16:19-24 Closing Greetings

16:19-24 Closing Greetings

1 Corinthians

INTRODUCTION

Authorship. All scholars accept 1 Corinthians as Pauline.

Corinth. Corinth was one of the major urban centers of the ancient Mediterranean and one of the most culturally diverse cities in the empire. A Greek city by location, the capital of Achaia (which made up most of ancient Greece), Corinth had been a Roman *colony for nearly a century, officially resettled by Romans long after its destruction, and Greek and Latin cultures coexisted. Its citizen class, however, viewed itself as Roman and was proud of its Roman identity. Its location on the isthmus of Corinth, a short land route across Greece that spared seafarers the more treacherous voyage around the south of Greece, made it a prosperous mercantile community. Although a wide disparity between rich and poor characterized the Roman empire more generally, this problem was particularly acute in Corinth. Its mercantile character contributed to the presence of foreign religions and may have accelerated the level of sexual promiscuity, although some promiscuity was characteristic of ancient Greek urban male culture in general. Corinth was known for its prosperity, and the proverbial sexual looseness of ancient Greek Corinth seems to have continued in Roman Corinth as well.

Language. Although Latin was used for official business in Corinth, most people could speak Greek, and this was especially true of settlers from elsewhere in Greece and further east, including most Jewish immigrants. (Some Greeks had continued to live onsite after the city’s destruction, but it was the Roman settlers who became the founding citizens of New Corinth in 44 B.C.) Clearly the Corinthian *church, to whom Paul wrote his letters in Greek, understood him. Later in the first century, Clement of Rome also wrote to this church in Greek, which became Corinth’s official language again in the early second century.

Situation. Roles were determined by social status in antiquity, and those with wealth and power preferred religious, philosophical and political ideologies that supported their base of power. Reading 1 Corinthians in light of ancient culture generally, including conflicting status ideals, cuts through much of the speculation of earlier commentaries; although theological errors were involved, a central issue was that people were not getting along. Once we get past the cultural and language differences, the Corinthian Christians’ values were very much like those of most Christians today. They had their own social interests, which seemed natural from their own perspective, but Paul summoned them to think instead as servants.

Thus higher-status members of the community seem to have preferred a more *rhetorically skilled speaker like Apollos; and, sharing the values of their peers they hoped to reach with the *gospel, they rejected manual labor as a suitable occupation for a moral teacher. Manual laborers in the church, however, appreciated a voluntarily lower-status, working teacher like Paul, even if his personal delivery in speeches left something to be desired (chaps. 1–4). Philosophical ideals held by some higher-status members may have been used to justify sexual offenses (chaps. 5–7); status issues likely factor into the minor division over head coverings (11:2-16) and possibly the approaches concerning meat and communal meals (chaps. 8–11). Philosophic views, often linked to status or at least the economic access to some kinds of education, probably also inform issues regarding the body and immortality (chap. 15) and, less likely but not impossibly, some philosophical mystical currents (chaps. 12–14). Most Greeks did not envision an end of the age in the sense in which Paul emphasizes future eschatology in his letter. In other words, the conflicting values of diverse groups in the broader society had been carried over into the church as divisive issues, and on other matters as well the values of society had obscured Paul’s biblical message.

Commentaries. Helpful commentaries with a focus on background include Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987); David Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003); Craig S. Keener, 1 & 2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); on a less technical level, C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987). Also helpful are general works on social relations in antiquity, such as Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); for such relations in the New Testament, see Wayne E. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983); Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); and other works in the LEC series cited in the bibliography in the introduction to this volume. On Corinth specifically, one may sample Pausanias, Description of Greece Book 2; Donald W. Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2002); Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). On the unity theme, see Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991); on 1 Corinthians 7, see chapters five and six in my earlier book . . . And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991); Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); for 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34-36 see my Paul, Women and Wives (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 19-100; for 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, see Wendell L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, SBLDS 68 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985).

1:1-9

Opening Greetings

These verses follow a standard ancient way to open letters; see the introduction to *New Testament letters and comments on Romans 1:1 and 7.

1:1. Letters in antiquity were not usually coauthored; thus Paul may have authored the letter and Sosthenes (cf. perhaps Acts 18:17) served as *scribe, writing it down (cf. 1 Cor 16:21); or Sosthenes may have contributed to the letter’s contents or (more likely) merely concurred with Paul’s message. Sometimes composite authorship claims in (normally much shorter) ancient letters simply provided greetings (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 16.1.title).

1:2. “*Saints” means “set-apart ones,” and “sanctified” means “set apart,” “holy, consecrated or separated for God.” This language was applied to Israel in the *Old Testament; it meant that God had set apart Israel to himself when he redeemed them, and they were therefore to live for God, not like the nations around them.

1:3. “*Grace” adapts a standard Greek greeting, and “peace” a Jewish one. By invoking Jesus alongside the Father as the source of grace and peace in a blessing or wish-prayer (wish-prayers for the hearers were common in letter openings), Paul presupposes Jesus’ divinity.

1:4. Thanksgivings sometimes appear in ancient letters (e.g., 2 Maccabees 1:11). As in speeches, official letters might open with a proem praising the reader, which was designed to secure the reader’s favor for the rest of the letter. Moralists who gave rebuking speeches or wrote rebuking letters also usually mixed in praise to make their advice easier to accept.

1:5. Opening sections of speeches or literary works commonly introduced some of the themes that would recur throughout the letter. “Speech” and “knowledge” were important to the Corinthians. In fact, the nearby Isthmian Games (see comment on 9:24-25) included speech contests, and knowledge was associated with philosophical wisdom or the ability to speak extemporaneously on any topic (a skill in which *rhetoricians, or public speakers, were trained). Here Paul means spiritual, not merely natural, gifts, but the Corinthians had learned to excel in these particular gifts precisely because these mattered most to them in their culture.

1:6-8. “The day of our Lord Jesus Christ” here fulfills the role assigned to “the day of God” in standard Jewish tradition (cf., e.g., Is 13:6, 9; Joel 2:1, 11, 31; Amos 5:18, 20; Zeph 1:7-8, 14; 2:2-3). Some elements of Judaism, especially in the *Diaspora, played down the future aspects of biblical hope; Paul wants to reverse this tendency among the Corinthian Christians.

1:9. Ancient philosophers often spoke of human “fellowship” or “communion” with other people. Paul could mean fellowship with others in Christ, or intimacy with the Lord himself, or both.

1:10-17

Christ Not Divided

Later *rhetoricians would have classified at least 1 Corinthians 1:10–4:21 (addressing unity), and perhaps the whole letter, as a letter of admonition. Paul is not defending himself against opponents (as in 2 Corinthians) but addressing the misbehavior of the Corinthians. The context shows that they are favoring specific teachers (Paul and Apollos) on the basis of their respective rhetorical or philosophical skills (1:18–4:21).

1:10. For the first three centuries of its existence, the *church met mainly in homes; those belonging to more well-to-do members of the congregation could naturally hold the most people (see comment on 11:17-34). Because the size of these homes limited the size of congregations and forced Christians to meet in different house churches, divisions could easily arise among them. A major basis for the Corinthian Christians’ division, however, derives from differences in social status and perspectives within the congregations. One type of ancient speech (known as a homonoia speech) lamented divisions and called for unity; Paul’s readers would immediately recognize the nature of his argument. Paul states a thesis in 1:10 and then (following the custom in ancient works) outlines the events leading up to the present situation (1:11-12).

1:11. Rivalry and enmity pervaded society, even in sports but especially in politics and public speech. Ancient urban culture, epitomized in Corinth, evaluated and compared speakers. One normally specified the source for one’s information unless it could harm the source. These informants may have been agents of Chloe, a wealthy businesswoman in Corinth or Ephesus (16:8), traveling between the two cities on business. As such, they may have been high-status slaves or *freedpersons belonging to her household. Members of a Corinthian church, they brought Paul the news; news and letters were most often carried by people traveling on other business. (Had they been her children rather than servants, they would have been named by their father’s household, even were he deceased.)

1:12. People often gravitated toward particular teachers and defended their schools’ interests. Occasionally students of competing teachers even came to blows, including in Corinth. Philosophers encouraged emotional attachment to themselves as a necessary part of developing morally and intellectually. Rabbis had their own schools, and disciples normally propagated their teacher’s views. Political parties sometimes took the slogans, “I am of so-and-so.” Using rhetorical repetition (here anaphora, which takes the form x . . . /x . . . ), Paul neatly caricatures the Corinthians’ divisions into four groups (though “Cephas” and “Christ” might be only hypothetical; cf. 3:5-6).

1:13. Paul here uses a common technique in argument: reductio ad absurdum, reducing an opponent’s position to its natural but absurd conclusion. Speakers sometimes piled up rhetorical questions (here, three) to drive home their point.

1:14-15. Corinth had many famous fountains and bath houses—no shortage of potential sites for public *baptisms. In some Greek *mystery cults an initiate would reportedly call the one who had introduced him to the cult “father”; probably here Paul is simply still reducing their position to the absurd (cf. 1:13). “Crispus” (cf. Acts 18:8) and “Gaius” (a common name, but cf. Rom 16:23) are Latin names and may reflect persons of high status in the congregation.

1:16. Paul may have recalled Stephanas separately because he may have met and baptized him elsewhere (16:15). One could add an afterthought in casual or informal letters (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Atticus 8.14.4) or use it as a deliberate rhetorical correction (in this case, perhaps to underline the secondary nature of the question). A “household” normally followed the religion of the head of the household; 16:15 implies that Stephanas was a believer and a person of some means.

1:17. Judaism used “baptism” as the final act of conversion for *Gentiles; early Christians followed this pattern. But Paul refuses to emphasize the act itself; his emphasis is on the message to whose reception baptism merely bears witness. Though using rhetoric to communicate, moralists commonly denied that they used skilled rhetoric to persuade their hearers, and they pointed out that they appealed only to the truth.

1:18-25

God’s Wisdom in the Cross

Judaism stressed the importance of divine Wisdom, which God revealed in his Word; Wisdom was sometimes personified (1:30). Given popular Greek respect for philosophy and *rhetoric (the primary two disciplines in which advanced studies were possible for those with funds), it is probable that some educated members of the church are especially interested in “wise speech.” Paul mistrusts such rhetoric (cf. 1:17, 20; 2:1, 4-5) and presumably worldly philosophy as well (cf. 1:21; 2:7-8; cf. Col 2:8). Apollos may have fit their preferred speaking style better than Paul did (1:12; see comment on Acts 18:24). Though minimizing rhetoric, Paul in this section employs rhetorical devices that his critics might recognize, including antithesis (1:18); four rhetorical questions with the triple repetition of “where is . . . ?” (1:20); and shockingly paradoxical oxymorons (1:25, also using antithesis).

1:18. Romans regarded crucifixion as a death appropriate for slaves; Jews also saw it as shameful (Deut 21:23). Those viewed as “*saviors” were normally gods, kings, wealthy benefactors or miracle workers. Roman society was built around power and status; power was concentrated in the male head of the household, in wealthy and aristocratic families, and so forth. Associating power with a crucified man—the epitome of dishonor and weakness—thus made no more sense to ancients than it does to modern people outside Christ.

1:19. Here Paul quotes Isaiah 29:14 to show that the wisdom of those living by human tradition (including Jewish tradition, Is 29:13-14) instead of by God’s revelation (Is 29:9-12) would perish; cf. similarly Jeremiah 8:9.

1:20. Commentators rightly find models for Paul’s wording in texts like Isaiah 19:12; 33:18 and Job 12:17 (cf. further the principle in Prov 21:30; Is 29:14; 44:25; 47:10; Jer 8:8-9; 9:12, 23). The “debater [or reasoner] of this age” might refer to a trained rhetorician, whom philosophers sometimes despised as devoid of genuine content. But Paul challenges the philosophers (“wise men”) as well.

1:21. In Greek comedy the hero pretended to be stupid, but he proved to be wise in the end; in contrast to this hero was the fool who claimed to be wise and wanted credit for the wise man’s triumph but was rebuffed. *Plato said that human wisdom was worthless, and people should seek God’s wisdom instead.

1:22-23. Greeks were known for their love of learning. Greeks and Jews alike might desire attesting miracles, but Paul keeps Jews and Greeks distinct here for rhetorical effect. On the foolishness of the cross to both, see comment on 1:18.

1:24-25. In antiquity, divine power was typically associated with wonderworkers (1:22); the Corinthian culture, like Roman culture in general, valued social power (1:26). Paul uses “the foolishness of God” and “the weakness of God” ironically: the least of God’s wisdom is superior to the best of human wisdom. Irony was a common rhetorical device.

1:26-31

Inversion of Status

Paul again uses limited *rhetorical devices to communicate a wisdom that transcended rhetoric: repeating “not many” three times in 1:26 is anaphora (x . . . /x . . . ); repeating “God chose” three times in 1:27-28 is antistrophe (. . . x/. . . x—it appears at the end of the lines in Greek). Paul introduces three elements in 1:26 and then develops them in 1:27-28.

1:26-29. Roman social class was based on birth (“nobility”) rather than on wealth; but by either criterion, most of the Corinthian Christians derived from the lower ranks of society, which made up the vast majority of ancient society. Paul’s guarded language here (“not many”—NIV) suggests that some, however, were of higher status, no doubt including the owners of many of the homes in which the churches met (cf. perhaps especially Rom 16:23). (Many of the recently wealthy in Corinth came from lower social ranks but achieved prestige through wealth.) This passage reflects Jeremiah 9:23, paving the way for Paul’s explicit quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 in 1 Corinthians 1:31. For God inverting human status, see also Isaiah 2:11, 17.

1:30. Both Jewish and Greek literature sometimes personified wisdom. *Christ as divine Wisdom (8:6; cf. Jn 1:1-18) functions as righteousness, sanctification and redemption, changing the person completely for God. The *law was considered both wisdom (Deut 4:6) and righteousness (Deut 6:25).

1:31. Here Paul paraphrases Jeremiah 9:24: one should boast in knowing and understanding God rather than in human wisdom.

2:1-5

Saved by the Cross, Not by Rhetoric

Paul here appeals to the Corinthians’ own conversion (cf. Gal 3:2). It was the powerful preaching of the weakness of the cross, not humanly powerful *rhetoric, that had saved them (1 Cor 1:18).

Even most defenders of rhetoric, or skilled speech, admitted that it was sometimes abused. But they argued that it was necessary, because having truth but being unable to persuade others of it was not helpful. Philosophers traditionally criticized rhetoric, claiming that truth, not skillful speech, should be the emphasis; but these same philosophers used forms of argument developed by rhetoricians. By this period, most had surmounted the traditional opposition between philosophy and rhetoric, allowing for the use of both. Paul here disapproves of mere rhetoric, but his own writing, including 1 Corinthians, displays extensive knowledge and use of rhetorical forms. Although Paul may not have matched the rhetorical prowess of Apollos or the standards of Corinthian leaders, he was a skillful writer (2 Cor 10:10) in his own right.

2:1-2. Normally a new speaker in a city would announce an event where he would offer an oration; if enough people were impressed and he drew students, he would stay in that city. Paul, by contrast, did not tell people what they wanted to hear to make himself popular. Because Paul in the context is boasting in his weakness, he does not praise his speaking or philosophical ability (cf. Ex 4:10; Jer 1:6). But this reserve need not mean—and the skillfulness of his argumentation shows that it cannot mean—that his argumentation style was weak, even if his delivery (voice quality and gestures) were inadequate (which is likely—2 Cor 10:10; possibly Paul also spoke Greek with an accent, though cf. Acts 21:37). Even the most renowned speakers (e.g., Dio Chrysostom) often disavowed their own speaking abilities in order to lower audience expectations; then they spoke brilliantly. Rhetoricians recommended this technique.

2:3. “Fear and trembling” occur together as an expression in the *Old Testament and Jewish literature; although the expression was formulaic, it was used in a variety of different ways. In this context, this expression suggests that Paul’s weakness was in his delivery, not in his awareness of contemporary rhetorical style. Apart from *Stoics, most speakers approved of stirring emotions in speeches, but trembling would normally put off audiences accustomed to skilled speakers.

2:4-5. In rhetoric, “demonstration” was a form of argument proved from certain and undisputed premises; Paul does not offer a mere syllogism (a form that was logical but might be based on inadequate premises) or dialectic (which *Plato treated as defining and classifying data) or rhetorical tricks.

One could also speak of rhetorical “power,” but Paul’s power is from a different source: God’s power resident in the preaching of the weakness of the cross (1:18, 24). This power might imply miraculous attestation (1:22, 24; 2 Cor 12:12; 13:4; Rom 15:19).

2:6-16

Genuine Wisdom Through the Spirit

Paul hastens to explain that he does not oppose genuine wisdom; but this wisdom is beyond human understanding and can be accepted only by those who know God’s heart through the *Spirit. The Corinthian believers’ wrong focus shows that they are missing this fundamental wisdom (3:1-4; cf. 1:18-31).

