The Warning-Assurance Relationship in 1 Corinthians (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe) 9783161551314, 3161551311

Table of contents :
Preface
Table of Contents
The Scholarly Context of this Study
Selected Introductory Issues in 1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
1 Corinthians 3:5-17
1 Corinthians 5:1-13
1 Corinthians 6:1-20
1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1
1 Corinthians 11:17-34
1 Corinthians 15:1-58
Conclusion – The Warnings and Assurances Stand in Tension
Implications and Further Research
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

452

Andrew J. Wilson

The Warning-Assurance Relationship in 1 Corinthians

Mohr Siebeck

Andrew J. Wilson, born 1978; MA from Cambridge, PhD from King’s College London; currently serves as Teaching Pastor at King’s Church, London.

ISBN 978-3-16-155131-4 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2017 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Graham Marsh, with thanks.

XII

Table of Contents

Preface This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was accepted for a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies by King’s College London. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my Doktorvater, Professor Eddie Adams, not just for his support in getting this published, but for the endless hours of help, encouragement, challenge, insight and friendship which led to it being written in the first place. A supervisor whose knowledge of the social world of the New Testament is as extensive as his, yet who loves the in-depth exegesis of biblical texts, is an enormous privilege, and one I have tried not to take for granted. I am very grateful to him. I am also very thankful to a number of others who have contributed, however much they were aware of it, to what follows. The team at Tyndale House in Cambridge continue to make arguably the world’s best biblical studies library available to unknown scholars for next-to-nothing, which is remarkable. David Shaw and Bobby Jamieson were both very helpful in looking things up for me when I was unable to get to the library. Dr. Simon Gathercole and Dr. Jonathan Linebaugh were not only very kind yet thorough examiners, but also greatly enhanced the project with their corrections, comments and adjustments. Jennie Pollock has worked extraordinarily hard to edit and index the manuscript for publication, and I could not have done it without her. It is of course a great privilege to have the book published in Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, for which I am deeply thankful to Professors Jörg Frey and Tobias Nicklas, and the staff at Mohr Siebeck. At a personal level, my wife Rachel has been enormously supportive and encouraging throughout the six year process, and my parents Charles and Julia Wilson have been far more interested in my progress than I deserved. Yet in some ways the person most responsible for any of this happening is my pastor, colleague and friend Graham Marsh, whose generous decision to give me both the time and the finances to complete this – on work time! – made all the difference. This book is dedicated to him, with genuine love and thanks. Eastbourne, May 2017

Andrew J. Wilson

XII

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context of this Study ............................. 1 A. The Warnings and Assurances of 1 Corinthians in Recent Scholarship ....1 B. Two Proposals: Judith Gundry Volf and B. J. Oropeza .............................8 C. The Contribution of this Study ................................................................ 11 D. The Approach of this Study ..................................................................... 14

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues in 1 Corinthians ............ 16 A. Introduction ............................................................................................. 16 B. The Question of Unity ............................................................................. 17 C. The Origin of the Problems at Corinth..................................................... 22 D. The Structure of the Letter ....................................................................... 27 E. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 30

Chapter 3: 1 Corinthians 1:1-9 ..................................................... 32 A. Exegesis ................................................................................................... 32 B. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 39

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17 ................................................... 40 A. Overview ................................................................................................. 40

X

Table of Contents

B. Wages According to Labour .................................................................... 43 C. Reward, Salvation, and Escaping through Fire ........................................ 46 D. Destruction of the Temple ....................................................................... 52 E. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 57

Chapter 5: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 ................................................... 58 A. Three Major Lines of Interpretation ........................................................ 58 B. The ‘So-Called Brother’ .......................................................................... 62 C. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 64

Chapter 6: 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 ................................................... 66 A. Overview ................................................................................................. 66 B. The Identity of the ἄδικοι in 6:9-11 ......................................................... 69 C. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 75

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 ............................................... 76 A. The Question of εἰδωλόθυτα ................................................................... 76 B. Food and Freedom in 8:1-13 .................................................................... 83 C. Paul and the Prize in 9:1-27 ..................................................................... 89 D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13 ..................................................... 96 I. The Solidarity of the Israelites and the Corinthians through Shared Spiritual Experience (10:1-4) .................................................................. 97 II. The Destruction of the Israelites through Sin (10:5-10).................... 104 III. The Warning to the Corinthians (10:11-12)..................................... 109 IV. The Reassurance (10:13) ................................................................. 114 E. Food and Freedom in 10:14-11:1 ........................................................... 117 F. Conclusion.............................................................................................. 122

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 8: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 .............................................. 123 A. Overview ............................................................................................... 123 B. Exegesis ................................................................................................. 124 C. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 131

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 ................................................ 132 A. Believing in Vain (15:1-2) ..................................................................... 132 B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain (15:3-28) ................ 138 Excursus: The Question of Universalism in 15:20-28 ........................... 143 C. Resurrection and the ‘Spiritual’ (15:35-49) ........................................... 152 D. The Death of Death (15:50-58).............................................................. 155 E. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 158

Chapter 10: Conclusion – The Warnings and Assurances Stand in Tension ..................................................................... 159 A. Summary................................................................................................ 159 B. Is There a Warning-Assurance Tension Elsewhere in Paul’s Writings? 161 C. Is the Tension Incoherent? ..................................................................... 167 I. Divine and Human Agency in Paul’s Own Life ................................. 169 II. Divine and Human Agency in Paul’s Converts................................. 174 III. The Strongest Objection to this Proposal: Redundant Warnings? ... 181 D. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 184

Chapter 11: Implications and Further Research .......................... 185 A. Summary................................................................................................ 185

XII

Table of Contents

B. Implications ........................................................................................... 185 C. Future Research ..................................................................................... 188

Bibliography.................................................................................... 190

Index of References .......................................................................... 203 Index of Modern Authors................................................................................ 217 Index of Subjects ............................................................................................. 221

Chapter 1

The Scholarly Context of this Study A. The Warnings and Assurances of 1 Corinthians in Recent Scholarship A. The Warnings and Assurances

Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians contains both multiple warnings and multiple statements of assurance. There are times when Paul seems to speak with certainty about the eschatological perseverance of Jesus-followers, and there are also times when he seems to warn believers away from eschatological destruction with great urgency.1 Both of these themes appear in Paul’s other letters, but they are far more frequent, extensive and juxtaposed in 1 Corinthians than elsewhere – for reasons we will come to in due course – and this makes 1 Corinthians the most relevant letter from which to investigate the subject. Yet the relationship between the warnings and assurances in this particular letter has not been treated adequately in the secondary literature. Most interpreters do not engage with it in any detail, and the two fullest attempts to address the material are methodologically limited when it comes to explaining the relationship between warnings and assurances in this text.2 In this present study, we will fill that lacuna in scholarship.

1 Throughout this study we will use the words ‘believers’, ‘Christians’ and ‘Jesus-followers’ interchangeably, while acknowledging the risks of distortion and/or anachronism that can sometimes be present. 2 See below on B. J. Oropeza and Judith Gundry Volf. The fullest treatment of the relationship in the secondary literature is the thoughtful paragraph on 1 Cor 9:24-27 in Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 485486: ‘But does Paul actually mean that one can fail to obtain the prize? Some would say no, but usually because of a prior theological commitment, not because of what the text itself says. While it is true that in 10:13, after the severe warnings spelled out in vv. 1-12, he once against puts his confidence in God to “keep them”, it would be sheer folly to suggest thereby that the warnings are not real. Paul keeps warning and assurance in tension. Simultaneously he exhorts and, by this and the following examples, warns the Corinthians of their imminent danger if they do not exercise “self-control” in the matter of idolatry; yet, as always (cf. on 5:8 and 6:11), he reminds them of their security in the prior activity of God, who has committed himself to them in Christ Jesus.’ Clearly, there is much more that could (and needs to) be said about this.

2

Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context

In advance of a much fuller discussion, we may summarise the data as follows. On the one hand, Paul makes a series of statements that appear to guarantee the perseverance, and consequent final salvation, of the believers at Corinth. Paul begins his letter with a striking affirmation that they will be sustained by Jesus Christ to the end, and presented blameless at the eschaton (1:8). This confidence, which is remarkable in the light of all the things Paul will rebuke the Corinthians for in this letter, is secured by two things: God’s call of the Corinthians into fellowship with his Son, and the faithfulness of God (1:9). The faithfulness of God also ensures that, when facing temptation, a way out will be provided so that none of the Corinthians will be tested beyond their ability (10:13), a statement which appears to mitigate somewhat the stern warning that precedes it (10:1-12). Confirmation that believers will inherit final salvation comes when Paul explains the resurrection, with the specific purpose of bolstering the Corinthians’ confidence in their being raised in the future: Christ has been raised already, as the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, and this guarantees that all those who are ‘of Christ’ – which Paul has repeatedly confirmed the Corinthian believers are, despite their disobedience (3:23; 6:15; 12:27) – will certainly be raised at the parousia (15:20-23). Not only so, but Paul’s affirmations that the Corinthians are temples of the Spirit, both corporately and individually (3:16; 6:19), those who profess the lordship of Jesus by the Spirit (12:3), and those who have been baptised in/by the Spirit (12:13), indicate that he envisages that they will surely inherit Christ’s final victory over death at the eschaton.3 Consequently, many argue, in line with the soteriology and the pneumatology he expresses elsewhere, Paul clearly taught in 1 Corinthians that all believers would inherit final salvation. Or did he? On the other hand, Paul says a number of things that seem to quite clearly imply, if not explicitly assert, that believers can fall away and thereby fail to inherit salvation. Even if we discount texts which may well not refer to the loss of final salvation, such as suffering loss (3:15) or having the flesh destroyed (5:5), there remain a number of passages which speak sternly about the judgment and destruction of God. If anyone destroys God’s church, then God will destroy them (3:17), language which is difficult to understand in anything less than an eschatological sense.4 Unrighteous people, including 3 Paul does not describe the Spirit in 1 Corinthians as a ‘seal’, ‘guarantee’ or ‘firstfruits’ of the eschatological inheritance, as he does at other times (2 Cor 1:22; Rom 8:23; cf. Eph 1:13-14), but his argument in 15:42-58, whereby the spiritual corresponds to the incorruptible, glorious and heavenly resurrection body, seems to be entirely congruent with what he articulates more clearly elsewhere. In favour of translating πνευματικός as ‘of the Spirit’, rather than merely ‘spiritual’, see especially Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 264-265. 4 See Ernst Käsemann, ‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament’, in his New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 67, who calls this ‘divine action on the Last Day’; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 160, for whom ‘it is difficult to escape the sense of

A. The Warnings and Assurances

3

drunkards, the sexually immoral and the idolatrous – all of which were apparently present in the Corinthian church (11:21; 6:12-20; 10:1-22 – will not inherit the kingdom (6:9-11). Brothers and sisters in the church, for whom Christ died, could be ‘destroyed’ by the so-called ‘rights’ of others in the community (8:11).5 The tragic story of the Israelites who fell in the wilderness, despite their participation in the equivalents of baptism and the Lord’s table, serves as an example for the Corinthians: if they think they stand firm, they should be careful they don’t fall, because their forefathers faced divine judgment and destruction for the exact same sins they are getting into (10:1-12). They may also face judgment for their flippancy when they share the Lord’s Supper, and some of them already have (11:27-34). It is possible that the Corinthians, should they not hold fast to the gospel as preached to them, might turn out to have believed in vain (15:2), and even that Paul himself might be disqualified from the eschatological prize (9:24-27), which in the broader context appears may well refer to final salvation.6 When these passages are considered, the possibility of believers falling away and thereby forfeiting their eschatological inheritance seems, at face value, to be a real one. When we read these warnings alongside the assurance passages, some interesting questions emerge. How is the relationship between these two sets of texts to be understood? Should one set take precedence over the other? Does one provide an interpretive key for understanding the other? Was Paul clear on the issue? Are we dealing, in the titles of the two most recent monographs to look at the subject in any depth, with ‘Paul and Perseverance’ (in which the assurances are genuine and the warnings only apparent), or ‘Paul and Apostasy’ (in which the reverse is true), or with something else altogether?7 How, in short, do we reconcile the data? No full-length investigation of the relationship between warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians has yet been conducted. However, at the broader level of Pauline (or even New Testament) theology, when the full range of commentaries, systematic-theological treatments and exegetical monographs are consulted, at least four ways of explaining the relationship between warnings and assurances in Paul can be identified.

eternal judgment in this case’; cf. Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AB (New Haven: Yale, 2008), 203: ‘the future tense of the apodosis introduces the eschatological consideration.’ 5 Throughout this study we will translate ἀδελφοί using the generic plural ‘brothers and sisters’. 6 This is controverted, obviously; see chapter seven, below. 7 Judith Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990); B. J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance and Falling Away in the Corinthian Correspondence (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000).

4

Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context

Approach 1: Assurances are conditional. The traditional Wesleyan view is that the reassurances and theological statements of security in the New Testament, including (and perhaps especially) 1 Corinthians, are conditional upon obedience, perseverance in faith, or repentance.8 From this perspective, the ‘problem’ we are addressing here is more apparent than real, because in every pronouncement of assurance, there is an implicit conditionality, even when words like ‘if’ or ‘provided’ do not appear. Thus Howard Marshall, commenting on passages like 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 and 10:13, remarks that ‘these promises are great and far-reaching, but they do not rule out the possibility that a person may rebel against God and refuse his protection. The faithfulness of God does not rule out the possibility of the faithlessness of men.’9 And of the believers’ future glorification, as expressed in Romans 8:28-30 and 1 Corinthians 15:49, he writes, ‘the continuation of this process requires a human response. Justification in Paul is always by faith, so that the completion of the whole chain of blessings is dependent upon faith.’10 Marshall’s influential study applies this method to a wide range of assurance passages in Paul, along with other New Testament writers. The difficulty with this approach, as we will see, is that many of the reassurance texts in 1 Corinthians, not to mention elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, do not contain anything that looks conditional, so these implicit ‘if’ clauses have to be read into the texts, not out of them. In fact, in the two places where he uses the πιστὸς ὁ θεός formula (1:9; 10:13), Paul’s point seems to be precisely that the faithfulness of God will ensure the Corinthians’ continuance in faith, despite their temptations towards faithlessness.11 Similarly, Paul’s pneumatology in 1 Corinthians does not look very conditional; repeatedly, he appeals to believers’ present experience of the Spirit in contexts where their obedience to God is in question (3:10-17; 6:12-20; 12:1-31), and gives no hint

8 This approach goes back at least as far as John Wesley, and is perhaps best illustrated today by I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 1995), 99-125; cf. I. H. Marshall, ‘The Problem of Apostasy in New Testament Theology’, in Marshall, Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology (London: SPCK, 1990), 306-324; Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 232. I say ‘especially’ because so many warning passages appear in 1 Corinthians, relative to the other Paulines. 9 Marshall, Kept, 107. 10 Marshall, Kept, 103. 11 So Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 67: ‘The specific way in which God will demonstrate his faithfulness to them is indicated in the previous verse, namely, he will “establish” them as “blameless”. The character of God is the solid basis of their certain hope’; cf. also Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 749.

A. The Warnings and Assurances

5

whatsoever that the Spirit (who for Paul, of course, is the ἀρραβών of the eschatological inheritance) might be withdrawn from the believer for ungodliness.12 These theological difficulties, along with the brevity of Marshall’s treatment of each text, limit the effectiveness of his explanation. Approach 2: Assurances are rhetorical. A second way of responding to the two groups of texts in 1 Corinthians is to argue that the theological statements of security are merely rhetorical. For some scholars, Paul’s announcement (for example) that God will keep the Corinthians strong to the end, and present them blameless at the eschaton because he is faithful (1:8-9), can be explained in terms of Paul’s rhetorical purpose in the exordium – to secure the goodwill of the recipients, and to mention topics, including eschatological assurance and fellowship with Christ, about which the Corinthians have misconceptions – without the need to say that Paul genuinely believed they would all persevere.13 Likewise, the similar statement in 10:13 could be understood as a rhetorical reassurance to a worried audience, rather than a statement of what Paul actually believes will happen. As such, Paul’s statements of confidence should be read rhetorically, even hyperbolically, rather than literally – and thus there are no real assurances to explain. We will consider this argument, most developed in B. J. Oropeza’s recent work, more fully below. Approach 3: Warnings do not concern true believers. Many Reformed interpreters attempt more or less the mirror-image of this second approach. Rather than diminishing the force of the assurances in the letter, some interpreters look to diminish the force of the warnings: so, it is argued, those in 1 Corinthians are not aimed at warning true Christians away from apostasy, but rather, they warn those who appear to be Christians but in fact are not. The stern admonition in 10:1-13, for example, should be read as applying to those who are actually unbelievers, but who, by their association with the church, look like they are bona fide Christians.14 Likewise, the warning about the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God in 6:9-11 is aimed at separating those who are true from those who are false. Simply put, Paul’s assurances and warnings are directed to different people. This approach, which we will engage with in detail throughout this study, struggles with several specific texts, particularly the extended warning in chapter 10. This crucial passage identifies the Corinthians with wandering Israel (10:1-11), and culminates in a reference to standing in faith as opposed to falling (10:12); Christian Wolff points out that ‘“Stehen” ist hier abgekürzt für “Stehen im Glauben” ... Den Gegensatz dazu bezeichnet πίπτειν, die 12

Marshall, Kept, 108, attempts to counter this with reference to Eph 4:30, but this is inadequate; thus Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 717: Eph 4:30 ‘accents the reality of the future, not its possible forfeiture.’ 13 Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 214-215. 14 Thus Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 120-130.

6

Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context

Abwendung von Gott und damit verbunden den Verlust des Heils.’15 Not only that, but the warning is bracketed by an appeal to the targets of the warning as ‘brothers and sisters’ (10:1) and ‘beloved’ (10:14), and concluded by an assurance that the faithful God will provide a means of escape (10:13). All of this would be somewhat strange to say if unbelievers were in view. Approach 4: Warnings do not concern salvation. A fourth approach is to see the warnings in 1 Corinthians as referring to believers, for the reasons we have just provided, but to regard the threat to which they refer not as forfeiture of final salvation, but either as a loss of reward, or as a temporal, physical judgment that the readers (and Paul) might experience in this age. This view is common with reference to 9:24-27, for example, where approach 3 above is clearly impossible; here, it is argued, Paul is talking about an eschatological and/or temporal reward for his labours in the gospel that he might lose, rather than worrying about failing to be saved at the eschaton. Advocates of this view point out that Paul conceives of it as possible to have one’s work be burned and yet still be saved (3:15), and to have one’s flesh destroyed and one’s spirit saved (5:5), as well as envisaging physical judgments, including sickness and even death, for believers who partake wrongly of the Lord’s Supper (11:2932). Consequently, it is reasoned, Paul makes a sharp distinction between final salvation, on the one hand, and eschatological commendation and/or temporal punishments, on the other. This distinction, it is argued, ought also to be applied to other warning passages in the letter, including 9:24-27, 10:1-13 and 6:9-11.16 The problem with this view is not that Paul does not make such a distinction. He clearly does distinguish between eschatological destruction, on the one hand, and other divine judgments that fall short of this, on the other – and he clearly indicates in 1 Corinthians that the latter can happen (and already is happening) to disobedient Christians (e.g. 3:13-15; 11:17-34). The problem, rather, is that there are a number of passages in the letter in which a plain reading of his words would indicate that he is thinking of the former: eschatological destruction. There are good reasons within the context of chapter 9 to question the idea that the ‘prize’ of which Paul speaks in 9:24-27 is a reward distinct

15 Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, THKNT 7 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000), 223. 16 Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 185, and especially 195: ‘The meaning of disqualification in 9:27 should probably determine the nature of falling in [chapter 10] verse 12. There it seemed unlikely that Paul feared loss of salvation … Rather, physical death and loss of blessing in this life are consistently in view. So too chapter 11 will describe how some Corinthians have become sick or have died from profaning the Lord’s Supper (v. 30), without necessarily implying they were damned.’ This general approach has also been advocated by Michael Eaton, A Theology of Encouragement (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995).

A. The Warnings and Assurances

7

from salvation, as we shall see, and both Paul’s use of the word ἀδόκιμος elsewhere, and the parallel use of ‘prize’ imagery in Philippians 3:7-14, makes it very unlikely.17 The idea that 10:1-13 is about ‘loss of reward’ founders particularly on 10:12, which is not easily taken to imply ‘lest he miss out on rewards’, not to mention the use of the wandering Israelites as a type of apostates in early Christian literature.18 The idea that 6:9-11 might refer to people who achieve eschatological salvation but simply lose their reward is, frankly, absurd; this view is not taken very seriously in the scholarly literature, since Paul’s use of the phrase ‘inherit the kingdom’ mitigates so strongly against it (1 Cor 15:50; Gal 5:21).19 Further grave difficulties with this view will emerge as we proceed. Many scholars do not attempt to explain the relationship in any coherent way. Some see Paul’s thought on the relationship between right behaviour and final salvation to be riddled with logical lacunae.20 Other interpreters appear confused by Paul’s statements; it is hard to see what Hans Conzelmann, for instance, actually means when he says the destiny of the community is ‘a certainty’, and assurance of salvation is ‘not denied’ by Paul, but simultaneously affirms the possibility of believers ‘falling’ and ‘losing the truth’.21 Many commentators simply ignore the problem altogether, given the constraints of space.22 But the two most substantial treatments of the warning passages in 1 Corinthians, at least in the last generation, have indeed sought to explain the relationship – and have done so in precisely opposite ways. It is therefore important to explain how they approach the topic, what their conclusions are, and why their limitations necessitate a fuller exegetical investigation of the material in 1 Corinthians.

17 Thus David Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 440: the readers are ‘to run as if their life depended on it. It does.’ 18 So Fee, First Corinthians, 459: ‘This can only mean that the Corinthians, too, as Israel, may fail of the eschatological prize, in this case eternal salvation’. For a brief survey of the use of the wandering Israelites as a type for apostates in the early church, covering Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 1 & 2 Clement, Barnabas and the Reliques of the Elders, see Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 200-204. 19 Thus Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 4 vols. (Zürich: Benziger, 1991-2001), 1:426, 429. For a summary of this line of approach and a response, see Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 24-29, 79-86. 20 Thus Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), e.g.184191. 21 Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 28, 168, 250. 22 E.g. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians; Garland, 1 Corinthians; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians.

8

Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context

B. Two Proposals: Judith Gundry Volf and B. J. Oropeza B. Two Proposals

Judith Gundry Volf’s monograph Paul and Perseverance was published in 1990, and aimed to establish whether, according to Paul, believers necessarily remain in salvation. Her research covers Pauline theology as a whole, rather than just 1 Corinthians, and consequently her approach involves an exegetical study of all the key texts in Paul’s letters which pertain to perseverance and falling away. Structurally, she begins in part one by studying the key passages which assure believers that they will continue in salvation, and then looks at the texts which would appear to challenge that reading of Paul: those which talk about falling away through conduct (part two) or through loss of faith (part three), and those which express concern about the final outcome of Paul’s apostolic work in the gospel (part four). She concludes in part one that Paul does believe that all true believers will persevere and inherit final salvation: ‘Paul gives clear and ample evidence of his view that Christians’ salvation is certain to reach completion.’23 She then proceeds to argue that the warnings Paul gives do not challenge this view; wrong conduct may show someone is an inauthentic Christian, or lead to divine chastisement, but it cannot jeopardise their final salvation.24 Nor can failure in faith, since although wrong belief and unbelief are inappropriate to continuity in salvation, they are not incompatible with it.25 And Paul’s concerns about the lasting fruitfulness of his apostolic labours, though they could be interpreted to indicate that some believers can fall away, are too ambiguous to overturn the clearer passages about security and certainty.26 Thus Paul, she concludes, argued that all true believers would persevere. Methodologically, however, there are at least three significant drawbacks to Gundry Volf’s study. Structurally, she has rightly been taken to task for establishing a Reformed view of Paul at the outset, based primarily on Romans and Paul’s pneumatology, and then using that view to explain why warning texts either must be directed towards inauthentic believers, or are too ‘ambiguous’ to overturn the conclusion she has reached.27 Contextually, she groups texts 23

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 82. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 157. 25 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 229. 26 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 282. 27 So James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 497, calls it ‘a rather tendentious attempt … to weaken the seriousness of Paul’s repeated warnings on this point’; Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 31-33, objects that she arbitrarily starts with texts that establish a Reformed understanding of election and predestination, and then reinterprets the warnings in that light. Noting that three of her four sections concern warnings rather than assurances, Oropeza asks rhetorically, ‘If an unconditional election that stresses individualism is rightly the starting point for perseverance in Pauline theology, why does Paul seem to write much more about the dangers of falling away?’ (31). 24

B. Two Proposals

9

together by topic rather than by epistle, and this leads not only to some oddities (such as when her sections on 1 Corinthians 10:12 and 10:13 are separated by some fifty pages), but also to a failure to hear the repetition, and even intensification, of the warnings within a particular letter. Not only that, but the breadth of her study – Pauline theology as a whole – renders her treatment of specific letters and passages much more sparse than is needed (substantially more work is needed on the problem in 1 Corinthians 8 and the intended target of 10:113), and leads to some remarkable omissions (neither Rom 8:13 nor 1 Cor 3:1617 are even cited in the book, let alone expounded). Consequently, as much as her monograph is exegetically rich and an impressive piece of theological synthesis, it simply has too many limitations of method to address the relevant material in 1 Corinthians adequately. B. J. Oropeza’s book Paul and Apostasy, which was published in 2000, is in many ways the mirror-image of Gundry Volf’s. Rather than tackling perseverance and falling away in all of Paul’s letters, Oropeza limits the focus of his study to just thirteen verses: 1 Corinthians 10:1-13. After an introductory chapter, he outlines the problem with meat sacrificed to idols in the letter (chapter two), then establishes that the exodus generation serve as types of elect believers (chapter three, on 10:1-4), and then shows how the Israelites experienced punishments which prefigure eschatological judgment (chapter four, on 10:511), before giving a chapter on the crucial final two verses, in which both a warning and a reassurance are given (chapter five, on 10:12-13). He concludes that, in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, Paul argues for ‘the reality of apostasy as a falling away of genuine believers’.28 His conclusion, then, and not just his method, is in complete contrast to that of Gundry Volf. However, the same is true of the limitations of his study. If Gundry Volf’s is limited by its breadth of focus, Oropeza’s is constrained by its narrowness of focus. In dealing in such detail with thirteen verses, Oropeza does not leave space to deal adequately with the various passages in the letter, not to mention elsewhere in Paul, that suggest Paul thought all Christians would persevere; he treats 10:13 at some length, but barely touches on 1:7-9 (and when he does so, he largely dismisses its significance for Pauline theology on the same grounds as approach #2, above), and does not engage at all with the connection between the gift of the Spirit and the certainty of future resurrection, nor with Paul’s confidence that all who are in Christ will be made alive (15:20-28, 35-58). In a subsequent and more wide-ranging volume, Jews, Gentiles and the Opponents of Paul (2012), the same weakness is apparent, with the introductory assurances given three inadequate paragraphs, and the emphatic resurrection promises of chapter 15 just two sentences.29 This obviously limits the synthetic 28

Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 228. B. J. Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and the Opponents of Paul: The Pauline Letters (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 72-73, 106. I say ‘inadequate’ of his treatment of 1:8-9 because the language 29

10

Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context

value of Oropeza’s work, since he gives very little space to integrating the various things Paul says about warnings and assurances in the letter, or articulating how it is that Paul could say both types of things at the same time.30 Not only so, but he risks reading some texts through the filter of others in the same way as Gundry Volf does, but in reverse. Instead of arguing that Paul thought all believers would persevere, as she does, and therefore that the warnings cannot refer to final salvation, Oropeza establishes that Paul was genuinely warning the Corinthian Christians about final destruction, and therefore concludes that his reassurances cannot be as reassuring as they appear: ‘There would be no reason to warn them so severely if he believed they were all going to persevere to the end anyway.’31 This, of course, is precisely the point in question, and his lack of engagement with it (and the assurance texts that it is based on) substantially reduces the effectiveness of his proposal when it comes to understanding the warnings and assurances together, despite his exegetically thorough (and, we will argue, compelling) treatment of this particular passage. We have, then, two major monographs which address the warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians in some way, but both are limited in their effectiveness by a combination of scope (in one case breadth, and in the other narrowness), and methodology. What is needed is a full-length study that, while not eschewing synthetic concerns, remains focused on one letter, and yet deals with the full range of material within it – warnings, statements of reassurance, complex statements which apparently incorporate both, and of course the context and shape of the letter that brings meaning to each of them.32 In other words, an in-depth exegetical study of the warnings and assurance passages in 1 Corinthians, with a view to explaining the relationship between them, is needed. Hence the present work. of the text is not examined; instead, Oropeza admits that these verses contain ‘salvific assurances’ which show ‘that their final salvation is in some sense secured’ (72), but argues on the basis of the warning passages that they cannot apply to every individual in the community (73). The two sentences on the assurances in chapter 15 fail entirely to wrestle with the implications of the text: ‘Paul’s inclusive language of “all” of them partaking of the resurrection (15:22-23, 28, 51) may be set in contrast to the “some”, and it rallies unity of beliefs about the resurrection and eschaton. Perhaps Paul’s language of affirming their future victory over death via the resurrection has the intention of showing them the pettiness of their present divisions’ (106). Perhaps; but it cannot for this reason be removed from the discussion! 30 He provides an excursus on Romans 8:28-39 (Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 206-210), in which he argues for the Wesleyan reading, but his exegesis is too brief, and omits too many important considerations, to overturn the standard (more Calvinist) line; for a full recent treatment, in support of the view that Paul believed that elect individuals were certain to persevere, see Robert Jewett, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 506-554. 31 Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 221. 32 I have in mind complex statements like 10:12-13 and 15:10, which appear to affirm both divine and human agency at work in the perseverance and effort of the believer.

C. The Contribution of this Study

11

C. The Contribution of this Study C. The Contribution of this Study

My thesis, in outline, is that the data can only be explained if we recognise that the warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians stand in tension with each other. I aim to establish that Paul gives signals in two apparently opposite directions: he genuinely does assure believers of their perseverance, and he genuinely does warn them away from falling, on pain of eschatological disinheritance. In that sense, this study breaks new ground: I will show that the relationship between the warnings and assurances cannot be explained satisfactorily in any of the four ways we have summarised, and that we are in fact faced with a genuine tension here. Although I do not believe it to be completely incoherent, and will attempt in chapter ten to show how we can make sense of it, it is important that the real and even paradoxical nature of the tension not be missed, explained away or apologised for. Both warnings to believers and assurances for believers are fully present in the letter – and recognising the tension is preferable to any other explanation of the relationship between them. Primarily, and most obviously, this study makes an important contribution to our exegetical understanding of 1 Corinthians, the Pauline letter in which – for a variety of reasons, including length, variety of subjects, and origin of problems – the relationship between warnings and assurances is at its most difficult. Both the warnings and the reassurances in the letter are frequent, rhetorically significant and full of theological implications, and therefore impinge on almost every section of the letter in some way or other. If we follow the (fairly representative) structural analysis of Eckhard Schnabel, for example, we find warnings, reassurances or both appearing in ten of the letter’s twelve major sections.33 Understanding the meanings of, nuances of and relationships between these passages is therefore of huge importance in interpreting the letter as a whole, and this cannot be done without a detailed exegetical study. This investigation also fits into the important scholarly discussion about how Paul conceived of the relationship between divine and human agency. Much debate in post-Sanders scholarship has homed in on the question of whether, and if so to what extent, Paul argues for a different relationship between divine and human agency than other second-temple Jewish sources. For many representing the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul, the Pauline faith/works antithesis had very little to do with divine/human agency, or related questions about Heilsgewissheit or Heilsunsicherheit, but was rather ethnically focused, since the problem with ‘works of the law’ was that they excluded Gentiles from 33

Namely, 1:1-9; 1:10-4:21; 5:1-13; 6:1-11; 6:12-20; 8:1-11:1; 11:17-34; 15:1-58; 16:124; the only sections in which warnings and reassurances like this do not appear are 7:1-40; 12:1-14:40. See Eckhard Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006), 3-5 (although this is not to endorse his structural nomenclature of ‘Konflikt’ and ‘Kompromiss’).

12

Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context

being full members of God’s people.34 In the last few years, however, a number of scholars have insisted both that Paul was interested in the question of divine and human agency, as were many Jews of his time, and that he placed a greater emphasis on divine action in salvation than many of his Jewish contemporaries.35 Others, including John Barclay in his recent work, have proposed fresh ways of seeing the relationship between the operation of God and humans, so that they no longer (for Paul) stand in competition (that is, human operation goes down as divine action goes up), but in a relationship of non-contrastive transcendence (whereby human freedom to act is enhanced, not inhibited, by increased divine agency).36 This, of course, is the sort of area upon which a detailed study of the warnings and reassurances in 1 Corinthians might be able to shed significant light: not only does the letter contain statements which appear to articulate this relationship as clearly as any (15:10, for example), but it also provides a very concrete example – namely, the question of perseverance

34 Key works here include E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), esp. 212-233, 515-518; James Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., WBC (Waco: Word, 1988), esp. lxv-lxvi, 91-93; Dunn, Theology; Kent Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment According to Deeds, SNTSMS 105 (Cambridge: CUP, 1999); N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London: SPCK, 2013), 774-1042. 35 E.g. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Simon Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); Francis Watson, ‘Constructing an Antithesis: Pauline and Other Jewish Perspectives on Divine and Human Agency’, in John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (ed.), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 99-116; J. Louis Martyn, ‘Epilogue: An Essay in Pauline Meta-Ethics’, in Barclay and Gathercole, Agency, 173-183; Jason Maston, Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul: A Comparative Study (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); Preston Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation (Downers Grove: IVP, 2013); Kyle Wells, Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart (Leiden: Brill, 2015). On Jewish interest in the relationship between human agency and outside forces (including God), see Josephus, Ant. 13.171-173; cf. the response of Maston, Divine and Human Agency, 10-18, to Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul’, in Barclay and Gathercole, Agency, 117-139. 36 So Kathryn Tanner, God and Creation in Christian Theology: Tyranny or Empowerment? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988); John Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), e.g. 516-519; Barclay, ‘Introduction’, in Barclay and Gathercole, Agency, 1-8; Maston, Divine and Human Agency.

C. The Contribution of this Study

13

in faith – of the way in which human activity (continuance in faith and obedience) and divine activity (preservation in grace and faithfulness) may be seen to interact.37 So, for example, we have famous Pauline statements like Philippians 2:1213 (‘work out your salvation ... for it is God who works in you, to will and to act’), and 1 Corinthians 15:10 (‘by the grace of God I worked harder than all of them – yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me’), which express the relationship between divine enabling and human effort in extremely dense form.38 Quite rightly, they have engaged scholarly interest for the way they each express an antinomy, or a ‘peculiar dialectic’, with alternating affirmations: work (human) because it is God who works (divine), by the grace of God (divine) I worked (human) yet not I but God’s grace (divine), and so on.39 What we have in the warnings and assurances of 1 Corinthians, though, among other things, is an expression of what this dialectic looks like in pastoral practice, from Paul’s point of view. As such, though our view of the relationship between the warnings and assurances will undoubtedly be informed by Paul’s dense statements elsewhere, we may rightly expect the illumination to flow the other way as well. The present work will also be relevant to discussions about the ‘apocalyptic’ Paul, stretching from Ernst Käsemann, through J. C. Beker, to Louis Martyn, Martin de Boer, Beverly Gaventa and more radical interpreters like Douglas Campbell. In the more thoroughgoing ‘apocalyptic’ readings, substantial stress is laid on the unconditionality of God’s action in Christ: God has acted unilaterally in the gospel, in a way that both creates a thoroughly new world order, and implies, in some texts if not all, a complete lack of entry requirements. Campbell’s provocative thesis presents a Barthian Paul responding to a range of more or less Brunnerian opponents, and makes what he calls ‘contractualism’ the chief villain of the piece; Paul, in Campbell’s reading, is opposed to any conditions that might be added to what has happened in the Christ-event, and even in a number of more measured apocalyptic readings, the stress on unconditionality leans in a decidedly universalist direction.40 The problem for 37 An intriguing example of this is David Ciocchi’s essay on ability in 10:13; see David Ciocchi, ‘Understanding our Ability to Endure Temptation: A Theological Watershed’, in JETS 35/4 (December 1992), 463-479. 38 Other examples include Rom 15:15-19; Gal 2:19-21; 2 Cor 9:8-10. See also the contrasting approaches to Gal 5:16-26 of J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 524-536, and Troels EngbergPedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), especially 157-177. 39 See especially John Barclay, ‘By the Grace of God I am what I am: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul’, in Barclay and Gathercole, Agency, 140-157, at 151-153. 40 Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); cf. J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); Martinus de Boer, The Defeat of

14

Chapter 1: The Scholarly Context

some such approaches, of course, is that many Pauline warnings contain conditions: if you do not behave (or believe) in the following way, you will not inherit the kingdom. As a result, the temptation is to privilege the assurance passages, and either relativise the warnings or (in one, admittedly rather eccentric, example) put them in the mouths of hypothetical interlocutors.41 When close exegesis of the relevant texts takes place, and post-apocalyptic (!) commentaries are written, both approaches may be complicated by the data, and require reframing as a result. The study of Pauline warnings, and their relationship to Pauline assurances, is therefore likely to be a significant battleground in the ongoing debate. In short, if my thesis is correct, and there is a tension in Paul’s letter between warnings and assurance passages that has not been adequately recognised, then it has substantial implications for Pauline scholarship.

D. The Approach of this Study D. The Approach of this Study

Methodologically, this study will be almost entirely exegetical. A full-length exegetical study is vital on this issue, in large part because very little serious exegesis has been done on the relationship between warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians, and even the monographs which engage with it in any detail, as we have already seen, have been limited significantly by their breadth (or narrowness) of focus. The work of Gundry Volf, and even more so Howard Marshall, engage with so many different documents that many important contextual and exegetical concerns are neglected; Oropeza’s book, though it goes into great detail on one section, is so focused, and spends so much time incorporating socio-anthropological approaches, that the exegesis of the rest of the letter is rendered impossible. What is needed is a careful, detailed, exegesis of all of the relevant passages in the letter, dealing both with the passages that sound like Paul is expressing certainty that believers will persevere, and with those that sound like he fears they will fail ethically or apostasize. Other insights – sociological, rhetorical, historical, even philosophical – will need to be brought in to illuminate the texts, of course. But the answers to our questions are to be found, ultimately, in the text itself. Consequently, an introduction to the letter is needed, covering questions of unity, structure, the origin of the problems at Corinth, and the socio-economic mix of the congregation, with a view to setting the scene for what follows (chapter two). We will then work through the letter in order, studying every Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); Martyn, Galatians. 41 Campbell, Deliverance, parts three and four, on (most of) Romans 2; see now the critique of N. T. Wright, Paul and his Recent Interpreters (London: SPCK, 2015), 187-218.

D. The Approach of this Study

15

passage in which a word of warning or assurance appears.42 In the introduction to the letter, we will see that Paul affirms that the Corinthians will persevere as a result of the faithfulness of God (chapter three), although his first major section, concerning the factions and divisions in the church, concerns strong warnings that threaten the divisive not only with a loss distinct from salvation, but also with eschatological destruction (chapter four). We will then consider Paul’s stern responses to the issues of sexual immorality and litigiousness (chapters five and six), and examine what he thought about those who persist in unrighteous behaviour. A detailed study of the lengthy section on idol food (chapter seven) will demonstrate both that Paul sought to warn the Corinthians away from eschatological destruction, and that he pursued Christ in such a way as to make sure he did not face disinheritance himself. Then, after a brief discussion of the warnings about the Lord’s Supper (chapter eight), we will look at the logic of Paul’s argument about the resurrection, and show that despite his concern for the Corinthians, he nonetheless expresses certainty that they will inherit the future kingdom (chapter nine). With our exegesis complete, and the warning-assurance tension in 1 Corinthians thus established, we will then attempt to explain it, look at how it corresponds with the relationship between warnings and assurances elsewhere in his writings, consider the implications this has for the way he conceives of divine grace and human agency, and explore the grounds for his somewhat paradoxical view of continuity in salvation (chapter ten). We will conclude by considering the implications of our study for related areas of research (chapter eleven).

42 A deliberate exception is 16:22; though undoubtedly a warning, its brevity and epigrammatic form make it a special case, and we have treated it briefly in chapter ten. For an excellent treatment of 16:22-24, see Anders Eriksson, ‘Fear of Eternal Damnation: Pathos Appeal in 1 Corinthians 15 and 16’, in Thomas Olbricht and Jerry Sumney, Paul and Pathos (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 115-126; cf. also Matthias Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 455.

Chapter 2

Selected Introductory Issues in 1 Corinthians A. Introduction A. Introduction

Before turning to our analysis of the data, several preliminary questions need to be discussed. Serious studies and commentaries on the letter will typically address all sorts of issues – textual, historical, sociological, linguistic, theological, geographical, archaeological, rhetorical, and so on – at the outset, rather than leaving them until they are prompted by the exegesis. In the context of this study, a number of these issues are of only marginal relevance, and can be treated incidentally as they arise. Three questions, however, require a bit more consideration upfront, since they directly relate to the texts and themes we will be investigating. Firstly, there is the question of the unity of the letter. This is significant here for two reasons: one, because the way this study is framed assumes a coherent epistle with both warnings and assurances passages within it, and two, because much the most extended (and forceful) warning in 1 Corinthians is found in chapters 8-10, which is the section to which the greatest challenges to unity have been brought. If these chapters represent fragments of various letters, then both our exegesis of the text, and our explanation of the warning passages, will be affected. We will therefore mount a brief defence of the unity of the epistle. Secondly, we need to consider the origin of the problems at Corinth, since the warning passages are written to confront them, and the assurance passages are given in spite of them. The number and nature of Paul’s warnings in this letter, in contrast to the rest of his corpus (other than Galatians, in which the issues in question are far less varied), are such that an explanation is necessary. Why did this particular church have so many practices and beliefs that were out of step with Paul? Does a common factor stand behind several, or indeed all, of them? How does that affect our view of the warnings and, to a lesser degree, the assurances? Thirdly, and somewhat more briefly, there is the question of the letter’s structure. This is partly needed to avoid begging the question: as soon as we divide the text up into sections, and study them individually, we are already making implicit decisions about the way the letter is laid out, so it is probably sensible to be clear about our view from the start. But it also affects the way

B. The Question of Unity

17

we read the warning passages; scholars who read the letter as primarily targeting division will read the targets of the warnings differently to those who see most of it as addressing immorality and idolatry, and those who see it as a smorgasbord of answers to unrelated questions will read it differently again. A short discussion of structure is thus required.

B. The Question of Unity B. The Question of Unity

The unity of 1 Corinthians has been frequently challenged, and a bewildering array of different partition theories presented, with all focusing in some way on chapters 8-10. Jean Héring argued that 9:1-10:22 was originally in a different letter from the rest of the section; Johannes Weiss and Walter Schmithals thought only 10:1-22 was separate; Gerhard Sellin broke out 9:24-10:22; Robert Jewett does as well, but as part of a much more complex overall scheme; and Khiok-khng Yeo, as part of an overall proposal that identifies six letters in all, puts 9:24-10:22 in one letter, 9:1-18 in another, and the remaining sections in another.1 For Yeo, whose monograph on 1 Corinthians 8-10 is one of the most substantial defences of the partition theory to be written, there are six main reasons to question the unity of 1 Corinthians, and in particular chapters 8-10. First, he observes a change in rhetorical style from deliberative (chapter 8) to judicial defence (chapter 9) and back to deliberative (chapter 10), which is implausible within the same discourse. Second, he argues that chapter 9 is an ἀπολογία for Paul’s apostolic ministry which has nothing to do with idol food, and therefore would be a digression which would not fit well with the argument of chapters 8-10. Third, he argues that the evidence of multiple letters from Paul to the Corinthians ‘necessitate[s] the postulation of redaction theory.’ Fourth, the presence of ‘abrupt transitions’ in 1 Corinthians imply that fragments have been stitched together (in these chapters, he cites 8:13-9:1, 9:2324, 9:27-10:1 and 10:22-23 as examples). Fifth, he finds a contradiction between the positive reaction to division represented in 11:19 and the negative reaction to it we found in 1:10-14, which indicates more than one letter overall. And sixth, he sees a ‘discrepancy’ between the prohibitions in 10:1-22 and the

1

Jean Héring, La Première Épître de Saint Paul Aux Corinthiens (Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1949), 10-12; Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), xi-xliii; Walter Schmithals, ‘Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung’, ZNW 64 (1973), 263-288; Gerhard Sellin, ‘Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes’, ANRW 2:25:4 (1987), 2964-2986; Robert Jewett, ‘The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School’, JAARSup 46 (1978), 398-444; Khiok-khng Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic, BibInt 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 78-83.

18

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues

‘seemingly compromising attitude’ of 8:1-13 and 10:23-31 on the issue of idol worship.2 The work of Willis, Mitchell, Schrage and others undermines the first objection. Despite a long and distinguished list of scholars who have seen chapter 9 as a judicial defence, there are substantial problems with this view, not least the fact that the exact charge against which Paul is (supposedly) judicially defending himself is so elusive.3 If the charge is that Paul did not accept money from the Corinthians, it does not fit with the way he defends himself, for he neither denies such a charge nor protests its legality (and instead, protests the legality of taking, rather than refusing, money).4 If the charge is that he is not an apostle, then the structure of the argument is thoroughly inadequate, for he assumes that he is in verses 1-2 and then moves on to argue for something else; his apostleship is the foundation, not the conclusion, of his argument.5 If the charge is that he is inconsistent, then he does not issue a judicial defence at all, but an admission.6 Not only that, but it is almost inconceivable for a piece of forensic rhetoric to be without either a narratio or a peroratio, yet chapter 9 apparently contains neither.7 The claim that Paul engages in forensic rhetoric in chapter 9, and so the chapter is probably part of a different letter to chapters 8 and 10, is therefore unlikely. It is preferable to see Paul as presenting himself as a παράδειγμα, rather than as offering an ἀπολογία for his apostolic ministry, as part of his larger deliberative-rhetorical discourse.8 On two occasions in this letter Paul explicitly urges the Corinthians to imitate him (4:16; 11:1), and numerous times presents himself as an example for the Corinthians to follow (1:13-17; 2:1-5; 3:5-10; 4:115; 7:7-8; 8:13; 10:23-11:1; 14:19; and so on), in line with the use of παραδείγματα in ancient deliberative rhetoric. It would therefore not be surprising to find him doing so with respect to the key issue at stake in these chapters, namely the sacrifice of rights and freedoms for the sake of the gospel; in

2

Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 78-83. Thus Wendell Willis, ‘An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Cor 9’, JSNT 24 (1985), 33-48; Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 243-250; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:211-215, 277-286. 4 9:4-13; so C. F. G. Heinrici, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 269. 5 So Weiss, 1 Korinther, 232: vv. 1-2 ‘sind eine Einleitung, in der zunächst einmal festgestellt wird, dass Paul das Recht hat, sich Apostel zu nennen. Der Apostolat selber kann also nicht Gegenstand der ἀπολογία sein.’ 6 9:19-22. 7 Mitchell, Rhetoric, 245, contra Rudolf Pesch, Paulus ringt um die Lebensform der Kirche: Vier Briefe an die Gemeinde Gottes in Korinth (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1986), 224-229. The argument that 9:24-27 functions as a peroratio is particularly specious. 8 So Wolff, 1 Korinther, 184-186; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:211-215; and many others. 3

B. The Question of Unity

19

some ways, it would be surprising not to.9 On Yeo’s reading, 8:13 belongs with 8:1-12 but not with 9:1-18, even though it introduces Paul as an example of sacrificing freedoms for the sake of serving others in the gospel (a theme which permeates chapter 9, especially verses 12, 15 and 18). But surely it makes more sense, with Mitchell and Thiselton, to see 8:13 as the link between 8:1-12 and the extended exemplum of chapter 9 which backs up his main argument.10 This also fits better both with the rhetorical form of the chapter as we have it, and with the (otherwise damaging) absence of a clear charge to which Paul is responding. The apparent fly in the ointment for this view is the word ἀπολογία in 9:3. For many interpreters, this settles the question of Paul’s intention, and casts the whole chapter as a defence of Paul’s apostolic ministry.11 However, in the light of the challenges to the forensic view we have noted already, it seems likely that Paul is not using the word technically, to refer to a legal defence, but rhetorically, to explain why he is about to use himself as the example for them to follow.12 This would explain why the point his argument in chapter 9 establishes most clearly, rather than his apostleship, his consistency or the legality of his refusing money, is his ἐξουσία and his ἐλευθερία. If the whole chapter, or even 9:1-18, were an ἀπολογία in the forensic sense, this would be difficult to account for.13 All of this means that there is no need to postulate partition theories on the basis of the transition from chapters 8 to 9, either at a rhetorical or thematic level. If Paul is using himself as an exemplum of someone who has freedoms and rights but has renounced them for the sake of the gospel, rather than presenting a forensic defence, both the rhetorical and thematic disjunctions claimed by Yeo disappear altogether. Paul has freedoms and rights (9:1, 12), particularly with respect to food (9:4, 13), sex (9:5, 25?) and finance (9:6-14), 9 On παραδείγματα in deliberative rhetoric, and its implications for 1 Corinthians, see Mitchell, Rhetoric, 39-60. 10 Mitchell, Rhetoric, 243-250. 11 For example C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Black, 1971), 200-202; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 151-153; Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, tr. J. H. Schütz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 44-54; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 433-439. 12 This practice was known in ancient rhetoric; see Isoc. Or. 15:8: ‘It occurred to me that if I were to adopt the fiction of a trial and of a suit brought against me … while I, for my part, cast my speech in the form of a defence [ἀπολογία] in court, in this way it would be possible to discuss to the best advantage all the points which I wanted to make.’ Perhaps even more significant is the fact that this is also how both Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 4:15) and Chrysostom (Homilies in 1 Corinthians 21.1) read Paul’s intention here; cf. also Weiss, 1 Korinther, 233; Mitchell, Rhetoric, 246-247. 13 As several advocates of this view concede; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 433-443, speaks of it as ‘unexpected’, ‘unusual argumentation’ for which ‘one is scarcely prepared’, and ‘hardly what we might expect in [an ἀπολογία].’

20

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues

but he does not make use of these rights because of the gospel (9:15-23), in order to serve others: Jews, Gentiles and the weak (9:19-22). This is an example for the Corinthians, who, though they have rights (8:9), need to be prepared to lay down those rights because of the gospel, particularly with respect to food (8:1-8), sex (6:12-20) and finance (6:1-8), in order to serve each other: Jews, Gentiles and the weak (8:9-12; 10:23-33). To argue that chapter 9 is such a digression from chapter 8 that it represents a separate epistolary fragment, as Yeo does, is therefore wholly unnecessary.14 Yeo’s third, fourth and fifth reasons to support partition theories can be dealt with more quickly. The fact that Paul and the Corinthians had corresponded previously is not in dispute, but this hardly ‘necessitates the postulation of redaction theory’; it simply shows that Paul wrote letters which we no longer have, a point rendered certain by (at least) 1 Corinthians 5:9.15 Nor do the transitions Yeo identifies suggest that fragments of different letters have been joined together. We have already noted the connection between 8:13 and 9:1; 9:27 and 10:1 are joined together by γάρ, as the thought moves from a positive example (Paul) to a negative one (Israel); and the transitions at 9:23-24 (οὐκ οἴδατε) and 10:22-23 (quoting a Corinthian slogan) are both common Pauline devices which, when they occur elsewhere, do not indicate signs of displacement. And it is far from clear that Paul is speaking positively of divisions in 11:19; as many commentators have argued, the most likely explanation of this sentence is that Paul is speaking, as he often does in this letter, with loaded irony.16 ‘I hear there are divisions among you when you come together – and I can almost believe it, since presumably you have to have factions so the dignified ones among you can be identified!’ Even for those scholars who disagree with this analysis, it certainly does not constitute a contradiction with chapters

14 This does not mean that chapter 9 is not a digression (pace Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 367), only that it is a rhetorical digression (egressio), which fits within the genre and retains the same essential subject, as opposed to a digression in the modern sense of going off the topic. 15 Cf. also 2 Cor 2:4, although see the fascinating reconstruction (with arguments for the unity of 2 Corinthians as well) of Douglas Campbell, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 61-121. 16 So Garland, 1 Corinthians, 539: ‘It is far more likely that he expresses bitter irony about these factions rather than affirming their eschatological necessity’; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 433: ‘It seems preferable to say that Paul is indicating ironically the reason for his dismay at the dissensions …’; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 544: ‘Paul is most likely referring ironically to a view that was reported to him as being held by some Corinthians’. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 848, 858-860, identifies ‘dissensions are unavoidable’ as a Corinthian slogan, which although a distinct interpretation, leads to a similar conclusion about Paul’s evaluation of their αἵρεσις in v19.

B. The Question of Unity

21

1-4.17 Far from it: factionalism is roundly condemned throughout the letter as we have it, not least in 11:17-22.18 The final reason to argue for a partition theory, and the one with the most support, is that 10:1-22 presents idol food as idolatrous, and that this stands in irreconcilable tension with the apparent compromise of 8:1-13 and 10:23-33. Yet even here, matters are not so straightforward, for at least three sources of ‘tension’ are at work in these chapters. The first is the internal, theological tension between love and service on the one hand, and knowledge, rights and freedom on the other, as displayed particularly in chapter 9.19 So, in places where Paul appears to be ‘contradicting’ himself, it is frequently because he is deliberately contrasting two ways of living: shall I make use of my freedoms, or love my brother? Will you exercise your right to eat meat and cause your brother to stumble, or will you renounce your right out of love for them? The second is the social, contextual difference between eating idol food in pagan temples (8:10; 10:20-22) and eating it when bought in the meat market (10:25) or in a private home (10:27). Thus, as we shall argue below in more detail, the differences between 10:1-22 and 10:23-33 are best explained by their addressing two related but separate issues, rather than by their being from two separate letter fragments.20 The third occurs when Paul uses a different type of argument to make the same essential point, as he does in 8:1-13 and 10:1-22. In both sections, he strongly argues against eating idol food in an idol’s temple – but whereas in the former his approach is based on renouncing rights out of love for brothers and sisters (backed up, as we have seen, by the extended exemplum in chapter 9), in the latter his argument addresses the idolatrous nature of pagan worship. In this sense, to find a ‘contradiction’ between them is tantamount to finding a ‘contradiction’ between 15:12-19 and 15:29-34, since they use different arguments for believing in the future resurrection. When considered carefully, this is no basis for positing partition theories either. On balance, 8:1-11:1 exhibits a thematic, theological and rhetorical unity which makes partition theories unnecessary.21 But one final point should be

17 The main alternative view is that the approval is eschatological, and that Paul affirms the split between believers and unbelievers; so Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 194; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 596-597; Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 248; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 3:21-22. 18 Thus, rightly, Mitchell, Rhetoric, 263-266. 19 So Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 611. 20 Thus Fee, 1 Corinthians, 394-401. 21 See also J. C. Brunt, ‘Rejected, Ignored or Misunderstood? The Fate of Paul’s Approach to the Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity’, NTS 31 (1985), 113124; Helmut Merklein, ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes’, ZNW 75 (1984), 153-183.

22

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues

made about the various arrangements of letter frames one finds in the secondary literature, which is that the lack of agreement on which letter frame appears where, and which transitions indicate fragments, cast huge doubt on the entire enterprise. Even if only the handful of partition theorists already quoted are considered (Héring, Weiss, Schmithals, Sellin, Jewett, Bornkamm and Yeo), there is not a single transition on which they all agree, let alone a letter frame, and only two of the seven identify the same set of frames as each other. In Yeo’s own work, there are internal contradictions (he describes 6:12-13 as an abrupt transition which suggests fragments joined together, but keeps 6:12-20 together in his redactional view; he says the same of the transition from 9:27 to 10:1, claiming this indicates that chapters 8-10 do not come from a single letter, but subsequently says that 9:24-10:22 constitutes one frame; and so on), which mar his presentation significantly.22 All in all, the complexities of the various proposals, their lack of consensus, and the various indicators of unity in chapters 8-10, all make it preferable to treat the whole section as a single discourse. If chapters 8-10 are seen as a unity, then the case for seeing 1 Corinthians as a composite letter is largely undermined.23 The different sources of information Paul appears to have are certainly insufficient to require a partition theory. The apparent tension between 1:10-12 and 11:18-19 is far better explained by a deliberate irony in the latter case than by a subsequently collated series of letter fragments.24 When we add to these considerations the possibility, raised by Martin de Boer, that Paul dictated the letter on two occasions, and the strong arguments for rhetorical and thematic unity presented by Margaret Mitchell, Wolfgang Schrage and Raymond Collins, it seems best to take the letter as a single composition, albeit one marked by occasionally abrupt changes of content.25 We have therefore taken it as such in what follows.

C. The Origin of the Problems at Corinth C. The Origin of the Problems at Corinth

The origin of the problems at Corinth (if we should even see them as problems!) has been understood in a variety of ways over the last two hundred years, as New Testament scholarship has developed.26 The story has often been told

22

Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 75-82. On what follows, see Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:63-71. 24 See below on chapter 11. 25 Martinus de Boer, ‘The Composition of 1 Corinthians’, NTS 40 (1994), 229-245; Mitchell, Rhetoric, especially 186-192; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:63-71; Raymond Collins, First Corinthians (Collegeville: Glazier/Liturgical Press, 1999), 10-14. 26 Among those who would see Paul, rather than the Corinthians, as primarily responsible for the disagreements between them, perhaps the most notable are J. C. Hurd, The Origin of 23

C. The Origin of the Problems at Corinth

23

– Baur’s view of a Petrine-Pauline split in early Christianity, the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, Schmithals and the proto-Gnostic thesis, the search for parallels in Greco-Roman philosophy including Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cynicism and Hellenistic Judaism, the view of Thiselton and Fee that an overrealised eschatology is behind many of the problems, and so on – and does not need detailed exposition here.27 What is needed, rather, is a brief defence of the view taken in this study, namely, that the Corinthian church was characterised by a range of behaviours and ideas – philosophical, cultic, sexual and societal – which were common to the city and the society in which they lived, and that the problems Paul is addressing stem from the fact that, on becoming Jesusfollowers, they did not always live and think as the radically different people Paul believed they were. It is the polyvalent world of Roman Corinth, and the patterns of thought, behaviour and worship which characterised it, which provides the most compelling explanation for the problems Paul perceived in the church, rather than any one philosophical influence. The variety of philosophical backgrounds proposed in scholarship over the last two centuries is, in fact, a powerful argument in favour of this approach, since like the wise men of Hindustan, most of them engage with certain parts of the letter, but not others. Even if we imagine that the vast majority of the congregation were not philosophically literate, and operated with everyday, street-level assumptions about what was real, good and beautiful, we might still find hints in the text that Paul is incorporating challenges to Stoicism (chapters 4 and 9), Cynicism (chapters 4 and 7) and Epicureanism (chapters 6 and 15), 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1983), especially 289-295; from a very different angle, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians’, NTS 33 (1987), 386-403; Antoinette Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). In what follows we shall refer to them as problems, partly because the reconstructions behind these mirror-readings are so tendentious, but mainly because that is clearly how Paul saw them. 27 Key works here include F. C. Baur, ‘Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom’, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831), 61-206; Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971); Terence Paige, ‘Stoicism, ἐλευθερία and Community at Corinth’, in M. J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (ed.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 180-193; Graham Tomlin, ‘Christians and Epicureans in 1 Corinthians’, JSNT 68 (1997), 51-72; F. Gerald Downing, Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches: Cynics and Christian Origins II (London: Routledge, 1998), 85-127; Richard Horsley, ‘Gnosis in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 8:1-6’, NTS 27 (1981), 32-51; Anthony Thiselton, ‘Realized Eschatology at Corinth’, NTS 24 (1978), 510-526; Fee, 1 Corinthians; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians. An excellent summary of these developments is given in David Horrell and Edward Adams, ‘The Scholarly Quest for Paul’s Church at Corinth: A Critical Survey’, in Edward Adams and David Horrell (ed.), Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 1-43.

24

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues

among other things, into his epistle.28 Yet none of them is sufficient to account for the full range of issues Paul raises, nor even the range of slogans which the Corinthians seem to have used, and this indicates that Paul is tackling several different perspectives, rather than just one.29 The concept of ‘over-realised eschatology’, likewise, fails to explain too many passages to serve as an adequate explanation of the problem at Corinth, and has come under increasing criticism for distorting even the texts most cited in its favour.30 Rather than regarding one philosophical backdrop as prompting all of the issues in the letter, then, we would do better to assume that the Corinthian church was characterised by the same smorgasbord of Greco-Roman ideas that characterised the city they lived in.31 Yet it is at the level of practical living, rather than philosophical musing, that Paul’s challenge comes most strongly in the letter. Consequently, though (like in many ancient cities) we may assume a variety of philosophical influences were present in Corinth, it is not primarily the ideas, but the behaviours evident in the church which suggest their problems stemmed from their backgrounds as ordinary pagans in Roman Corinth.32 All of the problems Paul finds in the church – sectarian allegiance to particular leaders, admiration for sophistry, an acceptance of sexual immorality, participation in idolatrous meals, social stratification, drunkenness and greed, a preference for ecstatic spiritual experience, and of course the denial of the bodily resurrection – were, to some degree or other, normal parts of everyday Corinthian life.33 If a group of cosmopolitan Jesus-followers were to combine their Christian profession with an 28

See e.g. Paige, ‘Stoicism, ἐλευθερία and Community’; Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: CUP, 1995); Tomlin, ‘Christians and Epicureans’. Cf. also Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 72, who speaks of such ‘philosophical commonplaces’ in Roman Corinth. On the social background of the congregation, see below. 29 It is hard to see all of the probable ‘slogans’ (1:12; 6:12-13; 7:1; 8:1, 4; 10:23) as either Stoic, Cynic or Epicurean in origin. 30 See especially John Barclay, ‘Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity’, JSNT 47 (1992), 49-74; see also David Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5-4:5 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 216-218; Roy Ciampa, ‘Revisiting the Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7:1’, JSNT 31 (2009), 325-338. Interestingly, Thiselton’s more recent commentary advances this view more cautiously, alongside the view advocated here (1 Corinthians, 40-41). 31 So, rightly, Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 15: ‘Ideas of Jewish and Greek origin (popular philosophy), such as could be picked up on the streets, traditional views of Greek religion, products of the mysteries (initiations, ecstasies) – all these are present and cannot easily be separated.’ 32 The word ‘pagans’ here is descriptive, not pejorative; cf. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 246-278. 33 Cf. Richard Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 71: the Corinthians ‘are uncritically perpetuating the norms and values of the pagan culture around

C. The Origin of the Problems at Corinth

25

assortment of behaviours that matched those of their pagan neighbours, and then a Jewish Christian like Paul was to hear about it (whether from them, others or both), one imagines something like 1 Corinthians would be the result.34 Lyle Vander Broek is right: ‘the Corinthians were simply trying to be Christians with a minimal amount of social and theological disturbance.’35 This still leaves the question of why we find all of these problems in this particular letter, in contrast to the other Paulines (and a number of other early Christian letters), in which the blurring of the lines between pagan pasts and Christian presents do not seem to be such an issue.36 Why, we might wonder, if such practices were so common in the Corinthian church, did they not prove so intractable elsewhere? They may have done, of course; it just happens that we have some letters and not others, and if we were to discover a letter from Paul to the church at Athens, we might find similar subject matter. That said, we do not, and the apparent differences in behaviour between the church at Corinth and the other Pauline churches have prompted scholars to propose explanations. A promising approach begins from the observation that the Corinthians, much more so than the other Pauline churches we know of, remained in close contact with their pagan neighbours, and they seem to have experienced far less social dislocation as a result of becoming Christians than (say) the Thessalonians or Galatians.37 There is debate over the way we should reconstruct the social background of the church, as we shall see, but on most reconstructions the church includes a number of people with financial means, including Gaius, Crispus, Stephanus and Erastus (whether or not the latter became an aedile), which indicates a degree of social acceptance.38 The irony of 4:10 would be hard to understand if the Corinthians were, like Paul, despised within

them’; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 13: ‘their behavior was swayed by culturally ingrained habits from their pagan past and by values instilled by a popularized secular ethics [sic].’ 34 So Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 27-28, and throughout. 35 Lyle Vander Broek, Breaking Barriers: The Possibilities of Christian Community in a Lonely World (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2002), 28. 36 The obvious exceptions are the letters of Revelation 2-3. 37 Thus Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:42: ‘Zudem blieben auch nach einer Bekehrung die Kontakte zur heidnischen Umwelt wie etwa in Mischehen (7:12-16), am Arbeitsplatz (vgl. 4:12), auf Märkten (10:25), bei Einladungen (vgl. 10:27) und anderswo ein Einfallstor für mancherlei soziale, weltanschauliche, religiöse und andere Beeinflussungen.’ On the contrast between Corinth and Thessalonica, see Barclay, ‘Thessalonica and Corinth’; on Thessalonians, see Todd Still, Conflict and Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbours (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); on Galatians, see now John Anthony Dunne, ‘Suffering in Vain: A Study of the Interpretation of ΠΑΣΧΩ in Galatians 3:4’, JSNT 36 (2013), 3-16. 38 See below. On what follows, see Barclay, ‘Thessalonica and Corinth’; Theissen, Social Setting, 69-119; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:39-47.

