Part 108
The end of 3:9 switches the metaphor to that of building, an image which governs the discussion of leadership in 3:10—15 and is then extended with reference to the temple (3:16-17). Paul the planter in 3:6 is now Paul the master builder, who laid the foundation of the church in Corinth (3:10). In this case reference is made not to Apollos, but to 'someone else' who is building on that foundation. Since within this metaphor God is less clearly the means of growth, the spotlight falls on human beings with responsibility for building, with a nonetoo-veiled threat that they may be performing their task badly
(3:10,12-13). Th£ aggressive tone in Paul's voice has led many commentators to suspect that he is attacking some specific individual(s) in the church (e.g. Barrett 1971: 87-8). Moreover, it is tempting to take 3:11 as a rebuke of those who claim to belong to Cephas, on the basis of the famous rock prediction:
in5 I CORINTHIANS
(e.g. Cephas?). But it is unnecessary to attribute to Paul some subtle encoding of his message. He is simply drawing attention to his use of metaphor to indicate that he has set out these various leadership models in order to undercut the rivalries which afflict the Corinthian church. It is very hard to discern the source or meaning of the saying Paul cites in this context, 'Nothing beyond what is written' (v. 6; some suspect that the text is corrupt at this point). This looks like a slogan, but whose is it, and does it refer to Scripture or to something else that was 'written' (see Hooker 1963; Fee 1987: 166—9)? Few scholars claim to understand the allusion, which one imagines made more sense to the Corinthians than it does to us.
gathering but the centre of God's plan for the world and history (3:22; cf 6:2—3 an(^ the expansion of this theme in Colossians and Ephesians). At least, the church has that role inasmuch as (and only inasmuch as) it belongs to Christ (that is the one slogan from 1:12 which Paul does not here reverse); and Christ himself belongs to God (cf. 11:3; 15:28). As the token of the new creation in the midst of'this age', the church has a significance far greater than the leaders God uses to serve it. But its significance lies only in the fact that it belongs and bears witness to Christ, the agent of God's re-creative power in the universe.
The third metaphor of leadership is that of household slaves, specifically stewards (4:1-5). Again it is implied that such figures should not be the objects of praise (they are only agents of Christ, or of 'the mysteries of God'); but the emphasis here falls on the assessment of their work. Stewards are held accountable as to their trustworthiness (4:2), but by their masters, not by those they encounter in the course of their work (cf. Rom 14:4). At this point, Paul becomes directly personal, applying the metaphor specifically to himself as one who might come under the Corinthians' scrutiny (4:3) but who prefers to leave the judgement to his master (4:4; 'the Lord', kyrios, means also 'the master' of a slave). Here then emerges, what we might have suspected all along, that the party divisions in Corinth represent a critical evaluation of Paul's apostleship, inasmuch as some claim to belong to others and not to Paul (1:12). As in 9:3, Paul hints at a body of opposition to his authority, but he attempts to defuse it by insisting that it is inappropriate for the Corinthians to judge his behaviour, and premature as well: when the Lord comes
Paul regards Corinthian pride as manifest in a sense of special achievement and perfection. Their giftedness, which he recognized in 1:4-7, l£d to a sense of distinction, which easily obliterated gratitude for gifts received (v. 7). They have been enriched (by God, 1:5), but imagine themselves simply rich (v. 8); their notions of fullness and royal authority might be related to the Stoic notion of the self-sufficiency of the perfectly wise man. The sarcasm of v. 8 is an attempt to puncture that pride, and the following verses deflate it by depicting the life of the apostles (supposedly the models of the church) as the very opposite of the honour and victory which the Corinthians expect for themselves. Like those under a sentence of death, who are brought on at the end of a public spectacle to entertain the masses by their gruesome deaths, the apostles are a despicable sight, watched only to be ridiculed (v. 9). Their reputations match the folly, powerlessness, and shame of the cross (v. 10 echoes the themes of 1:18— 25), and w. 11—13 sPell this out in practical terms, with some intriguing echoes of the ethos of the gospels (e.g. Mk 6:7-12; Lk 6:24-31). Included in this list of demeaning conditions of life is the fact that Paul works with his own hands (v. 12). That suggests that he is combating an ethos fostered by the social elite (who alone looked down on manual labour); in deliberate and perhaps exaggerated contrast, Paul presents himself as the scum of the earth (v. 13; cf. 1:28—9).
(and not before), he will give full and final judgement (4:4—5). What will count then is commendation from God (4:5), not the measure of praise (or criticism) leaders currently receive from members of the church.
(4:6-21) Paul's Apostolic Style and Authority The personal turn taken in Paul's final leadership metaphor (4:1-5) indicates the progression of the argument towards self-defence. It now becomes clear that Paul is under attack in Corinth, unfavourably compared with other leaders and criticized specifically for the poor figure he cuts and for his long absence from the scene. Paul's response requires him to confront and ridicule Corinthian pride (w. 6—8), to describe, by contrast, his own highly vulnerable ministry (w. 9—13), and finally to assert his fatherly authority in Corinth and announce his forthcoming visit (w. 14—21).
The polemical purpose of this self-portrait is evident when Paul declares his aim to be to 'admonish' his 'children' (v. 14); he denies that he wants to shame them (cf. however 6:5), but that cannot be ruled out as a proper result. It now becomes clear that Paul's role as founder of the church is crucial to his present bid to correct them. However many teachers and leaders may have operated in Corinth, they can have no status higher than 'guardian' (lit. childminder—the slave employed by parents to guard the safety of their children), whereas Paul is unique as their 'father' (v. 15). Paul wants to claim this role even in relation to those who were converted through other evangelists (e.g. after his departure from Corinth) and he uses it, as fathers often did in the ancient world, to require that his 'children' imitate his pattern of life and thought (v. 16). He is dispatching Timothy (perhaps with this letter) to reinforce his point, but also now promises to come in person (w. 17—21). It appears that his long absence from Corinth has been criticized, or at least exploited, by those who think Paul's opinion about their affairs is insignificant (v. 18). With a final rhetorical flourish (still utilized by parents!) Paul offers them a choice: it is up to them whether he comes with gentleness or punishment (v. 21). This threat proved to be a fatal mistake,
Paul's first target is the inflated sense of importance in the Corinthian church, which he regards as the cause of their party rivalries: they are puffed up in comparing one leader with another, congratulating themselves on their chosen objects of allegiance (v. 6). Looking back on 3:5—4:5, Paul says he has 'applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit'
(v. 6). The Greek here is slightly obscure and might mean simply that he has put his discussion in the form of analogies (relating to Apollos and himself) rather than using literal speech, or that he has changed the analogies from one metaphor to another (gardener, builder, steward) to make his points as clear as possible. Another possible nuance is that he has disguised his meaning, making explicit reference to Apollos and himself, but really referring to other people
I C O R I N T H I A N S 1116
what verdict the church court will reach: they are to 'hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh' (v. 5) Handing over to Satan (cf. i Tim 1:20) probably means expulsion, on the understanding that the world outside the church is in the grip of Satan ('the god of this world', 2 Cor 4:4), but it is unclear whether 'the destruction of the flesh' implies physical harm (cf. 2 Cor 12:7), even death (cf. i Cor 11:30), or, more benignly, the suppression of the man's fleshly nature, that is, his propensity to sin (cf. 3:3; Gal 5:19—21). In any case, Paul regards the final result of this action as in some way salvific: 'his spirit' (the Greek lacks 'his' and might conceivably mean 'the spirit of the church') will be saved in the final judgement. The connection between destruction of the 'flesh' and salvation of the 'spirit' is obscure, and depends on the meaning of each term. Does physical suffering chasten, or death make atonement for sin, or moral correction purify the individual's spirit (see Fee 1987: 208-13)?I Cor 11:32 might suggest some chastening process.
since Paul, when he finally did visit Corinth, found himself facing stiffer opposition than he had anticipated, and his stay proved extremely painful (2 Cor 2:1—2). The assertion of authority was to backfire in outright repudiation of Paul and still harsher criticisms of his ministry: in 2 Corinthians we can watch him trying to patch up a now deeply uneasy relationship.