2:6. Philosophers used the term for “mature” or “perfect” (KJV) here for those who had progressed to an advanced stage in wisdom; contrast 3:1! (Its use for full initiates to the *mystery cults is less relevant here.) The contrast in 2:6-9 is between temporal wisdom of those great in this age and God’s eternal wisdom. Cf. Wisdom of Solomon 9:6: “Even one who is perfect among people will be deemed nothing without the wisdom that comes from you.”

2:7. Judaism believed that God’s wisdom existed before the world and that God had created the world through this wisdom.

2:8. Some scholars suggest that “rulers of the age” here refers to angelic powers in the heavens (cf. 15:24; Rom 8:38; Eph 1:21). In the context, earthly rulers (cf. Rom 13:1) are more likely, however; these are the powerful people of this age, by the Corinthians’ standards (1 Cor 1:26-28). Yet the truly powerful one was “the glorious Lord”!

2:9. Here Paul quotes Isaiah 64:4, which was part of a prayer for God to intervene in history again on behalf of the remnant who hoped in him; Paul adapts the wording of the quotation slightly, as was common in ancient citations. (He may also slightly conflate this text with the *LXX of Is 65:17, which speaks of the present being forgotten in the world to come.) The point is that the things of the eternal God are inaccessible to mortals except by the means Paul articulates in verse 10.

2:10-13. Only God’s *Spirit knows what is in his heart, but because believers have God’s Spirit, they can know his heart too. In light of the possible allusion to Wisdom of Solomon 9 in 1 Corinthians 2:6, cf. here Wisdom of Solomon 9:17: Who has known God’s plans unless God has given them wisdom and sent his Spirit from above? (For God “revealing” wisdom, cf. Sirach 1:6; “those who love him” could echo the recipients of God’s wisdom in Sirach 1:10.) “Spirit” had a broad variety of meanings, including “attitude,” “disposition”; hence “spirit of the world” need not refer to any particular spiritual being (unlike God’s Spirit).

2:14-15. The spiritual person can evaluate all things, but the “natural” (KJV, NASB; “unspiritual,” NRSV; literally, something like “soulish”) person cannot evaluate the things or people of the Spirit. God’s breath made humans living “souls” (Gen 2:7), but they still needed God’s Spirit to experience him. Paul’s use of “natural” may be based on a particular interpretation of Genesis 2:7 current in *Hellenistic Jewish circles; see comment on 15:45-46. (This Hellenistic Jewish use may borrow the language of some Greek philosophers, who contrasted the “natural,” or earthbound, part of the soul with the mind. Paul’s distinction is between those ruled by their own earthly soul and those ruled by the Spirit of God. *Gnostics in the second century wrongly used 1 Cor 2:14-15 as a proof text to distinguish the human soul and spirit and to argue that they were an elite group who followed the incorruptible, immortal spirit.)

2:16. As in 2:9-10, Paul follows a text underlining the ignorance of humans apart from God with the recognition that those who receive his Spirit can understand his heart. Paul turns the rhetorical question of Isaiah 40:13 (cf. Rom 11:34) around in the light of the coming of the Spirit; he quotes “mind of the Lord” from the Greek version, but undoubtedly knows that the Hebrew has “Spirit of the Lord.” Many philosophers sought to know God’s mind by wisdom; for Paul, this wisdom comes only through the experience of God’s Spirit.

3:1-9

Do Not Follow Servants

With their partisan celebrity cults the Corinthian Christians are acting like “natural,” “fleshly” people rather than people of the *Spirit. Paul and Apollos are mere servants; God is the one the Corinthians ought to follow.

3:1-2. Ancient writers often compared the unskilled in knowledge to babes who had to start out with the basics, with milk (Philo, *Epictetus, etc.). If Paul intends the image to evoke all that it can, he portrays himself as mother or wet nurse (cf. 4:15; 1 Thess 2:7). Teachers always expected students to start with basics but also expected them to progress past basics.

3:3. “Fleshly” (not “worldly”—NIV) is slightly different from “as fleshly” (again, not “worldly”—NIV) of verse 1: it means that they were acting fleshly, not that they were fleshly by nature. On “flesh” and Spirit, see comment on Romans 8:1-11.

3:4. Greek culture sometimes divinized heroes into gods. Later traditions divinized philosophers, and philosophers often claimed that people could be divinized by virtue, because they considered the soul a divine part within each person. Although some Jewish writers in the Greek world adopted the language of deification, the principle of one God generally kept Jews and Christians from following this concept that far (Gen 3:5). Here Paul says: If you follow humans, then you are not only not divine; you are not even following the Spirit of God (2:14–3:3).

3:5-9. Paul uses the familiar image of sowing; at the end of verse 9 he introduces the familiar image of building, which will dominate his exposition through 3:17. Other writers like *Philo also described God as planter or builder; in the *Old Testament, most often for God planting, building or uprooting his people (cf. Ruth 4:11; Ps 28:5; 51:18; 69:35; 147:2; Jer 1:10; 18:7; 24:6; 31:4, 28; 45:4).

3:10-20

The Real Test of God’s Servants

The Corinthians should follow God, not his ministers (3:1-9), because only the day of judgment would show the genuine character of ministers (3:10-15). The building on which God’s servants are working is God’s temple, representing God’s people (3:16-17).

3:10-11. A “master builder” directed the construction; thus Paul designed strategies as well as labored.

3:12-15. A few other ancient stories highlighted the competition among substances like those Paul mentions here; further, everyone knew which substances would endure testing by fire (cf., e.g., Num 31:23). Ancient sources sometimes employed the metaphor of testing by fire; in the *Old Testament, see Proverbs 27:21; Isaiah 47:14; Zechariah 13:9. Ancient Jewish writers sometimes compared the wicked to straw that would be consumed at the judgment (in the Old Testament, cf., e.g., Is 33:11). Only the judgment would test the ultimate value of each servant’s work.

3:16-17. Some ancient writers thought of spiritual temples. Some Jewish people, as attested in the *Dead Sea Scrolls (cf., e.g., 1QS 8.5-9; 9.6), portrayed God’s people as a building, the temple, so the image could have been familiar to Jesus’ first followers. Nearly everyone in the ancient world believed that desecrating temples warranted judgment.

3:18-20. Paul cites Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11. The former is a wise principle, even though Eliphaz, who first articulated it, used it in an evil way against Job (Job 4–5). Psalm 94:11 in context stresses that God alone teaches people rightly; human wisdom is at best folly. Paul thus continues his proof from Scripture of human folly (e.g., 1 Cor 1:19).

3:21-23

All Things Are the Corinthians’ Anyway

This passage would make good sense to ancient readers. Even Paul and Apollos are given to them by God; why follow just Paul or Apollos, when they should follow the God who gives everything? God’s people would take possession of the world to come (see comment on Rom 4:13; cf. Zech 8:12); at present they are heirs of the world and children of the God who rules it.

*Stoic and *Cynic philosophers often praised “having nothing” (see comment on 2 Cor 6:10) while emphasizing that the whole world belonged to them, so they could take whatever they needed. They often cited the proverb “Friends share all property in common” and claimed that because they were friends of the gods, who owned everything, everything was theirs.

4:1-5

Do Not Evaluate Before the Real Test

A sinful lifestyle always indicated sinful motives, but a godly lifestyle could sometimes mask selfish motives. Only God knows hearts, and Christian celebrities could be accurately evaluated only in the light of the final judgment (3:5-15). Paul adapts the language of philosophers respected by the Corinthian Christians.

4:1. “Stewards” or “managers” (“those entrusted”—NIV) were often servants, as here, or freedmen. These servants and freedmen were trusted to manage the master’s estate, especially his financial affairs, and had great authority and prestige. Some philosophers saw themselves as stewards or managers of divine truths.

4:2. Because stewards were trusted to handle their masters’ finances, purchasing slaves and goods and making wise investments, it was crucial that they be “trustworthy” or “faithful.”

4:3-4. The *Old Testament speaks of the day of God’s judgment tribunal as “the day of God.” “Day” sometimes meant “court,” as Paul uses it and many translations render it here. Paul uses several legal expressions in these verses. Most philosophers, especially *Cynics, expressed disdain for what anyone else thought about them.

4:5. Jesus and other Jewish teachers spoke of God bringing secret thoughts to light at his judgment (cf. Is 29:15; *1 Enoch 38:3; 49:4). Ancient *rhetoric was concerned with “praise” for those to be honored; Paul says that the only honor that counts is what God will assign at the final judgment.

4:6-13

Apostles Last of All

In Jesus’ *kingdom, where the greatest is the least and the King died for his people, no one is more important than anyone else. Indeed, true *apostles take the lowest role, not the greatest; they should not be objects of a celebrity cult.

4:6. Some commentators argue that speakers advocating harmony sometimes warned people not to “go beyond what is written” but to comply with a prior agreement; Paul may thus summon them to unity, reminding them of a contract implied in their acceptance of Christ. Some commentators have suggested that “not beyond what is written” refers to the learning of schoolchildren, who learned how to write by imitating what was written. Others think Paul refers to Scripture, perhaps texts he has cited so far in 1 Corinthians on the worthlessness of human folly. Whatever the case, Paul may warn against boasting beyond one’s proper station.

4:7. Everything they have, God has given to them; they have earned none of it. Philosophers often liked to make this point to keep people from boasting.

4:8. Irony was a frequent rhetorical and literary device. Philosophers often claimed to be the only true kings, asserting that only they had character noble enough to rule rightly. They also claimed to possess the only genuine wealth and wisdom. Paul ironically concedes the claims of his most educated readers: “You are true philosophers; I, your teacher in Christ, am foolish.”

4:9. Sages often listed their sufferings that verified their commitment to living according to their teaching. Stoic philosophers sometimes claimed that they evoked the admiration of gods and mortals as they persevered through suffering; but Paul declares that the suffering *apostles became a “spectacle,” objects of scorn in the theater of the world. The person in charge of games in amphitheaters would exhibit the gladiators who would battle wild beasts there; here God himself exhibits the sufferings of the apostles. “Last of all” could mean captives led in triumphal procession before execution (2 Cor 2:14), or, with likelier reference to the arena (1 Cor 15:32), that they were the final show for the day—normally reserved for the most wretched criminal condemned to die in the arena. Corinth’s theater seated eighteen thousand.

4:10. Philosophers claimed to be wise, powerful and truly honorable, as opposed to the foolish masses. They meant that their conduct was wise, they were morally strong, and they were honorable in virtue. But much of society thought the opposite, especially of the homeless *Cynics: they were foolish, weak beggars. Paul’s detractors think his behavior unbecoming of true wisdom; Paul uses irony to suggest that the true wisdom is on his side.

4:11. Greek moralists sometimes presented themselves as models for others to imitate; a few philosophers, especially the Cynics, wandered around homeless and dependent on charity. Paul presents his own sufferings and sacrifices for the *gospel as a model for the Corinthians to imitate (4:9-16). Everything Paul describes in 4:11 could fit the typical ancient depiction of the wandering Cynic philosopher.

4:12. Stoics tried to show themselves unaffected by criticism; the most fundamental background for blessing those who insulted one, however, is Jesus’s teaching (cf. Lk 6:22). Here Paul distinguishes himself from most kinds of philosophers and from the more aristocratic ideals of the higher-status faction within the Corinthian *church. Philosophers might beg, charge tuition or be supported by a *patron; to many of them, manual labor was the least honorable option. Because wealthy landowners also considered manual labor undignified, well-to-do people in the church might be embarrassed to invite friends of their own social circle to hear the teachings of Paul, who worked as an artisan (skilled laborer). The majority of people in the congregation, however, would not be well-to-do; artisans were often proud of their labor.

4:13. Some commentators note that Paul’s words translated “rubbish” and “dregs” (NRSV) could apply to criminals or others killed as offerings to gods. The terms had wider use, however, and philosophers sometimes thought of the masses as “garbage” (GNT) and “refuse” (NIV); more often, the masses may have thought of wandering Cynic philosophers in these same terms. It was a universally disgusting image for something worthless and rejected (Lam 3:45). Following Jesus, Paul goes beyond Cynics in answering slander gently (cf. Prov 15:1; 29:8); many Cynics were happy to revile their audiences, even without provocation, to prove their independence. Stoic and Cynic philosophers believed that their perseverance in suffering authenticated them as genuine philosophers, and Paul wants the philosophically informed members of his audience to recognize that on their own terms he can compete with the best of them.

4:14-21

A Father’s Threat

4:14. Except in the most extreme circumstances, philosophers preferred to admonish rather than to rebuke and thereby humiliate. Moralists generally emphasized that they admonished people only because they cared for them, sometimes describing their concern in parental terms. For Paul as a parent, cf. already 3:1-2; fathers were responsible for their sons’ education.

4:15. “Guardian” (NIV, NRSV; better than “tutor”—NASB—or “instructor”—KJV) refers to a slave who would accompany a child on his way to school; although respected by the child and responsible to teach him manners, this guardian was not a teacher per se. Students could affectionately call and treat special teachers as “fathers”; but slave aides were nothing like fathers.

4:16. Philosophers, *rabbis and teachers in general were considered models to imitate as well as to listen to. Most directly here, “imitate” fits the image of children and fathers (4:15).

4:17. A *disciple of a teacher could be affectionately called his “child” (4:15); Timothy as an imitator of Paul can become a model for Paul’s “children” in Corinth. Paul’s “ways” (NASB) or “way of life” (NIV) may allude to the Jewish use of “ways” to mean divine laws or proper behavior.

4:18-21. Paul continues in the role of “father” (4:14-17) in this passage. Fathers were sometimes portrayed as gentler than mothers, but they also used the rod for discipline, and in Roman political rhetoric, the proper patriarchal figure was stern and uncompromising. Others in antiquity also qualified some statements with “if God wills” (4:19; see comment on 16:7).

5:1-5

Discipline for Sexual Immorality

Paul now turns from issues of *church unity (chaps. 1–4) to sexual issues (chaps. 5–7). Although most incestuous relationships today have innocent victims (molestation is never the victim’s fault; cf. Deut 22:26), in chapter 5 Paul addresses the sin of two consenting adults.

5:1. The marriage of full brothers and sisters was considered immoral throughout the Roman Empire except in Egypt; parent-child incest was universally abhorred throughout the Roman world (Greeks viewed Persians and Nabateans as exceptions, but this was probably slander). From the revulsion against the idea exhibited in the Greek Oedipus stories to slander leveled against emperors, it was one of those few crimes that virtually all cultures agreed was terrible. Its Roman legal punishment was banishment to an island. Relations with stepmothers were treated like relations with mothers—as incestuous. Here Paul uses the language of Leviticus 18:6-8. Relations between sons and stepmothers were often strained, but because Greek and Roman fathers often remarried much younger wives, a stepmother could be within the age range of an older son.

5:2. These people may have been boasting in their spiritual freedom. Committing a crime was considered bad in antiquity, but boasting about it in addition to committing it was considered even worse (including in Scripture: Is 3:9; Jer 6:15; 8:12). Some suggest that the Christians here boast not in the sin but in the sinner—that he was a person of status belonging to their congregation. If he was of high status, even social peers who criticized him could risk enmity, and the church could also suffer if it alienated him.

Communities of resident aliens could discipline members according to their laws, so long as the disciplines did not violate Roman law and the members remained part of these communities. Synagogues, which functioned as social centers for their communities, disciplined their members, especially those whose immorality threatened to bring *Gentile reproach on the whole Jewish community. Discipline could include corporal punishment (beatings), but the ultimate punishment was exclusion from the Jewish community—spiritual banishment. This expulsion could be deemed the spiritual equivalent of a death sentence, executed only by God; but it was reversible if the banned person repented.

5:3. Letter writers sometimes expressed their intimate concern for the readers by saying that, although they were “absent in body,” they were with them “in spirit” or in mind (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 3.11.2; *Seneca, Epistle to Lucilius 67.2; Oxyrhynchus papyri 32). In some cases, the letter itself communicated the effect of the writer’s presence. But this expression was meant as a statement of intimacy, not of metaphysical presence.

5:4. Some Jewish sources averred that judges in Jewish courts judged cases on the authority of the heavenly court (see comment on Mt 5:22). Jewish communities seem to have used excommunication, or official exclusion from the community (attested in both temporary and permanent forms, along with other levels of possible discipline, in the *Dead Sea Scrolls and in later *rabbinic literature), to replace the *Old Testament death penalty; Christians adopted the practice from Judaism.

5:5. Some compare the long-standing pagan custom of magical execration by devoting a person to the gods of the underworld or other avenging deities; curse tablets used for this purpose were widespread. In the Old Testament, God’s servants were to place idolatrous items under the ban, devoting them to destruction; here Paul instructs the Corinthians to deliver this man to *Satan, the agent of destruction. Paul may hope that the resultant suffering (11:30) will lead to *repentance and thus salvation. Jewish teachers often felt that suffering plus repentance would expiate sin, or that (as here) suffering could lead to repentance.

5:6-13

Removing Immorality in the Church

Immorality inside and apparently sanctioned by the church was far more likely to lead Christians astray than the immorality of nonbelievers would.

5:6. The most obvious characteristic of leaven, or yeast, is that it permeates the dough, making the whole batch of dough rise when baked. Paul uses leaven here as a symbol for sin.