26

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues

the wider society.39 Some were prepared to use the lawcourts (6:1-8), which would probably not have been true if they were being ostracised or persecuted for being Christians. Some were eating in pagan temples (8:10), and using the macellum freely (10:25). Some were married to unbelievers (7:12-16). Some had ‘dealings’ with the world, which may well indicate commercial relationships (7:31). Some were being invited to eat with those who were not Jesusfollowers (10:27). Church gatherings would, from time to time, be attended by outsiders and unbelievers (14:23-25). In addition to all this, there is Paul’s apparent concern that the Corinthians were unduly influenced by worldly wisdom (1:17-25), that they were acting just like other men (3:4), and that the boundaries between believer and unbeliever were not being taken seriously enough, both with regard to sexual conduct (5:1-13) and idol food (10:14-22).40 All of this points to a fairly harmonious relationship between the church and the city, which helps significantly when it comes to identifying the source of the problems Paul perceived. We may be able to go further. According to the account in Acts, the establishment of the church in Corinth was not marked by anything like the same upheaval and persecution that accompanied Paul’s mission in Macedonia. Rather than being thrown in jail (Acts 16:16-24) or evacuated due to mob pressure (17:1-15), we are told that Paul remained at Corinth peacefully for eighteen months, that the only attempt to stop him failed, and that the synagogue ruler himself was converted (18:1-17), all of which coheres well with the picture we have from his letters.41 For whatever reason – local factors, the nature and status of the early converts, a change in missionary strategy, or something unknown to us – it seems that Paul’s encountered less opposition in his Corinthian mission than he did elsewhere. 39

So, rightly, Barclay, ‘Thessalonica and Corinth’; contra Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:343. Cf. Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 84-110. On the relationship between boundaries and Paul’s κόσμος language, see Edward Adams, Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 85-103, especially 102: ‘The Corinthians’ broad acceptance of the view of the world encoded by κόσμος, would have encouraged and legitimated their interaction with and participation in the larger society. The most acculturated members of the church would have seen the whole κόσμος (embracing the whole social order) as worthy of positive engagement ... and would have viewed integration into the κόσμος as a highly laudable endeavour ... They would have sought to mirror in their group norms and intra-group relations the norms and values of the dominant culture.’ See also the classic study of Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo (London: Routledge, 1978). 41 This is true not just of the names (Aquila, Prisca, Crispus), but also of the general picture of a peaceful period: Paul lists his sufferings several times in the Corinthian letters, but never says any of them occurred in Corinth (1 Cor 4:9-13 is unspecified; 15:30-32 is at Ephesus; 2 Cor 1:8-11 is in Asia; 6:3-10 is unspecified; 11:23-33 refers to a number of incidents, including one in Damascus). 40

D. The Structure of the Letter

27

When we bring these three strands together – the Corinthians’ strong but not necessarily eschatological pneumatology, the relative social harmony between those in the church and their pagan neighbours, and the relatively positive way in which, according to Acts, Paul’s initial mission was received in the city at large – we have something approaching an explanation of the problems Paul encountered at Corinth. In contrast to his mission in several other areas, Paul’s Corinthian mission met with relative success in the first instance: his message was well received, his stay was lengthy, and although most of his converts were not ‘wise, powerful or of noble birth’ (1:26), a handful were of some influence, and the nascent church was able to continue living among the pagans around them with minimal social dislocation. But as a result of this, pagan habits of thinking and living – with respect to leadership, sex, litigation, idolatry, dress, eating, ecstatic religious experience and death – increasingly infiltrated and influenced the church.42 Whether or not this affected the entire community, certain groups within the church were thinking and behaving in ways that looked indistinguishable from the pagan city they lived in, and unrecognisable as followers of Jesus. An initial (and possibly ambiguous) letter from Paul, warning the Corinthians not to keep company with sexual immoral people (5:9), was either disregarded or misunderstood, and their written response to him, delivered by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (16:15-17), alongside at least one troubling oral report (1:11), generated sufficient concern to prompt a more comprehensive response, including a full Christian statement of the bodily resurrection. The result was the letter we now call 1 Corinthians.

D. The Structure of the Letter D. The Structure of the Letter

In many ways, identifying the structure of 1 Corinthians, once it is agreed that we are dealing with a united composition (see above), is fairly straightforward. There is a clear and relatively typical epistolary opening (1:1-9) and closing (16:1-24). The units in between are separated thematically, with most transitions made extremely obvious, either by a reference to an oral report, a reference to the Corinthians’ letter, or an abrupt change in topic; the result is that there is near unanimous agreement on the major subsections of the epistle (1:10/18-4:21; 5:1-13; 6:1-11; 6:12-20; 7:1-40; 8:1-11:1; 11:2-16; 11:17-34; 12:1-14:40; 15:1-58).43 Scholarly discussion over the letter’s structure has thus 42 I leave open the question of whether this began after Paul left Corinth (thus Winter, After Paul Left Corinth), or whether it was always a feature of the Corinthian church; what matters is that the problems existed when Paul wrote this letter. 43 See the commentaries. A standard grouping of these subsections is given in Peter ArztGrabner, 1 Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 7-8: Zu Nachrichten der Leute der Chloe (1:10-4:21), Zu einem Gerücht (5:1-6:20), Zu Fragen der Gemeinde (7:1-

28

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues

focused in on two main areas: the debate over the unity of the epistle, which we have already discussed, and the presence (or not) of a larger structure, driven by a larger theme that preoccupies Paul, which binds these subsections together. Three approaches in particular require brief comment here. Probably the most common division of the letter is according to the source of Paul’s information: first come the sections he writes in response to oral reports (1:10-6:20), and second those he writes in response to the Corinthians’ letter to him (7:1-15:58).44 This view is based on the fact that in the first two sections, Paul explicitly states that the content is in response to things he has heard (1:11; 5:1), and in 7:1 he explains that he is responding to things they have written, a pattern that many interpreters see repeated every time Paul begins a new section with περὶ δὲ (7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Five subsections, however, fall outside this neat categorisation, and at least one of them looks at face value to undermine it. The section on litigation (6:1-11) gives no hint of arising from an oral report; neither does the section on visiting prostitutes (6:12-20), which appears to include Corinthian ‘slogans’ (6:12-13), a consideration that might make their originating in a letter more likely. On the other hand, neither 11:2-16 nor 11:17-34 indicate that they respond to a written query, and the latter (11:18) indicates that it comes from the same oral report that prompted chapters 1-4. The section on the resurrection, likewise, gives no indication of responding to a letter, and hints in the opposite direction (15:12, 35). Even the use of περὶ δὲ need not indicate a transition from one written question to another, merely from one topic to another. Consequently, the neat oral/written division that appears in so many commentaries is in need of refinement, or even abandonment. The most comprehensive attempt to subsume the entire letter under one main theme is that of Margaret Mitchell, followed in most details by Ben Witherington. For Mitchell, 1 Corinthians is a unified work of deliberative rhetoric, the purpose of which is to convince the Corinthian church to become reunified.45 Employing a rhetorical and compositional approach, she argues that 1:10 is the thesis statement of the letter, 1:11-17 gives the statement of facts, and 1:1815:57 comprises four proofs (1:18-4:21 in response to factionalism, 5:1-11:1 about outside defilement, 11:2-14:40 about corporate gatherings, and 15:1-57

14:40), Zum Problem der Auferstehung der Toten (15:1-58). Minor deviations from this layout are argued for by Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, who conclude the first major section at 4:17 rather than 4:21, and by Witherington, Conflict and Community, who regards 16:1-12 as a distinct argument. 44 Thus, representatively, Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 28-29; Fee, 1 Corinthians, viii-xi (Fee claims [9] that ‘most commentators’ close the argument of chapters 1-4 at 3:23, but provides no examples); Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 29-30; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, vii-x (who has chapter 15 as a separate section). 45 Mitchell, Rhetoric, 1.

D. The Structure of the Letter

29

regarding the resurrection as the final goal of all believers). Her chief contention, and her most controversial one, is that all four of these major sections have church unity as their fundamental concern – but while this claim is relatively easy to substantiate for two of them (1:18-4:21 and 11:2-14:40), it is much harder for the other two, in which (though disunity is apparently still a problem) other ethical and doctrinal concerns predominate. Though most scholars have been influenced by her approach, few have followed it completely, partly because Paul’s primary purpose is increasingly being understood in terms of social and cultural accommodation rather than ecclesial unity, as we have seen, and partly because it risks subordinating content to form, particularly in the cases of chapters 5, 7 and 15 (the latter particularly so).46 A more recent attempt to find an overarching structure to the various subsections in the letter, and one which gives more precedence to the erosion of boundaries between the church and the city, is that of Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner.47 They find four major sections – 1:10-4:17, 4:18-7:40, 8:1-14:40 and 15:1-58 – with the first and last ones, uncontroversially, addressing factionalism and the resurrection. They then see the central two sections as comprising two parts each: a negative treatment (4:18-6:20 on fleeing sexual immorality, and 8:1-11:1 on fleeing idolatry), followed by a positive treatment (7:1-40 on glorifying God with the body, and 11:2-14:40 on glorifying God in worship). In this way, they link the structure of the central chapters to the two main vices which first century Jews, and Paul in particular, most associated with pagan degradation, namely sexual immorality and idolatry.48 Thus, they conclude, ‘purity issues are of greater concern to him than the issue of communal harmony.’49 Admittedly, Ciampa and Rosner’s structure requires some ingenious adaptation in order to incorporate 6:1-8, ostensibly about litigation, into a section about sexual immorality.50 It also aligns 4:18-21, which interpreters almost 46

The summary of Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 41-52 is helpful; he remarks, ‘Paul uses the expected conventions and tools of the day when they serve, and do not conflict with, his purpose, but the subject matter always takes priority ove the form, as Pogoloff convincingly demonstrates’ (48f, referring to Stephen Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992]). 47 Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 21-25. 48 Note their prominence in the vice lists of 1 Cor 5:10-11; 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Col 3:5; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rev 22:15; cf. Sib. Or. 3:35-39, 46, 741-743. See also Victor Paul Furnish, The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 51; Peder Borgen, Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 245: ‘These two vices are central in Jewish characterisations of the pagan way of life.’ 49 Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 21-22. 50 They do this by connecting 6:1-8 to greed, the third great vice of pagan life, and pointing out that Paul’s previous letter also addressed these three topics, according to 5:9-10; see Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 24-25.

30

Chapter 2: Selected Introductory Issues

unanimously regard as the conclusion to the argument about factionalism, with the three chapters that follow it.51 Nonetheless, it has two strengths relative to the two proposals we have already mentioned. Firstly, rather than bringing all the issues in the letter under one heading, or leaving them as an unsorted list of responses to oral and written reports, it reflects the fact that Paul’s chief concerns in the letter are with factionalism, immorality, idolatry and resurrection-denial, and effectively allocates a section to each. Secondly, it pays due attention to some textual markers which are often overlooked: the parallel commands to ‘flee sexual immorality’ (6:18) and ‘flee idolatry’ (10:14); the parallel exhortations to ‘glorify God with your body’ (6:20) and ‘do all to the glory of God’ (10:31) which closely follow them; the references, in the ‘positive treatments’, back to sexual immorality (7:2) and idolatry (12:2); and the important citations of Deuteronomy in Paul’s exhortations (5:13; 10:1-13). As such, it merits serious consideration. In what follows, we will adopt a slightly adapted version of Ciampa and Rosner’s structural analysis, retaining the commonly accepted subsections:52 Introduction: Salutation and Thanksgiving (1:1-9) I. Divisions and the Cross (1:10-4:21) II. Flee Sexual Immorality And Glorify God With Your Body (5:1-7:40) a. Incest and Approval (5:1-13) b. Litigation and Fraud (6:1-11) c. Prostitution and Immorality (6:12-20) d. Marriage and Celibacy (7:1-40) III. Flee Idolatry And Glorify God With Your Worship (8:1-14:40) a. Food and Idols (8:1-11:1) b. Men and Women (11:2-16) c. Communion and Abuses (11:17-34) d. Spirituals and Order (12:1-14:40) IV. The Resurrection of the Body (15:1-58) Conclusion: Exhortations and Greetings (16:1-24)

E. Conclusion E. Conclusion

We will therefore treat 1 Corinthians as a unified letter, covering a wide range of particular issues, but addressing four key areas in particular: divisions, im-

51

Although, as they point out, this alignment is also hinted at by Garland, 1 Corinthians, 151, yet without being incorporated into his structural analysis. 52 At the same time, we need to acknowledge that Paul may well have simply been responding to issues as they occurred to him, and as such may not have structured the letter especially carefully.

E. Conclusion

31

morality, idolatry and the resurrection. These topics are unlikely to share a single specific source, whether theological, philosophical or social; more likely, they had a variety of origins in the pagan city around them, including extended families, trading partners, friends, patron-client relationships, and the more intangible (but no less real) cultural and philosophical milieu of Roman Corinth. Socially, the church appears to have contained individuals of varying levels of influence, wealth and status, although evidence for elite members is very thin. What we can say, however, is that the boundaries between the church and the city seem to have been low – maritally, socially, commercially – and that this led to a number of the things which concerned Paul, and which he aimed to correct in this letter. With this in mind, we now turn to our main task: analysing the relationship between warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians.

Chapter 3

1 Corinthians 1:1-9 In order to explore the relationship between warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians, we begin at the beginning. The first statement of assurance in the letter, in fact, appears in just the second sentence – and at an exegetical level, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is both sincerely meant and unconditional.

A. Exegesis A. Exegesis

As is Paul’s custom, he begins his letter with a salutation (verses 1-3), and then moves straight into thanksgiving (4-9), expressing gratitude to God for the grace the Corinthians have received, their enrichment in everything, their spiritual gifts and their eager anticipation of the revelation of Jesus. Having listed several things for which he is thankful, Paul concludes his thanksgiving with what, at face value, appears to be an emphatic statement of assurance: God ‘will confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his son Jesus Christ our Lord.’ As many interpreters have noted, this is a remarkable statement, given what we know of the rest of the letter, at three levels. It is remarkable that Paul expresses such gratitude for, and confidence in the future blamelessness of, a church whose ethical conduct and theology he is about to rebuke on so many counts: divisiveness, carnality, pride, sexual immorality, litigiousness, flirtation with idolatry, shamefulness and drunkenness in worship, lovelessness, disorder and denial of the future resurrection, to name just ten obvious examples. It is striking that Paul gives thanks for some of the very things (enrichment in knowledge, the abundance of spiritual gifts and the anticipation of the day of the Lord) that, through the Corinthians’ misunderstanding or misuse, have been causing problems in the community.1 And it is even more surprising to hear Paul announcing his confidence in their preservation in the light of the warnings that he will issue to them throughout the epistle; we will obviously give a 1

On enrichment, speech and knowledge, see 4:8-21; 8:1-13; 13:1-13; on spiritual gifts, see 12:1-14:40; on anticipating the day of the Lord, see 15:1-58; cf. also the passages where an overrealised eschatology may have contributed to the problem at hand (e.g. 4:8; 7:1).

A. Exegesis

33

lot of attention to this issue throughout this study, but for the moment it is enough to say that Paul does not sound anything like so confident in their future blamelessness in chapter 10, for example. Any reading of 1:4-9 needs to account for these apparently surprising features. Almost all commentators agree that these features are not particularly surprising when the literary form of the passage is taken into account. But there is diversity in exactly how this literary form is to be understood. On the one hand, there are those who see the strong influence of Greco-Roman rhetoric in 1 Corinthians, such that 1:4-9 is to be understood primarily as an exordium.2 The main purpose of the exordium was to secure the goodwill of the recipients, whether in a straightforward way (the principium) or in a more subtle form (the almost onomatopoeic insinuatio), and there are a number of scholars who have read Paul’s introduction here with this as the principal literary context. When read this way, it is possible to see Paul’s announcement of confidence in verse 8 as a rhetorical device to secure favourable attention from his readers and listeners, and to reflect not a certainty that they will be presented blameless on the day of Jesus, but a hope that they will.3 If this interpretation is correct, then obviously 1:8-9 does not conflict at all with subsequent warnings in the letter. On the other hand, there is the obvious literary background of Greco-Roman letter writing, whereby epistles typically began with a salutation followed by a thanksgiving, a form which Paul then adapted to incorporate distinctively Christian material. This is clearly not incompatible with the previous view, but there is nonetheless a difference of emphasis: the purpose of 1:4-9, against this background, would not primarily be to secure goodwill but to thank God, and this would make any use of ironic, flattering or rhetorically exaggerated statements somewhat inappropriate.4 It is therefore significant that, when compared with each other, Paul’s introductory thanksgivings (which appear in all of his letters except Galatians), although they achieve the main function of the exordium, go well beyond it – and they incorporate elements of teaching, exhortation, pastoral concern and epistolary introduction, all of which are contained within a framework of thanksgiving to God, who remains the focal point in each instance.5 Scholars have also pointed out the risks of an over-rigid application of formal rhetorical categories to Paul’s letters; rhetorical analysis is a

2

So Mitchell, Rhetoric, 194-197; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 39-48, 87-90; cf. Anders Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1998); Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:110-111. 3 So Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 179, 214-215. 4 As pointed out by Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 61; contra e.g. E.-B. Allo, Saint Paul: Première Épitre aux Corinthiens, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 4. 5 The classic study here is Peter O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1977); cf. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 84-87; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 33-35.

34

Chapter 3: 1 Corinthians 1:1-9

good servant of exegesis, but a bad master.6 Obviously, none of this removes the important parallels with the exordium, but it does relativise somewhat Oropeza’s suggestion that Paul only talks with such confidence about election, assurance and God’s faithfulness because of his rhetorical intention to win over his audience.7 For talk with confidence he does. God, he writes, βεβαιώσει ὑμᾶς ἕως τέλους ἀνεγκλήτους ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.8 Given how many reasons there are to doubt the Corinthians’ perseverance in faith and right living, this is an extremely strong statement, and only makes sense if Paul’s confidence is grounded not on the character of the Corinthians, but on the character of God (which, as Paul shows in verse 9, it is). Just as the testimony about Christ was confirmed (ἐβεβαιώθη) in the Corinthians, so God will confirm (βεβαιώσει) them to the end, keeping them strong. This verbal repetition makes it very unlikely that we can soften Paul’s words to indicate a mere ‘hope’ here, as Oropeza suggests; the confirmation of the readers is analogous to the confirmation of the gospel in their lives.9 The commercial usage of βέβαιος, also, indicates a legal guarantee (which also fits with the parallel passage in 2 Corinthians 1:21, where eschatological security is in view).10 And the idea that Paul is using a ‘wish-prayer’ here, with the true meaning being ‘may he sustain you to the end’, also founders on grammatical grounds.11 There are no grounds here to soften the force of Paul’s assurance. God, Paul continues, will confirm the Corinthians ἕως τέλους, a phrase which should be understood primarily in temporal terms (‘to the end’), rather 6

E.g. Steve Walton, ‘What has Aristotle to do with Paul? Rhetorical Criticism and 1 Thessalonians’, TynBul 46.2 (1995), 229-50; cf. Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 40. 7 Contra Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 214; cf. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia. 8 1:8. That the referent of the pronoun ὃς is likely to be God, rather than Christ, is indicated by three things: the fact that the other passive verbs in 1:4-9 have God as the subject, the implication of 1:9 that God is responsible for the Corinthians’ eschatological security, and the parallel with 2 Corinthians 1:21, in which God is clearly the subject of βεβαιόω; so Weiss, 1 Korinther, 10; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 28; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 41-42; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 133; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 66. Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:121, thinks this cannot be determined with certainty; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 101, agrees, but concludes that it does not particularly matter. 9 Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 179, says that Paul ‘hopes that the Corinthians would be blameless at Christ’s coming’, but this flies in the face of the language; see e.g. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 28: ‘not a wish but a certainty’; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 133: ‘[God] will not permit what has been begun to come to naught or be undone’; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 42; cf. Wolff, 1Korinther, 22-23. 10 On βέβαιος and cognates, see Heinrich Schlier, ’βέβαιος’ in Gerhard Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:600-603. 11 Thus Fee, 1 Corinthians, 42; Fee points out that to see verse 8 as a wish-prayer also undermines the genuineness of the thanksgiving.

A. Exegesis

35

than adverbially (‘completely’); the correspondence with ‘the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ is decisive.12 Paul frequently concludes his thanksgivings, and transitions into the main body of the letter, with eschatology, and he does so here with a strong note of assurance.13 God, he is confident, will confirm his people until the eschaton.14 Not only will he confirm them to the end, however, but he will also present them as ἀνέγκλητοι ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (‘blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’). It is the forensic nature of this pronouncement that makes the attempts to lessen Paul’s confidence here, either by downgrading certainty to hope (with Oropeza), or by arguing that God’s faithfulness does not rule out human faithlessness of men’ (with Marshall), unconvincing.15 Witherington’s exegesis of this phrase is especially puzzling: he believes the Corinthians will be confirmed between the return of Christ and the final day (‘when Christ returns he will confirm them to the end of time so that they will be seen as irreproachable on that day, the day of judgment’), which seems strange, and then turns Paul’s confident announcement of future blamelessness into a question (‘God is faithful ... but the question is whether the Corinthians will likewise be found faithful’), which pushes in the opposite direction to the text itself.16 For Paul, the blamelessness of the Corinthian believers on the day of Christ has already been secured, which is why he is able to speak so confidently about their future in spite of the many shortcomings they are currently displaying. Three considerations point to a forensic reading here. The first is the eschatological context provided by the reference to the ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Language about ‘the day of the Lord’, which Paul takes from various Old Testament texts and frequently applies to the return of Jesus, is inescapably bound up with God, in Christ, acting as judge.17 The day of the Lord Jesus Christ, for Paul, is a day on which verdicts are disclosed: of salvation (1 Cor 5:5) or destruction (1 Thess 5:2-3), of eternal life or

12 So P. von der Osten-Sacken, ’Gottes Treue bis zur Parusie: Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu 1 Kor. 1:7b-9’, ZNW 68 (1977), 176-199; cp. Adolf Schlatter, Die Korintherbriefe ausgelegt für Bibelleser (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1950), 5; O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings, 129, believes both senses are intended. 13 Osten-Sacken, ‘Gottes Treue’; cf. Phil 1:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Thess 1:6-10. 14 On the pervasiveness of the eschatological theme throughout the letter, right up to 16:22, see e.g. Helmut Merklein, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 3 vols. (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992-2005), 1:91. 15 See Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 179; Marshall, Kept, 107, with reference to several texts including 1 Cor 1:8-9. 16 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 89. 17 See, for example, Isa 13:6-9; Ezek 30:3; Joel 2:1; Amos 5:18-20; Zeph 1:7-18; Mal 4:1-6. For Paul’s usage, see Rom 2:5, 16; 13:11-12; 1 Cor 1:8; 3:13; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess 5:2-4; 2 Thess 1:10; 2:2-3. See too Larry J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).

36

Chapter 3: 1 Corinthians 1:1-9

wrath and fury (Rom 2:5-8), and here, of blamelessness. This eschatological context, of a final day on which wrongs are put right and verdicts over people’s lives are revealed, indicates that Paul is moving in the same world of thought as he does when he speaks of justification by faith (see below), and that he believes it is possible to know in the present what the future verdict will be.18 Because of the Christ-event, the ‘great and dreadful day of the Lord’ spoken of by Joel and Amos has become a day of vindication and joy, and this is a cause for profound thanksgiving to God. The second is the word ἀνέγκλητος, which has the sense of being blameless, unimpeachable and guiltless.19 Again, Paul uses clearly legal language to emphasise the fact that the Corinthian believers will be found irreproachable at the last judgment; semantically, ἀνέγκλητος belongs alongside words like ‘accusation’ and ‘declarative verdict’, and a number of commentators use language like ‘free from any charge’ to communicate the forensic sense of the word.20 There are all sorts of problems that Paul sees in the Corinthian church, but at the outset of his letter, he gives thanks to God that the final unimpeachability of those whom God has ‘called’ (ἐκλήθητε, a possible word play with ἀνέγκλητοι) is secure.21 As Schnabel puts it, ‘so kommt es Paulus hier in erster Linie darauf an, die Gewissheit zu markieren, dass der Richter der Welt am “Tag unseres Herrn Jesus Christus” seine Zusage einlöst, die Jesusbekenner 18 That the eschatology points to a forensic dimension is emphasised by e.g. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 39; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 28; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 78; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:122-123. See especially the remarks of Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 102: the day of judgment ‘is forensic and personal: a public declaration of the verdict unimpeachable, i.e. of justification by grace … Justification is an anticipation in advance of the verdict pronounced on the day of the Lord, in the faith-understanding that God keeps them firm and free from any charge up to and on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ For a response to Douglas Campbell’s extended critique of forensic justification, see R. Barry Matlock, ‘Zeal for Paul but Not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War on “Justification Theory”’, JSNT 34 (2011), 115-149; Stephen Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 87-94. 19 Cf. Col 1:22; 1 Tim 3:10; Tit 1:6, 7; and the interesting passage in P. Oxy 2.281.12, where an abandoned wife says she is ἀνέγκλητος. 20 J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. (New York: UBS, 1988-1989), 1.438; cf. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 101-102 (although his criticism of Fee, 1 Corinthians, 41-45, for blending the declarative verdict with moral considerations is unfair; Fee is as clear as Thiselton on the declarative verdict, and simply points out, as we have above, how striking this verdict is in the light of the Corinthians’ moral laxity). See also Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester: IVP, 1976), 37: ‘Blameless signifies “unimpeachable”: no charge can be laid against those whom Christ guarantees.’ 21 So Erich Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975), 86: ‘die Gefahr des Abgleitens in das Gericht wird ja durch den θεὸς βεβαιῶν gebannt werden’; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 133: ‘Paul is certain that the Christians of Corinth will appear blameless at the time of Christ’s parousia.’

A. Exegesis

37

festzumachen.’22 They may need rebuking now, but on the day of the Lord Jesus, they will be found free from accusation.23 The third is the similarity between this clause and various statements Paul makes about justification in his letters.24 Caution is needed here. Some commentators jump straight from Paul’s announcement of the future blamelessness of believers to a full-blown statement of the imputed righteousness of Christ, importing ideas that are not found in the text, however true (or not) to Paul’s theology they may otherwise be.25 On the other hand, we should not ignore the clear parallel between this passage and Romans 8:30-33, in which, as here, those who have been called (καλέω) by God cannot be charged or impeached (ἐγκαλέω) at the eschaton, as a result of the declarative verdict of God over their lives.26 In fact, though devoid of the language Paul uses so explicitly in Romans, 1 Corinthians 1:8-9 contains the major elements of his theology of justification by grace, in which the eschatological verdict is anticipated in the present time, on the basis of God’s free gift in Jesus.27 Taken together, these considerations show why so many major modern commentators see in these verses something amounting to a guarantee of eschatological security.28 And this guarantee is grounded, not in the obedience of the 22

Schnabel, 1 Korinther, 76-77. So Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 67: ‘That the Corinthians would be blameless at the Great Assize suggests that they would not be found guilty of having major faults such as sexual immorality, greed, or idolatry, the errors that Paul is intent on correcting throughout the letter.’ 24 Thus Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 39: ‘In describing the Christian’s calm and joyful expectation of the coming Judge Paul is stating the doctrine of justification by faith without the use of the technical terms he employs elsewhere.’ 25 E.g. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 42: ἀνέγκλητος ‘carries the sense of their being guiltless (with reference to the law) when appearing before God at the final judgment because Christ’s righteousness has been given to them’; see, similarly, Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 78. This, surely, is to overinterpret the word significantly; cf. 1 Tim 3:10; Tit 1:6, 7. 26 Cf. Stephen Chester, Conversion at Corinth: Perspectives on Conversion in Paul’s Theology and the Corinthian Church (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 77-90. 27 Cf. Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:122-123; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 102, who remarks that ‘the very clarity of this theme in Romans has tended to distract attention from its prominence in our epistle.’ 28 So, inter alia, Weiss, 1 Korinther, 11: ‘die Gewähr der Vollendung’; F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 31: ‘God will confirm and sustain till the end, and since that is so, their life also will be a good life’; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 39; William Orr and James Walther, 1 Corinthians (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 145-146: ‘here he states unconditionally that they will be blameless in the final evaluation ... human faithlessness cannot cancel out the faithfulness of God’; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 28; Morris, 1 Corinthians, 37; Fascher, 1 Korinther, 86; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 42-43; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:122-123; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 101-103; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 35; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 133; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 66-67; and others cited in all of these. 23

38

Chapter 3: 1 Corinthians 1:1-9

Corinthians, nor in the persuasiveness of their apostle, but in the faithfulness of God: πιστὸς ὁ θεός, δί οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. If eschatological blamelessness rested ultimately on the perseverance and ethical purity of the Corinthians, one imagines, Paul would have little ground for confidence – but behind the variable faithfulness of the Corinthians stands the certain and inviolable faithfulness of the God who called them into fellowship with his Son. It is this that means he is able to speak with such surety. That this is what Paul intends to establish with his emphatic πιστὸς ὁ θεός, however, is questioned by Oropeza, following Howard Marshall. For Oropeza, ‘although Paul wishes to encourage his readers that God’s grace and divine assistance are always available to them, he did not intend πιστὸς ὁ θεός to be understood as some guarantee for final individual perseverance.’29 Marshall, in his systematic study of perseverance and falling away, similarly argued that ‘the faithfulness of God does not rule out the possibility of the faithlessness of men.’30 For these writers, Paul wishes to encourage his readers, but not to present final salvation as certain. Taken alone, of course, the phrase πιστὸς ὁ θεός is not equivalent to ‘final salvation is certain’. Sometimes Paul uses the phrase in the context of blamelessness at the eschaton, sometimes with reference to being preserved from testing, and sometimes merely as a reflection on the unwavering character of a God who keeps his promises.31 But in this context, following as it does the statement that the Corinthians will be presented blameless at the return of Christ, it does appear that Paul writes πιστὸς ὁ θεός because he wants to justify his certainty that they will be kept strong until the eschaton. As such, Paul’s declaration of God’s faithfulness is not (to use Oropeza’s language) a ‘guarantee for final individual perseverance’, but rather, the reason why the guarantee of final perseverance he has just given them (in 1:8) can be trusted. And that reason is that its guarantor is not the Corinthians, nor even Paul, but God. So when Marshall says that the faithfulness of God does not rule out the possibility of the faithlessness of men, we may agree with him, but suggest that this is not really the point at issue in this text. Of course humans can be faithless: Paul knows that as well as anyone, and does not see it as conflicting with God’s faithfulness at all.32 His point here, however, is not that God’s faithfulness ‘rules out’ the faithlessness of humans, but that it triumphs in spite of it, 29

Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 214. Marshall¸ Kept, 107. 31 1 Cor 1:8-9; 1 Thess 5:23-24 (blamelessness); 1 Cor 10:13; 2 Thess 3:3 (testing); 2 Cor 1:18 (promises). In the LXX, the phrase is used in a covenant context (Deut 7:9; 32:4; Ps 145:13 [145:13]; Isa 49:7); cf. P. D. Gardner, The Gifts of God and the Authentication of a Christian: An Exegetical Study of 1 Cor 8-11:1 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1994), 154. 32 Rom 3:3-4; cf. 2 Tim 2:13. 30

B. Conclusion

39

and brings about the eschatological preservation and even blamelessness of all those whom God has called into fellowship with his Son, even though (as the rest of the letter will show) they are at times faithless, foolish and sinful.33 This again, for what it is worth, is how most modern commentators interpret the phrase.34

B. Conclusion B. Conclusion

We began this study by identifying four ways of explaining the relationship between warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians that emerge in the secondary literature, and claiming that none of them does justice to the exegetical material. In this chapter, we have seen one example of why that is true for two of these four approaches; attempts to read the assurances as entirely conditional (with Marshall) or entirely rhetorical (with Oropeza) do not account satisfactorily for the details of the text. Understanding the connection between this and what Paul writes subsequently, which is the chief focus of this study, requires a closer look at the first major section of the letter, especially chapter 3.

33 The phrase δι’ οὗ ἐκλήθητε (‘by whom you were called’) is seen by some as further confirmation of the certainty of final salvation, both because of the way Paul uses ‘call’ and ‘choose’ interchangeably later in the chapter (1:26-27), and because of the similarities with Rom 8:28-30, where those who are called are also glorified; see Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 67-68. 34 So Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 39-40; Walther, 1 Corinthians, 145-146; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 29; Morris, 1 Corinthians, 37-38; Fascher, 1 Korinther, 86; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 43-45; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:122-123; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 103-105; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 134; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 67-68. Cf. also the rather Barthian comment of G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Perseverance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 222: ‘His faithfulness does not depend on our faithfulness, nor on anything that is or will be present in us. There is rather a “nevertheless”, an “in spite of.”’

Chapter 4

1 Corinthians 3:5-17 If the opening paragraph of the epistle indicates an assurance, even a guarantee, of eschatological security, then the first major section (1:10-4:21), especially the argument of 3:5-17, paints a very different picture. It is here, in the gradually escalating warnings of chapter 3, that we get the first indication that believers need to heed warnings if they are not to face judgment. As such, attempts to explain the warning-assurance relationship in 1 Corinthians that involve downplaying the warnings run into exegetical difficulties with this section of the epistle, especially verses 16-17.

A. Overview A. Overview

The purpose of the wider section is expressed immediately: ‘that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you’ (1:10).1 As we have seen, the Christian community was experiencing divisions and quarrels internally, as different factions identified with particular leaders over and against others, as well as disagreements with Paul himself.2 This two-sided problem gives rise to

1 It is possible that this sentence is the propositio of the letter as a whole, as argued by Mitchell, Rhetoric, and Witherington, Conflict and Community, but on balance it is more likely to refer more specifically to the first major section (1:10-4:21), and to reflect the standard way of using παρακαλῶ clauses; see e.g. Carl Bjerkelund, παρακαλῶ: Form, Funktion und Sinn der παρακαλῶ Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967); Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 113-114; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 41. Either way, its role as identifying the main aim of 1:10-4:21 is clear. 2 See 1:10-17; 2:1-5; 4:1-21; 9:1-23. For a thorough summary of the issues, the history of research and a balanced proposal, see Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 111-133; cf. though James Prothro, ‘Who is “of Christ”? A Grammatical and Theological Reconsideration of 1 Cor 1:12’, NTS 60 (2014), 250-265. See also the much briefer summary of Garland, 1 Corinthians, 42: ‘Several factors contributed to a party-minded spirit: social stratification, personal patronage, philosopher/student loyalty, and party loyalties fostered by urban alienation’; cf. Bruce Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (Cambridge: CUP, 1997).

A. Overview

41

a lengthy response from Paul, which moves quickly from the underlying problem, expressed in social and political terms (1:10-17), to the overarching solution, expressed in theological terms (1:18-3:4): the cross of Christ.3 It is the cross, and its sheer foolishness in the world of the first century, that undermines the proud claims to ‘wisdom’ that have infected the Corinthian church and the factions within it (1:18-25). That the cross undermines worldly wisdom, the admiration of which is responsible for so much Corinthian factionalism, is further demonstrated by the make-up of the Corinthian church, comprised as it was of those who were foolish in worldly terms (1:26-31), and by the way Paul preached his saving message in the first place, without ‘wisdom’ but with the Spirit and with power (2:1-5). When properly understood by those who are genuinely spiritual (πνευματικός), of course, it turns out that the cross of Christ truly is the wisdom of God (2:6-16).4 But the divisions, power struggles and jealousy within the Corinthian church indicate that the believers there, though they would regard themselves as mature and spiritual, are actually behaving like infants, in a fleshly and human way (3:1-4). His mention of himself and Apollos in verse 4 thus serves to transition the argument, from one about the cross and true wisdom (1:18-3:4) to one that addresses divisions in the church more directly, particularly their identification with different leaders (3:5-4:21). It is this next section that is most relevant to our current investigation, and will therefore be the main focus of this chapter. In 3:5-17, Paul uses three metaphors to describe the church vis-à-vis its leaders – as a field with the apostles as fellow workers (3:5-9), as a building with Paul as an expert builder (3:1015), and as a holy temple of God’s Spirit (3:16-17) – with a view to debunking their distorted perception of leadership. Leaders like Apollos and Paul himself, he explains, are fellow workers, not rivals, and in the grand scheme of things are nothing but servants, farm hands who plant seeds and water them; it is God who owns the farm, employs the workers and gives the growth (3:5-9). Paul laid the foundation, and other subsequent leaders in the church may build further upon it, but the foundation is Jesus Christ, and the building itself belongs to God (3:10-15). The third picture doesn’t mention leaders at all: the church is simply God’s temple, and the place where his Spirit lives (3:16-17). Consequently, the Corinthians’ divisive allegiances to human leaders are, to put it mildly, missing the point. Rather than the Corinthians being ‘of Paul’ or ‘of

3 On the political language in 1:10-17 and its significance for understanding the problem being addressed, see especially L. L. Welborn, Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthians Epistles (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997); cf. Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:138-139; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 115-118. 4 On Paul’s use of πνευματικός in this letter, and its significance for early Christian identity formation, see John Barclay, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 205-215.

42

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

Apollos’, it is instead the case that as servants of God, Paul, Apollos and Cephas are of them, along with everything else God has made – and that they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (3:18-23). Boasting in individual leaders, to the extent of factionalism within the community, as opposed to boasting in Christ is thus shown up as absurd. As an explanation of Paul’s purpose in chapter 3, this is relatively uncontroversial. The more debatable aspect of the passage, and the important thing for us to consider here, is the nature and referent of Paul’s warnings, which gradually build in intensity through the three metaphors. Alongside his desire to downplay the importance of individual Christian leaders (particularly Apollos and Paul himself) in the establishment of God’s church, Paul has another purpose in this section: that of warning the Corinthians, particularly but not exclusively their leaders, against doing anything which might jeopardise the Corinthian church, which is fundamentally a field owned by God, a building founded on Christ, and a dwelling-place of the divine Spirit. So he escalates his imagery as the passage develops. In the field metaphor, the consequence of wise or foolish labour is simply pay in accordance with the work done (3:8); μισθός appears to be fairly neutral here, with no explicit note of warning. In the building image, however, Paul speaks rather more strongly. Each builder’s work will be tested by fire on the eschatological Day, and the results will be either the survival of the work, in which case the builder will receive a μισθός, or its burning up, in which case they will experience loss, and the notoriously controversial salvation ‘through fire’ (3:14-15). And then, in the temple picture, Paul speaks more strongly still: the one who destroys the church will, quite simply, be destroyed (φθείρω) by God (3:16-17). This is about as clear a warning as we are likely to find. To demonstrate this from the text, we need to consider three main questions. (1) What does Paul mean by the phrase ἕκαστος δὲ τὸν ἴδιον μισθὸν λήμψεται κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον κόπον in 3:8? This statement could, conceivably, mean anything ranging from the very specific (‘apostles will enjoy the fruits of their achievements in the gospel’), through to the totally all-encompassing (‘all humans will be judged by God according to their deeds at the eschaton’).5 What was Paul’s point here, and how does it relate (if at all) to beliefs about judgment and works in second temple Judaism? (2) What realities lie behind the words μισθός (‘pay’) and ζημιόω (‘suffer loss’), and the phrase σωθήσεται οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός in 3:14-15? Is Paul distinguishing sharply between salvation and reward, such that behaviour may jeopardise the latter but not the former? (3) When Paul speaks of people destroying the church and being destroyed by God in consequence (3:17), is he still speaking of the way Christian leaders 5 The former idea is mentioned as a possibility by Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 86; the latter view is taken by Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 207-215.

B. Wages According to Labour

43

build in the church, or has he changed tack to talk about enemies of the gospel, who intentionally attack the community of God? Is verse 17 directed to the readers, with the aim of warning believers away from eschatological destruction, or only to outsiders?6 We will consider each in turn.

B. Wages According to Labour B. Wages According to Labour

The statement that each will receive their own wages according to their own labour (3:8b) has caused consternation in some commentators, who see its relationship to the argument as somewhat opaque.7 What is Paul doing here, affirming the differences between the labourers and their wages, when he is trying to demonstrate the unity of those who work in the gospel? For it is hard to deny that he is affirming, if not even emphasising, the individuality of each labourer and the wage they receive: this seems to be the reason for the otherwise inexplicable use of ἴδιος twice in this clause (‘their own wages according to their own labour’). That ἴδιος is intended to be understood like this, as ‘their own individual wage’ as opposed to ‘a common wage’ (κοινός), is indicated both by the repetition, and by the usage elsewhere in 1 Corinthians (4:12; 6:18; 7:2, 4, 7, 37; 9:7; 11:21; 12:11; 15:23, 38). If Paul’s purpose was merely to place all servants of God on the same level, it is hard to see why he would have expressed himself this way. Paul, however, has a more complex purpose than that in this passage. He is, of course, wanting to demonstrate the unity of those who serve together in the gospel, both in their relative unimportance (since the growth comes from God), and in their co-operation (since they are ‘fellow workers’).8 Yet he also insists 6 Remarkably, 3:16-17 are not mentioned at all in Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, presumably because the answer to this question is assumed to be the latter. This assumption needs careful analysis; see below. 7 So Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:292; James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Hodder, 1938), 39; cf. also Fee, 1 Corinthians, 142, who says that ‘Paul’s present point is not immediately obvious.’ 8 That συνεργοὶ θεοῦ is more likely to mean ‘fellow workers who belong to God’ rather than ‘those who work together with God’ is argued well by Victor Paul Furnish, ‘Fellow Workers in God’s Service’, JBL 80 (1961), 364-370; cf. Wolff, 1 Korinther, 68; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 305-306, and literature cited there. The best reason for taking it this way is not the implicit synergism of the alternative, but the contextual emphasis on the apostles’ relationship to each other; contra Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:292-293; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 195-196. The suggestion of Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), 58-59, that had Paul meant ‘fellow workers who belong to God’ he would have talked as he did in Rom 16:3 of ‘my fellow workers in

44

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

on the distinctiveness of each, both because it is obvious that Paul and Apollos (not to mention other leaders) have had different roles in the establishment of the church (3:6, 10), and because Paul’s own relationship to them as ‘planter’ (3:6), ‘expert builder’ (3:10) and ‘father’ (4:15) results in an authority to admonish them, urge imitation from them and confront them that others do not have (4:14-21). Thus in 3:5-9 Paul looks to affirm both the unity and uniqueness of each leader, with the stress in 8b falling on the latter.9 And alongside both of these aims is his insistence that each leader is accountable to God for their work, not to the Corinthians; after all, the worker’s wages are paid by the owner of the field, not the field itself (3:8-9; cf. 4:1-5). As such, the purpose and structure of 3:8 are closely parallel to that of 3:5, with the first half of each verse emphasising the relative unimportance and unity of the leaders – as servants, planters and waterers who all have a common purpose – and the second half stressing their distinctiveness and accountability to God.10 Consequently, Paul’s main purpose in saying that ‘each will receive their own wages according to their own labour’, in context, is twofold: firstly, to show that leaders, as servants of God, are accountable to God (and not humans) for their work, thereby cutting off intra-community judgment at the root; and secondly, to show that this work differs from leader to leader, without jeopardising their common purpose. But there is significant debate over whether we should also detect in this verse a third idea, which is that the wages themselves vary according to the work done. The Old Testament, the pseudepigraphic literature of the second temple period and the Qumran scrolls rarely indicate that there would be varied levels of eschatological reward; rather, the reward of the righteous is salvation and vindication when God’s judgment is revealed, with consequent blessings in the age to come.11 Some later Jewish writings, on the other hand, describe rewards which vary according to the work done.12 So the question has been asked: does Paul side with the older writings on this point, or with the later ones? Half a century ago, Lieselotte Mattern argued that there was a clear difference between Paul and the rabbis on this issue, since the rabbis operated within a Leistungsreligion in which Leistung (effort) will be entlohnt (given a wage) Christ Jesus’, misses the point that in Paul’s metaphors, the owner of both the field and the building is God, while Christ is the foundation of the building. To use ἐν Χριστῷ at this point, therefore, would have spoiled his analogy, and Paul never uses ἐν θεῳ in this way. 9 So Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict, 164-167. 10 Thus Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 208-209. 11 E.g. Tob 4:8-11, 14; Ps Sol 3:11-12; 9:5; Wis 5:15; T Jos 18:1; 1QS 4:6-8; cf. Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 19-140; Gathercole, Boasting, 37-111. 12 So 2 Enoch 44:5 (Recension A): ‘On the day of judgment every measure and every weight and every scale will be exposed as in the market; and each one will recognize his measure, and according to measure, each shall receive his reward’; Pirqe Avot 5:26: ‘The reward is measured according to the labour.’

B. Wages According to Labour

45

which may vary, whereas Paul’s theology of grace prompted him to speak of Gehorsam (obedience) which will be belohnt (given a reward), which does not.13 Whether or not this is an accurate portrayal of rabbinic theology, it certainly seems to distort Paul on this point, who in this very passage uses the word μισθός twice, in the context of a farm worker who has given his κόπος and a builder whose ἔργον has survived. On the other hand, Paul is hardly teaching the rabbinic view either; his reference to wages according to labour here is extremely brief, and is used to illustrate the differences between the apostles, and their accountability to God as opposed to humans, rather than to motivate obedience (which, as we shall see, Paul does in a slightly different way).14 In other words, Paul may be thinking of differing rewards in 3:8, but this is far from certain.15 What is clear is that even if he is, this is not his main point, and he gives no hint as to what such varied rewards might actually look like.16 Paul clearly believes in a future judgment according to works in which faithful believers receive an eschatological reward and careless believers forfeit it (see especially 3:14-15) – but the idea that such rewards are graded according to behaviour is, at most, peripheral to his understanding of the future judgment, if in fact it is part of it at all.17

13

Lieselotte Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus (Zürich: Zwingli, 1966), 170-173. 14 See below, especially on 9:24-27: Paul motivates both himself and others with reference to a reward/crown/prize/commendation, but not by the idea of having a greater reward than others. 15 So Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:293; Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde, 222-258. For the wider issue in biblical theology, see Craig Blomberg, ‘Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?’, JETS 35 (1992), 159-72. 16 See Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict, 168: ‘wherein the difference [between rewards] might lie is never made explicit’; cf. also Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 213-214. Paul speaks later in this passage of a ‘commendation from God’ (4:5), but this is equally vague, and perhaps deliberately so. 17 I therefore disagree with the conclusion of Floyd Filson, St Paul’s Conception of Recompense (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1931), 115, that ‘it is only when graded positions in the Kingdom are accepted as Paul’s meaning that justice is done to the basic idea of judgment and to Paul’s words about a reward for good done.’ Of the other Pauline examples he gives (2 Cor 4:17; 5:10; Eph 6:8), none speak of ‘graded positions’, but simply of judgment and reward according to works, so it seems strange to suggest that one cannot understand Paul’s concept of judgment and reward without it; even here in 1 Cor 3:8, it is far from Paul’s main point. Paul’s clearest statement of this future judgment by works is of course Rom 2:1-11, in which graded rewards are not implied at all.

46

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

C. Reward, Salvation, and Escaping through Fire C. Reward, Salvation, and Escaping through Fire

Of the many interpretive questions that arise in 3:14-15, the most critical one for our investigation is this: is there proof here that Paul conceives of two distinct judgments, one pertaining to salvation and based on faith, and the other pertaining to rewards and based on works? In some form or other, this case has been made by a large number of scholars, often (but not exclusively) from within the Reformed tradition.18 Paul’s point here, it is argued, is that the behaviour of individuals in the church may jeopardise their eschatological reward, but not their final salvation, which is secure simply on the basis of faith. For some, 3:14-15 have even become the nexus between justification by faith and judgment by works, and the way to make sense of both Pauline themes.19 This proposal needs to be considered carefully. The link between the metaphors of field (3:5-9) and building (10-15) comes at the end of 3:9, with the reminder that the Corinthian church, whether pictured as a farm or a house, belongs to God.20 As a result, Paul says, each one must beware how he builds.21 Paul himself laid the foundation – Jesus Christ, the only foundation that can be laid – but others are building upon it, and need to be vigilant, because the eschatological Day will show their work for what it is.22 Within the metaphor, all builders construct the house with materials, some of which are both beautiful and robust when tested by fire (gold, silver, precious stones), and others of which go up in flames all too quickly (wood, hay, 18 So, among others, Filson, Recompense, 115; Mattern, Gerichtes, 177-178; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77; Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 270-277; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 611-612; Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 74, 185; Christian Stettler, ‘Paul, the Law and Judgment by Works’, EQ 76 (2004), 195-215. 19 Thus Leon Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 67: ‘Such a passage as 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 seems to give the reconciliation.’ Cf. the taxonomy of fourteen ways scholars have held together justification by faith and judgment by works in Dane Ortlund, ‘Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox’, JETS 52 (2009), 323-339. 20 Greg Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 245250, argues that the two pictures are more connected than often thought; since the ‘house’ in question is the temple, and the Old Testament links together garden-like imagery with the temple, the ‘cultivated field’ and the ‘house’ are closely related (cf. also Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 151). That the house refers to the temple is very likely (see below); that the field does also is less so (more probable is the common link between the two in antiquity; so Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:294-295). 21 That βλέπω should be translated ‘beware’ here, and not merely ‘see’ or even ‘take care’, is indicated by the way the term is used in 8:9; 10:12; 16:10 (cf. also Gal 5:15; Phil 3:2). 22 Initially Paul uses the singular ἄλλος (9), but it is clear from his use of ἔκαστος (10, 13) and τις (12) that he is not thinking of one specific individual, but all ‘builders’.

C. Reward, Salvation, and Escaping through Fire

47

straw), thus demonstrating the construction to have been shoddy and careless. In the reality to which the metaphor points, the materials which survive are generally taken to represent careful labour in the church which is consistent with the nature of the foundation, Jesus Christ: diligence, humility, and the proclamation of the cross.23 If the church is built with materials like this, then it will survive on the Day, and those who have worked within it will receive their wages (as in 3:8, Paul uses μισθός here). But if it is built with perishable, insubstantial clutter – human wisdom, division and boasting in individual leaders – then it will be burned up like a house of hay, and those who built it will suffer loss, being saved only as through fire. In a recent New Testament Studies article, this majority reading of 3:10-15 has been challenged by Alexander Kirk.24 Kirk believes that there are substantial problems with this approach, and argues for an alternative reading in which the ‘work’ of 3:10-15 is not the activity of the builder, but the people in the church; as such, the fire tests the quality of the builders’ converts, and the builder is rewarded if they survive, and judged (through the same fire of divine judgment) if they do not.25 Kirk’s case is ultimately vitiated by the parallels between 3:8 and 3:14, in which a μισθός is given in response to the worker’s κόπος or ἔργον, by the oddity of seeing hay, wood, straw and so on as representing individual converts, and by his insistence that Paul is speaking specifically about the unintended consequences of Apollos’ ministry here.26 Nevertheless, the strengths of his argument need to be taken on board, particularly 23 In the context of 1:10-4:21, these seem much the most obvious referents of the metaphor, as most commentators observe. It is unfair of Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 155, to say that Thiselton and others interpret the materials by ‘read[ing] in what they think is important about Christian ministry’, such as prayerlessness or shallowness; their reference to Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 304 is to his comments on 3:8-9b, and he makes clear in his analysis of 3:12-13 that Paul’s overriding concern is with work ‘founded on the reality of a Christ crucified’ (312) and ‘offered in the strength of the Holy Spirit and in the name of Christ’ (314). 24 Alexander Kirk, ‘Building with the Corinthians: Human Persons as the Building Materials of 1 Corinthians 3:12 and the “Work” of 3:13-15’, NTS 58 (2012), 549-570. 25 The three objections he lists are (1) it separates ministerial deeds from non-ministerial ones, (2) it separates a Christian from some of his post-conversion deeds at the final judgment, and (3) it risks trivialising the gospel, by implying someone can preach a false gospel and still be saved at the eschaton. With regard to (1), it should be said that the focus of the passage is on factionalism and division according to leadership, so we would expect ‘ministerial deeds’ to be the focus. With (2) and (3), we may admit the force of Kirk’s objections to a certain way of expounding the passage, but insist that a better reading, which neither trivialises the importance of works (2) or the gospel (3), is possible; see below. 26 Kirk’s paragraph in response to the first objection, in which he argues that we should distinguish a μισθός ‘according to’ labour from one that is conditional on the work’s survival, fails to convince; throughout the passage, it is the activity (labouring, building, destroying) which is judged (Kirk, ‘Building with the Corinthians’, 562). That the warning is

48

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

his insistence that 3:10-15 cannot reassure those who preach a false gospel that they have nothing to worry about at the final judgment, and his observation that the Corinthians themselves, rather than the gospel ministry of the builder, are described as ‘God’s building’ (3:9).27 In reality, given that the way in which a leader’s gospel work is appraised is through an assessment of their converts, there is more than a hint of a false dichotomy here. Paul no doubt anticipates the judgment of his converts, but as a means of assessing his gospel ministry, rather than as an alternative to it.28 It is easy to see, however, why this whole metaphor and its application could lead to the conclusion that, although someone’s works may jeopardise their reward, they have no bearing on their salvation.29 For a start, Paul clearly sees σωτηρία and μισθός as different in 3:14-15, and envisages it as possible either to receive both, if what one has built survives, or to lose the latter, if it does not. It is almost certain that ζημιόω refers to the loss of the μισθός, as opposed to a punishment of some kind; post-mortem punishment prior to eschatological salvation is unknown in Paul, and the normal sense of ζημιόω as ‘deprivation’ or ‘loss’ fits better both with the building analogy and with Pauline usage (as in, for example, 2 Cor 7:9 and Phil 3:8).30 Then there is the apparently reassuring note of 3:15, speaking of the builder whose work is burned up: αὐτος δὲ σωθήσεται, despite his shoddy building. And, of course, behind many of these discussions is the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, with 3:14-15 apparently presenting a way that judgment by works and justification by faith can be held together, with the former resulting in rewards, and the latter in salvation.31 not just addressed to an Apollos faction is implied by εἰ δέ τις ἐποικοδομεῖ (3:12), as well as the whole sweep of chapters 1-4; see e.g. Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 153-154. 27 Kirk, ‘Building with the Corinthians’, 551-552, 554-557. 28 See e.g. 2 Cor 1:14; Gal 4:11; Phil 2:16; 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:5; cf. Kirk, ‘Building with the Corinthians’, 558-559. 29 Thus Mattern, Gerichtes, 177-178; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77; and others cited above. 30 So Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:303; Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict, 182-183. Against the idea that post-mortem punishment is in view here, see Joachim Gnilka, Ist 1 Kor 3:10-15 ein Schriftzeugnis für das Fegfeuer? Eine exegetisch-historische Untersuchung (Düsseldorf: Triltsch, 1955); contra H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1/2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949), 17, who brings in 5:5 and 11:32 as further evidence that salvation follows punishment. The building analogy is explored helpfully by Jay Shanor, ‘Paul as Master Builder: Construction Terms in First Corinthians’, NTS 34 (1988), 461-471, although cf. also Herbert Gale, The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 85-88, for a warning against over-pressing the analogy. On ζημιόω see A. Stumpff, ‘ζημία, ζημιόω’, TDNT 2:890: ‘Loss, or the missing of the reward, is the result, or even more directly the experience, of the κατακαυσθῆναι of his work.’ 31 So, for example, Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1991).

C. Reward, Salvation, and Escaping through Fire

49

However, several considerations mitigate against such a sharp distinction between justification/faith/salvation and judgment/works/reward in the life of the believer, despite the obvious distinction Paul draws here. Firstly, the immediate context is specifically concerned with leaders, not with works of the believer in general.32 Paul does indeed indicate that there is a μισθός distinct from salvation here, but he applies this teaching only to those who lead in the church, and (significantly) in no other passage does he introduce the idea in an attempt to motivate believers.33 Nor is there a clear example of any other New Testament writer doing so.34 Its appearance here as a concept, then, may suggest the sort of μισθός that is experienced by those who lead in the church – that of seeing one’s work, through the perseverance of Christian disciples, survive on the Day, and knowing that one has not laboured in vain – or the ‘commendation from God’ of which Paul speaks in 4:5.35 We may never know for sure; but it certainly does not prove that, since final salvation is secure for all those who have professed faith, Christian motivation is now a question of pursuing rewards distinct from salvation. Secondly, to read Paul here as reassuring believers that their works will only be judged with reference to rewards, and that their salvation is safe no matter what they do, is to read him completely upside-down. As Roetzel puts it, ‘Paul did not write this passage to reassure those who feared their salvation was in jeopardy, but he wrote it to unnerve those who believed their salvation was

32 Contra e.g. Witherington, Conflict and Community, 134, and Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77: ‘unsatisfactory works performed by the Christian as a Christian do not cause his damnation … the life of believers is service … The punishment at the Last Judgment relates to the work of the Christian, but not to his salvation.’ This confuses the way leaders build in the church with the way believers work in general; Conzelmann adds to the confusion by speaking of ‘two consecutive fires’ which have two different functions, and then ‘a punishment which nevertheless does not cancel our eternal salvation.’ 33 On 1 Cor 9:24-27, see below. (In Col 3:24, the μισθός is explicitly identified as the ‘inheritance’, which 1:13 would indicate referred to all believers on the basis of being qualified by the Father. Eph 6:8 is more ambiguous, but the close parallels with Col 3:24 suggest the same is in view here.) 34 Heb 10:35 is sometimes quoted (so Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 221), but the reward there is clearly not distinct from salvation (see 10:39, and the contrast with 10:2631); cf. e.g. Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 387: ‘It consists of life with God, the blessing of full salvation’. The synoptic gospels, similarly, speak frequently about receiving a great reward (Matt 5:12, 19; 10:41-42; Luke 6:23, 35; etc.), but never in a way that distinguishes rewards from final salvation. Cf. Blomberg, ‘Degrees of Reward’, 165-168. 35 Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 218, finds the former idea unlikely, since receiving a reward is the result of one’s work surviving, and not the equivalent of it. Nonetheless, it would be quite Pauline to see the flourishing of his churches as a reward in itself (1 Thess 2:19-20; Phil 2:16; 4:1; 2 Cor 1:13-14); cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 119. For the idea that the reward is ‘praise from God’, see Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 157.

50

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

assured.’36 This is the whole point of the phrase οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός (3:15): people whose work does not survive the Day will be saved, Paul says – but only ‘through fire’. Most commentators are broadly agreed that οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός is an idiomatic expression that is roughly equivalent to the English phrase ‘by the skin of one’s teeth’, suggesting someone who only just escapes a burning building, and as such, Paul is not emphasising the security of salvation, but the extent to which some Corinthian ‘builders’ are putting it at risk.37 More recently, this view has been challenged on the grounds of grammar, alleged parallels and pneumatology; Paul is speaking, it is argued, of a purifying fire at the ‘Day’ through which careless builders will have to pass.38 Ultimately, I find this revisionist view ultimately unconvincing: the grammatical argument is weaker (two New Testament examples of σῴζω + διά + genitive could be either instrumental or local, and the three in Josephus are clearly local), and the idiomatic parallels stronger (the image Paul uses here, though not its grammar, echoes the Jewish idiom present in Amos 4:11; Zech 3:2; and possibly Jud 23), than has been suggested, and the Stoic pneumatological parallels are more apparent than real, as Wright has shown.39 Nevertheless, it is surely correct in seeing 3:15b as more warning than reassurance. As such, the view of Synofzik and others, that 3:15b is a qualification, or even a correction, of the judgment saying of 15a is completely wrong-headed.40 Rather, 15b stresses that it will be a narrow escape on the Day for anyone who builds poorly in God’s church. Thirdly, and most significantly, a sharp distinction between justification/faith/salvation and judgment/works/reward conflicts with the immediately

36

Calvin Roetzel, Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 169. 37 So Weiss, 1 Korinther, 80; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77; Karl Donfried, ‘Justification and Last Judgment in Paul’, ZNTW 67 (1976), 90-110; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 156; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 134; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:304; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 315; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 119; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 201; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 157. 38 Kirk, ‘Building with the Corinthians’, 549-570; Daniel Frayer-Griggs, ‘Neither Proof Text nor Proverb: The Instrumental Sense of διά and the Soteriological Function of Fire in 1 Corinthians 3:15’, NTS 59 (2013), 517-534; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: OUP, 2010), 35-36, 170. 39 See Frayer-Griggs, ‘Neither Proof Text nor Proverb’; see 1 Tim 2:15; 1 Pet 3:20; Ant. 14:362; 17:276; Life 304. On Engberg-Pedersen, see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1392-1406; he notes that the fire in 1 Cor 3 has a different origin (external, not internal), function (purification of some and destruction of others, not reducing all elements to fire) and goal (salvation, not preparing the world for beginning again) to the fire in mainstream Stoicism. 40 Ernst Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 40-41.

C. Reward, Salvation, and Escaping through Fire

51

succeeding verses. If, in verses 16-17, Paul argues that the actions of an individual have the capacity to bring about their destruction, then it is hard to believe that he would argue in 15b that, though someone’s works affect their reward, they can have no bearing on their eschatological salvation. Were this the case, then we would have to conclude either that Paul had just contradicted himself, or that the targets of the warning in verses 16-17 were completely different from those in verses 5-9 and 10-15.41 The former must be judged highly implausible, and the latter is also unlikely (see below). Thus Yinger rightly remarks: ‘If Paul had meant to say, “take care how you build, for it will affect your eschatological reward, though, of course, not your eternal salvation”, he would hardly have followed it with verse 16 and its threat of eternal destruction.’42 From the wider perspective of Pauline theology, it is also worth considering that there are passages in Paul about judgment according to works which are not hypothetical, and which give every indication that the judgment they describe will result in eternal life or condemnation, not rewards which are distinct from salvation (let alone graded rewards).43 This does not prove that 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 is to be handled the same way, but it does show that whatever it means, it cannot be used as a filter through which to read all other Pauline references to judgment on the Day (ἡ ἡμέρα), as if works have nothing to do with final salvation.44 It seems much more likely, then, that Paul is speaking to teachers in the Corinthian church throughout 3:5-17, rather than changing focus after 3:15 (which makes the omission of 3:16-17 in the analyses of 3:10-15 by Mattern and Gundry Volf very problematic). Initially, Paul uses himself and Apollos as examples of leaders who receive reward according to labour (5-9); then he warns careless builders that, in contrast to those who receive rewards, they will only just be saved (10-15); and finally he warns those who destroy the church

41 These, effectively, are the alternatives offered in Mattern, Gerichtes, 169; cf. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 90. 42 Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 219; cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 156-157. 43 Particularly Rom 2:6-11; cf. 14:10-12; 2 Cor 5:10. For a brief (and sometimes oversimplified) summary of the various ways in which this has been reconciled with Paul’s theology of justification, see Ortlund, ‘Pauline Paradox.’ 44 There is increasing agreement, amongst advocates of the ‘Old Perspective’ as well as the New, that judgment according to works forms a crucial part of Paul’s eschatology, and cannot be screened out on the basis of this text or any other; see e.g. Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001); Thomas Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); Gathercole, Boasting; Mark Seifrid, Christ Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000). When used in isolation, as in 3:13, ἡ ἡμέρα refers to the eschatological day of judgment (Rom 13:12; 1 Thess 5:4; cf. Rom 2:5, 16, etc).

52

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

that they will be destroyed themselves (16-17). Whatever the merits of a thoroughgoing faith/salvation versus works/reward distinction in Pauline theology (and when all is said and done, there are few), it certainly does not appear to be Paul’s point here.

D. Destruction of the Temple D. Destruction of the Temple

The final warning is the climactic one. Paul began his series of metaphors with labourers in a field receiving wages, then moved on to construction workers on a building being rewarded or facing loss, and now he concludes his trio with the destroyers of God’s temple facing destruction themselves. Each section (59, 10-15, 16-17) comprises four elements: a central metaphor for the church, a relationship between God and the church which provides the basis for God’s response, a metaphorical role for the teachers, and a God-given consequence for the teacher according to what they have done:

Metaphor for the church Relationship between God and the church Metaphorical role for the teachers Consequence according to what has been done

3:5-9 God’s field

3:10-15 God’s building

3:16-17 God’s temple

God assigns the workers, gives the growth, and owns the field Farm labourers alongside God

God gives the grace to lay the foundation: Jesus Christ Builders upon the foundation

God indwells the temple by his Spirit, making it holy Destroyers of the temple

Wages according to labour

Reward if the building survives; loss if it does not

Destruction of the individual

This brief structural summary, and Paul’s rhetorical purpose in the whole of 1:10-4:21 (which we have already discussed), indicate that the burden of proof should rest with those who deny that the targets of each warning are the same, and that Paul is in fact warning the Corinthians away from ‘destruction’. However, several reasons to separate out verses 16-17 from verses 5-9 and 10-15 have been proposed, and it is important to consider them: (i) the change of metaphor from building to temple, (ii) the transitional phrase οὐκ οἴδατε, (iii) the clear difference between building carelessly (as Christians might do) and destroying something (which only enemies of the gospel would do), and (iv) the very different character of the lex talionis in 3:17 to the rest of the

D. Destruction of the Temple

53

passage.45 Often, these considerations lead to the conclusion that in 3:16-17, Paul is not threatening the Corinthians with ‘destruction’, and thereby the forfeiture of eschatological salvation, at all. When considered carefully, though, none of these factors lead to such a conclusion, and the first two of them in particular suggest the reverse. (i) It is likely that there is a very strong connection between the two metaphors of God’s building and God’s temple, and in fact that Paul intended the first to culminate in the second. The evidence that Paul had the Jerusalem temple in mind as he wrote 3:10-15 is impressive: the fact that the temple is the only building for which the word ‘foundation’ is used in the Old Testament; the well-known idea in Jewish messianism as well as early Christian thought that the Messiah would be, in some sense, the foundation of the eschatological temple (as Jesus Christ is said to be in 3:10-15); the reference to the church as the οἰκοδομή θεοῦ (cf. Eph 2:21; Mark 13:1-2); and the fact the only building in Jewish literature to be built with gold, silver and precious stones was of course the Jerusalem temple (1 Chron 29:1-7 and so on).46 None of this proves that Paul was explicitly using the temple metaphor throughout 10-15, nor that we should read too much into the six types of building materials listed there.47 But it does suggest that the temple was not a brand new image brought in by Paul at 3:16 to introduce a completely new idea, but the culmination of the whole section, with the same fundamental issue in view.48 (ii) Stronger evidence still that Paul is addressing the same issue, and the same people, comes from the rhetorical οὐκ οἴδατε that begins verse 16. A brief analysis of Paul’s use of this phrase indicates that, rather than introducing a new or distinct topic, he always uses it to confirm or strengthen a point he has just made, by means of appealing to their existing understanding. The phrase only appears thirteen times in the New Testament, and ten of those appearances are in this letter.49 In each case, οὐκ οἴδατε has a similar grammatical effect on 45

See e.g. F. L. Godet, Commentary on St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886), 1:191-192; Mattern, Gerichtes; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 9091: ‘Paul’s thought has shifted since vv. 12-15, where the fault in mind was not that of destroying the holy building … but that of putting unworthy material into its construction’; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77: ‘the notion is no longer that of God’s building, but of his dwelling … v17 has a different character from v12’; Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen. 46 So Beale, Temple, 245-252; cf. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict, 177; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 72-73; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 150-161. 47 This is the main objection of Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 311-312, to seeing a temple allusion in 3:10-15; he argues, rightly, that the distinction in materials is twofold (durable versus combustible) rather than sixfold (gold, silver, stones, wood, hay, straw). However, it is perfectly possible to see a twofold distinction in materials while also seeing allusions to the Jerusalem temple. 48 Contra Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77. 49 The three which are outside 1 Corinthians are John 19:10; Rom 6:16; Jas 4:4.

