Part 109
Paul thus issues a ban on actions which constitute personal involvement in idolatry (worship of idols). The following paragraph (10:23-11:1) will show greater latitude regarding situ-
112 5 I C O R I N T H I A N S
On this reading of the argument, 10:28—90 forms a digression, citing an exceptional case when liberty is to be constrained, while 10:29/7—30 gives the general rule. If this is right, Paul agrees with the knowledgeable about their freedom to a large degree, but checks them at the point where their freedom causes real damage to others (cf. Rom 14:1— 15:6). The last few verses of this discussion (10:31—11:1) sum up its principles. Eating and drinking are to be done 'to the glory of God', without compromise of that glory by idolatry. At the same time, no stumbling-block (the Greek echoes 8:9 and is much stronger than NRSV 'offence') is to be placed in the path of Jews or Greeks or the church (10:32). The goal should be not one's own advantage, but that of others, that they be saved and maintained in salvation (10:33, i-en°t 'destroyed' by selfish use of'knowledge'; cf. 8:11). And, finally, Paul reminds them of the example he has described in ch. 9, not ultimately because of his own importance (he does not want a 'Paul party') but because he believes he thereby imitates Christ (11:1; cf. Rom 15:1-3).
ations where there is no personal participation in idolatry. The hard line he takes here may appear to go further than the argument he employed in 8:4—13, where his concern was the effect of eating sacrificial food on others, rather than its threat to one's own partnership with Christ; but the difference is one of focus rather than substance. In practice, it may have been difficult to define, or to anticipate, where a believer was implicated in acts of idolatry, for instance, when attendance at a meal in a temple or in the presence of an idol might involve the banqueters in sacrifice or other acts of worship. Perhaps Paul underestimated the complexity of such situations, but it is clear at least that he cannot tolerate the forging of a link to alien entities, which, though they may not be gods, are none the less potent rivals to Christ (cf 15:24-8).
(10:23—11:1) Practical Guidelines on Eating and Avoiding Offence The ban on participation in 'idolatry' has not yet resolved all the practical issues, since there are places and occasions where sacrificial food may be on offer without involving the believer in idolatry. In such matters, again the crucial issue is the effect of one's actions on other people, particularly other believers: we have returned full circle to the concerns of ch. 8, since Paul still maintains that love is a more valuable criterion than knowledge (8:1—3). Thus, while citing again in 10:23 me Corinthian principle of freedom (cf. 6:12), Paul insists on modifying it with reference to what 'builds up', that is, what is beneficial to others (cf. 8:1). The tendencies of the elite are to protect their own interests in such matters, advancing their social position by minimum abstentions from sacrificial food; but Paul calls them to seek, first of all, the advantage of others (10:24). m me case of food sold in the meat market (which might or might not have passed through a temple in the process of slaughter), Paul encourages complete freedom: ignorance as to the history of the food means that no one's conscience (identity as a Christian) is affected by eating this food. Most Jews were more anxious about avoiding food possibly tainted by idolatry, but Paul overrules this scruple since eating such food from a market risks no personal participation in idolatry, and since the food itself is a part of God's good creation (10:25—6, boldly citing PS 24:I in support). In the case of a meal at an unbeliever's house, ignorance is again encouraged for the same reasons (10:27), ^ut here complications may arise from the involvement of other people in the meal. Paul is concerned for the 'conscience' of someone else who declares the food to have been involved in sacrifice (10:28). Because the phrase, 'This has been offered in sacrifice', does not use the Jewish/Christian term 'idolatrous', many interpreters take this informant to be a non-believer (either fellow-guest or host; e.g. Fee 1987: 483-5). But it is hard to see why Paul would be concerned with an unbeliever's conscience in this matter, and it is better to see here the same weak Christians as were in view in ch. 8 (Barrett 1971: 239— 40). For their sake, i.e. lest they be pressurized into compromising their faith, knowledgeable Christians should refrain from such food (10:28—290). But otherwise the basic principle remains: so long as one can give thanks with integrity, that is, eat the food as part of a relationship with God (uncompromised by partnership with demons), one should do so freely, even if others are critical (10:29/7—30).
Issues Relating to Communal Meetings (11:2-14:40)
Paul now turns to a number of topics which relate to the conduct of worship and communal meetings in the Corinthian church. The bulk of this new section concerns the exercise of spiritual gifts (chs. 12-14), but that is prefaced with discussion of two topics also related to worship, head-covering of women in prayer and prophecy (11:2—16) and the Lord's Supper (11:17-34). Paul's initial word of commendation (11:2) is probably meant to preface the whole section, since the Lord's Supper and the gifts of the Spirit were part of his legacy to the church. But on many issues, in fact, he has more criticism to offer than praise (cf. 11:22). (11:2-16) Praying and Prophesying with Proper HeadCovering This passage, with its hierarchical ordering of male and female, has had a fateful influence through the centuries and has not enhanced Paul's reputation. It is full of awkward argumentation, so awkward that a few scholars even consider it a later addition to the letter by another hand. The issue concerns men and women who pray and prophesy in the church (w. 4—5). Paul takes it for granted that both genders will participate in such important acts of church leadership (on prophecy, see ch. 14); how this tallies with the apparent ban on women's speech in church in 14:33—6 is not clear (see i COR 14:33—6). Most commentators rightly take the topic to be the covering of the head (Theissen 1987: 158-75), while a few scholars construe the Greek differently to refer to tying up (or letting loose) of hair (Murphy-O'Connor 1980). Men and women wore the same sort of outer garment (Gk. himation), which could be drawn forward from behind the neck to cover the crown of the head, or even further forward over the face as well. In normal circumstances men did not draw the himation forward, although Romans did in offering sacrifice at an altar. The typical customs for women are more difficult to discern, and probably varied over time and in different cultural contexts within the Graeco-Roman world (on Corinth see Thompson 1988). However, a variety of evidence suggests that, in public and in the presence of men other than family members, married women frequently covered their heads and even their faces, as a sign of modesty and as
I CORINTHIANS 1126
inthian worship to ensure order (there are some parallels to this notion at Qumran). Others regard them in a more sinister light as the successors to the 'sons of God' (Gen 6:1-4) wh° are
a protective barrier in the force-field of lustful stares. Young unmarried girls did not usually cover or veil themselves, but for a mature/married woman (girls were normally married at puberty) to be seen uncovered might suggest that she was somewhat 'forward', thus bringing shame both on herself and on her husband. Thus head-covering functioned both to differentiate women from men and to subordinate them.
liable to lust after unveiled women (Gen 6 was much discussed in Jewish apocalyptic circles, cf. i Enoch 14—16). In w. ii—12 Paul moves to moderate some of what he has asserted by pointing to the interdependence (not equality) of women and men in the cycle of life, but 'in the Lord' suggests some specifically Christian reality. Finally, he appeals to reason (w. 13—16). The Corinthians should know what is 'proper' in the matter of hair and head-covering. The appeal to 'nature' in v. 14 with reference to the degradation of long hair shows how disastrously Paul has confused 'nature' and 'custom', a confusion which has led him to support cultural norms with arguments from 'creation'. He may realize that his arguments are not likely to persuade and thus resorts finally to an abrupt dismissal of 'contentiousness', refusing to allow further discussion on this matter (v. 16).
