Part 107
immediately after, he adjured them not to seek revenge (12:16, 18—19). A discussion of civil authority follows naturally if not necessarily from these remarks. It may be that Paul's comments reflect concern over behaviour that had contributed to the expulsion of the Jews (including Christian Jews; see Acts 18:2) from Rome only a few years before (see ROM 8.3). Does Christian conversion, the submission to God's rule, release one from civil authority? It is reasonable to suppose that one who lives in a new age is free of the old age. But one cannot live only in the new aeon; on earth the ages overlap. God's dominion is not entirely realized; believers' hearts are not wholly submitted (hence Paul's admonishment in 12:2). One might regard government as an expedient necessitated by human sin; even so, it is apparent that Christians do not yet live so distant from the Fall as to make obsolete government's corrective function. And predating the fallen, evil order is the original, beneficent order of creation (see Rom 1:18-20). Is government a temporarily sanctioned accommodation or an eternally mandated institution? Like Jesus in Mk 12:17, Paul does not deal explicitly with these questions; nevertheless, his words invalidate some answers, such as regarding government as human invention or satanic usurpation.
notes giving oneself continuously and entirely. Any lesser response misprizes the greatness of God's own offering.
The eschatological context of Pauline ethics is immediately evident, v. 2 begins, literally, 'Do not be conformed to this age.' Paul vividly characterized the old order in Rom 1:18-32; humans had 'became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened' (1:21). The new, eschatological righteousness overmasters humanity's ancient, fallen nature: believers experience a 'renewal of... [their] minds, so that... [they] may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect' (12:2/7). For Paul, it is no less than a return, a 'conforming' to the original order, the re-creation of human minds not 'subjected to futility' (8:20; cf 'new creation' in Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). Paul does not expect his readers to obtain such an exalted capability on their own. Rather, he believes that as possessors of the Spirit, they are already equipped to live lives 'holy and acceptable to God' (12:1; see 8:1—17). Paul asks only that they be what they truly are: righteous.
(12:3—21) Exhortations for the Christian Community It is obvious that the recent Galatian controversy influenced Paul's discussion of the law in Rom 1-8. Less noticed is the impact of Paul's difficulties with the church at Corinth upon Rom 12—15. Note that Paul's first exhortation is to humility and Christian unity—not surprising, as he writes from Corinth, the native habitat of spiritual pride and factional division (see i Cor 1-4). It is a sermon well rehearsed: w. 3—8 are closely paralleled by i Cor 12:12—28. A major difference is the list of gifts in w. 6—8, which is more mundane than that found in i Cor 12:28. (Rom 12 includes gifts of exhortation, generosity, and compassion but not deeds of power, healings, and tongues. In Romans the gifts are not linked specifically to the activity of the Spirit, and the corporation of Christians is not referred to as 'the body of Christ.') Paul again counters disunity by challenging individual status seeking, but, outside of Corinth, he does notlocate the problem specifically in the flaunting of spiritual gifts.
Few if any passages in the Pauline corpus have been more subject to abuse than w. 1-7. Paul does not indicate that one is required to obey public officials under all circumstances, nor does he say that every exercise of civil authority is sanctioned by God. No particular government is authorized; no universal autarchy is legitimated. Instead, Paul reiterates the common Jewish view that human governance operates under God's superintendency (Jn 19:11; Dan 2:21; Prov 8:15—16; Isa 45:1— 3; Wis 6:3), that it is part ofthe divine order and so is meant for human good (i Pet 2:13-14; Ep. Arist. 291-2). Paul's view of and desire for order is also paralleled in i Corinthians. Paul responded to the chaos of Corinthian worship by arguing that 'God is a God not of disorder but of peace' (14:33) and so commended his followers to do 'all things' 'decently and in order' (14:40). Here Paul advises a new group of readers to find peace by submitting to proper order (cf. i Cor 16:16). It is striking that Paul treated with such optimism the very Roman authority by which he himself was eventually martyred. The presentation in Rom 13 has often been contrasted with that of Rev 13, in which Rome is portrayed as a diabolical beast whose 'authority' is exercised in making 'war on the saints' (v. 7). Rom 13 and Rev 13 are not quite opposites; Paul is not attempting to account for the reality depicted in Revelation. Nevertheless, the near demonization ofthe state in Revelation may be a healthy canonical counterbalance to its near idealization in Romans. But both Paul and the author of Revelation share common ground in asserting God's final authority over human affairs, humanity's ultimate allegiance to God, and God's eventual victory over every opposing 'ruler, authority, and power' (i Cor 15:24-5). Rom 13:1-7 is not easy to live with, but neither would the opposing alternative be.
The listing of maxims, as in w. 9-21, is characteristic of ancient paraenesis and is a feature commonly found near the conclusion of Paul's letters (e.g. i Thess 5:12—22; Phil 4:4—9). Probably Paul draws from no one source but rather from the broad stream of Christian ethical teaching, incorporating elements of the Jesus tradition, Jewish wisdom literature, and Graeco-Roman philosophy (Byrne 1996: 375). A unifying element is supplied by v. 9 a: 'love is genuine' (anupokritos; lit. unhypocritical). (Contrary to NRSV, there is no imperative verb.) The discussion of the body of Christ in i Cor 12 was also followed (in the justly celebrated ch. 13) by an appeal to agape, love. It is love alone that curbs self-assertion and so makes unity possible (Phil 2:2; i Pet 3:8). Accordingly, the whole of w. 9/7-13 is sometimes read as a description of 'unhypocritical love in action' (Achtemeier 1985: 198). Perhaps this is too tidy a summarization of Paul's wide-ranging admonitions; nevertheless, it is certain that Paul regarded love as the pre-eminent and finally only necessary command, a point he makes explicitly in 13:8—10 (and in continuity with passages such as Mk 12:28—34; Mt 5:43—8; 19:19; Jn 13:34—5; 15:12-17; Jas 2:8; i Jn 3:11, 23; 4:21; and 2 Jn 5).
(13:8-10) 'Love is the Fulfilling ofthe Law' In Rom 12:9, Paul offered a theme for the ethical instruction to follow: 'love is genuine.' He neatly closes this paraenetic section by returning to the subject of love. The segue in w. 7—8 is artful: 'Pay to all what is due (opheilas)... Owe (opheilete) no one anything, except to love'. In other words, while civic obligations can
(13:1-7) Christians and Civil Authority Paul commended his readers to 'live in harmony' and to 'live peaceably with all';
no 5 ROMANS
keeping with Paul's thought elsewhere in Romans (ROM E.2; ROM 8, etc.).
and should be fulfilled, the obligation to love can never be fully discharged. The primacy of the love commandment is a NT commonplace and almost certainly goes back to Jesus himself (see ROM 12:90). In Mk 12:28-34 and parallels, Jesus cites a twofold commandment, love of God (Deut 6:4-5) and l°ve of neighbour (Lev 19:18). Paul refers only to the latter. Perhaps he did not know the double formula, or perhaps his immediate concern led him to quote only the Leviticus passage. (The four commandments listed are all from the 'second table' of the Decalogue, which deals with social relationships; Deut 5:17—18.) To be children of God is pre-eminently to have the character of God, and the pre-eminent attribute of God's character is love (Mt 5:43-8). Such love issues from the giver irrespective of the recipient's merit: 'God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us' (5:8).
(14:1—15:13) 'Pursue What Makes for Peace and for Mutual Edification' Paul began this section of Romans with an exhortation to Christian unity (12:3-8), modelled on his recent Corinthian correspondence. By way of conclusion, he returns to the same idea and source. Controversy had arisen at Corinth over the practice by some of eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols (i Cor 8:1-13; 10:12-33). m meory» Paulwas
on their side: 'We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do' (8:8). But theory is not principle, privileges are not rights, and 'knowledge' (8:1) is not wisdom. The prerogative of the 'strong' (15:1) does not outweigh the church's need for unity and the individual's need for integrity. Simply put, it is wrong to encourage another to violate conscience. 'Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall' (8:13). The scope and application of Paul's 'community ethic' are nowhere more clearly articulated than in i Cor 8 and Rom 14.
So no fault in the neighbour and no sufficiency in the self excuses one from love. And if one shares the character of God, then indeed God's law is fulfilled.
