Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians 9781978704688

Citation preview

Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 1

5/28/19 2:17 PM

THE SCRIPTURE AND PAUL SERIES Forthcoming: Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in Romans Edited by Linda Belleville and A. Andrew Das

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 2

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians Edited by Linda L. Belleville and B. J. Oropeza Afterword by Christopher D. Stanley

LEXINGTON BOOKS/FORTRESS ACADEMIC

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 3

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Published by Lexington Books/Fortress Academic Lexington Books is an imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com 6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom Copyright © 2019 The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 4

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Contents

Figure and Tables

vii

Abbreviations

ix

Preface

xiii

Introduction: Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians Linda L. Belleville and B. J. Oropeza 1

2

Paul’s Re-Contextualizations of the Prophets and other Texts in 1 Corinthians 1–2 Erik Waaler Paul’s Mystery Thriller: The Use of the Danielic Mystery in 1 Corinthians Benjamin L. Gladd

1

7

29

3

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth? Craig S. Keener

4

The Incestuous Man of 1 Corinthians 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts, and Eating with Sinners Kathy Barrett Dawson

67

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth Guy Prentiss Waters

81

5

6

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians Brian S. Rosner

43

99

v

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 5

5/28/19 2:17 PM

vi

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Contents

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians 5–13 and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy? Paul’s Covenantal Reuse of Deuteronomy Erik Waaler

111

Paul’s Christological Use of the Exodus-Wilderness Rock Tradition in 1 Corinthians 10:4 Linda L. Belleville

129

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:21–25 Roy E. Ciampa

141

Baptism in behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch? J. David Stark

161

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix for the Nature of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians 15:39–42? David A. Burnett

187

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality Related to the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) B. J. Oropeza

213

Afterword: Scripture in 1 Corinthians: Assessing the Status Quaestionis Christopher D. Stanley

249

Index

259

About the Contributors

000

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 6

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Figure and Tables

Figure 7.1. The Use of Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians

112

Table 11.1. Terrestrial and Celestial Bodies in 1 Corinthians 15 and Genesis 1

188

Table 11.2. Terrestrial and Celestial Bodies in 1 Corinthians 15 and Deuteronomy 4

188

vii

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 7

5/28/19 2:17 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 8

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Abbreviations

AB ABD ABR AGJU AJA AJP AnBib ANRW ANTC AsTJ ATJ ATR AYB BA BASOR BBR BDAG BECNT BETL BGBE BHT Bib BibInt BJRL BJS

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Australian Biblical Review Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Philology Analecta biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Asbury Theological Journal Ashland Theological Journal Anglican Theological Review Anchor Yale Bible Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin for Biblical Research Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (Third ed.) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library Brown Judaic Studies ix

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 9

5/28/19 2:17 PM

x

BK BNTC BR BRev BS BT BTB BTCB BZ BZNW CAH CBNT CBQ CIJ CJ ConBNT CRBS CSR CTR DNTB ECC ECIL EJL EKKNT ETR EvQ ExpT HBT HDR HNT HNTC HTR HTS IBS ICC Int JAAR JBL JETS JJS JNES

Abbreviations

Bibel und Kirche Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Research Bible Review Bibliotheca Sacra The Bible Translator Theology Bulletin Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Ancient History Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum Concordia Journal Coniectanea Neotestamentica/Coniectanea Biblica: NT Series Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Christian Scholars Review Concordia Theoligical Review Dictionary of New Testament Background Eerdmans Critical Commentary Early Christianity and Its Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Dissertations in Religion Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harper’s New Testament Commentary Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 10

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Abbreviations

JNSL JQR JR JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JTS LCL LNTS LTS NA NCamBC NCBC NCC NCenBC NICNT NIGTC NovTSup NT/NovT NTM NTS OCD PNTC PSB PTMS QR RB RGRW RQ SBL SBLABS SBLMS SBM SJC SJT SNTSMS SNTSU SNTW

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 11

xi

Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classic Library Library of New Testament Studies Lutheran Theological Studies Nestle-Aland (27th/28th ed.) New Cambridge Bible Commentary New Cambridge Biblical Commentary New Covenant Commentary New Century Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements Novum Testamentum New Testament Message New Testament Studies Oxford Classical Dictionary (Third ed.) Pillar New Testament Commentary Princeton Seminary Bulletin Princeton Theological Monographs Series Quarterly Review Revue Biblique Religions in the Greco-Roman World Restoration Quarterly Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Stuttgarter biblische Monographien Studies in Judaism and Christianity Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Studies in the New Testament and Its World

5/28/19 2:17 PM

xii

SP SSEJC STDJ TB THNTC TJ TJT TNTC TS TZ VE VT WGRW WTJ WUNT ZAW ZNW ZTK

Abbreviations

Sacra Pagina Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Tyndale Bulletin Two Horizons New Testament Commentary Trinity Journal Toronto Journal of Theology Tyndale New Testament Commentary Theological Studies Theologische Zeithschrift Vox Evangelica Vetus Testamentum Writings from the Greco-Roman World Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschtift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 12

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Preface

We wish to express our appreciation to Neil Elliott at Lexington Books/ Fortress Academic for the opportunity to publish a series of four volumes on Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. Volume 1 tackles the topic of Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians. Paul’s engagement with Scripture has long been a contentious debate resulting in numerous unresolved issues. While a variety of interpretive approaches have been proposed to explain Paul’s use of Scripture, a lack of scholarly consensus remains. The prevailing approach has been to compare Paul with the post-Pauline Masoretic Text and to locate Paul’s interpretive approach in the changes between the two. Quite often such a comparative approach has resulted in attributing the textual differences to Paul’s creative genius or overactive imagination. However, to do so is to overlook the biblical and extra-biblical tradition-history in which Paul stands. The sources behind Paul’s letter extend beyond the Scriptures to other texts, and hence title for this volume as Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians. The intent of these collected papers is to explore recent advances on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians, and to work towards the resolution of scholarly gridlock concerning the way the apostle Paul interpreted and applied Scripture. The papers in this volume were delivered at the SBL national meetings over a six-year period as part of the Scripture and Paul Seminar. As editors, we wish to thank all of those who participated as contributors and respondents in the seminar sessions. All of the papers in this volume have been revised in light of participants’ critiques and further reflection.

xiii

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 13

5/28/19 2:17 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 14

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Introduction Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians Linda L. Belleville and B. J. Oropeza

THE RATIONALE This volume is a collection of select SBL papers presented at the Systematic Transformation and Interweaving of Scripture in 1 Corinthians Seminar from 2011–2016. The seminar started by asking the question whether Paul used Scripture in 1 Corinthians in a distinctively comprehensive way by systematically distilling, transforming, and weaving entire books of Scripture into his texts (2011–12). The seminar then turned to focus on the interpretation of specific texts in 1 Corinthians, where Paul quotes or alludes to Scripture (2013–16). As of this writing, The Scripture and Paul seminar is on its second six-year term at SBL, where Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, and 1 Thessalonians will be tackled. The nature of Paul’s engagement with Scripture has long been debated. The prevailing approach has been to compare Paul’s explicit quotations from the Septuagint or the post-Pauline Masoretic Text and to locate Paul’s interpretive approach in the changes he made. Quite often, such a comparative approach results in attributing the textual differences to Paul’s creative genius, overactive imagination, faulty recollection, or a rough citation. However, to do so is to overlook the biblical and extra-biblical tradition-history in which Paul stands. These traditions include not only the Hebrew texts reflected in the MT, but also the Qumran Scrolls, the Targumim, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek translations of the Septuagint (Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus), the Old Latin and Vulgate translations, the Syriac Peshitta, and Second Temple Jewish writings such as the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, and Philo. The intent of this volume is to look at Paul and Scripture, using recent approaches such as attention to Scriptural echoes and intertextuality, exploring 1

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 1

5/28/19 2:17 PM

2

Introduction

Paul’s dependence on the tradition history of an OT text, and comparing Scriptural methods found in Second Temple Jewish literature. Hence the title for this volume as Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in 1 Corinthians. This volume does not cover all of Paul’s quotes, allusions, or Scriptural tracings in 1 Corinthians.1 It tackles what have been considered some of Paul’s most perplexing uses of Scripture with the intent to move the scholarly discussion forward.

THE SCRIPTURE TEXTS Erik Waaler focuses on Paul’s re-contextualization of texts from the Pentateuch and the Prophets in 1 Cor 1–2 and looks at the high degree of metonymy or metalepsis in Paul’s use of Scripture––the use of key words to evoke a larger scriptural context that is Paul’s point––that results in a profound reshaping of the Septuagintal text. Waaler also looks at Paul’s word-links via the term σοφός and how they underscore two types of wisdom—one that Paul identifies with as a wise master builder and another that is worldly, negative, and in denial of the cross. Benjamin Gladd explores how the book of Daniel and its apocalyptic term μυστήριον play a significant role in 1 Corinthians. He shows how occurrence of the term μυστήριον at critical junctures in 1 Corinthians serves to curb division and engender unity within the Corinthian congregation. Craig Keener challenges the common position that an overrealized eschatology is behind the problems at Corinth. He seeks a better explanation for the Corinthians’ rejection of bodily resurrection and a future judgment given the predominant Greco-Roman worldview of Paul’s day. Kathy Barrett Dawson looks at Paul’s use of LXX Exod 12 and Deut 17 in 1 Cor 5:1–13 and the light it sheds on various issues including Paul’s selfunderstanding as “judge” and/or “priest” and the need for the church to recognize his adjudicatory authority. Paul invokes this authority to motivate the Corinthian believers to act appropriately, even though they may have feared the powerful but incestuous member of their community. Guy Waters focuses on the Deuteronomic expulsion formula in 1 Cor 5 and what Paul means by “delivering the [incestuous] to Satan.” He also tackles the apparent inconsistency between the offender’s removal from the community and the curse-bearing death of Christ. For the apostle, the Deuteronomic curses have found their typological fulfillment in Christ, and his aim for the offender is remedial. Brian Rosner addresses the thorny question of how Paul views Mosaic Law in 1 Corinthians. Is it no longer applicable? Rosner tries to forge a path

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 2

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Introduction

3

between those who offer a negative critique and those who posit a positive approval of the Law. Erik Waaler examines Paul’s reuse of Deuteronomic texts in 1 Cor 8–10. In the letter, Paul is said to interact with several texts from Deut 4:4–11:32 and reuses the Shema in 1 Cor 8:3–6. The repetitive style in this part of Deuteronomy invites a more complex interaction that combines issues like idolatry, love directed toward God, and monotheism—issues that are present in the letter and form interwoven patterns in the text. Linda Belleville explores Paul’s use of the exodus-wilderness narrative in 1 Cor 10:1–11. She investigates Paul’s source for the statement that a waterproviding rock traveled with Israel for forty years. She also looks at Paul’s bold assertion that the rock was Christ and his command that the Corinthians “not to put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents” (v. 9). Is this Paul’s creative genius at work? Or is there a valid Scriptural and exegetical basis for Paul’s rock Christology? Roy Ciampa tackles the thorny issue of Paul’s use of Isa 28 in 1 Cor 14:21–25. He proposes a way forward by understanding Paul’s statement as a missiological imperative. The use of the gifts of tongues and prophecy should be judged in light of their relative tendencies to lead the Corinthians’ neighbors to come to recognize God in their midst and to worship him. Paul’s concern is for the outsider/marginalized, the one who is not yet a member of the community and whose power within the congregation would otherwise seem to be negligible at best. J. David Stark proposes a way forward in understanding “baptism in behalf of the dead” in 1 Cor 15:29 by reading it as an allusion to Pentateuchal purity regulations instituted at Sinai (e.g., Lev 21:1–4; 22:4–6; Num 6:6–12; 19:11–22). He suggests that Paul’s reference is best understood as a pregnant construction describing the Corinthians who are being baptized because of their connection with the ministerially dead Paul and his associates. David Burnett examines Deut 4 as a neglected scriptural matrix that serves as a crucial background and frame for understanding Paul’s narration of the apocalyptic eschatological event of “the resurrection” (1 Cor 15:20–28), and his articulation of the nature of the resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35–49). This proposal highlights an innovative way forward in the ongoing discussion surrounding a number of contentious interpretive issues in 1 Cor 15. B. J. Oropeza argues against the majority of interpretative positions that attempt to reduce the Corinthian denial of resurrection into a unified position, including over-realized eschatology. He determines that the more natural way of reading the situation is that Corinthian deniers were divided over their beliefs on the afterlife. Presenting many Hellenistic and Roman sources, he considers common mythic beliefs in bodily immortality being limited to cultural

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 3

5/28/19 2:17 PM

4

Introduction

heroes, difficulty believing that cremated bodies could be resurrected, and disillusionment over recently deceased loved ones in Corinth not rising again as some primary factors in the denial. Paul invites his auditors to reconsider their traditions in light of the Christ-traditions they learned, Scripture, and the nature of the resurrected body.

CONCLUSIONS Christopher Stanley evaluates the volume’s analysis of Paul’s use of Scripture in 1 Corinthians with a view to providing areas that need further work and areas where the work done moves the discussion forward. He observes that a number of these essays call attention to neglected references to Scripture in specific portions of the letter, offering interpretive options that have not received sufficient attention in the scholarly discussion, and thus show that Paul’s engagement with the Scriptures of Judaism in 1 Corinthians is both broader and deeper than might appear from his explicit references. Stanley also notes the ongoing need to have clear criteria for identifying Scriptural echoes and allusions, however, and expresses doubt whether standard protocols will be accepted any time soon. Stanley also raises the question of how to judge when Paul is engaging directly with the text of Scripture as opposed to drawing on Jewish interpretive traditions or using biblically-based language that had become part of the lingua franca of Jewish families, educational systems, and synagogues. Regarding the church’s familiarity with specific Scriptures, Stanley raises the question of whether there was enough first-hand familiarity to discern echoes and allusions. Or had Paul taught his converts the central ideas and themes of central books such as Deuteronomy.so that his Scriptural references would be familiar? Stanley notes that Linda Belleville’s essay tackles these questions. In the end, Stanley concludes that while much was achieved by the seminar’s work, as reflected in the essays in this volume, much still remains to be done.

NOTES 1. Readers may wish to consult Hans Hübner, Vetum Testamentum in Novo, Band 2, Corpus Paulinum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997) and the margins of the Nestle-Aland Greek text (27th and 28th editions) for more thorough lists; though even these and older resources (e.g., Strack-Billerbeck; Wettstein) cannot list all potential allusions. For various definitions and criteria on quotations, readers may wish to consult Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 4

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Introduction

5

Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BzHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) 11–24; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 31–37; idem, “What We Learned—And What We Didn’t,” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ECIL 9 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 321–330, esp. 322–24; Steve Moyise, “Quotations,” in As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSS 50 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008), 15–28; Gregory K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 29–35. For discussions on allusions and echoes, see e.g., Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–32; idem, The Conversion of the Imagination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 34–45: Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teachings of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13, JSNTSup 59 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 28–36; Stanley E. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 148/SSEJC 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 79–96, idem, “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles. Explorations of Theory and Practice, ed. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, Stanley Porter, NTM 16 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 98–110; idem, “Allusions and Echoes,” in As it is Written, 29–40; Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 11–40; David McAuley, Paul’s Covert Use of Scripture: Intertextuality and Rhetorical Situation in Philippians 2:10–16 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2015), 1–49.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 5

5/28/19 2:17 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 6

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter One

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets and other Texts in 1 Corinthians 1–2 Erik Waaler

First Corinthians is a document in which the content and structure identifies it as an epistle. In recent decades a consensus of scholars has accepted the letter’s unity and have provided comprehensive argumentation with regard to this unity. Its integrity has been underscored further in 1 Cor 5–11 by its use of the OT, the absence of documentary evidence verifying transpositions and the short time span between the autograph and the first copies.”1 The argument of this paper is based on the unity of the letter. I find the current vocabulary of citations, quotations, allusions, and echoes to be flawed. These four categories, on one linear scale, make a complex phenomenon too simple. Therefore, I suggest the use of the general category of re-contextualized text and specific descriptions of differences such as “modes of reference,” “reference formulas,” “degrees of verbal correspondence,” and “intent.”2 Re-contextualizations imply change. Continuity and change are not contradictory in themselves as a higher degree of continuity may correspond with a higher degree of change. However, they are also interdependent. Both change and continuity are inevitable when a text is re-used. We can avoid neither. Like Paul, we see the OT through our own cultural lens. The cacophony of horizons complicates our reading of the Bible. However, we should avoid Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons” as it leads to confusion of horizons. The goal of our interpreting should be to achieve bi or multicultural capacity, such as that of teenagers trying to explain a misunderstanding to their immigrant father, by grasping for language and creating the same effect in their mother tongue as in the host culture. What they achieve naturally, science should do methodically by adopting another horizon. In scholarly discussions, we meet the issue of parallelomania. The other extreme is parellelo-noia. Some see parallels that are not there, while others miss a lot due to a rigid methodology 7

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 7

5/28/19 2:17 PM

8

Erik Waaler

such as the demand for awareness or intent. Awareness that we are walking, does not imply awareness of the complex cacophony of movements copied from parents and peers. Similarly, “an author almost always means more than he is aware of meaning, since he cannot explicitly pay attention to all the aspects of his meaning.”3 I agree with Mitchell and Witherington regarding the structure of 1 Corinthians, that the propositio is found in 1 Cor 1:10 and not in 1 Cor 1:18 as suggested by Inkleaar:4 “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose (1 Cor 1:10).”5 This verse captures the main theme of the letter, and it governs other themes like wisdom (1 Cor 1–2) morality (1 Cor 5–7), idolatry (1 Cor 7–8), and church life (1 Cor 9–14). Paul challenges factionalism throughout 1 Corinthians. He uses examples and proofs from Scripture to encourage unity in the church–a unity that has Paul’s stamp on it. Mitchell describes 1:11–17 as the statement of facts and 4:14–21 as a summary.6 With this structure in place, I will address what I find to be re-contextualizations in 1 Cor 1–2 and how they contribute to the main themes of the letter.

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT RE-CONTEXTUALIZATIONS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1–2 Calling on the Name of the Lord The following re-contextualisations are found in 1 Corinthians 1–2: Isa 29:14 (1 Cor 1:19), Jer 9:22 (1 Cor 1:26–29), Jer 9:24 (1 Cor 1:31), Isa 64:4 (1 Cor 2:9), Isa 40:13 (1 Cor 2:16). These texts include the reference-formulas: γέγραπται γάρ (1 Cor 1:19) and καθὼς γέγραπται (1 Cor 1:31; 2:9). To this list the following parallels may be included: Prov 22:21 (1 Cor 1:5), Bar 3:28 (1 Cor 1:18);7 Isa 19:11, 12; 33:18; 44:25 (1 Cor 1:20), Isa 65:12; 52:15 (1 Cor 2:9–8) and Mal 1:11 (1 Cor 1:2).9 In 1 Corinthians 1:2 there is reference to those who “call on ‘the name of the Lord’”, a phrase often used in the LXX including the Pentateuch,10 but the closest parallels are Joel 3:5 and Zeph 3:9: a) πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται (Joel 3:5). τοῦ ἐπικαλεῖσθαι πάντας τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου (Zeph 3:9). b) πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor 1:2).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 8

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

9

Paul’s and Luke’s verbatim use of the eight words from Joel 3:5 in Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21 reinforce the link to Joel. In Acts 15:17 this text again comes into play: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. In 1 Corinthians the name of the Lord is present in the propositio. We find a negative equivalent in the first division of the argument: “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name” (1 Cor 1:13–15). Paul’s “name” stands in contrast to the “name of the Lord.” Both Paul and Luke are innovative in their use of “those who call on the name of the Lord” of Christians. Paul persecuted those “who call on this name” (Acts 9:21, cf. 2:21; 9:14), and in 1 Cor 1:2 the phrase is explicitly applied to Jesus: “Everyone who calls on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. Rom 10:9). In the Pentateuch calling on the name of the Lord is linked to the altar and the temple, to prayer and sacrifice (Gen 12:8, Deut 12:11).11 As in the OT, “the name of the Lord” has a solemn ritualistic flavor in the NT, being used in church gatherings, in rituals and as a key identifier for insiders.12 Its confessional character is confirmed in Acts 22:16: ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. In some of the prophetic texts in the LXX, this phrase is extended to include the Gentiles (e.g., Amos 9:2, Joel 2:31 [LXX 3:5], Zeph 3:9, Isa 43:7–8). Rather than refer to one place, however, Paul says that the Corinthians join those “who call on the name of our Lord in every place,” using the phrase to refer to the worship of God that is spreading around the world through his ministry. The expression echoes Mal 1:11, which looks forward to a time when God would be worshiped by the Gentiles “in every place.”13 It is possible that this universal background is the reason why Paul and Luke use the text of Joel in particular. However, this is such a standard phrase in the OT that it is bound to invoke additional associations to the educated reader.14 A Priestly Benediction Calling on the name of the Lord leads to the next formulation: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor 1:3). Martens suggests this formulation has a relationship to the priestly blessing.15 There are Jewish parallels: 2 Bar 78:2: Thus speaks Baruch the son of Neriah, to the brothers who were carried away in captivity: Grace and peace be with you Sir 50:22–24: And now bless the God of all, who everywhere works great wonders, who fosters our growth from birth, and deals with us according to

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 9

5/28/19 2:17 PM

10

Erik Waaler

his mercy (ἔλεος). May he give us gladness of heart, and may there be peace (εἰρήνην) in our days in Israel, as in the days of old.24 May he entrust to us his mercy (ἔλεος), and may he deliver us in our days!

These texts speak of the high priest blessing the congregation. The combination of terminology and cultic context makes association with the priestly blessing probable. 2 Baruch 78 and Sirach 50 speak of “peace” and “mercy,” echoing the LXX version of the priestly blessing (versus Paul). The priestly link is strengthened by texts such as 1 Enoch 1:8 and 3:4–9:16 1 Enoch 1:8: And with the righteous he will make peace (εἰρήνην), and upon the elect will be preservation and peace (εἰρήνη), and mercy (ἔλεος) will be given to them, and all will be of God, and he will give approval to them and he will bless (εὐλογήσει) all, and he will take hold of all, and he will help me, and light will appear to them and upon them he will make peace (φανήσεται αὐτοῖς φῶς καὶ ποιήσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς εἰρήνην) 1 Enoch 3.4–9 [1 En. 5.4–9]: And he will not be for you mercy and peace (ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη). 6 Then your name will be for eternal cursing . . . and there will be for you release from sin and all mercy and peace and kindness (πᾶν ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἐπιείκεια) . . . But light to the elect and grace and peace (φῶς καὶ χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη), and you will inherit the earth . . . Then he will give light and grace to the elect . . . and their life will grow in peace (εἰρήνῃ).17

Hartman focuses on the blessings in the text: “This ranks our five chapters with the blessings which OT men of distinction have pronounced upon their offspring or upon Israel especially at the time of their death.”18 He identifies 1 Enoch 1:8 and 5:5–6 with the priestly blessing:19 1 Enoch 1:8 speaks about a light that “shines on them” (φανήσεται αὐτοῖς φῶς, cf. Num 6:25). This text also explicitly speaks of blessing the people (εὐλογέω; cf. εὐλογήσαι Num 6:24) combined with the triplet χάρις, ἔλεος and εἰρήνη, so common in NT blessings. Milgrom confirms that the priestly blessing was tied to temple service: In the cult, blessing is offered upon entering the sanctuary (Ps. 118:26) but more commonly, upon the conclusion of the service, before departure (Lev. 9:22–23; 2 Sam. 6:18; 1 Kings 8:14, 55; 2 Chron. 30:27; Ecclus. 50:20–21) . . . According to the Rabbis (Mish. Sot. 7:6, Mish. Tam. 7:2) the Priestly Blessing was recited as a single unit in the Temple but as three separate blessings outside the Temple each answered with amen.20

Thus, we may conclude from the “Wirkungsgeschichte” and from the biblical texts that such formulations were cultic; Paul’s reapplication is certainly free, but it appears to have a ritual function. In the NT as a whole, there appears to be a fusion of two traditions regarding these greetings/blessings. In the early

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 10

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

11

epistles the phrase χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη is used (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; 1 Pet 1:2; cf. Phlm 1:3, Titus 1:4, 2 Pet 1:2; Rev 1:4; Rom 16:20). This is later modified: χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; 2 John 1:3; cf. Gal 6:16, 18. The same appears in the Apostolic Fathers (e.g., Barn. 21:9; Ign. Smyrn.12:2). Jude has the original Jewish wording: ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη Jude 1:2 (cf. Ps 84:11; Isa 54:10; Tob [S] 7:12; Mart. Pol. 1:1). This might reflect variation or even development in church liturgy. Notably these greetings are used similarly in various texts, implying a shared culture. It is not improbable that the regular blessing formula found in many of Paul’s letters, resonate with the priestly blessing (Num 6: 25–26; 1 Cor 1:3).21 Although this kind of letter greeting was uncommon prior to Christianity, it might well be taken from a Christian cultic or liturgical context.22 God’s Faithfulness First Corinthians 1:9 appears to be using language from Deut 32:4 and 7:9 that speaks of the “God’s faithfulness”: κύριος ὁ θεός σου οὗτος θεός θεὸς πιστός (Deut 7:9) θεὸς πιστός καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία δίκαιος καὶ ὅσιος κύριος (Deut 32:4) πιστὸς ὁ θεός, δι᾽ οὗ ἐκλήθητε (1Co 1:9) πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε (1Co 10:13)

It is notable that the second silver amulet from Ketef Hinnom (Seventh c. BCE) includes the same Priestly blessing found in Num. 6:24–25 and Deut 7:9.23 Deuteronomy 7:9 is commonly regarded as Decalogue interpretation. In Second Temple Judaism, phylacteries include the Decalogue (4QPhyld), and we also know that this theme was present in later Christian prayers: ὁ πιστὸς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς (1 Clem. 60:1:37).24 This suggests that this text was used in ritual context too. Deuteronomy 34:2 is also indirectly linked to the phylacteries, as one of the Qumran phylacteries included parts of this chapter (Deut 32:14–20, 32–22).25 In support of Deut 34:2 as the reference point in this context, it might be argued that Paul in 1 Cor 10 uses themes from that chapter such as “the rock” (Deut 32:4) and “God’s jealousy” (Deut 32:16, 19, 21). The context is cultic, as Paul is describing the contrast between idol worship and Christian worship (1 Cor 10:14–17). The faithfulness of God reappears in 2 Cor 1:18 in a text related to baptism: “First, in 2 Cor 1:20–22, the language is rich in liturgical overtones. Paul is

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 11

5/28/19 2:17 PM

12

Erik Waaler

probably alluding to baptism under the figure of a seal applied by the Spirit. The thought is this: As God is faithful in fulfilling his pledge to give the Spirit to all who trust him, and confess Christ in baptism, we attest his faithfulness with our Amen.26 Zeller underlines that this phrase expresses God’s faithfulness to the Covenant, which makes the two above contexts viable.27 Two texts from other letters seem to attach “God’s faithfulness” to phrases akin to the Lord’s Prayer as represented in Matt 6:12: ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας (1 John 1:9). Πιστὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ κύριος, ὃς στηρίξει ὑμᾶς καὶ φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (2 Thess 3:3).

Both texts describe “the faithfulness of God” as opposed to wickedness.28 We can assume that the Lord’s Prayer was used during the church service. Thus, an association of “God’s faithfulness” with worship is not farfetched (cf. Isa 49:7). I think the cultic usage of this phrase is related to God’s faithfulness towards his covenant, and this spills over to NT usage. We have thus seen three re-contextualizations of the Pentateuch that are associated with rituals from the temple, the synagogue and/or the early church. Does this indicate that Paul wrote his letter introductions for a cultic setting? That is a much larger question that may not be answered on the basis of recontextualizations alone. As these letter introductions are part of standard formulas, one could argue that they are less prominently related to the content of the letter. However, as we have suggested above, they may actually be so connected. We do know that Paul focused on morality, particularly avoidance of sexual immorality and idolatry. God’s faithfulness was often set in contrast to human faithlessness. First, reference to the Day of the Lord (see below) may also be seen as a moral motivator based on eschatological judgment. Second, calling on the name of the Lord is a liturgical issue. One of the main subjects of the letter is the misuse of the Lord’s Supper, including issue of prayer (1 Cor 11). It is easy to associate “calling on the name of the Lord” with “prayer.” Third, the blessing appears to be used against division (1 Cor 4:12). Fourth, Paul focuses on the apocalyptic hope towards the end of the letter. We have not touched on this, but his reference to “the Day of the Lord,” which is repeated twice during the letter, fits well into this pattern. The Expression “the Day of the Lord” Paul writes, “He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 1:8, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 12

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

13

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ]). Amos and Isaiah speak of “the Day of the Lord” as a day of judgment (Amos 5:18–20; Isa 2:12, 13:6, 9, 34:8; Jer 25:33; Lam 2:22; Ezek 7:10, 30:3). Schrage affirms that “‘Die Wendung Tag des Herren’ ist . . . schon im Alten Testament dem eschatologischen Erwartungshorizont zugehörig.”29 Similar usage is found in Qumran and the Psalms of Solomon with a similar focus on judgement: “And sinners will perish forever in the day of the Lord’s judgment, when God visits the earth with his judgment” (PssSol 15:12); “Before the day of an]ger of YHWH [overtakes you]”. The interpretation [of the matter concerns all the inhabitants of] the land of Judah. The wrath of [YHWH]” (1Q15 l. 4–5). In the New Testament, there is a similar focus on judgment in the context of this phrase: “The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes” (Act 2:20 RSV); “For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1Thess 5:2). In 1 Corinthians, the phrase “the day of the Lord” reappears later in the text, where a curse on the man who lived with his father’s wife is pronounced: . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor 5:4–5).

This is not an accidental combination of words. Again Paul clearly expresses that the context is cultic. It is to happen when the congregation is assembled. We need to note the combination of phrases here. In 1 Cor 5:3–5 the phrase “the name of the Lord” is associated with the phrase “the day of the Lord” (cf. 1Thess 5:2, 2Thess 2:2), a phrase that is sometimes explicitly linked with Jesus: ‘The day of our Lord Jesus Christ’” (1 Cor 1:8, cf. 2 Cor 1:14, Phil 1:6, 10, 2:16).30 We agree with Fee that the OT eschatological expression “the day of the Lord” is appropriated by Paul and made Christological. It is still “the day of the Lord,”‘ but “the Lord” is none other than Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 3:13–15, 5:5, and 1 Thess. 5:2).”31 The eschatological perspective is strongly felt in 1 Cor 5:5 (cf. 2 Cor 1:14; 2 Thess 2:2). Eschatology is the focus of 1 Cor 15. However, when Paul uses the eschatological “Day of the Lord” together with the cultic “the name of the Lord” in 1 Cor 5, eschatology is linked to moral behavior as the focus on judgment suggests. In relation to Christology it should be noted that the two phrases “the Day of the Lord” and “Call on the name of the Lord” are applied indisputably to Christ,32 whereas they are used solely of “the Lord” (YHWH) in the OT. The conceptual difference between the OT and the NT is caused by a change in worldview, as Paul applies God-language to Jesus.33

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 13

5/28/19 2:17 PM

14

Erik Waaler

Re-contextualization of the priestly benediction, with Jesus as the source of grace and peace, works along this same line. The follow up to these thoughts is a strong focus on “the crucified Christ” (1:17–18, 23; 2:1, 8; cf. 1:13), and as Paul’s argument progresses, the person of God the Father comes more into focus.34 Isaiah in 1 Corinthians 1–2 Isaiah seems to be the main intertext for the rest of 1 Cor 1–2. The following list builds on my own dissertation, Inkelaar, and O’Day.35 However, it is not inclusive of all parallels. οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλὰ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (1 Cor 1:17), εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με (Isa 61:1, cf. Isa 40:9, 52:7, 60:6) ποῦ [εἰσιν νῦν οἱ] σοφός (=Isa 19:12); ποῦ [εἰσιν] γραμματ[ικοί]εύς (=Isa 33:18); ποῦ συζητητὴς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου; οὐχὶ ἐμώρανεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν σοφίαν (cf. Isa 19:11) τοῦ κόσμου; (1 Cor 1:20) ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς, καὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός, ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τὰ ἰσχυρά, καὶ τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός, τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ, ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. (1Co 1:26–29) τάδε λέγει κύριος μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν (Jer 9:22–23) ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. (1Co 1:31) ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος (Jer 9:23) ὅτι ἐν σοί ὁ θεός καυχήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν (Ps 17:1) ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσ[αμ]εν (Isa 64:3) καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη (Isa 65:16), ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς (1 Cor 2:9) τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου, [καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ σύμβουλος ἐγένετο] ὃς συμβιβάσει αὐτόν; (1 Cor 2:16; Isa 40:13)

According to Inkelaar, the term “wisdom” functions as an organizing principle: “The catchword σοφός is explicitly or implicitly present in most citations”.36 This is immediately evident with Isaiah (1 Cor 1:19 and 3:10) and Jeremiah (1 Cor 1:26–29). When σοφός or σοφία are absent, terminology akin to γνῶσις often appears. There are several antonyms that reinforce this

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 14

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

15

picture.37 The focus on wisdom found in the LXX spills over into Paul’s text (1 Cor 1:17–27, 30, 2:1, 4–8, 11–14, 16, 3:10, 18–22, 4:10). EVANGELISM IN ISA 61:1 AND 1 COR 1:17 As Ciampa and Rosner say about the term “to evangelize”: “Paul’s usage of gospel-terminology was heavily influenced by the particular significations contained in the messenger tradition found in Isaiah 40:9, 52:7; 60:6 and 61:1.38 There are four occurrences of terms from the word-stem ευαγγελ- in Isa 40–61. First Corinthians 1:17 is an example of the use of this kind of language: πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν (Isa 61:1). οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλὰ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐν σοφία λόγου, ἵνα μὴ κενωθῆ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor 1:17).

Recontextualization of Isaiah 61:1 functions as applied Christology in 1 Cor 1:17. The text of the LXX speaks of an activity full of power and healing (Isa 61:1). Power is found in this part of 1 Corinthians as well. In 1 Cor 1:17 wisdom is set in tandem with power. However, the addition τῇ καρδίᾳ pushes the meaning in a spiritual direction. “To bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” (Isa 61:1 RSV) is interpreted spiritually by Paul, when “the power of God” is identified with “the message of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18). First Corinthians 1:17–18 introduces “wisdom” and “foolishness” as alternative interpretations of “the word of the Cross.” In addition, the power of God corresponds to wisdom: “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but (it is) the power of God for those who are saved” (1 Cor 1:18; AT).39 Later in the chapter Paul does not lose the paradox represented by the cross. God’s weakness is His strength and God’s foolishness is His wisdom (1 Cor 1:25). One might say that the re-contextualization of Isaiah in 1 Cor 1: 17 continues the focus on Jesus as the Christ that is found earlier in chapter 1. Wisdom in Isa 29.13–21 and 1 Cor 1:19 Collins says that Paul’s citation of Isaiah forms an inclusion with the scriptural quotation in 1:31”( γέγραπται γάρ· ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω (1 Cor 1:19; Isa 29:14).40. First Corinthians 1:19 is an explicit verbal re-contextualization of a text taken from a

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 15

5/28/19 2:17 PM

16

Erik Waaler

context that is quite revealing regarding its relationship to 1 Cor1:19. In its original context this passage belongs to the grand series of texts that regularly warn Israel not to try to match wits with God.”41 However, there is more to the context than this: The Lord said: Because these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote; so I will again do amazing things with this people, shocking and amazing. The wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the discernment of the discerning shall be hidden. Ha! You who hide a plan too deep for the LORD, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?” You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay? Shall the thing made say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of the one who formed it, “He has no understanding”? Shall not Lebanon in a very little while become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be regarded as a forest? On that day the deaf shall hear the words of a scroll, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see. The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the LORD, and the neediest people shall exult in the Holy One of Israel. 20 For the tyrant shall be no more, and the scoffer shall cease to be; all those alert to do evil shall be cut off—those who cause a person to lose a lawsuit, who set a trap for the arbiter in the gate, and without grounds deny justice to the one in the right. (Isa 29:13–21).

Noticeably, the italicized words are present towards the end of Paul’s argument, forming an implicit catch-word-like re-contextualization: “Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God” (1 Cor 4:5). If “the things hidden in darkness” are in the background, it then prepares for Paul’s attack on the sexual perpetrator in the church in the following chapters. As in the later sections of the letter, chapters 5–7 have a chiastic construction, beginning with sexuality going on to lawsuits and then returning to sexuality. We suggest that Paul’s use of Isaiah 29 might be an instance of metalepsis; thus indicating that the literary context of the recontextualized text (or “quotation”) is not idle.42 By use of this re-contextualization, Paul sets wisdom in focus and underlines his thesis that there is a kind of wisdom that is not acceptable. This is the first quotation from Isaiah that focus on wisdom of a particular kind. Schrage writes, “Dass Gott die Weisheit der Weisen zunichte Machen und ihre Urteilsfähigkeit für ungültig erklären, klingt zunächst ganz allgemein . . . Gemeint ist aber: Gott wird durch das Kreuz Jesu souverän jeder menschlichen Einsicht spotten und alle Weisheit, die sein Kreuzeshandeln als Torheit beurteilt, zunichte machen.”43

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 16

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

17

By inclusion of the quotation, Paul apparently wants to question the validity of wisdom of a particular kind. As noted by Fitzmyer, this is followed in 1 Cor 1:20 by three rhetorical questions: “Paul’s three verbless rhetorical questions imitate, or perhaps allude to, Isa 19:12 ποῦ εἰσιν νῦν οἱ σοφοί σου καὶ ἀναγγειλάτωσάν σοι. The three rhetorical questions emphasize the futility of such learning in view of “the message of the cross.”44 Thus, Paul’s interaction with Isaiah might be more profound than sheer text-proofing. The Hidden Knowledge Revealed for Those who Love God (Isa 64:3 and Cor 2:9) In 1 Cor 2:9 we find another explicit reference to Isa 64:3. The use of Isaiah 64:4(3) in 1 Corinthians 2:9 has a clear reference-formula. However, agreement with the text in Isaiah is not so much a verbal correspondence as a thematic one (especially not in the last line). As Koch says, “Angesichts der häufigen Abwandlung von X. 3 ist allerdings zu fragen, ob auch in 1 Kor 2,9 mit einer paulinischen Umgestaltung zu rechnen ist. Doch ist geläufige LXXWendung, die bei Paulus selbst dagegen nur in Röm 8:28 begegnet, und dort ist sie Teil einer vorgegebenen Tradition.”45 The first lines of the quotation is a relatively free rendering of Isaiah. The theme of eyes that see and ears that hear is present in several Old Testament texts (Isa 6:9–10 [cf. 35:5], 43:8, Jer 5:21, Ezek 12:2; cf. Dan 9:18). However the closest parallel seems to be Isaiah 64:3: ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον (Isa 64:3) ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν (1 Cor 2:9)

We agree with Ciampa and Rosner that the reversion of order is no impediment when it comes to re-contextualization.46 We find similar material in the context of the Isaiah as well: καὶ οὐκ ἀναβήσεται αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν (Isa 65:16). However, two differences between Isa 65:17 and 1 Cor 2:9 weigh against it: (1) whereas the tense of the verb in Isaiah is future, in Corinthians it is aorist; (2) the Isaiah text has ‘their heart’ rather than ‘the heart of man.’”47 This would be a fair judgment, if the rule in Second Temple Judaism had been followed: “Never change the verb form, do not shorten or extend a re-contextualization, and keep all elements in order.” However, that is not the case. Perfect repetition of words is not the rule. It is even not the most common. It is only one out of several possible manners of re-contextualization. To some degree we agree

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 17

5/28/19 2:17 PM

18

Erik Waaler

with Fee: “Most likely the “citation” is an amalgamation of OT texts that had already been joined and reflected on in apocalyptic Judaism, which Paul knew either directly or indirectly.”48 However, such use of Scripture was common in the milieu of Paul. It was used by the writers of the NT inclusive of Paul. Thus, the interpretation might actually belong to Paul. There is a clear shift in this text from the last part of Isa 64:3 to 1 Corinthians, as Paul introduces “love towards God”. Such love is not a common theme in Paul’s writings, but it is present both here and in chapter 8. The change is perhaps not coincidental. In the Gospels, love towards God is explicitly and repeatedly associated with the double commandment. Such a connection is probable in chapter 8.49 It is notable that Isaiah 64:3 is set within a context of anti-idolatry language: “There is no God except you” (θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ). Since the first commandment and the Shema were combined conceptually in early Judaism, the association of this negative phrase with love towards God is not strange and might be considered within the range of intertextuality as a kind of metalepsis. As idolatry is central to chapters 8–10, a more silent affirmation of love towards God at this point functions well.

THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND THE MIND OF THE LORD: ISA 40:13 AND 1 COR 2:16) The quotation in 1 Corinthians 2:16 is probably taken from a context that later was used in a messianic sense in the early church. The well-known “a voice in the wilderness” is found in Isa 40:3. The context also flouts with shepherd imagery (Isa 40:11). However, 1 Cor 2:16 is one of those verses that is difficult to make sense of, as there is quite a contrast between the effect it has in the original context and in 1 Corinthians: τίς ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ σύμβουλος ἐγένετο ὃς συμβιβᾷ αὐτόν; (Isa 40:13) τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου, ὃς συμβιβάσει αὐτόν; ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν. (1 Cor 2:16)

Ciampa and Rosner have clearly pointed to the rhetorical character of Isa 40:13: “One of several rhetorical questions in Isaiah 40:12–14 expects the answer, ‘No one.’ Isaiah 40:15–17 stresses further the gulf between humans and God.”50 This is quite the opposite rhetorical effect this re-contextualization has in Paul. Again, it is Christ that is the dividing line between the old and the new. However, what are we to make of the phrase “we have the mind of Christ”?

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 18

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

19

Some manuscripts have “Lord” in the place of “Christ”. This makes the parallel closer, but it also leaves the quotation more open for interpretation. When Isa 40:13 is used in Rom 11:34, the term “Lord” clearly points to God the Father. With “Christ” as the interpretation of the term “Lord” in 1 Cor 2:16c, this text seems more directed towards Christology. However, in 1 Cor 1:9–14, the reference is constantly to God. Thus the natural interpretation is that “the Spirit of God” and “the mind of the Lord” are parallel statements. However, if the text of Nestle-Aland 27th and UBS 4th editions are granted, it makes this text more Christologically significant and in line with earlier re-contextualisations. Paul then would be taking an OT text speaking of “the Lord” (νοῦν κυρίου, ‫ אֶת־רּו ַח י ְהוָה‬, Isa 40:13) and making an outright comparison with Christ. Before we decide between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord God, we need to take a closer look at the context. Wilk is correct in his suggestion that within Paul’s discourse of 1 Cor 1:18–3:4, 1 Cor 2:6–16 unfolds Paul’s understanding of the Gospel as God’s wisdom: revealed through the Spirit of God but hidden from ‘the rulers of this age.’”51 This is an important observation. The Hebrew text has “Spirit of the LORD” (‫אֶת־רּו ַח י ְהוָה‬, Isa 40:13 WTT). Garland agrees with Lindemann and thinks that “Spirit” fits Paul’s argument better.52 The LXX and 1 Cor 2:16 have νοῦν and Paul uses this word in his re-contextualization. However Paul also uses the term “spirit” abundantly in the context: Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual. 14 Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.15 Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny (1 Cor 2:12–15; cf. 3:1–4).

This usage is clearly not to be taken as an argument against Paul’s knowledge of the Hebrew text. The evidence points more in the direction of Paul’s knowledge of both the Hebrew text and the LXX. Paul’s interpretation of the OT is closer to the Hebrew text of Isa 40:13 than the actual “re-contextualisation,” which is dependent on the LXX. In Romans, the focus on the “mind” has to do with the will of God, which is perfect from an ethical point of view (Rom 12:2). A similar ethical direction might be sensed in 1 Corinthians. Thus, the immediate context seems to focus on God. However, in the broader context God and “the Lord” are distinct (1 Cor 1:2–3, 7–9; 2:8), leaving the reading of this part of the text quite open.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 19

5/28/19 2:17 PM

20

Erik Waaler

JEREMIAH IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1–2 Warning against Self-Appreciation (Jer 9:22 and 1 Cor 1:26) The profound re-contextualization of Jer 9:22 in 1 Cor 1:26 is not a new observation. O’Day argues that Paul in 1 Cor 1:26–29 alludes to Jer 9:22, whereas 1 Cor 1:31 explicitly quotes Jer 9:24.53 τάδε λέγει κύριος μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ (Jer 9:22) Βλέπετε γὰρ τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα, οὐ πολλοὶ δυνατοί, οὐ πολλοὶ εὐγενεῖς (1 Co 1:26)

The connection is rather loose. The focus of the two passages is quite different. Jeremiah 9:22 is a warning against self-appreciation, whereas 1 Cor 1:26 is noting the lack of the culturally advantaged in the congregation. Those God chose are not the educated, powerful or well-born. While some have argued that the three questions of 1 Cor 1:26 are to be answered in the positive, I agree with Fitzmyer who states that the context militates against this.54 Lamp has quite correctly seen a parallel between the paragraphs in Jeremiah and 1 Corinthians. He argues that whereas Jeremiah lists ὁ σοφὸς, ἰσχυρὸς, πλούσιος, Paul lists σοφοὶ, δυνατοί, εὐγενεῖς. These designations refer to those of the cultural elite, those with political power derived from economic clout, and those whose ascent derives from esteemed, noble families.55 If one reads further, Paul is closer to the original than Lamp suggests: ἀλλὰ τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός, ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς, καὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός, ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τὰ ἰσχυρά,28 καὶ τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός, τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ, 29 ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor 1:27–29)

1 Corinthians 1:27–29 his is an excellent example of intrinsic play with a text. This is typical of Second Temple Judaism.56 It displays first a loose parallel and then it goes on to play with the words of the original in such a manner that the play with words is closer to the original than the first re-contextualization. The part that in its form is closest to Jeremiah, is more distant in vocabulary and lacks the focus on boasting. This shows how elegantly Paul is able to play with the text to make his point from authority.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 20

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

21

JER 9:22–23 AND 1 COR 1:31 1 Corinthians 1:31 contains another possible re-contextualization: ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται· ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. It is quite evident that this recontextualisation is relatively loose. The parallel to the text of Jer 9:22–23 is not very close: τάδε λέγει κύριος μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ v.23 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος (Jer 9:22–23).

However, the parallel must be seen in the light of the preceding paragraph. Jeremiah 9:23 23 is located after the text that Paul was playing with in 1 Cor 1;27–29, namely Jer 9:22. The form of the second verb is actually found in both texts. Thus again we have an explicit re-contextualization woven into the text. The phrase καυχάσθω . . . ἐν is actually repeated three times in Jeremiah, and the fourth time it is avoided by ellipsis. However, there follows a pleonasm that lifts it to the forefront again. Thus, Paul quite elegantly avoids the repetition and constructs a very condensed sentence. So far, we have looked at Jer 9:22–23. Now we will read the following text: but let him that boasts boast in this, the understanding and knowing that I am the Lord that exercise mercy, and judgment, and righteousness, upon the earth; for in these things is my pleasure, saith the Lord. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will visit upon all the circumcised their uncircumcision; on Egypt, and on Idumea, and on Edom, and on the children of Ammon, and on the children of Moab, and on every one that shaves his face round about, even them that dwell in the wilderness; for all the Gentiles are uncircumcised in flesh (ὅτι πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἀπερίτμητα σαρκί), and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in their hearts. (Jer 9:24–26).

Note that the context in 1 Cor1:22–24 is the Jews and the Gentiles, and by implication the circumcised and the non-circumcised 1 Corinthians 1:18–25 is grounded in the antithesis of Jews and Greeks.57 The text from Jeremiah plays on the contrast with the Gentiles, and it is a strong text against Israel and Judah, a text that was spoken after Israel was annihilated and Judah was brought to exile. This is a good candidate for metalepsis (cf. 1 Cor 7:18–19). Notably, the text in Jeremiah is set in opposition to the strong (ἰσχυρὸς Jer 9:22), a theme prominent in 1 Corinthians as well.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 21

5/28/19 2:17 PM

22

Erik Waaler

CONCLUSION We have focused on some of Paul’s visible interactions with the Pentateuch and the Prophets. We have identified the Pentateuch as a major source in the letter opening and we have further identified Isaiah as the major source in chapters 1–2. Several observations are in order regarding our findings. First, it seems like Paul is lifting paragraphs from the OT that he intended to use in the following chapters. Issues like juridical processes, sinfulness, idolatry, and ecclesiology are found in the literary contexts of the re-contextualizations. Thus, there is a high degree of metalepsis in Paul’s use of Scripture. Second, the sociolect of the Christians, as reflected in Paul’s letters, seem to have used Scripture in such a manner that certain terms take on a new meaning. This is particularly evident when it comes to terminology related to Jesus, naming him “the Christ” and “the Lord.” In some of the recontextualizions in 1 Corinthians 1–2, κύριος (cf. ‫ )יהוה‬is used in such a way that the term is open to interpretation, whether it refers to God or Jesus. In some texts, the term “Lord” is explicitly re-applied to Jesus. This usage is not feasible in the dominant Jewish sociolect. It represents an innovation, as is the application of these texts to a living person in general. This use of Christ, however, was thinkable about a human person among the Jews. It is the inclusion of these texts in Paul’s re-contextualizations, in the theologizing that happens within a Jewish cultural context, that gives the texts a Christological twist. This is so straight forward that we often do not ponder how inventive Paul’s way of communication was. In some of the instances, especially in the introduction, Paul’s reshaping of the LXX texts is so profound that he suppresses the meaning of the original, but not totally so. Some of the strongest Christological statements in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians are possible only when the tension between a Jewish and Christian interpretation is allowed. Third, many of the texts are linked by the term σοφός. This has been pointed out by Inkelaar: “To sum up, the findings are that in LXX Isaiah σοφος occurs in 4 places and each of those 4 places appears to be related to 1 Cor 1–4”.58 This might indicate combinations by use of linking word or something like gezerah shawah. Fourth, that so many of the texts in the letter’s introduction are applied to Jesus implies inspirational interpretation. The “day of the Lord” and the “name of the Lord” is not used in its original sense. If Paul was aware of this, then he actively uses dissonance between the texts in a manner related to typology. Paul is working with the associative room that is present in his own cultural context of erudite interpretation. However, he is doing so within a sociological body that is at odds with mainstream Judaism. Despite his in-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 22

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

23

novative Christological use of OT texts, Paul seems to maintain the ecclesiological and eschatological color of many of these texts. Thus, despite change, there is a fundamental continuity but along a different axis. Fifth, Paul’s re-contextualization of the Scriptures underlines his focus on two forms of wisdom—one form that Paul identifies with as a wise master builder and another that is worldly, negative, and in denial of the cross. Paul’s argument from authority clearly undermines the position of the strong and wealthy, the self-conscious wisdom that is not apprehensive of the core message. For Paul the focus is on the crucified Jesus Christ. NOTES 1. Erik Waaler, The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-Reading of Deuteronomy, WUNT 2/253 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 268–69, cf. pp. 267–75, with ref. to Helmut Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit des ersen Korinthierbriefes,” ZNW 75 (1984):153–183; and Mitchell (see ftn 4 below). 2. See further, Erik Waaler, “Multidimensional Intertextuality,” in Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts; ed. B. J. Oropeza, Steve Moyise (Eugene: Cascade, 2016), 222–41. 3. E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 51. 4. Margaret Mary Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 185; Ben III Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids/ Carlisle: Erdmanns & Paternoster, 1995), 94; Harm-Jan Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom: The Theme of 1 Cor 1–4, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology (Leuven, Paris and Walpole: Peeters, 2011), 81. 5. Unless otherwise stated, citations are from the NRSV. 6. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 201, 21. 7. Hans Hübner, Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Corpus Paulinum, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997), 222–24. 8. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom, 162–63. 9. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids & Nottingham: Baker Academic & Apollos, 2007), 696. 10. Gen 4:26, 12:8, 13:4, 21:33, 26:25, 2 Sam 6:2, 1 King 18:24, Ps 6:1, 15:1, Lam 3:55, cf. Deut 14:24, Ps 79:6 (LXX 78:6), 80:18 (LXX 79:18), 99:6 (LXX 98:6), 116:4 (LXX114:4), 13 (LXX 115:4), Isa 64:7, Amos 9:12, Jer 15:6, 1Chr 16:8, Is 64:7, Joel 2:32 (LXX 3:5), Zech 13:9. Citations for the LXX are from, BibleWorks (Brenton). 11. Pace Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP 7 (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 47.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 23

5/28/19 2:17 PM

24

Erik Waaler

12. “The name of the Lord” is used in the context of baptism (see further Acts 2:21, 38, 8:16, 19:5), thanksgiving, prayer and prophecy (Eph 5:20, 2 Thess 1:12, Jac 5.10), as invocation of a commandment (2 Thess 3:6, 2tim 2:19), with reference to suffering for Christ (Acts 15:26, 21:13), in the context of exorcism (Acts 19:13, 17) and healing (Jac 5.14). 13. Ciampa & Rosner, “1 Corinthians, 696. 14. Collins, First Corinthians, 54. 15. Elmer A. Martens, “Intertext Messaging: Echoes of the Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:2426),” Directions: A Mennonite Bretheren Forum 38 (2009), accessed Oct 22, 2014, http://www.directionjournal.org/38/2/intertext-messaging-echoes-of-aaronic.html. 16. The date of first Enoch is disputed. E. Isaac argues for a date in the first century (OTP 1:7) , but a date in the first part of the second century BC seems more probable, at least for the first part Siegbert Uhlig, “Das Ätiopische Henochbuch,” in Apokalypsen, Jüdische Schriften Aus Hellenistisch-Römischer Zeit (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1974–2003), 494; Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, Society of Biblical Litterature: Early Judaism and Its Litterature (Atlanta: Scholars Prss, 1992), 79. 17. M. Black, “Apocalysis Henochi Graece,” in Apocalypsis Henochi Graece: Fragmenta Pseudepigaphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca, ed. M. Black and AlbertMarie Demis, Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece (Leiden: Brill, 1870), 20. See Hartmann below. 18. Lars Hartmann, Asking for Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (Lund: CKW Gleerup, 1979), 126–27, 12. 19. Ibid., 25, 30–33, 44. 20. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Commentary (New York: The Jewish Publishing Society, 1990), 360–62. 21. A similar interpretation is suggested by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary; AYB 32 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2008), 128. 22. Collins, First Corinthians, 54., with ref. to Lohmeyer and Rigaux. 23. Erik Waaler, “A Revised Date for Pentateuchal Texts? Evidence from Ketef Hinnom,” Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002): 29–55; idem, “A Reconstruction of Ketef Hinnom I,” Maarav 16, no. 2 (2009): 225–63. 24. Hermut Löhr, Studien Zum Früchristlichen Und Früjüdischen Gebete: Untersuchungen Zu 1 Clem 59 Bis 61, WUNT 160 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 229. 25. Joseph Milik, Tefilln, Mezuzot Et Targums (4q128–4q147), vol. 2, Discoveries in the Judean Desert (1977), 73. 26. Ralph P. Martin, “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in Approaches to New Testament Exegesis, ed. I. H. Marshall (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977), 242. 27. Dieter Zeller, Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther, vol. 5(2010), KritischExegetischer Kommentar Über Das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 82. 28. Martens, “Intertext Messaging.” 29. Wolfgang Schrage, Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther, vol. 2, EKKNT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger Verlag GmbH & Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 122.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 24

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

25

30. Waaler, Shema. 31. Gordon D Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1991), 43. 32. “Sie werden mit einem sich im AT und im nachbiblischen Judentum verfestigenden Ausdruck umschrieben, wobei die LXX-Widergabe des Jahwe-Namens mit κύριος jetzt auf Christus bezogen ist” Zeller, Korinther, 74. “Aus dem atl. “Tag Jahwes” . . . ist der “Tag unseres Herrn Jesus [Christus] (v. 8fin.) geworden” ibid., 81. 33. See further Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003), starting on p. 10. 34. “Not content with pointing to human agency of the church foundation . . . throughout 3:7–17 (cf. 1:19) Paul names the true founder and owner of the church, God” Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 217. 35. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom; and Gail R. O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1cor 1:26–32: A Study of Intertextuality,” JBL 109, no. 2 (1990): 259–67. 36. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom, 165. 37. Inkelaar, ibid., notes that in Isaiah, μωρός appear only in 19:11 and 32:5 ibid., 194. The term is important in First Corinthians as antonym to σοφός (1 Cor 1:25, 27, 3:18, 4:10; cf. μωραίνω 1Co 1:20, μωρία 1Co 1:18, 21, 23, 2:14, 3:19). 38. Ciampa & Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 697; similarly, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Apollos, 2010), 86, following J. P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shame, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission; WUNT 2/159 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003), 176. 39. “Rosner argues that . . . reference to the strength of God has an OT background in Deut 32:36–38, 11:16–17 and 8:17–20 [Brian S. Rosner, “‘Stronger Than He?’ The Strength of 1 Cor 10:22b,” TynBul 43 (1992): 175–76]. “The latter text describes the stubbornness of those who confess that their wealth is the product of their own strength ἡ ἰσχύς μου καὶ τὸ κράτος τῆς χειρός μου (Deut 8:17) and not a gift from God (Deut 8:18)”: Waaler, Shema, 321. 40. Collins, First Corinthians, 103. 41. Fee, First Corinthians, 70. 42. cf. Collins, First Corinthians,103. Regarding metalepsis, it “concerns the resonance of the quotation in its original context. It is implied that not only the part of the text that is moved from the pretext (i.e., referenced text) is important, but that the remaining original context functions as harmonic or disharmonic tones in a chord”: Waaler, “Multi-Dimensional Intertextuality,” 228. 43. Schrage, Korinther, 2.175. 44. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 156. 45. Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift Als Zeuge Des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen Zur Verwendung Und Zum Verständnis Der Schrift Bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986), 39. 46. Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 127. 47. Ciampa & Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 701. 48. Fee, First Corinthians, 109. 49. Waaler, Shema.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 25

5/28/19 2:17 PM

26

Erik Waaler

50. Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 137. 51. Florian Wilk, “Isaiah in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” in Isaiah in the New Testament; ed. Steve Moyise and Martinus Johannus Joseph Menken (London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 139. 52. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003), 101. Cf. Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief; HNT 9/1 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), 74. 53. Waaler, Shema, 55 n. 26. On O’Day, see n. 36 above. 54. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 163.”Paul does not seem to have otherwise used an interrogative hoti, a circumstance that makes it unlikely that the hoti of v. 26 introduces a rhetorical question”: Collins, First Corinthians, 110. 55. Jeffery S. Lamp, First Corinthians in Light of Jewish Wisdom Traditions: Christ, Wisdom and Spirituality, vol. 42, Studies in Bible and Early Christianity (Lewinstone, Queenston and Lampeter: 2000), 147, my emphasis. 56. Stanley criticise Koch for overlooking part of the intertextual play in this paragraph: “Koch overlooks the striking echoes of Jer 9.22 that appear already in 1 Cor 1.27–28, where the categories τοὺς σοφούς .. τὰ ἰσχυρά . . . τὰ ὄντα seem to have been modelled directly on the ὁ σοφός . . . ὁ ἰσχυρός . . . ὁ πλούσιος of the Jeremiah passage” Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature; SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 1992), 187. 57. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 88. 58. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom, 167.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003. Black, M. “Apocalysis Henochi Graece.” In Apocalypsis Henochi Graece: Fragmenta Pseudepigaphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca. Edited by M. Black and Albert-Marie Demis. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece. Leiden: Brill, 1870. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Apollos, 2010. ———. “1 Corinthians.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids & Nottingham: Baker Academic & Apollos, 2007. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians, SP 7. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999. Dickson, J. P. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shame, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission. WUNT 2/159. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1991.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 26

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Re-Contextualization of the Prophets

27

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary; AYB 32. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2008. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. London: Sheed and Ward, 1979. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids.: Baker Academic, 2003. Hartmann, Lars. Asking for Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5. Lund: CKW Gleerup, 1979. Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation.New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. Hübner, Hans Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Corpus Paulinum, vol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997. Inkelaar, Harm-Jan. Conflict over Wisdom: The Theme of 1 Cor 1–4, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology. Leuven, Paris and Walpole: Peeters, 2011. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift Als Zeuge Des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen Zur Verwendung Und Zum Verständnis Der Schrift Bei Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. Lamp, Jeffery S. First Corinthians in Light of Jewish Wisdom Traditions: Christ, Wisdom and Spirituality, vol. 42, Studies in Bible and Early Christianity. Lewinstone, Queenston and Lampeter: 2000. Lindemann, Andreas. Der Erste Korintherbrief. HNT 9/1. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000. Löhr, Hermut. Studien Zum Früchristlichen Und Früjüdischen Gebete: Untersuchungen Zu 1 Clem 59 Bis 61. WUNT 160. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Martens, Elmer A. “Intertext Messaging: Echoes of the Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:24– 26.” Directions: A Mennonite Bretheren Forum 38 (2009): accessed Oct 22, 2014, http://www.directionjournal.org/38/2/intertext-messaging-echoes-of-aaronic.html Martin, Ralph P. “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis.” In Approaches to New Testament Exegesis. Edited by I. H. Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977. Merklein, Helmut. “Die Einheitlichkeit des ersen Korinthierbriefes,” ZNW 75 (1984):153–183. Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers, The JPS Commentary. New York: The Jewish Publishing Society, 1990. Milik, Joseph. Tefilln, Mezuzot Et Targums (4q128–4q147. vol. 2, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 1977. Mitchell, Margaret Mary. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians.Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. O’Day, Gail R. “Jeremiah 9:22–23 and 1 Cor 1:26–32: A Study of Intertextuality,” JBL 109, no. 2 (1990): 259–67. Rosner, Brian S. “‘Stronger Than He?’ The Strength of 1 Cor 10:22b,” TynBul 43 (1992): 175–76. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther, vol. 2, EKKNT. NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger Verlag GmbH & Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature; SNTSMS 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 1992. Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, Society of Biblical Litterature: Early Judaism and Its Litterature. Atlanta: Scholars Prss, 1992.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 27

5/28/19 2:17 PM

28

Erik Waaler

Uhlig, Siegbert. “Das Ätiopische Henochbuch.” In Apokalypsen, Jüdische Schriften Aus Hellenistisch-Römischer Zeit. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1974–2003. Waaler, Erik. “Multidimensional Intertextuality.” Pages 222–41 in Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Edited by B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise. Eugene: Cascade, 2016. ———. “A Reconstruction of Ketef Hinnom I.” Maarav 16, no. 2 (2009): 225–63. ———. “A Revised Date for Pentateuchal Texts? Evidence from Ketef Hinnom,” Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002): 29–55. ———. The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-Reading of Deuteronomy. WUNT 2/253. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wilk, Florian. “Isaiah in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” in Isaiah in the New Testament; ed. Steve Moyise and Martinus Johannus Joseph Menken. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Witherington, III, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians.Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Erdmanns & Paternoster, 1995. Zeller, Dieter. Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther, vol. 5. Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar Über Das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 28

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Two

Paul’s Mystery Thriller The Use of the Danielic Mystery in 1 Corinthians Benjamin L. Gladd

In recent years, Daniel’s influence on the NT authors has gained considerable attention. This is especially true in the Gospels and Revelation. However, one corpus that has surprisingly lacked investigation is the Pauline corpus. This is due, at least in part, to the lack of formal quotations of Daniel. Nevertheless, scholars today are now convinced that Paul has drunk deeply from the well of Danielic apocalypticism.1 With Paul situated in the milieu of apocalypticism, the time is ripe to look afresh at his indebtedness to Daniel and the way in which he integrates the book into his writings. The role of the OT in 1 Corinthians is profound, and contemporary commentators are becoming more aware of Paul’s nuanced use of it. This study, therefore, attempts to highlight the use of “mystery” in 1 Corinthians, take note of several Danielic allusions in Paul, and describe their contextual significance. Then we will endeavor to explain how “mystery” functions in the overall purpose of Paul’s letter. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE USE OF MYSTERY IN 1 CORINTHIANS In the past few decades scholars have agreed that Paul’s use of “mystery” in 1 Corinthians stems from the book of Daniel.2 However, this was not always so. Before the turn of the century most scholars were convinced that μυστήριον in 1 Corinthians, as well as Paul’s other letters, was largely dependent upon the pagan mystery religions.3 The tide shifted, though, with Raymond Brown’s 1968 seminal work The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament.4 For the first time, the evidence from Qumran was thoroughly analyzed along with the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha. Brown showed that every 29

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 29

5/28/19 2:17 PM

30

Benjamin L. Gladd

occurrence of μυστήριον in the NT could be explained through the lens of Judaism. NT scholars began applying Brown’s fresh insights throughout the NT. The combination of a growing trend to situate mystery in a Jewish context paired with Brown’s new insights generated a flurry of studies on mystery in apocalypticism, Qumran, and the New Testament.5 The proliferation of Qumran studies combined with a resurgence of interest in apocalypticism showed that Qumran’s use of ‫ ָרז‬is largely indebted to the book of Daniel.

TERMINUS TECHNICUS AND DANIELIC ORIGIN OF MYSTERY To grasp Paul’s use of mystery in 1 Cor 1–2, we must first sketch, albeit briefly, its OT background. As many have suggested either explicitly or implicitly, the word μυστήριον appears to be essentially a terminus technicus,6 deriving from the apocalyptic book of Daniel.7 Integral to apocalyptic thought is an interest in eschatological events, particularly, judgment and the eternal reign of God. The content of μυστήριον in Daniel is God’s eschatological kingdom and related events. Key phrases such as “latter days” and “the end” are primary indicators of such eschatological expectations. In Daniel μυστήριον can roughly be defined as God disclosing eschatological wisdom, that is, new revelation through dreams and visions mediated by either an individual or an angel (Dan 2:20–23). In the first half of the book, God gives his wisdom to both Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, while in chapters 7–12, only Daniel receives God’s wisdom (via an interpreting angel). Some apocalypses disclose revelation through heavenly tours (e.g., 1 Enoch), whereas the book of Daniel portrays revelation as taking place through dream reports. The structure of “mystery” is similar to the ancient near eastern structure of symbolic dreams. An individual receives a cryptic dream followed by an interpretation. In the book of Daniel, this structure is found in dreams (chs. 2, 4), visions (chs. 7, 8, 10–12), writing (ch. 5), and previous prophecy (ch. 9). The two-tiered component of mystery (cryptic vision followed by interpretation) signals the hidden nature of the term and its subsequent character as “hidden but now revealed.”8

MYSTERY IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1:18–2:16 IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER DANIELIC ALLUSIONS A number of commentators have observed a density of allusions to the book of Daniel in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16. In isolation, each allusion may prove difficult to validate, but taken together Paul’s unique wording is more than coincidental.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 30

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Mystery Thriller

31

Some scholars acknowledge that δύναμις in 1:18 and 2:4–5 is a reference to the Theodotion tradition of Daniel 2:23 (see below). First Corinthians 2:4–5 reads, “my message and my preaching were . . . in demonstration of the Spirit and of power [δυνάμεως], so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power [δυνάμει] of God” (1 Cor 2:4–5).9 If this Corinthians allusion is legitimate, then kingdom overtones begin to emerge. Power, according to Dan 2:23 and 2:37 is the “removing” and “establishing kings” (cf. Dan 2:21; 2:36-45). This is further illustrated in Dan 2:44–45, where a kingdom, “which will never be destroyed,” eclipses the fourth kingdom. Moreover, in 1 Cor 4:20 Paul explicitly aligns power with kingdom: “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power [δυνάμει].” The role of the Spirit in the process of revelation may further suggest an intertextual or at least a thematic link between Daniel 4:9 and 1 Cor 2:10 (“For to us God revealed them through the Spirit [ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος]; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God [καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ]”).10 In Daniel 4:9, Nebuchadnezzar describes Daniel as one who has “a holy, divine spirit” (πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἅγιον [Theodotion]) and “no mystery is too difficult” (πᾶν μυστήριον οὐκ ἀδυνατεῖ [Theodotion]) for him (cf. Dan 2:11; 4:18; 5:11, 14).11 Even the language of “revealing” and “depths of God” in 1 Cor 2:10 may likewise allude to Daniel 2:22: “He reveals deep and hidden things” (αὐτὸς ἀποκαλύπτει βαθέα καὶ ἀπόκρυφα [Theodotion]).12 Also, 1 Cor 2:13 reads, “We speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit [διδακτοῖς πνεύματος], interpreting spiritual truths [πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες] to those who are spiritual” (NRSV). Within the book of Daniel, the notion of “interpreting” is highly significant. Each dream (and writing) had to be “interpreted” with a second and more complete revelation. The Aramaic word for “interpretation” ‫פשר‬/ pesher is often translated by the Greek term σύγκρασις (Theodotion) and sometimes by κρίνω/κρίσις (OG).13 Perhaps the verb, συγκρίνω, in 1 Cor 2:13 also reflects a Danielic background. Lastly, τέλειοι in 1 Cor 2:6 may reflect a similar Danielic theme that is significantly developed in the DSS. Daniel 11:33a says, Daniel 11:33a says, “Those who have insight among the people [‫ ] ַמשׂ ְִכּ֣ילֵי ָ֔עם‬will give understanding [‫ ]יָבִינּו‬to the many” (cf Dan 12:3). Accordingly, those who have “insight” or the maskîlim are privy to special revelation and subsequently impart such revelation to others.14 Putting all of this together, we are now in a position to quote Daniel 2:20–23 in full. The hymn here is central for understanding the μυστήριον in the book of Daniel, as it summarizes the nature of μυστήριον in nuce. The importance of this hymn necessitates our quoting the English translation

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 31

5/28/19 2:17 PM

32

Benjamin L. Gladd

(based on the Aramaic), highlighting the aforementioned features (the Greek text appearing first is OG and Theodotion is second): Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power [ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ μεγαλωσύνη15/ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ σύνεσις] belong to him. It is he who changes the times and the epochs; he removes kings and establishes kings; he gives wisdom to wise men [σοφοῖς σοφίαν /σοφίαν τοῖς σοφοῖς] and knowledge to men of understanding [σύνεσιν τοῖς ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ οὖσιν/ φρόνησιν τοῖς εἰδόσιν σύνεσιν]. It is he who reveals the profound [ἀνακαλύπτων τὰ βαθέα καὶ σκοτεινὰ/ἀποκαλύπτει βαθέα καὶ ἀπόκρυφα] and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and power [σοφίαν καὶ φρόνησιν ἔδωκάς/σοφίαν καὶ δύναμιν ἔδωκάς μοι].

