1 Corinthians: A Commentary 9780567688644, 9780567688668, 9780567688651

Citation preview

1 CORINTHIANS

1 CORINTHIANS A COMMENTARY BY

E. EARLE ELLIS

Edited by Terry L. Wilder

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in Great Britain 2022 Copyright © Ellis Foundation for Biblical Research, 2022 E. Earle Ellis has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this work. Terry L. Wilder has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editor of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any thirdparty websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Ellis, E. Earle (Edward Earle), author. | Wilder, Terry L., editor. Title: 1 Corinthians : a commentary / by E. Earle Ellis ; edited by Terry L. Wilder. Description: London ; New York : T&T Clark, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021013493 (print) | LCCN 2021013494 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567688644 (hardback) | ISBN 9780567688651 (ePDF) | ISBN 9780567688675 (ePUB) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Corinthians, 1st--Commentaries. Classification: LCC BS2675.53 .E45 2021 (print) | LCC BS2675.53 (ebook) | DDC 227/.2077--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021013493 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021013494 ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-5676-8864-4 978-0-5676-8865-1

Typset by Trans.form.ed SAS To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

In memory of E. Earle Ellis, New Testament scholar par excellence, whose work and legacy still inspire many people

CONTENTS

PREFACEix I ADDRESS AND SALUTATION (1:1-3)

1

II THANKSGIVING (1:4-9)

29

III TRUE AND FALSE WISDOM (1:10–4:21)

45

IV SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS: IMMORAL AND MORAL (5:1–7:40)

189

V LIBERTY’S BOUNDARIES: RE IDOL FOOD (8:1–11:1)

303

VI THE REGULATION OF CHURCH SERVICES (11:2–14:40)

391

EPILOGUE

453

INDEX

457

PR E FA C E

This commentary on 1 Corinthians is the unfinished manuscript of the late E. Earle Ellis, former Research Professor of Theology Emeritus at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and the founder of the Institute for Biblical Research (IBR). The book was originally meant to be included in the prestigious International Critical Commentary series published by T&T Clark but now is being published as an incomplete standalone monograph. Ellis passed away on March 2, 2010, just prior to his 84th birthday, and he unfortunately was unable to finish the commentary before he died, though he tried hard to do so. Indeed, ‘until the moment of his death, he repeatedly talked about his commentary’.1 Why publish this volume now after more than 10 years since Ellis’s passing? This commentary merits publication because Ellis was an evangelical New Testament scholar of international renown, whose ‘scholarship was respected not only by evangelicals but also by those who did not share the same theological views with him’.2 His scholarly works and achievements are considerable.3 Some of Ellis’s more well-known books include his most recent work before the present volume, The Sovereignty of God in Salvation (2009) and several others: History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective (2001), Christ and the Future in New Testament History (2000), The Making of the New Testament Documents (1999), The Old Testament in Early Christianity (1991), Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society (1989), Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (1978), The Gospel of Luke (1966), Paul and 1   See the obituary written by S. Aaron Son, ‘E. Earle Ellis: 1926–2010’ contained in the SBL Forum Archive at https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/ article.aspx?articleId=858; accessed November 2, 2020. For a much fuller description of Ellis’s life and work, see Gerald F. Hawthorne, ‘E. Earle Ellis: A Biographical Sketch’, in History and Exegesis (ed. Sang-won [Aaron] Son; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 2–14. 2   Son, ‘E. Earle Ellis: 1926–2010’, SBL Forum Archive. 3   See Ellis’s ‘Curriculum Vitae’ as found in Sang-won (Aaron) Son, ed. History and Exegesis (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 15–27.

x

PREFACE

His Recent Interpreters (1961), and Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (1957). Ellis’s work continues organizationally with the Institute for Biblical Research, ‘an organization of evangelical Christian scholars’, which he founded in 1970, ‘that fosters excellence in biblical studies within a faith environment’.4 The IBR’s annual conference convenes as an additional meeting with the Society of Biblical Literature’s (SBL) yearly meeting. Ellis’s work also endures with the International Reference Library for Biblical Research (IRLBR, now also called the Ellis Foundation for Biblical Research) that he originally started in 2004 to serve as a residential library and United States counterpart to Tyndale House in Cambridge, England. No longer a residential library in Fort Worth, the Ellis Foundation’s express purpose now is to cultivate and advance biblical studies and research among young evangelical Christian scholars through a variety of projects. Ellis’s personal library today belongs to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) in Fort Worth, Texas, and is housed in the seminary’s Roberts Library. My experience with Professor Ellis was a positive one. I first met him in 1990 when I audited his class in Pauline theology. I had already graduated from Southwestern Seminary with the Master of Divinity degree and stayed on an additional year at the seminary to study German and French in preparation for doctoral work at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. Later, when I was enrolled and studying at Aberdeen, I read an article by Ellis entitled, ‘Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents’5 that provided an impetus which led to my Ph.D. thesis on the same subject. My path would later cross with that of Ellis on various occasions at Tyndale House, Cambridge, where he would visit most every summer, and later at Southwestern Seminary where, after returning to the United States from Scotland, I taught as a fellow and consulted with him as I finished my Aberdeen dissertation. Little did I know at that time that I would later serve as a 4   Description found on the IBR webpage at https://ibr-bbr.org; accessed November 16, 2020. 5   E. E. Ellis, ‘Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents’, in Worship, Theology, and Ministry in the Early Church, ed. M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige, JSNTSup 87 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992),



PREFACE

xi

member of the Board of Trustees for the IRLBR from the beginning of my time as professor of New Testament at SWBTS up to the present day as a faculty member at Campbellsville University in Kentucky. After Ellis’s death and the settling of his estate, his unfinished manuscript came into the possession of the IRLBR. Because his commentary on 1 Corinthians was greatly anticipated by many people during his life and became even more so after his death, the Board wanted to bring some closure to the commentary and sought to get it published. Many scholars and students have asked about Ellis’s commentary in the years since his passing, particularly whether it would ever appear in print. The problem, however, with publishing the volume has been that it is incomplete. How do you complete Ellis’s commentary when you do not know exactly how he would have viewed certain verses? Moreover, to complete his commentary after more than 10 years would require a massive amount of updating with secondary sources and some conjecture on what he thought about certain passages; plus, there comes a point when completing the commentary that it can no longer be said to be entirely that of Ellis. The Ellis Foundation also learned later that Ellis had given instructions that no one was to complete his commentary if his death prevented him from finishing it. This discovery presented somewhat of a problem because, as you might imagine, publishers likely would not be eager to include an unfinished commentary in their offerings. However, after considerable deliberations on the best way to proceed, the IRLBR Board proposed to Dominic Mattos of Bloomsbury Publishing that the commentary not be completed but published ‘as is’, with a minimal amount of editing to Ellis’s manuscript (just copyediting, checking sources, correcting typos, etc.). To our delight, he agreed with the proposal. He also asked that, as the editor, I write an Introduction to the work to explain the fragmentary approach to the commentary and an epilogue that brings together some thoughts on any notes that Ellis may have left with respect to chs 14 (where the commentary is patchy), 15 and 16. Ellis did not finish at least four chapters of the 1 Corinthians commentary and left no bibliography at the end of the book. He had not yet written an introductory chapter in the manuscript. This omission is presumably because he had planned to write, as many writers do, the Introduction to his volume after he had completed

xii

PREFACE

the work. Ellis was obviously unable to provide a bibliography for his book because of his death. Given time deadlines for the volume, the editor also neither supplied a bibliography nor an author index. Thus, readers will need to look at the book’s footnotes for bibliographical information and identify the key works that were cited by Ellis using author surname (sometimes with accompanying date). Moreover, Ellis had only partially completed 14:1-40, leaving only a few notes and an outline for the chapter. He also did not provide a title for that segment like he did the other pericopes in 1 Corinthians. Further, he had written nothing on 1 Corinthians 15 and 16 in the commentary. Thus, at the request of the publisher, an epilogue in the present volume will provide some thoughts on where Ellis may have taken chs 14, 15 and 16. Some references that occur throughout the commentary, mostly in the footnotes, need to be explained. Ellis used several placeholders for page numbers throughout the manuscript—for example, Introduction, ##-## and AE IV, #-#. The pound signs were meant to show where to add page numbers later. These references were left as they are. Ellis never wrote the commentary’s Introduction so we cannot know to what pages the placeholders might have referred nor the specific subject matter, though with the latter one might venture a good guess. The references with the designation of AE plus the Roman numerals appear to mean Appendix Excursus. Ellis never included these several excurses in the work, though he mentioned them. Many of the excurses he intended to include had already been published elsewhere so perhaps he was waiting to add them later as well. Elsewhere Ellis would leave placeholders with page numbers following in brackets—for example, ##-## [22-27]. These designations within the brackets referred to the pages where he anticipated these pages would be in the manuscript—whether in the body of the work or in the appendices—they were also left as is. At any place where Ellis left page placeholders, unless it was known for certain to which pages they referred, they were left alone. Also, a few footnotes in the work were left blank. In those places, a note will indicate that he did not provide a footnote. I need to acknowledge and thank several people. First, I want to express my gratitude to Dominic Mattos and Bloomsbury Publishing for agreeing to publish Ellis’s work. Thank you also for your patience with me. I am confident that Professor Ellis would be



PREFACE

xiii

very happy that his labor for many years on 1 Corinthians is finally appearing in print. Next, I wish to thank B. Paul Wolfe, Head of School at the Cambridge School of Dallas, executor of Ellis’s estate, and former president of the IRLBR, for inviting me to serve as a board member of the IRLBR. I have enjoyed helping to steward and further Ellis’s legacy. Moreover, I am grateful for my fellow Ellis Foundation for Biblical Research board members, E. Randolph Richards, provost at Palm Beach Atlantic University, whose graduate assistant Joshua Parker compiled the subject index, and Daniel Fredericks, retired provost of Belhaven University, who both agreed to allow me to pursue this editorial project as a labor of love for Ellis and his work. Further, a big thank you must be extended to Christopher Taylor, a good friend and Southwestern Seminary Ph.D. student, whose tech-savviness enabled me to edit Ellis’s manuscript that had been written on a computer using an old MS-DOS operating system that caused a lot of problems. Finally, I am grateful to several friends and colleagues at Campbellsville University who encourage faculty members to engage in research and writing—retired President Michael V. Carter, Provost Donna Hedgepath, John Hurtgen, Dean of the School of Theology, and Joseph E. Early, Jr., Associate Professor of Church History. Terry L. Wilder, Ph.D. Professor of New Testament and Greek Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, Kentucky

I

A D D RE SS A N D S A L U TAT ION ( 1:1- 3)

Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Sosthenes the brother, 2to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who have been made holy in Christ Jesus, the called saints, together with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, theirs and ours. 3Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1

Textual Notes 1. : lacking in p61 A D 81 and thought by Weiss (1n) to be a secondary conformation to Rom 1:1. More likely, it was omitted under the influence of other Pauline letter openings (cf. Schrage, 100n).  : p46 B D F G 33. This, rather than   (‫ א‬A  1739 M), is the usual word order in Paul’s opening address although it is sometimes reversed (Gal 1:1; Tit 1:1) by the Apostle or by his secretary. In Eph 1:1 the original order is not entirely clear. On the problem of the abbreviation of the nomina sacra in the mss cf. J. K. Elliott, ‘The Divine Names in the Corinthian Letters’, Paul and the Corinthians. FS M. Thrall, edd. T. J. Burke et al., Leiden 2003, 3-15. 2.  …: The reverse order, ‘to the church of God, made holy in Christ Jesus, that is in Corinth’ (p46 B D) is ‘a mistake of the Western text, which is attested in Egypt already in the third century’ (Lietzmann-Kümmel, 166). Cf. Conzelmann, 20f.; Metzger, 478; I Thess 2:14; but see Weiss, 2f.; G. D. Fee, ‘Textual- Exegetical Observations…’, Scribes and Scriptures. FS J. H. Greenlee, ed. D. A. Black, Winona Lake IN 1992, 1-5.  …    : present in all mss but conjectured by Weiss (3f.) to be a later ‘catholicizing’ interpolation; similarly at 4:17; 11:16; 14:33b-36 (Weiss, 120, 277, 342, 343n). See below, 25-29, on 1:2. In the state of textual and historical criticism of Weiss’ day (1863–1914) such unsupported conjectures may have had some historical possibility. Today they have none. Re ‘the church(es)’ see above, Introduction, ###-###; below on 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33b.

2

1 CORINTHIANS

Structure The address and salutation, the third longest of the Pauline epistles, following Romans and Galatians, is a variation on a common opening for an ancient letter1—Latin, Greek or Aramaic: ‘Cicero to Atticus, greeting (sal[utem])’.2 ‘Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul, to the magistrates and council of Sardis, greeting ()’.3 ‘Jonathan, the high priest, the Senate of the Nation and the priests and the rest of the people of the Jews to their brothers the Spartans, greeting’.4 ‘Ammonius, son of Ammonius, to Tryphon, son of Dionysius, greeting’.5 ‘To Darius the king, all peace (‫’)שׁלמא כלא‬.6 ‘[Rabban Gamaliel and the sages] to our brethren, residents of Upper Galilee and residents of Lower Galilee, May your peace increase’.7

As in the last examples, the order may be implicitly reversed and the sender’s name(s) omitted, or it may be explicitly reversed:

  See below, 30, on 1:3. Paul’s self-description is much fuller than the sender of the usual Greek letter; cf. Roller, 56ff. For salutations in ancient Greek letters, cf. A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri (LCL), 2 vols., London 1934, I, 268-395; II, 54, 78, 88ff., 98, 122; F. X. J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri, Chicago 1976 (1923), 23-68; G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, Cambridge 1910, passim. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., Edinburgh 71998, I, 45. 2   E.g. Cicero, ad Atticum II, 19. 3   Josephus, Ant. 16, 171; cf. Acts 15:23; 23:26; Billerbeck III, 1 (on Rom 1:1). 4   I Macc 12:6. 5   POxy 264 (AD 54). Cf. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, London 1898–; H. G. Meecham, Light from Ancient Letters…of Oxyrhynchus…, London 1923, 49, 114-118. 6   Ezra 5:7; cf. 4:11; 7:12; I Esdras 8:9. Cf. II Baruch 78:2: ‘Mercy and peace’ (CAP II, 521) or ‘Grace and peace’ (OTP, 648). 7   T Sanhedrin 2:6 (Neusner). 1



I

3

‘To the Jewish brothers in Egypt, greeting; the brothers, the Jews in Jerusalem and in the land of Judea (wish you) good peace’.8

The Pauline formula, in which the salutation (1:3) includes a blessing and is set off from the address (1:1-2) as an independent sentence, probably reflects a western Asiatic9 or, more precisely, a Jewish style. Commentary Summary The Apostle Paul, a called and commissioned agent of Christ Jesus, writes to God’s society, God’s church, in Corinth. These Christians are a corporately holy people in Christ Jesus, the sphere into which they were called and in which they exist, together with all other Christian congregations, both those founded by Paul and those established by other apostolic missions. To all Paul pronounces and mediates a blessing, combining the gracious unmerited divine favor of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that has brought them into this holy sphere and the abiding peace with God that this status creates and assures. Exegesis  Paul’s name as always in his letters. In Acts the name 1. . appears first in the episode concerning the proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:6-12). Previously Saul is used, mostly with a Greek termination (), but in the (vocative) accounts 8   II Macc 1:1. This seems to be the common order in a letter of petition; cf. J. L. White, The Form and Function of the Official Petition, Missoula MT 1972, 13. Further, cf. idem, Light from Ancient Letters, Philadelphia 1986, 198-202. 9   So, E. Lohmeyer, ‘Briefliche Grussüberschriften’, ZNTW 26 (1927), 158-173 = Probleme paulinischer Theologie, Stuttgart n.d. [1955], 9-29: ‘Only the form of Paul’s epistolary salutation sprang from an old Near East origin. Its distinctive content was primitive Christian (ist urchristlich bestimmt) (14). Cf. G. Friedrich, ‘Lohmeyers These über das paulinische Briefpräskript kritisch beleuchtet’, TLZ 81 (1956), 343-346 = idem, Auf das Wort kommt es an, Göttingen 1978, 103-106: ‘Lohmeyer rightly saw the relationship of the salutations in the Pauline letters with those of the Near East oriental letters. But he too radically rejected every Greek influence’ (106). Cf. Cranfield (note 1), I, 45ff.; Conzelmann, 19n. = GT: 32n.

4

1 CORINTHIANS

of Paul’s conversion it is a transliterated Hebrew form (; Acts 9:4, 17; 22:7, 13; 26:14). The last usage suggests that Saul was Paul’s (second) personal name.10 According to the book of Acts Paul was a Roman citizen from birth11 and would have inherited this status from his father or earlier forefather. As such, in addition to his Hebrew name Saul, he had three Roman names. It has been supposed that he was given the name ‘Paul’ in honor of the conversion of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:12).12 More likely, ‘Paul’ was his Roman cognomen from birth, which he began to use regularly at the outset of his own missions to the Gentiles.13 With its allusion to a distinguished Roman family the name itself provided an entrée to many circles that he wished to reach with the gospel message. Where and how did he get it? Roman citizens had at least three names: personal (praenomen), clan (nomen), and a family or more often a personal name or names (cognomina). ‘Freedman and enfranchised foreigners took their patron’s praenomen and nomen, adding their original name as a cognomen’, e.g. Marcus Tullius Cicero’s freedman and secretary, Marcus Tullius Tiro.14 The enfranchised foreigner’s son might be given the patron’s name as a cognomen.15  very probably did not originate as a Greek usage16 but was derived from the Roman, i.e. Latin name, Paul(l)us. Lucius Aemilius Paulus, an ancient and distinguished Roman family name, again became prominent in the first century BC17 and included a

  On the Hebrew and Greek usage cf. ‘‫’שׁאול‬, Names, 211ff.   Acts 22:25-28; cf. 16:37f. He was also a citizen of Tarsus (Acts 21:39). 12   So, Jerome, de vir. illus. 5:1ff. (NPNF2 III, 362); E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, 3 vols., Berlin 1921, III, 196f.; cf. BC IV, 145f. But see G. A. Harrer, ‘Saul Who Also is Called Paul’, HTR 33 (1940), 19-33, 28-32. 13   Cf. J. B. Polhill, Acts, Nashville 1992, 295f.; G. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, Edinburgh 1903, 313-317; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, Grand Rapids 1960 (1897), 81-87. See Names, 336. 14   OCD2 721, 1078. Cf. Juvenal, Satires 5, 127. 15   Cf. Harrer (note 12), 21; but see C. Hemer, ‘The Name of Paul’, TB 36 (1985), 179-183. 16   A computer search of the TLG disclosed only a Roman or Roman-derivative usage of  during this period. 17   Cf. Suetonius, Julius Caesar 29, 1; idem, Augustus 19, 1; 64, 1; OCD2 791; DGRBM III, 153ff.; PW 18, 4 (1949), 2362ff. 10 11



I

5

quaestor in Macedonia (59 BC), a proconsul of the province of Asia (9 BC) and perhaps of the province of Cyprus.18 The name was also borne by other (related) Romans, including it seems Sergius Paulus.19 In the East, Roman citizenship for foreigners began to proliferate only in the first century BC, chiefly during the Second Triumvirate and the following civil war (43–31 BC). It was attained only by individual grants from a military commander or from the Emperor,20 often with the sponsorship of a proconsul or of another eminent authority.21 If, as Jerome states, Paul’s parents went (as Roman captives) from Galilee to Tarsus, Roman citizenship could have been granted when Paul’s father was freed.22 But the account is late and legendary, and before the first century AD the evidence places the Roman family Paulus only as far east as the provinces of Macedonia and Asia.23 Paul had kinsmen in Macedonia (Jason, Sosipater) and perhaps in Asia (Lucius),24 one of whom, Lucius (), also apparently bore a name from the Paulus family. It is not improbable that Lucius, here given a more formal spelling by Paul’s secretary, is the same co-worker who appears elsewhere in Paul’s letters as Luke ().25 With these considerations in mind, Paul’s forefather probably was not enfranchised in Tarsus. If he lived earlier in Greece   Cf. OCD2 427, 792; BC V, 456f. Cf. also Harrer (note 12), 27n.   Acts 13:7. Cf. Tacitus, Histories 4, 13, 1; R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, Grand Rapids 1998, 138-142, 416. 20   A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, Oxford 1980, 273, 294f., 306-311. 21   E.g. Pliny, Letters 10, 5; 10, 6; 10, 11 (c. AD 99). 22   So, T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols., Minneapolis 1977 (31909), I, 69f. = GT3: Wuppertal 1994, I, 49; cf. Jerome, ad Philemon 23; idem, de viris illustribus 5. 23   See above, note 18. For Jews earlier as citizens in Rome cf. Philo, leg. ad Gaium 155ff.; Schürer, III, 132ff. 24   Cf. Rom 16:21 with Acts 16:10-17 (‘we’); 17:5-9; 20:4; see Ellis (note 25). He is not ‘Lucius of Cyrene’ (Acts 13:1). Cf. C. K. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1994, I, 603; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids MI 31990, 293; H. J. Cadbury, ‘Lucius of Cyrene’, BC 5 (1993), 489-495. 25   Col 4:14; II Tim 4:11; Plm 24. Cf. Rom 16:21 with Acts 16:10-17 (‘we’); 17:5-9; 20:4; see M & M, ‘’, 380f.; BDAG, 603; C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Tübingen 1989, 240f.; E. E. Ellis, ‘Paul and his Coworkers’, DPL, 183-189, 186 = idem, History, 85f. 18 19

6

1 CORINTHIANS

or in the province of Asia, he could have been sponsored there for citizenship by an official or proconsul from the Paulus family. If so, it suggests that the citizenship of Paul’s family went back at least two generations. In such a case both Paulus and Lucius could be cognomina taken from the family’s Roman patron. This offers a better, if also speculative, explanation of Paul’s name which, in full, may have been      .26 , from the verbal root . The passive voice implies a reference to God, ‘called by God’, i.e. ‘through the will of God’ (  ) or ‘by command of God’ (  ).27 It is an effectual calling, i.e. that effects the reality,28 and it stands in contrast to a weaker connotation of the term, i.e. ‘invited’.29 It is not a participle (): ‘called to be an apostle’, but an adjective: ‘apostle in virtue of a call’. Equally, the Corinthian elect are ‘holy ones in virtue of a call’ ( , 1:2). Paul never separates his ‘call’ from his apostleship or from his conversion.30 Therefore, his being ‘a called apostle’ asserts the divine origin and thus the divine authority of his apostleship:31 ‘The called-byGod Apostle writes with divine authority to the called-by-God ’.32 ‘  is here opposed not so much to human authorization or self-assumption, as to personal merit’33 and thus reflects not, as some non-historical psycho-rhetorical critics and others have suggested,34 self-assertions of power but rather a sense of personal humility. On Paul’s rhetoric see below, Special Note on Paul and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric, 83-96.

  Cf. Harrer (note 12), 33. Further, cf. Cranfield (note 1), I, 48ff.; P. M. Fraser et al., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Oxford 1987, 289; Names, 211ff. 27   I Tim 1:1; BDAG, 383. Cf. Rom 1:1; I Clem 1, Salutation. See below on 1:21. 28   Cf. 9:16f.; Gal 1:15 with Jer 1:5; Bengel, 11, on Rom 1:1: ‘While Christ calls one, he makes him what he calls him…’ Cf. Rom 4:17, where God’s ‘calling’ creates the reality:      . 29   Mt 22:14; cf. I Kg = III Kgdm 1:41 LXX: ‘the ones invited’. 30   Godet, I, 37; cf. Wolff, 15f. Cf. Edwards, 1. 31   Cf. Chrysostom on Rom 1:1; I Cor 1:1; cf. NPNF1 XI, 338f.; XII, 3. 32   Lietzmann-Kümmel, 166. 33   Lightfoot, 143. 34   See the discussion of Thiselton, 64-67. 26



I

7

,  i.e. one gifted, commissioned, and sent. See below, Special Note on , 31-47.  . A genitive both of agent (‘commissioned and sent by Christ Jesus’) and of possession (‘belonging to Christ Jesus’). The first is inherent in the concept of apostle as shaliaḥ. See below, Special Note on , 34. The second is implicit in Paul’s understanding of his apostleship as a gift and status within the corporate body of Christ. See below, 41-46. On the meaning of  and  see below on 1:2. Whether  is for Paul only a personal name35 or whether it continues to have messianic connotations36 depends not only on the Greek grammar and syntax or on the absence of a clear equation of  with Messiah, largely arguments from silence, but more importantly on the context and on the broader theological connotations of passages in which  appears. The Apostle’s conception of the corporate Christ and of existence ‘in Christ’37 and especially his use of  in connection with messianic biblical texts38 show that he continues to understand  within the 35   So, N. Dahl, ‘The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul’, Jesus the Christ, Minneapolis MN 1991, 15-25; M. Hengel, ‘ “Christos” in Paul’, From Jesus to Paul, London 1983, 65-77; M. de Jonge, ‘The Earliest Christian Use of Christos’, Christian Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Leiden 1991, 102-124 = NTS 32 (1986), 321-343. 36   So, N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and Law in Pauline Theology, Edinburgh 1991, 41-49; cf. C. M. Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament, Edinburgh 2001, 46-49. See also below, AE XI, ###; W. Grundmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 9 (1974), 493-580 (540-562). For higher connotations cf. Rom 9:5; Cranfield, Romans (note 1), II, 464-470. 37   E.g. 15:18, 22; 16:24. Cf. S. A. Son, ‘The   Formula and Related Terms’, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology, Rome 2001, 7-38; Ellis, Interpreters, 31-34; idem, Theology, 10-13; idem, ‘The Corporate Christ’; idem, ‘The Believer’s Corporate Existence in Christ’, Christ, 36f., 148-154; idem, Paul’s Use, 136; C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Corporate Christ’, The Origin of Christology, Cambridge 21978, 47-96. See below, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-###. See below, note 84 on 1:2. 38   E.g. ‘Christ our paschal lamb’ (5:7; cf. Mt 26:18,26-30 parr; Exod 12:1-20) and ‘the rock was Christ’ (10:4; cf. Exod 17:6; Num 20:10f.; Ps 78:15-20) have typological connotations that extend the meaning of the word  beyond that of a personal name. See below, ‘A Note on I Cor 10:4’, ‘ in I Cor 10:4, 9’, AE X and XI, ###-###, ###-###.

8

1 CORINTHIANS

framework of the earlier messianic use of the term in the ministry of Jesus39 and, as Luke presents it, in the teaching of the early Jerusalem church.40    = ‘through the will of God’, operative already for Paul from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15f.), quite apart from personal will or merit. See below, ; below, Special Note on , 31-47. Paul makes no distinction here between the will of God the Father and that of Christ Jesus, whose apostle he is. Cf. 8:6. His call is ‘through an express intervention of divine will’41 that is so firmly set in his consciousness that the same phrase frequently opens his letters.42 ‘By his own will Paul would never have become an apostle’43 for ‘it is God who has willed that [Paul] should be what he is’.44 As with Jeremiah (1:8; 20:7, 9), it was not Paul’s ‘free’ choice but God’s purpose: He believed because he was chosen; he was not chosen because he believed. Cf. 9:16f.; Acts 9:15f.   , almost certainly the Corinthian synagogue official whose conversion Acts (18:17) may hint at, if it is ‘Jews’ (mss 63, 453) who beat him after Gallio refuses to hear the synagogue’s charge against Paul; less so if it is ‘Greeks’ (mss D E 33 1739) who beat him. Sosthenes was a rare Greek name at that time,45 and its striking two-fold occurrence here and in Paul’s mission to Corinth in Acts is hardly coincidental. Sosthenes was a Corinthian convert serving as the Apostle’s co-worker in Ephesus, and Paul’s mention of him as a co-sender was both tactful and appropriate   E.g. Mt 16:13-16 T + Q; 22:41-45 T + Q; 26:63f. T + Q.   Acts 2:30-36; 3:18ff.; in Paul’s preaching: Acts 9:20ff.; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 26:22f. 41   Findlay, 757. 42   II Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; II Tim 1:1. Cf. Gal 1:1: ‘through Jesus Christ and God the Father’; Meyer, 9. 43   Bengel, 166. 44   Godet, I, 39. 45   The TLG gives only one other occurrence between 100 BC–AD 150: Diodorus Siculus (c. 80–20 BC), World History 22, 4, 1, re a Macedonian army commander (c. 275 BC; cf. Loeb). Of 58 ‘matches’ in the late second (to early third) century AD, 52 are from one (pornographic) novel of Achilles Tatius (cf. OCD3, 7). Cf. BC IV, 228; Lightfoot, 143f. 39 40



I

9

in approaching a sensitive church.46 ‘The brother’ is frequently used not only for ‘fellow Christian’ but also, with the article, for Paul’s ‘co-worker’. It is so used here and of Apollos at 16:12.47 Less clear are the conjectures that Sosthenes was Paul’s secretary, already by Michaelis (179), or his co-author in the composition of I Corinthians.48 After mentioning him, Paul immediately returns to the singular (1:4). 2.        . , Paul’s usual term for the church, may refer, as it does here, to a number of house congregations of Christians in a city or district as a particular local manifestation of the whole organizational church.49 It may also be used of a single house assembly.50 Or it may refer to the organic church, i.e. all elect believers as the body of Christ;51 or, in the singular52 or plural,53 to organized assemblies wherever they existed. Like the term ‘synagogue’,  was used for professional and social clubs in the Roman world,54 which were also

  A. F. Walls in NBD, 1124.   Cf. also II Cor 1:1; Gal 1:2; Phil 4:21f.; Col 1:1f.; Heb 3:1; Rev 22:9; BT Sanhedrin 11a,b. See Ellis, DPL (note 25), 183-189, 183f.; idem, History, 87; idem, Prophecy, 13-22; C. H. Dodd in BTr 27 (1976), 310f. On its possibly similar use in pagan collegia cf. P. A. Harland, ‘…“Brothers” () in Associations of the Greek East’, JBL 124 (2005), 491-513. See below on 1:10, notes 57, 58. 48   So, Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Co-authorship in the Corinthian Correspondence’, Keys, 110, re 1:18-31 and 2:6-16. But see S. Byrskog, ‘Co-senders, Co-authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural’, ZNTW 87 (1996) 230-250 (249). 49   The participle underscores this: ‘the one existing in Corinth’. So, II Cor 1:1; for Jerusalem, Acts 1:22; similar, Acts 8:1; 13:1 (Antioch); Rom 16:1 (Cenchreae); I Thess 2:14 (Judaea). See below on 1:11. Cf. K. L. Schmidt, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 501-536, 506, 531; Mt 18:20. On house congregations at Corinth see above, Introduction, ###-###. 50   E.g. 11:18; 14:23, 28, 35; 16:19; Rom 16:5, 23; Col 4:15; Plm 2; cf. Rom 16:23; I Cor 4:17; Mt 18:20. Pace R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, Grand Rapids 1980, 34-42, Paul does not restrict the term or the concept to a local manifestation. Cf. Witherington, 90-93. 51   12:28; 15:9; Gal 1:13; Eph 5:23-32; Phil 3:6; Col 1:18, 24. 52   E.g. 10:32; 12:28; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6; cf. Mt 16:18. 53   E.g. 11:16; 14:33f.; II Thess 1:4; cf. Heb 12:23. 54   E.g. CIG 2271 (c. 150 BC, ); OGIS 573 (). Cf. Ellis, ‘The Social Place of the Church in the Roman World’, Theology, 123-147; see above, Introduction, ###-###. It could also be used for any assembly of people; cf. 46 47

10

1 CORINTHIANS

religious in that they were associated with some god or goddess.55 Christian assemblies were sometimes called ‘synagogues’56 or ‘houses’, but  was virtually the universal choice.57 Why? In part it may have been to distinguish Christian from unbelieving Jewish congregations: At Corinth itself, in or near Paul’s day, there was a marble door-lintel inscribed ‘Synagogue of the Hebrews’.58 This illustrates the larger fact that  in its religious connotation was often employed in contemporary Judaism for a single worship building or assembly.59 In Philo, however, both it60 and  61 sometimes denote the whole people of God. While

Acts 19:32, 39, 41. For the LXX and Qumran usage cf. W. Schrage, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971), 798-841, 802-805, 809f. Cf. Trench, 1-7: , , . 55   E.g. the silversmiths of Ephesus (Acts 19:24-27). 56   E.g. Jas 2:2; Ignatius, To Polycarp 4:2; Shepherd of Hermas, Mandates 11:9, 13f. A heretical sect, the Ebionites, even to the fourth century ‘call their church a synagogue’ (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 18, 2). Cf. Rev 2:9; 3:9, where ‘synagogue of Satan’, pace apparently all the commentaries, refers not to Jews but probably to heretical, i.e. judaizing-gnosticizing Christian congregations whose leaders, like those in Tit 1:11, had subverted the congregation from John’s true gospel (cf. I Jn 2:19). Paul labels such leaders similarly as ‘servants of Satan’ (II Cor 11:14f.). But neither he nor any other NT writer refers to unbelieving or rejecting Jewish synagogues with demonic accusations. The nearest is Mt 23:32-36 of particular Jewish opponents. Cf. C. Vitringa cited in Alford IV, 566; E. Burton, An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Oxford 1829, 455 (on Rev 2:9). See below on 9:19-22, note 396. 57   Cf. Schrage, 22; Conzelmann, 22n = GT: 35n. But, pace Schrage and Conzelmann, there is no evidence that the choice of  arose from questions about the Jewish ritual law.  was used by the ritually strict mission of James (cf. Mt 16:18; 18:16; Jas 5:14) no less than by the ritually lax mission of Paul. Only the literature of the Petrine mission (Mark; I-II Peter) lacks the term. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 235f.; idem, Making, 307-319; idem, Prophecy, 116-128. Although dated, still useful is Trench (note 54). See below on 3:16. 58   [] []. See Illustration I, ###. Cf. CIJ I, 518, §718 (dated by the editor to AD 100–200); Schürer III, 65. 59   Cf. L. H. Feldman and M. Reinhold, ‘Synagogues in the Roman Empire’, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans, Minneapolis 1996, 67-72; Schrage (note 54), 798-841 (806ff.). See below, note 145. 60   Philo, de post. Cain. 67; de agric. 44, both citing Num 27:16f. (‫)עדת יהוה‬. 61   Philo, leg. alleg. III, 8, 81; de post. Cain. 177, etc., all citing Dt 23:1-4 (‫קהל יהוה‬, 23:2); cf. also de virt. 108 (‘If [an Egyptian] should wish to pass over into the Jewish community [],…[he is to be] invited into the



I

11

no answer is certain,  was probably preferred by the Christians because the term was free of contemporary Jewish ecclesiastical connotations and was a biblical term that could identify them with the faithful remnant of the people of God. Both terms have their background in the OT and in intertestamental Judaism and occur in the LXX as translations of the Hebrew ‫‘( קהל‬to assemble’, ‘assembly’, ‘congregation’, ‘the whole of Israel’). The word, ‫‘( עדה‬group’, ‘assembly’, ‘the whole of Israel’), is often translated in the LXX by , apparently with little distinction in meaning.62 At Qumran, however, ‫ עדת ישׂראל‬and ‫עדת אל‬ or, in Greek,    designate not the whole of Israel but, at times, the Qumran community, the faithful remnant.63    = ‘church of God’ is used in the NT only by Paul.64 It designates both a local congregation and the whole organizational church and probably originated from the OT ‫ עדת יהוה‬and ‫‘( קהל יהוה‬assembly of Yahweh’ or ‘whole people of Yahweh’).65 But like Qumran, the Christians and perhaps Jesus himself (Mt 16:18) used the term to designate themselves as the

assembly’ []) with Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians where the  of Israel (2:12) is equivalent to the universal  (cf. 5:32). Cf. M. Barth, Ephesians, 2 vols., New York 1974, I, 256-260 (on 2:12); T. K. Abbott, Epistle to the Ephesians, Edinburgh 1897, 59f. In Eph 2:13ff. ‘we have two points of view combined, viz. the reconciliation of the Gentiles to God, and their admission to the  of Israel, namely the true Israel—the Christian Church’. See below, note 66. 62   Cf. KBR, 789f., 1079f.; cf. Schmidt, ‘’ (note 100), 525-529; D. Levy and J. Milgrom, ‘‫’עדה‬, TDOT 10 (1999), 468-480, 475f.; Schrage (note 105), 802f.  is frequently the LXX translation of the Hebrew ‫עדה‬ (‘group’, ‘assembly’);  never is. Cf. H & R,2 Appendix 4, 316. 63   1QSa 1:1; 1QM 4:9; cf. H. J. Fabry, ‘‫’עדה‬, TDOT 10 (1999), 480f.; Schrage (note 54), 809f.; I. H. Marshall, ‘The Biblical Use of the Word ‘Ekklesia’, ET 84 (1982–83), 359-364. 64   1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; II Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; I Thess 2:14; II Thess 1:4; I Tim 3:5, 15. The sole occurrence of the phrase in Acts (20:28) is in a speech of Paul. Cf. Thrall, ‘   in Paul’ (note 57), I, 89-93. Paul uses this phrase in the address of his letters only in I and II Corinthians. 65   In Lev 16:17 (‫ )קהל ישׂראל‬and Dt 23:2 (‫ )קהל יהוה‬the qahal has an inclusive or universal rather than a purely local sense. Cf. Thrall (note 153), I, 93; Hering, 1f.; see above, notes 49-52; below on 10:1, note 454.

12

1 CORINTHIANS

faithful remnant of God’s people, ‘the Israel of God’,66 ‘continuous with the congregation of Israel’67…  . See above, notes 49, 58; Introduction, ###-###.    . The verb  occurs in eight Pauline passages, here in the perfect passive and once elsewhere in the aorist passive68 where the subject is believers, i.e. God’s elect (  ).69 The term ‘belongs almost exclusively to biblical Greek’, and its OT background, which Paul assumes but does not express, lies in the term ‫קדשׁ‬.70 In that conception God or his representative ‘makes holy’, e.g. his people, an action that involves a dedication or ‘transfer to the possession of God, to whom the person or thing dedicated now exclusively belongs’.71 Because this holiness constitutes a relationship to God, it has not only dedicatory 66   Gal 6:16. So, Justin, Dial. 11:5; Chrysostom, ad loc. (cf. ANF I, 200; NPNF1 XIII, 47); M. Luther, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, London 1953 (1535), 565; J. Calvin, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, Grand Rapids 1976 (1548), 118; Alford, III, 65f.; Lightfoot (note 106), 224f.: ‘The “Israel of God” is in implied contrast to the “Israel after the flesh” (I Cor 10:18)’; T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, Wuppertal 1990 (31922), 284ff.; W. Gutbrod, ‘’, TDNT3 (1965/1938), 369-391, 387f.; Ellis, ‘The True Israel’, Paul’s Use, 136-139; J. Jocz, A Theology of Election: Israel and the Church, London 1958, 127-155; H. N. Ridderbos, ‘The Future of Israel’, Paul, Grand Rapids 1975, 354-361 = DT: 396-403; cf. 328-333 = DT: 365-371; W. G. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, Nashville TN 1973, 211 = GT: 188; U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus, Munich 1968, 270; R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, Grand Rapids 1988, 310ff.; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, Waco TX 1990, 296-299. Otherwise: J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, London 1993, 345f. and the literature cited. See below on 10:1, note 454. Earlier, cf. F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, London 1898, 92-134. 67   W. Horbury, ‘Septuagintal and New Testament Conceptions of the Church’, Messianism among Jews and Christians, London 2003, 255-272 (268). 68   I.e. 6:11 (‘You were made holy… in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit…’); cf. Rom 15:16; I Tim 4:5; II Tim 2:21. When the subject is God or Christ, the verb is active: Eph 5:26; I Thess 5:23. See below on 6:11 and 7:14. Cf. Acts 20:32: ‘…among all those who have been made holy’. 69   Col 3:12; cf. Rom 8:33; II Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1. See below, ###, on 1:26f. 70   O. Procksch, ‘’, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 88-97, 100-115, 111. 71   BDB, 872f.; cf. KBR, 1072-1075: ‘set apart as sacred’, ‘dedicate’, ‘consecrate’; Procksch (note 70), 91. Cf. e.g. Exod 19:5f., 10, 14; 31:13. Hebrews (2:11; 9:13ff.; 10:5-10) draws out the typological relationship: the holiness that the OT sacrificial system typically and temporarily effected was accomplished once



I

13

but also ethical connotations.72 Paul’s usage also has here ethical implications and a causative force: ‘to make holy’ (),73 and the perfect passive an implied divine reference: ‘having been and continuing to be made holy by God (or by Christ)’.74 ‘Holiness is received not achieved’, and it has been received already ‘in Christ Jesus’, i.e. corporately, for all whom God has chosen and called.75   . Frequently in this order, suggesting some continuing titular connotation of  = ‫‘( משׁיח‬anointed one’, ‘Messiah’). The term is never related to persons in classical Greek as it is in the LXX and other early Jewish literature. In Paul it is related to the usage in Gospel traditions,76 and in the OT.77 The latter concerns primarily the royal anointing of David as Yahweh’s Anointed (‫משׁיח יהוה‬, I Sam 16:6, 12f.). The substantive became a title for David and for the Davidic kings78 and, in time, a technical term, Messiah = Christ, for a future Davidic king who would accomplish the salvation of Israel.79 for all () by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (10:10). Cf. L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1982, 163-170, 168ff. = GT: 196-205, 203ff. 72   Cf. Exod 29:43ff.; Lev 11:44; 19:2; 20:26; Ps 68:18; II Chron 6:18. Similar, Mt 5:48. See below on 11:1. 73   Cf. Robertson, 149f.; Moulton, II, 409f., who recognize that verbs with – termination may have a causative idea although they cite only – verbs with this sense. 74   Since God or Christ is the subject when the verb is active. See above, note 68; Moule, 26; cf. BDF, 164, 176. See Thiselton, 76f.; below on 2:6, note 410. 75   Cf. 1:24, 27f.; Rom 1:1, 6f.; Eph 1:4; Phil 1:1; Conzelmann, 21 = GT: 34; Procksch (note 70), 112. But see below on 4:16; 11:1. 76   E.g. Mt. 16:16, 20 parr; 22:42-45 parr (cf. Ps 110:1); 26:63ff. parr (cf. Ps 110:1; Dan 7:13); 27:17, 22; Mk 15:32 par; Lk 4:18 () = Is 61:1f.; 24:25ff.; Jn 1:41; 4:25f.; 6:69; 7:26-42; 11:27; 20:31; cf. Mt 1:16; 2:4; Lk 2:11; Ellis, Luke, 82, 139f. 77   1:30 (Jer 23:5f.); 15:25; Eph 1:20 (Ps 110:1); Rom 15:8f. (Ps 18:50); II Cor 6:18 (II Sam 7:14); See below on 10:4, 9, ###-###; AE XI, ###-###. 78   II Sam 19:21; 7:14 with I Kg 1:32-39; II Chron 6:42; 23:11; Pss 2:2, 6f.; 18:50; 89:20, 38; 132:10ff. (Lam 4:20); cf. I Kg 1:32ff.; II Chron 23:11; Ps 45:7. 79   Proleptically and typologically in the Royal Psalms (e.g. Pss 2; 45; 72; 110). Further, I Sam 2:10 (cf. Lk 1:46-55; Ellis, Luke, 72f., 75); Dan 9:24ff. (cf. 1:30; II Cor 5:17; Mt 24:15 parr); cf. Ps 110:1. The DSS anticipate, in addition to a Davidic ‘Messiah of Israel’, a Messiah of Aaron: 4QFlor 1:11; 4QTest 9-13, 14-20); cf. 1QS 9:11; CD 12:23; 14:19; 19:10f. Cf. F. Hesse et al., ‘,

14

1 CORINTHIANS

, i.e. ‫‘ = ישׁוע‬Yahweh is salvation’, a personal name that in English translation is Joshua in the OT and Jesus in the NT. It is commanded to be given to Christ at Lk 1:31; 2:21; Mt 1:21: ‘You shall call his name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins’. The saving character of the individual so named was present already in pre-Christian Judaism.80 Paul uses the name some 220 times, almost always together with ‘Christ’.81 The dative (  is not instrumental or means but is a locative of sphere82 that expresses ‘the place’ of the corporate (not ‘mystical’) existence of believers and thus ‘the place’ where their corporate holiness has been effected even while its full individual actualization awaits the future consummation.83 This conception of existence ‘in Christ’ is rooted in the Semitic, specifically the OT conception of corporate personality that is given its most elaborate NT application to the corporate Christ in the letters of Paul.84 It is ’, TDNT 9 (1974), 493-580, 517-520; W. C. van Unnik, ‘Jesus the Christ’, Sparsa Collecta, 3 vols., Leiden 1983, II, 248-268 (252f.); C.A. Evans, ‘The Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Israel’s Messiah, edd. R.S. Hess et al., Grand Rapids 2003, 85-101, and the literature cited. 80   Cf. Ben Sira = Sirach = Ecclus 46:1: ‘Joshua…became in accordance with his name, a great savior of [God’s] elect…’; Philo, Ques Exod II, 43; cf. E. Carpenter, ‘‫’יהושׁוע‬, NIDOTTE 4 (1997), 808ff.; Billerbeck I, 61-67; W. Foerster, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 284-293; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., Edinburgh 1997, I, 209, 132. For Jesus’ ‘saving’ role cf. Rom 5:9f.; 10:9; I Tim 1:15; Mt 8:25; 9:21 par; 14:30, 36 par; 18:11 D M; Mk 3:4 par; Lk 8:50; 9:56 K sy it; 19:10; Jn 3:17; Acts 4:9-12; 15:11; 16:30f.; Heb 7:25. Together with his role as Destroyer cf. 10:9f.; Jas 5:12 and Jude 5 p72 A B 33 with Mt 25:31-34, 41; Acts 10:42; II Cor 5:10; see below, AE XI, ###. 81   Exceptions: (5:4f.); 11:23; 12:3; Rom 8:11; 10:9; 14:14; II Cor 1:14; 4:5b, 10f., 14; 11:4; Gal 6:17; Eph 1:15; 4:21; Phil 2:10, 19; Col 3:17; I Thess 1:10; 2:15; 4:1f., 14; II Thess 1:7; Plm 5. 82   Pace Conzelmann, 21 = GT: 34. Cf. Robertson, 521f. The convincing argument for the locative force of the phrase was that of A. Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’, Marburg 1892, esp 77-98; more recently, cf. Son (note 37), 23-28. See below on 1:30; on 9:17-18, note 357. 83   See below on 6:11. 84   E.g. 1:4, 30; 3:1; 4:10, 15, 17; 15:18, 22; Rom 3:24; 8:1; 12:5; 16:7; II Cor 5:17; Eph 2:6, 10, 13, 15; 4:13ff.; cf. Col 3:3 with Rom 6:11; I Thess 1:1 with 2:14. Cf. Gal 2:19: ‘in the law’ vs ‘in God’; I Tim 2:15. See above, notes 37, 82; below on 1:5; E. Best, Ephesians, Edinburgh 1998, 401f. On the background cf. A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, Cardiff



I

15

related to, and may be the basis for, the Apostle’s understanding of believers as ‘the temple of God’ and ‘the body of Christ’.85  ,  i.e. ‘to the holy ones in virtue of the divine calling’, or ‘to the called saints’. What is said above (on 1:1) of Paul’s apostleship is affirmed here of the effectual call of the recipients of the letter. In popular parlance today ‘saints’ is used for Christians who are more advanced toward individual holiness. But in NT usage all Christians are ‘saints’, i.e. corporately holy, set apart in ‘consecration and devotion to the service of Deity’ (Trench), ‘in Christ’ and destined to be made individually holy.86           . ‘All who call upon the name of the Lord’ is a phrase taken from Joel where eschatological salvation is assured to all who call upon the name of Yahweh.87 This is one of a number UK 21961, 1-13; idem, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, Cardiff UK 1955, 2f., 24-27, 116, 125, 128f.; H. W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, Philadelphia 1964 (1936). Otherwise: J. W. Rogerson, Anthropology and the Old Testament, Oxford 1978, 56f., which assumes the nominalist mindset of the modern West and which, unlike Johnson, lacks an exegesis of the relevant biblical texts. It is answered by A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody, Cardiff UK 1979, 10f. Cf. Ellis, History, 118ff.; idem, Old Testament, 110ff.; Son (note 37). See below on 1:9, 30; 8:12. 85   See below on 3:16; 10:16; 12:27. 86   Cf. 3:17; 6:1f.; 7:14; 14:33; 16:1, 15; Rom 1:7; 8:27; 12:1, 13; 15:25f., 31; 16:2, 15; Eph 1:1, 4; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; Mt 27:52; Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10; Heb 6:10; I Pet 1:15f.; Jude 3, 14; Rev 14:12; 19:8. Cf. Trench, 331; see above on . In Judaism, cf. Billerbeck II, 691ff. on Acts 9:13. 87   Joel 2:32 (LXX and ET) = 3:5 (MT): ‫כל אשׁר יקרא בשׁם יהוה‬. Paul quotes Joel 2:32 explicitly in Rom 10:13. The phrase, ‘to call on the name of Yahweh’, occurs in prayer about a dozen times in the OT, mainly in Genesis and Psalms; in reference to eschatological, i.e. final salvation only a few times, e.g. Isa 12:4; Joel 2:32 = MT 3:5; Zeph 3:9. In Peter’s Pentecostal exposition the phrase in Joel 2:32 is also cited, and the prophecy that Yahweh will pour out his Spirit is then said to be the act of Jesus (Acts 2:17, 21, 33). ‘Those who call upon (the name of the Lord)’ designates Christians in Acts 9:14, 21; II Tim 2:22. On ‘the name’ of Yahweh as his person, power, etc. cf. H. Bietenhard, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 255-261, 271-280; idem, ‘Name’, NIDNTT II, 648-656; Johnson, The One and the Many (note 84), 17ff.; BDAG, 712: ‘[The usage] sees…in the name something real, a piece of the very nature of the personality’. Further, see below on 1:10, ###; on 5:4. Cf. the hymn At the Name of Jesus by C. M. Noel (1817–77).

16

1 CORINTHIANS

of places where Paul interprets and applies to ‘our Lord () Jesus Christ’ OT texts referring to Yahweh (LXX: ).88 It is clearest perhaps at Rom 10:9, 13, where to confess Jesus as Lord means, in Paul’s exegesis, to confess Jesus as Yahweh.89 But it is also alluded to here: In Paul’s theology there is an identity cum distinction between Yahweh and the Lord Jesus Christ. The clause is usually understood to expand the address to Corinth to include all Christians everywhere. This meaning is not impossible. Paul, writing from Ephesus, probably anticipated that congregations in that area would want a copy of his letter and that those in Achaia would rapidly duplicate it.90 So, he may perhaps have added the clause to include them by inference. Also, Paul later refers to ‘all (his) churches’ to remind the Corinthians that his core teachings are the same for all,91 and he mentions all congregations in Achaia in his address in II Cor 1:1. Nevertheless, I Corinthians throughout is, unlike Ephesians or Romans, specifically addressed to issues in the congregations92 at Corinth. It is hardly appropriate for a general address to all Christians   . Therefore, it is better to connect the clause not with  but with  :93 ‘the called holy ones together with all those who call upon the name of the Lord in every place’.   . The phrase could mean ‘everywhere’ (, but the more specific and traditional Jewish terminology probably refers to the congregational meeting place. For the Jews, it was the

  Cf. D. B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, Tübingen 1992, 90-183, 116-123; Ellis, Christ, 77f. On the abbreviation of the divine names , , , , and variants among them in the mss cf. J. K. Elliott, ‘The Divine Names in the Corinthian Letters’, Paul and the Corinthians. FS M. E. Thrall, edd. T. J. Burke et al., Leiden 2003, 3-15. 89   Rom 10:13 cites Joel 2:32 = MT: 3:5 (LORD = Yahweh) as a biblical confirmation of Rom 10:9. See above, note 87; below on 2:16. Cf. L. Morris, Romans, Grand Rapids 1988, 384-388; Cranfield (note 1), II, 529-532. 90   See above, Introduction II B, ###-###. 91   E.g. 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33b; cf. 16:1. 92   See below on 1:11; Introduction above, ‘Corinth: the Church’, ###. 93   So, Godet, I, 44f.; similar, Heinrici, 42; R & P, 2f. Otherwise: Lightfoot, 145f. 88



I

17

synagogue;94 for Paul, the Christian house churches ‘in every place’ of his mission.95    = ‘theirs and ours’. Does it refer to ‘place’ (), the immediate antecedent,96 or to the Lord?97 The former best fits the Greek syntax, avoids a redundant  … , and offers the best meaning of the phrase, but it leaves unresolved the meaning of ‘place’. The result has been a centuries-long intellectual guessing game. Is it geographical—Corinth (Achaia) and Ephesus (Asia)? Is it theological—the ritually strict Hebraist and the ritually lax Hellenist Christians? ‘Theirs’ is hardly the mission or congregations of the judaizing-gnosticizing opponents of the four allied missions of James, John, Peter, and Paul.98 Another suggestion can be made. Other allied Christian missions were likely then active in the Aegean area, including the Jacobean,99 94   For the Jewish use of the Hebrew ‫ מקום‬and the Aramaic ‫‘( אתרא‬place’ = LXX: ) for the synagogue cf. E. L. Sukenik, ‘Inscriptions’, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece, London 1934, 69-77, 71: ‘these inscriptions almost invariably designate the synagogues by the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word for “place” (, ‫אתרה‬, ‫’)מקום‬. Cf. Philo, in Flac. 49; idem, Quod Omnis Prob. 81: ‘[On the Sabbath the Essenes], proceeding to sacred places () that they call synagogues (’. Further, J. B. Frei, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions. I. Europe, New York 1975 (1936), 505, §694; S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertumer, Hildesheim 1966 (1922), 24, 436f.; Juster, I, 459; Heinrici, 43; Wendland, 11; Lietzmann - Kümmel, 166; Manson, 208f.; Barrett, 33f.; Fee, 34; Schrage, 105. So also, II Cor 2:14 refers primarily to every synagogue or house-church where Paul preaches, and I Thess 1:8 to every house-church of the Pauline mission. See above, note 90. 95   Cf. II Cor 2:14; I Thess 1:8; I Tim 2:8. Further, cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp, Preface. 96   So, the Bohairic Coptic (Horner, 117); Jerome’s Vulgate: ‘in omni loco ipsorum et nostro’; Tyndale; Alford, II, 474; Kling, 21; Meyer, 11ff.; Heinrici, 43; Lang, 17; cf. Schlatter, 58-61; Schrage, I, 104. 97   So, The Peshito Syriac (Murdock, 302); Chrysostom, in loc. (NPNF1 XII, 3f.); Calvin, 19; Lightfoot, 146; Godet, I, 46f.; R & P, 3; Allo, 3; Barrett, 34; Collins, 53; Thiselton, 77f., and the literature cited by each. For a number of commentators this choice has been the result of despair at finding a clear and certain meaning for ‘place’. 98   See Ellis, ‘The Opposition Common to the Missions’, Making, 314-318. 99   Cf. 9:5: ‘the brothers of the Lord’, who presumably were active in the ritually strict mission of James, based on Jerusalem but evangelizing not only in ‘Antioch and Syria and Cilicia’ but also in the Aegean cities. Cf. Acts 15:23; Gal 2:12; Jas 1:1; Ellis, Making, 258n, 263f., 288-293.

18

1 CORINTHIANS

Petrine,100 and that of Barnabas.101 From references to them in I Corinthians one may conclude that they were known to the Corinthian congregations founded by Paul. If so, these missions probably also had established churches, i.e. meeting places (), in the provinces of Achaia and of Asia that could well be designated ‘theirs’ in distinction from ‘ours’, i.e. congregations founded by the Pauline mission. 3.            .102 ‘Grace to you and peace’ is the core salutation of virtually all New Testament letters.103 The order is significant. ‘Grace’ is the ground of salvation and the hallmark of the Christian gospel;104 to it is added ‘peace’ ( = ‫ )שׁלום‬the traditional Jewish greeting, which in its biblical roots is also the promise of salvation.105 Both are ‘from God our Father’ and from his Messiah, 100   1:12-17 (12): ‘I am of Cephas’ (NKJV); 9:5: ‘to take along a sister, a wife, as [does]…Cephas [= Peter]’. That Peter’s mission (like that of Apollos, 16:12; Acts 19:1) included Corinth cf. Ellis, Making, 264ff., 366f.; T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, Manchester UK 1962, 39. It cannot be determined whether the squabbling among some Corinthians (see on 1:12-17) only involved Paul’s congregations (see on 1:11) or whether it also possibly involved a housechurch in Corinth founded by Peter. 101   Cf. 9:6. 102   Verbatim with 1:3 are Rom 1:7; II Cor 1:2; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:2; Plm 3. With ms variants from 1:3 are Gal 1:3; Col 1:2; I Thess 1:1; II Thess 1:2. With verbal variations are I Tim 1:2; II Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4; I Pet 1:2; II Pet 1:2; II Jn 3; Rev 1:4. Hebrews and I John have more the form of homilies than of letters, and they lack an epistolary salutation. On ‘father’ see below on 4:15, note 915. 103   Exceptions are the letter of James (1:1) and the summarized letters of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:23) and of the Roman tribune Claudius Lycius (Acts 23:26), where the common Greco-Roman letter opening,  (‘Greetings’; cf. BDAG, 1075), is used. III John is similar; cf. R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John, New York 1982, 727f. In the letters of Ignatius and in Barn 1:1 the Graeco-Roman  is found; but see I Clement, Preface; Polycarp, ad Phil., Preface. 104   Cf. Jn 1:17; Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; 5:15, 20f.; Eph 2:8; II Tim 1:9ff.; Tit 3:4-7. Cf. H. Conzelmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 9 (1974), 391-399: ‘In Paul  is a central concept that most clearly expresses his understanding of the salvation event’ (393); J. A. Robinson, Epistle to the Ephesians, London 1961 (21909), 221-228. 105   Cf. J. Petersen, ‘Peace and Salvation’, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 4 vols. in 2, London 1959 (21926). I-II, 311-335; G. von Rad, ‘‫ שׁלום‬in the Old Testament’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 402-406 (405): ‘The name [‫שׂר שׁלום‬, “prince of peace”], Isa 9:5] tells us that the One who bears God’s commission (‫)שׂר‬, the Messiah, is the



I

19

who in the NT is revealed to be ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’. The salutation is not mere words, nor is it a magical formula at man’s disposal. When it is spoken in the Spirit and by the Spirit, however, it mediates the realities of God’s grace and peace to the recipients who have God-given ears to hear (Rom 10:17). See above, 3-5, notes 1-9; below on 1:21, notes 238f. Special Note on  The term ‘apostle’ is closely related to the verb form  ‘to send’. ‘Applied to a person, it denotes more than  [i.e. “messenger”]. The “Apostle” is not only the messenger, but the delegate of the one who sends him. He is entrusted with a mission, has powers conferred upon him.’106 The word is found occasionally in classical and Hellenistic Greek writings but with little significance for NT usage.107 Three possible sources of the NT concept of apostle have been given considerable attention: CynicStoic philosophy, the Gnostic movement and the Jewish institution of the commissioned representative. The closest formal conceptual parallel, although not using the term , is the self-perception of the Cynic philosopher as one whom ‘God has sent’ () to be ‘the messenger, the scout () and the proclaimer of the gods’, who becomes the instructor of men.108 On the other hand, the Cynic-Stoic philosophy Guarantor and Guardian of peace in the coming Messianic kingdom’; W. Foerster, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 406-420 (415): among other things ‘it indicates the eschatological salvation of the whole man, which is already present as the power of God’. See above, 3-5, notes 1-9. 106   J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Peabody MA 1994 12 ( 1896, 11865), 92. 107   Usually related to sea voyages, it may designate such things as an envoy (Herodotus, History 1, 21), an embassy (Herodotus, History 5, 38) a naval expedition (Demosthenes, Orator 18, 80; cf. 3, 5), colonists (Dionysius Halicarnassus, Roman History 9, 59, 2), a military envoy (cf. Anecdota Graeca, 3 vols., ed. I. Bekker, Graz 1965 [1814], I, 217, lines 26f.). Cf. K. H. Rengstorf, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 407-445 (407f.): unlike the NT, there is no institution nor authorization of the  in pagan Greek usage, only the quality of being sent. 108   Epictetus (c. AD 50–130), Discourses 3, 22, 46; 3, 22, 69. Cf. Rengstorf (note 107), 399, 409-413 (410); W. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church, Nashville 1969, 111-114 (111) = GT: 100-103 (100).

20

1 CORINTHIANS

‘was always a human program…[in which] the accent is still laid on human initiative and human judgment’. ‘[While the Cynic] belongs to the deity as  [“assistant”], he is never absolutely dependent on it as  [“slave”]; he rather stands alongside it… Hence the relationship of the messenger to the deity…is more like an agreement between two partners.’109 Consequently, the CynicStoic sage, although exhibiting formal similarities, is essentially quite different from the NT conception of . A second possible source, which received some attention in the mid-twentieth century by members of the Bultmann school, is the use of the term  in later Gnostic writings and the attribution of early Christian usage to a Gnostic origin.110 This viewpoint rests on the assumption, against the NT evidence, that the conception and usage of ‘apostle’ was not present in Jesus’ earthly ministry nor in the primitive Jerusalem church but that it arose among Christian missionaries in Antioch who, in turn, had borrowed it from a pre-Christian ‘Gnostic’ usage. The later Gnosticism was thought to reflect, in this respect, an earlier prototype.111 The Gnostic movement, however, is known only from Christian writings and from Gnostic texts that are later than and mostly dependent on NT documents;112 there is no clear evidence   Rengstorf (note 107), 412.   E.g. Schmithals (note 108), 92-95, 114-230 = GT: 81-84, 103-216. For a summary of the thesis and its advocates cf. F. H. Agnew, ‘The Origin of the New Testament Apostle-Concept: A Review of the Research’, JBL 105 (1986), 75-96, 85-90; further, J. A. Kirk, ‘Apostleship since Rengstorf’, NTS 21 (1974–75), 249-264. 111   Schmithals (note 108), 88-95, 92, 115, 147f., 181 = GT: 77-84, 81, 104f., 136, 168f., passim, who, writing within the Baur tradition and largely following the classical form criticism, exhibits an unwarranted skepticism toward the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (see below, note 137). He argues that ‘the only primitive Christian concept of the apostle…, namely the Pauline one, has nothing to do with the schaliach’. That is, he thinks that the authority of the shaliaḥ and of the apostle differs and identifies the nature of the shaliaḥ’s office with the kind of tasks given. But the relationship between the two figures was to be found in a comparison of their formal elements and not, as Schmithals thought, in their phenomenological characteristics. Also, ‘it is the relationship between sender and sent, not the content of the commission given, that is primarily important’ in the shaliaḥ convention (Agnew, note 110, 81). 112   Gnostic cults created and/or interpolated apocryphal Gospels attributed to apostles of Christ, e.g. the Gospel according to pseudo-Philip, the Gospel according to pseudo-Thomas. Cf. B. Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, New York 1995, 325-353, 376-399; M. L. Turner, The Gospel according to Philip, Leiden 109 110



I

21

for a pre-Christian Gnosticism.113 The hypothesis was basically an imaginative construct supported by relatively little contemporary historical data and that rather dubious. A third and the most probable hypothesis114 is that  in NT usage has its primary background in the Hebrew concept of the ‫ = שׁליח‬shaliaḥ.115 Its verbal form ‫‘( שׁלח‬to send’) was employed occasionally in the OT with a juridical connotation with reference to men sent by the king on a particular mission, e.g. ambassadors.116 1996; R. McL. Wilson, The Gospel of Philip, New York 1962; B. Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, London 1961. According to Eusebius (c. AD 260–340), the creation of false apostolic writings are imputed to Gnostic cults by Hegesippus (c. AD 150; HE 4, 22, 6) and by Dionysius of Corinth (c. AD 170; HE 4, 23, 12). Cf. also Tertullian, de Praescr. Haer. 30, 13; de carne Christi 2, 15. 113   So, S. Petrement, A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, San Francisco 1990, 1-26: ‘the principal myths and characteristics of Gnosticism can be understood on the basis of Christianity…’ (26); similarly, A. H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy, Edinburgh 1996, 19-23; see also E. M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, Grand Rapids 1973, 21-28, 161f., 163-186: The Reitzenstein–Bultmann hypothesis of a pre-Christian Gnosticism is ‘a house of cards’ (184). Cf. R. McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament, Oxford 1968, 1-30, 140-145: ‘Christianity emerged on the stage of history in much the same period [as Gnosticism]’ (144). See below, AE I, ###. Otherwise: K. Rudolph, Gnosis, Edinburgh 1983, 275-308, who appears to incorporate a variety of antecedent pre-Christian motifs under ‘Gnosis’. 114   First advanced, apparently, by John Lightfoot (II, 176, on Mt 10:1) and argued in the nineteenth century by Joseph B. Lightfoot, ‘The name and office of an Apostle’ (note 106), 92-101. 115   Although juridical in its origins, this would not have excluded religious connotations since in antiquity, unlike the modern period, there was no separation between ‘secular’ and religious categories. On the connotations of the term cf. Agnew (note 110), 93f.; C. K. Barrett, ‘Shaliaḥ and Apostle’, Donum Gentilicium. FS D. Daube, ed. E. Bammel, Oxford 1978, 88-102; J. A. Bühner, ‘’, EDNT I, 142-146. The concept has similarities with and differences from the Roman law de mandato (Barrett) and the modern law of agency. Cf. Gaius, Institutes III, § 155-162; Justinian, Institutes III, § 26; E. Poste and E. A. Whittuck, tr. and edd., Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius, London 41925, 378ff., 381-386; J. B. Moyle, Imperatoris Justiniani Institutionum, Oxford 51912, 449-455; H. F. Lusk, ‘Agency’, Business Law, Chicago IL 41951, 282-374: ‘When the principal is disclosed and the business is transacted in his name, the principal is bound if the agent is acting within the scope of his authority’ (305); H. C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, St. Paul MN 51979, 58: ‘Agency is the fiduciary relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act’. 116   I Sam 25:39-42; II Sam 10:2-5. Cf. K. H. Rengstorf, Apostolate and Ministry, St. Louis MO 1969, 26: although employing the verb form ‫שׁלה‬, ‘the

22

1 CORINTHIANS

This older practice apparently broadened into the more general sense of a commissioned agent or representative, and in I Kg 14:6f. it has a religious connotation; there the prophet is sent (‫ )שׁלוח‬by God to King Jeroboam’s wife with bad news for the king.117 This verbal employment of ‫ שׁלח‬for the sending of a commissioned agent, including the implication of the principal in the actions of his agent, also appears in the Qumran literature:118 ‘He shall send out (‫ )ישׁלח‬no stranger On his business on the sabbath day’. ‘No man shall send (‫ )ישׁלח‬to the altar any burnt offering… By the hand of one smitten with any uncleanness… Permitting him thus to defile the altar’. (D-A 11:2, 18ff. Vermes

[c. 50 BC]).

The term (and cognates) in rabbinic writings pointed to an established convention for a commissioned representative from the late second-century AD and was doubtless so utilized at the time of the ministries of Jesus and Paul.119 The rabbinic shaliaḥ, within the scope of his commission, was viewed as standing in the shoes of the principal: ‘A man’s agent (shaliaḥ) is as himself’.120

That is, ‘in anything that [the agent] says and does in accordance with his commission, to a certain extent embodies the one who sent [OT] existence of the institution itself is attested with absolute certainty’. Further, Rengstorf (note 107), I, 414. Cf. H. Volgelstein, ‘The Development of the Apostolate in Judaism and its Transformation in Christianity’, HUCA 2 (1925), 99-123: The institution of the apostle (‫ )שׁליח‬existed as early as I-II Chronicles (99). Cf. Ezra 7:14; II Chron 17:7. 117   Here the Greek rendering (I Kg = 3 Kgdm 14:6 LXX A; Aquila) of the verb form ‫ = שׁלוח‬shaluaḥ is the substantive ; so also Isa 18:2 Symmachus; cf. H & R, 145. Cf. Justin, Dial. 75, 3: ‘Isaiah (6:8, ‫ )שׁלחני‬shows that those prophets who are sent ()…from God are called his angels and apostles’ (). 118   Although the substantive ‫ שׁליח‬apparently is not present in the DSS. 119   Cf. Barrett (note 115), 96 (‘probably’); E. Lohse, Die Ordination im Spätjudentum und im Neuen Testament, Ann Arbor MI 1993 (1951), 61: ‘In the New Testament period the shaliaḥ institution in Judaism is in any case known everywhere’. 120   M Berakoth 5:5 and Mek Pisḥa 3, middle, on Exod 12:3; cf. M Rosh Hashanah 4:9; M Gittin 4:1; Billerbeck III, 2ff.



I

23

him’.121 Thus, the shaliaḥ could effect the betrothal (M Kiddushin 3:1) or divorce (M Gittin 4:1) of the principal and could serve as a substitute in religious ceremonies (M Rosh Hashanah 4:9). Even the high priest in his temple duties is a shaliaḥ of the Sanhedrin.122 But is the Hebrew term shaliaḥ in the rabbinic writings equivalent to the biblical Greek term ? The occasional Greek OT use of  represents a translation not of the Hebrew noun shaliaḥ but of the verb shaliaḥ. The rabbis do, however, employ the shaliaḥ convention in ways similar or equivalent to relationships and activities attributed to Jewish  by patristic writers. For example, they speak of shaluḥin, i.e. commissioned agents going out from Jerusalem to inform diaspora Jews of the day assigned as the New Moon so that they ‘might know the exact days of the festivals’.123 They attest to the antiquity of the custom by the additional comment, ‘And while the Temple still stood they went forth also…’,124 and by a saying attributed to Rabban Gamaliel:125 ‘The agent (‫ )ישׁלח‬of the congregation fulfills the obligation that rests upon the many’.126

Christian writers, using Greek, speak similarly of Jewish . The earliest reference occurs in a tradition,127 probably dating from the second century:128   Rengstorf (note 116), 26.   M Yoma 1:5. So, P. Blackman, ed., Mishnayoth, 7 vols., New York 21963, II, 275n. 123   Blackman (note 122), II, 383, on M Rosh Hashanah 1:3. 124   M Rosh Hashanah 1:3. Thus the reference reflects the period before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, viewed perhaps from a century or more later. 125   Either Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel I (fl AD 10–40; cf. Acts 5:34; 22:3) or his grandson, Gamaliel II (fl AD 75–100). 126   M Rosh Hashanah 4:9. Also, see above, note 122. 127   Cited by Eusebius in his commentary on Isa 18:1f. Cf. BEP 23 (1960), 80f. = MPG 24 (1857), 215f. For an informative discussion of the patristic evidence on Christian missionaries, including Christian and Jewish apostles, cf. E. J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2 vols., Downers Grove IL 2004, II, 923-1568; A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, 2 vols., tr. J. Moffatt, New York 21908, I, 319-368 = GT: Leipzig 4 1965 (1924), 332-379. Further, cf. S. Krauss, ‘Die jüdischen Apostel’, JQR 17 (1905), 370-383. 128   Judging from the similar comments, although not using the term ‘apostles’, in Justin, Dialogue with Trypho a Jew 17:1 (c. AD 150): ‘You selected and sent out () chosen men from Jerusalem into all the earth (  ) to 121 122

24

1 CORINTHIANS ‘In the writings of the ancients we find that the [Jewish] priests and elders…resident at Jerusalem drew up and dispatched () written instructions for the Jews throughout every country. Their apostles () also swarmed everywhere on earth calumniating the gospel of our Saviour. And even at the present day it is still the custom of the Jews to give the name of “apostle” to those who convey encyclical epistles from their rulers.’129

Similar comments are made by fourth-century Christian writers.130 Although the tasks of the rabbinic shaliaḥ differed from those of the NT apostle, it is not the particular task131 but the relationship of the sender and the one sent that defines and characterizes the institution of the shaliaḥ. That relationship is the determinative factor in deciding whether the NT concept of apostle has its background and origin in the OT and Jewish institution. In the NT the term  (‘one sent’), like the Hebrew shaliaḥ, is the substantive of the verb  (‘to send forth’) = the Hebrew shalaḥ. It designates primarily two types of ministry defined by the principal, i.e. the one who commissions the apostle. (1) The designation ‘apostle of Christ Jesus’ or its equivalent pertains to one commissioned directly by Jesus Christ; (2) the ‘apostle of the church(es)’ designates one commissioned by one or more churches, e.g. as a delegate or missionary.132 The first designation, which is our present concern, is frequently ascribed and applied by Paul to himself.133 It finds its significance in the modifier ‘Christ Jesus’, and is defined by Paul in terms of those who ‘have

tell that a godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up and to publish things… against us’. Cf. A. L. Williams, Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho, London 1930, 35. 129   Translation from Harnack (note 127), I, 59n. See above, note 127. 130   E.g. Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 11, 1ff. (Williams): ‘Judas, the patriarch, awarded [Josephus] the revenue of the apostolate (). He was sent () to Cilicia with a commission, and…collected the tithes and firstfruits from the Jews of the province…. (He was) very solemn…and immaculate, as apostles () are… And he purged and demoted many of the appointed synagogue-leaders, priests, elders…’ Cf. Juster, I, 405. 131   Pace Barrett (note 19), 97. See above, note 111. 132   See Rom 16:7; II Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25. On Rom 16:7 cf. Ellis, Theology, 66. 133   1:1; II Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; I Tim 1:1; II Tim 1:1; Tit 1:1; cf. Rom 1:1. Acts 14:4, 14 also probably refers to apostle of Jesus Christ since Luke-Acts uses the term ‘apostle’ only in this sense.



I

25

seen’ the risen Lord134 and, therefore, have been commissioned by him.135 During Jesus’ earthly ministry the term ‘apostle’ is applied only to those pupils whom Jesus sent out on mission. It is to these that Jesus speaks the words:136 ‘He who hears you hears me He who rejects you rejects me’. (Lk 10:16)

In this framework the ‘apostle of Jesus Christ’, then, is his authorized representative, bears his message and within the scope of the commission carries his authority, even as an ambassador carries the authority of his head of state. The same conception also underlies Paul’s comments about his own person and about his message: ‘You received me As the messenger () of God, as Christ Jesus’. (Gal 4:14) ‘When you received the Word of God, which you heard from us You received it not as a word of men But as it truly is, the Word of God’. (I Thess 2:13)

The relationship between Jesus and his apostles, both those sent out on mission during his earthly ministry137 and those commissioned and sent out after his resurrection,138 is remarkably close to   9:1; 15:5-8.   The risen Jesus appeared, i.e. revealed himself only to those whom he commissioned, including Paul. Cf. Gal 1:1, 15f.; Acts 22:21; 26:17. See also 15:3-8 (implied); Acts 10:40f.; cf. Mt 28:16-20; Lk 24:30-35 (implied), 46ff.; Jn 20:21, 26-29 (implied); 21:15ff. Even the women at the tomb were given a (limited) commission (Mt 28:9f.; Jn 20:16ff.). 136   The saying is placed within the episode of the mission of the Seventy (Lk 10:1-20, or perhaps 10:1-24), whose apostolic status is implied by their ‘commissioning’ () and ‘sending’ (, 10:1). A similar saying in Matthew is also in the context of sending out the Twelve apostles (Mt 10:1f., 5, 40; 11:1). Cf. Jn 13:20. On ‘The Apostles and the Twelve’, cf. Ellis, Luke, 132-135. 137   Mt 10:1-16; Mk 3:13-19; 6:7-13, 30; Lk 6:12-16; 9:1-6, 12 (Twelve); Lk 10:1-20 (Seventy). Cf. Gal 1:17. On the origin and transmission of Gospel traditions, cf. Ellis, Making, 19-47. 138   See above, note 135; below, note 153. 134 135

26

1 CORINTHIANS

that between the principal and the agent in the OT and in the Jewish institution or convention of the shaliaḥ. It is, therefore, highly probable that the NT apostle represents the messianic Jewish, i.e. Christian form of that institution.139 Among the gifts, i.e. charisms of ministry apostleship is first.140 And it apparently encompasses, in Paul’s understanding, all other charisms from the Holy Spirit—e.g. prophecy,141 ministry,142 admini­ stration,143 miracles,144 speaking in tongues ( ).145 As those personally commissioned by the risen Jesus, apostles of Jesus Christ were eyewitnesses to the fact of his resurrection; this witness and its implications are the content of their message and are derivative from as well as a part of their apostleship. They also exemplified par excellence the ‘cruciform’ (cf. 1:23; 2:2) and rejected character of Christ in the conduct of their ministry146 although this imitatio Christi is, by Jesus’ own command,147 incumbent upon all believers and is not unique to the ministry and gift of ‘apostle’.148   Lightfoot (note 106), 92-101; Harnack (note 127); Billerbeck III, 2ff.; Rengstorf (note 107). 140   12:28 (‘first’); cf. 12:4 (); Eph 4:11. Of course, a commissioned apostleship was appointed by Jesus before the general outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. See Ellis, Christ, 252. 141   14:14, 18f., 37. It may also be inferred from references and instructions concerning prophecy that Paul gives elsewhere (Rom 12:6; 13:2, 9; 14:1-5, 39; I Thess 5:20; I Tim 1:18; cf. 4:14 with II Tim 1:6). Cf. Acts 13:1. 142   I.e. as ,  (‘teacher’, ‘preacher’, I Tim 2:7; II Tim 1:11) and  (‘minister’, 3:5-15; II Cor 3:6; 6:4; Col 1:23ff.), which included gifts of teaching and preaching. See Ellis (note 25); idem, ‘Paul and his Co-workers Revisited’, History, 84-97, 79, 92. 143   To be inferred from references and instructions that Paul gives, including piloting (, 12:28) and shepherding (, , 9:7; Eph 4:11; cf. Acts 20:28) and overseeing (, , , Phil 1:1; I Tim 3:1f.; Tit 1:7; cf. Acts 1:26; I Pet 5:2) = eldership (, , I Tim 4:14; 5:17ff.; Tit 1:5-9; cf. Acts 14:23; 15:2-6, 22f.; Jas 5:14; I Pet 5:1f.; II Jn 1; III Jn 1). 144   II Cor 12:12. Cf. P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1997, 579-582. See below, note 153. 145   14:18f. 146   4:8-13; II Cor 4:7-12; 6:4-10; 11:23-30; Col 1:24; cf. Acts 5:41; 9:16; Lk 4:28f.; 9:58 par; 13:34 Q. See below, ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###. 147   E.g. Mt 10:22; Lk 9:23 T + Q; Jn 15:18-21. Cf. Ellis, Luke, 139ff. 148   E.g. Rom 8:17; Phil 1:29; I Thess 1:6; 2:14; II Thess 1:5f.; II Tim 3:12; Rev 2:10. See 4:16; 11:1: ‘Become imitators of me, as I am of Christ’. Somewhat differently, Thiselton, 66f., and the literature cited. 139



I

27

It is as an apostle of Jesus Christ that Paul distinguishes his ministry from that of other prophets, whose messages are subject to evaluation or judgment (, ) by other gifted individuals:149 ‘…Am I not an apostle…? This is my answer to those Who are calling me to account (  )’150 ‘If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a pneumatic Let him recognize that what things I am writing to you Are the command of the Lord’.151 ‘It is of least concern to me that I should be examined () by you… The one who judges me (  ) is the Lord’.152

The prophet is never the (sole) judge of his own message. But the apostle of Jesus Christ, like an ambassador, is always so and is subject only to the judgment of the one who commissioned him. The ‘signs’ of an apostle153 are mentioned by Paul along with his extraordinary experience of being caught up into the ‘third heaven’, presumably into the council of Yahweh,154 and they are set in contrast to the ‘weaknesses’ of his rhetorical abilities or interests.155

  14:29; cf. 12:10. But see below, 224-235, on 2:13-16.   9:1-3 (q.v.). 151   14:37. Within the larger circle of ‘charismatic’ gifts () there is a smaller circle of gifts of inspired speech and discernment, the ‘spiritual’ gifts () of the pneumatics. See below, ‘ “Spiritual” Gifts in the Pauline Congregations’, AE IV, ###-###. 152   4:3f. 153   Cf. Barnett (note 144), 579ff.; M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., Edinburgh 2000, II, 837-841: ‘The plain sense of [‘signs of an apostle’] is…that [Paul] has performed miracles in Corinth…as authenticating signs of his apostleship’ (839). See below, ###. Otherwise: Thiselton, 64-67, and the literature cited. 154   II Cor 12:2f., 12. Cf. R. N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counselor in Isaiah xl 13-14, Cambridge 1971, 39-48, and the literature cited. Pace Whybray, the Council of Yahweh is not represented only as an ‘idea’ or ‘concept’ but also as the vision experience of a number of prophets. Cf. I Kg 22:19-23; Isa 6:1-8; Jer 23:18; H. W. Robinson, ‘The Council of Yahweh’, JTS 45 (1944), 151-157. 155   See below, Special Note on Paul and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric, 93-94. 149 150

28

1 CORINTHIANS

Finally, as a shaliaḥ, the apostle cannot transfer his role or his authority to another.156 This has implications for the doctrine of apostolic succession that cannot be entered into here.

156   Otherwise: F. A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, New York 2001, 217-230; G. Dix, ‘The Ministry in the Early Church’, The Apostolic Ministry, ed. K. E. Kirk, London 1946, 183-303, 228-232, 260f., who asks, ‘Could His shelihim acting in His Person transmit to others the personal commission received from Him? If this were impossible, what was to become of the “apostolic” office in the church’ (261)? The answer would appear to be that it continues in the apostolic teaching, i.e. in the NT. There is no evidence that apostleship was transmitted to or through bishops. Cf. T. W. Manson, The Church’s Ministry, London 1948, 31-52: The ‘relation between Jesus and the Twelve corresponds admirably to the relation between a principal and his sheluchim in Jewish usage’ (46). ‘[It] was a personal thing and inalienable. It would be forfeited by misconduct; but it could not be transmitted to another. It did not pass at death’ (51). Further, cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Peabody MA 61994 (1885), 95-99, 181-269; H. W. Beyer, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 599-622, 615-630. See below, 793-794, on 12:28.

II

T H A N K S G IV IN G (1:4 - 9)

I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God that is given you in Christ Jesus;5 because in everything you were made rich in him, in every word and in all knowledge; 6for indeed the testimony to Christ was confirmed among you, 7so that you are not lacking in any charism as you await the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8who also will confirm you until the end, blameless in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9Faithful is God, through whom you were called into participation in his son, Jesus Christ our Lord. 4

Textual Notes 4.  lacking in the important mss ‫ *א‬B but present in a wide variety of ms families. Although it may possibly be secondary, i.e. an addition influenced by the thanksgivings at Rom 1:8; Phil 1:3; Plm 4 or by liturgical tradition, it is probably original (Metzger, 478) and was omitted inadvertently or perhaps under the influence of 1:14; I Thess 1:2. 6.  Mss B* F G have , which Fee (35n) thinks was ‘an assimilation to the wording of 2:1…’ Cf. Zuntz, 101: ‘if  in ii.1 is genuine, the variant  [2:1] suggests that in i.6 mart.   is primitive and caused the variant in ii.1’. ‘If… is genuine in ii.1, then  is original in i.6; … [in 1:6 would be] due to adaptation to mart.   in ii.1’. But see below on 2:1. 8. . Mss D F G have an explanatory substitution, . See below, Exegesis. . Lacking in the important mss p46 B. The reading is somewhat doubtful (Metzger, 479; Zuntz, 184) but may perhaps be included because (1) it has wide and varied ms support; (2) it could have been overlooked by copyists since in early uncial mss  was often contracted to  (Fee, 35); (3) Paul regularly uses the fuller designation, ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Lord Jesus Christ’, less so ‘the Lord Jesus’ (Rom 14:14; II Cor 4:14; Eph 1:15; Col 3:17; I Thess 2:15; 4:1f.; Plm 5). Cf. Thiselton, 100f. See above, Textual Note on 1:1.

30

1 CORINTHIANS

9.  ’ ‘through’, often expressing intermediate agency; see on 8:6. Mss D* F G have substituted a preposition of direct agency, i.e.   (‘by’), perhaps not wishing to attribute intermediate agency to God. Cf. G & G, 254, §1208; Robertson, 820.

Structure The proem, i.e. an introductory thanksgiving, is in accord with some Graeco-Roman epistolary practice1 and appears, with a few exceptions2 and variations,3 at the beginning of Paul’s letters. However, it is closer in style and in conceptual content to ‘solemnly formulated’ Jewish prayer.4 Also, the ‘literary convention of the thanksgiving… was merely a frame which his [Paul’s] versatility continuously transformed. The two essential components – Paul’s gratitude and its justification – are the only totally consistent elements.’5 1   E.g. ‘Letter from Apion’ (c. AD 150): ‘I thank the Lord Serapis’. For the text and translation, cf. Deissmann, 179f. But see P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, Leiden 1977, 6-15, passim. For further examples, cf. J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, Collegeville MN 1995, 56f.; P. Schubert, Form and Function of Pauline Thanksgivings, Berlin 1939, 122-171 (168f.); Conzelmann, 25f. = GT: 39; S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1986, 88. See below on 1:4, note 9. 2   It is lacking in Galatians, perhaps because of the emotional state of the Apostle and the urgency of the occasion (cf. Gal 1:6f.; 5:2ff.). Galatians very probably was composed in Antioch on the eve of the council of Jerusalem (AD 49–50; Acts 15:1-29) where the questions and the issues, addressed also in the summarized sermons in the letter (3:6-29; 4:21-31), were discussed and essentially resolved. Cf. Ellis, Making, 101ff., 102n, 255-260. Titus appears to reflect a similar urgent situation. Cf. Titus 1:5: ‘Bring into order the things that remain’; 1:11: ‘They are destroying whole house-churches’ (); Ellis, History, 72f. 3   Close to 1:4 are Rom 1:8 and Phil 1:3f. Col 1:3f. and I Thess 1:3 shift to the plural as does, with variations, II Thess 1:3. II Cor 1:3 and Eph 1:3 use in the proem a  (‘blessing’) clause, with Eph 1:16 picking up the ‘thanksgiving’ later; II Tim 1:3 substitutes  . Thanksgivings within the body of the letter are found in I Thess 2:13; II Thess 2:13. 4   Conzelmann, 25f. = GT: 39, who rightly modifies and supplements Schubert (note 1) in this respect. Cf. O’Brien (note 1), 107-137 (on 1:4-9); idem, ‘Thanksgiving and the Gospel in Paul’, NTS 21 (1975), 144-155 (155); re the related ‘blessing’ formula, cf. J. M. Robinson, ‘Die Hodajot-Formel in Gebet und Hymnus des Frühchristentums’, Apophoreta. FS E. Haenchen, Berlin 1964, 194-235. See below on 1:4, note 9. 5   Murphy-O’Connor (note 1), 59; cf. 55-64 and the literature cited; O’Brien (note 2), 261, passim. For examples from pagan literature see above, 3-5, 52 n. 1.



II

31

The thanksgiving has only two complete sentences, 1:4-8 and 1:9. The first main clause, ‘I thank my God’, is qualified by a number of subordinate clauses introduced by  (5),  (6),  (7)   (8). The subordinate clauses and the aorist participle (, 1:4) are largely in the passive with an implied reference back to the initial   : ‘my God’, 1:4, i.e. ‘given by God’ (4), ‘made rich by God’ (5), ‘not lacking from God’ (7). The active relative clause (1:8) has ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ for its subject and is also qualified by a reference to God: ‘through whom you were called’ (1:9). Commentary Summary The action of God in salvation, for which the Apostle here gives thanks, moves from the past to the present to the future, from the initial divine grace given to the Corinthians to its eschatological climax at the end of the present age. In the past it was ‘grace given’ (1:4) by which the recipients were ‘made rich’ both by their salvation and with gifts, i.e. charisms of inspired speech and discernment (1:5). Indeed, the Christian gospel was manifestly and durably confirmed among them by the apostolic preaching (1:6). In their present lives this grace of God continues so that they are not lacking in any charisms as they eagerly expect Christ’s public revelation, i.e. second appearing. (cf. Heb. 9:28). In the future Christ will continue to confirm them, even to the end (1:8), when they will be found blameless at the ‘Day of our Lord Jesus Christ’, i.e. his parousia or (second) coming. God’s actions of salvation all occur in a single and particular sphere, ‘in Christ’ (1:4, 5),6 whom Paul will later designate as ‘the power of God’ and ‘the wisdom of God’ (1:24), ‘our Passover (lamb)’ (5:7), ‘the spiritual Rock’ (10:4), ‘the second man’ (15:47) and ‘the eschatological Adam’ (  , 15:45). The wholly positive thanksgiving is designed to prefigure and to provide a context of affirmation for the subsequent critique and admonitions in the body of the letter. The admonitions concern in particular some Corinthians’ misconception or misuse of the gifts   See above on 1:2.

6

32

1 CORINTHIANS

mentioned here, i.e. the charisms of wisdom (2:13; 6:5; 12:8) and of knowledge (8:1–11:1), and of the grace and gifts of God generally (11:2–14:40); their apparent indifference toward the coming Judgment (3:13; 5:5) and their rejection of the future resurrection of the body at the Day, i.e. the parousia of Christ (1:8; 15:12-56). Consequently, the thanksgiving is basically to God for his gracious faithfulness to them in Christ. Unlike his letters to the Philippians (1:5, 7, 9), the Colossians (1:4, 8) and the Thessalonians (I, 1:3, 6-9; II, 1:3f.), it does not speak of their faith or love or participation in his ministry.7 It is a thanksgiving for God’s sovereignty and purpose to save the most unlikely people.8 Exegesis 4.       . Expressions of praise to God, whether of thanksgiving, as here, or of blessing () as in II Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, characterize the openings of almost all of Paul’s letters. They are comparable to the proem of the Graeco-Roman letter but, as Conzelmann has seen, have more fundamental affinities with Jewish prayer.9  = ‘always’, i.e. regularly in Paul’s prayers, e.g. Rom 1:9f.; Phil 1:3f.; Col 1:3; I Thess 1:2f.; II Thess 1:11; 2:13; Plm 4; cf. Eph 5:19f.; and also in his speaking to other Christians and to ‘the churches of God’ (cf. II Thess 1:3f.).        . The ‘grace of God’ in salvation that is spoken in blessing at 1:3 is now identified as that which already ‘was given’ to them. Is it a reference to the initial grace of individual salvation10 given when they were ‘converted’ (),11 or ‘spiritually begotten’ or ‘given birth’   Further, cf. Schrage, 124-127.   See below on 1:26-30. 9   Cf. H. Conzelmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 9 (1974) 407-415 (409). Cf. LXX: Jdt 8:25; II Macc 1:10f.; III Macc 7:16. Cf. II Macc 1:10f. ( [ ]) which Schubert (note 1), 117ff., calls ‘the closest parallel’ (117) and ‘a prototype of the Pauline epistolary thanksgiving’ (119); further, I Chron 29:13. See above, notes 1 and 4. 10   So, Thiselton, 90; Schrage, I, 113f.; Wolff, 21; R & P, 5; cf. Schlatter, 61f. 11   II Cor 3:16; I Thess 1:9. On  see below on 6:1. 7 8



II

33

()12 or ‘baptized in the Spirit?’13 Or is the grace () here to be identified with the charisms (, 1:7)?14 The grace of salvation is probably preferable because (1) it is the foundational grace;15 while charisms may be given simultaneously,16 they may also be sought and given subsequently.17 (2) Also, it is first in a series of aorist passives (……, 1:4-6) summing up the successive acts of God in redeeming the Corinthians.   . See above on 1:2; below on 1:30. 5.      ,      .  Since  at 1:4 refers to redemptive grace generally,  at 1:5 points both to the character of God’s grace and also to the specific ways in which it has been manifested among the Corinthians. By their inclusion in the corporate Christ ( )18 they were ‘made rich19 in everything’, i.e. in the plenitude of life in Christ.20 In this sense the  might be translated ‘that’ and the ‘richness’ viewed as explanatory of the character of the Christian life.21 But it is more likely that the  introduces a causal22 or   See below on 4:15; cf. Plm 10; Gal 4:19.   See below on 12:13:   …. 14   Alford, II, 475; cf. Calvin, 21: ‘Grace…embraces every kind of blessing…. [Here], by metonymy, the gifts which he freely lavishes upon man. Paul then passes to particular instances…’ 15   Edwards, 5f.: ‘the several graces [1:5, 7]…are erected on the foundation grace, given them when they believed, which is union with Christ…’ 16   E.g. Acts 10:44-48. 17   So, for the Corinthians. See below on 3:10; 12:31; 14:1. 18   See above on 1:2. Further, Lightfoot, 147: ‘It is by our incorporation in Christ that [the gifts] are bestowed on us’. 19   Or better, causative, ‘made to be rich’ (). See above on 1:2, notes 73f. 20   Paul uses  and the -word group for the ‘richness’ of a Christian life: ‘God is rich and bestows of his riches’ (Conzelmann, 26n = GT: 40n). Cf. II Cor 6:10; 8:9; 9:11; Eph 2:4ff.; Col 3:16; I Tim 6:17f. For an ironic use of the term see below on 4:8. On the use of the possessive pronoun () instead of the genitive case see below on 11:24. 21   So, Lightfoot, 147; Findlay, 759; Weiss, 7; cf. Stanley, 25. 22   So, Godet, I, 51; cf. Schlatter, 62. For the consecutive, i.e. ‘result’ force of , cf. Robertson, 1001; Moulton, I, 249. For  (1) with the meaning ‘because’ or ‘that’, cf. Moule, 147; Zerwick, 142-145; (2) recitative, see below on 10:1. 12 13

34

1 CORINTHIANS

result clause that points beyond their salvation as such to outward evidences flowing from the initial grace given them,23 specifically to charisms of ‘word’ and ‘knowledge’. The phrase, ‘in every word and in all knowledge’, as manifestations of their riches ‘in Christ’, cannot refer to natural abilities24 nor, pace Alford (II, 475), to general Christian verities: ‘the truth preached’ () and ‘the truth apprehended’ (). Nor are they limited to two specific gifts, i.e. charisms of the Spirit (pace Collins, 62), although ‘word of wisdom’ and ‘word of knowledge’ are used of specific gifts.25 They are very probably a manifested class of gifts of the Holy Spirit, charisms of inspired speech and discernment,26 charisms that may nonetheless be a divine supplement to natural gifts or abilities. Paul’s affirmation here softens criticisms that he will make later.27 6.        . , used as a conjunction, probably has a causal force (‘for indeed’, ‘since’; cf. 5:7)28 rather than temporal (‘as’), explanatory or comparative (‘insofar as’, ‘in the measure that’). The testimony ‘to Christ’29 in the preaching of Paul and others ‘was confirmed’ not ‘in you’, i.e. ‘in your hearts’, but ‘among you’ ( ).   See above, note 15; cf. Schrage, 114ff.   Pace Thiselton, 91f. Nor does  refers to the rational and  to ecstatic manifestations of charisms. Elsewhere, it is true,  is used of Paul’s lack of natural (oral) rhetorical ability. Cf. II Cor 11:6:   , ‘untrained in speech’ (NRSV); ‘unskilled in speaking’ (ESV) or, paraphrased, ‘no speaker’ (NEB); ‘not a polished speaker’ (Phillips). Cf. M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., Edinburgh 2000, II, 676ff. and the literature cited. On Paul and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric see below, Special Note, 83-96. 25   I.e. in 12:8; cf. 13:1f.  and  are paired once elsewhere: II Cor 8:7. 26   Cf. Fee, 39. See below, ‘ “Spiritual” Gifts in the Pauline Congregations’, ‘ “Wisdom” and “Knowledge” in I Corinthians’, AE IV and VI ###-###, ###-###. 27   See below on 1:10; 4:8; 8:1; 12–14. 28   So, Thiselton, 94; O’Brien (note 8), 120; Conzelmann, 27 = GT: 41; Weiss, 8; Meyer, 14; Alford, 475. Otherwise: Collins, 62; Fee, 40; Barrett, 37; R & P, 6; Lightfoot, 148; Godet, I, 53, who is, however, doubtless correct that the Corinthians’ gifts are not ‘due to the depth…of their faith’ but rather to the grace of God. Cf. BDAG, 494; BDF, 236 §453 (2); Robertson, 963f. 29   Not a subjective genitive, i.e. Christ’s (or God’s) testimony via the Holy Spirit through the preachers, but an objective genitive. This understanding 23 24



II

35

 = ‘was confirmed’, i.e. in the subsequent external effects in their lives including the charisms mentioned in 1:5. It has this meaning elsewhere.30 The aorist passive implies a reference to divine agency, ‘confirmed by God’ (cf. 1:4). The term and its cognates are often used in a juristic sense, e.g. to guarantee a contract,31 that may have a more general sense of ‘accomplish’ or ‘fulfil’32 or ‘firmly establish’.33 Here the apostolic testimony was confirmed by God and, metaphorically, guaranteed by present God-given visible events and will be confirmed by divinely promised events to come (1:8).34 7.       .  ,35 introducing (1) a result clause, ‘so that’, and referring to the grace that has been bestowed (1:4) through the preaching (1:6)36 or, less likely, (2) a purpose clause, ‘in order that’, referring to 1:5 or 1:5f.37  may mean (1) to lack, i.e. to be in need of, or in a comparative sense, (2) ‘to fall behind’ (others), as in II Cor 11:5; 12:11. Here (1) is preferable, referring only to the richness of the Corinthians’ charisms.38 supports the reading ‘Christ’ rather than ‘God’. See above, Textual Notes on 1:6. Cf. Rev 19:10: ‘The Spirit of prophecy is the testimony to Jesus’. 30   Heb 2:3; cf. Mk 16:20 A C D M. Cf. Fanning, 186f. 31   Cf. M & M, 107f. For Paul G. A. Deissmann (Bible Studies, Winona Lake, IN 1979 [31923], 104-109) and H. Schlier (‘ ’, TDNT 1 [1964/1933], 602f.) may press the legal connotation of the term too literally. 32   E.g. Rom 15:8; Heb 2:2f. Cf. Rom 4:16: ‘be guaranteed’ (RSV). 33   II Cor 1:21; Col 2:7; cf. BDAG, 172f.; P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1997, 110f.; Thrall (note 24), I, 152ff. 34   Cf. O’Brien (note 1), 121. See II Pet 1:5-11, 10. 35   Cf. Robertson, 999f.; Moule, 140-146; Nunn, 110f., 115f.  may introduce result (3:7; 5:1; 7:38; 13:2) or, less often, purpose clauses (Mt 24:24; 27:1; Lk 9:52). Or it may express a conclusion with the meaning ‘therefore’ (3:21; 4:5; 5:8; 7:38; 10:12; 11:27, 33; 14:39; 15:58; cf. 14:22), ‘with which Paul, in this epistle, loves to formulate his final judgment on a question which he has finished treating’ (Godet, I, 392). Apparently, the indicative ‘is used with  when the result is more emphatic than its connection with the antecedent’ (Edwards, 74; so, 3:7; 7:38; 11:27). 36   Cf. Conzelmann, 27 = GT: 41f. 37   So, Allo, 4, who takes 1:7 to refer to the future; cf. Mt 10:1; Lk 4:29. 38   So, Conzelmann, 27f. = GT: 42. A ‘subjective reflection’, i.e. to feel left behind (Findlay, 760) is unlikely. Cf. Thiselton, 97. On  see below on 10:24.

36

1 CORINTHIANS

.  The term,  appears 17 times in the New Testament, all except one (I Pet 4:10) in Paul’s letters. It may refer to a variety of God’s gracious gifts (BDAG, 1081), e.g. (1) eschatological salvation itself (Rom 5:15f.; 6:23), (2) the continuing grace of election toward presently unbelieving ethnic Israel (Rom 11:29), (3) gracious deliverance from hostile circumstances (II Cor 1:11) and (4) gifts, i.e. charisms of ministry.39 The last meaning is present here and anticipates Paul’s detailed discussion in I Cor 12–14.        . The accusative plural present participle of , with  as its antecedent, represents, like Paul’s other usages, an abiding attitude of ‘eagerly expecting’ the future Christian hope in its various aspects, all focused on the parousia, i.e. (second) coming of Christ.40 It appears to be equivalent to the substantive, .41 Since in Paul’s view the interval between one’s death and one’s resurrection at the last Day of this age is, on each individual’s ‘time-clock’, only a momentary hiatus,42 the ‘eager expectation’ will be fulfilled in a matter of decades at most, whether by the parousia transformation during one’s lifetime43 or by the future parousia-resurrection to immortality44 at the end of this age in the indeterminable future.45

39   12:4, 9, 28, 30f.; I Tim 4:14; II Tim 1:6. See below, ‘ “Spiritual” Gifts in the Pauline Congregations’, ‘The Spirit and the Gifts’, AE IV and V, ###-###. 40   15:42-57; Rom 8:19, 23, 25; Gal 5:5; Phil 3:20; cf. Heb 9:28; Weiss, 9; Ellis, ‘The Structure of Pauline Eschatology (II Cor 5:1-10)’, Christ, 161f. = Interpreters, 35-48. Further, see below, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-###. 41   ‘Eager expectation’. Cf. Rom 8:19; Phil 1:20. 42   II Cor 5:4, 10; Phil 1:23; cf. Heb 9:27; see below, AE VIII, ###-###. 43   15:51; I Thess 4:14ff.; Ellis, Theology, 14-17. 44   15:22f., 42ff., 52-55; Rom 6:5; I Thess 4:14; 5:10; II Tim 4:6ff.; cf. Jn 5:28f.; Acts 17:18, 32; 24:15; 26:23; I Pet 1:3ff. 45   Paul, following Jesus’ teaching (cf. Mt 24:37-44 Q with I Thess 5:2f.), knows that the time is uncertain and can identify himself indifferently with the living or with the dead at the time of the parousia (e.g. I Thess 5:1f., 10). The ‘delay of the parousia’, although a problem for some twentieth-century scholarship, was not a problem for the NT church. Cf. O. Cullmann, ‘Present and Future’, Salvation in History, London 1967, 166-185, 240-246: ‘The “already” put the “not yet” in the shade’ (243 = GT: 221); Ellis, Christ, 112-119, 121ff.; idem, Theology, 14-17; idem, Luke, 239ff. See below, note 626 on 7:26.



II

37

,  i.e. divine revelation or disclosure; here and a few times elsewhere46 for the public and glorious disclosure ‘of our Lord Jesus Christ’ at his parousia and of all that is attendant upon it. More frequently, Paul (or his secretary) describes the consummation of the present age variously as the parousia (),47 the coming (),48 the appearing ()49 or the Day ()50 of the Lord.  here is closest to  and emphasizes not so much Christ’s future coming () or his presence, i.e. arrival (), but rather his full and public manifestation as Lord.51 Paul uses  more often for divine revelations, to himself52 and/or to others,53 of God’s will or purpose. 8.     = ‘who also will confirm you’. The relative  may be formulaic, employed in a preformed (hymnic?) piece, i.e. 1:8 or 1:8f., as it is in 1:30; Phil 3:20f.; I Tim 3:16; cf. I Pet 3:18, 22.54   Rom 2:5; 8:19; II Thess 1:7; cf. I Pet 1:7, 13; 4:13; on the verb form, , cf. 3:13; II Thess 2:8; I Pet 1:5; Mt 10:26 Q; Lk 17:30; A. Oepke, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 583. 47   1:8 D; 15:23; I Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; II Thess 2:1, 8f.; cf. Jas 5:7f.; II Pet 3:4, 12; I Jn 2:28. Cf. A. Oepke, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 858-871, 861ff., 868. 48   4:5; 11:26; 13:10; Col 3:6; I Thess 1:10; 5:2; II Thess 1:10; cf. Heb 10:37; Jude 14f.; Rev 1:4, 7; 3:11; 6:17; 14:7; 16:15; 18:10; 19:7; 22:7, 12. The term connotes mostly judgment Day. 49   Virtually all in the Pastorals and in preformed (non-Pauline) pieces that Paul made use of: I Tim 6:14; II Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Tit 2:13; cf. II Thess 2:8; I Jn 2:28–3:2. Cf. Ellis, Making, 114f., 191, 407f. 50   1:8; 3:13; 5:5; Rom 2:5, 16 (13:12); II Cor 1:14; Eph 4:30 (6:13); Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16; I Thess 5:2, 4; II Thess 2:2; II Tim 1:12, 18; 4:8; cf. Mt 7:22; 10:15 (cf. Lk 10:12); 11:22, 24; 12:36; 16:21 parr; 24:36 par; 25:13; 26:29 par; Mk 6:11 AM; Lk 17:24, 30 Q; 24:36; Jn 6:39f., 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 2:20; 17:31; Heb 10:25 (I Pet 2:12; II Pet 1:19); II Pet 2:9; 3:7, 10, 12; I Jn 4:17; Jude 6; Rev 6:17; 16:14f. See below, note 56. 51   I.e. the revelation of the ‘glory’ of Christ (cf. Phil 2:10f.; 3:20f.; II Thess 2:13f.; II Tim 2:10-13; Tit 2:13; I Pet 1:7; 4:13; 5:1; Jude 24). ‘At the parousia the exalted Christ, who is still hidden in God [Col 3:3f.], will be revealed in glory, and believers with him’ (Oepke [note 46], 583). Cf. Rom 8:19. 52   14:6; cf. 2:10; II Cor 12:1, 7; Gal 1:12; 2:2; Eph 3:3. 53   2:10; 14:30; Rom 16:25ff.; Eph 1:17; 3:5; Phil 3:15. 54   See below, ‘Expository Patterns in I Corinthians and Romans’, AE III, ###-###. Cf. Ellis, Making, 68, 103ff., 135f.; idem, Prophecy, 155f. On the use of relative clauses in Paul to introduce cited pieces see E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 46

38

1 CORINTHIANS

Does the relative  refer to the immediate antecedent, ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1:7), or further back in the sentence, to ‘God’ (1:4)? Several reasons support a reference to ‘Christ’:55 It is the closer antecedent and joins best with the  (‘also’); it accords with the deliberately repetitious focus on Christ’s name and person throughout the opening section, nine times in 1:1-9. It is repeated at the end of 1:8 because of the parallel that Paul wishes to draw between ‘the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ’ and the OT idiom ‘the Day of Yahweh’ (see below). The connotations of Paul’s usage, however, are mixed.56 The future tense  (‘will confirm’) culminates a past– present–future sequence in God’s ‘salvation history’ process among the Corinthians (1:6-8). This sequence is characteristic of Paul’s (and early Christian) composition and teaching, both as a style in the opening of his letters (Conzelmann, 28 = GT: 42) and elsewhere as well.57 It offers an assurance that the future destiny of the ‘called ones’ (1:2, 9) at Corinth is as certain of completion as is the purpose, plan and character of God.58 Darmstadt 1956 (1913), 383; Weiss, 99, on 4:5; cf. P. von der Osten-Sacken, ‘Gottes Treue bis zur Parusie. Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu 1 Kor 1:7b9’, ZNTW 68 (1977), 178-186. 55   So, Meyer, 15; Godet, I, 58; Lightfoot, 149; R & P, 7; Barrett, 39. A reference to God (1:4): Alford, II, 475; Fee, 43. Unclear, or a reference to both God the Father and to Christ: Lang, 19; Schrage, I, 121f.; Thiselton, 101. 56   With connotations of judgment: ‘day of wrath’ or judgment, Rom 2:5, 16; ‘day of the Lord’, I Thess 5:2; II Thess 2:2 (Eph 6:13); ‘day of Christ’, II Thess 2:2. Of redemption: day of the Lord Jesus (Christ), 1:8; 5:5 ‫( א‬D); ‘day of our Lord Jesus’, 1:8 p46 B; II Cor 1:14; ‘the (or that) day’ (Rom 13:12); II Tim 4:8; ‘day of Christ Jesus’, Phil 1:6; ‘day of Christ’, Phil 1:10; 2:16; ‘day of redemption’, Eph 4:30. Of both: ‘the (or that) day’, 3:13; I Thess 5:4; II Thess 1:10; II Tim 1:12, 18; cf. Acts 17:31. See above, note 50. 57   Cf. Eph 1:4-7, 10, 11-14, 15-21; Phil 1:5f.; 2:6-11; 3:5-11; Col 1:4f., 21f.; I Thess 1:4-10; II Tim 1:5-12; Heb 10:32-39; I Pet 1:3-9; II Pet 1:1-4. See also Gal 1:4; II Pet 3:1-7 (past-future); II Thess 1:3-10; Jas 1:12; 5:7f.; I Pet 5:1-5 (presentfuture). J. H. Roberts, ‘The Eschatological Transitions to the Pauline Letter Body’, Neot 20 (1986), 29-35, finds four eschatological climaxes or references: 1:7f.; Phil 1:10; I Thess 1:10; II Thess 1:6-10. 58   See above on 1:1 (). Cf. H. Schlier, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 600-603: the ‘truth of God’ (Rom 15:8) is fulfilled ‘in the establishment…of the promises of the Father through the ministry of Christ’ (602). The verb appears to be interchangeable with  (cf. I Thess 3:13) and may be the act of God the Father or of Christ. Cf. II Cor 1:21; Mk 16:20; Heb 6:17ff.



II

39

  = ‘until the end’, i.e. the end of the present age at the parousia of Christ, taking  as ‘a point of time marking the end of a duration’;59 thus,  occurs here as a preposition60 and elsewhere as a conjunction (4:5) pointing to the parousia of Christ.  is used similarly; cf. 11:26; 15:25; Phil 1:6; Acts 3:21. The idiom here may have an OT antecedent in Dan 6:26:  . Cf. Swete, III, 545.  = ‘blameless’, i.e. not chargeable for any offense, appears five times in the NT, all Pauline, twice with reference to one’s status at the Day of judgment at the parousia of Jesus Christ (1:8; Col 1: 22; cf. I Thess 3:13) and thrice in one’s evaluation for the church offices of minister (, I Tim 3:8, 10) and of elder = bishop, i.e. overseer (, , Tit 1:5ff.).61 In the former usage it has the connotation of God’s judicial verdict based not upon one’s individual moral achievements but upon one’s status or ‘place’ in Christ Jesus at the last judgment.62 In the present also the elect believers have that corporate ‘in Christ’ status.63 But, since they are not yet individually ‘sanctified’, i.e. ‘made holy’, they may be subject to present or future divine chastening,64 as the Apostle’s letters amply illustrate.65 On the other hand both Christ and his apostles, while calling unbelievers to repentance and faith in the light of a future judgment,66 59   BDAG, 998f. Otherwise: Schlatter, 65, et al., who take   quantitatively: ‘fully’, ‘completely’. Cf. Schrage, I, 121; G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 8 (1972), 49-57 (55f.). 60   Cf. Moule, 85; Robertson, 643; BDF, 116. 61   Cf. Acts 20:17 with 20:28; Phil 1:1. On the relation of ‘elder’ and ‘overseer’ in the New Testament church, see I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, Edinburgh 1999, 177-181; W. A. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Nashville TN 2000, 186-192, and the literature cited; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, London 41913, 95-99, 199-201. 62   See above on 1:2. For synonyms with similar ‘last judgment’ references cf. I Thess 5:23 (); I Tim 6:14 (); I Thess 3:13, II Pet 3:14 (); Jude 24, Rev 14:5 (). 63   E.g. Eph 1:4 (); Phil 2:15 (, ); perhaps, Col 1:22 (). 64   E.g. Heb 12:6; Rev 3:19; cf. I Pet 4:17 with Mal 3:1-4. See above on 1:2. 65   Cf. 3:12-15; 4:18-21; 5:5; 11:29-32; II Cor 13:2ff., 10; I Tim 1:20. See below, ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###. 66   E.g. Mt 4:17 par, Lk 5:32; 13:3; Jn 16:8 (Christ); Mk 6:12; Acts 2:38; 17:30f.; cf. 20:21 (apostles).

40

1 CORINTHIANS

emphasize to the elect the blessings of the present manifestation of the kingdom of God.67        . The ‘day of our Lord Jesus Christ’68 refers invariably in the NT to the consummation of the present age and the public manifestation of the age to come at the personal return of Jesus Christ. It is synonymous and contemporaneous with the phrase ‘the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ’ in 1:7. The specific expression, i.e. using the name Christ, is found in the NT only in Paul’s letters,69 but equivalent phraseology with the same connotations appears in the literature of the three other apostolic missions, i.e. of James, John and Peter.70 The conception and to some extent the idiom has its immediate background in the teaching of Jesus that is witnessed in the Gospels. It has its more distant background in ‘the day of the Lord’ (‫ )יום יהוה‬in the OT.71 9.   . The ‘faithful’ () character of God, especially with reference to his covenant acts and promises, is repeatedly expressed in both the OT72 and the NT.73 In Paul’s letters it occurs at times with the phrase ‘faithful is God’,74 with 67   Jn 1:12; 3:16; 6:35ff.; 7:37ff.; 8:12, 31f.; 10:7ff.; Acts 2:37ff.; 8:12; 10:36ff.; 13:38f.; Ellis, Christ, 112-115. Cf. 5:12. 68   And equivalent expressions. See above, note 56. 69   See above, note 56. But see Lk 17:24 ‫ א‬A: ‘his day’. 70   E.g. ‘the (or that) day’ (Mt 7:22; 24:36 par; 25:13; 26:29 par [24:42]; Lk 10:12; 17:30f.; 21:34; Heb 10:25; II Pet 1:19; cf. Acts 17:31), ‘the great day’ (Jude 6; Rev 6:17; 16:14), ‘the day of visitation’ (I Pet 2:12), ‘the day of judgment’ (Mt 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36; Mk 6:11 AM; I Jn 4:17), ‘the last day’ (Jn 6:39f., 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). On the four apostolic missions cf. Ellis, Making, 307-319; idem, ‘Toward a History of Early Christianity’, Christ, 235ff. 71   Cf. G. von Rad, G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 943-953 (944-947); M. Saebø, ‘‫’יום‬, TDOT 6 (1990), 7-32, 28-31. See below on 1:31. 72   Dt 7:9; Pss 19:7 (8); 111:7; Isa 49:7; Hos 11:12 = MT 12:1 (‫נאמן‬, ‘faithful, true’); Pss 40:10 (11); 89:1-8 (‫אמונתך‬, ‘faithfulness, truth’); cf. A. Wieser, ‘ ’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 185: ‘the fundamental meaning [of God’s ‫ ]אמונתך‬is “that which is essential”, i.e. “that which makes God God” ’. So, for the rabbis, ‘the seal of God is truth’, Billerbeck III, 321. Cf. also R. W. L. Moberly, ‘‫’אמו‬, NIDOTTE, I, 428f. 73   E.g. Heb 6:17f.; 10:23; 11:11; Jn 1:9; cf. I Pet 4:19; W. L. Lane, Hebrews, 2 vols., Dallas TX 1991, I, 152f.; II, 354f.: God’s faithfulness is particularly manifested in his covenantal promise to Abraham. 74   10:13; II Cor 1:18, 20; II Thess 3:3 A D. The same is asserted of Christ at II Thess 3:3 D M: ‘faithful is the Lord’. Cf. Rev 1:5.



II

41

 placed first for emphasis. The phrase at 1:9 may simply offer a concluding assurance that what God has begun (1:4-7a) he will faithfully bring to completion (1:7b-8).75 Other considerations, however, suggest that it may be formulaic, introducing or forming a part of a traditional benediction: (1) the similar phrase    (‘faithful is the word’) is a formula that introduces76 or concludes77 five preformed and cited pieces in the Pastoral Epistles.78 They were probably composed by Christian prophets or inspired teachers.79 (2) The phrase    is part of the conclusion of a cited midrash at 10:1-13,80 and the equivalent     introduces a traditional benediction at I Thess 5:24. It is probable, as a number of scholars have argued,81 that this expression of the former rabbi Paul has its background in the formal ‘blessing’ or ‘benediction’82 used in Jewish liturgy, including the synagogue service, and that at 1:9 it is a concluding benediction to the opening thanksgiving section of the letter.83

  Phil 1:6. Cf. 2:12.; II Tim 2:19; J. M. Gundry-Volf, ‘God is Faithful’, Paul and Perseverance, Tübingen, 1990, 69-79; P. T. O’Brien, Philippians, Grand Rapids 1991, 64f. On the absence of the copula see below on 1:31. 76   I Tim 1:15; 4:9; II Tim 2:11. 77   I Tim 3:1a; Tit 3:8a. 78   I Tim 1:15; 2:9–3:1a; 4:9f.; II Tim 2:11ff.; Tit 3:3-8a; cf. Ellis, Making, 407-411. On the absence of the copula see below on 1:31. 79   Cf. I Tim 4:1 (‘the Spirit says’) with 4:6 (‘the words of faith’); Rev 21:5; 22:6; 1Q27, Book of Mysteries 1:8; Ellis, History, 81; idem, Making, 428; idem, Old Testament, 82f.; idem, Prophecy, 149f.; S. R. Llewelyn, ‘Faithful Words’, ND 9 (2002), 9-14. Cf. also Ellis, ‘  Quotations’, Paul’s Use, 107-112. 80   See Ellis, Making, 78-81. The same phrase at II Thess 3:3 A D appears to be an independent, perhaps traditional exclamation. 81   Cf. W. C. van Unnik, ‘Reisepläne und Amen-Sagen’, Sparsa Collecta, 3 vols., Leiden 1983, I, 144-159 (149, on II Cor 1:18); O’Brien (note 1), 130. 82   Cf.   : Lk 1:68; II Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3; I Pet 1:3. J. T. Sanders ‘The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body’, JBL 81 (1962), 348-362 (358), thinks that this phrase has been replaced and is the equivalent of   . Cf. Dt 7:9 MT and LXX:          ; Isa 49:7. 83   So, O’Brien (note 1), 131. Cf. Schubert (note 1), 31: I Cor 1:9 and I Thess 5:24 have ‘the style of a benediction’. Less clear is the view of Osten-Sacken that 1:7b-9 is a (reworked) preformed tradition introduced by   . Cf. P. von der Osten-Sacken, ‘Gottes Treue bis zur Parousie. Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu 1 Kor 1:7b-9’, ZNTW 68 (1977), 176-199 (183). 75

42

1 CORINTHIANS

   = ‘through whom you were called’. God the Father may be viewed ‘either as the source from whom [ ],84 or as the means [and] instrumentality through which [ ]85 all things arise and are’,86 including redemption. For Paul, he is more often designated as the source. Christ may also be the means or agent of salvation blessings,87 but he is not ordinarily called their source.88 The aorist passive  (‘you were called’) reiterates the divine initiative and sovereignty in effecting salvation like that expressed in 1:1f. by the adjective form .89 The ‘call’90 into Christ is a divine word that creates the reality that it voices.91 In I Corinthians the verb occurs once in the active92 and eight times in the passive93 for the divine call to salvation. It appears with this sense regularly in the Apostle’s other letters94 and occasionally elsewhere in the NT.95

84   E.g. 1:30; 7:7; 8:6; 11:12; Rom 9:11(12); 11:36; II Cor 2:17; 3:5; 5:1, 18; Phil 3:9; I Jn 3:9(4:4); 4:6f.; 5:1, 4, 18 (III Jn 11). Cf. Jn 1:13; 6:32; 8:42; Gal 1:15. 85   E.g. 1:9; Gal 1:1; 4:7 p46 ‫א‬. 86   Lightfoot, 150. Cf. Rom 11:36. On different uses of , cf. S. J. Chester, Conversion at Corinth, London 2003, 325ff. Further, K. L. Schmidt, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 487-501. 87   8:6; 15:21, 57; Rom 1:5; 5:1, 9, 11, 17; 7:24f.; II Cor 1:5; 5:18; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:5; 2:18; Phil 1:11; Col 1:20; I Thess 5:9; Tit 3:5f.; cf. Jn 1:17; 3:17; 6:57; 14:6; Acts 3:16 (10:43); 13:38 (15:11; 20:28); Heb 1:3 p46 D M; 7:25 (9:26; 10:10; 13:12) (I Pet 1:3, 21; 3:21); I Jn 4:9 (Rev 12:20f.). On  see below on 7:39, note 682. 88   For an exception cf. I Jn 2:29. 89   See above, on 1:2. On Christians as God’s or Christ’s chosen ones. See below on 1:26ff.; E. E. Ellis, ‘Colossians 1:12-20: Christus Creator, Christus Salvator’, Sovereignty, 31-46 = Interpreting the New Testament Text. FS H.W. Hoehner, edd. D. L. Bock et al., Wheaton IL 2006, 415-428, 422-425. See below, on 7:17-24; 15:9. 90   On the substantive  see below on 1:26. 91   This is the truth underlying Thiselton’s (43-52) application of ‘speech-act’ theory to I Corinthians. It is not, however, a truth of human rhetoric but of divine power, God’s Word not man’s words (cf. 4:20). See below on 5:3ff. 92   (7:15); 7:17. 93   1:9; 7:18, 20ff., 24. 94   Rom 4:17; 8:30; 9:11(12), 23f.; Gal 1:6, 15; 5:8, 13; Eph 4:1, 4; Col 3:15; I Thess 2:12; 4:7; 5:24; II Thess 2:14; I Tim 6:12. 95   Mt 4:21 par; 9:13 parr; Heb 9:15; 11:8; I Pet 1:15; 2:9 (2:21; 3:9); 5:10; II Pet 1:3. Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 3-7, 39-42.



II

43

         .  has several connotations in classical and first-century (NT) Greek usage96 from (1) participation,97 sharing and communion,98 with special reference to the marital union of man and wife, to signs of such communion in (2) social or spiritual fellowship,99 (3) in generosity100 or (4) in contributions101 to others.102 In the NT it is used some 19 times, 13 times in Paul’s letters, with several of these emphases. In the three instances in 1:9 and 10:16 (bis), however,  means most specifically not ‘association’ nor even ‘fellowship’ in its popular sense of social or spiritual relationship but rather participation.103 That is, in its fundamental definitions ‘… describe[s] our participation in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit’.104   Cf. BDAG, 552f.; E. Schweizer, ‘’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 434; somewhat differently: F. Hauck, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 805-808. In the LXX there are only three occurrences: Lev 6:2; III Macc 4:6; Wis 8:18. 97   1:9; 10:16 (bis); further, II Cor 8:4; Phil 1:5; 2:1; 3:10; Plm 6; Eph 3:9. Cf. P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, Grand Rapids 1991, 173f., 405 (on Phil 2:1; 3:16), otherwise at 61f. (on 1:5). 98   E.g. II Cor 13:13(14).  here refers to ‘participation’ in the Holy Spirit. See below, notes 102, 103, 104. 99   E.g. Acts 2:42; II Cor 6:14; Gal 2:9; Phil 1:5; I Jn 1:3, 6. 100   Cf. II Cor 9:13. 101   E.g. Rom 15:26; II Cor 9:13; Heb 13:16. 102   Cf. J. Y. Campbell, ‘ and its Cognates in the New Testament’, JBL 51 (1932), 352-380, 380 = Three New Testament Studies, Leiden 1965, 1-28: at 1:9 ‘ retains its primary and only common meaning—participation along with others in something’ (28). Further, cf. H. Seesemann, Der Begriff  im Neuen Testament, Giessen 1933, 73f., 79, passim. 103   Rightly, Thiselton, 104; Godet, I, 60: ‘particularly [participation] of believers in the life of Christ’; so also Calvin, 24: ‘Erasmus has given the rendering, “into partnership” (consortium). The Vulgate has “society” (societatem). I have however preferred [communion] (communionem)…. For the whole purpose of the Gospel is…that we should be ingrafted into His body. …[Y]ou have been made partakers of Him who rose… [The Christian] can think of himself…in no other way than as a member of Christ…’ Similar: A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, London 1931, 102-140, passim. Otherwise: G. W. Hansen, ‘Transformation of Relationships’, New Testament Greek and Exegesis. FS G. F. Hawthorne, edd. A. M. Donaldson et al., Grand Rapids 2003, 182-192. 104   L. S. Thornton, The Common Life in the Body of Christ, London 41963, 34-65, 75. Thornton, however, appears to interpret the participation sacramentally, i.e. as being effected or initiated primarily by water baptism (59-65, 87ff., 189ff.) 96

44

1 CORINTHIANS

It is thus equivalent or closely related to the Pauline conception of the called ones’ existence ‘in Christ’105 and their existence as the corporate (not ‘mystical’) ‘body of Christ’.106    = ‘his Son’: the possessive form, a characteristically Pauline expression,107 is also found frequently in I John.108 The Son, found here and at 15:28, is one of several titles given to Christ in the NT109 and is used with reference to his role in salvation history, including his relation to God the Father,110 his preexistence,111 messiahship,112 death,113 resurrection,114 mediation of salvation,115 and parousia.116

and by the Lord’s Supper. But for Paul these outward actions symbolize the inward spiritual reality that is already present, effected immediately by the Holy Spirit. See below on 1:17; 10:16f.; 11:23-26; otherwise, from a Roman Catholic perspective, Collins, 379, 462f. Cf. the equivalent phrases, ‘participants () in Christ’ (Heb 3:14), ‘participants in the Holy Spirit’ (Heb 6:4), ‘participants () in the divine nature’ (II Pet 1:4). See below on 9:22-23. 105   See above on 1:2; below, ‘The Spirit and the Gifts’; ‘ in I Corinthians’; ‘Christ Crucified’, AE V, VIII, IX, ###, ###-###, ###. 106   See below on 10:16f. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 36f., 148-154; idem, Theology, 10-14; S. A. Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology, Rome 2001, 7-38, 83-120. See below, AE VIII, ###-###. Further, at 3:16, ‘Special Note on the Eschatological Temple’, 270-274. 107   Rom 1:3; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32; Gal 1:16; 4:4; Col 1:13; I Thess 1:10. 108   I Jn 1:3, 7; 3:23; 4:9f.; 5:9, 20; cf. Jn 3:17 A. 109   Cf. E. Schweizer, ‘’, TDNT 8 (1972), 366-389 (371f., 382-385). 110   15:28; see above, notes 107, 108. Cf. Rom 1:3f.; II Cor 1:3; Mt (8:29 parr) 11:25ff. Q (14:33); 24:36 par (Mk 15:39); Lk 2:11, 49; 22:29; Jn 1:14, 18; 2:16; 3:34f.; 5:26; 8:58; 10:29f., 36; 14:10-13, 20, 28; 17:1, 21; Heb 1:1ff.; I Jn 1:3; 2:22ff.; II Jn 3. 111   E.g. Rom 1:3; 8:3; Gal 4:4; Jn 1:1, 14; 3:13; 6:62; 16:28; 17:5; Heb 1:1ff., 8; I Jn 4:9, 14. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans 2 vols., Edinburgh 1979, I, 57f.; L. Morris, Romans, Grand Rapids 1988, 41f.; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, Grand Rapids 21992, 195. See below, ‘The Pre-existent Christ’, AE XI, ###-###. 112   E.g. Mt 2:15; 3:17 parr; 4:3ff. Q (8:29 parr; 14:33); 16:16; 17:5 parr; 26:62 par; 27:43; Mk 3:11 (15:39); Lk 1:32; 4:41; Jn 1:34, 49; 3:18; 11:4, 27; 20:31; Acts 9:20; Heb 5:5, 8; II Pet 1:17. 113   E.g. Rom 5:10; 8:32. 114   E.g. Rom 1:4; Heb 4:14. 115   E.g. 1:9; Rom 1:9; 8:29; II Cor 1:19; Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:6; Eph 4:13 (Col 1:13). Cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 3:17; 5:21; 6:40; I Jn 4:10, 14f. 116   (15:28), I Thess 1:10.

III T R U E A N D F A L S E W I S D O M ( 1:10–4:21)

Structure As a trained rabbi,1 Paul composes the first major division of I Corinthians in the form of a complex midrash, i.e. biblical commentary and application.2 The opening section (1:10-17) sets forth a problem in the church and introduces the Apostle’s biblical commentaries responding to it. The initial commentary (1:18-31), in the general style of a rabbinic proem midrash, opens with the theme and biblical texts (1:18ff. = Isa 29:14; 19:11f.; cf. 33:18) followed by exposition (1:21-30) and a closing biblical text (1:31 = Jer 9:23f. = MT: 9:22f.). It is succeeded by an application of the commentary to Paul’s first preaching at Corinth (2:1-5). The biblical texts, the exposition, and the application are joined, in rabbinic fashion, by a repetition of the key concept-words.3 The second commentary (2:6-16), using the same midrashic style, opens with an extended theme (vv. 6ff.) and a composite and peshered quotation (v. 9),4 very likely from Isa 52:15; 64:4;   On Paul’s education under the great rabbi Gamaliel I see above, ###; cf. Acts 22:3; further, Acts 5:34; 26:4; W.D. Davies, ‘Paul: From a Jewish Point of View’, CHJ, 686-691. On the common root of Pauline and (later) rabbinic midrash see below, ‘Traditions in I Corinthians’, ‘Exegetical Patterns in I Corinthians and Romans’, AE II & III, ###-###, ###-###. Further, cf. Ellis, History, 107f., 111n; idem, Making, 60f., 78-81, 95f., 99-103, 105f., 144f., 516 (Index: Midrashim); idem, Old Testament, 91-101, 132-138; idem, Prophecy, 188-208. See above, Introduction, ###-###. 2   Cf. J. Weiss, ‘Beiträge zur Paulinschen Rhetorik’, Theologische Studien. FS B. Weiss, edd. C. R. Gregory et al., Göttingen 1897, 200-210: I Cor 1:10–4:21 is ‘an especially well constructed and executed extensive argument…’ (200). But he configures it somewhat differently. 3   I.e.  (1:19f. [25], 26f.);  (1:19ff., 22, 24, 30), also in the application (2:1);  (1:18, 21, 23);  (1:19f., 26f.);  (1:25; 2:5);  (1:23; 2:2);  (1:29, 31). Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 96-100; idem, Prophecy, 154-159. 4   See below, AE II & III, ###-###. On this technique see below on 1:31; cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 95; idem, Prophecy, 159ff., 173-181 (midrash pesher in Pauline hermeneutics); idem, Paul’s Use, 49ff., 139-147. 1

46

1 CORINTHIANS

65:16 LXX, followed by exposition (vv. 10-15) and a concluding OT text (v. 16 = Isa 40:13 LXX), all linked by catchwords.5 It is also connected similarly to the first commentary and application.6 It is followed by an application of the midrash to the situation in Corinth, contrasting the conduct of the Corinthian Christians to that of Paul and Apollos (3:1-19a). While the first commentary (1:1831) emphasizes a critique of ‘the wisdom of this world’ (1:20), the second (2:6-16) reveals the nature and the mediation of ‘the wisdom of God’ (2:7) to the church. The two biblical commentaries and applications conclude with an admonition (3:18-19a) and final biblical texts (3:19f. = Job 5:12f.; Ps 94:11) and with an application (3:21–4:21) of the whole first division of the letter (1:10–4:21), warning the Corinthians ‘not to go beyond the things written’ (4:6), i.e. in the Scriptures that Paul has just expounded to them. This structure invites the conclusion that the Apostle conceives of the expositions themselves as Scripture7 so that 1:18–4:21 may be viewed thus: biblical ‘text’ (1:18-31) + application (2:1-5) + biblical ‘text’ (2:6-16) + application (3:1-18) + warning (3:18-19a) and final texts (3:19f.) + concluding application (3:21–4:21). Commentary Summary The composition of this division of the letter appears to have been occasioned and designed to respond to ethical aberrations within the Pauline congregations8 at Corinth, aberrations reported to Paul ‘by those of Chloe’s household’ (1:11 NKJV). It begins with the 5   I.e.  (2:9, 11, 14, cf. 13);  (2:9, 11f.);  (2:8, 14, 16; cf. 2:11). See below on 2:9. 6   I.e. 1:18–2:5. Cf.  (2:6f., 13);  (2:10ff., 13f. and 2:4);  (2:9, 11, 14);  (2:12 and 1:20f., 27f.);  (2:9, 11f. and 2:2) and above, note 3. 7   I.e. Inspired, apostolically expounded Scripture = Scripture. This is only an extension of Paul’s practice of equating with Scripture his own biblical summaries, i.e. midrashim at, e.g., 10:1-5 and Gal 4:22. See below, AE II, ### [on 10:1-13]. Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 5, 47ff., 91f., 99; idem, Prophecy, 156n, 160f., 224; below, notes 10, 403, 404. 8   There were apparently three or four Pauline house churches at Corinth at the time of this letter, those of Titius Justus (Acts 18:7), of Chloe (1:11), of Gaius (cf. 1:14 with Rom 16:23) and probably of Stephanas (cf. 1:16 with 16:15ff.; so Moffatt, 278; Heinrici, 519). Cf. Edwards, 471. See above, ‘Introduction’, ######; Ellis, Theology, 139-145.



III

47

report of dissensions, squabbling and boasting9 among a good number of highly gifted members of the church about who baptized them (1:10-17). Paul discerns beneath these arrogant attitudes and behaviors a commitment to and expression of ‘the wisdom of the world’ (1:20), embracing a pretentious rhetoric (cf. 1:17; 4:18ff.) and philosophical dialectics (cf. 3:20). He responds to this deplorable situation not merely with exhortation but with carefully composed biblical commentaries on false (1:18-31) and true (2:6-16) wisdom, i.e. a worldly philosophical versus a biblical understanding of truth,10 that he then applies to himself (2:1-5), to the Corinthians (3:1-20) and, in conclusion, to the Corinthian situation generally (3:21–4:21). Special Note on Paul and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric Scholars generally accept the influence of Greek rhetoric on postapostolic Christian writers, probably beginning with Origen.11 Some writers from the early centuries to the present have occasionally applied this influence to Paul.12 In modern times this application represents a part of a larger division among NT scholars as to whether the Apostle is to be understood primarily from Hellenistic (‘history of religions’) or from Jewish and OT (‘salvation history’) backgrounds.13 Some have attributed a Greek   . Cf. 1:29ff.; 3:21ff.; 4:6f.; 13:3.   Cf. Ellis, ‘The Role of the Prophet in the Quest for Truth’, Christ, 255-278; Parry, xxivf. 11   So E. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, London 1907 (1890), 180: ‘It is probable that Origen is not only the earliest example [of Christians trained in rhetorical methods]…but also one of the earliest who took into the Christian communities these methods of the [rhetorical] schools’. Cf. F. Young, ‘The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis’, The Making of Orthodoxy. FS H. Chadwick, ed. R. Williams, Cambridge 1989, 182-199 (196). 12   For a brief history of the research, cf. R. D. Anderson Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, Leuven 1999, 17-21; H. D. Betz, ‘The Problem of Rhetoric and Theology according to the Apostle Paul’, L’Apôtre Paul, ed. A. Vanhoye, Leuven 1986, 16-21; E. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, 2 vols., Stuttgart 1983 (1909), 501-512. Further, Morgenthaler (note 34), 83-190, 122-139. 13   Cf. R. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology, Leiden 2004; Ellis, ‘Pauline Thought’, Interpreters, 24-34; W. A. Meeks, ‘Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity’, and D. B. Martin, ‘Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy’, Paul Beyond the Judaism/ Hellenism Divide, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen, Louisville KY 2001, 17-27, 29-61; 9

10

48

1 CORINTHIANS

philosophical background to Paul’s style and terminology.14 A good number of writers today think that I Corinthians reflects the direct influence of Greek rhetoric both in the letter’s ‘rhetorical’ terminology and also in its composition,15 and almost all of them attribute it to Paul.16 A. J. Malherbe, ‘Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament’, ANRW 2, 26, 1 (1992), 267-333. See below on 1:14. 14   E.g. E. L. Hicks, ‘St. Paul and Hellenism, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, 5 vols., edd. S. R. Driver et al., Oxford 1885–1903, IV (1896), 1-14, 85; R. M. Grant, ‘Hellenistic Elements in 1 Corinthians’, Early Christian Origins. FS H. R. Willoughby, ed. A. Wikgren, Chicago 1961, 60-66; idem, ‘The Wisdom of the Corinthians’, The Joy of Study. FS F. C. Grant, ed. S. E. Johnson, New York 1951, 51-55. Further, cf. L. Alexander, ‘IPSE DIXIT: Citation of Authority in Paul and in the Jewish and Hellenistic Schools’, in Engberg-Pedersen (note 13), 116-127. 15   E.g. A. Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof, Stockholm 1998; idem, ‘Special Topics in 1 Corinthians 8–10’, The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture, edd. S. E. Porter et al., Sheffield UK 1999, 272-301; J. P. Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians, Atlanta 2005; B. L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, Minneapolis MN 1990, 56-59 [1 Cor. 15:1-58]; M. M. Mitchell, ‘Pauline Accommodation and “Condescension” (): 1 Cor. 9:19-23 and the History of Influence’, in Engberg-Pedersen (note 13), 197-214, 205, 213f.; idem, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, Tübingen 1991; S. E. Porter et al., edd., Rhetoric and the New Testament. FS W. Wuellner, Sheffield UK 1993, 211-230 (J. Smit), 231-249 (D. F. Watson); idem, The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture, Sheffield UK 1997, 336-350 (F. W. Hughes), 351-373 (G. S. Selby), 374-387 (L. D. Jacobs); W. Wuellner, ‘Paul as Pastor: The Function of Rhetorical Questions in First Corinthians’, in Vanhoye (note 12), 49-77. For further bibliography cf. D. F. Watson, ‘Rhetorical Criticism, New Testament’, DBI II, 399-402; Schrage, I, 71-94; D. E. Aune, Dictionary of New Testament… Literature and Rhetoric, Louisville KY 2003, 416ff.; J. F. M. Smit, ‘Epideictic Rhetoric in…[I] Corinthians 1–4’, Bib 84 (2003), 184-201; R. S. Dutch, The Educated Elite in I Corinthians, London 2005, 64-86; F. J. Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology, Cambridge 2004, 97f. Cf. Judge (note 308), 66ff.; S. M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia, Atlanta GA 1992, passim. Others have subjected their arguments and theory to acute critique. Cf. e.g. J. D. H. Amador, Academic Constraints in Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, Sheffield UK 1999; Anderson (note 12); M.A. Bullmore, St. Paul’s Theology of Rhetorical Style: An Examination of 1 Corinthians 2.1-5 in Light of First Century Graeco-Roman Rhetorical Culture, Bethesda MD 1995; L. Hartman, ‘Some Remarks on 1 Cor. 2:1-5’, SEÅ 39 (1974), 109-120; P. H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians, Cambridge 1998; D. Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation. 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric, Cambridge 1994; J. T. Reed, ‘Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Interpret Paul’s Letters’, Rhetoric and the New Testament, edd. S.E. Porter et al., Sheffield UK 1993, 292-324. 16   And not to the influence of the Apostle’s secretary on terminology and composition.



III

49

To evaluate this view of Paul’s writings, at least five issues need to be assessed: (1) Paul’s background; (2) the distinction between Paul’s terminology that has a usage in common with rhetorical terms and his use of terminology within a technical rhetorical connotation; (3) the distinction between rhetoric in speech and in letters; (4) the distinction between prophetic speech and rhetoric; (5) Paul’s own assertions regarding his rhetorical skills. (1) Paul’s background lies in Jerusalem,17 virtually from infancy and probably until his conversion at about 30 years of age.18 His knowledge of Greek was learned there, in a bilingual home or in a Jewish school. It probably embraced the Greek OT and other Jewish Greek writings. His rabbinical education in Hebrew under Gamaliel I would have included a biblical rhetoric of preaching and exposition of Scripture, a rhetoric that originated in or was influenced by (Alexandrian Jewish) Greek rhetoric.19 But it is unlikely that his

  See above, Introduction ###-###.   A reasoned conjecture: (1) at the martyrdom of Stephen Luke identifies Paul then as a ‘young man’ (, Acts 7:58). This term could range in meaning from those 24 to 40 years of age (BDAG, 667). But Luke later uses this term interchangeably with ‘lad’ (, Acts 20:9, 12). In the LXX it sometimes renders ‫ ור‬which often refers ‘to a young man not yet married’ (C. K. Barrett, Acts, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1998, I, 386). Cf. Judg 14:10; Ruth 3:10; Isa 62:5; Jer. 15:8; Amos 2:11; II Macc 7:25; IV Macc 8:3f.; cf. Isa 23:4; Jer 6:11; 9:21; 51:22; Lam 1:18; 2:21; Ezek 9:6; Amos 9:13; Zech 12:21. (2) Earlier Luke dates the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry at ‘about 30 years of age’ (Luke 3:23). (3) The Levites entered their priestly duties at age 30 (Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39). (4) It is ‘from this age [of 30] onwards, as a rule, that the [Roman] laws call to the magistracies and to the administration of public affairs…’ (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities 4, 6, 3, Loeb). (5) If Paul was converted in AD 33 at c. 30 years of age he would have been c. 65 years old at his final journey to Rome and to martyrdom in AD 67–68; cf. Ellis, Making, 256-263, 266-284. 19   So, D. Daube, ‘Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric’ (1949), ‘Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis’ (1953), DCW I, 333-376, cf. 242: ‘…from, say, 150 B.C., the teaching of the [Hellenistic] rhetorical schools pervaded the entire Mediterranean world; so that in most branches of learning, up to a point at least, the same spirit and, above all, the same technique might be found everywhere’. Cf. idem, II, 3 f., 7; H. Thyen, Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie, Göttingen 1955. Further, Billerbeck IV, 405-414; S. Lieberman, ‘How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?’, Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann, Cambridge MA 1963, 123-135. See also S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols., Hildesheim 1964 (1898); the use of Greek names and tombstone-inscriptions in Palestinian Judaism in, e.g., P. van der Horst, Ancient 17 18

50

1 CORINTHIANS

education included pagan Greek literature or training in GraecoRoman rhetoric. (2) As for the presence of rhetorical terminology or compositional structure in Paul’s letters, one must determine whether such terms20 or structures21 are used in a technical rhetorical sense or in another or more general sense. When, for example, athletic terminology is used in a technical sense in I Corinthians,22 the connotation is made clear by the context; terminology identified as ‘rhetorical’ has no clear or necessary technical connotation. (3) Rhetoric in ancient Hellenism referred to speech, not to letters.23 It may be applied to Paul’s letters, however, in that they depart from ancient letters in length,24 structure and style and resemble them only in their general framework – opening, body, closing. They are, in fact, teaching pieces adapted to a general letter format. The major Pauline letters include what are arguably summaries of sermons25 Jewish Epitaphs, Kampen 1991; J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? Leiden 1968. On parallelisms in Paul’s letters, some reminiscent of OT literature, cf. Weiss (note 2), 165-247. 20   Of some 16 rhetorical terms in I Corinthians only two,  (12:4 ff.) and  (1:22; 14:22) have any similarity with their rhetorical usage. Cf. R. D. Anderson Jr., The Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms, Leuven 2000; idem (note 12), 335-338; M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., Edinburgh 2000, II, 924n. 21   So, for I Corinthians, esp. Mitchell, Paul (note 15). For Galatians cf. H. D. Betz, Galatians, Philadelphia 1979. Mitchell’s work is reviewed with appreciation by Anderson (note 15), 254-265, but with the negative conclusion ‘that comprehensive rhetorical analysis of the argumentation of this letter is not feasible’ (264). 22   E.g. 9:24ff.: , , , . 23   Cf. Anderson, ‘Relation of Rhetoric to Epistolography’ (note 12), 109-127, whose argument on this matter I generally agree with and follow. He notes ‘that ancient rhetorical theorists paid virtually no attention to letter writing before the fourth century AD…’ (118). On rhetoric in education and history, cf. Y. L. Too, ed., Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden 2001, 85-109, 271-287, 340-372; J. J. Murphy et al., A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric, Mahwah NJ 32003. 24   Cf. E. R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, Tübingen 1991, 213; idem, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, Downers Grove IL 2004, 15ff., 109-121. 25   I.e. homilies, some of which are summaries of expositions preached earlier in Christian synagogues, e.g. Rom 4:1-25 (Michel); Gal 3:6-14, 26-28; 4:21-32 (Borgen, Ellis). Cf. P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, Leiden 1965, 48-52; Ellis, Making, 101f.; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, Göttingen 51978, 160f.



III

51

and debates26 that Paul had voiced earlier in Antioch27 and else­ where,28 summaries that are structured, however, not according to Greek rhetoric29 but in the patterns of proem30 and yelammedenulike31 midrashim found in somewhat different, more stylized form in later rabbinic writings.32 (4) Paul’s writing is that of a Jewish prophet, an apostolic NT prophet to be sure but nonetheless a prophet.33 Like the composition of OT prophets, it may be analyzed rhetorically,34 but it is an approach and has a frame of reference quite different from GraecoRoman rhetoric. In this context, G.A. Kennedy writes, ‘Christian preaching is…not persuasion but proclamation, and is based on authority and grace, not on proof’. Indeed, I Cor 2:6-13, ‘may   Both with Jewish inquirers or opponents in synagogue schools and with pagan Gentiles, e.g. Rom 1:18-32 (Michel; cf. Acts 17:22-31, Gärtner). Cf. H. Bloedhorn et al., ‘The Synagogue’, CHJ III, 267-297 (292ff.); Michel (note 25), 96f.; B. Gärtner, The Aeropagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Uppsala 1955, 144-169. See above, notes 3, 5; below, notes 165, 398. 27   I.e. in the debates with Judaizers preceding the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem AD 49–50; cf. Gal. 2:11-16.; Ellis, Making, 255-260. 28   E.g. at Ephesus where Paul ministered at length (AD 53–56) before his first letter to Corinth (AD 56) and his letter to the Romans (AD 58) in which such biblical commentary, i.e. midrash, appears. Cf. Ellis, Making, 60, 78-81, 260-266. 29   Cf. e.g. Heinrici, 31f. 30   E.g. 1:18-31; 2:6-16; 10:1-13; Rom 4:1-25; Gal 3:6-14; 4:21-31. See below, AE II, ###-###; III, ###; cf. Ellis, History, 107; idem, Making, 96, 101ff.; idem, Old Testament, 98f.; idem, Prophecy, 155f.; Borgen (note 25), 48-52; Wuellner (note 37). 31   Cf. Rom 9:6-29; perhaps, Rom 11:1-36. See below, AE III, ###; VI, ###; Ellis, Prophecy, 218ff.; cf. Ellis, History, 106-109; idem, Making, 175f.; idem, Prophecy, 154f., 158f.; idem, Old Testament, 97f. 32   Cf. e.g. W. G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 vols., New Haven CT 1968, I, 2ff., 17-20; J. Townsend, Midrash Tanhuma, 2 vols., Hoboken NJ 1997, I, xi, passim. For halachic midrash at Qumran cf. 4Q249 (‘Midrash on the Book of Moses’). 33   Cf. 2:16; 9:1-3; 14:37; II Thess 2:15 with I Thess 2:13. For a comparison of the gifts of apostle and of prophet, cf. Ellis, ‘The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts’, Prophecy, 129-144, 141ff.; idem, ‘The Role of the Prophet in the Quest for Truth’, Christ, 255-278. 34   Cf., on Jer 14:2–15:9, Y. Gitay, ‘Rhetorical Criticism and Prophetic Discourse’, Persuasive Artistry. FS G. A. Kennedy, ed. D. F. Watson, Sheffield UK 1991, 13-24; E. König, ‘Jesaja und die Rhetorik’, Lukas und Quintilian, ed. R. Morgenthaler, Zürich 1993, 140-164; H. Viviers, ‘Elihu (Job 32-37), Garrulous but Poor Rhetor…?’, in Porter, Analysis (note 15), 137-153; M. Avioz, ‘A Rhetorical Analysis of Jeremiah 7:1-15’, TB 57 (2006), 173-189. 26

52

1 CORINTHIANS

be said to reject the whole of classical philosophy and rhetoric’.35 Elsewhere, he classifies much of Scripture as a ‘distinctive religious rhetoric’ in which the proclamation is given a supporting reason and which, in Paul’s writings, would involve ‘some understanding of classical rhetoric’. This rhetoric, however, only described and classified the ‘universal fact of human communication’.36 If so, in what way are the classifications of Greek rhetoric useful for and in what way a distraction from understanding the prophetic word of Paul’s letter? According to W. Wuellner, ‘the reported bickerings in Christian Corinth, which continued for some time in one way or another as attested in I Clement [3:2ff.; 44:1-6; 47:5ff.], were inspired and shaped not by current preoccupations with Sophistic rhetoric in Hellenistic Corinth, but by halakic and haggadic discussions in Jewish Corinth, as elsewhere throughout the Dispersion’.37 This view is supported by several considerations: (a) The essential Jewishness of Paul’s argumentation throughout the letter is evident from his frequent use of the OT to support his views38 and from the midrashic structure of I Cor 1–4 and 10:1-22.39 (b) The church 35   G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, Chapel Hill NC 1980, 127, 131f.; idem, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton NJ 1995, 259. Otherwise: J. R. Levison, ‘Did the Spirit Inspire Rhetoric?’, in Watson (note 34), 25-40. 36   G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, Chapel Hill NC 1984, 6, 10: in so far as this is the case, its classifications may be used to interpret, e.g., II Corinthians (86-96) and Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans (141-160) as well as the Gospels and Acts. 37   W. A. Wuellner, ‘Haggadic Homily Genre in I Corinthians 1–3’, JBL 89 (1970), 199-204, 202f. Although he has pursued rhetorical studies, his doubts about its accomplishments remain: there is ‘the growing realization that all efforts of applying the standards of rhetorical genres of Hellenistic antiquity to first-century Jewish and Christian texts, as Klaus Berger [Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, Heidelberg 1984] attempted, have ended more in frustration, dissatisfaction and obfuscation than in clarification of the task at hand’ (W. Wuellner, ‘The Rhetorical Genre of Jesus’ Sermon in Lk 12:1–13:9’, in Watson [note 34], 91-118, 97f.). See below, notes 164, 165. 38   E.g. 1:19f., 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19f.; 6:16; 9:9; 10:7, 26; 14:21; 15:27, 32, 45, 54f. Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 172-176, passim. Further, cf. P. J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, Assen 1990, 68-87. 39   See below, AE II and III, ###-###, ###-###; cf. Wuellner, ‘Homily’ (note 37); Ellis, History, 107f., 148; idem, Old Testament, 96-100; idem, Prophecy, 155f.