This passage suggests that there are some women in the Corinthian church who are leading worship in prayer and prophecy with their heads uncovered. We can only speculate about the reasons for this behaviour. It is possible that the causes were quite mundane, for instance, that they felt the house-church a sufficiently 'private' context not to require head-covering, or that the ecstasy of Spirit-inspiration caused head-coverings to slip. It is normally suggested, however, that there stands some theological principle behind their activity, for instance some appeal to the baptismal formula that 'there is neither male nor female' (Gal 3:28) in order to justify the abolition of gender distinctions. It is also possible that the practice was particularly sponsored by those 'virgins' Paul addresses in ch. 7, who as unmarried women may have wished to demonstrate their special relationship to God
(11:17-34) Humiliation of Church Members at the Lord's Supper Paul now turns to a topic on which reports have suggested a fundamental dysfunction in the church in relation to a rite, the Lord's Supper, which should constitute the core of church life and enact the proclamation of the gospel. The seriousness with which he takes this issue is indicated by his claim that their present form of gathering is positively harmful (v. 17), by his suggestion that the behaviour of some might mark them out as false Christians (v. 19; cf. 9:27), and by his warning that their mishandling of the Supper could lead—in fact already had led—to illness and death as divine judgement (w. 27—32). The divisions thathe hears about (v. 18) appear to be primarily social, between the elite members of the church and lower-class Christians. The 'Lord's Supper' (v. 20) was a full meal, incorporating the sharing of bread and wine but not restricted to those foodstuffs. Paul is scandalized that what was meant to be a common meal has become a display of disunity in the church. It appears that wealthier members have been bringing their own supplies for the meal, starting the meal before all had arrived and keeping their own food largely, if not entirely, for themselves, so that they consume more (and perhaps better quality) food than poorer members (w. 20—2). It was common at dinner-parties in the GraecoRoman world for the host to give more and better food to his more distinguished guests, and perhaps Gaius, the host to the whole church (Rom 16:23), has simply followed cultural habits unthinkingly (Theissen 1982: 145—74). Thus Paul once again has to remind the wealthier members of the church of their responsibilities to their fellow Christians of lower status: by humiliating them in this fashion they are showing contempt for the church of God (v. 22; cf. 3:16—17 and 8:12).
(7:34) by renouncing a common token of relatedness to a husband (see later, Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins). Whatever the cause, the practice brings to the surface deep anxieties in Paul concerning gender distinction, and he employs a battery of arguments from theology, Scripture, custom, and 'reason' to reimpose what he insists is the universal Christian custom (v. 16).
His first move is to set up a hierarchy of'heads', involving God, Christ, man, and woman (v. 3). 'Head' (Gk. kephale) probably indicates 'authority'; some have taken it to mean 'source', but in either case the chain suggests subordination (on Christ's subordination to God, cf 3:23 and 15:28). The use of 'head' language enables Paul to draw on both literal and metaphorical senses; the male with covered head disgraces his head (physical head and/or Christ), the female with uncovered head disgraces hers (physical and/or man, w. 4—5). The cultural assumptions concerning 'shame' in this matter are clear in the parallels Paul draws with a woman whose hair is cut short or shaven (w. 5-6): in both cases she was considered demeaned as a woman (cf. v. 15) and her femininity denied. Paul is concerned throughout this passage that genders should not be confused or rendered ambiguous.
v. 7 suggests a natural distinction between man (as image and glory/reflection of God) and woman (as glory/reflection of man). This represents a tendentious reading of Gen 1:26—7 (where male and female are created 'in the image of God'). The logic of the verse is obscure, but perhaps suggests that in worship of God the man's head should not be covered (since it brings glory to God), while the woman's should (since it brings glory to man), w. 8-9 draw from Genesis 2 (Eve's creation from and for Adam) in order to reinforce the hierarchy suggested by the opening chain (v. 3). Thus a woman is required to have, literally, 'authority on her head' (v. 10). This must refer to the head-covering, but it is unclear whether it is a symbol of her authority to pray and prophesy (Hooker 1964), or of her submission to male authority. The reference to the angels in this verse is puzzling. Some take these as the angels who protect the orders of creation and are present at Cor-
To correct such abuse Paul first reminds them of the tradition he passed to them (w. 23-6). These verses are actually our first witness to the form and understanding of the Lord's Supper in the early church, being earlier than the gospel accounts (Mk 14:22-4; Mt 26:26-8; Lk 22:17-20). This is the only incident in the life of Jesus that Paul ever recounts
(apart from his crucifixion) and it seems to have become fixed relatively early as the founding narrative for an important Christian rite. We cannot tell precisely how Paul understood the identification between 'the bread' and 'the body' (v. 24) or
112 7 I CORINTHIANS
this gift might reinforce the status differentials which we have found to be operative in other issues addressed by Paul (Martin 1991).
between 'the cup' (note, not 'the wine') and 'the blood' (v. 25), though the reference to the new covenant and the notion of 'remembrance' seem to place greater emphasis on the relationship forged between the participant and the Lord than on the essence of the elements themselves, v. 26 seems to be Paul's own interpretation of the significance of the meal: through it the participants 'proclaim the Lord's death'. In the light of 1:18-2:5 it is not surprising that he finds the elitism and self-centredness of the higher-status Christians in Corinth constituting a denial of the message of Christ crucified.
Paul's first warning is against naivety (w. 1-3). Not every form of'possession' is God-inspired: the Corinthians should not assume that the more dramatic the 'ecstasy', the better the gift. In their religious past they experienced 'ecstasy' (v. 2; NRSV 'enticed' would be better translated 'moved'), but that was erroneous, inducing only worship of speechless 'idols'. The gift has to be tested by its result (v. 3): clearly the Spirit of God cannot inspire someone to say 'Jesus be cursed', while the basic Christian confession 'Jesus is Lord' is attributable only to the Spirit (cf. Rom 10:9; Phil 2:11). The point may seem obvious, but 'inspiration' was (and is) a problematic claim and needed to be tested by its effects (cf. 14:29; i Thess 5:1921). But there is another and larger point to be made: that no one gift should be regarded as of unique importance or played off against others (w. 4-11). In a formulation which points towards later trinitarian doctrine, Paul insists that the varieties of gifts and services can be traced to the same Spirit/Lord/God (w. 4—6). v. ii will re-emphasize this point, while suggesting that the Spirit distributes gifts to every believer ('to each one individually') and according to the Spirit's choice, not his/her own (but cf. 12:31; 14:1). Thus none can boast of having a gift, which is precisely a gift (charisma means 'gift of grace'), not a possession or an achievement (cf. 4:7). Moreover, the gifts are given not for individual satisfaction or pride, but 'for the common good' (v. 7). Thus Paul again signals the criterion of 'benefit to others' which he has appealed to throughout (6:12; 8:1—3; 10:23—4, £tc-) and which will form the theme of ch. 13 as the basis for ch. 14.
Returning to the Corinthians' conduct, Paul warns them against eating and drinking 'in an unworthy manner' (v. 27). The context suggests that such carelessness about partaking in bread and wine includes the scandalous behaviour of those who humiliate other Christians at the Supper (w. 20—2). Hence, the call to 'examine yourselves' (v. 28) must signal primarily a scrutiny of one's behaviour towards others in the church, not a general moral scrutiny of one's 'worthiness' to partake in a sacred meal. Eating and drinking requires 'discerning the body' (v. 29), discerning that the bread 'is' the body of Christ, but also that the church constitutes the body of Christ as it partakes of this 'one bread' (10:17; cf12:12—27). To defile the Supper is to show contempt for the church, and thus to invite the sort of judgement which God metes out to those who damage his temple (v. 29; 3:16-17). Such 'unworthy' eating makes one accountable for the body and blood of Christ (v. 27), in the sense that, rather than benefiting from the death of Christ, one is actually placed among his enemies and murderers (like 'the rulers of this age', 2:6-8). That would be to invite God's judgement (v. 29). Paul reckons some have already experienced this in illness and death (v. 30; cf 5:5), though it is better to be judged in this way as a discipline than to be condemned utterly, like 'the world' (cf. 1:18; 3:15). The final instructions (w. 33—4) show that the humiliation of the poorer members is still his chief concern: the 'brothers and sisters' should wait for one another and not indulge in grossly unequal feasts. The advice to satisfy hunger 'at home' (v. 34) might constitute a step towards separating the meal from the ritual sharing of bread and wine.