Sexual and Related Issues (5:1-7:40)
(5:1—13) Expulsion of an Immoral Member of the Church The abruptness with which this chapter begins has led some to wonder whether it starts a new letter or is occasioned by some fresh news. But there are good reasons why Paul should have delayed treating such matters until now. The first four chapters of the letter, which undercut the Corinthians' pride and reassert Paul's authority, form the necessary platform for Paul to launch his specific assaults on behaviour in the Corinthian church. None of what follows in chs. 5—16 would cut any ice in Corinth unless the members of the church were prepared to reconsider their canons of 'wisdom' and to listen to their 'father' in Christ.
w. 6-8 highlight the danger of the Corinthians' nonchalant attitude in this matter, drawing on purity metaphors associated with Passover, v. 6 contains a proverb (cf. Gal 5:9 and Mt 13:33) concerning the disproportionate influence of a tiny substance—in this case, clearly, the single individual in the corporate body of the church. But yeast leads Paul to think of Passover, and the need before Passover to clear out all traces of the substance (Ex 12:15). Th£ church is to become unleavened
The oral information to which Paul responds here was apparently rather more damning than what the Corinthians had divulged in their letter (7:1). Paul is shocked that they have tolerated a form of sexual liaison which he considers scandalous even among 'pagans', whom he takes to have minimal moral standards (cf. i Thess 4:5). The 'immorality' (porneia) concerns a prolonged relationship between a man and his father's wife, probably his stepmother and probably after the death of his father. We cannot say more about the figures involved (Clarke 1993 suggests that the man may have had financial interests in such a relationship, e.g. to secure his inheritance), except that Paul's chastisement of the man alone suggests that the woman was not a Christian (cf. w. 12—13). Sexual relations between a man and his stepmother were generally considered incestuous, both in Judaism (e.g. Lev 18:8) and in the Graeco-Roman world (Ap. Met. 10.2-12), and it is therefore surprising that this Corinthian believer had got away with such behaviour thus far. It is possible that he was too important socially to be subject to criticism, and that he justified his behaviour specifically on the basis of the Christian ethos of liberty. The latter may be hinted at by Paul's expostulation: 'And you are arrogant!' (v. 2). That arrogance may exist despite such sexual activity, but it might also flourish because o/the claim to freedom from taboos which Christian faith was understood to entail: in 6:12 (and 10:23) Paul will cite a Corinthian slogan which suggests a conscious embracing of liberty, even in sexual conduct (6:13). For the rest of this chapter Paul simply assumes that this behaviour is wrong; its perpetrator must therefore, he insists, be expelled. Later, however, in 6:12—20, he gives some reasons why he thinks a Christian must be responsible in the use of his/her body.
(that is, without sin) because it is, in principle, a new, unleavened substance (v. 7); Paul often calls on his converts to become in practice what they already are. They are a part of the Passover feast founded on the sacrifice of Christ, the lamb (an unparalleled use of such imagery in Paul). Then, in v. 8, the church shifts within the metaphor from the unleavened dough to partakers of the festival: the Corinthians' church life may be considered a permanent Passover meal, which must be kept free from the impurities of'malice and evil' such as the sexual sin presently tolerated in their midst.
Thus the final paragraph of this chapter (w. 9-13) underlines the need for the church to condemn and expel the bad influence presently festering in its midst. In v. 9 Paul refers to his earlier letter as already issuing instruction to dissociate with the 'immoral'—an instruction which seems to have been objected to in Corinth as implying complete social withdrawal, but which Paul here insists meant only separation from immoral members of the church. He now makes clear that he does not require a sectarian retreat ('going out of the world', v. 10), although later chapters will indicate that he is unhappy with the degree of social integration which the Corinthian
Christians enjoy (6:1; 10:14-22). He has no principled objection to social intercourse with unbelievers, even if they be immoral or 'idolatrous': the danger lies in association with those who have been accepted into the church as 'brothers' or 'sisters'. Paul assumes that the Corinthians will know for sure who are 'insiders' and 'outsiders' (5:12-13), probably on the basis of whether or not they have received baptism (6:9—11;
In w. 2-5 Paul portrays an act of expulsion (excommunication) which may owe something to synagogue practices known to him. He imagines the church gathering like a court, to pronounce judgement 'with the power of our Lord Jesus'.
12:12—13). He regards it as far more dangerous to associate with immoral insiders than immoral outsiders, presumably because the example of the insider will be more influential on the rest of the congregation. Perhaps the Corinthians did not understand themselves to be committed to a common lifestyle or to be bound as tightly to each other as Paul here assumes.
Such is his own strength of feeling, and his lack of confidence in the moral values of the Corinthian Christians, that he imagines himself present 'in spirit' and declares already
ni7 I C O R I N T H I A N S
operation of internal courts in some Diaspora Jewish communities.
They may have thought of 'religion' as quite separate from 'ethics' and their relationships with social equals more important than their fellowship with other believers. Paul's instruction here requires that they regard moral behaviour with the utmost seriousness and that they understand themselves as a community whose intensity of involvement with one another renders them vulnerable to internal corruption (v. 13 cites from a parallel theme in Deut 17; see Rosner 1994). The harsh measures advocated ('not even to eat with such a one', v. n) would debar the offender from the communal Lord's
In w. 7—8 Paul steps onto a higher moral plane and asks how these lawsuits have arisen in the first place: to have them is already to lose them ('a defeat for you', v. 7). He hints at an ethic of non-retaliation reminiscent of the Sermon on the Mount, without invalidating the lesser solution of internal adjudication. It is best to accept injustice, and permissible to seek its rectification through an internal court, but it is inappropriate to ask 'the unrighteous' to judge such matters and utterly scandalous that Christians are themselves responsible for injustice in the first place—even against their fellow Christians (v. 8).
Supper, which, like meals generally in antiquity, was an important token of association.