5:7-8. Paul argues that the Corinthians should remain unleavened, just as bread does during the Passover season. (The Jewish people left Egypt in such haste after the first Passover that they did not have time to leaven their bread, and subsequent generations were commanded to celebrate the feast with unleavened bread in commemoration of the event.) Paul writes some time before Pentecost (16:8), fifty days after Passover, so Passover could well be fresh on his mind. Jewish people understood the Passover lamb as a sacrifice in this period (cf. *Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.312). The Jewish people were expecting a new redemption, like their first exodus from Egypt, when the *Messiah came; Paul believes that the Messiah has come, and that this Messiah was himself the new paschal lamb.

5:9-10. Jewish people typically considered Gentiles sexually “immoral” and were probably correct about most Gentile men. Both Jewish and Gentile moralists often included lists of vices (as in 5:10, 11; 6:9-10).

5:11. Jewish excommunication (5:3-5) also excluded people from communal meals, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

5:12. Rome allowed local Jewish communities to judge Jewish offenders of Jewish laws. This judgment and the discipline were carried out in the *synagogues, the community centers for local Jewish groups (cf. comment on 2 Cor 11:24). Paul expects the Christians of his day to follow the same model, correcting the behavior of erring fellow Christians.

5:13. The *Old Testament often commanded God’s people to purge evildoers from among their ranks, normally by execution (Deut 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 24:7); the offenses listed include sexual sins (22:21, 24). Otherwise, the unrepentant offender could remove God’s blessing from the whole community and bring about the death of others (Josh 7:5, 12-13, 25). Here the evildoer is purged from the community by being banished; banishment was a common punishment in the Roman period. In Judaism, exclusion from the community was a spiritual equivalent of execution, applied in the *New Testament period to capital crimes of the Old Testament (see comment on 1 Cor 5:2; actual capital sentences of Jewish courts could not be legally carried out without Roman permission).

6:1-11

Christians in Secular Courts

Having advocated that the *church act as a court with regard to sexual offenses (chap. 5), Paul now argues for the necessity of church courts in his society (6:1-8) and then returns to sexual offenses (6:9, 12-20). Some think that the litigants of 6:1-8 are the father and son of 5:1 (cf. “defraud” in 6:7-8; 1 Thess 4:4-6); but it is likelier simply a *digression related to the issue of courts (cf. “why not be wronged?”—6:7).

Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean world had their own courts in their *synagogues. Bringing internal disputes of the Jewish or Christian communities before secular magistrates was a luxury these minority religions could ill afford; there was already too much slander against them in the broader society. See comment on Acts 18:12-17.

6:1. Like modern North American society, Roman society was extremely litigious. Cases began to be heard at dawn and sometimes could be argued as late as sunset. Judges were always chosen from among the well-to-do, and most legal disputes revolved around money or property. Some lawsuits were simply designed to disturb enemies.

6:2. Members of the upper class received better treatment in the law courts, sometimes generating complaints of unfairness even in antiquity; indeed, this preference was eventually written into penalties prescribed in the laws. Further, social inferiors could rarely gain a hearing trying to sue those of higher status. But for Paul, even the lowliest believers are equipped to judge cases.

6:3. In many Jewish traditions, the righteous would judge the nations (Dan 7:22; Wisdom of Solomon 3:8; I Enoch 95:3; *Dead Sea Scrolls 1QpHab 5.4); this judging could also imply judging the angels who were believed to rule the nations.

6:4. In ancient society, both judges and arbiters normally were of high status. This verse could be read as a command (KJV) rather than a question (so most current translations): “appoint the lowliest,” in contrast to the world (see comment on 6:2); whatever the case, the context suggests that the least of Christians should be more competent in justice than the wisest of pagans (cf. 2:14-15).

6:5. Family disputes such as inheritances could be settled by private arbitration, although the arbitrators were usually socially prominent landowners. A magistrate would decide whether cases should be heard by a judge or jury. Juries often judged criminal cases like adultery, murder and treason. This case may have gone before a secular jury court.

6:6. Suing literal brothers was scandalous behavior, though unfortunately quite frequent in ancient property disputes. *Stoics taught that possessions were worthless and consequently rejected legal remedies to defend them (Musonius Rufus 10, p. 76.16-17); some other philosophers also disdained submitting to courts they considered less wise than themselves. The Jewish communities outside Judea were very conscious of their minority status and did not wish to reinforce negative pagan conceptions of their morality. Consequently, they usually dealt with Jewish problems within their own community. Christians were an even smaller minority at this time and also had Jesus’s teaching on the topic (Mt 5:39-40; Lk 6:29-30).

6:7-8. Many philosophers who believed that property did not matter could advocate ignoring offenses rather than going to court. Paul prefers the Jewish method of settling disputes within the community, which serves both justice and the community’s witness to the outside world.

6:9-10. That the unrighteous would not “inherit God’s *kingdom,” that is, would not have a share in it, was standard Jewish and Christian teaching. Both Jewish and pagan “vice lists” often defined or exemplified the “unrighteous”; Paul follows this practice. “Do not be deceived” appears in ancient moral exhortation and is common in the *New Testament. Scholars have disputed the meaning of the term sometimes translated “homosexuals” (NASB), but it seems to be coined from Leviticus 20:13 and to mean those who engage in homosexual acts. These were a common feature of Greek male life in antiquity; this was one form of behavior that Jewish people regarded as virtually exclusively a *Gentile vice (e.g., *Philo, Special Laws 3.37-39; *Josephus, Against Apion 2.215; *Sibylline Oracles 5.387).

Like the *rabbis, Paul engages in *rhetorical damnation: even though in practice he has expelled from fellowship only the most extreme offender (5:1-5), those who continue in the lifestyles he mentions here will not make it into the kingdom.

6:11. Some philosophers reasoned from indicative to imperative: those who have accepted philosophy cannot (by which philosophers often meant “must not”) live by the world’s folly; Jewish teachers also called Israel to live holy because God had consecrated them to himself (cf. Lev 20:26). Still, most ancient moralists primarily simply exhorted people to behave in particular ways. Paul reasons from what the Corinthians are in *Christ (by God’s action) to how they should live, rather than the reverse.

6:12-20

The Body Is for God, Not for Immorality

Biblical *law forbade sex between people who were not married; the penalty for having sex with one person and then marrying another was the same as the penalty for adultery while married—death. Although this penalty was no longer strictly enforced by Paul’s day (if it ever regularly had been), it underlined the seriousness of the offense; premarital sexual immorality was adultery against one’s future spouse (Deut 22:13-29).

Many Greek thinkers, however, reasoned that sex without marriage (“fornication”—KJV, NRSV) was fine as long as it did not control a person; the more vulgar *Cynics even relieved their sexual passions publicly. Much more commonly, for most Greek men under the age of thirty, heterosexual intercourse was most available with slaves or with prostitutes. Roman law permitted (and reaped tax profits from) prostitution, and it forbade fornication only if both parties were of aristocratic birth. Paul’s response shows his mastery of his readers’ culture and his ability to communicate biblical truth relevantly.

6:12. Philosophers used various tests for whether one should do an act, such as whether it was “lawful” or “permissible” and, more important, whether it was “profitable” (NASB) or “expedient” (KJV). Some philosophers excused relieving their sexual appetites with prostitutes or by publicly stimulating themselves, explaining that they were in complete control of their own emotions!

As is common in *diatribe (an ancient teaching form), Paul cites the opinion of an imaginary opponent similar to (or an absurd reduction of) that of his hearers, and then refutes or qualifies it: “‘I can get away with anything.’ Maybe so, but ‘anything’ is not good for you.” Sometimes writers explicitly mention the interlocutor (as in 15:12; Rom 9:19); at other times, as here, they just spoke for and then responded to the interlocutor (e.g., Rom 3:1-9; *Cicero, For Scaurus 9.18). Philosophers frequently warned against being “enslaved” (6:12d) or dominated by pleasures, false ideas and the like.

6:13-14. Moralists often used the “belly” to represent pleasures (cf. comment on Phil 3:19). Wealthy banquets could cater to both gluttony and sexual desire. “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food” was an acceptable Greek way of arguing by analogy that the body was for sex and sex for the body. That God would do away with both reflected the typical Greek disdain for the doctrine of the *resurrection (chap. 15), because Greeks believed that one was done with one’s body at death. Paul responds to this Greek position with the *Old Testament/Jewish perspective that the body is for God and he will resurrect it (cf. also 6:20). Critics of those skeptical of the resurrection (*Sadducees) or of life after death (*Epicureans) emphasized that belief in the future provided a deterrent to immorality.

6:15-16. Here Paul argues from Genesis 2:24. Jewish interpreters normally applied this text to marriage, but because in Jewish law intercourse sealed a marriage union or betrayed it, Paul’s argument from Genesis 2:24 could make sense to Jewish hearers or to *Gentiles conversant with the Old Testament.

Prostitution was considered a business like any other, disreputable as the occupation was thought to be (for prostitutes, not for the men who had sex with them). It was readily available in inns and taverns, and the ranks of prostitutes were especially stocked with slave girls raised from the vast number of abandoned babies. Jews strongly opposed prostitution (although a few engaged in it), and *Philo said that it was a capital offense in God’s sight; but this Jewish view was hardly the pagan position. Some pagans even considered prostitution a useful deterrent to adultery. Corinth had an ancient reputation (focused on the earlier Greek city but persisting in Paul’s day) for prostitution and promiscuity, although such behavior was by no means exclusive to Corinth.

6:17. The Old Testament speaks of people being “joined” to God (Jer 50:5; Zech 2:11; cf. Num 25:3; Hos 4:17). Paul works here especially with the Old Testament doctrine that God is married to his covenant people (e.g., Is 54:5-6; Jer 3:1; Hos 2:20). Applying the analogy from Genesis 2:24, Paul cannot say that God is “one flesh” with them (the Old Testament and Judaism did not believe God had flesh), but he can say they are “one spirit,” united in an intimate, covenant relationship like husband and wife. Thus Christians uniting themselves with prostitutes would defile the sanctity of their relationship with God, as in the religious prostitution reported in pre-Roman Corinth.

6:18. Moralists often exhorted people to flee from vices (also in 10:14; cf. Sirach 21:2; Wisdom of Solomon 1:5), including sexual immorality (Testament of Reuben 5:5) such as prostitution (Cato, Collection of Distichs 25); a *narrative example in this case would be Joseph (Gen 39:12). “Every sin [KJV, NRSV; not ‘other’ sins, against NASB, NIV] . . . is outside the body” may represent the opposing position (6:12-14), to which Paul responds, “The sexually immoral person sins against their own body.”

6:19. Compare comment on 3:16-17; but here the application to the individual Christian (and hence his or her sexual sanctity) is Paul’s own.

6:20. Glorifying God with the body ran against the Greek thinking of many of Paul’s hearers; see comment on 6:12-14. “Bought” refers to redemption from slavery (7:23; cf. 1:30); here it is possible that Paul makes a wordplay on the price of freeing a slave prostitute.

7:1-7

Fulfilling Conjugal Rights

Different views on celibacy existed in the ancient world. Most ancient writers condemned failure to marry; Augustus’s laws penalized it; and many Jewish teachers even considered it sinful, because reproduction was essential and marriage was the proper deterrent from sexual offenses and distractions. (“Replenishing the earth” was considered a biblical commandment for all Jews. Abortion and child abandonment were widely practiced in antiquity; but ancient Jews and Christians—as well as some pagan moralists—unanimously condemned both as the taking of human life. Jews and Egyptians reared all their children.)

A number of groups of philosophers and minor religious sects, however, as well as many *Essenes among the Jews, advocated celibacy or the rejection of marriage. Some philosophers rejected marriage but thought that sexual release with prostitutes was acceptable since it would not tie a person down (cf. comment on 6:12-20). Some Essenes, a Jewish sect, and members of another reported group called Therapeutae, apparently eschewed marriage; maintaining biblical morality, however, they rejected all intercourse outside marriage.

One may divide some of the ancient opinions roughly as follows: (1) Marriage and procreation are vital for all who are physically capable of it (the majority view). (2) Marriage is a distraction and should never be undertaken by the wise man except in the rare instances where one might find a spouse equally devoted to the philosophic lifestyle (the *Cynic position; cf. *Epictetus, Diatribes 3.22.69-76); or some could volunteer for an end-time celibate lifestyle (some Essenes). (3) Marriage is good for most people, but one must make exceptions for those too committed to other spiritual pursuits to take time for it (an early-second-century *rabbi reported in Babylonian Talmud Yebamot 63b). Paul’s advice combines elements of the second and third approaches.

7:1. “Now concerning” sometimes offered a transition to a new point (e.g., Coptic text P. Lond. 1912.52). Now Paul responds to the position in their letter to him: “It is good not to touch [not ‘marry,’ GNT] a woman” (contrast Gen 2:18). For quoting (or paraphrasing, or caricaturing) an opposing position (7:1) and then refuting it (7:2-5), see comment on 1 Corinthians 6:12. “Touch” was a common ancient idiom for intercourse. Some members of the *church may be following an idea common among many Greek thinkers: sex was fine as long as one did not get tied down with marriage (cf. 6:12-20). Others, whom Paul addresses here, are already married (7:2-5) and abstain from relations with their spouses. Paul says that it is too late to choose celibacy once one is married (cf. v. 5).

7:2. “Let each have” reflects a Greek idiom for “Let them have sexual relations.” Jewish people (and some *Gentiles) saw married sexual intimacy as the best deterrent to sexual immorality, and Paul here agrees (see also Prov 5:19-20).

7:3. Jewish marriage contracts stipulated a number of duties for the husband and a number for the wife; one major duty required of the husband was intercourse. Paul views intercourse as a mutual obligation; the meaning of “marital duty” (NIV) here is clear (cf. “conjugal rights”—NRSV).

7:4. Greek writers sometimes portrayed submitting to sexual relations or passion as bringing oneself under someone else’s control (cf. 6:12d). Many Gentiles demanded only the husband’s fidelity, but Paul expects it for both genders.

7:5. *Pharisees who were trying to formulate laws in this period differed on how long a man could vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife; one school said two weeks, and the other school said one week (Mishnah Ketubbot 5:6-7; Sifre Deuteronomy 213.2.1). Although Paul would not make longer abstinence grounds for divorce, as they did (7:10-13), he clearly wishes to limit even abstinence by mutual consent, leaving the specifics to the couple. For “temptation” here, see comment on 7:2, 9.

7:6. Jewish *law permitted concessions for human weakness; here Paul permits but does not require periods of abstinence, implying that it is those who wish to abstain (rather than those who do not) who are weak. Abstinence within marriage is their idea (7:1), not his.

7:7. Paul recognizes that not all are called to singleness and equipped for it.

7:8-16

Getting Married Versus Staying Married

Verses 8-9 are a *digression Paul uses to establish a contrast between single persons concerned to stay single (7:8-9) and married persons wishing to become single (7:10-16). Digressions were a standard feature of ancient writing.

7:8. Singleness has advantages; see comment on 7:32-34. But not everyone is equipped for this lifestyle; others should pursue marriage (7:9).

7:9. “Burn” (NIV, NRSV and GNT interpret correctly by adding “with passion”) was used throughout ancient romances and other sources to describe the arousal of passion, often (metaphorically) through Cupid’s fiery darts. Whereas Greco-Roman literature in general saw nothing wrong with passion, Paul believes that its proper place is only in marriage, and he advocates two alternatives: either self-control or marriage.

7:10-11. Many church members were likely remarried even before conversion; divorce was very common in Corinth. Here Paul addresses current choices, not their past. This divorce prohibition—virtually unique in antiquity—is “from the Lord,” from a saying of Jesus (Mk 10:11-12). (The terms translated “leave” and “send away”—NASB—or “separate” and “divorce”—NIV and NRSV—were often synonyms for divorce and probably function as such in this context. In 7:10-11, however, where Paul refers to Jesus’ teaching, it may be significant that a wife in Jewish Palestine could only “leave,” not “divorce”; in Roman society, either partner could divorce the other by a unilateral decision or abandonment.)

7:12-13. In 7:12-16, Paul must address how Jesus’ teaching relates to a specific situation; general statements of principle were regularly qualified for specific situations (cf. analogous qualifications in Mt 5:32; 19:9). What about the party divorced against his or her will? (Under Palestinian Jewish law, women could be divorced by a unilateral act of the husband; under Roman law, either party could unilaterally divorce the other.) Because most first-generation Christians were converted after marriage (which was generally arranged by parents), this text is no indication that Christians knowingly chose marriages with nonbelievers.

7:14. Both Greco-Roman and Jewish law debated the status of children of socially mixed unions (e.g., Gaius, Institutes 1.66-92); Jewish law also debated the status of children of religiously mixed unions (Tosefta Demai 3:9). Here Paul argues that children of religiously mixed unions are within the sphere of *gospel influence and cannot be used as an excuse for divorce. In Roman society, the children normally went to the father in the event of a divorce; a Christian wife involved in a divorce would lose her opportunity to influence her children for God.