To illustrate the 'varieties of gifts', Paul gives a representative list in w. 8—10. Parallel lists in v. 28 and in Rom 12:6—8 (cf. Eph 4:11) suggest that this is not meant to be an exhaustive inventory, but a display of the diversity which the Corinthians will recognize as operative among themselves. Some appear to overlap (e.g. utterance of wisdom and utterance of knowledge) or to be closely linked to others ('faith' in this context means the special exercise of faith required for the 'working of miracles', w. 9-10; cf. 13:2). It is no accident that the gifts of tongues and their interpretation are placed at the bottom of the list (as also in v. 28). While not wishing to endorse explicitly a gift-hierarchy, Paul does want to demote tongues from the exalted position it holds in the estimation of some Corinthian Christians.
(12:1-31) The Distribution of Spiritual Gifts in the Body of Christ At v. i Paul turns directly to the issue of'spiritual gifts' (the Greek could also mean 'spiritual people'). As ch. 14 will show, he is particularly concerned with their exercise in worship (a topic already touched on in 11:2-16). That chapter also indicates that the heart of the issue is the use of 'tongues', a gift of humanly incomprehensible speech which some Corinthian Christians apparently rate far higher than does Paul. The highly charged enthusiasm of the Corinthian church has led to an energetic use of the gifts of the Spirit (cf. 1:7) and a sense of fullness which Paul considers dangerously close to self-satisfaction (4:8). Here he is concerned lest the variety of gifts lead to disunity within the church, and create a hierarchy in which certain 'gifted' Christians despise others. The gift of tongues may be specially conducive to this sense of superiority, since it represents a dramatic and complete 'possession' by the Spirit of God, the gifted individual being considered to speak 'mysteries' (14:2) in 'the tongues of angels' (13:1). There is some evidence to suggest that such esoteric speech might be cultivated particularly by higher-status individuals, so that
In v. 12 Paul introduces the metaphor of the body, which will dominate the rest of this chapter. The statement in v. 27 that 'you are the body of Christ' does not mean that the church constitutes, in some literal sense, the presence of Christ in the world; rather, the church is (like) a body which belongs to Christ, identified with the risen Christ ('so it is with Christ', v.i2) but not identical to him. The body was commonly used in antiquity as a metaphor for human society (or for the whole cosmos), as a variegated organism whose diverse parts are interdependent. It was an image that could easily be exploited by elite classes to justify inequality, on the basis that it was necessary for inferior groups to play their part for the good of all (the Roman historian Livy uses it in this way). One of the striking aspects of Paul's use of the metaphor is that, in his
I CORINTHIANS 1128
of ch. 14. But in fact this prioritizing of love fits its present literary context and the precise needs of the Corinthian church exceptionally well, and in its sharp criticism of the values current among the Corinthians it is hardly an anodyne 'ode to love'. It is written in prose, not verse, but it clearly has poetic qualities both in the level of language and in its structural shaping. It falls naturally into three sections (w. 1—3,4—7, 8-13): the first and third match one another in their comparative evaluations of love, while the central section consists of thirteen simple verbs, arranged in order positive—negativepositive.
hands, it not only justifies diversity in the church, but also works specifically against hierarchical notions of honour and differential importance.
The combination of diversity and unity—many limbs in one body—is the first point to be established (w. 12-20). Baptismal formulae in v. 13 remind the Corinthians of their cultural and social diversity but also of their common access to the Spirit (cf. Gal 3:28, whose 'male and female' pairing is conspicuously absent here), w. 14-19 illustrate the fact that a body, properly understood, must be a differentiated organism: it cannot all be of one part. Paul notably presents this fact from the point of view of a member which feels itself excluded because it is not something else (w. 15-16). He thus identifies with the position of members of the church who are being made to feel inferior or marginalized, and insists on their rightful place within the body.
The first section (w. 1-3) is made up of three conditional clauses, each complemented by a devastating statement of worthlessness. The first imagines the possession of all the possible gifts of speech which were so highly prized in Corinth, 'tongues of angels' perhaps describing the imagined content of 'speaking in tongues'. Without love, which can make such communication purposeful and beneficial to others, all such gifts, although genuinely gifts of the Spirit, are mere noise ('noisy gong' refers to the bronze products for which Corinth was famous). Similarly the powers of prophecy, knowledge, and faith (cf. 12:8—10; Mk 11:20—4) are
In w. 21-6 Paul then develops this perspective by confronting the superior attitudes of the 'stronger' or more prominent Corinthian Christians. No member can dismiss others as dispensable (v. 21) because those which are apparently 'weaker' or less 'honourable' are in fact of crucial significance and accorded very great 'respect' by the rest of the body. He is thinking no doubt of the attitude we adopt to the vulnerable organs of the body and the genitalia, but his point is clearly meant to apply to the less 'honourable' members of the Corinthian church. We have noted at many points how the 'weaker' members in the church are being treated with less than full respect by higher-status Corinthian Christians
valueless without love (v. 2). In fact, most challenging of all, even apparent acts of charity and self-sacrifice gain nothing at all, unless they are motivated and controlled by love (v. 3). A tiny textual variant could alter the sense in v. 3 from delivering the body 'that I may boast' to delivering it 'to be burned'. Commentators are evenly divided on the best reading here. It was perhaps unnecessary still to criticize boasting (cf. 4:7), so the reading 'to be burned' (e.g. in martyrdom) may be preferred. Even martyrdom is valueless unless it is founded on love.
(1:26-8; 8:1-13; 11:20-2). Paul here uses the body metaphor to overturn such attitudes, pointing out that the less 'respectable' are in fact accorded great respect, and that God has so designed this (w. 22-4). This attribution of greater honour to the 'lesser' individual is based on the same principle as Paul had found in the message of the cross (1:18—2:5), where human values of power and wisdom are overturned. As in that passage, Paul finds here the solution to those prideinduced 'dissensions' which are springing up in the Corinthian church (v. 25; the same word is translated 'divisions' in 1:10). The mutuality of care for one another's interests which Paul had taught in chs. 8-10 (10:24, 32) is
The central stanza (w. 4-7) provides a pen-portrait of'love' (agape), a term not coined in early Christianity but given special prominence and reshaped to express its peculiar ethos of self-sacrifice. The paragraph is made up of simple verbs or short clauses which define the quality of love, mostly by the attitudes it eschews. Two positive verbs open the list, which then contrasts love with a catalogue of spiritual failures in the Corinthian church: love is not envious (cf. 3:3), it is not boastful or arrogant (cf. 4:6, 18-19; 5:2J 8:1, etc.), it does not insist on its own way (cf. 10:24), nor rejoice in wrongdoing (cf. 5:1— 2). The final four positive verbs (v. 7) expand the field of love's operation as widely as possible. Their link between love, faith, endurance, and hope matches the conglomerate of Christian virtues which Paul elsewhere uses to sum up the essence of Christian commitment (cf. v. 13; i Thess 1:3).
here illustrated by the concern of all the body's parts for the health and welfare of the rest (w. 25—6).