III

53

in Corinth, as it is presented in Acts, originated in AD 51–52 and was initially composed largely of Jews and God-fearers40 within the Jewish synagogue. At the time of I Corinthians (AD 56) it also exhibited a membership of ‘both Jews and Greeks’ (1:24), circumcised and uncircumcised (7:18). (c) It presumably understood Paul’s OT/Jewish references, e.g. Christ as our ‘Passover’ (5:7), the Exodus Jews as ‘our fathers’ (10:1), the church implicitly as spiritual Israel in contrast to ‘Israel according to the flesh’ (   , 10:18)41 and its communion meal as representing a ‘new covenant’ with Israel (11:25; cf. Jer 31:31; Lk 22:20). (d) Joined to and participating in a Jewish Messiah (), the church in Corinth was viewed by Paul and, if perceptive, rightly viewed itself as Messianic or, what David Daube called, NT Judaism.42 (5) The Apostle was not an accomplished rhetorician, neither in Luke’s presentation of him in Acts43 nor by his own statements in his letters.44 His negative reference to a ‘wisdom of word’ (1:17),45 however, is broader than human rhetoric and is explained as ‘the wisdom of the world’ (1:20; cf. 2:6) and the ‘wisdom of men’ (2:5), i.e. human wisdom as such, whether it is mediated philosophically, rhetorically or in any other way. He contrasts this ‘foolishness’ (3:18) with ‘the wisdom of God’ (1:21, 24; 2:7), not a wisdom that man achieves or can achieve but a divine wisdom that one receives from the revelation of God through prophets.46 That Paul uses reason and experience and epistolary and hermeneutical conventions to mediate this divine wisdom is evident, but he views them as subordinate instruments totally dependent for their success on God’s choosing (, 1:27f.) and on God’s ‘revealing through the Spirit’ (2:10) the things of God. It may be that some of the Corinthians expected Paul to deliver his message   Acts 18:1-8, 7. Cf. Schürer, III, 25f. 160-172. See below, note 140.   Cf. Gal 3:29; 6:16; Eph 2:12-19; Phil 3:3. Even 12:2 may apply to Godfearers and to their pagan status prior to their commitment to the God of the OT. 42   D. Daube, New Testament Judaism, DCW II. 43   Paul in Acts cannot hold his audience (22:22; 23:1f.), impresses others as absurd or mad (17:32; 26:24) and frightens his friends with a proposal to speak to a hostile crowd (19:30f.). Cf. Ellis, ‘The Origin and Making of Luke-Acts’, Making, 377-405, 399. 44   II Cor 11:6; cf. 10:10. 45   See below on 1:17. 46   See below on 2:6-16. Cf. Ellis (note 10). 40 41

54

1 CORINTHIANS

in terms of sophistic philosophical methods or rhetorical conventions.47 If so, Paul’s ‘coming and conduct’ at Corinth and his letters to Corinth may be understood in part as an implicit critique of the Corinthian sophistic tradition.48 In conclusion, (1) Paul viewed Graeco-Roman philosophy and rhetoric as manifestations of human wisdom that God has rejected, and that Paul also rejects, as instruments ‘to save those who believe’ (1:20f.). (2) His direct training was not in Greek rhetoric but rather in Palestinian Jewish rabbinic hermeneutic whose form and methods, however, had themselves been secondarily influenced by Greek rhetoric, in some measure through Alexandrian Judaism.49 (3) Although Paul used the general epistolary conventions common to his day and secretaries and co-senders who may have been trained in Greek rhetoric and may have had some influence on his epistles, it is unlikely, in the light of his background and training, that the Apostle composed their form or content in the fashion of GraecoRoman rhetoric. The rhetorical analysis of Paul’s letters is in principle correct. But it cannot be accomplished by an interpretation solely and directly from Graeco-Roman texts and handbooks, an approach that in my judgment is an historically problematic enterprise. To be successful, it has to be inclusive of the Apostle’s Jewish background and to pay attention to the DSS, targumic and rabbinic traditions, and to pre-Christian Jewish Greek writings as the major media through which the Graeco-Roman literary techniques came (indirectly) to bear upon Paul and upon his epistles. A. Dissensions in the Church (1:10-17) Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all speak the same thing, that is, that there may not be dissensions among you but that you may be reconciled in the same mind and in the same understanding. 11For it was told me by those of Chloe’s household concerning you, my brothers, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each 10

  This argument is made in considerable detail by B. W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists, Cambridge 1997, 114-244. On the sophistic movements cf. ‘Second Sophistic’, ‘Sophists’, OCD3, 1377f., 1442. 48   Winter (note 47), 179-202. Similar, A. D. Clarke, ‘The Sophistic Background to ’, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, Leiden 1993, 112ff. 49   See above, note 19. 47



III

55

of you says, ‘I am of Paul’, or ‘I am of Apollos’, or ‘I am of Cephas’, or ‘I am of Christ’. 13Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius 15 so that none should say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (I did baptize the household of Stephanas; otherwise I do not know if I baptized anyone else.) 17Because Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not in the wisdom of word so that the cross of Christ not be made void.

Textual Notes 13.  :  The interrogative negative particle , apparently added for clarification, is present only in p46, a few minuscule mss and in some Syriac and one Coptic version. 14.  : ‫א‬2 C D F G Y 1881 M, agreeing with 1:4; 14:18; Rom 1:8; 7:25; Phil 1:3; cf. Col 1:3; I Thess 1:2; 2:13; II Thess 1:3; Plm 4. Probably original; so, Nestle-Aland, but see Metzger, 479: difficult to decide.

Structure Paul makes the opening request for unity in the face of reports of dissensions among the Corinthians (1:10f.). He then specifies the surface causes of the individual dissensions, i.e. partiality toward this or that apostle of Christ (cf. 4:6, 9), each one (, 1:12) on the basis, in part, of which apostle baptized him. The Apostle concludes with an allusion to the underlying and more serious cause of the squabbling, i.e. a ‘wisdom of word’ that makes void the message of the cross (1:17) which, as he will show, is the wisdom of God. The conclusion of this introductory paragraph (1:10-17) thereby sets the stage for the major theme of the whole division (1:10–4:21), true and false wisdom. Commentary Summary Paul urges unity among the Corinthians through the divine power of ‘the name’ of the Lord Jesus Christ. He deplores their dissensions, which are rooted in unethical attitudes and expressed by divisive partialities for other ‘names’, i.e. those of particular apostles. Paul protests that these attitudes and the resulting fracas displace the centrality of Christ and of his cross, exaggerate the role of water baptism and its administrators, and reveal an unethical human

56

1 CORINTHIANS

thinking and speaking totally at odds with the gospel message and with Paul’s preaching of it. Exegesis 10.    . , here contracted, occurs frequently in Paul’s letters with a variety of meanings, six times in I Corinthians.50 Here, as elsewhere, it means ‘to ask earnestly’, ‘to urge’, and it marks the transition from the opening thanksgiving to the body of the letter.51 The urgent request points forward to the biblical commentaries, 1:18-31; 2:6-16; 3:19f., that detail the ultimate grounds for and the serious implications of the Apostle’s expressed concern. The expression is, then, not just a rhetorical device to introduce Paul’s argument52 nor even (primarily) a stylistic pattern in the fashion of Graeco-Roman correspondence.53 The particle ,54 which never begins a sentence,55 marks the transition from thanksgiving to admonition.56 The vocative  = ‘brothers’ is here a generic masculine, inclusive of male 50   1:10; 4:13, 16; 16:12, 15; 14:31. Cf. BDAG, 764f.; O. Schmitz, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 794ff. 51   Cf. Thiselton, 112; C. J. Bjerkelund, Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der Parakalô Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen, Oslo 1967, 141, cf. 44-58, 109ff. Elsewhere the term introduces paraklēsis, i.e. hortatory sections, in the body of the letter, e.g. Rom 12:1; Eph 4:1; I Thess 4:1; 5:14; I Tim 2:1. Cf. 4:16; 16:15; Rom 15:30; 16:17. 52   Pace Mitchell, Paul (note 15), 44n; cf. 68-80. See above, Special Note on Paul and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric, 83-96. 53   Although Paul or his secretary would presumably have followed the common epistolary usage. 54   Although often adversative (cf. 1:23; 2:6; Robertson, 1186), it is here ‘a purely continuative particle’ (Thrall, 51) and appears to initiate a significant turning point in the letter as it does in the narrative at Mk 1:14; 7:24; 10:32; 14:1. Cf. C. H. Turner, ‘A Textual Commentary on Mark I’, JTS 28 (1927), 145-158, 152; but see Thrall, 63-67. Further, Zerwick, 157. Cf. S. A. Son, ‘    in Col 2:17’, History and Exegesis. FS E. E. Ellis, ed. S. A. Son, New York 2006, 211-227, 212n.; J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, Oxford 21954, 162-189. It may also initiate (15:1; I Tim 4:1, ‘now’) or resume (Mt 26:17; Mk 13:32; Lk 4:1, ‘now’) or intensify a topic (Phil 2:8, ‘even’). 55   In common with classical Greek. On its ‘post-positive’ position cf. Robertson, 424. 56   So, Godet, I, 61.



III

57

and female, and is a characteristic Pauline expression for ‘fellow Christians’;57 the term also signifies ‘fellow worker(s)’.58       . See above on 1:2, notes 87ff.  with the genitive may mean ‘through the agency of’ or ‘by means of’.59 Here it alludes to Paul’s corporate union ‘in Christ’ within which and from which he speaks: ‘If the Corinthians had understood the doctrine of the [corporate] union, they would not have set a Paul or an Apollos on a level with the Lord Jesus’.60 The use of ‘the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ invokes the character, authority and power of his person by his Apostle. Other NT texts speak of command,61 teaching,62 assembly,63 baptism,64 Christian life,65 confession,66 exorcisms,67 faith,68 judgment,69 martyrdom,70 ministry,71 miracles,72 persecution,73 prayer,74 salvation,75 and suffering76 in or for the name of Christ. Here it is the designated authority of the name that seems to be stressed and, although only a 57   Cf. 1:11, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 7:24; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 58; 16:15; Zuntz, 175-180 (‘ “Brethren” and “My Brethren” ’). It has this meaning also in the indicative: 5:11; 6:5-8; 7:12; 8:11ff.; 10:1; 11:2. See below on 10:1, note 455. 58   See above on 1:1; below on 7:29; 15:6; 16:11f., 20; Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 13-22; History, 85a, 87. 59   Cf. Moule, 55-58; BDF, 119f.; Robertson, 582f. On  see below on 6:17. 60   Edwards, 15. 61   II Thess 3:6. 62   Acts 4:18; 9:27. 63   Mt 18:20. 64   Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5. 65   Col 3:17; II Thess 1:11f.; Rev 2:3, 13. 66   Phil 2:10. 67   Mk 9:38f. par; Lk 10:17; Acts 16:18; 19:13. 68   Jn 1:12; 2:23 (3:18); 20:31; I Jn 3:23. 69   5:4; Phil 2:10. 70   Acts 21:13. 71   Mt 19:29 T + Q; Col 3:17; II Thess 1:11f. 72   Mk 9:38f. par; Acts 3:6; 4:30; Jas 5:14. 73   Acts 15:26; 26:9. 74   Jn 14:13f.; 15:16; 16:23f.; Eph 5:20. 75   6:11; Mt 12:21; Jn 1:12; 20:31; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 22:16; Rom 1:5; 10:9, 13; I Jn 2:12. 76   Acts 5:41; 9:16; I Pet 4:14ff.

58

1 CORINTHIANS

strong request, it is not unrelated to the police officer’s word: ‘Stop in the name of the law’.77     .   may introduce purpose, result, object, imperatival and appositional or explanatory clauses.78 Here it either is imperatival or governs an appositional clause, ‘expressing the contents of the exhortation’.79 ‘That you all speak the same thing’, i.e. be in agreement,80 is explained by the following (1) negative and (2) positive affirmations.         .  The  is explanatory, i.e. ‘even’, ‘that is’,81 in contrast to the strongly adversative  of the following clause.82 The present subjunctive  and the  with the perfect participle stress a continuing state of affairs i.e. ‘that there may not go on being dissensions but that you may become and continue to be reconciled’.83 The dissensions () are not, at the time of I Corinthians, schisms in the sense of a separation of parties or factions but rather ‘bickerings’ (Munck), discord and disharmony among ‘gifted’ individuals.84 77   Further, cf. Conzelmann, 32; H. Bietenhard, ‘Name’, NIDNTT II, 648-656 (654f.). 78   Cf. Moule, 138f., 142, 144ff.; Burton, 86ff., 90-95 (92); Moulton, III, 100-106; Zerwick 139-142. 79   Edwards, 15f.; but see Robertson, 1046; Fanning, 383. 80   Cf. Rom 15:5; Phil 2:2; 4:2; BDAG, 588; Conzelmann, 31n = GT: 44n; Collins, 77. But see Zerwick, 139-142 (141f.): expressing an independent wish. 81   Moulton, III, 335. 82   Robertson, 1186. 83   Cf. LSJ, 910: ‘’. 84   So, Hays, 22; Fee, 54-59; Edwards, 16; J. Munck, ‘The Church without Factions’, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, Atlanta 1977 (1954), 135-167, 136; J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, London 101896, 372n; apparently, N. A. Dahl, ‘Paul and the Church at Corinth according to 1 Cor 1:10–4:21’, Studies in Paul, Minneapolis MN 1977, 40-61, 49-62. Cf. Jn 7:43. Otherwise: G. Klein, Das Problem des Schismas bei Paulus, Rheinbach 2007 (1961), 27-38, 32. On the importance of unity in the OT and rabbinic teaching cf. Billerbeck III, 322f. See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and I Corinthians’, AE I, ###. F. C. Baur took over earlier opinion (J. E. C. Schmidt) to reduce the ‘parties’ to two, those of Paul and of Peter, a view that was apparently derived from T. D. Morgan, The Moral Philosopher, New York 1977 (11737), 50-70, 362ff., perhaps via J. S. Semler, ad Galatas, Halae-Magdeburgiae 1779, 18-63. So, J. C. O’Neill, ‘Letter to the Galatians’, DBI, I, 426-429 (426). Cf. F. C. Baur, ‘Die Christuspartei



III

59

        . Edwards sees here an allusion to the charisms of  and  (1:5), gifts that some Corinthians are misusing.85 More likely, it means ‘in one spirit, in one soul’ (Phil 1:27), i.e. inner attitude; see below on 2:11. In any case, in the light of Paul’s subsequent teaching, their conduct does not promote agreement and harmony but proceeds from a false human wisdom that is destructive to the unity and well-being of the congregation, which is the body of Christ.86 11.   .  Paul has been told orally () ‘by those of Chloe’, presumably Corinthian Christians in Ephesus,87 on business or otherwise, of the ‘quarrels’ ()88 in the church. In the light of the role of women of means as hostesses of a number of Pauline house churches,89 they are presumably members of a house church at Corinth hosted by Chloe. Perhaps they are her servants.90 12.       …,… …. An ascending scale, Paul placing himself at the lowest spot. The phrases, ‘each of you’ and ‘I am’, show that these are dissensions of individuals and not, as traditionally in der korinthischer Gemeinde…’, TZT 1831, IV, 61-206, 76, 136, 205f. = idem, Auggewählte Werke, 5 vols., Stuttgart 1963-75, I, 1-146, 16, 76, 145f. 85   Edwards, 16: ‘ is related to  as  is to ’. 86   Foreshadowing Paul’s teaching in 1:18–4:21; 12:1-26. Cf. Rom 15:5f. NKJV; Phil 2:2; Col 3:13ff. 87   Apparently different from the Corinthian delegation, probably Stephanas et al., who brought a letter from the Corinthian church to Paul; rightly, Dahl (note 84), 50. See below on 7:1; 16:17. On  see below on 2:14. 88    (‘strife’ ‘discord’) appears in vice lists as one of ‘the works of the flesh’ (Gal 5:19ff.; cf. Rom 1:29; 13:12f.; I Tim 6:4f.), i.e. of man in Adam, man under sin and under death. See below, AE VII, ###. It appears in Paul’s later reproof of these Corinthians (3:3; II Cor 12:20) and of others (Phil 1:15). 89   16:19; Rom 16:3ff. (Priscilla, cf. Acts 18:2f.); Acts 16:15, 40 (Lydia); Col 4:15 (Nympha); Plm 1f. (Apphia). Probable, Rom 16:1f. (Phoebe); 16:15 (Julia, Nereus’ sister). Perhaps, Rom 16:13 (Rufus’ mother); Phil 4:2 (Euodia and Syntyche). Cf. Acts 12:12 (Mary); perhaps, Acts 9:36-42 (Tabitha). Some of these were wives or sisters (e.g. Priscilla, Julia, Apphia) of notable Christians. On the property rights of women in antiquity, cf. S. R. Llewelyn, ‘Changing the Legal Jurisdiction’, ND 9 (2002), 45-53 (49f.). On a Christian patroness (, Rom 16:2), cf. ND 4 (1987), 239-244 (243); Schürer, III, 25f. 90   Cf. Collins, 78f.; W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians, New Haven CT 22003, 57, 59.

60

1 CORINTHIANS

thought, a conflict between ‘factions’ or ‘parties’ () in the church.91 They represent Paul’s summary (   ) of Corinthian attitudes and are not necessarily Corinthian slogans. The genitives—‘of Paul’, ‘of Apollos’, ‘of Peter’ and ‘of Christ’—are ‘relational’,92 i.e. ‘the possessive genitive of special application’.93 They reflect preferences for this or that (…) apostle, in part based on which apostle baptized him (1:13ff.). Thus, they probably point to apostles who had personally ministered at Corinth.94 The phrase ‘of Christ’ has been given various interpretations:95 Does it refer, as traditionally thought by many, to a ‘Jewish’ focus on the earthly Jesus by some Corinthians?96 Is it an enthusiastic (gnosticizing) present-eschatology focus on the exalted Christ?97 Is it a reference to those who properly focus on Christ, but nonetheless wrongly enter into a wrangling debate about it?98 Or does it mean, ‘I myself belong to Christ—and am independent of Paul?’99 The parallel wording for the four different views excludes the interpretation that the fourth slogan, ‘I am of Christ’, is Paul’s alternative to the first three. The Apostle condemns the dissensions as such, in particular the self-centered and divisive attitudes that they reflect.

  The issue is neither political (e.g. Welborn) nor theological (e.g. F. C. Baur) pace L. L. Welborn, Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Letters, Macon GA 1997, 1-42; rev. of idem, JBL 107 (1987), 85-111. See above, note 84; below on 11:19, where  is equated with ‘dissensions’ (, 11:18); elsewhere it refers to the present danger of future divisions (cf. II Pet 2:1; Munck, note 84, 136ff.; Ellis, Making, 126; BDAG, 28; P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus. Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, Minneapolis MN 32003, 21989, 381f.; C. W. Strüder, ‘Preferences not Parties: …1 Cor 1:12’, ETL 79 (2003), 431-455. 92   BDF, 162 § 7: ‘I belong to’. Cf. Thiselton, 121f.; Mitchell, Paul (note 15), 85f., who, however, contrasts this with a genitive of possession. 93   Robertson, 501. 94   Certainly Apollos: 3:6; Acts 18:26ff.; 19:1. By inference, probably Peter; see below, note 107. On … see 11:7ff., note 73. 95   For those interpreting ‘of Christ’ as a group, cf. Thiselton, 123-133; Schrage, I, 146ff.; for earlier German scholarship, cf. Meyer, 19-24; Godet, 68-79. 96   So, Godet, 74ff.; cf. Heinrici, 56f. But the opponent’s claim ‘that he is Christ’s’ (II Cor 10:7) does not support this view since Paul applies it to himself as well. 97   E.g. Lang, 26; cf. Conzelmann, 33f. = GT: 47ff. 98   So, Lenski, 43. 99   So, Dahl (note 84), 49. 91



III

61

But he elaborates only on one cause, water baptism, for their partiality toward himself or toward Apollos or Cephas. . The name  is a contracted form for  (Acts 18:24 D),  and .100 In the NT  appears first as an independent eloquent preacher of Christ in Ephesus,101 who then went to Corinth. He pursued his own mission, overlapping and cooperating with Paul’s (16:12; cf. 3:4ff., 22; Tit 3:13).  = ‘Cephas’. The Aramaic word ‫ = כיפא‬rock, the name given by Jesus to Simon, his apostle, corresponding to the Greek .102 Paul refers to him by both names.103 Simeon = Simon = Simon Peter = Peter = Cephas104 led the earliest Christian mission at Jerusalem c. AD 33–42 and thereafter pursued an itinerant ministry based from time to time at Caesarea. He was martyred at Rome, probably ‘in the spring of 65’.105 That Peter also ministered and baptized at Corinth is supported (1) by the parallel with Apollos, who was certainly there;106 (2) by the reference to Peter’s itinerant ministry as a well-known fact at Corinth.107 Although those individuals partial to Peter could have 100   Cf. BDAG, 116; BDF, 67f.; Robertson, 172, 189, 260; LietzmannKümmel, 90; Moulton, III, 121; Names, 266. 101   At about the time of Paul’s founding mission to Corinth. Cf. Acts 18:24-28; 19:1. Identified as an apostle of Christ (4:6, 9), he apparently was commissioned by Jesus during his preresurrection ministry but knew nothing of the Pentecostal events until he was further instructed by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:26). 102   Jn 1:42; cf. Mt 16:17ff. Cf. Names, 436. 103   E.g. 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11 (Cephas); Gal 2:7; cf. 1:18 ‫א‬2 D M; 2:9 p46 D (Peter). 104   Acts 15:14; II Pet 1:1 (Simeon); Mt 17:25; Mk 1:16f. par, 29f. par, 36; 14:37; Lk 5:1-11; 22:31; 24:34; Jn 21:15ff. (Simon); Mt 16:16; Jn 1:40; 6:8, 68; 13:6, 9, 24, 36; 18:10, 15, 25; 20:2, 6; 21:2, 7, 11 (Simon Peter); from Mt 14 to I Pet 1:1, esp. frequently in the Gospels and Acts: Peter; for Cephas see notes 102 and 103. 105   Cf. Ellis, ‘The Mission of James, Peter and John in the 50s’, ‘The Martyrdom of Peter and the Literature of his Mission’, Making, 264ff., 293-306, 293; cf. 242, 255, 293. 106   3:6, 22; Acts 18:27f.; 19:1. 107   9:5. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (c. AD 170), wrote that ‘Peter and Paul…taught together in our Corinth…’ (Eusebius, HE 2, 25, 8). Further, cf. Ellis, Making, 367f., 374; Barrett, 44 (‘probable’).

62

1 CORINTHIANS

known him elsewhere and certainty on the matter is impossible, it appears likely that they were Peter’s Corinthian converts. 13.    = ‘Has Christ been divided?’ or, if the variant  is admitted, ‘Christ has not been divided, has he?’ Bringing out the force of the perfect tense of  and of the article, Paul expresses the divisive implications of their appalling dissensions, implications that come into reality in II Cor 10–13.108 He also voices the immediate issues involved, i.e. their attitude toward Christ’s crucifixion and toward their water baptism: these Corinthians’ concentration on and exaltation of the apostle who baptized them not only misunderstand the proper role of the apostles as ‘servants of Christ’ (4:1) and their baptism as symbolic and representative of their incorporation by the Holy Spirit into the ‘one body’ of Christ (12:13), but also displace the centrality of ‘the word of the cross’ (1:18) and of ‘Christ crucified’ (1:23; 2:2) as the exemplar and the role model for the Christian life.109 The exclamation, ‘Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized into the name of Paul?’, with the  underscoring an expected negative answer, headlines a concern that the Apostle will develop in the following paragraphs.     ; See below on 1:23.     ;  Contrasted, to show its absurdity, with the well-known phrase ‘into the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’,110 on whom they call and through whom Paul ministers.

  See below, AE I, ###-###. Cf. Gal 3:28d. On the style see 4:7.   Cf. Gal 3:1. See below, ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###. 110   And implicitly alluding to ‘baptism into Christ’ (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27; cf. L. Hartman, ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’: Baptism in the Early Church, Edinburgh 1997, 60n. See above on 1:2, 10; below on 10:2; 12:13. Cf. the discussion of Rom 6:3f.; Gal 5:27 in K. Barth, ‘Baptism with Water’, Church Dogmatics, 5 vols. in 14, Edinburgh 1936–77, IV, iv, 91f., 117f. The preposition  (‘into’) has a stronger participatory force than  (Acts 2:38) or  (e.g. Acts 10:48). For a comparison with the Trinitarian formula for water baptism, e.g. at Mt 28:19, cf. Lightfoot, 155; Further, cf. R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of Paul, Oxford 1964, 18-29. 108 109



III

63

14.   . See above on 1:4.    .  To understand Paul’s comment requires that one scan his background. ‘To baptize’ () in traditional Jewish111 practice was a self-immersion (, ) in water: (1) of proselytes upon conversion,112 including the whole family, and (2) of Jews in other purification rituals,113 practiced with diligence among the Pharisees and in particular among the (Qumran) Essenes.114 The Qumran community stressed 111   A century ago the ‘History of Religions School’ argued that Paul’s thought, including his doctrine of baptism, was influenced or derived from Hellenistic ‘mystery religions’ (Reitzenstein). But its evidence for ‘mystery religion’ practices was ‘meagre’ (Kennedy) and ‘exceedingly scanty’ (Machen) and much of it later than the first century; and the parallels adduced, if at all relevant, suggest that the ‘mysteries’ were influenced by Christianity. Cf. R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions, Pittsburgh PA 1977 (31927), 288 = GT: 234: Along ‘with the more Jewish-Christian interpretation…[Paul] knows and employs the Hellenistic mystery-like interpretation [of baptism and redemption] as well’. But see C. Colpe, Die religiongeschichtliche Schule, Göttingen 1961; ODCC, ‘Religiongeschichtliche Schule’, 1379f.; J. G. Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, New York 1921, 281; H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, London 1913, 225-255 (229); briefly, Ellis, Christ, 21ff.; idem, ‘Origin of Paul’s Religion: Hellenism’, Interpreters, 26-29 = NBD, 887f. Further, see W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, Cambridge MA 1987, 101f.; Nock, II, 791-820, 809 (‘Hellenistic Mysteries and Christian Sacraments’): ‘Any idea that what we call the Christian sacraments were in their origin indebted to pagan mysteries or even to the metaphorical concepts based upon them shatters on the rock of linguistic evidence’. See below, note 368; AE I, VI, ###, ###. 112   Three actions were required, and ‘they can be considered as prevailing in the Second Temple period’ (Schürer III, 173): circumcision (for males), baptism and a sacrifice at the temple. Cf. M Kerithoth 2:1; Billerbeck I, 102-113; K. G. Kuhn, ‘’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 738f.; R. Riesner, ‘Essener und Urkirche in Jerusalem’, BK 40 (1985), 73; Schürer III, 173f.; O. Betz, ‘Die Proselytentaufe der Qumrangemeinde und die Taufe im Neuen Testament’, Jesus: Der Herr der Kirche, Tübingen 1990, 21-48 = RQ 1 (1958–59), 213-234, and the literature cited. 113   Apparently developing from the ritual washing of hands and feet (Exod 30:17-21; 40:30ff.) or garments (Lev 14:8; 15:5, 16, 21f.). Cf. Betz (note 112), 29f.; A. Oepke, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 535. For the NT cf. Acts 16:13; Heb 6:2; 9:10; See also M Mikwaoth (‘Immersion-pools’) 1:7; M Tebul Yom 1:1-5; 2:1-7. 114   Mk 7:3f.; Lk 11:37f.; IQS 3:4-9; Josephus, War II, 129, 138, 149, 161. Further, cf. Betz (note 112), 25-28; K. Rudolph, ‘The Baptist Sects’, CHJ III (1999), 471-500 (473ff.).

64

1 CORINTHIANS

that purification did not come by water rituals, which provided only an outward manifestation; inner purification came only by heartfelt repentance and by the Holy Spirit.115 Qumran provides the most probable background for John the Baptist’s ‘baptism of repentance’ ( ).116 See below on 10:12. John the Baptist, according to Luke a cousin of Jesus, appears in the Synoptic Gospels as ‘Elijah’, the forerunner of Messiah.117 He ‘may well have spent some of his youth among the Essenes of Qumran’.118 Like the practice at Qumran, he understood a repentance of the heart to be the requisite for the meaningfulness of water baptism119 and the prerequisite for a future baptism in the Holy Spirit by the Messiah, i.e. Jesus.120 Jesus continued John’s message of repentance121 and his novel practice of administering baptism of penitents, i.e. his pupils’ () baptism of his followers,122 and   1QS 3:4-12; 4:20f.; 5:13f. Cf. B. E. Thiering, ‘Inner and Outer Cleansing at Qumran as a Background to New Testament Baptism’, NTS 26 (1980), 266-277; idem, ‘Qumran Initiation and Christian Baptism’, NTS 27 (1981), 615-631; Betz (note 112), 25-29, 44-48; Rudolph (note 114), 474f.; H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran, New York 21995, 220f.; H. Stadelmann, ‘Eph 5:26: The Baptismal Metaphor and Jewish Ritual Baths’, Interpreting the New Testament Text. FS H. W. Hoehner, edd. D. L. Bock et al., Wheaton IL 2006, 401-407 (404f.). 116   Mk 1:4 par; Acts 13:24; 19:4. Further, Sibylline Oracles 4:165-169 (c. AD 100; OTP I, 388). Cf. Daube, DCW, II, 471f. 117   Lk 1:36; Mt 11:14; 17:10ff. par; cf. Lk 1:17 with Mal 4:5 = MT: 3:23; Jn 1:31. On the inconsistency of Jn 1:21, 25 with this, the best resolution seems to be the patristic tradition, which interpreted the Synoptic identification as ‘figurative’, i.e. typological (Goppelt) and Jn 1:21 as a literal identification (cf. Mk 6:15f. par; Mt 16:14 parr). So, A. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. John, Grand Rapids 1981 (1882), 78; but see D. A. Carson, John, Grand Rapids 1991, 143; R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols., Garden City NY 1970, I, 48f. Cf. ‘Das Wirken des wiederkehrenden Elias in der messianischen Zukunft’, Billerbeck IV, 779-798; L. Goppelt, TYPOS: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1982, 64f. = GT: 73f. 118   J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, Grand Rapids 2000, 18-21 (21). Cf. W. A. Brownlee, ‘John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls’, The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl, New York 1957, 33-53. 119   Mt 3:7-10 Q; Lk 3:11-14; cf. Mt 3:11; Acts 13:24. 120   Mt 3:11 T + Q; Jn 1:29-33. 121   Cf. Mt 4:17 par; Lk 5:32; 10:13 Q; 11:32 Q; 13:3ff.; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3f.; cf. Mk 6:12. 122   Jn 3:26; 4:1f. On the meaning ‘pupil’ or ‘apprentice’ (Manson) for  cf. Ellis, ‘From Jesus to the Gospels’ Christ’, 12-19: ‘In the beginning 115



III

65

promised that he would soon baptize them in the Holy Spirit.123 His apostles at Pentecost likewise preached a water baptism of repentance as a prerequisite and prelude to a greater baptism in the Holy Spirit.124 Paul received and affirmed these traditions125 and taught the priority of Holy Spirit baptism.126 This best explains Paul’s attitude toward water baptism in 1:14-17: he gives it and its administration

was the school’ (18); S. Byrskog, ‘The Disciples as Pupils of Jesus’, Jesus the Only Teacher, Stockholm 1994, 221-236, passim; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Grand Rapids 21998, 324-335; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, Cambridge 21951, 237-240. Otherwise: K. H. Rengstorf, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 442-450. 123   Acts 1:4f.; 2:33; 11:16; cf. Jn 7:38f.; 20:22. Following the Baptist’s apparent innovation, Christian baptism involved an agent or an administrator of the rite. Following Jewish practice, it is in the NT in all likelihood immersion, the symbolic significance of which is underscored at Rom 6:4 and Col 2:12. Alternatives to immersion for the lack of water and perhaps for the frail and ill, however, are attested quite early (cf. Didaché 7:1-3; see below on 15:29). But see I. H. Marshall, ‘The Meaning of the Verb “Baptize” ’, Dimensions of Baptism, edd. S. E. Porter et al., Sheffield UK 2002, 8-24. 124   Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31f. Sometimes the sequence is reversed (cf. Acts 10:44-48 with 11:18); once water baptism is repeated (Acts 19:3ff.). Further, Heb 6:1; 10:22; II Pet 3:9. 125   Rom 2:4f. (‘impenitent heart’); II Tim 2:24f.; Acts 17:31; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20. In the NT baptism in water and the ‘coming’, ‘receiving’ of or ‘baptism’ in the Holy Spirit (cf. 12:13), although closely associated, are never identified, neither in the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:16f. T + Q) nor at Pentecost and thereafter. See above, note 124; below, note 126. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, London 1970, which remains one of his best exegetical works, rightly concludes, ‘Spirit baptism and water baptism remain distinct and even antithetical, the latter being a preparation for the former and the means by which the believer actually reaches out in faith to receive the former’ (227, cf. 116-138: ‘The Corinthian Letters’). 126   See below on 12:13; cf. Rom 6:3f.; Gal 3:27; Eph 5:25f.; Col 2:12; Tit 3:5. Cf. Ellis, Theology, 30-33 (on Tit 3:5); the discussion of Barth, ‘Baptism with the Holy Spirit’, ‘Baptism with Water’ (note 110), IV, iv, 1-40, 41-213, 112-128, in particular on Acts 22:16; Heb 10:22; Eph 5:25f.; Tit 3:5; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3f.; Col 2:12; Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16; I Pet 3:21; I Jn 5:5-8; Jn 19:33-37. Otherwise: e.g. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, London 1963, 231, passim, who does not distinguish sufficiently between water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit; K. McDonnell et al., Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Collegeville MN 1991, 42-55. But see Hartman (note 110), 67, 143f., who says only that the Spirit ‘is closely connected with [water] baptism’ (143).

66

1 CORINTHIANS

a collateral role,127 apparently sees it as an outward symbol of an antecedent inward reality (cf. Calvin), contrasts it with the evangelistic proclamation and deplores the exaggerated significance, even to the point of prideful dissensions, given these matters by certain Corinthian Christians.   .  Crispus, a Roman and sometimes Jewish name,128 is mentioned at Acts 18:8 as the ruler of the synagogue who ‘believed in the Lord’. .  A common Roman praenomen (first name), eminent because of its use by ‘members of the Imperial family’, and thus popular in this period.129 Gaius is quite possibly the same person as Gaius of Derbe, who represented that church in Paul’s collection visit to Jerusalem,130 and who, as Gaius the Macedonian, was Paul’s travel companion in Ephesus.131 Later in Corinth he was the host of Paul and ‘of the whole church’ (   , Rom 16:23 KJV).132 Whether this means the whole house church in his home133   Correctly, Dunn (note 125), 118f. Otherwise: Goudge, 7.   Suetonius, Nero 6, 3; idem, Domitian 3, 1; Wettstein, II, 104; PW 22, 2 (1922), 1894; KP I, 1335; Names, 329. For (later) Jewish usage, cf. John Lightfoot, IV, 175; Jastrow, I, 667. On   see below on 10:13, note 547. 129   Lightfoot, 156. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18, 206; Suetonius, ‘Gaius Caligula’, The Lives of the Caesars, Rome c. AD 110, Book IV; OCD3, 619f., 780, 1451f.; KP II, 659-663; Names, 331. 130   Acts 20:2ff.; cf. Rom 16:1, 23. The collection visit began from Corinth. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., Edinburgh 71998, 12, 806f. W. Schmithals, Der Römerbrief, Gütersloh 1988, 565 (unclear); F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids 31990, 423f.; J. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, Göttingen 1998, 497f. 131   Acts 19:29. Cf. B. Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids 1998, 594f.; C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1998, II, 948. Otherwise: BC IV, 248. The two may be the same person if Gaius, like Priscilla and Aquila, was Paul’s co-worker or a merchant or entrepreneur who had or had acquired homes in several places. Cf. Ellis, ‘Paul and his Co-workers’, Prophecy, 15n; idem, History, 94. It is more uncertain (and chronologically more distant), but not impossible, that he is the Gaius of III Jn 1, who is also commended for hospitality (III Jn 3–6). 132   Mss F G and some old Latin and Vulgate mss read, ‘Gaius, my host, and all the [house] churches (  ) greet you’. 133   So, P. Barnett, Romans, Fearn UK 2003, 373f.; cf. L. Morris, Romans, Grand Rapids 1988, 544. See above, note 89. 127 128



III

67

or all of the Corinthian house churches134 or, possibly, ‘traveling Christians passing through Corinth’135 is not entirely clear. In any case Gaius would have been a very affluent Christian. 15.     = ‘Lest anyone should say’ (NKJV). The thought is not that Paul refrained from baptizing for this purpose.  represents more the providential effect or result of Paul’s practice.136 16. The verse is rightly placed in parenthesis by the RSV, NRSV and ESV. After the secretary finished his (final) draft, the author would read it through, perhaps changing this or that word or phrase and making this or that marginal addition.137 In all likelihood this verse, like 14:34f.,138 represents such an addition and reflects the manner of ancient letter-writing and of Paul’s own compositional practice. It may have been prompted by the presence of Stephanas with Paul in Ephesus when the Apostle was completing the composition of I Corinthians (16:15ff.). .  See above on 1:14.  = ‘Stephanas’. Only here and at 16:15, 17 in the NT; also in the subscript of mss D2 M after 16:24: ‘To the Corinthians A from Philippi, through Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus and Timothy’. The name may be a variant of  = ‘Stephen’139 and since he was the  (‘first fruits’, 16:15 NKJV) of Paul’s mission at Corinth, he was most probably either a Jew or a God-fearer.140 On  see below on 2:11, note 483.

  So, Meeks, (note 90), 57. See below on 11:18; above, note 131.   Cranfield (note 130), 807. Cf. E. Käsemann, Romans, Grand Rapids 1980, 421 = GT: 401; Michel (note 25), 483. 136   See above on 1:10; cf. Thiselton, 141. 137   Cf. Ellis, Making, 58, 434; O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe, Stuttgart 1933, 489n. 138   See below, ‘A Regulation for Wives at I Cor 14:34-35’, AE XII, ###-###. 139   Cf. BDF, 67f.; Robertson, 173; BDAG, 943; Moulton II, 119; Names, 306f. 140   On God-fearers (e.g.   , Acts 13:16) see Josephus, Ant. 14, 110; E. A. Judge, ‘Jews, Proselytes and God-fearers Club Together’, ND 9 (2002), 73-80, and the literature cited; J. Reynolds et al., Jews and God-fearers 134 135

68

1 CORINTHIANS

17.   . , ‘to send out’,141 is cognate with .142 Christ’s143 apostolic commission to Paul does not exclude the administration of water baptism, but water baptism is not central to it. …  .  The stronger adversative   ‘is often weakened…after a preceding  or  … [to] simply not so much [to baptize] as [to preach the gospel]’.145 Transliterated,  = ‘to evangelize’, whose modern usage, however, is too narrow. Better is the usual translation, ‘to preach the gospel’, or ‘to preach the good news’ (Williams) or ‘to proclaim the gospel’ (NEB). The concept is rooted in the OT term ‫ רהשׂב‬with the general sense of ‘proclaiming good news’.146 The term and concept in Isaiah provide a particularly significant background for NT usage, i.e. presenting the final victory of Yahweh in the ‘good news’ of the redemption of his people.147 Thus, both the verb  and the noun 149 (‘gospel’, ‘good news’) become the keynote and symbol of the Christian message.

at Aphrodisias, Cambridge 1987, 56-66; Schürer III, 160-172. Cf. Acts 10:2, 22; 13:26, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7. See above, note 40; below on 5:2, notes 37-40. 141   Only three times in Paul’s letters: II Cor 12:17; II Tim 4:12;  (‘to send’), 15 times, including 4:17; 16:3. On the distinction, cf. K. H. Rengstorf, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 398-406: ‘[W]hen  is used in the NT the emphasis is on a sending as such, whereas when  is used it rests on the commission linked with it…’ (404). On the causal  see 3:11. 142   See above, Special Note on , 31-47. 143   On the term see above on 1:2, 22. 144   Cf. BDF, 232f.: ‘as the contrary’; q.v. @ 7:19. On the emphatic  see on 2:2. 145   Moulton III, 329f.; cf. Robertson, 1186f. Like our Lord (Jn 4:1f.) and Peter (Acts 10:48) Paul at Corinth ordinarily left the observance of this dominical ordinance (Mt 28:19) to his assistants and co-workers; cf. Acts 13:5; 18:5-8 (19:22). So, Lightfoot, 156. 146   E.g. II Sam 4:10; I Kg 1:42. Cf. G. Friedrich, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 707-721, 707. O. Schilling, ‘‫’רהשׂב‬, OT 2 (1975), 313-316; S. T. Hague, ‘‫’רהשׂב‬, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 775ff. 147   Isa 40:9 (cf. Jn 12:15); 52:7 (Acts 10:36; Rom 10:15; cf. Eph 2:17; 6:15); 60:6 (cf. Mt 2:11); 61:1f. (Lk 4:18). 148   9:16, 18; 15:1f. Found 54 times in the NT, 21 times in Paul’s letters and six times in I Corinthians. 149   4:15; 9:12, 14, 18, 23; 15:1. Found 76 times in the NT, 60 times in Paul, but only once in the Johannine writings (Rev 14:6). Cf. Morgenthaler, 101.



III

69

           .  (‘wisdom’), i.e. ‘the capacity to understand’, is divided in general Greek usage between practical intelligence in matters of common life and philosophical learning and reasoned speculation. Among Jews it is applied foremost to God and to the divine gift of receiving God’s wisdom and then to ‘natural wisdom that belongs to this world’.150 Although ‘wisdom’ in NT usage was ascribed by a number of twentieth-century scholars to mythological origins,151 it is more likely to originate in OT and early Jewish thought, with especially close forerunners in the book of Daniel and in the DSS.152 In the NT the c. 51 occurrences of  usually refer to divine, i.e. true wisdom. But in I Cor 1–3 and in Jas 1 and 3 divine wisdom is contrasted with natural wisdom which is viewed as innately warped and egocentric, presumably from the Fall.153 Such is the   here.154 ‘Wisdom of word’ ( ) is often understood to refer to form, i.e. luxuriant rhetoric,155 ‘eloquent wisdom’ (RSV). But it is difficult to see how mere rhetorical skill would ‘make void’ the cross of Christ or would be in opposition to ‘the word of the cross’ (1:18). ‘Wisdom of word’ is not the manner of speech as such, but it may possibly reflect a Corinthian equation of wisdom with rhetoric.156 It is the kind of (philosophical) wisdom which the speech serves that is primarily in view.157 The Apostle may perhaps be 150   BDAG, 934f.; Cf. LSJ, 1621f.; U. Wilckens, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971), 467-471 (early Greek and philosophical usage). 151   See below, ‘ “Wisdom” and “Knowledge” in I Corinthians’, AE VI, ###### [225-231]. 152   Cf. Dan 1:4, 17; 2:21f.; 12:3, 12; 1QS 4:22; 9:18f.; 1QH 2:13f. = 10:13f.; 12:11ff. = 20:11ff. See below, AE VI, ### [250f.] 153   1:21, 24, 30; 2:7; Jas 1:5; 3:13, 17. Cf. Rom 1:20; 5:12; II Cor 11:3. 154   I.e. the wisdom ‘of the wise’ (1:19), ‘of the world’ (1:20; cf. 3:19), ‘of men’ (2:5; cf. 2:13), ‘of this age’ (2:6); similarly, II Cor 1:12. So, Jas 3:15: ‘earthly, natural, demonic’ wisdom (NASV). Cf. Ellis, Making, 313. 155   E.g. Lightfoot, 157; Barrett, 49. Sometimes, this view sees Apollos, or his followers as possibly in view (cf. Acts 18:24:  ); but see Parry, xxiv, 17f. 156   Cf. S. M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia, Atlanta GA 1992, 108-127. See also the assessment of Pogoloff’s work by Anderson (note 14), 267-272. 157   So, Alford, II, 478; Edwards, 24; Fee, 64ff., even granting Paul’s recognition of his own unpolished speech (cf. II Cor 10:10; 11:6). Cf. J. S. Vos, ‘Die Argumentation des Paulus in 1 Kor 1,10–3,4’, The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer, Leuven 1996, 87-119 (91-97): ‘In the sophistic the rhetorical

70

1 CORINTHIANS

responding to a Corinthian misuse of the charism of ;158 in any case he makes his own meaning clear in the following biblical exposition and application, 1:18–2:5.  = ‘so that’ or ‘lest’159 probably indicates the effect of proclaiming the Christian message through a ‘wisdom of the world’ (1:20).   , i.e. ‘the cross of Christ’, appears in the Gospels both literally160 and metaphorically.161 In Paul’s letters it is always used metaphorically and, like ‘the blood of Christ’,162 it signifies the death of Christ in all of its soteriological implications. It is found only here (1:17f.) in I and II Corinthians. The key words in 1:17 (‘cross’, ‘Christ’, ‘wisdom of word’, ‘preach the gospel’), are developed and explained in the following commentary (1:18-31).163 B. The Wisdom of the World (1:18–2:5) For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, 18

‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise And the intelligence of the intelligent I will annul’. Where is the wise man? Where is the Scripture-scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Did not God make foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world had not come to know God through its wisdom, God was pleased to save 20

art and wisdom, or philosophy, are two sides of the same thing’ (94). ‘…The [rhetorical] pattern (Form) of the  , does not, in principle, fit the content of [Paul’s] proclamation’ (97). But see Anderson (note 14), 273: ‘The two disciplines [of rhetoric and of philosophy] were generally kept quite separate.… Parents knew the difference between hiring a rhetorical tutor for their children and hiring a philosopher!’ 158   See above on 1:5. Cf. 12:8; further, Conzelmann, 37 = GT: 52. But see Schrage, 159. 159   See above on 1:10. 160   Mt 27:32 parr; 27:40, 42 par; Jn 19:17, 19, 25, 31. 161   Mt 10:38 Q; 16:24 T + Q. 162   See below on 10:16. Cf. Gal 5:11; 6:12, 14; Eph 2:16; Phil 2:8; 3:18. 163   So, P. Stuhlmacher, ‘The Hermeneutical Significance of 1 Cor 2:6-16’, in Hawthorne, 333.



III

71

those who believe through the foolishness of what we preach. 22 For indeed Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom. 23But we proclaim Christ crucified, to Jews an offence and to Gentiles foolishness. 24But to those who are the called ones—Jews and Greeks—Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; 25 because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For look at your call, brothers, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many prominent, not many well-born. 27 But God chose rather the foolish of the world in order that he might put to shame the wise, and the weak of the world God chose that he might put to shame things that are strong. 28And God chose the common things and the nothings in the world, things that are not, that he might bring to an end things that are; 29 so that no flesh might boast before God. 30And from him you exist in Christ Jesus, who was made for us Wisdom from God, and righteousness, and holiness, and redemption, 31in order that it be as it is written, 26

‘Let him who boasts Boast in the Lord’. I also, when I came to you, brothers, proclaiming to you the mystery of God, I did not come in excellence of word or of human wisdom. 2For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, indeed this one crucified. 3And I was present with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4Both my speech and my proclamation were not in persuasiveness of human wisdom but in the display of the Spirit and of power, 5in order that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 2:1

Textual Notes 20. ,  i.e. ‘this world’ (cf. 3:19; 5:10a; Eph 2:2) in p11 F G M. A clarifying addition (as also at 2:12; 7:31a) to more clearly distinguish ‘the wisdom of this world’ from that of the age to come, i.e. the wisdom of God. Further, Metzger, 479f.; Zuntz, 184f. 23.  = ‘Gentiles’: e.g. ‫ א‬A B C D F G 33. The Majority text = M, which in NA represents not only Byzantine Greek miniscule mss but also some uncial mss and some papyri, has  = ‘Greeks’. This translation is retained by the NKJV from the KJV with a marginal reference to ‘Gentiles’.

72

1 CORINTHIANS

28.    .  The  is witnessed by B, but it is absent from p46 ‫ *א‬A C* D* 33 1739 and from NA27 and is probably secondary. With the scribal addition , unless it is translated ‘even’,     becomes only another item in the series. But without the  ‘it is a comprehensive and climactic characterization of all the preceding items’ (Metzger, 480). 2:1.  (‘mystery’) has limited but earlier textual support (p46vid ‫ *א‬A C) than the reading  (‘witness’, B D F G 33), which apparently was a scribal recollection of 1:6 B*:   . It anticipates the phrase, ‘the wisdom of God in a mystery’, at 2:7. Cf. NA; Metzger, 480; Schrage, 226f.; Edwards; Koperski. Further, cf. 4:1; Col 2:2; Rev 10:7. Otherwise: Fee; Weiss; Zuntz, 101; see above, Textual Note on 1:6. Cf. V. Koperski, ‘ “Mystery of God” or “Testimony of God” in 1 Cor 2, 1’, New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis. FS J. Delobel, ed. A. Denaux, Leuven 2002, 305-315. ].  This reading (the brackets are in NA26,27 2:4. []  [ and in Metzger, 481), found in (‫ )*א‬B D 33 1739, is the most preferable to, e.g. Edwards, Leitzmann-Kümmel, Barrett, R & P, Conzelmann, Thiselton and is classified by Metzger (xxviii) as ‘least unsatisfactory’. The omission of  by an early manuscript (p46) and the (correct) explanatory addition of , i.e. human wisdom by ‫א‬2 A C Y M suggest that the original is   (see below, note 391). On modern opinions re 11 different variant readings, cf. Thiselton, 215f. See also Conzelmann, 54f.

Structure The section, 1:18–2:5, consists of a commentary on Scripture (1:18-31) and its application to Paul’s mission at Corinth (2:1-5). The commentary is organized in the pattern of a Jewish proem midrash = commentary: theme + ‘opening’ texts (vv. 18-20a = Isa 29:14; 19:11f.; cf. 33:18) + exposition (vv. 20b-30) + concluding text (v. 31 = Jer 9:23f. = MT: 9:22f.). In accordance with this pattern, certain key words join the texts and the exposition and the following application.164 The structure reflects the pattern of a synagogue sermon, a summary of a sermon that Paul may have preached on other occasions.165   See above, note 2; below on 1:19; ‘Expository Patterns in I Corinthians and Romans’, AE III, ###-###; on 10:1-31. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 155ff.; Wuellner (note 37), 199-204; V. P. Branick, ‘Source and Redaction Analysis of 1 Corinthians 1–3’, JBL 101 (1982), 251-269. See above, Wuellner (note 37). 165   See above, notes 25, 26. One such sermon is apparently preserved in Baruch 3:9–4:4 on Jer 8:13–9:24 (CAP I, 588-591; E. Tov, Baruch, Missoula MT 1975, 7, 28-31). So, H. St. J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, London 1923, 95-100; cf. Barrett, 51; Wuellner (note 37). 164



III

73

Commentary Summary The piece contrasts various kinds of human wisdom, summarized as ‘the wisdom of the world’ (1:20), with ‘the wisdom of God’ (1:21, 24; cf. 1:30). In accordance with God’s decision, human wisdom, whether philosophical or rhetorical or a search for signs,166 does not achieve a knowledge of God or of his wisdom. God chose rather both a message (1:18, 21) and persons (1:26ff.), that by the world’s standards are foolish, to reveal his power (1:18, 24; 2:4) and to save (1:18, 21) those who are the called ones (1:24, 26; cf. 1:2). He chose persons who, in general, have neither social nor intellectual status. He did this, among other reasons, to exclude any human boasting and to evoke a ‘boasting only in the Lord’ (1:31). As an illustration of this, Paul’s own conduct in Corinth was, and was intended to be, a manifestation of God’s wisdom, both in his exclusive focus on ‘Christ, indeed this one crucified’ (2:2), and in the manner of his speech and of his message (2:1), eschewing any ‘self’-confidence or rhetorical forms or flourish. He determined rather to be the instrument of divine wisdom and of divine power precisely in the Spirit-led transmission of his message and of his miracles (2:4f.; cf. II Cor 10:6; 12:12). He did this so that the Corinthians’ focus would also be not on Paul’s person but upon God’s saving power at work through him. Exegesis 18.      = ‘the word of the cross’. The phrase signifies the essence of Paul’s gospel preaching (1:23; 2:2) ‘in its manner and matter’.167 As a part of the basic Christian proclamation, the kerygma (),168 it is related to similarly used   Cf. Parry, 39.   Parry, 40; cf. Alford, III, 478; F. Voss, Das Wort vom Kreuz und die menschliche Vernunft, Göttingen 20020, 125-129; O. Betz, ‘Jesaja 53 und Theologia Crucis’, Jesus Der Herr der Kirche, Tübingen 1990, 197-216. On  see on 2:14. 168   Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, London 10 1963, 17, who summarized its Pauline form under six topics: (1) The Messiah has come, fulfilling the OT prophecies and inaugurating the age to come. (2) He was born of the seed of David, (3) died according to the Scriptures to deliver us out of the present evil age, (3) was buried, (4) rose on the third day according to 166 167

74

1 CORINTHIANS

phrases: ‘the word of God’,169 the ‘word of the Lord’,170 ‘the word of Christ’,171 ‘the word of salvation’,172 ‘the word of the gospel’ (),173 ‘the word of reconciliation’,174 ‘the word of truth’,175 and ‘the word of life’.176 All of these expressions are used for the proclamation of the core substance of the Christian message. ‘The word of the cross’, i.e. ‘concerning the cross’ (Robertson, 500), a phrase found only here in the NT,177 stresses, however, the manner of Christ’s death, its ignominious character, and it probably reflects the nature of his death as that of the Isaian ‘Suffering Servant’.178 It represents the focus of the Apostle’s preaching in general (1:23) and specifically at Corinth.179    …       . The coupling of …, occurring fairly often in I and II Corinthians,180 may intensify the contrast and is a carryover from classical Greek usage;181 the , if stressed, may be translated ‘indeed’. the Scriptures, (5) is exalted at the right hand of God, as Son of God and Lord of the living and the dead. (6) He will come again as the Judge and Savior of men. 169   14:36 (Rom 9:6); II Cor 2:17; 4:2; Col 1:25; I Thess 2:13 with II Thess 2:15; II Tim 2:9; Tit 2:5; cf. Lk 8:11, 22; 11:28; Acts 4:31; 6:7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5ff., 44; 17:13; 18:11; Heb 13:7; I Jn 2:14; Rev 1:9; 6:9; 20:4. 170   I Thess 1:8; II Thess 3:1; cf. Acts 8:25; 13:48f.; 15:35f.; 16:32; 19:10, 20. 171   Col 3:16; cf. M. Barth and H. Blanke, Colossians, New York 1994, 426; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Philadelphia PA 1971, 150. Otherwise: J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, Grand Rapids MI 1960 (21879), 224. 172   Acts 13:26. 173   Acts 15:7; cf. Col 1:5. 174   II Cor 5:19f.; cf. Thrall (note 20), I, 435f. 175   Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; cf. II Cor 6:7, Thrall (note 20), I, 460; Jas 1:18. 176   Phil 2:16; I Jn 1:1; cf. M. R. Vincent, Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, Edinburgh 21902, 69; P. T. O’Brien, Philippians, Grand Rapids MI 1991, 297f.; R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John, Garden City NY 1982, 164f. 177   Similar are the hymnic phrases, ‘the death of the cross’ (Phil 2:8) and ‘the blood of His cross’ (Col 1:20). 178   So, O. Betz, ‘Der gekreuzigte Christus, unsere Weisheit und Gerechtigkeit’, in Hawthorne, 195-211, 195-200, 209ff. 179   Cf. 1:13, 23; 2:2, 8; II Cor 13:4; Gal 3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12f., 14; Eph 2:16; Phil 2:8; 3:18; Col 1:20; 2:14. 180   Cf. Moulton, III, 332. See below on 11:7ff., note 73. 181   Cf. BDF, 232; Robertson, 1145, 1186; Weiss, 25.



III

75

The theme (1:18) of the exposition (1:20b-30), which is logically coupled by  and by the catchword  to 1:17,182 contrasts two kinds of wisdom. They are ‘the wisdom of word’ (1:17) = ‘the wisdom of the world’ (1:20) = ‘the wisdom of men’ (2:5) = ‘the wisdom of this age’ (2:6) = ‘human wisdom’ (2:13) = ‘the wisdom of this world’ (3:19) on the one hand183 and ‘the wisdom of God’184 on the other. The first is the property of those who are perishing (), i.e. under the shadow of death185 and on their way to non-being.186 The second kind of wisdom, imparted by the word of the cross (1:18), is perceived and received187 as God’s power, ‘operative, effective and actualized’,188 in us who are being saved ( , 1:18) by God to everlasting life.189 But this kind of wisdom is perceived as foolishness by ‘the natural man’ (2:14).   Conzelmann, 41n = GT: 55n; cf. Weiss, 24. On  see on 2:14.   Cf. Jas 3:15: ‘earthy, natural, demonic’ wisdom; Ellis, Making, 313. 184   1:21, 24; 2:7; cf. Eph 3:8ff. See below on 2:6. 185   It applies to all who are ‘in Adam’ (15:22), whether they have violated God’s known law or the law of conscience (Rom 2:12-16; cf. Schrage I, 173). Cf. Prov 16:25: ‘There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death’ (NKJV). 186   In the middle or passive  has the meaning, ‘perish’, ‘cease to exist’ (cf. 10:9f.; 15:18; II Cor 2:15; 4:3; II Thess 2:10). On the force of the active verb  (‘to destroy utterly’, ‘to annihilate’), which is ‘a stronger form of ’ (‘destroy utterly’, ‘kill’: LSJ, 207), cf. Ellis, ‘New Testament Teaching on Hell’, Christ, 179-199 (193-197); A. Oepke, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 394ff. Differently: R & P 18; Thiselton, 154, whose translation ‘ruin’ expresses the penultimate rather than the ultimate force of the verb, ‘to perish’. 187   I.e. as God’s revelation, both received by mature Christians (2:6) and imparted to others of God’s called ones by the gospel message (1:24; 2:6-13), i.e. by the word of the cross (1:18). 188   Thiselton, 155. In contrast to human perceptions of power (cf. 15:24), God’s power, transmitted in Paul’s proclamation, is manifested in Holy Spiritmediated repentance, baptism, gifts, holiness, love, peace (cf. R & P, 18) received and displayed among the Corinthians (1:4-8; 12:4-13, 28f.). Cf. 1:24; 2:4f.; 4:19f.; 5:4; 6:4; 15:43. It is a power made perfect in the weakness of the instrument (II Cor 12:9), who thereby will not receive nor take credit for it. 189   With the present participle Paul views salvation as a presently on-going process with a future consummation (cf. 15:2). But he also may view it as a past or future action. It was, I believe, Professor B. F. Westcott who, when asked by a Salvation Army girl, ‘Are you saved, sir?’, replied, ‘Do you mean ,  or ?’ For Paul they are ultimately the same question, viewed from different perspectives. God’s purpose to save the ‘called ones’ (1:24; cf. Rom 8:28ff.; Rev 17:8, 14) was predestined ‘before the times of the ages’ (II Tim 1:9); 182 183

76

1 CORINTHIANS

19.   = ‘for it stands written’.190 This IF introduces the opening texts (vv. 19b-20a) of the biblical exposition (vv. 20b-30), and a similar IF introduces the closing text (v. 31). The perfect tense, , underscores the present and abiding authority of the past biblical revelation.           .  For  (‘I will set aside’ or ‘annul’) the LXX has  (‘I will hide’ or ‘conceal’); otherwise, Paul cites Isa 29:14 LXX verbatim.191 The chiastic structure basically identifies human wisdom () and human understanding () and, on the other hand, God’s actions against them: to destroy () and to nullify ().192 This opening text is followed by the Apostle’s exposition (1:20-30) in which he expounds keywords in cf. II Thess 2:13 ‫ א‬D Ψ M; Tit 1:2). Cf. 2:7. It was accomplished in AD 33 by their corporate inclusion in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Eph 2:5f.; cf. Rom 6:3-11; 8:28ff.; Ellis, Theology, 10-13). Using the future or the aorist, God’s ‘saving’ may be viewed as an act at one’s regeneration (7:16; Rom 8:24; Tit 3:5) or without regard to a specific time (1:21; I Tim 1:15; 2:4). Sometimes, with the aorist subjunctive, it is applied to some as an indefinite or possible prospect of salvation (5:5; 9:22; 10:33; Rom 11:14; I Thess 2:16). Frequently,  refers to future salvation, usually pointing to the parousia, i.e. second coming of Christ (3:15; 5:5; Rom 5:9f.; 9:27; 10:9, 13; 11:26; II Tim 4:18; cf. I Tim 4:16). 190   This IF appears elsewhere in Paul at 3:19; 9:9; Rom 12:19; 14:11; Gal 3:10; 4:27. With other particles or conjunctions, the perfect tense, , appears at 1:31; 2:9; 10:7; 14:21; 15:45; Rom 1:17; 2:24; 3:10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 15:3, 9, 21; II Cor 8:15; 9:9; Gal 3:13. Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 1-5, 156-185. This IF introduces the first of 14 OT quotations in the letter. Studies in Paul’s use of the OT include C. A. Evans et al., edd., Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, Sheffield UK 1997; C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, Cambridge 1992; idem, Arguing with Scripture, London 2004, 75-96; D. A. Carson et al., edd., It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. FS B. Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 1-21 (I. H. Marshall), 265-291 (D. M. Smith); D. A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, Tübingen 1986; O. Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel, Darmstadt 21972 (1929). For further contributions, cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 54-74. On  see on 2:14, 16. 191   Perhaps, as Barrett, 52, suspects, Paul’s variant is influenced by Ps 33:10 = LXX: 32:10, where in a similar passage  is used. On this practice see below on 1:31. 192   Cf. J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, Leicester UK 1993, 240: God’s supernatural action will be the destruction of human wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬and intelligence (‫)בינה‬, i.e. ‘the whole “mind” with which one views life…[and] the ability to “discern” the heart of a matter’.



III

77

the biblical text— and 194—and which he concludes with a final text (1:31) that also has a keyword coupling it to the commentary:  (‘to boast’).195 Elsewhere, Paul uses  only in a positive sense of spiritual understanding. What is the flaw in human reason that causes Paul, or rather the Holy Spirit through Paul,196 to make this strong indictment? He does not distinguish between a good or a bad use of human reason197 but makes a blanket rejection of it, observing that ‘the world through [its] wisdom did not know God’ (1:21) and that ‘the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God’ (3:19). C. K. Barrett (54) offers perhaps the most important key: ‘there is no manifestation of God that man’s essentially self-regarding wisdom does not twist until it has made God in its own image…’ There is a warp in human thinking that later theologians call the noetic effects of sin, that is, the sin of our first parents in the Garden, their disobedience to God in their declaration and action of independence from him. It is the ego-centric character of all ‘in Adam’ (15:22), and its shadow falls not only over fallen man’s conduct, but also over his thinking.198 The mind is quite reliable, of course, in subjects like mathematics where one’s ego is not implicated, but in other matters—logic, philosophy, history, psychology, ethics, customs, theology—‘issues closer to the core, to the individual or corporate ego, reason takes self-justifying twists and turns’.199 One’s will is prior to one’s ability; what one will not do one cannot do. Because of human wisdom’s willful rejection of God and of its distorted character, it does not know him (1:21) or his wisdom. Consequently, God has rejected it and has displaced it with the true divine wisdom of Christ ‘crucified’ (1:23), a revelation of God that is received by grace through faith.200   1:20f., 22; cf. 2:1, 4f.   1:20, 25ff.; cf. 3:18f. 195   1:29; cf. 3:21; 4:7. See below, ‘Expository Patterns in I Corinthians and Romans’, AE III, ###-###. 196   In 1:19 it is God who speaks. Cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion 5, 5, middle. 197   Pace S. K. Stowers, ‘Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason’, Greeks, Romans, Christians. FS A. J. Malherbe, edd. D. L. Balch et al., Minneapolis MN1990, 253-286. Cf. Parry, 52: ‘[T]he contrast throughout this passage is between human wisdom and the wisdom of God’. 198   Cf. Rom 1:18-22; 5:12ff.; Gen 3:5f. 199   Ellis (note 10), 262ff., 263. 200   E.g. 1:4; 2:5; Rom 4:21-24; Eph 2:8ff.; II Thess 2:13. 193 194

78

1 CORINTHIANS

20.  ;  ;     . The verse probably alludes to Isa 19:12 (‘Where are your wise men?’) and 33:18 (‘Where is the scribe?) and, if so, it may have constituted (a) further opening text(s) in an earlier form of the midrash (1:18-31).201 As is, it elaborates the biblical assertion at 1:19, i.e. that ‘the wise man’,202 ‘the Scripture scholar’203 and ‘the debater’204 are totally discredited as discerners of truth: The phrase ‘of this age’ qualifies and thus disqualifies all three categories of autonomous human reason. The paraphrase of J. Hering, 8, catches the broader thrust of the questions as they would apply to many Corinthian Christians: ‘Where is the philosopher? where is the rabbi? where is the sophist of this present world?’ All three groups, like a singer off-key, are seen by Paul as purveyors only of human wisdom that in one way or another distorts or departs from the divine purpose and from divine truth.205 201   Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 155f. In Isa 33:18 LXX  refers to the miraculous disappearance from around Jerusalem of the ‘scribes’ (and army) of the Assyrian invaders (c. 701 BC), scribes who tabulated the booty of captured cities. But the text is also a rebuke to the Jewish ‘worldly’ counselors who sought deliverance by human statecraft rather than by dependence on the Lord Yahweh. Cf. R & P, 19; J. A. Motyer, Isaiah, Leicester UK 1999, 18-21, 210ff. But  later acquired a different connotation; see below, note 203. 202   In the OT the ‘wise man’ (, ‫ )חכם‬or counselor, like the prophet, was a mediator of God’s revelation. Paul also can use  of those with a gift of divine wisdom (3:10, 18; 6:5; Eph 5:15; cf. Jas 3:13). See below, ‘ “Wisdom” and “Knowledge” in I Corinthians’, AE VI, ###-###. Here the term is qualified by ‘of this age’ and, like ‘wise according to the flesh’ (1:26) or ‘wise in this age’ (3:18), it has negative connotations (cf. 1:19, 27; 3:19f.; Rom 1:22f.). 203    in the Hellenistic world meant a civil official, e.g. ‘town clerk’; cf. Acts 19:35. Here, its only use by Paul, it has Jewish connotations, and it is better rendered by the German translation, Schriftgelehter, i.e. Scripture scholar, than by the English ‘scribe’. Although in Judaism the scribe (‫ )סופר‬could be a secretary (e.g. Jer 36:32) or one who preserved and transmitted the sacred Scriptures, he also was (later) understood to be a trained interpreter of Scripture, i.e. a theologian (e.g. Ezra 7:6; Neh 8:1-13; Mt 7:29; 9:3 parr; 13:52; 15:1f. par; 17:10 par; 23:2f.; 26:57 par). Cf. Daube, ‘Rabbinic Authority’, DCW, II, 589f.; Schürer, II, 322-325; J. Jeremias, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 740ff.: ‘only fully qualified [biblical] scholars…were legitimate members of the guild of scribes’ (741). Paul’s critique of the Scripture scholars is similar to Jesus’. 204    (‘disputant’, ‘debater’) appears only here in the NT, but cognate forms are used for ‘discussing’ or ‘arguing’ a question (Mk 1:27; 8:11; 9:14; 12:28; Lk 22:23; 24:15; Acts 28:29 M) or debating an issue (Acts 6:9; 9:29). 205   Cf. Ellis (note 10), 262ff. John Lightfoot, IV, 177, on 2:6, identifies four kinds of wisdom: the pagan wisdom of the philosophers, Jewish wisdom of the Scripture-scholars, the wisdom of the gospel, and the wisdom of this world.



III

79

   = ‘of this age’. Like Judaism generally,206 both Jesus207 and Paul208 represent history after the Fall of man as divided chronologically into two ages, ‘this age’ ( = ‫ )עולם‬and ‘the age to come’ (   ).209 It is both a history of salvation and judgment and a salvation and judgment in history.210 Unlike Judaism, however, Jesus and Paul represent the two ages as overlapping during the period between Christ’s earthly ministry–death–resurrection and his second coming, i.e. his parousia. Thus, during this period the present evil age (    )211 continues and, at the same time, the age to come = the kingdom of God is also present in certain respects.212 The kingdom of God, however, refers most frequently to the parousia of Christ and thereafter when this age will have come to its end.213

206   Cf. ‘Diese Welt, die Tage des Messias u. die zukünftige Welt’, Billerbeck IV, 799-976. This age (‫ )העולם הזה‬and the age to come (‫ )העולם הבא‬is a basic conception of Jewish apocalyptic thought, and it became a part of rabbinic thought as well. Rightly, Hering, 9. 207   Mt 12:32 T + Q; 13:39f., 49; Mk 10:30 par; Lk 16:8; cf. Mt 13:22 par; 24:3. 208   2:6, 8; 3:18; Rom 12:2; II Cor 4:4; Eph 1:21; 2:2; 6:12 ‫א‬2 D2 M; I Tim 6:17; II Tim 4:10; Tit 2:12. 209   Eph 1:21; 2:7; cf. Mt 12:32; Mk 10:30 par; Lk 16:8f.; 20:35; Heb 6:5; O. Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, Eugene OR 31998; Ellis, ‘Salvation as History’, History, 113ff.; idem, Old Testament, 102-105; idem, ‘Ministry for the Coming Age’, Theology, 1-17; H. Sasse, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933) 197-209; J. Guhrt, ‘’, NIDNTT III, 826-833; H. D. Preuss, ‘‫’עולם‬, TDOT 10 (1999), 530-545 (544f.). See below on 2:7; 10:11, note 531. 210   Cf. O. Cullmann, Salvation in History, London 1967; idem (note 209), 91; Hering, 9f.: ‘[T]his chronological juxtaposition has nothing in common with the…[Greek] two co-existent worlds, namely the eternal world of Ideas and the temporal world here below. Thus every attempt to interpret the biblical pattern of the two worlds (present and future) in the light of the opposition between time and eternity…is a betrayal of biblical theology.’ 211   Gal 1:4. Cf. Ellis, History, 114; idem, John, 41. 212   E.g. 4:20; Rom 14:17; I Thess 2:12 ‫ א‬A; Mt 12:28; Mk 9:1 parr; Lk 17:21. Cf. Col 1:13; Heb 6:5; Cranfield (note 130), II, 717f.; Ellis, Luke, 12-15, 154f., 201, 209ff.; idem, Theology, 5-17; idem, ‘The Two Stage Manifestation of the Kingdom of God’, Christ, 116-119, cf. 137-146; see below, AE XIII, ###. 213   E.g. 6:10; 15:24, 50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Col 4:11; II Thess 1:5; Mt 6:10, 33; Mk 14:25 par; 15:43 par; Lk 19:11; 21:33; Jn 3:5; Acts 14:22. Cf. Mt 16:28; II Tim 4:1, 18.

80

1 CORINTHIANS

‘This age’ and all that belongs to it, i.e. ‘the inhabited world’, ‘human society’ ( ),214 is rejected by God and is under his impending judgment.215 It is the intended object and place of the gospel proclamation,216 but it is never, as such, the object of redemption. Salvation consists in deliverance from this age217 and transference into the age to come.218 The term,  (‘world’), in Paul’s letters and in the NT generally, also often refers to the ‘present age’ and ‘society’. With this meaning, the world and all that belongs to it are equally under divine rejection and judgment.219 But  may also refer to the fallen natural creation which, redeemed together with the elect in Christ, will be a part of the age to come.220

214   Cf. BDAG, 689f.; O. Michel, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 157ff. The present  is found in Paul only at Rom 10:18 and in the rest of the NT 13 times. It is only the place, i.e. the locus or context, in which the work of redemption takes place. An exception is Heb 2:5 where a future , i.e. the world to come, is in view. Cf. Mt. 24:14; Lk 4:5; Acts 17:31; Rev 3:10; 12:9; 16:14. 215   I.e. condemnation; cf. 11:32 (). Further, Lk 21:26; Acts 17:31; Rom 2:16; II Thess 2:12. Cf. I Thess 5:2-5; II Thess 1:7ff. William Shakespeare captures the force of it in poetic form in The Tempest, IV, 152-158: The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces The solemn temples, the great globe itself Yea, all which it inherit shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. 216   Mt 24:14. 217   Gal 1:4. 218   Cf. Col 1:13. Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 38-42. 219   1:20f., 27f.; 2:12; 3:19; 6:2; 11:32; II Cor 4:3f.; Gal 6:14; Eph 2:2; Mt 4:8 Q; 16:26 parr; 26:13 par; Jn 15:18f.; 17:9; 18:36; Heb 11:7; Jas 4:4; II Pet 2:5; 3:6; I Jn 3:1; 4:4f.; 5:19. Cf. E. Sasse, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 867-898 (885-896); Trench, 213-219: ,  (dated but useful). 220   3:22; Rom 1:20; 4:13; II Cor 5:19; Jn 1:29; 3:16f.; 6:33, 51; cf. Rom 8:19-23; II Pet 3:6f., 10-13; I Jn 4:14. The phrase ‘cosmos to come’, however, does not appear in the NT, perhaps because in NT perspective, it is the same cosmos, cleansed by fire and transfigured, that continues in the age to come. Cf. Lk 17:2730; II Pet 3:5-7, 10-13; I Jn 4:14-17; Rev 11:15-18. This is true also of the term ‘earth’ (, Mt 5:5; 6:10 Q) although ‘new earth’ does appear (II Pet 3:7-13; Rev



III

81

       . On ‘the wisdom of the world’ see above on 1:17; 1:19; 1:20; 1:21; the commentary summary of 1:18–2:5. As there are two kinds of wisdom, so also there are two kinds of foolishness (cf. 1:18, 21-25 with 3:19). That which the world’s wisdom regards as foolishness is in fact the true divine wisdom, and that which it regards as wise, God ‘made foolish’ (). Paul’s argument,221 it appears, is that God made foolish the world’s wisdom in at least two ways. (1) He shows that ‘the word of the cross’ (1:17), i.e. the proclamation of God’s wisdom, both activates, displays and conveys divine power (1:18, 24; 2:4f.), power that the Corinthians have experienced in their lives through divine gifts (1:5ff.) and through miracles (12:10; cf. 2 Cor 12:12). (2) Over against that power, the world’s autonomous wisdom, whether philosophical theory or wrongful biblical interpretation or rhetorical flourish, is seen to be in the end only foolish chatter (1:17; 2:4, 13; cf. 4:19f.); it may seem to be impressive, may be influential and may fuel human pride and arrogance (4:6, 18f.; 8:1; cf. Col 2:18),222 but it is without truth and without power. Therefore, in the long run, it cannot create, endure, or even survive. 21.                . This verse explains God’s judgment on human wisdom stated in 1:20. In God’s wisdom, i.e. his wise purpose, the fallen sinful world had not ‘come to know’ ()223 God, i.e. had not achieved a (salvation-)knowledge of him through its own 21:1; cf. I Cor 15:47; Mt 24:30 parr). Cf. J. Guhrt, ‘Earth, Land, World’, NIDNTT, I, 517-526; H. Sasse, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/ 1933), 677-681. 221   Conzelmann, 43 = GT: 58, states that Paul’s ‘judgment on the [world] is passed…not by reasoning, but by asserting an act of God’. This is true, but it is not the whole truth. Paul does not merely quote Scripture, he expounds it, using both reason and experience to elucidate the revelation and under the umbrella of the revelation. 222   On the view that in I Cor 1–4 Paul is interacting with a mythological ‘wisdom’ and ‘gnosis’ see below, ‘ “Wisdom” and “Knowledge” in I Corinthians’, AE VI, ###-###. 223   Taking the aorist in the dependent clause as a pluperfect when the main verb () is also the aorist tense. Otherwise: Hering, 11: human wisdom suppressed divine truth revealed in nature (Rom 1:19-22; Ps 18:1) and was thus superseded by the cross; BDAG, 200 (6). See below on 2:7; on  see 2:14.

82

1 CORINTHIANS

human mind. At the same time it is the predisposition of fallen man’s will to reject God and his wisdom, as Paul will elaborate later in his letter to the Romans (1:18-23). Thus, there can be no salvation through ‘natural theology’,224 i.e. through egocentric human philosophical constructs.         .  God pleased (), i.e. ‘took pleasure in’ or ‘purposed’ to bring salvation through ‘the foolishness of what we preach ( ), not because man had failed to achieve salvation through human wisdom but because (, 1:21) it accorded with his own wise plan. The aorist ‘to save’ () expresses the once-for-all action or decree contingent on nothing outside himself, the decree of the God who said, ‘My word shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please. And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it’ (Isa 55:11). The word is here ‘the word of the cross’ (1:18), i.e. the kerygma (‘proclamation’), which is to be understood primarily not as the form of the preaching but as its basic content.225   = ‘those who believe’ or, stressing the present tense of the participle, ‘those who are believing’. This participial phrase, which appears with the negative at 14:22, is found some dozen times in other Pauline letters.226 It may refer to the required human response to the gospel proclamation,227 or it may refer to the status or the sphere of belief from which Christian thought and action proceed (e.g. 14:22; I Thess 2:10, 13). Paul may on occasion speak similarly of one ‘calling upon () the name of the Lord’.228   Cf. K. Barth, ‘No! Answer to Emil Brunner’, Natural Theology, London 1946, 78-109, 117-121 = GT: 15-45, 52-56. Cf. Schrage, I, 178f.; Ellis (note 10). 225   See above, Dodd (note 168), and most commentators (cf. Thiselton, 167). 226   Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:11; 9:33; Gal 3:22; Eph 1:19; I Thess 1:7; 2:10, 13; II Thess 1:10; Tit 3:8. In the NT it is most frequently found in the Gospel of John and in Acts. 227   This is more clearly evident in an indicative (e.g. 15:2, 11; Rom 13:11; II Thess 1:10; Acts 13:12, 48; 17:12) or in an imperative mood, e.g.  (e.g. Mk 1:15; Acts 16:31). 228   1:2; Rom 10:12ff. (Joel 2:32 = MT: 3:5); II Tim 2:22; cf. Acts 2:21 (Joel 2:32 = MT: 3:5); 9:14; 22:16. 224



III

83

At the same time Paul may speak of the saved229 as ‘the called’230 or ‘God’s elect’ ( ),231 i.e. his chosen ones. He also may view Christians ‘as those made holy’ ( ).232 All of these designations identify them as the objects of God’s sovereign and gracious actions quite apart from any virtue, ability, or merit in themselves. Within the recipients, subsequent to and dependent upon God’s gracious act, there is, however, an expected and ordained response that, together with the continuing divine activity, makes evident the reality of the ‘saved’ status of those who have truly been regenerated:233 ‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is working in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure’.234 ‘ “The Lord knows those who are his”, and “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity” ’.235 A crucial question: Is one called, chosen, and made holy because one believes? Or does one believe because one has been called, chosen and made holy? Acts 13:48 is explicit and clear: ‘As many

229   See above on 1:18; below on 3:15; 5:5; 10:33; 15:2. In the active voice, Paul may view himself or others as God’s instruments in saving others: 7:16; 9:22; cf. Jas 5:20. 230   I.e. passive: ‘to be called by God’ (, 1:9; 7:18, 20ff., 24; Gal 5:13; Col 3:15; I Tim 6:12) or active: ‘God called’ (, 7:15; Gal 1:6, 15; I Thess 4:7; II Thess 2:14; II Tim 1:9; cf. I Thess 2:12; 5:24). This divine ‘calling’ may be expressed by the verbal noun,  (1:26; Rom 11: 29; Eph 1:18; 4:1, 4; Phil 3:14; II Thess 1:11; II Tim 1:9) or the adjective  (1:1f., 24; Rom 1:1, 6f.; 8:28).  in the Gospels may mean not an effectual call to salvation but only the universal call of the gospel (Mt 9:13 parr; 22:14; cf. 22:9; Lk 14:24). , like the Hebrew ‫קרא‬, is an ordinary word that acquires special significance by having (1) God as its author and (2) everlasting salvation as its goal (Schmidt). II Tim 1:9, especially, shows that ‘it is a pure act of grace on the part of God’ (K. L. Schmidt, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 [1965/1938], 487-536 [491f.]). Cf. LSJ, 960; BDAG, 549. 231   Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; Tit 1:1; cf. II Tim 2:10. 232   1:2; 6:11; cf. Rom 8:30, Eph 5:26; II Tim 2:21. Cf. O. Procksch, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 100-112 [NT]: ‘Sanctification is not a moral action on the part of man, but a divinely effected state’ (112). 233   One is both saved by grace and sustained by grace. See below on 6:11 (, ‘washed’); 12:13 (, ‘baptized’). Cf. Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5; Jn 3:5ff.; 7:38; Ellis, Theology, 31-34; idem, John, 63f. 234   Phil 2:12f. 235   II Tim 2:19 (cf. Num 16:5). This is ‘the firm foundation of God’ (2:19a).

84

1 CORINTHIANS

as had been ordained ( )236 to everlasting life believed’.237 Paul also is clear that salvation is God’s gracious and sovereign act apart from any human merit or ability.238 Therefore, faith or belief for salvation is not an ability or virtue of the human will of some people, but, wherever it occurs, it is the action of God in regeneration, giving ears to hear and moving the will from a natural form and state of un-faith to faith. Thus, boasting about one’s choosing Christ is excluded: ‘Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord’.239 22.  = ‘since’, repeating the opening word of 1:21 and furthering its thought.        .  Here ‘Jews’ and ‘Greeks’ represent an inclusive reference to ‘the world’ as Paul has encountered it.240 The Jewish demand for ‘signs’ has its background in Christ’s earthly ministry where the religious authorities demand from Jesus a ‘sign’ that will confirm their traditional interpretation of Scripture: ‘If we see we will believe’. Jesus replies, in effect, ‘If you believe, you will see’.241 ‘Although he had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in him’,242 showing that their seeking a sign was not an openness to truth, but rather a skeptical curiosity that no sign would satisfy. Paul’s

236   An aorist or pluperfect dependent clause with an aorist main clause usually is rendered as a pluperfect. Cf. Fanning, 321f. (Lk 5:17): the verbal aspect emphasizes ‘the anteriority of the occurrence’. But see Robertson, 840f.; Burton, 22f.; Moule, 16. 237   Cf. Barrett (note 131), I, 658: Acts 13:48 ‘is as unqualified a statement of absolute predestination…as is found anywhere in the NT’. 238   1:30; 6:11; 12:13; Rom 8:28ff.; 10:17; Gal 3:2, 5; Eph 1:4ff., 11f.; 2:8f.; II Tim 2:25; Mt 11:15, 25f. Q; 13:9, 16 Q. Cf. E. E. Ellis, ‘God’s Sovereign Grace in Salvation and the Nature of Man’s Free Will’, SWJT 44, 3 (2001–2002), 28-43 = idem, Sovereignty, 1-17. 239   1:31; cf. 4:7; II Cor 10:17; Gal 6:14; Eph 2:8f.; Jas 4:16. 240   Cf. 1:24; 12:13; 14:11; Rom 1:14, 16; 2:9f.; 9:24; 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11. Elsewhere, Paul elaborates the divisions to include ‘barbarians’ (Rom 1:14) and Scythians (Col 3:11). Cf. Acts 28:2, 4; H. Windisch, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 504-516 (512-516). 241   Cf. Mt 12:38f. Q; 16:1-4 par; Jn 6:30. 242   Jn 12:37 NKJV.



III

85

preaching of the cross encountered a similar skepticism from many Jews, and his response is the same as that of Jesus.243 Equally, the Greeks are seeking what Paul regards as a ‘wisdom of the world’ (1:20) = ‘a wisdom of this age’ (2:6), a wisdom that is ‘ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth’.244 Paul elsewhere concludes that ‘faith comes from the faculty of hearing () and hearing comes through the word of Christ’.245 He has determined to follow that path to communicate God’s truth. .  The term may have a racial or a geographical246 reference. Among Christians it often referred to the segment of the Jews who did not follow or who opposed Jesus247 or his (Jewish) followers248 in contrast to the more positive terms, ‘Hebrews249 and Israelites’.250 Among pagans, it sometimes had negative or condescending connotations.251     .   (‘to preach’, ‘to proclaim’)252 is the verbal form of the more infrequent   Like Jesus, Paul also had performed ‘signs’, i.e. miracles (II Cor 12:12).   II Tim 3:7 KJV. It is similar to David Hume’s argument Against Miracles. Although he said that he would believe a miracle if sufficient evidence were supplied, his skepticism was in fact an a priori confessional assumption that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to alter. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 256; idem, Making, 436; P. Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. The Rise of Modern Paganism, New York 1966, 64-67, 401-419. 245   Rom 10:17. Cf. F. L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids 1977 (1883), 387; A. Schlatter, Romans, Peabody MA 1995 (1935), 217 = GT: 317; G. Kittel, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 91-143, 109: ‘the Word of the present Lord as this [Word] is at work in ’; Cranfield (note 130), 536ff.; T. R. Schreiner, Romans, Grand Rapids 1998, 566ff. Otherwise: Käsemann (note 135), 295 = GT: 282; Michel (note 25), 334. 246   I.e. Judean. Cf. I Thess 2:14; Jn 7:1; 11:7f., 54; Acts (2:14) 10:39; 22:3 (24:27); W. Gutbrot, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 375. 247   E.g. 9:20; Mt 28:15; Jn 2:18; 5:16, 18; 6:41, 52; 7:13; 8:48; 10:33; 18:36. 248   Jn 9:18, 22; Acts 9:23; 12:3; 13:45, 50; 20:3; II Cor 11:24. 249   II Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5. Cf. Gutbrot (note 246), 389f.; Ellis, Prophecy, 118ff.; Trench, ‘, , ’, 164-172. 250   Rom 9:4; 11:1; II Cor 11:22; Jn 1:47; Acts 2:22; 3:12; 5:35; 13:16; 23:28; cf. Gutbrot (note 246), 384-387. 251   Cf. Acts 18:2, 14; cf. E. M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, 123f., passim; Schürer, III, 150-153; Gutbrot (note 246), 369f. 252   9:27; 15:11f. Found some 60 times in the NT, 18 times in Paul’s letters. 243 244

86

1 CORINTHIANS

to;  (‘the proclamation’).253 It includes various essential elements of the Christian message and is thus broader than the verb  (‘to preach the gospel’)254 and its cognate .255 Unlike the latter terms, it suggests more the announcement of a reality than an invitation (cf. I Pet 3:19). . See above on 1:1f., ###-###. .  ‘Christ crucified’ in the perfect passive tense, here and at 2:2; Gal 3:1, underscores his present status as the crucified one. It is a theological conception tied to the Apostle’s earlier comment about the ‘word of the cross’ (1:18). And it expresses the cruciform perspective from which Christ still relates to his church and in which he is to be manifested there, both in the content of her proclamation and in the conduct of her members. This true wisdom of God, i.e., everlasting salvation through a sinbearing and judgment-bearing256 crucified Messiah, was rejected by the wisdom of this age (2:6), scandalous to Jews and foolish to Gentiles. It was also overlooked by many at Corinth, who embraced the glory and benefits of the gospel, but did not see its implications for their attitudes and behavior. Paul preaches Christ crucified as ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God’ (1:24) to admonish them and to correct the false wisdom in which they are still enmeshed.257 253   1:21; 2:4; 15:14. Cf. Rom 16:25; II Tim 4:17; Tit 1:3. Found twice in the Gospels for the proclamation of Jonah (Mt 12:41 Q), but elsewhere in the NT only in Paul’s letters. See above on 1:18, 21; cf. Dodd (note 168). 254   See above on 1:17. 255   See above on 1:18. Cf. H. C. Kammler, Kreuz und Weisheit, Tübingen 2003, 55. 256   Cf. 1:30; 15:3; Rom 4:7f.; 5:20f.; 6:6f.; II Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; cf. Mk 10:45 (). See below, note 279. Further, cf. P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Achtzehn Thesen zur paulinischen Kreuzestheologie’, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit, Göttingen 1981, 192-208; C. C. Black, ‘Christ Crucified in Paul and in Mark’, Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters. FS V. P. Furnish, edd. E. H. Lovering, Jr. et al., Nashville TN 1996, 184-206 (191-195); E. M. Yamauchi, ‘The Crucifixion and Docetic Christology’, CTQ 46 (1982), 1-20. See below, AE IX ###-### [306-321], note 10. 257   Further, see S. Schatzmann, A Pauline Theology of Charismata, Peabody MA 1987, 36: ‘…Paul identified the wisdom from God with God’s saving deed



III

87

 = ‘that which gives offence’,258 an offence that is or becomes a ‘stumbling block’ () to their acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. Cf. Rom 9:32f.; I Pet 2:8. The scandalous character of the cross for Jews lay in the Messiah being crucified; a Jewish hero killed by Israel’s enemies would be quite a different matter.259 A crucified Messiah contradicted all contemporary messianic expectations, even those of Jesus’ followers,260 who were completely disillusioned by his humiliating death.261 Only with Christ’s resurrection and with a transformed understanding of the soteriological role of Messiah’s death in the divine plan of redemption, i.e. in ‘the wisdom of God’, was the crucifixion understood in a new light.262 This new understanding was rooted in and developed from Jesus’ pre-resurrection teachings and biblical expositions263 that, though probably memorized by his apostles264 became clear only in their post-resurrection consciousness.  = ‘peoples’ or ‘Gentiles’. See above on 1:22 (); below on 5:1; 10:20; 12:2. in the crucified Christ’; J. Schneider, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971), 572-584; E. Brandenburger et al., ‘Cross’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 389-405; BDAG, 941; below on 1:24. 258   Only here in I Corinthians; also at Rom 9:33; 11:9; 14:13; 16:17; Gal 5:11. Cf. BDAG, 926; G. Stählin, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971), 339-358; J. Guhrt, ‘Offense’, NIDNTT II, 705-710. 259   Cf. Josephus, Vita 420; idem, Ant. 17, 295; 20, 102; 20, 129; idem, War 5, 449ff. 260   Cf. Mt 16:22f. par; 20:21 par; Lk 9:44f. parr. 261   Lk 24:21. Cf. E. Best, ‘The Purpose and the Wisdom of God: 1 Corinthians 1, 18-25’, Paolo a una chisa divisa (1 Co 1–4), ed. L. de Lorenzi, Rome 1980, 9-39. 262   Further, cf. Schrage, I, 181 (on 1:21), and the literature cited (I, 165f.). 263   Specifically, his identification of himself with the Isaian servant in his sermon at Nazareth (Lk 4:16-21 = Isa 61:1f.; 58:6); with the destroyed and rebuilt temple at Jn 2:18-22; with the rejected temple stone in the concluding biblical texts of Jesus’ exposition of Isa 5 at Mt 21:33-46 T + Q (Ps 118:22f. with an allusion to Isa 28:16; 8:14; see Davies); and with the Passover sacrificial lamb (Mt 26:17-20 parr; Jn 1:29) at the Last Supper. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 52-61; idem Old Testament, 98; idem, History, 108; idem, Prophecy, 157f., 191f.; idem, Luke, 95-98; W. D. Davies et al., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., Edinburgh 1997, III, 174f. 264   Cf. Ellis, ‘A Reappraisal of the Formation of New Testament Traditions’, Making, 28-47; cf. 333ff.; Gerhardsson (note 122), 25-32, 326-335 (328); R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, Tübingen 31988, 206-227.

88

1 CORINTHIANS

 = ‘foolishness’. See above on 1:20 ().265 24.    . See above on 1:2, 9, 18, 21 ( ).     . See above on 1:22.   .  1:24f. is in the form of a chiasmus in which the order of the first clause (/) is reversed in the second (/). This syntactical pattern is quite frequent in Paul’s letters.266 ‘Christ the power of God’267 is ‘Christ crucified’ (1:23). As ‘the wisdom of God’ is manifested in what this world views as foolishness, so ‘the power of God’ is manifested in what in this world is viewed as, and indeed is, weakness. As Christ’s submission to crucifixion was God’s power manifested in weakness, so is God’s power in Christ’s Apostle, both in his lack of philosophical dialectics and rhetorical eloquence (2:3ff.) and also in his continuing ‘thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan’. On this matter Paul had earlier received a word from God, ‘My power is made perfect in weakness’.268  .  See above on 1:18, 21, 30; below on 2:6f. The concept, ‘wisdom of God’, originates in the OT where true wisdom, i.e. the ‘wisdom of God’ (‫אלהים חכמת‬, I Kg 3:28), appears most often with three connotations: (1) as a characteristic of those in a   Cf. G. Bertram, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 845ff.   Cf. J. Jeremias, ‘Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen’, ZNTW 49 (1958), 145-156 (150): most of the Pauline chiasmuses ‘exhibit Semitic influences’ (151). Cf. Ps. 1:6. See below, notes 705-707; N. W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament, Chapel Hill NC 1942. Further, on the relationship of ‘power’ and ‘wisdom’ to the cross cf. R. S. Barbour, ‘Wisdom and the Cross in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2’, Theologia crucis, signum crucis. FS E. Dinkler, edd. C. Andresen und G. Klein, Tübingen 1979, 57-71. 267    is used by Paul (and by the NT generally) almost always for divine or supernatural power or powers, including Christ’s power (5:1), spiritual endowments (2:4f.; 4:19f.), miracles (12:10, 28f.), resurrection from the dead (6:14; 15:43) and also for satanic power (15:24; II Thess 2:9). Cf. Rom 1:16 (‘the gospel’). Exceptions: II Cor 1:8; 8:3. Cf. W. Grundmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 299-317; O. Betz, ‘’, NIDNTT, II, 601-606. See below, ‘Spirit and Power’, AE VII, ###-###. 268   II Cor 12:7; 12:9 ‫א‬2 A D2 M; RSV, NIV. 265 266



III

89

right relationship with God,269 (2) as a divine endowment to govern or relate to others rightly,270 or (3) as a divine gift to mediate God’s revelation to his people and to others.271 At times, however, it appears to be personified as a divine attribute or a divine activity.272 Paul treats Christ as the wisdom of God primarily in two letters, I Cor 1–4 and Col 1–2. But does he do so with reference to Christ’s person (as the hypostasis of divine wisdom)273 or with reference to Christ’s role in salvation history (as the centerpiece and key to God’s purpose)? The two are not mutually exclusive and Paul may have both aspects in mind. But in Colossians274 he treats Christ’s   E.g. Job 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prov 9:10; 15:33. This follows from the conviction that true wisdom finds its source in God (e.g. Jer 51:15; Dan 2:20). 270   E.g. I Kg 3:11f.; 5:12; Ezra 7:25; cf. Col 4:5; Jas 1:5. 271   I.e. as prophets, priests, or wise men. E.g. II Sam 16:23; Jer 18:18; Dan 1:17-21. Cf. E. E. Ellis, ‘Perspectives on Biblical Interpretation: A Review Article’, JETS 45 (2002), 473-495, 477f. = idem, Sovereignty, 47-79 (54-57); see below, AE VI, ###-###. 272   Esp. Job 28; Prov 8; cf. Ben Sira 1:1-10; 24. Cf. H. Ringgren, Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East, Lund 1947, 89-106; G. Fohrer, ‘ [OT]’, TDNT 7 (1971/1964), 476-496; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, London 1972, 148-166, 206-239 (156). They view its background to lie in a common understanding in the ancient Near East: Wisdom was immanent in the created order (von Rad, 153; Fohrer, 477-483) or was a manifested divine hypostasis (Ringgren, 9-88). If so, Israel’s prophets, priests and wise men, under inspiration, reshaped these ideas and related them to Yahweh and his purposes. Further, cf. B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage, Minneapolis 1994, 299-314; E. J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul, Tübingen 1985, 242ff.; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols., London 1974, I, 153-171, 248ff.; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1962, I, 441-459. 273   See below at 8:6: Special Note on the Biblical God: Unity in Plurality, ###-###. Cf. C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, Leiden 1998, 331f., passim; Ellis, ‘God: Unity in Plurality’, Old Testament, 112-116; M. Hengel, ‘Pre- existent Wisdom’, The Son of God, London 1976, 48-76; esp. in relation to   , S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, Tübingen 21984 115-136 (127-162); A. Feuillet, Le Christ Sagesse de Dieu, Paris 1966, 394ff. Somewhat differently, G. Strecker, ‘The Sophia Tradition’, Theology of the New Testament, New York 2000, 37-45 = GT: 41-49. Cf. Lk 11:49, Ellis, Luke, 171-174; Justin Martyr, Dial. 38:2; 61:1; 62:4; 100:4; 126:1. See below on 3:23. 274   Col 1:15-20; 2:2f., 9. Cf. C. F. Burney, ‘Christ the ARCH of Creation’, JTS 27 (1925–26), 160-177; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, Philadelphia 4 1980, 150ff.; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles…to the Colossians and to Philemon, Cambridge 1962, 62-71; P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Waco TX 1982, 38-52; Kim (note 273), 247-260; N. T. Wright, ‘Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1:15-20’, NTS 36 (1990), 444-465; E. E. Ellis, ‘Colossians 1:12-20: Christus 269

90

1 CORINTHIANS

person more explicitly; here he is more concerned with Christ’s role in God’s wise plan of salvation.275 25.  = ‘because’. The causal force heightens the impact of the explanatory  that introduces the earlier clauses (1:21-24) expounding the opening texts (1:19f.). Cf. I Thess 1:5. The argument moves in reverse order from effect to cause,276 from the divine Word and its significance for the Christian proclamation (1:21-24) to a supporting reason for that Word (1:25).               .  The verse is transitional. Looking back (1:21-24), ‘the foolishness’ and ‘the weakness’ of God may refer to the unobtrusive and largely unobserved means and manner in which God’s purpose and plan of salvation is unfolded and presented.277 That purpose is seen both in the salvation- history as summarized in the essential Christian message (),278 and especially in the cruciform pattern in which the salvation was effected. This cruciform pattern of salvation, Paul argues, is to be continually manifested not only in its message but also in its messengers.279 Looking forward, the verse points to the kind of people that God chooses—‘the foolish’, ‘the weak’, ‘the nobodies’ (1:26ff.). They are viewed by egocentric natural man, i.e. the wise ‘in this age’ (2:6; 3:18), as representing foolishness and weakness, i.e. ‘losers’.280 But the God who reveals himself in weak and seemingly foolish Creator, Christus Salvator’, Interpreting the New Testament Text. FS Harold Hoehner, edd. D. L. Bock et al., Wheaton IL 2006, 425-428 = idem, Sovereignty, 42-45. 275   See below AE VI, ###-###. Cf. Conzelmann, 48 = GT: 63f.; M. Hengel, ‘Wisdom and the Beginnings of Christology’, Studies in Early Christology, Edinburgh 1995, 108-117. 276   R & P, 24. On  see above on 1:5. 277   Expressed poetically in the hymn of Phillips Brooks, ‘O Little Town of Bethlehem’: ‘How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given!’. 278   See above on 1:21, note 168. 279   Eph 2:16; Phil 2:8; Col 1:20; 2:14; Heb 12:2; cf. 9:28a; I Pet 2:24. See above on 1:23; below, ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###. 280   1:18, 20, 21, 22; 3:18. See below on 5:3ff.: Special Note on Speech Act Theory, ###. On the significance of the generic use of  and of the English ‘man’, cf. Ellis, Theology, 53-86, 60f.; idem, Sovereignty, 98-101.



III

91

ways remains the ‘wiser’ and the ‘stronger’ because he is God. God’s Word and ways create reality, man’s effect only transient opinion.281 26.                  . The biblical texts (1:19f.) continue to be expounded, beginning again with the explanatory . But now the argument shifts, reflecting if not alluding to the teaching of Christ (Mt 11:25f. Q), to show how the Scriptures are confirmed in the Corinthian Christians themselves and how their calling itself critiques the worldly wisdom manifested among many of them (1:26-29, 30f.). The Corinthians’ ‘calling’ illustrates how God’s purpose and ways of salvation contradict the wisdom of this world. Allusions to Jer 9:23 = 9:22 MT here anticipate the concluding quotation of the midrash at 1:31 = Jer 9:24 LXX = 9:22f. MT.   = ‘not many’, i.e. not many wise, prominent or well-born. The triadic formula is probably Paul’s creation, but the triadic motif appears to be established Jewish tradition, both in the OT and in Philo.282 But some Christians at Corinth did have considerable social status or economic affluence. Such were Erastus, the city treasurer (Rom 16:23), Gaius (1:14; Rom 16:23), Chloe (1:11), Titius Justus (Acts 18:7), and probably Stephanas (1:16; 16:15, 17), most of whom hosted Paul or gave the use of their homes for house churches. A good number in this Roman colony were quite possibly Roman citizens as their Latin names may suggest.283 Cf. also Phoebe 281   Whether the comparison is specifically with reference to human wisdom and strength or generally with reference to human nature in all respects. Cf. Schrage, I, 189. 282   Although in varied sequence. E.g. the claim of the ruler of Tyre in Ezek 28:2, 9 (divine descent), 3, 6, 12 (divine wisdom), 4f., 16f. (prominence or wealth); of the king of Babylon in Isa 14:11-14. Cf. Philo, de opificio mundi 77, 83-86. So, Wuellner (note 284), 559f. On the omission of the copula see below on 1:31. 283   Cf. E. A. Judge, ‘Greek Names of Latin Origin’, ND 2 (1982), 106ff.; idem, ‘The Roman Base of Paul’s Mission’, TB 56 (2005), 103-117 = idem, The First Christians in the Roman World, Tübingen 2008, 553-567. See Ramsay, 26-30; above, note 89.

92

1 CORINTHIANS

at Cenchreae (Rom 16:1f.), Lydia at Philippi and Jason at Thessalonica (Acts 16:15; 17:5ff.).284 .  Paul, like Jesus, views Christians as God’s called and chosen ones.285 He here reiterates to the Corinthians that they are not achievers but beneficiaries of God’s grace, i.e. of his effectual calling ().286 They have nothing that they did not receive (cf. 4:7). Not many of them are wise ‘according to the flesh’  ), i.e. from this world’s viewpoint and by its standards, not many prominent (), not many well-born. The phrase   applies, by implication, to all three categories.287  is Paul’s favorite term288 to designate and to describe metaphorically man ‘under sin’ and ‘under death’, i.e. in Adam (15:22). This term does not, as is often thought, mean a part of the individual, but rather the whole person viewed from a particular perspective.289   See above, Introduction, ###-###. Cf. W. A. Meeks, ‘The Social Level of Pauline Christians’, The First Urban Christians, New Haven CT 22003, 51-73 (57-63); G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Early Christianity: Essays on Corinth, Philadelphia 1982, 69-99; E. A. Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century, London 1960, 49-61; idem, Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St. Paul, Christchurch NZ 1982, 12ff. = idem, Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century, Peabody MA 2008, 34-44, 142ff.; D. Sänger, ‘Die  in 1 Kor 1, 26’, ZNTW 76 (1985), 285-291; W. Wuellner, ‘Tradition and Interpretation of the “Wise–Powerful–Noble” Triad in I Cor 1, 26’, SE 7 = TU 126 (1982), 557-562. Further, Schrage, I, 203; Fee 81f. Otherwise: J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, Edinburgh 1998, 97-154. 285   1:27f.; Rom 8:33; 11:7; Eph 1:4; Col 3:12; I Thess 1:4; II Thess 2:13; II Tim 2:10; cf. Jas 2:5; I Pet 1:2; 2:4, 9; Rev 17:14. For Jesus, cf. Mt 22:14; 24:31 par; Mk 13:20 par; Lk 18:7; Jn 13:18; 15:16, 19; cf. Acts 9:15; 22:14; 26:16. 286   A technical Pauline term; II Tim 1:9 shows clearly that this calling ‘is a pure act of grace on the part of God’ (Schmidt [note 230], 492). It ‘is here the act of calling rather than the state of being called’ (Conzelmann, 49 = GT: 65). See above on 1:21. 287   But there is also a spiritual wisdom, prominence and nobility; cf. Lightfoot, 165; Acts 17:11: . 288    appears c. 91 times in Paul’s letters, over 60% of the total NT usage. Paul uses it once for a corporate relationship before the Fall, i.e. the sexual union of man and wife (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31; cf. Mt 19:5f. par). It may also be used literally (15:39; Rom 2:28). See below, notes 294f., 305; at 5:5, notes 104-111. 289   Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., London 1955, I, 209; E. E. Ellis, ‘Life’ NBD3, 687-691. See below, ‘The Shape of Pauline Anthropology’, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-###. 284



III

93

It may be applied to national Israel,290 to Christians, to Christ,291 and to Paul himself292 in so far as their existence continues to be individually or corporately implicated in this age, i.e. in its sin or in its mortality. The term, with this connotation, probably has a background in Qumran usage.293 With an ethical connotation, it comes into English via the Latin as ‘carnal’.294 Existence ‘in the flesh’ = ‘in Adam’ is contrasted with existence ‘in Christ’ or ‘in the Lord’ or ‘in the Spirit’.295 27-28. : a stronger adversative than  Cf. BDF, 232f.; Moulton, III, 329f.  … … … .  ‘The fool­ ish…the weak…the common…the nothings…’ are the opposite of ‘the wise…prominent…well-born’ of 1:26. The neuter gender, e.g. ‘foolish things’ or ‘what is foolish’ (RSV), sharpens the contrast and generalizes the objects to include, e.g. the kerygma (1:21) and the cross (1:18, 23). Cf. Fee, 82n. Christianity’s rejection by many of the wise and prominent was recognized as its characteristic mark by some second-century Apologists.296

290   I.e.,    (10:18; cf. Rom 2:28; 9:3), in contrast to ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16), i.e. the church as the body of Christ. Cf. Eph 2:12; Rev 21:12 with 22:16; J. L. Martyn, Galatians, New York 1997, 574-577; L. Morris, Galatians, Downers Grove IL 1996, 190; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, Waco TX 1990, 298f.; Lightfoot (note 84), 224f. But see E. D. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, New York 1920, 357f. See above on 1:2:    291   Rom 1:3; 8:3; 9:5; Eph 2:15; Col 1:22; I Tim 3:16; cf. Heb 2:14; 5:7; to Christians: 5:5; 7:28; cf. 3:1, 3f.; 9:11. Further, II Cor 7:1; Gal 5:13, 16. 292   Rom 7:18, 25; II Cor 4:11; 5:16; 7:5; 10:3; 12:7; Gal 2:20; 4:13f.; Phil 1:22, 24; 3:3f.; Col 1:24. 293   E.g. 1QS 11:9; 1QM 4:3: ‘sinful flesh’ (‫)בשׂר עול‬, cf. Rom 8:3; 1QM 12:12: ‘guilty flesh’ (‫)בשׂר אשׁמה‬, cf. I Cor 7:1; 1QH 5:19-22, 19 = 13:19-22, 19; 4Q Instruction = 4Q 416 1:10-13, 12: ‘spirit of flesh’ (‫ = )בשׂר רוח‬sinful spirit, cf. II Cor 7:1; Col 2:18. Cf. J. Frey, ‘Flesh and Spirit…in the Qumran Texts’, The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, edd. C. Hempel et al., Leuven 2002, 367-404, 378-394. 294   Also in the ET of Scripture, e.g. NKJV at Rom 8:6f.; cf. 7:14; I Cor 3:1, 3f.; II Cor 10:4. 295   15:22; Plm 16; Rom 8:8f.; cf. 1:3f.; II Cor 10:3f. See above, note 288. 296   Justin Martyr, I Apology 2, 2; Origen, Contra Celsus 2, 79; idem, Homilies (cf. Kovacs, 27).

94

1 CORINTHIANS

   = ‘God chose’. This expression, using the aorist middle of , introduces the above four-fold chord in 1:27f. that is carefully composed with rhetorical power (cf. II Cor 10:10f.) designed to underscore the definitive character of God’s act of salvation and his sovereignty in determining its recipients. Cf. L. Coenen, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 542. Paul then describes (1) the purpose and (2) the effect of God’s action: he so acts (1) in order that he may ‘put to shame’ or ‘confound’ (1:27 KJV)297 the wise of this age and their value judgments (2) with the result that no ‘flesh’, i.e. no human being, may boast before God (1:29).298 Paul does not specify when God’s purpose will be fulfilled and its results accomplished. He does not refer to the present where ‘this age’ continues and where the church as Christ’s body still lives under the sign of the cross, largely rejected or merely tolerated, and where self-promotion remains dominant. These verses also do not refer to subjective human social perceptions of honor or shame in Corinth299 but rather, very likely, to the future Day of judgment when ‘the work of each one shall become manifest’ (3:13), ‘when God judges the secrets of men’ (Rom 2:16), when those in Christ will not be put to shame,300 and when, standing ‘before God’ (1:29),301 all self-boasters fall silent. Then and only then will God’s great reversal302 of the priorities and categories of this age be accomplished and the age to come be publicly revealed.    The present active subjunctive represents a continuing or enduring action, in the present or in the future, subsequent to God’s one point action of salvation, ‘God chose’ (aorist tense). Cf. Lk 9:26; Ellis, Christ, 133ff. Cf. R. Bultmann, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 189ff.: in the LXX it mostly ‘denotes experience of the judgment of God’ (189). ‘[W]e are wholly on Old Testament ground in I Cor 1:27’ (190). On  see above on 1:10. 298    (‘to boast’, ‘to glory’), and its cognates,  and , occur c. 56 times in the NT, all but four instances in Paul’s letters. 299   With due respect to many recent studies, I do not see such issues in the text here. For a different perspective cf. Thiselton, 186ff. and the literature cited. 300   Rom 9:33; cf. Isa 28:16; I Pet 2:6; I Jn 2:28. 301   ‘Before God’ (  ) does not elsewhere in the NT refer specifically to the last judgment; but see Lk 12:8; Rev 20:11f. However, with the preposition  (‘before’), it does so, e.g. before God (I Thess 3:13), the Father (Mt 10:32f. Q), the Son of Man (Mt 25:32) or Christ (II Cor 5:10; I Thess 2:19). 302   Cf. Lk 1:51ff.; 16:19-31; 16:15: ‘What is exalted among men is an abomination before God’. 297



III

95

      .  The neuter plurals of 1:27f. continue and are now summed up and brought to a climax: God chose ‘the things that are not in order that he might bring to an end the things that are’. The  probably denotes ‘class-attributes “such things as are not” ’ (Lightfoot, 166) and is not a weaker subjective impression, ‘things reputed to be non-existent’. Cf. Rom 4:17.  (aorist subjunctive) = ‘bring to naught’ (Tyndale), ‘bring to nothing’ (RSV, NKJV), is stronger than  (‘put to shame’) and carries the latter judgment to its climactic finish: that he might ‘annihilate’, ‘reduce to non-entity’303 the things that are. On  see above on 1:10. 29.        . See above on 1:27f. The conjunction  (‘so that’) here introduces what approaches a result clause.304 The phrase  305 is a common Hebraism corresponding to ‫ בשר־כל‬and is to be regarded as one word. ‘Boasting’ or ‘exulting’ has both positive and negative connotations.307 The positive is akin to rejoicing or affirming; the negative, to bragging. If it is in the right spirit, ‘boasting’ or ‘to boast’ or ‘to exult’ in God (Rom 5:11), in Jesus Christ (1:31; Rom 15:17; II Cor 10:17; Phil 1:26), in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:14), in salvation (Phil 2:16), in one’s ministry for Christ (9:15; Rom 15:17; Phil 303   Lightfoot, 166: ‘as the opposition to    requires’. The usage elsewhere in the letter is similar: 2:6; 6:13; 13:8, 10f.; 15:24, 26. Otherwise: R & P, 26. Apart from Lk 13:7; Heb 2:14, this is a Pauline word in the NT and is rare elsewhere. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 197; but see G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 452ff.; J. I. Packer, ‘Abolish, Nullify, Reject’, NIDNTT, 73. 304   Cf. A. T. Robertson et al., A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids 1977 (1933), 344f.:  may introduce ‘clauses that are not pure purpose nor yet pure result, but hover between the two extremes’ (344); Moule, 138, 142f. Otherwise: Edwards, 38, and Conzelmann, 50 = GT: 66f., who understand it, with most commentators, as the over-riding or ultimate purpose. 305   Occurring twice elsewhere in Paul: Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16. Further, cf. Mt 24:22 par; Lk 3:6 = Isa 40:5; Jn 17:2; Acts 2:17 = Joel 2:28 = MT: 3:1; I Pet 1:24 = Isa 40:6. See below, AE VIII, ###; cf. E. E. Ellis, ‘Life’, NBD3, 687-691 (687); E. Schweizer, ‘ ’, TDNT 7 (1971), 119-151 (129). Somewhat differently, A. C. Thiselton, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (1975), 671-682. See above, note 288. 306   Cf. Lightfoot, 166f.; Gen 6:12f.; 7:15f.; Isa 40:5f.; 66:23f.; Jer 32:27; 45:5; Ezek 21:4f. = MT: 21:9f.; Joel 2:28 = MT: 3:1; Zech 2:13 = MT: 2:17. 307   In the NT the terms and concept are almost altogether in Paul’s writings. Cf. R. Bultmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 645-654.

96

1 CORINTHIANS

2:16; cf. Rom 2:17), in the Christian hope (Rom 5:2), in Christian afflictions (Rom 5:3; II Cor 12:9), on behalf of others (15:31; II Cor 7:14; 9:2; I Thess 2:19; II Thess 1:4) or in gifts of ministry (II Cor 9:8; 10:13; 12:5f.) is perfectly appropriate. On the other hand, to boast or exult in human beings (3:21), in Jewish racial heritage and their eschatological vindication (Rom 2:17, 23),308 in gifts of ministry (II Cor 11:12), in one’s achievements (9:16; Gal 6:13; Eph 2:9) is, if self-centered, sin. The Corinthians have continued in an unregenerate self-promoting kind of boasting. They boast in their favorite apostle (3:21) and apparently in their (Christian) achievements (4:7) and outward appearance (II Cor 5:12).309 In this context Paul critiques human boasting on at least two grounds: (1) It is an element of the false wisdom of this age that is the main theme of this section of the letter (1:19f.). (2) It leads the Apostle to the biblical text with which he will close his exposition (1:31). 30.        .  , i.e. from God, is best understood as the predicate and relates as such to the verb, i.e. ‘From him you have your being (   in Christ Jesus’.310 If the verb were related primarily to  , i.e., ‘you are in Christ Jesus (   ) from God’s actions’, the order would ordinarily be     The statement continues the stress on divine election, i.e. God the Father as the one who chooses the recipients of salvation (1:27f.) and who transfers their existence into the sphere of salvation, i.e. ‘in Christ Jesus’ (1:30).311   . This Pauline phrase (q.v. @ 1:2) and conception has the locative force of in Christ-existence, as a number of writers

308   Cf. esp. S. J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Grand Rapids 2002, 211-215; E. A. Judge, ‘Paul’s Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’, Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century, Peabody MA 2008, 57-71. See below, note 849. 309   Cf. P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1997, 285; Thrall (note 20), I, 403f. 310   Lightfoot, 167. Cf. 8:6; Rom 8:30; 11:36; Schrage, I, 213; Weiss, 38f. 311   See above on 1:9, 24. Cf. 6:11; 1:28 (  ) with Rom 4:17; Gal 1:6; Col 1:13; II Tim 1:9; I Pet 2:9f.; Alford, II, 482; Bachmann, 105; Ellis (note 274), 422-425 = idem, Sovereignty, 39-42.



III

97

have rightly recognized.312 The conception is found not only in the Pauline letters, but also in the Synoptic, Johannine and other NT writings.313 And it appears to have its immediate background in the Last Supper sayings of Jesus.314 The phrase   goes beyond ‘association’ and, although it has a connotation of ‘belonging to’ Christ, it, like the term ,315 expresses a realistic ‘participation’ in Christ. It is the inward dimension of the outward expression for the church as ‘the body of Christ’.316 The phrase ‘in Christ’ was traditionally understood by some earlier writers as a ‘mystical’ union with Christ,317 sometimes thought to be conveyed by water baptism or by the elements of the Lord’s Supper. But it is best explained not by the vague and misleading term ‘mystical’ but by the term ‘corporate’, i.e. by Paul’s understanding of Christ as both an individual and a corporate person who includes his chosen ones within his corporate being.318   = ‘who was made’, i.e. by God,319 taking the verb as   E.g. S. A. Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology, Rome 2001, 7-38; Thiselton, 190; Ellis, ‘The Corporate Son of Man’, ‘The Corporate Body’, ‘The Believer’s Corporate Existence in Christ’, Christ, 36f., 85ff., 143ff., 171ff., cf. 126f., 148-157; R. C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ, Berlin 1966, 70-74; A. Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism, New York 1960; A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, London 21953, 127-130; A. Deissmann, Paul, London 21926, 296-299; idem, Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’, Marburg 1892, 77-98. See below, note 691; on 7:14, note 510. 313   Cf. Mt 25:40; Lk 10:16; 20:38 (‘in him’); Jn 13:20; 15:4-7; Acts 9:4; I Jn 2:6, 28; 3:6, 24; 4:12f., 15f.; Ellis (note 312). 314   See below on 10:16f.; 11:24ff.; cf. Mt 26:26f. parr; Lk 22:28: ‘You are the ones who have continued (or have existed) with me (    )…’; cf. 23:43, viz. corporately included in me. 315   See above on 1:9. 316   See below on 10:16; ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###; cf. Thiselton, 190. 317   E.g. Wikenhauser (note 312); Schweitzer (note 312). 318   Cf. Son, ‘The Church as the Body of Christ’ (note 312), 83-120; Ellis (note 312); cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Corporate Christ’, The Origin of Christology, London 1977, 47-96. See below on 2:1 (); 3:16, note 691. 319   Olshausen, 46: ‘The   must be connected with the , so that Christ himself…may appear as a gift from God to men, but the idea that expresses the being of Christ stands as a climax, and comprehends the phases of the Christian life from its commencement to its completion. In the  is intimated the real, essential knowledge of God…and, to a certain extent, it is the beginning of a true way of life, the real , for it leads to  and thereby to a perfect enlightenment of the man as a regenerated creature’ (46f.). 312

98

1 CORINTHIANS

passive. So, e.g. Conzelmann, 52 = GT: 68.320 The clause continues Paul’s emphasis on God as the sovereign actor321 both in effecting his purpose of redemption and in the means by which he has done it, i.e. in Christ crucified (1:17, 23).322          .  Are the four attributes—wisdom, righteousness,323 holiness, redemption324—coordinate,325 or are the last three terms in apposition with or an explanation and development of the first term?326 Favoring the latter are (1) the (not very persuasive) suggestion that the clause is a restatement of ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ (1:24)327 and (2) the view that the last three stand together as progressive stages of salvation328 vis-à-vis wisdom as a christological concept.329 However, the phrase   applies to all four attributes.330 As a concept the divine  may have soteriological connotations,331 especially in its connection   Cf. Eph 3:7. Otherwise: Edwards, 39: ‘ “became” not passive, “was made” ’; cf. I Thess 1:4; Acts 4:4. 321   Cf. Findlay, 773: ‘[T]he whole passage (1:18-29) is dominated by the thought of the Divine initiative in salvation’. 322   Cf. Conzelmann, 52 = GT: 68: ‘[H]ere [at 1:30] we have to do not with general definitions of the being of Christ…but with the exposition of the cross’ [1:18]. 323   The term appears only here in this letter; cf. Rom 3:21-26; II Cor 5:21; Cranfield (note 130), I, 199-218; Barnett (note 309), 312-315. 324   The term appears only here in this letter; see below, note 328. 325   So, e.g. KJV, RSV, ESV; Olshausen, 46f.; Alford, 482f.; Meyer, 37f. 326   So, e.g. Fee 86; Ellicott, 118f.; Findlay, 773; Godet, I, 118f.; Heinrici, 81; Mare, 197. 327   Osiander, 100-104 (104); Schmiedel, 77. 328   I.e. an initial imputed/corporate righteousness, an ongoing individual actualization of Christ’s holiness (Rom 6:19, 22; I Thess 4:3; II Thess 2:13; I Pet 1:2), and a final parousia redemption (; cf. Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14; 4:30; Lk 21:28). But ‘holiness’ and ‘redemption’ are, corporately, also present realities for those ‘in Christ’; see above on 1:2; below on 11:19, note 118; cf. Eph 1:7; Col 1:14. Cf. F. Büchsel, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 340-356 (351-356); B. Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness, Wheaton IL 2006, 200-205. 329   Cf. 1:24; Col 2:3. The word order,    , would seem to favor this view. For mss placing  after , mainly in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic vss and in the patristic writings, cf. Tischendorf, II, 463. 330   Whether  is taken to mean (1) ‘origin’ or ‘source’, or (2) ‘cause’, or ‘instrument’, i.e. ‘by God’; cf. BDAG, 105f.; Moule, 71-74. 331   And to be distinguished from the charism of ‘a word of wisdom’ (12:8). 320



III

99

with ‘Christ crucified’332 and in its role as the initial divine enlightenment of the repentant sinner to God’s truth.333 Taken in this way, to have divine wisdom means, essentially, to be given ‘to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God’.334 If so, ‘wisdom’, like ‘faith’,335 is both the fruit of the Spirit, characteristic of all Christians (1:30),336 and also a gift of the Spirit (12:8), given only to some.337 31.   (q.v.@ 1:6)      .  The IF ‘as it is written’ (q.v. @ 1:19; 2:9) is within a  purpose clause (q.v. @ 1:10). The copula, often omitted in Greek,338 may be supplied: ‘in order that it may be as it is written’. The quotation,339 found also at II Cor 10:17,340 is verbatim from Jer 9:24 LXX341 except for the phrase  , which is substituted for a different and more elaborate LXX wording: ‘the one who boasts let him boast in this: to understand and to know that I am the LORD’ (= MT: ‫יהוה‬, ‘Yahweh’). Including the present verse, slightly over half of the OT quotations in Paul’s letters are at variance with the LXX and the MT.342   See above on 1:23f.   It is in this sense that the regenerate are ‘children of God’s wisdom’ (Luke 7:35). Cf. Ellis, Luke, 120; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids MI 1978, 303f.; J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2 vols., New York 1981, I, 679. Cf. 1QS 4:21f. Differently, S. Vollenweider, ‘Christus als Weisheit’, Horizonte neutestamentliche Christologie, Tübingen 2002, 29-51. 334   Cf. Luke 8:10 T + Q: ‘to you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God’. Similarly at Qumran, cf. 1QS 4:20, 22; 9:18f.; see below, AE VI, ###. 335   Cf. 12:9 with Gal 5:22. 336   However imperfectly it may be perceived or expressed. Cf. 3:1f.; Heb 5:12f.; I Pet 2:2f. 337   See below on 12:8 and ‘ “Wisdom” and “Knowledge” in I Corinthians’, AE VI, ###-###, for distinctions between the two different functions of God’s imparted wisdom. Further, see the discussion of Thiselton, 190f. 338   Cf. esp. Moulton, III, 294-303; Robertson, 395f.; BDF, 70f. Cf. e.g. 1:9, 20, 24, 26; 3:3, 22; 4:8, 10; 5:1, 6, 12; 6:13; 8:6; 9:11; 10:13; 11:6, 11f.; 12:3, 17, 19, 29f.; 13:4ff., 13; 15:14, 17, 21, 24, 27, 32, 39-44a, 45-48, 55ff.; 16:21. 339   On the difficulty of defining ‘quotation’ in Paul’s letters and of distinguishing it from intentional allusion, cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 11; somewhat differently, R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, New Haven CT 1989, 9-21. 340   Cf. Barnett (note 309), 492; 1:31 is also cited in I Clem 13:1. 341   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 172f. On  see above on 1:29. 342   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 150ff. 332 333

100

1 CORINTHIANS

The variations have sometimes been attributed to ‘memory lapse’,343 an unlikely judgment in the light of ‘Paul’s rabbinic training and the verbal exactness of many of his quotations’,344 or to a literary purpose.345 But in many instances Paul, under the conviction of his apostolic-prophetic authority to render the eschatological meaning of OT texts,346 incorporates his interpretation into his quotations.347 In this respect his procedure is very similar to that of the Qumran writers, who also manifest a charismatic and eschatological exegesis that sometimes selected, interpreted (i.e. peshered, ‫ )פשׁר‬or created OT text-forms to adapt the text to the commentary.348 The phrase  , a dative of reference, ‘about the Lord’, is here such an adaptation. The term , which in Paul’s letters almost always refers to Jesus Christ,349 very probably points back to the one who has been made ‘our wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption’, i.e. to Christ.350 But in this verse, as in a number of other Pauline OT quotations and allusions, the  reference to Yahweh in the OT is understood and expounded as a reference to Christ.351 Perhaps the clearest instance is Rom 10:9, 13, but the   E.g. Munck (note 84), 146.   Ellis, Paul’s Use, 15, cf. 11-20. 345   E.g. a more concise rendering; cf. Thrall (note 174), II, 652, on II Cor 10:17. 346   Virtually all NT = ‘New Covenant’ readings of the OT = ‘Old Covenant’, presuppose (1) that the OT history and prophecy are a ‘salvation history’ that has been fulfilled in Christ and (2) that this fulfillment is the true and ultimate meaning of the OT texts, their Word of God character. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Meaning of Word of God in Scripture’, Christ, 269-278; idem, Old Testament, 105-109, 139-157. 347   E.g. 1:19; 2:9; 15:45, 54f.; Rom 10:11 (); 11:26f. ( ); II Cor 6:16-18; Gal 4:30. See above, note 4. Cf. Ellis, History, 103-106; idem, Old Testament, 91-96; idem, Prophecy, 151-154. See below on 2:9, note 461. 348   E.g. 1QpHab; 4QFlor; CD. Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 139-148; idem, ‘A Note on Pauline Hermeneutics’, NTS 2 (1955–56), 127-133; idem, Old Testament, 91-101; K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament, Philadelphia 21968, 183-202; W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, Missoula MT 1979; C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, Cambridge 1992, 304ff.; C. S. McKenzie et al., ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation’, DBI I, 538-543. But see M. P. Horgan, Pesherim, Washington DC 1979, 250ff. 349   Sometimes to God the Father: e.g. Rom 9:28f.; 10:13, 16. 350   1:23f., 30. Cf. also  at 1:2f., 7-10. 351   E.g. 2:16, cf. Isa 40:13; 10:26, cf. Ps 24:1 = 23:1 LXX; II Cor 3:16, cf. Exod 34:34. For allusions see Phil 2:10f., cf. Isa 45:23; I Thess 3:13, cf. Zech 14:5; II Thess 2:9, cf. Isa 2:21; II Tim 2:19, cf. Num 16:5. Cf. D. B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, Tübingen 1992, 115-160 (130-135). 343 344



III

101

present verse reflects the same conception. The midrash that opens with Yahweh’s intention to destroy ‘the wisdom of the wise’ (1:19; cf. Isa 29:13f.) proceeds to identify Christ crucified as ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God’ (1:23f.) and concludes with an implicit identification of Christ with Yahweh (1:31). The expectation of the coming of Yahweh, i.e. his visible appearance352 as Israel’s savior and as judge353 was a part of the OT (messianic) hope.354 The NT takes up this conception and applies it to Jesus.355 2:1.                   . The  =  , placed first in the sentence, is emphatic357 and underscores the shift from the commentary (1:18-31) to its application to Paul’s conduct at Corinth (2:1-5).358 As an application of 1:18-31, the ‘excellence of word or of wisdom’ (   ) in 2:1 refers to the same human wisdom critiqued at 1:18-31, and to the rhetorical or philosophical speech with which that wisdom is communicated.359 It appears to be essentially   E.g. Job 19:25ff.; Joel 3:9-21; Isa 66:18; cf. Test. Levi 2:11 (CAP II, 305); Ellis, Christ, 29, 42n, 44n. 353   E.g. the LXX of I Chron 16:35; Isa 25:9; 40:3; 62:11; 66:13-24; Mic 7:7-10. Cf. J. Schneider et al., ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 218. 354   Cf. S. Mowinckel, He that Cometh, Nashville TN 1954, 143-147, 298-304; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., London 1847, I, 595-601, who read the Scriptures within a biblical world-view and was, in this respect, more critical, i.e. judiciously evaluative, than those scholars who read the Bible through lenses ground in the closed Epicurean world-view of the Enlightenment. See Gay (note 244), passim. 355   Mk 1:2f. parr = Isa 40:3 ( = Yahweh); cf. 14:58 with Dan 7:9-14 and Ezek 1:26ff. (see Ellis, ‘Deity-Christology in Mk 14:58’, Christ, 42, 49ff.); Lk 2:11 (‘Messiah Yahweh’; cf. Lam 4:20; Ps Sol 17:32); 1:17 with Mal 3:1. Cf. Ellis, Luke, 82; Marshall (note 333), 110; but see Fitzmyer (note 333), I, 409f. See also Billerbeck I, 63-74, on Mt 1:21. 356   On …, cf. Rom. 15:29. On  see below on 6:1. 357   As also the  in 1:17. See Robertson, 417-425 (417f.): Position of Words in the Sentence. 358   The transition is also indicated by the shift from the present to the past (aorist) tense and from the plural to the first person singular. See below, AE III, ###. On , see above on 1:1; on 2:1-5 as OT exposition, cf. L. Hartman, SEÅ 39 (1974), 111ff., 118ff. 359   See above on 1:17; 1:19; 1:20; 1:21. 352

102

1 CORINTHIANS

equivalent to the ‘wisdom of word’ ( ) at 1:17, and it stands in antithesis, both in manner and in content, to Paul’s speech and proclamation (2:4).  = ‘proclaiming’, ‘declaring’360 emphasizes, in contrast to ‘preaching the gospel’ (),361 the fact or reality of the Christ-event without reference to its acceptance or rejection. In this respect, the term, found in the NT only in Acts and Paul, is closer to ,362 and connotes the role of a herald or messenger. And it is the role of Paul speaking in public363 as well as, more often, in the synagogues and house churches.364 Whether 2:1 originally read  or  is disputed, but  is to be preferred.365 Of the 28 NT occurrences of the term366 21 are in Paul’s letters. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century it was argued,367 and the argument then refuted,368 that  in Paul’s letters was derived from or influenced by the Greek mystery religions. It is now recognized, especially in the light of the DSS, that the term and concept has its background in 360   Only seven times in Paul: 2:1; 9:14; 11:26; Rom 1:8; Phil 1:16, 18; Col 1:28. Cf. J. Schniewind, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 71f. 361   See above on 1:17. 362   See above on 1:18, note 168; 1:23. 363   Pace S. K. Stowers, ‘Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching’, NT 26 (1984), 59-82. See Acts 16:17, 21; 17:23; 19:9; 26:23; cf. 14:8; 17:18. 364   9:14; Col 1:28; Acts 9:20; 13:5, 38; 17:3, 13. 365   See above, Textual Note on 2:1. 366   2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Mt 13:11 T + Q; Rom 11:25; 16:25; Eph 1:9; 3:3f., 9; 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26f.; 2:2; 4:3; II Thess 2:7; I Tim 3:9, 16; Rev 1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7. 367   Most influentially by Reitzenstein (note 111), 10, 355-358, 426-496 = GT: 9, 278-292, 333-393; cf. W. Bousset, Kurios Christos, Nashville TN 1970 (11913), 86-89, 168-171 = GT: 48ff., 117-120. See above on 1:14, note 111, re this background for Christian baptism. 368   By, among others, A. Schweitzer, Paul and his Interpreters, London 1912, 179-249 (190-199, 226-249); idem (note 312), 26-40; Kennedy (note 111), 123-130, 303; Machen (note 111), 211-251; Ellis, Interpreters, 27. Further, cf. Nock, I, 343ff.; idem (note 111). The chief problems with the hypothesis were the scantiness of the literary evidence (Kennedy, 68), the post first-century dates of much of it (Machen, 237) and the fact that analogies between Paul’s language and that of the mystery religions do not necessarily imply dependence (Schweitzer, Interpreters, 194). See above, note 111.



III

103

Jewish apocalyptic writings and in the OT.369 Most immediately, its background lies in Jesus’ teaching on Isa 6:9f. that to his disciples ‘it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God’ but to the outsiders they remain hidden.370  in the NT most often refers to the hidden meaning of the OT Scriptures relating to the age to come, i.e. to the kingdom of God that is now revealed through Christ via his apostles and prophets,371 sometimes to some other divinely hidden aspect of the kingdom of God now revealed directly to and through them.372 Here ‘the mystery of God’ refers in particular to that ‘wisdom of God’, hidden in Scripture and now revealed through his Apostle, that God has chosen to redeem the world through a crucified Messiah. The cross is God’s wisdom and his now-revealed secret purpose.373

369   The ‘mystery’ is a divine secret of the future revealed by God to his seer or prophet Daniel (e.g. Dan 2:19 LXX = MT: ‫ רז‬raz); to the Teacher of Righteousness (1QpHab 7:4f.; 1QH 9:21 = 1:21) and to God’s chosen ones (1QS 11:5-8; 1QH 10:13f. = 2:13f.; 12:27f. = 4:27f.). Cf. Collins, 115; M. N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, Tübingen 1990, 223-227. R. E. Brown, ‘The Semitic Background of the Pauline MYSTERION’, Ph.D. Diss., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD 1958; idem, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament, Philadelphia 1968; G. Finkenrath, ‘’, NIDNTT, III, 501-506; G. Bornkamm, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 813-838; W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, Cambridge 1939, 227f.; C. Jόdar-Estrella, ‘ “Misterio” in 1 Co 1-4 despliegue (con)textual de una metafora’, AT 13 (1999), 453-474 (470ff.). 370   Mk 4:11 T + Q; cf. Ellis, Luke, 125; idem (note 10), 274. 371   2:7ff.; 4:1; 13:2; Mt 13:11-14; Rom 11:25; Eph 1:7; 2:20; 3:3f., 9; 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26f.; 2:2; 4:3 (cf. Rom 15:9-12, 21); Rev 10:7. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 40:1; 60:6. Cf. Cranfield (note 130), II, 573f.; M. Barth, Ephesians, 2 vols., New York 1974, 18-21, 123-127; H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, Grand Rapids 2002, 214, 428-434; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 115ff., 121-124; D. E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., Nashville TN 1998, II, 568f.; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids 1999, 543f. See also J. N. Aletti, ‘Sagesse et Mystère chez Paul’, La sagesse biblique de l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament, ed. J. Trublet, Paris 1995, 360-369. 372   14:2; 15:51; Eph 3:2-5; Col 1:26f.; II Thess 2:7; Rev 1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7; 22:6, 9. 373   Cf. Hering, 15; O. Betz, ‘Die Übersetzungen von Jes 53 (LXX, Targum) und die Theologia Crucis des Paulus’, Jesus: Der Herr der Kirche, Tübingen 1990, 197-216. See below on 2:7.

104

1 CORINTHIANS

2.     .  Is  to be construed (1) with  (‘I determined not to know anything’),374 (2) with  (‘…to know nothing’)375 or (3) with  (‘I did not determine [or think it fit] to know anything’)?376 The word order favors (3), but it results in a weak statement unsuitable to the context. The emphatic position of , as well as Paul’s emphasis on the cross throughout the section (1:13, 17f., 23; 2:8), suggests that the negative has been displaced from its ordinary position with , i.e.  .377 The translation, ‘I determined to know nothing’, is, then, the most appropriate.  . While the cruciform focus was particularly needed by the Corinthians, it was only a further application of an attitude taught already in Paul’s first known letter, i.e. Galatians (c. AD 49;378 Gal 3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14). Cf. II Cor 13:4; Eph 2:16; Phil 2:8; 3:18; Col 1:20; 2:14.   (q.v. @ 10:13, note 547)     .  On the name and title see above on 1:1. The epexegetical  = ‘even’ introduces both an emphatic and an explanatory addition.379 The perfect tense of  stresses that Christ not only was crucified but also in his exaltation remains the crucified one in his continuing ministry through his body, i.e. his church. Thus, those who belong to Christ are also to manifest in their lives and ministries a cruciform pattern of conduct. Since some Corinthian Christians have failed to follow this true ‘wisdom of God’, Paul underscores it in his biblical exposition (1:23) and again here in its application to his own ministry.380   E.g. Lenski, Lias. On the tense of , cf. @ 2:11, note 482.   E.g. Barrett, Kistemaker, Orr, Soards. On the causal  see below on 3:11, note 637. 376   Hammond, Godet, Lightfoot, R & P, Collins, Thiselton and many others. 377   So, Moule 168: ‘the negative is displaced and changed from  to  accordingly’. 378   Cf. Ellis, ‘Paul’s Famine Visit to Jerusalem and his First Letter c. AD 46, 49’, Making, 255-260; Longenecker (note 290), lxxii-lxxxviii; but see Burton (note 290), xliv-lii. 379   Robertson, 1181. 380   See above on 1:23; below, ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###; cf. Voss (note 167), 37f., 80-96, 206-211; the hymn, At the Cross by I. Watts (1674–1748). 374 375



III

105

3.             . On the emphatic position of  see above on 2:1. The phrase, ‘in weakness and in fear and in much trembling’ is, with respect to weakness, a part of the cruciform attitude of Paul’s ministry in which God chooses to manifest his power.381 But it may also in some measure reflect a consciousness not of his lack of speaking ability382 but of his limitations in and a deliberate avoidance of oratorical persuasiveness.383 ‘Fear and trembling’, an idiom found in the OT and in the Apocrypha,384 appears elsewhere in Paul.385 At II Cor 7:15 it relates to the Corinthians’ reaction to Paul’s ‘severe letter’, i.e. to the divine rebuke through Christ’s apostle;386 at Phil 2:12 to the Christian’s attitude toward God in the conduct of one’s life-pilgrimage. Here also the idiom probably expresses Paul’s awe before God, i.e. that the manner and method of his ministry be acceptable to him387 and that he not overstep or sidestep God’s will and purpose for his mission to Corinth.388 If so, Christ’s word to Paul through a night-vision (Acts 18:9f.) served to reassure Paul on this matter and to stimulate him to a bold and effective 18-month mission in this city. On   = ‘with you’, cf. I Thess 3:4; II Thess 2:5; 3:10; BDAG, 875 (3, g); Collins, 119.   Reflecting and perhaps alluding to 1:25, 27 (). Cf. U. Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit, Tübingen 1993, 292f. 382   Cf. Acts 14:12 and Paul’s ‘speeches’ in Acts. 383   II Cor 11:6; cf. 10:10. See above, note 43; below on 2:4. It is unclear whether or to what extent this weakness is related to ‘the angel of Satan’ given by God to Paul (II Cor 12:7). Cf. Barnett (note 309), 566-577; Thrall (note 20), 814-818; V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians, Garden City NY 1984, 546-552. 384   Cf. Exod 15:15f.; Dt 2:25; 11:25; Pss 2:11; 55:5; Isa 19:16; Jdt 2:28; 15:2; II Esdras (= IV Ezra Appendix) 15:33; IV Macc 4:10. It is often fear before the Lord, both from his enemies (e.g. Dt 2:25; 11:25; Isa 19:16) and from his servants (Ps 2:2). Cf. T. B. Savage, Power Through Weakness, Cambridge 1996, 73. 385   II Cor 7:15; Eph 6:5; Phil 2:12. 386   Cf. Barnett (note 309), 385f. 387   Perhaps recalling the Holy Spirit’s forbidding his earlier attempted mission in the provinces of Asia and Bithynia (Acts 16:6f.). For other possibilities cf. Garland, 85f.; Thiselton, 213ff. 388   Cf. Edwards, 46. In any case it was not fear of human opposition or the absence of co-workers. The impression throughout Paul’s letters and Acts is that of a man who, convinced that he was doing the will and purpose of God, would brave any human obstacle and endure any sacrifice, even unto death, to accomplish that purpose, fighting to the end even in the midst of inner fears (II Cor 7:5). Cf. esp. II Cor 4:7-12; 6:4-10; Phil 3:8-11; II Tim 4:7. 381

106

1 CORINTHIANS

4.           []  ].  On the textual variants see above Textual Notes on 2:4. [ Is ‘my word and my proclamation’ merely ‘rhetorical duplication’ (Conzelmann)? Or is ‘proclamation’ an explanatory elaboration of ‘word of the cross’ (1:18; Collins)? Or is it a difference between private ‘word’ and ‘public preaching’ (Bengel); or between ‘dialectical speech’ and ‘expository preaching’ (Olshausen); or between the gospel revealed and the gospel proclaimed (Edwards; cf. Fee, Godet)? The translation of … as ‘both…and’389 would exclude a repetitive phrasing. Probably  refers to the form of Paul’s speech, in contrast to that speech mediating the world’s wisdom (1:17; 2:1, 4, 13; 4:19f.) and in accord with that of the cross (1:18; 2:13). , then, refers to the broader content of Paul’s message.390   []  [ ]       .  It is probable that , like , is secondary, added in the light of 2:13.391 The phrase, then, reads ‘not in persuasiveness ( or ) of human wisdom392 but in the display of the Spirit and of power’ (p46 F G). If one follows NA27, the phrase, ‘not in persuasive words of wisdom’, gives further but unnecessary support for the understanding of Paul’s ‘word’ (2:4) as his speech in contrast to that of human oratory. On ;  see below on 7:19, note 567.   6:13; cf. 7:34; Rom 11:33; I Thess 5:15; Plm 16; Robertson, 1183. But see

389

1:24.

  See above on 1:21; 2:1; cf. Dodd (note 168).   So, Fee, 88n; Weiss, 49; Schrage, 232. Zuntz, 23ff. (24), makes the case: ‘(1) the adjective  is unrecorded [in the TLG]. [Although] “persuasion” is a key word of Greek rhetoric; …yet this adjective remains unrecorded. (2) Paul cannot [have written]: “my word…was not in words…”…(3) The gloss , on the model of ii.13 (cf. i.17), [arose from] the doubling of the initial sigma of ’. (4) ‘[T]he longer form is more easily derived from the shorter than vice versa’. Cf. BDF, 250; Moulton, II, 78; above Textual Note on 2:4. 392   I.e. ‘human wisdom’ as in 1:19-22; 2:1, 5; 3:19; cf. II Cor 1:12; Jas 3:15f. Cf. T. H. Lim, ‘Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, But in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power’, NT 29 (1987), 137-149 (146): Paul ‘appears to be rejecting…that specific, studied art of persuasive speech as it was practiced by orators and rhetoricians of the Graeco-Roman world’. 390 391



III

107

 (‘display’, ‘proof’) is a term used in Greek rhetoric.393 This is its only appearance in the NT. It is used, perhaps in an implicit opposition to human rhetoric, of a divine exhibition ‘by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders [and] in the power of the Spirit of God’.394    (‘of Spirit and of power’) here reflect the same two-fold ministry of Paul as that in Rom 15:18f. ‘Spirit’, found c. 146 times in Paul’s letters, is first mentioned here of c. 40 times in I Corinthians. It probably introduces Paul’s second biblical commentary (2:6-16) where the term ‘spirit’ occurs eight times, six times for the Holy Spirit, who is, in certain respects, both identified with and distinguished from God (the Father) and Christ.395 5.   396       ’  (q.v. @ 7:19)   .  here introduces a purpose clause.397 Paul’s conduct in Corinth was for the benefit of the Corinthians ‘in order that your faith may not be (  in the wisdom of men but in the power of God’, i.e. in that divine power manifested in Paul’s ministry. But with the present subjunctive () Paul recognizes that his purpose may not be realized in some of them, even in some of their most gifted leaders. The sharp contrast between human and divine wisdom that began his biblical commentary (1:18-31) now closes its application (2:1-5), with a concluding emphasis on the close association of divine power with divine wisdom.