54

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

the sentence to a causal conjunction like γάρ – that is, it serves to provide an explanation for why the previous statement is true – but with much greater rhetorical power, such that the impact of the previous statement is confirmed, or even escalated (5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24). In several of these examples, in fact, the effect is to raise the stakes, by making the particular sin Paul is addressing seem more unthinkable.50 Thus in 5:6, while urging the discipline of the immoral brother, the sentence beginning οὐκ οἴδατε broadens the issue from one man’s behaviour to the health of the entire church: ‘a little yeast leavens the whole loaf!’ In 6:7-9, going to court against fellow Christians is initially portrayed merely as a failure (ἥττημα) for the church, but Paul uses οὐκ οἴδατε to make it an issue of not even inheriting the kingdom. In 6:16, again, the effect of οὐκ οἴδατε and the sentence which follows it is to make sexual immorality yet more unthinkable: sex, far from being a trivial bodily function (6:13), causes a one flesh union to take place with the prostitute in question. It is therefore likely that the same purpose is in view when οὐκ οἴδατε is used in 3:16: the fact that the church is a temple of the living God makes the need to labour carefully and faithfully within it even more pressing. Far from indicating that a new target has been introduced in verses 16-17, οὐκ οἴδατε actually suggests that the same people are in view – the leaders, and the Corinthian church collectively – and that the warning about destruction applies to them.51 (iii) The most prevalent counterargument to this, from those who would argue that Paul is not warning believers away from destruction in 3:16-17, is that a fundamentally different activity is in view in these verses: that of ‘destroying’ God’s church, rather than merely building carelessly. Allo, for example, argues that those spoken of in 3:16-17 are ‘non pas les travailleurs bien intentionnés mais imparfaits, qui ont fait des “superstructures” trop légères; mais ceux-là qui auront “ruiné”, ou voulu ruiner, le temple.’52 A similar approach is taken by Mattern, Synofzik, Hollander, Blomberg and others.53 Certainly, when framed in this way, whereby the intention of the individual is to destroy rather than to build, the dichotomy seems clear enough. But the wider context of 1:10-4:21 indicates that things are not so clear cut as all that. It is very unlikely, on the basis of the two arguments we have just given, that Paul is making a clear distinction between well-meaning but clumsy builders

50

So Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 223: ‘it introduces a strong warning which serves to intensify the risk involved in the wrong behaviour Paul wishes to restrain.’ 51 Note the joint audience of leaders (τίς, ἕκαστος) and the church as a whole (ἐστε, οἴδατε, ἐν ὑμιν) in 3:5-17. 52 Allo, Première Épître, 64. 53 Mattern, Gerichtes, 169; Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen, 36-37; H. W. Hollander, ‘The testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15’, NTS 40 (1994), 89-104; Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 75, 81.

D. Destruction of the Temple

55

inside the church (10-15) and intentional malefaction by outsiders bent on wiping the church off the map (16-17). Paul’s whole point in this section is that building with human wisdom rather than the cross of Christ, and dividing over human leadership, is destructive to the church, whether or not the intention of the perpetrator is to ‘tear down the structure’.54 Throughout 1 Corinthians, examples are given of actions which cause great damage to the Christian community, whether or not the individuals responsible actually realise it (5:6-7; 6:1-11, 18-20; 8:9-13; 10:6-12; 11:27-32), and it is probable that Paul would put into this category both the proclamation of human wisdom (1:18-2:16), and division on the basis of personalities and preferences (1:10-17).55 In that sense, rather than separating out clumsy Christians from vindictive unbelievers, it is more likely that as Barrett puts it, ‘presumably Paul himself found it hard, in the situations with which he had in practice to deal, to distinguish between the two possibilities.’56 Paul was presenting a scale in 3:5-17 – from his own ministry and that of Apollos, through to that of the most worldly, divisive, boastful and ultimately destructive Corinthian – and urging the church to move towards his end of the spectrum. All those in Corinth who were leaders or teachers were to beware: if their building in the church, by proclamation and example, led to a building that failed to survive the Day, then they would suffer loss; if it ended up destroying the church altogether then they, too, would be destroyed.57 (iv) The final question to be considered is whether the judgment saying itself (3:17a) necessitates understanding the targets of the warnings as unbelievers. Sometimes, this argument is made on the basis of form – the lex talionis in chiastic form indicates what Käsemann called a ‘sentence of holy law’, which is of a different character to the rest of the passage and therefore indicates a slight change of subject or target – and sometimes on the basis of content.58 Whether or not we accept Käsemann’s analysis of the saying (and many have challenged it), its form has no bearing on whether believers are being addressed in 3:17a.59 When it comes to content, the argument is more bound up with

54

Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 75. So, helpfully, Fee, 1 Corinthians, 160: ‘the Corinthians, by their worldly wisdom, boasting and divisions, were in effect banishing the Spirit and thus about to destroy the only alternative God had in their city.’ 56 Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 91. 57 Cf. also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 120: ‘Paul assumes that the community can be destroyed by insiders, not by outsiders.’ 58 So Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 77-78, following Ernst Käsemann, ‘Sätze Heiligen Rechts im Neuen Testament’, NTS 1 (1954/5), 248-260. 59 Cf. the critiques of Käsemann, such as Klaus Berger, ‘Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts’, NTS 17 (1970), 10-40; David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1979), 171-174; David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 166-167, 237-240. 55

56

Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 3:5-17

Pauline soteriology, in which (some argue) the destruction of believers is impossible, and therefore this cannot be the point of the warning here.60 This, however, is to beg the question, since broad soteriological formulations need to incorporate texts and ideas precisely like this one, not to mention the others in this same letter, lest some Pauline ideas are squashed under the weight of others. As Gordon Fee wisely remarks, ‘one must be careful not to let the “logic” of one’s system … prejudge the plain meaning of Paul’s words.’61 This charge is made against Judith Gundry Volf’s approach, not entirely unfairly, by B. J. Oropeza.62 In the light of all these arguments, then, it is very likely that in 3:16-17, as he has been throughout 3:5-17, Paul is warning believers at Corinth away from leading, teaching or living in such a way as to promote human wisdom or cause division, since such behaviour can result in the destruction of the church – God’s temple – and hence also the individual responsible.63 It seems clear that Paul has eschatological destruction, rather than mere ‘damage’, in view, and that this destruction is to be understood as an inevitable consequence of destroying God’s temple.64 So understood, 3:16-17 amounts to an explicit warning that if anyone (εἴ τις), insider or outsider, destroys God’s church, they will forfeit final salvation.65

60

So Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 81; Mattern, Gerichtes, 169. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 161; cf. Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 227-228: ‘Attempts to circumvent this exegetical conclusion by defining those in view as nonbelievers or enemies of the gospel are implausible.’ 62 Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 31-33. 63 Note also the connection with the self-deception of 3:18; see e.g. Merklein, 1 Korinther, 1:281. 64 Shanor, ‘Paul as Master Builder’, argues that φθείρειν is a technical term in construction agreements for damage which occurs accidentally, and some have further argued that had Paul intended to suggest eschatological destruction, he would have used ἀπόλλυμι, since φθείρειν can mean merely ‘corrupt’, ‘damage’ or ‘injure’. However, the general sense of the word is well summarised by Harder, TDNT 9.93-106; cf. Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 67: ‘terrible ruin and eternal loss of some kind seems to be meant.’ Further considerations in support of this view include the switch to the future tense (φθερεῖ) in the apodosis, which suggests a future judgment, and the common association of sacrilege and divine destruction in Judaism (Ex 19:12; Lev 10:1-2; Num 4:15; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7; cf. Acts 21:28-31). See Käsemann, ‘Sätze’, 248-260; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 120-121; Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 224-225; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 160-161; cf. also Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 318, who argues that because the church is the dwelling place of the Spirit, ‘seriously to undo the work of authentic building thereby brings destruction upon the person in question, and thereby also invites the corroborative verdict of the judgment of God. That person’s plight is dreadful indeed.’ 65 Paul can use εἴ τις to refer to those outside the church who are at risk of destroying it (1 Cor 16:22; 2 Cor 11:20; Gal 1:9; Phil 3:4), but his use of it in this passage is focused on those within the church (3:12, 14, 15, 18; cf. 14:37). 61

E. Conclusion

57

E. Conclusion E. Conclusion

With these strong warnings issued, Paul presses home the importance of avoiding self-deception, worldly wisdom and especially boasting in human beings, since all things – the apostles, even the world – are theirs, and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (3:18-23). The apostles, in particular, must not be seen as leaders of factions, but as mere servants, who are answerable to God and not humans (4:1-5). Paul and Apollos have 4:1-5 embodied the humility of the cross in their ministry, in marked contrast to the arrogant boasting of the Corinthians (4:6-13), and he urges them to imitate him, like children with their father, rather than forcing him to discipline them on his next visit (4:14-21). Throughout 1:10-4:21, then, Paul puts forward three arguments against the boastful schisms that have beset the church. The first is theological: the cross of Christ, which stands at the centre of the gospel, subverts worldly notions of wisdom, boasting, strength and spirituality (1:18-2:16). The second is personal: the apostles, from whom the Corinthians received the gospel in the first place, regard themselves both as servants and as fellow workers, which makes boasting in them or becoming factional because of them completely absurd (3:1-9; 4:1-21). The third, which has a much stronger note of warning, is eschatological: everyone will be judged by God for the work they have done in the church, and this will result in reward and commendation if the work is good, but loss or even destruction if it is not (3:5-17; cf. 4:4-5).66 Seen in context, like this, it is hard to escape the conclusion that in 3:5-17, Paul is warning Christians away from doing things which would jeopardise their final salvation, and would result instead in their eschatological destruction. So as exegetes, if we were to ask of 3:5-17 the question we asked after considering 1:1-9 – namely, whether Paul saw final salvation as guaranteed for individual believers – we might reach a very different conclusion. For Paul, it seems, Christians must heed warnings if they are to be saved – and if they don’t, they won’t be. As such, two of the four ways of approaching the warning-assurance relationship in the letter, namely those which present the warnings as either not concerning believers or as not referring to salvation, are problematised. An alternative explanation is needed.

66

On 4:1-5 as referring to ‘eschatological praise’ or ‘a postmortem eulogy for Christians’, see, respectively, Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 232-233; Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict, 209.

Chapter 5

1 Corinthians 5:1-13 Interpreters are divided as to whether 1 Corinthians 5 is a warning, or an assurance, or neither. It has been seen as demonstrating that someone who is justified can face eternal destruction if they fall into serious sin, in order that the Holy Spirit’s presence among the church might be preserved.1 On the other hand, it has also been used to prove the exact opposite: that although the truly saved may experience physical death as judgment from God, they can never forfeit eschatological salvation, and experience physical death instead of eternal death.2 The view taken here is that Paul does not, in fact, regard the man in question as a true believer at all – and therefore this passage does not constitute a warning or an assurance.3 This chapter, then, will be somewhat different from the other exegetical ones: I will briefly summarise the major lines of interpretation, and then explain why, despite claims that the passage is either an admonition or a word of reassurance, it is most likely neither, and as such does not need to be incorporated into our analysis.

A. Three Major Lines of Interpretation A. Three Major Lines of Interpretation

The presenting issue in chapter 5 is relatively straightforward: a man within the Corinthian church is having sexual relations with, and is possibly married to, his unbelieving stepmother.4 Paul is outraged: this behaviour is not only appalling for a Christian, but it is beyond the bounds even of Greco-Roman morality.5 Even more appalling than the behaviour of this one man, to Paul, is

1 So A. Y. Collins, ‘The function of “excommunication” in Paul’, HTR 73 (1980), 251263; cf. Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents, 76-84. 2 Weiss, 1 Korinther, 131; August Strobel, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989), 99; Mattern, Gerichtes, 103-108; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 126127. 3 Cf. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 113-120. 4 So A. Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 123-124; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 181-182; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 233-234. 5 Cf. Lev 20:11; Deut 22:30 (LXX); 27:20 (in which it merits the curse); Gaius, Institutiones 1.62-63: ‘Item amitam et materteram uxorem ducere non licet. Item eam, quae mihi

A. Three Major Lines of Interpretation

59

the response of the church: καὶ ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι (2), a pride which probably exists in spite of the act of immorality rather than because of it.6 It is possible, as Andrew Clarke, John Chow and others have argued, that the Corinthians were overlooking the immoral behaviour because of the social and financial position of the individual.7 But given that the people of God are God’s very temple (3:16), the Corinthians’ failure to remove the man is inexcusable.8 So far, so clear. At this point, however, interpretations diverge. Three main approaches are significant: the view that Paul issues a curse which will lead to death, the idea that he urges expulsion with a view to the man’s salvation, and the view that he urges expulsion with a view to preserving the church. Many have argued, from the key phrase παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, that Paul is issuing a curse which is expected to lead to the death of the man, for five principal reasons.9 First, the strength of the word ὄλεθρος, which often denotes physical death in the LXX; second, the fact that the word σάρξ is used elsewhere in 1 Corinthians of the physical body; quondam socrus aut nurus aut privigna aut noverca fuit’; Cicero, Pro Cluentio 6.15: ‘O mulieris scelus incredibile et praeter hanc unam in omni vita inauditum! O libidinem effrenatam et indomitam! O audaciam singularem!’ 6 So Garland, 1 Corinthians, 160-161; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 202-203, call this interpretation ‘fairly certain’; more equivocally, Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 122. 7 Andrew Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 73-88; John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 130141; cf. Theissen, Social Setting, 69-119. For the opposing view, see Justin Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998); cf. also Theissen, ‘The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 24 (2001), 65-84; Dale Martin, ‘Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 24 (2001), 51-64; Justin Meggitt, ‘Response to Martin and Theissen’, JSNT 24 (2001), 85-94; G. Theissen, ‘Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 25 (2003), 371-391. On the debates about social background that underlie this discussion, see chapter two, above. 8 It may well be that Paul deliberately links together the destruction of the church (3:1617) with the destruction of the flesh in order to protect it (5:5); so Brian Rosner, ‘Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5’, TynBul 42 (1991), 137-145; Rosner, ‘Οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Corinthians 5’, NTS 38 (1992), 470-473. See especially Josh 7:1-26 (note especially the corporate dimension of 7:1, 11-12); Ezr 10:6-14 (in which the same responses, of mourning and exclusion, are described); cf. Roetzel, Judgment in the Community, 116. 9 See Godet, 1 Corinthians, 1:255-257; Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 99-100 (who combine physical punishment and destruction of lusts); Morris, 1 Corinthians, 88-89; Käsemann, ‘Sätze’; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 126; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 97: ‘The destruction of the flesh can hardly mean anything else but death’; Collins, ‘Function’; Michael Goulder, ‘Libertines? (1 Cor 5-6)’, NovT 41 (1999), 334-348: ‘What is expected is that he will fall ill … or conceivably actually die.’

60

Chapter 5: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

third, the connection between the activity of Satan and physical suffering in both Jewish and early Christian writings; fourth, suggested parallel curse formulae from the Greek magical papyri; and fifth, the other New Testament examples of serious sin resulting in physical death.10 More recent studies, however, have cast considerable doubts on this whole school of interpretation.11 Language like ‘destruction of the flesh’ need not be taken literally.12 When paired together, σάρξ and πνεῦμα, for Paul, never denote ‘body’ and ‘soul’, let alone ‘the physical part of a person which will be destroyed’ and ‘the immaterial part which will be preserved.’13 Nor does the notion of ‘handing over to Satan’ mean that physical death is necessarily in view, since from Paul’s perspective, it is perfectly possible for Satan to afflict someone with the intention of crushing them, but for God to use that affliction to undermine sin and bring about godliness.14 And the suggested ‘parallels’ are far less close than they appear – the magical papyri are significantly later, and in any case describe neither a handing over to Satan nor a community action, and the New Testament examples likewise have no sense whatsoever of the gathered church handing someone over to Satan – whereas the closest parallel, namely that in 1 Timothy 1:20, clearly states that its purpose is ‘that they may learn not to blaspheme’, an objective which is unlikely to be achieved by the deaths of the men in question.15 The curse / death view therefore requires either significant revision, or outright abandonment. The most prominent alternative is the view that the man is to be formally expelled from the gathered church, so that his sinful nature may be destroyed 10

Ex 12:23; Josh 3:10; 7:25; 1 Ki 13:34; Jer 2:30; 31:3 (on ὄλεθρος); 1 Cor 6:16; 15:3840 (on σάρξ); Job 2:4-7; T. Ben 3:3; CD 8:1-2; Luke 13:16; 2 Cor 12:7 (on Satan and suffering); P. Paris 574 1247: ‘παραδίδωμί σε εἰς τὸ μέλαν χάος ἐν ταῖς ἀπωλείαις’; Acts 5:110; 1 Cor 11:30 (on physical death). 11 Anthony Thiselton, ‘The Meaning of Σάρξ in 1 Corinthians 5:5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors’, SJT 26 (1973), 204-228; James South, ‘A Critique of the “Curse/Death” Interpretaton of 1 Corinthians 5:1-8’, NTS 39 (1993), 539-561; Brian Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 81-86. A fresh defence of this interpretation is given by David Smith, ‘Hand This Man Over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), although Smith believes Paul is both cursing and excluding the man. 12 Cf. Gal 5:24! 13 See the important survey of Dunn, Theology, 62-70. 14 As, apparently, in 2 Cor 12:7, and also the story of Job; thus G. G. Findlay, ‘St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians’, in W. R. Nicoll (ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1900), 809; T. C. G. Thornton, ‘Satan – God’s Agent for Punishing’, ExpTim 83 (1972), 151-152. 15 The exact date and authorship of 1 Timothy is not directly relevant here, since the parallel stands regardless; cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 229. We should also note, however, that these arguments do not eliminate the possibility that Paul is cursing the man and expelling him from the congregation; see e.g. Smith, Hand This Man Over to Satan, 143-177.

A. Three Major Lines of Interpretation

61

and his spirit saved, presumably following his repentance.16 The strengths of this interpretation closely mirror the weaknesses of the curse/death view identified above: Paul’s use of σάρξ as the corrupt aspect of human beings in rebellion against God, when framed in an antithesis with πνεῦμα; the salvific intention indicated by the phrase ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῆ; the parallel with 1 Timothy 1:20; and the strong emphasis in the rest of the passage on expulsion (5:2, 7-9, 11-13), for which ‘handing over to Satan’ is probably a further metaphor. On the other hand, there are two main questions that need to be asked of the individual salvation view as expressed like this. What is it about this particular act of immorality that prompts Paul to urge expulsion, yet handle various other forms of immorality and idolatry in the church, not least visiting prostitutes and idol temples, differently? And if the purpose of the expulsion is the eschatological salvation of the man, why is the rest of the passage so preoccupied with the behaviour and purity of the church as a whole, and the future of the man only mentioned in verse 5? These two questions, in particular, have prompted a third approach. This third view, which is preferred here, is that Paul is urging the man’s expulsion, but that his focus is on the preservation of the church, rather than the salvation of the man. The immediate, public and severe nature of the community’s response is not needed primarily because the sin is in an altogether different category to the others he addresses in this letter, but because the church has responded to the sin in such a heinously inappropriate way: with pride, boasting and conceit rather than mourning, contrition and grief.17 The reason for expelling the man, then, is the destruction of that which is fleshly in the church and the preservation of that which is spiritual, with ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ tantamount to a ‘language game’ with the Corinthians, intended to highlight the difference between their understanding of those words and Paul’s own view.18 As such, the excommunication of the man from the church destroys the 16

Advocates of this view differ as to whether the ἵνα is ecbatic or telic – that is, whether expulsion will certainly lead to individual salvation, or whether it is merely intended to; see, inter alia, Thiselton, ‘Σάρξ’; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 113-120; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 158-159; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 208-209. Some translations (RSV, NRSV, ESV) render the key phrase ‘his spirit may be saved’, despite the absence of an αὐτός in the sentence. 17 Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 244, cites various Pauline passages (Gal 6:1; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Cor 2:5-11; 1 Cor 11:27-32) and remarks, ‘While in itself shocking, it can hardly be said that the individual’s sin in 1 Cor 5 is more serious than in these other passages. Paul’s severity here is, in any case, not prompted so much by this sin as by the congregation’s response.’ As shown by Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics, 61-81, community exclusion is required for the same three reasons that it was required in the Pentateuch: the man’s covenant disloyalty, the community’s complicity in his sin, and the fact that the dwelling place of God (here, of course, the church) must not be contaminated. 18 This general approach to interpretation is advocated in South, ‘Critique’; Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 240-244; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 396-400 (indicating a change

62

Chapter 5: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

fleshly influence within it, like removing leaven from a Passover loaf, and thereby saves it on the day of the Lord.19 Few writers advocate this view to the exclusion of the previous one, and rightly so – it is difficult to read 5:5b without any reference whatever to the sinner himself – and we may assume that Paul would have hoped for the repentance of the individual, as well as the community.20 Nonetheless, the focus of the passage as a whole is on the community’s response, and it is therefore likely that we should think in terms of a combination of the individual salvation and community preservation views, with the emphasis on the latter: Paul is concerned that the σάρξ within both the man (expressed as immorality) and the church (expressed as arrogance) be destroyed, and that the πνεῦμα (understood as ‘that which is spiritual’ amongst both) be saved.21 The sacrificial death of Christ has reconstituted the church as a Passover people, unleavened and new, and therefore the leaven of the old life – malice, evil, sexual immorality and so on – must not be allowed to spread through the community.

B. The ‘So-Called Brother’ B. The ‘So-Called Brother’

The position taken here is that the immoral man of chapter 5, and his eschatological fate (or not), should be excluded from an analysis of the warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians. The reason for this is simple: Paul almost certainly does not regard the man as a genuine believer. He is, rather, an example of τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος: a ‘so-called brother’.

from his previously held view); also (with a different understanding of πνεῦμα) Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 239-240. Understanding πνεῦμα as the Holy Spirit, as Fitzmyer and others do, comes close to making nonsense of the rest of the clause: it is hard to see what the divine Spirit being ’saved on the day of the Lord’ might mean, and elsewhere in his writings Paul only uses the verb σῴζειν with reference to humans; thus Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 114; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 174-176; contra e.g. Christophe Senft, La première épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1979), 74. 19 Rosner, ‘Temple and Holiness’, closely connects the destruction of the flesh with the destruction of God’s temple in 3:16-17, and argues that the temple connection is the best way of accounting for the strong language. However, the destruction signaled in 3:17, as we have seen, is surely eschatological destruction, which makes the parallel with the man in chapter 5 (whom Rosner sees as being expelled but not killed or damned) somewhat less telling. 20 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 399. 21 See especially Martin, The Corinthian Body, 168-169: ‘Indeed, although many commentators have focused on the individual man – what is expected to happen to him? what is meant by the “destruction of the flesh”? does Paul expect him to die physically or merely spiritually? how is the destruction of the flesh expected to save the spirit? – Paul’s main concern is with the health of Christ’s body; the man’s individual fate is secondary, at best.’

B. The ‘So-Called Brother’

63

This is likely for three main reasons. Firstly, there is the otherwise surprising word ὀνομαζόμενος.22 It is hard to see why, if Paul had understood the man to be a true believer, he would not simply have said τις ἀδελφὸς (as he does in 7:12; in 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, with which this passage is often compared due to the similarity in content, the church are urged to warn the sinner as an ἀδελφὸς). The effect of the verbal adjective, then, is to cast doubt on the ‘brotherhood’ of the man in question, as indicated in many of the major translations: ‘any so-called Christian’ (REB), ‘anyone who calls himself a brother’ (NIV), ‘anyone who bears the name of brother’ (NRSV, ESV), and so on. Witherington’s argument, that ‘Paul continues to call this errant brother a brother’, ignores this important point – nobody would think to say this of ‘false brothers’ (2 Cor 11:26; Gal 2:4), presumably! – and Thiselton rightly remarks that ὀνομαζόμενος ‘conveys in this context not only being named as a brother, but the person’s passing himself off as Christian.’23 If the immoral man is simply a Christian who has fallen into serious sin, this qualifying adjective is somewhat hard to explain, and it is therefore more likely that, as Richard Hays puts it, Paul is referring to the phenomenon of ‘nominal Christians living immoral lives.’24 Secondly, the evocative image of old and new leaven, as expressed in 5:68, makes it hard to see the man as a believer. The man is pictured as a piece of leaven, sitting within a batch of unleavened dough and at risk of leavening the whole loaf.25 The reason for expelling him, then, is to ensure that the whole loaf remains unleavened, as in fact it is on the basis of Christ’s Passover sacrifice, so that, metaphorically speaking, the church can celebrate the Passover with untainted, unleavened bread. Four aspects of this metaphor suggest that the man is a falsely professing believer: the ontological distinction in the picture between two fundamentally different sorts of things, the unleavened loaf (the church) and the piece of leaven (the immoral man); the language of ‘cleaning out’ followed by the reference to Passover, which evokes the Old Testament Paschal celebrations after the cleansing of the temple, thereby casting the immoral man in the role of the pagan vessels which had to be removed before the Festival of Unleavened Bread could begin; the antithesis between old and new in verses 6-8, which distinguishes between the new life and creation of which the church are now a part, and the old world of malice and evil to which

22

See BDAG. Witherington, Conflict and Community, 160 (cf. also Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 243); Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 413. Cf. too Grosheide, 1 Corinthians, 129: ‘The man has the name of brother, he is a member of the congregation but in reality he is a public sinner.’ 24 Hays, 1 Corinthians, 87. 25 See Schrage, 1 Korinther, 1:379-385, on the importance of translating ‘leaven’ rather than ‘yeast’; cf. C. L. Mitton, ‘New Wine in Old Wineskins: iv, Leaven’, ExpTim 84 (1973), 339-343. 23

64

Chapter 5: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

the immoral man still belongs; and the secular referent of ‘leaven’ as a pollutant, an infection, by means of which the world infiltrates the boundaries of the church and corrupts it from the inside.26 The whole metaphor, in fact, is framed in such a way as to emphasise the impropriety of that which is old, profane and worldly sitting within, and thereby contaminating, that which is new and set apart by Christ’s sacrifice. Thirdly, as Gundry Volf has shown, a comparison between the judgments of 5:1-13 and 11:27-34 reveals some important differences, which when taken together suggest that the individual(s) being judged are true believers in the latter case, but not in the former.27 Most obviously, the judgment in 11:27-34 is enacted directly by God, whereas that in 5:1-13 is declared by the church along with Paul, but is ultimately executed by Satan. More tellingly, the judgment in 11:27-34 is described as παιδεία, ‘discipline’, which is a concept repeatedly connected in Jewish literature to God’s fatherly care for his children, and with the intention that ‘we may not be condemned with the world’.28 Such language is absent from chapter 5, in which the immoral man is instead spoken of as a πόρνος and, in an austere play on words, a πονηρός. Additionally, he is specifically excluded from the Lord’s Supper in 5:8 and 11, whereas the perpetrators in 11:27-34 are assumed still to be in attendance, albeit with a substantially changed attitude (and in somewhat lower numbers!) These differences, though no doubt shaped by Paul’s desire to stop corporate boasting in the case of chapter 5, add further support to the view that Paul regards the man as falsely professing church member.

C. Conclusion C. Conclusion

Consequently, when it comes to discussions about warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians, this particular passage should be disregarded. Although it sees Paul speaking sternly to the Christian community in Corinth, there are several reasons to believe that Paul does not regard the immoral man as a true brother, and to understand the focus of his rebuke as being primarily directed to the church, for their complacency in spite of such sin in their midst, rather than the 26 2 Kgs 23:1-24; 2 Chr 29-30; cp. Ezr 6:13-22; R. A. Harrisville, ‘The Concept of Newness in the NT’, JBL 74 (1955), 69-79; cf. 2 Cor 5:17; see also Martin, The Corinthian Body, 170: ‘The body of Christ is not polluted by mere contact with the cosmos or by the body’s presence in the midst of the corrupt cosmos, but it may be polluted if its boundaries are permeated and an element of the cosmos gains entry into the body. In that case, the only remedy is violent expulsion of the polluting agent, which will result in the return of the body to a clean, healthy state.’ 27 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 114-116 (see also 107-111). 28 E.g. Lev 26:18, 23; Deut 4:36; 8:5; Ps 94:12; Prov 3:11-12; 2 Mac 6:12-16; cf. Heb 12:5-11.

C. Conclusion

65

man. Although frequently cited in discussions of perseverance in Paul, whether as evidence of security or of apostasy, the likelihood is that 1 Corinthians 5 is neither.

Chapter 6

1 Corinthians 6:1-20 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is arguably the most concise warning in the whole letter. In this short, dense admonition, Paul emphasises the risk that the believers in the Corinthian church may be found among the ἄδικοι, and excluded from any eschatological inheritance on that basis. As such, it greatly problematises any explanation of the warning-assurance relationship that sees the warnings either as not addressed to believers, or as not referring to salvation.

A. Overview A. Overview

The crux interpretum concerns Paul’s statement that the ἄδικοι will not inherit the kingdom of God, and whether it is aimed at (i) the ἀδελφοί referred to in verses 1-8 who are in danger of identifying themselves as ἄδικοι, (ii) individuals within the church community who appear to be ἀδελφοί but in fact are not (like the ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος of 5:11), or (iii) those outside the church. If the answer is (i), then Paul is warning believers that they may, through unrighteousness, forfeit their eschatological inheritance. If the answer is (ii), then Paul is warning falsely professing believers in the Corinthian church that unrighteous living will lead to the forfeit of their eschatological inheritance. If the answer is (iii), then Paul is not issuing a warning, but rather talking about the behaviour of the unrighteous outside the church, and using that as a contrast to the kind of lives that those who have been justified and sanctified ought to lead. Despite the relative lack of interest in this question in recent years – interpreters of these verses have, in general, been much more focused on the so-called ‘vice list’ and its implications for sexual ethics, among other things – it has a substantial bearing on our overall investigation.1 The chapter is easily summarised. Having already addressed two scandals that Paul has heard about, namely of factionalism (chapters 1-4) and incest (chapter 5), Paul turns to the third: civil litigation in response to fraud (6:1-8). 1

Recent English language commentators, in particular, have focused almost all their attention on the ‘vice list’, and given almost none to the question of who the ἄδικοι actually are (see the commentaries of Bailey, Barrett, Blomberg, Ciampa and Rosner, Fitzmyer, Mitchell, Morris, Thiselton and Witherington); a notable exception is Fee, 1 Corinthians, 266-267. On German interpreters, see below.

A. Overview

67

Apparently, one member of the Corinthian church had accused another of defrauding them, and the resulting feud had gone to the secular courts to be resolved. For Paul, this is a terrible way to handle internal disputes within the church, and he attempts to shame them into responding more appropriately by bringing several arguments to bear. Firstly, he points out that there is something unthinkable (Τολμᾷ τις ὑμῶν has the sense of ‘How dare you?’) about bringing a court case before the ἄδικοι, as opposed to the ἅγιοι who will one day judge the world. The fact that both money and honour were at stake so publicly meant that bribery and partiality were woven into the fabric of the Roman legal system, making the whole process corrupt – effectively, a game in which the person of higher status almost always won – and this was in stark contrast to the righteous way in which the saints would one day judge the world and even angels (1-4).2 Secondly, he suggests with biting irony that there must be somebody in the Corinthian church, given their abundant wisdom and knowledge, who is wise enough to judge between the brothers and sisters (5). Thirdly, he argues that a believer ought to prefer being defrauded to getting embroiled in a lawsuit with a brother or sister (6-7). Surely, he says, accepting financial loss is preferable to the complete failure of going to court! Legal proceedings reinforce the very social divisions within the church that the cross of Christ undermines, and thus they publicly undermine the gospel.3 And fourthly, Paul draws attention to the unrighteousness of wronging (ἀδικέω) and defrauding (ἀποστερέω) brothers or sisters in the first place (8). Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? The central paragraph (9-11) provides the main theological foundation for Paul’s rebukes in the chapter, both with respect to fraud and litigation, and with respect to sexual immorality and visiting prostitutes. With a rhetorical question (ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε) showing his expectation that the Corinthians ought already to know what he is about to say, Paul states emphatically that the ἄδικοι won’t inherit the kingdom, and then proceeds to list ten types of behaviour which 2

See Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), 183-185; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 162-165; Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 59-72; Bruce Winter, ‘Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church: The Forensic Background to 1 Corinthians 6:1-8’, NTS 37 (1991), 559-572. 3 The expense of going to court, and the likely corruption of the system, indicate that at least one, and possibly both, of the people concerned were among the higher status, wealthier individuals in the church, who were staking their reputations on being vindicated by the courts at the expense of the other; the one higher up the social ladder would certainly have been at an advantage. The very public way in which Roman courts operated meant that this social rivalry, with all the recrimination, accusation and side-taking that accompanied it, would be played out in front of the city, rather than (as Paul urges) being settled within the church, behind closed doors. Cf. Winter, ‘Civil Litigation’; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 162-165; Mitchell, Rhetoric, 231.

68

Chapter 6: 1 Corinthians 6:1-20

qualify as ἄδικος. Of the first five, four are explicitly sexual (πόρνοι, μοιχοὶ, μαλακοὶ, ἀρσενοκοῖται), and the other, εἰδωλολάτραι, may have connotations of this as well; of the second five, three (πλεονέκται, κλέπται and ἅρπαγες) are related to money, alongside sins relating to speech (λοίδοροι) and drunkenness (μέθυσοι).4 These are the sorts of people some of you used to be, Paul says – financially, sexually and verbally unrighteous – but you were washed, made holy and justified in the name of Jesus by God’s Spirit. With this theological foundation laid, Paul moves on to the fourth and final issue that he has heard about through oral reports: πορνεία, specifically in this case the visiting of prostitutes. The type of prostitution in question is notoriously difficult to define with certainty – it could be cultic, ritual prostitution, or perhaps prostitution in the vicinity of pagan temples yet which carried no religious significance – and there are scholars who would question that it is about prostitution at all.5 For our purposes, however, it does not much matter. Paul’s response, which is more our concern here, moves from a rapid fire dialogue with a Corinthian interlocutor, in which several of their slogans are debunked (12-13a), into a brief yet sweeping theological exposition which explains the body’s purpose (13b), future resurrection (14), union with Christ (15, 17), sanctity as the Holy Spirit’s dwelling-place (19) and possession by God (20), alongside the significance of sexual intercourse and the consequent severity of sexual sin (16, 18). It is this severity, and the severity of the fraudulent and litigious behaviour addressed in 6:1-8, that explains the very strong language of 6:9-11.

4 It is possible that εἰδωλολάτραι is indirectly sexual, due to the close link between idolatry and temple prostitution; see e.g. Kenneth Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 2011), 176-181. On the meanings of the controversial third and fourth terms, see especially the lengthy and careful discussion in Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 440-453. 5 The evidence for cultic, sacred prostitution in first century Greece is very scant; see Hans Herter, ‘Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Licht des heidnischen und christlichen Schrifttums’, JAC 3 (1960), 70-111. Some sort of temple prostitution, in which consorting followed ritual feasts in the temple precincts, may be the most likely, as argued by Brian Rosner, ‘Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20’, NovT 40 (1998), 336-351. For the (unlikely) view that prostitution is not in view at all, see Will Deming, ‘The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5-6’, JBL 115 (1992), 289-312 (for the view that the incest of 5:1-13 forms the background), or Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 121 (for the view that sexual immorality in general is meant).

B. The Identity of the ἄδικοι in 6:9-11

69

B. The Identity of the ἄδικοι in 6:9-11 B. The Identity of the ἄδικοι in 6:9-11

It is clear from verses 9-11 that the kingdom of God will not be inherited by the unrighteous – defined in this context as those characterised by sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, homosexual practice, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander and swindling – and that these sorts of things used to characterise the Corinthians, before they became Christians. However, Paul’s purpose in saying this, and its connection to the behaviour he is correcting in the church, have been read in three different ways. The first involves seeing him as warning the Corinthian believers, especially those currently embroiled in lawsuits or visiting prostitutes, that if they continue in their unrighteous ways, they will forfeit their eschatological inheritance in the kingdom of God. This is the majority view in scholarship, particularly amongst German commentators.6 The second views him as targeting ‘socalled brothers and sisters’ again, as he did in chapter 5: falsely professing believers, affiliated to the Corinthian congregation, whose very lives display the unreality of their Christian profession.7 Both of these views see the passage as essentially a warning: change your lifestyle, or you will be disinherited. The third approach, however, sees Paul’s purpose differently: rather than warning the Corinthians, he is reminding them of their new identity as Christians, highlighting the contrast between who they are and who they were, and emphasising the distinction between the unrighteous (that is, those in the world who live lives of immorality, idolatry and so on) and the saints (those in the church who do not, because of who they have become in the gospel). In this interpretation, the ἄδικοι who will not inherit the kingdom are those outside, not inside, the Corinthian church, and the passage neither aims to warn the Corinthians as such, nor to imply that true believers can lose their future salvation on account of ethical failure. Of these, the second view has the least merit in this particular context. The first and third views are at least internally consistent; the first sees Paul as warning believers directly, and the third sees him as speaking about those outside the church in the third person, by way of contrast. The second view, on the other hand, sees Paul as talking to ‘professing believers’ in verses 9 and 10 (if you are unrighteous, you will not inherit the kingdom), but then suddenly 6 Thus Erich Dinkler, ‘Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus: Rechtsnahme und Rechtsverzicht (1 Kor 6:1-11)’, ZTK 49 (1952), 167-200; Lukas Vischer, Die Auslegungsgeschichte von 1 Korinther 6:1-11: Rechtsverzicht und Schlichtung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955), 19; Grosheide, 1 Corinthians, 140; Ehrhard Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), 11; Fascher, 1 Korinther, 171; cf. also Marshall, Kept, 112; Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 244-247. 7 This is a common Reformed approach to this and other warnings in Paul’s epistles; see the tentative proposal, as part of a wider argument for the third view (below), in Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 136-137.

70

Chapter 6: 1 Corinthians 6:1-20

switching back to ‘real believers’ in verse 11 (‘but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified’), without any indication that the people he is warning in verse 9 and those he is reassuring in verse 11 are different people. For this reason, if ‘professing believers’ are in view at all in verses 9-11, it can only be as a subset of the larger category of ‘unbelievers’, as per the third approach. Paul cannot be warning ‘so-called brothers and sisters’ directly here.8 My contention here is that the most natural reading of the passage is the first one, in which Corinthian believers are warned that the very activities some of them are involved in – fraud and litigation in one case, and visiting prostitutes in the other – threaten to cast them as the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God. I agree, that is, with the remark of Gordon Fee: ‘By persisting in the same behaviour as those already destined for judgment they are placing themselves in the very real danger of that same judgment.’9 However, the most extensive treatment of this question in recent scholarly monographs, that of Judith Gundry Volf, concludes that the third approach is to be preferred. It will therefore be helpful to interact with her argument carefully. At first glance, Gundry Volf concedes, ‘Paul seems to be warning heirs of the kingdom of God that they effectively change their status as heirs and thus forfeit their inheritance of the kingdom by living like those excluded from the kingdom.’10 However, despite the apparent appeal of this interpretation, and its support within the secondary literature, ‘in several respects this meaning is not so plain.’ To support this statement, she provides four lines of argument which challenge the majority view. Firstly, she points out that Paul has just affirmed that the Corinthians will judge the world and judge angels (6:2-3), and that believers are far more qualified than unbelievers to judge in human lawsuits (6:4-5). For him then to threaten, in the same breath, that the Corinthians might not inherit the kingdom after all would be to ‘reverse himself’ in the space of a few verses. Far better, she argues, to see Paul as drawing a sharp contrast between the ἅγιοι, who will judge the world, and the ἄδικοι, who will not inherit the kingdom. Eschatologically, of course, there is no such thing as a ἅγιος who is also an ἄδικος. At the last day, according to 6:1-2, every individual will either be a judge of the world and an heir of the kingdom, or one will be excluded from

8 Gundry Volf’s suggestion of this position, in Paul and Perseverance, 136-137, is couched in very cautious tones (‘it is possible that he does intend to threaten some Corinthians whose conduct makes him suspect false profession of faith’), and is based almost entirely on the (uncontroversial) observation that there were falsely professing believers in the Corinthian church; no reason from the immediate context is given to support it, and no explanation of the gear change in verse 11 is presented. See also the criticisms of this view in Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 246. 9 Fee, 1 Corinthians, 267. 10 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 133.

B. The Identity of the ἄδικοι in 6:9-11

71

both. But for Paul to warn the Corinthians directly in 6:9 would only be a ‘reversal’ if we can be certain that the category of ‘saint who becomes unrighteous during the present age’ could never exist, and that there is no need for it to be warned against – and this, obviously, is precisely the point that is in question, both in this text and in Gundry Volf’s monograph as a whole. Given the premise that saints do not need to be warned against falling into unrighteousness and hence loss of eschatological inheritance, her point here is correct: Paul would indeed be reversing himself in 6:1-11. If that premise is not securely established, however, it would be perfectly conceivable for Paul to affirm (i) that the saints will judge the world, and (ii) that the Corinthian believers were currently destined to share in that future and should live accordingly, but also that (iii) consistently unrighteous behaviour in the present time could cost them that inheritance. There are indications in the text that this is exactly what Paul is affirming. Whether or not this is the case, though, it does not constitute a counterargument to say that for the saints to become the unrighteous would require a reversal on Paul’s part. It might or it might not, but we cannot bring the assumption that it does to the text. Secondly, she states that there are two categories of people in this passage – the Corinthian Christians, described as οἱ ἅγιοι and οἱ ἀδελφοί, and non-Christians, described as οἱ ἄπιστοι and οἱ ἄδικοι – and Paul’s purpose is to contrast them. Consequently, she argues, ‘the view that Paul warns the Corinthian Christians indirectly not to become ἄδικοι ... requires the term to change meanings in the context’, from strictly unbelievers (6:1) to wrongdoers including believers (6:6).11 This, however, does not follow, for two reasons. First, it is rarely claimed that the word ἄπιστοι in 6:6 means ‘wrongdoers including believers’, or indeed that any reference to the ἄδικοι or the ἄπιστοι in this section includes Christians. Rather, the argument is that, if the Corinthian ἅγιοι were to continue in the sort of unrighteous behaviour that currently blights them, they would effectively become just like the ἄδικοι and the ἄπιστοι, and face disinheritance accordingly. As such, Gundry Volf’s insistence that the ἄδικοι and the ἄπιστοι are the same thing misses the point somewhat; they are, but that does not support her contention that the Corinthians are not being warned away from lining themselves up with the ἄδικοι. Second, Paul’s uses of the verb ἀδικεῖν in 6:7-8 are of some significance, appearing as they do in such close proximity to ἄδικοι in 6:9. It is not by accident that Paul tells the Corinthians they are involved in wrongdoing, and then immediately says that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God; his point is that the sorts of behaviour that currently characterise some of the Corinthian Christians are the same sorts of behaviour that characterise the unbelieving unrighteous around them. It is, of course, possible that Paul’s intention had nothing to do with warning the Corinthians – at that level, Gundry Volf is right to say that the text does not 11

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 135.

72

Chapter 6: 1 Corinthians 6:1-20

‘compel’ us to this view – but it seems far more likely that this juxtaposition was intended to challenge the complacency of those who did not see a connection between wrongdoing and disinheritance (see below). Thirdly, she argues that Paul’s method of motivation towards ethical living, both here and throughout the Paulines, is based on ‘encouraging a distinctly Christian self-understanding in his readers. He summons them to behaviour consistent with their true identity both now and at the last day.’12 In 6:1-11, Paul seeks to stress the differences between the church and the world by highlighting their starkly different future destinies (the judges as opposed to the judged in 6:2-3), present experiences (highly regarded as opposed to lightly esteemed in 6:4-5) and past realities (washed, justified and sanctified, rather than unrighteous like the world, in 6:9-11). This, she argues, fits better with her view, that Paul is contrasting the Corinthians with the unrighteous, than with the view that he is warning them away from becoming like the unrighteous themselves. Surely, however, this way of framing things presents us with a needless false dichotomy. Of course Paul is pressing home the differences between Christians and the world, as is so often his modus operandi; the whole chapter, and much of 1 Corinthians as a whole, uses the believer’s new identity as a motivation for holy living (not least in 6:12-20!) But this does not imply that Paul cannot use these very differences as a means of warning them. Here in 1 Corinthians, he could easily be saying, ‘You are destined to judge the world, you have a different present experience from the world, and you have a different identity from the world. So be who you are! And above all, be careful not to become unrighteous like the world – in sexual immorality, greed, and so on – as some of you currently risk doing. Unrighteous people will not inherit God’s kingdom! Stop it!’ If a contrast between Christians and unbelievers throughout 6:120 and a warning to Christians in 6:9-11 were exegetically incompatible, then Gundry Volf’s argument would be compelling. There do not seem any good reasons, though, for thinking that they are.13 Fourthly, she argues that when early Christian vice lists described the behaviour of the unrighteous, as they do in 6:9-10, they always referred to the behaviour of those who were not Christians, and served to ‘impress upon new converts behavioural norms which distinguished them from unbelievers.’14 The early Christian tradition of the ‘two ways’, like its predecessor in second temple Judaism, divided humanity into two: those characterised by vices leading to death and destruction, and those characterised by virtues leading to life and

12

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 138. Cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 266-267, who (before Gundry Volf’s monograph) argued for precisely this combination. 14 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 135, 139-141. 13

B. The Identity of the ἄδικοι in 6:9-11

73

blessedness.15 This urged godly living upon candidates for baptism at their Christian initiation, as well as reminding those who had previously been baptised of their identity and membership of the ‘in-group’. For Gundry Volf, Paul uses vice lists in a similar way, to remind believers of who they are not, as opposed to warning them of what they could become. When vice lists across the Pauline letters are considered together, she argues, it is clear that ‘for Christians, vices belong to the past’, such that we can speak of ‘the relegation of vices to the period before conversion and baptism.’ In fact, she argues, ‘Paul suspects church members who practise vices of never having truly converted.’16 Once again, there is a substantial risk here of creating a false dichotomy between warnings on the one hand, and reminders of identity on the other. Vice lists, for sure, do function in Paul (and elsewhere in early Christianity) as depictions of the way unbelievers live, in contrast to the righteous lives that Christians are to pursue, as well as reminders of the sorts of lives that Christian disciples used to live before their conversion. But this need not mean that they do not also act as warnings to Christians not to regress to their former ways. The extensive list in Galatians 5:19-21 includes vices like ἔχθρα, ἔρις, φθόνος and αἵρεσις, all of which disqualify individuals from inheriting the kingdom of God – yet the exhortations at the beginning and end of the section, clearly addressed to ‘brothers and sisters’ who ‘live by the Spirit’, warn against biting and devouring each other (5:15), becoming κενόδοξος, and ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες (5:26).17 2 Corinthians 12:20 expresses Paul’s concern that when he comes, he may find the Corinthians not as he wishes, but characterised by ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, and so on. So the fact that Paul sees a sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers, and uses vice lists to reinforce this, does not rule out the possibility of him warning believers against any such behaviour, and highlighting the consequences that would follow. As Thiselton puts it, ‘everything which persistently opposes what it is to be Christlike must undergo change if those who practise such things wish to call themselves Christians and to look forward to resurrection with Christ.’18 So none of Gundry Volf’s arguments against the first view we identified above are compelling. Her proposal overstates some contextual points and understates others, and relies far too heavily on an unhelpful polarity between

15

Didache 1-5; cf. M. Jack Suggs, ‘The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form and Function’, in David Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 60-74. 16 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 140-141; cf. Rom 1:28-31; 13:12; 1 Cor 5:1011; 6:9-10; 2 Cor 12:20-21; 5:19-21; Eph 4:17-32; 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 1:9-10; Tit 3:3. 17 The neglect of these important contextual considerations mars Gundry Volf’s exposition of this passage (Paul and Perseverance, 141-154). 18 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 439 (emphasis removed).

74

Chapter 6: 1 Corinthians 6:1-20

warning and reminder which does not seem true to Paul’s purpose in this passage, not to mention elsewhere in his writings. It also fails to provide a convincing explanation of the important phrase ‘do not be deceived’ (6:9): Paul’s use of this phrase elsewhere is intended to warn Jesus-followers, and his implication here is that the Corinthian believers risk being tricked into thinking that the unrighteous might inherit the kingdom – which is much easier to account for if we assume that the Corinthian believers themselves are in his sights at this point.19 However, the most compelling reason to reject this third view and to prefer the first view – that Paul is warning the Corinthians that if they continue living unrighteously, they will identify themselves with the ἄδικοι around them, and risk forfeiting the kingdom – is quite simple. Paul’s purpose in this chapter is to warn the Corinthians away from unrighteous behaviour, particularly in financial and sexual matters, and when he describes the situations that have given rise to his admonitions, he specifically identifies the perpetrators as believers.20 The financial and legal scandal of 6:1-8 clearly involves Christian ἀδελφοί who are involved in ‘wrongdoing’ (ἀδικέω). ‘Brother goes to law against brother ... Why not rather be wronged (ἀδικεῖσθε)? Why not rather be defrauded (ἀποστερεῖσθε)? But you yourselves do wrong (ἀδικεῖτε) and defraud (ἀποστερεῖτε), and you do these things do your brothers and sisters,’ Paul exclaims in 6:6-8. So when, in the very next verse, he insists that they should not be deceived, because ‘wrongdoers’ (ἄδικοι) will not inherit the kingdom – including those who steal, covet and extort – it is likely that he is making the verbal link on purpose. Those within the church who persist in wrongdoing are, by their actions, lining themselves up with the wrongdoers in the world around them, and consequently risk meeting the same fate.21 The same is true of the sexual sins in the vice list when it comes to considering 6:12-20. Paul confronts the visiting of prostitutes with a theological argument that would only be true of Christians: ‘don’t you know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!’ (6:15). So it seems clear that it is believers who are urged to flee πορνεία in 6:18, even as the πόρνοι are said not to inherit the kingdom of God (6:10). In fact, of the ten vices in the list of verses 9-10, only one, μέθυσος, has nothing to do with one of the two sins that Corinthian Christians are involved in according to the chapter.22 For Paul, the lifestyles of some in the church bear 19

Cf. 1 Cor 15:33; 2 Cor 11:3; Gal 6:7. Contra Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 136. 21 This fate is of course expressed negatively (not inheriting the kingdom), although based on his language elsewhere in the epistle, it is likely that he has eschatological destruction in mind. 22 Cf. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 176-181. 20

C. Conclusion

75

an uncanny and disturbing resemblance to the lifestyles of the ἄδικοι amongst whom they live, and as such their behaviour is aligning them with those who will face eschatological judgment, a reality about which they must not be deceived. Gundry Volf is right to say that theologically, for Paul, the vices belong to a past way of life. But she is wrong to deny the fact that, for a number of the Corinthian believers, they have continued, stubbornly, into the present.

C. Conclusion C. Conclusion

It is therefore likely that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, is warning Corinthian believers, a number of whom are embroiled in unrighteous activity like fraud, suing one another and visiting prostitutes, that if they persist in activities like this, they will rejoin the ἄδικοι and risk forfeiting their eschatological inheritance in God’s kingdom. This has been the majority view in modern scholarship, it makes sense of the chapter as a whole, and we have seen that the major alternative reading of the passage, represented by Judith Gundry Volf, is inadequate. There is no indication in this chapter that ‘Paul’s words threaten only those who are not genuine believers’, and there is ample evidence that in fact we cannot limit them in such a way.23 In this chapter, Paul is very concerned to warn believers away from doing things which would compromise their eternal salvation. This point needs to be incorporated into any explanation of the warning-assurance relationship in 1 Corinthians.

23

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 136.

Chapter 7

1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 The three chapters which begin with the phrase Περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων (8:1) are the most significant chapters for our overall study, and as such deserve our closest attention. They contain the most extended warning in the whole letter (10:1-12), one of the most discussed statements of assurance (10:13), a reference to a brother being ‘destroyed’ (8:11), and also Paul’s famous application of his hortatory logic to himself (9:24-27). Taken together, in fact, they rule out two of the four common explanations of the warning-assurance relationship in the letter, and problematise the other two. If any section of the letter merits serious exegetical investigation in the context of this study, it is this one. However, before doing so, we need to consider the exact nature of the problem being addressed. What exactly is meant by τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα? What do the Corinthians believe about it? And what are they doing about it? These introductory questions are significant enough to require separate consideration, before turning to our exegesis.

A. The Question of εἰδωλόθυτα A. The Question of εδωλόθυτα

Several background issues relating to the question of εἰδωλόθυτα require particular comment. Perhaps the most helpful way of proceeding is to begin with the ones in which the conclusions are clearest, and progress gradually towards the most disputed ones. (1) We may begin by stating that εἰδωλόθυτα was a polemic, and essentially Christian, term. That the term is used polemically and pejoratively is obvious; no pagan would refer to themselves as consuming ‘idol’ meat, but would use a term like ἱερόθυτον (‘sacred food’, as in 10:28). But it also seems clear that the word is essentially, and maybe entirely, a Jewish-Christian one, as opposed to a Hellenistic Jewish word which the Christians adopted.1 Of the 112 identified occurrences of the word in Greek literature of the period, only two are not Christian (4 Macc 5:2 and Sib Or 2:96), and a combination of probable Christian interpolation and ambiguous dating mean that neither can confidently be

1 So Ben Witherington, ‘Not So Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton’, TynBul 44 (1993), 237-254; cf. Gardner, The Gifts of God, 15-16; contra e.g. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 139.

A. The Question of εδωλόθυτα

77

said to pre-date Paul’s usage here.2 It may well be that Paul coined the term in this very passage, but even if he did not, its resonances are decidedly Christian, and continued to be so throughout the first century.3 (2) The issue being addressed in these chapters is markedly different from that which Paul addresses in Romans 14-15. Despite some obvious similarities – the issue of food, the possibility of causing weaker brothers and sisters to stumble and even destroying them, the exhortation to imitate Christ in putting others before oneself, and so on – the dissimilarities are far stronger. The discussion in 1 Corinthians is about idol food, not meat in general as opposed to vegetables. We have no signs of an ethnic distinction between ‘strong’ Gentiles and ‘weak’ Jews; in fact, Paul never refers to ‘the strong’ in these chapters. The weakness identified is one of conscience, rather than faith. Most critically, Paul sides with the strong in Romans on the question of whether, weaker brothers and sisters notwithstanding, it is acceptable to eat meat, whereas he regards eating εἰδωλόθυτα as tantamount to idolatry. Consequently, we must be careful not to conflate the two passages as if they are addressing more or less the same issue. (3) However we understand the discourse of 8:1-10:22, there are at least three clearly distinct issues under discussion in these chapters, even if the nature of the problem in chapter 8 is less certain. All three can be seen in chapter 10. First, there is the practice of eating idol food at pagan temples (10:14-22). Second, there is eating that which is sold in the meat market (10:25-26). Third, there is eating food which has previously been offered in sacrifice in a meal hosted by an unbeliever (10:27-30). This much is uncontroversial.4 We still need to consider what exactly Paul is talking about when he refers to εἰδωλόθυτα in 8:1-10:22, however (see further below, #7 and #8). (4) There is no compelling evidence to connect Paul’s response in these chapters with the Jerusalem decision described in Acts 15, let alone to hypothesise that Paul changed his policy in response to that decision.5 The letter of 2 The dating of 4 Maccabees is debated, and could be anywhere between 63 BC and the mid-second century AD, although a date before the destruction of the temple is usually favoured; see Hugh Anderson, ‘4 Maccabees’, in James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:531-564. Sib. Or. 2:96 is very probably a Christian interpolation; cf. Witherington, ‘Not So Idle Thoughts’, 238-239, and references cited there. On Ps.-Phoc. 31 as spurious, see Walter Wilson, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 97. 3 Cf. also Acts 15:29; 21:25; Rev 2:14, 20. The strong language in the latter indicates that the Jewish-Christian scruples about idol food were still strongly held in the late first century. 4 For the numerous nuances pressed by various scholars, see the helpful table of John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 41-48. 5 Contra Hurd, Origins, 240-270; see e.g. Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 179-187; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 334-335.

78

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

Acts 15 relates specifically to the way Gentiles should behave so as not to trouble Jews (15:19-21); Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians gives no indication that conflict over the issue is fundamentally ethnic. The Jerusalem decision speaks not just of εἰδωλόθυτα, but also of blood and that which has been strangled; Paul makes no mention in 1 Corinthians of either of these, which, given the preponderance of non-kosher meat in Roman Corinth, would be astonishing if he were intending to enforce the details of the apostolic letter. The fact that the same word appears in both texts does not indicate that one led to the other. It merely indicates that the issue was a common and difficult one in the first century church. (5) There is no need to posit different settings for Paul’s instructions in 8:113 and 10:14-22 on the basis of the theological or ontological status of ‘idols’. It might appear that he was addressing two different issues on the basis of the contrast between 8:4 (οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ) and 10:20 (οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι): if idols are nothing, then how can one become a partner with them? Yet not only is this tension – between the fact that pagan deities do not exist, and the power of the demonic forces that lie behind them when they are worshipped as if they do – intentionally framed that way by Paul in both chapters (8:4-7; 10:19-20), but it also exists in the part of the Torah which sits behind much of what he writes in this section, namely the Song of Moses (‘They sacrificed to demons and not to God; to gods whom they knew not ... They have provoked me to jealousy by what is not God’), as Richard Hays and others have shown.6 Describing idols as simultaneously non-existent and demonic, as Paul does here, is not evidence of two different issues being addressed, far less of incoherent thinking, but rather of a standard Jewish way of thinking about pagan deities. Worshipping false gods exposes the worshipper to the ‘pockets of power operating where human social “worlds” or value systems still offer them ground and sway’, but that does not mean that the idol itself has any ontological reality.7 Paul’s response to the Corinthians in chapters 8 and 10 involves a dialectic between both of these affirmations, rather than a progression from one to the other. (6) It is very difficult to account for Paul’s reasoning in 8:7-9:27 if we do not see the Corinthians as divided, to some extent, on the question of εἰδωλόθυτα. Some mirror readings of the situation have suggested that the dispute is entirely between Paul and the Corinthians, rather than reflecting tensions within the Corinthian community itself – that the question is not ‘Can we eat idol food?’ but ‘Why can’t we eat idol food?’ This, it is argued, makes much better sense of the forcefulness of Paul’s response than the so-called ‘traditional reading’, in which there is conflict between the ‘weak’ and the 6

Deut 32:17, 21; see Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 93; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 774-776. 7 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 776 (italics original).

A. The Question of εδωλόθυτα

79

‘strong’.8 But it is difficult to make sense of the length, and nature, of Paul’s argument about συνείδησις and ἐξουσία if the scenario he envisages in 8:9-13 is ‘only a hypothetical example’.9 If 9:1-27 is not a legal defence but, as we have argued previously, an extended exemplum of the renunciation of rights for the sake of love and the gospel, then thirty-four verses out of the sixty-six Paul spends on εἰδωλόθυτα are addressed to the way believers lay aside their rights and freedoms out of love for others. This would be very hard to explain if the exercise of rights, to the detriment of other believers, was not a substantial part of the problem.10 This does not mean, however, that we must imagine Paul to be adjudicating between two equal factions and proposing a clever compromise, whereby the ‘strong’ are admitted to be right in principle, but urged to take the high road and back down in practice. Frankly, a false dichotomy is evident in some scholarship on this point: either Paul is confronting the Corinthians because of idolatry, or he is judiciously settling an internal dispute based on love for one another. The most likely explanation, it seems, is that he is combining both of these, in confronting an influential group within the Corinthian church who are urging that Christians can eat εἰδωλόθυτα, with two principal objections to their position.11 The first is the fact that it will lead weaker brothers and sisters to stumble, which should settle the issue anyway (8:7-9:27); the second is that it is fundamentally idolatrous to participate in pagan worship in this way (10:122).12 (7) It is probable that the word ‘weak’ (ἀσθενής) in 8:7-13 is not a word coined by Paul to refer to some Corinthians, but a word coined by some Corinthians to refer to others. What we know about the social stratification of the

8

Thus Hurd, Origins, 240-270; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 357-362. As suggested by Garland, 1 Corinthians, 358; cf. Peter David Gooch, Dangerous Food (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993), 61-72; Hurd, Origins, 117-125. 10 So David Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 170: ‘there are no compelling grounds to doubt that differences of opinion and practice existed at Corinth; indeed, much of Paul’s exhortation would be rather pointless if it [sic] did not.’ See also Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Freedom or the Ghetto’, Revue Biblique 85 (1978), 543-574, at 544: ‘No evidence contradicts the traditional opinion that there were two groups within the Corinthian church. One group had no doubts about the legitimacy of eating idol-meat, the other had serious reservations.’ 11 David Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 107-108, objects to a sharp socio-economic split, but points out that the ‘strong’ (if we can call them that) are more likely to have been invited to meals like this, more likely to have been literate, and therefore (by implication) more likely to have been influential within the church. 12 Thus e.g. Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 221-223, 233-235; Derek Newton, Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 390-392. 9

80

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

Corinthian community, insofar as it existed, indicates that there would probably have been a variety of views within the church on the question of participating in socially important pagan meals. For those believers who were living at or just above subsistence level – which, as we have seen, was a sizeable majority – avoiding εἰδωλόθυτα, in line with their consciences and Paul’s instructions, would not have been particularly costly in social or economic terms. The more affluent group within the church, on the other hand, for whom eating at religious festivals was an important way of maintaining and improving social status, would have regarded their poorer brothers and sisters as ‘weak’ and immature for displaying such scruples; since an idol did not really exist in the first place, it did not make any sense to remove oneself from normal society, reject invitations from friends and family, fail to fulfil obligations to patrons and spurn opportunities for social advancement, all because of εἰδωλόθυτα.13 It is difficult to be certain of this background, and there are a bewildering number of permutations in the secondary literature.14 Nonetheless, it seems probable that we should see the word ‘weak’, not as Paul’s label for those with sensitive consciences or restrictive diets, but as the label given by some in the church to others in the church, for the purpose of marginalising their views on εἰδωλόθυτα. (8) Although it is impossible to be certain, the temple dining rooms at the Asklepieion offer a very plausible setting for much of Paul’s concern in 8:110:22. In a thorough review of the possible contexts, including the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, the temples of Isis and Sarapis, and all the various unidentified temple sites in Corinth, John Fotopoulos has shown, in response to the previous work of Peter Gooch, that the Asklepieion is a likely primary setting for this section of the letter, and that the food involved would almost certainly have been sacrificial, even when the purpose of the feast was not explicitly religious.15 Corinthian Christians could have attended functions ranging from thanksgiving meals for physical healing, to birthdays, funerals and weddings, at the invitation of friends, family members or patrons.16 But although such meals were common ways of socialising in Roman Corinth – and accepting such invitations was an important way of fulfilling one’s social obligations – they were never devoid of religious significance, involving as they did not just the temple setting but also sacrificial food, cultic priests, libations and 13 See, among others, Gooch, Dangerous Food, 40-46, 131-132; Alex Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 120-128. Cf. also Theissen, Social Setting, 121-137; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 186-197; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 355-362; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 369. 14 See e.g. the recent survey, and proposal, of Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 1-48, 176-191. 15 Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 49-157; contra Gooch, Dangerous Food, 21-26 and throughout. 16 Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 63-69.

A. The Question of εδωλόθυτα

81

probably statues of Asklepios within the courtyard.17 Add to this the possibility of sexual encounters in such contexts, and it is easy to imagine Paul, faced with this sort of behaviour within the church, responding with both an appeal for brotherly love in preference to the exercise of ‘rights’ (8:10-9:27), and a blanket denunciation of idolatry (10:1-22). The widespread prevalence of pagan worship and sacrificial food in Corinth should make us wary of defining the context too narrowly, but if we are looking for clarity on what ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον (8:10) might mean, the Asklepieion provides a compelling answer. (9) As such, it is unnecessary to posit a tension between Paul’s approach in 8:1-13 and 10:1-22, as if the two passages must be addressing different problems in the church. The fact that they enlist different arguments in support of their conclusions (the renunciation of rights for the sake of others, and the danger of partnering with demons) should not blind us to the fact that their conclusions – namely, that Christians should not eat sacrificial food in pagan temples – are one and the same, even if the latter addresses a somewhat more blatant example than the former.18 Rather than seeing these two lines of argument as evidence of two separate problems, we should instead view them as complementary and mutually reinforcing ways of preventing a potentially disastrous practice from taking root in the congregation. Consequently, in what follows, we will assume that throughout 8:1-10:22, the same issue predominates: that of eating sacrificial food in pagan temples. (10) This reconstruction also makes sense of Paul’s otherwise puzzling change of tack in 10:23-30. As has often been pointed out, without proposing a partition theory or accusing Paul of being hopelessly inconsistent, it is difficult to reconcile 8:1-10:22 with 10:23-30 if we assume that the food itself is the problem.19 On the basis of (8) and (9), however, this difficulty disappears. It is not simply, in Witherington’s neat phrase, that Paul is talking of ‘venue and not just of menu’; a formal sacrificial banquet to a pagan deity in a private 17 Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 252-253. Food purchased from the macellum, by contrast, was simply sacrificial in origin, rather than being served and eaten as an idolatrous act of worship, and hence Paul has no problem with it (10:25-26). Admittedly, some meals eaten in private homes could have had similarly idolatrous form: statues, libations, dedications, and so on. But some meals would not, and to refuse all social dining invitations would be tantamount to ‘leaving this world’ (5:10). Consequently, Paul’s advice is to eat meals in private homes ‘so long as idolatry is not committed, and so long as sacrificial food is not knowingly consumed’ (Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 243). 18 It is also possible that Paul’s focus in 8:1-13 is the more apparently innocuous meal in a temple dining room, whereas the language of 10:14-22 is best understood as deliberate participation in an idolatrous religious rite. 19 The change of term from εἰδωλόθυτος to ἱερόθυτος (10:28) almost certainly represents the view of the imaginary speaker, rather than denoting that a different type of food or ritual is in view; so e.g. Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 492.

