Deut 24:1–4, that a woman was not, in the interim, the wife of another man. The reconciliation of divorced couples does not at all appear to have happened only in exceptional cases.358 Neither for those living alone nor even for the married does this text specify unconditional regulations, as it has often been interpreted to do. Rather it in each case offers alternatives. In this regard, it must remain an open question why the alternatives for the married shown in 7:11a only apply to the wives. It is possible that Paul by analogy also assumes them self-evidently for the husbands. The social context in which this section, 7:9–11, stands is, on the one hand, the sexual violence of large Roman cities (see on 7:2) and, on the other, in this society, also in its underclass.

Divorces In all nations in which slavery exists, the endurance of a happy and harmonious marriage faces special difficulties.359

Freeborn men, unhindered by laws or morals, could take sexual control over their female and male slaves. That had impacts on the relationships between people also in the society in general. … if husbands, too, were taken to task for wenching on the sly, the same way as wanton wives are divorced, I warrant there’d be more lone men about than there now are women!360

In these verses Plautus names one aspect of a complex occurrence. The way society deals with divorce affects men and women very differently. Wives are expected to endure in silence the bad behavior of their husbands; husbands dismiss wives whom they reproach for bad behavior. Another aspect of the matter is the privileged situation of the society’s elite, who clearly distinguish themselves from most of the population. Marriages among slaves enjoy no legal protections. When property owners order slaves to be sold or brought to a new location, this happens without regard for connections with spouses and children. This is probably also true for marriages between a slave and an emancipated person.361 The children of slaves were illegitimate and often grew up without one or both parents. But even among the freeborn, families were unstable. Divor358 Deut 24:1–4 already presupposes that. For the postbiblical period see the wedding document of Salome, the daughter of Johanan Ben Ha’Galgol from the Judean wilderness; on this see Koffmahn 1968, 126–135; Ilan 1995, 144–145; additional parallels there; see also Billerbeck, vol. 3, 371–373. 359 Marquardt (1886) 1975, vol. 1, 66. 360 Plautus, Mercator, trans. Paul Nixon, Loeb (1957), 826–829. 361 Rawson 1966, 72. See also Eck/Heinrichs 1993, no. 233 and Pomeroy 1985, 299.

7:8–11

129

ces were simple to get and were not considered a serious action: »in the imperial period, for most people marriage is considered a temporary connection just as frivolously ended as contracted. If a divorce is later regretted, nothing stands in the way of reinstating the marriage.«362 The sources that can be evaluated about how divorce was handled are often hostile to women and moralizing. They do not allow any statistical evaluation. Nevertheless, the impression they give is compelling. 1 Corinthians 7 can be seen alongside of this material as an independent source on this matter. Paul is speaking to people who are part of the population’s majority in a large Roman city. In 7:10, 11, 12–16 divorce appears to be an everyday problem. Paul is clearly interested in preventing the tearing apart of families as much as he can. The noble ideals of Roman society, the ideal of univira/the wife who remains with one husband for life,363 the ideal of a host of legitimate children in the upper-class family, which Augustus wants to promote in his marriage legislation,364 were not in accord with reality. The following text from Seneca clearly exaggerates and is hostile to women, but it makes the class-transcending instability of the relationships between the sexes very clear: Is there any woman that blushes at divorce now that certain illustrious and noble ladies reckon their years, not by the number of consuls, but by the number of their husbands, and leave home in order to marry, and marry in order to be divorced? … Is there any shame at all for adultery now that matters have come to such a pass that no woman has any use for a husband except to inflame her paramour? Chastity is simply a proof of ugliness. Where will you find any woman so wretched, so unattractive, as to be content with a couple of paramours—without having each hour assigned to a different one? … She is simple and behind the times who is not aware that living with one paramour is called »marriage«!365

In the New Testament Mark 6:17–20 mentions the marital relationships in the Herodian family, which were criticized by John the Baptist. John 4:16–17 sketches the fate of a lower-class woman who had six partners and Jesus’ acknowledgement of her need. Often enough economic reasons forced women to enter new relationships, since the pay women received did not allow them to live independently (see above on 6:15). Husbands very often lost their wives before these girls became women, since they died in childbirth.366 The depiction of Roman family life in earlier literature is often characterized by a moral contrast: Roman families are instable, a Christian family, by contrast,

362 Marquardt 1975, vol. 1, 71–72; Treggiari 1993, 482 evaluates the matter more cautiously, but in substance there’s barely a difference; see also Weeber 1995, 75–77; 299–300; Friedländer 1964, vol. 1, 285–287; Satlow 2001, 183. 363 See, for example, the Laudatio Turiae, 1.27–28; (ILS 8393. English translation by E. Wistrand). http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/survey/laudtur.html. 364 Treggiari 1993, 60–80. 365 Seneca, Ben., trans. John W. Basore, Loeb (1935), 3.16.2–3. 366 Rousselle 1993, 325–327.

130

Commentary

is stable.367 And yet the stressful economic situation and the violence afflicting the population far and wide make plausible the impression Paul conveys: divorces are an everyday problem. There is no reason to idealize smugly later Christian ways of dealing with marriage and to oppose them to the situation in the Roman Empire.

7:12–16 12 Now to the rest, I say, not the One to whom we belong: When a brother has a wife who does not belong to the messianic community and yet agrees to live with him, he should not send her away. 13 And when a wife has a husband who does not belong to the messianic community and yet agrees to live with her, she should not send him away. 14 The unbelieving husband becomes holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife becomes holy through the brother. Your children, subject to alien deities, are now also holy. 15 When those who do not belong to the messianic community want to separate, they should separate. The brother or the sister is in these cases not under any pressure. For God has called you to experience the fullness of life. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? And how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Corinth, with its population thrown together from many lands, brought together a variety of languages, religions, and cultures. In this context it is important to comprehend religion not as a system existing in isolation but as an aspect of the culture in which it finds itself. Intercultural marriages and families, a part of which belonged to the messianic congregation, will have been a typical phenomenon, not the exception.368 One can imagine in this regard both that couples united when one of the partners already lived in the messianic community and that one of the partners joined the messianic group only after they were joined together in marriage. The kinds of tensions such an intercultural marriage must have endured can be discerned from 5:9–13 and from the church historian Tertullian (born about 160 CE). First about 5:9–13: Here Paul deals with the messianic community’s life together. His rule of thumb: Living together is a necessity—you can’t simply leave the world behind, but to live together as members of the congregation means to make a clean break from the culture that’s under the control of money and sex. Intercultural marriages/families must deal with serious everyday problems.369 Tertullian, perhaps 150 years later, has written about these everyday problems. Much has changed in this time. He presupposes, for example, that the congregations essentially reject marriages with partners outside of the congregation, a

367 Dixon 2003, 114–115. On the difficulty of making statements about how the lower class dealt with divorce, see Kajanto 1970, 99–113. 368 See El Mansy 2016, 217–68. 369 For a literary discussion on interreligious marriages in the first and second centuries, see El Mansy 2013.

7:12–16

131

stance, to be sure, that they were unable to sustain. Tertullian describes the tensions in this kind of marriage, especially for women living the messianic life: Any and every believing woman must of necessity obey God. [4] And how can she serve two lords—the Lord, and her husband—a Gentile to boot? For in obeying a Gentile she will carry out Gentile practices,—personal attractiveness, dressing of the head, worldly elegancies, baser blandishments, … But let her see to (the question) how she discharges her duties to her husband …

Tertullian asks how she can fulfill her obligations to God: if there are fasts to be observed, the husband that same day holds a convivial banquet; if a charitable expedition has to be made, never is family business more urgent. [2] For who would suffer his wife, for the sake of visiting the brethren, to go round from street to street to other men’s, and indeed to all the poorer, cottages? Who will willingly bear her being taken from his side by nocturnal convocations, if need so be? Who, finally, will without anxiety endure her absence all the night long at the paschal solemnities? Who will, without some suspicion of his own, dismiss her to attend that Lord’s Supper which they defame? Who will suffer her to creep into prison to kiss a martyr’s bonds? nay, truly, to meet any one of the brethren to exchange the kiss? to offer water for the saints’ feet? to snatch (somewhat for them) from her food, from her cup? to yearn (after them)? to have (them) in her mind? If a pilgrim brother arrive, what hospitality for him in an alien home? If bounty is to be distributed to any, the granaries, the storehouses, are foreclosed.370

Not all details will apply fully to wives living messianically in the Corinthian congregation, but the clash between two ways of life can be comparably deduced from 5:9–13. To be born in mind here is the imbalance of power between the sexes. For wives, the connection to the God of Israel could mean not to be able to serve two masters. With his recommendations in 7:12–16, Paul would like to contribute to the preservation of intercultural marriages, as long as both partners desire that. 7:12 The »rest,« to whom Paul turns in 7:12, are the intercultural families, as we can see from what follows. Paul emphasizes again, as in 7:7, that he is only offering here his personal opinion. In the first situation he names, the husband belongs to the messianic congregation, while the wife does not. The wife must put up with her husband’s way of life, now different from what she experiences every day. He, for example, now gives money for other purposes, and he experiences the city’s festivals as a place for intolerable sexual violence. The situation Paul addresses in 7:13 is probably more difficult for the wife under discussion, for her husband can demand obedience from her, even if she thereby damages her connection to the God of Israel. He can, for instance, force her to take part in a sacrificial meal in a temple dedicated to other gods. In 7:14 Paul maintains that the messianic partner brings about the holiness of the husband or the wife who is not a member of the messianic congregation. Indeed, even the children are holy and not unclean (akathartos). We are not dealing here with the concept of purity found in the regula370 Tertullian, ad ux., 2.3–4, trans. S. Thelwell, ANF, vol. 4. On the history of the Old Testament discussion on intercultural marriages, see Kessler 2010, 276–295; for postbiblical Judaism, see Satlow 2001, 140–161.

132

Commentary

tions in the Book of Leviticus.371 Rather the issue is being holy through fellowship with the God of Israel and the Messiah (see on 1:2). Apparently, those living messianically in intercultural families are concerned that their partners and children are sinful. Here sin, rather than Levitical impurity, is the appropriate antonym to holiness. It is difficult for people whom God has made holy to share life with partners who follow other laws for life. How does Paul envision the way the family, even its members who are not living messianically, become holy? Is it that the people of the Messiah win over the others for the messianic life (7:16), or that Paul, as a teacher of the Torah, decides that they are holy and that living with them is not a violation of the Torah? One has often assumed that the issue here was a magic concept of holiness.372 Since holiness for Paul is very closely connected with the concept of participation in the body of the Messiah, here also the community is in any case in view and also the relationship between family members. This fellowship should be possible even if a member is not a part of the body of the Messiah. 7:14 shows the limits that the concepts in 5:9–13 encounter in reality. Love defies cultural differences. Paul breaks his own concept of separating oneself from those who live apart from the truth (5:11). 7:15 shows once again how clearly Paul is oriented on the concrete situation and not on fixed rules. Jesus’ »prohibition« of divorce (7:10) is not a prohibition but an attempt at healing the relationship. If it is possible, families should remain together. But that cannot mean living together at all costs. The messianic brothers and sisters do not live under compulsion; they are not under bondage like slaves (ou dedoulōtai, 7:15). Who or what is applying pressure here, the congregation or a »prohibition« of divorce by Jesus? Since Paul clearly does not understand Jesus’ word as a »prohibition« of divorce, the congregation is likely in view. Justin hands down a comparable case. A wife in an already intolerable marriage was »overpersuaded by her friends (hypo tōn autēs)« from leaving the marriage, in the hope of still saving the husband. The wording is not fully clear; the congregation is probably in view. This pressure only prolonged the suffering of the wife, who did then indeed separate from her husband. Even if this text relates to an event more than a hundred years later, it can serve to clarify the circumstances in inter-cultural marriages in Corinth in Paul’s time. It shows that the difference over how one lives is the central problem, even if Justin moralizes the matter. As Justin presents things, the man is not a moral failure, but a typical representative of male socially approved behavior (see above at 7:2): A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became soberminded, and endeavoured to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teach-

371 On the difference from the Jewish concepts of purity, see Klawans 1995, 285–312; on 1 Cor 7:14, see L. Schottroff 2004, 85–86. 372 For example, Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 105. In the event that this magical efficacy is envisioned as something automatic and independent of personal relationships, this does not do justice to the text. Ilan 2003, 95–98 envisions a life together that is analogous to that between Pharisaic men or women and their respective non-Pharisaic partners.

7:17–24

133

ing of Christ, and assuring him that there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife from him by his actions. For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation of what is right, wished to be divorced from him. And when she was overpersuaded by her friends, who advised her still to continue with him, in the idea that some time or other her husband might give hope of amendment, she did violence to her own feeling and remained with him. But when her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself worse than ever, she—that she might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in his wickednesses and impieties—gave him what you call a bill of divorce, and was separated from him.373

Paul wants to keep the wives who are affected from the pressure of having to preserve a marriage that has become intolerable. He bases that on the fundamental salutary statement, God has called you to peace. Since the German word »Frieden«/ peace does not have the comprehensive significance of its biblical counterpart, the appropriate translation is »called to experience the fullness of life.«374 In the history of interpretation this concluding statement has been found to be difficult. Should the peace be related to a divorce or to the harmony that should hold sway in every marriage (an antiquated concept, one would hope)? In what sense can the talk here be about the comprehensive salvation/peace of God? If one looks at the continuation of the thought in 7:17–24, Paul’s thinking becomes clear: Whether divorce or marriage, in both modes of life what matters is following the call of God and experiencing the fullness of life. Divorce can also be a necessary step into the fullness of life. 7:16 To avoid separating with the good intention of gaining the non-messianic partner is unrealistic and inappropriate. 7:1–7 promotes the impression that women are clearly more interested than men in the practice of self-control for a time. 7:8–16 likewise creates the impression that women more strongly than men make it their business to win their partner for the messianic life (they are mentioned first in 7:16; cf. 7:14) and that in an intercultural marriage they actively pursue their membership in the congregation, even if it puts the marriage on the line (7:15). Here Paul is breaking through the usual androcentric language and making women explicitly visible. His giving precedence to the wife in 7:16 could also point in that direction.

7:17–24 17 What matters here is that all live their lives in the way that the Eternal One has granted to them, as God has called every man and every woman. I advocate that as my teaching in all congregations. 18 If a man was called to live as circum-

373 Justin, 2 Apol. 2 trans. P. Schaff, ANF vol. 1. 374 On shalom/eirēnē see Wacker 2011.

134

Commentary

cised, he shall not change anything about this. If a man was called when he was uncircumcised, he should not let himself be circumcised. 19 To be circumcised or to be uncircumcised is not what is decisive, but keeping God’s commands. 20 All are called by God and should conduct their lives in this way. 21 Did God call you when you were a slave? Don’t let that bother you. But if you can become free, all the better. 22 For a slave called by the Eternal One is the Eternal One’s freed person. And likewise, the free persons whom God has called are slaves of the Messiah. 23 You have been bought by God. Don’t let yourselves be enslaved by humans. 24 God has called you all, sisters and brothers. Stay that way!— before God. In 7:17–24 Paul continues the foundational idea that he already articulated in 7:15: In375 all such decisions—to maintain a difficult marriage or divorce—what counts is to follow God’s call. The call of God does not mean that Jews no longer live a Jewish life or that people of non-Jewish origin adopt Jewish ways (7:18), but that all observe the Torah (see the basic information on 7:19). Paul explains in 7:21–23 the consequences of God’s call and of the observance of the law for slave and free. To live out God’s call means to live as God’s enslaved or freed person, that is, to serve God as your only Lord. That corresponds to what happens when the slaveowner wants to set slaves free (7:21). As those set free, they then are also God’s enslaved or freed persons and can make use of somewhat more freedom to make decisions in keeping with God’s call than at the time of their complete enslavement. The section 7:17–24 is encumbered by a fixed interpretive tradition376 that looks upon this text as a legitimation of a status quo theology: »Let everyone stay in his or her place.«377 That is, according to this interpretive tradition, the text says that God’s call alters nothing about the social status quo; everyone should remain in the place in which God’s call found him or her. In the interpretive tradition of a firmly anchored concept of Pauline conservatism, for centuries this has meant codifying slavery as given by God.378 Thereby the incomplete phrase in 7:21 is enlarged and interpreted: »make all the more use of the slavery.« The word »slavery« is added (see on 7:21). Alongside of this, there was an interpretation that added

375 The restrictive meaning of ei mē rather than its adversative meaning (»but«) stands in the foreground in 7:17a. The married can find the right way only by holding fast to God’s call. 376 This interpretive tradition is the norm in translations and interpretations of 7:17–24. It has often been criticized for its exegetical and philological untenability, but this criticism has not altered the majority interpretation. Here are some stations along this criticism’s way: K.L. Schmidt in TDNT 1965, vol. 3, 491–493; Bartchy 1973—an entire monograph on this theme; L. Schottroff 1995, 121–135; Elliott 1994, 31–40; Bartchy 2015. 377 The wording of the Zürich Bible 1931 [likely NRSV: »Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called.«]; on the Zürich Bible of 2007 see below; on German translations of 7:20 as a whole, see Bartchy 2015. 378 There is a helpful table giving an overview of the interpretive history of the verse in Bartchy 1973, 6–7.

7:17–24

135

the word »freedom.« In more recent interpretation there is the combination of a »freedom« interpretation of 7:21, applied to the possibility of an end to slavery in an individual situation, with an interpretation of the call of God in 7:17–24 in the sense of a status quo theology. As an example of this mixture, the translation of 7:20 and 7:21 in the Zürich Bible can serve: 7:20 »But let everyone remain in the place in which he or she was called.« 7:21 »If you were you called as a slave, don’t let that bother you; but if you can become free, then use the opportunity all the more« (emphasis added to the interpretive attempt given here). Frequently combined with a »conservative« interpretation of the call in 7:17–24 is the assumption that Paul is no longer interested in a change in the social status quo because of the expectation that the end is near.379 In the feminist discussion, the interpretive tradition that sees 7:17–24 as an expression of Pauline conservatism has often led to a fundamental criticism or rejection of Paul.380 The criticism of a conservative interpretation of Paul is strengthened today by the insight that the translation of klēsis/call [German: Ruf] by a second meaning of the word, »occupation«/»calling« [German: Beruf], »social position«/[German: Stand]381 has no philological justification382 and can no longer be substantiated. This lexical conjecture that there is this second meaning is based on the obvious intention of wanting to give Paul a conservative interpretation. The Pastoral Epistles, which are included in the Pauline Epistles in the canon, have encouraged and supported this conservative interpretation of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7. Thus the text fits into the image of Paul as it was used, for example, in the 20th century discussion about the ordination of women in the Protestant Church: »in the congregation, in its social structure, all distinctions continue; there are men and women, old and young, free and slave. For all of them the divine laws of super- and subordination apply.383

Slavery At the time this letter was written there were female and male slaves as workers in all spheres of life. Slave labor was the basis for the economy and for society. It was the precursor of machines in large-scale enterprises, plantations, large trades, mines, and in the transportation of goods and materials. During the time of the Roman Empire slavery is especially cruel because it has no limits: A per-

379 For example, Conzelmann 1975, 127; Schrage 1982, 224–225. On the near expectation, see here the basic information at 1:7. 380 For example, Wire 1994, 171; Bassler 1992, 324. 381 See BDAG s.v. klēsis. 382 See especially Bartchy 2015 and K.L. Schmidt in TDNT 1965, vol. 3, 491–493 for a discussion of the texts that are introduced for this meaning of the word but do not support it. For exegetical arguments see also Bartchy 1973; L. Schottroff 1995, 121–135. 383 Wilhelm Laible 1930, 634.

136

Commentary

son’s entire life belongs to one or more other people. There is no time limit (as there is in Exod 21:2–11, namely six years). But, above all, there is no limit to the power to control someone, no limit to the master’s power. Slaves were understood as sōma/a body that belongs to other people.384 These »others« can exploit their labor, prey upon them sexually, humiliate them and drive them on with blows (see on 15:56). Seneca (about 4 BCE–65 CE) describes very critically and realistically the treatment of slaves who serve at table. By way of contrast, his notion is that fate has put them in this place, although they can possess a noble character. Therefore, the slave owner should treat them with respect and even invite individual slaves whose behavior warrants it to dine at the table with the owner: I am glad to learn, through those who come from you, that you live on friendly terms with your slaves. This befits a sensible and well-educated man like yourself. »They are slaves,« people declare. Nay, rather they are men. »Slaves!« No, comrades. »Slaves!« No, they are unpretentious friends. »Slaves!« No, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave. But why should they think it degrading? It is only because purse-proud etiquette surrounds a householder at his dinner with a mob of standing slaves. The master eats more than he can hold, and with monstrous greed loads his belly until it is stretched and at length ceases to do the work of a belly; so that he is at greater pains to discharge all the food than he was to stuff it down. All this time the poor slaves may not move their lips, even to speak. The slightest murmur is repressed by the rod; even a chance sound,—a cough, a sneeze, or a hiccup,—is visited with the lash. There is a grievous penalty for the slightest breach of silence. All night long they must stand about, hungry and dumb. The result of it all is that these slaves, who may not talk in their master’s presence, talk about their master.385

Seneca writes this for his own kind, the educated in the Roman Empire’s upper class. This text shows, on the one hand, Seneca’s attempt to get his own kind to regard slaves as human; on the other hand, it makes clear the reality that slaves were not regarded as human. They are property, at the mercy of any and every use of force. The numerous prostitutes in major Roman cities are for the most part female slaves (see at 7:2). Slaves were bought and sold like cattle or objects (see basic information at 6:20). Many slaves were victims of the Roman wars of conquest. Increasingly there were indigenous slaves, who were born of women slaves, but who then were often separated from their mothers. Even if, after an education, many slaves were groomed for upscale types of work, they were still slaves. There are attempts to idealize slavery in Rome in Christian theology and historiography,386 even in the second half of the 20th century. They are, however, carried ad absurdum, especially

384 Kreuzer/L. Schottroff 2009, 526–528. 385 Seneca, Ep., trans. Richard M. Gummere, Loeb (1925), 47.1–4. 386 On this see especially Callahan/Horsley and Horsley in Callahan/Horsley/Smith 1998, 1–66.

7:17–24

137

through their thorough study in North America.387 From Romans (16:3–23) it can be inferred that the messianic congregations in Rome were made up to a substantial degree of slaves.388 It can be assumed for Corinth that the congregation also is made up to a substantial degree of slaves. That also becomes apparent in 7:17–24, where it is not by chance that Paul comes to speak of the situation of slaves as he wishes to explain the significance of God’s call. They had limited options for living out God’s call in their lives. Cato (234–149 BCE) writes in his book on agriculture about what he considers necessary controls over a female slave who is the housekeeper on the farm (the vilica): »She must not go out to meals, or be a gadabout. She must not engage in religious worship herself or get others to engage in it for her without the orders of the master or the mistress« (dominus and domina).389 A slave woman like the one Cato describes can essentially participate in the congregation only in secret. But not all slaves appear to have had so restrictive a space for their activities. For slaves, being a member of the congregation meant the daily battle of being unable to serve two masters. For whoever was a part of the body of the Messiah was God’s freed person and had only one kyrios/Lord: God. On the situation of freed slaves, who through their liberation continue to be bound to their master, and on Paul’s metaphoric language about slavery, see the basic information at 6:20. 7:17 God’s call is a fundamental experience of one’s relationship to the God of Israel. The prophets describe how they were called by God (Isa 6:8–13; Jer 1:4–5; Ezek 1:1–3; 2:1–7; Isa 41:9 and more often): similarly, Paul speaks of his own call (see on 1:1–2). God’s call culminates in a commission to bring God’s message to Israel or to Israel and the nations.390 Paul makes it clear that all members of the Messianic body are called and commissioned by God in this way (see also 1:2). The diversity of the task is directed toward a common goal: the unified spread of the gospel, God’s power for life. The diversity establishes no hierarchy. God’s call has consequences for behavior in marriages/partnerships, as 7:12–16 has shown, but also in all other spheres of life, as Paul now says more basically. He expressly points out in 7:17c that this is his teaching in all congregations. Thus, a firm core of his message is to encourage people to live in accord with God’s call. God’s call is an expression for an enduring relationship of all individuals to God: God calls them— they respond with their speaking and acting. The call accounts are often accompanied by visions, but even they do not have as their content the revelation of God’s essence but rather the empowerment to live out the call.

387 For example, Patterson 1982; Glancy 2002. 388 See Lampe 1989, 141–153. 389 Cato, Agr. 143, trans. William David Hooper, Loeb (1954), 125. On the concern of those in charge of the household that the slaves could worship their own gods and in this way call into question the power of the masters, see Hodge 2010, 6.12. 390 Ehrensperger 2007, 81–97.

138

Commentary

7:18–19 For Paul circumcision or non-circumcision relates to ethnic identity. People of non-Jewish origin, even those who belong to the God of Israel, do not understand themselves to be Jewish,391 and Jewish men do not attempt in any way to undo their circumcision. What needs to be changed is not ethnic origin but how one lives in the world, by keeping the commandments of God.

The Torah in 1 Corinthians How do the things Paul says in 7:19 go together? What matters is the commandments/entolai, but it does not matter if people are Jewish or from the nations. Should men of non-Jewish origin disregard the commandment about circumcision? Does the word entolai mean only part of the Torah? In the scholarly tradition, there is the widely held assumption that there was a Torah for the nations,392 which contains only part of the Torah. Sometimes the Torah for the nations is called, based on rabbinic tradition, the Noahide Laws. 7:19 does not speak of any limitation: keeping God’s commandments. The word entolai can refer to individual commandments, but it can also mean the Torah as a whole (cf. Rom 13:9; 7:12). But neither here nor elsewhere does Paul speak of a limited Torah for the nations. So how does he, or how do the messianic congregations, read the Torah? The scriptural hermeneutics used in 1 Corinthians is quite clear: Scripture »speaks in every case for our sake« (9:10; cf. Rom 4:23–24; 15:4). »That all happened to them,« [that is, the people of Israel in the wilderness], »in order that we might remember and learn from it« (10:11). The »We« (see the basic information on 2:5) reading Scripture and deriving from it the consequences for daily life is the congregation.393 As it reads, this congregation understands itself as the place on which »the end of worldly power has broken in« (10:11). The people see through the structures of violence in the world/kosmos, that is, in their society, and they develop alternatives to these structures. As they do this, the Torah is their teacher. It can be deduced from these Pauline statements about scriptural hermeneutics that the congregation reads the Scripture together and applies it to their present situation. This interpretation has no awareness of the concept that in its wording the Scripture has a predetermined meaning that only needs to be applied to the present situation of the readers. The Scripture acquires its interpretation in its relation to the readers.394 Thus a basic distinction is not made between the citation and its interpretation, but in some circumstances a word is introduced into the citation that clarifies the interpretation in

391 392 393 394

See above at 1:22–24. See, for example, Tomson 1990, 271; Wengst 2008, 187–188; K. Müller 1998. On this see Von der Osten-Sacken 1989, 60–71; Ehrensperger 2008; L. Schottroff 2015. Ehrensperger 2008, 307: »Simply reading the texts, or referring to them without interpretation, was apparently perceived to be meaningless. The text of the Scriptures does not speak for itself!«

7:17–24

139

its present context (see on 3:20). The relationship to Israel, to Israel in the wilderness, for example, is seen in continuity and analogy. There is no breach between Israel and the messianic congregation in the present. How do we envision the social location for the interpretation of Scripture? The congregational assembly of all the members of the body of Christ interprets the Scripture together (see 5:1–13). This interpretation has authority and is decisive. Most of those participating are more or less illiterate.395 They must have had experience in listening to texts and remembering them. This interpretation of Scripture presupposes a developed oral culture.396 1 Corinthians 10, for example, shows that Paul can presuppose in the congregation knowledge of the Exodus account and its significance for Israel and can build thereon guidance for the current problems of the involvement of the believers in the Messiah with other cults and divinities. The social location of this interpretation and hermeneutics are interpretive communities.397 The messianic congregation understands itself as such an interpretive community. If one looks at 7:19 from this entry point into the scriptural hermeneutics of the messianic communities, then we have an answer to the opening question: How is the contradiction to be understood between the observance of the entire Torah, on the one hand, and the injunction to males from the nations not to let themselves be circumcised, on the other? The Torah is the entire Torah as it is interpreted by such interpretive communities in their respective locations. They interpret the Torah for a particular situation. The claim that such interpretations have significance that transcends space and time plays no role. The entire Torah is the Torah interpreted by the gathered Corinthian congregation. That males from the nations do not allow themselves to be circumcised is not directed against the Torah’s command to be circumcised. The notion of a selective Torah for the nations is far from Paul’s mind. 7:20 Every individual has received his or her own call and with it a particular commission from God. This is to be carried out, however limited the conditions might be. On the interpretive tradition of this verse from the perspective of a Pauline status quo theology; see above on 7:17–24 as a whole. On the call, see on 1:1–2 and 7:17. 7:21 Slaves, female and male, have only very limited possibilities for living out their call. So, they need not be concerned or feel inferior. If they are set free by their masters, they have somewhat more leeway, even if not that of someone freeborn. Now they can make even more use of their options, in order to live in keeping with their call. Paul’s words in 7:21b are incomplete (see above on 7:17–24). Since the issue, in the context, is acting on God’s call/klēsis in your own life, it is natural to complete Paul’s words with »make use of your call all the more.« The concept

395 See above on 1:4 and 4:15. 396 Wire 2003, 221–229. 397 On this see Neh 8:1–8; Luke 4:16–22; Ehrensperger 2008, 307–314; Wengst 2008, 110.

140

Commentary

that the slave should turn down emancipation—thus a completion with douleia (in the dative)/slavery—is far-fetched and has furthered the Christian legitimization of slavery. A completion with eleutheria (in the dative)/freedom is possible, which then is to be understood in the sense of taking seriously one’s own call under the conditions of emancipation. So, the meaning is essentially the same as a completion with klēsis (in the dative)/call. On emancipation see the basic information by 6:20; on slavery see the basic information by 7:17. 7:22 The basic idea is this: The slave and freeborn members of the body of the Messiah have only one kyrios/Lord: God. That can mean a balancing act in daily life, for it is impossible to serve two masters. The slave owner can leave the slaves no room to move around in, to leave the house in the evening or at night, for example, in order to be together with the congregation. God makes the all-encompassing demand not to conform to the structure of this world. Many slaves presumably must live out their allegiance to the God of Israel in secret (see the basic information on »Slavery« above at 7:17). Often only small steps were possible into one’s own human dignity and the love of a community, but these could make it possible to experience the great liberation. 7:23 This verse repeats 6:20 (see there, along with the basic information that precedes it). Do not become slaves subject to human masters in that you, unresisting, let yourselves become enmeshed in a violent sexual practice and in a world of ruthlessness. 7:24 All the sisters and brothers have been called by God and thus stand before God and live in a relationship with God. To remain in this call is often difficult, precisely for slaves. To cling firmly to this call is a way to the good life for all.

7:25–38 25 I don’t have a directive from the Eternal One for unmarried young people. I am giving you my opinion as a person to whom the mercy of the Eternal One was given, so that I was enabled to live faithfully. 26 I believe that, because of the present difficult conditions, it is good to remain single; yes, it is good for men and women to live this way. 27 If you are bound to a wife, do not seek a separation. If you are separated from a wife, do not look for a wife. 28 But even if you marry, you are not committing a sin. If a young woman marries, she is not sinning. Yet they are threatened by existential need. I would like to spare you. 29 This is what I am saying, sisters and brothers: The time is out of joint. Therefore, those who have wives should live as though they had none. 30 And those who are weeping should live as though they wept not, those laughing as though they laughed not, those buying as though they owned nothing. 31 And those who use what the world offers, should live as though they were not all wrapped up in it. For the world, as it is, is passing away. 32 I want you to be without worries. The unmarried man is completely concerned about the Eternal One, how to please the Eternal One. 33 The married man is concerned with the things of the world, how to please his wife. 34 And he is torn. The wife who is

7:25–38

141

living alone and the young woman who was never married—they are concerned about the Eternal One, in order to be holy in body and spirit. The married woman, however, is concerned about the things of this world, how to satisfy her husband. 35 I am saying that for your benefit, not to bind you but so that you persist in a just way of life by the Eternal One and not be torn. 36 If anyone fears he is treating his fiancée unjustly, because he is overcome with desire and can no longer exercise restraint, then he should do what he wants to do: They should marry. 37 But if someone is firm in his decision and doesn’t give in to compulsion, but can control his will and his decision to let his fiancée remain unmarried is made consciously, then he will act correctly. 38 Thus, the one who marries his fiancée does well; and the one who does not marry, does even better. In 7:25–38 Paul deals with the question of whether young people should marry or not. Here there are also two recommendations that are substantially identical with those in 7:1–16: It is good not to marry. It is also good to marry, but then, under present circumstances, life is much more difficult (7:26–34). In the explanation of how difficult it is to live out one’s connection with God while married, Paul repeatedly refers to the cause of this ordeal: The present circumstances in society cause people massive distress. To analyze this emergency situation Paul uses the following expressions: enestōsa anankē/the present distress, difficult circumstances (7:26); thlipsis tē sarki/the struggle to survive (7:28); kairos synestalmenos/oppressive times, time is out of joint (7:29); paragei … to schēma tou kosmou toutou/the form of this world is passing away (7:31); merimnan ta tou kosmou/to be anxious about the things of this world (7:33, 34). These expressions interpret one another. The first three contain images of constriction and distress. In these expressions Paul expresses his analysis of the present circumstances in a Roman city as they are experienced by people of the Messiah. These are eschatological analyses, that is, they are directed to the hope that God has put an end to this form of the world/society and already now provides people on their way into God’s just world new possibilities for shaping it (on eschatology see the basic information at 1:6). On this way those who are married can try to keep themselves free from this world’s pressure and its goals (7:29–31) and the unmarried can shape their entire life in accord with God’s will (7:32–34). In 7:36–38 Paul deals with the special situation in which a man is engaged to a young woman, and he is not able to control his passions. Then they should marry—Paul also repeats his advice here (see 7:9, 28). 7:25 parthenos as a rule designates the young woman of marriageable age, which at that time is assumed to be about twelve years of age. Young men are seldom designated with the same word; and yet 7:28 presupposes here that men are also addressed. Despite this beginning, the text is thinking anthropocentrically (see, for example, 7:29, 36), from the perspective of the men involved. In the history of interpretation, 7:25, and thereby 7:25–38 as a whole, has often been applied to those who were already engaged, but this is not the case before 7:36. A special form of engagement relationships/marriages that practice life-long sexual asceticism is

142

Commentary

not visible anywhere in the text.398 Paul emphasizes once again (see 7:6, 12) that he can only give his own opinion on the matter, for there is no directive from God on this matter. Here he is likely thinking about a directive from God, not from Jesus (as was the case in 7:10), for 7:25b refers to God’s call, through which he received the gift of fidelity. 7:25b is a reference to his personal way of life in faithfulness to God. 7:26 It is good for men and women to remain virgins because of the present difficult conditions (anankē;399 cf. 7:28 thlipsis). In extended eschatological propositions found in the New Testament and in post-biblical Jewish literature, there are parallels to this thought: Now is the time of the woes, of distress, but God already permits a glimpse of the just world that’s on the way. Mark 13:7–8 can serve as an example of this. This location of the present in its eschatological timeframe helps people to see clearly what it means to recognize the present distress. And it gives them strength and hope, for God is near. In the interpretive tradition since the 19th century a linear concept of time has again and again been incorporated into this eschatology. The consequence is overlooking the connection of eschatology and what is now happening and translating expressions into statements about the future as viewed within a linear concept of time: for example, the impending crisis (7:26); see also on 7:29. In this way an »apocalyptic,« threatening future event is put in play that is not in view in this context. The present is difficult, that is what is being discussed here, as the parallel expressions show (see above on 7:25–36). For Paul eschatology means an interpretation of the present that grows out of the believers’ relationship to God. 7:27, 28 Summarizing 7:1–26, Paul repeats his two pieces of advice: self-control is a good path to follow, so is getting married. If possible, marriages should be preserved. At the end of 7:28 he emphasizes (cf. 7:35) that self-control is the way less prone to trouble under present circumstances. The existential distress is related to the sarx (often translated by »flesh«), that is, creaturely life as a whole, its fragility and its vitality. The issue is not only the sexual desire to which bodies are prone. It is striking that Paul speaks of virgins in the third person while he addresses the men directly in 7:28–29 (on the rhetoric about gender see on 7:32–34). 7:29 systellō can mean, among other things, to shorten or compress a sail. The expression kairos synestalmenos is as a rule understood in the context of a linear concept of time/eschatology: Only a short time remains until the end comes. This interpretation rests on a preliminary decision about how Pauline eschatology is to be understood (see the basic information on 1:7). But the participle can also serve to qualify the critical time as the present.400 The present time is restricted, pressing

398 On the ways of living at the time of the early church, see Jensen 1992, 70–74. 399 Winter 1989, 94 (cf. Blue 1991, 235–237) relates the anankē in 7:26 to a famine in Corinth at this time, which has been interpreted eschatologically by the congregation. Especially through the rising grain prices, famines are a threat to the poorer parts of the population. But the problem that Paul is describing cannot be limited to this aspect. Even in times of lower grain prices, economic and political pressure was a matter of life and death. 400 M. Crüsemann 1999, 130.

7:25–38

143

in. The expression is to be read as a parallel to the eschatological expressions in 7:26, 28, 31, 32–34 (see above on 7:25–38). The consequences for one’s daily life (7:29–31) follow a list: marriage, weeping, rejoicing, buying, using the world. For understanding this list Luke 17:28, Mark 4:19 and Matt 6:25–34 are helpful. These texts also offer lists of existential concerns that are destructive. They do not seek to be comprehensive but to sketch life in this world/society. People are weighed down by anxiety: Do we have anything to eat? (Matt 6:25). They allow themselves to be seduced by the sight of riches (Mark 4:19), they buy (1 Cor 7:30; Luke 17:28) and sell. They are married and thereby are subject to concern about false goals (Luke 17:28; 1 Cor 7:29). Concerns married people have and concerns over possessions are closely related (see also Luke 14:18–20). The question needs to be asked whether the »as if not«/hōs mē relates to sexual self-control in marriage or has a more comprehensive meaning. In Paul’s view, the one who marries gets involved in a structure that demands great self-control if that person wants to serve God with her or his whole existence. Paul appears to mean—probably reflecting his own experience—that without a partner a little less tension-filled life is possible in the reality of a corrosive society (see also 7:33). From today’s perspective on the solitary life that is hard to comprehend, unless people in the 21st century have the good fortune to be part of a messianic community. Here also Paul’s experience is an indication of the great significance of living in community within the body of Christ. This is the explanation for his concept that a single life makes it more possible to live in terms of God’s Torah. 7:30 Weeping and rejoicing appear in a comparable context in the Lucan Beatitudes: the weeping of the hungry and oppressed (Luke 6:21) and the laughing and rejoicing of the rich over their possessions (cf. also Luke 12:19). On this verse see also on 7:29. 7:31 In 7:31both verbs mean almost the same thing. Paul is summarizing here what he has been saying: Live in the world, use the things of the world without making its goals your own. That those who rule over this world stand only on clay feet (7:31b) is said by Paul in 2:6–8 and 10:11 as well as here. How can one envision life in terms of 7:29–31? The community of the body of Christ also felt itself economically responsible for one another. Perhaps they also discussed the reasons for giving out money. For the individual points of the listing touch above all on economic issues, even marriage (7:29). 7:32–34 Anxiety (see above on 7:29) is here, as in Matt 6:25–34, not merely a feeling but a comprehensive and practical orientation of one’s existence. It is also a question of the future toward which people are pointing. Is it the future promised by the Roman Empire or the future that arises from the nearness of God? In the context, to be without anxiety means without anxiety directed at society’s goals. The Roman Empire’s promise for the future was the preservation and expansion of the Roman peace in terms of the Pax Romana. Above all, the carefully considered Roman statues and pictorial building decorations ensured the presence of this promise for the future. The people were supposed to identify with the victors, and they were expected to buy. Thus Paul’s sketch is understandable: buying (7:30) and

144

Commentary

being anxious (7:32–34). Representations of the victors were especially frequent on statues and freezes.401 In the last analysis it is the emperor, as an agent of the gods, who safeguards well-being and without him the ideology of enjoying life could not have developed in this form in the Roman Empire … The network of places for buying in Rome spread over the whole public region of its monumental center.402

Buying became the experience to celebrate in the cities of the Roman Empire at this time—and not only for the elite. Shops were mixed in with sacral buildings. Even the poorest of the poor have their tabernae/shops and popinae/taverns. Plautus graphically describes the multiplicity of the wares: Now, go where you will, you may see more carriages among the houses than in the country when you go to a farm-house. But this is even light, in comparison with when they ask for their allowance; there stands the scourer, the embroiderer, the goldsmith, the woolenmanufacturer, retail dealers in figured skirts, dealers in women’s under-clothing, dyers in flame-colour, dyers in violet, dyers in wax-colour, or else sleeve-makers, or perfumers; wholesale linen drapers, shoemakers, squatting cobblers, slipper-makers; sandal-makers stand there; stainers in mallow colour stand there; hairdressers make their demands, botchers their demands; boddice-makers stand there; makers of kirtles take their stand. Now you would think them got rid of; these make way, others make their demands; three hundred duns are standing in your hall; weavers, lace-makers, cabinet-makers, are introduced; the money’s paid them. You would think them got rid of by this; when dyers in saffron colours come sneaking along; or else there is always some horrid plague or other which is demanding something.403

A scene from a popina/cook shop, tavern shows something about the life of the poor in this society. Since the poor in the tenements often had no kitchen or hearth, they were precisely the ones who depended on the cook shops and thus enmeshed in the world of buying and caring for themselves: Send your Legate to Ostia, O Caesar, but search for him in some big cookshop! There you will find him, lying cheek-by-jowl beside a cut-throat, in the company of bargees, thieves, and runaway slaves, beside hangmen and coffin-makers, or of some eunuch priest lying drunk with idle timbrels. Here is Liberty Hall! One cup serves for everybody; no one has a bed to himself, nor a table apart from the rest.404

401 D. Lopez 2008, 27–28; Kahl 2010, 129–168. A comprehensive presentation of pictorial propaganda is found in Zanker 2008 and in the exhibition catalog from the Berlin Museum of Antiquities 1988. 402 Neudecker/Zanker 2005, 14. 403 Plautus, Aul., trans. Wolfgang de Melo, Loeb (2011), 3.5 (505–535). 404 Juvenal, Sat., trans. G. G. Ramsay, Loeb (1928), 8.163–189; on the consumption of meat by the poor in restaurants, see Meggitt 1994, 137–141.

7:25–38

145

Illustration 4: Roman tavern scene. Mural from Pompeii; from Horst Blank, Einführung in das Privatleben der Griechen und Römer. Darmstadt: WBG, 1976.

The verb areskein in 7:32 (cf. 7:33–34) is ambiguously translated »to please.« To address what is being discussed in the context, it is clearer to say »to do justice to« or »to satisfy.« In this section (7:31–34) the issue is the alternatives between a person’s relationship with God and the relationship between the sexes. To do what is required for the husband or wife relates to anxieties about the things of the world (7:33–34). What is meant is the relationship to the world in terms of 7:29–30. The connection between marriage and possessions is also addressed in 7:33–34. 7:32 names the Pauline alternatives to this connection: to be unmarried, to practice celibacy, to do what God requires, to live in accord with the will of God. The gender rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 7 is striking.405 On the one hand, Paul speaks in androcentric terms, actually addressing men directly (7:27–28a), where he speaks of women only indirectly (7:28b, 25). He defines women exclusively in terms of their sexual status in society: wife (7:1–7 and frequently), widows (7:25, 34), the unmarried (that is, a divorced woman or a widow, or an older woman living alone is also assumed, 7:33, possibly in 7:8). The androcentric language, for example in 7:17–24, does not mention the men’s gender (cf. 7:1).

405 On this see especially Wire, 1990, 80–97.

146

Commentary

In what are for this time unusually numerous sentences, on the other hand, Paul makes women the subject and doesn’t allow them to be assumed in androcentric sentences: 7:2–4; 7:11; 7:12–16; 7:25; 7:39–40. Especially striking is 7:34, since he says exclusively about women: »so that they may be holy in body (sōma) and spirit (pneuma). We can conclude from this that such women were important in the Corinthian messianic congregation. If 11:2–16 is added, the picture emerges of prophetesses who arise in public gatherings of the congregation. Prophetesses without partners are more numerous than those who are married. We are able to envision a congregation in which women who lived alone were important and could live independently in greater numbers without being exposed to the ever present societal degradation of women and to sexual violence. In a Roman city such a congregation is an alternative to the existing society (see the basic information on 7:2). 7:34, 36 Paul mentions the tension that arises for married couples that under existing conditions desire to live in accord with the Torah. The memeristai at the beginning of 7:34 is in the history of the text occasionally applied to the women living alone who are mentioned after it. The reading offered here, applying it to the man (cf. Nestle-Aland27), is better attested.406 7:36 The word hyperakmos could in the context apply to the engaged woman or the engaged man. Accordingly, the different options have been discussed in the histories of interpretation and translation: Is it speaking of a man who can no longer control his sexual desire (cf. 7:9) or of an unmarried daughter who is in danger of going beyond the usual young age for marriage? Here is an example from the lexicon (BDAG s.v.): »Depending on one’s understanding of this passage … [it is] about the woman … past the bloom of youth … or about the man,« (with probable reference to his passions), [which are] »›exceedingly‹ … strong.« The contrast with 7:37 requires the application to the man, who cannot control himself (for in 7:37 the topic is specifically the man with self-control). Paul recommends marriage instead of a pre-marital rape. To be sure, Paul does not also ask if the bride is also in agreement with the marriage. In a marriage, to understand as rape sexual intercourse that is not based on mutual agreement, is beyond Paul’s horizon. It does not occur to Paul to consider the perspective of the woman involved.407 7:37 describes in detail how self-control comes about and is maintained. It is a conscious decision not to succumb to desire. Here as well Paul does not say that a life-long decision is made and does not mean that he finds sexual desire fundamentally wrong or reprehensible. 7:38 summarizes the issue and offers a parallel to 7:27–28 with respect to content. In what sense is the decision for self-control »better«? Presumably Paul means, by analogy to 7:26, 28–29: Under the conditions in which we are presently living, it is easier to refrain from marriage and to live totally in the community of the body of Christ—without being torn (see 7: 34, 36).

406 An extensive discussion of the manuscript attestation is found in Weiss 1910, 203–204. 407 On these androcentric perspectives on rape see also Webber 1995, s.v. Vergewaltigung 383–385.

8:1–11:1

147

7:39–40 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. If her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes—only: Let everything happen in connection with the Eternal One. 40 She is to be praised as even happier if she remains marriage-free. That is my opinion. I am convinced that I am also filled with God’s Spirit, Paul returns once again to the widows (see 7:8). Substantially new is only the emphasis that she can marry again, unencumbered by the prior marriage. Her freedom of choice is emphasized twice (cf. Rom 7:2–3). For a widow who belongs to the messianic community, the foundation for this is her connection with the God of Israel (7:39b). This foundation is no limitation of her freedom. In the interpretive tradition, this remark that is focused on God is often interpreted as a restriction: She may only marry a brother who also belongs to the congregation. But that is not what the text says.

8:1–11:1 The three chapters 8–10 have interconnected content. Each of the three chapters is about dealing with the experience of liberation and messianic power (exousia). The Greek word exousia is difficult to translate into German, because words like »Macht [»might«] and »Ermächtigung« [»authorization«] are connected with the history of the misuse of might. Paul’s concern is the ability to act and liberation from oppressive structures. People who are used in the society, above all by those mightier than they, learn to gain their own authority and to shape life worthily for themselves and others. The English word power, as power in relationships and not as power from above, reproduces the word well. Paul uses different expressions and words to designate messianic power. In addition to exousia (8:9; 9:4, 6, 12, 18) he speaks of knowledge (8:1), freedom (10:29; cf. 9:1, 19), or he says: »It is lawful (for me);« »I am free to …« (10:23; cf. 6:12). But messianic power can be misused—this is the constant theme. It can be misused when it is used without regard for the sisters and brothers (8:1, 7–13) or even without regard for those outside the community (10:25–32). It can be misused in such a way that one’s relationship with God is damaged (10:1–22). If Paul would claim his right to be supported by the congregation, he would possibly be misusing his messianic power and making the liberating message untrustworthy (9:1–18). He mentions himself and his decision here in Chapter 9 in order to serve as a role model for people in the congregation (11:1). For the members of the messianic community the specific issues are complicated situations in daily life. How should they make use of their messianic power in a society in which other gods are everywhere? On the one hand, they can’t »leave the world« (5:10); on the other hand, they have no desire to serve other gods. What shall they do when they are, for example, invited into the dining

148

Commentary

rooms of the temple?408 They could simply ignore the other gods, which for them »do not exist« (8:4). But this behavior is arrogant over against sisters and brothers who do not share this attitude. Through your false example they could be enticed into serving other gods (8:4). This is how Paul discusses various socially difficult situations in Chapters 8 and 10, in the context of the possibility of worshiping other gods. The word eidōlolatria, which Paul uses for this (10:14; cf. 10:7; 5:10; 6:9), should not be translated »idolatry« (see on 8:1, 4; 10:4 and 5:10), since the word »idol/false god« denigrates and makes contemptuous other gods and the people connected to them. The worship of other gods through the eating of meat or other food dedicated to them is often connected with Jewish food laws. But they are not in view here in Chapters 8–10.409 The messianic movement at Paul’s time, as well as the entire New Testament, are fully clear that the first commandment of the Decalogue, the Shema Israel and the Jewish No! over against other gods in general have central significance for them. This is shown by this chapter, but also by Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rev 2:14 and more often; cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96.9–10; Did. 6.3 and other early church witnesses.410 In Chapters 8–10 the issue is confessing the One God, Israel’s God, in a society in which other gods are omnipresent in everyday life, even and especially at meals. In this regard, the nature of the food—the question of whether it is allowed or forbidden, depends not on the food as such, which was possibly dedicated to other gods, but on the people involved, whether it be at the slaughter, in the market, in the kitchen or with the people at the table and in the congregation (8:8, 13; 10:28; Rom 14:14).

8:1–13 1 Concerning meat that is offered to alien deities: It is clear that we all have knowledge. Such knowledge, however, makes us arrogant, while love edifies. 2 If some think they possess knowledge, that does not mean that true understanding is present. 3 The one who loves God is known by God. 4 Concerning the eating of meat offered to alien deities: It is clear that the deities that belong to this world have lost their power and that there is only one deity, the One. 5 There may, indeed, be such who are named deities, in heaven and on earth, as there are many deities and lords. 6 Yet for us, God, the One, is our Origin, from whom all things come and to whom we are on the way. And so Jesus Christ is for us a Liberator, Through him everything has life, and we through him. 7 Yet not all have this knowledge. Because they are accustomed to one deity, many to this day eat meat offered to idols and thereby submit themselves to the power of deities. Their self-confidence, which is weak, is

408 See Fotopoulos 2003, 49–157 on the various temples in Corinth at the time of 1 Corinthians and their dining rooms and temple meals. 409 Tomson 1999, 203. 410 Schäfke 1979, 495–502; Cheung 1999, 165–284; Tomson 1990, 177–186.

8:1–13

149

thereby shattered. 8 Food does not bring us closer to God. We neither lose something when we do not eat, nor gain something when we do eat. 9 But be careful that your independence is not a stumbling block for the insecure. 10 For if a sister or brother sees you, with your knowledge, eating in the temple of alien deities, will not their weak self-confidence be influenced to eat the meat offered to idols and also thereby submit themselves to the deities? 11 Thus insecure people perish because of your knowledge—sisters and brothers, for whose sake the Messiah died. 12 If you sin in this way against sisters and brothers and wound their insecure self-confidence, you are ignoring Christ. 13 Therefore—if my eating alienates my brother or sister from God, I shall never again eat any meat, for I do not want to alienate my brother or sister from God. 8:1 The issue of sacrificial meat at this particular time addresses an everyday concern of all those who are living Jewish or messianic lives and dwelling in a HellenisticRoman environment such as Corinth.

Sacrificial Meat—Meat Consumption Paul discusses in 8:1–13, 10:14–11:1 (cf. Romans 14) the issue of sacrificial meat that is consecrated to other gods (eidōlothyton, 8:1, 7, 10). It can be meat that is served in the dining rooms of temples, but also meat that is bought in nonJewish meat markets or restaurants.411 It is always possible that those who slaughter an animal or dissect or prepare the meat have carried out a brief sacrificial ritual. The word eidōlon (8:4) is part of the word eidōlothyton and does not mean »idol,« thus a false god, but an image of a god and therewith the presence of the god. Paul uses the word the way the LXX does. It designates the image of the gods or, in the plural, the totality of non-Jewish gods from a Jewish perspective.412 The word only becomes polemic through added negative statements about such images of gods/gods. The translation of eidōlothyton with »meat offered to idols« contains a polemic against other gods and religions, which Paul’s use of the word does not envision. In the time of the Roman Empire in general the population’s meat consumption grew. Plutarch describes the savagery with which the animals were treated during their fattening and slaughter.413 The slaughter of wild animals was a beloved subject 411 On the dining rooms see Fotopoulos 2003, 49–157. For an overview and descriptions of meat markets: Zimmer 1982, 17–20; Rosenblum 2010, 76–81. 412 Woyke 2005, 66–103. 413 Plutarch, De esu 2.997; English translation in Cherniss/Helmbold 1957, 565, 567.

150

Commentary

for paintings, and something carried out on a massive scale in arenas. Thus, the bloody violence used against animals was an essential aspect of the self-understanding of all who wished to identify with the system of domination.

Illustration 5: Centaur mosaic (Antiquities Collection of the Pergamum Museum in Berlin); from the main palace of Hadrian’s Villa near Tivoli). A centaur is depicted as an embodiment of a heroic husband defending his wife. The centaur carries the skin of an already slaughtered animal over its arm; three additional animals are in the process of dying. The massive stone it is ready to throw shows its strength. Violence against animals was one form of expressing structural violence that, among others, was glorified in images.

Since the time of Augustus, the consuming of meat was pushed even for the masses. Emperors built macella/food and meat markets at central locations in the cities.414 They were nobly and practically embellished with marble tables, drains and decorated building components.415 In Rome Augustus built the macellum Liviae, Nero the macellum magnum. There were also macella in Corinth.416 In the cities there were tabernae and popinae/shops and taverns (see above at 7:32–34) for the poor, who could not cook at home. They could buy simple warm meals here or from street peddlers. Little altars could be encoun-

414 Paoli 1979, 26; On the market buildings in Pompeii, see Étienne 1978, 201–202, on the increasing consumption of meat, Marquardt 1975, vol. 2, 428–432. 415 Neudecker in: Neudecker/Zanker 2005, 82–83. 416 Fotopoulos 2003, 139–142; Gill 1992, 389–393; de Ruyt 1983, 56–61. On the increasing significance of commerce for Corinth in this period, see Williams II, 1993.

8:1–13

151

tered everywhere out in the open or in buildings, so that as a rule food was consecrated through offerings or libationes (often gifts of wine; see also at 10:25). Sacred buildings and markets were mixed together in any case (see above at 7:32–34). A coin illustrates that the temple-like façade of Nero’s macellum magnum was used for political propaganda.417

Illustration 6: Macellum magnum. Neronian coin.

A portion of the meat was also sacrificial meat that accumulated at sacrifices in the temples. Only a few pieces of the slaughtered animal were used for the sacrificial offering. The rest was eaten. Large groups were assembled to celebrate private or societal events at the festive meals in temples.418 Women were among those reclining at the table.419 It was not easy to turn down such invitations. Tertullian (died after 220) called such events: »holidays and other extraordinary solemnities, which we accord sometimes to our wantonness, sometimes to our timidity, in opposition to the common faith and Discipline [sic]).«420 These were the festivals and social liaisons of the society in the midst of which congregations like the one in Corinth lived. Fear over loss of work, the pleasures of large, joyful events—the reasons could be manifold to disregard the »common faith and Discipline,« as Tertullian calls the prohibition of idolatry.421 An eyewitness account by Pausanias (written in the second half of the second century) in the vicinity of Corinth can illustrate the anchoring of sacrifice in the people and its festivals. He describes what he had seen as an eyewitness in the city of Hermione, as it existed in his time. It concerns a temple of the goddess Demeter, who here is also called Chthonia:

417 On the illustration cf. Carcopino 1979, 250. The building was dedicated in 59 CE. 418 On the size of the rooms, see Fotopoulos 2003, 49–157. 419 Stein-Hölkeskamp 2005, 175–186. See Rosenblum 2010, 123–132 for the Tannaitic perspectives. 420 Tertullian, Idol. 13, trans. S. Thelwall, ANF vol. 3, 68. 421 On this see also Fotopoulos 2003, 177. On the social significance of common meals, see Gooch 1993, 38–45.

152

Commentary

[5] At any rate, the goddess herself is called Chthonia, and Chthonia is the name of the festival they hold in the summer of every year. The manner of it is this. The procession is headed by the priests of the gods and by all those who hold the annual magistracies; these are followed by both men and women. It is now a custom that some who are still children should honor the goddess in the procession. These are dressed in white, and wear wreaths upon their heads. Their wreaths are woven of the flower called by the natives cosmosandalon, which, from its size and color, seems to me to be an iris; it even has inscribed upon it the same letters of mourning. [6] Those who form the procession are followed by men leading from the herd a full-grown cow, fastened with ropes, and still untamed and frisky. Having driven the cow to the temple, some loose her from the ropes that she may rush into the sanctuary, others, who hitherto have been holding the doors open, when they see the cow within the temple, close the doors. [7] Four old women, left behind inside, are they who dispatch the cow. Whichever gets the chance cuts the throat of the cow with a sickle. Afterwards the doors are opened, and those who are appointed drive up a second cow, and a third after that, and yet a fourth. All are dispatched in the same way by the old women, and the sacrifice has yet another strange feature. On whichever of her sides the first cow falls, all the others must fall on the same. [8] Such is the manner in which the sacrifice is performed by the Hermionians. Before the temple stand a few statues of the women who have served Demeter as her priestess, and on passing inside you see seats on which the old women wait for the cows to be driven in one by one, and images, of no great age, of Athena and Demeter. But the thing itself that they worship more than all else, I never saw, nor yet has any other man, whether stranger or Hermionian. The old women may keep their knowledge of its nature to themselves.422

So, the women have not shown Pausanias the sanctuary in the temple. The text is describing a festival and old women as temple slaughterers and priestesses. Many questions remain open: What will happen to all the beef that is left over after the sacrifice? Does the temple have dining rooms? Was the festival also attended by guests from the much larger city of Corinth? Was this festival already taking place in Paul’s time? There are grounds for assuming that the meat was consumed, whether in dining rooms of the temple or in private dwellings and restaurants in the city. In Romans 14 Paul once again addresses the problem of eating sacrificial meat. Here he does not use the term eidōlothyton but speaks of kreas/meat (14:21). And yet he establishes a connection between meat and the question of koinos/katharos (Rom 14:14, 19). What this means is whether a food is permitted for Jewish people or not.423 According to Jewish tradition, meat is rejected across-the-board when it has been dedicated to other gods. Beyond that, there are specific animals whose meat is forbidden. But that is not the issue here. In Romans 14 it is also not a question of vegetarian or non-vegetarian food in the tradition of a philosophy or a non-Jewish religion,424 but a question of vegetarian

422 Pausanius, Descr., trans. W. H. S. Jones, Loeb (1926), 2.35.5–8. 423 The issue here is not ritual purity/impurity. On peoples’ »impurity« through the worship of other gods, which is to be distinguished from ritual impurity, see Klawans 1995, 311. On Rom 14:14, 19 see also Wengst 2008, 407. 424 A collection of materials can be found, for example, in Michel 1963, 334.

8:1–13

153

food as a way of refusing to eat sacrificial meat or of the conscious eating of sacrificial meat. Those who according to Romans 14 abstain from meat abstain from wine as well (Rom 14:21). Wine was in fact often chosen as a sacrificial gift for the gods. One could assume from this that wine not produced by Jews was consecrated to other gods. In this context, the observance of the Roman festival calendar (Rom 14:5) is also controversial in the congregation. The public festivals/feriae publicae could be meant, whose observance meant, for example, refraining from certain types of work.425 The Roman state was interested in this festival calendar as an instrument for maintaining order. In Rom 14:15 Paul took a stand on the decisions of the messianic brothers and sisters to live as vegetarians or to disregard the question whether foods were consecrated or not. His arguments are in part the same as those in 1 Corinthians 8–10. The decision must be based on what the messianic brothers and sisters involved can deal with. If they consider dedicated foods to be for honoring other gods, even someone who does not make the same decision dare not disregard the brothers and sisters. The nature of the honoring of other gods is not established by the foods as such but by the conscience of the people involved (Rom 14:13–15:2) In the Hellenistic-Roman period meat consumption grew, even in Palestine.426 There must even have been Jews who did not observe the Torah regulation not to eat pork.427 Pork was very popular in the Hellenistic-Roman culture. But, above all in Palestine, fish consumption increased. It was also an element of Hellenistic-Roman culture, but eating fish was permitted according to the Torah.428 There were critical Jewish voices429 who were against meat from the market and against the Roman markets. The Tannaitic rabbis think that drinking wine of non-Jewish origin is to be equated with the worship of other gods. On the other hand, they sought ways to keep from impeding interaction between Jews and non-Jews.430 A discussion indirectly illuminating on this issue is found in the Mishnah (Abodah Zarah 3.4). Seth Schwartz (2001) plausibly states about this text that it articulates the »meta-legal« principles on which rabbinic case law is based. 4. Proklos the son of Philosophos asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acre while he was bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite, and said to him, »It is written in your Law, And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thine hand. Why [then] dost thou bathe in the Bath of Aphrodite?« He answered, »One may not make answer in the bath«. And when he came out he said, »I came not within her limits: she came within mine! They do not say, ›Let us make a bath for Aphrodite‹, but ›Let us make an Aphrodite as an adornment for the bath‹. Moreover if they would give thee much money thou wouldest not enter in before thy goddess naked or after suffering pollution, nor wouldest thou make water before her! Yet this goddess stands at the mouth of the gutter and all the

425 426 427 428 429 430

Scullard 1985, 57–58. Rosenblum 2020, 20; Lev-Tov 2003, 10. Rosenblum 2010, 21; Lev-Tov 2003, 10. Lev-Tov 2003, 21. Krauss 1966, vol. 1, 108; Krauss 1972, nos. 82–83. Rosenblum 2010, 83.

154

Commentary

people make water before her. It is written, Their gods, only; thus what is treated as a god is forbidden, but what is not treated as a god is permitted.’431

The non-Jewish philosopher asks the Jewish scholar, using a citation from Deut 13:17, how he comes to be bathing in the bathhouse of the goddess Aphrodite, where, according to the Torah, nothing should be held in the hand that can be connected with the worship of other gods. In the bath itself the rabbi points out that this place is not suitable for dealing with holy things. Outside of the bathhouse he gives his arguments, which are along these lines: This is a bathhouse and not a cultic site; the goddess was subsequently introduced after the fact. Moreover, even you would not urinate before a goddess. But here in the bathhouse people do indeed urinate. So, Aphrodite is not being treated as a goddess, and therefore I can bathe here without any danger of becoming involved in the worship of other gods. This background story explains the Roman use of images for propaganda purposes, which is not to be taken seriously—although the presence of a gods in a bathhouse was not understood as a decoration by the representatives of the state. They were interested in maintaining the presence of divine representations of the present order. State propaganda and gods were closely connected. On the other hand, this rabbinic reasoning allows Jewish people to live in Roman cities, make use of its institutions and walk its streets. The Pauline reasoning takes this line: The eating of consecrated food is an expression of honoring other gods only when one of the participants treats it as consecrated food (Rom 14:14, 20, 21; 1 Cor 8:4; 10:27–28).432 In the history of interpretation, it was often argued that there were in the Corinthian congregation a group of the weak and one of the strong. Paul does not explicitly speak of the strong in Chapters 8–10 (though he does in Rom 15:1). He mentions the weak in 8:9. According to such hypotheses, the gnōsis position of 8:1, 9 is often attributed to the strong. And yet the word »weak« (8:9; cf. 8:7) should derive its meaning from the context (see on 8:2). There is nothing in the Pauline text that points to the formation of groups. The thesis of Theissen 1982, 121–143 has attracted special resonance; according to this view, the strong are the well-to-do in the congregation, who are better educated and more enlightened than the less-educated poor. In any case, he says, the poor could hardly have eaten any meat. So, Paul recommends the strong’s loving accommodation

431 Abod. Zar. 3.4, Mishnah, 440. There is a comprehensive interpretation of this text in Schwartz 2001, 167–174. On the rabbinic discussion see also Rosenblum 2010, 86; »it is about with whom you eat, and not what you eat,« Rosenblum 2010, 92; Tomson 1990, 208–220. On the popularity of the baths, along with simultaneous Jewish criticism, see also Ellav in Hezser 2010, 605–622. 432 Rom 14:14 lies along the line of this rabbinic discussion; it must not be assumed that this perception was only possible »in Christ,« as is asserted by Wengst 2008, 413. Acts 15:29 can also be understood within this framework and thus it is not in tension with 1 Corinthians 8–10. On 1 Corinthians 8–10 understood in this way, see also Tomson 1990, 189–220, for example 217: »The power of idolatry is not in the food, but in the pagan’s mind.«

8:1–13

155

of the weak, although he himself shares the enlightened point of view. This foregoing of the eating of meat is said to be an expression of the so successful love patriarchalism (on this see above on 1:26). Meanwhile, however, more recent works on the social history of the Roman Empire gauge the meat consumption of most of the population differently. Moreover, the Pauline text itself speaks against this hypothesis: Paul appears to regard meat as something he can afford (8:13), although he is not well-off. The »weak« are designated as weak in the text in that they are not protected against the power of the gods associated with the meat (8:7, 10). They do not constitute a group, and the text also does not say anything about meat being less attainable for them than for others. The assumption of a group of the strong and of the weak in the Corinthian congregation was connected in the older interpretive tradition433 with an antiJudaistic concept of freedom by Paul: Paul himself and the strong practice freedom from the »law,« the Jewish Torah and disregard Jewish scruples about meat offered to idols. For a critic of this anti-Judaistic hermeneutic in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8–10, see Tomson 1990, 187–188. Even if, as a rule, this pattern is no longer followed with total consistency in more recent interpretation, there are still partial elements of it in the assumption of a material difference between Paul and Jewish practice434 and between Paul and the early church on this issue. Even the material from the rabbinic tradition that Billerbeck presents (3, 420–422), is based on the concept that other gods only make food unusable for Jewish people when it has already been put into a cultic context. This material has been improperly used to separate Paul from the Jewish interpretation of the Torah.435 On the issue, see also on 10:29b. The content of what Paul means in 8:1 by gnōsis/knowledge emerges from the context: gnōsis is the knowledge that makes it possible to resist other powers and gods and work together to build a righteous community (cf. 1:5; 6:12; 3:21–23). In dealing with sacrificial meat, this knowledge reveals that it no longer has power to enmesh people in the worship of another gods (8:4). But in Paul’s view this knowledge is misused if members of the messianic community who are known to have this knowledge participate in temple meals (8:9). 8:2–3 Paul expands on the ideas of 8:1b. The agapē that builds people up (8:1b) is love for God (Deut 6:5). Love between people is inseparably connected with love for God, and it happens as a reciprocal relationship: God knows those who love. Paul could also say: God has called them by name. He uses once again the word »know,« because only now, through God’s knowing activity, is human knowledge no longer able to be

433 An example: Lietzmann 1949, 51. 434 An example: Zeller 2010, 345: »For a Jew such a thing was much more difficult.« In the footnote he refers to Billerbeck, vol. 3, 421–422., and others. 435 For example Conzelmann 1975, 176: »the principle of freedom is upheld.« In the note he points to Billerbeck, vol. 3, 420ff. and distinguishes Pauline freedom from Jewish practice.

156

Commentary

misused. It becomes clear already here that Chapter 13, in which love is central, is related to the letter’s context. Moreover, it becomes clear that Paul, when he speaks of knowledge and love, has Deut 6:4–5 in mind. 8:1–13 is about the interpretation of the Shema Israel—as one speaks, confesses her or his faith and relates to other gods in Corinth. 8:4–5 What does ouden mean in 8:4a? That there really are no gods in the world (strict monotheism)436 or that the existing gods no longer have any power over the people who are the body of God’s Messiah (the worship of Israel’s God alone)? A strict monotheistic interpretation gives rise to a tension with 8:5.437 The monotheistic interpretation of 8:4a is widespread; I also accepted it for a long time.438 But the assertion that there are no gods—apart from the One—is still ambiguous. Is the existence of gods a human delusion or projection (post-enlightenment monotheism)? Or is their existence irrelevant, powerless? Ouden can mean both. So I see here as a whole in 8:4–5 (or 8:4–6) only one concept: the worship of the God of Israel alone, in the face of whose revelation all other gods lose their power over those who belong to the Messiah. In the biblical tradition as a whole, thinking in terms of associative and power relationships is more appropriate than a statement, devoid of context, about the existence and essence of gods. On the uniqueness of God in 8:4b, see on 8:6. In 8:5, because of the understanding of other gods presented here, the translation other »so-called« gods should not be used. It is a fact that is to be taken seriously, in the view of all involved, that they are called gods in society and worshipped as such. In 8:4a Paul speaks of the idol in the sense of the god itself that is »in the world,« which means in this society hostile to God. In 8:5 Paul says that heaven and earth are the realm in which the gods exercise their power. The creation is not a neutral space. In society and in creation, those who belong to the Messiah are confronted by powers whom they must resist. The explanation439 in 8:5b, that there are theoi and kyrioi/gods and lords, shows how thoroughly the world of the other gods is identified with the powers that rule society. The kyrioi and gods in heaven and on earth are concretized in the actions of the archontes/the rulers, who crucified the Messiah (2:6–8). The presence of gods in temples, on altars and in pictorial depictions determines everyday life in a Roman city, in public and at home. Paul makes no strict distinction between divine and social powers. Transpersonal powers also are embodied in representations of power, in administration and government, which seek to take over people’s lives. In Corinth at this time the Emperor allows himself to be worshipped as god. And every freeborn person who owns slaves is a kyrios/master. 8:6 Next to a short version of the Shema Israel (Deut 6:4–5) Paul puts a parallel, extensively built statement about the Messiah, thus about Christology.

436 See F. Crüsemann 2005, 50, for various ways of interpreting the Shema Israel in biblical and post-biblical times; see also Schrage 2001, 191–193. 437 It often leads to the assumption that 8:4a is a Pauline quoting of the position of the strong in Corinth; see, for example, Schrage 2001, 196. 438 L. Schottroff 2009c, 82; see also the translation of 8:4a in BigS 2006. 439 On the history of the interpretation of hōsper in 8:5, see Woyke 2005, 158–159.

8:1–13

157

From Deut 6:4 come the words heis/one and theos/God (cf. 8:4) in the confession about God. The »we« of the confessing congregation is especially emphasized: For us, the one God means the end of the power of the gods. God calls the creation to life and has led Israel in its history, in its liberation. Ta panta should not be understood solely as a statement about creation but should be related to God’s entire life-creating activity. In this sense God is also called Father here. God is the Father/ origin of all life in creation, in history and in the present. The body of Christ, the congregation, lives eis auton, oriented toward God’s future. The Christological part of the confession is often interpreted as a majestic Christology: It is true that Christ is not a second God, but like God and therein distinguished from all humanity. In this sense Christ was also understood as the one through whom creation took place (8:6b). But the Old Testament and post-biblical tradition, which was invoked to support this notion, speaks of a first created being, who belongs with humanity and shows them the way, but is clearly distinguished from God (for example, Isa 44:24; 2 Enoch 33:4440; Prov 8:22–31. This tradition cannot be invoked as support for a high Christology. Nevertheless, it helps for an understanding of the Messiah that is in accord with 8:6b. Jesus, the Messiah, was freed from death by God and he is God’s revelation in the present (see also on 10:4). With the body of Christ, the congregation, the new creation begins441 (ta panta). The parallelism of the confession about God and the Messiah in 8:6 has likewise often been used as an argument for a divine Christology in 8:6b.442 The diverse ways in which the parallel statements are filled out comes from the Pauline context and his understanding of the »We« of the congregation (see the basic information on 2:5). Belonging to God deprives the principalities and powers of their power, and belonging to the Messiah transforms bodies and hearts. By being attached to the Messiah, people are enabled to work for the life of all. The statements about Christ are to be understood from the communion of Christ and con-

440 2 Enoch 33:4: »And there is no advisor and no successor to my creation. I am self-eternal and not made by hands. My thought is without change. My wisdom is my advisor and my deed is my word.« Trans. F. I. Andersen, in Charlesworth, vol. 1, 1983, 156. There one can also find additional passages about this figure of divine wisdom. Examples of the use of the mediator of creation tradition in the sense of a divine Christology can be found in Lindemann 2000, 193 and Wengst 2004, 71, 89. Wengst is clearly critical of the antiJudaism of a majestic Christology but retains statements about the uniqueness and sovereignty of the Messiah (89, 73). Apart from these exceptions, Wengst portrays an image of Christology that consciously remains within the framework of Jewish linguistic possibilities and is for Christology an expression of the praise of the God of Israel. 441 Wengst 2004, 74 and more often; Wolff 1990, 8 (on 8:6). 442 Bauckham 1998 even understands the word kyrios in 8:6b as a citation of the Shema Israel (38) and as majestic Christology because of the participation of the Messiah in the essence of the God of Israel, whose uniqueness is not thereby affected (22). Bauckham tries to combine monotheism and majestic Christology within Jewish thought. Jesus is included in God’s identity (27). More convincing, in terms of Jewish tradition, is Michael Wyschgrod, who appropriates what Wengst 2004, 70 says: »A high Christology sounds idolatrous in Jewish ears.« This is similar to Bauckham: Waller 2008, 441–446.

158

Commentary

gregation in the midst of a violent society. Christ is the embodied activity of the God of Israel—now. Majestic Christology does not do justice to Paul’s relational language. Its interpretive patterns follow later Christological developments in the early church. 8:7–8 Although Paul said in 8:1 that all had this knowledge about the disempowerment of the gods and lords, he speaks here about the fact that some are not so sure about this knowledge. They eat sacrificial meat and eat it in fear and reverence before the gods to whom it was dedicated. The power of habit is stronger than the new knowledge as conveyed in 8:4. The old god still has its power. The consequence for those involved is that their awareness of the Messiah is damaged. The translation of the word syneidēsis with »conscience« has long controlled the view of Paul. The word conscience directed the eye to the believing and doubting individual as she or he acts morally. Through Krister Stendahl (1976), a critical awareness has been awakened against this translation and what it means: »The introspective conscience is a Western development and a Western plague.«443 Peter Tomson has shown, through his 1990 studies on the context of Pauline argumentation and rabbinic halakah, that syneidēsis in Paul does not mean the individual conscience but the consciousness and intention444 with which people act. Therefore, Paul can say that food as such does not establish a relationship to God or to other gods. 8:8 It is people who, through their god-relationship, make food into food sacrificed to other gods.445 Correspondingly, that is also true for the congregation’s messianic meal. A table becomes the table of the Eternal One (10:21) through the communion of the gathered people with the God of Israel and the Messiah. In 8:7–8 Paul wants to strengthen the people involved so that they bid farewell to the power of the gods. These gods and lords indeed represent the structure of a society whose violence these people have essentially already figured out. But not all of them have already completed the process of learning to see. They need support from those who are more confident about their messianic power. 8:9–12 Here Paul turns to the people in the congregation for whom the gods and lords in this society have lost the power to make them their instruments. But have the gods really lost their power? That needs to be asked, considering the concrete everyday experience that Paul describes here. Conscious of possessing messianic power (8:9), a member of the congregation takes part in a meal in the dining rooms of a temple (8:10). That is observed by a sister or brother from the congregation (8:10–11), for whom the gods in this city are not yet powerless. They are still representatives of the state, of fruitfulness and of well-being. To turn down an invitation to a celebration in a temple dining room can mean loss of a job, can mean isolation (see the basic information above by 8:1). The bad example of the

443 Stendahl 1976, 17. 444 Tomson 1990, 208–210. 445 See the basic information above on »Sacrificial Meat—Meat Consumption« with reference to m. Abod. Zar. 3.4.

8:1–13

159

allegedly stronger fellow member emboldens the uncertain (8:10) to make a bad decision. They then possibly also choose the way of accommodation. For those who are allegedly strong, their own decision to go in that direction is easy. They go along and become accomplices to the ruling structures, but claim that they belong to the God of Israel. For those who are uncertain, this accommodation means that they once again cease to belong to the body of Christ. The crucified Messiah has been raised by God in order to be alive in these people (8:11). They lose out on the good fortune of a community for which God has set a limit to violence and to the structures that bring destruction. The issue with worshipping the gods in Corinth and elsewhere in the Roman Empire is not about an abstract faith in the God of Israel but about important everyday decisions made in the sight of God. To what do I devote my life: accommodation to the ruling authority or participation in the building of a just community? For Paul, this accommodation is a sin, a sin against the sisters and brothers and against the Messiah (8:12). Liberation theology’s concept of structural sin addresses what Paul is discussing here: abdicating power to the structures of violence and of life at the expense of others—through what seems like innocuous accommodation. Only those who refuse to go along recognize that this accommodation is not innocuous. Paul understands sin as structural sin here in 1 Corinthians, as he then also does in Romans.446 In 8:7 Paul had spoken about molynein/defiling, damaging the thoughts and feelings of others, here (8:12) about typtein/inflicting a sharp blow. It is a subtle form of violence that misleads one into living unjustly and turns the courage to live justly into a fragile mess. Here in these situations it is not a matter of strong and weak, even groups of the one and the other, but of daily decisions in which no one is shielded from making mistakes, not even the allegedly strong. In 8:13 Paul shows once again that such decisions dare never be rendered in the conscience: there it is only about me. The truth is that I live in relationships in which I can propel people in the wrong direction, so that they lose their connection to the God of life (skandelidzein). In a society in which so much violence relates to the eating of meat, believers can still eat meat only when their eating of meat no longer misleads anyone into participating in the power of the gods of violence. »Never,« says Paul, would I eat meat again if it would contribute to such leading astray. Rom 14:2 shows that there were other people in the messianic community besides Paul who have drawn this conclusion. Would Paul have eaten meat if he were alone in a room, with no one there to know who he was? Surely, he would do that only if it were clear to him that, even in his own case, it would involve no connection with bowing down before other gods.

446 On the concept of sin in Romans and on the concept of »structural sin,« see also the basic information on »Sin and Torah in 1 Corinthians« at 9:20.

160

Commentary

9:1–27 The theme of Chapter 9 is Paul’s labor on behalf of the congregation, which he performs free of charge. He understands it as a ministry that God requires of him without condition. This understanding of his work on behalf of the congregation connects what’s happening back to prophetic tradition and prophetic call stories: »God said to me: ›You are my slave, Israel; through you I want to show my dignity.‹« (Isa 49:3; cf. 1 Cor 9:16–19, 27; Jer 1:7). Paul compares his work, on the one hand, with work for a wage, as it is found in society every day (for example, the work of soldiers and farmers, 9:7–10), on the other hand, with slavery and self-imposed slavery (9:19, 27). He would have a right to be paid—like the people who work for a wage. But he makes no use of this right (9:12, 15) and works like a slave, without pay. This renunciation of that to which he is entitled (exousia) (9:4, 6, 12, 18) on the basis of his messianic work, he wants to have compared with the abdication of freedom’s power (8:9, exousia) on the part of members of the congregation. He expects of them, out of concern for people who are not so sure of their own messianic power, that they refrain from eating sacrificial meat (8:9). God obliges him, correspondingly, to forego being paid for his messianic work. In both cases the issue is to give people in the congregation no cause for stumbling (egkopē, 9:12; proskomma, 8:9). They are to be won over (9:22). Therefore, in Corinth, he renounces any support toward what he needs to live on. Paul experiences his life as very hard; he must put up with it all (9:12). He compares himself with a boxer who pommels his own face (9:27) and with someone who volunteers to be a slave (9:19, 27). These harsh images mirror the hardship he faces day after day, as this chapter makes clear. Because he refuses support from the congregation, he must work doubly hard: he has to work for pay to support himself and in addition without pay for the congregation. What that specifically means is shown in Acts 18:1–11. Paul works as a tentmaker. On the Sabbath he preaches and teaches in the synagogue or in another place of assembly. When Silas and Timothy come from Macedonia, he shares the support they bring and gives up his paid employment, most likely temporarily (Acts 18:5; cf. 2 Cor 11:8–9). In 1 Cor 4:12 he assumes that he must keep on supporting himself. Since paid employment in his line of work also had to be done by artificial light,447 his workdays will have allowed, late in the evening at best, a brief common meal. That means that he is living under the same conditions as most of the congregation, but he needs additional time to prepare for and carry out his work for the congregation. Through the financial support of the sisters and brothers from Macedonia, he will have gained more time for the congregation. But he describes his work situation as a whole as consistently very difficult 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 6:5; 11, 23, 27). Lack of sleep shows up twice in these accounts (2 Cor 6:5; 11:27).