  I.e. it is the part of the argument containing the proof. Cf. Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 5, 10, 7; Anderson (note 20), 23f. 394   Rom 15:18f. NETB. The chiasmus expresses two aspects of Paul’s ministry, also in Corinth, i.e. the Holy Spirit’s gifts (1) of inspired speech and discernment (including divine wisdom) and (2) miraculous acts. Cf. 1:8; 12:6, 28ff.; II Cor 12:12. See below, ‘Christ and Spirit in 1 Corinthians’; ‘Christ Crucified’, AE VII and IX, ###, ###. Cf. LSJ, 195f.: . 395   See below on 2:10; ‘Christ and Spirit in I Corinthians’, AE VII, ###-###. 396   See below on 12:9. Cf. A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, Stuttgart 61982, 323-418 (Paul). 397   I.e. ‘in order that’. On the uses of  see above on 1:10 and note 78. 393

108

1 CORINTHIANS

C. The Mediation of Divine Wisdom (2:6–3:20) Nevertheless, we do speak wisdom among the mature, but a wisdom not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are being brought to an end. 7We speak rather God’s wisdom in a mystery, that which has been hidden, a wisdom which God predestined before the ages for our glory, 8which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But, as it is written, 6

What the eye did not see and the ear did not hear And what did not enter the heart of man, Those things which God prepared for those who love him, God, however, revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who of men knows the things of man except the spirit of man that is in him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now, we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God in order that we might know the things gifted to us by God. 13These things we also speak not in the instructed words of human wisdom, but rather in the instructed words of the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to the pneumatics. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The pneumatic, however, discerns all kinds of things, but he himself is discerned by no one. 16For 10

Who has known the mind of the LORD That he should teach him? Now we have the mind of Christ. But I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to pneumatics but as to carnal ones, to babes in Christ. 2I fed you milk, not food, because you were not able to receive it. But you are not even now yet able, 3for you are still carnal. For inasmuch as there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not carnal and walking according to natural man? 4For whenever someone says, ‘I am of Paul’, and someone else, ‘I am of Apollos’, are you not natural men? 5Who then is Apollos, and who is Paul? They are ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave 1



III

109

to each one. 6I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing to grow. 7Consequently, neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but rather God, the one who causes to grow. 8He who plants and he who waters are one, but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9For we are co-workers with God; you are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God given me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But let each one take care how he builds on it, 11because no one can lay another foundation than the one that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12And whoever builds on the foundation—gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—the work of each one will become manifest. 13For the Day will disclose it because it will be revealed with fire, and the work of each one, whatever sort it is, the fire will test. 14If anyone’s work abides, which he builds on the foundation, he will receive a reward. 15If anyone’s work is burned up, it will be forfeited, but he himself will be saved, but so as through fire. 16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, that is, that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy this one. For the temple of God is holy, which holy temple you are. 18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone supposes that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool in order that he might become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He who catches the wise in their craftiness And again, God knows the reasonings of the wise That they are vain. 20

Textual Notes 10. : ‫ א‬A C D F G Y 33 M. The reading , though with strong and early support (p46 B 1739), is rightly taken by Metzger, 481, to be ‘an improvement introduced by copyists’. Otherwise: NA25, R & P and Fee, 97n, who argue that  better fits Paul’s style and argument and is more likely to have been substituted by  than vice versa. But Zuntz (205f.), examining ms clusters, comes to the opposite conclusion. Cf. G. D. Fee, ‘Textual Critical Observations’, Scribes and Scripture. FS J. H. Greenlee, Winona Lake IN 1992, 8-15.   : ‫א‬2 D F G  M latt sy. Significant mss lacking the , which are probably to be followed, are p46 ‫ *א‬A B C 1739 sa bo.  is quite likely an explanatory gloss.

110

1 CORINTHIANS

12.  :  D F G bo. The aggregate of mss, including the best, lack , e.g. p46 ‫ א‬A B C M. Copyists added , perhaps influenced by the similar    in 2:6. 14.  : The phrase is omitted by a number of minuscule mss, by syp and by many patristic writers, influenced perhaps by 2:10:   . But it is supported by the oldest, best, and highly diverse mss and very likely represents the original text. Cf. Metzger, 11971, 547.  p46 A C D*. Some mss have   (‫א‬1 B D2 Y M; cf. 15.  : 25 NA ), others  (F G) and a few    (P 33 1739). Was  dropped under the influence of 2:10 () or added to prevent reading  as masculine singular? Was  omitted in the light of the preceding  or added to correlate with the following ? NA27 decides for [] , with the brackets to indicate uncertainty. Cf. Metzger, 482. But the  is quite probable, and it is significant for Paul’s meaning. See the exegesis below. : p46 ‫ א‬A B C Y 1739 M. Several mss (D F G 33) have the 17.  present tense, , apparently a spelling error caused by the preceding .

Structure The section 2:6–3:20 begins with a second biblical commentary (2:6-16) which, like the first (1:18-31), exhibits the pattern of a rabbinic proem midrash: theme (vv. 6-8) + opening texts (v. 9: cf. Isa 52:15; 64:4; 65:17 [16]) + exposition (vv. 10-15) + final text (v. 16 = Isa 40:13 LXX). The preformed and reworked biblical commentary is followed by its application to the Corinthian church (3:1-19a) and final texts (3:19b-20) that conclude the expository section (1:18–3:20) of the first division (1:10–4:21) of the letter. The biblical texts, the exposition and the application are linked, in rabbinic fashion, by a number of concept-words.398 Commentary Summary In this biblical commentary (2:6-16) true wisdom is contrasted with the ‘wisdom of this age’ (v. 6). It is a divine wisdom foreordained   E.g.  (2:9, 11, 14; 3:3),  (2:8, 14, 16; 3:20),  (2:9, 11f.; 3:16),  (2:14; 3:19),  (2:6f., 13; 3:19),  (3:10, 18ff.). See below on 10:1-31, note 447; AE II and III, ###, ###; cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 155ff. See above, notes 25, 26, 164f. That 2:6-16 is a preformed midrash and is not Paul’s interaction with a mythological understanding of ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’ see below on ‘Traditions in I Corinthians’, AE II, ###-###, and AE VI, ###-###. 398



III

111

by God before the ages concerning God’s redemptive purpose in the crucified Christ. It is a wisdom that is unknown and unknowable to natural man and to the extranatural spirit powers who influence or control his decisions. It is hidden in the Scriptures and is now revealed by God through his Spirit to those mature and spiritually gifted Christians, including the Apostle Paul, whom the Apostle names ‘the spiritual ones’ or ‘the pneumatics’ (cf. 2:13, 15). In a word this eschatological commentary on OT texts expounds the nature and activities of an important, if often ad hoc leadership cadre in the early church. Paul applies this preformed biblical commentary, probably a reworked composition of others, to the fractious Corinthian Christians (3:1-19a), who cannot know or mediate this divine wisdom because, although regenerate and gifted, their ethics continue to reflect their unregenerate nature; they continue to behave not like Christ but like ‘natural’ () man.399 As products of the spiritual labors of Paul and Apollos, they have made these apostles the objects of their own jealousy and strife. Although saved by grace, they will be assessed by their works in the future great Day of judgment, and by their conduct they are risking the forfeiture of Christ’s approval on that Day. For their spiritual health they must turn from the wisdom of this age in order that they may become spiritually wise, i.e. may receive the true wisdom characteristic of Christian maturity. Exegesis  Except for the spiritual 6.      . gift of wisdom in 12:8,  occurs in I Corinthians only in this division (1:18–4:21) and its introduction (1:17). Here it marks a transition in emphasis from the critique of human wisdom400 to the manifestation of the wisdom of God.401 399   See on 2:14; 15:22, 44-49. On the preformed and non-Pauline character of 2:6-16 see below, AE II, [91ff]; AE IV, ###-### [143-153]. Otherwise: W. O. Walker Jr., Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, London 2001, 127-146. See above, Introduction, ###. 400   In 1:18–2:5. See above on 1:19ff.; 2:1, 4f.; below on 3:19. 401   See above on 1:30; 2:6f. On the meaning of OT wisdom and prophecy in Daniel and at Qumran see below, AE VI, ###-###; F. G. Martínez, ‘Wisdom

112

1 CORINTHIANS

 appears first here in I Corinthians, where it is used more often (33 times) than in all other Pauline letters combined. It refers almost always402 to divine403 or inspired speech,404 i.e. the expression of the ‘spiritual’ gifts. Here the plural refers to Paul and other pneumatics (2:13, 15).405  = ‫תמים‬, whose background is not in the Greek ‘mysteries’ but in Judaism,406 has two connotations in the NT. (1) Here and at 14:20, it designates the ‘mature’ Christian,407 i.e. one who may or may not have charisms (, cf. 12:4) from the Holy Spirit to manifest Christ’s ministry but who does evidence the fruit of the Spirit (cf. 13:4-7; Gal 5:22f.) that manifests Christ’s character. (2) Elsewhere it may refer to the eschatological goal of the Christian life, the ‘perfection’ that will be found in each of Christ’s called ones at his parousia when all will be fully conformed to Christ’s character, reflecting ‘the image of God’ (II Cor 4:3).408 Both  (‘perfect’) and  (‘holy’), which sometimes appear together,409 point to the divine ethical character to which all of those in Christ at Qumran…’, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. F. G. Martínez, Leuven 2003, 1-15. Otherwise: cf. G. Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology, Philadelphia PA 1987, 353-393. 402   Cf. especially I Cor 14 (24 times). See below, ###-###. 403   E.g. 14:21; cf. Rom 3:19. For Paul Scripture, rightly understood, is divine speech. Cf. B. B. Warfield, ‘ “It Says,” “God Says,” ’ ‘ “The Oracles of God” ’, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Philadelphia 61970, 299-348, 351-407; Ellis (note 10), 270-278; idem, Paul’s Use, 20f. 404   2:7, 13; 9:8; 12:3, 30; 13:1; 14:2-6, 9, 13, 18f., 23, 27ff., 34f., 39. Cf. Rom 7:1; 15:18; II Cor 2:17; 4:13; 7:14; 12:19; 13:2f.; Eph 5:18f.; 6:19f.; Phil 1:14; Col 4:3f.; I Thess (1:8) 2:2, 4, 16; Tit 2:1, 15. Unless Paul qualifies his words as ‘natural’ speech (cf. 7:12, 25; 13:11; II Cor 11:17, 23; 12:4), he speaks in his letters as a (apostolic) prophet (cf. 14:37f.); see above note 7; Ellis (note 10). 405   See below, ‘ “Spiritual” Gifts in the Pauline Congregations’, AE IV, ###### [141-153]. 406   Cf. 1QS 2:2; 3:9; 4:22; 8:1, 20; 9:2, 6; 1QSb 5:22; 1QH 12:23 = 4:23; 1QM 7:5; 14:7; CD 20:2, 5, 7. Cf. G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 8 (1972), 73; the discussion in O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Göttingen 1984, 225-229. But see Thiselton, 232f. On the use of the term for natural talents, cf. Philo, Leg. alleg. 1, 93f. 407   So also at Phil 3:15; Col (1:28); 4:12; cf. II Cor 12:9; Mt 19:21; Heb 5:14; Jas 1:4; 3:2; I Jn 2:5. Cf. Hering, 16; Godet, I, 132f. 408   So, 13:10; Eph 4:13; cf. Phil 3:12 (Col 1:28). 409   Rom 12:1f.; Eph 4:12f.



III

113

are destined.410 While  is used of the present corporate status and sphere of all those in Christ,  is applied to the present individual status and role of some Christians; Paul claimed to be  even as he denied being  (‘perfected’, cf. Phil 3:12, 15; Trench, 90). Both terms refer to the individual goal of every one of God’s elect at the consummation of this age.411              .  On  see above on 1:20, 138-144. The term  = ‘ruler’, ‘lord’, ‘leader’, ‘official’, may refer in the NT to human officials,412 to Satan413 and to Jesus Christ.414 In 2:6-8, two of the four occurrences in Paul’s letters,415 ‘the rulers of this age’ have been given two principal identifications, (1) the political leaders of the various nations416 and (2) the invisible extra-natural powers, i.e. angelic or satanic beings.417 410    = ‫ קדשׁ‬which signifies something ‘set apart to’ or ‘dedicated to’, and takes on the ethical character of the object to which it is dedicated, in biblical writings almost always to God. In the OT it refers frequently to the priests or to the priestly service; in the NT to God and to those chosen by God to be his sons and daughters in Christ (cf. Col 3:12; II Cor 6:18). ‘Just as the one who has called you is holy, you yourselves be holy in all your conduct, for it is written [Lev 11:44] “be holy just as I am holy” ’ (I Pet 1:15f.). ‘Therefore, you are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Mt 5:48 NASB). Cf. O. Procksch, K. G. Kung, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 88-115; H. Ringgren, ‘‫’קדשׁ‬, TDOT 12 (2003), 530-543. See below, note 411; above on 1:9 and footnote 104. 411   Cf. BDAG, 995f.; R. Schippers ‘ ’, NIDNTT 2 (1986), 64f. Otherwise: Conzelmann, 59 = GT: 77; Delling (note 398), 77. Cf. on Eph 4:13 Barth (note 371), II, 495f.; otherwise: Hoehner (note 371), 554-559. 412   E.g. of a synagogue (Mt 9:18, 23 Q), of the Gentile (Mt 20:25; Rom 13:3) and the Jewish (Lk 23:13, 35; 24:20; Jn 3:1; Acts 3:17) nations. 413   E.g. Mt 9:34; 12:24 T + Q; Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph 2:2. Cf. BDAG, 140; for the rabbinic usage cf. Billerbeck II, 552 on Jn 12:31. 414   Rev 1:5. 415   2:6, 8; Rom 13:3; Eph 2:2. 416   So, Fee, 103f.; Feuillet (note 273), 26-36; Godet, I, 136; Hays, 44; Lightfoot, 175; J. Schniewind, ‘Die Archonten dieses Äons. I. Kor. 2, 6-8’, Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze, Berlin 1952, 104-109 (105, 109). Cf. Garland, 93f.; Clarke (note 48) 116f.; Tertullian, ct. Marcion 5, 6, middle. This viewpoint often identifies the  with those who participated in crucifying Christ (2:8): Pilate, Herod and the Jewish religious authorities. 417   So, Barrett, 70; Collins, 129; Conzelmann, 61 = GT: 79; LietzmannKümmel, 12, 170; Schlatter, 111; Schrage, 250, 253ff.; E. Schweizer, ‘’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 425n; Weiss, 53f., 56. Cf. Origen de principiis 3, 2, 1 and

114

1 CORINTHIANS

The first view has problems: (1) A reference to transitory and now deposed or dead individual earthly rulers—Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas—who participated in Christ’s crucifixion (cf. 2:8), would clash with and render anachronistic the present-tense clause, ‘who are being brought to an end’ ().418 (2) Temporary political leaders or powers would hardly be described as ‘rulers of this age’ ( = ‫ )עולם‬a time period in contemporary Jewish idiom extending from the Fall or at least from the ancient past to the ultimate (destructive) conclusion of this age.419 (3) What could earthly powers have to do with supernatural wisdom?420 It is more likely that with the phrase, ‘the rulers of this age’, Paul refers primarily to extranatural spirit powers, presumably satanic angels,421 who influence or control earthly authorities and their decisions:422 (1) Elsewhere he employs the term  for Satan (Eph 2:2; cf. Jn 14:30) and the cognate term  (‘authority’, ‘ruler’) for malevolent spirit powers.423 (2) He also uses a similar idiom, ‘god of this age’, for the spirit-being Satan, who is active in Paul’s opponents and whose ‘angel’ afflicts Paul.424 (3) The activity of Belial = Satan and his evil spirits in earthly political affairs is 3, 3, 3; Theodore of Mopsuestia on I Cor 2:6f. cited in Staab, 174. See below, AE IV, ###-###; on 6:3, note 207. 418   Cf. Kümmel, 170. The earthly elites, committed to their autonomous worldly wisdom and status, are of course included among those whom God will bring to an end. The verses, 2:6, 8, are not, however, a repetition of 1:27f. but an extranatural addition to it. 419   Cf. BDAG, 32f.; Guhrt (note 209); Sasse (note 209); Cullmann (note 209), 45-50; Preuss (note 209), 530-545. 420   Cf. Conzelmann, 61 = GT: 79. 421   On such spirit beings in the NT and in early Jewish conceptions and prophetic experience, cf. (4:9; 6:3); Rom 8:38; II Cor 11:14 (cf. Job 1:12); Gal 1:8; II Pet 2:4; Jude 6; Rev 9:11; 12:7, 9; 1QS 3:20-25; CD 5:18f. (cf. II Tim 3:8; Exod 7:11); 1QM 13:4; in the OT of good angels (Jos 5:13ff.; Dan 10:13; 12:1 [‫;]שׂר‬ cf. H. Niehr, ‘‫’שׂר‬, TDOT 14 [2004], 190-215 [213ff.]) and of good and evil spirit beings (Job 1:6: ‫‘ = בני האלהים‬sons of God’). For the history of research 1888–1975 cf. M. Pesce, Paolo e gli Arconti a Corinto, Brescio 1977. 422   Cf. Cullmann (note 209), 191-210 = GT: 169-186; idem, The State in the New Testament, New York 1956, 62; see below, AE IV, ### [n. 34]. Both views were present in the patristic church; cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia (note 417). 423   15:24; Rom 8:38; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12 (‘in the heavenlies’). Cf. G. Delling, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 478-489 (483f.); Hoehner (note 371), 279n and the literature cited. 424   II Cor 4:4; 11:3f., 13ff.; 12:7.



III

115

affirmed in contemporary Jewish (apocalyptic) thought.425 (4) The spirit-beings do not know God’s plans, although they desire to know them.426 , here as at 1:28 (q.v.), has the stronger force, ‘being brought to non-existence’, and not merely ‘being made impotent’. The present passive form often implies, in Jewish usage, a divine reference, ‘being brought to an end by God’.427 In NT teaching it is neither the task nor the power of the Christian or of the church to do this, and the denouement of this age will not be brought about by sociopolitical reform428 although the witness of the Christian and the ministry of the church corporately are not without restraining effects on the wickedness of earthly society ( ).429 It is God who himself will bring to an end the rulers of this age at the climax of the history of redemption and of judgment at the parousia of Christ.430 7.                 . On , cf. 7:19, note 567; on , cf. 2:6; on  , cf. 1:18, 21, 24; 2:6; on  , cf. 2:1. The phrase,   Cf. Rom 8:38; Eph 6:12; Mart Isa 2:2; 1QS 3:20-26: ‘In the hand of the Angel of Darkness is total dominion of the sons of deceit’ (3:20f.); 1QM 13:4: ‘Accursed be Belial for his inimical plan Accursed be all the spirits of (‫)גורלו‬ his lot for their wicked plan’; cf. CD 5:18f.: ‘Belial raised up Jannes and his brother’ (cf. II Tim 3:8; Exod 7:11). In early Judaism the term belial (‫בליעל‬, ‘ruin’, ‘destruction’, ‘destroyer’) became personified and was identified with a spiritbeing at the head and source of all wickedness, i.e. ‘is identified with Satan (cf. II Cor 6:15)’ (B. Otzen, ‘‫’בליעל‬, TDOT 2 [1975], 131-136). Cf. BDB, 116. 426   Mt 24:36 par; I Pet 1:12; 4Q402. Frag. 4. 1:14f. (Martinez, II, 815): ‘When [God] acts, none of the gods (‫ )אלהים‬can understand what He plans’. Paul equates pagan deities with demons (10:20). Cf. J. S. Wright, ‘Pagan Deities’, NIDNTT, II, 85. 427   Cf. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Edinburgh 1909, 224f. = GT: 183ff.; BDF, 164f., 176. 428   But see, for a different perspective, the discussion of Thiselton, 233-239, and the literature cited. 429   Mt 5:13f.; Rom 12:17f., 20; 13:1-7; Gal 6:10; Eph 5:8f.; Col 4:5; I Tim 2:1ff.; 6:18; Tit 3:1f. Cf. Ellis, ‘Ministry and the Secular World’, ‘Paul’s Ministry and Greco-Roman Society’, Theology, 17-25, 147-159 (157ff.). The present  is never in the NT the object of redemption but rather of ultimate divine destruction. See above on 1:20, note 214. 430   See below on 15:24ff. 425

116

1 CORINTHIANS

‘God’s wisdom in a mystery, that has been hidden’, elaborates what has been expressed more succinctly at 1:24 (Christ ‘the wisdom of God’) and at 2:1 (‘the mystery of God’).431 It expresses God’s plan and purpose, hidden in the Scriptures and incomprehensible to human wisdom,432 to redeem his chosen ones, his elect, through Jesus Christ, the crucified and resurrected Messiah (2:2; 15:4, 12ff.). It is a plan and purpose ‘which God predestined () before the ages unto our glory’.433 The term,  (‘to predestine’), here only in this letter, occurs six times in the NT,434 always with reference to God’s redemptive plan in Christ.435 It is related to the terms, ‘to foreknow’ (),436 ‘to purpose beforehand’ (),437 and is better translated not ‘decreed’ (RSV) but ‘predestined’ (NASB), signifying that God spoke into being beforehand the very process of redemptive history centered on the cross of Christ. ‘Before the ages’ does not mean ‘before time began’ (NIV)438 but rather ‘before the ages prior to the Fall’439 or ‘before the time of God’s predestined purpose in Christ’. God’s actions with respect to temporal creatures and to all creation of necessity occur within the framework of that temporality, i.e. within time.440

  See above on 1:24; 2:1. Cf. J. Reiling, ‘Wisdom and the Spirit’ [I Cor 2:6-16], Text and Testimony. FS A. J. F. Klijn, edd. T. Baarda et al., Kampen 1988, 200-211: ‘if this [hiddenness] is the nature of wisdom, it cannot be preached unless it is revealed’ (203). 432   See above on 2:6, note 426; Bockmuehl (note 369), 162. 433   See above on 1:18, note 189; on 1:20, notes 206, 209f. 434   2:7; Acts 4:28; Rom 8:29, 30; Eph 1:5, 11. 435   For the NT there is no ‘double predestination’, i.e. no predestination to damnation (except possibly Rom 9:13). Cf. F. Davidson, Pauline Predestination, London 1946, 30-36; W. H. Griffith Thomas, ‘Of Predestination and Election [Article XVII]’, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, London 1930, 236-257 (238): ‘The Article strictly and significantly limits the reference to the predestination of the believer to life…. [It] involves…leaving those who are not predestined to themselves’; E. E. Ellis, ‘God’s Sovereign Grace in Salvation and the Nature of Man’s Free Will’, SWJT 44 (2001-2002), 28-43 (31ff.) = idem, Sovereignty, 1-17 (5n, 17). 436   Rom 8:29; 11:2; I Pet 1:20. 437   Eph 1:9; cf. 3:9ff. 438   Pace K. L. Schmidt, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 456. 439   See above on 1:20. 440   Cf. Hering (note 210); Cullmann (note 209), 56-80; idem (note 210), 161ff.; Ellis, Old Testament, 102-105; idem, History, 113ff.; idem, Christ, 127, 177, 195. 431



III

117

The translation, ‘unto our glory’, with the traditional English preposition, best expresses the temporal process and culmination.441 Unlike its usage in the Greek world,442  in the NT usually signifies ‘glory’, i.e. ‘splendor’ or ‘radiance’, ‘which is not found in secular Greek…’443 This has its background in Judaism and in the OT (i.e. ‫)כבוד‬.444 The term, occurring ten times in this letter,445 is used here and in a few other Pauline passages of the future radiant splendor of the redeemed;446 elsewhere, it refers to their present honored status corporately in Christ that anticipates the future individual glory.447 More often, it refers to God or to Christ as an affirmation or statement448 or as an ascription449 of glory. . See above on 2:6. 8.            .  Only here is Christ given the title, ‘the Lord of Glory’.450  is a subjective or possessive   Cf. OED, 3550.   Where it means ‘expectation’, ‘opinion’, ‘honor’. Cf. LSJ, 444. 443   G. Kittel, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 237. But like the pagan writers, the sense of natural ‘honor’ or ‘honored status’ is found in 11:7, 15; Phil 3:19; I Thess 2:6, 20; cf. 1QSa 2:13-22; 14:17. A few times ‘glory’ refers to the radiance of God’s natural or heavenly creation (15:40f.; I Tim 3:16). 444   Cf. C. J. Collins, ‘‫’כבד‬, NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 577-587; M. Weinfeld, ‘‫’כבוד‬, TDOT 7 (1995), 22-38: ‘When it means “glory” or “splendor,” kavohd usually refers to God, his sanctuary, his city, or other [objects dedicated to him]’ (27). E.g. Exod 40:34f.; Num 14:10; Exod 24:17; Isa 60:1; Ezek 10:4. 445   2:7f.; 10:31; 11:7, 15; 15:40-43. 446   2:7; 15:43; Rom 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18-21; 9:23; II Cor 3:18; 4:17; Col 3:4; I Thess 2:12. Occasionally, this radiant splendor of the redeemed is manifested in the present world. Cf. Exod 34:29f., 35, cf. II Cor 3:7ff. (Moses); Mt 17:1-9, 2 T + Q (Jesus); Acts 6:15 (Stephen); Acts of Paul and Thecla 3; cf. NTA II, 239 (Paul). For a stated modern example, cf. A. Blessitt, Turned On To Jesus, London 2 1972, 92-95. 447   Rom 9:4; 15:7; II Cor (1:20); 3:18; 6:8; Eph 3:13; I Thess 2:6. Similar, in the DSS: 1QM 1:9. 448   10:31; 11:7; Eph 1:6, 18; 3:16; Phil 1:11; 2:11; 4:19; Col 1:11; I Thess 2:12 (God the Father); 2:8; II Cor 3:18; 8:19, 23; Eph 1:12, 14; Phil 3:21; II Thess 1:9; 2:14; Tit 2:13 (Christ); Col 1:27; I Tim 1:11 (about God’s redemptive plan). 449   Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; I Tim 1:17 (God the Father); II Tim 4:18 (Christ). Further, cf. S. Aalen, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 45-48. 450   See above on 2:7; also, C. C. Newman, Paul’s Glory Christology, Leiden 1992 52-75, 237: the phrase signifies ‘Jesus’ revelation as the exalted Lord in the saving plan of God… [It] should be read against the horizon of early Jewish apocalypses.’ Cf. Eph 1:17: ‘the Father of glory’. On , cf. 7:39, note 682. 441 442

118

1 CORINTHIANS

genitive451 and not an objective genitive.452 But in this context it includes not only Christ’s character, but also the hidden manifestation of divine glory in his crucifixion.453 On ‘crucified’ see above on 1:23. 9.                         This opening text (2:9) of the biblical commentary (2:6-16) follows the introductory theme (2:6-8), leads into the exposition (2:10-15) and is supplemented by a concluding biblical text (2:16).454 With the IF  (q.v. @ 1:6)  it refers, in Paul’s customary usage, to Scripture, but its textual form agrees with no known biblical (or other pre-Pauline) texts. It has been ascribed to a (reworked) Jesus tradition,456 to a Jewish non-canonical source,457 451   I.e. ‘characterized by glory’, ‘to whom glory belongs’; cf. Acts 7:2; Eph 1:17; I Thess 5:23; Heb 9:5; Pss 24:7; 29:3. Cf. Edwards, 54; Thiselton, 247f. 452   I.e. ‘who dispenses glory’. Augustine, de Trin. I, 24 (NPNF1 III, 31), who although mistaken re this passage, is correct re the concept. Christ is the Father’s instrument (Rom 8:30) to mediate divine glory ultimately to those who are Christ’s corporate body (2:7; 12:27). See above on 2:7. 453   Similar, Thiselton, 247f. 454   This structure of the commentary accords with that of a rabbinic proem midrash. It is probably a preformed non-Pauline piece that Paul has reworked and incorporated into his letter. Cf. Ellis, Making, 78f. See above, notes 164, 165. On  cf. @ 2:11, note 482. 455   See above on 1:19, 31. Cf. Rom 1:17; 2:24; 3:10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:33; 11:26; 15:3, 9, 21; II Cor 8:15; 9:9; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 156-185. On ; cf. 7:19, note 567. 456   A. Resch, Agrapha: Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente, Darmstadt 21974 1 ( 1889), 102f., 154-167. But see C. Tuckett, ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition’, Paul and the Corinthians. FS M. Thrall, edd. T. J. Burke et al., Leiden 2003, 55-73; J. H. Ropes, Die Sprüche Jesu die in den kanonischen Evangelien nicht überliefert sind, Leipzig 1896, 20ff. Cf. Acts of Peter 39; Gospel of pseudo-Thomas 17 (NTA, II, 316; I, 119). 457   Which was also thought to be the source of the citation in early Christian writers. E.g. I Clem 34:8; Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3; Clem. Al., Exhortation to the Greeks 10, middle; Tertullian, de resurr. 26; Acts of ps-Peter 39; Acts of ps-Thomas 36; Epistle of ps-Titus 1; cf. NTA, II, 55, 316, 354; ANT, 392, 441, 532. So, Ropes (note 456), 157; D. A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments



III

119

usually an ‘Apocalypse of Elijah’458 or the ‘Ascension of Isaiah’,459 and to a rabbinic or targumic rendering of an OT text, e.g. Isa 64:3f.460 Given Paul’s practice elsewhere of paraphrasing his OT citations by pesher461 and by composite462 quotations and by a summary of a number of OT texts,463 it is most likely that 2:9 is Paul’s merged and peshered rendering of OT passages, probably Isa 52:15; 64:4; 65:16 LXX.464 The clause     is a Semitism: in Clement of Rome, Leiden 1973, 204f.; Schürer, III, 800; Fee, 109. But I Clem 34:8, is virtually identical with I Cor 2:9, a letter that Clement is known to have used (Hagner, 195-209). Also, ‘it is apparent that Clement regarded the Septuagint of Isa 64:4 as the source of Paul’s citation’ (Hagner, 207). The citations in later Christian writings are paraphrastic and could have come from Paul, from Clement, or elsewhere. 458   Cf. M. Stone and J. Strugnell, The Books of Elijah, Missoula MT 1979, 41-73 (various paraphrases or references cited in early Christian writings); O. S. Wintermute, ‘Apocalypse of Elijah’, OTP I, 721-753, in which the quotation does not occur. See also ps-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 26:13; cf. BBC, 393. 459   Asc. Isa 11:34 Latin; cf. Knibb, 176n. Cf. A. Dillmann, Ascensio Isaiae: Aethiopice et Latine, Lipsiae 1877; M. A. Knibb, ed., ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, OTP, II, 143-176: ‘the Ascension is clearly later than the death of Nero in A.D. 68 because it refers to the expectation that Nero would come again as the “Antichrist” (see 4:2b-4a)’ (149). Cf. ODCC, 849f.; Lightfoot, 176ff.: ‘At all events both these works [Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Elias] appear from the extant remains to have been Christian’ (177). 460   Huby, 91; A. Oepke, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 988f.; H. St. J. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, London 1900, 240-245 (245); Fee, 109. Cf. Billerbeck III, 327ff.; Stuhlmacher (note 163), 236, 246. 461   I.e. by incorporating his (eschatological) interpretation into the quoted OT text, e.g. at 2:9 by changing  (‘will do’, Isa 64:4 LXX) to  (‘prepared’) to accord with  (‘predestined’, 2:7). Cf. Findlay, 780. Cf. e.g. (1:19, 31; 3:20); 14:21 (15:27); 15:45, 54f.; Rom 10:6-8, 11; Eph 4:8; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 139-147, 150ff.; idem, Old Testament, 92-95; idem, ‘Midrash Pesher in Pauline Hermeneutics’, Prophecy, 173-181; idem, History, 103-106; T. H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters, Oxford 1997, 123-139. Otherwise: Stanley (note 348), 297n-305n. Further, cf. S. Berrin, ‘Qumran Pesharim’, Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. M. Henze, Grand Rapids MI 2005, 110-133. 462   I.e. merged: 3:19; 15:54f.; Rom 9:25f., 33; 11:8, 9f.; II Cor 6:16ff. 463   (10:1-5); Rom 3:10-18; II Cor 6:16ff. On  see below on 6:1. 464   Cf. Jerome, Epistola ad Pammachium 9 in MPL 22 (1854), 576; Alford, II, 486; J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 3 vols. in 5, London 21890, II, i, 106; Thiselton, 252, where various modern views are extensively discussed. Kistemaker, 85, includes a possible allusion to Jer 3:16 LXX.

120

1 CORINTHIANS

‫ עלה לב־על‬,465 in which the ‘heart’ is viewed as the seat of intelligence. Therefore, ‘arise upon the heart’ = ‘enter the mind’. The emphatic  stresses the contrast between the ignorance of God’s redemptive plan among the evil supernatural powers (2:8) and the revealed knowledge of that plan (and of its concomitant events) given ‘to us’, i.e. to the pneumatics (2:10, see below on 2:13). The redemptive plan, i.e. ‘what things God prepared’ or ‘made ready’ ( ) has its roots in the OT. Apparently, the prophecy of Exod 15:17 is associated with the prophecy re Zion in Isa 64:3f., and the texts merged at 2:9.466 The plan is ‘for those who love him’. It is an allusion to the ‘love’ that is the fruit of the Spirit, which the Corinthians lack, and to the First Commandment.467 The LXX reads ‘for those who wait for ( ) mercy’ (Isa 64:4 LXX). The NT does not use  in this sense, but it does apply a similar clause, ‘those who love God’, to God’s chosen ones.468 Here, however, a distinction is made between those for whom the redemptive plan is predestined, i.e. all elect believers (2:7), and those to whom and through whom the plan is revealed, i.e. the pneumatics.469 10.                  .   (‘to us however’) continues the first person plural of the pericope (2:6-16), which throughout refers to the pneumatics, including Paul.470 Although 465   E.g. MT of Isa 65:17; Jer 3:16; 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 44:21; 51:50. Cf. II Pet 1:19; F. Baumgärtel, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 605ff. See below, note 821; @ 7:37, note 664. 466   Cf. W. Horbury, ‘Jerusalem in Pre-Pauline and Pauline Hope’, Messianism among Jews and Christians, London 2003, 189-226 (213); Dt 32:35; IV Ezra 8:52. 467   13:1ff.; Gal 5:22; Dt 6:5; cf. Mt 22:37 T + Q. See below on 13:1-13; ‘The Spirit and the Gifts’, AE V, ###-###; cf. Gal 5:22f. 468   8:3; Rom 8:28 (Eph 6:24; II Tim 4:8); Jas 1:12; 2:5; I Jn 4:7 A. The OT usage is similar: e.g. Dt 5:10; 7:9; Judg 5:31; Pss 69:36; 145:20; Isa 56:6; Dan 9:4. 469   See below on 2:10, 13. This ‘revealed knowledge’ = ‘wisdom in a mystery that has been hidden’ was itself a part of God’s plan, ‘which God predestined before the ages’ (2:7). Cf. Schrage, I, 256. See above, note 401. 470   Cf. 2:6f., 12f., 16. So, at 2:10: e.g. Alford, II, 486; Meyer, 51; Edwards, 57; Conzelmann, 65 = GT: 83. All Christians: Lightfoot, 178; Schrage, I, 256; Thiselton, 255. For Godet, I, 147, the ‘we’ refers to Paul, Silas and Timothy; cf. II Cor 1:19. See above, Textual Notes on 2:10.



III

121

grammatically awkward, 2:10a is the main clause to which the relative clauses of 2:9 are prefixed. The post-positive adversative  contrasts those to and through whom ‘God revealed [his redemptive plan] through the Spirit’ with those from whom it is hidden (2:8). Revelation ‘through the Spirit’ is especially associated in Paul’s usage with the charisms of divine speech and discernment gifted to the pneumatics, and that is the case here also.473 There is, moreover, no discernable difference between the (divine) Spirit, Spirit of God = Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9), Spirit of the Lord and the Holy Spirit.474 The Spirit’s role here is to reveal God’s redemption in the crucified Christ. The clause, ‘For ()475 the Spirit searches out ()476 all kinds of things (),477 even the deep things ()478 of God’, refers in this context to those things revealed to and through the pneumatics concerning God’s redemptive plan in Christ. The ‘deep things’ refer to the innermost elements of that plan and not

471   But see above, note 54. Godet, Fee et al. take the  to contrast the wisdom previously hidden (2:7) but now revealed ‘to us’. 472   Viz from all unbelievers (cf. II Cor 3:14ff.) and from the spirit powers. See above on 2:6ff. 473   See above, note 470; below on 2:13. Cf. Eph 3:2-5. 474   See below on 2:13; 12:4; ‘Christ and Spirit in 1 Corinthians’, ‘ “Spiritual” Gifts in the Pauline Congregations’, AE VII and IV, ###-###, ###-###. Re Spirit of God, cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., London 1952, I, 153: ‘Pneuma does not mean “spirit” in the Greek-Platonic and the idealistic sense… Rather, pneuma is the miraculous divine power that stands in absolute contrast to all that is human.’ 475    probably introduces an independent causal sentence. Cf. NKJV; ESV; Robertson, 962. See below on 3:11, note 637. 476   With reference to God, cf. Rom 8:27 (cf. Cranfield [note 130], I, 424); to Christ (Rev 2:23); to prophets (I Pet 1:10ff.); to the Jewish theologians (Jn 5:39f.; 7:52). This spelling is in ‫ א‬A B* C;  in other mss. Cf. Tischendorf, II, 467; BDF, 16f. § 30, 4. 477   Unlike the more sweeping  at 8:6. 478   The term, occurring nine times in the NT, refers mostly to the natural creation (Mt 13:5 par; Lk 5:4; Rom 8:39) and to God’s redemptive purpose and plan (2:9; Rom 11:53; Eph 3:18). Cf. Cranfield (note 130), II, 589; Michel (note 25), 360; J. A. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, London 21909, 176; similar, E. Best, Ephesians, Edinburgh 1998, 346, and Hoehner (note 371), 488, who note the various options. Differently, Barth (note 371), I, 395ff.; Feuillet (note 273), 312-317. Cf. H. Schlier, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 517f.

122

1 CORINTHIANS

to ‘God’s essence’ or ‘the depth of deity’,479 which may be objects of philosophical inquiry but are not subjects of biblical revelation. 11.                             . The interrogative pronoun  (‘who’)480 is both masculine and feminine and appears first here of some 28 times in the letter.481 The explanatory  continues the thought of 2:10.482  (‘knows’) is from the perfect tense of the obsolete verb  but with a present-tense meaning.483 It has the connotation here of ‘understands’. On   cf. 10:13, note 547.  corresponds to the Hebrew terms, ‫ אדם‬and ‫ איש‬which are most often translated  in the LXX.484 These terms correspond to the English term ‘man’, and all are often used generically of homo sapiens, i.e. mankind.485 ‘Spirit’ () = (‫ )רוח‬in biblical usage most often concerns the Spirit of God or of extra-natural beings, good or evil;486 sometimes = ‘the wind’.487 But the term and concept may also refer, as here, to ‘the spirit of man that is in him’, an expression rooted in the OT: The Lord who…forms ‘the spirit of man within him’ (‫)רוח־אדם בקרבו‬. (Zech 12:1)

479   Pace Godet, I, 148; Käsemann (note 135), 320 = GT: 2309f.; 1306. Cf. Kümmel, 170: ‘The divine Spirit knows everything, but the  only that which the Spirit reveals to him’. 480   Cf. Robertson, 291; BDF, 155f.; BDAG, 1006f. 481   2:16; 3:5; 4:7, 21; 5:12; 7:16; 9:7, 18; 10:19, 29f.; 11:22; 14:6, 8, 15f., 26; 15:29f., 32. 482   On the uses of  see below on 9:10, note 270. 483   Cf. BDAG, 693 (‘’); Robertson, 881. On  see below on 4:1. 484   For the LXX occurrences of these and essentially equivalent Hebrew words, cf. H & R2, 96-102. E.g. Gen 1:26; Judg 9:49b. Cf. F. Maass, ‘‫’אדם‬, TDOT 1 (21977), 83-87; N. P. Bratsiotis, ‘‫’איש‬, TDOT 1 (21977), 224. 485   With its singular and corporate, male and generic connotations the term ‘man’ has no fully equivalent synonym in English. 486   Evil, e.g.: I Sam 16:16; Mk 1:23 par; I Pet 3:19; I Jn 4:3; cf. II Cor 12:7. Good: see above on 2:6, and note 421; below, ‘The Angelic Spirits of the Prophets’, ‘The Spirit and the Gifts’; ‘The Spirit, the spirits, and Christ’, AE IV, V and VII, ###-###, ###-###, ###-###. 487   E.g. Exod 10:13; I Kg 18:45; Jn 3:8.



III

123

The ‘human’ spirit has three basic connotations: (1) the life principle, i.e., ‘breath’ that is divinely given at creation or birth or resuscitation,488 sustained,489 and taken away (or departs) at death;490 (2) the inner self (individual or corporate) either compared or contrasted with the outer self491 or expressing in some respect an inward attitude, consciousness492 or animation;493 (3) the resurrected Christ or the regenerate person with respect to his ‘in Christ’ existence via the Holy Spirit.494 In Paul’s thought the ‘spirit’ (or ‘soul’ or ‘heart’ or ‘body’) is not a separable part of the person but rather the whole person viewed from a particular perspective.495 The ‘spirit of man’, i.e., his consciousness or understanding, knows things appropriate to (fallen) human knowledge as the Spirit of God knows things relating to God. The analogy rests on the principle, ‘like knows like’, found in Greek philosophy496 and in Alexandrian Judaism,497 that may have been general currency in the first-century Graeco-Roman world. Of course, analogies are not to rest on ‘all fours’, and this one also is partial and general. It elaborates Paul’s point at 2:10 that knowledge of God’s truth and purposes comes only through revelation from ‘the Spirit that is from God’ (2:12).498 Lightfoot (179) distinguishes , as ‘direct knowledge’ from , as more inferential knowledge.499   E.g. Gen 2:7; Lk 8:55.   E.g. Job 12:10; 27:3ff.; Ps 31:5. 490   E.g. Gen 7:22f.; Job 34:14f.; Ps 104:29; Mt 27:50 parr; Jn 19:38; Acts 7:59. Cf. E. E. Ellis, ‘Life’, NBD, 689 = IBD, II, 901. 491   E.g. 7:34; 15:45 (Mt 26:41 par); II Cor 7:1; Col 2:5; I Thess 5:23. See below on 4:21; on 5:5, note 114; ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-###. 492   (Mt 26:41 par); Lk 1:80; 2:40 A; II Cor 7:13; 12:18; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; II Tim 1:7. 493   Lk 1:46f.; 10:21; Acts 18:25. 494   5:5; 6:17; 15:45 (Rom 8:10); Heb 12:23. 495   Rightly, Thiselton, 257f. See below, ‘The Shape of Pauline Anthropology’, AE VIII, ###-###; Ellis, Christ, 152-164; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of Paul, Oxford 1974, 31-44. Otherwise, e.g.: R. H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, Grand Rapids 21987; on Heb 12:23, see Spicq, L’Epître aux Hebreux, 2 vols., Paris 1953, II, 408: ‘souls of men separated from their bodies’; B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London 31906, 418: ‘disembodied humanity’. 496   E.g. Plato, Protagoras, 337c, end; idem Timaeus, 45c. 497   E.g. Philo, de mut. nom. 6. 498   Cf. Ellis (note 10) at 1:10 (Commentary Summary). 499   Cf. 1 Jn 2:29: ‘If you know () that he is righteous, you may be sure () that everyone who does right is born of him’ (RSV). 488 489

124

1 CORINTHIANS

12.          (q.v. @ 7:19, note 567)      . The  = ‘now’ is transitional with no contrast intended.  = ‘we’ refers, as it does throughout 2:6-16, to the pneumatics (see below on 2:13), who ‘received’ not only the Holy Spirit baptism of regeneration common to all Christians500 but also, as the subsequent  (2:12b, ‘gifted’) indicates, spiritual charisms (cf. Rom 1:11) of inspired speech and discernment.501 ‘Received’ (), used first here in the letter, continues Paul’s emphasis throughout 1:10–4:21 on God as the sovereign actor and man as the recipient of his gracious redemptive plan and purpose. The verse and the pericope (2:6-16)502 anticipate Paul’s extended discussion of the spiritual gifts (12:1,  ) in 12:1–14:40. The ‘spirit of the world’ is taken by some commentators to be ‘simply the spirit of human wisdom…alienated from God’.503 But in its contrast with ‘the Spirit that is from God’ (2:12b) it has more malign implications than the preceding ‘spirit of man’ (2:11) and probably corresponds to the earlier contrast between the wisdom of God (2:6f.) and that ‘of this age’ or ‘of the rulers of this age’ (2:6a). ‘The spirit of the world’, then, most likely alludes to that evil spirit ‘that now works in the sons of disobedience’ (Eph 2:2) and whose servants receive ‘a different spirit’.504 The phrase, ‘the spirit that is from God’, although clearly a reference to the Holy Spirit, is a unique expression in the Pauline letters and one of the unusual phrases in 2:6-16 that supports the view that the pericope is a preformed non-Pauline piece by another apostle or pneumatic that Paul has reworked and incorporated into his letter.505 500   As at Rom 8:15f.; Gal 3:2. See below on 12:13; cf. 4:15; Plm 10; Jn 1:13; 3:5ff.; I Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:4. On  see above on 1:10, note 54. 501   Cf. with the verb  (‘to be given’), 12:1, 7-11, 28-31; Eph 1:17; 4:7-11. 502   ‘Pericope’ is a transliteration of  = ‘passage’, ‘section’. 503   Lightfoot, 180; cf. R & P, 45 (‘practically identical with the human wisdom of [2:13]’); Godet, I, 151; Thiselton, 261. 504   II Cor 11:4, 15; cf. Gal 1:8. See above on 1:20, notes 219f.; below, ‘ “Spiritual” Gifts in the Pauline Congregations’, AE IV, ###, note 34. 505   See below, AE II, ###, note 34.



III

125

       .  (‘in order that’) governs a subordinate purpose clause with the subjunctive of .506 ‘The things gifted ( ) to us by God’ are in all likelihood the charisms ( ) generally and the spiritual gifts (  , cf. Rom 1:11) particularly. They can be discerned or known, i.e., identified, understood, communicated and applied, only by the Holy Spirit at work among them (2:13). NT examples of this are the prophets in the Corinthian church (11:2-16; 14:29-32); the brothers, i.e., inspired teachers at Colossae, who were evidently the recipients of the letter;507 the cluster of pneumatics, i.e. prophets and teachers at Antioch Syria (Acts 13:1). But what did these activities involve? And how were they to be meaningfully expressed in the congregations at Corinth and, much more puzzling, in the church today? Some answers may await us in 11:2–14:40. 13.             .  That which the pneumatics ‘know’ (2:12) by divine revelation they ‘speak’ by divine inspiration. ‘Which things also we speak’ are the things revealed to the pneumatics by the Holy Spirit, presumably in their prayer and praise sessions (cf. 11:2-16; Col 3:16; Acts 13:1-3) or in the congregational meetings (14:29-32), and mediated by prophetic word, i.e. through teaching and through biblical exposition to the whole congregation. Paul is doing so in this pericope and in this letter. On  as inspired, i.e. pneumatic speech see above on 2:6; on the adverbial use of  (‘also’) cf. BDAG, 495. The phrase, ‘not in the instructed words of human wisdom’, reiterates Paul’s repudiation of human wisdom—whether philosophical, rhetorical, or even theological (1:20)—as the source or the mediation or the reception of his proclamation, i.e. his message.508 With the strong adversative  (‘but rather’) Paul contrasts human wisdom with the true source of his teachings: ‘the instructed () words of the Spirit’. , a verbal adjective with   See above, note 482; re , on 1:10, note 78.   Col 3:16; cf. 4:16; 1:2: ‘to the holy and faithful brothers’. Cf. Ellis Prophecy, 17-22; idem, History, 96f. 508   See above on 1:17; 1:18ff.; 1:22; 1:25; 1:27f.; 2:4. 506 507

126

1 CORINTHIANS

passive force (Lightfoot, 180), occurs in the NT only here and at Jn 6:45, where it cites an OT prophecy that all God’s people ‘will be taught by the LORD’ (Isa 54:13). The OT prophecy is fulfilled by the Spirit-endowed prophets, teachers and preachers in the apostolic church and continues to be fulfilled by them in the church today, not least in the congregational reading of this Pauline letter to those who have been given ‘ears to hear’ (Mt 13:9 parr; 13:43; 14:35; Rom 10:17 NKJV; cf. Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).   .  This clause has been rendered in a number of ways: ‘interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men’; ‘interpreting spiritual things by means of spiritual words’ (Barrett); ‘combining spiritual [methods] with spiritual [truths]’ (Lightfoot); ‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual’ (NKJV).509 The rendering that is chosen will largely depend on (1) the meaning given to ;510 (2) whether  is masculine (Weiss) or neuter (Conzelmann, Lietzmann-Kümmel), (3) whether it is a substantive or an adjective and, (4) if a substantive, whether it refers to the pneumatics, to all Christians or to other things.  appears elsewhere in the NT only at II Cor 10:12 (bis) with the meaning ‘compare’. But that meaning does not fit the present context,511 nor does the meaning ‘combine’. ‘Interpret’ best fits this passage,512 where the term concerns divine revelation (2:10, 13a) given by the Holy Spirit to certain gifted Christians (2:12), who through inspired speech (2:13a) mediate these prophetic messages to others. In similar OT contexts, i.e. the mediation of divine revelation, the term in the LXX means ‘to interpret’.513 The 509   Mistaken is the translation: ‘interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit’ (RSV). It confuses ‘to have the Spirit’ ( , Rom 8:9), i.e. true of all Christians, with ‘to be a pneumatic’ ( ). For a good brief discussion, cf. R & P, 46ff. 510   See the three basic meanings in BDAG, 953: ‘explain’ or ‘interpret’, ‘combine’, ‘compare’. 511   Pace Lietzmann-Kümmel, 14, 170. 512   So, e.g., Thiselton, 266; Collins, 135; Fee, 115; Bengel, II, 177, and others. Cf. F. Büchsel, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 954: ‘ “to interpret,” “to expound,” “to explain” ’, best fits 2:13 and is the predominant usage in the LXX. 513   The MT uses the words ‫גלה‬, ‫פשר‬, ‫ראה‬. In the OT the terms are used of divine revelation through dreams or night visions, experiences that were not unknown



III

127

role of the prophet Daniel ‘to reveal this mystery’ (‫;למגלא רזה דנה‬    , Dan 2:47 ) and in ‘interpreting dreams’ (‫ ;מפשר חלמין‬ , Dan 5:12 LXX) and at Qumran, the role of the maskilim, i.e. the wise teachers (‫)משכילים‬, ‘to guide [the members] with knowledge and to make them wise in the mysteries…so that they may walk maturely’,514 provide, both in terminology and in concept, a very important or even the most important background for understanding the role and activities of the pneumatics in Paul’s letters and particularly in this midrash at 2:6-16.515 But does this passage concern them, or does it refer to any and all Christians? According to the Apostle’s teaching, all of God’s faithful are equal in value, but they are given a diversity of ministries in the church.516 Some today, however, perhaps walking in the shadow of Thomas Jefferson or even of Karl Marx, tend to interpret the Apostle Paul as an egalitarian and to reject as ‘elitist’ the restricting of the ‘we’ in 2:6-16 to pneumatics517 or the distinguishing in the church as such between ‘teachers’ and ‘hearers’.  is found 26 times in the NT, all but two times in Paul’s letters. Among other usages it appears both as an adjective for a particular kind or class of charism and as a substantive for a person endowed with such a gift.518 At 2:13  among prophets (e.g. Dan 2:19; 7:2, 7, 13; Mic 3:6; Zech 1:8; cf. 4:5; 15:16). Cf. LXX, : Gen 40:8, 16, 22; 41:12, 13, 15; Dan 5:7; Dan  5:12, 16; : Gen 40:12, 18; Judg 7:15; Dan 2:4ff., 9, 26; 4:15f.; 5:17; Dan  2:16, 24, 30, 36, 45; 4:3-6, 16, 21; 5:7f., 12, 15f. See H & R2, 1300. 514   1QS 9:18f. See below, ‘The Merging of Wisdom and Prophecy in Daniel and at Qumran’; ‘Wisdom and Knowledge and Pauline Pneumatics’, AE VI, ###-###. 515   See above, note 513. 516   Cf. Ellis, ‘Ministry and Church Order’, Theology, 87-121. One should not, for example, interpret the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (e.g. I Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) to mean the teacherhood of all believers. 517   Cf. e.g. Thiselton, 229; Schrage, 248f.; Blomberg, 63. See below AE XIII, ### [362-372]; cf. Ellis Sovereignty, 73n, 76ff. 518   E.g. 2:15; 3:1; 14:37; Gal 6:1 (substantive); Rom 1:11 (adjective). This usage may be the Apostle’s coinage although it has an OT antecedent (Hos 9:7: ‫‘ = איש הרוח‬man of the Spirit’). Its most significant background is the ‘wise teachers’, the maskilim, at Qumran, where their role in the DSS is remarkably similar to the role of the pneumatics in Paul’s letters. See above, note 514. See below on 3:1. Cf. Ellis, ‘A Special Note on the Christian Prophet’, Luke, 171-174.

128

1 CORINTHIANS

is governed by the main verb, ‘we speak’, and refers, as argued above, to the pneumatics. In the continuing thought of 2:14f., ‘the natural man’ ( , 2:14), following the adversative  (2:14a), is contrasted with the preceding  (2:13),519 as well as with the following   (2:15), showing that both occurrences (2:13 and 2:15) are in all probability520 masculine and refer to the pneumatics. 14.           The phrase,   , may be a genitive of origin, i.e. ‘things from the Spirit’, or possibly ‘things relating to the Spirit’. Who is   (‘natural man’)? This poses something of a problem. He is (1) first of all to be understood from 15:44f. as Adamic man who lives and dies as ‘a natural body ( )… So it is also written, “the first man Adam became a living natural being” (  ).’521 Throughout Paul’s letters human beings are understood to exist corporately within two men, Adam and Christ, in whom their individual existence is incorporated and implicated.522 The natural man is, then, everyone who exists in Adam only. He lives in a sphere of mortality and of sin and thus under impending death.523 In this respect, he stands in contrast to Christic man, i.e. ‘man in Christ’ (cf. II Cor 12:2), who also and decisively exists corporately ‘in Christ’524 or ‘in the Spirit’   So, Weiss, 65. On  see above on 1:10, note 54.   One could argue that the relevant contrast is between ‘the instructed words of human wisdom’ and ‘the instructed words of the Spirit’ and could translate  as ‘spiritual words’. But it is a much weaker case. 521   Gen 2:7 LXX. On the term ‘ = MT: ‫ נפש‬as ‘being’, ‘self’ in biblical writings, cf. Ellis, ‘Life’, NBD, 688f. = IBD, 901. Against the translation ‘soulish’ or ‘psychical’ as in a soul/body dualism see below on 15:45; cf. ‘The Shape of Pauline Anthropology’, AE VIII, ###, ###; [283-285f.]; Ellis, ‘New Testament Teaching on Hell’, Christ, 179f. But see BBC, 394. 522   See below, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ### [293f.]. 523   15:21f.; cf. Rom 3:23; 6:23. Paul argues the case primarily in Rom 1–4; 5:12-21. Sin, i.e. thoughts or acts of independence from or disobedience to God, is not only acts of any and every individual; it is primarily and decisively the disobedient act of our first father Adam (Rom 5:12; cf. Gen 2:17; 3:17ff.) in which all his descendants were corporately present and involved and were, consequently, constituted sinners (Rom 5:19; cf. Eph 2:2; 5:6; Col 3:6). Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 58ff. 524   See above on 1:2, notes 82-84. 519 520



III

129

(Rom 8:9). This meaning is evident from the verbs: ‘the natural man does not receive () the things of the Spirit… and is not able to know ( ) [them]’.525 This is the mark of the unbeliever because for Paul all Christians ‘have the Spirit’ (Rom 8:9), do ‘receive the things of the Spirit’, and, when properly instructed, are able to know them526 even if, unlike the pneumatics, all have not received ‘spiritual’ gifts.527 Nevertheless (2), ‘natural man’ may also be contrasted with the pneumatic (2:13-15). As 3:1, 3 shows, some Christians, although God’s elect, may be carnal (, 3:3 NKJV) or ‘dull of hearing’ (Heb 5:11f. NKJV) and may behave like ‘natural man’. In this passage there is a certain ambiguity in Paul’s use of the phrase.    .  The explanatory  (q.v. @ 9:10, note 270) directs the reader back to the / antithesis of the Apostle’s preceding commentary (1:18-31): the ‘word of the cross’, i.e. ‘Christ crucified’ is God’s wisdom, but it is foolishness to those who are perishing (1:18-23); here the thought is broadened: the ‘things of the Spirit of God’, as such, are foolishness to the natural man.  appears in the NT only in this commentary section, 1:18–3:20.   .  The conjunction  (q.v. @ 1:5) introduces the cause of natural man’s imperception, restating the ‘like knows like’ analogy at 2:11. The Pauline hapax  may be compared with its only other NT usage at Rev 11:8 where it may mean ‘typologically’ or ‘in the prophetic Spirit’. Here, it has the latter significance: it is the ‘spiritual’, i.e. prophetic discernment of the pneumatic. This agrees with the connotation of the verb:   has two basic meanings, ‘to question’ or ‘to inquire’ or, on the other hand, ‘to examine’528 and ‘to judge’529 or ‘to   This also is its meaning at Jas 3:15; Jude 19.   E.g. Eph 1:15-23; Phil 4:9; Col 1:6, 9f. Cf. I Thess 1:5f.; 2:13. 527   2:10, 12f. See below, AE IV, ###. 528   So, Lightfoot, 181: examination ‘is the leading idea of …while  implies more prominently the pronouncing a verdict’. See, however,  at 4:3f.; 9:3; 10:25; 14:24; Lk 23:14; Acts 4:9, 18; 12:19; 24:8, 22, where ‘to examine’ or ‘to inquire’ is for the purpose of rendering a verdict and, therefore, means essentially ‘to judge’. Cf. Schrage, I, 265. 529   So, e.g., at 2:15 KJV, NKJV, RSV. 525 526

130

1 CORINTHIANS

discern’.530 The first meaning, ‘to question’, would be possible for any Christian to do;531 the second, ‘to discern’ or ‘to judge’, which best fits this context,532 points to the pneumatics. 15.           .  The post-positive  (‘however’) marks the contrast between ‘the natural man’ and the pneumatic.533 The latter ‘discerns all kinds of things’ ( ), i.e. that are revealed to him by the Spirit (2:10) or voiced by him ‘in the Spirit’ (12:3),534 whether in ecstasy or in prophetic preaching and teaching or in ordinary conversation or writing actuated by the Spirit. The pneumatic in the Pauline congregations, or in the modern local church or parachurch organization or Christian group (Mt 18:20), may exercise the ‘spiritual’ charisms of inspired speech and discernment535 in a variety of ways. The issue is not the type of personality or the manner of expression or the status in the organized church but the giftedness of the person, exhibited in a measure of Christian maturity (2:6) and in a tested spiritual quality of wisdom and of judgment (2:13). ‘He himself () is discerned by no one’, i.e. ‘he is a riddle to the natural man’ (Lightfoot).  has the same meaning of ‘insightful judgment’ in the active (2:15a) and passive (2:14, 15b) usages. The pneumatic has ‘discernment’ via the Spirit; the natural man, i.e. those without the Spirit (non-believers) or without spiritual perception (carnal Christians), lacks it. But, as we shall see (14:29ff.), in Paul’s view the pneumatic may also be discerned and explained and his message circumscribed by another with similar spiritual gifts and maturity. 530   So, e.g. at 2:14 NKJV, RSV. On the word-group, cf. C. C. Crocker, Reading First Corinthians in the Twenty-First Century, London 2004, 165-179, and the literature cited. 531   E.g. 10:25, 27; cf. Acts 17:11. 532   So, Thiselton, 271. 533   Male or female. ‘Pneumatic’ is a generic masculine; cf. 11:5; 14:34f. Some take 2:15 to be a quotation of some source; cf. Thiselton, 272. But this conjecture is unwarranted; the style, wording and syntax evidence no break in the ongoing account. On  see above, note 54. 534   Pace Weiss, 66f., it is not a universal ‘all’. 535   Detailed in 12:8, 10, 28; 14:1; Eph 4:8; cf. 1:17; 3:10-18; Col 1:9f.; 3:16; 4:16. See below, ‘ “Spiritual” Gifts in the Pauline Congregations’, AE IV, ###-###.



III

131

16.             .  The concluding OT text of the commentary (2:6-16), introduced by the IF  and the interrogative  (q.v. @ 2:11),536 gives the biblical grounds for the assertions made in the exposition (2:10-15). The quotation is taken from Isa 40:13 LXX, a passage that Paul will cite again in Rom 11:34 and that in the MT reads ‘the Spirit of Yahweh’.537 It thus directs the mind of the alert reader (1) to the preceding argument that the pneumatics receive and mediate not their own wisdom but that of the Spirit of God (2:10-13) and (2) to the christological conclusion538 of this commentary that mirrors that of the earlier one:539 to have the mind of Christ540 is to have the mind of Yahweh.541 It is probable that Paul understands ‘mind () of Yahweh’ = ‘mind of Christ’542 to be equivalent to ‘the Spirit (‫ )רוח‬of Yahweh’ (Isa 40:13 MT). If so, the concluding text is tied even more closely to the preceding exposition.543 536   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 151-174. The wording of the quotation varies from the LXX and from the MT, and they also vary from one another. On OT quotations in Paul’s letters, see above on 1:19, note 190. On  see on 2:11. 537   When Paul cites an OT text, the surrounding ‘block’ of relevant texts may also be in mind. Cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, London 1952, 26f., 107-110, 126; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 104-107. Further, Lim (note 461), 158ff. 538   ‘We have the mind of Christ’ refers, as throughout the commentary (2:6-16), to the pneumatics, ‘especially to [Paul] himself and other faithful ministers’ (Calvin, 64). Cf. F. Buchsel ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 943f.: ‘the spiritual man is so united to Christ that his thinking is the thinking of Christ’. ‘The community [or congregation] is not a pneumatic democracy; it is a pneumatic organism. Its unity is love not compulsion’ (944). 539   See above on 1:31. 540   The  is transitional (q.v. @ 1:10, note 54): ‘now we have the mind of Christ’ (2:16). Cf. BDAG, 213. A contrast between the mind of Yahweh and the mind of Christ would run counter to the whole of Paul’s christology. The question at Isa 40:13 may be used here rhetorically: ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord so that he may prove () him? We have.’ 541   This accords with Paul’s christological use of OT Yahweh texts elsewhere. E.g. II Cor 3:16; Phil 2:10f. (I Thess 3:13). Cf. Capes (note 351), 151f., 155-160. Some mss (B D* F G) have ‘we have the mind of the LORD = Yahweh, but  is more likely the original. Cf. Metzger, 482. 542   The expression occurs only here in the NT although the verb  (‘to think’, ‘to be minded’) is used similarly at Phil 2:5; 3:15. 543   Further, cf. R & P, 51; the somewhat different discussion of Thiselton, 274f.; Schrage, I, 266f., and the literature cited.

132

1 CORINTHIANS

3:1               . As at 2:1 (q.v.), the emphatic  and the change from the first person plural to the first singular and to the second person () marks the shift from the biblical commentary (2:6-16) to the Apostle’s application of it and from the earlier admonitions (1:10-17) and commentary (1:18-31) to the dissident Corinthians (3:1-17). The application explains why Paul cannot regard them as pneumatics, i.e. mature and gifted Christians who can receive and mediate God’s wisdom. First, their conduct is carnal (3:1-9). Second, they have little or no perception that their conduct will be tested by God at the last Day (3:10-17). On  see below on 7:19, note 567. The address , i.e. ‘brothers’544 in Christ, shows that Paul is giving Christian admonitions and rebuke and not invective against opponents. The verb  (q.v. @ 2:6) continues to have its earlier force as inspired speech.545 …  (q.v. @ 2:13) = ‘not as to pneumatics’ does not deny the Apostle’s earlier affirmation of their spiritual gifts, i.e. charisms of inspired speech and discernment (1:5, 7). But, as the sequel shows (3:2ff.), he observes that they are not ‘mature’ (, q.v. @ 2:6). In Paul’s usage the pneumatic combines the possession of spiritual gifts with Christian maturity and character, especially the fruit of the Spirit546 that enables one to understand and to exercise the gifts properly.547 The Corinthians are, in a word, carnal ().  = ‘carnal’, literally ‘fleshly’, an adjective from  (q.v. @ 1:26), may stress the carnal nature vis-à-vis  (3:3), stressing carnal behavior.548 Although the Corinthians have been regenerated and now exist ‘in Christ’ (q.v. @ 1:2, 30), they continue to manifest the nature of an ‘in Adam’ existence (15:22), of ‘natural man’ (q.v. @ 2:14). Like Lazarus (Jn 11:43f.), they have been given new life but still carry the grave-clothes of their previous underdeath and unto-death existence. /, like , is 544   Used here as ‘fellow Christian’ not as ‘fellow worker’; see Ellis, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers’, Prophecy, 13-22; idem, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers Revisited’, History, 85a, 87. See below, note 583. 545   See above on 2:13; below on 14:2ff., 5f., 9, 13, 18f., 23, 27ff., 34f., 39. 546   Gal 5:22f. 547   2:13; Gal 6:1; cf. Col 1:9f.; 3:12-17. 548   So, Lightfoot, 184; cf. Bultmann (note 289), 232-249.



III

133

the whole person looked at from a particular perspective. It is not a part of the individual, as in a Platonic body/soul (/), body/spirit (/) dualism.549 Nor is it a part of a body/ flesh-soul-spirit trichotomy in which a class of humanity is excluded from salvation, as in the later twist of Paul’s teachings by the second- and third-century Gnostic cults,550 cults that were critiqued by the church Fathers.551  is one of several words that the Apostle uses for ‘child’: ,553 ,554 .555 It does not mean the Corinthians’ age as Christians although that also is young.556 More importantly, it signifies metaphorically, here as elsewhere (13:11; Gal 4:1-3), immaturity in Christian character and in doctrinal gullibility and instability.557  . See above on 1:2. 549   See above on 1:26; below AE VIII, ###. Further, see below on 15:44f. Otherwise: B. A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in I Corinthians, Missoula MT, 1973; Schrage, 263f. on 2:14. 550   Some Gnostics divided all people into three classes: the earthy () or fleshly (: impossible to be saved), the soulish (: possible to be saved) and the spiritual (: certain to be saved). Cf. Irenaeus, AH 1, 8, 1. 551   Cf. e.g. re the Valentinians: Irenaeus, AH 1, 6, 2 (ANF I, 324 = MPG 7, 505):               (‘for, as the earthy it is unable to partake of salvation, for they say that it is not fit for receiving it’); idem 1, 7, 1 (cf. ANF I, 325 = MPG 7, 512):          … (‘but the spiritual having been stripped of their souls and having become intelligent spirits’); idem 1, 21, 5 (cf. ANF I, 346f. = MPG 7, 668):              (‘but he going into his own place, having thrown off his desmon, i.e. his soul’). For other Gnostics see below AE VIII, ###, note 66. Further, Conzelmann, 67ff. = GT: 86f. 552   13:11; Gal 4:1-3; Eph 4:14. 553   II Tim 3:15. 554   14:2. 555   4:14, 17; 7:14; II Cor 6:13; Eph (5:1); 6:1, 4; Col 3:20f.; I Thess 2:7, 11; Tit 1:6. 556   I Corinthians was written in c. AD 56, hardly more than five years after Paul’s founding mission at Corinth in AD 51–52. See above, Introduction, ###-###. 557   Cf. Eph 4:14; Heb 5:12ff. But see E. Schweitzer, ‘’, TDNT 9 (1974), 661ff. (663): ‘…the unbeliever is  but the believer who is making no progress is , 3:3’.

134

1 CORINTHIANS

2.     .   means literally ‘I watered you’, ‘gave you drink’, used by zeugma for both ‘milk’ and ‘food’, a common (sometimes maternal) metaphor in antiquity for elementary and more advanced teaching.558 Paul refers to his initial teaching at Corinth.559 On the causal  see below on 3:11.      = ‘but (, q.v. @ 7:19, note 567) you are not even now yet able’, i.e. to receive ‘food’ for adults. The piling up of adverbs560 adds force to Paul’s concern about their ever continuing unstable (and un-Christian) behavior. But ready or not, they are now getting strong food in this letter: divine wisdom, pneumatics, sexual ethics, eating idol-food, Lord’s Supper, charisms and church order, resurrection.561 In the providence of God this strong teaching of the Apostle of Christ comes not in oral teaching only to Corinth but by epistolary teaching (also) to the whole church of every generation (cf. 10:11).  See Billerbeck III, 330ff. The explanatory 3.    .  (q.v. @ 9:10, note 270) gives the reason for their inability: their conduct is still carnal (cf. 3:1). Their ability is qualified by their willful behavior. What they will not do, they cannot do.   .  562 , only here in this letter, may connote a 563 virtue or a vice,564 but here it is a vice. , in the NT only in Paul,565 always represents the vice of strife, discord or contention.566 558   Further, cf. Knox (note 369), 111n. See also I Thess 2:7; Heb 5:12f.; I Pet 2:2. Cf. Philo, de agric. 9; idem, quod omn. prob. lib. 160; Epictetus, Discourses 2, 16, 9; 3, 22, 89; 3, 24, 9. Cf. BDAG, 186; J. Behm, ‘’, and H. Schlier, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 642-645, 645ff. On  cf. Robertson, 1200f. 559   2:1-5; Acts 18:1-18. 560   , lacking in mss p46 (mistakenly listed as p45 by Metzger, 482) and B, is probably original. Cf. Zuntz, 40, 185. On  see below on 4:3; Gal 2:3. 561   Cf. Thiselton, 292. 562   The addition,   (‘and dissensions’, p46 D F G M) is probably secondary. See Metzger, 482f. 563   I.e. ‘zeal’ or ‘godly jealously’; cf. Rom 10:2; II Cor 7:7, 11; 9:2; 11:2; Phil 3:6; cf. Jn 2:17. 564   I.e. ‘envy’; cf. II Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Acts 5:17; 13:45; Jas 3:14, 16. 565   1:11; 3:3; Rom 1:29; 13:13; II Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Phil 1:15; I Tim 6:4; Tit 3:9. 566   But see M & M, 254. Cf. BDAG, 392; Ellis, Making, 61-64, 95f., 106f., 109f., 407; H. Giessen, ‘’, EDNT II, 52f.



III

135

The two words are sometimes found together,567 especially in Gal 5:20 (although in reverse order), a vice list that the Apostle had earlier568 included in his letter to the Galatians and had probably taught the Corinthians during his founding mission.   .  is a singular generic masculine.  with the accusative indicates not similarity or relationship but ‘conformity to’ or ‘in a manner consistent with’ a particular class or kind, here ‘according to’ fallen Adamic man = ‘natural man’569 instead of Christic man, i.e. man in Adam vs. man in Christ.570 The expression, found in the NT only in Paul’s writings, is equivalent to the phrase, ‘according to the flesh’ ( )571 or ‘according to the age of this world’,572 versus ‘according to the Spirit’.573 These phrases express a contrast between (1) the existence or behavior in this age or in accordance with its natural mortal character or its wicked attitudes and (2) that of the age to come. They are found in the NT virtually always in Pauline writings.  = MT: ‫‘ = הלך‬walk’. Paul uses the term some 32 times, frequently in accordance with its OT significance of ethical conduct, i.e. in obedience (or disobedience) to God’s ways and commands.574 But he frames it eschatologically in terms of this age and the age to come: Christians should not walk, i.e. conduct themselves, according to natural ‘man’ or ‘the age of this world’ or ‘the flesh’.575 Rather, they should walk ‘through faith’, ‘in   Rom 13:13 B; II Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; cf. I Clem 5:5; 6:4; 9:1.   On Galatians as Paul’s earliest letter cf. Ellis, Making, 255-260. 569   Cf. 15:22; II Cor 12:2. See 9:8; 15:32; Rom 3:5; Gal 1:11; 3:15; more elaborate, Col 2:8: ‘according to traditions of men…and not according to Christ’. 570   But see I Pet 4:6. 571   1:26; 10:13; Rom 4:1; 8:13; 9:3, 5; II Cor 1:17; 5:17; 10:2f.; 11:18; Gal 4:23; Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; see above on 1:26; 3:21. 572   Eph 2:2. 573   Cf. Rom 1:3f.; 8:4-9. 574   Cf. H. Seeseman, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 944f.: this usage is not found in classical Greek. The translation ‘walk’ is retained in the more literal English versions of the OT, e.g. the NKJV, e.g. in Lev 26:27; Pss 1:1; 15:2; 119:1; Jer 7:23f.; 32:23; Mic 2:7, 11. See below on 7:17, note 534. 575   3:3; Eph 2:2f.; Rom 8:1, 4; II Cor 10:2f.; cf. Eph 4:17; see above on 1:26; 3:1. But see II Cor 10:3: ‘although walking in the flesh’, i.e. living in the individual mortality and fallenness of the ‘in Adam’ corporeity that continues in Christians, 567 568

136

1 CORINTHIANS

newness of life’, ‘in the Spirit’, ‘in Christ’, ‘in love’, ‘as children of light’.576 4.    577           . The references to the dissensions of 1:12f. are not an afterthought. Rather they strongly suggest that Paul composed 1:10–4:21 as one piece.578 The singular ‘one says… and another’ confirms the earlier argument (q.v. @ 1:12) that these are dissensions among individuals even if they are widespread.  (‘natural men’) here is equivalent to  or  or even   at 2:14; 3:1, 3. 5. …. The neuter clause, ‘what then is Apollos…Paul?’, places the emphasis on the task in accord with 3:7 ( = ‘anything’) and not on the persons.579 The order Paul…Apollos at 3:4 is reversed in 3:5 to Apollos…Paul, perhaps as a courtesy to Paul’s co-worker (3:9). Later mss re-reverse the order (Metzger, 483).  = ‘ministers’ and not the traditional translations, ‘servants’ or ‘deacons’.580 It is one of four frequently used designations of Paul’s associates in ministry:581 ‘co-workers’,582 ‘the brothers’,583 ‘we do not war according to the flesh’, i.e. conduct our ministry according to that corporeity but according to Christ (cf. Col 2:6-8). 576   II Cor 5:7; Rom 6:4; Gal 5:16; Col 2:6; Eph 5:2, 8. 577   ‘Whenever someone says’; the conjunction  with the present subjunctive points to a general or indefinite situation rather than to a specific instance. It is not less factual, but it is less specific. Cf. Moule, 133; Moulton, III, 112; Robertson, 971-974. On the dialogical style see below on 4:7. 578   Rightly, Mitchell (note 15), 5, 68-111; D. W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict…in 1 Cor. 3:5–4:5, Leiden 1992, 152f. 579   Mss p46 C D F G M (‘’ = ‘who’) appear to reflect ‘a secondary accommodation’ (Metzger, 483). On  see below on 4:16, note 924. 580   Pace H. W. Beyer, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 88-93, who translates it ‘deacons’, who perform administrative and practical services. 581   See Ellis, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers’; idem, Prophecy, 3-22; idem, Theology, 96; idem, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers Revisited’, History, 85-97 (86-90); idem, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers’, DPL, 183-189; cf. Merklein, I, 259f. 582   3:9 (16:10, 15ff.); Rom 16:3ff., 9, 21; II Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:2f.; Col 4:10f., 14; I Thess 3:2; Plm 1. 583   1:1; 16:12; Rom 16:(1), 23; II Cor 1:1; 2:13; 8:18; Eph 6:21; Phil 2:15; Col 4:7, 9; I Thess 3:2; Plm 1 (2, 7). See above on 1:1; these co-workers appear to have had a closer personal relationship with Paul.



III

137

‘ministers’,584 ‘apostles of Jesus Christ’.585  is used in particular of those co-workers engaged in preaching and teaching, and it corresponds most closely to the modern (Protestant) designation ‘ministers’. They are distinguished from  (‘slaves’)586 in that the  receive wages.   = ‘through whom’, i.e. mere instruments. ‘Do not pin your faith on them’ (Lightfoot). .  The aorist refers, as elsewhere,587 to their initial acceptance of Christ in contrast to their continuing present attitude or conviction.     .  The reference is to the spiritual gifts588 which, in contrast to the fruit of the spirit, are given in different measure and kind to each one, here to Paul and to Apollos. The Apostle may have in mind the non-Pauline midrash = biblical commentary that he later incorporated into his letter to the Ephesians (AD 58–60)589 and which he may have had in hand when he composed I Corinthians (AD 56). That midrash has for its opening OT text an eschatological (typological) application with a significantly altered text-form of Ps 67:19 LXX = MT: 68:19 (18): ‘When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts ( ) to men’ (Eph 4:8 NKJV).590 Ephesians 4:8 has ‘Christ’ as its subject whereas here the phrase is the essentially equivalent expression, ‘the Lord gave’. The verb  is often

  3:5 (16:15ff.; cf. , 16:16); Rom 16:1; II Cor 3:6; 6:4; Eph 6:21; Col 1:7; 4:7 (17); I Thess 3:2 ‫א‬. 585   4:6, 9 (9:5f.); 15:5-8; cf. 9:1; Gal 1:18f.; 2:9; I Thess 2:7 (6). For ‘apostles’ of the churches, i.e. workers = missionaries commissioned by local congregations, cf. Rom 16:7; II Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25. 586   Which is also Paul’s self-designation: Rom 1:1; II Cor 4:5; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1; Tit 1:1. Cf. M. Heimgartner, ‘Diakonos’, BNP 4 (2004) 346f.: , etc. ‘emphasized service as a favor to someone while , etc. emphasized the dependency relationship in service’. See below on 4:1, note 770. 587   15:11; Rom 13:11; Eph 1:13; II Thess 1:10. 588   See above on 1:7; 2:12. See below AE IV, V, VI, ###-###. 589   Eph 4:7-16; cf. Ellis, Making, 106, 266-275. 590   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 144, 182f. 584

138

1 CORINTHIANS

used in the NT for God’s or Christ’s giving of the Holy Spirit591 or of his gifts.592 6-7.        .  Paul underscores his initial ‘planting’ ministry and later, with a different imagery, reminds them of this again: ‘If indeed you have countless tutors in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers. For in Christ Jesus I begot you through the gospel’ (4:16). He had also ‘watered’ them ( , q.v. @ 3:2), but here he gives due credit to Apollos’ ‘teaching’ ministry subsequent to Paul’s initial evangelization and proclamation of the Christian essentials, the kerygma.593  = ‘to grow’, here only in this letter, is used by Paul to express God’s action for spiritual growth within the congregations,594 i.e. within the temple of God (3:16; 6:19) and the body of Christ (12:27) in which the individual Christian life is, of course, implicated. It is not a growth in numbers but in holiness, i.e. into the image of Christ. It is perhaps best expressed at Eph 4:15f.:595 Christ, From whom all the body, Being joined and knit together through every joint By [God’s] powerful supply in proper measure for each individual part, Makes for the growth of the body unto its upbuilding in love.

  Rom 5:5; II Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 3:16; I Thess 4:8; cf. Lk 11:13 Q; 21:15; cf. Acts 4:8, 13; 6:3ff., 10; Jn 4:14 with 7:37ff.; 14:16; Acts 5:32; 11:17; 15:8; I Jn 3:24; 4:13 (5:20). On  see below on 7:39, note 682. 592   1:4; 12:7f.; II Cor 5:18; 10:8; 13:10; Eph 1:17; 4:8-11; 6:19; I Tim 4:14; II Tim 1:7 (2:7, 25); cf. Jas 1:5; II Pet 3:15; I Jn 3:24. 593   See above, note 168. On the metaphor ‘planting’, see Mt. 15:13; 21:33 T + Q; Lk 13:6; Isa 61:3; 1QS 8:5; CD 1:7; 1QH 16:4ff. = 8:4ff. (‫)מטע‬. Cf. Betz, I, 101; Conzelmann, 73 = GT: 92; H. Riesenfeld, ‘Parabolic Language in the Pauline Epistles’, The Gospel Tradition, Philadelphia 1970, 197-200; H. M. Gale, The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul, Philadelphia 1964, 79-94. 594   3:6f. (II Cor 9:10; 10:15); Eph 2:21; 4:15; Col 1:10; 2:19. 595   See Ellis, Theology, 42f. 591



III

139

This puts growth in its proper perspective and Paul’s point here is that he, as God’s instrument, first feeds them with milk (q.v. @ 3:2) and now in his letter with stronger food. It also anticipates his teaching at 11:17-34; 12:1–14:40; 15:12-57 on the proper reception, understanding and use of the divine gifts (1) of Christ’s death and resurrection and (2) of the gifts and fruit of the Spirit as the means by which God effects the growth of his church. The strong adversative  (q.v. @ 7:19, note 567) reminds his readers where the stress lies. God’s sovereignty in salvation is present not only in his choosing (1:27), calling (1:2, 26) and redemption (cf. 1:30) of his people but also in nourishing and sustaining (1:8) them.   … … . ‘Consequently’ = the result (q.v. @ 1:7, note 35) flowing from the argument in 3:5f. On the neuter  (‘anything’) see above on 3:5.  Paul and Apollos, although leading separate missions, 8.  . are ‘one’ in that their ministries serve the same Lord, work toward the same goal and, when possible, support one another (cf. 16:12). But they are also diverse in emphasis (‘I planted, Apollos watered’, 3:6), in strategy and in results. Unity in diversity is characteristic of virtually all Christian ministry.          .  The conception of diverse ‘rewards’ ) for Christ’s ministers and for Christians generally is rooted in Jesus traditions, one of which Paul cites as Scripture in a later letter.596 The term  occurs in Paul only at 3:8, 14; 9:17f.; Rom 4:4; I Tim 5:18. It literally means ‘wages’, i.e. payment ‘received’ for services,597 and corresponds with the role of the  (q.v. @ 3:5). Figuratively, it is ‘the

596   I Tim 5:18b = Lk 10:7 Q. Cf. 9:4 with Lk 10:7 Q. Mt 10:41f. (‘a prophet’s reward…a righteous one’s reward…, a cup of cold water…) probably refers to the final Day of judgment (cf. Mt 10:23). On  see above on 1:10, note 54. 597   Cf. Mt 20:8; Lk 10:7 Q (Jn 4:36); Rom 4:4; Jas 5:4. On Jewish conceptions of reward cf. M Aboth 5:23; Billerbeck III, 333 on 3:8; idem, ‘Die altsynagogale Lohnlehre’, IV, 490ff. Further, Rom 2:6; II Tim 4:8, 14 (); Col 3:24 ().

140

1 CORINTHIANS

recompense given (mostly by God) for the moral quality of an action’;598 this is the usual NT usage. On  see above on 2:12; below on 3:14; 4:7; 9:24f.; 14:5. , found eleven times in Paul’s letters,599 may mean mental or physical trouble or difficulty600 or, more frequently, ‘work’ or ‘labor’ in pursuit of a goal. Paul always uses the term with reference to labor in the gospel, i.e. Christian activities that involve concentration and exertion. Here and elsewhere it is coupled with  and simply means Christian ‘work’ of various sorts.601 In connection with Paul’s own ministry it is often coupled with words indicating ‘hardship’ or ‘travail’602 and is probably to be rendered ‘toil’. The reward is determined by God for each one’s work, not in comparison with the work of others but in terms of faithfulness in one’s own task and in one’s own gifts (Godet). What, then, is the reward and when is it received? Paul answers this in 3:12-15.  9.         . The word ‘co-worker’ (), only here in I Corinthians, is a Pauline designation in the NT603 and is the most frequently used designation for his associates.604 The  (‘for’, q.v. @ 3:11, note 637) introduces the reason underlying the statements of 3:5-8. The threefold repetition of  shows where the dominant thought lies: it is not man’s capability ‘but what the Lord does through them by his grace’ (Calvin, 72). Paul and Apollos are probably co-workers

598   BDAG, 653; cf. H. Preisker, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942) 714-728; P. C. Böttger, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 141-144. 599   3:8; 15:58; II Cor 6:5; 10:15; 11:23, 27; Gal 6:17; I Thess 1:3; 2:9; 3:5; II Thess 3:8. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 6f., 10, 24; idem, History, 86f.; F. Hauck, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 827-830; M. Seitz et al., ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 262f. 600   Gal 6:17; cf. Mt 26:10 par; Lk 11:7; 18:5. 601   Cf. 3:8 with 3:13; 15:58; II Cor 10:11 with 10:15; 11:15 with 11:23; I Thess 1:3. 602   E.g. with  (‘worrisome labor’, II Cor 11:27; I Thess 2:9; II Thess 3:8); with  (‘affliction’, II Cor 6:4f.). 603   3:9; Rom 16:3, 9, 21; II Cor 1:24; 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:3; Col 4:11; I Thess 3:2; Plm 1, 24; elsewhere only at III Jn 8. For the verb form cf. 16:16; II Cor 6:1. 604   Followed by ‘the brother’, minister (), and apostle in descending frequency. See above, note 581.



III

141

‘with God’ (genitive attributive or of relationship: cf. BDF, 250; Robertson 501f., 502f.)605 in God’s work rather than ‘for God’ (objective genitive)606 or ‘of God’ (possessive genitive).607 The latter meanings would be structured differently, more or less like Rom 16:3:      .608 Although unusual in the Pauline letters, the concept is present in first-century Judaism. Philo calls the insects God’s  in the plagues on Egypt, and the heavenly ‘powers’ in His governing of the universe.609 Such ‘co-working’, of course, is designed, enabled and superintended by God; it is by no means a partnership. ‘You are God’s field ( ), God’s building ( ).’  here is a possessive genitive since the congregation(s) is the object of God’s redemptive actions in contrast to the ‘co-workers’ (3:9a), who are participants in them.  (‘field’) is a NT hapax. It is probably equivalent to the more specific  (‘vineyard’), a term that along with its synonym  (‘grapevine’) is used both in the LXX610 and in the Gospels611 as a metaphor for God’s people, i.e. for Israel. Paul does not develop this metaphor, which is probably carried over from the imagery from 3:6-8 (Schrage, I, 295). More important for his thought is the second concept, ‘God’s building’.

605   So, Bengel, 179; Edwards, 75; Weiss, 77f. (‘linguistically more natural and simple’); Lietzmann-Kümmel, 15 (‘provides a sharper contrast and antithesis to 3:9b’); R & P, 58; Schrage, I, 293f. (Paul’s use of ‘co-worker’ elsewhere signifies a relationship with the person indicated). Cf. I Thess 3:2 D 33. 606   So, V. P. Furnish, ‘Fellow Workers in God’s Service’, JBL 80 (1961), 364-370; Fascher, 133; W. H. Ollrog, ‘’, EDNT III, 303f. = GT: III, 727; Barrett, 86, on contextual grounds, although ‘with God’ is ‘consistent with Paul’s thought’. 607   So, Findlay, 789; Parry, 64; Garland, 113; Fee, 134; Kistemaker, 109; Thiselton, 306, and the literature cited. 608   R & P, 58f. 609   Philo, de vita Mosis I, 110ff.; idem, de opif. mundi 75; idem, de confus. 168-175 on Gen 1:26; 11:7; Billerbeck II, 653 on Acts 6:6; III, 318 on Rom 16:3. But see G. Bertram, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971/1964), 871-876 (873). 610   E.g. Ps 80 (79):8; Isa 3:14f.; 5:1, 7; Jer 2:21; 12:10; Hos 10:1 KJV; cf. Joel 1:7; Jer 6:9. Cf. Conzelmann, 74f. = GT: 93f.; Riesenfeld (note 593), 196-201. 611   I.e. Jesus’ exposition of Isa 5:1-7 at Mt 21:33-44 T + Q.

142

1 CORINTHIANS

 is one of a number of similar terms—,613 ,614  ,615  =  —that he uses metaphorically of the people of God, i.e. the corporate (body of) Christ, the organic church, local or universal (e.g. Eph 3:21; 5:23; Col 1:18) vis-à-vis the organizational church. When so used, they always refer to a corporate entity or sphere. The conception of the church, i.e. the people of God, as a corporate ‘house’ (, ) belonging to God, is rooted in the OT where God’s chosen nation is repeatedly called ‘the house (‫ )בית‬of Israel,621 of Jacob,622 of Judah,623 or of David.624 It has its more immediate background at Qumran 612   ‘Building’: II Cor 5:1; Eph 2:21. More often it is used of acts of ‘upbuilding’, i.e. edification of the church, e.g. 14:3, 5, 12, 26; Rom 14:19; 15:2; II Cor 10:8; Eph 4:12, 16. 613   ‘Temple’: 3:16f.; 6:19; II Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21 (II Thess 2:4). 614   ‘Household’, ‘family’: Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19-22, where ‘household of God’ (  , 19) is equated with ‘the whole building’ ( ) and ‘temple in the Lord’ (  , 21) and ‘dwelling place of God’ (  , 22). 615   ‘House’: II Cor 5:2; Jude 6. For , cf. Eph 2:22. 616   ‘House’, ‘family’, ‘clan’: (16:15); II Cor 5:1; Phil 4:22; Mt 12:25 T + Q (19:29); Jn 4:53; 14:2. ‘House church’: I Tim 5:13; II Tim 3:6; cf. Rom 16:5; I Cor 16:19; Col 4:15. Cf. O. Michel, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 119-159. 617   Cf. J. Goetzmann, ‘ ’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 247-256; Ellis, ‘The Corporate House in Heaven’, Christ, 154-157. 618   They may also be used literally of a building, a temple, a house or a household. E.g. 16:15; Mt 2:11; 9:6f. parr; 23:16; 24:1; Acts 16:15, 31; I Tim 5:8. 619   On the church as ‘body of Christ’ see below on 12:27. The organized church, i.e. the local assembly or the totality of all Christian assemblies is, unlike the organic church = all elect believers = the corporate body of Christ, recognized by the Apostle to be a mixed bag, some regenerate and some hangers-on, i.e. temporary believers who are unregenerate and who will not last. See below on 5:5, note 116; on 8:11, notes 148ff.; 11:19. Cf. Gal 4:11; Col 1:23; Mt 10:22; Jn 8:31; Acts 8:13-24 with Acts of Peter (Verc.) 4, 16f. (NTA II, 290, 300ff.); Heb 6:4ff. 620   Also , ,  at II Cor 5:1f., which those who cursorily read the text through lenses ground in Athens identify, against all biblical usage, with the individual body. But see Ellis, ‘The Structure of Pauline Eschatology’, Christ, 147-164 (154-157); idem, Making, 77; below ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ### [293f.]. 621   E.g. Josh 21:45; I Sam 7:2; Ezek 8:10ff.; cf. Mt 15:24; Acts 2:36; 7:42; Heb 8:8, 10. 622   E.g. Ps 114:1; Isa 58:1; cf. Lk 1:33. 623   E.g. Isa 22:21; cf. Heb 8:8. 624   E.g. Jer 21:12; cf. Lk 1:27, 69; 2:4.



III

143

and in Jesus’ teaching that identifies himself as God’s temple.625 The Apostle applies this OT imagery to the ‘house of Israel’ of the new covenant, the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), i.e. to the church.626 10.        . See above on 1:4. The aorist passive, , implies a reference to God and suggests a once-for-all act of God in the past, i.e. when Paul was chosen, called, gifted and commissioned as an apostle of Jesus Christ.627 This divine grace (), given apart from any human virtue or autonomous willing, is not only redemptive grace as such but includes the gracious gift () of apostleship628 that empowers Paul to, among other things, ‘lay a foundation’ ().     .   (‘foundation’) may refer to Paul’s apostolic commission and purpose to establish churches among the Gentiles de novo ‘that I might not build on another’s foundation ()’.629 More likely, it refers to his initial gospel proclamation () at Corinth.630 The Apostle is God’s master builder ();631 God is the architect. Paul is wise ()632 to lay the foundation that has already been

625   Cf. Jn 2:19-22 with Mk 14:58; Ellis, ‘The Temple Not Made with Hands’, Christ, 44-49. See below on 3:16, ‘A Special Note on the Eschatological Temple’, ###. For Qumran cf. 1QS 5:6; 8:5-9; 9:3-6; CD-A 3:10; M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, New York 1961, 42f.; A. R. G. Beasley, The Shape of Qumran Theology, Carlisle UK 2000, 85, 111f. 626   Cf. 11:25; II Cor 6:16 with Jer 31:31ff.; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 107f.; cf. 94f., 135-139. See below, notes 692-697. 627   See above on 1:1; 2:12; cf. Acts 9:15; R & P, 60. 628   So, Schrage, I, 296. Otherwise: Lightfoot, 189. 629   Rom 15:20; cf. Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17f.; R & P, 60. 630   So, Thiselton, 309. See above on 2:1f., 4f.; Dodd (note 168). 631   A NT hapax, but so used in contemporary Judaism. E.g. Philo, de somniis II, 8 (Loeb): ‘so much by way of a foundation (). As we go on to build () the superstructure, let us follow the directions of Allegory, that wise master builder ( )…’ Further, Philo, de mut. nom. 211; Epictetus, Discourses 2, 15, 8f. 632     literally means ‘competent master builder’; cf. Isa 3:3 LXX. But in the context of 1:10–4:21, where the contrast between ‘true and false’, i.e., between divine and human wisdom is a basic theme, the phrase takes on theological implications. See above, note 631.

144

1 CORINTHIANS

designed by God, the proper and the only foundation: Jesus Christ (3:11).633    = ‘and another is building on [it]’. ‘Another’ refers to no one specifically but indefinitely to ‘someone else’ as the following  (‘each one’) and the subsequent  (3:12) show.634 The contrast is between Paul, who alone laid () the foundation’, and all others who, properly, build on it. He is their one and only father in the faith (4:15). At Eph 2:19-22, with reference to the ‘household (), i.e. the church universal, he alters the imagery but not the christocentric focus: ‘Christ Jesus being the cornerstone’, i.e. the one who determines the ‘place’ and ‘shape’ of the foundation and hence of the rest of the ‘temple’ ().635 The caution (, ‘take care’, ‘watch out’) to those who ‘build on’ is mainly addressed to the gifted but immature Corinthians, and it leads into the specifics of 3:11-15. It is repeated at 8:9 and 10:12 and in other Pauline letters636 and is characteristic of his—or of any good mentor’s—teaching method.  This con11.    …  . tinues the thought of 3:10 (q.v.) and gives the underlying reason with the causal .637 The present participle  is not a progressive present (‘the one that is being laid’) but expresses a fixed and permanent reality (‘the one that is constituted’)638 that cannot and will not change.639 The Apostle’s thought reflects Ps 127:1: 633    may be masculine or neuter; at 3:11 it is masculine. Cf. BDAG, 448; Robertson, 262f.; Moulton, II, 122; BDF, 28. 634   So, Godet, I, 180. Apollos (3:6) is no longer in Corinth (16:12). See below on 8:1, note 32. 635   I Pet 2:5-8. See below on 3:16. On ‘cornerstone’ (Eph 2:20) cf. J. Jeremias, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 271-277; Ellis, ‘The Eschatological Temple’, Christ, 35f., 56-61, cf. 44-49. 636   Gal 5:15; Eph 5:15; Phil 3:2; Col 2:8 (4:17); cf. Phil 2:12f.; II Tim 2:19; Mt 24:4 parr; Mk 4:24 par; 8:15 parr; Heb 3:12; II Jn 8. See below on 10:12. 637   Cf. 1:17; 3:2; Rom 3:2 ‫ א‬A M; 4:5; BDAG, 189; BDF, 235f. But see above on 2:11, note 482; Robertson 1189. 638   On this use of the present tense cf. Burton, 9; Fanning, 137. 639   Rightly, Schrage, 298; Bachmann, 160f. Cf. Lightfoot 190: ‘  asserts the position of the foundation stone to be absolutely independent of human interference’. Cf. the hymn, ‘How Firm a Foundation’ by J. Rippon (1787), the favorite hymn of Robert E. Lee.



III

145

‘Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it’. The preposition  is used with the accusative in the comparative sense with the meaning ‘than’. Somewhat like the English ‘than’, which can be both a conjunction and a preposition,  approaches a conjunctive force. But it appears always as a preposition with an object, here the substantive participle ton; .640 It can mean ‘another than’641 or ‘more than’.642 In this context the latter is preferable. The Corinthians, whom Paul here critiques, do not reject Jesus Christ as the foundation. They promote ‘Jesus Christ plus’ human wisdom, or interpreted through human wisdom, as the path to redemption.643 They are like the Galatians who affirmed ‘Jesus Christ plus’ human works.644 Paul responds that the foundation is not ‘Jesus Christ plus’ nor ‘Jesus Christ uninterpreted’ but the ‘Jesus Christ crucified’ that he has taught them. Any other interpretation of Christ contrary to the one he has taught them, he implies, represents another Jesus (II Cor 11:4) and a different gospel (Gal 1:6). The Apostle, and indeed the four allied apostolic missions that produced our NT,645 had a common kerygma that included a particular understanding of Jesus Christ.646 He says, in effect, that any alteration in the foundation will throw it out of kilter and will eventually destroy it. 12.      = ‘now if anyone builds on…’ The , like  (q.v. @ 3:10), is non-specific. The foundation is fixed but the superstructure, as the task of Christian workers, may   Moulton, I, 236; II, 467. Cf. Fowler, 629.   Cf. 12:15f.; Rom 12:3; Heb 1:4; 3:3; 9:23; 11:4; 12:24. 642   So, BDAG, 757f. Cf. Robertson, 615f.; Moulton, III, 273; BDF, 123f.; Moule, 51. 643   I.e. ‘beyond’ Jesus Christ. E.g. Rom 12:3 (Gal 1:8f.); Heb 1:4, 9; 3:3; 9:23; 11:4, 11; 12:24; BDAG, 757f. 644   See above on 1:23f.; below in ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###. 645   Cf. Ellis, Making, 332-347, and also 138f., 251f., passim; idem, Christ, 235-239. 646   Gal 2:1-10, 2; Rom 6:17:     ; cf. Käsemann (note 135), 181f. = GT: 173: Paul here addresses the church at Rome, which was founded and had been taught by others and which Paul had never visited. Yet Paul can assume a common ‘type of teaching to which you were delivered’, i.e., committed. See above, ###-###; cf. Ellis, Making, 53-59. Otherwise: Cranfield (note 130), I, 324. 640 641

146

1 CORINTHIANS

vary. On the   as a Semitic-influenced construction, cf. Beyer, 228; on  see below on 6:1. … = ‘Gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw’. Apart from , ,  (Gal 3:13) the words are Pauline hapaxes. There is perhaps an allusion to the materials used in the tabernacle and in Solomon’s temple,647 but more likely to the eschatological temple.648 Some mss (‫ א‬Cvid 1739) have the diminutives , , words that may signify, as may  and , the metals used for a purpose, e.g. coinage or jewelry. Here the point is not a descending rank of value but of two types of material, that which fire will purify and that which it will consume.649 13.        (q.v. @ 3:11)      .   (‘each one’), occurring five times in 3:5-13, stresses the fact that it is the ‘work’ of each individual elect believer that will be made plainly clear for what it is (). It involves not only the ministry but also the actions and effective attitudes of each Christian from the apostles, Paul and Apollos, to the least important Christian who, in one way or another, ‘builds on’ the structure that is Christ’s church. Other salient terms in 3:13 are ‘because’ (, q.v. @ 1:5), ‘day’ (), ‘fire’ (), ‘is revealed’ (), with the passive indicating a divine reference: ‘is revealed by God’, and ‘will be tested’ (). In the past, perhaps even as early as the Didaché,650 the ‘day’ was understood to refer to times in the life of the church ‘when the truth is brought to light’651 or to afflictions on the individual Christian’s life that put to the test his lifestyle and professions.652 The word,   So, Kuck (note 578), 177. Cf. I Chron 22:14ff.; 29:2; Exod 31:3-9. But see II Sam 12:30 (of a royal crown); I Kg 10:2, 11 (of royal gifts); Dan 11:38. 648   Anticipating 3:16f.; Schrage, I, 300. Cf. Rev 21:18f. 649   Cf. Chrysostom 9, 5 on I Cor 3:12 (cf. Kovacs, 59f.); Hammond, 547; Lightfoot, 191. 650   Did 16:5: ‘The race of men shall come into the fiery trial…’ (    ). Godet, I, 185f., takes this phrase to be the Didaché’s allusion to 3:13. 651   Calvin, 76, 75f.; the Reformation was one example. 652   E.g. Augustine, The Enchiridion 68 (NPNF1 III, 239); Conzelmann, 76 = GT: 95. 647



III

147

with other modifiers, can be used in this way elsewhere in the NT.653 But at 3:13, and in this form and context, the ‘Day’ probably refers, as it does at 1:7 (q.v.), to the parousia of Christ at the last day of this age.654 At 1:8 the Apostle assures the faithful Corinthians that ‘in Christ’ they will be found ‘blameless’ in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, he warns them that at that Day their ‘work’, i.e. conduct, motives, actions and ministries as Christians will be displayed, assessed for ‘whatever sort it is’ ( ) and the individual be rewarded or the work be forfeited.    ‘is probably a Semitism for “with”…’, corresponding to the Hebrew ּ‫ ְב‬.655  = MT: ‫ אשׁ‬occurs only here in this letter and only once elsewhere in the Pauline corpus (II Thess 1:8[7]). In theological biblical usage it may refer to the appearance of the divine glory and power656 or, relevant to 3:13, to a means of divine destruction or of divine cleansing. Already in the OT it appears with both connotations in a number of eschatological passages: On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing (‫ )אשׁ‬pot in the midst of wood, like a flaming (‫ )אשׁ‬torch among the sheaves and they shall devour… And I will put this third into the fire (‫ )אשׁ‬and refine them as one refines silver.657 For he is like a refiner’s fire (‫ )אשׁ‬and like launderers’ soap;… He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver.658

  E.g. ‘the evil day’ (Eph 6:13), ‘the day of testing’ (Heb 3:8), ‘the day of visitation’ (I Pet 2:12 = Isa 10:3 LXX); cf. ‘the hour of trial’ (Rev 3:10); cf. Godet, I, 186. 654   So, e.g., Bengel, 180; Meyer, 75; Godet, I, 186f.; Barrett, 88; Fee, 141f.; Schrage, I, 301f.; Thiselton, 311; Barnett, 55; Garland, 117. 655   Hering, 23. So also at 4:21 (q.v.); cf. BDAG, 328 §5; M & M, 210; M. J. Harris, ‘Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament’, NIDNTT 3 (1986), 1171-1215 (1174f.). But see Moule, 77. 656   E.g. Acts 7:30 (II Thess 1:8); Heb 1:7; 12:18; Rev 1:14; 2:18; 4:5; 10:1 (15:2); 16:8f.; 19:12; Exod 19:18; II Kg 6:17; Ps 50:3; cf. I En 14:9-22. 657   Zech 12:6; 13:9. Cf. V. Hamp, ‘‫’אשׁ‬, TDOT 1 (1974), 418-428; F. Lang, ‘pur’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 936f., 942-947; Billerbeck I, 121f.; P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestmentlichen Zeitalter, Hildesheim 1966 (21934), 314f., 318f., 335f. 658   Mal 3:2f.; cf. 4:1 = MT: 3:19. 653

148

1 CORINTHIANS

Both Zech 9–14 and Mal 3:1-6 are OT ‘text-plots’, i.e. passages from which NT writers regularly drew in the course of their teaching.659 At 3:13 the Apostle probably alludes to Mal 3:2f. The NT continues this two-fold reference to fire, the annihilating fire of judgment660 and, for God’s chosen ones, the cleansing fire of redemption.661 As in the OT, both types of fire are found in the NT at least once together, i.e. in John the Baptist’s proclamation about Jesus: He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire… He will gather his wheat into the barn But he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.662

What is the meaning of the ‘fire’ at 3:13? (1) It is certainly not the destroying fire of judgment, for although the Day will be revealed with fire (see below) and although the fire will test and perhaps forfeit the work of each chosen believer (3:13), he himself will be saved. (2) It has been taken to mean destructive fire with reference to one’s ‘work’,663 but in 3:13-15 fire is used only with reference to the Day (3:13) or to the redeemed individual (3:15). (3) The fire of 3:13, 15 is associated by some with the divine chastisement – light or heavy – that many of Christ’s chosen ones receive at one time or another to correct wrong attitudes or conduct.664 This view is not far from the doctrine of purgatory,665 a place or state 659   Cf. Dodd (note 537), 64-67, 70f.; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 104ff. One may add Isa 61–66 for which NA, 761, lists some eight citations and 57 allusions. 660   Mt 3:10, 12 Q; 5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42; 18:8f. par; 25:41; Mk 9:49; Lk 17:29; Jn 15:6 (II Thess 1:8[7]); Heb 10:27; 12:29 (Jas 5:3); II Pet 3:7; Jude 7, 23; Rev 8:5, 7f.; 9:18; 11:5; 14:10, 18; 17:16f.; 18:8; 19:20; 20:9f., 14f.; 21:8. 661   Mt 3:11; Mk 9:49; Lk 12:49; Acts 2:3 (I Pet 1:5ff.); Rev 3:18; cf. W. L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, Grand Rapids 1974, 349, on Mk 9:49: ‘the fire of purification’. Apparently, the fire of destruction is understood literally (cf. the analogy at II Pet 3:5ff.). But the fire of purification may refer (1) to the warm, but unharmful, felt heat, (2) to the fiery appearance (cf. Acts 2:3; Mt 3:11 Q) or (3) perhaps to a figurative turn of speech. 662   Mt 3:11f. Q; cf. Acts 2:3. Cf. Ellis, Luke, 90, 182f., on Lk 3:16; 12:49; idem, Christ, 129-133. 663   E.g. Schrage, I, 302; Fee, 142; R & P, 63f. 664   E.g. Lightfoot, 192f.; Conzelmann, 76 = GT: 95. Cf. 11:32; Heb 12:5-11; Rev 3:19. 665   Cf. ODCC, 1349f. It is a non-biblical creation influenced not only by Greek philosophy but also by Pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism, which itself had incorporated



III

149

of purificatory punishment or teaching of the ‘souls’ of unsanctified Christians between their death and their resurrection at the Parousia of Christ. But the fire of 3:13ff. is a means or medium neither of chastising nor of teaching but rather of testing and/or removal of certain Christian ‘works’. Although the Holy Spirit is not explicitly mentioned, the ‘fire’ at 3:13ff. most likely refers to the Holy Spirit’s redeeming and purifying fire that is mentioned at Mt 3:16 Q and, according to Luke, experienced at Pentecost (Acts 2:3f., 17-21). One may infer that it is present (although invisible) in every chosen believer’s Holy Spirit baptism, i.e. birth.666 Its manifestation at the Day of the Lord has a precedent in the teaching at Qumran: ‘[God will purify man] and clean his flesh by a holy spirit from all ungodly acts’.667

In Paul’s thought this purifying fire of the Holy Spirit at the parousia of Christ is a necessary means to consummate immediately and individually the total holiness prerequisite to an everlasting perception of, relationship with, and participation in the all holy God.668 It may be that the Apostle understands this purifying action of the Holy Spirit to be simultaneous with His ‘immortalizing’ action, i.e. transforming of the redeemed individually from mortal to immortal bodies (15:51ff.; Rom 8:11; cf. Phil 3:21).

Greek philosophical ideas. See Billerbeck IV, 1016-1029, 1043-1049; R. Meyer, Hellenistisches in der rabbinischen Anthropologie, Stuttgart 1937, 11-15; idem, ‘’, TDNT 9 (1974), 21, 35; Schürer II, 539-542; cf. Ellis, Christ, 101n; idem, History, 45n. It is found in the patristic (cf. Origen, ct. Celsus 5, 15) and in the medieval church but was rejected by the Reformation (cf. Schrage, I, 307f.). It continues in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and some have used 3:13ff. to support this doctrine. But see R & P, 63f.; Edwards, 81f.; Godet, I, 190f.; Garland, 117ff. 666   Cf. 12:13; Mt 3:11 Q; Acts 2:3f., 17-21 (baptism); 4:15; Gal 4:29; Plm 10; Jn 1:13; 3:1-8; I Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18 (birth). See above on notes 125 and 126. 667   1QS 4:20f. (Wernberg-Møller). 668   So, the hymn, ‘How Firm a Foundation’, by Richard Best (c. 1787): ‘The flame shall not hurt you, I only design; Your dross to consume, and your gold to refine’. It was Stonewall Jackson’s favorite hymn.

150

1 CORINTHIANS

.  669 A present passive tense in a subordinate causal clause with the subject , taking a futuristic meaning, presumably from the future tense of the main verb :670 ‘For the Day will disclose it because it will be revealed with fire’.671 .  Used some 23 times in the NT, 17 of them in Paul’s letters. The word may mean ‘to approve’ (16:3); ‘to vet’, i.e. examine and approve (11:28); and, as here, ‘to test’ with a positive or negative verdict (3:13).672 14-15.   …   .  See above on 3:13, 10. On  (bis) see on 3:12 (). ……….  Two conditional clauses with the verbs in the future indicative, the future tense giving the verbs the force of a present subjunctive: ‘If anyone’s work should abide; …should be burned up…’ ‘To abide’ () signifies here ‘to come through the Holy Spirit’s cleansing purification (3:13) and thus to be a work that stands approved by God. ‘To be burned up’ (), a Pauline hapax,673 signifies the opposite.   = ‘he will receive a reward’. See above on 2:12 () and 3:8 ().            On   see above on 1:18, note 189; on   (‘through fire’) see above on 3:13. , found only here in 669   See above on 1:7. Cf. I Pet 1:5ff., 13; 5:1. The conception of revelation by fire, however, appears in II Thess 1:7ff. for annihilating judgment at the parousia of Christ. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 179-199, 196n. 670   Cf. Schrage, I, 302. Cf. BDF, 168; Burton, 7. 671   3:13. On the ‘last Day’ as a Day of revelation cf. 1:7; Rom 8:18f.; II Thess 1:7f.; Lk 17:30; I Pet 1:5ff., 13; 4:13; 5:1. On  see above, note 637. 672   Further, cf. W. Grundmann, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 259f. The pronoun  = ‘it’ (A B C P 33 syrp) is pleonastic, i.e. redundant, and has limited ms support, but it may be original (cf. Metzger, 483f.). 673   But found elsewhere in the NT: Mt 3:12 Q; 13:30, 40; Acts 19:19; Heb 13:11; II Pet 3:10; Rev 8:7; 17:16; 18:6.



III

151

I Corinthians,674 refers to one’s work (‘it will be lost’ or ‘forfeited’)675 in contrast to one’s person: ‘but he himself will be saved’. 16.    = ‘do you not know that’. Sometimes Paul or his secretary uses this phrase, especially in I Corinthians as an IF to introduce via  (q.v. @ 1:5), of indirect discourse, a biblical quotation676 or a preformed tradition677 that the recipients are expected to have learned, presumably because Paul or his co-worker has earlier taught it to them. On the parallelism in 3:16f. cf. J. Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language, Crestwood NY 1994, 245. Special Note on the Eschatological Temple In the OT the tabernacle and subsequently the Jerusalem temple of Solomon and its successor ‘second’ temple were the specific locus of God’s manifestation among his chosen people.678 The Qumran Essenes (c. 150 BC–AD 68), a Jewish religious party, in some measure separated themselves from the Jerusalem temple and regarded their own group metaphorically as God’s temple, i.e. the place of God’s presence in Israel.679

  Elsewhere: II Cor 7:9; Phil 3:8; Mt 16:26 par. ‘Burned up’ () is a Pauline hapax. On  see below on 4:1. 675   Pace BDAG, 428, and A. Stumpff, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 888ff., who think the term involves punishment of the person. Although the word may mean ‘be punished’ or ‘be forfeited’, here the syntax and the context support the latter meaning. Virtually all commentators, mistakenly I think, take  to refer to the person: ‘he shall suffer loss’. 676   Cf. 6:16 (Gen 2:24); Rom 11:2. On the dialogical style see below on 4:7. 677   5:6; 6:2f., 9f., 15f., 19; Rom 6:16; cf. Eph 5:5; II Tim 3:1 (Jas 4:4). Otherwise: 9:13, 24. Cf. Ellis, Making, 73f., 119, 412. Sometimes (e.g. 9:24) ‘what they are supposed to know comes from their shared Greco-Roman…culture’ (R. M. Grant, Paul in the Roman World: the Conflict at Corinth, Louisville KY 2001, 33). On the root and tense of  see above at 2:11, note 482. 678   Cf. I Kg 8:6-12; Ezra 6:14ff.; A. R. Millard and R. J. McKelvey, ‘Temple’, NBD, 1156-1161; idem ‘Temple’, IBD, III, 1522-1532. 679   1QS 8:5-9; 4QFlor 1:1-13. Cf. G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context, Sheffield UK 1985, 178-193; but see G. Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament, Göttingen 1971, 50-93. See below, note 682. 674

152

1 CORINTHIANS

Jesus also critiqued the misuse of the temple,680 predicted its destruction by others681 and lamented over the rejecting city of Jerusalem that ‘your house is left to you desolate’.682 With these comments Jesus makes clear that the Jerusalem temple would no longer be the dwelling place of God among his people. In this context one can better understand his teachings about another temple, an eschatological temple, and his relationship to it. As there is for the NT writers an Israel of the new covenant,683 so is there also a temple of the new covenant who is Jesus the Messiah of Israel. In the Gospels Jesus identifies himself with the eschatological temple of God under two images, the temple cornerstone and the temple itself. In his commentary, i.e. midrash, on Isa 5 he implicitly refers to himself in a concluding text of this pericope: ‘The [temple] stone that the builders rejected (), this one became the head of the corner’ (Ps 118:22).684 More explicitly, but in an enigmatic metaphor not understood until after his resurrection, he referred to his own body as God’s temple: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’.685 The motif of Christ as the temple-stone appears very early in Christian christological exposition and is taken up by both Paul and Peter in their letters.686 The imagery of Christ as the temple of God as such is also expounded in the post-resurrection church, but it is used not of the   Mt 21:12f. parr.   Mt 24:1-31 parr. 682   Mt 23:38 Q. At Qumran also the expectation of a new temple is connected with their negative attitude toward the existing one (cf. 4QFlor 1:5f., 12; 1QS 5:6; 8:5-9; 9:4ff.); B. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community at Qumran and in the New Testament, Cambridge 1965, 16-46, 56-60; Ellis, ‘A Special Note on Jesus and the Temple’, Luke, 230f., cf. 191. 683   See above on 3:9, notes 612-626. 684   Cf. Mt 21:33-44, 42 T + Q with Mk 8:31 par (); Acts 4:11; Eph 2:19-22; I Pet 2:4, 7. See below, AE II, ###-###. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 251f.; idem, ‘Isaiah and the Eschatological Temple’, Christ, 52-61, 52f.; idem, History, 108, 130. See above, note 502. 685   Jn 2:19; cf. 2:18-22; Mk 14:58; Mt 26:61; Ellis, ‘The Temple Not Made With Hands’, Christ, 44-49; see below note 693. 686   Rom 9:33; I Pet 2:6ff. (Ps 118:22; Isa 28:16; 8:14). Cf. Dodd (note 537) 35f., 41f.; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 89-92. See above, note 685. References to the temple of the vision of Ezek 40–48 occur in the NT almost solely in Rev 20–22, i.e. the new earth after Christ’s second advent. 680 681



III

153

individual Christ, as it is in the Gospels, but of the corporate Christ, his church.687 What is the basis for this transition? At the Last Supper Christ symbolically identified his pupils, the Twelve, with his to-be-crucified body: ‘He gave them [bread] saying, “This is my body given for you” ’.688 The visible symbolic action689 is a sign of an actual invisible reality, the corporate identification of Christ’s chosen ones with himself and their corporate participation in himself.690 It is very probable that this dominical ‘Last Supper’ teaching was the seed from which the whole Pauline theology of the church as the body of Christ developed.691 Since Christ had also identified his body with the temple of God it was a small step, perhaps beginning with Stephen,692 to perceive the church also as God’s temple.693 This understanding, along with their self-perception as the faithful remnant of Israel,694 likewise gave the apostles and prophets of Christ the rationale to understand the church, like national Israel, as ‘a kingdom of priests’ (‫ )ממלכת כהנים‬or ‘a royal

687   E.g. 3:16; II Cor 6:16; Acts 7:48ff. On the concept of ‘corporate personality’, i.e. of man as having both a corporate and an individual existence, see below, notes 691, 693. 688   Lk 22:19. Mt 26:26, more specifically, reads ‘Take, eat’. Paul at 11:24, like Luke, has ‘for you’ and probably follows the same Jerusalem tradition used by Luke. 689   See below on 10:16: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless…; the bread which we break…’ 690   See above on 1:9 (). 691   See below, ‘The Corporate Body’, AE VIII, ###-###; cf. Moule (note 318); Son (note 318); Ellis (note 312). Further on man in Paul’s thought as having both an individual and a corporate existence cf. Son (note 312), 178-186; Ellis, ‘The Corporate Dimension of Human Existence’, Theology, 7-17, 40-44; idem, Prophecy, 170ff.; H. W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, Philadelphia PA 1964 (1935); J. Pedersen, Israel, 4 vols. in 2, London 1959, I-II, 46-60, 263-269, 474-479; III-IV, 76-86; A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, Cardiff 1961. See above, notes 312, 318. 692   Acts 7:48ff. 693   II Cor 6:16; Eph 2:19-22; cf. Acts 15:16; Heb 3:5f. See above, notes 625, 685. Cf. A. Cole, The New Temple, London 1950; R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple, Oxford 1969; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 90ff.; idem, ‘The Eschatological Temple’, ‘The Temple Not Made With Hands’, ‘Isaiah and the Eschatological Temple’, ‘Background and Christology of John’s Gospel’, Christ, 35f., 46-49, 56-61, 81; idem, ‘The Body of Christ and the Temple of God’, History, 144ff. 694   See above on 3:9, notes 612-626.

154

1 CORINTHIANS

priesthood’695 who carried the mark of holiness of God’s chosen people.696 Such is the probable background of and rationale for Paul’s designation at 3:16 of the church at Corinth as ‘the temple of God’.697 16b.    = ‘You are the temple of God’. This astounding assertion follows up and specifies the Apostle’s statement in 3:9 (q.v.) that the Corinthian Christians, i.e. their congregations are the ‘building of God’. The designation, ‘God’s building’ or ‘God’s house’ (3:9), may point to the church as the new-covenant ‘Israel of God’, as the OT refers to the national old-covenant ‘house of Israel’.698 But the designation, ‘the temple of God’ ( ), refers more specifically to the definite place of God’s dwelling, in the OT the Tabernacle and the Jerusalem temple, and in the NT God’s people themselves.699        . The  is epexegetical, i.e. explanatory: ‘that is’. On  see above on 2:4, 10, 11, 12. The ‘Spirit of God’ indwells each Christian from his ‘Spirit-baptism’ (12:13), i.e. conversion (I Thess 1:9) or spiritual birth (Jn 3:5ff.)700   Cf. Exod 19:6; Isa 61:1; I Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6.   See below on 3:17; cf. W. Dommershausen, ‘‫’כּ ַֹהן‬, TDOT 7 (1995), 70-75; J. A. Naude, ‘‫’שׁקד‬, NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 880-886; J. Baehr, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 232-236; III, 36ff.; A. Sand, ‘’, EDNT 2 (1981), 174 (bibliography). The NT teaching was the ultimate basis for the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. 697   Some, e.g. Conzelmann, 77 = GT: 97; 211 = GT: 248, and others, have suggested a Stoic influence on Paul’s conception of the church or of the individual Christian (6:19) as ‘the temple of God’ and as ‘the body of Christ’ (12:27; cf. Seneca, Epistles 41, 1f.; 95, 52; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7, 13. While the NT idioms are similar, the conceptions are quite disparate; they have nothing in common with the pantheistic Stoic ideas. Cf. Ellis, Theology, 43f.; Nock, I, 125ff. 698   E.g. Josh 21:45; I Sam 7:2; Ezek 8:10ff.; cf. Gal 6:16. See above on 3:9. 699   The absence of the article is not significant; the ‘type’ (; cf. 10:6, 11; Heb 8:5) or ‘shadow’ (; cf. Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1) is the Jerusalem temple of which the eschatological temple is the antitype. The universal organic church, i.e. the body of Christ, is not many temples but one; see above on 3:9, note 619. Likewise, as the church at Corinth is ‘the church of God’ (1:2), so also is it ‘the temple of God’, as that temple is manifested at that place at that time. Cf. Goppelt (note 117), 147ff.; Lightfoot, 194; R & P, 66. Otherwise: Godet, I, 192. Cf. Weiss, 84: ‘[Paul] must be recalling here a conception that belonged to the first preaching (cf. 6:19)’. 700   See above, note 500. 695 696



III

155

and, corporately, each Christian congregation, as here. If the plural   is read ‘in you’, it stresses the oneness of the corporate temple of God; if it is read ‘among you’, it identifies the individual participants in the whole. It is a distinction without a difference. As Godet, I, 192, puts it, ‘God dwells among believers only on condition of dwelling in them, the second meaning implies the first’. Often in the NT, however, there does appear to be a special manifestation and power of the Spirit in the gathered group.701 17.              On ‘the temple of God’ see above on 3:16. Like  in 3:10 and  (‘anyone’) in 3:14, the  here in non-specific. But the first class condition,702 i.e.  + the present indicative verb  (‘if anyone destroys’), indicates that the reality of the situation, whether present or threatening in the Corinthian congregations, is assumed to be true.703 Unlike 3:15 where a ‘work’ is forfeited, here a ‘person’ will be destroyed.704  . The sentence is chiastic in structure and in the style of what Käsemann termed ‘sentences of holy law’:705 ‘If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy this one’. Jesus’ saying in Mk 8:38 par reflects the same style: ‘For whoever 701   E.g. 5:4f.; 14:26, 19f.; Acts 2:1-4; 4:31; 10:27, 44f.; 13:2; cf. Mt 18:20; Heb 10:25. 702   Cf. Robertson, 1004f., 1007-1012; BDF, 188f.; Burton, 101ff.; Moule, 148ff. 703   Hence, the comment in 11:19. That some of Paul’s house-churches in the Aegean were destroyed later is the probable meaning of Tit 1:11:    = ‘they are destroying whole house-churches’ in the light of Tit 1:5:         = ‘set right what remains and appoint elders city by city’. Cf. Acts 14:23; BDAG, 74 §1. 704    = ‘to destroy’ may mean ‘to corrupt’, ‘to bring to nothing’, ‘to disintegrate’. The stronger force is present here. So, Conzelmann 78n = GT: 97n. Cf. Gen 6:13 (14); Mic 2:10 LXX; BDAG, 1054; G. Harder, ‘’, TDNT 9 (1974), 100ff.; Heinrici, 132. Cf. II Cor 4:16; Rev 11:18 (); II Pet 2:12 M (). 705   E. Käsemann, ‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament’, New Testament Questions for Today, Philadelphia 1969, 60-81 = idem, NTS 1 (1954–55), 248-260. But see D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy, London 1979, 171-174; K. Berger, ‘Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts’, NTS 17 (1970–71), 10-40; D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Grand Rapids 1983, 167f., 237-240. On chiasmus see above, note 266.

156

1 CORINTHIANS

is ashamed of me…the Son of Man also will be ashamed of him…’. The pattern appears elsewhere,706 including at Qumran: ‘The Wicked Priests who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to consume him… The cup of Yahweh’s right hand will turn against

you…’707

The underlying principle is that of just recompense, i.e. lex talionis or quid pro quo, rooted in the OT: ‘life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth’.708 Some argue that ‘there is an exact correspondence only in the formal sense, since the punishment exists in the annihilation of the violator’.709 However, while the temple of God organically and in toto could not be destroyed, the temple of God as it was manifested organizationally and locally could be, and indeed was.710 For Paul’s teaching the principle of justice, quid pro quo, is an essential aspect of the character of God.711 It is not the opposite of God’s grace nor an alternative to it; his grace and justice go hand in hand.712 It is the rationale for the penal substitutionary atonement achieved by Christ’s death.713 All elect believers were corporately present, ‘in Christ’ and ‘with Christ’, on Calvary and died ‘with him’,714 receiving the just penalty for their sin in his death.   Cf. Rom 1:28; Rev 22:18f. (Dt 4:2, 24ff.); cf. Gen 6:13 (14); Wis 18:4f.   1QpHab 11:4f., 10. 708   Exod 21:23f. Since maiming was apparently forbidden (Exod 21:26f., 30-34), the latter two examples are figurative, and just recompense was secured by the payment of money damages. 709   Cf. Conzelmann, 78n = GT: 97n. 710   See above, note 703. 711   Cf. Rom 3:26; 12:19 (cf. Dt 32:35 LXX; Heb 10:30); II Thess 1:8; Heb 10:30; Ignatius, ad Eph. 16:1f. 712   Cf. Rom 3:26; Cranfield (note 130), 215-218. So, John Edgison’s hymn, ‘At the Cross of Jesus’, where ‘love and justice mingle, truth and mercy meet’. 713   Cf. Rom 3:25:      (‘whom God set forth as a propitiation’, NKJV); Mk 10:45:    (‘a ransom in place of many’); I Jn 2:2:        (‘He Himself is the propitiation for our sins’, NKJV); I Jn 4:10; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, London 1955, 125-133; J. R. W. Stott, ‘The Self-Substitution of God’, The Cross of Christ, Leicester UK 1986, 149-163; cf. 197-202. See above, note 712. Otherwise: D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, Cambridge 1967, 66-81. 714   So, Rom 6:4, 8; Gal 2:19 (20): ‘I have been crucified with Christ’; Col 2:20; II Tim 2:11; cf. II Cor 5:14. See below, AE VIII, ### [n. 59, 60]; Ellis, ‘The Corporate Son of Man’, Christ, 85-88; idem, Christ, 150f. 706 707



III

157

Those outside Christ, who exist only ‘in Adam’, will at the Day of judgment receive the just penalty for their sin in their own death, i.e. their disintegration () and their end.715        = ‘for the temple of God is holy’. The explanatory or causal  introduces the reason for the fearful judgment on the one who destroys God’s temple. The adjective  = ‘holy’, first appearing here in I Corinthians, is used in Scripture to describe that which is related to God, belonging to God, or set apart for God.716 In the OT it is ascribed especially to the temple and to those, i.e. the priests and Levites who served in the temple.717 If that holiness was violated, the offender was put to death.718 This is the background of and rationale for the Apostle’s application of ‘holy law’ to the destroyer of God’s eschatological temple.719    = ‘which holy temple you are’. The antecedents are  (singular) and  (singular); the pronominal subject is plural by attraction to the .720 Therefore, Paul implies, you must guard against anything that violates your consecration (R & P, 68). As a ‘relative pronoun of quality’,  has both  and  as antecedents.721   See above on 3:13, note 704. Otherwise: R & P, 67.   In the NT most often of elect believers, at times in connection with their identity as the temple of God (6:11, 19; II Cor 6:16–7:1; Eph 2:19-22; I Pet 2:4-9; cf. Rev 20:6. Cf. 7:14, 34; 16:20; Rom 1:2; 7:12; 11:16; 12:1; 16:16; II Cor 13:12; Eph 1:4; 3:5; 5:27; Col 1:2, 22; 3:12; I Thess 5:26f.; II Tim 1:9; Heb 3:1; I Pet 1:15f.; 3:5; II Pet 1:18, 21; 2:21; 3:2, 11; Jude 20; Rev 3:7; 6:10; 11:2; 14:10; 18:20; 21:2, 10; 22:6, 11, 19. On  see above on 3:11, note 637. 717   E.g. Exod 28:41; 19:1, 21, 27ff., 37, 43f.; Lev 21:6ff.; cf. Ezek 42:13. Initially Israel was to be ‘a kingdom of priests’ (Exod 19:6), and the firstborn son (Exod 13:3: ‫ )בכור‬of every family was to serve in ‘the house of the LORD’ (Exod 34:26). Then the tribe of Levi was set apart to serve ‘the house of the LORD’, and one in that tribe served as a substitute for the firstborn of the other tribes (Num 3:12). As such, the tribe of Levi was ‘holy to the LORD’ (Num 35:3). Cf. M. Tsevat, ‘‫’בכור‬, TDOT 2 (1975), 121-127; B. T. Arnold, ‘‫’בכר‬, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 659; G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 484ff. See below on 9:13. 718   E.g. Num 3:4, 10; 16:35-40. 719   Cf. Heb 10:28-31. 720   Cf. Phil 1:28; I Tim 3:15; Robertson, 729; BDF, 73. 721   Godet, I, 194. But see Edwards, 86; Fee, 149n. 715 716

158

1 CORINTHIANS

With 3:17 Paul ends the application of his commentary on God’s wisdom (2:6-16), explaining and critiquing the Corinthian dissidents’ failure to apprehend and to mediate that wisdom and warning them about the possible dangers of their present attitudes and behavior for God’s future verdict on their work and on their persons. The pericope 3:18-20 concludes the Apostle’s two-fold commentary (1:18-31; 2:6-16) and application (2:1-5; 3:1-17) on the theme of true and false wisdom. It opens with an admonition and a return to the main theme of ‘wisdom’ (3:18-19a) and concludes, like the pattern of rabbinic biblical commentary, i.e. midrash,722 with final biblical texts (3:19b-20).    = ‘Let no one deceive himself’. The third person imperative points back to the warnings to ‘anyone’ () in 3:15ff. and forward to 3:18b-20; 4:6ff.  here concerns self-deception (Jas 1:26), i.e. to persuade oneself of what is false. The prefix  may be intensive (Thiselton) or may be only Paul’s or his secretary’s fondness for compounds with .725 The term is close to  in,726 which also combines the concepts of (1) ‘to err’, i.e. ‘to go astray’ and (2) ‘to deceive’. It is stronger than the earlier admonition, ‘Watch out!’, at 3:10, although it is similar to that admonition given at Col 2:8 concerning false teachers threatening those congregations.727           . On the non-specific  see above on 3:12, 14f. The word  is an infinitive of indirect discourse: the clause, ‘if anyone supposes that he is wise in this age’, is Paul’s formulation and his estimation of the dissident Corinthians’ thinking.728 Without specifying any   See above, notes 1 and 164-165.    occurs five times in the NT: Rom 7:11; 16:18; II Cor 11:3; II Thess 2:3. Cf. : Eph 5:6; I Tim 2:14; Jas 1:26; : Mt 13:22 par; Eph 4:22; Col 2:8; II Thess 2:10; Hab 3:13; II Pet 2:13. On  see on 10:24. 724   Cf. R & P, 69f.; Jas 1:26. 725   Cf. 1:27f.; 5:7, 10, 13; 6:4, 12, 14; 7:4; 14:36; 16:11; R & P, 69. 726   Cf. 6:9, 15:33; Gal 6:7; II Tim 3:13; Tit 3:3; : Rom 1:27; Eph 4:14; I Thess 2:3; II Thess 2:11. 727   See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and I Corinthians’, AE I, ### [61-64]. 728   So, Conzelmann, 79f. = GT: 98f. 722 723



III

159

particular individual, he qualifies their certainties with the use of ‘suppose’ ()729 and identifies their wisdom as ‘in this age’, i.e. as human wisdom. Some, distinguishing the phrase ‘among you’ ( ) from ‘of you’ (), regard ‘anyone’ () to be an outsider.730 Others, going further, take  (bis) to govern datives of reference and to relate ‘in this age’ not to ‘wise’ () but to ‘foolish’ (). Consequently, they read the texts so: ‘If anyone supposes that he is wise with reference to you (Corinthians), let him become a fool with reference to this age that he may be wise’.731 But this syntax does not fit the context. If the  is related to its earlier usage, it refers to the Corinthians; also, to accord with the Apostle’s earlier argument (2:6), the phrase, ‘in this age’, must go with the term, ‘wise’ (). The imperative mood summarizes and concludes, with an exhortation, the argument of the Apostle’s biblical commentaries (1:18-31; 2:6-16): one must become () a ‘fool’ with regard to and in the estimation of the world’s wisdom in order that (, q.v. @ 1:10) one may become () ‘wise’ with regard to and in the estimation of God’s wisdom.732 It is expressed as a paradox: ‘Become a fool in order to become wise’. The aorists underscore the decisive action, i.e. the decision of will that is required. . The explanatory  introduces a further summary 19.   and the conclusion, looking back to Paul’s earlier argumentation that the wisdom of the world (q.v. @ 1:20, notes 219f.) and the wisdom of God are diametrically opposite.  . This IF (q.v. @ 1:19) inserts Job 5:13 MT and Ps 93 LXX.

  The term is used similarly at 8:2; 10:12; 14:27. Cf. Gal 6:3; Jas 1:26.   E.g. Edwards, 87. 731   Cf. Cyprian, Testimoniorum 3, 69 (= MPL 4, 800f.); Origen, ct. Celsus 1, 13 (ANF IV, 401f.); Luther’s NT translation. See R & P, 70; cf. Godet, I, 196; Kovacs, 66f. (Origen, Homilies). 732   Similarly, in a situation at Colossae (cf. Col 2:8) Paul expresses the hope ‘that their hearts [may be knit] together in love…unto a knowledge of the mystery of God, i.e. Christ, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden’ (Col 2:2f.). 729 730

160

1 CORINTHIANS

        (Job 5:13) = ‘he who catches the wise in their craftiness’. The subject of the substantive participle is God (3:19), immediately preceding the IF.  (‘to seize’, ‘to grasp with the fist’) is a NT hapax and a good Greek rendering of ‫‘( לכד‬catch’, Job 5:13 MT).733 Like the word ‘clever’,  may have a positive (‘subtle’, ‘sensible’)734 or a negative (‘crafty’) connotation. Its five NT appearances, four in Paul’s letters,735 are all negative and suggest ‘cunning’ and ‘deceit’. The quotation here complements the OT text opening the Apostle’s critique of false wisdom (1:19) and calls the reader’s and hearer’s attention back to it. Paul’s rendering of Job 5:13 does not agree with the LXX. Some suppose that he is using a LXX revision or another Greek translation.736 If one wishes to limit Paul to a Greek OT, however, it is more likely, given his known practice of ‘peshering’ his quotations,737 that he altered the LXX text to fit his argument. The MT ‫ערם‬ (‘cunning’, ‘prudence’, Job 5:13) could be rendered by the Greek  or  (Job 5:13 LXX).738 But the LXX  (‘understanding’, ‘intelligence’), standing unqualified, does not have a negative meaning that the context of Job 5 and of Paul’s polemic requires. Furthermore, the pronominal suffix in the MT (‫ערמם‬, ‘their cunning’) is absent from the LXX, but it corresponds to Paul’s quotation (3:19,  ), an element that he could not have gotten from the LXX.739 It is evident that the Apostle and former Pharisaic rabbi Paul knew and used the biblical Hebrew text740 and very probable that he did so here.   Cf. Ecclus 26:7; 31 (34):2 LXX; Job 5:13 MT.   E.g. the LXX of Prov 1:4; 8:5. 735   Lk 20:23; II Cor 4:2; 11:3; Eph 4:14. 736   E.g. Schrage, I, 311; Koch (note 190), 71f., following B. Schaller, ‘Zum Textcharakter der Hiobzitate im paulinische Schriftum’, ZNTW 71 (1980), 21-26; Weiss, 87f. 737   See above on 2:9, note 461. 738   Cf. H. Niehr, ‘‫’ע ַרם‬, ָ TDOT 11 (2001), 361-366; Stanley (note 190), 189-194. 739   But see Michel (note 190), 55-68: ‘It is self-evident that [Paul] was able to read the Hebrew original of his Bible, but he lived and worked only with his Greek Bible’ (68). 740   II Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4ff.; Acts 22:3. See above, ‘Introduction’; ‘Special Note on Paul and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric’, ###-###, ###-###. Cf. Thiselton, 323: I Cor 3:19 and a few other quotations ‘imply Paul’s familiarity with, and use of, the Hebrew text’. 733 734



III

161

20.   = ‘and again’. This conjunction is occasionally used in the NT to join successive biblical citations,741 a few times to join sayings of Jesus and others.742 Sometimes  is used alone.743         .  The concluding sentence of Paul’s profound, extensive and complex commentary on false and true wisdom is a citation of Ps 94:11 = 93:11 LXX. It cites the LXX verbatim except for changing the LXX’s       (‘of the wise’), clearly Paul’s pesher744 to interpret and fit the OT quotation to his theme. As in Ps 94:11, the  = MT: ‫ מחשבות‬here refer to inward ‘thoughts’, ‘reasonings’, or ‘imaginations’ innate to fallen man.745 But they may in the NT also refer to ‘dialectics’, ‘disputations’, or ‘machinations’.746 D. Conclusion (3:21–4:21) Therefore, let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come. All are yours, 23and you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s. 4:1Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2In this respect it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3And it is of least concern to me that I should be examined by you or by any human Day of court. No, I do not even judge myself. 4I know nothing against myself, but I am not justified by this. The one who judges me is the Lord. 5Therefore, judge nothing before the proper time, that is, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest 21 22

741   Rom 15:10, 11, 12; Heb 1:5f.; 2:13; 4:5; 10:30; cf. Jn 16:16, 17, 19. Cf. H. H. D. Williams III, ‘The Psalms in 1 and 2 Corinthians’, The Psalms in the New Testament, edd. S. Moyise et al., London 2004, 165. 742   Mt 26:72; Mk 12:4; Lk 13:20. 743   Mt 5:33; 13:45, 47; 18:19; cf. Jn 12:39. 744   So, Kümmel, 172. See above, note 461, on 2:9. 745   So, Thiselton, Lightfoot. The term occurs only here in this letter. But see Rom 1:21; Phil 2:14; Jas 2:4; cf. Mt 15:19 par; Mk 2:6, 8 par; Lk 2:35; 6:8; 9:47; 24:38. Further, 1QpHab 3:5: ‘The Gentiles, all their thoughts are premeditated to do evil…’; 1QS 5:4f.; 1QH 12:12ff. = 4:12 ff.; 1QM 13:4; Gen 6:5f.; 8:21; K. Seybold, ‘‫’ח ַשׁב‬, ָ TDOT 5 (1986), 238; J. E. Hartley, ‘‫’חשׁב‬, NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 310. 746   E.g. Rom 14:1; I Tim 2:8; Lk 9:46 par; cf. Mt 16:7f. par; 21:25 par.

162

1 CORINTHIANS the intentions of hearts. Then, indeed, there may be praise from God for each one. 6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your sake in order that you might learn by us not to go beyond what is written, so that one not be puffed up on behalf of one against another. 7For who differentiates you? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? And if, then, you received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 8Already you are filled, already rich; without us you have reigned! Would indeed that you had reigned so that we might have reigned with you. 9For I think God displayed us apostles as last, that is, as those condemned to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are ‘wise’ in Christ; we are weak, but you are ‘strong’; you are honored, but we dishonored. 11To the present hour we hunger and thirst and are ill-clothed and beaten and are without a home. 12And we toil, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; 13being slandered, we entreat. We have become as filth in the world, as the off-scouring of all things until now. 14 I write these things not to shame you but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15For if you should have countless tutors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers. For I begot you in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16I urge you, therefore that you become imitators of me. 17For this reason I sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord and who will remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church. 18Now, some of you are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. 19But if the Lord wills, I shall come to you shortly and am going to discover not the talk of those who are puffed up but their power. 20For the kingdom of God consists not in talk but in power. 21What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness?

Textual Notes 2.  (B y M latt sy co). Instead of this third person present passive (‘it is required’) some important mss (p46 ‫ )*(א‬A C D 33 1739) have the present active imperative,  (so, Weiss, 95). But  best fits the context (Conzelmann, 83 = GT: 102; Lietzmann, 18; cf. BDAG, 428 §4). 11.  = ‘ill-clothed’, a NT hapax. Important mss (p46 33 1739 M) have a variant spelling, .



III

163

13.   = ‘being slandered’, a NT hapax in mss p46 ‫ *א‬A C 33. Others (p68 ‫א‬2 B D F G y 1739 M) have , a more common Pauline (10:30; Rom 3:8) and NT (Mt 9:3 T + Q; 27:39 par; I Pet 4:4; II Pet 2:2) term, which is probably the original reading. 14. [] = ‘admonishing’ (p11vid ‫ א‬A C 33 1739), i.e. the participle (so, Thiselton, 368; Fee, 182n). But important mss (p46 B D F G y M latt) have the first person indicative, , which is more emphatic (Edwards, 114; cf. Barrett, 113n) vis-à-vis the preceding  = ‘shaming’.  A number of mss have   (e.g. p11vid ‫ *א‬A 33), but 17. . the  ‘may have arisen accidentally through dittography’ (Metzger1, 550, 549f.).  [ ]. Among the variants are ‘in the Lord Jesus’ (D* F G boms), ‘Christ’ (e.g. A B D2 y M vgst syp), and ‘Christ Jesus’ (e.g. p46 ‫ א‬C D1 33 1739). NA brackets ‘Jesus’ as probably original but with ‘a considerable degree of doubt’ (cf. Metzger1, xxviii).

Structure The section 3:21–4:21, introduced by the conjunction  , may be conveniently divided into the opening theme (3:21ff.) and the true role and lifestyle of apostles of Christ (4:1-5), which is contrasted with the behavior of the Corinthians (4:6-13) and is expressed in Paul’s call for them to imitate him (4:14-17) and his warning of the consequences if they do not (4:18-21). Commentary Summary The first division of the letter, ‘true and false wisdom’ (1:10–4:21), consists of an introduction (1:10-17), two biblical commentaries and applications (1:18–2:5; 2:6–3:19a), final biblical texts (3:19f.), and this concluding application (3:21–4:21) of the whole. The conclusion opens with a return to the introductory and subsequent critique of the Corinthians’ boasting in men, i.e. about which apostle baptized them (3:21ff.; cf. 1:10-17, 29; 3:4-7), and with advice concerning the true role of the apostles of Christ and their accountability, not to any human forum but only to the Lord (4:1ff.; cf. 2:10-13; 3:5-9). It proceeds to contrast the triumphal attitudes and honored reception of some Corinthians’ worldly wisdom with the cruciform ministry and rejected status of Christ’s’ apostles (4:8-13; cf. 1:22). Paul makes these comments as an admonition from one who is

164

1 CORINTHIANS

their father in the faith and on whom they rightfully should model their attitudes and conduct (4:14-17). If they do not, he warns, he will come and, in accord with his apostolic authority given him by Christ, apply to them a severe discipline (4:18-21). Exegesis  The conjunction  21.     . ( + ; q.v. @ 1:7) ‘is ordinarily used in this epistle to announce the practical conclusion to be drawn from a foregoing statement of doctrine’.747 Here, it has the force of  = ‘therefore’,748 expressing the result of Paul’s argument and serving to introduce the whole concluding application (3:21–4:21) of the first division of the letter (1:10–4:21). The imperative, ‘Let no one boast in men’, alludes to the conclusion (1:29, 31, q.v.) of the initial biblical commentary (1:18-31). 21b-23.    = ‘for all things are yours’, including ‘Paul or Apollos or Cephas etc.’. This inverts and replaces the Corinthians’ slogans, ‘I belong to Paul…Apollos…Cephas [= Peter]’ (1:12), and goes on to include ‘world’,749 ‘life’, ‘death’,750 ‘things present’, ‘things to come’, i.e. ‘all things’.751 The repetition of the  underscores the comprehensive character of the inheritance in store for Christ’s chosen ones. The listing is similar to that of Rom 8:32, 38f. Since biblical Hebrew has no expression for ‘universe’ or ‘cosmos’ and uses the term ‫‘ = כל‬all’ for the whole creation,752  here and elsewhere in Paul probably reflects that Hebrew usage.

