Читать книгу 1 Corinthians - B. J. Oropeza - Страница 11

The first supporting proof of the appeal for unity centers on the proclamation of the cross among Jews and Gentiles (1:18–31).113 Paul then applies the content of this message to his own persona and preaching in relation to spiritual wisdom (2:1–16), and subsequently to Apollos and himself as ministers (3:1—4:5). After this he makes another appeal, this time for his recipients to imitate him (4:6–16), and he warns them to be prepared for his upcoming visit (4:17–21). These passages reveal that apart from competitive allegiances, the congregation is plagued by quarreling, misperceptions about wisdom and speech, and boasting related to status.

Wisdom and Foolishness of the Cross (1:18–31)

The type of eloquence that our apostle discourages from becoming preeminent in the congregation does not prevent him from exhibiting his own stylistic features throughout the rest of this chapter, including rhetorical questions (1:20), chiasm (1:22­–­23), irony (1:21, 25, 27–28), anaphora or stressed repetition (“not many . . . not many . . . ”: 1:26), and antitheses: perishing/being saved (1:18), foolishness/power (1:18), foolish/wise (1:21–25, 27), wisdom of God/wisdom of the world (1:20–21), weakness/strength (1:25, 27), noble/lowly (1:26, 28), and things that are/things that are not (1:28).114

The message of the cross refers to the apostolic proclamation about Christ crucified. This message elicits antithetical responses that interact with wisdom and prophetic-apocalyptic discourses. Those who are being saved believe in the message of the cross, and for them it provides a channel for God’s power to save and transform their lives as well as endow them with true spiritual wisdom. Those who are perishing think the message of the cross is foolishness. They, too, have wisdom and power, but it is related to rhetorical eloquence and the authority of Caesar (2:4–5, 8).115 They belong to the corrupted world and current age that found its inception through the fall of Adam and the old creation, which characterizes sin and death, belongs to Satan, and will ultimately meet its destruction in the age to come (1:20–21a; cf. 5:5; 15:21–28; Rom 5:12–20). The Christ event marks the inception of the new creation and salvific era invading the present world. Its participants will experience the full realization of this salvation in the age to come (Gal 1:4; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:2). The present tense of salvation and destruction in 1:18, then, implies that both are currently in the process of their respective states; their full realization does not take place until Christ returns. Before that day arrives, the present state of the perishing ones could be changed for the better if they start believing the message of the cross. Conversely, those who believe must continue believing if they are to experience final salvation on that day.

This antithetical pairing of destruction and salvific life perhaps imagines a triumphal procession similar to 2 Cor 2:14–16, where Paul classifies again two types of people using this similar terminology.116 The Corinthians, highly influenced by Roman culture, no doubt had heard of such processions in Rome, and knew of these events via depictions in art, inscriptions, and literature.117 A victory celebration of this sort for Romans included the victors of war entering and parading through their city on horses and chariots complete with an entourage of statues, paintings, gold, silver, and other booty, animals to be sacrificed, incense bearers, and of course, prisoners of war who were often executed at the end of the spectacle (cf. Plutarch Aem. 32.3–34.4).118 In this light, Christ’s death might be imagined in different ways depending on the viewer. For those who are perishing, he resembles a weak, Jewish rebel being crucified or, if in a triumphal procession is in view, bound as a prisoner of war at the feet of the Roman emblem, the tropaion.119 This symbol of triumph was made from wood, shaped like a cross, and bore the armor of the defeated foes. Whether through bearing his own cross or being tied to the tropaion, he is paraded through the city streets on his way to be executed. We could surmise that for Paul Christ’s death represents the turning point of human history. Rome’s displays of power eventually give way to the more powerful images of resurrection and the defeat of death. At the end of the metaphorical procession depicting the age of now and not yet, such worldly powers will be shamed and destroyed (1:19, 27–28; 2:6). And those deemed foolish by the world’s standards, who identified with Christ and his cruciform sufferings, will be vindicated.120 The cross in 1:18 will result in the triumph of resurrection in 15:57.

The apostle cites Isa 29:14 in anticipation of this victory—God will destroy the wisdom of the wise and thwart the cleverness of the clever.121 In Isaiah, Israel’s leaders are confronted for depending on human wisdom and Egyptian advisors instead of consulting God, the divine counselor (Isa 19:11–13; cf. 30:1–7; 31:1). Failing to seek their Lord, they become spiritually blind, and face impending judgment (29:1–12, 14), and a reverse ordering will occur in which the humble will be joyous and lifted up, but the proud will be humbled (29:18–19; cf. 27:1; 29:1–8).122 Consequently, God will turn the counsel they receive into foolishness (19:3, 11–14). Paul’s rhetorical questions in 1:20 continue to be informed by Isaiah: Where is the wise? recalls the elitist counselors of Isa 19:12. Where is the clerical magistrate? echoes 33:18b.123 However, the third question, Where is the sophist debater of this age? finds no parallel in Isaiah.124 Stephen Pogoloff is apropos that the last of the three questions “most naturally refers to the rhetorician skilled at declamation and extemporaneous courtroom displays. Increasingly, such persons were called sophists, and were sought by all status seekers as prizes.”125 Paul apparently wants to make sure that his auditors do not miss the point that this question pertains to the way they esteem oratory performances. All the same, three inquiries begin with “where” and are probably informed by the threefold pattern in Isa 33:18. The questions prompt the response that clever and prominent speakers are nowhere to be found at the time of the Lord’s visitation. Paul’s fourth question, Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? may come from Isa 44:25 where the Lord again turns the advice of wise counselors into foolishness.126 “Yes” is the answer Paul expects from Corinthians.

Our apostle recontextualizes Isaiah’s discourse in order to associate human counsel void of divine direction with the wisdom of this age characterized by sophists and royal elitists (cf. 1 Cor 2:4–8). Through Isaiah the relevant message for the Corinthians is that divine wisdom stands over against worldly wisdom; the latter incurs divine judgment, and there is an anticipation in which the absence of true wisdom will be remedied.127 Whereas the concept of foolishness turns out to be antithetical to this wisdom, Paul presents a reverse ordering in which proclamation of the crucified Messiah, perceived by the wise in this world as foolishness, has become the means by which divine wisdom is revealed. This wisdom, incidentally, is not measured by the entertainment value of the speaker’s performance, nor by the weight of eloquent words used, but by the divine mind’s penetrating and disclosing insights communicated through God’s Spirit by his messengers (cf. 2:6–16). Such wisdom is not recognized by worldly wisdom; the latter is foolish in comparison.

Both Jews and Gentiles can accept or reject the message of the cross (1:22–24). Unbelieving Jews ask for signs which seem related to miraculous proofs verifying Jesus as Messiah (Mark 8:11; 15:29–32; John 6:30). This request, as Ciampa and Rosner affirm, does not reflect an “open-minded plea, but an obstinate insistence on powerful confirmation of God’s deliverance that renders faith unnecessary.”128 The sign given them is an unexpected king—Jesus became a cursed criminal who hung on a tree (Deut 21:22­­–23), which is how Jewish interpreters understood crucifixion.129 As such, the prophetic cornerstone of Zion from Isa 28:16, which Paul interprets as Jesus, became their stumbling block obstructing their way to faith and deliverance (Rom 9:33; cf. 1 Cor 3:10–11).130

Unbelieving Greeks seek wisdom.131 The wisdom in this phrase appears to be very broad; it most likely includes philosophy and not merely rhetoric. Those who pride themselves in this pursuit might be expected to respond to the cross with mockery, akin with how the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers respond to the message of resurrection in Acts 17:31–32. The many allusions to thoughts similar to Stoicism in this letter may suggest that some Corinthians were influenced by this philosophy.132 Together with other Gentiles they interpret a crucified Jew who claims to be savior as foolishness. Crucifixion is for criminals and communicates weakness, defeat, humility, shame, and low status.133 Seneca, for example, mentions crucifixion as a way to depict humiliation related to his own situation (Vit. Beat. 19.3), and Cicero considers crucifixion to be a shameful thing that should not be seen or heard (Rab. Perd. 5.16).134 This was a punishment for slaves (Verr. 5.169–70).135 Foolishness of this sort does not convey merely intellectual nonsense but social worthlessness. The fool is typically imagined as an ugly, despised, subhuman of low status; the butt of jokes and object of ridicule.136 And this particular crucified man made claims of sovereignty as Messiah. Hence, to follow and confess him as Lord risks an affront to Caesar that invites persecution.137

A third group, however, views crucifixion in a different light (1:24–25). These are Jews and Gentiles who are called by God to be a holy people in fellowship with Christ (1:2, 9); they are the ones who believe they are saved (1:18b, 21b). They consider Christ to be both the power of God and the wisdom of God. These designations do not appear to identify Christ as distinctive attributes, emanations, or personifications of God. Rather, as the context suggests, “Christ” in 1:24 stands for the message of Jesus Christ being crucified, and this message effectually works in the believers divine power to live a transformed life and receive disclosed wisdom. This perception of the cross is expressed further with the ironic declaration that God’s folly and weakness is wiser and stronger than human wisdom and strength (1:25; cf. 3:18). The cross of Christ exposes as worthless and utterly mistaken the entire human system of values, epitomized by Roman society, which considered crucifixion a “symbol and enactment of abject worthlessness.”138

In 1:26–29 the Corinthian auditors are to review their calling not merely in terms of divine initiative and invitation for them to respond favorably to becoming God’s people through Paul’s preaching, but in terms of their social status at conversion, a status they currently maintain (cf. 7:17–24). Not many of them are wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble-born. Although “not many” does not mean “none,” most did not belong to the upper classes of Roman Corinth.139 They are what the apostle describes as the foolish things of the world. The weak, ignoble, despised nobodies according to the world’s perspective often are the ones God chooses; they accept the message of the cross in contrast to those of high social standing who often reject it.140 Among the church’s members are slaves, widows, and poor (7:21–23, 39–40; 11:2–16, 22). This calling and election involves divine favor on the humble for the express purpose of shaming the wise and mighty along with prideful boasters (1:27, 29).141 It is similar to the divine pattern one finds in early Jewish traditions (Deut 4:37–38; 7:6–7; Bar 3:26–27; Jdt 9:11–14).142 Conversely, Pliny the Elder captures Roman sentiment when writing about a funerary oration in which Metellus the senior is praised for achieving ten of the greatest things for wise men to pursue. Among the ten are to become a top warrior, supreme orator, enjoy highest honor, possess complete wisdom, be a most distinguished senator, and acquire a large fortune (Nat. 7.45). Similarly, Aristotle’s components of human happiness includes, “noble birth . . . wealth . . . health, beauty, strength, stature . . . glory (reputation), honor, good luck, virtue” (Rhet. 1.5.4).143

To Paul’s frustration, high regard for status and sophistry seems to reflect some of the Corinthians’ own sentiments despite many of them originating from the lower class. They seem to desire pandering to the wise, eloquent, and elite of the world. They mirror behavior more appropriate for outsiders and adopt its ideology of prestige. Paul undermines this way of thinking by insisting that not only does God frequently bypass those whom society deems honorable but God utterly confounds their entire honor and status-based ranking system.144 They are put to shame, not merely in a psychological sense but eschatological.145 These words may echo prophetic traditions that declare God’s judgment against those who place all their trust in human wisdom (Isa 30:3, 5; Jer 8:9; 9:22–23).146

In their pursuit of status-seeking the Corinthians perhaps bragged about their respective leaders and themselves in relation to those leaders (1:12; 3:3–4, 21).147 Paul subverts this boasting by maintaining that all believers receive a new status in Christ. Their boasts should not be centered on pride and self-achievements but in the Lord (1:29, 31). The apostle paraphrases Jeremiah where the Lord declares that the wise should not boast in their own wisdom, the strong should not boast in their strength, and the wealthy should not boast in their wealth. They rather should all boast in knowing the Lord who is merciful, just, and righteous (Jer 9:22–24).148 Because Israel and its leaders had turned away from divine reliance and trusted in their own wisdom, strength, and wealth, they faced impending judgment and their wise men would be put to shame (Jer 8:8­–11; 9:12; 10:7; cf. 5:26–29; 17:5, 11; 23:10).149 In this situation, Jeremiah tries to bring them back to God as the true source of wisdom. Paul, informed by this prophetic-wisdom discourse, redirects his audience to focus on God as the source of all benefits. They should boast in the Lord instead of taking pride in human wisdom, power, and persona.150 There is no room for boasting in human achievements when in the presence of God.