447 On work by artificial light, see 1 Thess 2:9; Autorengruppe 1983, 148; Libanius, Or. 31.9; romanticizing: Vergil, Aen. 8.407–415.

9:1–3

161

The trustworthiness of his way of life should be enough to convince the whole congregation. For him that depends on how it is dealt with by those who are weaker or have views different from his—for whatever reasons. The strenuous days and all the effort he expends have the goal of winning others for the God’s justice.

9:1–3 1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus, our Liberator? And are you not my work in his mission? 2 If others do not regard me as an apostle, I am still that for you. For you are the seal on my work in the mission of the Liberator. 3 Therewith I am defending myself against those who are judging me. 9:1 Through God’s call (see on 1:1) and a vision of the Messiah, Paul was designated an apostle. This is what it means for him to be an apostle: I have been commissioned to proclaim the gospel to the nations. Call, sending, commission and incorporation into the church belong together for him. Paul understands his apostleship to be analogous to prophetic calls like those in Jer 1:6–8 and Isa 49:1–6. The congregation in Corinth is the »work« on which he has labored. He also speaks about his vision in 15:8. Acts gives legendary accounts of his vision (9:1–19; 22:3–21; 26:9–20). That being an apostle is dependent on having a vision of Christ,448 is unlikely, in the light of Paul’s orientation on the tradition of prophetic calls. The content of the vision, according to 15:3–8, is the experience of the presence of the Risen One. Through the resurrection of the crucified Jesus, God has established an end to violence in the whole world and among all nations (see on 1:17–18). In addition to Paul, many other men and women have been called by God to be apostles, that is, commissioned to spread the message of the resurrection of the Messiah.449 Paul doesn’t understand his apostolic work as conferring a hierarchical rank but rather as his incorporation into a network (see above on 4:9). 9:2 shows that. Not all acknowledge him as God’s agent. But he is an apostle as far as the Corinthian congregation is concerned, and their very existence is the »seal« of his apostleship. In 2 Cor 3:2–3 he calls them his letter of recommendation, written by the Messiah. Here and in 2 Cor. 3:2–3 it becomes clear how completely he connects his entire personal existence with this congregation. The letter is written on his heart (2 Cor 3:2). Seals were found on documents, letters, etc. The image is multi-faceted, and Paul does not specify how he wants it to be understood. Perhaps 9:3 can point in the direction of an interpretation. The congregation is that which he can offer as a response to criticism of his work (cf. 4:3). The congregation is his legitimation (by God?), marked with a seal. He has carried out his commission to make known the resurrection of the Messiah. 9:3 hautē/this (defense) can refer to the previous sentences (that is how I understand it) or to the 448 Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 287. On the meaning of the apostolate, see also Gerber 2015, 19–34 449 Ehrensperger 2007, 92–97.

162

Commentary

thoughts that follow. In the latter case, 9:3–27 would be an argument in favor of the defense. But what is the accusation supposed to look like, against which he is defending himself? Can it be supposed that he was refused support, when he so firmly refused to ask for any? Or was he criticized because he worked for pay?450 The text should be understood in the context of 1 Corinthians 8–10 as a whole, not as a defense against criticism. In the context of 8–10, the issue is not defending something he is doing but encouragement for the renunciation of messianic freedom and messianic entitlement, if others would by their use be driven away from the Messiah. It is not about an absolute decision to reject all support,451 but about winning people in a specific situation.

9:4–6 4 Do we not have the right to food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to travel with a sister, as do many of the other apostles, the siblings of the Liberator and Cephas? 6 And do not I and Barnabas also have the right to live without working to support ourselves? In 9:4–14 Paul justifies in great detail his right to support by the congregation. His first argument: The apostles and Jesus’ siblings as a rule receive support for themselves and their families. Should he and Barnabas be the only ones without this right? From the obviously larger group of apostles, he mentions only Cephas by name. He describes the support they receive as food and drink (9:4) for themselves and a wife (9:5); he calls her adelphē/a sister. According to the Acts of Paul,452 Paul sometimes travels with Thecla, who, like him, is not living in a partnership/a marriage. There are pairs of women who are doing the proclamation and spreading the gospel (Rom 16:12, and others).453 Paul’s androcentric perspective stands in tension with the designation »sister.« This word signals a woman’s equality; on the other hand, the words gynē/wife and periagein/to be accompanied by are associated with a wife accompanying her husband. This contradictory content about the relationship between women and men can be observed in Paul again and again (see on 7:34). Against the background of the androcentric language and patriarchal culture, which Paul generally embraces, the breakthroughs with respect to this patriarchal norm merit a great deal of attention. They grant visibility to women who work in the congregation as equals and as »sisters« in a sibling community of women and men. The designation as »brother« or »sister« designates membership in a community that has no earthly father (see on 4:15), but whose Father is God

450 As Theissen 1982, 41 asserts; a different perspective is found in Brändl 2006, 193. 451 See Phil 4:15; 2 Cor 11:8. 452 English translation in New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2 (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/ John Knox, 1992). 453 D’Angelo 1990, 65–86; on the history of interpretation of 9:5, see Cook 2008.

9:4–6

163

alone. Many of the apostles mentioned by Paul may also have been accompanied by children on their journeys. Peter/Cephas had a wife, about whom nothing further is known.454 He mentions Peter here expressly as an acknowledged authority, who naturally receives support for himself and his family. Paul does not say that money is also paid out in addition. 9:6 According to Acts (for example 11:19–26), Barnabas is, like Paul (see Gal 2:1, 9), one of the apostles who were sent to the nations.

Pay for the Teaching of the Torah What is the service for which, according to 9:4–6, Paul could expect his livelihood as pay? In 4:14–21 it became clear that he understands himself to be a teacher of the congregation (see above on this). The letter’s contents, from 1:1 on, are based on texts from the Torah that are interpreted eschatologically for the present situation, as has become apparent (see also below on 10:1). The designations that Paul uses for his work and for that of others in the congregation (for example in 12:28) are difficult to distinguish from one another: What is apostolic work in distinction from prophecy or teaching? How are those who heal different from those who teach? Healing and teaching also belong together for Paul.455 The issue with all these diverse designations is to find a common way, based on Scripture. Always clear in all of this is the horizon that reveals the end of violence and the vision of God’s worldwide justice.456 Paul and others (on this, see already above on 4:17) with a knowledge of the Torah have taught the Torah, that is, interpreting the Torah, in the messianic community. Also as an apostle, Paul is a teacher of the Torah.457 Most of the Corinthian pupils of non-Jewish origin brought neither adequate literacy458 nor knowledge of the Torah. Only a few might have participated in what was taught in the Jewish synagogue prior to the appearance of these people belonging to the Messiah (Acts 18:4). Paul presupposes in this letter considerable knowledge of the Torah on the part of the addressees (see 10:1–13). Thus, it becomes clear that in this

454 See also Mark 1:30. 455 Rom 15:19. In the history of scholarship it is argued that Paul understood himself not as a teacher but as a proclaimer and apostle, whose way of life is to be emulated (see Merkel 2005, 236). This distinction rests on the presupposition that proclamation of the gospel is something different from teaching, understood as disseminating knowledge. But for Paul teaching is more than merely disseminating knowledge (see on 4:17 in the context of 4:14:21). 456 On this view of teaching and of the apostolate, see Ehrensperger 2007, 81–97, 117–136; another view is given, for example, by Rengstorf, art. didaskō, etc. in TDNT 1964, vol. 2, 146, 157. 457 In Deuteronomy Moses is depicted as a teacher of the Torah, whose task it is to teach the commandments, so that they are observed (Deut 4:5, 15, for example). On this see Finsterbusch 2005. 458 See above on 1:4–9 and 4:21.

164

Commentary

congregation intensive teaching about the Torah has taken place, through Paul and other men and women. The Torah instruction was directed primarily at adults. The method connected with Jewish tradition. It was imparted orally, mostly in the form of questions and answers. Repetition and learning by heart were the methods of deepening this knowledge.459 Teachers were paid to instruct children (see above on 4:15). Pay for instructing adults in the Torah was controversial. On the one hand, the handing on of God’s gift should be free; on the other hand, the teachers needed to make a living. There was agreement that teachers should not become rich through their teaching. Here are some examples from the sources: Make them [the words of the law] not a crown wherewith to magnify thyself or a spade wherewith to dig. And thus used Hillel to say: »He that makes worldly use of the crown shall perish.« Thus thou mayest learn that he that makes profit out of the words of the Law removes his life from the world.460

The digging with a spade refers to material gain from teaching. In the Sifre on Deuteronomy other images are used for the same issue: Teachings of the Torah are compared to water. Just as water goes on forever, so teachings of the Torah are compared to water, as it is said, »For they are life to those who find them« (Prov. 4:22). Just as water raises up out of their uncleanness things that have been made unclean, so teachings of the Torah raise up out of their uncleanness things that have been made unclean, as it is said, »Your word is tried to the utmost and your servant loves it« (Ps 119:140). Just as water restores the soul of a person, as it is said, »As cold waters to a faint soul« (Prov 25:25), so teachings of the Torah restore the soul of a person, as it is said, »The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul« (Ps. 19:8). Just as water is free to all the world, so teachings of the Torah are there for the taking, as it is said, »Ho, everyone who is thirsty come for water, and he who has no money, come and buy and eat without money« (Is. 55:l). Just as water is not subject to price, so teachings of the Torah are beyond all price, as it is said, »It is more precious than rubies« (Prov. 3:15).461

In addition to their teaching, some Torah teachers were active in other callings— like Paul in Corinth (4:12).462 In addition, there also appears to have been the solution of teachers being supported materially by their pupils.463 The Synoptic Gospels offer this picture: According to Matthew, there are strict directives from Jesus about how the payment of teachers and healers is to be treated as they travel: »Free of charge you have received; free of charge you should give!. Do not procure gold, no silver … no travel bag for the journey, not even two shirts …. All who work deserve to be fed« (Matt 10:8–10).

459 460 461 462 463

Schürer 1970, vol. 2, 385; Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 966. M. ’Abot 4.5. [Danby] Sifre Deut. 48.7, Neusner 1987, vol. 1, 159; cf. Billerbeck, vol. 1, 563. Schürer 1970, vol. 2, 379. Schürer, 1970, vol. 2, 380; Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 964 speaks cautiously about suspicions that adult learners support their teachers. Even Billerbeck, vol. 1, 564 has no solid evidence. In any case, the assumption of Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 966 can, in general, be accepted that Torah instructors received hospitality.

9:4–6

165

They should not enrich themselves through their work, neither through money nor through supplementary gear for their journey.464 They remain poor among the poor and are also recognized by their clothing and way of life. This rule refers in Matt 10:8–10 to the twelve apostles, but they represent all the disciples of Jesus.465 Healing is also part of the work of those who teach (Matt 10:8; cf. 1 Cor 12:28; Rom 15:19). They accept the hospitality of the learners on a temporary basis—no more. Matthew and Luke also presuppose this arrangement. The basis for the work is the hospitality provided in the houses (Luke 9:4; 10:7; Mark 6:10).466 The provision of food and shelter in the houses of the pupils is called »pay« in Luke 10:7. Paul refers to this model in 1 Cor 9:4–6 (cf. also Gal 6:6): sustenance through hospitality. Through his work the apostle has a right to that. Paul also uses in this context the word »pay« (9:17). He compares his right to be paid with the work for pay of others who depend on it 9:7–11). The two possibilities Paul discusses and practices have parallels in Jewish tradition: the teachers supporting themselves through manual labor or receiving sustenance from the learners; but every form of enrichment is excluded.467 Why he decided to burden himself doubly in Corinth (9:12) remains a question. It has been discussed that women took part in Torah instruction not at all or only marginally. This image has now been refuted.468 Their learning and teaching often met opposition (see only 14:35; 1 Tim 2:12). But Paul himself conveys a different picture. Kopian/working hard in the congregation, according to Rom 16:6, 12, is typical for many women members. This word also captures for Paul his own work, how hard it is and its similarity to the trade others ply (see 4:12; 3:8; 15:10; 16:16).469

464 Ktēsēsthe/acquire in Matt 10:9 is often interpreted as referring to furnishings, no longer referring, as at the beginning of the sentence, to pay for teaching and healing, but to what one needs to take from home for the journey. That probably is involved in the synoptic parallels (Mark 6:8–9; Luke 9:3). But in Matt 10:9 the meaning presented here is more likely, since the verb then has a consistent meaning. Supplying furnishings for wandering prophets is forbidden in Did. 11:6, thus, it happened. 465 On the images of the twelve in the Gospel of Matthew, see L. Schottroff 2009a, 34–37. 466 On the possible misuse of this hospitality, see Did.11:12 and Lucian, De morte Peregrini 11–16. 467 On the attempt to understand the behavior of messianic prophets as a parallel to cynicstoic independence and freedom from needs, see W. Stegemann 2010, 259; M. Crüsemann 2010, 143. 468 Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 955; Ilan 2008, 42–44. 469 On kopos/kopian as a concept for work in the congregations, see Brändt 2006, 253–262. The reference to Isa 49:4 should not in any case be seen as an alternative in his eyes to the meaning the word has in the working world. With this word Paul is referring both to the prophet and to the hard work the word denotes in the working world.

166

Commentary

9:7–11 7 Who serve in the military while supporting themselves? Who plant a vineyard without also eating the fruit? Who tend a herd without nurturing themselves from the herd’s milk? 8 Am I now speaking only in human terms, or does not the Torah say that also? 9 In the Torah of Moses it actually says, You shall not muzzle the ox that is threshing. Is God here concerned only about the oxen? 10 Or is not God in every case speaking for our sake also? Surely, it is written for our sake. The one who plants must be able to do this with hope, and the one who threshes with the expectation of receiving a share. 11 If we have sown among you seed worked by the Spirit, is it then inappropriate if we desire to harvest bread from you? Paul gives examples from the working world and an interpretation of the Torah to support further the right to compensation for those who help to extend the Spirit through teaching the Torah. 9:7 Soldiers are paid in kind and with money. Whoever plants a vineyard eats of its fruits. Whoever tends a flock drinks from the animals’ milk. Here Paul is not thinking of the officers or the owners of the vineyards and the flocks. He is thinking of the salaried work of those who are free—for he includes the work of slaves starting with 9:16. The work he is thinking about here is manual labor and trades. The pay of regular soldiers was so insufficient that they were regarded as robbers and extortionists (Luke 3:14; cf. John 19:23; see also Matt 28:11–15).470 As a rule they had to work hard, in construction and in supporting the military and police work of the troops.471 The planting of a vineyard with a hoe is also hard work. Paul is thinking here, as with the work of shepherding, of free board during the work or of payment in kind. Presumably, he didn’t mention additional payment of money because he envisioned the support from the congregation as free board or payment in kind (9:4). His look at the working world of free contract workers472 is not romanticized. He puts his work for the gospel on the same level as this work. In the society of his time it was considered, as far as those from above looked upon contract work, as work by the poor and as the lowest form of manual labor.473 Paul derives from the comparison his right to payment in kind from the congregation. 9:8 The right of teachers to hospitality is also supported by the Torah; it is not merely his personal view. 9:9–10 He cites Deut 25:4, a regulation to protect animals, which he applies to his own time with an interpretation that in today’s ears sounds audacious. But he is proceeding from the hermeneutical principle that Moses speaks »for our sake.« The »We« is the »We« of the hearers and the interpretive community (see the basic

470 See also Weeber 1995, 284. 471 Bohec 1993, 15–64. 472 On the working conditions of free contract workers, see Schottroff 1990, 39–43; Scheidel 1994, 196—198; 213–217. 473 Scheidel 1994, 213–224.

9:7–11

167

information on the Torah at 7:19). He already seems to know an interpretation of this Torah command that discusses not only protecting animals but also protecting working people.474 Whoever works in farming may eat of the fruits—the amount is precisely defined in individual cases in the Mishnah (m. Baba Mesiʿa 7). The Deut 25:4 command protecting animals applied to Israel in particular475 and is declared here by Paul not to be irrelevant.476 He only presupposes that in the Torah it always also applies to »us,« even in the regulations protecting animals. In 9:10 an interpretation of Deut 25:4 based on labor law is explained.477 The one who threshes and the one who plows can expect something to eat. The food given those who are working is based on mutual agreement and local custom.478 9:11 The thought in 9:11 also emerges for Paul in connection with his offering for Jerusalem (16:1–4). Among the members of the body of Christ there is mutuality also with respect to material goods. Each side gives what it has. In this case gifts produced by God’s Spirit come from Paul; the congregation gives sarkika/essentials for life/material goods. Thus the richer congregations in Rome and Corinth should give money to the poorer one in Jerusalem as a return gift and recompense for the spiritual riches from there (Rom 15:27; 2 Cor 8:14). In 2 Cor 8:13–14 he calls this recompense a »parity,« in Phil 4:15 an arrangement of giving and receiving.479 So

474 Sifre Deut. 287 on Deut 25:4 interprets the text in such a way that all animals are included in this command and all people as well, except when, with regard to the people, they agree to have their mouths muzzled, that is, that they receive no food. Deut 25:4 applies to all workers who, as with threshing, work with hands, feet and the entire body. The Mishnah has a different view, m. B. Mesiʽa 7.3: »If he laboured with his hands but not with his feet, or with his feet but not with his hands, or even with his shoulders only, he may still eat.« [Mishnah, 359]. Cf. also Billerbeck, vol. 3, 384–385. 475 The material can be found in Billerbeck, vol. 3, 382–383. 476 Moses addresses the people, not the animals. On the protection of animals in the Torah and in Judaism, see F. Crüsemann 1992, 304–310. What is important for the perspective on animals, in addition to the perspective of farmers in the Old Testament, is the admiration for God’s manifold and marvelous works of creation in the Old Testament and in Judaism. Thus wild animals are also seen as God’s creation (just see Psalm 104). Paul shares the biblical perspective (15:39). It is true that Hellenistic-Roman culture also knows the rural perspective of respect for animals. But since the time of Augustus, wild animals were procured in grand style from all over the world and slaughtered in animal-baiting orgies; on this see Weeber 1990, 131–151. Paul’s question in 9:9, »Is it for oxen that God is concerned?« sounds for today’s understanding as if Paul paid no attention to Deuteronomy’s directive for the protection of animals. But, because of what Paul’s thought was driving at, this consequence cannot be drawn from this question. Philo, Spec. 1.260, argues in a way that is similar to Paul’s (and that is ambiguous today). 477 The Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland, 27th ed. 1993) treats 9:10 as a Scripture-quote of unknown provenance. However, in 9:10 a question is asked, (»Or does [God] not speak … for our sake?«) and answered (»It was indeed written for our sake.«) This is followed by the interpretation of Deut 25:4 for the present. 478 Ben-David 1974, 66; see above all m. Baba Meṣiʿa 7, Mishnah, 359–360. 479 On the mutuality of giving and receiving, see L. Schottroff 1995, 212–218. A contract in the legal sense is not in view.

168

Commentary

the issue is not that the congregation would grant him a charitable offering. His being fed by the congregation would be well-earned by his labor.

9:12–14 12 If others have a share in what belongs to you, then we first of all! Yet we have made no use of this right, but endured everything, in order to put no stone in the way of the good news about the Messiah. 13 Do you not know that all who serve in the temple also live from the temple, and those who work at the altar also receive a share from the altar? 14 So also the Eternal One has given instructions that those who proclaim the gospel live therefrom. 9:12 Frequently one finds the interpretation and translation: »If others have this claim on you, …« (Luther Bible 1984). In that case the genitive hymōn next to exousia is taken to be an objective genitive. That is linguistically possible. This way of looking at it presupposes a relationship of superiority/control and subordination. But the verb metechein/share does not fit this interpretation. And the genitive can also be understood as a subjective genitive; then it reads: »If others are able to share in what belongs to you, …« (Einheitsübersetzung [Unity Translation; trans.] 1981). The »others« are the »other apostles,« of whom he mentions only Cephas by name. It remains open whether an apostle before or alongside Paul ever made use of this sharing. Now Paul explains why he never made use of this right, which he has so extensively established. He has endured everything, that is, the double burden of working for pay and working for the congregation. He did not want to create an obstacle for the gospel. What does he mean by that? There are parallels in 9:18 and, in an extended sense, 9:23, 27; 10:32. His renunciation of being fed by the congregation corresponds to (see on Chapters 8–10 or 9:1–27) the renunciation by others of eating meat that had been sacrificed. They should refrain out of consideration for the weak, lest this freedom become a stumbling block for those who are unsure what to do (8:13). Here it is clear which wrong path the unsure could have taken. They could also have wanted to ignore the other gods by eating sacrificial meat. But for them the power of the gods was still present. For them eating meat sacrificed to idols would have been a betrayal of their God, the God of Israel. What would be the wrong path onto which the people of the Messiah would be led if Paul would allow the congregation to provide his food? From the Jewish sources named above about not accepting money for teaching the Torah to adults (see the basic information at 9:6) a possible interpretation emerges: The wrong path the people of the Messiah could have taken through Paul was to fail to grasp that the gospel was the source for life and freedom. »Just as water is free to all the world, so teachings of the Torah are there for the taking« (Sifre Deut. 48; see the basic information on 9:6 above). In a large Roman city, the poor have to pay for everything, for rent and firewood, for food and clothing. Only the water was free.

9:12–14

169

105 For the poor of this type suitable work may perhaps be hard to find in the cities, and will need to be supplemented by outside resources when they have to pay house-rent and buy everything they get, not merely clothes, household belongings, and food, but even the wood to supply the daily need for fire, and even any odd sticks, leaves, or other most trifling thing they need at any time, 106 and when they are compelled to pay money for everything but water, since everything is kept under lock and key, and nothing is exposed to the public except, of course, the many expensive things for sale. It will perhaps seem hard for men to subsist under such conditions who have no other possession than their own bodies, especially as we do not advise them to take any kind of work that offers or all kinds indiscriminately from which it is possible to make some money. 107 So perhaps we shall be forced in our discussion to banish the respectable poor from the cities in order to make our cities in reality cities »well-inhabited,« as Homer calls them, where only the prosperous dwell, and we shall not allow any free labourer, apparently, within the walls.480

If the Torah and the liberating message referring to it are not free of charge, they could alter their character. They would become part of a world in which one has to pay for everything. Paul could drive the people of the Messiah away from the gospel; they would no longer entrust themselves to the gospel as the source of life. Paul could not win people (9:19–22). He would not have built others up (10:23; 8:1) but sought his own advantage (10:32). A gospel that rests on the unconditional charis/grace of God481 would then be contradicting itself. Paul’s concern is not only that his »reward« could be considered a deception. He wants to avoid even appearing to be false. It is true that he considers it right to receive food for his work. But many others might not share this view, which is plausible in a major Roman city. Thus, it is necessary for him to work for his food, even though he finds the double burden difficult. In Philippi he evaluated the situation differently (see on 9:18); he was supported by this congregation (Phil 4:15; 2 Cor 11:8–9), probably after he had already moved on (Phil 4:16). He does not want to make his message ineffective. Therefore, he declines to accept food from the congregation in Corinth. 9:13 Paul offers two additional arguments from the world of work, in this case from the world of the people who work in the temple. Since very few of the addressees can know Jerusalem, Paul is probably thinking instead about the temples in Corinth. In 10:18 he does, it is true, refer to sacrifices taking place in the temple in Jerusalem. With his comparison he is envisioning people who work in the temple compound, those leading the worship, but above all those, for example, who work in the dining rooms, who clean, serve and make music. When he refers to those who serve at the altar, it can be asked whether he is referring to the priests—or perhaps also to the butchers who carry out the principal work of slaughtering and dismembering. He is in any case referring to those doing manual labor and to the fact that these people also get their share at the sacrificial meals. On the corresponding regulations for Israel, see Numbers 18:8, 31; Deut 18:1–8. 9:14 Paul is referring here either to Jesus’ mission discourse (for example, Luke 10:7; Matt 10:10) or to a command by God (for example, Num 18:8, 31; Deut 18:1–8).

480 Dio Chrysostom, Or., trans. J. W. Cohoon, Loeb (1932), 7.105–107. 481 M. Crüsemann 2009, 118–125.

170

Commentary

This is not a quotation but a free rendering of what was said by Jesus or by Scripture. This reference to the authority of Jesus or of Scripture is seen by Paul as something that can be interpreted and used from case to case—perhaps even in different ways. Indeed, he was not able to live by this rule all the time (see on 9:12). Here, as is the case in 7:10–11, the issue is not the absolute authority of a command, which depends on its precise wording;482 instead, the issue is a word of Jesus or of God, that is to be translated into the present (see on 10:1).

9:15–18 15 I have made absolutely no use of that. I am not writing this in order that that happen for me now: I would rather die than … —What I am producing will not come to naught. 16 If I keep on proclaiming the gospel, I am expecting no special acknowledgment for that, for I must do it. Woe is me, if I keep for myself the message of joy. 17 If I decide freely to take up this work, I must be paid for doing it. But the responsible task has been entrusted to me as to a slave who is not given a choice. 18 So what is my reward? That I hand on the gospel and make no use of the rights that I have on the basis of this work. In order to understand this section, it is helpful to know the Old Testament tradition of prophetic calls and of the blending of the prophet’s message and biography. Isa 49:1–6 in particular can be brought into the discussion, although Paul does not cite it here, as he does in Gal 1:15, or make clear reference to it as in Phil 2:16.483 The prophet is called to be God’s slave. He despairs of the ineffectiveness of his effort (Isa 49:4). And yet God will vindicate him. God has appointed him to be the messenger of salvation to the nations. Paul also worries that his work could be in vain, if people are offended by at (9:15, 12). 9:15 Paul has received no support from the Corinthian congregation. The reason he goes into his detailed proof that he has a right to it is not in order now to be fed by the congregation. He says that he would rather die than … —he breaks off the thought. But it is clear: He would rather die than accept food from this congregation. Why these extreme alternatives? If he accepted food, he would be worried that his »labor« would be »in vain«. In Isa 49:4–6, after his despairing cry to God, the prophet speaks »Therefore, my vindication (LXX krisis) is with Adonai, and my trouble (LXX ponos) before my God« is clear, »and my God is my strength.« The »boast«/kauchēma that Paul could lose is the boast before God. This loss would signify that God does not acknowledge him and his work, because his conduct has compromised his message with those who hear it (9:12). The verb kenoō/render void/deprive of/nullify refers here to how he fares in God’s judgment (cf. 3:13–14). Elsewhere it is often a concern of his that his work as one commissioned by God 482 On this see also M. and R. Zimmermann 1996. 483 On Isaiah 49 in Paul, see especially Radl 1986, 144–149.

9:15–18

171

could come to naught (Phil 2:16; Gal 2:2, cf. Isa 49:4; 1 Cor 15:58). Both thoughts belong closely together. In 9:16 the keyword kauchēma occurs once again as in 9:15. Now he contrasts the boast for which he yearns (9:15) with another boast which he does not receive (9:16). For his work he will receive no acknowledgement (boast) and no reward (9:18). Indeed, he works as God’s slave. If he did not do this, he would be lost before God. But that his work is effective and that he does not put this in jeopardy by demands for bread, for that he hopes to be acknowledged before God (9:15). His mutual relationship with the congregation is for Paul a connection on which his life depends. Its basis is the unrecompensed work that he is obliged to do. 9:17 expands on his working relationship with God. Paul does not do his work based on a free choice, but as a slave, without any reward. The biographies of the prophets often tell about this experience (Jer 1:5–7; Amos 3:8; Ezek 3:17–18 and others). God obliged them to do this work without asking for their agreement. They must be God’s messengers. Paul says that God has entrusted this work to him (cf. 4:5) as to a slave who is ordered to take care of administering things (oikonomia). 9:18 The reward for spreading the good news does not consist in bread but in this, to work without pay and to make no use of his right to a reward for the work. The fact that God will acknowledge him needs this elaboration: if his work does not remain without effect and if he does not put a stone in people’s way to keep them from experiencing the good news as liberation. It needs to be free of charge in Corinth or it would no longer be a message of liberation. The congregation in Philippi supported Paul financially (Phil 4:15–16). Was that inconsistent? 9:15–18 are, it is true, related to the situation in Corinth (cf. 2 Cor 11:8–9), but the statements sound more fundamental. He also allowed people to support him (2 Cor 11:8; Phil 4:10–19; Acts 18:5). It looks as though he did this under exceptional circumstances. The gift he received shortly before he wrote the letter to Philippi (Phil 4:10, 14) will have been based on his being in prison (Phil 1:7, 12). The inmates in prisons depended on food from outside.484 Earlier gifts from Macedonia will have been for other reasons that can no longer be known. But he fundamentally understood himself as God’s slave, in the prophetic sense, who had to work involuntarily and without pay.485 Only the fact that the teaching of the Torah and the proclamation of the gospel are done free of charge corresponds to their liberating character. The right to eat and drink and the right not to have to work (cf. Matt 10:8–10, see above) are not a payment that brings a profit (Matt 10:9). According to 10:8, they do not contradict the principle of working free of charge. But there were differences of opinion about this (see above the basic information on 9:4), as his behavior in Corinth and particularly this chapter show. With his emphasis on his right to receive bread, Paul is moving about on dangerous ground—just as is the case in Matt 10:8–10. His battle over physical survival that becomes clear in 9:1–18, and the need

484 Materials have been collected by Harnack 1924, vol. 1, 188. 485 The Paul of Acts correctly describes in Acts 20:33–35 the situation that the historical Paul reveals here in 9:1–18.

172

Commentary

to work without pay in this congregation, which means doing extra work to make money, demonstrate his poverty. Also, to be recognized from this text is the poverty in the congregation. They have no extra food. In 9:1–18 the issue is the provisions that a person needs to live, to have something to eat and drink (9:4; cf. Matt 10:11; Luke 10:7).

9:19–23 19 Although I am free and subject to no one, I make myself a slave for the sake of all, in order to win as many as possible. 20 To Jews, I have shown myself to be a Jew, whereby I am winning Jews; among those who possess God’s Torah, I have shown myself to be faithful to the Torah, so that I might win over people faithful to the Torah—even though my salvation does not depend on the fulfillment of the Torah. 21 I have not separated myself from those who do not know God’s Torah, although I myself do not live without God’s Torah, for I am a follower of Christ, who is faithful to the Torah. I want to win the people who do not know the Torah. 22 To the weak, I have shown myself to be weak, in order to gain the weak. I have been in solidarity, in order to save at least some. 23 I am doing everything for the sake of the gospel, so that, together with others, I may have a share in it. This section is often read in an anti-Judaic manner, especially the statement in 9:20 that Paul is no longer hypo nomon/under the law (cf. Rom 6:14). If one fills out this expression with an interpretation of Paul according to which he proclaims freedom from the Torah/law, the entire statement is read as conveying the concept of a »law-free Gentile Christianity.«486 Thus we come to the following sense of 9:20: Paul became a Jew to the Jews, but only in respect to questions in the Torah that were not necessary for salvation. But with that the Torah as a whole is no longer a source of life, not even for the people of the Messiah from the nations. Otherwise, a second difficulty would be created by this interpretation. If Paul merely acts as if he were free from the Torah, then he is describing here in 9:13–23 a missionary tactic that is insincere. That would be the consequence of such an interpretation even if the exegetical tradition has usually tried to avoid the consequence of ascribing to Paul a lack of principle in his work as a missionary. Alternatives to this interpretive pattern of »law-free Gentile Christianity« and of »missionary accommodation« have been developed where Paul’s being a Jew and his fidelity to the

486 An example is found in Zeller 2010, 3–7–318: »Here it must be a matter of practices that are in conformity with the Torah—for example, observing the food laws; … Paul does not therewith contradict the battle he otherwise fights for freedom from the imposition of the Torah on the Gentiles, insofar as his following of the Torah does not appear to be necessary for salvation.« For a critique of the concept »law-free Gentile Christianity,« see L. Schottroff 1996, 227–245.

9:19–23

173

Torah were taken seriously. I mention Peter Tomson 1990, Karin Finsterbusch 1996, Kathy Ehrensperger 2007, 2013.487 An alternative to the anti-Judaic interpretive tradition and to the »missionary accommodation« interpretation should be gained contextually. Above all, that means to be specific about the behavior Paul describes by giving examples from 1 Corinthians and at the same time to take seriously the social context of this congregation. The issue in this section is not accommodation but a solidarity that does not surrender one’s own identity. And the issue is the fidelity to the Torah of Paul, as one who belongs to the Messiah, and of those like him. 9:19 The freedom is related to messianic freedom from the powers (cf. 6:12; 3:22). Paul’s self-enslavement happens through his hearing of the call of God, who called the apostle just as God called the prophets (9:16–18). And yet, the metaphorical words are transparent for the social reality addressed through them: Paul is a freeborn man who has enslaved himself. But his master is God, not to be mistaken for the slave masters in society. According to Hock488 1978, 561, Paul in 9:19 regards his craft as »slavish,« thereby betraying his elitist perspective on people who must work with their hands. For Hock, 9:19 is a decisive argument that Paul belongs to the upper class. But 9:19 provides no evaluation of the work of craftspeople but presents Paul’s self-understanding and his biography as a prophet called by God. Therefore, he understands himself as God’s slave. On Paul’s person, see on 16:5. 9:20 Ioudaios/Jew, Jewess is for Paul a designation for people of Jewish origin, an ethnic concept (see on 1:22–24). The phrase »under the law«/those who are faithful to the Torah clarifies, on the one hand, what it means to live as a Jew; on the other hand, the concept also includes people from the nations who understand themselves to be obligated to the Torah (on this, see the basic information at 1:25). What does Paul mean by the phrase, »I have shown myself to be a Jew« or as »faithful to the Torah«? To remain within the framework of 1 Corinthians, that means: Together with Jews he has interpreted the Torah and made Torah decisions transparent for all who live with the Torah. Chapter 9:1–18 itself is a good example of the way in which be establishes his interpretations on the basis of the Torah, thereby moving in the frame of what was common to Jewish teaching on the Torah at that time (cf. Acts 16:3). 1 Cor 8:4–6 is also a common basis for living for Jewish people and those from the nations who live according to the Torah.

487 Tomson 1990, 274–281. His interpretation is, in any case, hardly convincing, because he considers »though I myself am not under the law« in 9:20b to be a later anti-Judaistic addition by the early church. Finsterbusch 1996, 84–86 asserts about 9:20b: Paul lives in conformity to the Torah, but »in contrast to Israel, with the gospel« (85). Paul wants to make Jews into Jewish Christians. But that needs to be given specificity: He wants to win them for liberation from the structures of death and of violence. Ehrensperger 2007, 153: »Accommodation serves the purpose of supporting one another«; in any case, she says nothing about 9:20b. 488 Hock 1978, especially 558–561; a counter argument is found in Meggitt 1998, 87–88, and others.

174

Commentary

»Though I myself am not hypo nomon/under the law« (on this see what has already been written above, at 9:19–23): In what sense is Paul hypo nomon and in what sense is he not? Paul shares the foundation for Jewish life: The one who lives in accord with the Torah has life before God. But Paul, along with many other Jewish people, has had the experience that the Torah is not actually observed. The worldwide structures of sin force people to become instruments of sin and of death (Rom 6:12–14). And so, according to the Torah, they are guilty before God and live under the Torah’s condemnation.

Sin and Torah in 1 Corinthians While the concept of sin/hamartia plays a central role in the letter to Rome, it is encountered only at the margin in 1 Corinthians (see especially 15:56). Nevertheless, it, or the issue named by it, is also central for 1 Corinthians, and the content agrees with the letter to Rome, as especially 15:56–57 indicates. The verb hamartanein/to sin designates specific transgressions of the Torah, for example, in sexual behavior (6:18), in how one treats the sisters and brothers (8:12), through the avoidance of conflicts with Roman authorities (see on 15:32–34). These individual actions are a concrete expression of an involvement in structures of hamartia/sin (15:3, 17, 56). Here in 1 Corinthians Paul uses, in addition, other terminology for it. He speaks of kosmos/world (see already the basic information provided on 1:17), archontes/rulers (see on 2:8; cf. archē/dominion 15:24)), of dynamis/power and exousia/authority (15:24). With the concept of kosmos/world, Paul is referring, on the one hand, to the reality of the society in which the congregation lives (see, for example, 5:10), on the other hand, he links with this word structures that are at work in society but at the same time designate powers arrayed against God: the wisdom of this world (1:20–21; 2:12), the world whose end has begun (7:29; cf. aiōnes, 10:11/earthly powers). These terms designate aspects of the structure that in the letter to Rome and in 1 Corinthians 15 he calls hamartia/sin. These power structures use as their instruments people, who do the actual sinning. In the letter to Rome Paul explicitly laments: All people are caught in this net of violence, no one acts justly (Rom 3:9–20). Sin makes them accomplices in this work of destruction (see Rom 1:32). The nomos/law/Torah has been given by God as life-giving instruction, but, in fact, people sin. Thus, the Torah becomes sin’s instrument of power, with which it consigns people to death. For here is the reality for Paul and the Jewish tradition: »Cursed is the one who does not hold fast to all the regulations that are written in the book of the Torah and does them« (Gal 3:10; Deut 27:26; cf. Rom 2:12b–13). Thus, through the dominion of sin, the Torah ceases to be the source of life and becomes sin’s instrument of power that brings about death (15:56). People’s experience of running aground on the Torah is first encountered in Jewish tradition in the first century CE, especially in Paul and in 4 Ezra.489 The

489 On this see L. Schottroff 1990, 57–21.

9:19–23

175

eyes to recognize this, says Paul, were opened by the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and by belonging to the body of the Messiah. God grants those who entrust themselves completely to God the power to observe the Torah. Looked at from a socio-historical perspective, the experience that no one is righteous is connected to the way of life that the Roman Empire forces people to adopt.490 Jewish people are often just as uprooted as a large part of the population. This socio-historical interpretation of worldwide structural sin in Paul and in 4 Ezra stands in contrast to the traditional interpretation, which sees sin as a consequence of human hubris, which does not trust God but trusts in its own power and the possibility to attain salvation before God all by itself. In Christian biblical interpretation over a long period of time this concept of hubris before God was considered typical of how Jews understood their relationship with God. But even today, when the discussion is about the hubris of humanity as a whole and about religion based on personal achievement, there remains the underlying anti-Jewish way of thinking: The law leads to the desire to bring before God one’s own merits. The gospel, by contrast, is a gift of pure grace. The attempt to want to fulfill the Torah counts as work-righteousness. With this understanding of sin, a decision is also made about how to look at the Torah. When Paul in 1 Cor 9:20 says, on the one hand, that he is not »under the Torah,« and, on the other hand, that he lives as a Jew, that is, in accord with the Torah, this apparent contradiction can be resolved in this way: His reliance on God and his belonging to the Messiah give him the power to live in accord with the Torah. Therefore, through their belonging to the Messiah, people are no longer under the curse of the Torah, under its condemnation of all who do not live in accord with the Torah and orient themselves to God’s justice. 9:21 The anomoi, from a Jewish perspective, are those who do not know the Torah. In the cities of the Roman Empire, Jewish people live as a minority amid anomoi, who obey different laws, those of the city and the nation. Jewish people already have a long tradition of integrating themselves into a society without losing their identity. The context of Chapters 8–10 moves in this midst of this problematic area (see the basic information on sacrificial meat at 8:1). For Paul and other people of the Messiah, the concern in this situation is to win people for liberation from structural violence for the God of Israel and the Messiah Jesus. An example of this kind of winning way with anomoi is shown in 10:27. If people of the Messiah are invited to a meal by people with different beliefs, they should not ask: Is the food connected with the worship of gods (alien to them)? They should take part in the meal without asking. That is not accommodation at the expense of their own identity and of their belonging to God (see 10:28). Also decisive with the interpretation of 9:21 are the presuppositions with which it is read (see on 9:19–23 and the basic

490 On the metaphoric discourse about hamartia/sin in the letter to Rome and its basis in the social and political experience of Jewish people in the time of the Roman Empire; see L. Schottroff 1990, 59–69; see also L. Schottroff 2015.

176

Commentary

information at 9:20). If I presuppose that Paul is no longer a Jew but an advocate of a law-free gospel, then 9:21 will be understood as behavior that regards large parts of the Torah as irrelevant (the ritual law, for example).491 So with people without the Torah, Paul would become one of them. Then 9:21b will also be interpreted in total agreement with that: For example, ennomos Christou/as one obligated to the law of Christ—the love command, let’s say—which from this perspective may overlap the law but is not coextensive with it.492 But if one sees Paul in the context of Judaism of his time, it becomes clear that there is no doubt about his connection with the Torah, as he makes clear in what follows directly in 9:21. He does not live apart from God’s Torah, as »ennomos of the Messiah,« a follower of the Messiah faithful to the Torah. Here Paul succeeds in subsuming both belonging to the Messiah and fidelity to the Torah in a brief concept. 9:22 The weak about whom Paul is thinking here will be those of whom he spoke in 8:11, sisters and brothers for whom the old gods still have power. Paul does not also say explicitly that he, in contrast to them, is one of the strong (see already above on 8:1). The concept »weak« has additional dimensions for Paul. It is the weak in society whom God has chosen (1:27). In many respects Paul himself proves to be weak, above all through sickness (for example, Gal 4:13) and a lack of rhetorical skills (2:3). He has shown his weakness and not pretended to be strong. The weak could recognize his solidarity with them, even if the concrete situation of the weak was perhaps different. In 9:22b Paul summarizes the little section and opens his thinking to other life situations in which the messengers of the gospel demonstrate their solidarity with those whom they desire to win for their own healing and the healing of the world. Sōdzein/to save means: To bring out of complicity with violence into the community of the body of Christ and of trust in God. The concept of salvation, of healing, does not here distinguish this life from the life to come (see the basic information at 1:6). 9:23 The concluding sentence also looks back on 9:1–18. His self-enslavement is called work without pay (9:1–18) and a life in openness and solidarity with those who are different, without the posturing of the strong over against the weak (9:19–22). He would like to share in the gospel together with all. Synkoinōnos refers to a common participation (cf. Rom 11:17) and should preserve this aspect even in its translation and interpretation.493 Early Christianity had a fondness for compound words with the preposition syn/with,494 since the community of sisters and brothers and its mutuality are in this way kept in view.

491 Zeller 2010, 318. 492 Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 428, for example; Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 345. 493 Translations like, »so that I may share in its (the good news’s) blessings« (thus Zeller 2010, 315; many others are similar) bracket out the syn. 494 On this, L. Schottroff 1995, 212.

9:24–27

177

9:24–27 24 Do you not know that indeed all in the stadium run, but only one receives the victor’s wreath? But you should run in such a way that all receive it. 25 All who take part in the competition exercise self-control in order to receive a perishable victor’s wreath. We, however, do it for an imperishable one. 26 So my course does not lead to uncertainty. So I box, but not like one who misses the target. 27 For I pummel my own body, hitting myself in the face and enslaving myself. I do not want to proclaim to others something that I have not directed at myself. Paul now uses parabolic language from the world of sports, first about popular running competitions, then (from 26b) about boxing. With respect to running, he refers to two situations: 1. All the participants run, but only one man or woman495 receives the victor’s prize; 2. All who take part in the competition abstain from all kinds of things in order to attain the wreath that goes to the winner. For boxing, only one situation is in view: 3. The boxer swings with his fists but misses the opponent. Each of these descriptions receives its immediate application to the congregation, but these applications contrast with the image: 1. All the participants run, but in order that they all (that is, not just one person496), receive the victor’s prize. 2. In the stadium the victor’s wreath is perishable; the congregation runs for the sake of an imperishable prize. 3. Paul also boxes, but he hits himself in the face. This application (9:27), with its image of a man who hits himself in the face with the knockout force of a boxing match, is alarmingly brutal. It must be asked why Paul choses such a brutal image.

Sports Competitions Sports competitions were promoted around Corinth and in the entire Roman Empire in the imperial period,497 more strongly than in the pre-Roman era. In most cases the prize was materially valuable, but along with this there were also games in which a crown of leaves played a role.498 Every two years in the vicinity of Corinth the Isthmian Games took place. Through their geographic location they had special public significance: They were used for political purposes and for businesses in the vicinity of Corinth, a harbor and commercial city. A peculiarity of the Pan-Hellenic Games was that only one prize was given (not several as was otherwise usual): the sought-after garland. Boxing had the goal of knocking down the opponent with blows to the head and face, in order to render him incapable of continuing the fight.499 The boxers wore metal-reinforced arm 495 On women’s sports, see Weiler 1981, 48–49, and more frequently; Poplutz 2004, 93, 269. 496 See the table of contradictions in Poplutz 2004, 261. 497 Brändl 2006, 224–225; on Augustus’s politics of sports, see Weeber 1999, 73–75; on the politics of sports under Herod and his successors, see Brändl 2006, 150–185. 498 Poplutz 2004, 74 and more frequently. 499 Weiler 1981, 179–182; Weeber 1999, 84–86.

178

Commentary

straps and metal-reinforced boxing gloves with which the loser could be seriously wounded. The losers in boxing matches, as well as boxers in general, are recognizable from the damage for the rest of their lives, above all to their faces, and were thus objects of ridicule: Look at Olympikos, my Emperor! Once he had everything, Nose, brows and chin, ears and eye lids as we do. But since he signed up to be a boxer, it’s all gone.500

Illustration 7: A boxer with vestiges of his wounds on his face, a broken nose, for example. The statue is from the first century BCE.; Photo: Matthias Kabel.

500 Beckby n.d. 585. Anthologia Graeca 11.75. On the statue cf. Webber 1999, 78.

9:24–27

179

9:24 Competitive races in which only the victor receives the laurels were probably familiar to the population of the city of Corinth and to Paul himself. Now Paul addresses this world of experience and sets against it a different kind of running. All of those belonging to the Messiah are running501 in the service of the gospel, as Paul himself, but they are all running together for the victor’s prize, not just an individual. There is a tradition of criticism on the victory system in sports by those faithful to the Torah.502 Paul depicts the congregation as an alternative world to the world of sports. In this period, sports were not focused on mass participation and also not (any longer) on their significance for people’s health. There were only spectator sports.503 9:25 Self-control in sports is compared with the self-control required for the messianic life and contrasted with it: In sports there is only one laurel wreath, which quickly withers and dies; the people of the Messiah, as Paul himself, run to attain an imperishable wreath. The contrasting pair, perishable—imperishable, cannot be connected by Paul with the interpretive pattern of this side—the other side (see the basic information at 1:6). God’s future even now determines the present for those who belong to the Messiah (see on 15:42). 9:26 Paul himself also runs the course for the sake of the gospel, but he does not run aimlessly. Then he changes the image from running to boxing. A boxer’s blows often do not connect; he beats the air. But Paul does not miss his target. 9:27 Now the contrast between the boxer and Paul evolves into a horrifying image: He is pummeling his own body, pounding his face—like a boxer who strikes his opponent (see above on 9:24–27 and the basic information located there). The impact of the boxing wounds, inflicted by metal-reinforced equipment, leaves behind mangled noses, eyelids and lips—a destroyed face. Paul identifies himself with one of the victims of boxing, a sport that was loved by the populace precisely because of its severity. It was not so gruesome and bloody as the games in the circus (see above on 4:9). Paul finds a second antithetical comparison here, between the life of an apostle and the brutal entertainment for the masses in his time. In 4:9 he calls himself and others those »who are condemned to death« in the violent games. Here he beats himself up as a boxer beats up an opponent. Why is he using such an image, which expresses self-inflicted brutality? He immediately clears that up: It is his self-enslavement, with which he is doing himself in. All of Chapter 9 is about his self-enslavement: He goes without the congregation’s bread, he allows himself to be subjected to God like a slave, he’s trying to reach people in the whole wide world of his time, in order to win them for the gospel. His concluding statement probably has the goal of making his excessive demands on his body visible as self-mutilation. He has suffered under his sick body; just see 2 Cor 12:7–10.504

501 See Brändl 2006, 275 on the significance of trechein/race/run in Paul. 502 On the history of this image in the Old Testament and in Judaism, see Brändl 2006, 318–320. 503 Weeber 1995, 340. 504 See 2 Corinthians in general, and on that see M. Crüsemann 2009, 111–137.

180

Commentary

There also a word turns up that apparently signifies blows to the face with the fist (kolaphidzein, 2 Cor 12:7). He is probably also identifying himself with the Isaianic prophet and his sufferings (Isa 53:4–5; 50:6–7). Nevertheless, the image is disturbing, because it reveals a superabundance of wounds on his body, also and precisely because he sees himself as the cause of the suffering. With the concluding subordinate clause, he reveals his goal in the matter: He wants to stand the test before God and humanity505 and not appear as useless/untrustworthy, while he is bringing people the gospel. He would show himself to be »untrustworthy« if he, for example, would take bread for his work in Corinth (see 9:12). He would be a God’s useless slave who preaches to others to forego privileges for the sake of the weak while he himself does not want to forego them. The excessive demand his work brought upon him apparently burdens him so severely that he uses this image for it: He is like a boxer who pummels himself in the face.

Thoughts of a Woman from a Future Generation Despite my attempt, by looking at Paul’s experiences, to understand this image of his brutality against himself, 9:27 continues to be disturbing. How can Paul speak in this way about his work, which he loves, and which constitutes his life? Through this image, doesn’t he render it null and void? In the language of today we meet expressions such as »to cut off your nose to spite your face« or »work till you drop.« Language mirrors the world in which we live. The Roman Empire, the world in which Paul lived, was full of clearly visible violence. Perhaps, through the selfevident nature of such atrocities, such an image crossed Paul’s lips, although he here really wants to give an account of all that he is doing on behalf of life and against humanity’s violence, the one against the other.

10:1–11:1 After Paul showed in Chapter 9, by reference to his own life situation and biography, how deeply God enters into the lives of those whom God sends forth on the way of the gospel, he turns once again to his starting point: The congregation in Corinth has also been sent forth on the way of the gospel and needs to find its orientation on this way in a multicultural city. They do not and should not desire to give themselves over to the worship of other gods (10:14). That was already the issue in Chapter 8. In this concrete life situation in which the addressees find themselves, Paul begins (10:1–13) by appropriating ideas from the Torah.506 The experiences of our »fathers and mothers« (10:1), Israel’s generation of wilderness 505 The exegetical discussion about whether the issue is the testing through God in the coming judgment or another test poses an inappropriate alternative. On this discussion see, for example, Schrage, vol. 2, 371; Lindemann 2000, 215; Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 441–442. 506 On 10:1–13 see especially Von der Osten-Sacken 1989, 60–86.

10:1–13

181

wanderers, should, on the one hand, warn »us«; on the other hand, »we« should learn from them (10:11). The Greek word patēr signifies here fathers and mothers and the ancestors in general.507 10:1–13 is an important example of Torah interpretation of a kind that was familiar to and of significance for the congregation. 10:14–22 discusses for the congregation the incompatibility of fellowship with God and fellowship with demons. Fellowship with God finds its visible expression in the Lord’s Supper. Paul mentions the cup and the bread or the table (9:16, 21). Fellowship with the demons occurs through participating at their table and through the eating of sacrificial meat (10:19, 21). In 10:23–30 Paul deals with two concrete situations of daily life in which members of the congregation will need to find their way. 10:30–11:1 elucidates the many dimensions of community that need to be pondered if people of the Messiah want to live without putting a stumbling block in the way of others who are on their way to liberation and to God.

10:1–13 1 That is, I would like you, sisters and brothers, to keep the following in mind: Our fathers and mothers were all under the cloud, and all marched through the sea. 2 All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 All ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they all drank from the same spiritual rock that followed them. But the rock was the Messiah. 5 Now, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were killed in the wilderness. 6 Thus they have become examples for us, so that we do not lust for evil things as they did. 7 Do not pray to alien deities, as some of them did— as the Scripture says: The people sat down to eat and drink, and they arose to dance. 8 Also, let us not act irresponsibly with sexuality, as some of them did, and 23,000 died in a single day. 9 Let us not also put the Eternal One to the test, as some of them did, and perished through serpents. 10 Do not also murmur, as some of them did. They went to ruin. 11 All of that happened to them, and we remember and learn from it. It was written down so that we wake up, for the end of earthly power has broken in with us. 12 Therefore, all who intend to stand firm should see to it that they do not fall. 13 It is only human beings through whom you allow yourselves to betray God. God is faithful. God will not allow you to be burdened beyond your strength. With the temptation God will, at the same time, provide a way of escape, so that you can endure it. 10:1 Although most of the addressees were of non-Jewish origin, and also did not become Jews by belonging to the Messiah (see above at 1:25), Paul speaks of their »fathers and mothers« who passed through the sea. Paul touches on the story of 507 On the meaning and translation of patēr, see Leutzsch 2006, 2375–2376.

182

Commentary

the Exodus here as if he is summarizing something familiar to them: The sea is the Reed Sea (Exod 13:18), the cloud is the pillar of cloud in which God goes before them and shows them the way through the wilderness (Exod 13:21). The people of the Messiah in Corinth have through God’s election become descendants of Israel’s wilderness generation, although, perceived ethnically, that is not what they are. They are adoptive descendants (see at 1:25). Paul emphasizes the pantes/all by repetition (twice in 10:1), which continues through 10:4. Even linguistically, 10:1–4 remains a single, strung-out sentence. 10:2 The immersion into the cloud and the sea is interpreted by Paul as baptism/ being baptized into Moses. Moses is God’s prophet, who by God’s commission leads the people. For Paul the submersion into the water/being baptized is not a firmly configured ritual and also not yet Christian baptism, which needs to be distinguished from Jewish baptismal rites.508 According to this text (10:2), it is a submersion that establishes, as a congregation/a people, a community of salvation with one another and with the one commissioned by God. Paul here tells the Exodus story in such a way that it corresponds to the story of the congregation in Corinth, in which apparently many are integrated into the body of Christ through a submersion »in the name of Jesus«—that’s the conclusion that can be drawn from 1:13. In 10:14–22 Paul does not return to baptism, only to the common meal. 10:3 The manna in the wilderness (Exod 16:15–18) was the spiritual food of the ancestors. Pneumatikon/spiritual: The food communicates God’s dynamis/power. 10:4 They all also drank a spiritual drink. What they drank in the wilderness was water that, according to Exod 17:6 (cf. Num 20:7–11), at God’s command, Moses struck from the rock at Horeb, in which God is present. Paul already here presupposes the later legend that the rock wandered with the people.509 »The rock, however, was the Messiah.« What the word »Messiah« (Christos/anointed one) means for Paul can be seen very clearly here. Messiah is the hand of God that acts on behalf of the life of the people. Paul is not looking at the Torah here in the sense of a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament as it was carried out later. For him Messiah means instead a revelation of the presence of God. Paul’s interpretation of the rock does not start with the person Jesus Christ but with God’s gift of life. Christos/Messiah is a categorical concept rather than a personal one.510 Paul reads the Torah as an account of God’s action in Israel. This action can also be experienced as a messianic gift, when the rock in the wilderness dispenses water for the people. In the same way, the messianic congregation in Corinth has experienced God’s revelation in the gift of the Messiah, in the Lord’s Supper and in the resurrection of the Messiah (10:16). 10:4 speaks of an analogous experience of the people of Israel in the wilderness and of the messianic community at the time of the Roman Empire. This analogy is what is under discussion, this continuity in the way God is at work.

508 On the meaning of baptism in the New Testament, see Leutzsch 2006, 2334–2335 on baptidzō. 509 There is a collection of the material in Billerbeck, vol. 3, 406–407; Schaller 2001, 174. 510 F. Crüsemann 2011, 313–314; Butting 2011, 71–72.

10:1–13

183

A Messiah does not have to be embodied in a person. Here it is a rock. A comparable interpretation of the rock in Exodus 17 is found in Philo: »For the flinty rock is the wisdom of God, which He marked off highest and chiefest from His powers, and from which He satisfies the thirsty souls that love God.«511 Like the Messiah in 1 Cor 10:4, wisdom is here an embodiment of God’s activity, of God’s life-creating self-revelation. The concept of a preexistence of »the« Messiah is not appropriate for Paul and the Jewish tradition. Messiah is not only an individual person, and a messianic figure is not a divine embodiment.512 Messianic activity is rather God’s activity that acquires visible and experiential form in a person—or even in a rock as well. See also 2 Cor 5:19: »It was God, who in the Messiah reconciled the world with God’s self.« See also on 15:20–28 and the activity of God in the Messiah. 10:5 Only now does a new sentence begin. Now comes the contrast to the »all« in 10:1–4: »Now, with most of them« (cf. »some« in 10:8–10) God was not pleased; they died in the wilderness (cf., for example, Num 14:26–33). The deeds that could be at issue here are described in 10:7–10: honoring other deities, sexual relationships forbidden by the Torah, tempting God, murmuring against God. In 10:5 it becomes clear why 10:1–4 stresses so emphatically that all were under God’s protection. Nevertheless, some forsook the sphere of being chosen and protected by God and indulged in injustice. From 10:1 on, it is clear that the Exodus story is being recounted: We also are secure in God’s care, but—just as our fathers and mothers—we also are in danger. 10:6 This transparency of the tradition brings Paul in 10:6 to theoretical concepts. 10:6 begins with tauta, which is translated here as an accusative of respect (»Thus«). If it is understood to be the subject of the sentence, the events in the wilderness513 and not the people become the typoi/examples. The train of thought as a whole speaks of the relationship between the ancestors and »us.« Thus, it is more convincing to understand the people as typoi/examples. He explains why it is important that the congregation remember the journey of the people of Israel through the wilderness. The experiences of the fathers and mothers in the wilderness are typoi/models, examples for us, the congregation of those who are now living and listening to the Torah (on the »We,« see at 2:5). The »typology« in Paul presupposes no break between the people of Israel and the messianic community, but continuity and analogy.514 In 10:11, using comparable terminology, Paul once again goes into the significance of the experiences of the people of Israel for the congregation; There he emphasizes their positive significance for the congregation, here their

511 Philo, Leg., trans. G. H. Whitaker, Loeb (1981), 2.86. 512 For rabbinic literature see Moore 1954, vol. 2, 349; for Paul see Wengst, 2004, 89; F. Crüsemann 2011, 308–314; L. Schottroff 2015. For a critique of preexistence concepts see already above on 8:6 on the preexistence of mediator of creation figure. 513 On the plural of the verb, see Blass/Debrunner 1984, § 133. 514 Von der Osten-Sacken 1989, 74. The post-New Testament typological interpretation of the Old Testament, which wants to elicit the discontinuity between the church and Israel, is therefore fundamentally different from Paul. To the details in 10:1–13, Schaller 2001, 171–183 lists Jewish parallels, which show how completely Paul, with his interpretation of the Torah is a part of Jewish Torah interpretation.

184

Commentary

admonitory. Among the people in the wilderness there were those who craved evil things; we should not do the same. In this »We« Paul includes himself in these threats to the congregation. Together they listen to the Torah as a warning that shows them the way in the life situation in which they find themselves in a Hellenistic-Roman city of this period (on the significance of the Torah in 1 Corinthians, see also on 7:19). In the context of the text, to »crave evil things« relates to the evil deeds that 10:7–10 name. »Greed« is for Paul, on the one hand, a word of biblical tradition (here, above all, likely Num 11:4), but with Chapters 5–8 as background, it is clear that the concept has present relevance. Society generates greed: for its festivals, its meat, its goods and the pleasure they promise. 10:7 Paul refers to the story of the golden calf, when Israel consorted with another god and held a festival for that god. Paul quotes a phrase from it (cf. Exod 32:6 LXX), because he is speaking directly to the present reality of the congregation in Corinth. There are also people in it that are attracted to the festivals of other gods, their meals and their festivity. Sometimes they also want to enjoy themselves without having to think about it all that much. 10:8 The sexualizing is the society also awakens concupiscence, as then (Num 25:1), so also in Corinth (see 5:1; 6:12–20). The number 23,000 probably refers to Num 25:9 (where it is 24,000). That could be explained by confusion with Num 26:62. Unfaithfulness to God destroys fellowship and is fatal. Num 25:9 says that the 24,000 died in a plague. 10:9 Not putting God to the test is the issue here. People become unfaithful in that, through their craving, they succumb to temptation (cf. 10:13). Through their opposition to God they put God’s faithfulness to a fateful test. In the wilderness they lost their trust in God: »There is no food and no water!« (Num 21:4–6). They were slain by serpents. In Num 21:4–6 the word »testing« is not in the text (as it is in Ps 78:18; Exod 17:2, 7). The word fits the situation. To put God to the test through unfaithfulness is the consequence of craving. In the manuscript tradition, there are three readings for the object of the testing in 10:9: kyrios, God (theos) and Christ. There is a later tendency to christologize the word kyrios in places in which it essentially refers to God (see on 2:16). Therefore, and because of the analogy between today and then, which is what Paul is discussing, the well-attested reading kyrios, as a reference to God, is to be preferred. 10:10 Murmurring/making reproaches against God is frequently encountered terminology. That’s when people turn away from the God of Israel and turn to the powers that promise to bring a swift end to their hunger and thirst (Exod 17:1–7; 16:1–12; Num 14:2 and more often; 17:9–15). The »murmurring« of the people in the wilderness, who are striving to return to the fleshpots of Egypt, is the archetype of the complaining in Corinth, for people in the congregation are eating sacrificial meat and desiring to participate in the feasts in the city. The »destroyer« is perhaps a messenger of Satan, as in 2 Cor 12:7.515 10:1–13 portrays a reading of the Torah

515 Cf. Wis 18:25; Exod 12:23; Billerbeck, vol. 3, 412–413. With this concept Paul summarizes what happened in the wilderness after the complaining of the people.

10:1–13

185

that addresses a current situation in Corinth. It is recognized in the situation of the people in the wilderness back then. At the center of it all stands the »desiring« (10:6–8) and the complaining, the reproaches against God (10:9–13), because the people want for themselves a better life somewhere else. 10:11 The archetype of the ancestors in the wilderness is not only a warning in the current situation but also an encouragement. Nouthesia means not only a warning but more than that: instruction516 and encouragement, as the content of 9:13 shows. On this aspect of Torah interpretation, see also Rom 15:4; 4:23–24; 1 Cor 9:10. Therefore, the widely used heading over 10:1–13, »Israel’s example as a warning« (the 1984 edition of Luther’s translation), is misleading, because these headings reduce the text to a warning and work with an implicit anti-Judaistic contrast: Israel rushed headlong into ruination; God saved us (the »Christians« or the church) and led us into the right way. 10:11b characterizes the »We« on whom the end517 of the ages has come, for whom the end of the world’s power has dawned. The aiōnes, whose end is impending/has dawned, are the powers whom Paul also calls aiōn houtos. These are the powers who crucified the Messiah (2:8), death being the worst weapon in their arsenal. God will conquer these powers; the last enemy God conquers is death (15:23–28). The congregation that actually exists in Corinth is superior to these powers because the people belong to the Messiah, because they are the body of Christ (3:21). The end of these powers is longed for and at the same time already experienced. These powers are, on the one hand, transpersonal, mythical structures of the kosmos; on the other hand, they materialize in hegemonic earthly powers and violent rulers (archontes). In connection with 3:21 it is clear that a threat or warning about judgment is not intended here but rather encouragement: The end of the powers that transform the world into a place of violence has come, once God awoke from the dead and the body of Christ became alive. The people of the Messiah can participate in the life of the city without letting themselves be oppressed by the desire/craving for food, festivals and goods. They feel the powers that are clutching after them and take heart, for they know that their end has dawned. 10:12–13 But it is necessary to remain alert. 10:13 provides encouragement to stand firm. The people experience powerful temptations (cf. 10:9) in daily life. But they can endure. For it is only people who want to exploit their propensity for temptation. But God is faithful (cf. 1:9). The short main clause sounds like a Pauline word of encouragement that merits passing on: God knows the limits of your human strength. God has allowed the temptation to occur but has also assigned it an end and opened the way out (ekbasis). They will have the power to endure (infinitive of result). The issue for Paul here is not a passive putting up with the temptation. We shall be able to overcome it by our own strength, for God is with us. Concretely that means, says Paul: You and I, we shall not, out of opportunism or

516 Von der Osten-Sacken 1989, 72, n. 43. 517 On the plural see BDAG s.v. aiōn 2b.

186

Commentary

craving, let ourselves get into situations in which we participate in the worship of other gods at meals and festivals and join in on destructive sexuality (10:8–9). There is discussion about what anthrōpinos/human temptation means: temptation that is common to people/commensurate with human powers or a temptation people bring about.518 Anthrōpinos can have both meanings (2:4 or Rom 6:9, for example). But peirasmos/temptation people experience is something that other people have a share in causing, even when God or Satan is named as the cause. Here in 10:13 a formulation like, »God creates, together with the temptation, the way out,« can mean that God also creates the temptation (cf. Matt 6:13) or that God at the same time creates the way out. »Temptation« is the biblical word for situations that usually have social causes in which people are compelled to betray God. But whoever is tempted can nevertheless trust God. Nothing happens without God, not even temptation. The very fact that we can say that God tempts us, shows confidence in God’s benevolence even in the situation about which 10:13b explicitly speaks. It can be said about situations that are alike that people put God to the test (10:9) or that God, Satan or people are the cause for peoples’ temptation. It is a two-sided event between people and God, which in everyday life in society is caused by people or by people and Satan. Here in Chapter 10 »temptation« refers to the situation of the congregation of the Messiah in a Roman city. They do not occupy a place without guilt beyond the structures of violence. Normal life in the reality of this world means complicity, temptation, betrayal of God and God’s justice.

10:14–22 14 Therefore, you whom I love, flee the worship of alien deities. 15 I am speaking to you who are wise. Judge for yourselves about what I am saying. 16 The cup of blessing by which we bless God, does it not bring us into fellowship with the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, does it not bring us into fellowship with the body of Christ? 17 We many are one bread, one body, for we all have a share in the one bread. 18 Look at the way Israel lived: Is it not the case that all who eat the sacrificial meat have fellowship with the altar? 19 So what am I saying here? That sacrificial meat has power or that alien deities have power? 20, Rather, I want to say that these sacrifices are offered to destructive powers and not to God! I do not want you to have fellowship with demonic powers. 21 You cannot drink both the cup of the Liberator and the cup of demonic powers. You cannot participate at the table of the Eternal One and at the table of the destructive powers. 22 Or do we want to provoke the Eternal One? Do we want to be stronger than the Eternal One?

518 See, for example, Lietzmann 2000, 222 (of human origin) and Ciampa/Rossner 2010, 466–467 (common to humanity, usual) or Zeller 2010, 334 (commensurate with human powers).

10:14–22

187

10:14–15 Paul names the central point of Chapters 8–10: the worship of other Gods. The addressees have the knowledge that enables them to evaluate his arguments for themselves and then to decide. Paul presents his arguments as an aid for their decisions. What is involved in the following argument is participation in the divine through a meal. Paul begins with the Lord’s Supper: 10:16 When we bless the cup at the common meal, then we share in the blood, that is, in the living body of the Messiah, in his life. The word blood should not be related too narrowly to the death (see also on 11:25). Also, the text should not be associated too quickly with the Lord’s Supper rite. Paul is only singling out aspects that are important for him in this context. The cup is named first; it is different in 11:25. Presumably we are dealing here with the cup from which the participants drink, according to Jewish custom, before the main course,519 which 1 Corinthians does not even mention. In accord with Jewish tradition, Paul calls this cup a »cup of blessing.«520 All who are participating speak the blessing before the meal, »Blessed are you, Eternal One, our God, you who creates the fruit of the vine.«521 So it is not the cup or the wine that is blessed, but God. This blessing is a thanksgiving for the gifts of creation. The meal clearly relates to the framework of the Jewish meal tradition. Paul mentions the blessing twice, probably because for him in this way the koinōnia/fellowship can be heard and felt. The relationship between God and those who are present at the meal stands at the center of the meal. The common meal, which by its design becomes a celebration of creation and of God’s gifts of life, is the basis for their existence as a congregation in the city of Corinth and beyond. In 1 Cor 10:11 we experience Paul’s view of the meal. In its central concepts it is congruent with that of the gospels and Acts.522

Paul’s Theology of the Body523 In 1 Cor 10:16–18 the concepts sōma/body and koinōnia/fellowship, participation stand at the center of the interpretation of the meal. Just as »all« were accompanied by God in the wilderness, so »all« partake of the body of Christ (10:17b) and, with this, are close to God. The participation in the body of Christ finds its sensate actualization in the common meal. The Lord’s Supper is the experience of belonging to God, who has raised the Messiah. While the account of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:17–34 discusses a concrete consequence of belonging to the body of Christ (the sharing of the meal) and in this context hands on Jesus’ words interpreting the meal, here a theology of community is developed that is

519 See, for example, t. Ber. 4.8, 98, with a commentary by Smith 2003, 145; cf. Billerbeck, vol. 4, 616; on the discussion see Zeller 2010, 337, n. 363. 520 Billerbeck, vol., 4, 630–631. 521 On the blessing formulas see m. Ber. 6.1. 522 Bieler/Schottroff 2007, 21–26. 523 I take the concept theology of the body from Janssen 2005, 49.

188

Commentary

a theology of the body related to the way the meal is celebrated. Jesus’ interpretive word, »My body is like this.« (11:24) summarizes in one sentence what Paul declares in 10:16–18. In order to understand Paul’s body theology and the resurrection experience in the body of Christ, the starting point should be the bodily experiences of the people and of Paul himself, as they are described in the Pauline letters524 and especially in 1 Corinthians. They are experiences of suffering and of liberation. A review of Chapters 1–9 yields the following picture of the physical experiences of Paul and of others in the congregation. In Chapter 4:11–13 Paul speaks of the work, deprivation and physical violence that he endured. In Chapter 9 he also describes his gainful employment as a great strain that drove him to the limits of his power through the double burden of his work for the congregation (9:12; 9:27). The violence to which his body was exposed, he will likely have experienced primarily in situations of persecution. There he was beaten (4:11) and suffered the fear of death (15:32). He suffered under the contempt (4:13) that he experienced. The experiences he describes about himself, the people of the Messiah will also know from their own suffering. They are for the most part people who must do manual labor. They also are despised (1:28). Many of them are enslaved and experience the vulnerability of slaves to sexual violence and to attacks on their bodies through forced labor and violence (see on 7:20). It is not appropriate to interpret the apostle’s suffering as a fate he alone endured (see on 4:9). These are the experiences of men and women who must sell their bodies—as sex objects or tools used to get work done. The freeborn men of the lower class will be best able to use the violent sexuality in society as their alleged privilege (see on 7:2). On the basis of his own suffering and experiences of violence, Paul at the same time speaks for the congregation by saying »we« (see 4:9–13; cf., for example, 2 Cor 4:7–11).525 In Paul’s view, people live in a dominion ruled by powers hostile to life. The powers of sin and of death clutch at their person and their body and want to make them their instruments (Rom 6:12–14; 1 Cor 8:12; see the basic information at 9:20). They are power structures to which they are handed over, who even destroy life with the Torah. Through the resurrection of the crucified Messiah, God has put an end to these powers. For the people of the Messiah, to belong to the God of Israel means to be gifted with divine power, power to preserve the good life of all, power to keep the Torah and power for fellowship with the Messiah. This power for life transforms bodies. The people are part of the body of Christ, with their body, with their whole person. Paul envisions the transformation of the body not only as a spiritual event but also as a physical reality. This becomes very clear with his depiction of what happens with the body of the messianic man involved in illegitimate sexual

524 On this, see Janssen 2005, 71–82. 525 On 2 Cor 4:12, see 2 Cor 1:6 and Schmeller 2010, 264.

10:14–22

189

intercourse: He unites the Messiah with the prostitute and draws the Messiah into this activity that is contrary to the Torah (6:15–17). The central significance ascribed to the body in Paul’s life and thought becomes understandable in the context of the bodily experiences of people in this period. The enslaved are bodies that belong to their masters and mistresses. They can also be designated with the word sōma.526 But even freeborn are regarded as sōma from the perspective of domination. People have their body/sōma on loan from the one in charge of them and pay their rent through their taxes.527 With this background, Paul in Rom 3:10–18 has penned a shocking Psalm:528 »No one is just … all have become corrupt … Their feet are rushing to shed blood.« And yet even the liberation is experienced with the body, the suffering and actively complicit body. In a legend, it is told about Rabbi Hillel (died 10 CE) how he accords his body dignity, for he has been created by God: It bears on what is written in Scripture: The merciful man doeth good to his own soul (Prov. xi, 17). This applies to Hillel the Elder who once, when he concluded his studies with his disciples, walked along with them. His disciples asked him: »Master, wither are you bound?« He answered them: »To perform a religious duty.« »What,« they asked, »is this religious duty?« He said to them: »To wash in the bath-house.« Said they: »Is this a religious duty?« »Yes,« he replied; »if the statues of kings, which are erected in theatres and circuses, are scoured and washed by the man who is appointed to look after them, and who thereby obtains his maintenance through them—nay more, he is exalted in the company of the great of the kingdom—how much more I, who have been created in the Image and Likeness; as it is written, For in the image of God made He man (Gen. ix, 6)?«529

Body, I, person—what is under discussion with these words is always the person as a whole, who, freshly bathed, experiences the grandeur of being God’s creation. The deeper political meaning of the legend is a criticism of the emperor. The statues and figures of the ruler represent sovereignty where they stand. They are not dead images but ruling bodies that are present. Hillel argues: If the images of the emperor need to be washed and cared for, how much more I, God’s creation. This stands the order of the ancient concepts of rule on its head. Paul speaks of the apolutrōsis of the sōma, the deliverance of the body through God’s action (Rom 8:23; cf. 1 Cor 7:34; 6:20). Human bodies are a place for God’s presence, they are temples (1 Cor 6:19). The word sōma has many dimensions. The body is a place of suffering from violence, marked by scars. The body is transformed by the power of God’s Spirit, filled with power for life, capable of living in accord with God’s will. Here the individual person in her or his relationship with God is in view. But the same word belongs at the same time in a horizontal network of relationships. The

526 527 528 529

Taubenschlag 1930, 141; E. Schweizer in TDNT 1971, vol. 7, 1045–1046; Rev 18:13. On the tributum capitis in this sense, see Stenger 1988, 25. On this, see L. Schottroff 2000, 332–347. Midr. Rab. Vol. 2, Lev., 34.3. Trans. Slotki, 428.

190

Commentary

person/body lives as a person in dialogue with other people, as part of a community. In 1 Corinthians 10 and 12 the concept sōma Christou designates the congregation. It consists of many different individuals that form a community in just relationships. They are530 collectively the body of Christ. The risen Messiah is present in their fellowship. A further dimension of the word sōma refers to the body of Jesus as that of the crucified Martyr and of the risen Messiah (11:24). At times, the dimensions are present in so strongly collective a way that they cannot be separated (see, above all, 6:19; 11:29 and probably also 11:24). In 10:16 the word koinōnia/sharing, fellowship becomes important through the assembly of the community. Paul’s concern is to make clear sharing in the Messiah is not compatible with sharing in other gods. The drinking and eating at the meal express the sharing and fellowship with the Messiah. This word also has several dimensions: sharing in the Messiah, which happens in the sharing in the body of Christ, and which makes possible a reciprocal relationship between the messianic women and men. 10:16 speaks of the fellowship/sharing in the blood of the Messiah. Here, as in 11:27, blood is a concept that is parallel to sōma. This word has multiple dimensions as well. The Torah says: Blood is power to live (Gen 9:4–6; Lev 17:10–14). It is precious in God’s sight (Psalm 72:13–14). The drinking of blessed water or wine establishes a physical fellowship with the life of Christ. The Messiah is the Risen One. The Christian tradition has often set the death of the Messiah as the middle point of the meal. But the word blood would be construed too narrowly if it were related only to the shed blood. The remembrance of the death of Jesus leads into new life through the sharing in the living, resurrected body of Christ. The life of Christ is present in the sharing and fellowship. The word blood refers to Jesus’ physical, present life and to the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus was a beginning of the end of violence, because God has intervened. The »blood-fellowship with Christ«531 means sharing in his present life, in the life of the Risen One. The breaking and distributing of the bread at the beginning of the main meal is also Jewish practice (Isa 58:7; Jer 16:7; Acts 20:7). It happens after the blessing of the bread (see only 11:24). Here also Paul stresses sharing in the body of Christ that the eating of the bread em-bodies. Paul has singled out in 10:16–17 aspects of the meal that are important for him for the context, the eating of meat offered to other gods. The blood of the Messiah is often interpreted as sacrificial blood. This is incorrect, for Jesus’ death is not connected in Paul (or in the New Testament) with animal offerings for the deity or with »offering« of oneself (see on 11:24–25 and 5:7; 6:20). In 10:17 the word »one« plays a conspicuous role: one bread, one sōma and, once again, one bread. Because here in the Greek the numeral »one« is found, we use the capital letter in the English rendering. Because here in the Greek the num-

530 See on 12:12. 531 Deissmann 1957, 198–199 understands it primarily as fellowship with the Risen One.

10:14–22

191

ber one is found, in the German rendering I am using capital letters to avoid having the word read as the indefinite article »a.« In the first part of the sentence (10:17a) the »one« stands in contrast to the many. This idea has nothing corresponding to it in the account of the Exodus in 1 Cor 10:1–13. There is says: All eat the same spiritual food (10:3), yet with respect to several of them, they were nevertheless unfaithful to God (10:5ff.). In 10:17b the idea is different: The many become for the first time a unity, in the integrity of the pantes/all. The believers are »many« in view of their disparate origin and in view of diverse dangers through temptations that people create (10:13), namely, to worship other gods. These dangers threaten individuals, but at the same time even the whole body of Christ. But these many have become a community, one body as the body of Christ. Why does Paul speak twice in 10:17 of the one bread? First, some reflections on 10:17b, the second half of the sentence. He is hardly thinking of the actual bread on the table when he says: »for we all have a share in the one bread.« Normally more than one loaf of bread is eaten at a community meal. In what sense does the messianic meal happen as an eating of one loaf of bread? The issue is the difference from the other loaves of bread in cultic meals for other gods. The formulation »one bread« in 10:17b is to be read in the sense of 8:6b: the one kyrios in contrast to the many kyrioi in the society. one kyrios, the Messiah, ends the power of these many kyrioi, who consider slaves as their property or enforce political subjugation. Becoming one body in the power of Christ happens through the eating as metechein/a taking part in (10:17b). In this way the fellowship of people, a fellowship that shares the bread and takes of it (ek) is addressed, but, at the same time, so is the fellowship with the Messiah, the sharing in his life, his body. He is one bread, one kyrios. Nevertheless, in the formulation in 10:17a, »one bread, one body are we many,« the expression one body has a nuance different from the one in 10:17b, for it is looking at the believers’ being many. In the first instance (10:17a), the issue is the one bread in contrast to the many believers. Then (10:17b) the issue is the one bread in contrast to the many kyrioi and, in this sense, the fact of being one with Christ and in the community sharing the meal. In the interpretive tradition the »one bread« at the beginning of 10:17 is frequently found to be strange. It is often seen that linguistically only the thought »We are one bread« is called into question.532 But the beginning of 10:1 was most often interpreted differently: It was understood christologically in the narrow sense and therefore connected to the bread that we eat at the Lord’s Supper. Thus, the one bread in 10:17a is identified with the bread at the Lord’s Supper that is the body of Christ (1 Cor 11:24). An example is the translation of the NRSV: »Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body.«533 If the thought of 10:17a is

532 Weiss (1910) 1970, 259: »… If one connects oti as an introduction to the entire sentence after semen—as first of all appears natural …« But then he rejects this interpretation. 533 Here are two examples from the commentaries that favor an interpretation along these lines: Lindemann 2000, 224; Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 440–441.