  Godet, I, 198. Cf. 7:38; 10:12; 11:33; 14:22, 39; 15:58; II Cor 5:16; Phil 2:12; 4:1; I Thess 4:18; I Pet 4:19. 748   Cf. Robertson, 999; BDF, 197 §391, 2; Moule, 144. See below on 4:16. 749   I.e. in terms of the destined redemption of the present creation. E.g. Rom 4:13; 8:22-25; cf. Jn 4:42; 12:47; Jas 2:5; II Pet 3:6f., 13 (cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22); Rev 11:15. See above on 1:20, notes 219f. 750   I.e. with reference to Christ’s conquest of it: 15:25f. Cf. Rom 8:38f.; 14:8; cf. 8:28, 32. 751   Cf. 15:27f.; Rom 8:28, 32; Eph 1:22f. 752   E.g. Gen 1:31; Isa 44:24; 45:7; Jer 10:16. Cf. Barth and Blanke (note 171), 199. 747



III

165

23.   . On the various uses of  cf. Denniston (note 54), 162-189; see above, note 54. Here the particle may have a somewhat adversative force, ‘but you are Christ’s’, reminding the Corinthians that, unlike the Stoic’s concept that ‘the wise man… has all things’ in himself,753 the Christian inheritance is given (1) in a particular sphere, i.e. ‘in Christ’754 (q.v. @ 1:2) and is, as such, (2) as a corporate reality that is to be individually actualized in the future, i.e. at Christ’s parousia.755     = ‘and Christ is God’s’. One of a number of Pauline texts indicating the subordination of Christ756 or of the Son757 to God the Father. It should be read in connection with other passages indicating the equality of Christ758 or of the Son759 with God the Father. How is one to understand and to reconcile these two different perspectives?760 The subordination of the Son to the Father is hardly to be limited to his human nature761 since Paul applies it to the pre-existent Son.762 The reconciliation of these two different perspectives may be found in the distinction between Christ’s or the Son’s (1) divine nature and (2) his role, as both are reflected in the various texts. As to divine nature, Christ or the Son is considered to be equal   E.g. Seneca, ‘On Benefits’, Moral Essays 7, 3, 2; cf. 7, 4, 1.   Cf. II Cor 5:17f.; Eph 1:22. Similar, Philo, de vita Mosis I, 156f.: ‘God possesses all things…; while the good man, though he possesses nothing…, not even himself, partakes of the precious things of God…’ (I, 157, Loeb). 755   See below on 15:23-28. 756   E.g. 8:6; 11:3; 15:23f. 757   15:27f. (, 28). 758   E.g. Rom 9:5; II Cor 3:14-18; 4:4ff.; Col 1:15ff.; 2:9 (II Thess 1:12); Tit 2:13. Cf. Mt 11:27 Q; Jn 1:1 with 1:14, 17f.; II Pet 1:1. Cf. Cranfield (note 130) II, 464-470; Michel (note 25), 296ff.; Barnett (note 309), 198ff.; P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1962, 110-121; but see Thrall (note 20), I, 278-282; Capes (note 351), 155ff.; Barth and Blanke (note 171), 203ff., 311-315; Lohse (note 171), 52, 99f.; Lightfoot (note 171), 181f.; E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, London 1972, 272f.; J. E. Frame, Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Edinburgh 1912, 242. 759   Cf. Jn 1:1 with 1:14; Heb 1:1-3, 8. 760   Some NT texts may refer to the self-limitation of certain of Christ’s (or the Son’s) divine attributes during his pre-resurrection earthly life and ministry, e.g. Phil 2:7f. ( ); Mt 24:36 par. But that is a different question. 761   Pace Calvin, 83. Cf. e.g. Phil 2:9; Jn 20:17. 762   Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4. 753 754

166

1 CORINTHIANS

with God the Father, i.e. as an identity-cum-distinction, understood apparently from ancient Israel’s perception of God = Yahweh as a unity in plurality.763 As to role, both within the Godhead764 and in the history of salvation,765 he is viewed as subordinate to the Father. 4:1f.           .  = ‘us’ refers to the apostles Paul, Apollos766 and Cephas (3:22).  = ‘so’, ‘thus’, the adverb of , may refer to the preceding references to their ministries767 or, more likely, to the following  = ‘as’.768 Paul continues to develop the metaphor of the church as God’s ‘building’ or ‘temple’769 and the apostles’ relationship to it. At 3:5 he expresses his and Apollos’ role as it relates to Christians, i.e. as ‘ministers’ (),770 and at 3:9 (q.v.) as it relates to God, i.e. as ‘co-workers’ (). Here, he expands on the latter relationship: The apostles are Christ’s ‘servants’ or ‘assistants’ (),771 a Pauline hapax, and ‘stewards’ () to receive, administer and mediate God’s mysteries (q.v. @ 2:1, 7, 10, 16) in God’s ‘building’ or ‘temple’, i.e. in his church (1:2; 3:9, 16). The  with his sole responsibility to Christ agrees with the roughly contemporary Greek772 and Hellenistic Jewish773 usage.   See above, note 273; Johnson (note 691).   This is not Paul’s term, but it is reflected in the quasi-trinitarian conceptions in a number of Pauline texts; e.g. 12:4ff.; II Cor 13:13 (14); cf. 3:16ff.; 4:6; Barnett (note 309), 195-202. 765   See above, notes 756, 757, 762. But see W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh 21906, 389: ‘The Father and the Son were in [Paul’s] mind so united in function that They may often be interchanged’. 766   On Apollos as ‘apostle of Jesus Christ’ see below on 4:9. 767   E.g. 3:5-9, 22; so, Garland, 125; Schrage, 318; Fee, 158f. 768   So, e.g. Wolff, 79. 769   Q.v. @ 3:9; 3:16. 770   Cf. K. H. Rengstorf, ‘’, TDNT 8 (1972), 533: ‘In…the  the accent is on the objective advantage his service brings to the one to whom it is rendered…’ 771   Idem, 530-544 (541ff.): in Greek usage the  ‘stands and acts in the service of a higher will and is fully at the disposal of this will’ (531). At 4:1 ‘…comes close to ’ (542). 772   E.g. ‘the philosopher as Zeus’ ’ (idem, 531n); cf. Epictetus, Diss. 3, 22, 82. Cf. BDAG, 1035; LSJ, 1872. 773   E.g. Philo, de mut. nom. 87: ‘an angel, the  of God’; Josephus, Ant. 3, 16: Moses is God’s  who directs the Israelites at God’s command. 763 764



III

167

Elsewhere in the NT the word is used of Christ’s commission to Paul,774 of those composing and transmitting Gospel traditions,775 of Mark’s assistantship to Paul and Barnabas,776 and of various other servants and officials responsible to a superior.777 Equally, the ‘steward’ () is responsible only to the owner, i.e. the householder whom he serves; in this case it is Christ,778 to whom the apostles must be faithful (, 4:2).779 For Paul the term was probably theologically rooted in Jesus’ parables780 and in the OT.781 Since it was well known to the Corinthians as the title for a civic official responsible (only) to the Roman proconsul,782 it serves well here to introduce and to explain Paul’s following comment. 3.             .  The neuter adjective , the superlative of  = ‘small’, means ‘the smallest degree’.783 The preceding  = ‘unto’, changing the idiom from a neuter predicate   Acts 26:16 ESV: ‘to appoint you as a minister () and witness…’   Luke 1:2. 776   Acts 13:5. 777   E.g. Mt 26:58 par; Lk 4:20; Jn 7:32; Acts 5:22, 26. 778   Paul also uses  for the ‘bishop’ = ‘elder’. Cf. Tit 1:7 with 1:5; I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, Edinburgh 1999, 160f.; J. B. Lightfoot, ‘The Christian Ministry’, Epistle to the Philippians, Peabody MA 1993 (41885), 181-269, 195-201; I Pet 4:10 employs it for all gifted Christians. Cf. J. Goetzmann, ‘ ’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 255; O. Michel, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 149ff.: ‘The steward is entrusted with the treasures of the Gospel; he has knowledge of God’s plan of salvation’ (150). See below on 9:25, note 434. 779   Cf. 4:17; 7:25. Otherwise in this letter  refers to God’s faithfulness (1:9; 10:13). But see Eph 1:1; 6:21; Col 1:2, 7; 4:7, 9; I Tim 3:11; 4:10, 12; II Tim 2:2; cf. Lk 15:10ff. On the explanatory  see above on 1:10. 780   Lk 12:42f., 45f. Q; 16:1-9; cf. Mt 24:45ff., where the ‘steward’ is equivalent to the slave (); cf. Michel (note 778), 150. Paul received knowledge of Jesus’ earthly teachings in (among other ways) his visit with Peter (Gal 1:18) where they hardly spent two weeks talking about the weather (cf. Kilpatrick in Ellis, Making, 35n). 781   Where the steward is the ‘son of the house’ (‫בן־בית‬, Gen 15:3; Eccl 2:7), i.e. a head slave born in the house and sometimes the heir. Cf. Billerbeck II, 192; II, 217f.; Lk 12:42; 16:1-9; Test. Joseph 12:2f. (OTP I, 822). 782   E.g. Erastus,  (‘accountant’? ‘treasurer’?) of Corinth (Rom 16:23). Cf. Cranfield (note 130), II, 897f.; H. J. Cadbury, ‘Erastus of Corinth’, JBL 50 (1931), 42-58. 783   Cf. Moulton, III, 31, 139; O. Michel, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 656f. 774 775

168

1 CORINTHIANS

nominative to an accusative, represents the Hebrew ‫‘( ל‬lahmed’) and reflects a Semitic influence.784 Because Paul is God’s assistant and the steward and mediator of God’s mysteries, i.e. of his redemptive purposes and plans, he is responsible only to God. He could not care less that ()785 he should be examined or evaluated (cf. on  @ 2:14)786 ‘by you’ or ‘by any human Day’, i.e. a day of court in which verdicts are brought and judgments pronounced. Human judgments stand in insignificant contrast to God’s judgment Day (, q.v. @ 3:13). Paul is aware, probably from oral reports787 or from their letter to him,788 that some Corinthians are subjecting him to their judgments; this becomes apparent at 9:1-3. His pointed words here are in part a response to that kind of talk in his congregations at Corinth.789     = ‘No, I do not even judge myself’. Probably the  expresses the strong contrast ‘between the passively expressed statement in the foregoing clause and the actively expressed statement in the present clause’.790 The stress on ‘not even myself’ shows that for Christ’s ministers self-evaluation is to be subordinated to faithfulness (4:2) because it can be egocentric, producing either pride or, on the other hand, discouragement. But it is not totally ignored791 as the following verses show.  4.         . , a perfect tense with a present meaning,792 is a Pauline hapax. It refers to ‘shared knowledge’ with another or, here in a reflexive (), with one’s self: ‘I know nothing against   BDF, 80 §145, 201 §393 (6); Zerwick, 10f.   I.e. explanatory ‘in this respect’ or, in place of the infinitive, ‘to be judged by you’ (Zerwick, 139). See above on 1:10. 786   Aorist subjunctive passive: ‘that I be judged’. 787   Cf. 1:11; 16:17. 788   See on 7:1; cf. 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12. 789   Cf. C. J. Roetzel, Judgement in the Community, Leiden 1972, 114f. 790   Ellicott, 87. On  see above on 3:2; below on 5:1; 11:14; Gal 2:3. 791   E.g. Rom 15:17-21, qualified by the phrases, ‘in Christ Jesus’ (15:17) and ‘what Christ wrought through me’ (15:18 ASV; cf. RSV). 792   I.e. ; LSJ, 1704, 1720f.; elsewhere in the NT only at Acts 5:2 (14:6). See above on  @ 2:11, note 483. 784 785



III

169

myself’.793 It may shade into having ‘incriminating knowledge’ or ‘exonerating knowledge’ and take on the implications of (one meaning of) its cognate  (‘conscience’), i.e. ‘I have a clear conscience’.794 But in this context it is merely a matter of Paul’s self-awareness795 or perhaps a hypothetical case in which Paul ‘is saying in the first person, what would apply equally to anyone else’.796 The verb  (‘made righteous’, ‘counted righteous’),797 found only here and at 6:11 in this letter, involves important theological issues in Galatians798 and Romans.799 Some argue that it here ‘is used in a general sense, not in its technical theological sense’.800 But given (1) Paul’s earlier conflict at Antioch and the subsequent Jerusalem Council (c. AD 49–50), (2) his earlier letter to Galatians (c. AD 49) and his later letter to the Romans (c. AD 58), written from Corinth—all of which address the issue of how one is justified, i.e. counted or made righteous—it is almost certain that he included this issue in his 18-month teaching mission at Corinth.801 If so, the word here also has theological connotations. It is God’s verdict of acquittal, his ‘counting righteous’ and thus conferring now a status of individual righteousness () on those who through faith exist corporately in Christ.802 That is, it 793   See below on 8:7-12; 10:25-29; this term also may mean only ‘awareness’, ‘consciousness’; cf. BDAG, 967f.; LSJ, 1704. 794   Cf. Conzelmann, 83, note 18 = GT: 103: ‘, “I am conscious,” contains an allusion to the tribunal of the , “conscience,” see 8:7ff.;…’ 795   Pace the paraphrases of the NEB, NIV; Thiselton, 340; Schrage, I, 324. 796   R & P, 77. 797   First person singular perfect passive (‘stand justified’) of . 798   Gal 2:11-16; 3:6-12, 24; 5:1-6; cf. Ellis, Making, 96, 103. 799   Rom 3:20-26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5-8; 5:1, 9; 8:30; cf. Cranfield (note 130), 93-99, 95. 800   R & P, 77. 801   See above, notes 798, 799; cf. Acts 15:1-29; Ellis, Making, 255-260, 374n; idem, Interpreters, 15ff. Cf. Acts 20:27. 802   Cf. Meyer, 89f. While Protestant vis-à-vis Roman Catholic theologians distinguish justification (‘conferring a present individual status of holiness’) from sanctification (‘creating a future individual reality of holiness’), sanctification is implicated in justification. This is evident at Rom 3:21-26, stipulating four aspects of God’s action of justification. One is justified by grace (24), through faith (22), apart from law (21), and in Christ (24). Cf. Rom 8:1, 30. All components of salvation—‘righteousness’, ‘holiness’, ‘redemption’ (q.v. @ 1:30)—are in the present corporately existent for all those ‘in Christ’ (q.v. @ 1:2) and are

170

1 CORINTHIANS

is justification via incorporation (Rom 8:1:  ), counting us righteous individually by making us righteous corporately. As the organic church (3:16) and each individual in the organic church (6:19) is the corporate temple of God and the corporate body of Christ803 and exists corporately in Christ (q.v. @ 1:2, note 135), so in this sphere each elect believer stands corporately righteous and holy and is destined to actualize individually that righteousness and holiness at Christ’s coming and judgment.804 Paul notes here that one is not justified by unawareness of one’s wrongdoing (ignorance is not innocence, Barrett, 102) but, as the following sentence shows, wholly by God’s grace mediated through faith. Cf. Rom 3:24.       = ‘The one who judges me is the Lord’. On  see above on 2:14, notes 528-530.  refers, as usual in Paul, to Christ (4:1), before whose judgment seat all will stand at the last Day of this age. 5.           .  The conjunction,  = ‘so’, ‘therefore’ (q.v. @ 1:7; 3:21), introduces the conclusion or result of the foregoing argument. On  as Christ see notes 805f.  signifies ‘the season’, ‘the proper time’, ‘a point of time that has a special place in the execution to be individually actualized at Christ’s parousia. The ‘justified’ status and its implications are individually existent for each from one’s regeneration. Further, cf. A. E. McGrath, ‘Justification’; S. E. Porter, ‘Holiness, Sanctification’, DPL 517-523, 397-402; ‘Justification’, ODCC, 914f.; C. Brown, ‘Righteousness, Justification’, NIDNTT III, 352-377; B. Johnson, ‘‫’צ ֶדק‬, ֶ TDOT 12 (2003), 243-264. 803   See above on 3:9, note 619; on 1:30, notes 312, 318; on 3:16, note 691; ‘Special Note on the Eschatological Temple’, ###-###. 804   I Thess 2:19; 3:13; 5:23; II Thess 2:1, 8; Rom 14:10ff.; II Cor 5:10. Cf. Heb 9:27; II Pet 3:12. 805   Q.v. @ 1:2, notes 87-89; 1:31, notes 349-351; 7:39, note 682. 806   Cf. 1:8 (q.v.); Rom 14:10 ‫א‬c C2 y 33 M sy; II Cor 5:10; Eph 6:10; II Thess 1:7f.; 2:8; II Tim 4:1, 8; Mt 16:24-28, 27 T + Q; 25:31-46; Acts 10:42 with I Pet 4:5; Jas 5:7ff.; Jude 14. On God the Father as the final judge cf. Rom 2:16; 3:6; 14:10 ‫ *א‬A B C* D 1739 lat co; Heb 10:30. See above, note 764. 807   7:5, 29. Cf. Rom 5:6; 8:18; 11:5; 13:11; II Cor 6:2; Gal 6:9f.; Eph 1:10; Col 4:5; I Thess 5:1; II Thess 2:6; I Tim 6:15; II Tim 3:1; 1QM 1:5; G. Delling, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 459-462; idem, ‘’, TDNT 9 (1974), 581-593, 591ff.; S. Talmon, ‘‫’קץ‬, TDOT 13 (2004), 82-86; T. Kronholm, ‘‫’עת‬, TDOT 11 (2001), 434-451, 446-451.



III

171

of God’s plan of salvation’. Re judging (, q.v. @ 2:14) anything, e.g. another’s state of grace or ministry in Christ, it is to be done when ‘the Lord comes’. To do so now is ‘before the proper time’ (1) because it is a human judgment and prone to error, (2) because it may intrude upon a prerogative that belongs only to Christ809 and may preempt his appointed judgment-time and (3) because such judgments, if wrong, may themselves bring a judgment from Christ.810 This warning is particularly appropriate for the puffed-up Corinthians because they are not spiritually qualified to make such judgments.811 Of course, Paul812 and the pneumatics generally,813 who spiritually discern (, q.v. @ 2:14f.) all kinds of things, may rightly judge a variety of matters. But although they speak prophetically, they also judge in partial measure,814 and they too must take care that their judgments are ‘in the Spirit’815 lest they too become subject to this warning.              = ‘[Christ], who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the intentions of hearts’. Structured in a synonymous parallelism reminiscent of OT poetry,816 the motif is that God or Christ will, either at the last judgment,817 as here, or in the present proclamation of the gospel,818 bring to light secret sins (    )819 and   Cullmann (note 209), 37-44 (39); cf. Thiselton, 342f.   See above, note 806. Further, R. Schultz, ‘‫’שׁפט‬, NIDOTTE 4 (1997), 216-220. 810   Cf. Mt 7:1 Q. 811   3:1-3 (q.v.). 812   E.g. 3:1-3; 5:3ff.; Phil 3:18f.; I Tim 1:20. 813   14:29. See above on 2:15. 814   See below on 13:9. 815   E.g. 5:3ff.; Rom 9:1; cf. Acts 5:9; 13:9ff. 816   Cf. T. Longman III, ‘Literature, Interpretation and Theology’, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 120. 817   Cf. Rom 2:16; II Cor 5:10. 818   Rom 16:25ff.; II Cor 2:14ff. (); Eph 5:12ff. 819    appears only here in this letter. On its use for salvation through the gospel proclamation cf. Eph 1:18; 3:9; II Tim 1:10; Heb 10:32. In the OT, the DSS and other intertestamental literature ‘darkness’ ( / ‫ )חשך‬is also associated with evil and with God’s judgment. Cf. Isa 5:20; Ezek 8:12; Job 808 809

172

1 CORINTHIANS

thereby will reveal, i.e. make manifest ()820 the intentions of hearts (q.v. @ 2:9, note 465; @ 7:37, note 664),821 either to effect salvation822 or to justify divine judgment.823 The motif is thoroughly Jewish824 and indeed dominical.825 It is basic to the structure of the history of salvation and the history of judgment,826 perhaps a part or summary of preformed material common to Paul’s habitual teaching.827  = ‘then’, i.e. at Christ’s judgment seat, before which ‘we all must appear’,828 where ‘there may be praise (  )829 for each from God’;830 Paul emphasizes the positive expectation. ‘The judgment of Christ is the judgment of God.’831 15:20-23; 18:5f.; 20:26-29; Isa 47:5; Jer 13:16; Amos 5:18; 1QS 1:9ff.; 2:7; 3:21; 1QM 1:1; Ps. Sol. 14:9. Cf. H. Conzelmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 7 (1971/1964), 423-445; L. A. Mitchel et al., ‘‫’חשׁך‬, TDOT 5 (1986), 245-259. 820   Paul uses  and  synonymously. Cf. Rom 1:17 with 3:21; 16:25 with 16:26 (cf. D. J. Moo, Romans, Grand Rapids 1996, 937n: Rom 16 is the ‘original letter’); Eph 3:4f. with Col 1:26. The Pastorals, i.e. probably Paul’s secretary, have a fondness for the compound synonyms  / ; cf. Ellis, Making, 282ff., 418-425. Further, Trench, ‘, , ’, 353-357. Cf. Tit 2:11; 3:4; I Tim 6:14; II Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Tit 2:13 (Eph 5:14; II Thess 2:8). 821   I.e. of the inward man who is the true man, either for good (Rom 2:29; 6:17; 10:9; I Pet 5:3) or for evil (Rom 1:21, 24; 2:5; Eph 4:18). Cf. II Cor 3:14ff.; below, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-###. 822   14:25; see above, note 817. 823   Cf. Rom 1:32–2:1, 16; II Cor 2:14ff.; Cullmann (note 210), 123: ‘to a great extent the history of salvation is the history of disaster (Unheil). …[T]he proclamation of salvation is…taken up without the preaching of judgment disappearing’. 824   E.g. as seen in the NT use of Abraham and David (Rom 4:3, 6f.) and of the Exodus, the Flood, and Sodom (10:1-13; Mt 24:37ff. Q; Lk 17:28ff.; II Pet 2:5f.; 3:5ff.; Jude 7; cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 105-109; idem, Paul’s Use, 114-139) as types, respectively, of eschatological salvation and judgment. 825   Cf. Mt 8:11; Lk 13:27ff.; see above, note 824. 826   See above, notes 819, 821-824. 827   Cf. Acts 20:27. 828   II Cor 5:10; cf. Rom 14:10ff. 829   Lit.: ‘the praise may be’. Probably under Semitic influence, the future indicative () is used modally and, like the present subjunctive, ‘connotes only what may be…’ (Zerwick, 94) 830   Mt 25:23; Lk 19:17; I Pet 1:7; Sirach 51:30; 1QS 3:15. See above on 3:8 (). 831   Parry, 76. Cf. 3:23; see above, note 765.



III

173

6.    ‘Brothers’ here means ‘fellow Christians’ (cf. 1:1). The phrase ‘these things’ refers to the preceding biblical arguments, i.e. the OT commentaries = midrashim (1:18-31; 2:6-16; 3:19f.), as becomes apparent from the following clause, ‘what things are written’. .  The term is found five times in the NT, all Pauline, and once in the LXX.832 Derived from  = ‘outward form’, it signifies ‘to cause to change the form of’833 with connotations of ‘to transform’ (Phil 3:21),834 ‘to disguise’ (II Cor 11:13ff.),835 and, as here, ‘to transfer’ or ‘to apply’ (4:6).836 Commentators differ, however, as to whether the transfer or application to Paul and Apollos is a ‘covert allusion’ to the wrangling and arrogant Corinthians re wrong attitudes and conduct to avoid837 or, more likely, is an exemplary pattern to be emulated.838 This appears evident from the following phrases, ‘for your sake’ or ‘on account of you’ ( ) and ‘in order that (, q.v. @ 1:10) you may learn in us’.839      = ‘not to go beyond what is written’. The article  has a ‘bracket’ force in which the following clause is viewed as a unit. The clause posed questions for some scribes as the variants in the mss, though an insignificant minority, show.840 It possibly involves an ellipsis841 but, more likely, it reflects the

  II Cor 11:13ff.; Phil 3:21; IV Macc 9:22. Cf. H & R2, 917.   On the causal connotation of  verbs see above on 1:2, note 73. 834   Cf. ND 3 (1983), 76. 835   Cf. Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 9, 2, 65: a class of figure ‘to indicate that our meaning is other than our words would seem to imply…a hidden meaning which is left for the hearer to discover’. 836   BDAG, 641f.; cf. the discussion of Thiselton, 348-351; J. Schneider, ‘ ’, TDNT 7 (1971/1964), 954-958. 837   E.g. Chrysostom, in loc. = MPG, 61, 95ff. = NPNF1 XII, 64; R & P, 80f.; cf. D. R. Hall, ‘A Disguise for the Wise:  in 1 Corinthians 4.6’, NTS 40 (1994), 143-149. 838   Referring esp. to 3:5-15; 4:1-5. Cf. Schneider (note 836), 958. 839   ‘In us’ means ‘because of us’, ‘by reason of us’, a Semitic usage, with the  reflecting the influence of the Hebrew ‫ב‬. Cf. Moulton, II, 463. 840   Cf. NA, in loc. 841   E.g. ‘the saying, “not to go beyond” ’. Cf. BDF, 255 §481. 832 833

174

1 CORINTHIANS

particular use of the article to introduce a quotation or a maxim known to Paul’s recipients.842 ‘What things () stand written’ = the canonical Scriptures, which for Paul are the inspired standard for Christian belief and conduct.843 But what Scriptures are in view? Some modern commentators844 have found the clause ‘unintelligible’. The recognition of the literary form of 1:10–4:21 as a complex biblical commentary, however, provides the answer: the Scriptures are those which Paul has expounded and applied to the Corinthians throughout the section and is now making a concluding application to them.  … = ‘so that you not be puffed up’.845 This second  (q.v. @ 1:10) clause in 4:6c points to the result that will follow if the Corinthians do indeed ‘learn’ (4:6b) from the transfer or application of the biblical exposition to Paul and Apollos (4:6a).846 The first  clause (4:6b) expresses the purpose for which that application was made. The subjunctive  in the  clause would ordinarily be spelled , but ‘the subjunctive of [-] verbs became identical with the indicative, just as it always was in the - verbs’.847  may possibly be indicative. If so, it would emphasize that 842   Cf. Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14b; Robertson, 766; Moulton, III, 182; Moule, 111; Weiss, 102. 843   A. Schlatter, Die korinthische Theologie, Gütersloh 1914, 7ff. The 30 other occurrences of  in the Pauline corpus are always an IF for a biblical quotation. While at 4:6 it is not an IF, it is doubtless a reference to Scripture. Rightly, Thiselton, 354. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church’, Old Testament, 3-50 = Mikra, ed. M. J. Mulder et al., Peabody MA 2004 (1988), 653-690; idem, Sovereignty, 47-79 (48-57) = ‘Perspectives on Biblical Interpretation’, JETS 45 (2002), 473-495 (474-480); idem, Paul’s Use, 22-25, 156-184. 844   E.g. Conzelmann, 86 = GT: 105; cf. Collins, 177: ‘enigmatic’; M. D. Hooker, From Adam to Christ, Cambridge 1990, 106-112, 140. P. Artz-Grabner, ‘1 Cor 4:6—a Scribal Gloss?’, BN 130 (2006), 59-78, in NTAb 51 (2007), 492, suggests a gloss. 845   The word is used in the NT only of the arrogant Corinthians (4:18f.; 5:2; cf. II Cor 12:20: ), especially with reference to their spiritual gift of knowledge (8:1; cf. 12:8) and in contrast with the fruit of the Spirit (13:4), and of the false teachers at Colossae (Col 2:18). See below, ‘Colossians’, AE I, ###. 846   See above, note 839. On Paul’s use elsewhere of double  clauses cf. e.g. Gal 3:14; 4:5 (Tit 2:4f.). 847   Moulton, I, 54; cf. Gal 4:17b; but see Robertson, 202f.



III

175

this is the reality of the situation at Corinth.848 The word signifies to be inflated with prideful self-perception about one’s relationships, e.g. with this or that apostle (1:12; 4:6), about one’s charisms (8:1) or about other attainments or status. It is the internal attitude that gives rise to external boasting.849    …    = ‘one on behalf of one against another’. The connotation of  is not the numeral ‘one’ but, under the influence (via the LXX) of the Hebrew ‫ אחד‬has the force of the indefinite pronoun  = ‘someone’, ‘anyone’.850 The reference, then, is not only to particular individuals851 but also to a general attitude of pride that expresses itself in favoritism toward () one and antagonism against () another. 7.       = ‘Who differentiates you? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? And if, then, you received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?’ The three questions reflect a dialogic style characteristic of Paul’s major letters,852 a style that also appears in the midrashim (biblical commentaries) of Paul’s letters853 and in some of those ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels.854 They highlight three keywords, ‘to    clauses are used with a present indicative (Gal 6:12 p46 A; Tit 2:4 ‫ *א‬A) or with the future indicative tense, often with this force. Cf. Godet, I, 219; Burton, 86 §198. But the negative  favors a subjunctive mood. 849   , q.v. @ 1:29, 31; 3:21. Cf. Jas 3:5 (). 850   E.g. I Thess 5:11; Mt 19:16; Mk 14:10 par; Lk 8:22; 15:15; Jn 13:21. Cf. BDAG, 1007f.; the English pronoun ‘one’ for an indefinitely indicated person. Cf. BDF, 129; Robertson, 671f., 675. 851   E.g. to those favoring Paul and against Apollos or vice versa (1:12). 852   In this letter alone: 1:13; 3:3f., 16; 6:1-9, 15f., 19; 7:16, 18, 21; 8:10; 9:1-12, 18, 24; 10:16-22, 29f.; 11:13ff., 22; 12:15ff., 29f.; 14:6-9, 15f., 23, 26, 36; 15:12, 29-32, 35. However, the style is virtually absent from Thessalonians (I Thess 2:19; 3:9f.; II Thess 2:5), the Prison Epistles (Eph 4:9; Phil 1:19; Col 2:20ff.) and the Pastorals (I Tim 3:5). 853   E.g. 1:20; 2:11, 16; Rom 2:3f., 21ff., 26; 3:1, 3, 5-9, 27, 31; 4:1, 3, 9f.; 9:14, 19-23, 30ff.; 10:8, 14f., 18f.; Gal 3:19, 21; 4:21, 30. These texts are within midrashim. See below, ‘Expository Patterns in I Corinthians and Romans’, AE III, ###-###; cf. Ellis, History, 106f.; idem, Making, 60n, 76, 101ff.; idem, Old Testament, 98f.; idem, Prophecy, 155f.; P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, Leiden 1965, 48-52. 854   E.g. Mt 11:7ff., 16 Q; 12:3ff. T + Q; 12:11; 12:26f. T + Q; 12:29, 34; 15:3; 21:40 T + Q; cf. Mk 3:4 par; Jn (7:19) 8:46; Acts 7:52; 26:8, 19. Cf. Ellis, Making, 160n, 350n; idem, Old Testament, 97n, 98, 136; idem, Prophecy, 158, 251f. 848

176

1 CORINTHIANS

distinguish’ (), ‘to receive’ () and ‘to boast’ (, q.v. @ 1:29, 31; 3:21).  has a variety of senses. In the NT it is used figuratively ‘to make a distinction’, e.g. by perceptive evaluation of oneself or of a matter (11:31; 14:29), by adjudicating (6:5) or disputing a matter (Acts 11:2; Jude 9).855 At 4:7 it signifies ‘to differentiate’ between persons, specifically between the Corinthians and the apostles Paul and Apollos,856 and raises the question, either ‘Who of you has authority to differentiate yourselves’ or ‘Who of you has any grounds to do so?’ The answer is ‘No one, since none of you has anything that he has not received gratis!’  (q.v. @ 2:12) = ‘to receive’ continues the emphasis in the section on the gracious nature of God’s salvation and of one’s participation in that salvation. Instead of recognizing the ‘gift’ character of their charisms, the puffed-up Corinthians boast (q.v. @ 1:29) about them as their own rightful possessions. The clause,     (‘if you then received it’), is a first class condition, i.e. assumed to be true, and the   accentuates the antithesis between  and the aorist concessive participial clause,    (‘as though not receiving’).857 8.         = ‘already you are filled, already “rich”; without us you have “reigned” ’. Re the three verbs, it is probably best to take the first periphrastic as a completed process (‘you have become filled’ or ‘satiated’) and the two subsequent verbs as constative aorists.858 This self-satisfied, indulgent and triumphal attitude and behavior of (some of) the Corinthians are viewed by Paul in the context of and consonant with their boasting (4:7) and in contrast with the cruciform attitude, lifestyle and treatment of the apostles (4:9-13).

855   Cf. BDAG, 231, which also cites ‘to differ with one’s self’ or ‘to doubt’ (Rom 4:20; Acts 10:20). 856   Rightly, Edwards, 104f. 857   Robertson, 1129f.; cf. Lietzmann, 19; Conzelmann, 86f. = GT: 105f. 858   Cf. Robertson, 831f. Otherwise: Fanning, 262, 394.



III

177

The perfect passive periphrastic participle of , i.e. the present tense of  + , ‘[focuses] on a [stative] condition with an implication of the occurrence which produced it…’859 The Corinthians ‘have eaten their fill’ of spiritual things and are complacent. Not of concern to them are any ‘thirst for righteousness’ or a ‘poverty in spirit’ (Mt 5:6, 3)860 and an attitude of repentance or a desire to ‘take up one’s cross daily’861 that Jesus commanded for his followers (Lk 13:3; 9:23) and that Paul made the center-point of his initial proclamation at Corinth.862 The Apostle has already affirmed that the Corinthians have been ‘made rich’ (, q.v. @ 1:5) by their charisms and will do so again with reference to their Christian life and to good works.863 At 1:5 he compliments their charismatic enrichment, but here he speaks of it in an ironic implicit rebuke (4:8-10b). Why? Because their riches in Christ, e.g. of spiritual gifts, are being used not to boast of God’s grace (1:31) nor to point to the cross (1:17, 23; 2:4) but to bolster their own self-esteem864 and to draw attention to themselves.865 Christ’s ‘reigning’ () in his or God’s ‘kingdom’ () may refer in the NT to the present or to the future.866

  Fanning, 319.   ‘Poor in spirit’ (Mt 5:3; 1QM 14:7) probably means ‘humble’; cf. Davies (note 263), I, 444. 861   Cf. 5:2; 8:1, 12; 11:16, 20ff., 29f.; II Cor 12:20f.; 13:2, 10 with Mt 5:3-6; 10:38 Q; Lk 9:23-27, 23 T + Q. 862   See above on 2:2. 863   II Cor 8:9; 9:11. 864   The problem is not confined to the NT Corinthian church. A pastor (as he told me), preening himself, asked his wife, ‘What did you think of my sermon?’ ‘It was all right’. ‘All right? I thought it was one of the best sermons I have ever preached!’ She replied, ‘That’s what I thought you thought’. The evangelist D. L. Moody customarily asked a local pastor to offer an opening prayer. As one pastor went on and on, Moody announced, ‘While Rev. Jones completes his prayer, let us sing hymn 57’. 865   It is perhaps seen by Paul as the inevitable effect of Christian immaturity, i.e. of the ministry of those who manifest gifts of the Spirit without manifesting the fruit of the Spirit. See above on 1:10-13; 2:6; 3:1-4; below on 13:1. 866   Cf. K. L. Schmidt, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 579-590; B. Klappert, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 380-389. 859 860

178

1 CORINTHIANS

Like Jesus before him,867 Paul taught this two-fold perspective of the kingdom of God.868 Some writers, influenced by Albert Schweitzer and Johannes Weiss (note 867), understand 4:8 to reflect Paul’s critique of the Corinthians’ ‘over-realized’ eschatology, i.e. their erroneous conviction that the future kingdom of God had arrived.869 But if the future kingdom of God had arrived, would the Corinthians’ attitudes and conduct then be justified? Clearly not. Thus, the ‘over-realized eschatology’ interpretation is a misreading of the passage. Indeed, Paul speaks of Christ’s ‘reigning’ only with reference to the present.870 Other NT writers speak of it both in the present871 and in the future.872 The question here has to do with wrong ethics in the eschatological present873 and not with a mistaken anticipation of the   Cf. e.g. Mt 6:10; Mk 14:25 par; Lk 21:31 with Mt 12:28 Q; Lk 17:21 (1:33); W. G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, London 1957, 88-140 = GT2: 81-132, who demonstrated that for Jesus the kingdom of God was not only future (A. Schweitzer) nor only present (cf. C. H. Dodd) but both future and present. Further, Ellis, ‘Present and Future Eschatology in Luke’, Christ, 129-146, cf. 21, 105-119; A. Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, London 22000 (complete text) (1910); J. Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, Philadelphia 1971 (1892); C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, London 81942 (1935), 34ff. 868   Present: 4:20; 15:24; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13 (4:11); I Thess 2:12 ‫ א‬A; II Thess 1:5. Future: 6:9f.; 15:50; Eph 5:5; II Tim 4:1, 18. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Structure of Pauline Eschatology’, Christ, 148-154; idem, Interpreters, 32ff. The DSS also speak of ‘the time of righteousness’ with a Hebrew perfect tense = ‘has come’ (4Q215a 1:5f.). But it probably is a prophetic perfect and means that ‘God’s kingdom is so close at hand that it is described in the past tense…’ (T. Elgvin, ‘The Eschatological Hope and 4QTime of Righteousness’, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. F. G. Martínez, Leuven 2003, 91. 869   So, e.g. Thiselton, 358; idem, ‘Realized Eschatology at Corinth’, Christianity at Corinth, edd. E. Adams et al., Louisville KY 2004, 107-118; Schrage, I, 338; Conzelmann, 87f.; Fee, 172. On suggested parallels between 4:8 and Stoic and Philonic texts cf. Schrage, I, 338f.; Wettstein, II, 114; Neuer Wettstein II, 266f. 870   15:24; Rom 5:17, 21; cf. I Pet 2:9. The elect believers also reign with Christ in the present (I Tim 6:15 []); cf. Rev 5:10 A Mk (11:15; 20:4, 6). That Rom 5:17 refers to the present cf. Moo (note 820), 340, 349f.; Käsemann (note 135), 155, 158 = GT2: 147, 150; J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, London 1967, 198, 209f. Otherwise: Cranfield (note 130), I, 288. 871   See above, note 870. 872   (Lk 1:33); Rev 5:10 ‫ א‬MA lat co (11:15); 19:6f. (20:4, 6); 22:5. 873   Rightly, Hays, 70f.; Godet, I, 221f. Cf. below, ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###. [316-320]. 867



III

179

eschatological future, i.e. with an ethical rebuke and not with an eschatological course-correction. The Corinthians’ attitudes and conduct are similar to those of the church of Laodicea at Rev 3:17, attitudes and conduct that are repulsive to Christ and that give rise to Paul’s later question as to whether (some of) the Corinthians are ‘in the faith’ (  ), i.e. elect believers, or are in the end ungenuine pretenders.874     = ‘would indeed that you had reigned’. The adverb  with the aorist indicative verb expresses a wish, intensified by the , re a past or present state that is impossible or unlikely of fulfillment.875      = ‘so that we might have reigned with you’.  (q.v. @ 1:10) here probably expresses result. The aorist subjunctive verb is concurrent with the preceding aorist indicative, refers to the time when Paul was with them in Corinth, and is to be translated by the English present perfect.876 Paul understands the apostles (and other Christians) to corporately reign with Christ in the present, but he affirms this present corporate reigning with Christ to be under the sign of the cross. Given the Corinthians’ carnal state (q.v. @ 3:1-4, 18; 4:6f.), they cannot now share in that cruciform reign. Elsewhere Paul includes the Christians’ present corporate reign with Christ with their present ‘life with Christ’ and uses not the verb  in but the verb  (‘to live’)877 or  (‘to live with’).878

  II Cor 13:5: , i.e. ‘reprobate’; cf. Gal 4:11; Heb 6:4-8. Cf. 11:19; Rom 2:6-10; D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, London 21959, 54 = idem, Works. Vol IV, Minneapolis 2001, 63 = GT: 52: ‘[O]nly he who believes is obedient and only he who is obedient believes’. 875   There is an allusion back to 3:1f. On the translation of the aorist verb by the English pluperfect cf. Robertson, 840f.; Burton, 28. On the adverb  cf. Robertson, 841; BDF, 181f.; BDAG, 743. 876   Cf. Robertson, 843ff. 877   Rom 6:11ff.; II Cor 6:9; 13:4; Gal 2:19f. (where the datives are locatives of sphere); (I Thess 5:10; Milligan); cf. Col 3:3; see below, AE VIII, ###. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 98ff., 115n, 123, 150-154, 176; G. Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, Grand Rapids 1953 (1908), 70. 878   II Tim 2:11. Cf. G. W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, Grand Rapids 1992, 400; R. St. J. Parry, The Pastoral Epistles, London 1920, 57. 874

180

1 CORINTHIANS

9-13.    .  = ‘I suppose’ suggests neither uncertainty (as at 7:40) nor only assertion about the apostles’—here Paul and Apollos (4:6)—role but also a reflection on their experiences. The explanatory  (q.v. @ 2:11) introduces what, specifically, the apostles’ present reign with Christ (4:8) consists of, implicitly contrasting it with the self-satisfied, self-serving and self-exalting attitudes and conduct of many Corinthian leaders. It is presented in terms of how the apostles are often viewed by others (4:9), of how their ‘Christ crucified’ proclamation is often received (4:10),879 of the repeated experiences of their ministries (4:11-13a),880 and of the conclusion of these cruciform factors (4:13b). In Paul’s case it is represented in Acts (9:16) as Jesus’ prescription (through his prophet Ananias) for Paul’s apostolic role: ‘I will show him what things he must suffer for the sake of my name’. The rejected and suffering ministry of the apostles duplicates, mutatis mutandis, that of Jesus (11:1). It is understood to be not unrelieved, constant, nor concurrent experiences but, as the Apostle details later,881 to be the signation of the apostolic office. It occurs, as it did in Jesus’ ministry, in the midst of extraordinary joy, exaltation and power of the Holy Spirit’s ministry through them.882 Thus the ‘theology of the cross’ and the ‘theology of glory’ are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary aspects of the apostolic and of Christian life and ministry generally. But the theology of the cross has priority, both in Christ’s call883 and in the maturity, depth and effectiveness of Christian life and labor. As someone put it, ‘Any joy that is not rooted in the soil of suffering is shallow’.884

879   E.g. 1:18, 23; Gal (3:1); 6:12; Acts 4:18. The antitheses at 4:10 are similar to 1:26ff. (Thiselton, 361; Fee, 176). On  see below on 10:15. 880   Cf. 9:4, 6, 12, 14f.; II Cor 4:7-12; 6:4-10; 12:10; Gal 6:17; Phil 3:18f.; I Thess 2:2; II Tim 1:11f., 15; 3:11; 4:10, 14ff.; Acts 14:19. Cf. S. Hafemann, Suffering and the Spirit, Tübingen 1986, a dissertation on II Cor 2:14–3:3. 881   II Cor 11:23-27; Phil 1:17; see above, note 880. 882   E.g. 1:4; 15:10; 16:5-9, 17f.; Rom 15:17ff.; 16:2, 4, 13, 23; II Cor 12:1-6, 12; Phil 2:22; 4:14-18; I Thess 3:6-9; Acts 13:9-12, 48f.; 14:3, 21ff.; 15:30f.; 16:4f.; 19:10ff.; 20:31; 28:7-10; cf. e.g. Lk 9:28-36 T + Q; 10:17-20; 10:21-24 Q; 19:28-40 T + Q. 883   Cf. Bonhoeffer (note 874), 79 = Works, 87 = GT: 81: ‘When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die’. 884   I thought that it might be in C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, London 1940, but I could not find it.



III

181

9.    = ‘displayed as for death’. This phrase and the subsequent wording in 4:9—‘spectacle’, ‘world’ (, q.v. @ 1:20)—conveys the imagery of the arena of the theater or the amphitheater where the condemned fought and died before many spectators.885 Here the  comprises both (good and evil) angels and sympathetic and hostile people.886 Unclear is whether ‘last’ () refers to (1) the climax of prophetic martyrs reaching back to the OT,887 (2) the crescendo of the theatrical spectacle of the world vs. the church,888 or (3) the apostles’ social status (4:10, ) in the eyes of the world.889 In the Apostle’s usage elsewhere it refers to a chronological sequence that may favor (1) above or may underscore the eschatological role of the apostles.890 12b-13.    = ‘Being reviled, we bless;891 being persecuted, we forbear (); being slandered (, q.v. @ 4:13, Textual Notes), we entreat (, q.v. @ 1:10)’. These three participles appear to turn attention to the attitude toward and criticism of the apostles by a good number in the Corinthian congregations,892 with the possible exception of ‘being persecuted’ ().  basically means ‘to pursue’,893 in the NT mainly with hostile intent, i.e. ‘to persecute’;894 but also ‘to pursue’ in quest of a good895 or improper896 goal. Here it apparently refers to harassment 885   So, Godet, I, 224f.; Findlay, II, 801; Thiselton, 359f.; Gale (note 593), 94ff.; V. H. T. Nguyen, ‘The Identification of Paul’s Spectacle of Death Metaphor in 1 Cor 4:9’, NTS 53 (2007), 489-501. 886   Rightly, Edwards, 110. See above on 1:20, notes 219f.; below on 11:10. 887   Cf. Mt 5:10ff. Q; 23:29-36; Lk 11:48-52; but see Rev 6:10f. 888   Cf. Fee, 174f. ‘Fools’ and ‘wise’ (4:10; cf. 10:15) are used ironically. 889   So, Garland, 140; cf. Conzelmann, 88n = GT: 108n. 890   15:8, 26, 45, 52; II Tim 3:1; cf. Heb 1:2. 891   Cf. Rom 12:13; Mt 5:44 Q. Cf. the DSS: one is ‘to love all the sons of light [i.e. the Qumran members] and hate all the sons of darkness’ (1QS 1:9f.); 1QS 10:17-21. But see Mt 5:43f. 892   Cf. 1:12; 3:3f., 21f.; 4:6; see above, note 851. 893   Cf. BDAG, 254; G. Ebel, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 805ff. 894   E.g. 15:9; Rom 12:14; II Cor 4:9; Gal 1:13, 23; 4:29; 5:11; 6:12; Phil 3:6; II Tim 3:12. 895   14:1; Rom 14:19; Phil 3:12, 14; I Thess 5:15; I Tim 6:11; II Tim 2:22. 896   Rom 9:30f.

182

1 CORINTHIANS

or calumnies within the Corinthian church against the apostles: this accords (1) with the other two clauses and (2) with the Apostle’s response to ‘my beloved children’.897 To outside opponents Paul’s response could be quite different.898 If the ‘persecution’ refers to critics within the congregations, the response () should probably be translated not ‘endure’899 but, as elsewhere in Paul’s letters, ‘forbear’.900 That is, Paul refrains from striking back at his critics but rather engages them with extended biblical teaching (1:10–4:21) that will, he hopes, accomplish a change in their attitudes and conduct.   = ‘filth…offscouring’, i.e. syno13. … nyms for that which is removed and discarded in the process of cleaning, perhaps with sacrificial overtones;901 but if so, the reference or allusion is not to an ancient pagan practice902 nor to any ongoing self-participation with or continuation of Christ’s atoning work903 but rather, as seen elsewhere in Paul,904 to an individual actualization of their corporate identification with the crucified Christ in AD 33.905 14-21. With these verses the Apostle brings to conclusion the whole of his biblical teaching section, 1:10–4:21.906 He explains that (1) he has not written to humiliate them but to give a fatherly admonition (4:14-16). (2) He has sent Timothy, who faithfully   4:14; cf. II Cor 6:13.   E.g. to those who come to Corinth later (II Cor 11:4, 12, 15); cf. Gal 1:8f.; Phil 3:2; Acts 13:9ff.; 14:46; 16:37; 18:6; 28:25-28. But see II Thess 3:10ff. 899   As in II Thess 1:4. 900   Eph 4:2; Col 3:13. 901   Both words are NT hapaxes. Further, cf. Schrage, I, 349f.; Kümmel, 173; Edwards, 113f.; F. Hauck, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 430f. 902   Rightly, Godet, I, 230. See above, note 901. Cf. Wettstein, II, 114f.; the discussion of G. Stählin, ‘’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 84-93. 903   Pace A. T. Hanson, The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St. Paul, Sheffield UK 1987, 32, 36, who appears to so understand 4:13: ‘[I]s Christ’s atoning work to be continued in the life of the apostles…? …Paul recognized the sufferings and possible death of the apostles as possessing an atoning, reconciling, salvific value.’ 904   Rom 6:2-11; Gal 2:19f.; Phil 3:8ff.; Col 1:24; II Tim 4:6. 905   See below, ‘Christ Crucified’, AE IX, ###-###; cf. Ellis, ‘The Structure of Pauline Eschatology’, Christ, 148-157. 906   So, Godet, I, 230. 897 898



III

183

follows Paul’s teaching and can remind the aberrant Corinthians re the Apostle’s doctrines in these and other matters (4:17). Finally, (3) he alerts them to his intention, God willing, to come to Corinth himself and, on those who continue in their disruptive and destructive ways, to exercise a severe apostolic discipline (4:18-21). 14.           [] = ‘I am writing these things not to shame you but rather to admonish you as my beloved children’.907 On the emphatic position of  see above on 2:2. On  see above on 4:14, Textual Notes. The Apostle is concerned that his critique not be misunderstood as a disregard for their persons. He shows here that the Corinthian dissidents are not the outsider opponents, who appear in II Corinthians,908 although some dissidents may join the opponents later. Despite their wayward and confused state, they are ‘my beloved children’.909 15.  = ‘guides’ or ‘tutors’ appears in the NT only here and at Gal 3:24f. Absent from the LXX and without a Hebrew equivalent, the rabbis transliterated it into Hebrew, ‫פדגוג‬, and used it for an ‘instructor’ or ‘educator’ (of a child).910 In hellenistic Greek it means generally a (child’s) ‘custodian’ or ‘guide’;911 in this context it is distinguished from ‘a teacher’ ().912 But the  also includes aspects of ‘a tutor’,913 especially in the 907   Cf. the translation of the purpose participle as an infinitive in Lk 10:25; Acts 3:26; 8:27 NKJV; cf. Robertson, 1128f.; Moulton, 157f.; Burton, 171. On the Apostle’s converts (Plm 10), co-workers (Tit 1:4) or congregations (II Cor 6:13; Gal 4:19; cf. I Thess 2:7, 11) as his ‘child’ or ‘children’ cf. G. Braumann, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 285ff.; below, note 928; T. J. Burke, ‘Paul’s Role as “Father”…’, in Burke (note 456), 105-113. On ; see below on 7:19, note 567. 908   See below, AE I, ###-###. 909   4:17; II Tim 1:2. Cf. 10:14; 15:58; II Cor 7:1; 12:19; Phil 2:12; 4:1; Col 1:7; 4:7, 9, 14; I Thess 2:7f., 11; I Tim 1:2; 2:18; 6:2; Tit 1:4; Plm 1f., 16. Further, G. Schneider, ‘’, EDNT 1 (1990), 12. 910   Cf. S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols., Hildesheim 1964 (1899), II, 421; Billerbeck III, 339. 911   LSJ, 1286; BDAG, 748. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 1, 56; 9, 125f.; 10, 186; 18, 212; 20, 183; idem, Vita 429. 912   Cf. Philo, in Flaccum 15; idem, de mut nom 217; idem, leg. ad Gaium 26f. 913   So, Collins, 193; TLNT 3 (1994), 1ff.: ‘the paidagōgos comes close to being a teacher-instructor (paideutēs)…’ (3).

184

1 CORINTHIANS

example that he provides and in those things that he commends or corrects. In this sense Paul in Gal 3:24f. calls the Law, not only its narrative and explicit teaching but also its ritual institutions, observances, and prohibitions, as ‘a guide’ () to Christ.914 Here the ‘guides’ are, using a different analogy, those who ‘build on’ the foundation that Paul has laid (3:10ff.). They have lesser status and authority than the Apostle, who is the Corinthians’ only ‘father’,915 whose role includes teaching, care, and correction.916           = ‘For I begot you in Christ Jesus through the gospel’. On   see above on 1:2. Only here and at Plm 10 does Paul speak of his converts’ new life in Christ as a ‘begetting’ or ‘new birth’, an idiom found in the NT most often in the Johannine literature.917 More often he uses such terms as Spirit ‘baptism’,918 divine ‘calling’, ‘choosing’,919 ‘justifying’,920 or ‘one’s believing’.921 Here he ‘begets’ or ‘brings to birth’ ‘in Christ Jesus through the gospel’, i.e. he does not effect their salvation by himself or by his rhetoric; rather he is only the agent through whom the divinely empowered ‘good news’, the effective Word of God, accomplished this. 922 = ‘good news’ of salvation is to be distinguished from ‘the proclamation’ (, q.v. @ 2:4): the latter is the 914   He does this within the framework of a typological understanding of the OT; cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 107ff., 109n. See below on 9:9f., notes 262, 269. 915   The term, ‘father’, is used most often by Paul for God (see above on 1:3) but sometimes for the human parent (Eph 5:31; 6:2, 4; Col 3:21) or older Christian (I Tim 5:1) or biblical forefather (Rom 4:1, 11f., 16ff.; 9:5, 10; 11:28) and occasionally of himself in relationship to a younger co-worker (Phil 2:22) or to a church (I Thess 2:11). In Judaism for one who teaches another Torah cf. Billerbeck III, 340f. On a misguided feminist interpretation that Paul’s use of ‘father’ results in an imposition of authoritarian paternalism, cf. Thiselton, 371ff. 916   Cf. Heb 12:6, 9ff.; Schlatter, 162ff. As a title for one’s teacher in Judaism cf. G. Schrenk, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 977f. 917   E.g. Jn 3:3-8; I Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. 918   See above on 1:14; below on 12:13. 919   See above on 1:9, 27f. 920   See above on 4:4. 921   See above on 1:21. 922   Used first here in this letter. Further, at 9:12, 14, 18, 23; 15:1; over 50 times elsewhere in Paul’s letters, frequently as ‘the gospel of Christ’ (9:12; II Cor 2:12; 9:13; 10:14; Gal 1:7; Phil 1:27; I Tim 3:2). It may also be expressed as ‘the gospel



III

185

summary of the essential Christian message whether or not it is received or rejected, i.e. whether it is ‘to the one an aroma of death to death [or] to the other an aroma from life to life’ (II Cor 2:16 NASB). The  is the revelation of the mystery (q.v. @ 2:1) of God’s purpose to redeem a chosen remnant of the fallen race of Adam and the actualization of that purpose.923   = ‘therefore’.924 This conjunction may be used in questions (3:5; 9:18; 10:19; 14:15: ‘then’) or as a connective to conclude (10:31) or to resume a train of thought (8:4: ‘therefore’, ‘hence’) or to introduce a result (11:20) or an inference (6:7; 7:26; 9:25; 11:20; 14:23; 15:11) or a command (11:20; 16:11, 18). Here it is best understood as a conclusion in light of Paul’s described fatherly relationship. …    = ‘I urge you…, become imitators of me’. On  see above on 1:10; it is the positive ‘exhortation’ for the Corinthians’ future, and it complements the negative ‘admonition’ (, 4:14) re their blameworthy past and present behavior, a behavior in which, during Paul’s absence, freedom had become license. Both roles are the proper function of a loving ‘father’ (4:15; cf. Godet, I, 231f.), which is not a title (cf. Mt 23:9) but a relationship between Paul and his converts. The imperative, ‘become imitators of me’, is further specified at 11:1: ‘as I am of Christ’. The imitation has to do not with his apostolic office or his marital status (7:2) or his type of ministry but with his manifestation of God’s wisdom and with his self-abnegating and cruciform attitude and conduct that he has detailed for them in the preceding OT commentary.925 In a word of his Son’, ‘my gospel’, ‘the gospel of God’, ‘our gospel’, ‘the gospel of our Lord Jesus’. Cf. Rom 1:9; 2:16; 15:16; 16:25; II Cor 11:7; I Thess 2:2; II Thess 1:8; 2:14; II Tim 2:8; Morgenthaler, 101. 923   Cf. Rom 5:17; 9:6ff.; Käsemann (note 135), 260-267 = GT: 251-257; Moo (note 820), 339f., 570-577; Schreiner (note 245), 290ff., 493-503. 924   Used some 500 times throughout the NT (Morgenthaler, 127). Further, 3:5; 5:7; 6:4, 7, 15; 7:26; 8:4; 9:18, 25; 10:19, 31; 11:20; 14:11, 15, 23, 26; 15:11; 16:11, 18. Cf. EDNT 2 (1981), 542f.; Thrall, 10f.; BDF, 234f., §451(1); Robertson, 1191f. 925   E.g. 2:1-5; 3:5-11; 4:1f., 6, 9-13. Cf. W. de Boer, Imitation of Paul, Kampen 1962, 146ff., 157-166.

186

1 CORINTHIANS

he wants them to become mature, a maturity in Christ that Paul exemplifies. This imperative appears to have been a basic part of the Apostle’s preaching, both to his co-workers926 and to his congregations,927 and it implicitly carries with it the force of an apostolic command.928 17.    = ‘I sent Timothy to you’. Since Timothy had been sent when Paul was finishing the composition of the letter (16:10),  is not an epistolary aorist, i.e. timed to the reading of the letter to the congregations with Timothy perhaps as the letter carrier. Probably Timothy was sent to a number of Paul’s churches on the Aegean and was not expected to arrive at Corinth before this letter (Lightfoot, 201). According to Acts 16:1ff., Timothy became Paul’s co-worker, probably as a teenager, in Lystra at the outset of Paul’s mission to Greece (AD 50–53) and constantly served him as his ‘child in the Lord’929 until the Apostle’s martyrdom in Rome in AD 67–68.930 He was a co-sender of several of Paul’s letters931 and a purveyor of gifts (from Lystra?) to the church at Jerusalem.932 He was, as here, Paul’s emissary or representative to a number of Pauline churches.933 Although apparently not having a bold or brave personality (II Tim 1:6ff.), he was, like Titus, knowledgeable of the Apostle’s ‘ways in Christ’,934 ‘walked in his steps’,935 and was faithfully obedient to Paul’s teachings. On  see on 1:6.

  II Thess 3:6ff.; cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 19ff.   Phil 3:17ff. (vis-à-vis the false teachers, q.v. @ AE, I, ###); I Thess 1:6. 928   Cf. W. Michaelis, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 666-673: ‘imitation here [Phil 3:17f.] is not the imitation of a model. It is an expression of obedience [to Paul’s apostolic authority]’ (668). 929   4:17 (q.v. @ 7:39, note 682); cf. I Tim 1:2, 18; II Tim 1:2. Cf. Phil 2:22. 930   Cf. II Tim 4:9-13, 21 with Heb 13:23; Ellis, Making, 260-263, 266-284. 931   Cf. II Cor 1:1; Col 1:1; I Thess 1:1; II Thess 1:1; Plm 1. 932   Cf. on Acts 20:4 Barrett (note 131) II, 947; Jervell (note 130), 497f.; J. B. Polhill, Acts, Nashville TN 1992, 416; C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Tübingen 1989, 179, 188f., 192, 204, 208. 933   Phil 2:19; I Thess 3:2, 6 (II Tim 4:13). 934   I.e. Paul’s teachings, apparently an ordered and structured catechism, that he taught new converts ‘everywhere in every church’ (4:17) that he founded. See above on 3:11; Käsemann (note 646). 935   Cf. II Cor 12:17f. 926 927



III

187

18-19.          = ‘Some of you are ‘puffed up’ (q.v. @ 4:6), as though I were not coming to you’. The genitive absolute ( ) clause stands grammatically independently or ‘separated’ from the rest of the sentence, perhaps to make the participle more prominent.936 The position of the  points to the clause, ‘as though not coming’, as a unit of thought, and it suggests that the Corinthian arrogance has been emboldened by this supposition, a supposition of which Paul disabuses them at 4:19.      .   may mean ‘quickly’ or ‘suddenly’937 or, more likely here, ‘soon’.938 The aorist subjunctive qualifier, ‘if the Lord wills’, refers to the ‘Lord Christ’, and occurs explicitly only here in Paul’s letters, but it is the implicit condition for all of his ministry activities.939    …     = ‘I will discover not the talk but the power’. The future middle of  is punctiliar,940 ‘I will find out for myself’. The contrast of ‘talk’ and ‘power’ refers back to the Apostle’s earlier critique of human wisdom as impressive but empty philosophical sophistical rhetoric941 contrasted with the divine power manifested in God’s wisdom.942 20.     = ‘the kingdom of God’ in its present manifestation, alluding back to the arrogant Corinthians’ fallacious claim to reign with Christ in that kingdom. See above on 4:8; below on 6:9f., note 260. 936   Cf. BDF, 218 §423; Burton, 174f.; Robertson, 512ff., 1131; J. G. Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, New York 1937, 124f. On the view that Paul’s letters served as a substitute for his personal presence at Corinth, cf. L. A. Johnson, ‘Paul’s Epistolary Presence at Corinth’, CBQ 68 (2006), 481-501, and the literature cited. 937   II Thess 2:2; I Tim 5:22. On  see below on 6:1. 938   As in Gal 1:6; Phil 2:19, 24; II Tim 4:9. 939   Cf. Acts 18:9; 23:11; 16:6f. (‘forbidden by the Holy Spirit’ ‘the Spirit of Jesus did not allow’); 18:21 (‘if God wills’). Cf. Billerbeck III, 758, on Jas 4:15. 940   Cf. Robertson, 871; Moulton, I, 113; Parry, 84; see below on 13:12. 941   See above on 1:17; 2:1, 4, 13. On ; see 7:19, note 567. 942   See above on 1:18, 24. Cf. K. P. Donfried, ‘The Kingdom of God in Paul’, The Kingdom of God in 20th-century Interpretation, ed. W. L. Willis, Peabody MA 1987, 175-190 (179ff.).

188

1 CORINTHIANS

21.   = ‘what do you want?’ Better, ‘what do you prefer?’943 since Paul offers two alternatives. The aorist subjunctive () is equivalent to the future indicative: ‘shall I come?’944   = ‘with a rod’. As a Hebraism945 and a phrase that occurs in the LXX, it is probable that Paul has in mind the discipline that in the OT God inflicts upon his people when they are disobedient.946 As Christ’s shaliaḥ he is the proper agent to impose that discipline, as he will illustrate in the following paragraph (5:3ff.).       = ‘or with love and in a spirit of gentleness’. ‘With love’ is the antithesis of ‘with a rod’. But love (q.v. @ 13:1) and discipline are not mutually exclusive; ‘the rod’ is in effect ‘tough love’ although ‘no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but…afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness…’ (Heb 12:11 NKJV). Here Paul accentuates the contrast by supplementing ‘with love’ by the phrase ‘and () in a spirit of gentleness’ or ‘even () in a spirit of gentleness’. ‘Spirit’ here probably does not mean ‘Holy Spirit’947 but rather, as the Hebrew ‫( רוח‬ruaḥ, ‘spirit’) or ‫( לב‬lehv, ‘heart’), denotes ‘a person’s “interior,” the spiritual center from which the entire person is engaged’.948 The phrase occurs in the same sense at Gal 6:1. Both ‘love’ and ‘gentleness’ are the fruit of the Holy Spirit949 and underscore that the Holy Spirit is always involved in Paul’s apostolic attitudes and conduct.950

  Cf. G. Schrenk, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 46.   Cf. BDF, 166, 183 §363. 945   See above on 3:13 ( ) and note 839 on 4:6. 946   Cf. II Sam 7:14 (Job 37:13); Ps 89(88):32; H. J. Zobel, ‘‫’שׁבט‬, TDOT 14 (2004), 302-311 (304f., 308f.); DCW, ‘Paul a Hellenistic Schoolmaster?’, II, 801ff. 947   Pace Meyer, 105. 948   S. Tengström and H. J. Fabry, ‘‫’רוח‬, TDOT 13 (2004), 375, cf. 397. Cf. Dan 3:39 LXX; 1QS 3:8; 4:3: ‘spirit of humility’. See above on 2:11. 949   Gal 5:22f. 950   Cf. Fee, 193; Findlay, 806; TLNT III (1994), 169f. 943 944

IV

S E X U A L R E L AT I O N S H I P S : I M M O R A L A N D M O R A L (5:1–7:40)

Structure Paul composes this second major division of I Corinthians on the theme of sexual relationships, both to judge and to rebuke the immoral practices of some (5:1–6:20) and to instruct the congregations on a number of marital issues (7:1-40). Re the first matter he responds to oral reports that he has received (5:1, ).1 Re the second he answers the first of several written queries from the church (7:1-40), presumably in a letter composed by certain church leaders.2 The insertion (6:1-8), perhaps after the division had been drafted (5:1–7:40), of an admonition concerning litigation of Christian vs. Christian before Roman courts is puzzling. It may have been occasioned as an extension of the Apostle’s teaching on the responsibility of the church to discipline those in its fellowship engaged in immoral sexual behavior (5:12), or the litigation itself may have included family disputes. Commentary Summary Paul discerns the same boastful attitude that characterized some Corinthian leaders’ views of their worldly ‘wisdom’ (e.g. 4:6f.) to be present also in their attitudes toward or participation in immoral   Either from those of Chloe’s household (1:11) or from Stephanas and his companions (16:15-18) or from others. 2   And perhaps delivered by Stephanas (16:17). Cf.   @ 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12. 1

190

1 CORINTHIANS

sexual practices (5:6). He imposes his most severe judgment against a flagrant example of this, incest between a Christian man and his father’s wife, a relationship that these leaders not only indulge but take pride in (5:2). Absent in person but present in the angelic spirit empowering his ministry, the Apostle has pronounced judgment ‘in the power of our Lord Jesus’ (5:4). He delivers a divine ‘speech act’, in which his word effects the reality, ‘to deliver [the man] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh’, i.e. of his life as it relates to this age, in order that ‘the spirit’, i.e. his life as it relates in Christ to the age to come, ‘might be saved in the day of the Lord’ at Christ’s parousia (5:5). Paul’s judgment is probably a sentence of death, more devastating than that against Elymas or against Hymenaeus and Alexander,3 and similar to Peter’s sentence of death upon Sapphira and implicitly upon her husband Ananias.4 Paul then commands the church leaders to confirm in special session (5:4f.) the sentence that the Apostle has imposed and to excommunicate the man (5:5, 13). His rationale for this drastic action is expressed in an analogy: as yeast spreads throughout a loaf of dough so this man’s continuing unrepentant participation will infect the whole church of God at Corinth and, at length, destroy it (5:6-12). The church not only has failed to discipline immoral practices within it, it also has failed to mediate disputes among its members. Some among them have taken disputes with other members to the pagan courts and have brought shame and ridicule upon the church. Is there no one among you, Paul asks, who has a spiritual gift of wisdom (12:8) to resolve disputes within the fellowship? For disputes to reach an impasse is bad enough in itself. But if so, are you not willing, he asks, to be wronged by a brother rather than to make a spectacle of the church by suing for your rights before unbelievers (6:1-8)? Paul reminds them of his teaching when he was at Corinth that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9f.). This applies with special force for sexual sins since they implicate not only the individual but also the body of Christ. These couplings create an immoral bodily corporate union that clashes with and

3 4

  Acts 13:8-11; I Tim 1:20.   Acts 5:9, 1-5.



IV

191

breaks apart the corporate union that each believer has with Christ (6:16-19). Our bodies belong to Christ, therefore immoral sexual copulation must be avoided at all costs. Concerning the marital questions that the Corinthians have written Paul about, the Apostle counsels on the principle that one should ‘remain as one is’ but then often qualifies the principle in certain circumstances. He does this with respect to a celibate lifestyle (7:1f., 7; 7:25ff., 35f.), to sexual relations within marriage (7:5f.), to marriage and remarriage (7:8f.), to marriage between a Christian and a pagan (7:11-14, 15), to slavery (7:20f.), to engaged couples (7:26f., 28, 36) and to widows (7:39f.). He states in turn (1) that marriage and sexual relations between husband and wife are totally proper; (2) that marriage is for life, and there should be no divorce; if the wife separates for good reason, she should remain single or be reconciled to her husband (7:9f.); (3) that singleness is appropriate if one exercises sexual self-control (7:1-9). About other matters the Apostle has no word from the Lord and gives his own human judgment ‘as one mercifully favored by the Lord to be counted faithful’.5 (1) If one is married to an unbeliever, the children are ‘holy’ and one should not divorce if the unbelieving spouse is willing to continue in marital union with the elect believer. If not, the brother or sister is not bound to the marriage (7:12-16). (2) In view of the present distress (7:26) and of the contingent and transient character of this world (7:29, 31), one should not press for changes in one’s social lot—e.g. if called circumcised or uncircumcised, remain so; or as a slave, be content, but if able to become free, accept freedom (7:17-24). (3) One should live with an eschatological focus on the age to come and with indifference toward one’s present circumstances or prospects (7:26-31). (4) Marriage is good, but one does not marry happiness but rather obligations.6 The married couple has (rightly) dual commitments—to the family and to the Lord’s work; only the single Christian is able to be wholly committed and single-minded toward the things of the Lord (7:3238). (5) If her husband dies, the wife is free to remarry although only to a Christian. But she will be happier, Paul thinks, if she remains unmarried (7:39f.).

  7:25, cf. 12, 40.   Cf. Barrett, 176.

5 6

192

1 CORINTHIANS

A. The Judgment on the Incestuous Man (5:1-13) It is generally heard that there is fornication among you, still more a kind that is not even mentioned among the pagans—that a man has his father’s wife. 2And you are puffed up about it! But ought you not rather have grieved? Have the one who is committing this deed removed from your midst. 3For I indeed, being absent in the body but present in the spirit, have, as being present, already passed judgment upon the one who has so carried on this thing: 4When you and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus are gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus, 5deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that the spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole loaf of bread? 7Clean out the old yeast that you might be a new loaf, even as you are unleavened; for indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed. 8Therefore, let us keep the festival not with the old yeast of wickedness and evil deeds but rather with unleavened bread of sincerity and of truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with fornicators, 10not at all meaning the fornicators of this world—or with the covetous and swindlers or idolaters—since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But, in fact, I wrote you not to associate if anyone named a brother should be a fornicator or an extortioner or an idolater or an abuser or a drunkard or a swindler, not even to eat with such a one. 12For what is it to me to judge those outside the church? You do not even judge those inside! 13Those outside God will judge. ‘You put out the fornicator from among yourselves’.7 1

Textual Notes 2. :  p11vid ‫ א‬A C 33. The less literary and much more common NT term  (p46.68 B D F G Y 1739 M) is more likely to have replaced  during the scribal transmission than vice versa (Metzger, 550). ]  = ‘of our Lord Jesus’ (B D* 1739). The mss 4.   [ vary considerably. Some have ‘of our Jesus Christ’ (p46 D2 F G 33 M); some ‘of Jesus Christ’ (‫ א‬ar). The UBS and NA place  in brackets to indicate ‘a measure of doubt’ (Metzger, 485) about its originality in the text. Cf. Zuntz, 235.

7

  Dt 17:7 LXX.



IV

193

5.   = ‘of the Lord’ (p46 B 1739). Some mss add  (p61vid ‫א‬ Y M vgst); some   (D) and some    (A F G P 33), all probably influenced by the variants at 5:4. ‘Their very variety suggests that the shortest form is original’ (Zuntz, 183f.). 6.  = ‘leavens’. Several Western ms witnesses substitute their commentary by using the term,  (‘deceives’, D* itd vg). Cf. Metzger, 485. 12.      NA and Metzger (485f.), following a reading going back in English to Tyndale, take the clause as a question.  may be used as an interrogative, but it may be a simple strengthened negative as at 6:1 (cf. BDAG, 742). This best fits the context: ‘You do not even judge those inside!’ Some early mss omit  and have the imperative : ‘You judge those inside the church’ (p46 syp bo). The Sahidic Coptic ‘apparently took  with [5:11], reading…“for what have I to do with judging those who are outside and not those who are inside? You judge those who are inside” ’.8 13.  = ‘will judge’. The future is determined by the accent mark, which is not present in the earlier mss and so could be read as present, ‘judges’ (). But since ‘the day of the Lord’ (5:5), i.e. parousia of Christ, is in the context, the future is more probable.9

Structure I Cor 5 is divided into an opening summary (5:1f.), an explanation of the reasons for Paul’s actions in the situation (5:3-11) and, in conclusion, the necessity for the church to comply with the Apostle’s bidding (5:12f.). A chiastic structure is present at 5:2-6.10 Commentary Summary The section, 5:1-13, opens with a summary: the reports of an incestuous practice of a man within the church (5:1); the prideful attitude of some Corinthian leaders about it; Paul’s command that the man be removed from the church (5:2). The Apostle details the inspired source and content of his instruction and how it is to be carried out (5:3ff.). With an analogy of the effect of yeast within a loaf of dough, Paul explains the necessity   Cf. Metzger, 485f.; Horner, IV, 202f.   Cf. II Thess 1:6-9; II Cor 5:10; Acts 17:30f. 10   Cf. N. W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament, Chapel Hill NC 1942, 146. 8 9

194

1 CORINTHIANS

of the exclusion of the (unrepentant) incest-monger (5:6ff.). It is not a matter of the (inevitable) association of Christians with evil people of the world but of the inclusion within the church of those practicing an evil lifestyle (5:9ff.). It is both his responsibility and that of the church, the Apostle concludes, not to judge outsiders but to render discipline upon those inside the church. Therefore, the church must put out the incestuous man from its fellowship. Exegesis 1.      = ‘It is generally heard11 that there is fornication among you’. The passive of ‘to hear’ in the sense of ‘noised abroad’ is unusual English; the terms, ‘reported’ or ‘spoken of’, are often substituted.   goes with , not with . Fornication (), like fornicator () and fornicating (), has at least two connotations in the NT, a narrower meaning of illicit sexual intercourse between unmarried male and female12 and a broader meaning, as here, of any sexual immorality, within which  (‘adultery’) is a specific form.13 Seldom found in Jesus’ teaching through the Evangelists,14 it is more frequently mentioned in his teaching through his apostles Paul (cf. 14:37) and John.15

11   See Parry, 86.  can mean ‘actually’ or ‘in fact’ (cf. Alford II, 505; Lightfoot, 202; R & P, 95; Taylor, 121; Fee, 199; Wolff, 100), but its usual meaning is ‘generally’, which is probably the translation to be preferred here (Hammond, 552; Hering, 34f.; Grosheide, 119; Conzelmann, 94n, 95 = GT: 114n). 12   7:2. See also those vice lists and other texts where  //  is distinguished from adultery (), adulterer (), or committing adultery (): e.g. 6:9; Mt 15:19 par; 19:9; Gal 5:19, cf. 6:9; Heb 13:4. 13   6:13, 18; II Cor 12:21; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5-9; I Thess 4:3; I Tim 1:9f.; Rev 2:21; 9:20f.; 21:8; 22:15. See below on 5:9; 6:9f. Cf. F. Hauck and S. Schulz, ‘ ’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 579-595 (587-590, 593f.). For contemporary Judaism ‘fornication is the mother of all wicked deeds; it separates from God and leads men to Beliar’ (Test. Simeon 5:3; OTP I, 786). 14   Mt 5:32; 15:19 par; 19:9; Jn 8:41. Its primary meaning in the classical Greek world was ‘prostitution’. Cf. LSJ, 1450. 15   Heading the vice lists at 5:10f.; 6:9f.; Gal 5:19ff.; Eph 5:3ff.; Col 3:5. See above, note 12. Cf. Rev 2:14, 20f.; 9:21; 14:8; 17:1ff., 4f., 15f.; 18:3, 9; 19:2.



IV

195

      = ‘even such a fornication which is not mentioned among the pagans’. The copula, e.g. the verb, ‘to be’, which is lacking here, ‘is not always considered necessary’ in a Greek sentence.16 The  does not mean ‘to be precise’ but rather refers to one outrageous and openly practiced case of immorality among others.17 On  = ‘not even’; cf. BDAG, 735.18 ‘Not even among the pagans’ does not mean that incest never occurred19 but that even there it was scandalous and was viewed by the noble pagans with special disgust.20 .  Just as Paul uses  both racially to contrast national Israel with Gentiles21 and theologically to contrast the people of God with pagans,22 so also he uses  both racially to contrast (Christian) Gentiles with Jews23 and confessionally to contrast pagans with Jewish or Gentile Christians24 In I Corinthians he always uses  for pagans.25       = ‘so that a certain man has his father’s wife’. The expression indicates a stepmother. On  see above on 1:7; it often occurs in a result clause with a   Robertson, 395. See above on 1:31.   Schmeidel, 91; cf. Conzelmann, 94n = GT: 114n.; II Cor 12:21. 18   See above on 3:2; 4:3; below on 11:14. Cf. Mt 6:25 Q; Lk 7:9; 12:26; Jn 21:25; Rom 3:10; Gal 2:3. 19   The Emperor Gaius = Caligula (AD 37–41) was reported by ancient historians to have had incest with his sisters (cf. Josephus, Ant. 19, 204; Suetonius, ‘Caligula’, Lives of the Caesars 24, 1; Tacitus, Annals 14, 2, 4; Dio Cassius, Roman History 59, 3, 6). Some modern historians are skeptical of these accounts; cf. A. A. Barrett, Caligula, New Haven, CT 1990, 85; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula), Oxford 21964, 18ff. Regarding the emperor Nero cf. Tacitus, Annals, 14, 2, 1ff. 20   E.g. Cicero, pro Cluentio 12. Also, according to Roman law: ‘[A man] may not marry one who has been…his father’s wife’ (Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius, edd. E. Poste and E. A. Wittuck, London 41925, liv, 45 = I, §63 [c. AD 150]). Cf. Collins, 209f.; Schrage, I, 369f. Further, G. Delling, ‘Ehehindernisse’, RAC 4 (1959), 680-691 (685f.). 21   Rom 9:30f. (10:1 M); 10:19, 31; 11:2-6, 7, 25; II Cor 3:7, 13; Phil 3:5. 22   Rom 9:6; 11:26; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:12. But see below on 10:18. 23   See above on 1:22f. E.g. 1:23; Rom 1:5, 13; 2:14; 9:24; 11:11ff.; 15:9-27; Gal 2:12; 3:8, 14 (Eph 2:11); Col 1:27; I Thess 2:16; I Tim 2:7; cf. I Pet 2:12. 24   10:20; 12:2 (Eph 2:11). 25   I.e. 10:20 p46vid ‫ א‬A C P Y 33vid 1739; 12:2. 16 17

196

1 CORINTHIANS

verbal infinitive whose subject is in the accusative ().26 The verb ‘has’ indicates an ongoing and open relationship, whether as marriage (so, e.g. Alford, II, 505; cf. Thiselton, 386), i.e. with an estranged or divorced wife of his father, or more likely as a concubinage (e.g. Schrage, 370). But the gravity of the offense and of Paul’s judgment, which goes beyond his teaching at 6:13-19, lies in the enormity of this adulterous and incestuous sexual union.27 The father, clearly still living,28 and the woman are not mentioned because they are not Christians and, therefore, not within the sphere of Paul’s judgment (5:12). 2.   = ‘you are puffed up!’29 The perfect periphrastic underscores the continuing state of this attitude.30 With the term  Paul looks back to 4:18f. and provides a transition between the sections, 1:10–4:21 and 5:1–7:40. He perceives the same arrogant attitude to underlie some Corinthians’ attraction both to false human wisdom and to immoral sexual permissiveness or practices. This attitude probably foreshadows that of the gnosticizing Judaizers who dogged Paul’s mission to Galatia and will shortly come to Corinth and who, inverting Paul’s teaching, appear to have argued that the OT ritual laws continue but that its moral law is no longer binding.31 These Corinthians’ sexual permissiveness (II Cor 12:21) may have its cause in a number of components in their background, 26   Cf. Robertson, 1000, 489 (‘accusative of general reference’); BDF, 209; Burton, 147. 27   It is rooted in the OT moral law (Lev 18:8 LXX:  ; 20:10f.) where adultery and incest are also in view. Cf. Jubil 33:10-14 (OTP II, 119); M Sanhedrin 7:4; T Sanhedrin 10:1. But see Billerbeck III, 347ff. 28   If he were dead, it would be a different matter, i.e. not an adulterous offense but a marriage or concubinage within a forbidden degree of relationship. Paul does not speak to this, and he views the marriage bond as voided at the death of the spouse (cf. 7:39; Rom 7:2f.). 29   R & P, 97: ‘the statement of an amazing and shocking fact’; but see Edwards, 123, and Conzelmann, 94n = GT: 114n, who prefer to take the sentence as a question. 30   Cf. Burton, 40f.; BDF, 179. 31   Gal 1:6-9; 2:4; 3:1f., 10; 4:9ff.; 5:2ff., 10ff.; 6:12-15; II Cor 10:10ff.; 11:4f, 12-15, 22f.; 12:11, 21. See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and I Corinthians’, AE I, ###-###, notes 48-63, 73-94, 115-147; cf. Ellis, Making, 314-318; idem, Christ, 234.



IV

197

none of them mutually exclusive. It may reflect a misconception of Paul’s teaching of justification by grace through faith, apart from the law,32 and of Christian freedom as ‘freedom from sin’,33 to mean that the Christian is free from the moral law.34 (2) In the light of 15:12 it probably includes Platonic metaphysics, which in the first century was influential beyond the Academy,35 and which identified the ‘soul’ as the essential self apart from the body. On this rationale the body was transient and could be indulged or denied as one wished. (3) If converted directly from paganism, they may simply be continuing their pre-Christian views and practices. But Paul’s response only briefly alludes to this factor and notes that such incestuous conduct was also offensive in pagan society.36 (4) Others draw an analogy and background in the ‘Noachic Decrees’,37 i.e. seven commands38 that according to rabbinic teaching Noah and his descendents were obliged to keep and that were required by Judaism of Gentile ‘Godfearers’;39 these decrees are very probably reflected in the Apostolic Decree at Acts 15.40

  Rom 3:21-24.   Rom 6:18, 22; also freedom from the (ritual) law (Rom 7:3; Gal 5:1). Cf. H. Schlier, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 496-502. 34   See below on 5:4, note 89; 6:12; cf. Rom 3:8. 35   See OCD3, 2. 36   5:1; 6:11. See above, note 20; below, note 89. 37   Gen 9:1-7; cf. Jubil 20:3-11. They are, according to BT Sanhedrin 56b, Baraitha (Socino, 381f.), (1) lawful justice; refrain from (2) blasphemy, (3) idolatry, (4) adultery, (5) bloodshed, (6) robbery, (7) eating flesh cut from a living animal [i.e. with the blood]. All, except #7 are moral. Cf. GenR 34:8 on Gen 8:18f.; BT Aboda Zarah 2b, 64b; G. Strecker, ‘Noachische Gebote’, RGG3 4 (1960), 1500-1501; ‘Laws Before Sinai’, JE VII, 649f.; Schürer III, 332f.; F. F. Bruce, ‘Noah’, NIDNTT 2 (1986), 682; F. W. Weber, Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften, Leipzig 21897, 414 (‘Gebote’). Weber is valuable for sources though faulty in method; cf. F. Thielman, Paul and the Law, Downers Grove IL 1994, 24-29. 38   See above, note 37. 39   Cf. Acts 18:7: ‘the house of a certain man, Titius Justus, by name, who worshipped God’ (  ); 16:14: ‘Lydia…who worshipped God’ ( ); 17:4, 17. See above on 1:16, note 140. 40   Acts 15:20, 29; so, W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, Philadelphia 4 1980, 112-119. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1998, II, 733; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, Leicester UK 31990, 342; K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of Paul, London 21927, 55f. 32 33

198

1 CORINTHIANS

    = ‘But ought you not rather have grieved?’ The  is here adversative.41 There is often an idiomatic equivalence of the Greek aorist () with the English perfect tense;42 the aorist may also suggest an immediate response upon knowledge of this sin.43 With most editors44 I understand this sentence as interrogative, but take 5:2c as an imperative sentence (so, RSV). The need to grieve or to mourn ()45 is addressed to the whole Corinthian church as their corporate responsibility. The church on the whole, if not proud about this sin in their midst, were apparently indifferent to it. Mourning as an ancient Jewish custom involved not just a feeling but also individual and corporate behavior.46 If in repentance for transgressions, it could involve ‘sitting in sackcloth and ashes’.47           = ‘Have the one who is committing this deed removed from your midst’. The  (q.v. @ 1:10, note 78) with the aorist subjunctive is here imperatival.48 The Greek aorist participle ( ) is often equivalent to the English present perfect.49 Here it is a constative aorist, i.e. it looks at the act as a whole and ‘can involve momentary or extended, single or multiple, specific or general occurrences…’50 On this reading Paul commands, in effect, that the Corinthian   Cf. also II Cor 6:9; I Tim 2:18; Mt 12:43; 13:17; Lk 13:7. See BDAG, 495; Robertson, 426. 42   Cf. Phil 4:11; Mt 5:21; 19:4; 27:8; Mk 14:41; Lk 5:26; 19:9; Jn 16:24; Acts 7:52c; Rev 17:12b; Burton, 22, 23-28. 43   So, Conzelmann, 96n = GT: 117n; Parry, 87. 44   E.g. NA; Tischendorf; RSV. But see Ellicott, 102; Chrysostom, Homily XV, 2 (NPNF1 XII, 84). 45   Elsewhere in the NT, II Cor 12:21; Mt 5:4; 9:15 (Mk 16:10); Lk 6:25; Jas 4:9; Rev 18:11, 15, 19. 46   Lightfoot, 203, translates ‘have put on mourning’. Cf. II Cor 12:21; Mt 9:15 (Mk 16:10); Isa 58:5; I Clem 2:6 (c. AD 70; that the Corinthians did mourn re sins of their neighbors); A. Oliver, ‘‫’א ַבל‬ ָ NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 243-247; A. Baumann, ‘‫’א ַבל‬, ָ TDOT 1 (1977), 44-48; Trench, 238. 47   Lk 10:13 Q; cf. I Kg 21:27; I Chron 21:16f.; Dan 9:3ff.; W. Thiel, ‘‫’שׂק‬, TDOT 14 (2004), 185-189; G. Stählin, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971/1964), 56-64 (59-62). 48   So, Garland, 164, and the literature cited. Cf. Moulton, III, 95. 49   See above, note 42. 50   Fanning, 415f. 41



IV

199

church excommunicate the incestuous and presumably unrepentant man.    . Lit  = ‘to lift up’. In Paul’s usage (5:2; Col 2:14) a Semitism.51 At Ezek 14:7ff. LXX Yahweh’s word ‘I will remove him from the midst (   ) of my people’ (14:8) means ‘I will destroy him from the midst (   ) of my people’ (14:9).52 This instruction presupposes an administration and church order53 that will enable the church, composed of several house congregations, to carry it out.54 According to Acts (18:4-7) the church at Corinth arose out of the Jewish synagogue and, although not as structured as, say, the Jacobean (Jerusalem) mission, it very likely took over some modified synagogal administrative structures, which included a process of ‘ban’ or exclusion.55 Paul’s command here is for such a process.   Cf. Gen 35:2; Num 16:21; I Sam 7:3; Isa 52:11 (cf. II Cor 6:17); Ezek 14:8f.; but see Epictetus, Discourses 3, 3, 15. 52   Cf. B. Otzen, ‘‫’בדל‬, TDOT 2 (1975), 2f.; L. A. Snijders, ‘‫’רוּס‬, TDOT 10 (1999), 199-207. 53   See Ellis, ‘Charism and Church Order in Earliest Christianity’, Making, 28ff.; idem, ‘Ordered Ministries in Paul’s Churches’, Theology, 92-117. In Paul’s churches there were appointed and ordered functions (1) in the collection and distribution of gifts (16:1ff.; Phil 2:25: ), (2) in the right of some Christian workers to receive pay (9:14; Gal 6:6), (3) in the implied ordered regulations for church services (14:27-40) and in the inclusion of ‘piloting’ or ‘administrations’ (), ‘presiders’ ( ), and ‘teaching shepherds’ (   ) among the lists of charisms (12:28; Rom 12:8; Eph 4:11), (4) in the responsibility of some to read (and interpret) Paul’s letters to the congregation (Col 4:15f.; I Thess 5:27), (5) in the address of some letters to co-workers distinct from the congregation (Phil 1:1; probably Col 1:1: ‘to the holy ones and the faithful brothers’, cf. Acts 14:23); II Thess 3:6, 10f. See above on 1:1: ; cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 19-22. 54   See above, ‘Introduction’, ###-###. Otherwise: R. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I, Leipzig 1892; idem, Outlines of Church History, London 1895, 31-43; later in an existentialist key, E. Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes, London 1964, 78-85 = GT: Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, Göttingen 21960, 121-127; E. Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, London 1979, 99-104, 194-205; R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, Exeter 1980, 102-151, 194-198; J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, London 1975 (Sohm’s theory in English dress), all of whom argue that the earliest church had no structured organization. 55   E.g. Acts 6:1, 3; 8:14; 11:30; 12:17; Jas 3:1; 5:14. Cf. Ellis, Making, 319. For the Jewish synagogue cf. Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22, 34f.; 12:42; 16:2; perhaps Jason, Crispus, and Sosthenes experienced such an exclusion (cf. 1:1; Acts 17:5ff.; 18:8, 51

200

1 CORINTHIANS

3.           = ‘for I indeed, being absent in the body but present in the spirit’. The phrases, ‘in the body’ and ‘in the spirit’, are datives of manner or of respect. Suggested meanings of this clause are (1) outwardly absent but inwardly present;56 (2) assuming a dualist (Platonist) individual anthropology, physically absent but present in ‘the highest part of our composite human nature’;57 (3) absent in person but present in the Holy Spirit;58 (4) absent in person but present in the angelic spirit that empowers Paul’s prophetic-apostolic ministry, i.e. his prophetic spirit.59 In the light of the role of ministering angels in the writings of the OT and NT prophets, not least in the Apostle’s letters, option (4) is the most likely interpretation of the clause here.60         = ‘I have, as being present, already passed judgment on the one who has so carried on this thing’. The perfect  goes beyond Paul the Apostle’s decision to act and emphasizes the ‘completion of the action’,61 here more pronounced by the preceding adverb ‘already’. On  see above at 4:1. The aorist participle ( ) has the force of an English present perfect tense (q.v. @ 5:2, note 42). The substance of the judgment is explained in 5:4f. where Paul commands the assembled Corinthian leadership to (formally) confirm his judgment, a judgment that is already in 17). Cf. Josephus, Ant. 14, 260 (re Sardis); ‘Der Synagogenbann’, Billerbeck IV, 293-333 (331ff.); Ezra 10:8 with B. S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics, Leiden 1994, 61-93. See below on 6:1. 56   Cf. ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-###. See Col 2:5: ‘absent in the flesh but with you in the spirit’; I Thess 2:17: ‘deprived of you in face not in heart’. Although the article often adds precision, in Greek ‘[t]he word may be either definite or indefinite when the article is absent’ (Robertson, 790). Cf. Schrage, I, 373; Barrett, 123; Hering, 36; Findlay, 808. See below, ‘The Shape of Pauline Anthropology’, AE VIII, ###-###. On the causal  cf. 3:11, note 637. 57   Ellicott, 108. But on Paul’s monistic anthropology, see below, AE VIII, ###-###. 58   Cf. the discussion of Fee, 204ff.; Thiselton, 391f. 59   Cf. II Kg 2:9f., 15; John Lightfoot, IV, 192. 60   Cf. also at 14:12, 14, 32; closing greetings at (Gal 6:18); II Tim 4:22; Plm 25. See below, ‘The Angelic Spirits of the Prophets’; ‘The Spirit, the spirits and Christ’, AE IV, ###-### [153-179]; AE VII, ### [273-278]. 61   Fanning, 298.



IV

201

effect from his enunciation of it, presumably at the dictation of the letter. It is, then, an apostolic, i.e. prophetic creative word, in which the Apostle’s word creates the reality. As such it is a divine word, a creative Word of God.62 What has this prophetic word to do with literary speech-act theory? Special Note on Speech-Act Theory Philosophers divide the study of language into three parts: syntax, or the relation of words in a sentence; semantics, or the definition and study of the meaning of words and sentences; and pragmatics, the study of the practical purpose and results of linguistic utterances, not only what is said but also what is implied and what is communicated.63 Or, as others have put it, syntax is the relation of the sign (e.g. word) to signs; semantics, the relation of the sign to its meaning or significance; pragmatics, the relation of the sign to the interpreter, i.e. the speaker, writer, hearer,64 or the practical purpose and results of linguistic utterances.65 Some recent literary-philosophical approaches or fashions (depending on one’s viewpoint) have focused on pragmatics. J. L. Austin, a philosopher of language, gave birth to a new emphasis in pragmatics, i.e. speech-act theory, in his work, How To Do Things With Words. He argued that certain utterances effect an action; they perform an act, and ‘these kinds of utterance are the ones that we call performative utterances’. He identifies this type of utterance as a ‘speech-act’. For example, when the groom at a wedding says, ‘I do’, he is not merely saying words concerning marriage, but is ‘indulging in it’.66 Of course, that is the question, and we shall return to it.

62   So, Acts 13:9ff.; 14:8f.; 16:16ff.; cf. also 5:9f.; Mt 21:19; Mk 11:14, 20. See Ellis (note 79), 274-277. 63   A. P. Martinich, ed., The Philosophy of Language, New York 21990, 4. 64   Cf. C. W. Morris, Signs, Language and Behavior, New York 1955, 216-220, passim. 65   J. W. Voelz, What Does This Mean? Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Postmodern World, St. Louis MO 21997 (1995), 277. 66   Cf. J. L. Austin, ‘Performative Utterances’ in Martinich (note 63), 105-135 (106); idem, How To Do Things With Words, Cambridge MA 141994 (1962).

202

1 CORINTHIANS

Austin’s former student, J. R. Searle, broadened the definition of speech-acts to include a secondary type, ‘indirect directives’, i.e. meanings of a word unexpressed but implied, such as requests, instructions, demands, hopes and promises, that is, virtually all non-descriptive utterances.67 The effectiveness of a speech-act, i.e. its ‘performance’, depends on the circumstances surrounding it. Advocates of speech-act theory recognize this.68 For example, in many Western nations the groom may say, ‘I do’, but no performance occurs if the minister is unqualified or the bride says, ‘I do not’, or the groom is already married or the marriage is unconsummated or annulled; a Muslim husband may say, ‘I divorce you’, with the same non-consequence. In fact, the ‘act’ of marriage is the whole ceremony, the real ‘action’, not in the word or words in and of themselves. Also, in such cases, the ‘act’ in a speech-act depends upon a prior, ‘real’ act, e.g. of the nation’s enacted law. Similarly, a leader may call a meeting to order but if those present ignore it, no ‘act’ occurs. The same is true of any unkept spoken promises, warnings, agreements, offers or other such speech whether they may be called perlocutionary69 (by means of utterance) or illocutionary70 (implied or unexpressed utterance) speech-acts. That is, the ‘act’ force of a ‘speech-act’   J. R. Searle, ‘Indirect Speech Acts’ in Martinich (note 1), 161-175 (168); idem, Speech Acts, Cambridge MA, 111984, 30; see further T. Ward, ‘Acts of Speech’, Word and Supplement, Oxford 2002, 77-94; Voelz (note 65), 275-280; K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge, Grand Rapids MI 1988, 208-214; H. C. White, ‘Introduction’, Semeia 41: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Criticism, ed. H. C. White, Decatur GA 1988, 1-24, and the literature cited. In critique of Vanhoozer and of the theory generally cf. I. H. Marshall, Beyond the Bible, Grand Rapids 2004, 112-118. 68   Cf. Austin, ‘Performative’ (note 66), 106ff.; idem, How (note 66), 15f., 26: if ‘we are not in a position to do the act…, then the act in question…is not achieved’ (16); for a speech-act to occur there must be ‘certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances’ (26); Thiselton, 51: ‘ “illocutionary” speechacts…depend for their effectiveness on a combination of situation and recognition, and “perlocutionary” speech-acts…depend for their effectiveness on sheer causal (psychological or rhetorical) persuasive power’. 69   See OED, 2126, ‘per’: ‘a Latin…preposition meaning “through, by, by means of” ’; idem, 1651, ‘locution’: ‘a form of expression or phraseology’. 70   See OED, 1372, ‘il’ = ‘non-’ as in ‘illiterate’, ‘illegal’. Cf. Searle, ‘Indirect’, (note 67), 168: ‘an indirect directive’. 67



IV

203

is very contingent, dependent on and derivative from a previous, simultaneous or anticipated ‘real’ act. Does such contingency apply to this kind of speech in the Bible? A number of scholars have applied speech-act theory to Scripture, both (1) to ‘divine disclosure’ generally and (2) to biblical texts. (1) Nicholas Wolterstorff’s Divine Disclosure71 argues ‘that divine speech and divine revelation are distinct phenomena’72 and further that ‘divine disclosure’ is to be understood in terms of ‘divinely appropriated human discourse’73 in speech-act theory. His thesis rests, however, on his presupposition about the nature of divine revelation.74 If the presupposition, i.e. the lenses through which he reads the biblical text, is nonbiblical and only a philosophical construct, as it appears to me to be,75 then his argument loses its force.76 ‘Divine discourse’ may well be better understood not in terms of speech-act theory but as one aspect or medium of divine revelation. Concerning the application of speech-act theory to biblical texts77 and specifically to I Corinthians,78 three general comments may be made about its usefulness in interpreting the letter. (1) Method is secondary and always inadequate in itself. The Apostle Paul, using rabbinic methods, brought forth the Word of God from the canonical Scriptures in greater measure than we moderns with our methods have been able to do. The use of speech-act theory, whatever its 71   N. Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse. Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks, Cambridge 1995, 13, 19-36, passim; reviewed by Ward (note 67), 94-105. 72   Wolterstorff (note 71), 13. 73   Wolterstorff (note 71), 70. 74   Wolterstorff (note 71), 27-31, passim. 75   Cf. Ellis, ‘The Role of the Prophet in the Quest for Truth’, Christ, 255-278, 265-278. 76   Cf. Wolterstorff (note 71), 296: ‘[If] by way of authorized interpretation of the sacred text, God speaks anew: the line between divine discourse and interpretation is breached’. 77   E.g. D. Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech-Acts: An Analysis of 1 John, Leiden 1994; J. E. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech-Act Reading of John 4:1-42, Leiden 1991; Voelz (note 65), 280-292; R. S. Briggs, Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation, Edinburgh 2001. 78   Especially Thiselton, 43, 46-52, 146, 1017, passim; D. Neufeld, ‘Acts of Admonition and Rebuke: A Speech Act Approach to I Corinthians 6:1-11’, BI 8 (2000), 375-399.

204

1 CORINTHIANS

defects, may also be enabled by God to bring forth true meanings from biblical texts. This is so because the Word of God in the scriptural texts, i.e. their true meaning, is always in the hands of the Holy Spirit to veil or to unveil.79 (2) Philosophical speech-act theory is not, however, analogous to nor a key to understand prophetic, i.e. divine speech. Human speechacts are full of contingencies without which they are ineffective. In prophetic speech, however, as it is represented in the Bible, the word itself, mediated by the Holy Spirit, creates the reality in its own due time and with no contingency.80 For example, the prophet Micaiah said, ‘I saw all Israel scattered…as sheep that have no shepherd…’ A man ‘struck the king [of Israel]… So the king died’ (I Kg 22:17, 34, 37); Elisha said to Gehazi: ‘The leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you… So [Gehazi] went out leprous, as white as snow’ (II Kg 5:27); ‘Anna, a prophetess, was speaking about [Jesus] to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem’ (Lk 2:36, 38); Jesus said, ‘Be cleansed; and immediately his leprosy was cleansed’ (Mt 8:3 T + Q); Jesus ‘said to [the fig tree], “Let no fruit come from you forever.” And immediately the fig tree withered away’ (Mt 21:19 par); Peter said, ‘Those who have buried your husband…will carry you out. Then…[she] breathed her last’ (Acts 5:9f.). (3) From a human perspective the presuppositions81 brought to the biblical text and the method of biblical interpretation employed should be those which, in the providence of God, are best designed to draw out the true meaning of the text, i.e. its Word of God character. As to method, for our time in salvation-history it is, in the experience of most exegetes from the Reformation to the present, a critical historical-literary-theological approach. It is   Cf. Ellis, ‘The Word of God Hidden and Revealed’, Christ, 273-278.   Cf. B. B. Warfield, ‘The Biblical Idea of Inspiration’, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Phillipsburg NJ 61970 (1948), 148: as ‘the oracles of God’ (Rom 3:2) ‘Scripture is thought of as the living voice of God speaking in all its parts directly to the reader…’ 81   For me, Christian theism, a salvation-history hermeneutic, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the theological genre of Scripture as divine revelation. See 14:37; cf. II Thess 2:15 with I Thess 2:13; Heb 4:12; Isa 55:10f. A credible exegesis requires that in essential matters one’s presuppositions as well as one’s data be conformed to and proceed from those of the biblical author(s). 79 80



IV

205

questionable whether a philosophical ‘language game’, i.e. identifying certain biblical words as ‘speech-acts’, contributes to or aids in that interpretation. ]    4.      [            = ‘When you and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus are gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus’. The syntax is difficult. Some other possibilities are:82 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

‘When you are gathered…in the name…, deliver (5:5) with the power…’83 ‘When you are gathered in the name and with the power…’84 ‘Deliver (5:5) him in the name…and with the power…’85 ‘When you are gathered in the name and…with the power… deliver [him] in the name and with the power…’86 ‘When you are gathered with the power…, deliver [him]… in the name…’87 ‘I have judged (5:3)…in the name…when you are gathered… with the power…’88 ‘The one who has so carried on this thing (5:3) in the name… When you are gathered with the power…’89

  The views of earlier commentators are noted by Meyer, 111; of the more recent ones by Allo, 121; Conzelmann, 97 = GT: 117; Thiselton, 393f. For recent versions and paraphrases cf. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘I Corinthians 5:3-5’, Keys, 11; Fee, 206. 83   E.g. Chrysostom, Homily XV, 3f. (NPNF1 XII, 84f.); Olshausen, 89. 84   E.g. Weiss, 127ff.; Lietzmann-Kümmel, 22f. 85   Cf. Wolff, 102f. 86   E.g. Calvin, 107f.; Schmiedel, 91; Godet, I, 248. 87   E.g. R & P, 98; Kistemaker, 158. 88   E.g. Garland, 167. 89   Murphy-O’Connor (note 82), 245; Schrage, 372. This view, i.e. that ‘in Christ’ the OT moral law has been superseded and that sexually immoral practices were an expression of Christian freedom, did arise among the libertine Gnostics and was possibly present in inchoate form among some Corinthians, but hardly in so blatant an expression. If it had been viewed thus by Paul in this situation, he probably would have addressed it as he does more generally in 6:9-20. See above notes 33ff. 82

206

1 CORINTHIANS

Re ,  and  see above on 1:2, notes 131, 138, 139, 140; on 1:10.   is a genitive absolute. Cf. Zerwick, 18; BDF, 215, 218 §417, 423. 5.          = ‘deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh’. The infinitive is imperatival,90 giving Paul’s command to the church, i.e. most probably through a leadership caucus,91 to formally confirm and to carry out the apostolic judgment that Paul has already enunciated as a kind of prophetic speech-act (q.v. @ ### [note 80]). His apostolic-prophetic utterance is probably to be understood, with Käsemann, as ‘a sentence of holy law’ (q.v. @ 3:17, note 705)92 in which the incestuous Christian’s abhorrent and abominable ongoing unrepentant conduct receives, as it did for Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3-10), its just recompense: ‘[T] o be delivered over into the kingdom of Satan results in bodily death’,93 whether the death is rapid or prolonged. One must avoid, in the exegesis of this matter, the temptation to confuse God with Santa Claus and his holy love with human sentiment. Apropos the question about C. S. Lewis’ lion Aslan: ‘Is he—quite safe?’ ‘’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good’;94 so here Christ’s judgment through his apostle is good.   See II Thess 3:14f.; cf. Rom 12:15; Phil 3:16; Tit 2:2, 4, 6, 9; Ignatius, ad Eph 11:1d. On the imperatival infinitive in an indirect command, cf. 5:9, 11; II Thess 3:6; I Tim 2:14; Mt 16:12 (Lk 2:12), cf. Robertson, 1047; Moulton, I, 179f.; III, 78; BDF, 196f. Moule, 126f. 91   Rightly, Allo, 122. It would be virtually impossible for the whole church of four or so congregations, numbering at least several hundred, to engage in this kind of adjudication. Like the synagogue, the action was that of a leadership group. See above ### [82], note 8. Cf. Billerbeck, ‘Der Synagogenbann’, IV, 293-333, 298; C. H. Hunzinger, ‘Bann: Frühjudentum und Neues Testament’, TRE 5 (1980), 161-167 (162, 165f.). 92   E. Käsemann, ‘Sentences of Holy Law’, New Testament Questions of Today, Philadelphia PA, 21979, 66-81. So, Fee, 205; Schrage, I, 375. 93   Käsemann (note 92), 71. So, Bengel, 190; Godet, I, 256f.; Weiss, 131; Lietzmann-Kümmel, 27; Conzelmann, 97 = GT: 118; Wolff, 105. Otherwise: Hammond, 552; Meyer, 113; Fee, 210f.; Thiselton, 397; Kistemaker, 161; J. T. South, ‘A Critique of the “Curse/Death” Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:1-8’, NTS 39 (1993), 539-561. 94   C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, London 1950, 77. 90



IV

207

The term, , nine times in Paul’s letters,95 has its background in the OT ‫( שׂטן‬satan) where it means ‘adversary’ and is used for both human96 and angelic beings97 and specifically for the angelic evil adversary, Satan.98 The most significant and immediate background for the NT usage is the DSS where, however, it is not the term satan99 but the term ‘Belial’ (outside the DSS: ‘Beliar’) that is used,100 a word that in II Cor 6:15101 is equivalent to Satan.102 At Qumran Satan is the head of ‘the sons of darkness’ in their war against ‘the sons of light’ (1QM); he also catches Israel in the nets of fornication (CD 4:15ff.). Whether the clause here, ‘deliver to Satan’,103 involves the death of the fornicator largely depends on the force of    7:5; Rom 16:20; II Cor 2:11; 11:14; I Thess 2:18; II Thess 2:9; I Tim 1:20; 5:15. 96   E.g. I Sam 29:4; I Kg 11:14, 23ff.; Pss 38:20; 109:20, 29. 97   E.g. the Angel of the Lord (Num 22:22, 32). 98   I Chron 21:1; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Zech 3:1f. The LXX generally translates as  = ‘accuser’. Cf. K. Nielsen, ‘‫’שׂטן‬, TDOT 14 (2004), 73-78; KBR, II, 1316f. 99   Cf. Nielsen (note 98), 77f.: at Qumran the root satan occurs only five times: 1QH fr 4:6; 45:3; 1QSb 1:8; 4QDibHama 15:12 (Puech; 4:12 in Martinez, II, 1015); 11Q5 (11QPsa) 19:15. 100   On the DSS use of Belial for Satan see above on 2:6, note 425 and, e.g. 1QS 1:18, 24; 2:5, 19; 1QH 10:16; 12:13 = 2:16; 4:13; 1QM 1:1, 5, 17; 4:2; 13:1-4; 4:9; CD 2:6; 5:18. Elsewhere in other intertestamental and Christianinterpolated Jewish writings cf. Jubil 1:20; Test. XII: Reuben 4:11; Joseph 7:4; Judah 25:3; Issachar 6:1; 7:7; Levi 18:12f. Further, cf. W. Foerster, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971), 151-163 (152-156, Qumran; 156-163, NT); Billerbeck IV, 521, on II Cor 6:15. 101   The term is a NT hapax in a non-Pauline preformed piece, II Cor 6:14–7:1, used by the Apostle; so, Ellis, Making, 99f. 102   Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Peabody MA 2 1987, 198f.; V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians, Garden City NY 1984, 158, 362; R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, Waco TX 1986, 199ff.; S. J. Kistemaker, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1997, 229f.; P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1997, 347f.; M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., Edinburgh 2002, I, 474f.; M. J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 2005, 502f. 103   Elsewhere in Paul’s writings only in I Tim 1:20 where, unlike 5:4, the death of the blasphemer is not the expressed nor implied punishment. Cf. I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, Edinburgh 1999, 414f.; W. Lock, The Pastoral Epistles, Edinburgh 31952 (1924), 19f. 95

208

1 CORINTHIANS

(‘destruction’) and the meaning of  (‘flesh’)104 and a (‘spirit’)105 in Paul’s usage.  and its cognates are used elsewhere only for a lethal punishment, e.g. in the ‘outer darkness’, culminating in one’s annihilation in hell.106 ‘Flesh’ is used by Paul primarily for the person as he exists in or is determined by the present fallen age, either in his ethics or in his mortality.107 It may be so used of nonbelievers108 or for elect believers109 as they still exist individually in the present age and under the power of death. Neither here nor elsewhere does the Apostle follow the concepts of Platonic philosophy in which  is a separable material or physical ‘part’ of man in contrast to a separable and eternal non-physical ‘part’ of man, i.e. his ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’.110 This traditional understanding is the heritage of the Western church from Augustin, who found it not in Scripture, but in his pre-Christian Neoplatonism.111 With the above understanding of ‘flesh’ the judgment here involves the death of the man with respect to the present age.          = ‘so that the spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord’ (q.v. @ 1:8, notes 56, 68-71; @ 7:39, note 682). The  (q.v. @ 1:10) probably governs a result clause. With the aorist subjunctive  (q.v. @   Some 91 occurrences in Paul’s letters (Morgenthaler, 140).   Some 146 occurrences in Paul’s letters (Morgenthaler, 133). 106   I Thess 5:3; II Thess 1:9; I Tim 6:9. See below on 5:13 (Dt 17:7: death); 10:10 (). Cf. Mt 22:2, 13; 8:11f.; 25:1, 30; 12:28 Q; Ellis, ‘New Testament Teaching on Hell’, Christ, 179-199. 107   See above on 1:29, notes 288-295; below, ‘The Shape of Pauline Anthropology’, AE VIII, ###-### [280-290]. Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., New York 1955, I, 232-246; W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man, London 1956, 154-180; H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, London 21969, 178. 108   Eph 6:12: ‘flesh and blood’; 7:28; Rom 2:28; 7:5; 8:8f.: ‘in the flesh’; 10:18; Rom 8:1 AD, 8:5: ‘according to the flesh’; Rom 8:6f.; Col 2:18: ‘mind of the flesh’. 109   E.g. 15:50; Eph 6:12: ‘flesh and blood’; 7:28; Rom 7:18, 25, 28; 8:8f.: ‘in the flesh’; 1:26; Rom 4:1; II Cor 5:16: ‘according to the flesh’; Rom 6:19: ‘weakness of the flesh’. Regarding Paul: II Cor 4:11; 7:5; 10:3; 12:7; Gal 2:20; 4:13; Phil 1:22, 24; Col 1:24. Regarding Christ: Rom 1:3; 8:3; Eph 2:15; Col 1:22; I Tim 3:16. 110   Pace Parry, 88f.; R & P, 99f. 111   Cf. ODCC, 128, 1301f. and the literature cited. 104 105



IV

209

1:18, note 189) Paul points to the possible prospect of the incestuous offender’s salvation at Christ’s parousia; presumably he is uncertain whether the man is among Christ’s chosen ones, a true Christian, or only a professing but unregenerate hanger-on112 or a temporary believer.113 ‘The spirit’ refers to the human spirit which, in accord with the Hebrew word ‫רוח‬, may refer to the inward self, i.e. the whole person viewed from an internal perspective vis-à-vis the outward self, i.e. the whole person viewed from an external perspective.114 Or, as here, it may refer to one’s person as one exists in or is determined by the resurrected Christ vis-à-vis one’s existence in Adam = in the present age = ‘in the flesh’.115 The Apostle always addresses professing Christians in the organizational church as Christians even though he knows that just as ‘not all in Israel are of Israel’ (cf. Rom 9:6) so also not all in the organizational church are of the organic church = ‘the body of Christ’.116 6.    = ‘your boasting’ (q.v. @ 1:27f., note 298; 1:29: ). The phrase connects the Apostle’s critique in 5:1–6:20 with that in 1:10–4:21. The arrogant Corinthians’ prideful attitude toward fornication in their midst is the corollary of their boastful attitude about their false human wisdom: doctrine and ethics go together; false doctrine begets bad ethics, and bad ethics reflect false doctrine.117    = ‘do you not know that’ (q.v. @ 3:16). The IF probably introduces here a tradition learned from their synagogue background as Jews or Godfearers (q.v. @ 1:16, note 140), i.e. that   See above on 1:2, ; on 1:9, .   E.g. Simon Magus (Acts 8:13). Cf. Phil 1:6; Col 1:23; Mt 10:22; 24:13 par; Jn 8:31. 114   See above on 2:11, notes 491, 495; 4:21, note 948; below on 7:34; 16:8. Cf. II Cor 2:13; Num 14:24; Ps 32:2; Isa 26:9. See below, AE VIII, ###-### [283-290]. Cf. H. J. Fabry, ‘‫’רוח‬, TDOT 13 (2004), 365-402 (377). 115   6:16f. (Rom 8:4, 8, 13); Gal 3:3; Phil 3:3f.; or vis-à-vis ‘the letter’ (Rom 2:29; 7:6; II Cor 3:6ff.) or ‘the body’ (Rom 8:10). See below, AE VIII, ### [293ff.]. Cf. Schrage, II, 27f. 116   Whose scope and members only the Lord knows (II Tim 2:19; cf. Num 16:5 LXX; Phil 2:12f.). See above on 3:9, note 619; below on 11:19. Cf. Mt 13:47. 117   So also in the Apostle John’s mission: cf. I Jn 3:22; 4:2f. with 4:8; Ellis, John, 84. 112 113

210

1 CORINTHIANS

during the week (15-21 Nisan) following the feast of Passover (14 Nisan) only unleavened bread was to be eaten.118  .  As ‘a little leaven’, i.e. yeast, leavens a whole loaf of dough, so the permissive tolerance of an open and unrepentant fornicator infects or influences the whole Corinthian church.119 Similar negative metaphorical uses of leaven were employed by Jesus120 and by others in contemporary Judaism121 and in later Christian-derivative Gnostic circles.122 7.            = ‘clean out the old yeast in order that you may be a new loaf, just as you are unleavened’. The indicative () and imperative () are related123 in terms of the elect believers’ corporate sphere and status vis-à-vis their individual sphere, world-view and conduct. In their corporate union in and with Christ they are ‘unleavened’; that is, they have been delivered from the present evil age124 and from the power of darkness and 118   Cf. Exod 12:17ff.; also Lev 2:11, where no leavened-grain offering to the tabernacle was permitted. Cf. M Pesahim 1:1; 3:1 (Danby, 136, note 12). Further, see E. Otto, ‘‫’ ָפּ ַסח‬, TDOT 12 (2003), 1-24 (20-24); H. L. Bosman, ‘‫’פּ ַסח‬, ֶ NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 642ff.; R. A. Stewart, ‘Passover’, NBD, 871ff.; B. Schaller, ‘Passover’, NIDNTT 1 (1986), 632-635; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, London 1969, 75ff.; G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament, Oxford 1925, 323-397; A. Edersheim, The Temple, Grand Rapids 1954 (1874), 229-248, 249-262. 119   Cf. Gal 5:9. As the Apostle will explain in 6:16-19, the unrepentant, one-flesh union of sexual immorality in the church clashes impossibly with the one-Spirit union of the Christian and of the congregation with Christ. Either the unrepentant fornicator must depart or the Holy Spirit will depart. 120   For the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:6 parr, 11f.), but also in an ethically neutral sense (Mt 13:33 Q). Cf. H. Windisch, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 905f. 121   E.g. for pride, sensual pleasures and conceit (Philo, Questions on Exodus 1:15; 2:14 on Exod 12:8; 23:18); among the rabbis for the evil impulse (‫= יצר הרע‬ yetzer harah) or evil imagination (BT Berakoth 17a [Socino, 100]; GenR 34:10 on Gen 8:20f.). Cf. Billerbeck I, 728f. on Mt 16:6; IV, 468ff., 474; U. Luz, Matthew, 3 vols., Minneapolis MN 2007, II, 351n; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel According to Matthew, 3 vols., Edinburgh 1997, II, 588f., 593. 122   The Testimony of Truth 29:9-21, 13-16: the ‘old leaven of the Pharisees and scribes of the Law. And the leaven is errant desire…’ Cf. J. M. Robinson, ed., The Coptic Gnostic Library, 5 vols., Leiden 2000, V, 101-203 (123). 123   Somewhat differently, see also Schrage, I, 381f. 124   Gal 1:4. On  see above on 1:6.



IV

211

have been transferred into the kingdom of God’s son;125 they have put off the old man = Adam and have put on the new man = Christ126 and are now ‘a new creation’;127 they have died, risen and now corporately sit in heaven with Christ,128 freed from sin129 and glorified.130 Nevertheless, in their individual selves and as an organizational ‘church of God’ (1:2) they (as all other Christians) have not actualized this corporate reality and stand under an imperative to ‘clean out the old leaven’ that they might be a new () loaf,131 i.e. to repent and to renew a path of holy thought and life. They are to consider themselves ‘dead to sin and alive to God’,132 to present their bodies ‘a living sacrifice’, to be unconformable to the present age and to be transformed by a renewal of their mind;133 they are as a settled state of mind and action to put off the old man = Adam and to put on the new man = Christ,134 above all to put on love in their relationship to one another.135 The Apostle juxtaposes the indicative and the imperative in virtually all of his letters. He represents the individual holiness of Christ’s called and chosen ones (q.v. @ 1:9; 1:27) as a lifelong process, culminating as a point action in one’s resurrection at Christ’s parousia;136 he perceives their immortality to be ‘put on over’ their mortal being as a future-parousia act of Christ.137

  Col 1:13.   Col 3:9f.; cf. Rom 6:6; Ellis, Theology, 12; idem, Christ, 150f.; idem, Making, 105, 107, 111, note 344; idem, Old Testament, 112; idem, History, 119f.; idem, Prophecy, 171f. 127   II Cor 5:17. 128   Rom 6:2ff.; Eph 2:5f.; Col 2:20a; 3:3. 129   Rom 6:18. 130   Rom 8:30. 131    indicates ‘new’ with respect to time, e.g. in salvation-history (cf. Col 3:10);  indicates ‘new’ with respect to quality or nature (cf. II Cor 5:17). Cf. Trench, 219-225 §60. On the purposive  see above on 1:10. 132   Rom 6:11. 133   Rom 12:1f. 134   Eph 4:22, 24. 135   Col 3:12ff. 136   Phil 3:10ff.; Col 3:4; cf. I Jn 3:2. Similarly at Qumran, cf. A. Deasley, The Shape of Qumran Theology, Carlisle UK 2000, 173-254. 137   II Cor 5:4 (); Phil 3:21. See below on 15:51-57. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Structure of Pauline Eschatology’, Christ, 156f. 125 126

212

1 CORINTHIANS

Over all his exhortations and ethical teachings is the headline: ‘Become what you are!’ The indicative is the presupposition of the imperative.138      = ‘Christ our Passover was sacrificed’. Only here in the NT is Christ (q.v. @ 1:2, notes 127-130) given the designation or the title, ‘the Passover’ = ‘the paschal lamb’.139 With the phrase ‘our Passover’ Paul specifies and distinguishes Christ’s sacrifice140 from the covenantal event in the OT (Exod 12:1-20)141 and, in the light of the midrash at 10:1-11, he clearly understands the latter as a type of the new covenant event.142 There are other allusions to the Exodus in Paul’s letters143 that are possibly inclusive of the Passover, and it may be that Paul,

  Cf. Conzelmann, 98 = GT: 119.   Mk 14:12 par: ‘Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread when they killed the Passover’ (NKJV; cf. Exod 12:21). The Passover may also refer to the meal, Mk 14:16 parr: ‘They prepared the Passover’; or it may refer to the combined festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread (see above on 5:6). Cf. BDAG, 784f.; J. Jeremias, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/ 1954), 896-903. See above, note 118. Cf. S. Jeffrey et al., ‘The Passover and Penal Substitution’, Pierced for Our Transgressions, Nottingham UK 2007, 37-42. 140   Reflected in the words of John G. Foot’s 1905 hymn, ‘When I See the Blood’: ‘When I see the blood, I will pass over you’ (Exod 12:13). 141   The Last Supper was a Passover meal according to the Synoptics (e.g. Mt 26:17 parr; Billerbeck IV, 41-76 (74ff.); J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, New York 21966, 15-88); Ellis, ‘A Special Note on…the Last Supper’, Luke, 249f. Jesus interpreted the wine, and not the paschal lamb, as his shed ‘blood of the new covenant’ (Lk 22:20; cf. I Cor 11:25; and Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24). But from the nature of the meal the blood of the paschal lamb is comprehended and implicated. Similarly, at the Exodus ‘the blood of the covenant’ is identified with the sacrifices at the giving of the ten commandments (Exod 24:3-8, 8; Dt 5:1-21, 2; cf. also Jer 31:31-34, 32) and not with the Passover sacrifice (Exod 12), but the latter is comprehended in the subsequent covenantal events. See below on 11:20ff. 142   See below on 10:6 (), 11 (); 11:25  ). Cf. Ellis, ‘Typology’, Paul’s Use, 126-135; L. Goppelt, TYPOS: the Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1982, 110-116 = GT: 131-139. 143   10:1f.; 16:23ff.; II Cor 3:6ff. See the discussion of J. Hurd, The Origin of I Corinthians, London 1965, 138-141. 138 139



IV

213

like John,144 views Jesus the Messiah as the fulfillment of all of the Jewish festivals.145 But the allusions are too vague to make much of them. 8. The language146 and the style,147 ‘which [are] un-Pauline and Semitic’, suggest that 5:7b-8 is ‘based upon an early Christian Passover haggadah’.148 Having defined ‘the leaven’ in moral terms (5:6), the Apostle draws the same moral connotations for the Christian life generally, specifically celebrating () of the Christian Passover festival, i.e. the Lord’s Supper. It should be conducted, he writes, with ‘the unleavened bread of sincerity ()149 and truth’ ().150 He will raise this matter in detail at 11:17-34. On  see above on 1:7; on , see 7:19, note 567.   Cf. Jn 5–12; esp. 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 10:22; 11:55; A. Guilding, ‘The Pattern of the Fourth Gospel’, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship, Oxford 1960, 45-57, 171: ‘the things symbolized by the feasts are fulfilled in Jesus and his Church…’; Ellis, ‘The Witness of Messiah to Religious Judaism’, John, 54-72: ‘the evangelist [wants] to present Jesus as the fulfilment of the religious meaning of these feasts’ (65). 145   Some see allusions to the feasts of Pentecost (II Cor 3:7f.) and of Tabernacles (II Cor 5:1). Cf. Davies (note 40), 240ff.; Hurd (note 143), 139f. 146   Pauline hapaxes: , ; only once elsewhere in Paul:  (Gal 5:9),  (10:20). 147   E.g.   = ‫( חגג‬I Sam 30:16): ‘to celebrate in’ is a Semitic idiom; also, anarthrous adjectives following the noun  (bis) represent a use of the Hebrew construct state: ‘this Semitic construction makes its influence felt where a Semitic original lies behind the Greek…’ (BDF, 135 § 259). Ct. 5:7a where the adjective (as is usual in Paul) comes before the noun:   … . 148   Jeremias (note 141), 59f.; see below on 11:20ff. Cf. D. Daube, ‘The Passover Haggadah and the New Testament’, DCW, II, 327-462. On the modern form of the Passover haggadah, cf. A. A. Green, The Revised Hagada, London 3 1928. 149   Thrice in Paul (II Cor 1:12; 2:17; cf. Phil 1:10). Cf. BDAG, 282: ‘purity of motive’. ‘The adjective and substantive always denote moral purity’ (F. Büchsel, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 [1964/1935], 397f.) 150   Only twice in this letter (13:6).  occurs often in Paul’s letters with reference to God’s truth (Rom 3:7) or to the gospel (Gal 2:5, 14), i.e. truth that is in accord with reality (Rom 2:2) and true doctrine (II Cor 13:8). Or it may signify, as here, ‘sincerity’ or ‘honesty’; cf. II Cor 7:14; R. Bultmann, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 238-247; M. Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul, Cambridge 1985, 92-97. 144

214

1 CORINTHIANS

9.      = ‘I wrote you in my letter’. The verb is not an ‘epistolary aorist’,151 i.e. looking at the letter as the recipients would and referring to the present epistle. The phrase, ‘in my letter’, shows that a previous Pauline message to the Corinthians is in view;152  at 5:11 is more problematic. It is disputed whether the ‘previous letter’ is one sent with Timothy that had not yet arrived, is preserved elsewhere in Paul’s correspondence or, more likely, is lost.153    = ‘not to associate with fornicators’. As the term is used by Paul  like  (q.v. @ 5:1), has both a narrower and, as here, a broader significance. The narrower meaning refers to one who engages in illicit sexual intercourse with another single individual (7:2) or with a prostitute (cf. 6:15f., ‘whoremonger’);154 the broader meaning to one who has any kind of illicit copulation, including a married individual (‘adulterer’), a homoerotic (‘sodomite’, ‘catamite’, ‘dog’, Rev 22:15), a pedoerotic (‘pederast’) or a lesbian.155 The force of the indirect command in the present infinitive,  , like that of the present indicative,156 is progressive, i.e. ‘not to continue associating’ with such a willfully disobedient Christian, i.e. one ‘who is named a brother’ (5:11). The degree and context of this disassociation appears in 5:11. 151   As found, e.g. at Gal 6:11; I Jn 2:26; cf. Robertson, 845f.; BDF, 172; Burton, 21; Moule, 12. 152   Lightfoot, 207. 153   Cf. 4:17; Lightfoot, IV, 193. See above, Introduction, ###-###; cf. the discussion of Hurd (note 143), 50-58. 154   See above, note 12. 155   E.g. I Tim 1:9f., a vice list drawn in interpreted wording, i.e. peshered (q.v. @ 2:9, note 461), from the fifth to the ninth commandments (Exod 20:12-16), where ‘fornicators’ along with ‘homosexual copulators’ are named as violators of the seventh commandment: ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Exod 20:14). See also Did 2:2; Barn 19:4. This supports J. D. M. Derrett’s (Law in the New Testament, London 1970, 380f.) argument that ‫ נאף‬in the seventh commandment means not only ‘adultery’ but also other kinds of immoral sexual intercourse. But see D. Freedman et al., ‘‫’נָ ַאף‬, TDOT 9 (1998), 113-116. Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 95; idem, Making, 41, 64, 191n, 232, 407n, 412. See below on 6:9f., where ‘adultery’ has a precedent in Jewish interpretation from the ‘Noachic Decrees’; see above on 5:2, note 37. 156   Moulton, I, 204; III, 78; BDF, 174; Fanning, 391f.



IV

215

10-11. The terms, , , ,157 ,158 ,159 160 (fornicator, extortioner, swindler, idolater, reviler, drunkard) are probably drawn from preformed vice lists that Paul used earlier in teaching his congregations (11:2; Gal 1:8f.; I Thess 4:2f.). On  cf. 1:20, notes 219f. Among preformed traditions161 mutually or individually employed by the four allied apostolic missions162 are not only vice and virtue lists163 but also biblical commentary (midrashim),164 household165 and 157    (only at 5:10f.; 6:10 in the NT) means to take something forcibly and, depending on the context, may refer to ‘robbers’ (Josephus, War 6, 202f.), ‘swindlers’ (M & M, 79), ‘extortioners’ (5:10; 6:10 NKJV; Deissmann, 316n), ‘rogues’ (BDAG, 134). Cf. W. Foerster, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 472ff. On  see below on 6:10, note 264. On  cf. 1:1. 158   6:9; 10:7, 14; Rev 21:8; 22:15. Metaphorically identified with ‘covetousness’ at Eph 5:5; Col 3:5. Cf. F. Büchsel, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 379f. See below, notes 272, 273. 159   Only at 5:11; 6:10 in the NT. Cf. Calvin, 94f. on 4:12: ‘ (reviling) means that most cruel sort of biting wit, which gives a man not just a slight scratch but a deep bite, and damages his character by open insult. Therefore there can be no doubt that  means to wound a man with abusive words as with some sharp instrument…’ 160   Twice in the NT: 6:10 (q.v.). Cf. H. Preisker, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 545-548; P. J. Budd, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (1976), 513f. 161   Cf. Ellis, Making, 39-42, 60-69. 162   I.e. of James, John, Paul, and Peter (cf. Gal 2:9). The whole NT is the product of these four missions, each one producing a Gospel and a number of letters; cf. Ellis, ‘Toward a History of Early Christianity’, Christ, 212-224, 235; idem, Making, 32-47, 232f.; idem, History, 135-141. 163   Vice lists: 6:9f.; 10:6-10; Rom 1:24-31; Eph 4:28f., 31f.; 5:3ff.; I Tim 1:9f.; I Pet 2:1; 4:3; cf. Mt 15:19f. par.; Tit 3:3; Rev 9:20f.; 21:8; 22:15. Vice and virtue lists: Gal 5:19-23; Jas 3:14-17; cf. I Thess 4:2-8; 1QS 4:3-11. Virtue lists: Phil 4:8; I Tim 6:11; II Pet 1:5ff. Cf. Ellis, Making, 61-64, 95, 105-110, 232, 312f., 314-318, 407, 412. See below on 6:9f. They may have been used in the instruction of new Christians. Cf. Rom 6:17; I Thess 4:1-3; O Böcher, ‘Lasterkataloge in der Apokalypse des Johannes’, Leben Lernen im Horizont des Glaubens. FS S. Wibbing, edd. B. Buschbeck et al., Landau 1986, 75-84 (80). 164   1:18-31; cf. 2:6-16 with Jas 3:13-18; 10:1-13. Cf. Rom 9:30–10:21 with I Pet 2:4-10; Gal 3:6-29; 4:21–5:1; see below AE III, ###-###; Ellis, Prophecy, 154-162. 165   Eph 5:21–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1; I Pet 2:18–3:7. Cf. Rom 12:9-21; I Tim 2:9–3:1a; 5:4, 14; 6:1f.; Ellis, Making, 60, 64ff., 96ff., 110, 134f.; D. Daube, ‘Haustafeln’, DCW, II, 295-306: ‘The [household rules] in question come from the Hebrew, and, in Rabbinic Hebrew, the participle was the normal form for such rules’ (II, 304f.).

216

1 CORINTHIANS

congregational166 regulations, and hymns.167 If the Apostolic Decree offers an example,168 some NT preformed pieces not composed by the apostles of Christ may have originated in prophetic circles within the several missions. Some vices at 5:10f. are cited elsewhere in the Apostle’s letters. The NT vice lists are closer to one another than to similar lists elsewhere in contemporary Judaism,169 and they are closer to those elsewhere in Judaism than to those in roughly contemporary pagan writers.170 Like those in Judaism, they are rooted in the OT, often in the ten commandments,171 although the catalog form may have been influenced via Hellenistic Judaism from Stoic and other Greek philosophic patterns.     = ‘not even to eat with such a one’. The specification indicates a social separation that includes but is greater than exclusion from their Lord’s Supper communion.172 It is a needed discipline of ‘tough love’ that is not intended to alienate but will, applied with spiritual wisdom and judgment, bring conviction, repentance and reconciliation. 166   11:3-16; cf. 2:6-16 with Jas 3:13-18; 9:6-14 with Gal 6:6 and I Tim 5:17f.; 14:29 with I Thess 5:19ff. and I Jn 4:1; 14:34f. with I Tim 2:9–3:1a and I Pet 3:3-6. See Ellis, Making, 66ff., 81-87, 96, 312f., 414, 426-434. 167   E.g. Phil 2:6-11; I Tim 3:16; I Pet 3:18, 22. Cf. Ellis, Making, 45, 68, 91ff., 95, 100-109, 135, 230f., 416. 168   Acts 13:1f.; 15:22f.: ‘writing through their hand’ (   ); cf. 13:1ff. Cf. Ellis, Making, 64; idem (note 162), 235ff. See above on 1:9, note 79. 169   The Pauline vice lists have eleven terms or cognates that appear in more than one list. They include 50% of the terms in the Jesus-tradition vice list at Mt 15:19 par; 80% of those at I Pet 2:1; 66% of those at Jas 3:14ff.; c. 50% of those at I Pet 4:3, 15; 80% of those at Rev 9:20f.; 44% of those at Rev 21:8; 22:15. Cf. Ellis, Making, 62; idem, History, 143. See, e.g., 1QS 10:21-26; CD 4:17f.; Philo, de sacrif. Abel. 22, 27; idem, de confus. ling. 24. 170   Cf. Ellis, Making, 63; S. Wibbing, Die Tügend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, Berlin 1959, 23n, 98f. Pace B. S. Easton, ‘New Testament Ethical Lists’, SBL 51 (1932), 1-12. 171   E.g. I Tim 1:9f. See above, note 155; below on 6:9f. Cf. Exod 20:13-17; Prov 6:16-19; Hos 4:1f.; Jer 7:9; Ellis, Making, 63; Wibbing (note 170), 91-94; Thiselton, 445f.; B S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Cor. 5–7, Leiden 1994, 121: the [OT] Scriptures were an indispensable and formative source for 1 Cor 6:1-11…’ But see Conzelmann, 100f. = GT: 121ff. 172   For the rabbis excommunication also involved not eating with the person. Cf. Moed Katan 16a (Socino, 96f.); John Lightfoot, IV, 189.



IV

217

12-13. Paul contrasts the limits of his and the congregations’ obligation to render in the name of the Lord present judgment on wrongdoing only within the church (q.v. @ 5:3, 5) with God’s purpose and exclusive prerogative to render future judgment on those outside.173 He views his and the church’s word to the unbeliever to be ‘good news’ (), i.e. present and future divine blessings, with only a subordinate note of the prospect of future divine judgment.174 The clause at 5:12b, often read as a question, is better taken as a rebuke, leading into his repetitive (5:2, 5) and emphatic biblical conclusion: ‘You do not even judge those inside! “You put out the fornicator from among you” ’ (Dt 17:7 LXX).175 B. On Litigation within the Church (6:1-8) Who of you, having a matter against another, would dare to get a judgment before a court of the unrighteous and not before the holy ones? 2Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unworthy for the smallest cases? 3Do you not know that we shall judge angels, how much more matters of this life? 4Therefore, if you then have judgments to make about things of this life, do you place these matters before those who are despised by the church? 5 I tell you to your shame: Is it so that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to evaluate between a brother and his brother? 6Rather, a brother gets a judgment against a brother, and this before unbelievers! 7 Indeed, it is, then, already in fact a failure for you that you have lawsuits among yourselves. Why do you not rather suffer the wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8But you wrong and defraud, and do this to your brothers. 1

  5:13; cf. 11:32.   Cf. Rom 12:19; II Thess 1:6-9; Acts 13:38-41; 14:16ff.; 16:30-34; 17:30f. But see Acts 24:25. 175   : only at 5:2, 13 in the NT. Cf. M & M, 221. It is a strong verb: ‘expel’, ‘banish’, intensified by the double use of : …  (Thiselton, 417). On the OT background of Paul’s thought in 5:1-13 see the discussion of Rosner (note 171), 61-93. 173 174

218

1 CORINTHIANS

Textual Notes 7.  = ‘indeed’. Mss. lacking this particle, here emphatic, include p46 ‫*א‬ D* 33 1739. Those that have it (‫א‬2 A B C D1 Y M syph) better fit the context.

Structure The theme of litigation between members of the Corinthian church is set forth in a number of interrogatives, opening with a question as to where such litigation should take place (6:1). This is followed by two further questions (6:2f.), introduced by the formula, ‘do you not know’ tied together by a chain-link parallelism rooted in OT Hebrew poetry.176 Two further questions pose a fortiori arguments as to why the holy ones, i.e. the Christians, who are at the end of the age to judge both the world and the (evil) angels, are not wise enough to judge disputes among themselves (6:4f.). The conclusion shifts to a declarative indictment against the Corinthian church both (1) for having intractable internal disputes as such and (2) for turning to pagan courts to resolve them (6:6ff.). Commentary Summary This episode on disputes among church members, disputes presumably also known to Paul from oral reports, is placed in the midst of a section devoted to sexual issues (5:1–7:40). Its location would be easy to explain if the disputes concerned marital topics. But the episode describes them only generally as ‘wronging’ () and ‘defrauding’ () another.177 It may be a preformed piece inserted after the secretary had drafted the section, 5:1–6:20, an insertion here occasioned by the presence of the cognate terms  (6:8) and  (6:9).   E.g. Ps 131:1. Cf. T. Longman, ‘Poetry in the Old Testament’, NBD, 938f.; J. Weiss, ‘Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetoric’, Theologische Studien. FS B. Weiss, edd. C. R. Gregory et al., Göttingen 1897, 165-247, 174. 177    is used at 7:5 of depriving a spouse of sexual relations. Among scholars who associate the disputes with sexual issues are J. H. Bernard, ‘The Connection between the Fifth and Sixth Chapters of 1 Cor’, ET 7 (1907), 433-443; P. Richardson, ‘Judgment in Sexual Matters in 1 Cor 6:1-11’, NT 25 (1983), 37-58. 176



IV

219

The use of a question-form to describe the practice of some Corinthians, that both Paul and they know to be a fact, i.e. of taking personal disputes before pagan courts, lends force to his concluding assertions that they not only do this but do it wrongfully against fellow Christians (6:6, 8). Exegesis 1.                  = ‘Who of you, having a matter against another, would dare to get a judgment before a court of the unrighteous and not before the holy ones?’ The question, with the interrogative  (q.v. @ 2:11), is indefinite and refers to no particular individual; it assumes that a number of such cases have arisen. The subjunctive ‘dare’ states the theme and Paul’s verdict indirectly but no less clearly, as 6:5, 7 shows. The prepositions  and  govern three cases, genitive, dative and accusative,178 each with a variety of meanings. In the present context  with the accusative case signifies ‘motion toward’ in a hostile sense, i.e. ‘against’;179  with the genitive has a resultant meaning: ‘before’, ‘in the presence of’.180 The  (‘unrighteous’181 = , 6:6, ‘unbelievers’, ‘faithless’182) refers not to especially evil persons but only to the natural egocentric character of fallen Adamic man, although both terms can refer elsewhere to particular vices.183 On  (‘holy ones’) see above on 1:2. The traditional term ‘saints’ does not convey the force or scope of Paul’s thought. Paul here continues in the church, i.e. messianic Judaism, the practice elsewhere in Judaism that a Jew was not permitted to take another Jew to a pagan court. He was rather to have the dispute decided by Jewish authorities,184 specifically by a beth din (‫= בית דין‬ ‘house of judgment’). While the temple stood, i.e. until AD 70, the   Cf. Moule, 49-54; Moulton, III, 271-275.   Cf. BDF, 124f.; Moule, 52ff. But see above on 2:3. 180   Cf. Robertson, 603; cf. Moule, 50. 181   In Paul only here (6:1, 9), and at Rom 3:5 to signify what God is not. 182   More frequently in Paul: 7:12ff., 15; 10:27; 14:22ff.; II Cor 4:4; 6:14f.; I Tim 5:8; Tit 1:5. 183   ‘Unrighteous’: 6:9; cf. Lk 18:11. ‘Faithless’: Rev 21:8; cf. Tit 1:15f. 184   Cf. e.g. T Sanhedrin 7:1; BT Gittin 88b, Baraitha; Billerbeck III 362f., 443. 178 179

220

1 CORINTHIANS

Sanhedrin ‘acted chiefly as a court of last instance in legal or ritual disputes…’185 Subsequently, leading rabbis served in this capacity.186 ‘[D]uring the Middle Ages, as in modern times, a local rabbi alone represented the “beth din” ’.187 Although the Apostle himself at times followed this principle and submitted to punishments meted out by his Jewish ecclesiastical authorities,188 he also as a Roman citizen did appeal to pagan courts against those authorities.189 In modern application this argues that a Christian’s appeal against a Christian to a pagan, i.e. secular court, is permitted in certain circumstances190 although for the most part it should be avoided. 2-3. With the introductory formula, ‘do you not know that’ (q.v. @ 3:16) Paul probably alludes to his previous instruction of the congregations.191 On the poetic structure and on the Jewish background of suits in pagan courts see above, note 176 and on 6:1.     …  = ‘the holy ones will judge the world?…we shall judge angels?’ The  (q.v. @ 1:20) here refers to rational beings, presumably both men192 and angels193 at the eschatological judgment at the end of this age.

  L. Ginsberg, ‘Bet Din (‫’)בית דין‬, JE 3 (11901), 114f.   Cf. S. J. D. Cohen, ‘The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society’, CHJ III, 922-990 (962-971). 187   Ginsberg (note 185), 114f. Cf. J. Reiss, ‘When a Jew Sues’, Wall Street Journal 12 May 2006, W 11. Rabbi Reiss is the director of the Beth Din of America, one of the rabbinical courts in New York City. 188   II Cor 11:24f.; cf. Acts 22:3f.; 23:4f. As a ‘messianic’ Jew and a follower of a Jewish Messiah Paul continues to view himself in certain respects as a part of the Jewish nation. 189   Acts 25:10ff. 190   Also, no objection can be raised against a secular court’s decision about degrees of fault, say, in an automobile accident or in certain business transactions where only expert opinion is involved. 191   Conzelmann (104 = GT: 126), assuming I Thess 5:1ff. to reflect an established component of the elementary teaching of Christians, thinks that 6:2f. refers back to a part of an early Christian catechism. 192   E.g. 11:32; cf. Heb 11:7, 38; Jas 4:4; II Pet 2:5, 20. Elsewhere the ‘world’ may refer to the elect (II Cor 5:19; cf. Col 2:21f.) or to the natural creation (Rom 1:20; Heb 4:3; I Pet 1:20; II Pet 3:5ff.; cf. 3:13; Rev 21:1). 193   See below, notes 204ff. 185 186



IV

221

In OT teaching God is ‘the judge of all the earth’194 both in the present and at the final judgment Day (q.v. @ 1:8).195 Regarding the latter, both God the Father196 and Christ197 are represented in the NT as the judge of the elect believers,198 of professing but non-genuine believers199 and of all others;200 Christ is accompanied in his judgment = ‘ruling’ by his elect.201 From Daniel onward the biblical prophets and apostles more often focus on or transition to God’s judgment on the final Day of this age. The holy ones’ judgment of the world, found only here in Paul, refers not to their present corporate cruciform reign with Christ (q.v. @ 4:8) but very probably to their (corporate or individual) participation in Christ’s judgment of this unbelieving world at the Day of judgment202 and not to their ministry-role in the future kingdom of God.203 Their judgment of angels may refer to evil angels at the   Gen 18:25; cf. Dt 32:35f. (= Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30); I Sam 2:10; Pss 9:8; 50:2ff., 6; 96:13 (= Acts 17:31); Eccl 3:17; 12:14; Jer 9:24; 32:19; Ezek 18:30. 195   Dan 7:9; Mal 3:1-5. Cf. 1QpPsa 1–4; 4:11f. (Martínez, I, 343-347, 347). 196   Rom 2:2-6; 3:6; II Thess 1:5; cf. Heb 12:23; I Pet 1:17; 2:23 (II Pet 2:9); Rev 6:10; 11:17f.; 16:5ff.; 18:8, 20; 19:2; 20:11ff. 197   See above on 4:5; cf. Rom 2:16; II Cor 5:10 (if it refers only to an ‘evaluation’ of elect believers; so, Barnett [note 102], 273-277); II Thess 1:5-8; II Tim 4:1; Acts 10:42; 17:31; I Pet 4:5f.; Jude 6, 14; Rev 6:16; 19:11. Regarding present judgment: 5:3ff.; 11:31 (Gal 5:10); I Tim 5:12; Acts 5:4f., 9f. 198   4:5f. (II Cor 5:10); Jas 2:12; 3:1; I Pet 1:17. 199   Mt 7:22f.; cf. Lk 13:25ff.; Acts 8:9-24 with Epistula Apostolorum 1 (c. AD 150, NTA I, 252); Acts of Peter (Verselli) 4 (c. AD 160–180, NTA II, 290); Hippolytus, Refutation, 6, 1-15 (c. AD 225, ANF V, 74-81). 200   Mt 25:41-46. 201   Mt 19:28; Lk 22:29f. 202   Cf. Thiselton, 426f.; but see Olshausen, 99; Meyer, 129; Lightfoot, 210. This may have a background in Ps 149:9; Dan 7:22 LXX: ‘…the Ancient of Days came, and he gave judgment to the saints of the Most High’; Wis 3:8; Jubil 24:29; I En 95:3; 96:1; 98:12; 108:12; 1QpHab 5:4; Billerbeck III, 363; cf. Ps 104:4 (= Heb 1:7). 6:2 probably presupposes the resurrection of the wicked: cf. II Cor 5:10; Acts 17:31; 24:15. See below on 15:23. Cf. Schrage, I, 411. 203   For which cf. Mt 19:28 and Lk 22:29f.: ‘the twelve tribes of Israel = the people of God (Fitzmyer). Cf. Ellis, Luke, 256; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids 1978, 818; J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2 vols., Garden City NY 1985, II, 1419; F. Godet, Commentary on Luke, 2 vols., Grand Rapids, 1981 (1887), I, 470. Cf. Rev 3:21 (4:4; 11:16); 20:4. Whether Rev 20:4 refers to the Christians’ present reign with Christ (amillennial view) or to their future this-worldly reign after Christ’s second coming (premillennial view) is disputed. Cf. O. E. Collins, The Final Prophecy of Jesus, Eugene OR 2007, 431-467. 194

222

1 CORINTHIANS

judgment Day204 or to holy angels205 and to the elect believers’ governance206 of them throughout the age to come.207   = ‘by you’. The dative instrumental is indicated by 6:2a, but see Meyer, 129; Lightfoot, 210f.  = ‘matters of this life’, i.e. belonging to daily life and living in this world (cf. BDAG, 177; Lightfoot, 211; Trench, 91-95; F. Selter, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 [21986], 846). The word is found in the NT only at 6:3f. and Lk 21:34. 4.        = ‘do you place these matters before those who are despised by the church?’ The shift from the neuter ‘things’ () in the preceding interrogative dependent clause (6:4a) to the masculine ‘matters’ () may reflect a greater focus on the persons involved or on an attraction to the masculine ‘those…despised’. The key questions are whether the second plural present tense  is interrogative or imperative and whether the participle, ‘those despised’ or ‘of no account’, a strongly negative term, refers to the lowliest Corinthian Christians or to pagan legal authorities. A decision re the latter will determine whether the  is a locative (‘in’) or an instrumental (‘by’) dative.

  Cf. Mt 25:41; Gal 1:8; II Pet 2:4; Jude 6.   Col 2:18; II Thess 1:7; I Tim 5:21; cf. Mt 13:39, 41, 49; 16:27 T + Q; 18:10; 24:31 T + Q; 25:31; Lk 12:8f.; 15:10; Jn 1:51; Heb 1:7; 12:22. 206    in the NT usually means ‘to give a verdict’. But it may also mean ‘to decide a matter’ or ‘to govern’ (cf. Acts 15:19) and some favor this meaning here (e.g. Olshausen, 100; Lightfoot, 210; R & P, 100; cf. L. Vischer, Die Auslegungsgeschichte von I Kor.6, 1-11, Tübingen 1955, 117). This would reflect the Hebrew ‫ שפט‬in its sense ‘to rule’ as does Mt 19:18. See Judg 3:10; 10:2f.; I Kg 3:9 NRSV; Dan 9:12 NASV; KBR II, 1623f.; H. Niehr, ‘‫’שׁפט‬, TDOT 15 (2006), 411-431 (419f, 431); cf. Ecclus 4:15; Wis 3:8; 4Q511Shirb 10, 10. 207   In the present age evil angels are for Paul ‘the rulers of this age’ (q.v. @ 2:6ff.), and according to the visions of Dan 10:12f., 20f. and of Rev 7:1ff., passim, certain angels now have some kind of role over nation states and over the earth. Cf. Findlay, 814; R & P, 111f.; Ellis, History, 90f.; idem Prophecy, 51n; O. Cullmann, Christ and Time, Eugene OR 1999 (21964), 191-210 = GT: 1 169-186; idem, ‘Paul and the State’, The State in the New Testament, New York 1956, 50-70. 204 205



IV

223

The major choices of translation are either interrogative,208 as above, or imperative:209 ‘Place these matters even before the least esteemed in the church’.210 That the church or a congregation could set up such a court, probably on the lines of Jewish antecedents, the synagogue beth din211 or perhaps the courts of Qumran,212 is presupposed in the judgment of the incestuous man (5:2). But it is difficult to suppose that Paul, even ironically, would name the least-gifted Corinthians as ‘those who are despised’ ( ), a term that in Pauline and NT usage has condescending or contemptible connotations213 and cannot be softened to the phrase, ‘least esteemed’ (RSV). Applied to Christians, it could give a total misrepresentation of the Apostle’s attitude toward the Corinthians. The term would, however, in the light of Paul’s argument in 1:18–2:5, be most appropriate for the church’s and the Apostle’s attitude, not necessarily toward the duties (cf. Rom 13:1-7) or the persons of the pagan authorities but toward the worldly wisdom that they followed and to which they were in bondage. 5.    = ‘to your shame’, with  as a dative of reference and as pointing back to their conduct at 6:4. Paul does not 208   So, e.g. Tischendorf, II, 483; NA; Olshausen, 101; Meyer, 131f.; Henrici, 192; Barrett, 137; Conzelmann, 105; Fee, 235f.; Schrage, I, 412f.; Wolff, 115; Barnett, 91. On  (6:4a) see above on 4:16, note 924. 209   So, e.g. Chrysostom, Homily 17, 1, MPG, 61 (1860), 141 (NPNF1 XII, 92); Calvin, 120; Alford, II, 513; Edwards, 139f.; Godet, I, 289f.; Lightfoot, 211f.; Allo, 134f.; Bachmann, 229f.; B. R. Kinman, ‘ “Appoint the Despised as Judges!” (I Cor 6:4)’, TB 48 (1997), 345-354 (353). Calvin, 120, offers perhaps the most appealing wording for this interpretation: ‘Even the humblest and least significant among you will carry out this task better than the unbelieving judges to whom you are running’. 210   Moffatt, 63, combines an imperative with a reference to the pagans: ‘You refer [disputes] to the judgment of men who from the point of view of the church are of no account!’ 211   See above on 5:2, note 55; on 6:1. 212   Cf. M. Delcor, ‘The Courts of the Church in Corinth and the Courts of Qumran’, Paul and Qumran, ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor, London 1968, 69-84. 213   E.g. some converts’ status in the eyes of pagan society (1:28); dissident and arrogant Christians’ attitude toward (1) the ‘weaker’ brother (Rom 14:3, 10), the young Timothy (16:11), (3) Paul’s oratory (II Cor 10:10), (4) prophetic oracles (I Thess 5:20); or, in the Gospels, (5) the self-righteous toward others (Lk 18:9) or (6) toward Jesus (Lk 23:11; Acts 4:11).