From the divine presence flows salvific benefits through their union in Christ, which includes spiritual wisdom (2:6–16), a right standing before God (2 Cor 5:21), sanctification (1 Cor 1:2; 3:16–17), and redemption from sin and death (Rom 3:24). These benefits, which are both present and futuristic, are imparted to them from God through Christ. The believers become righteous at conversion (1 Cor 6:11) and yet receive final justification on judgment day (4:4). They become holy saints at conversion (1:2) and yet complete sanctification is experienced at the second coming (1 Thess 5:23). They are presently redeemed from sin (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rom 3:24) and yet look forward to the redemption of their mortal bodies via resurrection (Rom 8:23). The now and not yet component of these benefits are complementary to what it means to be currently in the process of being saved (1 Cor 1:18).

God’s Power Rather Than Rhetorical Wisdom (2:1–5)

Paul continues in wisdom discourse to present himself as a role model of weakness and humility related to the cruciform life in the passage. Through use of antithetical statements and anaphora (“and I in . . . and in . . . and in . . . ” 2:3) he contrasts worldly wisdom with the message of the cross and power of God’s Spirit. The Corinthians are reminded about the first time Paul visited them (cf. Acts 18:1–18): he did not come to them with superiority of eloquence or of wisdom. A comparison of 2:1, 4, and 1:17 makes clear that Paul is referring to an excess of rhetorical eloquence when speaking. In these verses “speech” (λόγος) and “wisdom” (σοφία) are combined, proclamation is the subject, and Paul disavows the form of speaking described.151 His thought in 2:1 comes close to Eunapius’s description of Maximus the Neoplatonist—this sophist being puffed up with pride and “superabundant eloquence” despised logical proof (Vit. 475 cf. 470).152

The persuasive words of wisdom in 2:4 adds the thought of persuasion that captures the central aim of rhetorical discourses (Aristotle Rhet. 1.1.14; Longinus, Subl. 44.1; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.498).153 Paul’s message instead disclosed the mystery of God (2:1).154 This refers to the divine plan of salvation,155 and for Paul that plan finds its center in the message of the cross. When he first preached to them he decided to know nothing among them; that is, he regarded nothing to be of primary importance in his gospel except Jesus Christ and him crucified (2:2).156 His coming to their city and preaching in this manner contrasts sophists entering a town and expecting to be greeted by enthusiastic crowds, invited to declaim in their midst, and followed by young men desiring to become their students (Dio Chrysostom Or. 47.22; Aristides Or. 51.29–34; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.571–72).157

Paul’s presence among the Corinthians exemplified weakness . . . fear and much trembling.158 This description conflicts with that of sophists who are typically characterized by confidence, courage, good looks, great rhetorical skills, and a commanding presence (see Excursus). Paul’s weakness, fear, and trembling characterize instead the type of stage fright experienced by nervous orators (cf. Cicero De or. 1.xxvi.120; xxvii.123). Speakers might show signs of being intimidated by their audiences by blushing, perspiring, stuttering, or trembling (Seneca Lucil. 11; Pliny Ep. 7.17).159 A prime example of this is when Demosthenes, whose reputation of masterful eloquence was renowned, speaks in the presence of Philip of Macedon. Instead of exuberating great confidence, the famous orator was frightened out of his wits and even collapsed before the monarch, failing to continue his speech (Aeschines Fals. leg. 21–22, 34–35). It is quite plausible to suggest that Paul showed bodily signs of weakness or nervousness when speaking; in later correspondence some Corinthians consider his bodily presence to be weak and his speeches detestable (cf. 2 Cor 10:10; 11:6). His weakness would seem to indicate a person of lowly status, the way Plutarch describes poor speakers who are ugly, servile, needy, dishonored, and unlearned, unlike wise sages who are eloquent, handsome, wealthy, and learned (Frat. amor. 485D; cf. 485A; Seneca Lucil. 11).160 But if Paul was perceived negatively, his weakness extends beyond preaching and persona to include also what he personally experienced as a result of his preaching.161 In Corinth Paul apparently feared external opposition to his messages (Acts 18:9–13). Likewise, personal inadequacies both on and off stage may have plagued him due to this city’s size, reputation, Roman influence, and potpourri of intimidating people (cf. 1 Cor 16:10).

Raymond Pickett rightly affirms that our apostle takes on the posture of someone who “deliberately failed to measure up to the standards of rhetorical excellence.”162 His self-deprecation in 2:1–4a has the aim of subverting Corinthian adoration of human wisdom in 2:4b–5 branded by orators whose method of operation centered on forceful rhetorical demonstrations.163 Differently, Paul’s proclamation involved demonstration of the powerful Spirit.164 His preaching connoted “proof consisting in possession of the Holy Spirit and miracle-working power.”165 The Corinthians are to recall such phenomena so that their faith may not rest in clever human wisdom, but in the power of God.166 It is through the apostle’s weakness that spiritual power is greatly manifest. Power in weakness reflects Christ’s own crucifixion, which gave way to resurrection and becomes the catalyst unleashing God’s Spirit on Christ’s followers to convict, transform, and work miracles among them. Paul’s messages possess such power, which become tokens of the divine authenticity of his ministry and apostleship (1 Thess 1:5; 2:13; Gal 3:5; Rom 15:18–19; cf. 1 Cor 4:20–21).167 These words promote a different kind of wisdom in which miracle and prophetic discourse are blended. If Zech 4:6–10 is being alluded to here, Paul’s renovated meaning through this text is that the building up of the Corinthians as the temple of God is accomplished not by human might nor by rhetorical power but by God’s powerful Spirit.168 Hence, the Corinthians should not measure a leader’s worth based on status or rhetorical skill but on the value of spiritual preaching and power manifest through weakness.169

Excursus: Paul’s Rhetoric against the Sophist Deliveries

Scholars frequently notice an apparent tension with Paul’s use of rhetoric to criticize Corinthian attraction to rhetoric. Among the various ways this issue is addressed, it makes good sense to suggest that Paul rejects only certain aspects of rhetoric.170 More particularly, he disdains rhetoric when coupled with certain sociocultural values such as status seeking, and especially manifest in the form of a speaker’s delivery. Our apostle comes against a type of rhetoric that characterizes the sophists in Plato’s Gorgias. Their speeches stressed form, superficiality, and showmanship over philosophical content. Paul, however, stresses spiritual knowledge about Christ as the proper content of his messages (2 Cor 11:6; cf. 1 Cor 2). It will turn out that certain Corinthians show contempt for the apostle’s speeches and physical presence (2 Cor 10:10). This way of scrutinizing preachers already seems to be a problem in 1 Cor 1–4, perhaps prominently by the faction loyal to Apollos (see 1:12), and that is why Paul promotes a different way of perceiving wisdom and proclamation.

Doubtless the Corinthians learned how to criticize oratory performances by listening to many sophists and philosophers who preached publicly in their city. This may have conditioned them to place too much value on the actual appearance and performance of orators, known in rhetorical handbooks as delivery (one of the five components of rhetoric).171 In Lives of the Ten Orators, when asked what is most important in rhetoric, Demosthenes responded, “delivery.” When asked the second and third most important things, he replied, “delivery,” and again, “delivery” (Ps.-Plutarch, Vit. 845D; Theon, Prog. 3.[5]104).172 To impress audiences, orators had to command an appealing appearance and dress and perform well when speaking. The sophists excelled in theatrical qualities.173 Thucydides has the Athenian warrior Cleon bemoaning Athenian susceptibility to eloquent speeches, being persuaded by their eyes and ears instead of facts. He calls them dupes and “worshippers of every new extravagance” left at the mercy of their own ears “like spectators attending a performance of sophists” (Hist. 3.38.2–7). A confident look, pleasant tone of voice, a radiant smile, animated gestures such as striking one’s thigh or stomping one’s foot at climactic moments in one’s speech are some descriptors of delivery (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.519–20; 537).174 The sophist Herodes Atticus is described as having grace, beauty, urbane wit, pleasing diction, a smooth tone, and eloquence “like gold dust shining beneath the waters of a silvery eddying river” (2.564). Even philosophers might be admired for having similar qualities. Given the stoic allusions in the letter (e.g., 1 Cor 6:12–13), the wisdom Paul comes against may extend beyond sophists. Pliny the Younger lauds the Stoic Euphrates who marshals respect and speaks with well-chosen words and “special charm which can captivate and so convince the most reluctant listener. He is moreover tall and distinguished to look at, with long hair and a flowing white beard. . . . His dress is always neat, and his serious manner makes no show of austerity, so that your first reaction on meeting him would be admiration rather than repulsion” (Ep. 1.10).

A combination of pleasant appearance and eloquence also marked out orators to be educated and of prominent status, like elitists or even deities. Alexander the sophist reportedly possessed a “godlike appearance,” curly hair, large eyes, a stately nose, white teeth, and long slender fingers “well fitted to hold the reins of eloquence” (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.570). More relevant for first-century Corinthians was Favorinus who possessed smooth skin, spoke with charm, beautiful eloquence, fascinating tones and rhythms in his speech that enthralled even Romans unfamiliar with Greek (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.489, 491). The Corinthians, enamored by this sophist, built a statue in his honor before he fell into disfavor (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 37). Sophists, normally coming from high ranking backgrounds, were also associated with wealth and social eminence (Philo, Det 33–35; Aristides, Or. 33.19),175 and charged lucrative sums of money to speak (Isocrates, Soph. 13.3–5; Themistius Or. 23.288-89).176 They also encouraged strife, disputes, and contests with other speakers (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.9; Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 2.576, 579–580, 586–88; Isocrates Soph. 14[Or. 13]; Plato, Protag. 335A). It is precisely this type of competitive nature, boasting in rhetorical deliveries, and pandering to social prestige that Paul comes against. The congregation seems to reflect the wisdom of this world in this regard, and ironically resemble Epictetus’s description of a stunning Corinthian student of the sophists whose primary concern centered on his outward appearance instead of moral virtues (Diatr. 3.1). Such mores influenced congregation members to evaluate Christian speakers amiss, and this ultimately caused strife and thinking one person superior to another. Pogoloff aptly explains Paul’s response in this situation: “In Paul’s narrative world, the normal cultural narratives of eloquence and status are radically reversed. What persuades is speech about what is ordinarily unfit for contemplation: not a life which is cultured, wise, and powerful, but one marked by the worst shame and the lowest possible status. Paul’s rhetoric of the cross thus opposes the cultural values surrounding eloquence.”177

Wisdom from God’s Spirit Rather Than Wisdom of This Age (2:6–16)

Paul speaks of a wisdom that is not of this age nor of the rulers of this age. This is God’s wisdom—it belongs to and comes from God—and in this text it functions prominently in the mode of teaching revelatory discourse. The passage takes on a “quasi-logical” form that strings together the explanatory conjunction “for” five times (2:8, 10, 11, 14, 16).178 This suggests Paul argues from the artistic proof of logos (invented persuasion based on probable argument), and his scripture citation in 2:9 functions as inartistic proof (non-invented persuasion based on law, witnesses, oracles, contracts, etc.).179

Several points are noteworthy in 2:6–8 and together they highlight wisdom in the form of pedagogical and prophetic-apocalyptic discourses. First, our apostle now takes on the role of a teacher. His verb we speak (λαλοῦμεν) replaces preaching (καταγγέλλω) to suggest a pedagogical emphasis (2:6, 13).180 Aristotle and other ancient educators spoke in the first-person plural, as did teachers of practical exercises on rhetoric. Theon’s “we” in the prelude of his progymnasmata refers to himself before the personal pronoun includes his students subsequently.181 Similarly, Paul may be using “we” in 2:6–7a inclusive of himself and perhaps his colleagues as teachers, and then he seems to include his many students who have received God’s Spirit in 2:7b, 12. Given a time in which orators were hired by wealthy parents who sought to have their sons trained in rhetorical skills for future public careers,182 it follows that Paul might discuss an alternative form of education in wisdom.