Though the term μυστήριον does not occur in this hymn, it is almost assuredly implied. For it represents the process of God disclosing his wisdom to Daniel. In addition, the emphasis on wisdom and power, the reference to deep things, and the comment that Daniel has received insight from God seem to suggest that Dan 2:20–23 is part of the OT background to 1 Cor 2:6–16. Williams arrives at a very similar conclusion: “This high concentration of words from Dan 2:19–23 with the significant word μυστήριον suggests that Dan 2:19-23 is a likely candidate for influencing 1 Cor 2:6–8, 10–11.”16 Consider this table of proposed allusions to Daniel (Theodotion text) in 1 Cor 2:4–18: 1 Cor 2:18 “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power (δύναμις) of God.”

Dan 2:23 “I acknowledge and praise, because you have given me wisdom and power (δύναμιν)”

1 Cor 2:4–5 “and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (δυνάμεως), so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power (δυνάμει) of God.” 1 Cor 2:6 “Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature (τελείοις)”

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 32

Dan 11:33 “And the intelligent (οἱ συνετοὶ) of the people will have understanding in many things,”

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Mystery Thriller

33

1 Cor 2:10 “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit (τοῦ πνεύματος); for the Spirit (πνεῦμα) searches all things, even the depths of God (τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ).”

Dan 4:6 “I know that a holy, divine spirit (πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἅγιον) is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for you.”

1 Cor 2:7 “but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery (μυστηρίῳ), the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;”

Dan 2:19 “Then the mystery (μυστήριον) was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night, and Daniel blessed the God of heaven”

1 Cor 2:13 (NRSV) “And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit (διδακτοῖς πνεύματος), interpreting spiritual things (πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες) to those who are spiritual”

Dan 2:16 “And Daniel petitioned the king so that he might give him time, and he would tell the king the interpretation (σύγκρισιν).”

Dan 2:22 “He reveals deep and hidden things” (αὐτὸς ἀποκαλύπτει βαθέα καὶ ἀπόκρυφα)

Scholars are in general agreement that Paul’s language is apocalyptic in 1:18–2:16. Yet although many have noticed such allusions to Daniel, most fail to explain their significance. For example, Ciampa and Rosner argue: “The similarities [between 1 Cor and Daniel], though noteworthy, are insufficient to regard this as more than a possible echo.”17 However, if we examine the evidence as a whole and take seriously the Danielic term μυστήριον in 1 Cor 2:7, then we must explain why Paul is consciously alluding to the book of Daniel. First Corinthians 1:18–2:16 is Paul’s longest discourse on wisdom and at the heart of it lies a crucified messiah. Why Daniel? If indeed 1 Corinthians 2 is saturated with Danielic allusions, why does Paul draw on the book of Daniel? Is it merely for rhetorical flavor, or is there a deeper and more penetrating reason? Paul invokes Daniel for at least two reasons. First, Paul employs these allusions as a vehicle for communicating the mystery of the cross. He wants the Corinthians to understand the cross in light of Daniel. These Danielic allusions are vital for his argument. Such intertextuality provides the basis as to why the cross, so grand and pivotal, remains elusive to the foolish but wisdom to the wise. The book of Daniel, then, informs the Corinthians about the nature of God’s revelation in the cross. Unbelievers are unable to penetrate the true meaning of the cross, whereas believers can grasp its significance.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 33

5/28/19 2:17 PM

34

Benjamin L. Gladd

Second, these allusions also signal the fulfillment of God’s eschatological triumph over earthly wisdom (Dan 2:1–16; 25–30) and the beginning of his eternal reign over all earthly kingdoms (Dan 2:44–45). Daniel weds both of these concepts in its portrayal of apocalyptic wisdom—nature and content. One cannot speak of the nature of Daniel’s wisdom without an eye on the eschatological fulfillment of the kingdom. They are inseparable. Commentators on 1 Cor 1–2 tend to highlight one or the other, but rarely do they view them together, perhaps explaining why scholars are reticent to work out the significance of the allusions.

THE POLEMICAL USE OF MYSTERY IN 1 CORINTHIANS There is one more layer to the influence of Daniel in 1 Corinthians. It is bound up with the rhetorical effect of Daniel upon the church at Corinth. In a community filled with factions, rivalry, and competition, Paul delivers his remedy—the theologia crucis. If the Corinthians embrace the wisdom of the cross and adopt a cruciform lifestyle, then their divisions will cease. God’s apocalyptic wisdom is the antidote. Why is Paul’s message deemed “foolish” in the world’s eyes (1 Cor 1:18)? At the moment of his death and apparent defeat, Christ was nevertheless the sovereign “Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). That Israel’s long-awaited Messiah would be crucified and put under a curse was largely hidden in the OT. Not only is God’s wisdom expressed through the event of the crucifixion, his wisdom also defeats all forms of human sophistry. Divine wisdom is superior to and nullifies the wisdom of “this age.” The mystery of the cross is used polemically against those in the Corinthian church who attempt to evaluate things according to the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 1:17–28; 2:1–7). The Corinthians must not identify with the way “the rulers of this world” exercise their purported wisdom, which in reality is foolishness according to the cross. To understand the rhetorical function of Paul’s use of Daniel, it is helpful to consider the use of the OT at large in the wider section of 1:18–3:21. The Apostle quotes at six OT texts in this section: 1 Cor 1:19 (Isa 29:14), 1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9:23–24), 1 Cor 2:9 (Isa 64:4), 1 Cor 2:16 (Isa 40:13), 1 Cor 3:19 (Job 5:13), and 1 Cor 3:21 (Ps 93:11 [LXX]). As Richard Hays argues the general thrust of these quotations is, that God “acts to judge and save his people in ways that defy human imagination.”18 However, God’s judgment upon the “wise” of 1 Cor 1–3 is not general but eschatological. Therefore, we can perhaps push further here and refine Hay’s insight.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 34

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Mystery Thriller

35

In 1 Cor 2:6–8, Paul discusses two groups: the mature and the rulers of this age. He then explains why some understand apocalyptic wisdom and others do not in 1 Cor 2:9–16. “The rulers of this age” (whoever they might precisely be) are identified with the old sinful and idolatrous age. The “rulers” are “passing away” (τῶν καταργουμένων) or better, “perishing” under eschatological judgment because of their role in the crucifixion.19 We can likewise connect the “rulers of this age” with Paul’s theological discussion in 1 Cor 1:18–31. If the “rulers of this age” are indeed part of the world’s wisdom, which appears likely given the amount of shared vocabulary and thematic correspondence, then the quotation of Isa 29:14 may also refer to the rulers. Notice the juxtaposition between these two people groups: the “perishing” (1:18) “wise” (1:19, 27) “clever” (1:19) “wise man” (1:20) “world” (1:21) “wisdom of the world” (1:20)

“being saved” (1:18) “believer” (1:21) “the called” (1:24) “you” (2:1, 3, etc.) “we/us” (2:6-7, 10, etc.) “spiritual” (2:15)

Therefore, when Paul sets forth the two groups in 1 Cor 2:6–16, he deliberately connects them with his preceding discussion regarding the superiority of God’s wisdom. The rulers, who are the embodiment of the “wisdom of the world,” have been vanquished by God’s wisdom through the cross. Herein lies a relatively unnoticed piece of Paul’s reasoning in this section. Paul taps into the book of Daniel to demonstrate the superiority of God’s wisdom related to the cross and to defeat all forms of human sophistry. In the last several decades, scholars have begun to appreciate how the narratives embedded within the book of Daniel function as a whole.20 The book of Daniel presents a series of “court narratives” that demonstrate the superiority of apocalyptic wisdom over against the wisdom of the elite. In Daniel 2, 4, and 5 Humphreys discerns what he calls “tales of court contest.”21 The point of these “contests” is to highlight the superiority of God’s wisdom over against the wisdom of the Babylonian “wise” men. The Babylonians, who are portrayed in the book of Daniel as incompetent, unwise, and idolatrous, turn out to be unwise and foolish in each case. Daniel, though, is genuinely wise because his wisdom is derived from the one true God. It may not be a stretch, then, to suggest that Paul has such a “contest” in mind here in 1 Cor 1–3. Like the book of Daniel, Paul’s opponents (the “wise” of “this age”) pride themselves in wordly wisdom but suffer defeat. However, this defeat is worse than the defeat the Babylonian wise men suffered, The defeat of

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 35

5/28/19 2:17 PM

36

Benjamin L. Gladd

the “rulers of this age” is an eschatological defeat. In an already-not yet manner, the wisdom of the cross has defeated all forms of human sagacity.22 If we take seriously Paul’s allusions to Daniel, then such a reading of “mystery” remains quite plausible for a lucid interpretation of the early chapters in 1 Corinthians. In addition, in Second Temple Judaism, “mystery” is found in conjunction with allusions to the book of Daniel and is associated with a wisdom polemic (e.g., 1Q27 1 I, 1–4; 4Q300 1 II, 1–4; 1 En. 8:3).23 So, there is precedence for such a wisdom polemic with mystery. Also, since Paul quotes Isa 29 in 1 Cor 1:19 (probably a part of the larger Isaianic wisdom polemic), it would seem natural for him to merge this into his discussion of apocalyptic wisdom. Since the same Isaianic wisdom polemic is behind or related to some parts of Daniel. In conclusion, if we seem to be correct in discerning allusions to Daniel, specifically those comparable with the court contests, then Paul’s point could not be clearer. The hidden wisdom of the cross utterly defeats the wisdom of the world and its representative “rulers of this age.”

HOW THE DANIELIC MYSTERY SHAPES 1 CORINTHIANS Mυστήριον is found twenty-eight times in the NT and twenty-one times in Pauline literature. The two epistles with the most uses of this term (six each) are 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. So, why does Paul use the term μυστήριον six times in 1 Corinthians? The first three uses in chapers 1-4 concern the ethical problem of divisions within the church. Paul uses apocalyptic wisdom as a remedy to fix the problem. The cross leads to a transformed lifestyle, promoting unity within the church body. Why become enamored with the “wise” of this world if they suffer defeat? Instead of elevating teachers and apostles (Apollos, Cephas, and Paul), which spawns a party spirit and divisions, the Corinthians are to regard them as humble stewards of mysteries and servants of Christ (1 Cor 4:1). There are no occurrences of μυστήριον in chapters 5–11, a section that concerns miscellaneous ethical problems. However, in chapters 12–14, we come across two usages. This is probably because of the topic of the Spirit and his unifying work in the community. Revelations, tongues, and prophecy are discussed since they especially are not to become issues of pride around which divisions can occur. Their very purpose is to be a divine means through which God imparts the strife-ridden church with an understanding of his plan in Christ. Indeed, the proper use of these gifts should bring about unity (1 Cor 12:25) and, ultimately, love (1 Cor 13:1–13). It is only natural, there-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 36

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Mystery Thriller

37

fore, for Paul to mention the technical term μυστήριον in this context, since earlier uses were aimed at unifying the believers (1 Cor 13:2; 14:2). Finally, in 1 Cor 15 Paul confronts a major theological problem: a disbelief in the bodily resurrection. The μυστήριον, the transformation of all believers, is the centerpiece of Paul’s corrective (1 Cor 15:51–52). Some at Corinth failed to believe that God could transform an earthly, mortal body into a spiritual, immortal one. Hence Paul expends quite a bit of energy confronting this particular theological problem. CONCLUSION I have endeavored to demonstrate how the book of Daniel and its apocalyptic term μυστήριον play a significant role in 1 Corinthians (particularly in 1 Corinthians 1–3). By repeatedly alluding to Daniel in these chapters, Paul pointedly explains why the cross remains an utter mystery to the foolish but wisdom to the wise. Mυστήριον may also signal the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy of the establishment of God’s latter-day kingdom (Dan 2:44–45). Paul’s wisdom polemic in 1 Cor 1–3 also reflects the wisdom polemic found in Daniel whereby the Babylonian “wise men” are poignantly defeated. The apocalyptic wisdom of the cross destroys all forms of human sophistication. When the book of Daniel is considered, Paul’s message to the Corinthians packs a considerable punch. The sophists have brought nothing but strife and division within the community at Corinth, but their defeat has been secured by the unveiled wisdom of the cross.24 Lastly, it is telling that the term μυστήριον occurs at critical junctures in 1 Corinthians. When examined with a birds-eye view on the whole of the letter, Paul employs μυστήριον to curb division within the Corinthian congregation. This rich and multifaceted term is a rallying cry for unity to the divisive congregation. The Corinthians must embrace such an apocalyptic defeat and rally around the crucified Christ. This use of μυστήριον for the impartation of divine wisdom leading to unity takes on much more significance than has been seen in the past. NOTES 1. See, for example, the recent volume by Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, eds., Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016). 2. E.g., Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 126; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 37

5/28/19 2:17 PM

38

Benjamin L. Gladd

SP 7 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 130; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Int. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 43. 3. E.g., Richard Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen, 3d ed. (Berlin: Teubner, 1927); ET: Hellenistic Mystery- Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance, tr. John E. Steely, PTMS 18 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978), 389–90, 458. 4. Raymond Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament, BS 21 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968). 5. For example, see Romano Penna, Il «Mysterion» Paolino, SRB 10 (Brescia: Paideia, 1978), B. Rigaux, “Révélation des mystères et perfection à Qumrân et dans le Nouveau Testament,” NTS 4 (1958): 237–62, Pierre Benoit, “Qumrân et le Nouveau Testament,” NTS 7 (1961): 276–96; Joseph Coppens, “‘Mystery” in the Theology of Saint Paul and Its Parallels at Qumran,” in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis, ed. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (Chicago: Priority Press, 1968), 132–58; and Markus Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT 36 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990); Samuel I. Thomas, The ‘Mysteries’ of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, EJL 25 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). 6. David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 250; Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, tr. F. Stanley Jones (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 240; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 421. 7. F. F. Bruce, “The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969), 221-35; Kelvin G. Friebel, “Biblical Interpretation in the Pesharim of the Qumran Community,” HS 22 (1981): 13–24; G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, JSNTSupp 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 23–42; Matthew J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, STDJ 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 47–51; Menahem Kister, “Wisdom Literature and Its Relation to Other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 51 (ed. John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 13–47; Alfred Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer, SBM 12 (Echter: KBW, 1971), 124–30. 8. Second Temple Judaism took over the Danielic mystery and applied it to various concepts. On occasion, the term is related to Old Testament Scripture (e.g., Habakkuk pesher) and normally refers to various eschatological events. See Benjamin L. Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearing on First Corinthians, BZNW 160 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008).51–107. 9. Beale, John’s Use, 252; Hans Hübner, Vetus Testamentum in Novo, 2 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 2:230; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia 67, tr. James

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 38

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Mystery Thriller

39

W. Leitch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1975), 41. Unless otherwise noted, all references are from NASB. 10. Hans-Christian Kammler, Kreuz und Weisheit: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 1,10-3,4, WUNT 159 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003), 226; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK VII/1 (Zürich: Benziger, 1991), 261; Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2004), 596; Brown, Semitic Background, 44. 11. Unless noted, all translations from the LXX are taken from NETS. 12. See Kammler, Kreuz und Weisheit, 220; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 257; Gordon Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 111; Alexandra Brown, Cross and Human Transformation: Paul’s Apocalyptic Word in 1 Word in 1 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 127; Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief, HNT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 68–9; Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 165; NA27. 13. E.g., Dan 2:5–7, 9, 16, 24–26, 30, 36, 45; 4:6, 9; 7:16. Cf. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 57; David Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 99–100. 14. Paul, possibly acting as a maskˆîl, likewise imparts apocalyptic wisdom to the Corinthians. Furthermore, spirit-filled believers who do “understand” God’s wisdom may also be considered as maskˆîlim. See Otto Betz, “Der gekreuzigte Christus, unsere Weisheit und Gerechtigkeit (Der alttestamentliche Hintergrund von 1.Korinther 1–2),” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, ed. Gerald Hawthorne and Otto Betz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 207, and H. H. Drake Williams, The Wisdom of the Wise, AGJU 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 168. 15. The Masoretic text reads ‫ְבּורתָא‬ ְ ‫ ג‬and the uncial Q likewise renders this as δύναμις. 16. Williams, The Wisdom of the Wise, 167. See especially, Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 2:121. 17. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 701. 18. Richard B. Hays, The Conversation of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 13. 19. Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995), 307. 20. E.g., John J. Collins, “The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic,” JBL 94 (1975): 218–34; Lawrence M. Mills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King, HDR 26 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); S. Niditch and R. Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” JBL 96 (1977): 179–93. 21. W. Lee Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973): 211–23.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 39

5/28/19 2:17 PM

40

Benjamin L. Gladd

22. Menahem Kister, though he is primarily concerned about Qumran’s Book of Mysteries, has this to say: “We have, then, in our work [Book of Mysteries], a conception of wisdom opposed by counter-wisdom, a conception that fits well into a ‘dualistic’ worldview such as that of Qumran. A similar dichotomy between the ‘wisdom of this world’ and the true, hidden wisdom of God eventually finds its most acute expression in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (1:22–3:23).” See “Wisdom Literature and Its Relation to Other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements, STDJ 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 25. See also Michael Wolter, “Verborgene Weisheit und Heil für die Heiden: Zur Traditionsgeschichte und Intention des »Revelationsschemas«,” ZTK 84 (1987): 297–319 (here, 304 n.32); Brodie, Birthing of the New Testament, 596. A. Klostergaard Petersen argues for a conceptual overlap between 1 Corinthians 1–2 and the Book of Mysteries in “Wisdom as Cognition: Creating the Others in the Book of Mysteries,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BETL 159 (Leuven: University Press, 2002), 405–32. 23. Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion, 55–58, 90–92. 24. On sophistry in Corinth and congregational susceptibility to it, see e.g., Bruce W. Winter, Paul and Philo among the Sophists, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2001).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aune, David. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Beale, G. K. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, JSNTSup 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Benoit, Pierre. “Qumrân et le Nouveau Testament.” NTS 7 (1961): 276–96. Betz, Otto. “Der gekreuzigte Christus, unsere Weisheit und Gerechtigkeit Der alttestamentliche Hintergrund von 1.Korinther 1-2.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, Edited by Gerald Hawthorne and Otto Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987 Blackwell, Ben C. John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, eds., Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016. Bockmuehl, Markus. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT 36. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990. Brodie, Thomas. The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2004. Brown, Alexandra. Cross and Human Transformation: Paul’s Apocalyptic Word in 1 Word in 1 Corinthians. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Brown, Raymond E. “The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of ‘Mystery.’” CBQ 20 (1958): 417–43.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 40

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Mystery Thriller

41

———. “The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mystêrion (I).” Bib 39 (1958): 426–48. ———. “The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mystêrion (II).” Bib 40 (1959): 70–87. ———. The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament. BS 21. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. Bruce, F. F. “The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community.” Pages 221–35 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “1 Corinthians.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Collins, John J. “The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic,” JBL 94 (1975): 218–34. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians SP 7. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia 67, tr. James W. Leitch. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1975. Coppens, Joseph. “‘Mystery’ in the Theology of Saint Paul and Its Parallels at Qumran.” Pages 132–58 in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. Chicago: Priority Press, 1968. Fee, Gordon D. First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Friebel, Kelvin G. “Biblical Interpretation in the Pesharim of the Qumran Community.” HS 22 (1981): 13–24. Garland, David. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Gladd, Benjamin L. Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearing on First Corinthians. BZNW 160. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Goff, Matthew J. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. STDJ 50 Leiden: Brill, 2003. Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Hays, Richard B. The Conversation of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. First Corinthians. Int. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997. Hübner, Hans. Vetus Testamentum in Novo, 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Humphreys, W. Lee. “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel.” JBL 92 (1973): 211–23. Kammler, Hans-Christian. Kreuz und Weisheit: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 1,10–3,4. WUNT 159 Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003. Kister, Menahem. “Wisdom Literature and Its Relation to Other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries.” Pages 13-47 in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 41

5/28/19 2:17 PM

42

Benjamin L. Gladd

the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins, Gregory E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Lindemann, Andreas. Der Erste Korintherbrief. HNT 9 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. tr. F. Stanley Jones Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Mertens, Alfred. Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer. SBM 12. Echter: KBW, 1971. Mills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King. HDR 26. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1993. Niditch, S., and R. Doran. “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach.” JBL 96 (1977): 179–93. Penna, Romano. Il «Mysterion» Paolino, SRB 10. Brescia: Paideia, 1978. Petersen, A. Klostergaard. “Wisdom as Cognition: Creating the Others in the Book of Mysteries.” In The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger. BETL 159. Leuven: University Press, 2002. 405–32. Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistic Mystery Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance. Tr. John E. Steely. PTMS 18. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978. Rigaux, B. “Révélation des mystères et perfection à Qumrân et dans le Nouveau Testament.” NTS 4 (1958): 237–62. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKK VII/1 Zürich: Benziger, 1991. Scott J. Hafemann. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 81. Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1995. Thomas, Samuel I. The ‘Mysteries’ of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. EJL 25. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Williams, H. H. Drake. The Wisdom of the Wise. AGJU 49. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Winter, Bruce W. Paul and Philo among the Sophists. 2nd edition. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2001. Wolter, Michael. “Verborgene Weisheit und Heil für die Heiden: Zur Traditionsgeschichte und Intention des »Revelationsschemas«.” ZTK 84 (1987): 297–319.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 42

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Three

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth? Craig S. Keener

I should note at the outset that I observe the same textual phenomena as do those who find over realized eschatology in Corinth. Some of these same phenomena were also observed and taken into account differently by older Gnostics-in-Corinth scholars,1 though few of us today would explain the text the way that they did.2 As David Garland rightly observes, “Paul plays the eschatological card in every issue he addresses in the letter except the one concerning headdress in 1 Cor 11:2–16,”3 though I find it implied even in 1 Cor 11:10.4 Given the place of future eschatology in 1 Corinthians vis-à-vis some of Paul’s other letters, I do not think it mirror reading to suppose that many of the Corinthian believers had trouble grasping Paul’s future eschatology. However, I do not believe that Corinthian troubles in grasping Paul’s future eschatology necessarily entail their embrace of a realized eschatology. Also I do not believe that the text of 1 Corinthians supports such a realized eschatology. Indeed, Paul’s own appeal to a blend of future and realized eschatology in 1 Cor 2:9–10 and 2 Cor 4:18–5:10, realized eschatology in 2 Cor 6:2,5 and hints of a possibly realized eschatology in 2 Cor. 12:2–4 (where Paul, like some apocalyptic thinkers, experiences a foretaste of paradise), might complicate the understanding of Corinthian believers too enamored with a realized eschatology. For Paul, life in the Spirit presently anticipates future eschatology (1 Cor. 2:9–10; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). I believe that a simpler explanation lies easily at hand and that Ockham’s razor invites us to prefer this simpler solution. Corinthian believers interpreted Paul’s teachings in light of their own cultural assumptions and more so after his physical departure from them. Greek and Roman culture, and to some extent many parts of Diaspora Jewish culture, had little place for a definitive future day of the Lord. 43

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 43

5/28/19 2:17 PM

44

Craig S. Keener

Corinthian thinking could be non-eschatological as opposed to overrealized eschatology. As Richard Hays puts it, “The Corinthians did not have an ‘overrealized eschatology.’ Instead, they employed categories of selfunderstanding derived from a decidedly non-eschatological Greco-Roman cultural environment.”6 Overrealized eschatology had such a consensus that it could be assumed as the default position.7 Yet Anthony Thiselton, a particularly influential proponent of the overrealized eschatology approach,8 subsequently qualified this emphasis by allowing a greater role for the influence of wider Corinthian culture.9 Scholarly proponents of the overrealized eschatological understanding certainly remain.10 However, as NT scholars have continued to develop a clearer understanding of the Corinthian believers’ wider Greco-Roman intellectual milieu, they have increasingly been moving away from an emphasis on overrealized eschatology.11 In what follows I take for granted my hearers’ basic knowledge of the relevant Pauline texts, which are not the primary subject of disagreement here. I focus instead on Greco-Roman traditions, which are often somewhat less familiar to NT scholars than are the NT texts themselves.

GRECO-ROMAN ESCHATOLOGY In the Greco-Roman period some continued to embrace older mythical traditions of an afterlife12 and religiously-based hopes for not only earthly blessedness but also a blessed afterlife.13 Yet many thinkers critiqued these ideas,14 and even popular thought on the afterlife was often inconsistent.15 Indeed, no more than ten percent of funerary inscriptions explicitly affirm an afterlife, and more tellingly, many lament nonexistence.16 A majority of philosophers were reluctant to profess agnosticism regarding the afterlife.17 Like some others,18 Epicureans, as we would expect of them, rejected the soul’s immortality.19 Both medical writers and many philosophers regarded the soul as mortal.20 Other thinkers, however, regarded the soul as immortal.21 This was a key feature of Platonist thought, although it was not limited to Platonists.22 One curious argument for the soul’s eternality was Plato’s insistence on its preexistence, verified by innate knowledge.23 Naturally, neither evolutionary development of instincts nor direct divine design of these human tendencies—nor for that matter any combination thereof, were an important part of his context. On this approach, learning was thus merely recollection.24 Pythagoreans affirmed immortality in the form of reincarnation (metempsychosis) that is, changing bodies.25 Indeed, Greeks believed that some other

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 44

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

45

cultures affirmed the soul’s immortality, including Egyptians,26 Mesopotamians,27 and Persians.28 Stoics did expect a future of cyclical conflagration. Nevertheless, early and middle Stoics, who expected everything to be resolved back into the primeval fire,29 did not accept the individual soul’s eternality (though many did accept a period of afterlife).30 A minority, however, did apparently embrace a form of immortality of the soul.31 Others felt that the soul would float around for a time before being resolved back into fire.32 Seneca probably represents a moderate Stoic perspective in this period: Wise souls persist beyond death. Yet even they revert to their former elements, when the universe is destroyed to be remade.33 Although Paul (at least apparently, in 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23) and some other Jewish thinkers, who allowed for a future resurrection, allowed for an intermediate state, Paul’s future personal eschatology has much more in common with Judean, Mesopotamian and some less philosophically-oriented Jewish beliefs (such as expressed in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles from Egypt and Asia Minor) than with the most Hellenized, philosophically-oriented Diaspora Jewish thinkers (such as most extant Alexandrian Jewish sources, including Philo, and even the Judean historian Josephus). As Samuel Sandmel noted, for example, “there is no vivid eschatology in Philo.”34

OVERREALIZED ESCHATOLOGY: THE BEST EXPLANATION? Those who resisted or misapprehended future eschatology did so in various ways. A mediating position, though not the simplest one, is that some Corinthian believers reframed Paul’s eschatology in a realized way to accommodate the non-eschatological approach of their culture.35 Some early Christians in the Greek cultural sphere did in fact resist with the overrealized eschatology, that appears in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 (Thessalonica being a Hellenized free city in Macedonia) and later in 2 Timothy 2:18 (Ephesus being a Hellenized free city originally founded as an Ionian colony).36 • 2 Thess. 2:2: εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, μήτε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾽ ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου· • 2 Tim. 2:18: οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, λέγοντες [τὴν] ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι, καὶ ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν.37 Thus I do not deny the existence of overrealized eschatology in some early Christianity circles. However, I question whether that is the only (or in this

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 45

5/28/19 2:17 PM

46

Craig S. Keener

case the most likely) accommodation to the lack of traditional Judean eschatology in their culture. One might argue that since overrealized eschatology appears in some passages associated with such diverse locations as the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Asia this problem may have been pervasive. What was pervasive, however, was the Greek lack of appreciation for Jewish future corporate (and corporeal) eschatology, which could be addressed independently in different ways and locations. Besides affirming the past fulfillment of all promises for the future, one could also respond by simply playing down, neglecting, reframing, or denying future eschatology. Just as not all of Paul’s fellow-Jewish critics were what commentators often call “Judaizers,” not all who resisted future eschatology necessarily did so in the same way. Even in some recent cultures, conventional Christian eschatology has been initially reframed by recipients for whom such notions were so foreign as to be nearly culturally unintelligible.38 Overrealized eschatology is merely one possibility among a range of options for resisting or protesting future eschatology, and it is not the usual one to which Greek thinkers resorted. Does anything in 1 Corinthians invite us to suppose that some Corinthian believers’ dismissal of a future resurrection took the shape of affirming a resurrection in the present? I believe that it does not. Paul begins his climactic teaching on the resurrection of believers by reminding them that they have already accepted Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor 15:1–10); it is what “you believed” (1 Cor 15:11). If they have accepted this, how could some of them deny the corollary, or technically the larger doctrine of which Jesus’s resurrection was a part, of the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12–20, especially v. 12).39 Paul says nothing here about the Corinthians accepting realized eschatology in place of a future one, only that some deny the future resurrection. Arguing for realized eschatology here is an argument from silence. Why else would Corinthians have been denying a future resurrection? Note Paul’s emphasis on the body in his resurrection arguments in 1 Cor 6:12–20 (especially vv. 13–14) and 1 Cor 15:35–44. While northern Mediterranean views concerning the afterlife (or lack thereof) varied, virtually no one apart from some Judeans supported the notion of a restored body (apart from heroes’ apotheoses, which was not really a resurrection). One of the passages most often cited in support of an overrealized eschatology, 4:8, simply reflects irony and a common philosophic trope. Philosophers typically considered themselves wise, powerful, and the ones who could reign as kings; Paul ironically praises the Corinthian Christians for having all these attributes while, again ironically, lamenting that the apostles lack them. As Hays notes, no one supposes that Stoics or Cynics who made these claims for themselves did so because of an overrealized eschatology.40 Compare the following:41

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 46

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

47

Plato Rep. 5.472: Philosophers must be kings. Isocrates To Nicocles 29 (Or. 2): “Govern yourself no less than your subjects, and consider that you are in the highest sense a king when you are a slave to no pleasure but rule over your desires more firmly than over your people.” Cicero Fin. 3.22.75: Stoics claim that the wise person has better right to the title “king” or “master” than others do. Horace Sat. 1.3.125: ridicules the Stoic view that the wise man alone is a king. Seneca Lucil. 108.13: Stoic philosophers such as Attalus (Seneca’s teacher) called themselves kings. Seneca thought Attalus more than a king and worthy to judge kings. Dio Chrysostom Or. 49.13 (LCL): “The function of the real philosopher is nothing else than to rule over human beings.” Lucian Vit. auct. 20 (LCL): Lucian mocks a Stoic as claiming that whoever follows him will be “the only wise man, the only handsome man, the only just man, brave man, king, orator, rich man, lawgiver, and everything else that there is.” Lucian Hermot. 16 (LCL): The common view was that the Stoics were manly and understood everything and that the man who went this way was the only king, the only rich man, the only wise man, and everything rolled into one. Lucian Hermot. 81: An immoral youth learns Stoic philosophy so that “there will be nothing to stop me being the only rich man, the only king, and the rest slaves and scum compared with me.” Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics 2.7.11i, p. 79, lines 1–3: “Furthermore, they assign to the civilized [i.e., themselves] the governing superintendence and its species: kingship, generalship, admiralship.” Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics. 2.7.11g, p. 75, lines 1–2: The Stoic ideal person was “meritorious, kingly, fit for command, political, good at managing the household.” Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics. 2.7.11m, p. 89, lines 26–29: Stoics say that “Only the wise man can be a king and kingly, while none of the worthless can be such, since kingship is an office answerable to none, both being the office above all others and controlling all other offices.” Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics 2.7.11m, p. 91, lines 1–6: The wise man can be a king and also can earn money from being a king.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 47

5/28/19 2:17 PM

48

Craig S. Keener

Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics 2.7.11m, p. 93 line 18: “The man with good sense will sometimes be king.” Musonius Rufus 8, lines 3–6: Philosophers also are kingly; a king must be able to govern well, and who can do this better than a philosopher? Musonius Rufus. lines 13–16: Even if a philosopher has few subjects, he is not less “kingly” to rule his friends or his wife and children or even just himself. Musonius Rufus. lines 21–23: “Kingly” fits one with few subjects as well as many, just so long as he merits rule by being kingly. Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.49: A Cynic is a true king and others are as slaves Plutarch Stoic. abs. 4 [Mor. 1058c] : “For, if one has got virtue from the Stoa, . . . It brings wealth, it comprises kingship . . . though they have not a single drachma of their own” (mocking Stoics). Plutarch Adul. amic.16 [Mor. 58e]: The Stoics call the wise man at the same time rich, handsome, well-born, and a king. Maximus of Tyre Or. 36.5 (tr. Trapp, p. 287): Diogenes the Cynic “himself lived the life of a free and fearless king . . .” Diogenes Laertius 7.1.122 (LCL): According to Stoics, not only are the wise free, they are also kings.

BODY AND SOUL IN GRECO-ROMAN THOUGHT A key feature of Paul’s future eschatological emphasis in the Corinthian correspondence is its embodied character. Whereas some Greeks affirmed an afterlife, they did not expect a future corporate judgment and did not affirm bodily existence in a future age different from the present one. The specifically disembodied character of an afterlife, which Paul does not entertain as an option in 1 Cor 15:17–19, appears most clearly in thinkers influenced by Plato and his school.42 Granted, Plato deemed union with the body no worse than separation from it.43 Still, learning to separate the soul from the body in the present better prepared one for a disembodied future.44 Thus, Socrates claims: But the soul, the invisible, which departs into another place which is, like itself, noble and pure and invisible, to the realm of the god of the other world in truth, to the good and wise god, whither, if God will, my soul is soon to go . . . if it

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 48

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

49

departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, because it never willingly associated with the body in life, but avoided it and gathered itself into itself alone, since this has always been its constant study—but this means nothing else than that it pursued philosophy rightly and really practised being in a state of death: or is not this the practice of death? (Plato Phaedo 80D–E)

Purified souls could be freed from the body.45 Plato encouraged purifying oneself in advance to be ready for separation from the body.46 He complained that pleasures nailed the soul to the body;47 and wanted philosophy to free the soul from attention to the body: The lovers of knowledge, then, I say, perceive that philosophy, taking possession of the soul when it is in this state, encourages it gently and tries to set it free, pointing out that the eyes and the ears and the other senses are full of deceit, and urging it to withdraw from these except in so far as their use is unavoidable and exhorting it to collect and concentrate itself within itself, and to trust nothing except itself and its own abstract thought of abstract existence; and to believe that there is no truth in that which it sees by other means . . . The soul itself sees that which is invisible and apprehended by the mind. (Plato Phaedo 83A)

Many thinkers viewed the body as a prison, chains,48 or even as a tomb49 for the soul. On this view, death was a release.50 One sophist felt that at death he would be freed from his body, “an uncomfortable companion.”51 Consistent with such an approach, some thinkers even denigrated the body.52 A philosopher could deliberately neglect his body.53 A later Neoplatonist even loathed his body and starved himself to death.54 It was said that one of Plato’s pupils, after reading Plato’s On the Soul, killed himself.55 Yet as Cicero noted, even Pythagoras and Plato, “though they praise death, forbid us to fly from life,” a violation of nature.56 Those with a more holistic perspective more fully avoided denigration of the body.57 Diaspora Jews and even some Judeans distinguished body and soul58 (though, interestingly enough, Paul never uses ψυχή in the conventional Greek philosophic manner).59 Josephus, for example, a Judean later writing in the Diaspora, views the soul as afflicted by the body’s defilements until freed from the body at death.60 He claims to have urged fellow Judeans to recognize that God had given each person an immortal soul, a portion of the divine.61 He depicts (presumably imaginatively) a Judean revolutionary exhorting his fellow Judeans to view the soul as imprisoned in the body.62 The Wisdom of Solomon 9:15 warns that “the corruptible body (φθαρτὸν σῶμα) weighs down the soul.”63 Writing before Paul, Philo of Alexandria distinguishes body from soul or (often more meaningfully) from the mind scores of times.64 For example, God created humans from both earthly substance and the divine breath; the soul originated from the Father and Ruler of all (Opif. 135).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 49

5/28/19 2:17 PM

50

Craig S. Keener

For Philo, the soul is the image of the invisible God.65 Thus, for example: “And his divine nature stamped her own impression in an invisible manner on the invisible soul, in order that even the earth might not be destitute of the image of God” (Det. 86). Or: “the great Moses has not named the species of the rational soul by a title resembling that of any created being, but has pronounced it an image of the divine and invisible being, making it a coin as it were of sterling metal, stamped and impressed with the seal of God, the impression of which is the eternal word” (Plant. 18). Or: Mortals “have never been able to behold their soul with their eyes, nor would they be able if they were to strive with all imaginable eagerness, wishing to see it as the most beautiful possible of all images or appearances, from a sight of which they might, by a sort of comparison, derive a notion of the uncreated and everlasting God, who rules and guides the whole world in such a way as to secure its preservation, being himself invisible” (Decal. 60). Although evidence from pre-70 CE Judean tombs suggests widespread afterlife beliefs,66 some later Diaspora Jewish funerary inscriptions lament that “no one is immortal.”67 For example, a Hellenistic Jewish inscription from Rome declares, “Θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος CIJ 1:263, §335). Nevertheless, for Philo, the soul left the body to return to God at death;68 death was passing from perishable to imperishable existence, to immortality.69 Hellenistic Jewish works such as Wisdom of Solomon and 4 Maccabees clearly affirm immortality.70

WISDOM “For though in the sight of others they were punished, their hope is full of immortality” (3:4). “But the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them” (5:15). “And love of her is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality, and immortality brings one near to God” (6:18–19). “Because of her I shall have immortality, and leave an everlasting remembrance to those who come after me” (8:13). “When I considered these things inwardly, and pondered in my heart that in kinship with wisdom there is immortality” (8:17). “For to know you is complete righteousness, and to know your power is the root of immortality” (15:3).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 50

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

51

4 MACCABEES “But as though transformed by fire into immortality, he nobly endured the rackings” (4 Macc. 9:22). “But all of them, as though running the course toward immortality, hastened to death by torture” (14:5). “On the contrary, as though having a mind like adamant and giving rebirth for immortality to the whole number of her sons, she implored them and urged them on to death for the sake of religion “ (16:13). “For on that day virtue gave the awards and tested them for their endurance. The prize was immortality in endless life”( 17:12). “But the sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered together into the chorus of the fathers, and have received pure and immortal souls from God” (18:23).

We have very little evidence about first-century Judaism in Corinth outside the NT. Nevertheless, the contrast between ψυχικός and πνευματικός in 1 Cor 15:44–46, rooted in Genesis 2:7 (in 1 Cor 15:45; cf. also 2:14–3:3), suggests the circulation among the Corinthians of some views similar to those of the recently deceased prominent Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo on this subject.71 Although Stoicism was dominant in northern Mediterranean philosophy at this time (and I find more contacts with popular eclectic Stoic thought whether we assume them directly or indirectly than with Platonism in Paul’s letters),72 eclectic Middle Platonism is more prominent in Philo and Wisdom of Solomon.73 Middle Platonic views on the body and soul (which Paul might echo in Rom 7:22 and 2 Cor. 4:17–18, but does not wholesale adopt)74 posed a challenge for interest and, potentially, even belief, in a future resurrection, though later Platonist-influenced church fathers found ways to accommodate more elements of Plato in a bodily-resurrection-affirming theology.

CONCLUSION I would suggest that resistance to or misunderstanding of Paul’s future eschatology in Corinth stems not from an overrealized eschatology per se, but from simply the cultural unintelligibility of (or perhaps apparent absurdity of or embarrassment by) a corporate future resurrection at a given time involving some sort of corporeal existence.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 51

5/28/19 2:17 PM

52

Craig S. Keener

Those who view Paul’s detractors as embracing an overrealized eschatology have rightly recognized Paul’s corrective emphasis. Their explanation, however, while not impossible, exceeds the textual evidence and therefore remains somewhat speculative. What we can affirm more simply is that the worldview that Corinthian believers brought into their new faith could not easily accommodate elements of Paul’s conflicting worldview. Ideas such as Paul’s emphasis on future judgment for acts done in the body (1 Cor 6:13–14; 2 Cor 5:10), a future resurrection (1 Cor 15:12–57; cf. 2 Cor 5:1–4),75 as well as male sexual purity and a range of other Jewish and biblical notions, were difficult for new Gentile converts to assimilate in practical life. Even some Diaspora Jews who would have agreed with Paul on other key issues (including sexual purity) lacked an emphasis on future bodily resurrection. The same misunderstandings remain common among rank-and-file Christians in many churches today, whose images of eternal bliss in heaven leave little room for embodied life in a new world to come. Some of these may embrace an overrealized eschatology. I suspect that many more simply remain relatively illiterate about Paul’s resurrection teaching. Although many of them have heard it, it fails to register in the way that more culturally pervasive ideas about heaven do (some of them more compatible than others with Pauline thought). If Paul were speaking to churches today, perhaps he would reiterate the same sort of points about an embodied, ultimate future that he wrote to his beloved Corinthian believers long ago.

NOTES 1. See esp. Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians (trans. John E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971); for a history of the view, see David G. Horrell and Edward Adams, “Introduction: The Scholarly Quest for Paul’s Church at Corinth: A Critical Survey,” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church; ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 1–43 (here 17–19). Others noted more reasonably that the problems are related to what developed into gnostic approaches; see e.g., R. McL. Wilson, “Some Recent Studies in Gnosticism,” NTS 6 (1, Oct. 1959): 32–44 (here 34), though he notes that this observation does not justify reading second-century gnosticism into earlier sources: R. McL. Wilson, “How Gnostic Were the Corinthians?” NTS 19 (Oct. 1972): 65–74 (esp. 74); more recently, Robert M. Grant, Paul in the Roman World: The Conflict at Corinth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 52. But gnostic ideologies drew some of their concepts from Platonism and other Greek conceptions, as Hippolytus recognized (Ref. 1.23). We should read later gnostic systems into first-century sources no more than we should second- and third-century Christianity into them.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 52

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

53

2. See e.g., Edwin M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 39–42; Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 134; Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 18 n.10; F. Gerald Downing, Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches: Cynics and Christian Origins II (London: Routledge, 1998), 93 (appealing narrowly to Cynics instead); Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 25; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 19–20 (cf. 71–72); Margaret M. Mitchell, “Paul’s Letters to Corinth: the Interpretive Intertwining of Literary and Historical Reconstruction,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches; ed. Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen; Harvard Theological Studies 53 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 307–38 (here 312–13); John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth; JSNTSup 75 (Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1992), 115–16. See already Fenton John Anthony Hort, Judaistic Christianity; ed. J. O. F. Murray (1894 repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 129; Hans Conzelmann, “On the Analysis of the Confessional Formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5,” Interpretation 20 (1966): 15–25 (here 24); idem, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 15. 3. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians; BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 17. 4. Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 41–42. 5. Also Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 21. 6. Hays, Conversion of Imagination, 6. 7. See e.g., Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology; SNTSMS 43 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 33: “It is generally agreed that”; French L. Arrington, Paul’s Aeon Theology in 1 Corinthians (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978), 117; D. A. Carson, From Triumphalism to Maturity: An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10–13 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 44; Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 9; David R. Nichols, “The Problem of Two-Level Christianity at Corinth,” Pneuma 11 (1989): 99–111. 8. See Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (July 1978): 510–26. 9. Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 25–26. 10. E.g., Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); G. J. Laughery, “Paul: Anti-marriage? Anti-sex? Ascetic? A Dialogue with 1 Corinthians 7:1–40,” EQ 69 (1997): 109–28. 11. See e.g., David W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5—4:5; NovTSup 66 (Leiden:

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 53

5/28/19 2:17 PM

54

Craig S. Keener

Brill, 1992); Richard Oster, 1 Corinthians; College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1995), 116; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 14; Hays, Conversion of Imagination, 18; Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 105–6; Oh-Young Kwon, 1 Corinthians 1—4: Reconstructing Its Social and Rhetorical Situation and Re-Reading It Cross-Culturally for Korean-Confucian Christians Today (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 19–20. 12. Here I borrow several paragraphs from my book The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), Appendix A. In traditional mythology, see Homer Od.11.204–224, 487–491. After Homer hopes moved toward a celestial afterlife; see Walter Burkert, Greek Religion; trans. John Raffan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985), 194–99; HansJosef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions; trans. Brian McNeil (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 75; Jan H. Bremmer, “Hades,” BrillPauly 5:1076–77; Alexandra von Lieven, Sarah Iles Johnston and Lutz Käppel, “Underworld,” BrillPauly 15:104–11. Virgil’s depiction of the underworld was among the most influential: Helen Kaufmann, “Virgil’s Underworld in the Mind of Roman Late Antiquity,” Latomus 69 (2010): 150–60. For the Roman conception of the murky underworld, see Federico Borca, “Per Loca Senta Situ Ire: An Exploration of the Chthonian Landscape,” Classical Bulletin 76 (2000): 51–59. For the afterlife in Orphism, see Diogenes Laertius 6.1.4; W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement; 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1966), 148–93, 269; cf. perhaps Gabriela Bijovsky, “AION: A Cosmic Allegory on a Coin from Tyre?” Israel Numismatic Research 2 (2007): 143–56, plate 16; Dionysiac religion in CAH 10:508–9; Martin P. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age; Skrifter Utgivna Av Svenska Institutet I Athen, 8º, 5 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1957), 116–132, though Nilsson reconstructs too much ideology from artwork. 13. A. D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), 102–5; Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge: Harvared University Press, 1987), 21–27. See, e.g., Apuleius Metam. 11.6; though in the Isis cult generally, see Günter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries: The Problem of the Pauline Doctrine of Baptism in Romans VI.1–11, in Light of its Religio-historical “Parallels”(Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967), 112. For the Eleusinian mysteries, see e.g., Isocrates Panegyricus 28; Or. 4; discussion in Frederick C. Grant, Hellenistic Religions: The Age of Syncretism (New York: Liberal Arts, 1953), 12; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 21; George E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 268–69; Wagner, Baptism, 87; Klauck, Context, 117. For the Bacchic cult, Burkert, Religion, 293–295; idem, Mystery Cults, 21–22. 14. E.g., Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.15. Note Diogenes the Cynic against the afterlife promises of the mysteries in Diogenes Laertius 6.2.39. For some satires on the mythical afterlife, see Lucian Z. Cat. 17–18; Dial. D. 402–3 (11/16, Diogenes and Heracles 1–4); 405 (11/16, Diogenes and Heracles 5); ghost stories in Lover of Lies 29–33. 15. See the criticism in Philodemus Death 28.5–13; also conflicting thoughts noted in J. Warden, “Scenes from the Graeco-Roman Underworld,” Crux 13 (1976– 77): 23–28.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 54

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

55

16. Klauck, Context, 80. Nevertheless, many expressions of pessimism when bitter about death could coexist with some hope for afterlife, just as they do today; in antiquity, however, they were frequent enough to be formulaic. 17. Contrast the epistemic humility in Confucius Analects 206 (11.11). Agnosticism about the afterlife appears among thinkers portrayed in Lucian Demonax 43; Z. Cat. 17. John G. Fitch, Introduction to Tragedies, by Seneca, LCL, 2002:1–33 (here 23), suggests that Seneca took an agnostic position; but the examples in Seneca’s tragedies may simply follow the genre (and even here, note the afterlife traditions in Seneca, Hercules 743–44, 749–59). 18. Pliny N.H. 7.55.188–90. 19. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus 125; Lucretius Nat. 3: see James Warren, “Lucretius, Symmetry Arguments, and Fearing Death,” Phronesis 46 (2001): 466–91 Tim O’Keefe, “Lucretius on the Cycle of Life and the Fear of Death,” Apeiron 36 (2003), 43–66; Philodemus Death 1; Diogenes Laertius 10.124; Hippolytus Ref. 1.19; Richard Sorabji, Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 248. Cf. also the Cynic Diogenes: death cannot be an evil if one who is dead is unaware of it (Diogenes Laertius 6.2.68). Ancient thinkers knew the range of views (as in Iamblicus, Soul 7.36, §383). 20. See thorough discussion in Annette Weissenrieder, “‘Am Leitfaden des Leibes’: Der Diskurs über some in Medizin und Philosophie der Antike,” ZNT 14 (2011): 15–26. 21. E.g., Xenophon Cyr. 8.7.17–21 (the speaker, Cyrus, is a reliable character); Aristotle De an. 1.4, 408b; Cicero Tusc. 1.14.31; 1.8.18–24; Rep. 6.24.26; Senect. 20.78; Dionysius Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 8.62.1; Apuleius, God of Socrates = De deo Socr. 126–27; Plotinus Enn. 4.7.12; Libanius Encomium 6.10. Cf. even perhaps Lucian Demonax 43. 22. Plato Meno 81B (citing also Pindar Threnoi frg. 133; cf. Pindar Threnos 7, frg. 131b in Plutarch [Cons. Apoll.] 35.120C); Plato Rep. 10.611B; Phaedo 64DE; 105–107; Phaedrus 245C; Plutarch, Sera 17 [Mor. 560B]; Maximus Tyre Or. 10.2, 5; 41.5; Iamblicus Soul 5.25, §377; Letter 8, frg. 2 (Stobaeus Anth. 2.8.43); frg. 7 (Stobaeus Anth. 2.8.48); Testimonium 2 (in Olympiodorus, In Platonis Gorgiam Commentaria 46.9.20–28); Plato in Hippolytus Ref. 1.17; satirized in Lucian Musc. laud. 7; see discussion in R. C. Lodge, Plato’s Theory of Ethics: The Moral Criterion and the Highest Good (New York: Hancourt, 1928), 394–409; Robert L. Patterson, Plato on Immortality (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1965). For the myth of Er (starting in Plato Rep. 10.614B), see e.g., Paul Dräger, “Er,” BrillPauly 5:7. 23. Plato Meno 81BD; Phaedo 75CD. For souls’ preexistence, see e.g., Iamblicus Pythagoras 14.63; Philo in J. M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977) 177; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.17; Wis 8:19–20; 3 En. 43:3; b. Hag. 12b; Gen. Rab. 8:7; 24:4; Exod. Rab. 28:6; Solomon Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (repr. New York: Schocken, 1961), 24; but contrast with more nuance Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 1:234, 237–38. On innate tendencies, e.g., Cicero Top. 7.31; Musonius Rufus 2 [38.12–14]; Maximus Tyre Or. 21.7–8;

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 55

5/28/19 2:17 PM

56

Craig S. Keener

Iamblicus Letter 13, frg. 1.1–4 (Stobaeus Anth. 2.2.6); Porphyry Marc. 26.419–20. For tendency toward worship as innate, see e.g., Cicero Inv. 2.22.65; 2.53.161; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.27; Iamblicus Mysteries 1.3; toward ethics, cf. Matt JacksonMcCabe, “The Stoic Theory of Implanted Preconceptions,” Phronesis 49 (2004): 323–47. 24. Phaedo 75CD; later, cf. Maximus Tyre Or. 10.6; Porphyry. Marc. 10.185–86. Because Pythagoreans taught reincarnation (Lucian Vit. auct. 5), they viewed learning as merely recollection (idem, 3). 25. Diodorus Siculus 10.6.1; Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.2; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.22; 8.31; Ep. Apoll. 58; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.14; 8.5.83 (Pythagoras); Iamblicus Pythagoras 18.85; 32.219; Symmachus Ep. 1.4.2; Hippolytus Ref. 1.2–3; cf. N. Clayton Croy, “Neo-Pythagoreanism,” DNTB 739–42. For metempsychosis views, see further Plato Meno 81BC; Herodotus 2.123; Valerius Flaccus Argonautica 3.383–96 (for the evil only); Virgil Aen. 6.747–751; Silius Italicus, Punicus 13.558–59; Athenaeus Deipn. 15.679A; cf. Seneca Lucil. 108.20. Pythagorean-Orphic ideas are in Johan C. Thom, “‘Don’t Walk on the Highways’: The Pythagorean akousmata and Early Christian Literature,” JBL 113 (1994): 93–112 (here 105); Epimenides and Pythagoras in Barry L Blackburn, “‘Miracle Working Θειοι ΑΝΔΡΕΣ’ in Hellenism (and Hellenistic Judaism),” in Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, Gospel Perspectives 6 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 185–218 (here, 191). 26. Herodotus 2.123. Cf. Book of Dead spell 20, parts T-1–2; spell 30, part P-1; spell 31a, part P1; spell 35a, P-1; spell 79, part P1; spell 177, part P-1; see also Lieven, et al,”Underworld,” 15:105–6. Cf. the Greek Elysian Fields (e.g., Statius Silvae 5.1.192–93) with Egyptian “field of reeds” mentioned e.g., in John D. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the OT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 98. Egyptian and Greek afterlife ideas mingled on tombs in Roman Alexandria: cf. Marjorie Susan Venit, “The Stagni Painted Tomb: Cultural Interchange and Gender Differentiation in Roman Alexandria,” AJA 103 (1999): 641–69. 27. Cf. ANET 32–34; Lieven, et al, “Underworld,” 15:104–5 (similar to Greek mythology). 28. See A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), 40, 100–101. Cf. in Mithraism, in PGM 4.646–48, 748–49 (cf. 719–23). 29. See e.g., Seneca Ben. 4.8.1; Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.4; Plutarch Comm. not. 31 [Mor. 1075B]; Lucian Vit. auct. 14; Marcus Aurelius Med. 4.46; Diogenes Laertius 9.1.7; cf. Klauck, Context, 354; J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, NovTSup 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 33; Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: “Cosmic Catastrophe” in the NT and its World, LNTS 347 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 116–18. 30. See e.g., J. Bels, “La survie de l’âme, de Platon à Posidonius,” RHR 199 (1982): 169–82. 31. Posidonius in A. E. Ju, “Stoic and Posidonian Thought on the Immortality of the Soul,” CQ 59 (2009): 112–24; cf. the soul as eternal (aeternus) in Seneca Dial. 12.11.7; Lucil. 57.9. 32. Marcus Aurelius Med. 4.21. For souls remaining in the air rather than in the netherworld, see Klauck, Context, 358.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 56

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

57

33. Seneca, Dial. 6.26.7 (inconsistent with some of his teaching elsewhere); cf. also Cleanthes and Chrysippus in Klauck, Context, 358; for other Stoics, see C. R. Haines, The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antonius, Emperor of Roman, Together with His Speeches and Sayings, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916), xxvi. They could be reformed cyclically, but not all Stoics were convinced that reconstituted persons of the next cycle would be the same person anyway (Sorabji, Emotion, 243). Unlike God, people were mortal (Seneca Lucil. 124.14; but cf. 124.23). 34. Samuel Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 299. 35. See L Cerfaux, The Church in the Theology of St. Paul (New York: Herder & Herder, 1959), 93. 36. Some suggest that Paul’s eschatology proved less attractive in Corinth than in Thessalonica due to the former’s lack of external hostility (a view summarized in Schowalter and Friesen eds., Urban Religion, 416–17); this factor offers a possible factor helping to explain the different outcome in Thessalonica but remains more speculative than appeal to the general milieu. 37. Text derived from NA28. Hereafter I reproduce mainly translations of extrabiblical texts, on the assumption that NT scholars lack need for biblical citations. 38. See John S. Mbiti, NT Eschatology in an African Background: A Study of the Encounter between NT Theology and African Traditional Concepts (London: Oxford University Press, 1971). 39. As Hays, Conversion of Imagination, 19, notes regarding 15:12: they denied the future resurrection; they did not claim that they had already experienced it. 40. Hays, Conversion of Imagination, 20. 41. Translations below are from LCL unless otherwise stated. 42. Two of the following paragraphs are from my forthcoming Mind of the Spirit. 43. Plato Leg. 8.828D. Nevertheless, one too willing to die might be compared with a philosopher (Cicero Marcellus 8.25). 44. Plato Phaedo 80DE; Diogenes Ep. 39; Iamblichus Pythogoras 32.228; Porphyry Marcella 32.494–95. Cf. living justly as a prerequisite for immortality in Diogenes Laertius 6.1.5 (Antisthenes). 45. Iamblichus, Soul 8.43 §456 (souls purified have “deliverance from the body”); on the descent of some souls for purification, see 6.29 §380. 46. Plato Phaedo 67C. 47. Plato Phaedo 83CD; followed also by Proclus Poet. Essay 6, Bk. 1, K121.14– 15; Iamblichus Letter 3, frg. 2 (Stobaeus Anth. 3.5.45); Iamblichus Pythagoras 32.228. 48. Plato Phaedrus 250C (cf. also Gorg. 493E; Phaedo 82E); Cic. Resp. 6.14.14; 6.15.15; Tusc. 1.31.75; Seneca Dial. 11.9.3; 12.11.7; Ben. 3.20.1–2 (on Seneca, cf. Sevenster, Seneca, 82–83); Epictetus Diatr. 1.1.9; 1.9.11–12; Dio Chrysostom Or. 30.10–24 (recounting one view, not the speaker’s own); Heraclitus Ep. 5; Maximus Tyre Or. 7.5; 36.4; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 7.26; Gnomologium Vaticanum 464 (Pythagoras in Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortations: A Greco-Roman Handbook; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986:110); Porphyry Marcellus 33.506–7; Philo Leg.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 57

5/28/19 2:17 PM

58

Craig S. Keener

3.21; Ebr.101; Her. 85 (cf. vices in 109); Somn. 1.138–39. On Philo, see further Donald A. Hagner, “The Vision of God in Philo and John,” JETS 14 (1971): 81–93 (here, 85); Ep. Diogn. 6.7; cf. harsh labors in Marcus Aurelius, Med. 6.28. 49. Epictetus Diatr. frg. 26 (cf. 1.1; 1.8–9; 1.9.11–12, 16; 3.13.17; 4.7.15); Marcus Aurelius, Med. 4.41 (“Thou are a little soul bearing up a corpse, as Epictetus said”; cf. 3.7; 4.5; 6.28; 9.3); Philo Somn. 1.138–39; Phrygian sectarians in Hippolytus Ref. 5.3; cf. Plutarch, Is. Os. 28 [Mor. 362B]. Scholars often note this idea; e.g., F. Crawford Burkitt, The Church and Gnosis: A Study of Christian Thought and Speculation in the Second Century, Morse Lectures 1931 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), 33–35; Patterson, Plato on Immortality, 20–21. The exact wordplay, σῶμα-σῆμα, the body as a tomb, Plato’s Socrates attributes to Orphics in Plato Crat. 400B–C; in earlier Orphism, Guthrie, Orpheus, 156–58. 50. E.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.16; Maximus Tyre Or. 7.5; 10.3; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 6.28; 11.3; Philostratus Heroikos 7.3. 51. Arrian Anab. 7.2.4. 52. See Guthrie, Orpheus, 154 (on Orphics); Sevenster, Seneca, 69 (on Seneca; contrasting Paul on 75). 53. Valerius Maximus 8.7. ext. 5, on Carneades; cf. Ep. Diogn. 6.9. For many philosophers’ simple garb and minimal grooming, see Dio Chrysostom Or. 32.22; 34.2; 72.2, 5; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–15), 2:2140–41; esp. for Cynics, e.g., Juvenal Sat. 13.121–22; Crates Ep. 18, 30; Aulus Gellius 9.2.4–5; Lucian Dem. 48; Fug. 14, 20, 27; Peregr. 15, 24, 36; Vit. auct. 9; Icar. 31; Bis acc. 6; Cynicus 4, 19–20. For Cynics’ lack of hygiene, see e.g., Alciphron Farmers 38 (Euthydicus to Philiscus), 3.40.2; Lucian Icar. 31; Cynicus 17, 19. On philosophers with long hair, see Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.15; 35.2; Encomium on Hair; Lucian Vit. auct. 2; Peregr. 15; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 7.36; Diogenes Laertius 1.109; Iamblichus V.P. 2.11; 6.31; with long beards, see Epictetus Diatr. 2.23.21; Plutarch Isis 3, Mor. 352C; Artem. Oneir. 1.30; Aul. Gel. 9.2.4–5; Lucian Fug. 27; Icar. 29; Dem. 13; Philops. 5; Hermot. 18, 86; Bis acc. 11; Eunuch. 9; Fisherman 42; Philostratus Ep. Apoll. 3, 70; with both, Epictetus Diatr. 4.8.12; 8.15; Dio Chrysostom Or. 36.17; 47.25; 72.2; Lucian Dial. D. 371–72 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 9); Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 7.34. In contrast to Cynics, Stoics, though bearded, wore their hair short: Lucian Fug. 27; Hermot. 18. 54. Eunapius Vit. 456 (“overcome by the force of his [Plotinus’s] teachings he conceived a hatred of his own body and of being human . . .” though contrast Porphyry, Vit. Plot.11.113). A Neoplatonist such as Plotinus could regard bodily existence as an evil (Plotinus Enn. 1.7.3.20–21). 55. Callimachus Epig. 25. Reportedly Cleombrotus, learning from Plato’s work that the soul was merely imprisoned in the body, threw himself off a high wall to his death (Cicero Scaur. 3.4, regarding this tale as false). Cato read Plato’s treatise on the soul before attempting suicide: Appian Bell. civ.2.14.98–99; but cf. Alexei V. Zadorojnyi, “Cato’s Suicide in Plutarch,” CQ 57 (2007): 216–30. Plato himself did not support suicide (Plato Phaedo 62C; cf. Leonardo Taran, “Plato, Phaedo, 62A,” AJP 87:1966:326–36).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 58

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

59

56. Cicero Scaur. 4.5 (cf. Plato Phaedo 61C). Cf. the duty of remaining alive in Cicero Rep. 6.15.15; Seneca Lucil. 58.36. For ancient philosophic views on suicide, see e.g., Cercidas frg. 1; Cicero Fin. 3.18.60; Seneca Lucil. 70.4, 6, 14–16, 20–21; 77.15; Epictetus Diatr. 1.2.1–3; 1.9.10–17, 20; 1.25.21; 2.1.19; 3.8.6; 3.13.14; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 3.1; 8.47; Arius Didymus 2.7.11m, p. 90.30–34; p. 92.1–3; Maximus Tyre 7.5; Diogenes Laertius 7.4.167; 7.5.176; Lucian, Dem. 65; Peregr. 1–2; Fisherman 2; Octogenarians 19; Fug. 1–2; Ver. hist. 2.21; Klauck, Context, 363–65; John M. Cooper, “Greek Philosophers on Suicide,” in Suicide and Euthanasia: Historical and Contemporary Themes, ed. Baruch Alter Brody (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1989), 9–38; Robert Wyllie, “Views on Suicide and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy and Some Related Contemporary Points of View,” Prudentia 5 (1973): 15–32; laria Ramelli, Hierocles the Stoic: “Elements of Ethics,” Fragments, and Excerpts. Tr. David Konstan. SBLWGRW 28 (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 106; Sorabji, Emotion, 172–73, 214–15; further discussion in Keener, Acts, 3:2503–5. 57. Musonisu Rufus 6 [54.4–6, 10–11]; Hierocles On Marriage (Stobaeus Anth. 4.79.53); on a popular level, cf. Sallust Bell. Cat.1.7. Some went much further and justified hedonism; see the discussion in Winter, Left Corinth, 78. 58. E.g., Ep.Arist. 236; T. Job 20.3 (God delivered Job to Satan “with respect to the body; but . . . not . . . over my soul”); Apoc. Ezek. 1–2; 1 En. 102:5: “And do not be sad that your souls have gone down into Sheol in sadness, and (that) your bodies did not obtain during your life (a reward) in accordance with your goodness . . .”; also b. Ber. 10a; 60b; b. Yoma 20b. Diaspora Jewish authors often distinguished body and soul, though often “in order to express an ethical rather than an ontological dualism”: Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament, Heythrop Monographs 1 (London: Heythrop College Press, 1976), 75–76. For body and soul mentioned together but with more emphasis on the whole, see e.g., 2 Macc 7:37; 14:38; Ep.Arist. 139; T. Sim. 2.5; 4.8; probably L.A.B. 3.10; perhaps T. Ash. 2:6; for their close correspondence, see e.g., T. Naph. 2.2–3. 59. Much of the following survey comes from my Mind of the Spirit. 60. Josephus Ap. 2.203. He elsewhere distinguishes soul and body (Ant. 18.117, regarding John the Baptist’s ministry; 18.333), though sometimes in ways emphasizing their connection (Ant. 4.291, 298; 15.190; 18.282; Bell. 1.95, 429; 2.60, 136, 476, 580, 588; 3.362). The soul left the body at death (Ant. 6.3; 13.317; 19.325; Bell. 1.84). 61. Bell. 3.272. He speaks of the body as a foreigner to the soul in Bell. 3.278. 62. Bell. 7.345; cf. 7.341–88 (esp. 7.340, 348, 355). Ancient hearers would have recognized the speech as Josephus’s composition: Menahem Luz, “Eleazar’s Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents,” RMPhil 126 (1983): 25–43. 63. Wis 9:15. This Alexandrian Jewish work reflects here the sort of Middle Platonic influence also reflected in Philo. For immortality in this work, see also Luca Mazzinghi, “Morte e immortalità nel libro della Sapienza: Alcune considerazioni su Sap 1,12–15; 2,21–24; 3,1–9,” VH 17 (2006): 267–86. 64. E.g., Philo Opif. 67 (the mind being eternal and divine); Leg. 2.22; Sacr. 9. 65. E.g., Philo Det. 86; cf. Plant.18; Decal. 60.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 59

5/28/19 2:17 PM

60

Craig S. Keener

66. Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. BollS 37 (New York: Pantheon, 1953–1965), 1:164–77 passim. Josephus attributes such views to the Pharisees (Josephus Ant. 18.14), who on most issues reflected popular Judean perspectives. 67. See CIJ 1:263, §335; 1:309, §401; 1:334, §450. Cf. similar pessimistic inscriptions of Gentiles noted above. 68. Philo Abr. 258. For the immortality of the soul in Philo, see e.g., Leg. 1.1; in detail, Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 4th rev. ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 1:395–413. 69. Philo Virt. 67; Mos. 2.288. Philo believed that the virtuous achieved incorporeality after death: Fred W. Burnett, “Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philo’s Concept of παλιγγενεσία, CBQ 46 (1984) 447–70. 70. All main text Wisdom citations below from the NRSV; cf. Leonhard Rost, Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon: An Introduction to the Documents (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 110. 71. Wis 9:6, 17 (NRSV): “for even one who is perfect among human beings will be regarded as nothing without the wisdom that comes from you . . . Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high?” Compare 1 Cor 2:6, 11–12. For Philo’s renown and prominence among educated Jews in the empire, see Josephus Ant. 18.259–260. Echoes of the Wisdom of Solomon may also suggest Corinthian valuing of the sort of philosophic stream in which Philo moved (e.g., Wis 9:6, 17 in 1 Cor. 2:6, 11–12). 72. See Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000); with a wider range of less debated examples, David A. deSilva, “Paul and the Stoa: A Comparison,” JETS 38 (4, 1995): 549–64. I offer examples in my Romans, NCC (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009), passim (e.g., 32–33), and my 1–2 Corinthians; NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), e.g., 103. 73. On Philo’s Middle Platonism, see e.g., Simone Pétrement, Le Dualisme Chez Platon, les Gnostiques et les Manichéens (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1947), 307–52; U. Früchtel, Die Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese; Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums II (Leiden: Brill, 1968); D. T. Runia, “Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A difficult question revisited,” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 112–40; Gregory E. Sterling, “Platonizing Moses. Philo and Middle Platonism,” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 96–111; John Dillon, “Reclaiming the Heritage of Moses: Philo’s Confrontation with Greek Philosophy,” Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 108–23; cf. G. Reydams-Schils, “Stoicized Readings of Plato’s Timaeus in Philo of Alexandria,” Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 85–102; A. P. Bos, “Philo of Alexandria: A Platonist in the Image and Likeness of Aristotle,” Studia Philonica Annual 10 (1998): 66–86. At times he cites Philo, e.g., Opif. 119, 133; Prob. 13. Philo’s Platonism, like that of Alexandrian Platonism more generally (Dillon, Middle Platonists, 182) and Middle Platonism more generally (cf. J. M. Dillon, “Plato, Platonism,” 804–807 in DNTB, 806), did incorporate Stoic elements.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 60

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

61

74. From various perspectives, see Hans Dieter Betz, “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἐσω ἀνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul,” NTS 46 (2000): 315–41; Stanley K. Stowers, “Paul and Self-Mastery,” 524–550 in PGRW, 526–27. Perhaps most relevantly, for the frequent use in Philo, see in David E. Aune, “Anthropological Duality in the Eschatology of 2 Cor 4:16–5:10,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 215–39, 309–16 (here, 222). 75. I construe the heavenly house here as the resurrection body; see Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 179.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Edward. The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: “Cosmic Catastrophe” in the New Testament and Its World. LNTS 347. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Arrington, French L. Paul’s Aeon Theology in 1 Corinthians. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978. Aune, David E. “Anthropological Duality in the Eschatology of 2 Cor 4:16–5:10.” Pages 215–40 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Barclay, William. “Great Themes of the NT. II. John i.1–14.” Exp Times 70 (1958): 78–82; (1959): 114–17. Bels, Jacques. “La survie de l’âme, de Platon à Posidonius.” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 199 (2, 1982): 169–82. Betz, Hans Dieter. “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἐσω ἀνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul.” NTS 46 (3, 2000): 315–41. Bijovsky, Gabriela. “AION: A Cosmic Allegory on a Coin from Tyre?” Israel Numismatic Research 2 (2007): 143–56, plate 16. Blackburn, Barry L. “‘Miracle Working ΘΕΙΟΙ ΑΝΔΡΕΣ’ in Hellenism (and Hellenistic Judaism).” Pages 185–218 in The Miracles of Jesus. Edited by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg. Gospel Perspectives 6. Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1986. Borca, Federico. “Per Loca Senta Situ Ire: An Exploration of the Chthonian Landscape.” Classical Bulletin 76 (1, 2000): 51–59. Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Bos, A. P. “Philo of Alexandria: A Platonist in the Image and Likeness of Aristotle.” Studia Philonica Annual 10 (1998): 66–86. Bremmer, Jan H. “Hades.” Brill’s New Pauly 5:1076–77. Buffière, Felix. “Séléné: La lune dans la poésie, la science et la religion grecques.” Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 100 (1, 1999): 3–18. Burkert, Walter. Ancient Mystery Cults. Carl Newell Jackson Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. ———. Greek Religion. Trans. John Raffan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 61

5/28/19 2:17 PM

62

Craig S. Keener

Burkitt, F. Crawford. The Church and Gnosis: A Study of Christian Thought and Speculation in the Second Century. Morse Lectures for 1931. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. Burnett, Fred W. “Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philo’s Concept of παλιγγενεσία.” CBQ 46 (3, 1984): 447–70. Carson, D. A. From Triumphalism to Maturity: An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10–13. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. Cerfaux, L. The Church in the Theology of St. Paul. Translated by Geoffrey Webb and Adrian Walker. New York: Herder & Herder, 1959. Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. JSNTSup 75. Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1992. Conzelmann, Hans. “On the Analysis of the Confessional Formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5.” Interpretation 20 (1966): 15–25. ———. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Ed. George W. MacRae. Trans. James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Cooper, John M. “Greek Philosophers on Suicide.” Pages 9–38 in Suicide and Euthanasia: Historical and Contemporary Themes. Edited by Baruch Alter Brody. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer, 1989. Croy, N. Clayton. “Neo-Pythagoreanism.” Pages 739–742 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Currid, John D. Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. Foreword by Kenneth A. Kitchen. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. DeSilva, David A. “Paul and the Stoa: A Comparison.” JETS 38 (4, 1995): 549–64. Dillon, John M. The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. ———. “Plato, Platonism,” 804–807 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. ———. “Reclaiming the Heritage of Moses: Philo’s Confrontation with Greek Philosophy,” Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 108–23. Downing, F. Gerald. Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches: Cynics and Christian Origins II. London: Routledge, 1998. Dräger, Paul. “Er.” BrillPauly 5:7. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Fitch, John G. “Introduction.” Pages 1–33 in Seneca Tragedies. Edited and translated by John G. Fitch. LCL 62. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Früchtel, U. Die Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums II. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Godwin, Joscelyn. Mystery Religions in the Ancient World. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 62

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

63

Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. BollS 37. Vols. 1–12: New York: Pantheon, 1953–65. Vol. 13: Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Grant, Frederick C. Roman Hellenism and the New Testament. New York: Scribner’s, 1962. Grant, Robert M. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. ———. Paul in the Roman World: The Conflict at Corinth. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Griffin, Miriam T. “Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide.” GR 33 (1986): 64–77, 192–202. Guthrie, W. K. C. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1966. Haines, C. R. “Introduction.” Pages xi–xxxi in The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antonius, Emperor of Rome, together with his speeches and sayings. A revised text and translation by C. R. Haines. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Horrell, David G., and Edward Adams. “Introduction: The Scholarly Quest for Paul’s Church at Corinth: A Critical Survey.” Pages 1–43 in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Edited by Edward Adams and David G. Horrell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Hort, Fenton John Anthony. Judaistic Christianity. Edited by J. O. F. Murray. 1894; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Isaacs, Marie E. The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament. Heythrop Monographs 1. London: Heythrop College Press, 1976. Jackson-McCabe, Matt. “The Stoic Theory of Implanted Preconceptions.” Phronesis 49 (4, 2004): 323–47. Kaufmann, Helen. “Virgil’s Underworld in the Mind of Roman Late Antiquity.” Latomus 69 (1, 2010): 150–60. Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015. ———. The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. ———. Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992. ———. Romans. NCCS 6. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2009. ———. 1 and 2 Corinthians. NCamBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Kerferd, George B. “Reason as a Guide to Conduct in Greek Thought.” BJRL 64 (1981): 141–64.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 63

5/28/19 2:17 PM

64

Craig S. Keener

Klauck, Hans-Josef. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to GraecoRoman Religions. Trans. Brian McNeil. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Kuck, David W. Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5—4:5. NovTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kwon, Oh-Young. 1 Corinthians 1—4: Reconstructing Its Social and Rhetorical Situation and Re-Reading It Cross-Culturally for Korean-Confucian Christians Today. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Laughery, G. J. “Paul: Anti-marriage? Anti-sex? Ascetic? A Dialogue with 1 Corinthians 7:1–40.” EQ 69 (2, 1997): 109–28. Lieven, Alexandra von, Sarah Iles Johnston and Lutz Käppel. “Underworld.” Brill;s New Pauly 15:104–11. Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. SNTSMS 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Lodge, Rupert C. Plato’s Theory of Ethics: The Moral Criterion and the Highest Good. New York: Harcourt, Brace; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1928. Luz, Menahem. “Eleazar’s Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents.” RMPhil 126 (1, 1983): 25–43. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Mazzinghi, Luca. “Morte e immortalità nel libro della Sapienza: alcune considerazioni su Sap 1,12–15; 2, 21–24; 3, 1–9.” Vivens Homo 17 (2, 2006): 267–86. Mbiti, John S. New Testament Eschatology in an African Background: A Study of the Encounter between New Testament Theology and African Traditional Concepts. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Paul’s Letters to Corinth: the Interpretive Intertwining of Literary and Historical Reconstruction.” Pages 307–38 in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Edited by Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen. Harvard Theological Studies 53. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Mylonas, George E. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Nichols, David R. “The Problem of Two-Level Christianity at Corinth.” Pneuma 11 (2, 1989): 99–111. Nietmann, William D. “Seneca on Death: The Courage to Be or Not to Be.” International Philosophical Quarterly 6 (1966): 81–89. Nilsson, Martin P. The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age. Skrifter Utgivna Av Svenska Institutet I Athen, 8º, 5. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1957. Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933. Novak, David. Suicide and Morality: The Theories of Plato, Aquinas, and Kant and Their Relevance for Suicidology. New York: Scholars Studies Press, 1975. Noyes, Russell. “Seneca on Death.” JRelHealth 12 (1973): 223–40. O’Keefe, Tim. “Lucretius on the Cycle of Life and the Fear of Death.” Apeiron 36 (1, 2003): 43–66.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 64

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Overrealized Eschatology or Lack of Eschatology in Corinth?