224

1 CORINTHIANS

write ‘to shame’ (q.v. @ 4:14) them, but he notes that their conduct does or should bring ‘shame’ ( ),214 i.e. an inner conviction of conscience (q.v. @ 8:7). For it involves a disobedience to God’s commandment (Lev 19:18) and to Jesus’ instruction (Mt 18:15-20), and it is hurtful to Christ’s body, the church.215        = ‘Is it so that there is not a wise man among you…’.  (q.v. @ 4:1) has an initial emphatic position: ‘Has it come to this’, ‘Is it really so’.216  probably is a stronger form of .217 The (probable) noun  = ‘a wise man’ has been interpreted variously: (1) it is an ironic reference to some Corinthians’ claimed worldly philosophical wisdom (q.v. @ 3:18); but it appears to be used here of true divine wisdom (12:8), and the litigants are not necessarily identical with the group addressed in 1:10–4:21 although there may be some overlap.218 (2) It refers to an official or to a biblical scholar active in contemporary Judaism who, with different levels of authority, made such judgments219 and, in the light of the Corinthian church’s synagogue background, might also have been present in the church and called upon by it. Although the Apostle and the church did take over some features of rabbinic, i.e. mainstream Judaism, e.g. not taking internal disputes before pagan courts (see below), they did not do

214   As it does at 15:34, the only other NT occurrence of , where the phrase is repeated. Cf. Schrage, I, 413. 215   Q.v. @ 3:16; 12:12f., 27; see below, ‘The Corporate Body’, AE VIII, ###-###. 216   Cf. Lightfoot, 212. 217   Cf. Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Jas 1:17; Thiselton, 434: ‘an intensifying shortened form in place of ’. 218   The issue is different. The litigants are not accused of pursuing worldly wisdom nor of being arrogant but of shameful conduct toward their brothers. 219   Besides the titles, ‘judge’ (‫שפט‬, ‫ )דין‬and ‘elder’ (‫זקן‬, cf. Ezra 10:8), he was also named ‘wise man’ (‫)חכם‬. But it was a human function not a divine gift. Cf. Billerbeck III, 364f.; U. Wilckens, ‘ ’, TDNT 7 (1971/1964), 506; E. Dinkler, ‘Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus’, Signum Crucis: Aufsätze…, Tübingen 1967, 208. The OT ‘wise man’ was, along with the prophet and the priest, a mediator of divine revelation. Cf. e.g. I Kg 3:12; 4:31; Jer 18:18. See Ellis (note 305), 477ff. But that divine gift in Israel had long since merged with prophecy. See below, ‘The Merging of Wisdom and Prophecy in Daniel and Qumran’, AE VI, ###-### [248-252].



IV

225

so because there were Holy Spirit gifted ministries among them, of which ‘wisdom’ was one (12:8). The closest Jewish analogy and background here were the maskilim (‫ )משכילים‬among the charismatic Qumran Essenes.220 The most likely reference of  is to the pneumatic gift of inspired discernment (q.v. @ 2:6-16), a word of wisdom (  12:8) that was present among the Corinthians (see on 1:5, 7). Rightly used, this gift could enable one to mediate disputes among themselves, but it was not properly used because of the immature fleshly character of those who received it (see on 3:1). Paul softens his critique as a question, but his meaning is clear enough.       = ‘to evaluate between a brother and his brother’ (q.v. @ 1:10)? This sentence is incomplete and either suffered a textual omission by Paul’s secretary221 or, more likely, a not uncommon ellipse in Paul’s dictation.222 The aorist infinitive  (‘to evaluate’, q.v. @ 4:7) means ‘to decide summarily, with the stroke of a pen’, by arbitration in contrast with the present passive  (6:6), indicating a lengthy drawn out process of a lawsuit.223 6.     .  The exclamation,224 culminating the preceding questions, opens with the sharply negative : ‘on the contrary!’225 The singular passive  (‘get a judgment’, q.v. @ 6:1) and the singular ‘brother’ suggest that the Apostle’s censure is directed particularly to the plaintiff in the lawsuit.226 Although (presumably) some social or financial status would generally be requisite for a hearing and decision by

  See below, AE VI, ###-### [248-260].   So, J. Klohe, ‘1 Corinthians 6:5: A Proposal’, NT 46 (2004), 132-134 (perhaps); Zuntz, 15. 222   Perhaps from Semitic influence, via the LXX, on Paul’s Greek. Cf. BDF, 77 §139: ‘an abbreviation’; the LXX at Gen 16:5; Exod 11:7; 26:33; Dt 1:16 (!); Ezek 34:17, 20. 223   Godet, I, 292. On  see above on 1:1. 224   Although some take the clause as a continuing question: NA, Conzelmann, 105; Fee, 237 (‘uncertain’). 225   See Ellicott, 114f.; below on 7:19, note 567; cf. R & P, 115. 226   So, Meyer, 132 on 6:5. 220 221

226

1 CORINTHIANS

a magistrate’s court,227 there is no suggestion (given the above reading of 6:4) that the lawsuits here involve powerful plaintiffs against weaker defendants.228     = ‘and this before unbelievers!’ See above on 6:1. The issue is more confessional than ethical, more the inappropriateness of the action than any shame or scandal imposed on the church by the pagans for whom such court actions were an appropriate and everyday affair. The shamefulness of such lawsuits was experienced within the church (6:4) and to the church (6:7, ) because of the wrongful attitude and conduct toward a brother that underlay the actions (6:8). ]        7-8.   [  . On , ,  see on 4:16, note 924;229 5:1, note 11; 3:16a. The rare noun  (‘failure’) may apply both to the litigants and to the whole church () which through her leadership has not resolved the disputes as she could have done.230 The term  (‘judgments’), like  (q.v. @ 6:2f.), generally is used in the NT for the judicial verdict231 but here refers to the legal process, i.e. lawsuits.232 The phrase,   (‘with your own selves’) rather than   (‘with one another’) probably, like , points to the solidarity of the church and to the damage that lawsuits do to it.233 227   Cf. B. W. Winter, ‘Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church’, NTS 37 (1991), 559-572 = Understanding Paul’s Ethics, ed. B. S. Rosner, Grand Rapids 1995, 85-103; M. M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, Tübingen 1991, 116ff.; Fee, 229n. Further, B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, Grand Rapids 2001, 58-75. 228   Pace A. C. Mitchell, ‘Rich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth’, NTS 39 (1993), 562-586 (571-586); J. K. Chow, Patronage and Power, Sheffield UK 1992, 105-112, 123-130; see Schrage, I, 414. 229      may be expressed ‘already then’, ‘there is to begin with’. Cf. Lightfoot, 212; R & P, 115; Meyer, 133. 230   See above on 6:1, 4. Cf. Schrage, I, 412; S. Koch, Rechtliche Regelung von Konflikten im frühen Christentum, Tübingen 2004, 150; D. W. B. Robinson, ‘ “To Submit to the Judgement of the Saints” ’, TB 10 (1962), 1-8. 231   A possible exception: Rev 20:4. In the OT, e.g. Gen 16:5; Dt 16:18. 232   Rightly, Schrage, 414; cf. F. Büchsel, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 942; BDAG, 567. Cf. e.g. in the OT: Exod 18:13; Dt 25:1f. (‫)פטשׁמ‬. 233   So, Lightfoot, 212; R & P, 116 (‘possible’).



IV

227

    …   = ‘Why not rather be wronged…be defrauded?’234 Or ‘Why not rather submit yourselves to be wronged…defrauded?’235 The plurals point to a broader problem than one or two cases. The wrong could refer to any unrighteous conduct; ‘to defraud’ refers to property. Both are probably non-violent and perhaps surreptitious. The Apostle first addresses the innocent parties, probably those plaintiffs who bring the suit but possibly defendants contesting a wrongful legal action. The  (‘rather’) shows that Paul is urging a preference and not a prohibition:236 ‘Better to suffer wrong than to engage in public conduct against a brother, even a wrongful brother, and thereby disrupt and damage the church and perhaps undercut its mission to the surrounding pagan society’. In 6:8 Paul turns his attention to litigants who are guilty either of wrongful acts or of wrongful lawsuits: ‘But you rather (, q.v. @ 7:19, note 567) wrong and defraud, and do this to your brothers’ (q.v. @ 1:1, note 47). What he says of pagans at 6:1 () he applies here () to unrighteous Christians. In his questions and accusation the Apostle reflects the principle of justice annunciated in the OT law237 and also in the pagan moral philosophers,238 but in the inference to be drawn from his mention of ‘brothers’, he is closer to a principle of love found explicitly elsewhere in his letters239 and in the teaching of Jesus.240 Why does he not restate his own views or, as at 7:10; 9:14, cite Jesus’ teachings 234   This translation takes the second person plural present indicative as a passive voice, but the middle voice has the same form. 235   This translation takes the verbs as middle voice. So, e.g. Thiselton, 437; R & P, 116; Meyer, 133; cf. BDF, 165 §314; Moulton, III, 57: ‘Intransitive active in idea’: ‘Submit to fraud…loss’. 236   In different circumstances Paul himself will appeal to a pagan court. See above on 6:1, note 189. 237   Cf. e.g. Lev 19:13: ‘You shall not cheat your neighbor nor rob him; the wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning’ (NKJV); Exod 21–22; esp. 21:24. 238   E.g. Plato, Gorgias, 509 C: ‘We declare doing wrong to be the greater evil, and suffering it the less’ (Loeb); Seneca, Epistulae 95, 52: ‘It is more wretched to commit than to suffer injury’ (Loeb). Cf. Epictetus, Discourses 2, 10, 22-30; Koch (note 230), 151-154; Schrage, 415; Hering, 41n; further, Weiss, 152n. 239   Rom 12:17; 13:8ff.; I Thess 5:15. 240   E.g. Mt 5:39-45 Q. So, Hering, 41; Fee, 241; Schrage, I, 415. Otherwise: Weiss, 152 (‘doubtful’).

228

1 CORINTHIANS

on this issue?241 Is it because he did not know Jesus’ teachings in this area?242 Does he allude243 or implicitly refer to them244 but for one of a number of reasons does not cite them?245 Does he deliberately delay his own positive response to, say, 12:31b–13:13, 5? No answer is fully satisfying but the latter two suggestions are not improbable. In view of the Apostle’s own action in 5:13, he clearly does not identify Christian restraint in the face of wrongful attitudes or conduct with passivity or resignation.246 He would, I suggest, in the light of Gal 2:14 and Mt 18:15, affirm a confrontation in a brotherly attitude: ‘You have wronged me in this matter and have an obligation as a Christian to rectify it. But for the sake of Christ and of the welfare of our church I will not take you to court about it’. In other circumstances he would have an innocent Christian defendant do as he himself did, ‘I appeal to Caesar’ (Acts 25:11). Christians live in two kingdoms,247 the kingdom of God, where our permanent commonwealth and citizenship lie;248 and in the kingdoms of this world of everyday life.249 In the present-day ‘kingdoms’, Christians may vote on social questions or candidates; they may serve as police, as judges, as generals, as governors, and as presidents. In such circumstances the Apostle would, I believe, urge such Christians in their governing capacity to follow, mutatis mutandis, the OT principles of quid pro quo justice that God ordained through

  E.g. Mt 5:39-42; 18:15.   This is doubtful in the light of (1) Paul’s two weeks with Peter (c. AD 36, Gal 1:18) and (2) some period of time during the famine visit (c. AD 46, Gal 2:1-10 = Acts 11:28ff.; 12:25) with James, Peter, and John, two of whom had been involved in reworking and making episodic summaries of Jesus’ word and work. Cf. Ellis, Making, 30-39, and the literature cited; see above on 4:1f., note 780. 243   So, Godet, I, 294; Fee, 241. 244   Cf. Schrage, I, 415. 245   E.g. that Paul knows the Corinthians have been taught them (cf. 11:2; Rom 6:17; 16:17; I Thess 4:2; II Thess 3:6 [I Tim 1:3]; II Tim 1:13) but does not here wish to pursue the issue and makes his own brief rebuke. Cf. Barrett, 139. 246   Re himself cf. 4:21; 5:3ff.; II Cor 13:2; Gal 2:11-14; II Thess 3:10. Regarding others: 5:11, 13; I Thess 5:14; II Thess 3:6; I Tim 5:20; II Tim 2:2. 247   Cf. H. Bornkamm, Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, Philadelphia 1966; G. Ebeling, ‘Luther II. Theologie’, RGG3 4 (1960), 509ff. 248   Phil 3:20. 249    (‘this life’). Cf. 6:3f. 241 242



IV

229

Moses for the present age (): ‘Hate evil, love good; establish justice in the gate’;250 ‘…do justly…love mercy, and…walk humbly with your God’.251 C. Sexual Vices to Be Shunned (6:9-20) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God; do not deceive yourselves. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor catamites, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor coveters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And these things were some of you. But you were washed; but you were made holy; but you were made righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 12 ‘All things are lawful for me’, but not all things are profitable; ‘all things are lawful for me’, but I will not be addicted to anything. 13‘Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods’, and God will destroy both it and them. The body, however, is not for fornication but rather for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14Now God both raised the Lord and will raise us up through His power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Therefore, having taken away the members of Christ, shall I make them the members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that the one united with the prostitute is one body with the prostitute? For it says, ‘The two shall become one flesh’. 17But the one united with the Lord is one Spirit with the Lord. 18Flee fornication! Every other sin that a man may do is outside the body. But the one who fornicates sins against one’s body. 19Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20For you were bought with a price. Glorify God, above all, in your body. 9

250   In OT Israel, the ‘gate’ of the city was where disputes were brought, decisions made, prophecies given and laws pronounced. E.g. I Kg 22:10; Jer 17:19; 38:7-10; Lam 5:14; Amos 5:12; Zech 8:16. Cf. E. Otto, ‘ׁ‫’רﬠש‬, TDOT 15 (2006), 359-405 (395-400); R. S. Hess, ‘ׁ‫’רﬠש‬, NIDOTTE 4 (1997), 209. 251   Amos 5:15; Mic 6:8 NKJV. Cf. Lk 3:12ff. In Anglo-Saxon law the governor and president or Sovereign both execute justice and, in their discretion, commute or pardon a convicted criminal; the judge both executes the jury’s verdict and, for good reason, directs a verdict or varies the convicted person’s sentence.

230

1 CORINTHIANS

Textual Notes 11.  . Standing alone, the word order in Paul is usually the reverse (q.v. @ 1:1, Textual Note). With a preceding , as here, the present order is more frequent. Codices A D2 Y M have the shortest reading (), followed by the Textus Receptus and by the KJV. Codices B Cvid P 33 the longest:    . The NA and the UBS NT, preferred the above reading following p11vid p46 ‫ א‬D*. Cf. Metzger, 486. 14. . The mss vary in fairly equal weight between three tenses, present (, p11 p46* A D P), aorist (, p462 B 1739) and future (, p461 ‫ א‬C D3 K L). Ms p46 (c. AD 200) was altered twice.252 The aorist would be correct if the Apostle were referring to the believers’ corporate resurrection with Christ in AD 33,253 but in light of the distinction between the resurrection of Christ and of believers he probably refers to the future individual parousia resurrection of the latter. If so, the aorist was apparently a copyist’s attraction to and duplication of the preceding . 20. . This term ends the episode for the earliest and best mss (p46 ‫ א‬A B C* D* F G 33 1739); others add          (C3 D2 Y M vgms sy). The latter phrase has no parallel in Paul’s letters and was probably added as a theological supplement when later scribes no longer understood that ‘body’ signified the whole person (q.v. @ AE VIII, ###).

Structure This partial episode, opening with the conjunction  (‘or’) introducing an alternative, is in all likelihood the concluding part of the section, 5:1-13; 6:9-20, into which the Apostle or his secretary has inserted 6:1-8 during the drafting process. It opens with a   Cf. Zuntz, 257: ‘It is unlikely that the corrector found these variants, all three, in the manuscript from which p46 was copied. We seem to be granted a glimpse into a scriptorium where some authoritative manuscripts were used by the correctors in an endeavour to bring the productions of the scribes up to a definite standard [in the p46 manuscript]’. 253   Cf. Rom 6:4: ‘Therefore, we were buried with [Christ] through baptism into his death, so that as Christ was raised out of the dead bodies through the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life’. Rom 8:30c: ‘And whom he justified, these he also glorified’. Gal 2:19f.: ‘For through the law I died in the law in order that I might live in God; I have been crucified with Christ nevertheless I live ( )’. Eph 2:6: ‘Even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive with Christ…and raised us up and seated us with Christ in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’. Cf. Col 2:12f. See Ellis, ‘The Corporate Son of Man’, ‘Present and Future Eschatology in Luke’; ‘The Believer’s Corporate Existence in Christ’; ‘The Corporate Body’, Christ, 85-88, 126, 142-146, 150, 171-178. 252



IV

231

preformed vice list of persons characterized by various wicked acts (6:9f.), lifestyles from which, Paul declares, the Corinthians have been delivered (6:11). It proceeds, using a couplet (6:12) + another chiastic form (6:13f.),254 with a critique of certain Corinthians who affirm or practice some such sexual sins (6:12-13a) and concludes with the Apostle’s explanation of the evil of such conduct and the reason why it must be stopped (6:13b-20). Commentary Summary Paul reminds them of his earlier (oral) instruction that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom and identifies such persons in terms of a list of vices, also taught them earlier but here expanded and tailored to the Corinthian situation. The phrase ‘all things are lawful for me’ (6:12) is probably Paul’s statement originally meant to signify the Christian’s deliverance from the OT ritual, including kosher laws. But it is now interpreted by some Corinthians in libertine fashion to allow exemption (also) from biblical moral laws. Paul responds that Christian freedom on matters indifferent is to be exercised only when they are beneficial to others or non-seductive to oneself, an issue that he will return to at 8:1–11:1. A second slogan, ‘foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods’, apparently a common proverb or of Corinthian origin, may regard the body itself as a matter of indifference and, on that basis, justify either immoral sexual indulgence or, on the other hand, an ascetic lifestyle. The Apostle vigorously counters this view with a judgment that God will bring to an end not only such ‘foods’ so used but also those who so indulge in them. He then explains that it is precisely the individual’s body that (1) belongs to the Lord (6:13d) and (2) is the object of God’s resurrection redemption both of Christ in AD 33 and of his elect at Christ’s second coming (6:14). Furthermore, sexual union with a prostitute creates a physical corporate person with her (6:16), a corporeity that is in total contradiction to the Holy Spirit-created corporate person in which the elect believer exists as ‘the body of Christ’ (6:16f., 19; cf. 12:27). Consequently, fornication () must be avoided at all costs.   Cf. Lund (note 10), 145.

254

232

1 CORINTHIANS

On the contrary, since his chosen ones were bought by God at the utmost price, they are to glorify God with their body. Exegesis 9-10. NT vice and virtue lists (q.v. @ 5:9ff., notes 155, 163, 169ff.), apparently first noted by Weiss (133), are common to the letters of the four apostolic missions (q.v. @ 5:10f., note 163) and are a part of the initial instruction of converts, with variations in accordance with the particular circumstances of each congregation. This is indicated here by the IF,     (q.v. @ 3:16). The conjunction  (‘or’) introduces the second of two alternatives. It connects better with 5:13 than with 6:8, supporting the above suggestion that 6:1-8 has been inserted at the drafting stage of the letter, inserted here perhaps because of the cognate terms,  and , at 6:8 and 6:9.      The unrighteous (, q.v. @ 6:1), i.e. all in Adam, are here identified by specific acts of evil conduct. The phrase, the kingdom of God, may refer in Paul’s letters, as in Jesus’ teaching, to its hidden present manifestation to and in the elect or to its future public manifestation at Christ’s coming at the end of this age (q.v. @ 4:8, notes 866ff.). The clause, ‘to inherit () the kingdom of God’, however, always has in the NT a future ‘end of the age’ reference.255 The concept is rooted in God’s promise of the ‘land’ to Abraham and his seed,256 initially referring to the general Syrian-Palestinian area. But in the later OT history of salvation the promise was both broadened to include a greater area (e.g. Isa 54:3), and the Gentile peoples,257 and, at length, a new transfigured earth associated with 255   Cf. 6:9f.; Mt 25:34; Rom 4:13 (‘heir of the world’); Eph 1:18 (‘hope…of his inheritance’). So also, ‘inherit the earth’ (Mt 5:5); ‘…everlasting life’ (Mt 19:29 par; Mk 10:17 par; Lk 10:25); ‘…salvation’ (Heb 1:14), ‘…the promises’ (Heb 6:12), ‘…the blessing’ (I Pet 3:9). Similarly, the noun, ‘inheritance’ (): Acts 7:5; 20:32; Gal 3:18; Eph 1:14, 18; 5:5; Col 3:24; Heb 9:15; 11:8; I Pet 1:4f. Cf. M Sanhedrin 10:1–4: ‘[These sinners] have no share in the world to come’. 256   I.e. his descendants. Cf. Jer 12:14; Gen 15:7, 18: ‘from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates’ (18 NKJV). 257   Gen 17:5; Dt 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10; 65:1; Hos 2:25 as interpreted by Rom 4:16f.; 15:10ff.; 10:20; 9:25. Also, Dan 12:13 (‫)ורלג‬. J. Eichler, ‘ ’, NIDNTT 2 (1976), 295-303 (298); cf. J. Hermann and W. Foerster,



IV

233

the final judgment and annihilation of the wicked.258 The promise was also narrowed to the faithful remnant of Abraham’s (physical) descendants.259 In apocalyptic and rabbinic literature and in the NT the promise to Abraham was given an eschatological designation of the kingdom of God.260 The few uses of the phrase, ‘inherit the kingdom of God’, in Paul’s letters always in the negative, also have a judgment-day reference.261   = ‘do not deceive yourselves’.262 The present imperative is taken best here as a middle voice with the force, ‘stop engaging in self-deception’.263                     = ‘neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor extortioners, not drunkards, not revilers, not swindlers’. These ten vices are all personal actions; hence the translation, ‘extortioners’ or ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 769-776. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., Edinburgh 71998, I, 242f.; O. Michel, Der Brief an der Römer, Göttingen 51978, 170f.; Ps 37:11 as interpreted by Mt 5:5. Cf. 1QS 11:7ff. 258   Isa 65:17-25; 66:12ff., 22ff. as interpreted in II Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1, 4; Ps 102:25ff. as interpreted in Heb 1:10ff.; Isa 65:6f., 11-15; 66:15f. as interpreted in II Thess 1:8; Isa 66:24 as interpreted in Mk 9:44. Cf. Ellis, ‘New Testament Teaching on Hell’, Christ, 179-199 (191-196). 259   Isa 65:7ff.; 10:22f. as interpreted by Rom 9:27. Cf. Pss 25:12f.; 37:9; Isa 57:13; Zech 8:11; 1QS 2:1-10; 1QH 11:19-23 = 3:19-23; 1QM 1:1-5; 4:2; 13:2f., 7-10. Cf. E. Lipiński, ‘‫’נָ ַחל‬, TDOT 9 (1998), 328ff., 334f.; C. J. H. Wright, ‘‫’נחל‬, NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 77-81; N. Lohfink, ‘‫’יָ רשׁ‬, TDOT 6 (1990), 368-396 (393-396). 260   Cf. Billerbeck I, 829; III, 365; H. Ringgren, ‘Eschatology’, The Faith of Qumran, New York 21995, 152-198; M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, New York 1961, 128-144; Deasley (note 136), 255-321; J. Verheyden, ‘The Fate of the Righteous and the Cursed at Qumran and in the Gospel of Matthew’, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. F. G. Martínez, Leuven 2003, 427-449. See above on 4:8, note 866; J. Sweet, Revelation, London 1979, 300-312. 261   6:9f.; 15:50; Gal 5:21; cf. Eph 5:5. But see Heb 1:14; 6:12; Rev 21:6f. 262   The phrase also occurred as an accusation made in the Greek diatribe, but this was hardly the connotation of the warning here or elsewhere in the NT. But see H. Braun, ‘ ’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 228-253 (224f.). Cf. W. Günther, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 457-461. 263   So, Fee, 242; perhaps also Gal 6:17. Cf. 15:33; Jas 1:16; BDAG, 822 §g.

234

1 CORINTHIANS

‘coveters’ ().264 They are clearly derived from preformed tradition,265 six of them repeating items at 5:10f. (q.v.). If persisted in, they exclude one from the kingdom of God. But the Apostle, like Jesus266 or the Decalogue,267 can also identify equally as a vice an intention of the heart.268 For the secular world ‘vice’, e.g. a grossly immoral habit or conduct or a depravity or a serious fault,269 is defined especially with reference to a particular society’s conventions. For Paul, as for the Scriptures generally, it is defined with reference to God’s attitudes, i.e. his teachings as expressed through the biblical apostles and prophets. In a word vice is sin, specifically a violation of the two greatest divine commandments, love for God and love for neighbor.270 It contravenes love for God by disobeying his moral commands271 and love for neighbor by exploiting another for one’s own interest. Each vice named at 6:9f. involves both. The list falls into two segments. The first concerns four sexual sins, one mentioned earlier (q.v. @ 5:1, 9f., ‘fornication’, ‘fornicator’), that are essentially an updating and elaboration of the seventh commandment of the Decalogue, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (q.v. @ 5:9, note 155). The second segment, with one 264   Acts of extortion commonly arise from attitudes of greed or covetousness. Cf. II Cor 7:2; 12:17f.; I Thess 4:6; G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 266-274. 265   Rightly, Conzelmann, 106 = GT: 128: 6:9f. ‘is plainly drawing on set tradition’. Cf. Ellis, Making, 41. 266   E.g. Mt 5:21f., 27f. 267   E.g. Exod 20:17: ‘You shall not covet’. 268   E.g. Rom 8:7f.; Eph 4:22, 31; 5:5; Col 3:5. The 15 vices at Gal 5:19ff. include a number of mental attitudes: hatred (), jealousy (), envy (). 269   Cf. OED, II, 3624. 270   I.e. Dt 6:5 cited in Mt 22:37 par; Lk 10:27; cf. Jn 14:15, 23; 15:12. Lev 19:18 cited at Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Mt 22:37-40 par; Lk 10:27f.; Jas 2:8. 271   Jesus (e.g. Mt 12:2ff., 7 T + Q; 15:2f. par; 23:23 Q) and Paul (e.g. 7:19; Gal 5:6; cf. Rom 14:5) view the law of Moses as distinguishing between (1) everlasting moral commands rooted in and expressing God’s character and (2) ceremonial, ritual and other commands expressing God’s teachings for a particular time and situation. For a critique of voluntarist, historicist and situationalist interpretations of the Law that fudge, deny or misconceive that distinction cf. Z. Holloway, ‘A Conceptual Foundation for Using the Mosaic Law in Christian Ethics’, Churchman 120 (2006), 119-144.



IV

235

possible exception (‘drunkards’), concerns matters that are essentially an updating and elaboration of other violations of the ten commandments:272 the first (6:9: ‘idolaters’, perhaps ‘drunkards’),273 the sixth (6:10: ‘revilers’),274 the eighth (‘thieves’, ‘extortioners’, ‘swindlers’)275 and the tenth (6:10: ‘coveters’).276 The four or perhaps five277 sexual exploiters, include only one,  (‘fornicators’, q.v. @ 5:1) in its narrower sense,278 that the Apostle treated earlier in its broader sense (5:9ff.). They show, along with the explicit reference to the Corinthians (6:11) and with the following paragraph (6:12-20), that this list is tailored to persons (not merely acts) known by Paul to be present among the

  (1) Exod 20:3: ‘You shall have no other gods besides me’; (6) ‘You shall not commit murder’; (8) ‘You shall not steal’; (10) ‘You shall not covet’ (Exod 20:3, 13, 15, 17). Addictions may well fall under a contemporary category of idolatry; the Apostle gives a precedent for such updatings of the Decalogue with his identification of covetousness with idolatry (Eph 5:5) and sodomy with adultery (I Tim 1:9f.) and may similarly identify ‘drunkards’ = ‘alcoholics’ although one must distinguish between alcoholic and ‘recovering alcoholic’. Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 95; idem, Making, 407n. Idolatry is whatever displaces God as one’s commitment. It can be images or commitments to saints, but in today’s idolatrous religion of secular humanism it is more likely to be the worship of things: sexual idols or addictions, sports idols, money idols, business and wealth idols (Mt 6:24), alcoholism. After hearing a sermon, ‘Masters in One’s Life besides Christ’, my father looked at a pack of Camel cigarettes in his shirt pocket and thought, ‘That’s mine’. He stopped smoking, cold turkey. The same principle applies to getting ‘high’ on marijuana, i.e. cannabis and other narcotic drugs. 273   5:10; cf. 6:6, 16; Eph 5:5; Col 3:5. See above, notes 158, 272. Cf. W. Mundle, ‘ ’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 284ff. 274   5:11; cf. Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; Tit 3:3; I Pet 4:15 (, ). See Mt 5:21f. 275   5:10; Mt 23:25 Q; Heb 10:34; I Pet 4:15 (, , , ). On  see above, note 264. 276   See above, note 264. 277   If idolatry is associated with cultic fornication as it is at 10:7f. and was in the cult of Aphrodite at Corinth. Cf. Büchsel (note 158), 379f. Lietzmann, 25, sees in the twofold theme of  (‘fornication’, 5:1-13; 6:9-20) and  (‘things sacrificed to idols’, 8:1–11:1) an allusion to the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29). Paul may not mention the Decree because (1) it was a response limited to the appeal of churches in Syria and Cilicia and (2) he rests his case solely on his own apostolic authority. 278   Since those with other sexual vices follow: adulterers, catamites, sodomites. See above on 5:1. 272

236

1 CORINTHIANS

Corinthian Christians.279 They receive a warning and not, as the incestuous man (5:1-13), an excommunication. Why? One cannot be certain, but it may be because the Apostle’s information is more ambiguous than specific or more indirect than direct or because these individuals are in part more libertine in advocacy than in practice or more clandestine than obvious in their immoral conduct. Of these wicked sexual practices and participants /  (q.v. @ 5:1) leads the list as it does at 5:10ff.; Gal 5:19.280 Adulterers281 refer to those guilty of illicit sexual copulation in which one or both parties are married or engaged. In contemporary Graeco-Roman practice only the wife was bound to and punished for violating marital fidelity.282 OT law and that of ancient Babylonia proscribed and punished both parties; Israel executed both.283 In biblical thought the severe punishment presupposes that the offense is flagrant (1) as a threat to the familial fabric of society and (2) as equivalent to murder, i.e. robbing the offended spouse(s) of his selfhood and destroying the personal corporeity created by the marital union.284

279   See II Cor 12:21: impurity, fornication, lasciviousness (, , ). Strabo (c. 46 BC–AD 21) mentions men and women slaves, i.e. courtesans, used by the temple of Aphrodite on Acrocorinth (Geography 8, 6, 20). Cf. OCD2, 80f.; OCD3, 120. 280   Cf. also Col 3:5; I Thess 4:3; I Pet 4:3 ( = ‘lasciviousness’); Rev 22:15 ( = dogs = sodomites; cf. D. E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., Nashville TN 1998, III, 1222ff.). At Rom 1:21-31 idolatry heads the list followed by lesbianism, homoeroticism and then by other vices. 281   It occurs three times in the NT: Lk 18:11; Heb 13:4; cf. Jas 4:4 ‫א‬2 P Y M h sy ; adultery () four times: Mt 15:19 par (Jn 8:3); Gal 5:19. The verbs,  and , are more frequent. Cf. Ellis, ‘A Special Note on Adultery’, Luke, 204f. 282   Except for a man’s adultery with a free woman without her husband’s permission. Cf. F. Hauck, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 729-735 (732f.). 283   Exod 20:14; Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22-25. Cf. Hammurabi’s Laws, ed. M. E. G. Richardson, Sheffield UK 2000, 83 §129; re early Roman law cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 2, 25, 6, where there is punishment of the wife only. Cf. D. J. Wiseman, ‘Hammurapi’, NBD, 442f.; Ellis (note 281). In Judaism cf. Sirach 23:18-26; Philo, de decal. 121-131. 284   Cf. G. Pedersen, Israel, 4 vols. in 2, London 1959, I-II, 62f., 270f.; O. Piper, The Biblical View of Sex and Marriage, New York 1962, 22-30; H. Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex, New York 1964, 101-124 = vol. III, Thielicke (note 312). See below on 6:16.



IV

237

Homoeroticism, i.e. male–male sexual copulation, is mentioned explicitly as a vice in seven NT passages, three of them Pauline.285 The condemnation rests generally on Jesus’ demand for moral purity286 but more explicitly on OT events and prohibitions287 and on contemporary (unanimous) Jewish condemnations of the practice.288 285   Cf. 6:9; Rom 1:26f.; I Tim 1:10; II Pet 2:7f.; Jude 7; Rev 21:8; 22:15, in which ‘dogs’, although a general negative epithet, very probably refers to homoerotics, perhaps because of the visible similarity of dogs mounting other dogs (rather than bitches) with homosexual anal copulation, but more likely because of the parallel with  in Rev 21:8 and its connection with the condemnation of sodomy in Lev 18:22; 20:13. Cf. J. A. Banister, ‘ and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27’, JBL 128 (2009), 569-590; R. A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Nashville TN 2001, 104f.; Aune (note 280), III, 1131. For a survey of various aspects of the issue cf. B. G. Carlsson et al., ‘Homosexualität’, RGG4 III, 1883–1889; in antiquity E. Hartmann, ‘Homosexuality’, NP 6 (2005), 467-471; PW 8 (1913), 1333f., 1459-1468. Cf. Ps-Phocylides 191 (OTP, II, 581): ‘For even animals are not pleased by intercourse of male with male’. 286   Mt 5:48; 15:19f.; 23:26 par. Jesus (and the DSS) does not speak directly about homosexualism (cf. Mt 15:19f. par) nor about incest or bestiality because he does not encounter them or receive questions concerning them. Such practices, if present, were kept well hidden in Judaism. Cf. Gagnon (note 285), 185-228. 287   E.g. Gen 9:22-25; 19:5ff., 12f., 24f.; Judg 19:22 (events); Lev 18:22; 20:13. Cf. Gagnon (note 285), 43-146; D. Daube, ‘Old Testament Prohibitions on Homosexuality’, DCW, III, 949f. Regarding the noble pagans cf. W. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols., Hildesheim 31982 (1915), III, 117 §985.26ff.: to enter the sanctuary ‘a man beyond () his own wife, is not to seduce another’s wife, whether she be free or a slave with a husband, and not a boy () and not a virgin,…’ 288   Cf. Conzelmann, 106n = GT: 129n: ‘For a Jew [homosexual intercourse] is one of the most abhorrent vices of the Gentiles’; K. W. Hugghins, ‘An Investigation of… Homosexuality in Rom 1:18-32’, Fort Worth TX: Ph.D. diss., SWBTS, 1986, 228-244. E.g. Philo, de Abr. 135f.; idem, de spec. leg. 1, 325; 2, 50; 3, 37-42; idem, de vita contemp. 59ff.; Josephus, Ant. 1, 200f.; idem, ct. Apion. 2, 199, 273ff.; Letter of Aristeas 152; Sibylline Oracles 3:184-187, 596-600, 764; 5:166, 430; Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 190ff., 212ff.; Test. Levi 17:11; Test. Naphthali 3:4; M Sanhedrin 7:4; M Qiddushin 4:14; T Qiddushin 5:10; II (Slavonic) Enoch 10:4; the citations above may be found, among other places, in CAP, Loeb, Martínez, OTP, W. T. Wilson, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, Berlin 2005 (OCD,3 1173). Cf. Gagnon (note 285), 159-183. Even among the noble pagans, despite a traditional Greek man/boy eroticism, ‘such relationships do not attain to moral recognition’ (Conzelmann, 106 = GT: 129). On the widespread practice of this vice in Graeco-Roman society see above, note 279; Wettstein, II, 122f.; Neue Wettstein, I, 279f. Cf. H. D. Betz, Lukian von Samosata, Berlin 1961, 199ff.; Nock, I, 63ff., 475ff.

238

1 CORINTHIANS

 (‘catamites’), i.e. ‘soft ones’, refer in this context to those who play the role of the female in anal homoerotic copulation.289 290 (‘sodomites’) are the homoerotics who penetrate, i.e. sodomize, the catamite, either forcibly, by seduction or by agreement. The term is a combination of  (‘male’) and  (‘bed’, ‘coitus’, i.e. sexual intercourse),291 i.e. male–male coitus, and in the context refers to sodomites.292 Thieves (), used negatively only here by Paul,293 refers to those who steal ‘by any sort of fraud or camouflaged cunning’ in contrast to robbers (), who operate openly (Calvin, 124). The term may suggest a similar covert character of other vices at 6:9f. On  see above, note 264; on  see above, notes 160, 272f.; on  and  see above on 5:10f. Special Note on Homosexualism In writings on homoeroticism the language varies with the perspective of the particular writer. Homosexual activists and advocates 289   Some find a probable allusion to a younger or juvenile homoerotic in a pederastic copulation, traditional in pagan Greece; cf. Fee, 243; Schrage, I, 431f.; Collins, 236. But see Meyer, 134: there is for this ‘no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language…; such catamites (molles) were called  or …’ In 6:9f. the age of the catamite is irrelevant. See below, note 313. On  cf. LSJ, 951; Gagnon (note 285), 306-312. The term ‘catamite’ is from the Latin ‘catamitus’, a corrupt translation of the Greek  = Ganymede, a man in Greek myth taken and used by the god Zeus for his sexual desires. See OED, I, 353; OCD3, 624; Gagnon (note 285), 320n; below on 11:14, note 101. 290   The term may be a Pauline coinage. However, pre-Pauline occurrences may be present in Hebrew usage or in the Sibylline Oracles (2:73 = OTP, I, 347) although Wright (note 291), 136ff., thinks that the term was added by a Christian editor. Cf. Gagnon (note 285), 312-336; Barrett, 140. 291   E.g. Lev 15:24. Cf. BDAG, 554; LSJ, 246; T. McComiskey, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 586f.; D. F. Wright, ‘Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of  (I Cor 6:9; I Tim 1:10)’, VC 38 (1984), 125-153, who convincingly argues that the term is a conflation of two words in Lev 18:22 (…) and 20:13 (…). As used by Paul, however, it is a particular kind of homoeroticism or homoerotic. On various other interpretations cf. Gagnon (note 285), 303-332, passim. 292   Among lesbians the corresponding aggressive type is one who apparently appears as ‘Fairy’ Hardcastle in the novel of C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, London 1945, 60, 70ff., 174ff., passim. 293   Elsewhere of Christ’s second coming (I Thess 5:2, 4); but not so the verb (Rom 2:21; 13:9; Eph 4:28).



IV

239

speak of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘couples’, implying that the practice has to do with the nature of the person. Those who reason that it is a psychological disorder294 and an addiction, not unlike alcoholism, tend to identify the issue as the above title does and to speak of ‘couplings’ and ‘copulation’. The present discussion also uses the standard English terms, ‘sodomite’295 and ‘sodomy’, for certain types of homoerotics and homoeroticism with no necessary association with Gen 19:1-5.296 Psychology/psychiatry is, of course, an art and not a science, and its judgments vary with the practitioner.297 Over the past sixty years the American Psychological Association (APA) has classified homosexual practice diversely, from moral depravity to psychological disorder, and in the 1970s (as homosexual protesters marched outside the meeting) it voted to call it normal and legitimate sexual conduct. Today the APA is a pro-homoerotic activist group promoting legislation to identify habitual homosexual couplings as ‘marriage’.298 Theologically, Original Sin299 affects different individuals in different ways, some toward one vice and some toward another. An evil inclination or orientation is part of our fallen nature but, if 294   Rightly, the Roman Catholic church and the more perceptive psychologists, e.g. Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, New York 2 1997. Further, cf. Gagnon (note 285), 395-432: ‘Based on the testimony of many ex-homosexuals, even secular treatment can sometimes achieve radical change in sexual orientation…’ ‘…Thousands of ex-homosexuals in Christian communities across the [USA] and countless thousands more throughout the world…testify to the power of God’s Spirit to transform their lives and to give them sexual fulfilment in heterosexual marriages’ (428f.). Otherwise: H. Kress, ‘Homosexualität. Ethisch’, RGG4, III, 1884–1887. 295   Pace Gagnon (note 285), 312n. See 6:9 NRSV: ‘sodomites’. 296   As do ‘anti-sodomy’ laws in many of the United States. Lightly enforced and infractions lightly punished, they presuppose that law is not merely ‘crime and punishment’ but also a moral statement of what is beneficial or harmful to the society. Unfortunately, they were nullified by an arbitrary 2003 decree (Lawrence, Texas) of a judicial oligarchy. 297   Cf. T. Bovet, ed., Probleme der Homophilie in medizinischer, theologischer und juristischer Sicht, Tübingen 1965. 298   Cf. APA Counsel of Representatives, ‘Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage’, Washington DC, July 2004. For the Continent cf. RGG4 III, 1884–1887. 299   Cf. Calvin, 125: ‘human nature, speaking universally, contains the seed of all evils, but…some vices predominate and make themselves evident in some men…’; ODCC, 1195f., and the literature cited; D. A. Sapp, ‘An Introduction to

240

1 CORINTHIANS

checked, is not itself a sin. However, when it is indulged mentally or in action, it is.300 In the case of catamites and sodomites in 6:9 some recent writers have argued that the verse does not condemn all kinds or all circumstances of homoeroticism.301 Their reasoning is reminiscent of some ‘situation ethics’ advocates of the 1960s who justified some kinds of adultery, e.g. if it was done out of ‘love’.302 They have been refuted, point by point, in Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice.303 They have also been given an appropriate and considered criticism by David Garland: ‘Much of this attempt to recast the traditional link of these words [in 6:9] to male same-sex eroticism appears to be driven by special pleading and riddled with obfuscation…’304 In all the relevant texts— 6:9f.; Rom 1:24-27; I Tim 1:9f.—the Apostle’s condemnation of homosexual practice is absolute. The church faced this vice in its midst early on. Some of the sexually immoral in the church at Corinth (6:11) in all likelihood later joined with the gnosticizing Judaizers who appeared first in Antioch and Galatia and soon dogged Paul’s path to Corinth.305 This fifth Adam Christology in Paul’, Ph.D. diss., Fort Worth TX: SWBTS, 1990, 207-238 (Rom 5:12-21); briefly, Ellis, ‘The Doctrine of the Fall’, Paul’s Use, 58ff. 300   Cf. Mt 5:21, 27f., 31, 33, 38, 43. As someone put it, in sexual matters when ‘wow!’ becomes ‘how?’ the line between attraction and lust has been crossed. Cf. I Tim 5:2; II Tim 2:22. 301   E.g. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Chicago IL 1980; B. J. Brooton, Love Between Women, Chicago IL 1996; M. Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, Minneapolis MN 1998; R. Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, Philadelphia PA 1983. 302   Cf. e.g. E. W. Lutzer, The Morality Gap: An Evangelical Response to Situation Ethics, Chicago IL 1972; J. F. Fletcher, Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work, Philadelphia PA 1967; M. A. Farley, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, New York 2006. 303   Gagnon (note 285), whose work is the most conceptually comprehensive, exegetically meticulous and persuasively reasoned treatment of the subject available. 304   Garland, 212. 305   II Cor 11:4, 13, 20-23; 12:21; cf. Gal 1:6ff.; 2:4; Acts 15:1f., 5. The NT authors call them ‘false apostles’, ‘his [Satan’s] servants’, ‘false prophets’, ‘false teachers’ (II Cor 11:13ff.; II Pet 2:1; I Jn 4:1; cf. Jude 7f.). See below, AE I, ###-###, on J. B. Lightfoot [18-28, 42-75], who most perceptively discerned and described the development of this movement. Further, cf. Ellis, Theology, 83; idem, ‘Perspectives on Biblical Interpretation: A Review Article’, JETS 45 (2002), 493ff. = idem, Sovereignty, 77f.



IV

241

apostolic mission, a counter-mission against the four allied missions of James, John, Paul and Peter, was over time excluded from the mainstream church and developed into the Gnostic systems, some ascetic and some libertine, of the second to fourth centuries before dying out.306 Some libertine Gnostics, e.g. the Simonians, joined hermaphrodite speculation with sexual promiscuity;307 others, e.g. the Barbelites, affirmed and promoted homosexualism. Regarding the latter, Epiphanius (c. AD 315–403), drawing on earlier sources, writes [They] get their fill of promiscuous relations with women and grow ardent for each other, men for men, to correspond with the scripture… (Rom 1:27). For they congratulate each other…on having received the preferred status.308 The ones they call Levites have nothing to do with women but with each other. And these are their persons of distinction.309

Today’s church has this precedent as a lesson to heed the Apostle’s teaching. Some liberal Protestant leaders, however, have followed the Gnostics in this aspect of their ideology, which is often aligned with aspects of the feminist movement.310 If the precedent is valid, those congregations and groups of them—in St. Paul’s Corinth there were several311—who, like the libertine Gnostics, accept, approve or exalt unrepentant homoerotics, will likewise shift from church to cult. The Holy Spirit will depart, and such groups or denominations will eventually die.312

  On the Christian origins of Gnosticism see below, AE I, note 144; Ellis, Making, 166n, 314-318, 435 and the literature cited. See below, note 343. 307   Cf. Hippolytus (†c. 236), Refutation of All Heresies 6,14 middle (ANF V, 80). Further, cf. Ellis, Theology, 82f.; idem, Making, 314-318, 435 and the literature cited. 308   Epiphanius, Panarion 26, 11, 8. 309   Epiphanius (note 309), 26, 13, 1. ET: F. Williams, tr., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 vols., Leiden 1994, I, 92f. 310   See below, ‘Paul and the Eschatological Woman’, AE XIII, note 97. 311   See above, Introduction, ###. 312   H. Thielicke, Theological Ethics, 3 vols., 1979, I, 87: there are certain conditions ‘with which the Holy Spirit cannot…coexist under the same roof in the same ego. The first is porneia.’ 306

242

1 CORINTHIANS

Homoeroticism, pedoeroticism, lesbianism, as well as adultery and fornication of all kinds, violate the second commandment (Lev 19:18) because they involve a sexual exploitation of another. As in prostitution, it may be a mutual exploitation but is no less evil for that.313 It may involve sentiment but is in that respect no more justified than the plea, ‘I killed her because I loved her’. It may involve a continuing self-centered erotic love (), but in its perverted and egoistic expression it vitiates the biblical conception of a love () that wills the good of the other.314 Only in the context of  love does erotic love find its fulfillment.315 Since one never hears of ‘fornicators’ pride day’ or ‘adulterers’ pride day’, it appears sadly that of the various sexual exploitations today it is only homoerotic, lesbian, and sometimes pedoerotic activists who, in the Apostle’s words, ‘glory in their shame’.316 They also claim, without evidence,317 that they are only expressing the unchangeable desires given them by nature318 and denounce any criticism of their lifestyle to be ‘hate speech’ or ‘homophobia’. In these ways they fulfill God’s word through the prophet, ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil’ (Isa 5:20 ESV). Christians are to love the sinner and to deplore the sin. In this con­text they are, as they have occasion, to relate to homoerotics, to assure them of God’s love for them, to welcome them to hear the Word of God and to receive them into the church as anyone else, i.e. by ‘repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’,319 evidenced in a sincere desire to overcome their   The seduction of the young, whether the ‘Lolitas’ or boys or the very young, compounds the evil. See above, note 289. Cf. Gagnon (note 285), 347-361, 479f. 314   Rom 13:9f.; Gal 5:13f.; Jas 2:8. 315   Eph 5:25, 28-31; Col 3:19; cf. Mt 22:37-40 par. See C. S. Lewis, ‘Eros’, The Four Loves, London 1960, 106-132: ‘We must do the works of Eros when Eros is not present. This all good lovers know… And all good Christian lovers know that this programme…will not be carried out except by humility, charity [] and divine grace…’ (232); H. Thielicke, ‘The Terms Eros and Agape’ (note 284), 9f., 26-32, 90. 316   Phil 3:19 ESV. See above on 5:2. 317   Cf. Gagnon (note 285), 395-408, 415f., 428-432. 318   As Gagnon (460-466) suggests, it may well be that some homoerotics, like alcoholics, are unable to overcome their desires but can, like those drawn to adultery or fornication, sublimate or refrain rather than act upon them. 319   Acts 20:21. Cf. E. E. Ellis, ‘Homosexuality and the Church’, The Church Herald 32 (27 June 1975), 6ff. 313



IV

243

addiction.320 These people are, often unknowingly, in bondage and deeply in need of the liberation that Christ brings. According to a report of the National Institute of Mental Health (USA) a homosexual pattern, once established, is remarkably tenacious. Therefore, the church needs to guard those desirous of change against unnecessary temptations, e.g. in church activities.321 The moral decline of Western civilization did not begin in the last half-century,322 but it appears to have accelerated during this time. It may be that God is ripening the West for a calamitous judgment323 or that Christ is testing and sifting his organizational church as he did in her earliest centuries. It is a time for each elect believer and for the biblical organic church as such to speak the truth in love, to be steadfast against all peer pressure or persecution in her ethical teachings of the Scriptures and ‘to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’.324 11.      . With the phrase, ‘some of you’, Paul may distinguish those who have been delivered out of very immoral backgrounds from others, probably the majority, who have been, humanly speaking, decent persons, whether conscientious Jews (e.g. Mt 1:11), Godfearers (e.g. Acts 10:2) or pagans (e.g. Lk 7:1-10 Q). ‘But ()325 you were washed ();326 but you were made holy (, q.v. @ 1:2), but you were justified (, q.v. @ 4:4)’. All the references are to their   Cf. ‘Can Homosexuals Change?’ Gagnon (note 285), 420-429.   Cf. I Tim 5:22. Also, one can thus understand concerns of others in the church, especially parents. 322   Cf. O. Spengler, The Decline of the West, New York 131945 (1926); O. Goldsmith, The Deserted Village, 1770, line 51: ‘Ill fares the land, to hast’ning ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men decay’. Even earlier, re the closed worldview of the Enlightenment, cf. P. Gay, The Enlightenment. An Interpretation. I. The Rise of Modern Paganism, New York 21977. Cf. Ellis, Making, 435-438. 323   Cf. Gen 15:16; Isa 45:7; Ezek 9:9f.; Dan 8:23f.; Nahum 1–3. God need only lift his hand of restraining grace for wickedness to reach a fullness that invokes divine judgment. Cf. J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., edd. J. T. McNeill and F. L. Battles, Philadelphia PA 1960, I, 276n. (2, 2, 17). 324   Jude 3 NKJV. Cf. II Cor 13:5; Mt 18:17. See above on 3:9, note 619. 325   A strong adversative repeated for emphasis. See on 7:19, note 567. 326   Only here and at Acts 22:16 in the NT; Acts 22:16 poses different issues, but also distinguishes water baptism () and the washing (away) of sins (). Cf. J. B. Polhill, Acts, Nashville TN 1992, 461; Barrett (note 40), II, 1042f. 320 321

244

1 CORINTHIANS

regeneration in Christ, with the aorist passives ‘made holy’, ‘made righteous’, pointing to their reception of God’s sovereign and instantaneous action.327 The aorist middle voice of the verb  is also to be translated passive: ‘you were washed’ (RSV; NKJV). It ‘is a middle that functions like a passive’328 since, like the subsequent terms, ‘made holy’, ‘made righteous’, it refers to the sovereign act of God in which man’s action has no part,329 an act appropriate to a passive but not to a middle reflexive meaning.330 ‘You were washed’ refers in all likelihood to the internal baptism of the Holy Spirit of which external water baptism is the symbol.331 It can hardly refer to water baptism since Paul has earlier given it a subordinate and collateral role (q.v. @ 1:14, 17).              . On ‘in the name’ see above on 1:2, note 87; 1:10. The latter phrase, ‘in the Spirit of our God’, also identifies the source, authority and sphere within which the regeneration of the elect Corinthians has been accomplished. It likewise supports the passive understanding (and the Holy Spirit’s action) of the preceding term, ‘you were washed’. In the Apostle’s usage there is no discernible difference between ‘Spirit of God’, ‘Spirit of Christ’ and ‘Holy Spirit’.332 ‘In the Spirit’ = ‘in Christ’ refers to the corporate sphere within which the elect believer’s salvation is already accomplished and through whom the full individual actualization of that salvation 327   Often the time of the shift from being (only) in Adam to being in Christ (Rom 8:1), may be, as it was for Paul (Acts 4:9ff.), dramatically evident or, as for many, unclear or unknown to the individual. 328   Fee, 245n. Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, London 1970, 122; Conzelmann, 107 = GT: 129; Barrett, 141 (‘perhaps’); Olshausen, 103. Otherwise: A. Oepke, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 304; Lightfoot, 213; R & P, 119; Bachmann, 234. 329   See above on 1:21. Meyer, 135f., sees and discusses the problem. 330   I.e. ‘you washed yourselves’ is hardly the meaning even if it were water baptism, since early Christianity, following John the Baptist (Mt 3:13-17 parr; Jn 1:24-34), used an agent for water baptism (Acts 2:41; 8:12f., 16; 10:47f.; 19:5). Cf. Thiselton, 453; Dunn (note 328), 120-123. 331   12:13. 332   See below, ‘The Spirit and the Gifts’, AE V, ### [185]; ‘Christ and Spirit in I Corinthians’, AE VII, ### [262].



IV

245

will be accomplished in one’s bodily resurrection from the dead at the parousia of Christ.333 12-13a.   .  The three basic meanings of the impersonal  are ‘it is possible’, ‘it is lawful’ (cf. Mt 12:10), ‘it is permitted’ (Acts 21:37). The last two are most probable with the choice dependent on the exegesis of the passage. The dialogic pattern of the pericope 6:9-20 and the introduction at 6:12 suggest that the clauses, ‘All things are lawful (or permitted) for me’, repeated almost verbatim at 10:23, and ‘foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods’ were known and used at Corinth.334 Is the first slogan the Apostle’s own maxim that he used with reference to OT ritual laws that were now  and were no longer obligatory for Christians335 and that the libertine Corinthians used re OT moral laws of sexual conduct and idol foods (8:1–11:1)? Or is it itself a maxim created by the libertines?336 Paul’s acceptance of the principle suggests the former. If so, it should read, ‘All things are lawful’. But he limits it to those things that are helpful or profitable (),337 i.e. to the Christian life and community, and that do not bring one under addictive bondage ().  = ‘stomach’. The term may be used literally for the stomach or for the womb,338 metaphorically for the penis,339 for rabbinic   See above on 1:18, note 189; 1:21; 3:13; 4:8; below on 15:42-54.   So, Conzelmann, 108-110 = GT: 131, 133: ‘The Corinthians apparently derive [the first slogan] from Paul’s doctrine of freedom’ (109 = GT: 131f.); Barrett, 144. But see Moule, 196. For the older literature, cf. J. C. Hurd Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians, London 1965, 68, 86; for the recent works, cf. Thiselton, 459-462. But see Garland, 226ff. 335   Calvin, 127f.; Meyer, 136f.; Godet, I, 304. 336   So, e.g. Lightfoot, 213; Barrett, 144; Conzelmann, 108ff. = GT: 130-133. 337   From such language Conzelmann, 109f. = GT: 131f., sees Stoic influences at Corinth, but in view of 3:2, 23 (q.v.) the phrases, as qualified, are fully within Pauline conceptions of Christian liberties. But he rightly sees that the phrase, ‘all things are lawful’, ‘spans the whole content of chapters 6–10’ (109 = GT: 132). Cf. Ward (note 347), 281-289. Cf. 10:23. On the parallelism see J. Weiss, ‘Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetorik’, Theologische Studien. FS B. Weiss, edd. C. R. Gregory et al., Göttingen 1897, 165-247 (188f.). 338   E.g. Mt 12:40; 15:17; Gal 1:15; cf. J. Behm, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 786-789 (786). On the parallelism in 6:13f. cf. Weiss (note 176), 188f. 339   The LXX of II Sam 7:12; 16:11; Ps 132:11; Sir 23:6. 333 334

246

1 CORINTHIANS

food laws,340 or for greed.341 It also appears at Phil 3:19 and at Rom 16:18, where it is given a connotation of sexual licentiousness.342 In the view of many scholars both texts describe false teachers who are common to a judaizing-gnosticizing subversive mission in conflict with the apostolic missions of James, John, Paul and Peter.343 From the foregoing comments it is likely that the libertine Corinthians used or authored the second expression and, like the usage in Rom 16:18 and Phil 3:18f., viewed it as an affirmation of their asserted liberty to satisfy their ‘nutritional and sexual appetites’;344 as ‘a general license…sexual and otherwise’.345 The context supports this. F. F. Bruce346 notes the parallel use of  in 6:13 and Phil 3:19 and argues that both sexual license and food restrictions are involved. .  See above on 1:28; 2:6. 13b-14.               = ‘The body, however, is not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body’. On  as a marker of contrast cf. BDAG, 213. On  see above, notes 225, 325; below on 7:19, note 567. On  see below on 7:39, note 682. Paul begins a sustained dialogic response (6:14-20; 8:1–11:1) to some Corinthians’ vices of fornication and idolatry (6:9),347 including   If so, the expression merely says that such things no longer have any spiritual significance, one way or the other. Cf. 7:19; Rom 14:1-4; Gal 5:6. 341   E.g. Chrysostom; Homily 17, 1; MPG 61 (1860), 140 = NPNF1 XII, 96. 342   See C. H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans, London 1959 (1932), 244f., a minority but important voice. For the considerable literature, cf. P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, Grand Rapids 1991, 455f. 343   See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and I Corinthians’, AE I, ### [3, 10, 18-28], discussing Henry Hammond (1653), Edward Burton (1829), J. B. Lightfoot (186592), and my own discussion in Ellis, Making, 131, 316; idem, Christ, 206. 344   R. Jewett, ‘The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians’, NT 12 (1970), 40-53 (46). 345   J. B. Polhill, ‘Twin Obstacles in the Christian Faith: Philippians 3’, RE 77 (1980), 359-372 (369). 346   F. F. Bruce, Philippians, Peabody MA 1989, 105; cf. M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians, Peabody MA 1998, 231f.; Fee, 255; Conzelmann, 110n = GT: 133n. 347   See above, note 277. ‘Paul, a Jew, would [probably] regard prostitution as an extension of idolatry, since common prostitution was associated with gods…’ (R. B. Ward, ‘Musonius and Paul’, NTS 36 [1990], 281-289 [286]). 340



IV

247

their use of the slogan-like expressions (6:12-13a). With the term  (q.v. @ 5:1) he supports the view above that the expressions were employed by these Corinthians to justify all kinds of sexual immorality. The Apostle bases his argument on the nature of the Christians’ individual bodies = individual selves.348 Their bodies are (1) the object, among other things, of God’s redemptive purpose (6:14); (2) they belong to, are members of and are corporately united with Christ via the gifted Holy Spirit (6:15, 19b). (3) They no longer belong to their individual selves to use as each one wishes since their bodies have been bought by God at the price of the crucified death of His son (6:19-20).            = ‘Now God both raised the Lord and will raise us up’. This is the first use of  in the letter;349  occurs only twice in the NT (Rom 9:17). At 15:12ff., 16 Paul will return to the inextricable connection between the resurrection of Christ and of those who belong to Christ; here he simply joins them as a two-fold act of God.350 By this he shows both that the individual body is the self and that the future individual resurrected body at Christ’s second coming is the same physical body transformed and is not another body nor a ‘spirit’ body.351    . See above on 1:18, note 188. 348   On Paul’s understanding of the body as ‘the self’, i.e. ‘the person’ see below, AE VIII, ###-###. 349   Used frequently in 15:4-52; for the present regeneration of Christians only at Eph 5:14; cf. Ellis, Making, 106f. For the present corporate resurrection life with Christ of the Christian elect Paul, or his secretary, uses  (Eph 2:6; Col 2:12; 3:1),  (Rom 6:8; II Tim 2:11),  (4:8),  (Rom 6:11, 13; II Cor 13:4; Gal 2:19f.) and  (Rom 8:30). See above on 4:8, ###. Cf. Ellis, Christ, 150f. 350   So also 15:15; Rom 6:4f.; 8:11; II Cor 4:14; cf. Col 2:12f. 351   The Apostle’s argument is not, of course, that the resurrection body is the same ‘atoms’ or physical bits, which change from year to year in the present body nor, similar to the philosopher G. W. Leibniz, that it will be reconstituted from the one personal ‘monad’ or atom that is retained in the earth, but that it is the same body drawn from the earth by God’s almighty creative word. Cf. 15:37; Rom 4:17 (E. Käsemann, Romans, Grand Rapids MI 1980, 123); 8:19-23; Ellis, ‘The Meaning of “Word of God” in Scripture’, Christ, 269f.; ‘Leibniz, G. W.’, ODCC, 964f.; G. H. Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy, Unicoi TN 42000 (1957), 273-280.

248

1 CORINTHIANS

15.   .  See above on 3:16, notes 676f.       = ‘(that) your bodies are members of Christ?’ On  see above, note 348. On  see above on 1:1f., notes 35-40, 76-79, 86-91.  (‘member’) may represent (1) literally an individual part of the body (12:12, 14); or, as here, (2) the person (Edwards, 147) expressed in his activities. In the NT it is often used figuratively, mostly by Paul, as a part of a whole.352 Designating Christians as members of Christ presupposes that they are intimately joined to him and is best understood as their being part of the corporate Christ.353 It is explained by the apostle’s usage elsewhere: (1) the members of the ‘sinful body’ = ‘the “in Adam” body’ (Rom 6:6, 12ff.) are characterized by vice; (2) the members of Christ cannot be so characterized. One’s activities are never ‘something autonomous…[that] he may arbitrarily control’.354 They are under the influence of supernatural powers, Satan355 and Christ. To whom one yields oneself, one is under the control of, either to sin or to the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 6:16). Christ’s chosen ones, who have been delivered from ‘the power of Satan’ (Acts 26:18), are to ‘put to death’ their earthly members, i.e. sinful activities, since they ‘have put off the old man (Adam) and have put on the new man (Christ)’.356 .  This aorist single participle from  means not ‘having taken’ () but ‘having taken away’, ‘having removed’.357

352   Cf. BDAG, 628. Of 34 NT occurrences 29 are Pauline, 26 in Romans and I Corinthians. 353   Cf. 12:12. See above on 1:2, note 82; on 1:30, notes 312, 318; on 3:16, notes 390f. 354   J. Horst, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 555-568 (561). Cf. Rom 12:4. 355   Cf. 7:5; II Cor 2:11; 11:3, 14; II Thess 2:9. See above on 5:5, notes 95-103. 356   Col 3:5, 9f. See above on 1:2, notes 133ff.; on 4:4, notes 802ff.; 6:11. See below, AE VIII, ### [293]. Cf. Ellis, Theology, 10-14. 357   So, Lightfoot, 216: ‘robbing Christ of what is His own’; Edwards, 148 (too strongly): ‘ “taking away” so that they cease to be members of Christ’; Fee, 259: ‘ “take away” a part of the body of Christ and make it a part of the body of a prostitute’. Similar, Thiselton, 465; better: Schrage, II, 26n: represents ‘an audacious attack in which Christ’s right to the body is disputed’. See above on 5:2. On  see above on 4:16.



IV

249

   = ‘shall I make [the members of Christ] members of a prostitute?’  may refer to prostitutes of the street, common especially to port cities, or to cult prostitutes owned and used by the cult of Aphrodite at Corinth.358 If the latter, it may refer to a dining facility adjacent to the pagan shrines or temples359 where prostitutes were apparently made available after dinner. On the other hand, since Paul uses  for ‘immoral man’, he may here also use  generally for an ‘immoral woman’, i.e. fornicatress.360 Sexual intercourse is not merely something that one does; it effects a change in who one is. As 6:16 details, it creates a new corporate entity, whether healthy as in marriage or stillborn as in . ‘Members’ () of Christ and members of a prostitute are mutually exclusive spheres of existence.361 The same is true of any immoral sexual intercourse (). It is probable that this is the unique nature and effect of  (6:18). The departure of the Holy Spirit from those engaging in this sin, i.e. their having removed themselves from being members of Christ (see above, ), does not mean the loss of salvation. If they are Christ’s elect, they will repent and, repenting, will be forgiven and experience again the Holy Spirit’s presence.362   = ‘Let it not take place’; ‘God forbid’; ‘Never!’ A third person singular aorist optative, it is used in Paul, always in response to a question, ‘to express strong rejection’ (BDF, 184), i.e. to ‘strongly deprecate something’.363 16.    .  See above on 3:16.   See above on 6:9f., notes 277ff.; cf. H. Reisser, ‘ ’, NIDNTT 1 ( 1986), 497-501. 359   See below on 8:10.  is found only at 6:15f. in Paul’s letters. 360   Cf. 5:9ff.; 6:9 with 6:15f.; OED, I, 1061; II, 3771: ‘whore’ §1b. So R. Kempthorne, ‘Incest and the Body of Christ’, NTS 14 (1967–68), 568-574 (571); M. D. Goulder, ‘Libertines? (1 Cor 5:6)’, NT 41 (1999), 334-341, 346 (concubine or mistress). 361   See Thielicke (note 312). 362   So, Augustin, City of God 21, 25, end. 363   Burton, 79. Cf. Robertson, 939f.; Moulton, I, 194ff.; III, 118-133, 122; Moule, 23; Fanning, 404ff. 358

2

250

1 CORINTHIANS

     = ‘one body with the prostitute?’ Paul has previously taught the Corinthians Jesus’ biblical exposition364 forbidding divorce (7:10), a teaching based on the Scripture that in the sexual union ‘the two shall become ( ) one flesh’.365 , ‘to join’, ‘to unite’, appears only here and at Rom 12:9 in Paul; its cognate is also used for sexual relationships at Mt 19:5; cf. the similar Hebrew ‫‘( דבק‬to cling’, to cleave to’) at Gen 2:24.366 In meaning it is very close to / in their sense of ‘participate in’.367 The use of the participle ( ) as the subject of the main clause (6:16ff.) reflects Semitic influence (Beyer, 211f.).   = ‘for it says’. This third person singular present active indicative of  (q.v. @ 10:15) is used by Paul as an IF to a biblical quotation only here.368 On the causal  see above on 3:11, note 637. 17.         = ‘but the one united with the Lord is one Spirit with the Lord’. A word or phrase that appears once in a Greek sentence, but with two meanings, may be repeated in an English translation. Here, the phrase, ‘with the Lord’, goes with both the present passive participle, ‘the one united’, and with the predicate, ‘one Spirit’. On  see above on 6:16; on  see above on 1:2, notes 87ff. and on 1:10, note 59; on  see above on 2:4; below ‘Christ and Spirit in I Corinthians’, AE VII, ###-### [261-278].

364   Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 159, 252n; idem, Theology, 81; idem, Old Testament, 90, 97n, 128, 132, 136n; idem, ‘Expositions of Jesus Used by Paul’, Christ, 31-37; idem, Making, 173n; D. R. Catchpole, ‘The Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio-Historical Problem’, BJRL 57 (1974–75), 92-127 (107f.): Paul knows the dominical tradition underlying Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18 but does not know the Matthean form or except-clause at Mt. 5:31f.; 19:3-9. But see below, notes 464, 476. 365   Gen 2:24. I.e. ‘flesh’ is equivalent to ‘body’ (Conzelmann, 111 = GT: 134). The phrase  , is Semitic-influenced Greek. See above on 4:3, note 784. See below, ‘ in 1 Corinthians’, AE VIII, ### [282]. 366   Cf. KBR I, 209; G. J. Brooke, ‘‫’דבק‬, NIDOTTE, I, 910ff.; otherwise: G. Wallis, ‘‫ ָ’דּבק‬, TDOT 3 (1978), 81. 367   BDAG, 552; see above on 1:9, notes 103f. 368   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 22-25, 156-184; Billerbeck III, 365ff.



IV

251

‘One Spirit’ = the Holy Spirit369 alters, and at the same time presupposes,370 the parallel with 6:16 (‘one body’). It shows that the Holy Spirit-mediated union between Christ and the individual elect believer also creates, like the sexual union, a corporate body. What is said elsewhere of the whole chosen organic church371 is said here of the individual elect Christian. 18.    = ‘flee fornication!’ A strong present imperative: ‘Keep on fleeing from’.372 The term, found four times in Paul,373 is here stronger and more urgent than the translation, ‘avoid’, or ‘shun’ and has the force of departing from the context in which the temptation to fornication is present. This force is indicated by the absence of a following conjunction.374  …      = ‘every sin…is outside the body’. , which occurs twice in Paul and four times in the NT,375 is very similar to the more frequently used  although it refers more to the act and the latter to sin’s nature (cf. I Jn 1:8ff.). It signifies the missing of ‘the mark’ or ‘the right point’. It is one of a number of terms376 that fall under the general category of ‘sin’. For the biblical writings sin (OT: e.g. ‫חטא‬, ‫)עוֹן‬ ָ 377 is a far deeper and more significant concept than in classical Greek paganism because it is always ultimately sin against God, his character or his commands, and because it has lethal consequences.   See above on 6:11, notes 332f.   So, Conzelmann, 111 = GT: 135. 371   E.g. 10:16f.; 11:24, 29; 12:12, 27; Eph 4:15f.; Col 2:19; cf. II Cor 5:1f., 4. See below, ‘The Corporate Body’, AE VIII, ###-### [290-296]. 372   Cf. BDAG, 1052; D. A. Carson, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 558f. 373   10:14; I Tim 6:11; II Tim 2:22. Cf. I Thess 4:3. 374   Parry, 105; R & P, 127. 375   Rom 3:25; Mk 3:28f. 376   E.g.  (‘ignorance’, Eph 4:18; Acts 17:30; cf. Rom 10:3; I Tim 1:13),  and  (‘lawlessness’, ‘iniquity’). Cf. Trench, 239-249 (nine terms); W. Grundmann et al., ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 267-316; W. Günther, ‘ ’; W. Bauder, ‘ ’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 573-587 (16 terms mentioned). See below on 8:12. 377   A. T. Luc, ‘‫’חטא‬, NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 87-93 (ten terms mentioned); idem, ‘‫’עוֹן‬, ָ NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 351; E. Carpenter et al., ‘‫’פּ ַשׁע‬, ֶ NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 706-710; K. Koch, ‘‫’ח ָטא‬, ָ TDOT 4 (1980), 309-319; idem, ‘‫’עוֹן‬, ָ TDOT 10 (1999), 546-562; H. Seebass, ‘‫’פּ ַשׁע‬, ָ TDOT 12 (2003), 133-151. 369 370

252

1 CORINTHIANS

The phrase, ‘outside the body’, appears again at II Cor 12:3 ‫א‬ D2 M where a vision is experienced either bodily (cf. Mt 17:2-6, 9) or mentally, i.e. ‘outside the body’.378 Here the usage appears to be more complex: ‘outside the body’ = not implicating the body of Christ; ‘against one’s body’ implicates both the individual Christian and the organic church, i.e. the body of Christ.      . ‘But the man who fornicates is sinning against his body’. The connotation would be the same for a Christian woman, but the offenders at Corinth, presumably reported to Paul, are men involved with non-Christian women and consequently there is no discussion of the latter, who lie outside the Apostle’s sphere of judgment. ‘To sin against his body’ (    ) is usually understood only of the individual body of the fornicator.379 But this is hardly convincing since (1) it would not explain the clause, ‘every sin is outside the body’ except fornication; other sins such as drunkenness (5:11) or gluttony (cf. ) involve one’s body. (2)  ‘is sometimes no more than a possessive adjective’380 and, therefore, does not necessarily mean only his own individual body. There is very likely here a double entendre, a reference both to the fornicator’s individual body and to the body of Christ (12:27) into which he has been incorporated (6:15f.).381 19.      . A variation on 3:16, ‘you are the temple of God’ (q.v.), in which Paul ‘dramatically transfers this metaphor to the individual’:382 ‘Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit

378   Taking II Cor 12:3 as ‘a solemn repetition’ of 12:2 (Alford, II, 710) and referring to the same experience;  (12:3 p46 B D*) is probably an alteration influenced by a Platonic anthropology (see above on 5:2, note 35; on 5:3, note 57; on 5:5, notes 107-111; otherwise: Metzger1, 585, on II Cor 12:3). Cf. Acts 8:39f.; Ezek 3:14f.; 8:1-4; 11:24; 37:1; BDAG, 311; Thrall (note 102) II, 790ff.; H. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, Göttingen 1969 (1924), 371. 379   E.g. Thiselton, 472f. Cf. B. M. Fisk, ‘ as Body Violation’, NTS 42 (1996), 540-558 (557). 380   Moule, 121; cf. Robertson, 691f. 381   Cf. Fisk (note 379), 557f.; Schrage, II, 31f.; Grosheide, 151f. 382   Hays, 106; cf. Conzelmann, 112 = GT: 136. See above on 3:16b; on ‘Special Note on the Eschatological Temple’, 274-275.



IV

253

in you’ (        )383 combines the singular ‘body’ with the plural ‘your’ and ‘you’ to include each of the elect believers in the organic church (q.v. @ 3:9, note 619; @ 5:5, notes 112ff.).     = ‘which you have from God’.  is genitive by attraction to . The clause is reminiscent of 2:9 where ‘the Spirit that is from God’ is applied to the pneumatics. But   (‘to have the Spirit’), true of all Christians,384 is distinct from   (‘to be a pneumatic’).385     = ‘and you are not your own?’ I.e. ‘do not belong386 to yourselves’. For the Apostle fallen man never exists in autonomous freedom; he is either ‘under law’ or ‘under grace’ (Rom 6:14): ‘You are slaves to whom you obey, either of sin…or of [Godly] obedience…’ (Rom 6:16). For God’s chosen ones, then, sin is incompatible with their new nature in Christ.387 20.   ˙         = ‘For (q.v. @ 3:11) you were bought with a price. Glorify God above all in your bodies.’  means literally (esp in the Gospels) ‘to buy’ goods but is used at 6:20; 7:23 (q.v.) and at II Pet 2:1; Rev 5:9; 14:3f. to describe Christ’s redemption by crucifixion as a ‘purchase’.388 Although an analogy can be drawn to the purchase389 of slaves in the empire, the more significant one for Paul is to the Exodus and to the Babylonian captivity. Both OT events of God’s, i.e. Yahweh’s redemption or his purchase or

  At 3:16; 6:19 ‘it may be conjectured that the apostle catechetically interprets the prophecy of Jesus in a form related to Mk 14:58’ (O. Michel, ‘’, TDNT 4 [1967/1942], 880-890 [886]); Weiss, 84, above on 3:16, note 699. Cf. Jn 2:19-22; Ellis, ‘Deity Christology in Mk 14:58’, Christ, 38-51 (44-49). 384   Cf. Rom 8:9. 385   Pace Schrage, II, 33. Cf. Gal 6:1; see above on 2:12-16, ###-###. 386   Cf. BDAG, 285 §9. 387   Cf. 1:30; II Cor 5:17; Col 3:9-15. 388   Cf. Gal 3:13; 4:5: ; Tit 2:14: . 389   Not manumission, but the transfer of owners, pace F. Buchsel, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 124-128 (126). See Conzelmann, 113 = GT: 137. 383

254

1 CORINTHIANS

ransom of his people390 are for the NT (cf. 10:6) types of God’s redemption at the ‘price’ ()391 of the crucifixion of Christ, who is identified by Paul as Yahweh = Lord.392 The NT meaning of , quite different from its usage in the Greek world,393 is derived from the LXX and OT Hebrew394 ‘to honor’ or ‘to extol’, mostly for God but also for man.395     refers back to 6:19 (and with the same combination of a plural adjective and a singular substantive) and, as such, is not a dative of means or instrument (‘with your bodies’)396 but a locative, ‘in your bodies’, the sphere in which the Holy Spirit dwells (Heinrici, 210).397 D. Questions on Marriage (7:1-40) Now concerning the things of which you wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman; 2but because of instances of fornication, let each man have a wife of himself and let each woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render to his wife the sexual affection due her, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather the husband does. And likewise the husband also does not have authority over his body, but rather the wife does. 5Do not deprive 1

  Using, however, in the LXX  (‘redeem’, ‘ransom’; cf. 1:30 ) to translate the Hebrew terms ‫ פדה‬and ‫גאל‬, both of which are used of the redemption of Israel from Egypt (e.g. Exod 13:13; 15:13 NKJV) and from the Babylonian captivity (e.g. Isa 51:11; 52:3 NKJV), the former more frequently for the Exodus and the latter for the later Captivity. Cf. H. Ringgren, ‘‫’גָּ ַאל‬, TDOT 2 (1975), 350-355; H. Cazelles, ‘‫’פּ ָדה‬, ָ TDOT 11 (2001), 483-490 (486ff.); R. L. Hubbard Jr., ‘‫’גאל‬, ‘‫’פדה‬, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 789-794 (792); 3 (1997), 578-582. At Qumran ‘the people of God’s redemption’ (1QM 1:12; 14:5, 10) is apparently a self-designation of the Qumran community (Cazelles, 489; Hubbard, 581) as it is in Paul for Messianic Judaism, i.e. the Christians. 391   6:20; 7:23; cf. Mt 27:6, 9. The meaning is ‘something valuable’, here most valuable, and is often translated ‘honor’ (12:23f.; Rom 2:10; I Tim 1:17; 5:19). 392   See above on 1:31, notes 351-355; on 2:16, notes 540f. 393   Where its meaning is ‘to have an opinion’, ‘to have a reputation’, ‘to be famous’. Cf. G. Kittel et al., ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 232-252, 253f. 394   Cf. S. Aalen, ‘ ’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 44-52 (44-47); C. J. Collins, ‘‫’כבד‬, NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 579-586; KBR, I, 457f. 395   E.g. 12:26; Rom 8:30; cf. 8:17 (re man); Rom 1:21; 15:6; II Cor 9:13; Gal 1:24; cf. II Thess 1:10ff. (re God). 396   Cf. e.g. Rom 12:1; Phil 1:20. 397   And in one’s relationship to others. Cf. AE VIII, ### [280ff]. 390



IV one another, except perhaps by agreement for a time in order that you might devote yourselves to prayer, but then be together again so that Satan may not tempt you because of your incontinence. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7Now, I wish that all men were as even I myself am, but each one has his own charism, one this and another that. 8 Now I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they should remain even as I am. 9But if they do not exercise self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry, than to burn with sexual desire.

To the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, the wife is not to be separated from her husband. 11But even if she should be separated, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And the husband is not to divorce his wife. 10

To the rest I say, I not the Lord: If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she pleases to dwell with him, let him not divorce her. 13And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and this one pleases to dwell with her, let her not divorce her husband. 14For the husband who is an unbeliever is made holy in the wife, and the wife who is an unbeliever is made holy in the brother. Otherwise, your children would be unclean; as it is they are holy. 15But if the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate. In such cases the brother or the sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. (16For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?) 12

But as the Lord distributed to each one, as God has called each one, so let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches: 18 Was anyone called while circumcised, let him not efface it; has anyone been called while uncircumcised, let him not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but rather the keeping of the commands of God. 20Each one, in the condition in which he was called, in this let him remain. 21 Were you called while a slave, let it not bother you; but also if you can become free, rather use it. 22For the slave called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; likewise the free person who is called is Christ’s slave. 23You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Let each one, brothers, in the condition in which he was called, so abide with God. 17

255

256

1 CORINTHIANS Now concerning the virgins I do not have a command from the Lord. But I give my judgment as one graciously favored by the Lord to be counted faithful. 26I think, therefore, this to be good because of the present distress, that it is good for a man to be thus: If you are yoked to a woman, do not seek a loosing; if you are loosed from a woman, do not seek a wife. 28But even if you do marry, you do not sin. And if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet such persons will have trouble in the flesh, and I would spare you that. 25

I mean this, brothers: the appointed time has been concentrated. Therefore, let even those who have wives be as if they did not have them; 30and those who mourn be as though they did not mourn, and those who rejoice be as though they did not rejoice, and those who buy be as though they did not possess; 31and those making use of the world as though they did not make use of it. For the system of this world is passing away. 29

I want you to be free from care. The unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33But he who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife; 34and so he stands divided. Also, the woman who is unmarried and the virgin are concerned with the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 Now I say this for your own benefit, not that I might put a leash on you but rather for your clear and constant attention undistractedly to the Lord. 32

36 But if anyone thinks that he is behaving improperly toward his betrothed virgin, if he is passionate and so it need be, let him do as he wishes; let them marry, he does not sin. 37However, whoever stands firm in his heart, having no sexual necessity, but who has control over his own will and has determined this in his own heart, that is, to keep his virgin as is, he will do well. 38So, both the he who marries his own virgin does well and he who does not marry will do better.

A wife is bound as long as her husband may live; if her husband should fall asleep, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, but only in the Lord. 40In my judgment, however, she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. 39



IV

257

Textual Notes 3.  = ‘(her) due’ i.e. ‘due sexual relations’. The Textus Receptus, mss K L M sy, have   = ‘the sexual intercourse that is due her’, taking  as a transliteration of the Hebrew ‫( עונה‬Exod 21:10); this is probably the original reading, cf. Metzger, 488. See below on 7:3, Exegesis. 5.   = ‘to prayer’. A few mss (‫א‬2 M sy) insert ‘fasting and to’ (  ) or similar phrases.  = ‘be’. A number of mss (p46 P Y M latt syh) substitute  (-) = ‘come together’, as a clarification. 7.  = ‘now’, found in mss p46 ‫ *א‬A C D* G 33vid it vg cobo, reflecting the negative nuance of the concession in 7:6, is probably preferable to  (‫א‬c B Db,c K P Y 1739 syp,h cosa). Cf. Metzger, 489. See above on 1:10, note 54. 13.   = ‘if any (woman)’, found in mss p46 ‫ א‬D F P, is closely balanced with  = ‘(a woman) who’ (A B D2 Y M syh), which NA6 preferred. 14.  = ‘in the wife’. A number of mss (D F G latt syp) have a secondary explanatory addition,   (‘who is a believer’).  = ‘in the brother’. This original reading (p46 ‫ *א‬A B C D* 33 1739) was changed to  (‘in the husband’) by mss ‫א‬c Dc K L syh, viewed as a more appropriate correlative to  (Metzger, 489). 15.  = ‘you’.  in mss p46 ‫א‬2 B F G M latt sy, may well be preferable to NA’s  (‫ *א‬A C K 81). But see Metzger, 489: ‘the general tendency of scribes is…[to generalize] aphorisms’. 28.   = ‘the virgin’. Several mss (B F G) omit the article with little or no change of meaning, but the weight of mss have it (p15 p46 ‫ א‬A D). Cf. Metzger, 489f. 34.           = ‘and so he stands divided. Also the woman who is unmarried and the virgin.’ Among a number of textual variants the UBS committee viewed as ‘least unsatisfactory’ this reading ‘supported by early representatives of the Alexandrian and Western types of text (p15 B 104 vg cosa, bo)’.398 40. . Two mss (p15 33) have 

Structure The two major sections of the chapter, 7:1-24, 25-40, are mainly directed, respectively, to the married and to the unmarried. The first gives reasons for marriage and the rights and obligations of the married couple, concluding with the conditional propriety and preference for Paul’s own single state (7:1-9). The Apostle then, following Jesus, commands the lifelong permanence of marriage,   Metzger, 490.

398

258

1 CORINTHIANS

supports the continuation of ‘mixed’ marriages and urges a focus for all not on changing one’s status and role in this world but on serving God, whatever one’s circumstances (7:10-24). The second section, 7:25-40, points out the advantages of the single state for life in a volatile, unstable and transient world and for Christian life and ministry (7:25-35) and, at the same time, recognizes the full freedom of single Christians to marry and the widowed to remarry, ‘but only in the Lord’ (7:36-40 [39]). On the chiastic patterns throughout the chapter, cf. Lund, (note 10), 151-163. Commentary Summary See the commentary summary of 5:1–7:40 above 340-344. Exegesis 1.     = literally ‘Now concerning which things you wrote’, using  with the genitive and the aorist of . The reference to the letter from the Corinthian leaders to Paul, presumably delivered after Paul began the composition of his letter and probably by Stephanas (16:17), recurs five times with the same   IF.399      = ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman’. Is this expression a slogan of certain Corinthians?400 More likely, it is Paul’s conditional affirmation, perhaps using the wording of their question,401 possibly a question

399   7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12. Cf. BDAG, 798; Robertson, 619; Moule, 63:  is ‘virtually “absolute”: like our As for…’ See 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12; above on 1:16. The phrase   may possibly not always refer back to the Corinthians’ letter but only introduce ‘topics of discussion which have emerged from [Paul’s] varied contacts with the church…’ (Mitchell [note 227], 192; cf. idem, in NT 31 [1989], 229-256). 400   So, Garland, 249f.; Thiselton, 498; Schrage, II, 59; Collins, 258; O. L. Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul, Atlanta GA 1985, 94; cf. Fee, 276. On the structure and self-contained nature of 7:1-7 cf. Weiss (note 176), 193. 401   Cf. Conzelmann, 115 = GT: 139f. The phrase, ‘it is good’, is Pauline style: cf. 7:8, 26 (bis); 9:15; Rom 7:16, 18, 21; 14:21; Gal 4:18; I Tim 1:8; 2:3. Cf. 5:6.



IV

259

re a general abstinence from sexual intercourse402 for both married and unmarried. If so, Paul affirms that celibacy is ‘good’ (, 7:1, 8, 26), i.e. expedient not morally better. He is not an ascetic. He rejects the single state as a general lifestyle (7:2),403 specifically rejects abstinence from sexual intercourse within marriage (7:3-6) and restricts celibacy to those who are so gifted (7:7, ) or who by nature exercise sexual self-control (7:9, 37f., ), perhaps reflecting Jesus’ sayings (Mt 19:12; Lk 20:34f.).404 At the same time, and for a number of eschatological 402   Supported by  instead of  (Schrage, II, 59). Pace Winter (note 227, 225f.),  does not mean ‘wife’ since, if so, 7:2 would have  (‘adulteries’) instead of . The phrase,   = ‘not to touch’, is a present middle infinitive from , i.e. to continue in abstinence from sexual intercourse. The verb is used for sexual intercourse in the LXX (Gen 20:6; Pv 6:29), in Jewish (Test. Reuben 3:15; Josephus, Ant. 1, 163, end) and pagan Greek literature (e.g. Plato, Laws 840A). Cf. BDAG, 126; but see L. Schwienhorst, ‘‫’נגע‬, TDOT 9 (1998), 206. On Christian influence in the Test. XII cf. M. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as a Part of Christian Literature, Leiden 2003, 84-123. 403   Cf. Billerbeck III, 367f. But an ascetic lifestyle was practiced by certain Essenes (Josephus, War 2, 120; idem, Ant. 13, 371; 18, 21; Philo, Hypothetica 11:14; Loeb) and by certain Cynic philosophers (cf. Epictetus, Discourses 3, 22, 76). There are some parallels with the issues in I Cor 7 and in the Stoic Musonius Rufus (c. AD 30–100; cf. Ward [note 347], 281-289; Musonius Rufus: The Roman Socrates, ed. C.E. Lutz, Ann Arbor MI 22004 [1947], 85-97). But does Paul’s argument have ‘a Stoic imprint’ as argued by W. Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7, Grand Rapids 22004, 193, 208, passim? Unfortunately, Deming assumes what he seeks to establish. His deductive approach marshals all arguments supporting his conclusion but does not adequately consider alternative explanations. Perhaps ascetic attitudes of some Corinthians, like the licentiousness of others (q.v. @ 5:2), reflect a Platonic body/ soul dualism (a metaphysic adopted by later Stoicism) in which the body and therefore sexual relations are devalued, a dualism clearly present in their rejection of the future bodily resurrection of the dead (15:12). Otherwise, ascetic attitudes may have a number of other origins, e.g. Jewish (Essene) antecedents (q.v. @ 7:8, note 448), Paul’s lifestyle, or reaction against a prevalent sexual licentiousness. Cf. Garland, 263; J. Annas, ‘Plato’, ‘Stoicism’, OCD,3 1192f., 1446; Wettstein, II, 124; Neuer Wettstein, II, 283. As for Paul, he encountered Greek philosophical thought only after his conversion and shows no evident interest in it in his letters. See above, ###-###; Ellis, ‘Paul, Predestined Apostle of Jesus Christ: Whence the Name and the Title?’, Sovereignty, 20f., 83-89. 404   Martin Luther uses this argument against taking vows of celibacy by priests and nuns (M. Luther, ‘Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7’, Luther’s Works, 97 vols., St Louis MO 1955 (1525), XXVIII, 5-56 (9f.).

260

1 CORINTHIANS

reasons, he prefers celibacy for Christian workers if one’s sexual nature permits it.405 2.           = ‘But because of fornications let each man have a wife of himself ( ) and let each woman have her own husband ( ).406  with the accusative here, as usual, denotes cause (cf. 4:6, 10, 17); cf. BDAG, 225f. On , see above on 5:1, notes 12, 13; abstract nouns in the plural ‘lay stress on the separate acts’.407 Because of man’s sexual nature and strong sexual drive, male and female, Paul affirms both marriage and ‘getting married’ as the imperative () for the general adult status. To ‘have a wife’ = to ‘have sexually’ (cf. 5:1)408 and incidentally excludes polygamy.409 Throughout 5:1–7:40 the Apostle teaches that all other erotic attractions and attachments either remain unfulfilled (7:37) or result in sexual exploitations, i.e. the sexual using of another (), whatever emotional sentiment may accompany the exploitation (5:1-13; 6:9-20). . For the 3-5.         husband to ‘render to his wife her due () and likewise the husband’410 refers to their sexual relations. Several considerations, however, suggest that the Majority Text (M; see above Textual Notes on 7:3), witnessed in most but later mss, may be the original:   (‘the sexual intercourse that is due her’). 405   7:7a, 8, 26f., 32, 38, 40. Cf. Godet, I, 321, who argues that for Paul Gen 2:18 no longer applies to Christians since they are in union with Christ and may live in accord with the resurrection age to come in which they ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage’ (Lk 20:35b). See below on 7:29-35. 406   On  as husband see below on 7:39, note 674. 407   Robertson, 408; so, ‘instances of fornication’, esp. between unmarried persons. Cf. Mk 7:2 (); Jas 2:1; Moulton, III, 27f. Otherwise: C.C. Caragounis, ‘ “Fornication” and “Concession”?’, The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer, Leuven 1996, 543-559 (551), who, citing Tobit 8:7, takes  to refer only to ‘sexual urges’ and to be equivalent to . 408   The idiom is from the LXX: Dt 28:30; II Chron 11:21; Isa 13:16; Tobit 3:8; cf. Isa 54:1; Rosner (note 171), 158n; Fee, 278. 409   So, Lightfoot, 221; further, the wording suggests, when compared with similar texts, the headship of the husband. Cf. 11:3; 14:35; Eph 5:28f. See below AE XIII, ### [372f.]. See also Rom 7:2; Eph 5:22; Tit 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1, 5. 410   This reading is followed by NA; Bengel, II, 199, and most modern commentators. For the OT background cf. Exod 21:10f.



IV

261

(1)  (or ) is never used elsewhere in the NT, in the LXX nor in any other Greek literature for sexual relations due or owed.411 (2) The transliteration of Hebrew words into Greek was a common Jewish practice in the LXX for proper names and for other words of doubtful meaning, e.g. I Chron 4:22.412 (3) Present uncertainties in NT textual criticism favor an eclectic approach to each problem rather than the traditional approach of giving preference to a particular, e.g. Alexandrian genealogical family.413 In 7:3ff. Paul appears to agree with the later halakah of Tannaitic rabbinical Judaism on the conjugal rights of the wife414 and, further, enjoins a mutuality of obligation between husband and wife.415 4.            = ‘The wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather the husband does, etc.’.  (q.v. @ 7:1) means either ‘woman’ or ‘wife’, depending on the context. On  see above on 5:3; 6:16, 18; below AE VIII, ###-###. On  see below on 7:19, note 567. The wife ‘does not have authority over’ her own body nor the husband over his with respect to their conjugal rights. The order reflects the headship of the husband in the marriage,416 and the

  So, N. Herz, ‘A Hebrew Word in Greek Disguise’, ET 7 (1895–96), 48f.   Herz (note 411), 48. Cf. KBR, I, 855; J. A. Naudé, ‘‫’עֹנָ י‬, NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 454; ‫ = אוקיינוס‬ (Jastrow, I, 32). 413   E. J. Epp, ‘The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?’, Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism, Leiden 2005, 125-173; G. D. Kilpatrick, The Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism, Leuven 1990, 50: ‘F. C. Burkitt and C. H. Turner…[argued] in favor of considering the readings of the Western witnesses on their merits. We suggest that the same course should be taken with the readings of the Syrian manuscripts.’ Overview: D. B. Wallace, ‘New Testament Textual Criticism’, Interpreting the New Testament Text. FS H. W. Hoehner, ed. D. L. Bock et al., Wheaton IL 2006, 33-56. 414   E.g. Mek III, 28ff. = Nezikin 3, 127ff., on Exod 21:7-11; cf. Billerbeck III, 368-372; P. J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, Assen 1990, 107 and 103f.: ‘The practical teaching contained in 1 Cor 7 presents us with an “unusual convergency between Paul, Jesus and ancient Jewish law” ’. Cf. Exod 21:10f. See below, note 461. 415   A general Pauline principle, especially in the household regulations; cf. Eph 5:21–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1 (1 Pet 3:1-7); Ellis, Making, 64ff., 110, 135. See below, ‘Paul and the Eschatological Woman’, AE XIII, ### [372ff.]. 416   See below on 11:3; 14:35. Cf. Eph 4:22; I Tim 2:11ff.; Tit 2:5; I Pet 3:1, 5f.; Lightfoot, 221; Findlay, 823. 411

412

262

1 CORINTHIANS

mutuality of sexual deference reflects the parity of both in this aspect of the marriage. The negative form points to a deference to the spouse; it excludes the idea of rights of one over the other. It also shows that within marriage, in contrast to all immoral sexual conduct (), erotic love is expressed (or can and should be expressed) in the context of  () love,417 a love that wills the good of the other. 5.            = ‘do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a time in order that you might devote yourselves to prayer’.418  (q.v. @ 6:8)419 means elsewhere ‘to defraud’, ‘to rob’, usually with reference to goods or money; here ‘to deprive’ of a benefit due (7:3), i.e. sexual intercourse. The provision for a temporary sexual abstinence generally agrees with rabbinic Jewish regulations,420 but here it is a concession (7:6) and is limited to mutual consent for spiritual reasons.421 The present can elsewhere be rendered ‘stop depriving’,422 but not here: (1) it probably is connected to the result clause,    (‘so that [Satan] may not tempt’) and thus points to the future.423 (2) In the 417   Cf. I Thess 4:4; W. Foster, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 574f.; Schrage, II, 64f. See above ‘Special Note on Homosexualism’, 433, note 315. 418   On   cf. BDAG, 279; BDF, 191 § 376; on , a NT hapax, cf. A Deissmann, Bible Studies, Winona Lake IN 1979 (3 1923), 255; O Betz, ‘ ’, TDNT 9 (1974), 278-309 (304f.); on  see above on 1:10; on  (‘to devote’) twice in the NT (Mt 12:44), a Pauline hapax and rare in the LXX, cf. Ignatius, ad Poly. 1:3; Test. Naphtali 8:8; BDAG, 982; R & P, 134n.: frequent in classical Greek in the sense of being ‘disengaged for’ or ‘devoted to’ a pursuit or a person. 419   Six times in the NT: 6:7f.; 7:5; I Tim 6:5; Mt 10:19; Jas 5:4. Cf. N. Hillyer ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 379f. 420   E.g. M Ketuboth 5:6; T Ketuboth 5:6: for biblical study, 30 days; for a vow, one or two weeks; for workers, three days; for work away from home, 14-30 days; for sailors, six months. Cf. Neusner, 75; Billerbeck III, 371f.; Conzelmann, 117 = GT: 142; Kümmel, 176. 421   As in the OT: cf. Zech 12:12ff.; Eccl 3:5. Thus, it rules out abstinence as a principle in marriage (Conzelmann, 117 = GT: 142). Cf. D. Catchpole, ‘The Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio-Historical Problem’, BJRL 57 (1974–75), 105f. 422   Here, Thiselton, 507; Fee, 280f.; R & P (perhaps); Garland, 260 (perhaps). 423   Rightly, S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, New York 1989, 329.



IV

263

context Paul is answering their questions, not reprimanding them (7:1).     = ‘be together’, i.e. in ‘sexual union’ (BDAG, 366 § 1, c, b).          . On , here introducing a result clause, see above on 1:10; on  see above on 5:5. The negative with the subjunctive  is .424  (‘to tempt’) is used in the NT some 40 times, mainly in two senses, ‘to test’425 and ‘to entice’.426 God tests but does not entice one to evil; Satan entices. Here, he entices to adultery, using man’s sexual nature and his incontinence (427), i.e. lack of control over sexual desires after a long-term abstinence.428 6.     429     = ‘Now I say this as a concession, not as a command’. Does this refer to the temporary sexual abstinence of the married couple (7:5)430 or to marriage itself (7:2ff.)431 or, pointing forward, to Paul’s desire that all single persons, male and female, might remain celibate as he is (7:7)?432 Paul’s expression, ‘I say this’,433 more often points forward when it is followed by a conjunction () or by a main independent clause. When it is followed by a qualifying clause (7:35), it points 424   As it is with the imperative, infinitive and participle. With the indicative it is  BDF, 220 § 426. 425   E.g. Jn 6:6; II Cor 13:5; Heb 11:17; Rev 2:2; 3:10. 426   E.g. (10:13); Mt 4:1 parr; Gal 6:1; I Thess 3:3; Heb 3:18; 4:15; Jas 1:13f. 427   Twice in the NT (Mt 23:25), only here with this sense. Cf. Ps Sol 4:3; Josephus, ct. Apion 2, 244; idem, Ant. 8, 191; Tatian 8:4; 33:4; H. Baltensweiler, ‘ = ’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 494-497 (496). 428   C. Spicq, ‘’, TLNT 1 (1994), 60ff.; Musonius Rufus (note 403), 88, ll. 3f. (Frag. XII, end); Baltensweiler (note 427), 494f. 429   On the NT hapax  (‘concession’) cf. BDAG, 950; Conzelmann, 118n = GT: 142n; R. Bultmann, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 716f. 430   So, Thiselton, 511; Kistemaker, 214; Fee, 284; Barrett, 157f.; cf. Meyer, 154. 431   So, Merklein, II, 110f.; Mare, 228f.; Moffatt, 76; Findlay, 824; R & P, 135; Lightfoot, 223; Heinrici, 216; Godet, II, 326; Olshausen, 117. 432   So, Orr, 207; Winter (note 227), 233-238, either taking the particle  (7:7; q.v. @ 1:10, note 54) as continuative (‘now’) or following the variant reading  (‘for’, ‫א‬2 B D2 y M sy). 433   1:12; 15:50; I Thess 4:15; Gal 3:17 (followed by the main clause).

264

1 CORINTHIANS

back to the preceding matter. Here ‘this I say’, like 7:35, probably points back, i.e. to his concession of a temporary sexual abstinence by married couples (7:5b). On the other hand, his counsel that single persons should ordinarily get married (7:2) and that married couples should not deprive one another of sexual relations (7:3-5a) does have the force of a conditional command , 7:6).434 Since ‘to have’ a spouse means to have sexually (7:2), Paul does not countenance ‘Platonic’ marriage (7:3) although he may recognize a special non-marital friendship, as Christian brother and sister, between a single man and a single woman (see on 7:37). 7.    = ‘Now I wish that all men were even as I myself am’, i.e. unmarried and sexually abstinent. The continuative particle  (q.v. @ 1:10, note 54; 2:12) expresses his preference for the single state as a wish435 (not a command) for Christian workers.436 Since 7:1-7 (1) addresses ‘getting married’, i.e. a change from a single to a marital state,437 as well as (2) sexual relations within marriage, Paul’s comment ‘as I am’ (7:7) very probably means that he had never married.438 Paul makes no such comment when he addresses the issue of abandonment (7:15) or of divorce (7:15). But see below on 7:8.   Pace G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 9 (1972), 36f.   I.e. ‘desire’, perhaps an unrealistic desire (Schrage, II, 723), reflecting some OT usage (I Kg 10:13; II Chron 9:12): G. Schrenk, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 44. Otherwise: Barrett, 158. 436   7:1, 8, 26f., 32, 34f., 38, 40. The   (7:7) should not pressed (cf. 7:2); in other situations Paul prescribes marriage, e.g. I Tim 5:14. Cf. Conzelmann, 118 = GT: 142f. See below on 7:29-35. 437   Pace Fee, 278, the question and thus Paul’s answer re an single lifestyle (7:1) could hardly have come from or have involved only married couples. Cf. 7:2:  (not ) is used of or includes illicit sex between single persons, i.e. fornication. See above on 5:1. Also, ‘to have () a wife’ may refer to having her sexually upon getting married (cf. Lk 20:33) although ‘to take () a wife’ is the usual expression, but not necessarily meaning sexually (see Gen 20:2f.; cf. Mt 1:18f). 438   So, Schrage, II, 94ff.; Godet, I, 330, 327: ‘For how could [Paul] have expressed the desire that all men [7:7] were widowers!’ And one may add ‘that all men were divorcés like me!’ Cf. Fascher, 183: ‘Paul views his [ability] to live without marriage as a charism, and the idea that widowerhood could be for him a charism is fully excluded’. Otherwise: e.g. that Paul was a widower: Collins, 260; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, Oxford 1996, 64f.; Fee, 288n; Barrett, 161 (‘probably’); J. Jeremias, ‘War Paulus Witwer?’, ZNTW 25 (1926), 310ff.; 28 (1929), 321ff.; that Paul was abandoned or divorced: Kistemaker, 215. 434 435



IV

265

  . Accusative by attraction to .         . The strong adversative  (‘but’, ‘yet’, q.v. @ 7:19, note 567) contrasts with the preceding milder ‘wish’. It also underscores the diversity of the charisms ‘from God’ (7:7b, c)439 and identifies sexual continence as a divine gift440 in contrast to 7:37. It also indicates, by inference, that marriage is not a gift but the customary path for the present age. 8.     442 = ‘to the unmarried and to the widows’. At 7:1-7 Paul makes two points that run through the chapter, the rightness of celibacy for some (7:1, 7a) and the appropriateness of marriage as the usual rule (7:2, 7b). At 7:3-7 he applies the second principle to sexual relationships within marriage; in 7:8f. he applies both principles to the unmarried, i.e. to single men and widowers, and to widows.  (‘unmarried’) would include both widowers, complementing ‘widows’ (), and unmarried men; it could also include divorced men and women.443 Virgins () are excluded (1) because they will be addressed at 7:25-28, 36-38, and (2) because, in antiquity, unlike the modern dating scene, they are presumably sexually unawakened and would not fit the qualification in 7:9. Some suppose that Paul himself was widowed or divorced,444 reasoning that (1) in Jewish society of the time the marriage of a male was a universal duty,445 was required of ‘ordained’ rabbis446 and of members of governing councils.447

  See below on 12:8-11, 28ff. On …, see above on 1:18, notes 180f.   Cf. Wis 8:21 (); I Clem 38:2 (); Schrage, II, 72f. 441   In the NT only here: 7:8, 11, 32, 34; a LXX hapax: IV Macc 16:9, used of single persons; in classical Greek of ‘bachelor or widower’ (LSJ, 5). The masculine term,  (‘widower’) is not found in the NT or in the LXX. 442   In Paul only here and at I Tim 5:3ff., 9, 11, 16. 443   See above, note 441. Cf. Schrage, II, 94; G. Stählin, ‘’, TDNT 9 (1974), 440-465 (452 n.110); Parry, 110. 444   See above, note 438. 445   Often based on Gen 1:28. Cf. Billerbeck III, 367f., 373, on 7:1f., 6; idem, II, 372f. 446   Jeremias (note 438), 311, 323. 447   Jeremias (note 438), 310f. 439 440

266

1 CORINTHIANS

The evidence, however, is somewhat different. (1) According to Josephus and Philo some Essene groups eschewed marriage to concentrate on spiritual things,448 a viewpoint similar to that of the Apostle. One or two leaders in rabbinic Judaism also were unmarried.449 (2) Jesus and John the Baptist were unmarried recognized rabbis.450 (3) There is no indication that the title ‘rabbi’ implied an ‘ordination’ ceremony or status in the mid-first century.451 It was only a title of respect such as ‘teacher’, ‘master’, ‘sir’.452 (4) Paul is never called a rabbi and, although he worked for the Sanhedrin and other religious councils, he is not identified as a member of them.453  = ‘It is good’. See above on 7:1, note 402. On the absence of the copula see above on 1:31. On  see above on 2:1. 9.      = ‘But if they do not exercise self-control, etc’.  (‘to exercise self-control’),454 448   Josephus, War II, 120-161 (120, 160); Philo, Hypothetica 11:14, 17, Loeb. Josephus (Life 11) was in a position to know since he spent some time as an initiate of the Essenes. P. J. Tomson (note 414), 108, thinks that Paul’s preference for celibacy ‘points to somewhere in Essene surroundings’. Further, re Qumran cf. M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, New York 1961, 27-32. 449   E.g. BT Yebamoth 63b, end, Baraitha: ‘They said to Simeon ben Azzai (c. AD 110), “You preach well but do not act well” [he remained a bachelor]. He replied, “But what shall I do, seeing that my soul is in love with the Torah; the world can be carried on by others” ’ (Socino, 427). Cf. Billerbeck I, 807, on Mt 19:12; II, 373, on Jn 2:1; S. J. D. Cohen in CHJ, III 949n. Regarding the unmarried rabbi Hammuna (c. AD 300) cf. Billerbeck III, 368 on 7:2; but see Jeremias (note 438), 322: ‘not lifelong unmarried’. 450   E.g. Jn 1:38 NKJV: ‘Rabbi (which is to say when translated, Teacher)’; re John the Baptist: Lk 3:12; Jn 3:26. 451   Although ‘the laying of hands’ may later connote rabbinic ordination. Cf. D. Daube, ‘The Laying on of Hands’, DCW II, 604ff. = idem, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, Peabody MA 21994, 231ff.; S. J. D. Cohen, ‘The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society’, CHJ III, 922-990 (924). 452   BDAG, 902. 453   If it were so, he likely would have mentioned it at Phil 3:4 or Gal 1:14; cf. Acts 26:4-11. The term ‘cast my vote’ (Acts 26:10) is probably equivalent to ‘consenting’ (Acts 8:1a; 22:20) and indicates the Apostle’s opinion and action and not a formal (sub-)Sanhedrin membership. Cf. Bruce (note 40), 500; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, New York 1998, 753 (possibly); K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, BC IV, 317. Otherwise: H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Philadelphia 1987, 210; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, Oxford 1971, 684. 454   Only here and 9:25 in the NT. On  cf. Acts 24:25; Gal 5:23; II Pet 1:6; on  cf. Tit 1:8. Cf. BDAG, 274.



IV

267

and its cognates, used more broadly, are significant for Greek philosophical ethics455 and for Jewish Greek or Greek-influenced writings, especially Philo.456 In sexual matters it is attributed to the Essenes,457 and the concept appears occasionally in the OT.458 Elsewhere in the NT  (‘self-control’, ‘temperance’) is the fruit of the Spirit.459 The ingressive aorist imperative  (‘let them get married’; cf. Robertson, 834) here adds to Paul’s earlier counsel (q.v. @ 7:2, 7b) the advice that marriage is ‘better’ than ‘to burn’460 with a sexual passion that carries with it the sin of lust for or adultery/fornication with another. For the divorced in this situation remarriage is ‘for him [Paul] the lesser evil’.461 10-11.       = ‘I command (q.v. @ 11:17) yet not I but rather the Lord’. The syntax is similar to Gal 2:20 KJV: ‘I live, yet not I but Christ…’. On  see below on 7:19, note 567. With the phrase, ‘now to the married’ ( 462 ), i.e. ‘have been and continue to be married’, expressing the perfect tense, Paul turns to the nature of the marriage of Christian couples as a permanent, exclusive and lifelong relationship. In this matter, he cites a ‘Jesus tradition’,   Cf. W. Grundmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 339-342 (340f.). 456   E.g. Philo, Quod Det. Pot. 102; idem, de Abr. 24; idem, de Spec. Leg., I, 173; II, 195. Cf. Grundmann (note 455), 341. 457   Cf. Josephus, War II, 119f., 138; cf. 1QH 6:4, 9 = 14:4, 9 (‫)אפק‬. 458   Gen 43:31; 45:1; I Sam 13:12; Est 5:10; Isa 42:14; 63:15; 64:12 (11). Cf. E. A. Martens, ‘‫’אפק‬, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 483. 459   Gal 5:23; II Pet 1:6. 460   The verb  (‘to burn’) is used for the future annihilation () of ungodly men, i.e. for hell, at II Pet 3:7; cf. 3:12; but in Paul’s letters (II Cor 11:29; Eph 6:16) it refers to a present inward state of the individual. Cf. BDAG, 127, 899; Ellis, Christ, 197; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, Minneapolis MN 1978 (1907), 155f., 162; S. J. Kistemaker, Epistles of Peter and…of Jude, Grand Rapids MI 1987, 330f., 339. 461   E. Stauffer, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 648-657 (650, 652). This view may perhaps derive from a rabbinic argument; so, D. Daube, New Testament Judaism, DCW II, 286 = idem, Rabbinic (note 451), 369; cf. BT Kiddushin 29b (Socino, 141f). Cf. John Lightfoot, IV, 208, on 7:9. See the discussion of Calvin, 144f.; for similar Stoic attitudes cf. L. Alexander, ‘Better to Marry Than to Burn: St. Paul and the Greek Novel’, Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative, edd. R. F. Hock et al., Atlanta GA 1998, 235-256. 462   Q.v. @ 1:10, note 54. 455

268

1 CORINTHIANS

i.e. his teaching of ‘no divorce’,463 that he probably taught the Corinthians (or some of them) during his initial 18-month mission.464 As an apostle of Christ Paul, in his teachings, views himself to stand in Christ’s shoes and to have the mind of Christ.465 He may distinguish the teachings of ‘the Lord’ from his own (7:10), may qualify or add to the earthly teachings of the Lord (7:2-9, 12; 9:14f.), or he may supplement Christ’s teaching with reference to other authorities (9:8ff., 13f.). When he does so, he does not lessen the authority either of Jesus’ saying or of his own apostolic ‘I say’ as the mediator of the mind of Jesus.466 His practice is similar to the citation of two OT passages which may supplement one another (e.g. Rom 10:19ff.) or may distinguish one passage as appropriate from the other as inappropriate to the situation (e.g. Mt 4:5ff. Q; Mk 10:4, 6 par) but which does not deny the Word of God character of either.467 463   Cf. the midrash at Mt 19:3-9 = Mk 10:2-12; cf. Lk 16:18; Ellis, History, 108f., 124; idem, Luke, 203f. Paul is closer to Mt 19:3-9 = Mk 10:2-12 than to Lk 16:18 in the use of  (‘to separate’); is closer to Mk 10:12 in highlighting the wife and is closer to Mt 19:10ff. in associating this issue with the alternative of remaining unmarried (7:7f.). Jesus’ prohibition of divorce and remarriage (Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18) is qualified by the resurrected Lord at Mt 19:9 = 6:32. See below, note 470; above, Catchpole (note 364). Regarding Paul’s knowledge of Jesus traditions cf. R. Reisner, ‘Paulus und die Jesus-Überlieferung’, EvangeliumSchriftauslegung-Kirche. FS P. Stuhlmacher, edd. A. Adna et al., Göttingen 1997, 347-365 (359f.); D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul, Philadelphia PA 1971, 132-135, 139-150. On  see below, note 682. 464   This is indicated (1) by the brevity and summary manner of Paul’s references to Jesus’ teachings, (2) by his demonstrated knowledge of some of them (e.g. 7:10f.; 9:14; 11:23-26) and (3) by the transmission-by-tradition formula that he uses at 11:23. The authors of the NT epistles cite few Jesus-traditions, not because they did not know them but because dominical teachings were transmitted separately as a special kind of tradition (cf. Ellis, Making, 70ff.). Cf. Ellis, Making, 30-33, 70-77 (72); idem, ‘Expositions of Jesus Used by Paul’, Christ, 31-37; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Grand Rapids MI 21998, 288-323 (311-320); D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Letters of Paul, Philadelphia PA 1971, 139-150; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, London 2 1965 (1934), 242: Already in the 40s ‘collections which contained exclusively sayings of Jesus…were given to the missionaries orally or fixed in writing’. See below, note 467. 465   2:16; 14:37. See above, ‘Special Note on ’, 31-47. 466   Cf. 14:37; Gerhardsson (note 464), 312ff.; Edwards, 167ff.; Chrysostom, Homily 19, 4, on 7:12, MPG 61 (1860), 155 (NPNF1 XII, 106). 467   Cf. Ellis, Making, 72n.; idem, History, 124; idem, Christ, 266-269.



IV

269

      = ‘the wife is not to be separated from her husband. But even if she should be separated, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And the husband is not to divorce () his wife’.468 Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage469 is qualified in the Jacobean mission by the resurrected Lord through Matthew470 and here through Paul.471 Special Note on Divorce and Remarriage In first-century mainstream Jewish and Graeco-Roman societies divorce and remarriage was commonly accepted.472 Among Jews, however, the Qumran Essenes taught monogamy and prohibited   On the accusatives of general reference,  and , i.e. subjects of the infinitive, cf. Moulton, III, 147; BDF, 211; Zerwick, 136; on the imperatival infinitives,  (aorist passive, 7:10) and  (present active, 7:11), cf. Fitzmyer, 292-295; Murphy O’Connor, 32-42; BDF, 196f.; Robertson, 943f., Burton, 146; Moule, 126f. 469   Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18. Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, Grand Rapids MI 2002, 388f.: ‘If marriage was instituted [at Gen 2:24] as a permanent “one flesh” union of man and woman, then it must always be against the will of God for it to be broken…. [Dt 24:1-4] is a provision to deal with  [“hardness of heart”], not a pointer to the way things ought to be’ (388). 470   Mt 19:9 (  ); cf. Mt 5:32:   , i.e. ‘except for fornication’. Writing to the observant Jewish Christian mission (cf. Ellis, Making, 36f., 263f., 288-293, 309), Matthew (or his antecedent) under inspiration and with the mind of Jesus, makes this qualification. The use of  rather than  may point to (1) the Jewish practice of annulment if the bride is presented as a virgin and is discovered not so to be (e.g. Mt 1:19), or using  in its broader sense, may refer to any immoral conduct as a basis for divorce; since this was the rabbinic school of Shammai’s interpretation of Dt 24:1 (M Gittin 9:10), which the earthly Jesus rejected as the determinative biblical text for the issue of divorce (Mt 19:7f.; 5:31f.; Mk 10:5-9), the Matthean except-clause is very probably a qualifying word of the exalted Jesus through his apostle. See above on 5:1. It permits divorce, not remarriage. See below, note 476. 471   To allow (1) separation for the wife but not ‘divorce and remarriage’ (7:11); (2) the divorce (but not remarriage) of Christians who are abandoned, i.e. divorced by non-Christian spouses (7:11, 15); (3) to direct the unmarried who are incontinent, probably including the divorced, to marry (7:9). 472   Regarding Judaism cf. Josephus, Vita 426; idem, Ant. 4, 253; M Gittin 9:10 (AD 180); Billerbeck I, 312-321; III, 373. Regarding Greece and Rome, cf. D. Instone-Brewer, ‘1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri’, TB 52 (2001), 101-116, 225-243; idem, Marriage and Divorce in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI 2002, 190f. 468

270

1 CORINTHIANS

divorce.473 Their views were closest to Jesus who also, on the basis of Gen 1:27; 2:24, gave an absolute prohibition against divorce and remarriage, i.e. its adulterous nature, and also taught monogamy.474 Christ’s teaching was known to and repeated by Paul.475 On what grounds then does the Apostle here and Matthew in his Gospel476 473   Cf. CD 4:15-21: ‘[Of] Belial’s three nets…the first is fornication: …by taking two wives in their lifetime, even though the principle of creation is “male and female he created them” ’ (Gen 1:27); 11QTemple 57:17ff.: Regarding the king’s wife, ‘she alone shall be with him all the days of her life’ (cf. Dt 17:17). For this teaching the Qumran Essenes also found an analogy in Noah’s taking only one pair of each species into the Ark. Cf. H. Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, Grand Rapids MI 1998, 194ff. 474   Mk 10:2-12, 11; Lk 16:18. ‘Matthew’s addition    [“except for fornication”] is secondary’ (V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark, London 1957, 419). See above, note 470. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2 vols., Garden City NY 1985, II, 1120: ‘As in 1 Cor 7:10-11 and Mk 10:11, the Lukan form of [Jesus’] saying prohibits divorce absolutely’. Cf. also Mal 2:16 NKJV: ‘For the LORD God of Israel says that he hates divorce’. See below, note 476. 475   7:10f., 39; cf. 6:16; Rom 7:2; see above, note 364. Rightly, Davies (note 40), 140: ‘it was the words of Jesus Himself that formed Paul’s primary source in his work as ethical  [“teacher”]’ (136). He lists Paul’s explicit references (9:14 [Lk 10:7 Q]; 11:23ff. [Lk 22:19f. parr]) and allusions to Christ’s teachings: Rom 12:14, 17, 21 (Mt 5:44 Q, 39ff. Q); 13:7 (Mt 22:18-21 T + Q), 8ff. (Mt 22:34-40 T + Q); 14:10, 13 (Mt 7:1f. Q); I Thess 4:8 (Lk 10:16), 9b (Mt 22:34-40 T + Q); 5:2 (Mt 24:43f.), 6 (Mt 24:42 parr), 13 (Mk 9:50), 15 (Mt 5:39ff. Q), 16 (Lk 6:23 Q; 10:20); Col 3:5 (Mt 5:29f.; 18:8f. parr), 12 (Lk 6:38), 13 (Lk 11:4 Q; Mk 2:5 T + Q); 4:2 (Mt 26:41 parr), 3 (Mt 13:11 T + Q), 6 (Mk 9:50 T + Q; Lk 12:12 parr), 12 (Mt 5:48; Lk 21:36). Cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6 (Mk 14:36; Lk 11:2 Q); I Tim 5:18 (Lk 10:7 Q); Acts 20:35. Cf. also Dungan (note 464); A Lindemann, ‘Paulus und die Jesustradition’, Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity. FS H. J. de Jonge, edd. R. Bietenwerf et al., Leiden 2008, 281-316. On 14:37; I Thess 4:15f. as words of the exalted Christ, cf. Ellis, Making, 30n, 44, 112. Otherwise: F. Neirynck, ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, L’apôtre Paul, ed. A. Vanhoye, Leuven 1986, 265-321. 476   But Matthew (5:31f.; 19:3-9) permits only divorce, not remarriage. So, Evans, 93-96 (‘Our Lord’s Prohibition of Divorce’); D. A. Hagner, Matthew, 2 vols., Dallas TX 1995, II, 544; Luz (note 121), I, 252f., 255f.; II, 493f.; unclear, Davies (note 121), I, 528-532. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Matthew, Grand Rapids 21994, 90: ‘it would be a mistake to think that Matthew allows the husband to remarry… [T]he exceptive phrase [Mt 5:32b; 19:9c] applies only to divorce’: (1) The wife, so divorced, commits adultery if she remarries, showing that the one-flesh marriage bond with her husband has not been dissolved. (2) The exception at Mt 19:9 comes after the divorce clause, not after the remarriage clause. See also Heth, Jesus (note 479), 46-72; Derrett, ‘The Teaching of Jesus on Marriage and Divorce’ (note 155), 362-388. Otherwise and unconvincing: Instone-Brewer, Bible (note 472), ix, 133-188, 210ff.



IV

271

qualify the earthly Jesus’ prohibition? It appears that they do so on the same grounds that Jesus attributes to Moses. As ‘hardness of heart’ in Israel moved the prophet Moses to allow divorce and remarriage (Dt 24:1-4; cf. Mt 19:8), changing the creation ordinance (Gen 1:27; 2:24),477 so ‘hardness of heart’ in the church and in society moved the apostles Matthew and Paul, i.e. the exalted Christ through them, to allow divorce and thus to modify the creation principle of ‘no divorce’ that Christ laid down for his followers; but the modifications nonetheless represent departures from the creation principle and thus are never a positive good in themselves. For Paul at 7:9-15 they involved probably one and possibly two situations. (1) At 7:9 (cf. 7:36) the ‘unmarried’ probably include divorced individuals. Although for Paul, as for Jesus, divorce and remarriage are always adultery, he regards an adulterous remarriage as a lesser evil for those who do not (not ‘cannot’) control themselves sexually and who presumably are engaged (covertly) in fornication or adultery.478 (2) If an elect believer is abandoned or divorced by an unbelieving spouse, the believer ‘is not bound’ (7:15). Does this mean only ‘not bound’ to the marriage obligations479 or does it also mean freedom to remarry?480 If the believing wife is abandoned and is without means of support, she could be forced to remarry,481 or perhaps as a grass widow she could serve and be supported by the congregation.482

477   ‘Moses…allowed [divorce] as the lesser of two evils in some circumstances’ (Davies [note 121], III, 15). Cf. R. Wakely, ‘‫’כּ ִריתוּת‬, ְ NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 718-722 and the literature cited. 478   That this sin was present in Paul’s churches is indicated by his repeated injunctions about it. Cf. 5:1; 6:9, 18; 7:2; 10:8; Rom 13:9; II Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; I Thess 4:3-8; I Tim 1:10; 5:2; II Tim 2:22; 3:6; Tit 2:6. 479   So, W. A. Heth and G. J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, London 1984, 137-148; idem et al., Remarriage after Divorce in Today’s Church, Grand Rapids MI 2006, 19-42, 85-89 (Wenham). 480   So, e.g. Garland, 295f.; Hering, 53; Meyer, 162; Edwards, 174f.; InstoneBrewer, ‘1 Corinthians 7’ (note 472), 241, arguing on the grounds that in contemporary pagan culture divorce, i.e. ‘freedom’ from one marriage meant ipso facto the right to remarry. But see the end of this Special Note, 489. 481   Cf. Mt 5:32: ‘everyone who divorces his wife…makes her commit adultery’, i.e. by forcing her to remarry another. Cf. Davies (note 121), I, 528. 482   If such support of widows was practiced. Cf. I Tim 5:3ff., 9ff., 16; Acts 6:1; 9:39, 41. See below, notes 641, 656.

272

1 CORINTHIANS

The right of the wife to separate, if e.g. she is suffering unbearable psychological or physical abuse, is self-evident and is so recognized by the Apostle (7:11a). But like laws of separation today in some of the United States, it does not involve divorce or remarriage and thus does not represent a violation of or departure from Jesus’ teaching. ‘Divorce and remarriage’ of those who are or who become Christians, even under the Pauline concession, nevertheless has consequences for ministry in the congregation. Some eight years later (AD 64) when Paul tightens the ministerial structures of his Aegean churches,483 he directs that the ‘overseer’ = ‘bishop’ (), i.e. ‘elder’,484 and the minister ()485 who are married, which would ordinarily be the case, shall be ‘the husband of one wife’ (  ). In the light of the prohibitions that the Apostle, following Christ, places on divorce and remarriage in I Cor 7, not to mention the common interpretation of I Tim 3:2 in the patristic church,486 the phrase very probably means ‘married only once’,487 not one wife at a time. The dominical principle forbidding ‘divorce and remarriage’ remains valid for Christ’s church today. It places all such conduct   Cf. Ellis, Making, 282ff., 422-425.   Tit 1:5-9 (6); I Tim 3:1-7 (2); cf. Acts 20:17 with 20:28. 485   I Tim 3:8-13 (12). 486   E.g. Tertullian, Exhortation to Chastity 7, middle (ANF 4, 54); Augustin, On the Good of Marriage 21, beginning (NPNF1 3, 408); Chrysostom, Homilies on Titus 2 on Tit 1:6 (NPNF1 13, 524); Jerome, Letter 52 to Nepotian 16, middle (NPNF2 6, 96); cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, Appendix: De Fide 21, 8 (Williams, II, 662). See below, note 492. Cf. P. Gorday, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Downers Grove IL 2000, 286f.; C. H. Dodd, ‘New Testament Translation Problems II’, BTr 28 (1977), 112-116 (114): ‘the dominant view in early times…was to exclude from the episcopate any person who had contracted a second marriage after the death of his first wife’. 487   Tit 1:5-9 (6); I Tim 3:1-6 (2). Rightly, J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Peabody MA 21987 (1963), 75f., 84, although his inclusion of the widowed probably goes beyond Paul’s thought (cf. I Tim 5:14), despite the meritorious status of single widowhood in the contemporary culture and in early Christian writers. For Paul the death of a spouse ended the marital bond and obligation (7:39; Rom 7:2f.), although for the widowed to remain unmarried may be a ‘happier’ state (7:40). Differently: Instone-Brewer, Bible (note 472), 122, 227, and the literature cited. On the various interpretations of modern commentators cf. Marshall (note 103), 155ff.; W. D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Nashville TN 2000, 172. 483 484



IV

273

in the category of disobedience to the Lord. If divorce occurs, the elect believer involved can and should still maintain the Christian conception of marriage by remaining single. If the sexual incontinence of the divorcé drives him to fornication, Paul concedes a remarriage (7:9). He would probably do so also for the divorcée whose impoverishment, for example, impels her to relate to a man,488 although that was more likely in the Apostle’s day than in ours. But such remarriage is, as an event, a lesser evil even though with repentance and forgiveness it may yield good results in a subsequent loving relationship and in children. Even children of fornication can and often have become vibrant servants of Christ. . ‘To the rest’ refers to those in mixed 12a.     marriages. See above on 7:10a. 12b-16.      489           = ‘If any brother (q.v. @ 1:1, note 47) has a wife who is an unbeliever and she pleases to dwell with him, let him not divorce her’, etc. 7:13 repeats, in a chiastic sequence, the injunction for the Christian wife and non-Christian husband, showing both the importance of this instruction and the Graeco-Roman equivalence of the two spouses in this matter. The section 7:12-16 continues for mixed marriages the dominical teaching applied to the Christian couple at 7:10f.: marriage, i.e. the one-flesh sexual union, is a creation ordinance that applies to all mankind, (2) is not to be broken by the Christian spouse for ascetic490 or for any other reason and, (3) ‘if the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate’ (, 7:15); (4) ‘the brother or the sister’, i.e. the Christian spouse, is not bound ( ) to continue   See above note 481.   A generic masculine, applying to both male and female. So also, e.g.,  (‘men’); cf. e.g. Gen 1:27 LXX; Mt 4:4, 19; Acts 17:30; Rom 1:18; I Cor 1:25; Heb 9:27; Jas 2:25; I Pet 3:4; Rev 8:11. The use of generic masculine terms is common not only to biblical languages but also to English, where specific masculine terms tend to become generic over time, e.g. in the USA ‘actor’, ‘guys’. Cf. E. E. Ellis, ‘Dynamic Equivalence Theory, Feminist Ideology and Three Recent Bible Translations’, ET 115 (2003–2004), 7-12 = idem, Sovereignty, ###. 490   See above on 7:1. 488 489

274

1 CORINTHIANS

one’s marriage obligations (7:15). But, like the separated wife of 7:11, one is to remain single or to be reconciled to his wife or to her husband. This summarized and interpreted reading is disputed, particularly with respect to the obligation of the separated Christian spouse to remain single. It depends for its justification on several factors, (1) the Apostle’s concern for the moral issue and not for what was socially or legally acceptable,491 (2) his adherence to Jesus’ implicit proscription of divorce and remarriage,492 (3) the contextual meaning of  (‘leave’, 7:11f.),  (‘to cause a separation’, ‘to separate [oneself]’, 7:10f., 15),493  (‘enslaved’, 7:15) and  (‘free’, 7:39). Both  and  are used elsewhere494 for separation and divorce with no implications for the right of remarriage except as expressed in the particular context; in the present context that implication is rejected (7:11). The term  is either positive495 or negative496 depending on the person or object to which one is ‘enslaved’ or ‘bound’; in the present context (7:15) marriage is a good bondage, removed by the unbelieving spouse (), but

491   Pace Instone-Brewer, Bible (note 472), 201ff.; idem, ‘1 Corinthians 7’ (note 472), 101f., who assumes that Paul ‘is…dealing with legal concepts which would be found in marriage contracts and divorce certificates of his readers’. But these are at most secondary effects and ramifications of moral acts (the one-flesh marriage union) or aberrations (fornication and divorce). 492   See above, notes 474, 475, 476 and 486; the interpretation of an early Christian prophet, Shepherd of Hermas (c. AD 100–150), ‘Mandates’ 4, 1, 6 (Loeb: If one has an unrepentant adulterous wife, ‘let him put her away…and let the husband remain by himself. But “if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery himself” ’ [cf. Mt 19:9]). Cf. C. Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, Minneapolis MN 1999, 11; ANF 2, 21. Hermas (probably in Rome) quite likely knew the Gospel of Matthew and I Corinthians; cf. D. A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, Leiden 1973, 281f., 285; E. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3 vols., Macon GA 1993, II, 111-120, 144; W. Rordorf, ‘Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early Church’, JEH 20 (1969), 193-210 (204ff.). 493   BDAG, 156, 1095; A. Deissmann, ‘’, Bible Studies, Winona Lake IN 1979 (31923), 247. 494   Rom 1:27; Mt 19:6 par. Cf. BDAG, 156, 1095. 495   Rom 6:18, 22; 9:19: ‘Enslaved to righteousness, …to God’; ‘to all’ for Christ’s sake. 496   Gal 4:3; Tit 2:3: Enslaved ‘to the elements of the world’; ‘to much wine’.



IV

275

with no implications for remarriage.497 The term that Paul uses for the right of remarriage is ‘free’, here limited to one whose spouse has died (7:39). 12-13.  = ‘pleases’ (cf. KJV).498 The term probably implies a stronger affirmation than ‘consents’ (as in NKJV; ESV; NASB; RSV). On  and , see above on 7:10-11, 12b-16, notes 468 and 489. 14-16. Paul gives two reasons, one specific and one implied, why elect believers should maintain a marriage with pagan spouses: (1) they have a life-long exclusive ‘one-flesh’ marriage union, not explicitly applied to a ‘mixed marriage’ at 7:10f. but clearly presupposed and included in that injunction. (2) Their nonage children are in the sphere of the holiness of the Christian parent (7:14). Some find a third reason at 7:16 (q.v.): they may be the agents that God uses to bring the pagan spouse to regeneration. 14.      499     = ‘For the husband who is an unbeliever is made holy in the wife, and the wife who is an unbeliever is made holy in the brother’. The perfect tense of  (q.v. @ 1:2) points to a status of the non-Christian created at the Christian spouse’s conversion500 that continues into the present. Christ’s chosen ones have been made holy corporately in their Holy Spirit baptism501 incorporating them into Christ, i.e. their regeneration. They subsequently exist in the sphere of Christ’s holiness (q.v. @ 1:2; 6:11) and are destined to actualize individually that holiness at Christ’s second coming.502 Similarly but not fully analogous, the non-Christian spouse ‘is made holy’ in ()   So, Olshausen, 123f.   Cf. Garland, 285; on the cognate, G. Schrenk, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 740ff.; H. Bietenhard, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 817-820. 499   Q.v. @ note 489. 500   If, in accord with the Apostle’s admonitions (7:39; II Cor 6:14-16a), the Christian spouse has not married a pagan after conversion. 501   Cf. 12:13; see above on 1:14, notes 115, 125-126; on 1:17; on 6:2f.; below note 502. 502   See below, ‘The Spirit and the Gifts’, AE V, ###-### [185-192]. Cf. Col 3:4; I Jn 3:2f.; Ellis, Christ, 150f. 497 498

276

1 CORINTHIANS

the Christian spouse, i.e. by existing in the corporate sphere in the marital union503 with one who exists in the corporate sphere of Christ’s holiness, but he does not share in Christ’s holiness, i.e. in a Christian status (cf. 7:16).            = ‘otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is ()504 they are holy’. The neuter plural  takes a singular verb.505 The nonage child exists in the corporate sphere of the parents, whether they are (only) ‘in Adam’ and thus ‘unclean’ and under death,506 or are ‘in Christ’ and thus in a sphere of holiness and resurrection life. In a mixed marriage the child exists in the corporate sphere of the Christian parent, whether the father or the mother. This is the only Pauline text in which the wife and mother may be the determinative corporate head of the married couple,507 i.e. with reference to the ‘Christian’ status of the children who, if they die as children, will be saved in the last day of resurrection and judgment.508 Many with the presupposition of ‘infant baptism’ and of a sacramental understanding of water baptism find an implicit reference to baptism here as the means by which the child is determined as ‘holy’.509 But there is no reference to baptism in the context. A more likely interpretation of 7:14 lies in the Apostle’s anthropology in which one exists both as an individual and as part of a larger corporate existence, whether of family, of nation, or of race 503   The sexual union, analogous to the Holy Spirit union of the Christian with Christ, creates a corporate body. See above on 6:16f.; cf. Eph 5:31f. The  (‘in’, q.v. @ 1:2) is a dative locative of sphere, not a dative instrumental or means. Rightly, Schrage II, 104. Cf. Robertson, 521f., 524f. 504   Cf. BDAG, 681 (2). 505   Cf. BDF, 73f. § 133 (1). 506   15:22; Rom 5:12. See above on 2:14. Cf. Edwards, 172: ‘The solidarité of men and their various relations is a pre-eminently Pauline conception. The race is one; the Church is one; the family is one’. 507   Elsewhere, the husband is the corporate head. Cf. 11:3; 14:34f.; Rom 7:2 (); Eph 5:22f.; Col 3:18; I Tim 2:11-14. See below, ‘Paul and the Eschatological Woman’, AE XIII, ###-### [365-372]. Further, Gen 3:15; Isa 7:14; Lk 1:31, 35; J. M. Hamilton, ‘The Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham’, TB 58 (2007), 253-273 (253f. 260f.). 508   15:22f.; Col 3:3f.; cf. Heb 9:27f.; I Jn 3:2. 509   Cf. J. C. O’Neill, ‘1 Corinthians 7, 14 and Infant Baptism’, Vanhoye (note 475), 356-361; Godet, I, 346. But see Olshausen, 122: ‘St. Paul would not have chosen this line of argument had infant baptism at that time been practiced’.



IV

277

(‘in Adam’ or ‘in Christ’).510 The context here and Paul’s theology generally point to the corporate ‘one flesh’ sexual union of both the couple and of the offspring from that sexual union.511 The nonage child’s spiritual status is determined not at water baptism but at birth from the (Christian) parent through whom God looks at and relates to the child. When the Christian child over time stands apart from the parents’ corporeity, God addresses him directly as a sinner and, like John the Baptist to the covenant children of Israel,512 calls on him through a Christian or through Scripture to repent and to confirm individually that which has heretofore been true of him corporately. . On 7:15f., which concludes the 15.       section 7:12-16 see above on 7:12b-16.   = ‘is not bound’. See above, note 497. On  cf. 1:1.        = ‘for God has called you (or ‘us’) to peace’, taking the  as extension toward a goal and not as presence or status in a sphere;513 and taking  as explanatory and not adversative.514 The principle, here directed to Christians in broken mixed marriages, applies to all believers.515 Does the   On corporate existence ‘in Adam’ or ‘in Christ’ see above on 1:30, notes 312, 318; on 3:16, note 691; below on AE VIII, ###-### [291-299] and AE XIII, ###-### [362-365]; on national corporate existence, best seen in the OT, see above on 3:16, note 691 and below on AE, VIII, ###-### [292n]; Ellis, Theology, 8ff.; idem, ‘The Biblical Concept of the Solidarity of the Human Race as Seen in Blessing and Punishment’, B.D. thesis, Wheaton Graduate School, Wheaton IL 1953, 37-51. 511   See above on 6:9f., 16, notes 284, 364-367. 512   Cf. Mt 3:1-10 T + Q. So, the hymns, ‘My Lord, I Did Not Choose You’, J. Conder 1789–1855: ‘You took the sin that stained me; You cleansed me, made me new’; ‘I Stand Amazed in the Presence’, C. H. Gabriel 1856–32: ‘A sinner, condemned, unclean’. 513   Cf. I Thess 4:7: ‘to () holiness’ (Tyndale, KJV, Weymouth, NEB, NIV); BDAG, 326f. § 1, 3; BDF, 111; Moulton, III, 263. So, Fee, 303n; Hering, 53; Lietzmann, 31. Otherwise: Heinrici, 225; Godet, I, 349. 514   So, R & P, 143; Morris, 108. Otherwise: Garland, 292; Schrage, II, 111; Barrett, 166; Findlay, 827. 515   Cf. Fee, 297n; Hering, 53: ‘the reading …seems to us better attested than ’. See above, Textual Notes on 7:15. 510

278

1 CORINTHIANS

‘peace’ refer primarily (1) to the attitude of the Christian toward the unbelieving spouse who divorced him or her,516 (2) to the peaceful relationships with everyone that is appropriate to Christians517 or (3) to the eschatological peace with God and man effected by Christ’s death518 that is to characterize all relationships in an exemplary Christian life?519 Since the non-Christian’s separation is assumed to be final, the second and third aspects are probably foremost in Paul’s mind. 16.          = (‘How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband, or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?’) On the continuing repeated address to both husband and wife see above on 7:12b-16. On the inferential or causal  see 10:17; 15:9; Rom 2:28.520 The shift to the vocative mood may suggest a parenthetic aside. Two interpretations of the question are suggested by the commentators, affirmative and skeptical, i.e. optimistic and pessimistic.521 The former assumes that the unbeliever’s separation is in process and that the elect believer is to continue seeking to maintain the marriage in the hope of winning the unbeliever to a Christian confession. It involves taking (1) 7:15 as a parenthesis and (2) the future  as a subjunctive: ‘whether you may save your husband’.522 The latter assumes that the Christian’s efforts to maintain the marriage have failed, that the unbeliever ‘is separating’ (not ‘desiring to separate’) and that the Christian’s call to peace in Christ is not to be disrupted by a continuing contest about the divorce. The latter case is more probable:523 to take 7:15 as a parenthesis and to join 7:16 to   E.g. Lightfoot, 226f.; Barrett, 166.   14:33; 16:11; cf. Rom 14:19; II Tim 2:22. 518   Cf. e.g. 1:3; Rom 1:3, 7; 5:1; 10:15; 14:17; II Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; 6:16; Eph 1:2; 2:14-17; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; I Thess 1:1; I Tim 1:2; II Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4; Plm 3. So, Grosheide, 116f.; cf. Schrage, II, 111f. 519   Cf. e.g. Eph 4:3; Col 3:15; I Thess 5:23; II Thess 3:16. 520   Cf. Robertson, 962, 1190f. See above on 3:4, note 577; on 3:11, note 637. 521   See above, note 514. 522   E.g. J. Jeremias, ‘Die Missionarische Aufgabe in der Mischehe’, Abba, Göttingen 1966, 292-298. Cf. I Pet 3:1. 523   So, Wolff, 146; Morris, 108; S. Kubo, ‘I Corinthians VII.16: Optimistic or Pessimistic?’, NTS 24 (1978), 539-544 (544); R & P, 144; cf. Lias, 85. 516 517



IV

279

7:14 as reasons to continue the marriage is confusing and awkward syntax. (2) To identify the peace of Christ as a missionary appeal, indeed a missionary appeal introduced as an isolated question, does not fit the context nor Pauline  (‘exhortation’). Most probably, the unbeliever’s separation is his action against the Christian spouse, whose only recourse is to find her peace in Christ. There also may be allusions to Paul’s discouragement of a Christian’s legal actions before pagan courts (6:1-8). 17-24. The section, elaborating God’s ‘call to peace’ (7:15), broadens Paul’s address beyond the married Christian couple (7:2-11) and mixed marriages (7:12-16) to Christ’s chosen ones generally. It compares, in a self-contained pericope, the calling of Christ with one’s religious (7:18ff.) and social (7:21f.) status in this world,524 emphasizing the rule for all of his churches (7:17) that one should ‘walk’ or ‘remain’ in the religious and social framework in which God called () one to Christ (7:17, 20, 24). It apparently presupposes that some were using their new life in Christ to change their status in the present world or that they could or should do so.  526   17.       ,     = ‘But as the Lord distributed to each one, as God has called each one, so let him walk’. On , here a third person singular perfect tense, see above on 1:1, note 28; on 1:9.   (‘but’), used at times in the Gospels as an equivalent for ,527 has a milder connotation in Paul’s letters528 of ‘only’, ‘except’.529 But at 7:17 what is the exception that it points back to?

524   Cf. Bruce, 71: ‘Calling and Status’. On the symmetrical structure, cf. Weiss (note 176), 165-247 (192f.). 525   Probably changed to the perfect  in ‫ *א‬B 1739 by attraction to ; so, Godet, I, 253. 526   The Byzantine text (M) has: ‘as God distributed…as the Lord has called’. Cf. Z. C. Hodges et al., The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, Nashville TN 21985. 527   Cf. BDF, 448 § 8; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 31967, 113f.; Zerwick, 157f. Otherwise: Lightfoot, 227. 528   2:11 (7:5); 10:13; 12:3; 15:2; Rom 14:14; cf. R & P, 145. 529   So, Godet, 251ff.; cf. Lightfoot, 227. See below on 10:13, note 547.

280

1 CORINTHIANS

Is it the Christian spouse’s non-bondage to a mixed marriage (7:15) or a Christian wife’s separation (7:11)? It is more likely a general reference to whatever circumstances one may find oneself in. The Apostle uses  elsewhere to mean ‘to divide’530 and, as here, ‘to distribute’ or ‘to assign’,531 e.g. the measure ‘of faith’ (Rom 12:3), ‘the sphere of ministry’ (, II Cor 10:13) including (but not exclusively) racial and geographical aspects.532 Since Paul uses other terms for the distribution of charisms,533  probably has a broader connotation, including the whole framework of circumstances, talents and gifts that God has predestined and appointed for the particular Christian’s life. As one cardplayer put it, ‘I will play the hand God dealt me’.  (‘to walk’, q.v. @ 3:3, note 574) is here a third person singular present imperative. Used figuratively, it has its background in a Hebrew word with the meaning ‘to conduct one’s life’ (‫)הלך‬534 and is found frequently in the MT and a few times in the LXX.535 .  Of the various NT words meaning ‘to command’,536 the Pauline letters use once  (Col 2:20), elsewhere 537 and more frequently with little difference in meaning .538

  1:13; 7:34.   Cf. BDAG, 631f. 532   Cf. H. W. Beyer, ‘’, TDNT III (1965/1938), 599; E. A. Judge, ‘Kanon in 2 Cor. 10:13’, ND 1 (1981), 44f. cf. idem, The First Christians in the Roman World, Tübingen 2008, 357ff.; Thrall (note 102), II, 647. 533   Cf. 1:5; 12:7f., 11, 28; Eph 4:7-11. 534   E.g. Lev 26:23f.; Judg 2:17; I Sam 8:3; I Kg 3:6; Pss 1:1; 110:3; Jer 7:23; Ezek 5:6f.; Mal 2:6. Cf. E. H. Merrill, ‘‫’הלך‬, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 1032-1035: ‘life lived in obedience or disobedience [to Yahweh]’ (1033); Englishman’s Hebrew, 362-366. 535   E.g. IV Kgdm 20:3; Eccl 11:9; Isa 59:9; H & R2, 1125. Cf. H. Seesemann, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 944: ‘it is impossible that Paul should have taken it from any other source [than the OT]’. 536   E.g.  (found only in the Gospels, Acts and Hebrews) and  (found only in Matthew, Luke and Acts). Cf. ‘Command’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 530-543. 537   9:14; 11:34; 16:1; Gal 3:19; Tit 1:5. 538   7:10; 11:17; I Thess 4:11; II Thess 3:4, 6, 10, 12; I Tim 1:3; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17. See above on 7:10f., note 465. 530 531



IV

281

18. ‘Was anyone called ()539 while circumcised (­ ),540 let him not efface () it.541 Has anyone been called while ()542 uncircumcised (),543 let him not be circumcised.’ This verse shows (1) that the several Christian congregations at Corinth were a mixture of Jews and Gentiles; (2) that Paul’s opponents who taught that Gentile Christians must be circumcised544 were to Paul’s knowledge not yet present at Corinth and (3) that for Paul circumcision belongs to the OT ritual law which is no longer binding. Although circumcision as a sign of God’s covenant began with Abraham,545 it became with Moses a part of the ritual law.546 It was already in the OT subordinated to and contrasted negatively with the moral law, i.e. ‘the circumcision of the heart’, to which it pointed.547 This contrast continued at Qumran.548 Jesus criticizes the Jewish religious authorities because they focused on the ritual and ‘passed over the weightier matters of the law’, i.e. its moral aspects.549 In his biblical debates with them, summarized in proem550 and   See above on 7:17.   A nominative singular masculine perfect passive participle from ­ , found in Paul here and at Gal 2:3; 5:2f.; 6:12f.; Col 2:11. 541   A second person present middle imperative from . Some diaspora Jews, ridiculed by Gentiles in baths and games (I Macc 1:14f.; Josephus, Ant. 12, 241; cf. Jubil 15:33), did so from embarrassment or peer pressure (cf. B. M. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, Grand Rapids MI 1994, 147-152). Some Jews were criticized by Philo (de migr. Abr. 89-93) for allegorizing this commandment (Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:24) and for not circumcising their male children (cf. also Billerbeck IV, 26 [g]). According to Josephus (Ant. 20, 41f.) a certain proselyting Jewish merchant told a Gentile that, if need be, he could adhere to Judaism without circumcision. 542   Cf. BDAG, 329 § 10. 543   18 of 19 NT occurrences are Pauline. 544   Gal 5:2; 6:12f.; cf. Phil 3:2f. See below, AE I, ###-### [51ff., 56-61]. 545   Gen 17:10-14. 546   Lev 12:1-8, 3. 547   Dt 10:16; Jer 9:25; 4:4 NKJV: ‘Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your hearts’. Cf. L. C. Allen, ‘Circumcision’, NIDOTTE 4 (1997), 475: it was used metaphorically for ‘the meaning of the rite as commitment to God’. 548   1QpHab 11:13; 1QS 5:5. So also re water baptism; see above on 1:14, note 115. 549   Cf. Mt 23:23 with Lk 11:42. 550   Mt 21:33-46 T + Q. Cf. Ellis, History, 108, 130, 134n; idem, Christ, 52f.; idem, Old Testament, 98, 134f.; idem, Prophecy, 157f., 251ff. 539 540

282

1 CORINTHIANS

yelammedenu551 midrashim, i.e. commentary on selected OT texts, Jesus subordinates and relativizes the OT ritual law. For this he cites (among other texts) Hos 6:6, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’,552 points to its contingent nature by his declaration that ‘something greater than the temple is here’ and that ‘the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath’553 and announces, in effect, that the whole OT ritual and ceremonial structure has now been superseded.554 The Apostle, probably following Jesus’ teaching, makes the same distinction between the moral and the ritual or ceremonial aspects of the law, although often more implicitly than explicitly.555 He regards circumcision,556 the observance of the sabbath and kosher food laws557 as now matters of indifference. Like the OT, he subordinates the outward sign of circumcision from the true moral circumcision of the heart.558 Thinking chronologically in terms of salvation-history, he views the ritual law as binding () and as a guardian () in OT times, pointing one to the Messiah.559 He, the pre-Christian Paul, himself kept that ritual law meticulously.560 But now that Christ has come, the ritual law is no longer obligatory and is useful only as it serves the primary moral law.561 The Apostle can at times be ritually observant himself.562 And he never 551   Mt 12:1-8, 7 T + Q (sabbath); 15:1-9 par; cf. Mt 9:10-13 (ritual washing, defilement). Cf. Ellis, History, 130f.; idem, Christ, 53; idem, Old Testament, 97n, 98, 136ff.; idem, Prophecy, 158. 552   Hos 6:6 @ Mt 9:13 T + Q; I Sam 21:6; Lev 24:5-9 @ Mt 12:3ff. T + Q; Exod 20:12 @ Mt 15:4ff. par; cf. 23:23 Q. See below on 9:17f., notes 339ff. 553   Mt 12:6, 8; cf. Ellis, Making, 314f.; idem, Old Testament, 137f. 554   Cf. Mk 3:19; Lk 6:4 D: ‘On the same day [Jesus], seeing someone working on the sabbath, said to him, “Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law” ’. Though not original in Luke, the story is probably genuine, i.e. dominical. Cf. J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus, London 21958, 49-54. 555   Cf. W. Schrage, Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese, Gütersloh 1961, 231: ‘Paul cites no ritual law of the OT that would still be binding for Christians’; B. L. Martin, ‘The Moral Law Versus the Ceremonial Law’, Christ and the Law in Paul, Leiden 1989, 32ff. and the literature cited. 556   Cf. 7:18f.; Gal 5:6; 6:15. Cf. Schrage, II, 129ff., 136f. 557   Rom 14:2f., 5f., 14 (cf. Mk 7:19b), 17, 20f. 558   Rom 2:28f.; Phil 3:2f. See above, note 547; below on 9:17f., notes 339ff., 371ff. 559   Gal 3:23ff. 560   Phil 3:4ff. 561   Cf. Rom 13:9 with Mt 22:37-40; Martin (note 555), 146-154. 562   9:20; Acts 18:18; 21:23-26.