Second, Paul teaches wisdom among those who are mature. Are these his Corinthian recipients? Yes, because they have received the prerequisite of God’s Spirit needed to discern this wisdom (6:11, 19; 12:13)—and no, because they still behave immaturely (3:1–3). They still need to realize the implications of who they are as Christ’s followers.183 Maturity here imagines advanced or adult learners who understand and live up to standards of teachings disclosed to them. A state of being mature or τέλειος may suggest completeness in training (cf. 14:19–20; cf. Col 1:28; Eph 4:11–13).184 This term is used also of skilled sophists and philosophers (Isocrates Antidosis 199–200; Plato Phaedr. 269E; Crat. 403E; Philo Det. 32–49, 65–68, 132–33).185 Perhaps certain Corinthians used it to identify skillful orators. When Paul denies speaking with words taught by human wisdom (2:13), as Pogoloff discerns, “the most natural teachers would be the rhetorical schools . . . the Hellenistic reader would find the meaning unmistakable.”186 If so, Paul gives maturity in education a new meaning. Maturity in Christ is not measured by rhetorical skills but teaching that unveils God’s wisdom through the Spirit. This type of learning is neither competitive nor gained by money but comes as a gift from God. Unlike rhetorical education that was reserved for upper classes, divine wisdom is granted to anyone willing to receive it—whether slave, free, man, woman, educated, or uneducated—as long as the person has God’s Spirit.187 This wisdom comes fully to those who regard the wisdom of this age to be insufficient.

Third, Paul identifies the rulers of this age among those who adhere to the wisdom of this age and are passing away (2:6–8).188 These are elitists who from the arena of politics think themselves wise in deliberating rhetoric. Their effectiveness depends on “their own or their cohorts’ power to persuade,” and this reliance blinds them from perceiving the power behind the “supposed weak wisdom” of God in Christ.189 If they had truly known this wisdom they would not have crucified Christ. More specifically, then, they are represented by Pilate, the Roman prefect, who in collaboration with the chief priests, scribes, and perhaps Herod Antipas, sentenced Jesus to death. An oral tradition of this sort was probably known by Paul before written in the Gospels.190 Equally, Paul may be informed by Ps 2:1–2 in which the kings of the earth and rulers (οἱ ἄρχοντες) come against the anointed one, which in early Christian tradition is interpreted as those who put Jesus to death according to God’s predetermined plan (Acts 4:25–28). If Satan and his minions are meant by the ἄρχοντες and “spirit of the world,” they play an indirect role inadvertently influencing Jesus’s eventual crucifixion (Luke 22:3–4; John 13:26–27; 14:30), but Paul’s argument here seems to foreground human rulers. God’s wisdom confronts Roman ideology and elitists by disrupting their order through the power-in-weakness of the cross.191 What at first seemed to be the execution of just another pretender to the throne and opponent of Caesar unleashed divine power both mightier and wiser than anything the Greco-Roman world had to offer.

Fourth, Paul calls the crucified Christ the Lord of glory. Perhaps he derives this title from prophetic-apocalyptic traditions; “the glory of the Lord” in Isa 40:5 may be his primary source.192 The Isaianic context is cited more explicitly in 1 Cor 2:16, and perhaps informs some of Paul’s other thoughts, too. The Isaianic glory is associated with salvation and divine presence for both God’s people and the Gentiles (40:5b; 66:18–19), and this presence guides the restored people through a new exodus and wilderness journey to Zion as though in a triumphal procession (40:3; cf. 43:2–17; 48:20–21).193 This anticipated era is characterized by God’s Spirit being poured out on God’s people and making the wilderness fertile ground (32:6–20; 44:3; 59:21; cf. 42:1; 58:4–7; 59:4, 15; 61:1–4). The glory of the Lord also stands over against the “glory of man” representing what is beautiful and prestigious in the eyes of the world. Human glory passes away, but God’s word abides forever (40:6–8). Paul interprets these prophetic words as fulfilled in his day with the crucified and resurrected Christ imparting his glorious salvation and presence through the Spirit that teaches and guides faithful people during their travels in the metaphoric new exodus-wilderness to final salvation (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–11). Such teaching is God’s “word,” divine wisdom that confounds transient human prestige.

Fifth, this wisdom is spoken in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God preordained before the ages. Two implied reasons rulers cannot grasp this wisdom is because it has been hidden and originated before the present age to which they belong. Paul might be presupposing wisdom personified in precreation discourse (Prov 8:22–31; Sir 1:1–10). This idea, however, seems developed from the disclosure of salvation in Isa 40 again, and Paul adds from his quote in 2:9 the idea of preordination—God has prepared beforehand amazing things for those who love God (2:9 cf. Rom 16:25–26). As well, prophetic traditions that anticipated Christ’s crucifixion, especially by the hand of rulers, he probably interprets as predestined by God (Ps 2; cf. Acts 4:25–28). Namely, God determined ages ago that this salvation through the Christ event would take place, and God revealed it to the prophets, though in a hidden manner prior to Christ’s advent. It remains a hidden mystery to those who do not have God’s Spirit, but God is now disclosing that plan to Christ’s followers in a progressive way. This wisdom is for our glory, that is, for the purpose of bringing salvation to those who love God and follow the Lord (cf. Rom 8:18, 28–30).

Scripture allusions in 2:6–8 are interwoven with his artistic argument, but now in 2:9 he presents an inartistic proof in the form of an oracle or testimony of the ancients, by using an explicit citation formula, just as it is written. The citation in 2:9 may be loosely referencing a string of scriptures emphasizing divine revelation: what eye has not seen and ear has not heard (Isa 64:3[4]), nor has entered into the heart of humans (65:17) what God has prepared for those who love him (Sir 1:10). Another possibility is that he cites from a text no longer extant. Pseudo-Philo L.A.B. 26.13 and 1 Clem. 34.8 may be two independent sources that cite from such a text.194 If the Isaiah texts are primarily in view, their context and thematic parallels may imply that in the anticipated era of restoration and new creation, God’s people who were spiritually blind will once again see and hear, along with Gentiles, and be saved (33:17–22; 40:5; 52:10, 15; 66:18–19).195 For Paul, in any case, now that the Christ event has taken place, the anticipated era is currently being fulfilled. Christ’s followers can now “see” and “hear” (i.e., understand) the profound revelation of God’s salvific plan and spiritual benefits pertaining to it.

His citation is followed up by an analogy between God’s Spirit and the human spirit along with three guiding antitheses contrasting worldly and spiritual-revelatory wisdom—the spirit of the world/the Spirit which comes from God, human teaching/spiritual teaching, and the natural (soulish) person/extra-natural (spiritual) person (2:10–15). He advances a rhetorical question that prompts the response that no one knows the things of a human (i.e., one’s inner thoughts, plans, and intentions) except the spirit of that human. This is not referring to the Holy Spirit but the “I” or inner self of humans that engages the mind though not equated with it (14:14; 16:18; Rom 8:16; 2 Cor 12:2–3).196 Then from lesser to greater Paul argues that the things of God no one could know, except the Spirit of God who searches God’s thoughts, plans, and intentions, the depths of God.197 And such plans and thoughts are disclosed to those who are in Christ.

The first antithesis affirms that we have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God. In Pauline cosmology this phrase might convey satanic power over the world (cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 4:4),198 but in this context it stresses the ideology of the present age epitomized by elitism that values human power, high status, and clever speech. At conversion the confessors received God’s Spirit, not this ideology (12:13; Rom 8:9). There is an implicit exhortation from this that since the Corinthians value this ideology, they lack the spiritual maturity needed to fully appreciate divine wisdom. The Spirit enables believers to know the gifts granted us by God. This phrase points back to 2:9.199 Those who have God’s Spirit can understand and receive all kinds of salvific blessings, not the least of which are wisdom from and fellowship with God. Not only does God’s Spirit reveal wisdom but it also takes an active role as its teacher.200 The Spirit, it seems, prompts and works with the mode of communication Christian teachers like Paul employ as they connect with others. The Spirit helps supply the teachers’ words, which then become a powerful tool for persuasion. Such teaching is effective not because of the teachers’ rhetorical talents but because they are Spirit-led and committed to the task of interpreting spiritual things to those who possess the Spirit.201 Spirit-inspired words, then, contrast words taught by clever human wisdom, and this identifies a second antithesis. In 2:13 λόγος (speech/word) and σοφία (wisdom) are again combined as in 1:17, 2:1, 4, this time to contrast rhetorical education with the Spirit’s wise and transformative teaching disclosures.

A third antithesis compares the natural (soulish) person (ψυχικός), with the extra-natural (spiritual) person (πνευματικός). The former is natural in the sense of being created human with the life principle, like Adam (Gen 2:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:44–46), but without revelatory abilities coming from God’s Spirit.202 The point is that the in-breaking of God’s Spirit in the present age has brought about a new condition in which the natural person’s thoughts are rendered insufficient for spiritual purposes. It is only with the aid of God’s Spirit that spiritual things (e.g., divine truths, insights, gifts, and revelation) can be discerned. The natural person does not accept these things; they are foolishness to him, just like the message of the cross. This person cannot understand because spiritual things are examined and understood spiritually.203 On the other hand, the spiritual person (i.e., the one who operates by God’s Spirit) examines and understands all things. Because this person has God’s Spirit, who investigates all things pertaining to God’s own hidden thoughts and salvific plan (2:10), this individual realizes and receives all the benefits God has for him or her (cf. 3:21–22).

Conversely, the spiritual person is examined and understood by no one who is not spiritual. In other words, the natural person is not in a position to discern and judge the spiritual person. What does Paul have in mind? There are three prominent possibilities. The first imagines persecution. Paul may be aware of an oral tradition that assured the persecuted believer of being endowed with wise speech originating from God’s Spirit that the rulers, judges, and leaders they stand before will not be able to gainsay (Matt 10:19–20; Luke 12:11–12; 21:12–15). Perhaps, too, Paul implies that the rulers of this age were in no spiritual position to sentence Jesus to death (cf. 2:8). A second option functions as a prelude to passages such as 4:1–5 and 9:3 where Paul, who spiritually has the mind of Christ, discourages the Corinthians from criticizing him.204 Their behavior shows that they evaluate things by worldly standards of this age, and so they are not in a position to examine his abilities—the Lord will be his judge instead. A third possibility anticipates the content of 6:1–8. Paul anticipates correcting the Corinthian assumption that magistrates void of God’s Spirit should be judging cases between congregation members who do have God’s Spirit. Possibly a combination of these options is meant.

The apostle concludes this passage by quoting Isaiah with the inquiry, Who has known the mind of the Lord that he will instruct him? (cf. Isa 40:13).205 The context in Isaiah highlights the knowledge and power of God as creator over the nations (40:12–15). What is stressed is that if no one is able to measure God’s creation, how much less could anyone hope to know or measure the mind of God?206 This question expects the answer “no one” but receives instead the outlandish claim that the Spirit-led are able to receive divine thoughts (cf. 1 Cor 2:10–11). Paul plays on the title “Lord” from Isa 40:13, which originally refers to God, but as usual he gives this title to Christ: we have the mind of Christ.207 This grand image of Paul’s, of the Lord being both God and Christ, or perhaps God-in-Christ, seems to present the mind of God and the mind of Christ almost interchangeably. To be sure, the word “mind” indirectly exhorts the Corinthians to be of the same “mind” in unity with the mind of Christ (1:10, 13), but Paul is stressing a revelatory understanding of this mind based on Isaiah.208 This notion of Spirit-filled believers in Christ knowing divine thoughts sounds like boasting, and in one sense it is—they are rightly boasting “in the Lord” who grants them salvation and spiritual gifts (1:30–31). If having the mind of Christ seems to promote a privileged status, we should remember that Paul’s Christ was crucified, and as such this knowledge serves to criticize all privilege related to boasting, quarrelling, arrogance, and self-directed elitist wisdom.209

Nurturing Babies in Christ (3:1–4)

Paul continues in the same mode of discourse but now directly addresses the Corinthians’ shortcoming related to spiritual wisdom: And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual but as fleshly people, as babies in Christ. Such language elicits pathos; emotions are aroused by the use of familial language and shame with the aim of dissuading the auditors from divisive behavior. This is reinforced by rhetorical questions in 3:3–4 that prompt them to admit their fleshly behavior. The Corinthians are still babies rather than mature adults who can digest divine wisdom. They need to be fed milk, not solid food. This metaphoric consumption relates to learning elementary teachings (cf. Epictetus Diatr. 2.16.26–37; Philo Congr. 18–19; Heb 5:12–14).210 Paul has to take on the role of a nurse and feed them again the basics of spiritual training.211 This does not mean, however, that they should move on from the message of the cross to more “mature” teachings.212 Their problem is more ethical than intellectual. They do not properly comprehend what Christ crucified means for their behavior. The message of Christ crucified must always remain their foundation (3:11), and any further wisdom and ethics they might learn should be in conformity to that message. But instead of emulating humility and power in weakness, they have been feeding off the metaphoric staples of self-emulation, status seeking, and competitive oratory evaluations.