(6:1-11) The Absurdity of Using Corinthian Courts The theme of judging insiders rather than outsiders (5:12-13) leads Paul into a short digression. He will return to the topic of sexual morality at the end of ch. 6, but for now uses this opportunity to register his disapproval of Corinthian Christians who are settling their disputes with one another in the civil courts of Corinth. We do not know how many such cases there had been (perhaps only one), or precisely what they concerned, though the reference to 'defrauding' in v. 7 suggests financial disputes, which indeed were the most common cause of litigation in the Graeco-Roman world. Paul is affronted that the Corinthian Christians seem incapable of resolving their internal disputes without resorting to the judgement of 'unbelievers'. His objection lies not so much in his fear lest the community wash its dirty linen in public (he shows no concern here that it will be discredited), but in the absurdity of asking for judgement from people far less capable than believers. Those who sit in the Corinthian courts are described as 'the unrighteous' (v. i) and 'unbelievers' (v. 6), and Paul's objection to resorting to their judgement is not simply that they are liable to be corrupt (though, arguably, justice was a rare commodity; see Winter 1991) but that they represent 'the world' (v. 2), the realm of unbelief which is by definition inferior in understanding and integrity to the circle of'the saints'. Here the apocalyptic dualism between 'church' and 'world' which underlay Paul's whole discourse in chs. 1-4 has its social application in his insistence that the Corinthian Christians are in a wholly different category to outsiders (cf esp. 2:6-8). The influence of this world-view is further evident in Paul's appeal to the apocalyptic notion that God's elect are destined to judge (or rule) the world in the end-time (v. 2; cf. Dan 7:22; i Enoch 1:9; Rev 2:26—7). As in 3:21—3, Paul cleverly portrays the Corinthian Christians as underestimating their own importance. If they remembered their destiny in judging the world, even angels, they would not consider themselves incompetent to judge the trivial matters which they now ask others to decide (w. 2-4). In reality, the Christian parties to these disputes probably failed to see the church as a juridical entity and looked to Corinthian judges to provide publicly recognized verdicts which would restore their social honour. In Paul's view, such outside authorities 'have no standing in the church' (v. 4; lit. are despised by the church, contrast Rom 13:1—7!). As a withering rebuke, he asks whether there is really no one in this community which so values wisdom who is wise enough to deal with this matter (v. 5)! The language here is reminiscent of Deut 1:16 (Moses' creation of courts in Israel), and the whole passage may reflect the
w. 9—11 follow straight on: the wrongdoing which has given rise to the litigation threatens to place those responsible in the category of 'the wrongdoers' who will be excluded from the kingdom of God (v. 9). The theme of the kingdom of God features very rarely in Paul's theology, and is chiefly found in association with traditional formulae, as here where it is linked to a list of excluded persons (w. 9-10; cf. Gal 5:1921). The list here expands that offered in 5:10 and its opening with sexual sins and idolatry is parallel to Jews' denunciations of the sins they considered typical of the Gentile world (cf. Rom 1:18-31). The two terms translated (NRSV) as 'male prostitutes' and 'sodomites' (v. 9) have been the subject of some debate. The first (lit. soft people) could refer to 'womanizers' (i.e. those involved in heterosexual profligacy) but could also mean the passive partner in male homosexual acts; the second is a rare term (lit. sleeper with males) which probably designates the penetrating partner in male-withmale sex. Paul, like other Jews, considered either role in homosexual acts disgraceful (cf. Rom 1:26-7). The list also includes two terms for financial fraudulence ('thieves', 'robbers'), perhaps reflecting the character of the disputes just discussed. Such behaviour, Paul insists, cannot now characterize their Christian lives (v. n). They have been washed, sanctified, and justified—a transformation whose description here probably alludes to the event of baptism. At that point they came under the authority of a new master ('in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ', cf. 1:13-15) and received a new identity 'in the Spirit of our God' (cf. 12:13). (6:12-20) Immorality and the Significance of the Body The Corinthians would have agreed with Paul that their receipt of the Spirit gave them a new identity as 'spiritual people' (cf. 2:6-16). But Paul thinks that they have failed to grasp the implications of that change of identity, in particular the limits it sets on the use of their bodies. In v. 12 he twice cites a formula, 'all things are lawful for me' (cf. 10:23), which appears to be current in the Corinthian church and suggests a confident appropriation of Paul's gospel of 'freedom'. Paul does not reject it out of hand, but cautions lest its individualist emphasis ('all things are lawful for me') prove detrimental to the church as a whole: not all things are beneficial (i.e. to others). That insistence on considering the good of others will be the cornerstone of his argument concerning food in chs. 8—10 and spiritual gifts in chs. 12—14. Here Paul is also aware of how freedom can become a new slavery (T will not be dominated by anything'); he has a lively sense of the power of sin (cf. Rom 6; Gal 5:13—24).
I CORINTHIANS 1118
not to touch a woman' (7:1). 'Touch' is a euphemism for sexual relations, and the statement seems to represent a principled rejection of all sexual activity. The position of those who held this view in Corinth may be deduced as: (i) Those who are single should avoid marriage (see 7:1, 8—9); (2) Those who are married should refrain from sex with their partners (see 7:3—6); (3) Those who are married should seek divorce (see 7:10-11), especially if they are married to an unbeliever (see 7:12—16); (4) Those who are engaged should not proceed to marriage (see 7:36—8). We cannot be sure why some Corinthians took this apparently ascetic stance. Early Christianity spawned many kinds of asceticism (Brown 1988), but here there may have been some denigration of the body arising from the exuberance of experience in the Spirit, combined with the assumption (widespread in antiquity) that prophecy and other activities involving special receptivity to God required withdrawal from the 'pollution' of sex. If some of the Corinthians were particularly 'eager for spiritual gifts' (14:12), 'anxious about the affairs of the Lord, that they may be holy in body and spirit' (v. 34), they may have regarded it as necessary to avoid sexual activity and advantageous to withdraw from, or to refuse to enter, marriage.
But Paul is most anxious lest this sense of freedom create a carelessness regarding bodily behaviour. The first part of 6:13 might again be a citation from the Corinthian church: ' "food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food", and God will destroy both one and the other'. The reference to food anticipates the discussion of chs. 8—10, where Paul challenges the 'knowledgeable' who consider themselves immune to corruption by such a paltry phenomenon as food. In Paul's eyes this betrays a dangerously dualistic notion of the human person as possessing a spirit/soul in principle separable from the body. He fears that this might lead (or had already led) to the justification of sexual freedom on the basis that the satisfaction of sexual appetites was as insignificant as the assuaging of hunger. Thus he insists that 'the body is not for porneia but for the Lord and the Lord for the body' (v:i3). Porneia was used in the Jewish tradition to refer to any sexual activity judged immoral (NRSV translates here 'fornication'). Paul will later talk about a sex with a prostitute (pome, v. 15), but porneia could refer to anything he considered illicit (it is used also in 5:1 and 7:2). 'The body' (soma) must here include the material/physical expression of our selves. In ch. 15 Paul will draw a distinction between the 'natural body' which cannot inherit the kingdom of God and the 'spiritual body' which will be the form of resurrection life (15:42-50). That complication, in the existence of two kinds of body, perhaps explains why Paul says here (v. 14) that God who raised the Lord will raise us up (not 'will raise our bodies up', as the line of argument might otherwise suggest).
Paul begins his response to the Corinthians by dealing with the first three points in the summary above (w. 1-16). He then draws back to illustrate his principle that believers should remain in the condition in which they were called, with reference to circumcision and slavery (w. 17—24). When broaching the question of 'virgins' (unmarried persons eligible for marriage), he first expounds the advantages of detachment (w. 25—31) and single-mindedness (w. 32—5), before discussing the position of such virgins, together with the case of the eligible widow (w. 36-40). Throughout he insists that marriage is not sin, and sex within marriage wholly appropriate (even necessary), but always with an unmistakable coolness. He consistently maintains that it is better, if possible, to be unmarried, provided that this does not (i) involve initiating a divorce, an action forbidden by the Lord (v. 10), or (2) subject the believer to irresistible passions, leading to sex outside marriage (w. 2, 9). The lack of enthusiasm for marriage in its own right, for the procreation of children, or for the establishment of a Christian family (contrast Eph 5:21-6:4) is notable.
None the less, Paul cannot concede that our present 'natural bodies' are irrelevant to Christian commitment. On the contrary, they are 'members'—literally, limbs—of Christ (v. 15), so that the way we handle them inevitably draws Christ into our activities. Paul exploits this notion as far as possible by a novel application of Gen 2:24 ('the two shall become one flesh') to all sexual unions, not just marriage. The physical joining in sex with a prostitute actually links Christ's body with that of a representative of sin—a union which Paul finds utterly scandalous. Hence the conclusion: 'Flee immorality'
(v. 18; NRSV'Shun fornication!'). It is not altogether clear why this sin is here taken to be uniquely 'against the body itself, but Paul may be hinting at the way in which sexual activity affects (and therefore potentially corrupts) the whole person at the deepest point of our identity. Two final arguments underline the significance of the body for a believer. First, the body is indwelt by the Spirit of God, and thus has the sanctity of a temple (v. igjjandonedoesnottreatatempleina cavalier fashion (cf 3:17). Secondly, believers come under an ownership: like slaves bought at a market (v. 20), they are answerable in totality to a master, and that includes their bodies (slaves were sometimes known simply as 'bodies'; cf. Rev 18:13).