192

Commentary

interpreted in a linguistically natural sense (the bread, which we are), the community as a whole acquires a sacramental quality. Moreover, the phrase »We are one bread« cannot signify only a repetition of the idea that we many are one bread. »Bread«/artos is used here in a similarly multi-faceted way as koinōnia and sōma. The word says something about the relationship to Christ, but also about the relationship to one another. At the same time, it also says something about Christ, as 10:17b shows. He is the one bread; we are the one bread. He is, as the manna in the wilderness was, a gift of life (cf. John 6:35, »I am the bread of life«); and we are the one bread through the community founded in Christ and thus we become the bread of life for one another. In 10:18 Paul uses the concept Israel kata sarka. What is involved is the sacrifice of an animal in the temple in Jerusalem and the partnership between the one bringing the offering and the place for the nearness of God, the altar in the temple: »Consider how Israel lives: Is it not so that all who eat the sacrificial meat have fellowship (koinōnia) with the altar?« Here, to be sure, what is at issue is no longer the wilderness generation, but that the relationship between Israel kata sarka and the Corinthian congregation be clearly recognized. Kata sarka means for him here: the way of life of those who can enter the temple, the actually existing congregation in the temple. The messianic community in Corinth is probably made up of people who have never seen the temple in Jerusalem and, for purely geographic reasons, probably also won’t see it. Israel here has an ethnic-geographical aspect, even though the concept is defined primarily through the relationship with God. Israel’s experience of koinōnia with the altar can teach the necessity of always taking cultic community seriously, even in the case of other gods. Paul does not devalue Israel’s sacrifice, but understands it, like Israel’s experience in the wilderness, as instructive for the Corinthian situation.534 In the exegetical tradition, the designation Israel kata sarka was in earlier interpretation535 read as a contrast to the ekklēsia/church. In Paul a concept of Israel kata pneuma is never contrasted with the concept Israel kata sarka. So, in Chapter 10 the relationship between manna and the bread at the Lord’s Supper is determined by the continuity and analogy of the saving experiences. At that time God kept the people alive and God will once more keep us alive. This experience with bread connects the wilderness generation and the messianic community today. Even the sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem are saving experiences and bread experiences with the same God. The altar, on which the victim is slaughtered/offered in the temple, is a place for God’s presence. The eating of sacrificial meat establishes fellowship with the God of Israel.

534 On this see also Klawans 2002, 535 Weiss (1910) 1970, 260; Schrage 1999, vol.3. 443, understands the concept as a designation of an idolatrous Israel, but the text does not say that. In this interpretation, there implicitly remains a contrast to the saving community as the one preserved in the older, antiJudaistic interpretation.

10:23–11:1

193

10:19 Paul considers a possible misunderstanding. He has not wanted to say that other sacrificial meat and other gods as such already have power over people. That happens through those who participate in alien worship (see the basic information on 8:1). In 8:4 there is a formulation similar to that in 10:19, although there the issue was the powerlessness of other gods; here the question is whether their power is already conferred through their presence in sacrificial meat or in the worship (or specifically the presence of a pictorial image). They are powerful through the people who serve them. 10:20 When people sacrifice to their gods or to their destructive divine essence— then they also receive power. The word daimonion can, it is true, also designate gods in a value-neutral sense, but here a negative sense of daimonion/demon is more likely through the context of 1 Corinthians, with its emphasis on the destructive powers and forces.536 In 10:20b the concrete situation of the addressees is now addressed. Paul understands his teaching and argumentation as a help to the addressees. So, they can decide for themselves (10:15) in which situations they can get involved, in which they cannot. There are situations in which the addressees could be in danger of getting caught up in fellowship with other gods and that means for them destructive powers. He addressed one such situation in 8:10, another will be considered in 10:28. 10:21–22 summarizes what Paul has said since 10:1. You cannot partake of both: of the bread and table of the Eternal One, the God of Israel, and of the bread and table of the destructive powers, the other gods. The description of the situation remains very general: It could be a table at a cultic meal in a temple in Corinth (8:10), but also a table through an invitation to a house in the city (10:28). The table of the Eternal One is encountered also in Mal 1:7, 12. In the Greek text the word kyrios is found in 10:21. The preceding formulation, »cup of the kyrios,« can likewise refer to Israel’s God but also to the Messiah, in terms of 8:6. In the translation at this place I have chosen the reference to the Messiah/Liberator, since the Lord’s Supper in Paul is both God’s meal and the meal of the Liberator (see on 11:20). 10:22 The God of Israel is provoked when people who live in fellowship with this God have fellowship with other gods (cf. Deut 32:21).

10:23–11:1 23 Everything is open to me—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is open to me, but not everything edifies. 24 No one should make decisions based on self-interest, but be concerned about fellow humans as well. 25 You can eat everything that is sold in the market without carefully weighing your responsibility toward others. 26 For the earth belongs to the Eternal One—and its entire fulness. When people who do not believe in the God of Israel invite you, and you would like to go, eat everything that is set before you, without carefully weighing your responsibility. 28 But if some536 Woyke 2005, 248: daimonion has a »negative tendency« with Paul; see also p. 227 on the use of the word in the LXX.

194

Commentary

one says to you, »This is sanctified meat,« then do not eat it, and that for the sake of the person who informed you and in view of your responsibility toward her or him. 29 I am not speaking now about your own conscience but that of the other person. Why should I make my freedom dependent on the conscience of others? 30 Why am I criticized for eating something for which I speak the blessing, in the awareness of sharing in God’s favor? 31 Whether you eat or drink—whatever you do—do all to the praise of God. 32 Put no stone in the way of Jews and Greeks, including the congregation of God. 33 I also comply with all others and do not concern myself solely with my own interests but with those of many other people, so that they are saved. 1 Hold on to me as your model, as I hold on to that of the Messiah. 10:23–24 Paul recalls messianic strength and freedom once again (cf. 8:1; 9:1–19; see also on 8:1–11:1). They are linked to love, which builds up the strength of the brothers and sisters. 10:25–26 Not only meat but all foods, even those sold at the meat and food market, the macellum (see the basic information on 8:1) can be dedicated to gods. But if no one at the market or in the houses makes a connection between the eating of these foods and their dedication, the people of the Messiah are not under compulsion to investigate. The cultic character is not connected with the foods but with the people who produce them. Just as Rabbi Gamaliel could use the Bath of Aphrodite in Akko as a swimming pool (see the basic information above at 8:1), people of the Messiah can rejoice in participating in God’s creation at the market and in eating. Paul quotes Ps 24:1: The earth and its riches belong to God. People can rejoice in them and use them if people of a different religion do not involve them in their worship. 10:27 Much more difficult than the situation at the market is the one that arises with an invitation to a meal with people of a different religion. The people of the Messiah bless God before they eat (10:30; cf. 10:16), praising the God of Israel for the gifts of creation. So long as no one raises the issue of the food’s consecration, the people of the Messiah need not bring it up either. They speak the blessing and eat what is there. 10:28–29 But when someone says, »That is consecrated sacrificial meat,« then the people of the Messiah should refrain from eating. For now, the moral awareness of all participants is affected, including those of a different religion. On syneidēsis/ moral awareness, see above on 8:7. The person who has indicated the food’s consecration could be pictured as a person of a different religion, because he or she uses the word hierothyton instead of eidōlothyton and thereby expresses a connection with the worship of another god (on eidōlon see the basic information above on 8:1). The people of the Messiah should approach even a person of a different religion in a winsome way and not put a stumbling block in her or his way by continuing to eat. They also can have a share in the way into liberation from violence. In this way they see the obvious connection the people of the Messiah have to the God of Israel, which does not allow them to participate in the worship of other gods by continuing to eat. They see their obvious connection and the way they live and their solidarity: the embodiment of the liberating message that God has broken through the structures of the »world,« the structures of violence and oppression.

10:23–11:1

195

In 10:29b Paul attaches imagined questions by such people of the Messiah or even his own questions to the decision in 10:28: Is my messianic freedom really limited/ judged by the moral awareness of another? The addressees themselves ought to be able to answer (cf. 8:9, 13; 9:12): because I do not want to give offense. Paul does not formulate this answer until 10:31–11:1. 10:30 Paul formulates another imagined question: If I in any case have God’s favor, if I at the beginning of the meal have given thanks for the gifts of creation, can I, in that case, really be accused of blaspheming this God? The envisioned answer runs: Yes, because you ate (further) when it was clear that for someone else at the table this eating is a betrayal of your God, an eating in honor of gods alien to you. 10:28–30 are interpreted diversely and differently from the interpretation offered here. This is the case primarily because the questions were understood as questions posed by the »strong,« with whom Paul is not in agreement (on the »strong« see the basic information on 8:1). Moreover, 10:31–11:1 was not understood as an answer by Paul (even to a question of his own), but as a new start, with a summarization of Chapters 8–10. 10:31 Paul begins here with a formulation of fundamental considerations about the behavior of other people with respect to the question about dealing with other sacrifices. At the same time Paul thereby answers the questions he himself posed in 10:29b–30. Paul repeats what he has already said in 6:20 in connection with sexuality: The people of the Messiah should live all of life, and that includes sexuality (6:20), eating and drinking, to the praise of God. The discussion about eating and drinking takes up the prior discussion of dealing with food (from 8:1 on), but at the same time makes it clear that Paul does not in any way think dualistically. The physical body stands in a relationship with God, and eating can happen to the praise of God (see on 6:20). The sōma/body sings along with the chorus of creation that praises the Eternal One, who has created everything. 10:32 Put no stone in the path of others, that is, in the path to this God. The thought about stumbling blocks connects with 8:9; 9:12 (cf. 8:13 skaldalidzein). This is not a question of any kind of missionary accommodation, not even with areskein/to please, with which in 10:33 the same issue is expressed positively (cf. ginesthai hōs/to become known as, for the sake of others … 9:19–23, make myself a slave 9:19). The goal in doing this, to win others (9:20–22), means to make it possible for others to find the way to salvation (10:33). The preceding text has extensively discussed what is concretely meant: I must live in such a way that I do not become a stumbling block to my sensitive sisters and brothers (8:9–10), but also to outsiders (10:28). Even if, for example, I think that my distance from the power of other gods allows me to participate in a meal in the temple building, I must refrain from eating for the sake of others. Even outsiders must be able to recognize at the meal my attachment to the God of Israel. Paul lists as those with whom he is dealing Jews and Greeks and the church of God. This enumeration is often interpreted as universal groups of people who can be distinguished from one another. Thus ekklēsia, in particular, alongside Ioudaioi and Hellēnes, is understood as a fixed social group that can be distinguished from the groups of Jewish

196

Commentary

or Greek people.537 But Paul is thinking about the relational situation people actually encounter: Living in Corinth are Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah (1:23). The Corinthian believers in the Messiah encounter them in everyday social situations. The connection the Corinthian believers in the Messiah have to the God of Israel must be discernible to these Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah—just as to their own congregation and to the »Greeks« in the city. In the messianic congregation there are Jews and Greeks as well (see 1:24). This already shows that Paul is using the concepts in a concrete and not in a generalizing way. It can be said generally about New Testament language that generalizing group concepts are used specifically.538 So ekklēsia does not designate a third group beside »Greeks« and »Jews,« but a group made up of Jewish and Greek people (on this see 1:22–24) that together are the body of the Messiah Jesus in Corinth. 10:33 On areskein/to please, see on 10:32 and 7:32–34. The benefit for the many that is involved in the shaping of everyday life, despite its echo of Isa 53:11–12 and Mark 10:45, does not have to come about through a path of suffering for the people of the Messiah. But in actuality, in the current situation, this way of life was a political risk. The enormous public and political significance of festive meals could also bring it about that people of the Messiah who did not participate fully were regarded as political troublemakers. The salvation of the many, which is Paul’s concern, does not happen through a worldwide institutional church, but through their turning to a God who has put an end to humanity’s violence. Paul lives for a great vision, the one that is visible here. He lives in a world in which most of the people are exploited, experience violence and use violence in return. Paul works to bring it about that they can be won for a life that promotes justice. The word »mission« has a Christian past in the history of Western/Christian forced colonialization. Paul can play a role in giving the word a new meaning. 11:1 A teacher imparts not only abstract teaching; the teaching includes the way that the teacher lives (see 4:16). In this sense, Paul understands himself as a teacher and as a student of the Messiah, who imitates his teacher. Is Christ here the Risen One or the teacher of the Torah during his lifetime (as is the case, for example, in 9:14 and 7:10)? The distinction between the kerygmatic Christ and the »historical« Jesus is a modern one. Paul does not know this distinction. Which aspects of the behavior of Jesus the Messiah is Paul thinking about when calls him his role model?539 He is certainly

537 For example, Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 497. Another strand of the interpretive tradition is found, for example, in Zeller 2010, 347. He treats ekklēsia as a reference to the local congregation and understands ekklēsia as »a self-designation of the Christians« (72), leaving open what the word »Christians« here connotes. In the interpretive tradition, a negative differentiation from Judaism is implied in the word »Christians.« 538 In a similar way, the word Pharisaioi in the gospels, for example, or the word Ioudaioi (for example, in the Gospel of John) is to be given its specific meaning from the context and not to be related to the nature of the people as groups. 539 Kim 2003, 193–226 appropriately asks the question and tries to find words of Jesus from the Synoptic Gospels that Paul could have taken into account. In any case, he uses in his presentation of the historical Jesus and of Paul’s interpretive model a differentiation from the law of Moses (203 and often).

11:2–16

197

thinking about Jesus’ determination to risk martyrdom in order to bring people, by word and deed, the good news of the liberation of the people of Israel and of the nations. In this determination, Paul is so at one with the Jesus whom we know from the gospels, that the question of whether he has particular words of Jesus in mind cannot be answered. Paul could have cited Mark 10:42–45, for example, and Matt 28:28; 5:16; and 12:20. But in this context it is clearly not his interest to invoke individual words of Jesus. 11:1 is better suited to be the conclusion of Chapters 8–10 than the beginning of Chapter 11. Christ’s example teaches us to fight for other people’s right to live.

11:2–16 In this text Paul presents his view of the relationship between the genders. At issue is the dignity, power and honor of both genders before God and humanity. Words and phrases that indicate power relationships, dignity and honor pervade the text. Important keywords are »head,«/kephalē »shame,«/kataischynein, »dignity«/doxa. Paul bases his ideas on an interpretation of the creation story in the Torah. The text contains only Paul’s own perspective on gender relationships. The opinions of others, especially of women in the Corinthian congregation, are not discernible. The emancipated women540 in Corinth, who, whether evaluated positively or nega-

540 The concept that in the Corinthian congregation women had made it necessary, by the way they dealt with their hair and head covering, for Paul to respond in this way, is a variant of the interpretive image of the »opponents« of Paul in Corinth. In this interpretive image the letter is seen as a critique (or the like) of groups in the congregation. One example: Gill 1990, 248–260, who also includes men in this interpretive image. He conjectures that Paul, for the sake of the unity of the congregation and to keep it politically inconspicuous, is compelled in 11:2–16 to criticize and counter groups of men and women in the congregation. The men, from the city’s elite, had wanted to demonstrate their status as priests of Rome, in the style of the Emperor Augustus and other men of the Roman elite (250–251). A uniform appearance while praying and prophesying (11:4) is meant to recover the unity of the congregation. The women had worn their hair loose, in the style of the cult of Dionysus, for example (255–256). That had made the congregation politically vulnerable. Therefore Paul warns them to be submissive and to cover their heads. The difficulty with this approach is based on the fact that the text, 11:4, for example, does not show that Paul sees himself facing an opposing view. A methodologically different approach, the one I am following in this commentary, tries to read the text as a whole in its social context. Groups in the congregation or a varying practice in the congregation are discussed only where they explicitly occur in the text (for example in 5:1–11), without using the image »opponents of Paul.« Thus, about 11:4 the question is raised also for me what this text means, if a statue of Augustus stood in Corinth, as in other Roman cities, which showed him as a sacrificial priest capite velato, with a toga draped over his head (see on 11:4). On the question of the assumption of opposing positions in Corinth, see also on 11:2 (along with the footnote). I have learned to overcome the interpretive image »opponents of Paul« only slowly. In my presentation of 1 Corinthians 11 from 1999 (Kompendium Feministische Bibelauslegung [English translation: Feminist Biblical Interpretation, Eerdmans 2012]), I still used this image.

198

Commentary

tively, play a central role in the history of interpretation, do not appear in the text. What is said about them is based on hypotheses. Paul concentrates his and the congregation’s concept of how gender relationships must look on the question of how women cover their heads while praying and prophesying (11:5). He presupposes as self-evident and undisputed that women in the congregation have significance as prophetesses and prayers. He also presupposes that while praying in the Corinthian congregation men wear no head covering and the women cover their heads. Especially 11:2 shows that what is worn on the head during prayer is not controversial, not even between the messianic women and Paul. Many details can only be subject to conjecture; for example, whether he mentions praying and prophesying because it makes these women particularly visible. It also remains an open question whether his idea that the women should have their heads covered while praying and prophesying is the general view. Pointing in that direction are the verses that generalize by saying »the woman« (11:5c–12, 14–15). Should all women who belong to the Messiah wear a head covering? Should they do this all day long? The general custom that he presupposes will be somewhat clearer: men have short hair; women have long hair (11:14–15). Apparently, as a rule, hear coverings are not always part of this. Short hair or shaved heads are dishonorable for women (11:6). The general custom that Paul presupposes corresponds to the image of hair styles that comes from extra-biblical sources in the Roman Empire in this time.541 To be sure, it must be taken into account on this issue that the sources relate almost exclusively to women of the elite, for example, to the empresses as they are depicted on coins. How did the hair styles and head coverings of working women look, whether they were free, emancipated or slaves? That is, what are the usual modes and customs of the women in the Corinthian congregation? Of interest for the question of how the women of the majority of the population are attired is a text from Terence (born ca. 195 BCE), even if he is speaking about a prostitute with total contempt and from the perspective of a freeborn male: So long as they’re out in public, there’s nothing more refined, more composed, more elegant as they pick daintily at their food while dining with a lover. But to see their filth, squalor, and poverty, and how repulsive they are when they are along at home and how greedy they are for food, how they devour stale bread dipped in yesterday’s soup—to know all this is the salvation of young lads.542

Women of the underclass will have tried, within the limits of their social class, to follow fashion as they were able, insofar as their work did not force them to accommodate themselves to their working conditions.543

541 Thompson 1988, 99–115; Hurschmann 1998, 39–45. 542 Terence, Eun., trans. John Barsby, Loeb (2001), 934–940. 543 On the attire or nakedness of prostitutes, see Stumpf 1998, 102. Men and women who worked with their bodies and hands wore, as a rule, a short tunic; see, for example, the illustration at 11:4 (from a Lararium in Pompeii).

11:2–6

199

The goal of 11:2–16 is the scriptural-theological justification for the current practice in messianic congregations that women cover their heads while praying and prophesying. Within the congregation this head covering does not appear to be controversial, but it likely was socially in a Roman city. In it, class consciousness was determinative, also with respect to what one wore. Head coverings, bound hair or hats designate especially the honorability of married matrons. However, the congregation is made up primarily of people who, when they marry, live in a concubinage. They do not belong to the upper class which insists on the exclusive dignity of its matrons, and head coverings are among the things that designate that. With the congregation’s practice, women who, from the perspective of the ruling class are infames/dishonorable (see on 7:1), are declared to be honorable matrons. In the circle of those who pray and prophesy, a class boundary that is constitutive for the Roman Empire is publicly crossed, by the bare headedness of the men (see on 11:4) and the head covering of the women (see on 11:5). This is shown, for example, by the marital laws of Augustus (see above on 7:1). Paul uses for his arguments a frame of reference that is self-evident in the patriarchal society of his time: women, in comparison with men, are the second-class, subordinate gender. Women are assigned the inferior place by those who hold the power in society, mostly men, especially men of the upper class. Unfortunately, Paul does not call this fundamental presupposition into question. He uses it in order, within this system, to defend the creational dignity of women, and, thereby, of both genders. It has often been my experience that work for peoples’ dignity achieves great effectiveness in small steps. The text, however, running counter to Paul’s intention, has contributed to women’s oppression in the church and the societies influenced by it. It corresponds in no respect—even with an ever-so-well intended interpretation—to what is to be said in the 21st century from a Christian-theological point of view. Equality and justice in the relationships between the sexes and a critical treatment of heterosexual ideologies were unknown to Paul. It will be necessary to ask in what sense such a text can continue to be inspiring. But also, whether from today’s perspective it can only be rejected, because it has done a disservice to justice and is to be seen as a blunder by a man who otherwise was working for comprehensive justice.

11:2–6 2 I praise you that you orient yourselves in every way on what I am doing, You are observing the traditions as I have handed them on to you. 3 I am well pleased that it is so clear to you that the head of every man is the Messiah, the man the head of the woman, the head of Christ God. 4 Every man who prays or prophecies with a head covering disparages his head. 5 Every woman who prays or prophesies without a head covering disparages her head. She is no better than a women shaven bald. 6 If the woman does not cover her head, she can have her hair cut off right away. It is dishonorable for a woman to be sheared or shaven bald; therefore she should be covered.

200

Commentary

11:2 Paul praises the congregation, because, in contrast to how they dealt with other issues (see 11:17), they have held to the tradition he handed on: women cover their heads as they pray and prophesy. The thematic content of what follows is not named until 11:5, but it is already in play here. As 11:16 shows, what he means with the »traditions« (11:16) is probably the current practice of messianic congregations. Also, in what follows Paul does not presuppose that he must criticize what is going on in Corinth.544 There, as is usual in messianic congregations, women cover their heads. The section 11:2–16 gives an extensive scriptural-theological justification for this practice and therewith a thorough presentation on the relationship between the sexes in relation to God as it, in Paul’s view, corresponds with creation. This justification for a practice of the messianic congregations shows that the practice of not covering the head (men) or of covering it (women) is not self-evident in society; see on 11:4 and 5. 11:3 »I want you to understand«—in this way he begins affirmatively his scripturaltheological teaching. In the long period in which Paul has been read as a theologian of order, who assigns women their subordinate place, the word kephalē/head, has been read accordingly: The man is the head of the woman, that is, he has power over her. Alongside of that, there were attempts to translate the word kephalē with »source,« in the sense of Gen 2:22.545 But this word can also interpret power relationships in terms of an authority of men over women. Does Paul with his chain formulation actually want to include the corollary that Christ is not the kephalē of women as he is of men? He says nothing about this elsewhere in his letters. On the contrary, there is no call from God nor any relationship to the Messiah that includes a distinction between men and women. Thus, there is a contradiction between 11:3 and Paul’s concepts of call and of the body of Christ to which all belong. Do women have a direct relationship with the Messiah, or only an indirect one? What Paul wants to say here about gender relationships also follows from 11:7.546 Paul interprets Gen 2:22 in such a way that women receive doxa only indirectly, through Adam. But it is likely the full doxa/reflected glory of God that gives the men and women dignity (see on 11:7). In 11:3 and 11:7 Paul wants to establish the necessity of the head covering for women, the sign of her created status of subordination that protects her from men’s grasp—as is still to be shown (see on 11:5). Paul does not explicitly reflect on the power relationship between the genders. On the one hand, he presupposes autonomous women in the congregation, who are acting independently of the patriarchal household (in 7:34, for example), and he has a critical view of patriarchal marriage (7:29–31). On the other hand, the created status of subordination surely implies, for him as well as for his time, that women are subject to men, particularly to their husbands. 544 Under the influence of the interpretive pattern the »opponents of Paul,« 11:2 is understood, for example, as a tactical statement on Paul’s part (Zeller 2010, 352; cf. Schrage 1995, vol. 2, 499). Gielen 1999, 221 says it can be seen as a consensus that there was »in Corinth a negation of the socio-cultural sex role symbolism.« 545 Cf. Gundry-Volf 1997, 158–159; Økland 2004, 175–176; an extensive overview of the research is found in Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 811–822. 546 Even if the image of the head is related directly to 11:4–6 (Gundry-Volf 1997, 158–159), 11:7 still fills out the content of the word »head« in the relationship of the sexes.

11:2–6

201

The linguistic structure of 11:3 also shows that. For why does he in 11:3 use the three-fold image, God/Christ/man, for the image of the head? Christ is like Adam, and thereby the man is the reflected glory/power of God, like God (Phil 2:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 1:27). Therefore, Paul can say that God is the kephalē of Christ, and Christ lives in a close life-companionship with men: We, the church, have only one kyrios, to whom we belong (8:6). He names this relationship here kephalē/head, because he is driving toward this goal: the head covering for women. Here he separates men’s relationship with Christ from that of women. But in 8:6 he speaks of the »We« of the church, which for him also includes women. The hierarchy of the sexes thereby comes not only from the word kephalē/head, but also from the linguistic structure of 11:3.547 The connection to the creation account is clear: In the LXX, Gen 3:16 even says that the man should rule over (kyrieuein) the woman. Paul is not that explicit. But a subordinate place for the woman is also intended (cf. Rom 7:2 hypandros). 11:4–5 The statements about the configuration of the head while praying and prophesying emphasize linguistically the complimentary polarity of the sexes: all men, that is, all men in the messianic congregations should not cover their heads, all women in the messianic congregations should cover their heads. Since the women’s side is further emphasized by 11:6, it can be assumed that Paul mentions the men’s side for the sake of completeness, but that what is really meant to be heard is the rational for the women’s head covering. That is similarly true for the linguistic structure of 11:7.548 That the contrast with respect to headwear expresses a sexual hierarchy is already clear through 11:3, but also through the content of 11:4–5. With a head covering men shame their head, that is, the Messiah, but women shame the man—that is, their head. It is clear that there are in the congregations women independent of men (widows, the unmarried, the divorced, 7;34, 40 and more often). Whom do these women shame? They have no husbands. So they shame the world of men in general. The word kephalē/head is used in more than one sense in 11:4–5: Through the improper head covering both sexes also dishonor themselves (see 11:6). If we convert 11:4–5 into positive statements, it looks like this: By having their heads uncovered, men honor the Messiah; with their head coverings women honor men and emphasize their subordination. The question is what the head covering practices were in the society. Emperors and other elite men are often portrayed on coins and statues with the toga over the back

547 D. Martin 1995, 232 correctly emphasizes that the attempts to explain away the hierarchy in 11:3 by a correspondingly non-hierarchical understanding of kephalē/head are in vain, for the rhetorical structure of 11:3 already speaks against this, even without taking kephalē into consideration: A »Christ is to man as B man is to woman as C God is to Christ.« 548 On this see 11:7 and Gundry-Volf 1997, 156–157.

202

Commentary

of their heads.549 In this way they are meant to be perceived as priests who are making sacrifices. They represent the dignity and honor of the whole state. The uncovered head of the men in the messianic congregation distinguishes itself from that. But that this contrast was intended can only be surmised. The formulation in 11:4, kata kephalēs echōn/having something hanging down from the head, in connection with the formulation in 11:7, katakalyptesthai/to cover oneself, would be an apt description for a toga drawn up onto the back of the head. However, the men in the congregation, as a rule, will not have worn a toga, since the status-conscious Roman dress code forbids that.550 Of course, they could have drawn their cloaks over the back of their heads and in this way presented themselves as a paterfamilias. It can be stated: In fact, the practice of the men of the congregation also desired by Paul differs from the status-conscious appearance of elite men in portraits with a toga on the back of the head. The messianic men pray and prophesy bare headed. Thereby it is clear that they are not trying to appear as a paterfamilias or even to imitate a paterfamilias of the upper class. Regulations about when men should or should not wear head coverings do not appear to have been usual, not even for Jewish men.551 For many types of work and in bad weather they wore head coverings (see, for example, the illustration at 7:32–34). Images of women from this period show, among other things, various elaborate hairstyles in which ribbons could also be interwoven. Quite evident is the concept of many literary witnesses that an honorable wife, married in accord with Roman law, the matrona,552should wear a stola/a long outer garment worn by matrons and others, and ribbons (usually called vittae).553 Many authors separate women into those who wear stola and vittae and the rest, who don’t wear the clothing of matrons and stand under the matrons in society. Here the headbands also express the higher status, that of the honorable woman. Plautus tells in one scene about a prostitute (meretrix) whom a man is said to dress as an honorable wife (matrona): You are to take her home to your house at once, sir, and bring her here all got up like a married woman [matron]—the usual head-dress … hair done high … in ribbons [vittae]—and she’s to pretend to be your wife; she must be so instructed.554

549 See, for example, the images in Thompson 1988, 101, 103 (statues of Augustus and Nero in Corinth); on this see also Oster 1988,496. 550 Olson 2002, 389–393. Blanck 1976, 63–68; Roman citizens imitated the emperor (68). D. Lopez 2005, Review Økland, suggests the thesis that Corinthian men in the congregation might be imitating the Emperor’s pious gesture of drawing the toga over the head. Paul’s directive to pray and prophesy bare headed would, over against that, be politically »scandalous.« 551 Krauss 1966, vol. 1, 189–190; Billerbeck, vol. 3, 423. Blanck 1976, 68. 552 For a definition of the concept matrona, legally and socially, see Presendi, in Späth/Wagner-Hasel 2000, 223 A, 227. 553 Olson 2006, 188–192; Olson, 2002, 397–401; Sebasta in: Sebasta/Bonfante 1994, 48–50; Scholz 1992, 13–15 gathers together the literary witnesses for the clothing of the matrona. Olson 2002 also presents them, but is cautious about the question whether in public matrons ever distinguished themselves so clearly from all other women (402). On the distinction between honorable and dishonorable women, see also Stumpp 1998, 144, 301, n. 7 and above on 7:2. 554 Plautus, Mil. Glor., trans. Paul Nixon, Loeb (1957), 790–793.

11:2–6

203

Illustration 8: Vibia Sabina. Villa Adriana

There are many statues of empresses and other elite women as a matrona. The statues show self-confident upper class matrons with a veil, sometimes also with a kerchief over her head as someone praying, others without recognizable head covering (perhaps there are ribbons worked into the hair), but clearly recognizable

204

Commentary

also by their hairstyle as honorable women. Here is a partial view of power conscious Vibia Sabina (beginning of the second century CE).555 Women’s hair was understood to be part of their sexuality.556 In pictures, the loose hair of the victim indicates her subservience to the victor’s authority, also with respect to sex.557As Tertullian’s tractate De virginibus velandis shows, the covering of the head is necessary in order to indicate sexual unavailability. Therefore, not only Christian wives but also young girls once they reach puberty should cover their heads.558 But his strict opinion is clearly unpopular. It has become clear in 1 Corinthians 7 that the social conditions in large Roman cities are marked by sexual violence. Against this background, sexual unavailability can also be understood as a protection against intrusiveness: This woman is not available; she belongs to another man. When women who are not married according to Roman law—regardless of whether they are married, in a partnership or unmarried—cover their heads, they appropriate to themselves the respectability of matrons, which is not actually theirs, either by marital status or social standing.559 A mural in a Lararium of a kitchen in Pompeii shows an upper-class man with a toga over his head, an upper-class woman with a stola (a long outer garment worn by Roman matrons) and covered hair. Alongside of them are thirteen people with uncovered head, slaves and freedwomen and men—presumably, the personnel of the house.560 They are

555 See, for example, Scholz 1992, 38; photo: iessi (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vibia_ Sabina_(Villa_Adriana)_01.jpg). 556 T. Martin 2004, 79. This also clearly follows from Tertullian’s tractate De virginibus velandis, 3: »You have denuded a maiden in regard of her head, and forthwith she wholly ceases to be a virgin to herself; she has undergone a change!« Trans. S. Thelwall. ANF, vol. 4, 29. See also Susanna, the LXX version of Daniel 13:32: the scoundrels want to see Susanna’s beauty and ordered her to uncover her head (apokalypsai autēn). This concerns the covering over her hair, not a veil; Ilan 1995,130. 557 D. Lopez 2008, 2 offers an image and interpretation of a relief from Aphrodisia: Claudius subjugates Britannia, depicted as a half-naked woman, whom the victor is grasping by her loose hair. 558 Stücklin 1974 passim. 559 This is seen with special clarity by Rousselle 1993, 347–348: In 1 Cor 11:10 »was conveyed to all (Christian women, that is) the appearance of women whom it was not permitted to touch, of honorable women, that is, which, nevertheless, was not true of all of them, as far as current law was concerned.« Paul, to be sure, is speaking only of the attire when praying or prophesying. He does not say if he wants all women in the congregation to be attired in this way. In the predominately Roman city Corinth the dress code might well have corresponded to that of Roman society. Women’s head covering as a sign of what is honorable or dishonorable is also a theme of rabbinic discussion; see Ilan 1995, 129–132; Shlezinger-Katzmann, in Hezser 2010, 371–374. Jewish women were usually admonished to express their honorability with clothing and head coverings. What that actually looked like in practice is not clear. There does not appear to have been a distinctive sign to which the honorability of women of a higher social standing is attached. Thus the practice of messianic congregations may well have followed that of Jewish women. When it is followed in a major Roman city, it gains social brisance. 560 About this see Fröhlich 1991, 33, 62, 261, Plate 28; Clarke 2003, 76–78; Joshel 2010, 144–145.

11:2–6

205

all taking part in a sacrifice for the lares, that is, the house gods of the paterfamilias. Paul and the messianic congregations have a different practice: All the women have their heads covered as they pray, the men do not. In this way the power relationships within the class-oriented society were invisible, and that means they were also nonexistent. Moreover, in the same way all had an active role in worship and in teaching. Since Paul makes it clear that women in the messianic congregation wear a head covering as they pray and prophesy, it is thus to be assumed that they in this way make clear their sexual unavailability and that they belong to the Messiah. In any case, vv. 7:29–34 suggest this conclusion (see there). Women who are holy in body and spirit (7:34), but also married women who shatter their connection to the structures of the kosmos/world, are completely attached to the Messiah. However, in 11:3, 7 and in the entire section, 11:3–16, this decisive idea is not addressed. It is found in Chapter 7, but not here. Here Paul repeats again and again (see especially 11:7) that women come after men, and that not only in a temporal sense. To be a woman means to have a secondary rank over against all the men in society. The sexuality of women, even that of their hair, makes them secondary. Paul contradicts himself when it comes to the creation-based sexuality of women. Therefore, he overlooks what is for him otherwise clear and self-evident, that women belong to the Messiah. It has been discussed whether the criticism in 11:4–5 is about long hair for men and short hairstyles for women or about long, loose hair (in contrast to hair that

Illustration 9: From the Lararium of Sutoria Primigenia’s house in Pompeii; photo: Michael Larvey, see Joshel 2010, 144f.

206

Commentary

is piled up high).561 But in this respect Paul’s terminology is clear. The issue is something covering (katakalyptesthai) the hair, that is, something in addition to the hair itself (11:5–7, 13). He is not thinking about veils that cover more than the hair. Women cover their hair, whether with vittae/ribbons, cloaks pulled up over the head or even caps. In any case, the covering of the women expresses sexual unavailability and their secondary position with respect to men. 11:5b Women’s hair was shorn in order to deprive them of their honor.562 Whoever prays or prophesies with uncovered hair, dishonors herself, making herself a dishonorable woman according to Paul. The cutting of a woman’s hair is an act of violence against her. So, this comparison by Paul is severe. 11:5b speaks of violence against women, although what is being discussed is merely the failure of the women themselves to cover their hair. This comparison shows how unconditionally Paul wants to see women covered and how insensitively he deals with women’s sexuality; see also on 11:6. Overall, it can be said for 11:3 as for 11:4–5: Paul ends up contradicting his own statements as soon as he thinks about women in regard to gender. As long as he is speaking about the congregation as the body of Christ, he designates no special status for women in their relationship with the Messiah. Here, however, since he starts with the hierarchy in the relationship between the genders, he formulates propositions that grant women only an indirect relationship with Christ (11:3, 5). Besides, his thoughts about the heterosexual pairing of the sexes are fixed, as if marriage is the normal status for women. And yet he has himself made clear that many women in the congregation are not married (any longer). He himself has criticized the normal marital relationship as involvement in the structures of the world and emphasized distancing oneself therefrom (7:29–34). But here he supports the heterosexual pairing of the sexes. More recently some exegetes have pondered Paul’s inconsistency regarding sexual relationships.563

561 This is expressly emphasized especially by Ebner 2000. He understands 11:2–16 as a text that is prescriptive and wants women to wear their hair long and piled high in an orderly way and men to wear their hair short. In both cases the goal is to see that, through long hair on men and short hair on women, they are not seen as homosexuals (174), who call sexual distinctions into question and/or practice same-sex love. For loose-worn long hair as the custom rejected by Paul, see a report on the investigation in Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 830–831. 562 Tacitus praises the custom of the Germanic peoples: The Germanic husband acts thus toward his wife: »her hair close cropped, stripped of her clothes, her husband drives her from the house in presence of his relatives and pursues her through the length of the village« (Germ, trans. William Patterson, Loeb (1914), 19.2.) There are also situations in which women out of necessity cut their hair themselves, but this also occurs under compulsion; T. Job 23–25. In each of these cases the cutting off of one’s hair is considered a degradation and, in the view of the Roman author Tacitus, as an appropriate punishment also in his society. 563 On the basis of 11:11–12, Gundry-Volf 1997, 163–171 discusses Paul’s inconsistency. She interprets these verses as a reversal of the authority of men over women, a reversal that occurs in Christ (164) and hence a contradiction to what precedes it (but see below on

11:2–6

207

Kathy Ehrensperger 2007, 194 suggests understanding this »ambiguity« of Paul’s with respect to the relationship between the sexes and the role of women as a contradiction between theory (about the relationship between the sexes, as in 11:2–16) and practice. I can only add: This contradiction also exists today in my surroundings. For instance, in many families the education of daughters is consistently supported, but an equality of the sexes or »feminist theory« and reflection are rejected. This is often particularly the case for the Christian church in my context. 11:6 The emphatic statement that the failure to cover the hair when praying and prophesying brings women just as much disgrace as having their hair cut off or shaved is once again repeated by Paul in different words. The disgrace of cutoff hair appears to be a socially relevant theme, not only a practice in far-off Germania. Certainly, hair is decisive when it comes to being sexually attractive (see what has already been said above on 11:5). Apuleius raves about the hair of the coveted woman and finds it even more important than the woman’s nakedness. Then he ponders hypothetically what it would mean for a beautiful woman if someone cut off her hair. She would no longer even please her partner, »though it is forbidden to mention this and I hope that such a horrible illustration of this point will never occur …«564 The consequences are seen to be different and more severe in the Testament of Job (23–25). In the form of a bread seller, Satan blackmails Sitis, Job’s wife. She and her husband are starving, and she cannot pay for bread. He demands her hair as payment: »So he arose and cut my hair disgracefully in the market, while the crowd stood by and marveled« (24.10).565

11:11–12). (I more easily see a contradiction between 11:2–16 and other statements in the letter, statements about »we« and about the body of Christ.) Gundry-Volf discusses various attempts at a solution and then presents her own attempt: Paul saw himself facing two cultural contexts, the congregation’s social context and the congregation as an eschatological community (168–170). In society women have to live with subordination and »gender difference« (168), while that was not true in the congregation as a cultural context. That forced Paul to wear »Two Hats at Once« (168). This separation of congregation and society does not fit statements like 14:23 and Paul’s intention to encourage the people of the Messiah to stand with the Crucified One publicly (see on 1:18). Thus, the entire letter precisely does not presuppose an inner world of the congregation that seals itself off from society (the »world«; see only 5:10). Lindemann 2000, 244 interprets 11:11 as »a clear modification and, in a certain sense, even a correction of what was said« and understands the tension as a »critical reflection« by the apostle of his own perspective. Weiss 1910, 275, with respect to 11:11–12, thinks of an interpolator, who lets Paul speak against Paul. Matthews 2015 understands the history of the Corinthian women prophets as a history of resistance, their practice of going unveiled directing itself both against gender norms as also against norms that are connected with the categories of status, class and ethnicity. 564 Apuleius, Metam., trans. J. Arthur Hanson, Loeb (1989), 2.8.1–4; see also Küchler 1986, 79–82 about this. 565 Trans. R. P. Spittler, in Charlesworth, vol. 1, 1983, 849. A comparable story is also told about Rabbi Akiba’s wife. See the collection of materials and the description of this woman in Ilan 1995, 81–83. The punishment of slave women by cutting off their hair is presupposed in the Sibylline Oracles 3.356–362. There the issue is the symbolic humiliation of Rome.

208

Commentary

A lament over the social humiliation of Sitis ends after every strophe: »Now she gives her hair for bread« (25:1–8). The devil’s business activity has a clear sociohistorical background. Many women of upper-class Roman society used hair pieces made with other people’s hair or even wigs to satisfy the hair-styling demands.566 That women cut off their hair in order to live as a man (free of attacks by men)567 does not have as its goal exposing themselves to public shame; in this respect, this material does not fit into as explanation of what is discussed in 11:5b–6. In 1 Cor. 11:5b–6 the issue is defilement through cutting off a woman’s hair, an act of violence that happens to women to this day. I offer an example from National Socialism in Germany: The anti-Semitic politics that served as preparation for the Shoah in Hitler’s Germany made use of existing traditions of the »jurisdiction of the people« and accused Jewish women of having violated German »honor.« Their hair was cut off in public.568 Thus, Paul finds the dishonor that occurs through praying and prophesying with uncovered hair just as bad as the humiliation of having your hair cut off. Does shaved off hair, despite the supposed ugliness, also signal being sexually available? Then the Pauline comparison would make sense. He is speaking here to women in the majority population, to enslaved women and to the working freeborn. The fear of having to sell their hair or to lose it through a punishment meted out to slaves probably was familiar to at least a few of them. They all belong to the social class about which Ovid says that they lack ribbons (vittae) and the long gown (vestis longa).569 They are infames/dishonorable women. The harsh comparison in 11:5b and 11:6 of uncovered hair with shaved off hair could be explained by the fact that women of the Messiah, who come from the underclass, find crossing social boundaries and appearing as matrons too audacious and prefer to draw back and be inconspicuous.

11:7–15 7 For a man dare not cover his head, for he is the image of God and therefore has divine dignity. The woman’s divine dignity is imparted to her through the man. 8 For the man was not taken from the woman, but the woman from the man. 9 Besides, the man was not created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man. 10 Therefore the woman must have power over her head because of the angels. 11 In any case: In fellowship with Christ, the

566 Balsdon 1979, 284. 567 Acts Paul 25 (see the text); translation and commentary (113–116) in Jensen 1995. Even the lesbian woman called Megilla/Megillus (Lucian, Dial. Meretr. 5.3; on this see Fee 1987, 511), who wishes to look like a man, or presentations of the voluntary eradication of sexual boundaries, do not apply to 11:5b–6. 568 Wildt 2007, 226. 569 Ovid, Fast. 4.133–134; on this see Stumpp 1998, 144.

11:7–15

209

woman does not live without the man and the man without the woman. 12 As, indeed, the woman was taken from the man, so is man born through the woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourself! Is it appropriate when a woman with an uncovered head prays to God? 14 Doesn’t the creation itself teach you that it is dishonorable for a man when he has long hair, 15 for a woman, nevertheless, it is an honor when she has long hair? For the long hair is given as a cloak. In this section Paul bases women’s head covering on God’s creation. 11:7 Paul brings to mind the creation; he does not say »Adam« but »man,« in contrast to »woman.« When he is speaking of humanity’s »fallenness,« he says anthrōpos/human being or »Adam« (see Rom 5:12,14; 1 Cor 15:21–22). So, he clearly uses Adam and anthrōpos collectively for humanity and »man« in the context of gender, for the human genus »man.«570 Although he refers to Genesis 1–3 for speaking about death as the consequence of the fall as well as about gender relationships, he separates these two issues. 11:7 is an interpretation of Gen 1:27. The LXX says anthrōpos in Gen 1:27. But Paul conveys the idea by specifically referring to the genus man. It would follow from this that, in contrast to Gen 1:27, he would not like to see women as the image/eikōn of God. But Paul is striving to present an argument, based on creation, that women should cover their heads while praying and prophesying. The statement is leading to this conclusion, which he then does not express: »The man must not cover his head, since he is God’s image and has, therefore, divine dignity. A woman has received her divine dignity mediated through the man.« From which it follows: Therefore, she must cover her head. A man has a share in God’s vitality, he is God’s image. He shares God’s dignity, beauty and power (doxa).571 The creation story, in its Pauline interpretation, ascribes to the slaves and freeborn of the Messianic congregation—people often marked by age, sickness or difficult work—God’s beauty and dignity. What is the doxa of a man that, according to Paul, appertains to a »woman«? Is it a lesser version, a reflection of the reflection of God’s dignity? Paul is arguing here on the basis of the creation story’s chronology.572 From the Pauline letters it is clear that people called by God all share in the dignity and beauty of God (Rom 9:30).573 That is also true for women. Here Paul is interested in the temporal subordination of women, because he wants to apply it to head coverings.

570 For the language used in the LXX see Loader 2004,33. 571 On this see M. Crüsemann 2000a; Janssen 2005, especially Chapters 4 and 5, in particular 178–183. 572 Böhm 2006, especially 227. 573 Janssen 2005, 183: Paul’s »understanding of human existence is focused on the relationship of the created beings to God, which binds them to one another and evaluates their corporeality positively, and describes it … from God’s perspective as ›beautiful‹ or ›good.‹ Their origin, which lies in God’s hands, makes them creatures who reflect God’s ›glory‹ (kabod/doxa).«

210

Commentary

But, in passing, the temporal order also evolves into a place assignment for women as the other, the second sex.574 For women in the messianic community Paul establishes the status of an honorable matron. In the congregation women have a dignity that is normally denied them in society. Slaves and free born women who live by manual labor are in the congregation honorable women like the matrons. That in his argumentation he at the same time illustrates their secondary status over against men, comes out incidentally. Therefore, this verse, as well as the whole section, 11:2–16, is so ambivalent from today’s perspective. Paul is not thinking here anthropologically-ontologically but from the life-situation of the people who are living together in the congregation. As they pray together, the women, with their heads covered, stand beside the bare-headed men, who thereby renounce any imitation of the male priestly dignity of the elite men. In this way, according to Paul, the praying congregation models what is right in the relationship between the sexes, as it also appears to him according to Gal 3:28: In Christ there is not »male« and »female.« The conclusion of Gen 1:27, to which Gal 3:28 refers, establishes for him what is right within the congregation. In the context of that community, »female« and slave woman no longer need to mean confronting the attacks of males unprotected. That women are for him in all this the other and second sex is a reality he does not call into question. In this regard Gal 3:28 is (unfortunately) very likely in line with 11:2–16. 11:8 emphasizes once again the idea of the creational secondary status in an interpretation of Gen 2:22: God creates Eve from the man’s side. 11:9 To come to the same conclusion, he also interprets Gen 2:18: Eve is supposed to support Adam. 11:10 Since in this entire context Paul wants to establish that women should cover their heads, it seems natural to interpret the word exousia/authority on one’s head as the authority of the man, embodied in women’s head covering.575 But this interpretation of the word exousia is linguistically difficult.576 It is linguistically more likely to understand the exousia as the power that women have to deal responsibly with their own heads—and to wear a head covering that enables them to be seen as honorable matrons. The angels, God’s messengers, were present at creation, according to many Jewish interpretations. The Syriac »Cave of Treasures,« a later recollection of Jewish creation legends, tells that the angels at creation had admired

574 De Beauvoirs book title, The Other Sex. The Mores and Sexuality of Women first appeared in 1949 and led the critical analysis of the feminist movement in the twentieth century to focus on this concept; on Paul see especially 100. The original French title was Le Deuxième Sexe/The Second Sex. 575 Recent attempts to give an overview of the boundless exegetical discussion include Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 531–533; Zeller 2010, 356–360. 576 Weiss 1910, 274: »One exousian echōn must always be the possessor of an authority, never the subordinate.« In so far as the exousia is understood as authority, the object of which is the woman, a special significance of the word in this place must be asserted. In recent times the woman is, as a rule, correctly interpreted as the one having the exousia/authority.

11:7–15

211

Adam at the creation on account of his divine splendor: »[W]hen the angels saw Adam’s glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof.«577 Perhaps Paul had a creation legend in mind in which the doxa/splendor of God, which gives life to Adam and which God passes on to Eve, is also admired by the angels. For in Paul’s view the head covering of women expresses their divine dignity. For him creation is not merely an event in remote antiquity but, at the same time, also a present experience. It is expressed with our bodies as something alive and vital now as we pray and prophecy. Apparently women in the messianic communities also experienced their head covering as a participation in divine dignity, for Paul says that the head covering is the common practice in the messianic congregations. This is a practice in the congregation in ancient times, almost two thousand years ago. Paul is not speaking ontologically, not with the claim of establishing the eternal essence of a woman. The congregation’s practice of his time, which he affirms, is substantiated. Its significance becomes clear when it is correlated with the social reality of a Roman city. On the streets the sexualization of everyday life controls the way people relate to one another (see the basic information on 7:2). How violence against women is taken for granted in this context becomes clear when, for example, the legal significance of the custom of identifying married women in public as matrons is considered: »Whoever has called (appellasset) women dressed in slaves’ clothing »virgins« is not committing an offense, all the less if women are dressed like prostitutes and not like matrons. So. if a woman is not in the clothing of a maiden, while someone has called her that, or carried off the person accompanying her, that person is not responsible for the insults.«578 To address maidens as »virgins« is elaborated upon in the continuation of the legal discussion: »To entice (appellare) means to attack someone’s modesty with seductive talk.« When women are not recognizable as matrons, then attacks are legally less serious. On the other hand, to address a matron or to lure away her companion makes the perpetrator liable over against the husband or father. The address or luring away of the companion clearly has here the goal of a sexual attack. From this or comparable579 texts, it follows that the non-matrons, the infames/the disreputable, must expect attacks that have no legal consequences.

577 The Book of the Cave of Treasures, trans. E. A. Wallis Budge (London: British Tract Society, 1927), Folio 5a, col. 1. A probably older parallel is found in the Life of Adam and Eve 14, trans. by M. D. Johnson in Charlesworth, vol. 2, 1985, 262; see also Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 529. There is a wide-spread interpretation of the angels as the sons of God (Gen 6:2), who took human wives for themselves—and look with desire on the women in Corinth. In the face of a society in which women of the underclass had to fend off the sexual attack of some men, this interpretation is less likely. 578 Digesta 47.10.15.15–20, Otto et al., Aachen, 1984, 880–890 (translated from the German); on this see Treggiari 1993, 300–311; Olson 2002, 397; When 2006, 208. 579 Treggiari 1993, 309–311.

212

Commentary

A translation of Pauline arguments and the congregational praxis of that time into this part of the twenty-first century in a West-European country that is largely secularized, has to start with an analysis of sexual relationships in the present and concrete living conditions, and only then ask the question: What could a congregational praxis look like today that promotes sexual justice and the dignity of men, women and children? In 1 Cor 11:2–16 Paul puts to use all his erudition in order to establish, and thereby to support, a just congregational praxis. That in the process he makes hierarchical assumptions that from today’s perspective are unjust, certainly does not justify setting his injustice in stone. 11:11 The translation of the first word, plēn, depends on how 11:11–12 is evaluated in relation to 11:2–16: as a self-correction or the like, as a clarification or as a concluding summary.580 I do not understand 11:11–12 as a self-correction but as a summary and an emphasis on important aspects of what has already been said. I translate plēn as »in any case« or as »what is important in all this.« The translation of chōris is also the subject of exegetical discussion: Is it »independent of« or »not different from?«581 After all, an equality of the sexes lies so far outside the horizon of Paul and of his time that the much more common understanding of the word chōris, »independent of,« is obvious. Both sexes relate to one another and depend on one another; neither sex cannot disregard the other. In a society in which it was much easier for men to disregard women582 than the other way around, Paul’s statement moves the relationships somewhat in favor of women—as does the head covering while praying and prophesying. An equality of the sexes is not asserted here, but rather that men also depend on women. 11:12 This verse also tries to present women in a way that shows their significance for men. Every man is born of a woman. Paul here amends the creational secondary status that he emphasized in 11:8 to give a positive evaluation of the role of women as a bearer of men.583 This is not a particularly convincing argument if one is looking in Paul for gender equity in today’s sense. He is staying within the framework of the argument in 11:3–10. And yet, within the framework of his presuppositions, he is interested in pursuing the thoughts in 11:11: The sexes depend on one another. The verse’s conclusion points to God’s creation. From God’s hand come the life of women and men and their different place in society—for God created Eve later than Adam (11:7–8). 11:13 Paul still wishes to give an additional argument for the idea that it is inappropriate for women to pray with uncovered head. By which system of values is he weighing the inappropriateness? Since the majority of the women in the congregation are not honorable in the eyes of Roman society, his system of values

580 581 582 583

See, for example, BDAG s.v. plēn. Schrage, vol. 2, 518, n. 189 lists examples of this meaning, now advocated only rarely. For a collection of sources see Gaiser 1974, 39–41; 44–46; 54–55, 58. Økland 2004, 187 correctly emphasizes that 11:11–12 is not substantially different from 11:3–10.

11:16

213

can only be his alternative model: the creation and the dignity that God gives women and men. The head covering of women goes along with that. 11:14 Paul uses creation for his argument here also. The word physis should not be translated by »nature.«584 The issue is the creation of human beings by God. Creation provided women with long hair, and this is an honor for them; and, therefore, they must be covered. For men long hair is shameful. Men with long hair585 are, as a rule, considered to be »perverted,« to be homosexuals and male prostitutes. Long hair has been given to women as a mantle, with which, if need be, they can cover up their heads.586 Paul’s argumentation can be taken to absurd lengths: If long hair serves as a mantle, why does it need to be piled up and covered? Did creation see to it that men have short hair—or did they just come from the barber? But these consequences are not what Paul has in mind. His argument is directed at women’s long hair, their honor; covering it bestows dignity on women.

11:16 16 If anyone is looking for a controversy—we have no such practice, nor do the congregations of God. The understanding of the »we« in this sentence is critical. Is it the »we« of the congregation (see on 2:5) or is it objectively equivalent to Paul’s opinion, which he contrasts with that of the congregation or of groups within it? It is already clear through 11:2 what is being emphasized here: It is the practice of all messianic communities, and the »we« is the »we« of the congregation, which includes Paul. There may be people outside of the congregation who are contradicting this practice and demanding another custom. Presumably, congregations had to live with the tensions that arose through their practice. In the eyes of class-conscious Roman citizens and matrons, the congregation’s practices must have come across as presumptuous and egalitarian. 11:16 makes it likely that 11:2–16 offers the congregation help in arguing with people who criticize the messianic practice. As in Chapter 7, it is necessary to name Paul’s contradictions. On the one hand, he shares the ancient concepts about sexual difference that establish a secondclass status for women. On the other hand, in the way he lives and in the way of life his teaching and interpretation of Scripture call for, he is participating in the pursuit of justice. His vision is the divine dignity (doxa) of all people, both men and women. That women received this dignity in the creation by way of the man, is for him self-evident. Nevertheless, the practice of these congregations of which he is a part remains inspiring—if it is translated into a new, contextually reflective practice.

584 Böhm 2006, 224, 231. 585 Ebner 2000, 168–169 collects material on this. 586 Ilan 1995, 131.

214

Commentary

11:17–34 In contrast to 11:2–16, here Paul wants to criticize severely. He is indignant over what he has heard about what the congregation is doing at the communal meal. What he wants is solidarity in sharing. This meal happens when all who belong to the messianic community assemble in one place. According to Paul and some other members of the congregation (11:18), the meal should be a common meal at which fellowship with the murdered and risen Messiah is experienced. Therefore, Paul calls this meal kyriakon deipnon—a (fellowship) meal of those who belong to the Liberator (11:20). The translation of this concept with »Lord’s Supper« does not in many respects accord with what is happening at this meal (see on 11:20) and generates the association that what is happening is a »supper for lords.« In 11:17–34 the term is used in contrast to idion deipnon (11:21) and the meal in the houses of those involved (11:22, 34). The tradition of Jesus’ last fellowship meal before his arrest Paul had already handed on to the congregation, as he says in 11:23. He calls this tradition to mind in order to make clear once again how this special meal enables them to experience fellowship with the Messiah and with one another. What is also part of this fellowship is solidarity with one another through the sharing of food and, along with that, all material resources (see on 11:33). The congregation consists of members who are poorer and those who are richer (11:22). The richer members are accustomed to food of better quality and quantity and desire—as is usual in society (see on 11:21)—to display this privilege openly. Those who »have nothing« (11:22) are thereby put to shame and resist this injustice. Therefore, there is controversy (see 11:18f.). For the many different interpretations of the congregational practice that Paul is criticizing, two verbs, and others, are the cause: prolambanein (11:21) and ekdechesthai (11:33). If both verbs have a temporal significance, then that means that the more well-to-do consume their better food at the location of the congregational gathering, but without waiting for the others to arrive. This temporal meaning is very likely for prolambanein/take beforehand (see on 11:21), but less likely for ekdechesthai/to receive something from others. But whether or not a temporal meaning is accepted for prolambanein, there are people who, at a communal meal with those who have nothing, enjoy good food for themselves without sharing with the poor. As Paul’s tradition presents it, the course of Christ’s Supper presupposes a common beginning with the blessing (11:24) and community solidarity. Part of the community, presumably the majority, insists on both. How do 11:2–16 and 11:17–34 go together? On the question of the head covering while praying, a unified practice is possible, which makes the social differences in the community (between honorable and dishonorable women, perhaps also those between the pater familias and the rest of the house) invisible and irrelevant for the congregation. But eating Christ’s Supper together opens a chasm between those who are richer and poorer that the messianic awakening of these people does not necessarily overcome: the chasm of the better and more abundant food of the rich. And yet the problem is at least being

11:17–22

215

contested. Paul tells about Jesus’ fellowship meal before his imprisonment and about the words that, according to his tradition, Jesus spoke there, in order to clarify (anew) the character of Christ’s Supper. The divisive practice of some of the members of the body of Christ strikes this community at its core. It is precisely a gathering of the whole group to share the meal that experiences political pressure. This is where the story of Jesus’ cross is recounted (see on 1:17–18), the remembrance of a man Rome used as an example of its sovereignty. The divisive practice destroys the power of God’s Spirit, which dwells in this community and enables the people to perform astounding acts of justice. The divisive practice of some makes the community as a whole more vulnerable, more exposed to attack (11:27–33).

11:17–22 17 While I could rejoice about it, I cannot praise the fact that you gather to bring harm and not help. 18 For, first—as I am hearing—there are divisions among you, when you gather in the congregational assembly, and, in part, I believe it. 19 For it is also necessary, that there are among you different ways of relating to one another. Only in this way can it be seen who has understood what it is all about. 20 So even when you come together in one place, it is not a meal the Liberator envisioned. 21 For some eat only their own meal: so some are hungry while others are drunk. 22 Have you no houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the congregation of God and put to shame those with nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? I cannot praise you for that! 11:17 The first word, touto/this, can relate to what follows or what precedes. The verb parangellein can mean »direct,« but also »encourage« or »praise.«587 Since the traditional image of a Paul that issues directives to congregations is historically and theologically inaccurate,588 the following translation suggests itself: »While I could rejoice about that (the head covering practices of men and women at prayer—see also 11:2), I cannot praise the fact that« you perpetuate injustice when you gather for a meal (see on 11:21). Paul repeats this displeasure in 11:22. The gathering for a meal is described in 11:17–34 with the following words: »come together«589 (11:17, 18, 20, 33); »congregation/ekklēsia« (see on 1:2); once it is emphasized that it is an assembling »in one place« (11:20; cf. 14:23). This gathering is clearly not tied to one particular place. It is a coming together of all (cf. 14:23) who belong to the messianic congregation. In any case, no cultically defined location is presupposed. Even the Jewish synagogue is not a holy

587 See Liddell-Scott s.v. parangellein. Also 11:34 diataxomai does not need to be translated by »instruct«; It can designate the presentation of various points on the issue being discussed. 588 See on 4:15; L. Schottroff 1999 (Hermeneutik); Ehrensperger 2007, 174–178. 589 On this see Richter Reimer 1992, 91–98.

216

Commentary

place at this time. Holy is what the people as a community are.590 Paul does not explicitly mention the women here, but in 11:2–16 he speaks of women in the congregational assembly. Their presence was also self-evident at the community meals. Women were part of the fellowship in the synagogues as well.591 Paul says nothing about the frequency of assembling for the meal. It is an evening meal. A weekly meeting on Sunday is sometimes assumed based on 16:2, but 16:2 does not yield such an interpretation. The gathering for a meal is distinguished from the »houses/dwellings,« in which there were meals without reference to the Christ-fellowship (see on 1:21). In 5:1–11 we witnessed a congregational gathering that can decide whether a member is or is not excommunicated. This gathering acts based on the authority the Messiah confers on the congregation (5:4). It is to be assumed that this gathering is also the place in which they pray and prophesy (11:4, 5; cf. 14:23, 15). This gathering is the visible embodiment of the Messiah (see on 12:12), the body/sōma Christi and the holy temple of God (3:16). Those who belong to Christ are saints, and that is certainly true not merely during the gathering. Whatever communities these saints form apart from the gathering cannot be determined with certainty. Nor can it be determined whether the house meals can also take place as Christ-meals in a smaller gathering. But it can be surmised,592 since the full assembly is so strongly emphasized as the coming together of all those taking part (11:20; 14:23; 16:23). In any case, the gathering in someone’s house (16:19; Rom 16:5; Phlm 2) does not appear to be identical with the full assembly. Communal teaching, learning praying, and probably also eating, assumes daily gatherings.593 In 11:17 Paul begins with a reproach: The congregation’s table fellowship has gone awry. The discordant practices of some threaten the spiritual foundation of the participants, namely, the body of the risen Messiah and the power of God’s Spirit, from which all live and draw strength.

The Congregational Gathering Even if the text does not say anything specific about the location and circumstances of a fellowship gathering for a meal to remember Jesus, it is possible to pursue the issues socio-historically on the basis of what is said in 11:17–34 (14:13–25).

590 See on 1:2 and Fine 1996, 47. 591 Just see Luke 13:10–13 and below on 14:34–35. The rules of etiquette for upper-class women in Greek and Roman society knew the provision that honorable women should not dine together with men. This custom was probably observed in Rome only as an exception (see Corley 1993, 24–66), but was still present in conservative heads. 592 This is also the picture we get from Acts. See, for example, 2:46, set alongside 2:1. 593 As do the synagogues also; see Fine in Fine 1996, 22–23; Lee J. Levine in Hezser 2010, 519–525; Schwartz 2001, 221–225; S Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 914–933. Both the synagogues and the gatherings of the Messianic groups are located regionally in the midst of the population and diversely and democratically structured. Many synagogues have rooms for common meals. See Lee J. Levine 2000, 130; Blue 1991, 221.

11:17–22

217

Acts, from its later perspective, tells quite a bit about places for fellowship. For Jerusalem it mentions several dwellings, in which the community broke bread together (2:46) and taught (5:42). Such dwellings were also presupposed in other contexts (4:31; 16:40; 8:3, and more frequently). In addition there are apparently also larger assemblies, at which »all« were together (2:1; 14:27): the »lecture hall of Tyrannos« in Ephesus (19:9), »Solomon’s Portico« in Jerusalem (5:12) and perhaps the house of Titius Justus in Corinth (18:7). As a rule, the local synagogue is the place for the proclamation about the Messiah. Acts tells of the conflicts between Jewish and non-Jewish visitors to the synagogues, who are fighting over the messiahship of Jesus, often so intensively that the city’s population or even the city authorities intervene. Non-institutional gatherings had to find places to meet in Roman cities, as was commonly the case. People arranged to meet in public places that were accessible to all and readily available: in baths and halls of all kinds.594 Perhaps a room was rented for the Lord’s Supper.595 Clubs usually had club rooms belonging to them and statutes that maintained discipline, statutes that showed, among other things, that loyalty to the emperor and to imperial ideology were clearly part of their reality.596 Non-institutionalized sociability was also under intensive control. »The eyes of the emperor« (the expression stems from Libanius597) were everywhere. A system of informers and reports functioned perfectly—payoffs were often involved.598 Those

594 Friedländer 1964, vol. 1, 253–254 names several sources for this information. 595 In the exegetical tradition it is frequently assumed that well-to-do individuals made their spacious homes available for the messianic gatherings; see, for example, Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 19. Rom 16:23 can be offered in support of this assumption. But even the well-appointed triclinia of these villas were too small for such gatherings. Then concepts emerge such as that presented in Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 545 (cf. Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 178–185): In the atrium of the same house the less esteemed part of the congregation received worse food than that given to the (nine?) more distinguished members of the messianic community in the triclinium. Slaves did the serving. The conflict in 1 Cor 11:17–34 speaks a different language. The slaves and the members in solidarity with them would have resisted the seamless continued existence of the old structures of masters and slaves. And then, in addition, the differing quality of the food would have been accentuated by the rooms’ spacial separation and the hierarchical difference between those assigned to each of them. Moreover, the question arises whether the rich members who owned a villa could have hosted these predominately underclass guests without isolating themselves among their own kind and without making themselves suspect politically. 596 Ebel 2004, 61 for the collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium and 113–114 for the Iobakchai in Athens. 597 Libanius, Or. 18.140. An elaboration of the content is provided in Portmann 2002, 135–140. 598 Tacitus complained about the imperial period in the first century: »… our ›Inquisitors‹ have deprived us even of the give and take of conversation.« (Agr., trans. Maurice Hutton, Loeb (1946), 2.) »It was, indeed, the most deadly blight of the age that prominent senators practiced even the basest forms of delation …« (Tacitus, Ann., trans. John Jackson, Loeb (1963), 6.7.) In the context, Tacitus is speaking about the time under Tiberius, c. 32 CE. There are no clear boundaries between a legally sanctioned accusation of one citizen by another (Paoli 1979, 228–229), secret informers, and extortion through denunciation

218

Commentary

who denounced others were seen by the emperor as »safe guarders of the law.« Already in the time of Augustus, Tacitus says: »Thus the informers, a breed invented for the national ruin and never adequately curbed even by penalties, were now lured into the field by rewards.«599 His accusers, who perhaps had reported about the meal of remembrance, had suspicious things to report: A Jew executed by Rome was here worshipped as Messiah and Risen One, as present in the gathered community. A text by the Roman historian Cassius Dio (c. 155/160 CE) is helpful for an understanding of the difficult situation in which these messianic gatherings found themselves. It tells of a conversation between Augustus and his wife, Livia, in which Livia wants to dissuade him from employing this system of espionage. The conversation is fictitious, but it can be used to evaluate the system of espionage in place since Augustus and the attitude the historian Cassius Dio had about it. Spies, they say, and eavesdroppers get hold of such rumours, and then—actuated sometimes by enmity and sometimes by resentment, in some cases because they have received money from the foes of their victims, in other cases because they have received none from the victims themselves—concoct many falsehoods, reporting not only that such and such persons have committed some outrage or are intending to commit it, but even that when so-and-so made such and such a remark, so-and-so heard it and was silent, a second person laughed, and a third burst into tears. I could recite innumerable instances of such a kind, which, no matter how true they may be, are surely not proper subjects for gentlemen to concern themselves about or to be reported to you. Such rumours, if ignored, would do you no harm, but if listened to, would irritate you even against your will; and that is a thing by all means to be avoided, especially in one who rules over others. It is generally believed, at any rate, that many men are unjustly put to death as the result of such a feeling, some without trial and others by a prearranged conviction in court; for the people will not admit that the testimony given or the statements made under torture or any evidence of that nature is true or suffices for the condemnation of the victims. That is the sort of talk that does, in fact, go the rounds, even though it is sometimes unjust, in the case of practically all who are put to death by action of the courts. And you, Augustus, ought not only to avoid unjust action, but even the suspicion of it; for though it is sufficient for a person in private station not to be guilty of wrongdoing, yet it behooves a ruler to incur not even the suspicion of wrongdoing. You are ruling over human beings, not wild beasts …

There follow statements that are especially informative about the situation of the messianic gatherings: The man, however, who suspects that a certain person has been put to death unjustly both fears that he may some day meet a like fate and is compelled to hate the one who is responsible for the deed. And to be hated by one’s subjects, quite apart from its being deplorable in general, is also exceedingly unprofitable.600

(additional material is available in Friedländer 1964, vol. 1, 258–261.) What Judas did in Mark 14:10 (and more frequently) fits into this framework. It is designated as paradidonai/ to hand over (»hand over« in the sense of an accusation rather than as »a betrayal«; see Klassen 1996, 66–70). See also Mark 13:9 and the discussion here on 11:23. 599 Ann., trans. John Jackson, Loeb (1963), 4.30. 600 Cassius Dio, Roman History, trans. Earnest Cary, Loeb (1955), 55.18.5–19.5.

11:17–22

219

Thus, the messianic community gathered under conditions that demanded courage on the part of all who took part, who also were surely still accompanied by justifiable fear. It is no accident that the Synoptic Gospels emphasize that Judas was one of »the twelve« and had participated in the Lord’s Supper.601 That surely means, also from the point of view expressed in the gospels, that he should be embraced by the community’s love. 11:18 Paul begins with »First of all.« »Secondly« then follows, although not explicitly. Paul has received his information about the conflict through a third party. He carefully says that he gives it some credence. Whether this information reaches Paul in the same way as the information mentioned in 1:11 is not clear. There are schismata/ruptures, divisions. That is, there is serious strife.602 11:19 Paul says that strife is necessary. Through the taking of various positions it becomes clear which positions and persons stand the test of divine and human scrutiny. Paul uses in 11:18 the Greek word schism and in 11:19 the word hairesis. The later significance of these words in church history is totally inappropriate for the Pauline context. We are not even dealing with preliminary stages of heresy and church division. 11:20–21 The gathered believers desire to celebrate the meal that enlivens their affiliation with the Liberator, but Paul declares that, in reality, something else is happening. What really happens is that some of them (see the note to 11:22) are partaking in idion/their own supper. For Paul idion deipnon is the opposite of kyriakon deipnon603 (11:20). Here the term idion has two levels of meaning, one legal and one social. In this period, the legal level is defined by the concept of the full ownership a person can have of something; it is his or hers alone. The owner of the vineyard in Matt 20:15 has total control over it in this sense.604 This concept of idion deipnon is expressed as a contrast to what belongs to the Messiah. Those who definitively treat the meal as theirs alone call into question the fact that it belongs to the Messiah. From the fact that it belongs to the Messiah follows the renunciation of insistence on one’s own ownership. Thereby one’s own property potentially becomes community property—however the practice of community property may look. According to Acts 4:32, all who belong to Christ renounce from the outset their claim to what belongs to them, but first make it available to the

601 Mark 14:17–25; Matt 26:20–29; Luke 22:14–23:47. 602 See Last 2016, 183–189. 603 Stein 2008, 110–111 correctly doubts that kyriakon deipnon was already a »fixed designation« for the meal. We have the »internal rhetoric in 1 Corinthians« to thank for the term. The term is at home in the imperial governance. Its use shows once again the appropriation of the political language of the Roman Empire and its use in a new way that is critical of Rome: the meal is an« imperial« meal. On this subject, see BDAG; Deissman 1923, 304–309. On the designation of the Messiah as kyrios, see on 2:8. 604 »The ownership envisioned in classical and Justinian law … is the comprehensive private claim a person can have to something,« Kaser 1962, § 22, 1 (p. 86). On Matt 20:16, see L. Schottroff 2006, 210.

220

Commentary

community when it is needed. It does not matter whether the participants brought the food or gave money for a Messianic meal. From a certain time on, the food no longer belongs to the one providing it; it is the community’s property—or God’s property.605 But the word idion here has also a second, a social level of meaning: the participants have not eaten together with all the others, but on their own, whether they have not waited to begin together or that they also went off to separate rooms. On the consequences of social inequality during common meals there are graphic examples in Greco-Roman literature. Pliny the Younger reports about a meal to which he was invited. He says of the host: The best dishes were set in front of himself and a select few, and cheap scraps of food before the rest of the company. He had even put the wine into tiny little flasks, divided into three categories, … One lot was intended for himself and for us, another for his lesser friends … and the third for his and our freedmen. My neighbor at the table … asked me [Pliny] if I approved. I said I did not … »I serve the same to everyone, … I have brought them as equals to the same table, so I give them the same treatment in everything.« »Even the freedmen?« »Of course, for then they are my fellow-diners, not freedmen.« »That must cost you a lot.« »On the contrary?« »How is that?« »Because my freedmen do not drink the sort of wine I do, but I drink theirs.«606

That is how Pliny offers his idea of justice when guests are invited to a meal. In addition, it can be added that slaves who have been freed participate in the meal, and slaves are in any case present to serve. How badly they are often treated in that setting is recounted by Seneca (see above, on 7:20). So, there are different practices at the meals, mirroring the social inequality. A further example: All bring their own food; the wine is shared/koinon.607 Or, as the just-cited example illustrates, two kinds of food are served to guests of different classes. It is difficult to decide precisely how the richer guests at the meals (see on 1:22) treated the poorer ones, »who have nothing.« Have the richer brought the better food, eating it ahead of time, with no thought for the poor? Can the poor perhaps

605 Theissen 1982, 151 assumes that an ownership exchange takes place through the words spoken over the bread. The transformation described by Justin, 1 Apol. 66.2; 67.5 happens through the prayers at the meal. According to the accounts given in the New Testament, the so-called words of institution are in accord with the (Jewish) mealtime prayers. Therefore, also in 1 Cor 11:23–25, the text supports the idea that the transformation takes place through the mealtime prayers; on the concept of ownership, see Richter Reimer 1992, 34–43. 606 Pliny the Younger, Ep., trans. Betty Radice, Loeb (1959), 2.6.2–4. Additional material on the unequal quality and quantity of food, depending on one’s class, at communal meals: Xenophon, Mem. 3.14.1 (Socrates intervenes in opposition). Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 183–185 provides a summary of the material. 607 The school of Aristophanes, Vesp. 1005, in Strecker/Schnelle 1996, 352. In the same place there is mention of a festive meal to which all bring something, and all eat from what is there. To be sure, it cannot in this instance be assumed that the guests come from diverse classes.

11:17–22

221

only come later because they have to work? Or do the richer guests eat at the same time as the poor without sharing their better food? However, it was, they insist on eating their own food, and they shame to poor (11:21–22). There are three different levels that need to be distinguished here: 1. What meal practices have the richer members of the congregation followed over against the poor? 2. What is the social significance of the better food, and how do the class differences look as the guests are fed? 3. How do Paul and, presumably, the poorer members of the congregation view the damage the rich are causing and envision what should happen in the congregation? We turn now to the second question, about the social significance of eating. Lucian of Samosata (born c. 120 CE) carried on a dialogue through letters with the god Kronos/Saturn. He complained about the stark contrast between rich and poor that showed itself even on the feast days for Kronos, during which for several days the class conflict should be altered. Therefore, Lucian pleaded for a fundamentally different distribution of goods on earth. Kronos answered that the one responsible for that was Jupiter, whose view was quite different. Then Kronos wrote a letter to the rich saying that at least during the banquet for the festival for Kronos they should see to it that things were equal. Here are some excerpts: Kronos to the author: Take the noisy complaints you made to me just now, that they gourged on pork and cakes at the feasting—what do they amount to? Both of them are perhaps sweet and not disagreeable for the moment, but in the aftermath they are turned right round. Then, whereas you will get up on the next day without the headache their drinking gives them and the foul, smokey belching from over-fullness, they not only have the pleasure of all this but having spent most of the night in debauchery with boys or women or in any way their lechery takes them, without difficulty they pick up consumption or pneumonia or dropsy … Kronos to the rich: Oh yes, the dinners and their dining with you—they asked me to add this to my letter, that at present you gourge yourselves behind locked doors, and, if ever at long intervals you are willing to entertain any of them, there is more annoyance than good cheer in the dinner, and most of what happens is done to hurt them—that business of not drinking the same wine as you, for instance—goodness! How ungenerous that is! They themselves might well be condemned for not getting up and going during the proceedings and leaving the banquet entirely to you. But they say that even so they do not drink their fill, for your cup-bearers, like Odysseus’s companions, have had their ears stuffed with wax. The rest is so disgraceful that I hesitate to mention their complaints of the way the meat is apportioned and how the servants stand behind you until you are full to bursting but run past them. There are many more like complaints of meanness, complaints that bring little credit to gentlemen. In fact, the pleasantest thing, more in keeping with conviviality, is equality, … Besides, you could not even live in your cities if the poor were not your fellow citizens and did not contribute in thousands of ways to your happiness; and you would have no one to admire your health if you were rich in isolation, privately, and in obscurity.608

It is not the bad character of individual rich people but how society is structured that rich people show their wealth even in clothing and food, in order to demon-

608 Lucian, Sat., trans. K Kilburn, Loeb (1949), 127–133.

222

Commentary

strate that they belong to the elite. Already as infants they are swaddled and fed in a way that demonstrates even through their bodies609 their membership in the ruling class, and that they can maintain Rome’s rule. Much is known about the way the rich cooked, their recipes and how they set the table. These sources are easily accessible even today in museums and volumes of illustrations. These sources tell us little or nothing about how the poor get fed. Things are usually generalized: »the Romans« and how they ate. But that was dealing only with the tiny group of elite families that had a part in Rome’s rule. An attempt to assemble material from the sources about how the poor were fed is found in McGowan (1999, 35–45).610 In addition, there are seldom ways to cook or kitchens in the urban dwellings of the poor. The poor generally ate in cheap restaurants or on the street. Cheap meat and grain may well have been the essential basis of what they ate. The men of the messianic community succeeded in doing without a head covering as an expression of their privileges as paterfamilias (11:2–16). But when it comes to food, men and women, in so far as they were richer than the poor, are not prepared to relinquish demonstrating their status. Their class consciousness stood in their way (see also on 1:29). They »boast« in their riches, as biblical language puts it. 11:22 We now turn to the third level of analysis mentioned above. How does Paul envision the way things should be and how this conflict, which concerns this identity of this community, can be resolved? With this verse he is apparently611 addressing only the richer members, whom he distinguishes from those with nothing. They should eat at home, so that their hunger cannot be the reason for the unequal distribution of the food (see on 11:34). Doesn’t this suggestion represent an undermining of the messianic meal,612 which in that case brings only apparent justice for a few hours? Didn’t 1:26–31 speak much more fundamentally about overcoming unjust relationships with respect to power, education and property? The messianic communities have attempted in their gatherings to bring justice to life. So how does this suggestion jibe with that? Those who possess nothing (mē echontes 11:22) are people without property, without slaves and other dependents who work for them and without other produc-

609 D. Martin 1995, 25–34; see already above at 1:29. 610 See also Grimm 2006, 354–368; Fagan 2006, 369–384 and Corbier 1999, 128–140. 611 In 11:17–22 Paul, on the one hand, unreservedly addresses in the second person plural the entire congregation; on the other hand, we see from 11:22 that the »you« being addressed are the group that standing over against those who »have nothing.« It is also necessary to determine from the context who the ones are that are really being addressed with the generalizing »you.« This is also true of the hekastos/each in 11:21, that thus should also be translated by »some.« 612 If one assumes that in 11:22 Paul is distinguishing private from public, then he would thereby exclude people and an essential part of their lives. But the distinction between public and private in a contemporary sense doesn’t fit here. Even with the gathering for a meal we are dealing with a gathering in a house. On the strangeness of the concept of private and public in Greco-Roman antiquity, see Heszer 1998, 423–579.

11:17–22

223

tive possessions. In the conflict that arose over the Lord’s Supper, those with possessions stood over against those with nothing, including slaves.613 11:22 describes this contrast with the hunger of those who have nothing and the excess (»get drunk«) of those with possessions. Acts can explain this suggestion.614 Its concept of a »community of goods« in the messianic congregation in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death has unjustly been regarded as an unrealistic idealization of the »primitive Christian community.« The practice described in Acts is rather to be seen as a reflection of the community’s reality. According to Acts, the community’s richer members—Joseph with the surname Barnabas is named as an example (4:34–35)—are fully prepared to renounce their private possessions (4:32). But they were only confronted for the first time by the critical question of whether they would carry out this renunciation when the community needed money to keep alive those in need (4:34). Named as the possessions of the richer were land, fields and houses (4:34, 35; 5:1, a piece of property). The married couple Ananias and Sapphira had followed the congregation’s wish to sell their possessions but then given the congregation false information about the amount of the selling price. Peter, as the congregation’s spokesman, reproached them for this lie (5:3): they could have kept their money, but they ought not to have lied to the congregation and to God (5:5). They had thereby lied to the Holy Spirit. An application of this concept to 1 Cor 11:17–34 yields the following: The messianic community does not expect the rich to give up their possessions but rather that, within a particular framework, they are prepared to let those without anything (11:22) have a share in them. That means renouncing their privileges, such as to abundant good food at a common meal with those who have nothing. As a rule, giving alms does not hurt the richer members all that much; but to renounce their privileges on a particular day (how often in the week is not clear) at the main meal, that’s apparently another matter. That their hunger is the issue may be true, but what is really at issue is their loss of status. They lose their ground for boasting, as 1:29 puts it. Does Paul’s suggestion that they eat at home mean that those who actually stay home no longer belong to the congregation? They are thereby indeed excluding themselves from one of the decisive community experiences of the body of Christ and returning to their old life. That remains open, just as it remains open in Acts 5:1–11, if Ananias and Sapphira had not lied to the congregation and God but kept the money or a portion of it, would thereby have forsaken the congregation.615

613 On the fact that those without possessions are those who have nothing in the sense described above, see Xenopnon, Anab. 7.3.28; additional material in Liddell-Scott, s.v. echein A I. On this see also Longenecker 2010, 232, n. 41; Blue 1991, 233–237; Winter 1989, 101. On freeborn wage earners see L. Schottroff 2006, 212–214. Lindemann 2000, 252 defines the mē echontes as people who only »have nothing specific in concrete terms.« That is not very convincing in the light of the language of antiquity. 614 On what follows see Richter Reimer 1992, 34–43. 615 The Shepherd of Hermas describes how the distance between and rich and the congregation slowly arises, Sim. 5.3.7; on this, see Brox 1991, 350.