Their current state and behavior are described as fleshly,213 and this predicament evokes the Corinthians to see themselves in similar light with the natural person who being void of God’s Spirit finds divine wisdom incomprehensible (2:13).214 To be fleshly in this regard is to walk in a human way, that is, they regularly conduct themselves in accordance with the people of this age who are subject to vices and ideologies contrary to the new creation in Christ. If we tease out this line of inference, the implicit way they should be walking is in the Spirit, as being in conformity with the Spirit’s guidance and exercising moral virtues such as love, peace, kindness, and meekness (cf. Gal 5:16–25).

Their behavior exhibits envy and discord.215 Both appear in Paul’s vice lists, and their practice results in eternal consequences (Gal 5:19–21; 2 Cor 12:20; Rom 13:13). The latter vice (ἔρις) we explored in relation to the congregation’s divisive allegiances (1:11–12), though here only the main rivalry between I am of Paul and I am of Apollos is stressed. The former vice (ζῆλος) connotes a type of zeal or envy which harms rather than helps others, being concerned primarily about one’s own advancement.216 It also may arise when a person feels left behind by another’s upward mobility (Cicero, De or. 2.52.209) and connote competition that benefits one’s group while leading to dishonor others (Jas 3:13–16). Clement, writing to the Corinthians a generation after Paul, provides examples of envy from Israel’s scriptures, each having harmful consequences including Cain’s envy over Abel, Jacob’s sons over Joseph, and Saul over David (1 Clem. 3.1–6.4 cf. Gen 4, 37; 1 Sam 18). More contemporary with Paul’s time, Caligula became envious of Seneca’s eloquence and contemplated ordering his death (Cassius Dio 59.19.6–8; cf. Suetonius Calig. 53.2). What Paul perhaps fears is a congregational scene similar to one witnessed in Corinth’s vicinity by Dio Chrysostom in which quarreling among sophist students devolved into a shouting and abusive match (Or. 8.9). As Bruce Winter points out, “the conduct of the disciples of the sophists and the Christian disciples was identical. There were the same assertions of loyalty to one’s teachers, the same pride (‘puffed up’) with the same strife resulting as they denigrated other teachers while at the same time singing the praises of their own.”217 Envy and discord manifested among congregants as they claimed loyalty to their mentors.

On Planting and Building the Corinthian Congregation (3:5–17)

This passage depicts Paul and Apollos in the metaphors of field workers and builders with the Corinthians as the field of God they cultivate (3:5–9b) and temple of God they erect (3:9c–17). Through the first image Paul teaches against discord several ways.218 First, with the rhetorical questions, What, then, is Apollos? And what is Paul?, the apostle sets up an answer that deflates status seeking and competition—Paul and Apollos are lowly servants through whom the Corinthians believed the gospel.219 The congregation must envision their leaders being no better than slaves and day-laborers, the very people despised by elitists and sophists who pride themselves in not working with their hands.220 Second, the Lord has given Paul and Apollos their assigned roles; both of them are God’s coworkers under divine authority and belonging to God (3:5c; 3:9a).221 Their unique gifts are given by God who increases their produce, and if God is doing the work through them and granting it success, this leaves no room for boasting in human talent. Third, Paul and Apollos are one; they are unified in laboring for the Corinthians’ spiritual growth (3:5, 8a). Paul planted by first evangelizing the Corinthians (Acts 18), and Apollos watered afterward by nurturing them (Acts 19:1). Auditors can draw the inference that Paul, not Apollos, is founder of their congregation, and yet they are equal despite different roles.222 Fourth, the one who evaluates Paul and Apollos’s work should not be the Corinthians, but God. These workers, who get paid at the end of the “day,” will receive their own reward from God for their own labor, which presumably will take place when Christ returns; each person is accountable for what they do (cf. 3:13; 4:1–5).

As Paul turns to the building metaphor, he also switches to an exhortation with the imperative to be careful (3:10). He elicits pathos by warning them through a blend of priestly and apocalyptic images related to a holy temple and end-time judgment. Believers in Christ must pay close attention to their respective places related to this building. Asyndeton, the omission of conjunctions (“and”), helps highlight the materials of the project (3:12), and fiery purification and destruction related to the end of the age, along with a rhetorical question affirming the auditors as this building, which is a holy temple of God, contribute to the fear Paul wishes to provoke. He presents himself as a wise master builder who laid the foundation of this building by proclaiming the message of Christ crucified (cf. 2:2).223 Our apostle perhaps assumes an early tradition that Christ is the foundation of God’s assembly, which is viewed as an edifice (Matt 16:16–18; Rom 9:32–33; cf. Isa 28:16; Ps 118:22).224 Paul is the supervisor of contractors involved in Corinthian temple construction. Such an edifice needed to pass an inspection that imposed penalties on those who failed to build it according to agreed specifications.225 Similar to the field workers this position leaves no ground for boasting since Paul laid the foundation by the grace of God granted to him; credit goes not to the proclaimer but the one proclaimed, who is Christ.226

Some interpreters suggest that in 3:10 the singular pronoun another is a covert allusion to Apollos as the one who builds on Paul’s foundation, and the warning of impending judgment in this passage hints at a problem Paul has with this minister.227 However, the similar designation in this verse, each one, doubtless includes all Christian teachers and laborers who are each individually responsible to pay attention to the way they build up the community in Christ. Paul often uses nameless third-person singulars in this letter when warning multiple persons (e.g. 3:17; 10:12; 11:29; 14:38; 16:22).228 The activity of building here seems to be ongoing, and since Apollos had already left Corinth (16:12), it is difficult to maintain that Paul is only or primarily referring to him as someone who builds improperly.229 Anyone who leads, teaches, or presently influences the congregation members is being exhorted, and this includes some of the letter’s recipients since a number teach the congregation and exercise spiritual gifts that are supposed to edify members (4:15; 12:7–10, 25–30; 14:3–5, 12, 17, 26–31).

The materials used for the building are listed in two groups. The more valuable and less combustible gold, silver, and precious stones are first mentioned, then the less valuable and more combustible wood, hay, and straw. The valuable materials recall those Israel used to build its tabernacle and temple (Exod 25:3–7; 35:31–33; 1 Chr 22:14–16; 29:2).230 And the less valuables were used on houses of poor quality that could rapidly burn (Diodorus Siculus 20.65.1; cf. 5.21.5; Seneca Ep. 90.9–10).231 The sequence of materials leads up to a climax—they go through the process of fire.232 Elements such as gold and silver are refined though this process, whereas wood and straw are destroyed. Alexander Kirk persuasively advances in 3:11–15 that the building materials represent human persons and the work should be understood as the “product” or “undertaken work” rather than “deed” or “action.” That product is the Corinthian congregation.233 This is supported by explicit affirmations in 3:9 that the Corinthians are God’s field and God’s building (i.e., God’s temple, 3:16).234 As well, this congregation is viewed as Paul’s “work” in the Lord (9:1), and temple imagery for earliest Christians describes believers themselves rather than their deeds (Eph 2:19–22; 1 Pet 2:4–8).235 We can add to this that Paul returns with another structural metaphor of building up and tearing down that refers to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 10:8, 12:19, and 13:10 (cf. Jer 1:10). The word for build (ἐποικοδομέω), which appears four times in 3:10–15, connotes the activity of erecting God’s temple that is comprised of those who are in Christ.

This labor is rewarded and requires workers to preach, baptize, train, encourage, or in some other way help establish the faith of new converts who represent the material of this temple. The end product, then, which consists of Corinthian believers, will be revealed for what it is truly worth on the appointed day in which it will be tried by fire. Our text resembles an apocalyptic scene in which the day of the Lord brings about fiery judgment (Isa 66:15–19, 22, 24; Mal 3:2–3, 18–19; Zeph 1:18; 2 Bar. 48.39).236 Often fire is associated with the destruction of the wicked,237 and perhaps Paul assumes the essence of divine presence ignites the flames (2 Thess 1:8; cf. Heb 12:27–29), but ultimately this fire is symbolic of judgment, punishment, and purification. The day when this will be revealed happens at Christ’s return (1:8; 4:3–5; 5:5; Rom 2:16; cf. 2 Cor 5:10).

Paul’s narrative depicts a fire that tests the materials (i.e., human persons) of God’s temple. The workers whose materials survive the fire receive payment in the form of a reward; other workers are not rewarded since their materials are burned up.238 The workers themselves, however, are saved through the fire. This scene is not about bad saints losing their eschatological reward as opposed to losing their salvation.239 A careful distinction must be made between the workers and their work. If the materials represent various persons who comprise the congregation, it is these people who are destroyed by the fire—they fail to persevere in Christ or are otherwise unfit for final salvation on judgment day. The workers lose their disciples in the fire; their many hours of laboring to convert and nurture them turn out to be a costly waste of time. The workers themselves, however, remain saved.240 This loss imagines the realization of what Paul means when he fears that his own work among his converts will turn out to be in vain if they commit apostasy (Gal 4:11; 1 Thess 2:1; 3:5; Phil 2:16).241 The Corinthian believers are susceptible to such judgment if they persist in discord, vices, and assimilation to worldly ideologies.242 Their destruction would take away from the joy, honor, and other rewards Paul and his team of workers might otherwise receive on the day of the Lord (cf. 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 2:19–20).243

Rewards in the afterlife are not unknown,244 but in our text any boon beyond blissful experiences is left unspecified and may be variegated depending on the worker’s labor (3:8, 14).245 Paul’s warning to be careful how one builds pertains to all workers in Christ—they must make sure their messages and teachings are Christ-centered and promote the cruciform way. Everyone, including all workers, will have to go through the fire of eschatological judgment and in this manner be purified.246 Hence, the popular image of this worker escaping the burning house’s fire by the “skin of his teeth” is not accurate. He goes through the fire rather than escapes it.247 Both worker and work are engulfed in the flames, and only those of quality material survive the ordeal.

Do you not know? With this question Paul urges auditors to ponder on their present behavior (3:16; cf. 5:6; 6:2–3, 9, 15–16, 19; 9:13, 24). The question might assume they already know from previous teachings what Paul will now tell them.248 More pointedly, however, it may be expressed ironically in light of their boastful knowledge as something they ought to know and do something about. Belief that the Spirit dwells in God’s temple was not a new concept for Jews,249 but Paul speaks metaphorically of his Gentile audience as this sanctuary: You Corinthians are God’s temple! His aim, as John Lanci affirms, is not to replace Jerusalem’s temple, “but to provide powerful imagery that will engage the emotions of the audience and kindle in the imagination a different way of looking at community.”250 As such, Paul implies that this community in Christ is to be holy; the very Spirit of God dwells in their midst.