65

Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Oster, Richard. 1 Corinthians. College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1995. Patterson, Robert Leet. Plato on Immortality. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1965. Pétrement, Simone. Le Dualisme Chez Platon, les Gnostiques et les Manichéens. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1947. Ramelli, Ilaria. Introduction and Commentary. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts. Translated (from Ramelli’s work) by David Konstan. SBLWGRW 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Reydams-Schils, G. “Stoicized Readings of Plato’s Timaeus in Philo of Alexandria.” Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 85–102. Rist, John M. “Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy.” ANRW 36.3:1993–2012. Part 2, Principat, 36.3. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Rost, Leonhard. Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon: An Introduction to the Documents. Translated by David E. Green. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Runia, David T. “Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A difficult question revisited.” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 112–40. Salles, Ricardo. “Ἐκπύρωσις and the Goodness of God in Cleanthes.” Phronesis 50 (1, 2005): 56–78. Sandmel, Samuel. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Schechter, Solomon. Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1909. Reprinted as Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. New York: Schocken, 1961. Schmithals, Walter. Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians. Trans. John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. Sevenster, J. N. Paul and Seneca. NovTSup 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Sorabji, Richard. Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation. The Gifford Lectures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Sterling, Gregory E. “Platonizing Moses. Philo and Middle Platonism.” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 96–111. Stowers, Stanley K. “Paul and Self-Mastery.” Pages 524–50 in Paul in the GrecoRoman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2003. Talbert, Charles H. Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Taran, Leonardo. “Plato, Phaedo, 62A.” AJP 87 (1966): 326–36. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Thiselton, Anthony C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” NTS 24 (4, July 1978): 510–26. Thomas, Christine M. “Placing the Dead: Funerary Practice and Social Stratification in the Early Roman Period at Corinth and Ephesos.” Pages 281–304 in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Edited by Daniel N.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 65

5/28/19 2:17 PM

66

Craig S. Keener

Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen. HTS 53. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005. Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979. Venit, Marjorie Susan. “The Stagni Painted Tomb: Cultural Interchange and Gender Differentiation in Roman Alexandria.” American Journal of Archaeology 103 (4, 1999): 641–69. Wagner, Günter. Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries: The Problem of the Pauline Doctrine of Baptism in Romans VI.1–11, in Light of Its Religio-historical “Parallels.” Translated by J. P. Smith. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967. Walters, James. “Civic Identity in Roman Corinth and Its Impact on Early Christians.” Pages 397–417 in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Ed. Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen. Harvard Theological Studies 53. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Warden, J. “Scenes from the Graeco-Roman Underworld.” Crux 13 (3, 1976–1977): 23–28. Warren, James. “Lucretius, Symmetry arguments, and fearing death.” Phronesis 46 (4, 2001): 466–91. Weissenrieder, Annette. “‘Am Leitfaden des Leibes’: Der Diskurs über soma in Medizin und Philosophie der Antike.” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 14 (27, 2011): 15–26. Wilson, R. McL. “How Gnostic Were the Corinthians?” NTS 19 (1, Oct. 1972): 65–74. ———. “Some Recent Studies in Gnosticism.” NTS 6 (1, Oct. 1959): 32–44. Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. 4th rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wyllie, Robert. “Views on Suicide and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy and Some Related Contemporary Points of View.” Prudentia 5 (1973): 15–32. Xenakis, Jason. “Stoic Suicide Therapy.” Sophia 40 (1972): 88–99. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973. Zadorojnyi, Alexei V. “Cato’s Suicide in Plutarch.” CQ 57 (1, 2007): 216–30.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 66

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Four

The Incestuous Man of 1 Cor 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts, and Eating with Sinners Kathy Barrett Dawson

Numerous studies on 1 Corinthians 5:1–13 have approached the passage from the standpoint that the Corinthians were willing to ignore the incestuous man’s sin because he was one of the socially elite members in the community, possibly even a patron of the city, who allowed the community of believers to meet in his home.1 Others prefer to explain the arrogance of the congregation as having its basis in the Corinthians’ belief that “all things are lawful for me” (1 Cor 6:12).2 Gordon Fee and Brian Rosner, in particular, tie Paul’s imagery “Christ was sacrificed as our Passover Lamb” (1 Cor 5:6–8) to Paul’s earlier reference to the Corinthian believers as the “temple of God” (1 Cor 3:16–17). As Rosner points out, Paul’s plural pronouns in 1 Cor 3:16– 17 clearly indicate that he is discussing the corporate nature of the Corinthian believers as the singular temple of God.3 In addition, the prohibition to such an incestuous relationship in Deut 27:20 and Lev 18:8 along with phrases in LXX4 Deut17:7, 21:21, and 22:21), which are so similar to Paul’s imperative to “expel the evil one from among yourselves” (1 Cor 5:13), are clearly in the background of any discussion of 1 Corinthians 5. Paul’s clear assertion of authority in directing the Corinthians to “clean out the old yeast” and “expel” the incestuous man is usually noted along with occasional discussions of the occurrence of the verb πενθέω in descriptions of mourning over the presence of sin in the faith community (e.g., Ezra 10:6; Neh 1:4; 8:9; Dan 10:2).5 However, to the best of my knowledge, no effort has been made to explain either Paul’s references to judging the offending member (1 Cor 5:3b, cf. 1 Cor 5:12b) or Paul’s ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι (“being absent in the body but present in the spirit” 1 Cor 5:3a) in relationship to Septuagint banishment texts.

67

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 67

5/28/19 2:17 PM

68

Kathy Barrett Dawson

It is my contention that an understanding of Paul’s discussion of judging those who sin within the church in light of the entire context of Deuteronomy 17 and not just the banishment phrase (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν) in Deut 17:7, clarifies things. It not only elucidates Paul’s puzzling statement in 1 Cor 5:3a but also the relationship of ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ (1 Cor 5:4a) to the clauses that precede and follow it. Additionally, I propose that a close inspection of the institution of the Passover in Exodus 12 may help us understand Paul’s references to “with the power of our Lord Jesus” in 1 Cor 5:4 and ὄλεθρος in 1 Cor 5:5. First Corinthians 5:1–13 states: 1

Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν.

1

2

καὶ ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστὲ καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε, ἵνα ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας;

And you are arrogant! Should you have not rather mourned, so that the one doing this deed would be removed from your midst?

3

ἐγὼ μὲν γάρ, ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, ἤδη κέκρικα ὡς παρὼν τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον· 4 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, 5 παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου.

For I myself, being absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus, as being present, on the one who has acted like this. When you are assembled and of my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, hand such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the Spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

6

Οὐ καλὸν τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν. οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ;

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλαιὰν ζύμην, ἵνα ἦτε νέον φύραμα, καθώς ἐστε ἄζυμοι· καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός.

Clean out the old leaven, so that you may be a new lump, since you are unleavened for Christ our paschal lamb was sacrificed.

7

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 68

It is reported everywhere6 that there is sexual immorality among you, even of a kind that is not found among pagans, that a certain man has his father’s wife.

2

3–5

6

7

5/28/19 2:17 PM

The Incestuous Man of 1 Cor 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts 8

ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν μὴ ἐν ζύμῃ παλαιᾷ μηδὲ ἐν ζύμῃ κακίας καὶ πονηρίας ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀζύμοις εἰλικρινείας καὶ ἀληθείας.

8

9

Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις,

I wrote to you in the letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.

10

οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρπαξιν ἢ εἰδωλολάτραις, ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε ἄρα ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν.

10

11

νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος ᾖ πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ μέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ, τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν.

11

12

τί γάρ μοι τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν; οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε;

12

τοὺς δὲ ἔξω ὁ θεὸς κρινεῖ. ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.

13

13

69

Therefore, let us celebrate the feast not in intimate association with the old leaven nor in intimate association with the leaven of malice and wickedness but in intimate association with the unleavened state of sincerity and truth.

9

By no means referring to the sexually immoral people of this world or to the greedy and swindlers or to idolaters, since then you would be obligated to go out from the world. But, as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone being called a brother if that person is sexually immoral or greedy or an idolater or reviler or drunkard or a robber, with such a person not even to eat. For what have I to do with judging the ones outside? Are you not to judge the ones inside? Now God will judge the ones outside. Drive out the wicked one from among yourselves.

In the Septuagint version of Deut 17:2–7, the people of Israel as a corporate body are to deal immediately with a man or a woman who commits idolatry. The culmination of the prescribed behavior of the covenant people is: “You will drive out the evil one from among yourselves” (Deut 17:7). These verses in Deuteronomy 17 state:7 Ἐὰν δὲ εὑρεθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεών σου, ὧν κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσίν σοι, ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνή, 2

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 69

And if there is found among you in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives to you, a man 2

5/28/19 2:17 PM

70

Kathy Barrett Dawson

ὅστις ποιήσει τὸ πονηρὸν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου παρελθεῖν τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ,

or woman who does what is evil before the Lord your God, namely to transgress his covenant,

3

καὶ ἀπελθόντες λατρεύσωσιν θεοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ προσκυνήσωσιν αὐτοῖς, τῷ ἡλίῳ ἢ τῇ σελήνῃ ἢ παντὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἃ οὐ προσέταξα,

Then going off they should serve other gods, and they should worship them, the sun or the moon or any of the things from the world of heaven which he commanded [you] not [to do],

4

καὶ ἀναγγελῇ σοι, καὶ ἐκζητήσεις σφόδρα, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀληθῶς γέγονεν τὸ ῥῆμα, γεγένηται τὸ βδέλυγμα τοῦτο ἐν Ισραηλ·

And it should be reported to you, then you will investigate exceedingly, and behold truly the thing has happened, this abomination has happened in Israel;

5

καὶ ἐξάξεις τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκεῖνον ἢ τὴν γυναῖκα ἐκείνην καὶ λιθοβολήσετε αὐτοὺς ἐν λίθοις, καὶ τελευτήσουσιν.

Then you will lead that man or that woman out and you will stone them with stones, and they will die.

6

ἐπὶ δυσὶν μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθανεῖται ὁ ἀποθνῄσκων· οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται ἐφ᾽ ἑνὶ μάρτυρι.

Upon two witnesses or upon three witnesses the one dying will die; he or she will not die upon one witness.

καὶ ἡ χεὶρ τῶν μαρτύρων ἔσται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐν πρώτοις θανατῶσαι αὐτόν, καὶ ἡ χεὶρ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων· καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.

And the hand of the witnesses will be upon him at first to kill him, and the hand of all the people at last; and you will drive out the evil person from among yourselves.

7

3

4

5

6

7

Although the prescribed punishment in this passage for anyone committing idolatry is death (Deut 17:5), recent studies have demonstrated that by the time of Paul, “excommunication” was substituted for the death penalty.8 Additionally, Deut 17:12 uses a very similar phrase to insist on the excommunication of an unrepentant sinner, who fails to listen to those in positions of authority over the covenant people. Deuteronomy 17:8–13 states: ἐὰν δὲ ἀδυνατήσῃ ἀπὸ σοῦ ῥῆμα ἐν κρίσει ἀνὰ μέσον αἷμα αἵματος καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον κρίσις κρίσεως 8

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 70

And if it is impossible [to decide] from your word in judgment between bloody deed and bloody 8

5/28/19 2:17 PM

The Incestuous Man of 1 Cor 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts

71

καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον ἁφὴ ἁφῆς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον ἀντιλογία ἀντιλογίας, ῥήματα κρίσεως ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν σοῦ, καὶ ἀναστὰς ἀναβήσῃ εἰς τὸν τόπον, ὃν ἂν ἐκλέξηται κύριος ὁ θεός σου ἐπικληθῆναι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖ,

deed and between legal case and legal case and between wound and wound and between opposing arguments and opposing arguments, matters of judgment in your cities, then after rising you will go up into the place whichever the Lord your God may choose to invoke his name there.

9

καὶ ἐλεύσῃ πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς τοὺς Λευίτας καὶ πρὸς τὸν κριτήν, ὃς ἂν γένηται ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ ἐκζητήσαντες ἀναγγελοῦσίν σοι τὴν κρίσιν.

And you will go to the priests, the Levities and to the judge, who is [in office] in those days, and after investigating they will report to you the judgment.

10

καὶ ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἂν ἀναγγείλωσίν σοι ἐκ τοῦ τόπου, οὗ ἂν ἐκλέξηται κύριος ὁ θεός σου ἐπικληθῆναι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖ, καὶ φυλάξῃ σφόδρα ποιῆσαι κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἐὰν νομοθετηθῇ σοι·

10

11

κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν, ἣν ἂν εἴπωσίν σοι, ποιήσεις οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥήματος, οὗ ἐὰν ἀναγγείλωσίν σοι δεξιὰ οὐδὲ ἀριστερά.

11

12

καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἂν ποιήσῃ ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ τοῦ μὴ ὑπακοῦσαι τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦ παρεστηκότος λειτουργεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου ἢ τοῦ κριτοῦ, ὃς ἂν ᾖ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ ἀποθανεῖται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ Ισραηλ·

12

καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας φοβηθήσεται καὶ οὐκ ἀσεβήσει ἔτι.

13

13

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 71

9

Then you will act in accordance with the word whatever they announced to you from the place which the Lord your God may choose to invoke his name there, and you will observe carefully to carry out everything, as many things as are legislated to you. With respect to the law and with respect to the judgment, which they say to you, you will do and you will not deviate right or left from the word which they announce to you. And the person whoever should act in arrogance so that he does not obey the priest the one being present to serve in the name of the Lord your God or the judge, whoever is [in office] in those days, also that man will die and you will drive out the evil from Israel. Then all the people hearing will be afraid and no longer live in an ungodly manner.

5/28/19 2:17 PM

72

Kathy Barrett Dawson

Importantly, this passage describes the proper procedure that the community should follow in cases in which the community cannot decide on a course of action, when faced with sin among its members. The community is instructed to go to the priests, the Levities, and the judge for a decision. The community is expected to accept the decision made by these authority figures, and there is a stern warning for the person deemed guilty by the priests, Levities, or the judge. Deuteronomy 17:12 states: “And the person whoever should act in arrogance so that he does not obey the priest, the one being present to worship in the name of your God, or the judge, whoever is present in those days, also that man will die, and you will remove the evil one from Israel.” The purpose for the removal of the arrogant and unrepentant person from the covenant people is presented in Deut 17:13: “All the people will hear and be afraid and no longer live in an ungodly manner.” It is my proposal that Paul is alluding to Deut 17:8–12 in 1 Cor 5:3–4. For Paul the stipulation that the Israelites were to go to the priests who “were present” to serve in the name of God, and/or to the judge, as figures of authority, when a case was too difficult to decide on their own, was still a very valid requirement for the churches in Corinth. Although Paul uses the present participle of πάρειμι, rather than the perfect participle of παρίστημι9 that occurs in Deut 17:12, he is alluding to the fact that he is the one who is presently serving as the figure of authority in the name of the Lord. Therefore, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ (1 Cor 5:4a) should be read as modifying ἤδη κέκρικα in 1 Cor 5:3. Paul is then saying: “For I myself,10 being absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus,11 as being present,12 on the one who has acted like this.” Based on my interpretation of 1 Cor 5:3–4a, Paul’s ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστέ (1 Cor 5:2a) is not part of the question (“Should you not rather have mourned?” in 1 Cor 5:2b), but it is an indignant accusation: “And you are arrogant!” as the RSV and NRSV render the phrase. Two possibilities stand out as most prominent in my opinion and can be offered as the basis behind Paul’s accusation that the Corinthians are arrogant: 1) the Corinthians, on their own, have decided to overlook the matter and did not see any need to seek out Paul’s opinion as an authority or even bring up the matter with him in their previous correspondence; or 2) Paul had made his decision regarding the matter known in a previous correspondence (the letter mentioned in v.9), and the Corinthians arrogantly ignored his directive. In agreement with Fee, the second option seems the most likely. Fee interprets the Corinthians’ misunderstanding of Paul’s previous instructions as neither innocent nor due to lack of information. Rather, Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 5:9–11 indicate that he had already told the Corinthians not to associate closely with immoral people. For Fee, the misunderstanding is directly connected to the “arrogant” referenced in 4:18, who have deliberately either ignored Paul’s instructions or misrepre-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 72

5/28/19 2:17 PM

The Incestuous Man of 1 Cor 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts

73

sented his meaning in the previous letter.13 The recognition that Paul in 5:1 is stating that the situation of incest is still being reported to him and is known everywhere indicates that the Corinthians are being arrogant in their failure to obey his previous instructions. This interpretation would fit the Corinthians’ reluctance to expel the incestuous man, if indeed that individual were a powerful member of the Corinthian society. As Derek McNamara has previously argued, Paul wants the Corinthians to understand that Jesus is “their superpatron” and, therefore, shame the incestuous man and cast him out.14 In addition to this, however, I propose that there is an additional relationship between the institution of the Passover in Exod 12 and Paul’s references to “power” (1 Cor 5:4), “destruction (ὄλεθρος) of the flesh” (1 Cor 5:5), and his discussion of the contaminating qualities of leaven within the community of faith (1 Cor 5:6–8). First, twice in Exod 12:15, 1915 the people are commanded to expel anyone who eats leaven within the seven days in which there could be no leaven in the houses of the people. Exodus 12:15, 19 states: 15

ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἄζυμα ἔδεσθε, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς πρώτης ἀφανιεῖτε ζύμην ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν ὑμῶν· πᾶς, ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ζύμην, ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐξ Ισραηλ, ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς πρώτης ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς ἑβδόμης. . . .

15

ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ζύμη οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ὑμῶν· πᾶς, ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ζυμωτόν, ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ συναγωγῆς Ισραηλ ἔν τε τοῖς γειώραις καὶ αὐτόχθοσιν τῆς γῆς.

19

19

Seven days you will eat unleavened, from the first day you will remove leaven from your houses; anyone whoever eats leaven that soul will be banished from Israel from the first day until the seventh day. . . . Seven days leaven will not be found in your houses; every person whoever eats a leavened thing that soul will be banished from the assembly of Israel among both the sojourners and the native inhabitants of the land.

In discussing these verses, it is important to note G. F. Hasel’s discussion of the manner in which the penalty of ‫כרת‬/ ἐξολεθρεύω was conducted: The “cutting off” formula therefore does not appear to refer solely to human execution of the death penalty. In the majority of offenses, “cutting off” means a “cutting out” which leads to banishment or excommunication from the cultic community and the covenant people (compare Lev 20:7 with CH 154, which also speaks of banishment), except for offenses that can hardly come to public notice (cf. Ex 30:38; Lev 7:20f.; Nu15:30f.), which cannot be punished by human agency. In the case of offenses that lead to exclusion from one’s own clan (cf. Gen 17:14) and from the covenant community, as in the case of secret sins

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 73

5/28/19 2:17 PM

74

Kathy Barrett Dawson

that cannot be punished institutionally, the ultimate end of the punishment, the premature death of the offender, is in God’s hands (cf. krt hiphil in Lev. 17:10; 20:3,5,6; Ezk. 14:8–14). . . . the cultic community or the clan can “cut off” the offender (to the extent that his offense is known) from life in God’s presence through exclusion. The one so cut off is then left to God as the ultimate agent of final punishment.16

Since ἐξολεθρεύω is the most common Greek verb employed in the LXX when ‫ כרת‬appears in the MT,17 Hasel’s investigation of the meaning of ‫כרת‬ provides further evidence, in addition to the studies by Morland and Horbury (see note), that ostracism or excommunication was the standard punishment for several offenses. Therefore, it is quite logical to assume that the penalty that is referred to in Exodus 12:15, 19 is that of excommunication, rather than death, for any person who consumes yeast during the seven-day period connected with the Passover. Additionally, Exod 12:17 commands that the celebration of the Passover be a perpetual ordinance within the covenant people because ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἐξάξω τὴν δύναμιν ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου (“for on this day I [God] will lead your power out of the land of Egypt”). So in the institution of the Passover, God’s people are referred to as “power.” And Exod 12:13 and 23 stress that God will protect the people from the death of the firstborn because the blood of the paschal lamb is on the doorposts of their houses. Therefore, the blood of the paschal lamb grants the protection of God. But the wording of these verses is also important for interpreting Paul’s references to the Passover in 1 Corinthians 5. Exodus 12:13, 23 state: 13

καὶ ἔσται τὸ αἷμα ὑμῖν ἐν σημείῳ ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκιῶν, ἐν αἷς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὄψομαι τὸ αἷμα καὶ σκεπάσω ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν πληγὴ τοῦ ἐκτριβῆναι, ὅταν παίω ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ. . . .

13

καὶ παρελεύσεται κύριος πατάξαι τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους, καὶ ὄψεται τὸ αἷμα ἐπὶ τῆς φλιᾶς καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σταθμῶν· καὶ παρελεύσεται κύριος τὴν θύραν, καὶ οὐκ ἀφήσει τὸν ὀλεθρεύοντα εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὰς οἰκίας ὑμῶν πατάξαι.

23

23

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 74

And the blood will be for you in the form of a sign on the houses in which you are there, and I will see the blood and I will protect you, and the plague of destruction will not be among you when I strike the land of Egypt. . . . And the Lord will pass through to strike down the Egyptians, and he will see the blood upon the doorposts even upon both the pillars; and the Lord will pass over the door, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter into your houses to strike down.

5/28/19 2:17 PM

The Incestuous Man of 1 Cor 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts

75

While both of these verses stress the protective quality of the blood of the paschal lamb, Exod 12:23 is especially relevant in interpreting Paul’s imperatival infinitive phrase in 1 Cor 5:5. The idea that only those who stay within the house so marked with the blood are protected from “the destroyer” (τὸν ὀλεθρεύοντα) is emphasized by the final phrase of Exod 12:22: ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος τὴν θύραν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωί. All those who obey the command to stay inside their house until morning will be under God’s protection from τὸν ὀλεθρεύοντα since the Lord “will not permit the destroyer to enter into” their “houses to strike” them. In agreement with the RSV, I understand Paul’s παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός (“You are to hand such a person over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”) to be a command for the Corinthians to follow. If Paul were alluding to the entirety of the Passover narrative in Exod 12, his reference to ὄλεθρος is another allusion to the destroyer who passed through the houses in Egypt that were not protected by the blood of the paschal lamb. However, God did not allow the destroyer to harm those who obeyed the commands related to the institution of the Passover. Although in the context of Exod 12 “the destroyer” clearly brought about death for the firstborn in Egypt, it is likely that Paul is referring to the “destruction of the flesh” as another allusion to the Passover story with the clear implication that anyone who was “cast out of the midst” of the faithful community lost the protection of the paschal lamb, which is now clearly stated to be “Christ our paschal lamb” who “was sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). As has been well noted, however, Paul’s indication that the spirit could be saved and his inclusion of the phrase “hand over such a one to Satan” implies that the restoration of the individual is possible. Therefore, it is not likely that Paul is sentencing the man to death. As Verlyn D. Verbrugge argued as early as 1980, Paul’s reference to handing the man over to Satan is most likely an allusion to Job 2:6 and Paul’s switch from the body-flesh language in 1 Corinthians 5:3 to the flesh-spirit language of 5:5 should be understood as more than a stylistic difference in Paul’s choice of words.18 Additionally, since Paul refers to the crucifixion of the flesh in Gal 5:24, the most likely meaning, as argued by many recent commentators, is that Paul is referring to “the destruction of the sinful nature,” not the destruction of the man’s life.19 Returning to the relationship of Paul’s language in 1 Cor 5 to Exod 12, the reference to the “power” that was demonstrated, when the Lord led the people out of Egypt, in the account of the institution of the Passover is likely the basis for Paul’s reference to the “power of our Lord Jesus.” Paul is setting up his allusions to Exodus 12 in 5:4 and at the same time referring to the community of believers in Corinth with a term that was used in Exodus 12 to refer to the power of the covenant people of God. In his call for the Corinthian believers to enforce the judgments necessary for the community to

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 75

5/28/19 2:17 PM

76

Kathy Barrett Dawson

remain as the unleavened entity that they are (5:7), Paul could be, as Rosner argues, stressing the “holiness motif” in relation to his previous reference to the Corinthian community as the “temple of God” (3:16–17).20 It is with this protective power of Christ and as the “temple of God” in which “dwells the Spirit of God” that the community is to carry out Paul’s judgment. As has also been convincingly argued by Rosner, the sins Paul lists in 1 Cor 5:11 are basically the sins that are listed in Deuteronomy, for which the covenant people are to exclude the sinner from the community.21 However, Paul adds to the list the requirement that the Corinthians are not even to eat with such a person in order to reinforce his emphasis on the strict nature of the banishment that he is requiring. As I have argued above, Paul’s demand in 1 Cor 5:5 is for the Corinthians to take responsibility for appropriately dealing with the sin of the incestuous man, He also castigates the Corinthians for being arrogant in ignoring his previous judgment concerning sin within their ranks. Hence, Paul’s reference to his earlier letter (1 Cor 5:9), which immediately follows his discussion of the contaminating leaven that has no place within the “new lump” (1 Cor 5:7) and the call for “sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:8), is Paul’s pastoral way of encouraging the community not to repeat the mistake of complacency. In this case, 1 Cor 5:12 (τί γάρ μοι τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν; οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε;) is meant as a double entendre. By asking “For what have I to do with judging those on the outside?” Paul is not only implying that he is not in a position to judge nonbelievers in the world, but he is also implying that since the Corinthians are still under his judgment, they are still in a position to correct their previous mistake in their failure to follow his previous decision regarding the sin in their community. In his second question (“Are you not to judge those inside?”), Paul is not only again reminding the Corinthians of their previous failure to judge the incestuous man, but he is also issuing a new call for them to appropriately carry out the directive that he now states in v.13b. In conclusion, I have argued that Paul alludes to Deuteronomy 17 and to Exodus 12 throughout 1 Corinthians 5:1–13. Paul sees his authority over the Corinthian church as that of a judge or priest to whom, as in Deuteronomy 17, the community of the faithful should bring difficult matters of church discipline. Paul had previously addressed the sin in the Corinthian community. However, the Corinthians had not responded with the required corrective action. Their complacency was just another example of the arrogance of the community and the failure to recognize Paul’s legitimate authority over the community. By alluding to Exodus 12, Paul is not only emphasizing the need to clean out the old leaven from the community, but he is also stressing the protection that the Lord affords those who live in accordance with godliness. Therefore, Paul’s stress on the protection

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 76

5/28/19 2:17 PM

The Incestuous Man of 1 Cor 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts

77

provided by the Lord, as demonstrated in the example of Israel during the first Passover, is intended to motivate the Corinthian believers to act appropriately even though they may have feared the powerful but incestuous member of their community.

NOTES 1. E.g., John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth, JSNTSup 75 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 130–41; Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership at Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 73–88; Michael Goulder, “Libertines? (1 Cor. 5–6),” NovT 41 (1999): 334–48 (here 348); and Derek McNamara, “Shame the Incestuous Man: 1 Corinthians 5,” Neot 44 (2010): 307–26. 2. E.g., Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 221. 3. Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 74–77. 4. All citations of LXX Greek texts are taken from the critical editions of Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1939–). Translations are my own unless otherwise stated. 5. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 72. Also note Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 12:21: μὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος μου ταπεινώσῃ με ὁ θεός μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ πενθήσω πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ ἀσελγείᾳ ᾗ ἔπραξαν. 6. BDAG, 704, has “everywhere” as one of the definitions for ὅλως and lists 1 Cor 5:1 as an example of this particular meaning. 7. The versification and text is that of John William Wevers, ed., Deuteronomium, Vetus Testamentum Graecum 3, 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 213–15. 8. See, e.g., Kjell Arne Morland, The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 92. For additional evidence indicating that excommunication was a common substitution for a scripturally prescribed death penalty throughout Judaism in the Second Temple period and that it was not limited to sectarian Judaism, see William Horbury, “Extirpation and Excommunication,” VT 35 (1985): 13–38 (here 18–25). 9. The verb παρίστημι is intransitive in the perfect and means “to be present in any way.” BDAG, s.v. παρίστημι, 778. 10. Here ἐγώ is clearly emphatic. For a full discussion, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 390. 11. Thiselton, ibid., 394, criticizes this interpretation not only because he views it as having the least support, but also because it separates “in the name of [our] Lord” from “the second clause in which σὺν τῇ δυνάμει governs when you are assembled.”

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 77

5/28/19 2:17 PM

78

Kathy Barrett Dawson

However, I will demonstrate below that Paul’s discussion of the power of the body of Christ is an allusion to the institution of the Passover in Exod 12. 12. Paul is not saying “as if present” (NRSV) or “just as if I were present” (NIV). In agreement with my opinion, see e.g., James T. South, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (New York: Mellen, 1992), 34; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 392; and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 5:3–5,” RB 84 (1977): 239–45 (here 245). 13. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 241–43. 14. McNamara, “Shame,” 309–10, 313–15. 15. Citations from John William Wevers, ed., Exodus, Vetus Testamentum Graecum 2, 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 168–70. 16. G. F. Hasel, “‫כרת‬,” TDOT 7:339–52 (here 348 and sources cited in nn. 98–103). 17. Johannes Schneider, “ὀλεθρεύω, ὄλεθρος, ὀλεθρευτής, ἐξολεθρεύω,” TDNT 5:167–71 (here 170) notes that ἐξολεθρεύω “is used for 20 different Heb. terms, ‫תרכ‬ being the most common.” And he adds: “The word is often used in statements which intimate God’s will to root out men for their sins.” BDAG, 351, has “root out” as one of the definitions for ἐξολεθρεύω. 18. “Delivered over to Satan,” The Reformed Journal 30 (1980): 17–19. See also, Anthony C. Thiselton, “The Meaning of ΣΑΡΞ in 1 Corinthians 5:5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors,” SJT 26 (1973): 204–28 (here 224–28). 19. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 397. Any view of the “flesh” and “spirit” in 5:5, however, is not without its problems. See alternatives/criticisms of the “fleshly” view in e.g., B. J. Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles, and the Opponents of Paul: The Pauline Letters. Apostasy in the New Testament Communities, vol. 2 (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 78–82; and Leon Morris, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, TNTC (London: Tyndale, 1958). 20. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 73–80. 21. Ibid., 69–70.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by Frederick William Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1906. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth, JSNTSup 75. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 78

5/28/19 2:17 PM

The Incestuous Man of 1 Cor 5, Septuagint Banishment Texts

79

Clarke, Andrew D. Secular and Christian Leadership at Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Collins, Adele Yarbro. “The function of ‘excommunication’ in Paul.” HTR 73 (1980): 251–63. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. SP 7. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1999. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Fitzmyer, Joseph B. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 32. New Haven: Yale, 2008. Forkman, Göran. The Limits of the Religious Community. Lund: Gleerup, 1972. Goulder, Michael D. “Libertines? (1 Cor. 5–6).” NovT 41 (1999): 334–48. Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980. Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1997. Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Horbury, William. “Extirpation and Excommunication.” VT 35 (1985): 13–38. Horrell, David G. “Particular Identity and Common Ethic: Reflections on the Foundations and Content of Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 5.” Pages 197–212 in Jenseits Von Indikativ Und Imperativ. Vol. 1 Edited by Friedrich W. Horn .and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Lampe, G. W. H. “Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the Corinthians.” Pages 337–61 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W.R. Farmer, C.F.D. Moule, and R.R. Niebuhr. London: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. McNamara, Derek. “Shame the Incestuous Man: 1 Corinthians 5,” Neot 44 (2010): 307–26. Morland, Kjell Arne. The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “1 Corinthians 5:3–5.” RB 84 (1977): 239–45. Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. 16 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1931–2014. South, James T. “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8.” NTS 39 (1993): 539–61. ———. Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts. New York: Mellen, 1992. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 79

5/28/19 2:17 PM

80

Kathy Barrett Dawson

———. “The Meaning of ΣΑΡΞ in 1 Corinthians 5:5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors.” SJT 26 (1973): 204–28. Verbrugge, Verlyn D. “Delivered over to Satan,” The Reformed Journal 30 (1980): 17–19. Zaas, Peter S. “‘Cast out the evil man from your midst’ (1 Cor 5:13b).” JBL 103 (1984): 259–61.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 80

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Five

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth Guy Prentiss Waters

At first glance, 1 Cor 5:1–13 seems to have little to do either with Scripture or identity formation.1 For one thing, the chapter lacks a citation formula of any kind.2 Furthermore, the two-fold problem of a heinous and public instance of πορνεία (v. 1) and of the Corinthian community’s response to this circumstance (v. 2) dominates this chapter.3 Such concerns seem far-removed from the project of identity confirmation.4 On further consideration, however, this portion of Paul’s letter evidences not only an example of Paul’s sophisticated engagement with Scripture but also illustrates the way in which Paul was engaged in confirming the Christian identity of believers in Corinth. These two concerns, far from running in parallel and non-intersecting lines in 1 Cor 5, are intersecting and even mutually reinforcing. In this chapter, “Paul employs Scripture to foster the conversion of the imagination.”5 Furthermore, this apostolic objective, far from lying at the periphery of the argument in 1 Cor 5, sits comfortably at its center. We will undertake to demonstrate this point along three lines. First, we will observe that in 1 Cor 5:13, Paul is explicitly referencing an “expulsion formula” drawn from LXX Deut.6 Carefully following the work of both Brian S. Rosner and Richard B. Hays, we will explore the purposes for which Paul has so engaged this portion of Scripture.7 Second, we will address a problem posed by the works of Rosner and Hays but unaddressed by them. To be sure, Paul’s citation of Deut is indicative of Paul’s conviction that “his Gentile Corinthian readers” have “been taken up into Israel in such a way that they now share in Israel’s covenant privileges and obligations.”8 This citation is furthermore indicative of Paul’s conviction that the immoral offender was guilty of “covenant disloyalty.”9 But, given Paul’s understanding of Jesus’s death as eschatologically 81

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 81

5/28/19 2:17 PM

82

Guy Prentiss Waters

curse-bearing (Gal 3:13, cf. 1 Cor 5:7b), what does it mean that an individual is to be removed from the eschatological community (1 Cor 10:11b εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν)? In light of Paul’s understanding of all that had transpired in redemptive history, how are we to understand this individual’s transfer back into the realm of curse? Third, we will argue that in 1 Cor 5:5, recognized by many to stand in close relationship with 1 Cor 5:13, Paul provides an answer to this complex of questions.10 Verse 5 answers these questions not directly but indirectly. Here Paul is forming the Corinthians’ eschatological sensibilities.11 He is providing an answer to the question: What is the significance and import of the removal of an offender from the eschatological covenant community? More broadly, he is helping the Corinthians to understand what it means to live as that eschatological covenant community, between the death and resurrection of Christ and what Paul calls “the day of the Lord” (v. 5 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου).

1 COR 5:13—DEUTERONOMIC EXKOMMUNIKATIONSFORMEL Such recent critical editions of the Greek NT as NA28 and UBS4 acknowledge a precise verbal correspondence between Paul’s words in 1 Cor 5:13b and Deut 17:7 (LXX). Scholars recognize that other Deuteronomic texts correspond verbally to those of Paul in 1 Cor 5:13b.12 At least six texts have been proposed as candidates: Deut 17:7 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 19:19 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 21:21 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 22:21 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 22:24 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), and 24:7 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν).13 A variant of this phrase also appears at Deut 13:6 (ἀφανιεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν). Two observations emerge from a consideration of these six Deuteronomic texts. First, each is identical to the other. There are no variations of word choice, word order, number, or tense. Second, with respect to these particular phrases, the LXX manuscript tradition is remarkably stable.14 With the exception of a contextually mandated change of number (ἐξάρατε), 1 Cor 5:13c (ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν) is verbally identical with these six Deuteronomic commands.15 Notwithstanding the absence of an introductory citation formula, Rosner has convincingly argued that v. 13c is a citation and not merely an “allusion” or “parallel.”16 Both the precision of the verbal correspondence, and the fact that the Greek verb ἐξαίρω “is a NT hapax legomenon” commend this verse as “Paul’s intentional and explicit use of the formula from Deut.”17

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 82

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

83

To recognize this relationship raises two further questions. First, how widely has Paul cast his net within Deut? Is he engaging one, some, or all of these texts? Second, for what purpose(s) has Paul chosen this particular Deuteronomic text at this important, concluding juncture of his argument? First, which of these six Deuteronomic texts is Paul referencing in 1 Cor 5:13c? One way to answer this question is by comparing the Deuteronomic contexts of each of these imperatives with the Pauline context of v. 13c. Two of the Deuteronomic imperatives (22:21; 22:24) entail the expulsion of a sexual offender from the community of Israel, and it is precisely such an offense that is in view in 1 Cor 5.18 A further clue emerges from the offender’s sin that Paul specifies in 5:1.19 This instance of πορνεία is one in which γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν. Commentators have noted several Pentateuchal texts that verbally approximate Paul’s words in 1 Cor 5:1, indicating that these texts have informed Paul’s moral assessment of this situation in Corinth: Lev 18:18, 20:11, Deut 22:30 (LXX 23:1) and Deut 27:20.20 As Rosner has noted, these two Deuteronomic references are especially compelling.21 The Deuteronomic prohibition (Deut 22:30; cf. 1 Cor 5:1) is contextually proximate to the Deuteronomic imperatives to expel the offender (Deut 22:21; 22:24; cf. 1 Cor 5:13c). The offense in view, furthermore, subjects one to “curse” (Deut 27:20). This is “perhaps the reason Paul ‘curses’ the sinner in 1 Cor 5.”22 Thus, it appears that Paul in this chapter is engaging texts in Deut 22, and perhaps Deut 27:20. That Paul is not merely engaging this one chapter is evident from his vice list in 1 Cor 5:11 (πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ μέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ).23 This list is important for our consideration of the Scripture text cited in 5:13c. Five of these vices not only find parallels in Deuteronomy, but also, “warrant exclusion” from the covenant community.24 Fornication corresponds to Deut 22:20–22, 30. While greed has “no parallel” in Deut, it is “paired with ‘robbers’ in 1 Cor 5:9.”25 Greed may find conceptual pairing, then, with the final item in this list, theft, which corresponds to Deut 24:7. Idolatry corresponds to Deut 17:2–7, reviling corresponds to Deut 19:15–19, and drunkenness corresponds to Deut 21:20–21. Whether or not Paul has crafted his vice list both to echo the argumentative structure of this portion of the letter and to “follow the canonical order of [these vices’] occurrence in Deuteronomy,” two matters are clear.26 First, Paul signals in 5:11 what we have argued is evident on other grounds, namely, that Paul is self-consciously citing Deut in 1 Cor 5:13c.27 Second, and perhaps more importantly, 5:11 indicates that Paul’s engagement with Deuteronomy is not confined to an isolated verse. Paul’s argument is thick with Deuteronomic references that bear out the apostle’s sustained engagement with that book of Scripture throughout 1 Cor 5:1, 11 and 13. This is not necessarily to deny the presence in this chapter of other influences from

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 83

5/28/19 2:17 PM

84

Guy Prentiss Waters

elsewhere in Scripture (or even from outside Scripture). It is to say that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5 compels us to reflect further on the ways Deuteronomy has provided Paul with the vocabulary and categories with which he reasons in this chapter. Our second and final question is this: Why has Paul chosen these particular Deuteronomic texts at the concluding juncture of his argument (v. 13c)? To put the question another way, in light of our conclusions above: Why are the Deuteronomic expulsion texts important to Paul in 1 Cor 5? As both Rosner and Hays have observed, Paul’s argument surely assumes an identity between Israel and the Corinthian church as covenant community.28 Paul will formally articulate this identity in 1 Cor 10, but it is palpably present already in 1 Cor 5. Paul here is transferring elements of Israel’s identity to the Corinthian church. Like Israel, these Gentile believers are in covenant with God, under obligation to God to pursue holiness, and subject to exclusion from the covenant community for gross and scandalous immoral behavior. That Paul is reflecting along these lines is corroborated by the way in which he addresses the situation in Corinth. The occasion for Paul’s argument, to be sure, is the behavior of a single Corinthian offender (1 Cor 5:1, τινα; 5:2, ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας; 5:3, τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον). At the same time, Paul’s interest in the matter is broader than either a single person or even a single offense.29 This fact is apparent from the movement in this chapter from specificity to generality. Paul speaks in 5:5 of handing over to Satan “such a one” (τοιοῦτον). He warns the Corinthians not to associate with “immoral people” (πόρνοις), before broadening this list to include the greedy, thieves, and idolaters (5:10), that is, “anyone who is called a brother” (ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος) and nevertheless is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a reviler, a drunkard, or a thief (5:11). The closing imperative of 5:13, therefore, can be restricted neither to this particular offender nor to this particular class of sexual offenders. It applies to a whole range of persons and offenses within the community. That Paul has this concern for the Corinthian community as a whole corroborates our findings above: Paul identifies the church in Corinth with Israel—God’s covenant people, who are called not only to maintain certain moral standards but also to expel notorious violators of the same.

CURSE REDUX? This identification between Israel and the Corinthian community, however, raises a problem. We can may begin to understand the problem by considering what the import was of community expulsion. As Deut 27:20 indicates,

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 84

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

85

the offense of 1 Cor 5:1 was one that not only subjected the offender to community removal (as in Deut 22:21) but also to covenant “curse.” In this instance, to be removed from the community meant to be placed outside the realm within which divine blessing was operative, and to be consigned to the realm of covenantal curse. In light of the identity that Paul has established between Israel and the Corinthian community in 1 Cor 5, we are bound to understand the removal of the Corinthian offender along the same lines. This particular removal entails placement under covenant curse. Given Paul’s categorical application of the Deuteronomic covenant-removal formula to a wide range of offenses, one may conclude that to be removed from the New Covenant community in the fashion delineated in 1 Cor 5 is to be consigned to covenant curse. Paul’s own argument in 1 Cor 5, perhaps unintentionally, raises a significant problem in connection with this line of reasoning. In 1 Cor 5:6a, Paul admonishes the Corinthians for their “boasting” (καύχημα).30 He warns them in v. 6b, using either “a maxim or proverb” or “a standard metaphor,” that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.31 In light of this state of affairs, Paul exhorts the community in v.7a to “cleanse out the old leaven, in order that you may be a new lump, just as you are unleavened.” This command evokes the Feast of Unleavened Bread which, in turn, evokes the immediately preceding Feast of Passover (Exod 12:18–20; 13:7).32 It is Passover that Paul explicitly evokes in 1 Cor 5:7b (γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός). In the context of Paul’s argument, Christ as Passover provides a further ground for the preceding imperative.33 Paul’s immediate interest in conjoining Christ and Passover is in the promotion of the moral purification of the Corinthian community.34 Paul does so in the way in which he represents Christ as the Passover sacrifice, as the verb ἐτύθη surely indicates (cf. LXX Exod 12:22). Associating the death of Christ on the cross with the Passover lamb in this fashion introduces at this juncture not only the “idea” of “sacrifice” but also of “covenant” (cf. 1 Cor 11:25, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι).35 Paul therefore once again identifies the Corinthian Christians with the covenant community, Israel, and relates Christ to the Passover sacrifice as antitype to type.36 That Paul is reasoning typologically is evident not only from the way in which other NT writers reason similarly concerning the Passover (cf. John 1:29; Mark 14:24), but also from the immediate context of his argument. Paul’s statement about Christ as Passover sacrifice logically grounds the prior exhortation to “cleanse out the old [παλαιάν] leaven, in order that you may be a new [νέον] lump, just as you are unleavened” (1 Cor 5:7a). The contrast between “old” and “new,” as R. A. Harrisville has persuasively argued, is decidedly an eschatological contrast of aeonic proportions.37 The

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 85

5/28/19 2:17 PM

86

Guy Prentiss Waters

“newness” of the community is on the order of a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; cf. Gal 6:15).38 Also telling is the way in which Paul prefaces the command to remove the “old leaven” in the preceding verse with an admonition regarding the Corinthians’ “boasting” (καύχημα). Boasting, as Paul has earlier argued, is characteristic of “all flesh” (πᾶσα σὰρξ, 1 Cor 1:29; cf. 3:1–3), that is, of sinful human existence in this present age (cf. 1 Cor 1:20, 21; 2:6). This caution regarding boasting in 1 Cor 5:6, then, provides an eschatological context for Paul’s command in v.7 to “cleanse out the old leaven.” Christ is, therefore, the eschatological Passover sacrifice. Using the possessive pronoun ἡμῶν, Paul emphasizes that this sacrifice has particular reference to the Corinthian community. Paul later in this letter speaks of Christ’s death as “for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν), whether or not this particular dimension of Christ’s death is in the foreground in 1 Cor 5:7.39 In any case, Paul understands Christ’s death in v. 7 as redemptive–analogous to the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt, and as having particular reference to the Corinthian community. In Gal 3:13a , Paul also speaks of Christ’s death as redemptive, and proceeds to specify that redemption in terms of curse-removal: Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα. Time prevents us from exploring all the exegetical questions occasioned by this statement, but we may draw a few observations pertinent to Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5.40 First, Paul speaks of his hearers as having previously been under “the curse of the law.” Second, Christ has “redeemed” them from that curse, and has done so by “becoming a curse on our behalf.” Third, as Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:13b, Christ did so precisely in accordance with the Mosaic Law itself (ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου). The passage that Paul cites is Deut 21:23. Christ has borne the Deuteronomic curse and believers have been redeemed from it. We are now in a position to appreciate the problem that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5 brings to the surface. The Corinthian community is one that is said to have been redeemed from Deuteronomic curse. This redemption is owing to the eschatological Passover-sacrificial death of Christ. Paul, in 1 Cor 5:13, however, invokes a Deuteronomic excommunication formula to remove an offender from the Corinthian community. The effect of this removal is to relegate the individual to the realm of “curse.” What are we to make of an individual who once was included within the community said to have been redeemed from curse and who now, by apostolic injunction no less, is consigned to “curse”? In light of the accomplished, eschatological, curse-bearing death of Christ for the community of believers, how are we to explain this apparently anomalous state of affairs? Furthermore, if removal from the (preeschatological) Israelite community meant death, then what does removal

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 86

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

87

from the eschatological community entail for the offender?41 Does Paul provide us any guidance in answering this question?

ANOTHER LOOK AT 1 CORINTHIANS 5:5 Paul in fact does provide such guidance in 1 Cor 5:5. Although it does not verbally cite or allude to Deut, 1 Cor 5:5 constitutes what Grosheide has properly called “de geestelijke achtergrond” (“the spiritual background”) of Paul’s Deuteronomic command in v.13.42 Paul’s statements in v.5, then, provide a unique insight into and are integrally related to Paul’s engagement of Deuteronomy in this chapter. The immediate context of 1 Cor 5:5 is a profoundly eschatological one. Leaving aside consideration of the question whether the phrase “with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ” (σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, v. 4) modifies the preceding genitive absolute (“when you are gathered together”) or the following infinitive (“hand over”), 43 we note that the Lord Jesus’s “power” in this connection is none other than the power of the Holy Spirit. So 2 Corinthians 13:4: καὶ γὰρ ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας, ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ.44 This power of the Holy Spirit is an eschatological power. Upon his resurrection, Paul later argues, Jesus assumed a “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν, 1 Cor 15:44a), that is, a body specially indwelt, inhabited, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Jesus, furthermore, as “last Adam” became “life giving Spirit” (ἐγένετο εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν, 15:45b), such that “the Lord is the Spirit” (ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, 2 Cor 3:17).45 Whether qualifying the assembly or the assembly’s action in expelling the offender, the phrase “the power of the Lord Jesus Christ” indicates that Paul understands this ecclesiastical removal (and others of like kind, 1 Cor 5:11) in eschatological terms. Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 5:5, then, are both integrally tied by way of 5:13 to the broader pattern of engagement with Deuteronomy in 1 Cor 5, and situated in eschatological context. They are therefore well positioned to answer the questions we have posed above regarding the “curse” to which the offender is assigned. In the interests of answering those questions, we will take up in succession three matters relating to the interpretation of 1 Cor 5:5: (1) the meaning of “flesh” (σάρξ) and “S/spirit” (πνεῦμα) in v. 5 and the related question of the meaning of “body” (σῶμα) and “S/spirit” (πνεῦμα) in v. 3; (2) the meaning of the phrase “handing over such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (v. 5a); and (3) the meaning of the phrase “in order that [his/the] S/spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord” (v. 5b).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 87

5/28/19 2:17 PM

88

Guy Prentiss Waters

First, what is the meaning of “flesh” and “S/spirit” in 1 Cor 5:5? There are at least three positions represented in the literature. 46 There is, first, an anthropological understanding of these two terms. “Flesh” and “spirit” correspond to the corporeal and non-corporeal dimensions or parts of the human person, the “physical flesh” and “human spirit,” respectively.47 On this reading the “flesh” and “spirit” in view in v. 5 are those of the offender. The “destruction” is of his corporeal humanity; correspondingly, the “salvation” is of his soul, his inner self. The problem with this view is two-fold. First, this reading of “flesh” and “spirit” must supply an implied possessive (“his”) that is not present in the Greek text. That Paul does not so qualify these two nouns suggests an alternative interpretation. Second, this reading may suggest that Paul understands eschatological salvation (“on the day of the Lord,” v. 5b) to be non-corporeal in nature, an implausible proposition in my opinion in view of what Paul will go on to say about the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15.48 A second understanding of these two terms is ecclesiological. The “flesh” and “spirit” refer, in the first instance, to the church in Corinth.49 “Flesh,” then refers to “the fleshly orientation of the church, absorbed as it is by boasting,” whereas “Spirit” is the “Holy Spirit resident in the community of faith.”50 The absence of any possessive pronoun modifying either noun renders this view plausible. It is, nevertheless, unlikely. First, it is unclear from the text precisely how the removal of the offender will produce the desired result, “the destruction of the flesh,” that is, according to one proponent, the destruction of “the church’s sinful attitude.”51 Second, there is the affirmation, otherwise unprecedented in Paul, that the Spirit himself will be “saved” on the Day of the Lord. Even understanding this statement in terms of the Spirit’s willingness to remain in the community and thus “keep them for the day of the Lord” does not alleviate this difficulty.52 A third and compelling understanding of these two terms is eschatological. The “flesh” and “Spirit” refer, in the first instance, to the two orders characterized by sin, curse, and death, on the one hand, and righteousness, blessing, and life, on the other.53 Each corresponds to the First and Last Adams, respectively (cf. 1 Cor 15:22). When Paul pairs these two terms, they customarily bear this eschatological sense. Paul therefore does not engage in the anthropological compartmentalization of the offender in 1 Cor 5:5. On the contrary, he describes the offender in relation to each of these orders.54 As Murphy-O’Connor has aptly paraphrased, the two terms speak of “the whole person as viewed from different angles. ‘Spirit’ means the whole person as oriented towards God. ‘Flesh’ means the whole person as oriented away from God.”55 The “destruction” and “salvation” that Paul describes therefore have reference to the one individual with respect to these aforementioned dimensions of “flesh” and “Spirit.”

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 88

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

89

One objection to this view stems from Paul’s terminology in 1 Cor 15:3–4. In v. 3, Paul describes himself as one who is “absent in the body, but present in S/spirit” (ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι). In v. 4, Paul mentions the presence of “my S/spirit” (τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος) in the Corinthian assembly.56 Does this terminology not require the kind of anthropological reading of v. 5 that we have above rejected? In fact, although Paul is speaking personally, he is not speaking dualistically. In v. 3, Paul is stressing that he is physically absent from the Corinthians, but he is very much present among them in and by the Holy Spirit, who, Paul argues in 1 Cor 6, 10, and 12, indwells each believer, unites each believer to Christ, and brings these believers into relationship and communion one with another.57 That Paul, in the very next clause, references the Spirit (“with the power of our Lord Jesus”) only confirms this reading. Given this understanding of “flesh” and “Spirit” in 5:5, what does Paul have in mind by “handing over [the offender] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”? The clause “for the destruction of the flesh” likely expresses the purpose of the “handing over to Satan.”58 The “handing over to Satan” is undoubtedly Paul’s explanation of the significance of the removal of the offender from the Corinthian community. What does this particular expression communicate? The verb παραδίδωμι is one that Paul elsewhere uses of God’s judicially giving over sinners to further sin (Rom 1:24, 26, 28), and of God’s giving over Jesus to death on the cross (1 Cor 11:23; Rom 4:25; 8:32).59 “Satan” is, Paul writes, the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4). To “hand over to Satan” is, in this context, to commit a person to the realm of Satan. Some interpreters believe that committal to this realm necessarily entails not only the physical suffering but also the death of the one so committed.60 It has also been argued that this death follows upon the “pronouncement of a curse upon the offender.”61 Some appeal to Greco-Roman and Jewish magical “curse formulae” as providing background and lending support to this interpretation.62 At least one interpreter has argued that the curses of Deut 27 are being invoked with the purpose or result of the death of the expelled offender.63 At first glance, the phrase “for the destruction of the flesh” may seem to commend this interpretation. Paul emphasizes, however, that what is destroyed is “flesh” (σάρξ). In view is not the offender’s corporeality so much as his participation and involvement in sin.64 Paul indicates that Satan is the instrument of this destruction (ὄλεθρον; cf. 10:10). Paul does not specify the mechanism or method by which Satan brings to pass this “destruction of the flesh.” It may or may not involve physical suffering, as the conceptual parallel in 2 Cor 12:7 may suggest. It certainly seems to be corrective or instructive, as the verbal parallel in 1 Tim 1:20 indicates (οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ, ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν).65

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 89

5/28/19 2:17 PM

90

Guy Prentiss Waters

That such “destruction of the flesh” is indeed a “remedial process” is also evident from the concluding part of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 5:5b, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου.66 In an admittedly difficult locution, but one that deftly expresses the eschatological contrast with “the destruction of the flesh,” Paul stresses that the ultimate purpose of handing over this individual to Satan is his salvation.67 Paul desires that, on the Day of the Lord, this individual will be found among the number of the saved, who will be presented “blameless” on that day (1 Cor 1:8).68 That day, which Paul elsewhere emphasizes is a day of ultimate judgment (1 Cor 4:5) and of divine wrath (Rom 2:5, 8), has not yet occurred. The position of the offender is a dire one. He is to be excluded from the eschatological community and is no longer reckoned among the number of those for whom the crucified and risen Christ has borne curse in judgment. He is to be formally expelled through formulations drawn from the Deuteronomic curses. He will be “outside the edifying and caring environment of the church where God is at work.”69 Even so, the position of the offender is not a hopeless one. His expulsion from the community is not designed to be an act of final, eschatological judgment. That judgment awaits the “Day of the Lord.” And it may be that the offender, upon repentance, will find himself among those who are “saved” on that day.70

CONCLUSION At one level, Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5:1–13 is remarkably straightforward—a notorious and scandalous moral offender must be put out of the Corinthian community. Two factors contribute to the complexity of the argument. First, presupposing the identity of the Corinthian community with Israel, Paul proceeds to frame not only the offense (and other offenses) in Deuteronomic terms but also the requisite sanction. Second, Paul’s argument is thoroughly eschatological, not least in his description of Christ as a typological Passover sacrifice. These two factors raise a host of questions relating to this expulsion. What are we to make of an individual, once included in the community belonging to Christ who has borne “curse” for his people, now to be removed from that community into the domain of curse? Does Paul understand the execution of the sentence of exclusion to entail the death of the offender? Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5:5 provides an eschatological answer to these eschatological questions. The offender is indeed being committed to the realm of sin, curse, and Satan. This committal may, but need not, entail his temporal death. Its proximate purpose is that he would be delivered from the dominion of the “flesh” (σάρξ) and that on the day of final, eschatological judgment

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 90

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

91

“[his] spirit might be saved.,” That is that he as an individual might be found to be saved—one whose life exhibited the holiness befitting one indwelt by the Spirit of the risen Christ. Paul understands the Deuteronomic curses to have found their typological fulfillment in the cursing of Christ at the cross. This likely goes some distance to explain why Paul does not insist on the temporal penalties that would have accompanied the execution of these curses in ancient Israel. Nevertheless, Paul goes out of his way to pronounce the expulsion in clear Deuteronomic terms. Why does he do this within the eschatological community? Paul will develop the answer in 1 Cor 10. Like Israel of old (“our fathers,” 10:1), the church is a wilderness community, having been redeemed from bondage in Egypt but not yet having arrived in the Promised Land. As the offender of 1 Cor 5:1 and the community’s response to him indicate (verses 2, 6), the Christian community is incompletely sanctified and is presently in a place of danger and threat. The prospect of expulsion from the community (v.13) and its remedial purposes (v.5) are necessary components of this mode of eschatological existence. These are hardly the sole or even primary weapons in Paul’s arsenal. What dominates this chapter, and what Paul hoped would dominate the minds of his readers is an eschatological and ecclesial identity forged by Scripture.71

NOTES 1. This chapter was originally published as “Curse Redux? 1 Cor 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth” WTJ 77.2 (2015): 237–250, and appears here with permission. 2. Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 195 n.44. Stanley properly notes, however, that 1 Cor 5:13 offers a “nearly verbatim quotation (adapted to suit its second-person plural context) of Deut 17.7 / 19.9 / 21.21 / 22.21 / 22.24 / 24.7” (ibid). Dieter-Alex Koch includes 1 Cor 5:13 (Deut 17:7 inter alia) in a table of “ungekennzeichnete Zitate,” noting that it lacks “eine Einleitungsformulierung” (Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986], 23, 271). 3. See Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 196. 4. I am grateful to Bernard Aubert for his suggestion of the phrase “identity confirmation.” 5. Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 24. 6. The phrase is that of Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7, AGJU 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1994; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 61.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 91

5/28/19 2:17 PM

92

Guy Prentiss Waters

7. In addition to Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination, and Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, see Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Int (Louisville: John Knox, 1997); and Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). 8. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 23. It will be in 1 Cor 10 that Paul will provide extended and explicit consideration of this point; so Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 97. 9. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 91; cf. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 24. 10. “Bij deze exegese is ook παραδοῦναι τῷ σατανᾷ zeer wel te verenigen met het ἐξαίρειν van vs 13, het eerste is de geestelijke achtergrond van het tweede”: F. W. Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1957), 144. Cf. Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKKNT 7/1 (Zurich: Benziger, 1991), 375, 394; Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge, 278 n2. 11. That Paul is doing so stands independently of the question whether Paul is writing this epistle, in part, to correct what has been termed the Corinthians’ overrealized eschatology; so Anthony Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1978): 510–26; and Thiselton’s subsequent qualification, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 40; see also Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 12. Note the trenchant dissent of Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination, 6–7; and the alternative proposed by Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 4–5, 179. On the degree to which Paul’s reasoning in this epistle is eschatological in nature, see David Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 16–17. 12. Koch recognizes this fact, but declines to specify which other texts may be in view (Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, 13, 18, 23, 102, 188, 271); cf. Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther, HNT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969), 25. Identifying the relationship as one of “allusion” or “parallel,” E. Earle Ellis sees Deut 22:24 or possibly Deut 24:7 as back of Paul’s text (Paul’s Use of the OT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 153). 13. See representatively Peter S. Zaas, “‘Cast Out the Evil Man from Your Midst’ (1 Cor 5:13b),” JBL 103 (1984): 259–61 (here 259n2). 14. Koch notes that Deut 17:7c, with other LXX texts cited by Paul, “stimm[t] . . . mit dem überlieferten Wortlaut der LXX in seiner ältesten erreichbaren Gestalt überein” (Die Schrift als Zeuge, 102). 15. A few NT MSS render the imperative as an (imperatival) future indicative (ἐξαρεῖτε) or as a present imperative (ἐξαίρετε). 16. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 61–64, responding to the proposals of E. Earle Ellis, Richard Longenecker, and Harold Ulonska. 17. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 63. 18. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination, 22. 19. Zaas has argued that there is “a word-play between ‘pornos’ and ‘ponēros’” that serves to join vv. 1 and 13 by way of v. 9 (“Cast Out the Evil Man,” 259).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 92

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

93

20. So Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 269, 370; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 386. 21. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 82; cf. Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 200. 22. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 82. 23. On vice lists in ancient literature, see Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP 7 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 218–19. On the vice lists of 1 Cor 5–6 in particular, see Zaas, “Catalogues and Context: 1 Corinthians 5 and 6,” NTS 34 (1988): 622–29. On these vices’ respective treatments in this epistle, see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 189. 24. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 70. See the tables at Garland, 1 Corinthians, 189; Hays, First Corinthians, 88. 25. Hays, First Corinthians, 88. 26. For the preceding suggestions, see Hays, First Corinthians, 88. 27. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 70. 28. Ibid., 68–81; Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 23. Ciampa and Rosner argue that “people are excluded [in Deuteronomy] because Israel is the sanctified (holiness motif), covenant (covenant motif) community (corporate responsibility motif) of the Lord, the holy God,” and that Paul has adopted these motifs and applied them to the church (The First Letter to the Corinthians, 197–98). Although Ciampa and Rosner do not expressly say so, this transferal of motifs predicates Paul’s prior identification of Israel and the church as God’s covenant community. 29. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 5:3–5,” RB 84 (1977): 239–45 (here 244). 30. Whether the Corinthians’ boasting is confined to the man’s particular sin (as Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 215) or not (as Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 213) is immaterial to our point. See now the discussion at Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 388–390. 31. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 400. 32. On this motif in 1 Corinthians, see James K. Howard, “‘Christ Our Passover’: A Study of the Passover-Exodus Theme in I Corinthians,” EvQ 41 (1969): 97–108. Thiselton notes how Zeph 1:12 became the basis, in subsequent Jewish interpretation, of understanding “the purging of the house of all leaven . . . as a symbol of moral purification” (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 400). 33. “καὶ γάρ vertalen we door want ook” (Grosheide, De eerste Briefe aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 146). 34. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 382. On the connections between the Passover ritual of cleansing and Paul’s argument here, see Howard, “Christ Our Passover,” 100–102. 35. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 99. Conzelmann astutely observes that “it is presupposed that the Corinthians are familiar with Jewish Passover usage” (98 n.48). 36. “The antitype of the Passover lamb under the law”: Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians, tr. D. Douglas

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 93

5/28/19 2:17 PM

94

Guy Prentiss Waters

Bannerman (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1890), 116. Pace Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 99 n.50. 37. Roy A. Harrisville, “The Concept of Newness in the NT,” JBL 74 (1955): 69–79, as summarized in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 404. 38. Although the word that Paul uses in both 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15 (καινός) is not identical with that which Paul uses here in 1 Cor 5:7, the two words are surely synonymous. Robertson and Plummer note the verbal connection (παλαιός) with Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22, and Col 3:9 (Archibald T. Robinson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC; 2nd ed. [Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1914], 102). 39. Some later MSS contain the preposition ὑπέρ prior to the possessive in v. 7. This fact may be indicative of an early scribal interpretation of Paul’s words in v. 7 along these lines. See the discussion in Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 382–83. 40. On which see Guy Prentiss Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul, WUNT 2/221 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 80–112. 41. On the death of the one removed in conjunction with the covenant curses, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 131; Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 66. 42. Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 144. See n. 9 above. 43. Ivan Havener, “A Curse for Salvation—1 Corinthians 5:1–5,” in Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit: Commemorating the Fiftieth Year of the Liturgical Press, ed. Daniel Durken (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979), 334–44 (here, 336). For the related but distinct syntactical question of the relationship of the clause “in the name of the Lord Jesus” to the clauses around it, see Ernest-Bernard Allo, Saint Paul: Première épitre aux Corinthiens, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 121; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 97; Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 5:3–5,” 239–40; Simon J. Kistemaker, “‘Deliver This Man To Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline,” MSJ 3 (1992): 33–46 (here, 39–40); and Michael D. Goulder, “Libertines? (1 Cor 5–6),” NovT 41 (1999): 334–48 (here 339); and Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 393–94. This prepositional phrase could modify either Paul, the offender, or the Corinthian assembly. Resolution of this question is not necessary for the work we are presently undertaking. 44. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 206. Fee, however, reaches this conclusion on other grounds, citing 2:4–5; 4:19–20. 45. See further, Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Resurrection and Redemption, 2nd ed.; (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 78–97. 46. For a survey of opinion, see Barth Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT,” JETS 36 (1993): 331–42. 47. So C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 126; Kistemaker, “Deliver This Man,” 44. 48. Note the equally implausible proposal of Havener who apparently understands “spirit” to be the “spiritual body” of 1 Cor 15 (“Curse for Salvation,” 340). 49. This view dates back to Tertullian, Pud. 13, cited in Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit,” 333n14. 50. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 174.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 94

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

95

51. Ibid. 52. Ibid. Note the hybrid view of Hans von Campenhausen, who regards “Spirit” to be the Holy Spirit, but “flesh” to refer to the offender (Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969], 134–35 n.50, cited in Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit,” 333n13). Cf. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” HTR 73 (1980): 251–263 (here 259–61). 53. See, representatively, the discussion of Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, tr. John R. de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 64–68. For a defense of this position with respect to v. 5, see Anthony S. Thiselton, “The Meaning of SARX in I Corinthians 5.5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors,” SJT 26 (1973): 204–28; Victor C. Pfitzner, “Purified Community—Purified Sinner: Expulsion from the Community According to Matthew 18:15–18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1–5,” ABR 30 (1982): 34–55 (here 46); N. George Joy, “Is the Body Really to Be Destroyed? (1 Corinthians 5.5),” BT 39 (1988): 429–36 (here 433–34); Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 390–400; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 212. 54. “In vs 3 werd een tegenstelling gemaakt tussen σῶμα en πνεῦμα, hier echter tussen σάρξ en πνεῦμα, waardoor we genoodzaakt worden onder σάρξ te verstaan het zondige vlees, de zondige natuur”: Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 143. 55. Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 5:3–5,” 42, as cited in Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 212. 56. On the difficulties presented by this verse in particular and some of the positions represented in the literature with respect to this question, see Graham A. Cole, “Short Comments: 1 Cor 5:4 ‘. . . with my spirit,’” ExpT 98 (1987): 205. 57. See Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 204–5. Fee offers a different rationale than the one suggested above. Cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 391. 58. Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 143. Fee notes that it may express either purpose or result, expressing a preference for the latter (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 209 and n.67). 59. Scholars note that the same verb is used at LXX Job 2:6 of the Lord’s “handing over” Job to Satan. 60. Havener, “A Curse for Salvation,” 341; See the literature cited at Ridderbos, Paul, 471n128. 61. James T. South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8,” NTS 39 (1993): 539–61 (here 540). 62. On which see further ibid., 541–43; A. Collins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication,’” 255–56. Collins, 261–63, claims that Greco-Roman magic constitutes only a partial background to 1 Cor 5:5, and points to the Qumran literature as providing a closer parallel. 63. Göran Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community, within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity, ConBNT 5 (Lund: Gleerup, 1972), 143; cf. South, “Critique of the ‘Curse/Death,’” 544.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 95

5/28/19 2:17 PM

96

Guy Prentiss Waters

64. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 396; James T. South, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1992), 43, cited in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 397. See here the especially illuminating explanation of Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 143–44. 65. Pace A. Collins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication,’” 258. See the discussion at George W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 111–12. 66. The phrase is Fee’s, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 210; cf. Calovius’s phrase, “medicinale remedium,” cited in Meyer, Epistles to the Corinthians, 114. After all, Fee notes, “the further instruction in v.11, that they are not to associate with this man, not even to eat with him, implies that no immediate death is in purview”: First Epistle to the Corinthians, 212. See further South, “Critique of the ‘Curse/ Death,’” 556–59; Joy, “Is the Body to Be Destroyed,” 434–35. 67. The “last [of the two ‘telic statements’ in v. 5] expresses the final design of the whole measure of the” handing over: Meyer, Epistles to the Corinthians, 113. 68. As Fee notes, “Paul does not intend that he must wait until the final Day to be saved”: First Epistle to the Corinthians, 213. 69. Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 208. 70. Leaving open the question of whether 2 Cor 2:5–12 recounts the recovery of this offender, on which see Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 100; Colin G. Kruse, “The Offender and the Offence in 2 Corinthians 2:5 and 7:12,” EvQ 88 (1988): 129–39; B. J. Oropeza, Exploring Second Corinthians: Death and Life, Hardship and Rivalry, RRA 3 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 133–34. 71. I am grateful to Luke B. Bert and to Bryant N. Park for their editorial assistance with this article’s earlier publication.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allo, Ernest-Bernard. Saint Paul: Première épitre aux Corinthiens. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1956. Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Campbell, Barth. “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT.” JETS 36 (1993): 331–42. Campenhausen, Hans von. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Cole, Graham A. “Short Comments: 1 Cor 5:4 ‘. . . with my spirit.’” ExpT 98 (1987): 205. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul.” HTR 73 (1980): 251–63. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. SP 7. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 96

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth

97

Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Forkman, Göran. The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community, within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity. ConBNT 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1972. Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. Resurrection and Redemption. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987. Garland, David. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Goulder, Michael D. “Libertines? (1 Cor 5–6).” NovT 41 (1999): 334–48. Grosheide, F. W. De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1957. Harrisville, Roy A. “The Concept of Newness in the NT.” JBL 74 (1955): 69–79. Havener, Ivan. “A Curse for Salvation—1 Corinthians 5:1–5.” Pages 334–44 in Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit: Commemorating the Fiftieth Year of the Liturgical Press. Edited by Daniel Durken. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. First Corinthians. Louisville: John Knox, 1997. Howard, James K. “‘Christ Our Passover’: A Study of the Passover-Exodus Theme in I Corinthians.” EvQ 41 (1969): 97–108. Joy, N. George. “Is the Body Really to Be Destroyed? (1 Corinthians 5.5).” BT 39 (1988): 429–36. Kistemaker, Simon J. “‘Deliver This Man To Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline.” MSJ 3 (1992): 33–46. Knight, George W. Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Koch, Dieter-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Kruse, Colin G. “The Offender and the Offence in 2 Corinthians 2:5 and 7:12.” EvQ 88 (1988): 129–39. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Korinther. HNT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969. Meyer, Heinrich A. W. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Translated by D. Douglas Bannerman. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1890. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “1 Corinthians 5:3–5.” RB 84 (1977): 239–45. Pfitzner, Victor C. “Purified Community—Purified Sinner: Expulsion from the Community According to Matthew 18:15–18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1–5.” ABR 30 (1982): 34–55.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 97

5/28/19 2:17 PM

98

Guy Prentiss Waters

Ridderbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Robinson, Archibald T., and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1914. Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. AGJU 22. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKKNT 7/1. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. South, James T. “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1–8.” NTS 39 (1993): 539–61. ———. Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1992. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture. SNTSMS 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Thiselton, Anthony S. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. “The Meaning of SARX in I Corinthians 5.5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors.” SJT 26 (1973): 204–28. ———. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” NTS 24 (1978): 510–26. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Waters, Guy Prentiss. “Curse Redux? 1 Cor 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth.” WTJ 77/2 (2015): 237–50. ———. The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul. WUNT 2/221. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Zaas, Peter S. “‘Cast Out the Evil Man from Your Midst’ (1 Cor 5:13b).” JBL 103 (1984): 259–61. ———. “Catalogues and Context: 1 Corinthians 5 and 6.” NTS 34 (1988): 622–29.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 98

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Six

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians Brian S. Rosner

The great bulk of scholarly work on the subject of Paul and the law concentrates on what Paul says about the law in just two epistles, namely, Romans and Galatians. Paul’s use of νόμος helps explain this concentration with more than 87 percent of occurrences in the traditional Pauline corpus being found in those two letters (106 of 121; 74 in Romans, 32 in Galatians). The question that drives most studies is why Paul is so negative about the law. Wherein lays his opposition to the law? Is it humanity’s failure to obey God perfectly, the dangers of legalism, Jewish ethnic exclusivity, certain parts of the law being obsolete, the law as an enslaving power, development in Paul’s thought, circumstances peculiar to particular letters, or even Paul’s own confusion about the law? As it turns out, going by occurrences of νόμος, 1 Corinthians runs a distant third after Romans and Galatians as a letter of interest for studies of Paul and the law. However, as we will see texts that include νόμος hardly exhaust the topic and are really only the tip of the iceberg. (Incidentally, 2 Corinthians has no occurrences and chapter 3 is obviously a key text for the subject of Paul and the law.) The only study I know of that looks specifically at the law in 1 Corinthians is Frank Thielman’s article “Paul’s View of the Law: 1 Corinthians” published in New Testament Studies in 1992.1 However, whereas Thielman’s article concentrates on five passages in the letter that explicitly deal with Paul’s attitude to the law and compares these with Paul’s statements in his other letters to test for coherence, my own approach in this paper is somewhat different. In my view, the thing that maintains interest in the study of Paul and the law is the apparent contradictions in Paul’s dealings with the law. His letters seem to include both positive appropriation of the law and also negative critique of the law. How are such tensions to be understood? This question 99

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 99

5/28/19 2:17 PM

100

Brian S. Rosner

occurs to all careful readers of Paul’s letters, whether scholarly or not. Does Paul abolish the law or not? Yes, according to Ephesians 2:15. No, according to Romans 3:31. Yet both use the verb καταργέω (“to nullify”). In my view, the idea that Paul is referring to different parts of the law when he is being positive and negative does not stand up to scrutiny. Paul customarily treats the law as a unity and uses νόμος to denote the first five books of Scripture as a unit (the Pentateuch).. Paul is dealing with the Law of Moses, not the laws of Moses.2 Note the way that Paul introduces the quotation of Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:8–9, where “law” and “Law of Moses” are equivalent: “Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses” (Deut. 25:4).3 Rather, the best way to understand the tensions in Paul’s letters around the law is in terms of how Paul is reading the law in each case. Is Paul negative about the law when he reads it in a certain way and positive when he reads it in other ways? I have attempted such a hermeneutical approach to Paul and the law for the entire Pauline corpus in my New Studies in Biblical Theology volume, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God.4 I argue there that in his letters Paul undertakes a polemical re-reading of the Law of Moses, which involves a repudiation and rejection of the law as law code or law-covenant, but also involves a re-appropriation of the law as wisdom for Christian living and as prophecy with reference to the gospel. However, does this thesis stand up, if we just had the single letter of 1 Corinthians? The tension between negative critique of the law and positive appropriation of the law are certainly present in the letter in three ways: (1) negative critique of the law as a legal code, (2) positive appropriation, and (3) the law as wise instruction for living and as prophecy of the gospel.