7:15. Paul addresses the specific situation not addressed in Jesus’ general principle that he has just cited (7:10-11): the innocent party is free to remarry (see comment on 7:12-13). “Not under bondage” or “not bound” alludes to the wording of Jewish divorce documents, which told the woman, “You are free,” or, when stated more fully, “You are free to remarry any man,” and further applied to divorce the precise language of freedom from slavery (e.g., Mishnah Gittin 9:3; Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum 2:10-12, §144). Being “bound” would mean that she was still married in God’s sight; not being “bound,” or being “free,” meant that she was free to remarry.

7:16. Although the *Old Testament stressed God’s faithfulness to the families of his servants, it is also clear that godly parents could have ungodly children, and ungodly parents could have godly children (e.g., throughout 2 Chron 23–36). Paul here agrees that the conversion of the spouse is not guaranteed.

7:17-24

Be Content with Present Circumstances

Whether persons are married or single, they should accept their present lot, although this acceptance does not mean that one can never change one’s lot (7:21). Paul’s argument here is so similar to *Cynic-*Stoic teaching that his educated, philosophically inclined hearers would probably concede his point respectfully.

7:17. Greek philosophers, especially Stoics, emphasized accepting one’s situation (although one was welcome to change it if possible if this was more useful, 7:21-24). But whereas Stoics identified the God who directed their lives with Fate, Paul trusts God as a loving Father.

7:18-20. Greeks exercised in the nude, and both Greeks and Romans regarded circumcision as a mutilation. For two centuries some Jews, ashamed of their circumcision in the predominantly Greek culture, had opted for a minor surgical operation that could pull the remains of their foreskin forward and make them appear uncircumcised. Other Jews regarded this as an act of apostasy (1 Maccabees 1:14-15).

7:21. Slavery in the mines or gladiatorial combat constituted a virtual death sentence; work in the fields was difficult for both slaves and peasants; urban slavery, however, included a range of occupations, status and even income (cf. introduction to Philemon). With respect to the highest-status slaves, on occasion aristocratic women even married into slavery to improve their own status! Some ancient philosophers believed that slaves and masters could be moral and spiritual equals, but the philosophers also had to address the situation in which slaves lived. Even when such philosophers came to power (such as Marcus Aurelius, an emperor in the second century), they did not force their Stoic morality on society. Every attempted slave revolt had been brutally repressed, so Paul’s advice is the most practical he can give. For the relevance of the slavery analogy to the present discussion, see comment on 7:15.

Some, however, were able to gain freedom, which was a better situation when possible. Slaves could save money on the side and buy their own freedom. Also, masters often rewarded slaves with freedom (or forcibly retired them from slavery when older so as to avoid the cost of supporting them; in these cases, freedom was the master’s and not the slave’s choice).

7:22. A *freedperson owed some continuing duties to his or her former master but was legally free. The former master remained a *patron, who would help the freedperson out financially and politically; the freedperson remained a *client, who would also look out for the former master’s interests and reputation. Freedpersons were still considered part of their former master’s household. Many citizens of Corinth were descended from freedpersons.

7:23-24. Slaves were expensive. They could be bought to be turned over to a temple (“freed” for service to a god) or, more often, to a new human owner.

7:25-38

Advice Especially to Virgins

Although this section addresses mainly virgins, Paul digresses here as elsewhere (7:8-9; 11:2-16), in this case to relate the virgins to groups he has just discussed (7:27-28, alluding back to 7:12-16).

7:25. The term translated “virgin” here was most often used for women, who were also normally the only ones expected to avoid premarital sex in Greco-Roman culture (outside Judaism).

7:26. Many Jewish people expected a time of great suffering just before the end of the age; in that time, marriage and procreation would be of little value (cf. *2 Baruch 10:13-15; Mishnah Sotah 9:15; Mk 13:17). In other periods of great suffering, when one was liable to be bereaved of spouse and children, the same principle applied (e.g., Jer 16:2; this was not the norm—cf. Jer 29:6).

7:27-28. In the language of ancient divorce contracts, “do not seek to be released” (NASB) means “do not seek a divorce.” “Released from a wife” (NASB; not simply “free from such a commitment”—NIV) can mean “divorced” or “widowed,” and in the immediate passage must at least include the former (its meaning in the preceding line). Paul discourages both remarriages (v. 27) and first marriages of virgins for reasons given in the context, but he permits both (v. 28).

7:29-31. The dangerous time that was upon them would affect all normal human relations; see comment on 7:26.

7:32-35. As a matter of principle, *Cynic philosophers eschewed marriage (though not intercourse) to avoid “distraction”; one could make an exception, however, if one found a wife who shared these convictions and who would thus not distract one from the Cynic lifestyle (the only recorded exception is Hipparchia, wife of Crates). The context indicates that Paul is making a general statement here, not a rule without exceptions; see comment on 9:5. Paul allows that some would be distracted more by being unmarried (7:2, 5, 9), but reiterates the value of singleness for those who can live by it.

7:36-38. Scholars debate whether this passage addresses the fathers of virgins (see NASB) or their fiancés (see NIV, NRSV, GNT); some evidence within the text can be read either way, with probably more scholars taking the latter view. Parents arranged their children’s marriages, usually with some input from the children; the father had the greatest measure of authority in the matter (cf. Sirach 7:24-25; Mishnah Qiddushin 2:1). “Full age” (7:36—NASB) could mean midteens (parental arrangement of marriages allowed couples to wed at a younger age than in our culture); but the term normally means “beyond youth” and hence probably refers to a virgin older than usual. There is no evidence in this period for unconsummated “spiritual engagements,” which became common in later Christianity, perhaps through the “fiancé” reading of this passage.

7:39-40

Widows and Remarriage

7:39. On “bound” and “free,” see 7:15, 27; in discussions of divorce and widowhood, “free” always meant “free to remarry.” (Different Greek words are used for “bound” in 7:15 and for “free” in 7:27, but these are synonyms; variation was a standard *rhetorical technique and appears throughout the *New Testament.) Those who argue that the first line of this verse excludes remarriage of all divorced persons ignore not only 7:15, 27-28, but also the language of antiquity: no one considered her former spouse “her husband” after a legitimate divorce had taken place. That a widower is to marry only “in the Lord” means that Paul is against Christians’ marrying non-Christians (cf. Deut 7:3; Judg 3:6; Ezra 9:2); widows and divorcées, unlike virgins (whose parents arranged their marriages), had a great deal of say about whom they would marry.

7:40. Some people in antiquity valued a widow remaining loyal to the memory of her husband by singleness; more often, they encouraged remarriage, especially if the widow remained young enough to bear children (cf. even Roman tax legislation under Augustus). Although Paul states his “opinion” (NASB, GNT) much less strongly than he proclaims the words of Jesus (7:10-12), he does not for this reason think it lacking value. The *Spirit was normally associated with the prophets of the past, and Paul here claims that he believes he writes under inspiration as a prophet would (cf. 14:37).

8:1-13

Food Offered to Idols

Meat was offered to idols before being served in temples’ dining halls (often as part of worship); much of the meat served at the marketplace had been offered to idols. One who ate in a temple would know the source of the meat; one who ate at a pagan friend’s home could rarely be certain. Even regular banquets including pouring a libation to a deity, but meat was most obviously consecrated to a deity when it was sacrificed at festivals before being doled out to the people. In pagan cities with large Jewish populations, Jews normally had their own markets.

Most Jews were at pains to avoid food consecrated to idols. Palestinian Jewish teachers debated what to do in many cases of uncertainty (such as untithed food), but would never have taken a chance on food that might have been offered to an idol. They believed that Jews outside Palestine unwittingly compromised with idolatry when invited to pagans’ banquets for their sons, even if they brought their own food. Following such teachings strictly (as some did) would have greatly circumscribed *Gentile believers’ relationships with pagan colleagues. The matter was more troubling for Christians converted from pagan backgrounds: e.g., could they meet over lunch with business associates or fellow members of their trade guild, or attend a reception in a temple for a relative’s wedding?

Although Paul is theologically opposed to food known to be offered to idols (10:1-22), he frames that argument with a social one based on loving fellow believers (8:1–9:27; 10:23-33). The more educated and socially elite group, who unlike the poor ate meat regularly and not especially when it was doled out at pagan festivals, had well-to-do friends who would serve meat. They probably represent the liberal faction, who consider themselves “strong” and the socially lower group “weak.”

8:1-3. For “now concerning,” see comment on 7:1. Paul probably opens with the issue of knowledge bringing freedom because the Corinthians’ letter to him had raised it (cf. 7:1); they claimed that superior “knowledge” about idols not being real enabled them to eat. Paul disagrees with their application.

8:4-5. Verses 4-6 constitute a good monotheistic statement that the “strong” are using to claim that idol food does not matter, hence they can eat it. Paul affirms the content of these verses but not the application of the content that these Corinthians make (8:7-13).

8:6. *Stoics and others used formulas similar to this one (many gods, but one true or supreme God), which Jewish apologists (defenders) for monotheism naturally exploited. But Paul’s position differs from both the Stoic and the conventional Jewish position. The basic confession of Judaism was that there was one God, who was also the one Lord (Deut 6:4); Paul portrays both Father and Son as deity here. Some Jewish texts said that God created the world through personified Wisdom; here Paul assigns this same role to *Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1:30). Using different prepositions, ancient intellectuals often distinguished kinds of causation, including material (“from”), instrumental (“through”), modal (“in” or “by”) and purpose (“for”).

8:7. Meat was usually difficult to obtain for most Corinthians who were not well-to-do, except at the pagan festivals, when what was cooked and remained from sacrifices was doled out to the masses. Many of the socially powerless (the “weak”) thus associated meat with idolatry.

8:8. Here Paul probably states the view of the “strong,” some members of the Corinthian elite, with which he concurs except for his response in 8:9.

8:9. Philosophers generally believed that “all things” were theirs and that they had liberty and authority to do as they pleased. Some, like the *Cynics, paid no attention to social customs. But not everyone felt this way. For example, ancient Jewish *rabbis who felt certain that they were right nevertheless circumscribed their own rights and submitted to the majority opinion of their colleagues, for the sake of peace. Jewish teachers considered causing someone to “stumble” from the way of God (i.e., causing them to turn from and reject the faith) worse than killing that person, because it deprived the person of the life of the world to come.

8:10-13. The person who associates meat with idols might think that eating it was all right even if it meant participating in idolatry, misunderstanding the “strong” person’s convictions. (Some Jewish people had scruples similar to Paul’s. For example, *Pharisees said that if one saw a Pharisee accepting food from an unreligious person, that did not mean one could assume that the food had been tithed; the Pharisee might have simply committed himself in his heart to tithe on it when he got home.) Giving up “meat” (8:13) would be more difficult for the elite, who had more access to it.

9:1-14

Worthy of Support

Having called on the more well-to-do Corinthian Christians to give up their rights (chap. 8), Paul illustrates this principle by how he had given up his own rights (chap. 9), then continues the discussion of meat offered to idols (chap. 10). Ancient moral teachers commonly used examples to make moral points, and their followers observed their lives as well as their teachings to learn how to live. Jewish teachers’ lives were sometimes even used as legal precedent by later *rabbis.

9:1-2. By “free” (cf. 9:19; 10:29), philosophers normally meant free from false values or free from property concerns and thus self-sufficient; they were also free from concern about others’ opinions of them. The idea of freedom was often bound up with “authority” or “rights” (cf. 8:9); Paul, who calls on his readers to circumscribe their “freedom” (8:9), also sacrifices his own rights (9:4-6, 12, 18).

9:3. Paul’s primary purpose here is to provide an example that will support his exhortations in chapter 8; but for this purpose also offers an “apologetic” (defense) argument. Some well-to-do members of the congregation may have been complaining about Paul’s simple artisan lifestyle, which distinguished him from most traveling teachers and would have put off their social peers (see comment on 9:6). What is a peripheral issue here later becomes central when this group’s dissatisfaction is exploited by other traveling teachers (see comment on 2 Cor 12:13-18).

9:4. Here Paul states a simple right to sustenance; see comment on 9:1-2, 6.

9:5. Jewish *disciples who went away to study under a distant teacher would not bring their wives along (Sifre Deuteronomy 48.2.4-6; but they were rarely gone more than a month, Mishnah Ketubbot 5:6); this was also true of the disciples in the Gospels (though they would rarely need to be away more than a few days at a time before visiting). But just as the rare *Cynic who found a wife willing to share his lifestyle would take her with him (see comment on 7:32-35), so the *apostles eventually took their wives as colaborers. Paul presents himself and Barnabas as exceptions to the general rule that apostles were married.

Although ancient Egyptian and Hebrew (Song of Songs 4:9-12; 5:1) love songs called wives “sisters” as a term of endearment (also Tobit 8:4, 7), the term here simply means a sister in *Christ (i.e., a fellow Christian; thus some translations have “a believing wife,” e.g., NASB, NRSV, KJV).

9:6. Philosophers supported themselves in one of several ways: by attaching themselves to a wealthy *patron, who used them for ostentatious dinner lectures; by charging fees for instruction; by begging (generally despised, but practiced by the Cynics); or, for some least desirable of all, by working as manual laborers. Some philosophers and many Jewish sages valued manual labor. Although artisans normally prided themselves on their own work, aristocrats and those who shared their values despised manual labor. The socially “strong” faction in the *church undoubtedly wish that their founder-teacher did not work.

9:7. The army paid its soldiers. If laborers in secular occupations are paid, why not apostles?

9:8-10. Deuteronomy 25:4 may have communicated a principle that the laborer should be fed; others recognized that such laws related to more general principles of kindness (e.g., *Josephus, Against Apion 2.213; *Philo, Virtues 140, 145). Here Paul may argue in the sense of the common Jewish qal vahomer argument: if for an ox, how much more for a person. Some Jewish teachers felt that God’s teachings about animals were only to teach people principles (cf. *Letter of Aristeas 144).

9:11-12. Paul refuses to use the right to material support lest anyone be offended by the *gospel. Many traveling teachers depended on others for support, and if hearers thought that Paul was such a teacher, they might challenge his motives for preaching the gospel or view him as a *client of the church’s higher-status faction. Philosophers debated among themselves whether they should be concerned about public opinion. Some *Stoics and most Cynics lived as they pleased, arguing that it mattered not what anyone thought; other philosophers felt that they should give no unnecessary cause of offense, because they wanted to draw others to the wisdom of philosophy.

9:13. Priests and Levites were supported by the tithes of the people (cf., e.g., 2 Chron 31:4) but were also entitled to certain portions of the sacrificial food offered on the altar (like priests in many ancient pagan temples).

9:14. Here Paul alludes to a saying of Jesus (Mt 10:10; Lk 10:7; cf. 1 Tim 5:18).

9:15-27

Paul Sacrifices His Rights

Far from pleasing all his hearers (9:19; cf. 10:33) here, Paul’s tactic of identifying with the working-class majority (9:12-15) would offend some aristocratic-minded landowners who, like most of their peers, despised manual labor. His use of populist political imagery in 9:19-23 would further alienate this part of his constituency, which is the financial backbone of the church. Unlike some teachers who were *clients of the wealthy, Paul’s priorities are reaching all people with the gospel, not catering to the elite.

9:15. Self-reliance was a basic characteristic highly extolled among philosophers. *Cynics claimed that their lack of dependence on others made them free (e.g., Crates, Epistles 7; 8; 29); Socrates felt that refusing to charge fees kept him free (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.6). No one could charge them with accommodating their views to maintain financial support. Both Jews and *Gentiles sometimes spoke of death as preferable to some extreme situation (e.g., Jon 4:8; *Cicero, Letters to Atticus 11.9; Letters to Friends 9.11.1; 9.18.2).

9:16. “Woe is me” was a common *Old Testament and Greek phrase uttered by one confronted with terrible news.

9:17-18. Stoic philosophers said that Fate imposed its will whether one accepted it or not; hence one might as well accept it. The Old Testament taught that one must submit to God’s call, even if (as in the case of Moses, Gideon, Isaiah and Jeremiah) one felt unprepared or inadequate for it. The “reward” (9:18) can be translated “wage”; by serving people freely Paul has better payment from God. His “gain” (often translated “win”) would be especially people brought to Christ (9:19-21).

9:19-23. *Rhetoric valued adapting to one’s audience, but the elite disdained those who were too flexible as fickle demagogues who tried to please the masses; they considered such demagogues “slaves.” Still, some valued being “slaves” or “pleasing” others if it kept civil stability. Paul borrows the language of populist politics, undoubtedly offending defenders of the aristocratic element in Corinth. Some Jewish teachers, like (reportedly) *Hillel, similarly accommodated their hearers wherever possible, to win as many as possible to the truth (cf. also the figure in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.41).

9:24-25. Philosophers (followed by *Diaspora Jewish sources like *Philo and *4 Maccabees) commonly used athletic illustrations to describe their striving for truth and wise living. Paul portrays the discipline and self-sacrifice necessary to live the Christian life through the analogy of races (9:24-26a) and boxing (9:26b-27). (The footrace preceded the other four athletic contests of the pentathlon in the Panhellenic Games.) The clause “but only one receives the prize” (a head wreath, which would eventually rot) emphasizes how hard one had to work to win the race. (A long period of intense discipline was mandatory for any who planned to participate in the events. For instance, participants for the Olympic games had to swear by Zeus to follow ten months of strict training beforehand.)