In Jewish tradition a person who desecrated God’s temple or holy objects may be put to death (e.g., 2 Sam 6:6–7), and an inscription at Herod’s temple warned Gentiles of this same fate if they entered the balustrade of the sanctuary (Jos. Bell. 6.2.4).251 It is in this sense of holiness that Paul’s warning becomes lucid. Any Corinthian among them who damages or destroys God’s temple—that is, anyone whose divisive and immoral behavior causes fellow members to stumble in their faith—God will destroy that person. The indefinite anyone (τις) in 3:17 recalls the same pronoun in 3:12, 14–15, all of which refer to believers. Those who are susceptible to destruction are not outsiders, but insiders, the Corinthian believers. The congregation’s problem involves members harming other members (e.g., 8:7–13). The idea of reciprocating destruction recalls the lex talionis principle of ruin for ruin,252 and is akin with the common adage, “whoever does x will receive x.”253 The notion of recompense is clear, and since Paul is referring to divine judgment, what may be foremost elicited is that on judgment day when Christ returns, everyone will receive as their works deserve, whether good or bad (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6, 16; 14:12; Col 3:25; cf. Jer 32:19; Job 34:11; 1 En. 100.7). Consequently, this punishment is more than merely physical death.254 It refers to eschatological destruction on judgment day.255 It follows that the one who damages the temple where the life-giving Spirit dwells will be severed from the Spirit and that life which the Spirit gives.256

Exhortations against Boasting (3:18–23)

With further imperatives Paul discourages his auditors from self-deception and boasting. With let no one deceive himself, one of the main causes of potential damage to the temple’s holiness is evident—some of its members have been misled to follow and emulate an ideology that exemplifies the wise in this age and wisdom of this world, which as we already explored (1:18–21; 2:6–8), helps instigate factions. The apostle now challenges the Corinthians to abandon this influence—if any among them want to be wise, let him become foolish so that he may become wise.257 This inverted way of thinking recapitulates earlier thoughts in which weakness related to the crucified Christ marks truly divine wisdom and power, and what is wise in this world is foolishness in God’s sight (e.g., 1:18–25).

Two quotes from Israel’s scriptures reinforce the idea. The first seems to be a loose reference to Job 5:13 in which God is the one who catches the wise in their own craftiness.258 Paul may have been attracted to the wisdom in Job 5 because, complementary with what he argues, God graciously waters earth (Job 5:11/1 Cor 3:7), and there is an anticipated day in which darkness will come upon the wise (Job 5:14/1 Cor 3:13) as well as a request that clever ones be destroyed (Job 5:15/1 Cor 3:17). For Paul, the catching of the clever ones means more than simply making their wisdom look foolish, as Job’s context and Paul’s similar language in 1:18–19 make clear. The second scripture comes from Ps 94[93]:11—the Lord knows the thoughts of the wise; that they are useless.259 Hook words relevant for Paul, such as wise, fools, and the idea of cultivation with the God who plants (94[93]:8–9), may have drawn him to this psalm after being informed by Job. Likewise in this text, the Lord judges with recompense the proud and boastful (94[93]:1–3), similar to how Paul connects the advocates of worldly wisdom with arrogance and boasting (3:21; cf. 1:31; 4:6–7, 18–19). Together these quotes confirm that human cleverness is folly before God, and divine judgment awaits those who are deceived by it.

The final imperative in this passage exhorts the Corinthians to let no one boast in humans. This seems to reference their divisive claims of allegiances to Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (cf. 1:12) and advances a compelling resolution. These allegiances are turned upside down by Paul’s assertion that he and other leaders belong to them—they are committed to serving the Corinthians and being in solidarity with this congregation. Moreover, he affirms to them that all things are yours! This affirmation may be adopted from the Stoic maxim, “all things belong to the wise person;” that is, sages are lords over whatever circumstances might come their way (Seneca, Ben. 7.2.5; Cicero Fin. 3.22.75; Diogenes Laertius Vit. 6.37).260 But if so, our apostle reconfigures its meaning to suggest to the Corinthians that they are gifted with every salvific benefit that comes from God. They are receiving the future inheritance of the new creation, eternal life, victory over death, and conquest of the present world through the cross and resurrection, not because of any power or cleverness of their own, but because they belong to and have an ultimate allegiance with Christ, and Christ belongs to God. The eight correlative conjunctions of whether . . . or . . . (εἴτε . . . εἴτε . . . ) in these verses lead up to and stress this sense of belonging along with its salvific benefits.261 If they have all sufficiency in Christ, then it follows that their only ground for boasting is in the Lord. Such privilege subverts any need to compete their leaders against one another or seek status recognition based on this world’s standards.

Paul the Administrator and Judgment Day (4:1­–5)

Paul continues his discourse on wisdom and apocalyptic images related to judgment day. Some add that this section is an apology, a self-defense of Paul’s character and ministry.262 His explanation in 4:6, however, along with further instructions, exhortations, and a call to imitate his behavior (4:1, 5, 14, 16–17), suggest that his primary goal remains a deliberative attempt to change Corinthian discordant behavior.

His opening exhortation, thus let a person consider, begins a string of words related to judgment in 4:1–5. In correction of the way he and Apollos have been placed on pedestals to compete with one another, Paul challenges the congregation to regard them as mere assistants and administrative stewards of Christ.263 The term assistants (ὑπηρέτης) originally referred to under-rowers in a ship and suggested helpers to someone else as instruments of that person’s will.264 In a religious sense the word describes Cynics as Zeus’s assistants (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.82, 95), and Moses as God’s faithful servant (Josephus Ant. 4.49). In our present context it may designate someone in an official capacity as subordinate to a higher authority.265 The apostles are depicted having an administrative position in God’s domain as delegated servants doing the bidding of their Lord, Jesus Christ. The second term, administrative steward (οἰκονόμος), portrays a similar image in which the apostles are commercial managers.266 John Goodrich’s study of this position distinguishes between different types of administrators and concludes that Paul resembles most the private administrator. These “were almost always slaves during the Roman period, normally serving a κύριος/dominus [lord] as business managers.”267 Paul and Apollos are portrayed metaphorically as God’s competent servant-treasurers entrusted with the mysteries of God (the wealth of God’s wisdom related to the plan of salvation). This position would be known and relevant for congregation members who knew Erastus, a fellow church member who served as οἰκονόμος for their city (Rom 16:23). Though unlike Paul’s nuance, Erastus seems to be a civic rather than private administrator and probably not a slave. As a fellow believer and Paul’s colleague, Erastus appears to have the time, money, and freedom to do missionary travelling, which would hardly be possible for slaves (cf. Acts 19:22; 2 Tim 4:20).268

As God’s administrative steward, Paul must be found faithful, a virtue that has implications for the Corinthians who must learn that faithfulness rather than clever words is the proper criteria for evaluation.269 Since Paul considers them incompetent as spiritual judges (cf. 2:11–15), he thinks it a very small matter that his ministerial and speaking performance should be evaluated and criticized by them in comparison with other leaders like Apollos. He mentions three incompetent tribunals—the Corinthians, the human court system, and Paul’s self-awareness: I do not even judge myself. Although he is not conscious of doing anything wrong, he is not acquitted on that basis, for there is one to whom Paul is accountable and that person can reveal things Paul may have neglected and forgotten about, whether good or bad. He implies here that if he cannot fully determine his own innocence and secret motives, how much less the Corinthians? The only competent judge is the Lord who will preside on judgment day. This takes place at the second coming of Christ and day of the Lord (cf. 3:13), which stands in contrast to any human day in which a human court is appointed to decide a case.270 Both Christ (2 Cor 5:10) and God seem to be active as the end-time judge (Rom 14:10; 1 Thess 3:13). Perhaps Paul imagines a judgment in which God works in and through Christ who is the visible representative of the divine presence on that day (cf. Rom 2:16). Hence, “Lord” in this context may refer to God in Christ. This apocalyptic scene partially resembles Dan 7:9–15, which depicts both the Ancient of Days in a courtroom as judge and also the Son of Man.

Paul mentions three things that will take place at this judgment. First, the Lord will bring to light what is hidden in the darkness. Here, darkness is not necessarily metaphorical for what is evil or immoral but what is unseen and secretive (cf. Ps 139:1–12; Dan 2:22; Matt 10:27). Second, the Lord will reveal the motives of the hearts. Paul’s assumption is that the Lord knows all things including human inner thoughts (Prov 15:11; 1 Cor 14:25; Rom 8:27; Heb 4:12–13).271 Third, each person will receive praise from God on that day. Our apostle’s words betray an optimism about that day probably because he thinks of Apollos and himself foremost as those being examined. As far as he can determine, he is free of any personal wrongdoing and is confident that faithful servants will be honored by God after the examination (4:4a; cf. 3:8, 14; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 2:19). Hidden motives are something the Corinthians cannot know; hence, unless given divine revelation they cannot properly criticize Paul.

Exhortations, Hardships, and Parental Instruction (4:6–21)

Paul’s appeal (παρακαλῶ) for the Corinthians to imitate him in 4:16 forms a subtle inclusio with 1:10 that signals the close of this entire letter section and first supporting proof against congregational divisions. A number of stylistic devices fill this pericope including ellipsis (4:6), rhetorical questions (4:7), anabasis (the gradual ascent of successive words) (4:8), irony (4:8a, 10), sarcasm (4:8b), antitheses (4:10, 12–13), hyperbole (4:8, 13b, 15), polysyndeton (multiple conjunctions) (4:9, 11–12a), asyndeton (no conjunctions) (4:12b–13), and epanalepsis (repetition after a break: “until this present hour,” “until now”) (4:11, 13).272 The text ends with an aphorism (4:20) and an ultimatum posed as a question (4:21). Paul provokes pathos by attempting to stir Corinthian emotions through strong exclamations (4:8), pity (4:9–13), shame (4:14), fear (4:18­–20), familial affection (4:6a, 15, 17), parental instruction, exhortation, and admonition (4:6b, 14­–17, 21). All this is aimed at deflating their arrogant and discordant attitude (4:6c–7, 18–19).

In 4:6 these things probably refers to the content of what Paul has written since 3:5. More particularly, it points to the different metaphors that describe Paul and Apollos as day laborers in a field, builders of a temple, and assistants and administrative stewards under the Lord’s authority. With these various occupational roles, Paul says, I have figuratively transformed into myself and Apollos for your sake.273 The apostle is not literally a farmer, building contractor, etc., but has in a figurative sense taken on these positions for the two-fold purpose of teaching his auditors not to go beyond proper boundaries they have been taught, and not to be arrogant.

If we unpack the latter purpose, no one among the Corinthians are to be puffed up in favor of the one against the other. This attitude by extension condemns all such dissensions in the congregation, but most immediately the “one” can refers to Paul and the “other” Apollos. This notion of over-estimation of oneself resurfaces elsewhere in the letter and may be understood as conceit and arrogance (φυσιόω: 4:18–19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4; cf. φυσίωσις: 2 Cor 12:20). Peter Marshall asserts that the word is further explicated in 4:7–8, which convey thoughts of self-superiority and boasting, and are further associated with the similar vice of hubris, a type of insolence that, among other things, characterizes the behavior of those with power who intend to dishonor others.274 The sophists are thus described with conceit and thinking themselves better than others (Dio Chrysostom Or. 6.21). Welborn appropriately adds regarding Corinthian arrogance:

It is all too familiar to the student of political history as the caricature of the political windbag, the orator inflated at his success (Ps.-Plato Alcibiades 2 145e; Plutarch Cicero 887b; Epictetus Diss. 2.16.10), the young aristocrat, the aspiring tyrant, filled with a sense of his own power (Alcibiades and Critias in Xenophon Mem. 1.2.25; Gaius in Philo Legat. 86.154; Pausanias in Demosthenes 59.97; see also Thucydides 1.132.1–3; Dio Chrysostom 30.19; 58.5), the supercilious officeholder (Demosthenes 19.314; Philo Legat. 69.255).275

With forceful riposte, then, the figures of Paul and Apollos’s service and servanthood challenges Corinthian arrogance.276 Divisive members should not deem themselves better than others by virtue of their leaders, status, or spiritual gifts.

The former purpose for Paul taking on figurative positions is that the Corinthians might learn the (saying) “not beyond what is written.” This may reflect a saying familiar to the Corinthians or one or more of Paul’s earlier Scripture citations. I suggest a merging of the two ideas in the form of double entendre as a viable alternative (see Excursus).