NEGATIVE CRITIQUE: THE LAW AS LEGAL CODE There are three resounding notes of negative critique of the law in 1 Corinthians. Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:19 that a central command of Mosaic Law, circumcision, is of no consequence. In 1 Cor 9:20 he states, “I myself am not under the law.” And in 1 Cor 15:56 he claims, “the power of sin is the law.” In such cases Paul is reading the law as a legal code to be obeyed and not transgressed—or as law covenant, if one likes. Let us briefly consider these three texts. In 1 Cor 9:20, while explaining his flexible missionary strategy, Paul states: “To those under the law [namely, Jews] I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.” For the sake of the progress of the gospel, Paul indicates that he is perfectly willing to observe the law when living among Jews who might stumble, if

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 100

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians

101

he did not. Paul probably has in mind issues like the observance of food and Sabbath laws as well as the halakic standards of the communities where he ministered.5 But it almost goes without saying—except he does say it, that he regards himself as not being under the law. The parenthetical aside, “though I myself am not under the law,” reveals what for Paul as a Christian is apparently axiomatic. Paul understood himself to live under the conditions of the new covenant in Christ rather than under the Law of Moses or the Mosaic covenant. Paul does not live under the dominion of the law, even if he is willing on occasion to live under its direction.6 Not being under the law as law covenant can be seen in Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 7:19a: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.” Paul repudiates a central command of Mosaic law in stating that it does not matter whether someone keeps it or not. However, I do not believe that the content in 1 Cor 7:19b, where Paul states that what counts is “keeping the commandments of God,” is an indication that some parts of the law must be kept by Christians. A common way to understand this verse is to draw on a common distinction in some scholarly circles between civil, ceremonial, and moral parts of the law. (This dates back, in part at least, to the time of Origen).7 Paul, it is argued, distinguishes between parts of the law that still count and parts that do not. Circumcision falls squarely into the latter category. But most of the rest of the law is still valid as “the commandments of God.” The problem with this explanation is threefold. First, while the distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law may be a useful heuristic in that it acknowledges the salvation-historical distinctions between Israel as a theocracy and the church, many scholars rightly judge it to be anachronistic. Neither Paul, nor his Jewish contemporaries, nor early Christians, make such distinctions. Secondly, the distinction is impractical with many laws defying classification. As Schreiner rightly notes: “Many of the so-called ceremonial laws have a moral dimension that cannot be jettisoned.”8 The same goes for the civil laws such as not muzzling an ox while treading out the grain (Deut 25:4; cited in 1 Cor 9:9; cf. 1 Tim 5:18]) from which Paul and his Jewish contemporaries derive a moral lesson.9 Thirdly, in 1 Cor 7:19 the thing contrasted with the irrelevance of circumcision is not part of the law that remains but something that replaces the law entirely: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything.” This is clear from two parallel texts in Gal 5:6: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything. The only thing that counts is faith working through love” and in Gal 6:15 “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything.” The complement to the repudiation of circumcision in both Gal 5:6 and 6:15 is a substitute for the law. Since “faith through

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 101

5/28/19 2:17 PM

102

Brian S. Rosner

love” and “a new creation” can not be understood as the Law of Moses in part or in any sense, it seems only reasonable that neither should “keeping the commandments of God” in 1 Cor 7:19 be taken that way. In this light 1 Cor 7:19 turns out not to be a paradox, marking off one part of the law from another but polemic. Instead of obeying the law, Paul says the important thing is to obey “the commandments of God,” which, I think, the Corinthians would have understood as Paul’s own instructions in the letter. The only other place where “commands” appears in 1 Corinthians is in 1 Cor 14:37: “what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”10 Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7:19 are formulated in a deliberately polemical fashion. In 1 Cor 15:56, at the conclusion of his defense of bodily resurrection, Paul states that “the power of sin is the law.” Paul’s epigrammatic statements in v. 56 consist of two maxims, the second being built upon the first: “the sting of death is sin, the power of sin is the law.” The nexus between sin and death is prepared for by the allusions to the Fall in 1 Cor 15:21–22. Chris Vlachos argues convincingly that rather than originating from an issue in the Corinthian church, Paul’s assertion that “the power of sin is the law” may also arise out of an Edenic context. There is evidence that Paul found the triad of law, sin, and death present in the Garden of Eden.11 That law plays a catalytic role in Eden is implicit in the story depicted in Rom 7:7–11. There, as in Rom 5:12–14, the Fall is the prototype for sins under the Mosaic Law. Here in 1 Cor 15:56 the law is depicted as sin’s ally and source of power. The law condemns and makes sinners of us all. Thus, the three texts in 1 Cor 9:20, 7:19 and 15:56 underscore Paul’s rejection of the Law of Moses when it is read as a law code or covenant. Paul reflects this way of reading the law in his description of Jewish identity in Romans 2. According to Romans 2:17–29, Jews are to “do,” “observe,” and “keep” the law, on occasions they “transgress” the law, and they possess the law as a “written code.” Paul’s Jewish contemporaries also say such things about their relationship to the Law of Moses.12 It is significant that Paul never reads the law that way, when regulating the conduct of Christians in 1 Corinthians (or anywhere else for that matter). He never says that Christians must “do,” “observe,” “keep” or “not transgress” the law. Such omissions can hardly be accidental. Paul certainly knows the language of keeping the law. To take one example, consider the use of the Shema, Deut 6, in the letter. Paul alludes to the Shema no less than three times: (1) his call to undistracted devotion to the Lord in 1 Cor 7:32–35; (2) his emphasis on love and edification in chapters 8–14; and (3) in the teasing out of the implications of monotheism for Paul’s treatment of idolatry in 1 Cor 8:1–6. Paul lives and breathes the theological and ethical implications of Deut 6, and obviously he knows it intimately. It is no accident that there

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 102

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians

103

are no references to Deut 6:1–2 in 1 Corinthians: “These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you.” Paul does not frame his moral instructions in 1 Corinthians in terms of being “careful to obey” and “observe,” “the commands, decrees, and laws” of Moses. Taken together, such glaring omissions, along with the three explicit texts from 1 Corinthians mentioned above, suggest that Paul the Christian does not read the Law of Moses as a code of law. In short, he does not call on believers in Christ to obey the law.

POSITIVE APPROPRIATION But does that mean that believers in Christ have no positive relationship to the Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians? On the contrary, 1 Corinthians offers ample evidence that Paul read the law as having continuing validity for Christians. In the first place, Paul quotes from the law approvingly, drawing guidance for Christians at least five times in the letter: Deut 17:7 in 1 Cor 5:13, Gen 2:24 in 1 Cor 6:16, Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9, Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7 and Gen 2:7 in 1 Cor 15:45). Then, Paul backs up this practice with affirmations of the positive relation of Christians to the law. Consider two texts in 1 Corinthians that make it abundantly clear that for Paul the Law of Moses is of abiding value for Christians. In 1 Cor 9:10 Paul quotes Deut 25:4 and its relevance to paying pastors, stating “the Law of Moses was written διʼ ἡμᾶς”—“on account of us,” “written for us.” In 1 Cor 10:1–10 Paul refers to Israel’s wilderness wanderings and sin with the golden calf in order to warn the church against idolatry, sexual immorality, putting Christ to the test, and murmuring against God. What is striking is that, in exhorting this predominantly Gentile church, he describes the wilderness events as those of “our fathers” (10:1). The church is to perceive itself as part of Israel’s story, to hear the resonances between it and their own situation and to shape their lives accordingly.

THE LAW AS WISE INSTRUCTION FOR LIVING AND AS PROPHECY OF THE GOSPEL If Christians do not read the law as a law code in 1 Corinthians, there are two ways that they do read it that Paul advocates and models. First, Paul does read the law as a source of instruction for Christian living in 1 Corinthians. On this

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 103

5/28/19 2:17 PM

104

Brian S. Rosner

score, what Paul does with the law and says about the law in 1 Cor 10:1–10 is revealing. Paul describes the exodus and desert experience of Israel as a pattern in which idolatry followed on the heels of redemption. He believes that some Corinthians are in danger of falling into the same pattern due to their attitudes and practices with regard to food sacrificed to idols (especially the practice of eating in pagan temples or participating in certain pagan meals). In 1 Cor 10:7 Paul quotes Exod 32:6 (LXX) as proof that the Israelites committed idolatry. The references to eating and drinking in association with idolatry make Exod 32:6 an obvious reference point for issues related to food sacrificed to idols. Paul marks Exod 32:6 as his main text by explicit citation and important use of the key words for “eating,” “drinking,” and “rising up.” Allusions to Numbers 11, 14, and other OT texts in 1 Cor 10:5–10 fill out the picture by pointing to subsequent situations where the same association between eating, drinking, and idolatry can be seen, along with other temptations the Corinthians are facing. Paul uses Exod 32:6 to inform the Corinthians’ understanding of the ethical and spiritual danger they are facing. As Hays suggests, by coaxing the reader to recall the golden calf story, he links the present Corinthian dilemma to the larger and older story of Israel in the wilderness. This metaphorical act creates the imaginative framework within which Paul judges—and invites his readers to judge—the proper ethical response to the problem at hand.13 Exod 32:6 serves as a warning to avoid following in the footsteps of “our” Israelite fathers. In 1 Cor 10:11 Paul explains that Israel’s experiences occurred as examples to the Corinthian believers and were recorded for their moral education: “These things happened to them as a warning and were written for our instruction [πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν], upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (RSV). The word Paul uses for “instruction,” (KJV), “admonition” (KJV) or “warning” (HCSB), νουθεσία, only occurs once in the LXX. Wis 16:6 (citing Num 11) says: “They were provoked as a warning [νουθεσία] for a short time.” Philo also uses νουθεσία (and the verbal form νουθετέω) as a description of things that should be done with the law. The law offers “instruction” and “admonishes” those in need of correction (Migration 14). For Philo, the Book of Wisdom, and the apostle Paul, the Law of Moses was a valuable source of moral education—or, as BDAG defines νουθεσία, of “counsel about avoidance or cessation of an improper course of conduct.”14 When Paul uses the law for practical purposes as a pastor, it is not the law as “commandments,” “book,” “decrees,” “letter” or “legal code.” Instead, it is the law as “instruction” that characterizes his reading of the law in matters practical. 1 Cor 10:11 reveals something of the apostle’s hermeneutic when he reads the law for ethics. As it turns out, it is closely associated with wisdom. Paul

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 104

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians

105

uses the verb νουθετέω in contexts indicating that the functions of instructing / admonishing are undertaken in conjunction with wisdom: “We proclaim him by instructing and teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person mature in Christ” (Col 1:28); “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom” (Col 3:16). Further, parental instruction, a common wisdom motif, is often described in terms of νουθεσία. In Eph 6:4 fathers are told to bring up their children “in the discipline (παιδεία) and instruction (νουθεσία) of the Lord.” As it turns out, as BDAG notes, νουθεσία is often paired with παιδεία (citing texts from Philo in support).15 In 1 Cor 4:14, Paul “admonishes” (νουθετέω) the Corinthians as his “beloved children.” As I have argued at length in my 1994 Brill monograph, Paul Scripture and Ethics, despite only one quotation in 1 Cor 5–7, much of Paul’s ethical instruction in these three chapters can be reliably traced back to the Law of Moses.16 In 1 Cor 5 a case of incest is condemned and discipline employed because of the teaching of covenant and temple exclusion in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.17 In 1 Cor 6:1–11 going to court before unbelievers is prohibited with the Scriptures’ teaching about appointing judges in mind (especially the example of Moses appointing judges in Exodus and Deuteronomy).18 In 1 Cor 6:12–20 going to prostitutes is prohibited with advice that recalls early Jewish interpretation of Joseph fleeing Potiphar’s wife. And in 1 Cor 7:1–40 several key texts from the law (as understood by early Jewish interpretation) inform what is said about marriage, singleness, and divorce.19 Space forbids providing a full explanation of Paul’s hermeneutic of reading the law as wise instruction for Christian living. Suffice it to say, in my book Paul and the Law, I suggest some of the presuppositions: When Paul reads the law as wise instruction, he internalizes the law and undertakes reflective and expansive applications of the law based in part on the moral order of creation and the character of God that stand behind the law. The second way in which Paul as a Christian reads the law positively in 1 Corinthians is as prophecy of the gospel. There is one verse in the letter where Paul states explicitly that the law should be read as confirming the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ: 1 Cor 15:3–4: “What I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (NIV). The description of Christ’s death as “for our sins” may be an allusion to or echo of the portrayal of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:5–6, 11–12. Also, the Psalms are a good candidate for seeing a prefiguring of the resurrection of Christ, especially those that praise God for delivering the righteous sufferer (see the use of Psalms 8 and 110 in 1 Cor 15:24–28; cf. Ps 16:9b-10 in Acts 2:24–31).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 105

5/28/19 2:17 PM

106

Brian S. Rosner

But before restricting the reference to a few prophetic texts, notice that Paul asserts that the death and resurrection of Christ (the central events of his gospel; v. 2) are κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς (“in accordance with the Scriptures”). Paul rarely refers to “the Scriptures” in the plural (1 Cor 15:3–4; Rom 1:2; 15:4; 16:26; cf. Gal 3:10). This suggests that here he is speaking generally of the Jewish Scriptures. The many references to “Scripture” in the singular are used routinely when citing a specific text. C. K. Barrett understands Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15:3–4 to be twofold: (1) The cross is the climax of the events of salvation history as they are revealed in the OT and (2) The message of the cross must be understood through the OT categories of sacrifice, atonement, suffering, vindication and so forth.20 In other words, it is best to understand a reference in 1 Cor 15:3–4 to the OT in general, including the Law of Moses. Indeed, in other letters Paul introduces quotations from the law as “scripture”: (e.g., Rom 4:3 and 9:17). Paul’s use of the Scriptures in his defense and exposition of bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians offers confirmation for this reading of 1 Cor 15:3–4. He quotes the OT some five times in this chapter (Isaiah [2x], Psalms, Hosea, Genesis). Although rarely recognized as such, the five texts may be seen as examples of reading the gospel of the resurrected Christ “according to the Scriptures.” For example, Gen 2:7, a text from the law is quoted in 1 Cor 15:45. For the opening shot in a complex argument in 1 Cor 15:45–49, Paul alludes to Adam as “the first man” and “the man of dust” (both twice). This points to the significance of Jesus Christ, who is of equally universal bearing as our first ancestor. In naming Christ “the second man” and “the last Adam,” Paul makes a point both Christological and eschatological in nature. His use of the law here is characteristic of his use of the OT in 1 Cor 15, that is, to elucidate the gospel of the resurrection of Christ. Thus, according to Paul’s precept in 1 Cor 15:3–4 and his practice in 1 Cor 15:45, Christians may read the law as pointing forward to the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ.

CONCLUSION Three ways of reading the law are evident in 1 Corinthians. First, Paul reads the law as law-covenant, and he rejects it as such, refusing to frame his Christian moral instruction in terms of obedience to the law. Secondly, as “written for us,” he reads the law as wise instruction with regard to how believers in Christ ought to behave. Thirdly, he reads the law as prophecy related to the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 106

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians

107

NOTES 1. Frank Thielman, “The Coherence of Paul’s View of the Law: The Evidence of First Corinthians,” NTS 38.2 (1992): 235–53. 2. An exception to this usage appears in 1 Corinthians 14:21 where Paul introduces a quotation of Isaiah 28:11–12 with the words, “in the law it is written.” In this case the referent of νόμος appears to be not the Law of Moses but Jewish Scripture more broadly. My understanding is that Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 14:21 depends on a contrast between the situation of the Israelites and Jews under the law (in need of the redemption that has come in Christ) and the situation that already holds for those who have now experienced the redemption that was especially associated with part of the prophetic message. In other words, Paul may be not only identifying the text as a quotation from Scripture, but possibly also hinting that he locates its primary significance within the dispensation of the Mosaic covenant. In any case, the use of νόμος in 1 Corinthians 14:21 is widely regarded as anomalous. 3. For examples of this usage of νόμος across the NT, see Matt 12:5; Luke 2:23; 24:44; John 8:5, 17; Heb 9:19, where “law” = the Pentateuch. 4. This study in fact builds on my book; the common material is used by permission of the publisher: Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, NSBT 31 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013). 5. Cf. the standards established in the Mishnah, many of which would have coexisted in Paul’s day with somewhat different standards in some Jewish communities, as there were a number of issues over which disputes were common. 6. As Gordon D. Fee puts it, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 429: “[t]he difference” between Paul’s behavior “and that of his social companions is not in the behavior itself, which will be identical to the observer, but in the reasons for it. The latter abstain because they are ‘under the law’; it is a matter of religious obligation. Paul abstains because he loves those under the law and wants to win them to Christ. Despite appearances, the differences are as night and day.” 7. Christopher J. H. Wright, “The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament: A Survey of Approaches,” TynBul 43.1 (1992): 101–120 (here, 102); Christopher J. H. Wright, “The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament: A Survey of Approaches,” TynBul 43.2 (1992): 203–231 (here, 205). 8. Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford, The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ until He Comes, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology 10 (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 94. 9. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 403–8. 10. Cf. Col 4:10 and 1 Tim 6:14 where “command” likewise refers to apostolic instruction. 11. Chris Vlachos, The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul (Pickwick: Eugene OR, 2009) , 90–91.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 107

5/28/19 2:17 PM

108

Brian S. Rosner

12. For more details, see my 2010 JSNT article, “Paul and the Law: What He Does Not Say,” JSNT 32.4 (2010): 405–19. 13. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 92. 14. BDAG, 679. 15. Cf. BDAG, 748–49, παιδεία 1: “the act of providing guidance for responsible living”; 2. “the state of being brought up properly.” 16. Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7, Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). 17. Brian S. Rosner, “Temple and Holiness In 1 Corinthians 5,” TynBul 42.1 (1991): 137–45.; Brian S. Rosner, “‘OYXI ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΕΠΕΝΘΗΣΑTE’: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Corinthians 5,” NTS 38.03 (1992): 470–73 (here, 470). 18. Brian S. Rosner, “Moses Appointing Judges: An Antecedent to 1 Cor. 6:1–6?” ZNW 82.3–4 (1991): 275–278. 19. While the question remains open for some, many are coming to see the Jewish Scriptures and especially the Law as a critical and formative source for Paul’s moral teaching. In his study of Paul’s reading of the Pentateuch, Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 425, writes: “It is likely that these [Paul’s use of the laws of Deuteronomy] and other scriptural laws have exercised a far more pervasive influence over Pauline parenesis than the small number of explicit citations and direct allusions would suggest (as argued by Brian Rosner).” Richard Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 95, draws a similar conclusion, even if demurring on some of the details: “While Rosner probably tries to argue for too much and some of his links are more convincing than others, his work has been widely received as an important corrective to the approach of von Harnack and others opposed to Paul’s use of the Old Testament [for ethics].” 20. C. K Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1968), 338–39.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett, C. K The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1968). Burridge, Richard. Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). Ciampa, Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010). Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 108

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians

109

Rosner, Brian S. “Moses Appointing Judges: An Antecedent to 1 Cor. 6:1–6?” ZNW 82.3–4 (1991): 275–278. ———. “‘OYXI ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΕΠΕΝΘΗΣΑTE’: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Corinthians 5,” NTS 38.03 (1992): 470–73 ———. Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, NSBT 31 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013). ———. Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7, Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). ———. “Temple and Holiness In 1 Corinthians 5,” TynBul 42.1 (1991): 137–45.; Schreiner, Thomas R. and Matthew R. Crawford, The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ until He Comes, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology 10 (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010). Thielman, Frank.”The Coherence of Paul’s View of the Law: The Evidence of First Corinthians,” NTS 38.2 (1992): 235–53. Vlachos, Chris. The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul (Eugene,OR: Pickwick:, 2009). Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004). Wright, Christopher J. H. “The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament: A Survey of Approaches,” TynBul 43.1 (1992): 101–120.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 109

5/28/19 2:17 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 110

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Seven

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy Paul’s Covenantal Reuse of Deuteronomy Erik Waaler The unity of 1 Corinthians has moved towards a new consensus.1 Concord has been put forth as its major purpose. Similarly, there is a focus on community exclusion.2 The division between the outsiders (τοὺς ἔξω) and the insiders (τοὺς ἔσω, 1 Cor 5:12–13) is maintained by covenant language with the insiders identified as those “who call on the name of the Lord” (1 Cor 1:2, cf. Gen 12:8, 13:4, Ps 98:6, etc.).3 There is focus on marriage and sex (1 Cor 5–7), idolatry (1 Cor 8–10) and the house church service (1 Cor 11–14). This aligns well with Paul’s explicit reference to a “new covenant in the blood of Christ” (ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, cf. 2 Cor 3:6 and Jer 38:31).4 Undergirding this unity are the numerous Deuteronomic covenantal references. Deuteronomy may be termed the ‘second law’ but clearly had attained first place in Second Temple Judaism.5 The seventyfive parallels to Deuteronomy found in 1 Corinthians supports this (see figure 1). A preponderance of Deuteronomic covenantal language in particular warrants investigation of Paul’s covenantal reuse of Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians: This figure is based on the combined evidence of the UBS3, UBS4, NA27, NA28, Biblewindows xref, Brian S. Rosner’s Paul Scripture and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), and my The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-Reading of Deuteronomy; WUNT 2.253 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) (altogether 75 parallels). The proportion of noted parallels is included for the 16 chapters of 1 Cor, but not the number of verses in each parallel.

111

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 111

5/28/19 2:17 PM

112

Figure 7.1.

Erik Waaler

The Use of Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians

“COVENANTAL” INTRODUCTION 1 Corinthians 1:9 and 10:13—The Faithful God First Corinthians begins with the contrast between division (σχίσματα, 1:10) and unity: “God is faithful (πιστὸς ὁ θεός), by whom you were called into the fellowship (εἰς κοινωνίαν) of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor 1:9, cf. Deut 7:9).6 In the Greek Bible, God is described as faithful only in Deut 7:9, 32:4, 1 Cor 1:9, 10:13, and 2 Cor 1:18.7 Both Deut 7:9 and 32:4 arise in the context of the covenant.8 Use of Deut 5:10 in 7:9 is part of the Decalogue interpretation in Deut 6–7: Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments (κύριος ὁ θεός σου, οὗτος θεός, θεὸς πιστός . . . ἔλεος τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς φυλάσσουσιν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ εἰς χιλίας γενεὰς, Deut 7:9 NKJV, cf. Deut 5:10 LXX).9

God’s faithfulness sets the tone of 1 Corinthians, basing unity on God’s covenantal faithfulness to those who love him with a covenantal love (cf.1 Cor

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 112

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

113

2:9, 6:5). The context of 1 Cor 10:13 is particularly focused on idolatry. It underlines the difference between the table of the Lord and that of the demons (vv. 20–21). This part is introduced as follows: πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν. Διόπερ, ἀγαπητοί μου, φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας (1 Cor 10:13–14)

“Therefore” (διόπερ) at 1 Cor 10:14 points back to God’s faithfulness that protects us from falling into temptation by committing to idolatry. 1 Cor 10:22 ends with reference to God’s zealousness: ἢ παραζηλοῦμεν τὸν κύριον; μὴ ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν (1 Cor 10:22). In Deuteronomy, God’s zeal is a basic argument for the prohibition of idolatry: ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεός σου θεὸς ζηλωτὴς ἀποδιδοὺς ἁμαρτίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα ἐπὶ τρίτην καὶ τετάρτην γενεὰν τοῖς μισοῦσίν με (Deut 5:9; cf. 6:14–15). Those living by the covenant know God to be faithful, but the covenant violators know Him to be zealous. The closest parallel to 1 Cor 10:22 is Deut 32:21: “They have provoked me to jealousy (παρεζήλωσάν) with that which is not God. The contrast between the faithful and the zealous God is found in Deuteronomistic covenant language. Paul’s recontextualization of the Decalogue is not by direct reference, but it is confirmed by sustained use of Decalogue interpretations from Deut 6 and 32.10 The Covenant Theme in 1 Corinthians 5 The incest described in 1 Cor 5 is a blatant violation of what is described in Deut 5:18. Rosner claims that advice against incest is based on Deut 23:21, 22:20–21, 30, 23:1–9, 27:20, etc.11 He identifies three motives associated with Deuteronomistic community exclusion: “covenant,” “corporate responsibility,” and “holiness.”12 First Corinthians 5:13 re-contextualizes verbatim from Deut 17:7: ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν (so also Deut 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, etc.). In the Greek Bible, this phrase is found only in Deuteronomy and 1 Corinthians. The reason for expulsion can be for several things: 1) covenant violation (1 Cor 5:13, Deut 17:2); 2) deterrence (Deut 19:19–20); 3) corporate guilt (1 Cor 5:6, Deut 19:13, 23:14); and 4) violation of holiness (Deut 7:26, 13:14–18).13 The term “destruction” (ὄλεθρος)—used about the adulterer in 1 Cor 5:5, corresponds to the term “utterly destroy” (ἐξολεθρεύω), used against covenant violations in Deuteronomy (Deut 6:15, 7:4, 9:19, 10:10, etc.; cf. ὀλοθρευτής 1 Cor 10:10). In 1 Cor 5:7 Paul uses Passover language found in Exod 12 and Deut 16: The leaven (ζύμη, Deut 16:3–4), unleavened [bread] (ἄζυμος, Deut 16:3, 8, 16 ) and Passover sacrifice (θύσεις τὸ πασχα, Exod 12:21; Deut 16:6–16) and applies it to Jesus ( αὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 113

5/28/19 2:17 PM

114

Erik Waaler

Marriage as a Covenant Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 6–7 In 1 Cor 6:16–17 Paul states: Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit (NIV)

Use of the verb κολλάω is clearly inspired by cleaving to one’s wife in Gen 2:24 (προσκολλάω),14 Paul’s main argument reflects the issue of cleaving to God: ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ ἓν πνεῦμά ἐστιν (v. 17). Similar language is found twice in Deut 4–11: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν κολληθήσῃ (Deut 6:13); κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν κολληθήσῃ, Deut 10:20; cf. 2 Kgs 18:6, Ps 62:9, Jer 13:11, Sir 2:3). We find a similar text in Deut 11:22: καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσητε πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς ταύτας ὅσας ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον ποιεῖν ἀγαπᾶν κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἡμῶν καὶ πορεύεσθαι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκολλᾶσθαι αὐτῷ; cf. Josh 23:8, Ps 73[72]:28[27]).15 A combination of Gen 2:24 and Deut 10:20 in Paul’s argument might be based on linking words (‫ וְדָ בַק‬/ ‫ ;תִ דְ ּבָק‬gezerah shavah). As Rosner have shown, cleaving to the Lord is part of the spiritual marriage imagery in 1 Cor 6–7 that includes the following elements: 1) pleasing the spouse and the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–33, cf. 2 Cor 11:2); 2) the Lord / groom has rights to the body of the bride (6:13b, 6:19b, 7:4); and 3) use of Genesis 2:24 to describe marriage unity (6:16).16 He adds that “cleaving to the Lord” means cleaving to Christ or “the risen Lord” (1 Cor 6:14; cf. 1 Cor 11:2).17 I think the marriage metaphor has a covenantal meaning, redirecting a vital element of the covenant language of Deut 6:13 and 10:20 to Christ (1 Cor 6:17).18 The one body metaphor reappears in 1 Cor 10:17 as a metaphor for unity. Both texts speak of a unity with Christ that the adulterer or idolater should have no part in.

SHEMA AND COMMANDMENT LANGUAGE IN 1 CORINTHIANS 8 1 Corinthians 8:1, 3 and 16: 22–23 and Shema: Love Directed at God The text of 1 Cor 8–10 begins with a contrast between knowledge and love: “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything (τι), he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God (εἰ δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν), this one is known by Him (ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ)” (1 Cor 8:1b–3). The text of 1 Cor 8:2–3 is not certain. P46 leaves out three refer-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 114

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

115

ences to God (i.e.: τι , τὸν θεόν, ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ), but the evidence for this is weak. Contextual language akin to Shema and the Second Commandment suggests that love directed at God fits the context better than love for fellow man.19 The term ἀγαπάω is found one more time about human love directed at God in 1 Cor 2:9: “But as it is written: ‘Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart (καρδίαν) of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him’” (cf. Isa 64:4, 52:15). There are few other references to love directed at God in Paul’s letters (Rom 8:28; cf. Eph 6:24). The presence of the phrase τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν in 1 Cor 2:9 is in itself not proof of a connection to Deut 5:10 and 6:5. However, the two phrases τοῖς ἀγαπῶσίν με (Deut 5:10) and τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν (1 Cor 8:3), both speak of people who love God.20 There is a combination of “heart” and “love directed at God” in 1 Cor 2:9, but the term καρδίαν is used differently in Deut 6:5. 1 Cor 2:9 does have a flavor of covenant language. The covenant brings curses to those who do not love and obey and bestows blessings on those who do.21 There is no divine curse close to 1 Cor 2:9, but God’s blessing towards those who love him is implied (“what God has prepared for those who love him”, NIV). Even if such covenant themes had not been present, the Shema was a very strong text at the time, included in phylacteries and mezuzot, read aloud in prayer, in the synagogue and in the Temple. It was imprinted on everyone’s mind from childhood. Therefore, it is probable that Paul’s language about love directed at God in 1 Cor 2:9 would cause Shema to reverberate among those encultured in the Judaism of that time. In 1 Cor 16:22–23 we find “love” connected with something that looks very much like covenantal curses and blessings: εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. μαράνα θά. ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν.22 Even though the verb for love is different, this eschatological passage underlines the covenantal character of the love-language of the letter.23 A much stronger case can be made for Paul’s interaction with Deut 6:5 in 1 Cor 8:3: εἰ δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.24 Love towards God in 1 Cor 8 is set in contrast to idolatry and takes on the shade of steadfast covenantal love. This compares well with the perfect passive ἔγνωσται (v.:3), commonly translated in the present tense “is known by God.”25 The presence of language akin to the two first commandments in 1 Cor 8:1–3 and the focus on God’s oneness creates a profound link to Deut 6:5 and 5:10b. 1 Corinthians 8:4: No God but One and the First Commandment At the beginning of his discussion on idol food, Paul writes: οἴδαμεν . . . ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς (1 Cor 8:4b). In the context, reference is made to gods in plural (v.5). The negation of “any god but one” is similar to Deut 5:7: οὐκ

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 115

5/28/19 2:17 PM

116

Erik Waaler

ἔσονταί σοι θεοὶ ἕτεροι πρὸ προσώπου μου. Similar negations are found in the literary context of the Decalogue: καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλὴν αὐτοῦ (Deut 4:34, 39). We consider both texts to be interpretations of the First Commandment. Similar language is frequent in the OT and Second Temple Judaism, with contextual reference to encounters with idolatry and foreign kings, often supported by additional use of the Pentateuch or reference to Moses. However, usually they lack exact verbal repetition of the First Commandment.26 When the issue at hand is God and the gods (1 Cor 8:5–6), the First Commandment was bound to ring in the background. Paul combines language akin to Shema and the First Commandment, making a firm philosophical statement of God’s oneness. The double οὐδεὶς . . . εἰ μὴ εἷς (“no one but one”) is among the strongest monotheistic statements in Second Temple Judaism. Paul’s use of this kind of language, in contrast to idolatry, maintains a central covenental theme from Deuteronomy. Paul’s Interaction with the Second Commandment in 1 Corinthians 8:4–5 The question whether the Second Commandment (Deut 5:8–10) is present in 1 Cor 8:4–5 is not at the forefront of the scholarly discussion.27 However, these texts possess a negative statement intending to deter from idolatry: οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον οὐδὲ παντὸς ὁμοίωμα ὅσα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς (Deut 5:8) οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ . . . καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς (1 Cor 8:4b–5a)

The warning against idolatry is a profound part of the argument in 1 Corinthians. Altogether five different terms based on the εἰδωλ- root are used: εἰδωλολατρης (1 Cor 5:10, 11; 6:9; 10:7), εἰδωλολατρία (1 Cor 10:7, 14), εἰδωλοθυτον (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19); εἰδωλον (1 Cor 8:7; 10:19, 12:2) and εἰδωλειον (1 Cor 8:10). Paul’s argument in these verses may be rearranged as follows: Do not become an idolater (10:7). The idols of the gentiles are dumb (12:2). They are nothing but demons (10:19–20) or so-called gods and lords (8:5). Shun the idols (10:14) and do not eat in idol temples, leading others to idolatry (8:10). Idolaters do not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9). Do not associate with or eat with a Christian brother who is also an idolater (5:11).

These warnings evoke the Second Commandment.28 Two verses in particular warn against idolatry: μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε (1 Cor 10:7) and φεύγετε

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 116

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

117

ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας (1 Cor 10:14). Paul’s usage of εἴδωλ– terminology is typical of Jewish anti-idolatrous language in both Jewish and Christian texts. In 1 Corinthians, terms with the root εἰδωλ- are found 15 times, representing 0.22% of the total number of words in the letter. With one exception, this is at least twice the frequency in any other book in the LXX. 29 The combination of a negative adverb or indefinite pronoun with the term “idol” and the combined “heaven” and “earth” is infrequent in the LXX, linking 1 Cor 8:4a-5 with Deut 5:8.30 Added to this is the contextual issue of love directed at God present in both texts (1 Cor 8:1, 3; Deut 5:10). Notably, participation in idolatry was the ultimate covenant violation in Deuteronomy. God and Gods, Lord and Lords: 1 Corinthians 8:5 In 1 Cor 8:5, the text reads: καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί. The plural θεοί, found in the First Commandment, is infrequent in the NT (John 10:34–35, Acts 7:40, 14:11–18, 19:26, 1 Cor 8:5 [2x], Gal 4:8). Weiß links 1 Cor 8:5 to Deut 10:17: “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords” (cf. Ps 136:2–3, Rev 17:4, 19:16, 1Tim 6:14–15). Both texts include a reference to the terms “god” and “lord” in the singular and plural that is infrequent in the LXX.31 First Corinthians 8:5–6 and Deut 10:17 have a similar combination, where the “. . . superiority over any other hypothetical claimant to that title is strongly affirmed (cf. Ps. 136:2–3).”32 Deut 10:17 may be associated with the Shema and the Second Commandment for two additional reasons: (1), the contextual use of the phrases: “with all your heart” (Deut 10:12, cf. 6:5) and “heaven . . . earth” (10:14, cf. 5:8) and (2) Deut 10:17 was part of the sectarian phylacteries from Qumran.33 The contrast between God and the gods is a vital element in the covenant language of Deuteronomy that is reflected in 1 Corinthians. If the parallel to Deut 10:17 is confirmed, 1 Cor 8:6b would represent a redirection of the title κύριος from “the Lord our God” (Deut 10:17) to Jesus Christ, redirecting covenant loyalty towards Christ. 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6 and the Shema: One God It is commonly argued that Paul alludes to the Shema in 1 Cor 8:4 and 6. The main argument is the combination of the terms “one” and “God”: ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς. (8:4b); ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ (8:6). In such a monotheistic context, it is probable that the term πατήρ speaks of God as creator. Thus God’s relationship to Jesus is probably not contained in the phrase θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ.34 Although the phrase “εἷς θεὸς” is closer to the wording of Shema than “οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς,” an association of 1 Cor 6 with Shema has not been much discussed prior the 1990’s.35 The structure of verses.1–6 indicates

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 117

5/28/19 2:17 PM

118

Erik Waaler

that verse 6 is an elaboration of verse 4b (possibly also of v. 1b).36 Based on the link to the Shema in verses 2–4, the combination of εἷς with κύριος in verse 6 is very noteworthy. It is a rather unusual combination in the Greek Bible (Deut 6:4, Zech 14:9, Mark 12:29, 1 Cor 8:4, Eph 4:5) and early Jewish literature, in Philo, Cher. 1:119.37 Granted the link to Shema, εἷς κύριος was bound to be noted. It is probably the application of εἷς κύριος to Christ that makes people shun a discussion of the Shema when we address this verse.38 There are no known Jewish parallels to Paul’s division of the “one God” terminology into two parallel statements, using the term “one” about God and about someone alongside God in a binary fashion:39 ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. (1 Cor 8:6)

Changes are present in word order and application (‫ י ְהוָה ֶאחָד‬or θεὸς εἷς), but terminologically speaking, εἷς κύριος in 1 Cor 8:4 and Eph 4:5–6 are the closest parallels to κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (Deut 6:4). In addition to this, as we already noticed regarding 1 Cor 8, there is contextual reference to “love” directed at God, and contextual use of language akin to the First and Second Commandment and relevance to Jewish discussion of idolatry. The term “one” (‫ ) ֶא ָחֽד‬was emphasized in the reading of the Shema at the time, thus this term alone, if applied to God, must have had great impact by itself.40 It takes less correspondence than we have displayed above to establish a relationship to such a strong pretext as Shema, a text emphasized also in the early Christian movement. If our interpretation of the text is correct, the difficult question is what Paul is trying to do by twisting the Shema in a binary fashion. Wolff says: “Die Dort im Zusammenhang mit εἷς begegnende Worte θεός und κύριος (Deut. 6,4: κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν) sind in 1. Kor 8,6 auf dem Vater und Jesus Christus verteilt.”41 Elsewhere in the letter, the covenant relationship to Christ is the dividing line between insiders and outsiders: “No one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3). “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come! The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (1 Cor 16:22–23). It would be in line with this language if 1 Cor 8:6 put loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ alongside loyalty to God the Father. Both are set in opposition to idolatry in a manner similar to the OT covenant loyalty to the Lord. Thus, we agree with Hays that Paul in 8:5–6 takes the extraordinary bold step of identifying ‘the Lord Jesus’ with ‘the Lord’ acclaimed in the Shema, while still insisting that ‘for us there is one God.’”42 As Wright formulates it: “Paul has redefined it [i.e.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 118

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

119

the Shema] Christologically, producing what we can only call a sort of Christological monotheism.”43 The real issue at stake in this text is food sacrificed to idols. Paul contrasts the table of the Lord and the table of the idols. This is hinted at in 1 Cor 10:1–3, where eating in the Exodus discourse and the Lord’s table are linked—both in opposition to idolatry. The conflict between the table of the Lord and idolatry is spelled out in 1 Cor 10:16–21. This text speaks of Holy Communion, thus the “one loaf” of bread in Paul’s language would be the “body of Christ” (1 Cor 11:23–24). As Christ is one, his people are one by participating at “the table of the Lord” (cf. Lev 24:6, Mal 1:12, 17, Ezek 41:22). The emphasis in Corinthians is on covenantal unity in Christ who is “one Lord” and “one Body.”

OTHER TRACES OF THE SHEMA IN FIRST CORINTHIANS The Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21) and the Double Commandment The meaning of the phrase ἔννομος Χριστοῦ is not immediately evident: τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομος Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κερδάνω τοὺς ἀνόμους· (1 Cor 9:20–21). Different interpretations of ἔννομος Χριστοῦ have been proposed—the OT law, Jesus’s teaching, teaching of the opposing party, the love commandment alone, or fulfillment of OT law. As it is set in opposition to being under the law, identification of ἔννομος Χριστοῦ with OT law seems less probable. In Galatians the law of Christ is described as “carrying one another’s burdens” (Gal 6:2) and in 1 John it is described as loving God and one’s neighbor (1 John 4:21; cf. 3:24). As Schrage states: “Das Christusgesetz ist das Liebesgebot.”44 Thus, ἔννομος Χριστοῦ confirms Paul’s use of the Shema elsewhere in the letter and implies a covenantal relationship. The Same God, the Same Lord, One and the Same Spirit: 1 Corinthians 12 In his attempt to unify the church, Paul makes the triune God—“the same God . . . the same Lord . . . the same Spirit,” (1 Cor 12:4–6), his argument for unity in a text that follows the confession:”Jesus is Lord” (v. 3).45 Two statements in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 reflect 1 Cor 8:6 more closely: ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς θεὸς ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν (12:6) πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα (12:11)

All three texts use the term πάντα. The parallel nature of verses 6 and 11 link the work of the Spirit to the work of God. At the end of his argument, we find

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 119

5/28/19 2:17 PM

120

Erik Waaler

the phrase ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα (v.11, cf. ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ πνεύματι 12:9, vs. ‫א‬, C3, D, F, Maj., etc.). “One spirit” functions as a parallel to “the same Spirit.” Thus one could argue that “the same God” and “same Lord” (vv. 5–6) corresponds to “one God” and “one Lord” (1 Cor 8:6). The parallelism of 1 Cor 12:4–6 reverberates back to 1 Cor 8:6 in its emphasis on Corinthian unity in the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God. How can there be discord in the church when there is unity in these strongest of forces? Paul repeats this refrain in 12:11.46 The theology behind the triad in 1 Cor 12:4–6 is disputed. Yet, as Hays affirms: “Paul of course had no explicit doctrine of the Trinity; this doctrine was not articulated formally by theologians until hundreds of years later. This passage shows, however, that he experienced God as Trinity . . . The sense of the threefold formula is summed up in verse 7 . . . Here ‘Spirit’ stands for all three persons of the Trinity.”47 It is of course anachronistic to speak about a full-blown Trinitarian theological belief so early. However, the Spirit and Christ is the basis of unity. The body metaphor puts Christ in the center: τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστιν (1 Cor 12:12), ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν (10:17, cf. 10, 20, 6:16).48 The Christians are μέλη Χριστοῦ (6:15), and should not become ἓν σῶμα with a prostitute (6:16). Holy Communion is participation in the body of Christ (10:16, 24): εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν (10:17). Baptism is baptism into one body (12:13). Paul thus concludes: ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους (1 Cor 12:27). Baptism and Holy Communion thus mark inclusion in the new covenant. The unity in Christ functions as a development of the εἷς κύριος of 1 Cor 8:6. Covenant Violations: The Negative Example of the Fathers (1 Corinthians 10) Four texts seem to be close to the text of 1 Cor 10: Deut 1–12, Deut 32, Ps 78, and Ps 106. Our focus is on Deut 4:1–11:32. It is notable that the two Psalms seem to be dependent on Deuteronomy and that the text in Deut 32 reflects the issues present in Deut 1–12. Apparently, Paul uses covenant themes from the exodus event with focus on covenant violations in a manner that is reminiscence of the book of Deuteronomy. Focus centers on: 1) God’s provision for the covenant people; 2) the people’s violations of the covenant; and 3) God’s relationship to the people, whether favorable or judgmental. Chapter 10 has several elements that reflect the covenantal perspective: God’s great works of salvation (10:1–4), warnings against the covenant violations (10:5–10[12]), and warnings against idolatry (10:13–22). Woven into this is a description of God’s faithfulness as opposed to His jealousy.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 120

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

121

Spiritual Food 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 In 1 Cor 10, Paul uses the exodus events to dissuade the Corinthians form idolatry. The relationship to the book of Exodus is undisputed; the question is how dependent the text is on Deuteronomy: Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual (πνευματικὸν) food, and all drank the same spiritual (πνευματικὸν) drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them (πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας), and that Rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:1–4).

Paul’s interpretation is typological and metaphorical, applying the events to Christian rituals.49 Deuteronomy uses God’s merciful acts from the exodus period as arguments for the covenant, for example in the preamble of the Decalogue: “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Deut 5:6). Based on the event at the Red Sea, Moses proclaims: “Therefore you shall keep every commandment which I command you today” (Deut 11:4–8; cf. a similar argument from manna in Deut 8:3–5). Other texts include covenantal judgment over the disobedient, those who disobeyed despite the manna and the water that God provided (Deut 8:14–19). Paul associates baptism and Holy Communion with the acts of salvation during the exodus, symbols associated with covenant abidance in Christ. For the analogy to work, the old Mosaic and the new Christological meaning of these events must be allowed at the same time. Notably, Paul’s spiritualization of the food is not something new:50 “And he afflicted thee and straitened thee with hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thy fathers knew not; that he might teach thee that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God shall man live” (Deut 8:3LXX; cf. Neh 9:20; Matt 4:4; Luke 4:4). Another parallel is the application of the “Rock” metaphor to Jesus which reflects Deuteronomistic God-language: “For their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves being judges.” (Deut 32:31; cf. Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 37; and the actual rock of v.12).51 Paul appears to echo this christologically: “and the Rock was Christ.”52 The Negative Example of the Exodus Generation First Corinthians 10:4–11 alludes to different acts of covenant disloyalty committed by the exodus generation. These incidents are associated with Massa (v.4), Kadesh Barnea (v.5), Taberah/ Kibroth Hattaava (v.6), Sinai/

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 121

5/28/19 2:17 PM

122

Erik Waaler

Horeb (v.7), Shittim (v.8), the dessert between Hor and the Reed Sea (v.9), and Kadesh Barnea? (v.10). A similar list of events is found in Deut 9:8–23 (Sinai, Taberah, Massa, Kibroth Haatavah and Kadesh Barnea; cf. Ps 106:6– 27).53 The only place added by Paul is Shittim, where Israel worshiped Baal Peor. The judgment at Shittim is vividly portrayed in Deut 4:3–4. This is a more blatant example of idolatry than the Sinai event. It is commonly noted that Paul in 1 Cor 10:7 repeats the LXX: ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν (Exod 32:6) ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν (1 Cor 10:7)

This event is found only four times in the Old Testament: Exod 32, Deut 9, Ps 106:19–23 and Neh 9:18. Aside from these Biblical references, no allusions to the golden calf story appear in Jewish literature until Philo’s Moses 2:159–173, Josephus Ant. 3:95–101 and Pseudo-Philo L.A.B. 12:2–7.54 Some of the events describe violations of the Decalogue: 1) 1 Cor 10:6 speaks of lust for evil (ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν; cf. οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, Deut 5:21). 2) 1 Cor 10:7 speaks of idolatry: μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε; cf. οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον Deut 5:8). 3) 1 Cor 10:8 speaks of sexual immorality μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν; cf. οὐ μοιχεύσεις, Deut 5:17). In the latter case, the vocabulary is at variance. Despite the fact that 1 Cor 10:9 and Deut 6:16 probably speak of different events, there is a parallel between the two statements:55 οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου (Deut 6:16, cf. Exod 17:7) μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν (1 Cor 10:9)

The text of the latter is disputed, as some versions have ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν κύριον (P46, D, F, G, Maj. et al.). This is more ambigious, and much closer to Deut 6:16. Anyway, in a text where Jesus is identified as the Rock that followed the exodus generation through the desert, it is possible that “testing Christ/ testing the Lord” corresponds to testing “the Lord your God” (Deut 6:16).

CONCLUSION In his re-contextualisation of the Shema, Paul puts Jesus alongside God in a manner that conflicts with his Jewish background: “For us . . . there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1 Cor 8:6 NIV). He continues: “and the Rock was Christ.” (10:4). “There-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 122

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

123

fore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus be cursed,’ and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (12:3 NIV). “If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him. Come, O Lord! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you” (1 Cor 16:22–23 NIV). Paul combines covenant language lifted from Deuteronomy and a high Christology. One’s relationship to Christ divides insiders from outsiders. Paul’s argument against the idols, that they are dumb and possessed by evil spirits, is typically Jewish. His setting Jesus in contrast to the idols, alongside God the Father, by use of covenant language from Deuteronomy, is highly innovative.

NOTES 1. Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991); Helmut Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit Der Ersten Korintherbrief “ ZNW 75 (1984): 153–83. 2. Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7 (Baker Books, 1994), 61–93. 3. See Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Apollos, 2010), 33. 4. See Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/ Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture on 2 Corinthians 3 (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 119. 5. Sidnie White Crawford, “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005), 127–140 (here, 140). 6. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary AB 32 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2008), 134. 7. Based on a search in Biblewindows on the two terms with six intermediate words, with the term “faithful” attached to the term “God.” 8. Anthony T. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC (Grand Rapid: Eerdmanns, 2000), 748. 9. Henceforth, English translations are based on NKJV unless otherwise stated. 10. In a sense this is similar to Rosner’s statement that “Later portions of Scripture, and not just post-Biblical Jewish writings, may have mediated earlier parts of Scripture to Paul” Rosner, Paul, Scripture, 49. 11. Ibid., 82–83. 12. Ibid., 68 and following. 13. Ibid., 64–68, 91. 14. Wolfgang Schrage, Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther, vol. 2, EKK (NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger Verlag GmbH & Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 28.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 123

5/28/19 2:17 PM

124

Erik Waaler

15. “4QDeutj probably included (when complete) Deut 5:1–6:3; 8:5–10; 10:12– 11:21; Exod 12:43–13:16; and Deut 32:1–9. 4Q Deut contains Deut 5:28–32; 11:6– 13; 32:17–18, 22–23, and 25–27. 4QDeutn, an almost complete manuscript, preserves Deut 8:5–10 and 5:1–6:1, in that order. 4QDeutq appears to have contained only the Song of Moses, Deut 32:1–43.” Crawford, in “Reading Deuteronomy,” 128. 16. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, 132–34. 17. Ibid., 132. 18. The admonition for the Christians to marry in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39) might reflect the commandment to marry a fellow Jew (Deut 7:3, etc.). see Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 365. 19. See Erik Waaler, The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re–Reading of Deuteronomy, WUNT 2/253 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 304–06. 20. See further, ibid., 313–14. 21. Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 865. 22. A similar statement is related to the Holy Communion in Did. 10.6 (cf. also Rev 22:20). 23. Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 865; Garland, Corinthians 774; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP 7 (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 1351; Waaler, Shema, 213–14. 24. Cf. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Int. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 140. 25. “ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ist von alttestamentlichen ‫ עדי‬her zu verstehen”: Schrage, Korinther, 234. 26. 1 Cor 8:4b is similar to Mark 12:32 with its combination of phrases like “no God but” and “one God.” In Mark 12:29–30 we find verbal agreement with and explicit reference to the Shema. The scribe reinterprets Jesus’s Shema recitation in language akin to the First Commandment: ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας εἶπες ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ (Mark 12:32 cf. Isa 45:21). This is reversed in Josephus and Philo, where the First Commandment is described by language akin to the Shema (Διδάσκει μὲν οὖν ἡμᾶς ὁ πρῶτος λόγος ὅτι θεός ἐστιν εἷς: Josephus, Ant. 3:91; cf. Philo, Decal. 64–67). Waaler, Shema, 151–52, 450–51. 27. Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 379–80; Collins, Corinthians, 313–14; Thiselton, Corinthians, 629, 636; Garland, Corinthians, 371–73; Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief, HzNT 9.1 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000), 191; Schrage, Korinther, 236; Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 340–41. 28. Strangely, the Second Commandment gets so little attention in commentaries on 1 Corinthians. 29. It is also much higher than Josephus (0.002 percent), Philo (0.005 percent), and the Apostolic Fathers (0.019 percent). 30. The negative indefinite pronoun οὐδέν or οὐδέις is a compound from the conjunction οὐτέ/ οὐδέ and the cardinal adjective εἷς and οὐδέ is made up of the adverb οὐ and the conjuction δέ; thus linking 1 Cor 8:4 closer to the second commandment. Dieter Zeller, Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar Über Das Neue Testament 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 288.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 124

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

125

n. 50 says: “Dass es keine Götter Bilder in dieser Welt gibt, kann Paulus ja nicht behaupten. Die Interpretation von Waaler 362–37.1 ist zu sehr auf das Bilderverbot Dtn 5,8 als Subtext von V.4a fixiert.” To a certain extent, I agree. However, my discussion is more nuanced than my conclusion. This does not mean that Paul focuses only on demons in 1 Cor 8:4. At the time, there were statues of gods of no religious significance, and there were statues of gods thought to be inhabited by a god and thus worshiped. It is probable that Paul negates the idol statues as real gods. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (London: A & C Black, 1976), 191; Garland, Corinthians, 371. Anyway, one must relate the frequent use of terms from the root εἴδωλ- to the Second Commandment. The relative paucity of this discussion is puzzling. 31. Johannes Weiß, Der Erste Korintherbrief, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar Über Das Neue Testament 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 221; Zeller, Korinthier, 289. 32. Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 382. 33. Waaler, Shema, 377. 34. Schrage, Korinther, 222. 35. In earlier literature focus on parallels to the εἷς Ζεὺς Ζάραπις, etc.: ibid., 222–23. 36. Waaler, Shema, 264–66. 37. The verse in Philo quotes the beginning of a throne ascension psalm (Ps 24:1), a verse quoted in 1 Cor 10:26. A similar text is found in Exod 19:1, where it is closely connected to covenant language. 38. Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 342–43, says: “heis theos, ‘one God,’ echoes the OT tradition (LXX Deut 6:4, quoted above . . .), but is modified in two ways . . . Second, the first statement is joined by the parallel statement about ‘one Lord’.” 39. Christian Wolff, Der Erste Brief Des Paulus an Die Korinther: Auslegung Der Kapitel 8–16, vol. 2, THZNT (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982), 8; Schrage, Korinther, 244–45. 40. “When R. Akiba was taken out for execution, it was the hour for the recital of the Shema’ . . . He prolonged the word exad until he expired while saying it. A bath Kol went forth and proclaimed: Happy art thou, Akiba, that thy soul has departed with the word exad” (b. Ber. 61b). “pBerakh 2,4a, 61 Bar: Man muß das Wort . . . Dt 6,4 langgezogen aussprechen” (StrB 1969, 4(1):203). “Symmachus says: Whoever prolongs the word exad [one], has his days and years prolonged” (b. Ber. 13b:a, italics original). 41. Wolff, Korinther, 173. 42. Hays, Corinthians, 140. 43. N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 129. 44. Schrage, Korinther, 345., cf. Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 371. 45. “As a Jew Paul was a monotheist. Frequently he spoke of God as being one . . . Despite this, however, he was not offended by the declaration “Jesus is Lord” and often proclaimed it to be the heart of his gospel”: David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992), 26.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 125

5/28/19 2:17 PM

126

Erik Waaler

46. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 268. 47. Hays, Corinthians, 210. 48. ‘Body’ is used 46 times in 1 Corinthians, which is 0.673 percent of the words in the book, more than any other book in the Greek Bible (LXX/NT). 49. Ibid., 448; see also B. J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation, WUNT 2/115 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), 69–116. 50. Lindemann, Korinther, 219. 51. Hays, Corinthians, 161. Deut 32:4 combines θεὸς πιστός with the “rock” metaphor, even though the LXX translates ‫ הַּצּור‬with θεός. The traditional interpretation of the “rock” metaphor is based on a rabbinic legend of a well that followed the Israelites in the desert (cf. Ps.-Philo L.A.B. 11.15, Wis 11:4, and Philo, Leg. 2.86). see e.g. Ibid. 52. “Since the ‘rock’ is associated with the redemptive work of God (Deut 32:15.18), Paul perhaps considered this a venue for associating the ‘rock’ with the work of Christ. He would have been also attracted to the concept that God is faithful . . .” B.J. Oropeza, “Laying to Rest the Midrash: Paul’s Message on Meat Sacrificed to Idols in Light of the Deuteronmistic Tradition,” Biblica 79 (1998): 57–68 (here, 62–63). See further Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 383; and Waaler Shema, 63–64, vs. Schrage, Korinther, 395., n. 72. 53. For the identification of the locations see Waaler, Shema, 65–67; Wayne A. Meeks, ““And Rose up to Play”: Midrash and Parenaesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22,” JSNT 16 (1982): 64–78 (here, 68). 54. James W. Watts, “Aaron and the Golden Calf in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch,” JBL 130 (2011): 417–430 (here, 421; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 456. 55. Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 387.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A & C Black, 1976. Capes, David B. Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology. Tübingen: Mohr, 1992. Cheung, Alex T. Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy. Jsntsup, edited by S. E. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Ciampa, Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Apollos, 2010. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Vol. v. 7. Sacra Pagina Series. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999. Crawford, Sidnie White. “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period.” In Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, edited by Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, ed. R. Matthews, 127–40. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 126

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Loyalty to Christ in 1 Corinthians and Loyalty to YHWH in Deuteronomy

127

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. Vol. 32. Bibelen. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2008. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003. Gerhardsson, Birger. Hör Israel: Om Jesus Og Den Gamla Bekännelsen. Lund: Liber Läromiddel, 1979. ———. The Shema and the New Testament: Deut. 6:4–5 in Significant Passages. Lund: Nova Press, 1996. Hafemann, Scott J. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture on 2 Corinthians 3. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997. Lindemann, Andreas. Der Erste Korintherbrief. Vol. 9.1. Handbuch Zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 2000. Meeks, Wayne A. ““And Rose up to Play”: Midrash and Parenaesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22.” JSNT 16 (1982): 64–78. Mellamed, Ezra Zion. “‘Observe’ and ‘Remember’ Spoken in One Utterance.” In The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, edited by B.-Z. Segal and G. Levi. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Jerusalem University, 1990. Merklein, Helmut. “Die Einheitlichkeit Der Ersten Korintherbrief “ ZNW 75, no. 3–4 (1984): 153–83. Mitchell, Margaret Mary. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Oropeza, B.J. “Laying to Rest the Midrash: Paul’s Message on Meat Sacrificed to Idols in Light of the Deuteronmistic Tradition.” Biblica 79, no. 1 (1998): 57–68. Rosner, Brian S. “Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7.” Baker Books, 1994. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther. Vol. 2, 4 vols. Ekknt, edited by Norbert Brox, Rudolph Schnackenburgh, Eduard Schweizer, and U. Wilckens. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger Verlag GmbH & Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. ———. Der Erste Brief and Die Korither (1kor 11,17–14,40). Vol. 3. Ekknt, edited by Rudolph Schnackenburgh and Eduard Schweizer. Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1999. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Text Commentary, edited by I. H. Marshall and A. H. Hagner. Grand Rapid: Eerdmanns, 2000. ———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 2000. Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Vol. 1. Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990. Waaler, Erik. The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-Reading of Deuteronomy. Vol. II/253. Wunt, edited by Jürg Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 127

5/28/19 2:17 PM

128

Erik Waaler

Watts, James W. “Aaron and the Golden Calf in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch.” Journal of biblical Literature 3, no. 130 (2011): 417–30. Weiß, Johannes. Der Erste Korintherbrief. Vol. 5. Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar Über Das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Winter, Bruce. “Theological and Ethical Response to Religious Pluralism–1 Corinthians 8–10.” Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 2 (1990): 209–26. Wolff, Christian. Der Erste Brief Des Paulus an Die Korinther. Thnkt. Leipzig: Evangelische verlagsanstalt, 2000(1996). ———. Der Erste Brief Des Paulus an Die Korinther: Auslegung Der Kapitel 8–16. Vol. 2. Thznt, edited by E. Fascher, J. Rohde, and C. Wolff. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. Zeller, Dieter. Der Erste Brief an Die Korinther. Vol. 5(2010). Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar Über Das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 128

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Eight

Paul’s Christological Use of the Exodus Wilderness Rock Tradition in 1 Corinthians 10:4 Linda L. Belleville

The mention in 1 Cor 10:4 of a rock that followed Israel during its wilderness wanderings is considered by all to be one of Paul’s most puzzling ad hoc references. It is absent from the exodus-wilderness narrative and nowhere to be found elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. Equally puzzling is why Paul proceeds to identify Christ with this rolling stone. To quote Paul: “And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the rock that followed them [in the wilderness], and that rock was Christ.” Paul’s hermeneutical approach has been variously labeled as allegory, midrash, pesher, typology, re-read, and re-written Bible. Yet, none of these methodologies fully accounts for Paul’s bold assertion that the wilderness rock was Christ (v. 4) or for his command not to put Christ to the test, as some of the wilderness generation did and were consequently destroyed by serpents (v. 9).1 Is this Paul’s creative genius at work as some have argued? Or is there a hermeneutical and theological explanation for Paul’s rock Christology? This essay will examine exodus-wilderness “rock” tradition-history and commonly proposed exegetical methodologies to determine issues of dependency, originality and theological contribution.

THE CONTEXT: PAUL’S USE OF THE EXODUSWILDERNESS NARRATIVE IN 1 CORINTHIANS 10:1–11 The first thing to note is that Paul’s mention of water supplied by a wilderness rock is not the only biblical reference in the pericope. The exodus-wilderness narrative is either explicitly or implicitly evoked throughout 1 Cor 10:1–11. Only one explicit citation is found: “Do not become idolaters as some of them 129

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 129

5/28/19 2:17 PM

130

Linda L. Belleville

did; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play’” (v. 7; LXX Exod 32:6 ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν).2 However, implicit references to Exod 12–16 and Numbers 11–25 are so numerous that Francis Watson’s proposal of an extended commentary on the exodus-wilderness narrative merits consideration.3 The key exodus-wilderness narrative events are in evidence: Three times Paul states, “these [events] occurred” (ταυ̂τα ἐγενήθησαν v. 6), “these things happened” (ταυ̂τα συνέβαινεν v. 11) and “these things were written,” ([ταυ̂τα] ἐγράφη v. 11) to instruct us. “Our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (vv 1–2) brings to mind Israel’s exodus from Egypt (Exod 13:12–22; 14:21–22). “All ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink” (vv. 3–4) reminds of God’s provision of manna from the sky, quail from the land, and water from a rock (Exod 16:1–36; 17:1–7; Num 20:2–13; 21:16–17).4 “God was not pleased with them and they were struck down in the wilderness” (v. 5), “We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day” (v. 8), “They were destroyed by serpents” (v. 9), and “they were destroyed by the destroyer” (v. 10) evoke the events of Num 14, 16, 21 and 25. However, Paul’s mention in v. 4 of a rock that accompanied Israel and provided an ongoing source of water is distinctively absent in the Hebrew exodus-wilderness narrative.