Paul starts by citing the Corinthian statement that 'it is well for a man not to touch a woman', but he cannot accept it fully, at least not within marriage, v. 2 could refer to men and women in general and their acquisition of marriage partners: 'each man should have his own wife' etc. (NRSV). But, in view of the following verses, it is perhaps more likely that it refers to married men and women who should 'have' (in the sense of 'have sexual relations with') their partners: thus, 'each husband should have sex with his own wife' etc. (Fee 1987: 277— 80). The reason for Paul's advice is his concern with immoralities, perhaps with specific 'cases of immorality' (NRSV) in mind, such as those alluded to in chs. 5 and 6. Lurking throughout this chapter is Paul's fear of the power of sexual desire, which, if not fulfilled (or neutralized) within marriage, is likely to lead to sin. w. 3-4 indicate the obligations and privileges of both marriage partners in sexual matters, with a degree of reciprocity highly unusual in antiquity; indeed almost every point in the chapter is discussed from both male
(7:1-40) Celibacy and Marriage Paul now mentions the letter he has received from the Corinthians (v. i), which may set the agenda for most of the rest of this letter. It is often supposed that the Corinthians meekly asked Paul's opinion on these matters, but the signs of tension in his relationship with them suggest that their approach might not have been so deferential. The subject-matter for this chapter is their statement
(NRSV rightly uses inverted commas), 'It is well for a man
nig I CORINTHIANS
necessities. He recommends staying in the marriage if at all possible and seems to be responding to fears that the believer is somehow defiled by this intimate contact with the 'unholy'. If the marriage is to be maintained, and if holiness or defilement are in some sense contagious, logic propels Paul to insist that the unbelieving spouse is actually made 'holy' through the believer, just as are the children of even one Christian parent (v. 14). This description of persons as being 'holy' or 'sanctified' is normally used by Paul only in relation to believers in Christ (e.g. 1:2; 6:11); it is strange to find it used here ofunbelievers, whose future salvation is uncertain (v. 16). Children are mentioned here for the only time in the chapter and only as a supporting argument, and it is unclear what, if anything, is implied by their designation as 'holy'
and female angles. Nowhere is this more radical in effect than in the second half of v. 4. The first half, detailing the husband's authority over his wife's body, is a standard assumption in antiquity (and all other patriarchal societies). But the second, by putting the matter the other way around, undercuts assumptions of male privilege at their most sensitive point: the male body and its use in sex. Neither party is here allowed to make unilateral decisions: any period of sexual abstinence must be by agreement and of limited duration, lest the sexual urge (Satan's tempting) prove too strong (v. 5). Such a period of abstinence may enable a Christian couple to devote themselves to prayer, a notion with some parallels in Judaism (e.g. T. Naph. 8:8).
At v. 6 is the first of many indications in this chapter that Paul is careful not to establish rules or speak more confidently than is his right (cf. w. 25, 40). The 'this' which he here concedes may be marriage, but more probably refers to temporary abstinence from sex within marriage. Then v. 7 means: I would like everyone to be sexually continent like myself, but recognize that some have this gift and can remain unmarried, while others do not, needing to marry and to fulfil the sexual obligations of that state. The 'gift from God' (charisma) represents the ability to remain celibate without succumbing to sexual desire.
(v. 14). The verse has been used with equal force in arguments both for and against infant baptism, about which Paul never speaks explicitly, v. 15 recognizes that the non-Christian partner may not wish to continue a marriage with a spouse whose recent conversion creates tension in the marriage, and in this case Paul recommends allowing divorce for the sake of peace. Nothing here rules out remarriage, though the possibility is not mentioned, v. 16 could be translated in either an optimistic or a pessimistic sense. Optimistically ('who knows, you might save your spouse'), it undergirds the main thrust of the paragraph, urging a Christian to remain in a mixed marriage (so NRSV; REB; cf. i Pet 3:1—2). Translated in a pessimisti sense ('how do you know whether you will ever save your spouse?'), it discourages hopes of benefit from remaining in such a marriage and thus supports the concession of v. 15 that one may withdraw from a hopeless situation (so RSV; NIV) The former is slightly more likely.
w. 8-9 turn directly to the unmarried and widowed. Paul himself is unmarried, perhaps because his conversion disrupted his life-plans so severely. The unmarried state is his preference for all (for reasons he will detail in w. 25-35), but he is worried again by the power of sexual passion (likened here to a fire), which some need to tame, or quench, within marriage.
What about those who are already married and are tempted to escape from marriage? Here Paul for once gives a command (cf. v. 6), though not on his own authority but on that of the Lord (v. 10). This is one of those very few places (9:14 is another) where Paul refers explicitly to the teaching of Jesus. He here cites a saying also attested (with some variations) in the Synoptics, in which Jesus declared divorce to be illegitimate (Mk 10:2—11; Mt 19:3—9; Lk 16:18). In the case of a wife he imagines a second-best option whereby she separates/ divorces (w. 13-15 suggest that these may be synonyms for Paul) but does not marry again (v. n). Some think that his special concentration on the woman might reflect a specific case, or growing tendency, in Corinth (Wire 1990). The acceptance of this second best ('if she does separate ...') shows that Paul does not regard the teaching of Jesus as legislation; it sets some parameters, but allows for differences of situation. He will later acknowledge that a Christian may have to accept divorce at the hands of a non-Christian partner (v. 15), taking Jesus' principle to rule out only the initiation of divorce proceedings.
The question of change of status leads Paul to formulate a general principle (v. 17): that you should lead whatever life is apportioned by the Lord, which is taken to be that state in which you were called. 'Called' is one of Paul's common terms for conversion, and he seems to be talking here of the state in which one becomes a Christian, not a vocation to which one is summoned (NRSV rightly translates at w. 20, 24, but not at v. 17). Such a policy of'stay as you are' is indeed his general advice in this chapter (if married, don't divorce; if single, remain so), with some exceptions allowed. It is now illustrated with regard to ethnic identity and social status (cf. the three categories in Gal 3:28). Circumcision, the sign of male Jewish identity, should not be reversed (as could be done by surgery or by stretching and pinning what remains of the foreskin); similarly the foreskin should not be removed for the sake of adopting Jewish identity. Here Paul summarizes the theme of his letter to the Galatians, insisting on the relativization of such cultural markers. Accordingly v. 19 echoes statements in Galatians (5:6; 6:15), though with a different and extremely puzzling conclusion. 'Keeping the commandments of God' in any normal Jewish sense would include the practice of circumcision; Paul has somehow redefined the notion to filter out certain commands which he considers unnecessary in a multi-ethnic church (cf. 9:19—21).