The chapter is completed by making explicit the relevance of the metaphor to the Christians in Corinth (v. 27) and by another list of 'gifts' or 'appointments' (v. 28). Here some value distinctions are introduced ('first apostles' etc.) since Paul does regard some gifts as more conducive to the welfare of the body than others (as ch. 14 will illustrate); again tongues is last in the list! The point about necessary diversity in the body is finally driven home with a series of rhetorical questions (w. 29—30) designed to undercut the notion that any one gift should be possessed by all, or that anyone is deficient in not possessing it. There is a sense in which some gifts are 'greater' (v. 31), but that is only because they facilitate the supreme virtue which Paul will now describe.
In the final paragraph (w. 8-13) Paul returns to demonstrate the supreme value of love, now stressing not so much its indispensability (w. 1—3) as its eternal worth. Paul is ever conscious of the provisional character of Christian existence before the parousia (cf. 15:19), and he cannot share the Corinthian sense of fullness (4:8). For him, the only characteristic of the present which is final and complete is love: 'love never ends' (v. 8). All other Christian qualities, even genuine gifts of the Spirit, are provisional and imperfect. The Corinthians value prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (cf. chs. 8-10 and 14), but all these, Paul insists, are only temporary phenomena (v. 8). For now, knowledge (and prophecy) are inescapably partial (v. 9), not only in the sense that they are incomplete
(13:1-13) The Superior and Critical Demands of Love This chapter has sometimes been considered a self-contained 'love-hymn', pre-prepared by Paul, whose present positioning creates a somewhat disappointing descent to the practicalities
112 9 I C O R I N T H I A N S
careful not to go so far as to ban the use of tongues, but he requires that their users should expect them to be turned into something beneficial through interpretation (v. 13).
(we know only some things) but also because they are imperfect (even what we 'know', we only partly comprehend; see P. W. Gooch 1987:142—61). Like a child whose knowledge not only grows but also matures, so our present state of knowledge will appear 'childish' from the perspective of the final revelation (v. n). Or, to use a different image, our present perception is inevitably indirect and distorted—in a mirror and 'dim'—while in the future we will see direct and clear, as clearly as we are already seen and known by God (v. 12; cf. 8:3). The abiding qualities, which already have a firm purchase on eternal truths, are faith, hope, and love (not the Corinthians' vaunted 'knowledge'). But the greatest of these, as the reflection of God's own character, is love (v. 13; cf. Rom 5:8).
The third argument (w. 14-19) provides a different rationale for the superiority of prophecy: it involves both spirit and mind, whereas the gift of tongues engages only the spirit. Paul is probably speaking here of 'spirit' in the sense of human spirit, though it is closely linked with, and inspired by, the Spirit of God. We might expect this contrast to imply a higher evaluation of rationality, the engagement of the mind being exalted over 'irrational' speech. But it would be hard to argue that the human mind was a higher faculty than the Spiritinspired spirit, and Paul's cherishing of the 'mind' turns out to be not on account of its rationality so much as its intelligibility to others, the goal being once again the 'upbuilding' or instruction of the hearers (w. 17-19). This point is made by reference to prayer, singing, and the offering of thanksgiving to God, as the discussion broadens to cover wider aspects of worship (cf. v. 6). Thus Paul forces the Corinthians to consider what is appropriate 'in church', as opposed to in private. In a communal setting, intelligible words count for everything
(14:1—40) The Superiority of Prophecy over Tongues As the first phrase makes clear, ch. 14 draws its inspiration from the preceding eulogy of love, which is not a digression from the topic of spiritual gifts but an exposition of the virtue which enables the church to evaluate and prioritize those gifts. As concerns various forms of speech, love sets the priority as that which 'builds up' the church (v. 12; cf. 8:1). 'Building up' constitutes one of the two guiding principles of Paul's instructions concerning worship, the other being that which is 'decent' and 'orderly' (w. 33, 40). The first part of this chapter is made up of four overlapping arguments for the superiority of prophecy over tongues (w. 1—25). 'Prophecy' is never defined, but seems to constitute speech which instructs, encourages, consoles, or challenges its hearers (w. 3, 24-5, 31). 'Tongues' are not foreign languages intelligible to native speakers (as are portrayed in Acts 2), but speech which is humanly unintelligible, being addressed primarily to God (v. 2). The phenomenon of such 'ecstatic speech' is quite widely attested in a variety of religions, though in antiquity it may have been specially prized by the social elite.
(v. 19). Again, Paul does not discredit tongues absolutely (he claims to be even more gifted than the Corinthians, 14:18!), but requires them to reconsider their appropriateness with a view to others' needs. He is challenging the same unconcern for others which had manifested itself at the Lord's Supper (11:20-2).
The final argument (w. 20-5) is prefaced by a stinging rebuke of the Corinthians, who seem to have prided themselves on their maturity (v. 20, whose last phrase reads literally, 'in your minds be mature'; cf. 2:6—3:4). Paul turns to the only passage in 'the law' (here meaning the Scriptures as a whole) which might be relevant to the subject of'tongues', a warning in Isa 28:11—12 about God speaking to his disobedient people through foreigners. At first sight, the lesson Paul draws from this passage in v. 22 (tongues are a sign for unbelievers, prophecy for believers) seems to be the reverse of his illustration in w. 23—5, where he imagines the negative effects of tongues on 'outsiders' or 'unbelievers' (the two terms are probably synonyms) and the positive effects of prophecy. The clue probably lies back in the quotation itself, which Paul has slightly modified (adding 'even then') to suggest that the 'tongues' actually bring about, or confirm, unbelief. Thus the 'sign for' phrases in v. 22 should probably be taken to mean that tongues serve to strengthen unbelief, while prophecy serves to strengthen, or bring about, belief. Thus outsiders viewing the whole church speaking in tongues will not be attracted to the faith, but simply conclude that it is a form of madness (v. 23); while if they encounter prophecy in the church, they will be led to faith by a conviction of sin, a revealing of heart-secrets, and a recognition of God's presence in the church (w. 24-5). This is a rare depiction of what Paul imagines to be the ingredients of'conversion', indicating the importance for him of sin and judgement (cf. 4:4—5) and of the powerful presence of God (cf. Gal 3:2—5). His own experience in his call/conversion may also be reflected here in some measure.
The first argument for the greater value of prophecy is that it strengthens the whole church, whereas tongues benefit only the individual gifted with them (w. 1-5). Once again, Paul places a premium on what benefits the whole community (cf. 10:23—4), even if it be a less spectacular or mysterious gift than tongues. Their 'mysteries in the Spirit' (v. 2) are not understood even by fellow 'spiritual people', unless someone exercises the gift of interpretation (v. 5). Paul's wish that all speak in tongues or prophesy (v. 5) must be hypothetical (in the light of 12:29-30), but he simultaneously insists that what the Corinthians value most highly is actually of inferior value. Prophecy may be transitory and imperfect (13:8—10), but at least for the present it can be well used in the service of love.
The second argument develops the first by contrasting the unintelligibility of tongues—and therefore its worthlessness for others—with the intelligibility of prophecy (w. 6—13). Again, the question is what benefit the speech has for others
(v. 6). Tongues are as indistinct and incomprehensible as a musical instrument whose notes signify nothing to the hearer (w. 7—8) or as a foreign language whose meaning we cannot grasp (v. n). Paul recognizes and affirms the Corinthian 'zeal' for spiritual gifts (v. 12); nothing in this passage discourages the use of gifts as such. He simply wants the most useful
The discussion can now broaden out to take in wider aspects of worship (w. 26—40). This is the most complete image we get of earliest Christian worship, though we cannot
(upbuilding) gifts to be regarded as of higher value, a recognition which will force the Corinthians to view themselves as a community, not as a collection of gifted individuals. Paul is
I C O R I N T H I A N S 1130
chapter and highlight the need for order; disorder is easily exploited by the strong.
tell whether Paul's prescription matches reality in the Corinthian church, or in any other. Paul certainly imagines the participation of any member of the community (there are no designated 'ministerial' roles), bringing whatever gifts they have, provided, once again, that they contribute to the task of'building up' (v. 26). The 'lesson' here (v. 26) means teaching, not a reading from Scripture, an activity which is strikingly absent from this list of worship activities. The theme of the chapter makes the spotlight fall particularly on tongues and prophecy. The former are not banned, but restricted in number and admissible only if interpreted. The latter also is not to become a virtuoso performance: a number of prophets should be allowed to speak, their speech weighed as to its validity (cf 2:15; 12:3), and room made for new speakers, whose prophecy is sparked by a further 'revelation' (w. 29-31). Paul is striving to control the exuberance of the worship meetings, but also to prevent their domination by any one figure or clique: each member of the body has its part to play and none is entitled to dismiss the contribution of others as inconvenient or unnecessary (cf. 12:14-26).