Excursus: Interpreting “What is Written” in 4:6

The Corinthians are to learn “the ‘not beyond what is written’” (τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται). The position of the neuter article τό (“the”) suggests Paul is introducing a quote, and the quote’s content is perhaps a popular one the Corinthians would recognize.277 Among many interpretations of this phrase, the most prominent are these: 1) some words fell out of the original text that our extant copies did not preserve, or conversely, a gloss was written into the extant copies; 2) Paul refers to what he has just written in this letter; 3) Paul refers generally to Scripture, the Old Testament canon; 4) Paul refers to a non-scriptural maxim; and 5) Paul refers to one or more of his previous scriptural citations in 1:19, 31; 2:6, 16; 3:19, 20.278

Option 1 is a formidable possibility, but there is no evidence in early manuscripts that directly supports it (and if we stopped here, it would take away the fun of speculating about other possibilities!). Option 2 is unlikely because we would expect the grammatical inflections Paul normally uses when referring to his own writing, such as the present tense “I write” (γράφω: 4:14) or the aorist “I wrote” (ἔγραψα: 5:9) rather than the perfect passive, “is written” (γέγραπται).279 Option 3 is also unlikely given the more specific and contextually based option 5. Moreover, if Paul meant to say the canon of Israel's Scripture, it is odd that he himself cites sources for moral instruction “beyond what is written” in these Scriptures (e.g., 15:33), and in any case, the entire corpus of these scriptures does not center on the prevention of being puffed up (4:6c).280

With option 4 there is no consensus regarding the content of this saying. Some arguments are that it refers to written cultic by-laws in the Corinthian congregation, political formulae promoting reconciliation, or the politics of building construction in which building contractors direct workers not to violate contract stipulations.281 If option 4 is correct, I tend to agree with John Fitzgerald and others that the saying is pedagogical.282 This passage is filled with pedagogical words including the necessity to learn (4:6), tutors (4:15), parental guidance (4:15), imitation (4:16), remembrance (4:17), and teaching (4:17). We already know that the Corinthians are immature and still have to be taught the basic A, B, C’s of faith because they do not understand spiritual wisdom (2:6–3:4). Hence, Paul instructs them about the cross (1:18–31) and teaches them figurative roles so that they might learn not to pit their leaders against each other (3:5—4:6). They must now learn the saying at hand. This setting evokes a depiction of Paul as teacher of the Corinthian students. Paul’s term for learning (μανθάνω), inter alia was used for those learning how to write.283 Reading and writing were among essential disciplines to be learned from the age of seven, and beginners learned to identify, pronounce, and write the Greek alphabet, often following models from their teacher.284 Teachers trained children how to write the alphabet and basic words by having them trace the letters over the teacher’s own lines (cf. Plato, Protag. 326D; Seneca Lucil. 94.51). Quintilian explains the procedure: “As soon as the child has begun to know the shapes of the various letters, it will be no bad thing to have them cut as accurately as possible upon a board, so that the pen may be guided along the grooves. Thus, mistakes such as occur with wax tablets will be rendered impossible; for the pen will be confined between the edges of the letters and will be prevented from going astray” (Inst. 1.1.27).285 In this light, Paul is quoting to the Corinthians a saying for children learning how to follow their teacher’s instructions and not to write “over the lines.”286 The importance of elegant handwriting is quite evident in papyri, based on school text comments criticizing poor styles.287

Unfortunately, like the other possibilities in option 4, the exact phrase in 4:6 is not found in relevant ancient sources that would confirm this viewpoint. Nevertheless, if the quote was not normally written down but understood orally in that culture, evidence for it may be rather difficult to uncover. Robert Dutch suggests that elitist children may be in view since poor children would not be afforded the opportunity to write, and if so, the idea of elitists being puffed up is relevant for the context: “To indicate that the educated elite need to behave like one learning to write is a put-down. They would be proud of their education that separated them socially from the non-elite in the church.”288 But if so, who among the number of lower class congregation members, many who might not have received even an elementary education, would know the saying? Is Paul targeting here congregants from the upper or at least in-between classes who might understand him? An affirmative answer to this second question cannot be ruled out, especially when his auditors are expected to be familiar with the role of tutors (see 4:15).

Option 5 has its setbacks, too. First, γέγραπται does not introduce a quotation as it does in Paul’s other citations of Scripture; it is part of the quotation. Thus, the “not beyond what is written” seems to be a saying rather than Scripture citation. Second, none of the passages Paul cites earlier mentions being puffed up (φυσιόω). Even so, this notion of being puffed up is similar to and sometimes used in tandem with boasting, and the latter term appears in 4:7.289 In Paul’s most immediate citation in 3:20 (Ps 93[94]:11), the term for boasting, καυχάομαι, appears in Ps 93[94]:3, as well as in Paul’s negative imperative after the reference (3:21). Καυχάομαι is likewise found in the citation of 1:31 (Jer 9:22–23). Although “these things” in 4:6 is more concerned with the content of 3:5—4:5, verse 3:21 may be built on the earlier boasting in 1:31.290 In 4:6, then, is γέγραπται referring to 3:19–21 despite Paul’s convoluted grammar, and would his Gentile audience be informed enough to connect the dots between being puffed up and boasting with Paul’s citation? Perhaps a minority would.

Since both options 4 and 5 seem to target at least a minority of the congregants, another relevant question to ask is this: would Paul make these connections, whether by maxim or citation, regardless of whether most of his auditors would have understood them? I think the answer would be yes. As any learned communicator knows, past or present, certain quotes and words of theirs will not be understood by everyone. Sometimes the words are understood only by few, and yet that does not prevent communicators from saying them anyway. Film makers are experts at this—for example, in a children’s film, the majority of their youthful audiences do not understand every part of the film, especially humorous double entendres that are targeted at their parents! Double entendre (ἀμφιβολία), in fact, was an admirable quality for communicators in the ancient world; use of this device characterized the speeches of Hermocrates of Phocaea (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.609).291 Might Paul being doing something similar here? Perhaps he deliberatively framed his words in a way that would enable some of his auditors to think back on the Scripture he just cited, while others would recognize a popular saying recalling children learning how to write.

Three rhetorical questions now challenge the Corinthians in 4:7:292 Who regards you to be superior (to others)? expects the answer “no one” (cf. Acts 15:9). And what do you have which you did not receive? expects the answer “nothing.” And, why do you boast as though not the receiver? anticipates the response, “I should not be boasting; all that I am and everything I receive is a gift from God.” Seneca admonishes his elite readers that wealth and possessions are meant to share and give away, but instead of being mere stewards of these things, their wealth has caused them to swell with pride and exalt themselves over others (Ben. 6.3.1–4; cf. 2.18.1; 4.6.3). Paul’s words similarly aim to admonish the Corinthians who instead of wealth receive knowledge, salvific benefits, spiritual gifts, and leaders like Paul and Apollos. What they receive should not inflate them with arrogance against others but prompt them with the realization that nothing is theirs as a result of their own achievements. Every good thing they have is a gift from God (cf. Ps 85[84]:12; Jas 1:17; Philo Post. 80)

These questions are followed by three grandiose exclamations: Already you have been satiated! Already you have become rich! Already you have become kings without us! Paul’s irony criticizes the Corinthians’ puffed up attitude by imagining them as smug, wealthy rulers of this world whose high and lofty position contrasts lowly lives like Paul and other apostles.293 These words may reflect sophist boastings (Philo Det. 33­–35) or perceptions that characterize hubris among the arrogant (Aristotle Rhet. 2.2.5–6; Herodotus Hist. 3.80).294 Another possibility is that the Corinthians are influenced by Stoic notions of wise persons as wealthy kings.295 Paul may have conversed with similar philosophers (e.g., Acts 17:18, 34), and if so, he knows that such things are said of them.296 He thus uses this language of wisdom effectively to deflate the arrogant Corinthians. We should stress, in any case, that Paul’s overstatements make the Corinthians’ status to be something “other than it really is.”297

With their new make-believe status intact, the Corinthians are now prompted to envision the end of a triumphal procession or an arena spectacle or both (4:9–10).298 The apostles are apparent captives of war in which God has exhibited them last, as the final public spectacle. If a procession is imagined,299 the very end of the celebration is in view when execution is determined for the captives at the Roman temple, Jupiter Capitolinus. The apostles are as those condemned to death.300 The captives may be slain or sacrificed on the spot,301 or they might be condemned to die at a later point in the arena. Henry Nguyen makes a case for the spectacle portraying arena games (cf. Seutonius Claud. 21; Apuleius, Metam. 4.13).302 In these games the noxii, or condemned criminals, frequently were captives of war, though other unwilling participants may include local criminals, deserters, and rebel slaves.303 Their death became a source of entertainment that might include being thrown to beasts, burned with fire, crucified, or made to play “fatal charades” in which they were forced to play popular roles that included their actual death.304 Likewise, an unskilled gladiator normally died in the arena.305

Paul’s spectacle is presented not only to Romans but also to the world and to angels and humans, with God as the editor, the benefactor who supports the event financially.306 Both heaven and earth, then, witness the apostles suffering, which has the effect of prompting Corinthian pathos due to the magnitude of ignominy endured by Paul in conformity to his calling that recalls the cruciform Christ. Paul’s audience is indirectly prompted to choose between its desire for elitist wisdom, power, and eminence, or the apostolic plight viewed by the world as foolish, weak, and disreputable scum whose lives do not matter. A reality check for the Corinthians might remind them that they, too, resemble the apostle (cf. 1:26–27).307 But in Paul’s ironic scene they are imagined instead as royal, rich, and satisfied elitists. They are the ones who take the best seats in this arena as they watch the bloody spectacle. Paul’s call for them to be his imitators, then, might compel them to get out of their privileged seats as spectators and jump into the arena with the apostle.308

The catalogue of hardships Paul experiences is composed of triadic sets (4:11–13). Although “we” is used, Paul thinks foremost of his own experiences and secondarily of any colleagues who happen to be with him to share them.309 The first set is hunger, thirst, poorly clothed (cf. 2 Cor 11:27; Phil 4:12). These are bodily setbacks the apostle experiences during his missionary travels, which may indirectly apply to the conditions of captives of war. The next set depicts more missionary experiences, including violent opposition by being brutally treated, perpetual travelling and thus being homeless, and Paul toiling as a tentmaker by laboring with his own hands to support himself (cf. 2 Cor 4:9; 6:4–5; 11:23–25; Acts 18:3). The next triad reflects apostolic responses to experiencing injustices. When Paul and his team are verbally abused, they bless the revilers in return; when they are persecuted, they endure whatever affliction takes place as a result; and when they are slandered, they attempt to conciliate in a friendly manner (cf. 2 Cor 6:6–8). These responses resemble the voice of Jesus who urges his followers to do good to those who hate them, bless those who curse them, and pray for those who mistreat them (cf. Luke 6:27–28).310

The list ends in hyperbolic language with the apostles having become the refuse of the world and off-scouring of all things. These words might describe the waste and filth that is scrapped away from whatever is cleansed from a utensil. But given that 4:9 forms an inclusio with 4:13 with the parallel phrase, “we have become . . . to/of the world,” the grisly remains of the earlier captives of war, this time after the spectacle is over, may be foremost in view. Paul’s audience might envision the remains of the apostle’s dead body after being mauled by beasts, burned, crucified, slaughtered, or otherwise mutilated.311 These remains are thrown out as refuse to be left exposed on the street or at the dumpsite where they rot away and are eaten by vermin instead of given proper burial. Paul’s words nonetheless may reflect a double entendre—the nearly synonymous “refuse” (περικάθαρμα) and “off-scouring” (περίψημα) sometimes have cultic meaning in which they become the means of purification by virtue of their removal (e.g., Prov 21:8; Tob 5:19).312 Paul’s bodily remains may be thus perceived both as a dead and mangled stench of flesh and, similar to Christ, as a sacrificial offering that purifies those who come to faith. His imagery alternates from utter defeat through the world’s eyes to ultimate victory through heaven’s eyes. Among the many afflicted sages in Hellenistic tradition and righteous and prophetic sufferers in Jewish tradition, Paul patterns his own suffering most pointedly after Jesus Christ. As Christ sacrificed his life by suffering on the cross so that others might be cleansed from sin, Paul daily sacrifices his life, suffering as a missionary in order to proclaim the message of the cross.

