PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: 

KERYGMATIC RHETORIC IN THE 

ARRANGEMENT OF 1 CORINTHIANS 

MATTHEW R. MALCOLM, B.Th (Hons) 

Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham 

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

MARCH 2011 

1

Abstract 

I argue that 1 Corinthians is a unified composition that exhibits kerygmatic rhetoric. That 

is, Jewish and Greco-Roman resources are brought into the service of an overall 

arrangement that is creatively suggested by Paul’s kerygma of the Messiah who died, rose, 

and awaits cosmic manifestation. In particular, I demonstrate that the Jewish motif of dual 

reversal, whereby boastful rulers are destined for destruction while righteous sufferers are 

destined for vindication, serves as an influential conceptual motif in the formulation of 

Christian kerygma, and as such may be seen as an interpretative framework and rhetorical 

resource available to Paul. 

In 1 Corinthians 1–4 Paul evaluates struggles over leadership in the Corinthian 

congregation as an implicit expression of human autonomy, and responds by summoning 

the Corinthians to identify with Christ, by forgoing the role of the boastful ruler and 

adopting the role of the cruciform sufferer. This identification with the cruciform Christ 

consequently gives shape to Paul’s ethical instruction in 1 Corinthians 5–14, a section that 

draws on Jewish and Greco-Roman resources, while exhibiting a pattern of Pauline ethical 

argumentation expressive of Paul’s kerygma of identification with the embodied Christ. 

In the final chapter of the main body of the letter (1 Corinthians 15), Paul utilises the 

Corinthian denial of “the resurrection of the dead” as the ultimate paradigm of their 

refusal to adopt a cruciform orientation, and urges that the dead in Christ will be raised to 

immortal glory, while present powers will be brought to nothing. 

I suggest that this attention to the creative influence of Paul’s kerygma on the form of his 

argumentation represents an important addition to the tools of the Pauline rhetorical 

analyst. Such an approach results in an historically attentive and exegetically persuasive 

account of the letter’s arrangement that also finds great harmony with the perspective of 

the fourth century preacher John Chrysostom. 

2

Acknowledgements 

I would like to thank those who have helped, in a variety of ways, to bring this dissertation 

to completion. 

Firstly I would like to thank those who have made it possible for me to devote myself to 

this study by their financial contributions. I am grateful for grants and bursaries from the 

University of Nottingham, the Gospel Partners Trust, and the Sola Trust. Also, there have 

been numerous churches and individuals who have contributed warm solidarity and 

financial support. I am very appreciative of the opportunity this has allowed for my 

family and me to spend these three years in Nottingham as I have worked on my PhD. 

Secondly I would like to thank those who have contributed to my learning and academic 

development. My New Testament lecturer during my undergraduate studies, Allan 

Chapple, modelled a love for the Bible and a commitment to creative and rigorous study. 

My secondary supervisor at Nottingham, Roland Deines, has provided an inspiring 

example of unrelenting exegetical and historical curiosity. My supervisor, Anthony 

Thiselton, has been a wonderful model of the type of scholar that I hope one day to 

become: utterly knowledgeable about a breadth of topics, and yet entirely free of 

ostentation or condescension. I have truly been blessed to learn from these people. 

Thirdly I would like to thank those who have helped me to define and refine my ideas. In 

particular I am grateful to the “elevenses crew” at the theology postgraduate room of the 

University of Nottingham, whose discussions over coffee and informal seminars have 

been a constant stimulation to my thought and writing. I am especially thankful to Peter 

Watts, Christoph Ochs, and Andrew Talbert for reading through my draft dissertation and 

pointing out areas for improvement. 

Finally I would like to thank my family, for the great number of ways that they have made 

this period of study a blessing and a joy. My parents and parents-in-law, Ian and Kaye 

3

Malcolm and Richard and Rosemary Watts, have shared with us generously and supported 

us tirelessly throughout this time, providing us not only with practical care and valuable 

encouragement, but, more fundamentally, with an exemplary embodiment of “faith, hope 

and love”. Our little children, Cara, Luke, and Zoe, have made our time in Nottingham an 

unpredictable delight, full of late-night singing, spur-of-the-moment picnics, constantly- 

repeated Bible stories, and wide-eyed absorption in the world of Narnia. My wife 

Rebecca has enthusiastically leapt with me into a new city, new church, and new set of 

friendships; patiently cared for three children; cheerfully waited for me to take endless 

photos in Athens, Corinth, and Rome; painstakingly formatted my bibliography; and 

provided me with dependable, enriching love. I gladly dedicate this dissertation to her. 

4

Contents 

Abstract 2 

Acknowledgements 3 

Contents 5 

Formatting, Translation, and Abbreviations 

9 

Introduction 

Chapter 1: The Rhetoric of Reversal 14 

1. The Concept of Reversal as a Rhetorical Resource 15 

2. Reversal as Jewish Motif 16 

• The Condemned Boaster and the Vindicated Sufferer: Liturgical 

Figures 

o Recital and Participation 17 

o Psalms 18 

• The Condemned Boaster and the Vindicated Sufferer: Literary 

Figures 

o Deutero-Isaiah 21 

o Daniel 23 

o Wisdom of Solomon 25 

o Epistle of Enoch 28 

o 2 Maccabees 30 

o 3 Maccabees 32 

o Judith 33 

• Reversal as Interpretative Motif 35 

o A Summary of Israel’s History in Philo: Special Laws 2 35 

o A Summary of Israel’s History by Achior: Judith 5 36 

o A Summary of Israel’s History by Eleazar: 3 Maccabees 6 36 

o A Summary of Israel’s History by Stephen: Acts 7 37 

o A Summary of Israel’s History in 2 Peter 38 

o A Summary of Israel’s History in Josephus: Jewish War 5 38 

• The Motif of Reversal as an Influential Cultural Conceptualisation 39 

3. Reversal and Christological Interpretation 40 

• The Historical Jesus and the Motif of Reversal 40 

• Jesus as the Vindicated Sufferer in Mark 41 

• Earthly Rulers and Opponents as the Condemned Boasters in Acts 42 

4. The Imagination of the Apostle and the Flow of 1 Corinthians 44 

• Paul’s Rhetoric 44 

• Paul’s Biography 45 

• Paul’s Other Letters 48 

o 2 Corinthians 48 

o Romans 49 

o Philippians 50 

o Colossians 51 

• 1 Corinthians: From Boastful Rulers to Hopeful Sufferers 52 

o Chapters 1–4 53 

o Chapters 5–14 55 

o Chapter 15 56 

o Chapter 16 57 

5. A Kerygmatic Rhetoric of Dual Reversal 58 

• The Motif of Reversal 58 

• The Terminology of Reversal 60 

• The Impact of a Rhetoric of Reversal 61 

• Reversal in 1 Corinthians 62 

Conclusion to Chapter 1 63 

11 

17 

21 

5

Chapter 2: The Unity and Coherence of 1 Corinthians 65 

1. The Unity of 1 Corinthians 66 

• Objections to the Unity of 1 Corinthians 66 

o Lack of Unified Literary Coherence 67 

o Evidence of an Editor 68 

• Redaction Reconstructions and Historical Plausibility 70 

o An Aggressively Singular Pauline Corpus 71 

o The Utilisation of 1 Corinthians by Clement, in 96, in Rome 72 

• Conceptions of the Unity of 1 Corinthians 75 

o Greco-Roman Letter Forms 76 

o Rhetorical Criticism 78 

o Pastoral Rhetoric; Pragmatic Coherence 86 

o A Unified Situation Behind 1 Corinthians 88 

o Theological Unity 90 

o Theological Unity Expressed in Patterns from a Theological 

Heritage 

o Listening to the Text in Expectation of Otherness 95 

2. Exegetical Tensions in Canonical 1 Corinthians 96 

• Significant Explanatory Patterns 96 

o Pastorally Driven Rhetoric 96 

o Ethical Persuasion in Paul 98 

o ABA’ Patterning 99 

• Exegetical Tensions, Passage by Passage 100 

o Reports of Division in 1:10-14 and 11:18-19 100 

o The Coming of Paul and Sending of Timothy in 4:14-21 and 

16:8-11 

103 

o 4:14-21 as Apparent Letter Closing 105 

o Repetition in Chapters 5–6 and the Relation of 6:1-11 to its 

Context 

92 

107 

o Chapters 7–16 as a Separate Unified Letter 109 

o Apparent Contradiction Between Chapters 8 and 10 111 

o The Relation of Chapter 9 to its Context in Chapters 8–10 115 

o Contextually Questionable Praise in 11:2ff 118 

o The Relation of Chapter 13 to its Context in Chapters 12–14 120 

o Paul’s Lowly Self-Depiction in Chapter 15, in Contrast with 

Chapter 9 

o Discrepancy Between Chapter 15 and 6:14 122 

o Chloe and Stephanas in Chapter 16 and Chapter 1 124 

o Apparent Editorial Interpolations 125 

3. Kerygmatic Rhetoric and the Coherence of 1 Corinthians 126 


Chapter 3: 1 Corinthians 1–4: Divisive Boasting Over Human Leaders is 

Set Against the Present Inhabitation of Christ’s Cross 

128 

1. John Chrysostom as Student of Paul 129 

• Paul as Pastoral Model 131 

o Pastorally Sensitive 131 

o Rhetorically Competent 132 

2. Chrysostom as Preacher of 1 Corinthians 136 

• Pastoral Creativity in Exposition and Application 136 

• Broad Problems in Corinth 141 

o The Problem of Boastful Pride 141 

o The Problem of Obsession with Present Wealth 146 

o The Problem of Human Autonomy 147 

• The Solution to Corinthian Problems 149 

3. Chrysostom as Pastoral Interpreter 152 

• Disease in Corinth 153 

4. Conclusion: John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 1–4 

5. 1 Corinthians 1–4 as Exhibiting Paul’s Perception and Critique of Boastful, 

156 

Present-Obsessed Human Autonomy in Corinth 

157 

122 

6

• Conclusion Points Throughout Paul’s Argumentation: The Human 

and the Divine 

158 

o 1:17 158 

o 1:25 161 

o 1:31 161 

o 2:5 163 

o 2:9-10 164 

o 2:16 165 

o 3:4 166 

o 3:9 167 

o 3:17 168 

o 3:21-3 168 

o 4:5 169 

o 4:7 171 

o 4:13 173 

o 4:20-21 177 

• Summary of Chapters 1–4 and the Problems in Corinth 179 

6. Relation to Other Conceptions of the Corinthian Problems 181 

7. An Application of Kerygmatic Rhetoric 187 

• The Problem of Boasting and the Solution of the Cross 187 

• 1 Corinthians 1–4 and the Rhetoric of Reversal 189 


Chapter 4: 1 Corinthians 5-14 and Paul’s Ethics “in the Lord” 193 

1. A Pauline Pattern of Ethical Argumentation 194 

• The pattern and its logic 194 

• This pattern in the Pauline literature 195 

o 1 Thessalonians 4 195 

o Galatians 5:19-21ff 196 

o 1 Corinthians 5–14 197 

o 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 200 

o Philippians 3:17–4:9 201 

o Romans 1: 24-32 202 

o Romans 12-15 204 

o Colossians 3-4 206 

o Ephesians 2 207 

o Ephesians 4–6 208 

o Pastorals 209 

• A Pauline Pattern 211 

2. This Pattern in 1 Corinthians 5–14 216 

• Chapters 5–7: Glorify God in Your Body 217 

o Themes of 5–7 217 

o Terminology of 5–7 221 

• Chapters 8–14: Discern the Body 221 

o Themes of 8–14 221 

o Terminology of 8–14 228 

3. The Sources and Backgrounds of this Ethical Pattern 228 

• An Emphasis on the Fundamentality of Sexual Immorality, Greed and 

Impurity, and Their Relation to Idolatry 

229 

• The Latter Placement of Discussion of Sins of Interpersonal Social 

Interaction 

240 

• A Logic in Which the Behaviour of the Individual Goes on to Affect 

the Community 

• A “christologisation” of Inherited Ethics 248 

4. The Function of this Ethical Pattern within 1 Corinthians 251 

5. Relation to Other Conceptions of Pauline Ethics 253 

• Paul and Solidarity 253 

• Paul and Passion 256 

• Paul and Love 257 

245 

7

• Paul and Ethical Innovation 257 

6. Kerygmatic Rhetoric and Pauline Ethics 260 


Chapter 5: 1 Corinthians 15: Disregard for the Dead is Set Against Future 

Inhabitation of Christ’s Resurrection 

262 

1. The Placement of the Discussion of Resurrection 263 

2. Scholarly Interpretation of Chapter 15 and its Situation 264 

• First Grouping: Certain People in Corinth Found Themselves Unable 

to Believe in Any Kind of Postmortal Existence 

265 

• Second Grouping: Certain People in Corinth Believed That the 

Resurrection had Already Occurred 

269 

• Third Grouping: Certain People in Corinth had Difficulties with 

Belief in the Resurrection of the Body 

273 

3. Rhetorical Entextualisation 281 

4. The Rhetoric of Reversal and the Resurrection of the Dead 282 

• Chapters 1–4 and Chapter 15 282 

o 15:1-11 282 

o 15:12-28 283 

o 15:29-34 283 

o 15:35-49 284 

o 15:50-58 285 

• A Challenge: Join the Dead 287 

5. The Situation Behind 1 Corinthians 15 290 

• Disregard for the Body 290 

• Disregard for the Dead 299 

6. Kerygmatic Rhetoric and the Resurrection Chapter 302 


Conclusion 305 

1. Interpretative Approaches to 1 Corinthians 305 

2. Pauline Rhetoric 306 

3. The Coherence and Arrangement of 1 Corinthians 308 

Bibliography 310 

8

Formatting, Translation, and Abbreviations 

The formatting of footnotes and bibliographical entries conforms to SBL guidelines. For 

other issues of formatting I have attempted to be internally consistent throughout the 

dissertation. Page set-up is in accordance with the University of Nottingham guidelines. 

All translations of ancient and modern literature are my own unless otherwise noted. At 

times I have left French, German, Greek, and Hebrew untranslated if it has seemed that 

the sense is adequately or more clearly communicated in this way. Biblical Hebrew and 

Greek quotations and translations are from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the 

Stuttgart Septuaginta, and the Nestle Aland 27. 

Generally my references to ancient literature are written in full. However, references to 

patristic works in the Patrologia Graeca edition are abbreviated as PG, followed by the 

appropriate reference number. Abbreviations for journals and book series are as follows: 

ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commenaries 

AJT American Journal of Theology 

AnB Analecta Biblica 

AYB Anchor Yale Bible 

AGAJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des 

Urchristentums 

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 

Bib Biblica 

BR Biblical Research 

TBW Biblical World 

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra 

BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries 

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research 

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 

CTR Chinese Theological Review 

CNT Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 

CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature 

ConB Coniectanea Biblica 

CrTR Criswell Theological Review 

CBR Currents in Biblical Research 

CTM Currents in Theology and Mission 

DJ Direction Journal 

DisS Discourse Studies 

DCCE Doctrine Commission of the Church of England 

ECF The Early Church Fathers 

ETRel Études Theologiques et Religieuses 

EQ Evangelical Quarterly 

EKKNT Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 

ExAu Ex Auditu 

9

ExpT Expository Times 

GTJ Grace Theological Journal 

GAP Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 

GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship 

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 

HTR Harvard Theological Review 

HTS Harvard Theological Studies 

Hermen Hermeneia 

HvTSt Hervormde Teologiese Studies 

Hesp Hesperia 

HTA Historisch Theologische Auslegung 

ICC International Critical Commentary Series 

Interp Interpretation 

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 

JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism 

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament 

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 

JBR Journal of Bible and Religion 

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature 

JCC Journal of Cognition and Culture 

JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies 

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion 

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 

JTS Journal of Theological Studies 

KEKNT Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies 

LTE Library of Theological Ethics 

LCL Loeb Classical Library 

Neot Neotestamentica 

NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary 

NGC New German Critique 

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament 

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary 

NTS New Testament Studies 

NovT Novum Testamentum 

ÖTKNT Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 

PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary 

RNT Reading the New Testament 

RTR Reformed Theological Review 

RHPR Revue D’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 

RSQ Rhetorical Society Quarterly 

SacP Sacra Pagina 

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology 

SBL Society of Biblical Literature 

SBJT Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 

Spring Springfielder 

SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 

SP Studia Patristica 

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology 

Tek Tekmiria 

TGST Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia 

Them Themelios 

TKNT Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 

THNTC Two Horizons New Testament Commentary 

TB Tyndale Bulletin 

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 

WW Word and World 

WBC Word Biblical Commentary 

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 

10

Introduction 

The unity, arrangement, and central theme of 1 Corinthians are not viewed with consensus 

in New Testament scholarship. In this dissertation I aim to present a coherent and 

satisfying account of the arrangement of the letter. In doing so I will be exhibiting an 

approach to the study of Pauline rhetoric that acknowledges Paul’s ease with Greco- 

Roman communicative devices and Jewish conceptual motifs, yet views these resources as 

subservient to the decisive influence of Paul’s kerygma on epistolary arrangement and 

ethical formulation. I suggest that this results in an analysis that does better justice both to 

the historical Paul and to the flow of the letter (particularly the placement of the 

resurrection discussion) than the application of a generic classical rhetorical macro- 

structure. 

My contention is that the varied issues of 1 Corinthians, which can be elucidated fruitfully 

by socio-historical studies, have been pastorally evaluated by Paul as collectively 

exhibiting the theologically presumptuous pursuit of human autonomy. Paul counters this 

perceived situation by allowing the pattern of his kerygma to give overall shape to his 

epistolary response. The Corinthians are summoned to find their identity and status in 

Christ, who remains especially known in the shame of the cross until the day that he will 

finally be revealed in resurrected glory. Thus the main body of the letter (1:10–15:58) 

proceeds from cross to resurrection. This overall kerygmatic movement draws on the 

Jewish conceptual motif of dual reversal, in which those who are boastful rulers in the 

present are destined for destruction, while those who are righteous sufferers in the present 

are destined for divinely-granted vindication. 

My argument proceeds in five chapters: 

In chapter 1 I present the rhetoric of reversal. I argue that divinely accomplished dual 

reversal was an important cultural conceptualisation of early Judaism, and was significant 

11

in early Christian interpretation of Jesus. I suggest that this was a viable rhetorical 

resource for Paul in the construction of 1 Corinthians. Paul is summoning those who are 

effectively playing the role of the boastful ruler (who will be destroyed) to rather take the 

role of the cruciform sufferer (who will be vindicated). 

In chapter 2 I step back to situate my interpretation within recent scholarship on the letter. 

I investigate arguments against the compositional unity of the letter and survey different 

models of the letter’s coherence. I go on to consider the exegetical tensions that have 

provoked such a variety of perspectives on the letter’s unity and coherence. 

In chapter 3 I focus on 1 Corinthians 1–4. I consider the Corinthian “problems” 

introduced in this section, and find John Chrysostom to be a valuable model in giving 

consideration both to the social and historical background of the issues as well as Paul’s 

pastoral evaluation of those issues. In terms of background, I concur with Chrysostom 

that the problems arise from a situation in which godly leaders were being undermined 

and pushed aside as a result of the believers’ preference for polished orators. In terms of 

pastoral evaluation, I agree with Chrysostom that this situation represents boastful, 

present-obsessed human autonomy, as the believers attach their status to humans rather 

than to Christ. This pastorally conceived problem, I suggest, is precisely the sort of issue 

penetratingly addressed by the motif of reversal in other examples of Jewish/Christian 

literature. 

In chapter 4 I examine 1 Corinthians 5–14 and suggest that the topics of these chapters 

follow an observable pattern of Pauline ethics. I compare ethical sections within the 

Pauline Corpus and find that they generally proceed from a corrective to passionate desire 

for bodily taboos (especially sexual immorality, greed and impurity) to a commendation of 

inter-personal service and love within the body of Christ. I investigate possible 

backgrounds to this progression of issues, and suggest that it echoes Jewish encapsulations 

of the themes of the Torah in the Hellenistic-Roman period. For Paul, however, this 

12

general progression of issues implicitly continues the christocentric corrective of chapters 

1–4, as Paul insists that the Corinthians identify “bodily” with the cruciform Christ. 

In chapter 5 I consider the rhetorical function and historical background of the 

resurrection discussion in 1 Corinthians 15. In terms of rhetorical function I argue that the 

resurrection-denial is presented as the epitome of Corinthian refusal to accept the 

significance of the dead (and thus the cruciform). In terms of historical background I 

suggest that the situation may be illuminated by the culturally recognisable themes of 

disregard for the body and disregard for the dead. Chapter 15 brings the main body of the 

letter to a rhetorical crescendo as Paul insists that it is the dead in Christ who will receive 

resurrected vindication from God. 

Of course, there have been others who have perceived a movement from cross to 

resurrection in 1 Corinthians (as I will note in chapter 2). Indeed, my argument would be 

suspect if such an arrangement had not been noticed before. It has not yet, however, been 

rigorously demonstrated that the kerygmatic pattern of dual reversal can be viewed as a 

credible rhetorical resource for Paul as a first century writer. This study seeks to 

demonstrate that this is in fact the case; and furthermore, that such a reading of the letter 

carries substantial explanatory power for all parts of the letter. 

13

Chapter 1 

The Rhetoric of Reversal 

14

1. The Concept of Reversal as a Rhetorical Resource 

The question of the arrangement of 1 Corinthians necessarily raises the question of 

rhetorical resources. What resources might Paul reasonably have drawn upon in forming 

the macro-structure of the letter? This need not entail the search for a particular “form” 

that rigidly controls the arrangement and content of the letter. It may more broadly entail 

the exploration of models, motifs, and concepts that were at Paul’s disposal, and which 

appear to have been adopted or adapted in the letter. 

Peter Lampe has recently urged that the spectrum of “the rhetorical landscape of 

antiquity” must be understood in more radical terms than has traditionally been the case in 

the study of Paul’s rhetoric: 

When comparing ancient rhetoric with early Christian literature, we need to have 

in mind not only the pagan Greco-Roman culture, but also the Jewish rhetorical 

(and epistolary) practice, both in its Hellenistically influenced and its apocalyptic 

specifications…. [W]e mainly need to observe the Jewish rhetorical and 

epistolary praxis, trying to systematize it and then compare it with the New 

Testament…. There might still be a lot to discover. 1 

In the same volume, Duane F. Watson issues further challenges to those who would study 

the rhetoric of Paul’s epistles: 

1 Peter Lampe, “Rhetorical Analysis of Pauline Texts – Quo Vadit? Methodological 

Reflections,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe; New York: 

T&T Clark, 2010), 3-21; 19; emphasis original. This imbalance has been recognised for 

some time. In 1994, Yeo commented, “In rhetorical study of the NT, the traditional, 

predominant approach is to read the NT in the light of the Greco-Roman tradition. So far, 

few have employed the Jewish rhetorical tradition to study the NT. That shortcoming may 

be attributed to the following two conditions: (a) The absence of Jewish rhetorical 

handbooks; and (b) the tendency to see the disjunction or opposition between Hellenism 

and Hebraism, or generally between Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures”. Khiok-Khng 

Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with 

Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 

64. 

15

Studies of Romans illustrate that linking a Pauline epistle to a particular 

rhetorical species [i.e. forensic, deliberative, or epideictic] is unwise and looking 

toward a Christian rhetoric may [be] a better solution. 2 

[M]ore study is needed, for it is in the intersection of Jewish and Greco-Roman 

rhetoric that we may discover the unique contributions of Paul to the style of his 

epistles. 3 

It is my contention that although Paul employs certain Greco-Roman oratorical and 

literary devices, the overall movement of the letter is not sufficiently explained by the 

conventions of Greco-Roman speech or letter composition. 4 Rather, I propose that the 

macro-structure of the letter evidences what might be called “kerygmatic rhetoric”. The 

movement of the letter body from “cross” to “resurrection” exemplifies the early Christian 

interest in identifying believers with the narrative of Christ’s passion, which was itself 

interpreted with the Jewish conceptual motif of divine reversal. 5 

2. Reversal as Jewish Motif 

It is important to establish that the concept of divinely arranged dual reversal was a 

pervasive motif in early Jewish liturgy, literature, and historical interpretation. 

2 Duane F. Watson, “The Three Species of Rhetoric and the Study of the Pauline 

Epistles,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe; New York: T&T 

Clark, 2010), 25-47; 47; emphasis mine. 

3 Duane F. Watson, “The Role of Style in Pauline Epistles: From Ornamentation to 

Argumentative Strategies,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe; 

New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 119-139; 122. 

4 I address this in some detail in chapter 2. 

5 It is worth pointing out here that I view “the rhetoric of reversal” as a subset of 

“kerygmatic rhetoric”. That is, there may be various ways in which the kerygma resources 

the formulation and arrangement of early Christian communication; but 1 Corinthians in 

particular evidences a kerygmatic rhetoric of dual reversal. 

16

The Condemned Boaster and the Vindicated Sufferer: Liturgical Figures 

Recital and Participation 

G. Ernest Wright maintains that: 

the Bible relates a certain history in a confessional manner, because the 

recounting of this history is the central religious act of the worshipping 

community. Hence it is here maintained that Biblical theology is the 

confessional recital of the redemptive acts of God in a particular history, because 

history is the chief medium of revelation. 6 

Successive generations of God’s people who share in reciting the songs and stories of 

what God has done in the past are able to enter into those narratives and see themselves as 

their heirs, as is expressed by Anthony C. Thiselton: 

These communities, even if separated in time or place, perceive themselves as 

taking their stand and as staking their identity through sharing in the same 

narrative, and through the recital and retelling of the same founding events. 7 

This is what occurs when believing communities recite the Psalms. Jutta Leonhardt has 

shown that, according to Philo, recitation of biblical hymns and psalms was an integral 

part of Jewish worship. Leonhardt reasons that Philo’s description of psalmic antiphonal 

singing (in particular, of Exodus 15) is plausible as first century liturgical practice, given 

supplementary evidence from Qumran and rabbinic synagogal liturgy. 8 

6 

G. Ernest Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM, 1952), 

13; emphasis original. 

7 

Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 

2007), 43; emphasis original. See also Anthony C. Thiselton, “Knowledge, Myth and 

Corporate Memory,” in Believing in the Church: The Corporate Nature of Faith (DCCE; 

London: SPCK, 1981), 45-78. 

8 

Jutta Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 

2001), 165. 

17

From the 1950s with Eduard Schweizer, 9 it has been increasingly noted that the 

development of early Christology occurred in a setting in which the canonical Psalms 

played an important community-defining role. 10 It is worth considering, then, the ways in 

which the dual motif of the condemned boaster and the vindicated sufferer functioned as 

liturgical figures. 

Psalms 

In Psalms the figures of the boastful enemy and the righteous sufferer find hyperbolic 

liturgical expression. 11 So the enemies of the king – the “rulers” – are variously pictured 

as “devious”, “evildoers”, “arrogant”, “haughty”, “boastful”, and merely human (e.g. 

Psalm 9:20-21, Greek: ἄνθρωποί εἰσιν). In Psalm 2 we read: 

Psalm 2:2 

The kings of the earth stand in resistance, and the rulers conspire together against 

the LORD and against his anointed. 

Correspondingly, the righteous sufferer is presented as exemplary of innocent, dependent 

trust. The sufferer is called “meek”, “righteous”, “faithful”. In the first century BCE 

Psalms of Solomon, we read: 

Psalms of Solomon 1:2 

9 Eduard Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship (SBT 28; London: SCM, 1960); trans. of 

Erniedrigung und Erhöhung bei Jesus und seinen Nachfolgern (Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 

1955). 

10 Richard B. Hays comments “The interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection, as far 

back as we can trace it, grows organically out of the matrix of the psalms of the Righteous 

Sufferer. These psalms may be the ‘Scripture’ to which the confessional formula of 1 Cor 

15:3-4 refers”. Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter 

of Israel’s Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 118. 

11 Indeed, Yehoshua Gitay points out that the Psalter is introduced and summarised in 

Psalm 1 with a provocative exploration of the “habitual theme of the reward of the 

righteous versus the fate of the wicked”. Yehoshua Gitay, “Psalm 1 and the Rhetoric of 

Religious Argumentation,” in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew 

Bible (ed. L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelmann; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996), 

232-240; 232. 

18

The shouts of war were heard in front of me. [The Lord] will hear me because I 

am filled with righteousness! 

Thus there appears in the lyrics of Jewish worship 12 the boastful human enemy, 

juxtaposed with the righteous sufferer who appeals to the Lord for help. And, as hinted in 

the citation above, these figures can usually expect some sort of reversal. The boastful 

enemy, being merely human, eventually receives mortal condemnation, while the 

righteous sufferer, being dependent on the Lord, receives or looks forward to vindication. 

The Qumran community similarly utilise this sort of rhetoric in their own psalms, 

thanking God for reversal that has already been achieved, and expecting God to act as the 

great Reverser. The following psalm exhibits the sectarian self-understanding of the 

Qumran community. They are the righteous few, opposed by evildoers in the last times. 

They look to God as the one who brings down the evildoers and vindicates the righteous: 13 

1QH a Column 2, Lines 20-30: 

I thank you Lord, for you have placed my life among the living 

And you have protected me from all the traps of the pit. 

For the violent have sought my life, 

While I have held onto your covenant. 

But these people are a council of wickedness and an assembly of Belial. 

They did not know that my standing comes from you, 

And that, in your mercy, you saved my life – 

12 Although note Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr’s estimation of the Psalms of Solomon: “Wir 

haben keine Sammlung von Kultgesängen der Gemeinde, sondern ein Erbauungsbuch vor 

uns”. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen 

in der frühjüdischen Literatur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 223. 

13 Eileen Schuller discusses a similar thanksgiving psalm from Qumran in which it is 

emphasised that God reveals mysteries to his poor people, and casts down the haughty. 

Schuller notes the importance of this motif of reversal in liturgy: “The reversal motif of 

casting down and raising up is well attested in hymns; see 2 Sam 2:6-8; Ps 145:14; Sir 

10:14; 11:5-6; Luke 1:52; 1QM xiv 11,15 (=4Q491 8-10 i 8,12). Eileen Schuller, “A 

Hymn from a Cave Four Hodayot Manuscript: 4Q427 7 i + ii,” JBL 112/4 (1993): 605- 

628; 616. 

19

For my steps come from you. 

And these people have fought against my life because of you, 

So that you might be glorified in the judgement of the ungodly, 

And, in me, you might be shown to be mighty, before the children of men. 

For my standing is in your mercy. 

And as for me, I said, “Mighty men have encamped against me, 

They have surrounded me with all their weapons of war. 

And arrows have broken without healing, 

And the flaming spear has consumed the trees. 

And like the roar of many waters is the commotion of their voice; 

A rainstorm that destroys many. 

Crushing through the cosmos, they bring about great wickedness 

With the dashing of the waves”. 

And as for me, when my heart had melted like water, 

You strengthened my life in your covenant. 

But as for these people, the net that they spread for me will capture their own 

feet, 

And they have fallen into the traps that they set for me. 

But my feet stand in uprightness. In the assemblies I will bless your name. 

This reversal in the canonical Psalms and other liturgical literature is not always clear- 

cut, 14 but is a prominent pattern nonetheless, informing the worldview of those who share 

in its recitation. The boastful enemy, being merely human, eventually receives mortal 

14 Indeed, sometimes there is no evident reversal, or a movement from praise to lament. 

See Federico G. Villanueva, The ‘Uncertainty of a Hearing’: A Study of the Sudden 

Change of Mood in the Psalms of Lament (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 

20

condemnation, while the righteous sufferer, being dependent on the Lord, looks forward to 

vindication, sometimes from the grip of death itself. 

The Condemned Boaster and the Vindicated Sufferer: Literary Figures 

Deutero-Isaiah 

In my reading of Isaiah, the servant is the one who represents Israel in opening the eyes of 

the blind, yet becomes rejected, eventually being vindicated by God in the sight of his 

enemies. 

The servant is introduced in Isaiah 42:1-9 as the one in relation to whom Yhwh’s 

prophetic ability is especially displayed. In contrast to the noisy (41:1: םיִיּ֔ א ִ י֙ ַלא ֵ וּשׁיר֤ ִחֲ 

ה) ַ 

caretakers of blind idols (41:22), the servant of Yhwh is seen as the calm (42:2) locus of 

divine illumination (42:6-7). The mention of calling and taking the hand in these verses 

can reasonably be said to conjure the image of installation; but importantly reminds the 

reader strongly of 41:8-10, in which Israel was pictured as ידִּ֔ ְב ַע, called and upheld by God 

himself. Given this obvious connection, there is no reason to understand the identity of 

the servant in 42:1-9 as anything other than Israel. Thus, in the face of the blindness and 

silence and inability of the idols/nations, who can do nothing but “wait” (וּליחַיְי, ֽ ֵ 42:4) for 

the Torah, the servant Israel embodies and displays the illumination of the only living 

God. The servant is a “covenant for the people and a light for the nations”, in the sense 

arguably envisaged in Exodus 19:5-6, where the Israelite covenant bears witness to the 

nations that the God of the whole earth is committed to Israel. 15 

However, for the hearer already steeped in the tradition of Isaiah, this raises the 

uncomfortable recollection that Israel itself has been pictured as being just as blind and 

15 

It is in a parallel, but more obviously positive, sense that, in Genesis 12, Abraham is 

promised to be a blessing (הכֽ ָ רָ ְבּ), in whom the nations themselves will be blessed. 

Similarly, Servant Israel is a covenant to be witnessed by the nations. 

21

ignorant as the nations 16 (6:9-13; 29:9, 18; 35:5). And indeed, this irony becomes explicit 

in 42:18-22, where the servant is pictured as blind and deaf. This paradox immediately 

offers a vocational challenge to the recipients of Deutero-Isaiah’s message: How will they 

fulfil their calling to be the ideal servant? The paradox appears to be further developed as 

Deutero-Isaiah progresses, such that by 52:13-53:12, the servant may in fact be an 

ostracised righteous representative of Israel, afflicted, but eventually vindicated in the 

presence of those by whom he had been rejected. 17 

In this latter section, then, the dual motif of the “condemned boaster” and the “vindicated 

sufferer” is clearly visible, as the shocked former-boasters express their repentance in their 

description of the servant’s persecution and vindication: 

Isaiah 53:3,4,9 (NRSV) 

He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, 

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him…. 

he was despised, and we held him of no account. 

Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; 

yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted…. 

They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, 

although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 

Isaiah 53:10,11,12a (NRSV) 

When you make his life an offering for sin, 

he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; 

through him the will of the LORD shall propser. 

Out of his anguish he shall see light; 

16 Thus the Targum makes an explicit application to Israel here: “To open the eyes of the 

house of Israel who are as it were blind to the law”. Cited in Klaus Baltzer, Deutero- 

Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (trans. Margaret Kohl; Hermen; Minneapolis, 

Minn., Fortress Press, 2001), 132. 

17 The identities of the figures in this section have long been the subjects of debate. See, 

for example, D.A. Clines, I, He, We and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 (JSOT 

Supplement 1; Sheffield: Continuum, 1976). 

22

he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. 

The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, 

and he shall bear their iniquities. 

Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, 

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong 

In Deutero-Isaiah, then, Israel – or Israel’s representative – is presented as experiencing 

divine vindication, while those who had judged according to human appearance 

experience shocked repentance. 

Daniel 

The book of Daniel repeatedly features the motif of reversal, developing both the image of 

the boastful ruler and that of the righteous sufferer. 

In chapter 2, the king (2:2: βασιλεύς 18 ) demands something that is impossible for mortal 

humans (v11: πάσης σαρκός) to accomplish, and orders execution when it is not 

accomplished. The “God of heaven” grants the revelation of a mystery (2:19: μυστήριον) 

to Daniel and his companions, and their execution is averted. Daniel himself is promoted 

and honoured. 

In chapter 3, the king perceives that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refuse to worship 

him, and he threatens to have them executed in the furnace. They entrust themselves to 

“God whom we serve” (3:17), and, indeed, this God is shown to miraculously save his 

servants (3:28: τοὺς παῖδας αὐτοῦ). Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are vindicated and 

promoted. 

In chapter 4, the ruler Nebuchadnezzar is depicted as refusing to acknowledge that “the 

Most High rules over the kingdom of humans [ἀνθρώπων] and he gives it to whomever 

18 I draw attention to the Septuagint terms here, as these will be significant when looking 

at the terminology of reversal in Paul’s Greek. 

23

he chooses” (4:32). He is punished for this until he acknowledges the sovereignty of God, 

as opposed to his own humanity. 

This story is rehearsed in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar’s son Belshazzar in chapter 5, 

who is similarly presented as refusing to humbly acknowledge God: “You have exalted 

yourself against the Lord God of heaven!” (5:23). Belshazzar’s rule is brought to an end, 

whereas Daniel is honoured. 

In chapter 6, those in positions of royal influence conspire against Daniel, resulting in a 

sentence of execution. God is depicted as miraculously saving Daniel, and his accusers 

are executed in his place. 

These pictures of individual reversal (of boastful rulers to condemnation, and righteous 

sufferers to honour 19 ) are paradigmatic of the book of Daniel’s expectations for Israel as a 

whole. The book utilises the promise of apocalyptic reversal as a means of providing 

comfort, security, and hope for those who were presently experiencing the insecurity and 

uncertainty of foreign domination: 

The deferral of eschatological hope is part of a strategy for maintaining Jewish 

life in a Gentile environment, even in the service of Gentile kings. 20 

Indeed, the book ends in chapter 12 with the expectation of the resurrected vindication of 

the righteous dead, and the final condemnation of certain others. Nickelsburg comments: 

19 

Similar examples of individual reversal occur in the Greek additions to the book, 

Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. 

20 

John J. Collins, Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 

1997), 137. That the hope of apocalyptic reversal brings comfort and security need not 

imply that the literature expressing such hope derives from a particularly downtrodden 

group within Judaism. Such literature may represent an “establishment” theological 

reflection on the possibility or nature of theocracy under foreign domination. Philip R. 

Davies considers, “There is absolutely no hint that Daniel is the product of a fringe; its 

opposition is only to the Seleucid monarchy; its writers are most probably aristocratic, 

even priestly, scribes”. Philip R. Davies, “The Social World of Apocalyptic Writings,” in 

The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives: 

Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. Ronald Ernest Clements; 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 251-274; 258. 

24

For Daniel resurrection is a means by which both the righteous and the wicked 

dead are enabled to receive their respective vindication or condemnation. Thus 

Daniel has gone beyond Isaiah. There will be punishment for the wicked who are 

already dead. 21 

The figures of the condemned boastful ruler and the vindicated righteous sufferer receive 

continued utilisation and development in deutero- and non-canonical Jewish literature. 

Wisdom of Solomon 

The Wisdom of Solomon chides “the ungodly” whose observation that no one returns 

from death leads them to reason that they should be able to enjoy a dissolute life. They 

play the role of what I have called the “boastful ruler”, blind to God’s “mysteries”, and 

boldly triumphant: 22 

Wisdom of Solomon 2:21-22 

For they were blinded by their own wickedness, and did not know the mysteries 

[μυστήρια] of God, or hope for the reward of holiness, or discern the prize for 

blameless souls. 

In chapter 5, the vindication of the suffering righteous is envisaged, involving the shocked 

repentance of the onlooking former boasters (as in Isaiah 53 23 ), who conclude that they 

“did not know the way of the Lord”: 

21 George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in 

Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (exp. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press, 2006), 33; emphasis original. Nickelsburg has since come to doubt the 

hint at chronological development here (cf. page 5). 

22 Kolarcik correctly perceives that “death” is ultimately viewed positively for the 

righteous, for whom it results in union with God; but negatively for the wicked, for whom 

it means the final confirmation of their distance from God. Michael Kolarcik, The 

Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1-6: A Study of Literary Structure and 

Interpretation (AnB 127; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991). 

23 The similarity has not gone unnoticed: M. Jack Suggs, “Wisdom of Solomon 210-5: A 

Homily Based on the Fourth Servant Song,” JBL 76/1 (1957): 26-33. 

25


Then the righteous one will stand with much boldness, in view of those who had 

oppressed him, and those who had disregarded his labours. Seeing him, they will 

be stirred up with severe fear. And they will be amazed by the unexpectedness of 

his salvation. They will speak to one another in repentance, and from a spirit of 

distress they will groan and say, “This is the one whom we once held to be a 

laughingstock and an insulting byword – we fools! We considered his life to be 

madness and his death to be dishonourable. How is it that such a person has been 

counted among the sons of God, with an inheritance among the saints? So we 

had strayed from the way of truth, and the light of righteousness did not shine on 

us, and the sun did not rise for us. We were filled with lawless and destructive 

ways and travelled through inaccessible deserts, but we did not know the way of 

the Lord. Of what benefit to us was arrogance [ὑπερηφανία]? And of what help 

to us was wealth with boasting [ἀλαζονείας]?” 

The “way of the Lord” includes his ability to deliver to Hades and from Hades (16:13, cf. 

Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 10:14; 43:13; Tobit 13:2). 24 A direct application is made to 

the boastful rulers of the earth, in chapter 6. As in Daniel, they are called to humble 

themselves and acknowledge the “Most High”, or else face his judgement: 


Listen then, kings, and understand! Learn, judges of the ends of the earth! Give 

ear, you who rule over many and boast [γεγαυρωμένοι] over the multitudes of 

the nations! Your rule was given to you by the Lord, and your power from the 

Most High. He will examine your works and will search out your plans, because 

24 Samuel Cheon observes that the exodus is a crucially programmatic story lying behind 

such material in the Wisdom of Solomon, and (along with other literature) influences this 

identification of God as the one who brings life and death. It seems likely to me that the 

story of the exodus (and the song of Moses in Exodus 15) is extremely influential on 

depictions of “the way” of God as the divine Reverser more broadly. See Samuel Cheon, 

The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: A Study in Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield: 

Sheffied Academic Press, 1997), 63. 

26

as assistants of his kingdom you did not judge rightly or keep his law, or go along 

with his purposes. Shockingly and hastily, he will come upon you, because 

severe judgement comes to those in positions of authority. 

In chapter 9, it is reiterated that (as in Daniel) the “reasonings” of earthly “wise men” are 

worthless; and genuine revelation necessarily comes from God. Thus there is a sharp 

distinction between that which is “human” and that which is divine. 

Wisdom of Solomon 9:13-14, 17 

For what human [ἄνθρωπος] can know the counsel of God? Or who can discern 

what the Lord wills? For the reasonings of mortals [θνητῶν] are worthless…. 

But who has known your counsel, except the one to whom you have given 

wisdom, and to whom you have sent your holy spirit from above? 