w. 12-16 deal with the case of Christians already married to unbelievers. Paul does not recommend entering into such a partnership (7:39; cf. 2 Cor 6:14—16), but seems to envisage here the conversion of one partner in a marriage, a situation which could be fraught with difficulty if the Christian spouse disdained household idolatry (cf. i Pet 3:1-6). Such verses make clear that it was not always whole households which converted (cf. 1:16). In this case, Paul has no direct teaching from Jesus (v. 12), but adapts what he knows to fit the social
The second illustration concerns social identity, as slave or free person (w. 21-4). Here the same 'stay as you are' principle is applied as a general rule, with legal status similarly relativized. Christian slaves can consider themselves 'freed persons belonging to the Lord' (freed persons usually had continuing
I C O R I N T H I A N S II2O
ieties. Like the Cynics, Paul is impressed by the amount of attention to the marriage partner required by marriage (again he oddly fails to mention children), regarding these as 'the affairs of the world' which constitute a distraction from 'the affairs of the Lord'. For him, marriage and family life are not part of a believer's service to the Lord but a competing interest which prevents 'unhindered devotion to the Lord' (v. 35 cf. v. 34: 'his interests are divided'). The specific reference to the woman's concern 'to be holy in body and spirit' (v. 34) may allude to the concerns of particular Corinthian women, who operated as prophets (11:2-16). Once again, Paul is cautious not to side too strongly with those who forbid marriage (v. 35), but it is clear that he considers 'good order' and 'devotion to the Lord' better served by singleness. It is possible that he considers himself in this respect a better 'worker' than other apostles who were accompanied by their wives (9:3-6; 15:10).
obligations to their former owners), while Christians who are free are really 'slaves of Christ' (w. 22—3). This compensatory redescription of reality renders social location irrelevant to Christian obligation (and perhaps even inverts the assumed hierarchy of slave and free, see Martin 1990: 63-8), enabling Paul to tell those in slavery not to mind about it (v. 21). However, the second half of v. 21 contains an ambiguity which has been the focus of some debate. The Greek could be taken to urge accepting slavery, even if there is an opportunity of gaining freedom (so NRSV). However, it could equally, and perhaps better, be taken in an opposite sense, providing a partial exception to the general rule of the paragraph: 'but if you can gain your freedom, be sure to use that opportunity' (so RSV). In most cases, as Bartchy (1973) pointed out, slaves would have no choice in this matter: if an owner wished to free a slave, it would happen whether the slave wished it or not. Since the chapter does contain other exceptions to the rule of 'stay as you are', and since v. 23 suggests that Paul considered freedom a better condition than slavery, the second, more positive, reading is to be preferred. None the less, the main thrust of the paragraph illustrates the rule of statusretention, which v. 24 reiterates.
The next paragraph (w. 36-8) returns to the practical matter of virgins, first signalled in v. 25. Unfortunately, the paragraph could be read in a number of different ways (see Fee 1987: 349-55). Some interpret it as concerning a young girl's father, who is responsible for marrying off his daughter: the verb used for 'he who marries his virgin' (v. 38) normally means 'he who marries her off, i.e. arranges her marriage. Then the Greek could be taken to refer to a father anxious about his treatment of his daughter, if she is getting over-age (the Greek translated in NRSV 'if his passions are strong' could be taken in this quite different sense; a girl might be considered 'overripe' in her early twenties!); then it is no sin for him to allow and arrange her marriage. The more usual interpretation of the text (adopted by the NRSV and by most commentators) takes it to speak of an unmarried man and his desire to marry, or his control over this desire. Oddly, in either case, the girl's wishes in this matter are entirely ignored. Whether Paul envisages some sort of permanent 'engagement' is unclear. As throughout the chapter, Paul allows marriage ('it is no sin') but considers it a second-best option (v. 38).
In v. 25 Paul turns to the specific case of 'virgins', that is, those not yet married. Girls were typically married off by their parents at or very soon after puberty to men who were usually several years older. Marriage and the subsequent raising of children was taken to be a civic duty (to ensure future generations), but some radical philosophers (Cynics) took it to be a distraction from their philosophical calling. In what follows, Paul will mix some such Cynic motifs with his own apocalyptic reasoning about the end of the world (see Deming 1995). In the first instance (w. 25-31) he applies the principle of'stay as you are' on the grounds of the 'impending crisis' (v. 26). What he has in mind is made clearer in v. 29 ('the appointed time has grown short') and v. 31 ('the present form of this world is passing away'). Paul is convinced that he lives in the last generation (cf i Thess 4:15 and i Cor 15:52). He thus harbours the apocalyptic belief that all present social structures will be dissolved, and also that the time preceding the 'end' will be characterized by acute distress ('the impending crisis'). Under such circumstances it is clear that marriage is of little value and the raising of future generations an irrelevance. Paul cannot advocate being rid of marriage relationships already entered, since he has the Lord's word forbidding divorce (v. 10). But neither can he recommend marriage for those as yet unmarried: it would not be morally wrong
That principle is finally applied to the case of a widow (w. 39—40; many girls were widowed quite young). By the rule of 'no divorce' (v. 10) a woman can consider remarriage only on the death of her husband (cf. Rom 7:1-4); then she may remarry 'in the Lord' (the choice cannot have been great in a small congregation). But Paul's preference for singleness is again evident (v. 40). His final sentence sums up his sur prising hesitancy on this matter, unless there is irony in his claim that he too (as much as the 'spiritual people' in Corinth) has access to the wisdom of the Spirit (cf. 2:14—16).
(w. 28—9) but it would only make one more vulnerable to the distress of social breakdown. In fact, even for those who are married, Paul advocates an 'eschatological detachment': let them live 'as though they had no wives', like all dealings with the world must be conducted on the basis of 'as if not'
Sacrificial Food and the Dangers of Idolatry (8:1-11:1)
8:1 opens a new section of the letter, on 'food sacrificed to idols', perhaps another issue raised in the Corinthian letter. At first sight, the content of ch. 9 appears out of place in this section. However, as we shall see, it actually fits perfectly as an illustration of what Paul requires of the 'people of knowledge': that they renounce their 'rights' for the sake of others. It has often been noted that Paul's softer tone on the consumption of sacrificial food in 8:1-13 and 10:23-11:1 appears inconsistent with his hard-line attitude to idolatry in 10:1-22; some have even suspected the combination of two or more letters at this point. There is indeed a certain dialectic in Paul's position
(w. 29-31). This sentiment is paralleled in Jewish apocalyptic documents (e.g. 2 Esd 16:40 ff). It is not entirely clear what it would mean for married men to live 'as though they had no wives' (w. 2—5 suggest it cannot mean a withdrawal from sex), but in some general sense marriage is relativized here as an institution hardly worth investing in.
The second reason for Paul's coolness regarding marriage is spelt out in w. 32—5. Paul wishes his converts to be 'free from anxieties', or more precisely, free from competing anx-
II2I I CORINTHIANS
stered by social convenience, but Paul takes it seriously as a theological position which was not entirely incorrect but which could have dangerous effects both on themselves and on other, 'weaker', Christians.
regarding such food, which might mask inconsistency: he himself calls attention to this dialectic in 10:19—20. But the distinctions he draws between the different contexts in which sacrificial food is eaten, and the different intents such eating represents, make it possible for him to give such a nuanced response. Moreover, it is quite like Paul to advance an argument by a range of different strategies which may not cohere perfectly with one another (cf his response to 'speaking in tongues' in chs. 12-14).