Although our apostle expresses these things not wanting to shame the Corinthians (4:14), this is what his language nevertheless does. His primary goal at any rate is to admonish and correct them as his beloved children, and so his exhibition of apostolic hardships is for an exhortational purpose that combines familial and pedagogical discourse. An exaggerated ten thousand tutors (παιδαγωγούς) mark the congregation’s teachers and visiting ministers who guide, protect, and provide them with moral education.313 Paul on the other hand claims to be their father—it was through the gospel he proclaimed that they came to faith in Christ (Acts 18).314 As their spiritual parent he should be honored by them; parental honor may be assumed second only to honoring God and perhaps country (Cicero Off. 1.160; Ps.-Phoc. 8; cf. Sir 3:8–11; Eph 6:1–2).315 A father like Paul is to be respected, imitated, and should receive affection in reciprocity.316 This assertion prompts discordant Corinthians to submit and be unified under the one household in Christ in which Paul functions as their father.317 Moreover, fathers are considered teachers of their children (Aristotle N.E. 8.12.5; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.490),318 as Benjamin Fiore affirms, “The teaching in the school is considered an extension of, or at least analogous to, the parent in the home.”319 Part of that teaching role was for children to imitate their parents by way of example, which is how Paul exhorts the Corinthians: Be imitators of me. They are to follow the apostle’s servant-like and cruciform conduct in 3:5—4:13.

Rhetorical and philosophical training encouraged students by way of imitation as well (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.586–88; Theon, Prog. 2.70–71; Isocrates Soph. 13.17–18; Xenophon Mem. 1.2.3).320 The example our apostle promotes is subversive to the status-seeking ideology wed with imitating sophist rhetoricians. Ben Witherington rightly notes that “Paul distinguishes himself both from the sort of father figure the emperor might be and from the sort other teachers, especially Sophists, might be, especially by means of his hardship catalog.”321 To imitate Paul is to imitate what is contrary to the standards of the present age and its rulers—it embraces humility, suffering, and strength in weakness in Christ (4:10–13, 17). Paul, however, has the problem of being an absent father, and so he must send Timothy to Corinth for proxy parental duties (cf. 16:10–11).322 Timothy, one of Paul’s converts, reflects a prime example of this sort of parent-child imitation; he will help reinforce Corinthian imitation of Paul’s moral standards and patterns of conduct in Christ.323 Such values are taught by Paul in every church, and the Corinthians should not think themselves an exception.

Paul concludes this section by promising his own follow-up visit to Corinth (4:18–21; cf. 16:3–7). That some members have become arrogant as though I were not coming to you recalls Corinthian attitudes in 4:6–7. They are like children who are left alone and suppose that they will get away with their misbehavior because the parent is not present. Those who are critical of Paul, presumably those who do not regard him as their spiritual parent, may not have thought he was coming back at all.324 Paul mentions his coming as a way to deflate their arrogance—he will set things right, that is, if the Lord permits him to visit. These inflated individuals will encounter the Spirit’s power that works mightily through the apostle (2:4–5), and a similar power had better work through them because their bombastic talking will get them nowhere on that day! The aphorism in 4:20 is not exhaustive in definition but expresses an important feature relevant to this context:325 the kingdom of God that is being revealed to them is not characterized by clever words but the Spirit’s power that works miracles and transforms lives.

In prospect of Paul’s return, the Corinthians must now decide how to behave; the result of their choice will determine Paul’s actions when he arrives. If they follow his exhortations, he will visit them with the parental affections of love and an attitude of gentleness. If they persist in arrogance, he will discipline them with a metaphoric rod of correction. Fathers in patriarchal homes were expected to physically discipline their children, even with a stick (Prov 22:15; 2 Sam 7:14; Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.231–32). In wisdom discourse this was not considered abusive but reflected instead God’s love as a disciplining Father (Prov 3:11­–12; Sir 30:1–2).326 In like manner, teachers and tutors punished students in order to improve their learning.327 Both father and teacher roles enable Paul’s metaphor of the disciplining rod, but the former has more authority here. What type of punishment might Paul be referring to with this rod? Richard Hays relates this to the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18:20–40), and Roy Harrisville, with Moses and Pharaoh’s magicians (Exod 7–9).328 Perhaps a more relevant parallel describes Paul being filled with the Spirit’s power and temporarily blinding a false prophet who attempts to obstruct his ministry (Acts 13:6–11). Similar discipline might be enforced when Paul warns the Corinthians that he will not “spare” them in an upcoming visit (2 Cor 13:1–2). This power represents the apostle’s God-given and effectual authority to impose a discipline appropriate to the offense, such as when he expels the fornicator in the next chapter.

113. See the Outline for other proofs. On their function (pisits/probatio/confirmatio), see Aristotle Rhet. 3.13­.1–2; Rhet. Her. 1.3.4; 3.4.8; Quintilian Inst 3.9.1–6; Mitchell 1991:202–7.

114. Fitzmyer 2008:66–67, provides a convenient list of devices in this letter.

115. cf. Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006:85. Differently, Smit parallels Apollos’ name (Ἀπολλῶς) with the concept of perishing (ἀπόλλυμι) to connect the perishing ones with Apollos’s followers (2002:243–44). The Corinthian congregants, however, indiscriminately belong to those who are called, believe, and are being saved, and this doubtless includes the Apollos group—they all belong to Christ (3:22–23; cf. 1:2).

116. In this text, however, God does the triumphal leading “in Christ” and Christ may be imagined as the triumphant general.

117. For examples see Beard 2007; Perkins 2012:68.

118. For further, Livy Hist. Rom. 45.38–40; Josephus Bell. 7.5.4–6; Aus, 2005:3–4; Versnel 1970:56–57.

119. The tropaion originally marked the turning point of a war when the enemy was routed. It was placed at the location on the battlefield where this reversal of fortune took place and commemorated victory (see Mattingly 2006:912). For Romans it was displayed in processions and on military iconography that inundated Rome and its colonial cities. A procession relief with tropaion from the Roman Temple of Apollo Sosianus (1st c. BCE) can be seen in Maier 2013:41–42. See also the Gemma Augustea (101) and Dupondius coin at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaion. Special thanks to Brigitte Kahl for directing me here.

120. Malcolm 2013a:3–4, 156, 165, highlights this state in 1 Cor 1 and its outcome in 1 Cor 15.

121. In Isaiah the LXX and MT promote that God will hide (κρύπτω/סתר) the cleverness of the clever, whereas 1 Cor 1:19 uses thwart (ἀθετέω). Perhaps Paul replaced the term, being influenced by κενόω in 1:17 (“render ineffectual”). Otherwise, he might be combining Isaiah with Ps 33[32]:10, or his Greek version already rendered סתר based on its later sense of “to upset/tear down.” See discussion in Stanley 1992:185–86. Paul’s word strengthens rhetorically the citation’s negative connotation (Barclay 2015:5).

122. Cf. Oropeza 2002a:104

123. The γραμματεύς, translated also as “scribe,” could be understood as Jewish scholars of the Torah. In Isa 33:18 (cf. 29:11–12), however, it refers to the “one who counted” (cf. Wilk 2005:138), which seems to be clerical or a tribute collector. For Paul’s audience, γραμματεύς might mean “civic leaders, instructors in the gymnasia and scholar/scribe”: Dutch 2005:278–87 (287). In Acts 19:35 it refers to a magisterial position in Ephesus (where Paul happens to be as he writes 1 Cor). This meaning seems more appropriate for 1:20.

124. On συζητητής as a sophist, see Meyer 1877:1.38–39.

125. Pogoloff 1992:160.

126. Wilk 2005:139, shows that active forms of the verb μωραίνω (“to make foolish”) connect these texts.

127. These themes are also prevalent in other Jewish literature, as Williams 2001:61–81 demonstrates.

128. Ciampa/Rosner 2010:99.

129. See e.g., Gal 3:13; 11QTemple 64.6–13; 4QNah 3+4 i 4–9; cf. Josephus Bell. 1.4.6[97].

130. See further Williams 2001:51–54; Schnabel 2006:128–29.

131. On the Greek pursuit of wisdom, see e.g., Herodotus Hist 4.77.1; Aristides 1.330; Aristotle N.E. 6.7.2; Fitzmyer 2008:159.

132. See Paige 2004:207–18.

133. See examples in Adams 2008:112–21; Elliott/Reasoner 2011:102–7; Cook 2014.

134. Cf. Dodson 2012:1–2.

135. See further Hengel 1977:51–63.

136. See examples of such characters related to theatre mimes in Welborn 2005, and now Barclay 2015:7–9.

137. Similarly, see Schottroff 2012:722.

138. Barclay 2015:10.

139. See Introduction.

140. In 1:26 the tripartite use of the wise, powerful, and noble seem informed by Jer 9:22–23 (see 1:30 below).

141. Hence, this election involves social status rather than individual predestination to final salvation. The latter conflicts with believers being in danger of apostasy (e.g., 3:16–17; 8:5–13; 10:1–12).

142. See further sources in Inkelaar 2011:211.

143. See further sources in Welborn 1987b:96–97; Winter 2002:193–94.

144. Similarly, Barclay 2015:5.

145. Cf. Garland 2003:76–77. On shame as judgment, see Mark 8:38; Matt 10:38–42; Luke 9:26; 1 John 2:28.

146. Inkelaar 2011:212, perceptively adds that those with renewed worship and faith in the foundation stone, which Paul interprets as Christ, will not be put to shame (Isa 29:16–23 cf. Rom 9:33; 10:11).

147. This was nothing new in a city whose people were famous for making empty boasts of their founder as the son of Zeus: see Introduction.

148. See also 1 Sam[Kgdms]2:10, though Inkelaar 2011:220–22, shows that Jeremiah’s text reflects Paul better.

149. See Lim 2009:165.

150. Christ is normally Lord, but in 1:31 God may be meant or God as revealed through Christ (cf. 2 Cor 5:19).

151. Cf. Litfin 1994:205. See also 2:13 though here teaching is the subject.

152. i.e., “λόγων ὑπεροχήν.” On ὑπεροχή as social prestige related to wisdom and eloquence, see Diodorus Siculus 34/35.5.5; Eunapius Vit. 466; Pogoloff 1992:132–33.

153. NA27 has “πειθοῖ[ς] σοφίας [λόγοις]” (2:4). On Greek manuscript variations, see Ebojo 2009:10­–21; Meztger/United Bible Societies 1994:481; BDAG 791.

154. Some Greek manuscripts have μαρτύριον (“testimony” cf. 1:6) instead of μυστήριον (“mystery”). My tentative choice of the latter prepares for 2:7 (see Metzger, 480).

155. Cf. Dan 2:28; 2 Bar. 81.4; 1QpHab 7.4–8; Perkins 2012:59.

156. This resolve was not a new decision but Paul’s normal practice (Gal 3:1; Fee 1987:92).

157. Winter 2002:144–47; Russell 1983:76–80.

158. Possibly, “fear and trembling” is lifted from Isa 19:16, or alternatively, what prophets experience when confronted with divine revelation or mysteries (Dan 7:15; 10:7–9; 1 En. 14.14; Selby 1997:368–70).

159. In Acts 19:12 Paul’s sweat cloths might reflect his perspiration when speaking, but then again the sweat might be from his labor as a tent-maker.

160. See Martin 1995:51.

161. In 2:3, γίνομαι in “I was with you . . . ” describes his state of being rather than speaking.

162. Pickett 1997:74–75.

163. On δύναμις as the power of persuading, e.g., Aristotle Rhet. 1.6.14; Quintilian Inst. 2.15.3–4; for ἀπόδειξις as rhetorical demonstration, e.g., Aristotle Rhet. 1.1.11; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.7; Weiss 1910:50.

164. “Spirit and power” is a hendiadys (“powerful Spirit”): Lindemann 2000:56; Schnabel 2006:156.