The Wisdom of Solomon thus continues and develops the dual motif of the condemned 

boastful ruler and the vindicated righteous sufferer, using these figures as respective 

representatives of human wisdom and divine wisdom. Hearers are urged to rely on God’s 

wisdom, and so look forward to divine vindication. 25 

Nickelsburg suggests that the “story of the persecuted and vindicated righteous man” in 

the Wisdom of Solomon expresses a common ancient “wisdom tale”, with parallels in the 

story of Joseph (Genesis 37-45), the story of Ahikar, the book of Esther, Daniel 3 and 6, 

and the story of Susanna: 

[A]lthough the Danielic stories are considerably shorter, they are in many points 

similar in technique to Joseph, Ahikar, and Esther: the interweaving of narrative 

and dialogue; similar structural elements (conspiracy, trial, rescue, vindication, 

25 Both God’s honour and the sufferer’s righteous dedication receive vindication, as the 

postmortal fate of God’s people is tied to the faithful justice of God. This emphasis on the 

necessity of postmortal vindication is often viewed as a decisive development in Jewish 

wisdom literature. See, for example, John J. Collins, “The Root of Immortality: Death in 

the Context of Jewish Wisdom,” HTR 71/3 (1978): 177-192; Jack T. Sanders, “Wisdom, 

Theodicy, Death, and the Evolution of Intellectual Traditions,” JSJ 36/3 (2005): 263-277. 

27

acclamation, etc.); observations about the characters’ emotions. These basic 

similarities in theme, setting, characters, narrative technique, and structure are 

not likely the result of literary interdependence. The five stories are examples of 

a common Gattung – the wisdom tale. 26 

My own argument is not dependent on the discernment of a particular literary genre. 

Nevertheless, Nickelsburg’s suggestion helpfully recognises the culturally-recognisable 

motifs in the Wisdom of Solomon’s portrayal of the vindication of the one suffering under 

the persecution of rulers. 

Epistle of Enoch 

Loren T. Stuckenbruck’s introduction to the Epistle of Enoch immediately recalls the dual 

motif of the condemned boastful ruler and the vindicated righteous sufferer as it has been 

seen so far: 

Throughout these three sections [of the Epistle], “the sinners” are often described 

as socially elite, wealthy, idolators and as propagators of false teaching; in stark 

contrast, the “righteous”, with whom the writer identifies, are oppressed, without 

social influence and recipients of revealed Enochic wisdom. 27 

The souls of the “righteous dead” are directly addressed, comforting them with the 

assurance that divinely granted reversal is inevitable: 

26 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 75. The suggestion is not new. W. Lee Humphreys reports, 

“From early Jewish tradition through modern scholarly study of the biblical materials, 

similarities and connections have been suggested between the tales of Joseph, Esther and 

Mordecai, and Daniel and his companions.... When the tale of Ahiqar is considered in this 

context, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a common literary type that was quite 

popular in the Near East of this period: the tale of the courtier.... The tale concludes with 

a notice of his [the courtier’s] exaltation to higher rank and reward and a comparable 

punishment of his foe if such is appropriate.” W. Lee Humphreys, “A Life-Style for 

Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92/2 (1973): 211-223; 217. 

27 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91-108 (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 3. 

28

1 Enoch 102:4-5 

Be courageous, souls of the righteous who have died – souls of the righteous and 

godly – and do not grieve that your souls have descended into Hades with grief 

and your body of flesh has not been treated in accordance with your holy ways in 

your life. 

This encouragement is followed by a depiction of the oppressive sinners as those who 

mock the idea of future post-mortal vindication, and rather choose to “eat, drink and be 

merry” in the present, in 102:6-9. 

As in Daniel and the Wisdom of Solomon, the “righteous” trust in the God who reveals his 

“mysteries” to his persecuted people: 

1 Enoch 103:1-3 

I swear to you…. I understand this mystery…. That goodness and joy and honour 

have been prepared and written down for the souls of those who have died while 

godly. 

Stuckenbruck reads this as a promise of reversal: 

In the passage [103:1-4] the Enochic author promises the righteous a reversal of 

the hard circumstances they have endured on earth; not only will they be restored 

to life (v.4), they will be given an existence that is even better than “the lot of the 

living” 28 

The motif of reversal thus pervades this work, and invites hearers to patiently endure the 

role of the righteous sufferer, as post-mortal vindication is awaited. 

28 Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch, 518. 

29

2 Maccabees 

In 2 Maccabees, as in Daniel, the situation of persecution under a king is depicted. The 

evil ruler who has “authority among humans” (Ἐξουσίαν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἔχων) is explicitly 

denied resurrection (7:14-16), while those who suffer for God under the king’s reign 

expect to experience resurrected vindication. A distinction is thus made between the 

mortal (7:16: φθαρτός) king and the divine “king of the world”: 29 

2 Maccabees 7:7-9 

And after the first brother had died in this way, they led the second up for their 

mockery. And, having torn off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, 

“Will you eat rather than have your body punished, one part at a time?” But he 

replied in the language of his father and said, “No”. Therefore this brother also 

received mistreatment as had the first. And when he was at his last breath, he 

said, “You accursed wretch! You destroy our life in the present, but the king of 

29 As Collins points out, the contrast between human and divine kingship is pervasive in 

Jewish works of this period that hold to an expectation of eschatological reversal: “The 

common denominator of all eschatological formulations of the kingdom… in addition to 

the postulate of divine sovereignty, was rejection of foreign rule. The implementation of 

the kingdom of God, whether by a messiah or a direct heavenly intervention, implied the 

destruction of the kings and the mighty of this world”. Collins, Seers, Sybils and Sages, 

114. Martin Hengel’s work on the Zealots indicates that the theme of divine war in 

apocalyptic literature was also taken up by those in the Maccabean/Zealot tradition as part 

of an expectation of a future involving earthly fighters against foreign rulers: Martin 

Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations Into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period 

From Herod I Until 70A.D (trans. David Smith; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989); trans of 

Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. 

bis 70 n. Chr. (AGAJU 1; 2 nd ed.; Brill: Leiden, 1976). David M. Goodblatt rightly 

cautions that a defiant emphasis on divine kingship did not normally (apart from the 

Sicarii) entail the rejection of every form of present human rule: “Neither the belief that 

God is the ruler of the universe nor resistance to foreign domination entails rejection of all 

human lords”. David M. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2006), 90. Christopher Bryan helpfully characterises a 

“stream of biblical voices” in which divine and foreign kingship are accepted 

concurrently, as a reality for the present age: “According to a consistent stream of biblical 

voices, God chooses that there shall be empires. Thus, Egypt (Gen. 47.7-10), Assyria (Isa. 

10.5-6, 37:26-27), Babylon (Jer. 25.9, 27.5-6; Dan. 4.17-34), and Persia (Isa. 44.24-45.7) 

are all, in their time and place, said (in the case of Egypt) to be blessed and to prosper, and 

(in the case of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia) to rule over other nations by God’s mandate. 

Early postbiblical voices speak in a similar way of the Greeks under Ptolemy II 

Philadelphus (Letter of Aristeas 15b, 19-21). But always such power is granted within the 

limits of God’s sovereignty. Those who exercise such power are called to obey God’s 

command, for the Lord alone is truly king”. Christopher Bryan, Render to Caesar: Jesus, 

the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 

13. 

30

the world will raise us up and give us eternal life, because we have died for his 

laws”. 

The mother of the seven martyrs urges her sons not to fear the mortal ruler, but to accept 

death and look forward to resurrection: 


I beg you, child! Look up to heaven and to the earth, and see everything that is in 

them, and know that God did not create them out of existing things – and so it is 

also with the human race. Do not fear this executioner, but be worthy of your 

brothers in also accepting death, in order that in His mercy, I might receive you 

back along with your brothers. 

Jan Willem Van Henten points out that this reference to God as creator indicates the 

ground of the mother’s hope for resurrection: there is an ultimate distinction between 

human and divine capability: 

As creator of the material world… and of humankind, the Lord is able to recreate 

the martyrs after their violent deaths. This is an adaptation of a tradition which 

can be found in the book of Psalms as well as in Isaiah (e.g. 44:2, 24), where the 

promise of a future deliverance of Israel or of an individual Israelite is confirmed 

by a reference to the Lord’s creation of individual human beings and of the 

heaven and earth. 30 

30 Jan Willem Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A 

Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 177-8. This distinction between the 

creative (and therefore re-creative) ability of God as opposed to humans is also important 

in much apocalyptic literature. Rudolf Schnackenburg comments, “These apocalypses 

place the strongest possible emphasis on God’s sovereign action and his final intervention 

without any co-operation on man’s part…. According to the Sibylline Oracles (V, 348) 

God assumes the direction of things…. This is an exclusively divine action as on the 

morning of creation. ‘Through myself alone and no other were (the works of creation) 

fashioned: so too will the end arrive through myself alone and through no other’ (4 Esdras 

6:6)”. Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom (London: Burns & Oates, 1968), 

67; repr. of God’s Rule and Kingdom (trans. John Murray; New York: Herder & Herder, 

1963); trans. of Gottes Herrschaft und Reich (Freiburg: Herder, 1963). 

31

As in Daniel and the Wisdom of Solomon, the king is urged to repent and acknowledge 

that divine sovereignty belongs to God alone: 


And I, like my brothers, give both body and soul for the laws of the ancestors, 

calling upon God to be merciful soon to the nation, and with afflictions and 

plagues to make you confess that there is one God, and through myself and my 

brothers to bring the wrath of the Almighty, which has been rightly brought upon 

our whole race, to a standstill. 

The dual motif of the condemned boastful human ruler and the vindicated righteous God- 

reliant sufferer is thus well attested here. 

3 Maccabees 

The book of 3 Maccabees similarly paints a picture of persecution and vindication under a 

threatening king. The boastful persecutors end up being disgraced and defeated (6:34), 

while those who have remained faithful and entrusted their cause to God eventually 

receive vindication: 


And, before their enemies, they [the formerly-persecuted but now-vindicated 

Jews] were held in greater esteem, with honour and fear, not having their 

possessions wrested by anyone. And everyone recovered all of their possessions, 

in accordance with the registration, so that any who had them returned them with 

great fear. The Most High God perfectly accomplished great things to bring 

about their salvation. Blessed be the Rescuer of Israel, for all time. Amen. 

It is notable that God is here defined as the “rescuer” of Israel: his practice of vindicating 

the persecuted is seen as essential to his identity. 

32

Judith 

The distinction between the human and the divine is important in the book of Judith, in 

which mortal military power is overcome by dependence on God. As in Daniel, 2 

Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon, the boastful rulers are directly challenged for 

their presumptuous claims to divine sovereignty (cf. 6:2): 

Judith 8:12-14 

And now, who are you to put God to the test today, and to stand in place of God 

in the midst of humans? And now you are testing Almighty God, but you will 

never have knowledge. For you are not able to search out the depths of the 

human heart, and you are not able to access the thoughts of the human mind. So 

when it comes to God, who has made all of these things, how will you search out 

and come to know his mind, or come to understand his thinking? 

As in Daniel, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Epistle of Enoch, the distinction between 

reliance on mortal wisdom and reliance on God is expressed in terms of divine revelation. 

God shares his mysterious wisdom with his own people, and cannot be discerned by 

presumptuous humans. 

Judith 8:16 

But you do not control the decisions of the Lord our God, because God is not like 

a human, who can be threatened, or like human offspring, who can be bribed. 

Judith’s prayer emphasises this ultimate distinction between divine and human knowledge 

and power. Those rulers who presumptuously boast in their own power will ultimately be 

33

condemned by God, while those who humbly entrust themselves to God will ultimately 

receive his powerful vindication: 31 

Judith 9:7-9 

For see: the Assyrians have increased in their power, exalting themselves on 

account of horse and rider, priding themselves in the strength of their army, 

placing their hope in shield and spear and bow and sling; and they do not know 

that you are the Lord who crushes wars. The Lord is your name. You throw 

down the strong in your power, and you bring down their might in your wrath. 

For they have conspired to pollute your holy places, to defile the resting place of 

your glorious name, to cut down the horns of your altar with iron. Look at their 

arrogance, and send your wrath upon their heads. 

As in 3 Maccabees, God’s practice of vindicating the persecuted is seen as essential to his 

identity: 

Judith 9:11, 14 

For your might is not in numbers, nor your power in the strong; but you are God 

of the humble, helper of the inferior, protector of the weak, shelterer of the 

weary, saviour of the despairing…. and make your whole nation and every tribe 

know that you are God, God of all power and might, and that there is no other 

defender of the people of Israel except you! 

Interestingly, this understanding of the identity of God is expressed in liturgy, as Judith 

sings of the God who condemns boasters and vindicates the meek (16:1-17), recalling the 

hymnic celebrations of divine reversal in the Psalms, Exodus 15, and 1 Samuel 2 (and 

seen also in the Magnificat). 

31 Lawrence Mitchell Wills compares the story of Judith with preceding Jewish storylines 

and concludes that in Judith, the condemnation of the wicked and the vindication of the 

humble are distinctively brought together into the same event: reversal and deliverance are 

seen together as “one great triumph”. Lawrence Mitchell Wills, The Jewish Novel in the 

Ancient World (New York: Cornell University Press, 1995), 157. 

34

These examples illustrate the pervasive presence of this motif of reversal in Jewish 

literature. The figures of the condemned boaster and the vindicated sufferer are important 

recognisable characters in much Jewish narrative, demonstrating the character of God as 

the one who powerfully accomplishes or promises reversal. 

Reversal as Interpretative Motif 

The motif of divinely orchestrated reversal is more than a liturgical theme or a literary 

pattern. It is also a lens through which history may be read and evaluated. The history of 

Israel was commonly (internally) interpreted and summarised using the motif of divine 

reversal, involving the downfall of enemies and the vindication of the suffering people of 

God. 

A summary of Israel’s history in Philo: Special Laws 2 

Philo recalls Deuteronomy 26 in describing the worship that involves the presentation of 

harvest-fruits at the temple. He depicts this act of worship as centrally involving the 

recitation of a common history, which summarises Israel’s identity by using the themes of 

corporate persecution and subsequent corporate vindication by God: 

Philo, Special Laws 2.217-219 

This is the sense of the song: “The originators of our race left Syria and migrated 

to Egypt. Being few in number, they grew to become a nation of many people. 

Their descendants underwent numerous sufferings at the hands of the land’s 

inhabitants; and when it was apparent that there could be no further aid from 

humans, they became pleaders before God, seeking refuge in his help. Their 

pleas were accepted by the one who is kind to all those who suffer injustice; and 

he entangled their oppressors with signs and wonders and strange phenomena and 

all the other spectacles that occurred at that time. And those who were being 

35

abused, and attacked by every evil desire, he rescued. And he not only brought 

them into freedom, but also gave them a fertile land. From the fruits of this land, 

O Benefactor, we bring you the firstfruits”. 

It is significant that Philo mentions the inability of humans to provide the necessary 

vindication of the people of God. As in the Psalms and other literature explored above, it 

is emphatically only God who can bring about necessary reversal – which includes both 

condemnation of oppressors and rescue of the oppressed. 

A summary of Israel’s history by Achior: Judith 5 

The report of Achior to Holofernes in Judith 5 sums up the history of Israel as a story of 

persecution and vindication. Firstly, Israel was persecuted by the people of Chaldea, and 

so they fled to Mesopotamia. Secondly, they experienced famine in Canaan, so they went 

to Egypt. Thirdly, they were exploited by the king of Egypt, but miraculously rescued by 

God. Fourthly, they were defeated in battle and had their temple destroyed, but returned 

to God, and thus to prosperity. This pattern is then read into the present situation, with 

Achior concluding that God would defend his people Israel if attacked unjustly. 

A summary of Israel’s history by Eleazar: 3 Maccabees 6 

Eleazar’s prayer in 3 Maccabees 6 reads the history of Israel as a series of divinely 

rendered vindications of those “who are perishing as foreigners in a foreign land” (6:3). 

Pharaoh of Egypt and Sennacharib of Assyria are viewed as typical Gentile rulers who 

have arisen against the people of God, only to face divine condemnation. The “three 

companions”, Daniel, and Jonah are presented as typical faithful Jews who rely upon God 

in their suffering, and experience vindication. God is called to act once again in 

accordance with this reliable pattern, and to “reveal” himself in the face of mortal tyranny. 

36

A summary of Israel’s history by Stephen: Acts 7 

According to Acts 7, Stephen’s speech 32 presents the history of Israel as a series of 

significant persecutions (of individual righteous people), most of which are followed by 

divine vindication. Firstly (7:1-8), Abraham is depicted as being promised that his 

descendants will be mistreated and enslaved, before God judges their captors and gives 

them the land of inheritance. Secondly (7:9-16), Joseph is depicted as being sold, before 

God rescues him from affliction and appoints him to a position of favour. Thirdly (7:17- 

22), Moses is depicted as being abandoned as a baby, before being adopted into royalty. 

Fourthly (7:23-36), the adult Moses is depicted as being misunderstood and rejected by his 

fellow Israelites, before being appointed by God to liberate the people from slavery. 

Fifthly (7:37-43), Israel is depicted as rejecting Moses in favour of idolatry – and no 

vindication is mentioned. In 7:44-50, the impossibility of humans providing for God is 

emphasised. Finally, in 7:51-53, the pattern of persecution of the righteous is applied to 

Jesus, “the Righteous one”. Jesus’ vindication is hinted at in Stephen’s subsequent vision 

of Jesus “at the right hand of God”; and Stephen’s own death (without apparent 

vindication) is reported immediately subsequent to this. 

The pattern of persecution-vindication is clearly used to read Israel’s history; but it is 

evident that for Christ and his followers, full vindication is still awaited. 

32 Views on Acts 7 range from the opinion that it is an historically reliable record of 

Stephen’s speech to the opinion that it is a Lukan composition. My argument here neither 

depends upon nor denies an earlier date for this material than the date of the composition 

of Acts, such as the view of Marcel Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive 

Church (London: Longmans, 1958). My broad intention is to demonstrate that various 

interpretations of Hebrew history, even into the Christian period, utilise the motif of 

reversal. With regard to Stephen’s speech in particular I seek to draw attention to the fact 

that the episodes depict not only popular rejection of the prophets, but also divine 

vindication. As Charles H. Talbert notes, “it was the rejected one whom God made ruler 

and deliverer for them”. Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological 

Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. (2 nd ed.; RNT; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 

2005), 62. 

37

A summary of Israel’s history in 2 Peter 

That “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous in 

punishment until the day of judgement” is considered axiomatic in 2 Peter (2:2), where 

formative events in Israel’s history are recalled as evidence. The holding of disobedient 

angels, the punishing flood, and the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah are paradigms 

of God’s ultimate future judgement of evildoers; while the rescues of Noah and of Lot are 

paradigms of God’s ultimate future rescue of the suffering righteous. 

Again, then, formative Hebrew narratives are summed up using the motifs of 

condemnation and vindication. God vindicates those who trust in him while suffering 

under enemies. It is essential to the argument of 2 Peter 2 that the vindication occurs 

according to a divine, rather than human, schedule. 

A summary of Israel’s history by Josephus: Jewish War 5 

Josephus reviews the history of Israel as a series of persecutions followed by divinely- 

timed vindications. His discussion of the exodus events is illustrative of this review in 

general, and of the formative significance of the exodus “reversal” in particular: 

Josephus, Jewish War 5.382-383 

Should I mention the migration of our ancestors to Egypt? Though they were 

oppressed and made subject to foreign rulers for four hundred years, and could 

have defended themselves with weapons and violence, did they not turn to God? 

Who does not know about Egypt being filled with all manner of beasts, and 

perishing with all manner of disease, the fruitless land, the failing Nile, the ten 

successive plagues, and how because of these things our ancestors were sent out 

with a guard, without bloodshed, without risk, as God led his holy people? 

38

Josephus presents himself as attempting to persuade his fellow Jews that they must await 

vindication from God, rather than fruitlessly fight against the established pattern of 

divinely-timed reversal. 

The Motif of Reversal as an Influential Cultural Conceptualisation 

The presence and function of this motif of reversal in such a diversity of liturgy, literature, 

historical interpretation, and divine address suggest a shared cultural conceptualisation. 

That is, the motif represents important conceptual imagery, informing early Jewish 

identity, worship, story-telling, and interpretation of history. 

Clearly the motif was flexible enough to be understood and utilised differently in different 

circumstances. For the Maccabeans, Judith, and the Zealots, for example, 33 it seems that 

the time of divine vindication could be prompted or hurried by human activity, 34 whereas 

for Daniel, the Epistle of Enoch, and Josephus, the time of divine vindication was to be 

patiently awaited. Nevertheless, the pattern itself appears to be pervasive. The 

Maccabeans, Daniel, Judith, the Epistle of Enoch, the Zealots and Josephus agree that 

divinely granted reversal is inevitable, involving the downfall of boastful rulers and the 

vindication of the righteous. 

It seems that this shared cultural conceptualisation was engaged and renegotiated with the 

reception of Jesus among the earliest Christians. 

33 And perhaps those involved in the Bar Kokhba rebellion. Roland Deines argues that 

this revolt was largely inspired by the theological calculation that the seventh decade 

following the destruction of the temple marked the divine timing of Jerusalem’s 

vindication – a vindication pre-empted by the rebellion. Roland Deines, “How Long? 

God’s Revealed Schedule for Salvation and the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 

Forthcoming. 

34 Hengel writes: “The insistence on the ‘sole rule of God’ that was so closely associated 

with the revolt against Roman rule was for the Zealots the first step towards bringing 

about the kingdom of God, the coming of which was at least partly dependent on the 

personal participation of God’s people”. Hengel, The Zealots, 228; emphasis mine. 

39

3. Reversal and Christological Interpretation 

At many points, the New Testament writers utilise the theme of reversal, and see it as 

coming to fulfilment in the events associated with the coming, suffering, death, 

resurrection, ascension, and return of Jesus Christ. From Mary’s song (Luke 1:46-55) to 

the New Song (Revelation 5:9-14), the gospel of Jesus Christ is presented as a message of 

impending (but inaugurated) reversal. It seems that the events of Jesus Christ were 

interpreted in the light of the reversal motif, and prompted a renegotiation of that motif. 

Three instances of this christological adaptation of the reversal motif will be noted here: 

the parables of reversal in the teaching of Jesus; the use of psalms of reversal in Mark’s 

Gospel; and the attitude to “rulers” in Acts. 

The Historical Jesus and the Motif of Reversal 

The interpretative Christological motif of reversal goes back to Jesus himself. John 

Dominic Crossan 35 points to a number of parables that he views as “parables of reversal” 

spoken by the historical Jesus, and suggests that “Such double and opposite reversal is the 

challenge the Kingdom brings to the complacent normalcy of one’s accepted world”. 

Of course, the question of which parables fit this category might be debated. Related to 

this, the extent to which Jesus’ teaching claims an immanent or a deferred reversal (or 

some combination of the two) is not agreed upon among interpreters. 

Interestingly, Jesus is depicted in Mark’s Gospel as explaining his use of parables with a 

quotation from Isaiah that itself hints at reversal (Mark 4:12): those who think that they 

can see will be blinded by the parables (while, presumably, those who know themselves to 

be blind will have their eyes opened). Perhaps Jesus is self-consciously taking on the role 

of the Isaianic Servant. 

35 John Dominic Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (Sonoma, 

Calif.: Polebridge, 1992), 73-74. 

40

Jesus as the Vindicated Sufferer in Mark 

Mark’s Gospel especially presents Jesus as the one who personifies the Davidic figure of 

the Psalms of royal lament. 36 Mark 3:20-21 reports the reproach of Jesus’ family 

concerning his mission, a motif of Psalm 69. In Mark 9:12 Jesus says that it is written that 

the Son of Man must be treated with contempt, arguably an allusion to the Greek version 

of Psalm 22:7. Mark 14:18 sees Jesus betrayed by one who eats with him, an evocation of 

Psalm 41:9. In Mark 14:34 “it seems that Mark takes a recurring phrase from Pss 41:6,12 

[that is, 42:5, 11] and 42:5 [that is, 43:5] and weaves it into his story by putting it on the 

lips of Jesus”: 37 the downcast soul of the Psalmist is personified in Jesus. The casting of 

lots for the divided clothing of the Davidic Psalmist in Psalm 22:18 is evoked in Mark 

15:24, in the actual experience of Jesus. Mark 15:29-30 evokes the common Psalmic 

motif of the figure who is reviled by passers by, a motif utilised in relation to the Davidic 

persona in Psalm 22:7. Mark 15:34 brings this use of the Psalms firmly into the 

foreground, with Psalm 22:1 heard from the lips of the dying Jesus: “My God, my God, 

why have you forsaken me?” And Mark 15:36 is reminiscent of Psalm 69:21, with the 

suffering figure offered vinegar to drink. 

For Mark then, the identity and project of Jesus may be approached by hearing him as the 

speaker of the Davidic lament psalms, in this way identifying himself with Israel, as a 

figure whose sufferings cry out for divine vindication, and constitute a path for the 

community to follow. 38 These Christians for whom Mark writes are summoned to express 

36 Here I draw especially on two resources aside from the Gospel of Mark itself: Stephen 

P. Ahearne-Kroll, The Psalms of Lament in Mark’s Passion: Jesus’ Davidic Suffering 

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); and A.Y. Collins, “The Appropriation of 

the Psalms of Individual Lament by Mark,” in The Scriptures in the Gospels (ed. C.M. 

Tuckett; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 223-241. My references are to the 

Psalms as numbered and versed in the Christian tradition. 

37 Ahearne-Kroll, Psalms of Lament, 67. 

38 Donald Juel rightly notes: “The Psalter played a critical role in the development of the 

passion tradition. In all the Gospels, the story of Jesus’ death is narrated with features 

taken from Psalms 22, 31, and 69, to name the most obvious…. Nor is it surprising that 

Jesus’ followers turned to the Psalter to understand his crucifixion…. In numerous 

psalms, innocent sufferers bring their case before God in the form of complaints and 

41

their incorporation into this Messiah of Israel by following him in the way of the cross, 

and crying out with him for divine vindication. They are to believe in his resurrection and 

look forward to the implied endpoint of this resurrection, the “final harvest” 39 vindication 

of the Messiah and his community. 

Earthly Rulers and Opponents as the Condemned Boasters in Acts 

The book of Acts presents the apostles as interpreting present-day powerful opponents to 

be the scornful-but-condemned opponents foreshadowed in the Psalms and prophets. 

In Acts 4 the Jerusalem church is depicted as quoting Psalm 2 in a prayer to God, 

explicitly equating its doomed human “rulers” with Herod and Pilate, who opposed Jesus, 

and with the authorities who presently threaten the church itself: 40 

Acts 4:23-29 

Master, you who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them, spoke 

by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David your son, saying, 

Why do the nations rage 

And the people imagine vain things? 

petitions”. Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old 

Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1988), 89. 

39 Cf. the seed parables of Mark 4. Hays comments on the reception of the psalms of 

lament: “Israel’s historical experience had falsified a purely immanent literal reading of 

the texts; the line of David had in fact lost the throne, and Israel’s enemies had in fact 

seized power. Thus, the promise that God would raise up David’s seed and establish his 

kingdom forever (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-14; Ps 89:3-4) had to be read as having reference to an 

eschatological future. How, then, would the royal lament psalms be understood? They 

would be construed – by many Jews, not only by Christians – as paradigmatic for Israel’s 

corporate national sufferings in the present time, and their characteristic triumphant 

conclusions would be read as pointers to God’s eschatological restoration of Israel. Thus 

‘David’ in these psalms becomes a symbol for the whole people and – at the same time – a 

prefiguration of the future Anointed One… who will be the heir of the promises and the 

restorer of the throne”. Hays, Conversion, 110-111. 

40 Talbert is right to perceive this utilisation of Psalm 2 as eschatological, messianic, and, 

specifically, “applicable to Jesus’ passion”. Talbert, Reading Acts, 46. Witherington’s 

addition, furthermore, is essential: “it is often taken to refer to events in the life of Jesus, 

but the narrative here is about events in the life of the church”. Ben Witherington III, The 

Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 200; 

emphasis original. The pivotal events associated with the Messiah, and their 

programmatic influence on the church, are given common expression in the liturgical 

language of reversal. 

42

The kings of the earth take their stand 

And the rulers [οἱ ἄρχοντες] gather together 

Against the Lord and against his Christ. 

For, truly, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the nations and the 

people of Israel, gathered together in this city against your holy son Jesus, whom 

you anointed, in order to do as much as your hand and your decision had fore- 

ordained would happen. And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and give all 

boldness to your servants, to speak your word. 

In Acts 13, Paul is presented as quoting Psalms 2, 16, and 55, as well as Habakkuk 1, in 

order to prove the point that it was necessary for the Messiah to be raised from the dead in 

the face of persecuting, unbelieving scoffers – who would themselves perish. Once again, 

Pilate and the “rulers” are seen as fulfilling the scriptural role of persecutors and would-be 

destroyers: 

Acts 13:27-30 

For those living in Jerusalem and their rulers [οἱ ἄρχοντες], having failed to 

recognise him or the words of the prophets that are read each Sabbath, fulfilled 

them by condemning him. And despite finding no grounds for a charge 

deserving death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. And when they had 

fulfilled all of the things written about him, they took him down from the tree and 

put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead. 

The present generation of would-be persecutors is warned that the trajectory set by their 

scoffing ends in their own condemnation (Acts 13:40-41). 41 

The early churches, it seems, heard the Psalms of their corporate recitation and the 

scriptures of their inheritance as expressing the story of Jesus, the suffering Messiah, 

41 Of course, there are questions regarding the extent to which this represents a speech by 

Paul or an apologia by Luke: see, for example, Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the 

Apostles (SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Order of St. Benedict, 1992), 239. The early 

christological application of reversal is evident in either scenario. 

43

whose persecution at the hands of worldly “rulers” had resulted in death, but whose 

resurrected vindication would one day reach cosmic manifestation with the condemnation 

and judgement of these rulers. The reversal motif has been renegotiated to express the 

“gospel” or kerygma of the death, resurrection, and deferred cosmic vindication of Jesus, 

the Christ. 

4. The Imagination of the Apostle and the Flow of 1 

Corinthians 

Paul’s Rhetoric 

I contend that this reception of Jesus is evident in the creative theology and rhetoric of 

Paul, the self-confessed “Hebrew of Hebrews”. 

In seeking to be attentive to the arrangement of Paul’s communication it is necessary to 

move beyond the examination of genre (or form, or rhetorical convention), to consider 

broader issues of flexible mental imagery and cultural conceptualisation. Additionally, it 

is necessary to move beyond the practical assumption of a monolithic Greco-Roman 

rhetorical culture, to emphasise, within the complexity of Paul’s identity and literary 

manner, the significant influence of his kerygma “in accordance with the Scriptures”. Just 

as it would be naïve to think that early Christianity, Judaism and Hellenism are completely 

separable, it would also be naïve to think that the interpretative and communicative motifs 

of Judaism – or of the Messianic sect to which Paul was converted – were effectively 

dissolved in the conventions of Greco-Roman oratory. 42 

42 There is a parallel in the communicative strategies of Australian Aboriginal cultures: Ian 

G. Malcolm’s research (my father, Emeritus Professor at Edith Cowan University, 

Western Australia) has concerned the ways in which Australian Aboriginal users of 

English frequently use the language in distinctive (and sometimes culturally subversive) 

ways. Discourse is often distorted and misunderstood if it is interpreted using the imagery 

and communication-patterns of non-Aboriginal Australian English. It is essential, he 

argues, that Aboriginal English discourse be understood on its own terms. See, for 

example, Ian G. Malcolm and Farzad Sharifian, “Aspects of Aboriginal English Oral 

Discourse: An Application of Cultural Schema Theory,” DisS 4/2 (2002): 169-181; and 

Ian G. Malcolm and Susan Kaldor, “Aboriginal English: An Overview,” in Language in 

Australia (ed. Suzanne Romaine; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 67-84. 

This perspective is not peripheral, and influences educational and judicial processes in 

44

Paul identifies himself to the Corinthians as an “apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1) who has 

been called to “proclaim the gospel” (1:17) to them; and it would be unhelpfully 

restrictive to seek to understand Paul’s discourse without reference to the shared imagery 

and communicative motifs of this utterly self-conscious sub-cultural identification. Thus, 

while it need not be denied that Paul met “expectations for ‘cultural literacy’ of a Greek- 

speaking Diaspora Jew in the first century” 43 , this should not result in the conclusion that 

the rhetorical resources available to him were limited to those that were generic across the 

Greco-Roman world. 

Paul’s Biography 

I suggest that for Paul himself, the Damascus Road experience involved unexpectedly 

coming to view Jesus as the one in whom Israel and the world’s hope of reversal lay. 44 

Paul had been zealously pursuing the cleansing of Israel; 45 but he now came to view his 

actions as presumptuous, 46 having been blind to what God was doing in the death, 

resurrection, and deferred manifestation of Jesus. 47 

Australia. In a resource for Australian school teachers, Diana Eades writes, “To people 

not trained in linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis, it might appear that Aboriginal 

English is simply an uneducated variety of English. However, this would be an erroneous 

assumption, for while there are a number of features (particularly grammatical features) 

which AE shares with other non-standard varieties of English, there are many others 

which are distinctively Aboriginal. These features testify to the fact that Aboriginal ways 

of using language and communicating have survived and remained strong – despite the 

extinction of traditional languages all over the continent”. Diana Eades, “Aboriginal 

English,” Primary English Teachers’ Association, Pen 93 (1993): 2. Cited 23 rd July 2010. 

Online: http://www.elit.edu.au/mediaLibrary/documents/pens/PEN093.pdf. For legal 

applications see, for example, Diana Eades, Aboriginal English and the Law: 

Communicating with Aboriginal English Speaking Clients: A Handbook for Legal 

Practitioners (Brisbane: Queensland Law Society, 1992). 

43 Margaret M. Mitchell, “Pauline Accommodation and ‘Condescension’ (συγκατάβασις): 

1 Cor 9:19-23 and the History of Influence” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide 

(ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 197- 

214; 199. 

44 Ciampa and Rosner rightly note, “For Paul, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus 

were the decisive events in the history of Israel and even the world”. Roy E. Ciampa and 

Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 

Eerdmans, Forthcoming) 10. 

45 Numerous scholars have connected Paul’s actions with the “zeal” that characterised the 

tradition of Phinehas and the Maccabeans. Richard Bell comments: “The pre-Christian 

45

Thus Paul’s formative experience of Jesus, as one whose resurrected Lordship had been 

startlingly hidden by the outrageous shame of his crucifixion, renegotiated the reversal 

motif by applying it prototypically to the death, resurrection, and awaited manifestation of 

Jesus, the “hidden” Christ. Belonging to God’s people now had to mean belonging to this 

Christ. 

Terrance Callan argues: 

Paul, as Haacker argues, most probably saw his persecution of Christians in this tradition 

stemming from Phineas…. It would therefore seem likely that Paul belonged to the 

radical end of the Pharisaic spectrum”. Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy (Tübingen: 

Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 306. G. Walter Hansen comments: “In Galatians Paul describes his 

life ‘in Judaism’ as having been characterized by an extremely zealous devotion to the 

Jewish traditions (1:14). His zeal was a mark of the Jews of his time who fought to 

maintain the purity of the Jewish way of life from pervasive Hellenistic influences”. G. 

Walter Hansen, “Paul’s Conversion and His Ethic of Freedom in Galatians,” in The Road 

From Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry 

(ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 213-237; 216. 

Martin Hengel argues that such “zeal” had become pervasive in the Judaism of the era: 

“[Z]eal for God’s cause, that is, for the law and the Sanctuary, was a phenomenon that had 

characterized the whole of Palestinian Judaism in general from the time of the Maccabees 

and in particular the groups of Essenes and Pharisees who had emerged from the Hasidim. 

Even early Christianity had been at least to some extent influenced by its Jewish 

inheritance. This ‘zeal’ was based on a consciousness of Israel’s election and separateness 

and it was therefore experienced in a completely positive way. It was not until the 

catastrophes of 70 and 135 A.D. that the rabbinate, influenced by those events, began to 

develop a more critical attitude towards certain aspects of this zeal”. Hengel, The Zealots, 

224. 

46 By this I mean that Paul came to perceive that in zealously pursuing the purity of Israel, 

he had been effectively pursuing a manifest “reversal” that had in fact already been 

initiated by God in a hidden way, in Christ. Hengel similarly characterises the approach 

of the Zealots as an attempt to anticipate and generate divine reversal: “the attempt to 

achieve by every possible means the ‘purity of Israel’ was at the same time an attempt to 

prepare the way for the eschatological coming of God”. Hengel, The Zealots, 228. 

47 As Hengel and Roland Deines note, Paul later emphasises that he had mis-perceived 

Jesus: “The assertion of [Jesus’] former followers that God had raised him from the dead, 

had exalted him to himself ‘in power’ (Rom.1.3f.) to the right hand of God and appointed 

him Messiah, Son of God and coming judge of the world, had to be opposed with all 

resolution. Like many responsible and learned men in Jerusalem, Sha’ul too will have 

shared this view – and in so doing have completely misjudged the crucified Messiah of 

Israel, as he himself later confesses, ‘in a fleshly way’”. Martin Hengel and Roland 

Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1991), 64. 

46

[D]ying and rising with Christ as part of the body of Christ is central both to 

Paul’s understanding of Jesus as Savior and to his understanding of Christian 

life. 48 

S.A. Cummins succinctly summarises this “corporate Christology” in Paul: 

For the apostle Paul, an integral aim and outworking of God’s self-disclosure in 

Jesus Christ is the incorporation of the whole of humanity into Messiah Jesus and 

his Spirit, and thereby into the divine life that is eternal communion with the 

triune God. The historical and theological dimensions of such a claim involve at 

least two key interrelated aspects of Paul’s Christology: namely, that Jesus’ 

messianic identity and destiny encompass an Israel-specific life and death 

transposed into his exaltation as universal living Lord, and that this pattern and 

path are replicated in the lives of all those who are incorporated into him as the 

messianic and Spirit-empowered eschatological people of God. 49 

In reacting to perceived presumptuous/autonomous spirituality in Corinth, then, Paul was 

able to interpret and respond to the situation by means of the reversal motif that had, 

beginning at the Damascus Road, become focused in his kerygma of the Christ. 50 Those 

who were engaging in boastful, presumptuous status games were effectively blinded by 

the shame of the crucified Christ, preferring to play the role of the boastful ruler. They 

48 

Terrence Callan, Dying and Rising with Christ: The Theology of Paul the Apostle (New 

York: Paulist Press, 2006), 8. 

49 

S.A. Cummins, “Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, and the 

Covenant Community in Paul” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (ed. 

Stanley E. Porter; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 190-209; 190. Cummins’ 

summary unfortunately lacks recognition of the hiddenness of Christ’s exaltation. Callan 

rightly gives some attention to this theme: “Thus Christians have died but not yet risen 

with Christ; or their death and resurrection with Christ has not yet been revealed; or their 

life is an ongoing death and resurrection with Christ. All of this is so because salvation 

has not yet fully arrived”. Callan, Dying and Rising with Christ, 128. 

50 

Hengel and Deines make a similar connection: “When Paul explicitly stresses around 

twenty years later that the crucified Christ – here one could almost speak of the crucified 

Messiah – is a stumbling block to the Jews (I Cor.1.23), he is describing not only his 

present experience of mission but the personal offence which he had taken to the message 

of the crucified Messiah as a Pharisaic scribe on the basis of his understanding of the 

Torah, when he still knew Christ ‘after the flesh’”. Hengel and Deines, Pre-Christian 

Paul, 81. 

47

must therefore be reminded of the necessity of sharing in Christ’s death – and hiddenness 

– before sharing publicly the manifestation of Christ’s resurrected glory. The main body 

of 1 Corinthians ends up exhibiting what might be called kerygmatic rhetoric, moving 

from a corrective summons to identify with the cross in chapters 1–4 through to a 

corrective summons to await the fullness of resurrection in chapter 15: 

1 Corinthians 1–4: Divisive boasting is set against inhabitation of Christ’s cross 

1 Corinthians 5–14: The cross applied 

1 Corinthians 15: Disregard for the dead is set against the expected manifest inhabitation 

of Christ’s resurrection 51 

I will examine this in more detail after briefly considering Paul’s other letters. 

Paul’s Other Letters 

As 1 Corinthians is the only New Testament letter to come from Paul and Sosthenes as co- 

senders, it should not be surprising if it has distinctive features. However, what I have 

described as kerygmatic rhetoric may be seen to arise flexibly to some degree in other 

letters of Paul. 

2 Corinthians 

Paul’s subsequent (canonical) letter to the Corinthians begins by summing up his apostolic 

ministry as one of death in hope of resurrection. Indeed, God is defined there as the one 

“who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1:9). Paul Barnett opines that Paul has drawn on a 

51 I use the terminology of “inhabitation” here, even though such imagery is seldom 

explicit in 1 Corinthians itself (although see 10:16). Such terminology is an attempt to 

capture the letter’s insistence on human indebtedness to God-in-Christ for status (1:2), 

present calling (1:5-7), and future hope (1:8). The Corinthians are summoned not only to 

emulate Christ as a great example, but to recognise that their very life and identity comes 

from union with him (1:30); and they are thus to subject their conceptions of their own 

status, life, and conduct to an acknowledgement of his (crucified and exalted) identity. 

48

Jewish conception of God, which has become crystallised in his own gospel of the 

resurrected Christ: 

[I]t may be no coincidence that, as he adapted the First Synagogue Benediction in 

his epistolary benediction, he now alludes to the Second Benediction, 52 whose 

subject is resurrection. Paul’s own piety has been shaped by the synagogue, 

which he is unashamed to betray. Yet, the experience of the Risen One has 

permanently altered the structure of his thought. 53 

This fits well with the argument of this dissertation. The “structure of [Paul’s] thought” 

has been shaped by his encounter with the Christ who has died and risen; and the kerygma 

about this Christ, informed by the Jewish imagery of reversal, suggests motifs and patterns 

for historical interpretation and discourse. 

Romans 

Similarly, in what is largely agreed to be his next (canonical) letter, Paul’s conception of 

the identification of believers with the death-and-resurrection of the Christ plays an 

essential role. Moo suggests that this conception has become for Paul “an unbreakable 

‘law of the kingdom’”. Moo expands: 

For the glory of the kingdom of God is attained only through participation in 

Christ, and belonging to Christ cannot but bring our participation in the 

sufferings of Christ. 54 

52 

Ralph P. Martin quotes this Benediction as “Thou, O Lord, art mighty forever, thou 

makest the dead to live”. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco, Tex.: Word 

Books, 1985), 15. 

53 

Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 

Eerdmans, 1997), 87. 

54 

Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 

1996), 506; emphasis mine. 

49

Philippians 

This “law of the kingdom” perhaps provides structure to Paul’s letter to the Philippians, 

with one example after another of its embodiment: 

1:12-26: Paul is shown to “suffer” and to expect “deliverance” 

1:27-30: Philippians are urged to “suffer” as they live in accordance with the “gospel of 

Christ” 

2:1-11: Jesus is presented as the paradigm of one who willingly accepts “death on a cross” 

before being “exalted” 

2:12-18: Paul is depicted as being “poured out” as a libation in the hope that he might 

boast “on the day of Christ” 

2:19-24: Timothy is presented briefly as an exemplar of one who is not self-interested but 

rather serves Christ “in the work of the gospel” 

2:25-30: Epaphroditus is commended for his willingness to come “close to death” for the 

sake of Christ 

3:1-16: Paul is shown to have suffered the “loss of all things” in order to “share in Christ’s 

sufferings”, and one day “the resurrection of the dead” 

3:17-4:1: Philippians are urged to become “imitators” of Paul rather than enemies of “the 

cross of Christ” 

It would seem possible that here, the identification of believers with the death and 

resurrection of Christ – Moo’s Pauline “law of the kingdom” – has combined with the 

Greco-Roman moralistic commonplace of Exemplary Argumentation to produce a 

particular expression of kerygmatic rhetoric. 