IV

283

forbids Jewish Christians to circumcise their children or to keep the sabbath; according to Acts 16:3 he had Timothy circumcised as the son of a Jewish mother (Acts 16:3). But he gives such practices no salvific merit563 and apparently considers them to be only a means to win other Jews to Christ or as a continuation of OT types useful still for Jews in that they point to Christ.564 19.  565     566   567 568   = ‘Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but rather the keeping of the commandments of God’. This verse makes perhaps the clearest contrast between the ritual law and the moral law in all of Paul’s epistles.569 The ritual law is represented here by the rite of circumcision; the moral law by ‘the commandments of God’.  occurs 14 times in the Apostle’s letters,570 mostly with reference to the OT moral law.571 Its background is the usage of the LXX and Jewish Greek writings and of Jesus.572

563   So, Rom 3:30, where the medium through which God effects salvation for both ‘the circumcised’ and ‘the uncircumcised’ is not external rites but internal and God-given faith alone. Cf. T. R. Schreiner, Romans, Grand Rapids MI 1998, 206; P. Barnett, Romans, Fearn UK 2003, 88ff. Otherwise, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh 1906, 96: ‘The Jew is justified from faith through circumcision. The Gentile is justified from faith and through faith.’ 564   See above, note 562; below on 9:17f., notes 377, 382ff. 565   See above on 7:18. Cf. Rom 2:25; Billerbeck III, 375; IV, 23-40. 566   ‘Uncircumcised’ = Gentiles, although some Gentiles, i.e. non-Jews of the Near East and of North Africa, were circumcised (cf. Schürer, I, 537-540). 567   On its usually strong adversative sense cf. BDAG, 44f. § 1; BDF, 137f.; J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, Oxford 21954, 1-32 (1-9). 568   A Pauline hapax. Cf.  @ 7:37. 569   But see Gal 5:6; 6:15; Schrage, II, 136. Cf. also Eph 2:15 (‘commandments in ordinances’ vs. ‘one new man’) with Col 2:14. Otherwise: J. A. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, London 1909, 63ff.; H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, Grand Rapids MI 2002: ‘the whole Mosaic law, not just the ceremonial’. 570   14:37; Rom 7:8-13; 13:9; Eph 2:15; 6:2; Col 4:10; I Tim 6:14; Tit 1:14. 571   Exceptions are 14:37 (re congregational regulations); Eph 2:15 (re ‘commandments in ordinances’); Col 4:10 (re instructions of co-workers); Tit 1:14 (‘commandments of men’). The verb form  does not occur in Paul’s letters. 572   With reference to the Torah, i.e. what is commanded by God, cf. G. Schrenk, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 544-556 (545-553): at 7:19 ‘this denotes the

284

1 CORINTHIANS

20.          = ‘Each one,573 in the condition574 in which he was called,575 in this let him remain’. The verse repeats, for emphasis, the substance of 7:17 and addresses (7:21ff.) a major social difference within the Corinthian congregations: some were free, even Roman citizens,576 and some were slaves. Special Note on Slavery In the ancient Near East slavery occurred mainly as the fate of enemy captives.577 In Israel it arose largely from poverty or debt and was limited for fellow Jews until the Jubilee Year or to seven years of indentured servitude;578 for Gentile slaves it was permanent.579 It was employed by God, in salvation-history, as a punishment on Israel’s enemies as well as a punishment on disobedient Israel, e.g. the Exile.580 permanent element, i.e. the moral Torah. This is wholly in line with the meaning of the   according to the Johannine view [and] in full agreement with the Synoptic evaluation of the concept’ (552). 573   See above on 1:12. 574    means not only God’s ‘calling to faith’ (q.v. @ 1:26) but also, as here, one’s ‘situation’ or ‘condition’ in life. Cf. BDAG, 549; LSJ, 960; on the variety of usages in Philo cf. P. Borgen et al., The Philo Index, Grand Rapids MI 2000, 196. 575   I.e. by God to salvation, third person singular aorist indicative passive of . Q.v. @ 1:9. 576   Cf. E. A. Judge, ‘The Roman Base of Paul’s Mission’, TB 56.1 (2005), 103-117, 109f., 112-116 = idem (note 532), 553-567 (559ff., 562-567). But see L. V. Rutgers, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome, Leiden 1995, 166-175. 577   In the OT, e.g. Midianites (Num 31:18), Samson (Judg 16:21), Zedekiah (Jer 52:11) and Daniel (Dan 1:1-6). Cf. K. A. Kitchen, ‘Slave, Slavery’, NBD, 1110-1113 [OT]. In ancient Greece cf. OCD3, 1415. Similarly in sub-Sahara Africa, where many in defeated tribes became the slaves of the victors. In GraecoRoman antiquity Ephesus was a major slave market (OCD2, 996). 578   E.g. Exod 21:2-6; Lev. 25:40; Dt 15:11-18; II Kg 4:1; it was extended for life with the consent of the servant. Hence it came into English common law; one of my ancestors was indentured for seven years to a seventeenth- or eighteenthcentury mid-Atlantic colony. Cf. S. A. Son, ed., History and Exegesis. FS E. E. Ellis, New York 2006,6. 579   Lev 25:44ff. 580   E.g. Isa 24:1-6; Jer 15:2; Joel 3:6ff.



IV

285

Slavery was widespread and socially diverse581 in the GraecoRoman world, ranging from oppressive labor in the mines582 and somewhat less arduous agricultural work583 through domestic servants, artisans and secretaries584 to the managers of their master’s estate.585 It also varied in the numbers of slaves held by one owner, which seldom exceeded 100 and among artisans often numbered only two or three.586 The exceptions, mainly in the Roman West, were slaves owned by the government and by a relatively few very wealthy and politically powerful men.587

  Cf. OCD2, 994ff.; OCD3, 1415ff.; E Hermann-Otto, Sklaverei und Freilassung in der griechisch-romischen Welt, Hildesheim 2009, and the literature cited. 582   OCD2, 690; OCD3, 985 (‘mines’) and the literature cited. Victorinus (†AD 304), Commentary on the Apocalypse, on Rev 10, end = ANF VII, 353, stated that the Apostle John was ‘condemned to labour of the mines’ on Patmos. 583   See above, note 581. 584   E.g. Tiro, slave and later freedman of Cicero (106–43 BC), who was his literary executor and biographer. Cf. OCD2, 234-238, 1078; OCD3, 1558-1564. 585   See above, note 581. Not dissimilar was the American slave, James Pemberton, who managed the Mississippi plantation of Jefferson Davis, U.S. Senator (1848-50, 1857-61) and Secretary of War (1853-57); President, The Confederate States of America (1861–65). Cf. S. Foote, The Civil War, 3 vols., New York 1974, I, 9. 586   OCD3, 1416. So also in America, the great New England theologian, Jonathan Edwards, held several slave girls for domestic help. Cf. I. H. Murray, Jonathan Edwards, Edinburgh 1987, 180. In the antebellum American South of 1860 less than 5% of the population owned slaves (c. 385,000 out of 8,000,000), and half of them owned fewer than five slaves (Franklin, Johnson, Webb); 88% of them had fewer than 20 slaves, among whom was my great-grandfather’s family (cf. Ellis, Making, xvi). The overwhelming majority were comparatively small affluent farmers; less than 11,000 individuals owned 50 or more slaves, fewer than 2000 more than 100 (Johnson). Some 50,000 Southern free blacks as well as a good number of Indians also owned slaves (Dwyer, Johnson, Stewart). Cf. J. J. Dwyer, The War Between the States: America’s Uncivil War, Denton TX 2005, 126f.; J. H. Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom, New York 31967, 186f.; P. Johnson, A History of the American People, New York 1997, 433; J. C. Stewart, 1001 Things Everyone Should Know about African American History, New York 1996, 67 (an informative if limited smorgasbord); J. Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scotts-Irish Shaped America, New York 2001, 223. 587   ‘No Greek could match the 800 slaves [of] Pompey’s son…, as no Greek State could match the 700 slaves who were the regular maintenance staff of imperial Rome’s aqueducts’ (OCD2, 995). 581

286

1 CORINTHIANS

Many slaves were manumitted by their masters for good service588 as was the case for Tiro and apparently for the Apostle’s forebears.589 Apart from Jews, most took the religion of their masters, which would in considerable measure account for the references to masters and slaves in the traditioned household regulations of the Pauline and Petrine missions.590 Slavery continued into the Christian-influenced Middle Ages, slowly mitigated by NT teachings (see below) into serfdom. It took on a crueler form in the Islamic Turks’ enslavement of large numbers of Christians and in the intertribal slavery of sub-Sahara Africa, whose dominant tribes in AD 1600–1800 sold slaves to British, European and New England slave traders for shipment to the Americas.591 In the British North American colonies and the ensuing United States, slavery also generally had a Christian-influenced milder form; e.g. some household slaves often lived in the master’s home, as they did in the Graeco-Roman period, and the older ones were often called ‘Aunt’ and ‘Uncle’ as titles of affection and of respect. With a growing conviction that no man was good enough to own another man, slavery was gradually abolished in most States through the early nineteenth century.592 During the War for Southern Independence (1861–1865) it continued in four or five of the 22 588   Cf. Deissmann, 321-329; Schürer III, 36ff., 132f.; S. Bartchy,  : First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21, Eugene OR 22003, 83ff. So also in the United States, mainly by will, e.g. George Washington (c. 125 slaves) and Robert E. Lee (in 1846, c. 6 slaves). Cf. J. R. Alden, George Washington: A Biography, Baton Rouge LA 1984, 302f.; D. S. Freeman, R. E. Lee: A Biography, 4 vols., New York 21962, I, 371. 589   See above, note 584; on 1:1, notes 16-26. 590   Eph. 5:21–6:9, 5f.; Col 3:19–4:1; I Pet 2:18–3:7. Cf. 7:19; 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; I Tim 6:1f.; Plm 16; Rev 6:15; 13:16; 19:18. See Ellis, Making, 64ff., 107, 110, 135, 313. 591   Cf. ODCC, 1508f. (‘slavery’). 592   E.g. Massachusetts (1780), New Hampshire (1783), New York (1827), Rhode Island (1842), Connecticut (1848), Pennsylvania (1850), New Jersey (1846 or 1865). Cf. Dwyer (note 586), 99; T. J. DiLorenzo, ‘Why Not Peaceful Emancipation?’, ‘Slavery’, The Real Lincoln, New York 22003, 33-53, 275-279; idem, Lincoln Unmasked, New York 2006. The South seceded from the Union not for the 5% who owned slaves but to save the Constitution; the North, esp Abraham Lincoln, abandoned the Constitution to save the Union (cf. DiLorenzo, 130-168, passim), at the price of 600,000 dead.



IV

287

United States and in the 11 Confederate States,593 but nonetheless the large majority of Southern blacks, both slave and free, supported the Confederacy,594 a witness both to the homeland allegiance and to the considerable Christian bonds of affection, despite the great social disparities and a number of cruel white masters or overseers.595 Slavery was abolished in the British West Indies in 1833, in the U.S. in 1865596 and in Brazil in c. 1888. It continues today, sometimes legally sanctioned, concentrated in Brazil, India, Burma, Thailand,   In the Constitutional Convention for Texas independence (1836), of which my cousin Richard Ellis was President, black slavery was and continued to be legal. 594   Many slaves fought, integrated with the white troops, with and for their young masters (Dwyer). Many free blacks fought as volunteers and as draftees, first conscripted in Tennessee in 1861 (Stewart); some fought in segregated combat units (Dwyer), but most served in military transport (as they did in World War I and II) and in making fortifications. The greatest number of slaves worked and sometimes managed the farms and plantations; they planted, raised, harvested and shipped many of the crops that fed the Confederate armies for four years. A small minority fled cruel treatment only sometimes to become slaves of the Union armies (cf. DiLorenzo, note 593, 348ff.), probably including the army of Gen. W. T. Sherman that devastated a 60-mile wide swath of land from Atlanta to the sea, burning homes and salting farm land. Some promised them freedom (as did the British in the War for American Independence). Some c. 175,000 free Negroes served in Northern armies. Cf. Dwyer (note 586), 409; Stewart (note 586), 196. How many were Southern blacks is unknown, though doubtless a small minority. Cf. F. G. Williams, A History of the Negro Troops (1880), cited in E. L. McKitrick, Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, New York 21988, 30. 595   From 1850 to 1860 only c. 1,000 per year ran away to the North. Of course, Southern colored people did not fight for slavery any more than the blacks in World War I and II fought for segregation; slaves fought for their known homeland and families, free blacks for their property and friends, against the invading Northern troops. Cf. Stewart (note 586), 196, 216f.; Dwyer (note 586), 316, 407-412, 447ff., 474-478, 492; D. S. Freeman, R. E. Lee, 4 vols., New York 2 1962, I, 371ff., 390ff.; II, 474, 476; R. G. Williams Jr., Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man’s Friend, Nashville TN 2006. According to press reports, a number of blacks today belong to ‘Sons of Confederate Veterans’ and ‘United Daughters of the Confederacy’. 596   When the slaves of my great-grandfather John C. Hargett’s family were told in 1865 that they were free, all chose to remain with the family; one, Aunt ’Riah, became, as my grandmother also told me, her ‘mammy’ and, upon her birth mother’s death, her closest confidant into her teenage years. When in 1886 she, age 14, decided to elope with my grandfather Ellis, age 21, she told only Aunt ’Riah, who kept her confidence but replied, ‘You bette’ not do this, Miss Mallie; you eatin’ yo’ white bread now’. 593

288

1 CORINTHIANS

the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Muslim nations of North Africa. Of the c. 27,000,000 slaves today the most inhuman form is the international sexual slave trade of young children, boys and young women,597 supported by some pedophile groups. The Bible forbids slave trade (Exod 21:16; Dt 24:7). It neither endorses nor forbids slavery but accepts it as a part of the contemporary (sinful) social order. The OT recognizes it as a better alternative than starvation for a family in poverty but, among Jews, limited it.598 The NT circumscribes it even further with the reminder, e.g. to Philemon that Onesimus is not only his slave but also his brother.599 It also introduces the principles of the ‘Golden Rule’600 and ‘mutuality of obligation’ for both the slave and the master.601 Thereby, it not only enjoined the fair treatment of slaves but also gave the divine rationale for its ultimate abrogation. For, if followed, these attitudes and principles turn bondage into gratefully received service and slave into servant or employee. 21-23. The Apostle calls for a relative indifference toward one’s status in this age and offers two examples: (1) a major religious division, Jews and Gentiles (7:18ff.), and (2) a major social disparity, slaves and free persons, in the congregations. He counsels the slaves, ‘let it not bother you’ ()602 because your true status is an eschatological not-yet-visible freedom that is found in Christ as his freedmen, i.e. freed by Christ and belonging to Christ, and an equivalence before God that is not affected by outward 597   Cf. Christianity Today (March 2007), 30-43; World (24 February 2007), 20f.; C. Cox and J. Marks, This Immoral Trade: Slavery in the 21st Century, Grand Rapids MI 2006, 17-114, 140-154. 598   See above, notes 577, 578. Regarding the American antebellum debate cf. M. A. Noll, ‘The Bible and Slavery’, Religion and the American Civil War, edd. R. M. Miller et al., New York 1998, 43-73; R. L. Dabney, ‘Liberty and Slavery’, Discussions, Harrisonburg VA 1979 (1897), 61-69; C. Hodge, ‘Slavery’, ‘Emancipation’, Essays and Reviews, New York 1987 (1857), 473-511, 513-538. 599   Plm 10-18. Cf. I Tim 6:1f.; E. A. Judge, ‘Slave, Slavery’, NBD, 1110-1114, 1113f. The NT may also identify slave trade as a vice (I Tim 1:10). Somewhat differently: J. M. G. Barclay, ‘Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian SlaveOwnership’, NTS 37 (1991), 161-186. 600   Mt 7:12 Q. 601   See below, AE XIII, ###-### [72ff.]. 602   I.e. ‘Don’t make it a focus of your concerns’. It is a third person present singular imperative from . Cf. 9:9; BDAG, 626f. But see Thiselton, 560f.



IV

289

circumstances.603 But then Paul qualifies this and accepts a change of status: ‘but also if you can become free604 rather use it’.605 The crucial imperative,   (‘rather use’), ordinarily requires but does not here have an object. ‘Rather use’ what? Four interpretations are (1) ‘your slavery for God’s glory’;606 (2) ‘your slavery to achieve manumission by faithful service’;607 (3) ‘any opportunity to become free’;608 (4) ‘your freedom for God’s glory’.609 Several factors favor (3) or (4): the parenthetical qualifying nature of 7:21c, d vis-à-vis 7:17, 20, 24 (Lightfoot), the strongly adversative  (q.v. @ note 567; Fee), and the closer antecedent  vs. the earlier .610 22f. The slave who is a Christian expresses, for Paul, the general role reversal in the NT between this age and the age to come.611 Thus, ‘in the Lord’ (  = ‘in Christ’, q.v. @ 1:27) the slave may rejoice as Christ’s freedman and the free person may rejoice as Christ’s slave (7:22).612 The phrase, ‘you were bought with a price’ 603   Cf. 12:13; Gal 3:28; Eph 6:8; Col 3:11; cf. Heinrici, 233; Godet, I, 360; Weiss, 187n; J. Byron, Recent Research on Paul and Slavery, Sheffield UK 2008, passim. 604   , 16 times in Paul’s letters and six times in this letter: 7:21f., 39; 9:1, 19; 12:13. It is here a substantive: ‘a free person’ vis-à-vis ‘a slave’. 605     = ‘rather use’. The ‘it’ must be supplied. On , the comparative of the adverb , see Robertson, 278; BDAG, 613f.  is a second person singular aorist imperative from . 606   Pointing to the repeated summons to remain in the status within which one was called (7:17, 20, 24). E.g. Barrett, 170f.; Weiss, 187f.; Heinrici, 232; Chrysostom Homily 19, 5 = MPG 61 (1860), 156 (NPNF1, XII, 108). Cf. Epictetus, Discourses 4, 4, 33f. 607   Cf. Bartchy (note 588), 99f. A slave might have a standing offer of freedom upon payment of a sum of money; cf. Winter (note 541), 153. 608   Pointing back to  (7:21c) rather than to the earlier  (7:21a); Godet, I, 359ff.; Lightfoot, 229f.; Fee, 317. 609   I.e. ‘if you are set free’, assuming that the slave has no say in manumission (Bartchy [note 588], 99f.; cf. Schrage, II, 140). But see above, note 607. 610   Rightly, Lightfoot, 230; Fee, 317. 611   E.g. 1:27f.; cf. Mt 5:3 Q; 19:30 par; 20:16, 27 par; Lk 13:30; 16:25; Jas 2:5; cf. Mt 20:26ff. parr. 612   The Christian slave is freed theologically and eschatologically from sin and death and thus from all the evils of this world, including slavery to another human person. But he is also Christ’s slave since Christ is the loving master of all who belong to him. For Paul no one is independently free (cf. Rom 6:6f.,

290

1 CORINTHIANS

( , 7:23),613 expresses the ransom aspect of the meaning of Christ’s death.614 24. A virtual repetition of 7:20. On  see above on 1:1, note 47.   = ‘before God’ and ‘focused on him’ (BDAG, 757; see above, note 602) or ‘with God’, i.e. in fellowship with him (cf. Thiselton, 562). 25-40. The section proceeds from an introduction (7:25) to the Apostle’s judgment re ‘virgins’ (7:26ff., 36ff.), with an explanatory interjection (7:29-35), and concludes with a word re the remarriage of widows (7:39f.).615 25-28. Again answering Corinthian queries,616 Paul now applies to the virgins (), i.e. to the not-yet-married (7:26f.),617 his 16-22). Cf. F. L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids MI 1977 (1883), 257; Michel (note 257), 213ff.; L. Morris, Romans, Grand Rapids MI 1988, 266; W. Schmithals, Der Römerbrief, Gütersloh 1988, 202; Schreiner (note 563), 338; J. Stott, Romans, Downers Grove IL 1994, 185f. Similarly, Seneca, Epistles 47, 16f.: ‘ “He is a slave.” His soul, however, may be that of a freeman’ (17) (Loeb). 613   Q.v. @ 6:20. There is a pagan partial parallel in the emancipation of slaves at Delphi: the slave is freed by conventionally being sold to the god Apollo. Cf. Deissmann, 323. But see the discussion of Conzelmann, 128 = GT: 154. 614   Not so much a ransom to redemption as, e.g.  (q.v. @ 1:30),  (Tit 2:14),  (I Tim 2:6), but as a ransom, i.e. a purchase, by Christ to be his slave. Cf. D. H. Field, ‘’, C. Brown, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 267f.; 3 (21986), 189-216; F. Büchsel, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 340-356. 615   Similar, Weiss, 192. 616   On   (7:25) see above on 7:1, note 399. 617    here means ‘virgin’ in the usual sense of a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a man (cf. 7:28). Cf. Alford, II, 529; Meyer, 169; Kümmel, 178; Conzelmann, 131 = GT: 156n; TLNT 3 (1994), 44-52; ND 4 (1987), 221-227 (222). Otherwise: Black (note 260), 85, who thinks that Paul is ‘referring primarily to a class of male celibates’. It is used elsewhere of males (Rev 14:4; Joseph and Aseneth 4:7[9]; 8:1 = OTP II, 206, 211) and in a different sense of one who is or has been married. Cf. Ignatius, ad Smyr. 13:1; CIJ 56 §81, 173 §242, 250f. §315 = ET: H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, Peabody MA 2 1995, 274 §81, 299 §242, 311 §319. For other views and literature cf. Schrage, II, 151; Thiselton, 566f.



IV

291

principle that one should remain in the circumstances in which one was called. As earlier,618 he immediately notes exceptions to the principle and the reasons for them (7:28a; cf. 7:36, 38a). It may be that he addresses ascetic tendencies among some Corinthians, perhaps even a view that marriage itself was sinful.619 25.    = ‘I give my judgment’, distinguishing his word from that of the Lord without lessening his own apostolic authority. See above on 7:10-11, notes 465-467. 26.    = ‘the present distress’. The phrase has been given a number of interpretations: (1) current local food shortages in Greece;620 (2) the current affliction (, 7:28)621 and persecution ()622 to which all Christians of each generation were and will be exposed and indeed are destined,623 not 618   7:1f., 8f., 10f., 12-15, 21. This piece, addressed to ‘the virgins’ (7:25-28, 36ff.), is not a repetition of 7:8f. addressed to the unmarried generally. 619   Thus the response at 7:28. Cf. Schrage, II, 153. See above at 7:1, notes 403, 404. On  (7:26) see above on 4:1. 620   So, B. N. Danylak, ‘…Food Shortages in Corinth’, TB 59 (2008), 231-270 (233f.); Winter (note 227), 222-225 (perhaps); B. B. Blue, ‘The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply, and the Present Distress’, CTR 5 (1990-91), 221-239, 234-237 (likely). Cf. the dates of food shortages noted in Acts 11:28 (c. AD 45–46); Dio Cassius, Roman History 60, 11, 1 (AD 42); Suetonius, Claudius 18, 2; Tacitus, Annals 12, 43 (AD 51); Josephus, Ant. 20, 51ff.; 20, 101; see Ellis, Making, 257n; C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Tübingen 1989, 164f. Severe crop failures in Rome’s breadbasket, i.e. Egypt, would over time bring universal food shortages since Rome would increase requisitions from other provinces. But the economic distress of some poor Corinthians (cf. 11:21f.) is hardly an adequate explanation of ‘the present distress’ concerning all of them (7:26). 621   So, Rom 5:3; 8:35ff.; 12:12; II Cor 1:4; 4:17; 8:2; I Thess 1:6; II Thess 1:4, 16; cf. Acts 14:22. On the causal  see above on 1:5; on  at 4:16. 622   Rom 8:35; II Cor 12:10; II Thess 1:4; cf. Acts 8:1. 623   I Thess 3:3; II Thess 1:4; cf. Mt 24:7-12; Lk 21:23; Acts 11:19; 14:22; cf. W. Grundmann, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 346. For similar LXX usage see Ps 106(107):13f.; Zeph 1:15; of divinely caused distress and judgment, cf. e.g. Ps 106(107); Zeph 1:15; for rabbinic theology of ‘messianic birth pangs’, cf. BT Sanhedrin 97a, Baraitha; Schürer, II, 514f.; Billerbeck IV, 915-1015 (977); F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie, Leipzig 1897, 350f. Differently: E. Baasland, ‘ bei Paulus im Lichte eines stotischen Paradoxes’, Geschichte-Tradition- Reflexion, FS M. Hengel, 3 vols., edd. P. Schäfer et al., Tübingen 1996, III, 367-371.

292

1 CORINTHIANS

least the Apostle himself,624 and which would be compounded by marital obligations;625 (3) the more intense afflictions and persecutions in the generation of the chronologically imminent parousia of Christ.626 Interpretations #2 and #3627 are probably both in Paul’s thought since they are different only in degree and not in kind, different only in chronological sequence and not in their eschatological character. For Paul,628 as for Jesus,629 the eschaton (cf. )630 = the age to come (   )631 = the kingdom of God (or of Christ) is hiddenly present in the new creation role of the Holy Spirit during the whole period from Christ’s earthly ministry until his parousia; only at the parousia of Christ is the kingdom of God made visibly present to all and the present age and the present world brought to their end.632 In my judgment the Apostle views the so-called intermediate state of the Christian dead as only a momentary hiatus until the last great Day of resurrection and

  So, II Cor 1:8; 2:4; 6:4; 7:4; 12:10; Eph 3:13; Phil 1:17; 4:14; Col 1:24; I Thess 3:7; II Tim 3:11; cf. Acts 13:50; 20:23. 625   7:28. So, Fee, 329 (‘most likely’). 626   A view attributed to Jesus a century ago (J. Weiss, A. Schweitzer) and subsequently to Paul (e.g. Whiteley) in contrast to Luke (Conzelmann). But from his early letters the Apostle could identify himself with the dead or with the living at the parousia of Christ (6:14; Rom 14:8f.; Phil 1:20ff.; I Thess 4:15; 5:1ff., 10; II Tim 4:6ff.; cf. I Tim 6:14); this shows that for Paul it was not the particular chronological time but the certainty and suddenness of the parousia that was significant. See above on 4:8, note 867; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, Oxford 1964; H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, London 1960. Cf. J. Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, Philadelphia 1971 (1892); A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, London 22000, 198-201, 353f.; Ellis, Luke, 48ff.; idem, Interpreters, 32ff. See above on 1:7, note 45. 627   Mt 24:29-36 parr. Cf. Ellis, ‘A Special Note on the Eschatological Discourse’, Luke, 239ff.; idem, Theology, 5ff. See below, AE XIII, ### [563]. 628   4:8, 20; 6:9f., notes 255-261; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13; I Thess 2:12. Cf. Ellis, Theology, 5-8; idem, Old Testament, 101-105. 629   Cf. Mt 12:28; 13:41; Mk 9:1 par; 12:34; Lk 10:9ff.; 11:20; Ellis, ‘Eschatology in Luke’, Christ, 105-146; idem, ‘The Kingdom of God’, Luke, 12-15. 630   Cf. 15:45; II Tim 3:1; I Pet 1:4f., 20. 631   Eph 1:21 (2:7); cf. Mk 10:30 par. 632   7:31d. See above on 1:27f., note 303; 2:6, note 418; 6:31b; below on 15:24, 26 (). Cf. Rev 20:14. 624



IV

293

judgment.633 If this understanding of Paul is correct, he regards each generation as its last generation, and the second coming of Christ and the glorious public manifestation of the kingdom of God at the last day of this age as only a few decades into the future of every person. Consequently, combining interpretations #2 and #3, Paul’s phrase, ‘the present distress’, is equally applicable for every Christian generation, not only that of the Corinthians but also that of our own. 27-28.            = ‘If you are yoked to a woman, do not seek a loosing; if you are loosed from a woman, do not seek a woman’, i.e. as wife. The shift to the second person dialogical style appears earlier at 7:5, 16, 21, 23. The topic continues to be ‘the virgins’ (, 7:25, 28);634 why then the shift to the masculine in 7:26 () and 7:27? Several suggestions have been offered: (1)  =  (‘unmarried’) and refers to both male and female.635 (2) The masculines at 7:26f. refer to the father of the virgin daughter who supposedly had the authority to withhold or to give her to the suitor in marriage.636 (3) They refer to the

  Cf. 6:9f., notes 255-261. See below, AE VIII, ###-### [301-305]. E.g. Cor 5:8: ‘away from the Adamic body and living with the Lord’, i.e. at his parousia (5:10; cf. Ellis, Christ, 161f.); I Thess 5:10: ‘whether we wake or sleep, we might live simultaneously together with him’, i.e. at the parousia (cf. J. E. Frame, Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Edinburgh 1912, 189f.); Phil 1:23: ‘to depart and to be with Christ’, i.e. at his parousia (cf. Ellis, Christ, 144, 161f.); M. Jones, The Epistle to the Philippians, London 1918, lxxxiii: ‘the thought here transcends all experience of an intermediate state and obliterates the interval between death and the full consummation of blessedness’. 634   / are not used by Paul for divorce (pace M & M, 382);  may mean either woman or wife. Cf. Garland, 325. The topic of marriage and divorce has already been addressed at 7:10-16, and 7:25-28, 36ff. is not mere repetition although it does qualify the general rule set out at 7:2. 635   E.g. Allo, 176f.; but see Kümmel, 178. Paul has already addressed the unmarried at 7:9f. On the literary form cf. Weiss (note 337), 185. 636   So, e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia in Staab, 183; Calvin, 164, and R & P, 158ff., and Allo, 185f. But see W. G. Kümmel, ‘Verlobung und Heirat bei Paulus (I. Cor 7:36-38)’, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, Marburg 1965, 310-327, who shows that ‘the wording [of 7:36ff.] as well as the customs of the time fully exclude this interpretation’, i.e. of father and daughter (319f.); so also, Fascher, 633

294

1 CORINTHIANS

engaged couple, the man and his virgin; the father plays no role in the matter once the engagement is in place.637 The last option is the most likely.638 The sentence at 7:28, ‘But even if you marry (), you do not sin (). And if the virgin marries (), she does not sin’ (), points to a future eventuality.639 It also shows that Paul’s advice is not mandatory. It is meant for their good (7:28b, 35) but, as earlier (7:6, 9, 11, 15, 21b), it may be disregarded according to the situation (cf. 7:36).     = ‘trouble in the flesh’. On  see above on 7:26; on   see above on 1:26; 5:5; below on 10:18. Marriage increases problems. 29-35. In this pericope, as in 7:17-24,640 the Apostle’s thought shifts from the engaged couples as such to summarize the eschatological situation as it relates in particular to ‘the brothers’ (7:29), i.e. the Christian workers,641 the situation that is the theological rationale underlying his advice: ‘The system () of this world is passing away’ (7:31). Since ‘the appointed time has been concentrated’ (7:29), sedentary co-workers at Corinth should concentrate their minds on the things of Christ without distraction or worldly concerns (7:32). The immediate demand of ministry means giving lower priority and only passing attention to the events that are the present world’s focus and obsession—wives, mourning, celebrations,

197f.; G. Schrenk (note 435), 60; esp. J. K. Elliott, ‘Paul’s Teaching on Marriage in I Corinthians’, NTS 19 (1972–73), 219-244, who argues that the whole section on 7:25-38 concerns engaged couples. It is probable that 7:29-35 is an interjection directed primarily to sedentary Corinthian co-workers that broadens the argument (cf. 7:33f.) and reinforces his earlier general preferences for celibacy for those so gifted or naturally capable of sexual continence (cf. 7:7ff.). But for 7:25-28, 36ff. Elliott’s arguments are fully persuasive. 637   So, e.g. Wolff, 156; Schrage, II, 157f. 638   E.g. Godet, I, 373; Grosheide, 176. The advice, then, concerns engaged but unmarried persons and those relating to them. 639   On the futuristic aorist cf. Jn 15:6; Jas 1:11, 24; I Pet 1:24; BDF, 171 §333 (1). 640   Rightly, Schrage, II, 167; Fee, 335. 641   Otherwise 7:29-35 would contradict the Apostle’s general rule at 7:2, one reason J. C. O’Neill (TU 126 [1982], 381ff.) takes 7:29ff. to be a gloss. It would not, of course, exclude others. Cf. Ellis, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers Revisited’, History, 84-97. See above, note 636; below, note 657.



IV

295

material assets, business (7:29ff.).642 The Apostle knows that such concentration is not possible for married co-workers, who (rightly) must give sustained attention to their wives and families (7:33f.),643 hence his preference that they remain single both to be free from family worries (7:32) and to devote their time and energies fully to their ministries (7:35). 29.    = ‘I mean this’. The term  (‘to say’, ‘to state’, ‘to mean’) may, as here, be explanatory (cf. 10:19; 15:50), may be used as an IF (6:16; cf. Heb 8:5) or may simply forcefully ‘declare’ something (q.v. @ 10:15; cf. Rom 3:8). Cf. BDAG, 1053; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 174. On , very likely ‘fellow workers’ at Corinth, see above, note 641; on 1:1, note 47; on 1:10, note 58.  644 645  = ‘the appointed time has been concentrated’, i.e. by God (Weiss, 197). That is, the last phase of salvation history is now fully in play and hastens on to its approaching consummation at Christ’s parousia. The perfect passive participle of , a Pauline hapax, refers more to its limited and rapidly moving character than to its chronological length (cf. Thiselton, 578). It has eschatological overtones similar to the phrases, ‘it is the hour’ (Rom 13:11), ‘the day of salvation’ (II Cor 6:2; Heb 1:2), ‘the last days’ (II Tim 3:1), ‘the last times’ (I Pet 1:20; Jude 18), ‘the last hour’ (I Jn 2:18).   = ‘from now on’ (temporally) or ‘therefore’ (inferentially; cf. BDAG, 602f.), assuming that the term goes with the following  .646  = ‘let’, an imperatival conjunction. See above on 1:10, note 78. 642   There is an allusion to Jesus’ exhortations at Lk 9:57-62 Q. Cf. Ellis, Luke, 152ff. 643   Cf. Eph 5:25-33; Col 3:19ff.; I Tim 3:4f., 12; 5:8; Tit 1:5-8. 644   Cf. O. Cullmann, Christ and Time, Philadelphia 31964, 37-50; idem, Salvation in History, London 1967, 248-268 (254-258), 336f.; G. Delling, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 459-462; Trench, ‘ ’, 209-212. 645   Not morally ‘pressed’ with trouble (e.g. I Macc 3:6; II Macc 6:12), but literally ‘concentrated’ or ‘abridged’. Cf. Godet, I, 375. 646   In Paul   normally heads the clause (Phil 3:1; 4:8; II Thess 3:1; cf. II Cor 13:11; I Thess 4:1; II Tim 4:8). See R & P, 155; Lightfoot, 232f.

296

1 CORINTHIANS

29b-31.   = ‘as though not’. Repeated at 7:30f. as a series of rhetorical antitheses; 7:29b-31 is perhaps a preformed piece (Schrage, Wimbush), i.e. that Paul created (pace Wimbush) and used earlier.647 The rationale and background is not a Stoic aloofness toward the world in the service of God648 but an eschatological priority and focus on the world to come.649 30.   = ‘not possessing in full’, ‘not holding fast on to’ (present active participle); ‘a more emphatic form of ’ (H. Hanse, ‘’, TDNT 2 [1964/1935], 829f.), i.e. sitting loose toward material possessions, willing to use, willing to lose. An attitude of ‘owning’ something means that the thing owns the person. Cf. II Cor 6:10; I Thess 5:20f.: ‘hold fast to the good’, i.e. to prophetic revelations.650 31.  = ‘using with restraint’, ‘using in measure’, a present active participle of . Cf. LSJ 921; Lightfoot, 233; R & P, 156. Twice in the NT (9:18). On the present nominative plural participle of  (7:31a), cf. BDAG, 1087f., and the literature cited. 32ff.  = ‘free from care’, ‘free from concern’, ‘without anxiety’.651 A NT hapax. Cf. Phil 4:6. On  see below on 7:39, note 682.   On the conjunction  see 4:7, 18; cf. 9:26; II Cor 6:10. The piece is solidly Pauline in vocabulary; on its possible later use see below, note 649, and VI Ezra (= IV Ezra 15f.) 16:40-44 (c. AD 250). Cf. Schrage, II, 168; V. L. Wimbush, Paul the Worldly Ascetic, Macon GA 1987, 23-47. 648   Pace Weiss, 198f., who thinks that a Stoic  (‘impassiveness’) ‘here shines through’ (199), citing Epictetus, Discourses 3, 24, 59; 4, 1, 159. Cf. also idem, 4, 7, 5: ‘He cares not one whit about having, or not having, these things’ (Loeb). 649   See above, note 644. For a more pronounced ascetic motif cf. Acts of Paul and Thecla 5f. (c. AD 160–190): ‘Blessed are they who have wives as though they had them not, for they shall be heirs of God’ (NTA II, 239; cf. Collins, 295). Cf. Schrage II, 168; Conzelmann, 133f. = GT: 157f. 650   Cf. Frame (note 633), 207f.; E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, London 1972, 240; R & P, 156. 651   Cf. BDAG, 53; R. Bultmann, ‘, ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 589-593. 647



IV

297

 = ‘is concerned about’, a third person present, active, indicative of .652  …;    = ‘the unmarried man…; the man who is married’, a nominative singular masculine aorist active participle from .  = ‘might please’, third person singular aorist subjunctive of . The married person’s concerns for ‘the things of the world’ (   , 7:33) are here specified as family responsibilities in this world (q.v. @ 7:10) and not worldly matters generally. His (and his wife’s) concerns necessarily and properly stand divided (7:34: , a third person singular perfect indicative passive of ), directed on the one hand to the Lord and on the other to his wife and family. For the Apostle the primary ministry of one who is married is one’s family, not one’s calling nor one’s church. In a marital context that attitude does please God because it is God’s will, not one’s choice (cf. I Tim 5:8); consequently, all other ministry is secondary. Primary commitment to ministry is in Paul’s view limited to single persons. Pleasing family and pleasing God are questions of priority, not of opposition. But pleasing oneself vis-à-vis one’s wife653 or others,654 and others vis-à-vis God655 stand in opposition to pleasing God. 34.       = ‘both in body and in spirit’ (q.v. @ 2:11; 5:5c), i.e. both in outward relationships and conduct and in inward thoughts and attitudes. See below, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-### [280-288]. On  see on 1:10. 34.      = ‘for your own benefit’. The  is emphatic, ‘for the benefit of you yourselves’, either in upbuilding the congregation (cf. 10:33) or, more likely, ‘for your clear and constant attention undistractedly to the Lord’ ( 

652   In the NT at 7:32ff.; 12:25; Phil 2:20; 4:6; Mt 6:25-34 Q; 10:19 Q; Lk 10:41. 653   7:4; I Thess 4:4. 654   Cf. 10:33; Rom 15:1ff. 655   Cf. Gal 1:10; I Thess 2:4ff.; 4:1-8.

298

1 CORINTHIANS

     656). These expressions, as well as the emphasis at 7:32ff. on the preference for singleness in order to ‘please’ the Lord exclusively, support the view that 7:29-35 is an aside to Paul’s co-workers in ministry at Corinth657 that reaches to 7:36ff. 36ff.     = ‘to behave improperly toward his virgin’. The cognates,  and , may refer to the genitals (12:23) or to an immoral sexual act (Rom 1:27); the term here of engaged couples also has sexual connotations,658 but more with reference to improper or irresponsible behavior659 for which the remedy is, ‘Let them marry’ ().660  = ‘passionate’, i.e. ‘with strong passions’ (BDAG, 1032). The subject is the fiancé.661 Although the term could be used of a woman and has been traditionally so interpreted here,662 it is best understood of the fiancé for several reasons: (1) the antithetic   Ms p15 has  (‘to be undistracted’). Cf. Schrage, II, 180f. On the imperatival   see above on 7:29. 657   If so, it suggests that among the minimally several hundred Pauline congregants at Corinth (see above, Introduction, ###) there was a distinctive group of appointed or recognized ‘full-time’ or ‘bi-vocational’ ministers, male and female. Such sedentary co-workers existed earlier in the congregations of the Pauline mission than is often thought. Cf. e.g. 16:16; Rom 12:8 ( = ‘he who leads’, NKJV); 16:1-15; II Cor 8:18f. (‘brother’); Phil 1:1; I Thess 5:12, 27 (‘brothers’); I Tim 3:1-13; 5:9, 17; Tit 1:5-9; Acts 9:39, 41; 14:23; Ellis, ‘Ministry and Church Order’, Theology, 87-121, 129-145; idem, Prophecy, 12, 142ff.; idem, Christ, 218f. See above, note 641; on 1:1, note 98; on 1:10, note 58. 658   Cf. Winter (note 227), 243-246, for this connotation in contemporary literature. 659   In an example known to me, a girl yielded to her fiancé’s irresponsible request for sexual intercourse; he was thereafter killed. A later boyfriend, being told, declined to marry her because he wanted a virgin. She was left unmarried. 660   A third person plural present active imperative of . The fiancée’s agreement is assumed. Although the rare verb  (7:38) means causatively ‘to give in marriage’ (e.g. Mt 22:30 T + Q; 24:38 Q), e.g. a father his daughter, it may also mean ‘to marry’ (BDAG, 188; BDF, 51 §101; Moulton II, 409f.; Lietzmann, 35; Kümmel, 178f.; Moffatt, 99). This best fits 7:38 (1) re the parallel with 7:36; (2) re the meaning of  (7:37) as sexual desire (cf. Jn 1:13); (3) re the context which concerns the engaged couple (7:28, 36). 661   Rightly, e.g. Winter (note 227), 246-252; Garland, 341; Collins, 302; Schrage, II, 200f.; Wolff, 161; Weiss, 206ff. 662   E.g. Godet, I, 389; Stanley, 122; Edwards, 200; Grosheide, 182. All view the issue to be between the fiancée and her father. 656



IV

299

parallel with 7:37; (2) the continuity of the masculine subject throughout 7:36-38; (3) the context of engaged couples with no reference to the fiancée’s father which would be required by the interpretation re the woman. The conditional subjunctive (  shows that this may or may not be the case with the fiancé. 37. The subject continues to be the fiancé, who (), in contrast to the fiancé in 7:36, (1) ‘stands firm in his heart (663   664  ), (2) Having no sexual necessity, but has control over his own will (  ,665 666      667) (3) and has determined this in his own heart (     to keep his virgin as is’, i.e. to remain unmarried. With this rendering the third person singular verbs, ,  and  express three coordinate clauses with the participle  continuing and modifying .668 Thus,  (‘necessity’)669 here, unlike the outward ‘distress’ at 7:26 (q.v.) and elsewhere, points inwardly towards one’s will (), whose verb form at 7:36 refers to sexual desire.670 The fiancé’s inward necessity and will, in the light of the context, probably concerns his sexual urge.671 Having no inward sexual necessity but having control of his will in this respect the fiancé ‘does well’ not to marry and, with respect to a sole commitment to ministry, ‘will do better’ (7:38). Assuming the fiancée’s agreement, a special Christian friendship may continue. 663   A third person singular active perfect tense from  of a past decision whose result continues into the present. Cf. 10:12; 15:1, all perfect tenses. 664   The ‘heart’ follows the OT conception and stands for ‘the whole of the inner being of man’, i.e. will, thought, feeling (J. Behm, ‘’, TDNT 3 [1965/1938], 611f., 612). Cf. T. Sorg, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 180-184; A. Luc, ‘‫’לב‬, ֵ NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 749-754; H. J. Fabry, ‘‫’לב‬, ֵ TDOT 7 (1995), 399-437. See below, AE VIII, ###-### [283-286]; above on 2:9; 4:5, notes 465, 821. 665   See below, note 669. 666   The term means here ‘a state of control over something’ (BDAG, 352). Further, see below on 8:9; 9:4ff., 12, 18; 11:10; 15:24. 667   See below, note 670. 668   Cf. BDF, 246 §468 (3). 669   Cf. Grundmann (note 623), 343: ‘It [] expresses a situation of need’. 670   The noun  appears at Jn 1:13 with reference to sexual desire and could be so used also in pagan Greek literature; cf. Schrenk (note 435), 52f. The verb form  is sometimes used in the LXX for sexual desire, e.g. Dt 21:14; Ct 2:7; 3:5. 671   So, Kümmel (note 636), 316f.; Schrage, II, 201f. Otherwise: Thiselton, 598-601.

300

1 CORINTHIANS

38.   = ‘he who marries’. See above, note 660; on  see 1:7.  = ‘better’, not morally but with respect to the productivity of his ministry.672 39-40.    = ‘a wife is bound’, i.e. to her husband, or to her fiancé,673 ‘as long as her husband may live’ (674  675 ). Paul may shift to the fiancée to balance the address to the fiancé in 7:36ff., but he may address a specific situation among the engaged couples; otherwise 7:39f. would seem to be only an afterthought addendum to 7:10. He continues the earlier approach to the issues, i.e. of statement and qualification.676  = ‘should fall asleep’, i.e. in death.677 The term in the NT appears to be used only for the death of elect believers678 and thus 672   Cf. J. Gundry-Volf, ‘Male and Female in Creation’, To Tell the Mystery. FS R. H. Gundry, edd. T. E. Schmidt et al., Sheffield UK 1994, 95-121 (120). 673   If 7:39f. continues the topic of engaged couples (cf. Schrage, II, 204).  may denote (1) a woman as such, (2) a wife (5:1), (3) an engaged woman. Re the last cf. Gen 29:21; Dt 22:23f.; Mt 1:21, 24; Rev 19:7; 21:9; A. Oepke, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 776-789 (776); C. Brown, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 1055-1068. 674   A third person singular present subjunctive of . The OT basis of the wife’s marriage obligation until her husband’s death is expressed more specifically at Rom 7:2, but it is clearly present in the Apostle’s directive here. It is presupposed in the OT ‘levirate marriage’ (e.g. Dt 25:5; Ruth 4:10) and is confirmed in rabbinic tradition (e.g. M Qiddushin 1:1). 675   On  as male vis-à-vis female and as husband cf. Oepke (note 673), 360-363; occasionally in the LXX for ‫ ;בעל‬cf. W. T. Koopmans, ‘‫’בעל‬, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 682. 676   Cf. 7:6, 9, 11, 15, 21b, 28f. (q.v.). 677   So used in classical Greek and in the LXX (usually for ‫ )שכב‬14 of 18 times in the NT, 9 times in Paul: 11:30; 15:6; 18:20, 51; I Thess 4:13ff. (thrice); Mt 27:52; Jn 11:11; Acts 7:60; 13:36; II Pet 3:4. LXX: e.g. Gen 47:30; II Kgdm 7:12; III Kgdm 2:10. Cf. LSJ, 967; R. Bultmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 14n; W. Beuken, ‘‫’כבשׁ‬, TDOT 14 (2004), 659-671 (664-667, 670f.); W. C. Williams, ‘‫’כבשׁ‬, NIDOTTE 4 (1997), 101f. For Qumran, 1QH 14:34 = 6:34; 4Q509 Festival Prayers 2:7. 678   Those Jesus healed or a fortiori raised from the dead (Lk 7:12ff.; Mk 5:21 T + Q []; Lk 7:14f.; Jn 11:43f.), he also forgave (cf. Mk 2:9ff. T + Q), and he expounded against the Sadducees the biblical grounds necessitating the resurrection of God’s covenant children @ Mk 12:18-27 T + Q (cf. Ellis, Luke, 234-237; idem, Christ, 96-104).



IV

301

with that connotation for the husband here. For Christians the sleep of death represents only a temporary interlude, issuing in resurrection to immortal life at the last day of this age.679  = ‘free’, i.e. to remarry, in contrast to ‘being separated’ () without the right to remarry. It represents a further qualification of 7:25ff.680   681 = ‘only in the Lord’. Of two meanings supported by the commentators, (1) to remarry only a Christian682 or (2) to remarry only ‘in the spirit and with the motives of a Christian’,683 the first is correct in the light of (1) the usage of the phrase elsewhere684 and (2) Paul’s specific prohibition of close relationships, certainly including marriage, of Christian with non-Christian.685 Although the Apostle encourages previous marriages between Christian and

679   See above on 7:26, note 633. This assumes a monistic psychosomatic individual anthropology, and for Paul, this anthropology determines his eschatology. It stands in contrast to a Platonic dualism in which the soul and the body are separable parts. See below, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-### [280-290]. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Structure of Pauline Eschatology (II Cor 5:1-10)’, Christ, 147-164; O. Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? Eugene OR 2 2000. 680   E.g. 7:10f., 15; Mt 19:6 par. See above, ‘Special Note on Divorce and Remarriage’, 483-489. Cf. Schrage, II, 204. 681   A locative dative of sphere, i.e. in the sphere of Christ’s lordship. It is the resultant conduct, attitudes and relationships within the   existence (see above on 1:2, note 82). Cf. C. F. D. Moule, Origin of Christology, Cambridge 1977, 59: ‘Roughly speaking, “Christ” is associated with the fait accompli of God’s saving work and “the Lord” with its implementation and its working out in human conduct’; J. F. Collange, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians, London 1979, 54: ‘The expression “in the Lord” normally with Paul qualifies ethical actions: “one becomes in the Lord what one already is in Christ” (M. Bouttier)’. E.g. ‘I begot you in Christ’ (4:15) and ‘be of the same mind in the Lord’ (Phil 4:2). 682   E.g. Bengel, 207; Godet, I, 395; R & P, 161; Fee, 356n; Thiselton, 604. 683   E.g. Edwards, 204, citing e.g. Chrysostom, Homily XIX, 7 = MPG 61 (1860), 160 (NPNF1 XII, 111); Lightfoot, 235 (Barrett, 186). This appears to be a distinction without a difference. 684   E.g. 9:1f.; 11:11; 15:58; 16:19; cf. Eph 5:8; 6:1, 10; Phil 1:14; 2:29; 3:1; 4:1f., 4, 10; Col 3:18; 4:17, 17. See above note 681. 685   II Cor 6:14–7:1. So, Thrall (note 102), I, 473; Hurd (note 143), 236f.; P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1962, 245; A. Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Edinburgh 1985 (1915), 206. Otherwise: Furnish (note 102), 372.

302

1 CORINTHIANS

non-Christian to continue, he does not permit a Christian to enter into marriage with a non-Christian. 40.  = ‘happier’ or ‘more blessed’, if she remains () single.686 ‘Happier’ refers to her present life,687 ‘more blessed’ to her life and ministry in Christ.    688 689  690  691 692 = ‘in my judgment; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God’. Either (1) Paul’s apostolic judgment, also inspired, is complemented by a possible but uncertain impulse of the Holy Spirit, or (2) his human and non-apostolic viewpoint may be prompted and inspired by the Holy Spirit. The ‘I also’ refers to and complements the Apostle’s ‘judgment’ and does not counter conjectured views of some Corinthians who, expressing a different view, claimed to have the Spirit of God.693

686   Third person singular aorist subjunctive of . See otherwise above on 7:8, 11, 20. On  see above on 4:1. 687   See above on 7:28. Cf. above, Commentary Summary of 5:1–7:40, note 6. 688   See above on 7:25. On  see below on 11:24. 689   A contracted form, first person singular indicative of . See above on 4:9. 690   See above on 2:1. 691   See above on 2:10, note 474. 692   Present infinitive used in indirect discourse. Cf. Robertson, 1036-1040. 693   As e.g. Thiselton, 605f., argues.

V

L IB E RT Y ’S B O U N D A RI ES: R E ID O L F O O D (8:1–11:1)

Structure Each of these three chapters (8:1-13; 9:1-27; 10:1–11:1) was composed discretely, either over a period of time or, more likely, the latter two as preformed pieces initially addressing somewhat different issues and here adapted to the present context. They are joined rather loosely under the main topic of 8:1-13, ‘food sacrificed to idols’ (8:1, 4, 7, 10). The second (9:1-27) is designed as an assertion of Paul’s status as an apostle of Jesus Christ and its prerogatives, against some in his congregations who question it (9:3), together with his non-use of those rights; here it is adapted and used also as a critique of those Corinthians who are misusing their Christian liberties. Most of the third chapter (10:1-22) is probably a preformed OT midrash, either in part (10:1-13) or possibly in whole (10:1-22), created for general use and here adapted and expanded (10:23–11:1) to fit the present topic.1 Commentary Summary This third major division of the letter (8:1–11:1) addresses the question, probably raised in the Corinthians’ letter to him,2 of Christians’ eating food offered in sacrifice to a pagan god and the implications of such eating. The Apostle permits this in principle   Cf. Ellis, Making, 80f.; W. A. Meeks, ‘ “And Rose Up to Play”: Midrash and Parenesis in I Corinthians 10:1-22’, In Search of the Early Christians, New Haven CT 2002, 139-152. 2   See above on 7:1, note 399. 1

304

1 CORINTHIANS

for elect believers who know that ‘an idol is nothing’ (8:4) and who simply buy and eat the prime meat offered in the market (cf. 10:25ff.); but he warns against using this Christian liberty () if it causes the weak Christian ( ), who thinks the idol meat has divine benefits, to fall into idolatry (8:1-13, 9f.). As an example of the rightful restraint in the exercise of one’s privileges and liberties in Christ, Paul details this aspect of his own apostleship, first reasserting the fact of it (9:1-3) and of the un-used rights that go with it (9:4-14). He preached without financial support from the Corinthians in order that he might present the gospel to them free of charge (9:12, 18). For the sake of the gospel he adapted his lifestyle to those whom he sought to win to Christ (9:19-23). Like an athlete, he disciplines himself in all respects in order that he might achieve ‘the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus’ (9:24-27; cf. Phil 3:14 KJV). As an example of the dangers of falling into idolatry by eating idol food among pagan friends (10:19f.), the Apostle expounds OT texts of the Exodus events recounting the Israelites’ fall into disobedience and idolatry and their resultant destruction by God (10:1-13). He views these events as typological of the church’s situation (10:6) and urges his hearers, while exercising their Christian liberty in accord with their own conscience (10:29f.), that they do so ever-mindful of the weaker brother and Paul’s own example (10:14–11:1). A. On Food Sacrificed to Idols (8:1-13) Now concerning things sacrificed to idols we know that ‘we all have knowledge’. (Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2If anyone thinks that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him.) 4So, concerning eating things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no idol in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 1

but for us there is one God the Father From whom are all things and we for him And one Lord Jesus Christ Through whom are all things and we through him.

6



V

305

However, this knowledge is not in all Christians. And because of their customary usage until now with respect to the idol some are eating idol-food as a thing sacrificed to an idol. And their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8Now food will not bring us before God. Neither are we the worse if we do not eat, nor are we the better if we eat. 9But take care lest this liberty of yours should become a stumbling block to those who are weak; 10for if anyone should see you, one who has knowledge, reclining at table in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, being weak, become emboldened to the eating of things sacrificed to an idol? 11For then, by your knowledge the one who is weak, the brother for whom Christ died, is destroyed. 12And thus, by sinning against your brothers, specifically wounding their conscience because it is weak, you are sinning against Christ. 13For this reason, if food causes my brother to fall, I would never eat meat till kingdomcome in order that I not cause my brother to fall. 7

Textual Notes 1.  = ‘something’. Omitted in p46 and in several church Fathers, probably as an accidental oversight in transcription. Cf. Metzger,1 556; Thiselton, 623f. 3.  . The omission in p46 and in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1, 11, end) was probably caused by the assimilation of 8:3 to 8:2. Cf. Metzger, 490. ’  = ‘by him’. Omitted by p46 and Clement for the same reason as the omission of  . Absent also from mss ‫*א‬33, perhaps by accident, perhaps following their antecedent ms. Cf. Metzger, 490f.; but see Zuntz, 32. 7.  = ‘because of customary usage’. In mss ‫ *א‬A B P  33 1739. The reading  (‫א‬2 D F G M lat sy) ‘apparently arose through assimilation to the following ’ (8:7d) (Metzger, 491). 10.  = ‘you’. In mss ‫ א‬A D  M sy co. Mss p46 B F G vg and several church Fathers lack , presumably copyists’ omissions, generalizing Paul’s statement. Cf. Metzger, 491. 12.  = ‘because it is weak’. Omitted by p46, presumably by accidental oversight in transmission or to generalize Paul’s statement.

Structure The passage (1) contrasts knowledge and love (8:1-3), and (2) elaborates the concept of knowledge in terms of the Christian understanding that there is no idol that is really a god and that there is only one God (8:4-6). (3) It concludes that one should not use

306

1 CORINTHIANS

such knowledge, with respect to eating meat sacrificed to idols, if it causes immature or susceptible Christians to fall into idolatry (8:7-13). Commentary Summary The Corinthians, who, in their letter to Paul raise the issue of their right to eat food sacrificed to idols, suppose that their ‘knowledge’ carries with it self-evident rights so to eat. But Paul, with a probable allusion to their egocentric wisdom (4:10), reminds them that knowledge apart from love is not rightful knowledge because it only puffs up the individual (8:1f.). He continues the sensitive approach of 7:1-40 of agreement or his own similar statement plus qualification. The Apostle agrees that ‘there is no idol in the world’, and that ‘there is no God but one’. He cites a Christian confession affirming that there is only ‘one God the Father’ and ‘one Lord Jesus Christ’ (8:4ff.); but he warns that some newly converted from idolatry may not know this and, following the knowledgeable Christians’ eating idol-food, may fall into idolatrous conduct (8:7-10). By exercising your ‘knowledge’ about this matter without love for the brother who is weak, Paul concludes, you are sinning not only against him but against Christ. Consequently, if that is the situation, one should not exercise one’s Christian liberties (8:11f.). Exegesis 1.     = ‘now concerning things sacrificed to idols’. On   see above on 7:1. The ‘things’ are specified as ‘food’ (), at 8:8 and as ‘meat’ () at 8:13.3 The term  is not witnessed in classical Greek;4 it appears in the   The ‘sacrifice’ was an animal; but other foods eaten at cult meals— vegetables, cereals—were also dedicated to the god and thus were ‘offerings’. Cf. ‘Sacrifice, Roman’, ‘Worship, household’, OCD,3 1345f., 1626; W. L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth, Chico CA 1985, 15. Regarding the animal sacrifice, part was ‘burned on an altar, part eaten at a solemn meal in the temple and part sold in the market…’ (F. Thiele and C. Brown, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 [21986], cf. 417, 417-438). 4   Cf. LSJ, 483; Suppl. 104. 3



V

307

NT only in the apostolic decree of Acts,5 in I Corinthians6 and in Revelation,7 and only once in antecedent Judaism.8 Some suppose that it is of Christian coinage,9 but more likely IV Macc 5:2 is original to this Jewish document and is not a Christian interpolation.10 The term appears only here in the LXX, but the concept is present and the practice forbidden,11 as it is in rabbinic literature.12 Thus, in all likelihood the term originated in Greek-speaking Judaism. The Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29), Rev 2:14, 20 and the patristic writers13 prohibit eating things sacrificed to idols without qualification. Why then does Paul (1) not cite the Decree,14 and why does he (2) only warn against such eating at 8:9f. and permit it at 10:25f., 27ff.?

  Acts 15:29; 21:25.   8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19, 28. 7   Rev 2:14, 20. 8   IV Macc 5:2. Cf. H. Anderson, ‘4 Maccabees’, OTP II, 533f.; dated 63 BC–AD 70. 9   So, B. Witherington III, ‘Not So Idle Thoughts About ’, TB 44 (1993), 237-254 (238f., 241n.). 10   Cf. Conzelmann, 139 = GT: 165. 11   Num 25:1f. Also, Ps 106:28; cf. H. J. Kraus, Psalms, 2 vols. Minneapolis 5 1989, 320f.; see M. Dahood, Psalms, 3 vols., Garden City NY 1970, III, 73f. 12   M Abodah Zarah (‘Idolatry’) 2:3, citing Ps 106:28; T Hullin 2:18, 20: forbidden also is ‘meat derived from sacrifices for the dead’ (‫)בשר זבחי מתים‬ = ‘meat sacrificed to idols’ and ‘meat that goes forth from a pagan temple’ (Billerbeck III, 377f., cf. 48-60 on Rom 1:23). Since the divine judgment of Babylonian exile (586–516 BC) Jews of any number never again tolerated a drift toward the worship of idols, an attitude reflected in the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29) of messianic Judaism. But see P. Borgen, ‘The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults’, Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism, Edinburgh 1996, 15-43. 13   E.g. Did 6:3; Justin Martyr, Dial 34:8 (end); 35:1; cf. Origen, ct. Celsus 8, 21, 1; C. K. Barrett, ‘Things Sacrificed to Idols’, Essays on Paul, London 1982, 40-59, 43f., 47. 14   Regarding the Decree see above on 6:9f., note 277, with reference to fornication (). The Apostle nowhere rejects the Decree but views it to be irrelevant here because, besides the reasons mentioned at 5:9f., the Decree addresses the offense to Jewish Christians caused by the Gentile Christians’ eating idol-food, including doing so at congregational (Lord’s Supper) and co-worker common meals (cf. Gal 2:12; Fee 360n), issues not present at 8:1–11:1. Cf. Meyer, 182n; Godet, I, 404. 5 6

308

1 CORINTHIANS

The Apostle addresses three situations, (1) eating idol meat in a pagan temple or temple precincts (8:9f.),15 (2) eating it as meat bought in a butcher’s market (, macellum, 10:25) or (3) partaking it at a pagan friend’s home or party (10:27ff.). In the first setting it is always to be avoided because the location has idolatrous connotations that may cause a fellow Christian to fall into idolatry. In other settings it is permitted because they do not have those connotations unless the meat’s origin as a sacrifice to idols is specifically mentioned;16 if it is, such meat is also to be avoided (10:28f.). Elsewhere Paul draws a strict separation: Gentile elect believers turned ‘from idols to serve a living and true God’ (I Thess 1:9), and as the temple of God Christians must have no affinity with idols (II Cor 6:16).   = ‘we know that’. An IF used by Paul to refer to general Christian knowledge17 or, sometimes, to a cited tradition.18 Here it introduces and expresses agreement, in certain respects, with these Corinthians’ viewpoint, an agreement that he qualifies at 8:2, 7-13.19    = ‘we all have knowledge’. The phrase is most likely drawn from the Corinthians leaders’ letter to Paul (7:1) 15   I.e. dining rooms where dinners were held. Cf. J. Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, Collegeville MN 32002, 189; P. D. Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8–10 in Its Context, Waterloo ONT 1993, 1-16; G. H. R. Horsley, ‘Invitations to the kline [banquet couches] of Serapis’, ND 1 (1981), 5-9, 6f.; LSJ, 961; B. F. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri I, London 1898, 177: ‘Chaeremon requests your company at dinner at the table () of the Lord Serapis in the Serapeum tomorrow, the 15th, at 9 o’clock’. At Corinth, e.g. they were at the (later) idol temple of Aphrodite on the acropolis (Acrocorinth) and at the shrine of the god Asclepius about a mile north of the agora () just outside the Roman wall. Cf. Deissmann, 350f.; S. E. Kasas, Corinth and the Environs in Antiquity, Athens 1974, inserted map. Further, cf. Thiselton, 735-738. 16   So, Conzelmann, 176f.; Willis (note 3), 234. Cf. Schrage, 467ff. Otherwise: A. T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, Sheffield UK 1999, 296, passim, who argues that any eating with pagans in Corinth would involve idolatrous connotations and that Paul rejects such eating. 17   E.g. 8:4; Rom 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; I Tim 1:8; cf. I Jn 3:14f.; 5:18ff. See Ellis, Making, 191. On the  see above on 3:16. 18   E.g. Rom 8:28: ‘a traditioned teaching piece’ (O. Michel, Der Brief an der Römer, Göttingen 51978, 274); I Jn 3:2b (Ellis, Making, 191). 19   So, Schrage, II, 229. See above on 7:25-28, 39f., notes 618f., 676; below on 8:7-13, notes 93-95.



V

309

and is their affirmation but probably not a slogan.20 The  here has been identified with (1) general Christian knowledge,21 (2) a gnosticizing experiential knowledge of the elite22 or (3) the spiritual gift of (a word of) knowledge.23 The first is least likely since the Apostle goes on to affirm that ‘this knowledge is not in all Christians’ (8:7). The second is less likely since the gnosticizing use of the term is at most inchoate at this time among those proud, assertive and self-confident Corinthian leaders,24 whom Paul appears to be addressing. The term as a spiritual gift is the most probable usage:25 (1) Paul always uses  in a positive sense26 and, in this letter, for a spiritual gift.27 (2) This division (8:1–11:1) is part of a continuing critique throughout the letter—re wisdom (1:10–4:21), sexual relationships (5:1–7:40), idol food (8:1–11:1), congregational practices (11:2–14:40), resurrection of the dead (15:1-58)—of some gifted (1:5, 7) Corinthian leaders who misunderstand both Christian doctrine and their gifts28 and use them apart from the spiritual ‘fruit’ of love.29 ‘Knowledge’, here applied to knowledge re ‘eating food sacrificed to idols’, is therefore manifested by these Corinthians only partially and somewhat distortedly. Paul seeks to correct that distortion.30   Otherwise: e.g. Thiselton, 620; Conzelmann, 140 = GT: 165; Lang, 108; the literature cited in J. C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, London 1965, 68, 279. 21   So, Hammond, 566; Olshausen, 135; Edwards, 209f. This traditional view has few supporters today. But the  could refer to Corinthian leaders who, as Jewish Christians or Godfearers (q.v. @ 1:16, note 140), had long known that idols had no reality, in contrast to recently converted pagans. See below on 8:7. Cf. I Jn 2:20f. 22   See below, ‘ “Wisdom” and “Knowledge” in I Corinthians’, AE VI, ###-### [225-234]. 23   See below, AE VI, ###-### [234-238], ###-### [243-260]. 24   See above, note 20. 25   So also, Thiselton, 624. 26   Rom 11:33; 15:14; II Cor 2:14; 4:10; 6:6; 8:7; 10:5; 11:6; Eph 3:19; Phil 3:8; Col 2:3. When a wrong use of  becomes widespread at the end of Paul’s ministry, he names it ‘falsely called knowledge’ (I Tim 6:20). 27   1:5; 8:1, 7, 10f.; 12:8; 13:2, 8; 14:6. 28   What he says of their gift of ‘wisdom’ (12:8) at 2:6, 12f.; 3:1, 18-21, he says of their gift of ‘knowledge’ (12:8) at 8:2; 10:12, 24. 29   8:1f.; 13:2; 14:1; cf. 3:1-4. 30   The issue is not squabbles between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ Corinthians (rightly, Hurd [note 20], 126). The term ‘strong’ does not occur here, and where it does (Rom 15:1), it has quite different connotations. Nor is it a difference between 20

310

1 CORINTHIANS

    = ‘knowledge puffs up etc’. This begins a parenthetic Pauline qualification (8:1c-3) of the self-centered Corinthians’ assertion.31 It states in effect, indirectly critiquing them, that gifts of the Spirit, i.e. knowledge (), used apart from the fruit of the Spirit = love (, q.v. @ 13:1), only ‘inflate’ ( the individual; used in the sphere of , they ‘build’ ()32 not only the individual but also the congregation. 2.    = ‘thinks that he knows etc.’ The perfect infinitive  means ‘has known and continues to know’. This ‘empty pretense’ (Godet, I, 409) is contrasted with true knowledge, i.e. to ‘know as he ought to know’ (   ), expressed by constative aorists33 as complete and settled knowledge. On  see above on 1:6. 3.           = ‘but if anyone loves God,34 this one is known by him’. The first-classcondition clause,  + the present indicative, assumes the condition to be true. The perfect passive of the main clause, i.e. ‘has been and continues to be known by God’, points to the more important consideration: to be redemptively known by God is prior to and the enabler of love for God.35 Paul and the Corinthian church as such (pace Hurd), but between Paul and what Garland (356, cf. 350-362) calls ‘some bolder Corinthians’. 31   In mss p46 vgmss the conjunction  may have been added to make this transition clearer. 32   Godet’s (I, 408), Thiselton’s (622) and Barnett’s (137f.) apt contrast. ‘Puffed up’ () is used to characterize these Corinthians re their vaunted wisdom at 4:6, 18 and their permissive attitude toward fornication at 5:2 (q.v.). Cf. 13:2: ‘If…I know…all knowledge and do not have love, I am nothing’; Eph 3:19: ‘the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge’. On , cf. O. Michel, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 119-159 (140ff., 144); J. Goetzmann, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 251ff.; I. R. Kitzberger, Bau der Gemeinde, Würzburg 1986, 73-97. See above on 3:10ff. 33   Cf. Robertson, 832: ‘The “constative” aorist just treats the act as a single whole entirely irrespective of the parts or time involved’. 34   See above on 2:9, notes 467, 468; 2:16, note 538; 13:12. Cf. I Jn 2:3ff.; 4:8. On four classes of conditional clauses see below, note 324. On the rhetorical form of 8:2f., cf. J. Weiss, ‘Beiträge zur Paulinische Rhetorik’, Theologische Studien. FS B. Weiss, edd. C. R. Gregory et al., Göttingen 1897, 181. 35   Cf. Gal 4:9; II Tim 2:19. Cf. Mt 7:23 Q; 11:27 Q; 13:11 T + Q; Jn 10:14f., 27. Cf. Conzelmann, 141f. = GT: 167f.; Hays, 138. Already in the OT, cf. e.g. Gen



V

311

     .  On  see above on 4:16. Resuming the discourse after his parenthetical insertion (8:1c-3), Paul virtually repeats 8:1ab and identifies the issue as the ‘eating’ ().  .  See above on 8:1.  36          . Is  attributive (‘there is no idol in the world’)37 or predicative (‘an idol is a nothing in the world’)?38 The following counterpart, ‘there is no God but one’, is a parallel construction and favors the former. The prepositions are taken by some as quotations from these Corinthians’ letter;39 they at least express the letter’s views and Paul’s substantial agreement with them. The first proposition, ‘there is no idol in the world’, does not signify that the idols the pagans worship or the underlying evil spirit-powers using them have no real, i.e. objective and ontological existence40 since the Apostle later identifies them with ‘demons’ (10:20f.; cf. I Tim 4:1) and earlier perhaps with the extra-natural spirit-powers (not impersonal ‘forces’) who ‘crucified the Lord’ (2:6ff., 8) and enslave one (, Gal 4:9).41 It means that these

18:19f.; Exod 33;12; Amos 3:2; Jer 1:5 with Rom 8:29; 11:2; Gal 1:15. Further, G. J. Botterweck, ‘‫’יָ ַדע‬, TDOT 5 (1986), 468ff.; T. E. Fretheim, ‘‫’ידע‬, NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 409-414; B. S. Rosner, ‘Known by God’, TB 59 (2008), 207-230 (222f.). 36   The term, , appearing eleven times in the NT; seven times in Paul, may refer to the sculptured image, which is visible, or to the false god that the image supposedly represents. Cf. BDAG, 280f. Here the ‘false god’ is meant. Cf. Schrage, II, 236f.; F. Büchsel, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 377.  in the LXX is the translation of no less than 15 Hebrew words (cf. H & R,2 376). 37   E.g. Garland, 371; Schrage, II, 236; Fee, 371n; Hering, 68; Meyer, 185. 38   Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Freedom or the Ghetto’, Keys, 87-128 (89f.); RSV; Godet, I, 411; Calvin, 173. 39   E.g. Barrett, 191; RSV. On   see below on 10:13, note 547. 40   Rightly, Schrage, II, 239f.; Moffatt, 107, 139; R & P, 167; Meyer, 185; Büchsel (note 36), 378. Otherwise: Fee, 371ff.; Murphy-O’Connor (note 38), 561; Orr and Walther, 233. See below on 10:19-22, notes 569ff. 41   Paul can call them both ‘dumb idols’ (12:2), perhaps the images, and also spirit-beings who have afflicted him (II Cor 12:7) and who ‘blind the mind of unbelievers’, i.e. Satan (II Cor 4:4), and introduce false teachings (I Tim 4:1ff.). Cf. also Phil 3:19; Garland, 374; Thiselton, 634f.; Schrage, II, 238-241; Conzelmann, 143 = GT: 170.

312

1 CORINTHIANS

‘so-called gods’ (8:5)42 were not what their votaries took them to be and that they had no power over the faithful in Christ.43 The background of this two-fold view of idols lies in the OT and early Judaism.44 The second proposition, ‘there is no God but one’, is the most important OT law and the heart and eschatological goal of the biblical faith.45 It is so affirmed by Jesus.46 But the diverse meaning of the word ‘one’ (‫ ;אחד‬) was also the heart of the division between messianic Judaism, i.e. Jesus and his followers, and the other Jewish religious parties. For it was defined by Jesus, implicitly or indirectly in the Synoptic Gospels47 and explicitly in the wording of John’s Gospel,48 to affirm his own corporate oneness with God that led to his crucifixion, an act instigated by the mainstream Jewish religious leaders, and that eventually led to ‘the parting of the ways’ between his followers, now called Christians, i.e. followers of Messiah ( = ‫)משיח‬49 and the rest of the Jewish nation.   Of whatever name or nature, including non-existent deified emperors, the classical Olympian pantheon and (at Corinth) Asclepius and the goddesses Aphrodite and Artemis (Acts 19:24-28) and many others. 43   E.g. 5:5; II Cor 3:16; 4:4; Gal 4:9; Eph 2:2f. (4:17f.); Col 1:13; I Tim 4:1. 44   I.e., e.g. that idols have no existence: Isa 44:9f., 17; Jer 10:3ff., 11; 16:20; Hab 2:18f.; Josephus, Ant. 10, 50; Philo, de spec. leg. 1, 28; idem, decal. 52-72; idem, de vita contem. 3, 9. That idols are or represent subordinate evil spiritbeings: Lev 17:7; Dt 12:31; 32:17; I Chron 16:25f. LXX; Ps 95(96):5 LXX; Jubil 1:11; 11:4f.; 22:17; I En 19:1; 99:7; Test. Naphtali 3:3; cf. Dan 2:47; W. Mundle, ‘’, NIDNTT (21986), 284; Schrage, II, 239f. 45   Dt 6:4f.; Zech 14:9. Cf. P. P. Jenson, ‘‫’א ָחד‬, ֶ NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 349ff.; K. N. Bartels, ‘’, NIDNTT (21986), 719-723 (720); N. Lohfink et al., ‘‫’א ָחד‬, ֶ TDOT 1 (1974), 193-201 (196f.); A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, Cardiff 1961, 13-37; John Lightfoot, IV, 217f. on 8:4. On   (‘but’) see below on 10:13, note 547. 46   Mk 12:29 = Dt 6:4. Cf. E. Waaler, The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians, Tübingen 2008, 217-231; cf. 49-122. 47   E.g. his mutual knowledge of God the Father; his power by a word over nature, i.e. to raise the dead and to create bread; he identifies himself as God’s temple = dwelling place and as the divine Son of Man of Dan 7:13: Mt 8:23-27, 26f. T + Q; 9:1-8 T + Q; 11:27 Q; Mk 5:21-43, 39-42 parr; Mt 14:18ff., 25-33 parr; 15:36ff. parr; 26:61-66 parr; Lk 7:11. Cf. Lk 1:35; 2:11; Ellis, ‘Deity Christology in Mark 14:58’, ‘Isaiah and the Eschatological Temple’, ‘Background and Christology of John’s Gospel’, Christ, 38-51, 55-61, 70-88. See below, note 81. 48   Jn 5:26-29; 6:35-40, 54; 8:58; 10:15, 30, 33; 20:28f.; cf. 1:1-4, 10, 14, 18; Ellis (note 47), 70-88. 49   I.e. the Anointed One =  = ‫ ;משיח‬cf. Jn 1:41; Dan 9:25f.; I Sam 16:13; II Sam 7:12-17; 23:1. 42



V

313

At 8:5f. the Apostle elaborates his agreement with these Corinthians’ propositions and gives his basis for it. But by doing so he also specifies, limits and interprets the propositions to his own meaning, leading above all to the cited confession at 8:6 that includes, in the light of words and works of Jesus,50 the ‘one Lord Jesus Christ’ within the oneness of God.51 Paul uses his reply to their questions as a tool to implant further biblical truth. 5.      = ‘for even if there are’ or ‘granted that there are etc.’ Possibly a hypothesis using the following phrase, ‘so-called gods’, to avoid directly contradicting his questioners. But the correlative clause, ‘just as there are’ ( ), probably expresses in general terms and in accord with OT teaching52 Paul’s affirmation of ‘many gods and many lords’, i.e. spirit-powers, who are God’s creatures (8:6, ) ‘in heaven or on earth’, i.e. in the cosmos (8:4). But according to the cited confession at 8:6 he expresses his full agreement, though elaborated, with these Corinthians’ second proposition that ‘there is no God but one’. 6. ’   = ‘but for us’.  (q.v. @ 7:19, note 567) expresses the strong contrast between the pagan worldview and practice and ‘us’, i.e. Christ’s chosen ones. It introduces neither subjective opinion or scientific proof but a confessional truth. All worldviews are at root confessional, whether the epistemology gives priority to philosophical reason and experience or, as for Christians, to prophetic revelation.53 The confession here can, in the Apostle’s view (12:3), be affirmed only as the Holy Spirit moves one’s will to receive it through faith as God’s truth; reason, experience and argument play a role, but only a subordinate role.   See above, notes 46 and 47.   For a brief overview of Continental Protestant discussion cf. Schrage, II,

50 51

247.

52   E.g. ‘For the LORD your God is a God of gods and LORD of lords’ (Dt 10:17 NKJV); ‘Oh, give thanks to the God of gods…to the LORD of lords!’ (Ps 136:2f. NKJV). Cf. Exod 18:11; Dt 32:43 LXX; Pss 82:1; 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9; R & P, 167; Hurd (note 20), 120-123 (121). The devil is God’s devil (Luther) who, together with all demonic powers, is on God’s leash and who can do only what God permits (II Cor 12:7ff.; Job 1:12; 2:6; cf. Ellis, Luke, 248). See below on 8:6, ‘Special Note on the Biblical God: Unity in Plurality’. 53   Cf. Ellis, ‘The Role of the Prophet in the Quest for Truth’, Christ, 255-278; idem, ‘Paul’s Attitude to Scripture’, Paul’s Use, 20-37.

314

1 CORINTHIANS

             .   (‘one God’, q.v. @ notes 44-47) is used elsewhere by Paul.54 Here, God the Father probably identifies the confession as a Christian formulation since among the Jewish religious groups only Jesus’ followers, in accord with his teaching and his model prayer,55 ordinarily address God as Father. Paul refers to God as Father c. 43 times,56 here primarily in his role as Creator but also in his unity cum distinction with the ‘one Lord Jesus Christ’, with whom he is here inextricably bound together.57 The saying, ‘from whom are all things and we for him…through whom are all things and we through him’, appears to have been drawn into Judaism from the Stoics via Philo and then adapted to a Christian confession.58     = ‘from whom are all things’. A universal ‘all’ with reference to the ‘Genesis’ creation.59 In the light of Rom 4:17 Paul in all likelihood understands it as creatio ex nihilo, i.e. as a ‘speech act’ of almighty God (q.v. @ 5:3; cf. Schrage, II, 242).

  Gal 3:20; I Tim 2:5; cf. Mk 10:18 parr; 12:29-32 = Dt 6:4; Jn 8:41.   Mt 6:9-13 Q. Christ refers to God as Father scores of times in the Gospels, e.g. in the sermons on the mount (Mt 5–7) and on heavenly manna (Jn 6:27-58, 59). Cf. Mt 11:27 Q. However, in the OT God may be described as Father (e.g. Mal 2:10; Schrenk, 970f.) and in early Judaism is addressed as Father (e.g. Sirach 23:4). Cf. G. Schrenk, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 979n. 56   Paul calls Christ God only at Rom 9:5 and, granting the Greek syntactical rule that when one article governs two nouns the nouns may refer to the same thing, at II Thess 1:12 and Tit 2:13. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., Edinburgh 71998, I, 468; Robertson, 785f.; BDF, 144f.; Moulton, III, 181. 57   Cf. Schrage, II, 242f. Otherwise: Conzelmann, 144 = GT: 170f. ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ or ‘Christ’ are united or closely associated at, e.g. 1:1ff.; 3:23; 4:1; 6:11, 14; 11:3; 12:3, 5f.; 15:15, 23-28, 57; cf. Mt 23:9f.; I Tim 2:5. When, more frequently, Paul uses simply the term ‘God’, he almost always refers to God the Father. Cf. G. D. Fee, Pauline Christology, Peabody MA 2007, passim and the literature cited. 58   See below, ‘Traditions in I Corinthians’, AE II, ###-###; ‘Christ the Wisdom of God’, AE XI, ###-### [335-340]. Cf. Ellis, History, 146ff.; idem, Making, 87-90. Cf. R. A. Horsley, ‘The Background of the Confessional Formula in 1 Kor 8:6’, ZNTW 69 (1978), 130-135; Murphy-O’Connor, 58-75, and the literature cited. 59   See above on 1:9, notes 84 and 85; below, AE II, note 75. For God as creator of the present universe elsewhere, cf. 11:9; Rom 1:25; Eph 3:9; Col 1:15 (3:10); I Tim 4:3f.; cf. Mt 19:4 parr; Mk 13:19; Rev 4:11; 10:6; in the OT cf. Gen 1:1; 2:4; Isa 40:22-28; 42:5; 45:18 (‫)ברא‬. For God’s omnipresence cf. Eph 4:6. 54 55



V

315

    = ‘we for him’. The confession here includes a soteriological note, expressed indirectly by a confessional style of ‘we’ (),60 that goes beyond the theme of the passage and supports its preformed character and previous use. Elsewhere, it has a more eschatological focus61 and is elaborated so as to present God as the redemptive Father of those whom he has chosen, called, reconciled and redeemed.62 ‘For him’ or ‘unto him’ with the accusative points both to the goal of their existence63 and to the commitment of their wills.64     = ‘One (q.v. @ 8:4) Lord (q.v. @ 7:39, note 682) Jesus (q.v. @ 1:2, notes 80 and 81) Christ (q.v. @ 1:2, notes 35-40, 76-79, 86-91)’. In this confession God and Christ are distinguished (not separated) in role but united in being and in relationship.65 ‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’ are titles in the process of becoming names; Jesus is a personal name with titular connotations.66          The ascription to Christ is precisely parallel with that to God except for the preposition . With the genitive  means ‘through’, denoting an intermediary, i.e. Christ’s role as the One through whom God the Father brought into being ‘all things’, both the whole Genesis creation67 and all the redeemed: ‘we through him’.68 In the light of its Jewish background and that of 1:24 and 10:4, 9, the confession probably presents Christ in the role of the Wisdom of God.   So, Conzelmann, 145 = GT: 172.   Rom 11:32-36. 62   E.g. 1:3, 9; 6:20; Rom 8:15f.; II Cor 5:18ff.; 6:18; Gal 4:5f.; Eph 1:3f.; 2:16ff. 63   E.g. Thiselton, 636; Fee, 375. Cf. Augustin, Confessions 1, 1: ‘You have made us for yourself’ (NPNF1 I, 45). 64   Calvin, 175; cf. Barrett, 192f.; Godet, I, 416; B. Reicke, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 893f.: ‘We belong to God and should fear Him in order that the union with Him which was purposed in creation and restored in Christ may be realized individually’ (894). 65   See above, note 57. Cf. Ellis, ‘Jesus: God and Man’, Christ, 77f. 66   Cf. Mt 1:21; Lk 1:31. 67   See below, AE II, note 75, ###. Cf. Fee, 375: ‘Only the most obdurate would deny its Trinitarian implications’; Calvin, 175: ‘Everything which applies to God properly applies to Christ… The Apostle is quite right in making a distinction between their particular functions.’ 68   See above on 1:9, note 87. 60 61

316

1 CORINTHIANS

Special Note on the Biblical God: Unity in Plurality69 The Apostle clearly affirms Jesus to be a ‘man’, the ‘Christ’ = the Messiah, ‘from the seed of David according to the flesh’, who suffered, was crucified, bled and died ‘in the body of his flesh’.70 At the same time he identifies Jesus as ‘the Wisdom of God’,71 ‘the image of the invisible God’, the ‘first-born before all creation’,72 ‘through whom’ and ‘for whom’ all things ( ) exist and were created73 and ‘who, existing in the form of God…[will be given] the name that is above every name’.74 Paul on occasion prays to Christ75 and once or twice calls him God.76 He also applies to Christ OT texts referring to Yahweh, God’s personal name.77 How is one to understand and explain the Apostle’s two-fold view of Christ, what later theologians would call the two natures of Christ in one person? At least four factors in Paul’s background account for his expressed views at 8:6 and elsewhere about the person of Christ: (1) his own experience of the risen Christ at his call on the Damascus

69   For an earlier treatment of the topic on which this special note builds cf. Ellis, ‘God: Unity in Plurality’, Old Testament, 112-116. 70   Col 1:22. Cf. e.g. 2:2; 5:7; 8:11; 10:16; 15:3, 21; Rom 1:3; 14:9, 15; II Cor 1:5; Gal 2:21; Eph 2:13; I Tim 2:5. 71   1:24; 10:4, 9; Col 2:2f. 72   Col 1:15. Cf. II Cor 4:4; S. Kim, ‘Christ the   ’, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, Tübingen 21984, 137-268. 73   8:6; Col 1:16f. Cf. E. E. Ellis, ‘Colossians 1:12-20, Christus Creator, Christus Salvator’, Interpreting the New Testament Text. FS H. W. Hoehner, edd. D. L. Bock et al. Wheaton IL 2006, 415-428, 425f. = Ellis, Sovereignty, 31-46 (42f.). Further, T. F. Torrance, Incarnation, Downers Grove IL 2009, 163-169, passim. 74   Phil 2:6, 9. Cf. R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi, Grand Rapids MI 21983, 235-239; D. B. Capes, ‘Pauline Exegesis and the Incarnate Christ’, Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children, ed. D. B. Capes et al., Waco TX 2007, 135-153. 75   II Cor 12:8ff.; cf. Acts 9:6; 22:10, 19f. 76   See above, note 56; cf. Ellis, ‘Jesus: God and Man’, Christ, 77f. On Rom 9:5 Cranfield (note 56), I, 464-470 offers the most perceptive discussion and translation (I, 568): ‘Christ who is over all, God blessed forever’. 77   E.g. 2:16 (= Isa 40:13 LXX); Rom 10:9, 13 (= Joel 2:32); II Cor 3:16, 14 (= Exod 34:34); Phil 2:9ff. (= Isa 45:24 [23] LXX). Cf. D. B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, Tübingen 1992, 136-140 (116-123), 155ff., 157-160. See below, note 91.



V

317

road,78 in his subsequent participation in the heavenly council of Yahweh,79 and in other visions of Christ;80 (2) the implicit dominical claims to deity in the Gospels81 that were in all likelihood communicated to the Apostle82 and to his accustomed co-worker Luke;83 (3) writings of intertestamental Judaism on God’s attributes of ‘word’ and ‘wisdom’84 that at times appear ‘to represent a divine 78   Gal 1:12, 15; cf. Acts 9:3ff., 15f.; 22:6-16; 26:13-16. For the argument that Paul’s perception of Christ’s deity derives, perhaps in retrospect, from that experience cf. Kim (note 72), 223-233. 79   II Cor 12:2ff., 7. See below, AE VIII, ###, note 27. 80   Cf. II Cor 12:1 (Eph 3:3-6); Acts 18:9f.; 23:11; Ellis, Prophecy, 42ff. 81   E.g. to forgive sin in his own name (e.g. Mt 9:1-8 T + Q; Lk 7:48; cf. John 20:23; Ellis, Christ, 39f.) and to be the ‘Son of Man’ who will be seated at God’s right hand and will come with the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:61f. parr; cf. Ps 110:1; Dan 7:13f.; Ellis, Christ, 41-44). See above, notes 47 and 48. Note also the accounts of his control of nature by a word in his raising the dead (Mk 5:41f. parr), stilling the storm (Mt 8:23-27 parr), walking on water (Mt 14:25ff. parr; Jn 6:19ff.) and creating bread and fish (Mt 14:17-21 parr; Jn 6:7-13; Mt 15:34-38 par). The ‘deity’ implications of these words and works of Jesus were not understood by his pupils until after his resurrection (cf. Jn 2:19-22), but they are present in the Evangelists’ Gospels. Mt 1:23 calls him ‘God with us’ (= Isa 7:14). Mk 1:2 combines the phrases, ‘who will prepare your [the Son of God’s] way’ (= Mal 3:1: Yahweh’s way) with ‘prepare the way of the LORD’ (= of Yahweh, Isa 40:3). Lk 1:35; 2:11 cites Jesus as the (divine) ‘Son of God’ and ‘Christ the Lord’ = ‘Messiah Yahweh’. Cf. Ellis, ‘Jesus the Manifestation of Yahweh’, Christ, 49f.; John (1:1, 18; 5:18; 10:30, 33; 20:28) identifies Jesus more explicitly as God. Further, cf. C. A. Evans, ‘Jesus’ Self-Designation “The Son of Man” and the Recognition of His Divinity’, The Trinity, edd. S. T. Davis et al., Oxford 1999, 29-47; R. G. Gruenler, The Trinity in the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids MI 1986. 82   E.g. Gal 1:18f.; 2:2, 6-9; cf. Acts 11:27-30; 12:25. Cf. A. Coppedge, The God Who Is Triune, Downers Grove IL 2007, 23-78; Ellis, Making, 255-260; G. D. Fee, ‘Paul and the Trinity’, in Davis (note 81), 49-72. 83   The Lukan authorship of Luke-Acts is now accepted by most NT scholars. Cf. M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, London 1979, 66f.; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols., Garden City NY 1985, 47-51; C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Tübingen 1989, 308-364; Ellis, Luke, 40-54; idem, Making, 377f., 397-405. The NT is, in my judgment, the product of four apostolic missions—of James, John, Paul and Peter—each of which produced a Gospel and a number of letters (cf. Ellis, ‘Toward a History of Early Christianity’, Christ, 235-241 and the literature cited; idem, Making, passim). Cf. R. Riesner, ‘Christology in the Early Jerusalem Community’, Mishkan 24 (1996), 6-17. 84   Paul shows no clear evidence of using these writings, but the ideas appear to have been common currency. Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 76-82.

318

1 CORINTHIANS

hypostasis, the essence of God’s own being that is at the same time distinguishable from God’;85 (4) the OT representation of the one God as a corporate being. Standing behind and underlying the first three factors is the fourth factor, i.e. the OT representation, presupposition and teaching that the one God has ‘plural’ manifestations in which he was (in some sense) identified with and (in some sense) distinct from the Angel of the LORD = Yahweh86 and the Spirit of the LORD87 and texts in which there is an oscillation between the singular and the plural in references to God.88 Also, it appears, as A. R. Johnson puts it, that the prophets viewed God to be present ‘in person’ in his agents and especially in the king, who as God’s Anointed One = Messiah, represented ‘a potent extension of the divine personality’.89 This OT representation of God, as well as its teaching that Yahweh would be Israel’s savior and in the ‘aftertimes’ would come to his temple was a part of the OT messianic hope (q.v. @ 1:31, notes 352-355). It prepared first-century Judaism, at least messianic Judaism, to receive the revelation (cf. Mt 16:17) that Jesus was both the Messiah and also the manifestation of Yahweh. How is it then that a unitarian view of the OT God is not only the sine qua non of contemporary Jewish thought but is also accepted by many Christian scholars?90 The first and second centuries AD   Ellis (note 69), 114. Cf. Wis 7:21-27; Sirach 24:3. Regarding Philo see below, note 91; ‘Traditions in 1 Corinthians’, AE II, notes 83f. Regarding the rabbis see the background of the rabbinic figure of Metatron (q.v. @ note 91; AE X, note 24). 86   E.g. Gen 18:1-33, 1 (‘LORD’), 2 (‘three men’), 13 (‘LORD’), 16 (‘the men’), 17 (‘LORD’), 19 (‘I’), 20 (‘LORD’), 22 (‘the many’), 26 (‘LORD’), 33 (‘LORD’); Gen 31:11 (‘Angel of God’), 13 (‘God’); 38:24 (‘Man’), 28, 30 (‘God’); Judg 2:1 (‘Angel’), 5 (‘LORD’); 13:2-24, 3, 6, 13, 15ff., 18, 20f. (‘Angel’), 8, 11 (‘Man’), 7, 22 (‘God’), 23 (‘LORD’). Differently: F. G. Martínez, ‘Divine Sonship at Qumran and in Philo’ SPA 19 (2007), 85-99 = idem, Qumranica minora II, Leiden 2007, 261-283. 87   E.g. Johnson (note 45). 88   Gen 1:26f.; 3:22f. 89   A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, Cardiff 1955, 13ff., 60; cf. A. Bentzen, King and Messiah, London 1955, 19; A. W. Wainwright, ‘The Trinity in the Hebrew Religion’, The Trinity in the New Testament, London 41977, 15-40: ‘While Hellenistic thought made a great contribution to the doctrine, the idea of plurality within unity was already implicit in Jewish theology’ (37). ‘The idea of extension of divine personality is Hebraic. The idea of interaction within the extended personality is neither Hebraic nor Hellenistic but Christian’ (40). 90   Cf. A. Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, Tübingen 2006, 13-121; ‘Adoptianism (2)’, ‘Incarnation’, ODCC, 19f., 825f., and the literature cited. 85



V

319

marked a watershed in the understanding of the nature of the biblical God. The OT and early Judaism’s representation of God as a unity in plurality or as a corporate person developed basically in two different directions. Messianic Judaism, i.e. Jesus and his followers, defined, via corporate personality conceptions, the corporate (aspects of) God in the OT more precisely in terms of the Son of God (i.e. Jesus) and of the Holy Spirit; some lesser elements of Judaism in Alexandria and in charismatic or ‘mystical’ circles also continued to reflect corporate aspects of God’s person and/or attributes.91 The mainstream rabbinic Judaism, however, emphasized the unity of God and brought into final form the unitarian monotheism of talmudic Judaism,92 which it then read back into the OT. It did this largely, it appears, in reaction to messianic NT Judaism and to the ensuing Christianity.

91   E.g. Philo, Leg. alleg. 1, 65; 2, 86: ‘The primal existence is God and next to him is the Word of God’ (Loeb; idem, quod det. 115ff.; idem, Quess. Gen. 2, 62: ‘The second God, who is that one’s Word’; III En 12:5 (Metatron, the exalted Enoch is called ‘the lesser Yahweh’); cf. 48D. Regarding the rabbis, BT Sanhedrin 38b on Exod 33:15 (Socino, 245f.) speaks of the figure of Metatron in quasi-deity terms. Cf. Ellis (note 69); A. A. Orlov, ‘Metatron as the Deity: Lesser YHWH’, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, Tübingen 2005, 136-143 and the literature cited; P. Alexander, ‘3 Enoch’, OTP, I, 243f., 265n, 314; A. Murtonen, ‘The Figure of Metatron’, VT 3 (1953), 409ff.: There is some influence of Christianity on the evolution of this figure, who ‘is a kind of counterpart to Jesus’ (411); H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch, New York 1973 (1928), 32f., 82; W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, ‘Intermediate Agencies Between God and Man’, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, London 21911, 195-221; W. O. E. Oesterley, ‘Semi-Divine Beings as Mediators’, The Jewish Doctrine of Mediation, London 1910, 85-89. Regarding rabbinic references to disputes over the unity of God, cf. H. L. Strack, ‘Jesus, die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben’, Leipzig 1910, 70*-74*; F. Weber, ‘Mittlerische Hypotasen’, Judische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften, Leipzig 1897, 177-180. More broadly, M. Hengel, ‘Wisdom as Hypostasis in Proverbs 8.22f. and Job 28’, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols., Philadelphia PA 1974, I, 153-156. Otherwise: A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, Leiden 1977, 33-155; E. E. Urbach, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1975, I, 19-36, 135-138, 207f.; L. W. Hurtado, ‘Monotheism’, DTIB, 519ff.; idem, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Grand Rapids MI 2005. In some respects like the ancient Ebionite heresy, he supposes that a man became God rather than the incarnational Christology that God became man. For a critique, C. FletcherLouis, ‘A New Explanation of Christological Origins’, TB 60 (2009), 161-205. See above, notes 71-77. 92   See above, Strack (note 91).

320

1 CORINTHIANS

7-13. In 8:1-13, as in 7:1-40,93 Paul uses an adroit approach of first expressing a certain affirmation of these Corinthian leaders’ views (8:1ab; cf. 8:4-6) and then qualifying those views by a dexterous94 but incisive critique (8:1c-3, 7-13). In a second qualification, running through 8:7-13, which is totally Paul’s response,95 he argues that some Christians do not have ‘knowledge’ about idol food and by eating it as sacred, they suffer their ‘weak conscience’ to be ‘defiled’ (8:7). Therefore, while eating food as such is of no consequence (8:8), using this ‘liberty of yours’ in this context becomes a ‘stumbling block’ to ‘weak Christians’ (8:9). For, Paul continues, if they follow your example of, say, eating in an idol’s temple, will they not be ‘emboldened’ to follow suit (8:10)? So by your ‘knowledge’ ‘the brother for whom Christ died’ is destroyed (8:11). Thus, by sinning against your brothers and ‘wounding’ their ‘conscience’ you are sinning against Christ (8:12). For my part if ‘food’ causes my brother to ‘fall’, I would never eat ‘meat’ till kingdom come in order that I not cause my brother to ‘fall’ (8:13). This interpretive rendering of the Apostle’s response sets out my understanding of the passage, which is contested in many respects. The meaning of the words and phrases in quotation marks indicates the most significant matters in dispute and must be discussed in detail. 7. ’  96     97 = ‘however, this knowledge is not in all Christians’. The strong adversative  underlines the shift from partial agreement with these convinced Corinthians’ attitudes and practice to the first point of Paul’s sharp critique of them: their assumption that all Christians have their own knowledge of the nature of idol-food (8:4a) is simply wrong.   See above on 8:1, note 19; 7:25-28, 39f., notes 618f., 676.   In 8:7-13 there is only one imperative, ‘take care’ (8:9). 95   Following the style in his response to the Corinthians’ letter (7:1), i.e. giving the Corinthians’ statement or viewpoint with his (partial) affirmation, followed by his own qualifications. See above on 8:1, note 19; below on 8:7-13. 96   Q.v. @ 7:19, note 567. 97   Q.v. @ 8:1, notes 20-30. Since   refers to 8:1a, the article may be translated by the demonstrative pronoun. Cf. Moule, 111; Zerwick, 53 §165; Moulton, III, 36. 93 94



V

321

       = ‘because98 of their customary usage until now with respect to the idol etc.’99 The phrase, ‘customary usage (, q.v. @ 11:16) until now’ shows that ‘the weak’ ( ), whether concerning their conscience (8:7, 10) or their will (8:9, 11), refers to Christians recently converted from paganism. They may be truly converted; hence, if they eat against their conscience it is defiled.100 But, like today’s alcoholic,101 sexual addict and any new Christian in a sea of paganism,102 they are still affected by and at times drawn to their former lifestyle and beliefs.103 Some take the term ‘weak’ to be a slur used at Corinth against them.104 But there is no hint of this in Paul’s usage: they are simply ‘weak’ with respect to conscience and to idolatry, and knowledgeable Christians should not act in ways that cause them to fall into sin. The Apostle uses ‘weak’ as an adjective () re their conscience and as a participle ( ) re their persons. Their conscience is ‘weak’ because it does not control their actions. It says, ‘Don’t eat idol meat’ but because it is weak, they go ahead and eat. Their conscience may ‘not have knowledge’ and may be wrong, but to avoid sin, it must be obeyed.105 The weak persons’ first sin is against conscience; their subsequent sin is idolatry. The conscience, however, can be instructed and can change. As Conzelmann puts it, conscience ‘is only a “judging,” not a constituative authority. It controls me in the world and keeps before me the norms of conduct. Beyond this it does not go.’106   On the causal force of the dative instrumental cf. Rom 4:20; 11:20; Gal 6:12; Zerwick, 20f.; BDF, 105; Moule, 45f.; Moulton, III, 242. 99   On the genitive of reference, kind or respect cf. Robertson, 493f. Fee (379n) takes it as an objective genitive: ‘By their being accustomed to the idol’. 100   ‘Whatever is not from faith is sin’ (Rom 14:23 NJKV). 101   So, Grosheide, 194. 102   Cf. R & P, 169; Moffatt, 114. 103   Cf. Barrett, 194; G. Stählin, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 492. 104   Wendland, 62; but see Hurd (note 20), 124. It may have been so used against Paul (cf. 4:10). 105   See above, note 100. Cf. R & P, 169: ‘An uninstructed conscience may condemn what is not wrong, or allow what is; but even in such cases it ought to be obeyed’. This must be qualified, however, since the conscience may be falsely instructed (Rom 16:18). 106   Conzelmann, 83f. = GT: 103 (on 4:4). 98

322

1 CORINTHIANS

107 as a concept poses a problem here because it has at least two distinct meanings, (1) ‘consciousness’ or ‘self-awareness’108 and (2) ‘an inward moral impression of one’s actions and principles’ or ‘the inward faculty of moral judgment’,109 i.e. ‘conscience’ in its ordinary English usage.110 Its NT employment is usually thought to be of Hellenistic,111 even of Stoic origin.112 But it has an OT Hebrew equivalent in the occasional connotation of two words, ‘thought’ (‫מדע‬, Eccl 10:20) and especially ‘heart’ (‫)לב‬.113 In the sense of ‘conscience’  is found quite often in the Greek literature of early Judaism.114 The NT also sometimes brings over this sense of the OT term ‘heart’.115   Of c. 21 appearances in Paul’s writings, nine are in this letter.   In the NT 4:4; Heb 10:2; I Pet 2:19. R. A. Horsley, ‘Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians’, CBQ 40 (1978), 578-589, mistakenly finds this meaning in 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25, 27ff. 109   T. S. Green, A Greek–English Lexicon to the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI 271976, 179. Cf. P. W. Gooch, ‘ “Conscience” in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10’, NTS 33 (1987), 244-254. 110   In Paul @ 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25, 27ff.; Rom 9:1f.; 13:5; II Cor 1:12; 4:2; 5:11; I Tim 1:5, 19f. (bis); II Tim 1:3; cf. Acts 23:1; 24:16. 111   Esp. C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament, London 1955, 21–28, 54-59. 112   Cf. Seneca, On Anger 3, 36, 1-4 (Loeb, 338-341); idem Epistles 41, 1f. But cf. Pierce (note 111), 13-18, 22f., 57ff.; C. Spicq, ‘’, TLNT 3 (1994), 335. 113   Both in the sense of ‘consciousness’ or ‘self-awareness’ (Job 31:7; Eccl 1:16; 2:15; 3:17; 9:1; Isa 47:10; Jer 7:24; 11:8; 18:12; Zech 12:5) and in the sense of an inner moral exonerating (Dt 29:19 = Mt 29:18; Job 27:6) or incriminating (I Sam 24:5; II Sam 24:10; Lam 1:20; 3:65) judgment, i.e. of conscience. Cf. H. J. Fabry, ‘‫’לב‬, ֵ TDOT 7 (1995), 399-437 (412f., 426); H. J. Eckstein, Der Begriff Suneidesis bei Paulus, Tübingen 1983, 107-112, 232-256; see C. Maurer, ‘ ’, TDNT 7 (1971), 908f. 114   E.g. Sirach 42:18 (CAP, I, 472); Wis 17:11; Philo, Quod det. 146; idem, de spec. leg. 1, 203; 2, 49; idem, quis rer. div. heres 6; idem, de praem. 84 (de virt. 124); Josephus, War 1, 453; 2, 582; 4, 189, 193; idem, Ant. 2, 25, 52; 3, 13; 13, 316; 16, 103; idem, ct. Apion. 2, 218. The concept is similar to ‘the good and the evil impulse’ (‫ )יצר הטוב ויצר הרע‬that the rabbis apparently drew out of Gen 6:5; 8:21. Cf. Billerbeck III, 91-96 on Rom 2:15; IV, 466-483: ‘Der gute und der böse Trieb’; Maurer (note 113), 910-913; Eckstein (note 113), 117ff.; A. Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus, Hildesheim 1979 (1932), 139f. Perhaps, 1 QS 3:13f.: ‘All mankind, with respect to both kinds of their spirits with the (different) characters of their actions’ (P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline, Leiden 1957, 25, 67). 115   E.g. Rom (9:2); 16:18 (Heb 13:9); I Jn 3:20f. 107 108



V

323

If, as argued above,116 8:7-13 is Paul’s critique and the terms ‘conscience’ and ‘food’ (8:8) are Pauline and not Corinthian,117 the origin of the Apostle’s usage is Hellenistic Judaism although it would comport well with the general conventional Greek understanding of the concept. 8.        = ‘Now food will not bring us before God’, taking  in a legal sense to be a factor in God’s eschatological judgment.118 This Pauline119 reminder is like Rom 4:17 and perhaps alludes to Jesus’ teaching at Mt 15:10f., 15ff. par, although the contexts are different. Eating or not eating idol-food is, as such, a matter of indifference (8:8b), but in the present context it has implications. 9.  (q.v. @ 3:10, note 636; @ 10:12) = ‘take care’ or ‘beware’. Not a prohibition but a caution that has a range of impacts of lesser (10:18; 16:10) or greater seriousness (3:10; 10:12; Gal 5:15). This mild imperative is designed both to avoid alienating these Corinthians and also as a reproof, whose acute character becomes apparent in Paul’s elaboration (8:10ff.).           (q.v. @ 8:7). The conjunction   = ‘lest’, ‘that not’, introduces a purpose clause with the aorist subjunctive : ‘Lest this liberty of yours should become a stumbling block120 to those who are weak’.  in the Apostle’s writings primarily means ‘authority’121 or   See above on 8:7-13.   Rightly, Schrage, II, 257-260; Conzelmann, 147f. = GT: 175f. 118   BDAG, 778 §1e. Cf. 1:8 with Col 1:22; Rom 14:10; Col 1:22; II Cor 4:14 with 5:10; Acts 27:24; Rev 20:11-15. So, Weiss, 229. Otherwise: Godet, I, 423f. 119   So, Schrage, II, 259f.; Conzelmann, 148n = GT: 175n; Godet, I, 424; Meyer, 189. See above on 8:7-13, and notes 95, 116f. This is also indicated by the  (‘now’), continuing the thought of 8:7. Otherwise (as a citation or summation from the Corinthians’ letter): Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Food and Spiritual Gifts’, Keys, 76-86. 120   The ET is from Tyndale, 344, on Rom 14:13: ‘stomblinge blocke’ () used five times (Rom 9:32f.; 14:13, 20) by Paul, here a means of inducing to stumble, i.e. into sin (BDAG, 882; Green [note 109], 159). Ct. 11:1. 121   E.g. 15:24; Rom 13:1f.; II Cor 10:8; 13:10; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15; Tit 3:1. Cf. O. Betz, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 606-611; W. Foerster, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 562-574. 116 117

324

1 CORINTHIANS

sometimes, as here, ‘right’122 or ‘freedom of choice’. The adjectival ‘of yours’ emphasizes that this liberty is not only their right but also their responsibility for which they will be held accountable to Christ (8:12). 123 is apparently drawn from the LXX124 and is closely related to , i.e. ‘temptation to sin’, ‘that which gives offense’.125 10.          = ‘If anyone should see you, one who has knowledge (q.v. @ 8:1ab, 7) etc’. The conjunction , used to express cause or inference or continuation or explanation,126 here specifies by illustration the reason for the imperative of 8:9; , i.e. ‘anyone’ of the weak (8:9-12), is the subject of the accusative  (‘you’) with which Paul shifts to his dialogical style.127     . ‘Reclining’ () to eat (), i.e. on couches angled with the head at the low table and the feet off at a tangent, indicates a formal meal or a banquet. Such were held at Corinth in the precincts of an idol temple () or shrine and were often visible to passers-by.128 On ,  and  see above on 8:7-13, esp. 8:7.

  9:4ff., 12, 18; Rom 9:21; II Thess 3:9. Cf. BDAG, 352.   Cf. BDAG, 882: ‘act of stumbling’, an occasion or cause or obstacle to stumble on. See above, note 120. 124   Cf. Rom 9:32f. citing Isa 8:14. Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 89f., 164f.; idem, Making, 60f., 312. 125   Cf. 1:23; 8:13 (); Rom 14:13, 21. Used four times elsewhere by Paul: Rom 9:33; 11:9; 16:17; Gal 5:11. 126   See above on 2:10, note 475; 3:11, note 637; 3:4, note 577; 2:14, 16; 3:9; BDAG, 189f. 127   Which is fairly common in Paul’s argumentation. See above on 7:27f. Cf. e.g. Rom 9:16f.; 10:8f.; 11:2, 13, 17-32. 128   See above, note 15; R. A. Tomlinson, ‘dining rooms’, OCD3, 469f. For the practice in the NT, cf. Mk 2:15; 14:3; Lk 5:29; 7:37; BDAG, 517f. The illustration is not merely hypothetical (pace Garland, 387) but a real possibility, as Paul would know from his 18 months in Corinth (Acts 18:11; Ellis, Making, 244f.). Cf. e.g. Schrage, II, 262; Fee, 385. The social implications of participation in such meals, conjectured by a number of writers, are not the Apostle’s concern and are no part of his meaning here. 122 123



V

325

 = ‘emboldened’, ‘strengthened’, ‘be built up’. Elsewhere the term is utilized, as is the cognate ,129 figuratively and positively for true spiritual upbuilding.130 Here it is the Apostle’s ironic critique of the practice of these Corinthians, by which the weak one ‘will be built up’ (future passive tense) for his destruction.131 Its negative meaning, unique for Paul, reminds them of their misapplication of his ongoing teaching about what constitutes true spiritual upbuilding. 11.         = ‘for132 by your knowledge the weak one133 is destroyed’. The strong verb,  (‘to be destroyed’, ‘annihilated’)134 is in an emphatic position in the sentence and underlines the possible lethal results of these Corinthians’ exercise of their liberty to eat idol-food.       = ‘the brother (q.v. @ 1:10, note 57) for whom Christ (q.v. @ 1:1) died’. The force of the verb  and the naming of ‘the weak one’, the individual stand-in for a class, as a Christian brother poses a problem.

129   3:10, 12, 14; Eph 2:20 (‘build upon’); Col 2:7; cf. Acts 20:32; Jude 20 (‘build up’). 130   8:1; 10:23; 14:4, 17; cf. Rom 15:20; I Thess 5:11; the cognate  at 3:10-14. Many think that the term at 8:10 was so used in the Corinthians’ letter, i.e. ‘we’ will by our eating ‘build up’ the weak so that they can eat idol-food with ‘knowledge’ and a clear conscience; a usage Paul now turns against them. Cf. e.g. Thiselton, 652 and the literature cited; Barrett, 195f.; Fee, 386f.; Godet, I, 426. Otherwise and rightly: R & P, 172; Meyer, 190f.: ‘The hypothesis…that Paul borrows the word from the letter of the Corinthians [7:1] to him (in which they had said that by partaking of sacrificial flesh people edify the weak)…cannot be established and is unnecessary’. 131   Rightly, Hering, 73. 132   I.e. ‘because’. Q.v. @ 2:10, note 475; 2:11, note 482; 2:14, 16; 3:4, note 577; 3:9. 133   Q.v. @ 8:7-10. 134   The verb is present passive, like the parallel  (8:10), stressing the conduct of the ‘knowing’ Corinthians, although some take it as a middle voice: ‘finds destruction’ (R & P, 172; Thiselton, 653). On the ultimate and final annihilating force of the verb, cf. 1:18, note 185; Ellis, ‘New Testament Teaching on Hell’, Christ, 189f., 193ff., 197; Garland, 389; Meyer, 191; Godet, I, 426f.; Fee, 387f.; Schrage, II, 265f. See below on 10:9f.

326

1 CORINTHIANS

How is his possible final lostness135 to be reconciled with Paul’s teaching elsewhere that he is one of Christ’s ‘chosen ones’,136 ‘predestined’,137 ‘called’,138 and ‘made holy’139 ‘into [God’s] own kingdom and glory’.140 Some have sought a solution in softening the verb  to mean an intermediate (not final) destruction (Gundry-Volf), or a stunted Christian life (Bruce) or a (temporary) lapse back into paganism (D. Black) or into sin (Grosheide).141 Doubtless many sins are temporary deviations, but they do not fit the case posed here. Conzelmann (149n = GT: 177n), overlooking the problem, simply states that Paul ‘of course presupposes the idea that the Christian, too, can lose his salvation…’ But what kind of Christian? As 8:11 postulates, not all for whom Christ died (),142 will be saved; for Christ’s Apostle there is no universal salvation. When using  of those Christ died for ( = ‘on behalf of’), he always appears to refer, implicitly or explicitly, to Christians. For example, he died on behalf of ‘us’143 or ‘our sins’ (15:3) or ‘all’, understood of all true believers (II Cor 5:14f.). The same is true when other terms are used, e.g. ‘to be delivered’ or ‘to deliver himself’ to death ()144 or ‘to give himself’

  Cf. also Rom 14:15.   See above on 1:27f.; cf. Rom 8:33; 9:11ff.; 11:5ff., 28f.; Eph 1:4; Col 3:12; I Thess 1:4; II Thess 2:13f.; II Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1; Ellis (note ###), 30-33. 137   See above on 2:7; cf. Rom 8:28ff.; Eph 1:5-11; Acts 4:27f. 138   See above on 1:9; cf. Rom 8:30; 9:11ff., 23f.; II Thess 2:14; I Tim 6:12; II Tim 1:9. 139   See above on 1:2; 7:14. 140   I Thess 2:12. Cf. I Thess 5:23f.: ‘Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you holy…. Faithful is he who calls you, who also will do it.’ Further, Christ in Jn 10:28: ‘I give them everlasting life and they shall never perish’ (   ). 141   J. Gundry-Volf, Paul and Perseverance, Tübingen 1990, 85-97; Bruce, 82; D. A. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, New York 1984, 112; Grosheide, 197. Epictetus (Discourses 2, 9, 3) does use  for moral ruin: ‘Never act like a wild beast; if you do, you will have destroyed the man in you’ (Loeb, 261). 142   First used here in this letter. Cf. 9:15; 15:3, 22, 31f. 143   Rom 5:8; 8:34; 14:9; I Thess 5:10; Tit 2:14. So, Conzelmann, 149n = GT: 177n: ‘Christ died for him: this is not said of man in general but of the man who has been baptized’. 144   Rom 4:25 (‘for our offenses’); 8:32 (‘for us all’); Gal 2:20 (‘for me’); Eph 5:25 (‘for the church’). 135 136



V

327

().145 Even at Rom 5:6 ‘Christ died for the ungodly’ is specified at Rom 5:8 as ‘for us’. The term ‘brother’ also ordinarily means in Paul’s writings ‘fellow worker’ or ‘fellow Christian’.146 The resolution of the problem in 8:11 probably lies in the distinction that the Apostle makes between (1) the organizational church, including both elect believers and unregenerate members, and (2) the organic church = ‘the body of Christ’.147 While Paul addresses and accepts all members of his churches as true Christians, he is aware and, indeed, has experienced as a fact that some in the church are ‘false apostles’ and ‘false brothers’ (),148 both individuals149 and those pursuing a counterfeit gnosticizing– judaizing mission.150 The Apostle does not know, of course, who in his congregations are Christ’s chosen ones and who merely are making professions. He does not know in which category ‘the weak one’ in the illustration (8:11) or even the incestuous man (q.v. @ 5:5, note 113) belongs. He knows that some in his congregations are not elect believers151 and that dissensions are needful as a means that make evident (to God) who among them are genuine.152 As a good gospel preacher, Paul divides his audience, admonishing (4:14) and ‘warning every man and teaching every man’,153 not knowing which individuals are in what category. It may be that he presents the worst possible 145   Gal 1:4; cf. I Tim 2:6 with Tit 2:14. So also, ‘that he might taste death for everyone’ (Heb 2:9) means in the context ‘for those who are being made holy’ (Heb 2:11), i.e. all the redeemed. Cf. P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids MI 1977, 92ff. Equally at Heb 9:28 the ‘many’ whose sins Christ bore are ‘those who eagerly wait for him’ (NKJV). 146   See above on 1:1, note 47; on 1:10, note 57. But Paul can also address unbelieving fellow Jews as ‘brothers’; cf. Rom 9:3; cf. Acts 22:1. 147   See above on 3:9, note 619. 148   II Cor 11:13, 26; Gal 2:4. ‘Faithful brothers’ (Col 1:2; 4:9) presupposes some unfaithful ones (cf. 5:11; II Thess 3:6). Cf. Pliny, Letters, 96. 149   II Cor 11:26; II Tim 1:15; 2:17, 25f.; Tit 3:10f.; perhaps, Rom 16:17f.; Gal 5:10ff.; Phil 3:18f.; II Thess 3:16; II Tim 3:5-9; 4:10, 14f. 150   E.g. II Cor 11:4f., 12-15; Gal 1:7ff.; 4:17; 5:10ff.; 6:12f.; Phil 3:2, 18f.; Col 2:8, 16-23; I Tim 4:1ff.; Tit 1:5, 10-16. See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and I Corinthians’, AE I, ###-###. 151   See Gal 3:4; 4:11; above, notes 148ff. 152   11:19,  . See above on 1:12, note 91; below on 11:19. 153   Col 1:28. Cf. II Pet 1:10 NKJV: ‘Be even more diligent to make your call and election sure’.

328

1 CORINTHIANS

case, i.e. annihilating destruction, for the idolatrous ‘weak brother’ to emphasize to the other Corinthians the seriousness of their responsibilities. 12.  154    . I.e. the ongoing sinning of the aberrant Christians is against their brothers, but ultimately it is against God, transgressing his law. For Paul the noun  sometimes takes on a quasi-personal character: Fallen man is subject to sin, enslaved by it, receives its sting, i.e. death,155 and in Christ is freed from it.       = ‘specifically, wounding their conscience (q.v. @ 8:7), because it is weak (q.v. @ 8:7)’. The  is explanatory, i.e. epexegetical.156 ‘Wounding’ represents a third and climactic offense of these self-assured Corinthians against the conscience of ‘the weak’: they have defiled it (8:7). By inducing them by example to eat idol-food, they make them stumble into idolatry (8:9f.); they now ‘wound’ it.157 This offense is especially ‘flagrant and shocking’ because it not only destroys Christ’s work of salvation but even employs the spiritual gifts158 (that Christ had given them) to effect and to support this evil result.159    = ‘you are sinning against Christ’. The second-person dialogue and the emphatic position of the phrase ‘against Christ’ give added force to Paul’s assertion that to sin against a Christian is to sin against Christ. The corporate identity of Christ with his chosen ones is deeply rooted in the Apostle’s consciousness from his Damascus road experience (Acts 9:4) when, while persecuting Jesus’ followers, he is addressed by the exalted Jesus, ‘Why are you persecuting me?’   Q.v. @ 4:1.   15:56. Cf. Gal 3:22; Rom 6:6, 22; BDAG, 51 §3; see above on 6:18. 156   Cf. Moulton III, 335; BDF, 228 §442, 9; Zerwick, 154. 157   Used metaphorically, i.e. ‘to ill-treat’, ‘abuse’, ‘trample on’. Cf. R & P, 173: ‘The wounding is not the shock which the weak Christian receives at seeing a fellow Christian eating idol-meats in an idol-court, but the inducement to do the like, although he believes it to be wrong’. ‘To wound’, literally ‘to strike a blow’, as in the Synoptics and Acts, is found in the NT only metaphorically. It is a Pauline hapax; but in the LXX see, e.g. Exod 7:27; II Kgdm 24:17; Ezek 7:6. 158   Cf. 1:5 with 12:8. See above on 8:1a, b. 159   Schrage, II, 267. 154 155



V

329

It was also expressed by Jesus at the Last Supper, a tradition known and used by the Apostle (10:16; 11:23-26), when with the symbolic elements of bread and wine he identified himself in his death with his apostles: ‘Take, eat, this is my body… Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mt 26:27f. parr). It is expressed by Paul in his understanding of Christian regeneration as God’s call into participation in his Son, ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ (1:9). Moreover, it is the rationale for his theological conception of Christ’s chosen ones as ‘the temple of God’ and ‘the body of Christ’, i.e. as the being of the corporate Christ.160 13. 161        = ‘For this reason, if food causes my brother to fall, I would never eat meat (   )162 till kingdom-come (  )163 in order that I not cause my brother to fall’.  has a dual connotation of (1) an offense that (2) causes the ‘downfall’ () of another,164 here a fall into the sin of idolatry. The shift to the first person singular not only introduces the first-person narration of 9:1-27, but also offers a softer but no less meaningful response to the questioning Corinthians than would a direct imperative, which the Apostle postpones until the end of this division of the letter (11:1).

160   See above on 3:16, ‘Special Note on the Eschatological Temple’, ######; below on 12:27; on ‘The Corporate Body’, AE VIII, ###-###; on ‘The Gifts and the Body of Christ’, AE V, ###-### [203-210]; cf. Ellis, Interpreters, 36-43; idem, ‘Corporate Personality’, Old Testament, 110-116; idem, ‘The Individual and the Corporate Christ’; ‘The Corporate Son of Man’; ‘The Believer’s Corporate Existence in Christ’; Christ, 58-61, 85-88, 148-157; idem, ‘Corporate Personality’, History, 118ff. 161   This inferential conjunction occurs in the NT only at 8:13; 10:14; it is perhaps the preferred idiom of the drafting secretary. 162   The aorist subjunctive of , with the conjunction  signaling its conditional element and the strong negative   emphasizing its force (cf. BDF, 184 §365). The plural of  means various kinds of meat. 163   Literally ‘up to the age-to-come’. The best translation in this context is the traditional English expression ‘kingdom-come’, echoing ‘your kingdom come’ in the Lord’s Prayer and meaning the public advent of the kingdom of God and the world to come at Christ’s parousia. Cf. OED, I, 707 (6). 164   Following Thiselton, 656f.; Fee, 389.

330

1 CORINTHIANS

Paul’s conditional vow is limited to the present context of idol-meats that place a Christian brother in danger of mortal sin,165 although he would doubtless apply it to other contexts in which the same danger is present. It does not apply, however, to situations in which Christians with stricter or more ascetic lifestyles are only offended by another’s exercise of his liberties in Christ.166 For the sake of the advancement of the gospel or of Christian unity167 the Apostle may adapt his practices, but he will not allow another’s conscience to judge his conduct.168 In modern terms congregations should exercise concern for all members but need not and should not allow the conscience of the strictest169 to determine the life and conduct of the whole. B. On Paul’s Apostolic Status and his Nonuse of Apostolic Rights (9:1-27) Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen our Lord Jesus? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3This is my defense to those who are judging me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5Do we not have a right to take along a sister-wife as also the other apostles, even the brothers of the Lord and Peter do? 6Or is it only I and Barnabas who do not have the right not to do mundane work? 7 Who ever soldiers with his own provisions? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Or who shepherds a flock and does not eat from the milk of the flock? 8 Do I speak these things according to natural man? Or does not the law also say these things? 9For in the law of Moses it is written, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox treading the grain’ (Dt 25:4). Is it here a concern by God for oxen? 10Or does he say it 1

  Rightly, Ellicott, 163; pace Garland, 390f. Cf. Conzelmann, 150n = GT: 177n. 166   Cf. Rom 14:1-23. 167   Cf. 9:20; Acts 16:3; 21:23-26. 168   ‘For why is my liberty judged by another’s conscience?’ (10:29). ‘Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves’ (Rom 14:22). 169   Which may be used as an instrument to exercise control of the church. 165



V by all means for us? It was written on account of us so that the one who plows is to plow in hope and the one who threshes, in hope of partaking. 11If we sowed spiritual things among you, is it a great thing if we reap your fleshly things? 12If others partake of this right over you, should we not more so? But we did not make use of this right, but rather we endure all things lest we give any hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat the things from the temple and those who serve the altar share the burnt sacrifices of the altar? 14So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to live from the gospel. 15 But I have not made use of any of these rights. Nor did I write down these things in order that it should be done so for me. For it would be good for me rather to die. Indeed, no one shall make void my boast. 16For if I preach the gospel, that is not for me a boast because compulsion is imposed upon me. For woe be to me if I should not preach the gospel. 17For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18What then is my reward? That when I preach the gospel, I might present it free of charge so that I not use my rights regarding the gospel. 19 For although being free from all men, I enslaved myself to all in order that I might win the more. 20And so to the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win Jews; to those under the law as under the law—though not being under the law myself—in order that I might win those that are under the law; 21to those who are without the law as without the law—although not being without the law of God but rather subject to the law of Christ—in order that I might win those who are without the law; 22to the weak I became weak in order that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men in order that I may by all means save some. 23 So I do all things for the gospel’s sake in order that I might become a fellow participant in it. 24 Do you not know that those who run in the stadium all indeed run, but one receives the prize? So then, you also run that you might obtain it. Every athlete keeps himself in shape in all respects. These indeed do so that they might receive a dying wreath, but we an undying one. 26I, therefore, so run not as uncertainly; I box not as beating the air. 27Rather, I discipline and subdue myself lest, having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

331

332

1 CORINTHIANS

Textual Notes 5.   = ‘a sister wife’. Western mss (F G Tert) and the Persian Aphrahat, Select Demonstrations 6, 5, end (NPNF XIII, 367; ODCC, 82) have the plural  (‘wives’, ‘women’) which Zuntz (138) takes to be original. 9. 170 = ‘you should not muzzle’ (B* D* F G 1739) is the preferred reading by NA and UBS rather than the Dt 25:4 LXX and somewhat more strongly attested reading :171 ‘you shall not muzzle’ (p46 ‫ א‬A B2 C D1  M) on the grounds that copyists were more likely to alter the non-LXX and less literary word  than vice versa. Cf. Metzger, 492; Zuntz, 37. 10.     = ‘in hope of partaking’. The reading that is most strongly attested (p46 ‫ *א‬A B C P 33 1739). Cf. Metzger, 492. 15.      = ‘no one shall make void my boast’. (p46 ‫ *א‬B D* 33 1739). Probably the several variants mistakenly seek to mend Paul’s syntax. See below.  This clause is missing from a number of mss 20.     . (y M syp) but is present in the oldest and best: ‫ א‬A B C D* F G P 33 1739 syh. It probably was omitted accidentally when the copyist’s eye jumped from the second to the fourth  . 22.  . Rather than the earlier adverbial  (9:10), the mss D F G 33 latt have the substantive . 23.  = ‘all things’ (p46 ‫ *א‬A B C* D E F G P 33 1739). Later mss (y M sy) substitute  = ‘this’. Perhaps initially an interpretive change in the margin to summarize Paul’s thought better for the reading of 9:19-23 in church, that over time became the text itself.

Structure Five pericopes make up ch. 9. The first (1) is Paul’s defense of his status as an apostle of Christ Jesus against certain Corinthians (and ‘others’) who have questioned it (9:1-3). The second (2) details certain rights that pertain to his role as an apostle and as a Christian minister (9:4-14), rights (3) that he has not exercised for reasons that he details (9:15-18). The Apostle then notes (4) his positive accommodations to the customs and lifestyle of the various types of people that he seeks to win to Christ (9:19-23). He concludes his resumé with (5) an illustration from the sports stadium (9:24-27).   A NT hapax.   In the NT at Mt 22:12, 34; Mk 1:25 par; I Pet 2:15.

170 171



V

333

Commentary Summary Chapter 9 is a self-contained first-person piece that shifts, quite abruptly, to the topic of Paul’s apostleship and its rights, opening with questions to which the Corinthians know the answers, i.e. that he has been commissioned by the risen Lord Jesus and that they themselves are his attested work as an apostle. Despite this some question his apostolic status and authority (9:1-3). Continuing his interrogative response in the plural, the Apostle asks whether he (and Barnabas and Silas, 9:6, 11f.), along with his wife if he so chooses, does not have a right to be supported by his congregations as are the other apostles (9:4ff.)? He cites illustrations from four sources to support the view that he does have such a right: (1) the customs of everyday life in this age, (2) the teaching of the OT (Dt 25:4) and (3) of the Lord (Lk 10:7 Q), and (4) the Corinthians’ own practice toward other teachers and church workers (9:4-14; see on 7:29-35). Yet—the Apostle continues—he has not exercised these rights among the Corinthians and does not write now to do so. For his apostleship arose not from his own decision but under divine compulsion to accept and be entrusted with a stewardship from Christ and for Christ. To use the rights that go with this stewardship would be nothing to be proud of. His reward and boast is that he accomplished his apostleship without taking the rights that go with it. In a word, his reward is ‘to receive no reward’ (9:15-18; Wettstein, II, 136 on 9:18).172 As an apostle—Paul writes—he is free () from all. But for the gospel’s sake he enslaves himself to all, adapting his conduct to the lifestyle and needs of his hearers, in order to win more of them to Christ (9:19-23).173 His accommodation is, of course, within the moral, ethical and cultural limits of his confessional framework as a messianic Jew, i.e. a Jewish Christian. To the (unbelieving) Jews he became as a Jew by preaching in synagogues according to   Elsewhere Paul speaks of rejection and afflictions as his appointed apostolic role and his boast (II Cor 12:9). Cf. 4:9-13; II Cor 4:7-12; 6:3-10; 12:7-10. 173   Only at 9:19-23 does the relationship of this chapter to 8:1-13 come into view, and even here it is not direct or complete. The two concept-words,  (‘right’, ‘liberty’, 8:9; 9:4ff., 12, 18) and  (‘weak’, 8:7, 10; 9:22), common to the two chapters, are used in different senses. 172

334

1 CORINTHIANS

the protocols of synagogue praxis,174 by submitting to its punitive disciplines (II Cor 11:24) and, on occasion (cf. Acts 18:18) and as needs be, by observing its ritual festivals and customs.175 Similarly, to those ‘under the law’, i.e. Jews or synagogues that were strictly observant of all the ritual laws, the Apostle would also be strictly observant;176 to those ‘without the (Mosaic) law’, i.e. Gentiles, he preached without specifically using the OT law;177 to the weak, presumably Jews under Nazarite vows or whose religious lifestyle was strictly Sabbath-observant and excluded wine and meat,178 the Apostle accommodated himself in order to win them to Christ. In the concluding paragraph (9:24-27), Paul compares the regulation of his conduct in preaching the gospel to an athlete, who regulates his conduct to the disciplines required to prevail in the contest in which he is engaged. The athlete trains to win a dying wreath, the Apostle an undying one (9:25), ‘the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus’ (Phil 3:14 KJV). In structure and content, ch. 9 is a self-contained unit only loosely connected to the preceding and following chapters. (1) Although the first-person singular at 9:1 carries over from 8:13, there is an abrupt break in topic both at 9:1 and at 10:1.179 (2) The topic of 9:1-27, i.e. Paul’s appropriate status, authority and rights as an apostle, has only an indirect and scarcely mentioned bearing (9:19-23) on the inappropriate use of the Corinthians’ rights to eat idol-food at 8:1-13.180 It is understandable, then, that a century ago J. Weiss,

174   E.g. as represented by his periodic co-worker, Luke: Acts 13:14ff., 46; 14:1; 16:13; 17:1f., 10, 17; 18:4-8; 19:8. See above, note 83. 175   Acts 16:3; 20:6, 16; 21:23f., 26, 28f.; 23:5; 24:11ff., 17f.; 25:8; 28:1724. Cf. Ellis, ‘Luke-Acts: A Key to the History of Earliest Christianity’, ‘Paul’s Mission…’, Making, 251-263, 278-284. 176   Some of the synagogues or Jewish leaders (Acts 28:17-23) which he evangelized, perhaps the ‘synagogue of the Hebrews’ in Corinth and in Rome, would have been ritually observant. Cf. Schürer, III, 97; above, ‘Introduction’, ###. 177   E.g. at Athens and at Lystra (Acts 14:8-17; 17:18-34). See below, note 412. 178   The situation is more closely related not to 8:13 but to Rom 14:2, 5, 21, where some Jewish Christians have apparently brought over these strictures from their previous Jewish practice. 179   So also, Conzelmann, 151f. = GT: 179. 180   See above, notes 173, 178.



V

335

followed by others, surmised that (parts of) ch. 9 was a separate Pauline letter later incorporated into the present I Corinthians.181 This hypothesis was undermined, indeed discredited, however, by twentieth-century studies on first-century letter writing and on NT textual criticism. (1) Because of the danger of loss in transit and of other factors the epistolary author kept a copy even of casual correspondence.182 How much more would this have been the case for Paul’s letters.183 (2) In addition, the congregations where the Apostle composed a letter probably would want and would keep a copy. Paul often intended a given letter to serve a number of congregations,184 and he instructed the Colossians (4:16) to exchange copies of their letter with that to Laodicea. Thus, it is very probable that virtually from the beginning there were multiple copies of the Apostle’s letters, each of which began a textual tradition.185 (3) Yet there are no NT mss that show any breaks before, in or after 9:1-27 that would support a ‘separate letter’ hypothesis. In the nineteenth century such mss, still undiscovered, might be plausibly conjectured. But in the present state of textual criticism that is no longer the case.186 Kurt Aland, the most prolific and probably the most erudite textual critic of the twentieth century, gave the decisive coup de grâce to theories of interpolated verses or letters that have no ms support:

181   Weiss, xlff., 231f.; W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, Nashville TN 1971, 87-113; idem, ‘Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung’, ZNTW 64 (1973), 263-288; Hering, xiiif., 75. 182   E.g. Cicero (106–43 BC), ad fam. 7, 25, 1; 11, 11, 1; idem, ad Atticum 16, 5, end. Cf. E. S. Shuckburgh, The Letters of Cicero, 4 vols., London 1920, III, 333; Pliny, Letters 1, 1. Cf. E. R. Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, Downers Grove IL 2004, 156-161; idem, ‘The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters’, BBR 8 (1998), 151-166 (155-160); J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter Writer, Collegeville MN 1995, 39; H. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, New Haven CT 1995, 100f.; Ellis, Making, 86. 183   See above, note 182. 184   Some four house congregations in Corinth and more nearby (II Cor 1:1; Rom 16:1; see above, ‘Introduction’, ###). 185   Cf. Ellis, Making, 86, 99n, 296f., 430 and the literature cited; idem, Christ, 224n, 240f. 186   Cf. K. Aland, ‘Neutestamentliche Textkritik und Exegese’, Wissenschaft und Kirche. FS Eduard Lohse, edd. K. Aland et al., Bielefeld 1989, 132-148. 3

336

1 CORINTHIANS [I]t appears to be quite impossible that an interpolator, who anywhere in the stream of tradition arbitrarily inserted three verses, could force under his spell the total textual tradition (which we today have before our eyes in a way entirely different from any generation before us)…so that not even one contrary witness remained187

How then is the relative independence of 9:1-27 to be understood? At 4:3 and 14:37f. Paul responds to certain Corinthians who, with their spiritual gifts, have apparently questioned his special status as an apostle of Christ Jesus and here treated him as just another prophet in the congregation whose views they may evaluate, judge (, q.v. @ 2:14, note 528; 4:3) and qualify (, 14:29, 37f.).188 The Apostle responds the same here (, 9:3), in which he also answers two related questions, i.e. his right to the congregations’ support and his nonuse of it (9:4-18). He knows of this questioning attitude about his apostleship among the Corinthians,189 either from oral reports (1:11; 16:17) or from their letter (7:1; 8:1). He composes his response to it (= 9:1-27) separately and, at length, decides to place it at this point in the letter.190 Exegesis 1-3. There are two related disputes (1) about the structure (q.v.), i.e. whether the paragraph includes 9:1f. or 9:1-3 (see on 9:3) and (2) about the content, i.e. whether Paul’s apostleship is in question and is here defended. Regarding the latter some writers think not.191 They argue that these Corinthians do not question Paul’s apostleship and that 9:1-27 only explains the Apostle’s right, perhaps against Corinthian complaints, not to accept benefits that go with apostolic status and his reasons for doing so (9:19-23): (1) the negative  in the four questions (9:1) anticipate a ‘yes’ answer, presupposing that   Aland (note 186), 141.   Cf. Ellis, Christ, 211; idem, ‘Apostolic Authority in the First-Century Church’, History, 24f. See above, ‘Special Note on ’, @ 1:3, ###-###. 189   Rightly, Wolff, 188. 190   Their ‘judging’ attitude includes the topic of wisdom (4:3), the attire of wives in prayer and prophecy (11:16), and his authority generally (9:3, ), i.e. not recognizing ‘what things I write to you that they are a command of the Lord’ (14:37,       ). But see Mitchell (note 216), 249f. 191   E.g. Garland, 396-401; Thiselton, 666-676, and the literature cited. 187 188



V

337

the Corinthians accept Paul’s apostleship. (2) The notion of apostleship appears only briefly in 9:1f. as a prelude to the argument (a) that apostles had a right to congregational support (9:3-12a), and (b) that Paul had the right and freedom to decline it (9:12b-18, Garland). (3) Apostleship has less to do with authority than with a foundational witness192 and a cruciform lifestyle (Thiselton).193 Against this viewpoint, (1) Paul has already experienced those who questioned his apostleship, gnosticizing Judaizers in Galatia (AD 49)194 and Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem (AD 50).195 The same group, although not necessarily the same individuals, will shortly appear at Corinth.196 (2) To devote 3 or 4 questions about his apostleship at 9:1 would make no sense if it were not under question. (3) That the questions expect a ‘yes’ answer does not mean that all Corinthians would so respond. (4) The first-class conditional clause, ‘if as is the case, to others () I am not an apostle’ (9:2), shows that some, outsiders possibly known to the Corinthians, do not recognize and apparently contest his apostleship.197 (5) Paul’s explicit ‘defense’ (, 9:3) very probably refers to his contested apostleship (9:1f.)198 and not to his apostolic rights to congregational support which, as far as we know, were unquestioned at Corinth.199 192   Thiselton, 673, following E. Best, ‘Paul’s Apostolic Authority—?’, JSNT 27 (1986), 3-25. But see above on 1:3, ‘Special Note on ’. 193   Thiselton, 671ff., viewing 4:9-13; 9:19-23; II Cor 4:8-12; 6:4-10 as central to the concept of ‘apostle of Christ Jesus’. On the rhythmic structure of 9:1-10, cf. Weiss (note 34), 187. 194   Gal 1:7, 9; 4:9f.; 5:10ff.; 6:12f. (cf. Ellis, Making, 255f.); cf. Phil 3:2f., 18f. 195   Acts 15:5. See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and I Corinthians’, AE I, ###-### [43-52]. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Opposition Common to the [Apostolic] Missions’, Making, 314-318; idem, ‘The Circumcision Party and the Early Christian Mission’, Prophecy, 116-128. See below, note 228. 196   II Cor 10:2, 10ff.; 11:5; 12:11f., 16; cf. 2:17; 3:1; 5:12. See below, AE I, ### [43f.]. 197   Cf. Conzelmann, 152 = GT: 180. In a first class conditional clause the condition is assumed to be true (cf. Robertson, 1007f.). 198   See below, AE I, ###-### [18-28] (Lightfoot), ###-### [42-75] (Assessment); above, note 195. So, Schrage, 290; W. Schmithals, Gnosis in Corinth, Nashville TN 31971, 279, 383; Wendland, 63; R & P, 179; Heinrici, 269; Edwards, 227; Stanley, 148; de Wette, 82. 199   Their only question on this matter was apparently Paul’s nonuse of such support. So, D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul, Philadelphia 1971, 6-9.

338

1 CORINTHIANS

1.     = ‘Am I not free etc.?’ Of the four parallel questions in 9:1 the last three explicitly concern his status and authority as an apostle of Christ Jesus. Very likely the first, ‘Am I not free?’, does also,200 probably with reference to Paul’s apostolic freedom201 from the authority of or obligation to anyone but Christ (, 9:19).202 To have ‘seen’ ()203 the risen Lord and thus to have been personally commissioned by him is the presupposition for being an apostle of Jesus Christ.204 In questions an  expects the answer ‘yes’; a  the answer ‘no’;205 thus, Paul expects that these Corinthians recognize his apostleship (1:1). In fact, they may recognize it in certain respects, but they also question it in certain respects.206 This ambivalent attitude of the Corinthians, or at least of some of their leaders, requires that Paul here give a defense (, 9:3) of it.  The ‘others’, who also question or reject Paul’s apostle2. . ship, point to some outside the Pauline-founded congregations at Corinth or elsewhere.207 They are not from the three allied missions of James, Peter, and John since they have earlier recognized Paul’s apostolic credentials.208 In all likelihood the ‘others’ are a part of a fifth counterfeit mission, the gnosticizing Judaizers, whom the Apostle has already combated in Galatia, has now probably

200   The reverse order, ‘Am I not an apostle? Am I not free?’, is found in mss D F G  M syh. 201   Cf. II Cor 10:8. And not merely Paul’s rights as a Christian. So, Schrage, II, 286f. Otherwise: e.g. Thiselton, 667; Findlay, 845; Edwards, 226. 202   J. Jeremias, Abba, Göttingen 1966, 290, sees a chiasmus in 9:1-27, 9:1a (‘freedom’) taken up in 9:19-27 and 9:1b taken up in 9:1c-18 (‘apostleship’). See above, 9:1-27, Commentary Summary. Similar, W. Harnisch, ‘Der paulinische Lohn’, ZTK 104 (2007), 25-43. 203   The perfect tense points to the continuing effects of Christ’s appearance to and commissioning of Paul on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-11; 26:1318; cf. Gal 1:15f.). See Fanning, 291-297; Moule, 13f.; Zerwick, 96; Burton, 37f.; BDF, 176 §342. 204   See below on 15:5-8. The risen Jesus appeared only to those he commissioned; see above on 1:3, ‘Special Note on ’. 205   Cf. e.g. Moule, 156; BDF, 220 §427. 206   See above 9:1-27, Commentary Summary. 207   Rightly, Schrage, II, 290. 208   Gal 2:9; Acts 15:4, 12. Cf. Ellis, Making, 255-260.



V

339

encountered around Ephesus (16:19; cf. Acts 19:10) and will shortly oppose at Corinth (II Cor 10–13).209  210    211    212 = ‘For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord’. The seal, employed early in the OT and in the Orient,213 was a device, e.g. a ring or cylinder, with a cut or raised emblem, symbol, or word identifying a person or an office. It was capable of making a stamp to affirm the authority given one (Gen 41:42; I Kg 21:8; Est 3:12; 8:8, 10) or to imprison one (Dan 6:17-18). Metaphorically, it may indicate the closing up of a vision (Dan 9:24; 12:1) or the chosen king of Yahweh as his ‘signet ring’ (Hag 2:23). The visions of Revelation use  literally both (1) for God’s mark on his saved ones214 and (2) for scrolls closed with seals.215 Paul uses the term literally for circumcision as the mark of God’s righteousness given to Abraham through faith (Rom 4:11) and metaphorically (1) for God’s mark on all the faithful (II Tim 2:19) and here (2) for the faithful Corinthians, i.e. their regeneration through Paul’s foundational preaching (q.v. @ 3:10), God’s ‘seal’ or ‘stamp’ attesting to the truth of Paul’s apostleship. 3.         = ‘this is my defense to those who are judging me’. The translation reflects the frequent word-order in a Greek sentence (object, verb, subject) in which ‘this’ () refers to 9:1-2, i.e. Paul’s ‘defense’ against certain Corinthians who are ‘judging’ his apostolic status or the   See above, note 198. Paul mentions but does not name false teachers and opponents (cf. II Cor 3:1; 10:2, 10ff.; 11:4f., 12-15, 20, 22f.; 12:11; Gal 1:7ff.; 2:4; 4:17; 5:10ff.; 6:12f.; Phil 1:15ff, 28; 3:2, 18f.; Col 2:8, 16-19; I Tim 1:3; 6:3ff.; II Tim 3:6-9) except for some who have deserted his own mission (II Tim 1:15; 2:17). 210   A causal . Q.v. @ 3:11, note 637; @ 8:11, note 132. 211   In the NT here and at Rom 1:5; Gal 2:8; Acts 1:25. 212   Q.v. @ 8:6; 7:39, note 682. 213   Cf. A. Millard, ‘‫’חתם‬, NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 324f.; B. Otzen, ‘‫’ח ַתם‬, ָ TDOT 5 (1986), 263-269. 214   Rev 7:2f.; cf. 9:4; Ezek 9:4, 6; Ps. Sol. 15:6; IV Ezra 2:38; 6:5. Cf. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids 1999, 409-416. 215   E.g. Rev 5:1; 6:1; 8:1. For the OT, Jewish and pagan magical usage cf. D. E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., Nashville TN 1998, II, 452-456. 209

340

1 CORINTHIANS

authority pertaining to it.216 The stress lies on  and on : ‘ does not concern the following verses since Paul says nothing further directly in defense of his apostleship’.217 At 9:4 the argument shifts to the first person plural and to a related issue. 4. 218   ; = ‘a right to eat and drink?’ i.e. to sustenance at the expense of the congregation, as 9:6 makes clear. The double negative   is emphatic and strengthens the force:219 ‘Do we not certainly have a right?’ The reference here is primarily to apostolic rights220 with the ‘we’ referring to Barnabas (9:6) and implicitly to Silas, Paul’s apostolic co-worker at Corinth.221 It appears that Paul’s refraining from this right raised questions at Corinth about his apostolic status; consequently, 9:4-11 is in part an extension of 9:1-3, i.e. a defense of his apostolic status. In the light of Jesus’ command (9:14; cf. Lk 10:7 Q), of course, the right extended to all Christian workers.222 5.     (q.v. @ 9:4)     = ‘Do we not have a right to take along a sister-wife as also the other apostles, even the brothers of the Lord and Peter, do?’ I.e. a Christian sister as wife223 refers to a sexual mate (q.v. @ 7:1), not a wife as sister in a Platonic relationship.224 ‘To take along’, a Pauline   See above on 9:1-3; esp. the literature at note 198. Otherwise: M. M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, Tübingen 1992, 244f. 217   Rightly, Heinrici, 269. On  see below on 11:24. 218   See above on 8:9, notes 121f. 219   Moulton, I, 188; Robertson, 1174, cf. 1164. 220   With no relationship to the ‘right’ () to eat idol-food at 8:9. Cf. Conzelmann, 153 = GT: 180f. Otherwise: Barrett, 202. 221   Barnabas and Silas are mentioned elsewhere as apostles of Christ (Acts 14:14; I Thess 2:7[6]). Luke-Acts uses  only in this sense and not for ‘apostles of the churches’, i.e. missionaries (Rom 16:7; II Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). 222   This is reflected in the (probable) communal lifestyle of church workers at Antioch (Gal 2:12) and in Paul’s admonition to similar co-workers at Thessalonica (II Thess 3:10): ‘If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat’ (II Thess 3:10), i.e. at the church’s expense. See above on 7:29-35. 223   Mss F G and Tertullian (c. AD 200), Ambrosiaster (c. AD 375) and Aphrahat (NPNF2 XIII, 367) have the plural ‘wives’, which Zuntz (138) thinks is original. But it is unlikely. 224   The situation is not analogous to the group of women who, according to Luke (8:2f.), were serving (), i.e. providing for the needs of Jesus and the Twelve ‘from their own means’ in his itinerant ministry. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, 216



V

341

hapax, doubtless means ‘to accompany on the apostles’ missions’ at the respective church’s expense. The ‘apostles’ very probably refers to ‘apostles of Jesus Christ’ and not to ‘apostles of the churches’, i.e. missionaries.225 This is evident from the specified example of Peter (q.v. @ 1:12; 4:1f.) and from the theme of the section, i.e. the apostolic rights of Paul. If so, it means that Jesus appeared to and commissioned his brothers226 after his resurrection,227 not only James (15:7) but also Joseph, Simon and Judas (Mt 13:55 par). They were undoubtedly a part of the ritually strict Christian mission of James228 which, in the The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols., Garden City NY 1981, I, 695-698; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids MI 1978, 315ff.; Ellis, Luke, 124. 225   See above, notes 221, 222. 226   I.e. Mary’s younger children. Luke, who had traditions from Jesus’ family (Acts 21:18), calls Jesus Mary’s ‘firstborn son’ (    , Lk 2:7) and not her ‘only son’ ( , Lk 7:12), implying that she had further sons. Cf. Ellis, Luke, 29, 81; idem, Making, 395. Also, Matthew (1:25), who composed the Gospel of the mission of James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19), based on Jerusalem (cf. Ellis, Making, 263, 288-293, 373, note 77), states that Joseph ‘did not know Marry [sexually] until (   ) she birthed…Jesus’. The temporal  (‘until’) following a negative clause means virtually always in the NT that the negated event will occur afterward: 4:5; Mt 5:26 Q; (17:9); 23:39 Q; 24:34 parr; 26:29 parr; Jn 13:38; Acts 23:12, 14 (Rom 11:8); otherwise: Mt (10:23); 12:20 = Isa 42:4. This is true also at Mk 9:1 parr; cf. Ellis, Luke, 441; idem, Christ, 65; 122, note 11; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, Grand Rapids 2002, 342-346; Davies, II, 676-681 (below). If Mt 1:25 is so understood, it stands against a later patristic view that Mary was a perpetual virgin (; semper virgo). But see R. Bauckham, ‘The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus’, CBQ 56 (1994), 686-700 (697), who thinks it ‘possible’ that they are children of Joseph by a previous marriage; cf. J. Blinzler, Die Brüder und Schwestern Jesu, Stuttgart 21967, 145, who argues that Jesus’ brothers were actually cousins (Vettern). Cf. W. D. Davies et al., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., Edinburgh 1997, II, 458; W. A. Bienert, ‘The Relatives of Jesus’, NTA I, 470-488 (473, 482f.). On James cf. Hegesippus in Eusebius, HE 3, 23, 4-18. The apocryphal ‘The Protevangelium of James’ (25:1; c. AD 180) is the earliest source to speak of Joseph as previously married with sons (9:2; 17:1; 18:1, ANT, 48-67.) 227   Cf. Jn 7:5; Mt 12:46-50 Q. There is no reference to the presence of his brothers in the Gospel episodes of the Last Supper, trial, crucifixion and resurrection. 228   Not its Judaizing faction (Gal 2:11-14; II Cor 11:22) which, apparently after the Council of Jerusalem (c. AD 49–50), separated into a fifth mission (cf. Acts 15:5) in opposition to the allied missions of James, John, Paul and Peter (Gal 2:9). See above on 6:9f., note 305; on 9:1-3, note 195. See below, AE I, ###-###.