The Resurrection of Christ and the Resurrection Body (15:1-58)
This chapter stands somewhat alone in the flow of topics in the letter and it may appear odd that the heavy emphasis on the cross as the heart of the gospel in chs. 1-2 should be diluted by the equal insistence here on the centrality of the resurrection (2:2 is somewhat contradicted by 15:3—5). Yet the discussion of the body in 6:12—20 gave an indication that Paul considered the Corinthians' understanding of resurrection to lie at the root of other problems in their church (seeesp. 6:1214). It is difficult to be sure how the Corinthians did understand resurrection. Were they uninterested in a future resurrection because they considered themselves already 'raised' (cf. 4:8; i Tim 2:18)? Or did they disbelieve any future life after death? In fact, the main focus of the chapter (at least from v. 35 onwards) is the notion of a resurrection body, and it is most likely that the Corinthians believed in the existence of some post-mortem state, but one free from the restrictions of the body. Their belief in some form of afterlife seems implied by their practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (v. 29), but it was common in Hellenized circles (both Greek and Jewish) to consider the body an encumbrance which the soul will gladly shed after death. For Paul, their doubt about the sense or value of a 'resurrection body' suggests that they are beginning to question an essential element of their faith, the resurrection of Christ; it also indicates a lack of trust in God's creative power to bring life out of death in whatever form he chooses. Thus he insists on the apocalyptic notion of a final battle against the powers of death (w. 20-8) and defends the idea of a resurrection body, though dispelling crude notions of physical identity between the present and the future body (w. 35-57).
The next paragraph (14:33/7—36) has been the subject of intense debate. It seems to place a total ban on women's speech in church, which is strangely inconsistent with Paul's permission in 11:2-16 that (veiled) women could pray and prophesy. Also the argument depends on a vague and uncharacteristic appeal to 'the law' (v. 34) and appears to assume that all the women will have husbands to ask 'at home' (v. 35), despite Paul's acceptance that the single and celibate option is prudent for both women and men (ch. 7). Such facts prompt one of two conclusions. Either Paul is truly inconsistent here, reacting against a threat of 'unruly' women by forbidding their verbal participation, despite what he had earlier allowed. Or this passage is an interpolation into the letter by a later editor, one who took the opportunity of the surrounding context to introduce the restrictive ethos of the Pastoral letters
Paul begins by pointedly reminding them of the terms on which they entered the faith—terms which they must continue to accept if they are to remain secure (w. 1—2). The important point is that these terms included belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and it is this topic which Paul emphasizes in citing a foundational credal statement (w. 3-7). This creed is introduced in v. 3 in technical terms signifying the transmission of tradition, one which Paul must have inherited
(e.g. i Tim 2:8-15, Part °fa letter generally regarded as written by a later Paulinist, not by Paul himself). This latter option is favoured by many commentators, and it is given slight textual support by the fact that some manuscripts place w. 34-5 at the end of the chapter, rather than in their present location; that might indicate thatthey were once a marginal gloss which was inserted by scribes at varying points into the original text (see Fee 1987: 699-708). There have been numerous speculations about a particular local problem in Corinth (e.g. women who rudely interrupted prophecy, or questioned their husbands in 'weighing' their prophecies, see Jervis 1995) which might or might not explain this outburst if it is genuinely from Paul. But as it stands the passage seems to presuppose that women in all Paul's churches were wholly silent, which hardly fits what we know of women leaders in Pauline congregations (e.g. Rom 16:1-2, 3-5, 7; Phil 4:2).
(in Antioch?) before he founded the church in Corinth (50-1 CE). It thus constitutes the earliest known Christian creed. Its structure is clear: two main 'that' clauses concerning, respectively, the death and the resurrection of Christ, each backed by reference to the Scriptures, and two supplementary 'that' clauses about the burial (reinforcing the death) and the appearances (supporting the resurrection). It is not clear precisely what scriptures are alluded to in this formula nor is it obvious where the original creed ceased: some think it ran no further than v. 5, others as far as v. 7.
This creed constitutes our earliest literary evidence to belief in the resurrection of Christ, and it is often remarked that it makes no mention of the empty tomb or of the women who witnessed the scene (and the risen Christ) according to the stories in the gospels. That silence has suggested to some the late emergence of the story of the empty tomb (first attested in Mk 16, in the late 6os CE), though others consider the silence
Paul closes the discussion with a strong assertion of his authority (derived from the Lord) and a refusal to countenance contrary opinions even from prophets or so-called 'spiritual' people (w. 37-8). The strength of his tone suggests that the whole chapter is directed against a dominant individual or group whose use of gifts is stifling the life of the congregation. The final verses (39-40) summarize the priorities set by the
1131 I CORINTHIANS
of the rest. Pairing Christ with Adam (cf. Rom 5:12—20), Paul finds in Christ the start of a new humanity, in which the failures of the present (encapsulated in death) are replaced by the possibilities of the future (resurrection and life). The key text in w. 27—8 is Ps 8:6, which concerns the intended dignity of humankind: that role is now fulfilled in the 'final Adam' (cf. v. 45) and made possible through him for all (v. 22 That 'all' could be taken to mean 'the whole of humanity', thus implying a kind of universalism (cf. Rom 5:18; 11:32), though the subsequent reference to 'those who belong to Christ'
merely accidental. In any case, it is striking that Paul supports the notion of the resurrection of Jesus purely on the grounds of the resurrection appearances. Those appearances he lists are not all easily correlated with the gospel stories, which also differ among themselves, though the appearance to Cephas may correspond to Lk 24:34, and the appearance to 'the twelve' with stories in Lk 24 and Jn 20.
One reason for Paul's concentration on these appearances is that he can add his own testimony at the end of the list (v. 8). He took his commissioning to his apostleship to be the final resurrection appearance, although Luke placed it in a quite different category in the narrative of the book of Acts. This claim to a vision of Christ was crucial to Paul's self-belief as an apostle (cf 9:1), and it leads him into a brief digression about his apostleship (w. 9—10), which reveals much about his sense of inferiority (as a former persecutor), his radical appreciation of grace, and his hope of outdoing other apostles (cf. 9:3-18). Returning to the topic (v. n), he insists that the same resurrection-centred message was taught by all the apostles and was the basis of the Corinthians' faith.
(v. 23) and the earlier dismissals of non-believers (e.g. 1:18; 6:9-10) suggest that Paul did not carry through its universalistic potential. The cosmic transformation thus takes place in successive phases: first, the resurrection of Christ, then, at his coming, those who belong to him; 'then' (meaning probably, 'at that same moment', though some see here a further phase), it will be 'the end' when God's kingdom is complete and all the enemies of his rule are defeated. In this apocalyptic scenario the risen Christ plays a crucial role: it is through his present reign that God's enemies are being defeated (v. 25), as God puts them in subjection to him (w. 27-8). Even so, Paul insists that Christ is ultimately subordinate to God, who is not himself, of course, subject to Christ (v. 27) but is the one to whom Christ is subject in 'handing over the kingdom' (v. 24; cf. 3:23; Rom 11:36).