Rollin A. Ramsaran comments on the converging conclusions of a variety of approaches 

to the study of the arrangement of Philippians: 

50

It is generally recognized that Philippians 1:27-30 marks an important 

imperatival exhortation (epistolary; oral/aural) or functions as the letter’s 

propositio or propositional statement (rhetorical). Most hold that Paul’s use of 

πολιτεύεσθε in 1:27 and πολίτευμα in 3:20 forms a ring device around 1:27- 

3:21, and Paul’s argumentation within the smaller sections is built on key 

examples (Christ, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Paul). 55 

Ramsaran identifies the assertion “For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain” as a key 

maxim of the letter, and notes: 

A careful and attentive reading of 1:12-4:1 identifies the theme of life and death 

as central to the series of examples contained therein. 56 

It may well be that the converging conclusions of a variety of interpretative approaches 

could be further illuminated by considering the conceptual imagery of the kerygma as a 

rhetorical resource. 

Colossians 

Colossians, similarly, whether a product of Paul or a Pauline heir, appears to exhibit what 

I am calling kerygmatic rhetoric, allowing the motif of death and resurrection with/in 

Christ to give overall shape to the main body of the letter: 

1:1-2:5: Christ in you; you in Christ 

2:6-4:1: Walking in Christ 

• Sharing Christ’s death 

• Sharing Christ’s resurrection 

55 Rollin A. Ramsaran, “Living and Dying, Living is Dying (Philippians 1:21): Paul’s 

Maxim and Exemplary Argumentation in Philippians,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in 

Biblical Texts (ed. Anders Eriksson et al.; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 

2002), 325-338; 325-326. 

56 Ramsaran, “Living and Dying,” in Rhetorical Argumentation (ed. Eriksson et al.), 332. 

51

4:2-18: Service of Christ in the world and the church 

Indeed, James D.G. Dunn, in summing up the theme of the letter, points out: 

Paul insists that the other teaching [i.e. the “Colossian heresy”] has failed to 

understand the gospel of the cross properly (Col. 2:8-15). 57 

The utilisation of the motif of death and resurrection in Colossians is different to its 

utilisation in 1 Corinthians. In Colossians (as in Romans 6), death and resurrection are 

both to be claimed in the present; while in 1 Corinthians (as in Philippians), death is to be 

claimed in the present, and resurrection to be awaited as a future destination. The 

application of the renegotiated motif clearly retains flexibility. 

A full examination of these letters, however, is unnecessary here. My purpose is simply to 

point out that the idea of a kerygmatic rhetoric in 1 Corinthians would not be greatly 

divergent to what is found in the rest of the Pauline Corpus. On the contrary, other parts 

of the corpus may be examined fruitfully in such a light. 

1 Corinthians: From Boastful Rulers to Hopeful Sufferers 

I contend, then, that 1 Corinthians may be heard as expressing the fundamentality of 

identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, in order to move the Corinthian 

church from presumptuous autonomy to dependence on God in Christ. 

Paul’s letter confronts the Corinthians with a choice: Will they align themselves with 

those who boastfully scorn the meek – the “rulers of this age” who “crucified the Lord of 

glory” – or will they become imitators of Christ’s apostles who “have been condemned to 

death” and “die every day”? Will they assume the role of the boaster who awaits 

condemnation, or the sufferer who awaits vindication? 

57 James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on 

the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 136; emphasis mine. 

52

I seek to demonstrate in the rest of this dissertation that this is a defensible and attentive 

reading of the letter. Here, I provide an overview of such a reading: 

Chapters 1–4 

The choice is set up in the opening four chapters of the letter. Paul raises the problem of 

squabbling divisions over leadership in the church, divisions that he sees as expressive of 

a human-confident orientation, rather than a God-dependent orientation. So he calls the 

Corinthians to choose whether they desire to be aligned with rulers who are honourably 

wise in this age (who will be condemned), or apostles of the cross (who will be 

vindicated): 

For the word of the cross, to those who are being destroyed, is foolishness; but to 

us who are being saved, it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy 

the wisdom of the wise, and I will reject the understanding of those with 

understanding”. (1:18-19) 

Paul attempts to persuade the Corinthians not to see themselves as the mighty rulers, but 

as the poor “nothings”, and he uses the familiar terminology of the God who brings 

reversal: 

For consider the situation of your calling, brothers and sisters: not many of you 

were wise according to the flesh, not many were powerful, not many were of 

noble pedigree. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world in order to 

shame the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world in order to 

shame the strong. (1:26-27) 

Paul seems to be imaginatively hearing their divisive, boastful desire for esteem as a 

desire to be in the position of the haughty worldly rulers who are heading for destruction. 

53

He presents the apostles (most notably, himself and Apollos) as an alternative embodiment 

of spirituality – shaped by the apparent weakness and foolishness of the cross. In the 

tradition of Daniel, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Enoch and Judith, Paul presents himself as 

being the recipient of the revealed “mystery” of divine wisdom, as opposed to the “wise 

men” in positions of elite influence: 

And in coming to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with eminence of 

speech or of wisdom, proclaiming the mystery of God to you. For I decided not 

to know anything among you except for Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I 

came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. (2:1-3) 

Paul goes on to make it clear that it is the lowly apostles, those who follow this path of 

Christ crucified, who have true wisdom from God – while the boastful human rulers of 

this age are really blind: 

But we speak a certain wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age 

or of the rulers [τῶν ἀρχόντων] of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we 

speak God’s wisdom, hidden in a mystery, which God fore-ordained before the 

ages for our glory, which none of the rulers [τῶν ἀρχόντων] of this age have 

known – for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the lord of glory. 

But as it is written, “That which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard”, and 

human heart has not perceived – these things God has prepared for those who 

love him. (2:7-9) 

The summons for the Corinthians is clear: 

So then, let no one boast in humans! (3:21) 

For Paul, the Corinthians’ puffed up divisions are expressive of the stance of those who 

are the boastful enemies of God, headed for destruction – rather than the stance of the 

54

humble crucified, who are awaiting vindication. Paul draws this contrast to a sharp climax 

in chapter 4: 

Already you have become satisfied! Already you have become wealthy! 

Without us [apostles] you have begun to reign! And I wish that you really had 

begun to reign, in order that we might be reigning with you. For it seems to me 

that God has flaunted us apostles as last, as those condemned to die, making us a 

spectacle to the world before angels and humans. (4:8-9) 

Paul is calling the Corinthians to give up the position of the boastful ruler, and assume the 

position of the crucified. He concludes these opening chapters by urging them: 

Chapters 5–14 

Become imitators of me. (4:16) 

The following ten chapters of the letter spell out what this will mean in relation to further 

culturally-driven problems in the Corinthian community. They spell out how the 

Corinthians are to imitate Paul in assuming the position of the crucified, both as 

individuals and as a church body. 

In chapters 5–7 this corrective of the cross is applied to issues concerning the 

congregation’s presumptuous entertainment of sins related to the personal body: 

Your boasting [related to the allowance of a man’s sexual immorality] is not 

good. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole dough? Clean out 

the old yeast, in order that you might be new dough, as in fact you are 

unleavened. For our Passover lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. (5:6-7) 

55

In chapters 8–14, the corrective of the cross is applied to issues concerning the 

congregation’s presumptuous entertainment of sins related to interaction within the 

ecclesial body: 

Chapter 15 

So the weak one is destroyed by your knowledge – this brother or sister, for 

whom Christ died. And thus, sinning against brothers and sisters and damaging 

their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my 

brother or sister to stumble, I will not eat meat ever again, in order that my 

brother or sister might not stumble. (8:11-13) 

Finally, chapter 15 bears the promise of reversal. It seems that, regardless of what was 

actually going on in terms of the denial of resurrection in Corinth, Paul creatively hears 

this denial of “the resurrection of the dead” as the ultimate refusal to accept the validity of 

the dead (and thus, the validity of the crucified). He insists on the necessity of taking the 

path that leads from death – or a deathly way of life – to God-given resurrection: 

Christ has been raised from the dead as the firstfruits of those who have fallen 

asleep. (15:21) 

I die every day! (15:31) 

Fool! That which you sow will not come to life unless it dies! (15:36) 

For Paul there can be no attaining of glory or immortality apart from following the path of 

the Christ, whose own death was followed by resurrection – a resurrection that ensures 

both the future vindication of those who belong to him and the destruction of cosmic 

“rulers”: 

But each in their own turn: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ, 

at his coming. Then the end will come, when he will hand over the kingdom to 

56

God the Father, when every rule and all authority and power have been brought 

to nothing. For it is necessary for him to reign until “all enemies should be 

placed under his feet”. (15:23-25) 

Here, Paul quotes Psalm 110 – the Psalm most utilised by early Christians to express what 

God is doing in Jesus: finally, those who belong to the crucified one will share in his 

complete vindication, while the rulers of this age will be brought to nothing. The 

Corinthians can be assured that the pathway of “Christ and him crucified” will lead 

ultimately to God-given resurrected vindication. 

And so this climactic chapter ends with an insistence that, as mortals, humans cannot 

attain glory; but there is hope for the Corinthians if they will inhabit Jesus the Messiah: 

Chapter 16 

This is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood is not able to 

inherit the kingdom of God; and neither is the perishable able to inherit the 

imperishable…. 

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

So, my beloved brothers and sisters, remain firm, immovable, always abounding 

in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. 

(15:50…57-58) 

The closing chapter then provides a concluding application for the presenting problem in 

Corinth that had especially prompted the letter: the divisive issue of external and local 

leadership. The Corinthians are urged to honour those who labour. 

57

5. A Kerygmatic Rhetoric of Dual Reversal 

The Motif of Reversal 

I have argued that the theme of divinely granted reversal was an important conceptual 

motif in early Judaism and in the reception of Jesus, especially involving the stereotypes 

of the condemned boastful ruler and the vindicated righteous sufferer. This theme, I have 

argued, is not best thought of as a literary form, but more broadly as a shared cultural 

conceptualisation, which may be expressed in liturgy, in narrative, in historical 

interpretation and divine address. I have suggested that it was significant for early 

Christianity as a means of interpreting Jesus, and became renegotiated as Christian 

kerygma. This motif of reversal, focused as Christian kerygma, was utilised by Paul as an 

interpretative lens and flexible rhetorical resource. 

My argument may thus be read as a critical alternative to applications of a narrow concept 

of Rhetorical Criticism to the macro-structure of Paul’s letters. Rather than attempting to 

detect formal or functional adherence of letter sections to conventional elements of 

oratorical construction, 58 this chapter represents an attempt to detect the creative 

utilisation of a conceptual motif (specifically, that of the inherited-but-modified Pauline 

58 I consider that Rhetorical Criticism, as applied to the macro-structure of Pauline 

epistles, is often essentially a variation and extension of Form Criticism. Frank W. 

Hughes, in describing the application of (Greco-Roman) Rhetorical Criticism to the 

Pauline letters, writes: “Rhetorical Criticism of Pauline Letters based on Greco-Roman 

rhetoric was a logical way to go beyond the form criticism of letters pioneered by Paul 

Schubert’s justly famous dissertation. Since many rhetorical critics of Pauline Letters had 

cut their teeth on form criticism of letters, it is not surprising that most Pauline rhetorical 

critics focused more on arrangement than on other matters, at that time [the 1980s]. I used 

to tell my students that form critics could tell you ‘that a letter was structured a certain 

way, but rhetorical criticism could tell you why it was structured that way’”. Frank W. 

Hughes, “George Kennedy’s Contribution to Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Letters,” 

in Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy’s Rhetoric of the New Testament (ed. C. Clifton 

Black and Duane F. Watson; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008), 125-138; 127. 

Troy W. Martin explores problems associated with evaluating the arrangement of a 

Pauline letter by appeal to position and form, noting a change in emphasis in scholarship: 

“Pauline rhetorical critics came to emphasize function rather than form as the most 

advantageous exegetical use of rhetorical arrangement”. Troy W. Martin, “Invention and 

Arrangement in Recent Pauline Rhetorical Studies: A Survey of the Practices and the 

Problems,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe; New York: T&T 

Clark, 2010), 48-118; 71. 

58

kerygma of identification with the Christ who died, rose, and will appear in cosmic 

vindication). 

This movement toward concept-based analysis is in harmony with developments in 

cultural anthropology and cognitive linguistics. Although genre analysis has existed for 

some time, Gary B. Palmer argued in 1996 that communication within a culture utilises 

common conceptual schemas, which may prove more fruitful for understanding discourse: 

It is likely that all native knowledge of language and culture belongs to cultural 

schemas and that the living of culture and the speaking of language consist of 

schemas in action.… Wallace Chafe (1990:80-81) described schemas as “ready 

made models” and “prepackaged expectations and ways of interpreting,” which 

are, for the most part, supplied by our cultures.… …Charles J. Fillmore 

(1975:127) defined schemas quite loosely as “conceptual schemata or 

frameworks that are linked together in the categorization of actions, institutions, 

and objects….as well as any of the various repertories of categories found in 

contrast sets, prototypic objects, and so on”. 59 

Farzad Sharifian clarified in 2003 that such “cultural conceptualisations” need not be 

static or entirely common to the whole population of a culture in order to be effective. 

Members of a cultural group renegotiate their shared conceptualisations over time, 

through various communicative and routine activities. 60 These cultural schemas are said 

to guide the way that history is interpreted and communication is made effective. Studies 

of “cultural memory” affirm the significance of such shared conceptualisations, which are 

particularly observable in the history of Judaism. 61 

59 

Gary B. Palmer, Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics (Austin, Tex.: University of 

Texas Press, 1996), 63. 

60 

Farzad Sharifian, “On Cultural Conceptualisations,” JCC 3/3 (2003): 187-207. 

61 

For example, the work of Jan Assman: “Cultural memory has its fixed point; its horizon 

does not change with the passing of time. These fixed points are fateful events of the past, 

whose memory is maintained through cultural formation (texts, rites, monuments) and 

institutional communication (recitation, practice, observance). We call these ‘figures of 

memory.’ The entire Jewish calendar is based on figures of memory”. Jan Assman and 

59

Clearly, there are parallels to my own examination in this chapter. Perhaps the Jewish 

motif of reversal, involving the condemnation of the boastful ruler and the vindication of 

the righteous sufferer, might fruitfully be thought of as a “cultural schema” that received 

further negotiation with the reception of Jesus among the earliest Christians. 

The Terminology of Reversal 

It may be noticed that particular terminology is frequently associated with the Jewish 

motif of reversal, especially in the wisdom tradition: there are the “rulers” (ἀρχή/ ἄρχων/ 

βασιλεύω etc.) 62 who are emphatically “human” (ἄνθρωπος), 63 who defiantly “boast” 

(καυχάομαι), 64 and think themselves to be “wise” (σοφός), 65 but who will be “destroyed” 

(καταργέω/ φθείρω etc.); 66 and there are the “righteous” (δίκαιος) 67 who are the genuine 

recipients of revealed “wisdom” (σοφία) from God in the form of a “mystery” 

(μυστήριον), 68 and who come close to (or experience) “death” (θάνατος/ νεκρός/ 

ἀποθνῄσκω), 69 but can expect divinely granted “victory” (νῖκη), 70 perhaps in the form of 

“resurrection” (ἐγείρομαι/ ἀνάστασις). 71 

What is interesting is not simply that these concepts and words are found in 1 Corinthians, 

but that they are strikingly arranged, appearing disproportionately in the opening and 

John Czaplicka, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” NGC 65 (1995): 125-133; 

129. 

62 For example, Daniel 2:2, where Nebuchadnezzar is βασιλεύς, or Psalm 2, in which the 

ἄρχοντες conspire against the LORD and his anointed. 

63 For example, Psalm 9:20-21, where the opponents are emphatically ἄνθρωποί. 

64 For example, Wisdom of Solomon 6:1-5, where the rulers of the earth are addressed as 

those who καυχάονται. 

65 For example, every σοφός is summoned to the king in Daniel 2. 

66 For example, 2 Esdras, where καταργέω is used 4 times to mean ‘destroy’, or Wisdom 

of Solomon 16:5,19,22,27, in which those people and possessions that suffer divine 

punishment are φθειρόμενον. 

67 For example, the Psalms of Solomon, in which a continual distinction is made between 

sinners and the δίκαιοι. 

68 For example, Daniel 2, in which the superior wisdom of Daniel is made evident as he 

receives a μυστήριον from God. 

69 For example, 1 Enoch 102:4-5, in which the souls of the righteous dead are addressed, 

or Esther 4:8, in which God is said to rescue his people from θάνατος. 

70 For example, 1 Maccabees 3:19, in which it is insisted that νῖκη is only granted by God. 

71 As in 2 Maccabees 7 and Daniel 12. 

60

closing of the letter body. Noting the distribution of occurrences of the Greek words 

mentioned above may be illustrative: 72 

1 Corinthians 1 19 















This fits the way in which I have suggested the “rhetoric of reversal” is utilised in the 

letter, with the opening and closing of the letter body especially applying the dual motif of 

the condemned boaster and the vindicated sufferer, while chapters 5–14 serve the function 

of an extended ethical application. 

The Impact of a Rhetoric of Reversal 

A number of the instances of liturgy and literature examined in this chapter utilise the 

motif of reversal in order to direct human hope to divine ability and timing. Josephus calls 

his hearers to wait for God to bring about a change of fortunes, rather than attempt to force 

such a change through violent means. The book of Daniel and the Epistle of Enoch 

summon their hearers to be patient and righteous in the present as they look ahead to a 

divine reversal of fortunes. Mark calls his readers to carry the cross, and only by so doing, 

to perceive God-given resurrection. 73 

72 Of this selection, the words that are present (or in a related form) in both chapters 1-4 

and chapter 15 are: ἀρχή/ἄρχων; ἄνθρωπος; καταργέω; φθείρω; μυστήριον; θάνατος. 

73 Craig Hovey reads Mark’s Gospel as calling the Christian church to enter into the crossbearing 

identity of its Messiah, and only from this vantage point, to know the meaning of 

glory and resurrection: “It means that the church is characterized by the life of the 

resurrection only insofar as it undergoes the pain of the cross”. Craig Hovey, To Share in 

the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today’s Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 

2008), 27. 

61

The question of why Paul defers discussion of the resurrection to the end of 1 Corinthians 

is indeed perhaps parallel to the question of why Mark is so reticent in his presentation of 

the resurrection in chapter 16. The resurrection cannot be seen or grasped by would-be 

rulers in the present; but is attained by pursuing the way of the cross, which is its 

necessary pre-requisite. It is only in union with the Messiah (a union which is expressed 

liturgically and ethically in the way of the cross) that humans can, with him, inherit 

resurrection in the kingdom of God. 

The impact of a rhetoric of reversal in these instances is thus corrective, restraining 

presumptuous human autonomy and directing hope to the God who is the lord of time and 

the gracious raiser of the dead. 

Reversal in 1 Corinthians 

I have sought to argue that 1 Corinthians evidences this kerygmatic rhetoric of dual 

reversal. Drawing on the dual-motif of the condemned boaster and the vindicated 

sufferer, this letter summons the believers of Corinth into the story of Christ’s own 

passion. They are called to give up their boastful, status-driven divisions and inhabit 

Christ’s death in the present, looking ahead to sharing in the manifestation of his 

vindication in the future. Paul has imaginatively evaluated the various situations in 

Corinth as having a common theological significance, and so has allowed the kerygmatic 

motif of reversal – foreshadowed in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish literature, recited in 

liturgy, and renegotiated in the Christ event – to give theological shape to his response. 

It might be asked whether the Corinthians would have perceived this arrangement. Three 

factors suggest that Paul might have expected the recipients to perceive such a movement 

in the flow of the letter. Firstly, it is clear that Paul expected the Corinthians to recognise 

his “gospel” of the death and resurrection of Christ. 1:18 sums up this gospel as being 

about the cross, and 15:1-2 adds that this proclamation was also fundamentally about 

62

esurrection. Thus, even if the Corinthians were not familiar with the motif of reversal in 

Jewish literature, they were expected to be familiar with Paul’s kerygma. Secondly, it is 

evident from 14:26 that the Psalms were utilised in Corinthian worship, suggesting an 

awareness of the Psalmic categories and stereotypes upon which the letter draws. 74 

Thirdly, it is important to recall that Paul’s letter was to be read and interpreted 

communally. Thus it was not essential that each individual be able to recognise literary 

devices or allusions. 75 

I go on in the next chapters to demonstrate in further detail that this interpretation provides 

a satisfying account of the arrangement of the letter. 

Conclusion to Chapter 1 

In this chapter I have argued that an appreciation of Paul’s argumentation in 1 Corinthians 

must do justice to the decisive influence of his kerygma on his rhetorical arrangement. 

This kerygma especially draws on and renegotiates the motif of dual reversal, found in a 

range of Jewish liturgy, literature, and historical interpretation, and informing early Jewish 

identity, worship, story-telling, and analysis of history. Early Christianity utilised and 

transformed this theme of reversal in grappling with the Christ event; and Paul’s own 

biography suggests that this motif was influential in the development of his own 

conception of the kerygma. Paul’s other letters reinforce the notion that this motif of 

reversal, renegotiated as Christian kerygma, was significant in his interpretation and 

expression of the Christian faith. 

74 Indeed, Ciampa and Rosner detect expected familiarity with a variety of Jewish cultural 

references and technical terms: Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 8. 

75 I am grateful to Richard Bauckham, who added this point in discussion of a paper that I 

presented at St Andrews University on The Rhetoric of the Psalms and the Imagination of 

the Apostle in 2009. Bauckham makes a similar point in relation to the Gospel of John 

elsewhere: “Finally, it is essential to remember that few ‘ordinary readers’ of an early 

Christian work such as the Fourth Gospel would read it alone, with only the resources of 

their own knowledge to assist their comprehension, as modern readers do. Reading 

(which for most ‘ordinary readers’ was hearing) took place in community. Aspects of the 

text that were not obvious could be explained by teachers who had some training in 

scriptural exegesis and who may have given time and trouble to studying the text”. 

Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and 

Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 284. 

63

In 1 Corinthians in particular, chapters 1–4 and chapter 15 evidence the kerygmatic dual 

motif of the condemned boaster and the vindicated cruciform sufferer, while chapters 5– 

14 serve as an extended ethical application. The function of this rhetorical arrangement is 

to summon the Corinthians to “inhabit” Christ the cruciform sufferer in the present as they 

await his manifestation, rather than to emulate the boastful “rulers of this age” who await 

condemnation. 

64

Chapter 2 

The Unity and Coherence of 1 Corinthians 

65

1. The Unity of 1 Corinthians 

From Weiss (1910) to Welborn (2005), questions concerning the literary integrity of 1 

Corinthians have endured within New Testament scholarship over the last century. L.L. 

Welborn comments: 

I do not regard canonical 1 Corinthians as a unified text. Almost one hundred 

years ago, Johannes Weiss, whose commentary on 1 Corinthians remains 

unsurpassed, expressed doubts about the integrity of canonical 1 Corinthians, 

noting breaks in the train of thought, discrepancies in reports of events, sudden 

changes of tone, and differences in outlook and judgment. In my view, the 

questions raised by Weiss have not been answered by recent attempts to defend 

the integrity of 1 Corinthians on the basis of rhetorical analysis. Hence, I follow 

Weiss in the hypothesis that 1 Cor. 1.1–6.11 was originally an independent letter, 

the last of three substantial fragments preserved in canonical 1 Corinthians. 1 

Following Weiss, there have been numerous attempts to be attentive to apparent partitions 

in the flow of canonical 1 Corinthians, resulting in various suggestions of pre-redaction 

Pauline letters. Helmut Merklein usefully summarises side by side the partition theories 

of Weiss, Héring, Schmithals, Dinkler, Schenk, Suhl, Schenke and Fischer, and Senft. 2 

The literary reconstructions of these scholars range from positing two original letters to 

nine original letters behind canonical 1 Corinthians. 

Objections to the Unity of 1 Corinthians 

It will be useful to consider two fundamental objections to the unity of 1 Corinthians: a 

lack of unified literary coherence; and evidence of an editor. 

1 L.L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the Comic- 

Philosophic Tradition (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 13. 

2 Helmut Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes,” ZNW 75 (1984): 

153-183. 

66

Lack of Unified Literary Coherence 

Jean Héring crystallises the primary reason that certain scholars maintain reservations 

about the literary integrity of 1 Corinthians: 

[T]he most serious argument against the unity of 1 Corinthians is afforded by an 

examination of this long letter itself, certain parts of which accord ill with others, 

even if allowance is made for longer or shorter interruptions in its dictation. 3 

Schmithals concurs: 

The arrangement of the letters itself forces us to recognize that Paul cannot 

possibly have written them thus. 4 

Harry Gamble usefully summarises particular expressions of such “ill accord” (many of 

which I will consider in detail later in this chapter): 

[T]he literary difficulties with which Paul’s letters are rife: anacoloutha, 

repetitions, abrupt shifts of subject matter and tone, seemingly distinct situations 

presupposed within what is presented as the text of a single letter, etc. Theories 

of redaction have sought to make these phenomena intelligible as the 

consequence of secondary editorial reworking. 5 

It is, then, an assumption of Redaction Criticism that significant literary incongruities in a 

letter are more likely a feature of editorial attempts at achieving coherence than original 

compositional coherence. 

3 Jean Héring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (trans. A. W. Heathcote 

and P. J. Allcock; London: Epworth, 1962), xiii; trans. of La première épître de Saint Paul 

aux Corinthiens (2 nd ed.; CNT 7; Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1959). 

4 Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the 

Corinthians (3 rd ed.; trans. John E. Steely; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1971), 87. 

5 Harry Gamble, “The Redaction of the Pauline Letters and the Formation of the Pauline 

Corpus,” JBL 94/3 (1975): 403-418; 403. 

67

Evidence of an Editor 

Gerhard Sellin argues that an editorial purpose in canonical 1 Corinthians is both 

reasonable and observable. 6 He suggests that after the time of Paul, it became useful and 

necessary to systematise Pauline thought for contemporary guidance. Thus, letter-portions 

of a similar character were brought together, resulting in two editorial collections 

(canonical 1 and 2 Corinthians). 

For Harry Gamble, this direction of argument is important if redaction theories are to be 

taken seriously: 

[T]he redaction of a letter must have a Sitz im Leben, and the cogency of a 

redactional hypothesis will necessarily depend not only on its ability to overcome 

the literary aporias but also on its capacity to rationalize the redactional effort as 

such, i.e., to clarify the editorial Sitz im Leben in its various aspects. This would 

entail consideration of the questions how, when, by whom, and to what purpose 

the supposed editorial work may have been undertaken. 7 

Robert Jewett 8 and Khiok-Khng Yeo 9 argue at length for a redactional Sitz im Leben that 

justifies viewing the canonical letters as editorial products. Influenced by Schmithals, 

Jewett argues for the detection of distinct historical situations in 1 Corinthians. These 

distinct situations are responded to by Paul with distinct material, which can be described 

broadly as potentially pro-Gnostic and charismatic on the one hand, and insistently anti- 

Gnostic and institutional on the other hand. Yeo discerns these two different backgrounds 

behind different parts of 1 Corinthians 8–10, thus suggesting a later editorial combining of 

different letters: 

6 

Gerhard Sellin, “Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes,” ANRW II, 25/4 (1987): 

2940-3044; 2981. 

7 

Gamble, “Redaction,” 403. 

8 

Robert Jewett, “The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline 

School,” JAAR 44/4 Supplement (1978): 398-444. 

9 

Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction. 

68

In letter B, the style is authoritative, making use of traditional, Hellenistic Jewish, 

and scriptural material, with hardly any dialogue with the audience. In Letter C, 

however, the dialogical rhetoric is obviously visible in both chapter 8 and the end 

of chapter 10. Paul uses creedal and scriptural material, but he also interacts 

substantively with the audience’s material. In each rhetoric the content 

corresponds to the style. In the earlier piece, the apologetic rhetoric admonishes, 

charges, and warns the Gnostics to flee from idolatry. In the later piece, the 

rhetoric of knowledge and love opens up a forum for the Gnostics, the “weak,” 

and Paul to interact with one another. 10 

Thus an alleged issue in first century Christianity (the development of Gnosticism, and its 

opposition on the grounds of institutional apostolic orthodoxy) is suggested as a realistic 

redactional situation that makes good sense of the diversity of material that is found in 1 

Corinthians. An authoritarian Pauline school manipulated the potentially pro-Gnostic 

Pauline letter, to make it fit into a redacted product that was, overall, anti-Gnostic in 

stance: canonical 1 Corinthians. Arguments for incipient Gnosticism in the first century 

have diminished in credibility in the last several decades; however it may still be 

appropriate to envisage early disputes between different models of leadership and 

authority. 11 

These, then, are two fundamental objections to the unity of 1 Corinthians: lack of literary 

coherence, and arguable evidence of an editor – complete with a conceivable editorial 

situation. 

Because these arguments are largely about literary flow and coherence, they require a 

largely literary response. Most recent arguments for the unity of 1 Corinthians have 

10 Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 210. 

11 1 Clement, for example, would hint that this was the case in Corinth in the late first 

century. On dating, see the discussion in footnote 19. 

69

indeed been along these lines – most notably that by Margaret M. Mitchell. 12 However it 

also seems worthwhile to consider briefly the issue of historical plausibility. 

Redaction Reconstructions and Historical Plausibility 

Of the various redaction theories regarding 1 Corinthians, I find those of Walter 

Schmithals and Robert Jewett to be most attentive to historical questions, and so it is with 

their two reconstructions that I will engage at this point. 13 

In short, Schmithals 14 argues that 1 Corinthians was redacted by the collator of an early 

Pauline Corpus. This early Corpus formed the archetype for later copies of the Pauline 

letters, which explains why no significantly dissenting versions of 1 Corinthians have been 

attested. Jewett, as noted above, argues that 1 Corinthians was redacted by a conservative 

Pauline party, which wanted to crowd out competing claims to carry the tradition of the 

apostle. Both Schmithals and Jewett thus hold that the redaction was essentially an 

aggressive move, designed to cement an authoritative Pauline tradition, at the cost of the 

12 Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical 

Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, Ky.: 

Westminster John Knox, 1991). 

13 Although Sellin is aware of the relation of redaction theories to the issue of the 

formation of a Pauline Corpus, his investigation of this issue is not as detailed as that of 

either Schmithals or Jewett: “Doch kann dieser Vorrang [that is, the precedence of the 

text-critical end-product over alleged text parts] keineswegs ein absoluter sein, da die 

Möglichkeit, daß mehrere an denselben Adressaten gerichtete Paulus-Briefe im Zeitraum 

zwischen ihrer Erstrezeption und der handschriftlichen Vervielfältigung im Rahmen eines 

überregionalen Corpus Paulinum redaktionell zu einer Briefeinheit kombiniert wurden, 

nicht generell von der Hand zu weisen ist, wie der immer noch bestehende große Konsens 

in der gegenwärtigen Einschätzung des 2 Kor eindrücklich belegt”. Gerhard Sellin, “1 

Korinther 5-6 und der ‘Vorbrief’ nach Korinth: Indizien für eine Mehrschichtigkeit von 

Kommunikationsakten im ersten Korintherbrief,” NTS 37 (1991): 535-558; 535. Schrage, 

likewise, shows an awareness of the difficulties associated with the formation of the 

Pauline corpus in relation to redaction theories, but does not deal with such difficulties in 

any detail. See Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11) 

(EKKNT; Zürich: Neukirchener, 1991), 71. Hurd rightly objects to a simplistic appeal to 

the case of 2 Corinthians: “[T]he redaction of 2 Corinthians at whatever level of 

intelligence offers little support for theories of redaction in 1 Corinthians. The positing of 

a redactor for 1 Corinthians is an independent step in the chain of argument, and appeal 

cannot be made to creative redactional activity in 2 Corinthians”. John C. Hurd, “Good 

News and the Integrity of 1 Corinthians” in Gospel in Paul: Studies in 1 Corinthians, 

Galatians and Romans (ed. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson; Sheffield: Sheffield 

Academic Press, 1994), 38-62; 52. 

14 Schmithals’ understanding of the work of the Corinthian redactor can be found in his 

work Gnosticism in Corinth, and on pages 287-8 of his article “Die Korintherbriefe als 

Briefsammlung,” ZNW 64 (1973): 263-88. 

70

original integrity of the pre-redaction Corinthian correspondence. Two questions of 

plausibility are worth noting in relation to such reconstructions: that of an aggressively 

singular Pauline Corpus; and that relating to the utilisation of 1 Corinthians by Clement. 

An Aggressively Singular Pauline Corpus 

Schmithals’ proposal, that an early redacted Pauline Corpus was pushed to become the 

archetype for subsequent copies of the Pauline letters, would provide an explanation for 

the general commonality of text and order in early manuscripts, 15 and would explain why 

no attestation of pre-redaction versions has survived. 

However, Gamble argued convincingly in 1975 that Schmithals’ position does not fit the 

evidence of the significant variation in the textual tradition of Romans: 

[I]t is, after all, only a hypothesis and not a matter of established fact that the 

textual tradition has but a single source. That this assumption is, indeed, 

mistaken seems to be clearly demonstrated by the textual peculiarities of the 

letter to the Romans. 16 

The significant “textual peculiarities” related to the ending of Romans include attestation 

of fourteen-chapter text forms (for example, the eighth century Codex Amiatinus, which 

appears to view Romans as including 1:1-14:23 and 16:25-27); fifteen-chapter text forms 

(the Chester Beatty Papyrus, in which the closing doxology is displaced, occuring between 

15 In 1975, Gamble claimed, “[T]he forms of the Pauline letters remain fundamentally the 

same in all known witnesses. Except in the case of Romans, the tradition preserves no 

textual evidence that any of the letters ever had basically different forms than the forms in 

which we know them”. Gamble, “Redaction,” 418. By “basically different forms” 

Gamble seems to imply major rearrangement such as is found in Romans. Porter, 

furthermore, comments on the “amount of commonality between the early manuscripts” in 

terms of ordering within the corpus: “In the light of this [the closeness of letter 

destinations resulting in the possibility of easy early collation], it is not surprising that 

variation in the Pauline corpus occurs within relatively narrow parameters… the 

fluctuation in placement of Hebrews is the only real variable – there is otherwise virtual 

fixity to the manuscript ordering”. Stanley E. Porter, “When and How Was the Pauline 

Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories,” in The Pauline Canon (ed. Stanley E. 

Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 95-128; 122, 123. 

16 Gamble, “Redaction,” 415. 

71

15:33 and 16:1); and sixteen-chapter text forms (as adopted in the Nestle Aland 27, with 

expressed uncertainty about the placement of the doxology). 17 These textual differences 

argue against an aggressively exclusive single-corpus archetype for the Pauline letters: 

Why were major variations in the manuscript tradition of Romans able to persist if there 

was an early policy of elimination of alternatives to the one authoritative corpus tradition? 

This objection has not been satisfactorily answered since it was first raised by Gamble. It 

would seem that an exclusive single-corpus textual archetype is not as plausible an 

explanation for this evidence as a more free development of a Pauline Corpus, allowing 

for both general commonality and the exception (at least) of major variation in the ending 

of Romans. 

The Utilisation of 1 Corinthians by Clement, in 96, in Rome 

The letter of 1 Corinthians appears to have received particular interest from Patristic 

writers. 18 1 Clement is especially important, given its clear reference to 1 Corinthians, in 

what was itself a letter to the Christians at Corinth, dated about 96 CE: 19 

1 Clement 47:1-3 

Take up the letter of the blessed Paul the apostle. What is it that he first wrote to 

you in the beginning of the gospel? In truth he wrote to you spiritually, 

17 For Gamble’s work on this topic, see Harry Y. Gamble, The Textual History of the 

Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (Studies and Documents 

42; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977). 

18 Mark Harding notes the extensive examination of Albert Barnett in 1941 in which there 

is early citation of “1 Corinthians by Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin”. Mark 

Harding, “Disputed and Undisputed Letters of Paul,” in The Pauline Canon (ed. Stanley 

E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 129-168; 130. Jewett cites Mitton: “It is clear that 1 

Corinthians is the letter of Paul which has most clearly impressed itself on the minds of 

early Christian leaders. This epistle is confidently known early in the second century in 

the churches of Roma and Asia Minor, and perhaps in Syria”. Jewett, “Redaction,” 431. 

19 This date is commonly accepted. Although Welborn suggests that 1 Clement may be 

dated as late as 140 CE, chapter 44 seems to indicate that some still-living leaders had 

been appointed by the apostles, suggesting a date before the end of the first century. See 

L.L. Welborn, “On the Date of First Clement,” BR 29 (1984): 35-54. For the purpose of 

my argument here, it only matters that Jewett accepts this dating. 

72

concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because also then you had split into 

factions. 

Further, 1 Clement appears to allude to other Pauline letters, or adopt their perspectives or 

terminology. The mention of “pillars” (στῦλοι) of the church in 1 Clement 5:2, for 

example, may draw on Galatians 2:9. The reference to Paul’s stoning later in the same 

chapter may recall 2 Corinthians 11:25. 

Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher Mark Tuckett indicate a range of scholarly opinion 

on Clement’s familiarity with the Pauline Epistles, and ultimately agree with the modest 

conclusions of Carlyle: 

Clement can be shown to have used both Romans and 1 Corinthians, and there is 

some slight evidence that he may also have used 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 

Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Timothy and Titus. 20 

Clement’s assumption that the Corinthians needed no explanation as to how he had access, 

in Rome, to a copy of the (perhaps “first” 21 ) letter sent to their community, as well as 

possible access to other Pauline letters, hints that some Pauline letter collection, which 

included 1 Corinthians, was known as available by 96 CE. 

20 Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher Mark Tuckett, The Reception of the New Testament 

in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 143. 

21 It is possible that “first” (πρῶτον) in 1 Clement 47:1-3 refers to the beginning of the 

epistle. If so, this is confirmation that the letter to which Clement had access was not at 

odds with the ordering of canonical 1 Corinthians, given that he cites chapter 1. However, 

it seems just as likely, if not preferable, that “first” identifies the letter to which Clement is 

making reference. If indeed this Corinthian letter is thought of by Clement as being 

“first”, this is striking, because it is not generally regarded as chronologically the first of 

Paul’s letters to Corinth; but it is the first letter to Corinth in every Pauline Corpus. E. 

Randolph Richards notes this and points out that if Clement were using a corpus of 

Pauline letters, he would assume that 1 Corinthians was “first”, without necessarily having 

any awareness of “Corinthians A and C”. E. Randolph Richards, “The Codex and the 

Early Collection of Paul’s Letters,” BBR 8 (1998): 151-166; 166. For a development of 

this argument see Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, 

Composition and Collection (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2004). Richards’ speculation is 

that Clement was using Paul’s personal set of letter copies. 

73

Indeed, Jewett acknowledges Clement’s access to a canonically-recognisable version of 1 

Corinthians at this time: 

Since 1 Corinthians was cited by Clement in A.D. 96, with citations coming from 

the various component parts in such a way as to make it clear that he had the 

canonical letter, the most likely time for the redaction of 1 and 2 Corinthians is 

the early 90s. 22 

However, it would seem extraordinary for Clement to urge the Corinthians to shun 

partisanship by citing a letter that had been significantly redacted, in a location removed 

from its Corinthian origins, less than six years earlier, as an essentially fictive response to 

partisanship. In Jewett’s reconstruction: 

[The redactor’s location] must have been a location in the Aegean realm, in a 

church founded by the Apostle Paul, where competitive groups were vying for 

the proper interpretation of their mentor’s legacy. If the redactor and his circle 

were not in Ephesus, they were at least in a similar city in the region where a 

vigorous struggle was underway with substantial intellectual resources available 

on both sides. 23 

Would Clement really expect the Corinthians to accept as convincing an exhortation to 

unity cited from a fictionally “first” letter, which had recently been taken out of their own 

hands and substantially reworked? I find this improbable. Such a reconstruction requires 

Clement to have expected that the Corinthians’ problems with ecclesial authority would be 

reversed by barefaced appeal to the obviously deceptive work of that authority. 

Gamble’s critique of Schmithals is also apt here: 

22 Jewett, “Redaction,” 432. 

23 Jewett, “Redaction,” 432. 

74

[I]f Paul’s letters had been known and used beforehand… it is difficult to 

imagine that an editor could have succeeded with such a promiscuous recasting. 24 

It would seem that the redaction theories of Schmithals and Jewett regarding 1 Corinthians 

– that is, those redaction theories most attentive to historical issues – leave significant 

questions of historical plausibility. 

A plausible historical reconstruction would appear to involve the following three 

elements: firstly, some sort of Pauline letter collection available in Rome by the mid-90s, 

including a canonically-recognisable 1 Corinthians; secondly, the possibility of other 

collections or editions of the individual letters (i.e. there was not one aggressively 

exclusive textual archetype); and thirdly, a degree of consistency between Clement’s 

adoption of the rhetorical force of what “the blessed Paul the Apostle… first” wrote, and 

its original reception by the Corinthian church (i.e. Clement’s citation was not 

transparently hollow). 

If, then, it can be demonstrated that the apparent literary incongruities in 1 Corinthians 

can be explained as actually having some sort of literary coherence, it would seem 

plausible to receive 1 Corinthians as an originally unified letter. 

Conceptions of the Unity of 1 Corinthians 

The inattentiveness of redaction theories to Paul’s pattern of argumentation seems to be an 

important factor in the preference for conceptions of the letter’s literary coherence in 

much recent scholarship. There is, however, a variety of conceptions of the letter’s unity. 

24 Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Eugene, Oreg.: 

Wipf & Stock, 2002; repr., GBS. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1985), 39. 

75

Greco-Roman Letter Forms 

Linda Belleville argues that the flow of issues in 1 Corinthians is understandable in the 

light of Greco-Roman letter forms: 

That 1 Corinthians is a type of request letter is… supported by the fact that its 

overall structure and form correspond to the structure and form of the Hellenistic 

private letter of request: (1) letter opening: A to B χαίρειν, (2) background to the 

request (in 1 Cor. introduced by the formula ‘For it was shown to me concerning 

you, my brethren, that’, 1:11), (3) request period, introduced by a request formula 

(in 1 Cor. a παρακαλῶ formula), and (4) letter closing: greetings and farewell. 25 

As illustrated in this summary by Belleville, Epistolary Analysis has been most helpful in 

the examination of the beginnings and endings of Pauline letters, which bear some 

similarity to epistolary conventions of the time. 26 

John D. Harvey summarises the development of this sort of analysis: 

In 1912 Paul Wendland identified the basic components of the openings and 

closings of Paul’s letters. The openings generally followed the form: salutation 

and thanksgiving; the basic components of the closings were: doxology, greeting, 

and benediction. Eleven years later Francis X. J. Exler’s dissertation clarified the 

basic parts of the Hellenistic letter (opening, body, closing) and the conventional 

phrases present in each part. 27 

25 Linda L. Belleville, “Continuity or Discontinuity: A Fresh Look at 1 Corinthians in the 

Light of First-Century Epistolary Forms and Conventions,” EQ 59/1 (1987): 15-37; 22. 