342

1 CORINTHIANS

light of the Corinthians’ presumed knowledge of it, had extended its ministry to ritually strict ‘synagogues of the Hebrews’229 in the provinces of Asia and Achaea.230 6.  = ‘Barnabas’, an apostle of Christ (q.v. @ note 221), who introduced Paul to the Twelve (c. AD 36; Acts 9:27) and was Paul’s co-worker in Antioch, Syria (c. AD 45)231 in the mission to Galatia (AD 46–49).232 Afterward he pursued his own mission separately (Acts 15:39), apparently at length into the Aegean area since he is known at Corinth.    = ‘right not to work’ (q.v. @ 9:4). It appears that Barnabas, like Paul, did not accept sustenance from his congregations. Both then were regarded by some in Corinth as not having that right and consequently as not having the apostolic status that underlay the right. See above on 9:4. 7-14. This section presents five examples in an ascending order supporting the right of Paul and Barnabas to receive sustenance at the expense of the congregations to which they minister. (1) It is the right of those in everyday occupations—e.g. the soldier, the vinedresser, and the shepherd (9:7). (2) As God teaches in Scripture, ‘you shall not muzzle an ox treading the grain’ (Dt 25:4), a text primarily for human laborers of which oxen are only a type (9:8ff.). (3) Those who minister the holy things in the Jerusalem temple eat from the gifts offered (9:13a; Num 18:8, 31), and (4) those who serve the altar share in the burnt sacrifices (9:13b; Dt 18:1-3). (5) ‘So also, the Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to get their living from the gospel’ (9:14; Lk 10:7 Q). 229   E.g. the name of synagogues at Corinth (Schürer, III, 65), Rome and near Philadelphia (H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, Philadelphia 1960, 147ff.), which may indicate ritually strict practice, as the term does at Acts 6:1; II Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5. See above, ###-### [Introduction]. 230   Earlier, i.e. before the Council of Jerusalem, by the Jacobean mission’s Judaizing faction in churches at Antioch, Syria, and in the province of Galatia. This is clear at Gal 2:12; 5:11f.; 6:12. Cf. Ellis, Making, 255-260. 231   Acts 11:19-26; Gal 2:1-10; cf. Ellis, Making, 256-259; idem, Interpretation, 12. 232   Cf. Acts 13–14; 28; Ellis, Interpreters, 12f.



V

343

7.       = ‘Who ever soldiers with his own provisions? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Who shepherds a flock ( )233 and does not eat from the milk234 of the flock?’ The three analogies235 fit Paul’s own ministry as a warrior for Christ,236 a planter in God’s vineyard237 and a shepherd of God’s flock.238 The term  can be wages, i.e. ‘remuneration for a task’;239 or it may connote ‘provisions’, ‘sustenance’, ‘support’.240 The latter is the force at II Cor 11:8f.: ‘receiving support’ from other churches, ‘for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need’.241 And it is the most likely meaning here. As Caragounis has argued, a soldier’s recompense included much more than ‘wages’, e.g. rations and booty.242

  Pauline hapaxes.   Which includes clabber, butter and cheese. 235   Plus those of the treading ox (9:9ff.) and of the Levites and priests (9:13). See above on 3:6, note 593. Cf. G. W. Gale, The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul, Philadelphia PA 1964, 101-108. Similar, II Tim 2:3-6. 236   II Cor 10:3-6; cf. I Tim 1:18; II Tim 2:3f. Cf. the hymn, ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’, by S. Barking-Gould (1834–1924). 237   II Cor 10:3f.; cf. I Tim 1:18; II Tim 2:3f. 238   Paul exhorts the ‘elders’ = ‘bishops’ to ‘shepherd the church’ at Ephesus (Acts 20:17, 28; cf. I Pet 5:1ff.). Although he does not use these titles for himself, he does function in this role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, the chief Shepherd (I Pet 5:4; cf. Jn 10:11) who exhorted his apostle to ‘feed my sheep’ (Jn 21:15ff.), and as one who imitates Christ (11:1). 239   BDAG, 747; C. Spicq, ‘’, TLNT, II, 600-603. E.g. I Macc 14:32; Josephus, Ant. 12, 28. Negatively, Rom 6:23: ‘The wages () of sin is death’. But see C. C. Caragounis, ‘: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning’, NT 16 (1974), 35-57, 54, who argues that the ‘very probable’ meaning throughout the NT is ‘provisions’. 240   Spicq (note 238), 602f.; A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, Winona Lake IN 1979 (31923), 148, 266. 241   Cf. also Phil 4:15f. (although very probably sent as a money gift to Thessalonica, not as a wage but as a contribution); P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1997, 515; M. E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., Edinburgh 2000, II, 685f.; S. Kistemaker’s (Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1997, 370) and C. K. Barrett’s (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Peabody MA 21987, 282) suggestions of ‘a stipend’ or ‘pay’ are unlikely. 242   Caragounis (note 239), 48f.; so also Garland, 406; Thiselton, 683f.; similar, Schrage, II, 296. 233 234

344

1 CORINTHIANS

8.   243         ;  = ‘Do I speak these things according to natural man?’, i.e. the previous three references to every-day life practices in the present age. ‘Or does not the law also say these things?’, i.e. speaking God’s will in Scripture for the life of his servants in the present age. ‘The law’, used first here in this letter, may refer to the Pentateuch,244 to the whole OT,245 to specific messianic prophecies246 or to ritual or moral ordinances247 or to a specific regulation.248 9.  249   250 .  251 ‘The law of 252 Moses’ is one of several IFs with which Paul refers to Scripture.253 The phrase occurs in the NT seven times, always referring to the Pentateuch, either to messianic prophecy254 or to ritual law255 that became obsolete and nonbinding with the death and resurrection of Christ, i.e. the ‘age to come’;256 or, as here, to moral laws that the Apostle regards as continuing in their force257 or to the whole of Moses’ law.258

  Q.v. @ 3:3.   See below, notes 253-256. 245   See below on 14:21 = Isa 28:11f.; cf. Jn. 15:25 = Ps 35:19. 246   See below, note 254. 247   See below, notes 255, 256. 248   E.g. Rom 7:2. Personified, the law ‘speaks’, ‘works’, ‘rules’, ‘says’ (Rom 3:19; 4:15; 7:1, 7). 249   Q.v. @ note 210 (causal) and @ note 270; @ 2:11, note 482 (explanatory). 250   Q.v. @ 9:8. 251   Q.v. @ 1:19. 252   In the NT ‘Moses’ is here spelled ; elsewhere  (e.g. 10:2),  (e.g. II Tim 3:8) and  (= ‫ ;משׁה‬e.g. Acts 6:14). Cf. BDAG, 663; BDF, 21 §38; J. Jeremias, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 848-873 (848n); H. Cazelles, ‘‫’משׁה‬, TDOT 9 (1998), 28-43; Moulton, II, 87. 253   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 21, 22-28. 254   E.g. Lk 24:44; Jn 1:45; Acts 28:23; Rom 10:19. 255   E.g. Lk 2:22; Jn 7:23; Acts 15:5. See below on 9:17f., note 342. 256   On the hidden presence of the age to come see above on 7:26, notes 628, 630f. 257   E.g. 9:9; Jn 8:4f. 258   E.g. Acts 13:39; Heb 10:28. 243 244



V

345

    = ‘you shall not muzzle the treading ox’ (Dt 25:4). The LXX and I Tim 5:18 have 259 See above Textual Notes. Zuntz (37) thinks that it is ‘on the whole a safe rule to regard as [the NT] original the reading which differs from the LXX’. The OT text refers primarily to the humane treatment of working animals, but it occurs in a series of regulations that concern man.260 In applying it to Christian apostles Paul may be thinking of that context. Or he may apply Hillel’s seven Rules.261 Or he may interpret ‘ox’ typologically in which the OT ‘type’ has Christian workers as its NT ‘antitype’.262      ; = ‘Is it here a concern by God for oxen?’ The third person present singular of the impersonal verb  (q.v. @ 7:21, note 602) is joined with a dative of agent (Robertson, 542; BDF, 102) and an objective genitive. It interprets specifically Dt 25:4 (‘here’, i.e. in this text), not allegorically à la Philo263 but typologically (q.v. @ note 262) or in an a fortiori264 or in a contextual reasoning (see above).265

  Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 184f.   E.g. Dt 24:6f., 10-21; 25:1ff., 5, 11f., 14f. Cf. Hays, 151. 261   Of the seven Rules of interpretation attributed to Hillel, the Apostle may apply either Rule 1: inference from the less to the more important, or Rule 7: interpretation derived from the context. Paul employs five of the Rules. See W. D. Davies, ‘Paul: From the Jewish Point of View’, CHJ 3 (1999), 687ff. Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 130ff.; M. Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, New York 4 1968, 123f.; H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 71991, 19-23 = GT: 26-30. For Hillel’s Rules cf. T Sanhedrin 7:11 (Neusner, IV, 222). 262   Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 139-157; idem, Paul’s Use, 126-135; L. Goppelt, TYPOS: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids MI 21982, 128 = GT: 154; idem, ‘ ’, TDNT 8 (1972), 246-259 (249-256). 263   Pace Conzelmann, 154f. = GT: 182f. Cf. Fee, 407: ‘The text is not allegorized; rather, it is given a new application’; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 127; Schrage, II, 300. 264   If Dt 25:4 applies to animals, how much more to man. So, Thiselton, 686f.; Findlay, 848; Calvin, 187. 265   Lindemann, 204f., summarizes most of the recent interpretations. 259 260

346

1 CORINTHIANS

10.     ;  = ‘Or does he say it by all means for us?’ The adverb  at 9:10 has been given two distinctive interpretations:266 (1) ‘undoubtedly’, ‘by all means’,267 and (2) ‘entirely’, ‘altogether’.268 The first is the meaning here; see above on 9:9. ’      = ‘It was written on account of us  so that the one who plows is to plow in hope, and the one who threshes, in hope of partaking’.269 The causal conjunction 270 and the repetition of   show that  refers back to Dt 25:4 at 9:9 and that, consequently, 271 does not introduce a second quotation ( recitative),272 but a result clause applied to Christian workers (). The contracted infinitive ‘to plow’ () has an imperatival force and thus the translation, ‘is to plow’. To contrast the plowing as greater labor and the threshing as more joyful273 is probably an over-exegesis. The thought is similar to 3:8ff., 12ff.: the Christian worker who ministers well should be confident that his needs will be supplied, and those to whom he ministers are obligated to supply those needs. 11.     274   . Shifting to the first person plural and continuing the agricultural metaphor, Paul applies in an aside (9:11f.) the stated principles to himself and to Silas (II Cor 1:19; Acts 18:5), to Apollos (1:12; 3:4ff., 22) 266   Cf. BDAG, 755f. Cf. 5:10; 9:22 (16:12); Lk 4:23; Acts 28:4 (‘undoubtedly’); Rom 3:9; Acts 18:21 D*  M sy (‘entirely’, ‘absolutely’). 267   So, e.g. Thiselton, 686f.; Fee, 407f.; Findlay, 848; R & P, 184; Godet, II, 12f. Cf. Conzelmann, 155 = GT: 183n: ‘ is ambiguous’. 268   E.g. Weiss, 236f. 269   See below on 9:11. Paul viewed the whole of the OT—history, persons, institutions, regulations—to be essentially a prefiguration of the eschaton and to have its ultimate meaning in Christ and in the eschatological, new covenant (11:25; Jer 31:31-34) = NT Israel. E.g. Rom 15:4; cf. Acts 24:14; 26:22; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 48f.; idem, Prophecy, 147f., 163-169; idem, History, 103-113; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Grand Rapids MI, 21998, 283f. 270   So, Edwards, 230. On  cf. Robertson, 1190f.; BDAG, 189f.:  has three connotations: causal (q.v. @ 3:11, note 637 @ 8:11, note 132), explanatory, inferential. 271   Q.v. @ 1:5. 272   Pace NA27; Schrage, II, 302; Conzelmann, 155 = GT: 183; Weiss, 237, and the literature cited. Rightly: e.g. Garland, 411 (Lang, 106: ‘probable’). 273   Cf. Godet, II, 15ff. 274   Q.v. @ 2:13, note 518.



V

347

and perhaps to Barnabas (9:6) and others. On these ministries, i.e. spiritual things ( ), to the Corinthians see below on 12:1. On   see above on 3:1, 3. 12.      275    ; The others () who ‘partake of this right’ ( )276 of sustenance at the congregation’s expense are primarily other apostles who visited Corinth (Peter and Apollos; q.v. @ 1:12; and perhaps Barnabas and the brothers of the Lord; q.v. @ 9:5f.). But they implicitly include local co-workers.277 Paul had already established at Thessalonica a cadre of local co-workers (‘brothers’), some of whom apparently either received support from the church or lived communally and worked individually to contribute to a common ‘household’ fund.278 The Apostle concludes, if others receive such sustenance ‘should we not more so’ (  , q.v. @ 9:11)?   279     = ‘But we did not make use of this right etc.’ The strongly adversative  (q.v. @ 7:19, note 567) introduces both Paul’s and Barnabas’ forbearing this right and the consequent difficulties of earning their own living: ‘We endure all things’ ( ).280 The reason for their conduct is not self-serving, much less because of a lack of this right; it is in order that they not cause any hindrance (281    282) and thus fulfill to the utmost their   Q.v. @ 8:9, notes 121f.    (‘partake’), whose object is always in the genitive case, has the meaning ‘share’, ‘participate’, ‘partake’, and is according to C. Spicq synonymous with // (q.v. @ 1:9; 7:16; @ TLNT 2 [1994], 478-482; BDAG, 642). It appears in Paul only at 9:10, 12; 10:17, 21, 30. Cf. H. Hanse, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 830ff. 277   See above on 7:29-35. 278   II Thess 3:10f.; cf. I Thess 4:11f.; 5:14; Col 1:1: ‘brothers’; 3:16; 4:16; perhaps Acts 13:1-3. Cf. Ellis, ‘Colossians 1:12-20: Christus Creator, Christus Salvator’ = Sovereignty, 31, note 1; idem, History, 84-88; idem, ‘Paul and His Co-workers’, Prophecy, 9-21. Otherwise: e.g. A. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, New York 2000, 452, and the literature cited. 279   First person plural aorist of the deponent verb  (q.v. @ 7:31) with a reflexive force. 280   9:12. See above on 4:9-13. 281   Q.v. @ 1:10, note 78. 282   First person plural aorist subjunctive of . Cf. BDAG, 242 §4. 275 276

348

1 CORINTHIANS

apostolic ministry,283 i.e. ‘for the gospel of Christ’ ( 284 285). ]    13.   286    287 [   . The Apostle returns to the examples supporting the apostolic right to sustenance by the congregation, finding the temple typology of the Old Covenant = OT Israel ‘according to the flesh’ (10:18) re the Levites and priests to have its counterpart in New Covenant = NT Israel ‘according to the Spirit’288 in the apostolic ministers of the eschatological temple, i.e. the church.289 ‘Those who minister the holy things’ (   ) appear to refer to the role of the Levites290 and ‘those who serve the altar’ (   ), to that of the priests291 who ‘share292 in the burnt sacrifices.293   See above on 2:2.   Q.v. @ 4:15. 285   Q.v. @ 1:1. 286   Q.v. @ 3:16. The phrase, ‘do you not know’, does not refer to previous Pauline teaching but to the teaching of the synagogue that both Jews and Godfearers (q.v. @ 1:16, note 140), who at AD 56 composed the whole or the large majority of the church leadership at Corinth. Cf. 5:6. 287   Q.v. @ 3:17, note 717. The adjective  occurs in the NT only at 9:13; II Tim 3:15; here, used with an article, it a substantive, ‘the holy things’, i.e. the various temple activities. 288   Rom 1:4; 8:5; Gal 4:29; 6:16: ‘Israel of God’. Cf. Ellis, ‘Christ and Spirit in I Corinthians’, Prophecy, 63-69; idem, Paul’s Use, 134, 136-139. 289   See above on 3:16, ###-### [270-276]. Cf. Goppelt, TYPOS (note 262), 128, 146ff. = GT: 154, 176ff. 290   Levites, i.e. members of the tribe of Levi, e.g. Barnabas (Acts 4:36), ‘denote[s]…cultic officer[s] of the second rank who render[ed] subordinate services in the [temple] sanctuary’ (R. Meyer, ‘[]’, TDNT 4 [1967/1942], 239ff. [239]). Cf. Num 3:5-10; Ezek 44:10-16; 1QSa 1:22ff.; H. L. Ellison, ֵ TDOT 7 (1995), ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 466f.; D. Kellermann, ‘‫’לוִ י‬, 497ff.; P. Jenson, ‘‫’לוִ י‬, ֵ NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 772-778. 291   So, Hering, 79f.; perhaps, Garland, 414; Collins, 342. Otherwise: e.g. Schrage, II, 307f. (synonymous parallelism); R & P, 187. 292   Third person plural present indicative from  with a reflexive force (‘have a share in’). A NT hapax. Cf. MM, 610 (); BDAG, 959f. The reference is to certain burnt sacrifices, e.g. ‘peace offerings’, in which a part of the carcass was given to the offerer and to the priests. Cf. R. E. Averbeck, ‘‫’ ֶשׁ ֶלם‬, NIDOTTE 4 (1997), 135-143 (136-139). See below on 10:16, notes 567, 568. 293   Presumably in Paul’s day only during the priests’ and Levites’ one-week temple service in Jerusalem each year. Cf. Schürer, II, 254ff.; Ellis, Luke, 69; A. Edersheim, The Temple, London 1959 (1874), 83f., 90f. 283 284



V

349

14. 294   295   = ‘So also the Lord directed those who proclaim ( ,296 q.v. @ 2:1) the gospel to live (297) from the gospel’. The Lord gave this instruction for the mission of the Twelve and of the Seventy (Lk 9:6 T + Q; 10:7 Q) during his earthly ministry. But he qualified it later for their diaspora missions after Christ’s exaltation (Lk 22:35f.). Paul, who refers to it again at I Tim 5:18 (cf. Did 13:1ff.), understands Jesus’ word not as a mandate but as his conferring an apostolic right () and, therefore, something that Paul and Barnabas can refrain from298 or not make use of.299 15-18. Shifting to the first person singular, the apostle affirms personally the non-use of his apostolic right to support from the Corinthians.300 The reason is that to do so would ‘make void my boast’ (9:15), viz that ‘when I preach the gospel, I present it free of charge’ (9:18). When Christ called Paul, he faced him not with a choice but with a command,301 rooted like that to Jeremiah (1:5ff.) in his predestined purpose for Paul ‘from my mother’s womb’,302 a command so graphic and a compulsion (9:16, ) so absolute 294   Q.v. @ 4:1, here referring to and bringing to a climax the four preceding examples, supporting Paul’s right to sustenance. 295   Q.v. @ 1:2, notes 87ff. Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Sayings of Jesus in 1 Corinthians’, in Bieringer (note 450), 142-176 (174ff.); Davies (note 563), 140; Dungan (note 199), 19f. Whether 9:14 shows that the Apostle knew larger blocks of Lk 9–10 tradition, cf. C. M. Tuckett, ‘Paul and the Synoptic Mission Discourse’, ETL 60 (1984), 376-381. 296   The dative plural present active participle with an article functions as a substantive, here a relative clause. 297   As elsewhere in this letter (7:39; 15:45), it is used of the present life in Adam, here of its sustenance (q.v. @ 8:9, note 122). 298   So, S. Kim, ‘Jesus, Sayings of’, DPL, 474-492 (475); similar, V. P. Furnish, Jesus According to Paul, Cambridge 1993, 51. See above on 8:9, note 122. Cf. Ellis, Luke, 256 (‘sword’); A. Plummer, Gospel According to S. Luke, Edinburgh 4 1913, 505. 299   9:15; so, Garland, 415. 300   He does accept support, e.g. from the ‘brothers who came from Macedonia’ (II Cor 11:9), i.e. from Philippi (Phil 2:25; 4:10-18) and perhaps from Thessalonica, but he does not do so during his founding missions there (cf. I Thess 2:9; II Thess 3:8f) but only subsequently. So, Garland, 427. Otherwise: R. L. Phua, Idolatry and Authority, London 2005, 189f. 301   Gal 1:15f.; Acts 9:6; 22:10; 26:16ff. 302   Gal 1:15f. It was, of course, no different in kind than the call given to all of God’s chosen ones. See above on 1:9, notes 89, 95.

350

1 CORINTHIANS

that the Apostle remained forever conscious of his ‘entrusted stewardship’ (9:17), i.e. as Christ’s slave.303 As such, his ‘reward’ (9:18) is to fulfill his apostolic ministry without the rights that pertain to it.        . The  is in an 15.  304 emphatic position. The perfect tense  embraces both Paul’s past and present conduct: ‘I have not nor do I now make use of305 any of these rights’, an abstention that the next sentence extends into the future: ‘Nor do I write ()306 these things in order that it should be done so for me (307 308 309  310)’. The end of 9:15, 311  312   ,313 is interpreted in several ways: (1) a sudden breaking-off of the sentence after  (an aposiopesis) as an emotional outburst by the Apostle: ‘or—“no one shall make void my boast” ’;314 (But would Paul, reading over the secretary’s draft, have left the interjection 303     : Rom 1:1; cf. Gal 1:9; Phil 1:1; Tit 1:1. One distinction between a slave and a minister (), which Paul was also (q.v. @ 13:5, note 586), is that the  was entitled to a wage or a reward (q.v. @ 3:8, 14). 304   Cf. Robertson, 417f. 305   Q.v. @ 9:12, note 279, where the aorist is used. 306   The aorist here states a present reality with the certitude of a past event. 307   Q.v. @ 1:10, note 78. Here the  introduces a purpose clause. 308   Q.v. @ 4:1. 309   A third person singular aorist subjunctive of . 310   A dative of personal reference re advantage ‘for me’; the clause is a Semitic formulation (Breyer, 80f.). Cf. below, note 326. 311   This conjunction has two major meanings, (1) ‘or’ and (2) ‘than’. With a different accent  is an adverb meaning ‘truly’, ‘indeed’. Cf. BDAG, 432f.; J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, Oxford 1954, 279-288: ‘ is (usually) placed at the beginning of the sentence, and…always retains its adverbial nature…’ 312   Q.v. @ 1:27f.; @ 1:29. 313   So, p46 ‫ *א‬B D* 33 1739. The future indicative  may have a subjunctive or an imperatival force (BDF, 183 §62; Robertson, 814, 876; Moulton, III, 86, 98; Burton, 35; Moule, 21ff.). Cf. Schrage, II, 321. 314   So, e.g. Garland, 422; Thiselton, 693f.; Schrage, II, 320; see Fee, 417; Edwards, 234. While Paul’s syntax elsewhere is sometimes broken, it is not done in this emotional fashion. Regarding the secretary cf. Ellis, History, 46f., and the literature cited.



V

351

uncorrected?) (2) taking the  as an alternative (similar to that at 9:10): ‘Good for me rather to die; or otherwise () no one should make void my boast’;315 (3) following the Textus Receptus, a subjunctive reading: ‘than () anyone should make void (  ) my boast;316 (4) placing a full stop (= period) after  and a different accent on the letter  and taking it as an adverb: ‘Indeed (), no one shall make void my boast’. This last reading, though  is seldom found in the NT,317 appears to be the more probable.318 16. The significant terms are ‘to preach the gospel’ and ‘boast’ (q.v. @ 1:17; @ 1:27f., note 298; @ 1:29);  may express a human ‘necessity’ or ‘compulsion’,319 a situation of ‘need’ or ‘distress’,320 or, as here, a divine ‘constraint’.321 17-18. ‘If I do this voluntarily () [which is not the case], I have a reward; but if not voluntarily () [which is the case],322 I have been entrusted with a stewardship ( )’.323 The first-class conditional clauses324 in the protasis determine the results in the apodosis, (1) ‘reward’, i.e. as recompense for service,

  E.g. Meyer, 205f.   ‫א‬2 C D2  M lat syh. Cf. Z. C. Hodges et al., edd. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, Nashville, TN 21985, 527. See BDF, 187 §369 (2), 201 §393 (2). 317   Cf. Heb 6:14  M (= Gen 22:17 LXX); cf. Rahlfs-Hanhart, I, 30; J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta I: Genesis, Göttingen 1974, 217. 318   Cf. BDAG, 433 (‘perhaps’). The adverb  is found repeatedly in the LXX and in classical Greek literature. Cf. H & R2, 602; F. Rehkopf, SeptuagintaVokabular, Göttingen 1989, 135; Denniston (note 311), 279-288. 319   7:37; Rom 13:5; II Cor 9:7; Plm 14. 320   Cf. 7:26; II Cor 6:4; 12:10; I Thess 3:7; BDAG, 60f.; W. Grundmann, ‘-’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 346f. 321   Cf. IV Macc 5:16; Josephus, c. Apion. 1, 60; Syb. Oracles 3, 295ff. (OTP, I, 368). 322   Cf. Henrici, 281; Godet, II, 30. 323   See above on 4:1f. 324   Following Robertson, 1004-1027, 2008, who divides the protasis of conditional sentences into four classes: (1)  (sometimes ) + the indicative mood: assumes the reality of the condition whether it is true or not; (2)  + indicative past tense: assumes the condition to be contrary to fact whether it is or not; (3) 315 316

352

1 CORINTHIANS

or (2) ‘entrusted stewardship’ as Christ’s slave. Regarding the latter, the Apostle’s ‘reward’ is to preach the gospel free of charge (9:18),325 resulting in his not making full use (   )326 of his apostolic rights ().327 Special Note on the Superseded and the Abiding Aspects of OT Law in the NT In the OT the Law328 of God embraced both (1) moral law reflecting God’s character329 and (2) commands of God re actions and regulations for a particular time and situation.330 A priority is given to the former331 and to internal attitudes above external actions;332 re the latter punishments vary according to the seriousness of the situation.333 But the two aspects are often mixed together, and for the time of the OT both are equally God’s law.  + the subjunctive mood: an unfulfilled condition, but with the probability of future fulfillment; (4)  + optative mood: an unfulfilled condition with a remote possibility of future fulfillment. Burton, 107-112, adds two further classes. 325   See above on 9:15-18. 326   The aorist infinitive  (9:18; q.v. @ 7:31) is a somewhat strengthened form of . It is used as a substantive and, reflecting Semitic idiom, as the object of the preposition  (Moulton, III, 8, 141; Zerwick, 132), forming a result clause. Cf. Moule, 70; Moulton, I, 218f. But see Burton, 49f.; Morris, 137. 327   Q.v. @ 8:9. 328   See above on 9:8. Basically, five Hebrew terms, chiefly ‫‘( תורה‬torah’), are translated  (‘law’) in the LXX (H & R2, 947; cf. Englishman’s Hebrew, 1568). Cf. B. B. Warfield, ‘The Biblical Idea of Revelation’, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Phillipsburg NJ 1999 (1948), 71-102 (99ff.). 329   I.e. love for God and for others (Matt 22:37-40 par; Lk 10:27f.; cf. Dt 6:5f.; Lev 19:18) as expressed by moral attitudes and conduct in various relationships, e.g. in the Decalogue: honoring father and mother, refraining from murder, adultery, i.e. fornication (q.v. @ 5:1) and sodomy (I Tim 1:9f., q.v. @ 6:9-10), theft, lying and coveting (Exod 20:1-7, 12-17; Dt 6:6-11, 16-21). 330   E.g. the covenantal sign of circumcision (cf. Gen 17:10-14), the structure and operations of the tabernacle and subsequent temple (cf. Lev 1:1–16:34), purity and dietary laws (Lev 11:1-47; Dt 14:3-21; cf. Schürer, II, 475-478), the total slaughter of the Amalekites (I Sam 15:3, 18-35). 331   E.g. I Sam 15:22; Pv 21:3; Hos 6:6. 332   E.g. Jer 4:4; 9:25f.; cf. 6:10; Lev 26:41. 333   Cf. G. J. Wenham, ‘Law in the Old Testament’, NBD, 672-675 (673); idem, ‘Law’, DTIB, 441-446.



V

353

The OT = Old Covenant law as a whole, however, had an ad interim character in that it contained within it a promise of a NT = New Covenant in which the OT law would be either superseded or transcended by God’s writing his covenant law upon the hearts of his people.334 This future promise becomes present with the coming, death and resurrection of Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and with the NT = New Covenant teachings deriving from him through his ‘apostles and prophets’ (Eph 2:20). Jesus summarized the OT law in the love commandments (q.v. @ note 329), and he recognized it in whole and in part as a divine revelation335 and himself as the One who ‘fulfilled’ it.336 On the one hand, he taught that the ceremonial and ritual Mosaic law in certain respects was still required during his earthly ministry;337 on the other hand, he taught that the OT = Old Covenant law in certain respects belonged to the preceding dispensation338 and that ritual laws re the

  E.g. Dt 30:6; Jer 31:31-34; 32:39f.; Ezek 11:19f. See below, note 364.   E.g. ‘[God] said’ (Mt 19:5); ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (Jn 10:35); ‘…Not an iota, not a dot will pass away from the law until all is accomplished’ (Mt 5:18 Q). Cf. Ellis, ‘Jesus’ Attitude toward His Bible’, Christ, 266ff.; idem, Old Testament, 126-130; Warfield (note 328), 99ff. 336   Cf. Mt 5:17f.; Lk 4:21. 337   E.g. to his disciples, ‘the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses; therefore, whatever they tell you that do and keep’ (Mt 23:2f.); to the cleansed leper, ‘Go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded’ (Mt 8:4 parr); to Peter, ‘lest we offend them…give them [the shekel tax] for me and you’ (Mt 17:26); ‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer”, but you made it a den of robbers’ (Mt 21:13 parr); ‘Go prepare the passover for us that we may eat it’ (Lk 22:8 parr); ‘I am not going up to this feast [of Tabernacles]’ (Jn 7:7; cf. 4:45). Cf. Lk 6:4 D: ‘On the same day, seeing someone working on the sabbath, he [Jesus] said to him, “Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law” ’; i.e. if he knows that in Jesus Messiah has come and with him the kingdom of God, and that the sabbath law is no longer relevant, he is blessed (cf. notes 338, 339). For the Gospels the termination of the OT = Old Covenant comes at Jesus’ death when the Spirit of God departs from the Jerusalem temple: ‘And behold the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom’ (Mt 27:51 parr). Cf. Mt 23:38 Q: ‘Your house is left to you desolate’. 338   E.g. ‘The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]; since then the kingdom of God is being preached and everyone is pressing into it’ (Lk 16:16 Q). ‘If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, the kingdom of God has come upon you’ (Mt 12:28 Q); cf. Ellis, ‘The Spirit’s New Role’, Theology, 6f., 28ff.; idem ‘The Two-stage Manifestation of the Kingdom of God’, Christ, 116-119. 334 335

354

1 CORINTHIANS

sabbath,339 foods,340 ceremonial washings, and temple regulations341 were no longer in force. The book of Hebrews contrasts the Mosaic law (8:4) with the law of the New Covenant written ‘on their hearts’ (8:10) and treats the whole of the temple system as superseded: ‘By saying a new covenant (8:8 = Jer 31:31), [God] has made the first covenant obsolete, and what is declared obsolete is ready to disappear altogether’ (8:13).342 Paul’s use of , i.e. the OT divine law, builds upon the teaching of Jesus, but is more elaborate and complex. Some scholars take Rom 10:4 as the crucial text:343 ‘Christ is the end () of the law () unto righteousness for everyone who believes’. Many today interpret  to mean ‘cessation’, i.e. ‘termination’.344 Others argue for the meaning ‘goal’345 or ‘fulfillment’ or a combination

339   Mt 12:8 T + Q: ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath’, in a commentary (yelammedenu midrash) on Exod 20:10; 34:21; I Sam 21:7; Num 28:9; Hos 6:6; cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 98. 340   Mk 7:14f., 19 par. 341   Mt 15:1-9 par: OT commentary (yelammedenu midrash) on Lev 15:11, 22:6f.; Exod 20:12; 21:17; Lev 20:9; Dt 5:16; Isa 29:13; cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 136; idem, Prophecy, 158. Cf. Mt 12:6; Jn 7:37. See above on 7:18, notes 546-554. 342   Cf. BDAG, 271; W. L. Lane, ‘Typology’, Hebrews, 2 vols., Dallas TX 1991, I, cxxiiif.; B. F. Westcott, ‘[OT] Interpretation’, Epistle to the Hebrews, London 1903, 482-497; Goppelt (note 262), 165ff. = GT: 198-201. 343   So, e.g. M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, London 1991, 86; Michel (note 18), 327: ‘a fundamental postulate’; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., London 1952, I, 263: ‘the decisive thesis’. 344   T. R. Schreiner, Romans, Grand Rapids 1998, 544-548, and the literature cited; L. Morris, Romans, Grand Rapids 1988, 379ff.; B. L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul, Leiden 1989, 154; W. Schmithals, Der Römerbrief, Gütersloh 1988, 370; E. Käsemann, Romans, Grand Rapids 1980, 283; Michel (note 18), 327; William Sanday et al., The Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh 21896; F. L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids 1977 (1883), 376. 345   Cf. Cranfield (note 56), II, 515-520, 845-862, who gives the most extensive and one of the most perceptive discussions of the issue. Also, e.g. S. R. Bechtler, ‘Christ, the  of the Law’, CBQ 56 (1994), 288-308; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans, New York 1993, 585; R. Jewett, ‘The Law and the Coexistence of Jews and Gentiles in Romans’, Int 39 (1985), 349-354; P. W. Meyer, ‘Romans 10:4 and the “End” of the Law’, The Divine Helmsman. FS L. H. Silberman, edd. J. L. Crenshaw et al., New York 1980, 66ff. Cf. K. Haacker, Der Brief des Paulusan die Römer, Leipzig 1999, 206-209.



V

355

of the two;346 one notes that in the Apostle’s usage elsewhere,347 where  is used of persons,  never ‘has the pure temporal significance “cessation”, “termination” ’.348 In this interpretive debate, which reflects in some measure Lutheran vs. Reformed presuppositions and approach,349 the meaning of Rom 10:4 must be sought within the wider Pauline treatment of the concept. Paul considers the OT law to have various aspects, some of which are abiding and some of which are completed and superseded with respect to God’s chosen ones. He represents the life of Christ, and His alone, as a total fulfillment of the works of the law, i.e. as ‘the one who knew no sin’,350 from his incarnate birth351 into fallen mankind352 until his death. At the same time, the Apostle writes, Christ takes upon himself the death-verdict of the law against sin353 346   E.g. P. Barnett, Romans, Fearn UK 2003, 234; D. J. Moo, Romans, Grand Rapids 1996, 641ff.; O. Betz, ‘Der fleischliche Mensch und das geistliche Gesetz’, Jesus Der Herr der Kirche, Tübingen 1990, 129-196 (191, 193); H. H. Esser, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 438-451 (445); R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law, Sheffield UK 1985, 144-148; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, London 1957, 197f. The meaning ‘fulfillment’ was generally combined with ‘goal’ among the church Fathers (cf. Cranfield, note 56, 516), e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2, 9, middle: ‘prophesied by the law’; Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel 8, 2, 33; Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans on Rom 10:4 = NPNF1 XI, 472; Apollinaris in Staab, 69; Photius on Rom 10:4 in Staab, 523. 347   1:8; 10:11; 15:24; Rom 6:21f.; 10:4; 13:7; II Cor 1:13; 3:13; 11:15; Phil 3:19; I Thess 2:16; I Tim 1:5. 348   Haacker (note 345), 208. 349   Cf. Jewett (note 345), 349-354. 350   II Cor 5:21; so also Jesus according to Jn 7:18; 8:46; 14:30; cf. Heb 4:15; 7:26f.; 9:14 () (Lane); I Pet 2:22ff.; I Jn 3:5 (Brown; Westcott). Cf. Lane (note 342), I, 114f.; R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John, Garden City NY 1982, 402f.; B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, London 1905, 103f. 351   Phil 2:7f.; Heb 10:5ff.; cf. P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, Grand Rapids MI, 219ff.; Lane (note 342), I, 114; II, 240, 262. 352   This is evident in Paul’s reference to Christ’s incarnation ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom 8:3) and his death ‘in the body of his flesh’ (Col 1:22; q.v. @ 1:26), i.e. in his person manifested in his human nature. See below, ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-### [279-282]. Cf. Gal 4:4; Phil 2:7. On Messiah’s identification with fallen man see also K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4 vols. in 13, Edinburgh 1957–69, IV pt 2, 20, 25ff. 353   ‘[God] made him to be sin for us’ (II Cor 5:21); ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal 3:13). See above on 6:20; 7:21-23, notes 613, 614. Cf. J. Denney, ‘Law (in the New Testament)’, HDB 3

356

1 CORINTHIANS

as a propitiatory, i.e. wrath-removing, sacrifice.354 Consequently, Paul regards the OT law as no longer having any ‘killing’ power over regenerate believers because its verdict of death has been executed on them corporately in Christ’s death, and God’s righteousness, i.e. justification, which can never be achieved by man’s works of OT law,355 has been effected in his chosen ones () by grace through faith (Rom 3:21-24) in Christ’s death and resurrection.356 He relates the Christian elect to Christ’s death in at least two ways: (1) Christ was their substitute,357 and (2) they all were corporately present ‘in him’ (q.v. @ 1:2, notes 37, 82, 84) and ‘with him’ in his AD 33 crucifixion358 and resurrection.359 In all likelihood Paul found the seed of his doctrine that all elect believers died corporately with Christ in the Lord’s Last Supper teaching in (1900), 73-83 (80): ‘St. Paul has a gospel to preach to men under the condemnation of the law, because that condemnation has been taken on Himself by Christ’; idem (note 354). Cf. also Mk 10:45 ( ); I Pet 2:24, cf. Isa 53:4, 12. So, the hymn ‘ “Man of Sorrows” What a Name’, by P. P. Bliss, 1838–1876: ‘In my place condemned He stood, Seal’d my pardon with His blood’. 354   Rom 3:25 (); cf. I Jn 2:2; 4:10; Cranfield (note 56), I, 214-218; II, 827; Moo (note 346), 231-236; Morris (note 344), 180f.; J. Stott, Romans, Downers Grove IL 1994, 113-116; further, Michel (note 18), 150ff.; Schreiner (note 344), 191ff.; J. Denney, The Death of Christ, New Canaan CT 1981 (1902), 167-179. Otherwise, e.g. C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, London 1935, 82-95; idem, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, London 21959, 78f.; Fitzmyer (note 345), 349f. 355   So, Gal 2:16: ‘Knowing that man is not justified from works of the law (cf. Rom 3:20), but only through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in () Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified () from faith in Christ and not from works of the law, because from works of the law shall no flesh be justified (   ). See below, notes 363f. 356   ‘If…we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more shall we be saved by his life’ (Rom 5:10). Cf. Rom 6:14; 8:33f.; Gal 5:18. 357   See above, note 353f. 358   ‘For through the law I died in the law that I might live in God; I have been crucified with Christ’ (Gal 2:19 [20]); ‘Our old man [Adam] was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, that is, that we would no longer be enslaved to sin… Now, if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with him’ (Rom 6:6, 8); ‘You died and your life is hidden with Christ in God’ (Col 3:3); ‘If we died with him, we shall live with him’ (II Tim 2:11). Cf. Ellis, Christ, 99f.; idem, Theology, 10-17, 55ff.; idem, Prophecy, 67f. 359   ‘When we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with… Christ and raised us up with him and made us sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus’ (Eph 2:5f.).



V

357

which Christ identified his crucified body and his shed blood with his disciples, i.e. his pupils.360 At the same time, like Jesus,361 the Apostle regards the moral teachings of the OT law, especially the love commandments362 which reflect the character of God, to characterize the NT = New Covenant order no less than that of the Old, teachings given in the OT externally through prophets363 and in the NT inscribed on the heart by grace through faith by the Holy Spirit.364 And, he writes, those so inscribed have now corporately fulfilled that law ‘in Christ’365 and will fulfill it individually at Christ’s parousia.366 But he views the whole OT legal system, understood apart from the Christ-given Holy Spirit, as  (‘letter’), i.e. as a misinterpretation of the law367 that brings only death.368 More broadly, 360   Mt 26:26ff. parr. See below on 10:16f.; 11:22ff.; ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ###-### [280-296]; Ellis, Christ, 36, 85-88. 361   See above note 329. 362   ‘For the one who loves the other has fulfilled the law…. [For] it is summed up in the word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” ’ (Rom 13:9). Cf. Gal 5:14; 6:2; See above on 6:7f.; notes 237ff. 363   And not kept, as Paul shows in his commentary (midrash) on OT texts at Rom 1:17–4:25, in which he establishes the gift of the ‘righteousness of God… through faith in Jesus Christ’ (3:21f.) and demolishes any biblical claim to righteousness by works (3:10-18): ‘Therefore, no flesh (q.v. @ 1:26, 29, notes 288-292, 305f.) will be justified before him by the works of the law because by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (3:20). Cf. Cranfield (note 56), I, 197ff.; Schreiner (note 344), 168-174; Ellis, Old Testament, 99f.; idem, History, 106-109; idem, Making, 259n.; Rom 8:7; Gal 2:21; 3:10; 5:3f.; Phil 3:9. See above, notes 352, 355, 358. 364   ‘Moses writes re the righteousness that is from the law that “the man who does these things shall live by means of them” (Lev 18:5). But the righteousness from faith…says, “The word is near you in your mouth and in your heart” (Dt 30:14), this is the word of faith that we proclaim’ (Rom 10:5f., 8). Cf. Jer 31:33. 365   See above on 1:2, notes 74f.; on 1:30, notes 311-316; on 2:6, notes 408ff.; on 6:11, notes 332f. 366   See above on 1:8, notes 62f.; on 2:6, note 411; below, note 382. 367   Rightly, J. D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., Dallas TX 1988, I, 127: ‘the letter [at Rom 2:27] must mean something like…an understanding of the law which stays at the level of ritual act and outward deed’. Otherwise: Schreiner (note 344), 142; Moo (note 346), 172f. 368   ‘Through the letter (), even through circumcision, you are a transgressor of the law’; ‘True circumcision is of the heart, in Spirit not in the letter’; ‘We were delivered from the law, having died [with Christ] in that with which we were being held down, so that we might serve as a slave in the newness

358

1 CORINTHIANS

 is the nature of all biblical interpretation without the illumination of the Spirit; only the true interpretation of the Bible via the Holy Spirit is properly  (‘revelatory Scripture’).369 The Apostle gives vice lists370 to his congregations that largely reflect OT law, often the prohibitions in the Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17; Dt 5:1-21), (1) to enable them to identify the specifics of God’s abiding moral law and (2) to warn the pretenders among them, because he knows that in the organizational church371 there are both unregenerate and regenerate (4:15, ) believers; ‘the law is not given for a righteous person but for the lawless and disobedient’ (1 Tim 1:9).372 Unlike the abiding moral law, Paul, again like Jesus,373 regards the OT ritual laws now as matters of indifference ()374 or, more strongly, as temptations to a ‘works righteousness’, subversive to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and thus forbidden to Gentile Christians.375 He makes the distinction between ritual and moral law most explicitly perhaps at 7:19 (q.v.): ‘Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but rather the keeping of the commands of God’.376 But he does not forbid Jewish Christians of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter’ (Rom 2:27, 29; 7:6). ‘God, who also qualified us to be ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but rather of the Spirit, because the letter kills but the Spirit makes alive. But if the ministry of death engraved in letters () on stones came in glory, …will the ministry of the Spirit not be in much more glory’ (II Cor 3:5-8)? Cf. Gal 3:2, 5; Phil 3:5f., 9. 369   Cf. Ellis, ‘ and  in Pauline Usage’, Paul’s Use, 25-58; idem, ‘The Role of the Prophet in the Quest for Truth’, Christ, 255-278 (273-278). 370   See above on 6:9f., notes 264-293; 5:10f., notes 157-171; cf. Rom 14:12f.; Eph 4:28f., 31; 5:3ff.; Col 3:5-14; I Tim 1:9f.; II Tim 3:1-4. For Jesus cf. Mt 15:19 par. Further, cf. Ellis, Making, 61-64, 95, 106f., 109f., 112, 407, 412. 371   See above on 8:11. 372   Paul’s exhortation to Christians who are lacking in individual holiness is not to obey the OT law but to ‘be imitators of me as I am of Christ’ (11:1) and ‘you are to put off…the old man [Adam]…and to put on the new man [Christ]’ (Eph 4:22, 24). Cf. Rom 6:14. 373   See above, notes 339ff. 374   Cf. Rom 14:2f., 5f., 21. See below, note 413. 375   Cf. Gal 1:6–6:13; 5:3f.: ‘If one becomes circumcised, one is bound to keep the whole law. You who would be justified by law are cut off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace’; Eph 2:14f.; Col 2:20-23. 376   Cf. Gal 6:15; Rom 2:28f. See above, notes 330, 362. Cf. M. Schmitt, “Restructuring Views on Law in Hebrews 7:12’, JBL 128 (2009), 189-201 (193-198).



V

359

to keep traditional Jewish ritual laws either as typological pointers to the NT or to Christ377 or, as here regarding his own ministry, a means to bring unbelieving Jews to Messiah Jesus (9:20). In conclusion, within Paul’s teaching the OT moral law continues, subsumed under the two-fold law of love,378 which is the law of Christ ( ).379 It has its primary significance in its lethal effect (1) upon sinful men, i.e. upon those outside Christ, in their own death and ultimate annihilation380 and (2) upon those in Christ through his death in their place and through their incorporation into that death as his corporate body381 and as those who in him by grace through faith have already corporately fulfilled the law and are destined to fulfill it individually at the future parousia of Christ.382 At the death and resurrection of Messiah, however, the OT ritual and ceremonial law has completed its purpose as a corral to supervise God’s people383 and is no longer binding on them;384 but it may continue to serve in certain respects as a type of its New Covenant counterpart.385 19-22. Having affirmed (1) his apostolic freedom (, q.v. @ 9:1) and (2) his right to congregational support (9:4-12), the Apostle proceeded to explain his non-use of that right among   E.g. circumcision (Rom 2:28f.; Acts 16:3); cf. the typological use of the story of Hagar and Sarah in the OT commentary (midrash) at Gal 4:21-31 (21); cf. Ellis, History, 107; idem, Making, 101f.; idem, Old Testament, 98f.; idem, Prophecy, 156; idem, ‘Typology’, Paul’s Use, 126-135. See above on 7:18, notes 555-564; below, note 385. 378   See above, notes 329, 362. 379   9:21; cf. Gal 6:2; i.e. the law under which Paul exercises his ministry. Cf. BDAG, 337f.; Robertson, 504. Esser (note 346), 446. But see R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, Dallas TX 1990, 275f., and the literature cited. For other views see Garland, 431; Thiselton, 703f. 380   See above on 8:11 and on note 134. 381   See above, notes 353f., 358ff.; below on 12:27. 382   See above, note 366. 383   ‘Now, before faith came [in Jesus Christ], we were corralled under the law, confined for the destined faith to be revealed. So, the law was our supervisor () to bring us to Christ in order that we might be justified by faith’ (Gal 3:23f.). 384   Rom 6:14; Gal 3:25-29; 5:18. 385   E.g. re the temple: 3:16f.; 6:19; 9:13; II Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; re circumcision: Rom 2:28f.; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11. See above, note 377. 377

360

1 CORINTHIANS

the Corinthians (9:12b-18). He now reasserts that freedom386 and broadens it, using a chiastic pattern in a carefully formed piece,387 to express the non-use of his apostolic freedom as an ‘enslavement’ to all, i.e. as a strategy for his mission: ‘I enslaved () myself to all, in order that I might win ()388 the more [to Christ]’ (9:19). His ‘enslavement’ consists in the adaptation of his life-style, in matters morally and confessionally indifferent, to that of the various groups to whom he ministered, four of whom are mentioned here: Jews, those under the law, those without the law, the weak. In the present context ‘the law’ refers to the OT law (q.v. @ 9:8f.) and ‘Jews’ (q.v. @ 1:22) to those of his own race and nation who have not accepted Jesus as Messiah, Savior and Lord.389 As a messianic Jew390 Paul would have been most comfortable serving Christ, as James of Jerusalem did,391 within the strict ritual context of his previous Pharisaic Judaism,392 but his commission   9:19. Otherwise: Fee, 425n, who connects 9:19 to 9:18: ‘that I might present the gospel free of charge’ (). 387   I.e. a b c c b a. Cf. N. W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament, Chapel Hill NC 1942, 147f.; Weiss (note 34), 194f.: a small preformed insertion. 388   First person singular aorist active subjunctive of . The term occurs four or five times at 9:19-22 and at Phil 3:8 in Paul’s letters and is used elsewhere in the NT with this connotation (e.g. Mt 18:15; I Pet 3:1). Such accommodation represents, as it did for the great rabbi Hillel, ‘humility as an instrument of conversion’ (D. Daube, ‘Missionary Maxims’, New Testament Judaism, DCW, II 571 = idem, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, Peabody MA 21994, 349). Somewhat differently, S. C. Barton, ‘ “All Things to All People”: Paul and the Law in the Light of I Corinthians 9:19-23’, Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. J. D. G. Dunn, Tübingen 1996, 271-285, and the literature cited. See below, note 415. On the literary form cf. J. Weiss (note 34), 194. On 9:19-23 as a whole cf. further P. J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, Assen 1990, 274-281. 389   Apart from Rom 2:28f.; Gal 2:13ff. this is the usual connotation of the term  in Paul’s letters. 390   From AD 33–64 the church as a whole was viewed, and viewed itself, as a Jewish entity, under the umbrella of Judaism and the faithful remnant that is ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16). Cf. Acts 18:2, 14f.; 24:14; F. Hauck, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 88f.; Ellis, ‘The Church and Judaism’, Theology, 132-147; idem, Old Testament, 121; idem, ‘The True Israel’, Paul’s Use, 136-139. Only with the persecution by Nero (AD 65–68) did Rome distinguish the Christians from the Jews. 391   Cf. Ellis, Making, 290-293. 392   Cf. II Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4ff. See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and I Corinthians’, AE I, ###-### [42-51, 53ff.]; Ellis, ‘The Circumcision Party and the Early Christian Mission’, Prophecy, 116-128. 386



V

361

by Christ as ‘an apostle to the Gentiles’393 precluded this. Therefore, in his missions to ‘the Gentiles’ and to ‘the sons of Israel’ (cf. Acts 9:15) he preached ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’.394 He usually went first to the Jewish synagogue395 (,396 , 397) of whatever stripe398 and addressed both Jews and God-fearers;399 subsequently he went to the houses of converts and to the public square.400 In this context Paul adapted his conduct to the customs of the particular synagogue, even at times to its ecclesiastical punishments,401 and he would have similarly kept to Jewish dietary regulations (as he did for the ritually strict or the ‘weak’ Christian)402 as the occasion may have required.403 ‘To the Jews I became as () a Jew’ (9:20), i.e. with reference to his conduct among them. 393   Rom 11:13; cf. 15:16; Eph 3:8; I Tim 2:7; II Tim 1:11 ‫א‬2 C D F G  M latt sy co; Acts 9:15: ‘[Paul] is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and…the sons of Israel’; 22:21; 26:17f. 394   Rom 1:16; cf. 2:9f. 395   Although this pattern may be reflected once or twice in his letters (e.g. II Cor 2:14, ), it is most apparent in Acts (9:20; 13:5, 14, 43, 50; 14:1; 16:16 [ ]; 17:1, 10; 18:4, 7, 19; 19:8). For a high view of the historicity of the Acts’ accounts cf. Hemer (note 83), 1-29, 244-276, 365-410; Ellis, Making, 377-391, 397-405; for a lower view, discussing the present passage, cf. G. Bornkamm, ‘The Missionary Stance of Paul in I Corinthians 9 and in Acts’, Studies in Luke-Acts. FS P. Schubert, edd. L. E. Keck et al., Nashville 1966, 194-207. 396    is frequently used in the Gospels and Acts; it is not found in Paul’s letters, but it is used of a house church at Jas 2:2. At Rev 2:9; 3:9 (‘synagogue of Satan’) it probably refers to apostate churches along the lines of Paul’s accusations against gnosticizing Judaizers at 10:19f.; II Cor 11:13f.; Phil 3:2f.; Tit 1:10 since such an imprecation is never directed against the Jewish synagogue in the NT or, to my knowledge, in the apostolic Fathers and other patristic writings. See above on 1:2, note 56. 397   Q.v. @ 1:2, note 94. Cf. Schürer, II, 439f.: ‘The building in which the congregation met for worship was the… or …’ (439). The temple is designated ‘place’ () at Acts 6:13f.; 21:28. 398   Cf. Acts 13:44-49; 14:1 (‘of the Jews’); 17:1f., 5, 10, 17; 18:4 (? ‘of the Hebrews’, q.v. @ 1:2, note 58), 6ff., 19; 19:8ff. Similar, Acts 28:17, 23, 28. 399   Q.v. @ 1:16, note 140; @ 5:2, notes 37-40. 400   Acts 17:3, 5ff, 17; 18:4, 7; 19:8f. 401   Cf. Acts 13:14ff.; II Cor 11:24 with Gal 6:17. 402   Cf. 8:13; Rom 14:20ff.; Acts 21:26f. A modern analogy is a non-liturgical minister donning a robe or a clerical collar when preaching in a strictly liturgical church. 403   E.g. Acts 8:23: ‘from morning till evening’.

362

1 CORINTHIANS

The group, those ‘under the law’ ( ), may refer elsewhere to Jews generally404 and to their status between Moses and Christ.405 But here it is distinguished from ‘the Jews’ and refers (1) to ritually strict Jews, whom the Apostle evangelizes, e.g. at ‘synagogues of the Hebrews’ (q.v. @ 1:2, note 58) or, more likely, (2) to Jewish Christians to whom he does not wish to become a stumbling block.406 Paul knows, however, that Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, are no longer under the law,407 and he forbids Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision and by implication to other Jewish ritual laws (see above, notes 374f.). But as a Jewish Christian he may be observant or non-observant. ‘To those under the law [I became] as under the law…in order that I might win those that are under the law’ (9:20). Some see an inconsistency between 9:20 and Gal 2:11-14408 where at Antioch the Apostle refuses to defer to ritually strict Jewish Christian Judaizers (cf. , Gal 2:14)409 from Jerusalem who, sharing house and board with non-kosher Gentile co-workers, refused table fellowship with them. But in Gal 2, where the issue is quite different, Paul urges and practices the reverse: accommodation of Jewish Christians to the non-kosher Gentile brothers who, if they submit to Jewish ritual laws, will be cut off from Christ.410 Those ‘without the law’ (, 9:21)411 are non-Christian Gentiles. The most specific instance of Paul’s preaching to them is the (summarized) Areopagus sermon (Acts 14:8-17; 17:22-31; cf. 19:9), an exposition in which the OT references412 are muted and explicit analogies are drawn from objects of pagan worship.   Rom 3:19.   Gal 3:23; 4:4. 406   Cf. 10:32f.; Rom 14:13ff., 20f.; 15:1f. In a modern analogy, one who is free in conscience to drink wine may, for a friend’s sake, refrain from doing so at a party he attends with an alcoholic friend seeking freedom from his addiction. 407   9:20; Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18. 408   E.g. P. Richardson, ‘Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:11-14’, NTS 26 (1980), 347-362. Further, David Carson, ‘Pauline Inconsistency’, Churchman 100 (1986), 6-48. 409   Cf. Ellis, ‘Circumcision’ (note 392), 124. 410   See above, note 375. 411   I.e. without the Mosaic law since Paul affirms at Rom 2:12-16 that, although the Gentiles lack the Mosaic law, they do have God’s law in their conscience. 412   The biblical expository character of the summarized sermon was shown by B. Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Uppsala 1955, 45-62, 404 405



V

363

The ‘weak’ () are both immature Gentile Christians (see above on 8:7-13) and ritually strict Jewish Christians.413 They are deferred to by Paul in contexts that would injure them414 but not as a carte blanche restriction on his Christian liberties in other contexts (10:29). 19.  = ‘that I might win’ (q.v. @ note 388). Regarding the weak (9:22) the term means not ‘win initially to Christ’ but ‘win Christ in perfection at his parousia’415 or ‘an affirmation of Christ secure from a drifting away to destruction’.416 20.  = ‘as’ (bis), repeated at 9:21. Regarding the weak (9:22) the absence of  (in important mss) is without significance. 21.    = ‘but rather subject to the law of Christ’ (see above, note 379), qualifying the Apostle’s stated conduct ‘as without the law’ with the strongly negative  (q.v. @ 7:19, note 567). 22-23.      = ‘I have become all things to all men, etc.’ In this summarized conclusion to 9:19-23 the perfect tense of  expresses the thought that Paul’s stance and deference to all kinds of people () in matters morally and confessionally indifferent is not a spur-of-the-moment decision but his customary practice, indeed a discipline (9:24-27), from the

167ff. Otherwise: M. Dibelius, The Book of Acts, Minneapolis 2004 (41961), 95-128 (114-120) = GT: 29-71 (54-60). See J. B. Polhill, Acts, Nashville TN 1992, 369f.; A. Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte und ihr Geschichtswert, Münster 1921, 390-394. 413   Cf. Rom 14:1f., 5f., 13ff., 20f.; 15:1ff. See above, note 374. Cf. Cranfield (note 56), II, 690-698, for various views on the identity of ‘the weak’ in Rom 14:1- 15:12. He rightly concludes: ‘[Although] the ceremonial part of [the OT law] no longer requires to be literally obeyed, the weak felt strongly that a continuing concern with the literal obedience of the ceremonial law was an integral element of their response of faith to Jesus Christ…’ (697). Here faith = what particular thing ‘is permitted by one’s faith [in Christ]…to do…’ (697). 414   See above, note 406. 415   So, Phil 3:8. Cf. O’Brien (note 351), 391; P. D. Gardner, The Gifts of God and the Authentication of a Christian, Lanham MD 1994, 98f. 416   So, Godet, II, 39. See above on 8:11.

364

1 CORINTHIANS

beginning of his apostolate to its end. It is a discipline pursued for two reasons, (1) for the sake of the gospel () and (2) that ‘I might be a co-participant ()417 of it.418 The pericope 9:24-27 elaborates this thought in terms of Christian discipline.419 24-27. Among four pan-Hellenic festivals and second only to the Olympic Games at the western end of the Peloponnesus were the biennial Isthmian Games, c. 10 miles east of Corinth. They were dedicated primarily to the pagan god of the sea, Poseidon. Abandoned after the Roman destruction of Corinth in 146 BC, they were resumed c. AD 50–60.420 If they were conducted during Paul’s founding mission to Corinth (AD 51–52), they may well be in the Apostle’s mind421 in the athletic analogy that he draws between his ministry and the athletes’ races (  , 9:24), boxing (, 9:26) and strenuous training (, 9:27). ‘Everyone who strives exercises self-control in all things (    , 9:25) to win the wreath’ (, 9:25). Paul the tent maker (Acts 18:3) may have been at the Games since they attracted thousands of contestants and spectators, many

417   Four times in the NT: Rom 11:17; Phil 1:7; Rev 1:9. See above on 1:9, notes 97-104. But see Conzelmann, 159n = GT: 188n. 418   I.e. of the gospel, probably in several respects: (1) of its salvatory nature (cf. Thiselton, 707), (2) of its implementation (Collins, 356; Wolff, 205; but see Kümmel, 180), and (3) of its blessings that accrue to the faithful (Fee, 432; F. Hauck, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 [1965/1938], 804n), with an allusion to 9:27 and to 3:13 (q.v.). 419   Otherwise: Weiss, 246, who attaches 9:24-27 to 10:1-23. Cf. Fee, 435n. 420   Cf. ‘Isthmia’, ‘Isthmian Games’, OCD3, 772. 421   Although athletic analogies were a commonplace in contemporary Christian, Jewish, and Graeco-Roman literature. Cf. II Tim 2:5; 4:8; Phil 3:13; II Clem 7:1ff.; Tertullian, Ad Martyrus 3:3 (ANF III, 694); Syb. Oracles 3:37f., 42-46; Test. Job 4:10; 27:3ff.; IV Macc 17:11-18 (OTP, I, 346, 841, 861; II, 592f.); Philo, de agric., 112f., 119ff.; idem, de spec. leg. II, 91; idem, de somn., II, 9; Seneca, Epistles 17:1; 78:16; Epictetus, Discourses 1, 24, 1f.; 3, 15, 2-5; 4, 4, 9-12, 30f.; Musonius Rufus 7 (cf. C. E. Lutz, Musonius Rufus: ‘The Roman Socrates’, New Haven CT 1947, 57f.). Further, cf. Gale (note 235), 108-116; D. F. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, Leiden 1967, 23-129 (85-98); J. Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, Collegeville MN 22002, 105f.



V

365

of whom camped out in tents. Also, in the Apostle’s mission strategy, they would have been a prime site for evangelism to those ‘without the law’.422 The main point of Paul’s analogy, however, is to illustrate that, like the games, to win Christ’s prize () requires discipline in the Christian life, both for himself and for the self-indulgent Corinthians (8:7-13). 24-25.    = ‘do you not know’ (q.v. @ 3:16). Here it refers to the Corinthians’ general knowledge of athletic contests.      = ‘those who run in the stadium, etc.’ ‘To run’ ( ) in the Gospels means any rapid movement of an individual;423 in the Apostle’s letters it usually means the Christian life424 and proclamation.425 Only at 9:24-27 is the term used of an athletic contest in which only the winner receives the prize (). It is an analogy for Christ’s eschatological prize also at Phil 3:14. The ‘prize’ of Christ, unlike the perishable foliage wreath (), is an immortal wreath of victory.426 The analogy does not rest on all fours, however, since not just one but rather all Christians who persevere, i.e. Christ’s chosen ones,427 will win the victory of immortal life.428

  So, O. Broneer, ‘The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games’, BA 25 (1962), 2-31, 2ff., 31. Cf. Godet, II, 43. 423   Mt 27:48 par; Mk 5:6; Lk 15:20; 24:12; Jn 20:2, 4. 424   Gal 5:7; cf. Heb 12:1f.; negatively, of human exertion for salvation; cf. Rom 9:16. 425   Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16; II Thess 3:1. 426   Used figuratively, the Apostle’s present ‘wreath’ or ‘crown’ (Phil 4:1; I Thess 2:19) is his established congregations; at Christ’s parousia all Christians will receive a ‘crown’ of righteousness (II Tim 4:8), of life (Jas 1:3; Rev 2:10), and of glory (I Pet 5:4). The term is used literally of Jesus’ ‘crown of thorns’ at Mt 27:29 par; Jn 19:2, 5. Cf. W. Grundmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 7 (1971), 615-636 (620, 629-633); C. J. Hemer, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 405f. 427   See above on 1:27f.; 1:9, notes 89-95. Cf. Mt 10:22. 428   Q.v. @ 9:19, 22f. Cf. 15:51-57; Thiselton, 714: like the games, the Christian’s crown ‘is more likely to signify the crown of victory than that of royalty, although sometimes sharing in the reign of Christ is in view’. Cf. II Tim 2:12; Rev 5:9f.; 11:15ff.; 20:6; 22:5. See above on 4:8, notes 373-378. 422

366

1 CORINTHIANS

  = ‘the prize’, a technical term in sport, used metaphorically in other contexts.429 430  431  = ‘so then you also run that you might obtain it’. Cf. Rom 9:30; Eph 3:18; Phil 3:12f.  = ‘keeps himself in shape’.432 At Gal 5:23 the cognate  (KJV: ‘temperance’; NKJV, RSV: ‘self-control’) is one aspect of the fruit of the Spirit;433 at Tit 1:8  (RSV, NKJV: ‘self-controlled’) is a requirement for the role of ‘bishop’ = ‘elder’.434 The term does not refer to an ascetic lifestyle but to a life disciplined to achieve stated goals; for the Apostle the goal is to fulfill (1) his ministry to win others to Christ (9:19-23) and (2) his apostolic commission generally.435 26. 436      = ‘I therefore so run (q.v. @ 9:24-25) not as uncertainly ();437 I box () not as beating the air’. See above on 9:24-27.  = ‘rather’. Q.v. @ 7:19, note 567. 27.      = ‘I discipline my body’. , found twice in the NT (Lk 18:5), means ‘to give a black eye’, but the analogy with athletics is not used in a literal sense. According to K. Weiss, ‘The expression is thus a figurative one. Paul forcefully 429   See BDAG, 183; A. Ringwald, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 648f.; E. Stauffer, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 638f. 430   Q.v. @ 4:1f. 431   Q.v. @1:10, note 78. 432   Using the athletic idiom and the middle voice of this third person singular deponent verb. It occurs in the LXX with the spelling  (Gen 43:31; I Kgdm 13:12; Sir 18:30; Wis 8:21; IV Macc 5:34) for ‫אפק‬. Cf. E. A. Martens, ‘‫’אפק‬, NIDOTTE 1 (1997), 483: in the hithpael stem, ‘pull oneself together’, ‘gain self-control’; W. Grundmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 339-342; for the cognates see Acts 24:25; Gal 5:23; Tit 1:8; II Pet 1:6. 433   Which these Corinthians lack. See above on 2:6, notes 407f.; 3:1. 434   See above on 4:1f., note 778. 435   See above on 3:10, note 629; on 9:12. 436   Q.v. @ 4:1f. 437   I.e. without a fixed goal. A NT hapax. Cf. Ringwald (note 429), 648: ‘not hesitantly’.



V

367

subjects his resisting body to his apostolic ministry’.438 But Weiss’ and others’ understanding of  as the physical body is equally inappropriate.439  is here the self in its relationship to others,440 expressed by the Apostle in foregoing his apostolic rights (9:12, 15-18) and in adapting his lifestyle to that of those he seeks to evangelize (9:19-23). , a NT hapax, is equivalent to  (9:19, q.v.). On  see above on 1:23, note 252.  441…   442 = ‘lest I myself should be disqualified’. ‘Disqualified’ (1) for salvation or (2) for Christ’s ‘well done’ at his parousia? The former is the meaning of  elsewhere in the NT,443 and it fits the present context where Christ’s ‘prize’ (q.v. @ 9:24f.) is the immortal ‘wreath’ or the ‘crown’ (, 9:25, note 426). But in its positive form  sometimes means God’s testing and approval, i.e. his vetting, of the Christian’s life and work in the present age.444 The latter meaning is to be preferred here, perhaps as an allusion to 3:13 (q.v.), because it is in keeping with Paul’s theology that Christ’s chosen ones will persevere to everlasting life.445 Even if considerable dross and failure characterize much of the present Christian life, they will be cleansed away by the Holy Spirit at Christ’s parousia.446   K. Weiss, ‘’, TDNT 8 (1976), 590f. Cf. BDAG, 1043.   Pace BDAG, 259 (); Garland, 443; Hering, 83; R & P, 97; Godet, II, 47. 440   Q.v. @ 7:34; cf. Rom 12:1; Phil 1:20. Rightly here, Thiselton, 716; Schrage, II, 370; Fee, 439: ‘His point…is the need for self-restraint, not asceticism’. Cf. Seneca, Epistles 88, 19. 441   Q.v. @ 8:9. 442   First person singular aorist subjunctive. 443   Rom 1:28; II Cor 13:5ff.; II Tim 3:8; Tit 1:16; Heb 6:8. 444   Rom 16:10; II Tim 2:15; cf. Jas 1:12. But see 11:19. 445   E.g. Rom 8:33-39; Eph 1:4-14; Phil 1:6; Col 3:12. See above on 1:27f. (); 1:30, notes 319, 321; 8:13, notes 136-140, 152f.; below on 11:19, note 125. Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 4; Thiselton, 717; Kistemaker, 315f. Otherwise: Schrage, 371n; Barrett, 218. Cf. Hammond, 573: ‘[] signifies to miscarry and lose the reward that he is contending for’. ‘…[T]he Apostle…denies himself many things, which he might enjoy, as combatants are wont to doe, [and] puts himself to many hardships also…(…directing [others] to that course…by which Christ our captain attained…before us) [that] he may not himself miscarry, or be found unworthy to receive it’. 446   See above on 3:13. 438 439

368

1 CORINTHIANS

C. The Exodus Experiences as a Type for the Church (10:1–11:1) Moreover, I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea. 2And all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3And all ate the same spiritual food. 4And all drank the same spiritual drink; for in fact they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. 5But he was not pleased with many of them, for their bodies were scattered in the desert. 6 Now these things happened as types for us so that we not be desirers of evil things, as even those persons desired. 7And that you not become idolaters as some of them, as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play’. 8And we should not fornicate as some of them fornicated, and 23,000 fell down dead on one day. 9And we should not provoke Christ as some of them provoked him and were destroyed by serpents. 10 And do not grumble just as also some of them grumbled and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11Now these things happened to those persons as types and were written down for our admonition unto whom the ends of the ages have come. 12Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall. 13No temptation has laid hold of you except what is common to man. And God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able to bear but will, with the temptation, also provide the outcome so that you may be able to endure it. 14 For this reason, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry. 15I say this as to wise men; do consider what I am saying. 16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we the many are one body because all partake from the one loaf. 18Consider Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar of burnt sacrifices? 19What then do I mean? That food offered to an idol is anything? Or that an idol is anything? 20But rather I mean that what things they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. And I do not want you to become participants in demons. 21You are not able to drink both the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you are not able to partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22Or are we going to provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than he, are we? 1



V

369

‘All things are lawful’, but not all things are profitable; ‘all things are lawful’, but not all things build up. 24Let no one seek his own but rather the other one’s well-being. 25Eat everything being sold in the food market, asking nothing on account of conscience. 26For ‘the earth is the Lord’s and all its fullness’. 27If one of the unbelievers invites you and you wish to go, eat everything that is served, asking nothing on account of conscience. (28But if someone should say to you, ‘This is a temple sacrifice’, do not eat for the sake of that one who informed you and for conscience’s sake. 29I mean not your conscience but rather that of the other.) For why should my liberty be judged by another’s conscience? 30If I partake with thanks, why should I be slandered over that for which I give thanks? 31Therefore, whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all things for the glory of God. 32 Be without offense both to Jews and Greeks and to the church of God, 33just as I also please everyone in all things, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many in order that they might be saved. 1Be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ. 23

Textual Notes 2.  = ‘were baptized’. So, NA27, following mss ‫ א‬A C D F G  33 latt. Mss p46c B M have the middle voice (‘had themselves baptized’), which Zuntz (234) and Metzger (493) regard as original. 5.   = ‘God’. So, NA27. According to Zuntz (232) these words are not in Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, and a few miniscule mss. They are regarded by him, probably correctly, as not original. If so, the expression ‘he was not pleased’ refers back to Christ at 10:4; cf. also at 10:9. 8.  = ‘three’. I.e. 23,000. Some miniscule and Latin Vulgate mss and syh change the reading to  (‘four’) to harmonize with the 24,000 of the LXX (Num 25:9). Paul’s teaching does not concern the precise number. 9.  = ‘Christ’. So, NA26,27, following mss p46 D F G  M latt sy co. So also, Zuntz (126f., 232f.). NA24,25 have  (‘Lord’), following mss ‫ א‬B C P 33 syh mg. Mss A 81 have  (‘God’).

370

1 CORINTHIANS

 = ‘were destroyed’, in mss (p46) ‫( א‬A) B 81, with the imperfect underscoring the process. Mss C D F G  M change this to the aorist , perhaps to lay stress on the act as such. 11.   = ‘now these things’. So, mss A D 33 1739 sa. Significant mss have  (‘all’) before (‫ א‬D F G 81) or after (C  M lat sy bo)  , apparently ‘inserted to heighten the narrative’ (Metzger, 494). Cf. Zuntz, 166n.  = ‘as types’. A NT hapax. This is the force of this adverb of manner; cf. Robertson, 399; BDF, 55. On its relation to  (10:6) cf. BDF, 74 §133 (3). Mss (A) D F G () M syh have , with no difference in meaning (cf. Godet, II, 65f.). Zuntz (233f.), mistakenly I think, regards all as secondary. 19.      = ‘or that an idol is anything’. Omitted in mss p46 ‫ *א‬A C*  33 1739 because the copyist’s eye flicked from the preceding   (homoioteleuton). Cf. Metzger1, 560; Zuntz, 140, 229. 20.  = ‘they sacrifice’, in mss B D F G. So, NA27; Zuntz, 102. Strongly attested is    (‘the Gentiles sacrifice’): p46vid ‫ א‬A C D  33 1739; so, NKJV. But it is regarded, mistakenly I think, as an ancient gloss by Zuntz, (102) and Metzger (449). Lietzmann (49) and Zuntz (102) also regard    (‘and not to God’) as not original. 23.  = ‘for me’ (bis), in mss ‫א‬2 C3 H (P)  M vgcl sy. Although lacking in p46 ‫ *א‬A B C* D F G (33) 1739(c) lat co, it is rightly regarded as original by NA27 and Metzger (494f.). 28.      = ‘the one who informed you and for conscience’ is omitted in p46 owing to homoioteleuton (q.v. @ 10:19, textual note). Cf. Zuntz, 19. Structure Chapter 10:1–11:1, loosely connected to 9:1-27 by the conjunction  (10:1), is composed (1) of a (reworked) proem midrash, i.e. OT commentary (10:1-13), on selected Exodus passages relating



V

371

Israel’s redemption from Egypt and its subsequent idolatries and divine condemnation and (2) of the application (10:14–11:1) of this midrash to the idolatrous tendencies of some ‘self’ confident, egocentric, and ‘knowledgeable’ Corinthians. Commentary Summary Like 9:1-27, 10:1–11:1 is a self-contained piece that continues the Apostle’s warnings against idolatry with a reminder from Israel’s history. ‘Our fathers’ were also redeemed by God’s protective power from slavery in Egypt (10:1). They underwent a baptism ‘into Moses’ and were given spiritual food and drink (10:2-4), i.e. manna and the water from the rock-spring. But Christ, who was spiritually present among them (10:4), was not pleased with their disobedience, and they suffered death in the desert (10:1-5). Israel’s Exodus experiences are ‘types’ (10:6, 11) for us, teaching that we should avoid at all costs committing idolatry and fornication and grumbling against God as our fathers did. For the same Christ, who was present as Redeemer and Destroyer in the Exodus (10:4, 11), is also present in these roles in the church (cf. 11:27, 29ff.). As the Exodus generation had a spiritual food and drink, so does the church in the Lord’s Supper. The former foreshadowed the latter. ‘The cup of blessing that we bless’ and ‘the bread that we break’ visibly signify and are symbols of our corporate participation via the Holy Spirit in the shed blood and crucified body of Christ (10:16). The ‘one loaf’ in the Lord’s Supper signifies also our corporate participation in one another just as, in typological analogy, the priests who eat the sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple are participants in the process of burnt sacrifices (10:17f.). The Lord’s table and the table of food sacrificed to idols are mutually exclusive, for the latter is food sacrificed to demons. Christians who participate in demonic activities provoke the Lord to jealousy and, like the Israelites in the Exodus, bring destruction upon themselves (10:19-22). Thus, the question is not what is ‘lawful’ for oneself but ‘what builds up’ one’s fellow Christians (10:23f.; cf. 8:8-13). One may eat anything sold in the meat market or anything served at dinner with a pagan friend. (Of course, if a scrupulous fellow Christian is present and identifies the food as sacrificed to an idol, then for

372

1 CORINTHIANS

conscience’s sake, his not yours, do not eat it.) One should not be judged by another’s conscience, and one may in conscience eat anything, giving thanks to God (10:25-30). The principle is to do all things to the glory of God, to be without offense toward others and, even as Paul does, to seek their benefit and not one’s own, and thus to be imitators of Christ (10:31–11:1). Exegesis 1-31. This passage is an OT commentary (10:1-13), i.e. a proem midrash,447 probably composed and used earlier by the Apostle or, perhaps more likely, by a fellow apostle or other pneumatic (q.v. @ 2:13, note 518; 2:15),448 that is here reworked and elaborated (10:14-31) by Paul to fit his teaching to the Corinthians against idolatry (8:1–11:1). It opens with a ‘text’, i.e. an interpretive blending of a number of OT texts (10:1-5),449 followed by exposition (10:6-7a), a supplementary OT text (10:7b; Exod 32:6 LXX), OT allusions,450 and exposition/application (10:8-13). The midrash

447   As found in later, more stylized rabbinic midrashim (Braude). Such midrashim are compact summaries of OT commentary or of synagogue sermons composed of (1) a lectionary text for the day, (2) a second ‘opening’ (= proem) text, (3) expounded with additional OT text(s), (4) a final OT text. All or some parts are linked by catchwords. See below ‘Traditions in I Corinthians’, AE II, ### [96f.]. Cf. W. G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 vols., New Haven CT 1968, I, 4; Ellis, Prophecy, 154-158 (156n, 215n); idem, Old Testament, 67, 96-101 (99n); idem, Making, 31f., 79ff.; idem, History, 130, 148. See above on 1:10–4:21, notes 25f.; on 1:18–2:5, notes 164f.; on 2:6-16, note 398. 448   Note the cluster of eleven Pauline and three NT hapaxes in 10:1-13. Cf. Ellis, Making, 79ff.; Conzelmann 165 = GT: 194; W. A. Meeks, ‘ “And Rose Up to Play”: Midrash and Parenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22’, JSNT 16 (1982), 64-78 (65) = idem, In Search of the Early Christians, New Haven CT 2002, 139-152 (140); C. Perrot, ‘Les exemples du désert (1 Co. 10.6-11)’, NTS 29 (1983), 437-452. 449   I.e. an implicit midrash that serves as an ‘opening text’ for the commentary at 10:1-31. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 215n, 226; idem, Old Testament, 92-99, 100; idem, Making, 60f. It combines interpretive renderings of certain Pentateuchal texts (e.g. Exod 13:21; 14:22; 16:4, 35; 17:6; Num 14:16; 20:7-11; Dt 8:2f.) with their interpretations in the Psalms (e.g. 78:15f., 18, 24f., 30f.; 105:39; 106:14, 25). 450   10:8ff. = Num 25:1, 9 (Exod 32:28); 21:5f.; Exod 16:2f.; Num 14:2. Cf. B. J. Koet, ‘The Old Testament Background to 1 Cor 10,7-8’, The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer, Leuven 1996, 607-615.



V

373

is given an extended application (10:14-30) with a concluding allusion to the opening ‘text’ (10:31).451 1.       = ‘I do not want you to be unaware, brothers’ (q.v. @ 1:1, note 47), an occasional introduction to the Apostle’s comment on his life and ministry452 and, as here, his teaching on biblical and prophetic revelation.453 On the  recitative, i.e. introducing direct discourse, cf. BDF, 205 §397(5). Further, see above on 1:5.    = ‘our fathers’, lit ‘the fathers of us’, also includes Gentile Christians at Corinth, who are in effect ‘adopted Jews’, since Paul regards them as having been incorporated into Messiah Jesus, i.e. ‘into Christ’,454 and thus into the true Israel.455 ‘Fathers’ denotes the ancestral family and is inclusive of wives and daughters456 who, in the patriarchal biblical world of Paul, are incorporated within it under the headship of the father or the husband.457 451   I.e. ‘eat’, ‘drink’ (10:2ff., 31). Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 99n; Meeks, Search (note 448), 147f. Further, cf. J. W. Bowker, ‘Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form’, NTS 14 (1967–68), 96-111. 452   Rom 1:13; II Cor 1:8. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.354. 453   12:1; Rom 11:25; I Thess 4:13. Cf. Ellis, Making, 80, note 125. 454   Q.v. @ 1:30; cf. 12:13; II Cor 1:21; Col 2:5. 455   See below on 10:18. Cf. Rom 2:28f.; 9:6; 11:7, 17f., 23-26; Gal 3:27ff.; 6:16; Eph 2:15-22; Phil 3:3; Lk 13:16; 19:9; 24:21; Jn 8:39ff.; 9:38-41; Acts 3:22f.; I Clem 4:8: ‘our father Jacob’; Edwards, 243; Fee, 444; Conzelmann, 165 = GT: 194; Collins, 368; Hays, 160; Garland, 448 (otherwise: Ellicott, 184). See Goppelt, ‘The Israel of God’, TYPOS (note 262), 140-152 = GT: 169-183. Ellis, ‘The True Israel’, Paul’s Use, 136-139 and the literature cited; idem, Prophecy, 170f.; idem, Luke, 277. The Qumran Essenes viewed themselves similarly as the faithful remnant of Israel. Cf. 1QM 1:2 where Jewish ‘offenders’ are included among the pagan enemies; 1QpHab 2:1-10. Pace W. Gutbrot, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 369-391, 384-388; H. Strathmann, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 56; H. Bietenhard, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 800, the designations ‘Israel’ and ‘people of God’ are not ‘transferred’ from national Israel to the Christian church. In Paul’s view they always referred to Israel’s faithful remnant, which the church now constitutes, as Rom 9:24-27 (= Hos 2:25; Isa 10:22f.) shows. 456   Similar to the term ‘brothers’. Q.v. @ 1:10, note 57. 457   See below on 11:3-16. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Gifts and the Body of Christ’, ‘Equality and Subordination’, Theology, 40-44, 57-62; H. von Soden, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 144ff.

374

1 CORINTHIANS

      = ‘were all under the cloud and all passed through ()458 the sea’. The divine ‘cloud’ in the Exodus sometimes goes before the Israelites (e.g. Exod 13:21f.) and sometimes rests upon them (e.g. Exod 40:34; Num 9:15ff.; Ps 105:39). The Apostle refers to the latter and to passing ‘through’ the sea (Exod 14:29; Ps 66:6, ) because of the analogy with Christian baptism (cf. 10:2). …   .  This begins a series of five coordinate  (‘all’) clauses joined by  (‘and’, 10:1, 2, 4), probably reflecting the parataxis of Hebrew syntax (‫‘ = ו־‬and’), and referring to all whom God delivered from Egypt. It is followed by a parallel series of five negative clauses, referring to ‘some of them’ ( , 10:7, 8, 9, 10; cf. 10:6) who rebelled against God and were punished. The whole is applied by Paul to the Corinthians (10:11ff.).459 2.     = ‘they were baptized into Moses’ (q.v. @ 9:9). The conception appears to be without Jewish antecedents and may be a Pauline coinage. If, as is probable, the passive ‘were baptized’ is original,460 it may still have the force of the middle voice (Robertson, 334), i.e. ‘baptized themselves’, and thus accord with the traditional Jewish practice of self-baptism for proselytes and for ritual immersions.461 More likely, in accord with the practice of messianic Judaism, i.e. John the Baptist, Jesus and his disciples,462 and the Apostle’s understanding of Moses as a type of Christ,463 Moses is probably understood both as the implicit 458   Third person plural aorist from . The term occurs five times in Paul: 16:5 (bis); Rom 5:12; II Cor 1:16. 459   So, Meeks, Search (note 448), 140, and the literature cited. Cf. Moulton, ‘Semitisms in the New Testament’, II, 420-423; Weiss (note 34), 187. 460   See above, Textual Note on 10:2. 461   So, Thiselton, 722; Edwards, 244; but see Schrage, II, 390n; D. A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, Tübingen 1986, 212n. Cf. Billerbeck, I, 102-112; M Mikwaoth (‘Immersion Pools’). With his (and his whole family’s) immersion the proselyte identified himself with the Exodus generation, saying in effect, ‘This is what the LORD did to me when he brought me out of Egypt’. Further, see above on 1:14, notes 111-124. 462   I.e. of an agent doing the baptizing. Cf. Mt 3:6 par; 28:19; Lk 3:7 Q; Jn 4:1f. 463   I.e. with respect to his role in the old covenant (II Cor 3:7-18; Gal 4:2124; Mt 2:15; Jn 1:45; 3:14; 5:46 [Dt 18:15, 18f.]; 6:31f.; Acts 3:22ff.; Rev 15:3f.



V

375

agent in baptism and as the one ‘into’ whose corporate person464 the Exodus generation, and by implication all in the old covenant, were baptized.465 Baptism into Moses foreshadows and points to baptism ‘into’ Christ.466 3f.  467   468    = ‘and all ate the same spiritual food. And all drank ()469 the same spiritual drink ().’470 The constative aorists,471  and , look at the Israelites’ eating and drinking in the desert not as individual instances nor as a process but as a whole. ‘Spiritual’ refers not to the immaterial à la Plato472 but to what is divinely given, i.e. manna473 and water from the rock-spring,474 more significantly, to the divine presence behind the gift. Paul [Beale]). See above on 1:9, note 115. Cf. Goppelt, TYPOS (note 262), 144ff., 151f. = GT: 174ff., 182f.; J. Jeremias, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 589-863; H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran, New York 21995, 173-176, 187-198: ‘Thus the Teacher is in a way a new Moses—as was also the case with the prophet’ [Dt 18:18] (187); P. Volz, ‘Heil und Seligkeit’, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde, Hildesheim 21966, 359-368: ‘the time in the desert under Moses is already in the priestly code described as the ideal model, as the picture of the time of salvation. One finds the same conception in later Judaism’ (360); e.g. I En 1:3f.; II Macc 2:7f. For the rabbinic references see Billerbeck I, 85-88, on Mt 2:15; e.g. Mek Exod 20:18 (Lauterbach, II, 268-272). Cf. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids MI 1999, 785. 464   See below, ‘The Corporate Body’, AE VIII, ###-### [290-296]. 465   But see Acts 19:3: ‘into the baptism of John…’ 466   Cf. ‘Were you baptized into () the name of Paul (1:14)?’ ‘We were baptized into one body’ (12:13); ‘…into Christ Jesus’ (Rom 6:3); ‘As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ’ (Gal 3:27); ‘Having already been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 8:16); ‘…into the Lord’ (Acts 18:8 D); ‘They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 19:5). But see above on 1:14ff., notes 115-127. 467   Q.v. @ 10:1. 468   Q.v. @ 2:13. 469   Third person plural aorist active indicative from , found in Paul 15 times in this letter, 14 times in 9:4–11:29, and only once elsewhere (Rom 14:21). 470   The term occurs twice in the NT: Heb 9:10. It is doubtless secondary at 12:13: ‘We were made to drink one drink (  ), i.e. the Holy Spirit, quoted by Clem Al., The Instructor 1, 6 (ANF, II, 217). 471   Cf. Robertson, 831-834. 472   See above on 2:10, note 474. 473   Exod 16:14f., 31-35; Num 6:7ff.; Dt 8:3, 16; Josh 5:12. 474   Exod 17:6; Num 20:8-11; Dt 8:15; Pss 78:16, 20; 105:41; Isa 48:21; Neh 9:15; cf. Ps 114:8.

376

1 CORINTHIANS

views these old covenant gifts in the Exodus typologically (cf. 10:6, 11), i.e. as prefiguring the new covenant gifts of the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper475 and to the divine presence of Christ behind them (10:16f.). The phrases, all had the same spiritual food (10:3) and drink (10:4), refer to all the Israelites, i.e. both the obedient and the disobedient (10:5-10)476 and is in certain respects ‘the same’ as Christian baptism and the Lord’s Supper.477  478     = ‘for in fact they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them’. The imperfect  (‘were drinking’) points to the process of continually receiving God’s gift of water, which by inference continued throughout their desert wandering although it is mentioned only at the beginning and at the end of the desert journeying (Exod 17:5f.; Num 20:7-11). The reference to ‘the following rock’ (‫צור‬, ‫)סלע‬ probably reflects the Apostle’s knowledge of a Jewish legend that the water from the rock (and later the rock itself) followed them as a stream throughout their itinerary.479 But Paul identifies the miracle not with the gift but the giver, the pre-existent Christ.       = ‘and the rock was Christ’. Paul differs from Philo,480 who identifies ‘the flinty rock’ allegorically with the wisdom of God, and from Qumran, which identifies the well from 475   Which in Paul’s churches were celebrated, like the Jewish Passover feast, in the framework of a nourishing meal (11:20ff.). Cf. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, New York 41977 (1966), 85f. See above on 5:7, notes 141ff. Didache 10:3 (‘spiritual food and drink’) has similar phraseology but, like Paul here and Ignatius’ (ad Eph. 20:2; cf. Ellis, Christ, 181n) ‘medicine of immortality’, refers not to the elements of the Lord’s Supper but to the corporate union with Christ to which the elements point. 476   Rightly, Schrage, 392; Fee, 446. Cf. Jn 6:55. 477   So, Edwards, 245; Calvin, 203. See above on 8:11. 478   Taking the  as explanatory (q.v. @ 1:21, 26) rather than causal. See above on 9:10, note 270. 479   On the legend, see below, ‘A Note on I Cor 10:4’, AE X, ###-### [322-329] = Ellis, Paul’s Use, 66-70 = idem, Prophecy, 209-212 = idem, JBL 76 (1957), 53-56. Cf. P. E. Enns, ‘ “The Movable Well” in 1 Cor 10:4’, BBR 6 (1996), 23-38. 480   Philo, leg. alleg. 2, 86; cf. idem, quod. det. pot. 115. Schrage (II, 394f.) sees the similarities with Philo as evidence of the influence of hellenistic Judaism on Paul, but the same similarities are present at Qumran (see below, note 481).



V

377

the rock with the law.481 He roots the identification typologically in Israel’s history and qualifies it with the adjective ‘spiritual’, thereby distinguishing Christ, i.e. as a divine presence in giving water from the rock-spring, from the physical rock itself. The imperfect tense statement, ‘the rock was Christ’, places Christ at the Exodus, i.e. in his preincarnate existence.482 It is the key to the Apostle’s exposition483 because he wants to show that the Christ who was present to bless and to punish the Israelites is also present to do likewise in the church at Corinth.484 In the OT ‘the rock’ of Israel is God,485 i.e. Yahweh, but in accord with his practice elsewhere486 the Apostle probably understands these OT Yahweh texts (cf. Exod 17:5f.; Num 20:7f.) to refer to Christ.  487    488     5. ’  489    For Paul, as the divine ‘good pleasure’ evokes God’s effective action of salvation,490 so here the negative ‘he was not pleased’ evokes his destructive judgment. The phrase ‘with many of them’ is not an understatement that refers   CD 6:4: ‘The well [of Num 21:17f.] is the law’.   So, e.g. Conzelmann, 167 = GT: 196: ‘The “was” of the typological statement…means real pre-existence not merely symbolic significance’; Schrage, II, 405. See below, ‘The Pre-existent Christ’, AE XI ###-### [331-335]. 483   Pace Horsley, 137, who takes it as ‘a parenthetical comment and not a major doctrinal statement’. 484   See below on 10:5, 9f. Cf. O. Cullmann, ‘’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 95-99 (97): ‘The same Christ, acting in history, stands over both the old covenant and the new in His pre-existence and post-existence. The faithfulness of this Christ to His people both then and now is expressed by Paul in the  (10:4)’. 485   II Sam 22:2; Pss 18:2; 31:3; 42:9; 71:3 (‫ )סלע‬Dt 32:4, 15, 18, 30f.; II Sam 22:3. 486   Cf. Capes (note 77). 487   Strongly adversative: q.v. @ 7:19, note 567. 488   The comparative of  meaning ‘many’ (KJV) or ‘most’ (NKJV). Cf. BDAG, 824, 847-850; MM, 517. 489   An explanatory  (q.v. @ note 477) introducing the effect of the divine displeasure. 490   See above on 1:21; cf. Gal 1:15; Col 1:19. Similarly, re  (‘good pleasure’; Eph 1:5, 9; Phil 2:13; II Thess 1:11). Cf. BDAG, 404f.; G. Schrenk, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 738-751 (741f., 746f.); H. Bietenhard, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 818ff. 481 482

378

1 CORINTHIANS

to all of the Exodus generation who died and were buried during the desert wandering,491 i.e. all but Caleb and Joshua.492 Rather, as 10:5b explains, it refers to the idolaters and the rebellious persons who were destroyed by the divine Destroyer (10:10) and many left unburied:493 ‘their bodies were scattered ()494 in the desert’. It is specified further at 10:7b-10 (Exod 16:2f.; 32:6; Num 14:2f.; 21:5f.; 25:1, 9). Despite the overwhelming ms support of the reading   (cf. Tischendorf, II, 513), Zuntz (232) is probably right in taking the words to be not original. The references to Christ at 10:4 and 10:9, which go together, are (1) part of the Apostle’s continuing exposition of the preexistent Christ’s role in the Exodus both as protecting deliverer (10:1-4) and as the judicial Destroyer of the persistently rebellious (10:5-10) and (2) the basis of the Exodus typology for the analogous role of Christ in the church at Corinth (10:16, 22; cf. 11:27ff.);495 a reference to God at 10:5 would disrupt the coherence of Paul’s exposition. Consequently, 10:5 reads, ‘But he [Christ] was not pleased with many of them…’ 6-10. Paul here expounds typologically a pastiche of OT texts at 10:1-5496 with reference to the church: ‘Now these things happened as types for us’ (  497  498) so that we not be (   )499 evil desirers’ (10:6). ‘Evil desirers’ 491   Pace Chrysostom on 10:5 (NPNF1 XII, 134) and many modern commentators. 492   Num 14:30; 26:64f. 493   E.g. Exod 32:26ff.; Num 16:35; 25:4-9. 494   Third person plural perfect passive from , a NT hapax. Also, ‘were strewn’. Cf. BDAG, 528: ‘the primary meaning “to spread out” something’. Cf. LSJ, 915. Cf. Num 14:16 LXX (MT: ‫‘ = שחט‬kill’); Jer 8:2 LXX (MT: ‫ ;שטח‬Tg ‫‘ = שטח‬strew’, ‘spread out’); Jdt 7:14. 495   Cf. Goppelt (note 262), 176 = GT: 213: ‘for Hebrews as for Paul, all typology is formed with reference to Christ’. 496   I.e. an implicit midrash; see above, note 449. 497   See below on 10:6; with the objective genitive, ‘for us’ ; cf. Robertson, 500). Paul includes not only himself but also implicitly the whole church, i.e. eschatological Israel. 498   Cf. BDAG, 196f. §4. 499   The infinitive is used with the preposition  to form a result clause (cf. Robertson, 1090; Burton, 161f.; BDF, 197f.), perhaps reflecting Semitic influence (cf. Zerwick, 132).



V

379

()500 is the headline that is specified (10:7-10) in terms of certain sins present among the Corinthians: idolatry (10:7), fornication (10:8; cf. 5:1ff.), and subtle ‘grumbling’ against Paul and about their rights.501 On the rhetorical pattern cf. Weiss (note 34), 187. 6.  = ‘types’. The term in the NT may mean imprint,502 image,503 form,504 example or pattern,505 or prefigurement.506 It is taken by some to mean here only that the Exodus generation were ‘examples’ or ‘warnings’ or ‘models’ for the church.507 But this view is at best inadequate and at worst misleading. As Goppelt and others have argued,508  here, as at Rom 5:12, points to these OT events as foreshadowings of what was to occur in the new covenant at ‘the ends of the ages’ (10:11), i.e. in the NT church.509 In the OT there are at least two kinds of prophecy, predictive510 and typological. In typological prophecy511 certain OT persons, institutions, and   A NT hapax, used with allusion to Num 11:34 LXX.   E.g. to ‘judge’ the Apostle’s teaching and admonitions (q.v. @ 9:1-3; cf. Exod 16:2f.; Num 14:2, 36); to assert their right to eat idol food at their pleasure (q.v. @ 8:12). Cf. G. V. Smith, ‘‫’לון‬, NIDOTTE 2 (1997), 780ff.; K. H. Rengstorf, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 728-735: in the Exodus it reflects ‘such an attitude [in which] God…is robbed…of His sovereignty in relation to the people. That is why…[it] is a tempting of God (Ex 17:2 etc.) or a scorning of God (‫נִ ֵאץ‬, Num 14:11) [and] why it is severely punished’ (730). See Schrage, II, 401f.  (‘grumble’) here (bis) is a Pauline hapax. 502   Jn 20:25. 503   Acts 7:43. 504   Rom 6:17. 505   Heb 8:5; I Pet 5:3. 506   10:6; Rom 5:14. Cf. BDAG, 1020 §6c. Cf. Rom 7:3, 7, 10f.; 8:1; 12:5f., 10; 13:5; Justin Martyr, Dial. 42:4; Ellis, ‘Typological Interpretation’, Old Testament, 139-157; idem, ‘Typology’, History, 115-118. 507   Following the usage of the term in Phil 3:17; I Thess 1:7; II Thess 3:9. 508   Goppelt (note 455); Schrage, II, 403-407 and the literature cited; Ellis, Prophecy, 168f. Cf. P. D. Gourdner, The Gifts of God…, Lanham MD 1994, 112-115. 509   See below, AE XI, ### [332]. Cf. Heb 10:1; BT Sanhedrin 99a: ‘all the prophets prophesied only with respect of the Messianic era’ (Socino, 670). 510   E.g. that the Messiah would come out of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 cited in Matt 2:6). 511   Cf. Ellis, History, 115-118; idem, ‘Typology’, Old Testament, 105-109; idem, Prophecy, 165-169; idem, Paul’s Use, 126-135. 500 501

380

1 CORINTHIANS

events (i.e. OT history itself) are the shadow () pointing to the NT realities,512 i.e. prefigurements that in the NT antitype include both correspondence and escalation. Such is the case at 10:6, 11. 7.  = ‘to play’. A NT hapax, citing Exod 32:6 LXX where, as at Gen 26:8, the term has sexual connotations, whence it also came into English literature.513 At Exod 32:6 it is orgiastic, idolatrous revelry before the golden Calf. With this OT quotation and the subsequent (10:8) reference to fornication Paul also associates idolatry at Corinth with sexual immorality, both of which are temptations to some Corinthian Christians (cf. 5:11ff.; 6:18; 8:9-12).514 8.   = 23,000. See above, Textual Note. On  see below on 10:11. 9.  = ‘were destroyed’. See above, Textual Note. If the strong force of this verb denotes ultimate destruction, i.e. ‘extinction’, ‘annihilation’,515 how can it be applied to those whom God has redeemed from Egypt and typologically to the redeemed Corinthians? As in the old covenant ‘not all these from Israel are of Israel’ (Rom 9:6), so also not all in the church are of the church. Therefore, the Corinthians should ‘examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith’ (II Cor 13:5). One may be in the organizational church but not in the organic church, i.e. in the body of Christ.516 As there are means of grace (e.g. Acts 20:21), so also there are signs of grace (e.g. Gal 5:22f.; Eph 2:10). There is no salvation by works, but good works are evidence of the salvation received by grace, through faith, without works, and in Christ (Rom 3:20-24). 512   So, Col 2:17: The ritual regulations ‘are a shadow () of the things to come ( ), but the body is of Christ’. ‘The shadow already points [chronologically] to a reality, namely, that of the body’ (S. Schultz, ‘ ’, TDNT 7 (1971), 398. Cf. Heb 10:1. 513   Cf. OED, 2203 §II6c; L. C. Allen, ‘‫’צחק‬, NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 797; G. Bertram, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 629f. 514   Cf. Num 25:1-9; Schrage, II, 399f. 515   Q.v. @ 8:11, note 134. Cf. 1:18f.; 15:18; Rom 2:12; 14:15; II Cor 2:15; 4:3, 9; II Thess 2:10. 516   See above on 8:11, notes 147-153.



V

381

It may be, however, that the typology is not fully correspondent and that the punishment envisioned for the disobedient Corinthians, like that of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) and perhaps of the incestuous man (q.v. @ 5:5), is re this age and not everlasting.517 10.   = ‘and do not grumble’. Q.v. @ 10:6-10, note 501.    = ‘by the Destroyer’. The noun is a biblical hapax. The cognate  (‘destruction’) is used by Paul (1) for Christ’s destruction of ‘the sons of darkness’518 at the ‘day of the Lord’,519 i.e. at Christ’s parousia, or (2) for his present handing over of one to destruction by Satan520 or (3) for the result of indulgent living (I Tim 6:9). In the LXX the participle   (‘the one who destroys’) is found at Exod 12:23 and Wis 18:25. In the former text he is Yahweh’s angelic agent (or his manifestation) of divine destruction against the Egyptians, a passage that is close to the Exodus context of 10:1-13.521 In the light of the christological references at 10:4f., 9, the Destroyer is Christ in his judicial role both at the Exodus and in the NT church.522 11.   = ‘now these things’. As this phrase at 10:6 concludes and brings into the eschatological present the Exodus events of 10:1-5, the same phrase here does so for three specific sins of the Exodus generation (10:7-10).

  So, Koet (note 450), 614f. See below on 11:29-32.   Cf. I Thess 5:3 (cf. 5:5, 9); II Thess 1:8ff. 519   Q.v. @ 1:7, note 56; @ 1:8, notes 68-71. 520   Q.v. @ 5:4f. 521   Cf. J. Schneider, ‘’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 169ff.; A. J. Bandstra, ‘Interpretation in 1 Cor 10:1-11’, CTJ 6 (1971), 5-21 (19). For the rabbinic discussions see Billerbeck III, 4412f.; for the deity conception see Johnson (note 45), 28-32; Ellis (note 69); Special Note, ###-### [561-567]. 522   See above, note 518; below, ‘ in 1 Cor 10:4, 9’, AE XI, ###-### [330-340, 339f.]. Cf. the Son of Man at Mt 25:41, 46; 13:41f.; Jn 5:27ff. Otherwise: Wolff, 220, citing II Sam 24:16; I Chron 21:15; but cf. II Sam 24:1 with I Chron 21:1. 517 518

382

1 CORINTHIANS

523 524  = ‘happened as types with reference to those persons’.525 By designating the Exodus events as ‘types’, Paul both affirms their prophetic character, i.e. that they point to their antitypes in the new covenant, and also the necessity of the subsequent clause.      = ‘and were written down for our admonition’. 10:11 summarizes the significant points of 10:6-10: both the events and their inclusion in Scripture were under the sovereign direction of God,526 and as such they show and explain the interrelatedness of this age and the age to come and of the old and new covenants.   = ‘our admonition’ or ‘instruction’. Cf. BDAG, 679. The term appears three times in the NT (Eph 6:4; Tit 3:10). The Apostle’s inclusion of himself here indicates that it goes beyond the usual meaning of ‘admonition’ to the general instruction527 of canonical Scripture, i.e. as an abiding revelation to all generations of God’s people.528 See above on 4:14.        = ‘unto whom the ends of the ages have come’, i.e. ‘have arrived’.529 In common with apocalyptic Judaism Paul understands the history of salvation530 in terms of ‘this age’ under sin and death and ‘the age to come’ = the kingdom of God.531 Following Jesus, and unlike the rest of Judaism, the Apostle regards ‘the age to come’ to arrive in two stages, (1) at   A biblical hapax. An adverb of manner; see above, Textual Note.   A Pauline hapax. The neuter plural  takes a singular verb; the imperfect tense underscores the continuing succession of events. 525   So, Godet, II, 66; cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 139-157; idem, ‘Typology’, History, 115-118. 526   Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 10ff., 53-57. 527   Cf. Trench, 112ff.; cf. J. Behm, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 1019-1022; F. Selter, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 568. 528   I Tim 3:16f.; II Pet 1:19ff. Cf. Ellis, ‘Truth’ (note 53), 265, 267f. 529    has the meaning ‘to reach a destination’, geographical in the nine occurrences in Acts 16:1–28:13; theological (cf. 14:36; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:11) and chronological at 10:11. 530   Cf. O. Cullmann, Salvation in History, London 1967, 17, 248-263. 531   See above on 1:20; 2:7 and the literature cited. 523 524



V

383

the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus in AD 28–33 and (2) at the future parousia of Jesus.532 The plurals, ‘the ends of the ages’, have posed a problem for a number of commentators.533 The plural, ‘the ages’ is fairly frequent in the Pauline letters and in Revelation534 and may reflect the conviction that God’s relationship with his creations is always in the temporal sphere, i.e. a succession of ages in which he created  may either result (1) from attraction to them. The plural,  , the plural ‘ages’ or, more likely (2) from viewing the consummation of the ages in a number of successive or contemporaneous events.535 12. 536       = ‘Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall’. The term ‘thinks’ or ‘supposes’ is an allusion to the Apostle’s earlier critique of the gifted but arrogant Corinthians who ‘suppose’ that they have ‘wisdom’ both re the gospel (3:18, q.v.) and re food offered to idols (8:2, q.v.). ‘To stand’ ()537 means especially in the face of God’s judgment.538 Does the contrast, ‘to stand’ or ‘to fall’,539 ‘represent’ (1) the state of grace or condemnation or (2) ‘the elect believers’ state of fidelity or sin’?540 Probably both possibilities are in view. With reference to the former Paul recognizes that in the organizational church are some members who are unregenerate.541 With reference to the latter Paul teaches that the elect, including himself   See above on 1:20, notes 209-213. Cf. Barrett, 227f.   Cf. the discussion and the literature cited in Schrage, II, 408. 534   2:7; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; II Cor 11:31; Gal 1:5; Eph 2:7; 3:9, 11, 21; Phil 4:20; Col 1:26; I Tim 1:17; II Tim 4:18; cf. Lk 1:33; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21; I Pet 4:11; 5:11; Jude 25; Rev 1:6, 18; 4:9f.; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5. 535   So, Garland, 465f.; Cf. Bruce, 93; L. Goppelt, ‘Paulus und die Heils­ geschichte’, NTS 13 (1966–67), 31-42, 40ff. 536   Q.v. @ 1:7, note 35. 537   The perfect infinitive of  used in indirect discourse. 538   So in the LXX translating the Hebrew ‫עמד‬. I.e., e.g. ‘to stand before Yahweh’: Dt 19:16f.; I Sam 6:19f.; Pss 76:7[8]; 130:3 = 129:3 LXX; before the judgment of Moses (Exod 18:13) or Solomon (I Kg 3:16). Cf. 1QH 12:21 = 4:21; H. Ringgren, ‘‫’ע ַמד‬, ָ TDOT 11 (2001), 179f. 539   I.e. , the third person aorist subjunctive of . 540   Cf. Godet, II, 68, who chooses the latter, citing Rom 14:4. 541   See above on 8:11, notes 147-153. 532 533

384

1 CORINTHIANS

(10:22), will receive Christ’s commendation or rebuke with respect to the conduct of their lives as Christians.542 The imperative  (‘take heed’)543 is a warning that calls for changes that are not merely external but that are Holy Spirit induced, as the following verse (10:13)544 spells out.545 13. 546   547  548     ,549  = ‘No temptation has laid hold of you except what is common to man. And God is faithful etc…’ The ‘temptation’ that is ‘common’, i.e. in anyone’s experience, presumably arises from the Corinthians’ own conduct (cf. Gal 6:1; I Tim 6:9) with no special relationship to Satan550 or to demonic temptations present in idolatrous worship (10:20). It is a caution that is followed by two assurances: (1) God not only sets the limits of temptation, i.e. will not allow (, a Pauline hapax) more than one is able to bear, but even more ()551 he secures the outcome ()552 so that one is victorious over ()553 the temptation.

  See above on 3:13. Cf. II Cor 5:10 (‘we’).   With this meaning cf. BDAG, 178f. (4ff.); in Paul, 3:10 (q.v.); 8:9 (q.v.). 544   Some scholars view 10:13 as an aside, not connecting well to 10:12; e.g. Fee, 460; Godet, II, 68f. 545   Similar at Qumran. Cf. 1QS 3:4-9 (Martínez): ‘He will not become clean by acts of atonement, nor…purified by all the water of ablution (4). For it is by…the holy spirit of the community…that he is cleansed…(6f.); his flesh is cleansed… and being made holy with the waters of repentance’ (9). See above on 1:14, note 115. Cf. Conzelmann 168 = GT: 199. 546   The term occurs three times in Paul’s letters, meaning ‘trial’ (Gal 4:14) or, as here, ‘temptation’ (I Tim 6:9). 547   Third person singular perfect active indicative from . 548   With the meaning ‘except’ the expression is probably of Semitic origin via the LXX. Cf. Beyer, 104f.; G. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, Winona Lake IN 1979 (31923, 206: ‘the wholly un-Greek  , which originates in a literal imitation of the Hebrew form’, citing F. Bleek). 549   See above on 1:9. 550   Cf. 7:5; II Cor 2:11; I Thess 3:5 ( ); (I Tim 5:15); H. Seesemann, ‘ ’, TDNT 6 (1968/1959), 28-32. 551   Q.v. @ 7:19, note 567; cf. Schrage, II, 410f. 552   The term may mean ‘the way out’ (so, Thiselton) or, better, the outcome or result. Cf. Weiss, 255. 553   Taking the infinitive to introduce a result clause. Cf. BDF, 197f.; Robertson, 1089ff. 542 543



V

385

14-22. In a change of illustration this section554 warns that the Corinthians’ participation in idolatrous meals is abrogative to their participation in the Lord’s Supper because the two are mutually exclusive: flee ()555 from idolatry (, 10:14).556 The reference to the Lord’s Supper557 as ‘the cup of blessing that we bless’558 and ‘the bread that we break’ ()559 places the emphasis not on the elements of the Lord’s Supper but on the action of the congregational members, each of whom in the action manifests a participation ()560 in Christ’s death, i.e. in his blood that was shed and his body that was given over to death561 as 554   Wolff, 224, following Weiss, 256, takes 10:14 as a transition, largely looking back to 10:6-13. I understand it as looking forward. 555   In this letter Paul uses this strong present imperative, implying a constant response to a continuing problem, only re idolatry and fornication (6:18, q.v.). Garland, 474, calls attention to parallels between 10:14, 16f., 23, 31 and 6:18, 15ff., 12, 20. 556   The term appears only here in this letter; elsewhere in vice lists (Gal 5:20; Col 3:5; cf. I Pet 4:3). See above on 8:1; 10:7. Cf. B. S. Rosner, Greed as Idolatry, Grand Rapids 2007. 557   At Corinth the Lord’s Supper represents a combination of two early Christian celebrations: (1) a joyful celebration of the risen Christ’s meals with them and (2) the Supper remembering his death and their union with him and with one another (10:17; q.v. @ 8:7-13; 8:12, note 160) ‘until he comes’ (11:23-26). 558   The phrase occurs only here in the New Testament. ‘ “The cup of blessing” ’ (‫ )כוס של ברכה‬is an established [Jewish] technical term for the cup of wine over which the grace after the meal was said’ (Jeremias [note 475], 87n); cf. Billerbeck IV, 628, 630f. On ‫ ָק ַלל‬cf. Jastrow, 1377. 559   First person plural present active indicative of . The term is used in the NT only for the breaking of bread at Jesus’ miracles (Mt 14:19 T + Q; 15:36 Q; Mk 8:19), at the Last Supper (Mt 26:26 parr) and at joyful meals after Jesus’ resurrection (Lk 24:30; Jn 21:12f.; Acts 2:46; cf. Rev 3:20). Cf. BDAG, 546; R. Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., London 1952, I, 57f.; but see G. Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, New York 2000, 168ff. = GT: 179-182; O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, London 1959 (21950), 14-18; Jeremias (note 475), 118-121 (Acts 2:42-46 = the Lord’s Supper); B. Reicke, Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos: in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier, Uppsala 1951, 11. Further, cf. E. Schweizer, ‘Abendmahl I’, RGG3, 10-22. See below on 11:23. 560   Q.v. @ 1:9, notes 96-106. Cf. Conzelmann, 199 = GT: 234f. Differently: N. Baumert, ‘    ’, in Bieringer (note 450), 617-622. 561   See below on 11:23-26. Here the order is ‘the cup’ and ‘the bread’ because Paul wishes to elaborate (10:17) on the latter. So, I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, Grand Rapids 1980, 119.

386

1 CORINTHIANS

a payment of the penalty incurred by man’s sin (10:16).562 It also underscores, with an allusion to Paul’s ‘body of Christ’ theology,563 the horizontal aspect of the Lord’s Supper, i.e. that the common drinking and eating creates and manifests the corporate unity of each and every elect believer as the body of Christ (10:17).564 In typological565 fashion it is seen in the temple practice of natural fleshly Israel (  , 10:18)566 in which the priests that eat the sacrifices are participants ()567 in the burnt sacrifice ().568 The paragraph concludes (10:19-22), harkening to and reinforcing the Apostle’s words at 8:2, 4, 7-13 (q.v.), with an explanation of his prohibition of and the utter incompatibility of Christians eating both idolatrous meals and the Lord’s Supper (10:21). It makes clear what is only implicit at 8:2, 4, 7-13: ‘What things the Gentiles569 sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons570 and not to God’ (10:20).571 This participation (, q.v. @ 10:16, note 560) in both demonic meals and the Supper (, 11:25)572 562   Cf. 15:3; II Cor 5:21a. See  (‘propitiation’) at Rom 3:25; cf. T. R. Schreiner, Romans, Grand Rapids 1998, 191-195 and the literature cited; L. Morris, ‘Propitiation’, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Grand Rapids 1956, 125-185; implicitly, ,  (‘to redeem’); q.v. @ 6:20, note 390; @ 7:22f.; cf. II Pet 2:1; Rev 5:9; Mk 10:45 (); Lk 1:68; 2:38; 24:21; Rom 3:24f.; Tit 2:14; I Pet 1:18f.; Heb 9:12; France (note 226), 420 and the literature cited; Morris, ‘Redemption’, 26-59; O. Betz, ‘Die Übersetzungen von Jes 53 (LXX, Targum) und die Theologia Crucis des Paulus’, Herr (note 346), 197-216 (198f., 208f.); idem, ‘Jesu Evangelium vom Gottesreich’, Jesus Der Messiahs Israels, Tübingen 1987, 232-254 (248-252); cf. Haacker (note 345), 89ff. and the literature cited; C. Brown, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 189-200. Otherwise: Fitzmyer (note 345), 349f.; Barrett (note 346), 77f. See above, Special Note at 9:17f., note 354. 563   See below, note ###; ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII: ‘The Corporate Body’, ###-### [290-296]; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, Philadelphia 4 1980, 55ff. 564   See above, note 563. 565   Cf. Ellis, ‘Typology’, Old Testament, 105-109, 141-157. 566   See above on 1:26, notes 290, 293. 567   See above on 1:9, notes 103-106. 568   See above on 9:13, note 292. 569   See above on 5:1, note 24; Textual Note on 10:20. 570   See above on 8:4, note 41; below at 10:20. 571   See above on 8:1, notes 16f.; on 8:10, note 128. 572   A substantival infinitive used as the object of the preposition  (Fanning, 398; Moulton, III, 8,78; Robertson, 1060); literally ‘after the supping’ (= Lk 22:20). Paul follows the Lukan (Jerusalem) form of the Last Supper



V

387

of the Lord provokes the Lord to jealousy ()573 and invites his devastating judgment.574 14.  = ‘For this reason’. Q.v. @ 8:13, note 161.   = ‘My beloved ones’. Q.v. @ 4:14, note 909. 15.  = ‘to wise men’, referring, as elsewhere in Paul, to their (assumed) natural intelligence or common sense575 and not to their spiritual discernment or knowledge. The accompanying verb  (‘to judge’, ‘to consider’) can have both connotations.576  = ‘I declare’; q.v. @ 6:16, note 368; 7:29 @ 10:19; 15:50. Stronger than , the verb is used to introduce direct discourse or a fuller explanation, i.e. ‘to mean’, ‘to affirm’, ‘to declare’.577 16. . See above, note 560. 20.  = ‘But rather’, ‘No, but’ (Hering, 96), ‘as if a negative had preceded: “But I assert that” ’.578 See above on 7:19, note 567. 21. 579  580 = ‘participants in demons’. Although using the synonym , the phrase is equivalent tradition. Cf. Schrage, III, 9f., 29 and the literature cited; Thiselton, 877f.; Ellis, Luke, 253. 573   The first person plural present indicative (1) points to a general principle for all Christians and (2) suggests an ongoing provocation that sooner or later, will bring Christ’s severe response. 574   See above on 10:5. Cf. Dt 32:15-38. 575   Whether or not it was true (cf. Lindemann, 223). Cf. 4:10 (ironic); Rom 11:25 NKJV; 12:16 NKJV; II Cor 11:19 (ironic); J. Goetzmann, ‘’, NIDNTT (21986), 620. So, here, e.g. Barrett, 230f.; Grosheide, 230; Findlay, 863; Edwards, 252. Otherwise: Kistemaker, 340. 576   Natural wisdom ([2:2]; 6:1, 6; 10:15, 29; 11:13; Col 2:16; Tit 3:12) or a Holy Spirit gift (5:3; II Cor 5:14). Cf. BDAG, 567ff. 577   Cf. BDAG, 1053; Fee, 471; Parry, 152; pace Garland, 479; Meyer, 234. 578   Parry, 152. 579   See above on 1:9, notes 96ff. 580   A local genitive, i.e. here and not there, ‘in demons’ and not in Christ. Cf. Lk 16:24 (); Acts 19:26 (); Robertson, 494f.; Moulton, I, 73f.; Zerwick, 14. Re a rabbinical reference to demons cf. BT Berakoth 51a (Socino, 308).

388

1 CORINTHIANS

to ‘participation’ () in the blood…body of Christ’ (10:16) and ‘…in his Son’ (1:9; q.v.). As in sexual intercourse, the two become corporately one.581 21.   = ‘you are not able’ because the one corporeity excludes the other. On the parallelism cf. Weiss (note 34), 184.  See above on 10:14-22. 22. . 10:23–11:1. In the final paragraph of 10:1–11:1 the Apostle sums up his argument throughout this division of the letter (8:1–11:1). He affirms in principle and in certain respects the dissident Corinthians’ slogan-like phrase, ‘All things are lawful’ ( , 10:23; cf. 6:12) but criticizes their misuse of it to justify fornication at 6:12 (q.v.) and an unhampered right582 to eat food offered to idols at 8:1, 11f.; 10:11, 19. As he did earlier, Paul qualifies such ‘rights’ to those things that are beneficial (; q.v. @ 6:12-13a) and that ‘build up’ ():583 ‘but ()584 all things are not beneficial’; ‘but all things do not build up’ (10:23). Regarding idol food he is particularly concerned for the weaker brother (8:10f., q.v.; pace Garland, 497) and critical of these Corinthian leaders’ self-centeredness (10:24). He reiterates the prerogative of eating anything sold in the market and food served in a pagan friend’s home whether or not it was originally an idol offering (10:25-30), again with the qualification of not injuring the conscience of the weaker brother (10:28-29a). The Apostle concludes his demonstration with the principle that ‘whatever you do, do all things for the glory of God’ (10:31) without wrongful offense () to anyone (10:32). In this respect he reminds them of his own apostolic practice as a life lived for the benefit of others (10:33):585 ‘be imitators of me as I am of Christ’ (11:1).   What is true of fornication at 6:15ff. (q.v.) is true here of idolatry.   See above, note 501; cf. Murphy-O’Connor (note 38) and the literature

581 582

cited.

  Q.v. @ 8:1, note 32. Cf. Eph 4:29 ().   Q.v. @ 7:19, note 567. 585   See above on 4:9-13; 9:19-22. 583 584



V

389

23.   = ‘all things are lawful’. The neuter plural takes a singular verb. Cf. Moulton, III, 312f. On the form cf. Weiss (note 34), 185. 24.  = ‘no one’, masculine singular. Also at 10:25, 27. See above on 1:7; 3:18, 21. ‘A negative reference to an entity, event, or condition’ (BDAG, 647). 25.  = ‘food market’. A NT hapax, dative of . The word ‘macellum’, found in a Latin inscription at Corinth, may be from Paul’s day and underscores the use of Latin in this Roman colony.586  = ‘being sold’, a present passive accusative singular participle from ; a Pauline hapax.  = ‘eat’, i.e. ‘make a practice of eating’ (R & P, 222), a second person plural present imperative from  (q.v. @ 8:7-13).  = ‘asking’, ‘inquiring’ (q.v. @ 2:14, note 528).  = ‘conscience’ (q.v. @ 8:7, note 107). 26. Paul supports his argument with a biblical quotation from the LXX = the MT of Ps 24(23):1, in Judaism a customary prayer before a meal.587 27.  = ‘invites’ (cf. BDAG, 503 §2). It refers to a dinner invitation to an unbeliever’s home or other non-idolatrous place, but pace Conzelmann, 177 = GT: 209, not at an idol temple. See above on 8:1, note 15; 8:10, note 128. Cf. Garland, 492f.; Wolff, 238.

586   Cf. J. Schneider, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 370ff.; H. J. Cadbury, ‘The Macellum of Corinth’, JBL 53 (1934), 134-141. A NT hapax. 587   Cf. T Berakoth 4:1 (Neusner, 19); BT Shabbath 119a (Socino, 586). See 8:6; I Tim 4:3f.; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 152. On the IF  cf. Robertson, 1190f.; BDF, 235f.

390

1 CORINTHIANS

28.  588   589 = ‘but if anyone should say’, probably referring to a weaker brother,590 who is the informant ( ).591 29.  = ‘but rather’. Q.v. @ 7:19, note 567.  = ‘freedom’, i.e. Christian liberty in all things not sinful nor hurtful to others nor against one’s conscience; only here in this letter. Cf. Gal 2:4; 5:1f., 13; I Pet 2:16; R. Hensel, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 715-723 (717f.). But see above on 7:22f.  = ‘be judged’. See above on 6:2f., note 206. 30.  = ‘partake’, within the qualifications stated at 10:29. See above on 10:23–11:1.  = ‘slandered’, apparently a common experience as the present participle indicates. See above on 4:12b-13. 31.  = ‘glory’. Q.v. @ 2:7, notes 442-449. 33.  = ‘I also’. See below on 11:1; above on 2:1. 11:1.  = ‘without offense’ (cf. Phil 1:10; Acts 24:16) in contrast with the offense () given to the weak Christian by the Corinthian dissidents (cf. 8:9, note 120).

  Q.v. @ 1:10, note 54.   Third person singular subjunctive from , used in the NT as an aorist of . Cf. BDAG, 296f.; BDR, 53; Moule, 6. 590   See above on 8:7. Cf. Hays, 177; Barrett, 242; R & P, 221; Edwards, 264; Godet, II, 97f.; Schrage, II, 469f.; G. Schrenk, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 252f.; Garland, 494f.; Conzelmann, 177 = GT: 209f. 591   Aorist accusative masculine participle of  = ‘to inform’, ‘to reveal’, ‘to show’. A Pauline hapax. Cf. Lk 20:37; Jn 11:57; Acts 23:30. 588 589

VI

T H E RE G UL AT IO N O F C H U R CH SERVI CES (11:2–14:40)

Structure In this sixth structural section and fourth major topical division and theme of the letter (1:10–4:21; 5:1–7:40; 8:1–11:1) the Apostle takes up questions concerning church meetings, one of which was raised in the Corinthians’ letter to him (12:1-31; 14:1-40).1 It addresses primarily house church congregations,2 but probably one preformed (non-Pauline) episode concerns smaller groups of pneumatics.3 Paul composes the piece with an introduction (11:2) and six episodes: the role and attire of gifted wives (11:3-16), the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34), the nature and purpose of the gifts = charisms (q.v. @ 1:7) of the Holy Spirit (12:1-11), the charisms and the body of Christ (12:12-31a), the preeminence of the fruit of the Spirit over the charisms of the Spirit (12:31b–13:13), and the proper exercise of the spiritual charisms in the congregational meetings (14:1-40). Commentary Summary In the opening episode (11:3-16) Paul, as he does elsewhere,4 appears to apply household regulations, derived from similar teachings in the OT (Gen 3:16) and in contemporary Judaism,5 to   12:1:  . Q.v. @ 7:1. Cf. 7:25; 8:1, 4; 16:1, 12.   See above, Introduction, note ###. 3   I.e. 11:3-16; cf. 2:6-16; Acts 13:1-3. See below, notes 7, 28. 4   In this letter see above on 2:6-16, note 454; on 8:6, notes 58ff.; on 10:1-13, notes 447-451; below on 12:4-11, notes ###; on 12:31b–13:13, notes ###; on 14:34f., notes ###; on 15:3-7, notes ###. 5   E.g. Josephus, ct. Apion 2, 201; Philo, Hypothetica 7, 3; 7, 14 (Loeb, IX, 425, 433); Pseudo-Phocylides, Maxims 175-227 (OTP, II, 580f.). 1 2

392

1 CORINTHIANS

the congregation re the relationship of husbands and wives.6 Here he regulates the role of gifted wives during prayer and prophecy sessions of the pneumatics7 in two respects: (1) the wife’s () head (, 11:3), i.e. leader, is her husband,8 and (2) her attire therefore should be modest, manifested in wearing a veil (, 11:6). However, he qualifies his teaching to affirm also the parity of the woman () and the man () ‘in the Lord’.9 Regarding the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) the Apostle, responding to oral reports that have come to him (11:18; cf. 1:11), makes a stronger critique of conduct at Corinth. At the meal preceding the Eucharist (cf. 11:24, ), i.e. the broken bread and the cup of wine consumed in memory and proclamation of the Lord’s death (11:23-26; cf. 10:16f.), each family or person brought his own food. Some affluent members, apparently including the same factious leaders whom he has censured earlier (11:18f.; cf. 1:11f.), have made it a dinner party and have not shared food with the poorer church members (11:21f.). Citing a dominical tradition (11:2325) that he has received () and delivered () to them, Paul warns that celebrating the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is a sin against the death of Christ (11:27) and has brought a Holy Spirit judgment of weakness, sickness and death upon some of them (11:29-32). The section concerning ( )10 the gifts (12:1-31a; 14:1-40) was probably drafted by Paul’s secretary before the Apostle decided to include the (preformed) hymn to love or to Christ (12:31b–13:13).11 He did this because of the serious lack and the need of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22f.) among the gifted Corinthian leaders. He treats the question about the gifts with reference to (1) the Holy Spirit as the source, instrumentality, and sovereign adjudicator of   E.g. 14:34f.; Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1; I Tim 2:9–3:1a; 3:1b-13. See Ellis, Making, 53ff., 64ff., 82ff., 107, 110; below, AE XIII, ### [378-408]. 7   See above on 2:6-16, note 470; Acts 13:1-3. For the regulation of their role during congregational meetings of the house churches see below on 14:34f.; I Tim 2:9–3:1a; 3:1b-13. Cf. AE XII, ### [351-354]; XIII, ### [381-397]. 8   See below, notes 76-79; AE XIII, ### [369-372], note 25. 9   11:11f. Cf. G. Stählin, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 343-355 (348-351). It is similar to Paul’s ‘yes, but’ () qualifications of the Corinthians’ arguments at 8:1c-3, 7-13, notes 95, 105; 10:23–11:1, note 583. 10   12:1. See above, note 1. 11   Cf. Ellis, Making, 91ff. 6



VI

393

them (12:1ff., 8ff., 11),12 (2) the importance and diversity of the gifts in the body of Christ on the analogy of the importance and variety of the different parts of the human body (12:12-31a), and (3) the regulation of the gifts in the congregational meetings (14:140) with special attention to the precedence of prophecy to tongues (14:1-5), to the way each is to be used (14:27-32), to the exclusion of gifted wives from prophetic discussions involving their gifted husbands (14:34f.), and to Paul’s divine authority in giving these regulations (14:37f.). A. The Role and Attire of Gifted Wives (11:2-16) 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies having his head covered dishonors his Head. 5And every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head because that is one and the same thing as the head having been shaved. 6 For if a wife does not cover herself, let her have herself shaved. But if it is disgraceful for a wife to have her hair bobbed or head shaved, let her be covered. 7For indeed the husband ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God; but the wife is the glory of her husband. (8Moreover, man is not from woman but woman from man; 9for also man was not created for the woman but woman for the man.) 10On account of this the wife ought to have authority to be manifested on her head for the sake of the angels. (11Nevertheless, in the Lord the wife is not independent of the husband nor the husband independent of the wife. For as the woman is from the man so also is the man through the woman, and all things are from God.) 13 Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a wife to pray to God uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a husband, on the other hand, has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a wife has long hair it gives a dazzling lustre to her? For the long hair has been given as a covering. 16Now if anyone is disposed to be contentious, we have no such practice nor do the churches of God.

12   12:4-11, like 11:3-16, is also likely a non-Pauline preformed tradition that the Apostle (reworks and) uses here ‘to underscore both the diversity of the gifts and the sovereignty of the Spirit in their bestowal and distribution’ (Ellis, Making, 90).

394

1 CORINTHIANS

Textual Notes 2.  = ‘you’. So, mss p46 ‫ א‬A B C 1739 co. Mss D F G  latt syph add the word  = ‘brothers’, probably influenced by 10:1 and 12:1. Cf. Metzger, 495. 10.  = ‘authority’. An explanatory gloss  = ‘veil’ is substituted in some Latin and Coptic (Bohairic) versions, and in some patristic writers. Cf. Metzger, 495. 15.   = ‘has been given to her’. Although  is present in mss ‫ א‬A B 33 syp, it is absent from the mss p46 D F G  M that Zuntz, 127, rightly argues is the original text. Otherwise: Metzger, 495f.

Structure The Apostle’s commendation (11:2) introduces the critiques whose structure is set out below at 11:3-16, 17-34. Commentary Summary Paul adjures the gifted wives to wear a hair covering, i.e. a veil (11:5), in the prayer and prophecy sessions of the pneumatics, as is the recognized practice not only in the Pauline congregations but also throughout ‘the churches of God’ (11:16). He regards this to be important since, in contemporary (Jewish) culture, it is the manifest sign not only of modest dress of the married woman (11:5f., 10) but also of her recognition of the leadership role of her husband (11:3, 7b-9). Exegesis 2. 13   = ‘Now I commend you’. As earlier,14 the Apostle prefaces his critiques with a commendation15 that ‘you remember ()16 me in all things ()17 and   Four times in the NT: 11:17, 22; Rom 15:1; Lk 16:8.   E.g. 1:4-9, 10; 7:1f.; 8:1-6, 7ff., note 19. He may also qualify his own teaching with an exception (7:25-28, notes 618f.). 15   So, Conzelmann, 182 = GT: 214f. 16   Second person plural perfect indicative of , stressing a continuing attitude. 17   Accusative plural neuter of , either an adverbial accusative (Robertson, 279, 282) or an accusative or respect or of reference (Moule, 33ff.). In either one  probably refers to Paul’s previous teaching to them, both doctrinal and regulatory, as seen, e.g. in their letter to him (7:1). 13 14



VI

395

keep () the traditions () just as I delivered ()18 them to you’ (NKJV). The first clause probably refers to (1) Paul’s previous teachings in Corinth, including those queried about in their letter to him; (2) the second to oral or written Christian traditions imparted to them.     = ‘the traditions I delivered to you’. ‘Tradition’ occurs in the Gospels only in one episode19 where it is used negatively re the tradition of the Pharisees20 and in the singular, indicating a body of (oral)21 post-OT teachings transmitted from earlier generations.22 For Paul it may refer negatively to traditions of the Pharisees23 or of the gnosticizing Judaizers.24 Or, it may refer (1) to delivered traditions common to the four allied apostolic missions25 or (2) to those received and delivered by the Apostle to 18   First person singular aorist indicative active of . These traditions may include (1) the Apostle’s earlier OT commentary, i.e. midrashic summarized sermons at Gal 3:6-14; 4:21-31 and the vice lists at 5:19ff.; I Thess 4:1-8, and (2) transmitted teachings of Jesus (7:10f.; 9:14). Cf. Ellis, Making, 63f., 70-77, 101f., 103, 258ff. 19   Mt 15:1-9, 2f. par. Cf. Ellis, Making, 333-349; idem, Old Testament, 136. 20   I.e.     = ‘the tradition of the elders’ (Mt 15:2). The Hebrew equivalents are either ‘words of the elders’, or ‘commands of the elders’. Cf. Billerbeck I, 691-695; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., Edinburgh 1997, II, 520: ‘ refers to the Pharisees’ extrabiblical traditions. These later came to be codified in the Mishnah.’ 21   Josephus, Ant. 13, 297; M Aboth (1:1). For the Apostle the ‘law’ can refer to the OT as such (e.g. 14:21; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 14) and, like the Sadducees, only the OT is authoritative Scripture. For the Pharisees, however, the oral teaching, traditionally 613 commands (BT Makkoth 23b; Socino, 169), is equally authoritative with Scripture (Danby, 446). But see U. Luz, Matthew, 3 vols., Minneapolis MN 2005, II, 329. Cf. B. Gerhardsson, ‘How Oral Torah is Carried… is Passed On’, Memory and Manuscript, Grand Rapids 21998, 93-121; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, London 1992, 421-424. 22   J. Schaper, ‘The Pharisees’, CHJ, III, 411-414. 23   Gal 1:14; cf. Phil 3:5. 24   Col 2:8. See below, AE I, ### [82f., 88-95]. Cf. II Pet 2:21; Ellis, Prophecy, 233; idem, Making, 314-318; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, London 21879, 180; K. Wegenast, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 774f.; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Philadelphia 21975, 95f. 25   E.g. 11:23; 15:1-3; Jude 3. Especially striking is Paul’s comment in a letter to a church that he had never visited: ‘You obeyed…the type of teaching to which you were delivered’ (    , Rom 6:17). ‘[Avoid] those who make enticements against the teaching which you learned’ (

396

1 CORINTHIANS

his churches26 or (3) to specific traditions re women’s hair-covering (11:5f., 16) and re the Lord’s Supper (11:23-26).27 3-16. A number of elements in this critique suggest that it is a preformed, reworked (non-Pauline) piece,28 but its presence in all relevant NT mss rules out a later interpolation.29 The principal issues in the much discussed30 section are (1) the role of the wife vis-à-vis the husband (11:3) and (2) her attire in    , Rom 16:17). ‘  means commitment to a specific teaching.’ ‘The Apostle speaks of the faith…which is imparted and received in the form of a fixed tradition…found [e.g.] in I Cor 11:23; 15:1. This can and must be learned’ (E. Käsemann, Romans, Grand Rapids MI 1980, 181, 417 = GT: 172, 398. Similarly, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, New York 1906, 430; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. Edinburgh 1998 (1979), II, 798; Ellis, Making, 58f.; idem, Christ, 247-254. Further, Ellis, Making, 52-59, 310-318. 26   E.g. 5:9ff.; II Thess 2:15; 3:6. Cf. O. Cullmann, ‘The Apostolic Tradition and the Lord…’, The Early Church, London 1956, 59-75: ‘All tradition passed on by the apostles could be regarded as directly revealed’ by Christ (73); Ellis, Luke, 65. Similar, P. J. Tomson, ‘Paul and the Apostolic Tradition’, Paul and the Jewish Law, Assen 1990, 144-149: ‘While …is used only in 1 Cor 11:2, the corresponding verbs,  and  [11:23; 15:3] similarly indicate authoritative, Apostolic tradition’. ‘…[Like Rabbinic Judaism], they suggest authority and accuracy’ (146). Otherwise: Schrage, II, 500. See below, notes 185f. 27   So, Tomson (note 26), 145. Cf. Ellis, Making, 64ff., 82, 84ff.: ‘[11:3-16] probably represents an extended application of the household code concerning the conduct of husbands and wives’ (86), e.g. Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1; I Tim 2:9–3:1a; 5:4, 14; 6:1f.; Tit 2:2-10 (3:1f.); I Pet 2:18–3:7 (5:5); cf. I Clem 1:3; 21:6ff.; Did 4:9ff.; Polycarp, ad Phil. 4:2; Ignatius, ad Polyc. 4:3; 5:1f. 28   E.g. (1) the preceding reference to traditions ‘delivered’ (11:2), (2) the IF (11:3), (3) its identity with the tradition of the ‘churches of God’ (11:16), (4) its similarity in theme with other NT preformed pieces (14:34f.; cf. I Tim 2:9-12; I Pet 3:3-6; Ellis, Making, 82ff., 427f., 433f.), (5) its self-contained character and (6) its interruption of the ‘Lord’s Supper’ context (10:16–11:1; 11:17-34). Cf. Ellis, Making, 84ff.; M. Böhm, ‘1 Kor 11, 2-16’, ZNTW 97 (2006), 207-234. For the sections of 11:3-16, see below, note 94. 29   Cf. Schrage, II, 496, Collins, 393f., and the literature cited. 30   Schrage, II, 478ff., and Thiselton, 806-809, each list over 70 recent articles and books; Fitzmyer, 421-425: over 100. See below, AE II, ### [104-108]. Cf. J. M. Gundry-Volf, ‘Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16’, EvangeliumSchriftauslegung-Kirche. FS P. Stuhlmacher, edd. J. Ådna et al., Göttingen 1997, 151-171 and the literature cited.



VI

397

prayer and prophecy sessions of the pneumatics (11:4f., 13ff.; cf. 2:6-16); (3) the nature of ‘the angels’ and their relationship to the topic (11:10); (4) the parity of man and woman ‘in the Lord’ ( , 11:11); (5) an affirmation that this church regulation was common to ‘the churches of God’ (11:16; cf. 14:33), i.e. to the four allied apostolic missions of James, John, Paul and Peter (cf. Ellis, Making, 60-69, 310-314). 3.    31  = ‘But I want you to know that’. An IF, found in the negative at 10:1; 12:1; Rom 1:13; 11:25; II Cor 1:8, introduces a tradition, new to the Corinthians, on the status of the gifted wives vis-à-vis their husbands and their attire in prayer and prophecy sessions of the pneumatics (11:3-5a). The adversative  qualifies, as earlier,32 the commendation at 11:2.  = ‘head’. The sentence,33 ‘The head of every man () is  Christ; the head of the wife is her husband and the head of Christ is God’, has evoked disputes, principally as to (1) whether the ambiguous metaphorical meaning of ‘head’ signifies in this context ‘source’34 or ‘ruler’/‘leader’35 (as ‘husband’) or ‘preeminence’;36 31   Perfect infinitive from  () with the sense of the present tense. Cf. BDAG, 93 and the literature cited; Moulton, II, 220ff.; BDF, 204; Robertson, 1215. 32   See above, note 9. Cf. Godet, II, 107. 33   The article appears only in the first clause, stressing the exclusive subordination of all to Christ (Heinrici, 324f.); its absence in the following clauses is without significance. 34   So, e.g. Thiselton, 811; Fee, 503; C. Brown, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 156-163 (160); Bruce, 103; Barrett, 248f. Cf. Gen 2:18-23. 35   E.g. Kistemaker, 366f.; Allo, 256; Hering, 102; Kümmel, 183; Findlay, 871f.; R & P, 229; Heinrici, 323; Meyer, 247; Godet, II, 108; Olshausen, 174; Calvin, 230; Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 26, 2f. [NPNF1, 150f.]. Cf. H. Schlier, ‘’, TDNT3 (1965/1938), 673-682; W. A. Grudem, ‘The Meaning of ’, TJ 11 (1990), 3-72, and the literature cited; J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Meaning of Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3’, According to Paul, Mahwah NJ 1993, 80-88; L. L. Belleville et al., ‘…’, Paul and the Corinthians. FS M. E. Thrall, edd. T. J. Burke et al.; Leiden 2003, 215-232; I. H. Marshall, ‘ “For the Husband is Head of the Wife” ’, The New Testament in its First Century Setting. FS B. W. Winter, edd. P. J. Williams et al., Grand Rapids 2004, 165-177. 36   E.g. Lindemann, 239f.; Hays, 184; Garland (and the literature cited), 516: ‘[It] denotes one who is preeminent… It is not linked to ideas of obedience or

398

1 CORINTHIANS

(2) whether the term  denotes ‘woman’ or ‘wife’ and the term , ‘man’ or ‘husband’;37 (3) whether the phrase, ‘the head of Christ is God’, is at odds with the Apostle’s ‘triune God’ teaching elsewhere.38 As the mediator of the Genesis creation Christ is the ‘head’ = sovereign creator of every man (11:12; cf. 8:6, note 67), but at 11:3 the Apostle probably refers to the Christian ‘husband’39 or to ‘man in Christ’.40 , discussed most perceptively by J. A. Fitzmyer, using the TLG,41 is not found with the meaning ‘source’ in the LXX nor in BDAG, but it is noted with this connotation in LSJ, viz in earlier Greek writings and a few times in diaspora (Hellenistic) Judaism.42 But in the latter it also signifies ‘leader’ or ‘ruler’,43 as it does a submission.’ But see Ellicott, 208: ‘The general idea is that of supremacy or pre- eminence (comp. Eph 5:23)…’ ‘…in regard of divinely appointed order and authority (Gen 2:22, 23; 3:16…)’. 37   See below, note 39. 38   See above, ‘Special Note’ at 8:6, notes 69-92; at 8:6, notes 53-68. 39    = ‘husband’ appears frequently elsewhere in Paul, especially in household and congregational regulations. See Ellis, Making, 60, 64-68, 110, 134f., 414, 426-434. Cf. 7:2ff., 10f., 13f., 16, 24, 59; 14:35; Rom 7:2f.; Gal 4:27; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18f.; I Tim 2:8, 12; 3: 2, 12; 5:9; Tit 1:6, 5; AE XIII, ### [379-372]; Godet, II, 117: ‘The Apostle was thinking only of married women’. Otherwise: Grosheide, 250; Hammond, 578, 580f. Pace Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16’, Keys, 142-158, the ‘hair’ at 11:14f. probably concerns solely the gifted wives and not the practice of men wearing long hair, which is mentioned only as a counterpoint (cf. 11:4, 14) for the Apostle’s argument. Rightly, Schrage, II, 504n; Olshausen 174. 40   II Cor 12:2; cf. Rom 4:8; Eph 4:13; rightly, e.g. Bachmann, 348f.; Alford, II, 564. 41   Fitzmyer, 409ff.; idem, ‘Kephalē in I Corinthians 11:3’, Int 47 (1993, FS Paul Achtemeier), 52-59, 53ff. Cf. also W. A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism, Wheaton IL 2006, 93-198; idem, ‘The Meaning of  (“Head”): A Response to Recent Studies’, TJ 11 (1990), 3-72 = Appendix in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edd. J. Piper et al., Wheaton IL 1990, and the literature cited. 42   E.g. Philo, de Congressu 61 (idem, de Praemiis et Poenis, 125); Test. Reuben 2:2 (OTP, I, 782). The Life of Adam and Eve 19:3 (CAP II, 146) uses  for ‘the first’ or ‘the origin’ of all sin (cf. OTP, II, 279n). It is a collection of stories on Gen 1–5 from c. AD 100, whose provenance is uncertain. Cf. Schürer, III, 757-761. 43   As it does in Greek literature (cf. Fitzmyer, 410). Cf. Josephus, War 4, 261; Philo, ‘preeminence’: de Spec. Legibus 3, 184; idem, de vita Mosis 2, 30; idem, de Praemiis et Poenis, 114.