(8:1—13) Debate with the 'Knowledgeable' concerning their 'Right' to Eat As in ch. 7, Paul starts by citing a phrase used in the Corinthian letter: 'all of us possess knowledge' (8:1). He will shortly deny this claim, since he is aware of vulnerable Christians in Corinth unable to take this knowing stance towards 'idols' (v. 7). But his first reaction is against the spirit of the assertion. Although he recognizes knowledge as a gift of the Spirit (1:5; 12:8), he senses here the dangers of pride and self-interest, which subordinate care for others to the acquisition and display of one's own knowledge. Thus, once again, he warns against becoming 'puffed up' (cf. 4:6 and the same verb, translated as 'to be arrogant', in 4:19, 5:2, and 13:4) and sets the priority on the constructive capability of love (v. 2; cf. chs. 12-14). m me Ver7 da™ to knowledge Paul fears the corrupting power of arrogance which needs to be humbled by recognizing the inadequacy of our present 'knowledge' and the far greater value of being 'known by' God (w. 2—3; cf. 13:8-13). On the basis of this caution Paul addresses the knowledge in question (w. 4-6). Again he quotes Corinthian statements that 'no idol in the world really exists' (or, 'the idol-image represents nothing in the world') and that 'there is no God but one' (v. 4). Paul can readily agree with the second statement, a cardinal tenet of Judaism. The first contains some ambiguity (see the alternative translations just offered) and it is possible that Paul and the Corinthians understood it in different senses. Paul could accept that the image is insignificant, but, as the next verse and 10:19-20 make clear, he does not doubt the reality of the spiritual beings which were the object of worship in Graeco-Roman religion. If the Corinthian elite think there are no such beings (and thus participate in pagan worship as a harmless inanity), Paul will have to reprimand them severely (10:1—22). Even here he insists on the exclusivity of Christian commitment (w. 5—6). Whatever deities others might worship—and Paul insists that they are only 'so-called gods' (cf. Gal 4:8)—'yet for us there is one God... and one Lord ...' The confessional and formulaic character of v. 6 suggests the presence here of a credal statement in which we see Christology coming to birth. The Jewish Shema' ('Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord', Deut 6:4) is here split apart into a statement about God, the creator of the world and goal of salvation, and a matching statement about the Lord, now taken to mean Jesus Christ, the medium of creation and redemption. The two are clearly distinguished (cf. 3:23; 11:3; 15:27—8) but the way in which Paul reads them both out of the Jewish declaration of monotheism is suggestive of the ways in which Christian theology will struggle to define Christ's exalted status without falling into ditheism (see further Hurtado 1988 and Dunn 1991).
The issue of'sacrificial food' arises from the fact that food consumption was frequently associated with the deities, whether by prayer, libation, or sacrifice, and that the slaughter of animals often took place in the context of temple worship. Jews, who were notoriously averse to 'alien' religious practices, abstained from food and wine which had become tainted by association with gods other than their own. The early Christian movement was generally Jewish in ethos, but in many places attracted a majority of Gentile members in churches which were prepared to abandon some distinctive Jewish practices (such as circumcision and Sabbath observance). It was thus possible for uncertainty to arise as to the proper Christian stance towards Greek and Roman deities (which Jews called 'idols'), or at least towards the meals, festivals, club-dinners, and parties which were generally accompanied by some sort of religious activity. Many kinds of food might be considered to be affected: portions could be offered on an altar in domestic or public settings, or liquids poured out as a libation (see Willis 1985; P.D. Gooch 1993). Paul seems to be particularly concerned here with meat (8:13). Wealthy individuals or clubs often brought animals for slaughter at a temple, one portion being reserved for the deity (i.e. the priests), with the rest consumed in an ordinary meal either on the site (many temples had dining rooms) or in a private setting. Even meat sold in the meat market might have been offered to a deity, so a believer anxious to avoid any contact with idolatry might balk at the purchase of meat there and at the fare provided in taverns or in an unbeliever's house. On the other hand, dinner invitations, club meetings, family celebrations, and civic festivals were such an important part of social life that some Christians might be reluctant to adopt a rigorous stance on this issue; that would certainly affect the lives and prospects of such socially significant believers as Gaius and Erastus (see E.I).
Many ambiguities surrounded the issue of sacrificial food. Was all the meat idolatrous or only those portions specifically reserved for the deity? Was one tainted by association with idolaters at occasions when they committed idolatry, or not? What, in any case, constituted 'idolatry' and how were the images to be regarded? In Graeco-Roman culture, general reverence for the images of the deities included a range of attitudes to their relation to reality: some considered the gods to be present within the images, others that they merely represented some divine attribute. In these chapters Paul is in dialogue with a group within the Corinthian church who considered themselves knowledgeable in such matters ('we all possess knowledge', 8:1). It appears that these are an educated elite: in a spirit of confident monotheism they take idols to represent nothing at all (8:4), and reason that participation in idolatrous meals, even in idolatrous worship, was a meaningless and harmless activity. This stance was probably bol-
Before proceeding further on this theological tack, Paul reminds the elite that they are not as representative of the church as they think (v. 7) and that they have responsibilities to fellow believers which override their 'right' to eat whatever food they wish. Paul knows that, after a lifetime of worship of 'so-called gods', converts are apt to be uneasy about contact
I CORINTHIANS II22
refusal to accept financial support from the Corinthians which has led some to doubt whether he is an apostle at all. It is because he knows that his status is questioned by some in Corinth that Paul chooses to use this controversial matter as his illustration: thereby he can defend himself, reassert his apostleship, and present himself as the Corinthians' model (cf. 11:1) all at the same time. This means that it is some time before Paul returns explicitly to the subject of sacrificial food, but such apparent digressions which actually advance the argument at a deeper level are typical of Paul's rhetoric (cf. ch. 13 between chs. 12 and 14).
with religious practices which they consider themselves to have renounced; if they were to eat such food again, their vulnerable self-image as Christians (their 'conscience') would be 'defiled' (v. 7). In itself, food is not of decisive significance in our relationship to God (v. 8, possibly, but not certainly, another Corinthian statement). Therefore, Paul insists, nothing fundamental is lost by declining to eat certain foods; he deliberately overlooks the social loss which might result from scrupulosity regarding 'idolatrous food'. Since the 'knowledgeable' people have no grounds for insisting on such eating, Paul is entitled to warn them lest their 'liberty' (v. 9, or 'right'; the noun echoes the slogan of 6:12) cause disaster for more vulnerable Christians. The 'stumbling-block' referred to here (cf Rom 14) signals much more than 'offence' or 'shock': it suggests causing others to fall catastrophically, resulting in their 'destruction' (v. n). The danger Paul has in mind is that 'the weak' (those whose self-image as Christians is vulnerable) will be encouraged, or pressurized, by the example of 'the knowledgeable' to eat food which they know, or suspect, has been sacrificed to idols. While such eating may not cause the knowledgeable to falter in their Christian commitment (since they regard the idol as a 'nothing'), it could disastrously compromise the commitment of weaker Christians, who might now view themselves as having reversed their decision to renounce idolatry. Paul imagines this happening if the knowledgeable are seen 'eating in the temple of an idol' (v. 10). Later
'Freedom' may have been the watchword of the 'people of knowledge' in Corinth: it sums up their assertion of rights and that 'all things are lawful' (6:12; 8:9; 10:23). Hence Paul declares that he, too, is 'free'—in particular, endowed with the 'rights' of an apostle. His claim to apostleship was heavily contested in his generation, since he had not been a disciple of Jesus, had persecuted the church, and was often at odds with the 'mother church' in Jerusalem. Paul here rehearses the grounds for his claim: that he saw (and was commissioned by) the risen Christ (cf. 15:3-11) and that he has successfully founded churches (w. 1—2). He hopes that the Corinthians will recognize at least this second claim, but has to counter immediately a prejudice against his apostleship which has taken root precisely in Corinth.