26 For example, the opening thanksgiving/prayer can be seen in the papyrus letter from 

Serenos to Isadora: Oxyrhynchus papyrus 528 (Second century CE): “Serenos, to Isadora, 

sister and lady: Heartiest greetings. Before everything else, I pray for your health; and 

each day and evening I bow down for you before Theoris who loves you”. Such elements 

are, of course, shaped to the writer’s own purposes. Perhaps the most well-known Pauline 

modification is the Christianised version (χάρις) of the conventional epistolary “greetings” 

(χαίρειν). 

27 John D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, 

Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 16. 

76

Comparison of Pauline letters with Hellenistic epistolary handbooks and actual letters has 

also been conducted with the aims of considering “letter type” and considering the flow of 

the “letter body”. This has been a less certain exercise, because there is greater variety in 

these areas, and the handbooks themselves do not provide concise rules for letter-writing, 

so much as examples of epistolary possibilities in various situations. Likewise, the 

“model letters” provided by ancient epistolary theorists allow great flexibility: 

The model letters emphasize not the details of the narrative portion of the letter 

(which are situation specific and known, one presumes, to the writer), but instead 

provide conventionally acceptable phrases for the social interaction of which the 

letter is part. 28 

Thus an attempt to understand the argumentation of the main body of Pauline letters is 

only partially enlightened by comparison with the formal structures of other Hellenistic 

letters: 

Paul paid attention to formal conventions and topics associated with letters and, 

like other more “literary” letter writers, did not hesitate to modify those 

conventions to serve the purpose of his argument. However, it is clear, and a 

source of continuing frustration for scholars, that his letters are not like others, 

whether from the tradition of literary letters, official correspondence, or the 

private letter. They cannot be neatly categorized. 29 

Given this uniqueness, attempts have been made to consider epistolary conventions 

displayed within the Pauline corpus. Harvey comments on the influence of White in this 

regard: 

28 Carol Poster, “A Conversation Halved: Epistolary Theory in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,” 

in Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present: Historical and 

Bibliographic Studies (ed. Carol Poster and Linda Mitchell; Columbia, S.C.: University of 

South Carolina Press, 2007), 21-51; 32. 

29 James D. Hester, “Rhetoric and the Composition of the Letters of Paul,” n.p. [cited 4th 

May 2007]. Online: http://rhetjournal.net/HesterComp.html 

77

White argued that the Greek letter-body was composed of three sections: the 

body-opening, the body-middle, and the body-closing. The same basic structure 

can be found in Paul’s letters: the body-opening is introduced by one of several 

formulae; the body-middle is divided into two parts: a theological argument and a 

practical section; the body-closing begins with a motivation-for-writing formula 

and ends with the apostolic parousia. White’s examination of the letter-body has 

been foundational for subsequent work on the form of Paul’s letters. 30 

Harvey offers an account of the argumentation of 1 Corinthians based on the insights of 

Epistolary Analysis, as do both Belleville and Hermann Probst. 31 These accounts are 

worthy of consideration, while keeping in mind the limitations of the relative uniqueness 

of Pauline letter-bodies, and the formal flexibility allowed for letter-bodies by epistolary 

convention in general. Hans-Josef Klauck’s brief account of the ordering of 1 Corinthians 

in the light of ancient epistolary conventions is appropriately mindful of these limitations, 

but is correspondingly general. 32 

Rhetorical Criticism 

More recently, Rhetorical Criticism has (re-)arisen as a tool for analysing Pauline letters. 

Broadly, this development aims to do justice to Pauline texts as argumentation. 

Specifically, Rhetorical Criticism usually seeks to understand Pauline argumentation in 

the light of patterns of speech rhetoric seen in handbooks and textual examples of the 

Aristotelian tradition. The broader aim is admirable: 

30 Harvey, Listening to the Text, 20. 

31 Hermann Probst, Paulus und der Brief: Die Rhetorik des antiken Briefes als Form der 

paulinischen Korintherkorrespondenz (1 Kor 8-10) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). 

32 Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and 

Exegesis (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006). 

78

[B]ecause Paul’s letters, unlike most letters, consist largely of argumentation, 

ancient rhetoric provides one of the most useful tools for analysis, because it 

structured formal patterns for argumentation. 33 

Analyses of Pauline letters and letter-sections in the light of Rhetorical Criticism are now 

abundant. 34 The most influential application to 1 Corinthians is by Mitchell, who argues 

that the letter ought to be seen as a “merging” of the letter genre with the conventions of 

Aristotelian speech rhetoric. 1 Corinthians, she argues, is an example of “deliberative 

rhetoric”, and can thus be interpreted in the light of the flexible structural conventions and 

general intentions of this genre: 

It is of particular importance to this study of a text which is quite clearly a letter, 

1 Corinthians, that deliberative rhetoric was commonly employed within 

epistolary frameworks in antiquity. Because deliberative rhetoric is compatible 

with the letter genre, Paul’s use of it in 1 Corinthians is not anomalous in ancient 

literature, and is fully appropriate to both the epistolary and rhetorical elements 

which combine in this way. 35 

However, a number of scholars are unconvinced that ancient rhetorical conventions for 

speeches provide a great deal of enlightenment in approaching the flow of ancient 

letters. 36 Philip Kern 37 and R. Dean Anderson 38 argue vigorously against this sort of 

application. Stanley Porter critiques Mitchell’s project in particular, questioning her 

methodology in attempting to demonstrate the “deliberative letter type”, and drawing 

33 

Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

2005), 3-4. 

34 

The influence of Rhetorical Criticism on commentators is surveyed in Thomas H. 

Olbricht, “Rhetorical Criticism in Biblical Commentaries,” CBR 7/1 (2008): 11-36. 

35 

Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 20. 

36 

The debate is surveyed by Martin, who reports an impasse: “In the minds of proponents, 

analysis of Paul’s letters according to rhetorical arrangement is useful and a proper 

extension of rhetorical criticism, but in the minds of opponents, it is not useful and an 

overextension”. Martin, “Invention and Arrangement,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. Sampley 

and Lampe), 59. 

37 

Philip H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle 

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 

38 

R. Dean Anderson Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, (rev. ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 

1999). 

79

attention to doubts about the application of oratorical descriptive categories to genuine 

letters. As Porter points out, this debate raises questions about Mitchell’s conclusions 

regarding the letter’s unity. 39 

It would seem that, although it is unquestionably useful to analyse Pauline letters in terms 

of the movement of their lengthy argumentation, there is no certainty that ancient letter- 

writers (or, more particularly, Paul) made reliable or predictable use of conventions of 

speech rhetoric in considering macro-structure. Jeffrey T. Reed explains this well: 

The three standard epistolary components (opening, body, closing) share some 

similarity with the four principal patterns of rhetorical arrangement (exordium, 

narratio, confirmatio, conclusio). But the similarity is functional, not formal. 40 

An example will illustrate the ambiguity that this functional similarity brings to rhetorical 

investigations of letters. The following standard first-century letter of recommendation 

may be seen to possess a number of the flexible elements that Mitchell finds important in 

her identification of 1 Corinthians as “deliberative rhetoric”; 41 but the resemblance here 

clearly expresses the pragmatic similarity that occurs across a breadth of Greco-Roman 

communication, rather than a merging of rhetorical and epistolary approaches: 

39 Stanley E. Porter, “Understanding Pauline Studies. An Assessment of Recent Research: 

Part One,” Them 22/1 (1996): 14-25; 19-20. 

40 Jeffrey T. Reed, “Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Interpret Paul’s Letters: A 

Question of Genre,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg 

Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic 

Press, 1993), 292-324; 307-8. Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die 

Korinther (HTA; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2006), 46. Peter Lampe is optimistic about the 

combination of oratorical and literary approaches more generally: “Only both approaches, 

the epistolographical analysis, which considers the written status, and the rhetorical, which 

reflects oral speeches, do justice to the text – but only if both work together in 

scholarship”. Lampe goes on to indicate that creative compromise may need to occur 

between the two perspectives. Lampe, “Rhetorical Analysis,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. 

Sampley and Lampe), 16. 

41 “If we go right to the heart of deliberative rhetoric, identify its constitutive features, and 

demonstrate that 1 Corinthians has all those features, then we have some basis to proceed, 

albeit still cautiously, with an investigation of 1 Corinthians as deliberative rhetoric”. 

Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 13. Mitchell identifies such “constitutive features” as a 

focus on the future; the use of a set of appeals (usually to advantage); proof by example; 

and the consideration of appropriate topoi, such as the need for concord. 

80

Oxyrhynchus papyrus 292 (25 CE) 

Epistolary introduction Theon, to the honourable Tyrannus: Many 

greetings! 

Statement of facts [narratio] Herakleides, the one bringing this letter to you, 

is my brother. 

Thesis statement utilising 

language of exhortation 

(παρακαλῶ); future 

orientation; topos related to 

association [exordium] 

Conclusion: appeal to 

advantage (in terms of 

social honour) [conclusio] 

Therefore I urge you with all of my power to 

bring him into your company. I have also asked 

Hermias the brother, via letter, to tell you about 

him. 

You will be doing me the greatest act of 

kindness if you will take note of him. 

Epistolary closing Above all, I pray that you might have health, be 

free from harm, and do well. Goodbye. 

Edgar Krentz describes his own change of position, which seems to be illustrative of a 

development in much study of Pauline rhetoric over the last two decades, from narrow 

expectations regarding certain conventions of speech rhetoric as a background for 

understanding Pauline letter structure, to a broader acknowledgment of Paul’s creative 

freedom, allowing him to draw on a variety of rhetorical tools and influences: 

I began this paper intending to urge the use of rhetorical analysis in terms of 

ancient rhetoric. To my own surprise, I ended by taking an ambiguous stance, 

recognizing the great value of Aristotle’s discussion of proofs for analysis of 

Paul’s letters, wishing that I had had more time to work through the topoi he 

listed and to evaluate the use of ornamentation and figures of thought, but quite 

disenchanted with the value of analysing the structure of 1 Thessalonians 

rhetorically. I did not find any advance over nonrhetorical analysis, and as much 

disparity in the rhetorical disposition as in the older formal and literary analysis. 42 

The narrative is far more flexible than the handbooks lead one to expect. One 

should guard against making rhetorical theory a Procrustean bed to which, willy- 

42 Edgar Krentz, “1 Thessalonians: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints,” in The 

Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? (ed. Karl P. 

Donfried and Johannes Beutler; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 287, note 1; 

emphasis mine. 

81

nilly, texts must conform. Rhetorical criticism is most fruitful when it does not 

overpress its claims. That applies especially to the use of the divisions of an 

oration, when applied to a nonoratorical genre. 43 

Duane F. Watson urges that such flexibility must be acknowledged by New Testament 

interpreters, who all too often confidently align whole letters to one or other of the three 

assumed rhetorical species (epideictic/deliberative/forensic), and draw structural or 

exegetical implications on the basis of such classification: 

New Testament scholars often treat rhetorical species as firm genres. They look 

to see how the characteristics of Paul’s epistles “fit” the features of the three 

rhetorical species. However, scholars can free themselves from rigid genre 

analysis by examining Paul’s rhetorical strategies on their own merits…. 

Scholars can discover both where Paul conforms to the abstraction of rhetorical 

species and where he is creatively different. 44 

Thus Mitchell’s approach, which seeks to identify the “deliberative genre” as the (flexible 

but comprehensively determinative) governor of the arrangement of 1 Corinthians, 

appears somewhat out of step with developments in rhetorical analysis. 45 Olbricht’s 

comment is illustrative of this disparity: 

43 Krentz, “1 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonians Debate (ed. Donfried and Beutler), 

316. Olbricht makes a similar point, and suggests “church rhetoric” as an alternative 

conception: “The focus of ‘church’ rhetoric is on the present, but as informed by the past 

mighty acts of God (Rom 9:1-5); for Paul, more specifically on the salvific actions in 

Christ (Rom 5:6-11)”. Clearly, this bears similarity to my conception of kerygmatic 

rhetoric. Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Foundations of the Ethos in Paul and in the Classical 

Rhetoricians,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse (ed. 

Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 138-159; 144. 

44 Watson, “Three Species,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. Sampley and Lampe), 43. Mitchell 

(Paul and the Rhetoric, chapter 2), Witherington (cited below) and Collins (Raymond F. 

Collins, First Corinthians (SacP 7; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), 18-19) 

effectively limit Paul’s rhetorical options to one (or mostly one) of these three species, 

even though they allow for variation and idiosyncrasy in the expression of the species 

themselves. J. Paul Sampley views 1 Corinthians as evidencing a mixture of the three 

species: J. Paul Sampley, Robert W. Wall, and N.T. Wright, The New Interpreter’s Bible: 

Acts – 1 Corinthians (vol. 10; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2002). 

45 I do not see my own task as comprehensively demonstrating limitations with the theory 

of Mitchell’s approach; for this focus see especially the investigations of Anderson and 

82

Such identification [of a biblical book with one of the three supposed classical 

species] is often inconclusive and controverted, and in the end not especially 

efficacious in providing new insights. 46 

These hesitancies about the ability to discern confidently a governing conventional 

species, corresponding structure, and resulting unity for Pauline letters call into question 

not only Mitchell’s conception of the literary integrity of 1 Corinthians (as a “deliberative 

letter” consistently advising concord 47 ), but also Yeo’s argument against the literary 

integrity of 1 Corinthians. Yeo formulates his fundamental objection to the unity of 1 

Corinthians in relation to the problems of Mitchell’s project: 

While I agree with Mitchell’s main thesis that Paul’s intention in using the 

deliberative genre is to persuade the Corinthian church to be in concord as a body 

of Christ, I find that not all of 1 Corinthians relates to the thesis statement of 1 

Cor 1:10 as she contends. For example, chapter 15 (on resurrection) and 6:12-20 

(on fornication) have little if anything to do with dissension in the Corinthian 

church. There are discrepancies in the single thematic understanding of Paul’s 

argumentation in 1 Corinthians taken as a whole composition, and that suggests 

possible fusion of two or more letters. It is possible that Paul’s rhetorical intent 

(for concord of the Corinthian church) is the same as for the three or four 

separate letters he wrote to the Corinthians. 48 

Kern, noted above. My task, rather, is the positive presentation of a credible alternative 

rhetorical reading, with greater explanatory power. 

46 Olbricht, “Rhetorical Criticism,” 16. 

47 Mitchell’s limitation to the three alleged options of classical rhetoric is clear: “But the 

overwhelming future emphasis in the letter, because it is, appropriately, a letter which 

gives advice about behavioural changes in community life, indicates that of the three 

rhetorical species, only the deliberative fits 1 Corinthians”. Mitchell, Paul and the 

Rhetoric, 25; emphasis mine. 

48 Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 76. Welborn, similarly, appears to frame his rejection of 

the literary coherence of the letter in relation to Mitchell’s project: see the quotation at the 

beginning of this chapter. 

83

Yeo’s objection certainly draws attention to failings within Mitchell’s project. As Yeo 

points out, Mitchell’s explanation of chapter 15 – and verse 58 as the culminatory finale – 

seems unacceptibly forced, requiring one to read between the lines in order to discern 

what is allegedly a climactic conclusion to a consistent argument for congregational 

concord. 49 This calls into question Mitchell’s suggestion and interpretation of 1:10 as the 

governing thesis statement of a “deliberative” structure, but does not adequately dispense 

with the literary unity of 1 Corinthians itself. 

Witherington rightly sees that an analysis of the rhetoric of the Pharisee Paul (who, it 

should be noted, co-sent 1 Corinthians with Sosthenes – the synagogue leader?) must be 

open to broader possibilities: 

[T]he primary and first task is to ask the appropriate historical questions about 

the NT text and what its ancient authors had in mind. When that is the prime 

mandate then only analysis on the basis of Greco-Roman or ancient Jewish 

rhetoric is appropriate. 50 

49 Mitchell writes, “[T]he whole argument in 15:1-57 serves to culminate Paul’s appeal 

throughout 1 Corinthians, so 15:58 need only draw the connections implicit in that 

extensive argument”. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 291. Mitchell’s argument is that in 

chapter 15 Paul brings to culmination an extended appeal that the Corinthians see 

congregational unity as being advantageous, and thus worthy of their dedicated pursuit. 

Verse 58 is then interpreted along these lines: “Always give yourselves fully to the work 

of the Lord [that is, to the pursuit of unity], because you know that your labour in the Lord 

is not in vain [that is, it is to your advantage]”. In Mitchell’s own words, “The conclusion 

is short and to the point, and amounts to a restatement of the central argument of the letter: 

seek the upbuilding of the church in concord, even when it entails sacrificing what appears 

to be to your present advantage, because this is the appropriate Christian behaviour of love 

(τὸ ἔργον τοῦ κυρίου) which will lead to eschatological advantage (οὐκ ἔστιν κενὸς ἐν 

κυρίῳ)” (290). That chapter 15 forms the climactic proof of an argument against 

factionalism, however, is not at all apparent in the text. Gordon Fee rightly notes that 

“nothing in Paul’s response suggests that the Corinthians are divided among themselves 

on this matter. As before, the issue seems to be between some of them – who have 

influenced the whole – and the apostle Paul”. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the 

Corinthians (NICNT; 2 nd rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987), 713-14. This 

is in broad agreement with John Chrysostom’s view: “For although they were arguing 

with one another in other matters, in this matter they all conspired, as with one mouth, 

insisting that there is no resurrection”. Homily 39 on 1 Corinthians; PG 61.339. For my 

reading of 15:58, see chapter 5, footnote 68. 

50 Ben Witherington III, New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of 

Persuasion in and of the New Testament (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2009), 6-7; 

emphasis mine. 

84

Witherington notes that Paul would have had a “thorough grounding in Jewish traditions”, 

and that “Paul would have been thoroughly grounded in the Scriptures”. 51 He reasons: 

Paul would surely have learned certain methods of debating or persuading, of 

arguing, for example, from current experience to scriptural proof in midrashic 

fashion (see 1 Cor 9:7-14), or of using a form of what could be called pesher or 

even allegory to make a point (Gal 4:21-31). 52 

And yet, disappointingly, Witherington’s ensuing discussion of “Paul the Rhetor” limits 

Paul’s rhetorical resources to the familiar three species of Greco-Roman speech rhetoric: 

[T]here were three primary kinds of rhetoric, each tooled to suit a particular 

setting: (1) judicial or forensic rhetoric for use in the law courts; (2) deliberative 

rhetoric, meant to be used in the assembly; and (3) epideictic rhetoric, meant to 

be used in funeral oratory or public speeches lauding some event or person, or in 

oratory contests in the market place or the arena. 53 

Rhetoric then reveals to us a Paul committed to and drawing on a great Greco- 

Roman heritage. 54 

It should not be denied that Paul was aware of, and frequently drew on, Greco-Roman 

rhetorical devices; 55 but to deny the possible influence of Paul’s Hebrew heritage – or, 

51 Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric, 100. 


53 Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric, 121; emphases original. 


55 C. Jan Swearingen, for example, argues: “The Greek audience at Corinth… [is] 

addressed in terms, in genres, and through shifts in ethos that assume some familiarity 

with a rhetorical vocabulary, concepts, and argumentative genres. Pairs such as sophialogos, 

pneuma-gramma, and nomos-agape were well-established rhetorical terms linked in 

a variety of paired topoi and contrastive argumentation. However, I would emphasize that 

this is no simple case of Paul’s use of contemporary rhetorical practices. In his uses of 

terms, antitheses, and multiple voices Paul gives Greek rhetorical and Hellenistic Jewish 

terms new meanings, and crafts argumentative genres with unprecedented rhetorical 

purposes”. C. Jan Swearingen, “The Tongues of Men: Understanding Greek Rhetorical 

Sources for Paul’s Letters to the Romans and 1 Corinthians,” in Rhetorical Argumentation 

85

more significantly still, his apostolic kerygma – on the macro-structure of his letters seems 

unnecessarily limiting and exegetically unsatisfying. Christopher Forbes argues that such 

an approach (aligning a Pauline letter with one of the “three kinds of rhetoric”) is an 

anachronistic over-simplification. He concludes: 

In brief, then, I have doubts about the historical usefulness of much current 

macro-level rhetorical analysis. 56 

Pastoral Rhetoric; Pragmatic Coherence 

Hurd interacts to some degree with Epistolary Analysis, but hints that formal conventions 

are subject to a more fundamental determiner of structure in 1 Corinthians, namely Paul’s 

pastoral strategy. Hurd’s opening question below relates to a table in which Hurd 

suggests, respectively, oral and written sources of Paul’s information, to which 1 

Corinthians is an ordered response: 

Is there a simple explanation for the two blocks of text that float in the columns 

opposite to their neighbours? My suggestion is that in two instances a topic in 

the oral information related to a topic in the written. In order to simplify his 

presentation Paul brought the relevant sections together. 57 

Thus Paul’s particular didactic/pastoral intention allows him to break with a formal 

structure that might otherwise be expected. 

in Biblical Texts (ed. Anders Eriksson et al.; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002), 232- 

242; 232. 

56 Christopher Forbes, “Ancient Rhetoric and Ancient Letters: Models for Reading Paul, 

and Their Limits,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe; New 

York: T&T Clark, 2010), 143-160; 148. Forbes goes on to point out that, unlike normal 

letters, Paul’s letters were “congregational letters” to be read to communities. Thus they 

certainly make use of rhetorical features at a micro-level. 

57 Hurd, “Good News,” in Gospel in Paul (ed. Jervis and Richardson), 59. 

86

Hurd sees Paul as being literarily creative in inventing or employing textual patterns that 

serve his pastoral purposes, despite perhaps appearing at first to involve literary 

incongruities such as unnecessary repetition: 

It seems to be characteristic of Paul that he will present an argument, then bring 

in a new theme, and finally re-argue the original topic in a new way. I call it 

Paul’s “sonata” form. When one begins to look for this pattern, numerous 

examples appear. 58 

Similarly, D.W.B. Robinson accounts for initially discordant elements in Paul’s 

argumentation by appeal to a particular style of pastorally sensitive rhetoric in which he 

gives apparent ground to his opponents before revealing a paradigm-challenging 

perspective. He cites Henry Chadwick, who makes a similar point: 

[T]he chapter [1 Corinthians 7] is wholly intelligible as a rearguard action in 

which the apostle manages to combine an ability to retreat so far as to seem to 

surrender almost everything in principle to the opposition with an ability to make 

practical recommendations not easily reconciled with the theory he virtually 

accepts. 59 

John Calvin deals with the apparently incongruous placement of chapter 15 by appealing 

to this sort of creative “pastoral” rhetoric: 

It is asked, however, why it is that he has left off or deferred to the close of the 

Epistle, what should properly have had the precedence of everything else? Some 

reply, that this was done for the purpose of impressing it more deeply upon the 

memory. I am rather of the opinion that Paul did not wish to introduce a subject 

of such importance, until he had asserted his authority, which had been 

58 Hurd, “Good News,” in Gospel in Paul (ed. Jervis and Richardson), 61. 

59 Cited in D.W.B. Robinson, “Charismata versus Pneumatika: Paul’s Method of 

Discussion,” RTR 21/2 (1972): 49-55; 49. 

87

considerably lessened among the Corinthians, and until he had, by repressing 

their pride, prepared them for listening to him with docility. 60 

It is this creative and potentially unpredictable “pastoral” dimension of Paul’s rhetoric that 

may be preserved in Merklein’s conception of coherence. Merklein argues that a tension 

in terms of a certain dimension of coherence need not prematurely necessitate the 

conclusion of incoherence: 

Bei der Kohärenzanalyse – und dies gilt insbesondere für die Kohärenzanalyse 

brieflicher Texte – bleibt zu berücksichtigen, daß ein Text mehrere Dimensionen 

besitzt, die hier mit Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik wiedergegeben seien. 

Kohärenzbrüche auf der Ebene nur einer Dimension konstituieren nicht 

unbedingt ein inkohärentes Textgebilde. 61 

Thus Merklein believes that the apparent incongruities in 1 Corinthians are not reason 

enough to dissolve the essential connections and overall coherence of the letter: 

Wie bereits gesagt, ist die Dekomposition an keiner Stelle zwingend. Zum 

anderen läßt sich eine ganze Reihe struktureller Verknüpfungen feststellen, die 

positiv auf eine einheitliche Briefsituation schließen laßen. 62 

A Unified Situation Behind 1 Corinthians 

Such “unpredictable” pastoral rhetoric is sometimes conceived as responding to a set of 

problems in Corinth that itself exhibits a unifying coherence. Once this (entextualised) 

situational coherence is recognised, apparent inconsistencies in literary flow (either of the 

whole epistle or of a section) may become less troublesome. Such (broad) situational 

60 John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (trans. 

John Pringle; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979) Vol.1:7-8. 

61 Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit,” 158. 

62 Helmut Merklein, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Kapitel 1–4 (ÖTKNT 7; Gütersloh: 

Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992), 48. 

88

coherence has been characterised variously in terms of primarily problematic behaviour 

(disunity according to Mitchell; 63 secular-inspired conflict and compromise according to 

Bruce Winter; 64 elitism according to Gerd Theissen; 65 social distinctions according to 

David G. Horrell; 66 rhetorical competitiveness according to Duane Litfin; 67 lack of 

Godward holiness according to Ciampa and Rosner 68 ), or primarily problematic beliefs 

(Gnostic or mystery religiosity according to Helmut Koester; 69 over-realised eschatology 

according to Thiselton; 70 competing conceptions of wisdom according to James A. Davis 71 

and David R. Hall 72 ). 

63 “1 Corinthians is a unified deliberative letter which throughout urges unity on the 

divided Corinthian church”. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 296. 

64 See both: Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics 

and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001); and Bruce W. Winter, “The 

‘Underlays’ of Conflict and Compromise in 1 Corinthians,” in Paul and the Corinthians: 

Studies on a Community in Conflict (ed. Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliot; Leiden: Brill, 

2003), 139-155. 

65 “[T]he Corinthian congregation is marked by internal stratification. The majority of the 

members, who come from the lower classes, stand in contrast to a few influential members 

who come from the upper classes”. Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline 

Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982), 69. 

66 “I… seek to outline a number of situations revealed in 1 Corinthians in which there is 

some evidence that social distinctions or social factors play a part in creating the problems 

which Paul addresses. This is not to deny that sociological factors may have played some 

role in other aspects of the church’s life which Paul addresses, nor that theological factors 

are also bound up in the situations of social tension and conflict”. David G. Horrell, The 

Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 

Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 101. 

67 See Duane Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco- 

Roman Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 

68 “The main problem for the Corinthian Christians is actually signalled in the opening 

verses of Paul’s letter. He writes in 1 Corinthians 1:2 to ‘the church of God in Corinth, to 

those sanctified, called to be holy’”. Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 6. 

69 “The entire polemic of 1 Corinthians must be seen as an argument against 

understanding the new message about Jesus as a mystery religion, and as a plea for 

understanding the ‘new existence’ as entrance into the community of the new age”. 

Helmut Koester, “The Silence of the Apostle,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: 

Interdisciplinary Approaches (HTS 53; ed. Daniel N. Schowalter, and Steven J. Friesen; 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 339-350; 346. 

70 For this influential emphasis see especially Thiselton’s earlier work, Anthony C. 

Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1978): 510-526. 

71 “The central issue of the letter would be the one highlighted within this opening section, 

namely, the issue of deciding upon the locus, content, source and purpose of the wisdom 

which would guide the community and the individuals within it into proper sorts of 

Christian behaviour. What sort of wisdom was to govern their morality, their response to 

food that had been dedicated to idols, the conduct of their worship, and the shape of their 

hope for the resurrection?” James A. Davis, Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 

Corinthians 1:18-3:20 Against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the 

Greco-Roman Period (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984), 145. 

72 “Paul regards the ‘wisdom’ criticized in chs. 1-4 as a common feature of all the parties, 

and when discussing the behavioural problems resulting from that ‘wisdom’ in chs. 5-16, 

addresses his remarks to the church as a whole”. David R. Hall, The Unity of the 

Corinthian Correspondence (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 30. 

89

Of course, these varying characterisations of a unified set of problems in Corinth need not 

be seen as utterly incompatible with one another. Indeed it may be observed that there is a 

degree of agreement that the problems in Corinth involved community conflict in 

combination with deficient, exclusivistic religiosity. Such characterisations of 

entextualised situational coherence may indeed prove fruitful in alleviating literary 

incongruities, and so ought to be attended to in the consideration of exegetical tensions 

within 1 Corinthians. 

Theological Unity 

Certain scholars maintain that, in connection with his conception of the problems in 

Corinth, Paul exhibits a unifying theological thesis that directs his creative pastoral 

strategy, and which helps explain apparent literary incongruities. Such scholars do not 

generally deny that social and religious factors fruitfully illuminate the Corinthian 

situation to which Paul responds, but they see in Paul’s response a unified theological 

theme. Thus both the framing of the Corinthian problems and the organisation of Paul’s 

response are to be understood as evidencing a theologically driven rhetoric. This is not to 

say that those in Corinth consciously held theological views divergent from the apostle; 

rather, the apostle perceives that the Corinthians’ religious and social manifestations 

betray a deep theological problem, and so he responds with a letter that is organised in 

such a way as to present a primarily theological correction. 

Although Karl Barth assumes some sort of Gnostic influence, he characterises the core 

problem as “unrestrained human vitality”, a theological issue that expresses itself in 

different ways throughout the letter until it is climactically answered in chapter 15. 73 

Humans should place their confidence in the God who raises the dead – and this should be 

73 A. Katherine Grieb comments: “Barth’s ‘theological exegesis’ enabled him to hear the 

theologian Paul and protected him against the historicizing tendencies of the NT scholars 

of his day”. A. Katherine Grieb, “Last Things First: Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis of 

1 Corinthians in The Resurrection of the Dead,” SJT 56/1 (2003): 49-64; 49. 

90

attested in their religious beliefs and behaviours. 74 Thiselton captures the theological 

coherence of (Luther and) Barth’s reading: 

If resurrection entails an act of new creation which lies entirely beyond the 

capacities of the human self to achieve, there emerges a clear and a close parallel 

between the grace of God which bestows new life out of nothing, and the grace 

of God which bestows a new relationship or “putting to rights in righteousness” 

which transcends all human capacity or competency to achieve. 75 

That is, the flow of 1 Corinthians is directed by Paul’s concern to pit the grace of God in 

Christ against the theologically problematic human confidence that is evidenced in the 

Corinthians’ communal life. 

Ackerman argues that Paul’s theological conception of Corinthian problems is best 

thought of as “spiritual immaturity”, and that Paul’s centrally theological response can be 

fruitfully summed up as “Christ-ideology”: 

This Christ-ideology stands behind Paul’s rhetoric in 1 Corinthians. Paul builds 

his arguments upon the revelation of the cross and the victory over death in 

Christ’s resurrection (chs 1-2, 15). His Christ-ideology also serves as his primary 

conceptual tool to motivate the Corinthians to live according to his example. In 

other words, the past and future provide the means and motivation for fellowship 

with Christ in the present. Paul criticizes the Corinthians because they had not 

74 Karl Barth, The Resurrection of the Dead (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2003); repr. of 

The Resurrection of the Dead (trans. H. J. Stenning; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 

1933); trans. of Auferstehung der Toten (Munich: Kaiser, 1924). 

75 Anthony C. Thiselton, “God will be All in All: Luther and Barth on 1 Corinthians 15: 

Six Theses for Theology in Relation to Recent Interpretation,” in Thiselton on 

Hermeneutics: Collected Works with New Essays (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006) 

767-792; 772; repr. p 258-289 in The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Essays in 

honour of James Atkinson. (JSNT Supplement series 105; ed. W. P. Stephens; Sheffield: 

Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 

91

applied his Christ-ideology in their context and had not allowed it to transform 

their behaviour and form their community in holiness and love. 76 

It is certainly worthy of note that canonical 1 Corinthians begins with an extended 

reflection on the significance of the cross, and ends with an extended reflection on the 

significance of resurrection. As I have pointed out in the previous chapter, these events 

are both described as constitutive of Paul’s “gospel”, initially received by the Corinthians 

with “faith”, but since endangered by possible retreat into “vanity”. As I have suggested, 

these striking echoes give cause to take seriously attempts to detect a fundamental 

theological unity in the letter. 77 

Theological Unity Expressed in Patterns from a Theological Heritage 

A few Pauline scholars have explored the possibility that Paul employs patterns of 

rhetorical formulation from his theological heritage (particularly the Old Testament and 

early Judaism) in order to give shape to a unified theological force in his letter. Olbricht, 

in particular, has often urged the exploration of “church” or “biblical” rhetoric as a 

category in its own right. He argues that, just as the rhetorical settings of the law court, 

the assembly, and situations of praise and blame allowed for the distinction of the three 

supposed genres of Greco-Roman oratory, the distinct setting of early churches, informed 

by formative scriptures, narratives, and convictions, should allow for the distinction of a 

separate genre of rhetoric, with characteristic content and construction. 78 

Ciampa and Rosner posit a resonance in 1 Corinthians with the ethical concerns of Second 

Temple Judaism (in particular, responding to the “Gentile” problems of sexual immorality 

76 David A. Ackerman, Lo, I Tell You a Mystery: Cross, Resurrection, and Paraenesis in 

the Rhetoric of 1 Corinthians (Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2006), 24. 

However, although Ackerman perceives this theological unity as influencing the structure 

of the letter, he also follows Mitchell in labelling the letter as (Aristotelian) “deliberative” 

rhetoric (see page 5). 

77 Grayston comments: “Thus, whether by design or accident, the epistle is constructed as 

a development and qualification of the early formula ‘Christ died and rose again’”. 

Kenneth Grayston, Dying, We Live: A New Inquiry into the Death of Christ in the New 

Testament (London: Longman and Todd, 1990), 16. 

78 See, for example, Olbricht, “Rhetorical Criticism,” 17-18. 

92

and idolatry), 79 resulting in a theologically driven appeal for holiness in response to 

Corinthian worldliness: 

I. Letter Opening (1:1-9) 

II. True and False Wisdom and Corinthian Factionalism (1:10-4:17) 

III. ‘Flee Sexual Immorality’ [and Greed] and ‘Glorify God with your 

Bodies’ (4:18-7:40) 

IV. ‘Flee Idolatry’ and ‘Glorify God’ in Your Worship (8:1-14:40) 

V. The Resurrection and Consummation (15:1-58) 

VI. Letter Closing (16:1-24) 80 

A similar pattern of argumentation is said to exist in other Pauline letters, although the 

parallels mentioned are conceptually limited and involve a flow of a few verses within 

various epistles, rather than equivalent examples of extended argumentation. 

Nevertheless, attentiveness to possible parallel patterns of argumentation across Paul and 

in his conscious theological heritage suggests itself as a worthy pursuit. 

Michael J. Gorman likewise sees a theological coherence in 1 Corinthians that is 

expressed in rhetorical patterns from Paul’s theological heritage. Gorman views chapters 

1–4 as focusing on the cross; 5–7 as exploring moral consequences; 8–14 as exploring 

liturgical consequences; and chapter 15 as presenting the vindication of the cross in 

resurrection. 81 

Gorman briefly identifies four patterns of reversal in Scripture and Jewish tradition, which 

could have provided Paul with a background for “a narrative pattern of reversal”: 

79 “It is widely recognized that in early Jewish and Christian thinking Gentiles were 

consistently characterized by two particularly abhorrent vices: sexual immorality and 

idolatry”. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “The Structure and Argument of 1 

Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach,” NTS 52 (2006): 205-218; 207. 

80 Abridged from Ciampa and Rosner, “Structure and Argument,” 212-213. 

81 Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul 

and His Letters (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 238. 

93

God’s exaltation of the humble, God’s vindication of the persecuted and of 

righteous sufferers, God’s ultimate resolution of messianic “birth pangs” in the 

new age, and God’s raising of the dead. 82 

It is more precise and helpful to consider this narrative pattern of reversal as two 

closely related patterns, one of death followed by resurrection, the other of 

humiliation followed by exaltation. Both patterns clearly preceded Paul and also 

survived after him, but few early Christians exploited them as fully as did Paul. 83 

This seems to me to be a fruitful direction of exploration, and in a number of ways this 

dissertation represents a continued investigation along this trajectory, detecting Paul’s 

kerygmatic renegotiation of the Jewish motif of (dual) reversal. As Watson notes: 

Paul is an apostle of a new gospel…. As Janet Fairweather has pointed out [in 

relation to Galatians], while Paul does employ many features of classical rhetoric 

in his epistles, his conceptual framework and the bases of his argumentation are 

distinct and innovative. It is a Christ-based logic that diverges from pagan 

sophistic. 84 

C.K. Robertson has warned: 

While strong cases have been made for a theological, or ethno-religious, or socio- 

economic basis underlying a given dispute, an exegetical danger arises when any 

one of these bases is then assumed to underlie all the issues addressed in the 

letter, as if congregational conflict in the first-century Corinthian ἐκκλησία was 

more unifaceted than in any other period. 85 

82 Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand 

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 305. 

83 Gorman, Cruciformity, 313. 

84 Watson, “Three Species,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. Sampley and Lampe), 44. 

85 C.K. Robertson, Conflict in Corinth: Redefining the System (New York: Peter Lang 

Publishing, 2001), 81. 

94

Robertson’s caution is worth heeding. However, it ought to be recognised that in 1 

Corinthians we are not presented with the comprehensive facts about congregational 

conflict in Corinth; rather we are presented with Paul’s pastorally-motivated 

entextualisation of the situation in Corinth according to his own rhetorical purposes. So it 

should not be considered unlikely that such a framing should have a certain coherence or 

unified theological flavour. 

Listening to the Text in Expectation of Otherness 

Robertsons’s caution does, however, point toward a valuable reminder. Investigating a 

text should involve the expectation of encounter with that which cannot be immediately 

under our mastery, because it is other: 

The most important thing is the question that the text puts to us, our being 

perplexed by the traditionary word, so that understanding it must already include 

the task of the historical self-mediation between the present and tradition. Thus 

the relation of question and answer is, in fact, reversed. The voice that speaks to 

us from the past – whether text, work, trace – itself poses a question and places 

our meaning in openness. 86 

Schenk’s redactional analysis 87 is perhaps illustrative of an overly swift dismissal of the 

“perplexing”. Schenk’s analysis seems so quick to start deciding which letter-parts belong 

to which original letters that there is no space for the discomfort of canonical 1 

Corinthians’ exegetical tensions to provoke and stretch contemporary expectations of 

appropriate literary flow. This does not mean that all tensions must be unthinkingly 

accepted as simply features of original epistolary “otherness” – but that this possibility 

should at least be seriously entertained and explored. If Paul is to be received in his own 

86 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (trans. by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. 

Marshall; 2nd rev. ed.; London: Continuum, 2004) 366-367; trans. of Wahrheit und 

Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (2nd ed.; Tubingen: J. C. B. 

Mohr, 1960). 

87 Wolfgang Schenk, “Der 1 Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung,” ZNW 60 (1969): 219- 

243. 

95

particularity, and not simply generically as a literarist or theologian, we must respect the 

possibility that in some letters he will be heard by us in ways that are both literarily and 

theologically unexpected or provocative. 88 Thus a desire to make sense of apparent “ill 

accord” should involve openness and careful attentiveness. With this intention I now turn 

to an examination of exegetical tensions in canonical 1 Corinthians. 

2. Exegetical Tensions in Canonical 1 Corinthians 

Significant Explanatory Patterns 

A number of exegetical tensions that have been identified in the letter may be addressed 

with reference to certain significant explanatory patterns. Before looking at the exegetical 

tensions themselves, I draw attention to three such patterns that will influence my 

approach to a number of the interpretative difficulties: Paul’s pastorally-driven rhetoric; 

ethical persuasion; and ABA’ patterning. 

Pastorally Driven Rhetoric 

As outlined in the previous chapter, my thesis is that the letter as a whole may be read 

fruitfully as the creative application of kerygmatic rhetoric to a theologically interpreted 

set of culturally driven problems in Corinth. In chapters 3, 4, and 5 I will attempt to 

demonstrate that this reading is exegetically defensible. For the purpose of this 

examination of exegetical tensions, however, it is worth signalling the way in which such 

a reading understands the movement between 1 Corinthians 1–4 and 1 Corinthians 5–14. 

In short, the divisive problems relating to wisdom and leadership in 1 Corinthians 1–4 are 

taken by Paul to be paradigmatic of the Corinthian orientation of boastful, present- 

obsessed human autonomy, an orientation countered by the message of the cross. In 1 

88 George D. Castor criticises Weiss in an early review: “Has Weiss… allowed sufficiently 

for this private quality of the letter and the necessarily obscure historical situation? Surely 

exegetical difficulties are not to be explained so exclusively by an appeal to corruptions of 

the text”. George D. Castor, “Johannes Weiss’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians,” AJT 15/4 

(1911): 628-630; 629. 

96

Corinthians 5–14 this corrective of the cross is applied to an observable pattern of ethical 

issues. 

Although Hall concedes to de Boer that the cross is prominent in chapters 1–4 but 

“missing” from chapters 5–16, 89 this seems unjustified. As Grayston argues, the cross is 

decisive in chapters 1–4, and can be seen as shaping the exhortation of the subsequent 

chapters: 

In contrast to the ebullience of some competing Corinthian Christians, Paul 

expects the apostolic commission to be marked by deprivation, social rejection, 

and self-sacrifice. In that measure, the apostolic norm was the crucifixion of 

Christ. 90 

[H]e had to develop in them an awareness of the crucifixion as the critical 

principle for assessing their manner of life. 91 

Hoskyns and Davey concur: 

[T]he references to the death of the Christ with which St Paul punctuates the 

Epistle are in no sense casual; in no sense do they lie on the periphery of what he 

is saying. Every aspect of Corinthian piety is described, criticized, and judged in 

the light of Christ’s death, and throughout St Paul not only speaks as the apostle 

of Christ Jesus but (as he himself had said) is determined to know nothing among 

them but Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor. 2.2). 92 

H.H. Drake Williams III argues vigorously for the centrality of the cross in Christian 

ethics in general, and in 1 Corinthians in particular. This is reflected in the letter’s 

89 Hall, Unity, 44. 

90 Grayston, Dying, We Live, 27. 

91 Grayston, Dying, We Live, 50. 

92 E.C. Hoskyns and Noel Davey, Crucifixion-Resurrection: The Pattern of the Theology 

and Ethics of the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1981), 125. 

97

emphasis on the cross as foundation in chapters 1–4 (including its apostolic example in 

Paul), and the echoes of death in the remainder of the letter. 93 Williams hears echoes of 

this fundamental cruciform corrective in the reference to the paschal lamb of chapter 5, the 

disregarding of one’s own rights in chapter 6, the self-sacrifice of chapters 8–11, and the 

“death-proclaiming” Lord’s Supper in chapter 11. 