Corinth itself hosted major games for all Greece every two years on the isthmus; these were the best-attended Greek festivals next to the Olympic games, which were held every four years. The withered celery or pine garland was awarded at these Isthmian games (wild olive at the Olympic, parsley at the Nemean, etc.). Some others already used “crowns” (garlands) figuratively.

9:26-27. Boxing was one of the major competitions at Greek games (but not part of the pentathlon, mentioned above); boxers wore leather gloves covering most of the forearm except the fingers, and boxing was a violent sport. The pankration further mixed boxing with wrestling, forbidding only gouging and biting. Shadowboxing or “beating the air” was insufficient preparation for a real boxing competition; a boxer had to discipline his body better than that to win. In the same way, Paul had to discipline his life to sacrifice what he needed to sacrifice for the sake of the gospel, lest he himself be disqualified from the race and fall short of the wreath of *eternal life (9:25).

10:1-13

Israel’s History as a Warning

Having established that those who eat idol meat ought to lay down their rights, Paul now proceeds to an argument from Scripture: the Corinthian Christians’ sexual immorality and associations with idolatry were no different from those of ancient Israel and in the same way invited the judgment of God. Paul’s conclusions might surprise his readers, but his style of argument would not: ancient teachers relied heavily on past examples, especially from sacred books; Judaism naturally drew its examples from the Scriptures.

10:1-2. Some later Jewish teachers also drew parallels between the Red Sea and Jewish *proselyte *baptism. Paul parallels the experience of salvation in the first exodus and salvation in Jesus to show that salvation does not render one invulnerable to falling (10:6-12). (Jewish people were awaiting a new exodus, promised by the prophets for the time of the *Messiah.) For the comparison, he employs Christian language: baptism “into Moses” recalls baptism “into Christ” (12:13).

10:3-4. Again, the Israelites in the wilderness had sacred food and drink, as the Corinthians do (10:16), but that did not save them (10:6-12). Because the rock sustained Israel in multiple locations (Ex 17:6; Num 20:8), in some Jewish traditions the well followed the Israelites in the wilderness (*Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 11:15; some *rabbis). In Paul’s *midrashic application, what the rock did for Israel corresponds to what *Christ did for the Corinthians; Paul undoubtedly connects the life-giving rock with God as Israel’s rock in Deuteronomy 32:13 (a context still fresh in his mind in 1 Cor 10:20, 22). Other Jewish teachers compared the rock with Wisdom (*Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 2.86).

10:5. Jewish teachers generally regarded early deaths as signs of God’s judgment (in their view scholars of the *law, for whom God had a higher standard, could be so judged even for failing to study the law diligently enough).

10:6. The events recorded in the law were meant as a sign or warning to others (Num 26:10). The Israelites’ evil desires consisted in desiring “better” food than the manna, the spiritual food God had provided (Num 11:4-6, 20, 33); they wanted meat (Num 11:18; cf. comment on 8:7).

10:7. See Exodus 32:4, 6. Just as Israel had once eaten in God’s presence (Ex 24:11), so in Exodus 32:6 they ate and drank before an idol whom they called God. Later rabbis considered this the most embarrassing episode in Israel’s history (eventually some even found ways to blame it on the *Gentiles traveling with the Israelites); *Josephus omits it in his account. Jewish interpreters rightly took “play” in this text to mean idolatry.

10:8. The Israelite men had unmarried sex with Midianite women, who were acting as cultic prostitutes (Num 25:1-8; 31:16), and God sent a plague in judgment (Num 25:9). Jewish traditions unanimously report that twenty-four thousand died, as does the *Old Testament text; perhaps Paul midrashically mixes this number with an allusion to the three thousand killed in an earlier judgment (Ex 32:28, the judgment for the sin in 1 Cor 10:7). But ancient writers would not have lingered or expressed concern over this sort of detail, although it has exercised modern readers (who usually suggest either a major mistake or that the other thousand died the next day).

10:9-11. Relevant to 10:3-4, Israel “tested” God by complaining about the water (Ex 17:2, 7; Deut 6:16) and food (Ps 78:18) he provided. Israel complained against God and his agent Moses (Ex 16:7-12; 17:3; Num 11:1; 14:27-29; 16:41). Jewish traditions lament Israel’s complaining in the wilderness. God did not “destroy” his people during these initial tests, but after they continued to test him he pronounced judgment (Num 14:22-23), striking more directly when they complained in Numbers 21:5-6. The “destroyer” was the one who also destroyed the firstborn of Egypt (the wording in Ex 12:23; cf. Wisdom of Solomon 18:25; Heb 11:28). Philosophers also warned against grumbling, noting that one ought to accept whatever the gods and Fate would send.

10:12-13. Ancient teachers often pointed out that adversities come to everyone and that one should not be proud but submit to what comes one’s way. Ancient writers often exhorted those who suffered that this experience was common to people in general. But whereas pagan writers emphasized human will, Paul emphasizes God’s faithfulness.

10:14-23

Idol Meat Supports Demons

Here Paul gives a religious argument against eating meat offered to idols. As God’s temple was diametrically opposed to prostitution (6:15, 19), Christ’s table was diametrically opposed to the table of idols (10:14-22).

10:14. “Fleeing” vices was a fairly frequent moral exhortation in antiquity (cf. 6:18).

10:15. Ancient speeches and letters of admonition often opened with a compliment designed to secure the favor of the audience (although Paul could be ironic here); they also sometimes appealed to hearers to judge for themselves.

10:16-17. To honor pagan gods in Greek religious ceremonies, small libations of wine would be poured out of cups before people drank from them. But here “cup” and “bread” allude to the Passover meal, which was celebrated in the Lord’s Supper (11:23-26). Not only at the Passover meal but at meals in general the head of the Jewish household would say a blessing (thanks) over a cup of wine. Some commentators report that the last cup at the end of the meal was called the “cup of blessing.” On the “body,” see comment on 12:12-26.

10:18. The priests ate some parts of the offerings in the temple; other kinds of offerings (such as the Passover lamb, which Paul also considers a sacrifice—5:7) were eaten by the rest of the people. One must not share in offerings to the true God while also sharing in offerings to false ones.

10:19-20. Like Isaiah, Paul says that physical idols are nothing (cf. Is 44:12-20; 45:20-25; 46:1-11). But like most of the *Old Testament passages that mention *demons (at least in their Greek rendering—Lev 17:7; Deut 32:17, 37-39; Ps 106:28, 37) and most subsequent Jewish and Christian literature apart from most later rabbis, Paul believes that false gods seeking human worship are demons (e.g., *Jubilees 1:11; 22:16-17; *1 Enoch 19:1; Sifre Deuteronomy 318.2.1-2). Paul quotes a line from Deuteronomy 32:17.

10:21. Pagans spoke of the offering tables of their gods (e.g., the table of Serapis); most ancient Near Eastern temples had been equipped with such tables. The Old Testament uses the expression “table of the Lord” for the place of offerings (e.g., Mal 1:7, 12; in Ex 25:30, the bread eaten by priests was there; cf. 1 Cor 9:13). Table fellowship connoted intimate relations. By repeating the form, “you cannot . . . and . . . ,” Paul reiterates his point in a way that *rhetorically sensitive ancient audiences appreciated.

10:22. Paul again provides a rhetorical objection against his own position, but his readers who are familiar with the Old Testament know that the Lord is a jealous God who allows the worship of no other gods (e.g., Deut 32:17, 21; see comment on 10:19-20). “Provoking” probably alludes to Deuteronomy 32:21 (cf. Baruch 4:7, also echoing Deut 32:17, 21).

10:23. Greek teachers used criteria like “usefulness” to determine whether to undertake actions. Paul raises a rhetorical objection (“Everything is allowed”) and then answers it (“But not everything is helpful”), as was common in ancient moral teaching.

10:24–11:1

Instructions for the Sake of Others

10:24. Not only Jesus’ early followers but also many other ancient moralists would have agreed with this exhortation.

10:25. Whatever meat was left over from sacrifices was taken to the meat market in the large agora in Corinth (not far from where Paul had once worked—Acts 18:3). Not all meat in this market had been offered to idols, but some of it had. In comparatively large cities, Jewish people were often allowed to have their own markets so they could avoid such food (some scholars speculate that a recent wave of anti-Jewish prejudice could have recently closed the one in Corinth). In other cities, they would ask about the source of the meat.

Jewish teachers considered inadvertent sins “light,” though the scrupulous might not have been satisfied with Paul’s “What you don’t know won’t hurt you” here. Because most people could not afford to buy meat very often, subsisting instead on fish and grain, Paul here addresses especially the more well-to-do in the congregation.

10:26. Here Paul quotes Psalm 24:1, which extolled the majesty and greatness of God; he was the only true and living God, and everything belonged to him, not to idols or *demons. Jewish teachers, possibly as early as Paul, used this text to prove the need to give thanks at meals.

10:27-29. Most temples had their own dining halls, and people were invited to meals “at the table of Serapis” and other pagan gods. The meat at these meals would obviously have been offered to idols. But people were also invited to banquets in wealthy homes, where they could not be certain of the meat’s source. Jewish people who avoided impure foods (like pork) were virtually excluded from such banquets, but they did not look down on *Gentiles who ate pork as long as they abstained from idols. Jewish people had sometimes faced martyrdom to avoid eating impure foods, and they would expect Gentiles who claimed to believe in God at least to avoid food that had certainly been offered to idols.

10:30. Paul cites another possible objection (see comment on 10:22). Like Jewish people, Christians always offered thanks over their food before the meal (at least later, pious Palestinian Jewish homes also offered thanks after the meal).

10:31. For a believer, personal “rights” (10:23, 29) are not the highest value. Some Jewish teachers emphasized that everything should be done for the sake of God, as Paul does here; some philosophers argued that one should invest one’s life only in that which is of eternal significance. In the *Old Testament, God clearly desired his people to live wholly for him (Deut 6:4-5; Ps 63:1). Paul regards such convictions as appropriate and applies them to the credibility of the *gospel (1 Cor 10:32-33).

10:32-33. Speakers and writers often recapitulated their message at the end of a section. See comment on 9:19-23. Jews and some Christians were offended by eating idol food; Gentiles would likely see the act as tolerating their gods. For seeking the welfare of the many, cf. also 2 Maccabees 4:5.

11:1. Paul had already presented himself (chap. 9) as an example of this principle, which he articulates in 10:32-33 and exemplifies in 10:33–11:1; people often cited the lifestyles of philosophers or other sages as models.

11:2-16

Head Coverings and Sexual Modesty

Paul returns to the topic of food and a deity in 11:17-34 (cf. chaps. 8–10), but here he digresses briefly to address another issue of decorum in the Corinthian *church in which the free should surrender their rights (11:10). *Digressions were standard in ancient literature.

Earlier Athenians tended to segregate women in the home; current Corinthian culture would include more contemporary Roman influence, where wives sometimes even attended banquets with their husbands. Nevertheless, in general public activity was a predominantly male sphere and homes a predominantly female sphere; house churches intersected these boundaries, creating more ambiguous social space. Women’s hair was a common object of lust in antiquity (e.g., *Apuleius, Metamorphoses 2.8; Sifre Numbers 11.2.1-3), and in much of the eastern Mediterranean married women were expected to cover their hair (for Jewish women, see *Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 3.270; *Philo, Special Laws 3.56; Mishnah Bava Qamma 8:6; Mishnah Ketubbot 7:6). To fail to cover their hair was thought to provoke male lust as a bathing suit is thought to provoke it in some cultures today. Head covering prevailed in Judea (where in conservative homes it extended even to a face veil) and elsewhere, but upper-class Roman women eager to show off their fashionable hairstyles did not practice it. Thus Paul must address a clash of culture in the Corinthian church between upper-class fashion and lower-class concern that sexual propriety is being violated.

Thus Paul provides a series of brief arguments, each of which relates directly to the culture he addresses. Some of his arguments do not work well in every culture (he himself seems eager to guard against them being misapplied—11:11-12), but it is the Corinthian women, not modern women, whom he wishes to persuade to cover their heads.

11:2. Letters were often written to “praise” or “blame” the recipients; sometimes these points characterized the entire letter in which they occurred. “Traditions” (NASB, NRSV) were accounts or regulations passed on orally; for instance, *Pharisees in Palestine transmitted their special traditions in this way.

11:3-4. Ancient writers often based arguments on wordplays. Paul uses “head” literally (for the part of the body to be covered, on top the neck) and figuratively (possibly for the authority figure in the ancient household). (Some commentators have argued that “head” means not “authority” but “source”—see 11:12—or most honored part—see 11:4-7—but these questions are vigorously debated and cannot be decided here.) On head coverings for women, see the introduction to this section. Women did not lead prayers in most *synagogues, and Jewish tradition tended to play down *Old Testament prophetesses; Paul’s churches allow considerably more freedom for women’s speaking. This may be partly because of early Christians’ distinctive emphasis on current and pervasive prophetic inspiration; even Greeks, who often demanded women’s silence, made exceptions for women speaking by inspiration, but Christians expected such inspiration regularly in their gatherings. The preference for men uncovering their heads may reflect regional culture: Greeks (the dominant custom in the eastern Mediterranean) bared their heads for worship, although Romans (the official culture in this Roman *colony) covered them. (This custom was not divided along gender lines.)

11:5-6. Paul uses the ancient debate principle of reductio ad absurdum: If they are so concerned to bare their heads, why not also remove the natural covering, their hair? Paul thereby reduces their insistence to what his contemporaries would consider absurd: the greatest physical shame for a woman was to be shaved or have her hair cut like a man’s. This appearance would also serve the opposite purpose of uncovered hair: it was not deemed attractive.

11:7. Paul here begins an argument from the order of creation. He cannot be denying that women are also the image of God (Gen 1:27 and 5:1-2 plainly state that both male and female were created in God’s image; cf. 1 Cor 15:49; Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18). But because woman was taken from man (Gen 2:21-22), he may argue that woman reflects the image via the first man (but see comment on 11:11-12). Perhaps he means that women’s uncovered heads are drawing men’s attention to humanity instead of to God.

11:8-9. According to Genesis 2:18 God created woman distinct from man partly so that man would no longer be alone; the phrase there translated “helper suitable” praises woman’s strength rather than subordinates her. (“Helper” is used more often of God than of anyone else in the Old Testament; “suitable” means “corresponding” or “appropriate to,” as an equal in contrast to the animals.) Woman was thus created because man needed her strength, not (as some have wrongly interpreted this verse) to be his servant.

11:10. Here Paul says literally, “she ought to have authority on/over her own head because of the angels”; some think Paul could mean that she should exercise wisely her right to decide whether to cover her head in a way that will honor her husband (11:8-9), given the situation with “the angels.” In any case, the “angels” have been interpreted as (1) the angels who (according to ancient Jewish interpretations of Gen 6:1-3) lusted after women and so fell (see comment on 2 Pet 2:4; but they produced giants, not the likely threat here); (2) the angels present in divine worship, who would be offended by a breach of propriety or affront to the husbands (cf. *Dead Sea Scrolls 1QSa 2.3-9; 1QM 7.5-6); and (3) the angels who rule the nations but who will ultimately be subordinate to all believers, including these women (1 Cor 6:3; i.e., as a future ruler a Christian woman or man should exercise wise choices in the present, even regarding apparel).

11:11-12. Paul qualifies his preceding argument from creation (11:7-10); he wants to prove his case about head coverings, but recognizes that women and men are mutually interdependent (cf. also 7:2-5). For men coming from women, see 1 Esdras 4:15-17 (cf. 4:14, 22). Such expressions of mutuality tend to appear among the more progressive of ancient writers on the topic of gender (e.g., Musonius Rufus 12, p. 86.33-38; 14, p. 92.38–94.1).

11:13-15. Ancient writers, especially *Stoic philosophers, liked to make arguments from nature. Nature taught them, they said, that only men could grow beards; women’s hair naturally seemed to grow longer than men’s. Like all urban dwellers, Paul is well aware of exceptions to the rule (barbarians, statues of philosophers and heroes of the epic past, and Paul would also know of biblical Nazirites); but the “nature” argument could appeal to the general order of creation as it was experienced by his readers.

11:16. Paul reserves one final argument for those unpersuaded by his former points. One philosophical group called the Skeptics rejected all arguments except an almost universally accepted one: the argument from custom—“that’s just not the way it’s done.”

11:17-34

Factionalized Fellowship

Despite Greek ideals of equality, even for banquets, ancient seating at public events was arranged according to rank, usually including at banquets. The churches in Corinth met especially in well-to-do *patrons’ homes (see comment on Acts 18:6-7). In Greco-Roman society, patrons often seated members of their own high social class in the special triclinium (the best room), ideally reclining about nine diners, but more would be possible depending on the room’s size and the seating arrangements. If more space were needed, others could be served in the larger atrium (which might comfortably seat an estimated forty persons, again depending on the size of the room and seating arrangements). Guests further from the host received (or brought) inferior food and inferior wine, and *clients often complained about where their patrons had seated them (cf. *Seneca, Epistle to Lucilius 4; *Juvenal, Satire 4.15-18, 24-25, 37-79, 146-58; Martial 3.49; 4.85; 12.28; Lk 14:8-10). (Common meals even at *Qumran included seating by rank; 1Q28a 2.21.) This societal problem spilled over into the church.