(13:11—14) The Eschatological Context Paul completes a second indusio by returning to the eschatological theme introduced in 12:2 ('Do not be conformed to this age...'). The present is characterized as a time between the times, expressed eloquently in the metaphor of night turning to day. Now is still a time of darkness, but the believer knows it to be the darkness preceding the dawn. Recognizing that 'the night is far gone' (v. 12), one rouses oneself, lays aside the secret, shameful 'works of darkness' (detailed in v. 13), dresses in 'the armour oflight' (v. 12, i.e. by behaving righteously), and stands ready before the approaching day.
As we have seen (e.g. in 12:4-7), Paul generalizes the argument of i Corinthians when adapting it to Romans. The identity of'the weak' is no longer clear; Paul does not mention food sacrificed to idols, nor do his statements about eating meat and drinking wine (v. 21) refer self-evidently to Jewish practice (although the mention of'one day.. .better than another' in v. 5 probably has in view the Jewish sabbath). Rather than respond to any one practice, Paul formulates a rule of conduct that may be applied in a variety of circumstances (which, by way of example, include controversies surrounding eating, drinking, and sabbath observance). One is to live before God with faith (14:5—9, 22—3) and before others with consideration (14:1—5, 13—21). Do not look to the example of those who offend; do not be an example to those who would be offended.
In 12:2, Paul asked his readers to act as those already inhabiting a new age, to live up to their high spiritual standing in Christ. The argument is reminiscent of 6:1—5: Christians are in a fundamentally new position, already having died to sin. So, 'How can we who died to sin go on living in it?' (6:2). In w. 11—14 we nnd much the same idea. One who lives 'as in the day' makes 'no provision for the flesh', gives no quarter to the 'works of darkness' (v. 12). To be holy is to be unmixed, entirely sanctified to God (12:1). The temptation is to view the eschatological ethic partly as a future demand, to split the difference between old and new orders, to contrive a half-in, half-out moral standard. For Paul, such unholiness is neither permissible nor sensible.
Paul's ethical thinking inhabits the ground between individualism and communitarianism. It is somewhat individualistic: each person stands or falls before God alone (14:4); each must be 'fully convinced' in his or her 'own mind' (v. 5); each is accountable to the dictates ofhis or her'own conviction' (v. 22) But the community has moral priority. Recognition of individual differences is meant to foster unity (as in the body metaphor); ironically, it is those who demand absolute conformity that 'pass judgement' (v. 4) and so create division. The individual is constrained both by God's judgement (w. 7-12) and by the needs of others (w. 13-23). One oughtto please God (v. 18) and one's neighbour (15:1-2), not oneself. This is not self-annihilation; this is mutuality, the dance of reciprocating love.
The phrase 'put on the Lord Jesus Christ' (v. 14) appears to have originated in Christian baptismal liturgy. Compare Gal 3:27: 'As many ofyou as were baptized into Christhave clothed yourselves with Christ.' 'Taking off (or 'laying aside', v. 12) and 'putting on' is the nomenclature of repentance, intrinsic to baptism (cf the idea of the 'wedding garment' in Mt 22:11— 14). To say that one 'puts on Christ' adds to repentance the concepts of spiritual identification and empowerment (cf. Gal 2:19—20). In 6:3—4 Paul wrote that 'all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death... we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life'. In baptism, one participates in the death and, proleptically, in the resurrection of Christ. The believer puts on the clothing, not merely of a new self, but of Christ's own righteousness, power, and victory. This high 'Christian anthropology' is in
The tolerant attitude evidenced in this passage belies the oft-popular image of Paul as narrow-minded traditionalist. (14:14, 'nothing is unclean in itself, attests to the radical inclination of Paul's thought.) v. 4, 'Who are you to pass judgement on servants of another?' is reminiscent of that most-cited biblical quotation, Mt 7:1, 'Judge not, lest you be judged.'As a matter of perspective, one should bear in mind that neither Paul nor Jesus taught that one ought simply to 'behave and let behave'. The sphere of activity within which Paul allowed disagreement was significant but still restricted in size. Essentially, it consisted of matters regarded by Paul as
ROMANS 1106
morally indifferent (14:1: 'opinions', see i Cor 9). 'The kingdom of God is not food and drink' (14:17), but it is 'walking in love' (14:15). Then as now, conflict arose because of discrepant calculations of moral gravity. Inevitably, it is easier for the 'strong' (the less observant) to be tolerant of the 'weak' (the more observant) than the reverse. At what point does moral allowance turn the corner to moral abdication? Were Jewish Christians intolerant who continued to require sabbath observance (which is, after all, the fourth commandment of the Decalogue; see Mt 24:20)? In the first as in the twenty-first century, tolerance is in the eye of the beholder.
concludes by wishing his readers nothing less than God's dominion, both now and future.
Conclusion (15:14-16:27)
(15:14—33) The Apostle's Plans Paul began the epistle by introducing himself and his apostolic credentials to the Roman Christians and by explaining his intention to visit them in the near future (1:1—15). His language was highly diplomatic; he praised the Romans for their faith and offered that he himself would be benefited spiritually by them. v. 14 picks up where 1:15 left off. The audience again is lauded: 'you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge'. The apostle again is politic: he acknowledges that the recipients themselves are 'able to instruct one another'. Yes, Paul has written rather boldly, but only by way of reminder (v. 15). Besides, his boldness is commensurate with his authority in Christ, carefully detailed in w. 16—21.
In 15:1, Paul explicitly identified himself with 'the strong' ('in faith', 14:1), a designation that he assumes rhetorically for most if not all of his audience. (What reader would want to identify with the community of the weak-but-tolerated?) The NRSV translation, 'We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak,' is unfortunate. Literally, the strong are instructed to 'carry', 'support', or (by extension) 'tolerate' (bastazo) 'the weaknesses (asthenemata) of the weak'. To judge the actions of the weak as 'failings' is to commit the very error described by Paul in ch. 14.
Several aspects of Paul's self-description merit attention. The use of sacerdotal imagery to describe his ministry
('priestly service... the offering of the Gentiles') is telling. Paul's language appears to echo Isa 66:18—23, a prophetic description of the eschatological incorporation of Gentiles into Israel (see also Isa 2:1-4; 42:1-9; 49; 55:4-5; 60:1-7). The 'offering of the Gentiles' (v. 16), an idea borrowed from Isa 66:20, probably consists of the Gentiles themselves (in the person of the church leaders who would accompany Paul to Jerusalem; see Barrett 1957: 275) as well as the money gathered from their congregations (w. 25—8; Gal 2:10; i Cor 16:1—4; 2 Cor 8, 9). Possibly Paul entertained the idea that the impending trip to Jerusalem might prove to be the 'pilgrimage of the nations' to 'the mountain of the Lord' (Isa 2:3; as in Isa 66) that would precipitate the coming of 'the Deliverer' to Zion
Paul caps his exhortation to unity and mutual concern by referring to the example of Christ, 'who did not please himself (15:3). 'Welcome' (or 'accept', 'receive', proslambanomai) 'one another... just as Christ has welcomed you' (15:7). The passage is similar to Phil 2:1—11, where Paul charges his readers:
Be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus ... (w. 2—5)
What follows is the well-known 'Christ hymn', a poetic description of Jesus' self-abnegation and subsequent exaltation. Rom 15:3 is somewhat different: Paul refers only obliquely to Christ's passion, quoting the lament of the righteous sufferer in Ps 69:9, 'The insults of those who insult you [God] have fallen on me.' (Psalm 69 was widely cited in early Christianity; Cranfield (1979: 733n. i) lists 18 other NT 'quotations and echoes'.) Christ's identification with God (15:3) and with humanity (15:8) cost him honour and status, the same currency that Paul would require his readers to expend for one another (12:3—5).
(11:26 = Isa 59:20—1). This hope might account for the statement in v. 19 that Paul had 'fully proclaimed' the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum. The conversion of a representative group from the nations (equivalent to 'the full number of the Gentiles' in 11:25) might signal the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy and precipitate Christ's return (note 16:20). An obvious objection is that Paul planned to go on from Jerusalem to Rome and then to Spain (v. 28). Still, hoping for the eschaton and planning for its delay are not mutually exclusive activities. As a Christian missionary, Paul had done both for years.