While staying in Corinth, Paul had apparently supported himself entirely by his own labour (according to Acts 18:3, as a leather worker), and even when the church he founded had offered him financial support he had refused to take it (cf. 2 Cor 11:7—11). It is not entirely clear why this became a matter of principle for him in Corinth; elsewhere he acknowledges receiving support from Macedonian churches (2 Cor 11:9; Phil 4:10-20). Perhaps he feared lest wealthy Christians in Corinth might wish to use their financial patronage to influence his preaching or control his movements. In any case, the fact that he did not accept support from Corinth turned out to be a bone of contention. Other 'apostles', whom the Corinthians knew about or met, received support, probably appealing to the words of Jesus and the example of travelling missionaries in Judea and Galilee (see Theissen 1982: 27-67). To forgo this right might thus appear to place Paul at a lower level than 'real' apostles, and for Paul to support himself by manual labour was to demean himself in the eyes of wealthier Christians (cf. 4:12).
(10:14—22) he will advance other reasons for caution about such behaviour, but here he maintains his focus on the effect which this display of superior knowledge could have on the weak: in their uncertainty of self-image as Christians, they may be 'encouraged' (Paul says 'built up', with conscious irony) to follow suit, with disastrous consequences. Damage against believers for whom Christ died diminishes his work and thus constitutes sin against Christ (w. 11—12). Rather than looking down on the weak with the disdain typical of elite classes in Graeco-Roman society, the people of knowledge are here required to take them with full seriousness, as fellow Christians (cf. 11:17—22; 12:14—26): love is more important than knowledge (w. 1—3). Thus, to use himself as an example, Paul renounces his right to eat meat, in case it causes the collapse of another's faith-commitment (v. 13).
(9:1—23) Paul's Example in Renouncing the 'Right' to Financial Support Ch. 9 appears to veer off in a different direction from the topic of food offered to idols. Here we have Paul's impassioned plea to be regarded as an apostle in Corinth (w. 1—2), a long series of arguments concerning his right to receive support (w. 3-14), and then his declaration that his boast lies precisely in making no use of this right (w. 15-18) and in offering himself, although free, as a slave of all (w. 19—23). All this is not, however, as irrelevant as it might seem. Paul finished ch. 8 by offering himself as an example of willingness to renounce his right to eat meat, if that was necessary for the sake of others. That leads him to present himself as an example on a wider plane of this principle of renunciation of rights. He has the right as an apostle to be given his material upkeep, but for the sake of the gospel he has renounced this: although 'free' and entitled to exercise certain rights, he has chosen to make himself a slave (v. 19). But this illustration is not unproblematic, because it is precisely his
Thus Paul confronts directly those who 'examine' him (v. 3; the same verb is used in 2:15 and 4:3). He declares his entitlement to the same forms of material support as other apostles (w. 4-6), making special mention of'the brothers of the Lord' (e.g. James, 15:7), and Cephas, the hero of the Cephas group, 1:12). He then strings together an impressive collection of arguments for this entitlement (w. 7—14). He appeals first to human parallels (soldiers, vineyard workers, and shepherds), where workers expect some return for their labour (v. 7). He then turns to the Scriptures for the same principle, offering an allegorical reading of Moses' law aboutthe threshing ox (w. 8— n; see Deut 25:4). It is not often that Paul appeals directly to 'the law of Moses' for moral guidance (his letters to the Galatians and Romans show what an ambiguous entity 'the law' has become for him). Nor does he usually employ allegory in his interpretation of the Scriptures (Gal 4:21-31 is the only
112 3 I CORINTHIANS
renounced rights and demeaned himself to advance the cause of the gospel (v. 19). His self-sacrifice is first illustrated by the chief characteristic of his mission, his cross-cultural adaptability (w. 20-1). Among Jews he could live like a Jew: that is, among the law-observant he observes the law, although not considering himself utterly bound to it (v. 20). The purpose is to win Jews for the gospel; for, although his call was 'to the Gentiles' (Rom 1:5), Paul still associated with Jews, as his synagogue visits testify (2 Cor 11:24). Similarly, for Gentiles 'outside the law' Paul lived in a Gentile fashion, although in truth not lawless before God, but under full obligation to Christ (v. 21, 'under Christ's law'; no code of teaching is here envisaged). Again the purpose is to win Gentiles, the task in which Paul was so successful, though at the cost of his reputation among most fellow Jews, who took his adaptability to be merely opportunism (Gal 1:10). This loss of clear-cut cultural identity is paralleled by his loss of honour in 'becoming weak' (v. 22), identifying with those who possessed less knowledge and less social significance than the elite leaders of the Corinthian church. Paul is prepared to give up cultural and social rights for the sake of the gospel, and hints that only by so doing will he share its blessings (v. 23). Thus he is entitled to challenge the 'people of knowledge' in Corinth as to their willingness to do the same. If they are not willing, he suggests, they may forfeit its blessings and lose out on the salvation which they take for granted. Such is the turn his argument now takes in 9:24—10:22.
other example), although it was a technique long-established among Hellenized Jews. In his concern to find a moral lesson in the law, Paul insists that Moses really speaks only about human welfare, not about oxen. Allegorists such as the Jewish philosopher Philo sometimes took both literal and allegorical meanings as valid, but sometimes, like here, considered only the allegorical worthy of God. Paul applies this verse to his situation by a double transference: in talking of oxen, God is talking about human ploughers and reapers (v.io); and this principle can be applied to those who sow spiritually, and may expect to reap in exchange (v. n). Paul can also appeal to the benefits enjoyed by priests in a temple (v. 13) and, finally, to the direct instruction of the Lord (v. 14; cf Mt 10:10; Lk 10:7-8; i Tim 5:18). It is intriguing that this should be mentioned last, and without any special emphasis or priority over the previous arguments. That may be related to the fact that Paul cites this command only to declare that it does not apply to him!
Before finishing this chain of argumentation, Paul had anticipated his conclusion (v. 12): he has the rights to which he appeals but has opted not to make use of them, if to do so would place an obstacle in the way of the gospel. Now it becomes clear how this whole discussion relates to Paul's instruction to 'the people of knowledge' in ch. 8. In 8:9 he had warned them that their 'right' (NRSV: 'liberty') could be a stumbling-block to the weak and should be waived if it proved to be so. Here he presents himself as a model of such voluntary renunciation of rights, for the sake of the gospel. In his case, too, Paul has the 'weak' especially in mind (v. 22 highlights his accommodation to the weak, not the strong). By refusing to accept support, Paul ensures that he is not a burden on those with little to spare: he works with his hands and thereby identifies with those who are socially and economically weak, even at the risk of offending the wealthier converts who would like Paul to accept their patronage and quit his embarrassing mode of work (Martin 1990: 117—35).
(9:24-10:22) The Dangers of Complacency in relation to Idolatry While 9:24—7 still takes the form of discourse about himself, Paul now begins to turn his own example into challenge to his Corinthian audience. He uses images from the games which would be particularly vivid in their imagination, since Corinth hosted the biennial Isthmian games, drawing participants from all over the Graeco-Roman world. Entering the race is not the same as winning it: the Corinthians still have to make sure they 'run' successfully (9:24). Sporting heroes were extremely famous in antiquity and it was wellknown that they underwent very rigorous training in order to win a garland. That was a motif often used in popular philosophy to indicate the seriousness of a moral lifestyle, and Paul employs it here to urge self-discipline for the sake of a far more valuable prize, salvation (9:25). Practice, discipline, and self-control were all essential for an athlete's success, whether the sport was running or boxing (9:26). Without them, a promising career would easily be spoiled, and Paul takes seriously the possibility that he himself might be 'disqualified' by God, excluded from salvation (or at least from its 'reward', cf. 3:14-15) even after having brought others into it (9:27).
w. 15-18 explain further this renunciation of rights and its importance for Paul. Preaching the gospel 'free of charge' was an important and distinctive feature of Paul's ministry: indeed, the sentence structure breaks down in v. 15 to reveal how emotionally significant is this 'ground for boasting'. He now plays with the theme of employment and 'pay' (the Gk. word misthos means both 'pay' and 'reward'). The fact that he preaches the gospel is not for Paul a matter of choice, but of necessity (v. i6;cf Gal 1:15-16). If it were a matter of choice, he would be a free agent, and like any other free man would expect pay ('reward') for work completed. But he is not a free agent, he is 'entrusted with a commission', that is, working for Christ as his slave-steward (v. 17; the same metaphor as in 4:12). Slaves do not get pay ('reward') just for doing what their owners tell them to do. Paul's 'reward' (pay) is to do what he has been instructed to do under very special conditions: to make the gospel 'free of charge'. Ironically, then, his spiritual pay is to receive no financial pay for the fulfilment of his task (v. 18).