The background for the meal itself is the Jewish Passover meal, a sacred meal and celebration commemorating redemption; see comment on Matthew 26:17-30. But most Corinthian believers seem to have lost sight of this background; they treat the meal as a festal banquet such as they knew from Greek festivals or meetings of Greek religious associations.

11:17-19. Paul could praise the Corinthians on some points (see comment on 11:2) but not on this one; like division by ethnic or cultural bias (see introduction to Romans), division by social class is contrary to the *gospel. Some scholars argue that 11:18 resembles *rhetorical dissimulatio, that is, mock disbelief meant to shame the hearers into recognizing how terrible their behavior is.

11:20. On the “Lord’s Supper,” see the “Lord’s table” in 10:21. Paul ironically contrasts the Lord’s Supper (11:20) and their own (11:21).

11:21-22. Some are treated more honorably than others at the meal, and this treatment reflects the status values of the world. See the introduction to this section. Some scholars suggest that some taking their meal before others (11:21) refers to slaves and other workers who could not come as early as the more well-to-do with more leisure.

11:23. “Received” and “delivered” (KJV, NASB) were used together especially for passing on traditions (11:2; 15:3; cf., e.g., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.297, 408). Some later *rabbis spoke of traditions received “from Sinai” or “from Moses”; although they believed they received them by means of their own predecessors, they meant that the tradition ultimately went back to Moses (e.g., Mishnah Pe’ah 2:6; Eduyyot 8:7; Yadayim 4:3). Paul probably means that earlier *disciples told him about the Last Supper. It took place at “night,” as the Passover meal always did.

11:24-25. Covenants were usually ratified by blood (cf. “the blood of the covenant,” Ex 24:8); God had promised a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31; cf. Lk 22:20). The unleavened Passover bread was normally interpreted figuratively as “the bread of affliction that our ancestors ate” in Moses’ time; Jesus had applied it to himself (see comment on Mk 14:22-24). Pagans sometimes ate funerary meals “in remembrance of” a dead person, but the sense here is as in the *Old Testament, where the Passover commemorated God’s redemptive acts in history (e.g., Ex 12:14; 13:3; Deut 16:2-3; *Jubilees 49:15). As in the Passover ritual (cf. the principle in Deut 26:5), the “you” applied to all future generations; Jewish people believed that their commemoration/partial reenactment allowed them to share the experience of their ancestors. Greek banquets included a drinking party after the primary meal, also with entertainment, which could include music, lectures, readings or conversation; Paul speaks of the cup “after supper” and may also expect study of Scripture at that time.

11:26. “Until he comes” is the temporal limitation on the Lord’s Supper that goes back to Jesus as well (Mk 14:25). Passover celebrations looked forward to the future redemption of Israel (Tosefta Berakhot 1:10-11) as well as backward to how God had redeemed them in the exodus of Moses’ day. Jewish people expected an *eschatological banquet when God would reward his people (cf. Is 25:6, 8; *2 Baruch 29:4).

11:27-29. Associations normally had rules to prevent and discipline abuses such as drunken quarrels, but here God is the avenger. “Eating in an unworthy manner” here refers to the status-conscious eating that is dividing the church (11:21-22). By rejecting or looking down on other members of Christ’s body, the church (10:17), they also reject the saving gift of his body represented by the bread (11:24).

11:30-34. Jewish teachers stressed that in this world God punished the righteous for their few sins, but in the world to come he would punish the wicked for their many sins; thus Jewish teachers believed that suffering could free one from later punishment. Paul agrees at least that suffering can be the Lord’s discipline; the idea here might be that when the church does not embrace all its members, gifts of healings are inhibited (12:9). Paul distinguishes between meetings of the house congregations and, in 11:34, personal use of the home, where believers might have more freedom to follow their cultures’ traditions.

12:1-3

Qualifying the Gifts

Because Christian gifts like *prophecy are given by God’s *Spirit (in both the *Old Testament and the *New Testament), cultural background is less important here than in some parts of 1 Corinthians (e.g., on head coverings or holy kisses). But it can help the modern reader appreciate how the first readers might have viewed the functioning of some of the gifts in their culture.

For “now concerning,” see comment on 7:1. Paul indicates that prophesying is not necessarily a sign of godliness; pagans prophesied too, and at Greek oracular shrines possessed persons prophesied ecstatically, inspired by gods other than the Christian God. Although some reported that interest in oracles had declined in this period, oracles and other forms of divination remained a strong influence on pagan culture. Paul can thus point to some of his hearers’ former behavior in paganism as a warning that ecstatic activity by itself cannot constitute proof that they are obeying God. (Verse 3 probably hypothetically contrasts two extreme examples of evil and true utterances.)

12:4-11

Diverse Gifts

12:4-6. Paul’s (here proto-trinitarian) triple repetition of the same thought in three ways (“there are varieties of . . . but the same . . . ”) reinforces his point in a way that rhetorically sensitive ancient audiences would have appreciated (in *rhetoric, anaphora began successive clauses the same way). Paul emphasizes that all the gifts are different but all are useful; hence a Christian with one gift is not more or less important than another Christian with a different gift.

12:7-11. In ancient rhetoric, writers sometimes framed an important point by repeating a thought before and after it; here, 12:7 and 11 frame the list in 12:8-10, emphasizing that it is the Spirit that enables these ministries. Ancient audiences valued repetition, and often (as here) offered random lists. Given the use of “word,” “wisdom” and “knowledge” (12:8) earlier in 1 Corinthians, here these terms surely refer to God’s providing speaking ability and teaching (see comment on 1:5). (Some modern readers have taken these terms to refer to supernaturally revealed knowledge. Although supernaturally revealed knowledge is often illustrated by prophets in the *Old Testament and may be considered a form of the gift of prophecy, it is not likely Paul’s point in mentioning “knowledge” here; cf. 8:1; 13:8-9, 12.)

Some magicians sought to perform healings and other extraordinary acts (12:9-10) and more often people sought cures at shrines of Asclepius (including at Epidauros near Corinth) or sometimes Serapis (with two shrines in Corinth). Outside the early *churches, however, there are no ancient parallels to these events as a regular occurrence within a local congregation. The gift of “discerning spirits” was particularly useful for judging prophecy (cf. 14:29; 1 Jn 4:1). Although ecstatic babbling occurs in some pagan cultures today, the ancient Mediterranean has little evidence of this phenomenon and no useful parallel to “tongues” (inspired worship in a language one does not know—14:2) or inspired “interpretation” of tongues (the term can mean either translation or communication of the general sense).

12:12-26

All Members of the Body Are Necessary

12:12. Paul adapts an image commonly used for the Roman state or for the universe and applies it to the church (as in Rom 12:3-5). When the plebeians (the lower class in earlier Rome) had proposed revolt, the aristocrat Menenius Agrippa convinced them that although they were less noticeable members (like the stomach), they were necessary; the upper and lower classes had different roles but equal importance (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquities of Rome 6.86.1-5; *Livy, History of Rome 2.32.9-12). This argument was mere aristocratic sophistry to keep the masses down; but after him other writers, especially *Stoic philosophers, borrowed the image. Many continued to apply it to the state (cf., e.g., *Cicero, On the Republic 3.25.37; Orationes philippicae 8.5.15). Stoics even said that the universe was like a body, and God’s logos, or reason, was the mind or head that directed it (cf., e.g., *Seneca, Epistle to Lucilius 95.52; *Epictetus, Diatribes 1.12.26). Paul here refers to the unity of the body not to keep one group down but to tell all the Christians in Corinth to respect and appreciate one another. Just as a solitary eye or foot is useless, so is any member of the church apart from other Christians. Identifying the body with *Christ in 12:12 fits ancient figures of speech such as metonymy or synecdoche; it emphasizes the close connection (but does not deify the church).

12:13. Although the drinking here probably alludes to the rock of Christ in 10:4, ancient hearers might also think of drinking from Wisdom (Sirach 24:21; cf. Jn 4:14).

12:14-21. In a way pleasing for rhetorically sensitive ancient hearers, Paul reinforces his point through repetition (12:14, 18-20). In 12:15-16 and 21 he uses the graphic rhetorical device prosopopoiia, in which inanimate objects (here, parts of the body) speak. In some other ancient analogies, “eyes” fill a prominent role.

12:22-24. Men did not usually cover their prominent parts, such as their heads, but their private parts and perhaps (as in Menenius’s fable above) their stomachs. One could argue that these covered parts receive special treatment.

12:25-26. Ancient moralists emphasized that true friends would share the other’s sorrows and joys.

12:27-31

Different Gifts Again

12:27-28. Ancient speakers liked lists (cf. 12:8-10), which drove home a point by repeated examples. “First . . . second . . . third” was normally a designation of rank; most of the gifts after the first three could be listed randomly (although perhaps placing tongues last because of the abuse of them in Corinth; cf. 1 Cor 14).

12:29-30. For lists, see comment on 12:27-28. Ancient hearers outside the church would consider it extraordinary that any person in a given congregation has some of these gifts, such as *prophecy or miracles, which were considered rare. The term translated “*apostles” probably means “commissioned messengers,” backed by the full authority of the sender so long as they represented his message properly; although some philosophers considered themselves messengers of the gods and Jewish people often viewed the *Old Testament prophets in this light, early Christians respected this position as a present role in the church. See comment on Eph 4:11.

12:31. Ancient writers sometimes digressed (as in chap. 13) and sometimes framed special material by returning to a point (12:31; 14:1). The greatest gifts (also 14:1) are defined by the need of the rest of the body (chap. 13). Most Jewish people believed that only a very small number of the very pious could do miracles; the idea that any believer could seek God for whatever gifts are most useful for his people was extraordinary. Early Christians democratized the supernatural—they believed God could work actively in each believer’s daily life.

13:1-3

Nothing Without Love

Some regard this chapter as poetic; it does not have the meter of Greek poetry, but does fit a form of exalted prose (grand or sublime *rhetoric). This chapter resembles praises of various virtues elsewhere in Greco-Roman literature; one of three kinds of epideictic (praise) rhetoric was an encomium praising a person or subject, with some virtue being a common topic (cf. similarly Heb 11:3-31). That Paul chooses this particular virtue above all others is not dependent on his culture—many ancients valued love, but it is specifically in early Christian literature that it appears regularly as the supreme virtue (given Jesus’ teaching, Mk 12:30-31; Jn 13:34-35). As a brief *digression between 12:31 and 14:1 (digressions were common in ancient literature), this chapter explains the way to evaluate which gifts are “greater.”

13:1. The varied but threefold repetition of, “If I . . . but do not have love” is rhetorical anaphora, reinforcing the point; the similar endings of the claims are also rhetorical reinforcement. In some Jewish traditions, angels preferred to speak Hebrew, but most Jewish people would have agreed that angels understood human languages, especially since angels were appointed over various nations. Paul could believe that there are angelic languages in addition to human ones, in which case he would be saying, “Though I be so fluent in tongues that I could speak every conceivable language . . . ” (Job’s daughters at the end of the *Testament of Job spoke ecstatically in angelic tongues as they were inspired to think heavenly things; but it is not clear whether this text is pre-Pauline or was added by a tongues-speaking Christian in the second century.) But this could also simply be *hyperbole.

Although cymbals were used in some pagan worship (as well as in Jewish worship), the point of Paul’s comparison is undoubtedly simply that, though loud, by themselves they communicate nothing (like some rhetoricians in his day). Corinth was famous for its expensive gold- or silver-colored “bronze”; bronze vases (the Greek does not specify “gongs,” as in most translations) were often used for amplifiers in the outdoor theaters of this period, though the term could apply to any bronze object that could produce loud noise.

13:2-3. “Moving mountains” seems to have been a figure of speech for doing the impossible (cf. comment on Mk 11:23; cf. Zech 4:7). Jesus spoke of moving mountains, giving up possessions and even one’s life (Mk 11:23; 8:34-38; 10:21-31); without love, however, these are nothing. The earliest manuscripts read, “that I may boast,” but the other reading, “to be burned” could allude to some Jewish traditions of martyrs (cf. 2 Maccabees 7:5; *4 Maccabees 6:26-27; 7:12; 10:14).

13:4-13

What Love Is

13:4-7. A rhetorically sensitive ancient audience would appreciate the repetition and fleshing out with examples. In Greek, many of the words (all of them in 13:4) end with vowels (most often ei or ai); in 13:6, “unrighteousness” and “truth” each begin and end with a. Most forceful is the fourfold anaphoric repetition of “all” (first in the Greek) and then a verb ending in ei in 13:7. The point of Paul’s rhetorically polished description of love is its contrast to what he has earlier said about the attitudes of the Corinthians. See comment on 13:1-3.

13:8-13. Writers sometimes framed sections with a special point, here that love lasts forever (13:8, which is transitional, and 13:13). Greek thinkers valued especially what was eternal. As in verses 1-3, Paul demonstrates here that love is a greater virtue than the gifts; in this case it is because love is eternal, whereas the gifts are temporary. In 13:8, Paul’s rhetorically sensitive hearers would appreciate the threefold anaphoric repetition of “if there are” (NRSV: “as for”) and similar closings.

In contrast to most Greeks, Jewish people envisioned a decisive, future climax to history. Some *Old Testament prophets predicted the outpouring of the *Spirit in the final time, accompanied by ability to speak under the Spirit’s inspiration (Joel 2:28); but other prophecies noted that all of God’s people in the world to come would know God, hence there would be no reason for exhortation (Jer 31:33-34). Paul believes that the time of the Spirit’s gifts, including limited human knowledge, is the current time, between Jesus’ first and second comings (cf. 13:10, 12).

Around age thirteen (at least in later Jewish tradition) or around sixteen (more often for Romans), boys would enter manhood; at that time a Roman boy would replace his childhood toga with an all-white adult toga. Mirrors (13:12) were often made of bronze, and given the worldwide renown of Corinthian bronze (e.g., Pausanias 2.3.3), would perhaps strike the Corinthians as a locally prominent product (also 2 Cor 3:18). But even the best mirrors reflected images imperfectly (some philosophers thus used mirrors as an analogy to describe mortals’ searching for the deity). Other prophets saw God enigmatically, but Moses saw him face to face (Num 12:6-8; cf. Ex 33:11; Deut 34:10); the future revelation will be complete.

14:1-20

Intelligible Versus Unintelligible Speech

Because Christian gifts like *prophecy are given by God’s *Spirit, cultural background is less important here than on some parts of 1 Corinthians (e.g., on women’s head coverings in 11:2-16). But it can help the modern reader appreciate how the first readers might have viewed the functioning of some of the gifts in their culture.

Although Paul is clearly not against speaking in tongues (14:5, 18), he emphasizes that the value of gifts must be judged by their utility in any given setting; intelligible speech profits others in public worship, whereas unintelligible speech, no matter how inspired, is profitable only privately or if interpreted. Many believed that divine inspiration displaced rational thought (see e.g., Lucan, Civil War 5.97-193; throughout *Philo, Drunkenness), but Paul allows for inspiration to work with reason in prophecy and not necessarily to displace it in tongues. The term for “tongues” normally means simply “languages” (as in 13:1), but it is clear here (14:2, 14) that the person inspired to pray in these other languages does not know the languages; as in Acts, this gift presupposes a supernatural enabling.

14:1-3. In the *Old Testament, prophecy also served the functions Paul lists here: “edification” or building up (and tearing down, e.g., Jer 1:10, where God’s word overthrows and restores nations); “exhortation” (KJV, NASB; cf. “encouragement”—NIV, NRSV, GNT), which can include reproof; and nearly all Old Testament prophets, no matter how focused on judgment, included a message of “consolation” (NASB, NRSV) or “comfort” (NIV, KJV, GNT) and hope.

14:4-5. Paul’s wish that all could prophesy (cf. Num 11:29) is probably realistic, at least potentially; God had promised to enable all his people to prophesy once the time of the end (inaugurated by Jesus, according to the *New Testament) had come (Joel 2:28). If tongues were interpreted, they could also serve as a form of inspired speech useful to the *church.

14:6-7. Intelligibility is the key to edifying others (14:6-12). Paul mentions here the two primary musical instruments of antiquity: the “pipe” (KJV; most translations render this “flute”), a wind instrument that sounded like an oboe and often had two pipes from the mouthpiece and was common in religious and emotional music; the “harp,” a stringed instrument, was considered more harmonious and often accompanied singing. Although such instruments as in 14:7-8 did not have language, they could communicate meaning; for example, flute melodies could give instructions to flocks, and trumpets regularly signaled armies.

14:8-9. “Trumpets” or “bugles” were used to call armies to battle, to march and so forth; an uncertain trumpeting would confuse the soldiers (14:8).