Rom 15:7-13 completes the discussion of Christian life begun in 12:1. More importantly, it brings to a close the larger argument begun in 1:16. 'Christ has become a servant in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs'
The legitimacy of Paul's apostolic authority was disputed at Corinth as well as Galatia, and faint aftershocks of those controversies can be felt in w. 17-19. As a Christian leader, Paul had a number of liabilities: for example, he had not known nor was he commissioned by the historical Jesus; he had persecuted the church; his physical appearance was
(v. 8) thus proving God righteous. Christ came both for Jews (v. 8) and for Gentiles (w. 9-12), a reiteration of Paul's 'thesis statement' in 1:16—17. As he has done repeatedly before, Paul cites scriptural evidence validating the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God (Ps 18:49; Deut 32:43 (LXX); Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10 (LXX)). In conclusion, Paul again shifts from argumentative to sacral address (cf Rom 8:31—9; 11:33—6), now, appropriately, in the form of a benediction. The phrases 'God of hope' and 'abound in hope' evoke the eschatological expectation that grounds the believer's everyday experience. In 14:17, Paul wrote that 'the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit'. So Paul
'weak', and he was comparatively 'unskilled in speaking' (2 Cono:io; 11:6). Paul acknowledged other leading apostles but claimed to have 'outworked them all' (i Cor 15:10). He pointed repeatedly to his ceaseless labours and continual suffering for the sake of the gospel as primary validation for his ministry. He articulated this claim in passages that are among the most dramatic and powerful in all of his letters (e.g. i Cor 4:8—13; 2 Cor 6:3—10; 11:21—12:21). Here in Rom 15, he emphasized not only the extent but also the success of his evangelistic effort. By such a measure, his ministry may be peerless.
HO 7 ROMANS
Paul's statement of purpose in w. 20-9 serves a variety of functions. First, it explains why it has taken him so long to come to Rome. Paul's job is the founding of pioneer churches (v. 20); his assignment had been the field from Jerusalem to Illyricum (v. 19). Having now completed that task (v. 23), he is prepared to advance to Spain. Second, it details the reason for Paul's trip to Rome and makes clear that his stay there will not be permanent. (In other words, he is not coming to 'take over' the Roman church.) Third, it lets the Romans know both that he expects to be welcomed (w. 24, 29) and thathe hopes to be supported by them in his mission to Spain (v. 24).
Rom 16 by itself hardly constitutes an independent letter; moreover, we are scarcely in a position to judge whom Paul could not have known. Clearly, it would have been to his advantage to identify as many Roman confederates as possible. (Note thathefirst greets Prisca and Aquila, who left Rome under Claudius' edict and who may have returned following its suspension; Acts 18:2—3.) Finally, one may cite again the compelling textual evidence for the originality of ch. 16.
Rom 16 differs from other Pauline epistolary conclusions primarily in the length of its greetings (w. 3—16) and its blessing (w. 23—7; see below). Each of its elements is common to other Pauline closings:
Paul asks for prayer 'that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea'. It is a poignant request; according to Acts 21:27—36, Paul was arrested soon after his arrival in Jerusalem. The additional intercession, that 'my ministry to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints', has been seen by some as an indication that the Jerusalem church opposed the Gentile mission and so would reject the collection. Cranfield's (1979: 778) judgement is on target: '[It would] be more likely to recognize in these words evidence of Paul's spiritual and human sensitivity and freedom from self-centred complacency than to draw from them any confident conclusions about the tensions between the Jerusalem church and Paul.' (See also Fitzmyer 1993:726.)Contrarytothe assertions oftheTubingen School, it is extremely improbable that the leaders of the Jerusalem church opposed the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles (see ROM 0.3.3, above; cf Gal 2:1—10; Acts 15:1—29). However, it is entirely likely that they took issue with Paul's conclusion that Jews no longer need obey certain parts ofthe law. (It is instructive that the charge raised in connection with Paul's arrival in Jerusalem concerned Jewish—not Gentile— law observance, Acts 21:21). For most Jewish Christians (e.g. the author ofthe Gospel of Matthew), the key issue apparently was not the Judaizing of Gentiles but the Gentilizing of Jews. It also is worth noting that Phil 4:18 uses similar priestly language in reference to the 'acceptability' of a monetary offering, but no interpreter suggests that the status of the Philippians' gift was ever in question. (See Hill 1992: 175—8, for further discussion ofthe interpretation of Rom 15:31).
Personal recommendation (w. 1-2) i Cor 16:10-11, 15-18;
i Thess 5:12-13 (cf. Phil 4:2-3); Philem 17 Personal greetings (w. 3—16) Philem 23—4 Final admonition (w. 17—200) i Cor 16:13—14; 2 Cor 13:11—12;
Gal 6:12—17; Phil 4:4~9J i Thess 5:14—22 Grace (v. 2ob (=24)) i Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 6:18; Phil
4:23; i Thess 5:28; Philem 25 Greetings from companions (w. 21—3) i Cor 16:19—20; Phil
4:21—2 Identification of writer/amanuensis (v. 22) i Cor 16:21; Gal
6:11 Blessing (w. 25—7) 2 Cor 13:11/7; Gal 6:16; Phil 4:19—20; i Thess 5:23—4.
The frequent mention of women in w. 1—15 is impressive. Writes Beverly Gaventa (in Newson and Ringe 1992: 320) 'Nothing in Paul's comments justifies the conclusion that these women worked in ways that differed either in kind or in quality from the ways in which men worked.' Phoebe, probably the bearer of the letter, is referred to as a deacon (not 'deaconess', as in the RSV and MLB) and patron ofthe church. Nine other women are included in w. 3—15, several of whom are commended for their ministry. Of particular interest is Junia (v. 7), who together with Andronicus (probably her husband) is said to be 'prominent among the apostles'. Almost certainly, the phrasing identifies both as apostles. For that reason, many translators assumed that lounian must be a contracted form ofthe masculine Junianus. In effect, they masculinized the name Junia, rendering it 'Junias' (e.g. RSV NIV, NJB, NEB). But the pairing of names (as with Prisca and Aquila in v. 3) usually indicates a husband and wife; moreover, no corroborating example has been found for the supposed masculine form, while the feminine usage is very well attested (see the fine overview ofthe question in Dunn 1988: 894—5). In short, 'Junias' is a scandalous mistranslation.
(16:1-27) Personal Greetings and Final Remarks Was ch. 16 part of Paul's original letter to Rome? The question arises in part because of discrepancies in the textual tradition. One early manuscript (P-*6, c.2Oo) appears originally to have omitted 16:1-23. Other versions contain ch. 16 but locate the letter's benediction (16:25-7) at me end of ch. 14. Nevertheless, the manuscript evidence for the literary integrity of Rom i—16 is quite strong (e.g. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, etc.). According to Origen, Marcion disseminated a version of Romans that ended at ch. 14. The likeliest account is that the missing passages were gradually reattached to truncated copies of Romans, the benediction being added first at the end of ch. 14 (see Stuhlmacher's valuable discussion, 1994: 244-6). The authenticity of ch. 16 also has been questioned because ofthe extensive greetings (twenty-six people in all) in w. 3—15. Could Paul have known so many Roman Christians? Some scholars have suggested that all or part of ch. 16 was a separate letter, possibly written to commend Phoebe to the church at Ephesus. It is an intriguing but unconvincing suggestion.
Paul's letters often include final words of admonition (see table above). The exhortation in w. 17-20 recalls the teaching in 12—15:13 concerning Christian unity, whose background was the recent controversy at Corinth (and secondarily at Galatia). The description of those who serve 'their own appetites' and deceive others by 'flattery' is reminiscent of Paul's account of fallen humanity in 1:18—32. On behalf of his readers, Paul assumes the best but cautions against the worst.
The stately prescript that began Romans (i: 1-7) is echoed in the formal benediction in w. 25-7. Paul again refers to his ministry ofthe 'gospel' (v. 25=1:1), mentions the testimony of the prophetic writings (v. 26=1:2), and speaks of winning the Gentiles' 'obedience of faith' (v. 26=1:5). As he did in 11:36,
I CORINTHIANS 1108
Jewett, R. (1979), A Chronology of Paul's Life (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Paul concludes with doxology, glorifying God in whose mysterious plan and by whose eternal command the Gentiles have been brought into the communion of faith. It is a majestic crown to an extraordinary letter.