Thiselton rightly summarises: 

The whole thrust of 5:1–14:40 concerns living out the identity of those who stand 

under the criterion of the cross and its implications of self-renunciation for the 

sake of the “other” and the whole community. 94 

It seems quite reasonable that in chapters 5–14, the summons to imitate Paul’s cruciform 

commitment of 4:14-21 is applied to particular instances of self-assertion in Corinth. This 

passage (4:14-21) may thus be seen as a crucial transition between chapters 1–4 and 

chapters 5–14. 

Ethical Persuasion in Paul 

Again, it is worth signalling a theme that will be explored in much greater detail in a later 

chapter. My conception of chapters 5–14 is that they represent a “normal” flow of issues 

for a Pauline ethical section, albeit elongated. I will argue in chapter 4 that this section 

follows a pattern that is observable in hortatory sections of numerous Pauline letters, with 

a movement from issues raised in relation to sexual immorality, impurity and greed of 

bodies (chapters 5–7), to issues raised in relation to interpersonal relationships and love 

within the body of Christ (chapters 8–14). 

93 H.H. Drake Williams III, “Living as Christ Crucified: The Cross as a Foundation for 

Christian Ethics in 1 Corinthians,” EQ 75/2 (2003): 117-131. See also Schnabel, Der 

erste Brief, 48-49. 

94 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, 

Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 39. 

98

ABA’ Patterning 

It may be noted that a number of disputed sections in 1 Corinthians involve questions 

about their location within another (related but slightly different) discussion. It may be 

that the ethical section of 1 Corinthians (chapters 5–14, as outlined above) consistently 

makes use of mnemonic patterning in an ABA’ format, 95 with the middle segment 

providing a complementary and transitional perspective to the issues on either side: 

5:1-13: Sexual Immorality (the refusal to judge) 

6:1-11: Greedy exploitation (an apparent inability to judge) 

6:12-7:40: Sexual Immorality, the body, marriage 

8:1-13: Meat offered to idols (using rights to endanger weaker brothers and sisters) 

9:1-27: Paul’s example/defence (foregoing rights for others & self) 

10:1-11:1: Meat offered to idols (foregoing rights for self and others) 

11:2-16: I praise you for keeping the traditions I passed on (public worship) 

11:17-22: I do not praise you (in both v17 and v22) 

11:23-34: I passed on to you what I also received (Lord’s Supper) 

12:1-31: Gifts within the body (mutual interdependence) 

12:31-13:13: Love 

14:1-40: Gifts (for ordered edification of the whole) 

John Chrysostom draws attention to Paul’s use of digression, indicating that Paul was well 

versed in this rhetorical technique: 

For this also is customary for him: not only to develop the issue at hand, but also 

to depart from there to correct whatever seems to him to be related, and then to 

return to the earlier topic so that he might not seem to have abandoned his 

theme. 96 

Aristotle had recommended that epideictic oratory ought to include digressions of praise. 

This is illustrative of a broader rhetorical strategy: 

95 I am following the model of Harvey, Listening to the Text, in formulating this as ABA’, 

although it is also sometimes formulated as ABA 1 . 

96 Homily 37 on 1 Corinthians; PG 61.318. 

99

Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 3.17.1 

And in epideictic, it is necessary for the speech to have episodes of praise, just as 

Isocrates does. For he always brings someone in. And this is what Gorgias used 

to say, that he was never left without something to say. For if he is speaking 

about Achillea, he also praises Pelea, then Aiakos, then God. Likewise also he 

praises courage, that it does this or that, or is like such-and-such. 97 

Of course I have argued that Paul is by no means rigidly dependent on Aristotle in terms 

of macro-structure; but it is clear that he makes use of a number of conventional literary 

and rhetorical devices. This particular device recalls Hurd’s “sonata form”, 98 and is also 

identified as a recurring rhetorical tool by Fee, 99 Collins, 100 and Ciampa and Rosner. 101 

Exegetical Tensions, Passage by Passage 

Reports of Division in 1:10-14 and 11:18-19 

Schmithals believes that discrepancy in reports of division in chapter 1 and chapter 11 is a 

certain sign of epistolary partition: 

The decisive observation for the fact that our canonical 1 Corinthians contains 

pieces from various Pauline letters is to be made at I,11:18ff. Paul hears of 

schisms in the community. He believes in the correctness of this rumor [and it is 

necessary that there are divisions among you, in order that those who are 

approved might be revealed]. If one compares this passage with Paul’s 

97 

In context, Aristotle is advising that speeches in praise of a certain person might do well 

to have digressions in praise of another. William Wuellner concludes on the basis of 

Paul’s use of digression that 1 Corinthians should be identified as epideictic rhetoric. 

William Wuellner, “Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation,” in William R. Schoedel 

and Robert L. Wilken (eds.) Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual 

Tradition: In Honorem Robert M. Grant (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979), 177-88. 

98 

Hurd, “Good News,” in Gospel in Paul (ed. Jervis and Richardson), 61. 

99 

Fee, First Epistle, 15-16. 

100 

Collins, First Corinthians, 14-15. 

101 

Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 367. 

100

statements in I,1–4, it is simply inconceivable that both attitudes toward disputes 

could come from the same epistle. 102 

Yeo likewise calls this a “contradiction” that necessitates theories of partition. 103 The 

tension would appear to be twofold. Firstly, it seems odd that ten chapters after 

responding at length to a testimony about significant division, Paul suddenly recounts a 

less clear report of division, as if this issue had not already been on the agenda. Secondly, 

in the former passage Paul is utterly opposed to the reported divisions, while in the latter, 

he appears to be resigned or even positive about them. 

In relation to the first tension, Hurd suggests that whereas the divisions in chapters 1–4 are 

general, the divisions in chapter 11 relate specifically to the issue of the Lord’s Supper. 104 

Schmithals utterly rejects this possibility, although it is not entirely clear on what basis he 

does so. 105 Schrage appears equally certain that the two passages must be seen as 

envisaging different situations. 106 

Thiselton is convincing here: 

There is a fundamental difference between 1:10-12 and the point here [11:18], 

however. In 1:10-12 the splits seem to reflect tensions between different ethos of 

different house groups. The splits are “external” to given groups, although 

internal to the whole church of Corinth. Here, however, the very house meeting 

itself reflects splits between the socially advantaged and the socially 

102 Schmithals, Gnosticism, 90. Schmithals’ numbering system consists of a capital 

Roman numeral that represents the letter (i.e. I = 1 Corinthians), followed by the chapter 

and/or verses. 


104 John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965), 81. 

105 Schmithals says that such a possibility is “completely ruled out”: Gnosticism, 90. 

106 “Nun darf man aber die σχίσματα in 11,18f nicht einfach mit den in Kap.1-4 

angesprochenen Parteiungen identifizieren. Die σχίσματα in 11,18f sind vielmehr auf die 

Mißstände und „Spaltungen“ zwischen Armen und Reichen beim Herrenmahl zu 

beziehen”. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor1,1-6,11), 67. 

101

disadvantaged. They are “internal” even within a single gathered meeting, i.e., 

ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, when they meet in one place as a church. 107 

Indeed, Paul’s descriptions of the divisions are plainly dissimilar. In chapter 1 the issue 

(ostensibly) relates to competing allegiances to external figureheads; in chapter 11 the 

issue relates to internal conflict caused by inappropriate behaviour. Schmithals’ complete 

rejection of a differentiation of situation seems inattentive to these essential differences. 

In relation to the second tension, Schrage’s comment illustrates the difficulty of 

understanding Paul’s apparently accepting attitude in chapter 11: 

[V]or allem wird man V 19 nicht als resigniert oder ironisch verstehen dürfen, 

allerdings auch nicht so, als ob Paulus den σχίσματα hier eine positive Seite 

abgewinne bzw. sie auf die leichte Schulter nehme. 108 

Hans Conzelmann is right to begin by giving attention to the force of δεῖ: 

It is more natural simply to take δεῖ with the appended ἵνα-clause: the objective 

fruit of the divisions is the visible separation of wheat and chaff. 109 

Guided by this reading, it may be appropriate to conclude that Paul is not presented as 

pleased with the divisions; he rather warns that they have an ironically revealing outcome. 

Ironic, because – as Paul goes on to demonstrate – those who are revealed as the δόκιμοι 

are not those who apparently consider themselves praiseworthy for their lavish celebration 

of the Lord’s Supper. This interpretation admittedly has its drawbacks: perhaps “it 

construes Paul’s pastoral response as unusually sharp and sarcastic”. 110 

107 Thiselton, First Epistle, 857; emphases original. 

108 Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor1,1-6,11), 67. 

109 Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the 

Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1975) 194; trans. of Der 

erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). 

110 Thiselton, First Epistle, 860. 

102

Thiselton, drawing on Paulsen, offers another possibility, in which Paul is seen as quoting 

a Corinthian slogan about the eschatological necessity of divisions. 111 This would 

distance Paul from the problems of the apparent approval of divisions; but again, this is 

not certain. However, on either reading, there is no contradiction with Paul’s dismay at 

divisions in chapter 1. Thus, although there are questions about the interpretation of this 

verse, it would seem that Schmithals and Yeo go too far in holding that this apparent 

tension demands partition in the letter. 

The Coming of Paul and Sending of Timothy in 4:14-21 and 16:8-11 

There are two tensions here. Firstly, in the former section Paul implies that he will come 

to Corinth soon, while in the latter section he makes it plain that he has no intention of 

coming to Corinth until later. Secondly, in the former passage Paul says that he has “sent” 

Timothy to Corinth, while in the latter passage he gives instructions on how Timothy 

should be treated “if” he should come to Corinth. 

These tensions are noted by Weiss, who is followed, amongst others, by Schenk and 

Schmithals in attributing the passages to different preceding letter parts. 

Schrage suggests that the former passage does not concern actual travel plans, but rather 

expresses a willingness to deal personally with the problem of “puffed-upness” as hastily 

as is required. 112 Similarly, Hall sees 4:19 as a threat rather than a promise. 113 It does 

seem that Paul’s choice of words distances himself from definite immediacy, making his 

coming contingent upon the Lord’s own will: 

ἐλεύσομαι δὲ ταχέως πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ 

Gordon Fee thus sees smooth congruity between the two sections: 

111 Thiselton, First Epistle, 858ff. According to this reading, the strong in Corinth use the 

slogan “dissensions are unavoidable”. 


113 Hall, Unity, 45-46. 

103

Paul quickly affirms [in 4:19-20] his own plans to return to Corinth. The details 

of this plan are given in 16:5-9. That passage also indicates that “very soon” is a 

relative term. He does intend to come, and it will be “without delay,” which here 

must mean as soon as it is possible for him to do so. The emphasis is on the 

certainty of the visit, not its immediacy. 114 

Schmithals’ conjecture that 4:17 assumes Timothy’s presence in Corinth, with the future 

tense designed as an encouragement to his continued energetic work, 115 is possible, but 

rather unlikely, as it makes the reference to having “sent” Timothy somewhat redundant. 

Rather, the reference to sending, coupled with the future tense in relation to Timothy’s 

activity (ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου), would seem to imply that Timothy is not yet 

present in Corinth. Indeed, Hall argues: 

The wording of 4.17 implies that Timothy has not yet arrived at Corinth – he 

‘will remind you’ when he arrives. The word ἔπεμψα could be an epistolary 

aorist (I am sending Timothy with this letter) or a constative aorist (I have 

already sent Timothy). The latter translation is supported by the statement in 

Acts 19.22 that Paul sent Timothy from Ephesus to Macedonia (presumably with 

a view to his then proceeding from Macedonia to Corinth). 116 

If the “sending” of Timothy did indeed envisage a trip that included several destinations 

and purposes, the tension of Paul’s request in chapter 16 that Timothy be received well 

“if” he should come is somewhat alleviated. 

Merklein usefully makes the point that the two sections certainly present themselves as 

having contrasting purposes. 117 The emphasis of the former section is not on Timothy’s 

arrival but on his task in relation to Paul’s own ministry; the latter section does speak of 

114 Fee, First Epistle, 191. 

115 Schmithals, “Korintherbriefe,” 266. 


117 Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit,” 159-160. 

104

Timothy’s work (notably with terminology reminiscent of the recent climactic exhortation 

of 15:58), but presents this within an appeal concerning his reception, as is fitting for a 

letter ending. 

Thus, although there is some tension here, it is going too far to claim that the respective 

passages are directly contradictory, and consequently there is not a necessity to assign the 

passages to separate preceding letter parts. 

4:14-21 as Apparent Letter Closing 

Related to the above issue is the question of whether 4:14-21 gives the appearance of a 

letter-closing. Schmithals claims that this section contains the personal details and denial 

of shaming-intention that are indicative of a Pauline letter ending, thus suggesting that this 

was originally the end of a letter. 118 Martinus C. de Boer likewise sees this section as 

confirming a division between chapters 1–4 and 5–16. 119 

There are certainly features of this section that indicate a more “personal” interaction with 

the addressees, and this is indeed characteristic of letter endings. However, Merklein 

counters that such features (particularly personal example or self-reference) are not 

exclusively used in letter endings for Paul. 120 Hall follows Kenneth Bailey in arguing 

further that there are verbal and conceptual connections between 4:14-21 and the 

subsequent chapter that suggest a close connection: 

Kenneth Bailey has drawn attention to the links between 4.17-21 and 5.1-11. 

Chapter 4 ends with a threat: some people are puffed up on the grounds that Paul 

is not coming to Corinth; but he will come, if the Lord wills, and will discover 

not the fine words of these puffed up people but their power (4.18-19). It is for 

the Corinthians to choose whether his next visit will be friendly or disciplinary 

118 

Schmithals, “Korintherbriefe,” 266. 

119 

Martinus C. de Boer, “The Composition of 1 Corinthians,” NTS 40/2 (1994): 229-245; 

240. 

120 

Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit,” 159. 

105

(4.21). This threat is immediately followed by a specific instance of Corinthian 

puffed-upness (5.1-2). Paul, though physically absent, has already passed 

judgment on the man’s action as though he were present (5.3), and expects the 

Corinthians to ratify his judgment. 121 

Applying Epistolary Analysis, Belleville and Harvey concur that 4:14-21 forms the ending 

of the “letter body” – although not as a separate epistle to which more has later been 

added. Rather, in drawing the themes of chapters 1–4 to a conclusion, this section is said 

to form a transition to an extended paraenetic section, from chapter 5. Similarly, 

Ackerman asserts that chapters 5–14 form the paraenetic part of the letter: 

After the imperative in 4:16, “Become imitators of me,” Paul gives the church 

some practical advice, urging them to model his imitation of the divine paradox. 

To do this, he uses a form of rhetoric called paraenesis. Paraenesis is exhortation 

and was often used in the Greco-Roman world to address moral issues. 122 

Regardless of whether the designation paraenesis is exactly appropriate, 123 this seems to 

be an attentive reading of the movement of this section, as I suggested earlier. Indeed, 

many of the conventional features of moral exhortation 124 included in chapters 5–14, such 

as the terminology of moral persuasion, the use of examples, the call to imitation, and the 

use of reminders and warnings, are anticipated in this brief transitionary section. The 

Corinthians are summoned to imitate Paul, provided with the example and reminder of 

Timothy, urged to respond, and provoked with a warning. 

121 Hall, Unity, 33-34. 

122 Ackerman, Lo, I Tell You a Mystery, 108. 

123 See Malherbe’s distinctions in the footnote below. Wayne Meeks refers to the letter of 

1 Corinthians as the “richest example of Christian paraenesis that survives from the first 

century”. Wayne Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (London: SPCK, 

1986), 130. 

124 Abraham J. Malherbe writes, “The responsible teacher who adapted himself to the 

conditions of his hearers knew a wide range of styles of persuasion and was sensitive to 

how appropriate or inappropriate they were to any particular circumstance…. [Protrepsis, 

Paraenesis and Diatribe] are related by the practicality of their aims, their unadorned 

language, and the devices they use”. Malherbe goes on to illustrate devices such as 

comparison, reminder, example, admonition and interlocution. Abraham J. Malherbe, 

Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia, Pa.: The Westminster 

Press, 1986), 121. 

106

Repetition in Chapters 5–6 and the Relation of 6:1-11 to its Context 

Schmithals considers it “strange” that Paul takes up the issue of porneia in 6:12-20 after 

he has just apparently dealt with the same issue in 5:1-13. 125 Indeed, this repetition, along 

with the function of the section on lawsuits in between these two passages, seems to be 

one of the most significant exegetical tensions in the letter: Why direct a critique of the 

Corinthian church from sexual immorality to lawsuits between believers, and then again to 

sexual immorality? 126 

Harvey’s comment is of interest here, recalling the device of digression discussed above: 

[T]here exists an ABA’ pattern for chapters 5 and 6. Inclusion and anaphora 

establish the basic division of the chapters, link-words unify the different 

sections, and the theme of immorality begun in 5:1-13 is resumed in 6:12-20. 

The careful way in which Paul makes his transitions from one section to another 

serves to pull the apparently disparate topics together into a unified discussion. 127 

Merklein suggests that the former passage relates to an individual case, while the latter 

refers to sexual immorality in general. 128 Brian S. Rosner posits the view that: 

in 1 Cor. 6:12-20 Paul is opposing the use of prostitutes, not, strictly speaking, of 

either the sacred or the secular variety, but rather the prostitutes who offered their 

services after festive occasions in pagan temples. 129 

125 Schmithals, Gnosticism, 91. 

126 Sellin comments: “Ich konzentriere mich dabei vorwiegend auf die Kapitel 5 und 6, 

weil ich dort die überzeugendsten Argumente gegen eine ursprüngliche Einheit gefunden 

habe”. Sellin, “1 Korinther 5-6,” 535. 

127 Harvey, Listening to the Text, 161. 


129 Brian S. Rosner, “Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20,” NovT 40/4 (1998): 

336-351; 337. 

107

With Ciampa, Rosner suggests that somehow the section as a whole (indeed all of 4:18- 

7:40) is about the problem of sexual immorality; and that the section on lawsuits 

represents a (digressionary?) exploration of the related problem of greed. 130 This 

perspective is shared by Hall. 131 

In favour of seeing an overall unity to the themes of chapters 5–6 is the fact that the theme 

of “judging”, which is prominent in 5:1-13 (where the congregation is called to exercise 

appropriate judgement in relation to the individual case of sexual immorality) continues 

into the section on lawsuits (where the Christian community is called to exercise 

competent judgement). Indeed, Thiselton observes that the target of Paul’s accusation in 

chapter 5 is the Corinthian church for its pride, rather than the particular man for his sin. 132 

This problem of Corinthian pride then appears to lie behind the subsequent problem of 

lawsuits (cf. Paul’s retort: “I say this to shame you”) and the ensuing discussion of sexual 

immorality (cf. the Corinthian slogan: “Everything is lawful for me!”). So each section of 

chapters 5–6 appears to involve the repudiation of Corinthian pride: 

5:1-13: Repudiation of Corinthian pride in an act of sexual immorality that has brought 

impurity to the community 

6:1-11: Repudiation of Corinthian pride in greedily making unjust gain at each other’s 

expense 

6:12-20: Repudiation of Corinthian pride in (probably feast-related) sexual indulgence 

I suggested earlier that Paul counters the problem of proud, present-obsessed human 

autonomy in Corinth with the message of the cross of Christ in chapters 1–4; a corrective 

which he then applies ethically in chapters 5–14, following an observable movement of 

Pauline moral argumentation from sexual immorality, greed, and impurity of bodies to 

mutuality and love within the body of Christ. 

130 Ciampa and Rosner, “Structure and Argument”. 

131 Hall, Unity, 36, note 21. 

132 Anthony C. Thiselton, “The Meaning of Sarx in 1 Corinthians 5:5: A Fresh Approach 

in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors,” SJT 26 (1973): 204-27. See also 

Chrysostom, who notes that the congregation is at fault for boasting in this person, who 

may be one of the “wise” of the congregation: Homily 15 on 1 Corinthians; PG 61.122. 

108

If this is the case, then a literary flow in chapters 5–7, in which Corinthian proud 

autonomy in relation to sexual immorality, greed and impurity is corrected by the 

application of certain aspects of cruciformity (especially non-self-ownership), is 

understandable. 

The connections within chapters 5–7 are not thereby made completely transparent; but the 

tensions are arguably relieved somewhat. In each section, Paul depicts the Corinthians as 

boldly parading their assumed self-ownership, whether vicariously in celebrating a man 

who considers himself free to take his father’s wife, or judicially in grasping external 

vindication, or licentiously in using prostitutes, or pseudo-nobly in denying conjugal 

commitments. And in each section, Paul challenges confident independence, alluding to 

the cross as that which demands humble submission to divine ownership. 

Chapters 7–16 as a Separate Unified Letter, Responding to a Letter from Corinth 

Schmithals reasons: 

Now the observation that from I,7:1 on to the end of the epistle Paul makes 

reference in various ways to written inquiries addressed to him by the 

Corinthians is an important one. The sections introduced with περὶ δέ 

undoubtedly belong to the same letter of Paul. 133 

Numerous commentators agree that from 7:1, especially as seen in sections beginning περὶ 

δέ, Paul is responding to a letter from Corinth. Hurd writes: 


109

The passages beginning περὶ δέ (particularly the first) are the starting point in the 

attempt to identify the sections in 1 Corinthians which deal with the letter from 

Corinth. 134 

Hurd agrees that there is significance in the apparently different sources of information for 

Paul. He argues that the sections which appear to respond to the Corinthian letter carry a 

tone which is calm, forward-looking, and persuasive, while the sections that appear to 

respond to oral reports about Corinth contrastingly carry an angry, one-sided, authoritative 

tone. 135 Thus there is an evident unity for (most of) chapters 7–16. 

Similarly, Merklein argues that chapters 7-16 have an undeniable unity: 

Insgesamt kann festgehalten werden: Die Gründe, die für eine literarkritische 

Aufteilung von 1 Kor 7–16 aufgeführt werden, sind zum Teil nicht stichhaltig, 

zum Teil zu hypothetisch, um wirklich überzeugen zu können, in keinem Fall 

aber – und dies gilt auch für das ganze Bündel der Gründe insgesamt – zwingend. 

Da sich außerdem an einer Reihe von sog. literarischen Bruchstellen eine 

übergreifende semantische oder pragmatische Kohärenz positiv aufzeigen läßt, 

kann eine literarkritische Teilung von 1 Kor 7–16 kaum aufrechterhalten 

werden. 136 

However, neither Hurd nor Merklein holds that the apparent unity of chapters 7–16 is 

evidence against its original relatedness to the other parts of the letter. 

Mitchell concurs that these chapters cannot be divided from the argument of the letter as a 

whole. Against Hurd in particular, however, she argues that the phrase περὶ δέ cannot be 

used to discern a separate information source behind Paul’s letter; it can only be used to 

134 Hurd, Origin, 65. 

135 Hurd, Origin, 76; 82. 


110

note rhetorical movement. The rest of the New Testament and other ancient literature, she 

asserts, bear witness to this: 

περὶ δέ does provide a clue to the composition of 1 Corinthians in that it is one of 

the ways in which Paul introduces the topic of the next argument or sub- 

argument. Despite the fact that in itself περὶ δέ can tell us nothing of the source or 

order of these topics, it is our most important clue to understand how Paul, on his 

own terms, chose to respond to the multi-faceted situation at Corinth of which he 

had been informed. Although that may be considerably less information than 

scholars have presumed that they could glean from its use, this proper 

understanding of the formula περὶ δέ remains an important starting point for the 

investigation of the composition and rhetorical structure of the letter. 137 

It is arguable that Mitchell has not been entirely fair to Hurd’s position, 138 but her general 

conclusion above seems persuasive, and weakens claims for a simple division of the 

sections of the letter represented by this phrase from other parts of the letter. 

Apparent Contradiction Between Chapters 8 and 10 

Like the tensions related to chapters 5–6, tensions regarding the unity of chapters 8–10 are 

among the most difficult in canonical 1 Corinthians. Schmithals sums up the issues that 

have been of concern since Weiss: 

The statements about the worship of idols (10:1-22) by no means fit into this 

connection [of chapters 8–10]. They concern a basically different theme. In the 

treatment of the profane eating of meat sacrificed to idols there is nothing to 

137 

Margaret M. Mitchell, “Concerning περὶ δέ in 1 Corinthians,” NovT 31/3 (1989): 229- 

256; 256. 

138 

See Hurd’s response in his article cited above (“Good News”). 

111

indicate that at the same time some in Corinth had the inclination to take part in 

the pagan worship. Conversely, 10:1-22 treats only of cultic meals. 139 

Yeo agrees that the situations behind 10:1-22 and the rest of chapters 8 and 10 are 

different, and he argues that Paul’s responses to these two situations are very different in 

terms of content and style. In relation to the situation represented in the bulk of chapters 8 

and 10, Paul is inclusive, engaging, interactive and persuasive: “Honour the weak”; while 

in relation to the situation represented in 10:1-22, Paul is authoritarian, exegetical and 

uncompromising: “Flee idolatry!” Yeo sees these differences as reflecting different stages 

of Paul’s own thought, with the stricter section derived from an earlier letter, and the more 

compromising section derived from a later letter. 140 

Schmithals is not hopeful for any way out of this tension that allows the section to remain 

intact. 141 However, not all commentators are as convinced of the need for partition 

theories. Recalling Merklein’s multi-dimensional concept of coherence, it is 

understandable that in a section with nuanced variations of situation, style, and content, 

different scholars will assign greater weighting to different dimensions and combinations 

of coherence “breach”. 

Merklein himself considers that variations in style are more than sufficiently accounted for 

by an underlying rhetorical strategy in which initial indirectness builds toward greater 

frankness. Two related but distinct situations (the eating of idol meat and participation in 

cult meals) lie behind chapters 8–10, although Paul only aims to forbid the latter. Thus: 

8.1-13 und 10.1-22 lassen sich demnach auch unter pragmatischer Rücksicht als 

kohärenter Text lesen. Beide Textteile können verstanden werden als Reaktion 


140 For useful summaries of these points, see Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 82-83; 209-210. 

In Yeo’s application to Chinese hermeneutics, he strongly favours the “later” Paul, who is 

more tolerant and willing to compromise: 212ff. 

141 Schmithals, “Korintherbriefe,” 269. 

112

auf einen einheitlichen, in sich zusammenhängenden Argumentationsgang 

bestimmter Korinther. 142 

Hall agrees with Merklein that it is essential to be attentive to Paul’s strategy of 

persuasion. Chapter 8 presents the main principle; chapter 9 presents Paul’s own 

example; 10:1-22 draws a particularly strong ancillary argument about idolatry; and the 

remainder of chapter 10 provides further applications of the principle. 

In these chapters he has been pointing out to the “strong” the practical 

consequences of adhering strictly to their slogan. One consequence is the 

damage done to other Christians (ch. 8); the other consequence is the spiritual 

danger to themselves, if they are disloyal to Christ and provoke God to jealousy 

(10.1-22). 143 

Oropeza is likewise convinced that the whole argument is directed against the “strong” in 

Corinth, and that 10:1-22 represents the peak of a persuasive argument that has been 

building in intensity. 144 

It could be objected that in 10:1-22, “the motives of right/freedom, conscience, and the 

‘weak’ do not appear”, 145 whereas they are crucial to the argument in chapter 8. However, 

there do appear to be closer connections between the sections than Yeo allows. As 

Schrage points out, one common motive can be seen especially in 8:4-6 and 10:14-19, and 

might be expressed as respect for Christ as Lord: 

Nun sind die sachlichen Verbindungen zwischen Kap. 8 (speziell 8,4-6) und 

10,14-19 nicht zu übersehen, aber ebenso deutlich sind die sachlichen Parallelen 

zwischen Kap. 8 und 10,23-11,1, und gerade das unterstreicht die enge 



144 B.J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the 

Corinthian Congregation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 60-61. 


113

Verzahnung des Gesamtkomplexes mit den grundsätzlichen Erwägungen von 

Kap. 8. 146 

And it should not be thought that the issue of the “strong” and the “weak” is absent from 

10:1-22; indeed verse 12 hints, and verse 22 makes explicit, that the argument here is still 

directed toward those who foolishly believe themselves to be strong: 

ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ (10:12) 

μὴ ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν; (10:22) 

Connected with this, Yeo’s summary of the point of Paul’s example of Israel in 10:1-22 

may illustrate a failure to detect important resonance with chapter 8. Yeo summarises: 

Paul uses the Israelites’ wilderness experience and the Lord’s Supper to illustrate 

the exclusive loyalty and trust Christians ought to have in the Christian God. 147 

This seems inadequately attentive to important nuances of Paul’s argument here. In the 

example of Israel in chapter 10, it is not simply fidelity that is exemplified, but the 

responsibility of participation. Spiritual privilege (typified by Israel) brings with it 

corresponding responsible participation (in the body). This entails restraint for the sake of 

others. 

The argument of 10:1-22 might be expressed as follows: Israel’s experience included 

equivalencies of the very spiritual realities about which the “knowledgeable” in Corinth 

boast: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1:10-17). Those in Israel who took these 

spiritual privileges as reason or opportunity for bold autonomy and sin (including proud 

sexual sin) were destroyed. Sitting down to eat and drink their prototypical sacrament, 

they arose to play, provocatively grumbling and putting Christ to the test, while 

deceptively assured of their own standing. These things occurred as an example to teach 



114

us not to be proudly assured of our own (autonomous) standing, such that we 

presumptuously entertain sin. We too must flee idolatry, understanding that the sacrament 

is not a gateway to autonomy, but a celebration of dependent participation: the Lord’s 

Supper involves sharing in the blood of Christ and the body of Christ. This latter sense of 

participation emphatically requires unity. Thus, participating in Christ, it is out of the 

question to concurrently presumptuously parade assumed strength by participating in idols 

– and therefore in demons. We are left with the question: In whose strength are we 

confident? Ours or God’s? 

Read in this way, 10:1-22 has continuity with the argument of chapter 8. In chapter 8, 

Paul questions the way in which some presumptuously allow their strength and knowledge 

to crush the sensitive consciences of the weak; in chapter 10, Paul questions the way in 

which some presumptuously allow their strength and knowledge to utterly deceive 

themselves. 148 In both sections, Paul’s argumentation fits the suggestion made earlier that 

in chapters 5–14, Paul is applying ethically the cruciform corrective of chapters 1–4, in 

which proud, presumptuous spirituality is called into question. Whereas in chapters 5–7 

this is applied to issues raised in relation to sexual immorality, greed, and impurity of 

bodies, here in chapters 8–14 it is applied to issues raised in relation to interpersonal 

relationships within the body of Christ. 

The Relation of Chapter 9 to its Context in Chapters 8–10 

Related to the question of the unity of chapters 8 and 10 is the question of the placement 

of the intervening chapter. Probst explains that the chapter’s questionable contextual 

relatedness leads to suggestions of partition: 

148 Similarly, Oropeza argues that the strong are in view in both sections: “In ch.8, the 

problem is that they are endangering others; in ch.10, the problem is that they are 

endangering themselves”. B.J. Oropeza, “Laying to Rest the Midrash: Paul’s Message on 

Meat Sacrificed to Idols in Light of the Deuteronomic Tradition,” Bib 79 (1998): 57-68; 

62. 

115

Wird hier eine inhaltliche Beziehung zur Opferfrage sichtbar, die mehr ist als 

blosse Stichwortassoziation? 1 Kor 9 kann ja statt vom Apostel, von einem 

späteren Redaktor in seine jetzige Position gebracht worden sein! 

Literarkritische Quellenscheidung ist anscheinend auch hier die gebotene 

Lösung. 149 

Oropeza sees chapter 9 as having an exemplary role: 

Yeo objects: 

In chapter 9, then, Paul uses himself as an example to convince the strong that 

they should also exercise self-control by refraining from their right to eat at the 

expense of the conscience of the weak. 150 

Paul’s apostolic defense in chapter 9 is clearly not just an exemplum for the 

church; it is an apologia (“defense,” 9:3) of Paul’s apostleship, as Paul himself 

puts it. 151 

Similarly, Schmithals objects that, although chapter 9 may be seen to provide an example 

of self-restraint of freedom, this theme is not really made evident in 9:1-18 itself. The 

passage itself, he claims, is just about Paul’s self-defence in response to criticisms, and 

does not express itself as simply an example, in the service of some other main point. It is 

only the contextual placement of this section that makes it appear to be an “example”. 152 

There is a certain circularity to this argument: chapter 9 does not belong in its context 

because it is actually independent; its independence, however, can only be demonstrated 

149 

Probst, Paulus und der Brief, 5. 

150 

Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 58-59. Robinson Butarbutar likewise states, “we submit 

that chapter 9 is primarily an example”. Robinson Butarbutar, Paul and Conflict 

Resolution: An Exegetical Study of Paul’s Apostolic Paradigm in 1 Corinthians 9 (Milton 

Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 88. 

151 

Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 76. 

152 

Schmithals, “Korintherbriefe,” 270. 

116

y removing it from its context. Schmithals concedes that, contextually situated, chapter 9 

has clear “editorial” coherence; but why should such coherence not be allowed 

originality? 

Further, is it really true to say that within 9:1-18 there is no hint that it is to be taken as 

exemplary of an external point? If it is right to detect, with Ackerman and others, a 

crucial role for Paul’s statement “Become imitators of me” in 4:16, an exemplary function 

may well be implied. As pointed out above, 153 there are numerous places in canonical 1 

Corinthians where Paul seems to reiterate and express this call for imitation of apostolic 

cruciformity – including in chapters 7, 9, 11, and 14. 

The opening two verses of chapter 9 echo certain themes of chapters 1–4, in which Paul 

presented himself as the apostle who “planted” the Corinthian church: 

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you 

not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, I surely am to you – 

for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 

In chapter 4, before making the summons to imitate himself, Paul provocatively presents 

his model of apostleship as subject to divine rather than human approval, marked 

ironically by servanthood (4:1), death (4:9), weakness (4:10), hunger and thirst (4:11). It 

is this model of cruciformity that he calls the Corinthians to imitate; and it is precisely this 

model that he exhibits significantly in 8:13, and at length in chapter 9: 

If food causes my brother or sister to stumble, I will never eat meat again, in 

order that I might not cause my brother or sister to stumble. 

153 In the section ‘4:14-21 as Apparent Letter Closing’. 

117

To the weak I have become weak, in order that I might gain the weak. I have 

become all things to all, in order that in every way I might save some. And I do 

everything because of the gospel. 

And these same themes – of self-restrained eating and drinking in imitation of apostolic 

Christlikeness – form the conclusion of the whole section in 10:31–11:1: 

So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of 

God. Do not become a cause for the stumbling of Jews or Gentiles or the church 

of God, just as in everything I seek to please all, not seeking my own benefit, but 

that of the many, in order that they might be saved. Become imitators of me, as I 

am of Christ. 

Merklein seems justified in concluding: 

Er müßte schon so kongenial gewesen sein, daß er fast die Züge des Apostels 

selbst annimmt, ganz abgesehen davon, daß es ein Zufall genannt werden müßte, 

wenn in unterschiedlichen Briefen Textstücke von einer derartigen semantischen 

Affinität und Relationalität bereitgelegen haben sollen. 154 

By “defending” his apostleship, Paul forcefully clarifies the extent of his exemplary self- 

restraint, to those who are sceptical that such restraint is desirable or possible among those 

who have “knowledge”, “rights”, and “freedom”. 

Contextually Questionable Praise in 11:2ff 

Schmithals follows Weiss in finding the placement of 11:2 problematic: How can Paul say 

“I praise you for remembering me in all things” – when he has just been at pains to show 

154 Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit,” 172. Likewise, Butarbutar, Paul and Conflict 

Resolution, concludes that chapter 9 is integrally connected to chapters 8-10, as part of 

Paul’s pastoral strategy in dealing with the issue of food offered to idols. 

118

that they do not? Perhaps this would fit better at the beginning of a letter. This certainly 

gives an initial impression of incongruence. However, it does seem that the range of “all 

things” is specified in the continuation of the sentence: 

Now I praise you for remembering me in all things, and you keep the traditions 

[τὰς παραδόσεις], just as I gave them to you. 

The question immediately becomes a more limited problem: What is meant by τὰς 

παραδόσεις? This problem is limited further when it is recalled that this section is itself 

corrective, as verse 3 shows: 

Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι... 

This corrective function shows that Paul’s praise of the Corinthians for remembering him 

in “all things” cannot be meant in an unqualified sense, because he is about to critique 

their very practice of the traditions that they commendably remember. It would seem 

then, that Paul’s praise is for remembering to keep the (liturgical) traditions he passed onto 

them, even though their practice of those traditions may be questionable. 

Thus the incongruity here is not really one of substance, but simply of abruptness in 

argumentational movement. Although this should not be ignored, Merklein’s concept of 

“pragmatic coherence” can usefully be recalled here, and his reminder that the breach of 

one dimension of coherence need not necessarily result in the conclusion of incoherence: 

Doch muß dies bei Brieftexten nicht ungewöhnlich sein. Um so mehr ist nach 

einer möglichen pragmatischen Kohärenz (die erst durch Autor und/oder Leser 

konstituiert wird) zu fragen. 155 

155 Merklein, “Die Einheitlichkeit,” 173-174. 

119

The Relation of Chapter 13 to its Context in Chapters 12–14 

Just as the place of 6:1-11 is questioned in relation to chapters 5–6, and the place of 

chapter 9 is questioned in relation to chapters 8–10, so the place of chapter 13 is 

questioned in relation to chapters 12–14. Weiss finds the connecting verses dubious, 

suggesting that chapter 13 is an editorial insertion: 

Kurz, wenn schon der Übergang 12.31 nicht sehr organisch ist, so ist vollends der 

Zusammenhang zwischen Kap. 13 und 14 weniger einleuchtend als künstlich. 

Und wie flau ist der Übergang 14.1! Schon der Ausdruck [diokete t. agap.] wirkt 

nach Kap. 13 unerträglich matt. 156 

William O. Walker Jnr. considers the contrast of chapter 13 with its surrounding context 

to be even starker, even though he concedes that there is no direct textual evidence 

indicating that chapter 13 is a non-Pauline interpolation: 

It is my own judgement that 1 Corinthians 13 is not to be characterized as a 

digression or excursus. It is rather an interruption that both breaks the logical 

flow of chaps 12 and 14 and, in a literary style quite foreign to these chapters, 

declares essentially irrelevant the issues there being discussed. 157 

Sellin disagrees, finding a smoothness from 12:1 through to 16:24. 158 Similarly, Smit 

seeks to demonstrate that the chapter can be seen as entirely fitting, if it is viewed from the 

perspective of the handbooks of Hellenistic rhetoric: 

The manner in which Paul, by means of comparison, tries to change the 

estimation the Corinthians have regarding the charismata and the fact that for 

156 Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (KEKNT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 

Ruprecht, 1910), 310. Schmithals follows Weiss closely here: See Schmithals, 

“Korintherbriefe,” 268. 

157 William O. Walker Jnr., “Is First Corinthians 13 a Non-Pauline Interpolation?” CBQ 

60/3 (1998): 484-499; 484. 

158 Sellin, “Hauptprobleme,” 2984. 

120

doing so he chooses the form of an excursus is in complete correspondence with 

the rules of the demonstrative genre. 159 

It is a devaluing speech in which Paul belittles the charismata by setting them 

against love on three accounts. 160 

However, Smit’s analysis might be questioned here. Does Paul actually set the charismata 

in opposition to love, or does he rather speak of what they are like without love? 

Garland’s comment is apt: 

Rather than being a hymn glorifying how wonderful love is, this text becomes a 

subtle commentary on what is rotten in Corinth. 161 

As Garland’s comment suggests, there are numerous verbal and conceptual parallels 

between chapter 13 and Paul’s characterisation of the Corinthians elsewhere in the letter. 

For example: οὐ ζηλοῖ (cf. 3:3); καυχήσωμαι, περπερεύεται, φυσιοῦται (cf. 4:6 etc.); 

ἀσχημονεῖ (cf. 7:36). The critique of these attitudes is surely particularly cutting in the 

context of chapters 12–14, as they characterise the very attitude of proud, self-seeking 

pneumatism that Paul there opposes. Fitzmyer rightly concludes: 

I hesitate to label the passage a digression or an insertion, because, as I see it, it is 

the climax to what Paul has been teaching in chap. 12 about the pneumatika and 

the diverse kinds of them, whether charismata, diakoniai, or energēmata…. In 

their own way and somewhat abstractly, these verses sum up what Paul has been 

saying elsewhere in this letter about the characteristics of the Christian life when 

lived in Christ. 162 

159 

Joop Smit, “The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13 in the Light of Classical Rhetoric,” NovT 

33/3 (1991): 193-216; 214. 

160 

Smit, “The Genre,” 215. 

161 

David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 

2003), 617. 

162 

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and 

Commentary (AYB; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 488. 

121

Paul’s Lowly Self-Depiction in Chapter 15, in Contrast with Chapter 9 

Schmithals declares: 

It is not conceivable that at the same time in which he writes I,9 [i.e. a self- 

defence] Paul declares that he is not [worthy to be called an apostle – i.e. chapter 

15], thus precisely what people in Corinth are charging. 163 

But such a sharp incongruence between the two sections is hard to maintain. There are 

elements in both sections of insistent justification of apostolic status as well as emphatic 

dissociation from exaltation. Arguably, in both sections, as well as in chapters 1–4 where 

similar themes emerge, the juxtaposition of apparently incongruous elements serves the 

same rhetorical purpose. Paul wants his own apostleship to teach the Corinthians 

dependence upon God, both by being revelatory (speaking God’s word of life), and by 

being exemplary (living God’s way of life). The two cohere in the theme of the cross of 

Christ. 

Thus in chapter 9, Paul both insists on his own apostleship and presents himself as an 

example of cruciform self-restraint. In chapter 15, Paul likewise affirms his own 

foundational status, while presenting himself as the epitome of one whose life is marked 

by death. 

Discrepancy Between Chapter 15 and 6:14 

Sellin points out that Paul seems to carry different assumptions about the resurrection- 

beliefs of his hearers in 6:14 and in chapter 15. 164 In the former passage, Paul appeals 

without argument to an apparently common belief in future resurrection; in the latter 


164 G. Sellin, Die Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 

Ruprecht, 1986), 49. 

122

passage, Paul argues at length against a Corinthian denial of future resurrection. Further, 

in the former passage, Paul appears to believe that “we” will be raised, whereas in the 

latter section, he says that “we” will not all die, but will be changed. 

However, the first of these tensions needs to be adjusted by noting that there is at least one 

difference between resurrection in 6:14 (upon which there appears to be assumed 

agreement between Paul and the Corinthians) and resurrection in chapter 15 (upon which 

there is sharp disagreement). The denial of resurrection in chapter 15 is in relation to a 

particular object: the dead: 

How is it that some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead [νεκρῶν]? 

Thus, rather than challenging the literary integrity of the letter, Paul’s apparent assumption 

about his hearers in 6:14 may serve to focus discussion of the issues behind chapter 15. 

Perhaps it is a Corinthian disapproval of death itself, or of the value of dead bodies that 

helps explain the denial of resurrection on the part of some in Corinth. I will engage 

further with these issues in chapter 5 of my dissertation, which will focus on 1 Corinthians 

15. 