82

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

home would, we may assume, have prompted similar consternation in his mind.20 Rather, it is the character of the meal, more generally conceived, that is the differentiating factor. Participating in a sacrificial meal, whether in a temple precinct (as would usually have been the case) or in a private home, Paul considered off-limits; but to avoid any food that had been sacrificed to idols, even in the context of the macellum or an innocuous meal with friends or family, would have been both socially unrealistic and unhelpfully pedantic, given that ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.’ It is for this reason that his concern moves from the idolatrous nature of pagan sacrifice (10:1-22) to the practical and relational concerns of conscience (10:23-30). In a city where there was so much sacrificial food, it was better to eat what was served without enquiring about its origin, than to restrict Christian liberty needlessly and offend one’s host. (11) The final question to be resolved is whether εἰδωλόθυτα should be translated ‘idol food’, or more specifically ‘idol meat’. The connection with the verb θύω does not settle things one way or another, because it properly refers to offering sacrifices to the gods by burning, and could include grain, cereal or even cheese.21 Recent discussion on this issue has largely centred on the social reconstruction of wealth and poverty in Corinth, with Theissen and others insisting that meat was so rare for the poor that its presence at cultic meals accounts for their temptation to eat it, and Meggitt responding that meat was more available amongst the lower echelons of society than has been claimed.22 But a further factor, which tips the balance in favour of the more general translation, is the way Paul himself, while speaking of εἰδωλόθυτα, talks about more than merely meat in these chapters: drinking the cup of demons (10:21), ‘whatever is sold in the meat market’ (10:25), which would have been more than just meat, and ‘whatever is set before you’ during a meal (10:27). The primary focus is likely to have been meat, but to translate εἰδωλόθυτα this way would imply it was the only referent, which appears from Paul’s own treatment here not to be the case. We have therefore translated it as ‘idol food.’23 20 Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 461; thus Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 178: ‘It is not the venue that determines whether an invitation can be accepted or not … but rather the character of the meal – with participation in actual sacrifice prohibited.’ 21 So G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (Macquarie: Macquarie University, 1976), 1:36-37; cf. LSJ. 22 Theissen, Social Setting, 125-129; Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 108-112. 23 This runs counter to the convention in recent German works to translate εἰδωλόθυτα with the (delightfully onomatopoeic, but decidedly narrower) ‘Götzenopferfleisch’; see e.g. Friedrich Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 108; Strobel, 1 Korinther, 132; Lindemann, 1 Korinther, 188; Arzt-Grabner, 1 Korinther, 317; Dieter Zeller, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

B. Food and Freedom in 8:1-13

83

B. Food and Freedom in 8:1-13 B. Food and Freedom in 8:1-13

Paul’s response to the question about idol food begins by quoting and then briefly addressing three Corinthian slogans on the topic.24 ‘All of us possess knowledge’: but then knowledge inflates, whereas love edifies (8:1). It seems clear that γνῶσις, along with λόγος and σοφία, was a popular word at Corinth, and Paul takes opportunities throughout the letter to put it in its rightful place, pointing out its temporary nature (13:8), its uselessness without love (13:2), its capacity to destroy others (8:10-11), and here, its tendency to cause pride. Love, on the other hand, edifies others and leads to being ‘known’ by God, and should therefore take precedence, a point which Paul will elaborate more fully from 8:7 onwards. Of course, ‘an idol is nothing in the world’, and ‘there is no God but one’: there are many λεγόμενοι θεοί and κύριοι, but only one real God and one real Lord, who together ground and give purpose to our very existence (8:4-6).25 At one level, Paul’s response here is intended to accept the theological force of the Corinthian slogans (fair enough, idols do not really exist), before challenging their application of them (but not everyone knows this). At another, however, the robust affirmation of Jewish monotheism over and against pagan polytheism, based on the dramatic reworking of the Shema, prepares the way for the fierce denunciation of idolatry he will bring in at 10:14-22, with its insistence on the reality of demonic beings.26 As such, Paul is not merely conceding the Corinthians’ point, but emphatically reinforcing it, on the basis that they have not really considered the implications it has for their eating of idol food; they will, as his argument proceeds into chapter 10, be hoisted by their own petard. Nonetheless, his immediate response to these two Corinthian slogans is to concede their validity, before showing why they should not be used as an argument for eating idol food. The first problem with idol food, understood as ‘food eaten as part of meals in pagan temples’ as described above, is that it has the capacity to damage weaker brothers and sisters: to defile their consciences, to cause them to stumble, and even to destroy them (8:7-13). This is the problem that will occupy Paul, directly or indirectly, through to the end of chapter 9, as he explains the

2010), 283; cf. the more periphrastic ‘Über das Fleisch, das für fremde Gottheiten geopfert wird’ of Luise Schottroff, Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013), 144. 24 Despite the helpful observations of Mitchell, Rhetoric, 190-192, it still seems likely that Paul’s use of περὶ δέ here refers to another topic from the Corinthians’ letter to him (cf. 7:1). 25 The word λεγόμενοι indicates that we should put quotations marks around ‘gods’ and ‘lords’ in 8:5b, as do most translators. 26 Cf. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 661-670.

84

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

importance of renouncing rights and freedoms out of love for others in the gospel, and uses his own apostolic ministry as an example. It is also the problem that will occupy us in the rest of this section, because of the way Paul talks about the consequences for the ‘weak’: for the sake of food, he warns the Corinthians, you could destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Does this show that a believer can forfeit their eschatological salvation? Most commentators believe so. Conzelmann is emphatic that ἀπολλύναι ‘must not be taken in a weakened sense as moral ruin; here as elsewhere it means eternal damnation.’27 Fee argues that ‘in saying that the brother “is destroyed” Paul most likely is referring to eternal loss ... elsewhere in Paul this word invariably refers to eternal ruin.’28 Garland agrees, and adds that Paul ‘fears that the individual will rejoin the ranks of the perishing’.29 For Ciampa and Rosner, ‘the word “destroy” points to the ultimate ruin of the people involved.’30 This general consensus is shaped partly by Paul’s view of the severity of idolatry, but mostly by the verb ἀπόλλυμι itself, which has the sense of destroying, perishing and ruining, and frequently carries eschatological meaning.31 The most extensive challenge to this view has been brought, once again, by Judith Gundry Volf. From the starting point that such destruction seems unduly severe, and therefore that a reappraisal of the passage is needed, she mounts four main arguments to challenge the consensus on the meaning of ἀπόλλυμι, and to see the word as connoting an ‘existential destruction with both subjective and objective dimensions’ which ‘falls short of final perdition’.32 First, she argues that the New Testament occurrences of ἀπόλλυμι never depict destruction as something which might follow salvation – the idea of someone who is a Christian perishing ultimately would be ‘foreign to and even in contradiction with the NT usage of ἀπόλλυμι.’ Second, she points out that the contrast Paul makes is not between destruction and salvation, which is what we might expect if he was speaking of eternal ruin, but between destruction and edification. This makes it likely he was thinking existentially rather than eschatologically. Third, she suggests, the other phrases Paul uses to describe the state of the ‘weaker brother’ (having a defiled or wounded conscience, being caused to stumble) do not imply perdition. Fourth, if the use of ἀπόλλυμι in the Septuagint is considered, the possible range of meanings broadens to include ideas of 27

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 149. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 428. 29 Garland, 1 Corinthians, 389. 30 Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 393. See also Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 196; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:265; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 653-654; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 348. 31 Thus BDAG, with references; Oepke, TDNT 1:393-396, citing also John 10:28; Rom 2:12; 14:15; 1 Cor 1:18-19; 15:18; 2 Thess 2:10; Jas 4:12; Jud 5: ‘In view is not just physical destruction but a hopeless destiny of eternal death.’ 32 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 85-97, at 96. 28

B. Food and Freedom in 8:1-13

85

sorrow, sin and remorse. Since these themes appear in 1 Corinthians 8 as well, she argues, it is likely that ἀπόλλυμι has a similar meaning here, and that final destruction is not necessarily meant. We need to consider each of these arguments carefully. Before we do, though, two substantial weaknesses in Gundry Volf’s approach need to be pointed out, because they have significant implications for the way she handles the text. One of these, which is largely a function of space in a study that looks at a large number of Pauline warnings, is that she conflates 1 Corinthians 8 with Romans 14, and throughout her study alternates between the two as if they are addressing identical issues, even to the point of allowing phrases in Romans 14 to explicate phrases in 1 Corinthians 8. The fact that the very subject under discussion is different (unclean food in Rome, idol food in Corinth) is not considered, and nor are the substantial other differences between the two passages that we noted above.33 The result of this is that, when discussing idol food in 1 Corinthians 8, Gundry Volf uses phrases from Romans 14 to argue that the problem is not eating or idolatry, but merely ‘failing to live from faith’, which no doubt also contributes to her view that a penalty of destruction is unnecessarily severe.34 The assumption that eating without faith in Romans is the same thing as having a weak conscience in 1 Corinthians is very problematic; the weak conscience in 1 Corinthians does not lead someone to wince as they eat something they do not feel comfortable with, nor to be unsettled by the eating habits of their brothers and sisters, but to fall headlong into idolatrous practices through the poor example of others who are supposedly more enlightened and influential than they are (8:10).35 Gundry Volf’s failure to separate out the two texts, and to identify the important ways in which they are different, confuses her reconstruction of the background to each issue, and taints her exegesis accordingly. In a related move, she also argues that 1 Corinthians 8 is not about idolatry. This, no doubt, is partly a function of her reading of Romans 14, where idolatry is of course not in view. It is also closely connected with her view of ἀπόλλυμι, and understandably so: while eschatological destruction might be an appropriate consequence of idolatry, it would not seem to be so appropriate if the sin in question were merely ‘violating one’s convictions, or acting without πίστις.’36 With these two perspectives in view, she argues that ‘the weak Christian thus

33

Cf. also Dunn, Theology, 701-706. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 86, 92-93. 35 So Garland, 1 Corinthians, 388: ‘It is not that this person might be persuaded to eat while thinking all the while that it is wrong, but that he or she will eat while thinking that it is acceptable for a Christian to do so.’ 36 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 92. 34

86

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

does not become an idolater by eating food she regards as εἰδωλόθυτον. Rather, the one who is weak sins by failing to live from faith.’37 This view is problematic, and it makes 1 Corinthians 8:10 in particular very difficult to understand. On this reading, Paul would be saying that eating and reclining in an idol’s temple would cause those with sensitive consciences to eat idol food themselves, against their better judgment, which is highly counterintuitive; one would expect that those with sensitive consciences would be troubled and offended by the behaviour of those who participated (as in Rom 14:15), rather than emboldened to join in themselves. A far more likely reading is that those with ‘knowledge’, by eating in an idol’s temple, would cause the ‘weak in συνείδησις’ to assume that it was acceptable to eat idol food – even though for the ‘weak’, this would imply participation in the worship of the idol (1 Cor 8:7). Thus, while for those with ‘knowledge’ there was nothing subjectively idolatrous about eating idol food (since there is only one real God anyway), for the ‘weak’ there certainly was – eating in a pagan temple precinct would imply sharing in the worship of the idol – and therefore they would be led into subjective idolatry, all the while assuming that it was acceptable for Christians to participate in such syncretism. In a very real sense, then, the ‘weak’ would become idolaters through the behaviour of those with ‘knowledge’. Crucial to Gundry Volf’s reading at this point is Paul’s apparent affirmation that there is nothing intrinsically beneficial in or damaging about eating the food in itself (8:8). This indicates to her that the risk facing the ‘weak brother’ in this passage is not idolatry (in which case Paul’s statement would be inexplicable) but eating against one’s conscience. However, there are several ambiguities within 8:8 that make it difficult to use it as a grid through which to interpret the rest of the passage. Is the phrase βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ θεῷ a quotation from the Corinthians’ letter?38 Should we understand παρίστημι as negative (implying judgment) rather than positive (implying commendation)?39 Is Paul’s point in 8:8b related to the material aspect of eating, the social aspect, the religious or numinous aspect, or a combination?40 Not only that, but the vital phrase in 8:8b does not, in fact, say what it is so often assumed to say; the pair of statements is asymmetrical, and as such it is not the 37

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 93. So Weiss, 1 Korinther, 229; Morris, 1 Corinthians, 128; Grosheide, 1 Corinthians, 194; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 195; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 647-648. 39 So Weiss, 1 Korinther, 229; Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Food and Spiritual Gifts in 1 Cor. 8:8’, CBQ 41 (1979), 292-298; Joachim Jeremias, ‘Zur Gedankenführung in den paulinischen Briefen’, in J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik (ed.), Studia Paulina in Honorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), 146-153; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 647-648. 40 See e.g. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 133-137 (material); Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 388-390 (social); Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 93 n35 (religious/spiritual). 38

B. Food and Freedom in 8:1-13

87

moral neutrality of food which Paul affirms, but the lack of benefit which accrues from eating, and the lack of disadvantage that comes from not eating.41 To use 8:8 as proof that Paul saw εἰδωλόθυτα in itself as morally neutral, and only a problem because of the damage it did to the consciences of others, is therefore to go well beyond what Paul actually says. What, then, of her arguments (which are shared, to some extent, by a minority of commentators) that ἀπόλλυμι does not refer to eternal perdition, but to an existential loss with objective and subjective aspects? Her first argument, that ἀπόλλυμι in the New Testament never refers to a state of eternal destruction that follows salvation, is certainly the least convincing.42 For one thing, it is methodologically curious to assert that, since no other New Testament writer makes this point, then Paul cannot be making it here; there are all sorts of things which Paul teaches which are not taught elsewhere, and if we applied Gundry Volf’s logic to other passages, we would quickly end up in a world of strange interpretations or forced harmonisations (or both).43 For another, the very point at issue in Gundry Volf’s study is the question of whether Paul believes people who are saved can ultimately be destroyed, and at least four Pauline uses of ἀπόλλυμι occur with reference to those who have experienced God’s salvation (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 10:9, 10).44 To strike out two of these immediately on the basis that ‘salvation is never followed by destruction’, and the other two later on the grounds that they do not refer to the elect, is to invite the charge of solving the puzzle by sweeping pieces off the table.45 And for another, her statement is not even true with reference to the rest of the New Testament. Judas Iscariot, as she admits in a footnote, is an exception (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας).46 Hebrews 10:26-39 warns believers away from continuing in sin using the language of shrinking back and facing ἀπώλεια (the fact that the noun form is used here does not make it irrelevant). 2 John 8 urges Jesus-followers to watch themselves ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσητε ἃ εἰργασάμεθα. And Jude 5 talks about the Lord saving a people out of Egypt, and afterwards destroying those who did not believe (both σώζω and ἀπόλλυμι are used here), which in the context clearly serves as a type of those in the author’s own day who will face eschatological condemnation (4, 8). Contrary to Gundry Volf’s statement that ‘salvation is never followed by destruction’ in the New Testament, then, we have a number of examples, in Paul and elsewhere, in which exactly this sequence can be seen.

41

Contra e.g. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 93 n35: ‘Paul affirms that eating as such neither helps nor harms spiritually.’ Technically, the former is true, but the latter is not. 42 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 87. 43 Thus, most notably, James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1977). 44 Rom 2:12 would sometimes be argued to be a further example, but this is far less clear. 45 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 87, 123-128. 46 John 17:12; see Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 87 n12.

88

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

Her second argument, that the contrast Paul draws is between destruction and edification as opposed to salvation, is also somewhat inaccurate when it comes to the specifics of 1 Corinthians 8.47 No doubt it is true that Paul desires the Corinthians to seek to build one another up (8:1), but within this chapter there is no contrast drawn between destruction and edification as she suggests (although there is, of course, in Romans 14). Paul’s exhortations in 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 are entirely negative, aimed at preventing the Corinthians from becoming a stumbling block to each other, wounding each other’s consciences and destroying each other; there is no positive exhortation to edify others, and the only time the concept of edification appears, it is used ironically (8:10). Consequently, it is not valid for Gundry Volf to argue that destruction is contrasted with edification and therefore that it is not contrasted to salvation. Strictly speaking, it is not directly contrasted with anything. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine what else Paul could have said if, as we believe, he was warning the Corinthians not to lead one another towards eternal destruction; ‘do not destroy each other’ could not reasonably be set in opposition to ‘save each other’, since that is Christ’s role. To argue that the contrast in the text rules out salvific connotations is therefore wholly unnecessary. Gundry Volf is on somewhat stronger ground when she analyses the other phrases Paul uses to describe the state of the ‘weaker brother’: having a defiled or wounded conscience, and being caused to stumble. None of these, she rightly states, provides a reason to interpret ἀπόλλυμι as referring to final destruction.48 On the other hand, they do not provide a reason not to, either. Both πρόσκομμα and σκανδαλίζω/σκάνδαλον are used in early Christian literature to refer to those who experience final separation from God, as Gundry Volf admits, even if they allow for weaker meanings as well, so the metaphors themselves do not settle the meaning of ἀπόλλυμι one way or the other.49 For Gundry Volf, the key considerations that prompt her to take a ‘weaker’ meaning of ἀπόλλυμι in this text are the very two weaknesses we considered above: her use of Romans 14 to interpret 1 Corinthians 8 (‘as Romans 14:23b reveals, the sin consists in acting out of step with conscience-approved πίστις’), and her conviction that ‘Paul does not view the weak ... as idolaters but hypocrites.’50 Without these twin foundations, it is hard to conclude that the language of the chapter tells against seeing ἀπόλλυμι as eternal destruction. There are simply too many counterexamples to make this argument sustainable.

47

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 88-96. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 95. 49 For eternal destruction or equivalent, see Matt 5:29, 30; 13:21; 18:6-9; 24:10; Rom 9:32-33; 11:9; 1 Pet 2:8. For a ‘weaker’ meaning, see Matt 16:23; 2 Cor 11:29; 1 John 2:10. Cf. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 94. 50 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 94-95. 48

C. Paul and the Prize in 9:1-27

89

The final argument she makes is that the Septuagintal use of ἀπόλλυμι allows for a broader range of meaning, including ideas of sorrow, joy, benefit, sin and remorse, and that since these themes appear in our text as well, the word probably means something similar here. Admittedly, ἀπόλλυμι is used in various places in the wisdom literature to refer to an existential destruction that need not connote final perdition.51 But Gundry Volf’s conflation of 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 leads her to see Paul as concerned with sorrow and joy in this chapter, rather than with idolatry – and therefore to see a far stronger connection between the wisdom literature in the Septuagint and 1 Corinthians 8 than there actually is. For an idea of Paul’s meaning, we would be much better served by considering the way he uses ἀπόλλυμι himself than by making a comparison with the way the word was used in Proverbs and Sirach, documents whose genre and purpose were manifestly different from this letter. And when we review Pauline usage, we find nine other occurrences of ἀπόλλυμι, three of which refer to physical death, and the other six of which unambiguously refer to those who currently face eternal perdition.52 It is clutching at straws somewhat to argue that the wisdom books of the Septuagint provide our best hope of discerning Paul’s meaning, rather than the way Paul uses the word himself. Overall, then, Gundry Volf’s attempt to soften the meaning of ἀπόλλυμι to an existential destruction falling short of eternal ruin, even when it is admitted to have objective as well as subjective dimensions, does not convince. The meaning usually assigned to Paul in this passage is most likely to be the correct one: that if some of the Corinthians continue to eat food in the precincts of idol’s temples, they might, by their so-called γνῶσις, lead their brothers and sisters to partake themselves and thereby participate in what, for them, is idolworship. This idolatry might eventually lead to the eternal destruction of the ‘weak’ believer, and it is therefore imperative that those ‘in the know’ leave behind their γνῶσις and their ἐξουσία, for the sake of those for whom Christ died. The consequences of failing to do so, in Paul’s mind, could not be more serious.

C. Paul and the Prize in 9:1-27 C. Paul and the Prize in 9:1-27

We have already discussed the place of 9:1-27 within the wider argument, and concluded that Paul’s thought proceeds as follows. There are two massive problems with the way some of the Corinthians are approaching εἰδωλόθυτα: firstly, the damage it may end up doing to other believers, and secondly the 51

E.g. Prov 12:4; 15:1; Ecc 9:18; Sir 20:22. Physical death: 1 Cor 10:9, 10; 2 Cor 4:9. Perdition: Rom 2:12; 1 Cor 1:18; 15:18; 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3; 2 Thess 2:10. 52

90

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

fundamentally idolatrous, even demonic, character of participating in idol feasts. For rhetorical reasons he begins with the former, appealing to them to renounce their rights and freedoms for the sake of others (8:7-13), and then uses himself as an extended exemplum of exactly this approach (9:1-27), before moving on to address the severity of idolatry (10:1-22). The bulk of chapter 9, then, describes Paul’s own practice in apostolic ministry, and as such does not contain warnings or assurances per se. However, the final few verses of the chapter serve as a transitional paragraph, both in terms of content – the importance of self-discipline in the Christian life – and in terms of tone.53 Most of the chapter is simply comprised of Paul, at some length, establishing his rights and freedoms as an apostle and preacher of the Christian message (9:1-14), and then highlighting his refusal to make use of these rights and freedoms in order to serve others in the gospel (9:15-23) – exactly the position he wishes the Corinthians to take with regard to εἰδωλόθυτα. With 9:24-27, though, a more urgent and more personal note becomes audible. By continuing to use himself as an example, while at the same time introducing the ideas of self-control and disqualification from the prize, Paul avoids a crunching gear change in his argument, yet paves the way for the increasingly direct warnings that will occupy him in chapter 10. Here, for the first time in his writings, Paul talks about the urgency with which he pursues the βραβεῖον, or the στέφανος (whatever they are), lest he become ἀδόκιμος (whatever that looks like), and presents his diligence as an example for the Corinthians.54 Two related questions emerge from this passage, then, within the context of our current study: firstly, what ‘prize’ or ‘crown’ is Paul pursuing? And secondly, what, for Paul, might it mean for him to become ἀδόκιμος? On one hand, many scholars see the crown imagery as referring to eschatological salvation, and becoming ἀδόκιμος as being disqualified for salvation on the basis of being tested and found wanting.55 On the other hand, a number of interpreters do not see Paul’s final salvation as in view here, but understand the language more loosely, whether to refer to Paul’s fear that he may be unapproved as an apostle, to divine praise or censure at the eschaton, or to an unspecified failure that falls short of eternal rejection.56 We need to weigh both types of argument carefully in the light of the text. 53 Thus, rightly, Senft, 1 Corinthiens, 126: ‘On peut enfin considerer ces v. comme une introduction à 10:1ss: l’Israël de l’Exode, bien parti pour sa course, mais n’atteignant pas le but, est comparable au sportif qui ne persévère pas dans la dure discipline qui mène au succès’; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 438; contra V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 97-98. 54 Similar language is used in Phil 3:8-14. 55 So Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 218; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 478-486; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 444-445; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 372-374; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 441-443. 56 So, respectively, Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 233-254; Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 185; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 715-717.

C. Paul and the Prize in 9:1-27

91

We begin by considering 9:23, which sets up 9:24-27 with the phrase πάντα δὲ ποιῶ διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἵνα συγκοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ γένωμαι. The first clause is unambiguous – ‘I do all things for the sake of the gospel’ – but the sense in which we should take αὐτοῦ in the second clause is less clear. For some interpreters, sense is made of the sentence by adding a word at the end, and translating it something like ‘in order that I might become a sharer in its blessings’; in this reading, the possibility of not sharing in the gospel’s blessings is raised here, and elaborated on in the succeeding verses.57 But more recent discussion has rightly moved away from this, due to the problematic nature of the insertion, and focused on whether we should take ἵνα συγκοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ passively (‘that I might become a fellow sharer in it’) or actively (‘that I might become a fellow partner with it’).58 If the former is preferred, then the possibility remains that Paul is talking about his desire to benefit in some way from the gospel, and even to make his own salvation secure.59 However, the way Paul speaks about partnership and the gospel elsewhere, and the way he generally uses τὸ εὐαγγέλιον to refer to the preaching of the gospel when there is no verb, makes it more likely that he intends the active sense: ‘I want to be a partner, along with you, in the work and proclamation of the gospel.’60 Whatever we may say about the possibility that final salvation may be forfeited, it is very unlikely that this is in view in 9:23. Paul transitions his argument with οὐκ οἴδατε, which elsewhere in the letter is associated with him pressing home a point and issuing an implied rebuke: you really ought to know this!61 With this, he launches into his famous athletic metaphor, in which the Corinthian Christians are compared to, and contrasted with, runners in a race. The comparison is obvious: both need to pursue a future reward, the βραβεῖον (or the στέφανος), and to exercise restraint and self-discipline in order to attain it.62 The contrast, which is less prominent, is nonethe-

57

Thus Fee, 1 Corinthians, 477; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 372. For the passive reading, see e.g. Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:348; for the active, see e.g. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 436-437. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 707, prefers the KJV’s more neutral and ambiguous translation: ‘that I might be a partaker thereof with you.’ 59 Against this view, see Morna Hooker, ‘A Partner in the Gospel: Paul’s Understanding of Ministry’, in E. H. Lovering Jr. and J. L. Sumney (ed.), Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 83100. 60 So Hooker, ‘A Partner’; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 436-437; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 432-433; cf. Phil 1:5-7. 61 Cf. 3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13. All of these are corrective in some way. 62 There has been substantial discussion on the extent to which the themes of self-denial and persevering strength are intended here, but most interpreters would (rightly) see both at work; see the discussion of Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 437-438, and their interaction with Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, 87. 58

92

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

less vitally important to Paul’s point: the runners in a race exercise self-discipline to get a wreath made of withered vegetables, but believers do so to get a wreath that never rots.63 The comparison (24-25a) focuses on the prize’s conditionality, the contrast (25b) on its imperishability. So far, so clear. But what does the picture of the βραβεῖον and the στέφανος actually represent? At one level, the answer is simple: victory.64 However, this does not address the important question of what exactly Paul thought he was pursuing throughout his ‘race’, and what he expected to receive when he finished it. For most interpreters, the answer is that Paul was pursuing eschatological salvation.65 For some, however, this possibility is ruled out by what Paul actually says; some sort of boast, praise or reward for faithful service at the eschaton, other than final salvation, is meant.66 The words βραβεῖον and στέφανος themselves do not lend decisive support to either view. A comparison with the use of βραβεῖον in Philippians 3:14 – κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ – might appear to indicate that final salvation must be in view. On the other hand, Paul elsewhere uses στέφανος to refer to his glory and his joy in his converts (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19), which could favour the view that he is speaking here about an eschatological boast. Despite the occasional efforts to make the words themselves decisive, we must admit that Paul uses metaphors flexibly enough to allow the victory crown/prize to serve more than one function.67 Nor can we rule out either option on the basis of the preceding verses. For Gundry Volf, the fact that Paul is talking in chapter 9 about renouncing his freedoms for the sake of others ‘disallows the interpretation that the metaphorical στέφανος and βραβεῖον stand for salvation’, since Paul ‘knows that even failure in his ministry would not have put his salvation in the balance.’68 The problem with this view is that it relies too heavily on a particular interpretation of 3:10-17 to blunt the force of Paul’s οὐαὶ γάρ μοί ἐστιν ἐὰν μὴ εὐαγγελίσωμαι (9:16), a phrase which strongly implies that his failing to preach the gospel 63

Plutarch, Quaestiones Conviviales 5.3.1. There are, of course, other differences, including the fact that there is only one winner in a race, and that competitors are racing against each other. These, however, are incidental to Paul’s purpose here. 64 So Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 714. 65 So Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 217; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 161; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 214; Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 249; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 442; this is also implicit in the treatment of Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 438442. 66 Thus Morris, 1 Corinthians, 139-140; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 246-247, especially n74; Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 185. 67 Contra e.g. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 246 n74. Cf. also Wis 4:2; 4 Mac 17:11-16; 2 Tim 4:8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4. 68 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 246 n74, 242, referring to 3:10-15.

C. Paul and the Prize in 9:1-27

93

would, in fact, incur divine judgment.69 With that said, the preceding context does not rule out seeing the crown/prize as an eschatological boast, either; Paul’s talk about his καύχημα in 9:15-16 makes such a connection quite possible. Within the context of Paul’s discourse in chapter 9, in which the laying aside of rights for the sake of others is the central concern, either referent for the prize/crown metaphor in 9:24-25 is quite plausible. A comparison with the athletic metaphor elsewhere in Paul’s writings, likewise, leaves both interpretations open. In Galatians 2:2, he verifies his gospel with the Jerusalem apostles μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον, which clearly, in its metaphorical use of ‘running’ to denote gospel ministry, lines up with the eschatological boast interpretation: Paul’s concern is that his labour in the gospel might turn out to have been fruitless, not that his final salvation might be jeopardised. In Philippians 3:8-14, on the other hand, the realities to which the athletic metaphor point are the striving towards the resurrection from the dead (3:10), and the prize of the upward call of God in Jesus (3:14), which (equally clearly) do refer to eschatological salvation.70 Again, rather than force this picture to mean the same thing in all of his writings, we are better to admit that Paul was able to use one metaphor for various purposes.71 There are, though, four indications in the text that Paul has final salvation in mind, rather than some sort of boast at the eschaton. The first is that, even though the ‘prize’ or ‘wreath’ language in itself is not decisive, the fact that this prize is clearly in the future tips the balance of probability towards seeing Philippians 3:14, in which the prize is clearly eschatological salvation, as a closer parallel than any of the texts which speak about the fruits of his apostolic ministry in the present (1 Thess 2:19; Gal 2:2; Phil 4:1). The second is his description of the crown he is pursuing as ἄφθαρτος: it does not seem likely that Paul would speak of his eschatological boast as continuing forever, in contrast to the crown of leaves which decays within a few days; his eternal inheritance is more likely in view here.72 The third is the connection with 10:1-5, which we will consider shortly – if, as I argue, Paul is using the destruction of the Israelites as a warning for the Corinthians lest they too be destroyed, the link between the two sections (indicated by γάρ) suggests 9:24-27 relates to pursuing final salvation rather than a boast in fruitful ministry.73 The fourth, as 69 Strangely, Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 242, concedes that resisting the call to preach would incur divine judgment, but still affirms that failure in ministry would not put his salvation in the balance. How these two statements are to be reconciled, and what sort of ‘divine judgment’ she has in mind, is not clarified. 70 This is conceded by Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 254-260, although she argues that no conditionality or doubts about eternal salvation are implied here. 71 Cf. also 2 Tim 4:7-8. 72 Cf. 15:52; see also 1 Pet 1:4. 73 See Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:387-388; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 214; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 447-448; contra Weiss, 1 Korinther, 249; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 220.

94

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

we move on to consider verses 26-27, is the contrast between winning the crown/prize and becoming ἀδόκιμος. The word ἀδόκιμος, in Paul, could carry the sense either of being ‘shown to be unfit as an apostle’, or ‘disqualified from eschatological salvation’. Both senses, in fact, emerge in 2 Corinthians 13:5-7, the latter with reference to the Corinthians (13:5) and the former with reference to Paul (13:6-7). On the basis of this parallel, and in view of the way Paul uses δόκιμος and δοκιμάζω of his apostolic ministry, it has been argued that when ἀδόκιμος is used of Paul it refers to the test of apostleship, but when it is used of others it may refer to the test of salvation.74 It is by no means clear, however, that Paul maintains the two senses of the word so distinctly. In the main, when Paul speaks of himself being tested or approved, he is talking about his apostolic ministry – but that is because that is the main sort of approval he is preoccupied with in his letters, not because the word ἀδόκιμος means one thing when it refers to him and another thing when it refers to others.75 In fact, a word study could lead to the opposite conclusion: when ἀδόκιμος is used in early Christian literature, it nearly always refers to unbelievers (Rom 1:28; 2 Cor 13:5; 2 Tim 3:8; Tit 1:16; Heb 6:8), with the only exception being the one place where Paul is using the word somewhat ironically (2 Cor 13:6-7). Here, the choice of word is most likely governed by the athletic metaphor which he has just used – hence the common translation ‘disqualified’ – rather than because it necessarily implies a test of apostleship.76 Contextually, a good argument for understanding ἀδόκιμος as referring to final salvation, rather than a test of apostleship, is the fact that Paul is deliberately using himself as an example for the Corinthians in 9:24-27.77 The unit progresses from second person indicative (‘run that you may obtain it’) to first person plural (‘we [do it to receive] an imperishable [crown]’) and thence to first person singular (‘so I do not run aimlessly ... lest I myself should be ἀδόκιμος’), and the whole point is that Paul places himself in the metaphor, as an athlete alongside the Corinthians, pursuing the same crown that he is urging them to pursue. The extended metaphor works well if Paul and the Corinthians are running to achieve the same prize (final salvation) and to avoid the same 74

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 233-237; Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, 92-

96. 75 Against e.g. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 236-237: ‘The fact that no instance of the use of ἀδόκιμος or a cognate referring to Paul relates to the test of faith or salvation, rather, that every instance has to do with his fitness as an apostle raises doubts about the view that ἀδόκιμος in 1 Cor 9:27 means rejected from salvation and suggests instead that it means rejected as an apostle.’ 76 That the athletic metaphor stands behind ἀδόκιμος is likely whether or not the verb κηρύσσειν is intended to evoke the herald of the games (which seems doubtful, contra Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 197); so Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 251-252. 77 See Schrage, 1 Korinther, 371.

C. Paul and the Prize in 9:1-27

95

disqualification (forfeiture of final salvation); it works much less well if the positive exhortation to the Corinthians relates to one thing (their eschatological boasting), but the risk to which Paul refers relates to another (failing the test of apostleship), even if it is somewhat related. Again, though far from decisive, this makes the final salvation interpretation more likely. The most compelling reason to see ἀδόκιμος as referring to the possibility of forfeiting eschatological salvation, however, is the connection between 9:24-27 and 10:1-5. Clearly, if we read the γὰρ of 10:1 causally (‘because’), rather than in the looser sense that it sometimes carries, then we would expect the example of the Israelites to explicate the threat of becoming ἀδόκιμος, and the importance of running in such a way as to get the crown/prize, in some way. If the flow of thought runs like this – ‘run in such a way to get the prize, like I do, not wanting to be disqualified, because our forefathers all experienced spiritual blessings and yet still got scattered and in many cases destroyed in the desert’ – then the case for reading 9:24-27 as about the possible loss of final salvation is strengthened enormously. And there are three reasons to believe that this is precisely the way Paul’s argument works here. The first is lexical. When Paul uses γάρ alongside the vocative ἀδελφοί, it always indicates an explanatory connection between the phrase that follows it and the phrase that precedes it. The three other occurrences of this combination in the Corinthian correspondence unambiguously connect the thoughts on either side in an explanatory way (1:10-11; 1:25-26; 2 Cor 1:7-8), as do the two in Galatians (1:8-11; 5:10-13) and the three in 1 Thessalonians (1:9-2:1; 2:8-9, 13-14). Consequently, as Fee, Schrage, Thiselton and others point out, we should assume that γάρ here is explanatory as well.78 The second is contextual, and relates to the rhetorical unity of chapters 810, which we discussed above. If chapter 9 is to be seen primarily as an ἀπολογία for Paul’s apostolic ministry, then we would be forgiven for thinking that 10:1-5 resumes the argument about idol food that Paul had begun in chapter 8, with chapter 9 almost parenthetical, rather than continuing the argument which Paul has been building solidly throughout chapters 8 and 9. If, however, we see thematic and rhetorical continuity from 8:1 through until at least 10:22 (and ultimately 11:1), and read Paul as using himself as an exemplum of the argument he has made in 8:1-13 – as we have already argued we should – then we would expect a fairly strong connection of thought between 9:24-27 and 10:1. In this reading, 9:24-27 serves as a bridging passage between Paul’s personal example (9:1-23) and the stronger warnings that will follow (10:1-22), as it moves from positive exhortations about prizes and crowns through to neg-

78

Fee, 1 Corinthians, 489 (an argument which Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 723 takes to be ‘fundamental’); Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:387-388; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 214; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 447.

96

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

ative warnings about becoming disqualified. The Israelites who fell in the desert are thus a concrete example of people who were, in some sense, disqualified from the prize they should have been pursuing. The third is the deliberate connection Paul appears to make between the failures of the Israelites and the things from which athletes would have been expected to abstain. Athletes in the games, as part of their preparation, were required to exercise careful self-control in the areas of diet, sexual immorality and even alcohol consumption.79 Clearly, these are things in respect of which Paul wants the Corinthians to exercise self-control; but they are also exactly the things over which the Israelites in the desert did not exercise self-control, and consequently faced judgment (10:7-8). The close correspondence between the athletic metaphor and the failures of the wilderness generation suggest that Paul has aligned them deliberately, with the specific intention of using the Israelites as an example of how not to pursue the prize, and (implicitly) how to become disqualified from it. These three considerations indicate that Paul saw the Israelites in the desert as an example of what happens when God’s people do not pursue the prize ahead of them, and instead allow themselves to become distracted, and eventually disqualified, from the future salvation intended for them. As such, although it seems clear that Paul was not consumed by self-doubt as to whether he would achieve final salvation, it is also evident that the self-discipline he exercised was motivated by taking hold of it (as in Phil 3:8-14), which suggests he did not view eschatological salvation as such an automatic result of being in Christ that it required no response of human effort. For Paul, and certainly for the Corinthians, the diligent pursuit of final salvation, with all the subjecting of the body that this required, was essential if one was to gain the prize and not be found ἀδόκιμος.

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13 D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

The opening section of chapter 10 is the longest warning in the letter. Having used himself as a positive example of how to approach the issues relating to idol food in chapter 9, Paul here introduces the negative example par excellence: the Exodus generation. In three clear steps, he establishes the solidarity of the Israelites and the Corinthians on the basis of their common initiatory and

79

Plato, Laws 8.839e-840c; Epictetus, Diss 3.15.10; Philo, Dreams, 2.2.9; Horace, Ars poetica 412-414; Xenophon, Symposium 8.37; Tertullian, Ad Martyras 3.3; Philostratus, Gymnasticus 52; Chrysostom, Homilies in 1 Corinthians, 23.1. Cf. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, 38-72; Mitchell, Rhetoric, 249; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:367; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 440-441.

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

97

sacramental experiences (10:1-4), then points out that most of them faced destruction as a result of idolatry, sexual immorality and grumbling (10:5-10), and consequently warns the Corinthians to be careful lest they themselves fall (10:11-12), although God will not let them be tempted beyond their ability (10:13). At first reading, it seems, Paul is making a simple comparison between the two groups of people: their sin led to their destruction, despite their spiritual experience – and if you’re not careful, so will yours. It is our contention here that this is precisely what Paul is saying, and that this constitutes the most emphatic warning in the letter, if not in the entire Pauline corpus. To substantiate this, however, a more detailed consideration of the passage is needed. We will therefore approach it in four subsections: the solidarity of the Israelites and the Corinthians through shared spiritual experience (10:1-4), the destruction of the Israelites through sin (10:5-10), the warning itself (10:11-12), and the assurance that follows it (10:13). I. The Solidarity of the Israelites and the Corinthians through Shared Spiritual Experience (10:1-4) In order to use the negative example of the Israelites to persuade the Corinthians of the danger they are in, Paul first needs to establish the solidarity of the Israelites and the Corinthians, such that the former can serve as a warning to the latter. If the Exodus generation, by virtue of being Jewish, or pre-Messianic, had a fundamentally different experience of God, such that their judgment need have no bearing on the Corinthians, then the warning that Paul plans to bring will not be compelling. If, on the other hand, he can show not only that some Israelites experienced God in an analogous way to the Corinthian Christians, but that all of them did, then their destruction in the desert will have far more perceived relevance to his readers. His way of showing this, unusually for Paul, is based on the parallels between the wilderness generation’s initiatory and sacramental experiences, and those of the Corinthians – an approach which throws up more than its fair share of interpretive challenges, but which prepares the ground effectively for the warnings to follow. After the introductory Οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, which we have already touched on, Paul gives the first hint of where he is going with the surprising reference to οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν. Paul typically uses πατήρ to refer to God; he sometimes uses it of earthly fathers or, by analogy, of his relationship with his converts; and in one place, Romans 4:11-18, he uses it of Abraham as the father of many nations. But other than here, his only use of ‘fathers’ to refer to his Jewish ancestors is in Galatians 1:14 – and there, of course, it is precisely Paul’s Jewishness that legitimates the use of the word. The idea of referring, in a conversation with Gentile converts, to Moses and the Israelites as οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν is therefore without parallel in his letters, and this clearly indicates his

98

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

rhetorical purpose: the Corinthians, Gentiles though they are, stand alongside Paul in continuity with God’s covenant people from past generations.80 Theologically, of course, Paul’s approach here is not unique. He elsewhere refers to Gentile Jesus-followers as ‘the circumcision’ (Rom 2:26; Phil 3:3), ‘sons of Abraham’ (Gal 3:7), ‘Abraham’s seed’ (Gal 3:29), grafted into the Jewish tree (Rom 11:17-24), and possibly true Jews (Rom 2:28-29) and ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16) as well.81 Here, however, his purpose in making the point is different: whereas his aim in (say) Galatians is to emphasise Gentile participation in Israel’s blessings without recourse to circumcision, in this chapter it is the judgments that fell upon Israel which are uppermost in his mind. It does not take too much reflection on Pauline theology to see the connections here: if Gentile believers in Christ are part of ‘Israel’, then Israel’s history should serve as a warning to them as much as it should (and did) to Jewish believers. Being part of God’s covenant people has huge blessings, but it also carries a weight of accountability, on the basis that ‘the fate of the ancestors should forewarn the children.’82 This is foundational for what follows. The connection between the Israelites and the Corinthians is not simply one of common lineage, however. Our forefathers, Paul begins, were all under the cloud of God’s presence (the unelaborated mention of ‘the cloud’ assumes the referent is well-known), and all passed through the sea; that is, implicitly, they all experienced God’s supernatural presence and deliverance, just as the Corinthians have. They also, he continues, had an initiation which is strikingly similar to that experienced by Christians: καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐβαπτίσθησαν ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ. This remarkable clause introduces several ideas – baptism into Moses, the Red Sea as a type of Christian baptism, baptism in the cloud (possibly as a type of receiving the Spirit), and so on – which link the Israelites and the Corinthians together even more strongly. The idea of being ‘baptised into Moses’ is unprecedented. Clearly this phrase cannot be explained simply by reference to a physical drenching, since the whole point of the Red Sea story is that the Israelites did not get wet, either in the sea or in the cloud. Nor does it indicate that, as is the case for Christian baptism, the Israelites were somehow spiritually united with Moses or that they subsequently belonged to him. It is possible, as Oropeza suggests, that the language is used because the Corinthians ‘may have placed their emphasis on the intrinsic power of a name’, in this case that of Moses, and that Paul is intending

80 This is not to say that all the Corinthians were Gentiles, of course, merely that many of them (and almost certainly most of them) were. 81 The final two references are more controversial, of course; Rom 2:28-29 could be about ethnic Jews who are also believers, and Gal 6:16 is notoriously difficult to pin down with certainty. Cf. Jewett, Romans, 236; Dunn, Theology, 504-509; James Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (London: Black, 1993), 344-346. 82 Garland, 1 Corinthians, 448.

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

99

to challenge the associations between Moses and magic, to subvert the idea that baptism into Moses somehow protected the individual from spiritual harm.83 Most likely, however, ἐβαπτίσθησαν (which, as the more difficult textual reading, seems more likely to be original than ἐβαπτίσαντο) refers here to identification with, and adherence to, the person in whose name one was baptised.84 Baptism εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν is intended to parallel Paul’s use elsewhere of baptism εἰς Χριστόν, in order to indicate the transfer of allegiance that takes place in both cases; as such, the Red Sea experience served as a sort of rite of passage for the Israelites, in which their old masters were quite literally left behind, and their commitment to, and alignment with, their new leader was clearly demonstrated. This, of course, is how Paul conceives of baptism ‘into Christ’, which would explain his (otherwise surprising) use of the phrase εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν.85 This baptism into Moses, Paul says, was both ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ, and although it is the latter that attracts the most scholarly attention, the former is equally significant. What does it mean to be baptised ‘in the cloud’? The interpretive spectrum ranges from those who see it as meaning very little, to those who see it as meaning something specific, whether baptism in the Spirit, the pre-existent Christ or the fire of judgment, right through to those who see it as meaning various of these.86 The suggestion that the pre-existent Christ is in view here has rightly been rejected, on the basis that it overlooks the important point that the cloud is one of the elements in which the Israelites are

83

See Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 85-90, with references to primary literature. On the textual question see Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: UBS, 1994), 493; cf. Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:390. For baptism as indicating identification and adherence, see Rudolf Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St Paul (ET Oxford: Blackwell, 1964), 18-61; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 724-725. 85 Cf. Rom 6:1-11; Gal 3:27-29. 86 So Fee, 1 Corinthians, 491-492 (‘Paul himself did not “mean” anything by it at all’); Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 166 (‘to this the Spirit in baptism corresponds’); Anthony Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1965), 11-16 (the pre-existent Christ); Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 68-70 (fire, as one of ‘the two elemental ordeal powers’); Richard Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1981), 218-221 (‘it does not seem possible to limit Paul’s intention to a single nuance of meaning’). Dunn, Theology, 448, sees the cloud and the sea together as being equivalent to baptismal immersion in water. Norbert Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers: Übersetzung und Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefes (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2007), 140, argues: ‘Das wird nochmals deutlich in den beiden Zusätzen in V2; denn sie wurden nicht auf Mose getauft in der Wolke und im Meer (EÜ), als ob dies zwei parallele Größen wären, sozusagen gleichartige Umstände oder Zeichen eines “Taufvogangs” (im übertragenen Sinn)’; this is rightly dismissed as ‘unwarranted’ by Yongbom Lee, Paul, Scribe of Old and New: Intertextual Insights for the JesusPaul Debate (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 80. 84

100

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

‘baptised’ into Moses, rather than the one into whom they are ‘baptised’. Similarly, seeing the cloud as a fiery judgment ordeal involves a straining of the symbolism, and interprets the cloud as a means of judgment when, in the Exodus story, it is primarily a symbol of the divine presence.87 The view that it serves as a pattern for baptism in the Spirit, on the other hand, has much more to commend it.88 The association between the Spirit and the cloud of the divine presence emerges on occasion in the wilderness stories themselves (as in Numbers 11:16-17), but comes through most clearly in Isaiah 63:7-14. Paul uses and alludes to Isaianic material repeatedly in 1 Corinthians, particularly with reference to the Holy Spirit (Isa 28:11-12 in 1 Cor 14:21; Isa 29:14 in 1 Cor 1:19; Isa 40:13 in 1 Cor 2:16), so Isaiah was clearly formative in his pneumatology, perhaps because of the connections it presented between the eschatological Spirit and the new exodus.89 The association – verging on an equation – between the Spirit and the cloud in the LXX of 63:7-14 is therefore very significant: ... αὐτοὶ δὲ ἠπείθησαν καὶ παρώξυναν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ ... καὶ ἐμνήσθη ἡμερῶν αἰωνίων ὁ ἀναβιβάσας ἐκ τῆς γῆς τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ θεὶς ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὁ ἀγαγὼν τῇ δεξιᾷ Μωυσῆν ... ἤγαγεν αὐτοὺς διὰ τῆς ἀβύσσου ... κατέβη πνεῦμα παρὰ κυρίου καὶ ὡδήγησεν αὐτούς ... The prophet here clearly imagines the Spirit as the one who was provoked by Israel’s disobedience, the one who was put in them, and the one who led them through the Red Sea and on their wilderness journey – all of which would apply to the cloud in the Exodus story. Given Paul’s use of Isaiah elsewhere in the letter, it would not be surprising to find him speaking of the cloud in Exodus as if it referred to the divine Spirit. If we understand the cloud in Exodus and the glory cloud which filled the temple in 2 Chronicles as the same reality, then Paul’s earlier reference to the church as the ‘temple of the Holy Spirit’ (3:16) confirms this reading. The Pauline innovation, then, is to speak of this as being a sort of ‘baptism’ in the cloud (=Spirit). Yet even here, sources for the idea are not hard to find. The prophets spoke of the eschatological Spirit as water being poured out from on high upon the thirsty ground, to bring life to the desert.90 Clouds, along with 87 88

Thus, rightly, Fee, 1 Corinthians, 491-492. Contra Dunn, Theology, 448, who regards this view as unlikely, but does not give rea-

sons. 89 90

14:8.

So Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 93-95. Cf. also Neh 9:19-20. See Isa 32:15; 35:6-10; 41:17-20; 43:20-21; 44:3-4; Ezek 47:1-12; Joel 2:23-32; Zech

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

101

the sea, are one of the two sources of water on earth, and therefore appropriate objects for a metaphor about drenching or immersing. Not only that, but the cloud demonstrated to Israel that God was in her midst, and was the means by which she remained together; the presence of the cloud was, in many ways, that which made Israel God’s people in the first place. This, based on what Paul subsequently says about baptism in the Spirit as an initiatory experience that unites all people in the church, makes the type even more appropriate.91 It is therefore very likely that Paul intends to show that Israel, like the Corinthians, experienced initiation by means of a sort of ‘baptism in the Spirit’ – and that this increases the solidarity between the two groups. So, further, does the more widely discussed (but in many ways clearer) reference to being baptised ἐν ... τῇ θαλάσσῃ. The journey through the sea, for the Exodus generation, was the miraculous and definitive moment in which their redemption from slavery was demonstrated, their unity as a nation established and the army of their enemies destroyed, and it appears again and again within Old Testament recapitulations of Israel’s story.92 It was also, significantly, such a display of God’s mighty power that Israel’s subsequent rebellion in the desert could only be regarded as utterly indefensible.93 For Paul, all of these elements tie the Israelites and the Corinthians together. Jesus-followers, like Israel, have been miraculously and definitively delivered from slavery through water, united as a people, and seen their enemies destroyed, yet they still face the temptation to rebel against God through idolatry and immorality. With the sacrifice of Christ seen in Paschal terms (5:7), salvation identified as a redemption from slavery (1:30) and baptism in water and the Spirit compared with the Red Sea journey and the pillar of cloud (10:1-2), the warning he is about to bring almost writes itself: if they had all this and still fell in the desert, then no Christian should become complacent, lest the same thing happen to them. There is more to the baptism reference than this, however. The Red Sea experience did not simply mark Israel’s deliverance from slavery and unite them as a nation; it also served as a boundary marker, in which it was clearly shown who was on God’s side (Israel) and who was not (Egypt). Baptism, for Paul, serves a similar function: it identifies those who are part of the body of Christ, and those who are part of the κόσμος. As such, both the Red Sea crossing and water baptism are markers of community boundaries, identifying clearly who 91 1 Cor 12:13. That the Spirit is the element in which the church is baptized into the body, rather than the one by whom they are baptized in water, is demonstrated clearly by James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (London: SCM, 1970), especially 128; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 668-672; cf. Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 592593. 92 E.g. Ex 14:1-31; 15:1-21; Deut 11:4; Josh 2:10; 4:23; 24:6-7; Neh 9:9-12; Ps 78:13; 106:7-12; 136:13-15; cf. also Acts 7:36; Heb 11:29. 93 Ps 78:12-55; 95:7b-11; 106:13-33.

102

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’.94 The significance of this will become clear in the next section. For Paul, the commonality between Israel and the Corinthians does not stop at initiation, but continues through each group’s ongoing experience of God’s gracious provision of food and drink: καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν βρῶμα ἔφαγον καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πὸμα. In the case of the Israelites, this was clearly the manna and water which God miraculously provided (that is, τὸ αὐτὸ means ‘the same as each other’ rather than ‘the same as us’).95 For the Corinthians, the point of continuity is almost certainly participation in the Lord’s Supper, following most commentators; it is much the clearest referent for ‘spiritual food’ and ‘spiritual drink’ in the life of God’s new covenant people, and Paul will go on to discuss it in more detail in 10:14-22 and 11:1734.96 Questions arise, however, over what precisely Paul intends by the word πνευματικός in this context. A number of interpreters have taken Paul to mean that the manna and the water somehow gave the Spirit, or spiritual life, to the Israelites.97 Others, in (rightly) refuting this idea, have argued that Paul is simply highlighting the supernatural origin of the manna and the water, and sees them as having typological significance without having been at all sacramental in themselves.98 It is likely, however, that Paul is doing more than this with the word πνευματικός. Within the context of this letter, it is a rhetorically loaded word, one that serves to lower the Corinthians’ self-perception while redefining true ‘spirituality’ (as in chapters 2, 12-14 and 15 particularly).99 In all probability, then, Paul’s intention is not merely to explain that the Israelites experienced supernatural provision, but to show that any spirituality the Corinthians believe they possess, the Israelites possessed as well: Israel, like Corinth, was πνευματικός.100 Not only so, but the manna and the water provided tests of discernment for Israel –

94

See further the comments of Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 99-104, on baptism as both a boundary-marker and a rite of separation. 95 Héring, 1 Corinthiens, 79, argues that τὸ αὐτό is here ‘pour souligner que la majorité des rejetés a reçu exactement les mêmes privilèges que la petite minorité des sauvés.’ 96 See especially Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:392-394; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 452-458; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 448-451. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 492-493, says that Paul ‘unquestionably’ sees the spiritual food and drink as prefiguring the Lord’s Supper, contra Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 125. 97 So Ernst Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes, tr. W. J. Montague (London: SCM, 1964), 113; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 222; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 166; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:392-393. 98 Thus Morris, 1 Corinthians, 141; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 726; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 382; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 448-449. 99 See Barclay, Pauline Churches, 205-215. 100 Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 113, argues that ‘it is quite likely that the Corinthians believed their eucharistic celebration was a medium for their spirituality.’

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

103

would they rejoice in and obey the God who provides, or would they take advantage of God’s spiritual provision for them without seeing his hand at work or obeying him in response?101 Spiritual phenomena in themselves, whether miraculous food and water, spiritual gifts or the Lord’s Supper, do not imply immunity from temptation, idolatry or judgment. What makes someone truly πνευματικός is their discernment of God’s activity amongst them through Christ (compare the acid test in 12:3). It is this context that makes the best sense of the notoriously difficult ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός. The prehistory of the wandering Rock motif need not concern us, having been analysed sufficiently elsewhere; what matters is Paul’s purpose in using the tradition here.102 The point appears to be twofold. Firstly, Paul is emphasising once more the solidarity between Israel and the Corinthians, in that both had Christ in their midst, and this point is uniformly picked up by interpreters. But secondly, and this point is often missed, he is alluding to Israel’s failure to discern that Christ was the source and purpose of their spiritual food and drink, and the consequences which followed. Israel had the Rock himself amongst them, but it did them no good because they were more preoccupied with the spiritual provision than the spiritual provider, which ultimately led to their destruction – and the Corinthians, who urgently need reminding of the centrality of Jesus both in the Lord’s Supper (11:20, 26-27) and in their corporate use of spiritual gifts (12:36), are at risk of the same thing. The presence of Christ amongst Israel not only did not protect them from judgment; it also made them more accountable, and increased the severity of their apostasy. The word which rhetorically holds together this opening paragraph, and which in some ways is the most significant word in the section, is πάντες. For the point which Paul is building towards in 10:5-12 to have any effect, he has to remind them that not just some, or most, but all of the Israelites experienced the spiritual blessings of baptism in the cloud and the sea, partaking of spiritual food and drink, and having Christ in their midst. Without the word πάντες, the point could be missed: perhaps, the Corinthians could wonder, there were some Israelites who do not serve as examples of new covenant believers, and these were the ones who were judged in the desert. But Paul will have none of this, and uses πάντες five times to ensure that they understand. Every Israelite serves as an example of those who are baptised in water and in the Spirit, partake of 101

Ex 16:4; Num 20:2-13. Cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 455: ‘The recipients of these redemptive gifts that kept them alive in the wilderness could look at the manna, for example, in purely material terms … or they could look at it in spiritual terms as “bread from heaven” and as proof of God’s ability to provide all they need to sustain their life … The “spiritual” food and drink contrasts what the people craved with what God actually provided.’ 102 See e.g. Peter Enns, ‘The “Moveable Well” in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text’, Bulletin of Biblical Research 6 (1996), 23-38; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 727-730.

104

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

the Lord’s Supper, and have Christ amongst them – in other words, Christians. The attempt of some scholars to avoid this conclusion by suggesting an implicit separation within the wilderness generation founders on precisely this point; Israel is not typological for those who partake in the Lord’s Supper but are not truly believers, but for those who experience every defining feature of new covenant Christianity, including baptism in both water and the Spirit.103 The stage is therefore set for the second section of Paul’s argument. II. The Destruction of the Israelites through Sin (10:5-10) All of the Israelites experienced the spiritual blessings associated with the exodus – ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός. In stark fashion, Paul moves from spiritual blessings to judgments, and from the πάντες who received the former to the πλείοσιν who faced the latter. The move from ‘all’ to ‘most’, and then in the succeeding verses to ‘some’, is highly significant within Paul’s rhetorical purpose. Every Israelite was delivered from Egypt, but most of them experienced his displeasure, some because of idolatry, some because of immorality, some for testing God, and some for grumbling. Clearly, initiation into God’s people and the experience of spiritual provision did not preserve the Israelites from sinning and being judged; with most of them God was not at all pleased, even if the specific reasons for his displeasure varied from group to group.104 As a summary statement of the Exodus story, this opening clause is uncontestable. The choice of εὐδοκεῖν is important. When used of God, it sometimes suggests more than mere happiness, and has resonances of electing love; it is a word Paul uses elsewhere of God’s pleasure in revealing himself and saving people.105 The negative that appears here, then, likely connotes more than mere dissatisfaction, and includes the sense that the Israelites who fell were rejected by God as his people: ‘Der Erwählung folgte jedenfalls paradoxerweise die Verwerfung’, as Schrage puts it.106 This, alongside other considerations in the 103 Contra e.g. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 127: ‘Let the one who appears to be saved (by virtue of being a partaker of the Lord’s Supper) beware that she does not behave like a non-Christian (in committing idolatry) and fall under judgment, thereby disproving her Christian profession!’ The idea that the writer of 1 Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:27 could have seen baptism in water and the Spirit as marks of a non-Christian must be judged implausible. 104 In this context it is often remarked that, according to Numbers 14:26-35, ‘most of them’ is something of an understatement, given that only Joshua and Caleb inherited the land (e.g. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 730). However, it seems unlikely that Paul would have included (say) Moses as one whom God rejected (see below), and as such there may be a distinction between those whom God rejected definitively, and those who failed to inherit the land. 105 So Schrenk, TDNT 2:740-741; cf. 1 Cor 1:21; Gal 1:15. 106 Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:396. See also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 167; Wendell Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Chico: Scholars

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

105

passage, indicates that the Israelites not only experienced physical death (as claimed by Gundry Volf), but a more definitive exclusion from God’s people and purposes.107 The implicit warning to the Corinthians is clear. With a γάρ to show the link between rejection and physical destruction, Paul explains that most of the Israelites κατεστρώθησαν ... ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. The translation of καταστρώννυμι is difficult, and has prompted all sorts of renderings, including ‘scatter’ (NIV), ‘lay low’ (BDAG) and ‘overthrow’ (KJV), but it carries connotations of large-scale killings in several Septuagintal texts, leading many to prefer ‘slay’.108 The decisive point in favour of a more violent word, with the sense of corpses ‘strewn’ across the desert, is that this is the way the word functions in the LXX of Numbers 14:16.109 Godet’s evocative image, of ‘all those bodies, sated with miraculous food and drink, strewing the soil of the desert’, is about right.110 The displeasure of God which verges on rejection has severe consequences. Thus far, Paul has not made explicit why he is talking about the history of the exodus generation, in the context of his argument about idol food. Given the wider discourse, and the link with the exhortation of 9:24-27, we may suppose that the Corinthians would have guessed the connection, but now, for the first time, he states it clearly: ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν, εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν. We should not overinterpret the word τύπος here, as if it must refer to what has subsequently been labelled ‘typology’; the sense is more that the Israelites are an example to be used as a warning, than that they are a type of what will happen to the Corinthians (since, after all, Paul’s purpose in writing is to ensure that they do not meet the same fate as their forefathers).111 Yet Paul’s eschatological vision does cause him to see previous generations as examples given for the benefit of new covenant believers, a point which he will state directly in 10:11. Jesusfollowers, like the exodus generation, have experienced redemption by the blood of a Passover lamb, the baptismal waters, the presence of the Spirit in their midst, the presence of Christ, and the miraculous provision of spiritual food and drink – but they must now navigate the wilderness, where temptations are frequent and disasters are possible, in order to receive the promised future inheritance. If they do not, Paul implies, and desire evil instead, they will be rejected as well. Press, 1985), 143 (‘It is expressly the withdrawal of the election of most of the people’); Wolff, 1 Korinther, 218; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 458-459; cf. Hab 2:4 (LXX); Heb 10:38. 107 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 123. 108 Job 12:23; Jud 7:14; 14:4; 2 Mac 5:26; 11:11; 12:28; 15:27. 109 Thus Fee, 1 Corinthians, 496-497. 110 Godet, 1 Corinthians, 2:59-60. 111 Obvious Pauline examples of τύπος meaning ‘example’ rather than ‘type’ in a heavier sense include Rom 6:17; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:7; 2 Thess 3:9. The only place in Paul where it is clearly prefigurative is Rom 5:14.

106

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

The example of the exodus generation is intensified in its relevance, and in its rhetorical power, by the similarities between the temptations that beset the Corinthians and those to which the Israelites succumbed. The opening comparison looks fairly generic, even innocuous: εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν. The choice of language is probably significant, however; in Numbers 11, the Israelites ‘craved’ (ἐπιθυμέω) for meat, were judged by God through a plague, and named the place where the ‘cravers’ (ἐπιθυμητής) were buried ‘Graves of Craving’ (μνήματα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας).112 Paul echoes this story by choosing the same words for the Corinthians’ evil desires, and then throwing in κἀκεῖνοι to press home the point; the fact that the Israelites were craving meat (κρέα), in the context of Paul’s discourse on eating (meat?) in idols’ temples, adds further weight to the analogy.113 Clearly, Paul wants the Corinthians to see themselves in the story of the wilderness generation at every opportunity. This is even more accentuated when it comes to idolatry, the specific issue Paul will go on to address at more length in 10:14-22. At one level, the comparison is inescapable: the Israelites committed idolatry, and some Corinthians are at risk of idolatry. But the scriptural citation Paul chooses is extremely pointed: Ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν. The incident in view is that of the golden calf, in which the Israelites formed a statue and worshipped it, while Moses was receiving the law from Yahweh (Ex 32). Yet rather than drawing attention to the making of the idol, or the worship of it, or even the presentation of sacrifices to it – all of which are described in the Exodus account – Paul highlights the fact that the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.114 Their feasting in the presence of the idol, rather than their explicitly worshipping or sacrificing to it, is the main feature of the story Paul wishes to highlight, and his motive for doing so is clear: the idolatrous nature of eating and drinking in the presence of idols is the thread that runs throughout chapters 8-10, and Paul is demonstrating that the idolatry of the Israelites was of exactly this nature. (The sexual connotations of καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν are well-known, although Paul probably intends here to build a bridge to the example he will use in the next verse.115) Apparently there were Corinthians for whom feasting in the presence of an idol was not to be regarded as idolatry. Paul’s carefully chosen citation is intended to take the rug out from underneath such a position.116 112

Num 11:4, 33-34 (LXX). See especially Garland, 1 Corinthians, 460. 114 Cf. Ex 32:6, 8, 31, 35. 115 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 734-737, translates the phrase ‘and they rose up to virtual orgy’. Even those commentators who do not go so far accept the presence of a strong, sexual overtone here. 116 Thus Fee, 1 Corinthians, 502: Paul ‘specifically identif[ies] the idolatry as a matter of eating cultic meals in the idol’s presence.’ 113

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

107

Moving on from the cravings and the idolatrous feasting that some Israelites participated in, Paul then highlights sexual immorality: μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν καὶ ἔπεσαν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἴκοσι τρεῖς χιλιάδες. The question here is whether Paul is referring back to the sort of sexual immorality he has referred to already (5:1-13; 6:12-20; 7:2-5), whether he is speaking of a specific type of sexual immorality associated with eating in idol temples, or even whether he is speaking metaphorically, as many Old Testament passages do, of sexual immorality as whoredom.117 Probably, a combination of the last two is in view. The incident to which he is referring, from Numbers 25:19, involved the Israelites ‘committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab’ (25:1), a phrase which summarises the idolatry described in the succeeding verses. The idolatry, however, took the form of sharing pagan sacrifices and eating the ritual meal (25:2), alongside sexual immorality in a physical sense (25:6-8) – so there is no need to separate out the metaphorical and literal meanings of πορνεύω here. Frequently in the Old Testament, spiritual fornication is connected to physical fornication, and what we know of Roman Corinth from archaeological evidence indicates that pagan worship and sexual licence were closely connected there as well, as has often been shown.118 Again, Paul chooses an incident in which eating in an idolatrous context leads to disastrous consequences for God’s people: in this case, full-blown idolatry, sexual immorality on a large scale, and ultimately a catastrophic plague that killed twentythree thousand people in a single day.119 The next warning is about putting Christ to the test: μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλλυντο. The reference is to the story of Numbers 21, in which the people complained about the food, and Yahweh judged them by sending fiery snakes to bite the people, so that many of them died. (Although the verb ἐκπειράζειν does not appear in Num 21, it does both in the similar story of Ex 17:2-3, and in the recapitulation of the Numbers story in Psa 77:18 LXX: καὶ ἐξεπείρασαν τὸν θεὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν τοῦ αἰτῆσαι βρώματα ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτῶν.) This warning, coming as it does straight after warnings about craving meat (v6), eating and playing after the golden calf incident (v7) and sharing in idol meals with the Moabites (v8), is thus the fourth warning in a row that is connected to the idolatrous desire for food. The new concept introduced is that of ‘testing’ Christ,

117

Thus Garland, 1 Corinthians, 461: ‘he has in mind a metaphorical harlotry.’ So Wolff, 1 Korinther, 219-220; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 738-739, and literature cited there. 119 The ‘missing thousand’, when compared to Num 25:9, need not detain us here; the proposal of Bart Koet, ‘The Old Testament Background to 1 Cor. 10:7-8’, in R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 607-615, is helpful, but certainty on the point is impossible. 118

108

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

which, given the arrogance and presumption amongst those at Corinth who were partaking in εἰδωλόθυτα, is entirely appropriate.120 The final example in this mini-catalogue of failures is that of grumbling (γογγύζειν). Unlike the other allusions, this one is difficult to identify with a particular moment in the wilderness narratives, partly because of the ubiquity of Israelite grumbling in the stories (Ex 15:24; 16:2, 7-8; 17:3; Num 14:2, 27, 29, 36; 16:11, 41; 17:5), and partly because no judgment upon Israel in this period is explicitly attributed to the ὀλοθρευτής (‘destroyer’).121 However, this may well be precisely the point: the Israelites grumbled continually, and although they met their deaths in a variety of ways, the judgment of God by means of the ‘destroyer’ was always the final reason for it. In the Corinthians’ context, Paul may have in mind their grumbling against him personally, which (as with the grumbling of the Israelites) was closely connected to their desire for (idolatrous) food.122 Paul clearly intends the four examples (or five, if the ‘cravings’ in verse 6 are included) to be taken together. Collectively, they serve to demonstrate what happens when God’s people start craving food, particularly food associated with idols. The Israelites craved meat (v6), ate feasts in the presence of an idol that they had made (v7), ate feasts in the presence of an idol that the Moabites had made (v8), tested God about the lack (and quality) of food available in the desert (v9), and grumbled throughout, frequently in connection with food (v10). As we know from 8:1-13 and 10:14-22, this same nexus of food, idolatry and probably grumbling exists at Corinth as well, amongst a community who (like Israel) have experienced all the spiritual blessings that come with being part of God’s people. The consequences for the Israelites were severe. They met their deaths in a variety of ways – three thousand by the swords of the Levites, twenty-three thousand in a plague, many of the people through snake bites – but the judgment of God was behind each incident, by means of the ‘destroyer’. Not only that, but the entire nation of adults faced disinheritance from the land as well. None of them were spared by virtue of their spiritual experience, their baptism in the cloud or the sea, or their participation in the supernatural food and water God had provided; their bodies were, in many cases literally, strewn across the desert. This frightening series of comparisons has now set the stage for Paul to bring the climax of his warning. 120

Thus Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:401; cf. 8:1; 10:23. The ὀλοθρευτής is probably the destroying angel of Ex 12:23 (cf. Wis 18:25; Heb 11:28), who enacts divine judgment, whether or not physical explanations for the deaths are also provided (e.g. Gen 19:13, 24; Isa 37:36; Acts 12:23). Cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 464: ‘it reveals a terrifying mystery that God’s instrument to liberate the people can return, in boomerang fashion, to strike them dead for their disobedience.’ 122 So Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 206; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 464. 121

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

109

III. The Warning to the Corinthians (10:11-12) The rhetorical shape of the preceding paragraphs has made it very clear where Paul is going with his discourse. The Israelites should serve as a cautionary tale for those in Corinth who are tempted towards idolatry, particularly idolatry connected with food, and nobody should presume that they are safe from divine judgment simply on the basis of their spiritual experience. To ram home his point, Paul establishes the link between the Israelites and the Corinthians in verse 11, and then brings his direct challenge in verse 12. The events of which Paul has been speaking are not merely sad stories from the history of God’s people: ταῦτα δὲ τυπικῶς συνέβαινεν ἐκείνοις, ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν, εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν. Interestingly, the first clause indicates not (as is commonly supposed) that these things happened as examples for the Corinthians, but for the Israelites; each judgment occurred as a warning to Israel not to commit idolatry or test God again. But they were also written down for our νουθεσία, probably best understood here as ‘admonition’ or ‘warning’ rather than merely ‘instruction’. Divine providence was at work in the preservation of these stories for ‘our’ sake, so that ‘we’ might learn from them and be saved from a similar fate. Although Jewish readers would likely have been familiar with the idea that the scriptures were written with the messianic day in mind, Gentile readers might not, so Paul underlines the connection between the past and the present.123 The basis for this connection in this context is the fact that we are the ones upon whom τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν. This phrase has puzzled interpreters, due mostly to the surprising plurals, with the two dominant explanations being (1) that the culmination of the ages has come with the resurrection of the Messiah (which fits the normal sense of the word τέλος but does not explain the plural so well), and (2) that the end of the old age and the beginning of the new age are currently overlapping (for which the reverse is true).124 For our purposes here, however, it does not matter much which is preferred, as long as the eschatological impact of the coming of the Messiah, and the important blend of contrast and continuity between Israel and the Corinthian church, are appreciated. What happened to them was written down so that people like us could hear a clear warning from God. Then, in seven words, Paul summarises that warning: ὥστε ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ. His use of ὥστε, ‘so then’, indicates that his argument in the 123 So Brian Rosner, ‘Written For Us: Paul’s View of Scripture’, in Philip Satterthwaite and David Wright (ed.), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 81-105, at 98-102; cf. b. Sanh. 99a. 124 For (1), see Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 227-228; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 164; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 464-465; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 465-466. For (2), see Weiss, 1 Korinther, 254; Héring, 1 Corinthians, 80-81; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 743-746; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 387-388.