(1982), 'Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter', Interpretation, 36: 5-20. Kasemann, E. (1980), Commentary on Romans, trans, and ed. Geoffrey
W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Manson, T. W. (1948), 'St Paul's Letter to the Romans—and Others',
BJRL 21: 224-40. Repr. in Donfried (1991: 1-16). Marxsen, W. (1968), Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford: Black-
well). Morris, L. (1988), The Epistk to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdman). Murray, J. (1979), The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids:
Achtemeier, P. J. (1985) (ed.), Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco:
Harper). Barrett, C. K. (1957), A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, BNTC
Eerdman). Nanos, M. D. (1996), The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of
(London: A. £ C. Black). Earth, K. (1933), The Epistle to the Romans, trans. E. C. Hoskyns
Paul's Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress). Newson, C. A., and Ringe, S. H. (1992) (eds.), The Women's Bible
(London: Oxford University Press). Baur, F. C. (1873-5), -f"1*'- The Apostk of Jesus Christ, trans. A. P. (vol. i),
Commentary (London: SPCK). Raisanen, H. (1983), Paul and the Law (Tubingen: Mohr). Sanday, W, and Headlam, A. C. (1980), A Critical and Exegetical
and A. Menzies (vol. ii) (2 vols.; London: Williams £ Norgate). Beker, C. (1980), Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress). Bultmann, R. (1910), Der Stil derpaulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-
Commentary on the Epistk to the Romans, 5th edn., ICC (Edinburgh: T. £ T.Clark). Sanders, E. P. (1977), Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia:
stoische Diatribe, FRLANT 13 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck £ Ruprecht).
(1952—5) Theology ofthe New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (2 vols.; London: SCM). Byrne, B. (1996), Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press). Cranfield, C. E. B. (1979), Romans, ICC (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. £ T.
Fortress).
(1983), Paul, the Law, and the Jewish Peopk (Philadelphia: Fortress). Schlatter, A. (1995), Romans: The Righteousness of God, trans. S. Schatz-
Clark). Deissmann, A. (1927), Light from the Ancient East, 2nd edn. (London:
mann (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Spicq, C. (1994), Theological Lexicon ofthe New Testament, trans, and
Hodder £ Stoughton). Dodd, C. H. (1932), The Epistle to the Romans, MNTC (London: Hodder
ed. J. D. Ernest (3 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Stendahl, K. (1963), The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Con-
£ Stoughton). Donfried, K. P. (1991) (ed.), The Romans Debate, rev. edn. (Peabody,
science ofthe West', HTR 56: 199-215. Stirewalt, L. M. Jr. (1977), "The Form and Function ofthe Greek Letter-
Mass.: Hendrickson). Dunn, J. D. G. (1988), Romans, i. chs. 1-8; ii. chs. 9-16, WBC 38A-B
Essay', in Donfried (1991). Stowers, S. K. (1981), The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans,
(Dallas: Word). Edwards, J. R. (1992), Romans, NIBC (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Fitzmyer, J. A. (1993), Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday). Hays, R. B. (1989), Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven:
SBLDS 57 (Chico, Calif: Scholars Press).
(1994), A Rereading of Romans (New Haven: Yale University Press). Stuhlmacher, P. (1994), Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary,
Yale University Press). Hill, C. C. (1992), Hellenists and Hebrews (Minneapolis: Fortress). Holmberg, B. (1978), Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the
trans. S. J. Hafemann (Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox). Wedderburn, A. J. M. (1988), The Reasons for Romans, SNTW (Edin-
burgh: T. £T. Clark). Ziesler, J. (1989), Paul's Letter to the Romans, Trinity Press Inter-
Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Lund: StudentlitteraturAB). Jervell, J. (1971), The Letterto Jerusalem', ST25. ET, Donfried (1991:
national New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM).
61-74).
65. i Corinthians JOHN BARCLAY
repeatedly criticizes in chs. 1—4 are never mentioned in chs. 5—16. It is possible that the Corinthians' letter to Paul (7:1) and disturbing news about their behaviour (5:1) arrived after the initial drafting of chs. 1-4 but before they were sent to Corinth. However, the opening thanksgiving section (1:4—9) seems to anticipate themes which surface in later chapters (e.g. spiritual gifts in 1:7 and chs. 12-14), and me theme of unity (1:10) pervades the whole letter (see Mitchell 1992). Inconsistencies have been found within later chapters, for instance between an apparently softer stance on sacrificial food in 8:1-13 and 10:22-11:1, and a harder line in 10:1-22. Complex theories have been propounded of two, four, or more original letters which have been stitched together into our i Corinthians (see details in ABD i. 1142—3). Such hypotheses are plausible in the case of 2 Corinthians, but Paul's varying rhetorical purposes can probably explain all the
A. Authorship. The letter claims to be written by Paul and
Sosthenes (1:1) and there is no reason to doubt this ascription. As in other cases of supposedly joint authorship (e.g. 2 Cor 1:1), Paul probably took the sole responsibility (16:21). Clement accepted the letter as Paul's at the end ofthe first century
CE (i Clem 47) and all modern scholars concur, with doubts surrounding only certain sections (see on 11:2—16 and 14:34-5).
B. Integrity. Our earliest papyri preserve the letter whole (e.g. P46, from C.2OO CE), but a number of scholars have argued that it is in fact a compound of several letters. Thus it has been suggested that i Cor 1—4 is a self-contained letter, closing in 4:14—21 with the typical close-of-letter formulae (see de Boer 1994). It is strange that the named party divisions which Paul
nog I CORINTHIANS
society made them reluctant to accept Paul's more sectarian social practices (e.g. in relation to sacrificial food). Secondly, situated at an international crossroads, the church in Corinth was visited by a variety of Christian leaders, some of whom won converts of their own and assisted the church to develop in ways of which Paul disapproved (e.g. Apollos and, probably, Peter/Cephas, 1:12; 9:4—5).
inconsistencies in this letter. Thus we may take i Corinthians as a single and unified whole.
C. Date. The letter is written from Ephesus in the spring (before Pentecost, 16:8—9). If we accept the chronology of Acts (see below), Paul founded the church in Corinth in 50-1 CE (Acts 18:1-7) and was in Ephesus two or three years later (Acts 19:1—10); thus the date of composition of this letter is some time in the period 52—5 CE.
3. The first signs of conflict between Paul and the Corinthian church are preserved in Paul's reference to their reception of an earlier letter he had sent (5:9—11). This letter is now lost, but it seems to have urged a moral discipline on the church which was not well received. Perhaps in response to that letter, the Corinthians wrote a letter referred to in 7:1. It is possible to suggest some of the topics on which the Corinthians wrote to Paul: many may be introduced by the formula 'now concerning', which occurs not only in 7:1, but also in 7:25 (on the topic of virgins), 8:1 (on food offered to idols), 12:1 (on spiritual gifts), 16:1 (on the collection), and 16:12 (on Apollos). Moreover, with the aid of a little imagination, we may even reconstruct what the Corinthians thought about some of the issues Paul addresses: in some cases Paul seems to cite back at them their own formulae, such as 'all things are lawful for me' (6:12; 10:23), 'it is weu f°r a man not to touch a woman' (7:1), and 'all of us possess knowledge' (8.1). (For a full reconstruction of this interchange see Kurd 1965; for an imaginative exercise see Fror 1995.) i Corinthians thus represents part of a dialogue between Paul and the Corinthians, a dialogue which, as 2 Corinthians indicates, caused considerable pain to both parties for years to come.