THE TRAVELING ROCK TRADITION While there is no mention of a mobile source of water in the Hebrew exoduswilderness narrative, there is mention of Moses twice striking a rock to get water. Moses strikes a rock at the beginning of their wilderness journey (Exod 17:6 “[the rock at Horeb] ‘Strike the rock, and water will come out of it, so that the people may drink.’ Moses did so . . . ”) and then forty years later he strikes another rock (Num 20:8–11 “‘Command the rock before their eyes to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for the congregation and their livestock’”). The narrative gap of forty years begs the question of how Israel got its water between rock-strikings. Some think that Paul’s mobile rock comes from Deut 32, where five times God is said to be Israel’s “Rock.”5 Yet, where the Hebrew MT has ֥‫רּוצ‬ (“rock”), the LXX of his Greek speaking readers has θεός: “He [Jacob] abandoned the God who made him and made light of the Rock ( ֥‫ )רּוצ‬of his salvation” (‫ׁשעָתֽ ֹו‬ ֻ ְ ‫ )׃ ַויְנ ֵ ַּ֖בל צ֥ ּור י‬becomes “He [Jacob] abandoned the God who made him and departed from God (θεοῦ) his Savior (καὶ ἀπέστη ἀπὸ θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ, Deut 32:15; cf. Deut 32:4, 18, 30, 31).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 130

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Christological Use of the Exodus

131

Others suppose that Paul creatively surmised that the rock Moses first struck must have traveled with Israel and provided them with a constant supply of wilderness water. Yet, creative supposition does not explain Paul’s matter-of-fact reference to a mobile water source. Such brevity without explanation assumes general familiarity. Tradition history in my opinion best explains this familiarity.6 It is important to observe that reference to a mobile water source predates Paul. It is found in a wide range of Jewish materials, beginning with the Psalter and continuing through rabbinic writings. Jewish folklore filled in the narrative gap between the first rock-striking and the second one forty years later. The first hint of an ongoing water supply appears in the Ps 78:15–16. Verse 15 recalls both rock strikings: “He split rocks [‫ ם ֭ ֻצ ִרי‬plural] open in the wilderness, and gave them drink abundantly as from the deep.” But what was Israel’s ongoing source of water? Verse 16 goes on to say, “[The Lord] made streams come out of the fissure (‫ ) ֭ ֻצ ִרים‬and caused waters (‫ ) מָ ֽי ִם‬to flow down like rivers (‫—”) ַכּּנְה ָ֣רֹות‬a detail not found in the Pentateuch’s exodus– wilderness tradition. The Septuagint has a singular rock (unlike the MT “rocks” and “fissure”), which may well be the basis for further embellishments: Moses “split open a rock in the wilderness” (διέρρηξεν πέτραν ἐν ἐρήμῳ) and led forth water from a rock (ἐξήγαγεν ὕδωρ ἐκ πέτρας), gushing down like a river (κατήγαγεν ὡς ποταμοὺς ὕδατα, LXX Ps 77:15–16).” The Targumim have the same but with God doing the striking: “[God] split the cliff rock (‫ )טינרין‬with the staff of Moses. . . . And he brought forth streams of water from the rock ‫ ) כיפא ואפיק נוזליא דמיא מן‬and made water come down like flowing rivers” (‫ ואוחית היך נהרין דנגדין מיא׃‬Tg. Ps.-J. Ps 78:15–16). By the Hellenistic period a rock had become the water providing rock. Wis 11:4 states: “On you they called when they were thirsty, and from the rocky cliff water was given them [καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου ὕδωρ], from hard stone a remedy for their thirst [καὶ ἴαμα δίψης ἐκ λίθου σκληροῦ]” (Alexandria, Egypt ca. 180–175 BC).7 The picture is that of a specific rock standing in wait to provide water for Israel, whenever the people called upon God. By Paul’s day, the tradition is fully formed. Philo states, “He [Moses] struck the cliff rock and, cleft open by the force of the blow, poured forth water in a stream, so that it not only furnished a remedy for thirst but also supplied for a long time an abundance of drink for so many myriads of people” (ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς πλείω χρόνον τοσαύταις μυριάσιν ἀφθονίαν ποτοῦ, Mos. 1.210–211).8 Pseudo-Philo goes further: “It [the water] followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plains” (L.A.B. 11.15 Et sequebatur eos in heremo annis quadraginta, et ascendit in montem cum eis et descendit in campos).9

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 131

5/28/19 2:17 PM

132

Linda L. Belleville

Further embellishments can be found in post–first century rabbinic materials. The rock becomes a well that traveled up hill and down dale with Israel: T.Sukkah 3.11 [196] states, “The well which was with the Israelites in the wilderness was a rock, the size of a large round vessel, surging and gurgling upward, as from the mouth of its little flask, rising with them up onto the mountains, and going down with them into the valleys.”10 A well is found in the Targumim as well. Tg.Onq. Num 21:16–20 states, “The well which the leaders of the people dug . . . it was given to them in the wilderness. And from the time that it was given to them, it went down with them to the valleys, and from the valleys it went up with them to the high country. And from the high country to the descents of the Moabite fields, at the summit of the height.” The change from “rock” to “well” is probably due to the influence of Num 21:16–17: “From there they continued to Beer; that is the well of which the LORD said to Moses, ‘Gather the people together, and I will give them water.’ Then Israel sang this song: ‘Spring up, O well!—Sing to it!’” PseudoPhilo includes both rock and well traditions: “Now he led his people out into the wilderness; for forty years he rained down for them bread from heaven and brought quail to them from the sea and brought forth a well of water to follow them” (Populum autem sum de duxit in heremum, quadraginta annis pluit illis decelo panem et ortigometram adduxit eis de mari et put elim aque consequentis eduxit eis, L.A.B. 10.7).

WHY PAUL MAKES USE OF THE TRADITION: PARAENESIS One might ask what Gentile Corinth has to do with Jewish Jerusalem? Why does Paul even bother to invoke Israelite history? An explanation can be found in Paul’s inclusive opening statement, “our [common] ancestors (ὅτι οἱ πατέρες ἡμω̂ν) were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea” (1 Cor 10:1). Although “our ancestors” could apply only to Paul and his Jewish kinsmen, the hortatory subjunctives that follow show Jew–Gentile inclusion: “Let us not engage in sexual immorality (μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν) as some of [our ancestors] did . . .” (vv. 8–11). Paul assumes thereby that the story of Israel is the Corinthians’ story as well.11 The matter-of-fact character of Paul’s statements supports Corinthian knowledge of this common heritage and of the biblical narratives as their shared tradition. The basis for the Corinthian’s inclusion is found in Paul’s second hortatory subjunctive, “Let us not test Christ as some of them [the wilderness generation] did and were destroyed by serpents” (1 Cor 10:9). There is textual variation. “Let us not test tὸν κύριον” finds support in ‫ א‬B C P syr and “Let

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 132

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Christological Use of the Exodus

133

us not test θεόν” in A and 81. “Let us not test τὸν Χριστόν” however, has the weighty and diverse support of P46 D F G K, L, Ψ, it, vg, syr, cop, Irenaeus (lat). Χριστόν is also the more difficult reading. The difficulty of explaining how the ancient Israelites in the wilderness could have tempted Christ probably prompted some copyists to substitute either the ambiguous κύριον or the unobjectionable θεό.12 If Χριστόν is original, then “We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them [our ancestors] did and were destroyed by serpents” has profound theological significance.13 Some have raised doubts about the Corinthian’s theological self– understanding and claim support in the opening Οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμα̂ς ἀγνοει̂ν (v. 1). To be sure, Paul typically uses the epistolary formula to disclose new information.14 Yet, their common ancestry is not what is presented as new. “Our ancestors,” the blessings of a cloud, the parting of the Red Sea, manna, and water are stated in verses 1–4 without any explanation, thereby assuming Corinthian familiarity. Paul’s new information begins at verse 5: Yes, they experienced all these divine blessings, “But God was not pleased with most of them” (Ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐν τοι̂ς πλείοσιν αὐτω̂ν εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός), as evidenced by the exodus-wilderness generation’s demise in the wilderness.” Paul further states: “Now these things occurred as examples for us (Ταυ̂τα δὲ τύποι ἡμω̂ν ἐγενήθησαν), so that we might not desire evil as they did.” And then again at verse 11: “Now (δὲ) these things happened as an example (ταυ̂τα τυπικω̂ς) and were written down for our instruction (ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμω̂ν). This new information elicits the command three verses later, “Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols” (v. 14). Central to understanding the “Why?” of Paul’s use of the exodus-wilderness narrative are the terms τύποι (v. 6) and τυπικω̂ς (v. 11). Some take τύποι as a prefigurement of something yet to come—an OT shadow that finds its substance in the NT.15 When the “substance” becomes a reality, the “shadow” no longer has a purpose and fades into the sunset. While this certainly is what Paul says elsewhere about the Mosaic Covenant (e.g., Gal 3:19, 24 “until the seed comes . . . until Christ”; cf. 2 Cor 3:7–11, 13), it is not what τύποι means here. Israel’s golden calf incident is not put forward by Paul as a foreshadowing of Gentile idolatry and sexual immorality.16 Others argue that God’s provision of manna, quail and water are a type or foreshadowing of the bread and wine of the Eucharist.17 Yet here too a connection is missing. No explicit typology is drawn between the two in these verses. Instead, Paul’s four-fold prohibition (“Do not . . . let us not . . . let us not . . . Do not”) leading up to the command at verse 14 to “flee idolatry” makes 1 Cor 10:1–11 periegetic in form and function.18 This accords with the semantic range for τύπος, which includes “the impression made by a blow.”19 What happened to Israel left an ethical impression and provided a set of footprints

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 133

5/28/19 2:17 PM

134

Linda L. Belleville

not to be followed. Paul’s statement, “it was written down for us,” indicates as much. The act of writing assured a story’s value as a lesson for subsequent generations. One can, therefore, speak of certain biblical narratives and even Jewish folklore as τύποι texts—texts that leave a “moral impression.”20 Paul references the poor choices made by the exodus-wilderness generation as a warning about continuing involvement in idolatrous practices and sexually immoral associations. His moral exhortation begins at verse 6: “Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not become idolaters as some of them did . . . We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did” (vv. 6–8). The consequences for Israel were the death of twenty–three thousand in a single day (v. 8), destruction by serpents on another occasion (v. 10) and death at the hands of “the Destroyer” on still another (v. 11). What happened to the exodus-wilderness generation is invoked by Paul because the Israelites, like the Corinthians, had enjoyed unprecedented spiritual privileges and blessings: “In every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind . . . so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift” (1 Cor 1:5–7). But the receipt of such divine blessings did not assure a positive end for the Israelites and neither will the Corinthians’ spiritual blessings do so for them. Every story has a point, and the traveling rock story makes an important theological contribution. It attests to God’s constant care for and provision of his people. God’s greatness and faithfulness is highlighted by Paul in the opening verses of chapter 10. No one is excluded. “All” is repeated four times. All passed through the Red Sea on dry ground. All were led by means of a divine cloud. God didn’t lose one Israelite during the Exodus. All ate the miraculously provided food. All drank the miraculously provided water. Israel’s God was so committed to his people that he gave them a mobile source of water—a rock that followed them throughout the wilderness years. Yet, despite God’s show of greatness and faithfulness, Israel turned away and worshipped other so-called gods. “Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written,” Paul states, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play (1 Cor 10:7).” In other words, the tradition of the “traveling rock” highlights the enormity of Israel’s sin. What adds further to sin’s enormity is Paul’s final statement in 1 Cor 10:4: “this rock was Christ.”

PAUL’S ROCK CHRISTOLOGY While Paul’s use of Jewish folklore has parallels, his further identification of this piece of folklore with “Christ” is without parallel: γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικη̂ς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἠ̂ν ὁ Χριστός. While a mobile water supply

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 134

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Christological Use of the Exodus

135

can perhaps be deduced from a narrative of forty years of wilderness wandering, Christ as that rock is more problematic. Is this then Paul’s creative genius at work? Or is there a hermeneutical and/or theological basis for his rock Christology? Allegorical interpretations of the wilderness rock and the wilderness well are well-established in the Jewish writers of Paul’s day. For example, the Essenes interpreted the well God provided Israel in the wilderness as Torah: “The ‘well’ is the Law [Num 21:16–17]”, CD 6.4). Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the wilderness rock as the Wisdom of God provides perhaps the closest parallel: “For the cliff rock is the Wisdom of God (ἡ γὰρ ἀκρότομος πέτρα ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν), which, being both sublime and the first of things, he quarried out of his own powers, and of it he gives drink to the souls that love God (ἣν ἄκραν καὶ πρωτἰστην ἔτεμεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεων ἐξ ἧς ποτίζει τὰς φιλοθέους ψυχάς)” (Alleg.Interp. 2.86). Yet, the precedent is already there in Wis 11:1–5: “Wisdom prospered their works by the hand of a holy prophet. They journeyed through an uninhabited wilderness . . . When they thirsted they called upon you [Wisdom] and water was given them out of cliff rock (ἐδίψησαν καὶ ἐπεκαλέσαντό σε, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου ὕδωρ) and slaking of thirst from hard stone.” Some see in Paul’s rock Christology an example of Jewish pesher.21 A pesher hermeneutic is found in the NT. Paul employs this method himself. Yahweh in the Mosaic Covenant becomes the Spirit in the New Covenant. Moses’ unveiling his face in the tabernacle πρὸς κύριον (Exod 34:34) is interpreted by Paul as “Now this Lord today is the Spirit” (ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, 2 Cor 3:16–17).22 Inanimate objects are interpreted as animate in the NT: “The stone that the builders rejected” (λίθον, ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, Ps 117 [118]:22) is identified in Acts 4:11 as Jesus: “He [Jesus] is that stone” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος, ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφʼ ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων). However, in the case of 1 Cor 10:4, Paul does not say that the wilderness rock back then is now to be understood as Christ. He says the mobile rock back then was Christ. Richard Hays is probably close to the mark in seeing 1 Cor 10:4 as a “rereading of the Exodus narrative in light of Christology.” 23 Perhaps one can posit Jewish folk lore interpreted through the lens of salvation history. It is fairly easy to see how Paul got there. First there is the Exodus tradition of God caring for Israel in the wilderness through a rock which Moses struck once at the beginning of their journey and then again at the end. Second, there is the Psalter tradition of God providing for Israel’s ongoing water needs by means of a river that gushed forth from the rock. Third, there is the logical conclusion that in order for Israel’s God to provide a steady water source, the

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 135

5/28/19 2:17 PM

136

Linda L. Belleville

rock must have followed them during their journey. After all, God provided direction for Israel by means of a mobile cloud by day and a traveling pillar of fire by night. Why not a traveling rock? If Yahweh was a traveling cloud, who was the traveling rock? γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικη̂ς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἠ̂ν ὁ Χριστός. Ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός would then be a ready Christological way to re-read of Scripture. While it might be uncommon logic for moderns, it would not be so for a Jewish rabbi, who was trained in the rabbinic “pearl stringing” method of associating words, phrases and concepts found throughout Scripture.24 This would further explain Paul’s exhortation that the Corinthians not put τὸν Χριστόν to the test, as some of [the Israelites] did, and were destroyed by serpents (1 Cor 10:9 as the accepted variant).25 He also warns, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord (κυρίου) and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord (κυρίου) and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord (τὸν κύριον) to jealousy?” (v. 22). Theologically, “the cup of the Lord” (ποτήριον κυρίου) is “a sharing in the blood of Christ” (τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ v. 16). One could also consider the use of Exod 17:6 in the Fourth Gospel. John 7:37–38 recounts, “On the last day of the feast [of Tabernacles] . . . , while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and he who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘out of its [or “his”] belly (ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας) shall flow rivers of living water.’” While, this text has its own exegetical challenges, it is clear that the exodus–wilderness narrative is in view. A case has been made by Johannine scholars that Exod 17:6 and Num 20:11 were among the Scriptures read during the Feast of Tabernacles. The MT Exod 17:6 has ‫“( מִּמֶ ּ֛נּו‬from within”) and the LXX has ἐξ αὐτῆς [τὴν πέτραν], the interior cavity of the rock from which the wilderness water sprung forth. The Johannine ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος can thus be translated “out of its [the rock’s] cavity will flow rivers of running water.” If so, John 7:38 would provide some support for a Christological reading of the exodus-wilderness “rock” tradition current in the early church and hence not original to Paul. Oscar Cullmann went even further in arguing that Paul and the Fourth Gospel were drawing on the same or similar Christological “rock” tradition.26 Regardless, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός in 1 Cor 10:4 can be seen as a rereading of the exodus-wilderness narrative and salvation history through a Christological lens. Salvation history by its very nature is personal. Yahweh relates to his people in very tangible ways—a cloud, a voice, a pillar of fire, all visible manifestations of his care-giving nature, preparing the way to reread certain exodus-wilderness events in light of a tangible Christology.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 136

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Christological Use of the Exodus

137

NOTES 1. See below for treatment of the textual variants in 1 Cor 10:9. 2. All Scriptures references unless otherwise noted are from the NRSV, NA 28th edition, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5th edition, and John Wevers’ Septuaginta (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 3. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 354–411. Wayne Meeks argues that 1 Cor 10 is a midrash on Exod 32:6. Verses 1–4 elaborate on “The people sat down to eat and drink”; vv. 6–10 elaborate on “and they rose up to play” (“‘And Rose Up To Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22,” JSNT 16 [1982]: 64–78). Compare Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 126–35 and 156 n. 36. Some go further and posit Paul’s use of a pre-existing midrash on Numbers. There is some justification in this. There are a number of words that only occur here and in Numbers. See Raymond Collins, First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MINN.: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 364. 4. It is common to interpret “spiritual” (πνευματικὸν) as typological, foreshadowing the bread and blood of the Eucharist. See, for example, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchngen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bie Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 1986), 215–6. Yet there is no explicit connection drawn between the two and a typological understanding does not take into account the other named Exodus blessings of the divine cloud, passage through the Sea, and baptism into Moses. It seems more likely therefore that πνευματικὸν refers to food and water that were supernaturally provided by an act of God. Some appeal to the Greek words τύποι in v. 6 (ταυ̂τα δὲ τύποι ἡμω̂ν ἐγενήθησαν) and τυπικω̂ς in v. 11 (ταυ̂τα δὲ τυπικω̂ς συνέβαινεν ἐκείνοις). However, Paul goes on to say “they were written down for our instruction (ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμω̂ν) and identifies the instruction in v. 14 as paraenesis, “Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols.” This accords with the semantic range for τύπος, which includes “the impression made by the blow (mark, trace,” LSJ). 5. Deut 32:4 “The Rock, his work is perfect”; 32:18 “You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you”; 32:30 “unless their Rock had sold them”; 32:31 “For their rock is not as our Rock.” Compare, Deut 32:13 “he suckled him with honey out of the rock and oil out of the flinty rock”; 32:37 “Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge.” 6. Compare A. McEwen, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4,” Vox Reformato 47 (1986): 7–8; W. L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS 68; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 133–142; Peter Enns, “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text,” BBR 6 (1996): 23–38; M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983), 241–44. Commentators who see Paul utilizing a well-established piece of Jewish lore, include C. Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THKNT 7/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982), 42–43; P. Bachmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 137

5/28/19 2:17 PM

138

Linda L. Belleville

(KNT 7; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1921), 330; C. K. Barrett, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; HNTC; New York: Harper & Row), 44 7. Wis 11:4 πέτρας ἀκροτόμου is a steep rock cliff and not “flinty rock” as translated by the RSV and NRSV. See LSJ s.v. 8. Charles Yonge, The Works of Philo (reprint ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 478. 9. A first century date for Pseudo–Philo is scholarly consensus. 10. Compare b.Ta’an 9a; Num Rab. 1.2; b.Šabb. 35a. 11. Some understand “our ancestors” to be a rhetorical (versus theological) move on Paul’s part. Paul doesn’t really see himself and his Gentile converts as having a common ancestry. He includes the Corinthians merely as a means to gain a hearing. See, for example, Christopher Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 75–76, 86. On the other hand, Abraham (and his descendants) as the common ancestor of both Jewish and Greek believers is a core Pauline conviction in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. For further discussion, see Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale, 1989), 95–96. The two (rhetorical and theological), however, are not mutually exclusive. 12. See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 494. 13. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 91–104. 14. See Rom 1:13; 11:25; 1 Cor 12:1; 2 Cor 1:8 and the positive formulation “I want you to know” in 1 Cor 11:3; Col 2:1. 15. For instance, Andrew Bandstra, “Interpretation in 1 Corinthians 10:1–11,” Calvin Theological Journal 6 (1971): 6–14. 16. See Wayne Meeks, “‘And Rose Up To Play’: Midrash and Paranaesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22, JSNT 16 (1982): 64–78. 17. See, for example, Hays, who argues that Israel’s story is a prefigurement of the church with its sacraments (Echoes of Scripture, 95). See also W. F. Orr and J. A. Walther. I Corinthians. (Anchor Bible; New York.: Doubleday, 1976), 245; Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 446–47. 18. See for instance, Raymond Collins, First Corinthians, 367. See also Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (ET Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 168. 19. LSJ s.v. 20. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 157. 21. See, for example, Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 38–45; also Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchngen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bie Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 1986), 202–04. 22. Linda Belleville, Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the MosesDoxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18 (JSNTS 52; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 248–73. 23. Hays, First Corinthians, 151; contrast Echoes of Scripture, 95–102. 24. See, Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 114–117. 25. See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 494. 26. Oscar Cullmann, “ Πέτρα,” NIDNTT 6:97.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 138

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Paul’s Christological Use of the Exodus

139

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bachmann, P. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. KNT 7; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1921. Bandstra, Andrew. “Interpretation in 1 Corinthians 10:1–11.” Calvin Theological Journal 6 (1971): 6–14. Barrett, C. K. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed.; HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1994. Belleville, Linda. Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18. JSNTS 52; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Collins Raymond. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MINN.: The Liturgical Press, 1999. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. ET; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978. Cullmann, Oscar. “ Πέτρα,” NIDNTT 6:97. Ellis, Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Enns, Peter. “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text.” BBR 6 (1996): 23–38. Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale, 1989. ———. First Corinthians: Interpretation. Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchngen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bie Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 1986. Longenecker, Richard. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. McEwen, A. “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4.” Vox Reformato 47 (1986): 3–10. McNamara, Martin. Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983. Meeks, Wayne. “‘And Rose Up To Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22,” JSNT 16 (1982): 64–78. Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Orr W. F. and J. A. Walther. I Corinthians. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Stanley, Christopher. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T & T Clark, 2004. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. New York: T & T Clark, 2004. Willis, W. L. Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. SBLDS 68; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Wolff, C. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. THKNT 7/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982). Yonge, Charles. The Works of Philo. Reprint ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 139

5/28/19 2:17 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 140

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Nine

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:21–25 Roy E. Ciampa

In this paper I intend to revisit the treatment of Paul’s use of Isaiah in 1 Corinthians 14:21 given in the Pillar Commentary on the letter, which I coauthored with Brian Rosner.1 Since completing that manuscript my thinking about Paul’s approach to biblical interpretation has continued to evolve,2 and that evolution will be reflected in the differences between the presentation made here and that in the commentary. While the commentary reflects my views and those of Rosner, it should be understood that this paper reflects my views while the commentary reflected those of Rosner and myself at the time of publication.

ISAIAH 28 IN DIVERSE CONTEXTS: THE HEBREW BIBLE, OLD GREEK, AND 1 CORINTHIANS In 1 Corinthians 14:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11–12. In the context of those verses the religious leaders complain that the prophet’s message is too simple and naïve. They want to know what kind of people Isaiah thinks he will teach. They ask, “Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast?” (Isa 28:9). Isaiah 28:10 may be intended to mimic the sounds of a child’s introductory Hebrew class. The irony is that “[t]hose who are ‘wise’ and ‘gifted’ in their own eyes dismiss the plain message as ‘childish,’ when in reality it is the supposedly wise who think and act like children.”3 Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians to reason as adults rather than children may echo Isaiah’s encounter with childish people who thought they were too wise to hear his message. 141

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 141

5/28/19 2:17 PM

142

Roy E. Ciampa

Paul finds guidance for this issue in the words of Isaiah: In the Law it is written: “With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”

ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί μου, λέγει κύριος.

Isaiah 28:1–29, in its original context, consists of an oracle against the political and religious leadership of God’s people (Samaria and Jerusalem). They had rejected God’s counsel to rest and trust in him as being too naïve and had gone ahead in a policy marked by a drunken madness and formed other alliances. The leadership (rulers, priests and prophets; cf. Isa 28:1, 3, 7, 14–15) refused to listen when God clearly and plainly explained to them what it meant to rest in him and to give rest to the weary (Isa 28:12), so now God’s voice of judgment will be heard in the barbarian language of their Assyrian invaders (Isa 28:11). The verses immediately preceding our text evidently represent their mockery of Isaiah’s message (Isa 28:9–10). The word used for “stammering” (‫ ) ָלעֵג‬usually means “derision”4 and it may be that Isaiah intends a double entendre involving an ironic reversal, namely, the “stammering” of the Assyrian invaders is God’s punishment for the “mocking” perpetrated by the nation’s leadership (Isa 28:11).5 As Kwon has suggested, “the judgment of unintelligible speech serves as a metonymy for the experience of foreign invasion in general and, perhaps, the experience of exile in particular.”6 Such a metonymy would be based on the knowledge that one of the climactic covenant curses would be to suffer invasion “from a nation whose language you do not understand.”7 Paul introduces his quotation by identifying it as something “written in the Law.” This particular way of introducing the quotation raises a series of questions. Comments on this text by the early Fathers tended to reflect an awareness that it seemed surprising for Paul to introduce a quote from Isaiah as being from “the Law” and reminded readers (as do modern commentators) that while the expression the Law is sometimes used in a strict sense to refer to the Pentateuch, it was also used in a wider sense, as here, referring to Scripture as a whole (Matt 5:18; Luke 10:26; 16:17; John 7:49; 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; Rom 3:19).8 BDAG suggests this “wider sense” was employed on the principle that the most authoritative part gives its name to the whole. Paul may not only be identifying it as a quotation from Scripture but also possibly hinting that he locates its primary significance within the context of the Mosaic covenant.9 His argument depends on a contrast between the situation of the Israelites and Jews under the Law and the situation which already holds

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 142

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

143

for those who have now experienced the redemption that was especially associated with part of the prophetic message. It may well be that Paul was familiar with the historical context to which Isa 28 refers, with the foreign language being that of the Assyrian invaders. It may be that he has that background in mind, when he says in 1 Cor 14:11: “If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me” (NIV). But we cannot be certain of that, especially since so many other ancient Jewish and early Christian interpreters do not seem to have interpreted the text in that way, and the reference to barbarians in 1 Cor 14:11 certainly does not prove Paul had the Assyrian invasion in mind. Also, the reference in context does not seem to have tipped off many Fathers, who presumably had a better handle on the OT than most Corinthian readers would have had. Assuming that Paul was aware of that historical background, he does nothing to make the Corinthians aware of it, and there is no reason to think they would be aware of the Assyrian references in Isaiah’s text. Paul is content to say that the key text is found “in the Law.” It seems that the contrasts that I would want to make between exile and restoration and the inversions the prophets expect between those two different periods are extended in Paul’s own thinking to contrasts between life under the Law and life in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 3 and other Pauline contrasts between life under the Law and in Christ). Chris Stanley has pointed out how often it may not have been necessary for Paul’s readers to know the original context of the texts he cites in order to understand the thrust of his argument.10 This may be one of those cases. Paul gives none of the traces a modern reader would give to indicate that they are performing a “historical” interpretation. He makes no references to Assyrians or to the particular time period or circumstances to which the text might be referring. As already pointed out, he does not even mention which part of the Scriptures he is citing but merely indicates it is from “the Law.” To speak anachronistically, it seems he is more interested here in what would today be called a theological reading than a “historical” interpretation of the text. Paul emphasizes the idea of “other” or “foreign” tongues and lips through repetition (ἑτερογλώσσοις . . . χείλεσιν ἑτέρων). In Paul’s case the issue is the use of strange languages in worship. Other early interpretations of the text could gloss over the text’s reference to unknown languages.11 In Tg.Isa. and 1QHa (X [= II] 19; xii [= IV] 16) the strange tongues and lips of Isa 28:11–12 are those of God’s rebellious people (false teachers according to Qumran, the people in general in the Targum) who reject his revelation and his true prophets. In the LXX it is not clear whether the message of 28:12 was spoken by the drunken prophets and priests or by the invading Assyrians.12 Koch and

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 143

5/28/19 2:17 PM

144

Roy E. Ciampa

Stanley argue that in the LXX, “vv. 10–12 are mistakenly read as continuing the description of the disgraceful deeds of the ‘priest and prophet’ that begins in v. 7.”13 Lanier thinks the LXX has turned v. 12 into a call for endurance in the face of taunting invaders (whose words are found in v. 12).14 Each text, regardless of which words are attributed to which people, understands the passage to deal with a radical division between faithful and unfaithful Israelites. In some cases the stammering lips and foreign tongue are considered a cause for God’s judgment, while in others they appear to be a sign of it. These interpreters tend to emphasize the idea of scornful or mocking words (e.g., 1QHa, Tg.Isa.]). Paul is presumably interested in this text precisely because of its reference to God’s use of strange languages to communicate a message to his people.15 The different textual traditions (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) disagree about who spoke through the strange lips and tongues. As Stanley points out, “Determining the precise relationship between the wording of 1 Cor 14.21 and the text of the LXX is one of the greatest challenges in the entire corpus of Pauline citations” due to “the distance of the Pauline wording from both the LXX and the Masoretic Hebrew textual traditions.”16 Paul leaves out most of Isaiah 28:12, evidently because he does not think those clauses are relevant to his argument. His text appears to be an interpretive rendering, perhaps dependent upon an earlier Greek version that sought to conform more closely to the Hebrew text than the LXX.17 The Hebrew texts (MT and 1QIsaa) indicate God would speak to his people “by stammering (or mocking) lips and by another tongue” because he had spoken to them before “but they were unwilling to hear.” The LXX says it is “because of the contempt of lips and through another tongue they will speak (λαλήσουσιν) to this people . . . but they did not want to hear.” Paul follows the Hebrew texts in understanding the speaker to be the Lord, but his text uses the first person, λαλήσω, rather than the third person, λαλήσουσι (as in the LXX). While Origen tells us that what Paul has is “in effect what I found in Aquila’s interpretation,” the key expression in Origen, τά ἰσοδυναμοῦντα, may best be understood to mean “the equivalent expression” and Kautsch has suggested he may mean simply “agreed in part.”18 Koch has suggested Paul’s Vorlage read λαλήσει19 and that he made the change to the first person singular for rhetorical effect.20 It is not clear if Paul’s reading is based on an ambiguous form in 28:12b or is Paul’s adaptation.21 While both the Hebrew texts and the LXX represent the final clause as an historical observation, “they were not willing to listen” (LXX: οὐκ ἠθέλησαν ἀκούειν), Paul’s text transforms it into a shocking prediction (οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί,—“even then they will not listen”). This seems to be his own modification, reflecting his interpretation of the significance of the strange

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 144

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

145

language. That they would not listen “even then” (οὐδ᾽ οὕτως) suggests that the experience of not listening to God would not be a new and different response on the part of Israel but a continuation of a stubborn unwillingness to listen that had marked them previously. (Note the relationship between Isa 28:11–12 and Isa 6:9–12, as well as the condemnation in Isa 1:2–7.) Paul agrees with the Hebrew texts in holding that it is the Lord who speaks through them. That is an important aspect of the text for him, and one that he emphasizes by adding the object pronoun (μου) and final quotation formula (λέγει κύριος). Both Paul and the Corinthians seem to understand they are dealing with a phenomenon through which God himself communicates via unknown languages.22 Paul’s particular way of presenting the text leaves no doubt about his view of the divine origin of the gift of speaking in tongues. If there is a problem with the gift or its employment, it is not because God does not speak through it. If Paul understands Isa28:11–12 in terms of Israel’s experience with the Assyrian invasion rather than merely as a direct prophetic reference to the gift of tongues in his own day, his greatest interpretive move related to the text form may have to do with his perspective on the significance of foreign languages in the history of God’s relationship with his people. Isaiah 28:11–12 indicates God would speak to his people in judgment through a strange language because they did not listen to him earlier when he spoke in clear and simple terms. Paul surely knows Israel’s experience was due to its rejection of prior revelation in the common language of the people, but (again, assuming he is aware of the original context, an assumption I am growing less confident of) he understands that Israel’s experience of hearing God speak in that unusual way (i.e., through the foreign languages of the invaders) did not have a spiritually transforming effect on them. This may be related to Paul’s understanding that Israel (for the most part) continued to stand in need of conversion and redemption until his day (Rom 3:9–20; 9:2–8; 27–33; 10:1–3; Gal 3:10–13; 4:4–5, 25; 1 Thess 2:14–16). Thus, not even exile brought the nation of Israel back to God. As Kwon puts it, “Paul’s textual purview appears to encompass a wider span of the historical narrative, namely, one that includes Israel’s enduring unbelief even after their encounter with ‘other tongues’ in exile.”23 God not only spoke to his people through foreign invaders in the day or year of their fall, but he continued to speak to them through their experience of foreign domination over a period of decades and centuries. The relationship between Paul’s quotation of Isa 28:11–12 in 1 Cor 14:21, the conclusion drawn in 14:22 and the examples given in 14:23–25 has proven to be extremely difficult to unravel.24 Part of the solution probably comes in the relationship between Paul’s quotation of Isa 28:11–12 in 1 Cor 14:21 and his allusion to Isa 45:14 and Zech 8:23 in 1 Cor 14:25. While 1 Cor

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 145

5/28/19 2:17 PM

146

Roy E. Ciampa

14:22 mentions both believers and unbelievers, the illustrations in verses 23– 25 focus exclusively on unbelievers and the way they respond to an encounter with a community that is speaking in tongues or one that is prophesying. The focus on unbelievers was signaled in the quotation’s reference to Israel’s unwillingness to listen to the Lord despite his attention-getting approach. In the OT context the experience of the invading Assyrians was God’s execution of the covenant curses on his unbelieving and unfaithful people.25 In Paul’s context it seems unlikely that the point of the gift of tongues was to signal Israel’s continuing experience of God’s covenant curses.26 Just as the experience in Isa 28:11–12 did not result in the conversion of the hearers but expressed alienation between God and his people, Paul indicates the use of the gift of tongues tends to result not in the conversion of unbelievers, but in their further alienation. Paul’s citation of Isa 28:11–12 highlights the fact that God could not even get his own people to respond to him, even when he spoke to them through an extreme, attention-grabbing manner (having tried more subtle approaches previously). His allusion to Isa 45:14 (in 1 Cor 14:25), on the other hand, relates to a later phase in God’s relationship with his people, one when even Gentiles would come to recognize and worship the God of Israel for who he really is. The different responses in the two texts are related to the difference between those two consecutive phases in God’s relationship with his people. Different modes of communication are associated with each of those two phases. By beginning in 1 Cor 14:22 with ὥστε Paul links it to the previous verse and indicates a conclusion is being drawn from it: “Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.” This verse has raised many eyebrows, since it has hardly been transparent to most readers that the citation from Isaiah establishes the points Paul makes here. Isa 28 is referring not to the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues but to the foreign language(s) spoken by the Assyrian invaders which served as a sign of God’s judgment executed against his people. Since the Assyrian speech served as a sign from God (and was described as a means by which God himself spoke to his stubborn people), it was not to be thought of as an ordinary case of hearing a foreign language. While Paul probably understood the original context and nature of the tongues mentioned by Isaiah, he evidently understands that it was no accident that the Scriptures contained this reference to speaking in other tongues or languages and that the spiritual gift was at least analogous in that it was a special experience in which God himself instigated the experience. In Isaiah those who were confronted by the foreign tongues were disobedient and unbelieving Israelites (whose disobedience and unbelief had brought the situation upon them). While unintelligible communication from God was a sign to his unbelieving people that the curses of the Mosaic covenant had fallen

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 146

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

147

on them, the powerful prophetic ministry of the church is a sign that God’s presence has been restored to his redeemed (and believing) people. Hays points out that this verse “seems to stand in direct contradiction to the explanation that follows in verses 23–25, in which unbelievers are turned away by tongues and converted by prophecy.”27 Our surface reading of this verse might lead us to expect that tongues as a “sign . . . for unbelievers” would be especially effective in leading them to conversion (cf. Acts 2:4–41). Instead, Paul indicates that tongues were more likely to alienate unbelievers. Furthermore, one might expect Paul’s statement that “prophecy is . . . for believers” to be illustrated by an example showing how effective the gift of prophecy is for building up believers. Instead, Paul says nothing about the impact of prophecy on believers but keeps his focus on the impact the gift is more likely to have on unbelievers.28

PAUL AND THE QUESTION OF SIGNS Some have made an issue of the fact that Paul says tongues are “a sign” (σημεῖον), but he does not use the word σημεῖον again with respect to prophecy. He merely says prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. However, it was not necessary to repeat the word σημεῖον since the structure would lead the reader to understand the issue and to anticipate the use of ellipsis. Paul’s wording, οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, suggests he is presenting a response to a view that tongues were, in fact, a sign for believers. It may well have been the Corinthians who introduced the term σημεῖον, suggesting that tongues were a sign given by God to believers which should be prominent in Christian worship. Paul’s citation of Isa 28 seems intended to counter such a view. Much study has been dedicated to discerning whether a sign would be expected to represent something positive or negative. Wayne Grudem has shown that the word could be used to refer to something positive or negative since it has to do with something that reveals God’s attitude or intention, which would be positive or negative depending on the situation.29 As Carson argues, “It is possible that verse 22 is commenting on the situation in Isaiah’s day. The unbelievers faced judgment, and were addressed by God in the unintelligible language of foreigners; but there remained a godly remnant who benefited, not from tongues, but from prophecy—Isaiah’s prophecy (see Isa. 8:16). In other words, the distinction as to whether a certain phenomenon served as a positive sign or a negative sign extends back into the context of Isaiah.”30 Paul clarifies in the context that a “sign for unbelievers,” in this case, does not mean a sign benefiting unbelievers but the sign normally reserved for unbelievers, which communicates God’s judgment on them as

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 147

5/28/19 2:17 PM

148

Roy E. Ciampa

such. The tongues of the Assyrians (and then Babylonians, Medes, and Persians) were a sign from God. They were a constant reminder to the Israelites of their alienation from him and their need for forgiveness and restoration, a restoration that would bring salvation to the Gentiles as well.31 In 1 Cor 12–14 the theme of the Spirit brings the already-present aspect of God’s saving and restoring (new creation) activity into the foreground, marking this as a time in which God is effectively communicating with his redeemed people. That communication (in keeping with Isa 45) was expected to lead not only to the redemption of Israel but also to the conversion of those who witness God’s work in and through his people. Paul’s evaluation of tongues and prophecy in a public setting is governed by the distinction in Isaiah between a time of communication breakdown, alienation and judgment, and a time of restoration and restored communication, which results in God being glorified by those who witness his presence in the midst of his people. Seen in this way, tongues are a sign to unbelievers in that the public experience of unintelligible communication from God highlights the sense and reality of alienation between the speaker(s) and those being spoken to. Such an experience was only intended for God’s people while they were in a state of rebellion and unbelief and suffering the curses of the Mosaic covenant. Thiselton points out that “the experience of ‘not belonging’ to which Isa 28:11–12 witnesses as a sign of judgment . . . should not be illegitimately imposed upon believers who do belong and should feel “at home” in the worship of the Christian community.”32 Prophecy was a sign for believers in that God would speak to and through them again in power only after they had been restored. If he was speaking prophetically through them again (speaking not in judgment but speaking “to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and comfort;” 1 Cor 14:3), it was a sign to them that the age of restoration and salvation had been inaugurated. The conversion of others through their prophetic ministry was further confirmation of that sign and a reminder to the Corinthians that they are part of the fulfillment of God’s plan to be worshipped among all the Gentiles, and it is Paul’s ultimate purpose in writing to them to see them play their part in fulfilling this worldwide eschatological vision by glorifying God (1 Cor 6.20b and 10.31b).33

PAUL ON THE PROBLEM WITH GLOSSOLALIA While in the preceding verses Paul pointed out that uninterpreted (i.e., untranslated) tongues are not useful to the church. In 1 Cor 14:23 he makes the point that they may even have an unintended negative impact on those who observe them and on the reputation of the church: “So if the whole church

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 148

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

149

comes together and everyone speaks in tongues and inquirers [ἰδιῶται] or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?” The word ἰδιώτης (translated inquirers here and in the next verse) is the same used in 14:16. Here, however, it is not referring to those who have been made to feel and respond like mere pre-Christian God-fearers or inquirers (by being exposed to unintelligible tongues in their own church) but to actual inquirers, people who have shown some interest in the Christian faith but who have not yet taken the step of expressing a clear faith commitment and joining the church through baptism. The unbelievers, if they are to be distinguished from the inquirers here (and it may well be that Paul is referring to the same people), would presumably be people who have not shown significant interest already but who have decided to attend the worship gathering and see what it is like (people who are possibly on the way to becoming inquirers). This says something about the openness of the early church and one of the approaches to evangelism or outreach that they learned and shared with the ancient synagogue: “Vorausgesetzt ist, dass auch Nichtglaubende Zutritt zur Gemeinde haben und urchristliche Gottesdienste keine esoterisch-exklusiven Veranstaltungen einer nach aussen geschlossen Gesellschaft sind.”34 Paul indicates that not everyone speaks in tongues or exercises the gift of prophecy (12:29–30), although the second possibility seems much more viable in his eyes. The idea of inclusive participation is highlighted in this verse and the next by the repetition of the word πᾶς (once here, three times in the following verse: πάντες λαλῶσιν γλώσσαις . . . πάντες προφητεύωσιν . . .; ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων35). Those who do not know any better (visiting unbelievers or inexperienced inquirers) will think the worshippers “are out of [their] mind.” While μαίνομαι often meant simply to be out of one’s senses, it was also used in the context of religious experience to refer to a divinely-induced altered mental state, such as was associated with Bacchic possession and inspiration.36 Hays suggests that a “typical pagan Corinthian observing such a scene would say, ‘Oh, this is just another group like the devotees of Dionysius or Cybele’—one more consumer option in a pluralistic religious market.”37 The conclusion that “you are out of your mind” represents a fundamental sense of repulsion with which the Corinthians would surely not want to be associated.38 Forbes thinks it “highly unlikely that unbelievers hearing the kind of glossolalia Paul is commending for the first time in a Christian context would recognize it as a familiar phenomenon.”39 He considers it “possible that the tumult of a large number of Corinthians speaking in tongues simultaneously would remind them of the frenzy of Hellenistic cult groups,” but he thinks it more likely to elicit “the thoroughly negative reaction ‘you are all crazy.’”40 Whether the Corinthians would consider the experience very strange or somewhat comparable to other religious experiences with which they were

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 149

5/28/19 2:17 PM

150

Roy E. Ciampa

familiar, Forbes is probably correct that Paul’s basic point is that the reaction would be a negative one, in contrast with the reaction to what is described in the following two verses. He thinks “Paul’s understanding of part of the problem in Corinth (the observed fact that uninterpreted tongues in the presence of unbelievers leads them to reject what they see and hear) has consciously or unconsciously shaped his quotation of Isaiah, in order to make precisely that point: ‘they (outsiders) will not listen to you, or to what you say about God.’”41 That Paul’s interpretation here is ad hoc seems clear. One might have expected that his identification of strange languages/tongues with an ineffective approach that would only exacerbate Israel’s disobedience and culpability would have led Paul to reject speaking in tongues altogether as an activity that was only appropriate prior to the transition to the redemptive reign of Christ, when it is time for building up and not for tearing down. Or one might have thought he would understand that with the transition brought by Christ the significance of a text like the Isaiah text might have been inverted so that now, thanks to Christ and the Spirit, people would indeed respond to God when he spoke through strange languages.42 Certainly any familiarity with the story of Pentecost as later recorded in Acts 2 might have pointed in such a different direction. It seems his interpretation here may reflect his own experience of how outsiders had reacted to the phenomenon and his concern regarding the reputation of the Christian community, but it was not actually fundamental to his understanding of the value of speaking in tongues per se. In that case, Isa 28:11–12 may have been appealing in that it also seemed to confirm that those addressed by tongues would not respond positively (a point which is found at the end of Isa 28:12 in both the LXX and the MT and is strongly reflected in his own rendering). Chrysostom suggests Paul is appealing to concerns regarding shame and honor, arguing that tongues “not only deprive of glory, but also bring shame upon those who have them in the eyes of the unbelievers” while “prophecy, on the contrary, is both free from reproach among the unbelievers, and has very great credit and usefulness.”43 This seems all the more likely in light of the climax of the following two verses, where God receives glory from the conversion of unbelievers. If this is set up in contrast to that, it makes sense that Paul would highlight the potential loss of honor to those who speak in tongues with the implicit understanding that it would entail a loss of honor for their God as well.

PAUL ON THE POWER OF PROPHECY According to 1 Cor 14:24–25, the superior value of prophecy over tongues may be seen in the potential positive impact of the former (in contrast with

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 150

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

151

the potential negative impact of the latter which was suggested in v. 23): “But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you!’” The relationship between this text and the previous one is reinforced by the chiastic structure inquirer-unbeliever/ unbeliever-inquirer (v. 23–24) as well as by the explicit contrast in the effects of the gifts. Paul does not expect everyone to prophesy, since not everyone has the gift of prophecy (12:28–29). But all believers do have the Spirit and are real candidates to speak prophetically (see Joel 2:28). Paul encourages the Corinthians to pursue gifts such as prophecy and seems to think any believer might try their hand and see if God might in fact use them to bring prophetic insight to the community. As in the previous verse, here he is describing a hypothetical situation (if everyone were to prophesy) and its potential impact on those who have yet to fully enter the Christian community. As pointed out above, the emphasis on inclusive participation is highlighted by the repetition of the word πᾶς three times in this verse: πάντες προφητεύωσιν, εἰσέλθῃ δέ τις ἄπιστος ἢ ἰδιώτης, ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων.44 Paul’s expectation that the prophetic ministry of the gathered community will lead to the conversion of visiting outsiders who will respond by bowing down and worshipping God and declaring “God is really here in your midst!” echoes Isa 45:14 and Zech 8:23.45 Isaiah prophesies the conversion of Gentile nations in the time of the post-exilic restoration of God’s people. At that time he says the various peoples will become Israel’s servants and will bow down to them and make supplication to them “since God is among you” and they will say “there is no god besides you, for you are God and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Savior.” Paul has changed the plural verb (προσκυνήσουσιν/”they will worship”) to a singular (προσκυνήσει/”he/she will worship”) since he is describing the conversion of an individual, and he has changed the pronoun from the singular (ἐν σοὶ) to the plural (ἐν ὑμῖν)46 because he is describing the gathered community rather than the nation of Israel.47 Paul expects Isaiah’s script to be performed and his eschatological vision to be realized in the midst of the gathered community as it exercises its prophetic ministry.48 Hays points to the dramatic transformation in Paul’s intertextual use in that in his scenario “it is the church—itself a predominately Gentile community—through which God will accomplish the eschatological conversion of outsiders” and the Corinthian believers have “stepped into the role originally assigned to Israel in Isaiah’s eschatological drama.”49 This motif was signaled at the very beginning of the letter. In 1 Cor 1:2 Paul referred to the Corinthians as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 151

5/28/19 2:17 PM

152

Roy E. Ciampa

people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.” Rosner and I have argued elsewhere that in that verse Paul was echoing Mal 1:11 and the whole eschatological motif of the final universal worship of God, which is to be brought about through Christ’s work. The Corinthians have been reminded at key points throughout this letter that their existence is supposed to bring glory to God as Gentiles who have come to find true wisdom in Christ and his cross and who have learned to flee sexual immorality and idolatry and to give proper worship to the one true God. Their own encounter with Christ had led them from being led away to idols to being led by the Spirit, confess “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor 12:2–3), and worship God aright. Their conversion and worship is intended to lead others to do the same. Remarkably, Paul lays out his argument in terms of what the response will be on the part of those who experience the gifts (those hearing the tongues will not listen to God, while those who hear the prophecies will turn to God). As Schrage points out, “[d]abei wird beidemal auf die missionarische Wirkung bzw. Wirkungslosigkeit der gottesdienstlichen Versammlung abgehoben. Auch wenn diese Wirkung nicht methodisierbar ist und der menschlichen Regie entzogen bleibt, hat die Gemeinde das ihre zu tun, um eine Wirkung nicht von vornherein zu blockieren.”50 Paul’s interpretation of Isaiah is clearly guided by his missiological perspective and priorities. In this way, the gift which has been promoted as the one most effective at building up the community is also now seen as most effective at bringing God glory through the conversion of the nations. But Paul also words his explanations of the responses in ways that suggest those responses will reflect well or badly on the Corinthians themselves. They will be considered mad, or others will declare that God is among them. These ways of describing possible outcomes reflect a concern with honor and shame so that the proper interest in the wellbeing of others is subtly reinforced by evoking the self-interests of the Corinthians themselves in a culture/world dominated by concerns regarding honor and shame. While those who speak in tongues “utter mysteries by the Spirit” which are unintelligible to others as the speakers worship individually (v. 2), the prophetic ministry, operating on an intelligible level, brings to light the secrets of the hearts of men and women and leads them to join in the worship of God’s people. Paul says the response to the prophetic ministry will be that unbelievers “are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare.” Does he understand that the particular and private sins of individual sinners will be brought into the open,51 or does he have in mind the secrets which are found in the fallen hearts of all people? As Carson suggests, he many have in mind “communication designed by the

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 152

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

153

Spirit to expose the secrets of [the unbeliever’s] own heart and thereby to convict him of sin, bringing him to repentance and worship.”52 In his comments on this passage, Theodoret (of Cyrrhus) argues that “[t]he apostle had one purpose, the welfare of the majority; this was surely the reason why he also bade the Corinthians choose prophecy, contributing as it did to the common good.”53 It may be that Paul has the welfare of the majority in mind. But throughout 1 Corinthians Paul has shown a special concern for those who are typically marginalized and who are dismissed by those with power and status in the community.

PAUL AND THE PRIORITY OF LOVE The letter’s emphasis on love underwrites Paul’s special care for the ‘nobodies’ of the community as expressed in various passages. Paul introduces 1 Corinthians 8–14 with the assertion that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1). He returns to love and edification/building up to make them central themes of chapters 13–14, but the entire section (chs. 8–14) seems to be developed with those themes in mind. It is often pointed out that the list of things Paul says love does not do (1 Cor 13) seems to highlight some of the things the Corinthians were guilty of,54 and thus indicates that love, as Paul describes it, would serve as the ethical corrective to many of the problems the community was experiencing. Valuing some members of the community at the expense of others seems to be an underlying basis for many of the issues in Corinth. Horrell argues that here as elsewhere Paul maintains that commitments to ‘other-regard’ (or love) and community solidarity and the appreciation of difference provide keys to the ethical conduct expected of Christians.55 The A-B-A structure of chapters 12–14, within which we find the particular usage of Isaiah that concerns us in this study, suggests love is particularly relevant to how the Corinthians should deal with the issue of the gifts God gives to members of Christ’s body, as well as relevant to wider problems the church was experiencing. In that context, the ultimate ‘other’ in the Corinthian congregation would be the outsiders or unbelievers (ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι; 1 Cor 14:23) who enter into their meetings but could easily be considered to have no standing in the eyes of the church. In this context Paul’s interpretation of Isaiah as a key to discerning which spiritual gifts should be prioritized in the public meetings of the church pivots around the very question of the reaction that they will inspire among those other ‘others’ and does so in a way that projects onto the Corinthian believers an association with either shame (as those who appear to be “mad”) or honor (as those among whom God’s presence is made known).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 153

5/28/19 2:17 PM

154

Roy E. Ciampa

CONCLUSION Elsewhere, Rosner and I have argued that the overall theme of 1 Corinthians could be summarized as Paul’s attempt to tell the church of God in Corinth that they are part of the fulfillment of the OT expectation of worldwide worship of the God of Israel. As God’s eschatological temple they must act in a manner appropriate to their pure and holy status by becoming unified, shunning pagan vices, and glorifying God in obedience to the lordship of Jesus Christ.56 This was based on various elements of the letter, including our understanding of the structural role of the imperatives to glorify God (1 Cor 6:20; 10:31) and the anticipation that at the end of the narrative God “would be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Paul’s interpretation of Isaiah in this part of this letter seems to also reflect a hermeneutic which is consistent with this understanding of Paul’s view of God’s agenda for the Corinthians and of his own agenda in writing the letter. The use of the gifts of tongues and prophecy should be judged in light of their relative tendencies to lead the Corinthians’ neighbors to come to recognize God in their midst and to worship him as they should. Paul’s missiological imperative is reflected in this reading of the text as well as his emphasis on other-regard, in this case reflecting his concern for the ‘other other,’ the one who is not even yet a member of the community and whose power within the congregation would otherwise seem to be negligible at best. It has also been suggested that Paul’s reading of Isaiah 28 in this passage may have more in common with modern (and ancient) ‘theological interpretations’ than with the historical kinds of readings that have served as the point of departure for modern biblical interpretations and their assessments of Paul and others.

NOTES 1. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). This essay is adapted from our treatment in the Pillar Commentary. 2. See especially, Roy E. Ciampa, “Approaching Paul’s Use of Scripture in Light of Translation Studies” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley; Early Christianity and Its Literature, 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 293–318, and idem, “Abraham and Empire in Galatians,” in Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson, ed. S. Hunt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 153–168. 3. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1121. 4. HALOT, ad. loc.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 154

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

155

5. Duke L. Kwon, “Obfuscation and Restoration: Paul’s Use of Isaiah in 1 Corinthians 14:20–25” (Th.M. thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2004), 8. 6. Kwon, “Obfuscation and Restoration,” 9. 7. Deut 28:49; cf. Jer 5:15; cf. O. P. Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing,” WTJ 38 (1975), 43–53 (here, 47). 8. See, e.g., Origen, Philoc. 9:2; Chrysostom, Homiliae in Epistulam i ad Corinthios 36.3 (NPNF1 12:216); Theodoret, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Robert C. Hill, tr. (Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), 221: “It is an inspired text from the Old Testament; he gave the name Law to the Old Testament.” 9. Interestingly, while Paul explicitly mentions Isaiah as the source of several citations in his letter to the Romans (Rom 9:27, 29; 10:16, 20; 15:12), he never does so in any other letter, suggesting his failure to mention Isaiah by name may or may not tell us whether or not Paul himself even remembered where that particular text came from (although the frequency of his citations from Isaiah leads many to conclude he knew the book quite well). 10. Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004). 11. This continues in some of the early Fathers. Ambrosiaster, for example, argues that “to speak in other tongues and with other lips is to preach the new covenant . . .”: Commentaries on Romans and 1–2 Corinthians, Gerald Bray, tr. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009), 187. In his comments on this passage Chrysostom seems to suggest Isaiah was referring to the gift of tongues, saying, “the miracle was enough to astonish them” (Hom. 1 Cor. 36.2 [NPNF1 12:216]). 12. Cf. B. C. Johanson, “Tongues, a Sign for Unbelievers?: A Structural and Exegetical Study of I Corinthians XIV. 20–25,” NTS 25 (1979): 180–203 (here, 182). 13. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 201, following Dietrich A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), 64. 14. David E. Lanier, “With Stammering Lips and Another Tongue: 1 Cor. 14:20– 22 and Isa. 28:11–12.” CTR 5 (1991): 259–86. 15. The use of this verse may also suggest that Paul does indeed understand the gift of tongues to entail speaking human languages (as in Isaiah), although in this case they are not learned or expressed by normal means. 16. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 198. 17. See ibid. 18. Ibid., 199 n. 58. 19. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, 111 (cf. 65). 20. Ibid., 65. 21. Cf. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 201–202. 22. See the discussion in Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 583–5. 23. Kwon, “Obfuscation and Restoration,” 11. 24. See, besides the commentaries, Christopher Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), 175–82; Wayne A. Grudem, “1 Corinthians 14:20–25:

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 155

5/28/19 2:17 PM

156

Roy E. Ciampa

Prophesy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitude,” WTJ 41 (1979): 381–96; Johanson, “Tongues, a Sign for Unbelievers?” 180–203; Lanier, “With Stammering Lips,” 259–86; O. Palmer Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing,” WTJ 38 (1975), 45–53; Karl O. Sandnes, “Prophecy – A Sign for Believers.” Bib 77 (1996), 1–15; Joop F. M. Smitt, “Tongues and Prophesy: Deciphering 1 Cor. 14:22,” Bib 75 (1994), 175–90; John P. M. Sweet, “Sign for Unbelievers: Paul’s Attitude to Glossolalia,” NTS 13 (1967), 240–57. 25. Cf. Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing.” 26. Pace Robertson, there is no indication in the context that Israel’s status was an issue in Corinth. 27. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Int (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 239. 28. Regarding Paul’s surprising statement that prophecy is not a sign for believers, Wolfgang Schrage points out, “[d]och wird man die Gegenüberstellung ohnehin nicht pressen dürfen und eine rhetorische Zuspitzung anzunehmen haben” (Der erste Brief an die Korinther EKK [Zürich: Benziger, 1991], 3:409). 29. See Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), 194–96. So also, Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:409. 30. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 115 (his emphasis), referencing Ralph P. Martin, The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 72–73. 31. See Roy E. Ciampa, “The History of Redemption,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott Hafemann and Paul House (Grand Rapids: Baker & Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 2007), 254–308. 32. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1106. 33. Ciampa and Rosner, “The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians,” 205–218 (here 217). This is close to Forbes’ suggestion (Prophecy and Inspired Speech, 179) that “the effect of prophecy on believers is, in Paul’s view, a sign for believers in a quite specialized sense. The unbeliever’s confession, ‘God is truly among you,’ is strongly reminiscent of Isa 45:14 and Zech 8:23, where the realization of the nations around about Israel that God is truly among his people is one of the signs of the fulfillment of God’s promises to them. In this sense the unbeliever’s confession, provoked by prophetic conviction of his sins, is a sign to believers of the eschatological presence of God among his people.” Forbes is just slightly off in making “the effect of prophecy” the sign of God’s presence rather than a confirmation of the sign. For Paul prophecy is the sign and its effect confirms its nature. 34. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:411. 35. Thiselton is likely correct in suggesting these are “hypothetical clauses which paint an all-too-possible scenario” (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1126) and that “[t]he buildup of clauses is deliberately impressionistic. In accordance with frequent uses of πάντες, all, Paul does not enumerate a statistical totality (explicitly denied in 12:30, μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; i.e., all do not speak with tongues, do they?) but uses the kind of impressionist description that we use when we say, “everyone was laughing” or “everyone was shouting . . .” (1127, emphasis removed).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 156

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

157

36. “To be in ecstasy to the point of frenzy is a divine transposition from customary states” which “is a strongly affirmed religious phenomenon” (H. Preisker, TDNT 4:360–62; here 360). The verb Paul uses is in the present tense rather than the perfect tense, but since it is a stative verb (one which expresses a state of affairs or being) it functions here very much as perfect verbs tend to function (or, rather, perfect verbs often function much like present tense stative verbs as we have here). 37. Hays, First Corinthians, 238–39. 38. H. Balz, EDNT, 2:375, points out that “[t]he five occurrences in the NT always express a negative judgment about people who appear with special authority or who report about experiences with the power of God.” 39. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, 180 n. 68. 40. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, 180 n. 68. Chrysostom (Hom. 1 Cor. 36.2 [NPNF1 12:216]) thinks Paul’s meaning is “that prophecy avails both among the unbelieving and among those who believe: as to the tongue, when heard by the unbelieving and inconsiderate, instead of profiting by it, they rather deride the utterers as madmen.” 41. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, 180. 42. Mark Reasoner, “The Redemptive Inversions of Jeremiah in Romans 9–11,” Bib 95 (2014): 388–404, has pointed to a series of ways in which Paul inverts some of Jeremiah’s statements and motifs. Cf. H. P. Nasuti “The Woes of the Prophets and the Rights of the Apostle: The Internal Dynamics of 1 Corinthians 9,” CBQ 50.2 (1988): 246–264 (here, 250–53). 43. Hom. 1 Cor. 36.3 (NPNF1 12:217–18). 44. Thiselton’s suggestion (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1129) that “it is more probable that ὑπὸ πάντων (grammatically either masculine or neuter plural) embraces ‘all that is said’ in the most inclusive sense (both prophets and the prophetic message) rather than exclusively the prophets only, especially since Paul’s antecedent is not the noun prophets but the verb προφητεύωσιν (indefinite present subjunctive), ‘everyone is using prophetic speech’” (his italics, his bold font changed to single quotes), does not do justice to the anaphoric (back-referencing) relationship between the two occurrences of ὑπὸ πάντων (by all) and the earlier πάντες (everyone/all) or to the fact that the default expectation would be that ὑπό, would introduce the (personal) subject of the passive verb, unless clear linguistic clues clearly suggested otherwise. 45. Possibly Dan 2:46–47 as well. Cf. Richard B. Hays, “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 45 (1999): 391–412 (here 391–93). For other texts anticipating the eschatological recognition of the God of Israel, see on 8:4. 46. From ἐν σοὶ ὁ θεός ἐστιν to ὁ θεὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν (Zech. 8:23 has ὁ θεὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐστιν). 47. Cf. Hays, “Conversion,” 393. 48. Hays, “Conversion,” 393. 49. Hays, “Conversion,” 394. 50. Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:409–10. 51. See Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, 181 n. 69. 52. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 116 (see also n. 22 on the same page).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 157

5/28/19 2:17 PM

158

Roy E. Ciampa

53. Theodoret, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 221. 54. See for example, B. J. Oropeza, 1 Corinthians, NCCS (Eugene: Cascade, 2017), 172–73. 55. D. G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005). On Paul’s emphasis on love (and neglect of the theme in treatments of this ethic) see R. A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 107–115. 56. Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 52. Cf. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach,” NTS 52 (2006): 205–18.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ambrosiaster. Commentaries on Romans and 1–2 Corinthians. Translated and edited by and Gerald L. Bray. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009. Balz, H. “μαίνομαι,” EDNT, 2:375–76. Burridge, Richard A. Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. Carson, D. A. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (1–44 on 1 Corinthians) Greek, in J.-P. Migne (ed.), PG, vol. 61, cols. 9–382; English, also NPNF, ed. P. Schaff. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887–94; vol. 12, rpt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989, 1–269. Ciampa, R. E. “Abraham and Empire in Galatians.” Pages 153–168 in Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson. Edited by S. Hunt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “Approaching Paul’s Use of Scripture in Light of Translation Studies.” Pages 293–318 in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. Edited by C. D. Stanley. Early Christianity and Its Literature, 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. ———. “The History of Redemption.” Pages 254–308 in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity. Edited by Scott Hafemann and Paul House. Grand Rapids: Baker & Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 2007. Ciampa, R. E., and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach.” NTS 52 (2006): 205–18. Forbes, C. Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. Grudem, Wayne A. The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 158

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Prophecy in Corinth and Paul’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy in 1 Corinthians

159

———. “1 Corinthians 14:20–25: Prophesy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitude.” WTJ 41 (1979): 381–96. Hays, Richard B. “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians.” NTS 45 (1999): 391–412. ———. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1997. Horrell, D. G. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005. Johanson, B. C. “Tongues, a Sign for Unbelievers?: A Structural and Exegetical Study of I Corinthians XIV. 20–25.” NTS 25 (1979): 180–203. Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986. Kwon, Duke L. “Obfuscation and Restoration: Paul’s Use of Isaiah in 1 Corinthians 14:20–25.” Th.M. thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2004. Lanier, David E. “With Stammering Lips and Another Tongue: 1 Cor. 14:20–22 and Isa. 28:11–12.” CTR 5 (1991): 259–86. Martin, Ralph P. The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Nasuti, H. P. “The Woes of the Prophets and the Rights of the Apostle: The Internal Dynamics of 1 Corinthians 9.” CBQ 50.2 (1988): 246–264. Preisker, H. “μαίνομαι,” TDNT 4:360–62. Reasoner, Mark. “The Redemptive Inversions of Jeremiah in Romans 9–11.” Bib 95 (2014): 388–404. Robertson, O. P. “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing.” WTJ 38 (1975): 43–53. Sandnes, Karl O. “Prophecy – A Sign for Believers.” Bib 77 (1996): 1–15. Schrage, W. Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 4 vols. EKK. Zurich: Benziger, 1991–2001. Smitt, Joop F. M. “Tongues and Prophesy: Deciphering 1 Cor. 14:22.” Bib 75 (1994): 175–90. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. ———. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Sweet, John P. M. “Sign for Unbelievers: Paul’s Attitude to Glossolalia.” NTS 13 (1967): 240–57. Theodoret. Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Robert C. Hill, trans.; Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001. Thiselton, A. C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 159

5/28/19 2:17 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 160

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Chapter Ten

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch J. David Stark

As few other texts have 1 Cor 15:29 has fostered its own sub-genre.1 The difficulty and the variety of interpretive proposals require significant methodological modesty for the present discussion. The focus here will be on suggesting the feasibility of a particular reading. Other options for reading 1 Cor 15:29 will largely be bypassed except insofar as addressing them helps indicate the feasibility of the reading. Detailed review of other interpretations for 1 Cor 15:29 would consume much more space than is here available, and this task has received appropriate attention elsewhere.2 Instead, the thesis set out here is that 1 Cor 15:29 may be read as an allusion to Pentateuchal regulations for resolving corpse contamination (Lev 21:1–4; 22:4–6; Num 6:6–12; 19:11–22). Paul’s reference to “those who are being baptized in behalf of the dead” may be understood as a pregnant construction indicating “those who are being baptized in behalf of the dead [in order to resolve the corpse contamination incurred by involvement with them].”3 In other words, when Paul speaks of “those who are being baptized,” he speaks of those who undergo the baptism customary for initiates into the Jesus movement. Qualifying this baptism as “in behalf of the dead” (i.e., in behalf of Paul and his associates) does not change this referent. But it does ask that this baptism be interpreted through the lens of Pentateuchal legislation and shows up as yet another thread to pull in unraveling Corinthian qualms about the resurrection. To be sure, this reading has its own difficult questions to answer. But, it could make excellent sense against the backdrop of related Pentateuchal texts and typical Pauline rhetoric. This reading would support Paul’s use of the practice as a relevant (if obscure) piece of scriptural evidence in his argument about bodily resurrection.4 The Cor should recognize that their interaction 161

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 161

5/28/19 2:17 PM

162

J. David Stark

with Paul and his associates has already involved them in a version of this practice. As such, this interaction gives the lie to any view the Cor might be tempted to adopt counter to an affirmation of a future bodily resurrection.