14:10-12. Greeks traditionally looked down on non-Greeks as “barbarians” or “foreigners,” calling them “barbarians” because they spoke “strange” (i.e., non-Greek) languages, but even those who did not believe in the superiority of Greeks divided the world into “Greeks and barbarians” (e.g., Rom 1:14), often on the basis of ethnicity but sometimes on the basis of language. (Sometimes even slips in speaking Greek or different accents were called “barbaric.”) Paul simply observes that those who cannot communicate intelligibly may each view the other as an alien (14:11).

14:13-14. The Jewish philosopher Philo described divine inspiration as God possessing his prophets and completely overwhelming their rational faculties during the period of inspiration (e.g., Who Is the Heir? 264-65), a view often held by *Gentiles (e.g., Euripides, Bacchae 298-99; Virgil, Aeneid 6.77-102). By contrast, Paul believes that prophetic inspiration relates to the rational faculties (as does interpretation); even with regard to glossolalia or inspired tongues, which are the prayers of a different, nonrational component of human nature, Paul does not indicate that the mind is forced to be inactive. Paul values both kinds of worship and both components of human nature. (In modern terms, these components of human nature are perhaps similar to the affective and cognitive components.)

14:15. “Charismatic” worship—that is, worship inspired by the *Spirit—was also practiced by the schools of the prophets in the Old Testament (1 Sam 10:5; cf. 2 Kings 3:15); transferred to worship in what became the temple (1 Chron 25:1-5), it generated many of the psalms in the book of Psalms (cf. 2 Chron 29:30). Although worship in tongues had not been practiced in the Old Testament, inspired worship in a more general sense had been.

14:16-17. Roman officials followed standard prayers exactly; Jewish services allowed more freedom. Paul here anticipates spontaneity in prayer and does not even object to public prayer in tongues (“by one’s spirit”), provided that it is interpreted. “Amen” was the standard Jewish response to an agreeable benediction.

14:18-19. In *synagogues, those who prayed could not always do publicly as they did in private; Paul likewise distinguishes between private and public practice of tongues (ten thousand is the largest number in Greek and commonly used as *hyperbole for large numbers). Even so, he clearly does not forbid it in public (14:39), as long as there is an interpreter (14:28).

14:20. See comments on 3:1-2 and 14:21.

14:21-25

Effects on Visitors of Intelligible and Unintelligible Speech

14:21. Here Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11, which in context refers to a sign of judgment; because his people could hear nothing else, God would speak to them through judgment by the Assyrians (cf. Is 33:19; Deut 28:49). The preceding context of this quotation is Israel acting like infants (Is 28:9-10), relevant in view of 14:20. (Many Jewish teachers used “*law” loosely to refer to anything in the *Old Testament; later it was even applied to earlier Jewish traditions.)

14:22. On one view, Paul here refers to tongues as a sign of judgment that causes nonbelievers to stumble (cf. 14:21); on another, Paul quotes the Corinthians in 14:22 and refutes them in 14:23-25 (cf. 6:12-14).

14:23-25. *Prophecy was a known phenomenon in the ancient world, whereas the gift of tongues was not (or at least, any parallels to it were extremely rare); ancients respected prophecy, but if they did not know beforehand to expect speaking in tongues, they would not know what was happening (cf. Acts 2:13). Perhaps Paul would not object to a whole group simultaneously worshiping charismatically under other circumstances (e.g., Acts 2:4-21; cf. 1 Sam 10:5; 19:20); but not in the Corinthian house churches where unbelievers could be alienated. Outsiders bowing and acknowledging God probably recalls Isaiah 45:14.

14:26-33

Regulations to Keep Order

That Paul had spent over a year and a half with them (Acts 18:11, 18) and had apparently not told them these rules before suggests that these rules are directed toward the specific situation in Corinth. The rules necessary to keep worship edifying to everyone might vary from one culture and setting to another, but the principle of keeping it edifying to everyone is much more universal. Some ancients acted in ecstatic frenzy when they claimed to be inspired; Paul believes that inspiration can be channeled in disciplined ways.

14:26. Although prayer in the synagogues may have been more spontaneous in Paul’s day than later, he advocates more individual participation here than would have been natural in other worship settings of his day. We should keep in mind, however, that the house churches in Corinth probably each comprised at the most only fifty members. Psalms were used regularly in Jewish worship (here Paul may mean either biblical psalms or newly composed ones; some postbiblical ones appear at *Qumran), as was teaching; but the revelations, tongues and interpretations are distinctly Christian features of worship.

14:27. Order was very important in lecture settings and public assemblies in antiquity, as is clear from the frequent practice of seating according to rank. In *Essene assemblies, one had to have permission to speak, and one spoke in order according to rank (*Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 6.10-13; *Josephus, Jewish War 2.132). Paul is not so strict here, but he wishes to balance spontaneity with order; not everything that was inherently good was necessarily good for the gathered assembly. In the *Old Testament, charismatic worship was not incompatible with order (1 Chron 25:1-5; cf. also Philo’s description of an Egyptian Jewish sect of worshipers called the Therapeutae).

14:28. “Speak to himself and to God” probably means “so that only he and God can hear it.” It is also possible, however, that this expression implies that tongues could be used not only as prayer but also as a vehicle of God’s *Spirit speaking to an individual’s spirit (cf. *prophecy coming thus in 2 Sam 23:2-3; Jer 27:2; Hos 1:2; cf. Ps 46:10; 91:14), although perhaps this speaking is mainly in the form of inspired prayer.

14:29. Most Old Testament prophets were apparently trained in groups of prophets, with more experienced prophets like Samuel presiding over them (1 Sam 19:20; cf. 2 Kings 2:3-7, 15; 6:1-7). The young churches of Paul’s day had few prophets as experienced or trusted as Samuel, so the experience and testing has to be “peer reviewed,” carried out in the public service by all those prophetically endowed. Testing, examining and interpreting prophecies was not necessarily viewed as incompatible with their general inspiration (cf. *Plato on inspired poets, and Jewish sages answering Scripture with Scripture).

14:30. Ancient teachers practiced various customs with regard to sitting and standing; at least in later times, *rabbis would sit and *disciples stand to teach; those who read Scripture would stand. Among the Essenes, each would speak in turn; often the person speaking to an assembly would stand, while others would be seated. In general, standing to speak was customary in assemblies (e.g., Homer, Iliad 1.68-69).

14:31. On “all prophesying,” see comment on 14:4-5; Paul here adds “teaching” to possible functions of prophecy (i.e., hearers could learn from it).

14:32. In most contemporary Jewish teaching, prophecy involved complete possession by the Spirit; one dare not seek to control one’s utterance. For Paul, however, inspiration can be regulated, and regulating the timing and manner of one’s utterance is not the same as quenching it altogether. On regulating one’s spirit, cf. Proverbs 16:32; 25:28.

14:33. For an appeal to the conduct of the churches, see comment on 11:16.

14:34-35

Interruptions at Lectures

Because the topic changes so abruptly and some manuscripts relocate 14:34-35, many scholars see these verses as an interpolation by a later *scribe. They can also be read, however (with many other scholars), as a *digression; these were common in ancient literature. While addressing the topic of church order, Paul briefly digresses from his contrast of *prophecy and tongues and regulations concerning them to address the interruptions of some women occurring during the teaching period of the church service. Unless Paul changes the subject from women’s universal silence (v. 34) to asking questions (v. 35a) and back to universal silence again (v. 35b), his general statement about women’s silence in church addresses only the specific issue of their challenges in verse 34a. Paul has already noted that, under normal conditions, women may pray and prophesy in church (11:5). The issue here could be their inadequate acquaintance with Scripture rather than a transcultural statement about gender.

14:34. Although more progressive views existed, many traditionally held that women should not speak in public in mixed-gender company (*Plutarch, Advice to the Bride 32; Morals 142D; Heliodorus, Aethiopica 1.21; Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings 3.8.6); some would have deemed even the house-churches such a setting. (Even very traditional Greek men sometimes made exceptions for specifically inspired speech; cf. 11:5.) Biblical *law includes no specific text that enjoins silence or submission on women, although Paul could refer back to his creation argument in 11:8-9, to the effects of the curse in Genesis 3:16, or to the example of the matriarchs (1 Pet 3:5). But he can also use “law” generally (1 Cor 14:21), so he could refer to the generally subordinate position of women in *Old Testament times to show that it is not wrong for them to be submissive in some cultural settings. (Josephus also claims that the “law” supports wives’ submission, without citing a specific passage; Against Apion 2.200-201.) Some also suggest that Paul cites the Corinthians’ view in 14:34-35 and refutes it in 14:36 (cf. comment on 14:22); but 14:36 seems too weak to supply a refutation for 14:34-35.

14:35. Informed listeners customarily asked questions during lectures (Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae 1.26.2; 12.5.4; Tosefta Sanhedrin 7:10), but it was considered rude for the ignorant to do so (cf. Plutarch, Lectures 4, Moralia 39CD; 11, Moralia 43BC; 18, Moralia 48AB). Although by modern standards literacy was generally low in antiquity (less so in the cities), women were far less often trained in the Scriptures and public reasoning than men were. In general, they achieved a given level of education only perhaps ten percent as often as men of the same social class. Disciples of rabbis were always men (though cf. Lk 10:38-42, which is exceptional). Although Jewish women could hear Torah teaching in the synagogue, girls were generally not taught to recite it as boys were (for the boys, cf., e.g., Mishnah Avot 5:21).

Paul does not expect these uneducated women to refrain from learning (indeed, that most of their culture had kept them from learning was the problem). Instead he provides the most progressive model of his day: their husbands are to respect their intellectual capabilities and give them private instruction. (Plutarch, one of the minority “progressive” voices of the era, advises a husband to concern himself with his wife’s learning—but unlike Paul attributes the need for this to the wife’s irrational passion; Advice to the Bride 48; Moralia 145BE. Roman marriage taxation policy and, more importantly, the shortage of marriageable Greek women assured that the strong majority of adult women, at least in cities such as Corinth, were married.) He wants them to stop interrupting the teaching period of the church service, however, because at least until they know more, they are distracting everyone and disrupting church order.

14:36-40

Final Exhortations on Gifts

14:36-38. Some prophets in the *Old Testament stood out as stronger spokespersons for God than their peers—Elijah, Elisha, Samuel and so forth. Most prophets in the early church were not comparable in authority to New Testament prophets like Agabus and *apostles like Paul; if some prophets at Corinth appeal to their prophetic capabilities to advance their views, Paul can do so even more to refute their views—he claims to speak for God.

14:39-40. Here Paul summarizes the rest of the chapter; concluding summaries for sections were fairly common, though they were not always used.

15:1-11

Jesus Was Raised

Many, probably most, Judeans affirmed an end-time *resurrection of the righteous (2 Maccabees 7:9, 14, 23, 29; 14:46; *Psalms of Solomon 3:12; *1 Enoch 22:13), as taught in Scripture (Dan 12:2). By contrast, this conception was difficult for Greeks to envision. Many *Gentile intellectuals affirmed the soul’s immortality without a future for the body (e.g., *Plato, Phaedo 64CE, 67C; *Seneca, Dialogues 11.9.3; 12.11.7); some (such as *Epicureans; Lucretius 3.417-977) denied any afterlife at all.

Like other skilled speakers and writers of his day, Paul starts by looking for common ground with his audience. Some of the Corinthians dispute the future resurrection of believers. They cannot, however, dispute the past resurrection of Jesus, because this is an established fact and the very foundation of their faith. Yet Paul points out that this fact is simply the first installment of the future resurrection of believers, hence cannot be separated from it (15:12-14, 23).

15:1-2. Paul follows the standard argument technique of beginning with an agreed-on premise; the Corinthians must agree with the very *gospel by which they were converted (see also 2:1-5; Gal 3:2-5).

15:3. “Handed on to you . . . what I had received” (NRSV) is the language of what scholars call “traditioning”: Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students. The students could take notes, but they delighted especially in oral memorization and became quite skilled at it; memorization was a central feature of ancient education. In the first generation, the tradition would be very accurate; some even believe that this tradition in 15:3-5 or 15:3-7 may be a verbatim citation. That Jesus died for our sins “according to the Scriptures” may refer especially to Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 11-12 as well as the biblical pattern of the righteous suffering before exaltation.

15:4. The mention of the burial presupposes an empty tomb after the resurrection, because by definition “resurrection” meant a new body that did not leave a corpse behind; Paul’s Palestinian Jewish sources could have meant the expression no other way. Unlike the Gospels, Paul does not mention the empty tomb, because the witnesses provide stronger proof of what happened to Jesus (15:5-8). “The Scriptures” probably refers to an assortment of texts, such as Psalm 16 and Isaiah 53:12. If the “third day” is also in view in “according to the Scriptures,” perhaps it alludes to Hosea 6:2, Jonah 1:17 or other texts, although Paul may include the phrase simply to say, according to Jewish custom, that Jesus was raised before he could “see corruption” (Ps 16:10).

15:5. Although arguments from probability counted best in ancient law courts, eyewitness accounts were also highly valued. The ancient epiphanies (revelations) of gods or spirits were normally said to have been attested by eyewitnesses, but except for dreams and deliverances, these reports rarely stem from the era that records them. (The mystery initiation at Eleusis may have climaxed with some sort of ecstatic encounter with the deity, but this event again differs significantly from the sort of concrete, unsolicited, mass revelation Paul describes here.) Multiple revelations like this one, and mass revelations as in 15:6, especially in a sect, that risked persecution to claim them are virtually unparalleled. Because by definition resurrection meant a new body, and Christians would not have been persecuted for claiming that they saw a mere spirit (most ancient people believed in ghosts), they are making a claim no one else made. “Appeared” was used in antiquity both for visions and for actual appearances (often of God or angels); but by all Jewish definitions of resurrection, especially in a Palestinian tradition such as Paul cites here, Paul must mean a literal appearance.

“Cephas” is *Aramaic for “Peter”; for the “Twelve” and its special significance for Israel, see comment on Acts 1:13 and the introduction to Acts 1:15-26. Groups often retained titles based on the original number of members even when the number changed (e.g., the “thirty” in Athens and the “hundred” in Rome), so some would call this group the “Twelve” even after Judas’s death.

15:6. Paul’s purpose in appealing to witnesses still alive may be to invite his readers to check his facts if they doubt his words. We may safely rule out the suggestion that the resurrection appearances were mass hallucinations, because such a mass hallucination of a demonstrably physical person is virtually unparalleled in history. (Were this evidence being cited for a war, about which we often take the word of a single ancient author, or any other event in history, few today would think to deny it.)

15:7. “The *apostles” clearly includes a larger group than the “Twelve” (15:5); see comment on 12:29-30.

15:8. “One untimely born” (NASB, NRSV) or “one abnormally born” (NIV) usually meant a dead fetus, by either abortion or miscarriage. Paul may be calling himself a freak compared to the other apostles (15:9); he is probably deprecating himself in some manner. This expression could refer to his being born at the wrong time (here, postmaturely rather than prematurely), after Jesus’ initial resurrection appearances were complete; other commentators have suggested that Paul was chosen from the womb, but his persecution of the *church had been annulling that purpose, making him like an aborted person till his conversion.

15:9-11. Greeks did not mind boasting, provided that it was not too conspicuous; Jewish piety emphasized the need to thank God for one’s goodness or status. Judaism and most ancient religion believed in retribution for sin; Paul believes that God exalted him despite his sin simply because of God’s loving heart.

15:12-19

Resurrection of Christ and of Believers

15:12-17. Paul again reduces the opposing position to the absurd (a common *rhetorical technique): if there is no *resurrection, then Jesus did not rise (against their own beliefs and the evidence in 15:1-11) and other logical consequences that the Corinthians reject would also follow. Speakers would sometimes “dwell on a point,” as Paul does here, using rhetorical repetition to underline his point with seven “if . . . then” statements in 15:12-19. With the exception of the *Sadducees and some Jews greatly influenced by Greek conceptions, most Judeans believed in the future resurrection of the body (Dan 12:2). Jesus’s resurrection was not intelligible or fully meaningful apart from that teaching. As here, Jewish teachers also often used the particular to prove the general principle that it presupposed.

15:18-19. These verses suggest that Paul rejects the Greek idea of an immortality of the soul without a bodily resurrection; if there is no resurrection, the *Epicurean denial of an afterlife also follows (15:32). (Despite a view of judgment, the common Greek view of most people’s afterlife as shades below the earth was dreary and unhappy to begin with, providing little of the incentive Paul found in the resurrection. Some other Greeks in this period believed in a heavenly destiny for the soul, and yet others would have agreed with the Epicureans that there was no afterlife.) Paul could believe in the resurrection and in an intermediate existence for the soul, as many *Pharisees did. But if God had not provided future hope for the whole person, Jewish people like Paul, who acknowledged the bodily nature of human existence, would have doubted that he had provided any future hope at all (cf. *2 Baruch 21:12-13).

15:20-28

God’s Plan for History

15:20. The firstfruits were the beginning of the Palestinian harvest (Ex 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26; Lev 23:10, 17), guaranteeing the imminent ingathering of the remainder of the harvest.