110

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

chapter is reaching its conclusion, and that conclusion is that anyone who seems to stand should beware, lest they fall. In a way, the two major units we have considered above correspond to the two halves of this brief sentence, with ‘the one who seems to stand’ looking back to 10:1-4, and all the reasons the Israelites might have been expected to ‘stand’, and ‘be careful lest they fall’ referring to 10:5-10, and the catalogue of disastrous ways in which so many of them ‘fell’. In Paul’s sights here is the dangerous possibility of presumption, whether sacramentally or charismatically driven; for the Corinthians to presume upon their past experience of God’s grace, to the point of committing idolatry and imagining that no repercussions will follow, is totally unacceptable. Such people must beware, lest they fall. In some ways this verse is a crux interpretum for the warnings in the letter as a whole, and it is therefore important to consider carefully what Paul intended with his contrast of seeming to stand and falling. We also need to ask whether there is any significance in the fact that the Corinthians ‘seem to stand’, and specifically, whether it implies that those who eventually ‘fall’ were not ‘standing’ in the first place. If Paul means to threaten the church only with physical death, and/or if a true believer cannot ‘fall’, then forfeiture of eschatological salvation is not necessarily in view here.125 If, on the other hand, he is warning genuine believers away from eschatological judgment and destruction, then the implications are substantial. In the Israelites’ case, πίπτειν was clearly a euphemism for physical death (10:8). The question, then, is whether it has the same meaning when Paul uses it in verse 12. For some interpreters, it does: Paul’s language shows ‘that those who commit idolatry will be killed’ (Sanders), that if they become idolaters ‘the Corinthians will expose themselves to the danger of punitive suffering and death’ (Gundry Volf), that ‘les Corinthiens sont endanger de mort’ (Perrot).126 However, there are indications in the text that more than this is intended. One key reason for saying this is the contrast between ἵστημι and πίπτω. Paul often uses ἵστημι to speak of standing fast or persevering in faith, to the extent that Robert Jewett calls it ‘technical Pauline language for eschatological perseverance’.127 Along with other early Christian writers, including the authors of Hebrews and Jude, he also uses πίπτω to refer to falling from salvation and into judgment.128 And significantly, Paul makes the contrast between standing and falling on other occasions, which bear out this interpretation. In

125

So Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 168; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 120-130. E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 110; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 123; Charles Perrot, ‘Les Exemples du Désert (1 Cor. 10:6-11)’, NTS 29 (1983), 437-452, at 443. 127 Jewett, Romans, 842; cf. Rom 5:2; 1 Cor 15:1; 16:13; 2 Cor 1:24; Phil 1:27; 4:1; 1 Thess 3:8; cf. Eph 6:13-14; Col 4:12. 128 Rom 11:11, 22; cf. Heb 4:11; Jud 24. 126

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

111

Romans 11:20-22, those who stand are believing Gentiles, destined for eschatological blessing, and those who fall are unbelieving Israelites who have been ‘broken off’ from God’s purposes. In Romans 14:4, the picture of standing or falling is ‘naturally understood as denoting perseverance in, or falling away from, faith and obedience’, and therefore arguably ‘relates to eschatological salvation and eschatological judgment.’129 And in Galatians 5:1-4, he contrasts standing firm in the gospel with falling away from grace, in terms (‘severed from Christ’!) which make it clear that eschatological consequences are involved.130 Standing and falling, for Paul, appear to be common metaphors for perseverance and apostasy.131 A second reason for seeing the warning of 10:12 in these terms is the way in which the wilderness generation is used as a paradigm, both in this passage and in early Christian paraenesis. The exodus Israelites do not merely serve as examples of people who sinned, and consequently died; any number of Old Testament individuals could be used to make that point. Rather, they serve as examples of those who, by being destroyed as a result of sin, failed to reach the destination to which they were called, namely the promised land. For the writer to the Hebrews, their failure should warn believers about the possibility of failing to enter ‘rest’ (Heb 4:1-2), for Jude it reminds the church of the condemnation and destruction that came upon those who did not believe (Jud 4-5), and for Paul, coming as this passage does immediately after 9:24-27, it shows the importance of running so as to win the prize, and the risk of failing to do so. In each case, the promised land which the Israelites failed to inherit clearly represents the eschatological hope of the Christian – and the destruction that they faced in the wilderness represents disinheritance from it. As such, Paul’s use of the Israelites to warn the Corinthians about ‘standing’ and ‘falling’ suggests that he has this polarity in mind: perseverance leading to eternal salvation, or idolatry resulting in eschatological condemnation.132 So far, then, it is clear that Paul is warning the Corinthians that continued idolatry would result in eschatological destruction, and that the destruction of the Israelites in the desert should be a clear demonstration of that (whether or not it might also result in the physical death of offenders). The remaining question with respect to verse twelve, then, is whether this warning includes those who are genuine believers, and thereby indicates that final salvation can be forfeited. The flow of the passage might suggest that it does; no separation 129

C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, 2 vols. (London: T&T Clark, 1979), 2:703; Schreiner, Romans, 719. 130 In Galatians 5:1-4, Paul uses the related verbs στήκω and ἐκπίπτω. 131 Thus Wolff, 1 Korinther, 223-224; Willis, Idol Meat, 157, says Paul here refers to ‘the loss of salvation, not just occasional slips.’ 132 So Fee, 1 Corinthians, 507: ‘This can only mean that the Corinthians, too, as Israel, may fail of the eschatological prize, in this case eternal salvation’; cf. also (to her credit, against the flow of her wider argument) Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 124.

112

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

between elect and non-elect Israelites is apparent from the text. For some, however, Paul’s language suggests that only those who appear to be believers but in fact are not – falsely professing ‘church members’ – will face eschatological disinheritance. This view finds its clearest expression in the work of Gundry Volf, on the basis of three considerations. The first is that Paul has already spoken of the phenomenon of the ‘so-called brother’ (5:11), which clearly shows he regarded some within the church as falsely professing believers. On the basis of our own study of chapter 5 (see above), this is correct – the individual who is the subject of the discipline, at least, is in this category, and Paul clearly implies there may be others (5:1113). So it is reasonable to assume that for Paul, some within the Christian community at Corinth would not have been regarded as genuine brothers and sisters. We cannot therefore rule out the possibility that other warnings in the letter might be addressed to such people as well. Her second argument is more problematic. She argues that the Israelites who fell in the desert are a ‘type of the Corinthians’ in that ‘some of them proved themselves not to be genuine recipients of the promise.’133 The Israelites, she reasons, experienced prefigurations of the sacraments, but their destiny was not the same: some were elect, ‘chosen to receive the promise’, and others were not, and ‘received their due punishment.’ The language of divine displeasure (10:5) cannot refer to the reversal of election, because ‘divine election stands’ (here she cites various texts from Romans); the meaning of 10:5 must refer to ‘the rejection of those not chosen (to enter the promised land).’134 In that sense, the Israelites represent the Corinthian church, some of whom are elect and some of whom are not, and warn of the danger of presuming one is chosen. The problem with this line of argument is two-sided. Methodologically, it uses citations from a letter (Romans) which Paul had not written yet, and which was addressed to a very different situation, to establish that divine election cannot be forfeited, and then concludes from this, rather than the language of 1 Corinthians 10 itself, that Paul cannot be referring to the loss of election here.135 Integrating Paul’s perspectives in Romans and 1 Corinthians is worthwhile and important, of course, but we cannot allow the systematic-theological tail to wag the exegetical dog. If our exegesis indicates that Paul was talking about elect Israelites failing to inherit the promise, then we cannot appeal to a subsequent letter to overrule this conclusion.

133

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 125, 127. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 126, citing Rom 11:1-2; 8:29-30, 33. 135 The use of Rom 11:1-2 in this context is particularly unconvincing, since Paul’s whole purpose in chapters 9-11 is to account for the rejection of individuals within ethnic Israel, while stressing God’s covenant commitment to Israel corporately. 134

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

113

Exegetically, her analysis also faces problems. In the immediate context, she assumes that the purpose of 10:1-4 is to establish the Israelites’ common experience of the sacraments, rather than (as we have seen) to establish their full initiation into God’s people; these verses are there to prove that every Israelite was chosen, redeemed, baptised, given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and given the divine meal – all of which prefigure Christian initation as a whole, not merely ‘external signs’. In the wider context of chapters 8-10, she overlooks the important point that those at risk of idolatry in Corinth are identified as worshippers of God and of Christ (8:6), brothers and sisters of those who are weak (8:11-13), results of Paul’s apostolic gospel preaching (9:1-2), brothers and sisters of Paul and fellow heirs of Israel’s story (10:1), beloved by Paul (10:14), and members of the body of Christ (10:16-17).136 And in the context of Israel’s story as a whole, her reading casts all those Israelites who failed to inherit the promised land as ‘types’ (which is not actually what Paul says) of non-elect members of the covenant community, and hence of those Corinthians who commit idolatry – including Moses, Aaron, Miriam, and every other Israelite except Joshua and Caleb, which surely cannot be what Paul meant. The division of the wilderness generation into elect and non-elect forms no part of the account in the Torah, and no part of Paul’s purpose here. Gundry Volf’s third argument is that the phrase ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι refers to someone who thinks they have salvation, but in fact does not. She paraphrases it like this: ‘let the one who appears to be saved (by virtue of being a partaker of the Lord’s Supper) beware that she does not behave like a non-Christian (in committing idolatry) and fall under judgment, thereby disproving her Christian profession!’137 Again, however, this is implausible. The contrast of standing and falling is not a contrast between being saved and not being saved, but between persevering in faith and not persevering in faith. So ‘the one who seems to stand’ does not mean ‘the person who thinks she is a Christian, but actually is not’; it means, ‘the person who thinks they will stand firm as a Christian, but actually may not’. The very language of seeming to stand and then falling, in fact, conjures up the image of someone who is currently standing, wavering, and at risk of falling – not of someone who has never stood at all. Gundry Volf’s objections to this view, which seem in part to be driven by her convictions about other Pauline texts, do not bear up under careful scrutiny. The risk of complacency, then, applies to redeemed, baptised, Spirit-empowered, sacrament-participating believers, who think that because they have received all these benefits they can commit idolatry and not face consequences. As such, Paul’s warning in 10:12, building on the solidarity between Israel and the Corinthians due to shared spiritual experience (10:1-4) and the calamitous

136 137

See the critique of Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 194-195. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 127.

114

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

judgments that fell on Israel in the desert (10:5-10), is intended to warn Christians about the perils of presumption and idolatry, particularly in the realm of idol food. Kent Yinger is right: ‘It is an unwarranted weakening of the apostle’s intention to interpret all of this as anything other than a sharp warning to Christians of the most dire eschatological consequences for persistent disobedience.’138 IV. The Reassurance (10:13) Verses 12 and 13 form a unified whole, so in many ways it is arbitrary to separate them.139 However, the distinctive role of verse 13 in the wider discourse has frequently been pointed out: after an extended warning by means of example (10:1-12), and immediately before launching into a direct attack on idolatry (10:14-22), Paul gives the Corinthians hope, and even a degree of comfort, without taking the sting out of his paraenesis. For many interpreters, its distinctiveness makes it very confusing, or even not part of the original letter.140 For our purposes here, though, it is of great importance. Paul begins by reminding the Corinthians that their trials are not unique: πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος. Much ink has been spilled on the precise nature of the πειρασμός, with proposals ranging from the idolatry of which Paul has just been speaking through to the eschatological tribulation, but the term may be deliberately open-ended: there is no trial, whether a temptation towards idol food, persecution for abandoning it, or any other form of internal or external pressure, which is not also part and parcel of the human experience, so the Corinthians need not imagine that their particular πειρασμός is somehow an insurmountable reality.141 The phrase cuts both ways, quite deliberately. The fact that their trials are all ἀνθρώπινος should bring reassurance to those who are in danger of doubting that God can sustain them through difficulty, but it should also challenge those who believe that they are a special case.142 For the second time in the letter, Paul then reminds them that πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, and for the second time in the letter, his purpose in doing so is to reassure them that they will be preserved on their eschatological journey.143 Some interpreters, eager not to lose the force of Paul’s warning, read this reminder of 138

Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 254. So Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:409. 140 E.g. Godet, 1 Corinthians, 2:68 (‘one of the most difficult of the whole Epistle’); Weiss, 1 Korinther, 256 (a gloss); Fee, 1 Corinthians, 508 (‘it is difficult to see how it fits into the scheme of the present argument’); Garland, 1 Corinthians, 467 (’10:13 does not seem to connect logically with what precedes’); and so on. 141 See particularly Findlay, ‘1 Corinthians’, 862; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 746-749. 142 Cf. Hays, 1 Corinthians, 166. 143 Cf. 1:8-9. 139

D. Wanderings and Warnings in 10:1-13

115

God’s faithfulness against a Deuteronomic background, and suggest that it highlights the danger of apostasy.144 Oropeza, for example, sees the Song of Moses in the LXX as crucial background to chapters 8-10, and points out that πιστὸς θεός in Deuteronomy refers to the God who ‘will not tolerate his own elect if they violate the covenant’, and ‘destroys those who hate him’.145 However, despite the clear similarities between Deuteronomy 32 and 1 Corinthians 10, Paul’s purpose in pressing home the faithfulness of God seems to pull in a different direction, as the subsequent clause makes clear (see below). Affirmations of the faithfulness of God appear five times in the Pauline letters, and in four of them, the context relates to the preservation of believers.146 We have already considered 1 Corinthians 1:8-9, and seen Paul’s confidence that God would preserve even the Corinthian Christians so that they were blameless on the last day. In 1 Thessalonians 5, in extremely similar language, Paul prays that the Thessalonians will be completely sanctified and kept blameless at the coming of Jesus the Messiah, and then affirms confidently, πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ὃς καὶ ποιήσει (5:23-24). 2 Thessalonians 3:1-3 begins with a request for prayer for deliverance from evil men, since not all have faith, and then moves on to reassure the church that πιστὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ κύριος, ὃς στηρίξει ὑμᾶς καὶ φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ πονεροῦ.147 Assurances of the faithfulness of God, for Paul, were linked to God’s commitment both to preserve his people and to ensure their blameless arrival at the eschaton. This, rather than a further warning against apostasy on the basis of the connection with Deuteronomy, is most likely also his intention here.148 This conclusion is borne out by the following clause, which explains what it is about the faithfulness of God that Paul wishes to draw their attention to: ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν (10:13). For all the Corinthians’ responsibility to watch out (10:12) and to flee idolatry (10:14), the key actor in 10:13 is God, who is the subject of οὐκ ἐάσει and ποιήσει, as well as of the passive δύνασθαι. He will not allow trials that are above their ability to resist, he will make a way out (or, less likely, an end) for them, and he will empower them to endure it. In that sense, the faithfulness of God is immensely reassuring to those who are struggling with idolatry, and any other kind of πειρασμός. They need to resist temptation and flee idolatry, but the power to do so will be provided for them by God.

144

Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 214-221; but cf. Gardner, The Gifts of God, 154. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 215; cf. Deut 32:4; 7:9. 146 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3. The fifth occurrence is 2 Cor 1:18. 147 For two strong, recent defences of the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see Paul Foster, ‘Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem’, JSNT 35 (2012), 150-175; Campbell, Framing Paul, 204-216. 148 Contra Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 214-218. 145

116

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

How, then, is this reassurance to be held together with the warning of verse 12? We may present the five options on a spectrum, as follows. (1) At one end, there are those like Gundry Volf who do not see the warning of verse 12 as applying to believers, and who therefore, when it comes to Christians, stress the reassurance over and against the warning.149 (2) Then there are those who see the targets of the two verses as different, the ‘strong’ in verse 12 and the ‘weak’ in verse 13, with the former being warned to stop being so complacent, and the latter being comforted that their weakness will be matched by God’s strength.150 (3) Next, there are those who take both the warning and the reassurance as addressed to any genuine believer experiencing some sort of πειρασμός, with the warning urging human effort, and the reassurance promising divine help such that the believer will be preserved.151 (4) Then we have the similar (but distinct) view that the Corinthians are being warned to obey and reassured that God will help them, but that God’s activity will not necessarily ensure their perseverance or obedience.152 (5) Finally, at the other end of the warning-assurance spectrum, there are writers like Oropeza for whom 10:13 has a note of reassurance to it, but also functions as a further warning, with its reference back to the God who destroys those who hate him and worship idols in Deuteronomy.153 We have already taken issue with views (1) and (5). Modern commentators have also quite rightly rejected (2) as being without foundation in the text, since the whole point of verse 13 is that it reassures the same people as were warned in verse 12, and the two verses clearly belong together.154 But good arguments can be made for both (3) and (4), and they are of course very similar; the key difference is over whether divine enabling makes endurance certain, or merely possible. In favour of (3) are the parallels with the πιστὸς θεός motif elsewhere in Paul, the harmony with other Pauline statements of security, and the apparent stress on the ultimacy of divine rather than human activity in the life of believers.155 There is also the fact that Paul sees trials as being constrained by God to ensure that believers are not overcome by them – he is somehow responsible for the size and intensity of each πειρασμός, such that it is not too 149

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 69-74, 120-130. So Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 208; Gunther Bornkamm, ‘Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus’, in Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1959), 138-176. 151 Thus Ciocchi, ‘A Theological Watershed’, 463-479; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 223-224; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 748-749. 152 So Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 229; Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 253-254. 153 Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 212-222; cf. Hays, 1 Corinthians, 166. 154 Thus Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:409. 155 So Wolff, 1 Korinther, 223-224: ‘V. 13b stellt dann sogleich sicher, daß es hier letztlich nicht auf menschliche Tüchtigkeit ankommt, sondern auf Gottes Treue, die den Glaubenden vor dem Abfall bewahren und zur Vollendung führen will.’ 150

E. Food and Freedom in 10:14-11:1

117

large for the individual to stand firm under – which indicates that, as David Ciocchi puts it, ‘each believer’s temptations will be commensurate with his own ability to endure them.’156 Some would respond, in favour of (4), that it would make no sense for Paul to warn the Corinthians so extensively if he believed God would finally preserve them.157 If God is faithful and will ultimately ensure their perseverance, then what has Paul been worried about? This way of thinking, however, does not do sufficient justice to the way Paul saw his apostolic role, both as an ambassador of the gospel and, in many ways, as an agent of divine preservation to the churches for which he was responsible. To some, it might appear logical to conclude that, if perseverance is divinely guaranteed, there is no need to warn people away from idolatry (just as it might appear logical to conclude that, if individual salvation was elected, there is no need to preach the gospel). But Paul does not think that way. His role, as he understands it, involves appealing to people on behalf of God himself, and as such he is one of the chief means by which God’s purposes on earth are accomplished. The idea that warning people away from idolatry was unnecessary if God’s faithful preservation was certain, as far as we can tell, did not enter his mind. On balance, then, it seems preferable to see a deliberate paradox being presented here, in which the Corinthians are responsible for taking heed of the Israelites’ example, avoiding idolatry and being careful lest they fall (10:1-12), while God, ultimately, will ensure that the trials they face are never too great for them to endure (10:13). Thiselton is certainly right that this one verse does not resolve all our centuries-old questions about compatibilism and human freedom, but he is also right that it sheds helpful light on it.158 The wider discourse (10:1-13) is a crucial indicator that Paul is warning believers away from eternal destruction in 1 Corinthians, yet God’s preservation is also, somehow, assured.

E. Food and Freedom in 10:14-11:1 E. Food and Freedom in 10:14-11:1

The remainder of Paul’s argument about εἰδωλόθυτα comprises two distinct subsections.159 The first, in 10:14-22, sees the conclusion of the extended argument about participating in idolatrous meals, which has been Paul’s major focus since 8:1. The second, in 10:23-11:1, involves dealing briefly with the 156

Ciocchi, ‘A Theological Watershed’, 471. So Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 221: ‘There would be no reason to warn them so severely if he believed they were all going to persevere to the end anyway.’ 158 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 748-749, responding to Ciocchi, ‘A Theological Watershed’. 159 This way of dividing the material is of course dependent upon the understanding of the whole of 8:1-11:1, as discussed above. 157

118

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

wider question of eating food that has been offered to idols if it is purchased in the meat market or served in a private home. Although the two are clearly connected, both by the theme of εἰδωλόθυτα and by the form of the argument (which mirrors that of 6:12-20 in significant ways), they are clearly addressing two different issues.160 In the context of this study, other than completing Paul’s argument, they serve primarily to confirm our conclusion that the subjects of his previous warning were believers. He begins with the simplest possible summary of his point: Διόπερ, ἀγαπητοί μου, φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας. If the example of the Israelites in the wilderness proves anything, it is that God’s people should flee idolatry, a conclusion which Paul is confident even the Corinthians will reach by means of their own common sense.161 The language of ‘fleeing’ is forceful and urgent, but it is juxtaposed with the very warm ἀγαπητοί μου. This, along with the language of participating in Christ and being part of the one body (16-17), makes it very clear that he has been addressing Christians with his warning in 10:1-13; in the two other occasions in this letter when he refers to them as beloved, he calls them his ‘children’ (4:14) and his ‘brothers and sisters’ (15:58). The appeal of verses 14-15 sets up the string of seven rhetorical questions, in three distinct clusters, which follow in 16-22. The first cluster establishes that Christians participate in Christ, the second cluster establishes that εἰδωλόθυτα involves participating with demons, and the third cluster (in which the questions follow the statement) establishes that these two are incompatible: 16-17: Sharing the Lord’s Supper means fellowship with Christ.

18-20: Sharing idol food means fellowship with demons.

21-22: Fellowship with Christ and with demons is incompatible.

160 Parallels include ‘flee from idolatry / fornication’ (10:14; 6:18); the unthinkableness of idolatry / fornication on the grounds of the ‘one body’ motif (10:16-17; 6:15-17); ‘all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful’ (10:23; 6:12); and the concluding exhortation to glorify God in everything (10:31; 6:20). For Paul, as we have seen, idolatry and fornication were closely connected, so these similarities should not be surprising; see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 474. 161 Although Paul is sometimes said to be being ironic in his appeal here, it is unlikely that he would do so at such a sensitive stage of the argument, where he is appealing to them rather than rebuking them; so, rightly, Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 171; Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth, 183; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 475; contra Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 211; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 224; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 226. The translation ‘common sense’ is so apt as to be used in English by Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:435-436.

E. Food and Freedom in 10:14-11:1

First rhetorical question

The cup of blessing that we bless: isn’t it participation in the blood of Christ?

Second (and third) rhetorical question(s)

The bread that we break: isn’t it participation in the body of Christ? We who are many are one body, because we all share in one bread.

Statement

Consider fleshly Israel: aren’t those who eat sacrifices participants in the altar of sacrifice? What then am I implying? That idol food is anything, or an idol is anything? No: but those who sacrifice ‘are sacrificing to demons, not to God.’

119 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?

Are we ‘stronger’ than him?

You are not able to drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons, or share in the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

The first cluster, with its appeal to the shared experience of the Lord’s Supper, works at multiple levels. Within the letter as a whole, it points back to the spiritual meal which did not protect wilderness Israel (10:3-4), as well as preparing the ground for the serious challenge Paul will bring in 11:17-34. Within this section, it serves to highlight both the fellowship with Christ that is involved and the consequent risk of offending him through syncretism (10:2122; cf. 2 Cor 6:14-16), as well as the fellowship with other believers that is involved, and the consequent risk of damaging others in the body, which has been a persistent refrain of Paul’s in this letter (1:10-12; 3:10-17; 5:6-7; 6:1-8; 8:7-13; 11:17-22; 12:21-26; 14:1-19). Within the social world of first century Corinth, it picks up on the significance of meals as social identifiers which incur obligations, and casts those who eat the Lord’s Supper while attending idol meals as fickle clients who are effectively switching patrons between pagan deities (which, as he will explain, are essentially demonic) and Christ.162 And within the context of Israel’s story, the discussion of blood is intentionally covenantal, both because the blood celebrated in the Lord’s Supper is that

162 So Joop Smit, ‘“Do Not Be Idolaters”: Paul’s Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1-22’, NovT 39 (1997), 40-53; cf. Jerome Neyrey, ‘Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship’, in Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 361-387.

120

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

which inaugurates the new covenant (11:25), and because covenants in the biblical story were sealed with blood as a matter of course.163 In just two verses, then, Paul has evoked a whole range of social and biblical reasons for the Corinthian Christians to remain exclusively committed to the Christ with whom they are in fellowship through the Lord’s Supper. The second cluster has prompted debate on who τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα are, and what sort of θυσία is in view. If the sacrifices are understood as the Levitical sacrifices, then we should probably translate the former ‘physical Israel’, in distinction to God’s new covenant people, and see the phrase κατὰ σάρκα in a neutral sense.164 However, it seems preferable to read the cluster against the background of Deuteronomy 32 and particularly the worship of the golden calf, on the grounds that (a) Paul is talking about idolatry here rather than worship of the true God, (b) 10:20 is almost certainly a citation of Deuteronomy 32:17, in which Moses laments that Israel sacrificed to demons who were not gods, (c) the language of provoking God to jealousy, with which Paul concludes this section in 10:21-22, comes straight out of Deuteronomy 32:1621, and (d) allusions to the Song of Moses appear throughout this chapter.165 If so, then κατὰ σάρκα may well have the sense of ‘fleshly’ or even ‘sinful’ Israel, and it deliberately refers back to the extended example given in 10:1-13. The problem with sacrifices to other deities, for Paul, is not that the deities actually exist; he made that point clear at the start of his argument (8:4-6), and makes it again here (this is clearly the force of ἀλλ’ in verse 20). Rather, the problem is that demonic realities stand behind false gods (the ‘so-called gods’ of 8:5?), and therefore participating in pagan feasts will bring Jesus-followers into partnership with demons. Paul is not merely concerned that eating εἰδωλόθυτα might bring the Corinthians into such fellowship; he is assuring them that it does.166 As he had previously taught with respect to sexual intercourse (6:1520), physical acts that symbolise union with another have serious spiritual consequences. Then, in the third cluster, the two types of fellowship are juxtaposed, and the inconceivability of continuing in both is demonstrated. Returning to the imagery of the Lord’s Supper, Paul points out the incompatibility of the two ‘cups’ and the two ‘tables’, and then asks in astonishment, ἢ παραζηλοῦμεν τὸν κύριον? μὴ ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν? The first of these rhetorical questions picks up on the theme of jealousy from the Song of Moses, and urges the

163 Thus Gen 8:20-22; 15:9-18; Ex 24:3-8; Zech 9:11; cf. Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Heb 9:18-23. 164 So Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 392. 165 See particularly Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 93-94; Simon Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 345-350; Gardner, The Gifts of God, 165-172; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 771-772; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 478-479. 166 Contra Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 215.

E. Food and Freedom in 10:14-11:1

121

Corinthians, once more, not to make the same idolatrous mistake as their fathers did. The second addresses the pride which Paul has been tackling throughout this chapter, with his arguments that spiritual experiences do not insulate believers from the judgment of God (10:1-10), and that the one who stands firm should beware lest he fall (10:12). Together, they ram home the point that participating in εἰδωλόθυτα, as an idolatrous activity, is utterly inconsistent with sharing in Christ through the Lord’s Supper. Christians who continue in it will face severe judgment. With this central point established – by means of a discourse spanning three chapters, multiple lines of argument, numerous biblical quotations and allusions, two extended exempla (one positive and one negative), and some very direct warnings – Paul moves on more briefly to talk about food which might have been offered in sacrifice, but is not being consumed either in a sacrificial context or in a temple precinct. His argument, which deals in turn with three subtly different scenarios, makes it clear that it is not the food itself, nor what has previously happened to it, that has given Paul such concern so far, but the context in which it is eaten. The first is eating food purchased in the macellum, or meat market, concerning which Paul recommends a simple ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. An identical principle operates when it comes to eating in the homes of unbelievers, which is the second scenario he imagines. In the third scenario, by contrast, somebody – we do not know whether it is the unbelieving host, a Christian guest, or neither – mentions that the food is ἱερόθυτος, and Paul’s instruction changes: do not eat it, for the sake of the συνείδησις of the other.167 The fact that Paul uses ἱερόθυτος rather than εἰδωλόθυτος here is significant; there is an important difference between food which has been offered in sacrifice but is now sitting on a dinner table, which Paul has no problem with in itself, and food which is eaten in a pagan temple, which has just occasioned a longer response than sexual immorality and litigation combined. Interestingly, though, despite the differences between the situation he is addressing here and that he was addressing in chapter 8, Paul’s underlying logic remains the same. Love is more important than rights, freedoms, or knowledge, whether the person in question is a Christian or not. Rhetorically, this conclusion has the effect of softening somewhat the extended discourse on εἰδωλόθυτα, in that it affirms the moral neutrality of food in and of itself, and implicitly affirms that those who are participating in εἰδωλόθυτα are at least correct in one respect. Theologically, it underlines

167

For the sake of this study, this question is not especially important. For a good summary of the options, along with a careful consideration of the important term συνείδησις, see e.g. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 640-644, 786-788; cf. also Fee, 1 Corinthians, 533-535, who points out that the word ἱερόθυτος, as opposed to εἰδωλόθυτος, would be more likely used by a pagan than a Christian (let alone a Jew).

122

Chapter 7: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1

Paul’s point that it is not the food that is the problem, but the catastrophic implications for the Christian’s relationship both to God (through idolatry leading to judgment) and to others (through self-consciousness leading to destruction). Finally, in a fitting summary of chapters 8-10, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to glorify God in everything, and to avoid damaging others, so that they may be saved (31-33). This is Paul’s modus operandi, and ultimately it is also that of Christ (11:1).

F. Conclusion F. Conclusion

In three separate places in his treatment of εἰδωλόθυτα, Paul has addressed the possibility of a Christian being disinherited from salvation if they do not obey and persevere. In the first case, believers are warned about destroying each other (8:1-13); in the second, Paul speaks of his own need to persevere, lest he be disqualified (9:24-27); and in the third, he warns the Corinthians about falling through idolatry, in the same way that Israel did (10:1-12). Towards the end of the section, there is an assurance of divine preservation as well (10:13), but this does not serve to undermine the warnings which precede it. If they do not change their ways, they will destroy each other, or be found ἀδόκιμος, or ‘fall’ and be ‘destroyed’ as their fathers were, or all three. Taken together, then, these three sections confirm beyond question that Paul is warning Christians away from behaviour which could lead to eschatological destruction. If the warning-assurance relationship in the epistle is to be explained adequately, therefore, it cannot be done by suggesting that the warnings do not relate to believers, or do not relate to salvation. As such, we are left to conclude either that the assurances are conditional or merely rhetorical – views which are difficult to square with 10:13, have already been problematised by our exegesis of 1:1-9, and will be rendered impossible as we consider 15:3-28 – or that a fresh explanation of the warning-assurance relationship, in which the warnings and assurances stand in tension somehow, is needed. To this point we shall return in our conclusion.

Chapter 8

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 After a relatively short, but fiendishly difficult, pericope on head coverings for men and women in the church (11:2-16), Paul moves on to address the Corinthian abuse of the Lord’s Supper.1 This section is of some importance for our wider study, since Paul talks here about some Corinthians being ‘liable’, eating and drinking ‘judgment’ on themselves, experiencing weakness, sickness and even death as a result of such judgment, being ‘judged’ and ‘disciplined’ by the Lord so that they are not ‘condemned’ with the world, and behaving in such a way as to avoid ‘judgment’. But these phrases have occasioned substantial debate. For some interpreters, this chapter provides us with ‘definite examples of people who “fell asleep” and thus forfeited their salvation’; for others, it proves the exact opposite, namely that no genuine believer will ever face condemnation.2 We will therefore move quickly through the description of the problem (17-22) and the meaning of the Lord’s Supper (23-26), and focus our attention on the hortatory material at the end (27-34), in which Paul’s warnings and assurances are found.

A. Overview A. Overview

The Corinthians’ behaviour when they all assemble together to share the Lord’s Supper, according to what Paul has heard, is not for the better but for the worse, on account of the σχίσματα amongst them. The social mix of the congregation, as we have already seen, is likely to have been an important part of the reason for this: although the church probably did not comprise a mixture of elites and non-elites, there were still some in the church with significantly more means than others, and unless careful consideration was given to the poorer members, the wealthier would inexorably assume greater privileges.3 In practice, this meant that there was not only division (18-19), but the selfish pursuit of individual satisfaction by some to the exclusion of others (20-21), drunkenness 1

It is surprising how frequently 11:2-16 is treated as if it refers only to women, when the initial mention of the problem concerns men (11:4; cf. also 11:7, 14); contra e.g. Zeller, 1 Korinther, who entitles the section ‘Die Verhüllung der Frau.’ 2 Marshall, Kept, 115; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 99-107. 3 See chapter two, above.

124

Chapter 8: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

(21), and the humiliation of those who have nothing (22).4 For Paul, such factionalism does more harm than good (17), is not worthy of commendation (22), and frankly, is not the Lord’s Supper at all (20). As in his section on idolatry in chapter 10, Paul’s response begins with a selective reiteration of what the Lord’s Supper is, and what it does (23-26; compare 10:16-17). At one level, Paul is simply reminding them of the essence of the tradition he passed on to them. At another, however, he is emphasising the origin of the meal (23), the self-sacrificial nature of what believers remember in the Supper (24-25), the covenantal blood (25) and the eschatological return of Christ (26) – each of which presents a contrast with an aspect of their current behaviour, so as to make their fleshly, self-centred, covenant-spurning, eschatologically unaware actions seem as unthinkable as possible. Even his reference to the night Jesus was betrayed (23), which might strike us as an unusual way of referring to the occasion were it not so entrenched in Christian liturgy, provides a foundation for his call to self-examination (28), precisely as the disciples did on being told that one of them would give him up.5 Again, as in chapter 10, the relatively brief reminder of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper lays the groundwork for the confrontational warnings that immediately follow it.

B. Exegesis B. Exegesis

These warnings begin with the statement that whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unfitting way (ἀναξίως) will be liable (ἔνοχος) for the body and blood of the Lord. The meaning of ἀναξίως, though open-ended from semantics alone, is almost certain in the context to be something like ‘inappropriate’, ‘unseemly’ or ‘not fitting’, rather than ‘unworthy’ in the sense of ‘undeserving’; it refers back to the self-centred behaviour of the Corinthians, which is thoroughly out of place in a meal celebrating the self-sacrificial behaviour of Christ.6 The word ἔνοχος, however, is more challenging, with proposed meanings ranging from ‘liable for’, ‘responsible for’ and ‘answerable for’, through 4

This phrase lends important support to the theory that the Lord’s Supper would have been the equivalent of a ‘potluck dinner’, in which each member would bring a contribution. The humiliation in question would be that of those who had brought nothing, not those who were at the back of the queue. 5 Mark 14:17-21; this makes the traditional reading of παρεδίδετο (‘betrayed’ by Judas) more likely than the view of Hays, 1 Corinthians, 198, and Schrage, 1 Korinther, 3:29-32 (‘handed over’ by God). 6 So Wolff, 1 Korinther, 277 (‘in unangemessener Haltung’); Heinrich Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892), 1:346 (‘in a way morally out of keeping with the nature and design of the ordinance’); see also the helpful discussion of Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 888-889.

B. Exegesis

125

to ‘guilty of desecrating’ and ‘guilty of sinning against’.7 The best interpretation is to affirm the forensic sense of ἔνοχος (‘liable’ or ‘accountable’), as is widely accepted, and if necessary to provide a gloss to make sense of it in English and locate the liability more clearly (‘held accountable for so treating the body and blood of the Lord’, for example).8 That way, we retain the judicial nuance of the word within its immediate context, but avoid implying that the liability in question is against the elements of the Supper itself.9 The sense of the phrase is that the Corinthians will be liable for their sin against the Lord, in which they use the bread and the cup as a backdrop for social climbing, drunkenness and division. The question which naturally follows from this, and which has substantial implications for our study, concerns the nature of this liability. In what way will the Corinthians be held liable? Given that they are answerable to God the judge for their behaviour, what sort of judgment does Paul have in mind? Because of the judgment language paronomasia in this section – κρίμα (29, 34), διακρίνων (29), διεκρίνομεν (31), ἐκρινόμεθα (31), κρινόμενοι (32), κατακριθῶμεν (32) – care is needed to understand exactly what Paul envisages. There are a number of factors that need to be considered.10 The first is the future tense ἔνοχος ἔσται in verse 27. For a number of interpreters, ἔσται here should be taken as an eschatological future, referring to the liability people will face on the day the judgment.11 In this view, those who take the elements in an unfitting manner will be held accountable eschatologically, and may well face condemnation; this is also the meaning of κρίμα in

7 So Garland, 1 Corinthians, 536 (liable for); Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Proclaiming the Lord’s Death: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and the Forms of Paul’s Theological Argument’, in D. M. Hay (ed.), Pauline Theology: 1 and 2 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 103-132 (responsible for); NRSV (answerable for); NEB (guilty of desecrating); NIV (guilty of sinning against). 8 E.g. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 890; see also the standard translations. 9 The judicial resonances are highlighted by C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube (ed.), The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: In Honour of C. H Dodd (Cambridge: CUP, 1956), 464-481; Collins, 1 Corinthians, 436. The grammatical argument in favour of seeing the liability as against Christ, rather than the elements, is well made by Thomas Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1903), 297-298. 10 One study which is still of substantial importance for this whole passage, and particularly for the referent of judgment language within it, is Moule, ‘Judgment Theme’. 11 Thus Ernst Käsemann, ‘Anliegen und Eigenart der paulinischen Abendmahlslehre’, in Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 11-34, at 23; Gerhard Delling, ‘Das Abendmahlsgeschehen nach Paulus’, in Ferdinand Hahn (ed.), Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 318-335, at 329; Grosheide, 1 Corinthians, 274; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 445.

126

Chapter 8: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

verse 29.12 However, this is probably reading too much into ἔσται here, which could equally be understood as an intensive future: those who partake unfittingly become liable for judgment in the present, as he is about to explain, rather than for judgment at the eschaton.13 The immediate context of present (and temporal) judgments, the occurrences of ἔνοχος ἔσται in the Septuagint, and Paul’s use elsewhere of intensive futures with εἰμι, suggest that an intensive future is more likely, and that he is proclaiming judgment over them in the present rather than predicting judgment over them in the future.14 The second is the reference in verse 29 to the one who, in failing to recognise what is different (διακρίνων) about the body, eats and drinks judgment (κρίμα) upon themselves.15 Elsewhere, Paul uses κρίμα to refer to the final judgment – and indeed the KJV has ‘damnation’ here – although he also uses it more loosely of judgment in general, which makes it difficult to be certain from the word alone.16 Two considerations, however, indicate that the general and temporal sense is more likely here than the eschatological sense. The first is that when Paul uses κρίμα to refer to final judgment, he always uses the article, whereas here it is anarthrous.17 The second is the tenses he uses for the judgment he is talking about: present here (κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει), imperfect in verse 31 (ἐκρινόμεθα), and present again in verse 32 (κρινόμενοι), which suggests a judgment that is already happening amongst the church. Taken together, these suggest that the Paul is not talking about the Corinthians eating and drinking final judgment on themselves, but a temporal judgment that has already begun. This conclusion is confirmed by the third factor we need to consider, which is the well-known reference to those who have experienced temporal judgments of various kinds: διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί. In the immediate context, this clarifies that the judgment

12

So Delling, ‘Abendmahlgeschehen’, 329. So Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 202; Otfried Hofius, ‘Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis: Erwägungen zu 1 Kor 11:23b-25’, ZTK 85 (1988), 371-408, at 374: ‘ἔνοχος ἔσται ist nicht als eschatologisches Futur zu deuten und als “Gerichtsdrohung” auf das Endgericht zu beziehen’; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 101. 14 Gen 26:11; Josh 2:19; 1 Mac 14:45; 1 Cor 14:9, 11; 2 Cor 3:8; 12:6; 13:11; Phil 4:9. 15 For this understanding of the notoriously difficult phrase κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα, see the excellent discussion in Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 891-894; cf. also Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 274-275; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 279; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 3:5152; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 446. 16 See Rom 2:2, 3; 3:8; possibly Gal 5:10 (final judgment); Rom 11:33; 13:2; 1 Cor 6:7 (judgment more generally). 17 Thus Wolff, 1 Korinther, 278-279; see Rom 2:2, 3; 3:8; Gal 5:10 (arthrous, final judgment); Rom 13:2; 1 Cor 6:7 (anarthrous, legal judgment in this age); Rom 11:33 (arthrous, God’s judgments more generally). 13

B. Exegesis

127

Paul was speaking about in verse 29 was chiefly physical and temporal (a connection made clear by διὰ τοῦτο), whatever we may say about the other references to judgment in the passage. Yet some have seen Paul as referring to a more severe punishment as well, due to the mention of death. Does the fact that many (πολλοί) have become weak or sick, but some (ἱκανοί) have died, indicate a separation in the church, even amongst those who were profaning Christ at the Lord’s Supper? Does it perhaps indicate that certain individuals became ill and repented, but certain others did not, and then died physically as a result of their lack of repentance and as a demonstration of their ‘spiritual death’?18 Almost certainly, it does not. For one thing, it strains credulity to imagine that Paul’s informant had given him the names of every individual who had abused the Lord’s Supper in the past, and whether or not they had repented, and whether or not they had subsequently died.19 For another, the judgments upon Israel, which formed such a significant part of his argument about idolatry in chapter 10, were frequently corporate rather than individually targeted – the people sinned, and many in the nation got sick and even died as a result, but those who died were not necessarily more responsible than those who did not – and it is likely that Paul’s understanding of judgment amongst God’s people was heavily shaped by such stories.20 Building on Dale Martin’s work on the body and medicine, it could be argued that the wrong use of the elements could function as a poison within the Corinthian church, which might end up harming those who were not directly responsible for misusing the bread and the cup.21 It is even possible that those who were weak, sick and dying were the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of the abuse at the Lord’s Supper, owing to a famine affecting the poor, although this remains speculative.22 And most importantly, although we may wonder about the relationship between physical and spiritual death in this context, Paul simply does not explain what purpose was served by some people dying, except that it was a form of judgment. He

18

This is the contention of Marshall, Kept, 115. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 625, argues that Paul ‘does not see the judgment as a kind of “one for one”, that is, the person who has abused another is the one who gets sick. Rather, the whole community is affected by the actions of some.’ 20 E.g. Ex 32:35; Num 11:1-10, 33; 16:41-50; 21:4-9; 25:1-9; Deut 32:24. There are examples of people being specifically targeted, of course (Num 14:37; 16:31-35), but it may be significant that neither of these examples were used by Paul in 10:1-13. See also Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 556. 21 Martin, The Corinthian Body, 3-37, and throughout. 22 Cf. Bruce Winter, ‘Secular and Christian Response to Corinthian Famines’, TynBul 40 (1989), 86-106; Bradley Blue, ‘The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply and the “Present Distress”’, Criswell Theological Review 5 (1991), 221-239. 19

128

Chapter 8: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

certainly does not specify that physical death indicated that the individual had not repented, and would therefore forfeit their salvation.23 The next factor to consider, in establishing the nature of the judgment to which careless Corinthians will be liable, is Paul’s description of God’s judgment as παιδεία in verse 32: κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ [τοῦ] κυρίου παιδευόμεθα. Discipline language appears throughout the Old Testament with respect to Yahweh’s treatment of Israel, and does not indicate that Yahweh is finally rejecting his people; on the contrary, it actually serves to show that he is not finally rejecting them, but rather chastening them out of a desire for them to be trained and grow, as fathers do their children. Leviticus 26 contains a sequence of increasingly severe acts of divine discipline upon Israel, each aimed at prompting repentance, but concludes with the promise that turning away from her sins would cause Yahweh to remember his covenant with them – as such, discipline is a mark that Israel has not been forgotten by God, rather than that she has been abandoned.24 Deuteronomy 8:5, speaking of the testing and humbling wilderness journey, explains that ‘as a man disciplines his son, so Yahweh your God disciplines you.’ Jewish wisdom literature, in particular, picks up on this theme repeatedly, and depicts the present sufferings of God’s people as evidence of his presence, faithfulness and blessing, rather than his absence, abandonment and rejection.25 In one important parallel to Paul’s language here, in Wisdom 11:9-10, the discipline of God over his people (παιδευόμενοι ... νουθετῶν) is explicitly distinguished from the condemnation that falls upon the ungodly (μετ’ ὀργῆς κρινόμενοι ... καταδικάζων), just as Paul speaks of discipline ‘in order that we may not be condemned with the world’ (11:32).26 So it appears likely, from the connection Paul draws between παιδεία and κρίμα, that he is thinking of temporal chastisements which confirm the status of the believer, rather than eternal ones which negate it. The final issue to be considered relates to the purpose clause in v32b: ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν. If we conclude that the liability believers face, 23 So Fee, 1 Corinthians, 625: ‘What is intriguing in the passage is what is left unsaid, or what is implied.’ Marshall, Kept, 115, reaches his conclusion by framing two explanations that Paul does not discuss, and then choosing between them; this is methodologically problematic. 24 Lev 26:14-45. Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 257, reads this text completely upside-down: ‘If they refuse to repent, God “will destroy them utterly and break [his] covenant with them” (verse 44). Thus, God’s disciplinary judgment does not spare Christians automatically from the final condemning judgment.’ Even if this conclusion followed from that interpretation of Leviticus, which is doubtful, the text does not say this at all; it says that when Israel repents, God will not destroy them utterly or break his covenant with them. As such, it is a promise of hope, not of judgment. 25 Job 5:17; Ps 94:12; Prov 3:11-12; Tob 13:5; Wis 11:9-10; 16:6; Sir 18:13-14; cf. 2 Mac 6:12-17. 26 Cf. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 109-111.

B. Exegesis

129

and the judgment that they may eat or drink upon themselves, is considered by Paul to be temporal rather than eternal – which we have seen is far more likely – then we still face the question as to whether Paul is saying here that such temporal judgments preserve Jesus-followers from condemnation, or whether he is saying they will face condemnation if they do not repent. Clearly, Paul believes that the ‘discipline’ of sickness, weakness and even death afflicting the congregation is connected to their preservation from condemnation. The question is whether ἵνα μή has the sense of ‘we are being disciplined, and this shows that we will not be condemned’ – in which case it functions as a guarantee of their eschatological security – or something more like ‘we are being disciplined, in order to drive us to repentance and away from condemnation’, which could make it an additional warning.27 Grammar alone does not settle the question. Paul does sometimes use ἵνα or ἵνα μή to separate out mutually exclusive alternatives (Gal 5:17; 1 Thess 5:4), and it is possible that this is his meaning here: fatherly discipline is incompatible with final condemnation.28 But he also uses them to link a current experience to a response hoped for in the future (1 Cor 4:6; 2 Cor 9:3-4; 12:7), which might also be what he means: fatherly discipline is given in order to prevent final condemnation (by prompting a response of repentance).29 In the light of the use of ἵνα μή in 11:34, where it connects present obedience to the avoidance of future judgment, the latter may be judged somewhat more likely, but we cannot be certain. A more informative approach is to consider the fundamental purpose of divine παιδεία in Jewish thought. Part of the reason for the debate over this particular text is the important fact that, in the Jewish scriptures, God’s discipline both pushes his people towards repentance and demonstrates that they are his children. However, as a brief survey of the relevant material indicates, it is the correction of behaviour that is primary, and the demonstration of familial status

27

For the former, see Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 59-60; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 111-112; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 278-281; for the latter, see Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 258 (although he says that this is not Paul’s main purpose here); Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 557-558. 28 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 112: ‘Paul does not make repentance from a sin for which a Christian incurs temporal judgment pivotal for escape from final condemnation. Rather, Christians’ relation to God as God’s children is here presented as definitive for their final destiny.’ 29 Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 558: ‘Implicit in the statement is the idea that condemnation is an open threat for those who continue to act in the way that has brought God’s judgment on them in the first place.’

130

Chapter 8: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

that is secondary.30 Yahweh demonstrates his love for his children by disciplining them, to be sure, but his intention is always remedial; there is no instance where he chastens Israel without seeking their repentant obedience as a response. If Paul means here that discipline, in and of itself, secures freedom from eschatological condemnation, whether or not it is met with a response of contrition and transformed behaviour, then he is parting company with the Jewish tradition on that point. This, to put it no more strongly, is unlikely. It is therefore probable that we should take ἵνα μή as intentional, but not definitive – thus, ‘the purpose of divine discipline is to preserve us from condemnation’ (by causing us to repent), rather than ‘the automatic result of divine discipline is to preserve us from condemnation’ (whether we repent or not). As we have seen repeatedly in our study so far, Paul does not regard the Corinthian believers as so secure that no response on their part is needed to continue in salvation. Having said that, the purpose of verse 32 is not to provide an additional admonition – let alone a ‘solemn warning’ or an ‘open threat’, as Ciampa and Rosner contend – but to reassure them that their current experience of παιδεία marks them out as those who will not be condemned along with the world.31 As such, although we may regard the need for repentance as implicit, Paul’s words do in fact express confidence, if not a cast-iron guarantee, that the Corinthians will not face κατάκριμα, on the grounds that God disciplines his children in order to protect them. Paul concludes the section with an appeal for the Corinthians to wait for one another, and eat at home if they are hungry, ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε. On the basis of the analysis we have offered so far, it is almost certain that the κρίμα Paul is talking about here should be understood in terms of the temporal judgments the Corinthians have already been experiencing, rather than final condemnation; Paul uses κρίμα (29), ἐκρινόμεθα (31) and κρινόμενοι (32) for the former, but for the latter he uses the stronger κατακριθῶμεν (32).32 In other words, the present judgments they have already begun to experience as a community – weakness, sickness, even death – will continue unless their behaviour at the Lord’s Supper alters significantly, particularly in their attitudes to each other. About other things, Paul will instruct them when he comes.

30 See Lev 26:14-45; Deut 8:5; 11:2-6; 2 Sam 7:14; Job 5:17; Ps 94:12; Prov 3:11-12; Jer 2:30; 7:27-29; 46:28; Hos 10:10; Tob 13:5; Wis 11:9-10; 16:6; Sir 18:13-14; 2 Mac 6:1217. 31 Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 558. 32 With Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 277; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 629-630; contra Garland, 1 Corinthians, 554; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 448. Cf. the similar escalation in Rom 2:1.

C. Conclusion

131

C. Conclusion C. Conclusion

What, then, are the implications of this passage for our wider study? Despite occasional claims to the contrary, Paul is not telling the Corinthians that some in the church have died as a result of unrepentant sin, and have consequently forfeited eternal salvation. On the other hand, nor is he assuring them that the afflictions they are experiencing automatically prevent them from ever facing final judgment. In this sense, Paul is neither warning them that condemnation is possible, nor assuring them that it is impossible, in this passage. What he is doing, rather, is to warn them about further temporal judgments if they do not change their behaviour, and to reassure them that the experience of divine discipline is intended to keep them from eschatological destruction (and we can safely assume that these two are connected by repentance on the part of the transgressor). In a sense, the passage contains hints both of warning and of assurance, but without either overwhelming or relativising the other.

Chapter 9

1 Corinthians 15:1-58 The final major section, chapter 15, presents us with the strongest statements of assurance in the epistle. It also contains an additional, although subtle, warning, and as such, like the section on εἰδωλόθυτα, it displays a mild internal tension of its own. It is this section more than any other, as the letter approaches its conclusion, that demonstrates that Paul’s assurances of future salvation in 1 Corinthians are genuine and not merely rhetorical, and that they cannot be read as conditional either; consequently, those explanations of the warning-assurance relationship that claim either rhetorical or conditional assurances are rendered implausible. Even those interpreters for whom 1:8-9 is too brief and 11:17-34 too mealy-mouthed must stop and take notice of 15:3-28. For Paul, in this chapter, the future resurrection of all who are in Christ is certain.

A. Believing in Vain (15:1-2) A. Believing in Vain (15:1-2)

Paul opens his section on the resurrection with a sentence that both affirms the Corinthians and provides a challenge to them (15:1-2), and as such encapsulates well the combination of reassurance and warning that Paul has used throughout the epistle. Arguably, no sentence in the letter combines the two themes that we have seen throughout – statements of the Corinthians’ security (‘you stand ... you are being saved’) on the one hand, and reiterations of conditionality (‘if you hold fast ... unless you believed in vain’) on the other – so succinctly as this one. Our contention here is that Paul is saying the Corinthians’ continuance in salvation depends on their holding fast to the gospel they originally received. The fact that this is a view he can state so briefly, far from rendering it incidental (as is sometimes implied by the amount of space given to it in studies of the chapter), may even amplify the degree of conviction with which he holds it. Paul begins with a phrase that connotes both mild correction and affectionate affirmation: γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί. The opening word γνωρίζω, which has so often been rendered ‘remind’, is likely a stronger word than that, and implies that Paul has to make known to them something they have been told

A. Believing in Vain (15:1-2)

133

before and should know by now, but risk forgetting.1 This appears to be the sense the word carries in 12:3 and Galatians 1:11, and Paul’s usage elsewhere indicates that the verb is more bound up with ‘making known’ than with ‘reminding’. Ιn fact, in no other instance in his writings would the sense of ‘reminding’ make sense at all. God’s purpose in patiently enduring (Rom 9:2223) is to make known his power and glory, not to remind people of it; the gospel has been made known to all nations, not reiterated (Rom 16:26); Paul tells the Corinthians about the generosity of the Macedonian churches rather than reminding them of it (2 Cor 8:1); and so on.2 So Paul begins with a hint of reproach in his tone: I want to make known to you something that, by now, you should know already. Whether or not this is penned with those who see themselves as knowledgeable, strong and proud in view, it is mildly corrective.3 However, Paul immediately offsets this implicit rebuke with the word ἀδελφοί, which as well as serving as a topic indicator (especially when combined with δέ), communicates his familial affection for them. Rhetorically, the address retains attention as well as expressing friendship, and when placed alongside γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, appropriately opens a sentence that will both reassure and challenge the readers. It is a regular habit of Paul’s to begin passages of confrontation or admonition with ἀδελφοί, especially in this letter – he uses the address more in 1 Corinthians than in Romans, 2 Corinthians and Philippians combined – and this is probably connected to its ability to convey warmth and relationship in an otherwise direct challenge (although, admittedly, so much of 1 Corinthians is comprised of confrontation or admonition that it is hard to be sure).4 The word further indicates, should the point need making, that he is speaking here to believers. The subject he wants to make known to them is τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεν ὑμῖν, which is somewhat ironic, since it is something he has personally made known to them already. The content of this gospel message is subsequently identified as the traditions which Paul himself received: the death of Christ for sin in accordance with the scriptures, his burial, his resurrection according to the scriptures, and his appearances (15:3-8). This gospel, Paul continues, is something that the Corinthians certainly received (ὃ καὶ 1

Findlay, ‘1 Corinthians’, 918, argues that the word carries ‘a touch of blame’; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1182, translates it ‘I want to restore to your full knowledge’, which is helpful, if cumbersome; Grimm-Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 119, defines it as ‘to recall to one’s mind, as though what is made known had escaped him’; cf. Collins, 1 Corinthians, 533: ‘something which the community already knows’; BDAG: ‘apparently the discussion deals with something already known’. 2 See also Phil 1:22; 4:6; cf. Eph 1:9; 3:3, 5, 10; 6:19, 21; Col 1:27; 4:7, 9. 3 As argued by Martin, The Corinthian Body, 104-136. 4 Paul uses ἀδελφοί as a mode of address twenty times in 1 Corinthians and nine times in Galatians, but only ten times in Romans, three times in 2 Corinthians and six times in Philippians.

134

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

παρελάβετε) and have taken their stand upon (the present perfect ἑστήκατε), later expressed using the language of ‘believing’ (15:11). Thus whatever else we may go on to say about the problem of ‘believing in vain’, it cannot stem from the Corinthians having believed a false gospel – since Paul himself preached it to them – nor from them having rejected the true gospel.5 The Corinthians’ acceptance of the gospel of Christ’s resurrection, and their having taken a stand upon it, is that which unifies them with Paul, and the premise upon which the rest of the argument of the chapter is built. The chain of four verbs culminates in δί οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε. It appears that we are to understand them in chronological sequence: Paul preached the gospel, the Corinthians received it, they took their stand upon it, and they are now being saved by it. Taken this way, the verb refers to their current experience of salvation in anticipation of the day when it will be completed. 6 To be ‘being saved’, in Paul’s terms, is both to be marked out as one who will inherit final salvation in the future, and to enjoy all its proleptic benefits in the present. It is probably significant that, in the other two places where Paul uses σῴζω in the present tense (both in the Corinthian correspondence), he uses it in contrast to ‘perishing’, with its clear eschatological resonances.7 It is this state of being saved, encompassing both the present enjoyment of salvation and the future inheritance of it at the eschaton, which is the subject of the critical conditional clause that follows: τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε. Clearly, Paul regards the Corinthians’ salvation as depending on their holding fast to the gospel which he preached to them. At face value, it appears that Paul sees their continuing belief in the resurrection of Christ as essential for their salvation, and raises the matter using conditional language (εἰ κατέχετε) to show how critical it is that they persevere in order to be finally saved. In other words, it seems that 15:2a is a mild warning. Judith Gundry Volf challenges this reading. ‘The common interpretation of 1 Cor 15:2 goes astray, however, in assuming that Paul entertains the possibility that his readers might indeed fail to cleave to the gospel,’ she writes. ‘Paul assumes here that the Corinthians are indeed holding fast the tradition he delivered to them ... Nothing in the text suggests that they openly dispute this piece of tradition ... εἰ κατέχετε thus means: “If, as I assume to be the case, you

5 The relevance of this point will become apparent when we engage with Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 271-277; see below. 6 So Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 336: ‘a futuristic present’; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 800: ‘salvation is now, but it is also in process, to be completed at the Day of the Lord.’ It is hard to imagine Paul meaning that one could forfeit present salvation and yet still inherit future salvation, since the two are so integrally connected; cf. Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 331. 7 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15. The eschatological flavour of this contrast undermines Gundry Volf’s suggestion that Paul is talking about ‘the reality of present salvation and not a future loss of salvation’ (Paul and Perseverance, 276); the two cannot be so easily separated.

A. Believing in Vain (15:1-2)

135

hold fast.”’8 For Gundry Volf, the fact that Paul uses Christ’s resurrection as common ground in his argument (15:1, 11, 12) indicates that it is not in question at Corinth. Consequently, she reasons, we should take the conditional clause here as referring to a condition that Paul is confident they are fulfilling, and on the basis of which he is about to argue, rather than one that he is genuinely concerned about. Thus, although she does not say as much, her reconstruction of Paul’s meaning would fit better with the English word ‘since’ for εἰ than with ‘if’. Two questionable foundations support this interpretation. The first is that belief in Christ’s resurrection is not under any threat at Corinth. Paul, of course, repeatedly affirms their previous belief in his kerygma, with the resurrection of Christ at its centre, in this chapter, and indeed structures his argument on the basis that they share common ground on this point. But with the exception of σῴζεσθε, which is the verb to which the conditional clause here applies, the verbs Paul uses for the Corinthians’ belief in the resurrection are in the past rather than the present tense: παρελάβετε, ἑστήκατε (as we have said, probably a present perfect), and ἐπιστεύσατε in verse 11. This does not in itself prove anything, and certainly not that he believes the Corinthians are ‘beginning to waver somewhat in their belief’.9 It does, however, indicate that the common ground Paul is looking to establish is their reception of the gospel of the risen Christ, rather than their continuation in that gospel. When we add this observation to the repeated affirmations of Christ’s resurrection in this chapter, whether as positive assertions or denials of the opposite (15:4-8, 13-14, 16-17, 20), we have grounds for suggesting that Paul is seeking to bolster their faith with his argument, and not merely assume it. On two occasions, Paul backs up his belief in the resurrection of Christ with further arguments (15:14, 17), which might seem redundant if no Corinthians were questioning it in the slightest. Given the link that Paul frequently makes between denying the resurrection of believers and that of Christ, it is at least possible that some Corinthians were approaching the point of reappraising their initial confidence, using the mirrorimage of Paul’s logic: if the bodies of believers are not going to be raised, because that sort of thing is either a category mistake or an impossibility or both, then perhaps the body of Christ was not either. Paul might, of course, be simply giving them the benefit of the doubt, but it is also possible that he is offering a mild corrective here. The second foundation supporting Gundry Volf’s interpretation is her view that Paul does not contrast ‘holding fast’ with ‘believing εἰκῇ’, but uses the former as a basis upon which to argue that the latter cannot have happened. Many have read Paul to be saying in 15:2 that the Corinthians could go one of two ways: either continuing to hold fast, or failing to do so, in which case they 8 9

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 273. As claimed by Edwards, 1 Corinthians, 401; so, rightly, Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1213.