The next paragraph (w. 12-19) unearths the reason for Paul's concern that the Corinthians 'hold firm' to the message he delivered: he thinks they are beginning to waver in their faith in the resurrection of Jesus since some say 'there is no resurrection of the dead' (v. 12). As noted above, the Corinthians' doubts probably concerned the notion of a bodily resurrection, as indeed the phrase 'the resurrection of the dead' (which could be taken literally as 'the raising of corpses') might suggest a crude notion of physical reconstitution after death. Paul himself does not envisage resurrection in such crude terms, but his first reaction is to insist that to doubt the notion of a resurrection of the dead is to doubt the resurrection of Christ, which was a cardinal tenet of their creed. He now runs through a logical argument twice (w. 13—15 and 16— 19) with slight variations in emphasis. First: if there is no resurrection, then Christ has not been raised, then our preaching of that fact was worthless and so is your faith, which is based on that fact (w. 13—14); indeed, the apostles are then vulnerable to the charge of lying about God, for claiming he raised Christ from the dead (v. 15). Secondly: if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised, then your faith is futile and 'you are still in your sins' (w. 16—17)—ma^ i
The next section of the chapter (w. 29—34) contains miscellaneous arguments which indicate the significance of belief in life beyond death. The reference to baptism 'on behalf of the dead' (v. 29) has been the subject of multiple interpretations (some of which construe the Greek quite differently). It probably refers to a rite in which a few Corinthian believers underwent a vicarious baptism in the place of those (believers?) who had died either unbaptized or 'improperly' baptized. 1:12—17 suggests that some Corinthians regarded baptism by certain figures as of great significance, and they may have wished to make up for a 'lack' in the case of those who were baptized by different leaders or in a different way. Paul does not condemn such a practice, and he is willing to use it to show that the Corinthians themselves entertain hopes for an existence beyond death.
Turning to himself, he indicates how his own life is founded on the same principle of hope (w. 30—2). It is only because his investments lie beyond his present physical existence that he is prepared to take such risks with his life— exposed daily to the threat of death. Indeed, he has recently undergone some specially dangerous experience in Ephesus
s> 7OU cannot depend on the other part of the creed, that 'Christ died for our sins' (v. 3). That means all grounds of hope are destroyed. As far as Paul is concerned, the future hope is such a necessary counterweight to the difficulties of the 'present evil age' (Gal 1:4) that, if it were proved to be groundless, Christians would turn out to be especially pitiable. The Corinthians may not have denied all future hope, but Paul insists on depicting the whole of the slippery slope which he thinks they have started to descend.
(v. 32); here 'fighting with wild beasts' must be a metaphor, or he would not have lived to tell the tale, but it is not clear what
sort of crisis it refers to. The Corinthians need to be warned and shamed (w. 32—4; cf. 4:14; 6:5). If they lose their faith in the resurrection of the dead, they have lapsed into mere hedonism (v. 32, citing Isa 22:13) and will end up corrupting their morals (v. 33, citing a popular proverb originating with the poet Menander). The final comment, that some have 'no knowledge of God' (v. 34) is particularly biting considering the Corinthians' boast of'knowledge' (8:1, 4).
Corinthian doubts have challenged a basic element in Paul's theology and he now demonstrates the pivotal significance of the resurrection of Jesus within the scheme of salvation (w. 20—8). This scheme is founded on an apocalyptic notion of the age of death being succeeded and overcome by an age of life, the latter being ushered in by a cosmic act of resurrection (de Boer 1988). For Paul, the resurrection of Christ constitutes the 'first fruits' of that cosmic act (w. 20, 23), the beginning of the harvest which heralds the proximity
In v. 35 Paul reaches what is probably the heart of his dispute with the Corinthians: the means and meaning of a resurrection body. On this topic he attempts to preserve a fine and difficult balance. He insists on keeping the term 'body'
I C O R I N T H I A N S 1132
('sleep'), it is certainly the case that all will be changed, that is, our perishable selves will become imperishable and fit for the 'kingdom of God' (v. 50). Using traditional apocalyptic imagery, Paul imagines this great change taking place 'at the last trumpet' (v. 52; cf. i Thess 4:16; Rev 8:6). Since he supposes here that he and his generation will be alive at this end-point in history (cf. 7:29—31; i Thess 4:15, 17), he distinguishes between 'the dead' who will be raised in the new imperishable state and 'we' who will be changed from a mortal life to a new immortal state (w. 52—4). At that moment the final enemy, death, will be destroyed (cf. v. 26), and Paul celebrates with two Scripture citations, one (v. 54) from Isa 25:8, a passage fu of eschatological promises, the other (v. 55) from Hos 13:14, a passage which he wilfully reads against its grain: the prophet invited death to wield its sting, but Paul employs his words to taunt death with its ultimate powerlessness. Death's sting is already at work in the power of sin, a power derived from the law (v. 56; the themes are elaborated in Rom 6—7); but we are granted victory over both by God (cf. Rom 8:37-9). That means for now persistence in faith and action, since 'the work of the Lord' is of ultimate and lasting significance
(Gk. soma) in describing the future state, but also stresses the discontinuity between the present and the future body, leaving somewhat ambiguous the relation between the two. The first stage of his argument (w. 36-41) is the insistence that there are many types of'body', each with variant degrees of'glory': in talking about the resurrection ofthe dead our minds should not be restricted by what we presently experience as 'body' with its rather limited glory. The analogy ofthe seed (w. 36-8) illustrates the possibility of very different 'bodies' either side of death, and the insistence that 'God gives the seed a body as he has chosen' (v. 38) places the emphasis on God's re-creative power. The Corinthians' doubts indicate that they have placed their confidence in the continuation of their 'spiritual' selves beyond death, rather than in God, whose future act of resurrection will demonstrate his sole power over the forces of sin and death (cf. 1:30-1). The analogy also indicates the variety of different 'bodies' resulting from seeds, which is further illustrated by reference to the varieties of'flesh' and the difference between 'heavenly' and 'earthly' bodies (w. 39—41). In antiquity the stars and planets were generally considered to be living matter with a constitution much more glorious and ethereal than that of earthbound creatures. Paul is thus suggesting that a resurrection body could be a body of a much higher order than our present physical condition, though the point hardly works for us who know that the stars are not a different order of creation, but as physical, material, and destructible as ourselves.
(v. 58), like love, which is its chief characteristic (13:13; 16:14).