In relation to the second tension, Thiselton rightly opposes a sharp division between 6:14 

and chapter 15 (as expressed by U. Schnelle): 

But this is to misread the careful dialectic between continuity and change which 

runs throughout 15:1-58. To be sure, Paul’s resurrection σώμα is a transformed 

σώμα; but it remains the same self which also retains “somatic continuity,” as 

Dahl well argues…. B. Byrne, contrary to Schnelle, constructively argues that 

Paul’s eschatology counters the dualism of those at Corinth who devalue the 

body by demonstrating how resurrection destiny is precisely what gives meaning, 

responsibility, and significance to bodily existence in the present. 165 

165 Thiselton, First Epistle, 464-465. 

123

Thus both of the tensions here may be addressed by giving careful attention to the 

situation and nuanced argumentation of chapter 15. 

Chloe and Stephanas in Chapter 16 and Chapter 1 

Two tensions arise from Paul’s personal greetings in chapter 16. Firstly, it is surprising 

that Paul does not greet, or offer greetings from, “Chloe’s people”, from whom he reports 

having heard significant news about the Corinthian church in chapter 1. Secondly, it is 

surprising to find that Stephanas appears to be present with Paul in chapter 16, given that 

Paul seems initially not to remember him in chapter 1, and makes no reference to his 

presence at that point. 166 

Merklein does not find either of these issues to be particularly significant. 167 He asserts 

that it is enough to mention Chloe’s people in chapter 1, without needing to reiterate an 

acknowledgement of them at the close of the letter. Similarly, Merklein appeals to the 

pragmatics of a letter text to suggest that a reference to Stephanas’ presence in chapter 1 is 

unnecessary, given that this would have been known to the Corinthians anyway. 

It could further be pointed out that there is no information as to whether Chloe’s people 

were even part of the Corinthian church at all, or their whereabouts at the time of the 

sending of the letter. Likewise, Paul provides few details from which to reconstruct 

Stephanas’ movements. 

But what of Paul’s apparent failure to recall Stephanas in chapter 1? Schenk considers 

such a failure to be unthinkable if Stephanas were in fact present – as Schenk believes is 

166 Again, Schmithals finds that these tensions point undeniably to partition. He points to 

“the question which has caused exegetes much racking of the brain, as to how Paul could 

be silent in I,1:11 about Stephanas and his companions but in I,16 about the people of 

Chloe – a puzzle that is in fact insoluble if one holds to the unity of 1 Corinthians. Rather, 

Epistle A is delivered by Stephanas, and Epistle B has been prompted by those of Chloe. 

It would indeed be most strange if Paul had only belatedly recalled in I,1:16 Stephanas 

who was present with him”. Schmithals, Gnosticism, 94; emphasis original. 


124

implied in chapter 16. 168 It is worth considering, however, whether Paul may have had a 

rhetorical reason in chapter 1 for singling out the people he baptised and for separating the 

mention of Stephanas. Baptism is mentioned six times in this crucial section that 

introduces the issue of divisions (1:10-17); and nowhere else in the main body of the letter 

are people from Corinth named – not even the man who has publicly committed sexual 

immorality in chapter 5. These facts may hint that there was something about this issue of 

baptism, and the particular people Paul first names, that was known both to Paul and the 

Corinthians in relation to the divisions, but which is now obscure. It may be, for example, 

that Paul wanted to separate the mention of Stephanas (a local leader whom he commends 

in chapter 16) from any hint of the squabbling over baptism. Of course, this cannot be 

insisted upon; but the fact that it can neither be emphatically denied again illustrates 

Merklein’s point that there will necessarily be obscurities and apparent incongruities in 

dealing with a letter text, which carries pragmatic coherence between author and primary 

audience. 

Apparent Editorial Interpolations 

Redaction Criticism is often accompanied by the suggestion of editorial interpolations that 

aim to improve overall coherence, and to sharpen the letter’s application to the redactional 

situation. It has already been noted that Sellin is unconvinced by most of the suggestions 

of editorial interpolations in 1 Corinthians, although he does, for example, think that 1:2c 

is given away as an interpolation by a catholicising tendency. 169 

Such assertions of interpolation, without manuscript evidence, are hard to evaluate, 

particularly because they require an accessible redactional situation that makes better 

sense of them than their literary context. I remain unconvinced that it can be argued with 

sufficient certainty that original circumstances could not have supplied adequate reason 

for – specifically – reminders of catholicity. Indeed, such reminders do not appear at all 

out of place in a letter that argues vigorously against proud autonomy. 

168 Schenk, “Der 1 Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung,” 223. 

169 Sellin, “Hauptprobleme,” 2983. 

125

There are, of course, numerous other passages (besides those that are argued to have an 

editorial catholicising tendency) that have been identified as possible interpolations in 1 

Corinthians. Murphy-O’Connor discusses claims of interpolation in relation to 2:6-16; 

4:6; 6:14; 7:29-31; 10:1-22; 11:3-16; 13; 14:34-5; 15:21-2; 15:29-34; 15:31-2; 15:44b-48; 

and 15:56. 170 Aside from those discussed above, however, these instances generally relate 

to individual possible additions, rather than alleged elements of a comprehensive redaction 

of the letter. Thus I do not discuss them here, as my focus is on the general unity and 

coherence of the letter, a coherence that would not be jeopardised by the odd questionable 

verse. 

3. Kerygmatic Rhetoric and the Coherence of 1 

Corinthians 

My thesis, that the arrangement of 1 Corinthians be viewed as exhibiting kerygmatic 

rhetoric, essentially pursues the credible possibility that Paul draws on, but creatively 

transforms, certain conceptual motifs from his cultural-theological heritage in order to 

present a pastorally strategic response to a set of problems in Corinth that he conceives as 

having major theological significance. This allows a smoother reading of the letter than a 

more limited application of Rhetorical Criticism has provided, particularly in relation to 

the meaning and function of the resurrection chapter. 


In this chapter I have acknowledged that the literary integrity of 1 Corinthians has often 

been challenged, resulting in various redaction theories, as well as a range of conceptions 

of the letter’s coherence. Objectors to the compositional unity of the letter point to a lack 

of unified literary coherence, and possible evidence of an editor. Redaction theories, 

however, face problems of historical plausibility, both in terms of the claim for an 

aggressively singular Pauline Corpus, and in relation to the utilisation of 1 Corinthians by 

Clement of Rome. 

170 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians” in Keys to First 

Corinthians (rev. and enl.; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009), 257-287. 

126

Various conceptions of the literary unity of the letter have therefore been offered. The 

background of Greco-Roman letter forms has been of limited benefit, given that the letter 

“body” is so flexible. Rhetorical Criticism has commendably sought to be attentive to the 

flow of the letter’s argumentation, but has often been limited to rhetorical patterns that 

were allegedly generic across the Greco-Roman world, rather than creative rhetorical 

resources expressive of Paul’s particularity. Numerous scholars have noted that Paul’s 

pastoral motivation results in a literary coherence that is pragmatic between author and 

first audience. The situation/s behind the letter have been investigated and evaluated as 

having a certain entextualised coherence by various commentators. Some have argued 

that Paul’s response to these situations exhibits a theological unity, perhaps drawing on 

patterns from Paul’s theological heritage. My own perspective continues this trajectory of 

thought, but emphasises that such patterns from Paul’s theological heritage have been 

renegotiated in the light of the Christ event, to become focused as kerygma. 

The exegetical tensions in canonical 1 Corinthians may be somewhat relieved by this 

perspective. In particular, Paul’s pastorally driven rhetoric, his distinctive approach to 

ethical persuasion, and his adoption of ABA’ patterning into his overall schema offer some 

insight into the parts of the letter that have been seen as problematic for the letter’s overall 

coherence. 

127

Chapter 3 

1 Corinthians 1–4: Divisive Boasting Over 

Human Leaders is Set Against the Present 

Inhabitation of Christ’s Cross 

128

1. John Chrysostom as Student of Paul 

John Chrysostom has long been regarded as one of the most insightful exegetes among the 

Patristics. 1 His 44 homilies on 1 Corinthians are the earliest “completely preserved, full- 

scale commentary on the letter in Greek”. 2 I therefore begin this investigation of 1 

Corinthians 1–4 by seeking to be attentive to Chrysostom’s reading of this portion of the 

letter. I will then engage with the text of 1 Corinthians itself, before relating my findings 

to modern scholarship. 

To consider Chrysostom at such length may appear to be a digression, but it belongs 

integrally to my argument. It is important that the interpretation of 1 Corinthians that I am 

presenting be seen to bear some continuity with early Christian exposition. Chrysostom’s 

homilies in particular exhibit substantial harmony with the direction of this dissertation. 

The homilies were delivered in Antioch, where John served as lector, deacon, and 

presbyter (386-97), before being promoted to bishop of Constantinople. 

Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen describe the usual structure of Chrysostom’s exegetical 

sermons: 

[I]n these John tends to pursue a close verse-by-verse exegesis of the pericope or 

scriptural lection, which he then follows with an ethical discourse on some issue. 

1 His reception by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin is illustrative. For both of these 

theologians, Chrysostom is among the three most quoted Patristics, alongside Augustine 

and Jerome. In Aquinas’ Catena Aurea, quotations of Chrysostom (and writings thought 

to be by Chrysostom) outweigh Augustine and Jerome (2692 for Chrysostom, compared 

with 1107 for Jerome, and 2078 for Augustine), indicating Chrysostom’s significance 

when it comes to exegesis. Similarly, although Calvin often finds disagreement with 

Chrysostom in the Institutes, he seems to view him as a more reliable guide than 

Augustine when it comes to exegetical works. R. Ward Holder elucidates: “Calvin 

possesses a doctrinal hermeneutic which is basically traditional and conservative, and 

dependent on a type of Augustinian grasp of the Christian message. He interprets 

Scripture, however, using a hermeneutical method which is humanistically inspired, 

contextually considered, and influenced far more by his understanding of the 

interpretation of Chrysostom”. R. Ward Holder, “Calvin as Commentator on the Pauline 

Epistles,” in Calvin and the Bible (ed. Donald D. McKim; Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, 2006), 224-256; 250; emphasis mine. 

2 Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline 

Interpretation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; repr. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John 

Knox Press, 2002), xv. 

129

This second half of the sermon is not always directly related to the subject-matter 

of the first. Instead it can be occasioned by some concern which happens to be 

close to John’s mind at the time or he may continue a theme which was initially 

addressed in other sermons preached before the same audience. 3 

Frances Young elaborates on the ethical applications of Chrysostom’s homilies: 

It is reckoned that in his ninety homilies on Matthew Chrysostom spoke on 

almsgiving forty times, poverty thirteen times, avarice more than thirty times and 

wealth wrongly acquired or used about twenty times…. Often he sounds like the 

typical hectoring moralist, as these themes keep recurring, creeping in on the 

barest of pretexts where they seem hardly relevant. 4 

Elsewhere Young explains: 

It has often been noted that on the whole these exegetical homilies fall into two 

parts: the first follows the text providing commentary, then, after a certain time, 

Chrysostom abandons the text and develops a long exhortation on one of his 

favourite themes, the latter bearing precious little relation to the text or 

commentary preceding it. 5 

However, if we limit our exegetical interest to the “expository” portion of each homily we 

are, as Margaret M. Mitchell rightly points out, “evading what their author thought most 

important”. 6 

3 

Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (ECF; London: Routledge, 2000), 

30. 

4 

Frances Young, “They Speak to Us Across the Centuries 3. John Chrysostom,” ExpT 

109/2 (1997): 38-41; 40. 

5 

Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1997), 249. 

6 

Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, xvii. 

130

In this chapter I seek to attend to the exegetical insights that Chrysostom brings as both an 

expositor and creative applier of 1 Corinthians. 

Paul as Pastoral Model 

Frederic Henry Chase rightly captures the pastor John’s interest in the pastor Paul: 

[Chrysostom] rejoices to mark how the great missionary pastor varies rebuke 

with commendation…. [Chrysostom himself] was an Expositor because he was 

first of all a Pastor. 7 

Indeed, it seems that Chrysostom’s immediate interest in approaching Paul’s letters in a 

homiletic setting is the question: “What is Paul’s pastoral approach?” This question 

permeates and steers his discussion of 1 Corinthians, 8 and leads him to reflect on an 

apostolic author who is pastorally sensitive and rhetorically competent. 

Pastorally Sensitive 

Perhaps the most important feature of Chrysostom’s impression of Paul is that the apostle 

is pastorally sensitive, carefully and lovingly arranging his discussion for the sake of his 

hearers’ spiritual health: 

For this is the character of Paul: even on the basis of little things he composes big 

praise, but he does not do this with flattery; by no means! For how could he who 

7 Frederic Henry Chase, Chrysostom: A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation 

(1887; repr. Charleston, S.C.: Bibliolife, 2009), 179. 

8 So in Homily 1, for example, he calls his hearers to observe Paul’s pastoral aim: “Do you 

see how with each word he pulls down their puffed up pride, training their thoughts by 

every means for heaven?” Homily 1 on 1 Corinthians; PG 61.13. In Homily 2, 

Chrysostom draws attention to Paul’s covert method of confrontation: “By means of 

praises and thanksgivings he touches them harshly”. Homily 2 on 1 Corinthians; PG 

61.17. All further references to Chrysostom’s homilies are to the series on 1 Corinthians. 

All translations and emphases are my own. I cite and translate from the Patrologia 

Graeca edition, with an awareness of Frederick Field’s critical edition. 

131

desired neither money nor glory nor any other such thing act in such a way? 

Rather he arranges all things for the sake of their salvation. 9 

Often in the homilies on 1 Corinthians, Paul’s pastoral approach is described using the 

terminology of therapy: Paul is the skilful “physician”, who discerns “symptoms” and 

applies “medicine” to Corinthian “disease”, effecting its “cure”. 10 This therapeutic 

concern must be heeded if one is to apprehend why Paul writes with vehemence; why he 

writes with gentleness; why he utilises digression; why he uses irony or reason or deferral: 

“he arranges all things for the sake of their salvation”. 

Rhetorically Competent 

Furthermore, Chrysostom views Paul as rhetorically competent. Although Chrysostom 

insists that Paul does not conduct his apostolic mission according to the Corinthian model 

of “external wisdom” and “human reasoning” but rather according to the operation of 

divine grace, 11 he believes that Paul communicates his divinely-given message using 

recognisable rhetorical devices. He does not seem to think that the letter utilises a 

conventional rhetorical macro-structure, but highlights Paul’s repeated use of rhetorical 

devices such as thoughtfully organised anticipation; 12 proof and witness; 13 reason; 14 

digression; 15 example; 16 juxtaposition; 17 and reductio ad absurdum. 18 

9 Homily 26; PG 61.213. 

10 See for example Homily 1, PG 61.12, which refers to Corinthian “disease”, or Homily 

12, PG 61.96, in which Paul acts as a “physician”. This therapeutic imagery had, for 

centuries, been a commonplace in philosophical and moral argumentation. See Martha C. 

Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton, 

N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994). 

11 This is a major theme, for example, in Homily 4. 

12 For example, in Homily 2 Chrysostom indicates that Paul “οἰκονομικῶς” prepares 

(προοδοποιοῦντες) for his later argument (PG 61.18). 

13 For example, in Homily 5, Paul calls the Corinthians as “witnesses” (μάρτυρας) against 

themselves (PG 61.39). In Homily 7 Chrysostom asserts the need to set forth “proofs” 

(ἀποδείξεις), a requirement that Paul has fulfilled (PG 61.54). 

14 For example, in Homily 18 Paul is said to make use of “both threats and reasons” (καὶ 

ἀπειλὰς καὶ λογισμοὺς τίθησιν) in persuading the Corinthians (PG 61.145). 

15 For example, in Homily 37 Chrysostom reflects, “Then, just as he always does, he 

returns to his former topic [προτέραν ὑπόθεσιν], from which he had digressed [ἐξέβη] to 

discuss these things” (PG 61.317). 

16 For example, in Homily 41 Chrysostom says that Paul “uses both reasons and 

examples” (καὶ λογισμοὺς καὶ παραδείγματα τίθησι) in making his point (PG 61.355). 

132

Two broad rhetorical features are especially worthy of note, as Chrysostom appears to 

view them as “customary” for Paul and thus consistently informative. 

The first “customary” rhetorical feature is that of careful alternation between vehement 

rebuke and soothing repair: 

Having corrected the three weightiest charges – firstly, the division of the church; 

secondly, the issue of the one who has committed sexual immorality; thirdly, the 

issue of the greedy person – he now adopts a tamer sort of speech. 19 

Next, because he had put fear into them, see how once again he raises them up, 

alongside an exhortation to moderation. 20 

For that which I said before I will also say now: that he does not place all of the 

heavy accusations in a row, but rather, after dealing with them in their proper 

order, he distributes the gentler topics in the midst of them. 21 

The second broad “customary” rhetorical feature of Paul’s letter might be thought of as 

metaschematismos, or covert reversal. 

Chrysostom holds that a fundamental element of Paul’s pastoral approach is his right 

concern to convince his hearers by building his case/s gradually: 

17 

For example, in Homily 42, Chrysostom remarks, “Just as Paul always does, he blends 

topic with topic [ὑπόθεσιν ὑποθέσει]” (PG 61.364). 

18 

In Homily 39 Chrysostom commends the use of the reductio ad absurdum, “which Paul 

also often uses” (PG 61.337). 

19 

Homily 19; PG 61.152. Of the varied problems that Chrysostom perceives in Corinth, it 

is not factionalism but resurrection-denial that proves to be the weightiest: “He places the 

most severe issue of all last – that concerning the resurrection”. Homily 26; PG 61.212. 

20 

Homily 24; PG 61.198. 

21 Homily 26; PG 61.212. 

133

Just as I have always been saying – that we must form our rebukes gently and 

little by little – this Paul also does here. 22 

This frequently involves a movement from that which is mild to that which is strong; or 

from that which is distant to that which is direct: 

This Paul also does here. For, being about to go into an issue full of many 

dangers, fit to pull the church from its foundations, he makes use of milder 

language. 23 

But he has something to say that is beyond these things – for he places the greater 

things last. 24 

Do you see how little by little he leads to that which is close at hand? He does 

this customarily, beginning with distant examples, and ending with that which is 

more directly related to the issue. 25 

This characteristic movement from that which is mild or distant to that which is strong or 

direct may at times involve an initial use of covert self-reference, which eventually gives 

way to overt confrontation: 

He always develops the heavy issues in relation to his own person. 26 

Up to this point, using harsh words, he did not unveil the curtain, but he argued 

as though he himself were the one hearing these things…. But because now it is 

time to show mercy, he removes it and takes off the mask. 27 

22 Homily 3; PG 61.21. 

23 Homily 3; PG 61.21. 

24 Homily 33; PG 61.281. 

25 Homily 35; PG 61.299. 

26 Homily 35; PG 61.297. 

27 Homily 12; PG 61.96. 

134

When he was discussing their divisions, he did not immediately heavily rebuke 

them on the matter, but was more gentle at first, and afterwards he ended in 

accusation. 28 

And at this point he says it obscurely, but as he goes on and grows heated, he 

removes the veil from the head…. But in the beginning he does not do this, for it 

is better to proceed gently, little by little. 29 

By this movement from covert to overt, Paul gently invites an open and willing reception 

from his hearers, before cunningly (but lovingly) calling them to a reversal of values: 

This is especially what Paul repeatedly sets out to accomplish, when he wants to 

lead people away from something. He shows that the very things the person 

desires are unwittingly lost. And you too should do this: if you want to lead 

someone away from pleasure, show that the issue leads to bitterness; if you want 

to take someone away from vainglory, show that the issue is full of dishonour. 30 

As the above quotation indicates, Chrysostom takes Paul seriously as a mentor in terms of 

pastoral approach. Chrysostom views himself as Paul’s attentive collaborator in the 

ecclesial ambo. 31 He understands himself to be, like Paul, a physician, 32 discerning 

symptoms and prescribing cures. In the final sermon of the series, Chrysostom looks back 

at Paul’s approach and seeks to pass on Paul’s model of how to rebuke sinners: one must 

use loving sensitivity rather than selfish anger: 

28 Homily 15; PG 61.122. 

29 Homily 38; PG 61.323. 

30 Homily 36; PG 61.308-9. 

31 This point is made powerfully by the common artistic motif in which Paul watches over 

Chrysostom’s shoulder during sermon preparation and whispers exegetical ideas. The 

motif can be found in Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, where it is helpfully elucidated 

(35). More broadly, Mitchell convincingly argues that Chrysostom saw Paul as a mentor 

and collaborator. 

32 “If I have declared these things more plainly than I ought, let no one blame me. For I 

do not want to make a display of dignified words, but rather to make my hearers 

dignified…. For also a doctor who desires to cut out an ulcer is not concerned about how 

he might keep his hands clean, but rather how he might bring relief from the ulcer”. 

Homily 37, PG 61.320; see also Homily 11, PG 61.94, in which Chrysostom promises to 

prescribe a cure. 

135

By these words [“my love be with you all”] he indicates that the things he had 

written did not come from passion or wrath, but from care, given that after such 

an accusation he does not turn away from them, but loves them and embraces 

them from afar, enfolding them through these letters and writings. For this is 

what the one who corrects must do. 33 

2. Chrysostom as Preacher of 1 Corinthians 

Pastoral Creativity in Exposition and Application 

It should not be surprising, then, if the pastoral and rhetorical tact that Chrysostom has 

perceived in Paul is also evident in his own homilies. Indeed, it is suddenly obvious that 

the homilies generally involve a movement from the distant (Corinth) to the direct 

(Antioch); from the mild (indirect application) to the strong (direct confrontation); from 

the covert (speaking about “them”) to the overt (addressing “you”). There may be more to 

the link between “exposition” and “application” in Chrysostom’s exegetical homilies than 

is first apparent. A brief examination of several homilies will be worthwhile. I will focus 

on a sequence of homilies for which the relationship between exposition and application 

appears obscure or tenuous. 

In the exposition section of Homily 11, Chrysostom identifies the issue in 1 Corinthians 

4:3-5 as the Corinthians’ arrogant judgement of one another, “just like judges on their 

seats”. 34 This sin (like that of the “fornicator”, as John points out) is shown to arise from 

pride, as the Corinthians usurp the divine position of Judge, making false judgements 

based on present appearances. 

The application section of this homily, however, is about the evils of wealth: 

33 Homily 44; PG 61.377. 

34 Homily 11; PG 61.87. 

136

What then should we do? Know the shabbiness of these things, and that wealth 

is a senseless runaway slave, surrounding those who have it with innumerable 

evils. 35 

The link between exposition and application may thus seem to be something of a stretch. 

But a closer look reveals that from the preacher’s perspective, the denial of God as Judge 

lies at the heart of both sections. Those who make self-deceived judgements (whether in 

Corinth or in Antioch) are exhibiting a serious disease: 

Consider how greatly humans are deceived in the judgements that they make!... 

Whatever sin you like, first let us examine it; and you will see that it arises in this 

very way. 36 

The Corinthian problem of proud self-deceit is shown to find Antiochene expression 

particularly in the luxurious pursuit of present riches. So Chrysostom sensitively applies 

the lesson that God is the true Judge to his own hearers by urging them to recall that they 

cannot deceive God, the true Judge, and thus should purge their unfitting passion for 

present wealth. Thus, having come alongside his hearers in the exposition section, he 

directly confronts them in the application. 

That the exposition and application are consciously linked in this way is indicated by 

Chrysostom’s closing words, in which he returns to the theme of his exposition: 

And on that day we will have God’s praise, just as Paul also says: “And then each 

one’s praise will come from God”. For that which comes from humans is 

fleeting. 37 

35 Homily 11; PG 61.94. 

36 Homily 11; PG 61.92. 

37 Homily 11; PG 61.96. 

137

Homily 12 follows a similar pattern. The exposition section focuses on 1 Corinthians 4:6- 

10 (in Chrysostom’s version, “Now these things, brothers, I have transferred so as to be 

about myself and Apollos, for your sake, so that in us you might learn not to consider 

people above that which is written”). Chrysostom points out that the divisive Corinthian 

boasting in polished speakers is essentially a matter of puffed up pride in humans. 

The application section, however, focuses especially on the believers’ acceptance of the 

customary impropriety associated with weddings and married life in Antioch: 

For tell me, is it not evil to commit sexual immorality? So shall we allow this to 

happen even once? 38 

Again, this application initially appears to be unrelated to the exposition. But once again, 

a closer look reveals that from the preacher’s perspective, both exposition and application 

deal with a common problem: that of pride in another’s esteem: 

So it seems that this also comes from being puffed up [τοῦτο φυσιώσεως]: being 

exalted on behalf of another – even if one is not exalted on behalf of oneself. For 

just as someone who is proud of another’s wealth acts out of arrogance, so it is 

with the one who is proud of another’s glory. 39 

Chrysostom equates the Corinthian believers’ arrogant pride in their chosen leader’s glory 

with Antiochene arrogant pride in society’s glory. Just as in Corinth believers are priding 

themselves in their association with polished speakers, so in Antioch believers are priding 

themselves in their acceptance by an immoral society: 

38 Homily 12; PG 61.103. 

39 Homily 12; PG 61.97. 

138

Tell me! Are these then the ones whose glory you chase? And how could this be 

anything other than the ultimate folly, to seek the praise of humans who are so 

corrupt in their opinions and who act so randomly? 40 

In Homily 13, the exposition relates to 1 Corinthians 4:10-16: 

He shows how they [the apostles] are condemned to death, saying “We are fools 

and weak and dishonoured; and we hunger and thirst and go naked and beaten 

and homeless; and we labour, working with our own hands” – which are signs of 

genuine teachers and apostles. But the others were high-minded on the basis of 

the opposites of these. 41 

But the application again moves to focus on the injunction to share wealth with all: 

For wealth is a chain, an awful chain for those who do not know how to use it, an 

inhumane and savage tyrant…. How then will this happen [our escape from 

wealth]? When we share our wealth with all. 42 

This might initially appear to bear little relation to the passage under discussion. 

However, it would seem that once again, Chrysostom has attempted to sensitively apply 

the underlying pastoral point of the passage to the particular orientation of his own 

audience. In this instance, the “pastoral point” is the necessity of forsaking present pride 

and glory, in the imitation of apostolic humility: 

They should zealously seek these ways of the apostles – their dangers and 

humiliations, rather than their honours and glories. For it is these things that the 

gospel requires. 43 

40 Homily 12; PG 61.106-7. 

41 Homily 13; PG 61.107. 

42 Homily 13; PG 61.112. 

43 Homily 13; PG 61.107. 

139

This assertion seems to act as a bridge between exposition and application. Chrysostom’s 

audience is to consider Paul, and pursue his godly likeness in body and soul, eschewing 

present wealth in preference for greater riches. Far from being unrelated to the context of 

1 Corinthians then, Chrysostom’s injunction to share wealth attempts to strike at the heart 

of the issue that Paul has identified in Corinth: the love of present glory. 

Homily 15 also seems to move awkwardly between exposition and application. The 

exposition focuses on the sexually immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5; but the application 

focuses on the greedy desire for wealth: 

Where now are the wealthy? Those who count up simple and compound interest, 

those who take from all people and are never satisfied? 44 

But once again it would seem that Chrysostom is attempting to be pastorally attentive to 

the “disease” beneath the symptoms, and to bring out this underlying issue in his 

application. Chrysostom suggests that the sexually immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5 may 

in fact be one of the would-be “wise” of the Corinthian congregation, 45 and as such, the 

object of the congregation’s boasting. And whereas in Corinth this proud boasting has 

resulted in the acceptance of sexual immorality, in Antioch the equivalent boasting results 

in the acceptance of unrestrained greed. This bridge between exposition and application is 

actually made explicit, albeit briefly: 

Now it seems very much to me that the issue concerning the leaven also applies 

to the priests who allow much old leaven to remain within, not purging from their 

borders – that is, the church – the greedy, swindlers, and all that would exclude 

from the kingdom of heaven. For greed is indeed “old leaven”. 46 

This issue then becomes the focus of the homily application. 

44 Homily 15; PG 61.128. 

45 “σοφοῦ τινος ἴσως ὄντος” Homily 15; PG 61.122. 

46 Homily 15; PG 61.127. 

140

In each of these homilies, then, the pastor Chrysostom has sought to discern and 

effectively confront the congregation with the Antiochene manifestation of the underlying 

Corinthian problem. 

Broad Problems in Corinth 

It will be obvious by now that there is a cluster of recurring themes in Chrysostom’s 

exegetical homilies on 1 Corinthians. It will be fruitful to pay this some attention, noting 

three important strands: boastful pride; present wealth; and human autonomy. 

The Problem of Boastful Pride 

There is no doubt that for Chrysostom, boastful pride is chief among the problems in 

Corinth. This topic frequently appears in the “exposition” sections of the homilies. 

Young rightly notes: 

He links the factionalism of the Corinthian church with their arrogance, drawing 

his hearers’ attention to the way Paul puts down their swelling pride, insisting 

that the church is God’s so it ought to be united. 47 

Chrysostom believes that the rise of would-be wise orators in the Corinthian church has 

created division and has effectively demoted the truly godly leaders. 48 But the Corinthian 

catastrophe in chapters 1–4 is not fundamentally that the church is divided, but rather that 

its divisions expose the spiritual disaster of rampant boastful pride: 

47 Young, “They Speak,” 38; emphasis mine. 

48 “For men who were godly and friends of God were mocked and thrown out because of 

their lack of learning, while those who were full of innumerable evils were approved 

because of their polished speech”. Homily 11; PG 61.87. 

141

So, because these evils all sprang from arrogance [ἐξ ἀπονοίας], and from 

supposing themselves to be exceptional, he cleanses out these things first of 

all…. See how immediately, from the beginning, he casts out their pride [τὸν 

τῦφον κατέβαλε]! 49 

Do you see how, with every word, he casts out their puffed up pride [κατέβαλεν 

αὐτῶν τὸ φύσημα]? 50 

Having thus shamed those who were unsound in this way… he again pulls down 

their pride [τὸν τῦφον], saying “I do not know whether I baptised anyone else”. 51 

Having brought down the puffed up pride [τὸ φύσημα] of those who were high- 

minded because of baptism, he moves to those who were boasting on the basis of 

external wisdom. 52 

Having brought down their pride [τὸν τῦφον] and said, “Has not God made 

foolish the wisdom of this world”, he also mentions the cause, on account of 

which these things happened. 53 

What he had said earlier was sufficient to cast down the pride [καταβαλεῖν τὸν 

τῦφον] of those who boasted on account of wisdom. 54 

See what he says, repressing their pride [τὸν τῦφον αὐτῶν]! 55 

The other topics of the letter are likewise generally explained as arising from pride. 

Paul’s response to the sexually immoral man of 5:1 is described as follows: 

49 Introduction – Homily 1; PG 61.12. 

50 Homily 1; PG 61.13. 

51 Homily 3; PG 61.25 

52 Homily 3; PG 61.26. 

53 Homily 4; PG 61.32. 

54 Homily 6; PG 61.47. 

55 Homily 8; PG 61.69. 

142

Firstly he denounces the puffed up pride [φύσημα] of the man, seeing as the sin 

was made up of two parts working together: sexual immorality; and that which is 

worse than sexual immorality, the refusal to grieve over the sin that has been 

committed. For it is not so much that the sin has been committed that troubles 

him, but that the sin has been committed without repentance. 56 

Since, then, this is what the one who committed sexual immorality was like, 

having made his soul so reckless and inflexible through his sin, it was necessary 

to rebuke his pride [προκαταβάλλει τὸν τῦφον]. 57 

The issue of lawsuits in chapter 6 is said to arise from the same sort of bold spirit: 

And here again he makes his accusation on commonly acknowledged grounds. 

For in the former place he says, “It is actually reported that there is sexual 

immorality among you”; and here he says, “Do any of you dare?” Right from the 

beginning he shows his emotion and indicates that the matter arises from being 

daring and lawless. 

Chrysostom’s discussion of the problem of idol meat in chapter 8 similarly draws 

attention to the problem of pride: many are “swollen with pride” about their “perfect 

knowledge”, and so end up injuring themselves and others: 

And first he nullifies their pride [τὸν τῦφον αὐτῶν], declaring that the possession 

of perfect knowledge, which they thought set themselves apart, was common to 

all. 58 

See how he pulls down their puffed up pride [τὸ φύσημα]! 59 

56 Homily 11; PG 61.90. 

57 Homily 11; PG 61.91. 

58 Homily 20; PG 61.160. 

143

This pride in “perfect knowledge” is contrasted with an orientation of love: 

All of these evils arose from this: not from perfect knowledge but from refusing 

to greatly love or have mercy on their neighbour. 60 

Chrysostom’s application in this homily begins with the insistence that his hearers should 

consider human pride [τὸν τῦφον τὸν ἀνθρώπινον] 61 to be nothing. Commenting on the 

conclusion of this matter in chapter 10, he repeats that the “sources of these evils” are 

great boasting [ἀλαζονεία μάλιστα] and carelessness. 62 

In relation to the problem of headcoverings in chapter 11, Chrysostom observes that Paul 

must pull down the “puffed up pride of the opponents” [τὸ φύσημα τῶν 

ἐναντιουμένων]. 63 The divisions at the Lord’s Supper in the same chapter are said to 

express “ὕβριν εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον, ὕβριν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν”. 64 

Chrysostom describes the problems of spiritual gifts in chapters 12–14 as relating to envy 

and pride: 

Having restrained the envy of those with lesser gifts, and removed their 

discouragement, which it seems they had due to greater gifts being granted to 

others, he also humbles the pride of these people [ταπεινοῖ καὶ τούτων τὸν 

τῦφον] who had received the greater gifts. 65 

59 Homily 20; PG 61.162. 

60 Homily 20; PG 61.161. 

61 Homily 20; PG 61.168. 

62 Homily 23; PG 61.194. 

63 Homily 26; PG 61.213. 

64 Homily 27; PG 61.228. 

65 Homily 31; PG 61.258 (on chapter 12); On chapter 14 see homily 35; PG 61.310, where 

Paul is said to have rebuked their love of tongues so as “to pull down their pride [τῦφον 

αὐτῶν κατασπάσαι]”. 

144

Chrysostom hears the discussion of love in chapter 13 as an antidote to such an 

orientation: 

However, the miraculous signs would not have caused this. Rather these [greater 

gifts] lift the careless up to vain-glory and arrogance [εἰς κενοδοξίαν… καὶ 

ἀπόνοιαν]. 66 

Do you see how he doubly pulls down their puffed up pride [τὸ φύσημα αὐτῶν]? 

Because they have knowledge “in part”, and even their possession of this is not 

of themselves! 67 

The denial of the resurrection of the dead in chapter 15 is viewed by Chrysostom as the 

most serious problem in Corinth, “for indeed, everything hangs upon the resurrection”. 68 

And once again, Paul’s response involves “demolishing their arrogance [τὴν 

ἀπόνοιαν]”, 69 calling upon the Corinthians to “drive away pride [τὸν τῦφον] with 

humility [διὰ τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης]”. 70 

In the final homily of the series, Chrysostom sums up the issues of the letter as expressing, 

negatively, a neglect of love, and positively, an excess of pride: 

“Let everything be done in love”. Because in fact everything that has been 

mentioned so far has come about because of the neglect of this. 71 

Of all the evils, pride [ὁ τῦφος] was the cause. 72 

66 Homily 32; PG 61.271; cf. Homily 35; PG 61.301. 

67 Homily 34; PG 61.287. 

68 Homily 39: PG 61.336. 

69 Homily 39: PG 61.336. 

70 Homily 40; PG 61.354. 

71 Homily 44; PG 61.375. 

72 Homily 44; PG 61.377. 

145

Young concludes: 

Above all I am inclined to respect Chrysostom’s view that the issues are pride, 

status, attitude, finance and morality, rather than false doctrines, gnostic or 

otherwise. 73 

The Problem of Obsession with Present Wealth 

While Chrysostom’s identification of the problem of boastful pride is often found in the 

“exposition” sections of his homilies, his discussion of the problem of present wealth, as 

has been seen, often occurs in the “application” sections. It might be concluded from the 

connections examined above that, from Chrysostom’s perspective, the problematic 

Corinthian orientation of boastful pride most frequently finds concrete expression in 

Antioch in a luxurious infatuation with the possession of present wealth. The following 

application from Homily 6 is representative: 

I am saying these things both to rulers and to those who are ruled, and before all 

others, to myself: that we should demonstrate an admirable life, and, rightly 

ordering ourselves, should look down on all things present. Let us think nothing 

of riches, and think much of hell. Let us look down on glory, and look rather at 

salvation. Let us endure toil and labour here, in order that we might not fall into 

punishment there. 74 

As seen in this quotation, the pride in wealth that Chrysostom consistently opposes is 

emphatically bound to the present, and is frequently contrasted with the futurity of true 

glory. Again, this emphasis is especially a feature of the “application” sections of the 

homilies: 

73 Frances M. Young, “John Chrysostom on First and Second Corinthians,” SP 18/1 

(1986): 349-352; 350. 

74 Homily 6; PG 61.54. 

146

For the more perfect things remain in the future. 75 

Desiring then to take away their pride [καθελεῖν τὸν τῦφον], and to show that 

these things are not only no basis for pride [οὐ καλλωπίζεσθαι], but also that they 

are a cause for shame, he firstly makes fun of them, saying, “Without us you 

have begun to reign”. “What I mean is that for me”, he says, “the present time is 

not for honour or glory, which you are enjoying, but for persecution and insult, 

which we are suffering”. 76 

And why am I speaking of present things? For, doubtless, on that day, these 

things will not be said [that the greedy are better off than the poor], when both 

will appear naked. 77 

For those who seek rewards from God for labours in the present, and pursue 

virtue for the sake of present reward, have diminished their reward. 78 

The Problem of Human Autonomy 

For Chrysostom, this present-focused, wealth-absorbed pride effectively places humans in 

the position of glory, rather than God. This theme is especially present in the homilies on 

1 Corinthians 1–4: 

These latter people made the cross vain, while the former proclaimed God’s 

power. The latter, besides failing to find the things they needed, also set things 

75 Homily 12; PG 61.98. 

76 Homily 13; PG 61.107. 

77 Homily 15; PG 61.127. Cf. 61.130, in which Chrysostom concludes the homily by 

urging his hearers to await true wealth from God rather than to expect it all in the present. 

78 Homily 20; PG 61.170. Chrysostom understands the problem of idol-meat to involve 

the Corinthians’ assumption that they have arrived at perfection in terms of knowledge. 

Chrysostom points out, rather, that they have not yet reached the destination: Homily 23; 

PG 61.189. 

147

up to boast about themselves; the former, besides receiving the truth, were also 

made to pride themselves in God [ἐπὶ τῷ Θεῷ καλλωπίζεσθαι ἐποίει]. 79 

For also the “perfect” are those who know that human things are exceedingly 

weak; and who look past them, because nothing is to be gained by them. This is 

what the believers were like. 80 

In these homilies on chapters 1–4 Chrysostom repeatedly denounces those who effectively 

relate their status to “this or that person” (τῷ δεῖνι καὶ τῷ δεῖνι) rather than to God or 

Christ: 

Not the church “of this or that person” [τοῦδε καὶ τοῦδε], but of God. 81 

Not “this or that person” [τοῦ δεῖνος καὶ τοῦ δεῖνος], but “the name of the 

Lord”. 82 

And it is not this or that person [ὁ δεῖνα καὶ ὁ δεῖνα], but Christ who is the cause 

of this noble birth, having made us wise and righteous and holy. 83 

For it is not this or that person [ὁ δεῖνα… καὶ ὁ δεῖνα] who has made us wise, but 

Christ. So let the one who boasts boast in him, not in this or that person [τῷ 

δεῖνι καὶ τῷ δεῖνι]. 84 

This Corinthian pride in the wealth and honour associated with humans in the present is 

effectively an attempt to “save themselves”, rather than to depend upon God: 

79 Homily 6; PG 61.50. 

80 Homily 7; PG 61.55. 

81 Homily 1; PG 61.13. 

82 Homily 1; PG 61.13. 

83 Homily 5; PG 61.42. 

84 Homily 5; PG 61.42. 

148

For God does all things for this reason: that he might repress pride and high- 

mindedness [τὸν τῦφον καὶ τὸ φρόνημα]; that he might pull down boasting [τὸ 

καυχᾶσθαι]…. He does all things in order that we might consider nothing to be 

of ourselves; in order that all things might be ascribed to God. And have you 

given yourselves over to this or that person [τῷ δεῖνι καὶ τῷ δεῖνι]? And what 

pardon will you receive for this? For God has shown that we are not able to be 

saved by ourselves alone, and he has done this from the beginning. 85 

We have, then, a cluster of Corinthian-Antiochene problems identified in the expositions 

and applications of Chrysostom’s homilies, consisting of boastful pride, an obsession with 

present wealth, and the accompanying displacement of God. 

The Solution to Corinthian Problems 

For Chrysostom, the solution to these problems begins by recalling that “God overcomes 

by contraries”: 

Paul wants to indicate how God overcomes by contraries [διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων], 

and how the gospel is not human. 86 

So then, poverty with God becomes the cause of wealth; and humility, the cause 

of exaltation; and the despising of glory, the cause of glory. So also, becoming a 

fool makes one wiser than all. For all goes by contraries with us [τῶν ἐναντίων 

τὰ παρ' ἡμῖν]. 87 

This is what Christianity is like: in slavery it grants freedom. 88 

85 Homily 5; PG 61.41. Chrysostom goes on to apply this to his hearers: “Do not say that 

anything is of yourself, but in everything boast in God. Never account anything to a 

human”. Homily 5; PG 61.42. 

86 Homily 4; PG 61.33. 

87 Homily 10; PG 61.82. 

88 Homily 18; PG 61.157. 

149

The most fundamental of these “contraries” is undoubtedly the pursuit of death and the 

cross. 