136

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

will turn out to have believed εἰκῇ. Gundry Volf, on the other hand, argues that Paul assumes the Corinthians are holding fast to the gospel, and argues that the only way this would not be true is if they had believed an inaccurate gospel that cannot save (which is how she understands ‘believing εἰκῇ’), which he is certain they haven’t. ‘The notion that the Corinthians might have believed εἰκῇ is a hypothesis for the sake of argument only,’ she explains. ‘Instead, Paul makes their faith and present stance in salvation a given, and shows the denial of the resurrection to be inconsistent with their saving faith.’10 This line of interpretation, although consistent with Gundry Volf’s approach to other passages in Paul, is very unlikely to be correct. For a start, the sense of εἰ κατέχετε is much more likely to be conditional than presumptive; Paul’s preferred word for ‘if (as I assume)’ or ‘since’ is εἴπερ rather than εἰ, and there are also contextual reasons to question their ‘standing fast’, as we have just seen.11 More importantly, the examples she cites of the way Paul uses εἰκῇ, κενός and ματαία – which Gundry Volf rightly regards as broadly synonymous for him here – confirm the idea that Paul is concerned about human perseverance being found deficient, rather than kerygmatic content. The examples in the first half of this chapter, of course, could be taken in either sense, since if Christ is not raised, then the message is soteriologically impotent and the labour in the gospel is futile. Elsewhere, however, Paul’s use of εἰκῇ and κενός in similar contexts always concern human effort that produces no benefit, rather than a message that cannot save. Gundry Volf’s three examples show as much: none of them question the efficacy of Paul’s message, but rather raise concerns about (Gal 4:11), exhort (Phil 2:15-16) and celebrate (1 Thess 3:5) the ongoing perseverance of his converts in faith.12 And crucially, the punchline of the chapter in 15:58, which forms a thematic inclusio with 15:1-2, reassures the Corinthians that their ongoing ‘labour in the Lord’ is not κενός. Consequently, it is far more likely that Paul is expressing concern about their initial faith having become futile, unprofitable and fruitless, than that he is using an entirely hypothetical example (why?) of one who has believed an impotent gospel. This undermines Gundry Volf’s interpretation, and lends support to the view that Paul is speaking conditionally (εἰ) and correctively (ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ) here. When it comes to the final clause of verse 2, it does not particularly matter whether we render ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ as ‘unless’ or ‘otherwise’, since the subtle differences do not obscure the central point. What is clear is that for Paul, the opposite of holding fast to the substance of the gospel is believing εἰκῇ. It is 10

Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 277. For εἴπερ see e.g. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 8:5; 2 Thess 1:6. The closest parallel to the current verse in Pauline literature is of course Col 1:23, where conditionality is clearly expressed. 12 To these we could add 2 Cor 6:1; Gal 3:4; 1 Thess 2:1. Gal 2:2, though clearly connected with the content of Paul’s kerygma, is nonetheless a concern about the fruitfulness of Paul’s labours, as the verb τρέχω indicates. 11

A. Believing in Vain (15:1-2)

137

slightly less clear, however, whether we should translate εἰκῇ as ‘in vain’, as most translations have done historically, or as ‘without due consideration’, as some scholars have proposed. On balance, the former is preferable. The ruler in Romans 13:4 is said not to wield the sword εἰκῇ, which clearly means that he does not wield it without purpose, rather than without thinking. Likewise the suffering of the Galatians (3:3) was not at risk of being haphazard, but at risk of being pointless or without benefit. Most obviously, Paul feared that his labour over the Galatians (4:11) might be proved fruitless or purposeless, but not that it would somehow turn out to have been thoughtless, random or poorly considered. In the three examples from Galatians, in fact, he seems to use εἰκῇ identically to the way he uses κενός elsewhere.13 Thiselton objects to this reading on the grounds that it ‘causes needless difficulties and forces Paul into an aggressive irony that undermines his seeking common ground’.14 He prefers the reading ‘without coherent consideration’, citing Epictetus and Clement in support, and argues that the problem was not that the Corinthians’ faith might prove fruitless, but that they had not grasped the implications of the gospel for eschatology or normal life.15 We may readily agree, of course, that the Corinthians had not grasped the implications of the gospel for eschatology or normal life; that much is clear from the argument of this chapter. But it is not obvious that this is what εἰκῇ indicates, either here or elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. And it is surprising that Thiselton believes the translation ‘in vain’ causes needless difficulties and undermines Paul’s quest for common ground, since he agrees that Paul has already used γνωρίζω in a somewhat pointed way, to highlight the fact that they should already know what he is telling them.16 Furthermore, if Paul is simply seeking common ground here and has no desire to challenge them, then the conditional εἰ κατέχετε is hard to explain, since it clearly raises the prospect – even if only hypothetically – of some not holding fast. If, however, we are to detect a mild warning in these opening phrases, coupled (as elsewhere) with affirmations and encouragements, then the argument for taking εἰκῇ in a different sense to the way Paul uses it elsewhere evaporates.17 The Corinthians, then, are standing in and being saved by the gospel if they hold fast to it; otherwise, they have believed to no purpose. Within the context of the letter as a whole, this is not a particularly surprising statement, since there are far stronger warnings elsewhere. It is, however, the only place in

13

Cp. Gal 3:4; 4:11 with 2 Cor 6:1; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 2:1; 3:5. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1186; cf. Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 332; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 545. 15 Epictetus, Diss 1.6.7; 1.28.28; 1 Clem 40.2. 16 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1183. 17 For the use of ἀδελφοί when introducing a warning, see 10:1. 14

138

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

which a warning is issued, whether explicitly or implicitly, against failing doctrinally or kerygmatically, rather than ethically. We may conclude that Paul means that, if the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and its consequences for believers are not preserved and believed within the church, there is no benefit to their faith: it is empty, fruitless, vain. Exactly what a ‘vain belief’ might lead to in practice, either temporally or eschatologically, is not specified here. However, if (as we have argued) we should take ‘being saved, if you stand fast’ and ‘believing in vain’ as alternative outcomes, we may suggest that, in light of the contrasts Paul has previously drawn between those that are being saved and those that are perishing, it would likely have connoted eschatological disinheritance.18 In any event, it is at least clear from the whole of 15:2 that, as Marshall puts it, ‘attainment of salvation depends upon continuance in the apostolic faith.’19

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain (15:3-28) B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

The bulk of the chapter is taken up with Paul’s argument that the resurrection of all who are in Christ is certain, and guaranteed by the resurrection of Christ himself, in response to those who would say ‘there is no resurrection of the dead’ (15:12). As such, it is of great importance in understanding Paul’s view of the eschatological future of believers, for it leaves no room for doubt. Paul’s entire argument in this chapter would be scuppered if it were the case that some who are in Christ could fail to be resurrected, and he is at great pains to establish that this is not in fact the case. The structure of the argument is clear. Paul reaffirms the traditions he passed onto the Corinthians concerning the resurrection of Christ and the efficacious grace of God (1-11), demonstrates some of the consequences of not believing in the resurrection of the dead (12-19), affirms the resurrection of all who are in Christ (20-28), raises two additional problems with denying the future resurrection (29-34), deals with objections concerning the nature of the resurrection body (35-49), and concludes with the triumphant proclamation of the death of death and the victory of Christ (50-58).20 The precise meaning of the phrase

18

1 Cor 1:18; cf. 2 Cor 2:15. Marshall, Kept, 118. 20 With some minor modifications, something like this structure is accepted by virtually all commentators on the epistle; see e.g. Godet, 1 Corinthians; Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians; Weiss, 1 Korinther; Allo, Première Épître; Barrett, 1 Corinthians; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians; Fee, 1 Corinthians; Mitchell, Rhetoric; Wolff, 1 Korinther; Schrage, 1 Korinther; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians; Garland, 1 Corinthians; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians. 19

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

139

to which Paul is objecting in such detail, however, is more difficult. What exactly does it mean for some in the church to say ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν? It is not that some at Corinth were explicitly arguing that the resurrection of Christ had not happened. Were this the case, we would expect Paul to have presented his argument in a very different shape; although he reminds them of the eyewitness testimony concerning the event, the resurrection of Christ functions as a premise within the argument of the chapter, upon which Paul builds from verse 12 onwards, as opposed to a conclusion. Rather, his argument addresses the denial, on the part of some (τινες) at Corinth, that those who are in Christ will themselves experience the resurrection of the body at the parousia. The grounds for this denial have been much debated, with some suggesting it was based on the belief that the resurrection had already happened, some arguing it involved the denial of the possibility of post-mortem existence, and some focusing on the problem of the body at Corinth, and the apparent implausibility of bodies inheriting the kingdom of God.21 All three positions existed in Paul’s world, and although there is minimal evidence to suggest the former was an issue at Corinth, the latter two are specifically mentioned in this chapter.22 The material here cannot be explained solely with reference to the denial of postmortem existence of any kind, for the simple reason that at least some in the church were baptising people for the dead (15:29); this strongly indicates that whether or not a fatalistic, immortality-denying Epicureanism was part of the problem, it cannot have been the only issue at Corinth.23 If Paul is responding to only one problem, the objection to the idea of bodily resurrection is the most likely candidate, since it serves to explain not just the first half of the chapter

21 For a comprehensive review of the interpretive options, and the scholars who have supported each, see variously J. H. Wilson, ‘The Corinthians Who Say There Is No Resurrection of the Dead’, ZNW 59 (1968), 90-107; A. J. M. Wedderburn, ‘The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15’, NovT 23 (1981), 229-241; Gerhard Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Korinther 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 17-37; Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Cor 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 35-40; Jan Lambrecht, ‘Three Brief Notes on 1 Corinthians 15’, in Lambrecht, Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on the Book of Revelation (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001), 71-85. 22 15:32, 35. For a critique of the first view, which is explicitly mentioned in 2 Tim 2:18 but nowhere in the Corinthian correspondence, see Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict, 16-31; cf. de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 112-113: ‘the thrust of Paul’s argument seems to be directed to establishing not the futurity of the resurrection of the dead but the reality and the certainty of such a resurrection.’ 23 This sort of view is presumably the one represented in Acts 17:18-21, 32; cf. also Plato, Phaedo 70a; Aeschylus, Eumenides 645-648; Petronius, Satyr 72; Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 3.31-42, 526-527, 1045-1052; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.124-127, 139.

140

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

but also the lengthy response to the questions about bodies in 15:35.24 Under this interpretation, the Corinthian view would be that the soul survives death but leaves the body behind, like a snake shedding its skin, and would closely resemble that represented in a range of sources, from Socrates’ view in the Phaedo through to the speech of Eleazar in the Wars of the Jews.25 However, it may be that there was a combination of factors at work in the denial of the future resurrection of believers, although they amounted to much the same thing in Paul’s mind: the (catastrophic) denial that the bodies of Jesus-followers would be raised by God in the future.26 Paul’s primary response, before moving on to address specific logical objections to the concept of bodily resurrection in verses 35-58, is to establish the certainty of the future resurrection, primarily on the basis of Christ’s own resurrection (1-34). Rhetorically, his argument here consists of a narratio (1-11), in which mutually accepted facts about the resurrection of Christ and divine grace are communicated, followed by a first refutatio (12-19), which supports his thesis negatively by showing the consequences of denying the future resurrection of believers, and then a first confirmatio (20-34), which establishes that all will be made alive as a result of Christ’s resurrection (20-28), as both Paul and the Corinthians implicitly acknowledge by their actions in the present (2934). The second refutatio (35-49) and confirmatio (50-57), which we will consider below, are then followed by a brief peroratio (58).27 In Paul’s argument, the certainty of the future resurrection is entirely bound up with the certainty of Christ’s resurrection. Three consecutive times, in the space of just eleven verses, Paul stresses the unbreakable link between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, twice negatively and once positively. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised (12-13), which leads to ridiculous consequences (14-15). Again: if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either (16), which leads to ridiculous and in fact hopeless and pitiful consequences (17-19). But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, which ensures that all will be made alive (20-22). For all the language and logic of firstfruits, and the timing of the future resurrection, what undergirds Paul’s argument for the certainty of the future resurrection is his conviction that, in Christ, death has been defeated not just for him but for everyone.

24

Verses 35-49 render Conzelmann’s remark, that Paul ‘does not emphasise the bodily character of the resurrection’ (1 Corinthians, 261-262), somewhat puzzling. 25 Plato, Phaedo 66e-67a, 67d, 72a-72e; Josephus, War 7.8.7. For a survey of the various Greco-Roman approaches to life after death (or not), see especially N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003), 32-84. 26 The conclusion of Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1172-1176, following Luther, is that τινες ‘may allude to more than one group which was beset with more than one problem.’ 27 Eriksson, Traditions, 275; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1177-1178.

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

141

The resurrection of Christ, for Paul, is not an isolated event that affects Jesus and no one else; it is nothing less than the start of the new age, in which sin, death and evil have been defeated and a new, resurrected creation inaugurated.28 From what we can tell, this starkly eschatological perspective on the resurrection of Christ formed an important part of Paul’s kerygma elsewhere.29 But in this chapter, particularly in 15:20-28, it is trumpeted more forcefully than anywhere else, presumably because the distinction between the present and future ages, so central to Paul’s understanding of what exactly had happened through Christ’s resurrection, was itself being either marginalised or explicitly rejected at Corinth. The raising of Christ, for Paul, has not left the world largely as it was; it represents the invasion of the present world by something (and someone) beyond it, with the result that a glorious future can now be anticipated, and even death, the darkly definitive symbol of the present evil age, is certain to be conquered.30 This, it appears, is what the Corinthians did not believe. Paul begins his central paragraph by stating the conclusion to which his refutatio has been building – ‘but in fact Christ has been raised from the dead’ – and then describing him as the ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων (20). As Thiselton points out, based on the Feast of Weeks and on Paul’s own language, the language of ‘firstfruits’ connotes three things: temporal primacy, representation, and the pledge of more of the same in the future.31 Thus it is not merely that Christ’s resurrection precedes that of those who have fallen asleep, nor just that they share his nature, but that his resurrection from the dead guarantees theirs; in Romans 8:23, where a similar eschatological framework is operative, the ἀπαρχή assures believers that they will inherit the future kingdom, and functions in a similar way to the image of the ἀρραβών elsewhere, in rendering certain the future gift.32 No doubt this is not Paul’s only point in using the metaphor, and it may have been overplayed in the secondary literature, but it remains true that the resurrection of Christ has rendered the non-resurrection

28

See Schrage, 1 Korinther, 4:160. The clearest example is of course Gal 1:4. Whether the word ‘apocalyptic’ is the best way of describing Paul’s eschatological perspective here is beyond the scope of this study; see the recent analysis of N. T. Wright, Paul and his Recent Interpreters, 155-186. 30 See e.g. de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 35-37, 114-126; Beker, Paul the Apostle, 135181. 31 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1224; cf. Rom 8:23 (where all three of these aspects are clearly present in an eschatological context); 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15 (these last two examples are ‘looser’, in that Epaenetus and Stephanas, respectively, probably served as indications of what was to come rather than as guarantees of it). 32 Cp. Rom 8:23 with 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5. 29

142

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

of those who have fallen asleep inconceivable.33 This in no small point in the light of our wider study. Paul will return to the ‘firstfruits’ idea in verse 23, but before doing so, he presents a pair of contrasts that crisply articulate the eschatological contrast between this age and the age to come. The first, in verse 21, is that ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δί ἀνθρώπου θάνατος, καὶ δί ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν. For Paul, as for the authors of apocalyptic texts like 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, the present world is bound up in an age of death, resulting from the sin and death of Adam (who is clearly identified as the ἄνθρωπος here in the next verse).34 In Paul’s case, this age of death is also associated with sin and Torah (15:56), as well as idolatry and slavery, with the relationship between these concepts expressed much more fully in Romans 1-7. Crucially, for Paul, humanity’s embroilment in all of these things is self-reinforcing – death, sin, Torah and slavery all continue to cause and multiply each other – and hence thoroughly hopeless, and it can only be broken by a unilateral act of deliverance from God.35 This, in the resurrection of Christ, is exactly what God has provided. In doing so, he has inaugurated a new aeon, marked out not by θάνατος, like the Adamic age, but by ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν. The general resurrection to come, which involves not just the raising of those who have fallen asleep but the total eschatological renewal of which Paul will speak in 15:50-58, has been launched in the resurrection of Christ, and the Corinthians appear either not to have realised this or not to have seen its implications.36 This also explains, as Beker argues, why the contrast Paul draws is not between death and life, as one might expect, but between death

33 So Godet, 1 Corinthians, 351; Weiss, 1 Korinther, 356; R. St. J. Parry, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Cambridge: CUP, 1937), 223; R. B. Sloan, ‘Resurrection in 1 Corinthians’, Southwestern Journal of Theology 26 (1983), 69-91, at 77; de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 109 (‘the term signifies the pledge of the remainder and, concomitantly, the assurance of a full harvest which in effect is attributed to God’s providential care’); Larry J. Kreitzer, ‘Adam and Christ’, in Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin and Daniel Reid (ed.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 9-15; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 204; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 706. Thiselton, although concerned to retain a focus on God and God’s purposes rather than simply on ‘existential assurance’ in 15:2028, nonetheless agrees that such a conclusion is valid. 34 Rom 5:12-21; 2 Bar 48:42-47; 54:15-19; 4 Ezra 3:21-22, 26; 7:48-49. Cf. de Boer, The Defeat of Death, on 4 Ezra (e.g. 74: ‘The figure of Adam thus has a double function: to give expression to the all-embracing reality of death in the present world and to assign responsibility for the reality of death to the willful and thus accountable human repudation of God’) and 2 Baruch (e.g. 81: ‘As in 4 Ezra, the reality and the universality of death is attributed to Adam’s primal transgression’). 35 To this extent, we may agree with the main thrust of Campbell, Deliverance, even as we disagree with both his caricature of ‘Justification Theory’ and many of his exegetical decisions. 36 Thus Beker, Paul the Apostle, 153-170.

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

143

and ‘the resurrection of the dead’.37 The eschatological turning point has come, signalling ‘the death of one world, and the advent of another.’38 The second contrast, which serves as a broadly synonymous parallel to the first, comes in verse 22: ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται. There are some minor differences between the two contrasts – ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ rather than ‘by a man’ in both cases, ‘die’ and ‘are made alive’ rather than ‘death’ and ‘resurrection of the dead’ – but these differences mainly serve to explicate each other, such that the man through whom death came is understood to be Adam, the man through whom resurrection came is understood to be Christ, and so on. The main difference, and one which has rightly attracted a lot of attention, is the appearance of the word πάντες in verse 22. This raises the question, which also arises from other parts of this paragraph, of whether Paul’s eschatology is universalist here. This question is of such importance to our study that we shall treat it separately, before returning to our exegesis. Excursus: The Question of Universalism in 15:20-28 Paul’s statement that ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται has, along with the similar statement in Romans 5:18, prompted the suggestion that Paul is a universalist: that is, he believes (or at least, he teaches here) that all humans will, eventually, be reconciled to God and raised with Christ. In fact, it stands as one of four indications of universalism in this paragraph, to which interpreters have attributed different levels of weight, as follows. (1) Paul says that ‘all will be made alive’ in Christ, just as all die in Adam.39 (2) He explains that Christ is raised first, then ‘those who belong to Christ’, and then τὸ τέλος, which has been interpreted to mean ‘the rest’ (in other words, everyone who does not belong to Christ).40 (3) His description of the final destruction of death leaves no room for an unresurrected humanity continuing under the dominion of death forever after the eschaton.41 (4) The future Paul imagines is one in which ‘all things are put in subjection’ to Christ, and this suggests a universal salvation.42 Given the certainty with which Paul speaks about resurrection for ‘all’ – which, for our investigation, has significant ramifications – 37

Beker, Paul the Apostle, 170. J. Louis Martyn, ‘Apocalyptic Antinomies in the Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 31 (1985), 410-424, at 414. 39 This approach goes back at least to Origen, De Principiis 1.6.1; cf. de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 112-113 (‘a representative rather than an exclusive group’); Lindemann, 1 Korinther, 344; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 4:163-166. 40 Thus Weiss, 1 Korinther, 358; Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 80-81. 41 See de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 114-140. 42 This argument forms the basis the earliest case for universalism in Paul, namely that of Origen, De Principiis 1.6.1; cf. the related approach of Eugene Boring, ‘The Language of 38

144

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

it is important to establish who is being referred to here, and the degree of confidence with which we can identify them. Of these, we may safely disregard (2). Weiss, followed by Lietzmann, argued for such an interpretation based on the sequence in verses 23-24 (Christ, ἔπειτα those in Christ, εἶτα ‘the rest’), and on the Jewish expectation that both the righteous and unrighteous would be raised at the last day.43 Yet all the sequence proves is that Paul is thinking of a chronological order – Christ, then those in Christ, then the τέλος – and although there are clearly some Jewish sources in which a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous is envisaged, this theme is by no means ubiquitous, and there are a number of texts in which it is absent altogether.44 More decisively, there is no evidence that τέλος could mean ‘the others’ or ‘the rest’ (for which we would expect οἱ λοίποι); rather, in Paul it means ‘the end’ or ‘the goal’.45 Whether or not Paul’s theology is universalist in this passage, the phrase εἶτα τὸ τέλος should not be seen as evidence that it is. Argument (4) is even more problematic. Origen’s argument, based on πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (15:27), was that since all would be in subjection to Christ, all would ultimately be saved. But the argument proves too much, since if we take it at face value, it would imply (as Origen himself speculated) the salvation not just of all people, but of all the enemies of God, right through to the devil, and presumably even death (whatever that might mean).46 Paul’s concern here is not with all Christ’s enemies being saved, but Universal Salvation in Paul’, JBL 105:2 (1986), 269-292, at 279-281 (though ultimately, Boring sees Paul as contradicting himself propositionally on this point). 43 Weiss, 1 Korinther, 357-358; Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 81. 44 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1231, overstates this when he remarks that ‘Jewish apocalyptic expectation concerns the final resurrection not of all humans but of all “the righteous”’; this is not true of e.g. Dan 12:1-3; cf. John 5:28-29. However, there remain a number of texts in which the only resurrection in view is that of the righteous; see e.g. 2 Mac 7:9, 23; Ps Sol 14:3-7. 45 See Rom 6:21-22; 10:4; 1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 2 Cor 3:13; 11:15; Phil 3:19; 1 Thess 2:16; so Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 271; C. E. Hill, ‘Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28’, NovT 30 (1988), 297-320; Wolff, 1 Korinther, 386; Schrage, 1 Korinther, 4:169-171; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 572. 46 Origen, De Principiis 1.6.1. This is also implied by the argument of Boring, ‘Language of Universal Salvation’, 280, concerning 15:28: ‘… in this text the eschaton is here portrayed in ultimately monistic terms rather than in dualistic terms. Rather than there being two groups at the end, there is one, and it includes all.’ Boring goes on to argue (281) that the enemies of God subjected to him are ‘the superhuman powers, every ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, and δύναμις that has kept God’s creation from being what it was intended to be, such as θάνατος, the last enemy. They are defeated; their power is taken away.’ This is true, of course, but it counts against his wider argument (that there are both particularist and universalist texts in Paul, depending on the controlling metaphor, and that 1 Cor 15 is an example of the latter), since it demonstrates that universal subjection does not require universal salvation.

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

145

rather on all being ‘subjected’ (ὑποτάσσω) to him, which Paul articulates in terms of being ‘put under his feet’ and even ‘destroyed’ (καταργέω). Consequently, the language of universal subjection cannot be pressed into service to suggest a universal salvation, and few since Origen have attempted to argue that it can.47 The logic of (1), that Paul says all will be made alive in Christ just as all die in Adam, is substantially stronger. Two considerations raise the prospect that Paul is thinking in terms of a universal salvation here: the word πάντες, and the fact that death in Adam is clearly something Paul believes applies to every human, and not just to some.48 The parallel with Adam indicates that we cannot take πάντες to mean merely ‘all types of people’ or ‘most people’ or even ‘Jews and Gentiles alike’, as it may mean elsewhere in Paul, since he views Adamic death as true of every last human being.49 Consequently, the only viable way of avoiding the conclusion that Paul is speaking of universal salvation here is to constrain the meaning of πάντες on contextual grounds, by arguing that the entire passage is concerned with the future destiny of believers, as opposed to the human race in general. Unless it can be shown that this is Paul’s only concern here, we should assume that he is speaking of all people, not just all believers, being made alive in Christ, just as all die in Adam. There are, however, strong contextual indications that Paul is entirely concerned with the future of believers in this chapter, rather than that of all human beings. The issue in Corinth, as he understands it, surrounds the denial of the future resurrection of believers, rather than the post-mortem existence or resurrection of unbelievers, and his argument is mounted entirely with this in mind; in fact, none of his other arguments, either positive or negative, address the future of unbelievers at all. The denial of the future resurrection would, if thought through properly, mean that ‘your faith is in vain’ (14), that ‘your faith is futile and you are still in your sins’ (17), and that ‘those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished’ (18) – a series of outcomes which would render pitiful those who ‘have hoped in Christ’ (19). Paul then describes Christ as the 47

Despite the logic of Boring, ‘Language of Universal Salvation’, 280-281, on which see above. 48 The clearest statement of this, other than the present text, is of course Rom 5:12-21; though notoriously controverted with respect to sin, it is at least clear that Paul views death as having spread to all human beings ‘in Adam.’ 49 We may perhaps detect a less comprehensive sense to πᾶς in e.g. Rom 11:26, 32; cf. e.g. Dunn, Romans, 2:681; Ulrich Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (München: Kaiser, 1968), 292; Cranfield, Romans, 2:576-577; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 723; and most commentators. For the opposing view, see Jewett, Romans, 701-702, 711-712: ‘It seems most likely that Paul’s “mystery” was believed to include all members of the house of Israel, who, without exception, would be saved ... The expectation of universal salvation in this verse is indisputable, regardless of the logical problems it poses for systematic theologians.’

146

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

‘firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep’ (20), a statement which includes both a representative connection between Christ and those Paul is talking about (as we have seen with reference to ἀπαρχή), and a euphemism for death (κοιμάω) which Paul only ever uses of believers.50 Then we have the Adam/Christ parallel (21-22), including the verb ζῳοποιηθήσονται, which is a favoured Pauline term for believers being made alive as part of new creation.51 This is immediately followed by the three-stage order: the resurrection of Christ the firstfruits, then the resurrection of οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ at his parousia, and then the end, as we have seen (23-24).52 The remaining sections of the chapter give no indication that the scope of Paul’s discourse has broadened out to include all humanity, and in several ways tell against such an idea (including the ad hominem arguments of 29-34, the contrast between σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν in 35-49, and the repeated ‘we’ who are the subjects of 5057). So, with the context clearly indicating a specific focus on the resurrection of those who believe, have hoped in Christ, have fallen asleep in Christ and belong to Christ, we should understand 15:22b to mean ‘in Christ, all who are in Christ will be made alive.’53 Such a conclusion comes not merely from the observation that Paul does not sound like a universalist in the rest of 1 Corinthians – although this is both true, and of some significance – but from a close reading of the argument.54 It is also borne out by studies of similar passages elsewhere in Paul.55 Arguably the strongest reason to read Paul in a universalist way here, however, is (3): the destruction of death. Many interpreters, having (rightly) demonstrated that ‘all’ here need not necessarily mean ‘every single human being’, are satisfied to conclude from this that Paul does not have a universalist framework in this passage, and move on. Yet one is left with the question of 50 On the representation implied by ἀπαρχή, see further Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 52-55: ‘Paul speaks about Christians only, since only Christians may consider themselves as represented by Jesus’ (at 55). On κοιμάω, see 1 Cor 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 51; 1 Thess 4:13-15; cf. also Matt 27:52; John 11:11-12; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 2 Pet 3:4. 51 E.g. Rom 4:17; 8:11; cf. 1 Cor 15:45. 52 Thus Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1229, argues rightly that οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘confirms the soteriological scope of all in v22b.’ 53 That Paul does not say this reflects both the wider context of his argument and the rhetorical balance of the Adam/Christ contrast; see e.g. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 830-831, who mounts four objections to the alternative view here; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 264-265; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 707; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 570; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 764; contra Schrage, 1 Korinther, 4:163-166. 54 Cf. 1:18; 3:17; 5:13; 6:9-10; 9:27: 10:1-12. 55 See e.g. Douglas Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21-26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), especially 86-92, 182-183, on the oft-cited example of Rom 3:2324 (‘all have sinned … and are justified’). Campbell argues that this is a parenthetic elaboration of ‘all who have faith’ in 3:22d, thus constraining the meaning of πάντες by the immediate context; see also Jewett, Romans, 280-281.

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

147

what ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος means, if not the deliverance of every human, and in fact the whole cosmos, from the power of death.56 One is also faced with the question of whether the standard Jewish (and subsequent Christian) views of eschatological judgment, in which the righteous are glorified and the wicked are condemned to an eternal death, can be reconciled with a future world in which death has been destroyed altogether.57 It is certainly impossible that, as with the sweeping statements of verses 2023, we should understand verse 26 as being limited to those who are in Christ. The preceding context constrains the likely meaning of ‘all will be made alive’, but in the case of ‘the last enemy to be destroyed is death’, not only does the context not indicate a limitation in scope, but it emphatically demonstrates the opposite: every rule, authority and power will have been destroyed, all the enemies of God will have been subdued, and all things will be under subjection. The scope of these statements is cosmic and not merely personal; Paul’s language centres on the utter subjugation of all God’s enemies, including death (which is pictured as a personified cosmological enemy rather than merely as the end of a life). Thus ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος does not merely mean that believers will be resurrected – although it obviously does mean that – but that death, the hostile power, will have been conquered and banished from creation forever. If a universalist conclusion is to be avoided, it cannot be done by limiting the scope of verse 26 to the resurrection of those in Christ. As such, there are only two real alternatives to a final, soteriological universalism in this text.58 The first is the idea that, for Paul, all of the dead are raised – such that it is not just rhetorically but also actually meaningful to say that death has been destroyed – and then face judgment. Paul says nothing to this effect in the present passage, or anywhere else, and few Jewish or Christian writers do, focusing more on the resurrection of the faithful to life. But it is sufficiently of a piece with several other Jewish and Christian traditions, at least one of which Paul knew well, to make it worthy of consideration. Most prominent of these is Daniel 12:2-3, which – in the context of the Maccabean persecutions which were so significant in solidifying popular Jewish belief in the resurrection – speaks of many of those who are in the dust awaking, ‘some

56 See especially de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 136: ‘The destruction of the “last” power effects salvation for all human beings, not just some of them.’ 57 The literature on Jewish and Christian conceptions of everlasting judgment is voluminous; suffice it to say here that, however varied they are and whatever view one takes of their essential nature, both the language of ‘death’ and a variety of metaphors associated with it are prevalent in many of the relevant Jewish and early Christian sources. 58 The conclusion of Héring, 1 Corinthiens, 141, that ‘avec notre monde, ils cesseront d’exister et partageront le sort des “puissances hostiles”, qui seront anéanties’, is also worth mentioning, but it founders on the language of death’s destruction.

148

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting abhorrence.’59 In its original context, this may well have borne witness to a threefold division within Israel at the end of the Antiochene period – those in Israel who had been faithful and thus had been martyred (resurrected to everlasting life), those who had been faithless and apostate (resurrected to everlasting shame), and the rest of faithful Israel (who remained in Sheol) – rather than being a programmatic statement of what would happen to all creation.60 Nonetheless, it introduced the idea that the unrighteous as well as the righteous would be raised, and that after this there would be an experience of shame and contempt for those who had been unfaithful. Two later Johannine texts display a similar expectation: that the unrighteous, and not just the righteous, will be raised. In John 5:28-29, Jesus says that ‘all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out’, the good to life and the evil to judgment; the thought here is similar to that in Daniel 12, except that it involves everybody. Revelation 20, despite its notorious difficulties, is fairly clear in this regard as well: Death and Hades give up their dead and are thrown into the lake of fire, the dead are judged, and then those whose names are not found in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire as well (13-15).61 Alongside these we should also consider the ‘giving back the dead’ passages in the pseudepigrapha, where the earth, Sheol and hell are said to return those entrusted to them for judgment.62 When set against this backdrop, the destruction of death which Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:26,

59 Dan 12:2 is widely accepted to be the only unambiguous resurrection text in the Hebrew Bible; see e.g. James Charlesworth, Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 12, 24-26. More ambiguous references include Isa 25:68; 26:19; Ezek 37:1-13. 60 Thus John Goldingay, Daniel (Waco: Word, 1989), 308; alternatively, see the threefold division of Otto Kaiser and Eduard Lohse, Tod und Leben (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1977), 72. 61 This last example is particularly interesting, despite its lateness relative to the present text, because it sees no tension between describing death as being destroyed (14) – notwithstanding the fact that a second death follows immediately! – and affirming the subsequent condemnation of the unrighteous (15). The neglect of this point mars the discussion of de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 136: ‘the dual personification of death and Hades in Rev 20:14 (cf. 6:8) and their consignment to permanent perdition as the last and closing act of the scenario of events are particularly notable … the destruction of death is the final act.’ On the basis of 20:15, this is simply not true. 62 E.g. 1 Enoch 51:1-2; 4 Ezra 7:31-35; LAB 3:10 (which uses the language of ‘quenching’ death); 2 Baruch 21:23; cf. Richard Bauckham, ‘Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead: A Traditional Image of Resurrection in the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocalypse of John’, in James Charlesworth and Craig Evans, The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 269-291.

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

149

rather than implying a soteriological universalism, could in fact be a necessary precursor to the divine judgment of all humanity.63 The second alternative to a final soteriological universalism, and one which is probably to be preferred, is the view that Paul is speaking climactically and rhetorically here, drawing on Jewish imagery to describe the total subjugation of all God’s enemies, without necessarily implying anything about the fate of unbelievers. A vital background passage, oft-neglected but displaying the same combination of specific resurrection promises for God’s people couched in the universal language of death’s destruction, is Isaiah 25:6-8. Discussions of this important text are usually postponed in the secondary literature until the exegesis of 15:54, but it sheds important light on Paul’s thinking here, partly because the Hebrew uses the language of ‘destroying’ (‫ )בָּ לַע‬death just as Paul will in 15:26, and partly because of the way Paul echoes Isaiah’s universality and particularity in 15:21-22. The Septuagint of Isaiah 25:6-8 describes death as having been swallowed forever, and then identifies those for whom the divine feast is prepared using a string of six ‘all’s, which move from the multiethnic (all nations) to the universal (all individuals): πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ... πάντα τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ... πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ... κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας καὶ πάλιν ἀφεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπζο παντὸς προσώπου ... ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς γῆς. On the face of it, this would seem a resoundingly universalist set of affirmations, depicting the swallowing of death as liberating not just a large group of people from all nations, but every single human being. Yet it sits within a chapter which makes it clear that some people will not experience the defeat of death, the divine feast and the wiping away of tears, but rather ruination, judgment and humiliation (25:1-5, 10-12), and within a discourse that contrasts the delighted songs of the 63

One objection sometimes made to this view is that Paul had been a Pharisee, and Josephus’ description of Pharisaic resurrection belief was limited to the raising of the righteous (War 2:163). Three brief observations should be made in response: first, Paul’s eschatology had been substantially reconfigured around the resurrection of Christ, and it is therefore unwarranted to insist that they must have been typically Pharisaic at this time; second, Josephus’ misrepresentation of other resurrection beliefs, notably the Essenes (War 2:153-158; Antiquities 18.18), mean we should be cautious about drawing too firm a conclusion based on his reports; and third, Josephus’ apologetic purpose may well have influenced him to diminish any Jewish belief in the resurrection of the wicked. In addition to the Jewish and Christian traditions already cited, we may consider the passages in Paul’s letters where he talks about judgment (particularly Rom 2:5-11; 14:10-12; 2 Cor 5:10), each of which envisages a judgment of believers and unbelievers together. If this is to be held together with 1 Cor 15:50-58 – notwithstanding the fact that Paul’s intention was not to provide exact eschatological timelines! – it seems more likely that, for Paul, the resurrection would precede judgment, rather than the other way around; this also coheres well with the ‘giving up the dead’ passages in the pseudepigrapha. It remains open for anyone to respond that Paul nowhere describes the resurrection of the unrighteous dead to judgment – but then it must also be admitted that, other than saying that they face judgment, Paul nowhere describes the cessation of their existence either.

150

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

‘strong city’ with the languishing devastation of the ‘ruined city’ (24:1-25:5; 26:1-21).64 Within Isaiah 24-27, it seems, both the swallowing/destroying of death, and the repeated word ‘all’, concern the global, widespread and climactic scope of what Yahweh will do, in contrast to the more ethnically and numerically restricted scope of what he has done so far, rather than the eschatological redemption of every individual in the world (unless we are to see much of chapters 24-27 as redundant).65 Apparently Paul, using a strikingly similar contrast to Isaiah’s – death is ‘destroyed’, which means that though ‘all’ are currently covered in death, ‘all’ will experience death’s defeat – is using rhetorically powerful and universally framed language to suggest a similar reality.66 Consequently, although we may accept (3) in the terms we expressed it above – namely, that Paul’s language in 15:26 leaves no room for a group of human beings continuing under the dominion of death forever – this does not lead inexorably to a final soteriological universalism. For Paul, the defeat of death was an essential and climactic part of Christ’s cosmological victory, but it did not negate the judgment of all. Thus, while Paul could say with certainty that all who are in Christ will be ‘made alive’, he could not (and does not) say the same of every single human being. The related Jewish and Christian texts we have considered here speak of the earth or Hades ‘giving up the dead’, of ‘awakening’, and of ‘coming out of the tomb’, but not of ‘resurrection’, let alone being ‘made alive’ in the Pauline sense.67 The people who can be certain of their eschatological resurrection, for Paul, are those who are in Christ (15:22), of Christ (23), and who have hoped in Christ (19). With the scope of the future resurrection established, we return to verse 23 to find the basis for it reiterated: Christ the firstfruits has been raised, and it is this which makes the raising of ὁι τοῦ Χριστοῦ inevitable. Once Christ has been raised, the resurrection of his people is just a question of waiting their turn in the order (τάγμα) of things, which in their case will be at the parousia. The criterion (if we can call it that) for future resurrection is not specified here as 64 Discussions about the possible stages of redaction need not concern us here; it is the final version of the text, to which Paul undoubtedly had access (cf. 15:54), that matters. 65 Progressions from apparent universalism to apparent particularism occur elsewhere in canonical Isaiah; see e.g. 2:1-5 followed by 2:6-4:1; 55:1-56:8 followed by 56:9-57:13; 66:18-23 followed by 24; and so on. The idea of a polemically universalist insertion into a particularist mini-apocalypse, without any attempt to remove the particularism, should be judged implausible. 66 Cf. also Isa 26:19. 67 The exception that proves the rule is 4Q521, which says the Holy One will ‘bring life to the dead ones’ (line 12); here, of course, the focus is on the faithful. It is highly unlikely, if our understanding of Paul’s eschatology here is correct, that he would have used a word like ζῳοποιέω to refer to any unbelievers who were raised for eschatological judgment.

B. The Resurrection of Everyone in Christ is Certain

151

continuing fidelity to the apostolic traditions – which, in the context of an extended doctrinal correction like this chapter, one might expect – nor as ethical or ecclesial faithfulness, but simply being ‘of Christ’. This, significantly, is a descriptor that Paul repeatedly uses with reference to all the Corinthian believers, including (and sometimes even especially) the ones he is rebuking for moral failure. The stern warnings of chapter 3 conclude with the resounding encouragement that ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ (3:23); the rebuke about going to prostitutes includes affirmations that τὰ σώματα ὑμμῶν μέλη Χριστοῦ ἐστιν (6:15); and Paul speaks of the Corinthians being part of the body of Christ (12:27), as well as sharing in the body and blood of Christ at the Lord’s table (10:16). No doubt Paul varies his use of words, so we must not press the point too far. But given how freely he describes even the recalcitrant Corinthians as ‘of Christ’, there is no doubt that he is reassuring them here that they will all be raised, and merely on the grounds of their association with Christ. That, after all, is what the chapter is about. This, then, constitutes the most emphatic assurance passage in the letter. The chief problem to which Paul is responding is the Corinthians’ lack of certainty in their future resurrection, with all that goes with it – and his response is that, just as all who are in Adam die, so all who are in Christ will be made alive. This assurance does not stem from ethical or doctrinal fidelity – that much seems clear from the wider context of the chapter, let alone the letter – but from the effect of Christ’s own resurrection, as the firstfruits from among the dead. The resurrection of Christ renders certain the resurrection of all Christians, and if it did not, then Paul’s entire argument would collapse. He does not merely hope for the Corinthians’ final salvation here. He assures them of it. The remainder of this central section (15:20-34) raises several further issues, each of which has been much debated, but none of which need concern us here. Neither the identity of the ‘he’ who reigns in verses 24-28 (Christ, God or a deliberately ambiguous reference to both), nor patristic or subsequent discussions about Christology and Trinitarian theology based on verse 28, affect the present study.68 The exact practice Paul has in mind when he speaks of being ‘baptised for the dead’ (29) is unclear, but is not connected to the certainty or otherwise of resurrection for believers (and nor, clearly, is the nature of the struggle he experienced at Ephesus).69 The question of the interim earthly kingdom, raised with reference to verses 22-28, though relevant to a thorough reconstruction of Pauline eschatology, is likewise incidental to our focus here; even if Paul did imagine an interim, terrestrial Messianic reign, which we judge 68

See now the excellent treatment in Wesley Hill, Paul and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 120-133. 69 For a good recent discussion, and a persuasive argument for taking ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν as ‘on account of the dead’ rather than ‘on behalf of the dead’, see Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 780-786.

152

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

unlikely, it would have no bearing on the point at hand.70 For Paul, insofar as he expresses himself in 15:20-28, the resurrection of all who are in Christ is certain.

C. Resurrection and the ‘Spiritual’ (15:35-49) C. Resurrection and the ‘Spiritual’

Paul now moves on in his argument to address the mocking questions, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?’ (35). His answer comes in two clear parts: the argument from analogy, demonstrating the differences between seeds and grain and between different types of bodies (36-41), and a series of contrasts between the body that is and the body that will be (4249). The second of these merits brief comment. In essence, Paul’s answer to the question, ‘With what kind of body will they come?’ is simply, ‘A spiritual body’ (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Having cleared the ground by demonstrating that seeds and grain are very different in appearance even though one is clearly birthed out of the other, and that bodies are extremely different from each other, Paul gives his description of the resurrection body through four contrasts (42-44), the first three of which give context to the all-important fourth: imperishable/perishable, dishonour/glory, weakness/power, and soulish/spiritual. He then expands on the last, climactic contrast between a σῶμα ψυχικόν and a σῶμα πνευματικόν, by framing the former as an expression of fallen, soulish, natural, earthly, Adamic humanity, and the latter one of renewed, spiritual, heavenly, Christlike humanity, before declaring that ‘we will also bear the image of the heavenly man’ (49). So far, so clear. For some interpreters, the contrast between the soulish body and the spiritual body is driven by nothing more than Paul’s use of Genesis 2:7, and the contrast that thereby occurred to him between Adam as living ψυχή and the last Adam (who is obviously Jesus Christ) as life-giving πνεῦμα.71 There are reasons, 70 The strongest case for an earthly Messianic kingdom in recent years is that of Seth Turner, ‘The Interim, Earthly Messianic Kingdom in Paul’, JSNT 25 (2003), 323-342. Against this view is the argument of Hill, ‘Paul’s Understanding’, that the reign of Christ begins at the resurrection rather than at the parousia; cf. the contention of Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 129, 142, that the climax of the chapter, and indeed Paul’s eschatology, is the defeat of death, which would not sit easily with a subsequent interim earthly kingdom. Note also the discussion of Kreitzer, Jesus and God, 134-154, including the following: ‘Much of the time it is impossible to decide whether by the future Age Paul means the Messianic Age to Come or the Eternal Age to Come … the conceptual overlap in Paul’s mind between Christ and God is closely related to eschatological imprecision with regards to the relationship of the Messianic Kingdom to the Eternal Age to Come’ (153). 71 The discussions in Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1276-1285, and Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 818-826, are particularly helpful; cf. Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1.31 (on

C. Resurrection and the ‘Spiritual’

153

however, to suggest that, although the first Adam/last Adam contrast is clearly central for him, there is more to it than this: that Paul both deliberately connects the resurrection with the gift of the Spirit here (as well as elsewhere in his writings), and that this connection further confirms the certainty of eschatological glory for the Corinthian believers. The Genesis story, of course, has God giving the man the breath of life so that he becomes a living soul (2:7), but no text in the Hebrew Bible speaks of anyone becoming a ‘life-giving spirit’, and that makes the origin of Paul’s contrast here somewhat opaque. However, when the great promise of national restoration and resurrection in Ezekiel 37 is considered in conjunction with Genesis 2 – and no Old Testament text expands on Genesis 2:7 so extensively and clearly as Ezekiel 37 – the source of the comparison becomes much clearer.72 In Genesis, God breathes into the man and he goes from the dust of the earth into a living soul; in Ezekiel, God puts his breath/spirit into Israel and they go from being dry bones to living bodies (37:4-10). In Genesis, the focus is the start of all human life; in Ezekiel, the focus is the start of the resurrection life that Israel will experience when their fortunes are restored by Yahweh (37:1113). Taken together, it is easy to see how Paul could frame Israel’s story around these two occasions: it is the divine breath that comes to bring life in the beginning, and the divine breath/spirit that comes to bring resurrection life at the end. From here, it is a small step to note the contrasts, and attribute to them theological significance. Adam became a living ψυχή; Israel became a resurrected people in whom was the divine πνεῦμα (and Ezekiel 37 comes immediately after the promise of 36:22-38, that Yahweh will renew Israel’s heart and cause her to be indwelt by his πνεῦμα). Soul-life came through Adam, the man of dust; Spirit-life comes through Christ, the heavenly last Adam, by means of his resurrection from the dead.73 Adamic humanity involves soulish bodies; Christlike humanity involves spiritual bodies (44), which means that the Corinthians’ mocking questions (35) entirely miss the point. As a result, it is likely that the soulish/spiritual contrast in 15:44-46 is not simply an ad hoc construct, or merely a contrast between two types of substances, but a deliberate rereading of Genesis 2:7, in the light of both Ezekiel 37 and Paul’s personal experience of Jesus Christ.74 the heavenly man of Genesis 1 and the earthly man of Genesis 2); On the Creation of the World, 144. On these parallels see Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 26-31. 72 The whole focus of Ezekiel 37 is the life that Israel will receive through the breath/spirit of Yahweh being given to them; cf. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, tr. James Martin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 256-266; Daniel Block, Ezekiel 25-48 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 367-387. 73 Paul’s use of the Adam-Christ parallel is well-known, but a good treatment is found in Dunn, Theology, 199-204. 74 On all this see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 734-735; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 820; contra e.g. Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 26-38.

154

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

For Paul, then, building on Ezekiel’s symbolic vision, there is a close connection between the gift of the divine Spirit, the πνευματικὸν σῶμα and the resurrection to glory.75 In Jesus, he sees that the various elements of Ezekiel’s prophecy – Yahweh’s gift of the Spirit to his people, their cleansing from sin, and the resurrection from the dead – are coming about, and in fact the divine Spirit is the means by which the resurrection of the dead will take place.76 This coheres well with the way he speaks of the Spirit guaranteeing the future glory of believers in 2 Corinthians and Romans; if resurrection comes about through the Spirit, then it makes sense to see the gift of the Spirit to the believer as God’s way of sealing (σφραγίζω) believers, as his ‘guarantee’ or ‘down payment’ (ἀρραβών) of their future inheritance, and as that which gives the believer assurance that they will be raised with Christ at the eschaton.77 Here, the resurrection body is a σῶμα πνευματικόν rather than a σῶμα ψυχικόν because it is brought to life and animated by the divine Spirit. As Wright puts it, ‘the psychikos/pneumatikos contrast of verses 44-46 would have to be characterized as “ordinary human life” contrasted with a “life indwelt by the Spirit of God.”’78 All of this adds weight to the idea, made most explicit in Romans 8, that being indwelt by the Spirit in the present is a clear sign that one will inherit a resurrection body in the future. If so, there is a further basis for regarding the Corinthian believers as certain to inherit the resurrection in this chapter, in addition to the powerful logic of

75 See Barclay, Pauline Churches, 208-209: for Paul, the word πνευματικός ‘is not in origin an anthropological but an eschatological term ... when Paul refers to the πνευματικὸν σῶμα (1 Cor 15:44, 46), this is a body which can be envisaged only as an eschatological reality’. 76 This was obviously true for the resurrection of Jesus (Rom 1:4), but it was also true for the resurrection of believers in the future, as we have seen. 77 2 Cor 1:22; 5:4-5; Rom 8:9-11, 16-17, 23-25, 26-30; cf. also Eph 1:13-14. For the case that the view of resurrection presented in 2 Corinthians 5 is the same as that presented in 1 Corinthians 15, rather than a strikingly different and more Hellenistic vision prompted by Paul’s perspective on his own death, see Wright, Resurrection, 361-371; contra e.g. MarieEmile Boismard, Our Victory Over Death: Resurrection? (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999). The indications of assurance by the Spirit in Romans 8 are more frequent, although many interpreters read εἴπερ in 8:17 in a hortatory and conditional manner: ‘if in fact we suffer ...’; so Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3 vols. (Zürich: Benziger, 19781982), 2:138; Dunn, Romans, 1:456; Moo, Romans, 506; Schreiner, Romans, 428. However, in light of the facts that Romans is not generally admonitory, that this section is explanatory in function, that εἴπερ in 8:9 means ‘since indeed’ rather than ‘if in fact’, and that the experience of suffering is already underway for the Roman church, it seems better to read it as ‘seeing that’; so Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains (Paris: Gabalda, 1950), 203 (‘si d’ailleurs, comme c’est le cas, tant que nous sommes ici-bas, nous souffrons etc’); Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 262; Cranfield, Romans, 1:407-408; Jewett, Romans, 502-503. 78 Wright, Resurrection, 350.

D. The Death of Death

155

15:20-28: they themselves are indwelt by the Spirit. As he has expressed numerous times in this letter, the believers at Corinth are Spirit-people: they have received the Spirit (2:12); they have God’s Spirit dwelling within them, both individually (6:19) and corporately (3:16); they have been washed, made holy and justified in the Spirit (6:11); they have been come to declare that Jesus is Lord by the Holy Spirit (12:3); they have been given a variety of spiritual gifts, ministries and activities by the Spirit (12:4-11); and they have all been baptised in/by one Spirit, and given one Spirit to drink (12:12-13).79 These affirmations, which have been given throughout the letter with apparent disregard for the ethical and doctrinal failures Paul identifies in the congregation, make it abundantly clear that all of the Corinthian believers have received the Holy Spirit. Thus, if (as we have argued) he also connects the gift of the Spirit with the future resurrection, both here and elsewhere, there is an additional reason to believe that Paul is confident that all the Corinthians will be resurrected, and given a σῶμα πνευματικόν, at the eschaton.

D. The Death of Death (15:50-58) D. The Death of Death

The chapter reaches its triumphant conclusion. The nature of the kingdom to come – which cannot be inherited by mere ‘flesh and blood’, in the sense of the present physical existence – guarantees the resurrection of all who believe into a new, imperishable, immortal existence forever. Paul does not introduce new arguments here, but reiterates his point that the mortal, corruptible, earthly humanity of the Adamic age will be swallowed up by the immortal, incorruptible, heavenly humanity of the Messianic age (53). This, he explains, will happen instantaneously at the last trumpet, both for those who have died and for those who are still alive (51-52). When it does, the prophetic statements of Isaiah and Hosea will be fulfilled, as God’s final victory over death and sin is demonstrated, to the praise of God (54-57) – and this provides a powerful motivation for remaining steadfast, since their work in the Lord cannot ultimately be in vain (58).

79 Cf. Barclay, Pauline Churches, 205-215. The literature on 12:13 is voluminous, and the arguments sometimes convoluted, but it is certain that Paul is speaking of a common experience of Spirit-baptism and Spirit-drinking here, whether or not water baptism is involved. Our conclusion, for what it is worth, is that the two clauses should be read in parallel with each other to refer to an initiatory spiritual experience (pictured as both drenching/immersing and drinking/irrigating) with ongoing consequences for life in the Spirit, and that this is the meaning whether we take ἐν as locative (in) or instrumental (by); see e.g. Weiss, 1 Korinther, 303-304; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 212; Hays, 1 Corinthians, 214 (‘his point is that the community as a whole has been immersed in thet Spirit’s power’); Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 997-1001; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 591-593.

156

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

There are three indications in this brief section that our conclusion so far in this chapter, namely that Paul sees inheriting the kingdom as a certainty for the believer, is correct. The first, bearing in mind the focus on believers throughout this chapter (those who have ‘faith’ in Christ, ‘hoped in Christ’, ‘fallen asleep in Christ’, are ‘in Christ’, and so on), is his explicit statement that πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα.80 His point is that, although ‘we’ (that is, those who are in Christ) will not all die before the resurrection, every last one of us will be changed from mortal to immortal, from perishable to imperishable, since that is the only way of inheriting the new creation.81 Again, his clear language, albeit in service of a slightly different point than the one we are discussing here, makes it very difficult to conceive of someone who is now in Christ failing to be raised.82 The second relates to the first, and concerns the certainty with which Paul speaks about the resurrection of the ‘we’ who will all be changed. Verses 5155 are repetitive and thereby emphatic: ‘we shall all be changed’ (51), ‘the dead will be raised, and we shall be changed’ (52), ‘this perishable must put on imperishable, and this mortal immortality’ (53), and when this has happened, then the prophets’ words about the victory of God will come to pass (54-55). Tying the resurrection of believers both to the nature of the kingdom (50) and to the clear predictions of the scriptures (54-55) shows, once again, that Paul is not speaking hopefully, but certainly. Given that the ‘we all’, ‘the dead’, ‘this perishable’, the ‘us’ who have the victory, and the ‘beloved brothers and sisters’ all refer to those who are in Christ, as we have seen, it is clear that Paul is confident of the resurrection of all believers. The third indication of Paul’s certainty comes in his peroratio: ‘therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always overflowing in the work of the Lord, knowing that your work is not in vain in the Lord’ (58). For Paul, it is the very conviction that they will be raised in the future, as he has been arguing for the entire chapter, that should secure the Corinthian believers’ steadfastness and work in the present. Here, he does not, as we might 80

We have already argued that, throughout this chapter, the subjects of resurrection are believers, rather than the entire human race (15:17-19, 22-24, 42-49). This makes unlikely the suggestion of Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1294, that πάντες in 15:51 refers to ‘all humans’; rather, it refers to all who are in Christ. So, rightly, Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 290; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 743; Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 604; Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 829-830. 81 Much has been made of the fact that Paul includes himself among those who will be alive at the parousia; although it seems clear that this was his assumption at this point (cf. 1 Thess 4:13-18), it is probably also true that ‘he uses “we” chiefly because nothing else would make sense … it is hardly possible that this clause could have been expressed in either the second or third person’ (Fee, 1 Corinthians, 886). 82 The fact that this is not Paul’s chief point does not reduce its significance; often, it is in his throwaway remarks that we see his most basic theological commitments.

D. The Death of Death

157

expect him to, urge steadfastness in order to make their final salvation secure; he urges it on the basis that it is already secure.83 This is the clear implication of the εἰδότες clause: it is because you know that your labour in the Lord is not κενός, on the grounds of your future resurrection, that you can and should stand immovably and overflow in the Lord’s work.84 If the Corinthians could not be sure of their final destiny, Paul implies, then they would have no basis for knowing their labour was not in vain. But they can, so they do. With that, Paul concludes the chapter as he began it, with the contrast between standing fast in the gospel and believing (or working) in vain. At the outset of his discourse, he had expressed concern lest the Corinthians, in failing to hold fast to the message he had preached, would turn out to have believed to no purpose (15:2). A few verses later, he reminded them that God’s grace to him had not been in vain, but had caused him to work harder than all of them (10), although both his preaching of the gospel and the Corinthians’ faith would turn out to be in vain if Christ was not raised (14, 17). If believers were not destined for future resurrection, he added, they were pitiful (19). However, having established the certainty of the resurrection of Christ (1-11) and the certainty of the resurrection of believers (20-28), with all that this means for the body (35-55), Paul is now able to reassure them that their labour is not in vain, and that this should be their foundation for standing firm in the gospel (58). As such, the threat of futility which has pervaded the chapter is finally dealt with, through a triumphant affirmation of eschatological resurrection for those in Christ. If the Corinthians were to abandon their belief in the bodily resurrection of all believers, they would render themselves hopeless, their work groundless and Paul’s ministry fruitless – but Paul is certain, on the basis of their participation in Christ, their new spiritual nature and the implications that both have for their future hope, that they will not. Neither his work in the gospel, nor theirs, will be empty in the Lord. Both will achieve their appointed goal.

83 So, rightly, Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1306: ‘Understanding of the realities of the resurrection of the body (Christ’s as an established basis; that of believers as an assured, grounded promise) facilitates confidence in the worthwhile and responsive character of the work of the Lord.’ 84 The steadfastness is clearly a steadfastness in the gospel, and particularly in the message of the resurrection, given the context of the chapter. The ‘work’ is harder to define with certainty, but see Fee, 1 Corinthians, 894: ‘there are those kinds of activities in which believers engage that are specifically Christian, or specifically in the interest of the gospel. This seems to be what Paul has in mind here.’

158

Chapter 9: 1 Corinthians 15:1-58

E. Conclusion E. Conclusion

This lengthy chapter begins with a warning and ends with an assurance, both of which concern the possibility of believing or labouring in vain (15:1-2, 58). Abandoning belief in the future resurrection of believers would cause the Corinthians’ trust in God to have been futile, since the gospel depends on it (311), and without it the entire Christian life is meaningless and pitiful (12-19). But Christ has been raised from the dead as the firstfruits of those who have died, and this guarantees the resurrection of all who are in Christ, who are now waiting for the day when all God’s enemies are under his feet (20-28). Only such a confidence makes sense of how both the Corinthians and Paul live now (29-34), and although it might sound strange because of the puzzling nature of the spiritual bodies they will receive, these make perfect sense when we consider the role of Christ as the life-giving spirit, who will give them bodies just like his (35-49). Because of all this – the certain hope of future resurrection for believers, and the swallowing up of death in Christ’s victory – the Corinthians should stand firm, knowing that their work is not futile (50-58). Sketched like this, it should be clear that the assurances within this chapter are far from incidental. On the contrary, they give shape and purpose to the whole passage, and as paradoxical as it may seem to us, they aim to secure the very conviction that Paul warns the Corinthians about losing: ‘hold fast to your belief in the resurrection; if you don’t, you’ll turn out to have believed in vain; but you haven’t believed in vain, because Christ has been raised, and you will certainly be raised with him; so hold fast to the belief in your future resurrection.’ This is of course puzzling, in the same sorts of ways we have seen throughout our study of the epistle. But Paul leaves no room in the central section of this chapter for ambiguity or confusion over the future inheritance of believers, and in fact his purpose is to destroy it completely. So whatever we make of the rest of the letter, we cannot downplay chapter 15 as if it offers merely conditional encouragements, rather than categorical assurances. From the perspective of 15:3-28, and in fact most of the chapter, the resurrection of all who are in Christ is certain.

Chapter 10

Conclusion – The Warnings and Assurances Stand in Tension

Our exegesis has demonstrated conclusively that Paul’s assurances are real, and directed to Christians, and also that his warnings are real, and directed to Christians. As such, the best way of expressing the relationship between the warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians is to admit that there is a significant tension here.

A. Summary A. Summary

In places, Paul speaks with certainty of the eschatological salvation of his Corinthian converts. In chapter three, we saw that one of the strongest statements of assurance in the entire letter comes in just the second sentence (1:8-9), as Paul assures the Corinthians that they will be confirmed (βεβαιόω) to the end, and presented blameless (ἀνέγκλητος) on the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, on the basis of the faithfulness of God. In chapter eight, we considered more briefly Paul’s comments about the abuse of the Lord’s table (11:17-34), and concluded that although the text neither assures believers that they can never face eschatological judgment, nor warns them that they will, it leans in a reassuring direction. Then, in chapter nine, we saw Paul begin with a mild warning (15:1-2), before offering them reassurances at their most emphatic: Christ has been raised, and consequently we can be certain that all who are of Christ will be raised as well (15:3-28), with no exceptions (a conclusion which is further supported by the remainder of the resurrection discourse). For Paul, in these texts, future salvation is assured for all who are in Christ. This, however, is only half the story. Chapter four, in contrast, showed that Paul warns Christians directly of the possibility of facing divine judgment and eschatological destruction (3:16-17), and that his preceding comments about reward and loss do not vitiate this conclusion (3:5-15). We showed in chapter six that 6:9-11 makes far more sense if Paul is not merely contrasting the Corinthian believers with the unrighteous people who live around them, but also warning them that their wrongdoing (ἀδικέω) risks identifying them as wrongdoers (ἄδικοι), resulting in their disinheritance from the kingdom. Chapter 7,

160

Chapter 10: Conclusion

in many ways the most important within the present study, demonstrated beyond doubt that Paul warns the Corinthians away from eschatological destruction (10:1-13), as well as warning them away from destroying each other (8:113) and revealing Paul’s application of his logic to himself (9:24-27), while also providing a further assurance at a crucial juncture (10:13). To these warnings we could also add the malediction of 16:22: εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρανα θα.1 Paul, in these texts, is clearly warning believers against doing things which would lead to their eschatological destruction. We therefore have a tension. There is no other word for it: Paul both warns believers away from condemnation, and assures them that they will not experience it, and no amount of exegetical wrangling can soften the force of either. As we have seen throughout this study, none of the four explanations conventionally put forward are adequate. Two of them – the claim that the warnings do not refer to final salvation, and the claim that the assurances are all conditional – lack any exegetical foundation, and should be dismissed; but we have also seen that the two most promising alternatives to admitting that Paul expresses a tension here, namely the proposals of B. J. Oropeza (that the warnings are real but the assurances merely rhetorical) and Judith Gundry Volf (that the assurances are real but the warnings not directed at genuine believers), fail to do justice to all of the evidence. Sometimes, this is a result of methodological commitments or exegetically unlikely decisions; sometimes it is a result of simply ignoring some of the data.2 The existence of a warning-assurance tension in 1 Corinthians is the only explanation that accounts for all the relevant evidence, and it should therefore be regarded as having been demonstrated. 1 Given the debates that have swirled around the form, setting and interpretive history of these two short sentences, it might seem strange to regard them as simple – but from the point of view of our study, their import is fairly straightforward. As Anders Eriksson has shown, the unique phrase οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον should be understood as a litotes which indicates an active opposition to the Lord, and the curse serves a covenantal function within the peroratio of the letter: there are blessings for those who love the Lord, and curses for those who do not. As such, it is fairly clear that as Paul takes up his pen to sign off the letter, he is issuing a final warning to those who would oppose his teaching, or those whose rejection of his authority might even be exacerbated by the letter he has just written. The Lord is coming, which makes the curse on those who oppose him (16:22) and the blessings on those who love him (16:23) more urgent, and the dividing line between them clearer: ‘Come on, he concludes: are you “in” or “out”?’ (Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1351). On all of these issues see especially Anders Eriksson, ‘Maranatha in the Letter’s Peroratio’, in Eriksson, Traditions, 279-298; Céslas Spicq, ‘Comment Comprendre φιλεῖν dans 1 Cor XVI:22?’, NovT 1 (1956), 200-204; C. F. D. Moule, ‘A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha’, NTS 6 (1959-1960), 307-310; the briefer but more recent discussion of Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 629-631, is also particularly helpful. Surprisingly, the text is not even mentioned in Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance. 2 Both Oropeza and Gundry Volf establish their conclusion on one set of texts, and then use it to explain why the other set cannot conflict with it, often neglecting key passages in

B. Is There a Warning-Assurance Tension Elsewhere

161

Two questions naturally follow, however. First: is this tension present elsewhere in Paul’s own writings, and if so, why is it so much clearer in 1 Corinthians? Second, and more significantly: is the tension coherent in some way, or does it represent a sheer logical contradiction?3 Is Paul certain of Corinthian perseverance when he looks at things from one perspective, and uncertain when he considers it from another (whether we choose to call this a creative tension, a sign of confusion, or something else)?4 Is he deliberately ambiguous, in order to provoke an appropriate level of introspection amongst the congregation? Is he even certain of his own perseverance? Is he deliberately overstating things for some reason? How do all of these texts hold together? It is these sorts of questions which we will attempt to answer in this chapter.

B. Is There a Warning-Assurance Tension Elsewhere in Paul’s Writings? B. Is There a Warning-Assurance Tension Elsewhere

Paul’s warning-assurance tension is not unique to 1 Corinthians, although it is at its most prominent here. Both Romans and Philippians display a similar blend of certainty and concern, confidence and conditionality, to that which we find in the present letter.5 Some scholars, as we have seen throughout, have eased the tension by so emphasising eternal security that the warnings and conditional statements are all-but-eliminated, and others have done the reverse, insisting on the basis of Paul’s warnings that his affirmations of divine preservation are hyperbolic, rhetorical or implicitly conditional.6 The very existence

the process (Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents, 106-107, gives just two sentences to 15:3-28; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, completely omits 3:16-17 and 16:22). 3 There remains debate over whether Paul’s theological constructs are ad hoc and often incoherent (Räisänen), coherent but not systematic (Wright), or carefully synthesised and almost systematic (Campbell), but it is generally accepted that interpretations which find coherence in Paul are preferable to those which do not; see chapter one, above. 4 Sometimes, of course, there may be muddle on the part of the interpreter; cp. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 28 (‘Paul is expressing not a wish but a certainty’) with 250 (‘this includes the possibility of “falling” ... there is a note of warning against losing the truth’). But this is not the same as muddle on the part of Paul. 5 E.g. Rom 2:6-11; 3:21-26; 5:9-10; 8:9-17, 28-39; 11:17-24; Phil 1:3-6; 2:12-13; 3:7-21; cf. also 2 Cor 1:21-22; 5:1-10; 6:1; 13:5-7; Col 1:21-23. Scholarly debates about the unity of 2 Corinthians and the authorship of Colossians account for us focusing particularly on Romans and Philippians here. 6 See the commentaries on the texts above; for some representative contrasts amongst more systematic treatments, compare Dunn, Theology, 497-498 with Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1028-1032, and (again) Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance with Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents.

162

Chapter 10: Conclusion

of these two approaches should alert to us the fact that we have a tension on this point, not just (as we have shown) in 1 Corinthians, but throughout the Pauline corpus. Without the space to develop this point at length, a brief sketch will have to suffice. Outside 1 Corinthians, the warning-assurance tension is clearest in Romans. Whatever view is taken of what justification in Paul actually is – and our view is that it refers to the future verdict which has now been brought into the present through faith – there are a number of places in which an unbreakable connection between a believer’s current faith and their eschatological vindication appears to be made.7 Having been justified already, by faith, we can rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, knowing it will not disappoint us because of the gift of the Spirit (5:1-5), and be certain that we will be saved from the wrath of God through Christ (5:9-10). Having been united with Christ in death, we will certainly be united with him in his resurrection (6:5-8).8 There is no condemnation for those in Christ (8:1).9 All those in Christ have the Spirit, and this ensures that believers will be made alive (ζωοποιήσει) by the Spirit who dwells within them (8:11).10 And, of course, there is the famous crescendo of 8:28-39, undoubtedly the most emphatic assurance passage in all of Paul’s writings: all those whom God foreknew have also been predestined, called, justified and

7 On justification in Paul, see now the monograph-length treatment in Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 774-1042. 8 That the force of ἀλλὰ καί indicates ‘forthwith, certainly, indeed’, and that the referent of the future is eschatological, are both rightly argued by Jewett, Romans, 401; cf. Moo, Romans, 368-371: ‘The “but also” introducing the second part of the verse stresses the certainty that our union with “the form of Christ’s death” will mean union with the form of Christ’s resurrection’ (at 370). 9 Interpreters vary in their approaches to harmonising this statement with e.g. 2:6-11. Moo, Romans, takes 8:1 as emphatic (473) and regards 2:6-11 as describing those who are not Christians (141-143); Schreiner, Romans, 112-115, argues that 2:6-11 is about ‘Christians who keep the law by the power of the Holy Spirit’ (at 115); Jewett, Romans, believes ‘it is possible that Paul overstates the contention that for believers there is “no punishment”, because he elsewhere insists that each believer faces judgment according to works’ (480). 10 Most interpreters see this as a reference to eschatological resurrection; thus Wilckens, Römer, 2:133; Dunn, Romans, 1:432; Moo, Romans, 493; Cranfield, Romans 1-8, 391. For the alternative case, see Jewett, Romans, 492 (although Jewett does not deny that there is a reference to future resurrection here, merely that it is the only thing in view).