224

Commentary

But some fundamental aspects of congregational practice are clear: 1. There are no categorical demands that the richer members make a radical renunciation of their possessions. The congregation presupposes that one is free to act. 2. The class consciousness that is attached to riches, the hubris/boasting (see on 1:29), is an impediment to the conduct of the rich. Therefore, they insist on the quality and quantity of their food, which separates them from the poor. 3. The community, which consists predominately of the poor, is filled with messianic consciousness and enthusiasm. They evidently are experiencing that their spiritual power is also changing the life of the privileged. They are striving for this change if it fails. That is what 11:17–34 is speaking about. The congregational situations that can be observed from Christian writings from the second century CE also reveal similar structures. The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140–155) and Justin’s Apologies (from the middle of the second century CE) also deal extensively with members of the congregation who are poor and those who are richer. The congregations have a fund from which they take care of those in need. It is expected of the richer members that they support this fund. Moreover, it is also expected of them that they address the needs of those who are hungry, for example, in the Shepherd of Hermas, through a communal fasting.616 On such a day of fasting the rich should consume only bread and water and reckon the cost of the food that they did not consume. This amount of money is then evidently given by the richer members directly to those in need. The relationship between those who are richer and those in need is here understood as a reciprocal giving and receiving. This fasting is a positive experience for the rich, and the poor, from the fullness of their relationship to God, give them their riches through prayer. Justin presumably idealizes the situation when he writes: »[W]e who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and communicate to everyone in need …«617 With respect to what is contributed to the congregation’s fund, it is said more restrictively that the affluent give their money in accord with their own will and choice.618 The damage that the richer members are bringing upon the congregation is great, according to 1 Cor 11:22: they despise God’s assembly. That is hardly the people’s intension (see on 11:20), but it is what is happening. Moreover, they bring shame on those without possessions, that is, they take away from them the dignity that they have as members of the community and as those called by God.

616 Herm. Sim. 5.3.7; on this see Leutzsch 1989, 136. On the rich in the Shepherd of Hermas, see also Lampe 1989, 72–78. 617 1 Apol. 14.2 (ANF, vol. 1, 167); cf. 67.1. 618 1 Apol. 67.6 (ANF, vol. 1, 186).

11:23–26

225

11:23–26 23 For I have received from our Liberator what I handed on to you: In the night, in which he was handed over, Jesus the Liberator took the bread. 24 He spoke the blessing, broke the bread and said: »My body is like this for you; do this in remembrance of me.« 25 In the same way, after supper, he took the cup and said: »The new covenant through my blood is here like this, with this cup. As often as you drink, do it in remembrance of me.« 26 For: Always when you eat this bread and drink from the cup, you proclaim the death of the Liberator until he comes. 11:23a.b Paul ascribes the tradition about the messianic fellowship meal to a revelation from Jesus as the kyrios/Liberator. He does not say that he himself heard it from the kyrios. As in 11:2, he calls the tradition congregational tradition, which he has handed on. But, in contrast to the issue about the head covering, the congregation has not made this tradition something they are concerned about. This tradition contains a short account about the final night before Jesus is handed over to the authorities and words of Jesus interpreting the last meal with his disciples. For the working population, the usual time for the daily principal meal was probably after dark or later; the evening meals and social gatherings of the well-to-do often took place already in the afternoon/early evening.619 In the mention of the night, one has seen a reference to the Passover festival (in terms of Exod 12:18) and, together with other parallels between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover festival, has interpreted both the last meal of Jesus and also the Messianic Banquet as a Passover meal.620 Therefore, up to the present time, the death of Christ is interpreted as the death of the Passover lamb (in the sense of a guilt offering)621 and the words of Jesus at the meal as a new Passover Haggadah.622 But the Passover liturgy that is thereby presupposed first arose in the rabbinic period. The celebration of the Passover sacrifice in the time before the destruction of the temple, the time in which Paul is writing, has not yet been worked out to the last detail.623 Moreover, the parallels are unspecific, and also apply to Jewish meals on other occasions.624 And yet, references to the Exodus and Passover tradition are numerous in the New Testament, also in Paul (for 1 Corinthians see 5:7 and 10:1–13, for example). They reveal that the messianic congregation understands itself as a part of the people that left Egypt (see on 10:1–13), and that they in this sense probably celebrate the Passover festival in some form even if

619 Weeber 1995, 9. 620 Theissen/Merz 1996, 373–376 and Klawans 2001, 47, n. 1 list the parallels discussed in the research. 621 On the dubious historicity of this assumption see on 5:7. 622 This is the interpretation proposed by Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 550–551, for example. 623 Doering 2010, 576; Klawans 2001, 30; Smith 2003, 147. 624 Klawans 2001, 29.

226

Commentary

they come from the nations. They do not reveal the interpretation of the Lord’s Supper specifically as a Passover meal. But the Lord’s Supper belongs within the framework of Jewish meal practice in general. In the way it is carried out, this practice does not necessarily differ from Hellenistic-Roman customs for the main meal or even for a festival meal.625 But the prayers and the references to the Messianic Banquet are part of the ingredients of Jewish meal tradition (see on 11:24 and 11:25–26). The meal should presuppose in the community that eats it the (eschatological) justice that God desires. In seeking parallels with Hellenistic-Roman meal customs, it is, of course, not appropriate to use as comparable, as is often done, the meal practices and social gatherings of the elite in their apartment houses. Neither the rooms and their furnishings nor the help with cooking and serving were available to people who belonged to the broad lower class and not the nobility (see also above on 11:17). Since Paul says that this congregational tradition existed before him, we have an important inference for the history of the messianic Jesus movement after the death of Jesus. The year of Jesus’ death can, it is true, only be dated with some lack of precision (perhaps about 36 CE). A precise chronology can also not be derived from 11:23. But if 1 Corinthians was written between 54 and 56, we are left with an estimated time differential of about 20 years. 11:23 allows us to conclude that a community meal of the messianic community already existed immediately after Jesus’ death. It is based on Jesus’ meals during his lifetime, which, in the view of all the gospels, were fundamental for the Jesus movement. They were places in which the justice and presence of the reign of God were experienced626 (see only the miraculous feeding in Mark 6:30–44 and more frequently). The accounts of these meals, as well as that of Jesus’ Last Supper (Mark 14:12–31 and more frequently), already presuppose a community meal of remembrance of the death, and therewith of the resurrection, of Jesus. They tell about the life of Jesus from the perspective of resurrection faith. The parallels in 1 Cor 11:23–26 to the synoptic meal reports do not permit us to seek an original form of the words of institution. Rather, the variability of the words of Jesus shows that they were part of the oral tradition and could be related to the specific present situation. The idea that there was a binding original wording is still foreign to the New Testament. Paul’s version of the words of Jesus is the earliest testimony to a living tradition in the first decades.627 These texts do not claim to be the definitive wording for later generations. The significance of a text valid also for the later church cannot be ascribed even to this earliest version in Paul. The concept of the »words of institution« already presupposes an institution-

625 Smith 2003, 171; Klinghardt 1996, 177; Stein 2008, 65–95. 626 Bieler/Schottroff 2007, 113–116. 627 Even the in many respects different celebration of the meal that is visible in Did. 9.10 belongs to this tradition and is not to be regarded as a special case. On this see Bieler/ Schottroff 2007, 100–102, 79.

11:23–26

227

alization of the church and of the Lord’s Supper. This is misleading for the New Testament period. The handing over of Jesus into the hands of the authorities in the brief account of the framework for the words of Jesus in 11:23 is described by the word paradidonai. This word is used both for Judas’s pointing out and handing over Jesus, which operate in the sphere of Roman law (see above on 11:17) as well as for the action of God, who hands over the son (Rom 8:32; cf. Isa 53:6, 12). But in this regard, the action of God does not refer to a concrete act different from that of Judas. The concept is that even horrible things like this handing over »must« happen (see only Mark 13:7). They are thereby no less horrible, nor are they divinely legitimized. God’s activity is seen from the perspective of those who are confident that God is putting an end to the injustice. He has raised Jesus from the dead. The translation of paradidonai with »betray,« which is part of many Lord’s Supper liturgies today (»in the night in which he was betrayed«), personalizes and moralizes the event. It makes Judas Jesus’ enemy—and frequently the entire Jewish people was defamed along with him in this role. It is to be asked why the brief account of Jesus final night specifically mentions his being handed over. Judas is part of those sharing the meal. That remains important even for the later messianic movement (see on 11:17, »the eyes of the emperor«). The community meal also includes those who can be led astray). 11:23c–24 The account succinctly describes what Jesus did as the host at the Last Supper. The handling of the bread and the blessing of the bread followed Jewish custom (cf. Mark 6:41; 8:6; Luke 24:30).628 A wording of the Jewish blessing of God spoken over the bread is handed on in the Mishnah (Ber. 6.1). In the New Testament tradition, the blessing is not quoted but presupposed as known. In the New Testament it is designated by two different verbs:629 eucharistein/thank (as here) and eulogein/bless (as in 1 Cor 10:16 and more frequently in the gospel tradition, for example, Mark 6:41; 14:22). It can be asked whether this blessing, which also expresses the thanksgiving to God, had a fixed wording or could vary with respect to individual words.630 But, with respect to the subject matter, the Mishnah version surely corresponds to the prayer of Jesus and the congregation according to 11:24: »Blessed are You, Eternal One, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.«631 The breaking and distributing of the bread among the participants shows them to be a community. It has no symbolic reference to the

628 On the breaking of the bread, see Billerbeck vol. 2, 619–620; Johannes Behm in TDNT 1965, vol.3, 727–729; on the beginning of Hellenistic-Roman meals, see Klinghardt 1996, 58–59: They do not begin with prayer. 629 In the Lord’s Supper tradition in the New Testament, the words are used interchangeably. Bradshaw 2004, 8–9 has a different view. He assumes that differing Jewish prayers are responsible for the use of the different verbs. 630 See Reif 2010, 545–549 about Jewish prayers from the time of the rabbinic literature. 631 Cf. Ber. 6.1, Mishnah, 6. In the text of the Mishnah, the prayer’s address is presupposed as the standard address; only the second half of the sentence varies depending on the type of food in question.

228

Commentary

death of Jesus; it is a Jewish meal custom.632 The thanksgiving for the bread includes thanksgiving for all the food eaten at the meal. »Bread« often stands for a complete meal. In this culture it is the basic means of nourishment. The word spoken over the bread is cited by Paul as a word of Jesus. But it has no uniformly consistent wording in the New Testament (see above on 11:23). The Pauline version has three parts: »My body is like this.« The Greek word touto/this (neuter) cannot for linguistic reasons refer to the bread (artos, masculine), but rather to the total event of the common meal.633 The translation with »like this« attempts to leave open what it is to which touto is referring. So, the New Testament tradition still has no sacramental elements of bread and wine that in some way or other have a symbolic significance with reference to Jesus. This also eliminates a dogmatic discussion about the significance of the word »is.« The bread is bread that is to be eaten, nothing more. And yet the community at the meal experiences more than nourishment for the body. They eat in order to live in the comprehensive meaning of the word »live.« According to this account, Jesus speaks this word about his body immediately after he blesses God as he distributes the bread. That is the start of the meal that is to be envisioned as an ordinary evening meal (see also the word deipnon in 11:20; cf. 11:25, after supper/ deipnēsai). A separation between a sacrament and a supper or agapē meal is a later ecclesiastical development.634 »My body/sōma«: The word sōma/body is multidimensional in the New Testament and, with particular clarity, in this letter.635 It includes the reference to actual bodies of people present at the table, of their fellowship and of the body of Christ, who was crucified and who was raised by God. These different dimensions of the word can only be seen together here: The community of those who are present is the body of Christ (cf. 12:12). The concern is their community as whole people, which includes their bodies (see 6:19). This community does justice to being the body of Christ when it shares bread with all, that is, practices justice. The bodies of those who are present, their needs, including their hunger, there illnesses and experiences are the concern of all who are gathered at the table. My body »for you« refers to the life and death of Jesus, which are present in the body of the congregation.

632 See already what is said above on 10:16. 633 Attempts to have the sentence refer to the bread (for example, Lindemann 2000, 254; Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 33, n. 478), despite the fact that touto is neuter, are not linguistically convincing. It is also the case that the word spoken over the cup is not related to what is being drunk in any version of the statement. This also gains meaning as a reference to what all do as they drink. 634 On the later ecclesiastical tradition of agapē meals, see Bieler/Schottroff 2007, 24; Klinghardt 1996, 509–517. On the designation of meals as agapē, see Stein 2008, 220–228. 635 See already above on 6:19; Bieler/Schottroff 2007, 196–197.

11:23–26

229

»For you.« Martyrdom or Sacrifice? The sacrificial death of Jesus is of central importance for the ecclesiastical-dogmatic tradition. However, since about 1970, primarily through feminist theological criticism,636 the concept of the sacrificial death has become the subject of manifold disputes, for and against,637 because of the concept of God connected with it (God the Father sacrifices the Son in order to bring about reconciliation with humanity). By now it can be said regarding New Testament texts: The sacrificial death of Jesus is unknown in the New Testament, and so is the concept of his expiatory sacrifice. There are here statements about Jesus’ death that are read with the presupposition that they are speaking of Jesus’ sacrificial death. But even passages that belong to the hard core of this interpretive tradition, such as Rom 3:25 (hilastērion), the language about the Passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7, for example) or about the death for the forgiveness of sins (such as 1 Cor 11:24; 15:3), are to be understood differently in the context of Old Testament and postbiblical Jewish tradition. They speak about the forgiveness of sins and a new beginning through God’s gracious favor, not about the sacrificial death of a Messiah and Son of God.638 There is the concept of the sacrifice of Jesus (thysia Eph 5:2). The concept of the cult sacrifice can also be used metaphorically (in Hebrews, 5:1, for example). But this did not specifically point to the death of Jesus, but to Jesus’ life as a whole (see below). Moreover, an additional problem in speaking of the sacrificial death of Jesus is the ambiguity, especially in German, of the word Opfer. It can mean a victim of violence or a cultic sacrifice; in addition, it can refer to self-sacrifice. The Greek word thysia639 is, therefore, more appropriately translated with »gift« than with »sacrifice« (in Rom 12:1, for example), in order to exclude associating salvation with violent death. The word »atoning death« is also ambiguous: Does atonement occur as reconciliation or as a necessary retribution for »my sin«? With respect to an understanding of the atoning death of Jesus, which happens as a recompense or punishment for the sins of humanity or the individual, it is likewise primarily the dogmatic-ecclesiastical tradition and not the text of the New Testament that is the basis for the assumption. An understanding of atoning death, however, according to which it effects forgiveness of sins for the people, rests on the post-biblical interpretation of martyrdom/death in resistance against oppression of the people. The atonement occurs not through the death but through the action of the righteous, who are unjustly persecuted and executed.

636 There is an overview in Janssen/Schaper/Tilly 2009, 432–433; Brandt 2001, 420–432. 637 See on this Brandt 2001; Weth 2001. 638 See what has been said on 5:7; on Rom 3:25 see F. Crüsemann 2006, 236–237. On the sacrificial death of Jesus as a whole, see Brandt 2001. 639 On this see F. Crüsemann 2006, 2374–2375.

230

Commentary

The New Testament interpretation of the death of Jesus is part of the Jewish history of the remembrance of martyrs. To remember the death of martyrs was part of the central content of Old Testament-prophetic and postbiblical-Jewish tradition.640 The life of the righteous and their death in martyrdom break through the sin of the people and their alienation from God. God forgives the sin of the people, for the martyrs have transformed the entire nation. The concept found here of collective guilt of the people that also includes sin of individuals is difficult for western thought. For the New Testament it is self-evident. As a rule, the issue in the New Testament is »our« sins, forgiveness for »us,« not for »my sins.« Why do you let us stray, Eternal One, from your ways, let our heart become hard, that we are no longer in awe of you? Turn back, for the sake of those who are in your service, the tribes that belong to you as an inheritance. 18 For a little while enemies took possession of your holy people, our adversaries trampled your sanctuary, 19 For a long time we have become like people, over whom you have no power, over whom your name is not invoked. Oh, if only you would tear the heavens apart and come down, So that mountains tremble before your face … (Isa 63:17–19).641 17

The nation is on the wrong path; therefore, its land is conquered by a foreign army. It is incapable of resistance. What is meant is not resistance with weapons but with a power that pervades a nation when it practices justice, a spiritual power. In liberation theology the concept of »structural sin« is used. It explains extremely well this concept of collective sin, of a social structure that induces all individuals to act corruptly. The history of the violence exercised by Germans, above all the history of the Shoah, is likewise incomprehensible if it is reduced to things done by individuals. These individuals created a structure that in turn made all individuals accomplices.642 This structure of violence and death ended with the destruction of life, also of the families and cities of men and women who had acted unjustly or been silent when it happened. Innocence no longer had a place to call home. Precisely this is what Isa 63:17–19 laments. People who generate resistance in such a situation break through the rule of violence, corruption and complicity. Usually they are risking their lives. That’s what Isa 53:11–12 is about. Traditionally this text was called a »Suffering Servant Song.« It deals with an individual person whose actions can change the entire nation. The way of the individual becomes the way of an entire nation. The following text speaks of this figure; it could be a man, a woman or the whole 640 On this see van Henten 1989; Lohse 1963; Wire 2002; Bieler/Schottroff 2007, sections 3.4 and 5.2.2. 641 Translation according to BigS, 2006. 642 Of fundamental importance: Thürmer-Rohr 1987; Scherzberg, in Krobath et al. 2002, 527–528. See also the basic information on 9:20 above.

11:23–26

231

nation. Kessler 2009, 150–151 speaks of a »perspectival identification of ebed and Israel.«643 Through the anguish of her life she will see, She will find satisfaction through her knowledge. The one who is thus righteous in my service, Will make the many righteous and bear their guilt. 12 Therefore I shall apportion this person to the many and to the numerous as a ransom For she gave up her life to death and let herself be numbered with the transgressors. Yet she bore the sin of the many and interceded for the transgressors. (Isa 53:11–12644) 11

For the culture of remembrance that finds expression there, there are many important texts in post-biblical Judaism. They speak about the dead from the perspective of resurrection, with a hermeneutic of resurrection. Their resistance has brought the people onto the right path. Their death has saved the life of the people. This memory must be kept alive, in order to learn from history for the sake of the future. God was on the side of the victims of violence, who paid for their resistance with their lives. God led them on this way. This history of remembrance is an important part of oral tradition. In early Christianity, this tradition was carried on with the passion narratives.645 4 Maccabees was written sometime during the first century, probably before 70 CE. In Hellenizing style, it wants to present the history of martyrdom as a philosophical history of the victory of virtues. It narrates in detail the horrible and bloody martyrdom of the aged priest Eleazer and of a mother’s seven sons. Following this there is extensive praise for the mother and her steadfastness. Her martyrdom is not depicted so extensively; she threw herself onto the pyre »so that no one might touch her body« (17:1). The tyrant who unleashed torture and murder is Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175–164 BCE). But implicitly the text has in view the tyranny of its own time, the Roman Empire. The martyrdom signifies bringing to naught the power of tyrants (17:2; 11:24; 1:11, cf. 9:30) and rescuing the threatened people (9:24; 1:11; 6:28–29; 17:10, 20–22). The people are threatened by tyranny because they are sinning (17:21; implicitly 6:28–29). So it is because they are not obedient to God that the enemy has power over them (17:20). This power is broken through the martyrdom. This event is called »cleansing«/ tyrs; it is hilastērion (17:22). The word hilastērion refers to Exod 25:17–21. It means a place in which God is present, a place of the forgiveness of sins.646 Through the example of martyrs the tractate wants to evoke courage (13:10; 16:22–23) to overcome the power of tyranny through patient endurance (hypomonē) and fidel643 Against a Christological usurpation of Isaiah 53 in the early church there were Jewish voices who applied Isaiah 53 to the entire nation; see Origen, Cels. 1.55. In this way they came closer to the text than did the identification of the figure as a single Christological individual. The text is dealing with the fate of an individual figure and, at the same time, with the fate of the nation that the figure represents. 644 According to BigS translation. 645 Wire, 2002. 646 See F. Crüsemann BigS 2011, 1814.

232

Commentary

ity to the Torah. It is the language of Jesus’ interpretive words at the Lord’s Supper and of the interpretations of the passion in the New Testament that encounters us here, and it can help us to understand the New Testament traditions. The language does not relate to the sacrificial cult or to self-»sacrifice« or, based thereon, to become a »sacrifice.« »Blood« stands for the costly life of the martyrs, which is poured out unjustly and with violence, which, however, overcomes this violence through acts of justice. The texts in 4 Maccabees tie together the interpretation of martyrdom that is found in this way or similarly in texts such as Isaiah 53, in 4 Maccabees, in numerous post-biblical interpretations of the martyrs Isaac,647 Daniel, and the three men in the fiery furnace. First a citation from 4 Maccabees 6, the words about Eleazar’s death: When he was now burned to his very bones and about to expire, he lifted up his eyes to God and said, 27 »You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in burning torments for the sake of the law. 28 Be merciful to your people, and let our satisfaction (dikē)648 suffice for them. 29 Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange (antipsychon) for theirs.« 30 After he said this, the holy man died nobly in his tortures; even in the tortures of death he resisted, by virtue of reason, for the sake of the law. 26

In 4 Maccabees 17 there is a recapitulatory appreciation of the martyrs: The tyrant himself and all his council marveled at their endurance, 18 because of which they now stand before the divine throne and live the life of eternal blessedness. 19 For Moses says, »All who are consecrated are under your hands.« 20 These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honored, not only with this honor, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, 21 the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified—they having became, as it were, a ransom (antipsychon) for the sin of our nation. 22 And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as a place of God’s forgiveness (tou hilastēriou thanatou649) divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated.

17

In a different text about martyrdom the prayer of Azariah makes metaphorical reference to the temple sacrifice. It is found in the Book of Daniel in the Greek translation of the Bible (LXX). But not even here is the issue a sacrificial death.

647 In post-biblical interpretation Isaac is understood not as a passive sacrifice (a victim) but as an active hero in accord with the pattern in the martyrdom tradition; see Wire 2002, 281–284. 648 The word antipsychon (4 Macc 17:21; 6:29) and the word dikē (4 Macc 6:28) are read in the Christian translation tradition with the hermeneutical default of atoning death producing forgiveness or as substitutionary punishment. Linguistically the words also allow the reading »satisfaction«: Through the martyrdom of a person who works for the liberation of the people, the sin of the people and their alienation from God are broken through, and the people once again receive mercy. The deeds of those who risk their lives have changed the people and compensated for (dikē) the people’s sin; they are deeds that lead to life. It is not the death as such that changes the sin of the people but the work of liberation that finds in death a violent end and is carried on by those who remember the history of the martyrdom. [Bible text NRSV, adapted to Luise Schottroff ’s understanding of the terms dikē, antipsychon and hilastērion.] 649 On this Greek reading see Klauck 1989, 671, n. 113.

11:23–26

233

Azariah is one of the three Jewish men in the fiery furnace of whom the Book of Daniel speaks. They refuse to worship the golden image that mighty King Nebuchadnezzar had erected. They remain true to the God of Israel, even if it should cost them their lives (Daniel 3). They »handed over their bodies« (Dan 3:28). The king has thrown them into the fiery furnace. The prayer of Azariah in the fiery furnace is the prayer of a martyr, in the literary form of a song of national lament. The »we« of the people and the »we« of the martyrs flow together. The topic is the rescue of the people. Following this, the Book of Daniel speaks of the rescue of the three men by God as a rescue of the people from the »fiery furnace.« The Prayer of Azariah, (Additions to Daniel, inserted between 3:23 and 3:24) vv. 15–17, LXX)650 15 In our day we have no ruler, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before you and to find mercy. 16 Yet with a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted, 17 as though it were with burnt offerings of rams and bulls, or with tens of thousands of fat lambs; such may our sacrifice be in your sight this day, and may we unreservedly follow you, for no shame will come to those who trust in you.

Those who are praying lament that Israel in their time is without a king or a temple with its sacrifices (v. 15). They pray that God might accept their sacrifices »as though« they came with animal sacrifices (v. 17). The sacrifices in the temple serve here as a comparison with what happens through the confession of sins before God. Their sacrifice is their life in accord with God’s will, even their martyrdom. But in this case the martyrs are saved from death. The words at the Lord’s Supper, in all the versions, belong to this Jewish tradition of the remembrance of the martyrs. The difficulties of giving voice to this culture of remembrance in the 21st century in Christian Lord’s Suppers, especially in western churches, are great. The word martyrdom has undergone a change of meaning through the waging of war with »martyrdoms« (»suicide bombings«). In the context of Jewish history in the biblical and post-biblical periods, martyrdom arises out of primarily non-violent acts of resistance in which people risk their lives. An additional difficulty is the changed theological hermeneutic. The culture of remembrance presupposes the entire people, with all their individual characteristics, vis-a-vis God, both with respect to the understanding of sin and in the interpretation of the life and death of the martyrs. The New Testament concepts change their content when they are primarily applied to individuals: I am guilty of the death of Christ; he atones for my sins. But also: My salvation is brought about by the death of Christ. This is a theology of the cross that the New Testament does not offer. It can be misunderstood as a legitimation of a violent death.

650 NRSV.

234

Commentary

That Christ’s body was given »for us« (1 Cor 11:24) means that violent people desired and caused the death of Jesus, but God has not turned the Son and the people over to them. The Son is a son among many sons and daughters (Rom 8:29).651 The most gruesome oppression and murder come to naught, for God is on the side of life. »For you,« »for our sins« (1 Cor 15:3) is a proclamation about resurrection.

»Do this in remembrance of me« The touto/this at the beginning of the phrase, like the touto in the prior phrase, refers to the activity and what it entails as a whole. The remembrance of God’s activity in history, the martyrdom of people in prior generations (see on this the preceding basic information), like the remembrance of the exodus, the liberation of the people from slavery by God (see only Exod 12:14),652 contributes a decisive share to Jewish identity and to the identity of those from the nations (see on 10:1) who are living messianically in this time. »Remembrance occurs for the sake of understanding the present, but usually in view of a particular action that extracts its extent and intent from the remembrance.«653 Part, present and future coalesce in the remembrance, toward which are oriented the action and the courage, the endurance and the hope for worldwide justice. The act of remembering is connected with the communal meal (cf. the word spoken over the cup). The content of the remembrance of Jesus is not only remembrance of his martyrdom but of his life and activity as a whole, which through the resurrection has received a new future: through the body of Christ, the hands, feet and life of those who belong to the Messiah. 11:25 »In the same way«—that is: blessing God and giving thanks for water and wine (see on 11:24). It is not a matter of course that wine was always drunk after the meal. Usually it probably was a mixture of water and wine, which was in any case often the beverage when one speaks of wine. The quality of the wine can differ greatly. Since here, and in the Lord’s Supper accounts in Mark and Matthew, wine is not specifically mentioned, it need not necessarily be assumed that wine was in the cup—or a mixture containing wine; it could also have been water. The word of Jesus connected to the meal report about the wine in God’s renewed world (Mark 14:25 and parallels) connects the drinking of the wine with the joy of the celebration, as is usual in the biblical tradition (see Isa. 25:6).654 A community meal with wine was perhaps not the norm, but conceivable for special occasions. The meal for the remembrance of Jesus and of his death, which was not the end, is a celebration that depicts the joy and perfection of life as God wants it to be. 651 652 653 654

Janssen 2009a, 73–76. Bieler/Schottroff 2007, 221. W. Schottroff 1967, 117 (cf. 339). On this see Dalmann 1964, vol. 4, 388–389, 397–398.

11:23–26

235

The red wine symbolizes the blood of Jesus, and that the wine is a sacramental element is neither said nor presupposed in the New Testament, not even here. On the contrary: What is mentioned in 11:25 is the cup and not the drink and, in this way, the meal as a whole. That what is drunk is supposed to depict or call to mind the blood of Jesus, suggesting that one is drinking blood, is assumed later, primarily by people who wanted to shape the church cultically, or by those who opposed them.655 The text specifically does not suggest the conclusion that Jesus commanded people »to drink his blood.«656 Within the framework of Jewish culture, to drink or eat blood is clearly a violation of the Torah (Gen 9:4; cf. Lev 3:17; 17:10–14; Deut 12:23) and evokes revulsion. »The new covenant through my blood«: Here Jer 31:31 is taken up. The new covenant does not stand in opposition to Judaism, and it also does not represent the church. What is in view is God’s renewed covenant with Israel,657 which includes all the nations. It is necessary to radically rethink the covenantal theology in the Lord’s Supper with respect to this interpretive tradition. »Through my blood.« The concept that emerges from the parallelism to the word about the bread is clear: Blood is the life, the vitality of Jesus, which is present in the body of Christ. The connection of blood with violent death in the martyrdom tradition is not directed to the saving significance of a death. The point, instead, is that, contrary to the goal of those exercising violence, God gives new life. An allusion to the sacrifice of the blood of an ox at the ratification of the covenant at Sinai (Exod 24:8) is probably not intended here.658 The remembrance of the blood of the murdered martyrs stands in the foreground. The conclusion of 11:25 presupposes (cf. Luke 22:19) the regular repetition of the meal in the congregation. It is not a »command« for repetition. In the light of the reality of the congregation in the society, there are the following questions about the community meal: Who are the people who participate in the meal? Are women, slaves, children and outsiders all included? That leads to the question: Who does the work that a community meal presupposes? Who buys the food, prepares it and gets the room ready? Who deals with the leftover food and the dishes, and who cleans up? In the statutes for the association of Cultores

655 An example of the positive meaning is found in Zeller 2010, 372–373. The rejection of the Christian Lord’s Supper, because it signifies eating human flesh and drinking blood, is one of the suspicions circulating against the Christian church since the second century. A collection of the material is found in Schäfke 1979, 579–595. 656 Zeller 2010, 373. 657 F. Crüsemann 2011, 186 on the perspective of Jeremiah 31 addressed in 1 Cor 11:25: »In addition to the forgiveness of sins, what belongs to this is, above all, the renewed activation of the Torah.« 658 In Mark 14:24 (cf. Matt 26:28) the connection with Exod 24:8 is closer because of the formulation »blood of the covenant,« which is also found in Exod. 24:8. Nevertheless, the relationship between the death of Jesus and the sacrifice of an ox in Exodus 24 is unlikely. The issue, also in Mark 14:24, is primarily the renewed covenant, F, Crüsemann 2011, 185.

236

Commentary

Dianae et Antonoi in Lanuvium there is a notice of interest in these questions. For four people, association members make available »an amphora of good wine and bread worth four asses (probably one piece per person), four sardines (one per person?), the table settings, hot water and table service (cum ministerio)«659 The association appears to consist primarily of lower class men, freemen and slaves. Women were likely not accepted as members.660 Thus the serving and other work can have been done by slaves (male and female) and free women. The starting points for finding answers to these questions about the people in the messianic congregations are few and far between. The presence of a person like Judas is presupposed (see above on 11:17 and 11:23); that is, we are not speaking of an idyllic core community. There can also be people present whose persistence and steadfastness cannot be counted upon. Moreover, the evaluation of the words diakonein/serve and kopian/work within the congregations offer a point of departure. (For 1 Corinthians, see primarily 12:5 and 16:15; for the fundamental significance of this issue, see Mark 10:42–45 and the synoptic parallels and the foot washing in John 13). These texts only allow the conclusion that all participants, including free men, are ready to share in the work of serving and that there is no special significance of »to serve« in the sense of a leadership task for a few.661 The protest of those with nothing in 11:22 reveals that injustice is seen and fought against by those it strikes. Therefore, it is to be assumed that neither exclusivity nor exclusion was common. All took part in the necessary work, and all those who were interested could take part. An exclusive membership is not to be assumed (see also on 14:23). A messianic congregation is clearly oriented toward a universal vision for all people and for the earth. Their community meal models this vision. This vision enables us to see a glimmer of God’s justice, it gives permission for »eschatological imagination.«662 As far as women and slaves are concerned, the Pauline texts are in any case clear: women and slaves are part of the congregation, and they were self-assured in the conflicts.663 11:26 Paul comments on the words of Jesus he handed on (11:24b–25) and thereby takes up what the tradition has in mind: With this eating you are proclaiming the death of the Liberator; you are calling to mind the death and the transformation God is bringing about for the present and the future. Paul emphases that this is done »until he comes« (cf. 16:22; Rev 22:20). The coming of God or of the Liberator is longed for here and in many utterances of the biblical tradition (see the basic information at 1:7–8). So, Paul is emphasizing a comprehensive vision, the coming to fruition of which is presupposed in the community meal. His concern is not to intimate how long this meal will need to be celebrated.

659 660 661 662 663

Ebel 2004, 30, 24. Ebel, 2004, 39. L. Schottroff 1995, 204–223. On this hard to translate concept see Bieler/Schottroff 2007, 16–21. On this see especially Romans 16 and 1 Corinthians 7 (see above).

11:27–34

237

11:27–34 27 It follows from this: Whoever in an unsolidarial way eats the bread or drinks from the cup becomes guilty of his body and blood. 28 Every woman and every man shall in this regard prove themselves and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 All who, while eating and drinking of the body of the Liberator, do not act justly, bring harm on themselves by their eating and drinking. 30 Besides, many among you have become unstable and sick, and many have already died. 31 If we direct ourselves correctly, we shall not be judged. 32 When the Eternal One brings justice, we shall be instructed, so that we are not destroyed along with the world. 33 Therefore, my sisters and brothers, when you assemble to eat together, take responsibility for one another. 34 Whoever is hungry should eat at home, so that your community experiences no harm. Whatever still needs attention, I shall discuss with you when I come. As in 2:13–16 and 4:1–5, Paul plays linguistically with words about »judging« (krinein). In 11:27–32 they occur seven times. To be added to this are »examine« in 11:28 and »discipline« in 11:32, which address the same subject matter. The meaning of the often-ambiguous words (which judging, which judgment) can be gained from the textual context and from the Old Testament concept of God setting things right. This text has had destructive consequences. It has caused people to experience the Lord’s Supper as perilous and life threatening. Am I unworthy (11:27)? By participating in the Lord’s Supper do I bring eternal destruction upon myself (11:29)? The word krima (11:29) is usually translated by judgment and exegetically applied to God’s condemnatory judgment.664 The question remains open in this way of looking at things whether this judgment is a final condemnation or an intervention by God on behalf of the weaker ones, an intervention for what’s right and for justice. Translations of Paul have apparently taken words like »judge,« »judgment« primarily in the sense of condemnation and punishment. That »unworthy« in 11:27 does not disqualify the participants but the »way they partake of the meal,«665 is the current assumption in the scholarly literature but seems not to have reached many in the church. The cause of this destructive outcome is the ambiguous translation of krima as »judgment« and, above all, the translation of anaxiōs in 11:27 with »unworthy.«666 This is lexically accurate but, unfortunately, 664 This interpretation is still common today (see BDAG: »eat condemnation upon oneself«). Gundry-Volf 1990, 102–103 offers a different view. She correctly emphasizes that the issue is not eternal condemnation, but then emphasizes, however, that what’s involved is educating someone by using corporal punishment. 665 Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 48. 666 Luther also lamented that he understood Paul in this way and felt threatened; on this see Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 95, with additional material on the history of the effects of this understanding. In the women’s movement since about 1980, this suffering from the Pauline text, and therewith from the Lord’s Supper, has also been clearly documented; see, for example,

238

Commentary

totally open to misunderstanding, as if the participants are thereby disqualified: »Now whoever eats of the bread in an unworthy manner …«667 The second reason for the history of the destructive effects is the generalization that this text appears to establish the rule applying to all participants for all time. Now ever man and every woman who desires or needs to partake of the Lord’s Supper must set aside the idea of being unworthy and of bringing God’s condemnation upon themselves. In 11:27–30 Paul draws consequences from Jesus words at the meal and directs them to the concrete situation in Corinth. With respect to the content of these words, he above all concerns himself with body/sōma (11:27, 29), blood/haima (11:27) and with eating and drinking (11:27–29). The issue is the behavior of some people as a part of the body of Christ in the Corinthian situation. Although the text does not differentiate between those being addressed, Paul is speaking, as in 11:20–22, to the haves, who are shaming the have nots. Then in 11:33–34 all are likely included. 11:27 The improper behavior of the prosperous is here called unworthy. This refers to the lack of consideration for those who have nothing,668 the insistence on the superior food and drink as a sign of social status. They lack solidarity. In this way they become guilty of the body and blood of the Liberator. As in 11:24–25, body and blood designate the body and the vitality of the Liberator, whom God has freed from deaths power. It is the body in its double dimension: the congregation and the body of a victim of murder, who in his resurrection body, the congregation, is alive. That Paul so decidedly calls Jesus kyrios also again here in the context of the Lord’s Supper shows how important belonging to the Messiah is to him, that we are his own. We belong to this Lord; all other lords of this earth (8:5) are, as far as we are concerned, disempowered! 11:28 Self-examination is the assignment given to the well-to-do (cf. 11:19). They should carefully consider whether they are able to give up the privileges of their prosperity and, at the same time, the social esteem associated with it. 11:29, like 11:27, describes the aberrant behavior: the body of the Liberator is not discerned, that is, it is not differentiated from every other table fellowship at, for example, birthday parties or at a shared everyday meal. There the well-to-do can present themselves as such, not here. The well-to-do are eating in a way that

Ortega/Wartenberg-Potter in Bergerau/Schomberg/von Essen 2000, 51. They bring 11:27 and 11:29 together: »Those who eat and drink unworthily, they eat and drink judgment upon themselves.« This sentence evoked in me a disconcerting anxiety: »Am I then worthy?« 667 That is also the case once again in the translation e.g. in New King James Version. 668 D. Martin 1995, 194 understands the improper behavior in Corinth as a destruction of the unity of the congregation, but Paul says nothing about that. Weissenrieder 2008, 264 interprets out of the thoughts that originate in ancient dietetics: »According to that, the issue is not punishment meted out by God, but, first of all, one’s own body in its lack of the gift to discern the Eucharistic body« (264). But it is doubtful that what we have here is a distinction between the substance of the sacrament and non-sacramental food (see above on 11:24).

11:27–34

239

brings upon themselves »judgment«. The word is ambiguous (see above on 11:27–34). In 11:32 the distinction becomes clear between a condemnation of the world by God and a disciplining by which God sets things right, preventing people from finally destroying their own lives and being condemned by God. This disciplining is what is meant here. It has consequences, which are important and decisive for one’s relationship with God. Paul is not threatening with eternal condemnation. Rather, he is making it clear: You are injuring yourself, but you can still change things. God is giving you a second chance. God’s judging is an intervention on behalf of those who are weaker.669 God trains us to act justly. God creates justice. 11:30 In the congregation many are weak and sick. Some have already died. Paul interprets these facts as unmistakable signs of improper behavior within the congregation. Because of this the body of Christ is sick.670 Sickness and death are not individual punishments but visible consequences of the improper life of some members of the body of Christ. Those from the congregation who are affected are not identical with those who did the body harm. Here, too, later interpretive history (illness as divine punishment) has wounded and damaged people. 11:31 If we examine ourselves, God has no need to discipline us. Paul includes all members of the body of Christ here, including himself. This self-examination is for him of fundamental importance: Do I really want to live God’s justice, with all its consequences? 11:32 Here Paul now speaks explicitly about being disciplined by God. Kyrios could also refer to Jesus here. But when Jesus is seen as the figure doing the judging, it is still God’s action that is assigned to him. The words »to judge« and »judgment« are not connected with the concept of condemnation. God’s judicial activity is envisioned as a process of clarifying and furthering life (cf. 3:12–16). It is a biblical tradition that God disciplines the people.671 For when the upright were put to the test and brought up with mercy, they learned how the ungodly were judged and tormented./As a father or a mother who reprimands, you have put these to the test./Those, however, like a stern king or a stern queen, you have scrutinized and condemned (Wis 11:9–10).672

The world/kosmos, says Paul, is being judged. From the perspective of the Corinthian congregation and from his own perspective the world is the social structure of violence created by humans. It is embodied by the lords (8:5), the rulers of this age (2:6). God’s condemnation threatens them (cf. 3:17) and their accomplices— us—as well. God is pictured here as unceasingly merciful. God judges, but what is

669 Cf., for example, Deut 10:18; additional material in G. Liedke, art. din/judge, TLOT, vol. 1, 1997, 335–336. 670 Misfortune as a result of guilt on the part of some of the people strikes all the people— for example, Num 8:19; 11:33; Deut 32:23–24. 671 Deut 8:5; A collection of the material is found in Gundry-Wulf 1990, 107–111. To be sure, her view is that Paul does not think in terms of collective disciple; he has individual discipline in mind (111, n. 57). 672 BigS.

240

Commentary

meant by this is educating in love for the »world« and for »us« (on the concepts of educating, see also 4:15–21). But God’s compassion also establishes clear boundaries. »We« also stand before the choice of changing ourselves or remaining entrapped in the structures of complicity, says Paul. 11:33 When all come together to eat, they should practice mutual sharing. It is true that the verb ekdechesthai also has the secondary meaning of waiting for one another, but the primary meaning is to receive or accept something from another.673 There is no reason to relate the verb here to the temporal course of the meal (see on 11:21). 11:34 Paul repeats the advice in 11:22. The well-to-do should refrain from participating in the community meal if they are not in the position to refrain from their privileges. »If you are hungry« can only refer here to the hunger of the well-to-do. Perhaps their hunger has been their reason that they wanted to participate without forgoing their privileges. According to what has been previously said, the judgment can only mean the discipline, the process in which God creates justice for all. When he returns to Corinth Paul wants to continue his teaching on these questions, not »give instructions« (see on 11:17).

12:1–31 The beginning of the text (12:1–3) can be read as a review of the themes of the preceding chapters of the letter, 1–11. They were directed throughout at conflicts that arise from the congregation’s life in the society of a large Roman city. In this world (kosmos) people were driven, impelled to accommodation and spinelessness. Yet the previous chapters also contained short assurances and encouragements that showed where the power of the people in the congregation comes from, the power with which they are able to shape their life in this world in relation to God’s justice and law (see 2:1–16; 3:16–17, 21–23). Now, in Chapter 12, Paul’s theme is this power, the Spirit/pneuma that God has given them. Here the issue is the riches of all individuals in the congregation and of all together, the charismata (12:4–11) and the body of Christ (sōma Christou). In this letter Paul has applied to the Christ community principally three conceptual realms: the community is the temple of God (3:16), the people in it are brothers and sisters (1:10–11 and many other occurrences) and the community is the body of the Messiah (12:12–31; cf. Rom 12:1–8). Temple of God, community of brothers and sisters and body of the Messiah—these conceptual realms can occasionally contain metaphorical statements, but on the whole, the categories »image« and »metaphor« do not do them justice (see on 12:12).

673 See Liddell-Scott s.v., which names as a primary meaning »to take or receive from one another.« Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 56 argues that mutuality is in this case cynical because the havenots don’t, after all, have anything. But mutuality does not mean that all give equally much, but that all look out for the well-being of all—however that might look like.

12:1–3

241

Chapter 12 is one of the thoroughly encouraging chapters of the letter—compared with the arduous endeavors arising from conflicts over the cross of Christ, the relationship between the sexes and economic justice. Chapter 12 contains radiant joy over the riches of spiritual gifts (12:4–11; cf. 1:4–9) and the vitality of the resurrected Messiah in the community of brothers and sisters (12:12–31). All, collectively, are body of the Messiah and all individuals are a part of the living Messiah. In the history of interpretation, we find again and again, even for this chapter, the interpretive pattern: the »opponents« of Paul in Corinth. That is the case when it is assumed that there is a hierarchy in which »speaking in tongues« is esteemed very highly and other gifts are accorded little value. Accordingly, then, the language about the body of Christ is also understood as a Pauline attempt to pacify conflicts that arise from this hierarchy. This chapter’s vitality, however, does not come from a congregational conflict, but out of genuine joy over the riches that God is giving all participants and which they can collectively live out as body of the Messiah.

12:1–3 1 Sisters and brothers, I would like to strengthen you in this regard, that you have the gifts of the Spirit. 2 You know how you were led and driven to the dumb deities, as you still lived like the nations. 3 Therefore, I would like to give you confidence: whoever speaks by God’s Spirit will never say, »Jesus be accursed« And no one is able to say, »I belong to Jesus«—except by the holy Spirit. 12:1 The gifts of the Spirit are now to be a theme of Pauline teaching: »I don’t want you not to know,« that is, I don’t want you not to be aware of your riches. Paul wants to strengthen people in this awareness. For it cannot be meant that ignorance of the following themes is to be assumed in the congregation. They have already appeared in prior chapters. It is often assumed in the interpretive tradition that the congregation is ignorant about these questions and Paul needs to instruct them. I read pneumatikōn as a genitive of the neuter rather than as masculine, related to gifts, not to Spirit endowed men and women. 12:2 Paul describes the life of people from the nations before their attachment to the Messiah through a verbal construct (you were led/pulled along as those driven away) that expresses the intensity, duration and violence. They were driven, treated like tools with no will of their own. This process is often thought of in terms of ecstatic impulses, but ecstasy is not typical of the cults in large Roman cities. But participation in cults was a social and political necessity.674 That the

674 This was true primarily for the cults that were established in the cities through Roman rule. Paige 1991, 64 says about the Corinthian congregation that they were by Paul here »reminded that in their former life they were enslaved, in ignorance of the true God and his workings, to evil powers associated with the pagan cultus.« Public processions (pompai) to shrines can in this regard be standing before Paul’s very eyes.

242

Commentary

gods were dumb is freely asserted in the Jewish tradition of distinguishing themselves from foreign cults.675 12:3 Therefore, that is, because of the power of cults in the city, he specifically points to the fact that a member of the messianic community cannot by induced by the God’s Spirit to say, »Jesus be cursed.« So that implicitly means that Satan or the powers of this world induce people to curse Jesus. Curses and imprecations were common in the Hellenistic-Roman world. To be sure, one would have expected terminology other than anathema; perhaps one might expect eparatos or aratos instead.676 But the content was intelligible. How is it to be explained that members of the messianic community curse Jesus? Many interpretations suggest that Paul had not intended any actual imprecation of Jesus but rhetorically simply set up a contrast to the confession of Jesus,677 or only imagined there were people who cursed Jesus.678 But Pliny the Younger shows a life situation in which members of the messianic community curse Jesus,679 namely, when they are being persecuted by the Roman authorities. During the proceedings they were compelled to perform acts demonstrating their loyalty, for example, to sacrifice before an imperial genius, a small statue of the emperor. In a process of this kind, it appears it also happened that people had to curse Jesus to prove their loyalty to the emperor.680 Pliny the governor has people examined who are denounced as members of messianic groups. When they had repeated after me a formula of invocation to the gods and had made offerings of wine and incense to your statue (which I had ordered to be brought into court for this purpose along with the images of the gods), and furthermore had reviled the name of Christ: none of which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do. Others, whose names were given to me by an informer, first admitted the charge and then denied it; they said that they had ceased to be Christians two or more years previously, and some of them even twenty years ago. They all did reverence to your statue and the images of the gods in the same way as the others, and reviled the name of Christ.681

To curse Christ serves the governor as a reliable sign of non-membership in or total withdrawal from the messianic congregation. The Martyrdom of Polycarp is also in accord with this picture. The curse apparently was considered irrevocable and as a clear public testimony of loyalty to the emperor through non-membership in the messianic congregation. Against the explanation of 12:3 through this contex675 Isa 46:7; Jer 10:5; Pss 115:5; 135:16 and more often. 676 See Deissmann 1927, 96 on curse terminology in the Greek language, Speyer 1969, 1174–1175. 677 Thiselton 2000, 918–924 enumerates this and other, twelve in all, different interpretations of cursing Jesus. 678 H.-W. Kuhn 1992, 194. 679 Earlier advocates of this thesis are mentioned by Thiselton 2000, 918. Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96.4b–6; text, translation and commentary are found in Wlosok 1970, 29–30. The derivation of the cursing of Jesus from gnostic-dualistic Christology (material in Thiselton 2000, 921–922) is more widespread. As long as the Roman Empire crucified people, such a Christology is associated with a curse also politically, for it cursed the crucified earthly Jesus. 680 As is said in Pliny’s report, Ep. 10.96.4b–6; but see also the Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 (see above the basic information on Denial of the Crucifixion at 1:18). 681 Pliny the Younger, Ep., trans. Betty Radice, Loeb (1969), 10.96.

12:4–11

243

tualization, the objection has, for example, been raised that such persecutions were not yet to be considered in this period shortly after the middle of the first century.682 As a rule, the persecution of Christians by Rome is first assumed toward the end of the first century. But this fundamental assumption must be revised. The »Christians« were not persecuted as a distinct group but as a messianic group within Judaism.683 Rome was already persecuting Jewish messianism since the beginning of the first century. Moreover, the conflict within the congregation that can be seen in 1:17–2:5 shows that through political pressure the meaning of the crucifixion is controversial.684 It is easy to imagine that people then also took the next step and distanced themselves from messianism completely. Paul’s statement also had the task of providing encouragement: Don’t be afraid that you’ll fail. The Spirit will help you to withstand the pressure. Thereby the context for the confession of Jesus the Messiah presumed here is also clear. Whoever made this confession publicly needed to maintain courage and to bear the consequences (cf. Mark 13:11; Matt 24:19–20; Luke 21:14–15; Luke 12:11–12; cf. John 14:26). All the gospels tell about this situation and about the significance of the Spirit within this situation. In 1 Cor 16:22 Paul himself curses those who »do not love the Liberator/kyrios.« Even the messianic group had to establish boundaries, not for admission to the common meal, but probably much more fundamental over against those who in word and deed had distanced themselves from the Liberator Jesus. From both sides, these curses did not pursue the goal of inflicting damages but of expressing irreversible separation.685 The juxtaposition of 1 Cor 12:3 and 16:22 shows that such an irreversible exclusion from a fellowship could be carried out by both sides and denoted by the same concept, anathema.

12:4–11 4 There are diverse gifts. They come from the same Spirit. 5 The are diverse tasks. They come from one and the same Eternal One. 6 There are diverse abilities. It is the same God who works all in all. 7 The Spirit manifests herself to individuals for the benefit of all. 8 To the one is given through the Spirit the ability to speak in wisdom, to another through the same Spirit, the handing on of revelations. 9 To the next person trust is given—by the same Spirit—, to another again the ability to heal— through the one Spirit. 10 Another receives the ability to perform miracles, the next 682 683 684 685

Lindemann 2000, 265. See the basic information above at 1:25 and L. Schottroff 2015. See the basic information »Denial of the Crucifixion« above at 1:17. This curse probably cannot be derived from the Old Testament curse formulas (W. Schottroff 1969, 27, with n. 4). The word anathema in the LXX usually reproduces cherem. On this word and possible postbiblical Jewish contexts, see Hunzinger 1993, 161–167. Lucian, Alexander, trans. A. M. Harmon, Loeb (1969), 38, 224–225 uses a different terminology for exclusion from mystery ceremonies in Athens.

244

Commentary

person the ability to prophesy, or another the ability to interpret revelations of the Spirit. Others obtain the ability to speak to God in their native language, and still others are able to translate what is said. 11 One and the same Spirit works all of this. She distributes to the individuals as she chooses. 12:4–7 In 12:4–7 (and 12:11) Paul says in general terms what the issues are for him; he gives examples in 12:8–10. Everyone in the congregation receives a gift granted by God. He calls these gifts charismata (12:4)/gifts, energēmata (12:6)/energies, diakoniai (12:5)/services. These words name three aspects of God’s gifts: God gives them, they give a share of the power of God, they are actualized in work for the body of Christ. These gifts come from the One God, but they are diverse. Every individual receives them in order to benefit the body of Christ. They are forms of revelation of the one divine Spirit (12:7), a manifestation of the presence of God in people (see already above on 2:6–16). 12:8–10 In discussing the following examples of gifts, it is important for Paul that all individuals have a gift. The gifts are diverse, but they are not exclusively tied to one person. For the gifts named here are also gifts for many or all members of the body of Christ (2:6; 1:5; 14:23, 31). It is more likely to assume that in fact emphases emerge. Thus, Paul can, for example, ask: Are all prophets? (12:29), although he presupposed in 14:31 that all had this gift. There is also a question about whether the gift of healing is possessed only by certain people, for Paul himself also appears to have performed healings (Rom 15:19; cf. Acts 28:8). The Synoptic Gospels assume that all those who are followers of Jesus heal the sick (Matt 10:8; Luke 9:1). Moreover, the gifts are not easily distinguishable from one another. The prayers of those with the gift of prophecy are not fundamentally different from the prayers of those who speak with God in their mother tongue (see on 14:1). With respect to Paul himself, it can be recognized that at least potentially he makes use of all the gifts of the Spirit. He understands himself as a prophet in the context of prophecy in Israel, as his call narratives show (Gal 1:1, 13–17; see above on 1:1). He describes his work in a summary (Rom 15:18–19) that covers all the gifts from 1 Cor 12:9–10.686 For this reason he also sees himself not as an exception,

686 Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 164 sees the enumeration in 12:4–11 as a restraint against a »monopolization on the part of some charismatic,« for no one, not even Paul himself, can combine all gifts for him or herself. However, the text does not dissociate itself from a claim to such a magnitude of gifts and doesn’t allow us to see that there were such people. The text should not be understood as a criticism of authority claims in the congregation— not even of a priority claim for »speaking in tongues« (see below on 14:1), but as an expression of joy over the congregation’s riches.

12:4–11

245

but as part of the body of Christ. All have a share of the divine Spirit, each has a gift, even if not all can really do or make use of everything. On the individual gifts: 12:8 The utterance of wisdom (on this see above on 2:1–5:6): It is not the rhetoric that speakers learn at Roman schools and use in public. It is connected to a different content. It sees through the »wisdom of the world« (which serves violence and oppression) and lives from its relation to the God of Israel and from the justice God desires (as found in the Torah). The utterance on the basis of knowledge (gnōsis) is to be characterized with respect to its Spirit-impelled content, knowledge. It encompasses divine revelations, the ability to communicate them (logos/speech) and the ability to evaluate the knowledge in the society and its cults (see also on 1:5; 8:1). The three gifts in 12:9–10a—faith (pistis), the power to heal (iamata) and miracles (dynameis)—will describe the abilities to break through the apparently iron laws of death created by humans: to liberate the poor from sickness and hunger or to go into well-guarded prisons. It is to be doubted that Paul here wants pistis to be understood in a special sense as miraculous power.687 The one who trusts God knows that for God all things are possible, as Mark 10:27 puts it. The final group of four gifts (12:10b) encompass speech at the behest of God (prophecy), praying in one’s mother tongue (see on 14:1) and the meaningful task, in each case, to give a translation or an interpretation, diakrisis or hermeneia (not a validation; see above on 2:13).688 12:11 Paul emphatically repeats: It is always a divine Spirit that brings about the gifts, and each individual has such abilities and possibilities of efficacy for the community. The congregation does not issue assignments; God’s Spirit gives abilities »as she chooses.« The abilities effected by the Spirit arise through God’s creative activity. They happen as God wills (cf. 15:38). In 12:4–11 Paul draws a picture of riches (see 1:5) in the congregation. God has called into being a polyphonic, multicolored community. It is necessary to be clear about the conditions under which these people live (see above on 1:26). A Spiritfilled community out of poorly educated, hardworking people in a harsh harbor city of the Roman Empire is a creation out of nothing (1:28), an exaltation of the humiliated, a community in which competencies increase because all are gifted with divine energy.

687 Arguments against the distinction between belief in miracles and belief in the kerygma, for 12:9 and 13:2, for example, are found in Yeung 2002, 47–50; Wischmeyer 1981, 72–73 has a somewhat different view. An argument for the distinction is made, for example, by Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 151: Here the issue is not« about fides iustificans …, even if one is going to guard against all too sharp a distinction.« 688 Dautzenberg 1975, 122–148 establishes convincingly that the issue here is the »interpretation of the revelations given by the Spirit.«

246

Commentary

12:12–27 12 For as the body is a unity and yet has many members, so all the members of the body, which are many, make up the unity of the body—so it is with Christ also. 13 We all have been baptized through the one Spirit and have thus become one body: Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—we have all received the one Spirit to drink. 14 So also the body consists of many members, not of one. 15 If the foot says: »Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,« does it not, nevertheless, belong to the body? 16 And if the ear says, »Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,« does it not, nevertheless, belong to the body? 17 If the entire body were an eye, where, then, would be the hearing? If the entire body consists in hearing, where, then, would the sense of smell be? 18 Now God has joined together the many members of the body, each individual member as God chooses. 19 If, however, the whole body were a single member, where would the body be? 20 Now, however, there are many members, but only one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, »I don’t need you.« Also, the head cannot say to the feet, »I don’t need you.« 22 No! Precisely the members that appear to be unimportant are the ones that count. 23 We pay special attention to the members that we consider less valuable. With respect to the members that we surround with shame, we pay special attention to their worthiness. 24 Our members that we consider worthy do not need to be specially honored. God has joined the body together and given the part considered lowly all the greater honor, 25 so that the body is not divided by a border, but the members mutually care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the other members join in the suffering. If one member of the body is honored, all other members share in the joy. 27 You are Christ’s body and as an individual a member of that body. Verses 12:12–17 deal with the body of the Messiah. All members of the congregation, who all have their own gifts, are members of the body of Christ, the body of the Messiah.

Body of Christ: You are the body of the Messiah (12:27) For the concept of the body of Christ Paul uses three different (religio-)historical motif realms: 1. Paul’s statements about the body of Christ are introduced in two places as a comparison: kathaper … houtōs/(just) as … so (12:12; Rom 12:5). A community is compared with an organism. The parabolic account about the body and its members in 12:14–26 keeps within this framework. It moves on two levels: that of an image of a body and its members and, on a second level, that of the relationship to one another of the individual member and the congregation.

12:12–27

247

2. The parabolic account is interrupted in 12:18 by a statement about God’s creation of the body with individual members, each receiving an assignment. In 12:24b–26 comes a second interruption. Now the issue once again is God’s creative action on the body. God has created the body in such a way that compensation is made with respect to the honor the parts receive: Where honor is lacking, God provides additional honor, so that all members have mutual concern for each other. This brings mutual suffering and mutual joy in the community. The created body under discussion here is the human body, on which also can be seen the mutual care, suffering and joy of the Christ-community. That is to say, in 12:14–26 there is not a parabolic account in which one side is merely meant to serve as an image for the other; rather two bodies are spoken of at the same time, the created body all people possess and, at the same time, the body of the Messiah,689 also created by God. 3. A third kind of statement about the body of the Messiah is present where the body of Christ is equated with the congregation: The people are the body of Christ. It is a concept of a collective body, a collective person. The word body is in this case not an image and not a metaphor.690 Rather, God has created individual people and also collective people. I consider this motif-realm to be the central idea, for which Paul uses the other two for elaboration. The formulations that express this concept are the following: 10:16 koinōnia tou sōmatos tou Christou/sharing in the body of Christ; 10:17 heis artos, hen sōma hoi polloi esmen/one bread, one body are we, the many; 12:12 houtōs kai ho Christos/so it is with the Messiah; 12:13 hēmeis pantes eis hen sōma ebaptisthēmen/we were all baptized/immersed into one body; 12:27 hēmeis de este sōma Christou/you are the body of Christ; Rom 12:5 hoi polloi hen sōma esmen en Christō/we, who are many, are one body in Christ.

The word sōma/body in these formulations derives its frame of reference not from what constitutes a human body, an organism, but from the concept of a collective person, who stands before God as the people of God. The word Messiah is not connected exclusively to a concrete person (see above on 10:4). The many called by God can toil and work as parts of the Messiah. Sōma here

689 It is of little help to use the word »metaphor« here. For the human body created by God and the body of Christ created by God are not to be distinguished as one supplying an image (the human body) and one using an image (body of Christ). Both are God’s creation. A different view is taken, for example by Walter 2001, 131: Paul is speaking »metaphorically about the body of the congregation.« 690 The statement speaks on only one level, that of the body of the Messiah. Paul does not transfer from one reality (the human body) to another context (the body of Christ); another view is held, for example, by Walter 2001, 131–140. Thiselton 2000, 991–993 and Walter 2001, 8–37 offer overviews of the interpretive history of the body of Christ in the 20th century. See also Kim 2008, 56–79.

248

Commentary

means the community in its relationship to God.691 The body comes to life in the common messianic activity of a community standing in God’s sight. In this way the Messiah Jesus, executed by Rome, has been raised by God; in this Jesus, God called people to common action in their current situation. In this context it is not easy to distinguish: Are we speaking about a concrete figure or about the whole people. The people of God will only be complete when all the scattered are brought together. The concept of the »body of the Messiah« is an eschatological concept, a concept about the relationship to God and about acting for the future of the people and of the nation with the justice the Torah teaches. Jesus is the Messiah, and the body of the Messiah is the congregation. Both belong together. The Old Testament-Jewish tradition about the people in relation to God cannot be subsumed under the tradition, wide-spread in antiquity, of the political use of the body and members metaphor. Therefore, the discussion, which also interprets the statements named here, like 12:27, based on the metaphor of the body, remains unsatisfying in terms of its content. The issue is not that members of the body learn to behave in conformity to the organism as a whole—in a hierarchical system to boot. The body metaphor (motif 1) has a long history of legitimizing hierarchies in a community.692 Paul uses it in 12:15–17, 19–24a, precisely not, to be sure, in order to establish a hierarchy (see below on 12:19–24a). For the pre-history of the body of Christ concept as a collective person (motif 3), I point to traditions like that of Adam,693 who is all humanity. In play also is the tradition about (the Son of) Humanity694 according to Dan 7:9–28, which encompasses the messianically-active new humanity, the people of the Holy One (7:27). Also in play is the tradition about the »servant of God,«695 whose resistance and suffering brings about the people’s liberation (Isa 53:12). In this tradition also, the concept of an individual figure transitions into that of the people. The servant of God or the »person in [God’s] service«696 is perhaps a specific person, but at the same time the people of God. Kessler 2009, 150–151 speaks about a perspectival identification (on this already see the basic information

691 F. Crüsemann 2011, 203 says about the concept of the people of God in the Old Testament: »Even, and precisely when, other nations also become ›God’s people,‹ the special, the unique relation« of Israel to God »remains.« So the point is not to carry on the antiJudaistic pattern (Israel is God’s ancient people; into its place steps the church as the new people of God). Yet the ecclesiastical concepts of the messianic congregations in the discipleship of Jesus belong in this biblical tradition. The people from the nations are »adopted« by the God of Israel (see already above the basic information at 1:25). The messianic community uses about itself concepts like ekklēsia/assembly (see above on 1:2) and even sōma Christou/body of Christ, which they interpret as fellowship in relationship to the God of Israel. 692 Walter 2001, 70–98 has a collection of the material. 693 A collection of material on this conceptual complex is found in Eduard Schweizer, art. sōma etc., in TDNT 1971, vol. 7, 1072–1073. 694 Albertz 1992, 662–663; Jochum-Bortfeld 2009, 159–172. 695 Kessler 2009, 141–158. 696 Kessler 2009, 156.

12:12–27

249

above at 11:23c–24) and about »a both-and that depends on an identification« (150, n. 18). My interpretation of »Body of Christ« as collective humanity is connected to earlier interpretations, that of Eduard Schweizer, for example.697 In the current discussion, this part of the sōma Christou statements in Paul, which speaks of collective messianic humanity, is frequently interpreted on the basis of the political metaphoric language in 12:15–17, 19–24a. Thereby a metaphorical interpretation of sōma/body is pursued even in 12:12, 27 etc. The community is like an organism; all must be one in order to be subject to the whole. In this way, on the one hand, the continuity to the Old Testament and to post-biblical Judaism comes up too short and, on the other hand, what gets short shrift is the relationship of the messianic body as such to God and to the liberation of the people and the nations. 12:12a.b The image side of the metaphor doubly illumines the ideas: A (human) body has many members and yet is a unit. In 10:17 the same thought is found, without the possibility of it being misunderstood as an image or a metaphor: We who are many are one body (cf. Rom 12:4–5). The substantial half of the metaphor (12c) is not carried through. Paul abbreviates: »So also the Messiah.« With the aid of 10:17 the incomplete thought can be elaborated: »We who are many are one body (of the Messiah).698 Since Paul does not say: So also the body of Christ, he steers away from the body-members comparison and identifies Christ with the body. The language about Christ as body calls to mind the language about the servant of God699 or the (Son of the) Human One in Daniel 7. The border between a figure, here the Messiah Jesus, and the people of those called by God is fluid. 12:13 Here the body of Christ is pictured as a space into which the Spirit immersed those who were called, the »We.« Baptism can be what he has in mind, but not necessarily (cf. 10:2). It is not for Paul here in 1 Corinthians not in the center of his argument. In Gal 3:27–28 there is a parallel to 12:13. It can be asked why in 12:13 he does not mention the community of »male and female.« For, with respect to content, this is the theme of 1 Corinthians 7. What is clear through the parallels is that to be in the body of Christ means to be »in Christ« (Gal 3:28). The Messiah is likewise a space. The reminiscences of Paul’s language to that of a mystic are clear.700 (on »Jews and Greeks,« see above on 1:22–24 and the basic information at

697 E. Schweizer, art. sōma, etc. in: TDNT 1971, vol. 7, 1072–1073. Walter 2001, 17–22 gives additional variants of this interpretation, although he himself, of course, supports a metaphorical interpretation in the sense of a political body-member-comparison, above all in the sense of Hellenistic-Roman literature. 698 On the incompleteness of 12:12c, see also Walter 2001, 131. He completes the expression in the sense of a body-member-comparison, since he advocates a metaphorical interpretation: »So Christ also has many members.« 699 See the basic information on 12:12–27. 700 Still providing additional material on this theme is Deissmann 1957. 240. Meier 1998, especially 273–300, gives a more recent presentation.

250

Commentary

1:25; »on slaves and free,« see above the basic information at 7:20). Through their origin and culture Jewish men and women are different from people from the nations. But this difference does not contain claims to dominance. From Rome’s perspective they are all ethnē/nations to be subjugated or already subject (see above on 1:22–24). The difference between slaves and freeborn in the congregation, which predominately consists of people who work with their hands and their bodies, may not be so deep as that between slaves and their masters, whose control in the system of Hellenistic-Roman slavery was extremely unlimited and violent. Nevertheless, in the congregation there were presumably many enslaved women701 and men who still lived under the conditions set by their masters. How Paul envisions justice between the enslaved and the freeborn in the messianic community, he states in 7:22. It makes little sense to idealize the congregation here, but it is worthwhile to reconstruct the little common steps that all in the community took toward a realization of their dignity as God’s creation. All have a gift through the Spirit that makes them self-aware and able to act (12:4–11). The phrase »to drink of the Spirit« can be referring to the community meal in the sense of 11:25, but that is unclear. It remains open whether Paul refers in 12:13 to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But it is clear that he is looking for images for the power that envelopes and satisfies the entire body: to immerse and to drink. 12:14 once again takes up the comparison of 12:12a, b and introduces the metaphoric account that follows. 12:15–17 The different work of the members of the body constitutes the body. Paul lets two members of the body ask about these differences in an absurd question and then he answers it in 12:17 with the absurd result: If all members perform the same task, the other tasks that the body needs don’t get done. Does a conflict in the Corinthian congregation over the gifts lie behind the absurd questions in the metaphor? The metaphor in 12:14–24 (26) is often interpreted in this way: »Speaking in tongues« was considered the best charism, which is superior to the other charisms.702 But Paul says nothing anywhere about a higher

701 Lampe 1989, 153 concludes from Romans 16 about congregations in Rome: »of the 13 people about whom a statement is possible, … over two thirds [have], with all probability, a non-free origin.« It can rightly be asked if this result is representative. In all, the list of greetings in Romans 16 contains 26 names of members of the congregations, eight of whom are women who are depicted as being relatively more active for the congregation (Lampe 1989, 136–137). More than suppositions are not possible. But this evidence permits the assumption that there are also a number of enslaved women in the Corinthian congregation. 702 Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 227 sees the »weaker« as people »in the congregation who were considered less gifted or attractive, perhaps even disqualified, as people of the flesh or unspiritual.« They were necessary for the congregation so that »the enthusiasts’ flight of fancy« could be brought back down to earth. Lietzmann 1949 relates the text, on the one hand, to pneumatics, »who refused to be subject to the interests of the congregation« and, on the other hand, to others, who feared that they did not belong to the congregation »because they could not speak in tongues.« Wolff 1990, 109 interprets the difference

12:12–27

251

Corinthian evaluation of those who pray in »languages« (see on 14:1). He only says that in the congregational assembly it is important that there is general understanding and that, therefore, these languages should not occupy too much room. Presumably, the conflict that the metaphor illumines is a social conflict that has consequences for the congregation (see on 12:21–24a). 12:18 The body, as it is imagined in the metaphor, is the human body created by God. Every member of the body has been created by God—and as 12:24b–26 then shows—as part of a wonderful righteous community. 12:19–20 repeat the thoughts of the preceding: one body, many members of the body. With 12:21–24a Paul brings the metaphorical image to a head with an arrogant claim of superiority and a conflict (schism, 12:25). The eye says, »I don’t need the hands« while the head says, »I don’t need the feet.« In this part of the metaphorical account Paul uses concepts of inferiority: asthenestera/weaker; atimotera/less honored; aschēmona/immodest. With the final item in the picture, the genitals are presumably meant, while they, as a rule, even by the hardest bodily labor, were covered with some kind of loincloth703 or tunic, something that 12:23 likely expresses in the image. To which actual or potential conflicts is Paul referring here? The concepts are very close to those in 1:27–28. There also the issue is the »weak,« the »lowly,« the »despised.« The people who worked with their hands, the prostitutes, the poor—they were not viewed with compassion by the elite but despised. This distain plays a large role in society.704.Indirectly this social divide could also play a role for the charismata, above all when someone did housework or provided care (diakonia). But in 12:5 Paul calls all the gifts diakoniai/services. Nevertheless, it is not hard to assume that the distain in society for manual labor and for misery still played a role also in the congregation on the part of the well-to-do over against the poorer members, as indeed 11:22 clearly expresses: The have-nots are humiliated by those who have. The exaltation of the humbled, a fundamental theme of the Pauline, the New Testament and the biblical design of life before God (see on 1:26–31) is the visual

as: presumptuous pneumatics versus those who considered themselves to be pneumatically incomplete. With similar views are Klauck 1987, 90 and Walter 2001, 139. D. Martin 1995, 95–96 sees that the concepts in 12:22–23 correspond to the social opposition between elites and people of low social status. He also sees that Paul »pushes for an actual reversal of the normal, ›this worldly‹ attribution of honor and status« (96). But he then relates the (allegedly) higher status in the congregation »to speakers in tongues.« Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 607 relate the image to social antagonisms that have no place in the congregation. Paul wanted »equal honor« in the congregation for all, so that there is no split in the congregation. 703 Apuleius, Metam. 9.12.3–4 tells of slaves who work in a mill under miserable conditions: »As to the human contingent—what a crew!—their whole bodies picked out with livid weals, their whip-scarred backs shaded rather than covered by their tattered rags, some with only a scanty loincloth by way of covering …« Trans. E. J. Kenney, London 2004. 704 See above on 1:28.

252

Commentary

field in which Paul locates the image of the body and its members. In the congregation’s life together, bringing the humiliation to an end sets the agenda for giving that life shape and accountability. The first part of the parabolic account, 12:21–24a, makes sense in this context: Those without possessions see themselves treated as a less valuable part of the congregation. In the image Paul does not give here one side in a conflict but uses the image to pose absurd questions: So don’t we inferior parts belong to the body?705 He also responds in a question: They really do indeed belong, right? The second part of the parabolic account, 12:21–24a, illumines the same conflict once again, this time from Paul’s perspective: The eye and the head arise arrogantly and say to the hand and feet: We do not need you. This argument appears to have actually played a role in the class conflicts present in Roman-Hellenistic society. In the text from Lucian’s Saturnalia cited above at 11:20–21 Saturn/Kronos writes to the rich: »you could not even live in your cities if the poor were not your fellow citizens and did not contribute in thousands of ways to your happiness.« Previously the fictional author, as a poor man, had lamented that the rich »do not consider people of our sort even worthy of their glance.« They prefer to celebrate their festivals among themselves.706 In the parabolic account Paul reveals that he knows the political imagery that with the body-members imagery is widespread, particularly in the Hellenistic-Roman culture. Here we encounter again and again language directed at homonoia (Greek) or concordia (Latin)/concord, which seeks to legitimize and strengthen the state/the society with respect to its hierarchy. The concept that the community is a body is wonderfully well suited for this.707 The famous speech of Menesius Agrippa, frequently adduced as a parallel to 1 Corinthians 12, stands in this tradition. It is actually well-suited to capture more clearly what Paul wishes to effect with this parabolic account in 12:15–17, 19–24a. His concern is that the haves acknowledge the have-nots as of equal value, giving them »greater honor« (12:23). The decisive question is what Paul understands by this greater honor. Are they some acts of recognition that, however, remain without consequence for the antagonism between the classes or are they actual changes through a renunciation of privileges on the part of the haves and a gain of power and possibilities for life for the havenots in the congregation? The speech of Menenius Agrippa is said, as Livy writes (2.32.7–33.1),708 to have been delivered in the year 494 BCE as the plebeians and patricians in Rome feared

705 Neither in 1:26–31 or in 11:17–34, where class distinctions and their significance for the congregation are treated, is it indicated anywhere that those without possessions, who see themselves as despised, therefore draw the consequence that they don’t want to belong. They indeed do not put up with this contempt, as Paul’s solidarity with them in 11:17–34 indirectly shows. 706 The first Lucian, Saturnalia quote: trans. K. Kilburn, Loeb (1449), 133. 707 On parallels in Jewish traditions, see Byers 2013. 708 Renderings of this speech are also found in other sources. A collection of the material is found, for example, in Walter 2001, 81–83

12:12–27

253

and mistrusted one another and in this way endangered the existing hierarchical social fabric, and the maintenance of social order was endangered. [32.7] Assuredly no hope was left save in harmony amongst the citizens (concordia civium), and this they [sc. the patricians] concluded they must restore to the state by fair means or foul. [32.8] They therefore decided to send as an ambassador to the commons Menenius Agrippa, an eloquent man and dear to the plebeians as being one of themselves by birth. On being admitted to the camp he is said merely to have related the following apologue, in the quaint and uncouth style of that age: [32.9] In the days when man’s members did not all agree amongst themselves, as is now the case, but had each its own ideas and a voice of its own, the other parts thought it unfair that they should have the worry and the trouble and the labour of providing everything for the belly, while the belly remained quietly in their midst with nothing to do but to enjoy the good things which they bestowed upon it; [32.10] they therefore conspired together that the hands should carry no food to the mouth, nor the mouth accept anything that was given it, nor the teeth grind up what they received. While they sought in this angry spirit to starve the belly into submission, the members themselves and the whole body were reduced to the utmost weakness (ipsa una membra totumque corpus ad extremam tabem venisse). [32.11] Hence it had become clear that even the belly had no idle task to perform (Inde apparuisse ventris quoque haud segne ministerium esse), and was no more nourished than it nourished the rest, by giving out to all parts of the body that by which we live and thrive, when it has been divided equally amongst the veins and is enriched with digested food-that is, the blood [32.12] Drawing a parallel from this to show how like was the internal dissension of the bodily members to the anger of the plebs against the Fathers, he prevailed upon the minds of his hearers. [33.1] Steps were then taken towards harmony (concordia), …709

The parable is meant to make it plausible to the plebeians that they need to work but the social elite do not, because the body politic as a whole is »one body.« The parable of the body and its members has a long political history, almost exclusively with a goal similar to the one here: to keep the people who are below in their subordinate place and to legitimize the status quo, along with its hierarchy. Paul uses it with precisely the opposite goal: to alter the social differences between the haves and the have-nots in the congregation, so that the have-nots gain more »honor,« but that means also more access to better possibilities for life in the material sense and also to the sharing of power.710 12:24b–26 Now Paul is speaking once again, as in 12:18, about the human body as God has created it: God has given a greater share of honor »to the part that needs« such honor. Does that mean that Paul is of the opinion that, in accord with God’s will, the genitals are granted more honor than they receive in society, which regards these parts of the body as immodest? Does he think the bearing and begetting of children are not the business of so-called immodest parts of the body? In the Jewish tradition not only the begetting, but also the bearing of daughters and sons are, in fact, a participation in creation (see also Paul himself in Rom

709 History of Rome, trans. B. O. Foster, Loeb (1952), 2.32.7–33.1. 710 Timē/honor always means both social respect and participation in power and material possibilities for life. See the spectrum of meanings in the LXX; cf. Johannes Schneider, art. timē, etc. in TDNT 1972, vol. 8, 171–172.

254

Commentary

8:22–23).711 Then Paul describes justice and reciprocity in the body but remains only superficially concerned about the image of the human body. Rather, he is using here language that names relationships in society: no divisions but instead mutual care, mutual suffering and rejoicing when a »member«712 experiences honor. The mutual concern also encompasses material existence (see especially Matt 6:25–34; 7:33–35). 12:27a See the basic information on 12:12–27.

12:28–31 28 God has given the members of the congregation diverse tasks. There are first male and female apostles, then male and female prophets, thirdly female and male teachers. Moreover, God give the ability to perform miracles, to heal, to give aid, to lead and to speak with God in one’s own language. 29 Can all fulfil apostolic or prophetic tasks or all teach or all perform miracles? 30 Have all been given the ability to heal or to speak with God in their own native language or to translate? 31 Develop these wonderful gifts. And then I am going to show you a still more wonderful way. In 12:27b Paul first speaks by using imagery (»considering the members individually«), then, with 12:28, 29 and 30, apart from an image, he speaks about the diverse gifts in which all have a share. He enumerates three gifts and then continues the list without numbering. In the history of interpretation, the numbers are frequently understood to be establishing priorities, so that apostleship, prophecy and teaching depict the three most important activities in the congregation. But that is never the case elsewhere for Paul. Apostolate means being called and commissioned by God, prophecy means speaking as God directs, teaching is interpreting the Torah for the present (see above on 1:1; 9:1; 4:15–21; basic information at 9:4–6). Paul is not envisioning here some kind of institutionalized offices but work as God directs. This work is designated in various ways, but the individual tasks are not differentiated from one another. Thus, Paul understands himself as God’s ambassador/apostle, because he was called as the prophets were. His work also encompasses the interpretation and teaching of the Torah, which, among others, this letter attests, along with its contents, which again and again include Scripture interpretation. On the additional gifts that are listed, see above on 12:4–11. The gift of rendering forms of assistance (antilēmpseis) and that of undertaking forms of leadership (kybernēseis) are, compared with 12:4–11, new here. Nowhere do these lists give the impression of wanting to be exhaustive.

711 Janssen 2010. 712 The word melos/member acquires a metaphorical significance, for the issues are envisioned from the perspective of the society and then also agree in the image of the human body.

13:1–13

255

12:31 The verb can be read as an imperative (»Strive for …!«) or as an indicative (»You are striving for …«). But what is, above all, decisive for interpretation is the question of what is envisioned by the »greater« gifts. The term emerges again in 13:13: Love/agapē is the greater gift. But it is the foundation for all other gifts, as 13:1–3 shows. Paul’s concern is not a hierarchy of gifts (on this see also what is said about 14:1). 12:31b leads over to praising the gift that is greater than all the others, without which the others are meaningless: love/agapē. In this transition Paul uses a marvelous expression: Now it is time to speak of a »wonderful way.« The concept kath’ hyperbolē/marvelous/wonderful already indicates that the discussion will concern the »depths of God« (2:10). Precisely when the concept »body of Christ« is understood not only as a metaphor, but as a designation of a collective person, »Messiah,« whom God raised and created, these traditions in Paul open perspectives for a church of the future. »For the question about church today and in the future, this concept of the body of the Messiah seems to offer possibilities that up to now have hardly been exhausted« (F. Crüsemann 2011, 207). The community of believers is a living being that is called to life by God and grows with its work for God’s justice. The goal of these communities is the healing of humanity and of the earth. Here is a look back at 12:12–27, raising the issue of how Paul handles images here: He jumps from the concept of a collective body into the language of a political organism/body metaphor, partially even in a parabolic narrative. This is interrupted by statements about two bodies created by God, that of the individual person and that of the Messiah, the collective person. Paul accords no value to formal and rhetorical language that is reflectively executed, and thereby he can always be understood. The way Paul expresses himself in this chapter is also a rich source for the practice of early Christian congregations. All people who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and kyrios are gifted by God with the divine Spirit (12:13, 3). In the women and men of the messianic congregations grew unimagined powers and capabilities. They were in the position to sing in public, to pray, to interpret Scripture, to contradict one another and to discuss things with one another. The dynamic power of the Spirit enabled them to heal the sick, to have no fear in court and to see God’s future before their very eyes. The gifts were multifaceted, wild, inexhaustible, driven on from the start by the fellowship and by the nearness of God. Paul deals in 12:12–27 with the question of how these diverse people could live together in just relationships as the body of Christ. Social hierarchies people brought with them have to be fundamentally overcome, so that out of the distain for the poorer members by the more affluent there comes into being a fellowship of those living in solidarity, suffering together and rejoicing together with the brothers and sisters.