He calls one to become dead to the world; and this deadness does not harm, but 

rather benefits, becoming the cause of life. 89 

The cross, although appearing to be disgraceful, has become the cause of 

innumerable blessings, and the basis and root of unspeakable glory. 90 

Having said, “Without us you have begun to reign”, and “God has demonstrated 

us as last, as those condemned to death”, he now shows the ways in which they 

have been condemned to death, saying “We are fools and weak and dishonoured, 

and we hunger and thirst and go naked and are beaten and are homeless, and 

labour, working with our own hands” – which are the signs of genuine teachers 

and apostles. But the others prided themselves on the contraries of these [ἐπὶ τοῖς 

ἐναντίοις μέγα ἐφρόνουν], on wisdom, glory, wealth, and honour. 91 

Indeed, in his exposition of the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians, the gospel itself may be 

summed up as the message of death: 

For he went about proclaiming death. 92 

For the cross and death were the proclamation. 93 

And [true] “wisdom” is what he calls the gospel, and the manner of salvation, 

being saved through the cross. 94 

89 Homily 10; PG 61.81-2. 

90 Homily 10; PG 61.82. 

91 Homily 13; PG 61.107. 

92 Homily 6; PG 61.48. 

93 Homily 6; PG 61.49. 

94 Homily 7; PG 61.55. Other comments in the same homily emphasise that the gospel, as 

far as Paul is concerned here, is synonymous with the cross: PG 61.57: Οὐ γὰρ ᾔδεσαν, ὅτι 

150

The Corinthians, and Chrysostom’s hearers, are summoned to follow the apostle Paul as 

he lives in the shadow of the cross of Christ, while looking to the future for a reversal of 

evident status. Indeed, even at points of the letter that do not emphasise this connection to 

Christ’s cruciform example, Chrysostom can bring it to the foreground, as in his homily 

about lawsuits: 

Do this then, and, looking up to heaven, consider that you have become like the 

one who is seated there upon the Cherubim. For he was also insulted and 

endured it; he was accused and did not retaliate; he was beaten and did not 

avenge; but rather he did the contrary to those who did such things, giving 

innumerable blessings. And he called us to become imitators of him. 95 

Inhabiting the cruciform Christ, then, is the way in which believers express union with 

Christ in this present age: 

Let us not simply hold Christ, but let us be cemented to him. For if we are apart 

from him, we are destroyed. 96 

For those who are captivated by their society’s proud pursuit of wealth, this humble 

identification with the crucified Christ is the sure evidence that they are willing to depend 

on God rather than on personal status or worldly esteem: 

They should not be high-minded even on the basis of their spiritual things, 

because they have nothing from themselves. 97 

οὕτω λάμψαι ἔχει ὁ σταυρὸς, ὅτι τῆς οἰκουμένης γίνεται σωτηρία καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τοὺς 

ἀνθρώπους καταλλαγὴ…. Σοφίαν δὲ καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν καλεῖ καὶ τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τὸ 

κήρυγμα. 

95 Homily 16; PG 61.137. Chrysostom goes on to make the connection to Paul’s imitation 

of Christ explicit. 

96 Homily 8; PG 61.72. 

97 Homily 10; PG 61.83. 

151

The pastoral “point” of chapters 1–4 for Chrysostom, then, is that the church is to humbly 

acknowledge its dependence on God by clinging to Christ and accepting his cross, rather 

than feeding the disease of human pride by entertaining wealth-obsessed boastful 

divisions. 

3. Chrysostom as Pastoral Interpreter 

It may be pointed out that this pastoral “point” of 1 Corinthians 1–4 expresses rather well 

Chrysostom’s conception of the essence of the Christian faith, evident across the breadth 

of his corpus. Those who come to Christ are called to reject the world’s pursuit of vain 

glory, and to humbly celebrate God’s mercy, while passing this mercy on to the poor. 

Young recalls the circumstances of Chrysostom’s own conversion: 

Chrysostom’s story begins with worldly success. He was a pupil of the most 

famous orator and educator of the time, Libanius, and Libanius clearly saw him 

as his successor – if only he had not been stolen by the Christians! In other 

words, young John was brilliant and had tremendous prospects. He could have 

had the “glory” (doxa) that was a key motivation in ancient society. Is it any 

wonder that so much of his preaching challenges the “empty glory” (kenodoxia) 

pursued by so many? A great reputation, being lionized by society, none of this 

was worth anything compared with recognizing one’s own unworthiness, 

learning humility and respect for God and for the lowest and least of God’s 

creatures. 98 

Having experienced this turnaround, Chrysostom seems to go on to approach the 

Scriptures as pastor with the expectation that he will hear Paul calling his wealth-attracted 

congregation to a similar pattern of humiliation. This Vorverständnis sets Chrysostom on 

a hermeneutical spiral that finds repeated exegetical affirmation, whether in explicit 

command or evocative nuance. He approaches 1 Corinthians expecting to find a rebuke 

98 Young, “They Speak,” 39. 

152

for the proud pursuit of Antiochene wealth; and, being highly attuned to this, he finds it, 

magnifies it, and expands upon it. Indeed, from Chrysostom’s perspective as preacher, his 

vocation is not simply to report what Paul did say, but to give creative voice to what Paul 

is saying through this part of Scripture, in this new circumstance: “What are you saying, O 

blessed Paul?” 99 Paul is saying that the Christians of Antioch must forsake their pride and 

their envious love of wealth, and so give honour to God rather than to humans. 

Disease in Corinth 

But it might be objected: What relevance does this have for those of us who would like to 

understand what Paul did say, 300 years before Chrysostom read him? In answer to this it 

should be noticed that, from Chrysostom’s perspective, the confrontation with a proud 

pursuit of wealth that so often comes to the forefront in his homily applications bears 

continuity with the underlying occasion of 1 Corinthians itself. According to Chrysostom 

it is the proud wealth and wisdom of first-century Corinth that give rise to every topic Paul 

tackles in the letter. This orientation might be thought of as the fundamental disease in 

Corinth, underlying the varied symptoms. Chrysostom introduces the series of homilies as 

follows: 

Just as Corinth is now the foremost city of Greece, so in the older period it 

admired itself for its numerous superior qualities of life [πλεονεκτήμασι 

βιωτικοῖς], and above all, its excessive wealth [χρημάτων περιουσίᾳ]…. Now 

we have said these things not because of showiness, or to demonstrate great 

learning (for what is there in knowing these things?), but because they are useful 

to us in the argument of the letter. 100 

99 Homily 24; PG 61.199. See also Homily 16, PG 61.135; Homily 22, PG 61.184; 

Homily 28, PG 61.233; Homily 33, PG 61.284; Homily 36, PG 61.310; Homily 39, PG 

61.335; Homily 41, PG 61.359; Homily 42, PG 61.366, where Chrysostom directs similar 

questions to Paul while preaching. 

100 Introduction; PG 61.10-11. 

153

So the problem of proud wealth was not only an issue of application in Antioch (even 

though, as mentioned, the element of wealth is mostly found in the “application” sections 

of the homilies); it is also a matter of the occasion of the letter. 101 In the concluding 

homily of the series he repeats this assertion that his concern has been with the issues that 

genuinely affected first century Roman Corinth: 

This pride brought about “external” wisdom, and this was the chief of the evils, 

which especially troubled Corinth. 102 

Significantly, this identification of matters of competitive wealth, status and elitist wisdom 

in Roman Corinth as an explanation for the various issues of the letter finds strong 

resonance with recent research. 

Witherington draws attention to issues of wealth and elitism in Corinth: 

People “got ahead” in life on the basis of patronage and clientage. It was a 

reciprocity culture…. This presented enormous problems for Paul in Corinth, 

because deciding to work with his hands, having refused patronage, angered 

some of the more elite Christians in Corinth and led to trouble. 103 

Andrew D. Clarke considers the significance of competitive social status and secular 

“wisdom”: 

The impact of secular society is betrayed in their elevation of the importance of 

social status for leadership in the church (1 Cor 1.26), and the pursuit of self- 

exaltation and boasting in order to enhance that status (1 Cor 1.29)…. [In 1 

101 Indeed, as Chase points out (Chrysostom, 153-60), Chrysostom is interested in many 

details that might now be thought of as “historical-critical”, such as dating, provenance, 

occasion, arrangement, and literary context. 

102 Homily 44; PG 61.377. 


154

Corinthians 1:18-29] [t]he wisdom of the world, dear to the Greeks, was being 

elevated in contrast to the apparent foolishness of the cross. 104 

Bruce W. Winter asserts that many of the problems in 1 Corinthians can be traced to the 

cultural norms of Roman Corinth, and points to the impact of the elite Corinthian embrace 

of Romanitas on a range of issues in the letter. 

One of these issues was the sexual conduct of some of the Christians, which 

reflected the defence made by the élite on these matters. 105 

Chrysostom’s contribution to this discussion is the reminder that these problems, arising 

in a society that emphasised wealth and status, have been pastorally evaluated by Paul as 

together exhibiting the spiritual disease of present-obsessed, God-denying pride: 

First of all Paul sets himself against the disease [of bold ambition], pulling up the 

root of the evils, and its offshoot, the spirit of discord. 106 

Chrysostom models for us the truth that socio-historical accounts of the Corinthian issues 

need not be placed in opposition to spiritual or theological accounts of the Corinthian 

problems. 107 Rather they may be seen as complementary perspectives, indeed, essential 

complementary perspectives for those who wish to understand Paul the first-century 

pastor. 

104 

Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical 

and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (Leiden: Brill, 1993; repr., Milton Keynes, 

Paternoster, 2006), 110-11. 

105 

Winter, After Paul, 27. 

106 

Introduction; PG 61.12. 

107 

See for example Oh-Young Kwon, “A Critical Review of Recent Scholarship on the 

Pauline Opposition and the Nature of its Wisdom (σοφία) in 1 Corinthians 1-4,” CBR 8/3 

(2010): 386-427; 420: “A wide range of scholarly hypotheses about the identification of 

Paul’s Corinthian opponents and the background of their wisdom traditions has been 

investigated. Of those hypotheses, rhetorical and social approaches appear to be the most 

appropriate method for an adequate description of the nature and background of 

Corinthian wisdom thoughts as addressed in 1 Cor. 1-4”. 

155

So when the pastor John Chrysostom pleads with his congregation to abandon their proud, 

present-obsessed love of wealth, he is, he believes, faithfully continuing the trajectory set 

by the pastor Paul, whose letter essentially confronts the same disease. Those who wish to 

interpret “what Paul said” would do well to pay attention to this trajectory in Chrysostom 

and beyond. 

4. Conclusion: John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 1–4 

Chrysostom’s forty-four homilies on 1 Corinthians must be approached as a homiletic 

series in which the Antiochene preacher seeks to listen to Paul and direct his passion to a 

different, but similarly “diseased”, congregation. Rather than being thrown by the 

sometimes obscure link between “exposition” and “application” in the exegetical homilies, 

I suggest that it may be fruitful to think of the link as pastorally creative and exegetically 

meditative, in the context of the world of the biblical book as a whole. 

In this light, in Chrysostom’s homilies on 1 Corinthians 1–4 we encounter a Paul whose 

pastoral sensitivity moves carefully between Corinth and Antioch, perceiving in the varied 

problems of both locations a unifying disease of wealth-fuelled autonomous pride. And 

we hear Paul’s antidote for the Corinthian disease amplified from the Antiochene ambo: 

Let us possess the height that comes from humility. Let us observe the nature of 

human things, in order that we might burn with a longing for things to come. For 

there is no other way to become humble except by the love of divine things and 

the contempt of present things…. For, casting out the love of these [present] 

things, we will have that divine love, and we will enjoy immortal glory. May 

God grant that all of us obtain this, by the grace and compassion of our Lord 

Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, 

power and honour, now and eternally, for ever and ever. Amen. 108 

108 Homily 1; PG 61.16. 

156

5. 1 Corinthians 1–4 as Exhibiting Paul’s Perception and 

Critique of Boastful, Present-Obsessed, Human Autonomy 

in Corinth 

It may be noted that my interpretation of Chrysostom above is at odds with the reading 

suggested by Margaret M. Mitchell in her 1991 work, Paul and the Rhetoric of 

Reconciliation. Mitchell, conceding that her attention at that time had been focused on the 

opening parts of Chrysostom’s homilies, later summarises her reading of the homilies: 

I was convinced [that 1 Corinthians] drew self-consciously upon Greco-Roman 

political commonplaces against factionalism, in order to persuade the tiny church 

community in that urbanized Greek context to end their divisiveness and pursue 

peace and concord in a unity centered on their existence as the body of Christ…. 

I sought verification of my thesis in the writings of Greek patristic authors…. [I] 

soon discovered that the rhetorically trained preacher from Antioch [Chrysostom] 

understood 1 Corinthians in very much the same way that I did, both commenting 

upon Paul’s purpose and execution as pervasively rooted in the quest for ecclesial 

unity, and also even describing what Paul was doing by employing political 

terminology himself. 109 

I have suggested that it may be more comprehensively attentive to hear Chrysostom as 

interpreting 1 Corinthians 1–4 to be a pastoral objection to the disease of boastful, present- 

obsessed human autonomy. Chrysostom perceives that the political dispute concerning 

leadership in the Corinthian church betrays a pastoral-theological crisis of misplaced 

confidence. The letter is thus not precisely a sustained argument for ecclesial unity so 

much as a sustained critique of human autonomy. The distinction is important. 

We move now to an examination of 1 Corinthians 1–4 itself. I suggest, in substantial 

agreement with Chrysostom’s perspective, that this section is attentively heard as a 

109 Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, xv. 

157

confrontation between Corinthian human autonomy (as evaluated by Paul) and its 

alternative, dependence upon God (as exemplified by Paul and the “apostles”). The 

divisions in the church (which, in agreement with Mitchell, I take to be political in nature; 

and in agreement with Chrysostom and Clarke, I take to arise especially from issues of 

competitive leadership) are taken by Paul to be paradigmatic of this grave theological 

error. 

This can be demonstrated by an examination of the rhetorical conclusion points 

throughout Paul’s argumentation in this section, almost every one of which pits that which 

is ἀνθρώπου against that which is θεοῦ. These rhetorical conclusion points are generally 

introduced by logical indicators such as γάρ, ἵνα, ὥστε or ἡμεῖς δέ. 

Conclusion Points Throughout Paul’s Argumentation: The Human and the Divine 

1:17 

This verse, introduced by γάρ, brings 1:13-17 to a climax by asserting that Paul’s 

apostolic task is proclamation rather than baptism. It is noteworthy that the thing that Paul 

emphatically finds problematic is the type of sophistic wisdom that relies upon human 

oratorical skill (οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου). Smit argues that: 

in rejecting σοφίᾳ λόγου [Paul] does not attack rhetoric as such, but human 

reasoning which they greatly admire. 110 

110 Joop Smit, “ ‘What is Apollos? What is Paul?’ In Search for the Coherence of First 

Corinthians 1:10-4:21” NovT 44/3 (2002): 231-251; 231; emphasis mine. I am in 

agreement with Winter that such “human” oratory is well represented by the Sophists: 

Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul Among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian 

Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (2 nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 

2002). Isocrates demonstrates the well-known concern that the Sophists placed little 

emphasis on truth: “But they [those who teach political discourse in the manner of the 

Sophists] say that the knowledge of matters can be passed on just as easily as the 

knowledge of the alphabet, as if one can have both of these without having made a proper 

examination. They imagine that because of the extravagance of their promises they will 

command awe, and the instruction of their speeches will seem to be of great worth. They 

fail to realise that it is not those who dare to boast about the arts who make them great, but 

those who have the power to search out all that may be found in them” (Isocrates, Against 

158

Witherington follows Mitchell in viewing 1:10 as the programmatic thesis statement or 

propositio of the letter, 111 setting the theme for the entire discourse, as elaborated by a 

short narratio in 1:11-17. This passage as a whole is said to set up chapters 1–4 as: 

an exposition of true wisdom (as offered in the gospel) meant to cause the 

Corinthians to decide to change their factious behavior. 112 

It does seem that this section envisages divisions that are political in nature, rather than 

doctrinal. The use of similar formulations in Greco-Roman 113 and Jewish 114 depictions of 

the Sophists, 13.10). Philo writes: “Now I am speaking of those who are unclean, 

meaning those who have never tasted education, or those who act treacherously: Having 

received education in a crooked way, they have transformed the beauty of wisdom 

[σοφίας] into the ugliness of sophistry [σοφιστείας]” (Philo, Every Good Man is Free, 4). 

Dio Chrysostom describes a trip to Corinth, perhaps actually in the late first century: “And 

there at this time, around the temple of Poseidon, one could hear many of the wicked 

Sophists, crying out and reviling one another, and their so-called disciples fighting one 

another… [and] myriads of lawyers, twisting judgements” (Dio Chrysostom, Eighth 

Discourse: On Virtue (Diogenes), 8.4b-6). 

111 As does Collins: “The identification of 1 Cor 1:10… as the formal expression of Paul’s 

thesis allows the letter to be seen as a plea for the unity of the community”. Collins, First 

Corinthians, 14. 

112 Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical 

Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 98. Cf. 

Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 65-66. As Martin points out, “socio-rhetorical 

commentaries often rely on a classical rhetorical arrangement”. Martin, “Invention and 

Arrangement,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. Sampley and Lampe), 53; note 20. 

113 Depictions of political “division” by Greco-Roman speakers and writers often include 

the problems of “zeal” and “strife”, and call for unity of mind and purpose for the sake of 

political harmony. Diodorus’ account of battle and betrayal is simply notable for using the 

same terms that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians to depict division and factions: “When the 

treason became obvious to all throughout the city, and the multitudes were divided into 

factions – those wishing to fight with the Athenians, and those wishing to help the 

Lakedemonians, a certain person, acting on his own initiative, proclaimed that those who 

wished could take up arms with the Athenians and Megarians” (Diodorus Siculus, 

Library, 12.66.2). Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus is illustrative of the fact that influential 

Greek literature commonly combined the problems of zeal and strife, as Paul goes on to 

do in 1 Corinthians: “As when he has reached the end of youth, bearing its light follies, 

what plagues are outside a person’s great suffering? Are there any troubles a person does 

not experience? Envy, factions, strife, fights, and murders” (Sophocles, Oedipus at 

Colonus, 1230-1235). Plutarch uses similar terminology to describe political unrest: “For 

conflicting passions and violent motions prevailed in every place. For those rejoicing did 

not keep quiet but came face to face with those who were in much fear and suffering in 

such a great city; and, being arrogant about what was coming, came into strife with them” 

(Plutarch, Lives, Caesar, 32.2-3). 

114 Jewish writers similarly appeal for harmony in the face of divisive “strife”. Pseudo- 

Phocylides illustrates: “They [that is, the sun and the moon] always have harmony; for if 

there were strife among the blessed ones, heaven would not stand” (Pseudo-Phocylides, 

Sentences, 74-75). Josephus blames problems on political factionalism, and reports the 

159

political faction and competitive allegiance supports the idea that Paul is interpreting the 

situation in Corinth along similar lines. The Corinthians’ divided allegiance to external 

figureheads follows the pattern of secular competition for status. 115 

However, following Bjerkelund’s analysis, Thiselton is unpersuaded that verse 10 carries 

the rhetorical function of a propositio. 116 He rightly notes that the verse may be heard as a 

non-technical appeal, rather than the propositio of a conventional rhetorical argument. 

Petr Pokorný and Ulrich Heckel in fact view 1:18 as the propositio, setting up a 

fundamental antithesis between Corinthian superiority and Christ’s cross, which pervades 

and structures the letter: 

Der Satz über das Wort vom Kreuz (1,18) hat – ähnlich wie Röm 1,16 – die 

Funktion einer Kernthese (propositio), die den gesamten Brief bestimmt, 

zunächst in 1,18-2,5 ausgeführt (probatio) und mit der Pistisformel in 15,3-5 als 

Inhalt des Evangeliums wieder aufgenommen wird. Dadurch ergibt sich eine 

Inclusio (Rahmung) des ganzen Schreibens. Gott unterstützt den Menschen nicht 

in seiner äußeren Macht, sondern er kommt zu ihm in seiner Schwäche. 117 

Whether or not the designation propositio is appropriate (and Martin has pointed out 

significant problems associated with such designations 118 ), it does seem that the antithesis 

call to like-mindedness: “When did our bondage begin? Was it not from the factions of 

our forefathers, when the madness of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, and our quarrels between 

one another brought Pompey to the city, and God subjected to the Romans those not 

worthy of freedom?” (Josephus, Jewish War, 5.395-6). “But especially I urge you to be 

like-minded; and in whatever way one of you surpasses another, defer to one another, 

making the best use of your virtues” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 12.283). 

115 The repeated genitives, often translated “I belong to...”, may represent Paul’s pejorative 

way of encapsulating childish squabbling, or the language of benefaction. Mitchell argues 

that a significant background is the language of parent-child and master-slave 

relationships: Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 85. Clarke suggests the background of 

patronage and benefaction: Clarke, Secular and Christian, 89-95. 


117 Petr Pokorný and Ulrich Heckel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: seine Literatur und 

Theologie im Überblick (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 231. 

118 Martin cites Mitchell’s attempt to demonstrate that 1:10 is the “thesis statement” and 

notes, “This attempt to find the causa in one of the parts of speech possessed a natural 

simplicity that eclipsed its complexity in actual practice”. Martin, “Invention and 

Arrangement,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. Sampley and Lampe), 78. 

160

here between that which is human and that which is divine goes on to underlie much of the 

rest of the letter, as this examination will demonstrate. 

1:25 

This verse, introduced by γάρ, brings 1:18-25 to a climax with a theological maxim: “For 

the foolishness of God is wiser than humans, and the weakness of God is stronger than 

humans”. The limitation that must be overcome is that which is human (τῶν ἀνθρώπων). 

Origen emphasises this distinction between that which is human and that which is 

divine, 119 and Wilhelm Wuellner sees such a distinction as the main point of the opening 

of the letter body: 

1:31 

The main theme of the homily [that is, of 1 Corinthians 1–3] is stated in 1 Cor 

1.19. It contains the divine judgment on human wisdom. 120 

This verse, introduced by ἵνα, brings 1:26-31 to a climax with a Scripture quotation, “Let 

the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” The implied problem is boasting in human status 

(cf. 1:26) rather than in God (μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ). Gail R. 

O’Day points out 121 that Paul may be drawing on Jeremiah 9:23-24 here, calling the 

Corinthians to give up every source of security outside God, particularly the triad of 

human wisdom, might, and wealth. This triad (1:26) is contrasted with a triad that 

emphatically comes from God in Christ: ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν 

ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις (1:30). 

119 

Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1.6.8-12. 

120 

Wilhelm Wuellner, “Haggadic Homily Genre in 1 Corinthians 1-3,” JBL 89/2 (1970): 

199-204; 201; emphasis mine. 

121 

Gail R. O’Day, “Jeremiah 9:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31: A Study in 

Intertextuality,” JBL 109/2 (1990): 259-267. 

161

Indeed, Jewish prophetic and wisdom literature (especially that associated with the motif 

of reversal) makes a sharp distinction between dependently boasting in humans and 

dependently boasting in the Lord, as can be seen below. It seems that Paul perceives the 

Corinthian church to be effectively doing the former rather than the latter. 

Jeremiah 9:22-23, Septuagint 

Thus says the Lord: “The wise should not boast [καυχάσθω] in their wisdom, and 

the strong should not boast in their strength, and the wealthy should not boast in 

their wealth. But let the one who boasts boast in this: that they understand and 

know that I am the Lord, who makes mercy and justice and righteousness upon 

the earth, because these things are my will”, says the Lord. 

Sirach 1:11 

The fear of the Lord is glory and a boast and gladness and a crown of rejoicing. 

Sirach 9:16 

May righteous men be your dinner companions, and may your boast [καύχημά] 

be in the fear of the Lord. 

Sirach 10:19-22 

What seed is honourable? Human seed. What seed is honourable? Those who 

fear the Lord. What seed is dishonourable? Human seed. What seed is 

dishonourable? Those who break the commandments. Among brothers and 

sisters, the one who leads them is honoured; but in the Lord’s eyes, it is those 

who fear him. Wealthy or esteemed or poor, their boast is the fear of the Lord. 

Sirach 11:1 

The wisdom of the humble lifts their head, and they will sit in the midst of those 

who are great. 

162

Pseudo-Phocylides: Sentences, 53-54 

Do not be arrogant with respect to wisdom or strength or wealth. The one God is 

wise, powerful, and at the same time full of blessing. 

Irenaeus thus hears 1 Corinthians 1:29 as proving the necessity of grace, in the face of a 

boastful human desire to usurp God’s position. 122 Augustine insists that in these verses, 

Paul’s clear intention is to confront the problem of pride in human works, 123 because God 

himself is our righteousness. 124 According to John of Damascus, Paul presents this human 

boasting as the origin of all sin. 125 And Clement of Rome draws on this theme of 1 

Corinthians in order to establish a fundamental attitude of humility, before urging the 

Corinthians very practically to forsake partisanship in the latter part of his letter: 

2:5 

1 Clement 13:1 

Let us be humble then, brothers and sisters, forsaking all boasting [ἀλαζονείαν] 

and pride [τῦφος] and foolishness and anger; and let us do that which is written. 

For the Holy Spirit says, “Do not let the one who is wise boast in their wisdom, 

or the one who is strong boast in their strength, or the one who is wealthy boast 

in their wealth; but let the one who boasts boast in the Lord, to seek him and to 

do justice and righteousness”. 

This verse, introduced by ἵνα, brings 2:1-5 to a climax with a summarizing purpose 

clause: “So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom [ἐν σοφίᾳ ἀνθρώπων], but on 

God’s power”. The contrast is not between different types of wisdom, but between 

different authorities, human or divine. The term “demonstration” [ἀπόδειξις] is used 

ironically here, as it was known as a technical term of rhetorical “proof”. 126 

122 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 20.1. 

123 Augustine, Predestination of the Saints 5.9. 

124 Augustine, On Patience 17. 

125 John of Damascus, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, PG 95. 

126 See, for example, Cicero, Academics 2.8; Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory 5.10.7. 

163

Origen rehearses the thrust of this section in countering a desire for polished rhetoric, 

insisting that it is only by “divine agency” that words achieve power. 127 Christian Wolff 

suggests that this verse, along with many others in these chapters, indicates that the base 

problem, in Paul’s view, is the Corinthians’ desire for self-attestation and the fulfilment of 

human ideals, rather than an acquiescence to the saving work of God through the crucified 

one. 128 

2:9-10 

These verses bring 2:6-10 to a climax with a Scripture quotation and insistent adversative 

(ἡμῖν δέ): no eye, ear, or human heart (καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου) has comprehended the things 

of God; but God has revealed them to those of his choosing. The contrast is between the 

ability of worldly rulers (οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) to discern the things 

of God and God’s own revelation to the apostles: 

The ἡμῖν is in emphatic contrast to “the rulers of this world” who do not know 

(v.8). God reveals His glory, through His Spirit, to those for whom it is 

prepared. 129 

Paul arguably alludes to Isaiah 6 (and Isaiah 64-65) here, picking up Isaiah’s emphatic 

opposition between human presumption and divine revelation. Tertullian rightly insists 

that the mention of the “rulers of this age” is not primarily intended to evoke thought of 

supernatural rulers, but of all-too-human rulers, representative of ignorant worldly power, 

and seen quintessentially in Rome. 130 

127 Origen, Against Celsus Book 6, Chapter 2. 

128 Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (2nd ed.; TKNT 7; 

Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2000), 8. 

129 Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on 

the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1911), 43. 

130 Tertullian, Against Marcion Book 5, Chapter 6. 

164

2:16 

This verse brings 2:10-16 to a climax with a Scripture quotation and insistent adversative 

(ἡμεῖς δέ): “For who has known the mind of the Lord… But we have the mind of Christ.” 

The contrast is between the “knowledge” of those who are unable to receive from God’s 

Spirit, and those who do receive from God’s Spirit. 

It seems that the designation “spiritual” was related to the competition for esteem among 

the Corinthian believers. In first century Roman society, the term “spirit” had some use in 

Stoic and other articulations of reality: 

Seneca: Epistles, 41.1-2 131 

God is near you, with you, within you. This is what I am saying, Lucilius: a 

sacred spirit lies inside us; an observer of our good and bad deeds, and a 

protector. In accordance with the way we treat it, it treats us. 

However, Paul refuses to remove the term from its relation to the Spirit of God, who is the 

means of divine revelation. 

John of Damascus hears Paul opposing human self-sufficiency here. 132 Chrysostom 

likewise insists, in his homily on 2:6-16, that Paul is confronting the human reasoning that 

is used to reject God: 

And since you have used wisdom for the rejection of God, and have sought more 

of it than it has strength to provide, God has shown you its weakness, leading you 

away from human hope [ἀνθρωπίνης ἐλπίδος]. 133 

131 

This letter is about the importance of the human soul as a locus for the activity of the 

divine. 

132 

John of Damascus, Commentary, PG 95, in which he insists that humans are in need of 

help “from above”. 

133 Homily 7; PG 61.60. 

165

3:4 

But all the things that we know are not of human origin [οὐκ ἀνθρώπινα], so as 

to be doubtful, but of His mind, and Spiritual. 134 

But we have the mind of Christ. That is, Spiritual, divine, having nothing human 

[οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπινον ἔχοντα]. 135 

This verse, introduced by γάρ, brings 3:1-4 to a climax by justifying Paul’s charge that the 

Corinthians are not acting as Spiritual 136 people: “For when one says ‘I follow Paul’, and 

another, ‘I follow Apollos’, are you not human [οὐκ ἄνθρωποί ἐστε]?” It seems that the 

problem of divisive attachment to external figureheads is that it is evidence of being 

merely (and proudly) human. In continuity with Hebrew prophets and Jewish interpreters, 

as seen below, Paul seeks to summon those whom he perceives as boastful and puffed up 

away from aligning themselves with the values and power of human rule and benefaction, 

and rather to trust in God, who will bring reversal to the weak and humble. 

Esther Addition C: 14:17e 

But I have done this [refused to bow down to Haman] in order that I might not 

place the glory of a human above the glory of God, and that I might not worship 

anyone besides you my Lord, and that I might not act in arrogance. 

Philo, On the Decalogue, 41 137 

For if the One who is uncreated and imperishable and eternal, who needs nothing 

and is maker of everything, the Benefactor and King of kings and God of gods 

could not bring himself to overlook the humble… why should I, as a mortal, 

134 Homily 7; PG 61.61-62. 

135 Homily 7; PG 61.61.62. 

136 Here and at numerous points elsewhere I capitalise the first letter of “Spiritual” to 

indicate that, from Paul’s perspective, genuine “spirituality” is necessarily derived from 

the “Spirit”. 

137 Philo’s emphasis in context is that God is willing to condescend to offer his laws to 

each individual. 

166

3:9 

carry myself in a way that is arrogant and puffed up and loud-mouthed toward 

those like myself? 

This verse, introduced by γάρ, brings 3:5-9 to a climax by summarising the relation of 

Paul and Apollos to each other, and to God. Paul and Apollos are God’s fellow workers. 

This corrective functions by only allowing human leadership significance if it receives 

approved divine empowerment. It seems that Paul is at pains to distance himself and 

Apollos from competitive conventions of reciprocity that might otherwise be associated 

with travelling speakers. Seneca laments the fact that some people would only pursue 

virtue for the sake of commercial gain. Paul emphasises that it is God who repays his 

workers: 

Seneca, On Benefits, 4.1.1-2 

[We are considering] whether the giving of benefits, and the esteem that is 

returned for them, are to be sought for their own sake. There are some who act 

with honour only for the reward, being unsatisfied with free virtue; although it 

carries no greatness if it is for sale! 

Clement of Alexandria hears this section as confirming that human philosophical 

persuasion is useless unless its hearers begin with faith in God. The labour of God’s co- 

workers will not bear fruit through merely human means. 138 As might be expected, 

Chrysostom also emphasises this distinction: 

“And to each as the Lord assigned”. For not even this smallest thing came from 

themselves, but from God, who gave it into their hands. For it is in order that 

they might not say, “What then? Are we not to love those who minister to us?” 

138 Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies Book 1, Chapter 1. 

167

3:17 

“Yes!” he says. “But you need to know how much!” For their ministry is not 

from themselves, but from God, who gives it. 139 

This verse brings 3:10-17 to a climax with a stern warning: God will destroy those who 

destroy his temple. This warning functions to show that those who build other than with 

the divinely given foundation will receive divine rejection. Kent L. Yinger rightly 

observes that this section represents “a continuation of Paul’s attempt to stop their 

boasting in human leaders, begun in verse 5.” 140 

3:21-3 

These verses, introduced by ὥστε, bring at least 3:18-23 (and surely more) to a climax, 

picking up the language of the problem stated in 1:10-12. The problem in this conclusion 

is clearly boasting about humans. Proud “possession” of humans is ironically turned on 

its head, as Paul concludes that the Corinthians themselves are ultimately possessed by 

God. 

Helmut Merklein calls this section the “erste Konklusion” of chapters 1–4, 141 and Fee 

labels it “a preliminary conclusion, a conclusion which makes certain that the long 

argument of 1:18–3:4 was not some mere sermonic or rhetorical aside, but rather spoke to 

the root of the problem of their strife”. 142 Robertson and Plummer sum up this point that 

clearly harks back to the material of the first chapter: 

139 Homily 8; PG 61.71. 

140 Kent L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds (Cambridge: 


141 Merklein, Der erste Brief, Kapitel 1-4, 277. 

142 Fee, First Epistle, 150. Fee goes on: “All of this recalls and applies the argument of 

1:18-2:16.” He later sums up the problem envisaged in chapters 1-3 as “the Corinthian 

pride in man and wisdom” 155. 

168

To “glory in men” is the opposite of ‘glorying in the Lord’ (i.31). 143 

This significant recapitulatory climax, in which the key problem is “boasting in humans” 

is broadened in 4:1-5: 144 

4:5 

This verse, introduced by ὥστε, brings 4:1-5 to a climax by giving a plain prohibition: “So 

judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes…. At that time each 

will receive praise from God”. The problem seems to involve premature human 

judgements (ὑπὸ ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας – verse 3, no doubt ironically hinting at the 

“judgement day” of God) about leaders, which do not reflect judgement (praise) that 

comes in the future from God. 

Barth rightly captures this consistent emphasis within chapters 1–4 on the confrontation of 

the human with the divine: 

What Christianity is specially concerned about is Christian knowledge… the 

understanding or the failure to understand the three words ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (from 

God). Unless everything deceives, that is the trend of Paul’s utterance (1 Cor. i.– 

iv). 145 

The problems in 1:10–4:5, then, seem to centre on boasting in humans. Or perhaps more 

accurately, boasting in that which is human (whether other human leaders, or one’s own 

spiritual superiority or independence), as opposed to placing appropriate confidence in 

143 Robertson and Plummer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 72. I am quoting from 

the authors’ own copy of the book, in which the originally incorrect reference “i.21” has 

been corrected to “i.31”. 

144 Kate C. Donahoe rightly notes: “Though a chapter division separates 3:18-23 and 4:1- 

5, these two sections nevertheless belong together as a recapitulation of previous themes”. 

Kate C. Donahoe, “From Self-Praise to Self-Boasting: Paul’s Unmasking of the 

Conflicting Rhetorico-Linguistic Phenomena in 1 Corinthians” (Ph.D. diss., University of 

St. Andrews, 2008), 73. 

145 Barth, Resurrection of the Dead, 26. 

169

that which is divine. A number of related concrete issues seem to cluster around this core 

problem as it is framed in this section: 

• Leadership: Allegiance to particular external figureheads (and possibly their 

baptism); worldly, premature judgement of local church leaders 

• Wise Speech: Esteem for secular models of wisdom and speech; esteem for 

secular examples of power and rule 

• Spiritual Status: A desire to be thought of as “spiritual” despite ironic “fleshly- 

ness” and spiritual immaturity; pride related to what one “possesses” 

After this point there is a conscious re-framing of the critical issue. In 4:6-7, Paul reveals 

that he has “transformed” (μετεσχημάτισα) the issue in terms of himself and Apollos, in 

order that the Corinthians might not become “puffed up” on behalf of one leader over 

against another. This word means “transform” elsewhere in Paul (Phil. 3:21) and other 

early literature. David R. Hall has commented extensively on this verse, following 

Chrysostom and others in suggesting: 

The meaning is that Paul has disguised his argument, so that what really applies 

to other people has been applied to himself and Apollos. 146 

Hall’s correct observation that the verb always carries the meaning “to alter the form or 

appearance of something into something else” may be applied not just to the personalities 

represented in the accusation, but also to the level of the accusation. That is, Paul has 

“disguised” his argument as though he were simply dealing with himself and Apollos as 

figureheads of a Corinthian dispute, whereas in fact his deeper accusation is that in their 

proud neglect of certain leaders and preference for polished speakers the Corinthian 

believers in general are “puffed up” 147 and oblivious of their need for dependence. This in 


147 Laurence L. Welborn’s suggestion that this image carries obvious political overtones of 

conceited oratory is making the imagery too specific. Certainly the idea of conceit is 

clear, but to claim that the examples of aristocratic oratory that Welborn lists are the same 

specification of “conceit” as that intended by Paul is rather speculative. The same verb is 

used, for example, in Testament of Levi 14:7-8, in which the picture is of pride in priestly 

position. The verb is used in Colossians 2:18 to picture pride in manifest spirituality. 

170

fact is how his argument subsequently takes “shape” 148 in the rest of the chapter. From 

this point, the problem seems no longer to be framed in terms of division itself; rather the 

underlying issue, which had been “shaped” in terms of divisive attachment to Paul and 

Apollos, now comes openly to the fore: 149 theologically inappropriate boasting that 

denies dependence and exhibits itself in “present-obsessed” or “prematurely 

triumphalistic” 150 status-seeking. 

In disclosing his covert allusion to Corinthian parties then, Paul is both parodying the 

local “would-be wise” leaders’ allegiance to external figureheads 151 and unveiling the 

church-wide root of this orientation: puffed up anthropocentrism. 

4:7 

This verse, introduced by γάρ, brings to a climax the short but crucial section of 4:6-7, in 

which Paul reveals the essence of the issue that had been “shaped” in terms of himself and 

Apollos: 152 “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do 

you boast as though you did not?” The problem is inappropriate boasting that wrongly 

implies human accomplishment. 

Chrysostom defines the word in Homily 1 (PG 61.16) as the opposite of humility. 

Laurence L. Welborn, “Discord in Corinth: First Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics,” in 

Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (ed. Edward Adams and David 

G. Horrell; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 139-144; 142-143. 

148 

To continue the metaphor of the verb in question. 

149 

Chrysostom rightly notes: “Up to this point, using harsh words, he did not unveil the 

curtain, but he argued as though he himself were the one hearing these things…. But 

because now it is time to show mercy, he removes it and takes off the mask”. Garland 

comments, “it should not be overlooked that 1:18-3:4 lays the foundation for what he says 

in 3:5 to 4:5”. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 131. 

150 

I take this phrase from Thiselton, and will comment further on this concept later in this 

chapter. 

151 

It is possible that faction leaders themselves were using covert allusion, implicitly 

including themselves in their praise of their chosen figureheads. See B. Fiori, “‘Covert 

Allusion’ in 1 Corinthians 1-4,” CBQ 47 (1985): 85-102; Winter, Philo and Paul, 196- 

201; Clarke, Secular and Christian, 122-124. 

152 

The meaning and purpose of the phrase “not beyond that which is written” is greatly 

discussed. It may be that Augustine’s view is worthy of refreshed emphasis. Augustine 

reads this phrase as an injunction to put the Word ahead of its servants: Augustine, Letter 

95.4 “To Brother Paulinus and Sister Theresia”. Chrysostom perhaps also hears the 

phrase in this way: His text reads: ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε, τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ὃ γέγραπται φρονεῖν. 

171

Chrysostom appears to understand the variety of situational problems in Corinth (such as 

baptism, eloquence, teaching, pride in spiritual gifts and words of teaching) to be in view 

in the singular corrective of this section: Why boast as though you did not receive? 

For these things do not belong to you, but come from the grace of God. And if 

you should say “faith”, it comes from his calling; or if you should say 

“forgiveness of sins” or “gifts” or “the word of teaching” or “miracles”, all things 

come from this grace. Tell me then what you have that you did not receive but 

which came from yourself! You have nothing to say. 153 

Basil of Caesarea, 154 Ambrose, 155 and Augustine 156 similarly understand this boasting to 

be a fundamental repudiation of divine grace, or an attempt at self-merited justification. 

Whether or not the terminology of “justification” is appropriate, the force of Paul’s 

rhetorical questions in 4:7 is not misperceived by Augustine and the other Patristics here. 

Paul is confronting those in Corinth with the fundamental theological necessity of 

reception, as opposed to bold presumptuous autonomy. Carrez perceives this well: 

Ainsi, face à la confiance en la chair, à la confiance en l’homme livré et 

abandonné à lui-même, face à l’isolement volontaire d’un apôtre ou d’un croyant, 

il affirme, car c’est nécessaire: “Nous avons tout reçu”. 157 

153 Homily 12; PG 61.98. 

154 See Basil of Caesarea, Homily 20, PG 31, in which Basil hears this verse as responding 

to the problem of pride in human righteousness. 

155 See Ambrose, De paenitentia 2,6,40, in which Ambrose quotes this verse as 

representing the essence of divine forgiveness and justification. 

156 See Augustine, “Letter to Valentine”, in which Augustine takes the boasting of this 

verse to represent the attempt at self-justification. See also On the Trinity, Book 14, 

Chapter 15, in which Augustine reads this verse as confronting the Christian soul that is 

proud of its own accomplishment. Also, “Letter to Paulinus of Nola” 186,3,10, in which 

Augustine again reads this verse as confronting the idea that humans can merit 

justification. 

157 M. Carrez, “La Confiance en l’Homme et la Confiance en Soi Selon l’Apôtre Paul,” 

RHPR 44 (1964): 191-199; 199. 

172

It is not surprising then, that Clement of Rome, in urging the Corinthians to abandon 

partisanship forty years later, establishes not only this church’s prior unity, but firstly its 

fundamental orientation of humility: 

1 Clement 2:1 

All of you were humble, never boasting, submitting rather than demanding 

submission, gladly giving rather than receiving, happy with the things provided 

by God. 

Clement observes that their subsequent loss of unity flowed from a fundamental loss of 

humility: 

1 Clement 3:1-2 

All glory and growth were given to you, and that which is written was fulfilled: 

“The one I loved ate and drank and grew and became fat and kicked”. From this 

came zeal and envy, strife and factions, persecution and homelessness, war and 

captivity. 

Paul’s “unveiling” of the critical issue is followed by an intensely challenging ironic 

crescendo in 4:8-13, which serves to heighten and crystallise the proud, autonomous, 

present-obsessed orientation which has really been in view since 1:10. 

4:13 

This verse encapsulates the ironic apostolic self-deprecation of 4:8-13: “Up to this 

moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.” The problem of 

prematurely triumphant self-assertion is reflected in Paul’s ironic, emphatically present, 

abasement. 

Wayne Meeks comments: 

173

There is a fairly wide consensus among exegetes that this passage, taken in 

context with the many statements emphasizing the future and temporal sequence 

throughout the letter, especially in chapter 15, enable us to discern one major 

issue behind the varied problems addressed by the letter. As it is commonly put, 

the issue is between the “realized eschatology” of the group called the 

pneumatikoi or the teleioi in Corinth and the “futurist eschatology” or 

“eschatological reservation” of Paul. 158 

A number of scholars hesitate to use the theological term “realised eschatology” of those 

in Corinth, cautioning that the problems of the Corinthians were not directed by a coherent 

doctrinal position on eschatology. For example, Henrik Tronier writes: 

[T]he term “realized eschatology” would not have made much sense; Paul’s 

opponents did not change some genuinely Christian “future eschatology” by 

claiming it for the present. Rather, they did not concern themselves with any 

idea of eschatology at all; eschatology was simply absent. 159 

This sort of critique is not uncommonly associated with the assertion that the problems in 

Corinth can be understood more fruitfully in social terms rather than theological terms. 