B. Is There a Warning-Assurance Tension Elsewhere

163

glorified, such that nobody can bring any charge against God’s elect, and nothing in all creation can separate those in Christ from the love of God.11 Unsurprisingly, those looking to build an unassailable doctrine of eternal security from within the Pauline corpus almost invariably start with Romans.12 Yet there are also plenty of warnings and statements of conditionality. Everyone will be judged according to their works, and those who obey unrighteousness will face wrath and fury (2:6-11).13 Believers are warned that if they live according to the flesh, they will die (8:13), and reminded that their future inheritance and glory is contingent upon their suffering with Christ (8:17).14 An extended warning against arrogance and presumption, directed to the Gentiles in the congregation, points out that if they do not continue in God’s kindness, they will be ‘cut off’ from the olive tree into which they have, for now, been grafted (11:17-24).15 Because we will all stand before God’s judgment seat, and give an account to God, it is imperative that the Romans do not destroy each other for the sake of food (14:10-23). When you add to this the examples of Jewish apostasy in the letter, both through Paul’s imagined interlocutor (2:17-29) and the very real example of contemporary Israel (9:1-11:32), it is easy to see why Romans is adduced as support for the Wesleyan perspective nearly as often as for the Calvinist one.16

11 There remains debate about how best to understand the aorist ἐδόξασεν, but the common view that it refers to the believer’s glorification ‘from the standpoint of God, who has already decreed that it should take place’ (Moo, Romans, 536, with many others cited) is probably to be preferred to the baptismal tradition view of Käsemann and Jewett; note the ironic wording of Jewett, Romans, 530: ‘the past tense verb in 8:30 clearly alludes to the present process of glorification ...’! 12 E.g. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, part I. 13 Despite the frequent Protestant claim that this should be read hypothetically, this should more likely be seen as a genuine judgment; see e.g. Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 143-203; Thomas Schreiner, ‘Did Paul Believe in Justification by Works? Another Look at Romans 2’, BBR 3 (1993), 131-158. 14 Dunn, Theology, 497, states this view strongly: ‘A further unavoidable corollary is that apostasy remains a real possibility for the Pauline believer for the duration of the eschatological tension … there is evidently the real possibility that believers may live kata sarka; and if they do so they will die.’ Perhaps surprisingly, Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, never cites Rom 8:13. 15 Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 196-201, argues that this cutting off of individual Gentile believers, were it to occur, would only be temporary, based on her interpretation of Rom 9-11 as a whole, especially the νῦν of 11:31: ‘In 11:30, 31 Paul has shown that even the enemies of God, whether Jew or Gentile, can be God’s beloved, chosen for salvation. Enmity with God does not cancel out election’ (at 194). For the (more likely) eschatological present interpretation of 11:31b, see e.g. Dunn, Romans, 2:695; Moo, Romans, 735; Jewett, Romans, 711. 16 E.g. Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents, 135-203; Marshall, Kept, 101-105; Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World, 227-233; Dunn, Theology, 497-498. Barclay,

164

Chapter 10: Conclusion

A similar tension is evident in Philippians, albeit expressed in terms of exhortations rather than warnings for contextual reasons. I am sure of this, Paul says in one of his boldest pronouncements of assurance, that the one who began a good work in you will complete it at the day of Jesus Christ (1:6): whatever the identity of the ἔργον ἀγαθόν, the key point to note here is that the reference to the parousia clearly establishes Paul’s conviction that the Philippians will continue in faith until the day of Christ.17 God is the one who is working in you, both to will and to work according to his good purpose (2:13), and we are awaiting a heavenly Saviour who will transform our bodies to be like his (3:2021). Yet you must let the manner of your lives be worthy of the gospel, so that I may know you are standing firm, and you may have a clear sign of your salvation (1:27-28). You need to work out your salvation with fear and trembling (2:12), and that means avoiding grumbling and arguing, so that you may be blameless, holding fast to the word of life, so that I may be proud that I did not labour in vain (2:14-16). And you need to watch out for the circumcision party, and live instead as I do: sharing in Christ’s sufferings in order that I may somehow arrive at his resurrection, pressing on to take hold of the prize of God’s upward call in Christ Jesus, and holding fast to what we have attained (3:2, 1016).18 Though not stated explicitly, the clear indication is that ‘if the Philippians do not continue adhering to the gospel message, Paul’s missionary work among them would have been useless; they would not be living in a manner Paul and the Gift, 557, suggests that Rom 11:17-24 ‘calls into question any dogmatic Augustinian commitment to “the perseverance of the saints”’, before arguing in the next sentence that Rom 9-11 gives ‘a general sense of the efficacy of grace’ – a pair of statements that point towards a warning-assurance tension of their own. 17 This is true whether the ‘good work’ refers to salvation, financial support, missionary partnership or ethical well-doing; the continuance of any or all of these until the day of Christ would surely indicate their continuance in faith. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 3347, argues that the parousia reference makes the salvation option more persuasive, since the other ‘works’ would not obviously continue beyond the lifetimes of the Philippians, but the proximity of the day of Christ in Paul’s thought needs to be borne in mind here (ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς, 4:5). Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, WBC (Waco: Word, 1983), 21-22, understands the good work in terms of their partnership in the gospel, particularly financially, but remarks of Paul’s confidence in the future: ‘The completed state already exists in the divine initiation. It is the nature of God that this be so ... So if God calls the community to faith, He stands also at the end of the call to bring each member to the desired goal of their faith – the salvation of their souls.’ Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents, 219-220, argues that this cannot be the case because of the exhortations and warnings which follow, but this, as we have seen throughout this study, merely begs the question. A helpful survey of the interpretive options surrounding the ἔργον ἀγαθόν is given by John Reumann, Philippians (New Haven: Yale, 2008), 113-114. 18 Cf. Markus Bockmuehl, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London: Black, 1997), 228: ‘Paul exhorts the Philippians not to jeopardize the progress in the Christian life which they have already made, but to continue in accordance with the same stance of striving to know Christ.’

B. Is There a Warning-Assurance Tension Elsewhere

165

worthy of the gospel, and he would not be able to boast on the Day of Christ because their salvation was never brought to its completion.’19 We might also consider Galatians 5:1-15. In many ways the paraenetic climax of the letter, Paul’s appeal to the Galatians not to accept circumcision contains one of his strongest warnings – to accept circumcision is to be ‘cut off from Christ’ and to have ‘fallen away from grace’ (5:4) – and the addressees are clearly believers who have, until now, been ‘running well’ (5:7). Few warnings in the Pauline corpus are as severe, or as clear. At the same time, Paul says, ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε (5:10). While this expression of confidence clearly carries a good deal of rhetorical force, reminding the Galatians as it does that Paul is for them and not against them, this does not reduce it to being merely rhetorical.20 Rather, it is because Paul has been persuaded ἐν κυρίῳ that he is able to speak with such conviction, and it is because he is so concerned about them that he is compelled to warn them with such passion; that is, when viewed from the human side, he is extremely troubled, but when viewed from the divine side, he is filled with confidence.21 The tension that we have seen throughout Paul’s writings appears here also.22 In other words, the warning-assurance tension we have seen in 1 Corinthians exists elsewhere in Paul’s letters. Paul assures believers that they will remain in faith, be saved from God’s wrath, inherit future glory and be resurrected with Christ, since it is ultimately God who preserves them; and in the same letters he warns them that if they do not live according to the Spirit, continue 19

Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents, 216-217. So Douglas Moo, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 335: ‘Paul’s expression of confidence is undoubtedly sincerely meant. Yet rhetorically this expression functions also to motivate the Galatians to live up to the confidence that Paul has in them.’ See also Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 266-267: ‘it would be absurd even to use a conventional phrase if the Apostle did not have some real hope that the churches will remain loyal Paulinists’; Stanley Olson, ‘Pauline Expressions of Confidence in His Addressees’, CBQ 47 (1985), 282295. 21 So Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 238: ‘Der κύριος wird sie bei der Wahrheit halten.’ 22 Ironically, in light of the multiple disagreements I have had with her work during the course of this study, both this tension and Paul’s role at the centre of it are superbly expressed by Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 214-215: ‘[Paul] surely presupposes that those who become alienated presently from the gospel cannot hope for final salvation … Paul writes Galatians to prevent his readers from sacrificing the salvation which is now theirs … Paul’s own intervention in the matter is not thereby rendered superfluous, however. For God’s faithfulness can manifest itself precisely in the effect the apostle’s warning and wooing has in the Galatian churches. And indeed Paul must have expected his expression of confidence actually to effect such positive change, as did other Hellenistic writers who made use of such conventional expressions. From the perspective of God’s faithfulness, Paul is certain that the Galatians will not finally turn away from the gospel.’ Quite so. 20

166

Chapter 10: Conclusion

in God’s kindness, avoid the circumcision party or pursue the eschatological prize, they will face judgment and Paul’s apostolic labours will have been in vain. Many interpreters succeed in explaining the assurances but without fully making sense of the nature and referent of the warnings, while many others account for the warnings while giving inadequate explanations of the assurance passages. And the reason for this, it seems, is precisely that we do have a tension on this point in Paul’s thought. Paul is confident that all of his converts will persevere in faith, yet he also insists that they must be diligent to persevere and live lives of ethical propriety. That is how he can assure the Romans that the eschatological verdict over their lives is already secure, and yet insist that everyone will be judged in accordance with their works.23 It is how he can assure all those in Christ that they are, in a real sense, already glorified and inseparable from God’s love, and yet plead with Gentiles to continue in God’s kindness lest they be cut off.24 It is why he uses such strong language about approaching the judgment seat of Christ mindful of the risk of ‘destroying’ one’s brothers and sisters, despite his conviction that believers will be kept safe from every created thing.25 It is also why, as he so pithily puts it, his converts must ‘work, because it is God who works’: pursuing the eschatological prize despite the suffering that goes with it, in conscious imitation of Paul and in response to his exhortations, is the very way in which God’s continuing work of faithfulness in them will come about.26 And, of course, it is how Paul can urge that living by the Spirit as opposed to the flesh is essential if one is to be raised with Christ, and yet speak of the Spirit as a guarantee that this future inheritance will come about.27 The fact that this tension exists in Paul’s other letters, in contrast to the explanations advocated by interpreters like Oropeza and Gundry Volf, is a further indication that we are on the right lines.28

23

Cp. Rom 2:6-11; 3:21-26; 5:1-11. The proposal of Gathercole, Where is Boasting?, 222-224 is helpful here: Paul’s polemic in Romans 2:1-3:20 is not against Torah-keeping as such, but against Torah-keeping in the flesh (3:20), as opposed to fulfilling Torah in the Spirit (cf. 8:1-8). Paul, for Gathercole (cf. too Schreiner, Romans, 142-145; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1030-1032), believes that ‘the obedience of the Church and the Christian is God’s action’, such that the eschatological verdict corresponds to the life lived. 24 Cp. Rom 8:28-39; 11:17-24. 25 Cp. 14:10-15; 8:35-39. 26 Cp. Phil 1:6; 2:12-16; 3:7-21. 27 Cp. Rom 8:9-17; 5:1-5; 2 Cor 1:21-22; 5:1-10. 28 I have already commented on the key texts in 1 Corinthians, Romans and Philippians, but the same problems exist with respect to 2 Corinthians as well. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, admits that the appeal not to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1) refers to ‘apostasy from the faith’, but implausibly suggests it is ‘for the sake of argument only’ (280, italics original); this is a good example of what Dunn, Theology, 497, calls her ‘rather tendentious attempt … to weaken the seriousness of Paul’s repeated warnings on this

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

167

Having said all that, it is in 1 Corinthians that the warning-assurance tension is at its sharpest, most developed, and most frequent, and this is probably owing to a number of factors. One is the length of the letter: other than Romans, which is of course written to a church Paul has not visited, 1 Corinthians is by far the longest Pauline epistle. Another is the sheer range of topics it addresses, with at least ten distinct issues being treated, each one requiring exhortation and admonition (in contrast to Galatians, in which only two – table fellowship and circumcision – clearly emerge). Another is the variegated origin of the problems, as we saw in chapter two, in that Paul has to warn the Corinthians on each topic on its own terms, rather than engaging with one key root issue to resolve everything at once. In other words, having established the presence of a warning-assurance tension in this letter, we can see evidence of a similar tension elsewhere. But it is in 1 Corinthians that it is clearest, and most exegetically significant.29 We need now to answer our second, and in many ways more interesting, question. Is this tension incoherent? If not, how can it be explained?

C. Is the Tension Incoherent? C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

Paul is certain that the Corinthian believers will persevere in faith and reach eschatological salvation, and yet he repeatedly warns them away from failing to do so. At first glance, this seems incoherent: either believers are safe (in which case, why warn them?) or they are in danger (in which case, why reassure them?) There is, however, a way of making sense of both affirmations together, in such a way as to preserve the tension between them, but without rendering either (or both) an incoherent mess. As hinted at already, this involves reflecting on how Paul conceived of divine and human agency working together, both in his own life, and in the lives of his converts. My proposal here is that the most likely explanation for the warning-assurance tension is that Paul believes that his apostolic warnings are themselves a point.’ Conversely, Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents, 126, tries to weaken the seriousness of Paul’s assurances concerning the Spirit as ἀρραβών (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5) by reading a condition into both texts: ‘the Spirit is evidence of their future hope of final salvation and glory if they persevere in Christ and the new creation through faith and righteous living’ (emphasis original). As with the warnings and assurances in 1 Corinthians, both scholars appeal to their favoured texts to constrain the meaning of their less favoured ones. For a noteworthy exception in Gundry Volf’s case, see below on Gal 5:4. 29 The remark of Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 569, is relevant here, given the close relationship between discussions about the warning-assurance tension and grace and agency: ‘While some Pauline texts suggest the efficacy of grace in the will and work of believers (1 Cor 15:9-10; Phil 2:12-13), this perfection receives no special profile in Galatians and Romans.’

168

Chapter 10: Conclusion

means by which the Corinthians will be preserved by God for future glory. Paul believes that, as a result of God’s faithfulness, grounded in the Corinthians’ participation in Christ, and through the agency of divine grace at work within them by the Spirit, his urgent warnings will somehow be efficacious: God will bring about a response of repentance and obedience within the church, and will ensure that they continue in faith rather than falling into destruction. Consequently he is able both to warn them severely and to assure them confidently, since the former is, paradoxically, a means of the latter. This theological explanation, which neither removes the warning-assurance tension nor puts it down to incoherence in Paul’s thought, has never been explored or defended in the scholarship on 1 Corinthians.30 I suggest that it is the most plausible explanation of the warning-assurance tension as we have it in this letter. Two lines of evidence point in this general direction. The first is the extent to which this proposal coheres with the way Paul speaks about the relationship between divine and human agency in his own life, particularly in this letter but also elsewhere: his human work, fuelled by a desire to inherit the eschatological prize and (to some degree) a concern that he might miss out on it, is nonetheless secured in its effectiveness by divine enabling, in the form of a grace which grounds, and effects, the very efforts he is making. The second is the way it fits with the statements Paul makes about divine and human activity in the lives of his converts, particularly when exhorting them to obedience, as well as the way he sees his apostolic ministry as a means of divine preservation for them. Having presented these arguments, we will outline the most common (and potentially damaging) objection to this view – that it makes the warnings merely ‘hypothetical’ and hence pointless – and then respond to it, before concluding. 30 The ‘means of preservation’ view of biblical warnings was hinted at in Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.40, briefly stated in the Canons of Dort (5:14: ‘God preserves, continues, and completes this work [of grace] … by its exhortations, threats, and promises’), and taught by a number of the Puritans (e.g. John Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance Explained and Confirmed, reprinted in The Works of John Owen [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967], vol. 11 ch. 12; Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997], 279-284). Amongst modern interpreters, it is articulated in Berkouwer, Faith and Perseverance; Schreiner and Caneday, Race, 160-193; Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 992-995. However, all of these works being systematic- rather than biblical-theological in nature, they only cover three passages in 1 Corinthians between them, namely 3:9, 9:23-27 and 10:12-13, and (other than Schreiner and Caneday) do not even primarily consider Pauline texts. John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, tr. John Fraser (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1960), comes closest amongst Corinthian commentators to articulating this position, but he reads the various warning passages in very different ways – as referring to believers (10:1-12), the former lives of believers (6:911), saints (like Augustine or Bernard) who ‘turned away from the right method of building’ (3:14-15), and so on – and as such does not see the tension we have identified in the same way (77-78, 124, 200).

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

169

I. Divine and Human Agency in Paul’s Own Life We begin with the most compact, and apparently paradoxical, of all the statements about the relationship between divine and human agency in Paul’s life: 1 Corinthians 15:10. In this text, as we shall see, Paul speaks of efficacious divine grace (10a) which both prompts a human response (10b) and yet also effects one (10c). As such, it is of great relevance to our topic, since it reveals precisely the dialectic we are suggesting is present in the warnings and assurances: the divine gift is given to humans (assurance), who are then urged to work earnestly in response to it, lest it be ‘in vain’ (warning), although divine grace will also bring about this response and secure its result (assurance). This is obviously the dynamic at work in 1 Corinthians 15 as a whole, with its initial exhortation to hold fast lest their belief be in vain (15:2) and its triumphant conclusion that, because of the resurrection of Christ, their labour will not be in vain (15:58). Paul’s own example, of grace producing a response of work which is itself effected by grace, is clearly intended to be paradigmatic for the Corinthians.31 His statement begins with an acknowledgement that everything he is results from the grace of God: χάριτι δὲ θεοῦ εἰμι ὅ εἰμι. In the immediate context, this refers to the appearance of the risen Christ to him ‘as one untimely born’, an experience he speaks of elsewhere as God being ‘pleased to reveal his son to me’, despite his persecution of the church.32 God’s grace came to Paul, the ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων, in spite of his merits rather than because of them, which he has already argued is true of the Corinthians as well, albeit for different reasons (1:26-31; 4:7); neither he nor they contributed to their rescue, but owe it all to God’s gift. But he immediately broadens out to speak of the effect of this pre-emptive act of divine grace in his life – καὶ ἡ χάρις αὐτου ἡ εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ κενὴ ἐγενήθη – which gives the lie to the suggestion that the whole verse should be interpreted as referring to his conversion.33 The effectiveness of God’s gift, which Paul expresses using a double negative of sorts – the phrase οὐ κενή no doubt being chosen because of the ‘in vain’ theme that runs through the chapter – clearly refers to his subsequent apostolic ministry, as the contrast in the next clause shows. The way in which divine grace bears fruit, however, is through human effort: ἀλλὰ περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα. Here, the fact that Paul worked harder than anyone is set against the possibility of God’s grace being fruitless, which makes clear that the work was the means by which the grace took effect; 31

Thus Fee, 1 Corinthians, 815; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 694-695. Gal 1:15-16. In both passages, Paul connects his own unworthiness, as a persecutor of the church, with the grace of God in revealing Christ to him. 33 E.g. Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power’, 129-130 (Engberg-Pedersen places the text under the subheading ‘Divine Agency in Conversion’ rather than ‘Divine and Human Agency After Conversion’, despite 10b-c). 32

170

Chapter 10: Conclusion

had Paul not worked hard, God’s grace would have been rendered empty, but he did, so it wasn’t. Whatever else we may say about Paul’s theology of gift, it certainly does not reduce the recipient to a passive role. The fact that God has acted in prior grace does not diminish, but rather grounds, the requirement for the highest possible levels of human effort.34 So far, so explicable. God acts first, as giver, and his gift then calls forth an appropriate human response. What makes the verse so surprising, and simultaneously so revealing, is the swing back towards divine agency in the final clause: οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ ἀλλὰ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σὺν ἐμοί. This is as explicit a statement as we could wish for that Paul views his own apostolic labours as somehow brought about by God’s grace at work with(in) him. His own intense efforts, he says, are themselves a result of the divine gift, such that he can even negate the idea that it was he himself who worked them – his work is not merely in co-operation with grace, but a product of grace.35 We do not have divine agency to the exclusion of the human here, but nor do we have an equal sharing of the work between divine and human subjects; we have divine grace which produces human work, which in turn ensures the efficacy of grace.36 Consequently, although this is not strict ‘monergism’, it is not ‘synergism’ as usually understood either, and thus, as John Barclay suggests, we might be better to speak of ‘energism’ if our aim is to reflect Paul’s thought on this point.37 On the evidence of this one text, then, Paul’s view of the relationship between divine and human agency in his own life is not contrastive, with one going down as the other goes up, and vice versa.38 Nor, however, does Paul collapse human activity into the divine, as if the two agents cannot be separated. In this text, he appears to assume a relationship of what Barclay (following Kathryn Tanner) calls ‘non-contrastive transcendence’, whereby ‘the two agencies ... stand in direct, and not inverse proportion: the more the human agent is operative, the more (and not the less) may be attributed to God ... [but] God is radically distinct from human agency and not an agent within the same 34 John Barclay offers an instructive comparison between Paul and Philo on this point: ‘Philo stresses the causative dynamics of grace to the extent that, in deepest reality, or at least at its ultimate stages of ascent, the soul is represented as inactive or passive, to avoid any implication of synergism. Paul will not stretch his understanding of agency so far in that direction: the work of the Spirit does not substitute for, but precisely energizes, the work of the believer. If the ideal man for Philo is the resting sage, who approaches the vision of God in pure passivity, Paul’s is the obedient Adam, Christ’ (Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 157). 35 This is true whether we read σὺν ἐμοί or ἡ σὺν ἐμοί (UBS has [ἡ] σὺν ἐμοί), although the definite article would appear to make the negation somewhat stronger. 36 The illustration cited in Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 342, of a child who uses their parents’ money to give them a present, is overworn but nonetheless apt. 37 Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 156. 38 That this is the way divine and human agency interact in Paul’s writings is too often assumed, rather than established; see below on Oropeza and Marshall.

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

171

order of being or in the same causal nexus.’39 The grace of God, for Paul, is finally responsible for effecting his labour in the gospel, and ensuring that the original grace-gift does not prove empty, but this in no way diminishes the need for Paul’s hard work, nor reduces him to a passive vehicle through whom God acts unilaterally.40 Paul strives, but with the energy which God has powerfully worked within him.41 Now: if Paul, with this view of the interaction between divine and human agency, was to look forward to the eschaton and reflect on his chances of persevering in faith, we would expect to see a similar dialectic in play. We would expect to see him both speaking of the need for extremely hard work, as an appropriate response to the gift of God, without which divine grace might turn out to have been in vain. And we would also expect him to predict with certainty that, as a result of the grace of God which continues to ground all of his labours in the gospel, he will be empowered to keep going as a faithful apostle and to inherit final salvation. In other words, we would anticipate a blend of robust confidence (when considering the divine side of things) and intense effort (when considering his own role), with the latter resulting from grace which God himself provides. This, of course, is precisely what we do find in the key Pauline texts. A good example of a passage which focuses on the human side, as we saw in some detail in chapter seven, is 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. Paul’s self-description, as an example for the Corinthians to follow, is focused on his intense efforts – running with purpose and discipline, enslaving his body so that he is not disqualified from the race – which match his later statement that he worked harder than anybody. There is no indication whatever that Paul thinks passively about his own perseverance, or eschatological inheritance, here; quite the opposite, in fact. The striving, self-pummelling, self-controlled athlete makes every effort to gain the prize, and if he doesn’t, then he could be disqualified. A similar metaphor appears in Philippians 3:7-4:1, although with more balance between the divine and human dimensions. That Paul’s own efforts are essential to his future inheritance is clear from phrases like διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω (12), τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος τοῖς δὲ ἔμποσθεν 39

Barclay, ‘Introduction’, 7; cf. Tanner, God and Creation. It should be noted that Barclay does not explicitly describe 15:10 in these terms, but his exposition of the text certainly points that way; the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of Gal 2:19-21. 40 So Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 518-519: ‘Christian obedience is thus vital, but only ever in a responsive mode ... God’s grace does not exclude, deny or displace believing agents; they are not reduced to passivity or pure receptivity. Rather, it generates and grounds an active, willed conformity to the Christ-life, in which believers become, like Christ, truly human, as obedient agents.’ 41 Thus even if it is not by Paul, Colossians 1:29 reflects the thought of 1 Corinthians 15:10 very closely. For a recent defence of Pauline authorship, see Campbell, Framing Paul, 260-309.

172

Chapter 10: Conclusion

ἐπεκτεινόμενος, κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον (13-14), and the evidently conditional εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν (11).42 But his efforts are grounded in his confidence of what God, in Christ, has done and will do: Paul has the righteousness that comes from God (9), Christ Jesus has made him his own (13), Paul has the ἄνω κλήσεως of God in Christ (14), and he is now awaiting the heavenly Saviour who will transform and glorify his lowly body (20-21). As the passage concludes, Paul explicitly grounds his exhortations to stand firm (3:16-17; 4:1) in his reassurance of transformation and glorification (3:20-21), thus urging human steadfastness on the basis of (Ὥστε), rather than in spite of, divine preservation. Paul’s certainty that they will inherit eschatological glory does not remove the need for them to follow his example as they run the race; from his perspective, it actually reinforces it. One further eschatological passage, in which Paul reflects on his own future as well as that of his readers, is worth considering here, namely 2 Corinthians 5:1-10.43 Here, the emphasis is more on God’s preservation, but with the need for human effort nonetheless reiterated. On the divine side, Paul is clear that the basis for his eschatological confidence is the work of God, who has both prepared him for the swallowing up of what is mortal by life, and given him the ἀρραβών of the Spirit (4-5).44 On the human side, he explains that his confidence makes him aim to please God, on the grounds that he will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and receive recompense for all deeds done in the body (9-10).45 Again, the logic of a contrastive view of divine and human 42 In the light of 1 Cor 9:27, the efforts of interpreters (e.g. Hawthorne, Philippians, 146) to remove the conditionality of this clause, and read it rather as an exaggerated statement of humility, are unnecessary. 43 A similar blend of exhortations to righteous living alongside assurances of a divinely secured destiny is evident in both 1 Thess 5:1-11 (especially 8-10) and Rom 8:14-25; neither, however, specifically addresses the relationship between divine and human action in Paul’s own life, which is our focus here. 44 Once again, Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles and Opponents, 126, argues that we should read this statement with an assumed conditionality: ‘In 2 Corinthians, at any rate, it is doubtful that he would be encouraging the carnal Corinthians to believe that their final salvation is secured in an unqualified sense via their spirituality gained from their Spirit baptism. Rather, the Spirit is evidence of their future hope of final salvation and glory if they persevere in Christ and the new creation through faith and righteous living.’ This is not, however, what Paul says, in either of the two places in the letter where the ἀρραβών picture is used (1:22; 5:5). For Oropeza, as much as for Gundry Volf, the correct reading of Paul’s view of warnings and assurances is established by certain favourable passages, the results of which are then read into the unfavourable ones, despite any basis in the text itself. 45 On 5:10, see Yinger, Paul, Judaism and Judgment, 260-270, especially the summary statement at 270: ‘He is confident that future glory is his by faith in Christ, and equally certain that such life in Christ means that all of life now must be aimed at pleasing Christ and must stand up to eschatological scrutiny before the final awarding of salvation will occur.’

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

173

agency – whereby the need for human perseverance goes down as the confidence in divine preservation goes up – is foreign to this text. God has given Paul the Spirit as a guarantee, which makes him confident, which makes him aim to please Christ, since he will be judged for his actions. The divine commitment provides the basis for human obedience. Each of these three examples illustrates eschatologically what a close reading of 1 Corinthians 15:10 demonstrates to be true temporally: that divine agency neither depends on Paul’s effort (15:10a), nor removes the need for it (15:10b), but somehow effects it (15:10c), and thereby ensures its fruitfulness. This subtle relationship between divine and human agencies even comes through in the oft-discussed statement of Galatians 2:20, in which Paul says that ‘it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me’ (which clearly stresses God’s work, to the point of apparently excluding Paul’s), followed immediately by talking about ‘the life I now live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ (which not only assumes Paul’s own activity, but frames it precisely as a response to Christ’s activity for him). In other words, to quote Barclay again, ‘the self here ... is reconstituted in such a fashion that one has to speak thereafter of dual agency, and not simply of one operating in partnership with the other, but of Christ operating “in” the human agent.’46 For Paul, it seems, any work he does that pleases and honours God is itself a result of God’s acting in and through him – although this in no way minimises the need for him to work with diligence, perseverance and self-discipline. Perhaps surprisingly, the closest parallels to this conception of divine agency acting within human agency emerge, not in Second Temple Jewish sources, but in Stoic writers such as Seneca and Epictetus.47 46

Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 152. Seneca’s concept of divinity – ‘prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est … sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos’ – unsurprisingly leads him to reflect on the way human action is shaped by this ‘sacer spiritus’ (Ep. Mor. 41.1-2). In his striking conclusion to one letter, he compares humans to farmers who either receive the divine ‘seed’ and produce more of the same, or kill it and cause weeds to grow instead of wheat: ‘Deus ad homines venit, immo quod est propius, in homines venit: nulla sine deo mens bona est. Semina in corporibus humanis divina dispersa sunt, quae si bonus cultor excipit, similia origini prodeunt et paria iis ex quibus orta sunt surgunt: si malus, non aliter quam humus sterilis ac palustris necat ac deinde creat purgamenta pro frugibus. Vale’ (Ep. Mor. 73.16). Divine agency, it appears, is operative within human agency, but not in such a way as to finally constrain it; some humans are simply good and bad, and respond to the divine seed accordingly. Epictetus, even more explicitly, addresses the question of providence (προνοίας) at some length (Diss 1.6). Since God has given humans (as opposed to animals) the power of understanding, he argues, we should not complain that life is sometimes difficult, but rather acknowledge that we have the resources to make use of difficulties, and see them as a means of increasing in magnanimity and courage (Diss1:6:14-43). At the heart of Epictetus’ exhortation is the idea that, in giving us understanding, God has given us complete freedom, so that even he cannot inhibit our decisions: καίτοι ὅ γε θεὸς οὐ μόνον 47

174

Chapter 10: Conclusion

If this brief analysis of the way the divine and human agents interact in Paul’s own life is correct, and representative of his theological anthropology, it provides support to the idea that Paul believes his (human) warnings to the Corinthians will be an efficacious means of (divine) preservation for them, by bringing about a (human) response of repentance and/or obedience. Human efforts, encouraged and then enabled by divine grace, are simply (for Paul) the way in which God preserves his people – so apostolic exhortations and warnings designed to provoke human efforts could, very plausibly, serve as the means by which God keeps his people from apostasy. However, it would be precarious to establish a paradigm on the strength of Paul’s statements about himself alone. We need next to examine whether he thought this way about the perseverance, and preservation, of his converts as well. II. Divine and Human Agency in Paul’s Converts48 When it comes to the Corinthians, the text that most explicitly illuminates this dialectic – namely, the relationship between divine and human agents in bringing about obedient perseverance in the members of the church – is surely 10:12ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας ... ἀλλ ̓ ἀκώλυτον τοῦτο ἔδωκεν, ἀνανάγκαστον, ἀπαραπόδιστον, ὅλον αὐτὸ ἐφ ̓ ἡμῖν ἐποίησεν οὐδ ̓ αὑτῷ τινα πρὸς τοῦτο ἰσχὺν ἀπολιπών, ὥστε κωλῦσαι ἢ ἐμποδίσαι (Diss 1:6:40). This should not be pressed too far, however, as if divine agency was somehow negated by the gift of human cognition (a point made emphatically, if perhaps too much so, by Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power’, 125126). For Epictetus, it is not a question of an (external) divine agency which might or might not constrain an (internal) human agency; rather, αἱ ψυχαὶ μὲν οὕτως εἰσὶν ἐνδεδεμέναι καὶ συναφεῖς τῷ θεῷ (Diss 1:14:6). Explaining this idea a short while later, he appears to distinguish between three different actors within what we could call the ‘self’ – μέμνησθε μηδέποτε λέγειν ὅτι μόνοι ἐστέ· οὐ γὰρ ἐστέ, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ θεὸς ἔνδον ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ὑμέτερος δαίμων ἐστίν – namely the ‘you’ who is not alone, your ‘genius’ or ‘daemon’, and the God within (Diss 1:14:13-14). Space prohibits a fuller exploration of Epictetus’ anthropology here, but these brief comments should caution us against a simplistic reading of divine agency as eliminated by the gift of understanding. Epictetus, like Seneca, sees the divine at work ‘within’ human agency. When we live according to our power of cognition, he believes, the agency of God and the agency of the self are effectively one. See the helpful comments on 1:14 in Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power’, 124: ‘The best reading seems to be that when Epictetus speaks of the person, what he has in mind is precisely not this or that individual self but rather what we have called the true human self and what A. A. Long calls “the ideally rational and normative self”. In connection with this self there is neither selfsufficiency vis-à-vis God (as there is towards the world) nor dependence on him (in the sense there is not towards the world). Instead, there is a directedness towards him that reflects a qualitative identity with him.’ Cf. A. A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002). 48 Here I make the important distinction between the way divine and human agency function together in conversion, and how they function in the subsequent life of the convert; it is the latter which I focus on here. There is an enormous amount of literature on the former, fuelled both by age-old questions about predestination and free will, and by the renewed

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

175

13. As we saw in some detail in chapter seven, Paul addresses the urgent appeal of verse 12, ὥστε ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ, to Corinthian believers, as the climax of an extended warning based on the destruction of the Israelites in the desert. The length and severity of this warning, and the charge to ‘beware lest they fall’, rule out any construal of this relationship that renders the human agent a passive object of divine preservation, as if God will act to keep them safe independently of any effort on their part. Quite the opposite: it is only through strenuous activity, in this case a combination of repentance, self-examination, self-denial and flight from idolatry, that the Corinthians will continue to stand firm. Readings of this chapter that diminish the conditionality of Corinthian preservation, by arguing that the imperative of verse 12 is not addressed to true Christians (Gundry Volf) or that it is not addressed to the same people as the reassurance of verse 13 (Robertson and Plummer), risk missing the entire point of Paul’s challenge here.49 If the Corinthians do not ‘flee idolatry’ (10:14), and continue to desire evil, commit idolatry and immorality, test Christ, and grumble (10:6-10), they risk ‘falling’ (10:12) and being ‘destroyed’ (10:10-11). At the same time, the reassurance which follows this warning, in verse 13, immediately stresses divine activity as the means of empowering the human response. There is nothing particularly unique about the πειρασμός you are currently facing, Paul says; but God is faithful, and he will not permit you to be tested beyond your ability, but with the trial he will provide a way out for you, so that you are able to endure it. In other words, the (human) ability to fulfil the exhortation of verse 12 is grounded in the (divine) enabling of verse 13. Twice in this verse Paul refers to the Corinthians being able (δύναμαι) to stand up under temptation, and both times this ability results from verbs of divine activity: a level of testing which God will not allow (οὐκ ἐάσει), and a interest within post-Sanders scholarship in how the various second temple Judaisms conceived of human ability to keep the law; important recent works include Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith; Gathercole, Where is Boasting?; Barclay and Gathercole, Agency. But this is certainly a different issue to the latter; cf. Watson, ‘Constructing an Antithesis’, 102 (emphasis original): ‘If Pauline antithesis represents an opposition between two readings of Scripture, it follows that it is almost exclusively to be found in passages where the question of an appropriate scriptural soteriology is at issue. At this point alone, it matters to Paul to contrast a soteriology grounded in the practices of law-observance (Leviticus) with one that appeals to a realized divine saving action grounded solely in the unconditional divine promise (Genesis). In the (more numerous) passages that speak of the practice of the Christian life, there is little if any sense of a potential tension between appeals to human and to divine agency … In ethically oriented contexts, Paul can speak of human agency as incorporated within the transformative divine agency (cf. Phil. 2:12-13), but the antithetical model developed in contexts of scriptural controversy has little relevance for him outside those contexts.’ 49 See above, chapter seven; Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 69-74, 120-130; Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 208.

176

Chapter 10: Conclusion

way out which God will make (ποιήσει). The possibility of the Corinthians finding themselves in a scenario where they are unable to resist temptation is ruled out of court by Paul: divine action, whether negative (in not permitting something) or positive (in providing a way of escape), will ensure that such a situation never occurs. Somehow, God will constrain circumstances in such a way as to empower a faithful response from his people.50 This does not, of course, settle the question of whether God’s activity effects a human response, or merely makes one possible. However, as we have already seen, this is one of several places in the Pauline letters where an affirmation of the faithfulness of either God (or the Lord) is made in the context of Christian perseverance, and in all the other cases, the aim of the text is to assure believers that they will be preserved by God’s faithfulness, not just that their perseverance will be made possible. Because of God’s faithfulness, believers will be sanctified completely, and kept blameless (ἀμέμπτως) in body, soul and spirit; they will be established (στηρίζω) and guarded (φυλάσσω) from the evil one; they will be made firm (βεβαιόω) and without reproach (ἀνέγκλητος) on the Day.51 As such, it seems likely that Paul’s intention is to assure the Corinthians that divine faithfulness will preserve them – by constraining circumstances, and providing a way out – even as they do everything in their power to preserve themselves. This fits well with the way Paul speaks of his own efforts in the gospel, as the previous section has shown. We may be able to say more than this, however. It is not just that Paul, in all likelihood, regards the faithfulness of God as a guarantee, rather than merely a facilitator, of the Corinthians’ obedient response; it is also likely that he sees his warnings, within this very letter, as a means by which God will preserve them from falling. Having just affirmed that God will provide them with a ‘way out’ so that they can endure, Paul immediately says in verse 14, ‘Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry!’ Two points of contact between these two verses are of note here: firstly, the strong conjunction διόπερ (‘for this very reason’), which indicates that his imperative flows from the reassurance he has just given, and secondly, the language of active flight in the imperative φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας, which reinforces the reference to an ἔκβασις being provided.52 It is hard to escape the conclusion that Paul regards their flight from idolatry, in response to his urgent apostolic exhortation, as the way out which the faithful God himself has given. God, through Paul’s apostolic ministry, is

50 Cf. Ciocchi, ‘A Theological Watershed’, 471: ‘each believer’s temptations will be commensurate with his own ability to endure them.’ 51 1 Thess 5:23-24; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 Cor 1:8-9. 52 See especially Schrage, 1 Korinther, 2:435; cf. Edwards, 1 Corinthians, 251 (‘a way out of a defile, a mountain pass’); Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 211; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 755.

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

177

making available their escape from temptation. Paul’s warnings are a means by which God, who is faithful, will preserve the Corinthians from falling. Both of these crucial ideas – that God’s activity effects, rather than merely making possible, obedience in the lives of believers, and that Paul’s own apostolic ministry is a key means by which this takes place – emerge elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. The most significant and oft-discussed example of the former is Philippians 2:12-13. Here, Paul famously gives the Philippians an apparently paradoxical exhortation: τὴν ἑαυτῶν κατεργάζεσθε· θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας. This is probably the clearest indication in all of Paul’s writings that divine and human agency do not operate in competition with each other, but that the former grounds the latter, at least when it comes to those in whom God dwells by his Spirit. It is not that the imperative to work (κατεργάζεσθε) is given in spite of the fact that God is working (θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν), and nor is it given independently of the fact that God is working; the imperative is given because (γάρ) God is working.53 Somehow, for Paul, the human decision to respond and obey is only possible because of the divine activity taking place within them, by means of the Spirit. Non-contrastive transcendence, it appears, is assumed here.54 This divine activity takes place at two levels: willing and working. Divine work in the life of Paul’s converts is not simply behavioural, as if only their actions matter, regardless of motivation. On the contrary, God works καὶ τὸ θέλειν, by causing the mind to be transformed according to the likeness of Christ.55 Neither, however, is it merely volitional, producing ‘the desire to do what is right, but not the working out.’56 No: divine action grounds human action as well as human decision, as God works καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας. God’s activity, in this text, effects both new ways of thinking and new ways of living in the believer, ‘so that not simply new behaviour is now effected, but a new desire toward God that prompts such behaviour in the first place.’57 We will see as we proceed that the most common objection to reading the Corinthian warnings in the way we are proposing here – that is, as a means of bringing about a response of repentance and obedience that Paul is certain will 53 Thus Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, tr. J. R. DeWitt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 255: ‘God does not work and has not worked in his good pleasure because man has worked his salvation with fear and trembling. The contrary is true: because God works and has worked, therefore man must and can work.’ 54 See the discussion above, with reference to Barclay, ‘Introduction’, and Tanner, God and Creation. 55 Rom 12:1-2; cf. 1 Cor 2:16. 56 Rom 7:18. Both θέλω and κατεργάζομαι are used here. 57 Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 238. Cf. Bockmuehl, Philippians, 153-154.

178

Chapter 10: Conclusion

come, because of the work of God through him – is the claim that it would render warnings pointless; there is no reason to warn someone of something if you believe that, ultimately, God will preserve them anyway. Sentences like Philippians 2:12-13 destabilise such assumptions, by making explicit what is implicit in so much Pauline paraenesis: God’s work is not just the motivation for human work, but the power that actually brings it (and the desires that prompt it) about. It is true, of course, that the purpose of this text is not to guarantee eschatological perseverance.58 Nevertheless, it articulates a relationship between divine and human agency in the life of the believer that, in the end, coheres closely with the reading of the warning-assurance tension in 1 Corinthians we are expounding here.59 Human willing and working is urged upon believers – yet it is not merely enabled by, but actually effected by, divine action.60 We have already seen a clue, within 1 Corinthians itself, that Paul conceived of his own apostolic ministry as a means of this divine action: that his own preaching, teaching and letter-writing were ways in which God would work to save and preserve his converts.61 To this text we should now add several others. Romans 15:14-21, to take an obvious example, details the priestly service Paul has given in bringing the Gentiles to obedience – service which, Paul can say, gives him reason for boasting – but immediately describes this as something Christ has worked through him (κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς δί ἐμοῦ). Characteristically, Paul sees his apostolic labours as being both his and Christ’s, but when 58 Fee, Philippians, 235: ‘The context makes it clear that this is not a soteriological text per se, dealing with “people getting saved” or “saved people persevering.” Rather it is an ethical text, dealing with “how saved people live out their salvation” in the context of the believing community and the world.’ The adjacent footnote navigates a helpful via media between Martin and Hawthorne on the one hand, and O’Brien and Silva on the other, on the meaning of σωτηρία here. At the same time, Phil 1:6, with which 2:12-13 is often compared, does appear to point in the direction of eschatological security (see footnote below). 59 The same picture emerges from the thanksgiving Paul gives at the start of the letter, as he alternates between emphasising human and divine activity in the Philippian believers. Paul starts with the human side, thanking God and rejoicing because of their partnership in the gospel from the first day until now (1:3-5); he then expresses his confidence in divine preservation until the day of Jesus Christ, based on their sharing with him in grace in his imprisonment and defence of the gospel (1:6-7); and then he swings back to praying for their love, knowledge and discernment to increase, so that they may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ (1:8-10), although he is careful to note that the fruit of righteousness comes through Jesus Christ (1:11). 60 Thus Reumann, Philippians, 410: ‘God effects the will, God effects activity among believers.’ See also the detailed discussion of this point, and some implications, in Peter O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 284-289; cf. Moisés Silva, Philippians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 118-123; Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 170-179. 61 See above on 1 Cor 10:12-14.

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

179

he frames the relationship between the two agencies, Christ is the subject and Paul the means: ‘anything achieved has been done by Christ; but the agency is Paul’s. This is the emphasis which Paul wants to retain in any assessment of his work.’62 A comparable dynamic is present in 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Paul had preached the word of God to the Thessalonians, but they, on hearing it, had accepted it not as the word of men, but as the λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. Although the contrast here is between the word of God and the word of men, rather than between the achievement of Christ and the achievement of Paul, the thought behind it is remarkably similar to that in Romans 15 – Paul’s apostolic preaching was the means by which people come to believe, but the truly effective agent in the process is the word of God – and, perhaps significantly, verbs of ‘working’ (ἐνεργέω and κατεργάζομαι) are used in both texts. Paul’s apostolic ministry, from his perspective, is the means God uses to effect a response of obedience and faith amongst humans. Both of these examples, of course, refer to the gospel proclamation that brings the initial response of faith, rather than pastoral exhortations (such as those which are the focus of our present study) which secure ongoing perseverance. Nonetheless, they reflect Paul’s conception of the relationship between his work and the work of God/Christ, with the former as a means of the latter, and there is no good reason to suppose that this only applies to the initial proclamation of faith. One further text which illuminates this point, and which strongly indicates that Paul views his exhortations and warnings (as much as his evangelistic preaching) as instruments of divine agency, is 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. This well-known passage, sandwiched in between Paul’s famous declarations of new creation (5:17) and becoming the righteousness of God in Christ (5:21), sees Paul appealing to the Corinthians to be reconciled to God. The context, both immediately and throughout the extended section in which Paul’s apostolic ministry is being defended (2:14-6:13), makes it clear that Paul is addressing Corinthian believers, rather than speaking to the world at large; in this instance, he is not proclaiming the gospel to people who have not heard or accepted it, but urging a response of compliance and faithfulness from people who have.63 Consequently, his insistence that God is appealing to the Corinthians through him (5:20) is clear evidence that he believes his whole apostolic ministry, including his warnings and exhortations, to be a divine means of bringing about obedience in believers. 62

Dunn, Romans, 2:862; cf. Cranfield, Romans, 2:758: ‘it has also been something which Christ has actually Himself effected, working through His minister’; Jewett, Romans, 909: ‘The accomplishments to be touted are “in Christ” and, as the next verse will show they have been performed by Christ rather than by Paul himself.’ 63 Interpreters are divided on whether this wider section ends at 6:13 or later, perhaps at 7:4 or even 7:14, partly because of the various partition theories available; for our purposes here, it does not much matter, since the appeal to ‘be reconciled to God’ clearly applies to the readers as part of Paul’s wider argument.

180

Chapter 10: Conclusion

Three phrases in 5:20 reveal this conviction. The claim that ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν draws upon the familiar image of the envoy, legate or ambassador to highlight the extent to which Paul represents Christ; Paul’s exhortations should be taken as those of Christ himself, just as both Jewish and Greco-Roman delegates carried the authority of those who sent them.64 He then says, even more explicitly, that ‘God is making his exhortation through us’ (τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δί ἡμῶν), which is as clear a statement as we could wish for: God summons believers to reconciliation through Paul’s apostolic imperatives.65 Paul reiterates this point once more with the phrase δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, which switches the subject of his representation back from God to Christ, before concluding the sentence with the exhortation itself: καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ. In three successive phrases, then, Paul has identified his agency, as an apostle, with that of God and/or Christ, and not only in gospel proclamation, but in exhortations to ongoing obedience.66 One imagines that, were someone to ask Paul precisely how he conceived of God preserving his converts in faith, and calling them back into right relationship with him and others, he would respond that it was through his own ministry that this would take place, just as it was through his own ministry that the gospel reached people in the first place. That, for Paul, was what being an apostle necessarily entailed. When we bring together these two Pauline ideas – that human obedience, though worked by the believer, is ultimately effected by divine agency, and that God’s preserving action in the life of believers comes in part through apostolic exhortations – we have good reason to surmise that, in the case of 1 Corinthians, Paul regarded his warnings as a means by which God would preserve his readers. Reading through the letter with this proposal in mind makes sense of the warning-assurance tension in a way that neither irons the tension out of existence (as do, in their own ways, the proposals of Oropeza and Gundry Volf), nor leaves it as an essentially incoherent construct; the tension is allowed to stand, but with a subterranean logic to it. ‘He will keep you strong 64

So Victor Paul Furnish, 2 Corinthians (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 339; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 310; cf. BDAG. 65 See the helpful comments of Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915), 184-185; cf. Barnett, 2 Corinthians, 317, on 6:1: ‘By his use of the vocabulary of “appeal” (5:20; 6:1; cf. LXX Isa 40:1, where it may be rendered “comfort” or “appeal”) and the text from Isaiah in the verse following, Paul is claiming an authority analogous to that of the OT prophets, who spoke for God. God made one “appeal” through his prophet; now he makes another “appeal” through his apostle.’ 66 That ongoing obedience is the focus here is abundantly clear not just from the intended audience, but also from the immediate context; see especially 6: 1, with which the paraenetic appeals of 1 Corinthians have much in common.

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

181

to the end, and present you blameless on that day’: and one of the ways he will do that is through this letter that I am now writing, complete with all its warnings and encouragements. ‘If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him’: but then, as a result of this warning, I am certain that none of you will. ‘The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom’: and I am confident that you, as those whom God has washed, sanctified and justified, will turn from your unrighteousness. ‘I run in such a way as to win the prize’: and because I do, I know that I will. ‘Anyone who thinks he stands firm must be careful, in case he falls’: and God will make sure that a way out, an escape route along which you can flee from idolatry, is provided, not least in the form of this warning. ‘You are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain’: and because all who are in Christ will finally be raised, I can be sure that you will be saved, and that it will not be in vain. My suggestion is that, quite deliberately, Paul leaves warnings and assurances in tension. But rather than the mark of a careless thinker, this is the mark of a careful pastor, whose concern for his converts is matched only by his confidence in the trustworthiness, power and grace of God. III. The Strongest Objection to this Proposal: Redundant Warnings? Undoubtedly the strongest objection to the explanation we are proposing in this chapter is that it could seem to make the warnings ‘hypothetical’ or redundant. Exegetically, I have argued that Paul most likely regards his warnings as a means by which his converts are preserved from falling by the faithfulness of God. Logically, however, it would appear strange for Paul to issue a warning the eventual result of which he was already convinced about. This objection is put with laudable clarity by B. J. Oropeza: There would be no reason to warn them so severely if he believed they were all going to persevere to the end anyway. Moreover, there is no indication that he believed his very message would somehow instil effectual grace so as to guarantee their perseverance. Despite their election, the warning could either be accepted or rejected, obeyed or disobeyed with the real consequences of eternal life or death.67 The previous section has already engaged with the second of these objections – that Paul nowhere indicates that his warnings will bring about perseverance in his readers – and seen that, in fact, he does, both in general terms (through the way in which he speaks about divine and human agency, and his own apostolic role in bringing about a response of faith), and in specific texts.68 Because Oropeza regards Paul’s reassurances as mere rhetorical devices designed to secure goodwill, rather than as genuine statements of conviction 67 68

Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 221-222, on 1 Cor 10:1-13; cf. also 22-23. E.g. 2 Cor 5:17-6:1; Gal 5:1-15.

182

Chapter 10: Conclusion

about the future, he disregards their significance for the warning-assurance tension. If the reassurances are taken at face value, however, as the foregoing analysis indicates they should be, this objection does not hold.69 Paul does give indications that his warnings will bring about their desired effect, as well as indications that his converts will persevere to the end as a result of the faithfulness of God, and Oropeza does not incorporate them into his analysis. More weighty, and yet more difficult to engage with exegetically, is the first of Oropeza’s objections: that Paul’s warnings would serve no purpose ‘if he believed they were all going to persevere to the end anyway.’ In many ways this is an appeal to logic rather than an appeal to any particular text(s), and although this does not render it an invalid one, it is risky to assume that because we may be inclined to see things in a particular way, that Paul necessarily also did.70 If exegesis indicates that Paul both believed his converts would be preserved by divine faithfulness and warned them urgently against falling, as well as suggesting that his warnings were a way in which obedience in his converts would be brought about, our finding it counterintuitive is not a sufficient reason to reject the idea. As we have seen, there are clear Pauline instances of precisely such a counterintuitive relationship between apostolic instructions and divine activity: ‘work out your salvation with fear and trembling’ (apostolic exhortation towards human effort), ‘for it is God who works in you, to will and to work’ (confidence in divine agency).71 Having said that, we can also demonstrate the falsity of Oropeza’s objection – that being confident of a future outcome would render warnings pointless – by using an example from outside of Paul’s letters. The text in question, as it happens, concerns Paul as well, and is found in Acts 27.72 The author of Acts describes the events leading up to the shipwreck on Malta, and in the process gives an interesting example of exactly what Oropeza believes would not make sense. In a speech aimed to encourage those on board the ship, Paul states his certainty that ‘there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship’, on the grounds that an angel of God has revealed this to him: ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has given you all who sail with you’ (27:22-25). The assurance here is fairly definitive: Paul (according to the author) is certain that God 69 See above, especially on 1 Corinthians 1:8-9 and 10:13; much the same could be said of Gal 5:10. 70 See, in a similar vein, the response of Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, 161, to de Boer, The Defeat of Death, 58: ‘This essentially modern ethical perspective is challenged by a great many Jewish texts ancient, medieval and modern. Where a modern might see contradiction (between, say, “determinism” and “free will”), Jewish tradition would see a mystery which was ultimately both incomprehensible and indissoluble.’ 71 Phil 2:12-13. 72 This point was first made by Charles Hodge, 1&2 Corinthians (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1857), 149; it is developed in Schreiner and Caneday, Race, 209-213.

C. Is the Tension Incoherent?

183

will preserve the lives of everyone on board. Yet a few verses later, faced with a panic amongst the sailors, Paul is forced to warn them gravely: ‘Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved’ (27:31). The immediate context makes it very clear that Paul’s warning concerns the lives of the men – the very thing about which Paul, based on a divine commitment, has previously expressed certainty. Neither the historicity of the account, nor its portrayal of Paul, nor the fact that the rescue is temporal rather than eschatological, are directly relevant here. What matters is the direct challenge this first century Christian text presents to the logic Oropeza assumes must be present in a coherent writer: that warnings are pointless if divine preservation is assured.73 The Paul of Acts explicitly repudiates this, by first insisting that all will be saved, and then by warning the men that conditions need to be met if all are to be saved. We have, in a sense, a warning-assurance tension of sorts within Acts 27. Yet the tension finds coherence, not by regarding the angelic vision as a mere rhetorical device (pace Oropeza), nor by regarding the warning as directed only to those who were not really on the ship (pace Gundry Volf), but by seeing the warning as a means of bringing about an outcome which God, for the author, had already guaranteed to Paul.74 This certainly does not prove that the warning-assurance tension in 1 Corinthians should be thought about in the way we are describing here. But it does prove that Oropeza’s objection to it, on the grounds that nobody would ever warn people if they were confident of a positive outcome, is illfounded. Certainty in the divinely promised future did not necessarily, at least in this particular narrative, render warnings in the present redundant. Much the best argument against Oropeza’s objection, however, is the sense which the proposal we are articulating here makes of Paul’s letters. Paul, it seems, regarded the ongoing perseverance of his converts as assured by divine faithfulness, empowered by divine grace and secured in Christ’s resurrection; he believed his warnings to his readers, and their obedient response to them, were essential if they were not to face eschatological judgment; he believed his own role, as God’s appointed delegate, was to urge his converts towards obedience; and he believed that his exhortations and warnings would be successful. If a contrastive relationship between divine and human agency is assumed, then this can indeed appear paradoxical. But for Paul, the God whose grace had 73 There are a number of good reasons to date Acts before the end of the first century, including the book’s fairly primitive ecclesiology, its relative lack of interest in false teaching affecting the late first century church, its open-ended conclusion and the famous ‘we’ passages; see e.g. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville: Glazier, 1991), 2-3; Witherington, Acts, 60-63; F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 10-12. 74 Cf. Schreiner and Caneday, Race, 211: ‘Someone may even ask, “Why should God warn people not to do something that he has assured them will not happen?” Ah! But the questioner fails to recognize that God accomplishes his promised purposes by use of means.’

184

Chapter 10: Conclusion

worked powerfully to effect obedience within him, by means of his own efforts to win the prize, was now at work within his converts – and that made all the difference.

D. Conclusion D. Conclusion

The warning-assurance tension, simply stated, is that Paul believes that his converts will persevere to the end, turn aside from their ethically and theologically flawed behaviour, and inherit final salvation (hence the assurance passages), and that he also believes irrevocable divine judgment will fall on those who continue in idolatry, immorality and denial of the gospel (hence the warning passages). My contention is that, despite appearances, this tension is not in fact incoherent. The best way of accounting for it is if Paul sees his warnings as the divinely appointed means by which God, who is at work in the Corinthians by his Spirit, will ensure that they continue in faith and holiness. Admittedly, this is unprovable, as all equivalent explanations are. Yet we have seen that this framework makes sense, not just of the way the warnings and assurances themselves are presented in Paul, in this letter and elsewhere, but also of the way Paul sees divine and human agency as functioning in general, both in his own life and in the lives of his converts. We have also raised the strongest possible objection to this view – that it renders the warnings ‘hypothetical’ and hence redundant – and explained why it does not hold the force it is sometimes assumed to have. Consequently, this proposal, which neither explains away the tension we have found, nor puts it down to a fundamental incoherence in Paul’s thought, is I suggest the best explanation for the warning-assurance relationship as it appears in 1 Corinthians.

Chapter 11

Implications and Further Research A. Summary A. Summary

This book has established the presence of a warning-assurance tension in 1 Corinthians that has not been sufficiently recognised, or explained, in contemporary scholarship. After an introduction to the scholarly discussion so far (chapter one) and a survey of some important introductory issues in the letter (chapter two), we established that both Paul’s warnings and his assurances are genuine, as opposed to rhetorical, conditional or directed at unbelievers, through careful exegesis of all the relevant passages (chapters three to nine). We saw that Paul both assures believers of their eschatological salvation, both in brief summaries (1:8-9; 10:13) and in extended arguments (15:3-28), and at the same time warns believers against being destroyed (3:16-17), destroying others (8:11), forfeiting the kingdom (6:9-11) and falling into idolatry, judgment and destruction (10:1-13). Drawing all of these threads together, we then showed that a tension between warnings and assurances is the only way to account for all the evidence, and sketched how this tension exists elsewhere in Paul, before demonstrating how, though puzzling, it is in fact coherent, with Paul seeing his own warnings as a God-given means of ensuring human perseverance in faith (chapter ten).

B. Implications B. Implications

The chief contribution of this study has been to illuminate 1 Corinthians itself, and particularly those passages in which warnings and assurances are most prominent. Nevertheless, as stated at the outset, it has shed light on two other areas of Pauline scholarship in particular. First, by establishing both the reality of the warnings and their application to believers, we have problematised certain ‘apocalyptic’ readings of Paul, particularly those which lean in a more universalist direction. Our excursus in chapter nine addressed the question of universalism in 1 Corinthians 15 head on, in dialogue with Martin de Boer, Eugene Boring and others. But more significantly, the fact that Paul warns believers away from destruction, disinheritance and judgment so emphatically, and even raises the prospect of being

186

Chapter 11: Implications and Further Research

disqualified himself, indicates that he does see eschatological condemnation as a very real possibility, even as he is doing all he can to save people from it. If Paul, as we have shown, is not merely warning people rhetorically, but actually believes they will be excluded from salvation if they do not heed his warnings, then anti-‘contractualist’ readings of Paul like that of Douglas Campbell, as well as universalist ones, will need to be rethought: Paul does see conditions as needing to be met if people are to reach eschatological salvation, and he is concerned that they do so.1 Likewise, our discovery that Paul’s warnings are at least as prominent as his assurances in this letter, and stand in tension with them, poses difficulties for those readings which present a sharp discontinuity between Paul and the more Deuteronomic theology of many Second Temple Jewish texts. Paul’s assumed eschatology is undoubtedly quite different to his Jewish forebears, but the fact that he still warns believers so urgently, despite his assurances of divine preservation, indicates that the polarity has been framed more absolutely than is justified. Second, and more substantially, this study has contributed to the complex debate in contemporary scholarship surrounding the relationship between divine and human (and suprahuman) agency, as it emerges in the work of scholars like Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Louis Martyn and John Barclay. EngbergPedersen sees a clear ‘overlap’ between divine and human agency in the believer, in the face of which the ‘inconsistency in speaking of divine predetermination and human responsibility will tend to evaporate,’ but the imperatives of (say) Galatians 5:16-26 are incomprehensible unless the human agent has the choice as to whether to walk by the Spirit or not; he thus prefers to view mythical forces like πνεῦμα and σάρξ in a ‘naturalistic’ way, and to read the liberation of which Paul frequently speaks in terms of knowledge and understanding, both of which cause him to emphasise the human agent’s response to divine enabling.2 For Martyn, by contrast, Flesh and Spirit are suprahuman powers, and the believer is liberated from slavery to one by the other, in an act by which ‘the divine agent does something unheard of ... God changes human agency itself!’3 Consequently, for Martyn, the human response of obedience is itself brought about by divine action, although at a corporate more than an individual level; obedience is inseparable from ‘the continuing causative activity of the divine agent in the daily life of the community ... this invasive God consistently participates in human morality itself’, such that the Galatians’ actions 1

The extended critique of ‘contractualism’ in Campbell, Deliverance, is not explicitly universalist, but strongly leans that way, and leaves little place for any retributive judgment; warnings like 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:9-11; 10:1-13 make this position difficult to sustain. John Barclay’s insistence that grace, for Paul, is ‘incongruous’ but not ‘unconditional’, since conditions apply to it, is also relevant here; see Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 66-78 and throughout. 2 Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power’, 131-132; Paul and the Stoics, 157177. 3 Martyn, ‘Epilogue’, 180.

B. Implications

187

‘are first of all the acts of the Spirit (5:22; cf. 4:6) and secondly the acts of themselves as persons into whose hearts the Spirit has made its entrance (5:24).’4 Barclay, in dialogue with both writers, argues that Engberg-Pedersen’s view ‘has the effect of leaving the two agencies unrelated, quite contrary to the conscious and complex ways we have seen them interwoven in Paul’, but ‘Martyn’s stress on the prior agency of Spirit renders puzzling how Paul can conceive of the possibility that the Galatians might refuse to walk by the Spirit and sow to the Flesh.’5 Consequently, Barclay argues, we might be better to speak not of chronological anteriority, but of one agent acting ‘within’ the other by the ‘non-coercive power of grace’, such that ‘human agency is the necessary expression of the life of the Spirit.’6 Although ‘God’s grace ... generates and grounds an active, willed conformity to the Christ-life, in which believers become, like Christ, truly human, as obedient agents,’ it remains the case (however paradoxically) that ‘it is always possible to reject the grace of God.’7 Francis Watson’s remark, that ‘in ethically oriented contexts, Paul can speak of human agency as incorporated within the transformative divine agency’, also supports Barclay’s argument.8 Our analysis of the relevant material indicates that Barclay’s approach is closest to the truth, even if it is unclear that his synthesis answers all the questions he thinks it does.9 The densest statements of divine and human agency working together, like 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Philippians 2:12-13, do indeed indicate that divine agency operates ‘within’ human agency, and yet that this grounds, rather than negates, human action (a point also made, from the perspective of moral and ethical theology, by Oliver O’Donovan).10 This is borne

4

Martyn, ‘Epilogue’, 182; Martyn, Galatians, 535. Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 155-156. 6 Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 156. 7 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 519; Barclay, ‘Grace and Agency’, 156. 8 Watson, ‘Constructing an Antithesis’, 102. 9 Barclay argues, against Martyn, that ethical imperatives like Gal 5:16-21; 6:7-8 would not make sense if grace effected obedience rather than merely enabling it (‘Grace and Agency’, 156). However, while this helps explain Paul’s future-oriented warnings, it makes less sense of his past- and present-oriented statements in which the power of grace appears efficacious (e.g. 1 Cor 15:10; Phil 2:12-13). 10 Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 106 (emphasis original): ‘[The Spirit] confirms and restores us as moral agents, which is to say, as the subjects of our own actions, not as divorced subjectivity which subsists in its own self-awareness. In confirming us as subjects, he teaches us how, within this age of eschatological judgment, we may act. To do this he does not take over our subjecthood; he enables us to realise it ... [Phil 2:13] may sometimes be misunderstood, as though the apostle were speaking of an absorption of man’s work into God’s by virtue of a qualitiative inwardness. But the willing and the working (as the Greek syntax makes clearer than the English) are man’s willing and working. Human willing and working 5

188

Chapter 11: Implications and Further Research

out further by the way warnings and assurances function in the letter as a whole, with Paul’s use of the former grounded by, not negated by, his confidence of the latter; Engberg-Pedersen’s view of the divine/human relationship would seem to be consistent with the warnings but not with the assurances, and the reverse would appear to be true of Martyn’s, whereas Barclay’s ‘energism’ neatly captures both. The strange reality appears to be that Paul, when faced with obedience or perseverance, puts it down to divine grace, but when faced with disobedience or rebellion, puts it down to human volition.11 The asymmetrical relationship between the two agencies, if this is in fact what it is, shows why interpreters have struggled for so long to make sense of Paul’s thought here.

C. Future Research C. Future Research

Several fruitful lines of future research would follow naturally from this study. One concerns how Paul’s approach, as we have elucidated it here, compares with other examples of early Christian paraenesis. Three early Christian texts, namely Hebrews, Jude and Barnabas, are particularly interesting, since they use the same Old Testament example as Paul does – the wilderness generation, whose destruction in the desert serves as a negative example for believers – to drive home their warnings.12 Hebrews and Barnabas, like Paul, address ‘brothers and sisters’ directly, and urge their readers to be careful lest they fall, whereas Jude refers to false teachers. There are also affinities between Paul’s language of ‘desiring evil’ and Hebrews’ talk of ‘hardening hearts’, between the ways both Paul and Barnabas stress that the working of miracles amongst Israel did not save her from divine judgment, and between the way Paul and Jude speak about Israel being ‘destroyed’ (Hebrews talks of bodies falling in the wilderness, and Barnabas, as befits his agenda, of being ‘abandoned’). A fuller investigation of how this story functions in the paraenesis of each writer, and what that means for their respective views of warnings and perseverance, would be an interesting avenue of research. It would also be interesting to examine other relevant early Christian writings to see whether a warning-assurance tension can be found within any of are made possible by the divine work “within”, which brings the free human agency to expression.’ 11 Cf. D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 205, 212: ‘It is axiomatic that any truly monotheistic religion is going to experience somewhere the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility ... The manner in which God stands behind evil and the manner in which he stands behind good are not precisely identical; for he is to be praised for the good, but not blamed for the evil.’ 12 Heb 3:7-4:13; Jud 5; Barn 4.12-14.

C. Future Research

189

them, and if so, in what ways it resembles or differs from that found in Paul. The obvious starting points for such an investigation would be Hebrews and Revelation, given their size, but there are also hints of such a tension within smaller texts.13 The warning passages in Hebrews are well known, but the idea that they might stand in tension with some more assurance-minded passages has not been adequately investigated; my own research on the conditional clauses of Hebrews 3 suggests that they may in fact do just that, although much more work on this is required.14 Revelation, likewise, may reflect a tension between the apparent conditionality of the ‘those who overcome’ statements that fill the book, on the one hand, and the apparently unconditional ‘those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life’, on the other.15 It would be worthwhile to explore other such possible tensions, such as those in 1 John and Jude. Whether or not such a tension exists elsewhere, however, it certainly exists in 1 Corinthians. In this study, by highlighting a tension between warnings and assurances that has not been sufficiently noted, and through careful exegesis and engagement with the primary ways of handling the warnings and assurances in the secondary literature, we have demonstrated this, and thus hopefully enabled Paul to be read more accurately, and the dialectic within his thought on this point to be understood more fully. Paul, uniquely, regarded his own admonitions as a means by which believers would be preserved by God for final salvation; his warnings were the means by which his assurances would be vindicated. Those who think they stand should be careful lest they fall; God is faithful, and will provide a way of escape. Divine and human agents should – and indeed will – act together.