13:1–13 In this chapter Paul speaks ardently about agapē/love. It is the wonderful way (12:31b). The word agapē occurs seven times. Paul is speaking here in an unusually

256

Commentary

personal way. In verses 1–3 and 11–13 he uses the first person singular. Here he is referring also to the congregation, but he wants to remain explicitly within the confines of the gifts given by God: Without love the gifts are without power (13:1–3). Their limitations come to an end »when the complete comes« and people see God »face to face« (13:10, 12). The key to the word love in Chapter 13 is 8:1–6 and, along with that, the Shema Israel (Deut 6:4; cf. Mark 12:29–30) or the Torah as a whole (Rom 13:8–10). »You shall love Adonai, your God, in this way: with heart and understanding, with every breath.«713 In the history of tradition, a criticism of »speaking in tongues« has been heard in this chapter, as already in Chapter 12, but this interpretive scheme, which goes back to the concept of »opponents of Paul,« does not do justice to the text. In 13:8–12 Paul speaks of seeing God. Knowing, seeing, hearing, loving cannot be separated from one another. The reciprocal relationship with God (see especially 13:12; cf. 8:3) is like an umbilical cord connecting us with true life. That is what Chapter 13 is about. Paul also lives from his own experiences with God. In 2 Cor 12:1–6 and 7–10 he tells about such experiences. He has not considered this good fortune to be a special distinction for a particularly gifted person. Rather, he has »democratized« the mystical experience (Soelle 2001),714 as 2:6–16, especially 2:3–10, 16, has shown. »We have the thoughts of the Eternal One« (2:16); »for the Spirit fathoms everything, even the depths of God« (2:10). Here he speaks with the congregational »we,« as also in 13:9, where he almost incidentally lets it be known that he regards the blessing of love in relation to God not as a special gift or as an exclusive experience. In today’s Christian conceptual world, the coming of what is complete (13:10), the observation of God’s secrets, is shifted to the time after death or regarded as an eschatological event at the end of days. However, in Paul it is the experience of God amid the reality of life (see also 2 Cor 12:7–10), in the midst of the pains and the suffering in the world inflicted by violence. An aspect of this suffering is the destructibility of the gifts (13:8–9) that God gives. This destruction is not a consequence of human mortality but of the structures of violence in which people live. Especially for 13:8–13, the concept of eschatology and of the causes of destruction with which the text is traditionally read is problematic. The coming of what is complete is God’s longed-for future. And this future, in which God will be all in all (15:28), is, in God’s view of things, already experienced now (for an understanding of eschatology, see the basic information at 1:6). 1 Cor 13 contains poetic linguistic elements, something Paul often uses. They cannot be classified within the framework of a poetic genre (hymn, for example). Nor can 1 Corinthians 13 be separated from its context (as a pre-Pauline piece, for example), as was often supposed. 13:1–13 contains ongoing connections with the contents of the letter’s other chapters, especially with 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. The

713 On the significance of the Shema for Paul, see Nanos 2017a, 108–126. 714 Soelle 2001, 9 has entitled the first chapter of her book The Silent Cry: Mysticism and Resistance »WE ARE ALL MYSTICS.«

13:1–3

257

theme of the chapter is the gifts that God gives and the mutual love between God and those who have received God’s gifts. It is appropriate to value the poetry of this text and to call it a love poem or a love song, although the text does not conform to a particular genre.

13:1–3 1 If I speak like a human or like an angel and am without love, I am like a clanking brass and a shrill cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of interpreting the signs of the times, and know everything that is hidden and have all knowledge and all confidence that I can move mountains, and am without love, I am nothing. 3 And if I use up all my abilities and possessions for others and risk my life even under the danger of being burned and am without love, none of this means anything. 13:1 The »tongues of angels« can relate to the speaking with God (14:2) or to the singing of the angels.715 It is also possible that Paul is referring to the (no longer accessible) insurmountable language and language facility of various charisms such as prophecy and the utterance of wisdom. Here people exceed their own capabilities and yet emit only empty and inappropriate noise if they fail to speak and act out of love. For such empty noise Paul gives as examples metallic sounds and the unpleasant clanging of cymbals. It is no longer possible to say whether he has in mind specific public and intrusive noisy situations.716 Agapē/love717 is mutual love between individuals and God, but also between the community and God. The whole of life, the whole body and all its physical and spiritual capacities can be involved in love for God according to the Shema Israel (Deut 6:4–5; see also on 8:2–3). Paul can also call love in this sense the sum of the law (Rom 13:10). All the commands of the Torah coalesce in it.718 That without love even the gifts of God can be misused is also said in 8:1–3. Love is not the highest

715 On this see the excerpt from the Testament of Job 47.7–48.3 above on 2:6–16. There is extensive rabbinic material on the singing of angels in Grözinger 1982, 76–107. It is possible that lalein refers to singing (see on 2:6). 716 It is often supposed that Paul here had in mind the bronze vessels that were used to magnify sound at many public events (see Murphy-O’Connor 2002,75, which also gives there the relevant source: Vitruvius, Arch. 55.1, 7–8). Additional material on the history of the research is available, for example in Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 285. On the noise level in Rome itself at night, see Weeber 2011, 10.11; on noisy musical instruments, see also Juvenal’s 6th Satire, 440–450. 717 On the biblical pre-history of the word in the LXX, see a summary in Wischmeyer 1981, 24–26. A more thorough summary of the history of the research is found in Thiselton 2000, 1033–1035. 718 Wengst 2008, 402: »The individual (command) is not rendered superfluous by the summation.«

258

Commentary

level of the charisms but the foundation for all the diverse gifts. It is God’s own acts of love that have called this love into existence according to the biblical tradition. God has led the people out of slavery. It is this God who raised this Messiah executed by Rome and given him the body of Christ. 13:2 In 13:2 four charisms could be enumerated (prophecy, understanding of all mysteries, knowledge and confidence) or it could be that with the second and third members of the list that prophecy is elucidated for this context.719 Now, in any case, the charisms cannot be clearly differentiated from one another (see what has already been said above on 12:8–10). Moreover, with respect to these two terms in the list, Paul’s concern is to emphasize special gifts of seeing God (see 13:8–12), whether or not they are here understood as aspects of prophecy. Paul is, in the first place, speaking about himself here. Even if I meet God, hear God’s voice (2 Cor 12:4), this is all much ado about nothing if love is absent. For Paul everything depends on how everyday life is lived, on whether just relationships shape that life. The confidence that enables one to move mountains (see on 12:9; cf. also Matt 17:20 and often)720 can become empty posturing without the love that comes from God, to which a person responds, which finds its expression in daily life. 13:3 Paul continues to speak of »I.« I could use all my possessions to feed people, and I could go all in with my body, submitting myself to immolation. Without love all of that everything would be superfluous and without benefit. The benefit that love creates is what benefits the congregation, the community. In 8:1 and 14:3–4 and more frequently Paul speaks of »building up« (oikodomē) the body of Christ. In Chapter 9 it became clear how fully his entire existence, even the money he needs to survive, was affected by what he laid on the line. On the connection between »I« and »we,« see also above on 13:1–13. The manuscript tradition enables two readings to appear plausible in this verse: to »hand over my body to be burned« or to »hand over my body so that I may boast.« The two Greek verbs look very similar. With respect to what is being said, the difference is that the objective of boasting already makes the act itself questionable.721 The text’s intention is that the gifts are employed with the best insight and intention by those who want to use them, though this indeed can amount to nothing. Therefore, the decision in favor of kaiein/to burn is well grounded with respect to content and text-historically possible. The other version (kauchasthai/to boast) has good textual attestation but is less convincing with respect to content. Both versions were already known in the second century. The martyrdom by fire

719 The latter theory is found in Dautzenberg 1975, 149–159; Wischmeyer 1981, 50 disagrees. 720 Yeung 2002, 21–50 has extensive information on this. 721 One can consider whether Paul wants his own boasting to be understood positively here in the sense of 1 Cor 9; 15, 2 Cor 12:9; 1 Cor 1:29. It would be a glory before God because of the power God had given him. That is how Wischmeyer 1981, 88, for example, takes it. But the formulation of 13:3, through the purpose clause, points in a direction of understanding the words negatively: sacrificing yourself to gain glory.

13:4–7

259

of the three men in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3 LXX)722 is the model toward which Paul, like many other Jewish men, is orienting himself. In reality, his life and that of many other people in the messianic communities were ever subject to the threat of being ground in the mills of Roman politics, and in extreme cases, even of being executed. God’s congregation builds its readiness to endure such a threat only when, in its work for the community, it is anchored in love.

13:4–7 4 Love goes on and on, and you can count on it. Love is not jealous, and it does not put on airs. It has no desire to control others. 5 It does not disrespect others. It is not egoistic, it is not hot-tempered, it is not resentful. 6 It does not rejoice when injustice occurs. Rather, it rejoices with others in the truth. 7 It can be silent, has profound confidence, it hopes with persistence and resilience. The syntactical form and the content, the praise of love, have prompted the search for parallels to this text even in Hellenistic literature. The Praise of Eros/love by Maximus of Tyre (20.2; 2nd century CE) is especially suited to finding parallels of this sort, both with respect to form and, to a limited degree, also to content.723 But through the comparison the difference becomes clearer: Paul praises love not as a virtue but as the basis for gifts that enable people to work for life. He does not want to praise a timeless virtue or the heroic deeds of individuals but to describe what the significance is of this mutual connection of the gifted to one another and to God. He is thinking of specific situations in their social context. The Jewish theology of martyrdom offers more convincing parallels.724 A problem for the translation and the interpretation of this text is offered by the history of its misuse. The text has been interpreted as a reference to the virtues of Christian women and men that promote passive endurance and a loving submission of oneself to the will of others.725 This criticism of 1 Corinthians 13 sharpens the inquiry: Is it actually about love as an unconditional readiness to suffer and a passive endurance of injustice. In this text are Paul and Christ indirectly shown as models for willingness to suffer and an acceptance of violence? A second problem is the generalization of the statements about love as properties of love or as Christian virtues. The idealization of love in interpretations of this kind disregards human reality. Even those who know themselves to be borne along by God’s love in times of happiness given by God often founder on love,

722 On this see also the basic information above at 11:23c–24. 723 There is a collection of the sources, together with translations in Conzelmann 1975, 219–220. On the issue, see also Schrage 1999, vol., 278. 724 On this see Wischmeyer 1981, 109–114. 725 Feminist criticism taking this view is offered, for example, by Wire 1990, 36, 139; 1994, 183.

260

Commentary

experience the pain that love can bring. Such mature statements about an ideal love can in any case be statements of longing. This love is longed for; where it is missed, it is hoped for, despite a life enmeshed in the structures of violence. A third problem, better, a third task, is to clarify the social context. In the history of interpretation, a way of thinking about the congregation at Corinth is envisioned for many statements in 13:4–7, one occasioned, for example, through the keyword physioō/be puffed up, arrogant, that because of 5:2; 4:18–19; 8:1 is explained as a »trademark of the Corinthians.«726 It is correct that 1 Corinthians 13 is firmly anchored in the context of the letter (see above on 13:1–13), but this way of localizing the letter does not yet comprehend the social context in which these statements about love stand. Especially striking is the high proportion of verbs used with the negative (eight of fifteen). They show that love is being spoken about in the context of experiences of lovelessness. These sentences, like the socalled vice lists, paint a picture of society from the context of concrete experiences in Roman cities, in which everyone involved is living. I draw upon Seneca’s bitter sentences (Ep. 7.2–6; see above on 4:9) about his own behavior in the face of public murder in the circuses: He permitted himself to be drawn into the egoistic craving and the rejoicing in wrongdoing, as Paul expresses it is 13:5–6. The indecent behavior stands in the context of the commonplace porneia/irresponsible use of sexuality (see the basic information on 7:1 above) not to be overlooked in the cities. On boasting (see above on 2:1–5), there are sufficient examples among the speakers in the marketplaces (13:4).That Paul is also making this reproach against people in the Corinthian congregation is shown by the fact that from his perspective some people who should know better participate in the boasting. In this regard, it is to be asked whether sometimes he is going too far with this criticism (see especially on 5:2). The sentences about love, with their negated verbs, depict an antithesis to society. A final question is to be asked in advance about 13:4–7. Who is the subject of the love? 13:7 contains four verbs with panta (an accusative of relationship)/in every respect; totally.727 This pas/everything is used when the subject is God’s comprehensive love, which does not stand in contraction to God’s wrath over injustice—just the opposite is the case. »All things work together for good for those who love God« (Rom 8:28, BigS); »God has given us all things …« (Rom 8:32); »But in all of these situations we gain life, for God loves us« (Rom 8:37, BigS); »Everything belongs to you …« (1 Cor 3:22).

726 Zeller 2010, 412. 727 If panta should be understood as an accusative object, there emerges with respect to God an implausible contradiction to the Old Testament; see, for example, Exod 34:7 (God also sets boundaries). As far as people are concerned, the clause in 13:7 »to endure everything« then includes a concept of the passive endurance of injustice.

13:4–7

261

It is the mystical exorbitance of security in God’s love that is even more powerfully experienced the more people come out of the structural bleakness of their society. They come into God as into a warm room that they must never leave. The sentences about love are conceived from God’s perspective. It is God’s doing; the beloved stand in astonishment and beside themselves over the boundlessness of the love. The model for the all-things sentences is neither God’s omnipotence nor an allforgiving love by humans, which still covers over every injustice, but a mystical experience of God. God’s love does not consist of eternal divine properties but of the act of love together with the people on earth. From this, mutuality grows between God and the beloved and love between those loved by God.728 1 Cor 13:8 continues the series in 13:4–7 and concludes it: »Love never ends.« Rom 8:39 speaks in a similar way: Nothing »can separate us from the love of God …« Therefore, I read 13:4–7 (8a) as sentences about God’s love, which takes shape in humans. »In the beginning is the relationship«; »Relationship is mutuality« (Buber).729 God’s love is lived by the people who are loved. So, the sentences in 13:4–7 become sentences about happiness, in which love’s mutuality finds success, and sentences about longing, whose language is understood in the depths of the heart. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 13 has such a wonderful history as a love song at the departure of beloved people or at the celebration of longing for the loving human community even beyond death. 13:4 God’s patience and kindness are fundamental Old Testament concepts; see, for example, Exod 34:6–7.730 The love of God stands in opposition to the social coldness that characterizes everyday life in Roman cities. God’s love shows what things are like even apart from this self-destruction, so there follow three negative statements: love is not jealous or competitive. It knows no envy (ou zēloi); it is not boastful (ou perpeteuetai); it is not arrogant and domineering (ou physioutai). Besides, on the fact that competitive thinking is also playing a role in the congregation and is a consequence of social structures, see above on 1:10–16. On boastfulness, see 2:1–5. 13:5 Four additional negated verbs make reference to social structures: to porneia/irresponsible sexuality (see on 7:1)—(aschēmonei); financial greed (ou zētei ta heautēs); stirring people up (ou paroxynetai); setting your mind on evil deeds (ou logidzetai to kakon). Especially the so-called vice list in Rom 1:28–32 has an analogous description of the structural evil in society. 13:6 On 13:6a, see Rom 1:18. Together with others, to rejoice in the truth: on God’s emeth (Hebrew)/truth and tsedakah (Hebrew)/justice, see Isa 11:5; Psalm 36:6–7: »Eternal One, Your kindness reaches above the heavens, and your reliability (LXX alētheia/Hebrew emunah) to the clouds. Your justice is like the mountain of divinity, your law a deep sea« (Trans. BigS).731

728 729 730 731

See, for example, Deut 7:6–9; Isaiah 43, especially 43:4. Buber 1992, 22, 19. Additional material is available, for example, in Wischmeyer 1981, 92–93. On emeth/truth, fidelity and alētheia in the same sense, see G. Quell/R. Bultmann, art. alētheia, etc. in TDNT 1964, vol. 1, 232–251.

262

Commentary

13:7 In these four panta statements (on this, see on 13:4–7), the triad in 13:13 sounds: faith and hope (and love, which is what is treated here). Resistive patience (hypomonē)732 and endurance (panta stēgei) are God’s sources of power in humans, who need to endure martyrdom. Even people like the adherents of the Messiah in Corinth need the patient power to resist, so as not to give up in the face of injustice in their everyday life.

13:8–13 8 Love never gives up. Prophetic gifts can be destroyed, languages can be wiped out, knowledge can be thwarted. 9 We know only in part, and our ability to interpret the signs of the times is limited. 10 But when what is complete comes, what is disunited will cease. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I judged as a child and I thought as a child. When I grew up, what was childish was destroyed. 12 We see for now a puzzling image in a mirror, but then we shall see face to face. Today I know in part, but then I shall know as I have been known by God. 13 But now we live with confidence, hope and love, these three gifts. The greatest power of these three is love. 2 Cor 12:1–10, 1 Cor 2:6–16 and Rom 8:38–39 are helpful for understanding 1 Cor 13:8–13. In 13:8–13 the topics are the coming of God, the experience of God »from face to face« (13:12), and seeing God (13:12). In 2 Cor 12:1–10 Paul tells about his own experience of God. He heard »inexpressible words, which a person cannot utter« (2 Cor 12:4, BigS). In 1 Cor 2:9 Paul says the experience of being gifted with the divine Spirit means to see what no eye has seen and to hear what no ear has heard. In 13:8–13 he speaks about the coming of the complete (13:10) and about seeing no longer in an enigmatic image in a mirror, but from face to face. In Rom 8:38–39 Paul enumerates all the powers of death that want to destroy life. Nevertheless, this »inferno«733 can do nothing against God’s love: Nothing »can separate us from the love of God« (Rom 8:39). That is exactly the way 13:8 begins: »Love never gives up.« It never caves in like even the mountains do during an earthquake (piptei). The text is infused with antitheses: »to never give up« (13:8)— »cease« (13:8) (»come to an end« 13:8, »know in part« 13:9) »completeness« (13:10)— »the partial« (13:9, 10, 12) »grownup«— »child« (13:11) »now« (arti 13:12; nyni 13:13)— »then« (tote 13:12).

732 See BigS 2006: Rom 8:28 (translation Janssen, 2006). 733 Käsemann 1980, 251 on Rom 8:37–39 calls these powers and forces that Paul enumerates »a demonic circle.« »The situations in the list in v. 35 are now replaced by the world-rulers which cause them, so that chaos is changed into an inferno.« »Even when inferno threatens the Christian on all sides, he is marked by the Lord, who is present for him …«

13:8–13

263

Paul uses three images in his love poem: 1. The limited knowledge of what is partial; the sight of the whole is lacking, as though one is looking through a tiny door that only reveals a small section. 2. The language of children is resolved by the speaking and thinking of adults; 3. the sight of someone else in a mirror, not with a direct look into the face. The image about the mirror remains puzzling.734 As a rule, the poem is called »eschatological« because of its antitheses. In this regard, the decisive question is how this eschatology is understood. Is it interpreted in the sense of linear time? Does the »then« occur beyond the world and history? Often it is then also interpreted—often without comment—to refer to the time after an individual dies. Or is it understood in the sense of early Christian eschatology? Is the future God’s future, understood as a relationship with God? God is near; God will come. Here, this is based on thinking about relationships, not about objective, linear passages of time. It is about the nearness of the beloved deity and the hope of seeing God face to face. It is the »now« of love, under the conditions of the inferno (on this understanding of eschatology, see above at 1:6). God does not stop loving. But how is it with God’s counterparts, the beloved lovers? Does their love to God and to humanity also never end? Paul says nothing about that directly. But it is clear, after everything Paul says about the destructive power of sin, that he could also say that the love for God and humans can be destroyed.735 But God will not give up. In 13:12 Paul returns once again to the image of what is partial: Now we know only in part, but then we shall know—as we have been known (cf. 8:3). We shall know God’s fullness—not because the time for that has come, but because God loves us. Does it make sense to devalue the love to God and humans that is now possible—even if only in part, to call it provisional or the »penultimate«?736 With devaluation of this kind, the fullness that »now abides« (13:13)—faith, hope and love—is lost. The partial elements of the love in our lives are experiences of the fullness of God—now! 13:8–9 Prophecy and knowledge were important to Paul, the ability to speak with God in one’s own language (see also on 14:1). The concern here is not denigration (especially in the sense of a misuse by the congregation in Corinth).737 Even these great gifts and activities of the divine Spirit find their limits, will be de-

734 Correspondingly, 2 Cor 12:4 speaks of »inexpressible words« that Paul heard in his rapture. The preservation of the distance from God is clear in both expressions. 735 Paul could also say: We love now only ek merous/partially. Even 13:13 does not speak of the indestructibility (or imperishability; see below) of human love. 736 F. Crüsemann 2011b, 59–60 shows: The language about ultimate and penultimate things could be a variant of the anti-Judaistic pattern law (old)—gospel (new), precisely even when it is applied to love (for the neighbor). But even when love remains only partial, it still comes from the power of God’s love and cannot be called »provisional« or »penultimate« or perishable and thereby relativized. 737 Widespread is the interpretation of 13:8–13 as a sharp critic by Paul of the enthusiastic self-consciousness in the Corinthian congregation and of the evaluation of their experiences as experiences of completeness. See, for example Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 305; Zeller 2010, 414–415; Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 656.

264

Commentary

stroyed, because people live under the conditions of sin, the structural violence that sees itself destroyed through public speech and prophetic analysis. On this use of katargein/destroy, see Rom 3:3; 4:14.738 It is not the mortality of human life, but the destruction people inflict on one another. In this context cease/pauomai means more than merely come to a natural end.739 How often, where accommodation is demanded, voices that speak of love are silenced! 13:9 speaks of the destructibility of the gifts: They continue to be partial. If one reads 13:8–13 in connection with Rom 8:(18–)39, then the argument becomes understandable: Those who are gifted by God live in a world in which violence and destructive powers work against life.740 13:10 The same verb, katargein/destroy, is now also used for the end of destruction: The destruction will be destroyed where God is present. To teleion/the complete is a term of reverence for God (cf. Matt 5:48; 1 Cor 15:28). 13:11 The look at childhood and its bitter end is not very romantic—Paul once more uses the word katargein/to destroy. The grownup destroys it, causes the language and understanding of children to disappear. How quickly children, especially the children of the poorer majority of the population, must grow up and work for their bread!741 13:12 Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10; Gen 32:31: To see God from face to face, or to speak with God from mouth to mouth, are images for exceptional experiences of God that Moses had or Jacob as well during his nocturnal battle with an unidentifiable being. In Num 12:6–8742 (Deut 34:10) Moses is assigned special authority that distinguishes him from other prophets. Paul is at home in these biblical concepts and, like the rabbinic exegesis of Num 12:6–8, also brings in the contrary image of indirect and enigmatic seeing.743 The indirect seeing of God in nature, in creation (Rom 1:20) is an analogous concept. 13:13 Neither the menein/to remain nor the comparative meidzōn/greater is meant to devalue other gives of the Spirit, as though it should be concluded: prophecy, etc. no

738 The »fragmentary nature« of the gifts are as a rule interpreted either as a consequence of human mortality (for example, Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 306) or as a consequence of God’s end time judgment (for example, Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 654). I understand the text in connection with Rom 8:(18–)39: It is the destructive work of the powers in the world that causes all gifts of the Spirit to run into limits. 739 I understand pauontai/cease, like katargēthesōmai, as a consequence of the destructive work wrought by the power of sin. 740 13:9 explains the reason that the gifts of the Spirit come to an end. They are limited, because they are in the »world,« as Paul in this letter names the place occupied by the powers of death, under siege by these powers, causing those gifted by the Spirit themselves also to become accomplices (on the power of sin, see the basic information above at 9:20 and Rom 1:32). 741 More recent investigations of children’s skeletons in Herculaneum allow us to get a clearer picture than literary sources do (see Laes 2011, 148–155). 742 On this see especially Dautzenberg 1975, 172–175. 743 Parallel rabbinic material is found in Dautzenberg 1975, 176–180; rabbinic material is also found in Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 658–660.

14:1–5

265

longer remains and love devalues confidence and hope. Love is the foundation without which all gifts that God gives remain dead. This is the sense in which love is the »greatest,« the basis for trust in God and hope. Menein/to remain is looking at the present, the »now« in the relationship with God.744 What riches surround the beloved, even if they can see and live only fragments of it. For this reason, the statement sounds so comforting. It speaks of God’s presence amid the inferno, in which confidence, hope and love offer protection and make them capable also to live their power.

14:1–40 The theme of this chapter is Spirit-filled speaking in one’s own native language when the whole community is assembled. In the community, the many native languages of other regions are alien; nevertheless, these regional languages are used. It is widely assumed that this Spirit-impelled speaking unintelligible to many is »speaking in tongues,« an ecstatic, inarticulate (non-cognitive, non-linguistic) speaking or a speaking in foreign languages that are unknown to those who are speaking. However, the context of Corinth and Paul’s terminology in 1 Cor 14 indicate that people are speaking with God in their native language and are, therefore, unintelligible to most of those listening (on these questions see the basic information at 14:1). With various arguments Paul pleads for speaking in the large gathering only in language that is intelligible to all. He asserts that prophetic speech is, by contrast, intelligible for all and produces strengthening and clarity for the congregation. It is to be preferred because it has the goal of being understood by all who are present. He says that if someone wanted to speak with God in a language unknown to most people there, then either this person or someone else should translate. The congregation ought to be concerned about general comprehension without in any way inhibiting speaking in a native language.

14:1–5 1 Stake everything on love and concern yourselves about the gifts of the Spirit, about all about speaking prophetically. 2 When you speak in your native language, you are not speaking to other people but to God. No one else understands it. You are speaking by inspiration of the Spirit about God’s hidden reality. 3 But when you speak prophetically, then your speech brings about the building of community and people are strengthened and consoled.

744 I understand nyni/now temporally; on occasion nyni also has a logical significance (see Liddell-Scott). For the rare use in the logical sense, all those who interpret love to be immortal relate it to 13:13 (for example, Lindemann 2000, 292). The context of 13:8–12, and especially the arti/now of 13:12, also speak for the temporal—and common--understanding of nyni.

266

Commentary

4 Those who speak in their own language edify themselves. Those who speak prophetically edify the congregation. 5 I find it good when you all speak in your native language, but better, when you prophesy. Prophetic speech is to be preferred to speaking in your own language, unless you translate, so that the congregation is edified by it. In these verses Paul supplies a basic understanding of the problem of speaking publicly in one’s own native language. He in presupposing a large gathering of the congregation, as he then explicitly says in 14:23.

To Speak with God in one’s Native Language (lalein glōssais/ to Speak in Languages) The city of Corinth was a multi-linguistic harbor and place of commerce. Greek was the lingua franca and Latin the language of administration and governance, and often also the language of the upper class, which was oriented toward Rome. Many of those who lived in the messianic community had nonGreek native languages: slaves from the distant lands of the East, Aramaic-speaking Jews, people of North African origin and those from Asia Minor. It is difficult to reconstruct this variety of languages in detail.745 But it was so self-evident that it was often not mentioned (for example, in Paul’s letter to Rome; Rome also had a variety of languages). I Corinthians 14 and Acts 2:1–13 speak of the variety of languages in Corinth and Rome, respectively. Paul says of himself that he can speak more languages than the people in the Corinthian congregation (14:18), who as a rule can speak the lingua franca in addition to their native language. Paul’s ability to speak many languages relates to his journeys. In 1 Cor 14:5, 13, 27 it becomes clear that the people who speak with God in their own languages can also translate this into the lingua franca, Greek. In the assembly of the whole congregation many languages are represented (14:26). In addition, in the language of prayer, Hebrew or Aramaic words and sentences may well be used, such as marana tha (see 16:22), abba (Rom 8:15) and perhaps also phrases from the Shema Israel. For most of those praying, Hebrew or Aramaic were foreign languages. Such foreign words or phrases in prayers become familiar through habitual use. In the circumstances of this city of many languages, the necessity of speaking the lingua franca, Greek, is evident. But the substantial loss of one’s own native

745 C. Rabin 1976, 1009: »It is therefore impossible to get a clear picture of the variety of languages actually spoken in any country in ancient times.« On the variety of languages in the Roman Empire: Smelik 2010, 122–141; Gleason 2006, 228–249.

14:1–5

267

language is painful and alienating.746 At least to be able to speak with God in your native language, and to be heard by the messianic brothers and sisters, when you used the—for them—mostly foreign native language, is an issue of human worth and of identity in your relationship with God. That in 1 Corinthians 14 the issue is the use of diverse native languages becomes evident above all from the terminology with which Paul speaks about the language situation. The word glōssa means »tongue« and, derived from that, »language.« Lalein glōssē must be translated: to speak in a language. The term »speaking in tongues« is the product of Bible translations747 and interpretations. This is true correspondingly for »glossolalia« and »to speak in tongues.« Through this translation an interpretation of glōssē lalein in 1 Corinthians 12–14 has established itself, in accord with which this speaking occurs ecstatically, incomprehensively and/or non-cognitively.748 Gerhard Dautzenberg749 has proposed a different translation: the »gift of languages.« He considers the term »speaking in tongues« to be inappropriate here. However, he then calls the gift of languages »highly ecstatic«—about which Paul says nothing. »The gift of languages« would mean that the speaking is brought about by the Spirit. But the issue really is to express in one’s accustomed mother tongue the content that the Spirit is bringing about. An additional aspect of this tradition of interpretation and translation is that it assumes that Paul had evaluated the speaking in these languages negatively. Many times, it is ascribed, for example, to Paul’s enthusiastic »opponents« in Corinth, who, on top of that, give this charism priority over all the others. But Paul’s text nowhere evaluates the speaking in »languages« negatively. He only says—and that repeatedly—that it is incomprehensible to the full assembly, that prophesy is to be preferred and that speaking in languages, thus speaking in one’s mother tongue, is to be translated or limited. He emphasizes, however,

746 Strabo, Geogr. 12.4.6 says about the impact of Roman rule in Anatolia: Recently the Romans had seized power, »under whose reign most of the peoples have already lost both their dialects and their names, since a different partition of the country has been made«; trans. Horace Leonard Jones, Loeb (1961). On the issue, see Mitchell 2000, 120–121. Further reasons for the loss of one’s native language: slavery, migration in search of means of survival. 747 See, for example, »the one who speaks in tongues«, in NRSV v. 5. On the interpretation of glossolalia, see, for example, Dautzenberg 1981, 226–246. 748 On the history of interpretation, see Zerhusen 1997, 141–142; Tibbs 2007, 29–42. What is envisaged most frequently is either ecstatic speech or speaking in foreign languages previously unknown to the speakers (also often called xenolalia). This interpretation of speaking in tongues appears to be predominant more recently. Luther evaluated it positively in his 1545 translation of the Bible. The Luther Bible of 1984, in its explanations of topics and words, offers an interpretation different from Luther’s: »Speaking or praying ecstatically, in sounds that cannot be understood without interpretation. On Luther’s interpretation, see Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 421. On the history of speaking in tongues in contemporary Christianity, see Hasel 1991 749 G. Dautzenberg, art. glōssa in EDNT 1990, 253, and Dautzenberg 1981, 226

268

Commentary

that it dare not be forbidden (14:39). A hierarchy of charisms is no theme of his and does not appear to be one in Corinth either. The assumption of a non-cognitive speaking with God is in conflict with Paul’s multiple requests: The speaking in »languages« should by all means be »translated« in the assembly (12:10; 12:30; 14: 5, 13, 26, 27, 28). Now, a non-cognitive language is unable »to be translated.« So there have been attempts to bring this terminology into accord with such a concept of speaking in tongues. Thus it was assumed, for example, that the issue was not translation but the interpretation of a non-cognitive language.750 Here is another assumption that is meant to explain the translation of a non-cognitive language: Paul was demanding the impossible of those speaking in tongues, in order to prevent this tongue speaking, since it cannot indeed be translated.751 The word that Paul is using for the translating is (di)hermēneuein. It refers to the translation of a language into another—both in the LXX and in the other Greek literature.752 Since in the ancient world, and particularly in Jewish discussion, there is a clear awareness that translation of the source text also always involves interpretation, »to translate« is not fundamentally capable of being differentiated from »to explain« or »to expound.«753 Moreover, Jewish scholars discuss what the borders of a translation are, both with respect to a translation that is too free as well as the attempt to translate word for word.754 The terminology with which Paul speaks about the Spirit-filled linguistic speaking in the congregational assembly prompts us to think about speaking in non-Greek languages in the context of Corinth, in which Greek is the lingua franca. These non-Greek languages should be translated into Greek. Zerhusen (1997) has substantiated this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12–14 in detail with exegetical and socio-linguistic arguments. But also, what appears as one looks at the text, with its emphasis on the necessity of translating, and Paul’s clearly positive attitude over against the »languages« in Corinth leads to this conclusion. The Pentecost account in Acts 2, the outpouring of the Spirit on all who belong to the first messianic Jesus fellowship, should be discussed in relation to the linguistic situation in Corinth. In what follows only the aspect of the Spiritfilled language is discussed. Acts tells that they were »all together at the same place« (2:1). This place is introduced as a house (2:2). It is the Jewish Festival of

750 751 752 753

Thiselton 2000, 1098–1100: »to put into words.« For a critique see Zerhusen 1997, 142. Lindemann 2000, 300. On the LXX see Davies 1952, 230; on the wider Greek literature, see Liddell-Scott s.v. On the translation of Scripture, but also of prayers, from Hebrew into Aramaic, Greek and additional languages, see the foreword to the Greek translation of Sirach, lines 15–26; Elbogen 1967 (1931), 186–1931), 186–194, especially 188: The translation must not be literal, but »has to take account of the foreign language, be analogous; on the other hand, it must also not expand the text, not degenerate into arbitrary paraphrase.« Besides, the translation should stand in agreement with the oral tradition of the Torah and should not, therefore, be word for word, according to Safrai in Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 930–931. 754 See the previous note.

14:1–5

269

Weeks. All were filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in »other languages« (heterais glōssais, 2:4). »All« refers to the twelve (2:14) and, in addition, all the women about whom the Lukan passion- and resurrection narrative speaks, as well as Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Jesus’ brothers (1:14). Beyond that, the word »all« appears to include a still-wider circle from among the Jesus community in Jerusalem (see only Luke 10:1 and Acts 2:42–47). As they were filled with the Spirit, they all began to prophesy (2:17–21) before a large crowd of Jews of international origin (»from every nation/ethnos under heaven« 2:5). This host of listeners is amazed, because they had thought that the group of people speaking were »Galileans« (2:7). They had apparently expected that they could only speak Aramaic.755 But now they are each hearing in the language with which they grew up (2:8 tē idia dialektō); 2:11, in »our languages.« The story is hard to interpret. Are Jesus’ followers just as multi-linguistic as this group of hearers, unbeknownst to these hearers? Or is the Spirit producing a linguistic miracle, enabling people to speak languages that they previously did not know?756 But the intention is clearly not to recount a linguistic miracle as God’s actual miracle, but that »all« women and men of lower origin, filled with divine power, speak prophetically. For that is the way that Peter, beginning in 2:14, interprets the situation in the sense of the text. The quotation from Joel (beginning in 2:17) also wants to emphasize that all people, Jews and those from the nations, are prophesying (2:17–18), men and women, young and old. The hearers neither expected that people of this kind would be commissioned to prophesy nor that they spoke so many languages. Jerusalem was an international city; it was primarily Jews from all over the world that came together here, also in order to remain here. Perhaps the text only wants to say that they were now speaking in their native languages, although Aramaic and Greek were the languages of commerce. The expression in 2:4, »as the Spirit inspired them, they spoke freely,« and the amazement about their speaking (2:7, 12; or the aversion to it, 2:13) refer to the content of the speaking, not to the languages as the mode of speaking. Peter’s speech, beginning in 2:14, gives Acts’ interpretation of the narrated events with a quotation from Joel. Although the multi-lingual nature of the community of Jesus’ followers has no parallel in the Joel citation, it does, nevertheless, have a fitting framework for it in its description of the multiplicity and diversity of the people. The people from all over the world who were assembled in Jerusalem represent the people of Israel and all the nations of the world— »all flesh« (2:17)—all people.

755 Zerhusen 1995 assumes that the assembly of the community took place in the temple compound and that the listeners had expected priests, who speak the »Holy Language,« Hebrew. Instead, the Jesus people had spoken Greek and Aramaic, the everyday languages. But this assumption doesn’t fit with 2:7 (Galilaioi) and 2:8, 11, with the statements about the languages of the hearers, which implies their diversity. On Aramaic in Galilee, see Rabin in Safrai/Stern 1976, vol. 2, 1036. 756 See the criticism of this idea by Zerhusen 1995, 118–120.

270

Commentary

Comparable with 1 Corinthians 14 are the multi-lingual nature of the city’s population at that time, the emphasis on the gift of the Spirit on all, each individual, and the multi-lingual nature of the messianic community (even when it is assumed that it is a consequence of a linguistic miracle in the community of disciples). Both texts mirror the multi-lingual nature of the cities under Roman rule. Both texts show how the messianic communities, with sensitivity and acceptance, deal with the diversity of their members and of the outsiders. The old thesis, that in the Pentecost account the linguistic confusion of Gen 11:1–9 (the building of the tower in Babylon) is removed and healed, completely misses what has been narrated and human reality at that time. This thesis is based on the anti-Judaistic assumption of a surmounting of the »Old« Testament by the New, the one Christ has brought. It is also important for 1 Corinthians 14 that in Acts 2 the speaking in other languages (2:4) signifies that the people are proclaiming messianic prophecy in these languages (2:17–22). There is no content-related contradiction between prophecy and speaking in native languages, as is often assumed for 1 Corinthians 14. It is possible to prophesy also in these languages when people are there to understand them. The great difference in the situations in 1 Corinthians 14 and Acts 2 is that the »other languages« in Acts 2 are understood by many, while that is not the case in 1 Corinthians 14. What is this glōssais lalein? It is the desire to express in one’s own language757 the truth given by the divine Spirit. In the congregational assembly in Corinth it was probably predominately the language of prayer, the speaking with God. But since it also belongs in the assembly, it must—according to Paul—be possible for all to understand it. Therefore, these native languages should be translated. 14:1 attaches to 12:31 and summarizes 13:1–13. In what sense is prophecy to be given preeminence? Paul apparently has in view the problematic issue that now follows, the multi-lingual nature of the community assembly, and presupposes that prophecy, while it is directed to all who are listening, is also expressed in the lingua franca. The lingua franca in Corinth is Greek. Prophecy is to be given preference because it is directed to all who are listening and, without a translation, reaches and includes all in the assembly. A hierarchy of gifts is not in play. Prophecy is a gift of the Spirit directed to all (as in Acts 2:17–18). 14:2 But those who are speaking in their own native language are not directing themselves to all the listeners but to God. Presupposed is a situation in which there is no one else who has the same native language. I direct myself exclusively to God (»unidirectional« language758) if I only in this way can be identical with myself in prayer. Nevertheless, those who speak in this way want to be taken seriously by the brothers and sisters—as people who had to give up their native language, and thereby a piece of themselves. Speaking »in the Spirit« can only be done in one

757 Zerhusen 1997, 146: »native language, first language, language of the heart.« 758 Zerhusen 1997, 145.

14:1–5

271

Illustration 10: What might his native language be? A crouching African boy with bound legs. According to Laes 2011, 160, a discovery from Corinth. Photograph © 2012 Museum of fine Arts, Boston: Figure of a seated African youth, Greek or Roman. Hellenistic or Roman period, 1st century BCE or 1st century CE soapstone. Height (with plinth) 9.3 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Henry Lillie Pierce Fund, 01.8210.

272

Commentary

direction (here 14:2), but the listeners can also be included (see 2:13). The lalein mystēria (cf. 2:7; 13:2) can be directed simultaneously to God and to those who are listening. But this concerns speaking to God in one’s native language, which no one otherwise understands. It is the same content, but said in a different way, because the speakers are directing themselves only to God. The content of the speaking in one’s native language is the encounter with the self-revealing deity (see on 2:6–16 and 13:1–13). 14:3 Prophecy is directed to people (and occurs in relation to God; also see above on 12:8–10; 13:2). It wants to reach people in their specific situation, edify, encourage and console them. Prophecy is directed not only to individuals but also to members of Christ’s body. The house of God is being built (on this see 3:9–16). The members of the body of Christ are encouraged to work for justice. They experience consolation in the difficult situations that the congregation and the individuals need to overcome. 14:4–5 Paul once again emphasizes the difference: The one who turns to God in a native language that no one else understands receives power in the relationship with God, but the brothers and sisters continue to be excluded. This does not mean to say, he continues, that all have no need of their native language for their life over against God, but in this congregational situation all should be able to have a part in the content. For this, the translation of the native language is necessary. Thereby, out of the unidirectional language, language that is directed to only one counterpart, comes language that edifies the house of God.

14:6–19 6 So now, sisters and brothers, when I come to you and speak in my native language—what do you get out of it, if I do not impart words of revelation, knowledge about God, prophesy or teaching? 7 It is just the same with inanimate musical instruments, whether a flute or a lute. When I don’t play a melody, how then shall it be known what I am playing with the flute or the lute? 8 Or also, when the fanfare gives an unclear sound, who will be prepared to attack? 9 So it is also with you: If through your native language you do not impart an understandable sense, how shall what is said be understood? You will be speaking into the wind. 10 There are so many languages in the world, and nothing is without language. 11 If I do not know the meaning of the language, I remain foreign to those who speak it, and they foreign to me as well. 12 So you also, as you are passionately wrestling for the gifts of the Spirit, should keep an eye on that which edifies the congregation. That will bestow gifts upon you richly. 13 Therefore, all who speak in their native language should also pray for the ability to translate their words. 14 For when I pray in my native language, my spirit prays, but what I have in mind yields no result. 15 What does that mean? I shall pray Spirit-filled and also with intelligible words. I shall sing psalms Spirit-filled and also with intelligible words. 16 When you bless God in your Spirit-filled state, how should those who do not understand what is going on speak the Amen, so

14:6–19

273

be it, to your prayer of thanksgiving? After all, they do not know what you are saying. 17 You are, indeed, offering a fine prayer, but others are not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak more languages than all of you. 19 Yet in the congregation I would rather say five understandable words in order to teach others than 10,000 words in a language that is not understood. 14:6 Paul uses here the plural of glōssa/language. Since he elsewhere, when he uses the singular or plural of this word, pays attention to the circumstances (for example, see 14:4–5), what he probably means here is that he could speak in the assembly several of the non-Greek languages that he knows (14:18). No one would get anything from that; then Paul would, in addition, have to use other kinds of linguistic charisms in order to benefit the community: a word of revelation, of knowledge about God, of prophecy and of teaching. These modes of speaking are intended to be understood by all and use the lingua franca. 14:7 Paul illustrates the need to be understood by giving a first example: Lifeless musical instruments (lifeless in contrast to people who are speaking) must use an intelligible melody in order to be understood. The text says: They must make the »tones distinct.«759 14:8 A second example follows, this time from the realm of the military: The signal blown for the attack must be recognizable as such. 14:9 Now comes the application of the images from music and the military: The assembly also needs talk that is intelligible. 14:10–11 Paul compares the situation in the assembly with the experience with foreign languages in everyday life. It is clear that he can presuppose the experience that there are many different languages (instead of glōssa here, we have phonē, which means the same) and for that reason people cannot make themselves understood or understand. Barbaros means a non-Greek person. Paul sees that even Greek people can be barbaroi for people of non-Greek origin. 14:12–13 Here is a second use of an example applied to the community assembly: The gifts of the divine Spirit should benefit all in the assembly. It follows, according to 14:13: Thus, a Spirit-endowed statement in a non-Greek language should be translated. 14:14 The Greek word nous760 does not stand in opposition to pneuma, as 2:16 in the context of 2:6–16 shows. Nous is a word that parallels pneuma, whereby here pneuma emphasizes the relationship with God and nous the communicative ability of the Spirit-gifted people. Nous and pneuma give the behavior a direction. 4:15, 16

759 Merklein/Gielen 3, 2005 have good technical musical arguments that the translation »flute« for aulos is to be replaced with »fife,« which certainly was a musical instrument. Since in German music is not, as a rule, associated with the word Pfeife [often means »whistle.« Trans.], I am keeping the traditional translation »flute.« 760 Dautzenberg 1975, 239–240 says correctly: The issue is not a »dualism between pneuma and nous«; praying »with the mind« is also pneumatic praying. The nous stands for the intelligibility of this praying.

274

Commentary

and 19 clearly show that nous here is supposed to point out the relationship to the community and especially the understandability of the pneuma. The speaking in the nous is »comprehending and comprehensible speaking,«761 which, however, is also brought about by God and can be an expression of the gift of the Spirit. For that is the issue here. Paul is not interested in the psychology of the person who is praying, and not in people as subjects devoid of relationships. For him, a person is always a person in relationship. But the person who does not make him or herself comprehensible may desire to do God’s will, but the desire nevertheless remains fruitless. A concept such as that of the private prayer of the individual is not in view here. Verse 14:14 has often been read from the perspective of the psychology of an individual and as proof for the ecstatic character of »speaking in tongues« in 1 Corinthians 14,762 that excludes the »mind.« Speaking against that is the togetherness of nous and pneuma as two aspects of God-given strength in humans, who are beings in community and not separable individuals. When they are not understood, their power is fruitless. 14:15, 16, 17 Paul himself always desires to share the Spirit-endowed praying, Psalm-singing,763 blessing and adoration of God in community with others; therefore, it should occur »in the Spirit and understanding.« Those who, solely because they are Spirit-filled, bless God in their native language, cannot expect those ignorant of their language764 to say the »Amen.«765 The »Amen« of the entire messianic assembly shows that some Hebrew words were also used in the prayer language of the Greek-speaking messianic movement, not only by individuals but collectively and publicly. The call to God Abba (see Rom 8:15; note that the statement uses the plural) will also have been spoken collectively. As Rom 8:15 shows (»Abba, Father«),

761 Bultmann 1954, 207, who, to be sure, views the pneuma as ecstatic speaking that »suppresses the human subject.« 762 For a criticism of interpretations of 14:14 that separate the »mind« and the Spirit, see also Zerhusen 1997, 147–148. 763 It was primarily the Psalms of the Old Testament that were sung. Favoring that view are Mark 14:26, Matt 26:30 and the use of the word psalmos in the New Testament (see also 1 Cor 14:26). How the text and the chant were shaped can be established with difficulty. Using the language of the Old Testament, new songs of praise to God were also formed (on this see Deichgräber 1967; Kennel 2011, 203 and 194–210 as a whole.) It is inappropriate to draw a line of separation between Christian hymns and Old Testament Psalms, as this was done in earlier interpretive history. On the Jewish singing of Psalms, see Elbogen 1967, 502–507; on New Testament songs see also Delling 1952, 84–85. 764 In the context, idiōtēs is someone ignorant of something: here, someone who doesn’t know the language in which the blessing is spoken. Another interpretive tradition identifies these people with the apistoi in 14:22–23: those who are not completely outsiders, but, since they are still not full members, occupy a particular place in the room; see, for example, BDAG s.v. idiōtēs. 14:16 can then be read, »anyone in the position of an outsider,« BDAG s.v. anaplēroō 4. But BDAG here notes, in addition, the reading established above: those who »replace« the uninitiated. 765 Rabbinic material on the congregation’s Amen response is found in Billerbeck, vol. 3, 456–461.

14:20–25

275

these words were also translated—at least sometimes, so that they remained understandable. Rev 1:7 shows that for the amēn (»Yes, amēn«). 14:18–19 Paul apparently speaks not only Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew,766 but also other local languages of the wide region in which he travelled. His concern is that he be understood in the assembly. Therefore, he speaks Greek and none of the other languages. For him, the word »instruct/katēchein« refers to the teaching of the Torah.

14:20–25 20 Sisters and brothers, do not, like children, insist on your native language. You want to make yourself understood; if you should do evil, be childlike therein, but when it comes to clarity, strive for completeness. 21 It is written in the Torah, »With foreign languages and with the lips of foreigners I want to speak with this people, but even so they will not listen to me,« says the Eternal One. 22 Therefore, speaking in foreign languages is a sign not for believers but for those on the outside. Prophetic speaking is a task of believers, not of outsiders. 23 Now if the whole congregation comes together in one place and all speak in foreign languages, and unbelievers or outsiders come in, will they not ask, »Have you gone mad?« 24 If, however, all speak prophetically, and unbelievers or outsiders come in, then they will be confronted and challenged with the truth by all. 25 Their own entanglements will become known to them, and they will prostrate themselves, worship God and proclaim openly, God is truly in your midst. 14:20 The Greek word phrenes/understanding, thinking steps into the place previously occupied by nous (see on 14:14): an understanding that has the goal of imparting a message and therefore makes itself understandable. Paul challenges the community to use this understanding like adults and not like children. Regarding what has been said, this childishness means: to speak a language that hardly anyone understands. When the issue is evil, then you can behave like a child, that is, not letting yourself get involved. 14:21–25 Paul quotes Isa 28:11–12, from which he takes up this idea: God speaks with the people in foreign languages, but even so they do not want to listen to God. They hear and yet do not listen, as it says in Isa 6:9–10. For the same thought, cf. Mark 4:12. In 14:22 he interprets the citation. In order to understand this interpretation, 766 Acts 21:37, Greek. For 21:40; 22:2 and 26:14, it can be discussed whether the language referred to is Aramaic or Hebrew or both. On this, see also Zerhusen 1997, 148. On the continued existence of Hebrew, see Rabin 1976, 1012–1025. On the significance of Paul’s multilingualism and biculturalism, see Kobel 2019, 66–70.

276

Commentary

let us first consider 14:23–25. Here he is speaking about the experience with outsiders in the congregational assembly. They respond defensively to the languages that they do not understand, but they understand the message of prophecy and trust the God of Israel. On the basis of these experiences, 14:22, as an interpretation of Isa 28:11, says: As the Torah already says, God gives a sign, in foreign languages, it’s true, for the recalcitrant people (Isaiah) or for the outsiders (1 Corinthians 14), but the sign is rejected. By contrast, prophecy is the task of believers, not of outsiders (14:22b). But these outsiders can understand prophecy and turn to God. A sign from God (14:22a) can be non-verbal (in any case, here for the outsiders).767 Prophecy consists of a more precise explanation, above all of the Torah. 14:21–22 Paul calls the book of the prophet Isaiah nomos/Torah, not only the Pentateuch. This is in keeping with his use of language for the Scripture as a whole; see, for example, Rom 3:19. The quotation agrees with none of the known versions of Isa 28:11–12.768 Paul has taken an idea from the Isaiah text: The foreign languages (in Isaiah, of Israel’s conquerors) are a sign from God that was rejected, in Isaiah, by the people of Israel, in Paul, by the outsiders. Through the sign God speaks. It is clear how highly Paul values Spirit-inspired speaking in a person’s native language: Even those who do not understand the foreign languages can recognize in them the work of God. Prophecy is the task God gives believers. In 14:22b semeion/sign should not be added from 14:22a.769 14:23 Apistoi/people without the trust-connection to the God of Israel also attend the congregational assembly, quite clearly with a positive interest. In 14:23–24 idiōtai/the uninformed are also named as attending the assembly. In 14:16 the word was used for people who did not know the foreign language that was being spoken. Here the reference is to those ignorant of the content of the Spirit-endowed speaking, that is, primarily people who did not know the Torah. It is well-attested that outsiders want to know about the life in Jewish communities, their festivals and their benevolence, and also regularly attend and participate in some way.770 On the fluid transition between various forms of conversion to the God of Israel, see the basic information already provided above on 1:25. Here in 14:23 it becomes clear that the messianic assembly, not unlike Jewish synagogue assemblies, wants to be open and always welcoming to outsiders. But these outsiders are put off, says Paul, when771 foreign languages are spoken, while they are dependent upon Greek. There

767 See above on 1:22. The issue is not a sign that announces God’s justice, as vv. 14:23–25 show. 768 An extensive explanation is found, for example, in Lindemann 2000, 308. 769 If semeion/sign is added in 14:22b, it had to be assumed that prophesy was no sign for the outsiders, but actually had the power to bring them to the God of Israel; see on this especially Weiss 1910, 332–333. In this way an unnecessarily contradictory idea arises. 770 On this, see Cohen 1999, 55; Acts 13:16; 17:17. 771 The chaotic scene—all speak at the same time in incomprehensible languages—is not described in the text, though it is in exegetical literature that advocates picturing an opposition group of Paul’s »opponents« in some form or other.

14:20–25

277

is no reason to believe that the scene Paul describes is fictitious. All the brothers and sisters have native languages, and all can use them in the congregation. That creates a barrier to comprehension for those who do not understand them. That shows how multicolored the quilt was into which the people in the city of Corinth and in the congregation found themselves patched together. 14:24–25 But prophecy reaches the outsiders. In these verses a scene from the gathering of the brothers and sisters is described. That illustrates what Rom 2:12–16, for example, instructively expresses. The unbelievers are coming on their own initiative and taking part in prayers, songs and teaching. They are interested, but they have not yet really made a personal decision. Paul says that prophecy has the power to win them over, because it can be understood. Through elenchein/ revealing, exposing and anakrinein/judging, prophecy makes it clear what deeds, from the perspective of the Torah, they are doing or not doing. It is true that they do not know the Torah, but these people can instinctively do what the Torah requires (Rom 2:14–15). The scene Paul describes sounds unpleasant and painful to modern ears—at least in a translation that describes the situation as though the congregation has pilloried the outsiders: »he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed:«772 Then it is simply amazing that, after this public exposure, a person still prays to God with thanksgiving and affirms the scene as an encounter with the merciful God. What lies hidden in the heart (cf. Rom 2:16–17: 1 Cor 4:5 and many similar uses of the common biblical phrase—see on 4:5) is hamartia/sin, as understood by the Torah. For Paul sin means enslavement to structures that violence and villainy plant in daily life. This enslavement to sin means to take part in it, willingly or not, knowingly or not. People are condemned to complicity in structures of violence that are created by people (on this see the basic information on 9:20 and, for example, Rom 3:9–20; 6:12–14). Paul frequently fleshes out these structures in the form of lists in which he enumerates infractions of the Torah in daily life (on the misleading designation »vice list,« see above on 6:9–11). The men and women prophets—like Paul (for example, Rom 1:29–32 or 1 Cor 6:9–11)—will have spoken about everyday life and its apparently inextricable entanglement in injustice, and, indeed, spoken in such a way that the outsiders can recognize that God, the God of Israel, has freed them from this prison. 14:25 describes liberation from brokenness and resignation, into which perceptive people are forced by structural sin. The prayer of liberation is a quotation from Isa 45:14, in which, however, another context is presupposed (those who formerly oppressed Israel, now acknowledge Israel and its God). The outsiders identify the community as God’s temple and identify this God as God for themselves in the sense of the Shema Israel.

772 This is the reading in the RSV translation.

278

Commentary

14:26–33 26 What does that mean, sisters and brothers? When you come together, all have something: a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a saying in the native language, a translation. Everything should serve to edify the congregation. 27 When something is said in native languages, then by two or three people at most, who limit themselves to essentials, and it must be translated. 28 If no one is there to translate, the person in the congregation should be silent. She can speak silently and with God. 29 Two or three should speak prophetically, and the rest should interpret it. 30 But when another person is still sitting there and has a revelation, the first person should be silent. 31 You are all able to speak prophetically, each and every one of you, so that all learn and all are encouraged. 32 Let the one who has the spirit of prophesy pay attention to others who also speak prophetically. 33 God does not bring unrest but the fulness of life. That is the way all the congregations of the saints conduct themselves. 14:26 Paul concludes his suggestions for dealing with native languages in the assembly and discusses the questions that emerge for their use. All who are members of the body of Christ are enabled by the divine Spirit to contribute. Paul discusses in what follows how, despite this richness of gifts, individuals can have enough room to share what they have to say. An evaluation of this section as the apostle’s suggestions for the order of congregation’s »worship service« is inappropriate. Paul is not speaking about a »worship service« (latreia, for example) but about an assembly; he presupposes no liturgical shaping. He is also not giving suggestions but arguing quite sensitively for a way in which the greatest number can speak. Paul enumerates what the Spirit-endowed bring into the assembly: a psalm (see on 14:15), a lesson, that is, an interpretation of the Torah (see the basic information at 9:4–6), a revelation (as can be seen in 15:51, for example), a prayer in one’s native language, a translation of this prayer brought by the Spirit. Each one has something to say. 14:27 Now Paul seeks to name a way in which the fullness of possibilities can be utilized so that, if possible, all might be able to speak. Two or, at most, three people should pray in their native language or prophecy (see 14:29). The regulation for this he here calls ana meros, while in 14:31 he calls it kath’ hena. How these two expressions are to be interpreted or translated can only be derived from 14:30. There a likely typical situation is described in more detail. One person is speaking prophetically (having arisen to speak). When another person has a revelation to share, the first should stop speaking. This has the practical consequence of a time restriction for all speakers, so that the greatest possible number, or even all, have a chance to speak. Does Paul assume that it might happen that two people would speak at the same time? Or is it not more likely that the issue is that anyone should be ready to stop speaking? In 14:27 ana meros could be interpreted: each contributing her or his own part. And kath’ hena in 14 31 could mean all of you, each individual (cf. Eph 5:33).773 A translation of »all, one by 773 Meros/the share; ana meros can mean »in turn« or »one after the other.«

14:26–33

279

one«774 evokes the impression that the main problem is simultaneous speaking, but this is not what is being said. What Paul emphasizes is that all should be active participants. That the issue is the Spirit’s gifts, which all have in some way or other received, he stresses in 12:13; 12:7, 11; 14:31 (cf. 14:26). 14:23 is not criticizing the fact that all are speaking or prophesying in their own native tongues but that those who are present cannot understand the foreign languages. New solutions must be found for this new situation, for all should be actively involved and the ones coming in should understand. In the Qumran community, the right to speak is regulated hierarchically (1 QS VI, 8–13). In the synagogue, there was leadership of the gathering but likely not a situation in which all should participate.775 In the interpretive tradition the image has often arisen as if in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is facing the task of bringing order to a chaos that arose through an unregulated practice of ecstatic speech. The situation as a whole is rather to be characterized by saying that Paul helped to organize a thoroughly democratic situation. All are gifted by God’s Spirit. People who have command neither of education nor, in reality, of the lingua franca of Corinth, Greek, are enabled to participate in the building of God’s house on this earth. They are to have room to do this, even in the full assembly. This includes many slaves, who were brought here, into the large city, without being consulted. In the community of the body of Christ, even in the large assembly, their dignity as God’s creations should be able to be seen. 14:28 When people who are speaking in their native language cannot themselves translate, and no one else is there to translate,776 then they should not speak aloud, but only quietly, they with God, during the assembly. Nothing further is found in the text. 14:29 Paul envisions the process for prophetic speaking (in Greek) in a fully analogous way: two or three people should speak and then others who interpret the prophecy (see on 12:10; 2:10). 14:30 (See on 14:27). The text implicitly indicates that those who are prophesying or praying are standing. The Synoptic Gospels appear to differentiate between instruction about the Torah, done while sitting (Matt 5:1), and the reading of the Torah, done while standing (Luke 4:16). But the interchange between sitting and standing in the synagogue was handled in various ways.777 14:31 Here Paul says with substance and clarity what the issues are: All are to be given room to speak prophetically. All are to learn (including women, of course; 14:35 has a different view), and all are to receive strength and encouragement. 14:32 It is part of the prophetic culture to let others have a chance to speak.

774 Thus BDAG heis 5e. 775 Krauss 1966 (1922), 167–175: There are likely several involved in the leadership, and there is a »lively participation of those who have gathered« (170). For the situation in the Corinthian congregation we cannot clarify how the leadership of the gathering is to be envisioned. A charism of leadership is mentioned in 12:28, while in 1 Corinthians 14 the task of leadership is not mentioned. 776 Linguistically either is possible. 777 On sitting or standing in the synagogue assembly, see Krause 1966 (1922), 398–400); Ehrlich 2004, 9–28; Dautzenberg 1975, 280–282.

280

Commentary

14:33 God brings the community peace, not disorder and unrest. The peace of God is the fullness of life that God gives (see on 7:15). This way of translating eirenē is also appropriate here, since the German word »Frieden«/peace is too narrow to express how the biblical tradition understands shalom. In this statement, the German word »Frieden«/peace could lead to the concept that God is a God of peace in the sense of order. Rather, God gives the fullness of life,778 which expresses itself in the fulness and diversity of gifts. 14:33b is often connected to the section about the silence of women and strengthens thereby the command for silence. Nevertheless, 14:33b should be connected to 14:33a: God gives the fulness of life, in Corinth as in all the other communities of the saints.

14:34–38 34 Women should be silent in the congregational assemblies. It is not permitted for them to speak; they should rather be submissive, as the law also says. 35 If they wish to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at home. For it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the congregational assemblies. 36 Has God’s proclamation emanated by chance from you, or has it reached you alone? 37 All who think they have prophetic or other gifts should acknowledge that my words to you have been written on behalf of the Lord. 38 Whoever does not acknowledge that will not be acknowledged. 14:34–38 proclaims a radical command for silence779 for all women in messianic assemblies (ekklēsiae), thus not just for Corinth. This command for silence is identified as in accord with the Torah (14:34) and, in addition, explicitly as God’s command (14:37). What the apostle is writing here, as the text says, comes with the highest authority, and every person who has the gift of prophecy or some other gift of the Spirit will have to acknowledge this. A threat of rejection at God’s judgment for all who do not acknowledge this command forms the conclusion of the command. Of interest for the evaluation of 14:34–38 is an ancient textual variant in 14:38: In place of agnoeitai (passive indicative)/»will not be acknowledged,« stands agnoeitō (active imperative)/ «so may he/she remain in the dark.« This good and well-attested variant seeks to diminish the harshness of 14:38. It is the difference of whether there is the threat of rejection by God in the judgment or whether those who do not acknowledge this command are allowed to remain unknowing and to dismiss the command. In 14:39–40 the stress again shifts to what one is expected to do. Consequently, we are to regard verses 34–38 as an interpolation into the text of 1 Corinthians 14 (see on 14:34). When this interpo-

778 See M.-Th. Wacker, art. schalom in BigS, 2011, 1827–1828. 779 Foundational is M. Crüsemann 1996, 199–223, since she analyses the combination of the interpretation of 1 Cor 14:33–36 with Christian anti-Judaism. On the radical language in this text, see, for example, 202–203, and more frequently.

14:34–38

281

lation happened is unknown. There is no manuscript of the Pauline letters without this text. In my own history of evaluating 14:34–35, at first (1994) I still ascribed this text to the Apostle Paul, since he also elsewhere understands the relationship between the sexes as a power relationship and does not criticize this (see, for example, on 6:15). The decisive argument against the Pauline origin of the text for me came from Marlene Crüsemann 1996. She shows with various arguments how these verses are used in an anti-Judaistic way, among others by those who say that they are not by Paul but indeed Jewish. By contrast, she shows that there are no Jewish parallels to the substance of 14:34–35.780 But since Paul in the entire letter always moves within the framework of the Jewish tradition, it appears to me inconceivable that he, contrary to Jewish synagogue practice, imposes a command for silence on women and in this way makes himself an advocate of conservative Roman politics with respect to women. The content of this passage conforms to what is said in the Pastoral Epistles (see 1 Tim 2:11–15)781 and to the ancient church’s later suppression of teaching and learning by women. Parallels in content to this ideology and politics of suppression are found in conservative authors of Hellenistic-Roman antiquity (see on 14:34) and in the ancient church. However, neither for Roman-Hellenistic society nor for the messianic congregations should such conservative policies concerning women be seen as successful across the board. It was all the more important for this conservative policy concerning women in the emerging church to be able to introduce Paul as star witness, as then Tertullian,782 for example, also does. So, indirectly, the harshness of the text, which reclaims for itself God’s and the apostle’s authority, shows that this conservative policy ran up against resistance. There are some later manuscripts that put vv. 34–35 at the end of the chapter, following 14:40.783 Thereby, the harsh statements of 14:36–38 are applied to the Corinthian situation, along with the use of foreign languages in the assembly. In this way they fail to offer a sense that fits the context, for in 14:1–33, or even 14:26–33, Paul has spoken with encouragement on behalf of everyone (14:31 and often). How is one expected to fit in here the sharp reproach (14:36) and the assertion (14:38) that this is God’s command, ignoring which brings eternal damnation? In this context of encouragement, verses 14:36–38 come off having a disproportional and uncommonly authoritarian air. The command for silence in 14:34–35 is not, however, weakened by its relocation. Can the relocation be counted as an indication that 14:34–35 is a secondary addition, a non-Pauline gloss?

780 M. Crüsemann 1996, 211; on the participation of women at synagogue assemblies, see also Brooten 1982, 139–141; Ilan 1995, 176–204. 781 For observations on the relationship between 1 Timothy and 1 Cor 14:34–35, see Eisen 1996, 108; Lindemann 2000, 319; see also here what is said on 14:35. 782 Tertullian, Bapt. 17; on this and on conservative policies about women and the resistance by women against them, see Luise Schottroff 1995, 130–131. 783 Extensive work on the textual history of 14:35–35 can be found, for example, in Thiselton 2000, 1148–1150; Wire 1990, 149–152; Niccum 1997, 242–255.

282

Commentary

The relocation of 14:34–35 to the end of the chapter does not diminish the weight of its content. The command for silence is a broader part of the text and thereby counts as Pauline. The text-critical variants are without consequence. At best, they can serve as an additional argument for the assertion that 14:34–35 is difficult to integrate into the line of thinking found in 14:33. The manuscript evidence doesn’t allow us to draw any conclusions about the post-Pauline insertion of the command for silence. Its secondary insertion can be established only on the basis of the content. The Paul who speaks in 14:1–33 and in 1 Corinthians as a whole cannot at the same time want to silence women across-the-board in the congregational assembly. The old argument, that according to 11:5 women are speaking prophetically and that the command for silence cannot be made to agree with this, carries a lot of weight. Just as serious is the contradiction between 14:38 and Paul’s eschatology (see only 4:5). What is happening here is what Paul rejects: Judging is being done by people who are acting as if they were God.784 Through the interpolation of 14:34–35 (and the same is true of 14:34–38), the entire Pauline corpus was consigned to having a conservative policy toward women and to the concept of an authoritarian Paul. When and through whom this change was promoted probably can no longer be established. But it fits into the canonand manuscript histories of the New Testament.785 It signifies the »adoption of ancient concepts of order«786 in the time of the Roman emperor. 14:34 The command for silence is comprehensive in every way. The text does not recognize any limiting of what it says. Gynaikes refers to women in general; the word can also include unmarried women. Attempts to limit the word to married women, for example, are not convincing, precisely because the entire section is formulated so radically. Even the plural of the word ekklēsia shows that an axiomatic command is meant to be established here for all messianic congregations.787 The word lalein (see also 14:35) also cannot be restricted but encompasses all conceivable forms of speaking, praying, prophesying, singing, as well as other non-verbal utterances.788 The appeal to the nomos is likely a reference to the Torah. But there is not an explicit substantial parallel to the command for silence in the Torah and

784 Comparable is 1 Thess 2:16, a text that also does not come from Paul; on this see M. Crüsemann 2010, 72–77. 785 Elliott 1994, 54 speaks about the »tremendous power [of] the canonical ›revision‹ of Paul,« which it is still exerting. On the later revision of Pauline texts, see Zahn 1975, vol. 1, 262–277. Dautzenberg 1975, 271–272 asserts that there was a »systematic infringement on the text« at the time of the issuance of 1 Corinthians. Merz 2004, 242–243 says about the Pastoral Epistles something that can also be applied to 1 Cor 14:34–38: The statements derive their authority from Paul, presuppose the authentic 1 Corinthians and desire to correct and modify it. 786 Merz 2004, 306; see also Dautzenberg 1983, 196. 787 If 14:33b is seen to belong to 14:34–35, the statement about the validity of the command for silence is still sharpened explicitly. But 14:33b can also be part of what precedes it. 788 See above on 2:6 and M. Crüsemann 1996, 201–202.

14:34–38

283

its interpretation at Paul’s time (see the preliminary remark to 14:34–38 above). In this sweeping form the statement is remarkable, precisely because the contemporary Jewish discussion does not support a command for silence. At least it can be considered whether the word here, as the text understands it, refers not to the Torah but to the—conservative—moral social norm that is adduced in 14:35: it is dishonorable, shameful for a woman. As an example of this ideology, let the Conjugalia praecepta by the Hellenistic-Roman conservative opinion-shaper Plutarch be cited (142): (31) … Not only the arm of the virtuous/sōphronos woman, but her speech as well, ought to be not for the public, and she ought to be modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders, since it is an exposure of herself; for in her talk/lalousēs can be seen her feelings, character, and disposition. (32) Pheidias made the Aphrodite of the Eleans with one foot on a tortoise, to typify for womankind keeping at home and keeping silence (oikourias symbolon tais gynaixi kai siōpēs). For a woman ought to do her talking (lalein) either to her husband or through her husband, … (33) [As in the relationship between rich men and philosophers, … s]o is it with women also; if they subordinate themselves to their husbands (hypotattousai heautas), they are commended, but if they want to have control (kratein), they cut a sorrier figure (aschēmonousi) than the subjects of their control. And control ought to be exercised by the man over the woman (kratein de dei ton andra tēs gynaikos), not as the owner has control over a piece of property, but, as the soul controls the body, …789

The radical language in 14:34–38, which contains no hint of restricting its application, is restricted with various arguments in the history of interpretation. The arguments extend from women’s talkativeness, which needs reining in, to applications from the assumed context of a worship assembly with tongue speaking and prophesy.790 But the context can also lead to an opposite solution: deny that Paul is the text’s author, since it diametrically contradicts the Pauline context791 The principle arguments for the non-Pauline origin of 14:34–35 (14:34–38) are for me the following: the absence of content parallels to a command for silence for women in the Jewish tradition of this period, congruence in content with RomanHellenistic conservative theology about women; the radical language of 14:34 (and 14:35–38); the contradictions to 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:1–33 with respect to con-

789 Trans. Frank Cole Babbitt, Loeb (1962), 142, 31–33. I am taking the summary from M. Crüsemann 1996, 212. On the Plutarch text see also Dautzenberg 1983, 198. On the command for silence in Hellenistic-Roman literature, see Merz 2004, 281–282; see also L. Schottroff 1995, 69–78; Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 725–726. 790 For a criticism of the use of the stereotype hostile to women of women’s talkativeness, see M. Crüsemann 1996, 206. For examples of interpretations that ascribe 14:34–35 to Paul and then want to avoid generalizing the prohibitions for women through concretizing the words from the context in 1 Corinthians, see Thiselton 2000, 1152–1161; Ciampa/ Rossner 1994, 111. 791 A list of contradictions between 14:34–35 and the Pauline context is offered by Thiselton 2000, 1147. Additional decisive arguments come from the analysis of the relationship to Judaism and to Hellenistic-Roman concepts of order; on this see M. Crüsemann 1996, 199–223.

284

Commentary

tent, and, for 14:38, the contradiction to Pauline eschatology; the church-political congruence with the politics about women of part of the emerging church of the second century, as it is also already documented in 1 Tim 2:11–16. 14:35 Now here a special aspect of the speaking in the congregational assembly is explicitly mentioned as forbidden for women: dialogical learning. That the issue is dialogical learning is clear in the text. They are to ask no questions in the assembly, only at home (a contradiction to 14:31). Dialogical learning was customary for teaching the Torah (see the basic information on 9:4 above). Only learning the Torah at home was allowed for women. Why is this aspect of the congregational assembly mentioned separately? Basically, it is already covered through the blanket command for silence. In 1 Timothy learning and teaching in submission and silence is demanded. In 1 Tim 5:13 .the criticism is raised that young widows go into houses and learn to be lazy. I see the reproach for laziness in connection with the ancient command that women work for their own household and be industrious.792 Moreover, their learning is criticized as learning of false content. It is clear that »learning« has been fought for by women themselves, contrary to this conservative ideology about women. Even 14:35 indirectly shows this kind of resistance by women against the prohibition of learning publicly. In any case, it is mentioned that women are saying they wanted to learn. The reason that the learning is expressly forbidden is probably this attempt by women, here and in 1 Timothy, contrary to such prohibitions, to acquire learning. While the silence of women is frequently stipulated in conservative Hellenistic-Roman texts, it appears that a prohibition of public learning does not play a role. In this context, it is interesting that the concept of silence as a sign of the virtuous woman in Plutarch (see above on 14:34) goes together with enthusiastic admiration for the education of an (upper class) woman: »The young woman had many charms apart from her youthful beauty. She was well versed in literature, in playing the lyre, and in geometry, and had been accustomed to listen to philosophical discourses with profit.«793 Whether all this learning came from private instruction at home is difficult to say. Still, 1 Cor 14:35, with its prohibition of learning except at home from their own husbands, speaks a harsher language than Plutarch. In the congregational assembly the people learned together, primarily the Torah. Women weren’t supposed to take part in this any longer. Even Jewish concepts of the education of women do not at all correspond to this prohibition of learning.794 Girls in the population majority were less furthered than boys— in all aspects of ancient societies, but a prohibition to learn is to be fully distinguished from this low interest in the education of women. 14:35 presupposes—as frequently in normative texts about women—the situation of the wife as a norm for women in general. In the Pastoral Epistles795 a situation is seen in which women

792 Somewhat differently Wagener 1994, 205; Merz 2004, 285; on the issue see also L Schottroff 1995, 73. 793 Plutarch, Pomp., trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb (1917), 55.1 794 Ilan 2008, 43; Heszer 2010, 477; see above at 9:4 also. 795 On manthanein in the Pastoral Epistles see Merz 2004, 283–288.

14:34–38

285

have created their own context for learning in »the houses« (1 Tim 5:13). I would like to accept Marlene Crüsemann’s consideration of whether this prohibition wasn’t »still more rigid«796 than the prohibition to teach of 1 Tim 2:12. The Pastoral Epistles do not express a prohibition to learn; they only want to keep the learning under control. 14:36 The aggressive tone of this verse doesn’t fit 1 Corinthians. The verse presupposes a congregation or a substantial group in the congregation that wants to preserve its autonomy over against other congregations or their emissaries. Battles by Paul against diversity and congregational autonomy are not in evidence elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. »Paul« is depicted here as a fighter for a centralization of the messianic communities. The concern for order that deprived women of the right to speak and to learn publicly receives a new dimension here. Implicitly 14:36 is to be connected with the image of »opponents« of Paul in Corinth. Thus this concern also arose already at the time of the collection of the Pauline Epistles and their use as a superior authority. The phrase »the word of God« should probably refer to the whole gospel, not merely to the command for women to be silent. The phrase remains a formal one (other than in Rom 9:6, for example). 14:37 What Paul writes—even this phrase can also be related to the preceding command for silence and/or to all the Pauline Epistles. Similarly, the phrase »God’s command« (or the plural »commands« in some manuscripts) is open for the comprehensive claim. Everything that Paul writes is God’s command. In 7:10, 12, 25, 40; 11:23, Paul deals in a very nuanced way with the teaching of Jesus, which he is handing on, and also says clearly that he sometimes has only his personal, Spiritinspired opinion to share (7:40). In view of the great claim that 14:37 asserts, the thinking here is probably not about Jesus’ commands but about God’s. The Greek word kyrios allows both interpretations. 14:38 Here we have the threat that those who do not acknowledge the commands bolstered by God’s and Paul’s authority will themselves not be acknowledged—by whom? Ernst Käsemann in 1954/5797 regarded this statement as the key statement for »statements of holy law in the New Testament.« Such statements are examples of the eschatological »lex talionis,« that is, the threat of divine retaliation at God’s end time judgment. He considers the statement to be Pauline, but notes the »decree style that will become characteristic of ecclesiastical decrees.« He understands the passive as passivum divinum: God is the one who is acting. Ernst Käsemann regards such statements as the earliest traditions of early Christianity and also extracts much from them theologically (»The Spirit establishes law here.«),798 without critically questioning the content of this law. For the command for silence is also included. More convincing is the interpretation of agnoeitai as passivum divinum. A non-acknowledgement by ecclesiastical authorities is a weak

796 M. Crüsemann 1996, 215. 797 Käsemann 1964, vol. 2 (69–82), 71. 798 Käsemann 1964, vol. 2, 80.

286

Commentary

threat compared to God’s judgment. The goal of verses 14:34–38 is maximal implementation. Whoever does not acknowledge the words of Paul will not be acknowledged by God in the judgment. Summarizing what is to be said about 14:34–38, not only is 14:34–36 a post-Pauline interpolation, but so is the entire text of 14:34–38.

14:39–40 39 So, sisters and brothers, encourage prophetic speaking, and do not impede speaking in one’s native language. 40 Everything should be done decently and in order. 14:39 The tone changes abruptly. This verse summarizes 14:1–33. Prophesy is to be encouraged in the congregational assembly, but speaking in one’s own language, unintelligible to many, should not be impeded. This was recognizably the red thread in this chapter (through 14:33). Paul has made suggestions to ensure that the contents of the speaking in foreign languages is understood by all. 14:40 »Decently« and »in order«799 are formulated quite generally. The content can be fleshed out only from the context, which is probably to be found in 14:1–33.

Resurrection Hope in the Context of the Roman Empire (15:1–19) The Starting Point God gives life, all life. Everything that is living has corporeal life. God desires life with all-encompassing justice on earth, in the present and in the future that is coming from God. That is the tradition of the Torah.800 It was the basis for such diverse images of hope for the preservation of all life through God, as in Ps 139, Isaiah 25, 26, Ezekiel 37 and in diverse mythical accounts for the resurrection hope in 2 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees or 4 Ezra. The words resurrection (anastasis) or raising (egeirēsis) do not necessarily need to appear, when the issue is the preservation of life by God, as Revelation shows.801 The mythical images for hope and a future with God are diverse, not oriented to narrative, pictorial or conceptual agreement. Sometimes images from the Old Testament tradition are also used, in order to speak of such hope in later times, as Revelation 21 shows. »There is nothing more fundamental theologically than that we live on in God’s memory, therefore also not withdrawn from God in death … The Bible speaks of

799 On this see especially Dautzenberg 1975, 278–279. 800 See especially F. Crüsemann 2011, 258–287. See also on 15:3–4. 801 On this see Wengst 2010, 105–106.

14:39–40

287

this God from the beginning.«802 The images of hope in 1 Corinthians 15 belong in this biblical and post-biblical context. The Perspective on the Present Life and the Goal of the Text, 1 Corinthians 15 In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul places the hopes on God’s life-creating power with reference to a bitter picture of people’s present experiences. They stand under the rule of unjust powers and of death (15:24–26), they are suffering social humiliation (atimia, 15:43) and all the consequences of poverty (astheneia, 15:43; cf. 1 Cor 1:26–31). In a world of »ruin« they have to survive destructibility, in which everything threatens to become corruptible, even the bodies (15:42; 53–56).803 Paul reports about the horrible experience of his consignment to the »beasts,« that is, to a public show in which wild beasts are impelled to attack people (15:32; see above on 4:9). The harshness of the present life is clearly named in Chapter 15. Set against it is hope in God’s vitality. What is the goal of this chapter? In 15:12 Paul mentions people who say: »There is no resurrection of the dead.«804 They belong to the Messianic community. About these people—Paul calls them tines/some—Paul comes to speak anew in 15:34. They do not know God (agnōsian theou echousin). They no longer know that God is on the side of life. They no longer have confidence in God’s creative power. Why have »some« lost their connection to God’s life-force? What has brought them to the point of giving up hope in the resurrection of the dead? Were they put under pressure and corrupted, as can be deduced from 15:32–34? Paul wants to win these people once again—and he wants to encourage the whole congregation and strengthen in them trust in God. He describes his intention and his goal with various verbs: gnōridzein/declare (15:1), kēryssein/proclaim (15:11–12; cf. 15:14), paradidomai/hand on (15:3), but also simply »say« (15:50–51). He desires to proclaim the liberating message that God, the God of Israel, has raised a Messiah from the dead, and that God and the Messiah are making an end to violence and injustice (15:1–2, 23–28). In Chapter 15 this proclamation of the liberating message occurs. Paul gives them credit for the power to regain those who have been corrupted and to strengthen and encourage the congregation, which is constantly being threatened by pressure from outside. This way of stating the goal is different from an interpretation that understands Chapter 15 to be a refutation of deniers of the resurrection. Sociohistorical Orientation Where can we locate historically this threat to resurrection faith that can be deduced from Chapter 15, especially from 15:12–32?