15:21-22. See especially comment on Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:44-48. Paul may here play on or respond to a *Diaspora Jewish tradition (attested in Philo), possibly adopted by some of the Corinthian Christians, that the ideal, spiritual man formed in Genesis 1:26-27 differed from the natural man Adam formed in Genesis 2:7.

15:23-24. Some find here belief in an intermediate messianic era between the present age and the *age to come, a view held (in various forms) by many Jewish writers of his day; see comment on Revelation 20. But the intermediate kingdom here may refer to the present era (1 Cor 15:25-27). On “firstfruits,” see comment on 1 Corinthians 15:20.

15:25. Paul begins expounding Psalm 110:1, which he will link with a more explicit passage in 15:27; Jewish teachers often connected texts based on key terms or concepts common to both (“feet” and probably the idea of reigning).

15:26. Many philosophers refused to grieve or to view death as an enemy (cf. *Epictetus, Diatribes 1.27.7). Jewish writers generally portrayed death as an enemy, sometimes as an angel sent by God, but never pleasant. Paul sees death as the final enemy to be subdued; the *resurrection of believers would thus be the final event preceding Christ’s *kingdom.

15:27-28. Paul quotes the Greek version of Psalm 8:6 (for the connection with his argument, see comment on 15:25). The context of the verse identifies the ruler as the “son of man” who is “a little lower than God” (Ps 8:4-5, though the Greek version differs); thus the Son will reign over all else as God’s viceroy but remain subordinate in role to the Father (cf. Ps 110:1; Is 9:6-7; Dan 7:14). This psalm probably alludes to God granting authority to the first human (Gen 1:26-28); Paul undoubtedly is thinking of restoration in the new Adam, which he addresses in this context (1 Cor 15:22, 45-49). Were Paul a *Stoic, God’s being “all in all” (which is rhetorically emphatic) could mean that all things would be absorbed back into the primeval fire, being part of his being; but when Jewish writers like Paul used such language, they meant merely that God is creator and ruler of all (Sirach 43:27).

15:29-34

Suffering in Hope of Resurrection

The early Christian witnesses of the *resurrection were so convinced of the truth of their own claims to have seen Jesus alive from the dead that they were not afraid to seal their witness with martyrdom.

15:29. Paul appeals to a practice, which the Corinthians affirmed, as inconsistent without belief in resurrection (cf. 2 Maccabees 12:43-45). Here “baptized for the dead” may mean that a Christian friend was baptized for symbolic effect on behalf of a new convert who had died before being able to be baptized. (Although there is no evidence of vicarious *baptism in ancient Judaism, posthumous symbols could be employed. For instance, if someone was to be executed, Jewish teachers said that his death could *atone for his sins; if he died before he could be executed, however, the people placed a stone on the coffin, symbolically enacting his stoning so that his execution would still count with God; cf. Mishnah Eduyyot 5:6.) Or this expression may refer to washings of the dead before burial, a standard Jewish custom; religious groups in the ancient Mediterranean supervised the burials of their own members. It could also be a roundabout way of saying “baptized so as to be able to participate in *eternal life with Christians who have already died,” hence baptized in the light of their own mortality as well. Or people may be baptized for the sake of their own future resurrection, in view of the sentence of death already in their mortal bodies (cf. Rom 8:10). To whatever practice Paul alludes, it is not clear whether he agrees with the Corinthian practice; even if he does not, however, he can use it to make his point.

15:30. For the language of continual opposition, cf. Psalm 44:22 and 119:109 (cf. danger every hour in *4 Ezra 7:89).

15:31. In this context, “die daily” (KJV, NASB) is *hyperbole for Paul’s proleptic experience of martyrdom in his repeated sufferings for the gospel.

15:32. Romans were often entertained by watching criminals, prisoners of war or slaves mauled by wild beasts in the arena (*Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14.210; *Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10.29), much as many Westerners today enjoy the violence of the entertainment media (although ancient Christians refused to attend such events except when they themselves were forced to be the victims). Roman gladiatorial shows were also held in the theater at Ephesus during many festivals (as well as in Corinth). It is unlikely, however, that Paul was literally cast to beasts in that arena. The victims were not supposed to survive the maulings, and as a Roman citizen Paul would have been exempt from this punishment. Philosophers employed the image of battling such beasts (usually irrational people), and Paul here probably describes his opposition in similarly graphic terms (cf. similarly Ps 22:6, 12-13, 16, 20-21; 74:19). “In human terms” in verse 32 may mean “figuratively” (contrary to most translations; cf. 9:8; Rom 6:19; Gal 3:15).

But if Paul had no future hope, instead of facing affliction, he may as well have simply indulged his passions, a sentiment often attributed (with some distortion) to *Epicurean philosophers but lived out by many Greek and Roman men at wild parties. The same perspective was attributed to others who denied an afterlife (Wisdom of Solomon 2:1-20; *1 Enoch 102:6-8). He quotes Isaiah 22:13 (with its context about judgment on the wicked); cf. Sirach 14:16; Luke 12:19. (The *Old Testament often uses the language of eating and drinking in a neutral way—Eccles 2:24; 5:18-19; cf. 3:12—but without God it is never enough for life—Is 22:12-14; Eccles 11:7-12:14; cf. 7:2, 14.)

15:33-34. Here Paul cites a popular proverb, first attributed to the comic playwright Menander but in common circulation by Paul’s day. It was the common advice of Greco-Roman moralists and Jewish wisdom teachers to avoid morally inferior company (e.g., Sirach 13:1; in the Old Testament, Ps 119:63; Prov 13:20; 14:7; 28:7). Paul perhaps refers here to those who do not believe in the future resurrection and hence do not have the basis for morals that those who believe in a final judgment of God do; other Jewish teachers who believed in the resurrection associated disbelief in that doctrine with immorality.

15:35-49

The Nature of the Resurrection Body

Ancient Judaism taught the *resurrection of the body, not just the immortality of the soul; Paul agrees but defines the nature of the new body differently from many of his contemporaries.

15:35-38. Ancient writers often raised *rhetorical objections from imaginary opponents; Jewish teachers presented questions like the one Paul raises here as the standard objections nonbelievers raised against the doctrine of the resurrection. (For imaginary interlocutors, see comment on 6:12.) For instance, what happened if someone died at sea, or the body was completely destroyed by fire? Later *rabbis decided that the body would be resurrected from a particular bone in the neck which they held to be indestructible. Paul more reasonably argues that, regardless of what physical material remains, at least the pattern of the old body will always remain as the seed for the new body. His argument from analogy, a standard argument, is effective, and later rabbis also used the “seed” analogy. “Fool!” (15:36) was a standard rhetorical insult, Jewish as well as Greek, for someone who raised an ignorant or immoral objection.

15:39-41. Paul’s argument here appeals not to modern astronomy but to ancient cosmology. Even in the present, not all bodies were made of flesh; some were made of glory. Heavenly bodies, which *Gentiles often viewed as divine and Jewish people often identified with angels, were thought to be made of fire. Many Gentiles believed that immortal souls ascended into the heavens like stars; many Jewish people compared the resurrection body to angels (*2 Baruch 51:10) or stars (Dan 12:2-3; cf. 1 Enoch 43). Paul describes the different kinds of glory that various earthly and heavenly bodies have to explain how the resurrected body will come in glory, yet each person will remain distinct from other people. Thus there is continuity between the old and new bodies as well as discontinuity. *Midrashically, cf. also *eschatological “glory” for God’s people in Isaiah 60:1-2, 19; 61:3; 62:2.

15:42-43. Paul’s rhythm in 15:42-44 would stir rhetorically sensitive ancient hearers: he combines antithesis (contrasts) with fourfold anaphora (x . . . x . . . ; here: “it is sown . . . it is raised). Some Jewish teachers believed that the body would be raised in exactly the form in which it had died, even if maimed, and only then be healed; this belief was meant to prove the continuity between the old and new body (2 Baruch 49:2–50:4; Genesis Rabbah 95:1; 100:2). But Paul clearly sees the resurrection body in different terms. Present “dishonor” and “weakness” in 15:43 challenge the status-conscious Corinthian believers (cf. 2 Cor 12:5, 9; 13:4).

15:44-45. Both Paul’s “natural” and “spiritual” bodies might shock ancient hearers. A “natural” or “physical” body is literally a “soulish” body, in contrast to a “spiritual” body. Paul does not teach a future body made out of “spirit” (although the *Stoics taught that spirit was a material substance), any more than a present body made out of “soul.” Rather, the present body is adapted for current natural existence, and the future body for the life even now ruled by God’s *Spirit. In verse 45 Paul cites Genesis 2:7, where God made Adam a soul, a natural man; but many Diaspora Jews thought that Genesis 1:26-27 referred to a different, ideal man, the pure form and model for humanity, and Paul may play on this tradition here. The two kinds of body belong to the contrast between humanity’s legacy in Adam and believers’ destiny in Christ.

15:46-48. Some ancient thinkers viewed the body as earthly but the soul as heavenly. The Diaspora Jewish philosopher *Philo contrasted the incorruptible “heavenly man” of Genesis 1 with the later “living soul”/“earthly man” of Genesis 2; the former represented the ideal spiritual state of the mind seeking heavenly things, the latter the carnal person devoted to temporal things (Allegorical Interpretation 1.31-32; 2.4-5). Paul reapplies the language of this view, which the Corinthians had probably adopted, to the resurrection body, switching the order (natural then spiritual). In Jewish thought, both the full experience of the Spirit and the resurrection were eschatological expectations.

Jewish teachers often explained that Adam’s sin brought sin and death into the world for everyone (*4 Ezra 4:30; 7:118; 2 Baruch 23:4; 48:42-43), and his descendants reenacted his sin in their own sins (4 Ezra 3:21, 26; 7:119; 2 Baruch 54:15, 19; see comment on Rom 5:12-21).

15:49. Jewish teachers often taught that Adam had incomparable glory and power before his sin, and that this glory and power would be restored in the world to come. God created humanity in his image (Gen 1:26-27; cf. 1 Cor 11:7). For Philo, it is the first, heavenly man, not the soulish physical man, that bears God’s image (Allegorical Interpretation 2.4; cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15); for Paul, God’s image is restored in *Christ (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10).

15:50-58

The Resurrection Hope

To inherit the *kingdom, people must share the image of the heavenly person (15:45-49).

15:50. “Flesh and blood” was a common figure of speech for mortals.

15:51. Some Jewish people considered end-time “mysteries” (Dan 2:28-30, 47; *Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 3.23). “Sleep” was a common euphemism for death.

15:52. *Old Testament prophets often employed the image of the trumpet, which was used to assemble people for convocation or war; here, as in a daily Jewish prayer of the period, it refers to the final gathering of God’s people at the end (cf. similarly Is 27:13). Paul undoubtedly takes the image from Jesus (Mt 24:31).

15:53-54. Paul continues using rhetorical antithesis (e.g., perishable, imperishable). Here Paul quotes Isaiah 25:8, which refers to God’s triumph over death at the time of the end, at Israel’s final restoration; the context fits *resurrection in Isaiah 26:19. For “put on,” see comment on 2 Cor 5:4.

15:55. Jewish interpreters often linked different texts together on the basis of a common key word; “death” occurs in Isaiah 25:8 and also in Hosea 13:14, which Paul may therefore apply to the resurrection as well. Although the latter passage is in the context of judgment, it may imply the same thing as Isaiah 25:8 (unless read as a question); cf. restoration imagery in Hosea 14:4-7. “Victory” also occurs in one Greek version of Isaiah (though not the *Septuagint); Jewish expositors normally selected whatever translation best suited their needs, which here allows Paul to make a good *midrashic wordplay with Hosea 13:14: Paul changes the Greek version’s “punishment” (dike) to “victory” (nike).

15:56. Jewish teachers typically expounded points of a text once they had cited it. Paul explains the meaning of “sting” and “victory” (“power”) in Hosea 13:14 here (cf. comment on 15:55).

15:57-58. In 15:42-56, Paul has accumulated stirring rhetorical devices that reach their emotional peak in 15:57. As in 14:39-40, Paul concludes with a sort of summary; here it is a closing exhortation. Just as Judaism often linked failure to believe in the future world with immoral living, and faith in future judgment with perseverance, Paul encourages believers to hold to the truth of the resurrection and so to right living.

16:1-4

Paul’s Collection

Many ancient letters involved business, a topic to which Paul turns in his closing comments. Most ancient associations had membership dues, but gifts among believers were voluntary.

16:1-2. That one should give “as the Lord has blessed” (lit., “as one may prosper”) indicates that Paul is applying the teaching on serving the poor in Deuteronomy 15:14 (cf. also 16:10, 17). Setting aside resources on the week’s “first day” may signify giving to God first (cf. Ex 23:16; Lev 27:26), though most wage-earners were paid daily or by the job. On possible meetings on the “first day” of the week, see comment on Acts 20:7.

16:3-4. When Jewish people from around the world were ready to send the required annual temple tax to Jerusalem, they would choose respected and trustworthy members of their own communities as representatives to take the money to Jerusalem (for guarding against accusations, see comment on 2 Cor 8:17-23). Jewish travelers often bore letters indicating their authorization, which would allow them to receive hospitality wherever they went; Christians seem to have continued this practice.

16:5-9

Paul’s Travel Plans

16:5. The easiest way to travel to Corinth from Ephesus was to cross over by boat from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi in Macedonia, then to take the westward road and turn south into Greece (as in Paul’s second missionary journey in Acts; see Acts 16:7-9). Paul later delayed this planned visit partly to avoid having to confront them forcefully (2 Cor 1:15-23).

16:6. The seas were closed for travel in the winter; if Paul were in Corinth once the seas closed, he would stay there until they opened in the spring (cf. later Acts 20:2-3). Paul is writing in the spring (16:8), many months before the next winter. Warm letters between friends often discussed plans to spend time together (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 1.9.1; 7.15.1; 8.15.2). Hospitality was important in antiquity, and the Corinthians would feel honored to be able to provide hospitality to a prominent teacher (especially the founder of their *church). “Send me on my way” (NASB, NRSV) means that the church will provide for Paul’s travel.

16:7-8. Others also offered the necessary caveat, “If God wills” (e.g., Homer, Iliad 8.142; *Epictetus, Diatribes 1.1.17). On Pentecost, see comment on Acts 2:1; perhaps Paul plans to observe the festival.

16:9. An “open door” (or “wide door”—NASB, NRSV) was sometimes used figuratively for freedom of movement or choice; here Paul refers to his ministry.

16:10-18

Recommendations and Exhortations

16:10-11. Persons of high status often wrote letters of recommendation, using their status to advocate the needs of those for whom they wrote. See comment on 2 Corinthians 3:1. One should receive a person’s agent the way one would receive the person himself (Mishnah Berakhot 5:5); sending one “in peace” means that the host has received him well.

16:12. Even when others viewed them as rivals (3:4), leaders were sometimes friends (e.g., *Cicero, Brutus 1.2-3).

16:13. Some of Paul’s exhortation here would be suitable in a military setting. “Act like men” (NASB) usually meant “be courageous” (NRSV); the expression did not necessarily connote masculinity, although it was used for courage because most people in antiquity associated courage with masculinity.

16:14. Skilled speakers often summarized toward the end of a work. Although ancient writers often stressed virtues, the supreme place of love (chap. 13), emphasized repeatedly throughout early Christian literature, is unusual in antiquity and especially characterized Christianity.

16:15-18. Here Paul makes another recommendation (cf. 16:10-12). “Firstfruits” (literally, in 16:15) was the beginning of a larger harvest; Achaia was the province that made up much of Greece, and of which Corinth was the chief city. (As a free city, Athens was technically excluded from the province in this period; cf. Acts 17:34.) Because mail in antiquity had to be carried by travelers, and these people are returning to Corinth from Paul, we may safely assume that they brought the letter we know as 1 Corinthians back to Corinth.

16:19-24

Closing Greetings

16:19. The Corinthians knew Aquila and Priscilla and that they had moved to Ephesus (Acts 18:2-3, 18, 24-27). Churches met in homes, as many pagan religious associations did; this was a matter of convenience, economy and eventually of safety.

16:20. Letters often closed with greetings (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Atticus 5.9), because travelers visited relatively infrequently and greetings had to be included whenever a letter was being sent out. Family members and close friends used light kisses, usually on the lips, as signs of affection (e.g., 1 Sam 20:41); see comment on Romans 16:16.

16:21. Most letters were written down by amanuenses, or *scribes, and usually signed by the author. Writing something in one’s own hand could communicate affection. A signature authorized the letter, as it does today.

16:22. Ancient people, including Jewish people, used curse invocations (here the *Aramaic anathema) as the opposite of blessings. “Marana tha” (GNT) is an Aramaic prayer, “Come, our Lord.” That the Corinthians would understand it means that it is part of common tradition carried over from the early Palestinian-Syrian church, which already recognized Jesus as “Lord” and as the one who would come (cf. Rev 22:20). (Thus Christians described his coming in the way that Jewish tradition expected God’s coming for judgment.)

16:23-24. Greek letters often included the greeting chairein, “greetings”; Paul consistently transforms this to charis, “*grace.” This is a blessing, an implicit prayer for them.

↑ Back to top