RECENT INTERACTION WITH A CULTIC WASHING INTERPRETATION FOR 1 COR 15:29 Despite the possible advantages to this reading, it has gone substantially without advocates in recent Pauline scholarship.5 Some of the most recent, substantive interaction with this interpretation has been by Joel White (2012) and Bernard Foschini (1950–1951).6 White and Foschini specifically cites several authors who support this view: Theodore Beza, Gabriel Vasquez, John Lightfoot, Conradi Mel, and Johann Cocceius.7 Theodore Beza’s notion is a bit different—namely, that baptism, or washing, in behalf of the dead occurs while those who wash the corpses prepare them for burial.8 Beza’s washing appears to be part or a byproduct of the burial preparation process. Consequently, the interpretation of Rogers, Vasquez, and others is meaningfully distinguishable because it interprets the washing as a means by which those who have acted “in behalf of the dead” might remedy the uncleanness they contracted in doing so.9 Recent Objections to a Cultic Washing Interpretation Objection 1: Conventional Pauline Usage for Baptismal Language and Imagery White notes that Paul does not use baptismal language to speak about cultic washing outside of 1 Cor 15:29. All else being equal therefore, a “conventional” referent for “being baptized” is more likely than a cultic one.10 Yet, Paul does not always use baptismal language and imagery in ways that are otherwise ‘conventional’ for him. A prime example is 1 Cor 10:1–2. There, Paul claims that “our fathers . . . were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor 10:1–2). This single case contains at least three elements that distinguish it from other places where Paul discusses baptism. First, Israel experienced baptism “in the sea” without becoming submerged in it (Exod 14:22, 29). Portraying the Egyptians (not Israel) as experiencing baptism in the sea would be much more typical of Pauline imagery elsewhere (Exod 14:28), their lack of a subsequent “resurrection” notwithstanding.11 Second, Exodus 13–14 recounts that a pillar of cloud accompanied Israel on their way to Canaan (Exod 13:17–14:31; 40:34–38). But, baptism “in the cloud” is hardly a conventional Pauline manner of using baptismal language.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 162

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

163

Third, wherever Paul uses the construction “to baptize into,” the object is always a person or object associated with a person. Most often, the person associated with the baptism is Jesus (e.g., Rom 6:3–4; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27). Others are Paul himself (1 Cor 1:13, 15) or Moses (1 Cor 10:2). This situation makes Paul’s reference to baptism into Moses doubly distinctive. It is Paul’s only reference to baptism into Moses. And when Paul speaks of baptism into himself, he does so to deny that such a baptism occurred or that it would have been appropriate (1 Cor 1:10–17). But, in 1 Cor 10:1–4, Paul is at least neutral to and quite possibly approves of how Israel was baptized into Moses. Moreover,1 Cor 10:2 is Paul’s only non-negative reference to baptism into another figure besides Jesus. These points demonstrate that, even within 1 Corinthians Paul uses baptismal language in less than fully typical ways. Consequently, there is no clear reason for ruling out Paul’s possible use of baptismal language in 1 Cor 15:29 as ritual washing.12 The lack of lexical evidence for connecting baptismal language to ritual washing could be a strike against this reading of 1 Cor 15:29. Yet, Paul does apply washing language to baptism.13 This washing language also closely resembles the language that both Leviticus and Numbers use for the washings they prescribe (λούειν; LXX Lev 22:6; Num 19:19). First Cor 6:11 does not establish Paul’s use of baptism language to refer to ritual washing, but it does establish Paul’s description of baptism in a way that would have been at home in Septuagintal contexts that refer to such washings (e.g., Lev 21:1–4; 22:4–6; Ezek 16:4–14)14 Also, it would still fit quite well within the total profile of how Paul describes baptism.15 Consequently, whether this referent is acceptable in 1 Cor 15:29 must be settled by reference to the broader context. Objection 2: Intentionality of the Original Washing Commands Against 1 Cor 15:29 as shaped by Pentateuchal legislation about ritual washings, Foschini objects that it can in no way be proved that it was precisely in view of the Resurrection that God decreed that by contact with the dead impurity would be contracted.”16 Yet for 1 Cor 15:29 to be read in the context of corpse contamination legislation, there is no need to connect resurrection with the contraction of impurity. Instead, the washing that removes the impurity may be viewed as bearing testimony to the resurrection. More materially, this observation is somewhat beside the point. The fundamental questions are not “What constitutes a proper use of Scripture? And does 1 Cor 15:29 conform to this definition?” Rather, they are “What is the perspective within which Paul’s uses of Scripture have been formed? And what interpretations of 1 Cor 15:29 are intelligible and probable within this perspective?”17 Historically and phenomenologically, any Pauline use of Scripture is legitimate with respect to that literature’s own horizon simply by means of its

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 163

5/28/19 2:17 PM

164

J. David Stark

occurrence. The contemporary interpreter’s task then becomes understanding the nature and logic of that legitimacy and how that legitimacy interfaces with contemporary orientations. Once legitimacy has been recontextualized within the text’s own to-be-determined reference frame, this legitimacy cannot be used as a criterion for determining whether a given text does or does not use Scripture. Whether a Pauline text uses Scripture must be established on quite separate grounds. Objection 3: Intentionality of Obedience to Washing Commands Building upon his prior objection, Foschini comments, “Nor is it evident that it was out of faith in the Resurrection that the Jews would rather incur uncleanness than omit taking care of the bodies.”18 To be sure, related Jewish practice or testimony outside of Paul is helpful to consider in connection with 1 Cor 15:29. But, one need not suppose that external testimony is a requirement for legitimating Paul’s strategy. In principle, Paul would be quite free to read Jewish practice as implying or indicating something more than that practice’s non-Christian observers might recognize (cf. 1 Cor2:6–16; 2 Cor 3:4–4:6, 6:14–7:1; see also John 11:49–52). Thus, Foschini’s objection on the grounds of the intentionality with which washing commands might have been observed also presents no real roadblock to responsibly reading 1 Cor 15:29 as referring to a cultic washing ceremony(ies). Objection 4: Oddity of Paul’s Appeal to Washing Commands Foschini final objection is that “we would still have to explain why Paul does not adduce the divine plan or the faith of the Jews in the Resurrection, but a baptism which in such circumstances would have been of less importance in proving it.”19 This objection has at least two difficulties. First, Paul could be commenting on the “divine plan” without necessarily rendering this plan synonymous with the text’s “original intention.” Moreover, even if the practice Paul mentions was not connected directly with “the faith of the Jews” as a matter of articulable belief toward a resurrection, it may still have been so as a pious practice. Pious practices may sometimes be cherished and perpetuated by members of a community even if those members are unable to articulate everything that a more learned community member might see as latent those practices. Paul understood himself to have received special insight into the creator’s plan for his creation (e.g., Rom 10:6–8, 15–16; 11:25–36; 1 Cor 1:26–2:16; 4:1).20 Consequently, it would not be unintelligible for Paul to give his own dis-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 164

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

165

tinctive interpretation to a pious practice within early Judaism (cf. Rom 2:17–29; 4:1–25). Second, Foschini’s final objection works on the principles that (a) an argument from a kind of baptism or ritual washing is not as rhetorically strong as some other means of argument and (b) Paul would have used the strongest argument at his disposal in 1 Cor 15:29. These principles appear correct in assuming that Paul seeks to construct a strong argument. The difficulty arises because what constitutes a strong argument is determined by that argument’s own rhetorical situation—in this case, the situation among Paul, the text of 1 Corinthians, and the Cor themselves.21 Yet, in judging a cultic washing interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29 to be “of less importance,” Foschini makes an implicit appeal to a four-part rhetorical situation in which his own context has come to bear in shaping the rhetorical context for 1 Cor 15:29.22 To be sure, reading entails bringing oneself to bear upon that text, including one’s constellation of hermeneutic prejudgments. But, to understand the first-century rhetorical situation surrounding 1 Corinthians, such prejudgments must be foregrounded and put into question.23 Given the aim of understanding 1 Corinthian’s first-century rhetorical situation, that context cannot be predetermined or prejudged as it affects the strength or importance of Paul’s arguments. Instead, this question must be addressed on hermeneutic, historical, and literary grounds from within that context. Indeed, sometimes Paul makes appeals whose logic is less than straightforward to contemporary readers but which he apparently expected would support a point within his larger argument quite well (e.g., Rom 7:1–6; 1 Cor 10:4; Gal 4:21–31). Thus, it would not be unique for 1 Cor 15:29 to make an appeal seemingly “of less importance” to modern readers.24 Encountering Paul provokes questions for contemporary readers. Yet, the provocation of questions is double-sided. The questions are about the text. But, that they arise at all also indicates the disappointment of readers’ interpretations of the text. Thus, to the extent that one is accountable to understand this tradition on its own terms, disappointed interpretations and the fore-structures from which they derive must be put into question.25 Consequently, it could be quite correct that a cultic washing appeal in 1 Cor 15:29 might initially seem to be “of less importance” to Paul’s argument.26 But, this assessment is not relevant unless one can also demonstrate that (a) Paul would have regarded it so, and (b) Paul’s assessment would have influenced him not to use such an appeal. To conclude, then there seem to be no reasons to regard a cultic washing allusion as intrinsically improbable.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 165

5/28/19 2:17 PM

166

J. David Stark

POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR A CULTIC WASHING INTERPRETATION The question now becomes whether there is sound positive evidence for a cultic washing echo in 1 Cor 15:29 and, if so, what this evidence might be.27 This section will suggest that this allusion is genuine, as indicated by its (1) historical plausibility, (2) volume, and (3) thematic coherence.28 Historical Plausibility As defined here, the broader category of historical plausibility involves three sub-topics: “(1) an author and audience’s possession of the relevant biblical text(s), (2) an author’s legitimately using a certain text in a particular way, and (3) an audience’s ability to have detected a particular metalepsis.”29 As has already been noted and discussed more extensively elsewhere, Paul’s uses of Scripture are sometimes less explicit, their logic is sometimes more difficult to explain, or both.30 Consequently, the possible difficulties of reading 1 Cor 15:29 as an allusion to Pentateuchal legislation are already the kinds of difficulties that occur elsewhere in Paul. In addition, as argued below in connection with the other three main criteria, the difficulties with reading 1 Cor 15:29 in this manner may not be so substantive as they might initially look. Thus, the second sub-criterion under historical plausibility (legitimacy of an author’s using a given text) seems fairly well satisfied. The sub-questions yet to be adjudicated are (1) and (3). Especially for someone like Paul, the non-possession of a given biblical text is at least difficult and probably impossible to demonstrate conclusively.31 By no means should it be treated as a comprehensive and authoritative list, but the Nestle-Aland28 appendix for quotations and allusions to Scripture identifies 22 relationships between Leviticus–Numbers and 1–2 Corinthians.32 Thus, according even to this rough tabulation, Leviticus and Numbers make a substantive impression within this correspondence. The possibility of so many allusions to Leviticus and Numbers in 1 Cor (20 in total, and 13 in 1 Cor 10 alone, per the Nestle-Aland listing) suggests that it is feasible to see the letter as actively working with Leviticus and Numbers. Several events that Paul cites refer to circumstances related in Numbers. The use of Leviticus in 1 Corinthians is plausible but such use is less direct than with the probable uses of Numbers. Does Paul allude to Levitical texts as such, or does he refer only to the practices that stemmed from those texts? In these cases, the former is possible, but the latter is difficult to exclude definitively. Still, 2 Cor 6:16 indirectly quotes Leviticus.33 Moreover, even if all of 1 Corinthians’ Levitical-looking texts refer (a) more immediately to practices

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 166

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

167

than to a scriptural testimony, or (b) are sufficiently general that they may derive from multiple scriptural texts, they still evidence Paul’s use of Levitical ideas to support arguments in 1 Corinthians. Consequently, there appear to be no good grounds for discounting the possibilities that Paul could refer to either Leviticus or Numbers in writing to the Corinthians and that he could expect such a reference to lend force to his argument. Therefore, these two remaining sub-criteria under historical plausibility also allow for the possibility that 1 Cor 15:29 could be informed by an allusion to Leviticus, Numbers, or some combination of both. Volume The notion of “volume” also has three sub-components: (1) verbal correspondence between one text and another that it may transume; (2) the transumed text’s “distinctiveness, prominence, or popular familiarity”; and (3) repeated transumption of similar material.34 On this front, scholarly disinterest in a cultic washing transumption in 1 Cor 15:29 itself suggests the lack of volume that this possible allusion has. Even when the case is put at its strongest, transumption of a text like Leviticus 21:1–4 or 22:4–6 or Numbers 6:6–12 or 19:11–22 under 1 Cor 15:29 is quite close to the “vanishing point” beyond which detecting it would be infeasible.35 Yet, whatever underlies 1 Cor 15:29 on any reading is similarly close to the “vanishing point,” even if it is not a scriptural allusion.36 Even the more customary hypothesis of vicarious proxy baptism is sufficiently faint as an echo to allow space for numerous counter-hypotheses to be lodged. Consequently, whether 1 Cor 15:29 is alluding to Leviticus, Numbers, or some other text or practice, that allusion’s faintness is a requisite hurdle to cross. Verbal Correspondence Given these qualifications, it is still necessary to indicate how this allusion might emerge toward texts like Lev 21:1–4 or 22:4–6 or Num 6:6–12 or 19:11–22. Any verbal correspondence in a text transumed by 1 Cor 15:29 would likely need to appear in the phrase “those who are being baptized for the dead” or the following question “why are they being baptized for them?” (1 Cor 15:29). The language of action (ποιεῖν) and resurrection (ἐγείρειν) in the rest of the verse appears not to be part of the allusion Paul is making— whatever its object. Rather, this language seems to clarify how Paul wants to use these people to support his argument. In principle, this connecting language could evidence verbal correspondence with any text(s) Paul might be transuming in 1 Cor 15:29. But, such connective language should, in principle, be less likely to introduce an allusive element into the text.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 167

5/28/19 2:17 PM

168

J. David Stark

Thus, the key terms in 1 Cor 15:29 that might suggest a connection with Lev 21:1–4, Lev 22:4–6, Num 6:6–12, or Num 19:11–22 are those related to baptism and death. First Cor connects washing with baptism (1 Cor 6:9–11). Thus, the language of 1 Cor 15:29 collates closely with the Leviticus and Numbers passages noted here. Leviticus 21–22 sets the discussion primarily in the context of the “the priests, the sons of Aaron” (21:1) or “Aaron and his sons” (22:2). These individuals may not defile themselves by handling corpses unless the corpses are of close relatives (Lev 21:1–4; Ezek 44:15–26; b. Sanh. 6:4, 47a). Should a priest become defiled by this or other similar means, he should wait until evening to eat holy food and “wash (λούσηται) his body with water” (Lev 22:6–7). On the other hand, the chief priest is prohibited even from this level of defilement. Even in the case of his mother’s or father’s passing, he may not defile himself by handling their bodies (Lev 21:10–11; cf. b. Ros. Has. 1:2, 16b). In this case, Leviticus explicitly describes no procedure for remedying any defilement that may occur. Some priests may well have held strictly to this practice (cf. Luke 10:31; Philo, Spec. I 113).37 At least later, however, it was deemed illegitimate to neglect a corpse to avoid corpse contamination (b. Ber 3:1, 19B–20a; b. Meg 1:1, 3b; b. Yebam. 1:1, 7a; b. Mak. 2:2, 8a; cf. Tob 1:17–19, 2:3–5, 8–9; 2 Macc 12:38–39).38 Consequently, it may be an open question whether the Levitical legislation would have been understood as setting out such strict prohibitions as might initially appear from its language (cf. m. Nazir 7:1; see also Augustine, Retract. 2.81.2). The Nazarite is similarly prohibited from approaching the corpses even of near relations (Num 6:6–7; b. Naz. 6:4, 42b–43a; b. Naz. 7:1, 48a). In this case, however, a cleansing process is described for cases where an individual may die in physical proximity to a Nazarite.39 The rite involves the Nazarite’s head shaving, offering “two turtle-doves or two offspring of a dove,” and restarting the period for the vow (Num 6:9–12; m. Naz. 3:6, 6:5–6; b. Naz. 3:5, 18a–19b).40 On the surface, Numbers 6 does not contain a washing ritual for the corpsedefiled Nazarite like that specified in Leviticus 22:6–7. Yet, Numbers 6:9 obliquely references how the Nazarite will be clean “on the day of his purification (‫ ;ביום טהרתו‬ᾗ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ καθαρισθῇ), on the seventh day.” A similar seven-day period is noted in Numbers 19:11–12, and during this period, two washings occur.41 Consequently, the implication that becomes more explicit in later Judaism seems to be that the Nazarite would also undergo these same washings during the seven-day period leading up to his purification (m. Naz. 6:5–6; b. Naz. 6:6, 45a).42 In Num 19:11–13, the third- and seventh-day washings are both prerequisites for an individual’s cleansing from corpse contamination. If either

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 168

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

169

washing is missed, the corpse-defiled person is regarded as still being unclean (Num 19:12b; b. Naz. 6:6, 45a; b. Qidd. 3:4, 62a). Immediately following in Num 19:14–22, substantially the same scenario is discussed under the heading of “the Torah of a man when he dies in a tent” (v. 14) or when someone “touches [a corpse, bone, or grave] in an open field” (v. 16). “Living water” is to be mixed with ashes from the sin offering (v. 17). On the third and seventh days, a clean person then dips (‫ ;טבל‬βάπτει) hyssop in the mixture for use in sprinkling the tent, the person(s) and things in the tent, or the person(s) from the field (Num 19:18–19a). On the seventh day, the person being cleansed is also to wash his clothes and bathe (Num 19:19b; ‫ ;וכבס בגדיו ורחץ במים‬πλυνεῖ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ λούσεται ὕδατι). Thus, in each of these texts, the key lexical themes of death and ritual washing recur. The participants in view vary from priests (Lev 21–22), to Nazarites (Num 6), to general Israelites (Num 19). Yet, there are substantial similarities and opportunities for cross-pollination in reading these texts. Perhaps with certain exclusions (e.g., the chief priest), the living are sometimes expected to experience ritual defilement in caring for the corpses of the departed. Ritual washing is then the resolution to this defilement undertaken in behalf of the departed. Hence the primary observation is that texts like Leviticus 21–22, Numbers 6, or Numbers 19 have sufficient lexical and thematic similarities to 1 Cor 15:29 to be transumed there, if only very faintly. The Transumed Text’s Distinctiveness, Prominence, and Popular Familiarity A text’s distinctiveness is the degree to which that text differs from others. Allusions to a text’s distinctive characteristics are thereby easier to establish.43 In this case, the legislation in Lev 21–22, Num 6, and Num 19 is all quite close and might easily interpenetrate the different passages. On the other hand, this legislation is reasonably distinct because of how these passages focus on the washings that should happen to remedy corpse contamination. Consequently, distinguishing among Lev 21–22, Num 6, and Num 19 as the primary background for 1 Cor 15:29 is difficult. But, on thematic and reception-historical grounds, the thought expressed in this group of texts is feasible as a background to 1 Cor 15:29. Within Second Temple Judaism, not all individuals were probably equally versed in burial logistics and techniques.44 At the same time, there was wide acknowledgment of the practical considerations arising from relevant Pentateuchal legislation, namely, human corpses communicate uncleanness, and those who contract such uncleanness require purification (e.g., Josephus, Ag. Ap., 2.27 §205; b. Yoma 1:1, 6a; cf.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 169

5/28/19 2:17 PM

170

J. David Stark

4QapocrLam A 1 II, 2; 4QMMT B 72–74; 11QTa XLIX 5–LI 10; b. Ber. 4:2, 28b; b. Mo’ed. Qaṭ 3:7c, 27a–27b; y. ‘Abod. Zar. 3:1, 42c).45 Repeated Transumption of Similar Material Any reference in 1 Cor 15:29 is far from explicit. Yet, Paul seems to have expected the Cor to have been able to work out similar transumptions elsewhere in his correspondence. This fact further reinforces the plausibility of Paul’s having done so in 1 Cor 15:29. For instance, 1 Cor 9:13 likely alludes to the practice that arose from the scriptural tradition about priests’ relationships toward what was offered on the altar (e.g., Lev 6:14–7:10; Num 5:9–10, 18:8–31; cf. Deut 18:1–8; 2 Chron 31:4–10; Neh 13:10).46 Most poignantly, the lengthy reflection in 1 Cor 10:1–10 anticipates that the Corinthians will be inclined to accept the engagement with Israel’s scriptural history (e.g., Num 11:4–35, 14:1–4, 28–38, 21:4–9, 25:1–9, 26:63–65).47 Levitical influence then figures more heavily in 1 Cor 10:18–20 (e.g., Lev 7:19–21, 17:7; cf. 1 Cor 9:13).48 In particular, Paul references the “following rock” tradition in 1 Cor 10:4. This way of referencing the tradition suggests he anticipated the Cor would accept his description.49 Such ready acceptance would probably make the best sense if the Cor were already familiar with this exegetical maneuver as a way of working out the relationships among Exodus 17:1–7, Numbers 20:2–13, and Numbers 21:10–20.50 This suggestion implies that the comment “I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that . . .” in 1 Cor 10:1 should probably not be taken to indicate the Corinthians’ ignorance of basic material Paul relates in 1 Cor 10:1b–5. The ignorance against which Paul wants to inoculate the Corinthians is probably not about the events from Israel’s history in 1 Cor 10:1b–5 but about the proper conclusion that should be drawn from these events (cf. 1 Cor12:1–3; 2 Cor 1:8–11).51 One could instead suggest that the argument in 1 Cor 10 would work simply because the assertion came from Paul, whose ethos was sufficient to motivate acceptance of his description.52 The Corinthians will be familiar with the strategies for reading the scriptural texts to which Paul alludes. And a similar scenario could easily be in play in 1 Cor 15:29. Thematic Coherence Thematic coherence tends to be conceived as the degree to which the content of a possibly transumed text thematically fits the new context in which it appears.53 To avoid anachronistic assessments, the level of fit must ultimately be judged according to the possibilities provided by the rhetorical situation in which a transumption may occur.54

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 170

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

171

Additionally, as themes emerge in the rhetoric of how Paul uses Israel’s Scripture, similarities in such rhetorical themes—in the ways Paul interprets and deploys Scripture—can provide additional points of comparison for confirming potential transumptions. But, each rhetorical situation is distinctive.55 Consequently, it is doubtful that rhetorically thematic non-coherence could practically constitute disconfirming data. There would always be the possibility that a given transumption’s uniqueness fits a broader pattern of Pauline transumption but is distinctively formed by the features of its own rhetorical situation. Coherence with the Patterns of Transumption in 1 Corinthians Taking these dimensions in reverse order, one key question is what rhetorical dynamics emerge from the uses of Leviticus and Numbers in 1 Cor 9:13 and 10:1–10, 18–20. To the extent that 1 Cor 15:29 exhibits similar rhetorical features in its transumption, the likelihood of that transumption would be greater. Such features would include not only formal-methodological elements (or techniques) but also presuppositional elements that determine how these techniques are employed.56 By comparison with the texts from Leviticus and Numbers that appear to inform them, several engagement strategies emerge from 1 Cor 9:13, 10:1–10, 18–20: 1. Behavior prescribed for Israel’s priests legitimates corollary behavior among those who preach the gospel about Jesus (1 Cor 9:12–14). 2. Behavior prescribed for Israel’s general population legitimates corollary behavior within the Christian community at large (1 Cor10:14–22). 3. Consequences like those that met Israel, when they did not keep Yahweh’s prescriptions will come upon the Corinthians, if they fail to behave properly (1 Cor 10:1–22). If 1 Cor 15:29 echoes the cultic-washing texts and practices suggested here, then the third transformation strategy listed would not be at issue. No attempt, however faint, seems to be made in 1 Cor 15:29–34 to allude to individuals who failed to keep the cultic washing regulations as they ought to have done. On the other hand, an appeal to cultic washing practices in 1 Cor 15:29 would evidence a transformation strategy like the first and second ones above. Both priests and the general Jewish population would have been subject to washing requirements that resulted from contracting corpse contamination. Thus, Paul could use the same transformation strategy in evidence elsewhere if he were to appeal to this washing practice to explain or reinforce a corollary reality among the Cor (e.g., belief in bodily resurrection). On the other hand,

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 171

5/28/19 2:17 PM

172

J. David Stark

the lack of any explicit mention of priests or Nazarites may suggest that 1 Cor 15:29 is more likely to allude to the generally applicable legislation in Numbers 19:11–22. In any case, this similarity in transformation strategy tends to reinforce the reasonableness of reading 1 Cor 15:29 against this background. Coherence with the Argument of 1 Cor 15 Yet, the relationship to this background remains highly allusive. Consequently, perhaps the most significant test of whether this allusion should be seen in 1 Cor 15:29 is the extent to which recognizing the allusion might clarify the argument in that verse, in its own paragraph, and in the whole chapter. Even apart from a cultic washing backdrop, one may observe that the argument of 1 Cor 15:29 works because “those who are being baptized in behalf of the dead” are personally invested in the resurrection of the dead people for whom they undergo that baptism. If that resurrection does not occur, then the prior baptism serves no purpose: “Otherwise, what will they do who are being baptized in behalf of the dead? If the dead actually are not going to be raised, why are they being baptized in their behalf?” (1 Cor 15:29). In principle, the initial inquiry “What will they do who are being baptized in behalf of the dead?” raises no rhetorical difficulty. Simply given God’s becoming “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28b), there seems to be no reason that “those who are being baptized in behalf of the dead” should experience anything other than the fulfillment of whatever their expectation was in taking that action. The problem for this group is left unstated in the first inquiry and only explicitly mentioned in the protasis to the second: “if the dead actually are not going to be raised . . .” This single protasis then effectively sets the stage both for the inquiry in the following apodosis and for the inquiry in the prior sentence. The basic assumption is that the resurrection is a fundamental prerequisite if the living can sensibly undertake baptism in behalf of the dead. However, the concept of action by the living regarding the dead in a way that has effects for the living certainly had broader currency than Paul alone. For the sake of space, two examples should suffice. Second Macc 12:38–45 mentions a purification after a battle that would probably have involved a washing process like that prescribed in Num 19 (2 Macc 12:38). It seems to have been felt necessary not to neglect burial for the corpses of those who had fallen in the battle but not to pursue this activity on the Sabbath (v. 39). After the Sabbath, therefore, the interments commence. Although it is not mentioned explicitly in the passage, some further level of corpse contamination and need for purification would have been encountered in this burial process. Yet, this passage’s main significance comes in the response to the discovery of idolatrous amulets with the dead (2 Macc 12:40). This response proceeds along two lines. The more commonly noticed of these lines is the

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 172

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

173

one that speaks to the benefits that were expected to accrue to the dead from the actions of the living.57 Judas prays in behalf of the fallen and organizes an atonement sacrifice concerning them with a view toward release from sin (2 Macc 12:44–45). When the whole passage is considered, the text evidences some ambiguity. But, there appears to be an expectation that these actions by the living will help cause the dead—despite their idolatrous amulets—to come among the pious dead with the benefits that belong to that class of people (2 Macc 12:45). As already noted in 1 Cor 15:29, however, the logic at work here is that the living act “in behalf of the dead” in a way that has effects not for the dead but for the living: “What will they do who are being baptized in behalf of the dead?” Thus, the second and less commonly noticed line of thought in 2 Macc 12:38–45 is most comparable to 1 Cor 15:29. It implicitly describes three benefits that accrue to the living from the actions they take in behalf of the dead. First, the community’s actions regarding the dead keep the community from incurring guilt from those who had fallen (2 Macc 12:39–43). This action occurs in consideration of the resurrection (2 Macc 12:43) and is driven by the fact that the pious are those who participate in the resurrection’s rewards (2 Macc 12:45). Second, aside from its avoiding guilt, the community’s attention to burying the dead is an act of piety on their part that will, when their time comes, reinforce their status as “those who [will have] fall[en] asleep with piety” (2 Macc 12:39, 45). Third, the passage specially highlights Judas’s piety in organizing the community’s response to the findings about the fallen (2 Macc 12:42–43, 45). Consequently, his pious actions in behalf of the dead particularly help situate him as someone who will be able to participate in the substantial benefit that the resurrection affords (2 Macc 12:45). According to Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2.26 §205), the Law “has provided to cleanse both the house [of the dead] and the inhabitants from cares in order that anyone who had done murder might be very far from appearing clean.”58 Thus, the outcome of the purification process has additional relevance beyond itself for those who remain alive. It serves not to permit a murderer to appear clean. In so doing, it also removes a murderer from the group that either had been cleansed or had not experienced corpse contamination. According to Josephus’s representation and inasmuch as this consequence would be undesirable, the washing seems to have been understood as a kind of admonition to the community not to commit murder. Therefore, although Josephus does not connect the washing to a notion of resurrection, he does implicitly connect it to the community’s behavior. As a corollary, Paul’s initial question in 1 Cor 15:29 is “What will they do who are being baptized in behalf of the dead?” This question’s “doing” may

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 173

5/28/19 2:17 PM

174

J. David Stark

be not entirely synonymous with these individuals’ defending or justifying this baptism that is baseless apart from the resurrection. Rather, Paul may be questioning what kind of practice will continue to follow for these individuals, given the washing they have undergone in the absence of a resurrection. Will they continue to show piety as they have done regarding the dead? Or, as Paul suggests in 1 Cor 15:16–19, 30–34, will they dispense with a larger pattern of upright action for which the resurrection is ultimately the only justification? As 1 Cor 15:29 integrates with the following vv. 30–34, an allusion to Pentateuchal legislation suggests two chief options: 1. The apostles and close associates are “those who are being baptized” with suffering “in behalf of” the Corinthians who were either “dead” prior to conversion or who are nearly “dead” as a final state if they may anticipate no resurrection after that point. 2. The Corinthians are “those who are being baptized” with water “in behalf of” the apostles and their close associates who have experienced a kind of “death” in delivering the gospel to the Corinthians (see below). The present question is then whether either option makes better sense when read against the backdrop of this allusion, thereby making the allusion comparatively more likely. Option 2 appears the best one. Given the suffering and dying that characterized Paul and his associates’ ministry at Corinth, one creative way Paul seems to choose to describe the Corinthians’ conversions is as a response to a kind of apostolic corpse contamination (1 Cor 15:29–31). In the Corinthian correspondence, Paul regularly describes his apostleship as involving harmful—even deadly—personal circumstances (e.g., 1 Cor 4:8–13; 2 Cor 1:3–11, 2:14–16, 4:7–12, 6:3–10, 7:5).59 One passage is especially relevant to the present hypothesis that corpse contamination washings are a controlling allusion in 1 Cor 15:29. In 2 Cor 5:1–5, Paul reflects on the relationship between the present bodily “tent” (σκῆνος) and the bodily form that will emerge in the resurrection. Outside this text, Paul nowhere else uses the metaphor of a “tent” to characterize the present form of bodily human existence.60 Therefore, commentators have sometimes puzzled over precisely why Paul should have drawn on this metaphor in this text.61 The question for 2 Cor 5 need not be resolved here, but this passage’s description of the present form of human bodily existence as a “tent” may suggest a further link from 1 Cor 15:29 to a corpse contamination washing metaphor. Numbers 19:14 specifically provides legislation that governs the situation in which a person dies in a tent, and this kind of corpse contamination is to be

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 174

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

175

followed by one’s being sprinkled, washing one’s clothes, and bathing (Num 19:18–20). Rabbinic literature reflects on this passage repeatedly. Often, the reflection reads the assertion not as instruction about a certain situation (e.g., “this is the law for when a man dies in a tent”). Rather, there is a strong tendency to reflect on how the situation of the man dying in the tent is an embodiment of or synonymous with observing the whole Torah (taking “this is the Torah” in an appositional relationship to “a man, if he should die in a tent”). Thus, Torah obedience appears in its uttermost fulfillment when a person kills himself (i.e., dies in his own bodily “tent”) rather than disobey the Torah (e.g., b. Ber 9:1, 63b; b. Šabb. 2:3, 27b–28a; 9:2, 83b; b. Giṭ. 6:5, 57b). This reading strategy collates well with the extreme obedience Paul portrays himself and his associates as exercising in 1 Cor 15:30–32. Their full devotion to their commission to announce Jesus’s messiahship involves a kind of dying in their own bodily tents. Apart from the resurrection, the commission would not be worthy of this devotion (1 Cor15:30–32; cf. 15:17–19). Such extreme devotion to this commission thereby provides further testimony for the resurrection. Given the resurrection, the Corinthians’ baptisms are validated (15:29), not least as responses to the apostolic corpses with whom they have interacted. The future bodily resurrection further demands from the Cor present bodily behaviors that comport with that future reality (1 Cor 15:33–34). Thus, an allusion to corpse contamination washings—particularly in the scenario developed in Numbers 19:11–22—seems to bear out as an explanatory basis for the balance of the paragraph.62 This option for how 1 Cor 15:29 integrates with vv. 30–34 substantially resembles that proposed by Joel White—namely, that verse 29 refers to the baptism typical for initiates into the Jesus movement and is undergone in reference to Paul and his associates as “the dead.”63 Recognizing verse 29 as an allusion to corpse contamination washings provides a way to improve White’s proposal. A cultic washing allusion makes party loyalties become quite beside the point. The Corinthians’ baptism resolves immediately into obedience to God. Thus, 1 Cor 15:29 can be more consistent with Paul’s general strategy of deconstructing party loyalties (e.g., 1 Cor 1:10–17, 3:3–9, 4:6). The Corinthians’ submission to washing (baptism) in response to the living apostolic and other corpses they have encountered (1 Cor 15:31) is an act of obedience and loyalty to the God under whose commission these corpses have been operating. In one way, undergoing a purification ritual would be the next logical step after contracting corpse contamination. As such, the Corinthians’ baptism might only provide the next natural step along the continuum set by the working hypothesis of non-resurrection, and the baptism would fail to bring that hypothesis into question. The Corinthians have contracted contamination

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 175

5/28/19 2:17 PM

176

J. David Stark

from corpses with a dead message and have taken steps to remedy that situation. Therefore, the key thread that Paul seems to want to pull to unravel the non-resurrection hypothesis is that the Corinthians have cared at all about acting in accordance with the worldview in which this supposedly dead message has come to them. Baptism is their entrance into that world, their acknowledgement of positive investment in the relevance of the message delivered to them. As such, the Corinthians’ baptism then implicitly validates that world and deconstructs the non-resurrection hypothesis Paul raises in 1 Cor 15:29–34. With a reading strategy like that suggested here, 1 Cor 15:29 fits nicely as an integral part of the argument within 1 Cor 15. Rather than representing a sharp aberration and break with the overall line of thought, the paragraph continues that progression. Verses 29–34 make a similar argument to that found in vv. 12–19 but from a different angle.64 Verses 12–19 begin with the Christian proclamation (v. 12). On the hypothesis that the resurrection then does not occur, the paragraph explores the outcomes for those attached to the falsified proclamation, including Jesus (vv. 13–14a, 16), Paul and his associates (vv. 14b–15, 19), the Cor (vv. 14b, 17), the Father (v. 15), and already dead Christians (v. 18). By contrast, 1 Cor 15:29–34 initially focus on the Corinthians’ acceptance of this proclamation. That acceptance takes the form of baptism (v. 29). Given a negation of the resurrection, vv. 30–34 sketch the reverberations outward from this point. These reverberations result in similar negations of the hardships Paul and his associates have undergone in their ministry (vv. 30–32a). This portion of the paragraph particularly connects to verse 26’s assertion that “the last enemy, death, is being abolished.” If that enemy is not abolished, then Paul and his associates who undertake death (v. 31a) will find themselves victimized by it rather than vindicated over it. In crafting this argument, Paul allusively plays out scriptural procedure regarding corpse contamination washings, especially as expressed in Numbers 19. This metaphoric field provides the role structures within which Paul aligns himself and his associates, their proclamation, the Corinthians, their acceptance of his message, and the veracity of a future bodily resurrection for everyone concerned. Abrogation of death’s undoing also undoes the groundwork for the Corinthians’ own persistence in piety (15:29a, 32b). The shift to positive admonition in 1 Cor 15:33–34 suggests Paul’s anticipation that the argument has, by that point, become sufficiently absurd to complete that unit of demonstration. The argument from this point then addresses not whether the resurrection will occur but in what manner it will occur (15:35). This transition suggests that 1 Cor 15:29–34—far from being an aberration or aside—is structured as a unit to form the climax of Paul’s argument that the

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 176

5/28/19 2:17 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

177

resurrection will, in fact, occur.65 And an integrated reading of the paragraph like that proposed here allows it to function precisely in this way. CONCLUSION First Corinthians 15:29 remains a difficult text. To attempt a satisfactory explanation for it, interpreters must account for various data while also allowing for unknown quantities. The strategy pursued here seeks to find 1 Cor 15:29 thoroughly at home in Paul’s interaction with his Scriptures. Among these Scriptures, texts like Leviticus 21:1–4 and 22:4–6 and Numbers 6:6–12 and 19:11–22 lay out a metaphoric field that might be leveraged to describe baptism “in behalf of the dead.” Numbers 19:11–22 aligns particularly well with 1 Cor 15:29 because it is the most generally applicable of the texts that prescribe washings for corpse contamination. An allusion to Numbers 19:11–22 in 1 Cor 15:29 also integrates well with 1 Cor 15:30–34 and these verses’ portrayal of Paul and his associates as ministerially deceased. This essay has expended little effort to demonstrate that other strategies for reading 1 Cor 15:29 are worse than this one. Instead, the goal has been simply to suggest that this reading has much to commend it and, therefore, that it deserves a seat back at the table in discussions of 1 Cor 15:29. NOTES 1. E.g., Bernard M. Foschini, “‘Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,’ 1 Cor 15:29: An Exegetical Historical Dissertation,” CBQ 12.3 (1950): 260–76 (here, 260); Daniel B Sharp, “Vicarious Baptism for the Dead: 1 Cor 15:29,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 6 (2014): 36–66 (here, 36–37); Joel White, “Recent Challenges to the Communis Opinio on 1 Cor 15.29,” CBR 10.3 (2012): 379–95 (here, 379–80). 2. E.g., Foschini, “1 Cor 15:29”; Sharp, “Vicarious Baptism for the Dead”; White, “The Communis Opinio on 1 Cor 15.29.” 3. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine, and all Greek NT translations are based on Nestle-Aland 28. The use of ὑπέρ in 1 Cor 15:29 properly needs fuller treatment than can here be given, but none of the major options for interpreting this preposition’s specific nuance fundamentally alter the viability of the reading being put forward. Therefore, it is consistently rendered here as “in behalf of” to try to provide a generic gloss that avoids overreading the preposition’s sense in one direction or another. See BDAG, s.v. ὑπέρ §1. 4. One might compare the probable but likewise oblique reference to the legislation of Num 5:11–31 in Rom 7:1–5. 5. And when it is mentioned, rebuttals of this interpretation are often brief. E.g., Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 177

5/28/19 2:17 PM

178

J. David Stark

Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1242; White, “The Communis Opinio on 1 Cor 15.29,” 381, 385. See also James R. Rogers, “Baptism for the Dead,” Biblical Horizons Newsletter, 1995. 6. In 1950–1951 in CBQ, Bernard Foschini published a series of five articles on 1 Cor. 15:29. These articles were subsequently compiled and republished as “Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead”: I Cor. 15:29: An Exegetical Historical Dissertation (Worcester, MA: Heffernan, 1951). Besides some very brief additional front matter and natural differences in pagination, the latter compiled volume appears to be identical to the former set of individual articles. This essay’s readers will likely find it much easier to access the CBQ series. Consequently, this essay’s citations of Foschini are all directed toward his research as presented in the CBQ series. It should also be noted that William Walker has suggested that 1 Cor 15:29–34 is a non-Pauline interpolation. “1 Cor 15:29–34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” CBQ 69.1 (2007): 84–103. Walker’s arguments bear more careful interaction than they can receive here. But, in sum, Walker draws on evidence related to the context, content, and self-contained unity of the paragraph, as well as its distinctive vocabulary and phraseology. Walker insists that his argument be taken on a cumulative basis, and this insistence is quite understandable. Yet, Walker’s specific reasons under these headings for considering 1 Cor 15:29–34 to be a non-Pauline interpolation do not appear well-founded, or they do not adequately suggest his particular conclusion rather than another, or both. Therefore, the sum of Walker’s arguments lends little real weight toward treating 1 Cor 15:29–34 as a non-Pauline interpolation. Moreover, because no evidence of this passage’s interpolation is available in witnesses to 1 Corinthians’ textual history, this essay considers 1 Cor 15:29–34 as an integral—if difficult and puzzling—part of the surrounding argument in which it appears. 7. Bernard M. Foschini, “‘Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,’ 1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” CBQ 12.4 (1950): 379–88 (here 381–82); see also Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1242. Foschini indicates that Lightfoot’s version of this reading was “proposed . . . together with his exposition of baptism of blood.” “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 381. Foschini also references a publication by a “Herrembauer” for which he gives the following bibliographic information: “Disputatio theol. de baptism super mortuos, (Jenae, 1737), see pp. 54–70.” “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 381n77. Thus far, I have been unable to locate precisely this source, but I wonder whether it may be related to Sebastian Schmidt and Johann Georg Herrenbaur, Disputatio theologica, de baptismo super mortuis, ex I. Corinth. XV. v. 29 (Spor, 1656), whether as an editorial oversight by Foschini or a subsequent republisher (e.g., omitting Schmidt and interchanging Herrembaur for Herrenbaur). 8. Foschini, “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 380; cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1242. 9. Foschini, “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 381. 10. White, “The Communis Opinio on 1 Cor 15.29,” 381. 11. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 146–65. 12. At the same time, White correctly asserts that, within the Pauline corpus but outside 1 Cor 15:29, “ritual washing” is not a known referent for any other use of

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 178

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

179

baptismal language. Hebrews 9:10 establishes this usage within the NT. Hebrews 6:2 may do so also, or it may have a somewhat different focus. See Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 315–16, 443; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, ed. C. Clifton Black, M. Eugene Boring, and John T. Carroll, NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 159, 225–26. But, these instances are presently set aside for two reasons. First, Hebrews does not name its author as do the letters that claim to have originated with Paul. Second, the author of Hebrews has proven perpetually difficult to identify on other available grounds, let alone to link with Paul. 13. A similar application occurs in Eph 5:26 and Tit 3:5. See also Acts 22:16; BDAG, s.v. ἀπολούω; BDF §317; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 107; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 453–54. It has been suggested that Paul’s reference to the Cor as having been washed focuses not so much on their baptism but on their having come to salvation in Jesus. E.g., John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John Pringle, 2 vols., Calvin’s Commentaries (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1848–1849), 1:211–12; Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, vol. 7 of IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 97–98. But, given the regularity of early Christian baptismal practice, it would be strange for Paul to use washing language to describe an event related to coming to salvation in Jesus without at least some connection to baptism being entailed. 14. White, “The Communis Opinio on 1 Cor 15.29,” 381. 15. Moreover, 1 Cor 15 demonstrably uses other vocabulary in ways that are less typical for Paul. A prime example is his use of σάρξ in 1 Cor 15:39–40, apparently without any ideological connotations, to refer to the physical material of human and animal embodiment. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1266–67. 16. Foschini’s expression may simply be a metonymy, putting the cause of the washings (corpse contamination) for their effect in a Pentateuchal legal context (purification washings). “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 387. 17. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, ed. and trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, 2nd ed., Bloomsbury Revelations (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 303. See Gadamer, Truth and Method, 369. For a longer argument to this effect than can be given here, see J. David Stark, Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions: The Hermeneutical Worlds of the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts and the Letter to the Romans, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 16, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 1–59. 18. Foschini, “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 387. 19. Ibid. 20. Whatever one makes of the origins of Ephesians and Colossians, it can at least be observed that this self-understanding imprinted itself upon those letters also (Eph 1:3–10, 3:1–13, 5:25–33; Col 1:24–2:5). 21. Lloyd F. Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1–14. 22. Foschini, “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 387.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 179

5/28/19 2:18 PM

180

J. David Stark

23. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 278–397. 24. Foschini, “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 387. 25. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 279–82, 309–10. 26. Foschini, “1 Cor 15:29: Second Article,” 387. 27. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 32. 28. This list of criteria derives from and reworks that proposed by Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 34–45; Hays, Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 29–32. For discussion of this revised criteria set, see Stark, Sacred Texts, 50–55. 29. Stark, Sacred Texts, 52; see also Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 34, 41–42. 30. E.g., Roy E. Ciampa, “Scriptural Language and Ideas,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Christopher D. Stanley and Stanley E. Porter, SBLSymS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 41–57; Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 101–18, 166–67; Hays, Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 23–24; Stanley E. Porter, “Allusions and Echoes,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSymS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 29–40; Stark, Sacred Texts, 50, 152–70. 31. Here, “possession” may be either mental or material. Thus, it is roughly synonymous to the notion of “access” and need not imply ownership of a physical copy of a text. 32. Nestle-Aland28, 836–78. 33. For suggestions about distinguishing between direct and indirect quotations, see Stark, Sacred Texts, 48. 34. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 35–37; Stark, Sacred Texts, 53; cf. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 285; Hays, Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 30; see also Porter, “Allusions and Echoes,” 38. 35. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 166–67; Hays, Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 23–24; Stark, Sacred Texts, 50. 36. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 166–67; Hays, Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 23–24; Stark, Sacred Texts, 50. 37. Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A LiteraryCultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, combined ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 2:44–46. 38. S. Safrai, “Home and Family,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. Safrai et al., CRINT 1 (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1987), 774. 39. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 46. 40. Milgrom, Numbers, 47. All HB translations are made from BHS. 41. Ibid., 46. 42. Ibid. 46. 43. Cf. Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction, Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: T. & T. Clark, 2001), 5; L. Paul Trudinger,

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 180

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

181

“Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation,” JTS 17.1 (1966): 82–88 (here 84). 44. Safrai, “Home and Family,” 775. 45. Elisha Qimron et al., “Some Works of the Torah: 4Q394–4Q399 (= 4QMMTa –f) and 4Q313,” in Damascus Document II, Some Works of Torah, and Related Documents, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 245 n.35; Safrai, “Home and Family,” 785. In his discussion, Safrai refers to “Num. 18.” But, the division between Num 18 and Num 19 is consistent across the HB, LXX, and Eng. versions. And “purify[ication] from the pollution of death” is not “explicitly detailed” in Num 18. Safrai, “Home and Family,” 785. Consequently, Safrai’s “Num. 18” appears to be a misprint for “Num. 19.” 46. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 722. 47. Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 722–26. 48. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 771–76. 49. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 161; cf. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 443. 50. Peter Enns, “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Cor10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 23–38; cf. Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 723–25. 51. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PilNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 139–40, 445; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 165; Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 214–15; Hays, First Corinthians, 160; B. J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation, WUNT 2/115 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 69–72; cf. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (London: Continuum, 1968), 220; Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, ed. M. Ernest Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel, trans. James Bryce, 5 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1860), 3:267. 52. E.g., Douglas A. Oss, “The Interpretation of the ‘Stone’ Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study,” JETS 32.2 (1989): 181–200 (here 195); Christopher D. Stanley, “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why Audience Matters,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSymS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 125–55 (here 134–36, 146–49, 152). 53. E.g., Hays, Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 30; Stark, Sacred Texts, 54–55. 54. Steven DiMattei, “Biblical Narratives,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSymS 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 59–93 (here 75); Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 180; Stark, Sacred Texts, 54. 55. On the interpenetration of rhetoric and hermeneutics, see Hans-Georg Gadamer, “On the Scope and Function of Hermeneutical Reflection,” in Philosophical

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 181

5/28/19 2:18 PM

182

J. David Stark

Hermeneutics, ed. and trans. David E. Ligne, 1st paperback ed. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977), 18–43. 56. For a fuller discussion, see Stark, Sacred Texts, 32–36, 55–58, 85–87. 57. E.g., Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity, OSHT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 27–29. 58. The translation is mine from Benedikt Niese, ed., Flavii Iosephi opera (Berlin: Weidmann, 1888). According to William Whiston, ed., The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), the passage appears at Ag. Ap., 2.27. The Loeb editors consider the text corresponding to “in order that anyone who had done murder might be very far from appearing clean” as “probably a gloss.” Flavius Josephus, The Life, Against Apion, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL 186/Josephus 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), 376n1. Yet, the grounds for this suggestion are questionable since the surrounding sections provide similar explanations that are not also brought into suspicion. Josephus, The Life, Against Apion, 372–77. In Codex Laurentianus, the clause is itself present and subject to further expansion. Niese, Flavii Iosephi opera, 5:84. The shorter version of the clause included in Niese’s edition and translated above also fits well with Josephus’s overall argument in this section (Ag. Ap., 2.22 §190). Thus, the case for considering this clause integral to Josephus’s text is reasonable. 59. Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Cor 2:14–3:3, PBTM (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). 60. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians, ed. William P. Dickson, trans. D. Douglas Bannerman and David Hunter, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. CLark, 1879), 2:251. 61. E.g., Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 370–71; Peter W. Macky, “St. Paul’s Collage of Metaphors in II Cor 5:1–10: Ornamental or Exploratory?,” Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society and the Midwest Region of the Society of Biblical Literature 11 (Grand Rapids: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society and the Midwest Region of the SBL, 1991), 162–73. 62. 2 Cor 5:1–4 also describes taking off a present “tent” and “putting on” a “dwelling that is from heaven.” The result is not disembodiment but embodiment in a better form. These themes closely parallel those that Paul discusses in 1 Cor 15:35–58. This parallelism increases the likelihood that the tent metaphor is a reasonable parallel to draw in 1 Cor 15:29–34, even if it is there only hinted at. 63. White, “1 Cor 15:29 in Its Context,” esp. 493–99. 64. Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, “Baptized for the Dead,” 540–42. 65. Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Cor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 306–7.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Combined ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 182

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

183

Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1968. Bauer, Walter, William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Bengel, Johann Albrecht. Gnomon of the New Testament. Edited by M. Ernest Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel Translated by James Bryce. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1860. Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1–14. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Walter Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1977. Calvin, John. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Translated by John Pringle. 2 vols. Calvin’s Commentaries. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1848–1849. Ciampa, Roy E. “Scriptural Language and Ideas.” Pages 41–57 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley and Stanley E. Porter. SBLSymS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “1 Corinthians.” Pages 695–752 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. DeMaris, Richard E. The New Testament in Its Ritual World. London: Routledge, 2008. DiMattei, Steven. “Biblical Narratives.” Pages 59–93 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SBLSymS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellingworth, Paul, and Howard Hatton. A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1995. Enns, Peter. “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text.” BBR 6 (1996): 23–38. Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Foschini, Bernard M. “‘Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,’ 1 Cor 15:29: An Exegetical Historical Dissertation.” CBQ 12.3 (1950): 260–76.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 183

5/28/19 2:18 PM

184

J. David Stark

———. “Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead”: I Cor. 15:29: An Exegetical Historical Dissertation. Worcester, MA: Heffernan, 1951. ———. “‘Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,’ 1 Cor 15:29: Second Article.” CBQ 12.4 (1950): 379–88. Friedman, Shamma. “The Holy Scriptures Defile the Hands—the Transformation of a Biblical Concept in Rabbinic Theology.” Pages 117–32 in Minḥah Le-Naḥum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His 70th Birthday. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. “On the Scope and Function of Hermeneutical Reflection.” Pages 18–43 in Philosophical Hermeneutics. Edited and translated by David E. Ligne. 1st paperback ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977. ———. Truth and Method. Edited and translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. 2nd ed. Bloomsbury Revelations. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. Hafemann, Scott J. Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3. PBTM. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Johnson, Alan F. 1 Corinthians. IVP New Testament Commentary 7. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. Edited by C. Clifton Black, M. Eugene Boring, and John T. Carroll. NTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Josephus, Flavius. The Life, Against Apion. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL 186/Josephus 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Lightfoot, John. Acts–1 Corinthians. Edited by Robert Gandell. Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859. Macky, Peter W. “St. Paul’s Collage of Metaphors in II Corinthians 5:1–10: Ornamental or Exploratory?” Pages 162–73 in Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society and the Midwest Region of the Society of Biblical Literature 11. Grand Rapids: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society and the Midwest Region of the SBL, 1991. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1983. Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edited by William P. Dickson Translated by D. Douglas Bannerman and David Hunter. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. CLark, 1879. Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction. Approaches to Biblical Studies. London: T. & T. Clark, 2001.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 184

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Baptism on behalf of the Dead at Corinth—and in the Pentateuch

185

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “‘Baptized for the Dead’ (1 Cor 15:29): A Corinthian Slogan?” RB 88.4 (1981): 532–43. Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, and Barbara Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013. Niese, Benedikt, ed. Flavii Iosephi opera. Berlin: Weidmann, 1888. Oss, Douglas A. “The Interpretation of the ‘Stone’ Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study.” JETS 32.2 (1989): 181–200. Porter, Stanley E. “Allusions and Echoes.” Pages 29–40 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SBLSymS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. ———. “Paul and His Bible: His Education and Access to the Scriptures of Israel.” Pages 97–124 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SBLSymS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. “Paul’s Bible, His Education and His Access to the Scriptures of Israel.” JGRChJ 5.1 (2008): 9–41. Qimron, Elisha, James H. Charlesworth, Douglas A. Hume, John B. F. Miller, Stephen J. Pfann, and Henry W. M. Rietz. “Some Works of the Torah: 4Q394–4Q399 (= 4QMMTa–f) and 4Q313.” Pages 187–251 in Damascus Document II, Some Works of Torah, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Rogers, James R. “Baptism for the Dead.” Biblical Horizons Newsletter, 1995. Safrai, S. “Home and Family.” Pages 728–92 in The Jewish People in the First Century. Edited by S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser, and W. C. van Unnik. CRINT 1. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1987. Schellenberg, Ryan S. Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13. ECIL 10. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. Schmidt, Sebastian, and Johann Georg Herrenbaur. Disputatio theologica, de baptismo super mortuis, ex I. Corinth. XV. v. 29. Spor, 1656. Sharp, Daniel B. “Vicarious Baptism for the Dead: 1 Corinthians 15:29.” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 6 (2014): 36–66. Stanley, Christopher D. “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why Audience Matters.” Pages 125–55 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SBLSymS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Stark, J. David. Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions: The Hermeneutical Worlds of the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts and the Letter to the Romans. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 16. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Trudinger, L. Paul. “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.” JTS 17.1 (1966): 82–88. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of NonChristians in Early Christianity. OSHT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 185

5/28/19 2:18 PM

186

J. David Stark

Walker, William O. “1 Corinthians 15:29–34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation.” CBQ 69.1 (2007): 84–103. Whiston, William, ed. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. White, Joel R. “‘Baptized on account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context.” JBL 116.3 (1997): 487–99. ———. “Recent Challenges to the Communis Opinio on 1 Corinthians 15.29.” CBR 10.3 (2012): 379–95. Witherington, III, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 186

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Chapter Eleven

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix for the Nature of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians 15:39–42 David A. Burnett

In his discourse regarding the nature of the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:35– 49, Paul employs the metaphor of the sowing of the “soulish” (ψυχικόν) or “terrestrial” (ἐπίγεια) body and the rising of the “pneumatic” (πνευματικόν) or “celestial” (ἐπουράνια) body (1 Cor 15:40, 44). Both kinds of bodies are fit for different habitats and differ in nature. Seeking to demonstrate this in 1 Cor 15:39–42 Paul enumerates a list of terrestrial creatures followed by celestial creatures. Paul likens the resurrection body to the later.1 Not all flesh (σὰρξ) is the same flesh, but there is one for humans, another flesh for animals, another flesh for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies (σώματα ἐπουράνια) and earthly bodies (σώματα ἐπίγεια), but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind (ἀλλὰ ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα), and the earthly is of another (ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων). There is one glory (δόξα) of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:39–42a).

There is a general consensus among scholars regarding the source of this creature list, located in the enumerated creatures of the creation narrative of Genesis 1.2 This remains the case even though Paul’s list of creatures does not follow the same order as Genesis 1. Other scholars have put forth reasons for this discrepancy by suggesting that the list simply evokes the cosmology of popular Greek philosophy.3 Despite the consensus concerning the background of the creature list employed in service of Paul’s wider argument, there remains debate among scholars regarding how he understands the nature of the resurrection body. The scholarly consensus sees no need for an alternate model, consequently overlooking a possible explanation that could 187

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 187

5/28/19 2:18 PM

188

David A. Burnett

account for a number of otherwise distinctive features of the passage and assist in answering questions surrounding Paul’s conception of the nature of the resurrection body. The list of earthly and heavenly creatures here in 1 Cor 15:39–42 follows the same order as enumerated in the aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–19. If this is the text to which Paul alludes, he may be drawing on an exegetical tradition in the Second Temple period that reads Deut 4:15–19 as part Table 11.1. Types of Bodies Terrestrial Bodies (σώματα ἐπίγεια) of ‘Flesh’ (σὰρξ)

Celestial Bodies (σώματα ἐπουράνια) of ‘Glory’ (δόξα)

1 Cor 15:39–42 Creature List

Gen 1:11–28 Creature List

Humans (ἀνθρώπων, v.39a)

Human/Man (ἄνθρωπον, v.26–28) Beasts (θηρία, v.24–25, which includes κτήνη and ἑρπετὰ) Birds (πετεινὰ, v.20–21) Living creatures? (ψυχῶν ζωσῶν, v.20–21, ἰχθύων are not mentioned until v.26)

Domestic animals (κτηνῶν, v.39b) Birds (πτηνῶν, v.39c) Fish (ἰχθύων, v.39d)

Sun (ἡλίου, v.41a)

Greater Light (φωστῆρα τὸν μέγαν, v.16a)

Moon (σελήνης, v.41b)

Lesser Light (φωστῆρα τὸν ἐλάσσω, v.16b) Stars (ἀστέρας, v.16c)

Stars (ἀστέρων, v.41c) Table 11.2. Types of Bodies Terrestrial Bodies (σώματα ἐπίγεια) of ‘Flesh’ (σὰρξ)

1 Cor 15:39–42 Creature List

Deut 4:15–19 Creature List

Humans (ἀνθρώπων, v.39a)

Fish (ἰχθύων, v.39d)

Male or Female (ἀρσενικοῦ ἢ θηλυκοῦ, v.16b; cf. Gen 1:27) Domestic Animals (κτήνους, v.17a) Birds (ὀρνέου πτερωτοῦ, v.17b) Fish (ἰχθύος, v.18b)

Sun (ἡλίου, v.41a)

Sun (ἥλιον, v.19)

Moon (σελήνης, v.41b) Stars (ἀστέρων, v.41c)

Moon (σελήνην, v.19) Stars (ἀστέρας, v.19)

Domestic Animals (κτηνῶν, v.39b) Birds (πτηνῶν, v.39c)

Celestial Bodies (σώματα ἐπουράνια) of ‘Glory’ (δόξα)

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 188

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

189

of a wider Deuteronomic scriptural matrix employed to describe the nature of the cosmos, constructed and administered by God, having appointed the celestial bodies as divine or angelic delegates in his cosmic polis. Such a reading, as will be presented in this study, aims not only to supply a strong argument for Paul’s particular enumeration of creatures in 1 Cor 15:39–42 but also provide a robust account of the passage in its wider context, such as connecting the language of the abolishing of the principalities and powers (1 Cor 15:24) with his earlier discussion regarding the judgment of the cosmos and the angels (1 Cor 6:2–3).4

PROPOSAL FOR THE DEUTERONOMIC SCRIPTURAL MATRIX BEHIND 1 COR 15:39–42 Terrestrial Bodies and Celestial Bodies Though the traditional reading posits Genesis 1 as the background to Paul’s creature list (see tables 11.1 and 11.2), the terrestrial creatures are listed in reverse order, and the celestial bodies do not follow the same naming pattern. The list in Genesis 1 also fails to account for the structure of the cosmos as understood after Genesis 11 (more on this below). On the other hand, the aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–20 follows the exact same order. Deut 4:15–20 (LXX) reads as follows: And closely guard your souls (ψυχάς), because you did not see a likeness (ὁμοίωμα) on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb in the mountain from the midst of the fire. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved likeness (ὁμοίωμα), of any image (εἰκόνα), a likeness of male or female, a likeness of any animal (κτήνους) that is on the earth, a likeness of any winged bird (ὀρνέου πτερωτοῦ) that flies under heaven, a likeness of any reptile that creeps on the ground, a likeness of any fish (ἰχθύος) that is in the water under the earth. And do not lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun (ἥλιον) and the moon (σελήνην) and the stars (ἀστέρας), all the host of heaven (καὶ πάντα τὸν κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your god has allotted to all the nations under heaven (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν τοῖς ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). But God has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to become for him an allotted (ἔγκληρον) people, as in this day.

As demonstrated in table 1.2, the same creatures are listed here in descending order as in 1 Cor 15:39–41, including a pivoting statement to clearly stress the division and distinction of the terrestrial creatures from the celestial ones and their respective habitats (cf. Deut 4:19 and 1 Cor 15:40). The terrestrial

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 189

5/28/19 2:18 PM

190

David A. Burnett

creatures of 1 Cor 15:39 follow the list of Deut 4:16b–18 in descending order, though Paul leaves out the mention of “reptiles” (ἑρπετοῦ). This is not an impediment to the present proposal as “reptiles” (ἑρπετῶν) are also mentioned in Genesis 1:21 and yet Paul does not include them.5 Here in Deut 4:16–19, it will become clear that the terrestrial creatures and celestial bodies are both categories of living creatures, inhabiting the particular realms allotted to them.6

THE DEUTERONOMIC SCRIPTURAL MATRIX: THE CELESTIAL BODIES AS THE GODS (OR ANGELS) OF THE NATIONS The Hebrew Scriptures commonly depict the celestial bodies as divine or angelic beings, identified as the “hosts of heaven” (‫)צבאות השמים‬, “sons of (the) God(s)” or “sons of the Most High” (‫]ה[אלהים‬/‫בני עליון‬/‫)אלים‬, and the “gods” (‫)אלהים‬.7 Here in LXX Deut 4:19, the celestial bodies themselves are regarded as the “hosts (or ornaments) of heaven” (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) who have been “allotted to (ἀπένειμεν) all the nations (ἔθνεσιν) under heaven.”8 This notion is part of a wider Deuteronomic scriptural matrix which depicts the celestial bodies as the patron gods or angels of the nations, members of Yahweh’s Divine Council.9 Likewise, Deut 17:3 speaks of idolaters as those who have “gone and served other gods (θεοῖς) and worshipped them, whether the sun (ἡλίῳ) or the moon (σελήνῃ) or any of the host of heaven (κόσμου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), which I have forbidden.” The celestial bodies are here referred to as “gods (θεοῖς),” and the term “host of heaven” (κόσμου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) is employed interchangeably for the stars (cf. Jer 8:2). Later in Deut 29:18[17], 26[25], in the context of idolatry Israel saw as they “came through the midst of the nations (ἐθνῶν)” in the exodus (29:16[15]; cf. Deut 4:19–20). They are warned against abandoning “the Lord their god” and serving “the gods of those nations” (τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν) (29:18 [17]), “other gods . . . gods whom they have not known and whom he had not allotted (διένειμεν) to them” (Deut 29:26 [25]). Here again we find the concept of the “allotment” or “distribution” (διανέμω) of the gods of the nations corresponding to the celestial bodies of Deut 4:19. Later in the Song of Moses, the allotment of the celestial bodies/gods is narrated in context of the election of Israel (Jacob): When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam (ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ), he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 190

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

191

(ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ), and his people Jacob became the Lord’s portion, Israel is the allotment of his inheritance (καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ, σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ) (Deut 32:8–9 LXX).10

This account is likely narrating the dispersing of the nations as in Genesis 11:1–9; the language of “separating the sons of Adam” (ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱούς Αδαμ) of Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX) reflects the language of the dispersion in Genesis 11:8–9 (LXX), “and from there the Lord God scattered (διέσπειρεν) them abroad over the face of all the earth” (cf. Gen 10:32).11 Here in Deut 32:8–9, the election of Jacob (cf. Abraham in Gen 12 following Gen 10–11) is likened to the exodus out of Egypt in Deut 4:15–20. Both describe the celestial bodies as the gods or angels “allotted” to rule over all the “sons of Adam,” or “all the nations under heaven,” while Yahweh’s people Israel are his “inheritance” (κληρονομίας), thereby in a real sense separating them from the “sons of Adam” and raising them to the level of “sons of God.” Such could be interpreted as being placed, at least relationally, on par with the gods or angels. Within the wider Deuteronomic matrix regarding the celestial bodies, both the election of Israel and the exodus are narrated as a coming out from under the rule of the celestial gods/angels of the nations to participate in the “inheritance” of Yahweh, the Most High God.12

THE RECEPTION OF THE DEUTERONOMIC SCRIPTURAL MATRIX IN EARLY JUDAISM Philo’s Reception of the Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix An important early Hellenistic Jewish example of the reception of this tradition of the Deuteronomic vision of the cosmic order, specifically rooted in the same passage from Deut 4, can be found in Philo’s Special Laws: Some have supposed that the sun and moon and the other stars were gods with absolute powers (θεοὺς αὐτοκράτορας) and ascribed to them the causation of all events. But Moses held that the κόσμος was created (γενητός) and is in a sense the greatest of commonwealths (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη), having rulers (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα) and subjects; for rulers (ἂρχοντας), all the celestial bodies (οὐρανῳ πάντας), fixed or wandering; for subjects, such beings as exist below the moon, in the air or on the earth. The said rulers, however, in his view have not unconditional powers, but are lieutenants of the one Father of All, and it is by copying (μιμουμένους) the example of His government exercised according to justice and law (δίκην καὶ νόμον) over all created beings that they acquit themselves aright; but those who do not descry the Charioteer mounted above attribute

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 191

5/28/19 2:18 PM

192

David A. Burnett

the causation of all the events in the κόσμῳ to the team that draw the chariot as though they were sole agents. From this ignorance our most holy lawgiver would convert them to knowledge with these words: “Do not when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the ordered host of heaven go astray and worship them–Deuteronomy 4:19.” Well indeed and aptly does he call the acceptance of the celestial bodies as gods going astray or wandering . . . and the other stars in accordance with their sympathetic affinity to things on earth acting and working in a thousand ways for the preservation of the All, have wandered infinitely far in supposing that they alone are gods . . . So all the gods (θεοὺς) which sense descries in Heaven must not be supposed to possess absolute power (αὐτοκρατεις) but to have received the rank of subordinate rulers, naturally liable to correction, though in virtue of their excellence never destined to undergo it (Spec. 1.13–19).13

Here in a kind of exposition of Deut 4:19, Philo speaks of creation (γενητός) in terms of the establishment of the cosmos (κόσμος) as the “greatest of commonwealths” (πόλις ἡ μεγίστη), a kind of heavenly government akin to a Greco-Roman polis where “all the celestial bodies” (οὐρανῳ πάντας) are appointed as “rulers” (ἄρχοντας) over subjects that consist of all the terrestrial creatures who live below the heavens. Philo likely sees a connection here between creation in Genesis 1:16–18 (LXX) as the celestial bodies were created to “rule” (ἄρχειν) and the appointment of the celestial bodies as “rulers” (ἄρχοντας) in Deut 4:19. Philo does not deny the divinity of the celestial bodies, but in his use of Deut 4:19, the logic given against idolatry is simply that they are not gods with “absolute powers” (αὐτοκρατεῖς) but are appointed rulers (ἄρχοντας) under the one God who is “Father of all” (του πάντων πατρὸς ὑπάρχους) (cf. Deut 32:6–9; 1 Cor 8:4–6; 15:24).14 The celestial bodies are to carry out their rule in justice and law (δίκην καὶ νόμον) by mimesis (μιμουμένους) as participants in God’s own sovereign rule of the cosmos (κόσμος) as the “Father of all” (πάντων πατρός). We find an important distinction here between Philo and Paul regarding the destiny of the heavenly rulers. Philo does not share Paul’s apocalypticism and sees no need for a final judgment or destruction of the celestial rulers (i.e. 1 Cor 15:20–28), as he states, “they are liable to correction, though in virtue of their excellence never destined to undergo it” (Philo, Spec. 1.19).15 Sirach’s Reception of the Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix Similar to the articulation in Philo’s Special Laws (1.13–19), Sirach 17 closely connects the story of creation with the establishment of the Deuteronomic vision of the cosmos. Beginning with the creation of humankind, Sirach 17:1–4 reads:

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 192

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

193

The Lord created man (ἄνθρωπον) out of the earth (ἐκ γῆς), and makes them return to it again. He gave them a fixed number of days, but granted them authority (ἐξουσίαν) over everything on the earth. He endowed them with strength like his own, and made them in his own image (εἰκόνα). He put the fear of them in all flesh (σαρκὸς), and gave them dominion over the beasts (θηρίων) and birds (πετεινῶν).