802 F. Crüsemann 2011, 286. 803 On the interpretation of 15:42–43, see Janssen 2005, 193. 804 On the history of the interpretation of this statement, see on 15:12.

288

Commentary

An important parallel to the content of 1 Corinthians 15 is offered by the discussion between Jesus and a group of Sadducees. I am selecting Matt 22:23–33 (34) as a starting point, because the Gospel of Matthew offers additional information about such groups of Sadducees. These Sadducees say, »There is no resurrection of the dead« (Matt 22:23; cf. Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). The statement rests on the same words as 1 Cor 15:12 (anastasis nekrōn ouk estin). It is a statement against others who hope for the resurrection of the dead. It is not part of their own teaching. And precisely this is reported again and again: The Sadducees oppose the Pharisaic hope. That is what is said in the Synoptic Gospels, Acts and by Josephus about groups of Sadducees.805 In the Gospel of Matthew, apart from these scenes of controversy, they appear together with Pharisaic groups (3:7: 16:1, 6, 11–12). Acts and Josephus make clear statements that permit us to contextualize this denial of the resurrection. The Sadducean groups were unpopular,806 belonged to the elite families807 and with their position reached only the well-to-do.808 Josephus reports that a high priest, Annas the Younger, had belonged to the Sadducean group.809 Acts makes this political aspect even clearer: Sadducean groups agitate internally, along with the priesthood, at least when it was time to proceed against the messianic movement around Jesus (Acts 4:1–7; 5:17; 23:6–8). The fragmentary picture that the gospels offer is sufficient to conclude that the denial of the messianic hope in the resurrection had a political function and did not come from the people as a whole. It lay in the interest of elite families and governing bodies that must have had an interest in cooperation with Rome—for economic and political reasons.810 This interest is clear again and again in the gospels, as not only the passion narrative shows (see only Matt 2:2–4). Even if details in the gospels cannot be regarded as firm historical facts, the total picture is historically reliable, especially since on this issue there can be corroboration through Roman sources: Since the beginning of the 1st century CE, Rome battled messianic movements in Judaism.811 The denial of resurrection hope by Sadducean groups is a valuable conceptual parallel to 1 Cor 15:12. That doesn’t have to mean that there were Sadducean groups in Corinth, but rather that the opposition to the resurrection hope in

805 Josephus, B.J. 2.165; Ant. 18.16; for rabbinic parallels see Billerbeck, vol. 1, 893–895. Whether Sadducees are to be viewed as a monolithic group is a question. According to Matthew some step forward in opposition to Pharisaic groups only to disavow the resurrection. Differences within Sadducean interpretation of Scripture and hope in God are also conceivable. In any case there is an ossuary that poses this question—even if ossuaries are not to be connected particularly to Pharisaic hope; on this see Fine 2019, 449–450. 806 Josephus, Ant. 18.17; 13.298. 807 Josephus, Ant. 18.17; on this Goodman 2007,127. 808 Josephus, Ant. 13.298. 809 Josephus, Ant. 20.199. 810 Mark 14:55; 15:1; Matt. 26:59; 27:1–2; Luke 23:1 and elsewhere; John 11:28. 811 On this see Smallwood 1981, 351; R. Meyer 1970, 82–88; Elliott 2007, 215–216; L. Schottroff 2015.

14:39–40

289

Corinth could have had comparable backgrounds. Jewish Messianic groups in a city under Roman domination like Corinth were a political problem over against Rome for the responsible ruling elite. They could evoke Rome’s mistrust. The elite families in Corinth, and those that supported them, will have used pressure and threats in order to keep the congregation small or even to dissolve it. 15:32–34 indirectly shows such pressure to assimilate: »Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die« (cf. Isa 22:13). They are experiencing extortion with respect to their belly (koilia; Phil 3:19): They allow their needs for life be reduced to eating and drinking, and they forget God and humanity. On the politics of the Roman Empire over against messianic Judaism, which the situation in 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear, several sources should be brought up here. Tacitus clearly expresses the Roman point of view. He says of Jewish people: »They consider immortal the souls of those who die in battle or through execution. That is the source of the desire to beget children and the despising of death.«812 It is clear that Tacitus is drawing on Jewish interpretations of martyrdom. An example of this: In 2 Maccabees, the second of a mother’s seven sons, under persecution through the hangmen under Antiochus Epiphanes IV, says: »You godless one, for the moment you extinguish our life, but the true royal Power over the entire world will allow us, we who die for the sake of her law, that is the Torah, to arise to a new eternal life« (2 Macc 7:9, BigS). Tacitus’ perspective is directed to the Jewish potential for a military rebellion that he recognizes in such a resurrection hope. This is consistently the Roman perspective. In the sources, the Roman concept is repeatedly attested that there was an ancient prophecy in the East that a new rule over the world would come out of Judea.813 This prophecy could be Dan 7:14, for example (cf. Luke 1:33). There was disagreement between people oriented toward Rome and messianic groups about the interpretation of the ancient prophecy: Does it refer to the Roman emperor or to Jews who, with God’s help, fight and work for justice and the liberation of the Jewish people. For many Jewish people, this prophecy means hope that gives power for resistance against Rome. At this time, the resistance was predominantly non-violent and came from below, from the people in their daily lives. Rome recognized military potential in these hopes, even if there was no military option on the Jewish side. To Roman ears, Paul’s statements in 15:22–29 had sounded like military rebellion with a Messiah-King leading the way. People who in Rome’s world hoped for the resurrection of the dead hoped for worldwide justice. They experienced in daily life subtle and open pressure to give up such »dangerous superstition.«814 That is the social climate that illu-

812 Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.3; on the text see Stern 1980, vol. 2, 41–42. 813 Tacitus, Ant. 5.13.2; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5. Additional material is found in Stern 1980, vol. 2, 272–298; also Josephus, B.J. 6.312–314, a translation of and commentary on which is found in Michel/Bauernfeind 1969, 55.190–192. 814 Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.3.

290

Commentary

mines 1 Cor 15:12, 34, but also the Sadducean position. People see themselves forced to speak out against the hope for the resurrection of the dead. Herod Antipas—as Matt 14:1–2 and Mark 6:14–15 tell it—heard about Jesus’ messianic deeds and his success with the people. He heard that the people were speaking about whether Jesus was one of the prophets or John the Baptist, raised from the dead. Herod Antipas had the Baptist executed. He concluded that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist. This little scene shows how self-evident it was for one who was a provincial ruler by Rome’s grace to reckon with the resurrection of dead people and the messianic power of those who were raised. It is not explicitly said that he is afraid of the resurrected Baptist, yet the account presupposes that Herod Antipas is well aware that his power has its limit here and that he can be called to account by God for the murder of the Baptist. The scene illumines still another aspect of Roman politics with respect to Jewish Messianism: The rulers see themselves called into question by Messianism itself, perhaps even threatened by an alien deity. The power of death holds sway over everyday life in the Roman Empire. People take part in the rituals of death in massive events in the arenas.815 On the other hand, these very people are themselves threatened. Arbitrary justice made even life in elite circles into life under the shadow of death.816 The life of an individual in the majority population is in any case of little value.817 It is not by chance that Paul calls death the greatest enemy that the Messiah had to conquer (15:26). For the little people, and surely also for individuals from the circles of the elite, the messianic message of the God of Israel offered an alternative that brings encouragement and hope. Death’s dangers did not thereby become smaller, but fellowship with this deity and his congregation brought dignity and imperishability into the life of every individual. Paul had written the letter to Corinth probably at the beginning of the fifties of the first century CE In this period (October 13, 54) the Emperor Claudius died of poisoning from mushrooms that his wife brought him. He was declared to be God at a massive burial ceremony.818 This divinization of Emperor Claudius was bitterly mocked in an anonymous satire that came into circulation shortly after the burial. The author (probably Seneca the Younger) took literary revenge here on the emperor who exiled him and others to Corsica. On the one hand, with this satire he supported the new emperor, Nero; on the other hand, he made public—even if anonymously—the limitless bitterness over the arbitrary rule of the emperor. He stresses repeatedly how quickly the emperor during his lifetime had people executed. He lets the emperor lay out his wretchedness before the Olympic senate of deities and the tribunal in the underworld.

815 See above on 4:9–13 and Kahl 2010, 156–167. 816 Seneca’s satire Apocolocyntosis speaks of this with particular emphasis; trans Allen Perley Bell, 1902. 817 Bolt 1998, 51–79. 818 On the festive divinization ceremony see Bolt 1998, 70–72.

14:39–40

291

With a shaky hand the emperor himself in the Pantheon attempts to deliver to death by decapitation a goddess who had spoken against him—with a sign »for the one purpose of decapitating people.«819 But here he has lost his power. This lampoon describes the brutal climate in the Roman Empire and the arrogance of the rulers, who still wanted to be divinized after their deaths. The ascension and divinization of the emperor on the one hand and the resurrection of the crucified Jew Jesus and the resurrected body of Christ on the other—these picture a sharp contrast that shows what the alternatives were for the people in the messianic congregations. Paul does not mention the divinization of the Emperor Claudius, but we can imagine that it was for him, if also for other reasons than for Seneca, an abomination, that the structures of death crowned with an ascension of the emperor. Jesus’ Answer to the Denial of the Resurrection in Matt 22:23–33 and the Answer of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 God’s self-revelation (Exod 3:6) as the God of Israel is interpreted by Jesus (Matt 22:32 and parallels): God is not a God of the dead, but of the living. According to this account, through God’s revelation at the burning bush the following is clear to Jesus: There is a resurrection of the dead, the vitality of the dead through fellowship with God. In the face of the Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus does not try, according to the gospels, to prove the resurrection; with short statements he points to the Scripture and to God’s revelation attested in the Scripture. In his view that already says all there is to say about the resurrection. He opposes the denial of the resurrection with a proclamation that is at the same time meant for the ears of all that hunger for liberation: Trust in God’s life-creating power. There are also then in the continuation of the narrative positive reactions reported, in Matt 22:33 by the crowd, by a scribe in Mark 12:28 and by »some of the scribes« in Luke 20:39. The Scripture is the common foundation for life of all those involved. Even the Sadducean group does not try to contradict the words of Jesus. The form critical designation »controversy dialogue« is not appropriate for the text. It is also true of 1 Corinthians 15 that Paul is not speaking contentiously or by way of contradiction.820 He opposes the political cautiousness of some members of the congregation with the proclamation of the liberating message. His internal conversational partners are not opponents or the erring but the people

819 Seneca, Apocol. 6.2, trans. Allan Perley Ball,1902. 820 Fundamental here is Janssen 2005, 99–102. She makes it clear that Paul’s utterances should »not be interpreted first and foremost as a reaction to a (re)constructed group of opponents, a group of opponents that can be described differently depending on how one approaches the issue« (99). Through the reference to opponents, Paul’s utterances can no longer »be understood as a contribution to the solution of concrete problems that emerge from a common way of living« (101). This is true not only for 15:35–58, to which Janssen is primarily referring here, but already for 15:1–34 also.

292

Commentary

in a concrete community that he knows. He shares their life under threat and reassures them and himself about the great power that they have received: confidence in God. God is a God of the living—the statement could be the caption over 1 Corinthians 15, and especially over 15:36–49 (see especially 15:38). Our God-given life cannot be destroyed, Paul tells the congregation.

15:1–2 1 I remind you, sisters and brothers, of the liberating message that I interpreted for you, that you have accepted and with which you are also standing on firm ground. 2 Through it you have also been set free, if you hold it fast in the spirit in which I also interpreted it to you; without it, your confidence has no basis. 15:1–2 is where Paul states his intention with the verb that begins the sentence: gnōridzein. He wants to give the brothers and sisters certainty about their concern, explain it to them and assure them (cf. 12:3). He is not imparting something new (the verb can also mean that), as the subordinate clauses that follow already show. The subordinate clauses all relate grammatically or in substance to the euangelion (15:1), the liberating message. The two verses are an assurance of the relationship between the sisters and brothers and the good news. The sisters and brothers have accepted this message—as Paul himself already had (15:3). Their feet stand firmly on the ground that this message has created. It signifies healing, liberation and a future for them (sōdzesthe). Likewise, with their hands they can hold fast (katechein) to the liberating message; they can remember the words with which Paul expressed it. Possibly Paul actually means that they can commit them to memory, learn them by heart, in order to hold them fast when it is necessary. It is not a matter of learning something word by word, as the variety of words used for the message shows. The statements in 15:1–2 permit us to recognize the oral culture in which they find a home. What is important is to pass on and hold fast to a message such as the one that has been received. Not in order to preserve its dogma or its wording but in order to keep alive its life-enhancing power for oneself and for others. The two concluding subordinate clauses (if … unless …) should not be read as a restriction of confidence or a criticism of the addressees. Without the message of liberation, confidence in God would have no foundation (15:2 end; cf. 15:17).

15:3–11 3 For I have delivered to you as a foundation what I also received: The Messiah died for our sins, as the Scripture says. 4 He was buried, and on the third day he arose, according to the Scripture. 5 He appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. 6 After that he was seen by more than 500 sisters and brothers at once, most of whom are still alive today. Some have already died. 7 Then he appeared to James and to all apostles. 8 As last of all these, he appeared also to me, a

15:3–11

293

miscarriage. 9 For I am the least in the apostolic community and not worthy to be called an apostle, for I persecuted the congregation of God. 10 Through God’s kindness I have become what I am, and God’s kindness toward me was not in vain. For I have been slaving away more than all others—not I alone, but God’s care along with me. 11 Whether I or the others: This is how we have made our proclamation, and this is how you have come to trust God. 15:3–8 has a repetitious linguistic structure, and all subsidiary clauses and sentences refer to Christ (15:3). 15:3–4 provides a brief summary of the gospel. 15:5–8 names the first proclaimers of the gospel called by the Messiah. In 15:9–11 Paul speaks about himself, of his earlier life, in which he persecuted the messianic congregation, of his call by God and his work for the gospel. His call and his work for the gospel are a huge miracle for him, as his statements make clear. 15:3–4 The gospel, the liberating message that Paul brought with him to Corinth as fundamental, had already been delivered to him by other people as well. In Gal 1:12 he says that he had received the gospel through a revelation from the Messiah Jesus. Both concepts belong together: He had seen the Messiah as a Living One who is with God, and people have proclaimed to him the liberating message. And that these people collectively have shaped their lives in accord with the Torah, is a way to carry the thought further. For a tradition process of this kind presupposes a messianic community. In the verses commencing with 15:3 a formula or a confession has often been seen. In that regard, the end of the confession is variously determined (for example, at 15:5). But we do not have here a tradition with inflexible wording (see above on 15:1–2). Rather, we have a tradition or a report about God’s activity that encourages people in their own life situation and gives them creative power. Such a formula would be devoid of content if it did not come from a way of life that, through the good news, also encourages others to reshape their own lives. It surely contains words that Paul’s brothers and sisters have already used, but also his own words and his own shaping of the text. The contents of the liberating message, according to 15:3b–4, are: The Messiah died in his mission for »us« and was raised by God. The Messiah is present and alive. The division of the gospel about the resurrection of the Messiah into two verses (15:3 and 4) could be a reason for interpreting the death as a saving event of the same rank as the resurrection. But the saving event is the resurrection alone. About both the martyrdom and the resurrection it is twice said »according to the Scriptures.« What this message says is not something new; It is the continuation of the liberating acts of God for the people of Israel, for the messianic communities who entrust themselves to this God and for the whole earth (see 15:23–28). This activity of God is attested to by the Torah. Paul is not concerned about adducing individual passages as proof texts. The death of Jesus »according to the Scriptures« also means: In retrospect the congregation can recognize God’s activity in the martyr death on the basis of the Scriptures. The violence of the rulers who are responsible for the execution is not thereby legitimated. Rather, the resistance that had martyrdom as a consequence is recognized as an act of liberation for the people of God. God has vindicated this martyr and, through his resurrection, set a limit to violence (see the basic information on 11:23 as a whole). That the martyr champions the libera-

294

Commentary

tion of the people of Israel (see on this Rom 8:34) and that through his mission and his death the people’s distance from God, »our sins,« lost their power is a Jewish martyr tradition. The message about the resurrection begins with the reference to the grave. That the Crucified One was buried is already the beginning of the cure for the violence and injustice that was done to Jesus through the crucifixion.821 The mention of the graves of the dead is part of the proclamation about the resurrection. Indeed the Scriptures already say that God brings the dead out of the graves: »Behold,, I am about to open your graves, and let you rise out of your graves as my people« (Ezek 37:12, BigS).822 Jesus’ grave is not named as evidence of his death and should also not evoke any special reference to the account of the empty tomb according to the Synoptic Gospels. The account of the empty tomb is a further version of the resurrection gospel, as is, in a somewhat different way, 1 Cor 15:3–4. The resurrection of the dead by God is a biblical and post-biblical, widely attested Jewish tradition that puts into words God’s life-creating power.823 That faith in the vivification or resurrection plays no role in older parts of the Old Testament is not pertinent here. Of more interest is the observation of how diverse the images of the resurrection are in their particular contexts. They are always meant to emphasize confidence in God’s power to be with people beyond death and to establish a boundary to the death for which people are responsible. In the Jewish world it is self-evident that the resurrection vivifies not only the soul but the whole person, including the body. God will grant the entire person life anew; God will preserve all life, the entire creation, even the animals (see at 15:39). The third day as the day of resurrection is not named out of an interest in history. In that case, from this designation of time (cf. Mark 8:31 and more frequently; Matt 16:21; Luke 9:22 and more frequently) it would be concluded that, according to tradition, it was the time of Jesus’ resurrection. In the context in which the time designation is given, it rather says something about God’s action on behalf of one person and of all people. God puts an end to the power of death and of violence quickly, on the third day. In this sense, the third day has biblical foundations.824

Appearances of the Risen One, 1 Cor 15:5–8 Paul speaks about appearances/epiphanies of the Risen One. He lists persons and groups to whom the risen Messiah appeared, who saw him as the Risen

821 The denial of burial is part of the punishment associated with crucifixion; see on this L. Schottroff 1990, 136–137. An interpretation according to which the being buried in 1 Cor 15:4 is a confirmation of the death is not plausible in the political context 822 Hengel 2001, 119–183 offers comprehensive material for the Old Testament and postbiblical Judaism. 823 Bieberstein 1998, 3–16; Bieberstein 2009, 421–446; F. Crüsemann 2011, 258–287. On postbiblical Judaism see Cavallin 1979, 240–345; Bauckham 2008, 245–256. 824 Possibly the »third day« refers to Hos 6:2; on this see Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 39–43.

15:3–11

295

One. The verb ōphthē could be understood as an aorist passive: »He appeared«; »He let himself be seen« (Gen 12:7; 17:1 LXX; Acts 7:2). The difference in meaning between the two is irrelevant. It is an epiphany, as it is frequently recounted in the world of ancient religions (the Old Testament, post-biblical Judaism, Hellenistic-Roman religions, early Christianity)825. In appearances there is a self-revealing deity or a revelatory figure sent from God, and there are receivers of the revelation. Here in 1 Cor 15:5–8 the appearances are not described. A legendarily envisioned appearance account is found, for example, in Acts 9:1–43 (Paul’s call) or Mark 16:1–8 (the commissioning of the women at the grave of Jesus). In these accounts we encounter typical elements again and again: the fear of those receiving the revelation; the people who receive the revelation are essentially enemies of the deity (see, for example, 2 Macc 3:7–40; Paul, according to Acts and 1 Cor. 15:8–11). What the people see is only alluded to. Often there are appearances of light, but nothing is spelled out. In order to clarify the significance of the appearance for those who experience it and for those addressed in the texts, each text needs to be addressed. For the most part, the revelation accounts culminate in a commission for the recipients of the revelation. In 15:5–8, the connection to the proclamation of the euangelion/the liberating message is provided by the context (see 15:1–4, 9–11). The choice of the persons selected also points in this direction. They are persons who, through Paul himself (Cephas, James, the apostles), are known in messianic communities as proclaimers. Cephas/Peter and James are also found in the gospel tradition, whereby it is not clear, with respect to James, whether the reference is to the brother of Jesus or to the brother of John, the son of Zebedee. The more than 500 brothers and sisters are also identified, by the term »sisters and brothers«/ adelphoi, as members of the body of Christ, and as such they have, in word or deed, a share in the gospel (see 1 Cor 12:3–10). For Paul himself, the commission as proclaimer is discussed in detail. In the statements that Paul here makes about himself, there first comes to the fore how unfit he sees himself to be called as a proclaimer (15:8–9). The reference to prophetic calls is clear. Isaiah (Isa 6), Jeremiah (Jer 1) and Ezekiel (Ezek 1 and 2) speak similarly about their calls. In Gal 1:12–16 the issue also is how unfit Paul was as God through Christ called him as a proclaimer of the gospel/apostle. Here as well the reference to prophetic calls is clear.826 It is therefore to be assumed that Paul saw himself and other proclaimers of the Messiah Jesus in the tradition of the Torah, above all, of the prophetic calls. As the prophets and prophetesses were called in Scripture, God in this way calls male and female messengers, even if they are fully unsuitable or consider themselves not up to the task (Jeremiah). A responsibility

825 Rax 1962, 832–909; Windisch 1932, 1–23. 826 Ehrensperger 2007, 81–97. The terminology with which Paul speaks of call visions in 1 Cor 15:5–8, Gal 1:12–16 and 1 Cor 9:1 fits in with the corresponding terminology about revelatory experiences in the Old Testament. On the Old Testament terminology, see, among others, Preuss 1995, 119.

296

Commentary

for other people is laid upon them, for which God will require of them an accounting (see especially Ezek 3:16–21; cf. 1 Cor 3:13–15; 1 Corinthians 5 in connection with 2 Cor 2:5–11; 7:12). The question is to be asked why Paul tells about the resurrection appearances. It is frequently assumed that the recipients of the revelation are designated as witnesses in the sense of a proof of objective truth.827 Another interpretation of the resurrection appearances regards them as a legitimation of the recipients of the revelation, perhaps in the sense of the conferring of an office.828 Karl Barth vehemently rejected the idea of understanding the appearances as »historical proof.«829 He wants to see them as revelation. The epiphanies are a revelation of the miracle that God is performing on humanity.830 The revelation would serve to testify to that miracle. However, what this signifies for the witnesses to the revelatory miracle, how it sent them on a surely difficult, but also joyous and common way, I would like to describe more clearly than Karl Barth did and see, also with respect to Paul, more from the experience of people on their own body and in community, than in this very consistent emphasis on the revelation of what is inaccessible. Mary Magdalene and the other women at the tomb831 are not mentioned by name by Paul, although in the gospels they play a special role as recipients of the revelation of the resurrection appearances.832 Now, with respect to the individuals and to the twelve in 1 Cor 15:5–8, no direct relationship to the gospels is to be noted, although they appear in comparable contexts. The gospels

827 Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 57, with reference to 15:6: »Strengthening the objectivity through a collective experience« corresponds to the Pauline »intension of undergirding the reality of Christ’s resurrection.« This is a widespread interpretation; see, for example, Merklein/ Gielen 2005, 284; Zeller 2010, 474: an established »fact«; more cautiously Garland 2003, 695: »Christ’s resurrection is the common denominator on which all are in accord«; 689, a review of the research on interpretations dealing with Paul’s view, in the sense of the »historicity of the resurrection.« A »proof« from Paul’s perspective is also the view of Theissen/Merz 1996, 428. 828 That is the view, for example, of Conzelmann, 1975, 256–257; additional literature espousing this view is found in Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 50. 829 K. Barth 1953, 77 and more frequently. 830 K. Barth 1953, 89, 84. 831 The lists of the women who are named with Mary Magdalene vary. See on this Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1 and parallels; L. Schottroff 1990, 138–142. 832 Explicitly in Matt 28:9–10; John 20:16–20; implicitly in Mark 16:1–8; Matt 28:1–8; Luke 24:10–11. Also to be understood as an indirect appearance of the Risen One, in the sense of an epiphany narrative, is the appearance of an angel or young man or of two men at Jesus’ grave. In epiphanies, the person involved in the appearance him- or herself is not usually seen and described but rather the miraculous accompanying circumstances. (see only Acts 9:4 and 5). In ancient religions, especially in Israel, it is self-evident and of little importance that the body of one who has been raised is no longer in the tomb. For a way of thinking after the European enlightenment this self-evidence can no longer be repeated and is also no longer desirable. Another language must be found in order to express confidence in God’s power to create life beyond the grave.

15:3–11

297

in their present form have presumably been written a generation after Paul. The traditions utilized in them are older. One can speculate about whether Paul can have known about a resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene or not. The 500 »sisters and brothers« and all »female and male apostles« are for him groups consisting of women and men.833 Moreover, the list of revelation recipients is not concluded for him with 15:8 (see on 15:8). It is open, so that many women and men will continue it. My understanding of resurrection appearances is based on 15:8–11. Paul wishes to speak about people who are bearers of the gospel/the liberating message. In this regard, there is for him no contradiction therein that, on the one hand, the gospel is ascribed to a tradition and, on the other, to the call by God in an appearance of the Messiah. The messengers, on the one hand, and the appearances of the Risen One, on the other, belong indissolubly together. The Messiah is not alive apart from the people who are the Messiah’s living body, sōma Christou. The sōma Christou is not alive apart from God’s doing, the resurrection of the Messiah and the gift to people of the divine Spirit. They are female and male prophets in whose lives God has intervened, as in the lives of the female and male prophets before them. They have great responsibility and abundant power, which they receive from God. They are able to build the house, the body of Christ, and with that a life of just relationships. The resurrection appearances prove nothing, they legitimate nothing. They are experiences with the life-creating activity of God in a self-destroying and yet wonderful human world. 15:5 Paul calls Peter by his Aramaic name, kēphas/rock (see also 1:12; 3:22 and more frequently). He knew him personally (see Gal 1:18, 2:9–11, 14). Paul does not say that the appearance was an appearance that had special significance. The meeting with Christ and commissioning of the »twelve«834 as well as an appearance to Peter alone are not spoken of in the gospels; at most, Luke 24:34 and Matt 28:16 can be interpreted in this way. That the »twelve« are understood by Paul to be a leadership group is not to be assumed. On the basis of the biblical background, he will understand the twelve as representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel: a group of people from the early period of the messianic community around Jesus that bears the name of a hope. It is the hope that God will once again gather the people of Israel from the dispersion, from death and from being forgotten to a life in God’s just world, 15:6 Paul is now speaking himself, no longer referring to tradition as in 15:3–5. A group of more than 500 sisters and brothers saw the Risen One. Unfortunately, he says nothing about the circumstances under which a group of this size was gathered. One can use Acts 2:1–21 to envision such a group. The time reference, »most of them are still alive today,« probably says that some time has elapsed since

833 See Rom 16:7 on »apostle« and the address to members of the community as »Brothers,« for example in 1 Corinthians for a community of women and men. 834 On the dōdeka/twelve, see L. Schottroff 2011, 1795–1796.

298

Commentary

this appearance. That it is his intention with this reference to make the resurrection appearances verifiable for later generations is an interpretation that understands the text 15:1–11 as an attempt to substantiate the resurrection (on this see the basic information on 15:5). 15:7 Which James is meant, the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17 and more frequently) or the son of Zebedee (Mark 1:19 and more frequently)? It is usually assumed that it was James, the brother of Jesus (see also Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12). With »all the apostles,« once again, a large, not precisely circumscribed group is mentioned (cf. Rom 16:7; 1 Cor 12:28). Paul understands this group to also include women. 15:8 He now calls himself the »least of all« (cf. 9:1; Gal 1:12–16). That he does not mean »the last of all« in the temporal sense,835 follows, on the one hand, from his understanding of a calling of people through God. Others after him were also called by God (see only 1:26). Appearances of the risen Messiah are also not tied to a limited time period.836 The following statements are so filled with horror over his past as a persecutor of messianic congregations that even this term (»the last«) is meant to characterize his existence as a persecutor. Even the Greek word ektrōma/stillbirth, with its metaphoric content, is to be interpreted from the context. As a persecutor of the messianic congregations, he is a stillbirth, who was awakened to life by God’s call in the Christophany.837 15:9 This verse also describes the distance from God from which God’s call drew him back: He is the least of all those whom God called as apostles—because of this past that he had. He is not worthy to be called as an apostle—he does not thereby wish to say that he is not now, as a proclaimer of the gospel, worthy to be named an apostle (see also on 15:10). He has persecuted God’s messianic community (cf. Gal 1:13, 23; Phil 3:6; Acts 8:3; and frequently). He considered their messianism politically dangerous for Israel and did everything he could in order to silence those involved, even by executing them (Acts 26:10–11). His own statements about his time as a persecutor are so marked by horror over his own ruthlessness,838 that this account in Acts can be accurate. 835 This is the common interpretation; see, for example Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 61. To the interpretation of eschatos in the temporal sense also belongs the assumption that thereafter there were no more resurrection appearances. 836 A limited period of time for Jesus’ resurrection appearances is generally supported as an interpretation of 15:1–11 (see the previous note). In Paul’s view, other people who were called by God and are absent from these lists are not called in a deficient manner. If the appearances of the Risen One are meant to be historicized to fall within a limited time period, the concept of the resurrection of Christ is brought to a false level. Has the Risen One after the appearances then travelled into heaven, where he can no longer be reached? 837 There is an overview of the research on ektrōma in Garland 2003,691–693, for example; interpretations similar to the one advocated here are found in Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 64, n. 238. 838 Here I merely point out critically that the »pre-Christian« Paul was traditionally interpreted to be primarily anti-Judaistic.

15:3–11

299

15:10 For him the call is an experience of resurrection from the dead. God has awakened the miscarriage to life. He owes who he now is totally to God’s intervention. God’s grace transformed him from a persecutor into a messenger bringing life. For him, his call is a miracle, about which he speaks with gratitude. He has been led onto the path from death to life. His labor was the consequence of this experience of God’s grace through an appearance of the Risen One. He speaks about his work for the liberating message without any feeling of inferiority. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to interpret 15:9 as if he were unworthy of being named an apostle,839 for he has no doubt about that. God’s grace was not in vain. He has worked harder than all whom he has named. The word kopian/to toil designates hard labor with one’s hands, in the fields, for example. Paul had a particular interest in using this dramatic word for his work as God’s ambassador (see 4:12 and more frequently). He also uses it for other women and men who are working for liberation.840 Later Christian generations have no longer used the term. It is important for him to make clear how much hard, physically hard work he must do. In Chapter 9 he provides some details about his excessively demanding labor. Even the limitation he provides about his own performance seems clear: God’s grace has worked along with him. To soften this idea, several interpretations and manuscripts have wanted to relate the common ground only to the grace, not to the labor.841 Nevertheless, Paul’s concern here is to make clear the radical consequences his call had for his life. 15:11 Paul here provides a concluding summary: All to whom the Risen One appeared and he himself are proclaiming the gospel, the liberating message. And upon this foundation the congregation has »come to believe,« that is, they have entrusted themselves to the God of Israel. Death no longer has power over us; we, the proclaimers, and the congregation, are risen ones, who await the all-encompassing resurrection of humanity and of the earth with our whole existence. The concern here is not strife with the congregation but reassurance and encouragement. It all comes down to that alone. That is resurrection experience and resurrection hope: The Risen One has appeared to all, and all have experienced resurrection on their own bodies. Paul has described his own commission and resurrection appearance in order to make clear how thoroughly God’s call changes life. 1 Cor 15:1–11 is often interpreted as a historical line of argument for Christ’s resurrection. Rudolf Bultmann considered this interpretation to be correct and therefore called Paul’s argumentation in 15:1–11 »fatal«: »Even Paul himself on one occasion wants to establish the miracle of the resurrection as a historical event through an enumeration of the eyewitnesses. How fatal this argumentation is …«842 This interpretation of 15:1–11 as a historical proof has been advocated up to the

839 Moreover, apostolos should not be interpreted as a »title«; The word designates people who are sent by God to proclaim the gospel. 840 16:16; Rom 16:6, 12; on kopian see Harnack 1928, 1–10. 841 For example, Lindemann 2000, 335. 842 Bultmann 1941, 64.

300

Commentary

present time.843 I understand 15:1–11 not as an attempt at a historical proof, also not as an attempt to legitimate the authority of the proclaimers, but as encouragement and reassurance about the foundational message of God: You are set free from death. God has raised the murdered Messiah. Now your life, our life has received a new direction.

15:12–19 12 If it is proclaimed that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, how is it then possible that some of you say, »There is no resurrection of the dead?« 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ also has not been raised. 14 But if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is meaningless, and your faith is in vain. 15 We are giving false testimony about God, for we are testifying, in contradiction to God, that God has raised the Messiah, whom God has not raised—if the dead do not rise. 16 If the dead are not raised, then Christ also has not been raised. 17 But if the Messiah has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those who died with faith in the Messiah are also lost. 19 If we confine our hope in Christ to this life, we are more miserable than all other people. Paul is not arguing here with the intension of getting »deniers«844 of the resurrection of the dead to give up their point of view. There are a great number of hypotheses about what the deniers of the resurrection are asserting, and which religio-historical context fits their view: Are they comparable to the Sadducean groups, do they advocate a pure internalization of salvation, or do they deny any hope beyond death? As long as these questions remain within the religio-historical level of thinking, such hypotheses are possible, but they remain relatively open-ended conjectures. The socio-historical question can give the various positions and myths of the religious history of this period a describable relationship to what life was really like. What did life mean in Roman cities under the conditions of the early Roman imperial period? Paul calls it life under the control of sin and of the powers. What consequences did trust in the God of Israel and life in one of the communities brought together by God have for people who were handed over to the grasp of the powers and authorities? It is a question of method and of hermeneutics whether, in seeking an interpretation here, an opposing position is set over-against something Paul is teaching or whether Paul is understood as a co-shaper of a life of resistance. The Pauline counterparts are not »false teachers« but people who, as members of the body of Christ, find

843 See the basic information above prior to 15:5. 844 An overview of religion historical hypotheses on 15:12 is found, for example, in Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 111–113. I have myself been involved in this investigation of hypotheses (L. Schottroff 1970, 154–158).

15:12–19

301

themselves not in a sheltered environment but in a society in which what counts are money, power, and control over the bodies of other people. Paul mentions in 15:12 a position that is supported by »some« within the congregation. They reject the hope for a resurrection of the dead and trust in Jesus as the Messiah awakened from the dead.845 The two aspects of the messianic proclamation belong closely together not only for Paul. Paul has the goal of strengthening the entire congregation in their relationship to the liberating message: God has awakened the crucified Messiah from the grave. God’s life-creating power is greater than the violence and death that surround the existence of the people in the congregation and in the city of Corinth. The life of individuals is not worth very much; it is threatened by the controlling power their masters and mistresses have over their bodies. In order to put into words this encouragement against resignation or against political attempts to defuse the problem (see the basic information above before 15:1), Paul paints a picture of all that would be lost if they gave up the liberating gospel. Confidence in God’s power would be destroyed—Paul speaks twice about the negative consequences for pistis (15:14, 17). Then the life of all would again be as corrupted as it was before (15:17). If the Messiah signified no hope beyond death, the people would be without hope, more miserable than all other people. In 15:1–11 Paul has described how the gospel came into the world and how the body of Christ came into being through God’s call to humanity. All whom he addresses in his letter have been called by God; they, the whole congregation, have the task of carrying the liberating message further. Through resignation or fearful diminution of the message, the new life-foundation that upholds all is destroyed: trust in God, the hope that death no longer is or will be the lord over the world. The proclamation of the gospel would become charlatanry, the dissemination of a lie (15:15). 15:12 Paul has spoken about the liberating message in 15:1–11 and reassured himself and others anew: What gives us, the congregation, power is confidence in the God of Israel, who has raised a crucified one, so that all are now his body and are carrying forward his message. How can some call that into question? To see who these tines/some are, see the basic information before 15:1 above and this material on 15:12–19. 15:13 Resurrection of the dead and the raising of Christ belong together (cf. 15:16). Paul uses conditional clauses here and in what follows. In the result clauses, he always draws the consequence. He is arguing existentially here. What would it mean if the messianic congregation would lose confidence in the life-creating power of the God of Israel?846

845 The wording of 15:12 could be read as if the tines/some espouse the resurrection of Christ but not the resurrection of the dead. Yet both belong together, not only for Paul himself but for all the others who are involved, as is repeated frequently in 15:12–19. This is supported not only by the wording itself but also by the underlying concept of the God of Israel, whose life-creating power is greater than the power of death (see the basic information already given above prior to 15:1). 846 See BDAG s.v. elpidzein.

302

Commentary

15:14 The proclamation would be empty, devoid of power/kenos. In 15:15 this consequence is once again named, here with other words: The proclamation would be a lie (15:15). Likewise, our faith would be in vain (15:14) or futile (15:17). Paul paints all these terrifying images before their very eyes as hypothetical consequences. He and the addressees are indeed convinced that the proclamation of the liberating message is powerful and that confidence in God’s life-creating power is the solid ground upon which the congregation and Paul are standing together (see only 15:11). He is taking seriously the fears and resignation of people in the congregation, who are not withstanding the pressure. He wants to encourage them. But are such horrifying images actually encouraging? They show that the fear that everything for which he is fighting could fall to pieces is not foreign to him. We can feel how fiercely he must fight to maintain his courage and power. 15:15 Those who are disseminating the gospel, the people in the congregation, would be spreading a false statement, a lie about God. They would be acting against one of the commandments in the Decalogue (Exod 20:16; Deut 5:20). They would be asserting that God has raised the Messiah, all the while knowing that this is not true. Paul throws his own existence into this nightmare scenario. He would not be the one called by God, accompanied by God’s favor on each day of his labor (15:10); He would be a false witness against God and a transgressor of the Torah. 15:16—see on 15:13. 15:17—see on 15:14 Along with the sins of the people in the congregation, Paul addresses the lives that they led before they were called by God and joined together. They have incurred blows and dished them out; they were involved in the sexual exploitation of other people. Paul has addressed many of these issues in this letter (see especially Chapters 5 through 11). God’s Spirit has enabled them to build with one another a life that is oriented to the peace of God (7:15; 14:33). If they lose their trust in the God of Israel, they will once again be corrupted very quickly. Their life will be as though there had never been an alternative. 15:18 Then the congregation’s dead would no longer be part of their fellowship. They would have perished; even God would have forgotten them (see on 15:29). 15:19 With »in this life« we probably have a reference to the content of the hope. People would then have hopes that are directed to this life:847 Cf. »Let us eat and drink …« (15:32). The hopes would be in the wrong things, the »this life« dimension of surviving under the given circumstances. Then the people of the Messiah would be more worthy of pity than all other people. He presupposes that all other people by all means have hope that extends beyond death.848

847 An additional solution is to relate monon/only to the verb (Blass/Debrunner 1984, § 352.1): We would only be »hopers,« those who had succumbed to an illusion. 848 Mayordomo 2005, 123: Paul argues with strict logic in 15:12–29. To be added: In this way he is painting a horror scenario that would rob even him of the ground under his feet.

15:20–22

303

15:20–22 20 But now the Messiah has been raised from the dead—as the beginning of life for those who have died. 21 For since death came through one person, through one person comes the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as we all die, while we are like Adam, so shall we all be made alive in the Messiah. 15:20 With a liberated »now«/nyni849 Paul concludes his images of horror. The Messiah has been raised from the dead by God. His awakening is the beginning/ aparchē850 of the resurrection of the dead. They also will be made alive by God (15:22, a divine passive). Through a translation such as the »first born of those who have fallen asleep,« the impression could be conveyed that Paul has a trajectory in mind in which the resurrection of Christ and later then the resurrection of the dead follow one another. But he wants to say: God has now imposed a boundary on death, the resurrection of the dead is already present (cf. Rom 4:17), and it is the great hope for God’s future (cf. the future zōopoiēthēsontai/to make alive; 15:22; zōopoioun, the present, 15:45). On the concept of time, that is, Paul’s eschatology, see the basic information already at 1:6 and see below on 15:23–28. In 15:21–22 Paul explains how he envisions the connection between the resurrection of Christ and that of the dead. He draws upon the widespread biblical and post-biblical concept of Adam as a collective body851 of humanity. Just as the collective Adam brings death into the world (cf. Rom 5:12), so the collective body of the resurrected Messiah brings life for all, for the whole of humanity and the earth. What does Paul mean here with the death that Adam brings into the life of all people? Verses 15:45–46 explain that later. It is death as it is part of every living being (psychē zōsa, 15:45). But Paul can use the word death also in a wider sense. In that respect every living being is threatened by a power of death that goes far beyond the death that is part of everything that is living. This death is a destructive power that is opposed to God and will be disempowered by God as the last enemy (15:26).852 This death is another name for the power of sin. Adam brings death in this double sense: the death of the living being and its enslavement by death. That it is also said about an additional human being/anthrōpos, that he, like Adam, was a collective body, like a sphere in (en) which all live, is not found in this way in the biblical creation story. A second Adam figure is found in post-biblical

849 Cf. Rom 3:21. 850 The meaning »first fruits« in the context of sacrificial cults (as, for example, Rom 11:16) is not recognizable here. The word is also used in a »greatly weakened« sense (BDAG s.v.). The point is a beginning that has consequences for many; see also on 16:15. 851 The starting point is Genesis 1–3. The creation story was frequently retold; see on this Meisner 2002, 376–401; Brandenburger 1962. 852 On this see especially Janssen 2005, 119–125.

304

Commentary

accounts about Adam. Comparable material is also found in accounts about sophia/ wisdom.853 The human being, the Messiah, is, like Adam, God’s creation and embodies the coming to life of all854 people. That Christ is so emphatically called anthrōpos/ human being (15:21, 47) points to the creation account (see only Gen 1:26, 27; 2:7; 1 Cor 15:45).

15:23–28 23 But all as God allots for them. The Messiah is the beginning. All who belong to the Messiah become alive in his presence. 24 The consummation occurs when the Messiah hands over his power to God, his Origin. God thereby deprives of power all domination, all violence and all powers. 25 So the Messiah shall indeed rule until God throws all these hostile forces under his feet. 26 The last enemy that loses its power is death. 27 Indeed, God has put all things under his feet. But when it says that everything will lose its power, it is clear that what is meant is: apart from God, for God has handed everything over to the Messiah. 28 When everything will be subject to him, then the son himself will also relinquish everything to God, since God subjected all powers to him. Thus God will be all in all. In the interpretive tradition, 15:23–28 is as a rule interpreted as an eschatologicalmythical image of the future. Some of these interpretations distinguish, in a two-stage process, the future period of the Messiah’s rule from the absolute end of history after the end of the messianic rule.855 These interpreters see the beginning of this messianic rule in the parousia/coming of the Messiah (15:23). Other interpretations see the beginning of messianic rule in the raising of Jesus from the dead; it ends with the parousia.856 Both versions and their variations are using the concept of linear time and of an end time mythology that connects God’s rule with the end of history—in a distant future. This concept of future eschatology and the dating of eschatological events on a 853 Concerning myths about Adam and wisdom in this sense, see L. Schottroff 1970, 117–134; see also below on 15:45–49; on the relationship with the interpretation of Adam in Philo, see Sellin 1986, 90–175. 854 It should not because of the parallelism be translated or interpreted »all in Christ« will be made alive (cf., for example, Wolff 1996, 385). Not only those who are his, but the sōma Christou is God’s new creation. The coming to life of the entire creation and of all humans without exception has been inaugurated by God »in Christ.« On the perspective of the entire creation in this new creation, see Rom 8:21–23; 2 Cor 5:1–5. The new creation is able to be experienced by those who now belong to Christ (15:23). The two concepts should not be interpreted alternatively. 855 In the sense of Rev 20:4–6. Lietzmann 1949, 81: »The messianic intermediate realm that begins with the parousia ends with the destruction of death.« A different view is offered by W. G. Kümmel in the supplement to Lietzmann, in the same volume, 193, but he also sees a lapse of time being described. 856 For example, Zeller 2010, 488; Merklein/Giesen 2005, 323; Garland 2003, 709.

15:23–28

305

linear timeline are to be fundamentally called into question (see the basic information above at 1:6). The text is speaking about the present in relation to a God who raises the dead and will finally conquer death. Present and future are determined by the relationship to God and cannot be arranged in a linear way on a timeline. Now (15:20) is the time of salvation, for God has raised the Messiah. The battle with the powers hostile to life is happening now. The end of this battle is in the future, when God alone still determines life. This end is already being experienced in love to God and in the love that God gives humanity. The resurrection of all the dead is already being experienced (see also on 15:44; 6:14) and still longed for. Only a language of the relationship between the God of Israel and the »we« of the congregation is adequate for such a text. A sequential understanding of time, such as the one a clock provides, will not do justice to the text. 15:23 The word tagma means »order« in the sense of a command or a structure. Since it is often used in a military sense, for »branch« or »rank,« for example, it is often interpreted in a corresponding sense here.857 In a metaphorical way of speaking, the language of priority is used: first, the resurrection of Christ and then that of the dead, with a long period of time between the two events. The military metaphor is combined with the assumption of linear time as an interpretive pattern. But the word tagma should rather have been interpreted with a basic, nonmilitary meaning of the »arrangement« of a structure: It is a question of what God arranges (cf., for example, Rev 22:10; cf. also God’s meridzein/apportioning; Rom 12:3, for example). Those who belong to Christ arise in Christ’s parousia/presence, coming (cf. 16:17). This presence or coming of the Messiah happens when the Risen One brings God’s call. The word parousia plays a substantial role in the political praxis of Roman rule at this time The Roman emperors inspected their distant power centers, cities in Asia Minor, for example. These inspections were arranged with considerable pomp. There were special structures to dignify the arrival appropriately and huge municipal festivities. In Emperor Nero’s time there was a visit of the emperor in Corinth, which was then commemorated with a coin:858 »Adventus Aug[usti] Cor[inthi].« Adventus is the Latin translation of parousia. Since it is to be doubted that 1 Thessalonians was written by Paul, 1 Cor 15:23 is the only passage by Paul in which he uses this word for the coming of Christ. As a household word for the coming of people after a journey, he uses it in 16:17. It can be asked whether in 15:23 the political contrast between the pompous coming of the emperor and the arrival and presence of Christ is intentional. For 1 Thess 4:15 and the like and Matt 24:3, 27, the contrast is to be assumed.859 That is probably also true of 1 Cor 15:23, since the contrast between the lords of the world and

857 For example, Merklein/Gielen 2005, 318. 858 Basic is Deissmann 1927, 368–373. M. Crüsemann 2010, 205–215. The citation is found in Deissmann 1927, 373. 859 On the interpretation of the parousia in 1 Thessalonians, see M. Crüsemann 2010, 205–215. Here are found also the arguments for the assumption that 1 Thessalonians does not come from Paul.

306

Commentary

the Messiah is directly addressed by Paul (8:4–6). But the coming here is not referring to an end event, for which the congregation is still longing (like the appearance of the Liberator at the judgment in 1:7), but the arrival and presence of the Messiah by those who are his own. They are now »in Christ,« as Paul often says (see only 1:30), they belong to the Messiah; collectively they are his body/sōma. In the second half of the verse, epeita/then does not designate a new segment of time, but the effect of the resurrection of Christ. Paul has no interest in presenting a rather carefully thought-through temporal sequence in a scenario of the future. Equally, he does not at all discuss the question of whether the resurrection of the dead is restricted to the members of the body of Christ. He simply presupposes (see 15:22) that the entire creation, all people (pantes), will become new. God has raised the Messiah; those who belong to the Messiah share in this, now! This resurrection is the beginning of the new creation. 15:24 And yet, the new life of those who belong to the Messiah happens in the midst of the world, which is ruled by powers hostile to God. Therefore, they long for the end of suffering. The word »end«860 is a word of longing, not of horror, if it concerns what God does (cf. Mark 13:7, for example). The end means the power of the tyrannies by demons and the lords of this world will be ended by God. In 15:24 it is said about the end that the Messiah now turns his reign over to God. A second thing is said about the end: God will destroy every ruler (archē), every authority that can practice violence (exousia) and every power (dynamis). These three concepts designate powers that control human life. These powers can be demonic, operating under the earth or in heaven. They can be demons or governing powers on earth. Phil 2:10 also enumerates these powers. They are called powers in heaven, on the earth and under the earth. When Paul is speaking of demons, it cannot be determined when he is speaking of governing powers of the Roman Empire and when he is speaking of the collective death force of people as a society. Research is going on that is attempting to resolve this ambiguity.861 Meanwhile, it is often observed that an alternative that wants to distinguish the language about political powers from that about the demons does not do justice to the texts. From Paul’s perspective, a mythical scenario about the demon world is, at the same time, political analysis. Demonic powers are visible as political violence that oppresses people, enslaves them or lets then go hungry (see on 2:8). God is taking the power away from them all. Katargēsē/to deprive of power refers to God as the subject performing the action, not to the Messiah. Linguistically both are possible; God or the Messiah can bring about the disempowering. Through the two citations of Scripture, 15:25, 27, it becomes clear that God disempowers the powers/throws them under the Messiah’s feet.

860 A renewed attempt to relate telos to non-Christian people and their resurrection is found in Merklein/Gielen 2005, 320–321; more Gielen 2003, 91–95; counter-arguments are found in Zeiler 2010, 489. 861 See, for example, Zeller 2010, 490, arguing against a political interpretation, that is »again in vogue in our day.« A different view is found in Jantsch 2011, 281–290.

15:23–28

307

15:25 The end of the powers is also announced in 15:25, this time with words from Psalm 110 about the king enthroned by Adonai. Here also Paul sees God at work: God subjects all enemies to the Messiah. In this way the reign of the Messiah comes to an end. So, his reign has meant doing battle with the enemies (Ps 110:1), the powers (15:24). In the context of The First Letter to Corinth that means: The Messiah, embodied by the sōma Christou, the congregation, is engaged in this battle. All internal and external conflicts with which the people who are part of the Messiah must come to terms with—they are this battle of the Messiah. 15:26 Death is expressly mentioned as the last and greatest power from the enumeration of the enemies of the Messiah (cf. 3:21). Death here is more than merely every living being’s need to die (see on 15:21–22). It is one, the greatest, demonic power that rules the world with violence, the pummeling rod wielded by hamartia/sin (15:56). Roman-Hellenistic authors have described the Roman Empire as a power that promised peace and disseminated death. »To live under Rome’s rule, meant to live under the shadow of death.«862 15:27 Paul first wants to make it clear that all hostile powers will be »put under the feet« of the Messiah. He is quoting Psalm 8 about this. But he dismisses the content of Ps 8:7 in so far as the Psalm is extolling the wonders of creation in which God gives humans charge over the animals of the earth, from which they live. Through the context of what he is discussing here, Paul has a different interpretation: It is about the subjugation of the enemies of the Messiah and of life.863 The formulation from Ps 8:6, that »all things« will be subjected, is taken up once again for interpretation: »All things«—with the exception of Adonai. Indeed, we are dealing with Adonai’s own action. 15:28 15:28a takes the interpretation of pantes/all things from Ps 8:6 further: The Messiah will subject himself to Adonai, who subjected all enemies to him. 15:27b and 15:28a want to reach the goal of being able to say: God is all things (panta) in all things (pasin).864 God alone has power when the end (15:24) comes. The battles of the Messiah/the congregation with the powers are over. The Messiah himself subjects himself. 15:28b is a statement of hope and longing for God’s power. When those who are praying pray the Shema Israel, they are already in advance taking up this power of God: You alone, God, have power. »Hear, Israel! Adonai is God for us; only and alone Adonai is God« (Deut 6:4, BigS trans.). 15:28 takes up the Shema Israel and 1 Cor 8:6a:865 That is our hope, in which we put our trust; that is the power that already now has raised the Messiah from the dead.

862 Bolt 1998, 55. 863 In 15:39–41, Psalm 8 plays a somewhat different roll in terms of the content; see Janssen 2005, 154–156. 864 From ta panta, the neuter. 865 Similar formulas are found also in other religious texts. There is a collection of materials, for example, in Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 187, n. 849. Even if the all-statements about the deity sound similar, they are in each case filled out differently.

308

Commentary

15:29–34 29 Otherwise, what should those do who had themselves baptized because of the dead? If the dead are not actually raised, why then should they have themselves baptized on their account? 30 And why are we constantly in danger? 31 I die daily. But you, sisters and brothers, are really my pride in the Messiah Jesus, to whom we belong. 32 When I, in Ephesus, fought with animals because of human crimes, what would I have achieved thereby? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33 Do not be deceived! Bad company ruins good morals. 34 Be clear and upright and do not sin. For some do not know who God is. I say that so that you change. Paul visualizes what it means to lose resurrection hope. First, he imagines how the ground crumbles under the feet of those congregational members who are baptized because of this hope. Because of this hope, they have through baptism bound themselves to the God of Israel and Jesus the Messiah (15:29). Then, as so often, he speaks about himself—but as a member of the congregation, in which others have similar experiences (15:30). He has experienced being close to death; he has put his life on the line because of the hope in the resurrection of all (15:31). He observes with concern that those members of the congregation who contradict the resurrection hope could also win over other members of the congregation to their point of view. He adds that his words in this letter are effective (15:34). 15:29 »For what should those do who had themselves baptized because of the dead?« The Greek word hyper can mean »in place of,« »for« and »because of.« Frequently this verse is understood in the sense of a vicarious baptism (hyper/in place of). This wide-spread interpretation created the puzzle of where such a practice could have its roots. For there are no convincing religio-historical parallels,866 at best aftereffects of this text, 15:29, in the ancient church.867 The text itself simply makes clear that the issue is the dead and their resurrection. But if Mark 12:18–27 is taken into consideration, another interpretation presents itself: People from the nations hear concerning the God of Israel that Israel’s God does not forget the dead; before God they are living and not dead (Mark 12:27 and parallels; cf. also Luke 24:5). People from the nations have themselves baptized because of (hyper)868 the dead and of the God who raises them.

866 Zeller 2007, 68–76; Hull 2005, 37. 2 Macc 12:39–45 is interesting for 1 Cor 15:29, even if a substitutionary baptism is not attested. It shows foundations similar to those of 1 Cor 15:29: the hope for the resurrection of the dead and the concern of the living for the dead. As they at the burial of fallen warriors find amulets of alien deities in their clothing, they pray for these dead, collect money and send it to Jerusalem. There in the temple a sacrifice for the removal of the sins of these dead was to be brought. In this way they could stand before God without guilt at the resurrection. On this see Zeilinger 2008, 54–55. 867 Hull 2005, 40–43. 868 This translation of hyper/on account of is linguistically possible and is advocated in interpretive history, more recently, above all, Hull 2005, 235: Paul is defending the baptized,

15:29–34

309

For those who are baptized, baptism because of the dead signifies participation in the resurrection community, the body of Christ. The future will be determined by God’s action and not by the powers of the world. God does not leave the dead alone and establishes an end for death’s reign. The formulation of 15:29 contains a clear reference to the resurrection of the dead, because it is indeed called into question and the verse refers in substance to the objections of some in 15:12. But why does the text say, »because of the dead« and not »because of the resurrection«? With this formulation it opens a new dimension: What about the dead, who have already died? How do the living who belong to the Messiah relate to the dead? God’s people, Israel, and the messianic community along with it, has a great tradition of relating to the dead. Even the dead who do not belong to the congregation, even the deceased poor, who in Roman-Hellenistic society are often buried without accompaniment—they are all the responsibility of those who live in accord with the Torah. The degradation of the poor when they die is hard to bear—for the deceased themselves and for those who belong to them. Archeology has in view largely the resplendent sepulchral monuments of the rich.869 Little is known about the graves of the poor. In Horace, the image of a forsaken field is found, full of human bones lying on the ground: »Hither in other days a slave would pay to have carried on a cheap bier the carcasses of his fellows, cast out from their narrow cells. Here was the common burial-place fixed for pauper folk, …« (Horace, Satires 1.8.8–10).870 Propertius also shows the contrast between the burial of the poor and that of the rich. He wants to be buried like the simple people: »Be absent a line of perfumed dishes; be present the humble rites of a common burial.« Let there be no large funeral procession (Elegies 2.13.18–25).871 Israel’s dead, even those who are poor, even those about whom no one cares, are buried by the community and honored. To carry out this honoring belongs to the works of justice.872 The honoring of the dead by the community is an expression of fulfilling the Torah. The Torah is a directive from God, who is a God of the living and not of the dead. This sentence says in very concise words what

869

870 871 872

who with the baptism express their faith in the resurrection of the dead and their fidelity to Paul’s proclamation. Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 785 ally themselves with Hull 2005. To be sure, they intensify the situation: Those baptized in this context, in contrast to Paul himself, particular anxiety about death and for that reason have themselves baptized. Fine 2010, 442 is aware of this difficulty: »Archaeological evidence for the history of burial tends to be monumental. In general, the tombs of the rich, or the near rich, attract attention. The tombs of the poor and unknown are generally preserved in small numbers, if at all.« For burials of the poor in Roman-Hellenistic society, see Weeber 1995, 51, 53; Knapp 2012, 117–118. Trans. H. Rushton Fairclough, Loeb (1942), p. 97. Trans. G. P. Goold, Loeb (1990). Krauss 1966, vol. 2, 54–82; Billerbeck vol. 4.1, 559, 578 and overall 578–607. On the praxis of the ancient church Harnack 1, 1924, 190–192; Zangenberg 2009, 655–689.

310

Commentary

God also means for the dead. Whatever pictures people paint of the God of the living and of the life of the dead is of secondary importance. There can only be pictures873—like that of the resurrection of a dead person who is seen by the living (15:5–8). The people from the nations who have affiliated themselves with this God of the living through baptism are abandoned by those who deny the resurrection hope. 1 Cor 15:29 is one of the texts that make the connection between baptism and resurrection clear (see especially Rom 6:1–11). This connection becomes clear in the baptistry of Dura Europos (destroyed 256 CE). The baptistry is decorated with an extensive fresco of the resurrection.874

15:30–32 15:30, 31, 32 should not be read metaphorically, but as witnesses to resistance in the Roman Empire. Paul is describing the danger of death (cf. Rom 8:35), in which he is constantly living: »every hour« (15:30), »every day« (15:31; cf. Luke 9:23); Rom 8:36 »all day long« (from Ps 44:22). He is exaggerating, but he is speaking of actual experiences. An interpretation that wishes in any way to see his suffering as symbolic is not doing justice to the reality of the people living lives of resistance in the Roman Empire. These women and men, in so far as they belong to the God of Israel, see their ongoing fears of informers, imprisonment, conviction and execution in the light of biblical tradition. In their life-situation they recognize once again the opposition with which the prophets of the Old Testament had to do battle. They recognize in themselves Esther’s fear and power to resist,875 Daniel’s fate in the lions’ den (Daniel 6), the three men in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3). Biblical texts give them a language for their situation. Jesus on the cross is in despair at his execution: »My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?« (Ps 22:1), and Paul, like many Jewish men,876 quotes Ps 44:22 (Rom 8:36) in order to make his suffering comprehensible as martyrdom. It is not appropriate, because of the biblical language and images in post-biblical Jewish texts, as with Paul, to overlook the

873 See above, before 15:1, on the basic information about resurrection hope: »It cannot be over-emphasized that when Jews came to believe in life after death the ground for their belief was God … from reflection who God is: the sovereign creator, the righteous judge, the faithful Father of his people,« Bauckham 2008, 249. This explains the continuity with the Torah, even with diverse images that depict the resurrection. This also explains that in the texts that express resurrection in images, no intention to bring diverse images into a systematic framework can be detected. The systematization of Jewish apocalyptic is an inadequate invention of later Christian scholarship. 874 Mell 2010, especially 262–263. 875 On this see Wacker 2004, 312–332; Butting/Minnaard/Wacker 2005, 65–68; Billerbeck vol. 2, 576–580. On Paul’s »self-preservation as anti-imperial performance,« see Elliott 2004, 67–88. 876 The material is found in Billerbeck, vol. 3, 258–260.

15:29–34

311

reference to the authors’ own existence. What we have are experiences877 of fear and of hope in Israel’s God as a »God of the living« (Mark 12:27; see on 15:29) in Paul’s world: in 1 Cor 15:30–32, as in 4:9–13, for example, of his own experiences— and of those of other members of the body of Christ. In 15:30–31 he uses »we« and »I« side by side. Paul’s body, the bodies of those who belong to the body of Christ, their life in resistance against structures of violence in everyday life are here an argument for the resurrection of the dead. »We are carrying with us in our body the death of Jesus. In the same way the life of Jesus also appears in our body« (2 Cor 4:10, BigS). In 15:31b Paul solemnly asserts that he could »boast« about the congregation in Corinth in the fellowship of those who belong to the Messiah. The word kauchēsis/ boasting in Paul expresses, on the one hand, a critique of the arrogant self-assurance among society’s elite (see on 1:29, 31), and, on the other hand, a self-aware stance that comes from working for liberation. It is not to be separated from »boasting« in/praise of God (1:31). Paul is, it is true, afraid every day and is in danger, but he endures this danger because of his work for the life of humanity and therefore speaks of his work proudly. According to 15:32, Paul experienced an especially dangerous threat in Ephesus. He mentions this threat again in 2 Cor 1:8–9: »… that we experienced in the Province of Asia an unprecedented danger. The threat went so far beyond our strength, so that we despaired of life. In fact, we ourselves had already inwardly come to terms with the death sentence. We no longer relied on our own strength, but on God: God allows the dead to rise« (BigS). Here in 1 Cor 15:32 it becomes clear how important it was for him that he got into this danger of death because of his work for the life that God gives. Paul emphasizes, therefore, that he was not condemned because of unlawful deeds, as they occur in human life,878 but, as is to be concluded: for God, for the gospel. Kata anthrōpon (cf. 9:8) implies: not on account of God, but in accord with the way humans do things. In Rom 13:1–7 Paul speaks of such wrongdoing. The text says so clearly that he had to do battle with wild animals, that it is hardly convincing to interpret this danger of death in the arena merely metaphorically.879 The battles of the condemned with wild animals in the arenas of large cities were common sources of public entertainment (see above on 4:9). Paul survived his battle with animals. His life is now a witness to his rescue through God and the prayers of the community of the body of Christ in Corinth (see 2 Cor 1:11), the people to whom he is here writing.

877 Merklein/Gielen 2005, 336: »First of all, it can be viewed as a consensus among researchers that Paul is not looking back here on an actual battle with an animal in the arena.« It is therewith assumed that in 15:30–32 Paul is really speaking about situations of suffering and of the danger of death, but that 15:32 is to be understood in a figurative sense, not literally. For a different view see, for example, Zeller 2010, 501. 878 On the sentences to battle animals and to fight gladiators, see Seneca, Ep. 7, 3–6. He mentions street robbery and murder as reasons for condemnation. On other interpretations of kata anthrōpon in 15:32, see Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 789–790; BDAG, s.v. anthrōpos 2b. 879 See above on 15:30–31.

312

Commentary

In 15:32b Paul is quoting Isa 22:13. The alternative to hope in the God of Israel is the materialistic cynicism of those who take pleasure in the amount of meat in the markets (see the basic information on 8:1 above) and yet recognize clearly that their accommodation to the violence in society gives up power. Paul clearly knows himself united with all the addressees, even the tines/some people from 15:12, in the view that this alternative offers no escape for people in the congregation who are suffering under societal pressure. They might contradict the hope of resurrection and thereby avoid an essential point of conflict (see the basic information before 15:1), but for this reason only to live an assimilated life, with only as much enjoyment as possible, can offer no alternative even for them. The quote from Isa 22:13 also fits daily life in Roman cities: »Set forth the wine and dice! Away with him who heeds the morrow! Death, plucking the ear, cries: ›Live. I come.‹«880 That is the way a Roman poet has a female inn keeper talk. 15:33, 34 The community as a whole bears responsibility. Paul quotes an adage that he probably knew as a proverb.881 In the situation of the addressed it means: In hope in the God who summons the dead into life, all must stick together. Paul understands the »sinning«882 very concretely: It means to distance oneself publicly from the hope in the resurrection of the dead. Such distancing shows that the relationship with God is destroyed. Whoever wants to go this way has not known God. Paul concludes: You can still go the way to God, who summons the dead into life; you can change yourselves (see above on 6:5). The challenge in 15:34a is meant to encourage the hearers not to live in conformity with the structures (cf. Rom 12: 1–2).

15:35–38 35 It could be asked, »How are the dead raised? With what kind of a body will they come?« 36 How foolish! When you sow a seed, it will not become alive, if it does not die? 37 And what you sow is not the body that will arise but a bare grain, whether of wheat or of something else. 38 God gives it a body in divine wisdom, and indeed to each seed a particular body. 15:35 Paul wants to explain the miracle of the new life that God gives. He begins with a double question: How shall I envision the resurrection of the dead? What kind of bodies do they have? The Sadducean group that wants to convince Jesus that there is

880 Pseudo Vergil, Copa, trans. H. Ruston Fairclough, Loeb (1948), 5ff., 11f., 37f. 881 A collection of parallels in Greek and Roman literature is found in Strecker/Schnelle, vol. 2.1, 1996, 400–404. 882 For an understanding of sin, see the basic information by 9:20.

15:35–38

313

no resurrection presents a pointed example:883 The resurrection of bodies is really an absurd concept. For what is the resurrection supposed to look like for a woman who had to enter into seven Levirate marriages, one after the other? To which of the seven husbands does she then belong? Her body, she herself, is in the last analysis her husband’s property (Mark 12:28–34 and parallels). The absurdity of the concept of what the bodies of the resurrected should look like has also occupied other people: What if wild animals have devoured the body …? What if a person is old and sick …? The decayed bodies are long since consigned to the earth, nowhere to be found.884 15:36–37 Paul answers the questions posed in 15:35. The one who asks questions like these has not thought things through. Paul uses a comparison or a parable from the world of farming. A seed885 of wheat or another grain is scattered on the ground; the tender new seedling is a new sōma/living organism/body, for we do not sow a little plant but a seed. A transformation of the sōma takes place. Paul, like those of his time, has envisioned this transformation of plants as a passing away/death886 and becoming something new on the part of the seeds. Paul allows here a glance into a theological biology (cf. 4:6): God’s hand produces the growth from which people live. The glance at nature is the glance of people who live and know about the growth of plants and animals: God gives this growth and God gives to the new plant, to each new creation, its own wonderful form. Paul speaks here to explain and to marvel. The image is to be applied to human life. The death that allows true life for humanity to begin, means that they die »because of sin’s power« (Rom 6:1), in order to resist sin. In the history of interpretation, the example is as a rule applied to human life in this way, that the passing away, the death of the seed is related to the death887 of humans. People experience the new life that God gives only after their death. Thereby a dualistic interpretive framework888 is applied to 1 Corinthians 15: This

883 The double question in 15:35, as far as its content is concerned, can be connected to the objection of »some« (15:12, 34) to the resurrection hope, but it can also be a rhetorical objection raised by Paul himself. 884 Some examples from the multiplicity of critical issues: Minucius Felix, Oct.11.7–8; Celsus in Origen, Cels. 5.14. On this see Setzer 2004, 99–108; Harnack 1916, 101, number 93 quotes a fragment from the opponent of Christians Porphyry, with related arguments. 885 The »bare seed« is not to be read as a metaphor for people before the resurrection. The parable here stays within the image and doesn’t want to set its sights on an interpretation at the level of the subject at issue: see Janssen 2005, 111–112. 886 Braun 1962, 141 has called attention to a Plutarch text that attests the scientific concept of his time that the seed decomposes (Plutarch, Fragments XI, Ex Commentariis in Hesiodum, 84). Paul, 1 Cor. 15:36, and the Gospel of John (12:24) appear to share this concept. 887 For example, Merklein-Gielen 2005, 350; Zeller 2010, 508. This is viewed differently by Janssen 2005, 130–146. She interprets the death with Rom 6:1–11, as the dying »because of sin’s power« in the sense of Rom 6:1, 10). 1 Cor 15:36 is, according to Janssen, not to be related primarily to physical death, the end of life. She also correctly points to the connection, made clear by Rom 6:1–11, between resurrection hope and baptism. 888 See the basic information already found at 1:6; Janssen 2005, 30–48 (an overview of the research); D. Martin 1995, 3–37; L. Schottroff 2006, 83–85.

314

Commentary

earthly body is weak and perishable; God acts only after physical death and renews human life. In this way an interpretive pattern arises for 15:35–58 in which world and God finally become two separate realms: eternal life, new creation, resurrection, God’s just world—all of this only happens beyond death, beyond history, in an otherworldly heaven. This dualistic interpretive pattern stands in contradiction to 15:36–37, the seed comparison, and also in contradiction to 15:38 and 15:39–41. Here the miracle of renewed human life is placed in the community of creatures that God creates: grains, animals, stars. Everything together constitutes this wonderful creation with which people live. Two realms separated by death do not fit this picture of the wonder of creation. 15:38 That is the decisive statement about God and creation: God creates all living beings because God desires this life, loves it.889 And: God gives all living beings a diverse form, to each living being when its seed takes form. Praise to God as creative power and source of life is the only appropriate answer to the skeptical question (15:35) about the body of the resurrected. No concept is laid out: When does this resurrection occur, how do I recognize it, how do the bodies look? All there is the view of God’s wonderful creation, nothing else. Nothing more needs to be said, for this answer is all-encompassing. No one must know more, for a greater miracle and a greater source of life does not exist.

15:39–41 39 Not every living thing has the same body. The human body is different from that of animals. Still different is the body of birds, and different the body of fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and bodies on earth. Yet the beauty of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the bodies on the earth. 41 Different is the splendor of the sun, different that of the moon, and the stars shine differently still. One star even distinguishes itself from others in its splendor. Paul is rooted in the language and the theological biology of the Old Testament creation. Many texts are his teacher here: the creation story, creation Psalms, especially Psalm 8:890 Indeed, I look at your heaven. The works of your fingers: moon and stars, which you have secured— What are human beings, that you think of them? A mortal, that you look after? A little less than God you let them be, with dignity and splendor you crown them.

889 Cf., for example, Matt 9:13; divine desire is not understood as arbitrariness or a one-sided undertaking, but as love in relation to humanity. 890 An extensive comparison with Psalm 8 is given by Janssen 2005, 154–159.

15:39–41

315

You let them rule over the works of your hands. You have put all things under their feet: Sheep, cattle, all of them, and also the wild animals Birds of the sky, and fish of the sea, everything that passes through the paths of the seas. Adonai, you rule over us all. How powerful is your name on the whole earth! (Psalm 8:3–9, BigS)

In 15:27 Paul refers to Ps 8:6, even though in a sense different from the one here in 15:39–41. There the issue is the power of the Messiah, who deprives the forces of death of their power. Here, using the same verse, the issue is the wonders of creation, which supplies humanity with food. Paul is not quoting, but his concepts and language follow the psalm closely. The psalm praises God for the fact that people have their place in this wonderful and nourishing creation. Paul has a somewhat different aim: to discuss the diversity of the bodies of all creatures. He especially depicts the heavenly bodies as a wonder of diversity; even the light of the sun, of the moon and of the stars is in each case different. Here, I detect the voice of a man who has prayed Psalm 8 and contemplated the night sky in precise detail. For the night sky is the object of the most praise (15:41). The stars are created beings in precisely the same way as humans, each individual star is a special work. The animals are also co-creations with humanity, just as diverse as they. They have a soul and can make accusations before God against people who have behaved irresponsibly toward them. That is how the post-biblical Slavonic Book of Enoch depicts the biblical tradition.891 Paul mentions the animals that as pets or in flocks or herds are of use to humanity, birds and fowl and fish (15:39). He is therewith following Psalm 8; with the divisions into heavenly bodies and living beings on earth, he is following Gen 1:14–19, 20–28. The words that he uses here for the bodies are sarx/creature892 for human beings and animals (15:39), sōma/body for the heavenly bodies. He can in the same way use sōma also for human beings (see only 6:19). Being bodies or creatures connects humans, animals and heavenly bodies. Paul desires in this section to praise the creation as God’s work in its rich diversity. Even stars distinguish themselves from one another. Their glory (doxa) differs. I am following Claudia Janssen here in the interpretation of doxa/beauty of the creatures in their relation to God.893 Paul’s »understanding of human existence is oriented toward the relationship of the creatures to God, who connects them with one another and evaluates their corporeality positively, described from God’s perspective as ›beautiful‹ or ›good‹ (Hebrew tov). Their origin which lies in God’s hands makes them into creatures that mirror God’s ›glory‹ (kavod/doxa).«894

891 892 893 894

2 En. 58.3–59.1; on this see Janssen 2005, 175; F. and M. Crüsemann 2007, 40–44. On this see Janssen 2005, 64–65. Janssen 2005, 180. Janssen 2005, 183.

316

Commentary

15:39–41 explains the thoughts of 15:38a, following the praise of creation in the Psalms and in the creation story in Genesis 1. They open the gaze to the richness of creation that God, who makes the dead alive, makes known. The resurrection is part of creation.

15:42–44 42 It is also just like that with the resurrection of the dead. People are sown in a destructible world, truly alive ones arise. 43 People are sown into a world full of humiliation, with dignity they arise. Sown are fragile ones, people full of power arise. 44 Sown is a living body. A body that God’s Spirit fills arises. As there is a living body, so also is there one filled with the Spirit. 15:42a »It is like that (so/houtōs) with the resurrection of the dead.« The »so« relates to the richness of the creation (15:38b–41). The resurrection of the dead is part of this richness. The relationship of the creatures to God encompasses life that is doing battle with destruction; it encompasses the resurrection of the dead as creatures on this earth. All of this is part of the richness of the life given by God. Paul has no interest in a systematization and a time frame. He uses primarily the present tense in speaking about the resurrection of the dead (15:35 erchontai; all the verb forms in 15:42–44). He does not mention dying. He puts those who are raised next to the animals, people and stars as creatures that are created by God. A hierarchy of creatures interests him just a little as a well-ordered time sequence. What matters to him is solely confidence in the creator in a situation in which life is threatened. Beginning with 15:42b, he identifies this threat by name. In what follows he speaks about the life of the people to whom he turns. He is writing here no anthropology that is concerned about timelessness. He is writing to engender courage. 15:42b–43 I begin with the substantives that describe the present life. The destruction/phthora (15:42)895 becomes evident in 1 Cor. 3:17: the congregation is God’s temple (3:16). The people who comprise the sōma/body of the Messiah are »saints« (1:2). The congregation is equipped by God with great dignity and power. Nevertheless, this temple of God, like the temple in Jerusalem, is threatened with destruction and has behind it a history of destruction (see on 3:17). »Whoever destroys God’s temple« must face God’s wrath, says Paul in 3:17. The intended targets here are those in this city of Corinth who have the power for and the interest in destroying the congregation, the temple of God. In Rev 19:2 the judgment against the »great whore,« »Babylon,« is announced. She has been »living off the fat of the land« (Rev 18:7, 9, BigS). The huge merchants of the earth have become wealthy through their powerful luxury (Rev 18:11–13). All of this is summarized in Rev 19:2: »Truly he [God] has judged the 895 Janssen 2005, 192–195.

15:42–44

317

great whore who corrupted [ephtheiren] the earth with her fornication« (BigS). »What brings corruption and what in its time will fall victim to corruption is the political and economic system embodied and maintained by Rome.«896 If one reads 1 Cor 6:20–7:40 together with Revelation 18 and 19, then it will become clear why Rome is called the »great whore« (Rev 17:1; cf. 17:5). This is how the people who do not belong to the elite experience everyday life: as pressure to prostitute yourself and, as something self-evident, to make use of prostitution. The corruption (phthora) is suffered and, at the same time, through one’s own participation, maintained. In 1 Cor 15:42b the issue is not the natural fragility and perishability of a human body, as was often assumed.897 The issue is sin/hamartia, which makes people into its marionettes and into its coconspirators. Phthora/corruption is an experience that belongs to life under the »power of sin.« Atimia/dishonor (15:43; cf. 1:28; 4:10):898 This dishonor means concretely that people who work with their hands are distained by the elite, with their clean hands.899 It means that women of the majority population are debased by prostitution and sexual molestation,900 and that female and male slaves are regarded as second class humans.901 This dishonor, especially toward slaves, also becomes palpable and brutal (Mark 12:4). The First Letter to Corinth tries to open ways to the dignity of individuals in the fellowship of the body of Christ. Paul knows the destructive power of being despised in his own body (4:10). It is completely erroneous, precisely in this letter, to turn atimia/dishonor into an anthropological concept and to translate with »lowliness,« for example, (next to »perishability« 15:42b).902 Astheneia is an additional concept (see on 9:22). It encompasses in 1 Corinthians weakness in the political-social sense (1:26), illness (11:30; cf. 2 Cor 12:9b–10),903 rhetorical dullness (2:3). These diverse experiences of weakness are not to be sharply distinguished from one another. The concept has a precise biblical pre-history.904 God is on the side of the weak. Therefore, God’s dynamis/strength is effective in the life of the weak. Paul experienced this on his own body, and the congregation lives from a comparable experience. With the help of the socio-historical anchoring of these concepts in 15:42–43, it is possible to decide how »It is sown …« is meant. The passive is a divine passive:

896 Wengst 2010, 258. 897 BDAG actually reproduces the majority view and translates in 15:42: »the state of being perishable.« 898 Janssen 2005, 195–196 899 See above on 1:28. 900 See the basic information at 7:2. 901 See the basic information at 7:17–24. 902 Neue Zürcher Bibel translation 2007: 15:42, »It is sewn in perishability …«; »It is sown in lowliness …« Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 297: dishonor, shame, unsightliness. With this is meant an anthropological constant of the »mortal life« of the »earthly world.« 903 M. Crüsemann 2009, 129. 904 Janssen 2005, 198.

318

Commentary

God sows. God sows people into a space905 (en with the accusative), God creates humanity, but they live in a corruptible and threatened world. 15:36–38 is an image or parable from the experience with plants, which operates within the world of biology at that time. 15:42–44 is the interpretation of this parable, its application to the life of humanity under the conditions of the kosmos/world and an application to the resurrection, which God’s new creation brings into this world, in the present and in the future. God’s creation (of humanity) is a creation that suffers (cf. Rom 8:18–24) and awaits God’s life-creating power. God has sown it—God raises it to life. The realm in which God’s awakening gives humanity life anew is also described with three substantives (15:42–43): aphtharsia/imperishability, doxa/glory, dynamis/ power. Here also the issue is not a systematic perspective that intends to be theologically and anthropologically timeless but instead God’s just world in which newly awakened life unfolds. Neither a dualistic concept of time (now—then) nor of salvation (the beyond, immortality) does justice to the text. The reality of destructive powers is not over; people live in it and are set out into it, but they can live in a context in which God’s just world can be experienced. The question that is to be asked based on 15:42–43 is: Where do the people whom Paul is addressing experience imperishability, glory and power? In 1 Cor 3:16–17 the issue is the perishability and imperishability of the temple of God, the congregation. The powers that want to destroy this temple are strong. It would be unrealistic to assume that they are unable to destroy the temple. God will call them to account. But the congregation is the temple of God, the people within it are holy, they belong to God. That is their imperishability. Glory/doxa is again and again an indicator of the presence of God in the congregation; see only Rom 8:30. I’ll clarify this by means of an example that is unwieldy for today’s understanding. In 1 Cor 11:2–16, by using Scripture, Paul establishes the significance of the head covering while praying and prophesying: All women in the congregation become honorable matrons by using the head covering commonly used there. By going bare-headed all men renounce all claims of authority. This experience of glory is explained by its opposition to authority structures and ways of dishonoring people in society. This is not easy to translate into today’s circumstances, particularly because Paul uncritically holds concepts of his time about the relationship between the sexes. And yet it is still understandable even today that in this situation women, whom society deprives of any glory as honorable women, are recipients of glory in a community. The dynamis/power of God is given to all who entrust themselves to the God of Israel. They experience the gifting with the Spirit/pneuma, which inspires them with new capabilities (see 1 Cor 12:4–13; 1:5, 7). They can learn and teach, and better and more effectively come to terms with their multi-linguality and diverse origins (1 Corinthians 14). They are capable of loving God and of knowing themselves to be loved by God (1 Corinthians 13). People have experiences of the beyond right here in this world, to use these concepts. It is better to put it this way: There 905 On the special interpretation, see Janssen 2005, 188.