165. BDAG 109.

166. This demonstration informs the meaning of “faith” (πίστις) in 2:5. In rhetorical discourses πίστις was often understood as “proof” (πίστις): cf. Isocates Or. 3.8; Aristotle Rhet. 1.1.14–2.2; Acts 17:31; LSJ 1408. And here a double entendre is in view (Winter 2002:161, 163)

167. Gräbe 2008:61–66, rightly includes this charismatic emphasis. That Acts 18:1–18 records no miracle of Paul in Corinth (Riddlebarger 2013:55–56) is no evidence that Paul is not including signs and wonders here, especially when elsewhere he claims he did perform miracles when with them (2 Cor 12:12).

168. Cf. Williams 2001:133–56; Schnabel 2006:158.

169. Similarly, see Mihaila 2009:6, 148–49, 219.

170. See survey of viewpoints in Mihaila, 135–46; Winter 2002:143–44. On Paul’s knowledge of rhetoric, see Oropeza 2016:18–32.

171. See Rhet. Her. 1.ii.3; Aristotle Rhet. 3.1[1403b]; Kennedy 1984:13–14; LSJ 1886 (ὑποκρισις).

172. Kennedy 2003:22.

173. Or “scenic effects”: cf. σκηνή in Philostratus (tr. Wright 1998:120–21, 574).

174. See further Rhet. Her. 3.19–27; Isocrates Antidosis 253–57; Quintilian Inst.11.3.4–103; 12.5.1–5; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.519; Oropeza 2016:573–77, 602–6.

175. Winter 2002:34–35, 103–4, 253–54; cf. Bowersock 1969:21–23; Bowie 1982:29–59.

176. Further, Plato Protag. 313C–D; Dio Chrysostom Or. 32.10; Philo Post. 150; Winter 2002:164–69.

177. Pogoloff 1992:119–20.

178. In agreement with Collins 1999:123, 127.

179. On the proofs, see e.g., Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.2–7; 1.15.1–33.

180. Cf. λαλέω + διδακτός (2:13) with λαλέω + διδασκαλία (Tit 2:1). Notice also “instruct” (συμβιβάζω) in 1 Cor 2:16. He also emphasizes knowing verbs: οἶδα in 2:11–12 and γιγνώσκω in 2:8[2 x], 11, 14, 16. The latter may relate to “greater insight into things spiritual, the product of education and culture” (Welborn 1987b:105).

181. See Kennedy 2003:3 fn. 8.

182. Cf. Quintilian Inst. 2.1.1–2; 2.8.1–8; Winter 2001:33, 35, 43. On cognitive development related to elite education, see Dutch 2005:260–61.

183. See Grindheim 2002:708.

184. On this meaning in other sources, see LSJ 1769§3.

185. See Horsley 2008:32; Pogoloff 1992:142–43.

186. Pogoloff 1992:140.

187. See similarly the Lord giving wisdom and the Spirit in Wis. 9:6, 17; Keener 2016:177.

188. Doubtless, these rulers are part of the same macro-society as those who are perishing and adhere to the wisdom of this world (1:18–21).

189. Pogoloff 1992:142.

190. E.g., Matt 26–27; Mark 14–15; Luke 22­–23; cf. 3:2; John 18:13–14; Acts 4:27.

191. On Paul’s challenge to Roman authority here, see Lestang 2015:16–17; Elliott 1997:181.

192. The “glory of the Lord” is a genitive of source: the glory that finds its origin in the Lord. The “Lord of glory” is a genitive of (characteristic) quality: “the Lord to whom glory belongs” (Edwards 1897:54; cf. Eph 1:17; Acts 7:2).

193. Goldingay 2005:18, suggests from Isa 40:3 the idea of “processional routes used for religious festivals and triumphal royal processions in Babylon.”

194. Cf. Clivaz/Schulthess 2015:192, 199. Origen and Ambrosiaster believed Paul was referencing the Apocalypse of Elijah (Bray 1999:23). For further parallels, see Williams 2001:175–99; Berger 1978:270–83.

195. Contrast God’s people previously being blind and deaf (Isa 6:10; 29:9–14; 30:9–11; 42:18–20).

196. This “I” or self, whether immaterial or of airy material (as some ancients taught: Martin 1995:6–15), also survives death (2 Cor 5:6–8), and may flow through, link with, seat, or be the “stuff” of the human mind/intellect.

197. Cf. Rom 11:33–34; Jdt 8:14; T.Job 37.6; Fitzmyer 2008:180.

198. See Vos 1996:110; Meyer 1877:1.69.

199. Fee 1987:113, rightly compares neuter plurals in both verses.

200. See Frestadius 2011:66–67. On God as teacher see Isa 54:13.

201. For various renditions of “πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες,” see BDAG 953.

202. See Fitzmyer 2008:182–84.

203. In 2:14 the singular verb ἀνακρίνεται takes on a neuter plural subject (cf. Wallace 1996:399–400), and what is discerned are the things of God’s Spirit, not the natural person (Lambrecht 2013:367–70, responding to Dingeldein 2013:31–44). Incidentally, ἀνακρίνω appears three times in 2:14–15 with Paul playing on its meaning that ranges from “discern” to “judge.” Perhaps the most consistent sense is “examine and understand” (Ellingworth/Hatton 1995:62).

204. Fee 1987:118–19.

205. In this verse the MT has “spirit (רוח) of Yahweh,” whereas the LXX has “mind (νοῦς) of the Lord.” The latter adds after Lord, “and who has become his counsellor . . . ”

206. Inkelaar 2011:258, is similar.

207. Capes 1992:140, notices Isa 40:13 in Rom 11:34 has the Lord as God, but in 1 Cor 2:16 the Lord is Christ.

208. Rightly, Lambrecht 2007:440. Differently, the moral-exhortative sense is stressed by Strüder 2005; Petersen 2013:77–79.

209. Hays 1997:47; Schrage 1991:1.267.

210. Cf. Dutch 2005:251; Gaventa 1996:104­–5.

211. On ancient men in this role, see Bradley 1991:37–75; Dutch 2005:250.

212. If God’s wisdom is in Christ (1:30), there is little distinction here between milk and “meat” (Hooker 1966:21).

213. Thiselton 2000:288–89, rightly distinguishes the two “fleshly” terms here as follows: “σάρκινος [3:1] means moved by entirely human drives, while σαρκικός [3:3] means moved by self-interest.” Garland 2003:109, adds, “The –ινος suffix connotes ‘made of’ (cf. 2 Cor. 3:3), while the –ικός suffix connotes ‘characterized by’ (cf. 9:11).”

214. One distinction, however, is that God’s Spirit dwells in and among the Corinthians, and they belong to the Lord—they are babes in Christ.

215. Some manuscripts of 3:3 add “dissensions” (διχοστασίαι), but its absence in others is hard to explain unless it was not in the original text (Metzger 1994:482–83).

216. Stumpff 1964:2.881–82. In a political sense, see Welborn 1987b:87, and more generally, Malina 2001:108–33.

217. Winter 2001:41.

218. On teaching with agricultural language, see Plutarch Mor. 1.2B­­–C; Philo Spec. Leg. 2.29; Quintilian Inst. 2.4.8–9; Dutch 2005:255–60. For possible OT allusions here, see Williams 2001:237–55; Lang 1994:50; Ciampa/Rosner 2010:151, though none seem essential for Paul’s interpretation.

219. Schnabel 2006:191, rightly stresses the contextual nuance for διάκονοι as servants/slaves rather than ministers or deacons.

220. Cf. Philo Det. 34; Winter 2001:39.

221. Cf. Hays 1997:52–53.

222. Rightly, Mihaila 2009:198.

223. Williams 2001:258–60, associates Isa 3:3 (σοφὸν ἀρχιτέκτονα) with 1 Cor 3:10, but Isaiah declares that God will take away such a person from Judea in divine judgment, which is not how Paul presents himself.

224. See Inkelaar 2011:284–85.

225. Shanor 1988:461–71; Watson, 1992:35. Bitner 2015b:212–24 relates this building to construction politics.

226. See Schrage 1991:1.298; Garland 2003:115.

227. E.g., Ker 2000:89; Smit 2002:242. Bitner 2015b:265–71, combining indefinite pronouns in this text, suggests this is Crispus, Apollos’s alleged advocate. Barrett 1968:91, believes Cephas’s party is in view.

228. See further, Oropeza 2012a:100.

229. See Mihaila 2009:201.

230. Cf. Kuck 1992:177.

231. See further Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006:151.

232. Bullinger 1898:141.

233. Kirk 2012:549, 552.

234. On another community as both plantation and holy place, see Qumran (1QS 8.5–8); Frayer-Griggs 2013b:522; cf. Hogeterp 2006:330–31.

235. Kirk 2012:554, 556–57.

236. Terms such as “temple,” “day,” burning, and associating the righteous with precious materials and wicked with flammable products, make Malachi a possible informant to Paul’s words. cf. Proctor 1993:11–13; Frayer-Griggs 2013b:523–24; Williams 2001:264–65, 269–72.

237. E.g., 1 En. 91.9–11; T. Zeb. 10.3; 4 Macc 12:12; Matt 3:12; Mark 9:48; 2 Pet 3:7.

238. In 3:15 ζημιόω can refer to punishment or suffering loss. Given the reward in 3:14, the latter is preferred (Yinger 1999:218–19).

239. Contrast Oberholtzer 1988:326. See further, Oropeza 8/2016.

240. In this apocalyptic context, σῴζω does not merely mean escape, as though fleeing from a burning house. The person is saved from divine wrath and final condemnation (1:18; 5:5; 9:22; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15; Rom 5:9).

241. On Paul’s concept “in vain,” see Oropeza 2009:148.

242. Philo similarly mentions Jews who assimilate and abandon their religious traditions to gain social prominence in foreign lands (Jos. 254); his nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander exemplifies such apostasy (Josephus Ant. 20.100).

243. On eschatological loss of honor, see 1 En. 50.1–5; Herms 2006:187–210.

244. E.g., Isa 40:10; L.A.B. 64.7; Plato Rep. 10.613B; Plutarch Mor 943C­–D; Kuck 1992:143–44, 233–34; cf. 169.

245. Wendland 1946:23; Yinger 1999:213.

246. Although this purification is sometimes understood as purgatory (see Gregory the Great, Dial. 4.39; Montague 2011:76), it refers to an event taking place at Christ’s return, not a postmortem state between heaven and hell (Frayer-Griggs 2013b:526).

247 “By fire” (“ἐν πυρὶ” 3:13) and “as through fire” (“ὡς διὰ πυρός” 3:15) should probably be understood in an instrumental sense. Notice BDAG 1103, regarding “as” (ὡς): “marking the manner in which someth. Proceeds . . . corresponding to οὕτως=‘so, in such a way’ . . . as (one, in an attempt to save oneself, must go) through fire (and therefore suffer fr. burns).”

248. So Liu 2013:121.

249. E.g., Wis 9:1–18; Josephus Ant. 8.108–114; Hogeterp 2006:327–29.

250. Lanci 1997:134.

251. See Deissmann, 1965:79–81.

252. Yinger 1999:225.

253. See on the former point, Yinger 1999:225, and the latter, Keener 2005:43 (cf. Prov 26:27; Sir 27:25–27).

254. Rightly, Konradt 2003:278.

255. See “destroy” (φθείρω) in end-time judgment in Jude 10; 2 Pet 2:12. The term can alternatively mean “to corrupt” in a moral sense (Liu 2013:122–23), and so there is a possible play on the word φθείρω: “if anyone corrupts God’s temple, God will destroy that person.”

256. Cf. Thiselton 2000:318.

257. In 3:18 γενέσθω may be imperative or ingressive aorist indicating the start of the act (Thistelton 2000:321).

258. Paul refers to God as ὁ δρασσόμενος (“the one who catches”), but Job 5:13 uses ὁ καταλαμβάνων, which is similar in meaning. His version may reflect a Hebraizing of the LXX or a different Greek variant (see Stanley 1992:189–92). In any case δράσσομαι (more than καταλαμβάνω) reflects the ease of this activity (Inkelaar 2011:288). Job 5:13(LXX) uses “cleverness” (φρόνησις) instead of “craftiness” (πανουργία). Paul’s πανουργία may be influenced by Job 5:12, which states that God changes the counsel of “the crafty ones” (πανούργων).