For Sirach, in creation humankind is made from the earth and must return again to it as in Genesis 2–3. Drawing on the language of Genesis 1:26–28, humankind as the image (εἰκόνα) of God is given the authority (ἐξουσίαν) over all the earthly creatures who are characterized as “flesh” (σαρκὸς) (cf. 1 Cor 15:39) and summarized as the beasts (θηρίων) and birds (πετεινῶν) (cf. Gen 1; Deut 4:15–19).16 Making a seemingly uninterrupted transition, Sirach draws a strong connection between the creation of humankind (17:1–10) with the creation/election of Israel (17:11–14), a connection also explicit in Deut 4:32–40 where the creation/election of Israel is portrayed as the greatest thing to have ever happened “since the day God created human beings (ἄνθρωπον) on the earth” (Deut 4:32), thus drawing a connection between the events with regard to their cosmic significance. Sirach continues his recounting of Yahweh’s election of Israel in Sirach 17:17 through the lens of the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix: “He appointed a ruler for every nation (ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον), but Israel is the Lord’s own portion (καὶ μερὶς κυρίου Ισραηλ ἐστίν),” echoing Deut 32:8–9, “and his people Jacob became the Lord’s portion” (καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ).17 Here in Sirach we find an early Jewish literary example that an explicit link could be and was made between the creation/election of Israel as understood through the Deuteronomic matrix and the creation of humankind from Genesis 1–3. The Arising of “God,” the Destruction of the Gods/Rulers, and the Divine Judgment and Inheritance A text closely associated with the Deuteronomic matrix in my view is LXX Ps 81[82]. The author narrates a judgment scene in the divine council where “God” passes judgment on the gods: God stands in the assembly of the gods (Ὁ θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν), in the midst of the gods he holds judgment (ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρίνει). “How long will you judge unjustly (ἀδικίαν) . . .” I said, “you are gods, sons of the Most High all of you [cf. Deut 32:8–9], but you all are dying like men (ἄνθρωποι), and like one of the rulers (ἀρχόντων) you fall.” Arise, O God, judge the earth (ἀνάστα, ὁ θεός, κρῖνον τὴν γῆν), because you will obtain the inheritance of all the nations (κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). (Ps 81:1–2a, 6–8 LXX [82 MT])

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 193

5/28/19 2:18 PM

194

David A. Burnett

In Ps 81[82]:1, the figure identified as “God” (‫ אלהים‬MT, θεὸς LXX) judges (διακρίνει) the celestial gods (θεοὺς) of the divine council because they have judged “unjustly” (ἀδικίαν), failing in their intended role in which the celestial rulers (Deut 4:19; 32:8–9) were to exercise their rule “in law and justice” (δίκην καὶ νόμον, e.g. Philo, Spec. 1.13–19). Because of this, the immortal gods will “die like men” (ἄνθρωποι) and will fall like one the “rulers” (ἀρχόντων, Ps 81[82]:7; cf. the celestial bodies of Deut 4:19 in Philo, Spec. 1.13–19). The psalmist closes the psalm with a plea, “arise, oh God” (ἀνάστα, ὁ θεός), which, for the author, is intended to result in the “judgment of the earth” (κρῖνον τὴν γῆν) and to inherit the nations that were once apparently oppressively ruled by the gods/rulers (κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, cf. Deut 32:8–9). Hence, for Ps 81[82], the ultimate eschatological event within the context of the Deuteronomic vision of the cosmos consists of three things: (1) the “arising of God” (ἀνάστα, ὁ θεός); (2) the destruction of the gods or rulers (θεοὺς, ἀρχόντων); and (3) divine judgment and inheritance: “God” is called upon to “judge the earth” and “inherit the nations.” Already in early Judaism before Paul, as witnessed at Qumran, there were traditions that read the “god” who passes judgment on the “gods” in Ps 81[82]:1 as a principal mediatorial figure, in this case Melchizedek, as seen in 11Q13 (11QMelch): It is time of the year of grace Melchizedek and of [his] arm[ies, the nat]ion of the holy ones of God, of the role of judgment, as it is written about him in the songs of David, who said (Ps 82:1): “Elohim will [st]and in the assem[bly of God,] in the midst of the gods he judges . . . as for what he sa[id (Ps 82:2): “How long will you] judge unjustly and show partia[lity] to the wicked? [Se]lah.” Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot, wh[o . . .] turn[ing aside] from the commandments of God to [commit evil.] But, Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of Go[d’s] judgments, [and on that day he will fr]e[e them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of his lot.] (11QMelch. 2.9–13).18

Here we find Melchizedek from Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 as the “god” of Ps 81[82]:1 who carries out God’s judgments against the gods, freeing God’s people from “Belial and from the hand of all the spirits of his lot,” drawing on the “allotment” language of the Deuteronomic matrix (cf. Deut 4:19; 32:8–9).19 For 11QMelch 2.15–16, this eschatological event is when the “good news,” or gospel, is announced, citing Isaiah 52:7 regarding a messenger who announces “our God reigns.” Interestingly, the author sees Ps 81[82] as a “song of David,” whereas in the MT and LXX it is recognized as a Psalm of Asaph. Scholars have noted that in 11QMelch it is possible that “Melchize-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 194

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

195

dek” may have been understood more as a title than as a name.20 This is particularly important here, as many scholars argue, e.g. that “Melchizedek” is closely associated with or identified as the archangel Michael.21 The archangel Michael is depicted in a similar role to the Melchizedekian figure of 11QMelch in the book of Daniel. In Daniel 10:10–21, the heavenly messenger tells the prophet Daniel that Michael, one of the “chief princes” (ἀρχόντων τῶν πρώτων, 10:13 LXX), is the only one who would come to his aid and contend against the other “princes” (ἄρχων) of Persia or Greece (10:13, 20–21). This scene reflects the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix and finds its strongest parallel in Ps 81[82]:1, particularly its application in 11QMelch 2.9–13, concerning a conflict with the celestial “rulers” (ἀρχόντων) of the nations (cf. Deut 4:19; 32:8–9).22 Later in Daniel 12:1–3, the eschatological themes from Psalm 81[82] are reflected as the principal mediatorial figure, in this case Michael, “will arise” (ἀναστήσεται, Dan 12:1 LXX, Theodotion) victorious over the celestial “rulers” of the nations he previously struggled against (cf. Dan 10:13, 20–21; Ps 81[82]), followed by the resurrection of the righteous who will “shine (ἐκλάμψουσιν) like the brightness of the firmament” and “like the stars (ἀστέρες) forever and ever.” According to John J. Collins, those resurrected are thus associated with the angels as in Dan 8:10 where the “stars” are identified with the “hosts of heaven” (cf. Deut 4:19).23 Daniel was thus interpreted by some early Jewish authors as narrating a kind of eschatological cosmic upheaval as the principal mediator, Michael in this case, “arises” victorious over his celestial foes and in turn the resurrected righteous are vindicated and exalted as the new celestial rulers (cf. Dan 7:22). In Wisdom 3:7–8 we find a comparable reception of the Deuteronomic matrix sharing similar features as Ps 81[82]: “In the time of their visitation they will shine forth (ἀναλάμψουσιν), and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will judge the nations (κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη) and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them forever (βασιλεύσει αὐτῶν κύριος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας).”24 The theme from Daniel 12:1–3 of the hope of the righteous to “shine forth” (ἀναλάμψουσιν) like the stars is picked up here, charged with the Deuteronomic task of the celestial gods or rulers as “they will judge the nations” (κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη), and the Lord will rule over them forever, similar to the themes from Ps 81[82]:8 (1 Cor 6:2; 15:24–28, 50).25 These key themes found in the Second Temple Jewish interpretation of Psalm 82 and its parallels, such as the arising of the principal mediatorial figure (often divine or angelic), the destruction of gods or rulers, and divine judgment and inheritance, are important categories utilized by Paul in his apocalyptic narrative of the resurrection event in 1 Cor 15:20–28, as will be argued below.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 195

5/28/19 2:18 PM

196

David A. Burnett

THE RECEPTION OF THE DEUTERONOMIC SCRIPTURAL MATRIX IN 1 CORINTHIANS Fleeing from Idolatry and Turning to the One True God Paul is unmistakably reliant on the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix in 1 Corinthians as it frames the entire discourse unit from 8:1–11:1 addressing idolatry and eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul begins his polemic against idolatry in 1 Cor 8:4–6 by drawing on Deut 4–6: Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one” (ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς). For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth–as indeed there are many gods and many lords–yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Within what scholars refer to as the second of two Corinthian slogans adduced in 1 Cor 8:4, Paul echoes Deuteronomy, particularly drawn from the Shema (Deut 6:4) and Deut 4:35, 39: “there is no other besides him” (καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλὴν αὐτοῦ).26 Considering Deut 4:35 and 39 in their wider context, Deut 4:32–40 starts with a reference to the greatness of God’s work in the creation of humankind (4:32), then moves directly into God’s work in the creation of a people in the exodus (4:33–40), indicating a strong link between the creation of humankind and the exodus/election of Israel as previously noted (cf. Sir 17:1–14). God asks, “Did any other people (ἔθνος) ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and still live? Or has any other god ever attempted to go and take a nation (ἔθνος) for himself from the midst of another nation . . .” (Deut 4:33–34a). This is the context where we find Paul’s echo of Deut 4:35, “To you it was shown that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.” The language Paul draws on here in 4:33–35 to highlight the Corinthian converts’ special relationship to the god of Israel deliberately follows and continues to echo the prior aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–20; first of the day when the Lord spoke to them from the fire, “And closely guard your souls, because you did not see a likeness (ὁμοίωμα) on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb in the mountain from the midst of the fire” (Deut 4:15), then of the deliverance/election of the people, “But God has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to become for him an allotted (ἔγκληρον) people, as in this day” (Deut 4:20; cf. Deut 5:4–9a). Couched between these two statements is where we find the aniconic discourse actu-

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 196

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

197

ally forbidding idolatry in Deut 4:15–20 (the creature list of vv.16–19), which may suggest that Paul already has this text in mind since 1 Cor 8 and will draw on it again in chapter 15. Paul’s reception of the Deuteronomic matrix is further expressed immediately following 1 Cor 8:4 with reference to the Shema (Deut 6:4) in 1 Cor 8:5–6. Even within the context of the monolatrous central confession of ancient Israel, Paul asserts the reality of the existence of the other gods as in the Deuteronomic vision of the cosmos (see above) in 1 Cor 8:5b, “as indeed there are many gods and many lords” (ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί) (cf. Deut 10:17).27 Following this line of thought, Nathan MacDonald, in a discussion of the gods mentioned here in 1 Cor 8, says of the Apostle: “Paul, it can be argued, is breathing the same spirit as Deut 32. Other gods exist, but in another sense they are ‘no-gods’ and ‘demons.’ It is only YHWH that is ‘God.’ Paul too wants to express the theme in relational terms. There are indeed many gods that exist, but for us (ἡμῖν) there is only one God. The absolute terms are confessional, not ontological.”28 An important feature debated in this text is the nature of its “high” Christology. Many have argued that Paul places the Messiah Jesus within the Shema itself; some reckoning the placement of Jesus on the creator side of the creator/creature divide, while others at least see Paul situating him as the principal mediatorial figure under Yahweh himself, either in terms of his role, function, and/or ontology.29 Later in 1 Cor 10, Paul boldly narrates the experience of the baptized gentile converts of Corinth as an exodus, placing them in familial relationship with the patriarchal family of ancient Israel as he states in 10:1–2, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Following this train of thought, Paul implies they are no longer “pagans” (ἔθνη) (or part of the “nations”) in the Deuteronomic sense as they have experienced an exodus through the waters of baptism, and thus are no longer “allotted to” or under the “gods/rulers” they once were (cf. Deut 4:19–20; 32:8–9; Exod 12:12). Paul continues in the following passage to make these same connections with the Deuteronomic understanding of the Corinthians’ exodus and no longer being under the powers in 1 Cor 10:20–21: No, I imply that what pagans (ἔθνη) sacrifice they offer to demons (δαιμονίοις) and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Here Paul appeals to the Song of Moses in Deut 32:17 which referred to the wilderness generation of the Exodus who forsook God when “they sacrificed

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 197

5/28/19 2:18 PM

198

David A. Burnett

to demons (δαιμονίοις) and not to God,” saying that’s what pagans (ἔθνη) implying they no longer are identified as those other “sons of Adam” or “nations” who are under the “gods.”30 It is in this sense and on these grounds Paul can speak of the gentile Corinthians’ identity as pagans in the past tense: “You know that when you were nations (ἔθνη), you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led” (1 Cor 12:2). 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, the Arising of “God,” the Destruction of the Gods/Rulers, and the Divine Judgment and Inheritance Paul’s reception and employment of the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix in 1 Corinthians thus far is not only unambiguous, as shown above, but fundamental to the development of key arguments in the epistle. This is evident in Paul’s evocation of Deut 4 and 6 in 1 Cor 8 and Deut 32 in 1 Cor 10, with special focus on the argument against idolatry from the implicit background of Deut 4:15–20. Continuing along these lines, Paul’s use of the Deuteronomic matrix has been neglected in seeking to understand Paul’s argument for the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, overlooking important touch-points in his narration of the apocalyptic event itself (15:20–28) and his discussion regarding the nature of the resurrection body (15:35–49). In 1 Cor 15, whenever Paul actually employs the term “the resurrection (ἀνάστασις) from the dead,” it is always a noun and is only used four times (15:12, 13, 21, 42), always denoting the eschatological apocalyptic event in its entirety. The term functions as a designation for the climactic cosmic episode (15:21, at the beginning of 15:20–28), and is juxtaposed with the cosmic entrance of death. The term also appears only once in Paul’s discussion regarding the nature of the resurrection body (15:42 in the middle of 15:35–49). Whenever Paul wants to speak specifically of what God does for and to the dead in the event, he uses the verb ἐγείρω, “to raise up,” which is the more commonly employed term throughout the chapter (18 times). While this verb certainly captures what happens to the bodies of the dead—a central feature associated with the eschatological event—it does not account for all that Paul sees taking place within the event he calls “the resurrection.” For him this includes the destruction of the gods/rulers and the divine judgment and inheritance of the cosmos or kingdom of God (e.g. 1 Cor 6:2–3; 15:24, 50; cf. Rom 4:13). When we consider Paul’s employment of the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix in 1 Corinthians thus far—and after observing the cluster of linguistic and thematic evidence in the narration of the apocalyptic eschatological event in 1 Cor 15:20–28—there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Ps 81[82] and its narration of the demise of the celestial gods of Deuteronomy (i.e. Deut 4:19;

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 198

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

199

32:8–9) functions as the narrative background through which the resurrection event should be interpreted. After introducing “the resurrection of the dead” (15:21), first of Christ and then at his immanent Parousia those who belong to him (e.g. 1 Cor 1:7–8; 10:11; 15:23), Paul states in 15:24, “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.” As previously discussed in Ps 81[82]:7–8 and its early Jewish reception, the “arising” (ἀνάστασις, 1 Cor 15:21)31 or “resurrection” of the principal mediatorial figure, which for Paul is the Christ, enacts the “destroying” of every “rule” (ἀρχὴν) and every “authority” (ἐξουσίαν) and “power” (δύναμιν) (1 Cor 15:24; cf. Ps 81[82]:7–8; Dan 10:10–21; 12:1–3; 11QMelch 2.9–13). This follows a prominent pattern in the reception of the Deuteronomic matrix in early Jewish apocalyptic literature.32 Here in the context of the destruction of the rulers, Paul refers to God as “Father,” which in the Deuteronomic tradition denotes the patriarchal relationship between the celestial ruler and their “allotted inheritance,” as in Deut 32:6–9, explaining the language of “handing over the kingdom to him” (1 Cor 15:24), thereby fulfilling the Psalmist’s plea in Ps 81[82]:8. Paul then states in 1 Cor 15:25, “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet,” drawing on the Melchizedekian figure of Ps 110:1. This is not a surprising exegetical move for Paul to make if the narrative substructure of his articulation of the eschatological “arising” (ἀνάστασις) of the Christ in fact derives from Ps 81[82]. In the text of 11QMelch 2:9–13, the Melchizedekian figure of Psalm 110 is identified with the “god” of Ps 81[82]:1, who will “carryout God’s judgments,” again, freeing God’s people from “Belial and from the hand of all the spirits of his lot,” drawing on the language of the Deuteronomic matrix regarding the “allotment” of the celestial gods of the nations (cf. Deut 4:19; 32:8–9). An important backdrop here is the common link scholars have made between the Melchizedek figure of 11QMelch and Michael, both principal mediatorial figures who “arise” victorious over the “gods” or “rulers.”33 The Michael figure of Dan 12:1–3 is featured as the one who in his victory brings about the resurrection where the righteous will “shine as the stars of heaven.” This role is similar, if not identical, to the tradition that Paul draws upon for his two stage resurrection as in 15:23 with the remark, “but each in his own order.”34 Most scholars, such as N. T. Wright, take for granted that the primary narrative background to the resurrection discourse of 1 Cor 15 is the narrative of Genesis 1–3, without any reference to the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix. This is problematic in my view, which I hope is becoming evident.35 Paul suggests in 1 Cor 15:26 that “the last enemy to be destroyed (καταργεῖται) is death,” implying other enemies must be destroyed first, which according to Paul, Christ is doing at present. Namely, he is destroying (καταργήσῃ) every

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 199

5/28/19 2:18 PM

200

David A. Burnett

rule, authority, and power (1 Cor 15:24; cf. Ps 81[82]:7–8; Dan 10:10–21; 12:1–3; 11QMelch 2.9–13). If death is clearly associated with the sin of Adam (Gen 2–3), who or what are the other enemies associated with? The answer, I believe, lies within the Deuteronomic matrix of the celestial bodies as the gods/angels of the nations, as we have seen above. In early Jewish perspective, the gods/angels’ rule over the nations was the outcome of the rebellion of Adam’s sons at Babel resulting in God’s disinheritance of the peoples. This was understood as the origin of the nations (ἔθνη), when God subjected them to the rule of the principalities and powers (i.e. the gods: Gen 10–11; LXX Deut 4:19; 32:8–9). Only in this sense are these other enemies associated with Adam (Gen 1–11 refers to Adam and the generations of the “sons of Adam”: cf. Deut 32:8). In Paul’s narrative of the “resurrection,” the ruling principalities and powers must first be destroyed, and then death.36 1 Corinthians 15:35–49, the Nature of the Resurrection Body, and the Making of a Celestial “Image” Following the narration of the eschatological “resurrection” event (15:20–28) and a brief inquiry regarding cultic baptismal practices for the dead (assuming a link between baptism and resurrection: 15:29–34), Paul finally arrives at the discussion regarding the nature of the resurrection body (15:35–49). He employs the metaphor of the sowing of the “soulish” (ψυχικόν) or “terrestrial” (ἐπίγεια) body and the rising of the “pneumatic” (πνευματικόν) or “celestial” (ἐπουράνια) body (15:40, 44). Both kinds of bodies are fit for different habitats and differ in nature.37 He seeks to demonstrate this through a list of terrestrial and celestial creatures here in 1 Cor 15:39–42, which not only follows the same order of creatures as enumerated in the aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–20, but also links it with Paul’s earlier thematic mobilization of Deut 4 in his arguments addressing idolatry in 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1. Paul’s Corinthians were pagans (ἔθνη) led away to idolatry (presumably by the powers, 1 Cor 12:2); they were part of the disinherited nations (ἔθνη), or “sons of Adam” (Deut 32:8; cf. Rom 1:23). The Corinthians, were once enslaved under the oppressive rule of other “gods” (θεοὶ) and “lords” (κύριοι) (1 Cor 8:5; Deut 4:19; 32:8), but after their baptism (or exodus: 1 Cor 10:1–2; cf. Deut 4:20; Deut 32:9), they are no longer enslaved. Paul has likely had the text of Deuteronomy in mind since 1 Cor 8, and strategically employs it again here. Both the discourse on the nature of the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:35–49 and the aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–20 can sensibly be interpreted as discourses related to the making of a likeness (ὁμοίωμα) or image (εἰκόνα).38 Both Deut 4:15–20 and 1 Cor 15:39–49 feature language pertaining to the fashioning of a “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα) or “image” (εἰκόνα), both in

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 200

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

201

parallel with Genesis 1:26 (LXX) and the creation of humankind in God’s “image” (εἰκόνα) and according to his “likeness” (ὁμοίωσιν). The aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–16 begins with the charge to “closely guard your souls, because you did not see a likeness (ὁμοίωμα). . . . Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved likeness (ὁμοίωμα), of any image (εἰκόνα).” Then it presents the creature list beginning with terrestrial creatures of whose “likeness” you are not to make an “image” (Deut 4:16b– 18; cf. 1 Cor 15:39). Israel is then commanded to abstain from the worship of the celestial bodies because they were allotted to the nations (ἔθνη) (Deut 4:19; cf. 1 Cor 15:41). The logic given for not worshipping the celestial bodies in Deut 4:20 is that “God has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to become for him an allotted people, as in this day.” Here in Deut 4, the language is associated with the fashioning of an idol, and an “image” parallels the language of God’s creation of his people in the Exodus (cf. Gen 1:26). The furnace imagery is likely invoked here to recall the language of the fire (πυρός) where God himself resides (on Mt. Horeb), whose likeness (ὁμοίωμα) the people did not see when he spoke to them (Deut 4:15; cf. Gen 1:26). As in Deut 4:15–20, we see similarly in 1 Cor 15:35–49 that it is God himself who fashions the people into an “image” (εἰκόνα), and it is he who causes the growth. The worker may sow, “but God gives it a body (σῶμα) as he has chosen,” and so “each kind of seed” planted will receive “its own body” (15:38). The list of terrestrial creatures of 1 Cor 15:39 then follows the order of Deut 4:16–18, each creature having bodies fit for their particular habitat. All the terrestrial creatures “under heaven” (Deut 4:19) are characterized as having bodies of “flesh” (σὰρξ) (cf. Sir 17:1–4; Gen 8:17), each kind differing in substance based on what is needed to survive in their particular habit. Paul then highlights in 15:40 the different kinds of bodies the celestial creatures have from the terrestrial: “There are both celestial bodies (σώματα ἐπουράνια) and terrestrial bodies (σώματα ἐπίγεια), but the glory of the celestial is one thing (ἀλλὰ ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα), and that of the terrestrial is another (ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων).” Important to note here, despite most English translations and commentators, Paul does not associate the terrestrial bodies with glory (δόξα) who are only constituted as flesh (σὰρξ).39 The lists of celestial creatures of 1 Cor 15:41 follows the order of Deut 4:19; the gods/angels or “rulers” from the wider Deuteronomic matrix are constituted of “glory” (δόξα). Paul clarifies in 15:42 that the bodies of those resurrected in the eschatological event shall be no different in “glory” from the celestial bodies: “So it is with the resurrection of the dead” (ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν) (cf. Dan 12:1–3). The infrequent occurrence of the title for the apocalyptic eschatological event, “the resurrection” (ἡ ἀνάστασις: 15:42),

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 201

5/28/19 2:18 PM

202

David A. Burnett

understood through the Deuteronomic matrix related to Ps 81[82], signals the great cosmic upheaval including the death of the gods and the fall of the rulers (Ps 81[82]:6–8; see discussion above). As Paul previously stated, those who are pneumatic (πνευματικοῖς), who will obtain pneumatic bodies (σῶμα πνευματικόν), are no longer expected to behave “in only a human way” or to be “merely human,” or “fleshly” (σαρκικοί), for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 3:1, 3–4; 15:39, 50). They are those who Paul suggests will “judge the cosmos” (κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος) and “judge the angels” (ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν) (1 Cor 6:1–3; 15:24; cf. Ps 81[82]:7–8; Dan 2:44 [Theodotion]; 7:14, 27; 10:10–21; 12:1–3; 11QMelch 2.9–13; Wis 3:7–8). The previous terrestrial bodies (σώματα ἐπίγεια) of Paul’s holy ones, characterized by their perishability and dishonor, are to be replaced with celestial bodies (σώματα ἐπουράνια), raised in glory (δόξα) and power (δυνάμει) (1 Cor 15:42–43). The aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–20 began with the same list of terrestrial and celestial creatures as 1 Cor 15:39–42, charging the people to refrain from making an “image” (εἰκόνα) in their “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα), followed by God fashioning himself an image out from the furnace (Deut 4:20; cf. Gen 1:26), the creation/exodus of Israel portrayed as the greatest event “since the day God created human beings on the earth” (Deut 4:32; see above, cf. Sir 17:1–14). Following the same pattern, 1 Cor 15:35–49 begins with the same list of terrestrial and celestial creatures (15:39–42), followed by God eschatologically fashioning himself an “image” (εἰκόνα) (15:49), drawing from the same Deuteronomic traditions as employed earlier in the epistle (8:1–11:1) as previously demonstrated. Though many scholars have cited Romans 1:23 with reference to the creature list of 1 Cor 15:39–41 (or other texts in 1 Corinthians),40 a crucial connection has been neglected between these two texts. Paul in Romans 1:23, likely connecting the rebellion of Adam (Gen 1–3) and the “sons of Adam” (the nations, cf. Deut 32:8; Gen 10–11), as we have seen in other early Jewish literature, states, “they exchanged the glory (δόξαν) of the imperishable (ἀφθάρτου) God for images (εἰκών) in the likeness (ὁμοιώματι) of perishable (φθαρτοῦ) human beings and birds and animals and creeping things (ἑρπετῶν).” Here Paul explicitly links the creature list of Deut 4:15–19, connecting the language of “image” and “likeness” with the Adamic loss of “glory,” even employing the language of “imperishable” (ἀφθάρτου) and “perishable” (φθαρτοῦ).41 This only further aids in solidifying the argument of the present study, that Paul does in fact draw on the creature list of Deut 4:15–19 here in 1 Cor 15:35–49. This time, the image God makes will not be as the “soulish” (ψυχικόν) or “terrestrial” (ἐπίγεια) bodies of the “first man, Adam” who “became a living “soul” (ψυχὴν) (1 Cor 15:44–45; Gen 2:7), being constituted of “flesh”

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 202

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

203

(σὰρξ) which is perishable (15:39, 44). For Paul, these dispossessed “sons of Adam” were enslaved to both the celestial gods/angels (Gen 10–11; Deut 4:19; 32:8–9) and to death (Gen 2–3), being destined to perish (1 Cor 15:20–24; cf. Deut 32:8). Both these enemies are in need of defeat to secure the redemption of the “sons of Adam” (15:24–26; see above). In the apocalyptic event of “the resurrection” (ἡ ἀνάστασις), a great cosmic eschatological reversal is to take place: the holy ones will no longer be enslaved to the celestial “rulers” and “principalities,” for they will have been destroyed by the Messiah. The once imperishable celestial bodies “will die like human beings” (ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνῄσκετε, Ps 81[82]:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:24–26). Then the human beings in Christ will receive from God “pneumatic” (πνευματικόν) bodies, which are “celestial” (ἐπουράνια), constituted of “glory” (δόξα), becoming as the stars (15:40–50; cf. Dan 12:1–3; Ps 81[82]:7–8), imperishable, never again subject to death (15:45–48), no longer “fleshly” like “mere human beings,” for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (15:50). Paul reaches the climax of his discourse regarding the nature of the resurrection body with God doing for all who are in Christ what he had done for Israel as in the end of Deut 4:15–20. He fashions for himself a new imperishable “image” (εἰκών), not as the first Adam, the “one from the dust” (χοϊκοῦ), but this bearing the “image” of the “one from heaven” (ἐπουρανίου) (15:49).42

CONCLUSION This study set out to propose a possible neglected Deuteronomic scriptural matrix that serves as a crucial background and frame for understanding Paul’s narration of the apocalyptic eschatological event of “the resurrection” (1 Cor 15:20–28), as well as his articulation of the nature of the resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35–49). This proposal highlights an innovative way forward in the ongoing discussion surrounding a number of contentious interpretive issues in 1 Cor 15, not least the nature of the resurrected body. This proposal potentially provides fresh insights and exposes neglected dimensions of Paul’s resurrection discourse that have otherwise gone unnoticed, offering a more robust reading of the passage in its immediate and wider context(s) within the epistle. This is accomplished through careful observations of literary and thematic touch-points with the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix. In this case, the proposal that the creature list of Deut 4:15–19 lies behind the creature list of 1 Cor 15:39–42 serves as a window into the wider connections that matrix provides, with helpful similarities drawn from its reception in early Jewish literature, for the interpretation of 1 Cor 15.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 203

5/28/19 2:18 PM

204

David A. Burnett

This reading of 1 Cor 15 also provides a coherent narrative connection with 1 Cor 6:1–3 as well as mobilizing Paul’s previous use of Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians. The first Adam, created to rule over the fleshly, terrestrial creatures, rebelled and brought death into the cosmos (Gen 1–3; 1 Cor 15:21–22, 39). Later, the sons of Adam rebelled and were divided and subjected to the rule of the celestial host, thus becoming the “nations” (ἔθνη) (Gen 10–11; Deut 4:19; 32:8–9). As prefigured in Deut 4:15–20 in the exodus/election of Israel and the wider Deuteronomic matrix read through the lens of Ps 81[82], for Paul, the Messiah has “arisen” to destroy the celestial rulers, the first enemies to be defeated, liberating the nations (and thus the Corinthians) from their oppressive rule (1 Cor 15:20–25; cf. Ps 81[82]:7–8) to participate in their coming judgment (1 Cor 6:2–3). The last enemy to be defeated is death, when the Corinthians will be given heavenly bodies, raised in celestial glory and bearing the “image” of the “one from heaven,” fit to judge and rule where flesh and blood cannot dwell (1 Cor 15:26, 40–50). For Paul, his holy ones will be made like the celestial bodies, having bodies like them, fit to inherit their habitat, and to take their rightful place as true heirs with Christ, usurping the old powers and being raised in celestial power and glory as heirs of the cosmos.

NOTES 1. Some find this point contentious, i.e. the resurrection body likened to the celestial bodies. See, e.g., N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003), 313–16, 341 and following. 2. See e.g. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 282 n.18; Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 782– 83 n.28, 32; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 209; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1999), 566–67; Jeff Asher, Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection, HUT 42 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 141; Alan G. Padgett, “The Body in Resurrection: Science and Scripture on the ‘Spiritual Body’ (1 Corinthians 15:35–58),” WW 22 (2002): 155–63 ; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2003), 730; Wright, Resurrection, 313–16, 341; idem, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 438–9, 1400; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AB 32 (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 589; Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 804–8; Paul J. Brown, Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Corinthians 15: Connecting Faith and Morality in the Context of Greco-Roman Mythology, WUNT 360 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 99, 183; B. J. Oropeza, 1 Corinthians, NCCS (Eugene: Cascade, 2017), 213–14.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 204

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

205

3. See Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 125–26; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 26–31. 4. Though my argument is not contingent upon it, the compositional unity of 1 Corinthians is provisionally accepted here. For a cogent argument for the unity of the epistle, see Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991). 5. Paul does mention the “reptile” elsewhere in the brief creature list associated with idolatry in Rom 1:23 (cf. 1 Cor 8–11:1): “. . . they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images (εἰκών) in the likeness (ὁμοιώματι) of mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (ἑρπετῶν).” While here alluding to Ps 106:20, Paul also echoes Deut 4:15–19, with “image” and “likeness” occurring in parallel, along with the terrestrial creatures listed there. Fitzmyer suggests this likely accounts for Paul’s awkward syntax there. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Double Day, 1993), 283; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 1–8: Volume 1, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1975), 119. With Deut 4:15–19 as an essential part of the background of Rom 1:23, crucial neglected connections can be made with the language of 1 Cor 15:39–49. For more on this, see below. 6. Contra Wright who suggests the celestial bodies are not personal beings for Paul (Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1398). Elsewhere he calls them “objects” suggesting Paul does not think of the “heavenly bodies” as “spiritual beings clothed with light” (344–46), even though he previously called them “creatures” (341), see Wright, Resurrection, 341, 344–46. Thiselton calls them “super-earthly bodies,” though his meaning is unclear, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1268. 7. See e.g. Deut 4:19; 17:3; Judges 5:20; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3–5; 23:4–5; 2 Chron 33:3–5; Neh 9:6; Job 38:7; Ps 148:3; Is 14:12–13; 24:21–23; 40:26; 45:12; 48:13; Jer 7:18; 8:2; 19:13; 32:29; 33:22; Dan 8:10; Zeph 1:5. 8. The term κόσμος as a gloss for the “hosts of heaven” appears four times in the LXX, twice in Deuteronomy (4:19; 17:3; see below) and twice in Isaiah (24:21; 40:26). Significant to the present study, Isa 24:21 speaks of the day Yahweh will punish “the hosts of heaven” (κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανου), likely narrating the coming judgment of the gods, sharing linguistic and conceptual parallels with Deuteronomy and the narrative of Psalm 81[82] (more on this below). For the prior development of the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix, see David A. Burnett, “‘So Shall Your Seed Be’: Paul’s Use of Gen 15:5 in Rom 4:18 in light of early Jewish Deification Traditions,” JSPL 5.2 (2015): 211–36 (here 220–23). 9. For a survey of scholarship on the divine council in Deuteronomy, see ibid., 220–21 n.21. Michael Heiser has argued persuasively that “the pre-exilic Israelite belief in a divine council under the rule of Yahweh was maintained in Israel’s faith after the exile and survived in at least some strains of Judaism well into the Common Era.” See Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Literature” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004),

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 205

5/28/19 2:18 PM

206

David A. Burnett

68–89, 258. For further support of the existence of the divine council in the Herodian age, with special attention to Deuteronomy 4:19, see, William Horbury, “Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, JSNTSup 263 (London: Continuum, 2004), 16–44. 10. Regarding the text-critical problem in 32:8 concerning the “sons of God,” “angels of God,” or “sons of Israel,” see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52–74; Nathan McDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, FAT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 90–91. 11. As Sperber rightly observes, the seventy nations in the table of nations in Gen 10 surely underlies Deut 32:8. He makes the link by taking the “sons of Israel” reading and relating it to the seventy who went down into Egypt in Gen 46:27, or to the number of corresponding angelic patrons as reflected in Jewish tradition. See Daniel Sperber, “Nations, The Seventy,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, ed. Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 2nd ed. (New York: Thomson Gale, 2007), 30–32. 12. Abraham’s election is narrated as an Exodus in Gen 15:7 (LXX), “I am the god who brought you out (ἐξαγαγών) from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to inherit (κληρονομῆσαι).” The election of Abraham follows the technical terminology for the Exodus as seen in Exod 20:2 (LXX), “I am the Lord your god, who brought you out (ἐξήγαγόν) of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery,” immediately followed by the aniconic discourse against idolatry (Exod 20:3–5) just as in Deut 4:15–20. The final plague that results in the Exodus is actually narrated as a judgement of the gods: “. . . and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Exod 12:12). 13. All translations of Philo are taken from, Philo, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker et al., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–87). 14. See Burnett, “So Shall Your Seed Be,” 225. 15. An alternate position can be observed in the reception of the Deuteronomic scriptural matrix within Jubilees. In Jub. 15:30–32, God made the angels or spirits over the nations to “rule over all [nations and peoples] in order to lead them astray from following him.” For further discussion of the variegated conceptions of the nature and destiny of the gentile gods in early Jewish literature and 1 Cor 15, see Emma Wasserman, “Gentile Gods at the Eschaton: A Reconsideration of Paul’s ‘Principalities and Powers’ in 1 Corinthians 15,” JBL 136 (2017): 727–46. 16. The terrestrial creatures are here classified as “flesh” (σαρκὸς) as in 1 Cor 15:39. See also Gen 8:17. 17. See Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 283; Burnett, “So Shall Your Seed Be,” 229. 18. Translation from Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1206–09. 19. For the Psalm 110 background to 11QMelch, see Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa, CBQMS 10 (Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 51ff. For the language of “spirit” used for the allotted powers of Deut 32:8, see Jub 15:31 (note 14). See Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 143–47.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 206

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

207

20. See Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 109 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 74. 21. For the close association or identification of the Melchizedek figure of 11QMelch with the archangel Michael, see Kobelski, Melchizedek; Hannah, Michael and Christ; John K. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 390. 22. Collins, Daniel, 390. 23. For Dan 12:1–3 as a judgment scene, see George W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, Expanded Edition, HTS 56 (Cambridge: Harvard, 2006), 23–66. The resurrected righteous being clearly associated with the angels is demonstrated in the textual parallel found in 1 En. 104:2–6. Both the imagery of shining like the celestial bodies and their association with the angels are well attested in subsequent apocalyptic literature. Collins, Daniel, 393. For the imagery of shining, see T.Mos. 10:9; 2 En. 1:5; 66:7; 4 Ezra 7:97, 125; for association with the angels see 1 En. 39:5; 2 Bar. 51:1–12 (also a luminous transformation); see also Wis 3:7; 5:5; Matt 22:30; 4 Macc 17:5–6. 24. cf. Wis 13:1–3. 25. See, e.g., 1QpHab 5.4. 26. See Erik Waaler, The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-reading of Deuteronomy, WUNT 2/253 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 81–82, 386; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 340–41. 27. For further support of the reading of 1 Cor 8:5 regarding the real existence of the “gods” for Paul, see, e.g., Paul A. Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6” (D.Phil thesis., The Queens College, Oxford University, 1987), 147–49; Richard A. Horsley, “1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society,” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 227–37 (here 233). 28. See McDonald, Deuteronomy, 96. 29. For this debate over whether or not Paul actually inserts Jesus into the Shema and thus the unique identity of Israel’s god, see, e.g., N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 120–36; Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003), 114; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009), 210–218; James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context (Urbana: University of Illinios Press, 2009), 38–54; James D.G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 107–10. For Χριστός as an honorific in Paul, intending to communicate Jesus’ role as the Messiah of Israel, not merely his name, see Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Joshua W. Jipp, Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 207

5/28/19 2:18 PM

208

David A. Burnett

30. By Paul changing the tense of the verb, he contemporizes the language of the Song of Moses (Deut 32:17), see Fee, First Corinthians, 472. Going as far back as Plato, it was common to ancient Greek thought that “daimonia” could refer to lower tier deities, the guardians of cities or commonwealths (cf. Plato, Leges 4.713c ff.; v.738d), thus fulfilling the same role as the divine or angelic rulers in Jewish theology (e.g. Philo’s understanding of the celestial gods of the nations from Deut 4:19 in Spec. 1:13–19), see G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 12. 31. See also Dan 12:1 Theodotion. 32. Regarding the relationship between the resurrection event of 1 Cor 15 and Dan 12:1 and the “arising” of Michael, I agree with Hans C. C. Cavallin who suggests “the appearance of Michael corresponds with the Parousia of Jesus, being the signal of the resurrection.” See H. C. C. Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15: Part I: An Enquiry Into the Jewish Background, ConBNT 7:1 (Lund, Gleerup, 1974), 27. Though I would nuance Cavallin here; for Paul, the “arising” begins with the resurrection and ascent of the Christ (1 Cor 15:20–28; cf. Ps 81[82]:8). Also, as discussed above in Philo, Spec. 1.13–19, the “celestial bodies” (οὐρανῳ) of Deut 4:15–20 are referred to as the “rulers” and “authorities” (ἂρχοντας ἔχουσα). 33. See above, note 21. 34. 11QMelch 2:15–17 also connects the announcement of the “gospel” or “good news” of Isaiah 52:7 to the Psalm 81[82] event of the “arising of God.” This event is set to destroy the other “gods,” rescuing the people from their subjection. Paul also begins his discourse regarding the “arising of the dead” event, which includes the destruction of the “rulers” by having the event as part of the “the gospel (or good news) I preached to you” (1 Cor 15:1). 35. In critique of Engberg-Pedersen’s inclusion of Stoic cosmology into Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15, Wright says, “Throughout this chapter (1 Corinthians 15) Paul is building on Genesis 1, 2, and 3, in order to give an account of new creation, rooted in Jewish-style creational monotheism. This is where some genuine cosmology would have helped,” see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 1400; “Gen 1–3 forms a subtext for the whole chapter (15),” idem, Resurrection, 313, 334–36, 341, 344–46; Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 760. Wright’s critique was against Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self. The present argument challenges Wright on the grounds of a missing Deuteronomic layer in his account of Paul’s scripturally based cosmology in 1 Cor 15. 36. In the Lukan portrayal of Paul in Acts, we are given an example or interpretation of Pauline preaching where the creation of Adam and the allotment of the nations are closely linked, “And he made from one (ἑνός, likely Adam) every nation (ἔθνος) of humankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26; cf. Deut 32:8–9 “sons of Adam”). 37. On the particular point that the resurrection body is made of the pneumatic material that celestial bodies themselves are made of and what is needed in order to inhabit the celestial inheritance allotted to them, I find myself in general agreement

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 208

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

209

with Martin, The Corinthian Body, 123 and following.; Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 26–31; M. David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, BZNW 187 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), esp. 119; Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 151.; Fredrick S. Tappenden, Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor, and Transformation, ECL 19 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 87 and following. 38. For the language of both “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα) and/or “image” (εἰκόνα) referring to an idol, see, e.g., 2 Kings (4 Kgdms LXX) 11:18; 2 Chron 33:7; Isa 40:18–20; Sir 38:28. 39. The NRSV is one of the only English translations to render this phrase properly. 40. See, e.g., Thiselton, First Corinthians, 774; Collins, First Corinthians, 409– 10, 447; Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 807, 824; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 731; Fee, First Corinthians, 783 n. 32; Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 47, 151 n. 71. 41. For Deut 4:15–19 in Rom 1:23, see note 5. 42. For a detailed discussion on “the man from heaven” within the wider context of celestial immortality, see Litwa, We are Being Transformed, starting 119.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Asher, Jeff. Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection. HUT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009. Brown, Paul J. Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Corinthians 15: Connecting Faith and Morality in the Context of Greco-Roman Mythology. WUNT 2/360. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Burnett, David A. “‘So Shall Your Seed Be’: Paul’s Use of Gen 15:5 in Rom 4:18 in light of early Jewish Deification Traditions.” JSPL 5.2 (2015): 211–36. Caird, G. B. Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Cavallin, Hans C. C. Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15: Part I: An Enquiry Into the Jewish Background. ConBNT 7:1. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. Dunn, James D.G. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 2/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Heiser, Michael S. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” BSac 158 (2001): 52–74.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 209

5/28/19 2:18 PM

210

David A. Burnett

———. “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Literature.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004. Horbury, William. “Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age.” Pages 16–44 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. JSNTSup 263. London: Continuum, 2004. Horsley, Richard A. “1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society.” Pages 227–37 in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Edited by Edward Adams and David G. Horrell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003. Jipp, Joshua W. Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Kobelski, Paul J. Melchizedek and Melchiresa. CBQMS 10. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Litwa, M. David. We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology. BZNW 187. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Martin, Dale. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. McDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism. FAT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. McGrath, James F. The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context. Urbana: University of Illinios Press, 2009. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Nickelsburg, George W.E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. Expanded ed. HTS 56. Cambridge: Harvard, 2006. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Padgett, Alan G. “The Body in Resurrection: Science and Scripture on the ‘Spiritual Body’ (1 Corinthians 15:35–58).” WW 22 (2002): 155–63. Rainbow, Paul A. “Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6.” D.Phil thesis., The Queens College, Oxford University, 1987. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Sperber, Daniel. “Nations, The Seventy.” Pages 30–32 in Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. Second ed. New York: Thomson Gale, 2007. Tappenden, Fredrick S. Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor, and Transformation. ECL 19. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Thiessen, Matthew. Paul and the Gentile Problem. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 210

5/28/19 2:18 PM

A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix

211

Waaler, Erik. The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-reading of Deuteronomy. WUNT 2/253. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wasserman, Emma. “Gentile Gods at the Eschaton: A Reconsideration of Paul’s ‘Principalities and Powers’ in 1 Corinthians 15.” JBL 136 (2017): 727–46. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ———. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. ———. The Resurrection of the Son of God. London: SPCK, 2003.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 211

5/28/19 2:18 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 212

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Chapter Twelve

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality Related to the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) B. J. Oropeza

Scholars frequent disagree on the reason why certain Corinthians denied resurrection from the dead according to 1 Cor 15:12.1 Most would agree that this congregation did not reject belief that Christ rose from the dead (cf. “so you believed” 15:11); what these members rejected was that Christ’s followers would rise again from the dead.2 Beyond this point, scholarly agreements are few regarding the reason for this congregation’s denial. In 15:12 “some” (τινες) members rejected resurrection while others believed it, and from there it is often assumed that the deniers were unified in the reason for their denial. I wish to propose instead that the Corinthians who denied the resurrection denied it for different reasons. This approach, I think, reflects better the many divisions we find in the letter. In this study, I will present some mythological and philosophical traditions on the afterlife that were likely available to the Corinthians in Paul’s day, and then I will address Paul’s perspective regarding the resurrection and its nature based on 1 Cor 15. It will turn out that what the apostle says regarding the resurrection, how he says it, and with what traditions he uses to support his position have implications that stand over against the contrary views that congregation members held to and might have learned as former idolaters.

CORINTHIAN DENIAL OF THE RESURRECTION It is well-known that a primary reason why Paul writes to this congregation is to encourage their solidarity. A report had informed him that members were divided not only over apostolic leadership (1 Cor 1:10–12) but also over such issues as court litigations (6:1–12), idol foods (8–10), fellowship meals 213

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 213

5/28/19 2:18 PM

214

B. J. Oropeza

(11:17–34), and of course, differences over beliefs about the afterlife. Perhaps what enflamed this controversy was that certain members had recently passed away. When discussing the Lord’s Supper, Paul mentions some among them who are weak, sickly, and falling asleep in death (11:29–30).3 In addition, his mention of widows in the congregation may suggest that certain members recently lost their spouses (7:8, 39–40). Questions related to death would seem to be the natural result of their experiences, and newer congregants who had never been taught personally by Paul or his colleagues perhaps viewed the afterlife quite differently than some of the other members.4 There are several prominent ways scholars interpret Corinthian denial of the resurrection. One viewpoint is that, similar to Platonists, stoics, Orphism, and Hellenistic Jews like Philo, the Corinthians believe that the soul survives death and departs from the mortal body at death (Plato, Phaedo 66e–70a; 113d–114d; Crat. 400b–c; Seneca Lucil. 57.9; 92.32–35; 102.21–30; Cicero Rep. 6.13–16; Philo, Leg. 3.69–70; Josephus Bell. 7.343–56).5 In Acts, the stoics are one group that is typecast as scoffing at the idea of Paul’s message about the resurrection (Acts 17:32; cf. 26:8, 23–24). A second view is that, similar to Epicurean philosophers or Jewish Sadducees, the congregation believed that there is no life of any kind after death (Epicurus, Ep. Men. 125; Diogenes Laertius Vit. phil. 10.124–25; Lucretius Rer. nat. 3.830–42; Mark 12:18–24; Acts 23:8). Even the stoic Seneca at least entertains the possibility of annihilation at death (Lucil. 24.18; cf. 54:4–5).6 This view seems to reflect a popular sentiment of that time also, as evinced by a number of ancient epitaphs that include the abbreviation “nffnsnc,” Latin for non fui, fui, non sum, non curo (“I was not, I was, I am not, I care not”).7 With this view intact, some Corinthians possibly believed that if they were to stay alive until Christ’s imminent return, they might be able to escape death and its annihilation, and thus they would be partakers of the new era.8 A third view is that the Corinthian problem may be similar to what is described in 2 Tim 2:16–18, which has to do with the false idea of the resurrection already taking place. The culprits in this later situation may have held to some form of overrealized eschatology in which the future resurrection of those who are in Christ was denied because the age to come had already arrived. The Corinthians in this case might believe that God’s kingdom is fully present, and 1 Cor 4:8 allegedly supports this. Perhaps they considered their current state as one in which they had already been raised with the risen Christ through baptism (Rom 6:4; cf. Col 2:12–13; 3:1; Eph 2:4–6).9 A fourth view suggests a combination of viewpoints are at stake. For example, Corinthian denial of bodily existence in the afterlife may be combined with a realized eschatological view that the present state of bodily

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 214

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

215

existence prior to death is spiritually sufficient, or superior to immortality after death, or both.10 As we ponder on the Corinthians’ denial, we should also ask whether Paul understands and correctly represents the deniers’ position.11 To be sure, biased representation of one’s opponents might be the rule in rhetoric,12 but there is no clear evidence in this letter that Paul’s teachings have been directly attacked by hostile opponents, whether among the congregation members or other apostles.13 We have reason to believe that his use of deliberative rhetoric in the letter aims to instruct and persuade all the congregation members, inclusive of deniers, to accept his position. It would be counterproductive for Paul to misrepresent those he is attempting to persuade; they obviously would know that he is misrepresenting them. This of course does not mean that he could not misunderstand them, but without our possession of their letter, we do not have much of a representation of their voice. Problematic with option two above is that Paul mentions some who are being baptized for the dead (15:29), which assumes that congregation members believe in life after death.14 Problematic with options three and variations of four is the unlikely scenario that congregation members would still have a high regard for the present state of existence after knowing that some of their members had recently died (11:30; cf. 7:39). Likewise, this view’s prominent support in 4:8 is better understood as ironic hyperbole against the Corinthians’ overinflated boasting rather than anything related to their alleged perception of the divine kingdom having already arrived. Paul’s sense of immanency related to prophetic events assumes his auditors accept that immanency rather than believe those prophetic events had already taken place (1:7–8; 7:29–31; 10:11). Moreover, this viewpoint stands at odds with our passage beginning in 15:12, since, unlike the problem in 2 Timothy, Paul’s point is not to refute the idea that the resurrection has already past, but that the dead are not raised.15 The first option (the “soul” rather than body survives death) escapes the problems above. The anthropological sense of “soul” and “spirit” in relation to the body should be discerned in relation to Paul’s text (see ψυχικός and πνευματικός below),16 but for now I simply want to state the probability of a dualistic feature regarding human nature. Both Paul and the Corinthians seem to accept the notion of a tangible earthly body and an inner-self that can survive independent of that body (e.g., 2 Cor 4:16). If option one is our best choice, the problem might be similar to a conflict Justin Martyr had against other Christians he considers heretical who claimed that there is no resurrection of the flesh but simply that the soul goes to heaven when it dies (Dial. 80). Richard Hays asserts that Justin repeats “much the same views that Paul had combatted in Corinth a century earlier.”17

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 215

5/28/19 2:18 PM

216

B. J. Oropeza

Further probing is needed, however, since Paul does not seem to be arguing explicitly against present disembodied existence at death.18 He centers, inter alia, on the nature of the future resurrection at the second coming of Christ and assumes that his auditors need clarification about this (15:20–24, 35, 50–52). Elsewhere, he seems to affirm temporal states of human existence without resurrected bodies prior to the second coming of Christ. For instance, roughly a year after this letter he will affirm to this same congregation that those who are absent from the body are present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:1–8; cf. Phil 1:20–23). This way of thinking does not appear to be a new development for him after he wrote 1 Corinthians. He affirms the possibility of his own disembodied state when visiting the third heaven in 2 Cor 12:1–9, and that event, he claims, took place fourteen years prior to writing his letter about the experience. No doubt, immediately after that experience, he was forced to contemplate the possibility that his inward self might be able to exist independent of his present body. As a Hellenistic Jew and former Pharisee, it would be difficult for him not think in such a dualistic way about human nature (cf. Josephus Ant. 18.14; Bell. 2.162–63; Wisd 9:15; Bar 2:17; Philo Leg. 1.107–08; Ps-Phoc. Sent. 105–08). We find no reason, then, to suggest that Paul would come against the idea of the inner-self departing from the body after death and prior to a future resurrection. We should now explore how the Corinthians might believe that survival of the inner-self after death could nullify their belief in the resurrection. Among ideas compatible with bodiless existence in the afterlife, a more thoroughgoing survey is beyond our purposes,19 but some prominent views in antiquity include the following: 1. The dead are transformed into or make their home with the stars (Ovid, Metam. 2.700–709; Cicero Rep. 6.26.29; Aristophanes Pax 832–33; Euripides Helen 137–40).20 Pythagorean belief identifies the mythological Isles of the Blessed as the sun and moon, the latter is where the restful Elysian Fields reside.21 Astral immortality was a prominent way of thinking about death for Romans (e.g., Ovid Metam. 15.749, 840–79), and it may be held in tandem with the “spiritual body” mentioned in 1 Cor 15:35–56, which might consist of light, airy particles (rather than being immaterial) that enable it to ascend upward to the celestial lights above.22 2. The dead are without a body having a shadowy existence in Hades or elsewhere (Homer, Od. 11; Il. 11.23.62–107; Euripides Alc. 259–62; Propertius, Elegies 4.7.1–34). Although this is a classical Greek belief, it is also prominent in Virgil, whose Aeneid also includes reward and punishment in that realm (Aen. 6).23

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 216

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

217

3. The dead undergo metempsychosis with their souls inhabiting other bodies (Plato, Phaed. 245c–249d; Diogenes Laertius Vit. phil. 8.1.14; 8.5.83; Seneca Lucil. 36.8–11; Josephus, Bell 2.163). Such a view may be compatible with others. In Plato’s Phaedo, for example, before Socrates’s self-induced execution, he discusses death, the soul’s existence and immortality, metemphychosis, and rewards and punishments in the afterlife (e.g., some of the damned remain forever in Tartarus, whereas others stay until they receive forgiveness from those they have wronged). 4. Prevalent in stoic thinking, souls of the dead exist temporarily before a great conflagration eventually consumes or absorbs them (Plutarch, Comm. not. 1075B–C; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.13.4–5; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 15.20.6).24 The fourth option of conflagration cannot be ruled out if Paige is correct that stoic allusions and influence are evident in the Corinthian correspondence, such as in perceptions that all things belong to wise individuals, and all things are permissible (1 Cor 3:22; 4:8; 6:12–13; Seneca, Ben.7.2.5; Plutarch Stoic. abs. 1058B–C; Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.23; Diogenes Laertius Vit. 6.37; 7.121–22).25 Regarding option three, although it is possible that congregants could have embraced a perspective of death derived from Middle Platonism, such beliefs were often reserved for intellectuals rather than the poor and uneducated. Plutarch affirms Plato’s writings are erudite and seldom read (Alex. fort. I.5[328e]), and Origen seems to confirm this perception (Cels. 6.2). Such philosophical writings do not reflect well what might be known by those of lower socio-economic status such as the majority of Corinthians whom Paul calls the “foolish things” of the world (1 Cor 1:26–29). If this view reflects the Corinthian situation, then those who deny the resurrection would seem to be an elite or quasi-elite minority in this church. Although this is certainly possible, Paul’s τινες in 15:12 reflects members whose number is large enough, or at least influential enough, to warrant such a lengthy and climactic discussion about the issue as we find in this chapter. The second option of the dead as shades in Hades leads us to popular Greco-Roman myths, of which Odysseus’s adventure in Hades is a prime example. There he meets the fallen warrior Achilles. Although Odysseus praises him for ruling the dead, Achilles claims that he would prefer to be alive again even as a hireling or a man without any portion than to be lord of the dead (Homer, Od. 11.475–91), suggesting it is far more preferable to be alive on earth than consciously dead.26 Odysseus cannot embrace his dead mother after three attempts when speaking with her in Hades, but “like with a shadow or even a dream she flitted from my hands” (Od. 11.204–08). It was common knowledge in light of this viewpoint that the dead do not return to life again (Homer, Il. 24.549–551). After Achilles slays the Trojan

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 217

5/28/19 2:18 PM

218

B. J. Oropeza

hero Hektor in battle, he drags around his dead body refusing to bury it. He thus upsets the gods who loved Hektor’s piety. Hence, Apollo intervenes to preserve the warrior’s carcass from decay and disfigurement, and the gods devise a plan in which Achilles’s mother will persuade him to release the body. As well, Hektor’s father, Priam, is divinely led to Achilles’s tent to request a ransom for the body (Homer, Il. 24). Despite all their interventions for Hektor, the one thing the gods would not, or could not, do is raise him from the dead. People most susceptible to believing these myths were the uneducated masses considered superstitious by the educated minority. The uneducated majority best represent who the Corinthians are ordinary Greeks who are more apt to be influenced by Homer than Plato.27 The first option would seem to be one that also reflects well Corinthian sentiments. Pliny the Elder mentions a comet that appeared in the sky about a few months after the death of Julius Caesar, and according to Augustus’s memoirs preserved by Pliny, “The common people believed that this star signified that the soul of Caesar had been received among the spirits (numina) of the immortal gods. And so the emblem of a star was added to the head of a statue of Caesar that I (Augustus) dedicated soon afterward in the Forum” (N.H. 2.93–94).28 During the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus has General Titus encouraging his soldiers to be brave and take the tower of Antonia, promising immortality to brave soldiers who are slain in battle, “For who among noble men does not know that Aether, the purest element, entertains as strangers the souls that have been liberated by the sword in the battle-line from the things of the flesh and sets them up among the stars, (where) they are made visible as noble agathoi-daimones [good demi-gods] and heroes propitious to their own offspring” (Josephus, Bell. 6.46–47).29 Whether this is Josephus’s improvised remembrance as a self-proclaimed witness of the speech and event, his own invention appropriate for that occasion and compatible with Roman thought, or something else, makes little difference. These words assume that the multitude of non-elite Roman soldiers understand this form of afterlife. The Corinthians of Paul’s day likewise seem heavily influenced in Romans ways, as Harrison and Winter have persuasively demonstrated.30 It follows that if the congregation reflected the city’s culture, such ideology may have held sway with certain members. Did they believe the soul leaves the present body to become a celestial figure with no connection with the former body? If so, Paul presents an alternative way to imagine resurrection, as we shall see below. So where does this all lead us? It appears that souls becoming part of the heavenly constellation, shades in Hades, and souls being absorbed in a great conflagration are all fair options for the Corinthians to embrace against the resurrection. There is no reason why we must decide between them since nothing in our text warrants that there is only one option held by deniers.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 218

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

219

All the same, there is a prominent belief in relation to the shades in Hades that until very recently had been typically overlooked by biblical scholars. Common folk like the Corinthians not only knew that the dead go to Hades but that certain individuals escape it. Such humans often become deified and immortal, and this immortality includes the boon of an immortal body. Assuming the Corinthians’ traditional upbringing, Dag Endsjø argues that physical immortality would have been acceptable to common Greeks based on their own stories of famous individuals enjoying this status after death, such as in the myths of Aristeas, Hercules, Alcmene, Achilles, Memnon, and Asclepius.31 The success of the Christian message, in his estimation, was that it provided physical continuity between death and the human body, and it offered immortal flesh to everyone.32 Endsjø’s study, unfortunately, focuses only on Greek myths. It turns out that Roman mythology also has a prominent tale like this regarding the apotheosis of Romulus, founder of Rome (Plutarch Rom. 27.3–28.3; Livy Hist. 1.16.1–8). Although Lehtipuu rightly criticizes Endsjø for his unified approach to Greek thinking on the issue when Greek attitudes were more diverse than this,33 Endsjø still has placed his finger on an important aspect relevant to resurrection. Paul Brown likewise suggests from these and similar stories that the masses accepted physical immorality or apotheosis of their heroes whom they believed deserved such status, and so Jesus’s resurrection as another hero would be acceptable to them. Unlike shades in Hades, though, these individuals escape death to become immortalized bodily.34 Brown and Endsjø open up new possibilities regarding the way the Corinthians may have perceived the afterlife, and it is one that is entirely compatible with the congregants’ generally lower social and educational standing. These stories originate from popular myths rather than erudite philosophies. We now turn to a further exploration of these myths, particularly ones that may have been popular in Roman Corinth.

STORIES OF BODILY IMMORTALITY Inhabitants of Roman Corinth in Paul’s day likely grew up with not only Homeric tales but also with myths relevant to their own city as well as popular Roman mythology. Legends most relevant for our purposes are those that involve bodily immortality rather than merely some human coming back from the dead only to die again without a transformed body. After the famous hero Herakles dies, he revives to life at a funeral pyre in his honor, and this seems to involve bodily immortality. Zeus’s thunderbolt consumes the hero, and those who stood by, “being unable to find Herakles’ charred bone remains amid the ash, declare that he had been translated and

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 219

5/28/19 2:18 PM

220

B. J. Oropeza

had achieved the rank of the demigods” (Diodorus Siculus 4.38.14; Lucian, Cyn. 13).35 Another hero doubtless known by the Corinthians would be Achilles, who fought on the side of the neighboring Achaeans in the Trojan War (Homer Il.). Although Achilles is traditionally killed by Paris’s arrow, and his shade resides in Hades (Homer Od. 11), a later legend of his death involves his body at a funeral pyre in which he is snatched away by his mother, the goddess Thetis, to the island of Leuce, and he continues to live on the peripheral part of earth (Proclus, Chrestomathia 4.2.198–200).36 Aeneas, the wandering warrior in Virgil’s Aeneid, would be another hero known to the Corinthians of Paul’s day due to his influence on Roman society. He allegedly disappeared in a battle near Lavinium. The Latins built a hero’s shrine for him at that place; there some believed him to have been “translated to the gods” (εἰς θεοὺς μεταστῆναι: Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 1.64.4–5). Other famous persons snatched away by the gods to immortality prior to dying are Ganymede (Homer Il. 20.232–35) and Cleitus (Homer Od. 15.249–51), and in a later story, the Achaean hero Diomedes (Strabo Geogr. 6.3.9).37 Endsjø, suggesting that immortal flesh could not die, brings up the story of Helius’s immortal cattle in Homer’s Odyssey. Even though Odysseus’s men are forbidden to eat the beasts, they eat them anyway and find out that the split pieces are still alive (Od. 12.395–96).38 Asclepius’s reputation as a healer, savior, and patron of doctors is well attested in Roman Corinth and elsewhere.39 Traditions make him a god after his death.40 He was killed by Zeus for raising the dead; Zeus thought it improper that mortals should escape death (Pindar, Pyth. 354–58). The person who was raised, thought to be Hippolytus, Theseus’s son, becomes immortal and was worshipped as the god Virbius.41 Legends regarding Asclepius’s raising to life such individuals as Tyndareas, the (step)father of Helen, prompt Hades to complain that the dead are growing less because of this healer.42 Since these stories of immortality frequently fall under the genre of myth, they are in this regard unlike Christ’s resurrection, which is confessed and believed from the epistolary genre of authors like Paul and Gospel narratives that resemble the genre of ancient biography, similar to Plutarch’s Lives of Nobel Greeks and Romans. Plutarch is in fact skeptical when writing about Romulus, founder of Rome, whose body reportedly vanished. The senate told the masses that he had become a god, and the people believed it. Then this ruler appeared later on to a good friend, Proculus, who testified in the forum under oath that Romulus told him that he had returned to heaven and was now the propitious god Quirinus (Rom. 27.3–28.3). Plutarch thinks instead that the senators murdered him with each of them hiding a part of his body under their garments (27.3–7). Dionysus of Halicarnassus also provides the sobering viewpoint that Romulus was killed by the patricians (Rom. Hist. 2.56.4–5).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 220

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

221

The disappearance of Romulus prompts Plutarch to mention similar stories about other vanishings (Rom. 28.4–6). Aristeas of Proconnesus died in a fuller’s shop and his body disappeared before his friends could get it; at the same time some travelers claim to have seen Aristeas on the way to Croton.43 A woman named Alcmene vanished when being carried to her funeral bier. Kleomedes of Astypaleia, a violent and bad-tempered giant, broke the pillar of a school house which brought down its roof and killed some school boys. He hid in a giant chest to escape punishment. When the avengers finally broke the chest open, Kleomedes was not found in it. They had messengers visit the oracle of Delphi to consult about this, to which the priestess answered that Kleomedes is last of the heroes. But Plutarch, a Middle Platonist, disregards stories of bodily assumption: “And on the whole, writers tell many such fables (μυθολογοῦσι), improbably deifying what is mortal by nature with the gods” (28.6). For Plutarch such mixture of heaven and earth is silly. It is the soul that comes from and returns to the gods, not the body, and the soul without the body becomes “entirely pure and without flesh and undefiled” (28.7). He continues (28.8):44 Therefore, one must not come against nature by sending up together the bodies of the good humans (with their souls) to heaven but entirely suppose that their virtuous characters and souls, in accordance with nature and after the divine order from humans to heroes, and from heroes to demi-gods (δαίμονας), and from demi-gods—if after a completed process as in an initiation rite they wholly freed themselves from what is mortal and sensuous, not by civic law but in truth and in accordance with right reason—are lifted up to gods, achieving the finest and most blessed completion (τέλος).

Plutarch’s own belief is contrary to the masses who believe stories of bodily ascension, though he does seem to respect a four caste system from humans to gods. His contrary sentiment seems shared by Herodotus who thought one story of a dying and rising divinity from the Thracians was for simpleminded people (Hist. 4.95). For ancient mythographer Palaephatus (fourth century BCE), the uneducated believe anything told them, unlike the wise.45 Justin Martyr explains that such stories are false (Dial. 69), and he distinguishes Jesus’s resurrection on the basis of his divinity, which is established both by the church’s existence and prophecies of him, as well as having deeper wisdom and truth (Cels. 3.33). Even so, our task is not to refute the validity or historicity of such tales but simply to point out that regardless of their incredulity, many of the common folk believed them, and such people are the type who converted to Paul’s gospel and became members of the Corinthian church. Such stories might find special reverence among some of these congregants; the “weak” members, for example, still believed in

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 221

5/28/19 2:18 PM

222

B. J. Oropeza

the existence of multiple deities even though they had become believers in Christ (1 Cor 8). Those who knew these popular myths may have reasoned that if the bodies of heroes such as Aeneas and Herakles are immortalized, this boon is not afforded to all heroes, much less the multitudes. Brown suggests that commoners in Corinth could accept that Jesus received bodily immortal status, but such a state was not for them. Although they believed that heroes might escape Hades to possess immortal bodies, they themselves were not heroes and would not receive such honor.46 Differently, Endsjø suggests Corinthian doubts centered on their inability to accept that decomposing bodies remaining in the grave (much longer than Jesus’s three days), could be restored. The Corinthians remained skeptical about a general resurrection in the future when the present reality facing them was that deceased bodies decompose, or get devoured, or are burned to ashes.47 Perhaps they surmised that the body, once consumed or decomposed, is gone forever. The myth of Pelops, for example, involves a youth being cut up and served as dinner for the gods. Before they find out they are eating a human and refuse to partake, Demeter already ate the boy’s shoulder. Pelops’s body is then reassembled except for his shoulder; an ivory one replaces it (Pindar Ol. 1.25–27; Pausanius Descr. 5.13.4–6).48 As Endsjø affirms, full restoration of a disintegrated body would require a belief unfamiliar with traditions the Corinthians had known.49 I suggest that cremation could have easily contributed to Corinthian tensions. Perhaps they thought it unlikely or impossible that a fully intact body could arise out of fine ashes. It is quite possible that deceased congregation members at the time were cremated according to the apparent standard practice of Romans and Corinthians.50 A dead body, they may have surmised, had to be snatched away by a divine force from the funeral pyre if it were to become immortalized. Otherwise, once burned up, it might be too late for such a body, unless it belonged to a god in the first place. Jonathan Burgess explains discrepancies in the stories of the death of Achilles and Herakles in terms of these heroes’ corporeal mortal parts burning away at their funerals and their corporeal immortal parts remaining.51 That both characters are said to have one parent who was a god must have factored into which bodily components might endure the flames! Nevertheless, conflicting stories about heroes that span over many centuries and different regions make it nearly impossible to decide whether one version or explanation of their death would be known and favored above others among first-century Corinthians. We can only suggest that the conflict regarding bodily disintegration and bodily immortality may have been a reality for certain members but not others. In addition, if only special people are

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 222

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

223

granted immortalized bodies, might not certain Corinthians still believe from Homer or Virgil that the vast majority of the dead do not rise from the dead or become immortal but remain bodiless shadows? And yet not all heroes were thought to escape mortality, as Hektor’s death evinces;52 and even someone considered a hero but lacking virtues, such as Kleomedes, still was permitted to escape death. Something, too, must be said of the caste-like system of humans to heroes to demi-gods to gods apparently held in common by both the masses and an elitist like Plutarch. The general assumption is that normal humans are not of the same status as heroes. Hence, a general belief in bodily immortality of heroes coupled with a sentiment that the average person is not a hero would seem to be a formidable alternative behind the Corinthians’ denial of resurrection. Is this view, however, clear enough for us to make a claim that all Corinthian deniers of the resurrection rejected it for this same reason? As noticed earlier, others may have had problems with bodily cremation and disintegration. Beyond this, given Paul’s response in 15:50–58, we could surmise that perhaps certain members assumed that Jesus would raise the dead only once as soon as he returned, but before they had a chance to die. In that case, they might have reasoned that the resurrection would only be relevant for their deceased loved ones but not themselves. They apparently would have to die after Jesus returned, and they would not be raised again since the resurrection already took place. Or conversely, they would have to live forever in their present body with all its flaws and weaknesses. Moreover, there is still no good reason not to suppose that a minority of the more educated members rejected all forms of the body’s survival, much in keeping with stoic thoughts or Plutarch, and that these or other members thought that death meant a permanent abandonment of the present body to become a star. Regarding diverse opinions about the afterlife, Valerie Hope’s intensive study comes to a similar conclusion regarding the Roman world in general: “The range of opinions about the afterlife, the soul, spirits, gods and ghosts was part of the reality of dealing with death in the Roman world. Everyone did not believe the same things and some people may have given little thought to what they did believe.”53 And this is how Cicero interprets the afterlife, at least among the more educated, since he overlooks bodily immortality: For there are some who may reckon separation of the soul from the body to be death; there are others who are of the opinion (censeant) that there is no separation but one soul and body perish together, and the soul with the body is extinguished. Of those who opine to separate the soul, some believe it immediately is dispersed, others believe it survives a long time, others believe it survives forever. Furthermore, what the soul is in itself, or where it is, or from where it came, there are many differences of opinion (Tusc. Disp. 1.[9].18).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 223

5/28/19 2:18 PM

224

B. J. Oropeza

Given diversity among Greco-Roman sources in relation to the afterlife, one ought to consider that the burden of proof should be placed on the scholar who insists on claiming that the Corinthian denial of resurrection is due to these members all sharing the same counter viewpoint against Paul. A fresh reading of the text, then, is in order in light of the supposition that more than one type of denial is at stake.

CHRIST’S BODILY RESURRECTION (15:1–11) Paul’s discussion of resurrection in chapter 15 consists of three parts (15:1– 11, 15:12–34, 15:35–58). He first presents traditional material that proclaims the heart of the gospel message, which focuses primarily on Christ’s resurrection and his post-resurrection appearances to witnesses (5:1–11). Two leading questions appear in 15:12 and 15:35, and the discussion of each ends with ethical instructions.54 The first of these instructions warn auditors to live righteously and stop sinning (15:32–34); the second encourages them to persevere with good deeds in the Lord (15:58). These two styles of exhortation are both important, presumably because the congregation does not think alike regarding the afterlife. Some deniers need to be reprimanded while others need encouragement for having recently experienced the death of loved ones. Certainly, the latter exhortation would also be appealing for a different reason to those who agreed with Paul’s view of resurrection. Apart from Christ’s resurrection, ethical imperatives, and arguments of disadvantages related to denying the resurrection (15:12–19), relevant issues for Paul in 1 Cor 15 include Adam/Christ comparisons, the defeat of death, and the nature of the resurrected body. Perhaps the apostle emphasized these issues because he wanted to reinforce a different narrative than the cultural myths the congregation learned when growing up. Their heroes’ perpetual struggles with death are replaced by a grand scheme derived from the Jewish Scriptures in which death through Adam will be defeated once for all through Christ, the second Adam. The nature of the resurrection Paul promotes must of course begin with the resurrection of Jesus, which is central to his gospel, and which he claims to have received from those who were apostles before him (15:3–5). We learn very quickly that this is a resurrection in which the body that died was the same one raised again to life. The statements that Christ died, was buried, and rose again reflect apostolic tradition not merely based on Paul’s preaching but pre-Pauline proclamations.55 This shows Paul’s auditors what they already know but scholars sometimes forget—Paul considers his view of the resurrection to be entirely consistent with apostolic witnesses of the resurrected Christ

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 224

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

225

who proclaimed this message before he did (15:3 cf. 9:1). Based on the years mentioned in Gal 1:15–2:1, three years after Paul’s Damascus experience, he claims to have met with Peter (Cephas) and James, the Lord’s brother, who were leaders of the Christ-movement in Jerusalem. It is quite plausible to suggest that from these apostles, the only ones he mentions by name as witnesses of Christ’s resurrection (15:5, 7), he received the blueprint for this very tradition beginning in 15:3. This suggests that, rather than Paul shaping the traditions written later in the Gospels about Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances, the oral traditions behind what was later written in the Gospels shaped Paul’s understanding of these things.56 As MacGregor suggests, it would be “anachronistic to assert that the Pauline portrayal of Christ’s resurrection c. AD 55 [in 1 Cor 15] has any bearing on the preceding disciples’ understanding of his resurrection at least twenty years earlier.”57 Gerhardsson rightly discerns that Paul’s confession presupposes a more elaborate gospel narrative, though the two are distinct genres: Elementary psychological considerations tell us that the early Christians could scarcely mention such intriguing events as those taken up in the statements about Jesus’ death and resurrection without being able to elaborate on them. Listeners must immediately have been moved to wonder and ask questions. Regarding our text there must have existed in support of the different points in the enumeration [of 15:3–8] . . . narratives about how they came about. Our text . . . cries out for elaboration.58

Paul’s synopsis of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and post-mortem appearances to the disciples presuppose the type of narratives we find in Matt 27–28, Mark 15–16, Luke 23–24, and John 19–20.59 His statements in this letter are almost certainly not the foundation of resurrection witness. A continuum may be drawn from the resurrection event, to the original apostolic witnesses of the risen Lord, to their proclamations and teachings of this resurrection, to Paul’s own experience and hearing of those teachings, to Paul’s witness of the resurrection to the Corinthians, to further written instructions (i.e., what we have in this letter), and then to the proclamations and oral memories eventually written in the Gospels and Acts. Such a continuum makes it unlikely that radical changes took place between Gospel narratives and Paul’s view of Christ’s resurrection—both regard it as bodily. The author of Luke and Acts, for example, seems to assume that Paul’s proclamation of the resurrection is compatible with his own, and it stands in direct contrast with stoic and Epicurean philosophers who mock it (Acts 17:30–32).60 This same author stresses Christ’s resurrection not as becoming a “spirit” but having a glorified, immortal body, even of “flesh and bone” (Luke 24:26–33).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 225

5/28/19 2:18 PM

226

B. J. Oropeza

Paul himself confirms that Christ died, was buried, rose again on the third day, and appeared to others (15:3–7). The burial assumes Jesus, after dying, was given a burial, and he evacuated that burial site after rising again from death. There is no reason to deny that this is what the apostle meant by burial even if he does not technically mention the phrase, “empty tomb” as portrayed in the Gospels.61 Similar to Paul, later proclamations and creeds normally did not include any explicit mention of the empty tomb either, and yet these same sources make explicit mention of the resurrection of the flesh (e.g., Old Roman Creed c. 175 CE). This suggests that mention of the empty tomb is mostly found in full narratives of Christ’s resurrection (such as in the biblical Gospels), rather than brief confession-like formulae as found here.62 That Christ was buried would seem to be sufficient for the Corinthians to assume an empty tomb; they most likely were already familiar with longer narratives about his resurrection that included his body evacuating the tomb. To mention the empty tomb in this brief summary, then, would seem to be redundant.63 Perhaps the same may be said of Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene, who are mentioned in the four Gospels in relation to Jesus’s burial and resurrection, respectively, but whom Paul does not mention. If brief kerygmatic statements were not concerned about including certain narrative details from oral traditions that would later be written as Gospel texts, it does not follow from this that the missing details must all be later church inventions. The apostle adds that Jesus was raised “according to the scriptures.”64 If his burial is understood to be anticipated in these scriptures, then perhaps texts such as Isa 53:9–11 and Ps 16[15]:8–11 were recognized by early kerygma as prefiguring or being fulfilled in the Messiah’s burial. Psalm 16 seems especially relevant since the psalmist speaks of the body not seeing corruption in the grave. One may suggest that this psalm belonged to a repertoire of the earliest proclamations about the resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:24–32), and elsewhere the Lukan author even has Paul citing this psalm to confirm Christ’s bodily resurrection (Acs 13:34–37).65 The point that should not be missed is that in apparent agreement with Paul’s statement that he received this tradition from others before him (1 Cor 15:3a), the Lukan author seems to consider reference to Psalm 16 as remembered or characteristic of early apostolic proclamation about the resurrection. What we probably have here is a tradition prior to Paul that used Psalm 16 as one its primary proof texts of Christ’s resurrection and, based on apostolic interpretation, it promotes that Christ’s body rose from the dead. Paul’s use of ἐγείρω in 15:4 generally conveys the idea of awakening, raising up from sleep, or “to get up or stand up, that is, to rise from a supine to a standing position.”66 In James Ware’s recent study of the term, its semantic range does not include the idea of elevation or ascension; it points to Jesus

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 226

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

227

rising again in his own body rather than merely being assumed into heaven or transformed into a body discontinuous of the body that was buried.67 Importantly, Paul uses ἐγείρω in 6:13–14 to associate Christ’s resurrection with the future resurrection of believers.68 In 1 Cor 6 the Corinthians assume an indifference towards the body that permits their sexual misconduct. For them, God will do away with food and the belly anyway.69 Paul, among other things, counters by affirming the body’s importance by reminding them that God raised up the Lord from the dead, and God also “will raise us up.” It follows from this that if Christ’s resurrection was bodily, the Corinthians’ future resurrection will also be bodily. We can press a little further. If Paul was once a Pharisee (Phil 3:5) and Pharisaic belief included bodily resurrection (Acts 23:6–8; 24:21), he could hardly have conceived of Christ’s resurrection as non-bodily.70 Paul’s final kerymatic statement addresses the risen Christ’s appearances to his followers, who are said to number over five hundred, and Christ also appeared to Paul (15:5–11). Bodily resurrection seems to preclude the option that these witnesses were merely seeing spiritual visions or dreams of Jesus.71 Paul’s experience on the way to Damascus has him see a bright light, falling down, hearing the Lord’s voice, stricken with temporary blindness, and those who were with him witnessed the phenomenon, too, though differently than Paul (Acts 9; cf. 22; 26).72 Jesus appeared to him in a glorified state perhaps similar to his transfiguration in Luke 9:29. Luke has the encounter resembling a theophany yet more than merely a vision. It is nonetheless precarious for us to assume that Acts has the final word on this encounter, especially when its author neither witnessed the event nor writes in the same genre as Paul. Our apostle’s own recollection of this experience in Gal 1:11–17 claims that God set out to “reveal” his Son to Paul. Unfortunately, this does not bring us any closer to the nature of this appearance. More important for our purposes are his claims in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8—Paul claims to have seen the risen Lord and considers his encounter on par with earlier apostolic witness (regardless of whether or not his encounter might have been different than theirs). He could speak of it as an objective encounter distinct from the more subjective vision he had in 2 Cor 12:1–9.73 Ultimately, unless prophetic and apocalyptic discourses were never read in synagogues, Jews like Paul would seem to know the difference between actually seeing a person and merely having a vision or dream of that person. To sum up so far, by resurrection Paul means that Christ vacated his burial site and appeared in a body that early witnesses recognized as their rabbi who had been crucified. The Corinthians do not appear to deny this since they themselves believe the gospel message that Christ has risen (15:11). Paul’s reaffirmation of it, then, probably has the aim of wanting his auditors to

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 227

5/28/19 2:18 PM

228

B. J. Oropeza

recognize the inconsistency of their own denial that they, too, will rise again bodily. He can be rhetorically paraphrased in 15:11–12 as saying, “If it is confirmed that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, you Corinthians will also be raised in the same way.” Our apostle’s stress on apostolic witnesses doubtless reinforces the conviction that this type of resurrection is not something Paul invented. He is a witness, they are more witnesses, and Jewish Scripture is yet another witness since in it God through the prophets of old anticipated this resurrection long ago.