The note of warning to the Corinthians is becoming louder, but before turning the spotlight directly back on to them Paul invokes a cautionary tale from the Scriptures (10:1-13). He finds no difficulty in using scriptural narratives to illustrate God's dealings with the church, since he regards the Israelites in the desert as 'our ancestors' (10:1) even though the church he is writing to is mostly Gentile (see further Hays 1989). Paul recounts the story of Israel's disobedience in the wilderness because it illustrates precisely what he wants to warn the Corinthians about: that even those chosen by God can go badly astray; and if they do, whatever their privileges, they
This might look like a form of self-interest, to get some reward out of what he does, if Paul did not go on to explain his motivation in w. 19-23. His goal is not self-gratification but the interests of the gospel, and in particular the desire to 'win' converts. Like a demagogue who enslaves himself to the populace to campaign for their rights, Paul has deliberately
I CORINTHIANS 1124
inescapable, and they cannot claim to be helpless or faultless if they sin: God will enable them to endure temptation (cf. 1:8— 9) and will always provide an escape route (10:13). The question is whether the Corinthians will be willing to take it and the social inconvenience it may cause.
are liable to destruction. The fact that the story concerns idolatry and sexual immorality makes it immediately relevant to a church which worries Paul on both these scores.
Paul detects among the Corinthian Christians a sense of privileged security in which they consider themselves immune to danger. Perhaps it is on this basis that the people of knowledge have the confidence to attend idolatrous events, reckoning that nothing can harm their status as spiritual people. They may have taken particular pride in their baptism as ensuring salvation and in the Lord's Supper as replenishing their spiritual resources. Both would therefore constitute rites which, like some Graeco-Roman mysteries, confirmed their superior status and sealed their immortality. It is probably for this reason that Paul describes the Israelites' experience in terms which match Christian rites. As they went under the cloud and through the (Red) Sea, the Israelites were 'baptized into Moses' (10:2), just as Christians were baptized into Christ (i Cor 12:12—13; Gal 3:27)> similarly, as they ate the manna and drank from the rock in the desert, they partook of 'spiritual' food and drink like that enjoyed in the Lord's Supper (10:3-4). Indeed, Paul even claims that the Israelites drew nourishment, in a sense, from Christ himself, who is identified with the rock from which the water issued (10:4). He here draws on Jewish exegesis which reflected on the fact that the Pentateuchal narratives place this rock in different locations: had it therefore 'followed' the Israelites through the desert? In some quarters this rock had also been allegorized as 'Wisdom', from which the righteous drew spiritual nourishment, and Paul may be drawing on an early Christian identification between Christ and Wisdom (cf 1:30 and 8:6). None the less—and this is the point of the illustration—despite having access to all the same privileges as the Corinthian Christians (baptism, 'spiritual' food and drink, and even Christ himself), the Israelites were not immune from God's punishment when they went astray: in fact, most of them were destroyed (10:5).
The notion of 'escape' leads into Paul's direct instruction: 'flee from the worship of idols' (10:14). Of the wilderness sins recounted in 10:7-8, it is idolatry which is Paul's most immediate concern. He has still to confront the people of knowledge concerning their easy dismissal of the significance of 'idols' (8:4), since he fears (or knows) that this attitude will justify their convenient participation in acts of worship to idols. Addressing them, with slight condescension, as 'sensible people' (they boast of their 'knowledge', 8:1), he urges them to consider what sorts of 'partnerships' (or 'sharing', Gk. koinonia) they are undertaking. At the Lord's Supper, the cup (known as 'the cup of blessing' because of the prayer, blessing God, which is spoken over it) is a 'partnership' in the blood of Christ. Similarly, the bread which is broken is a 'partnership' in the body of Christ (10:16). It is difficult to determine what sort of 'sacramental theology' undergirds these statements. Is the 'partnership' merely represented by the cup and bread, or actually effected by it? And what is the relationship between the cup and blood, and between the bread and body (cf. 11:24-5)? But what is clear, and what Paul is concerned to stress, is that participation in this meal signals a bond between the participant and Christ, a bond which must be exclusive of all others (10:21-2; cf. the parallel argumentation in 6:15-17).
The reference to the 'bread' and the 'body' leads Paul into a brief aside concerning the 'one body' of the church (10:17, anticipating 11:17-34 and 12:12-31), a motif which should encourage the people of knowledge to take more care of their fellow 'limbs' who have weaker consciences (cf. 10:23—4). But the main point of the paragraph is pursued again in 10:18 with reference to Jewish sacrificial practice, where partaking in sacrificial victims joins an individual to the worship offered at the altar. Paul considers that the same applies to worship and sacrifice in Graeco-Roman religion. 10:19 makes clear that he has not revoked the convictions he set out in ch. 8: it is not that the food is significant in itself (thus the act of eating is not so much the problem), nor that the 'idol' (i.e. the image) is itself of importance (its presence or proximity at a meal is not problematic); rather, in the act of sacrifice, Gentiles devote themselves to 'demons' and thus create a 'partnership' with beings which are wholly out of bounds for a believer. Paul here uses the word daimonion, which refers in normal Greek to a supernatural being of lesser significance and more ambiguous virtue than a full god, but one not necessarily evil; in time, however, Jewish and Christian usage was literally to 'demonize' all such beings. The point here is that such a partnership is incompatible with belonging to Christ, on the Jewish principle that God is jealous of all rivals (10:22, echoing Deut 32:21). The people of knowledge may be strong compared with the weak in conscience, but they are not 'stronger than' God (10:22), that is, strong enough to withstand the sort of judgement which the wilderness stories have threatened.
In 10:6 and 10:11 Paul explains the principle by which he interprets the Israelites' story: these events are an example, and were written down as a warning, indicating the dangers for God's people if they entertain evil desires. Indeed, 10:11 suggests that they were written specifically for 'us', that is, the Christians who live in the final generation, the climactic junction of time Paul calls 'the ends of the ages' (cf. 7:29—31; cf. Rom 15:4). 10:7—8 runs through a list of Israel's errors, perhaps a stock resume of the wilderness sins: idolatry, in the worship of the golden calf (10:7, citing Ex 32:6); 'sexual immorality' (porneia, see i COR 5:1), in forging illicit marriages with Midianite women (10:8, alluding to Num 25, where, however, the casualty figure is 24,000); putting Christ to the test (10:9, alluding to Num 21; some texts read 'the Lord', which is how the scriptural narrative puts it, but generally Paul takes 'the Lord' in the Scriptures to refer to Christ); and finally, complaining, in grumbling about God's purposes or Moses' leadership (probably alluding to Num 14 or Num 16, with the notion of the 'destroyer' transferred from Ex 12:23). In each case, the outcome is the same: the 'destruction' of the sinners. If such stories are of immediate relevance to the Corinthians as 10:11 suggests, then the warning is clear: they are in as much danger as the Israelites in the desert. Paul turns directly against the confidence of the Corinthian leaders with the warning of 10:12. No situation is uniquely difficult or