D. Paul's Previous Dealings with the Corinthian Church. 1. It was of immense importance to Paul that he was the founder of the church in Corinth, the one who laid their foundation, however many supplementary builders they may have had
(3:10). As his 'work in the Lord', the existence of the Corinthian church is, for Paul, proof enough of his apostleship (9: 1-2), even if it is clear from chs. 1-4 and 9 that not all the Corinthians are willing to recognize his status or authority. Paul recalls bringing the gospel to Corinth at a time which was fraught with 'weakness, fear and trembling' (2:1—3). Some of the details which we may piece together from i Corinthians accord well with the narrative of this founding visit in Acts 18:1—17, f°r instance the conversion of Crispus (i Cor 1:14; Acts 18:8), the contact with Prisca and Aquila (i Cor 16:19; Acts 18:2-3) and his labour in Corinth with his own hands (i Cor 4:12; Acts 18:3). Paul's own comments do not allow us to date this founding visit, but Acts connects it (at its close, after 18 months) with a trial before the proconsul of Achaia, Gallic. By good fortune, an inscription enables us to date Gallio's period of office to 50-1 CE, thus giving helpfully precise parameters to the date of Paul's time in the city. Acts also mentions, as a prelude to Paul's visit, Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2). Conflicting evidence in our sources leads some scholars to think that that expulsion took place in 41 CE, and it has been proposed that Acts 18 actually combines the accounts of two separate visits by Paul to Corinth, one in 41 and one in 50/51 CE (see Lildemann 1984: 157-77). However, Jews were probably not expelled from Rome until 49 CE (see Barclay 1996: 303—6), and there is thus no reason to doubt the integrity of the account in Acts 18 or the dating of Paul's initial visit to 50/51 CE.
4. As well as the Corinthian letter, Paul has received oral reports about affairs in the church, for instance from Chloe's people (1:11) and from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus who may have brought the letter from Corinth (16:17-18).
Some of the oral reports have caused Paul great concern (1:11—13; 5:I)- Now, in response to both written and oral information, Paul writes our i Corinthians hoping that it, and Timothy's visit (4:17), will induce the necessary changes in the church before he has to correct them in person (4:21). It is clear from 2 Corinthians that that hope was not fulfilled.
E. The Corinthian Church. 1. Recent scholarship has highlighted the importance of the social divisions in the church in Corinth and has posited the disproportionate influence of a small elite group within the church, whose attitude to their social inferiors and whose class-determined interpretations of the Christian faith underlie many of the issues addressed in this letter (see esp. Theissen 1982; Chow 1992; Clarke 1993; Martin 1995; more generally on Pauline Christians, Meeks 1983; see, however, the strong arguments to the contrary by Meggitt 1998). Paul's statement about the generally lowly make-up of the church in 1:26—8 none the less indicates that there were some members of education, power, or noble birth, and some named individuals seem to belong to such an upper stratum. For instance, Gaius (1:14) must be a man of some wealth to be able to house the whole church (Rom 16:23, written from Corinth); some think the church may have grown to fifty or more members. If Crispus and Sosthenes were rulers of the synagogue, as Acts 18 indicates, they must have been from wealthy families (the title normally designates financial patronage). Moreover, the Erastus who sends greet-
2. Corinth was a cosmopolitan city, refounded as a Roman colony in 46 BCE, a seaport exposed to multiple influences from East and West (see ABD i. 1134—9 sv- Corinth). According to Acts, Paul spent longer here than in most cities (at least 18 months, Acts 18:11,18), a fact at least partly explained by the comparative lack of opposition he encountered in the city. The birth of the church also seems to have been unusually peaceful: Paul nowhere indicates any experience of harassment (see Barclay 1992). Paul established a core of believers, both Jews and Gentiles (i Cor 1:22—4; 7:I^)> wno were baptized in the name of Christ (1:13), received the Spirit (12:13) and started to meet for meals and worship in homes (11:17-34; R°m 16:23). Paul bequeathed to them a variety of credal traditions and practical instructions (15:3-5; 11:2, 23) but two factors combined to lessen his influence on the church once he had left the city. First, some of his own or subsequent converts were people of education and high social standing (see E.I) who developed independent views about the meaning of the Christian message (e.g. in relation to the resurrection of the body and sexual behaviour) and whose integration in Corinthian
I CORINTHIANS II10
ings from Corinth in Rom 16:23 is there listed as 'city treasurer'. The title might designate a lowly office, but it is extremely rare for Paul to mention the occupations of Christians and he would probably do so only if they were of social importance. It is tantalizing that an inscription from Corinth from around the middle of the first century CE mentions one Erastus (a very rare name in Corinth) as paying for a piece of pavement after his appointment as aedile. It is possible that this is the same Erastus as the one mentioned by Paul, at a subsequent and more exalted rung up the social ladder (aediles were among the highest civic leaders in Corinth; Theissen 1982: 75-83).
whether the Corinthians thought themselves already 'resurrected' in some final sense, or whether that is merely Paul's caricature of their position (4:8; cf i Tim 2:18; Thiselto 1977-8). Paul attempts throughout the letter to puncture their pride and to redirect their sense of honour towards mutual service in the community.
F. Outline. Prescript (1:1-3) Thanksgiving (1:4—9) Appeal for Unity and for Re-evaluation of Paul's Ministry
(1:10-4:21)
The Absurdity of Party Groups (1:10—17) The Message of the Cross, its Recipients and Proper Medium (1:18-2:5) True Wisdom for Spiritual, not Bickering, Christians
2. Thus the church in Corinth covered a broad social spectrum, with a few highly placed individuals who probably played a major role in shaping the life of the church and its relations with wider Corinthian society. The divisions at the Corinthian Lord's Supper (11:17-34) indicate the problems inherent in staging communal meals across such a spectrum, and the 'knowledgeable' who cared little for the scruples of their 'weaker brothers' in relation to sacrificial food (i Cor 810) may have been those of higher status whose contacts with their social equals would have been greatly disrupted by taking a scrupulous stance on this matter. Other topics raised in this letter may also be related to wealth and status. The Corinthian Christians who took each other to court (6:1-8) might have been wealthy (court cases were often expensive) and were perhaps engaged in a power-struggle within the church. Speaking in tongues (i Cor 12-14) was possibly an elitist activity (Martin 1991) and the whole spirituality of the Corinthian church probably reflects the confidence of those who accommodated their faith to their social aspirations (4:6—13). The party groupings mentioned in 1:12 may represent splits among the social elite who competed for patronage in the church. It is harder to discern how such social divisions related to the ethnic mix of the church (Jews and Gentiles) or to different opinions about sexual activity (contrast the ascetic Corinthian statement in 7:1 with the apparently libertine one in 6:12).
(2:6-3:4) Models of Leadership in the Church (3:5—4:5) Paul's Apostolic Style and Authority (4:6-21) Sexual and Related Issues (5:1-7:40)
Expulsion of an Immoral Member of the Church (5:1-13) The Absurdity of Using Corinthian Courts (6:1—n) Immorality and the Significance of the Body (6:12-20) Celibacy and Marriage (7:1-40) Sacrificial Food and the Dangers of Idolatry (8:1-11:1)
Debate with the 'Knowledgeable' concerning their 'Right to Eat (8:1-13) Paul's Example in Renouncing the 'Right' to Financial Support (9:1-23) The Dangers of Complacency in relation to Idolatry
(9:24-10:22) Practical Guidelines on Eating and Avoiding Offence (10:23-11:1) Issues Relating to Communal Meetings (11:2—14:46)
Praying and Prophesying with Proper Head-Covering (11:2-16) Humiliation of Church Members at the Lord's Supper (11:17-34) The Distribution of Spiritual Gifts in the Body of Christ
3. The leaders of the church in Corinth seem to have prided themselves on their status as 'spiritual people' (3:1-3; 14:37)- That involved a particular eagerness for spiritual gifts (12:1; 14:12), but also a high evaluation of'wisdom' and 'knowledge' (2:6; 8:1—3) which included the appreciation of mysteries (2:6-16; 13:1-2) and the conviction that others' so-called 'gods' are really shadows ('idols', 8:4-6). Their 'spiritual' status also encouraged a sense of 'authority'—particularly the permission to eat whatever they wished and to use their bodies however they liked (6:12; 10:23). Such an emphasis on spiritual knowledge seems to have reinforced and even extended the common Greek disparagement of the body as a paltry piece of material; as a result, there are partial parallels with the later phenomenon of Christian 'Gnosticism', though not to the extent some have claimed (e.g. Schmithals 1971). In any case, some Corinthian believers appear to have balked at Paul's notion of a resurrected body (15:12, 35—57) and others understood their new possession by the Spirit to require complete sexual abstinence (7:1, 25-39). Paul finds the claims being made by the Corinthians absurdly inflated, tantamount to claiming exemption from all the inevitable weaknesses and imperfections of the present (4:8-13; 13:8-13). It is not clear
(12:1-31) The Superior and Critical Demands of Love (13:1-13) The Superiority of Prophecy over Tongues (14:1—40) The Resurrection of Christ and the Resurrection Body (15:1—58) Letter Closing, with Travel Plans, Final Instructions, and Greetings (16:1-24)
Prescript (i-i-j)
This follows the form typical in the Pauline letters; sender, addressees, and greeting (cf. Gal 1:1—3). Paul mentions his apostolic calling since some in Corinth doubted this (9:1-2) and associates with himself Sosthenes, perhaps the synagogue leader mentioned in Acts 18:17, who must have been converted after the events narrated there. In referring to the church in Corinth Paul emphasizes their purity ('sanctified', 'saints', v. 2), a theme which he will later employ to reinforce the boundaries between the community and outsiders and to outlaw behaviour which soils the church (e.g. 5:6—8; 6:9—11).