Letter Closing, with Travel Plans, Final Instructions, and Greetings (16:1-24)
This final chapter covers a range of topics which bear on Paul's relationship to the church in Corinth, issues which either had already become problematic or would soon become so. The 'collection for the saints' (w. 1-4) is the collection Paul had agreed to gather for the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:10). His problem was in persuading his churches to support this project, since his intentions for this money were open to question and the necessity ofthe collection was not obvious to all. Paul here suggests a mechanism for regular storing of money on 'the first day ofthe week', that is, Sunday; nothing is implied here about worship on Sundays. He is trying to avoid a sudden and potentially embarrassing demand for money when he arrives in Corinth. He also suggests that the Corinthians participate in its delivery, to offset suspicions about its destination. It is clear from 2 Cor 8 and 9 that this advice went unheeded and the Corinthians proved extremely unwilling to contribute to the collection (cf. 2 Cor 12:14—18). However, Rom 15:25—7 suggests that Paul was eventually successful, if the reference to Achaia there includes the church at Corinth (the capital ofthe province).
w. 42-50 apply the illustrations to the topic in hand. What is 'sown' (in death) is one kind of body—perishable, inglorious, and weak—but what is raised can be a body of a wholly different kind. One is a 'physical body': the Greek psychikon soma means a body animated by a soul (psyche), which is here taken to be mortal and temporary. The other is a 'spiritual body': the Greek pneumatikon soma indicates a body inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the Spirit of God. Paul thus wishes to preserve the term 'body' but only when it is shorn of its connotations of physicality and mortality. The impersonal statements, 'it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body', leave unclear whether the physical body is itself reused in the resurrection or whether the self gains a new body quite distinct from the old. This ambiguity matches Paul's silence as to what happened to the body of Jesus and whether his tomb was empty. At least v. 50 makes clear that the present physical body ('flesh and blood') is quite unfit for 'the kingdom of God', though whether entry into that kingdom involves the transformation ofthe present body or the granting of an essentially new body is left undefined in this chapter and is not consistently dealt with elsewhere (cf. Rom 8:11; Phil 3:21; 2 Cor 5:1-11). w. 45-9 develop the contrast between the psychikon soma and the pneumatikon soma by reference to their two prototypes: Adam, the first man, made from the dust, who became a living (but mortal) psyche (Gen 2:7) and Christ, the final Adam, whose origin is heaven, and who is a life-giving (and immortal) pneuma. Our present bodies are as perishable as Adam's ('we bear the image ofthe man of dust'), but the future resurrection body will bear the image of Christ (v. 49).
Paul's description of his travel plans (w. 5—9) seems designed to explain why he is unable to visit Corinth immediately: he is detained in Ephesus for the sake ofthe gospel and wants to wait till he can pay more than a fleeting visit to Corinth. 4:18-19 indicated that Paul was criticized for his absence from Corinth, but the promises he now makes proved to be fateful. He subsequently decided to visit them on his way both to and from Macedonia, and then had such a painful time in Corinth that he did not come back (2 Cor 1:15-2:2). As 2 Corinthians shows, this constant shifting of plans exposed Paul to acute criticism from certain figures in the church, and undermined the church's confidence in his word.
Thus the chapter finishes with a triumphant declaration of the hope on which the whole Christian faith depends, a 'mystery' which makes sense of the present in the light of the future (w. 51-8; cf. 2:9-10). Although not all will die first
Meanwhile, Paul is sending Timothy as his delegate (w. 10n). It is unclear why that visit, promised in 4:17, is now somewhat indefinite, but the note of fear concerning his
I CORINTHIANS
Deming, W. (1995), Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic
reception in Corinth is revealing: if Paul's assistant is likely to be 'despised' in Corinth, Paul's own standing cannot be very secure. As for Apollos (v. 12), we can only speculate why Paul wanted him in Corinth (where he was the figurehead of a 'rival' party, 1:12) and why he was unwilling to go (v. 12). As in 3:5—9, Paul seems anxious to showthathe and Apollos are not at odds nor wishing to undermine each other's work.
Background of i Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dunn, J. D. G. (1991), The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and
Judaism (London: SCM). Fee,G. D. (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International
Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans). Fror, H. (1995), You Wretched Corinthians! (London: SCM). Gooch, P. D. (1993), Dangerous Food: i Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context
The general instructions of w. 13-14 (cf. 15:58 and ch. 13) lead into a specific recommendation of the household of
(Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press). Gooch, P. W. (1987), Partial Knowledge: Philosophical Studies in Paul
Stephanas (w. 15—18). Their 'service of the saints' (v. 15) probably consisted of financial support of the church in Corinth. Given what we have glimpsed of leadership contests in the church, this strong recommendation constitutes Paul's bid to ensure that leadership remains in (or reverts to) this household: their presence with Paul at the time of writing has given him the opportunity to hear about the situation in Corinth and to mould the thinking of people who he hopes will influence the rest of the church. We cannot tell what relationship Fortunatus and Achaicushadto Stephanas; they perhaps belonged to his 'household', as slaves, freedmen, or free dependants.
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press). Goulder, M. D. (1991), 'SOPHIA in i Corinthians', NTS 37: 516-34. Hays, R. B. (1989), Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven:
Yale University Press). Hooker, M. D. (1963) ' "Beyond the things which are written": An
Examination of i Cor iv. 6', NTS 10:127—32, repr. in From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 106-12. (1964), 'Authority on her Head: An Examination of i Cor. n.io', NTS 10: 410-16, repr. in From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 113—20. Hurd, J. C. (1965), The Origin ofi Corinthians (London: SPCK). Hurtado, L. W. (1988), One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and
The final greetings (w. 19-24) are distinguished by special reference to Aquila and Prisca, the couple who had hosted Paul in Corinth at the foundation of the church (Acts 18:2—3). The 'holy kiss' (v. 20) may have been a common sign of recognition among Christian believers (cf. i Thess 5:26) and is here contrasted with a curse on any who 'has no love for the Lord' (v. 22). This is perhaps a formulaic phrase defining Christian identity (cf. 12:3), while the last words of v. 22 are a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic acclamation ('Marana tha') which must derive from early Jewish Christianity. Paul's own handwriting (v. 21; cf. Gal 6:11) gives a personal tone to the close of the letter, which has been calculated throughout to restore the allegiance of the Corinthians to himself, though not for his own sake, only in order to ensure their continuance 'in Christ Jesus' (v. 24; cf. 1:9).
Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: SCM). Jervis, L. A. (1995), 'i Corinthians 14.34—35: A Reconsideration of
Paul's Limitation of the Free Speech of Some Corinthian Women', JSNT58: 51-74. Litfin, D. (1994), St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation: i Corinthians 1—4
and Greco-Roman Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Liidemann, G. (1984), Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chron-
ology (London: SCM). Martin, D. B. (1990), Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in
Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press).
(1991), 'Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators', AAR 59: 547-89. (1995), The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press). Meeks, W. A. (1983), The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the
Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press). Meggitt, J. J. (1998), Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark). Mitchell, M. M. (1992), Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, (Louis-
Barclay, J. M. G. (1992), Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts
in Pauline Christianity', JSNT47: 49—74.
ville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox). Murphy-O'Connor, J. (1980), 'Sex and Logic in i Corinthians 11.2—16',
(1996), Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-uj CE) (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark). Barrett, C. K. (1971), A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Cor-
03(342:482-500. Pearson, B. A. (1973), The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in i
inthians, 2nd edn. (London: A. & C. Black).
Corinthians (Missoula: Scholars Press). Rosner, B. S. (1994), Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of i Corinthians
(1982), Essays on Paul (London: SPCK). Bartchy, S. S. (1973), MALLON CHRESAI: First-Century Slavery and i
5-7 (Leiden: Brill). Schmithals, W. (1971), Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon). Theissen, G. (1982), The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Edin-
Corinthians 7.21 (Missoula: Scholars Press). Brown, P. (1988), The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity (London: Faber & Faber). Chow, J. K. (1992), Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in
burgh: T. & T. Clark).
(1987), Psychological Aspects of Pauline Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark). Thiselton, A. C. (1977-8), 'Realized Eschatology at Corinth', NTS 24:
Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT). Clarke, A. D. (1993), Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A
Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of i Corinthians 1—6 (Leiden: Brill). Dahl, N. A. (1967), 'Paul and the Church at Corinth according to i
510-26. Thompson, C. L. (1988), 'Hairstyles, Head-coverings and St. Paul:
Portraits from Roman Corinth', Biblical Archaeologist, 51: 99-115. Willis, W. L. (1985), Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in i
Corinthians 1—4', in W. R. Farmer et at. (eds.), Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 313-35. de Boer, M. C. (1988), The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in i
Corinthians 8 and 10 (Chico, Calif: Scholars Press). Winter, B. (1991), 'Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church:
The Forensic Background to i Corinthians 6.1—8', NTS 37: 559—72. Wire, A. C. (1990), The Corinthian Women Prophets (Minneapolis:
Corinthians 15 and Romans j (Sheffield: JSOT).