15:42–44

319

are experiences thereby, of being created by God for divine glory and of learning that, in the midst of brutal everyday reality, it is possible to experience divine glory. Psalm 8:5: »A little less than God you let them be, with dignity and splendor (LXX doxa and timē) you crown them.« It also belongs to the dignity of God’s creations to hope for God’s future (1 Cor 13:13). This hope is directed to the renewal of the earth and of humanity. It has its source in trust in God’s life-enhancing power. God takes away death’s power (15:26). 15:44 The interpretation of the parable of the seed is concluded in 15:44. God’s creation encompasses the creation of life—of all beings (see 15:38–41). Through the resurrection of the dead God creates the sōma pneumatikon/the body given life by the divine Spirit. When using this formulation Paul is in the end thinking primarily about people. Other created things, even the heavenly bodies, are created beings just as surely as humans are. But that animals are also affected by the devastation of the human world is something Paul could not have known in the same way people know it today. However, he is also aware that the whole of creation suffers this devastation (Rom 8:19–20). Nevertheless, 15:44 still only has humanity in view. The sōma psychikon is what God sews (using the image of 15:36). It is the living human being under the conditions of the kosmos/the world. Psychikon does not express a negative qualification.906 The life created by God is not fundamentally evil or corrupted. The destruction is a historical event, not a quality that was given with the creation or congenital. Sōma/body is a keyword in The First Letter to Corinth: the human body—the collective body of the congregation—the body of the Messiah as the suffering and resurrected body of Jesus—the body of the Messiah, which takes form and acts in the community of the saints—these are dimensions of the word sōma (see on this the basic information on Paul’s Theology of the Body at 10:16). In 15:44 this body theology of Paul’s has a renewed emphasis. The living human body, even when it is deformed, mistreated or sick, as happens under the conditions of the world/kosmos or the destruction/phthora is sōma psychikon, life created by God. God does not abandon the creation. Therefore, Paul says: Created life bears God’s promise to be able to be life in its fullness. Therefore, Paul formulates in 15:44: »If … then« or »as … so« (ei estin … estin kai).

906 Claudia Janssen 2005, 203 translates sōma psychikon with »What is sown is a living body«; BDAG translates differently: »a physical body«; Zürcher 2007, »a natural body«; corresponding to this is Ciampa/Rosner 2010. Schrage 1999, vol. 3, 300 translates sōma psychikon »psychic existence in its earthly-transitory inner state and natural fleshly specificity«; similarly MerkleinGielen 2005, 360–361. What is indicated here is a transformation of the dualistic interpretive paradigm, with its negative evaluation of the human body. In BDAG and in Schrage’s interpretation the negative evaluation can still be detected. The translation »natural body,« however, can signify the vitality of the person created by God, to be sure also located within the referential framework of a fundamental human state of sin/mortality. Verburg 1996, 192: »So the concept psychikos is not so negative as sarkikos, since psyche does not mean the existence of humanity that is defined by sin, as does sarx, but only the existence imperiled by sin.« Here we have already taken a step toward a new view of God’s creation, even if the conceptual framework (sin as the fundamental human bondage) remains.

320

Commentary

The experience of life in its fullness is called by Paul sōma pneumatikon. In the context of 1 Corinthians this concept is not to be separated from that of the sōma Christou. Although a long history of individual anthropological/eschatological interpretations, especially with a dualistic time frame, has characterized the understanding of this concept (future resurrection body907 of humans), this interpretive tradition constricts the perspective. In the interpretive tradition 12:12, 27 and 15:44 come to be treated separately. But for Paul the sōma is a collective term in all the ways it is used. Even the individual human body lives as part of the community, as a body in relationship. The sōma pneumatikon/the Spirit-filled body is the body of Christ, with whose life this letter is filled. Claudia Janssen has extensively established this interpretation and outlined the body theology of Paul, along with the interpretive framework of 15:44: »The location of this other life … is for Paul the community of believers.«908 She emphasizes the simultaneity of life as sōma psychikon and sōma pneumatikon, as a living body and a resurrection body. Resurrection of the corruptible body happens through life in the sōma Christou. At the same time this resurrection experience awakens in this present life and in the bodies of the living the hope that God will never forget the living bodies of God’s own creating.

Illustration 11: From the synagogue in Dura Europos: A depiction of the resurrection in several scenes according to Ezekiel 37.909

907 On the interpretive history see, for example, Thiselton 2000, 1276–1281. 908 Janssen 2005, 208. 909 The place of discovery of a large color fresco: from Bendemann 2005, 260. A colored reproduction in Goodenough 1964, vol. 3, Tables: North Wall XXI.

15:45–50

321

The experience and hope that the concept sōma pneumatikon summarizes belong to the history of Jewish creation theology, as Paul also makes clear from 15:45 on. To illustrate this Jewish history with a deity whose creation contains an indestructible promise, I would like, in this case, to choose an image. It is a fresco from the synagogue in Dura Europos (discovered 1932910). The small city in the desert was destroyed in 256 CE. The frescos are to be dated in the period before the destruction of the city. In successive scenes in which the figure of Ezekiel is depicted again and again, the fresco tells about the resurrection according to Ezek 37:1–14. It depicts, from left to right, first the prophet Ezekiel in a field with people who have been slain violently.911 The split mountain912 shows traces of an earthquake, a toppled building. At the same time there appears in its right half the beginning of the resurrection of the violently fragmented people. In the next scene their bodies are newly awakened. Four delicate winged women vivify the bodies with the breath of life. The resurrection is then depicted as a resurrection of the people in ten male figures as a group. They raise their hands in praise and prayer. Especially the gestures of the hands of the prophet integrate the observers into the people in the fresco. The sixth Ezekiel figure points with his hand to the people of God who have risen again. In this way, for the congregation that is observing the picture, their own community is brought into a relationship with this picture. In every scene the right hand of God reaches into the event. The sōma pneumatikon in Paul is also to be interpreted as a collective entity.

15:45–50 45 It is said that way in Scripture as well: The first human, Adam, became a breathing life. The last Adam became a life-creating Spirit. 46 And yet, the human filled with the Spirit was not there first, but the living human was; then came the one filled with the Spirit. 47 First of all, the human made from earth was there; the second human was sent from heaven. 48 Like the one human made from earth, so are all that were made from earth; and like the one human sent from heaven, so are all who were sent by God. 49 And as we embody the image of the human made from earth, so let us also embody the image of the human sent by God. 50 That is what I am saying to you, sisters and brothers. Human life, trapped in the destroyed world, cannot have a share in God’s power, and those who live in separation from God cannot share God’s life.

910 Goodenough 1964, vol. 1, 3. 911 A striking difference from Ezek 37:1–14 (37:2 speaks of bones that were »very dried out.«) 912 Ezek 37:7: »There was a noise and an earthquake occurred« (BigS). On this Wengst 1991, 96: He said that in Ezek 37:7 there wasn’t yet thought of an earthquake but that the rabbinic tradition related the statement to an earthquake, and this tradition was the background of the split mountain in the fresco.

322

Commentary

To the parable of the seed and its interpretation (15:35–44) Paul, with 15:45–49, attaches a detailed interpretation of Gen 2:7. Like 15:35–44, it also has the goal, on the one hand, of explaining the resurrection as God’s creation, and, on the other hand, of praising the creation. Gen 2:7 (LXX) says (the counting of the lines is added here): 1) And God formed the human being from soil from the field 2) and blew into his face the breath of life. 3) Then the human became a breathing life.

A rabbinic interpretation from Sifre Deuteronomy 306.28913 has helped me understand 1 Cor 15:45–50. I view both texts as part of a Jewish interpretive tradition on Gen 2:7. The text reads: And so did R. Simai say, »All creatures that are formed from the heaven—their soul and body derives from heaven, and all creatures that are formed from the earth—their soul and body derive from the earth, except for the human being, whose soul is from heaven and whose body is from earth. Therefore if a man has worked [in] the Torah and done the will of his father in heaven, lo, he is like the creatures of the upper world, as it is said, ›I said, »You are godlike beings, and all of you are sons of the Most High«‹ (Ps. 82:6). But if one has not worked [in] the Torah and done the will of his father in heaven, lo, he is like the creatures of the lower world, as it is said, ›Neverthless [sic] you shall die like Adam‹ (Ps. 82:7).« And so did R. Simai say, »There is no passage [in the Torah] which does not contain [clear evidence concerning] the resurrection of the dead, but we have not got the power of exegesis [sufficient to find the pertinent indication]. For it is said, ›He will call to the heaven above and to the earth, that he may judge his people‹ (Ps. 50:4). ›He will call to the heaven above‹: this refers to the soul. ›and to the earth‹: this refers to the body. … And how on the basis of Scripture do we know that Scripture speaks only of the resurrection of the dead? As it is said, ›Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live‹ (Ez. 37:9).«

Presumably, the beginning, »creatures that are formed from the heaven,« refers to angels as heavenly beings created by God. Creatures whose soul and body are taken from the earth are probably the animals. People receive their body from the earth and their soul from heaven—that is the way Rabbi Simai interprets Gen 2:7 here. Therefore, humans who fulfill the Torah are changed, transformed: They become »like the creatures of the upper world,« probably the angels. Ps 82:6–7 is read by Rabbi Simai in this sense: Those who observe the Torah are children of God; those who do not observe it, die. Rabbi Simai still adds an additional Psalm, from which, as from Gen 2:7, he concludes: The word »earth« points to the human body, with which God will have a dispute. Implicitly in this manner it is once more said: Because humans are created from earth, they are to keep the Torah, in order to transform themselves fully into heavenly beings, who are near God. 15:45 »Thus it is written«—Paul refers to what precedes and finds in Scripture further possibilities for explaining creation and resurrection. That the creation story also deals with resurrection is a Jewish interpretive tradition. According to

913 Trans. according to Neusner 1987, 313.

15:45–50

323

Sifre Deuteronomy 306.28, Rabbi Simai interpreted Gen 2:7 with respect to creation and resurrection and then adds the comment, »There is no passage [in the Torah] which does not contain [clear evidence concerning] the resurrection of the dead.«914 As evidence that Gen 2:7 speaks of the resurrection, he calls on Ezek 37:9: »Spirit, come from the four winds, and breathe upon these slain.«915 Gen 2:7 is interpreted by Paul as a statement about two acts of creation. The 1st act: the creation of a breathing, living human; the 2nd act: the endowment of a human with a life-giving spirit. The third line in Gen 2:7 (see there, above, the numbering of the lines) is thereby connected by Paul with the first in terms of content. The human, from the topsoil, is a »breath of life« (psychē zōsa; Gen 2:7; third phrase). So, Paul does not confine himself to the sequence of the creation account in Gen 2:7. Moreover, in his account from the second act of creation there comes to be a second Adam/human. He calls him the last Adam (15:45) or the second human (15:47). In 15:21–22 he paralleled Adam and Christ as collective »people,« but the two people are not yet, as here, furnished with a type of enumeration. An additional difference, from today’s perspective, between the Genesis text and its Pauline interpretation arises through the word zōopoiein (15:45; cf. 15:22). The second Adam becomes »a life-creating Spirit« (thus BigS 2011). Zōopoiein does not come from Gen 2:7; rather, it interprets the endowment of the human with the breath of life. From pnoē zōēs/breath of life in Gen 2:7 we get in Paul pneuma zōopoioun/the life-creating Spirit. The concept of God’s life-giving Spirit also comes from Jewish tradition.916 In Rom 4:17, Paul will call this concept by name: that »God … brings the dead to life« (zōopoioun). Thus, Paul’s interpretation of Gen 2:7 contains three stumbling blocks for modern conceptions of the interpretation of texts: He connects the third part of the statement with the first, thus not holding himself to the course of the account. Moreover, he calls two people the representatives of the creation: the first and the second/last Adam. Third, the second person contains not only the breath of life/ spirit of life, but he himself becomes the life-creating spirit, a »human« who brings humanity the new life that God gives. This interpretation belongs, both in its contents and its methods, within the framework of Jewish Torah interpretation.917 The interpretation of pnoē zōēs/breath of life, spirit of life for pneuma zōopoioun remains within this framework.918 The

914 Trans. Neusner 1987, 313. In the Babylonian Talmud b. Sanh. 90b–91a is found a long exposition on the theme of scriptural testimonies about the resurrection. Among others, an argument is used that resembles that of Jesus in Mark 12:18–27. 915 Trans. Neusner 1987, 313. On the fresco that follows Ezekiel 37 in Dura Europos, see above on 15:44. 916 Cf. Macc 7:20–30; on this, see Janssen 2005, 138–142. 917 Especially helpful for 1 Corinthians 15 are Kister, 2010, 351–365; Janssen 2005, 211 (with literature). On the method of Scripture interpretation, see also above on 9:9–10 and the basic information at 7:19. 918 For a discussion of the rendering of Gen 2:7 pnoē/breath with pneuma/the Spirit in Paul, see Zeller 2010, 512–513, for example.

324

Commentary

question arises whether Paul here, through »Christologizing,«919 goes beyond this framework. But Rom 4:17, alongside of 1 Cor 15:45 shows that God’s Spirit also passes on life as God wants it to be. The Messiah-human is the giver of this life. He not only possesses it but hands it on. In rabbinic interpretations of Gen 2:7, even Ps 82:6 is quoted: »You are godlike beings, and all of you are sons of the Most High.«920 The second creation produces the human who keeps the Torah, the true life. In this sense the people of the resurrection are like God, children of God. A divination of the Messiah or of the resurrection human, who could call into question the relationship with the »one God« (Deut 6:4), is in view neither in rabbinic interpretations nor in Paul. »Christology« should not mean that God’s second creation is understood as a uniqueness of the Messiah, which distinguishes him from all other people. This kind of interpretation of Gen 2:7 also inspired the people who speak in gnostic texts. There, admittedly, the first Adam can then become an entity without life and only the second creation in a dualistic sense stand over-against him as true life with divine life-force.921 The pair of concepts in Paul, the first and the second creation, are not related to one another in a dualistic sense. The decisive difference here is that for Paul the body of the human is God’s creation, while for gnostic systems it is a work of the anti-god, from whom humanity needs to be liberated. 15:46 The explicit emphasis on the order of events that Paul sees in Gen 2:7 is established here:922 Pnoē/pneuma/the Spirit is indeed in the second part of the sentence in Gen 2:7; nevertheless, the psychikon/living human from the third part of the sentence belongs at the beginning, in the first creation. 15:47 continues the interpretation of Gen 2:7. God makes the first creation from the soil, the second from God’s own self; God takes it from »heaven.«923 Even this further move remains within the framework of rabbinic interpretation (see above on 15:15). 15:47 refers not only to the Messiah but also to all people, as the continuation in 15:48–49 shows.

919 This is the view of Kister 2010, 362. 920 Sifre Deut. 306.28.2C, Neusner, 1987, 313. Cf. also Theophilos, Autol. 2.27, that argues in rabbinic style. On this see also Kister 2010, 358. 921 An example: The Apocryphon of John (it had to have existed before 185 CE) interprets Gen 2:7 this way: First a sōma psychikon was created out of many individual parts. »And he remained motionless (argon) a long time, since the seven powers (exousia) couldn’t get him upright.« The creator god, separated from the true God, is duped by this God to blow the divine power remaining in him into the face of the motionless Adam: »Blow into his face (something) of the spirit (pneuma) that is in you, and the thing will arise.« Now Adam is »free of depravity,« but remains in the »shadow of death« (Apocryphon of John 50–55). On this see L. Schottroff 1970, 4–41. 922 Kister 2010, 364. The verse should not be read as a counter-argument to a point of view that sounds different, that of Philo of Alexandria, for example. See also Zeller 2010, 514–515. 923 See also Janssen 2005, 217 on this.

15:45–50

325

15:48–49 These verses provide an explanation for the humans in the creation narrative. In each case they embody all people. The first Adam embodies the living humans that are made from soil, the second Adam the children of God, the »heavenly ones.« That the resurrected are named »heavenly,« expresses the same thought as the citing of Ps 82:6 in rabbinic interpretation (see above on 15:45). In 15:49 Paul remains within this interpretation of 15:48, but makes use of it concretely: »We,« the body of the Messiah, are an image/eikōn of the first and of the second Adam. What he means by »image« is already clear through 15:48: the human being in the creation narrative represents humanity collectively. But what is new is how Paul now sees the congregation: it bears (ephoresamen, aorist indicative)924 the image of Adam, and it desires to bear the image of the heavenly humanity. In this I have given preference to the better-attested reading, the aorist subjunctive: »let us bear …«925 If the less well-attested reading, »we shall bear …,« is preferred, it should still not be concluded therefrom that there will be a resurrection on the other side, in terms of linear time. This concept is in any case foreign to Paul. The rabbinic interpretation helps to elucidate Paul here: though the observation of the Torah, resurrection happens. This is the Pauline gospel, as he explains it again and again. The resurrection of the Messiah opens the way into the keeping of the Torah and into the resurrection (cf. Rom 6:4). The obvious question here for people today is: What, then, does that mean for me, when I am dead? Paul did not deal with this question, because he had entrusted himself to God’s life-creating Spirit. This question was thereby no (longer) of importance. 15:50 This verse can be understood as a conclusion to the interpretation of Gen 2:7. But it suggests, at the same time, what 15:51–57 is about: It is about the transformation of human existence that had been handed over to sin. The rabbinic interpretation in Sifre Deuteronomy 306.28 is once again helpful. What Rabbi Simai calls taken »from the earth,« the body, needs life according to the Torah to turn into a child of God, in order not to die. Paul uses other concepts: »flesh and blood« and, parallel926 to that, »destruction« (cf. 15:42). The expression »flesh and blood« also relates to social structures of destruction. The two statements (15:42 and 15:50) are not indications of an anthropology of perishability, the destruction of human life under the power of sin (see on 14:42). Claudia Janssen’s interpretation of the section 15:50–57927 is, as far as I can tell, the first interpretation within the framework of western biblical interpretation that explains the whole text contextually and diverges from an anthropological-supertemporal interpretation of the human being of all times, who is subject to perishability. In this way the proximity of Pauline Torah interpretation to other Jewish Bible interpretations becomes more clearly evident than before.

924 925 926 927

On this see Janssen 2005, 218. On this see Janssen 2005, 219. Synonymous parallelism; see, for example, Gladd 2008, 247. Janssen 2005, 228–233.

326

Commentary

For the interpretation of such concepts, as Paul uses them in 15:50, an ontology should not be assumed that is foreign to him as well as to Jewish Torah interpretation of that time. Exegetically, the terminology is helpful that belongs to the phrase »to inherit the reign of God« (1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:21; Matt 5:5; Mark 10:17 and others, for example): The reign of God is inherited by the people who live in accord with the Torah. »Flesh and blood« and »destruction« in 15:50 correspondingly name existence under sin, the life of people who do not fulfill the Torah.

15:51–53 51 Behold, I am telling you God’s special message: We all shall not die. But we shall all be changed, 52 suddenly, as quickly as the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For it will sound, and the dead will arise as living ones, and the living will be changed. 53 The people mistreated in the world will put on liveliness as a garment, and those suffering under violence will experience the end of the power of death. 15:51 has a variant-rich history in its manuscript transmission and translation. Here are various versions: 1. We all shall not die; we all shall be transformed. This is the reading of Codex Vaticanus and other textual witnesses. The content of this reading is found to be difficult if »die« is equated with physical death. 2. We all shall die, we shall not all be transformed. This is the reading of Codex Sinaiticus and other textual witnesses. This reading is explained as an attempt to bring the fact of human mortality in a physical sense into harmony with the text. 3. We shall not all die, but we shall be fully transformed. This is the reading of translations primarily in the 20th century and up to the present time.928 This version is not attested by the ancient manuscripts.929 It rests on the assumption of a so-called near expectation by Paul, who expects the end of history and the coming of the reign of God in the lifetime of his generation (on this see the basic information at 1:6). There are still more versions,930 that are, however, recognized to be variations of readings 1 and 2. Reading 1 is the basis for the various changes in the course of the manuscript tradition.931 This statement thus already contradicts the concept of dying held by many people in the early church. But Paul and the biblical tradition speak of death

928 So, for example, NRSV »We will not all die, but we will all be changed.« Exegetical argumentation for this translation is given, for example, by Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 370. 929 Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 370. Schrage sees that this reading is not grammatically correct, but despite that regards it as the right reading. Janssen 2005, 236 has a different view. 930 See, for example, the overview is Janssen 2005, 235–236. 931 Many commentaries are, with right, united in this view.

15:51–53

327

and dying in a narrow and in a broader sense (see above on 15:35). Psalm 118:17 says, »I shall not die (LXX apothanoumai), but live and proclaim the works of the Lord«: to praise God is true life. Physical death is part of physical life, which, through praising God and fulfilling the Torah, is transformed into indestructible life. Paul is speaking about dying in 15:51 in a sense different from what he says, for example, in 15:6. Like the Psalm, he in 15:51 formulates a statement that does not have in view the question, »Must I die physically or not.« Eternal life, indestructibility, immortality (15:54) do not signify: People no longer die. That Paul and the Psalm can make such statements shows that the mortality of the life God has created is not a concept that evokes horror for them. Of course, we must die, but we shall not die but live. Perhaps this is what we can say today: We trust in God’s nearness and life-enhancing power; therefore, we shall live and not die. The »We« in 15:51–53 is the »We« of the congregation (see on this the basic information on 2:5). The beginning of 15:51, similarly to Rom 11:25, solemnly announces that Paul knows what he is about to say through a special revelation from God. God’s own self is the content of the mystery (see on 2:7). God will transform those who are suffering under violence, death and destruction. Here also the fundamental hermeneutical question with reference to Paul’s eschatology is to be asked: 1) How shall the future of the verbs, that is, what is to come, be understood? And 2) how are the statements about humanity to be understood—contextually or anthropologically/ontologically)? According to the interpretive pattern determining Pauline interpretation today, these statements are interpreted in the sense of linear time and an ontology of mortality. The future happens after death and beyond human life. If one reads the content of the revelatory mystery contextually and within the framework of Jewish apocalyptic, another interpretation emerges. The mystērion/secret, the special message, is the vision of the coming of the reign of God, of the coming of God. Paul speaks like an apocalyptic visionary. In the Jesus tradition, there is a short account about Jesus’ apocalyptic vision. It is in substance a parallel to 15:51–53, although it has as its content a different aspect of God’s coming. Jesus speaks (Luke 10:18) to the 72 disciples: »I saw Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightening.« Jesus has seen the end of Satan’s might in a vision. Satan’s might destroys human life. It is embodied in the political-social powers that bring death and destruction upon humanity. In the Apocalypse of John there is a comparable vision of the collapse of Rome »in one hour« (Rev 18:10, 17). Here in 1 Cor 15:51–53, Paul observes the transformation of all people. It is another aspect of the coming of God, the basileia tou theou: People are changed;932 they are capable of a life in accord with God’s will on a renewed earth. Transformation/resurrection of

932 Janssen 2005, 234, n. 1 prefers the translation »change« instead of »transform« for allassō, in order to exclude the idea of a »change of substance,« which is not intended. This argument is on target. Nevertheless, in order to supply the context with the fullness of Jewish-apocalyptic images for the apocalyptic change, which in German is usually called »transformation,« I am employing both German words.

328

Commentary

humans is spoken of in Jewish-apocalyptic tradition again and again in such images. The images change, but it is always clear what it is all about: God is writing »The End« on the screen, showing death’s power, human life is transformed, the whole earth becomes new! 15:52 Humanity’s change happens in a flash. Paul becomes eloquent on this point: at a point in time too short to be subdivided, in the twinkling of an eye or the sound of a trumpet.933 In apocalyptic literature there is often talk of the sudden, meaning unexpected, coming of God,934 but also, as here, of its lightning-like speed. These images clearly avoid an image of a passage of time. From one second to the next everything is different. Paul uses the future tense here to describe his vision. Jesus’ vision in Luke 10:18 is told in past tense. The power of death has been broken, and it will be broken. Both are true, God’s coming is present and future.935 Paul’s vision of God’s coming also speaks about present and future at the same time, thus, for example, about the victory over death: in 15:54 (future), in 15:57 (present). The time-designations, if one can call them that at all, shatter any thought about the passage of time: »now,«936 »today,«937 »suddenly,«938 »like a flash of lightening,«939 »The reign of God is at hand.«940 What this time-interrupting language is all about is God’s action to bring about the healing of the earth and of humanity. The dead will be raised and will be imperishable. Paul’s vision encompasses the common fate of the dead and of the living: All will be changed.941 It is a vision of humanity that excludes no one, not even the dead. God does not allow to go unaddressed the injustice that has befallen the dead,942. From this vision of Paul’s, no teaching about last things can be developed. It is an image that tries to capture God’s truth in words. 15:53 All of that, the great comprehensive change, »must« occur. This »must« (cf. Mark 13:7, 10; 1 Cor 15:25) says that God wants the transformation to occur. This transformation is described here with an additional image, putting on a garment. This act of getting dressed is not presented as putting on some outer wrap

933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941

Material is found, for example, in Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 373. Ciampa/Rosner 2010, 830 offer a collection of the material. Janssen 2005, 241; Schreiber 2007, 140–144. For example, 13:12; 15:20; Rom 3:21. For example, Luke 19:9; 23:43. For example, Mark 13:36; Luke 21:34. For example, Luke 10:18; 17:24. For example, Mark 1:15; 13:28. The living and the dead will become citizens of a renewed earth. In addition to 1 Cor 15:51–53, see also Luke 10:18–20: »your names are written in heaven.« On this see Schreiber 2007, 149–150. 942 The sociological setting for apocalyptic hopes, as diverse as their images may be, is the outrage of oppressed people over the injustice and arbitrariness to which they are subjected in their economic and political life. Even for the dead who lived and died under these conditions, God will intervene. For an overview of the material, see Schreiber 2007, 129–156.

15:54–58

329

but as becoming new as God’s children (see above on 15:49–50).943 This becoming new includes the continuity of humans and of their bodies (cf. already 15:44). In 15:53–54 touto/this is repeated four times. It refers to the people who are subject to destruction and the power of death. These bodies become alive.

15:54–58 54 When the mistreated put on vitality, and those suffering under the power of death experience the end of the power of death, then the word that stands in Scripture is going to come to pass: Death is swallowed up by victory. 55 Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your power? 56 The power of death is sin, and sin, for its dominion, misuses God’s Torah. 57 We thank God, who grants us the victory through our Liberator, Jesus the Messiah. 58 Therefore, my beloved sisters and brothers, stand on firm ground, do not let yourselves be shaken. For you are rich for your entire lives, because you are doing the work of the Eternal One. You indeed know that your labor is not in vain, for the Eternal One is sustaining you. 15:54 When the change/transformation of humanity occurs through the putting on of the new garment, then death will be vanquished. Through the heavenly garment the »mortal« will be changed, but death conquered. These are two different aspects of the healing of the world. People are changed, but death conquered (see 15:26). The meaning of the Scripture quote is clear in the context of the Pauline letter. The pattern for the first line is to be found in the Jewish translation history of Isa 25:8 into Greek.944 The image is supposed to express God’s disempowering of death (cf. 15:26; Rev 21:4). Do the words »swallowing up« refer to a whirlpool? That is hard to say.945 The introduction to the Scripture quote says: Then will take place that which the prophets have already said. It is not a question of a promise and a subsequent, one-time fulfillment but of the continuity of God’s saving activity in the history of the people of Israel and of all people.

943 935 Ethiopic Enoch 62.15–16. »The righteous and elect ones shall rise from the earth, and shall cease being of downcast face. They shall wear the garments of glory, These garments of yours shall become the garments of life from the Lord of the Spirits. Neither shall your garments wear out, nor your glory come to an end before the Lord of the Spirits.« Trans. by Ephraim Isaac in Charlesworth, vol 1, 1983, 44. The garment is not an outer covering, but an expression of the quality of life according to the Torah and in closeness to God. Clothing is an aspect of transformation/change. See also Syriac Baruch 51. 944 For the details, see, for example, Lindemann 2000, 370; Thiselton 2000, 1299. 945 The image remains ambiguous; the issue corresponds to the Massoretic text of Isa 25:8; cf. Rev 21:4 and 1 Cor 15:26. Reflections on the concept of »being swallowed up« are found in Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 379.

330

Commentary

15:55 This verse modifies Hos 13:14.946 On the use of Scripture in 15:54–55, it is difficult to say where Paul got his variants of the biblical tradition (in Hebrew and Greek). In the language of Scripture, he fashions a song of victory over death. This song is to be sung »now.« It is an experience of the God who has established a boundary for death. The future in 15:54, which introduces the song, cannot be read in the sense of linear time, because 15:57 shows that this victory is also a present reality.947 The future is an expression of trust in God and of hope. For the congregation, the victory is something that can already be experienced. The kentron can designate anything that stings, the poisonous sting of animals, for example. But here the word is meant to be a metaphor for death’s dominion (as in Hos 13:14 LXX). Therefore, it is to be related to the prod. The prod is used as an instrument of power: for the driving of animals, of enslaved humans being tortured.948 This metaphor for death’s dominion is a reference to people’s experience in society. They know about such brutal domination and violence. God is putting an end to it. 15:56 Paul explains the last line of the song. The verse reads like a short summary of that which Paul presents in greater detail in the subsequent letter to Rome (see the basic information already given above at 9:20). The entrapment of humans in the tyranny of violence and sin turns them into accomplices, into partners in crime. They violate the Torah; they disregard the life of others for the sake of their own advantage (see only Rom 1:29–32; 3:10–18). These violations of the Torah give death its power, put the prod into death’s hands. Since the Torah exists, since God’s will is in the world, for that very reason the totality of all violations of the Torah, namely, sin, has become a power that dominates the world. In that way, through disregard for the divine will, God’s good law, the Torah, becomes the basis for the power of sin.949 15:57 As in Rom 7:25, rigorous analysis is abruptly followed by a prayer of thanksgiving. Through this sudden transition into a prayer, it becomes conceivable how people in the messianic congregation, who have to assert themselves on a daily basis in the face of raw violence, can plunge into a prayer of thanksgiving: God, you have already given us victory over death, as you have awakened from death the tortured and crucified Messiah. 15:58 The consequence of depriving death of its power is a life together. Paul addresses the congregation lovingly: my beloved. Paul encourages the congregation: 1) Do not let yourselves be deterred from your path; 2) embark on working unstintingly for the freedom and the life of all people. 3) Do all of that in the knowledge that your labor is not in vain. The formulations that Paul uses for these

946 An overview of the differences between Hosea 13:14 and 1 Cor 15:55 is found, for example, in Thiselton 2000, 1299–1300. 947 For the understanding of time in 15:54–57, see Janssen 2005, 255–256. 948 On this see L. Schottroff 1990, 62; Thiselton 2000, 1300–1301. 949 The old anti-Judaistic interpretation spoke of the victory over sin and the law. But the law that gives death power is the Torah that has been transgressed, not the Torah as God’s instruction.

16:1–24

331

three aspects of the renewed life are revealing: (On 1) The resistance against the pressure to give up is expressed by two adjectives: »Be steadfast« (hedraioi), »Be immoveable« (ametakinētoi). (On 2) The »work« (ergon) of God,950 the imitation of God, is your inexhaustible superabundance and riches (perisseuontes). (On 3) The word »labor« (kopos; see already on 15:10) shows how realistic Paul remains: People must resist the pressure to give up on their cause. They are staking their whole lives, always and unreservedly. That is the rigorous task and, at the same time, the experience of abundance and superabundance. The dynamics of the concluding section of Chapter 15 (15:51–58) are powerful: a vision of the great transformation (15:51–53), a song of victory over death (15:54–55), a succinct analysis (15:56), a prayer of thanksgiving (15:57), encouragement. We can feel that Paul is not speaking this way for the first time. 15:56 sounds like a summation of his analysis already reiterated many times. The prayer of thanksgiving also reveals frequent repetition and the encouragement is again and again necessary, because the pressure on the people of the Messiah is enormous. This encouragement attaches to 15:34 and once again clearly expresses the goal that Paul has with this chapter (cf. also 15:1–2).

16:1–24 The letter’s final chapter reveals the practical side of the gospel for the nations. It should not be read as a theologically marginal conclusion that deals with necessary organizational issues. The concept of the organization of the gospel directed to the nations that can be seen here reveals the practice that belongs to the liberating message. This practice encompasses economic agreements, a network of people who are prepared to move from city to city and a network of congregations. Paul’s geographical concept is oriented, on the one hand, to the biblical conception of Jerusalem as the center of the earth, and, on the other hand, to the Roman provinces as the dwelling places of the ethnē, the nations subjected to Rome. As a key harbor and commercial center, Corinth is assigned an important role in this geographical conception. Paul thinks from the perspective of the nations, thus in regional terms. He goes into the larger cities of the provinces. On the other hand, he is confident that the gospel in the region will also be carried further into smaller places. Specific people at the place have received from God a special commission for this: Stephanas and his household (16:15), for example, for the region/province of Achaia. The concepts of »mission,« »Paul’s co-workers,« and the »collection« are not suitable for comprehending the theological contents of the concept of the gospel for the nations. They evoke the conception of bringing those of a different faith into a religious institution (the »church«), and of a hierarchical system of offices and of a one-sided authority accorded particular people. Paul was not the first and the most important of those who worked for the gospel for the nations, not even 950 Cf. 1 Cor 3:8; 15:10. All who belong to the Messiah are co-workers in »God’s work.«

332

Commentary

from his own perspective. He worked in a collegial network of people. What mattered was that together they brought to the nations the message of the resurrection of the Messiah of the God of Israel and together encouraged them to establish the peace of God. I suggest that instead of speaking about »mission« we speak of the »gospel for the nations,« and, instead of »Paul’s co-workers,« of »companions in the task« and, instead of »the collection,« of the »gifts for Jerusalem.«

16:1–4 1 Concerning the collection of money for the saints: You should also follow the directions that I gave the congregations in Galatia. 2 All should set aside something for themselves on the first day of the week, and in that way save what is possible for them. For the money should not first be assembled when I come. 3 When I am there, I shall send off with letters those whom you have chosen, in order to bring your gift to Jerusalem. 4 Should it be necessary that I also make the journey, we shall go together.

The Gifts of the Nations for Jerusalem The collection951 (1 Cor 16:1–2) of money for the saints, more precisely, for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem (Rom 15:26), is one of the foundational elements of the gospel for the nations (see only Gal 2:10). These gifts for Jerusalem have great significance for the ecumenical solidarity of the nations with the Jewish people, but at the same time they give expression to the connection of the nations to God, Israel and the temple. It is a onetime gift,952 but, nevertheless, an enduring umbilical cord between Israel and the nations. Paul takes his responsibility for this gathering very seriously, as is clear from each of the texts that speak about it (Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4; Rom 15:25–29; 2 Cor 8:9). What is the model for these gifts? Josephus tells of a Gentile woman who is robbed of her inheritance by a deceitful teacher of the Torah. He teaches her she should send things of value to the temple in Jerusalem. This story, with its concept of the gifts from the nations for the temple in Jerusalem, makes clear in what tradition the gifts for Jerusalem stand that are so important for Paul. There was a man who was a Jew but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three

951 Logeia/gathering is a word that does not come up in literary texts but in papyri and inscriptions. It denotes a gathering of funds, for a temple or a deity, for example; on this see Deissmann 1923, 83–84; Kittel, in TDNT 1967, vol. 4, 282–283. 952 Georgi 1992, 40.

16:1–4

333

other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her.953

In this deception, Josephus sees the occasion for the expulsion of the Jewish people from Rome in the year 19 CE. From this story the following becomes clear about the gifts for Jerusalem. They depend upon the interpretation of the Torah for people from the nations. A woman who has now become God-fearing demonstrates her gratitude over-against Jerusalem and the temple. The gift is to be brought to Jerusalem by several messengers. Comparable with this concept of gifts from the nations for Jerusalem are Acts 11:29 and reports about the great commitment of Queen Helena of Adiabene.954 The scriptural basis for these gifts will be the prophetic vision of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion with the presentation of gifts (Isaiah 60 and 61).955 Other models that have been discussed956 are not appropriate for the gifts of the nations. The gifts are not a tax, nor are they an act of generosity from above to below, as this is practiced in Roman-Hellenistic culture.957 Concepts from the Jewish care for the poor might play a role, but they do not explain the special relationship of the God-fearers from the nations to Jerusalem. What do the Pauline texts say about the recipients? They are, according to Paul (Gal 2:10), the poor. The reference to Israel is given in the context. In 1 Cor 16:1 he calls them the »saints«; the gifts are to be brought to Jerusalem (16:3). In the letter to Rome the recipients are called the »poor among the saints at Jerusalem« (15:26), the »saints« (15:25, 31), and »Jerusalem« (15:31). From this it can be concluded that they are supposed to be the »poor among the saints« at Jerusalem. But Paul has no fear of a misunderstanding when he uses shorthand. It is the people of Israel (Leviticus 19–20) that are holy. There is no basis for understanding »saints« or »poor« as a designation for the messianic congregations in Jerusalem in distinction from the people. In Acts 24:17 Luke speaks of the moment in which Paul delivered the gifts in Jerusalem: He offers them in the temple as a sacrifice.958 He names it a gift of 953 Josephus, Ant., trans. William Whiston, The Works of Flavius Josephus (Auburn and Buffalo: John A Beardsley, 1895), 18.3, 5. 954 See Josephus, Ant. 20.49–53. 955 On this see especially Wengst 2008, 431 and 112f. Georgi 1992, 36 correctly makes the connection with the tradition of the pilgrimage of the nations; in any case, he associates it with the »Jewish-Christian« congregation in Jerusalem, which understands itself as the »eschatological forepost« and separates itself from the rest of Jerusalem (37). 956 An overview of the research is found in Schrage 2001, vol. 4, 425–427. 957 Ehrensperger 2007, 71 is critical of this view. 958 Wengst offers a different translation in BigS 2011, 1564: »… to bring contributions for my people and to offer a sacrifice.« But the connection of what is being discussed in Acts 24:17 and Rom 15:16, 31 rather favors interpreting the presentation of the gifts as a sacrifice. That should not be an indication that Paul didn’t also offer sacrifice in the temple in the essential sense of the word. 1 Cor 10:18 can be understood in this way.

334

Commentary

righteousness »for my people« (ethnos). Rom 15:31 also points in the same direction: the gifts should be »acceptable« (euprosdektos) to the »saints.« This word is usually encountered in the context of sacrifices that are to be pleasing to the deity. In Rom 15:16 he calls himself a priest who works to see that the »offering of the Gentiles«959 will be gladly accepted (euprosdektos) by God. The information about the recipients points to the fact that Paul (or other representatives of the congregations) are to bring the gifts as a sacrifice of the nations in the temple. Essentially the gift of Fulvia (see above) is also meant to be brought into the temple. The gifts of the nations in Isaiah 60 and 61 are brought to God, and the people of Israel will eat of their riches (Isa 61:6). The gifts for God serve to benefit people. The poor of the saints are understood in the Pauline tradition as primary representatives of the people of Israel (Matt 15:30–31; 4:24–5:3; cf. Isa 14:30–31). The theological interpretation of the gifts for Jerusalem: the relational network of charis:960 In 1 Cor 16:3; 2 Cor 8:9 the word charis promotes or serves in manifold ways the theological interpretation of the gifts for Jerusalem. Charis connects God with people (2 Cor 8:1; 9:14) and people with God (8:1; 9:15). Likewise, it connects the congregations from the nations with Jerusalem and the Messiah with the people (8:9). The translation of this word with the German word Gnade [»grace«] brings into play a relationship from above to below that gives a false tone to what the Pauline texts are saying. Marlene Crüsemann961 has suggested translating with [the German word] Zuwendung/ »care.« This word is in fact qualified to grasp the mutuality962 of the relationship in charis. In addition, the word care also includes material gifts. Moreover, it makes it possible to recognize the benefit that both sides, the giving and receiving, receive as a gift: »mutual empowerment,« mutual strengthening.963 Paul describes in 2 Cor 8:9 this mutual enrichment through loving devotion. The relationships of charis/care connect God with humans and humans with one another in mutuality. What Paul in these two chapters, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, describes with such delight as a network of devotedness is the »gospel for the poor« (Matt 11:5; Luke 4:18 and more frequently) in Corinth and Macedonia. The gospel for the poor is also a relational event. The gospel is brought to the poor (Luke 4:16) and, in just the same way, the gospel is then the gift that the poor bring: they proclaim the liberating message.964

959 960 961 962

On this see Downs 2008, 146–157. Fundamental on this is M. Crüsemann 2009, especially 118–134; Ehrensperger 2007, 63–80. M. Crüsemann 2009, 120–121. This mutuality excludes power relationships. Ehrensperger 2007, 69 emphasizes the difference between »mutuality« and »reciprocity.« The latter could also designate the relationship between a patron and a client; it contains a clear power-differential. 963 M. Crüsemann 2009, 124–125 964 In Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22 the poor should be understood as the ones making the proclamation. See the translation in BigS [Matt 11:5: »and the poor bring the good news«; trans.]; on this see Janssen 2006.

16:1–4

335

They are at the same time subjects and objects—in the sense of a mutual strengthening. What does that mean precisely for the gifts of the nations? In 2 Cor 8:9 it becomes clear that both sides, the givers and the recipients have to do battle with poverty in the material sense.965 The congregations in Macedonia are living in extreme poverty (2 Cor 8:2). Through their gifts for Jerusalem, they have committed themselves beyond their financial ability (2 Cor 8:3). Paul depicts this engagement to encourage the Corinthian congregation to be confident about the network of care. There is a document from Thebes in Egypt in the year 63 CE,966 that can illuminate the gifts of the poor. It also helps us to understand better Paul’s suggestion in 1 Cor 16:2 to set money aside in installments. The document certifies that Pibuchis the »homologue« (farmhand967) paid four drachmas and one obol into the logia/collection for Isis. How much these coins are worth is hard to tell.968 In any case, the context speaks for a small sum; the receipt is on a »miserable potsherd.«969 So the poor also try to give money. The recommendation that Paul gives in 1 Cor 16:2 also points in the same direction. On the first day of the week, the people of the Messiah should set aside money at home, whatever they can spare. In this way they can avoid collecting money when Paul arrives. Presumably, Paul recommends this way of doing things because for a one-time collection people would like to bring a greater amount, which is more difficult. Since the congregation consists principally of the poor (see on 1:26–31; 11:17–22), Paul’s recommendation is thoroughly plausible. These gifts for the poor in Jerusalem are the riches of the poor in Macedonia (2 Cor 8:2; 9:11). The riches that these gifts of the givers supply are described by Paul again and again with the word perisseuein/to overflow, to be abundant (1 Cor 15:58; 2 Cor 8:2, 7; 9:8, 12; cf. 8:14). In 2 Cor 8:15 Paul interprets the reciprocity of the gifts by using Israel’s experience of the manna in the wilderness, Exod 16:18: Those who gathered much did not have too much, and those who had gathered little had no lack. There was precisely as much as each person needed. The interpretation that Paul gives to this »enough« of the gift of God is textually related to the miraculous feeding

965 On the exegetical strategies for reinterpreting the word ptōchos/poor in the New Testament, see L. Schottroff 2006, 88–89. These investigations attempt to avoid taking poverty seriously in the economic, social and political sense and thereby fail to do justice to texts like 2 Cor 8:2 and Rom 15:29. On poverty in Corinth, see the material on 1 Cor 1:26–31 and 11:17–22. 966 Deissmann 1927, 103–105. 967 Deissmann 1927, 105, n. 10. 968 L. Schottroff 1995, 92–93: If a drachma/a denarius, as in Matt 20:1, still equals the daily wage of a farm worker, that would provide a frame of reference. This daily wage does not support a family, only one person. Farm workers have to reckon with periods of unemployment. Pay for women is significantly lower. 969 Deissmann 1927 285.

336

Commentary

accounts in the gospels. The having enough is the extravagant superfluity of the people who share their resources. This sharing is more than merely a symbolic protest against the injustice that forces people into impoverishment. It gives the dignity and the ability to act. The poor in Jerusalem receive the gifts of the nations. The riches that they bring into the network of charis as a reciprocal gift are not material in nature. They will praise God and pray for the giving Gentile congregations. They will long for those who are providing the gifts, for God’s care among the nations has become such an overwhelming reality (2 Cor 9:13–14; cf. Rom 15:27). The organization of the gifts for Jerusalem that Paul has recommended for Galatia and Corinth (1 Cor 16:2), perhaps also elsewhere, is easy to recognize. Each week, the people of the Messiah gather for themselves at home modest contributions. They gather the money of their own accord (2 Cor 8: 3, 9; 9:7) and decide for themselves the amount of the contribution (1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 9:11). Presumably, just before the beginning of the transport of the money to Jerusalem the money will be collected as a gift from the congregation. The congregation chooses970 their emissaries (2 Cor 8:23, 19; 1 Cor 16:3) for the delivery of the gifts. For Paul it is clearly important to be involved himself (1 Cor 16:4; Rom 15:25, 28), if necessary through letters (1 Cor 16:3). Paul received the commission to make this collection at the beginning of his journey with the gospel for the nations (Gal 2:10) and wants to bring it to completion. The choice of the delegation by the congregation is meant to prevent suspicions of misappropriation (2 Cor 8:20; cf. the story of deception mentioned above, which Josephus, Ant. 18.82 recounts). Paul does not mention that a larger travel group of this kind for the transport of the money also offers greater security. Secure travel in the Roman Empire was supported by the empire. Piracy on the Mediterranean and on the streets was battled relatively successfully. Nevertheless, lonely streets and cheap housing were still dangerous971 (cf. Luke 10:30–37; 2 Cor 11:26). The organizing of the gifts for Jerusalem resembles what Luke tells about the so-called community of goods in Jerusalem. Whoever was prepared to give a portion of his or her possessions to the congregation maintains ownership of the gift (Acts 5:4) until it was ceremonially and formally laid »at the apostles’ feet« (Acts 4:35–37; 5:2). Then the congregation determined how it would be distributed, with the goal that all should have enough for living (Acts 4:34; 2:45). The conflict over the Lord’s Supper in Corinth (see above on 11:17–22) also presupposes similar concepts about property: on the one hand, private property in the hands of community members, on the other hand common property.972

970 2 Cor 8:19 cheirotonein could indicate that the transport of the gifts for Jerusalem takes place in accord with the model of the transport of the temple tax from the Diaspora to Jerusalem. Cf. Philo, Spec. 1.78. 971 Only the principal sections of the way were watched over, according to Casson, and others (1962, vol. 2, 33). 972 Richter Reimer 1992, 30–43.

16:1–4

337

Both forms of property ownership are required to be just: Everyone should have enough to live on. Why are these gifts of the congregations from the nations so basic and so important for Paul? Even if a larger sum is gathered, it can only make the poverty in Jerusalem less severe. Besides, the congregations from the nations were themselves very poor and surely had many social justice tasks to deal with. There, congregations included street children, uncared for sick people and stranded sisters and brothers looking for work. Paul’s goal is koinōnia/fellowship between Jerusalem and the Gentile congregations (2 Cor 8:4; 9:13; Rom 15:26–27). A fellowship of this kind rests upon the giving and receiving of the two sides (cf. Phil 4:15). It is recognized from the side of the Gentile congregations in a clearly visible way through the gifts. 16:1 connects with 15:58. The gifts for Jerusalem are part of the practice that is part of the liberating message, the work (ergon) of God. Here the issue is the practical experience that is part of the gathering of money; thus, Paul speaks here of a logeia/collection. On the gifts for Jerusalem, see the basic information preceding 16:1. Diatassein is usually translated by »command,« although the word can also mean »deal with,«973 along with similar meanings. 16:2 The first day of the week presumably presupposes the seven-day week that divided the time in Judaism and that in this period was increasingly common in the Roman Empire.974 Does it have a particular significance that Paul specifically chose the first day of the week? For him, it is the day after the Sabbath975 that was presumably observed in the congregation in Corinth whenever possible. We do not know if the first day of the week was already considered to be the day of the resurrection (cf. Mark 16:2; Matt 28:1; Luke 24:1). That cannot be inferred from 16:2.976 Weekly paydays were not yet customary. Probably he simply wants to suggest one day in the week, since regularity helps with saving. Paul recommends collecting the money at home. It is not known if there was already a congregational coffer. The gift should be in accord with the individuals’ possibilities. Cf. 2 Cor 8:3, according to their means, no more than that; 8:11: »what you are able to bring« (BigS). On 16:2b, see the basic information before 16:1 above.

973 See Menge 1903, 143 (1b). The issue in 16:1 is to recommend a way of organizing the collection. 974 Weeber 1995, 410–412. 975 The commitment to the Torah is clear, for Paul himself and for the Corinthian congregation (see the basic information on the Torah above, before 7:17). The Sabbath is so prominent in the Torah that a deviation on this question has to be discussed with the emphasis accorded the issue of the circumcision of the men from the nations. In the everyday life of a city following a primarily Roman way of life, like Corinth, the people of the Messiah would often have to work despite the Sabbath. On the Sabbath in the Diaspora, see Sanders 1992, 209–210. 976 Llewelyn 2001, 209–210, for example, has a different view.

338

Commentary

16:3 »Those you consider suitable«—presumably, the congregation made the choice (see 2 Cor 8:19). On this and on 16:3 as a whole, see the basic information before 16:1. 16:4 It remains open what grounds there could be for it to be »advisable« (axion) for Paul himself also to travel with a delegation to Jerusalem. He had always considered these gifts for Jerusalem to be his own special responsibly. In fact, he did go along later; See the plans in Rom 15:25–28 and the account of this journey in Acts 19:21–21:27 (arrival at the temple).

16:5–9 5 I shall come to you as soon as I have travelled through Macedonia; for I am taking the route through Macedonia. 6 I shall perhaps stay a while with you, or even spend the winter, so that you can equip me for wherever I am going next. 7 For I do not wish to see you only in passing through, but I hope to stay with you for some time, if the Eternal One allows. 8 I am remaining in Ephesus until the Feast of Weeks. 9 For a large and promising door has opened for me. But there are many who wish to hinder this. 16:5 Paul is in Ephesus (16:8) and will remain there until the Feast of Weeks. Then he wants to travel from Ephesus through Macedonia. Evidently, he wants to visit congregations there, for travelling by sea would offer a more comfortable journey to Corinth.

Illustration 12. An excerpt from the Tabula Peutingeriana. The map stems from the second half of the 4th century CE. The excerpt shows Corinth about in the middle. The map is based on Roman prototypes from the 1st century CE. For the status of the research and for a digital edition of the map, see T. Elliott 2008.

16:5–9

339

Illustration 13. The Roman Empire with the provincial borders at the time of Trajan. Map: Peter Palm, Berlin.

Why has Paul taken upon himself such long, strenuous and often also dangerous journeys (see 2 Cor 11:26)?977 He will be underway the entire summer and fall. So, he is planning no extended stays in the congregations. What is the goal of these journeys? To be added is the fact that he was not the only person among the followers of the Messiah Jesus who was travelling in this way at this time in the Roman Empire (see on 16:10). Paul frequently says that he was called by God and sent to the nations. That is the meaning of the word »apostle« (see only Rom 1:5; 15:18; Gal 1:16 and more frequently). On the one hand, from a Jewish perspective he uses the plural ethnē as a counterpart to the people Israel (the non-Jewish nations; for example, Rom 3:29.) On the other hand, the ethnē are the nations subjected to Rome (see on 1:22). The gospel is to be brought to all these subject nations (Mark 13:10; Matt 28:19). Israel’s God has liberated Israel from slavery in Egypt and will also liberate the other oppressed nations. The gospel (see on 15:1 about this) is the message of a worldwide liberation, of an exodus out of slavery as

977 In Acts 27 and 28:11–13 there is a dramatic depiction of a sea journey undertaken by Paul.

340

Commentary

Israel experienced this. The gospel for the nations binds Israel and the nations in solidarity.978 God has not only given the mission; God also leads the messengers through the expansive Roman Empire (see 16:7).979 In 1 Cor 9:16 Paul says: »I must do it«/a compulsion rests upon me. That is how he describes his connection to God; God is leading him. On the resurrection fresco from the synagogue in Dura Europos (see above by 15:44), the prophet Ezekiel is shown in the first scene. God takes him by the hair of his head and puts him in the place where he is needed. Paul is needed by the nations, by the oppressed people of his time. The geographical field of vision of the Pauline gospel for the nations is the Roman Empire, more precisely, the Roman provinces of his time. Here also in 16:1 he gives the name of a province, Macedonia, which encompasses the North and East of modern Greece. In Rom 15:19–20 he describes his geographical concept: Starting out from Jerusalem he has come as far as Illyricum, that is, kyklō/in a circle. A plausible explanation of this word could be that he understands Jerusalem as the center of the world.980 Connected with this is his concept of the provinces of the Roman Empire as a circle around the Mediterranean Sea.981 He has already travelled a portion of this circle; he plans to journey to the West, to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28). Nowhere does he indicate that he must visit the North African countries. Thus it can be concluded that he knows that others are also under way for the gospel.982 The gospel is the liberating message for all ethnē/nations, but he doesn’t have to bring the message to all nations all by himself. He has labored in congregations of the large cities in Syria, present-day Turkey and Greece. Sometimes he remained for months (for Corinth, see Acts 18:11). He maintained written contact with the congregations; there was lively travel between the congregations. Nevertheless, it is surprising that he says in Rom 15:19 that he had »fully proclaimed the gospel« in the northern Mediterranean Sea. He cannot seriously mean that he has been able to address all the people in the cities or indeed the broad rural regions of this territory. His view can essentially only be that he has fulfilled his limited assignment,983 to get the gospel proclamation off the ground. That also means equipping and encouraging people to carry this message forward. Therefore, he preferred984 places in which the gospel was still unknown (Rom 15:20). Other-

978 979 980 981

On this see especially D. Lopez 2008, 147–148 and more frequently. A legendary depiction of such leading by God is found in Acts 16:9–10. See Scott 1995, 136–140; Jewett 2007, 913. Knox 1964, 11; Jewett 2007. To be sure, both authors sketch the geographical concept within the framework of an eschatology that awaits God’s impending future in a time envisioned as linear. The concept of linear time is not appropriate for the hope in God in Paul and in the New Testament as a whole (see the basic information at 1:6 above). 982 Knox 1964, 6–10. 983 Knox 1964, 10: »the very word pleroō involves acknowledgment on Paul’s part of the preaching work of others.« See also Jewett 2007,914. 984 Philotimeomai in Rom 15:20 means: He has set his honor thereon, but naturally he also preached places in which there was also a messianic community, Corinth and Ephesus, for example.

16:10–14

341

wise the messengers could have done double work in one place, needing, in addition, to neglect other places. The concept of the spread of the liberating message among all nations is supported by the confidence that others carry the message further. 16:6 He makes clear to the congregation in Corinth what his plans are: Perhaps he is staying in Corinth during the winter months, during which journeys are hardly possible. The congregation should then equip him for his next journey, which he apparently had not yet planned. He cannot himself finance this equipping, and he also accepts it from a congregation from which he desired no sustenance (1 Cor 9:15). The equipping might well consist essentially of money, in any case for journeys on foot. 16:7 He would like to spend some time in Corinth (cf. 15:24). But what is decisive is the path God determines for him. 16:8–9 Even the length of his current stay in Ephesus is for God to determine. He wants to stay long into spring, until the Feast of Weeks, for »a large door« has opened for him. This metaphor occurs in 2 Cor 2:12; Acts 14:27 in a similar context. God has opened a door for his proclamation of the gospel. But there are also many people who desire to impede the gospel.985 The municipal officials and other interest groups desire to impede such a message, about which Acts has a lot to say.

16:10–14 10 When Timothy comes to you, see to it that he can stay on with you without any fear. He is working for the Eternal One even as I am. 11 No one should in any case treat him scornfully. See to his well-being and equip him, so that he can come to me. For I am, of course, awaiting him with the sisters and brothers. 12 Concerning our brother Apollos: I have frequently implored him to travel to you with the sisters and brothers. But it was not the right time to come there. He will come as soon that time arrives. 13 Be watchful, be firm in your confidence, behave courageously, be strong. 14 May everything you do be done with love. 16:10–11 are lines about Paul’s concern for Timothy, who will soon arrive in Corinth with the letter.986 It is hard to clarify if Paul here is referring to the same journey of Timothy’s to Corinth as the one in 4:17.987 Paul’s concern is that the 985 These are not religious opponents of other religions, nor opponents in their own ranks, but people who have the power to prohibit the preaching of the gospel. 986 Other interpretations presume that at the time of the writing Timothy was already under way between Ephesus and Corinth via the land route (without the letter). See the extensive discussion in Merklein-Gielen 2005, 425–428, for example; see also on this M. Crüsemann 2010, 106. 987 Reflections on how 4:17 and 16:10–11 could have been related to only one journey to Corinth are found in Merklein/Gielen 2005, 427–428.

342

Commentary

congregation receives him hospitably and sees to it that he can remain in the city without fear. For this to happen, a stranger needed the surety that natives of the city could provide.988 Paul requests something similar for Phoebe in Rome (Rom 16:2).989 The request, frequently found in the New Testament, to provide hospitality for sisters and brothers (see, for example, Rom 12:13) points to the fact that such hospitality was not self-evident, and was, besides, difficult and expensive. In the place where he was, the guest was an alien, a foreigner. The congregations, unlike the prosperous in the cities, did not have access to their own guest rooms or guest houses for businesspeople who were passing through, people with whom they had business dealings. The contemptuous treatment of which Paul here in 16:11 speaks (cf. 1:28) happens on the streets, possibly also through the authorities. Plutarch tells a story about Cato the Younger, who was rich and powerful but lived and travelled modestly. This story enables us to learn something about the social conditions involved in the journeys of the little people, about whom much less is known than about the journeys of the well-to-do. 2 But before applying himself to public affairs he desired to travel about in a study of Asia, and to see with his own eyes the customs and lives and military strength of each province; … He therefore arranged his journey as follows. At daybreak, he would send forward his baker and his cook to the place where he intended to lodge. 3 These would enter the city with great decorum and little stir, and if Cato had no family friend or acquaintance there, they would prepare a reception for him at an inn, without troubling anybody; or, in case there was no inn, they would apply to the magistrates for hospitality, and gladly accept what was given. 4 But frequently they were distrusted and neglected, because they raised no tumult and made no threats in their dealings with the magistrates. In such a case Cato would find their work not done when he arrived, and he himself would be more despised than his servants when men saw him, and would awaken suspicion, as he sat upon the baggage without saying a word, that he was a man of low condition and very timid. 5 However, he would then call the magistrates to him and say: »Ye miserable wretches, lay aside this inhospitality. Not all men who come to you will be Catos …«990

For the journey back to Ephesus Timothy should be outfitted with the means necessary for this trip (see on 16:6). According to Acts 16:1–3, Timothy is first encountered by Paul in Lystra, in the province of Galatia. He himself and his Jewish mother were at this time already members of a messianic community. Timothy enjoyed the finest of reputations among the congregations in Lystra and the neighboring city of Iconium. Paul wanted to take him along on his journeys. The Jewish congregations of this region had objections to this, as Acts reports. In their eyes Timothy was a Jew, although he was not circumcised. His father was actually a Greek, that 988 On legal protection for guests through private and political hospitality, see Kaser 1962, 60 (§ 13.1.1b); »into the imperial period the stranger was theoretically without shelter or rights,« G. Stählin in TDNT 1967, vol. 5, 6.7–9. A host also assumed legal protection for the guest. On the protection of legal rights for guests, see also Richter Reimer 1992, 154; Leonhard 1913, 2493–2498. 989 Examples of letters of recommendation that travelers took with them on journeys are found in Deissmann 1923, 137, 163–165. 990 Plutarch, Cat. Min. trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb (1917), 12.2–5.

16:10–14

343

is, non-Jewish and uncircumcised. Therefore, Paul circumcised Timothy (that is, he had him circumcised). The text shows two areas of conflict: For these Jewish congregations it was clear that a son of a Jewish mother had to be circumcised. That is temporally early evidence for the beginning of matrilineal descent in Judaism.991 On the other hand, the mother, like Paul, was not yet of the opinion that a person who has a Jewish mother is Jewish. However, Paul adopted this point of view on this occasion.992 Acts and the Pauline letters show then that Timothy was both active in congregations of the nations, together with Paul, as also that he, as here, undertook journeys between congregations on his own (this was probably the case in 4:17). In the exegetical tradition Timothy, like other men and women, is called a »coworker« of Paul’s. Synergos is a designation993 frequently used by Paul for his colleagues. But here the »co«-working is not related solely to the group working with Paul but to the large group of those who work together doing the »work of God« (15:58), the gospel for the nations.994 Paul uses a long list of words with »syn«/co-, to designate this group. In the messianic congregations of this time such words were gladly used and newly coined.995 In 16:10–11 Paul doesn’t actually use the word synergos, but he circumscribes it: Timothy is doing God’s work (see 15:58), just as he himself. The word co-worker is frequently understood in the exegetical tradition as an indication of a hierarchical relationship between Paul and his »co-workers.« Paul usually worked as part of a team, but he had no decisive authority over others.996 Therefore I suggest circumscribing the situation verbally or using a word that does not imply a power relationship, a term like »colleagues.« Timothy and Paul, beyond their working together, appear to have had a friendly relationship to each other.

991 Shaye Cohen 1999, 363–377 discusses the question extensively whether Timothy, according to Acts 16:1–3 was a Jew or a Greek (in the sense of the text). He concludes that he was a Greek, not a Jew (376–377). In any case, the mention of a Jewish mother and the protest of »the Jews« lets it be known that the text wants to tell about different evaluations of matrilineality and that in the end all are united: Timothy, the »Jews,« Paul and the text: As the child of a Jewish mother, Timothy is Jewish and must be circumcised. On matrilineality, see also Shaye Cohen 1999, 263–273. 992 His behavior here should just as little as in the case of 1 Cor 9:20–29 be understood as tactical; see the material on on 9:20–23. Gal 2:1–3 shows that in the case of Titus, who was a Greek, Paul rejected a circumcision. 993 Designations for people who work for the gospel in a network of relationships are listed, for example, in Deissmann 1925, 185; Ehrensperger 2007, 46. Ollrog 1979 does speak of Paul’s co-workers (this is already true of the book’s title,) but he also understands them as independent workers (see, for example, 2). 994 Ehrensperger 2007, 46–55. 995 On this see L. Schottroff 1995, 212. 996 Even when Paul says that he had »sent« (epempsa 4:17) someone, the verb doesn’t have to indicate a subordinate relationship, but can, like propempein, have in view providing the means to make the journey possible. For a critique of the concept that Paul has »coworkers« over whom he has control, see M. Crüsemann 2010, 89.

344

Commentary

Especially Phil 2:19–22 supports this view. Paul is part of a network of women and men doing the »work of God« (15:58). He is neither the sole creator of this network nor its center. It is a network of people who have a common goal: To make the love of Israel’s God known to all oppressed nations and to reach as many people as possible. In this work they have relied on one another—even when there were sometimes disappointments. Timothy is presumably the bearer of this letter to Corinth.997 There is a brisk back and forth of sisters and brothers from Corinth and Ephesus (see also on 16:17). Timothy is not the ambassador for Paul alone but for the sisters and brothers in Ephesus. They all await his return. Paul does not describe what Timothy will work on in Corinth. Presumably, he gave more instruction on the Torah, as he had already done before (4:17). 16:12 The relationship between Apollos and Paul is extensively discussed in 3:5–4:6. They work at the same eye level and should not be played off against one another as competitors, says Paul (see above, especially on 3:5–11; 4:6). So, there is no reason to read 16:12 as evidence for competition or a conflict. Apollos has an opinion different from Paul’s. Paul is of the opinion that Apollos and a group of sisters and brothers with whom he is working should undertake a visit to Corinth. But Apollos wants to go to Corinth only at a later time. He was well-known there (on Apollos, see on 3:5–11). 16:13–14 The verses serve to encourage the congregation in Corinth (cf. 15:58 and look there). On the one hand, the congregation needs watchfulness, courage and strength; on the other hand, the basis for their life is trust in God and love for God, humanity and each other. The content of the verses does not reveal any connection to what precedes or what follows. The verses stand as an encouragement for the congregation itself and let it be seen once again (as in 15:58), that Paul sees the congregation’s situation primarily as a threat from outside.

16:15–18 15 You know the household of Stephanas and are aware that they were the first converts in Achaia. They have committed themselves to the work for the holy sisters and brothers. I ask you, sisters and brothers: 16 Listen to them and to all who are participating in this task and doing hard work. 17 I rejoice that Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus have come. They have filled the gap that exists because of your absence. 18 They have quieted my heart and yours as well. Acknowledge them, therefore.

997 Speaking in favor of this is the fact that 16:10, 12 is a written recommendation that only makes sense if Timothy and the letter arrive at the same time. On the transmission of letters by Timothy, see M. Crüsemann 2010, 106.

16:15–18

345

16:15–16 Paul asks the sisters and brothers in Corinth to »submit themselves« to the house community of Stephanas. The verb hypotassesthai is as a rule translated with to submit, to be subject and similar words. This meaning of the word will not fit properly here: An entire congregation is supposed to submit themselves to a smaller community? The achievement of this smaller community is described with the same verbs that are elsewhere used for work on behalf of the gospel (synergein, kopian; see Rom 16:6, 3). Given what is being discussed the submitting means: acknowledge (cf. 16:18) and actively support, because their work is important. It is not a matter of command and subordination but of an important work that needs support. This work is apparently being done outside the city of Corinth or outside of the congregation in Corinth. This is shown by the formulation: They have devoted themselves to the service for the saints. The congregation is also called »the saints« (see 1:2). But here no verbal reference is made to the congregation being addressed. It has been discussed whether this work for the saints is a reference to the collection for Jerusalem, which is designated with this formulation many times (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1). That is possible, but it should be factored in that the collection is not happening in isolation from the message of the gospel and instruction in the Torah. The work of this group encompasses gospel proclamation in its entirety: teaching, proclamation of the Risen One, the offering for Jerusalem. Stephanas, the pater familias of a house,998 takes part in the work (without a special hierarchical role) alongside of the members of the household. The word diakonein, even in a transferred sense, like here, contains the aspect that diakonia designates a primarily subservient type of care by slaves and women. The members of the household of Stephanas are at least in part slaves. It is unknown how large this household was or if it was well-to-do. There are also households of the poor, to which slaves belong. It is clear that, independent of socially and legally prescribed hierarchy in a household, slaves and free are working at equal rank for a common goal. Stephanas and his household were called the aparchē/the first converts of the province of Achaia. In 1:16 Paul says that he had baptized Chrispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas—apparently in an early period of his stay. In 16:15 aparchē is understood as the ones who are the first to be baptized, as is true in Rom 16:5 (Epaenetus is aparchē of the province of Asia). But if Paul had baptized Stephanas and his house as the first people of Achaia, there are things that do not add up. Why does he list them in third place in 1 Cor 1:16? According to Acts there were already people of the Messiah in Athens, which is part of Achaia, before Paul came to Corinth (Acts 17:34). And, beyond that, Prisca and Aquila, a couple actively living messianically, were in Corinth before Paul (Acts 18:1–3). So, the designation aparchē

998 Lehmeier 2006, 338–342 shows that for Paul the people in the household of Stephanas are defined by their work for the gospel. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul speaks about the oikos of Stephanas, here about oikia. In both cases, he is referring to the people who make up the household. On the concepts, see Klauck 1981, 15–20; Horn 2008, 90.

346

Commentary

can hardly refer to the first person baptized in a place,999 and also not to a topranking person. It is more likely that the word is to be understood by analogy to 1 Cor 15:20: Stephanas and his house are the effective beginning of something that touches and reaches many people. The province of Achaia indeed encompasses not only the large harbor city of Corinth but other cities and rural areas. The gospel, the liberating message, is directed at all subject peoples of this time. No messenger can reach everybody. The messengers could initiate something and then rely on the fact that the work will go further and be handed on. It is important in all this that as much contact as possible is maintained. Therefore letters, visits and other connections are important (see above already on 16:5). The Corinthian congregation should support the household of Stephanas in their work in the region. That is what Paul is asking here. The word aparchē here designates multipliers in a province. 16:17–18 The connection in this case is very clear: Stephanas and two men (probably from his household) are at the time of writing in Ephesus for a visit. Fortunatus (the lucky one) and Achaicus (a man from Achaia) bear slave names. These three men have calmed Paul in Ephesus in his pain at being separated1000 from the Corinthian community. Paul presupposes that the congregation in Corinth has the need for this consolation about the separation. He imagines that they are also rejoicing with him. Paul expresses joy (16:17) and reassurance, finding rest (16:18). He has apparently been living in concern and tension about whether the living and working together in Corinth continues to be fruitful.

16:19–24 19 The communities of the province of Asia greet you; Aquila and Prisca, with the members of the congregation that gathers at their house, greet you heartily. Through the Liberator, they are bound to you. 20 All the sisters and brothers greet you. Greet each other with a holy kiss. 21 This is my greeting, I Paul, with my own hand. 22 Cursed is everyone who does not love the Eternal One. Maranatha—come, our Liberator! 23 The grace of Jesus, our Liberator, dwell among you. 24 My love belongs to all of you, for we belong to Jesu, the Messiah. 16:19 The greetings for Corinth begin with greetings from the »congregations in Asia.« Here Paul has in view another group than the »brothers and sisters« in 16:20.

999 Writing extensively on this, Horn 2008, 88–91 considers »first convert« to be an honorary title, although he considers it »rather unlikely« (89) that Stephanas was the first person to be baptized in Achaia. 1000 There is discussion about whether Paul with the word hysterēma means that he misses the Corinthian congregation or if he is criticizing them for causing him to be without something that he is now receiving. Because of 16:18 it is more likely that he is missing the congregation and suffering at being separated from them.

16:19–24

347

A possible explanation in the context of 16:15–18 is to take the »congregations in Asia« literally: It is actually the huge area of the province of Asia that is meant, not primarily Ephesus. Then Ephesus, where Paul is staying, would also be counted with the province. But it is probably the members of the congregation in Ephesus themselves he names here as »the brothers and sisters.« So, the two groups sending greetings are in concept not sharply divided—Paul would also call the people in congregations in Asia brothers and sisters. This first greeting from the congregations in Asia shows how intensive the communication was even in the regions, apart from the large cities. It confirms the assumption (see above) that Stephanas and his house (16:15–18), as the »first fruits« or »beginning« of Asia, have undertaken the spread of the gospel in this province, to be multipliers. Prisca, Aquila and their house congregation are known in Corinth, as Acts 18 says. Perhaps this closer relationship is the reason that Paul in addition qualifies the greeting as being sent »warmly, in the community of the Liberator.« Prisca and Aquila, presumably both Jewish, were expelled from Rome along with other Jewish people1001 and moved to Corinth (Acts 18:1–3). They lived there by making tents.1002 When Paul comes to Corinth, he lives with them, because they had the same trade. That is the way Acts tells it, and there is no reason to question this information. It can be assumed that Prisca and Aquila, already in Corinth—as also later in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19) and Rome (Rom 16:3–5)—opened their house for a messianic congregational assembly. Paul thanked them that they risked »their necks« for him (Rom 16:4). The specific circumstances are unknown;1003 but it is clear that he has them to thank for his life. Prisca and Aquila always appear in the sources together, but Prisca1004 does not appear in these references as a marital appendage but as independent, sisterly working wife who is a tent maker, as a teacher of the Torah (Acts 18:26) and as a spirited hostess, who risked her neck for another person and for the gospel (Rom 16:4). An ekklēsia/assembly in a »house« is mentioned here and in Rom 16:5; Col 4:15; and Phlm 2. How does this house assembly1005 relate to the assemblies that can otherwise be seen in 1 Corinthians (see the basic information at 11:17)? There should probably be a distinction between an assembly of all, as is clear in 1 Cor 14:23 and (an assembly of) a house congregation. These large assemblies had no fixed location and had to reckon with intelligence activities (see above at 11:17). Alongside of these, there were also as-

1001 Suetonius, Claud. 25. It is unclear whether in this text the discussion is particularly about Christiani or if Jewish people in general were in view. On this see L. Schottroff 2015. 1002 On tent making, see Lampe 1989, 156–164; Richter Reimer 1992, 206–218. 1003 Reflections about that are found in L. Schottroff 1995, 110–111. 1004 On Prisca see Lampe 1989, 156–164; Richter Reimer 1992, 206–218. 1005 Mell 2010, 35–36 distinguishes between a house congregation, meaning a congregational assembly in private rooms, and house churches, former dwellings that were later used exclusively as worship assembly rooms. The oldest example is the house church from Dura Europos. The practice of establishing house congregations is connected with that of Jewish house synagogues. Mell 2010, 34; Klauck 1981, 95.

348

Commentary

semblies in private dwellings. It is unlikely that they were more secure against spying. Both types of gatherings exist informally1006 beside and related to one another. In any case, an assembly in a house encompassed more people than the household of the hosts. This fellowship is not defined through the »house,« but as a messianic assembly. How that is to be envisioned can be taken from Acts. An example: In Acts 16:11–15 Paul and others with him are added as guests to the household of the Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth,1007 and a messianic congregation arose in this way (16:40). To it probably also belonged the group of women (16:13) with whom Lydia celebrated a Jewish Sabbath service as Paul encountered them. It is striking that women are frequently mentioned by name in connection with house congregations:1008 Prisca, Nympha (Col 4:15), Maria, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12–14); Lydia (see above) and Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43, especially 9:39, 41) are not associated with this designation of a house congregation, but the accounts about them depict a comparable community. The group of women/widows in 1 Tim 5:16 is also a small messianic community that has its location in the house of one of the women. Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2) is also a member or hostess of a house congregation. In the history of interpretation, these small groups within a larger messianic congregation are often regarded as a model for the particular form of living together socially in the messianic community. Within them people of diverse classes or social strata live together: patrons like Prisca and Aquila, slaves, children, poor and rich. The societal hierarchies are, according to this interpretation’s assumption, diminished through living together in Christ.1009 This »love patriarchalism« had enabled Christendom’s success (see also above on 1:26). Against this interpretive model of messianic communities speaks the struggle for justice that can be seen again and again (see above on 1:26–31 and 11:17–22). The two slaves Fortunatus and Achaicus move about as equals with Stephanas as workers for the gospel (16:15–18). The concept of »love patriarchalism« fits better with the ideal selfportrait of Roman patriarchs than with messianic communities that promote justice in their relationships. 16:20 The brothers and sisters—probably the congregation in Ephesus—send greetings from congregation to congregation. Since this greeting is hardly just a stereotypical phrase, the greetings will be given and received as requested. Therefore, the assigning of the greeting to an »epistolary formula«1010 is, indeed, fitting,

1006 Merklein-Gielen 2005, 460–461. 1007 On this see especially Richter-Reimer 1992, 91–161, Klauck 1981, 35. 1008 But Osiek 1998, 312–313 conjectures sex-specific tasks for the congregation as a commission from a house congregation led by women. For this assumption there is no point of contact in the Pauline letters or in Acts. 1009 See, for example, Jewett 2007, 959 (on Rom 16:5); see also above on 1:26. Hand in hand with this assumption of »love patriarchalism« there is the attempt to regard some individuals as members of the elite; for example Jewett 2007, 956. For a critique of this view, see especially Friesen 2010. 1010 On greetings in private letters, see Weeber 1995, 64–66. Deissmann 1927, 146–234.

16:19–24

349

but it should be added: These greetings serve an intensive network of congregations even separated by great distances. They differ in content from the greetings in private letters. The mutual kiss here can essentially only mean that all congregational members kiss all the others. Here people are kissing one another as equals who would not do that out in society. That this kiss is an element of a liturgy,1011 is not to be deduced from 1 Cor 16:20–22. Since the members of the messianic assembly understand themselves to be siblings, this messianic custom1012 attaches itself to the kiss common within the family.1013 The kiss is different from obeisance from below to those above or from the cultic kissing of the images of deities. That the kiss is called »holy« confirms the reference to the saints as siblings (see on 1:2). A need for dissociating the mutual holy kiss from an erotic kiss is not clear. The word »holy« does not serve to distinguish it from the erotic kiss.1014 16:21 The greeting with his own hand makes it clear that Paul did not write the letter with his own hand (cf. Rom 16:22). Paul lives in an oral culture. Learning and teaching happen for the most part orally. We can assume that Paul could only write clumsily.1015 16:22–23 That such a statement was usual in gatherings of the messianic community is not easy to clarify, but conjectures can be made. People for whom the Shema Israel has not become obligatory should be excluded from the community (see above on 12:2). It separates itself from those who do not love the God of Israel— with their whole existence. Jewish people who are critical of Jesus’ messiahship are not thereby excluded. Even guests who have not yet put their confidence in the God of Israel but have positive interest are apparently present at the assemblies (see above on 14:23). Maranatha/our Lord come!1016 is an Aramaic prayer-call. Even in the Corinthian congregation, which does not understand Aramaic, it is uttered in Aramaic, as are other words used in prayer, Amen, for example. In Rev 22:20, the »Lord« who is summoned is Jesus, the Liberator. With maranatha in Didache 10:6, the coming of God is probably requested and hoped for. The two interpretations of the word 1011 This is the view, for example, of Stählin, art. phileō, etc. in TDNT 1974, vol. 9, 139. 1012 To be mentioned, in addition to 1 Cor 16:20, are 2 Cor 13:12; Rom 16:16; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14. 1013 On this see Stählin, art. phileō, etc. in TDNT 1974, vol. 9, 119. 1014 Jewett 2007,973 takes a different view. 1015 It was quite common to have one’s own texts written by professional scribes; see Ciampa/Rösner 2010, 864. Paul was apparently unable to write so fluidly as he can express himself orally; see Gal 6:11. Deissmann 1927, 166, n. 7: scribes offered their services, above all in the cities; see Krauss 1966, vol. 3, 166–172; Marquardt 1975, vol. 2, 825–826; Bakhos 2010, 482–499. Oral skills and reading were apparently much more important in Paul’s education than writing. See Bakhos 2010, 487; Heszer 2001, 68–89. On possible schooling for Paul in writing, see Porter 2008, 105. For a critique of the view that Paul had »co-workers« and a »secretary,« see M. Crüsemann 2010, 90. 1016 On the various attempts to understand the phrase, see Fitzmyer 1998, 226–229, who also interprets the cry as an acclamation.

350

Commentary

»Lord« in Greek and in Aramaic are not in conflict with one another. The coming of God, and thereby the coming of the basileia tou theou, God’s just world, is the central content of all hope for the future in the Jesus movement and in the messianic communities of the time in which the Pauline letters and, later, the whole New Testament arose (see the basic information at 1:6). The letter ends (16:23) as it began (see 1:3), with the assurance of the Liberator’s care. 16:24 The final statement of the letter is unusual: a wholehearted declaration of love by Paul, this worker for the gospel, to a congregation (cf. 10:14; 15:58). That this love has made him vulnerable is then revealed by the later second letter to Corinth. The last sentence once again makes it clear: The first letter to Corinth is not born in strife, nor again out of the superiority of an office, but out of the dedication of a person for the people that he came to know in Corinth.

List of Abbreviations

For the abbreviations see Siegfried M. Schwertner, IATG. Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete, Berlin and New York 21994. In addition, the following abbreviations are used: BigS 2006

BigS 2011

Billerbeck Charlesworth FS Liddell-Scott Loeb Mishnah SWB WBfTh

Bail, Ulrike, Frank Crüsemann, Marlene Crüsemann, Erhard Domay, Jürgen Ebach, Claudia Janssen, Hanne Kohler, Helga Kuhlmann, Martin Leutzsch, and Luise Schottroff, eds. Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Gütersloh 2006. Bail, Ulrike, Frank Crüsemann, Marlene Crüsemann, Erhard Domay, Jürgen Ebach, Claudia Janssen, Hanne Kohler, Helga Kuhlmann, Martin Leutzsch, Luise Schottroff, Johannes Taschner, and Marie-Theres Wacker, eds. Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Gütersloh 2011 Strack, Hermann Leberecht and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Munich 1922. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 volumes. Garden City, NY, vol 1, 1983; vol 2, 1985. Festschrift Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1968. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass. 1911 on. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah, Oxford 1933 Crüsemann, Frank, Kristin Hungar, Claudia Janssen, Rainer Kessler, and Luise Schottroff, eds. Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch zur Bibel. Gütersloh 2009. Gossmann, Elisabeth, Helga Kuhlmann, Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, Ina Praetorius, and Luise Schottroff, eds. Wörterbuch der Feministischen Theologie. Gütersloh 1991

Bibliography

The bibliography contains the titles mentioned in the commentary. Ancient sources will be cited in English translation where this is possible—under the names of the translators. Articles from the TDNT that are cited in the commentary are, for the most part, not referenced in the bibliography. Albertz, Rainer. Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Vol. 2. Göttingen 1992. Antikenmuseum Berlin/Stattliche Museen/Preußischer Kulturbesitz, publishers. Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik. Berlin 1988. Arend, Walter. Altertum. Alter Orient – Hellas – Rom. Geschichte in Quellen. Munich 31978. Autorengruppe der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Die Arbeitswelt der Antike. Leipzig 1983. Bakhos, Carol. »Orality and Writing.« In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 482–499. Oxford 2010. Balch, David L. and Carolyn Osiek, eds. Early Christian Families in Context. Grand Rapids and Cambridge 2003. Balsdon, Dacre. Die Frau in der römischen Antike. Munich 1979. Bartchy, S. Scott. Mallon Chrēsai. First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21. Missoula, MT 1973. Bartchy, S. Scott. »›When I’m Weak, I’m Strong.‹ A Pauline Paradox in Cultural Context.« In Kontexte der Schrift. Vol. 2. Edited by Christian Strecker, 49–66. Stuttgart 2005. Bartchy, S. Scott. »Paulus hat nicht gelehrt: ›Jeder soll in seinem Stand bleiben.‹ Luthers Fehlübersetzung von klēsis in 1 Korinther 7.« In Alte Texte in neuen Kontexten. Wo steht die sozialwissenschaftliche Bibelexegese? Edited by Wolfgang Stegemann and Richard E. DeMaris, 222–240. Stuttgart 2015. Barth, Karl. Die Auferstehung der Toten. Zollikon and Zurich 41953. Bassler, Jouette B. »1 Corinthians.« In The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Sharon H. Ringe, 321–329. London and Louisville 1992. Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids 1998. Bauckham, Richard. The Jewish World around the New Testament: Collected Essays I. Tübingen 2008. Beauvoir, Simone de. Das andere Geschlecht. Sitte und Sexus der Frau. Hamburg 1951. Beckby, Hermann, ed. Anthologia Graeca. Vols. 9–11, 2nd ed. Munich n.d. Begerau, Christiane, Rainer Schomburg, and Martin von Essen, eds. Abendmahl. Fest der Hoffnung. Gütersloh 2000. Ben-David, Arye. Talmudische Ökonomie. Die Wirtschaft des jüdischen Palästina zur Zeit der Mischna und des Talmud. Vol. 1. Hildesheim and New York 1974. Bendemann, Reinhard von. »›Lebensgeist kam in sie …‹ Der Ezechielzyklus von Ez 37 in der Apk des Johannes.« In Picturing the New Testament. Edited by Annette Weissenrieder, Friederike Wendt and Petra von Gemünden, 251–286. Tübingen 2005.