VI

399

number of times in the LXX,44 translating the Hebrew term ‫ראש‬,45 and elsewhere in the household regulations of the letters of Paul,46 who knows and uses the LXX frequently.47 The interpretation of  as ‘source’ at 11:3 and Eph 5:23 appears almost wholly in recent literature and seems to be influenced less by Pauline thought than by the egalité expressed by Thomas Jefferson, the French Revolution, and by contemporary feminist ideology, especially in North America.48 4.     = ‘dishonors his head’, i.e., Christ, following the introductory sentence at 11:3.49 ‘Her head’ at 11:5 refers to the husband.   means ‘down upon the head’ (BDAG, 511) and not ‘down from’ as in some Roman practice.50 In first-century Judaism the question of men wearing a hair covering (e.g. a tallith, i.e. a shawl worn at prayer; or a yarmulke, i.e. a skullcap worn at synagogue or elsewhere), one ‘cannot answer with a simple yes or no’;51 it depends upon the circumstances. The phrase, ‘prays or prophesies’ (11:4f.), may refer to the charisms of tongues and of prophecy as it does in congregational meetings (14:14f.);52 here it is in sessions of the pneumatics.53

  Cf. H & R2, 760ff.   E.g. Judg 10:18; 11:8, 11; II Sam 22:44; Ps 18:43; Isa 7:8f.; cf. 9:14ff.; H. F. van Rooy, ‘‫’ראש‬, NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 1015-1020 (1017f., 1020) and the literature cited. 46   I.e. Eph 5:23. See below, AE XIII, ### [370n]. Cf. Ellis, Making, 64-68. 47   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 19f., 150ff. Cf. W. Bauer: ‘The Influence of the LXX…outweighs all other influences on our [NT and early Christian] literature’ (BDAG, xxii). 48   Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 76f., 85n, 104; idem, Theology, 84, notes 107-111; S. E. Finer, The History of Government from Earliest Times, 3 vols., Oxford 1997, I, 29. 49   So, Schrage, II, 505; Garland, 517; Fee, 506f. Others, somewhat differently, refer ‘head’ both to man’s status and to Christ (e.g. Thiselton, 827). Otherwise: Murphy-O’Connor (note 39), 585. 50   Pace Garland, 517; Thiselton, 825. But see Schrage, 504f. 51   Billerbeck, III, 423. Cf. J. Jeremias, ‘The Social Position of Women’, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Philadelphia PA 41969, 359-376 (361f.); cf. Mt 14:6 par; M Taanith 4:8; Jastrow 537; OED, 3229; John Lightfoot, IV, 229-233. See Ezek 24:17, 23. 52   So, Godet, II, 117; Olshausen, 174; cf. 14:1-5, 14f., 27-31. 53   See above, note 7. 44 45

400

1 CORINTHIANS

5f. These verses appear to be the main issue in the pericope 11:3-16, i.e. the practice and Paul’s criticism of some gifted Corinthian wives exercising their gifts with their heads uncovered ().54 The Apostle urges that she cover herself, interpreted either (1) to wear long (and piled up) hair55 or, more likely, (2) to wear a covering (), i.e. a veil ()56 over the head.57 The passive forms, ,58 ,59 and  (11:6),60 are best understood as the middle voice, ‘cover herself’, ‘have herself sheared or shaved’.61 Paul reflects the practice in Jewish antiquity that the married woman wore a headcovering (‫)כּסוּת‬, ְ 62 supporting the view that 11:3-16 is addressing husbands and wives.63 In NT teaching marriage is limited to the present age64 in which the descriptions and proscriptions of Gen 3:16 are affirmed by the Apostle, especially in the household regulations of his letters.65 One need not here enter into the question (1) of what elements of Gen 1–3 are symbolic presentations of historical events, (2) of what   A NT hapax at 11:5, 13 (adjective). Cf. BDAG, 35. Regarding a woman ‘with her hair uncovered’ in a trial before a priest cf. Philo, de Spec. Legibus, III, 60. 55   Cf. C. Brown, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 159-162; Jeremias (note 51), 359-376 (359f., 361f.); Susannah 32; Josephus, Ant. 3, 270; M Ketuboth 2:1; T Sotah 5:9, middle. Otherwise: Conzelmann, 184n: ‘The reference to hair style is only…mentioned in passing. There is general agreement between Paul and his readers that a woman does not wear short hair.’ See below, note 62. 56   The term is not found in the Pauline letters. 57   Somewhat differently, Merklein, III, 53: ‘It is left open whether [the thought is] about (1) long hair on the head or (2) a piece of clothing pulled over the head’. 58   Third person singular present indicative passive of . Cf. W. Mundle, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 212-220 (212ff.); A. Oepke, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 561ff. 59   Third person singular aorist imperative middle of  = ‘to shear’; elsewhere in the NT only at Acts 8:32; 18:18. 60   Present infinitive passive of . 61   Cf. BDF, 166; Robertson, 809ff.; BDAG, 538. 62   The practice is present in first-century society, both in Graeco-Roman (see at 11:5f.) and more thoroughly in Jewish society. Cf. M Ketuboth 5:8; T Shabbath 4:7; Billerbeck III, 427-435; Jastrow, 653; see above, note 55. 63   Rightly, Orr-Walther, 260; cf. KBR I, 488 = §52, 12 on Gen 20:14ff.; Billerbeck (note 62). 64   Cf. Mt 22:23-33, 30 T + Q. 65   E.g. 11:3, 9; 14:34f.; Eph 5:23; I Tim 2:11-14; see below, AE II, ## [87-108]; AE XII, ### [341-357]; AE XIII, ### [368-372]; cf. I Pet 3:1, 6; Ellis, Making, 83, 135, 313. 54



VI

401

may be vision depictions like those in the book of Revelation, and (3) of what elements are literal.66 It is sufficient to state what some scientific67 and all biblical scholars68 recognize: according to the Scripture, the present human race is descended from one pair, in biblical language from Adam (‘man’) and Eve (‘life’, Gen 3:20); whether Adam had a navel is irrelevant since pre-Adamic = pre-present human race. Paul’s interpretation (11:8f.) of the first married couple and of Eve, the mother of us all, will be affirmed by all who accept his and Jesus’ understanding of the OT.69 The alleged parallels between Gen 1–3 and the Atrahasis70 and Enumah Elish71 legends are hardly relevant. 7-9.  72… = ‘for indeed…but’. At 11:7a there is a parenthetical shift to the husband, but ‘the real reason is expressed’ (Zerwick) in the second clause (11:7b, ).73 66   Cf. H. Blocher, In the Beginning, Leicester UK 1984, 27-38, and the literature cited; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Waco TX 1987, 8ff. Further: C. Westermann, Genesis, 3 vols., Minneapolis MN 1990, I, 21-106: ‘There is no sign of either personification or mythological allusion in the biblical use of ‫תהו‬ [Gen 1:2]’ (103). 67   Cf. L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi and A. Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton NJ 1994, 86f., 155; M. L. Wolpoff, Paleoanthropology, New York NY 21999, 553f., 625-628, 755, 779f., 563: ‘the “Eve” theory’; G. C. Conroy, Reconstructing Human Origins, New York 1994, 385-401. 68   E.g. Blocher (note 66), 15-27, 213-231; G. W. Bromiley, ‘Adam’, ISBE, I, 47f. Cf. 15:45ff.; Gen 1:27f.; 2:22ff. 69   Cf. R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, London 1971, 223, passim; Ellis, ‘Jesus’ Attitude Toward His Bible’, Old Testament, 126-130; idem, ‘Paul’s Attitude to Scripture’, Paul’s Use, 20-37. 70   Cf. Blocher (note 66), 33f., 82, 196f.; W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, Oxford 1969; A. R. Millard, ‘ “The Epic of Atrahasis”: A New Babylonian “Genesis” Story’, TB 18 (1967), 3-18; NBD, 239ff. (‘Creation’). 71   Cf. A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, Chicago 21963, 1-80; Blocher (note 66), 63-67, 196; M. A. Grisanti, ‘‫תּהוֹם‬,ְ and R. C. van Leeuwen, ‘‫’צ ֶלם‬, ֶ NIDOTTE 4 (1997), 275ff., 644f., and the literature cited. But see Westermann (note 66), 16f. 72   A causal  as at 2:10, note 475; 3:11, note 637; 8:11, note 132; 9:10, note 270. For the explanatory  cf. 2:11, note 482. 73   See Zerwick, 159; above on 1:18, note 181; cf. 1:12, 18, 23f.; 3:4; 5:3; 7:7; 9:24f.; 11:14f., 21; 12:8ff., 20, 28-31; 15:39f., 51; Acts 13:36f.:  …. On Heb 7:18f., 20f., 23f., cf. M. Schmitt, ‘Restructuring Views on Law in Hebrews 7:12’, JBL 128 (2009), 190ff.

402

1 CORINTHIANS

  74  75       = ‘[The husband] exists as the image and glory of God; but the wife is the glory of her husband’. The term  (‫ )צלם‬alludes to the creation of man as such (Gen 1:26f.). It is interpreted by the Apostle of Adam, but only in the light of the later creation ‘for him’ (11:9) of his wife Eve,76 taken from his body and a corporate dimension of his body.77 It is used elsewhere of Adam individually and corporately as ‘from the dust’ (, 15:47f. = ‫)עפר‬,78 implicitly as fallen Adamic man of this age, destined to return to the dust.79  is used more often by Paul christologically. 10.      = ‘to have authority [i.e. right to control] on her head’, is a singular usage in the NT and is probably original to the preformed piece that Paul is using. It is difficult to interpret.80 The emphatic opening phrase, ‘on account 74   Q. v. @ 2:7, notes 442-449.  appears in Paul together with  at II Cor 3:18; 4:4; Col 3:4, 10; in ct. to  at Rom 1:23. ‘The wife as the glory of her husband’, i.e. manifesting and exhibiting (not reflecting) the brightness (, Heb 1:3) of his glory by being his corporate body (Eph 5:28f.). Further, P. Niskanen, ‘The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of ‫ אדם‬in the Image of ‫’אלהים‬, JBL 128 (2009), 417-436, and the literature cited. 75   Cf. BDAG, 1029f. 76   Gen 2:21-24; cf. I Tim 2:13. 77   See above on 6:16; below, AE VIII, ### [290ff.]. Cf. S. A. Son, ‘The Nature of the Sexual Union’, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology, Rome 2001, 147-177 (159-163). 78   15:47. Cf. Gen 2:7; BDAG, 1086. 79   15:42f.; Gen 3:19. The submission of the wife to her husband (q.v. @ 11:3) occurs in Scripture only after the Fall (Gen 3:16) and belongs exclusively to this age and not to the (eschatological) age to come, as Gundry-Volf (note 30, 170) rightly sees. But pace Gundry-Volf, so does marriage itself. Christians and the church as such exist both in this age and in the age to come (cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 2 vols., Garden City NY 1985, II, 1305, 1416f., 1419; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Exeter UK 1978, 741; Ellis, Christ, 116ff.; idem, Luke, 235; idem, Old Testament, 104f.; idem, Sovereignty, 76). See below, AE XIII, ### [362-372]. Marriage, Christian and non-Christian, exists only in this age (Mt 22:23-33, 30 T + Q). Also, according to the NT the age to come, the kingdom of God present and future, includes both equality of value and rank in relationships; cf. 9:1-3 with 12:28; Mt 5:19; 19:23-30, 27-30 par; 20:20-23 par; Lk 22:28ff. Cf. Stälin (note 9), 343-355 (348-351). 80   For the different views cf. BDAG, 353; Schrage, II, 513; G. J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, Minneapolis MN 2005, 207-214;



VI

403

of this’ ( ), shows that 11:10 is drawing a conclusion from the preceding verses, not only the wife’s role as the glory of her husband (11:7; so, Garland, 524) but also the husband’s priority to (11:8f.) and authoritative leadership status over the wife (11:3, 5). Among the commentaries Godet (II, 122) has, I think, best caught the substance (if not giving the precise Greek) of the Apostle’s thought, writing that ‘power’ () here means ‘a sign of power…not exercised but submitted to’, i.e. to her husband. The Greek may better read, ‘The wife ought to have authority to be81 manifested on her head’. The ‘authority’ is the husband’s leadership role; the manifestation of it is the head covering.    = ‘for the sake of the angels’. The angels here have been understood variously82 as e.g. (1) evil angels,83 (2) guardian angels,84 (3) good angels present in Christian assemblies,85 and (4) ‘ministering spirits’ who energize and perhaps enhance the spiritual gifts of the pneumatics in the congregations.86

Fitzmyer, 417ff.; idem, ‘A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of I Cor XI.10’, NTS 4 (1957–58), 48-58, 50-53 = idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI 1997, 187-202 + Postscript (202ff.). 81   In translation, the verb ‘to be’ may be inferred. Cf. Robertson, 395f.; BDF, 70f. 82   On the principal interpretations in patristic and modern writers cf. Fitzmyer, 417f.; see Lietzmann-Kümmel, 54f., 154. 83   E.g. Tertullian, ‘On the Veiling of Virgins’, 7:17 (ANF, IV, 32, 37). Cf. Gen 6:1-4; Test. Reuben 5:6 (OTP, I, 784). 84   Cf. Matt 18:10; Acts 12:7-10; Ps 91:11f. (Dan 3:28; 6:22). Moffatt, 152, understands Paul to refer, as in the rabbinic writings, to angels as ‘guarding’ the whole created order; cf. Billerbeck III, 438. Most commentators understand these to be ‘ministering angels’ (Heb 1:14), like those in Judaism (Weber; Billerbeck, note 86), who exercise a more general kind of service. Cf., e.g., W. L. Lane, Hebrews, 2 vols., Dallas TX 1991, I, 52; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Göttingen 1984, 124f.; C. Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hébreux, 2 vols., Paris 1953, II, 22f. 85   Cf. Thiselton, 840; Garland, 528. As witnesses (4:9; I Tim 3:16; 5:21) or fellow worshippers (Heb 12:22f.; cf. Pss 104:4; 138:1; 1QSa 2:8f.), perhaps as church overseers (Rev 1:20). 86   (12:10); 13:1; 14:12, 32. See below, ‘The Angelic “Spirits” of the Prophets’, AE IV, ### [153-178]; ‘ in I Corinthians’, AE VIII, ### [286-290]. F. Weber, ‘Die himmlische Geisterwelt’, Judische Theologie, Leipzig 1897, 166-174, 170f. So, Billerbeck III, 435f.

404

1 CORINTHIANS

The last explanation agrees best with (1) Paul’s representation of the role of angelic spirits in this letter, both his own (5:3; 14:14f.) and those active in the pneumatics generally.87 Consequently, the phrase ‘because of the angels’ probably is an additional argument to the gifted wives that their (culturally) immodest dress and their expressed disregard of their gifted husband’s leadership may offend and restrain the angelic spirits who effect and empower the spiritual gifts in their prayer and prophecy sessions.88 11f. See above, note 9. ‘Nevertheless’ () here introduces a parenthetical aside (RSV), perhaps the Apostle’s reworking of this preformed (non-Pauline) episode,89 and not, as at Eph 5:33; Phil 3:16, a conclusion to the argument,90 which occurs at 11:13-16. The phrase ‘in the Lord’ = ‘in Christ’91 refers to the organic church, i.e. the present manifestation of the age to come = the kingdom of God in which gender distinctions of the present Genesis creation are ‘not abrogated’ (Thiselton, 842) but are transcended in terms of complementarity and of mutuality of obligations.92 The subsequent ‘all things are from God’ goes beyond the church to ascribe the origin of and sovereignty over the whole created order to the Father.93   13:1; 14:12, 32; cf. Heb 1:14; I Jn 4:1ff.; Rev 22:6; Ellis, Christ, 202ff.; see above: note 86. This view is noted by O. Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie, Göttingen 1888, 41ff., as cited by M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, Göttingen 1909, 74 (see below, AE IV, notes 77f., 96f.; AE VII, note 30). 88   See above, note 86. The arguments that the Apostle uses at 11:3-16 are (1) the head and authority of the wife is her husband (11:3ff., 10); (2) the wife’s uncovered head is (culturally) disgraceful dress (11:6); (3) it is offensive to the ministering angels (11:10); (4) her clipped short (and uncovered) hair is improper and (culturally) unnatural (11:13f.), but long hair is her glory (11:15); (5) the wife’s hair covering at Christian meetings is a universal practice in ‘the churches of God’ (11:16). For a similar summing up of arguments see above on 9:7-14. 89   See above, note 28. 90   Pace BDAG, 826; BDF, 234: in Paul it is ‘used to connect a discourse and emphasizes what is essential’. 91   See above on 1:2, notes 82-85. 92   See below, ‘Equality and Subordination’, ‘Mutuality of Obligation’, AE XIII, ### [365-374]. See above, notes 79, 91. Cf. Epictetus, Discourses 3, 1, 39: ‘leave the man to be a man and the woman to be a woman’. 93   Perhaps with an allusion to 8:6 (q.v.). 87



VI

405

13-15. These verses94 raise the question to the pneumatics (, q.v. @ 2:15) that they ‘judge for yourselves’ (   ), i.e. with the insightful judgment that their spiritual gifts should impart. Paul then answers his own question with a counter question (11:14f.). 14.     = ‘nature itself teaches’. In this rare expression Edwards (279), followed with elaboration by Thiselton (844), lists four principal interpretations found in the commentaries: (1) the human custom of a given society, i.e. for the Apostle the Graeco-Roman world; (2) the outward expression ‘established by custom’ of the intuitive or inborn sense of what is fitting;95 (3) the created order of all things or (4) of man. The first is popular,96 but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning since for him all autonomous human custom, no less than human wisdom, is always sinful.97 The second is more probable if  is understood, as at Rom 2:14,98 as an expression of divinely induced nature that is always disobeyed (Rom 2:12). However, such induced nature is imputed to Gentile Christians99 because they are ‘in Christ’.100 The third and fourth interpretations are only variations of the second.

94   For Godet, II, 127, they form the third section of 11:3-16: (1) theology (11:3-6), (2) creation (11:7-12), (3) one’s nature (11:13ff.), and (4) church practice (11:16). But see above at 11:3-16. 95   Meyer, 255. 96   So, or similar: e.g. Garland, 53; Schrage, II, 521; Fee, 527; Conzelmann, 190f.; Calvin, 234; H. Köster, ‘’, TDNT 9 (1974/1973), 251-277 (273f.). 97   See above on 1:19, notes 198ff. 98   Rightly, Barrett, 256; Ellicott, 215; Olshausen, 178. Cf. T. R. Schreiner, Romans, Grand Rapids 1998, 119-122; D. J. Moo, Romans, Grand Rapids 1996, 148-153; J. Stott, The Message of Romans, Leicester UK 1994, 86; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, Göttingen 51978, 117-150; J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, London 31967, 72ff.; Sandy & Headlam (note 25), 60. Somewhat differently: L. Morris, Romans, Grand Rapids 1988, 125n; Cranfield (note 25), I, 156f. See also Epictetus, Discourses 1, 16, 10-14: ‘the signs which God has given’. 99   Augustin, ‘On the Spirit and the Letter’, 44 (NPNF1, V, 101). 100   See above on 1:1f., notes 37, 82ff.

406

1 CORINTHIANS

  = ‘dishonor to him’, i.e. to the husband, to have long hair. The husband/wife context of 11:3-16 excludes a homoerotic allusion.101 15.   = ‘as102 a covering’.103 The comment includes the argument from nature104 and does not offer a substitute ‘covering’ nor does it negate the Apostle’s earlier arguments in 11:3-16 against a wife having her head uncovered in prayer and prophecy sessions. 16.       = ‘Now, if anyone is disposed to be contentious’. Evidently Paul inserted 11:3-16 into the letter because, among other things, he has learned that some of the pneumatics in this matter, as they have in others, wish to treat him as just another prophet.105 Here he invokes both his apostolic authority and the universal practice of the ‘churches of God’.      = ‘we have no such practice’. The practice of these gifted Corinthian wives is a violation of established conduct in a particular situation. Paul has neither taught nor countenanced it at Corinth or in other congregations.106      = ‘the churches of God’, i.e., those of his allied apostolic missions of James, John and Peter.107 The plural phrase occurs elsewhere in Paul at I Thess 2:14; II Thess 1:4. Cf. 14:33; Rom 16:4, 16; see below, AE II, note 65.

  For such cf. Philo, de Spec. Legibus III, 37; idem, de Vita Contemp. 50ff.; idem, de Virtibus 18; Garland, 530f.; Murphy-O’Connor (note 39), 485ff.; Neuer Wettstein, II, 348f. 102   Rather than ‘instead of’ or ‘in the place of’.  may have either (or another) meaning (BDAG, 87f.). Cf. Thiselton, 846n; Edwards, 281. 103   Only here and at Heb 1:12 in the NT. Pace Murphy-O’Connor (note 39), 147f., it is not a question of ‘hair arrangements’. 104   11:14f. See above, note 94. 105   An issue that he addresses elsewhere. See above on 4:3; below on 14:37. Cf. 9:1-27, Commentary Summary, notes 188ff. 106   Cf. E. A. Judge, ‘The Appeal to Convention in Paul’, in Williams (note 35), 178-189 (180); Conzelmann, 191 = GT: 225: ‘He is not struggling on behalf of a new custom, but for upholding of the old one’. 107   Otherwise: J. Jervell, ‘Bild Gottes’, TRE 6 (1980), 491-498, who thinks that 11:1-16 is the Apostle’s ad hoc composition (497). But see Ellis, Making, 248-330. 101



VI

407

B. The Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) Now, I command this, not commending you because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18For first of all, when you come together in church, I hear that dissensions exist among you and in part I believe it. 19For indeed factions among you are necessary so that it may also become clear who among you are approved. 20So also, when you come together as a congregation, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper; 21for in eating each one takes his own meal, and one is hungry and another is making-merry on dinner wine. 22Indeed! Do you not have houses for eating and drinking? Or, do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you. 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread 24and, having given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me (   ).’ 25After the same manner the cup also, after finishing the supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you may drink it, in remembrance of me’. 26For as often as you may eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Consequently, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be liable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28Accordingly, let a man vet himself and thus eat from the bread and drink from the cup. 29For the one who eats and drinks not discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 On account of this many among you are weak and ill, and a number have fallen asleep. 31But if we were judging ourselves, we would not be being judged. 32When we, however, are judged by the Lord we are chastened so that we might not be damned with the world. 33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat the Lord’s Supper, welcome one another. 34If one is hungry, let him eat at home, that you not come together unto judgment. Now regrading the other matters I shall give directions whenever I come. 17

Textual Notes …   = ‘Commanding this, I do 17. … not commend’. So, NA following mss ‫ א‬D2 F G  M. Ms D has ‘I command this [and] do not commend’; ms B has ‘Commanding

408

1 CORINTHIANS

this [and] not commending’. The more probably original is, in my judgment, ‘I command this, not commending’ (mss A C 33 1739 vg). The syntactical variety is remarkable.108 23.  = ‘betrayed’, in mss ‫ א‬A B C D. Mss B3 L P and Chrysostom read secondarily , apparently a dialectal variation. Cf. Tischendorf, II, 525. 24.  = ‘said’. Mss C3  M vgcl sy add   = ‘Take, eat’, probably from Mt 26:26. Cf. Metzger1, 562.    = ‘which is for you’. So, p46 ‫ *א‬A B C* 33 1739*. Explanatory additions,  = ‘broken’ (‫א‬2 C3 D2 F G  M sy),  = ‘broken up’ (D*) and  = ‘given’ (co arm), are secondary. Cf. Metzger, 496. 25.   = ‘this cup’. The  is added secondarily in mss p46  M sy bo; it is lacking in ‫ *א‬A B C* D* F G 33 1739 lat sa. 29.    = ‘the one who drinks unworthily’. ‘Unworthily’, apparently repeating 11:27, appears in mss D F G  M latt sy. It is absent in p46 ‫ *א‬A B C* 33 1739 co. 32.  = ‘of the’, present in mss B C 33, is probably secondary, being absent from mss p46 A D F G  M. Structure The section has five segments. It opens (11:17ff.) with an allusion to the Corinthian dissensions addressed earlier (q.v. @ 1:10-17), condemns their attitudes and actions at the Lord’s Supper (11:20ff.), cites and interprets a dominical tradition of the Last Supper (11:2326), shows the results of the profanation of the Lord’s Supper (11:27-32) and urges that changes be made (11:33f.). The Lord’s Supper theme at 11:17-34 is a continuation of 10:14– 11:1 in which the Lord’s Supper is declared to be abrogated for those Corinthians who participate in idolatrous meals. After the   Cf. Robertson, 384ff.

108



VI

409

insertion of 11:2-16 (q.v.), it emphasizes that the indifferent and condescending attitude of these gifted Corinthians toward the poorer congregants at the Agape Meal and their treating it as a dinner party also nullifies its Lord’s Supper character (11:20ff.). Paul cites a tradition of Jesus’ word and action at the Last Supper to show its true meaning, stating its commanded repetition to be a proclamation of the Lord’s death (11:23-26). He warns these Corinthians (1) that participation in the Meal requires self-examination and (2) that their ‘not discerning the body’ of the Lord in their fellow Christians at this communion service (cf. 10:16f.) makes them ‘liable’ for the Lord’s death (11:27ff.) and, as a consequence, (3) this has brought about the present judgment of the Holy Spirit evidenced in the weakness and illness of some and the death of a number (11:27-32). Therefore, the Apostle concludes, they should desist from such attitudes and actions (11:33f.). Exegesis 17.      = ‘Now, I command this, not commending you’, following one of a number of different ms readings of the clause.109 , found twelve times in Paul’s letters,110 may have a stronger (‘command’, ‘order’, ‘charge’) or weaker (‘direct’, ‘instruct’) imperatival force.111 The Apostle’s usage here is strong, reacting to the gross conduct of these Corinthians. Verse 11:17, which begins the second critique of this chapter, appears to have been reworked after the preformed piece 11:3-16 (q.v.) had been inserted into an earlier draft. The Lord’s Supper theme introduced at 10:14–11:1, is now picked up again in the form of a criticism of their attitude and conduct at the Agape Meal.  is taken to refer (1) to what precedes (e.g. Barrett, 260; Hering, 112; cf. Edwards, 283; Godet, II, 135; cf. 7:6) and (2) follows (Lindemann, 249; cf. Thiselton, 856), or (3) only to what

  With Heinrici, 338. See above, Textual Notes. Otherwise: NA et al.   7:10; I Thess 4:11; II Thess 3:4, 6, 10, 12; I Tim 1:3; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17; elsewhere in the NT only in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. 111   Cf. W. A. Neilson, ed., Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms, Springfield MA 1942, 171: ‘Enjoin, direct, and instruct are less imperative than command or order…’ 109 110

410

1 CORINTHIANS

follows.112 Several factors favor (3): ‘both the  and the emphatic position of  indicate the passage to a new matter’ (Parry, 163); the causal dependent clause at 11:17b () is directly tied to the , given the preferred reading of 11:17a above. 113 = ‘come together’, i.e. ‘in church’ (11:18, ; q.v. @ 1:2) or ‘as a congregation’. 18.  = ‘first’. The ‘second’ is implied at 11:20 ( ). Cf. Schrage, III, 20n.      = ‘I hear that dissensions114 exist among you’. The present tense ‘hear’ stands for the present perfect, ‘have heard’ (BDF, 168) and ‘has the classic turn “I am told” ’ (Robertson, 803), i.e. an active verb used for the passive voice. This strengthens the conclusion that Paul’s comment is an allusion to the report that has come from some in the house church hosted by Chloe (q.v. @ 1:11). The verbal infinitive  introduces indirect discourse.   = ‘in some part’ = ‘partly’. Such phrases ‘have the substantial force of adverbs’ (Robertson, 550). The Apostle clearly believes the report but, to avoid unnecessary offense, softens his introduction before proceeding (11:20ff., 27-34) to a more direct and indeed devastating criticism and judgment, even if it is qualified at 11:32. 19.        = ‘For indeed factions among you are necessary’. One might take the infinitive  as a verbal, introducing indirect discourse,115 but it is better under-

112   Cf. 7:29. So, Bengel, II, 227; Findlay, 877; Parry, 163; Kistemaker, 385f.; Schrage, III, 18; Garland, 536n; Fitzmyer, 432; cf. Heinrici, 338. 113   Cf. 11:18, 20, 33f.; 14:23, 26. Paul (or his secretary) uses the word only in this letter. Ct. 5:4. Cf. Mk 3:20; Ignatius, ad Eph 20:2. In the NT  (‘worse’) occurs only twice (II Cor 12:15);  =  (‘better’) has spiritual or moral connotations. Cf. BDAG, 566. 114   See above on 1:10, note 84. 115   As at 3:18; 7:7.



VI

411

stood substantivally.116  (‘must’, ‘necessary’) in the NT refers or alludes to God’s requisite saving and judgmental action, present and future, in the history of salvation,117 or in the regeneration and holiness118 of the elect individual Christian.119   = ‘for indeed’, as also in the more frequent reverse order (pace Fee, 538n).  = ‘factions’, is joined to  (‘dissensions’, 11:18) by an explanatory ,120 ‘with little intended difference in meaning between’ the two terms (Fitzmyer, 433).121 Although in other Jewish contexts it may refer to religious parties122 and later to Christian heretical groups,123 it points back to the Apostle’s earlier extensive critique of such dissensions and the cause underlying them at 1:10–2:5; 3:1–4:21. Therefore, he can here treat the issue briefly.   = ‘the ones who are approved’. Some understand  as ‘genuine’ in the sense of those in the organizational church who are elect Christians vis-à-vis those in it who are

116   As a substantival infinitive, here without a definite article,  is the subject of the impersonal verb ; cf. Moulton, III, 291f.; G & G, 197, §887; Moule, 27ff., 127. 117   Cf. O. Cullmann, Salvation in History, London 1967, 84-135, 150-166, 248-268; Ellis, Sovereignty, 11f., 44f., 51f.; idem, Making, 167, 228f.; idem, Christ, 112-146; idem, Old Testament, 101-109; idem, Prophecy, 163-171. See 15:25, 53; II Cor 5:10; 11:30; 12:1, 9; Col 4:6; I Thess 4:1; II Thess 3:7; I Tim 3:2, 7, 15; II Tim 2:24; Tit 1:7 (saving); Rom 1:27; I Tim 5:12 (judgmental). 118   Taking ‘holiness’ () verbally, i.e. sanctifying or, in earlier English, ‘holy-making’. Cf. OED, I, 346 (‘Holy’, C); II, 80 (‘Sanctification’, 1); NBD, 1057ff. See above on 1:30, note 328. 119   Cf. E. Tiedike et al., ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 664ff., 665f. 120   See above on 9:10, note 270. 121   Cf. BDAG, 28 §1c; Gal 5:20: ‘party spirit’. ‘In I Cor 11:19 and II Pet 2:1 [] seems to signify rather “different opinion,” “division of sentiment,” than concretely “party,” “sect” ’ (E. D. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, New York 1920, 309f.). 122   E.g. Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; cf. Tit 3:10f.; M Aboth 5:17; T Sanhedrin 7:1; Billerbeck III, 343. 123   Cf. Trench, 391; ODCC, 758f.; NBD, 467.

412

1 CORINTHIANS

unregenerate.124 Others rightly regard the term here as those elect Christians whose work and attitudes are ‘approved’ by God vis-à-vis those whose works and attitudes in particular respects are not.125   = ‘may become clear’ (q.v. @ 3:13), i.e. to God, with the aorist subjunctive in a result clause introduced by ,126 indicating God’s approval or rejection, present and future, of the attitudes and conduct of each individual elect Christian. There is an allusion to Paul’s earlier teaching at 3:12-15 (q.v.). 20. 127   = ‘consequently, when you come together’. Introducing the second issue (11:20-34) in his critique of certain Corinthians’ conduct at the Lord’s Supper,128 the Apostle uses a temporal genitive absolute ‘apparently to make the participial clause more prominent’.129    = ‘together’, apparently reinforcing the  and an idiom reflecting Semitic influence or dialect.130 It may mean together in ‘time’ or ‘purpose’131 or ‘place’. The most probable connotations are ‘place’ or ‘purpose’, i.e. with one accord for the

  E.g. Schrage, III, 22; Wolff, 260; Fee, 538; Conzelmann, 194 = GT: 228; Olshausen, 179f.; cf. James 1:12. On the distinction between the organic and the organizational church see above on 8:11, notes 148ff.; on 3:9, note 619. 125   E.g. Garland, 538; Barrett, 262; Meyer, 259. Cf. Rom 16:10; II Cor 13:7; II Tim 2:15. See above on 3:13-15, notes 650-675; on 9:27, note 445. 126   See above on 1:10, note 78. 127   Q.v. @ 11:17, note 113. 128   11:21f. See above on 5:8. 129   Robertson, 1131f.; cf. 512ff., 1125ff. 130   In the LXX Psalter the phrase often renders adverbially the Hebrew ‫יחד‬ or ‫‘( יחדו‬together’; cf. KBR, I, 405f.). Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, Leicester UK 31990: the Hebrew term may mean ‘ “in the same place,” “at the same time” [or] “with one accord” ’ (108, cf. 133); E. Ferguson, ‘ “When You Come Together”: Epi To Auto in Early Christian Literature’, Rest Q 16 (1973), 202-208: ‘a Semitic origin’ (203); M. Wilcox, Semitisms in Acts, Oxford 1965, 93-100: ‘the expression…is a Hebraism’ (99). See in the LXX Pss 2:2; 4:9 (8); 18:9; 33:3; 36:38; 47:4; 48:10; 54:14; 70:10; 73:6, 8; 97:8; 101:23 (22); 121:3; 132:1. Cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, Oxford 1971, 192n = GT: 154n. 131   Cf. Fitzmyer, 433. 124



VI

413

Lord’s Supper. In view is any particular house congregation and not the whole body of Christians at Corinth.132   = ‘the Lord’s Supper’, i.e. the meal consecrated to or belonging to the Lord,133 ‘who founded…, invites…[and] presides over it’.134 21a.  135     = ‘for each one takes his own supper’. The communal nature of the Lord’s Supper has been negated and turned into an individual’s own supper,136 presumably including his household and perhaps Christian friends, that excludes other poorer Christians present in the congregation.  (‘takes’) stresses, with the rest of the sentence, the self-centeredness and exclusivity of their ‘own’ meal; no temporal element appears to be involved (cf. 11:33), neither in the word nor in the context.137 The context of the Agape Meal has at least four aspects, (1) the number of members of a particular Corinthian house church, (2) the size and accommodation of the house, (3) the social place of the church in the Graeco-Roman world, and (4) the character of the meal. (1) According to Acts, Paul, expelled from the synagogue, established a house church next door in the home of the God-fearer138   Also, at 14:23. There were four or five at Corinth (see above on ###). Cf. Barn 4:10; BDAG, 363 §1cb. Further, cf. Acts 1:15; 2:1f. 133   Cf. Rev 1:10: ‘the Lord’s day’; Fitzmyer, 434; W. Foerster, ‘’, TDNT 3 (1965/1938), 1095f.; J. Behm, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 34f.; Deissmann, 357; idem (note 240), 217f.; BDAG, 576. 134   Godet, II, 143. 135   See above on 2:11, note 482; here an explanatory . 136   In the word order  is emphatic, and the individual and exclusive focus is accentuated by ‘his own’ (). Cf. BDAG, 466f. 137   So, e.g. B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, Grand Rapids MI 2001, 142-158 (143-148, 151f.), and the literature cited; Garland, 540; Hays, 197; M & M, 542; BAGD, 715, §2. Otherwise: BDAG, 872; Fitzmyer, 434f.; Barrett, 262f. Cf. the discussion of Schrage, III, 23-27 and the literature cited. On the context see directly below, ‘Special Note on the Lord’s Supper’. 138   Q.v. @ 1:16, note 140; @ 5:2, notes 37-40; cf. E. A. Judge, ‘Jews, Proselytes, and God-fearers Club Together’, ND 9 (2002), 73-80 and the literature cited. 132

414

1 CORINTHIANS

Titius Justus where many () believed and were baptized (Acts 18:7f.). In the plan of his mission to Greece (AD 50–53), he ordinarily stayed only a number of weeks in a given city, planting a church and then moving on.139 At Corinth he stayed over 18 months in response to the words in a night vision of the Lord (Jesus): ‘Many people in this city are mine’ (Acts 18:9f.). ‘Many’ (), repeating Acts 18:8, does not mean three or four dozen or score but ‘a large multitude’,140 extending at least into the hundreds. This is confirmed by the length of the Apostle’s founding mission there and the 4 or 5 house churches established,141 each arguably numbering between 50 and 100 persons (see below). (2) Houses of well-to-do and wealthy142 Christian converts, who hosted church services143 and some who also gave room and board to Paul and his co-missioners,144 clearly were not English cottages. Among their prominent features they typically had a large main room or hallway near the entry, the atrium, and regularly a more spacious colonnaded courtyard or garden, the peristyle, further back in the house.145 Either of these areas provided ample (standing) room for a church congregation of more than 100, and together they could easily hold ten or twelve low tables, each providing angled couches for about ten diners at the Agape Meal.146 139   Cf. Acts 15:40–18:22; cf. Phil 4:15f.; I Thess 2:1f.; 3:1f. In his mission to Greece (AD 50–53) he founded churches at Alexandria-Troas (cf. Acts 16:8-11 with 20:6f.), Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens, and Corinth. Cf. Ellis, Making, 260-263; idem, Interpreters, 12f. 140   J. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, Göttingen 1998, 461: ‘Eine grosse Volksmenge’. 141   Judge (note 138) argues that the God-fearers tended to be well-off Gentiles (77f.). This accords with those mentioned in Acts 10:2 (Cornelius); 13:15f., 26, 50 (synagogue congregants and ‘prominent women’); 16:14 (Lydia); 17:4 (‘leading women’); 18:7 (Justus). 142   See above on 1:26, notes 283f. 143   1:11, note 89 (Chloe); 16:15f. (Stephanas, probably); Acts 18:7ff. (Titius Justus; Crispus, perhaps); Rom 16:1f. Cf. Ellis, ‘House Churches’, Theology, 139-145. 144   I.e. Silas and Timothy. So, Lydia’s at Philippi and Jason’s at Thessalonica where ‘a great multitude’ ( ) of converts met; Phoebe at Cenchreae and Gaius at Corinth (Acts 16:14f.; 17:4, 7; Rom 16:1f., 23). 145   Cf. A. G. McKay, Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World, London 1975, and the literature cited. The porches are uniformly c. 9 feet wide, usually on four sides (tetrastyle) and sometimes on two or three, and often 40 plus feet long. 146   J. Wiseman, ‘Corinth and Rome I’, ANRW 7.1 (1979), 438-548 (528) and the volumes edited by the American School of Classical Studies, dealing



VI

415

Some147 mistakenly think that the house churches used the triclinia (i.e. domestic dining rooms for family and friends), of which wealthy homes often had several,148 for the Meal. (3) Societally, the church of Paul’s day was viewed and viewed itself as a Jewish entity. The first is evident from the facts that (a) the Emperor Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome in c. AD 49 included the messianic Jews, i.e. Christians, Aquila and Priscilla149 and (b) the Achaian governor Gallio’s acquittal of Paul because the charges were ‘a question of your own [Jewish] law’.150 with excavations at Corinth (Princeton NJ 1960–), give no measurements of houses of the upper-middle class although some ruins have been found, e.g. ‘the Mosaic House’ (Corinth, I, part 5). The best preserved houses are those covered by volcanic ash and lava in AD 79: at Pompeii the atria average c. 31 × 42 feet and the peristyles c. 55 × 67 feet. My inexact measurements in 1981 of the houses of the Silver Wedding, of Panza, of the Surgeon, of the Vetti (a peristyle of c. 57 × 87 feet), and of the Fawn (two peristyles) have been conformed to those in McKay (note 145). Cf. B. Andreae, ed., Neue Forschungen in Pompeii, Rechlinghausen 1975, 11; H. Eschebach, Pompeji, Leipzig 1978, 312. Some middle- and lower-class houses have peristyles of c. 25 × 35 feet (Andreae, 134f.). At Herculaneum the atria average c. 25 × 30 feet and the peristyles 33 × 50 feet. My inexact measurements in 1983 of the houses of the Beautiful Courtyard (atrium c. 12 × 25 and peristyle c. 18 × 33 feet), of the Mosaic Atrium (atrium c. 25 × 26 and peristyle c. 54 × 84 feet) and of the Wooden Partition (atrium c. 24 × 29 and peristyle c. 27 × 39 feet) have been conformed to those (in meters) of A. Maiuri, Ercolano, I, Rome 1958, 198, 208, 266, 280, 384, 394. At the nearby magnificent Villa Oplontis, the peristyle of 36 × 45 feet contained an altar to a favored god (Andreae). For a different viewpoint cf. J. Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, Collegeville MN 32002, 178-185 = idem, Keys, 182-193. 147   E. g. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘House Churches and the Eucharist’ (note 146), 178ff., 184 (with ‘second-class’ facilities and food in the atrium for poorer members) = idem, Keys, 182-193. The pagans sometimes graded domestic meal guests, e.g. Pliny, Letters 2, 6; cf. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians, New Haven CT 22003, 68f.; G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, Philadelphia PA 1982, 147-174. But Paul says nothing of this regarding the house church sponsor; he criticizes only the actions of certain individuals. See below, notes 181f. 148   Cf. OCD2, 1093f.; OCD3, 469f. See below, ###. 149   Acts 18:2; cf. Suetonius, Claudius, 25, 4; Ellis, Making, 240n, 243. 150   Acts 18:15. Only with the persecution (AD 65–68) of the Emperor Nero, perhaps influenced by his wife Poppaea, a Jewish sympathizer and God-fearer, did Rome distinguish between ‘messianic Judaism’ = ‘the Christians’ and the Jewish nation as such. Cf. Josephus, Ant., 20, 195; Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44; Suetonius, Nero, 16, 2; Ellis, Making, 246f.; idem, ‘The Church and Judaism’, Theology, 132-135, cf. 131.

416

1 CORINTHIANS

Secondly, Paul himself identifies the church as ‘the assembly of God’ (1:2), ‘the Israel of God’ (perhaps in contrast to ‘Israel according to the flesh’, 10:18), ‘the circumcision’ and ‘God’s people’.151 He regards himself as ‘an Israelite’ and ‘a Hebrew’, and he often submits to Jewish ecclesiastical authority.152 Especially according to Acts,153 he conducted his mission as a messianic Jewish rabbi,154 and he bases his whole teaching on the Jewish Scriptures.155 Under the umbrella of Judaism156 the church had the status of a religious association (collegium) or ‘club’,157 including certain additional special privileges given to Jews by Julius Caesar158 and reconfirmed by the Roman Senate and by the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius,159 e.g. the rights of periodic assembly, common meals, sacred rites, collection of money, and its transmission to Jerusalem. The Pauline churches exercised all of these activities,160 customarily without interference from the authorities; they could do this only as a Jewish ‘authorized association’ (collegium licita).161 (4) The 151   Gal 6:16; cf. Phil 3:2f. with Rom 2:28f.; II Cor 6:16. See above on 1:2, notes 62-67; on 1:26, note 290; on 10:18 (10:14-22). Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, 121; idem, Paul’s Use, 136-139, 137f. 152   Rom 11:1; II Cor 11:22, 24. Cf. Billerbeck III, 527-530. 153   On its date (AD 63–64) and historical credibility cf. Ellis, Making, 389ff.; idem, History, 33, 35, 60-63, correcting an earlier view (Ellis, Luke, 57-62). 154   The Apostle usually began his mission in each city at a Jewish synagogue (Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8). He also had Timothy circumcised, exercised Jewish religious vows, observed Jewish festivals in Jerusalem and, emulating Jewish custom, carried offerings to Jerusalem (16:1ff.; Acts 11:29f.; 16:3; 18:18; 20:3f.; 21:23-26; 24:17; cf. Rom 15:25f.; II Cor 9). 155   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 20-37; idem, Old Testament, 121. 156   See above, notes 151f., 154f. 157   Cf. OCD2, 255f.; OCD3, 351ff.; Ellis, ‘The Social Place of the Church in the Roman World’, Theology, 123-147; idem, Making, 29f. 158   Josephus, Ant. 14, 213-222: ‘Gaius Caesar stated that “it displeases me that such [local] statutes should be made against our [Jewish] friends and allies and that they should be forbidden…to contribute to common meals and sacred rites…” ’ (214). Cf. Ellis, Theology, 129-132; A. M. Rabello, ‘The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire’, ANRW 2, 13 (1980), 662-762. 159   Josephus, Ant. 16, 166, 172f.; 19, 304; Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 156f., 159, regarding Augustus and Tiberius. 160   E.g. 11:17-20, 33; 14:23-26; 16:1ff.; Rom 15:25-28; II Cor 8–9. 161   Such clubs were formed for various groups, more for social and religious than for economic interests, e.g. the silversmiths and fishermen at Ephesus (Acts 19:24-27; ND 5 [1989], 95-114, 99-102). Clubs for the poor (collegia tenuiorum)



VI

417

character of the Agape Meal = the Lord’s Supper must be addressed by a special note. Special Note on the Lord’s Supper References to Jesus as ‘our Passover’, to the ‘cup of blessing’ and ‘the bread which we break’ as a participation () in Christ’s death, to the dissidents’ misconduct at the ‘Lord’s Supper’ as a liability for Christ’s death and especially to Paul’s citation of a dominical tradition of the Last Supper162 indicate that the Meal at 11:20-29 is a fairly frequent repetition of the Supper163 in accord with Jesus’ command.164 That the Last Supper was a Passover meal165 has, in my judgment, been convincingly demonstrated by J. Jeremias and had essentially the following order:166 A. PRELIMINARY COURSE: 1. Word of dedication (blessing of the feast day [qiddush = ‫]קידוש‬ and of the cup) spoken by the paterfamilias over the first cup (the qiddush cup).

emphasized dining and funeral benefits. They have been researched, largely based on T. Mommsen, De collegiis et sodaliciis Romanorum, Kiel 1843, by e.g. W. Liebenam, Zur Geschichte und Organization des römischen Vereinswesens, Leipzig 1890; F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens, Leipzig 1909; M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols., Oxford 1941, II, 1061-1066, passim; J. P. Waltzing, Corporations professionalles chez les Romains, 4 vols., Louvain 1900; (briefly) P. W. Duff, Personality in Roman Private Law, Cambridge 1938, 95-158. Cf. Ellis, ‘Early Christianity and the World Order’, Theology, 123-132. 162   Which is identified in the Synoptic Gospels as the Passover (Mt 26:17-29 parr). 163   See above on 5:7f.; 10:16f.; below on 11:25f. () 11:27, 23ff. 164   11:25; Lk 22:19. Cf. Ellis, Luke, 249-257. 165   Although celebrated on Tuesday, following a solar rather than on Friday following the lunar calendars used by the temple and pharisaic authorities. Cf. A. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper, New York 1965, 15-52, 69-121; Ellis, Luke, 249f. Similar, cf. also I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, Grand Rapids 1980, 73f.; Billerbeck II, 812-853. 166   J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Philadelphia 41977, 85f. A few alterations have been made.

418

1 CORINTHIANS

Kiddush: (1) a washing of sanctification (‫)קדש‬. (2) a ceremony of betrothal. *(3) a special prayer (‫ )קדשה‬of the occasion. (4) tractate in Mishnah: ‘Betrothal’. 2. Preliminary dish, consisting among other things of green herbs, bitter herbs, and a fruit sauce. 3. The meal proper is served but not yet eaten; the second cup is mixed and put in its place but not yet drunk. B. PASSOVER LITURGY: 1. Passover haggadah [interpreted biblical story] by the pater­ familias (in Aramaic): Exod 13:14. 2. First part of the Passover hallel (in Hebrew): Pss 113–114 (Shammai: Ps 113). 3. Drinking of the second cup (haggadah cup). C. MAIN MEAL: 1. Grace spoken by the paterfamilias over the unleavened bread (M Berakoth 6:1; Mt 26:26 = Mk 14:22). 2. Meal, consisting of Passover lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs, with fruit puree and wine [italics = main interpreted elements]. 3. Offering for the poor: Jn 13:27ff. 4. Blessing (‫ )ברכה‬over the third cup (‘cup of blessing’) closed the meal: Mt 26:27ff. = Mk 14:23ff. [ct. Lk 22:15ff.]; I Cor 10:16; 11:25. D. CONCLUSION: 1. Second part of the Passover hallel (in Hebrew): Pss 115–118; (Mt 26:29 = Mk 14:25). 2. Praise over the fourth cup (hallel cup). Cf. Mt 26:30a = Mk 14:26a. 3. The fourth cup [not drunk?].



VI

419

It is reasonable to assume that this order was observed by Jewish families at Corinth and introduced by the Apostle in his house churches with christological changes in the liturgy, i.e. sermon, and in other respects. Probably ‘the Christian Supper was closely modeled, in all essentials, on what Christ did at the Paschal Supper’ (R & P, 256). This gives additional force to his criticism of the dissidents’ ‘going ahead with your own meal’ (11:21). In the early Jerusalem church the Lord’s Supper was apparently observed only once a year167 in additional to the more frequent and joyful ‘breaking of bread’ in remembrance of the meals with the resurrected Lord.168 The two meals seem to have been merged with requisite alterations and observed more often in the diaspora church.169 21b.       =  ‘and one is hungry and one is making-merry on dinner wine’. The assumption is that each person or family brought food for the Agape Meal. The ‘hungry’ would have included those persons too poor to bring anything and slaves and freedmen of unbelieving masters who did not permit them to do so.170   This was a practice of the second- and third-century Christian group in Assyria and Asia Minor, apparently the product of the mission of James (Ellis, Making, 263f., 284f., 288-293), who were called the Quartadecimaner (= 14th Nisan) because of their celebration in the late night, subsequent to fasting and prayer for their unbelieving Jewish nation, after the latter’s traditional Passover. Cf. B. Lohse, Das Passafest der Quartadecimaner, Gütersloh 1953; Ellis, Luke, 253; ODCC, 1355f.; RGG3, 733. 168   Acts 1:4 (, ‘eating’); 2:42, 46; 10:41 (20:7); cf. Lk 24:30; Jn 20:9-14; O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, London 51959, 14-20. 169   Cf. Ellis, Luke, 250. If so, one need not suppose with O. Hofius (‘The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition’, One Loaf, One Cup, ed. B. F. Meyer, Macon GA 1993, 75-115, 80-88) and Garland (546) that the Agape Meal at Corinth occurred between the ‘bread word’ and ‘cup word’ as it did in the Passover order at the Last Supper (see above, notes 166f.). More likely, the joyful Agape Meal preceded the Eucharist (, 11:24) of bread and wine (so, Conzelmann, 199 = GT: 234) expressing (1) remembrance of Christ’s death (11:24) for his people and for the fallen creation (, Rom 11:15; II Cor 5:19; I Thess 2:2; 4:14, (2) their corporate identification with Christ and with one another (10:16f.), and (3) their anticipation of Christ’s second coming (11:26). 170   Cf. Winter (note 137), 157f. Those belonging to believing masters (see above on 7:21, note 591, Special Note), including the host of the house church, 167

420

1 CORINTHIANS

 (‘to make merry on wine’) and its cognates171 in the NT usually are translated ‘drunkard’ and ‘to be drunk’.172 But a few times it seems to refer to the use of wine to make one (or a group) animated, merry and forgetful of all else (in modern terms, the ‘happy hour’, or in earlier England the expression ‘Merry Christmas’), e.g. Mt 24:49; Jn 2:10; cf. Acts 2:15. It probably has this meaning here173 since the Apostle (1) has earlier named drunkenness as a vice that excludes one from the kingdom of God174 and (2) here does not condemn the drinking as such but rather the selfcenteredness of it to the exclusion of the poorer church members from this particular meal (11:22). 22.  175     = ‘Indeed! Do you not have houses etc.’ The unusual 176…177 combination178 ultimately expects a positive answer, but the emphatic position of the  invites the intensive expression, ‘Indeed!’179 The reference to their ‘houses’ suggests that Paul knows that they are from a well-to-do segment of the congregation.180 Whether they are simply following the practice of their pagan past181 in which guests at one’s dinner party were greeted and served more or less appetizing food according to their social status or friendship with the host is less clear. Here it is not ‘more or less’ but ‘all or none’. would receive food; but in a house-church setting servants would probably, then as now, have sat at separate tables from their masters. To what extent local food shortages (q.v. @ 7:26, note 620) affected the situation is unknown. Cf. S. W. Henderson, ‘ “If anyone hungers…” ’, NTS 48 (2002), 195-208. 171    (I Thess 5:7; Mt 24:49; Jn 2:10; Acts 2:15; Rev 17:2, 6);  (Eph 5:18; I Thess 5:7; Lk 12:45);  (5:11; 6:10). 172   Cf. BDAG, 626. Cf. H. Preisker, ‘ ’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 547f.; P. J. Budd, ‘’, NIDNTT 1 (21986), 513f. 173   So, Heinrici, 341. Cf. Schrage, III, 26. 174   6:10; cf. 5:11. 175   The explanatory  (q.v. @ 9:10, note 270) ties 9:22 to 9:20f. 176   Expecting a negative answer. Cf. BDF, 220; Moule, 159; Moulton, III, 282f. 177   Expecting a positive answer. See above, note 176. 178   Cf. 9:4ff.; Rom 10:18. 179   Cf. Thiselton, 864. 180   So, Fee, 543f. 181   For examples of this practice in Graeco-Roman society, cf. Garland, 542ff. Cf. P. Veyne, A History of Private Life I: Pagan Rome to Byzantium, Cambridge MA 1987, 91. See above, note 147. But Jewish dinner parties and feasts were similar (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39 par; Lk 14:7-11).



VI

421

The Apostle condemns not the social and economic inequalities among the congregants but rather the attitude and conduct of these well-off Corinthian Christians toward their poorer Christian brothers. In an extremely strong indictment Paul states that they (1) have expressed not just selfishness but contempt182 for the ‘church of God’ (q.v. @ 1:2), i.e. ‘irreverence to God in the person of his Church’ (Moffatt, 162), Christ’s body,183 and (2) have shamed (; ‫)בּוּשׁ‬184 those who have nothing (  ).185    = ‘What should I say to you?’ The first person present deliberative subjunctive sense carries over to the future .   = ‘in this’, referring to 11:20ff.186 23-25. The traditional Jewish formula for the transmission of religious tradition, ‘I received ()…what I also delivered (),187 introduces Paul’s citation of a tradition of Jesus’ action and words at the Last Supper,188 virtually identical with   Rightly, Fitzmyer, 435. The traditional translation ‘despise’ reflects too much an emotional reaction. In fact,  here (cf. BDAG, 529) implies more a dismissive attitude. Some of these Corinthians, unrepentant, appear to have later joined Paul’s opponents. Cf. II Cor 10–13; Jude 12. See below, ‘Paul’s Opponents and 1 Corinthians’, AE I, ### [42-74]. 183   Q.v. @ 10:16; 12:12, 27. See above, 10:14-22, notes 555-574; below, ‘The Corporate Body’, AE VIII, ### [290-305]. 184   The NT concept is rooted in OT usage (e.g. Ps 25:2). See above on 1:27, note 297. The ‘shame’ or ‘humiliation’ may have been (1) the waiting for the Eucharist as others ate the Agape Meal or (2) having their poverty revealed to all. It is difficult to understand why the host of the house church is not addressed in the Apostle’s criticism. Perhaps he could not feed a large number of poorer members. 185   Literally ‘those who do not have’, a circumstantial relative clause, i.e. do not have food (11:21), not houses. Fitzmyer (435) may be right that Paul’s critique here and further such misconduct eventually led to the dropping of the Agape Meal from the celebration of the Eucharist, i.e. the taking of bread and wine as in today’s Lord’s Supper. 186   Otherwise: R & P, 242. 187   11:23. Cf. M Aboth 1:1: ‘Moses received (‫ )קבל‬the Torah from Sinai and delivered it (‫ )מסרה‬to Joshua…’; Billerbeck, III, 444, and the literature cited; Mk 7:3f.; O. Cullmann, ‘The Tradition’ (note 26), 59-99, 62-69. 188   See also 11:2; 15:1, 3; cf. 7:10; Acts 6:14; 16:4; Rom 6:17; II Pet 2:21; Jude 3. See above on 11:2, notes 25ff. 182

422

1 CORINTHIANS

the Gospel of Luke vis-à-vis Mark and Matthew.189 It points to a ‘chain of tradition’190 and not to a revelation directly from the Lord’ (191  ) to the Apostle.192 But it represents nonetheless the Word of the Lord since it was transmitted, albeit in different wording and order, by inspired pneumatics (q.v. @ 2:6-16), i.e. ‘his holy apostles and prophets’ (Eph 3:5), who have His mind and carry his meaning. It is thus a preformed non-Pauline tradition193 that the Apostle probably received from Peter or James in AD 36 in Jerusalem.194 23.    = ‘For195 I etc.’, with the  in the emphatic position to stress his apostolic authority and personal affirmation of Christ’s Last Supper teaching.196 Conzelmann (196n = GT: 231n) puts it rightly that Christ’s ‘ “words of institution” are incorporated into the framework of the farewell Supper in such a way that the repetition [both] of the Supper and of the words of interpretation become binding in the church’. That is, his words are expressive of the meaning of his actions and are, therefore, a necessary part of the content of the Lord’s Supper service ‘in remembrance of me’ (11:24f.).

  E.g. in the use of                      (11:24f.; Lk 22:19f.). Luke later received this wording of the tradition from the Jerusalem church as he gathered the episodes for his Gospel during the Apostle’s detainment at Caesarea in AD 58–60. Cf. Acts 24:10-27; 25:1-12; Ellis, Luke, 252ff.; idem, Making, 263f., 288-292, 402f. 190   Rightly, Schrage, III, 28-32 (29). 191    ‘merely notes the point of departure’ (Robertson, 561) and is more vague than  (Allo, 314). Here it refers to a preformed tradition in contrast to a direct dominical revelation as at Acts 20:24: ‘I received from () the Lord Jesus’. 192   Rightly, Conzelmann, 196 = GT: 230. 193   So, Fitzmyer, 436; Schrage, III, 29ff.; Kümmel, 185; Meyer, 261. Otherwise: Lietzmann, 57; Godet, II, 147ff.; Edwards, 290f.; Olshausen, 182f. 194   Gal 1:18f. As someone put it, they did not spend two weeks talking about the weather. Cf. Ellis, Making, 35, 58f., 71f., 74, 256-260; idem, History, 50. 195   A causal , giving the underlying reason and ultimate source of his foregoing and subsequent criticisms of their conduct. See above on 9:11, note 270. 196   Cf. Thiselton, 867f. 189



VI

423

197 198 = ‘Lord Jesus’, used fewer than twenty times in Paul’s letters with c. one-third in I and II Thessalonians.199 It combines Christ’s divine nature ( = Yahweh) with his personal name (OT: ‘Joshua’ = Savior; q.v. @ 1:2, note 80). Whether it is more intimate or devotional, as in some prayers today, is unclear.    = ‘on the night’. Ordinarily the evening (second daily) meal in first-century Judaism was eaten in the late afternoon, only formal meals at night.200 A metaphorical meaning of , ‘darkness’, ‘evil’, ‘death’, may be alluded to at Jn 13:29f.,201 but there is no suggestion of that here.   = ‘in which he was betrayed’, i.e. ‘delivered’ to the hostile religious leaders to be crucified. The imperfect passive reference is, as elsewhere, explicitly to Judas,202 but it is also represented as (1) the work of Satan through him203 and (2) the sovereign (permissive) work of God to effect the redemption of God’s elect204 through the Messiah as the ‘Suffering Servant’.205   Q.v. @ 1:2, notes 87ff.   Q.v. @ 1:2, notes 80f. 199   I Thess 2:15; 3:13; 4:1f.; II Thess 1:7, 9. 200   One of Jeremias’ (note 166, 44ff.) arguments that the Last Supper was a Passover. 201   See Jn 13:25-30; cf. Rom 13:12; I Thess 5:5ff.; II Pet 3:10 C M. 202   This role of Judas is understood in the Gospel traditions and in Acts and was doubtless known to Paul (pace Fitzmyer, 436). ‘ “Betray” is an established belief of the Passion kerygma’ (Conzelmann, 197 = GT: 232). Cf. Mt 10:4 parr; 17:22 T + Q (20:18 par); 26:2; 26:14ff. parr, 21 par, 27; 27:3-10; Jn 13:21-27; Acts 1:18ff. The proximity of the verbal parallel ‘to deliver tradition’ (11:23a) is totally without significance (cf. Fee, 549, note 24). See below, note 203. 203   Lk 22:3; Jn 13:27. See above on 5:5, notes 95-103; Ellis, Luke, 248. 204   Cf. Mt 26:39 par; Jn 18:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27f.; Eph 5:25; Col 1:13; Ellis, Sovereignty, 8-12 (11), 41; Schrage, III, 31 and the literature cited; R & P, 243. See Isa 53:6: ‘The LORD laid on (‫ = פגע‬LXX: ) him the iniquity of us all’ (NKJV). The LXX translation, ‘gave him up’ or ‘gave him over’ for our sins is the same word here rendered ‘betray’. Cf. Isa 53:12 (); O. Betz, ‘Das Mahl des Herrn bei Paulus’, Jesus Der Herr der Kirche, Tübingen 1990, 217-251, 224; J. Jeremias, ‘ ’, TDNT 5 (1967/1954), 654-717 (705-711, note 440); Thiselton, 869 and the literature cited. 205   Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, 72; C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in DeuteroIsaiah, Oxford 1948, 44f., 215ff.; A. Motyer, Isaiah, Leicester 1999, 339; J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah, 2 vols., Grand Rapids MI 1998, II, 400-408; B. Childs, Isaiah, 197 198

424

1 CORINTHIANS

  = ‘took bread’. At 10:16 the ‘cup’ word is first, probably a Pauline variation because he wishes to elaborate on the ‘bread’ word.206 24-25. See above on 10:14-22, notes 557-568; on ‘Special Note on the Lord’s Supper’, notes 162-169. 24f. 207 = ‘having given thanks’. Christ’s initial blessing over the main meal of Passover (see above, note 166). More liturgical denominations use the transliteration of this word, i.e. the Eucharist, for the Lord’s Supper service.         = ‘This is my body for you’. The bread208 is broken; the body is given (Lk 22:19; cf. Jn 19:33-36) over to death ‘for you’,209 i.e. not only for the eleven present at the Last Supper but, as 11:23-26 (and Lk 22:19) shows, for all of Christ’s ungodly210 chosen ones who from the heart ‘do this’ ( ). Central is (1) the action211 and attitude, not (2) one’s perception of the nature of the elements—whether Roman or Eastern Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Zwinglian, or Baptist, but (2), especially the meaning of ‘is’ (, 11:24f.) has received the most attention212 and provoked great controversy in the Western church, especially at the Reformation.213 At Louisville 2001, 420-423; L. Goppelt, TYPOS: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids MI 1982, 39f. = GT: 45f. 206   Marshall (note 165), 73f. 207   Nominative singular masculine aorist active participle from . 208   Rightly, Fitzmyer, 437, who points out that ‘this’ () = ‘this bread’ (  ); it is neuter gender because of attraction to the neuter ‘body’ ( ). 209   Further, Rom 5:8; 8:34; 14:15; II Cor 5:14f., 21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; I Thess 5:10. See above on 8:11 for the problem posed by the use of the phrase there. 210   Rom 5:6, 8. 211   The Lord’s Supper has a threefold perspective: the present action of every generation referring to the past event of Christ’s death and the proclaiming of it until the future parousia, i.e. the second coming of the Lord and the public manifestation of the kingdom of God (11:26; cf. Mt 26:29 par). 212   The literature bearing on the question is voluminous. Schrage (III, 1-8) lists over 200 published items. 213   Cf. D. Wendebourg, Essen zum Gedächtnis. Der Gedächtnisbefehl in den Abendmahlstheologien der Reformation, Tübingen 2009, passim; ‘Eucharist’,



VI

425

the Colloquy of Marburg (1529)214 the Reformed and Lutheran representatives, meeting in a room at the castle, agreed on 14 of 15 points discussed. But on the 15th point Luther is said to have written with his finger in the dust on the table, ‘Hoc est corpus meum’ (‘This is my body’), arguing that the Real Presence215 of Christ’s body was ‘in, with, and under’ the bread and wine (‘consubstantiation’).216 The Colloquy closed and the Continental Reformation was split down the middle between the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of ‘is’. The Reformed understanding is more probable. Like Jesus at the Last Supper, Paul views the bread and wine as outward symbolic representations of the corporate identity of Jesus’ true followers with himself in his death. For him the ‘Real Presence’ of Jesus at the post-resurrection Lord’s Supper is the Holy Spirit in each one of the congregants, although at 11:24 that ‘Presence’ is more intensified and more focused on his death.217 It represents no difference in kind from that expressed in (the resurrected) Jesus’ word, ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them’ (Mt 18:20). This understanding is supported by (1) the reason given at 11:22 for the Apostle’s citation at 11:24f., i.e. his criticism of some Corinthians for excluding others who were by the Holy Spirit218 corporate participants with Christ in his death, (2) the baptism in the Holy Spirit that incorporated the elect Christians into Christ219 and (3) the identity of these Christians as ‘the body of Christ’ via the Holy Spirit.220   = ‘do this’ (bis). See above, notes 210f.

ODCC, 566-569 and the literature cited; R. S. Wallace, ‘Communion, Holy’, NIDCC, 244f. 214   Cf. ‘Marburg’, ODCC, 1032. 215   Cf. ‘Real Presence’, ODCC, 1370. 216   Cf. ‘Consubstantiation’, ODCC, 408. 217   See below on 11:27, 29. 218   See above on 6:17, 19; below on 12:27; on AE VIII, ### [297f.], notes 44, 46-49. Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 3n. 219   Cf. 12:13; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:14, 27; Eph 4:4f.; Col 2:11f.; Tit 3:5; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 19:5f. See above, note 183. Cf. Ellis, Theology, 30-33 (on Tit 3:5). 220   See above on 10:14-22, notes 563-568. Cf. Jn 6:53-56.

426

1 CORINTHIANS

   221 = ‘in remembrance of me’, i.e. of Christ’s death for their sins.222 With these words Jesus transferred the ‘remembrance’ texts of Passover from God’s redemption of his people in the Exodus from Egypt223 to the ‘new covenant in my blood’ (11:25; cf. Jer 31:31-34), the new Exodus of God’s people from sin and death itself.224 Jeremias225 takes the phrase to mean ‘that God may remember’ i.e. Christ’s death for our sins (15:3). He (or his conception) is supported in the OT texts: when God remembers (‫ )זכר‬he acts to confirm or to fulfill his covenant,226 to give deliverance,227 and to punish disobedience.228 Also, at Heb 9:14 Jeremias could argue that ‘the blood of Christ who through the everlasting Spirit offered himself without blemish to God’ may include calling his sacrifice to God the Father’s remembrance.229 Nevertheless, Jeremias’ thesis does not fit the symbolic action at the Lord’s Supper, which is to remind the participants in the Supper of Christ’s death.230 221   Only here (bis) and in Lk 22:19 re the Lord’s Supper, pointing to the tradition of the Jerusalem church. See above, notes 189, 194;  occurs only once elsewhere in the NT, Heb 10:3, with reference to the annual ‘remembrance’ and atonement for sins in the OT (Lev 16:34); B. F. Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids MI 1952 [1892], 300f.; W. L. Lane, Hebrews, 2 vols., Dallas TX 1991, II, 222, on Heb 9:5ff.; Wendebourg (note 213). The cognate  (‘memory’, ‘memorial’,), also rooted in the OT, is somewhat different. Cf. BDAG, 655; K. H. Bartels, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 242f.; O. Michel, ‘’, TDNT 4 (1967/1942), 682f. 222   Cf. the discussion of Thiselton, 878-882 (‘in remembrance of me’) and the literature cited. 223   Cf. Exod 12:13f.; 13:8ff.; Dt 16:2f. 224   Lk 9:31 (). Cf. Ellis, Luke, 143. Cf. Jn 6:53-56 = identification of the elect believer with Christ’s death by grace through faith. Cf. A. Plummer, S. John, Cambridge 1900, 161f.; R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 2 vols., New York 1970, I, 292; L. Morris, The Gospel according to John, Grand Rapids 21995, 333-336. 225   Jeremias (note 166), 237-255; cf. the discussion of his thesis in J. Reumann, The Supper of the Lord, Philadelphia 1985, 27-34. 226   Gen 9:15; Exod 2:24; 6:5; Lev 26:41f., 45; Ezek 16:60. 227   Gen 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; I Sam 1:11, 19f.; Isa 38:3-6. 228   Jer 44:21f.; Hos 7:2; 8:13; 9:9. 229   Cf. also Heb 7:25; 8:1. 230   Rightly, Hays, 198f.; W. C. van Unnik, ‘Notes on a New Interpretation of the Anamnesis Words’, Sparsa Collecta, 3 vols., Leiden 1983, III, 318-325; D. Jones, ‘ in the LXX and the Interpretation of 1 Cor XI.25’, JTS 6



VI

427

25.  .  See above on 10:14-22, 16, note 558.   231 = ‘after finishing the supper’. Literally ‘after the supping’. This accords with the Passover order in which the third cup of wine, ‘the cup of blessing’, closed the main meal.232    = ‘the new covenant’,233 fulfilling the prophecy of Jer 31:31-34 (‫ברית‬, Jer 31:31ff.), is implicitly contrasted with the Old Covenant, also initiated with blood sacrifice and described at Exod 24:1-18 (8), but reaching back to the Passover sacrifice at Exod 12:21ff. The latter is probably uppermost in the Apostle’s mind.234     = ‘in my blood’, i.e. the blood poured out in death.235 Sacrificial blood is essential and central to the old covenant236 in which the blood (‫ )דם‬of the sacrificed animals offered annually at Yom Kippur (‫)יום כיפור‬, i.e. the Day of Atonement,237 delayed for a year but did not remove the death-judgment of God upon the sinner, i.e. upon each and every son of Adam.238 27.  = ‘as often as’ (bis, 11:25), putting the frequency of the Lord’s Supper ‘at the discretion of the Church’. 11:26 begins (1955), 183-191: ‘The Christian remembrance…is the remembrance of a sequence of events which are yet to find their culmination and of a Lord who rose from the dead and lives in his Church by the Spirit’ (191). 231   The substantival use of the aorist infinitive . 232   See above on 10:14-22, notes 557f.; on 11:21a (Special Note). 233   Cf. Lk 22:20; Heb 8:8-13; 9:15; 10:29; 12:24; 13:20. The Apostle’s reference to the unbelieving Jew’s reading the Old Covenant = the OT (II Cor 3:14) may presuppose that he regards his letters, which he commands to be read in church (Col 4:16; I Thess 5:27), to be part of a written New Covenant established by Christ’s death. But he uses the phrase ‘new covenant’ only of the preached Word (II Cor 3:6). Cf. Ellis, Christ, 223f. The Qumran Essenes also regarded their community as a fulfillment of the ‘New Covenant’ (CD 6:19; 1QpHab 2:1-9). 234   Cf. Godet, II, 159. 235   Cf. L. Morris, ‘Blood’, NBD, 143, and the literature cited; A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word ‘Blood’ in Scripture, London 1947; Lev 17:11; Heb 9:22b: ‘Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins’. 236   Exod 30:10; Lev 16:2f., 11-17, 34; 17:11; cf. Heb 9:7ff., 18-28. 237   Cf. L. Morris, ‘Atonement’, and E. E. Ellis, ‘Life’, NBD, 102ff., 687f., and the literature cited. 238   E.g. Rom 3:23; Col 1:21.

428

1 CORINTHIANS

Paul’s interpretation (n.b. ‘the Lord’s death’) albeit he still uses the same terminology from the tradition (cf. Conzelmann, 201 = GT: 237). As is detailed in Heb 9:18-28, the OT temple and its sacrifices are a type ()239 of Messiah’s identification as God’s new temple240 in which the presence of God now dwells and whose ‘once for all’ sacrifice secured an everlasting redemption.241 27.  = ‘consequently’. Q.v. @ 1:7, note 35.  = ‘unworthily’, a NT hapax, i.e. ‘in an unworthy manner’… out of keeping with the nature (10:16) of the ordinance (11:24f.)242 Paul generalizes the Lord’s Supper actions (‘whoever eats…or drinks…unworthily’) to establish a principle for all participants with 11:20f. as one blatant example. He does not express concern about their attitude toward the eucharistic elements but continues his critique of the misconduct of some participants vis-à-vis one another.243 Within that context commentators differ as to whether  means ‘guilty’244 or, more likely, ‘liable’.245 239   Heb 9:9; cf. 8:5 ( =  = ); 9:23 (). Cf. BDAG, 759; PGL, 1447 and the literature cited; H. Schlier, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 32f.; Goppelt (note 205), 114f., 177, 166 = GT: 200: ‘[According to Hebrews] OT prophecy [Jer 31:31-34] has already made the institutions of the covenant of Sinai into types of the means of redemption in a new divine order’; Ellis, ‘Typology and the Unity of the New Testament’, Old Testament, 151-157, cf. 105-109; idem, History, 115-118; idem, Christ, 44-49; idem, Prophecy, 165-169; idem, Paul’s Use, 35n, 51f., 88-92, 126-135. 240   Mt 21:42 T + Q; Jn 2:19-22; Acts 7:48f.; 17:24. See above on 3:16, Special Note. 241   Heb 9:12, 24-28; cf. Lane (note 221), II, 238f., 248-251; Westcott (note 221), 260f., 273-280, 297ff. and the literature cited. 242   Cf. Wolff, 277; further, cf. Godet, II, 163f. Otherwise: Fitzmyer, 445f., with a reference to 10:3f., interprets the concept as an unworthy reception of the eucharistic elements. 243   Cf. Orr and Walther, 273f. Paul’s use of ‘worthy’ () at Eph 4:1ff., which also refers to one’s conduct with reference to others, helps to define ‘unworthy’ here (cf. Garland, 550). 244   I.e. with the verdict already given and the judgment or punishment awaiting. So, e.g. Barrett, 272f.; Fee, 561. 245   I.e. accountable with both the divine verdict and the divine judgment awaiting. So, e.g. Fitzmyer, 445; Garland, 550; Collins, 436; Hays, 200f.; Parry, 171.



VI

429

  = ‘liable for the body and blood of the Lord’.  was used in antiquity for legal liability,246 and it may be interpreted similarly today. Here, of course, it is liability before the Divine Court, either at Christ’s parousia247 or in the present (11:30), whose (awaiting) verdict can be affected only by the offenders’ repentance (11:28, 31).      = ‘for the body and the blood’.248 They are inseparable and probably refer respectively to the outward and the inward aspects of Christ’s individual self and thus ‘the whole person’249 with respect to his human nature.250 Therefore, at 11:29 the absence of ‘blood’ is without significance. Either (1) ‘body’ () represents the whole corporate person (pars pro toto) present via the Holy Spirit in the congregation or (2) the reference is to the resurrected Lord in whom the ‘blood’ shed at the cross is no longer present (cf. Lk 24:39). 28.  251 252   253  = ‘so let a man vet himself etc’.254 The imperative of  is more comprehensive than ‘examine’ and is best expressed by the English term ‘vet’ = ‘test and approve’ or ‘test and correct’.255

  Cf. Edwards, 297f.; Parry, 171.   See above on 3:13; cf. II Cor 5:10. 248   The phrase is an objective genitive. 249   See below, AE VIII, notes 8-17. 250   The Son became incarnate and fallen man (cf. Heb 2:14; 15:50 with Lk 24:39) in order that God might ‘make him to be sin for us’ (   , II Cor 5:21). The Trinity was not reduced to two persons for three days. Cf. T. F. Torrance, Incarnation, Downers Grove IL 2008, 186; idem, Atonement, Downers Grove IL 2009, ###, and the literature cited. 251   Q.v. @ 1:10, notes 54ff. 252   On the generic use of , see above on 1:25, note 280. 253   Q.v. @ 4:1f. 254   The teaching of 11:28 has come into the Lord’s Supper liturgies of various denominations, notably Anglican Thomas Cranmer’s The Book of Common Prayer, Cambridge n.d. (1662), 236-262 (249ff., 255). Cf. ODCC, 317ff. (‘common prayer’), 352 f. (Cranmer, Thomas). 255   Popularized by the veterinarian’s examination of a beast and passing it as fit. 246 247

430

1 CORINTHIANS

29.  = ‘judgment’, i.e. a rightful divine judicial act as specified in 11:30, 34.256     = ‘not discerning257 the body’, i.e. a spiritual perception of the corporate body of Christ manifested in the congregation via the Holy Spirit and not in the Eucharistic elements: Paul’s critique at 11:20ff. continues. These Corinthians’ ‘spiritual’ gifts (1:5) do not bring spiritual discernment because without the presence of the fruit of the Spirit, i.e. of love (13:1-13)258 they are distorted. 30.   = ‘on account of this’, referring back to 11:29: ‘eats and drinks judgment on himself’ at the Lord’s Supper.      259  = ‘many are weak and ill and a number have fallen asleep’.  and  may indicate only a verbal variation, or  a larger number. The misuse of the Holy Spirit at the Communion Table is, the Apostle states, a dangerous matter.260 In a modern analogy the Holy Spirit may be compared to electricity: It can give light and, mishandled, it can effect death. 256   God’s  is in ct. to the wrongful human judicial actions against one another (q.v. @ 6:7f.). It appears most often for God’s judgments (Rom 2:2f.; 5:16; 11:33; Gal 5:10; otherwise: Rom 13:2). 257   , here a nominative singular present active conditional participle ‘equivalent to a conditional clause’ (Burton, 169), may mean in NT literature to (1) distinguish, (2) evaluate, (3) judge, (4) recognize or discern (BDAG, 231; Green, 42; PGL, 354). It and a number of cognates are clustered here:  (11:29, 34),  (11:29, 31),  (11:31f.),  (11:32). For various interpretations cf. Garland, 551ff.; cf. Fitzmyer, 552f.; Thiselton, 891-894; Schrage, III, 51f.; Conzelmann, 193n = GT: 227n. On  see above on 2:14f. 258   On ‘love’ see below, ‘The Gifts and the Fruit of the Spirit’, AE V, ### [219-224]. 259   Literally ‘are asleep’, present indicative passive of  = ‘to sleep in death’. Cf. . A common pagan and OT/Jewish euphemism for death (cf. R. Bultmann, ‘ ’, TDNT 3 [1965/1938], 14n; BDAG, 551; PGL, 759f.); most often in the NT for believers, for whom death is a temporary interval until resurrection to immortality (15:53). See below, AE VIII, ### [301-305]. 260   Cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments’, The Background of the NT and Its Eschatology. FS C. H. Dodd, edd. W. D. Davies et al., Cambridge 1956, 464-481.



VI

431

31.     = ‘but if we were judging ourselves’.261 The shift to the first person plural softens the critique; the imperfect points to a customary and continuing attitude. The   may reflect Semitic influence.262  (‘to judge’) vis-àvis 11:29 (‘to discern’) changes in meaning or in its force probably because Paul looks back to  (11:28).263 32.  = ‘we are chastened’, i.e. punished to bring about reform in behavior,264 as a parent does his child, with the result ()265 ‘that we might not be damned with the world’ (  266 267). Chastening is a part of God’s faithfulness and gracious purpose toward his chosen ones, assuring the ‘perseverance of the saints’.268 33f. The conclusion of the segment 11:20-34 refers back to the opening: ‘come together’, ‘eat’, ‘houses’/‘at home’ (11:20ff).  = (1) ‘wait’269 or (2) ‘receive’, ‘welcome’. Winter270 argues convincingly that in the present context of a dinner the verb, particularly in Jewish usage, has the connotation of ‘welcome’.271 34.   = ‘at home’. See above on 11:22.   Second class condition, contrary to fact. Cf. Robertson, 1012-1016; BDF,

261

182.

  Cf. Beyer, 228.   So, Conzelmann, 203 = GT: 239; Meyer, 269f. But see R & P, 252. 264   I Tim 1:20; Tit 2:12. Cf. Heb 12:5f., 7-11 with Prov 3:11f. LXX ( ). The Apostle regards his own chastening as God’s servant (II Cor 6:9, 4) to be (1) inherent in his ministry and (2) God’s tool to enhance it. 265   Q.v. @ 1:10, note 78. 266   On the infrequent NT use of  as the imperviously impenitent subject to God’s annihilating judgment cf. Mt 18:7; Eph 2:2f. (Jn 3:19; II Pet 3:6f.). 267   First person plural aorist subjunctive passive, referring to judgment Day at Christ’s parousia. Cf. II Pet 2:6 (), 9; Ellis, ‘New Testament Teaching on Hell’, Christ, 179-199. 268   Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 4f. 269   The usual NT rendering, e.g. 16:11; Acts 17:16; Heb 10:13; Jas 5:7 (I Pet 3:20). 270   Winter (note 137). 271   Cf. III Macc 5:26; Josephus, War 2, 297; 3, 29; 3, 32; idem, Ant. 7, 351; 11, 340; 12, 138; 13, 104; 13, 148; Philo, de post Caini 136. 262 263

432

1 CORINTHIANS

 = ‘judgment’. See above on 11:29, note 256.    = ‘whenever I come’.  has a variety of usages; here, it is a temporal conjunction,272 with the aorist subjunctive leaving the specific time open (cf. 16:5-9). C. The Nature and Purpose of the Charisms (12:1-11) 1 Now concerning the spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were pagans, you were again and again being led astray to mute idols, however you may have been moved. 3Therefore, I make known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed’; and no one is able to say, ‘Jesus is Lord’, except in the Holy Spirit. 4 There are diversities of charisms, but the same Spirit; 5and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; 6and there are diversities of miraculous deeds, but the same God who effects all things in all Christians. 7To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the benefit of all. 8For to one is given a word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another a word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another charisms of healing by the one Spirit; 10 and to another miraculous deeds, and to another prophecy and to another the discerning of spirits; to another different kinds of tongues and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11Now the one and the same Spirit brings about all these charisms, allotting them severally to each one as he wills.

Textual Notes 9.  = ‘one’, a variation on the repeated  (12:4, 5, 6, 8, 9a, 11) that has ‘diversified support’ in the mss: A B 33 lat. So, Metzger, 563. Exegesis 1-3. This paragraph introduces 12:1-31a and 14:1-40,273 a section concerned with identifying, enumerating, understanding and   Cf. Robertson, 974; BDF, 237f.; BDAG, 1105.   12:31b–13:13 appears to have been inserted later into the first draft of 12:1-31a and 14:1-40. The whole section has evoked a considerable number 272 273



VI

433

regulating the charisms, particularly the pneumatic charisms,274 gifted by the Holy Spirit to the Christians at Corinth. Its opening phrase   (‘now concerning’, 12:1) repeats the phrase at 7:1 and 8:1 and, like them, suggests that the topic may have been among the issues raised in the Corinthians’ letter to Paul (7:1).275 It gently reminds (12:2; cf. 6:11) these Gentile Christian ‘brothers’ (12:1) of their pagan past before they became God-fearers276 or, for some, before their direct conversion from paganism to Christianity, a past in which they were held captives in varying degrees by demonic powers active in idolatrous worship (10:19f.; cf. Gal 4:8). The genitive plural  (12:1) may be masculine = ‘pneumatics’277 or neuter = ‘pneumatic gifts’.278 The latter is preferable since (1) the Apostle has already expounded the true character of the pneumatics at 2:6-16; (2) the term  (12:3) in this letter almost always refers to the exercise of a pneumatic, i.e. prophetic gift in the congregation;279 (3) the heart of 12:1-31a; 14:1-40 is the enumeration, use and regulation of the gifts. 1.  = ‘now’ (q.v. @ 1:10, note 54), a transitional usage as at 11:2, marking the opening of a new topic.     Q.v. @ 10:1. 2.  = ‘pagans’, from the Apostle’s messianic Jewish perspective and from OT–Jewish usage280 in which the term (MT: ‫)גוים‬281 has of largely contemporary books and articles. Schrage (III, 108-111) lists c. 170; Thiselton (903-909), 131. 274   Rom 1:11 (…). See below, AE IV, notes 5-18. 275   Though it may have been among the problems at Corinth related to the Apostle by those from Chloe’s household (1:11) or by Stephanas (16:5ff.). 276   Q.v. @ 1:16, note 140; @ 5:2, notes 37-40. See above, notes 138, 141. 277   Q.v. @ 2:6, 12f.; 2:16, note 538; @ AE II, ### [97f.]. So, e.g. Locke, 230; Heinrici, 358; Weiss, 294; Bruce, 116f.; Garland, 564. 278   Q.v. @ 2:12, notes 501, 507. Rightly, e.g. Meyer, 274f.; R & P, 259; Conzelmann, 204n = GT: 240n; Schrage, III, 118; Collins, 446f.; D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, Grand Rapids 1987, 22f. 279   Q.v. @ 2:6, notes 402-405; @ 2:13. 280   E.g. Dt 4:27f.; 18:9-12; 29:16f.; II Sam 7:23; I Kg 14:23f.; II Kg 16:3; 17:7f., 11, 15; 18:33; 19:12; II Chron 32:13f.; Ezra 16:21; Pss 9:17; 135:15; Isa 36:18; 37:12; Jer 2:11; 14:22; Ezek 23:30; Mic 5:14f. 281   Cf. R. E. Clements, ‘‫’גּוֹי‬, TDOT 2 (21977), 430-433; H. Bietenhard, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 790-795; K. L. Schmidt, ‘’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 369-372.

434

1 CORINTHIANS

religious as well as racial connotations. Literally the term means ‘nations’, ‘Gentiles’.     = ‘mute idols’, i.e. not just voiceless but lifeless and, like Baal’s response at I Kg 18:26-29, unable to effect anything.282 The contrast is between the Holy Spirit empowered  (12:1) and the powerlessness of idols,283 not between Holy Spirit gifts and totally unmentioned prior idolatrous ‘ecstasies’, as some have argued.284 3.  285   = ‘therefore I make known to you that no one speaking ()286 in the Spirit (or a spirit) of God says…’ In these chiastically structured clauses the Apostle introduces a new (or rephrased) insight to the Corinthians re the character of and distinction between good and evil prophetic, i.e. pneumatic expressions.287   = ‘Jesus is accursed’288 or, less likely, imperative: ‘Jesus be cursed’. A copula may be inferred. Three principal interpretations have been offered:289 (1) Gnostic or gnosticizing expressions ‘prophetically’ voiced to the Corinthians prior to Paul’s mission or to their calling by God to Christ;290 (2) an anathematization of   Cf. I Thess 4:5; Dt 18:9; II Kg 17:7f.; Hab 2:15f. At 12:2 the imperfect  (‘were’) is joined with the participle  (‘being led away’, a Pauline hapax) as you were attracted (). Cf. Fitzmyer, 457f.; Robertson, 974; Burton, 124f.; BDF, 185 (§367). 283   So, Godet, II, 182f. 284   E.g. Wolff, 283f.; Conzelmann, 205 = GT: 242; Barrett, 278f. But see the discussion of C. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, Peabody MA 21997, 146ff., 149-175, 308-315 and the literature cited; Schrage, III, 119f.; Thiselton, 914ff. 285   W. Mundle, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 314; R. Bultmann, ‘’, TDNT 1 (1964/1933), 718. 286   See above, note 279. 287   See below, ‘The Pneumatic Gifts of Inspired Speech’, AE IV, ### [141-153]. 288   Rightly, W. C. van Unnik, ‘Jesus: Anathema or Kyrios (1 Cor 12:3)’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. FS C. F. D. Moule, edd. S. S. Smalley et al., Cambridge 1973, 113-126 (115f., 119f.). 289   Thiselton (918-924) notes ‘twelve distinct explanations’ (918). 290   So, e.g. W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, Nashville TN 1971 (1956), passim; see below, AE VI, ### [225-231], notes 4-7, 9ff. This mid-twentieth 282



VI

435

messianic Judaism by Jewish authorities,291 even those in the synagogue(s) at Corinth (Acts 18:4-8); (3) ‘prophetic’ utterances in Christian congregations by gifted but arrogant Corinthians and others, whose gifts have been distorted and in some of whom the Holy Spirit has been displaced by demonic spirits.292 Such false pneumatics Paul categorically rejects and against them can utter his ‘anathema’.293 The most likely choice is (3).   = ‘Jesus is Lord’, the shortest and most fundamental Christian confession which ‘no one is able () to say except in the Holy Spirit’ (    ). That is, true Christian confession does not arise out of man’s willing but out of the Holy Spirit’s moving.294 The Holy Spirit is none other than the Spirit of Christ or of God.295 This christological confession is repeated (1) at Rom 10:9 in which ‘Lord’ is defined as Yahweh in the supporting OT quotation at Rom 10:13296 and in different words (2) the Aramaic Maranatha at 16:22 and the preformed hymn at Phil 2:6-11, which is probably drawn from an Aramaic original.297 Thus, the confession of Jesus as Yahweh originated in the earliest days of the Palestinian church. century hypothesis was undermined by the lack of contemporary evidence and by the anachronistic reading back of later literature (cf. van Unnik [note 288], 114f.). 291   Cf. R & P, 261; Findlay, 886; Moffatt, 178f.; J. D. M. Derrett, ‘Cursing Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:3): The Jews as Religious “Persecutors” ’, NTS 21 (1974– 75), 544-554. It is argued quite impressively by Garland, 570ff.: (1) ‘Anathema’ language reflects Jewish background and usages (J. Behm, ‘ ’, TDNT 1 [1964/1933], 354f.). (2) It appears in Justin, Dial. (c. AD 155) 47:4. But it cannot explain the use of  (12:3; q.v. @ note 279). Further, cf. J. Marcus, ‘Birkat Ha-Minim Revisited’, NTS 55 (2009), 523-551. 292   See below, AE I, ### [1-75, 73ff.], notes 145ff.; AE VI, ### [225-260, 258], note 61; AE VII, ### [261-278, 276f.], notes 39-43; AE VIII, ### [286f.], note 18. 293   Gal 1:9; cf. 3:10. 294   I Thess 1:5f. See above on 8:6, notes 65-68. Cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 3ff., 39-42; Hays, 208. 295   E.g. Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; 2:1; cf. Col 1:27 with II Tim 1:14. See below, AE V, ### [185], note 21; AE VII, ### [261-278]. 296   Citing Joel 2:32 (MT: 3:5). Cf. D. B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, Tübingen 1992, 118ff. 297   So, among others, Fitzmyer, 460, citing his ‘The Aramaic Background of Philippians 2:6-11’, According to Paul, New York 1993, 89-105, 149ff. Further, Ellis, Making, 68n; idem, History, 141.

436

1 CORINTHIANS

4-11. This episode is probably a preformed non-Pauline piece used here to set forth the triadic origin (12:4ff.), communal purpose (12:7) and diverse allotment (12:8ff.) of the spiritual gifts298 and the Holy Spirit’s sovereignty over the process (12:11). It also serves to introduce the application and elaboration of this doctrine to the Corinthian church (12:12-31a). 4ff. The Apostle uses the triad—Spirit, Lord, God (the Father)299— in varying sequences elsewhere,300 expressive of divine ‘unity in plurality’ that is evident in the OT understanding of God.301 Does he here view the Spirit as a person or, as some scholars think,302 only as God’s empowering presence?303 He certainly attributes to the Spirit personal characteristics: he ‘knows’, ‘teaches’, ‘dwells’, ‘wills’, ‘bears witness’, ‘intercedes’, ‘gives life’, and ‘speaks’.304 Of course, Paul does not employ the language or elaborate the description of the Holy Spirit in the way in which the creeds of the patristic church do, creeds built upon this and other Pauline teaching.305 But his biblical understanding of the triune God is a basis for the later formulations.306 307…   = ‘diversities…but the same’. I.e. there are diversities of charisms (),308 of ministries 298   See below, AE II, ### [113f.]. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 24n; idem, Making, 90; Schrage, III, 135ff.; Capes (note 296), 116-120, 169f. 299   The Apostle’s references to God () almost always refers to ‘God the Father’, an expression also found quite frequently in his letters. See above on 8:6, note 57. 300   II Cor 13:14 (13); Eph 4:4ff.; cf. Matt 28:19; 1 Pet 1:2. 301   See above at 8:6, ‘Special Note on the Biblical God: Unity in Plurality’. 302   E.g. Conzelmann, 207n = GT: 244n: ‘The Spirit is not a Person’. 303   To borrow a phrase from some recently published literature. 304   2:11, 13; 3:16; 12:11; Rom 8:16, 26; cf. Rom 8:11; I Tim 4:1. Further, see below AE VII, ### [261-278]. 305   Cf. Athanasius, ‘Letter to Serapion 3:5’, The Armenian Version of the Letters of Athanasius to the Bishop Serapion… Salt Lake City UT 1986, 204f.; the discussion of Thiselton, 934f., and the literature cited. 306   Similar, D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of Saint Paul, Oxford 21974, 129: in 12:4ff. there are ‘traces of a Trinitarian ground-plan’. It ‘constitutes an outstanding feature of 12:4-6’ (Thiselton, 934). Cf. Garland, 576: ‘[12:4ff.] has Trinitarian overtones’. 307   Only at 12:4ff. in the NT. 308   Q.v. @ 1:7.



VI

437

(),309 of miraculous deeds ()310 within the divine unity of ‘the same ( ) Spirit’, the same ( ) Lord, the same ( ) God. The multiple of divine powers from the one divine triune source are given severally to God’s chosen ones, those of his organic church (1:2), to enable them to continue the ministry of Christ on earth. The three-fold division of the nine gifts—charisms, ministries, miraculous deeds—is somewhat different from the Apostle’s usage elsewhere.311 At first blush the charisms appear to be more limited, separated from ‘ministries’ and from ‘miraculous deeds’. But in the light of 12:7-11 in which the Spirit is the divine instrument to implement and sovereignly to allot all of the gifts, it is better to interpret the three-fold division as three narrowing concentric circles with the charisms inclusive of all gifts,312 ministries as gifts of divine speech and discernment313 and miraculous deeds as increasingly smaller portions of the charismatic bestowals. A charism is a divine gift, i.e. the present manifestation of the age to come.314 But it may build upon natural gifts.315 For example, one 309    ‘is a generic word for a wide variety of ministries’ (Stott [note 98], 327; cf. Michel [note 98], 378). At Rom 12:7 it is specified in terms of ‘the one who teaches’ and ‘the one who exhorts’; see below AE V, ### [195], note 44. In Acts 6:1, 4, it refers both to ‘the service of distributing food’ and to ‘the ministry of the Word’, i.e. both in teaching, preaching, and in the writing of episodes of Jesus’ word and works (cf. Ellis, Making, 233, 329f.). Here and at 16:15 it probably also includes ministries both of teaching and preaching. Many commentaries and lexicons anachronistically give too much attention to its later use in the church solely for practical ‘service’. 310   See 12:10 where this is spelled out as ‘miraculous deeds’ ( ). 311   The  (‘spiritual gifts’), which opens the section (12:1) and which at 14:1 are identified with the ‘greater charisms’ at 12:31 are not mentioned. The lists at 12:28; Rom 12:6ff.; Eph 4:11 differ, and all are selective. Only the Holy Spirit knows the full number of his gifts. Cf. Fee, 586ff. 312   Rightly, R. P. Martin, The Spirit and the Congregation, Grand Rapids, 1984, 8. 313   See below, AE IV, ### [141-163]; otherwise: e.g. Barrett, 284: ‘… here has nothing to do with “ministry” in a technical sense’. He supposes that it has to do with ‘services’, presumably with relationship to the similar understanding of  as ‘deacon’. But see above, note 309; on 3:5. 314   See below, ‘The Nature of the Gifts of the Spirit’, AE V, ### [179-224, 193-196]; AE IV, ### [139f.]; cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 24; Soards, 256: ‘Natural gifts and charisms are not one and the same thing’. 315   Cf. Schrage, III, 139f.; Carson (note 278), 36f.

438

1 CORINTHIANS

who is naturally unable to speak in public is more likely to receive a non-verbal charism such as healing (12:9, 28), helps ( , 12:28)316 and administrations ( , 12:28); one naturally eloquent, a verbal gift. One who is naturally unable to carry a tune is less likely to receive a music charism.317 But for the Holy Spirit all things are possible. 7. 318   = ‘manifestation of the Spirit’, i.e. his action through the recipient.   319 = ‘for the benefit of all’, i.e. the whole congregation as Paul explains in the physical body analogy at 12:12-27. …  = ‘word of wisdom…word 8.  … of knowledge’. The former is more comprehensive, i.e. a gift to perceive and to voice God’s whole design of salvation in Christ, who is God’s wisdom (q.v. @ 1:24); ‘word of knowledge’ appears to be more limited, e.g. the prophetic knowledge of particular Christian truths.320 9.       = ‘faith…charisms of healings’.  has several connotations: (1) a charism, as here, that enables one to do or to receive a miracle;321 (2) the divine gift, given to all Christians, through which ‘God delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son’ (Col 1:13): grace is the basis and faith is the means;322 (3) an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit, manifesting Christ’s character;323 (4) ‘the   A NT hapax.   Unmentioned in the NT but clearly evident in the church’s history. 318   Only twice in the NT: II Cor 4:2 (BDAG, 248f.: ‘open proclamation’). On the cognate verb see above on 4:5, note 820. 319   Accusative singular neuter present adjectival participle functioning as a substantive. Cf. BDF, 212f. 320   See below, ‘ “Wisdom” and “Knowledge” in I Corinthians’, AE VI, ### [225-260]. Somewhat differently, cf. Thiselton, 938-944, and the literature cited. 321   Rom 12:3, 6. This is prominent in Jesus’ healings (Mt 9:2, 22 parr; 9:29; Mk 10:52 par; Lk 17:19). Such faith may be an abiding charism or it may be given for a particular time and situation. It may be one reason that at 12:9 ‘faith’ is joined with the charism of healings; cf. e.g. Rom 4:19f.; Mt 17:18ff. Q; Acts 14:9. 322   Eph 2:8; Rom 3:23ff.; Acts 20:21; cf. Ellis, Sovereignty, 39-42, passim. 323   13:13; Gal 5:22. 316 317



VI

439

faith’ = the sphere or content of the Christian message.324 ‘Charisms of healings’ are related to ‘faith’. They enable one, through prayer or proclamation, to effect a healing of another.325 They are active gifts; the gift of ‘faith’, i.e. faith in the recipient of a healing, is passive, perhaps even subconscious and perhaps enabling a healing or a miracle to be received apart from anyone with a gift of healing.326 10.   = ‘miraculous deeds’. This gift is related to but more comprehensive than ‘gifts of healings’ (12:9) and apparently is also related to the gift of faith.327 Although given individually (12:7-10), some gifts appear to presuppose the presence of other gifts in the same individual.328 The gift of ‘miraculous deeds’ has been given two main interpretations: (1) positive miracles such as raising the dead329 and the casting out of demons or (2) the power to turn one over to demonic beings and sometimes to death.330  = ‘prophecy’, apparently including (1) a recognized group of prophets in Corinth and elsewhere whom God ‘appointed’   II Cor 13:5 (  ); Gal 1:23; 6:10; I Tim 3:9; 4:1; Tit 1:13.   E.g. Acts 3:6ff.; 20:10. 326   As a student in the mid-1950s, hitchhiking around western Europe, I met a lady who had had tuberculosis, went to Lourdes, France, and was now well: ‘You believe that you were healed at Lourdes?’ She replied, ‘That is my confession’. I went to Lourdes where a water pipe opened at intervals along the path. People wet their handkerchiefs and placed them on their face or head. A passing French nun said: ‘Zee wata is miraculous’. ‘No, Sister’, I replied, ‘Jesus is miraculous’. ‘Oh, yes, yes, yes’. My confession is a bit different: at New Brunswick, NJ (autumn, 1966) the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Association invited our seminary faculty to lunch. I ate only cream soup since I had a bleeding ulcer. ‘May we pray for you?’ As they laid hands on me and prayed, a sheet of heat went through me. Later that week my doctor, taking periodic x-rays, exclaimed, ‘The ulcer is gone; nothing there but a scar’. 327   Cf. Gal 3:5:  …   = ‘He who works miracles…from the hearing of faith’. 328   Cf. Ellis, “The Role of the Prophet in Acts’, Prophecy, 129-144 (139-144). 329   E.g. Acts 9:40f.; 20:9f. Cf. Mt 9:18, 25 parr; Lk 12:14f.; Jn 11:43. Cf. W. Grundmann, ‘ ’, and G. Bertram, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 284-317 (315ff.), 653f.; O. Betz, ‘’, NIDNTT 2 (21986), 601-606 (605). 330   E.g. 5:5, note 93; I Tim 1:20; Acts 5:3-9 (13:8-11); cf. Mt 8:28-34 parr; Ellis, Luke, 127ff.; Calvin, 262f.; Hodge, 247. Cf. Thiselton, 953. 324 325

440

1 CORINTHIANS

() in the church331 and who gave both inspired congregational proclamations (14:29-32) and similar historical predictions (e.g. Acts 11:27f.) and (2) those who prophesied on occasion.332 333  = ‘the discerning of spirits’, a gift enabling one to assess whether presumed prophetic speech issued from the Holy Spirit or from a demonic spirit or from the speaker’s own spirit. There may be an allusion to 12:3.334   …   = ‘different kinds of tongues…and interpretation of tongues’. The different ‘kinds’ probably include ‘the tongues of men and of angels’ (13:1) as well as different human languages. 11. 335 = ‘allotting’, concluding the episode 12:4-11 (see above) and underscoring the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in distributing the charisms ‘severally to each one as he wills (   )’. D. The Charisms and the Body of Christ (12:12-31a) 12 For just as the body is one and has many members and all the members of the body, although being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13For even we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free men, and we were all made to drink one Spirit.

331   12:28; cf. 14:29ff.; Acts 11:27f.; 13:1; 15:32; 20:28 ( ); 21:9ff.; Rev 22:9. See below, AE IV, ### [139-178]. Cf. Ellis, ‘The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts’, ‘  Quotations in the New Testament’, Prophecy, 139, 184ff.; H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, London 1910, 377: those ‘forming a charismatic order to which a recognized position was given in the Church’; J. Lindblom, Gesichte und Offenbarungen, Lund 1968, 179: ‘berufsmässige Propheten’ (‘recognized and abiding prophets’). 332   Perhaps, Acts 20:23; 21:4. 333   Only three times in the NT (Rom 14:1; Heb 5:14; cf. T. S. Green A Greek- English Lexicon, London c. 261960, 42: the act or faculty ‘of discerning or distinguishing…and estimating’. On the verb  see above on 4:11. 334   Cf. I Thess 5:21: ‘Vet all things’, i.e. all prophesying (5:20); Heb 5:14: ‘the discerning of both good and evil [teaching]’. 335   [Editor’s note: The author left this footnote blank].



VI

441

For also the body is not one member but many. 15If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body’, is it therefore not of the body? 16And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body’, is it therefore not of the body? 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18But as it is, God himself arranged the members of the body, each one of them, just as he willed. 19Now if all were one member, where would be the body? 20 But as it is there are indeed many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’. 22Much more, rather, the seemingly weaker members of the body are in fact indispensable; 23and those which we think to be less presentable, to them we bestow greater regard (and our private parts receive even greater modesty) 24which our more presentable members have no need. But God so composed the body giving greater honor to the member that is lacking, 25in order that there might not be division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26So, if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it, 28whom God so arranged in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then miracle workers, then charisms of healings, helpers, administrators, various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all miracle workers? 30Do all have charisms of healings? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret tongues? 31aSo, earnestly desire the greater gifts. 14

Exegesis 12:12-27. The Apostle in this segment uses the human body as an analogy of diversity in unity that also characterizes Christ, i.e. ‘so also is the (corporate) Christ’ of whom the organic (elect) church is his body (12:12, 27).336 He may have known (and knew that the Corinthians were aware) that Graeco-Roman philosophies, especially the Stoics, used the individual body as a metaphor for 336   So, Fitzmyer, 477; Garland, 590; Conzelmann, 211 = GT: 249. Cf. Schrage, III 210ff., 216. Otherwise: Godet, II, 207.

442

1 CORINTHIANS

society.337 But he differs (1) in attributing to the diversity to God (12:18-24) and not to nature (),338 (2) in its use for the good of the whole, and (3) in identifying the corporate body as the body of Christ,339 rooted in Christ’s teaching at the Last Supper340 and (4) in OT-Jewish conceptions of corporate personality.341 The incorporation into Christ is effected by the Spirit baptism (12:13). After stating the analogy between the human body and the corporate Christ (12:12f.), Paul explains in five respects (12:14-26) the importance of each member () of one’s body for the healthy functioning of the whole: (1) No member (e.g. the foot, the ear) can opt out of its role in the body because it is not another, perhaps more desirable, member (e.g. a hand, an eye; 12:15f.). (2) Every member in its particular function contributes, as God has so designed, to the creation of the ‘one body’ (12:17-20). (3) Every member (e.g. the eye, the head), even the most prominent and important member, has need of the others (e.g. the hand, the feet) in order to fulfill its own contribution to the whole body (12:20f.). (4) Indeed, those bodily members that seem to be ‘weaker’ () or ‘less presentable’ () are essential to the whole and receive greater care and modesty (12:22ff.). That is, if one has good eyes but decaying teeth, one will give more attention to dental repair; if a piano falls on the big 337   E.g. Epictetus, Discourses 2, 5, 24f.; Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 33, 44; 34, 32; 39, 5ff.; 41, 9; 50, 3f. Further, Collins, 458-462; Thiselton, 992. The Stoic conception comes into English literature, e.g. A. Pope, Essay on Man 1:9: ‘All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body nature is and God the soul’. 338   Although some Corinthians (of whom Paul may have been aware) may have been knowledgeable in Graeco-Roman (e.g. Stoic) philosophies, the Apostle reflects no interest in or direct knowledge of them (see above on 8:6, note 58). Differently: Schrage, III, 206. 339   See above on 11:24f.; below in AE VIII, ### [297ff.]. 340   See above on 10:14-22, notes 560-564; on 11:24f., note 219; on 11:29, note 257. 341   See below, ‘The Corporate Body’, AE VIII, ### [290-299]; E. E. Ellis, ‘The Biblical Concept of the Solidarity of the Human Race as Seen in Blessing and Punishment’, M.A. Thesis, Wheaton IL 1953; H. W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, Philadelphia 1964; A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, Cardiff 1955, 2f., 24f.; idem, The Cultic Prophet in Israel’s Psalmody, Cardiff 1979, 10, 265f., 312-316, 335; Ellis, Paul’s Use, 91f., 135-139; idem, ‘The Presuppositions of New Testament Interpretation’, Prophecy, 170ff.; idem, ‘Corporate Personality’, Old Testament, 110f.; idem, Christ, 35ff.; idem, ‘Corporate Personality’, History, 118ff.



VI

443

toe, all members, i.e. the whole body, will come to the aid of the needy member (12:25). So also, the private parts or the inferior (, 12:23) aspects of the body, that one covers over, are essential to the whole. (5) God has so created the body as a diversity in unity so that it may operate without discord (, 12:25). The Apostle proceeds to apply this analogy to the charisms that God has appointed in the church (12:27-30). 12:13.     = ‘All were made to drink one spirit’. The Holy Spirit is associated with water in the regenerative Holy Spirit baptism342 and identified with it at Jn 4:10, 14; 7:38f.343 18.   = ‘but as it is’, a phrase found in the NT only in Paul’s letters.344 22f.   … … … …     = ‘the seemingly weaker members, …and those which we think to be less presentable’. The underlying critique of the arrogant among the Corinthians continues but is softened by the use of the first person plural. Cf. Garland, 595f.; Fee, 613f. 25.  = ‘division’, ‘discord’. Q.v. @ 1:10; 11:18. The allusion to the situation in a Corinthian congregation is clear. 27-31a. The Apostle now applies the analogy of the human body, whose members God arranged (), to the charisms,345 that ‘God arranged’ (, 12:28, 18),346 among the members (, 12:29)   Mt 3:11 parr; Acts 1:5; 11:16.   Also, see above, AE V, ### [189f.], notes 33f. Otherwise: H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, Grand Rapids MI 2002, 752ff.; Fitzmyer, 478. 344   About 20 times, including 5:11 (mss ‫ *א‬C D); 13:13; 14:6 ([D] E K L); 15:20. Here and at 15:20 it expresses a second-class condition, i.e. contrary to fact, and thus gives the true situation. Cf. Garland, 595. 345   Of the three lists of charisms in Paul’s letters (see 11:4-11; Eph 4:11) 12:8ff. is the longest. All are selective and none are comprehensive (see above on 12:4ff., note 311). Eph 4:11 has only spiritual gifts (see below, AE IV, ### [141-153]). 346   Aorist third person singular middle from . Cf. BDAG 1004 (§ 4b). 342 343

444

1 CORINTHIANS

of the body of Christ,347 i.e. the organic348 church. He enumerates them—first, second, third, then (, 12:28)349—indicating that some are (1) more important, (2) more prominent, (3) more extensive or (4) a combination of all of these in contributing to the health and unity of the whole body of Christ (cf. 12:25f.) in Paul’s day.350 The questions at 12:29f., using the negative  anticipate a ‘no’ answer.351 Although the gift of ‘apostle of Jesus Christ’ may include all the charisms,352 they affirm that no one else has all the gifts. One may receive several, however, as the command to earnestly desire ‘the greater gifts’ = ‘the spiritual charisms’ (12:31; 14:1) shows. The eight charisms at 12:28, most discussed at length elsewhere, are apostles,353 prophets (see below),354 teachers,355 miracles,356   See above on 10:14-22, note 561; below on 12:27; at AE VIII, ### [290-296]. 348   See above on 8:11, notes 147-153. 349   The first three are all pneumatic charisms. See below, AE IV, ### [141-153]. 350   On ‘apostle of Jesus Christ’ as limited to the first generation of the church, see above, ###-###. Cf. Schrage, III, 231ff. Otherwise: Garland, 598. 351   Cf. BDF, 226 (§440). 352   See below, ‘The Spirit and the Gifts’, AE V, ### [179-224]. 353   Q.v. @ 15:8f.; 9:1-3, notes 198-217; see above, Special Note at 1:3, notes 106-156; cf. Ellis, ‘Apostles of Jesus Christ’, History, 88-91; Fitzmyer, 482. 354   Used first here in this letter; further, 14:29, 32, 37; c. ten times in all of Paul’s letters. The prophet may, as in the OT, e.g. give a direct revelation of the divine Word speaking to or through him. Cf. Acts 8:26, 29; 9:4, 10f.; Ellis, Theology, 116f.; idem, ‘The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts’, Prophecy, 129-144; G. Friedrich et al., ‘ ’, TDNT 6 (1965/1959), 781-861 (828-861); H. P. Müller, ‘‫’נָ ִביא‬, TDOT 9 (1998), 137-150; C. Brown, ‘’, NIDNTT 3 (21986), 74-92. H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, London 1909, 377; idem, The Apocalypse of St. John, London 1906, xvii-xxi, argues that a relatively small number were ‘established to be prophets’ with a recognized position in the church (cf. Acts 13:1; 21:7). These were said ‘to have prophecy’ (, 13:2) and were known as   (Eph 2:20; 3:5; Rev 18:20; 22:6) and were distinguished from those who occasionally exercised the gift of prophecy (Acts 11:4f.; 14:31; 29:6). Or, like the teacher, he may speak a divinely revealed interpretation of Scripture (Acts 7:2-69; 13:16-41; 15:13-21; 17:17-31). 355   Some seven times in Paul’s letters (Rom 2:20; Eph 4:11; I Tim 2:7; II Tim 1:11; 4:3). See above, note 353. Cf. K. H. Rengstorf, ‘ ’, TDNT 2 (1964/1935), 157-160; G. Fredrich et al., ‘ ’, TDNT 6 (1965/1959), 781-861 (828-861). 356   Q.v. @ 2:4f., note 394; @ 12:10. 347



VI

445

charisms of healings (),357 helps,358 administrations (),359 varieties of tongues.360 Tongues, i.e. speech in a language unknown or unused by the speaker,361 appears to us a strange gift. It may be significant in at least two ways: (1) God may mediate his Word in ways other than through the human mind of the prophet.362 (2) He may deliberately speak in a strange, non-understandable language as a sign of judgment.363 Thus, this charism is forbidden by Paul, who speaks in tongues more than all of them (14:18), in public worship unless it is interpreted by one so gifted (14:27f.).364 It is a prayer-gift to be used individually or in a prayer-group of believers.365 31a.    366 = ‘the greater charisms’, identified in the repetition at 14:1 with the ‘pneumatic’ charisms.367 E. A Hymn to the Character of Christ (12:31b–13:13) 31b And yet I show you a more excellent way: 1If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a sounding brass or clanging cymbal. 2And

  Only here (12:9, 28, 30) in the NT. Q.v. @ 12:9.   A NT hapax; BDAG, 89:  = : ‘helpful deeds’; Green, 14: , related to  = metaphorically ‘one who aids or assists’. Here, probably one who assists others in their charisms (cf. Acts 3:4), ‘a help’. Cf. Num 11:17. 359   A NT hapax, used of a ship pilot (LSJ, 1004). Cf. , Acts 27:11; Rev 18:11. Similar to the ‘teaching shepherds’ (Eph 4:11,   ), ‘bishops’ = ‘overseers’ (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; I Tim 3:2) = ‘elders’ (, Tit 1:5, 7). 360   Speaking in tongues (…, at 2:4) may possibly occur among OT prophets (cf. II Kg 9:11; Isa 28:11f.; see below, AE IV, note 29). In the NT, if Mk 16:17 is secondary, it appears only in Acts (2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6) and in Paul’s letters (12:10, 28, 30; 13:1, 8; 14:2, 4ff., 9, 13f., 22f., 26f., 39) it may be related to and in contrast to similar demonic speaking among false prophets (cf. 12:3) or pagan oracles (cf. Conzelmann, 234 = GT: 276). 361   Cf. the discussion at 12:10 of Schrage, III, 157-163, and Thiselton, 970-988. 362   Cf. Rom 1:19ff.; Lk 19:40. 363   Cf. 14:21f.; Mt 13:13ff. with Isa 8:11f. 364   Further, Schrage, III, 469ff.; Thiselton, ###. 365   I received this charism as a teenager in a prayer group. I still use it occasionally in prayers of great joy or burden that are difficult to articulate in English. 366   Accusative neuter plural comparative of . 367   See above, ###. 357 358

446

1 CORINTHIANS if I have prophecy368 and perceive ()369 all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I should feed others with all my belongings and if I should deliver my body that I may be burned up, but do not have love, I am profited nothing. 4 Love is patient, is kind, is not jealous, is not arrogant, 5is not indecent, does not seek its own interests, is not irritable, does not ponder evil; 6it does not take pleasure in wickedness but rejoices together in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. As for () prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come (),370 that which is in part will pass away. 11When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child. When I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12For now we see by reflection as through a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know () in part, but then I shall know fully () even as I am fully known ().371 13Now, however, faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Textual Notes 3. 372 = ‘that I should be burned up’, in mss C D F G K L  Vg syrph arm. The variant 373 (‘that I may glory’, mss p46 ‫ א‬A B 33 1739 copsa bo) has strong ms support, but it is ‘almost wholly Egyptian’ (Zuntz, 35) and is inappropriate to the context. Cf. Metzger2, 397f.; Godet, II, 241f.; C. C. Caragownis, ‘ “To Boast” or “To Be Burned?”: The Crux of 1 Cor 13:3’, SEÅ 60 (1995), 115-127. 4.   = ‘love’ is in brackets in NA because it is omitted in mss B 33 et al. (see Metzger, 498f.), and it is regarded as an interpolation by Zuntz (68) because it ‘ruins the rhythmical…[and] well-balanced structure’. I agree with Zuntz.   See above, note ### (Swete).   An obsolete verb, largely replaced by its perfect tense , which is used with the sense of the present tense. Cf. LSJ, 483. Cf. 2:9, 12. 370   Third person singular aorist subjunctive, resultative (or effective) deponent of . 371   First person singular gnomic aorist passive of , i.e. known by God axiomatically. 372   First person singular future subjunctive passive of . But see Godet, II, 242. 373   First person singular future indicative middle of . 368 369



VI

447

Exegesis 12:31b–13:13. The chapter on ‘love’, the fruit of the Spirit374 that represents the character of Christ, supplements the gifts375 of the Spirit that represent the ministry of Christ in the elect believers. Although it is a self-contained unity,376 it is probably a preformed ‘hymn to Christ’377 that is here altered to more closely fit the Corinthian situation and that is inserted after chs 12 and 14 were drafted.378 It is divided into three segments: the futility of the gifts apart from the fruit of the Spirit (vv. 1-3), the character of the fruit of the Spirit (vv. 4-7), the contrast between the temporariness of the gifts and the everlastingness of the fruit of the Spirit (vv. 8-13). 1. 379         = ‘If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels’. The first person singular at 13:1-3 is an abstract expression and does not refer specifically to the Apostle. The term  (cf. 2:6-16) is always used in chs 12–14 of gifted speaking in a spiritual charism as it is here of the charism of tongues, which includes both human and angelic languages380 although the latter are, of course, unknown to man and revealed only by the Spirit. 12:1-3 include both charisms and good works: tongues, prophecy,381faith,382 feed (others), sacrifice one’s life, i.e. ‘my body that I may be burned up’ (12:3). The reference is not to Graeco-Roman persecution 374   See below AE V, ### [192f., 219-293]. On the whole chapter see the comprehensive if not always correct discussion of Conzelmann, 224-231 = GT: 256-273. 375   Cf. 12:4-11, 28; Eph 4:11; Gal 5:22f. 376   See below AE II, ### [115-120 and note 114]. 377   Conzelmann, 217 = GT: 255. 378   Otherwise: J. G. Sigountos, ‘The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13’, NTS 40 (1994), 246-260 (251-260): prologue (1-3), acts (4-7), comparison (8-12), epilogue (13:13–14:1a). He takes the piece as a eulogy (encomium) in praise of Christ. Cf. similar: Conzelmann, 218ff., 223f. = GT 257-261, 266f. For scriptures in praise of wisdom cf. Prov 8; Sirach 24; Wis 7. 379   Introducing with the subjunctive verb , a third class conditional clause: unfulfilled with probability of fulfillment. Similar clauses introduce 12:2 and 12:3. Cf. Robertson, 1004, 1016-1020. 380   See below, 14:12, 27f., 32; AE IV, ### [164-171]. 381   See above on 12:10. 382   I.e. to receive or do a miraculous deed: ‘to remove mountains’. See above on 12:9.

448

1 CORINTHIANS

(1) since such persecution of Christians did not occur before the emperor Nero’s action in A.D. 65–68 and (2) since burning was not a common punishment.383 3.   = ‘that I may be burned up’. See above on the Textual Note. At Phil 2:17 and 2 Tim 4:6 Paul alludes to his own death in terms of the Jerusalem temple offerings: ‘The apostle sheds his blood as a drink offering is poured out at the foot of the altar’.384 It is not improbable that a similar analogy is present here also. Thus, both charisms and good works are spiritually profitless without the fruit of the Spirit, i.e. love. 4-7. The characteristics (or personification) of  love verbally combine what it is: patient (); kind;385 rejoices () in truth; bears, believes (), hopes386 and endures all proper things. And what it is not: jealous, arrogant, indecent, self-interested, irritable, pondering evil, taking pleasure in wickedness. They are similar to the nominally expressed fruit of the Spirit at Gal 5:22f. although only three expressions are synonymous: patience (), joy (), faith (). In a word, love ‘is the bond of perfection’ (Col 3:14). The characteristics may be, in the negative, changed to better fit the attitudes and actions of the Corinthian dissidents.387 The background of 13:4-7 appears to be ‘a Jewish paraenetic tradition’388 that the Christian author of the hymn knew and utilized. 8-13. The final segment of 12:31b–13:13 contrasts not only the temporary character of the gifts to this age (13:8, 10) with the permanence of the fruit of the Spirit into the age to come but   Cf. ‘Punishment, Greek and Roman practice’, OCD3, 1279.   O. Michel, ‘’, TDNT 7 (1971/1964), 528-536 (536); cf. R. E. Averbeck, ‘‫’נסך‬, NIDOTTE 3 (1997), 113-117 (114ff.). 385   , a NT hapax. 386   Lindemann (288) limits this ‘to the Christian hope’, presumably to the parousia of Christ and the kingdom of God. Otherwise: Thiselton, 1056f. 387   So, Garland, 616; Thiselton, 1051. 388   Conzelmann, 223f. = GT: 264. Cf. Test. Issachar 4:2-6; 1QS 4:3-6; 10:17– 11:2; G. von Rad, ‘The Early History of the Form-category of I Corinthians xiii.47’, The Problem of the Hexateuch, Berlin 1966, 301-317: ‘late Jewish paraenetic instruction’ (308). Cf. Rom 12:9-21; 13:8ff. 383 384



VI

449

also the ‘in part’ measure of the gifts of the Spirit as received and used (13:9).389 The Apostle illustrates the latter in three ways: (1) the child in comparison to the man (13:11), (2) our seeing in an imperfect mirror compared to seeing face to face (13:12), and (3) one’s present partial knowledge of God’s plan and purpose and spiritual truth generally and of even one’s own self contrasted with the full understanding of these things that God’s elect will have after their resurrection to immortality into the age to come at Christ’s parousia.  ‘love never fails’, taken by 8.   390 = some to mean ‘never ineffective’ (Fitzmyer, 497), but it more likely also has a temporal aspect (Thiselton, 1061; Wolff, 321f.) tied to ‘abides’, (13:13), as the character of Christ in the elect believer, in contrast with the charisms, as the ministry of Christ through the believer, that will ‘cease’ () or ‘pass away’ (, 13:8) at Christ’s parousia and the fulfillment of that ministry (cf. Conzelmann 225 = GT: 266f.). 9.   = ‘in part’. For  used for , cf. Lk 11:13; Mt 24:17 par; cf. BDAG, 298 §6; Robertson, 599f.; Fitzmyer, 497: placed ‘emphatically at the head of each clause’. [Editor’s note: The author began commenting on ch. 14 here.] 14:1-40. After the insertion of 12:31b–13:13, 1 Cor 14 returns to the gifts of the Spirit at 12:28-31a, addressing an issue raised by the Corinthians (7:1a) and emphasizing the priority of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues in the public meetings of the Corinthian congregations. The principle is probably what gift benefits the whole church (‘prophecy’)391 and not merely the individual (‘tongues’).392 The chapter consists of five segments: the 389   Only Jesus was fully receptive and responsive to the gifts of the Spirit to him and through him. All his chosen ones from Pentecost onward who were gifted with this or that charism could manifest them only partially because of their lack of full individual holiness, i.e. their continuing sinful nature (see above on 7:14; cf. Rom 3:23). 390   A Pauline hapax. 391   [Editor’s note: The author left this footnote blank]. 392   [Editor’s note: The author left this footnote blank].

450

1 CORINTHIANS

principle stated (14:1-5); the problems with uninterpreted ‘tongues’ in public church meetings (14:6, 12-25); the regulation for manifestations of these gifts in church (14:26-33a); a restriction placed on the gifted wives of the prophets (14:33b-36); the divine authority of Paul’s commands and conclusion of the theme (14:37-40). 1.   = ‘the spiritual gifts’, q.v. @ 2:6, 13, 15; 3:1. They are identified with ‘the greater gifts’ (12:31a). 5.  = ‘would like’. The Apostle has explained that the Holy Spirit has distributed the charisms ‘as he wills’ (12:11); he expresses here only his own desire, not what the situation actually is. 6.    = ‘my spirit’, i.e. the angelic spirit who actuates and empowers the particular charism. See above on 5:3, notes 59f. 19.    = ‘with my mind’. Some mss add a preposition:  (p46),  (M). 26.  = ‘each one’. Some mss (‫א‬2 D F G  M vg) add  = ‘of you’.  …  = ‘has a psalm…’, following synagogue practice. Cf. Billerbeck, III, 465.   = ‘has a tongue’. The gift is not necessarily ‘Christian ecstasy’ (pace Godet, II, 299; cf. Thiselton, 1143); but, if so, it can and should be controlled speech, as also in a prophetic oracle (14;27, 30). 31.  = ‘all’, i.e. all those with this gift, not the whole congregation. 34f. For variation in the order and wording see below, AE XII, ### [341-357]. 37.    = ‘the command of the Lord’. So, p46 ‫א‬2 B. Some mss omit  (D* F G) and some have it in the plural (D2  M lat sys a). Cf. Metzger1, 566. See above on 9:1-3.



VI

451

38.  = ‘he is not recognized’. The indicative passive voice (‫ *א‬A* D* 33 1739) is more forceful and preferable (cf. Metzger2, 500) to the imperative  (p46 B  M sy). 39.      = ‘do not forbid speaking in tongues’. Varieties in wording and order do not alter the meaning. Cf. Metzger2, 566f.

E P IL O G U E

This epilogue to the commentary hopefully will bring about some sense of closure to the volume and provide readers with an idea of where Ellis might have taken 1 Corinthians 14, 15, and 16. This editor unfortunately cannot say precisely how Ellis would have handled everything in these chapters and does not want to put words in his mouth. However, comments will be offered where possible. Any outlines or notes of Ellis’s on 1 Corinthians 14, 15, and 16 may be found in the Ellis collection of papers in the Roberts Library at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Thankfully, Ellis finished most of this commentary on 1 Corinthians. However, as mentioned in the Preface, he did not write an Introduction to the work with segments on the usual categories of date, occasion, purpose, etc. The lack of the Introduction is understandable because many scholars do their introductory chapters last of all when writing books. Ellis only partially finished 1 Corinthians 14. He did, however, provide a brief but helpful summary and outline that provided a basic blueprint as to where he planned to take 14:1-40. In the closing chapter of the commentary he wrote, After the insertion of 12:31b–13:13, 1 Cor 14 returns to the gifts of the Spirit at 12:28-31a, addressing an issue raised by the Corinthians (7:1a) and emphasizing the priority of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues in the public meetings of the Corinthian congregations. The principle is probably what gift benefits the whole church (‘prophecy’) and not merely the individual (‘tongues’). The chapter consists of five segments: the principle stated (14:1-5); the problems with uninterpreted ‘tongues’ in public church meetings (14:6, 12-25); the regulation for manifestations of these gifts in church (14:26-33a); a restriction placed on the gifted wives of the prophets (14:33b-36); the divine authority of Paul’s commands and conclusion of the theme (14:37-40).1 1   See Chapter VI, 449. On p. 449 it appears that Ellis had perhaps intended to offer definitions of ‘prophecy’ and ‘tongues’ in the blank footnotes he left next to those terms, but he had not yet done so.

454

1 CORINTHIANS

One item of interest related to 1 Cor 14 is that Ellis believed that the spiritual gift of tongues is operative today and indicated that he himself had this charism (see note 365 above). It would also have been nice to learn more of his thoughts on 1 Cor 14:33b-36, but he never commented in detail on this text in the present work. However, he did write an article on these verses elsewhere in which he interpreted the restriction in this passage (unless he changed his mind) as referring to the gifted wives of the prophets in the context of examining prophecies rather than to the restriction of women in public ministry.2 This editor cannot determine exactly how Ellis would have treated all of 1 Cor 15. However, a syllabus for a course taught by him in 2004 on Pauline Theology with a focus on 1 Corinthians is somewhat helpful.3 Ellis’s syllabus contained a basic outline for the entire letter. The segment for 1 Cor 15:1-58 covered the following points. VI. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 15:1-58 (1, γινωρίζω; 12, τίνες λέγουσιν) A. The Resurrection of Christ 15:1-11 1. 15:1f. The sine qua non of the Gospel 2. 15:3-11 The Received Tradition B. The Resurrection of Believers 15:12-58 1. 15:12-19 The Denial and its Consequences 2. 15:20-28 The Meaning of this Truth 3. 15:29-58 Objections Answered Ellis would have straightforwardly argued for the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.4 He held that   See E. Earle Ellis, ‘The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Cor. 14:34-35)’, in New Testament Textual Criticism: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 213–20 (217). 3   Thank you to Nicolas Gold who gave me Ellis’s syllabus for the course, New Testament Theology: The Theology of 1 Corinthians (BIBTH 4343 / NEWTS 5543), offered in the fall semester of 2004 at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. 4   For example, see E. Earle Ellis, ‘ΣΩΜΑ in 1 Corinthians’, in Christ and the Future in New Testament History (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 165–78, and the section titled ‘A Special Note on the Empty Tomb’ in E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (Reprint; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 273–76. 2



EPILOGUE

455

Paul’s terminology in 1 Cor 15:3 introduced cited traditions of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.5 Ellis embraced an anthropology of complex monism that would have informed much of his exegesis in ch. 15. He understood the body and soul as distinguishable but not divisible. Thus, for Ellis, a dead person is dead, and the resurrection will raise the person as a whole. In other words, he believed that when a follower of Jesus Christ died, that person’s soul did not immediately go to be with the Lord while the body remained separate in the grave until the resurrection. In other words, he did not think that after death ‘to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord’—at least not as that idea is held by many today. That being the case, some have argued that Ellis believed in ‘soul sleep’, the view that after death, an individual’s soul ‘slept’ until the resurrection occurred. While Ellis clearly seems to hold to that belief, I am not sure he ever adopted the specific terminology of ‘soul sleep’. The late New Testament scholar Gerald Hawthorne, a close friend of Ellis’s, remarked, ‘The teachings of the Advent Christian church deeply influenced Ellis, especially those teachings that the dead “sleep” in an unconscious state until the resurrection, when those in Christ will be raised to bliss and immortality, and the wicked to judgment and annihilation’.6 Particularly helpful on what Ellis thought about the resurrection is an article he composed entitled ‘ΣΩΜΑ in 1 Corinthians’,7 especially pages 175-178. In this essay, he addressed many issues including the belief of certain Corinthians who held that ‘there is no resurrection of the dead’ (15:12), resurrection as a physical, bodily event, baptism for believers who have died, the state of the dead in Christ, resurrection of the corporate body, etc. 5   E. Earle Ellis, ‘Traditions in 1 Corinthians’, New Testament Studies, vol. 32 (1986): 481–502 (481). Cf. also the terms in 1 Cor 11:23 that introduce cited traditions of Jesus’ teaching at the Lord’s Supper (481). Moreover, the presence of the same type of terminology in 1 Cor 11:2 shows that this procedure was ‘probably Paul’s usual way of transmitting traditional teachings to his congregations’ (482). 6   Gerald Hawthorne, ‘A Biographical Sketch’, in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis on His 80th Birthday (ed. Sang-Won [Aaron] Son; New York/London: T&T Clark, 2006), 9–14 (9). On the destiny of the wicked, see E. Earle Ellis, ‘New Testament Teaching on Hell’, in Christ and the Future in New Testament History (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 179–99. 7   E. Earle Ellis, ‘ΣΩΜΑ in 1 Corinthians’, in Christ and the Future in New Testament History (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 165–78.

456

1 CORINTHIANS

This writer will not conjecture on exactly how Ellis would have dealt with 1 Cor 16. I know of little that he wrote on subjects in this chapter. The chapter is a fairly straightforward one in which Paul gave some concluding comments. The Pauline Theology course syllabus with its basic outline of 1 Cor is again helpful. VII. CONCLUDING COMMENTS 16:1-24 A. The Collection 16:1-4 B. The Plans of Paul and his Co-Workers 16:5-18 1. 16:5-9 Paul 2. 16:10-12 Timothy and Apollos 3. 16:13-18 The ‘First Fruits’ C. Greeting of ‘the Brothers’ and of Paul 16:19-24 In 1 Cor 16, Ellis would have discussed the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, the travel plans of Paul, Timothy, and Apollos, and the first converts in Achaia. Interestingly, he identified ‘the brothers’ in 1 Cor 16:19f. as a special class of co-workers who were ‘a more restrictive group’ than the Christian community.8 Other than the latter article on Paul and his co-workers, this editor knows of nothing else that Ellis wrote on a particular text or subject in 1 Cor 16, although he did supervise an important Ph.D. dissertation on the secretary in Paul’s letters that touched on the Pauline epistolary signatures, of which 1 Cor 16:21 is one,9 that disclose the apostle’s use of an amanuensis.10 If readers would like to learn more about Ellis’s work in New Testament and theology or what he believed, please consult his books listed in the Preface. For a fuller list of his writings, please see the curriculum vitae in the book History and Exegesis.11 Terry L. Wilder, Ph.D. Professor of New Testament and Greek Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, Kentucky   E. Earle Ellis, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers’, NTS 1, vol. 17 (1971): 437–52 (446). 9   Other verses are Gal 6:11, Col 4:18, Phlm 19, and 2 Thess 3:17. 10   E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe Series (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991). 11   ‘Curriculum Vitae’ found in Sang-won (Aaron) Son, ed., History and Exegesis (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 15–27. 8

INDEX Adam 31, 59, 75, 77, 92, 93, 128, 132, 135, 157, 174, 178, 185, 209, 211, 219, 232, 240, 244, 248, 276, 277, 293, 349, 356, 358, 398, 401, 402, 427 Adiaphora (ἀδιάφορα) 358 adultery 194, 196, 197, 214, 234–36, 240, 242, 263, 267, 270, 271, 274, 352 angels 22, 114, 162, 181, 200, 217, 218, 220–22, 393, 397, 403, 404, 440, 445, 447 annihilation (see hell) 208, 233, 267, 359, 380, 454 Antioch 9, 17, 20, 30, 51, 125, 169, 240, 340, 342, 362 anxiety 296 Aphrodite 235, 236, 241, 249, 308, 312, Apollos 9, 18, 46, 55, 57, 60, 61, 69, 108, 109, 111, 136–40, 144, 146, 161, 162, 164, 166, 173, 175, 176, 180, 346, 347, 455 Apostolic Authority 164, 186, 235, 291, 336, 337, 406, 422 Apostolic Ministry 28, 200, 348, 350, 367 Aquila 22, 61, 66, 415 arrogance 81, 187 asceticism 367 Asia 5, 6, 17, 18, 105, 342, 419 Athens 142, 308, 334, 414 atonement 156, 384, 426, 427, 429 authority 5, 6, 20, 21, 25, 28, 48, 51, 57, 76, 78, 100, 112, 114, 164, 176, 184, 186, 204, 224, 235, 244, 254, 261, 268, 291, 293, 321, 323, 333, 334,

336–40, 349, 352, 393, 394, 396, 398, 402–404, 406, 416, 422, 450, 454 baptism 43, 55, 57, 61–65, 68, 75, 97, 102, 124, 149, 154, 184, 230, 243, 244, 275–77, 281, 371, 374–76, 425, 442, 443, 454 Barnabas 18, 167, 330, 333, 340, 342, 347–49 boasting 47, 73, 84, 95, 96, 163, 175, 176, 192, 209 calling 6, 15, 39, 83, 91, 92, 139, 184, 279, 284, 297, 304, 334, 434 celibacy 259, 260, 265, 266, 294 Cephas (see Peter) 18, 55, 61, 161, 164, 166 Charismatic Movement, Jewish 225, 319 Charisms 26, 29, 31–36, 59, 70, 98, 112, 121, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132, 134, 175–77, 199, 255, 264, 265, 280, 391, 399, 432, 433, 436, 437–41, 443–45, 447–50, 453 circumcision 63, 255, 281, 282, 283, 339, 352, 357–59, 362, 416 conscience 75, 169, 224, 304, 305, 320–23, 325, 328, 330, 362, 369, 370, 372, 388, 389, 390 covenant 40, 53, 100, 143, 152, 154, 212, 277, 281, 300, 329, 346, 348, 352–54, 357–59, 374–77, 379, 380, 382, 407, 426–28

458 creation 80, 116, 117, 121, 123, 164, 211, 220, 270, 271, 273, 292, 314, 315, 316, 383, 398, 402, 404, 405, 419 cross, crucifixion 55, 62, 69, 70, 73–75, 81, 82, 85–88, 93–95, 98, 103, 104, 106, 114, 116, 118, 129, 177, 179, 180, 253, 254, 312, 341, 356, 429 Cynics 19, 20, 259 Damascus 316, 328, 338 deacons 136, 437 death 28, 36, 44, 59, 70, 74–76, 79, 87, 92, 105, 119, 123, 128, 132, 139, 149, 156, 157, 161, 162, 164, 181, 182, 185, 190, 196, 206–208, 230, 247, 248, 272, 276, 278, 287, 289, 290, 293, 300, 301, 326–29, 343, 344, 353, 355, 356, 357–59, 371, 382, 383, 385, 392, 407, 409, 417, 419, 423–28, 430, 439, 448, 454 demons 115, 311, 353, 368, 371, 386, 387, 435, 439, 440 denominations 241, 424, 429 disciple 103, 353, 357, 374 discipline 164, 183, 188, 189, 190, 194, 216, 304, 331, 334, 363–66 divisions 60, 84, 288, 312, 441, 443 divorce 23, 191, 196, 202, 250, 255, 264, 265, 267–74, 278, 293, 301 drunkenness 252, 420 Egypt 1, 3, 10, 141, 232, 254, 291, 371, 374, 380, 381, 426, 446 election 36, 96, 327 Ephesus 8, 10, 16, 17, 51, 59, 61, 66, 67, 284, 339, 343, 416 eschatological 15, 19, 31, 38, 96, 100, 111, 112, 119, 135, 137, 146, 147, 151, 152, 154, 157, 172, 178, 179, 181, 191, 220, 233, 259, 278, 288, 289, 292, 294–96, 312, 315, 323, 329, 346, 348, 365, 378, 381, 402

index eschatology 60, 178, 301 Eschaton 292, 346 eternal 79, 208 ethics 77, 111, 134, 178, 208, 209, 240, 267 evangelism 66, 365 excommunication 216, 236 Exodus 53, 172, 212, 253, 254, 304, 370, 371, 374–79, 381, 382, 426 exorcism 57 faith 32, 34, 39, 41, 57, 65, 71, 77, 84, 85, 99, 107, 135, 137, 144, 164, 169, 170, 179, 197, 242, 243, 280, 283, 284, 312, 313, 321, 339, 356–59, 363, 380, 396, 426, 432, 438–39, 446–48 faithful 11, 12, 29, 32, 40, 41, 125, 127, 131, 147, 153, 161, 162, 167, 168, 182, 186, 191, 199, 233, 256, 289, 312, 326, 327, 339, 360, 364, 368, 373, 377, 384 fall (of man) 69, 77, 79–82, 92, 114, 116, 123, 135, 161, 185, 208, 219, 239, 253, 328, 355, 402, 419, 429 Feast of Unleavened Bread 210, 376 fellowship 43, 189, 190, 194, 290, 362 feminist movement 184, 241, 399 financial support 304 flesh 12, 53, 59, 71, 78, 88, 92–94, 133, 135, 136, 149, 190, 192, 197, 200, 206, 208–10, 225, 229, 250, 256, 269, 270, 273–75, 277, 294, 316, 325, 331, 348, 355–57, 368, 384, 386, 416 forgiveness 273, 329, 427 fornication 192, 194, 195, 207, 209, 229, 231, 234–36, 242, 246, 251, 252, 254, 260, 264, 267, 269–71, 273, 274, 307, 310, 352, 371, 379, 380, 385, 388

freedom 185, 191, 197, 205, 231, 245, 253, 258, 271, 287, 288, 289, 324, 337, 338, 359, 360, 362, 390 Galatia 196, 240, 337, 338, 342 gentleness 162, 188 glory 37, 86, 94, 108, 116–18, 147, 180, 230, 242, 289, 326, 358, 365, 369, 372, 388, 390, 393, 402–404, 446 gnosticism, gnosticizing 10, 17, 19–21, 133, 196, 240, 241, 246, 327, 337, 338, 361, 395, 434 grace 1, 2, 18, 19, 29, 31–36, 51, 77, 83, 92, 109, 111, 116, 140, 143, 156, 169–71, 177, 197, 242, 243, 253, 335, 356–59, 380, 383, 385, 418, 426, 438 grave 454 greed 234, 246 head, headship 260, 261, 276, 373, 392, 393, 397–400, 402–404, 406 head (of the body) 152, 441, 442 healing 432, 438, 439, 441, 445 heaven 27, 114, 117, 141, 211, 230, 304, 313, 317, 356 hell (see annihilation) 208, 267 holiness (see also sanctification) 12–15, 71, 75, 98, 100, 138, 149, 154, 157, 169, 170, 211, 275–77, 358, 411, 449 Holy Spirit 26, 34, 43, 44, 62, 64, 65, 75, 77, 105, 107, 112, 121, 123–26, 138, 148–50, 180, 187, 188, 200, 204, 210, 225, 229, 231, 241, 244, 247–49, 251, 252, 254, 275, 276, 292, 302, 313, 319, 357, 358, 367, 371, 375, 384, 387, 391, 392, 409, 425, 429, 430, 432–38, 440, 443, 444, 450 homosexual[ity], homoeroticism, lesbianism 214, 236–43 hope 36, 96, 101, 232, 318, 331, 332, 346, 446, 448

index

459

hospitality 66 humility 6, 188, 242, 360 idolatry 197, 235, 236, 246, 304, 306, 308, 321, 328, 329, 368, 371, 372, 379, 380, 384–86, 388, 408, 433 illness (see also sickness) 409 immorality, sexual 194, 195, 210, 247, 380 incest 190, 194–97, 237 inheritance (of saints) 164, 165, 232 Israel 11–13, 36, 53, 85, 87, 89, 93, 101, 141–43, 151–54, 157, 166, 195, 204, 207, 209, 221, 224, 229, 236, 254, 270, 271, 277, 284, 304, 318, 346, 348, 360, 361, 368, 371, 373–78, 380, 386, 416 Isthmian Games 364 James 10, 17, 18, 40, 215, 228, 241, 246, 317, 338, 341, 360, 397, 406, 412, 419, 422 jealousy 108, 111, 234, 368, 371, 387 Jerusalem 3, 8, 9, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 30, 49, 51, 61, 66, 78, 151–54, 169, 186, 199, 204, 337, 341, 342, 348, 353, 360, 362, 371, 386, 416, 419, 422, 426, 448, 455 Jews 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 16, 24, 53, 63, 67, 69, 71, 84–87, 195, 209, 243, 269, 281, 283, 284, 286, 288, 307, 327, 331, 333, 334, 348, 359–62, 369, 373, 415, 416, 440 joy 180, 448 justice 156, 197, 227–29 justification 169, 170, 197, 356 kingdom of God 40, 79, 99, 162, 178, 187, 190, 211, 228, 229, 232, 234, 292, 329, 353, 382, 402, 404, 424, 448

103, 221, 293, 420,

460 knowledge 29, 32, 34, 159, 174, 304–306, 308–10, 320, 321, 324, 325, 432, 438 lawsuits 217, 225–27 leadership (adjective) 111, 206, 394, 403; (substantive, group) 200, 348; (substantive, position) 226, 404 leaven 192, 193, 210–13 Lord’s Supper 44, 97, 134, 213, 216, 291, 307, 371, 376, 385, 386, 391, 392, 396, 407–409, 412, 413, 417–19, 421, 422, 424–30, 454 Macedonia 5, 343 marriage 191, 196, 201, 202, 239, 249, 257–80, 291, 293, 294, 298, 300–302, 400, 402 (levirate 300) martyrdom 49, 57, 186 mercy 120, 156, 229, 282 miracles 26, 27, 57, 73, 81, 85, 88, 376, 385, 438, 439, 441, 444 monism 454 Moses 117, 166, 229, 271, 281, 344, 353, 357, 362, 368, 371, 374, 375, 383, 421 mystery 71, 72, 103, 108, 116, 120, 127, 159, 185 mystery religion 63, 102 parousia 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 44, 76, 79, 98, 112, 115, 147, 149, 150, 165, 170, 190, 193, 209, 211, 230, 245, 292, 293, 295, 329, 357, 359, 363, 365, 367, 381, 383, 424, 429, 431, 448, 449 Passover feast 210, 212, 213, 353, 376, 417–19, 423, 424, 426, 427 Passover lamb 7, 31, 53, 87, 192, 212, 417, 418, 427 patience 448 peace 1–3, 18, 19, 75, 255, 277–79, 326, 348

index Peter 15, 17, 18, 40, 58, 60–62, 68, 152, 164, 167, 190, 204, 215, 228, 241, 246, 317, 330, 338, 340, 341, 347, 353, 397, 406, 422 Philippi 67, 92, 349, 414 pneumatics 27, 108, 111, 112, 120, 121, 124–32, 134, 171, 225, 253, 372, 391, 392, 394, 397, 399, 403–406, 422, 433–35, 444, 445 poor 177, 291, 392, 409, 413, 415, 416, 418–21, 455 power of God 19, 31, 70, 71, 86, 88, 98, 101, 107, 239 prayer 15, 30, 32, 57, 125, 177, 255, 257, 262, 314, 329, 336, 353, 389, 392, 394, 397, 399, 404, 406, 418, 419, 423, 439, 445 preaching 8, 26, 31, 34, 35, 45, 49, 51, 56, 73, 74, 82, 85, 102, 106, 130, 137, 154, 172, 186, 333, 334, 339, 361, 362, 437 predestination 84, 116 pride 66, 81, 168, 175, 190, 193, 209, 210, 242 Priscilla 59, 61, 66, 415 prophets (division of canon) 51, 103, 221, 353, 357, 379, 445 prostitution 194, 242, 246 purgatory 148 redemption 38, 42, 63, 68, 71, 80, 87, 98, 100, 115, 121, 139, 145, 148, 164, 169, 204, 231, 253, 254, 290, 371, 387, 423, 426, 428, remarriage 191, 267–75, 290 repentance 39, 64, 65, 75, 177, 198, 216, 242, 273, 384, 429 resurrection 25, 26, 32, 36, 44, 61, 76, 79, 87, 88, 134, 139, 149, 152, 165, 211, 221, 230, 231, 245, 247, 259, 260, 276, 292, 300, 301, 309, 317, 341, 341, 344, 353, 356, 359, 383, 385, 425, 430, 449, 453, 454

revelation 29, 31, 37, 40, 51, 53, 75–78, 81, 89, 103, 117, 121–23, 125, 126, 150, 185, 203, 204, 224, 296, 313, 318, 353, 373, 382, 422, 444 rewards 139, 140, 150, 331, 333, 350–52, 367 Rome 5, 49, 61, 145, 186, 269, 274, 285, 291, 334, 342, 360, 415 rulers 24, 108, 113–15, 124, 222 sabbath 17, 22, 282, 283, 334, 353, 354 sacraments 43, 63, 276 saints 1, 15, 219, 221, 235, 243, 431, 455 sanctification (see also holiness) 83, 169, 418 Satan 10, 88, 105, 113–15, 190, 192, 206, 207, 240, 248, 255, 262, 263, 311, 361, 381, 384, 423 self-control 191, 255, 259, 266, 267, 364, 366 sickness (see also illness) 392 signs and wonders 71, 73, 84, 85, 107 Silas 120, 333, 340, 346, 414 singleness (see also celibacy) 191, 298 slander 162, 163, 181, 369, 390 slavery 191, 284–89, 371 soul sleep 454 Spirit baptism (see Baptism, Spirit) 65, 124, 149, 275, 442, 443 spiritual gifts 124, 125, 130, 132, 137, 328, 336, 403–405, 432, 436, 437, 443, 450 Stoicism 259 suffering 57, 74, 180, 182, 227, 272

index

461

Suffering Servant 74, 423 support, financial (see financial support) 304 teachers 26, 41, 125–27, 158, 183, 184, 333, 375, 441, 444 teachers, false 154, 174, 186, 240, 246, 339 teaching, false 210, 311 temptation 251, 324, 368, 380, 384 Thessalonica 92, 340, 343, 347, 349, 414 Timothy 67, 120, 162, 182, 186, 214, 223, 283, 414, 416, 455 Titus 30, 186 tongues 26, 393, 399, 432, 440, 441, 445–57, 449, 453 Trinity 166, 315, 398, 429, 436 truth 34, 38, 40, 47, 74, 78, 81, 84, 85, 99, 123, 146, 192, 213, 313, 446, 448, 449, 453 unity 55, 59, 139, 166, 314, 316, 319, 330, 386, 436, 437, 441, 443, 444, 447 virgin 256–57, 265, 290, 293–94, 298–99 war 5 wealthy 285, 414, 415 widows 191, 255, 265, 271, 290 women 25, 59, 236, 241, 252, 265, 288, 332, 340, 396, 398, 414, 453 worship 10, 235, 306, 307, 311, 361, 362, 384, 433, 445 zeal 134