(1994), The Composition of i Corinthians', NTS 40: 229-45.
Fortress).
66. 2 Corinthians MARGARET MACDONALD
in 50 or 51 CE. It seems that this second visit did not go well (2 Cor 2:1-11; 7:12) and Paul followed it up with a 'tearful letter' (2 Cor 2:4; 2:2—n; 7:5—12). Although some have identified this letter with 2 Cor 10—13, ^ is more likely that it has been lost. A subsequent report to Paul that his 'tearful letter' had produced the desired effect in the community led to the composition in Macedonia in 55—6 CE of 2 Cor 1—9 (2 Cor 7:5; cf. 2 Cor 2:12—13; 8:1; 9:2). Titus apparently delivered this letter to the congregation (2 Cor 7:4-16; cf. 2 Cor 8:17-18). However, the situation deteriorated again. Some months later Paul wrote 2 Cor 10-13, also probably from Macedonia. In this letter he stated his intention to come to the community a third time (2 Cor 12:14; I3:I)- (This reconstruction follows Furnish 1988: 11912 closely and is based on the two-letter hypothesis. For an alternative reconstruction based upon the five-(or six-)letter hypothesis see Betz 1992: 1149—52.)
A. Literary Structure. 1. It is a generally held view today that 2 Corinthians is made up of more than one of Paul's letters. Although there is no MS evidence to support this theory, there are several problems in the text as we have it which raise the question of its unity. Among the more serious difficulties is the sharp break between the conciliatory tone of chs. 1-9 and the harsh, sarcastic tone of chs. 10-13. Several partition theories have been developed in order to explain these difficulties, and these theories may be divided into two major schools,
(i) Some scholars divide the text into five or six fragments and then reconstruct the chronology of Paul's dealings with the Corinthians on the basis of these units (e.g. 2:14—6:1317:2—4 + 10:1—13:10 + 1:1—2:13; 7:5—I6; 13:11—13 + ch. 8 + ch. 9 + 6:14— 7:1; Betz 1992: 1149-50). (2) Other scholars do not view the points of discontinuity in chs. 1-9 as being severe enough to warrant theories of partition of those chapters, but nevertheless see a significant break between chs. 1—9 and chs. 10—13. Therefore, they argue in favour of a two-letter hypothesis. This is the position adopted here (cf Furnish 1984: 35-41). Whether chs. 1—9 came before or after chs. 10—13 is a further subject for debate, but more scholars seem to be in favour of the priority of chs. 1-9. According to the proponents of the various partition theories, the NT work called 2 Corinthians is the product of an early editor who combined two or more fragments drawn from originally independent letters. However, some scholars continue to defend the integrity of the letter (e.g. Witherington 1995: 328-39).
2. When Paul wrote i Corinthians, he responded to problems involving community division and behaviour, problems he felt were incompatible with membership in Christ's body. By the time of the composition of 2 Corinthians (or various letter fragments), community problems extended to include the nature of the apostle's relationship with the Corinthians. Indeed, some wonder whether the harsh, critical—even sardonic—tone of i Corinthians may have alienated its recipients to the extent that a second, more conciliatory letter was required. Convinced that the relationship was severely threatened, and of the need for reconciliation, Paul set out to defend his apostolic authority. By the time that 2 Cor 10—13 was composed (See 2 COR A.I) the situation had become acute, due to the influence of apostolic rivals in the community. Throughout 2 Cor 10—13 Paul's preoccupation with these rivals is evident, but there are also insinuations in earlier chapters of threats by opponents to Paul's apostleship (e.g. 2 Cor 3:1-6). The nature of Paul's authority is a theme which runs throughout 2 Corinthians, and this text has therefore been of great interest to scholars concerned with the general question of how Paul exercised authority and distributed power in the community (Schiitz 1975; Holmberg 1980; Meeks 1983; MacDonald 1988). Often these scholars draw upon social-scientific insights such as the foundational theories of the sociologist Max Weber on charisma and authority. Some of the specific issues under investigation include Paul's apostolic credentials and talents, his involvement in the collection for the Jerusalem church, and his attitude towards receiving material support from the congregation. Paul's use of a 'theology of the cross' (which locates power in weakness; 2 COR 4:7-15) to anchor his apostolic authority in a divine mandate has also been of considerable interest.
2. In form and style 2 Corinthians closely resembles Paul's other works, and its authenticity has not been questioned. However, the language and content of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 have struck many as being difficult to reconcile with Paul's other writings and, therefore, this passage has often been viewed as an interpolation.
B. Date and Social Setting. 1. In addition to the correspondence which was included in the NT, the Corinthian letters themselves bear witness to additional writings which are either non-extant or have been subsumed along with other letters within the body of 2 Corinthians (see 2 COR A.I), i Cor 5:9 demonstrates that Paul wrote a letter prior to i Corinthians, probably concerning the immoral behaviour of church members. Some have identified this letter with 2 Cor 6:14—7:1. i Corinthians was written around 54 CE in response to a letter from the Corinthians which had raised several questions. The events which precipitated the correspondence known as 2 Corinthians are a subject of great debate and we are limited to conjecture concerning them. One possible reconstruction of events is as follows. It appears that between the time of the composition of i Corinthians and 2 Corinthians (or fragments thereof), Paul paid an emergency 'sorrowful visit' to Corinth (2 Cor 2:1). This probably was the apostle's second visit to the community (cf. 2 Cor 12:14; I3:I)> the first being the occasion of the founding of the community
3. Corinth became a Roman colony in 44 BCE and architectural, artefactual, and inscriptional evidence points to a strong Romanizing influence in this old Hellenistic city (Witherington 1995: 6—7). The growing awareness of the need to understand NT groups in the light of the context of Graeco-Roman society has had an important effect on the study of 2 Cor-
1135 2 CORINTHIANS
(2 Cor 11:13), has also l£d to discussion ofwhether one or more groups of opponents are in view (see 2 COR 11:5—15).
inthians. For example, comparison of 2 Cor 8-9 to administrative correspondence in the empire has shed light upon the form and purpose ofthese chapters (Betz 1985). Increasingly, scholars are examining the influence of Greek rhetorical style upon Paul. The obvious use of such rhetorical devices as parody in 2 Cor 10—13 ^as invited further probing on the way Paul forms and develops his arguments in 2 Corinthians. It is now possible to say that rhetorical analysis of 2 Corinthians represents an important methodological approach, one which complements more traditional exercises in historical criticism. Rhetorical analysis sheds light on questions ranging from the purpose of the letter to its literary integrity (e.g. Young and Ford 1987; Marshall 1987; Crafton 1990; Witherington 1995). The recognition of the importance of rhetoric in the ancient world and in the letters of Paul has also contributed to a further understanding of Paul's emphasis on boasting and self-praise in 2 Corinthians. Public demonstrations of self-worth (which included performances of rhetoric) were a central means of establishing one's authority in a society which had an honour/shame orientation (Witherington 1995: 6, 432-7; 2 COR 1:12-14; 2 COR 4:I~6). Investigation of the structures of the patron—client relationship in the ancient world has also shed light on Paul's interaction with the Corinthians (Marshall 1987; Chow 1992; Witherington 1995; 2 COR 5:11-19; 2 COR 8:16-24; 2 COR 10:12—18).