mi I CORINTHIANS
statement here represents a claim by some Corinthians to a more direct allegiance to Christ. Apollos is repeatedly named in the following chapters, and his followers may have been converted through him, since we knowhe was in Corinth after Paul (3:6; Acts 18:24-19:1). It has often been suggested that Paul's critical words about eloquence in 1:18—2:5 may be directed against admiration of Apollos' rhetorical prowess (according to Acts 18:24 he was 'an eloquent man'). Therein may lie some truth, though Paul is careful never to criticize Apollos directly in this letter and says he has encouraged him to return to Corinth (16:12).
He also pointedly associates them with all other Christians elsewhere (v. 3). He will not allow the Corinthian Christians to exalt themselves over others (4:7),to neglect theirneeds (16:1— 4), or to develop idiosyncratic patterns of church life (4:17; 11:16).
Thanksgiving (1:4-9)
Paul's letters generally begin with a thanksgiving, which places the life of the church in the context of God's activity and compliments the believers on their progress thus far. Despite the problems which this church poses, Paul appears genuinely grateful for its lively success, so long as it is attributed to 'the grace of God' (v. 4) by which they have been 'enriched' (v. 5). Later he will criticize the Corinthians for boasting in their spiritual virtuosity as if they had made themselves rich (w. 7-8). Their God-given riches include every form of 'speech' and 'knowledge' (v. 5)—topics which will recur at several points in the letter (notably 1:18—3:5; 8:1—13; 13-1—2; 14:1—40), where Paul's appreciation is tempered with caution about the uses of such gifts in the community. In v. 6—which is probably best translated 'just as the testimony to Christ was confirmed among you'—Paul points forward to his discussion of the terms in which he first testified to Christ in Corinth (1:18-2:5), reminding his socially comfortable converts that all they have is based on the subversive message of Christ crucified. Their speech and knowledge are part of their enjoyment of every 'spritiual gift' (charisma, v. 7), a theme which comes to full (though again critical) expression in chs. 12-14. Notable at the end of this section are references to the future: for all their present abundance, the Corinthians still await 'the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ' (v. 7) and the judgement which will take place on 'the day of our Lord Jesus Christ' (v. 8). Throughout this letter Paul will point forward to that future, to forestall premature judgements of his own or anyone else's ministry (v. 5), to warn against complacency in the race still unfinished (9:24-7; 10:12), and to moderate the exaggerated claims that were being made for knowledge and other spiritual gifts (13:813). Their only ground for confidence can be the faithfulness of God (v. 9; cf 10:13), wh° has called them to participate in Christ (cf. 1:30-1). It is only by continuing in that 'fellowship' with Christ that they can face the end with confidence (cf. 16:22-4).
The Cephas party remains a matter of controversy. Had Cephas (Peter) visited Corinth, like Paul and Apollos, and thus played some role in shaping the Corinthian church?
Some think that 9:5 suggests as much, others that Cephas' reputation was high enough for him to have attracted a following in Corinth without a personal presence (cf 15:5 and Barrett 1982: 28—39). Either way, it is difficult to know what the Cephas party stood for. An old scholarly tradition
(arising in the igth cent, in the Tubingen school and revived by Goulder 1991) takes the Peter party to represent a conservative form of Jewish Christianity, which took the Jewish law as its continuing standard. However, evidence for this standpoint in Corinth is hard to find and the character and influence of the Cephas party remain an enigma. What is revealing, however, is that those who say they belong to Paul are only one segment of the Corinthian congregation. Without wanting to foster a Paul party in Corinth, Paul clearly needs to re-establish his authority over the whole church, i Cor 1—4 is thus characterized by a delicate balance between Paul's self-effacement, as he points to Christ and the cross, and his self-promotion as the 'father' of the Corinthian church and the model of Christian discipleship (cf. Dahl 1967). Paul's first move is to ridicule the creation of such groups. Since the whole church belongs to Christ and constitutes his body (12:12-27) any such party splits threaten to dismember Christ (v. 13). Tactfully using the Paul party as his prime target Paul insists that he is neither the origin of their salvation nor the one to whom they belong. Reference in v. 13 to baptism 'in [lit. into] the name of Paul' indicates that baptism was usually performed in Pauline churches 'into the name of Christ' (cf. 12:12—13; Gal 3:27). It appears that the person of the baptizer is being given special significance in Corinth and Paul thus deliberately plays down his role in this regard: he can think of very few whom he has baptized (w. 14—16; on Crispus and Gaius see i COR E.I). The sudden remembering of Stephanas' household (v. 16) underlines the insignificance of Paul's role in this matter; the initial lapse of memory might be genuine, but it also serves an obvious rhetorical role. Stephanas seems to have played some leadership role in the Corinthian church
Appeal for Unity and for Re-evaluation of Paul's Ministry
(1:10-4:21) (1:10-17) The Absurdity of Party Groups v. 10 encapsulates the core of Paul's appeal which covers not only chs. 1—4, but also many other parts of the letter which appeal for mutual care within the church (e.g. 6:1-8; 8:1-3; 12:12-26). The 'divisions' spoken of here do not seem to prevent the church gathering together (Rom 16:23), but they damage its life, preventing its maturation (3:1—4) and negating its calling to love (13:1-13). Paul is responding in the first instance to oral reports from 'Chloe's people' (v. n), probably the slaves of one of the members of the church. The quarrels they report concern the forming of party-groups in which members of the Corinthian church line up, in quasi-political fashion, behind Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or (apparently) Christ (v. 12). The last grouping receives no further mention in i Corinthians, except in Paul's insistence that all belong to Christ (3:22). Perhaps the
(see i COR 16:15-18). Paul insists that his commission was to 'proclaim thegospel',not to baptize (v. 17). This does not mean he considered baptism insignificant: he assumes that all believers have been baptized (i Cor 6:11; 12:13) and elsewhere spells out its theological significance (Rom 6:1-11). But he had a different and specialized role: to preach the gospel of Christ crucified. By immediately disowning an interest in 'eloquent wisdom' (v. 17) he prepares the way for the next section of the letter.
I CORINTHIANS III2
(1:18-2:5) The Message of the Cross, its Recipients and Proper Medium At first glance, this section might appear a digression from the topic of party divisions, a subject which does not recur till 3:4. But the conjunction of the themes of wisdom and party boasts in 3:18-23 indicates that the two are closely related. It is possible that wisdom (and specifically eloquence) was one of the bases on which Corinthian Christians were lining up behind different leaders (see above, on Apollos). But, more generally, Paul discerns in the claim of allegiance to vaunted leaders a fundamental misapprehension of the gospel, whose value-system is wholly opposed to the values of power and wisdom which the Corinthian competitiveness exhibits. Thus, typically, Paul attacks the disease which has brought about the worrying symptoms, and forces the Corinthians to recognize the counter-cultural impact of the gospel of Christ crucified, in its message (1:18-25), its chosen recipients (1:26-31), and its proper medium (2:1-5).