Bibliography

353

Berger, Klaus. Das Buch der Jubiläen. JSHRZ 2, 3. Gütersloh 1981. Bieberstein, Klaus. »Der lange Weg zur Auferstehung der Toten. Eine Skizze zur Entstehung der Eschatologie im Alten Testament.« In Auferstehung hat einen Namen. Edited by Sabine Bieberstein and Daniel Kosch, 3–16. Lucerne 1998. Bieberstein, Klaus. »Jenseits der Todesschwelle. Die Entstehung der Auferweckungshoffnungen in der alttestamentlichen frühjüdischen Literatur.« In Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Bernd Janowski, 443–446. Tübingen 2009. Bieler, Andrea, and Luise Schottroff. Das Abendmahl. Essen, um zu leben. Gütersloh 2007. Bitner, Bradley J. Paul’s Political Strategy in 1 Corinthians 1–4: Constitution and Covenant. New York 2015. Blanck, Horst. Einführung in das Privatleben der Griechen und Römer. Darmstadt 1976. Blass, Friedrich. »Die Sibyllinischen Orakel.« In APAT 2: 177–217. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Revised by Friedrich Rehkopf. Göttingen 161984. Blinzler, Josef. »Die Strafe für Ehebruch in Bibel und Halacha. Zur Auslegung von Joh. Vlll.5.« In NTS 4 (1957–58): 32–47. Blümner, Hugo. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern. Vols. 1–4. Hildesheim 1969 (Reprint of Editions of Vol. 1, 21912, Vol. 2, 1879, Vol. 3, 1884, Vol. 4, 1887). Blue, Bradley B. »The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply, and the Present Distress.« In CTR 5 (1991): 221–231. Böcher, Otto, Gunther Wanke, Günter Stemberger, and Georges Tavard. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 8 (1981), s.v. »Dämonen.« Böhm, Martina. »1 Kor 11,2–16. Beobachtungen zur paulinischen Schriftrezeption und Schriftargumentation im I. Korintherbrief,« In ZNW 97 (2006): 207–234. Bohatec, Josef. »Inhalte und Reihenfolge der ›Schlagworte der Erlösungsreligion‹ in 1. Kor. 1,26–31,« In ThZ 4 (1948): 252–271. Bohec, Yann Le. Die römische Armee. Stuttgart 1993. Bolt, Peter G. »Life, Death, and Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World,« In Life in the Face of Death. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 51–79. Grand Rapids 1998. Bömer, Franz. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven. Vols. 1–4. Wiesbaden 1958–1963. Bookidis, Nancy. »Religion in Corinth: 146 B. C. E. to 100 C. E.,« In Urban Religion in Roman Corinth. Edited by Daniel Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen, 141–164. Cambridge, Mass. 2005. Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel. Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley 1995. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia 2004 Bradshaw, Paul F. Eucharistic Origins. London 2004. Brändl, Martin. Der Agon bei Paulus. Tübingen 2006. Brandenburger, Egon. Adam und Christus. Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Römer 5:12–21 (1 Kor 15). Neukirchen 1962. Brandt, Sigrid. Opfer als Gedächtnis. Auf dem Weg zu einer befreienden Rede vom Opfer. Münster 2001. Braun, Herbert. Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Tübingen 1967. Braun, Herbert. Qumran und das Neue Testament. Vol. 1. Tübingen 1966. Brooten, Bernadette J. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue. Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues. Chico 1982. Brooten, Bernadette J. Love between Women. Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago and London 1996. Brox, Norbert. Der Hirt des Hermas, übersetzt und erklärt. Göttingen 1991. Buber, Martin. Das dialogische Prinzip. Gerlingen 61992. Bultmann, Rudolf. Offenbarung und Heilsgeschehen. Munich 1941. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen 21954. Bürge, Alfons. Römisches Privatrecht. Darmstadt 1999.

354

Bibliography

Burguière, Paul, Danielle Gourevitch, and Ives Malinas, eds. Soranos d’Ephèse. Maladies des femmes. 2 vols. Paris 1988, 1990. Burke, Sean D. »Early Christian Drag. The Ethiopian Eunuch as Queering Figure.« In Reading Ideologies. Edited by Tat-siong Benny Liew, 288–301. Sheffield 2011. Butting, Klara. Art.: »Salbung.« In SWB (2009): 495–496. Butting, Klara, and Rainer Kampling. Art.: »Messianismus.« In SWB (2009): 380–384. Butting, Klara, Gerard Minnaard, and Marie-Theres Wacker, eds. Ester. Knesebeck 2005. Butting, Klara. Hier bin ich. Unterwegs zu einer biblischen Spiritualität. Uelzen 2011. Byers, Andrew. »The One Body of the Schema in 1 Corinthians. An Ecclesiology of Christological Monotheism,« In NTS 62, 2016, 517–532. Callahan, Allen Dwight, Richard A. Horsley, and Abraham Smith, eds. Slavery in Text and Interpretation. Semeia 83/84. Atlanta 1998. Callender, Dexter E. Jr. »Servants of God(s) and Servants of Kings in Israel and the Ancient Near East.« In Slavery in Text and Interpretation, ed. by Allen Dwight Callahan, Richard A. Horsley, and Abraham Smith, Semeia 83/84, 67–82. Atlanta 1998. Carcopino, Jerome. Rom. Leben und Kultur in der Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart 21979. Casson, Lionel. Reisen in der Alten Welt. Munich 1976. Cavallin, Hans C. »Leben nach dem Tode im Spätjudentum und im frühen Christentum.« In ANRW 2, 19, 1 (1979): 240–345. Chadwick, Henry. Art. »Enkrateia.« In RAC (1962), vol. 5, 343–365. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 Volumes. Garden City, NY. Vol. 1, 1983; vol. 2, 1985. Cherniss, Harold, and William C. Helmbold. Plutarch’s Moralia. Vol. 12. London and Cambridge 1957. Cheung, Alex T. Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy. Sheffield 1999. Christes, Johannes, Richard Klein, and Christoph Lüth, eds. Handbuch der Erziehung und Bildung in der Antike. Darmstadt 2006. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rossner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids and Cambridge 2010. Clarke, John R. Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London 2003. Clines, David. »The Invisible Man.« In New Testament Masculinities. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson, 181–192. Atlanta 2003. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley 1999. Coneybeare, F. C. Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana and the Treatise of Eusebius. 2 vols. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1960. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Trans. James Limburg et al. Philadelphia 1987. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: a Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Trans. James Leitch. Philadelphia 1975. Cook, John Granger. »1 Cor 9:5: The Women of the Apostles.« In Bib. (2008): 252–368. Corbier, Mireille. »The Broad Bean and the Moray. Social Hierarchies and Food in Rome,« In Food. A Culinary History from Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Albert Sonnenfeld, 128–140. New York 1999. Corley, Kathleen E. Private Women. Public Meals. Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition. Peabody, Mass. 1993. Crüsemann, Frank. Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. Munich 1992. Crüsemann, Frank. Kanon und Sozialgeschichte. Beiträge zum Alten Testament. Gütersloh 2003. Crüsemann, Frank. »Die Kinderfrage und die christliche Identität angesichts des Judentums (zu Dtn 6:6, 20–25).« In JK, Extraheft 30, 43–54. Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag. Hannover 2005.

Bibliography

355

Crüsemann, Frank. Glossary article: »Glaube, glauben.« In BigS. Gütersloh 2006, 2352–2355 (= 2006a). Crüsemann, Frank. Glossary article: »kipper etc.« In BigS. Gütersloh 2006, 2366–2367 (=2006b). Crüsemann, Frank. Glossary article: »Opfer,« In BigS. Gütersloh 2006, 2372–2375 (=2006c). Crüsemann, Frank. Glossary article: »kipper etc.,« In BigS. Gütersloh 2011, 1813f. (=2011a). Crüsemann, Frank. Das Alte Testament als Wahrheitsraum des Neuen. Gütersloh 2011 (=2011b). Crüsemann, Frank, and Marlene Crüsemann. »Die Gegenwart des Verlorenen. Zur Interpretation der biblischen Vorstellung vom ›Paradies,‹« In »Schau an der schönen Gärten Zier …« Über irdische und himmlische Paradiese. Zu Theologie und Kulturgeschichte des Gartens. Edited by Jürgen Ebach, Hans-Martin Gutmann, Magdalene L. Frettlöh and Michael Weinrich, 25–68. Gütersloh 2007. Crüsemann, Frank, Marlene Crüsemann, Claudia Janssen, Rainer Kessler, and Beate Wehn, eds. Dem Tod nicht glauben. Sozialgeschichte der Bibel. FS Luise Schottroff. Gütersloh 2004. Crüsemann, Marlene. »Unrettbar frauenfeindlich. Der Kampf um das Wort von Frauen in 1 Kor 14:(33b), 34–35 im Spiegel antijudaistischer Elemente der Auslegung.« In Von der Wurzel getragen. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker, 199–223. Leiden 1996. Crüsemann, Marlene. »Die Zeit ist ›zusammengedrängt.‹ Erster Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth 7:29–31.« In Wie Freiheit entsteht. Sozialgeschichtliche Bibelauslegungen. Edited by Claudia Janssen and Beate Wehn, 128–131. Gütersloh 1999. Crüsemann, Marlene. »Sklaverei in Freiheit. Römer 6:19–23.« In JK 63 (2002): 59–61. Crüsemann, Marlene. »Das weite Herz und die Gemeinschaft der Heiligen. 2 Kor 6:11–7:4 im sozialgeschichtlichen Kontext.« In Dem Tod nicht glauben. Sozialgeschichte der Bibel. FS for Luise Schottroff. Edited by Frank Crüsemann, Marlene Crüsemann, Claudia Janssen, Rainer Kessler, and Beate Wehn, 351–375. Gütersloh 2004. Crüsemann, Marlene. Glossary article: »kabod etc.« In BigS. Gütersloh, 2365–2366 (=Gütersloh 2006a). Crüsemann, Marlene. Glossary article: »kahal etc.« In BigS. Gütersloh 2364–2365 (Gütersloh 2006b). Crüsemann, Marlene. »Der Gottesname im Neuen Testament.« In JK 68 (2007): 16–18. Crüsemann, Marlene. »Trost, charis und Kraft der Schwachen. Eine Christologie der Beziehung nach dem zweiten Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth.« In Christus und seine Geschwister. Christologie im Umfeld der Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann and Carsten Jochum-Bortfeld, 111–137. Gütersloh 2009. Crüsemann, Marlene. Die pseudepigraphen Briefe an die Gemeinde in Thessaloniki. Stuttgart 2010. Crüsemann, Marlene, and Frank Crüsemann. Art.: »Zeitvorstellungen.« In SWB (2009): 669–675. D’Angelo, Mary Rose. »Women Partners in the New Testament.« In JFSR 6 (1990): 65–86. Dalman, Gustaf. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, 7 vols. Reprint. Hildesheim 1964, vols. 1–4. Gütersloh 1928–1942. Dautzenberg, Gerhard. Urchristliche Prophetie. Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief. Stuttgart 1975. Dautzenberg, Gerhard. Art. »Glossolalie.« In RAC 11 (1981): 226–246. Dautzenberg, Gerhard. »Zur Stellung der Frauen in den paulinischen Gemeinden.« In Die Frau im Urchristentum. Edited by Gerhard Dautzenberg, Helmut Merklein and Karlheinz Müller. 182–224. Freiburg, Basel and Vienna 1983. Davies, J. G. »Pentecost and Glossolalia.« In JTS 3 (1952): 228–231. Deichgraber, Reinhard. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit. Göttingen 1967. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. New York 1927. Deissmann, Adolf. Paul. New York 1957 Delling, Gerhard. Der Gottesdienst im Neuen Testament. Berlin 1952. De Ruyt, Claire. Macellum. Marché Alimentaire des Romains. Louvain-La-Neuve 1983.

356

Bibliography

Dixon, Suzanne. »Sex and Married Women in Ancient Rome.« In Early Christian Families in Context. Edited by David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek, 111–129. Grand Rapids and Cambridge 2003. Doering, Lutz. »Sabbath and Festivals.« In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 566–586. Oxford 2010. Downs, David J. The Offering of the Gentiles. Tübingen 2008. Ebach, Jürgen. »Apokalypse. Zum Ursprung einer Stimmung.« In Einwürfe 2 (1985): 5–61. Ebach, Jürgen. »Apokalypse und Apokalyptik.« In Zeichen der Zeit. Erkennen und Handeln, Salzburger Hochschulwochen. Edited by H. Schmidinger, 213–273. Innsbruck and Vienna 1998. Ebel, Eva. Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden. Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-römischer Vereine. Tübingen 2004. Ebner, Martin. »Wenn alle ›ein einziger‹ sein sollen … Von schönen theologischen Konzepten und ihren praktischen Problemen: Gal 3,28 und 1 Kor 11,2–16.« In Der Körper und die Religion. Das Problem der Konstruktion von Geschlechterrollen. Edited by Elmar Klinger, Stephanie Böhm and Theodor Seidl, 159–183. Würzburg 2000. Ebner, Martin. Die Stadt als Lebensraum der ersten Christen. Göttingen 2012. Eck, Werner, and Johannes Heinrichs. Sklaven und Freigelassene in der Gesellschaft der römischen Kaiserzeit. Textauswahl und Übersetzung. Darmstadt 1993. Eckstein, Felix, ed. Pausanias, Reisen in Griechenland. Gesamtausgabe in drei Bänden aufgrund der Übersetzung von Ernst Meyer. Munich 1986. Edwards, Catherine. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge 1993. Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul and the Dynamics of Power. London and New York 2007. Ehrensperger, Kathy. »Paul and the Authority of Scripture: A Feminist Perception.« In As It Is Written. Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 291–319. Atlanta 2008. Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space Between. London and New York 2013 Ehrlich, Uri. The Nonverbal Language of Prayer. Tübingen 2004. Eisen, Ute E. Amtsträgerinnen im frühen Christentum. Epigraphische und literarische Studien. Göttingen 1996. Elbogen, Ismar. Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Hildesheim 1967 (Reprint of the 3rd ed. 1931). Elliger, Winfried. Dion Chrysostomos. Sämtliche Reden, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert. Zurich and Stuttgart 1967. Elliger, Winfried. Paulus in Griechenland. Stuttgart 1987. Elliott, Neil. Liberating Paul. Maryknoll, NY 1994. Elliott, Neil. »The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross.« In Paul and Empire. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 167–183. Harrisburg 1997. Elliott, Neil. »The Apostle Paul’s Self-Presentation as Anti-Imperial Performance.« In Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 67–88. Harrisburg 2004. Elliott, Neil. »Die Hoffnung der Armen in Schranken halten.« In Die ersten Christen. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 205–226. Gütersloh 2007. Elliott, Neil, and Mark Reasoner, eds. Documents and Images for the Study of Paul. Minneapolis 2010 Elliott, Tom. »Constructing a Digital Edition for the Peutinger Map.« In Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Edited by Richard J. A. Talbert and Richard W. Unger, 99–110. Leiden and Boston 2008. El Mansy, Aliyah. Exogame Ehen. Die traditionsgeschichtlichen Kontexte von 1 Kor 7,12–16. Stuttgart 2016. El Mansy, Aliyah. »Interreligiöse Ehen im literarischen Diskurs des 1./2. Jahrhunderts. Plutarch und der Erste Petrusbrief im Vergleich,« In Doing Gender – Doing Religion. Edited by Ute E. Eisen et al, 155–178. Tübingen 2013.

Bibliography

357

Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth. An Alternative Model for the Classical City. Chicago 1990. Erlemann, Kurt. Naherwartung und Parusieverzögerung im Neuen Testament. Ein Beitrag zur Frage religiöser Zeiterfahrung. Tübingen and Basel 1995. Étienne, Robert. Pompeji. Frankfurt, Vienna, and Zurich 1978. Fagan, Garrett G. »Leisure.« In A Companion to the Roman Empire. Edited by David S. Potter, 369–384. Malden, Mass., Oxford, and Carlton 2006. Fechter, Friedrich, and Luzia Sutter-Rehmann. Art.: »Sexualität.« In SWB (2009): 518–521. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids 1987. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus in nine volumes. Vol. 9, Jewish Antiquities, Books 18–20. Cambridge and London 1969. Fensterbusch, Curt. Vitruv. Zehn Bücher über Architektur. Translated and annotated. Darmstadt 2 1965. Fiebig, Paul. Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu. Tübingen and Leipzig 1904. Fiedler, Peter. Das Matthäusevangelium. Stuttgart 2006. Fine, Steven, ed. Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. New York and Oxford 1996. Fine, Steven. »From Meeting House to Sacred Realm: Holiness in the Ancient Synagogue.« In Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. Edited by Steven Fine, 21–47. New York and Oxford 1996. Fine, Steven. »Death, Burial, and Afterlife.« In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 440–462. Oxford 2010. Finsterbusch, Karin. Die Thora als Lebensweisung für Heidenchristen. Göttingen 1996. Finsterbusch, Karin. »Mose als Lehrer der Tora.« In Religiöses Lernen in der biblischen, frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Überlieferung. Edited by Beate Ego and Helmut Merkel, 27–45. Tübingen 2005 Fischer, Joseph A. Die Apostolischen Väter, eingeleitet, herausgegeben, übertragen und erläutert. Darmstadt 1986. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. To Advance the Gospel. Grand Rapids and Cambridge 1998. Flach, Dieter. Die sogenannte Laudatio Turiae. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Darmstadt 1991. Flusser, David, and Shmuel Safrai. »Das Aposteldekret und die Noachitischen Gebote.« In Wer Tora vermehrt, mehrt Leben. Edited by Edna Brocke and Hans Joachim Barkenings, 173–192. Neukirchen 1986. Fotopoulos, John. Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth. Tübingen 2003. Fotopoulos, John. »I Corinthians.« In The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Edited by David E. Aune, 413–433. Chichester 2010. Fredriksen, Paula. »Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel.« In NTS 56 (2010): 232–252. Frettlöh, Magdalene. »Der auferweckte Gekreuzigte und die Überlebenden sexueller Gewalt.« In Das Kreuz Jesu. Gewalt – Opfer – Sühne. Edited by Rudolf Weth, 77–104. Neukirchen 2001. Friedländer, Ludwig. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der Antonine. Vols. 1–4. Aalen 1964 (Reprint of the Edition Leipzig 1921–23). Friesen, Steven J. »Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the so-called New Consensus« In JSNT 26 (2004): 323–361. Friesen, Steven J. »The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis.« In Corinth in Context. Comparative Studies in Religion and Society. Edited by Steven J. Friesen, Dan Schowalter and James Walters, 231–256. Leiden 2010. Friesen, Stephen, Sarah A. James, and Daniel Schowalter, eds. Corinth in Contrast. Studies in Equality. Leiden and Boston 2014. Fröhlich, Thomas. Lararien- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten. Mainz 1991. Frühchristliche Apologeten und Märtyrerakten aus dem Griechischen und Lateinischen übersetzt (BKV). Kempten 1913.

358

Bibliography

Gaiser, Konrad. Für und wider die Ehe. Antike Stimmen zu einer offenen Frage. Munich 1974. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids 2003. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville and London 2007. Georgi, Dieter. Remembering the Poor. The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem, Nashville 1992. Gerber, Christine. Paulus und seine »Kinder«. Studien zur Beziehungsmetaphorik der paulinischen Briefe. Berlin and New York 2005. Gerber, Christine. Paulus. Apostolat und Autorität oder Vom Lesen fremder Briefe. Zurich 2012. Gerber, Christine, and Dieter Viehweger. Art.: »Erbe.« In SWB (2009): 114–115. Gielen, Marlis. »Beten und Prophezeien mit unverhülltem Kopf?« In ZNW 90 (1999): 220–249 (also in: Gielen, Paulus im Gespräch, Stuttgart 2009, 159–186). Gielen, Marlis. »Universale Totenauferweckung und universales Heil? 1 Kor 15,20–28 im Kontext paulinischer Theologie.« In BZ 47 (2003), 86–104 (= Marlis Gielen, Paulus im Gespräch. Stuttgart 2009, 112–130.). Gill, David W. J. »The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in Corinthians 11:2–16.« In TynBul 41, no. 2 (1990): 245–260. Gill, David W. J. »The Meat-Market at Corinth (I Corinthians 10:25).« In TynBul 43, no. 2 (1992): 389–393. Gladd, Benjamin L. Revealing the Mysterion. The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearing on First Corinthians. Berlin and New York 2008. Glancy, Jennifer A. »Obstacles to Slaves’ Participation in the Corinthian Church.« In JBL 117 (1998): 481–501. Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity. Oxford 2002. Gleason, Maud W. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton 1995. Gleason, Maud W. »Greek Cities under Roman Rule.« In A Companion to the Roman Empire. Edited by David S. Potter, 228–249. Malden, Mass. 2006. Goldschmidt, Lazarus. Der Babylonische Talmud neu übertragen. Darmstadt 1996, Vol. 8 (Reprint of the 2nd ed. 1967). Gooch, Peter D. Dangerous Food. 1 Corinthians 8–10 in its Context. Waterloo and Ontario 1993. Goodblatt, David. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. New York 2006. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Vols. 9–11: Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue. New York 1964. Goodman, Martin. Judaism in the Roman World. Leiden and Boston 2007. Grant, Michael. Pompeji. Kunst und Leben in Pompeji und Herculaneum. Frankfurt am Main 1982. Grimm, Veronika. »On Food and the Body« In A Companion to the Roman Empire. Edited by David S. Potter, 354–368. Malden, Mass., Oxford and Carlton 2006. Grözinger, Karl Erich. Musik und Gesang in der Theologie der frühen jüdischen Literatur. Talmud, Midrasch, Mystik. Tübingen 1982. Gundry-Volf, Judith M. Paul and Perseverance. Tübingen 1990. Gundry-Volf, Judith M. »Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. A Study in Paul’s Theological Method.« In Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche. Edited by Jostein Ådna, Scott J. Hafemann and Otfried Hofius, 151–171. Göttingen 1997. Gupta, Nijay K. »Which ›Body‹ is a Temple (I Corinthians 6:19)? Paul beyond the Individual/ Communal Divide.« In CBQ 72 (2010): 518–536. Harnack, Adolf von, ed. Porphyrius, »Gegen die Christen.« AAWB 1 (1916) Harnack, Adolf von. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Vols. 1–2. Leipzig 41924. Harnack, Adolf von. »Kopian (hoi kopiontes) im frühchristlichen Sprachgebrauch.« In ZNW 27 (1928): 1–10. Harmon, A. M. Lucian in eight volumes, Vol. 4, London and Cambridge, Mass. 1969. Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament. Literary, Social and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis 2006.

Bibliography

359

Harrison, James R., and Lawrence L. Welburn, eds. The First Urban Churches, 2: Corinth. Atlanta 2016. Hasel, Gerhard F. Speaking in Tongues. Biblical Speaking in Tongues and Contemporary Glossolalia. Berrien Springs 1991. Haubeck, Wilfrid. Loskauf durch Christus. Herkunft, Gestalt und Bedeutung des paulinischen Loskaufmotivs. Gießen und Witten 1985. Heemstra, Marius. The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways. Tübingen 2010. Hegermann, Harald. Art.: »doxa.« In EDNT (1990, vol. 1): 344–348. Heinemann, Max, ed. Sueton, Cäsarenleben. Stuttgart 1957. Hengel, Martin. »Mors turpissima crucis. Die Kreuzigung in der antiken Welt und die ›Torheit‹ des ›Wortes vom Kreuz.‹« In Rechtfertigung, FS Ernst Käsemann. Edited by Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pohlmann and Peter Stuhlmacher, 125–184. Tübingen and others 1976. Hengel, Martin. »Das Begräbnis Jesu bei Paulus und die leibliche Auferstehung aus dem Grabe.« In Auferstehung. Resurrection. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie und Hermann Lichtenberger, 119–183. Tübingen 2001. Henten, Jan Willem van. Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie. Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, and Cologne 1989. Hentschel, Anni. Diakonia im Neuen Testament. Studien zur Semantik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rolle von Frauen. Tübingen 2007. Hezser, Catherine. »›Privat‹ und ›Öffentlich‹ im Talmud Yerushalmi und in der griechischrömischen Antike.« In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Edited by Peter Schäfer, 423–579. Tübingen 1998. Hezser, Catherine, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Oxford 2010. Heszer, Catherine. »Private and Public Education.« The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 465–481. Oxford 2010. Hock, Ronald F. »Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of his Social Class.« In JBL 97 (1978): 555–564. Hodge, Caroline Johnson. »Married to an Unbeliever: Households, Hierarchies, and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16.« In HThR 103, no. 1 (2010): 1–25. Hooper, William Davis. Marcus Porcius Cato on Agriculture. Marcus Terentius Varro on Agriculture. Cambridge and London 1967. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. »Stephanas und sein Haus – die erste christliche Hausgemeinde in der Achaia.« In Paulus und die antike Welt. Edited by David C. Bienert, Joachim Jeska and Thomas Witulski, 83–98. Göttingen 2008. Horsley, Richard A., ed. Paul and Empire. Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg 1997. Horsley, Richard A. »Introduction Part IV.« In Paul and Empire. Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 206–214. Harrisburg 1997. Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians. Nashville 1998. (=1998a) Horsley, Richard A. »Paul and Slavery: A Critical Alternative to Recent Readings.« In Slavery in Text and Interpretation. Edited by Allen Dwight Callahan, Richard A. Horsley and Abraham Smith. Semeia, vol. 83/84, 153–200. Atlanta 1998. (=1998b) Horsley, Richard A., ed. Paul and Politics. Harrisburg 2000. Horsley, Richard A., ed. Die ersten Christen. Gütersloh 2007. Howard, George. »The Tetragram and the New Testament.« In JBL 96 (1977): 63–83. Hull, Michael L. Baptism on Account of the Dead (I Cor 15:29). An Act of Faith in the Resurrection. Leiden and Boston 2005. Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno. Art.: »Bann, II. Frühjudentum und Neues Testament.« In TRE 5 (1980), Studienausgabe 1993, 161–167. Hurschmann, R. Art.: »Haartracht.« In Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider, vol. 5, 39–45. Stuttgart and Weimar 1998. Ilan, Tal. Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine. An Inquiry into Image and Status. Tübingen 1995.

360

Bibliography

Ilan, Tal. »Paul and Pharisee Women.« In On the Cutting Edge. The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds. Edited by Jane Schaberg and others, 82–101. New York and London 2003. Ilan, Tal. »Erziehung und Bildung von Frauen im antiken Judentum.« In ZNT 11 (2008): 38–44. Ipsen, Avaren. Sex Working and the Bible. London and Oaksville 2009. Janssen, Claudia. Art.: »Opfer.« In WBfTh (22002): 429–431. Janssen, Claudia. Anders ist die Schönheit der Körper. Paulus und die Auferstehung in I Kor 15. Gütersloh 2005. Janssen, Claudia. »Auf dem Marktplatz. Apg 17,16–34.« In JK 67 (2006, extra): 25–37. Janssen, Claudia. »Die Autorität der Armen.« In Zeitzeichen. Evangelische Kommentare zu Religion und Gesellschaft 87 (2006): 32–34. Janssen, Claudia. »Christus und seine Geschwister (Röm 8,12–17. 29f.).« In Christus und seine Geschwister. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann und Carsten Jochum-Bortfeld, 64–80. Gütersloh 2009a. Janssen, Claudia. Art.: »Geburt (NT).« In Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet. htp:// www.wibilex.de, 2010. Janssen, Claudia, Joachim Schaper, and Michael Tilly. Art.: »Opfer.« In SWB (2009b): 428–433. Jantsch, Torsten. »Gott alles in allem« (1 Kor 15.28). Studien zum Gottesverständnis des Paulus im 1. Thessalonicherbrief und in der korinthischen Korrespondenz. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2011. Jensen, Anne. Gottes selbstbewusste Töchter. Frauenemanzipation im frühen Christentum. Freiburg 1992. Jensen, Anne. Thekla – Die Apostolin. Ein apokrypher Text neu entdeckt. Freiburg, Basel and Vienna 1995. Jewett, Robert. Romans. A Commentary. Minneapolis 2007. Jochum-Bortfeld, Carsten. »Denn der Mensch ist nicht gekommen, um sich bedienen zu lassen, sondern, um zu dienen« (Mk 10:45) – zur theologischen Bedeutung des hyios tou anthropou.« In Christus und seine Geschwister. Christologie im Umfeld der Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann und Carsten Jochum-Bortfeld, 159–172. Gütersloh 2009. Jones, Horace Leonard. The Geography of Strabo in eight Volumes (Loeb), 6, Cambridge and London 1969–1982. Joshel, Sandra R. Slavery in the Roman World, Cambridge 2010. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich. 1980. Käsemann, Ernst. Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, vols. 1–2. Göttingen 1960, 1964. Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-Imagined. Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis 2010. Kajanto, Jiro. »On Divorce among the Common People of Rome.« In REL 47 (1970): 99–113. Karrer, Martin. Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament. Göttingen 1998. Kaser, Max. Römisches Privatrecht. Ein Studienbuch. Munich 21962. Kennel, Gunter. »Hymnologische Spuren im Neuen Testament.« In BThZ 28 (2011): 194–210. Kessler, Rainer. »Kyros und der eved bei Deuterojesaja. Gottes Handeln in Macht und Schwäche.« In Christus und seine Geschwister. Christologie im Umfeld der Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann and Carsten Jochum-Bortfeld, 141–158. Gütersloh 2009. Kessler, Rainer. »Die interkulturellen Ehen im perserzeitlichen Juda.« In Moderne Religionsgeschichte im Gespräch. Interreligiös – Interkulturell – Interdisziplinär. FS for Christoph Elsas. Edited by Adelheid Herrmann-Pfandt, 276–294. Berlin 2010. Kim, Seyoon. »Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul imitates Jesus Christ in dealing with idol food (1 Corinthians 8–10).« In BBR 13, no. 2 (2003): 193–226. Kim, Yung Suk. Christ’s Body in Corinth. The Politics of a Metaphor. Minneapolis 2008 Kirchhoff, Renate. Die Sünde gegen den eigenen Leib. Studien zu pornē und porneia in 1 Kor 6:12–20 und dem sozio-kulturellen Kontext der paulinischen Adressaten. Göttingen 1994. Kister, Menahem. »›First Adam‹ and ›Second Adam‹ in 1 Cor 15:45–49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage.« In The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Reimund Bieringer and others, 351–365. Leiden and Boston 2010. Klassen, William. Judas. Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? Minneapolis 1996.

Bibliography

361

Klauck, Hans-Josef. Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im frühen Christentum. Stuttgart 1981. Klauck, Hans-Josef. 1. Korintherbrief. Würzburg, 21987. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Das 4. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ 3, 6. Gütersloh 1989. Klawans, Jonathan. »Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism.« In AJSR, vol. 20., no. 2, 1995, 285–312. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford and New York 2000. Klawans, Jonathan. »Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?« In Bible Review, vol. 7, no. 5, 2001, 24–33, 47. Klawans, Jonathan. »Interpreting the Last Supper: Sacrifice, Spiritualization, and Anti-Sacrifice.« In NTS 48 (2002): 1–17. Klinghardt, Matthias. Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft. Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern. Tübingen and Basel 1996. Knapp, Robert. Römer im Schatten der Geschichte. Stuttgart 2012. Knox, John. »Romans 15:14–33 and Paul’s Conception of his Apostolic Mission.« In JBL 83 (1964): 1–11. Kobel, Esther. Paulus als interkultureller Vermittler. Eine Studie zur kulturellen Positionierung des Apostels der Völker. Leiden et al. 2019. Koester, Helmut. Einführung in das Neue Testament. Berlin 1980. Koffmann, Elisabeth. Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda. Leiden 1968. Krauss, Samuel. Talmudische Archäologie. 3 vols. (Reprint of the edition from Leipzig 1911). Hildesheim 1966. Krauss, Samuel. Monumenta Talmudica, vol. 5.1, Griechen und Römer (Vienna and Leipzig 1914), Darmstadt 1972. Krauss, Samuel. Synagogale Altertümer. Hildesheim 1966 (Reprint of the 1922 edition). Kreuzer, Siegfried, and Luise Schottroff. Art.: »Sklaverei.« In SWB (2009): 524–530. Krobath, Evi, Luise Schottroff, Elisabeth Gossmann, and Lucia Scherzberg. Art.: »Sünde/ Schuld.« In WBfTh (22002): 521–528. Küchler, Max. Schweigen, Schmuck und Schleier. Drei neutestamentliche Vorschriften zur Verdrängung von Frauen auf dem Hintergrund einer frauenfeindlichen Exegese des Alten Testamentes im antiken Judentum. Fribourg 1986. Kohn, Werner. Plinius der Jüngere. Panegyricus. Lobrede auf Kaiser Trajan. Edited and translated with commentary. Darmstadt 1985. Kühn, Heinz-Wolfgang. Art.: »anathēma.« In EDNT, vol. 1 (1990): 80–81. Laes, Christian. Children in the Roman Empire. Cambridge 2011. Laible, Wilhelm. »Mulier taceat in ecclesia.« In AELKZ 63 (1930), no. 24: 564–567; no. 26: 613–617; no. 27: 633–636. Lamb, Regene, and Claudia Janssen. »›ZöllnerInnen und Prostituierte gelangen eher in das Reich Gottes als ihr‹ (Mt 21,31). Frauenarmut und Armutsprostitution.« In »… so lernen die Völker des Erdkreises Gerechtigkeit.« Ein Arbeitsbuch zu Bibel und Ökonomie. Edited by Kuno Füssel and Franz Segbers, 275–284. Lucerne and Salzburg 1995. Lambrecht, Jan. »Paul’s Reasoning in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20.« In EThL 85, no. 4 (2009): 479–486. Lampe, Peter. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. Tübingen 21989. Lampe, Peter. »Die dämonologischen Implikationen von 1 Korinther 8 und 10 vor dem Hintergrund paganer Zeugnisse.« In Die Dämonen. Demons. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld, 584–599. Tübingen 2003 Lanci, John R. »Behind the Boasting: The Complex World of Freedpersons at Corinth.« SBL paper 2005 (= 2005a). Lanci, John R. »The Stones Don’t Speak and the Texts Tell Lies: Sacred Sex at Corinth.« Urban Religion in Roman Corinth. Edited by Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen, 205–220. Cambridge, Mass. 2005 (= 2005b). Lang, Friedrich. Die Briefe an die Korinther. Göttingen 1986. Larson, Jennifer. »Paul’s Masculinity.« JBL 123 (2004): 85–97.

362

Bibliography

Last, Richard. The Pauline Church and the Corinthian Ecclesia: Graeco-Roman Associations in comparative Context. New York 2016. Latte, Kurt. Römische Religionsgeschichte. Munich 1960. Lehmeier, Karin. Oikos und Oikonomia. Antike Konzepte der Haushaltsführung und der Bau der Gemeinde bei Paulus. Marburg 2006. Leonhard, R. Art.: »Hospitium.« In PRE 16 (1913): 2493–2498. Leutzsch, Martin. Die Wahrnehmung sozialer Wirklichkeit im »Hirten des Hermas.« Göttingen 1989. Leutzsch, Martin. Glossary art.: »baptizo.« In BigS. 2006, 2334–2335. Leutzsch, Martin. Glossary art.: »pater.« In BigS. 2006, 2375–2376. Lev-Tov, Justin. »›Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed …?‹ A Dietary Perspective on Hellenistic and Roman Influence in Palestine.« In Zeichen aus Text und Stein. Edited by Stefan Alkier and Jürgen Zangenberg, 420–446. Tübingen 2003. Levine, Amy-Jill. »The Synagogue.« In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 521–544. Oxford 2010. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue. New Haven 2000. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford 1968. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Korinther, I./II. Tübingen 1949. Lindemann, Andreas. Der erste Korintherbrief. Tübingen 2000. Llewellyn, Stephen R. »The Use of Sunday for Meetings of Believers in the New Testament.« In NT 43 (2001): 205–223. Loader, William. The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament. Grand Rapids 2004. Lohse, Eduard. Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. Göttingen 1963. Lohse, Eduard, ed. Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und deutsch. Darmstadt 1964. Longenecker, Bruce W. Remember the Poor. Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK 2010. Lopez, Davina L. »Review zu Økland, Jorunn 2004.« In RBL/The Society of Biblical Literature 9 (2005): four unnumbered pages. Lopez, Davina L. Apostle to the Conquered. Reimagining Paul’s Mission. Minneapolis 2008. Lopez, Rene A. »Does the Vice List in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 Describe Believers?« In BSac 164 (2007): 59–73. MacDonald, Margaret Y. »Women in the Pauline Churches.« In The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Edited by Stephen Westholm, 268–284. Chicester 2014. Maier, Johann. »Zurn Begriff jahad in den Texten von Qumran.« In Qumran. Edited by Karl Erich Grözinger and others, 225–248. Darmstadt 1981. Marchal, Joseph A. The Politics of Heaven. Women, Gender, and Empire in the Study of Paul. Minneapolis 2008. Marchal, Joseph A., ed. Studying Paul’s Letters. Contemporary Perspectives and Methods. Minneapolis 2017. Marquardt, Joachim. Das Privatleben der Römer. Vols. 1–2. Reprint. Darmstadt 1975 (1886). Marrou, Henri Irénée. Geschichte der Erziehung im klassischen Altertum. Munich 1977. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven and London 1995. Martin, Dale B. »Arsenokoitēs and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.« In Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality. Edited by Robert L. Brawley, 117–136. Louisville 1996. Martin, Troy W. »Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13–15: A Testicle instead of a Head Covering.« JBL 123, no. 1 (2004): 75–84. Mason, Steve. »Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.« In JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. Matthews, Shelly. »A Feminist Analysis of the Veiling Passage (1 Corinthians 11:2–16): Who really cares that Paul was not a gender egalitarian after all?« In Lectio difficilior 2 (2015), 1–10. Mayordomo, Moises. Argumentiert Paulus logisch? Tübingen 2005.

Bibliography

363

Mayordomo, Moises. »Construction of Masculinity in Antiquity and Early Christianity.« In lectio difficilior 2 (2006). (http://www.lectio.unibe.ch). Mayordomo, Moises. »Konstruktionen von Männlichkeit in der Antike und der paulinischen Korintherkorrespondenz.« In EvTh 68 (2008): 99–115. McGinn, Thomas A. J. Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome. Oxford 1998. McGinn, Thomas A. J. The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World. A Study of Social History of the Brothel. Ann Arbor 2004. McGowann, Andrew. Ascetic Eucharists. Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals. Oxford 1999. McLean, B. Hudson. The Cursed Christ. Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology. Sheffield 1996. Meggitt, Justin J. »Meat Consumption and Social Conflict in Corinth.« In JThS, NS 45, no. 1 (1994): 137–141. Meggitt, Justin. J. Paul, Poverty, and Survival. Edinburgh 1998. Meier, Hans-Christoph. Mystik bei Paulus – zur Phänomenologie neutestamentlicher Erfahrung. Tübingen 1998. Meiser, Martin. »Die paulinischen Adamsaussagen im Kontext frühjüdischer und frühchristlicher Literatur.« In Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Gerbern S. Oegema, 376–401. Gütersloh 2002 Mell, Ulrich. Christliche Hauskirche und Neues Testament. Die Ikonologie des Baptisteriums von Dura Europos und das Diatessaron Tatians. Göttingen 2010. Menge, Hermann. Griechisch-deutsches Schulwörterbuch. Berlin 1903. Merkel, Helmut. »Der Lehrer Paulus und seine Schüler.« In Religiöses Lernen in der biblischen, frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Überlieferung. Edited by Beate Ego and Helmut Merkel, 235–252. Tübingen 2005. Merklein, Helmut. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Vols.1–3 (Vol. 3 with Marlis Gielen). Gütersloh and Würzburg 1992–2005. Meyer, Klaus. Xenophons »Oikonomikos.« Übersetzung und Kommentar. Marburg 1975. Meyer, Rudolf. Der Prophet aus Galiläa. Darmstadt 1970. Merz, Annette. Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus. Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe. Göttingen and Fribourg 2004. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen 1963. Michel, Otto, and Otto Bauernfeind, eds. Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico. Der Jüdische Krieg. Vols. 1–3. Zweisprachige Ausgabe der Sieben Bücher. Darmstadt 1969. Midrash Rabbah. Vol. 4, Leviticus. Translated by J. Israelstam (chs. 1–19) and Judah J. Slotki (chs. 20–37). London 1939 Miller, Konrad. Die Peutingersche Tafel. Stuttgart 1962. Mitchell, Steven. »Ethnicity, Acculturation and Empire in Roman and Late Roman Asia Minor.« In Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity, Edited by idem and Geoffrey Greatrex, 117–150. London 2000. Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. The Age of the Tannaim. Vols. 1–3. Cambridge 1954. Mras, Karl, ed. Die Hauptwerke des Lukian. Griechisch und Deutsch. No place (Heimeran) 1954. Müller, Klaus. Tora für die Völker – die Noachidischen Gebote im Beziehungsfeld zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Berlin 21998. Müller, Reimar, Autorenkollektiv. Kulturgeschichte der Antike. Vols. 1–2. Berlin 1976/1978. Murphey-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth. Text and Archaeology. Collegeville, Minn. 1983 (Unaltered reprint 32002). Nanos, Mark D. Reading Corinthians and Philippians within Judaism: Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos. Vol. 4. Eugene, OR 2017 (=2017b). Nanos, Mark D. Reading Paul within Judaism: Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos. Vol. 1. Eugene, OR 2017 (=2017a).

364

Bibliography

Nasrallah, Laura Salah. »Grief in Corinth. The Roman city and Paul’s correspondence.« In Contested Spaces: Houses and Temples in Roman Antiquity and the New Testament. Edited by David L. Balch and Annette Weissenrieder, 109–139. Tübingen 2012. Neudecker, Richard, and Paul Zanker, eds. Lebenswelten. Bilder und Räume in der römischen Stadt der Kaiserzeit. Wiesbaden 2005. Neusner, Jacob. Sifre to Deuteronomy. An Analytical Translation. Vol. 1. Pisqaot 1 through 143; Vol. 2. Pisqaot 144 through 357. Atlanta 1987. Niccum, Curt. »The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The external evidence for 1 Cor 14:34–5.« In NTS 43 (1997): 242–255. Nilsson, Martin P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Vols. 1–2. Munich 1967. Noethlichs, Leo. Das Judentum und der römische Staat. Minderheitenpolitik im antiken Rom. Darmstadt 1996. Norman, A. F., translator. Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius. Liverpool 2000. Økland, Jorunn. Women in their Place. Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space. London and New York 2004. Ollrog, W. H. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Neukirchen 1979. Olson, Kelly. »Matrona and Whore: The Clothing of Women in Roman Antiquity.« In Fashion Theory, Vol. 6, no. 4: 387–419. Berg/United Kingdom 2002. Olson, Kelly. »Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity.« In Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World. Edited by Christopher A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure, 186–204. Madison, Wisc. 2006. Ortega, Ophelia, and Bärbel Wartenberg-Potter. »Wer das Abendmahl unwürdig isst, isst es zum Gericht.« In Abendmahl. Fest der Hoffnung. Edited by Christiane Begerau, Rainer Schomburg, and Martin von Essen, 51–52. Gütersloh 2000. Osiek, Carolyn. »Women in House Churches.« In Common Life in the Early Church. Edited by J. V. Hills, 300–315. Harrisburg 1998. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Evangelium und Tora. Aufsätze zu Paulus. Munich 1987. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Die Heiligkeit der Tora. Munich 1989. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Der Brief an der Gemeinden in Galatien. Stuttgart 2019. Oster, Richard E. »When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11:4.« In NTS 34 (1988): 481–505. Otto, Karl Eduard, Bruno Schilling, and Karl Friedrich Ferdinand Sintenis, eds. Das Corpus Juris Civilis (Romani), trans. into German by a lawyer’s association. Vol. 4. Pandekten, Buch 39–50. Aachen 1984 (Reprint of the 1832 edition). Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York 1979. Paige, Terence. 1 Corinthians 12:2: A Pagan Pompe? In JSNT 44 (1991): 57–65. Paoli, Ugo Enrico. Das Leben im Alten Rom. Bern and Munich 31979. Patai, Raphael. Sitte und Sippe in Bibel und Orient. Frankfurt am Main 1962. Patterson, Orlando. Slavery and Social Death. A comparative Study. Cambridge 1982. Pax, Elpidius. Art: »Epiphanie.« In RAC 1962: 832–909. Perkins, Pheme. First Corinthians. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids 2012 Pickett, Ray. »Konflikte in Korinth.« In Die ersten Christen. Sozialgeschichte des Christentums. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 133–160. Gütersloh 2007. Pomeroy, Sarah B. Frauenleben im Klassischen Altertum. Stuttgart 1985. Poplutz, Uta. Athlet des Evangeliums. Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna, among others 2004. Porter, Stanley E., and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As It Is Written. Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Atlanta 2008. Porter, Stanley E. »Paul and His Bible: His Education and Access to the Scriptures of Israel.« In As It Is Written. Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 97–124. Atlanta 2008.

Bibliography

365

Portmann, Werner. Libanios, Kaiserreden. Stuttgart 2002. Potter, David S., ed. A Companion to the Roman Empire. Malden, Mass., Oxford, and Carlton, Minn. 2006. Preuss, Horst Dietrich, Brigitte (Rivka) Kern-Ulmer, and Horst Baltz. Art.: »Offenbarung 2–4.« TRE 25 (1995): 109–146. Proksch, Otto, and Friedrich Büchsel. Art.: »lyō etc.« In TDNT 4: 328–356. Rabin, Chaim. »Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century.« In The Jewish People in the First Century. Edited by Shmuel Safrai and Menachem Stern, 1007–1039. Assen and Amsterdam 1976. Radl, Walter. »Alle Mühe umsonst? Paulus und der Gottesknecht.« In L’apotre Paul. Personalité, Style et conception du ministère. Edited by Albert Vanhoye, 144–149. Leuven 1986. Ramsaran, Rollin A. »Resisting Imperial Domination and Influence. Paul’s Apocalyptic Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians.« In Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 89–101. Harrisburg, among others 2004 Rawson, Beryl. »Family Life among the Lower Classes at Rome in the First Two Centuries of the Empire« In CP 61 (1966): 71–83. Rawson, Beryl. »Roman Concubinage and other De Facto Marriages.« In American Philological Association 104 (1974): 279–303. Reif, Stefan C. »Prayer and Liturgy« In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 545–565. Oxford 2010. Richter Reimer, Ivoni. Frauen in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas: Eine feministisch-theologische Exegese. Gütersloh 1992. Riessler, Paul. Altjüdisches Schrifttum außerhalb der Bibel übersetzt und erläutert (1928). Darmstadt 1966. Rösel, Martin. »Die Übersetzbarkeit des Gottesnamens. Die Septuaginta und ihre Theologie.« In Gott heißt nicht nur Vater. Edited by Christine Gerber, Benita Joswig, and Silke Petersen, 87–103. Göttingen 2008. Rosenblum, Jordan D. Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism. Cambridge 2010. Rosenzweig, Arthur. Das Wohnhaus in der Mišnah. Berlin 1907. Rosner, Brian S. »Temple Prostitution in I Corinthians 6:12–20.« In NT 40, no. 4 (1998): 336–351. Rousselle, Aline. »Der Körper und die Politik. Zwischen Enthaltsamkeit und Fortpflanzung im Alten Rom.« In Geschichte der Frauen, vol. 1 Antike. Edited by Pauline Schmitt Pantel. Frankfurt, among other places, 1993, 323–372. Safrai, Shmuel, and Menachim Stern, eds. The Jewish People in the First Century. Vols. 1–2. Assen 1974, 1976. Sanders, Edward P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. Philadelphia 1992. Sanger, Dieter, and David Hellholm, eds. The Eucharist – its Origins and Contexts. Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Vol. 1. Tübingen 2017. Satlow, Michael L. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton and Oxford 2001. Schäfke, Werner. »Frühchristlicher Widerstand.« In ANRW 23,1: 460–723 Schaller, Berndt. Fundamenta Judaica. Studien zum antiken Judentum und zum Neuen Testament. Göttingen 2001. Schaper, Joachim, and Michael Tilly. Art.: »Tempel.« In SWB (2009): 581–586. Schaper, Joachim, Michael Tilly, and Claudia Janssen. Art.: »Opfer.« In SWB (2009): 428–433. Scheidel, Walter. Grundpacht und Lohnarbeit in der Landwirtschaft des Römischen Italien. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, and Bern 1994. Scheidel, Walter, and Steven J. Friesen. »The Size of the Economy and the distribution of Income in the Roman Empire.« In JRS 99 (2009): 61–91. Schlier, Heinrich. Das Ende der Zeit. Exegetische Aufsätze und Vorträge. Vol. 3. Freiburg 1971.

366

Bibliography

Schlund, Christine. »Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Rahmen der Pesach-Tradition.« In Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, 397–411. Tübingen 2005. Schmeller, Thomas. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Vol. 1. Neukirchen 2010. Scholz, Birgit Ingrid. Untersuchungen zur Tracht der römischen matrona. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna 1992. Schottroff, Luise. Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt. Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970. Schottroff, Luise. »Die Befreiung vom Götzendienst der Habgier.« In Wer ist unser Gott? Beiträge zu einer Befreiungstheologie im Kontext der »ersten« Welt. Edited by Luise und Willy Schottroff, 137–152. Munich 1986. Schottroff, Luise. Befreiungserfahrungen. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Munich 1990. Schottroff, Luise. Lydia’s Impatient Sisters. A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity. Louisville, Ky. 1995. Schottroff, Luise. »›Gesetzesfreies Heidenchristentum‹ – und die Frauen?« In Von der Wurzel getragen. Christlich-feministische Exegese in Auseinandersetzung mit Antijudaismus. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker, 227–245. Leiden 1996. Schottroff, Luise. »Feministische Hermeneutik des ersten Briefes an die korinthische Gemeinde.« In Hermeneutik – sozialgeschichtlich: Kontextualität. Edited by Erhard S. Gerstenberger and Ulrich Schoenborn, 149–155. Münster 1999. (=1999a) Schottroff, Luise. »Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth.« In Kompendium Feministische Bibelauslegung. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker, 574–592. Gütersloh 2 1999. (=1999b) Schottroff, Luise. »Die Lieder und das Geschrei der Glaubenden. Rechtfertigung bei Paulus.« In Paulus. Umstrittene Traditionen – lebendige Theologie. Eine feministische Lektüre. Edited by Claudia Janssen, Luise Schottroff and Beate Wehn, 44–66. Gütersloh 2000. Schottroff, Luise. »›Wir richten die Tora auf‹ (Rom 3:31 und 1 Kor 5:1–13). Freiheit und Recht bei Paulus.« In Freiheit und Recht. Festschrift for Frank Crüsemann. Edited by Christof Hardmeier, Rainer Kessler and Andreas Ruwe, 429–450. Gütersloh 2003. Schottroff, Luise. »Purity and Holiness of Women and Men in 1 Corinthians and the Consequences for Feminist Hermeneutics.« In Distant Voices Drawing Near. Edited by Holly E. Hearon, 83–93. Collegeville, Minn. 2004. Schottroff, Luise. The Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis 2006. Schottroff, Luise. »Heilungsgemeinschaften. Christus und seine Geschwister nach dem Matthäusevangelium.« In Christus und seine Geschwister. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann and Carsten Jochum-Bortfeld, 23–44. Gütersloh 2009. (=2009a) Schottroff, Luise. »Mutmaßungen über Chloe.« In Lieblingsfrauen der Bibel und der Welt. Edited by Christina Duncker and Karin Keita, 169–174. Norderstedt 2009. (=2009b) Schrottroff, Luise. »›… damit im Namen sich jedes Knie beuge.‹ Christologie in 1 Kor und in Phil 2:9–11.« In Christus und seine Geschwister. Christologie im Umfeld der Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann and Carsten Jochum-Bortfeld, 81–94. Gütersloh 2009. (=2009c) Schottroff, Luise. Glossary article: »dodeka etc.« In BigS 2011, 1795–96. Schottroff, Luise. »Die Theologie der Tora im ersten Brief Paulus an die Gemeinde in Korinth.« In Alte Texte in neuen Kontexten. Wo steht die sozialwissenschaftliche Bibelexegese? Edited by Wolfgang Stegemann and Richard DeMaris, 170–187. Stuttgart 2015. Schottroff, Willy. »Gedenken« im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Neukirchen 21967. Schottroff, Willy. Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch. Neukirchen 1969. Schowalter, Daniel N., and Steven J. Friesen, eds. Urban Religion in Roman Corinth. Cambridge, Mass. 2005. Schrage, Wolfgang. Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen 1982.

Bibliography

367

Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Vols. 1–4 Zurich and Neukirchen 1991–2001 (Vol. 1, 1991; Vol. 2, 1995; Vol. 3, 1999; Vol. 4, 2001). Schrage, Wolfgang. »Unterwegs zur Einzigkeit und Einheit Gottes. Zum ›Monotheismus‹ des Paulus und seiner alttestamentlich-jüdischen Tradition« In EvTh 61 (2001): 190–203. Schreiber, Stefan. »Apokalyptische Variationen über ein Leben nach dem Tod.« In Lebendige Hoffnung – ewiger Tod? Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang, 129–156. Leipzig 2007. Schürer, Emil. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Vols. 1–3. Hildesheim 1970 (Reprint of the edition Leipzig 1901, 1907, 1909). Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York 1983. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 BCE–640 CE. Princeton and Oxford 2001. Scott, James M. Paul and the Nations. Tübingen 1995. Scullard, Howard Hayes. Römische Feste. Kalender und Kult. Mainz 1985. Sebasta, Judith Lynn, and Larissa Bonfante, eds. The World of Roman Costume. Madison, Wisc. 1994. Sellin, Gerhard. Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Göttingen 1986. Setzer, Claudia. Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Boston and Leiden 2004. Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did. A Sourcebook in Roman Social History. New York and Oxford 2 1998. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden 1981. Smelik, Willem. »The Languages of Roman Palestine.« In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 122–141. Oxford 2010. Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist. The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis 2003. Sölle, Dorothee, and Luise Schottroff. Jesus of Nazareth. Louisville, Kent. 2002. Sölle, Dorothee. The Silent Cry: Mysticism and Resistance. Minneapolis 2001. Sontheimer, Walter. Tacitus, Annalen 1–4, 11–16. Translation and Notes. Stuttgart 1975 Spath, Thomas, and Beate Wagner-Hasel, eds. Frauenwelten in der Antike. Geschlechterordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis. Darmstadt 2000. Speyer, Wolfgang. Art. »Fluch.« RAC 7 (1969): 1160–1288. Stanley, Christopher E. »Paul’s ›Use‹ of Scripture: Why Audience Matters.« In As It Is Written. Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, 125–155. Atlanta 2008. Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann. Urchristliche Sozialgeschichte. Die Anfänge im Judentum und die Christusgemeinden in der mediterranen Welt. Stuttgart, among other places, 1995. Stegemann, Hartmut. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Freiburg, Basel and Vienna 1993. Stegemann, Wolfgang. »Homosexualität – ein modernes Konzept.« In ZNT 1 (1998): 61–68. Stegemann, Wolfgang. Jesus und seine Zeit. Stuttgart 2010. Stein, Hans Joachim. Frühchristliche Mahlfeiern. Tübingen 2008. Stein-Hölkeskamp, Elke. »Convivia mit Clodia und Calpurnia. Frauen bei römischen Gastmählern.« In Lebenswelten. Bilder und Räume in der römischen Stadt der Kaiserzeit. Edited by Richard Neudecker and Paul Zanker, 175–186. Wiesbaden 2005. Stendahl, Krister. Paul among Jews and Gentiles and other essays. Philadelphia 1976. Stenger, Werner. »Gebt dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist …!« Eine sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Besteuerung Palästinas in neutestamentlicher Zeit. Frankfurt am Main 1988. Stern, Menachem, ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vols. 1–3. Jerusalem 1976. 1980. 1984.

368

Bibliography

Strecker, Georg, and Udo Schnelle, eds. Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Vol. 2, no. 1. Berlin and New York 1996. Stücklin, Christoph. Tertullian, De virginibus velandis. Übersetzung, Einleitung, Kommentar. Ein Beitrag zur altkirchlichen Frauenfrage. Frankfurt 1974. Stumpp, Bettina Eva. Prostitution in der römischen Antike. Berlin 1998. Sutter Rehmann, Luzia. »›Und ihr werdet ohne Sorge sein … .‹ Gedanken zum Phänomen der Ehefreiheit im frühen Christentum.« In Für Gerechtigkeit streiten. Theologie im Alltag einer bedrohten Welt. Edited by Dorothee Sölle, 88–95. Gütersloh 1994. Sutter Rehmann, Luzia. Konflikte zwischen ihm und ihr. Gütersloh 2002. Tamez, Elsa. Gegen die Verurteilung zum Tod. Paulus oder die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben aus der Perspektive der Unterdrückten und Ausgeschlossenen. Luzern 1998. Taubenschlag, Raphael. »Das Sklavenrecht im Rechte der Papyri.« In ZSRG.R 50 (1930): 140–169. Thackery, Henry St. John, ed. Josephus I. The Life. Against Apion with an English Translation by Henry St. John Thackeray. Cambridge, Mass. 1976. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth. Philadelphia 1982 Theissen, Gerd. »Auferstehungsbotschaft und Zeitgeschichte. Über einige politische Anspielungen im 1. Kapitel des Römerbriefes.« In Auferstehung hat einen Namen. Edited by Sabine Bieberstein and Daniel Kosch, 59–68. Lucerne 1998. Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. Der historische Jesus. Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen 1996. Thierfelder, Helmut. Unbekannte antike Welt. Eine Darstellung nach Papyrusurkunden. Gütersloh 1963. Thistelton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids 2000. Thompson, Cynthia L. »Hairstyles, Head-Coverings, and St. Paul. Portraits from Roman Corinth.« BA (1988): 99–115. Thürmer-Rohr, Christina. Vagabundinnen. Berlin 21987. Tibbs, Clint. Religious Experience of the Pneuma. Tübingen 2007. Till, Walter C. Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502. Berlin 1955. Tomson, Peter J. »Paulus und das Gesetz: Die konkreten Halachot über Ehe und Scheidung, I. Kor 7.« In Alltagswelt und Ethik. Edited by Klaus Ebert, 157–175. Wuppertal 1988. Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Assen and Maastricht 1990. Tomson, Peter J. »Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse.« In Food and Drink in the Biblical Worlds (Semeia 86). Edited by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten, 193–211. Atlanta 1999. Treggiari, Susan. Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford 1993. Vahrenhorst, Martin. Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen. Tübingen 2008. Verburg, Winfried. Endzeit und Entschlafene. Syntaktisch-sigmatische, semantische und pragmatische Analyse von 1 Kor 15. Würzburg 1996. Vittinghoff, Friedrich, ed. »Europäische Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte in der römischen Kaiserzeit.« In Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte. Vol. 1. Edited by Wolfram Fischer, among others, 25–160. Stuttgart 1990. Volkmer, Hans, ed. P. Cornelius Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus. Das Gespräch über die Redner. Lateinisch und Deutsch. Munich, no date. Volz, Paul. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde (1934). Hildesheim 1966. Waaler, Erik. The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians. Tübingen 2008. Wacker, Marie-Theres. »Mit Toratreue und Todesmut dem einen Gott anhangen. Zum EstherBild der Septuaginta.« In Dem Tod nicht glauben. Sozialgeschichte der Bibel. Edited by Frank Crüsemann, Marlene Crüsemann, Claudia Janssen, Rainer Kessler and Beate Wehn, 312–332. Gütersloh 2004. Wacker, Marie-Theres. Glossary article: »schalom/eirene.« In BigS. 2011: 1827–1828.

Bibliography

369

Wagener, Ulrike. Die Ordnung des »Hauses Gottes«. Der Ort von Frauen in der Ekklesiologie und Ethik der Pastoralbriefe. Tübingen 1994. Walter, Matthias. Gemeinde als Leib Christi. Freiburg and Göttingen 2001. Wan, Sze-kar. »Collection for the Saints as Anticolonial Act. Implications of Paul’s Ethnic Reconstruction.« In Paul and Politics. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 216–223. Harrisburg 2000. Watson, Patricia A. Ancient Stepmothers. Misogyny and Reality. Leiden, among other places, 1995. Weeber, Karl-Wilhelm. Smog über Attika. Umweltverhalten im Altertum. Zurich and Munich 1990. Weeber, Karl-Wilhelm. Alltag im alten Rom. Zurich and Munich 1995. Weeber, Karl-Wilhelm. Panem et Circenses. Massenunterhaltung als Politik im antiken Rom. Mainz 1999. Weeber, Karl-Wilhelm. Nachtleben in Rom. Darmstadt 32011. Wegner, Judith Romney. Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah. New York and Oxford 1988. Wehn, Beate. »Vergewaltige nicht die Sklavin Gottes!« Gewalterfahrungen und Widerstand von Frauen in den frühchristlichen Thekla-Akten. Königstein 2006. Weiler, Ingomar. Der Sport bei den Völkern der Alten Welt. Darmstadt 1981. Weiss, Johannes. Der erste Korintherbrief. Göttingen 1910. Weissenrieder, Annette. »›Darum sind viele körperlich und seelisch Kranke unter euch‹ (1Kor 11:29ff.). Die Korinthischen Überlegungen zum Abendmahl im Spiegel antiker Diätetik und Patristik.« In »Eine gewöhnliche und harmlose Speise?« Von den Entwicklungen frühchristlicher Abendmahlstraditionen, edited by Judith Hartenstein, Silke Petersen and Angela Standhartinger, 239–268. Gütersloh 2008. Weissenrieder, Annette. »›Do you not know that you are God’s temple?‹ Towards a new perspective on Paul’s image in 1 Corinthians 3:16.« In Contested Spaces: Houses and Temples in Roman Antiquity and the New Testament. Edited by David L. Balch and Annette Weisenrieder, 377–412. Tübingen 2017 Wendebourg, Nicola. Der Tag des Herrn. Zur Gerichtserwartung im Neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2003. Wengst, Klaus. PAX ROMANA and the Peace of Jesus Christ. Philadelphia 1987. Wengst, Klaus. Ostern. Ein wirkliches Gleichnis, eine wahre Geschichte. Munich 1991. Wengst, Klaus. Das Johannesevangelium. Vol. 1. Stuttgart 22000. Wengst, Klaus. Jesus zwischen Juden und Christen. Stuttgart 22004. Wengst, Klaus. »Freut euch, ihr Völker, mit Gottes Volk!« Israel und die Völker als Thema des Paulus – ein Gang durch den Römerbrief. Stuttgart 2008. Wengst, Klaus. »Wie lange noch?« Schreien nach Recht und Gerechtigkeit – eine Deutung der Apokalypse des Johannes. Stuttgart 2010. Werman, Cana. »The Concept of Holiness and the Requirements of Purity in Second Temple and Tannaic Literature.« In Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus. Edited by Marcel J. H. M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, 163–179. Leiden, Boston and Cologne 2000. Weth, Rudolf, ed. Das Kreuz Jesu. Gewalt, Opfer, Sühne. Neukirchen 2001. Wetde, Karl William. Art. »Passa (AT).« In Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet. http:// www.wibilex.de 2008. Wibbing, Siegfried. Die Tugend-und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte. Berlin 1959. Wiedemann, Thomas. Kaiser und Gladiatoren. Die Macht der Spiele im antiken Rom. Darmstadt 2001. Wilk, Florian. »Schriftauslegung als Bildungsvorgang im ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus – untersucht ausgehend von 1 Kor 4,6.« In Scriptural Interpretation at the Interface between Education and Religion. Edited by Florian Wilk, 88–111. Leiden 2018. Wildt, Michael. Volksgemeinschaft als Selbstermächtigung. Gewalt gegen Juden in der deutschen Provinz 1919 bis 1939. Hamburg 2007.

370

Bibliography

Williams II, C. K. »Roman Corinth as a Commercial Center.« In The Corinthia in the Roman Period. Journal of Roman Archaeology. Suppl. Series 8. Edited by Timothy Gregory, 31–46. Ann Arbor 1993. Windisch, Hans. »Die Christusepiphanie vor Damaskus (Act 9, 22 und 26) und ihre religionsgeschichtlichen Parallelen.« In ZNW 31 (1932): 1–23. Winter, Bruce B. »Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines.« In TynB 40, no. 1 (1989): 86–106. Winter, Bruce W. »Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church.« In NTS 37 (1991): 559–572. Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets. A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric. Minneapolis 1990. Wire, Antoinette Clark. »I Corinthians.« In Searching the Scriptures. Vol. 2. Edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, 153–195. New York 1994. Wire, Antoinette Clark. Holy Lives, Holy Deaths: A Close Hearing of Early Jewish Storytellers. Leiden, Boston and Cologne 2002. Wire, Antoinette Clark. »Rising Voices. The Resurrection Witness of New Testament NonWriters.« In On the Cutting Edge. The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds. Edited by Jane Schaberg, among others, 221–229. New York and London 2003. Wire, Antoinette Clark. 2 Corinthians. Wisdom Commentary 48. Collegeville, MN 2019. Wischmeyer, Oda. Der höchste Weg. Das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes. Gütersloh 1981. Wlosok, Antonie. Rom und die Christen. Stuttgart 1970. Wolff, Christian. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. ThHK 7, Part 2. Berlin 31990. Wolff, Christian. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Leipzig 1996. Woyke, Johannes. Götter, »Götzen,« Götterbilder. Berlin and New York 2005. Yeung, Maureen W. Faith in Jesus and Paul. Tübingen 2002. Zahn, Theodor. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (1888–1889). Hildesheim 1975. Zangenberg, Jürgen. »Trockene Knochen, himmlische Seligkeit. Todes- und Jenseitsvorstellungen im Judentum der hellenistisch-frührömischen Zeit.« In Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Bernd Janowski, 655–689. Tübingen 2009 Zanker, Paul. Augustus und die Macht der Bilder. Munich 1987. 52008. Zeilinger, Franz. Der biblische Auferstehungsglaube. Religionsgeschichtliche Entstehung – heilsgeschichtliche Entfaltung. Stuttgart 2008. Zeller, Dieter. »Gibt es religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen zur Taufe für die Toten (1 Kor 15:29)?« In ZNW 98 (2007): 68–76. Zeller, Dieter. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Göttingen 2010. Zerhusen, Bob. »An overlooked Diglossia in Acts 2?« In BTB 25 (1995): 118–130. Zerhusen, Bob. »The Problem Tongues in 1 Cor 14: A Reexamination« In BTB 27 (1997): 139–152. Zimmer, Gerhard. Römische Berufsdarstellungen. Berlin 1982. Zimmermann, Mirjam, and Ruben Zimmermann. »Zitation, Kontradiktion oder Applikation? Die Jesuslogien 1 Kor 7:1 und 9:14.« In ZNW 87 (1996): 83–100. Zimmermann, Ruben. Die Logik der Liebe. Die ›implizite‹ Ethik der Paulusbriefe am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefs. Göttingen 2016.

Selective Index

I.

Old Testament (including the Apocrypha)

Genesis – 1:14–28 315 – 1:27 209–210 – 2:7 322–323 – 2:18 210 – 2:24 112, 127 – 3:16 201 – 9:4–6 190 – 11:1–9 270 – 32:31 264 – 35:22 88 Exodus – 3:6 291 – 12:15 93 – 13:18–21 182 – 16:15–18 182 – 16:18 335 – 17:6 182 – 21:2–11 135 – 24:8 235 – 25:17–21 231 – 33:11 264 Leviticus – 17–26 95 – 17:10–14 190 – 18:8 88–90 – 18:22 106 – 19–20 27 – 19:2 71, 84 – 20:11 88, 91–92 – 20:13 106 Numbers – 12:6–8 264 – 18:8, 31 169 – 21:4–6 184 – 25:9 184 – 26:62 184 Deuteronomy – 4:5, 15 163

– 4:10 27 – 6:4–5 155–156 – 6:4 57, 256, 307 – 13:6 87 – 13:17 154 – 17:7 87, 97 – 18:1–8 169 – 23:1 88 – 24:1–4 127 – 25:4 166 – 27:20 88 – 27:26 174 – 34:10 264 1 Samuel – 2:1–10 51 – 2:10 54 2 Maccabeans – 7:9 289 – 12:39–45 308 Job – 5:12–13 72 Psalms – 8:3–9 315 – 8:5 319 – 8:6, 7 307 – 24:1 194 – 35:18 27 – 36:6–7 261 – 44:22 310 – 72:13–14 190 – 94:11 37, 72 – 118:17 326 Proverbs – 8:22–31 157 Wisdom – 11:9–10 239 Sirach – 4:1 101

372

Selective Index

Isaiah – 6 295 – 6:9–10 275 – 22:13 289, 312 – 25:8 329 – 28:11–12 275 – 29:14 37, 41 – 40:13 63–64 – 41:9 49 – 44:24 157 – 45:14 277 – 49:1–6 161, 170 – 49:1 25 – 49:3 160 – 50:6–7 180 – 53:4–5 180 – 53:11–12 196, 230 – 53:12 248 – 61:6 334 – 63:17–19 230 Jeremiah – 1 295 – 1:5–7 171 – 1:5 44 – 1:6–8 161 – 9:23–24 34, 37, 49, 51–52, 54, 75

II.

– 20:7–13 82 – 31:31 235 Ezekiel – 1–2 295 – 3:16–21 296 – 3:17–18 171 – 37:1–14 321 – 37:12 294 – 45:21–23 94 Daniel – 3 258 – 3:28 233 – 7:9–28 248 – 7:14 289 – 9:26 71 – 13:32 204 Hosea – 13:14 330 Amos – 3:8 171 – 4:11 70 Malachi – 1:7, 12 193 Prayer of Azariah – 15–17 233

New Testament (excluding 1 Corinthians)

Matthew – 1:21, 23 28 – 5:1 279 – 5:3, 10 100 – 5:5 86 – 5:10–11 96 – 5:39–41 103 – 5:48 60, 84 – 6:25–34 143 – 10:8–10 164, 171 – 10:8 244 – 10:10 169 – 11:5 334 – 13:33 93 – 14:1–2 290 – 16:6, 11–12 93 – 18:15–17 103 – 20:15 219 – 20:28 116 – 21:31 109 – 22:23–33 288, 291

– 23:8–10 84 – 24:3, 27 305 – 25:31–46 97 – 28:16 297 Mark – 4:19 143 – 6:10 165 – 6:14–15 290 – 6:17–20 129 – 10:6–8 127 – 10:11–12 127 – 10:27 245 – 10:42–45 236 – 10:45 116, 196 – 12:18–27 308 – 12:27 311 – 12:28–34 313 – 12:28 291 – 13:7–8 142 – 14:12–31 226 – 14:24 235

373

II. New Testament (excluding 1 Corinthians) – 14:25 234 – 16:1–8 295 Luke – 1:51b 86 – 3:14 166 – 4:16 279 – 4:18 334 – 6:21 143 – 7:36–50 109 – 9:1 244 – 9:4 165 – 10:7 165, 169 – 10:18 327–328 – 13:21 93 – 17:28 143 – 20:39 291 – 24:34 297 John – 4:16–17 129 – 11:48 43 – 13 236 Acts – 2 268, 270 – 2:1–21 297 – 2:1–13 266 – 4:1–7 288 – 4:32–35 223 – 4:32 219 – 4:34–37 336 – 5:1–11 223 – 5:4 336 – 5:17 288 – 9:1–43 295 – 9:1–22 25 – 9:1–19 161 – 9:39 33 – 11:19–26 163 – 11:29 333 – 14:15 47 – 15:19 47 – 15:29 154 – 16:1–3 85, 342 – 16:11–15, 40 348 – 17:34 345 – 18:1–11 160 – 18:1–3 345, 347 – 18:2–4 56 – 18:4 163 – 18:5 171 – 18:8 35 – 18:12–17 74 – 18:24–28 67

– 20:33–35 171 – 22:3–12 161 – 22:3 55 – 23:6–8 288 – 24:17 333 – 26:9–20 161 – 26:10–11 298 Romans – 1:18–31 42 – 1:24–27 106 – 2:12–16 277 – 2:14–15 277 – 3:9–20 174 – 3:10–18 189 – 3:25 229 – 4:17 51, 57, 323–324 – 6:1–11 313 – 6:12–14 174, 188 – 6:12 93 – 6:19 115 – 7:2 201 – 8:15 274 – 8:(18–)39 264 – 8:19–20 319 – 8:23 189 – 8:29 234 – 8:32 227 – 8:36 310 – 8:38–39 37, 72, 262 – 8:39 261 – 9:30 209 – 11:33–36 61 – 12:1 229 – 12:2 60, 72, 93 – 12:5 247 – 13:1–7 100, 311 – 13:8–10 256 – 13:10 257 – 14 152 – 14:2 159 – 14:14 154 – 15:1 154 – 15:18–19 244 – 15:19–20 340 – 15:19 163, 244 – 15:25–31 333 – 15:26 332 – 15:27 167 – 16:3–23 136 – 16:3–5 347 – 16:5 345 – 16:6, 12 165

374

Selective Index

– 16:7 297 – 16:12 162 – 16:23 35 2 Corinthians – 1:8–9 311 – 2:3–11 95 – 3:2–3 161 – 4:4 92 – 4:10 311 – 5:19 183 – 6:16 70 – 7:8–13 95 – 8–9 334 – 8:9 334 – 8:10 125 – 8:13–14 167 – 10:10 55 – 11:8 171 – 11:23, 25 99 – 12:1–10 256, 262 – 12:7–10 179 Galatians – 1:1, 13–17 25, 244 – 1:12–16 295 – 1:12 293 – 1:15 170 – 1:16 44 – 2:1–3 343 – 2:2 171 – 2:10 333 – 3:10 174 – 3:27–28 249 – 3:28 210 – 5:9 93

III.

Ephesians – 5:2 229 Philippians – 1:7, 12 171 – 2:10 27, 37, 306 – 2:16 170–171 – 2:19–22 344 – 3:19 289 – 4:10, 14 171 – 4:15–16 171 – 4:15; 16 169 – 4:15 167 1 Thessalonians – 4:15 305 1 Timothy – 2:11–16 284 – 2:11–15 281 – 2:12 285 – 5:13 284–285 – 5:16 33 Hebrews – 12:6–11 86 James – 5:4 101 1 Peter – 1:18–19 115 Jude – 23 70 Revelation – 1:7 275 – 18:7, 9 316 – 18:10, 17 327 – 19:2 316 – 21 286 – 21:19–21 69 – 22:20 349

Intertestamental and post-biblical Judaism

Josephus – Against Apion 1.6 43 – Antiquitates Judaicae 13.298 288 18.3, 5 333 18.16, 17 288 20.199 288 – Bellum Judaicum 2.165 Jubilees – 33:10 89

288

Midrash Rabbah – Gen 9 end 100 – Lev 13.5 99 – Lev 34.3 189 – Midrash Tanhuma on Exod 21:1 Mishnah – Abodah Zarah 3.4 153 – ’Abot 4.5 164 – Baba Mesiʽa 7.3 167 – Ber. 6.1 187, 227 – Ker. 1:2 91

99

375

V. Non-Jewish and non-Christian Ancient Authors – Ketub. 12:3 89 – Sanh. 7:4 89, 91 – Sanh. 9:6 91 – Sanh. 11:2 89 Philo – Cher. 92–95 97 – Leg. 2.86 183 – Spec. 3.20 89 – Spec. 3.37–42 106 Qumran, Community Rule 1QS – VI, 8–13 279 – VIII, 5; IX, 6 71 Sifre Deuteronomy – passim 87 – 48 168 – 48.7 164

IV.

167

Early Christian Literature

Acts of Paul and Thecla 25 208 Apocryphon of John 50–55 324 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 3.12.1 126 Cyprian, De Habitu Virginum 22 125 Didache – 9.10 226 – 10:6 349 – 11.6 165 Justinus Martyr – 1 Apology, 14.2 224 – 1 Apology, 67.6 224 – 2 Apology, 2 133

V.

– 287 on Deut 25:4 – 306.28 322 Talmud Bavli – Pesaḥ. 117a 117 – Sanh. 58a, b 90 – Sota 14a 61 Testament of Job – 23–25 207 – 47.7–48.3 59 1 Enoch 22.14 62 2 Enoch – 33:4 157 – 58.3–59.1 315 4 Ezra 174 4 Maccabees 231

Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 242 Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. 5.3.7 224 Tertullian – De baptismo 17 281 – Ad uxorem 2.3–4, 131 – De idolatria 13, 151 – De pudicitia 14.7 82 – De virginibus velandis 3 204 The Book of the Cave of Treasures 211 1 Clement – 5:5–7 81 – 6:2 82

Non-Jewish and non-Christian Ancient Authors

Apuleius, Metamorphoses – 2.8.1–4 207 – 9.12.3–4 251 – 10 79 Cassius Dio, Historiae – 55.18.5–19.5 218 – 67.14.1–3 48 Cato – De agri cultura 143 137 – fragment 70 99 Cicero, De officiis – 1.54 89 – 1.150 52

Corpus Iuris Civilis – Digesta 47.10.15.15–20 211 Dio Chrysostom, Orationes – 7.105–107 169 – 7.134, 139 122 Horace, Satires – 1.2.28–80 121 – 1.8.8–10 309 Juvenal, Satires – 3.309–310 99 – 8.163–189 144 Livy, History of Rome 2.32.7–33.1

252

376 Lucian – Dialogues of the Courtesans 6 111 – Satires 127–133 221 – Somnium 7 52 – Somnium 9 52 Maximus of Tyre 20.2 259 Ovid, Fasti 4.133–134 208 Pausanius, Description of Greece 2.35.5–8. 152 Petronius, Satyricon 14 99 Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 1.13 126 Plautus – Aulularia 3.5 (505–535) 144 – Menaechmi 2.2 121 – Mercator 826–829 128 – Miles Gloriosus 790–793 202 Pliny the Elder, Natural History 21.97.170 114 Pliny the Younger – Epistulae 2.6.2–4 220 10.96.4b–6 242 – Panegyricus 26.5f. 120 Plutarch – Fragments XI, Ex Commentariis in Hesiodum 84 313 – Moralia Conjugalia praecepta 142 283 De esu 2.997 149 – Parallel Lives Cato Minor 12.2–5 342 Pompeius 55.1 284

Selective Index Propertius, Elegies 2.13.18–25 309 Pseudo Vergil, Copa 5ff., 11f., 37f. 312 Quintilian 1.3.14 85 Seneca – Apocolocyntosis 6.2 291 – De beneficiis 3.16.2–3 129 – Epistulae 1.7.2–6 79, 260 47.1–4 136 Soranus, Gynecology 1.7 124 Strabo, Geographica – 12.4.6 267 – 14.5.2 114 Suetonius, De vita Caesarum – Caligula 40 121 – Domitianus 12.2 48 Tacitus – Agricola 2 217 30.4 94 – Annales 4.30 218 6.7 217 15.44.3. 289 15.44.4–5. 82 – Germanicus 19.2 206 – Historiae 5.5.3 289 Terence – Eunuchus 934–940 198 – The Woman of Andros, 69–79 110