BEING IN CHRIST, THE FIRST FRUITS (15:20–28) After Paul establishes Christ’s resurrection (15:1–11), and the disadvantages of denying it (15:12–19), his words in 15:20 become more lucid: “But now Christ has been risen from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.” The resurrection of Jesus marks the pivotal point of Paul’s prophetic framework derived from Jewish Scripture: it starts the reversal of Adam’s curse that brought about sin and death into the original creation (15:21–22; cf. Gen 2–3; Rom 5:12–20). For Paul, all humanity exists in solidarity with the first man who sinned against God and received the penalty of death as a result: “in Adam all die.” Although all humans face inevitable bodily death “in Adam,” those who are “in the Christ” will all be made alive because of his resurrection. The latter realm is connected with the new creation instead of the fallen creation in Adam (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). Paul’s understanding of the new creation is very likely derived from Isaiah (43:18–19; cf. 42:9; 48:5–8; 65:17; 66:22) and relates to the anticipated imagery of restoration in which God does a new thing and provides water and new life in the desert through which exilic Israel and the nations (gentiles) make their trek to Zion. Paul reconfigures this imagery as the new life in Christ through which believers traverse across the metaphorical wilderness of the old age into the full realization of the new age and new creation that reaches its culmination at the second coming.74 To be “in Christ” is not only to be in spiritual union with Christ but to belong to Christ’s genealogy that populates the new creation. For Paul the manifestation of resurrections have their own order divinely appointed and recalling Jewish festivities (15:23). The resurrection of “Christ the first fruits” took place at his first advent. The first fruits (ἀπαρχή) recalls from Scripture the offerings associated with the Feast of Weeks (Lev 23:1–22), in which the first produce of the barely harvest is offered.75 What is offered as first fruits is holy and representative of the quality and character of the entire harvest that must eventually follow.76 As such, Christ’s resurrection from the dead represents and anticipates the holy harvest of those in Christ

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 228

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

229

who will also be raised at his second coming or παρουσία (15:23). As the first fruits, so the later fruits—Christ’s resurrection, which Paul has already established as bodily, affirms for the Corinthians that Christ’s followers will also rise bodily from the dead. Theirs will be no different in kind than their forerunner. “Those who are of Christ” are the metaphorical harvest whose bodies will be raised at his return. Hence, if any deniers held to the opinion that they were unworthy of the receiving immortal bodies like their former mythological heroes, Paul’s advancement of their solidarity in Christ insures a similar resurrection and thus undermines their view. Paul then employs Scripture to anticipate the abolition of death (15:26). Amidst the many beliefs about the afterlife among Greeks and Romans, it was normally thought that death could not be reversed (e.g., Herodotus Hist. 3.62.3–5; Plato, Crat. 403B; Virgil Georg. 4.453–525; Ovid, Metam. 10.1– 11.84). Differently, Paul interprets from Scripture that the curse of the fallen creation in Adam will end as the new creation in Christ is fully realized, Christ reigns, and God has put all enemies under Christ’s feet (15:25, 27), as interpreted from Psalms 8:6–7 and 110[109]:1. Paul interpreted from these texts that God grants Christ authority to defeat all his enemies, rulers, and powers (Ps 110[109]:2–3, 5–6), and “all” enemies must include death. Important for the Corinthians to know is that if God works this victory out in Christ, and God raised him from the dead (cf. 15:15), they could be assured that God has power over all other authorities to resurrect them also and to defeat even death itself.77 Contrary to the traditions they grew up with, death is not the inevitable winner over the human predicament, and beliefs about metempsychosis or absorption via a great conflagration seem undermined by this coming age scenario in which Christ and God rule over all creation and powers.

ANALOGIES AND THE FIRST AND SECOND ADAM (15:35–49) After advancing ethical motivation and exhortations that engage with the idea of resurrection (15:29–34), Paul explains the nature of the resurrection beginning with two questions: “But one will say, ‘How are the dead raised and with what kind of body do they come?’” (15:35). The questions are relevant for the Corinthians who recently experienced the death of certain members. Perhaps behind the implied skepticism of the question is a more specific concern that if dead bodies rot, decay, and disintegrate during the long period in which they remain dead, or if such bodies are cremated so that no body remains, then how could they rise again? What kind of body could be raised from dust and ashes? Paul first associates the resurrection with an analogy of planting

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 229

5/28/19 2:18 PM

230

B. J. Oropeza

seeds (15:36b–37). Having already associated agrarian imagery with Christ and the believers’ resurrections, he now expands on the imagery, this time focusing not on the fully grown grain but on its radical transformation from a mere seed to the finished product. To this imagery he seems to blend in an allusion from the creation in Genesis in which plants yielding their seed are created on the third day (Gen 1:11–12), though now he is more interested in the new creation and thus relates seeds to human bodies, more precisely dead bodies that are buried, which in Christ are raised again.78 The kernel without its husk is nude (1 Cor 15:37), which may resonate a faint echo recalling human bodies returning naked to the dust of death, thus departing from this world in the same state they entered it (Job 1:21; Eccl 5:15). This type nudity related to death seems to presuppose the Genesis creation. Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their original nakedness (Gen. 2:25; cf. 3:7–11). According to certain traditions, Adam’s prelapsarian body was clothed with righteousness and glory; he possessed God’s glory. This glory was stripped from his body when he sinned (Apoc. Mos. [Vit. Adam] 20–21),79 but there is anticipation for a future body of the righteous that will again be clothed with glory (1 En. 62.15–16).80 When Adam sinned he saw that he was “naked,” which perhaps meant that he was stripped of divine glory, and he would now be subject to death and decay (Gen 3:17–19).81 The garments of “skins” that God made for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21), though sometimes understood as animals skins, was also interpreted as mortal human flesh (Gen. Rab. 20:12; Job 10:11; cf. Ezek 37:6–8).82 Perhaps similar ideas may be presupposed by Paul’s use of nudity that analogously compares a bare kernel with both the mortality and external flesh of the human body. This same body will be transformed into an immortal body clothed with divine glory through the resurrection (15:49, 53–54). Regardless of how familiar or unfamiliar his auditors might have been with certain Adamic stories, the rhetorical point Paul seems to make is that God, who created all things, is powerful enough to rework and restore bodies from whatever materials or lack of them remain. Even so, the seed sown in the ground looks very different than what grows out from it, and so it is possible to surmise that this analogy suggests the raised body might look different than the buried one. Perhaps more accurately, though, both continuity and discontinuity are meant contextually.83 The perishable body of Jesus sown in burial was recognizable as the same person in the resurrected state, even though he was now glorified. The second and third analogies in this same context mention different types of animal and celestial bodies (15:39–41). This variety probably alludes to the creation of both in Gen 1–3. As such, the celestial/heavenly bodies refer to the stars and other lights in the sky.84 Paul writes that both heavenly and earthly bodies possess “glory” as part of the good creation, and

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 230

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

231

despite Adam’s sin and subsequent death, some residual glory is maintained among humans and creatures.85 All have variegating degrees of glory (i.e., beauty and radiance) endowed them by the good pleasure of their Creator. In 15:42, οὕτως καί (“in this manner also”) assumes and takes up the content of 15:36b–41 in a complex manner including, as Thiselton affirms: “(a) the discontinuity between the old body which is ‘sown’ (v. 37) and the new body which is raised (v. 42); (b) the sovereign power of God to enact far-reaching transformation of his own devising, however unimaginable this may be to human mortals now (v. 38); (c) the variety of modes of existence that lie within the sovereign capacity of God to create; and (d) the continuity of identity suggested by such terms as each . . . its own body (v. 38).”86 Paul’s comparison of stars, celestial bodies, and the glory of resurrected bodies, at first glance, appears to be similar to the Roman idea of astral immortality, a viewpoint that some of Corinthians might have embraced. However, he does not seem to be saying that the body, when raised, becomes a star. Our apostle is probably informed by apocalyptic texts on resurrection such as Dan 12:1–3 (cf. 1 En. 62.15–16; 104:2–6) in which the raised persons, as Collins affirms, “are not said to become stars but to shine like them.”87 Also, with Paul’s close comparison of the believers’ resurrection with Christ’s, there remains a solid sense of continuity of the body laid to rest with the body that rises again. The four antithetical statements that follow attempt to clarify the distinction between present and resurrected bodies (15:42–44). “It” in these verses refers to the human body in the contrasting pairs (cf. 15:37), and from this, continuity is maintained between the body that dies and the one that rises. Each has to do with a state, condition, or mode of existence rather than substance.88 The first antithesis identifies the present human body as “perishable,” buried in death, and implicating the sentence of death given to Adam after he sinned. It contrasts the body that will be “raised imperishable,” never to die again. Second, the body is “sown in dishonor” but “raised in glory.” Dishonor here probably imagines the original Adamic glory that was lost to Adam and his posterity after his fall. This glory will again radiate from the body at the resurrection. Third, the body is “sown in weakness,” but “it is raised in power.” This weakness reflects physical limitations, deformities, disabilities, and diseases experienced in aging and frail bodies, of which Paul’s own deteriorating body and weaknesses are an example (2 Cor 4:7–12; Phil 3:21). All such infirmities will be replaced by the resurrected body that exemplifies transformation and revitalization being animated and energized by God’s Spirit (1 Cor 2:1–5; 2 Cor 12:9–10; Rom 8:11). Fourth and finally, the human body is first sown a ψυχικός body, a “soulish-animated” body, and raised a πνευματικός body, a “spiritual-animated” body (15:44). It is clear from the context that both require a body.89 The

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 231

5/28/19 2:18 PM

232

B. J. Oropeza

common denominator in this passage and 2:11–16, where these terms are also contrasted, centers on God’s Spirit as the active power that transforms the ψυχικός person into πνευματικός.90 The ψυχικός body is made of dust and belongs to the original creation of the present age. It is animated by the natural human life force that characterizes Adam, whom God bestowed with the breath of life as he became a soul or “living being” (“ψυχὴν ζῶσαν”: Gen 2:7).91 As Wright affirms, here ψυχή means for Paul the “‘life-force’: that is, the sense of aliveness, operating through breath and blood, energy and purpose, which is common to humankind.”92 The point is one of animation rather than composition.93 As the ψυχικός body does not designate a body consisting of “soul-substance,” so the πνευματικός body does not designate a body formed out of “Spirit-stuff.”94 Rather, πνευματικός “describes, not what something is composed of, but what it is animated by. It is the difference between speaking of a ship made of steel or wood on the one hand and a ship driven by steam or wind on the other.”95 The πνευματικός body characterizes those who are in Christ; their existence via the Spirit overcomes the state of death characterizing the first Adam and creation, and they participate with the “last Adam” (Christ) in the new creation. Their resurrection means the fulfilment of the final deposit of God’s Spirit (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; cf. Rom 8:23).96 As such, they become fully empowered by the Spirit to the extent that God ultimately intended. In the resurrection the “soul” as the principle that animates the body is thus replaced by the “Spirit.”97 In 15:45 Paul claims that it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam a life-giving Spirit.” If Gen 2:7 informs the first sentence, perhaps what informs the second is Ezek 37:1–14. Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones connects God’s Spirit with the giving of new life to the dead. The idea of new life comes about by the breath/spirit, which alludes back to God breathing life into Adam in Gen 2:7.98 We could surmise that Paul interpreted this vision to be anticipating the era of resurrection, and since the passage echoed the old creation of Adam, Paul could contrast that creation with the new creation characterized by resurrection. Both cases of creation result in bodies being formed. With this backdrop in place, along with 15:44 and 46 that assume the respective ψυχικός and πνευματικός bodies, we can adduce that both the first Adam and last Adam (Christ) are bodies even though the word σῶμα does not appear in verse 45. Paul’s ellipsis assumes his audience can readily draw the contextual inference that both Adam (the person described as a “living being”) and the risen Christ (the person described as a “life-giving Spirit”) have not suddenly lost their bodies in this one verse.99 The apostle elaborates on what was said in 15:22: to be in Adam is to participate in the naturally animated existence and die; to be in Christ is to participate with God’s extra-natural Spirit, and rise from the dead to new

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 232

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

233

life. God, Christ, and the Spirit all participate in rising the dead to give life (2 Cor 3:6; Rom 4:17; 8:11; cf. 1 Tim 6:13; John 5:21; 6:63), so much so that Paul refers to Christ and God’s Spirit interchangeably here (cf. 2 Cor 3:17; Romans 8:9–11).100 As the “soul” gives the body its animation and activity in the old creation, the Spirit via the resurrection gives the transformed body life and activity in the new creation.101 More comparisons follow in 15:46–49. The first informs auditors that Adam, the natural man from the dust of the earth came first, and then the second man came, the last Adam, Christ who is from heaven. The first Adam represents humankind in the present state—humans dwell on earth and are perishable, originating from the man of dust. Differently, Christ is a heavenly man, not necessarily because in the resurrection he has been created of some sort of heavenly substance void of any continuum with his earthly body, but because he always was and continues to be associated with the realm of heaven (1 Thess 1:10; 4:16; Rom 10:6; cf. Phil 2:5–8). What is heavenly characterizes the state or mode of existence Paul already mentioned in vv. 42–45. The resurrected Christ is Spirit-energized, imperishable, and glorious, shining with radiance from being in the immediate divine presence (2 Cor 4:4, 6). Those who are from the first Adam who follow the last Adam will be transformed into the last Adam’s image; i.e., into the likeness of the risen Christ who, among other things, is imperishable and glorious (Phil 3:20–21; 2 Cor 3:18; Rom 8:29). Important here is the implication that the believer’s resurrection will be of the same sort as Jesus’s. As such, Paul’s perspective of the resurrected body may not be much different than what is portrayed in the Gospels, which depict the post-Easter Christ being identified with his earthly body that could be touched and handled (Luke 24:39–42; John 20:17, 27). Through this portion of text we hear the implicit response to Corinthian denials in light of the old and new creations. The apostle reminds them that if God created Adam to life from the dust, how much more could he do so for all the dead in Christ through the power of God’s Spirit? If something as small as a seed in the ground grows up to become a vibrant tree, how much more will the dead, regardless of their disintegrated and buried bodies, be raised to new life? The congregation has no reason to assume that God is not powerful enough to raise from dust and ashes the meager remains of dead loved ones in Christ. Flesh and Blood Belonging to the Old Creation in Adam Will Not Inherit the Kingdom (15:50–55) The unstated question that opens 15:50–58 perhaps assumes another Corinthian objection to the resurrection; namely, what happens to believers who are

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 233

5/28/19 2:18 PM

234

B. J. Oropeza

alive at the second coming of Christ? How could their bodies be raised again if they have not died? Will their bodies remain mortal and eventually die after that event? Or would they live on in their present bodily state forever after the Parousia regardless of how old or young they might currently be? Such thinking may be one reason why Paul has to stress here, on the one hand, that death itself will be defeated, and on the other hand, that the current body with all its flaws and weaknesses will be “changed.” He writes that “flesh and blood are not able to inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit imperishable” (15:50). This does not mean that those who inherit God’s kingdom will be bodiless beings, however. Paul’s words assume instead that humans in their current perishable bodies are unfit for God’s kingdom; their bodies must be transformed into imperishable ones. “Flesh and blood” here may be idiomatic for living as “frail and sinful human beings” (Gal 1:15–16; Matt 16:17; 17:31).102 More specifically, Paul deploys the phrase in a way that conveys God’s decree of Adam’s curse (cf. Sir 14:17–18). It connotes the perishable properties that characterize the body in the present era and old creation. This state is juxtaposed with the imperishable body of the age to come, a body which is fit for the new creation and kingdom in Christ. Paul’s words center on the self as a body that must undergo qualitative transformation. Human bodies will be transformed at the second coming even if they never experience death: “we will not all sleep [in death], but we will all be changed,” and that change is instantaneous.103 This implies that human identities persist after bodily transformation takes place. The change here (ἀλλάσσω: 15:51–52) may imagine a change of apparel (Gen. 35:2; Appian, Bell. Civ. 5.122§504), which is virtually synonymous with the “putting on” (ἐνδύω) of the imperishable, immortal covering (15:53). This metaphor seems to suggest that the self, “I,” or person under the garment, now fully sanctified, remains the same person. The body maintains some continuity, even as the burial of Jesus suggests that when Jesus rose again, it was in his own body with the same surviving “I” (cf. 15:3–11, 53–54).104 The prophetic and sure “word” of God Paul cites from the Scriptures in 15:54–55 marks an utter triumph over life’s most fundamental enemy, anticipating the defeat of death through the resurrection connected with Christ’s advents.

CONCLUSION: DIVERSE CORINTHIAN DENIALS OF THE RESURRECTION This study concludes that those in the Corinthian congregation who denied the resurrection did so for different reasons. Scholarly decisions for one type of denial to the exclusion of others leaves something to be desired given

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 234

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

235

the factional behavior of this congregation and complex way Paul responds. This study also suggests that bodily immortality would not pose a stumbling block to many of the congregation members since they were raised on various myths that affirmed such existence for their heroes. What exactly they would have objected to is less clear. We have suggested that some members may have considered their status to be unfit for the status of their former heroes and Jesus, while others found it problematic to believe that bodies could be raised again once cremated or decomposed. I have also raised another possible point of denial—some objected that Jesus’s immanent return renders the resurrection moot for them since they would not be dead yet, and this has negative ramifications, or so they thought. Still, other deniers, perhaps in opposition not only to those who held to resurrection but also to the other deniers already mentioned, may have embraced stoic or Roman ideas and traditions of the soul escaping the present body permanently at death. These divisions became aggravated due to recent deaths in the congregation. It is to this motley group of congregation members that Paul reaffirms the important connection between Christ’s bodily resurrection and their own through the use of Jewish Scripture, gospel proclamation, and argumentation. Ashes, dust, and living or dead flesh pose no formidable barriers against divine Spirit-infused power renovating and transforming what is part of the old creation in Adam to what is fit for the new creation in Christ.

NOTES 1. For a survey of various positions, see e.g., Paul J. Brown, Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Corinthians 15, WUNT 2/360 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2014), 66– 79; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. HTA (Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus/Giessen: Brunnen, 2006), 909–12; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1172–76; Gerhard Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1. Kor 15 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1986), 17–37. 2. See e.g., Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 741. 3. Although Paul insinuates illness and death as probable results of divine punishment in this case, the more immediate cause is unknown. See possibilities in Pheme Perkins, First Corinthians, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 145–46; David E. Garland 1 Corinthians. BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 553–34. Illaria L. Ramelli, “Spiritual Weakness, Illness, and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30.” JBL 130 (2011): 145–63, argues that spiritual rather than physical illness and death is at stake. But the verb to “sleep” (κοιμάω) is used as a metaphor for death here, which

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 235

5/28/19 2:18 PM

236

B. J. Oropeza

elsewhere in this letter refers to actual rather than spiritual death (7:39; 15:6, 18, 20, 51). If the adjective ἱκανός in 11:30 is rendered “many” (HCSB) who are dying, this might suggest something like an epidemic. A calamity of this magnitude may have been a sporadic thing experienced by the poor in a city near a port like Corinth: cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 228–29. More plausibly, however, ἱκανός should be rendered “enough” or “a number” without suggesting the quantity of those dying (though Paul’s use of this word seems to have the rhetorical effect of playing up the number). 4. With the majority of scholars, I suggest Paul wrote 1 Corinthians sometime around 54 or 55 CE, and that he had stayed in Corinthian for about 18 months roughly 50–51 CE (cf. Acts 18). 5. E.g., Richard A. Horsley, Wisdom and Spiritual Transcendence at Corinth: Studies in First Corinthians (Eugene: Cascade, 2008), 128–55; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/JKP, 1997), 252–53; Christiaan Wolff, Der Erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, HCNT (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 1996), 422–23. See further primary source references in Craig S. Keener, The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 2016), 269–74. 6. Contrast with Lucil. 31.11; 36.8–11; 57.8–9. 7. See e.g., CIL XIII 530; VIII 3463; Valerie M. Hope, Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 230–31. 8. E.g., Johann S. Vos, “Argumentation und Situation in 1 Kor. 15,” NovT 41 (1999): 113–33; Bernard Spörlein, Die Leugnung der Auferstehung. BU 7 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1971), 190–91; Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul (London: Black, 1931), 93–94. 9. E.g., Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1978): 510–26; Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Corinthians Who Say ‘There is No Resurrection of the Dead’ (1 Cor 15,12),” The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. Reimund Bieringer, BETL 125 (Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 247–75; and my earlier view in B. J. Oropeza, “Echoes of Isaiah in the Rhetoric of Paul: New Exodus, Wisdom, and the Humility of the Cross in Utopian-Apocalyptic Expectations,” The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament, ed. Duane F. Watson, SBLSS 14 (Atlanta: SBL, 2002), 87–112 (here 88). Albert V. Garcilazo, The Corinthian Dissenters and the Stoics, Studies in Biblical Literature 106 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 135–36, assumes this is the majority position, but it has been losing steam in more recent years: see Keener’s contribution in this present volume. 10. Matthew R. Malcolm, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reversal in 1 Corinthian: The Impact of Paul’s Gospel on His Macro-Rhetoric, SNTSMS 155 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 235–265, following J. Delobel,”The Corinthians’ (Un-)belief in the Resurrection,” Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht, ed. Reimund Bieringer, et al, (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 343–55 (here 348–50), comes close to this; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK 7/1–4 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 2001), 4.113–119, suggests Corinthian denial of both future and bodily dimensions.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 236

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

237

11. Such view is raised by e.g., A. J. M. Wedderburn,”The Problem of the Denial Of The Resurrection In I Corinthians XV,” NovT 23 (1981): 229–41; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermenia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 262. 12. Anders Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians, CBNTS 29 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998), 237. 13. See B. J. Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles, and the Opponents of Paul: The Pauline Letters (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 66–111. 14. Cf. Martinus C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, JSNTSS 22 (Sheffield, JSOT, 1988), 96–97. 15. Similar to my point is Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, ABY (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 560. 16. On the complexity of such terms for early Jewish and Christian interpreters, see Outi Lehtipuu, Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), e.g., 29–40, 56– 62, who notices that diversity stands against a monistic Jewish-Christian vs. dualistic Greek understanding of body and soul, as is often assumed. 17. Hays, Corinthians, 259. 18. Rightly, Tuckett, “No Resurrection,” 254. 19. See further, David G. Rice and John E. Stambaugh, eds., Sources for the Study of Greek Religion, SBS 14 (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 184–90; Richmond Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), esp. 21–28, 90–96; W. F. Jackson Knight, Elysion: On Ancient Greek and Roman Beliefs Concerning a Life after Death (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970), 108–11. 20. See further, Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922), 91–109. 21. Cf. e.g., Iamblichus De Vita Pythagorica 18.82; Plutarch Gen. Socr. 22 [590C]; Hierocles, Aureum Pythagoreorum Carmen (ending); referenced in Cumont, After Life, 96–100, 104. 22. See Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 42–43, 103; Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 117–20, 126; M. David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed. BZNW 187 (Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2012), 147–49. See inscription in Lattimore, Epitaphs, 35. Alternatively, or in addition, the dead may be absorbed in the atmosphere or ether (cf. Robert Garland and John Scheid, OCD 433). See further sources in Brown, Bodily Resurrection, 41–43. 23. On reward and punishment in Greco-Roman afterlife, see Hope, Death in Ancient Rome, 215–23; idem, Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome (London: Continuum, 2009), 97–120; Robert Garland, The Greek Way of Death, 2nd ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 60–66; Cumont, After Life, 170–213. 24. Stoic belief also considers that the diligent soul persists until the conflagration whereas the foolish one is destroyed earlier (cf. Malcolm, Reversal, 252–53). 25. Terence Paige, “Stoicism, ἐλευθερία, and Community at Corinth,” Christianity in Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 207–18.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 237

5/28/19 2:18 PM

238

B. J. Oropeza

26. See similarly, Sophocles, Elect. 137–39. 27. Cf. Martin, Corinthian Body, 6. 28. Cited from Valerie M. Warrior, Roman Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 109–110. 29. The daimones may refer to minor divinities, though the soul seems to be already divine when imprisoned by the human body: see Cumont, After Life, 112–13; Casey D. Elledge, Life after Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence in Josephus, WUNT 2/208 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2006), 74, 128 (cf. 174), from whom this translation is derived. 30. James R. Harrison and L. L Welborn, eds., The First Urban Churches 2: Roman Corinth, WGRWSup 8 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016); Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). 31. See these and further examples in Dag Øistein Endsjø, Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity (Palgrave: Macmillan, 2009), 54–70, 78; idem, “Immortal Bodies, before Christ: Bodily Continuity in Ancient Greece and 1 Corinthians,” JSNT 30 (2008): 417–436. 32. Endsjø, Greek Resurrection, 215. 33. Lehtipuu, Debates, 63–65. 34. Brown, Bodily Resurrection, 28–107. 35. Quote from Richard C. Miller, “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity,” JBL 129 (2010): 759–776 (here, 764). 36. See further conflicting sources in Endsjø, Greek Resurrection, 54–55, 226. 37. See further examples in ibid., 82–86; Miller, “Mark’s Empty Tomb,” 764. 38. Other such tales include King Pyrrhus’s right toe, having divine power, is unscathed when the king died and is burned on a pyre (Plutarch Pyrrh. 3.5), and Prometheus’s immortal liver could not be ultimately consumed by eagles, even though every day they would eat it (Hesiod Theog. 523–25): Endsjø, Greek Resurrection, 40–44. 39. See Bronwen L. Wickkiser, “Asklepios in Greek and Roman Corinth,” Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, Edited by Steven J. Friesen, et al, NovTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 37–67 (here 53–61); Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of Testimonies. Volumes I and II, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1988); Donald Engels, Roman Corinth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 100–01. 40. See Origen, Cels. 3.24; Theophilus of Antioch, Autol. 1.13; Endsjo, Greek Resurrection, 57–58. 41. Cf. Edith Hamilton, Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes (New York: Meridian, 1989), 280–81. 42. Ps-Apollodurus Lib. 3.103 (Panyassis); Sextus Empiricus, Prof. 1.261f; Diodorus Siculus 4.71.1–4; Pausanius Descr. 2.26.5–6; 2.27.4; Endsjø, Greek Resurrection, 48, 57–58. 43. See another version in Herodotus, Hist. 4.14–15. 44. Unless otherwise stated, translations are my own.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 238

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

239

45. Jon Davies, Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1999), 129; cf. Paul Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? An Essay on the Cognitive Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 67. 46. Brown, Bodily Resurrection, 79–107, esp. 89, 94, 233 47. Endsjø, Greek Resurrection, 155–58. 48. Ibid., 154–55. 49. Endsjø, “Immortal Bodies,” 432–34; and sources in idem, Greek Resurrection, 154–57. 50. In Corinth, as in Rome, cremation first seemed practiced much by people of lower social status but moved up the social ladder during the imperial period beginning in the first century BCE: Christine M. Thomas, “Placing the Dead: Funerary Practice and Social Stratification in the Early Roman Period at Corinth and Ephesos,” Urban Religion in Corinth, ed. Daniel Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen, HTS 53 (Cambridge: Harvard Divinity School, 2005), 281–303 (here, 286–88, 301–02); Mary E. Hoskins Walbank, “Unquiet Graves: Burial Practices of the Roman Corinthians,” in idem, 281–303 (here, 261, 270). See Pliny Nat. 7.53[52]; 55[54]; Cicero, Leg. 2.57. 51. Jonathan S. Burgess, The Death and Afterlife of Achilles (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011), 99–104, who references e.g., Seneca Herc.Oet. 1966–1977; Ovid Metam. 9.251–252. 52. And yet this did not prevent a cult from centering on him: see Lewis Richard Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Chicago: Ares, 1921), 328–29, 410. 53. Hope, Death in Ancient Rome, 212. 54. For more on this structure and its fleshing out verse by verse, see B. J. Oropeza, 1 Corinthians, NCC (Eugene: Cascade, 2017), 196–223. Certain portions of this section of the commentary were developed from my paper, “Clashes with Death, Immortality, and Being in Adam and in Christ” (SBL conference, Atlanta, Nov. 2016). That paper is now revised as this present essay, and so the content at times overlaps with the commentary’s in this section. 55. Greek words and phrases in these verses are not typically found in Paul, as Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM, 1966), 101–03 demonstrates. 56. See similarly, Martin Hengel, “Das Begräbnis Jesu bei Paulus und die leibliche Auferstehung aus dem Grabe,” Auferstehungù—Resurrection, ed. Friedrich Avemarie und Hermann Lichtenberger, WUNT 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 119–83 (here 127–28, 132, 138); James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5,” NTS 60 (2014): 475–98 (here 476, 498). 57. Kirk R. MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3b-6a, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” JETS 49 (2006): 225–34 (here, 233). 58. Birger Gerhardsson,”Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection according to Paul,” Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed. David E. Aune, et al, NovTSup 106 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), 75–91 (here 89). 59. With Ware, “Resurrection,” 476, 498; Gerhardsson, “Evidence,” 90–91; Hengel, “Begräbnis,” 127–28, 132, 138; Matthew W. Bates, The Hermeneutics of the

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 239

5/28/19 2:18 PM

240

B. J. Oropeza

Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012), 67–70 (re: Luke’s Gospel). 60. Matthews, “Fleshly Resurrection,” 178, 183, has it that Luke’s phrasing is a result of his reading and wanting to rewrite Paul’s “flesh and blood” (see below). If this is case, my suspicion is that Luke wanted to clarify Paul more pointedly against the deniers of fleshly resurrection of his own day. 61. See Karl Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tagnach der Schrift: Früheste Christologie, Bekenntnisbildung und Schriftauslegung im Lichte von 1 Kor. 15, 3–5, QD 38 (Ereiburg: Herder, 1968), 78–86; Eriksson, Traditions, 93. 62. See e.g., Acts 10:36–41; 17:31; 1 Pet 3:18–22; Ignatius Smyr. 1.1–2; Trall. 9; Justin Apol. 1.21.1; Ware, “Resurrection,” 480–81. 63. With N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 321. 64. This is an example of citation without reference (cf. Mark 9:11–12; 14:21; 14:48–49; Bates, Hermeneutics, 66–7). On Jewish texts providing evidence for various forms of rising again, see Dan 12:1–3; Isa 25:6–9; 26:19; Ezek. 37:1–14; Job 19:25–27; 42:17[LXX]; 2 Kings 13:20–21; 2 Macc. 7:10–11, 14; 4 Ezra 4.41–43; 7.32–38; Pss. Sol. 3.11–16; cf. 1 En. 22:13; 46.6; T. Ben. 10.6–10; T. Jud. 25.4–6; T. Job 4.9–10; L.A.B. 25.7–8; 2 Bar. 49.22–51.12; Apoc. Adam 2.2). See further on Jewish afterlife in George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, HTS 26 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972); de Boer, Defeat, 39–91; Elledge, Life after Death, 5–51. 65. If elsewhere Paul is remembered as using Scripture customarily when arguing that Jesus rose from the dead (e.g., Acts 17:2–3), the chances that he would be ignorant of an important passage like Psalm 16 seems remote. 66. See sources in Ware, “Resurrection,” 493. 67. Ibid., 494–95; cf. 487. 68. On the future ἐξεγερεῖ as the most plausible text variant here, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 4th ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 486–87. 69. This apparent indifference towards the body (cf. 15:32b–34) winks at their difficulty accepting its importance when it comes to bodily resurrection. 70. See R. J. Sider, “The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians XV.35–54.” NTS 21 (1974–1975) 428–39 (here, 438); Larry J. Kreitzer, “Resurrection,” DPL, 805–812 (here 807). 71. Here the aorist passive ὤφθη probably means “he appeared.” See BDAG, 719[A.1.d.]. The alternative “was seen” may also be used with the caveat that it is not reduced to implying that these appearances are merely visions. If Christ’s appearance to Paul was partially subjective given that his companions experienced it differently (Acts 9:1–19; 22:6–11; 26:12–18), it was nonetheless an actual appearance of Jesus, as implied by Acts 9:7—they saw “nobody” implies that Saul did see somebody: cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, ECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 443. In the narrative, this seeing of Jesus is confirmed by Ananias (Acts 9:17), Barnabas (9:27), and Jesus’s own words as described by the Lukan Paul (26:16): cf. Wright, Resurrection,

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 240

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

241

389–90, 396. In 26:19 ὀπτασία may refer either to a vision or appearance (Luke 1:22; Mal 3:2; Sir 43:2; LSJ 1242), probably the latter given 26:16. 72. On tensions and resolutions between Acts narratives, see Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 1598–1602. 73. See ibid.,1607. 74. See Oropeza, Second Corinthians, 357–58. 75. Jacob Thiessen, “Firstfruits and the Day of Christ’s Resurrection: An Examination of the Relationship Between the ‘Third Day’ in 1 Cor 15:4 and the ‘Firstfruit’ in 1 Cor 15:20,” Neot 46 (2012): 379–93 (here, 389), explains: “Paul evidently saw a typological significance in the firstfruits offering of the barley harvest (Lev 23:1–11) for the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 15:20.23). Jesus rose from the dead on the very day designated by the Law for the offering of the firstfruits of the barley harvest to God, the 16th of Nisan, i.e. the ‘third day’ after his crucifixion.” 76. See Joost Hollemann, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 50; Thiselton, Corinthians, 1224. 77. Similarly, Brown, Bodily Resurrection, 148. 78. Contrast Jeffery R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection, HUT 42 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), 112–21, who relates seed sowing to the original creation of humans rather than their death (but see 15:36). Both John 12:24 and 1 Clement 24.5 likewise associate seed burial with death/destruction and resurrection. 79. See further references in Kim, Jung Hoon. The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus, LNTS 268 (London: T.&T. Clarik, 2004), 39–42, 52–57; C. Marvin Pate, The Glory of Adam and the Afflictions of the Righteous: Pauline Suffering in Context (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993), 69–77, 88–89. 80. Kim, Clothing, 56. 81. Alternatively, since certain Corinthians might be familiar with Greek beliefs, they may have understood Paul stating that the “soul” persists after death when stripped of its human body and thus becomes nude (cf. Plato, Gorgias 523A–524A; cf. γυμνός: 2 Cor 5:3). If this type of nudity is what Paul implies in 1 Cor 15:37, the analogy is not very lucid since the implication would seem to be that, before glory is given, the flesh is first stripped off the inner person rather than transformed. 82. See Gary A. Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 124–26, 217. 83. On the concepts, see John Gillman, “Transformation in 1 Cor 15,50–53,” ETL 58 (1982): 309–333 (here, 332). 84. Though it is not impossible that for Paul they include angels from heaven. H. A. W. Meyer, The Epistles to the Corinthians, CECNT (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877), 2.87, argues for angels as the heavenly bodies, marshalling Gospel traditions that connect resurrection with being like the angels (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:36; recently, see Frederick S. Tappenden, Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor, and Transformation; ESL 19; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016:60, 80, 114). Other ancient texts sometimes refer to stars as divine beings or angels (see sources in

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 241

5/28/19 2:18 PM

242

B. J. Oropeza

Litwa, Transformed, 140–49; Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005:131). Differently, Perkins, First Corinthians,187, suggests that to depend on such sources to explain the passage goes beyond what apparently sufficed for Paul’s purposes—the Genesis creation. 85. See Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before. WUNT 2/317 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2011), 176, who suggests that Gen 2:7 may be viewed positively, but “negatively when in comparison with another human who exceeds him;” i.e., the immortal human (185). 86. Thiselton, Corinthians, 1271 (italics in the original with “sown” and “raised” boldface). 87. John J. Collins, The Book of Daniel, Hermenia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 394. See further on the issue, Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 88–90; Wright, Resurrection, 344–46. 88. See James Ware, “Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54,” JBL 133 (2014): 809–835 (here, 831); Andrew Johnson, “Turning the World Upside Down in 1 Corinthians 15: Apocalyptic Epistemology, the Resurrection Body and the New Creation.” EQ 75 (2003): 291–309 (here 304). 89. Rightly stressing resurrection as embodiment is Tappenden, Resurrection in Paul, 112, 229–32. 90. Though in 1 Cor 2, revelatory wisdom rather than a body raised from the dead is at stake. 91. The Genesis context helps interpret ψυχή as a property of both humans and other creatures as living beings (Gen 1:20, 24). What distinguishes human from beast is God’s image (εἰκών), not the ψυχή (Gen 1:26; 5:1–3). 92. Wright, Resurrection, 350. 93. Some argue that πνεῦμα was thought to consist of lighter material “stuff” than the heavier matter of things such as flesh and bone; and the πνευματικός body is comprised of this lighter substance: e.g., Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Complete and Incomplete Transformation in Paul—a Philosophical Reading of Paul on Body and Spirit,” Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity, ed. Turid Karlsen Seim and Jorunn Økland (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 123–46 (esp. 125); Martin, Corinthian Body, 21–25, 128. To what extent Paul wished to make a distinction between the material properties of body and πνεῦμα is not clear. In grammatical use, the adjectival ending of –ικος in ψυχικός and πνευματικός generally connotes likeness or mode of existence or having the characteristic of something (rather than referring to its substance, as with –ινος endings). This may suggest that the material substance of these bodies is not what is at stake by Paul’s use of the terms. See Scott Brodeur, The Holy Spirit’s Agency in the Resurrection of the Dead: An Exegetico-Theological Study of 1 Corinthians 15,44b-49 and Romans 8,9–13, TGST 14 (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 2004), 124, 130; Brown, Bodily Resurrection 206, 216. 94. So Rabens, Holy Spirit, 95. 95. Wright, Resurrection, 352 (cf. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. 584b22; Vitruvius Vitr., 10.1.1). 96. Schnabel, Korinther, 968.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 242

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

243

97. With Wright, Resurrection, 346. 98. See Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 820. 99. We could indeed replace the term “person” with “body” so that Adam is the body described as a “living being,” and the risen Christ is the body described as a “life-giving Spirit.” 100. The Messiah “is not just a soma pneumatikon in his own right, so to speak, the first example of the large number of such beings the creator intends to make through resurrection, but he is also the one through whom the creator will accomplish this— because he is the one who, as ‘life-giving Spirit’, will perform the work of raising the dead” (Wright, Resurrection, 355). 101. See further, Ware, “Paul’s Understanding,” 832–33. 102. Rightly, Johnson, “Turning the World,” 304. The first half of 15:50 (“flesh and blood”) is thus more or less explained in the second half (“perishable”) as affirmed by Wright, Resurrection, 359. 103. Brown, Bodily Resurrection, 223–24, asserts that unlike apotheosis, which required a ritual process and burning the mortal part of the hero, Paul in 15:51–53 speaks of the transformation of believers taking place instantaneously in a “moment” and “twinkling of an eye.” Paul grounds his description in an eschatological event that transforms all, unlike an apotheosis that happens typically when the respective hero is deceased or cremated. 104. With Ware, “Resurrection,” 487.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Gary A. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Asher, Jeffery R. Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection. HUT 42. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000. Bates, Matthew W. The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012. Brodeur, Scott. The Holy Spirit’s Agency in the Resurrection of the Dead: An Exegetico-Theological Study of 1 Corinthians 15,44b-49 and Romans 8,9–13. TGST 14. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 2004. Brown, Paul J. Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Corinthians 15. WUNT 2/360. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2014. Burgess, Jonathan S. The Death and Afterlife of Achilles. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011. Cumont, Franz. After Life in Roman Paganism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922. Davies, Jon. Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1999. de Boer, Martinus C. The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. JSNTSS 22. Sheffield, JSOT, 1988.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 243

5/28/19 2:18 PM

244

B. J. Oropeza

Delobel, J. “The Corinthians’ (Un-)belief in the Resurrection.” Pages 343–55 in Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Edelstein, Emma J., and Ludwig Edelstein. Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of Testimonies. Volumes I and II, 2nd ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1988. Elledge, Casey D. Life after Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence in Josephus. WUNT 2/208. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2006. Endsjø, Dag Øistein. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. Palgrave: Macmillan, 2009. ———. “Immortal Bodies, before Christ: Bodily Continuity in Ancient Greece and 1 Corinthians.” JSNT 30 (2008): 417–436. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “Complete and Incomplete Transformation in Paul—a Philosophical Reading of Paul on Body and Spirit.” Pages 123–46 in Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity. Edited by Turid Karlsen Seim and Jorunn Økland. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. ———. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Eriksson, Anders. Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians. CBNTS 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998. Farnell, Lewis Richard. Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Chicago: Ares, 1921. Garcilazo, Albert V. The Corinthian Dissenters and the Stoics. Studies in Biblical Literature 106. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Garland, Robert. The Greek Way of Death, 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), Gerhardsson, Birger. “Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection according to Paul.” Pages 75–91 in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, et al. NovTSup 106. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. Gillman, John. “Transformation in 1 Cor 15,50–53.” ETL 58 (1982): 309–333. Hamilton, Edith. Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes. New York: Meridian, 1989. Harrison, James R., and L. L Welborn, eds. The First Urban Churches 2: Roman Corinth. WGRWSup 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Hengel, Martin. “Das Begräbnis Jesu bei Paulus und die leibliche Auferstehung aus dem Grabe.” Pages 119–83 in Auferstehung—Resurrection. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie und Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001. Hollemann, Joost. Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Hope, Valerie M. Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. ———. Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London: Continuum, 2009.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 244

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

245

Horsley, Richard A. Wisdom and Spiritual Transcendence at Corinth: Studies in First Corinthians. Eugene: Cascade, 2008. Hoskins Walbank, Mary E. “Unquiet Graves: Burial Practices of the Roman Corinthians.” Pages 81–303 in Urban Religion in Corinth. Edited by Daniel Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen. HTS 53. Cambridge: Harvard Divinity School, 2005. Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. London: SCM, 1966. Johnson, Andrew. “Turning the World Upside Down in 1 Corinthians 15: Apocalyptic Epistemology, the Resurrection Body and the New Creation.” EQ 75 (2003): 291–309. Keener, Craig S. The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 2016. Kim, Jung Hoon. The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus. LNTS 268. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Knight, W. F. Jackson. Elysion: On Ancient Greek and Roman Beliefs Concerning a Life after Death. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970. Kreitzer, Larry J. “Resurrection.” Pages 805–12 in DPL. Lattimore, Richmond. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962. Lehmann, Karl. Auferweckt am dritten Tagnach der Schrift: Früheste Christologie, Bekenntnisbildung und Schriftauslegung im Lichte von 1 Kor. 15, 3–5. QD 38. Ereiburg: Herder, 1968. Lehtipuu, Outi. Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity. OECS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Liebers, Reinhold.”Wie Geschrieben Steht”: Studien zu einer besonderen Art fruhschristlichen Scrhiftbezuges. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Lorenzen, Stephanie. Das paulinische Eikon-Konzept. WUNT 2/250. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008. MacGregor, Kirk R. “1 Corintians 15:3b-6a, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.” JETS 49 (2006): 225–34. Malcolm, Matthew R. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reversal in 1 Corinthian: The Impact of Paul’s Gospel on His Macro-Rhetoric. SNTSMS 155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Litwa, M. David. We Are Being Transformed. BZNW 187. Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2012. Matthews, Shelley. “Fleshly Resurrection, Authority Claims, and the Scriptural Practices of Lukan Christianity.” JBL 136 (2017): 163–183. Miller, Richard C. “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity.” JBL 129 (2010): 759–776. Moule, C. F. D. “St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection.” NTS 12 (1966):106–23. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. HTS 26. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 245

5/28/19 2:18 PM

246

B. J. Oropeza

Paige, Terence. “Stoicism, ἐλευθερία, and Community at Corinth.” Pages 207–18 in Christianity in Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Edited by Edward Adams and David G. Horrell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Pate, C. Marvin. The Glory of Adam and the Afflictions of the Righteous: Pauline Suffering in Context. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993. Porter, Stanley E. “Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament.” Pages 52–81 in Resurrection. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, et al. London: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Rabens, Volker. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Ramelli, Illaria L. “Spiritual Weakness, Illness, and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30.” JBL 130 (2011): 145–63. Rice, David G., and John E. Stambaugh, eds. Sources for the Study of Greek Religion. SBS 14. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009. Riley, Gregory J. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul. London: Black, 1931. Segal, Alan F. Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Sellin, Gerhard. Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1. Kor 15. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1986. Sider, R. J. “The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians XV.35–54.” NTS 21 (1974–75): 428–39. Spörlein, Bernard. Die Leugnung der Auferstehung. BU 7. Regensburg: Pustet, 1971. Tappenden, Frederick S. Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor, and Transformation. ESL 19. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Thiessen, Jacob. “Firstfruits and the Day of Christ’s Resurrection: An Examination of the Relationship Between the ‘Third Day’ in 1 Cor 15:4 and the ‘Firstfruit’ in 1 Cor 15:20.” Neot 46 (2012): 379–93. Thiselton, Anthony C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” NTS 24 (1978): 510–26. Thomas, Christine M. “Placing the Dead: Funerary Practice and Social Stratification in the Early Roman Period at Corinth and Ephesos.” Pages 281–303 in Urban Religion in Corinth. Edited by Daniel Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen, HTS 53. Cambridge: Harvard Divinity School, 2005. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Corinthians Who Say ‘There is No Resurrection of the Dead’ (1 Cor 15,12).” Pages 247–75 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by Reimund Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Peeters, 1996. Veyne, Paul. Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? An Essay on the Cognitive Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Vos, Johann S. “Argumentation und Situation in 1 Kor. 15.” NovT 41 (1999): 113–33. Ware, James. “Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54.” JBL 133 (2014): 809–835. ———. “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5.” NTS 60 (2014): 475–98. Warrior, Valerie M. Roman Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 246

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Corinthian Diversity, Mythological Beliefs, and Bodily Immortality

247

Wedderburn, A. J. M. “The Problem of the Denial Of The Resurrection In I Corinthians XV.” NovT 23 (1981): 229–41. Wickkiser, Bronwen L. “Asklepios in Greek and Roman Corinth.” Pages 37–67 in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society. Edited by Steven J. Friesen, et al. NovTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Worthington, Jonathan D. Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before. WUNT 2/317. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2011. Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 247

5/28/19 2:18 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 248

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Chapter Thirteen

Afterword Scripture in 1 Corinthians: Assessing the Status Quaestionis Christopher D. Stanley

The apostle Paul’s use of Scripture in 1 Corinthians is an underexplored topic. The reason for this is not hard to see—the book contains very few explicit quotations or obvious allusions (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–13), and direct appeals to the authority of Scripture are uncommon in the moral exhortation that forms the core of the letter. Questions have also been raised about whether the Corinthian congregation included any Jews who might have been able to discern (and explain to others) the less obvious types of biblical engagement that interpreters often claim to find in Paul’s letters. If the congregation was entirely “gentile” in origin, the probability decreases that Paul might have framed his arguments in a manner that required the Corinthians to recognize and accept subtle reinterpretations of the Jewish Scriptures, though it remains possible that he might have drawn on texts and interpretations that he himself had taught them in the year and a half that he resided in Corinth (if Acts 18:11 is to be believed). The authors of this volume aim to show that Paul’s engagement with the Scriptures of Judaism in 1 Corinthians is both broader and deeper than might appear from his explicit references. They do this primarily by calling attention to neglected references to Scripture in specific portions of the letter, though a few of the authors (Waaler, Rosner, and Keener) examine broader themes. All of them explore Paul’s own lexical and hermeneutical engagement with the language and ideas of the sacred text, while a few (Waaler, Gladd, Dawson, Ciampa) go further and make claims about the rhetorical aims and likely effects of Paul’s biblical argumentation. All presuppose that Paul was a skillful interpreter and rhetor whose readings deserve to be taken seriously. Only once (in the essay by David Burnett) is the question raised as to whether the Corinthians might have objected to 249

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 249

5/28/19 2:18 PM

250

Christopher D. Stanley

some Paul’s interpretations of Scripture, and there the point is raised only to deny it. In all of these respects the authors situate themselves squarely within the methodological mainstream of scholarly investigation of Paul’s use of Scripture. This is not to say, however, that the contributors are simply re-plowing old ground. Several of the articles explore issues and options that have not received sufficient (if any) attention from previous interpreters, and many of these issues deserve further attention. Examples include the nature of Paul’s engagement with Scripture in chapters 5 and 15 (Dawson, Waters, Burnett, and Oropeza), the extent of Paul’s dependence on the book of Deuteronomy in crafting 1 Corinthians (Waaler, Dawson, Waters, and Burnett), and the possibility that Paul relied on biblical excerpts and phrases that he knew were in use in liturgical settings in the Corinthian community (Waaler). Taken together, these essays elucidate hidden resonances between the language of 1 Corinthians and the text of Scripture that show the extent to which Paul was indebted to his ancestral Scriptures even in a letter where biblical references are less apparent. At the same time, the authors also demonstrate many of the uncertainties and limitations that continue to plague contemporary study of Paul’s use of Scripture. A review of some of the major points that emerge from their collective research will show how the authors elucidate both Paul’s engagement with his ancestral Scriptures and the methodological problems that remain to be solved in this area. The question of what terms to use when describing Paul’s varied appropriations of the text of Scripture continues to elicit interest. Is there a difference between “citations” and “quotations”? Is an introductory formula or other explicit marker vital to their identification? What is the difference between “allusions” and “echoes”? How much verbal or contextual agreement is necessary to affirm the presence of an unmarked reference to Scripture? How do we distinguish “metalepsis” on Paul’s part from creative readings on the part of the modern interpreter? None of the contributors grapple explicitly with such questions and little consistency can be seen in their usages. Erik Waaler suggests using the word “recontextualization” as the overarching category of analysis and then qualifying it with other terms (“modes of reference,” “reference formulas,” “degrees of verbal correspondence,” “intent,” etc.) to describe the various modes in which Paul “recontextualizes” the language of Scripture. Such an approach might enable more precision of analysis if scholars could agree on the subcategories into which Paul’s usage should be divided. But it is hard to see how such unanimity could be achieved in light of the current lack of agreement regarding terminology and categorization.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 250

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Afterword

251

My own view is that we should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and agree to draw our definitions from the field of literary studies, where these matters have been discussed and debated since the rise of modern literary criticism. Reaching agreement on this approach, however, is just as unlikely as Waaler’s proposal, since no framework currently exists for scholars to discuss such matters and to establish standard protocols for the field. Such a solution would also require Pauline scholars to familiarize themselves with a body of scholarship with which most of us have little experience. In the absence of such an agreement, the present terminological confusion will continue to impede scholarly discussions in this area. A similar point can be made about the absence of clear criteria for identifying and explicating unmarked references to Scripture in Paul’s letters. Richard Hays’s seven criteria for identifying “echoes”1 remain the most common guide, but some of his criteria have come in for criticism from a methodological standpoint and disagreements about how to apply them are common. David Stark’s essay in this volume exhibits most clearly both the value and the limitations of a careful implementation of Hays’s model, but the influence of Hays’s method can be seen in a number of other articles as well. While it would be wrong for us to expect the kind of methodological precision and replicability that characterizes scientific research, the looseness and subjectivity of Hays’s criteria continue to bedevil scholarly work in this area, leading to irresolvable differences over whether Paul was in fact referring to Scripture in specific instances, how he understood the text(s) to which he was (arguably) referring, and whether he expected his audiences to be capable of recognizing, retracing, and approving such unmarked engagements with Scripture. The picture grows even murkier when interpreters assert that Paul is engaging in “metalepsis,” where the interpretive point lies (at least partially) hidden in portions of the original passage that Paul does not actually cite in his letter. Such claims are inevitable in a letter like 1 Corinthians that contains fewer explicit references than other letters. But similar questions can be raised about the entire Pauline corpus. With so much methodological ambiguity in this area, it is hard to discern any path by which researchers might move beyond the kind of “I see it/ I don’t” argument that typifies many conversations about Paul’s (possibly) unmarked engagements with Scripture. Studies that aim to elucidate such veiled references are clearly suggestive, including the ones in this volume. But at present there is no agreed-upon system for judging whether they represent useful insights into the hermeneutical and rhetorical strategies of the apostle Paul or merely the creative genius of the modern interpreter. The difficulty is compounded by the existence of computerized databases capable of identifying commonalities of language that might have escaped the notice

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 251

5/28/19 2:18 PM

252

Christopher D. Stanley

of human readers. Whether it is possible to turn such impressionistic studies into assured findings that most scholars would accept is unclear at this point. Yet another methodological question that arises from some of the studies in this volume is how to judge when Paul is engaging directly with the text of Scripture as opposed to drawing on Jewish interpretive traditions or using biblically-based language that had become part of the lingua franca of Jewish families, educational systems, and synagogues. Few would argue that Paul has any particular biblical text in mind when he uses such terms as “covenant” (1 Cor 11:25), “law” (1 Cor 1:20, 9:20–21, 15:56), or “temple” (1 Cor 3:16–17, 6:19) in 1 Corinthians—unless he indicates clearly that a reference is intended, as in 1 Cor 9:13 (referring to priests eating sacrificial meat) and 1 Cor 14:34 (citing an unspecified passage from “the law” as the basis for an injunction). But what about the kinds of expressions that Erik Waaler cites in the opening article of this volume? Did Paul expect the Corinthians to hear references to specific biblical texts when he used phrases like “call on the name of the Lord,” “grace and peace,” “God is faithful,” “the day of the Lord,” etc.? What about the uses of “mystery” language that Benjamin Gladd traces to an implicit engagement with the book of Daniel? Is it likely that the Corinthians possessed the level of biblical literacy required to recognize and approve such passing references to specific verses of Scripture when modern scholars continue to disagree over which text is in view? Or is it better to treat them as unconscious echoes of “biblical” language by an author whose mind was so deeply immersed in the ideas and language of the sacred text (and the Jewish community) that he could hardly have avoided using them in daily conversation, much less in theological reflection? Waaler does better than most in making the case that Paul had specific texts in view. So his paper serves as a good test case for what can and cannot be accomplished by such an approach. How far he succeeds is in the eye of the beholder. Linda Belleville is on firmer ground, when she traces Paul’s use of a specific Jewish tradition regarding a rock that followed the Israelites through the desert and provided water on command. In fact, her article provides clear evidence that Paul did indeed rely at times on Jewish interpretive traditions to aid him in making sense of the written text of Scripture. The fact that Paul could refer to this tradition without explanation shows that he had already presented it to the Corinthians when he was with them. What else might fit in this category? Might some of the fainter “echoes” of Scripture in Paul’s letters be better understood as references to his own earlier verbal instruction of the Corinthians? Erik Waaler is clearly moving in this direction when he suggests that Paul in the early chapters of the letter is echoing biblical language that was used in liturgical contexts in Corinth. If this is so, why do we need to look for references to specific biblical texts in these uses? Why not

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 252

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Afterword

253

begin our analysis with the assumption that Paul is engaging with his earlier teaching and see how far this takes us? I have noted elsewhere that Paul clearly presumes a certain amount of biblical knowledge on the part of the Corinthians, including elements of the creation narratives (1 Cor 6:16, 11:7–12, 15:21, 15:45–49) and the Exodus story (1 Cor 5:6–8, 10:1–11).2 These are precisely the kinds of materials that he could have taught them as part of his oral instruction. The same can be said for the many passages in his letters where he uses “biblical” language (law, covenant, etc.) without explanation, not to mention his universal use of the term “God” to refer to the deity described in the Jewish Scriptures and not to Zeus or Jupiter, as the term was normally understood by Greeks and Romans. Since we know that Paul refers frequently to these earlier teachings (cf. also 1 Cor 5:9–11 and 15:3–11), how do we gauge whether he is offering a new reading of the biblical text that he expects the Corinthians to follow and approve or simply reminding them of (and possibly revising) an interpretation that he had taught them orally? Such questions would not arise in the case of a letter like Romans that is addressed to a congregation that Paul had never visited. But they must be faced when analyzing Paul’s use of “biblical” language in 1 Corinthians, if we believe what Acts says about his lengthy stay there. The relative lack of attention to this question in the present collection leaves the door open for further research in this area. Several of the essays in this volume (Waaler, Dawson, Waters, and Burnett) highlight Paul’s engagement with the book of Deuteronomy at various points in 1 Corinthians. This raises the question of whether there was any particular reason for Paul to have had this book in mind when crafting the letter. As Waaler rightly observes, Deuteronomy was a frequent source text for Paul as for other Second Temple Jewish authors, so it might be that nothing special should be read into the frequency of references (i.e., that they reflect Paul’s common practice of thinking and writing within a “Deuteronomic” ideological framework). But it is also possible that Paul might have made a point of teaching his Corinthian converts the central ideas and themes of this book when he was with them so that he could now refer to those ideas without explanation. The latter possibility could be understood in either a weak or a strong sense. Viewed in the weak sense, Paul himself might have relied on Deuteronomy as a foundational element of his teaching without communicating that fact to the Corinthians. If this were the case, we could not presume that the hearers would have been aware of how often Paul refers to this book, since most of his references are unmarked and can be adequately understood without knowing their source. The strong sense, by contrast, would envision Paul as actively teaching the Corinthians both the contents of Deuteronomy and

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 253

5/28/19 2:18 PM

254

Christopher D. Stanley

his own way of reading it during his earlier visit. Such a model appears to be what interpreters have in mind when they claim that Paul expected the Corinthians to recognize and follow (and approve) his engagement with specific passages from the Jewish Scriptures. The problem with the latter model is that it reeks of anachronism. If the members of Paul’s Corinthian congregation came primarily from the lower echelons of civic society (1 Cor 1:26–29), when would they have had time for such studies? The vast majority of people at this level of society worked from sun-up to sundown to provide for their basic needs, leaving little time for leisure. More troubling is the fact that nearly all of them would have been illiterate, meaning not only that they were unable to read texts for themselves but also that they were strangers to the whole world of interpreting written texts. We should not underestimate the difficulty that would have been involved in convincing such people of the value of interacting with texts of any sort, much less the sacred texts of a religion that many in antiquity viewed with antipathy. The book of Deuteronomy is also not an easy text to follow for someone who knows nothing about Judaism and its history, though Paul’s references to the Exodus story in 1 Corinthians suggest that he might have made it a priority to fill that lacuna through oral instruction. Unlike some of Paul’s other letters, we cannot simply posit the presence of literate Jews or “God-fearers” in the congregation to bridge this gap, since many have argued that the Corinthian church was mostly or exclusive “gentile” in makeup (though see 7:18–19). Finally, there remains the question of where Paul would have gotten a Greek Torah scroll to use in instructing the Corinthians. It is hard to imagine him carrying the bulky text around with him when traveling on foot, and it is equally unlikely that he could have borrowed one from the local synagogue if Acts’ depiction of his relations with the Jewish community of Corinth has any validity (Acts 18:6–17). In short, the common scholarly model of presupposing that the recipients of Paul’s letters would have been capable of recognizing his many unmarked references to Deuteronomy, figuring out how Paul was interpreting the text (including possible engagements with the broader context of the reference), and giving their stamp of approval to his interpretation (a necessity for the reference to have persuasive force) is fraught with difficulties. The weaker model, which supposes that Paul relied on Deuteronomy himself and imparted its central stories and themes to the Corinthians without attempting to familiarize them with the actual text, makes far more sense of both the textual and historical data. Whether the adoption of such a model would pose problems for any of the studies in the present volume is a question for further study. But it is important that future interpreters be transparent about (and defend) the social model that they have in mind when they make claims about

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 254

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Afterword

255

the Corinthians’ familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures and what Paul could reasonably have presupposed in that area. For the most part, the methodological questions that have been raised to this point are not peculiar to the present volume but rather reflect ongoing problems within the field. They are presented here as matters deserving future scholarly attention and not as indictments of any particular authors. In that spirit, I would like to conclude my observations by noting briefly a few positive contributions that emerge from the essays in this volume. Several of the authors have called attention to the manner in which Paul reads Jesus and the early Christ-movement (including the Corinthians) back into the biblical record as the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises and purposes. Guy Waters describes how Paul implicitly conflated the Corinthians with Israel as God’s covenant people in his interpretations of Deuteronomy in 1 Cor 5, an equation that he makes explicit in 1 Cor 10. Linda Belleville likewise highlights the importance of 1 Cor 10 for understanding how Paul incorporated the Corinthians into the story of Israel throughout the letter, while Roy Ciampa (following Richard Hays) points to a broader pattern in which Paul sees gentile Christ-followers fulfilling the eschatological mission of Israel as described in the Jewish Scriptures. Erik Waaler identifies a similar pattern behind Paul’s scattered references to Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians while also calling attention to Paul’s practice of reading “the Lord” as “Christ” when interpreting particular Jewish texts, a practice that he traces to Paul’s “Christological monotheism.” None of these observations are new, but together they underscore how consistently Paul pursued a hermeneutical strategy of reading Jesus and his gentile Christ-followers into the Jewish Scriptures when crafting his letter to the Corinthians. The fact that he can make such interpretive leaps without explaining them to the Corinthians implies that he had already taught them something similar when he lived among them. Future interpreters would do well to keep this in mind when investigating how Paul engages with Scripture in his letters to the Corinthians. Not only were the Corinthians familiar with some of the key stories from the Jewish Scriptures, but they also (if Paul’s presumptions are correct) knew to interpret them in the light of Christ. Erik Waaler’s proposal that Paul referenced biblical texts that the Corinthians knew from frequent liturgical use renews the conversation about how the Jewish Scriptures were deployed in the Pauline house-churches apart from instruction. The idea recalls Barnabas Lindars’ decades-old work on the apologetic uses of Scripture by the early Christians,3 where he investigated the varied ways in which Christ-followers mined the text of Scripture for verses that could be used to buttress their arguments in debates with outsiders. Though the data are skimpy at best, it would be interesting to see what

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 255

5/28/19 2:18 PM

256

Christopher D. Stanley

other uses of Scripture might be uncovered if interpreters could move beyond the “living room Bible study” model of early Christian house-churches and conduct cross-cultural research into how sacred texts are typically used in predominately illiterate communities. Attention should also be given to the relative importance of sacred texts in relation to other standards and practices in such communities as a counterweight to the text-centered models that predominate in Pauline scholarship. A few of the authors have suggested that Paul presupposed familiarity with specific Jewish practices on the part of the Corinthians in addition to whatever they might have known about the Jewish Scriptures. Kathy Barrett Dawson argues that the Corinthians would have been aware that the Jews had substituted excommunication for the Deuteronomic death penalty in cases of idolatry and failure to listen to authorities. Erik Waaler proposes that at least some of the Corinthians would have been familiar with Jewish liturgical uses of the Shema. David Stark expresses the possibility that the Corinthians developed their practice of “baptism for the dead” out of Jewish ideas and practices regarding corpse contamination. Several of the contributors refer to Corinthian familiarity with aspects of the Passover ritual. None of these authors offer any explanation of how the Corinthians might have learned about these practices, i.e., whether they were mediated by Paul or came from first-hand experience with the local synagogue or individual Jews (including any who might have been members of the Corinthian housechurch). In view of the recent efforts by scholars in what is coming to be known as the “Radical New Perspective” (Paul within Judaism) to tie both Paul and his congregations more closely to the synagogue, such proposals are certainly worthy of consideration. Whether they make better sense of Paul’s engagement with Scripture in particular passages must be settled on a caseby-case basis. In addition to the points already noted, several of the contributors offer novel explanations of Paul’s use of Scripture in specific contexts that merit further consideration. Benjamin Gladd’s proposal that Paul’s “mystery” language in 1 Cor 1–2 might be rooted in a particular reading of the book of Daniel opens the door for other scholars who might be interested in looking for additional veiled references to Daniel in Paul’s letters. David Burnett’s identification of Deut 4 rather than Gen 1 as the background for Paul’s allusive language in 1 Cor 15:39–42 is supported by a wide range of evidence that will have to be taken seriously by scholars interested in this passage. The same can be said for Erik Waaler’s claims to have found evidence for Paul’s use of the Hebrew text alongside the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. Also noteworthy are three articles that present solid arguments in favor of one side in a long-standing scholarly dispute. Craig Keener and B. J. Oropeza

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 256

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Afterword

257

offer richly-documented proposals for why the Corinthians were resistant to Paul’s teaching about a future bodily resurrection. Both reject the idea that the Corinthians were influenced by some form of “realized” or “over-realized” eschatology, with Keener preferring a “non-eschatological” background for the Corinthians’ thinking and Oropeza arguing for a diversity of views. Brian Rosner, for his part, presents a careful analysis of Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians regarding the Jewish law. He concludes that Paul in this letter as elsewhere rejected the Torah as “law-code” while simultaneously reappropriating it as a source of “wisdom” and “prophecy.” Scholars who work in either of these areas will surely want to take their arguments into account. Viewed as a whole, this volume offers a helpful analysis of some of the ways in which the apostle Paul engaged with his ancestral Scriptures when crafting the letter that we know as 1 Corinthians. It also opens up many questions and problems for subsequent scholars to consider. The editors and contributors are to be commended for giving us a fresh study of a neglected topic that will stimulate further research and dialog regarding the apostle Paul’s use of Scripture.

NOTES 1. Initially presented in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 14–21, 25–33. 2. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York and London: T & T Clark, 2004), 75–78. 3. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961).

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 257

5/28/19 2:18 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 258

5/28/19 2:18 PM

Index

259

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 259

5/28/19 2:18 PM

260

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 260

Index

5/28/19 2:18 PM

About the Contributors

Linda L. Belleville is adjunct professor of New Testament at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary and co-chair of the Scripture and Paul seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature. She is the author of Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18 (Bloomsbury, 1991); Women Leader and the Church: Three Crucial Questions (Baker, 2000), and Sex, Lies, and the Truth: Developing a Christian Ethic in a Post-Christian Society (Wipf & Stock, 2010). David A. Burnett is a PhD student in Judaism and Christianity in antiquity at Marquette University, where he also serves as a teaching assistant and research assistant in the Department of Theology. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Catholic Biblical Association, and the Chicago Society of Biblical Research. His work has been published in the Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters. Roy E. Ciampa is the S. Louis and Ann W. Armstrong Professor of Religion and chair of the Department of Religion at Samford University. Previously he was professor of New Testament and chair of the Division of Biblical Studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He is the author of The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2 (Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) and co-author, with Brian Rosner, of The First Letter to the Corinthians in the Pillar New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2010), as well as numerous essays and articles. Kathy Barrett Dawson is currently a teaching assistant professor at East Carolina University. Her essay, “Matthew’s Authoritative Jesus: Reading 261

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 261

5/28/19 2:18 PM

262

About the Contributors

Matthew 15 through a Deuteronomic Lens,” will be published in A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven: Essays in Honor of Richard B. Hays (Baylor University Press, forthcoming in 2019). She is co-chair of the Bible and Emotion Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and president of the Southeastern Region of the Society of Biblical Literature (2019–2020). Benjamin L. Gladd is associate professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary-Jackson. He is the author of Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearing on First Corinthians (de Gruyter, 2008) and coauthor, with Greg Beale, of Hidden but Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Divine Mystery (InterVarsity Press, 2014). Craig S. Keener is F. M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is editor of the Bulletin for Biblical Research and author of roughly one hundred academic articles and twentyfive books, including 1-2 Corinthians (Cambridge University Press, 2005); Galatians (Cambridge University Press, 2017); and The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking (Baker Academic, 2016). B. J. Oropeza is professor of biblical and religious studies at Azusa Pacific University. He founded and chaired the Intertextuality in the New Testament section (SBL) and serves on the editorial board for Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity and for Emory Studies in Early Christianity (SBL Press). Among his many publications are 1 Corinthians (NCC, Cascade Books, 2017), Exploring Second Corinthians: Death and Life, Hardship and Rivalry (SBL Press, 2016), and Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts (with Steve Moyise; Cascade Books, 2016). Brian S. Rosner is principal of Ridley College (Melbourne, Australia), where he teaches New Testament. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books, including Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (IVP, 2013), Commentary on 1 Corinthians (with Roy E. Ciampa; Pillar, Eerdmans, 2010), and Known by God: A Biblical Theology of Personal Identity (Zondervan, 2017). Christopher D. Stanley is a professor in the Department of Theology and Franciscan Studies at St. Bonaventure University in New York. He has written widely in the field of biblical studies, including three books, including Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (T. & T. Clark, 2004); three edited volumes, including Paul and Scripture:

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 262

5/28/19 2:18 PM

About the Contributors

263

Extending the Conversation (SBL Press, 2013); and numerous articles in leading international journals. J. David Stark is the Winnie and Cecil May Jr. Biblical Research Fellow at Faulkner University’s Kearley Graduate School of Theology. He is author of Sacred Texts and Paradigmatic Revolutions: The Hermeneutical Worlds of the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts and the Letter to the Romans (T. & T. Clark, 2015). Erik Waaler is president (rector) and associate professor in the New Testament at NLA University College, Norway. He has written extensively on intertextuality and recontextualization in Jewish and Christian texts from the second temple period, Indonesian theology, and Hebrew epigraphic texts from sites such as Ketef Hinnom and Khirbet Qeiyafa. His major contribution to the field of recontextualization is Shema and the Commandments in First Corinthians (Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Guy Prentiss Waters is James M. Baird, Jr. Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS. He is the author or editor of ten books, including The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), as well as numerous chapters, articles, and reviews. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Evangelical Theological Society.

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 263

5/28/19 2:18 PM

19_0468_Belleville_Book.indb 264

5/28/19 2:18 PM