This negation of the human value-system is matched by God's call of believers (1:26—31). The social make-up of the Corinthian church proves Paul's point since few Corinthian Christians could claim status by education ('wise'), political influence ('powerful'), or ancestry ('of noble birth', 1:26). Although this observation plays a rhetorical function here, it must also be broadly true (for a social profile of the church, see 1 COR E.i-2). For Paul, the predominantly low-status composition of the church is no accident: it indicates precisely God's choice which aggressively 'shames' the wise and powerful in the world. To creat a rhetorical tricolon, Paul adds to his earlier twin motifs of wisdom and power a third category, the low
(lit. ignoble) and despised (1:28) who shame those 'of noble birth' (1:26). He then expands this category to its fullest possible generalization: God chose the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are (1:28). The phrase 'the nobodies' depicts then, as now, those of no social significance, but it also evokes notions of God's creative role in bringing creation out of nothing (cf. Rom 4:17; Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). And if salvation is entirely the creation of God, no human being can claim credit or rest confidence in any human attributes of status or significance (1:29). Theologically this line of thought is parallel to Paul's assault on Jewish boasting in Rom 2-4, but here it is widened to embrace the whole human race. It is precisely the Corinthians' boasting and concomitant arrogance which Paul opposes throughout this letter (cf. 4:18; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4), and it is here exposed in its absurdity. All that salvation means in Christ (the list of abstract nouns in 1:30 sums up its meaning by reference to the core metaphors in Pauline theology) is possible only from God (so runs the Greek behind 'he is the source of your life', 1:30). And here Paul can rightly claim to be in continuity with the prophetic warning against self-confidence, citing (1:31) Jer 9:24, whose context warns against glorying in wisdom, power, and wealth.
The message of the cross is portrayed as an uncompromising indictment of human values of wisdom and power, since it reverses their standards and undermines their pretensions. In 1:18 Paul introduces the twin antitheses of wisdom/foolishness and power/weakness, which undergird this whole section, and he embraces the apparent absurdity of his message of Christ crucified—absurd, however, only to those 'who are perishing'. The division of humanity into two groups— 'those perishing' and 'those being saved' (he never says believers have been saved)—is similar to the dualistic spirit of apocalyptic literature, as also are the pejorative nuances in phrases like 'this age' (1:20) and 'the world' (1:21). For Paul, the turning-point of the ages is precisely in the death (and resurrection) of Christ (cf 15:20—8). The cross of Christ marks the final indictment of vaunted human 'wisdom', the fulfilment of the prediction of Isa 29:14, cited in 1:19. With rhetorical questions, Paul calls for those reputed to be wise ('scribes' are those so reputed in the Jewish world) and declares that God has not just bypassed 'the wisdom of the world' but utterly subverted it (1:20). The failure of humankind to know God according to its own system of wisdom triggers a divine plan springing from a deeper 'wisdom of God' (1:21; cf. Rom 1:18-23). m Jewish fashion, Paul divides humankind into two: Jews and Greeks/Gentiles (the two latter are synonymous in 1:22—4, but the term 'Greek' is particularly well suited for association with wisdom). The distinction between their desires (Jews want 'signs'—that is, demonstrations of divine power—and Greeks want 'wisdom') is rhetorically over-schematized, since Jews were also interested in wisdom (e.g. the Jewish wisdom material) and Greeks were also interested in supernatural power (e.g. in healing). But it enables Paul to present the message of Christ crucified as the inverse of all human values. It is 'a stumbling-block' to Jews (cf. Gal 5:11; 6:12—14), particularly because of the scriptural association between 'hanging on a tree' and being accursed by God (Deut 21:22-3, cited in Gal 3:13); it is 'foolishness' to Gentiles, since this Roman punishment was universally feared as a hideously cruel and shameful death (the shame of prolonged, helpless, and public death being as devastating as its pain). But to those who are 'called' this ultimate symbol of weakness and absurdity represents, paradoxically, the precise locale where God displays his power and wisdom (1:24—5).
Finally, Paul addresses the question of the medium by which this message is conveyed (2:1-5) recalling the terms in which he first communicated the gospel. Here he pointedly eschews rhetorical ability, despite the fact that this passage, 1:18-2:5, is one of the most rhetorically effective in the New Testament! In the Graeco-Roman world 'wisdom' was closely associated with rhetorical skill ('lofty' or 'plausible' words, 2:1, 4), which was a central element in 'secondary' education and was highly prized by a public which enjoyed listening to finely crafted speeches in the courtroom, assembly, or theatre (see Litfin 1994). Paul claims that his message was so completely focused on Christ crucified (2:2) that any decorative oratory would have been utterly inconsistent. His own weakness as messenger (2:3) matched the 'weakness' of the message, so that its powerful effect in evoking faith might be identified unmistakably as the power of the Spirit of God, not any human achievement (2:4-5). Paul here anticipates his later self-depiction as a figure of weakness and humiliation (4:913), characteristics which match the message of the cross (cf. 2 Cor 4:7—15; 11:21—12:10). Though they admired his letters (2 Cor 10:10), the elite Corinthian Christians clearly despised Paul's speaking abilities (2 Cor 11:6); but Paul regards his 'disability' here as precisely making visible the only 'ability' that counts, the power of God.
1113 I CORINTHIANS
the Spirit gives access to a realm of knowledge, and a language in which to communicate it, quite beyond normal human knowledge and communication. This is not to suggest that the gospel is inherently irrational, but that its content and what it reveals about God's paradoxical purposes go well beyond the frame of reference in which human language operates. As suggested above, some of the vocabulary here might reflect the terms in which the 'spiritual' people in Corinth distinguished themselves from those who had merely normal human abilities, the psychikoi (those with merely natural human life, psyche) translated in 2:14 as 'unspiritual'. However, by using the 'we' form throughout (e.g. 'we have received... the Spirit that is from God', 2:12), Paul suggests that these special attributes are applicable to all believers. Those who 'love God' (2:9; cf. 8:3) are gifted with 'the gifts of God's Spirit' (2:14; cf. 12:1-11), which, like the cross, appear foolish by worldly standards (2:14). The Spirit therefore enables an understanding much deeper than mere human knowledge (2:15). Indeed, Paul can even claim in 2:16 that the rhetorical question of Isa 40:13 (originally phrased to expect the answer 'no one') can be used to describe a position filled by believers, who really have 'the mind of the Lord' (here taken to refer to Christ). Such bold claims indicate that Paul regards Christian faith as opening a dimension of understanding far more profound than anything offered by nonbelieving perspectives; this is of a piece with his assertion that the cosmos, and time, and life, and death 'belong to' believers, inasmuch as they belong to Christ (3:21-3).
(2:6-3:4) True Wisdom for Spiritual, not Bickering, Christians At first sight 2:6—16 seems to shift into a different gear. After denigrating wisdom in 1:18—2:5, Paul suddenly claims to impart wisdom, and in doing so changes from the first person singular (I) to the first person plural (we)—a change then reversed in 3:1 ff What is more, the claim to privilege the 'mature' (2:6; the Greek could be translated 'perfect') looks out of step with the notion that the cross subverts human hierarchies (1:26-9), while several terms in this section of the letter are unusual or even unique in Pauline literature (e.g. 'the depths of God', 2:10, and the contrast between the 'spiritual' and the 'unspiritual', 2:13-15; cf 15:44-6 and Pearson 1973). Is Paul claiming access to a higher wisdom than the folly of Christ crucified? Does this passage reveal an esoteric or mystical side to Pauline theology not witnessed elsewhere?
The best explanation is that Paul is not outlining a new or more esoteric form of wisdom, but spelling out the implications of his gospel in terms that partially reflect the vocabulary and concepts of the leaders of the church in Corinth, but also in such a way that he can spring a rhetorical trap on his dialogue partners in 3:1-5. Although we cannot be fully confident in this matter, it is very likely that Paul picks up and reuses elements of the theological vocabulary of the Corinthian elite in this passage, for instance, their claim to be recipients of the revelation of the Spirit, to be 'spiritual' and not just in possession of ordinary, natural life (the 'unspiritual' of v. 14), to speak in Spirit-inspired terms to one another
(2:13), and to be above critical scrutiny in such matters (2:15). Paul's skill in this passage is to accept and rework this pattern of vocabulary and then to turn it against the Corinthian elite in 3:1—5 when he argues that their behaviour in fact disqualifies their claim to be 'spiritual'!