13

Contrast the reassuring logic of 1 Jn 2:18-19 (those who depart were never ‘of us’ in the first place) with the exhortations of 2:26-29, the tests of 3:4-10, and the enigmatic ‘sin that leads to death’ of 5:16; cp. too Jude 20-21 (‘keep yourself in God’s love’) with 24-25 (‘him who is able to keep you from stumbling’). 14 See my recent ‘Hebrews 3:6b and 3:14 Revisited’, TynBul 62.2 (2011), 247-267; cf. also the apparently strong assurances of Heb 7:25; 10:12-14. The classic study of the warning passages in Hebrews (2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:8; 10:26-31; 12:14-29) remains that of Scot McKnight, ‘The Warning Passages in Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions’, TrinJ 13 (1992), 21-59. 15 Cp. Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7; 22:19 (conditional) with 13:8; 17:8; 20:1115; 21:27 (unconditional).

Bibliography Primary Sources Primary Sources Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M. and Metzger, B. M. (ed.). Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edn. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Babbitt, Frank Cole (ed.). Plutarch: Moralia, 16 vols., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-2004. Bury, R. H. (ed.). Plato: Laws, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926. Charles, R. H (ed.). Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963-1964. Charlesworth, James (ed.). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985. – The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994-1995. Colson, F. H., Whitaker, G. H., Earp, J. W. and Marcus, R. (ed.). Philo: Works, 12 vols., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929-1953. De Jonge, M. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Elliott, J. K. (ed.). The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M. R. James. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Epstein, I. (ed.). The Babylonian Talmud, 36 vols. London: Soncino, 1935-1938. García Martínez, Florentino and Tigchelaar, Eibert (ed.). The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998. Goodrich, Richard and Lukaszewski, Albert (ed.). A Reader’s Greek New Testament, 2nd edn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Gummere, R. M. (ed.). Seneca: Epistulae Morales, 3 vols., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917-1925. Hamilton, Edith and Cairns, Huntington (ed.). Plato: The Collected Dialogues. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. Harris, J. Rendell. Fragments from Philo Judaeus. Cambridge: CUP, 1886. Hicks, R. D. (ed.). Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Holmes, M. W. (ed.). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and Translations of Their Writings. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Louth, Andrew. Early Christian Writings. London: Penguin, 1987. Marchant, E. C. and Todd, O. J. (ed.). Xenophon: Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Secondary Sources

191

Oldfather, W. A. (ed.). Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19781979. Palmer, H. (ed.). The Satires of Horace. London: Macmillan, 1885. Roberts, A., Donaldson, J. et al. (ed.). The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1887. Rouse, W. H. D. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Rusten, Jeffrey and König, Jason. Philostratus: Heroicus, Gymnasticus, Discourses 1 and 2, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. Thackeray, H. St. J., Marcus, M., Wikgren, A. and Feldman, L. H. (ed.). Josephus: Works, 9 vols., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929-1965. Tov, Emmanuel. Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 40 vols. Oxford: OUP, 1977-2011. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 7th edn. London: Penguin, 2011.

Secondary Sources Secondary Sources Adams, Edward. Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. – The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? London: T&T Clark, 2013. Allo, E.-B. Saint Paul: Première Épitre aux Corinthiens, EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1956. Anderson, Hugh. ‘4 Maccabees’, in James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. New York: Doubleday, 1985, 2:531-564. Arzt-Grabner, Peter. 1 Korinther. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Aune, David. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Bailey, Kenneth. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. London: SPCK, 2011. Barclay, John. ‘Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity’, JSNT 47 (1992), 49-74. – ‘A Response to Steven Friesen’, JSNT 26 (2003), 363-366. – ‘By the Grace of God I am what I am: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul’, in John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (ed.), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment. New York: T&T Clark, 2006, 140-157. – Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 205-215. – Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Black, 1971. Baumert, Norbert. Sorgen des Seelsorgers: Übersetzung und Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefes. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2007. Bauckham, Richard. ‘Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead: A Traditional Image of Resurrection in the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocalypse of John’, in James Charlesworth and Craig Evans (ed.), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993, 269-291.

192

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn., revised F. W. Danker. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Baur, F. C. ‘Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom’, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831), 61-206. Beale, Greg. The Temple and the Church’s Mission. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004. Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Berger, Klaus. ‘Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts’, NTS 17 (1970), 10-40. Berkouwer, G. C. Faith and Perseverance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bieringer, Reimund (ed.). The Corinthian Correspondence. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Bjerkelund, Carl. παρακαλῶ: Form, Funktion und Sinn der παρακαλῶ Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967. Block, Daniel. Ezekiel 25-48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Blomberg, Craig. ‘Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?’, JETS 35 (1992), 15972. Blomberg, Craig. 1 Corinthians, NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Blue, Bradley. ‘The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply and the “Present Distress”’, Criswell Theological Review 5 (1991), 221-239. Bockmuehl, Markus. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. London: Black, 1997. Boismard, Marie-Emile. Our Victory Over Death: Resurrection? Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999. Borgen, Peder. Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Boring, Eugene. ‘The Language of Universal Salvation in Paul’, JBL 105:2 (1986), 269-292. Bornkamm, Gunther. ‘Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus’, in Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1959, 138-176. Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Brunt, J. C. ‘Rejected, Ignored or Misunderstood? The Fate of Paul’s Approach to the Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity’, NTS 31 (1985), 113-124. Campbell, Douglas. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21-26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. – The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Campbell, Douglas. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, tr. John Fraser. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1960. – Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Charlesworth, James. Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Chester, Stephen. Conversion at Corinth: Perspectives on Conversion in Paul’s Theology and the Corinthian Church. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Cheung, Alex. Idol Food in Corinth. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Secondary Sources

193

Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Ciampa, Roy. ‘Revisiting the Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7:1’, JSNT 31 (2009), 325-338. Ciampa, Roy and Rosner, Brian. The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Clarke, Andrew. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Ciocchi, David M. ‘Understanding our Ability to Endure Temptation: A Theological Watershed’, in JETS 35 (1992), 463-479. Collins, A. Y. ‘The function of “excommunication” in Paul’, HTR 73 (1980), 251-263. Collins, Raymond. First Corinthians. Collegeville: Glazier/Liturgical Press, 1999. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Cranfield, C. E. B. Romans, 2 vols., London: T&T Clark, 1979. Davidson, Richard. Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1981. Das, Andrew. ‘Paul and Works of Obedience in Second Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4-5 as a “New Perspective” Case Study’, CBQ 71 (2009), 795-812. Deasley, Alex. ‘The Holy Spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, WTJ 21 (1986), 45-73. de Boer, Martinus. The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. de Boer, Martinus. ‘The Composition of 1 Corinthians’, NTS 40 (1994), 229-245. Delling, Gerhard. ‘Das Abendmahlsgeschehen nach Paulus’, in Ferdinand Hahn (ed.), Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Deming, Will. ‘The Unity of 1 Corinthians 5-6’, JBL 115 (1992), 289-312. – Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. Cambridge: CUP, 1995. Dinkler, Erich. ‘Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus: Rechtsnahme und Rechtsverzicht (1 Kor 6:1-11)’, ZTK 49 (1952), 167-200. Donfried, Karl. ‘Justification and Last Judgment in Paul’, ZNTW 67 (1976), 90-110. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo. London: Routledge, 1978. Downing, F. Gerald. Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches: Cynics and Christian Origins II. London: Routledge, 1998. Downs, David. ‘Is God Paul’s Patron? The Economy of Patronage in Pauline Theology’, in Bruce Longenecker and Kelly Liebengood (ed.), Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 129-156. Dunn, James. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. London: SCM, 1970. – Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1977. – Romans, 2 vols., WBC. Waco: Word, 1988. – The Epistle to the Galatians. London: Black, 1993. – The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Dunne, John Anthony. ‘Suffering in Vain: A Study of the Interpretation of ΠΑΣΧΩ in Galatians 3:4’, JSNT 36 (2013), 3-16. Eaton, Michael. A Theology of Encouragement. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Edwards, Thomas. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1903.

194

Bibliography

Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. ‘Proclaiming the Lord’s Death: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and the Forms of Paul’s Theological Argument’, in D. M. Hay (ed.), Pauline Theology: 1 and 2 Corinthians. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993, 103-132. – Paul and the Stoics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. – ‘Self-Sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul’, in John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (ed.), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment. New York: T&T Clark, 2006, 117-139. – Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: OUP, 2010. Enns, Peter. ‘The “Moveable Well” in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text’, Bulletin of Biblical Research 6 (1996), 23-38. Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Eriksson, Anders. Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1998. – ‘Fear of Eternal Damnation: Pathos Appeal in 1 Corinthians 15 and 16’, in Thomas Olbricht and Jerry Sumney (ed.), Paul and Pathos. Atlanta: SBL, 2001, 115-126. Fascher, Erich. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975. Fee, Gordon. God’s Empowering Presence. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. – Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. – The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Filson, Floyd. St Paul’s Conception of Recompense. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1931. Fitzmyer, Joseph. First Corinthians, AB. New Haven: Yale, 2008. Foster, Paul. ‘Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem’, JSNT 35 (2012), 150-175. Fotopoulos, John. Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Frayer-Griggs, Daniel. ‘Neither Proof Text nor Proverb: The Instrumental Sense of διά and the Soteriological Function of Fire in 1 Corinthians 3:15’, NTS 59 (2013), 517-534. Friesen, Steven. ‘Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus’, JSNT 26 (2004), 323-361. Friesen, Steven. ‘The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology and Exegesis’, in Steven Friesen, Daniel Schowalter and James Walters (ed.), Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies in Religion and Society. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 231-256. Furnish, Victor Paul. ‘Fellow Workers in God’s Service’, JBL 80 (1961), 364-370. – 2 Corinthians. New York: Doubleday, 1984. – The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: CUP, 1999. Gale, Herbert. The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964. Gardner, P. D. The Gifts of God and the Authentication of a Christian: An Exegetical Study of 1 Cor 8-11:1. Lanham: University Press of America, 1994. Garland, David. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Garnsey, Peter. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970, 183-185. Gathercole, Simon. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gill, David. ‘In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church’, TynBul 44 (1993), 323337. Gnilka, Joachim. Ist 1 Kor 3:10-15 ein Schriftzeugnis für das Fegfeuer? Eine exegetischhistorische Untersuchung. Düsseldorf: Triltsch, 1955.

Secondary Sources

195

Godet, F. L. Commentary on St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886. Goldingay, John. Daniel. Waco: Word, 1989. Gooch, Peter David. Dangerous Food. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993. Goodrich, John. ‘Erastus, Quaestor of Corinth: The Administrative Rank of ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως (Rom 16:23) in an Achaean Colony’, NTS 56 (2010), 90-115. – ‘Erastus of Corinth (Romans 16.23): Responding to Recent Proposals on his Rank, Status, and Faith’, NTS 57 (2011), 583-593. Goulder, Michael. ‘Libertines? (1 Cor 5-6)’, NovT 41 (1999), 334-348. Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Gundry Volf, Judith. Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. Hansen, Walter. The Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Hanson, Anthony. Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. London: SPCK, 1965. Harrisville, R. A. ‘The Concept of Newness in the NT’, JBL 74 (1955), 69-79. Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians, WBC. Waco: Word, 1983. Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. – First Corinthians. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997. Heinrici, C. F. G. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896. Héring, Jean. La Première Épître de Saint Paul Aux Corinthiens. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1949. Herter, Hans. ‘Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Licht des heidnischen und christlichen Schrifttums’, JAC 3 (1960), 70-111. Herzog, William. Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994. Hill, C. E. ‘Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28’, NovT 30 (1988), 297-320. Hill, David. New Testament Prophecy. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1979. Hill, Wesley. Paul and the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Hodge, Charles. 1&2 Corinthians. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1857. Hodges, Zane. The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works. Dallas: Redención Viva, 1991 Hofius, Otfried. ‘Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis: Erwägungen zu 1 Kor 11:23b-25’, ZTK 85 (1988), 371-408. Hollander, H. W. ‘The testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15’, NTS 40 (1994), 89-104. Holleman, Joost. Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Cor 15. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Hooker, Morna. ‘A Partner in the Gospel: Paul’s Understanding of Ministry’, in E. H. Lovering Jr. and J. L. Sumney (ed.), Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Horrell, David. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. – ‘Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and Buildings East of the Theatre’, NTS 50 (2004), 349-369.

196

Bibliography

Horrell, David. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Horrell, David and Adams, Edward. ‘The Scholarly Quest for Paul’s Church at Corinth: A Critical Survey’, in Edward Adams and David Horrell (ed.), Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004, 1-43. Horsley, G. H. R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Macquarie: Macquarie University, 1976. Horsley, Richard. ‘Gnosis in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 8:1-6’, NTS 27 (1981), 32-51. Hurd, J. C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians. London: SPCK, 1983. Jeremias, Joachim. ‘Zur Gedankenführung in den paulinischen Briefen’, in J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik (ed.), Studia Paulina in Honorem J. de Zwaan. Haarlem: Bohn, 1953, 146-153. Jewett, Robert. ‘The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School’, JAARSup 46 (1978), 398-444. – Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville: Glazier, 1991. Kaiser, Otto and Lohse, Eduard. Tod und Leben. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1977, 72. Kamlah, Ehrhard. Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Käsemann, Ernst. ‘Sätze Heiligen Rechts im Neuen Testament’, NTS 1 (1954/5), 248-260. – ‘Anliegen und Eigenart der paulinischen Abendmahlslehre’, in Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964, 11-34. – Essays on New Testament Themes, tr. W. J. Montague. London: SCM, 1964. – New Testament Questions of Today. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Kirk, Alexander. ‘Building with the Corinthians: Human Persons as the Building Materials of 1 Corinthians 3:12 and the “Work” of 3:13-15’, NTS 58 (2012), 549-570. Kistemaker, Simon. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Kline, Meredith. By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Koet, Bart. ‘The Old Testament Background to 1 Cor. 10:7-8’, in R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996, 607-615. Konradt, Matthias. Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Kreitzer, Larry J. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. – ‘Adam and Christ’, in Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin and Daniel Reid (ed.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove: IVP, 1993, 9-15. Kuck, David. Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5-4:5. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains. Paris: Gabalda, 1950. Lambert, David. ‘Did Israel Believe that Redemption Awaited its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1’, CBQ 68 (2006), 631-650. Lambrecht, Jan. ‘Three Brief Notes on 1 Corinthians 15’, in Lambrecht, Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on the Book of Revelation. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001, 71-85. Lang, Friedrich. Die Briefe an die Korinther. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Lee, Yongbom. Paul, Scribe of New and Old: Intertextual Insights for the Jesus-Paul Debate. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.

Secondary Sources

197

Lietzmann, H. An die Korinther 1/2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949. Lindemann, A. Der erste Korintherbrief. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Linebaugh, Jonathan. God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Long, A. A. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Longenecker, Bruce. ‘Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity’, JSNT 31 (2009), 243-278. – Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Louw, J. P. and Nida, E. A. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. New York: UBS, 1988-1989. Lüdemann, Gerd. Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary. London: SCM, 1989. Luz, Ulrich. Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus. München: Kaiser, 1968. Malherbe, Abraham. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Marshall, I. H. ‘The Problem of Apostasy in New Testament Theology’, in Marshall, Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology. London: SPCK, 1990, 306-324. Marshall, I. H. Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 1995. Martin, Dale. The Corinthian Body New Haven: Yale, 1995. – ‘Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 24 (2001), 51-64. Martyn, J. Louis. ‘Apocalyptic Antinomies in the Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 31 (1985), 410-424. – Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1997. – ‘Epilogue: An Essay in Pauline Meta-Ethics’, in John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (ed.), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment. New York: T&T Clark, 2006, 173-183. Maston, Jason. Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul: A Comparative Study. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Matlock, R. Barry. ‘Zeal for Paul but Not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War on “Justification Theory”’, JSNT 34 (2011), 115-149. Mattern, Lieselotte. Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus. Zürich: Zwingli, 1966. McKnight, Scot. ‘The Warning Passages in Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions’, TrinJ 13 (1992), 21-59. Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. – ‘Taking Stock and Moving On’, in Todd Still and David Horrell (ed.), After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2009, 134-146. Meggitt, Justin. ‘The Social Status of Erastus (Rom 16:23)’, NovT 38 (1996), 218-223. – Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. – ‘Response to Martin and Theissen’, JSNT 24 (2001), 85-94. Merklein, Helmut. Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 3 vols. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 19922005. – ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes’, ZNW 75 (1984), 153-183. Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. Stuttgart: UBS, 1994.

198

Bibliography

Meyer, Heinrich. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Mitchell, Margaret. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. Mitton, C. L. ‘New Wine in Old Wineskins: iv, Leaven’, ExpTim 84 (1973), 339-343. Moffatt, James. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. London: Hodder, 1938. Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. – Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013. Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: IVP, 1976. – The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Moule, C. F. D. ‘The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube (ed.), The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: In Honour of C. H Dodd. Cambridge: CUP, 1956, 464-481. Moule, C. F. D. ‘A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha’, NTS 6 (1959-1960). Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. ‘Freedom or the Ghetto’, Revue Biblique 85 (1978), 543-574. – ‘Food and Spiritual Gifts in 1 Cor. 8:8’, CBQ 41 (1979), 292-298. Newton, Derek. Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Neyrey, Jerome. ‘Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship’, in Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, 361-387. Nicoll, W. R. (ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1900. Oakes, Peter. Philippians: From People to Letter. Cambridge: CUP, 2001. – ‘Methodological Issues in Using Economic Evidence in Interpretation of Early Christian Texts’, in Bruce Longenecker and Kelly Liebengood (ed.), Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 934. O’Brien, Peter. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1977. – Commentary on Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. – The Letter to the Hebrews, PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Olson, Stanley. ‘Pauline Expressions of Confidence in His Addressees’, CBQ 47 (1985), 282-295. Orr, William and Walther, James. 1 Corinthians. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Oropeza, B. J. Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance and Falling Away in the Corinthian Correspondence. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000. – Jews, Gentiles and the Opponents of Paul: The Pauline Letters. Eugene: Cascade, 2012. von der Osten-Sacken, P. ‘Gottes Treue bis zur Parusie: Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu 1 Kor. 1:7b-9’, ZNW 68 (1977), 176-199. Ortlund, Dane. ‘Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox’, JETS 52 (2009), 323-339. Owen, John. The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance Explained and Confirmed, reprinted in The Works of John Owen. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967, vol. 11. Paige, Terence. ‘Stoicism, ἐλευθερία and Community at Corinth’, in M. J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (ed.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Secondary Sources

199

Parry, R. St. J. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Cambridge: CUP, 1937, 223. Perrot, Charles. ‘Les Exemples du Désert (1 Cor. 10:6-11)’, NTS 29 (1983), 437-452. Pesch, Rudolf. Paulus ringt um die Lebensform der Kirche: Vier Briefe an die Gemeinde Gottes in Korinth. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1986. Pfitzner, V. C. Paul and the Agon Motif. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Plevnik, Joseph. Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915. Pogoloff, Stephen. Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Prothro, James. ‘Who is “of Christ”? A Grammatical and Theological Reconsideration of 1 Cor 1:12’, NTS 60 (2014), 250-265. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Reumann, John. Philippians. New Haven: Yale, 2008. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology, tr. J. R. DeWitt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Robertson, Archibald and Plummer, Alfred. First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Roetzel, Calvin. Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Rosner, Brian. ‘Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5’, TynBul 42 (1991), 137-145. – ‘Οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Corinthians 5’, NTS 38. 1992, 470-473. – ‘Written For Us: Paul’s View of Scripture’, in Philip Satterthwaite and David Wright (ed.), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, 81-105. – ‘Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20’, NovT 40 (1998), 336-351. – Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. – Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Schiedel, Walter. ‘Stratification, Deprivation and Quality of Life’, in Margaret Atkins and Robin Osborne (ed.), Poverty in the Roman World. Cambridge: CUP, 2006, 40-59. Schlatter, Adolf. Die Korintherbriefe ausgelegt für Bibelleser. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1950. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Schmithals, Walter. Gnosticism in Corinth. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. – ‘Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung’, ZNW 64 (1973), 263-288. Schnabel, Eckhard. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Baptism in the Thought of St Paul. ET Oxford: Blackwell, 1964. Schottroff, Luise. Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 4 vols. Zürich: Benziger, 1991-2001. Schreiner, Thomas. ‘Did Paul Believe in Justification by Works? Another Look at Romans 2’, BBR 3 (1993), 131-158. – Romans, BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Schreiner, Thomas and Caneday, Ardel. The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance. Downers Grove: IVP, 2001. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. ‘Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians’, NTS 33 (1987), 386-403.

200

Bibliography

Seifrid, Mark. Christ Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000. Sellin, Gerhard. Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Korinther 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Sellin, Gerhard. ‘Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes’, ANRW 2:25:4 (1987), 29642986. Senft, Christophe. La première épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1979. Shanor, Jay. ‘Paul as Master Builder: Construction Terms in First Corinthians’, NTS 34 (1988), 461-471. Silva, Moisés. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Sloan, R. B. ‘Resurrection in 1 Corinthians’, Southwestern Journal of Theology 26 (1983), 69-91. Smit, Joop. ‘“Do Not Be Idolaters”: Paul’s Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1-22’, NovT 39 (1997), 40-53. Smith, David. ‘Hand This Man Over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5. London: T&T Clark, 2008. South, James. ‘A Critique of the “Curse/Death” Interpretaton of 1 Corinthians 5:1-8’, NTS 39 (1993), 539-561. Spicq, Céslas. ‘Comment Comprendre φιλεῖν dans 1 Cor XVI:22?’, NovT 1 (1956), 200-204. Sprinkle, Preston. Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation. Downers Grove: IVP, 2013. Stettler, Christian. ‘Paul, the Law and Judgment by Works’, EQ 76 (2004), 195-215. Still, Todd. Conflict and Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbours. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Strobel, August. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989. Stuckenbruck, Loren. ‘How Much Does the Christ-Event Solve? Evil in New Testament Theology and its Relation to Jewish Theology’, lecture at St Mary’s College, Twickenham, 23-24 May 2014. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. Downers Grove: IVP, 2001. Suggs, M. Jack. ‘The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form and Function’, in David Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1972, 60-74. Synofzik, Ernst. Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Tanner, Kathryn. God and Creation in Christian Theology: Tyranny or Empowerment? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, tr. J. H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. – ‘The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 24 (2001), 65-84. – ‘Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival’, JSNT 25 (2003), 371-391. Thiselton, Anthony. ‘The Meaning of Σάρξ in 1 Corinthians 5:5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors’, SJT 26 (1973), 204-228. – ‘Realized Eschatology at Corinth’, NTS 24 (1978), 510-526. – The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Secondary Sources

201

Thornton, T. C. G. ‘Satan – God’s Agent for Punishing’, ExpTim 83 (1972), 151-152. Tomlin, Graham. ‘Christians and Epicureans in 1 Corinthians’, JSNT 68 (1997), 51-72. Turner, Seth. ‘The Interim, Earthly Messianic Kingdom in Paul’, JSNT 25 (2003), 323-342. Vander Broek, Lyle. Breaking Barriers: The Possibilities of Christian Community in a Lonely World. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2002. Vanderkam, J. C. ‘Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees’, CBR 6 (2008), 405-431. Vischer, Lukas. Die Auslegungsgeschichte von 1 Korinther 6:1-11: Rechtsverzicht und Schlichtung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955. Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Walton, Steve. ‘What has Aristotle to do with Paul? Rhetorical Criticism and 1 Thessalonians’, TynBul 46.2 (1995), 229-50. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. – ‘Constructing an Antithesis: Pauline and Other Jewish Perspectives on Divine and Human Agency’, in John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (ed.), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment. New York: T&T Clark, 2006, 99-116. Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997. Wedderburn, A. J. M. ‘The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15’, NovT 23 (1981). Weiss, Johannes. Der erste Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Welborn, Lawrence. Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthians Epistles. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997. – An End to Enmity: Paul and the “Wrongdoer” of Second Corinthians. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Wells, Kyle. Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. – ‘Paul’s Anthropological “Pessimism” in its Jewish Context’, in John Barclay and Simon Gathercole (ed.), Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment. New York: T&T Clark, 2006, 71-98. – Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer, 3 vols. Zürich: Benziger, 1978-1982. Willis, Wendell. ‘An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Cor 9’, JSNT 24 (1985), 33-48. – Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. Wilson, Andrew. ‘Hebrews 3:6b and 3:14 Revisited’, TynBul 62.2 (2011), 247-267. Wilson, J. H. ‘The Corinthians Who Say There Is No Resurrection of the Dead’, ZNW 59 (1968), 90-107. Wilson, Walter. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Winter, Bruce. ‘Secular and Christian Response to Corinthian Famines’, TynBul 40 (1989), 86-106. – ‘Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church: The Forensic Background to 1 Corinthians 6:1-8’, NTS 37 (1991), 559-572. – Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a JulioClaudian Movement. Cambridge: CUP, 1997. – After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

202

Bibliography

Wire, Antoinette. The Corinthian Women Prophets. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Witherington, Ben. ‘Not So Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton’, TynBul 44 (1993), 237-254. – Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994. – Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. – The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Wolff, Christian. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, THKNT 7. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000. Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. London: SPCK, 2003. – Paul and the Faithfulness of God. London: SPCK, 2013. – Paul and his Recent Interpreters. London: SPCK, 2015. Yates, John. The Spirit and Creation in Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Yinger, Kent. Paul, Judaism and Judgment According to Deeds, SNTSMS 105. Cambridge: CUP, 1999. Yeo, Khiok-khng. Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic, BibInt 9. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Zeller, Dieter. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 2, tr. James Martin. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 2:7 8:20-22 15:9-18 19:13, 24 26:11

152, 153 120 120 108 126

Exodus 12:23 14:1-31 15:1-21 15:24 16:2, 7-8 17:2-3 17:3 19:12 24:3-8 32 32:6, 8, 31, 35 32:35

60, 108 101 101 108 108 108 108 56 120 106 107 127

Leviticus 10:1-2 20:11 26 26:14-45 26:18, 23

56 58 128 128, 129 64

Numbers 4:15 11 11:1-10, 33 11:4 11:16-17 14:2, 27, 29, 36

56 106 127 106 100 108

14:16 14:26-35 14:37 16:11, 41 16:31-35 16:41-50 17:5 21 21:4-9 25:1 25:1-9 25:2 25:6-8 25:9

105 104 127 108 127 127 108 107 127 107 107, 127 107 107 107

Deuteronomy 4:36 7:9 8:5 11:2-6 11:4 22:30 27:20 32 32:4 32:16-21 32:17 32:17, 21 32:24

64 38 64, 128, 129 129 101 58 58 115, 120 38 120 120 78 127

Joshua 2:10 2:19 3:10

101 126 60

204

Index of References

4:23 7:1-26 7:25 24:6-7

101 59 60 101

1 Samuel 6:19

56

2 Samuel 6:6-7 7:14

56 129

1 Kings 13:34

60

2 Kings 23:1-24

64

1 Chronicles 29:1-7

53

2 Chronicles 29-30

64

Ezra 6:13-22 10:6-14

64 59

Nehemiah 9:9-12 9:19-20

101 100

Job 2:4-7 5:17 12:23

60 128, 129 105

Psalms 77:18 78:12-55 78:13 94:12 95:7-11 106:7-12 106:13-33 136:13-15 145:13

108 101 101 64, 128, 129 101 101 101 101 38

Proverbs 3:11-12 12:4

64, 128, 129 89

15:1

89

Ecclesiastes 9:18

89

Isaiah 2:1-5 2:6-4:1 13:6-9 24-27 24:1-25:5 25:1-5, 10-12 25:6-8 26:1-21 26:19 28:11-12 29:14 32:15 35:6-10 37:36 40:1 40:13 41:17-20 43:20-21 44:3-4 49:7 55:1-56:8 56:9-57:13 63:7-14 66:18-23 66:24

150 150 35 149, 150 149 149 148, 149 149 148, 150 100 100 101 101 108 180 100 101 101 101 38 150 150 100 150 150

Jeremiah 2:30 7:27-29 31:3 46:28

60, 129 129 60 129

Ezekiel 30:3 36:22-38 37 37:11-13 37:1-13 37:4-10 47:1-12

35 153 153 153 148 153 101

Daniel 12 12:1-3

148 144

205

Jewish Literature 12:1-3 12:2 12:2-3 Hosea 10:10

144 147 147

Habakkuk 2:4

105

Zephaniah 1:7-18

35

Zechariah 3:2 9:11 14:8

50 120 101

Malachi 4:1-6

35

129

Joel 2:1 2:23-32

35 101

Amos 4:11 5:18-20

50 35

Jewish Literature Jewish Literature 2 Baruch 21:23 48:42-47 54:15-19

142 148 142 142

1 Enoch 51:1-2

148

2 Enoch 44:5

44

4 Ezra 3:21-22, 26 7:31-35 7:48-49

142 142 148 142

Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 13.171-173 12 18.18 149 The Jewish War 2.153-158 149 2.163 148 7.8.7 140 Judith 7:14 14:4

105 105

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 3:10 148

1 Maccabees 14:45

126

2 Maccabees 5:26 6:12-16 6:12-17 7:9, 23 11:11 12:28 15:27

105 64 128, 129 144 105 105 105

4 Maccabees 5:2 17:11-16

76 92

Philo On Dreams 2.2.9

170 96

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31 152 Pirqe Avot 5:26

44

Psalms of Solomon 3:11-12 44 9:5 44 14:3-7 144

206

Index of References

Sibylline Oracles 2:96 76, 77 3:35-39, 46, 741-743 29 Sirach 18:13-14 20:22

128, 129 89

Testament of Benjamin 3:3 60 Testament of Joseph Testament of Joseph 18:1 44

Tobit 4:8-11, 14 13:5

44 128, 129

Wisdom of Solomon 4:2 92 5:15 44 11:9-10 128, 129 16:6 128, 129 18:25 108

Qumran Literature 1QS 4:6-8

44

4Q521

150

CD 8:1-2

60

New Testament Matthew 5:12, 19 5:29, 30 10:41-42 13:21 16:23 18:6-9 24:10 26:28 27:52

49 88 49 88 88 88 88 120 146

Mark 13:1-2 14:17-21 14:24

53 124 120

Luke 6:23, 35 13:16

49 60

22:20

120

John 5:28-29 10:28 11:11-12 19:10

144, 148 84 146 53

Acts 5:1-10 7:36 7:60 12:23 13:36 15 15:19-21 15:20, 29 15:29 16:16-24

60 101 146 108 146 77, 78 78 29 77 26

New Testament 17:1-15 17:18-21, 32 18:1-17 21:25 21:28-31 27 27:22-25 27:31

26 139 26 29, 77 56 182, 183 183 183

Romans 1-7 142 1:4 154 1:28 94 1:28-31 73 2:1-11 45 2:1-3:20 166 2:2, 3 126 2:5, 16 35, 51 2:5-11 149 2:5-8 36 2:6-11 51, 161, 162, 166 2:12 84, 87, 89 2:26 98 2:28-29 98 3:3-4 39 3:8 126 3:20 166 3:21-26 161, 166 3:23-24 146 4:11-18 97 4:17 146 5:1-5 166 5:1-11 166 5:2 111 5:9-10 161 5:12-21 142, 145 5:14 105 5:18 143 6:1-11 99 6:16 53 6:17 105 6:21-22 144 7:18 177 8 154 8:1-8 166 8:9 136, 154 8:9-11, 16-17, 23-25, 26-30 154 8:9-17 166

8:9-17, 28-39 8:11 8:13 8:14-25 8:17 8:23 8:28-30 8:28-39 8:29-30, 33 8:30-33 8:35-39 9-11 9:22-23 9:32-33 10:4 10:11 11:1-2 11:9 11:11, 22 11:16 11:17-24 11:20-22 11:26, 32 11:33 12:1-2 13:2 13:4 13:11-12 13:12 14-15 14:4 14:10-12 14:10-15 14:15 15 15:14-21 15:15-19 16:3 16:5 16:26 1 Corinthians 1:1-3 1:1-9 1:3-5 1:4-9 1:6 1:6-7

207 161 146 9, 163 172 154 2, 141 4, 39 166 112 37 166 163 133 88 144 144 112, 113 88 111 141 98, 161, 163, 166 111 145 126 177 126 137 35 51, 73 77 111 51, 149 166 84 179 178 13 43 141 133

32 11, 27, 32–39, 57, 122 178 4, 32, 33, 34 164 178

208 1:7-9 1:8 1:8-9

1:8-10 1:9 1:10 1:10-11 1:10-12 1:10-14 1:10-17 1:10-4:17 1:10-4:21 1:10-6:20 1:11 1:11-17 1:12 1:13 1:13-17 1:17-25 1:18 1:18-15:57 1:18-19 1:18-2:16 1:18-25 1:18-3:4 1:18-4:21 1:19 1:21 1:22 1:25-26 1:26 1:26-27 1:26-31 1:26-31; 4:7 1:27-28 1:30 2 2:1-5 2:6-11 2:6-16 2:12 2:13 2:14-16 2:14-6:13 2:16 2:17-29

Index of References 9 2, 34, 35, 38, 144 5, 9, 33, 35, 37, 38, 115, 132, 159, 176, 182, 185 178 2, 4, 34, 115 29, 40 95 22, 119 17 40, 41, 55 29 11, 27, 28, 40, 47, 52, 54, 57 28 27, 28, 178 29 24 49 18 26 89, 134, 138, 146 29 84 55, 57 41 41 29 100 105 172 95 27 39 41 169 164 101 102 18, 40, 41 163 41 154, 164 164 164 179 100, 177 163

3:1-4 3:1-9 3:2, 10-16 3:4 3:5-9 3:5-10 3:5-15 3:5-17 3:5-4:21 3:6, 10 3:8 3:8-9 3:9 3:10-15 3:10-17 3:12-13 3:12, 14, 15, 18 3:13 3:13-15 3:14-15 3:15 3:16 3:16-17

3:17 3:18-23 3:20-21 3:23 4:1-5 4:1-15 4:1-21 4:4-5 4:5 4:6 4:6-13 4:8-21 4:9-13 4:10 4:12 4:14 4:14-21 4:15 4:16 4:17 4:18-21

41 57 164 26 41, 44, 46, 52 18 159 54, 55, 40–57 41 44 42, 43, 45, 47 47 46, 48, 168 41, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 92 4, 92, 119 47 56 35, 51 6 42, 45, 46, 48, 51, 168 2, 6, 48, 49, 50, 51 2, 53, 54, 59, 91, 100, 154 9, 41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 54, 56, 62, 159, 161, 185 2, 42, 52, 55, 146 42, 57 164 2, 28, 151 44, 57 18 40, 57 57 49 129 57 32 26 26 25, 43 118 44, 57 44 18 28 30

New Testament 4:18-7:40 4:21 5 5:1 5:1-5 5:1-13 5:1-6:20 5:1-11:1 5:2, 7-9, 11-13 5:5 5:6 5:6-7 5:6-8 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:9-10 5:10 5:10-11 5:11 5:11-13 5:13 5:15 5:23-24 5:26 6:1 6:1-2 6:1-4 6:1-8 6:1-11 6:1-11, 18-20 6:1-20 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19 6:2-3 6:4-5 6:5 6:5-8 6:6 6:6-7 6:6-8 6:7 6:7-8 6:7-9

29 28 29 28 162 11, 26, 27, 58-65, 68, 107 28 29 61 2, 6, 35, 36, 48, 59, 60, 62, 172 53, 91 55, 119 63 101 1, 64 20, 27 30, 162 81, 172 29, 73 64, 66, 112 112 30, 146 73 115 73 71 70 67 20, 26, 30, 66, 68, 74, 119 11, 27, 28, 69, 71, 72 55 66–75 53, 91 70, 72 70, 72 67 162 71 67 74 126 71 54

6:8 6:9 6:9-10 6:9-11

6:10 6:11 6:12 6:12-13 6:12-20 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:15, 17 6:15-17 6:16 6:16, 18 6:18 6:19 6:20 7 7:1 7:1-40 7:1-14:40 7:1-15:58 7:2 7:2-5 7:2, 4, 7, 37 7:4 7:7-8 7:12 7:12-16 7:14 7:25 7:31 7:39 8 8-10 8:1 8:1, 4 8:1-8 8:1-12

209 67 70, 71, 74 72, 73, 74, 146 3, 5, 6, 7, 29, 66, 67, 68, 72, 68–75, 75, 159, 168, 185, 186 74 1, 154 118 22, 24, 28, 68 3, 4, 11, 20, 22, 27, 28, 72, 74, 107, 118 54, 68, 179 68 2, 74, 151 68 118 54, 60 68 30, 43, 74, 118 2, 68, 154 30, 68, 118 29 24, 28, 32, 83 11, 27, 29 28 28 30 107 43 179 18 63 25, 26 179 28 26 146 9, 17, 23, 77, 85, 86, 88, 89, 105 16, 17, 22, 95, 106, 113, 115, 122 28, 76, 83, 88, 95, 108, 118, 162 24 20 19

210 8:1-13

8:1-10:22 8:1-11:1 8:1-14:40 8:4 8:4-6 8:4-7 8:5 8:6 8:7 8:7-13 8:7-9:27 8:9 8:9-12 8:9-13 8:10 8:10-11 8:10-9:27 8:11 8:11-13 8:13 8:13-9:1 8:17 8:28-39 9 9:1 9:1-2 9:1, 12 9:1-14 9:1-18 9:1-23 9:1-27 9:1-10:22 9:1-11:32 9:3 9:4, 13 9:5, 25 9:6-14 9:7 9:12, 15, 18 9:13 9:13, 24 9:15-16 9:15-23 9:16 9:19-22

Index of References 18, 21, 32, 78, 81, 83–89, 95, 108, 122, 160 77, 80, 81 11, 21, 27, 29, 118, 76–122 29 78 83, 120 78 136 113 83 79, 83, 89, 119 78, 79 20, 46 20 55, 79 21, 26, 81, 85, 88 83 81 3, 76, 87, 162, 185 113 18, 19, 20, 163 17 163 162 19, 93 20 113 19 90 17, 19 40, 96 79, 90, 89–96 17 163 19 19 19 19 43 19 91 53 93 20, 90 92 18, 20

9:23 9:23-24 9:23-27 9:24-10:22 9:24-25 9:24-27

9:27 9:27-10:1 10 10:1 10:1-2 10:1-4 10:1-5 10:1-10 10:1-11 10:1-12 10:1-13

10:1-22 10:3-4 10:4 10:5 10:5-10 10:5-11 10:5-12 10:6-10 10:6-12 10:7-8 10:8 10:9, 10 10:10-11 10:11-12 10:12

10:12-13 10:12-14 10:13

90–91 17, 20 168 17, 22 92, 93 1, 3, 6, 49, 76, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 105, 111, 122, 160, 171 6, 20, 22, 94, 146, 172 17 113, 115, 127 6, 20, 22, 95, 96, 113 101 9, 97-104, 110, 113, 114 95 121 5 1, 2, 3, 76, 114, 117, 122, 146, 168 5, 6, 7, 9, 30, 96– 117, 118, 120, 127, 160, 181, 185, 186 3, 17, 21, 79, 81, 82, 90, 96 119 103 112 97, 104–9, 110, 114 9 103 175 55 96 110 89 175 97 5, 7, 9, 46, 111, 114, 116–17, 121, 175 9, 10, 168, 175 178 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 38, 76, 97, 114, 115, 116, 117, 122, 160, 182, 185

New Testament 10:14 10:14-15 10:14-22

10:14-11:1 10:16 10:16-17 10:16-22 10:18-20 10:19-20 10:20 10:20-22 10:21 10:21-22 10:22 10:22-23 10:23 10:23-30 10:23-31 10:23-33 10:23-11:1 10:25 10:25-26 10:26-31 10:27 10:27-30 10:28 10:31 10:31-33 10:39 11:1 11:2-16 11:2-14:40 11:4 11:7, 14 11:17-22 11:17-24 11:17-34

11:18 11:18-19 11:19 11:20, 26-27 11:21 11:23-26 11:25

6, 30, 113, 116, 118, 175 118 26, 77, 78, 81, 83, 102, 106, 108, 114, 118 117-121 151 113, 118, 119, 124 118 119 78 78, 120 21 82 119, 120 95 17, 20 24, 108, 118 81 18 20, 21 18, 118 21, 25, 26, 82 77, 81 49 21, 25, 26, 82 77 76, 81 30, 118 122 49 18, 95, 122 27, 28, 123 29 123 123 119, 123 163 6, 11, 27, 28, 102, 119, 123–131, 132, 159 28 22 17, 20 103 3, 43 123 120

11:27-32 11:27-34 11:29 11:29-32 11:30 11:31 11:32 11:34 12-14 12:1 12:1-31 12:1-14:40 12:2 12:3 12:3-6 12:4-11 12:11 12:12-13 12:13 12:21-26 12:27 13:1-13 13:2 13:8 14:1-19 14:9, 11 14:10-23 14:19 14:21 14:23-25 14:37 15 15:1 15:1-2 15:1-2, 58 15:1, 11, 12 15:1-11 15:1-34 15:1-57 15:1-58

211

55, 61 3, 64, 123 126, 130 6 60, 146 126, 130 48, 126, 128, 130 129 102 28 4 11, 28, 32 30 2, 103, 133, 155 103 155 43 155 2, 101, 104, 155 119 2, 151 32 83 83 119 126 163 18 100 26 56 29, 102, 154, 185 111 136, 132–138, 159 157 135 138, 140, 157 140 29 11, 28, 29, 32, 132– 158 15:2 3, 134, 135, 138, 157, 169 15:3-8 133 15:3-11 157 15:3-28 132, 138–143, 158, 159, 161 15:4-8, 13-14, 16-17, 20 135

212 15:6, 51 15:9-10 15:10

Index of References

146 167 10, 12, 13, 157, 169, 171, 173, 187 15:11 134, 135 15:12 138 15:12-13 140 15:12-19 21, 138, 140, 157 15:12, 35 28 15:14 145 15:14-15 140 15:14, 17 135, 157 15:15-16 140 15:17 145 15:17-19 140 15:17-19, 22-24, 42-49 156 15:18 84, 89, 145 15:19 145, 150, 157 15:20 141, 145 15:20-22 140 15:20-23 2, 147 15:20-28 9, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143–52, 154, 157, 158 15:20-34 140, 151 15:21 142 15:21-22 146, 149 15:22 143, 146, 150 15:22-28 151 15:23 142, 150 15:23-24 144, 146 15:23, 38 43 15:24-28 151 15:26 147, 148, 149, 150 15:27 144 15:28 151 15:29 139, 151 15:29-34 21, 138, 140, 146, 158 15:30-32 26 15:32, 35 139 15:33 74 15:35 140, 152, 153 15:35-49 138, 140, 146, 158 15:35-55 157 15:35-58 9, 140 15:36-41 152 15:38-40 60

15:42-29 15:42-44 15:42-58 15:44 15:44-46 15:44, 46 15:45 15:49 15:50 15:50-57 15:50-58

16:1 16:1-12 16:1-24 16:10 16:13 16:15 16:15-17 16:22 16:22-24 16:23

152 152 2 153 153, 154 154 146 4, 152 7, 156 140, 146 138, 142, 149, 155– 57, 158 156 155 156 93, 156 155, 156 149 156 155 142 118, 136, 140, 155, 156, 157, 169 28 28 11, 27 46 111 141 27 15, 35, 56, 160, 161 15 160

2 Corinthians 1:7-8 1:8-11 1:13-14 1:14 1:18 1:21 1:21-22 1:22 1:24 2:4 2:5-11 2:15 3:8 3:13

95 26 49 35, 48 38, 115 34 161, 166 2, 141, 154, 166 111 20 61 89, 134, 138 126 144

15:51 15:51-52 15:51-55 15:52 15:53 15:54 15:54-55 15:54-57 15:56 15:58

213

New Testament 4:3 4:9 4:17 5 5:4-5 5:5 5:1-10 5:10 5:17 5:17 5:17-6:1 5:18-20 5:20 5:21 6:1 6:3-10 6:14-16 7:9 8:1 9:3-4 9:8-10 11:3 11:15 11:20 11:23-33 11:26 11:29 12:6 12:7 12:20 12:20-21 13:5 13:5-7 13:6-7 13:11

89 89 45 154 154 141, 166 161, 166, 172 45, 51, 149 64 179 182 179–80 179, 180 179 136, 161, 166, 180 26 119 48 133 129 13 74 144 56 26 63 88 126 60, 129 73 73 94 94, 161 94 126

Galatians 1:8-11 1:9 1:11 1:14 1:15 1:15-16 2:2 2:4 2:19-21 3:3 3:4 3:7

95 56 133 97 105 169 93, 136 63 13, 171 137 136 98

3:27 3:27-29 3:29 4:6 4:11 5:1-15 5:1-4 5:4 5:7 5:10 5:10-13 5:15 5:16-21 5:16-26 5:17 5:19-21 5:22 5:24 6:1 6:7 6:7-8 6:16

104 99 98 187 48, 136, 137 165, 182 111 165, 167 165 126, 165, 182 95 46 187 13, 186 129 29, 73 187 60, 187 61 74 187 98

Ephesians 1:9 1:13-14 2:21 3:3, 5, 10 4:17-32 4:30 5:3-5 5:5 6:8 6:13-14 6:19, 21

133 2, 154 53 133 73 5 73 29 45, 49 111 133

Philippians 1:3-6 1:6 1:6, 10 1:10 1:22 1:27 2:12-13 2:12-16 2:13 2:15-16 2:16

161 166, 178 35 35 133 111 13, 161, 167, 175, 177, 178, 182, 187 166 187 136 35, 48, 49, 137

214 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:7-14 3:7-21 3:7-4:1 3:8 3:8-14 3:14 3:16-17 3:17 3:19 3:20-21 4:1 4:5 4:6 4:9 Colossians 1:21-23 1:22 1:23 1:27 1:29 3:5 3:5-8 3:24 4:7, 9 4:12 1 Thessalonians 1:7 1:9-2:1 1:10 2:1 2:8-9, 13-14 2:13 2:16 2:19 2:19-20 3:5 3:8 4:13-15 4:13-18 5:1-11 5:2-3 5:2-4 5:4

Index of References 46 98 56 7 161, 166 171 48 90, 93, 96 92, 93 172 105 144 172 48, 49, 92, 93, 111, 172 164 133 126

161 36 136 133 171 29 73 49 133 111

105 95 35 136, 137 95 179 144 48, 92, 93 49 48, 136, 137 111 146 156 172 36 35 51, 129

5:23-24

38, 176

2 Thessalonians 1:6 1:6-10 1:10 2:2-3 2:10 3:1-3 3:3 3:9 3:14-15

136 35 35 35 84, 89 115 38, 115, 176 105 61, 63

1 Timothy 1:9-10 1:20 3:10

73 60 36, 37

2 Timothy 2:13 2:18 3:8 4:7-8 4:8

39 139 94 93 92

Titus 1:6, 7 1:16 3:3

36, 37 94 73

Hebrews 2:1-4 3 3:7-4:13 4:1-2 4:11 5:11-6:8 6:8 7:25 9:18-23 10:12-14 10:26-31 10:35 10:38 11:28 11:29 12:5-11 12:14-29

189 189 188, 189 111 111 189 94 189 120 189 189 49 105 108 101 64 189

215

New Testament James 1:12 4:4 4:12

92 53 84

1 Peter 1:4 2:8 5:4

93 88 92

2 Peter 3:4

146

1 John 2:10 2:18-19 2:26-29 3:4-10 5:16

88 189 189 189 189

Jude 4-5 5 20-21 23 24 24-25

111 84, 188 189 50 111 189

Revelation 2-3 2:14, 20 2:7, 11, 17, 26 3:5, 12, 21 13:8 17:8 20 20:11-15 20:13-15 21:7 21:27 22:15 22:19

25 77 189 189 189 189 148 189 148 189 189 29 189

Early Christian Literature Barnabas 4.12-14

Clement of Alexandria Stromata 19

188

Chrysostom Homilies in 1 Corinthians 21.1 19 23.1 96 1 Clement 40.2

137

Didache 1-5

73

Origen De Principiis 1.6.1

143, 144

Tertullian Ad Martyras 3.3

96

Greek and Latin Literature Aeschylus Eumenides 645-648

139

Cicero Pro Cluentio 6.15

58

216

Index of References

Diogenes Laertius Lives 10.124-127, 139 139 Epictetus Dissertationes 1.6 1.6.7 1.6.14-43 1.6.40 1.14.6 1.14.13-14 1.28.28 3.15.10

173 137 173 174 174 174 137 96

Gaius Institutiones 1.62-63

58

Horace Ars poetica 412-414

96

Isocrates Oracles

19

Lucretius De Rerum Natura 3.31-42, 526-527, 1045-1052 139 Oxyrhynchus Papyri 2.281.12 36

Paris Magical Papyrus 574 1247 60 Petronius Satyr 72

139

Plato Laws 8.839e-840c

96

Phaedo 66e-67a, 67d, 72a-72e 140 70a 139 Philostratus Gymnasticus 52

96

Plutarch Quaestiones Conviviales 92 Seneca Epistulae Morales 41.1-2 173 73.16 173 Xenophon Symposium 8.37

96

Index of Modern Authors Adams, Edward, 26 Allo, E.-B., 33, 54, 138 Anderson, Hugh, 77 Arzt-Grabner, Peter, 28, 82 Aune, David, 55, 73 Bailey, Kenneth, 66, 68, 74 Barclay, John, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 41, 102, 153, 155, 163, 167, 170, 171, 173, 177, 186, 187, 188 Barnett, Paul, 180 Barrett, C. K., 19, 28, 36, 37, 39, 42, 51, 52, 55, 58, 59, 66, 84, 86, 90, 92, 94, 102, 109, 116, 126, 130, 134, 138 Bauckham, Richard, 148 Baumert, Norbert, 99 Baur, F. C., 23 Beale, Greg, 46, 53 Beker, J. C., 13, 141, 142 Berger, Klaus, 55 Berkouwer, G. C., 39, 168 Betz, Hans Dieter, 165 Bjerkelund, Carl, 40 Block, Daniel, 153 Blomberg, Craig, 6, 28, 45, 46, 49, 54, 55, 66, 90, 92 Blue, Bradley, 127 Bockmuehl, Markus, 164 Boismard, Marie-Emile, 154 Borgen, Peder, 29 Boring, Eugene, 143, 144, 145, 185 Bornkamm, Gunther, 22, 116 Brunt, J. C., 21 Calvin, John 168

Campbell, Douglas 13, 14, 20, 36, 115, 142, 146, 161, 171, 186 Carson, D. A., 188 Charlesworth, James, 147 Chester, Stephen, 37 Cheung, Alex, 80, 86 Chow, John K., 59 Ciampa, Roy, 24, 84 Ciampa, Roy and Rosner, Brian, 4, 7, 20, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 56, 59, 61, 66, 80, 81, 84, 86, 90, 91, 92, 101, 102, 108, 109, 127, 129, 130, 138, 146, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156 Ciocchi, David, 13, 116, 117, 176 Clarke, Andrew, 59, 67 Collins, A. Y., 58 Collins, Raymond, 22, 59, 125, 133 Conzelmann, Hans, 7, 19, 21, 24, 34, 36, 37, 39, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 59, 76, 84, 92, 99, 102, 105, 109, 110, 118, 126, 138, 140, 144, 146, 155, 156, 161 Cranfield, C. E. B., 111, 145, 154, 162, 179 Davidson, Richard, 99 de Boer, Martinus, 13, 22, 139, 141, 142, 143, 147, 148, 182, 185 Delling, Gerhard, 125, 126 Deming, Will, 24, 68 Dinkler, Erich, 69 Donfried, Karl, 50 Douglas, Mary, 26 Downing, F. Gerald, 23

218

Index of Modern Authors

Dunn, James, 8, 12, 60, 85, 87, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 145, 153, 154, 161, 162, 163, 166, 179 Dunne, John Anthony, 25 Eaton, Michael, 6 Edwards, Thomas, 125, 135, 176 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, 12, 13, 50, 125, 152, 153, 169, 174, 186, 187, 188 Enns, Peter, 103 Erickson, Millard, 168 Eriksson, Anders, 15, 33, 140, 160 Fascher, Erich, 36, 37, 39, 69 Fee, Gordon, 1, 2, 5, 7, 19, 21, 23, 28, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43, 50, 51, 55, 56, 60, 66, 70, 72, 84, 90, 91, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 107, 112, 114, 121, 127, 128, 130, 134, 138, 146, 156, 157, 169, 177, 178 Filson, Floyd, 45, 46 Findlay, G. G., 60, 114, 133 Fitzmyer, Joseph, 3, 7, 20, 28, 34, 36, 38, 39, 43, 50, 58, 62, 63, 66, 77, 84, 90, 91, 102, 110, 120, 125, 126, 130, 137, 138, 144, 146, 156, 160 Foster, Paul, 115 Fotopoulos, John, 77, 79, 80, 81 Frayer-Griggs, Daniel, 50 Furnish, Victor Paul, 29, 43, 180 Gale, Herbert, 48 Gardner, P. D., 38, 76, 115, 120 Garland, David, 7, 20, 25, 30, 38, 40, 49, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 79, 80, 84, 85, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 114, 118, 120, 125, 130, 138, 142, 146, 153, 156, 169 Garnsey, Peter, 67 Gathercole, Simon, 12, 13, 44, 51, 166, 175, 201 Gaventa, Beverly, 13 Gnilka, Joachim, 48 Godet, F. L., 52, 59, 105, 114, 138, 141 Goldingay, John, 148 Gooch, Peter David, 79, 80 Goulder, Michael, 59

Grosheide, F. W., 37, 63, 69, 86, 125 Gundry Volf, Judith, 1, 3, 5, 8–9, 9, 10, 14, 36, 37, 43, 51, 56, 58, 61, 62, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 104, 105, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 123, 126, 128, 129, 134, 135, 136, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 172, 175, 181, 183 Hansen, Walter, 178 Hanson, Anthony, 99 Harrisville, R. A., 64 Hawthorne, Gerald, 164, 172, 178 Hays, Richard, 24, 63, 78, 115, 116, 120, 124, 155 Heinrici, C. F. G., 18 Héring, Jean, 17, 22, 102, 110, 147 Herter, Hans, 68 Hill, C. E., 144, 151 Hill, David, 55 Hill, Wesley, 151 Hodge, Charles, 182 Hodges, Zane, 48 Hofius, Otfried, 126 Hollander, H. W., 54 Holleman, Joost, 139, 142, 146 Hooker, Morna, 91 Horrell, David, 23, 79, 82 Horrell, David and Adams, Edward, 23 Horsley, G. H. R., 82 Horsley, Richard, 23 Hurd, J. C., 22, 77, 79 Jeremias, Joachim, 86 Jewett, Robert, 10, 17, 22, 98, 111, 145, 146, 154, 162, 163, 179 Johnson, Luke Timothy, 183 Kaiser, Otto and Lohse, Eduard, 148 Kamlah, Ehrhard, 69 Käsemann, Ernst, 2, 13, 55, 56, 59, 102, 125, 163 Kirk, Alexander, 47, 48, 50 Kistemaker, Simon, 120 Kline, Meredith, 99 Koet, Bart, 107 Konradt, Matthias, 15, 45 Kreitzer, Larry J., 35, 142, 152

Index of Modern Authors Kuck, David, 24, 44, 45, 48, 53, 57, 139 Ladd, George Eldon, 46 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph, 154 Lambrecht, Jan, 139 Lang, Friedrich, 82 Lee, Yongbom, 100 Lietzmann, H., 48, 129, 143, 144 Lindemann, A, 58, 82, 143 Long, A. A., 174 Louw, J. P. and Nida, E. A., 36 Marshall, Howard, 4, 5, 14, 35, 38, 39, 55, 69, 123, 127, 128, 138, 163, 170 Martin, Dale B., 13, 22, 23, 24, 59, 62, 64, 127, 133, 178, 185 Martyn, J. Louis, 12, 13, 14, 142, 186, 187, 188 Maston, Jason, 12 Matlock, R. Barry, 36 Mattern, Lieselotte, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58 Meeks, Wayne, 26 Meggitt, Justin, 59, 82 Merklein, Helmut, 21, 35, 56 Metzger, Bruce, 99 Meyer, Heinrich, 124 Michel, Otto, 154 Mitchell, Margaret, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 33, 40, 66, 67, 83, 96, 138 Mitton, C. L., 63 Moffatt, James, 43 Moo, Douglas, 145, 154, 162, 163, 165 Morris, Leon, 36, 37, 39, 46, 59, 66, 86, 92, 102 Moses, 78, 98, 99, 104, 106, 113, 115, 120, 121 Moule, C. F. D., 125, 160 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, 79, 86 Newton, Derek, 79 Neyrey, Jerome, 120 O’Brien, Peter, 33, 35, 49, 178 O’Donovan, Oliver, 187 Olbricht, Thomas and Sumney, Jerry, 15 Olson, Stanley, 165 Oropeza, B. J., 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 9–10, 10, 14, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 56, 58, 99,

219

100, 102, 103, 113, 115, 116, 117, 120, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 170, 172, 180, 181, 182, 183 Orr, William and Walther, James, 37, 39 Ortlund, Dane, 46, 51 Owen, John, 168 Paige, Terence, 23, 24 Parry, R. St. J., 141 Perrot, Charles, 110 Pesch. Rudolf, 18 Pfitzner, V. C., 90, 91, 94, 96 Philippians Plevnik, Joseph, 151 Plummer, Alfred, 180 Pogoloff, Stephen, 29, 34 Prothro, James, 40 Räisänen, Heikki, 7, 161 Reumann, John, 164, 178 Ridderbos, Herman, 177 Robertson, Archibald and Plummer, Alfred, 43, 56, 59, 68, 94, 108, 116, 118, 134, 137, 138, 170, 175, 176 Roetzel, Calvin, 49, 59 Rosner, Brian, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 109 Sanders, E. P., 11, 12, 110 Schlatter, Adolf, 35 Schlier, Heinrich, 34, 165 Schmithals, Walter, 17, 22, 23 Schnabel, Eckhard, 11, 36, 37 Schnackenburg, Rudolf, 99 Schottroff, Luise, 83 Schrage, Wolfgang, 7, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 63, 84, 91, 94, 95, 96, 99, 102, 105, 108, 114, 116, 118, 124, 126, 138, 141, 143, 144, 146, 176 Schreiner, Thomas, 51, 111, 154, 162, 163, 166 Schreiner, Thomas and Caneday, Ardel, 7, 168, 182, 183 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, 22 Seifrid, Mark, 51 Sellin, Gerhad, 17, 22, 139 Senft, Christophe, 62, 90 Shanor, Jay, 48, 56 Silva, Moisés, 178

220

Index of Modern Authors

Sloan, R. B., 141 Smit, Joop, 120 Smith, David, 60 South, James, 60, 61 Spicq, Céslas, 160 Sprinkle, Preston, 12 Stettler, Christian, 46 Still, Todd, 25 Strobel, August, 58, 82 Stuhlmacher, Peter, 51 Stumpff, A., 48 Suggs, M. Jack, 73 Synofzik, Ernst, 50, 53, 54 Tanner, Kathryn, 12, 170, 171, 177 Theissen, Gerd, 19, 25, 59, 80, 82 Thiselton, Anthony, 2, 4, 7, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 50, 53, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 73, 78, 84, 86, 90, 91, 92, 95, 99, 102, 103, 104, 107, 110, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 133, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 152,155, 156, 160, 176 Thornton, T. C. G., 60 Tomlin, Graham, 23, 24 Turner, Seth, 151 Vander Broek, Lyle, 25 Vischer, Lukas, 69 von der Osten-Sacken, P., 35 Walton, Steve, 34

Watson, Francis, 12, 175, 187 Watson, Thomas, 168 Wedderburn, A. J. M., 139 Weiss, Johannes, 17, 18, 19, 22, 34, 37, 50, 58, 86, 94, 110, 114, 138, 141, 143, 144, 155 Welborn, L. L., 41 Wells, Kyle, 12 Wesley, John, 4 Westerholm, Stephen, 12, 36 Wilckens, Ulrich, 154, 162 Willis, Wendell, 18, 105, 111, 118 Wilson, J. H., 139 Wilson, Walter, 77 Winter, Bruce, 25, 27, 40, 67, 127 Wire, Antoinette, 23 Witherington, Ben, 4, 21, 28, 33, 35, 40, 49, 50, 61, 63, 66, 67, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 92, 118, 163, 183 Wolff, Christian, 5, 6, 18, 34, 43, 53, 94, 95, 105, 107, 111, 116, 117, 118, 124, 126, 129, 138, 144 Wright, N. T., 12, 14, 24, 50, 83, 140, 141, 154, 161, 162, 166, 182 Yeo, Khiok-khng, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 Yinger, Kent, 12, 42, 44, 45, 49, 51, 54, 56, 57, 61, 69, 70, 92, 94, 114, 116, 128, 129, 163, 172 Zeller, Dieter, 82, 123 Zimmerli, Walther, 153

Index of Subjects Adam 142, 143, 145, 146, 151, 152, 153, 170 Agency – Divine 2, 12, 13, 103, 116, 117, 122, 161, 168, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 186, 187 – Divine and Human 10, 11, 12, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 177, 178, 181, 184, 186, 187 – Human 12, 13, 15, 96, 116, 117, 136, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 182, 185, 186, 187, 189 Apocalyptic 13, 14, 141, 142, 144, 185 Apollos 41, 42, 44, 47, 51, 55, 57 Apostasy 5, 9, 65, 103, 111, 115, 163, 166, 174 Asklepieion 80 Assurance 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 32, 34, 35, 40, 58, 76, 97, 122, 131, 132, 142, 151, 154, 157, 159, 160, 162, 164, 166, 169, 183, 184, 189

Day of the Lord, the 32, 35, 36, 37, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 62, 134, 159, 164, 176 Death 2, 6, 10, 27, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 72, 89, 105, 110, 112, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154, 155, 158, 162, 181, 189 Demons 78, 81, 82, 83, 89, 118, 119, 120 Discipline 54, 57, 64, 90, 91, 96, 112, 128, 129, 130, 131, 171, 173 Division 15, 17, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 40, 41, 42, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 66, 67, 79, 105, 123, 124, 125, 148

Baptism 2, 3, 73, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 109, 113, 114, 151, 155, 172 Believers 1, 23, 25, 26, 74, 87, 98, 101, 106, 120, 129, 140

Faithfulness of God 34, 35, 38, 39, 115, 165, 167, 176, 182, 183

Christ, See Jesus Corinth 2, 14, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 55, 56, 64, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 103, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, 119, 135, 139, 141, 145, 154 Cross 41, 47, 54, 57, 67 Cynicism 23

Election 8, 34, 105, 112, 113, 163, 181 Energism 170, 188 Epicureanism 23, 139 Eschaton 2, 5, 6, 10, 35, 37, 38, 42, 47, 90, 92, 93, 115, 126, 134, 143, 144, 154, 155, 171 Exemplum 19, 21, 79, 90, 95 Exordium 5, 33, 34

Gospel 3, 6, 8, 13, 18, 19, 20, 34, 42, 43, 47, 48, 52, 56, 57, 67, 69, 79, 84, 90, 91, 93, 111, 113, 117, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 157, 164, 165, 171, 176, 178, 179, 180, 184 Grace 13, 15, 32, 36, 37, 38, 44, 48, 52, 110, 111, 138, 140, 157, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 178, 181, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188

222

Index of Subjects

Hellenistic Judaism 23, 29 Idol Food 9, 15, 17, 21, 26, 76–82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, 105, 108, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 132 Idols 1, 17, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 61, 68, 69, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 97, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, 124, 127, 142, 175, 176, 181, 184, 185 Inheritance 2, 3, 5, 49, 66, 69, 70, 71, 75, 93, 106, 134, 154, 158, 163, 166, 171, 172 Israel 5, 7, 20, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 119, 120, 122, 127, 128, 130, 145, 148, 153, 163, 188 Jesus 2, 27, 32, 33, 35, 37, 41, 46, 52, 53, 68, 93, 103, 115, 124, 138, 140, 148, 152, 153, 154, 159, 164, 172 Judgment 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 70, 72, 74, 75, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 117, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 168, 172, 175, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Justification 36, 37, 46, 48, 50, 51, 58, 66, 68, 69, 72, 146, 154, 162, 181, 186 Kingdom 3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 54, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 139, 141, 151, 152, 155, 156, 159, 181, 185 Lex Talionis 52, 55 Lord’s Supper, the 3, 6, 15, 64, 102, 103, 104, 113, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127, 130 Macellum 26, 81, 82, 121 Monergism 170

Narratio 18, 140 Non-Contrastive Transcendence 12, 170 Parousia 2, 36, 139, 146, 150, 151, 156, 164 Passover 62, 63, 106 Peroratio 18, 140, 156, 160 Perseverance 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 32, 34, 38, 39, 49, 61, 62, 64, 109, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 129, 136, 161, 163, 168, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 181, 183, 188 Pneumatology 2, 4, 8, 27, 50, 100 Problems at Corinth 14, 16, 22–27 Resurrection 2, 9, 10, 15, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 68, 73, 93, 109, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 164, 169, 183 Reward 6, 7, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 91, 92, 159 Rhetoric 18, 19, 28, 33 Salvation 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 69, 75, 84, 87, 88, 90-96, 101, 110-113, 117, 122, 123, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 136, 138, 143, 144, 145, 147, 151, 156, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 182, 184, 185, 186, 189 Satan 60, 61, 64 Sexual Immorality 15, 24, 29, 30, 32, 37, 54, 62, 67, 68, 69, 72, 96, 97, 107, 121 Shema 83 Sin 17, 30, 31, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 84, 85, 87, 88, 97, 101, 104, 111, 125, 129, 131, 133, 140, 142, 145, 154, 155, 163, 175, 181, 184, 189 Spirit, the 2, 4, 5, 9, 41, 42, 47, 50, 52, 55, 56, 58, 62, 68, 73, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 113, 114, 152, 153, 154, 155, 162, 165, 166, 168, 170, 172, 173, 177, 184, 186, 187

Index of Subjects Spirituality 2, 41, 102, 103, 153 Stoicism 23, 50 Structure of the Letter 27–30 Synergism 43, 170 Temple 11, 21, 41, 42, 44, 46, 53, 52–56, 59, 62, 63, 68, 72, 77, 80, 81, 82, 86, 100, 121, 175, 181 Torah 78, 113, 142, 166 Unity of the Letter 14, 16, 17–22, 28, 95 Universalism 143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 185 Unrighteous, the 5, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 147, 148, 149, 159 Vice Lists 66, 74

223

Wages 43–45, 47, 52 Warning-Assurance Tension 15, 40, 57, 66, 75, 76, 122, 132, 161, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184, 159–84, 185, 188, 189 Warnings 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 27, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 88, 93, 96, 97, 98, 101, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 122, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 175, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189 Works 12, 13, 42, 45-50, 51, 95, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 177, 182