But Paul's dialogue with the elite in Corinth cannot rest here. He now springs on them a rhetorical trap which denies to them the very spiritual superiority he had described in such glowing terms in 2:6-16. If what he has just described is the condition of the 'spiritual', let the Corinthians know that Paul could not initially impart such spiritual knowledge to them since they were merely 'people of the flesh, infants in Christ' (3:1). They cannot here be described as 'unspiritual' (2:14), since they had, as believers, received the Spirit (12:12-13); 7et
Paul first refers to a 'wisdom' communicated among the 'mature', which is hidden and decreed from eternity 'for our glory' (2:6—7). That may seem to confirm the elitist claims of the leaders of the Corinthian church who act as though they were already rich and filled (4:8). But Paul makes clear that he understands such concepts in an apocalyptic framework in which God's wisdom is precisely opposite to the wisdom claimed by 'the world', especially that espoused by the elite ('the rulers of this age'); similarly, the 'glory' to which we are destined is not a present but a future possession (2:9). It has often been thought that 'the rulers of this age' referred to in 2:6 and 2:8 are the supernatural forces of evil which Paul elsewhere calls 'powers' and 'authorities' (e.g. i Cor 15:24; Rom 8:38; cf. Col 2:15). But the precise term he uses here (archontes) is more naturally taken to refer to (human) 'political authorities' (cf. Rom 13:3) and their responsibility for the crucifixion (2:8) strongly suggests that Paul is thinking primarily of earthly political powers. The notion that these powers are 'doomed to perish' matches the thought of 1:28 (where the same Gk. verb is used): those considered 'something' are shamed through the cross, while the 'nothings' in this world are destined for 'glory'/honour (2:7). The shamed
at the start of their Christian lives they were hardly spiritual in the terms they now claim, only 'of the flesh'—that is, ensnared in merely human patterns of thought and behaviour (cf. the flesh-Spirit antithesis in Gal 5 and Rom 8). Atthat stage, they could only take milk and were not ready to be weaned (3:2). But now comes Paul's really devastating blow: 'even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh' (3:2-3, emphasis added). In other words, all that Paul has been saying about 'the spiritual' and their understanding of the mysteries of God cannot really be applied to the Corinthians: he has built up the mystique of this category only to deny that the Corinthians can fit it! This is the first of many attempts in this letter to puncture the pride of the Corinthian Christians, but there is none more devastating. The basis of Paul's claim that they are still of the flesh is where the trap really bites: the jealousy and quarrelling evidenced in their claims of belonging to rival leaders (3:3—4) reveal precisely how immature they are! The party-groupings which set up rival claims to status in wisdom or in the excellence of the chosen leader indicate not how mature but how immature the Corinthian church is: their bids for superiority show just how inferior they are, operating on the level of mere squabbling humans rather than as gifted and inspired people of the Spirit. Thus it appears that the
Crucified One turns out to be—by the same paradox as 1:25— the 'Lord of glory' (2:8).
The 'glory' which is destined for believers (2:7) is defined in 2:9 as indescribably beyond human imagination by means of a pastiche of scriptural phrases, drawn principally from Isa 64:4 and 65:17. The point here, developed in 2:10-16, is that
I CORINTHIANS 1114
'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church' (Mt 16:18). It is just possible that Paul is here attacking Peter and his influence in Corinth, though elsewhere in the letter he speaks of Peter in unpolemical terms (9:5; 15:5) and we do not know if the rock saying, which is found only in Matthew, was known in Corinth at this date. Paul is concerned at the direction of the current leadership of the church, and reveals those anxieties by warning of the consequences of building with worthless materials (3:12—15). Again the test of value comes not from present human assessment but from God's definitive judgement which will operate on 'the Day'. Building on traditional images of'the Day of the Lord' as a fiery event (e.g. Mai 3:2—3; 4:1; cf. 2 Thess 1:7—8), Paul suggests that all worthless building materials will be consumed and the builder rewarded or punished ('suffer loss', 3:15) on the basis of what survives. The context suggests that he is referring specifically to those with leadership responsibilities, rather than to each individual believer. His basis for confidence that the builder will survive, even if his work is destroyed, is that God's grace has a secure grasp of those in Christ (cf. 5:5; 11:32). However, that does not negate the possibility that believers may somehow prise themselves away from Christ by continual and deliberate disloyalty (cf. 9:27; 10:6-12).
party claims ('I belong to Paul' etc.) which seemed to disappear from sight after 1:18 were actually in the background all along. For Paul they represent a mindset determined by the values of'this age' which have been fundamentally subverted by the message of the cross (1:18-2:5) and superseded by the new depths of understanding afforded by the Spirit (2:6—16).
(3:5-4:5) Models of Leadership in the Church Now that he has returned to the topic of party groups in the Corinthian church (3:4), Paul constructs another line of argument against such factionalism, this time focused on leadership and its evaluation. To align oneself with one or another leader is, for Paul, to commit three cardinal errors: (i) to place leaders on a pedestal, where they do not belong; (2) to play them off inappropriately against one another; and (3) to reward them with human praise rather than leaving to God the assessment of their work. These three themes are the principal elements in the discussion of leadership in 3:5—4:5, which Paul develops by using metaphors drawn from agriculture (3:5—9), building
(3:9-17), and household slavery (4:1-5). 3:18-23 forms an interlude which links this section back to 1:18-31 and points to the folly of the boasting which takes place in leadership competitions.
The agricultural metaphors in 3:5-9 emphasize the subordinate nature of Christian leadership as a task fulfilled only at the bidding of the Lord (3:5, 8) and in utter dependence on God's creative activity (3:6—7, 9). Paul and Apollos are no more than servants through whom (not in whom) the Corinthians believed (3:5). Paul, as founder of the church (a role he recalls frequently in this letter, cf. 3:10; 4:15; 9:2), may be said to have been its planter; Apollos' subsequent activity was to water the plants (3:6). But neither role is of any value without the gift of growth to the plants, a gift which only God can bestow (3:6-7). The Corinthians belong to the church by God's calling (1:2, 26—7), and it is God alone who is 'the source of your life in Christ Jesus' (1:30): thus it is absurd to use slogans which suggest that their leaders were themselves the creators, rather than simply the instruments, of the church's life. Moreover, the two tasks of planting and watering cannot be played off against one another: the two workers 'have a common purpose' (2:8; lit. 'are one'), so it is senseless to claim to belong to one and not to the other. They are 'working together' in an agricultural project planned and owned by God (3:9). And they will receive their reward not through human adulation but by God's assessment of their labour (3:8).
Indeed the seriousness of the building work being undertaken in Corinth is underlined in the extension of the metaphor to the church as a temple (3:16—17). Elsewhere, each Christian's body is described as a temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19), but here (as in 2 Cor 6:16) the church as a collective is so described. This is a striking transfer of terminology and allegiance from the Jerusalem temple, which was still standing at this time and was the object of reverence by Jews both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Paul's Gentile converts were never instructed to pay any attention, or contribute any taxes, to that building; nor, of course, did they construct any 'temples' of their own. They were encouraged, rather, to think of themselves as a temple, the locus of God's holy presence. Thus, to inflict damage on a church community is to touch God's precious sanctuary, inviting his immediate judgement (3:17). Builders in Corinth should beware that they really build and do not destroy (cf. 8:10-11).
3:18-23 briefly interrupts the sequence of metaphors to underline once more the counter-cultural character of Christian commitment (3:18—19 echoes themes from 1:18—31). Expanding quotes from Job 5:12 and Ps 94:11, Paul emphasizes again God's opposition to the worldly standards of evaluation which undergird the Corinthians' rivalry as they boast in competing leaders (3:19—21). In fact, their slogans suggest a fundamental misapprehension of themselves and of the relationship between church and leader. Instead of saying T belong to Paul' (or whomever), they should recognize rather that Paul (or Apollos or Cephas) 'belong to' them (3:21—2). Although God's servants may play important roles in founding and encouraging the church, their purpose is not to win admirers or adherents but to serve the church to which they belong. By placing leaders on a pedestal the Corinthian church actually demeans itself: the leaders are there for the sake of the church, not the other way around. And Paul can expand this principle rhetorically with the claim that the world, life, death, and time are at the service of the church, because this community is not some mere club or social