Winter, for example, critiques Thiselton’s 1978 article “Realized Eschatology in Corinth”: 

158 Wayne Meeks, “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language,” in Apocalypticism in the 

Mediterranean World and the Near East. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on 

Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979 (ed. David Hellholm; 2 nd ed.; Tübingen: 

Mohr Siebeck 1989), 687-705; 699. 

159 Henrik Tronier, “The Corinthian Correspondence Between Philosophical Idealism and 

Apocalypticism,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. Troels Engberg- 

Pedersen; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 165-196; 189. N.T. 

Wright similarly argues: “Many scholars have come round to the view argued by Richard 

Hays that the problem at Corinth was not too much eschatology but not nearly enough. 

The Corinthians were attempting to produce a mixture of Christianity and paganism; their 

‘puffed-up’ posturing came not from believing that a Jewish-style eschatology had already 

brought them to God’s final future, but from putting together their beliefs about 

themselves as Christians with ideas from pagan philosophy”. N.T. Wright, The 

Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3 

(Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2003), 279. 

174

That view has been subjected to scrutiny and found to be deficient, partly 

because of its misunderstanding of a text fundamental to its thesis, viz., 1 

Corinthians 4:6ff. Paul skilfully used all the irony associated with the rhetorical 

device he actually cites, i.e. the covert allusion whose covertness he discloses. 

There is an alternative explanation for certain assumptions concerning their 

belief about resurrection in chapter 15. 160 

Similarly, Kwon objects to Thiselton’s identification of over-realised eschatology in 

Corinth, summarising: 

The limits of using over-realized eschatology as an explanation for the Corinthian 

problems are thus exposed. A social and rhetorical analysis, however, is better 

able to provide an adequate explanation for the social consequences of σοφία as 

addressed in 1 Cor. 1-4. 161 

It is at this point, however, that John Chrysostom’s model of interpretation may be helpful. 

As noted above, Chrysostom emphasises that the social problems arising from a 

competitive culture are pastorally evaluated by Paul as evidence of proud, present- 

obsessed God-denial. That is, social and theological viewpoints need not be seen as 

alternatives, but rather as essential complementary perspectives. If the divisive problems 

in 1 Corinthians 1–4 may be illuminated by secular standards of competition and sophistic 

oratory, they may concurrently be evaluated and characterised as effectively “present- 

obsessed”. This is particularly the case for the church from whose location Paul had 

engaged in the Thessalonian correspondence, in which the importance of eschatological 

hope is such a fundamental assumption. The fact that Corinthian Christians are engaging 

in competition for present glory is evidence that they are effectively claiming for 

themselves an honour that, according to Paul’s estimation and teaching, is reserved for the 

future manifestation of Christ. 

160 Winter, After Paul, 25-6; emphasis mine. 

161 Kwon, “Critical Review,” 391; emphasis mine. 

175

It is probably true that these Christians in Corinth had no consciously coherent aberrant 

theology. Therefore Thiselton’s more recent phrase “premature triumphalism” may be 

more precisely apposite. Paul may be heard as entering into a tradition of opposition to 

behaviour that is effectively present-obsessed, which is exemplified in the ministry of 

Jesus (but dates back to the biblical prophets). Presumptuous human anticipation of 

divine triumph is strongly challenged by the divine timing of reversal: 

Mark 8:31-35 

And he began to teach them that it was necessary for the Son of Man to suffer 

much…. And, taking him aside, Peter began to rebuke him. But, turning and 

looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Depart from me Satan, for 

you are not considering the ways of God but rather the ways of humans”…. “For 

whoever wants to save their life will lose it; but whoever loses their life because 

of me and the gospel will save it”. 

Acts 1:6-8 

So when they came together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time that you will 

restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times 

or seasons that the father has set in his authority. But you will receive power 

with the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you”. 

Just as in Mark 8 Jesus is depicted as interpreting Peter’s disdain of suffering as an 

effective denial of the “ways of God”, so it seems that Paul interprets the Corinthians’ 

thirst for comfortable honour as an effective denial of the divine timing of glory: “Already 

you are satisfied; already you have become rich; without us you have begun to reign!” 

Indeed, in reflecting on these verses in 1 Corinthians, Chrysostom takes a Corinthian 

emphasis on present sufficiency to be evidence of proud human autonomy: 

176

4:20-21 

“Already you have become satisfied; already you have been made rich!” That is, 

you want nothing else; you have become perfect; you have reached the summit 

itself; you stand in need of no-one, so you suppose. 162 

Do you see how he cleanses their pride [τὸν τῦφον]? 163 

Human things and outward show are nothing to us; but we look to God alone. 164 

These verses, introduced by γάρ, bring 4:14-21 to a climax, in which the expectation of an 

“apostolic parousia” is presented as a challenge: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter 

of talk but of power…. Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle 

spirit?” The contrast is presented as being between arrogant “talk” of would-be leaders 

and the genuine power of the divinely-sent apostle. It is noteworthy that Paul links the 

problem to participation in the kingdom of God. Indeed, Chrysostom suggests that Paul is 

making a distinction between divine and human “ways” here: 

He says “ways in Christ” to show that they have nothing human [οὐδὲν ἔχουσιν 

ἀνθρώπινον], and that he does things rightly with His help. 165 

And that our teaching is divine [τοῦ θείαν εἶναι], and that we proclaim the 

kingdom of heaven, we provide the signs as a greater proof, which we produce 

by the power of the Spirit. 166 

It is significant then that this section (4:8-21), which brings chapters 1–4 to a rhetorical 

climax, has lost explicit mention of the issue of dis/unity, rather attacking openly the root 

162 Homily 12; PG 61.98. 

163 Homily 12; PG 61.99. 

164 Homily 12; PG 61.100. 

165 Homily 14; PG 61.115. 

166 Homily 14; PG 61.116. 

177

pastoral problem of present-obsessed, cross-denying pride. Mitchell’s claim that this 

section offers the “standard rhetorical practice” of comparing “the person or city under 

discussion with illustrious examples” may well be attentive to the form of Paul’s 

argumentation; but she neglects the crucial fact that the content of this climactic 

comparison concerns exemplary apostolic condemned-ness, and not exemplary apostolic 

unity. 167 Although Mitchell claims that Paul is presenting himself as an alternative to 

“fractious boasting” and “the opposite of a factionalist”, 168 the explicit terminology of 

dis/unity is hardly prominent in 4:8-21. If Paul has been examining “boasting, being 

puffed up, allegiances to leaders, judgmentalism, claims to be wise and enriched” 

primarily as “symptoms and manifestations of Corinthian factionalism”, 169 why in 

bringing this section to a concluding crescendo does he not make any explicit mention of 

this primary issue? 170 

Indeed, Merklein usefully points out that as the destination of this major rhetorical unit, 

4:16 enables a renewed understanding of Paul’s intention in 1:10: 

die Mahnungen von 1,10 zielt letztlich bereits auf 4,16. Es geht Paulus also nicht 

bloß um Einmütigkeit unter seiner Autorität...! 171 

Mitchell does indeed note the prevalence of the problem of proud boasting in 1 

Corinthians, 172 and sees it as a cause of division, in keeping with certain Greco-Roman 

literary examples of division. However, her argument that the problem of disunity is itself 

the key issue neglects the way that in 1 Corinthians 1–4 Paul focuses on and drives toward 

the pastorally evaluated problem of prematurely triumphant pride/boasting in human 

leaders. The rhetorical conclusion points examined above set confidence in that which is 

human against confidence in that which is divine; and the climactic opposition of 

167 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 219. 


169 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 210; emphasis original. 

170 Mitchell’s claim that Paul’s references to that which is “human” are practically veiled 

references to the problem of factionalism is entirely unconvincing: Mitchell, Paul and the 

Rhetoric, 211. 

171 Merklein, Der erste Brief, Kapitel 1–4, 112; emphasis original. 

172 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 91ff. 

178

Corinthian and apostolic characteristics in chapter 4 is really the endpoint of this 

trajectory: a showdown between the apparent vitality of those who are proudly human and 

the contrasting cruciformity of those who are appointed by God as apostles. 173 

Summary of Chapters 1–4 and the Problems in Corinth 

I have sought to demonstrate that Corinthian boasting is not simply a “component of the 

party conflicts within the Corinthian church”; 174 Paul’s problem 175 rather appears to be 

that party conflicts over leadership within the Corinthian church are evidence of boastful, 

present-obsessed human autonomy. In discerning Paul’s rhetoric here it is thus not 

enough to draw attention to “terms and topoi rooted in the issue of political 

divisiveness” 176 and conclude that the chief issue is division itself; it is essential to be 

attentive to where Paul drives his discussion. The presenting problem of political 

partisanship in relation to external figureheads betrays the theological crisis of 

autonomous, present-obsessed boasting. 177 As Frances Young summarises: 

They were at variance with one another because of ambition and kenodoxia 

(empty glory) – a particular moral concern of Chrysostom’s in a society where 

reputation (doxa) was a key motivation. 178 

173 Fee rightly recognises: “The section is dominated by two themes: their pride (vv. 6-8, 

10) and his weaknesses (vv. 9, 11-13). He begins by going right to the root of the matter – 

their pride – which has caused them to be ‘puffed up’ against Paul (v. 6)”. Fee, First 

Epistle, 165. 


175 I use the phrase “Paul’s problem” rather than “Corinthians’ problem” because, as 

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has rightly pointed out, the text itself gives us Paul’s 

rhetorically-purposeful encapsulation of the issues in Corinth. Of course, this need not 

imply that Paul’s conception is incorrect; simply that it is part of a considered rhetorical 

interchange. See Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Rhetorical Situation and Historical 

Reconstruction in I Corinthians,” NTS 33 (1987): 386-403. 


177 Sigurd Grindheim usefully notes: “It should not be overlooked… that Paul understood 

these factions as symptomatic of a grave theological error in Corinth”. Sigurd Grindheim, 

“Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church,” JBL 121/4 (2002): 

689-709; 689. 

178 Young, Biblical Exegesis, 250. For Chrysostom’s linking of divisiveness to puffed-up 

self-seeking, see for example Homily 10; PG 61.82: ἐπείγεται πάλιν ἐπὶ τὴν μάχην τῆς 

σοφίας τῆς ἔξωθεν, καὶ τὰ ἐγκλήματα τῶν ἐντεῦθεν πεφυσιωμένων καὶ διατεμνόντων 

τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. 

179

Marion L. Soards correctly captures the fundamentality, from Paul’s perspective, of the 

problem of boasting in Corinth: 

Throughout this letter Paul criticizes the particular actions of the Corinthians, but 

above all he denounces the will to boast. The will to be superior and to brag 

about it was the fundamental problem that generated the other symptomatic 

problems in Corinth. 179 

My contention here is that this boasting was, in Paul’s view, (unwittingly 180 ) theological, 

because it implied confidence outside of God, claiming in the present the manifest wisdom 

and spirituality that can only really be found hidden in Christ, awaiting manifestation at 

his future revelation. 

It is significant that this understanding of “boasting” in 1 Corinthians – as being not 

merely factionalistic, but theological – resonates strongly with Simon Gathercole’s 

findings regarding “boasting” in Romans 1–5. 181 Basil of Caesarea had, long before, 

linked the boasting of 1 Corinthians to a presumptuous pursuit of self-generated 

righteousness. 182 It may be that throughout the Pauline Corpus, “boasting” carries highly 

theological overtones, drawing on prophetic language and representing on the one hand 

misplaced human confidence before God, and on the other, appropriate dependence on 

179 Marion L. Soards, “1 Corinthians,” in Mercer Commentary on the New Testament (ed. 

Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson; Macon Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2003; repr. 

from Mercer Commentary on the Bible; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995), 

1163-1190; 1164. 

180 Munck encapsulates this well: “They did not realize that by the very use of that wisdom 

terminology they were betraying the message that was their wealth, and that the feeling of 

being up on the pinnacle and pitying the others was a betrayal of Christ and his apostles”. 

Johannes Munck, “The Church without Factions: Studies in I Corinthians 1-4” in 

Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (eds. E. Adams and D. G. 

Horrell; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 61-70; 70. 

181 Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s 

Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003). According to 

Gathercole, the boasting that Paul counters implies a confidence outside of “God’s action 

in Christ” 262. 

182 See Basil of Caesarea, Homily 20, PG 31, in which Basil reads 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 

as undermining the pride of self-sought righteousness, and insisting upon the 

righteousness that comes from God through faith. 

180

God. Certainly this terminology seems to be employed in this way in 2 Corinthians 10-13, 

Galatians 6:13-14, and Philippians 1:26. 183 

My argument, to summarise, is that in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians Paul 

interprets and critiques the divisive political struggles over status and leadership in the 

church of Roman Corinth as exemplifying a fundamental pastoral-theological problem of 

boastful, present-obsessed, human autonomy: 

1:10-2:5: The cross and human wisdom 

2:6-3:4: The Spirit and human capability 

3:5-4:5: Divine work and human authority 

4:6-21: Divinely ordained death and human boasting 

6. Relation to Other Conceptions of the Corinthian 

Problems 

It will be evident that I am in agreement with Mitchell that the nature of the factions at 

Corinth was political rather than explicitly doctrinal. 184 I am convinced, along with 

Winter, that the varied problems in Corinth (including, but not limited to, the political 

partisanship) arose in association with accommodation to secular patterns of life in Roman 

Corinth. In particular I am persuaded with Litfin that these secular patterns involved 

rhetorical competitiveness, and with Clarke, that issues of church leadership were critical: 

183 In a recent exploration of the theme of boasting in 1 Corinthians, Kate C. Donahoe 

argues, “Like the Greco-Roman writers who distinguish between acceptable selfpraise and 

unacceptable ‘boasting,’ Paul also distinguishes between these two categories. Unlike the 

Greco-Roman definitions, Paul defines these categories in terms of praising the Lord. For 

Paul, ‘boasting’ is a grievous matter that extends well beyond the Greco-Roman notions of 

social decorum. That which aims to increase one’s social status or honor is deemed 

unacceptable ‘boasting,’ whereas that which seeks to bring glory to the Lord is acceptable 

‘boasting.’” Donahoe, “From Self-Praise to Self-Boasting”, 71. 

184 Welborn, among others, has rightly criticised the view that the Corinthians themselves 

were consciously taking part in a theological controversy: “It is no longer necessary to 

argue against the position that the conflict that evoked 1 Corinthians was essentially 

theological in character. The attempt to identify the parties with views and practices 

condemned elsewhere in the epistle, as if the parties represented different positions in a 

dogmatic controversy, has collapsed under its own weight”. Welborn, “Discord in 

Corinth,” in Christianity at Corinth (ed. Adams and Horrell), 143. 

181

Paul has given a firm critique of secular influences in the community…. Paul 

urges the Corinthians that their view of Christian leadership should differ from 

the expectations of leadership in secular Corinth. Paul opposes their adoption of 

a party-spirit of loyalty to specific patron figures; their elevation of the 

importance of status in the Christian church; their boasting in men; their affinity 

with the wisdom of secular leaders. 185 

The examination given in this chapter indicates that these insights are remarkably 

consonant with John Chrysostom’s evaluation of the Corinthian situation: a Corinthian 

love of wealth and “external wisdom” has resulted in polished orators displacing truly 

godly leaders in Corinth, causing rifts within the church. 

In the tradition of John Chrysostom, furthermore, I have viewed this socio-historical 

evaluation as just one essential component of an appraisal of the Corinthian problems. 

Another essential component is the recognition of boastful, present-obsessed human 

autonomy as that which, from the perspective of Paul the pastor, theologically binds the 

Corinthian problems together. Of course, as I have briefly indicated in the previous 

chapter, other attempts have been made to discern a pastoral or theological unity to the 

Corinthian problems, and the suggestion I have offered here bears some continuity with 

such attempts. 

It is worth firstly noting Patristic theologians other than Chrysostom. Basil of Caesarea 

heavily utilises the Corinthian correspondence in presenting pride as the archetypal sin. 186 

Augustine’s conception of self-sufficient pride as humanity’s chief problem is steeped in 

his reading of the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians. 187 John of Damascus begins his 

discussion concerning the cross and faith by conflating two quotations from chapters 1–4 

185 Clarke, Secular and Christian, 118. 

186 See, for example, Hom. 20 “De humiliate” 3: PG 31, 530-531, in which “boasting in 

God” is interpreted as a refusal to boast in one’s own righteousness, and a consequent 

humble reliance on God’s grace and his gift of future resurrection. 

187 See, for example, Letter 232.6 “To the People of Madaura”, in which Augustine 

emphasises the necessity of being brought down from self-sufficiency to humility. The 

“assaults of pride” are combated by the cross of Christ, in which the humility of God finds 

its focus. 

182

of 1 Corinthians, using them to introduce a stark choice between reliance on God and 

reliance on human reasonings. 188 He goes on, after a few paragraphs, to insist that union 

with Christ through the cross forces one to reliance on God rather than on human and 

natural reasonings. Again, he quotes from 1 Corinthians 1–4 to confirm that Christ is the 

one in whom those “lying in death” find life. 

The legacy of John Chrysostom’s understanding of 1 Corinthians is evident in the 

exposition of numerous later interpreters, perhaps most interestingly Thomas Aquinas and 

John Calvin. 

Certainly, Aquinas’ view of the letter as a guide for the church’s reception of Christ’s 

sacraments (sacramenta) goes beyond Chrysostom’s exploration of the mysteria in his 

homilies; but within this framework Thomas sees a movement from present reality 

(baptism, marriage, Eucharist; chapters 1–14) to a future reality that can only presently be 

possessed in signification (resurrection; chapter 15). In his discussion of chapters 1–4, 

Thomas echoes Chrysostom’s concern to set that which is human against that which is of 

God. Like Chrysostom, Thomas finds this distinction even in the opening verses of the 

letter, insisting that the name “Paul” implies humility, and that “called” indicates that his 

dignity comes from God. Chrysostom’s (probably indirect) legacy becomes obvious when 

Thomas emphasises that the gospel gained adherence through humble fishermen, thereby 

ruling out human boasting (1-4, paragraph 68; compare with Chrysostom’s Homily 4). 

Thomas draws the application that salvation should be attributed to God rather than men 

(1-4, paragraph 70). Like Chrysostom, he understands the ecclesial disunity to relate to 

disputes over leadership, and finds that the root of the matter is boastful human judgement 

(3-1, paragraphs 122, 131). The Corinthians need to understand that all things, whether 

ministerial ability or salvation, come from God in Christ (3-1, paragraph 134; 3-2, 

paragraph 148; 3-3, paragraph 184). Thus their pride should turn to humility (4-2, 

paragraphs 201-203). 

188 John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, chapter 11. 

183

John Calvin’s introduction to 1 Corinthians 189 could almost be viewed as a revision of 

Chrysostom’s introduction to his homily series. John R. Walchenbach notes: 

The single book in the New Testament in which Calvin most frequently quotes 

Chrysostom is 1 Corinthians. 190 

Like Chrysostom he begins by pointing out the wealth of Corinth. He depicts the 

influence of rhetorically polished status-hungry would-be leaders, as well as the 

Corinthian ideals of luxury, pride, greed and ambition. Like Chrysostom he views the 

issue of the resurrection as the ultimate object of Satan’s subtle attack, an attack which 

proceeds by directing attention away from the glory of the Lord and rather to superficial 

human honour. Like Chrysostom, Calvin notes Paul’s pastoral strategy of moving 

carefully from soothing to chiding at the beginning of the letter, as he aims to “cure” the 

Corinthians of their pride and lead them to humility. The Corinthians must move from 

confidence in their own judgement to acquiescence to God, whose superior wisdom is seen 

in the abasement of the cross. 

Moving to more recent interpretation of 1 Corinthians, Barth’s reading is worthy of 

note. 191 Although Barth characterises the historical background as Gnosticism, he 

summarises the core problem in pastoral terms as unrestrained human vitality. A 

summary cannot do justice to Barth’s argumentation, but his understanding of the flow of 

1 Corinthians might be expressed as follows: 

God is set against unbridled human vitality… 

• In religion (that is, pride): Chapters 1–4 

• In natural life (that is, desire): Chapters 5–6 

• …And in its opposite (proud asceticism): Chapter 7 

189 The “Argument” of the epistle; Commentary on 1 Corinthians. 

190 John R. Walchenbach, John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An Investigation into 

Calvin’s Use of John Chrysostom as an Exegetical Tutor (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 

2010), 49. 

191 Barth, Resurrection of the Dead. 

184

• In knowledge (and freedom): Chapters 8–10 

• In rebellion: Chapter 11a 

• In material & spiritual egoism: Chapter 11b 

• In the most sparkling spirituality: Chapters 12–14 

But the expectation of future resurrection reveals that all people need life that comes from 

God. (Chapter 15) 

Wolfhart Pannenberg uses the phrase “human self-assertion before God”, and concedes a 

similarity with the bold self-assertion polemically addressed in the book of Romans: 

[H]uman self-assertion before God is inherent in both justification through the 

works of the law and wisdom. Paul’s attack [in 1 Corinthians] was directed 

against groups that claimed a specific spiritual experience and wisdom while 

denying a place of central importance to the cross of Christ. 192 

Thiselton considers that socio-historical factors may be examined alongside a consistent 

theological problem that is expressed, as has been noted, in the Corinthians’ “premature 

triumphalism” and spiritual enthusiasm. 193 This enthusiastic spirituality is hinted at in 

chapters 1–4, and is reflected more prominently as the letter progresses. 

Wolff argues that the Corinthian pursuit of self-attestation is opposed by the cross, which 

contradicts human conceptions of God and salvation. Paul’s own willing cruciformity 

presents a corrective to those in Corinth who try to enthusiastically leap over the present 

into the eschaton. 194 

That Paul is opposing contentions over leadership that he perceives as expressing an 

orientation of boastful, present-obsessed human autonomy thus finds strong resonance 

192 Wolfhart Pannenberg, “A Theology of the Cross,” WW 8/2 (1988): 162-172; 163. 

193 Thiselton reflects approvingly on Schrage’s insights: “[H]e speaks of the premature 

triumphalism of the addressees as the “illusion of the enthusiasts”… for those whose 

emphasis on the Spirit overlooked the realities of continuing sin and struggle, and the need 

for discipline and order”. Thiselton, First Epistle, 358. 

194 Wolff, Der erste Brief, 8-9. 

185

with much ancient and recent interpretation of the letter, although these historical and 

theological perspectives are not always brought together. I suggest that this orientation is 

evident in Paul’s encapsulation of all of the main issues in 1 Corinthians, including 

divisions over leadership (chapters 1–4); proud acceptance of sexual immorality, greed, 

and impurity (chapters 5–7); proud, exploitative intra-ecclesial one-upmanship (chapters 

8–14); and effective denial of the need for future bodily resurrection (chapter 15). 

Charles H. Talbert, amongst others, has suggested that it is not possible to reduce the 

problems in Corinth to a single cause: 

In 1 Corinthians one finds a number of factors behind the problems: for example, 

overrealized eschatology (1 Cor 4;7;11;15); the effects of social stratification (1 

Cor 8–10; 11); misunderstanding of Paul’s earlier letter (1 Cor 5); divisions due 

to allegiance to different leaders growing in part out of the scattered character of 

the various church groups or cells in Corinth; a carryover of Jewish norms that 

were contrary to Christian practice (e.g., 1 Cor 14:34-36). It is impossible to 

reduce all of the issues dealt with in 1 Corinthians to one cause like Gnosticism 

or overrealized eschatology. 195 

However, as I have suggested above, the issue is not simply the historical “factors behind 

the problems” in Corinth, but Paul’s pastoral conception of what binds those problems 

together. In the next chapter I will demonstrate how this unifying conception continues in 

1 Corinthians 5–14; and in the subsequent chapter I will demonstrate how it continues in 1 

Corinthians 15. 

195 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (2 nd 

ed.; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2003), 10. 

186

7. An Application of Kerygmatic Rhetoric 

The Problem of Boasting and the Solution of the Cross 

I have suggested above that the chief solution to the Corinthian problems, as interpreted 

by Chrysostom, is the divine “contrary” of the cross. Although conceptions of the 

Corinthian problems vary greatly, there is little doubt that the cross provides Paul’s ironic 

solution to these problems. 

Thus in the cross there is revaluation of all things in this reality in a lasting and 

binding way, because the crucified One makes known once and for all only the 

God who in the depths, in the deathly misery, in lostness and nothingness intends 

to be God and Savior. 196 

The fact of the cross as God’s means of salvation opposes the core pastoral-theological 

problem of boastful autonomy by undermining human optimism theologically: 

The word of the cross can only have negative value, in the sense that it opens up 

a radical contestation of all the images of God that man is prone to make…. The 

theology of the cross functions exclusively as a critical instance on all discourse 

on God. 197 

It is the fact that God must be known through his self-presentation in the shame of the 

cross that makes human boasting theoretically nonsensical, and thus reins in “unrestrained 

human vitality” in the theologically fundamental area of knowledge of God. 198 

196 Jürgen Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (trans. O.C. Dean, Jr.; Louisville, Ky.: 

Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 208; trans of Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker 

(Tübingen: Mohr, 1989). 

197 Guilhen Antier, “Entre Resurrection et Croix: Nommer L’Événement Selon Paul (1 

Corinthiens 15),” ETRel 79/4 (2004): 477-492; 489; translated from the original French. 

198 Wolff makes this point well: “Paul discloses: The loveless, zealous, quarrelsome 

behaviour of the Corinthians (1:11, 3:3f; 4:6; 13:4) shows that for them it is finally all 

about self attestation for the fulfilment of their own religious expectations and ideals and 

thus about “human wisdom” (2:5, 13; 1:20), not however about the true wisdom of God. 

187

The cross consequently serves as a model for Christian lifestyle in opposition to a worldly 

model provided by human rulers and esteemed in Corinth: 

While the cross is not mentioned explicitly within 1 Cor. 4, its presence can be 

seen clearly, nonetheless. A number of scholars have noticed that the cross plays 

a great role in Paul’s presentation as a steward of the gospel in 1 Cor. 4. In this 

chapter Paul declares his own weakness, using the same word for weakness 

(astheneia) that he spoke about earlier in the weakness of God displayed at the 

cross (1 Cor. 1:25; 4:9-13). He also describes himself as “sentenced to death” 

and perceives himself to be a “spectacle to the world”. These descriptions 

signify an agreement with the message of the cross that he preached (1 Cor. 

1:17f; 2:1-5). 199 

Thus the cross is used by Paul in chapters 1–4 both to combat the core theological 

problem he perceives in Corinth, and consequently to model Christian lifestyle that 

contrasts with the religious and social manifestations and causes of that key theological 

problem. As the section draws to a close, Paul presents himself as an exemplary 

embodiment of such a cruciform lifestyle. 

These chapters comprise a warning against the foolishness and destructiveness of 

human arrogance and an exposition of how God expects those in Christ to live a 

cruciform life. 200 

Of course, Paul does not in 1 Corinthians deny any sort of present Christian optimism or 

triumph; but he subjects what he perceives to be a self-confident, over-manifest 

theological error, together with its lifestyle manifestations, to the “pessimistic” theological 

For this manifests itself in the saving work of God through a crucified one, which directly 

contradicts and shows up the failure of human representations of God and salvation (1:18- 

25; 2:6-8)”. Wolff, Der erste Brief, 8; translated from the original German. 

199 Williams, “Living as Christ Crucified,” 123-124. 

200 Garland, 1 Corinthians, 39. 

188

corrective of the cross. Thus, much of the correction in chapters 1–4 (indeed in 1–14) 

gives more attention to the “cross” than the “resurrection” side of the cross-resurrection 

dialectic often detected in Paul’s theology. 201 

It is too limiting, however, to simply characterise Paul’s solution in chapters 1–4 as the 

negative critique of the cross. This “pessimistic” theological corrective seems to be an 

expression of a broader positive theme of the necessity of divine gracious initiative. 202 

The verse that introduces the theme of the cross illustrates this well: 

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are being destroyed, but 

to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18) 

The cross provides the focal point for human derision of God (perhaps in the very act of 

straining to know him) at the same time as providing the vehicle for humans to receive 

God’s saving power. In this sense it acts negatively to demolish human attempts at 

knowledge of God, but positively to graciously offer that very knowledge, from God. 

1 Corinthians 1–4 and the Rhetoric of Reversal 

I have argued in the opening chapter of this dissertation that the conceptual imagery of 

reversal resources a variety of applications in early Jewish discourse. In particular I noted 

that for Daniel and Mark (among numerous others) the motif of (dual) reversal is adopted 

in order to restrain a perceived over-active anticipation of divine triumph. 

201 Tannehill is sensitive to this dialectic, but neglects the deferral of resurrection in 1 

Corinthians in his summary: “Rising with Christ cannot be separated from dying with 

Christ, for the one is the necessary reverse side of the other. Dying with Christ is 

meaningful only because it is related to participation in Christ’s resurrection life, and 

rising with Christ is possible only through dying with Christ to the old world. The two 

aspects occur together in the passages”. Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with 

Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1967), 130. 

202 Barth identifies this with his repeated emphasis on the phrase “from God”: 

Resurrection of the Dead, 26. 

189

With regard to the book of Daniel, Hengel hints that an emphasis on the deferral of 

triumph to divine timing may even be a conscious reaction to the overly presumptuous 

perspective of the Maccabeans: 

The fact that, unlike the Maccabees, they did not offer resistance on the sabbath 

at the beginning of the persecution, indicates that they surrendered 

unconditionally to the will of God revealed in the Torah…. In Dan.11.34b the 

seer already laments the fact that “many join themselves to them from flattery” 

because of the initial success of the Maccabees – the “little help”. 203 

Jürgen C.H. Lebram follows Casey in rejecting an allusion to the Maccabeans in Daniel 

11:34, but still views Daniel as opposing bold immanentism: 

We can say for sure, then, that the principles of the pious man of the Apocalypse 

consist in the rejection of all violence, particularly of the implementation of the 

Kingdom of God by force. At this point we see that the apocalyptic movement 

behind the Book of Daniel is derived from an opposition to an enthusiastic 

Naherwartung. 204 

In counteracting such premature triumphalism, the book of Daniel defers ultimate triumph 

to the timing of God, which may involve a prolonged period of suffering for the righteous 

in the interim. 

With regard to the gospel of Mark, many commentators find a similar reaction against 

worldly triumphalism. Visser ‘T Hooft is illustrative: 

203 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine 

During the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. John Bowden; London, SCM Press, 1974), 

178; trans of Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT, 10; 2 nd ed; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 

1973). 

204 Jürgen C.H. Lebram, “The Piety of the Jewish Apocalypticists,” in Apocalypticism in 

the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium 

on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979 (ed. David Hellholm; 2 nd ed.; Tübingen: 

Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 171-210; 183. 

190

In these chapters [leading up to chapter 9] the chief theme is the persistent 

attempt which Jesus makes to explain the true nature of his messianic mission 

and the lack of understanding of the disciples. Three times he explains that 

Jerusalem, which is the goal of their journey, will be the place of a supreme 

sacrifice and not of worldly success…. As they think about the messiah and the 

messianic age their thoughts turn to the power which they as associates of the 

messiah may acquire. Jesus has to say that if they still think in terms of worldly 

ambition, they have not understood at all how he interprets his own messianic 

mission and the mission of the messianic community. 205 

This ambitious triumphalism is countered by Mark’s announcement of the divine calling 

of the cross: 

[I]n Mark’s Gospel to “save oneself” by “coming down from the cross” 

represents blatant self-aggrandisement and not simply self-preservation. This is 

clear from the fact that Mark has had Jesus define “saving one’s self” through a 

wilful rejection of “cross bearing” as tantamount both to asserting oneself over 

others at their expense and to the attempt – on the part of both individuals and 

nations – to gain and use worldly power to conquer and dominate their 

enemies. 206 

Those who would be disciples of Jesus and leaders of his people must learn to subject 

their conceptions of glory and power to the divine economy that begins with the cross. 

The issue of boastful, present-obsessed human autonomy in 1 Corinthians is thus precisely 

the sort of issue that is penetratingly addressed by the application of the motif of reversal 

in early Christianity. Those who hold presumptuous ideas about their own status in the 

present are confronted with God’s way of the cross. The Corinthians must decide whether 

205 W.A. Visser ‘T Hooft, “Triumphalism in the Gospels,” SJT 38 (1985): 491-504; 497-8. 

206 J. Gibson, “Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a ‘Sign’ (Mk 8.11-13),” JSNT (1990/12): 37-66; 

46. 

191

they will continue to proudly identify themselves with the glory of “this or that person”, or 

whether they will descend, with Paul, to inhabit the cruciform Christ. This descent 

represents the faithful embrace of the kerygma that ends in resurrection. 


In this chapter I have paid attention to John Chrysostom’s reading of 1 Corinthians, 

particularly chapters 1–4. I have found it essential to attend to the exegetical insights that 

Chrysostom brings as both an expositor and applier of the letter to his Antiochene hearers. 

Chrysostom detects broad problems in Corinth that can be summarised as boastful pride, 

present wealth, and human autonomy. Paul’s solution to these problems, according to 

Chrysostom, is God’s “contrary” way of the cross. 

This conception of the issues of 1 Corinthians 1–4 involves both a recognition of their 

socio-historical setting, in the displacement of godly leaders, and their pastoral 

interpretation by Paul, as a boastful affront to the glory of God. 

I seek to emulate this approach, and to affirm Chrysostom’s sense of these chapters. An 

analysis of each minor and major conclusion point throughout Paul’s argumentation 

indicates that the chief problem is not precisely that boasting is causing disunity; but 

rather that disunity is evidence of a theologically significant orientation of boastful, 

present-obsessed human autonomy. This chief problem is countered with the corrective of 

the cross, as the opening move in Paul’s kerygmatic rhetoric of reversal. 

192

Chapter 4 

1 Corinthians 5–14 and Paul’s Ethics “in the 

Lord”

1. A Pauline Pattern of Ethical Argumentation 

I have suggested already that chapters 5–14 represent an ethical section in which the summons 

to imitate Paul’s way of the cross receives expansion. 1 In this chapter I seek to show that this 

expansion occurs according to an observable Pauline ethical pattern. 

Because this common ethical arrangement implies a certain theological logic (of identification 

with Christ in his bodily accomplishments), my exploration will interact to some degree with 

investigations and systematisations of Pauline ethics such as those by Burridge, Countryman, 

Furnish, Hays, Horrell, Klawans, Lohse, Meeks, Rosner, and Schrage. However, because my 

overall thesis concerns the arrangement of this Pauline letter rather than Pauline ethics in 

general, my focus will be on the order and function of the material in 1 Corinthians 5-14. 

The Pattern and its Logic 

I suggest that the general logic of much Pauline ethics may be encapsulated as follows: those 

who are brought into union with Christ in his bodily accomplishments are called to offer their 

bodies selflessly to God through Christ, and participate lovingly within the body of Christ. 

We shall need above all to direct our gaze to the picture of the body of Christ 

Himself, who became man, was crucified and rose again. In the body of Jesus Christ 

God is united with humanity, the whole of humanity is accepted by God, and the 

world is reconciled with God. In the body of Jesus Christ God took upon himself the 

sin of the whole world and bore it. 2 

1 In section 2 of chapter 2, under the heading Pastorally Driven Rhetoric. 

2 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (trans. Neville Horton Smith; London: SCM Press, 1955), 71; 

trans. of Ethik (ed. Eberhard Bethge; Munich: Kaiser, 1949); emphases mine. 

194

It is my contention that this logic is evidenced in a common arrangement of Pauline ethics. 3 It 

seems possible to detect a common movement of concepts within Paul’s discussion of 

sin/sanctification, as follows: 4 

• Theme I: sanctification of the church that involves avoidance of sexual immorality, 

impurity, and greed/passionate desire – often in relation to bodies 

• Theme II: sanctification of the church that involves the avoidance of inter-relational 

sin, and the promotion of love – particularly expressed in self-restraint/submission 

within the body of Christ 

This Pattern in the Pauline Literature 

1 Thessalonians 4 

This chapter forms the major hortatory section of 1 Thessalonians, and begins with issues of 

sexual immorality (τῆς πορνείας) and the control of personal bodily members (τὸ ἑαυτοῦ 

σκεῦος – the word is debated, and may refer to one’s body or to a man’s wife) in verses 1-8: 

1 Thessalonians 4:1-8: Theme I: sexual immorality, bodies, lustful passions, greed 

Restrain yourselves from sexual immorality [πορνείας] (4:3) 

Let each hold their own vessel [ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος] in holiness and honour (4:4) 

3 Although systematisations of Pauline ethics rightly seek to be attentive to the ethical norms 

communicated or assumed throughout the Pauline literature, my own interest here is a survey 

of those sections of Paul’s letters that are especially regarded as “hortatory”. 

4 The terminology of “body” is sometimes, but not always, explicitly used in this common 

movement of concepts. I consider that the concepts that cluster in “Theme I” concern humans 

in their communicative physical natures, particularly in terms of desiring and pursuing basic 

appetitive taboos. Thus, when σώμα is used in this setting, it is more specific than Robinson’s 

idea of the “complete person”, but somewhat broader than Gundry’s conception of 

“physicality”. I concur with Thiselton, who suggests, “Gundry argues for the importance of 

‘the physical side of sōma,’ highlighted by its proximity to ‘flesh’… in [1 Cor] 6:14-20. But 

Käsemann’s notion of the self as sharing in the observable, visible, intelligible, communicable, 

tangible life of the ‘world’ is broad and more faithful to the arguments of this and parallel 

Pauline passages. Gundry is not ‘wrong,’ but simply does not go far enough”. Thiselton, 

Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 47. 

195

The Thessalonians are not to engage in the passionate desire (πάθει ἐπιθυμίας) of Gentiles, or 

to be greedy (πλεονεκτεῖν 5 ) in regard to these things: 

Not in passionate desire [ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας], like the Gentiles who do not know 

God; let no one wrong or be greedy [πλεονεκτεῖν] with regard to a brother in this 

matter (4:5-6) 

The discussion moves in verses 9-12 to the need for love of one another (ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους): 

1 Thessalonians 4:9-12: Theme II: 6 love 

Now concerning brotherly love [φιλαδελφίας] you have no need for us 7 to write to 

you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another [ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους] 

(4:9) 

Charles A. Wanamaker describes this paraenetic progression as moving from “sexual norms” 

to “familial love”. 8 

Galatians 5:19-21, 22ff 

This vice list serves to represent the “works” of the flesh, and begins with sexual immorality 

(πορνεία), impurity (ἀκαθαρσία), debauchery (ἀσέλγεια), and idolatry (εἰδωλολατρία), before 

moving onto other (especially interactional) vices: 

5 

The precise sense of this word in context is debated. See the discussion of Countryman’s 

views below. 

6 

In 1 Thessalonians, the usage of hortatory love terminology occurs only from 4:9: 1 

Thessalonians 4:9-10, 5:8, 5:13 

7 

The construction in the Greek here is unexpected (οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν), but may 

perhaps reflect the Pauline practice of placing the onus for basic catechetical development 

squarely on the Christian community (cf. 2 Cor. 12:21; Eph. 4:17-24). 

8 

Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text 

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 150-159. 

196

Galatians 5:19-21: Theme I: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, etc. 

The works of the flesh are plain, for they are sexual immorality [πορνεία], impurity 

[ἀκαθαρσία], debauchery [ἀσέλγεια], idolatry [εἰδωλολατρία], sorcery, enmities, 

strife [ἔρις 9 ], zeal [ζῆλος], anger, quarrels, dissenssions, divisions 

Notably, the subsequent “virtue list” begins with love (ἀγάπη), and emphasises inter-personal 

virtues: 

Galatians 5:22-23: Theme II: love, joy, peace, etc. 

But the fruit of the Spirit is love [ἀγάπη], joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, 

faithfulness, gentleness, self-control 

Furnish comments, “It is hardly accidental that love heads the opening triad and thus stands 

first in the whole list”. 10 

1 Corinthians 5–14 

I will explore 1 Corinthians 5–14 in much greater detail later in this chapter. At this point, a 

general observation will suffice. As the main ethical section of 1 Corinthians, chapters 5–14 

move from a discussion that includes sexual immorality (πορνεία), impurity (ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν 

παλαιὰν ζύμην), greed (ὑμεῖς ἀδικεῖτε καὶ ἀποστερεῖτε), bodily ownership (σῶμα οὐ τῇ 

πορνείᾳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κυρίῳ) and marriage in chapters 5–7, to a discussion of issues that require 

self-sacrificial love (ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ) within the one body (ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν) in 

chapters 8–14. 

9 Numerous important early manuscripts have the singular here; and this would agree with 

Paul’s use of the term in catechetical lists elsewhere (e.g. Rom 1:28-31; 2 Cor 12:20). 

10 Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1968), 

87. 

197

1 Corinthians 5–7: Theme I: sexual immorality, greed, impurity, bodies 

Actually it is reported that there is sexual immorality [πορνεία] among you, and such 

that is not even tolerated among the Gentiles (5:1) 

Clean out [ἐκκαθάρατε 11 ] the old leaven, in order that you might be a new batch (5:7) 

But now I write to you that you should not mingle with anyone who takes the name 

“brother” who is a fornicator [πόρνος] or greedy [πλεονέκτης] or an idolator 

[εἰδωλολάτρης] or a reviler or a drunkard or a swindler. (5:11) 

But you act unjustly and defraud [ἀποστερεῖτε], and this to brothers and sisters!... Do 

not be deceived: neither fornicators [πόρνοι] nor idolators [εἰδωλολάτραι] nor 

adulterers [μοιχοί] nor the sexually perverted [μαλακοί] nor man-bedders 

[ἀρσενοκοῖται] 12 nor thieves nor the greedy [πλεονέκται] nor drunkards nor revilers 

nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (6:8-11) 

The body [σῶμα 13 ] is not for sexual immoraliy [πορνείᾳ] but for the Lord, and the 

Lord for the body. (6:13) 

Because of sexual immoralities [τὰς πορνείας], each husband should have his own 

wife, and each wife her own husband 14 …. The wife does not exercise authority over 

11 Of course, this verse hints at the practices associated with the feast of Unleavened Bread and 

Passover. It is noteworthy for the purposes of this survey that Paul chooses to utilise the 

terminology of purity in the context of a discussion of the community’s allowance of πορνεία. 

Fitzmyer comments, “He writes ekkatharate, ‘clean out’ (plur. impv.), which in this context 

means not only purification, but also connotes exclusion of that which contaminates.” 

Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 241. 

12 The previous two terms in this list are notoriously difficult to translate. For the sake of the 

survey, their precise meanings are less important than the broad fact that they relate to sexual 

vice. 

13 It is important to note that at this point the “body” in view is corporeal rather than corporate. 

Fee notes that this is “one of the more important theological passages in the NT about the 

human body.” Fee, First Epistle, 251. 

14 Along with many commentators, I take “ἐχέτω” to refer to sexual relations. 

198

her own body [τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος], but rather the husband; likewise the husband does 

not exercise authority over his own body, but rather the wife. (7:1-4) 

1 Corinthians 8-14: Theme II: love, concern for the other, one body 

Now concerning idol meat, we know that “we all have knowledge”. Knowledge puffs 

up, but love builds up [ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ]. 15 (8:1) 

Therefore if food causes my brother or sister to stumble, I will never eat meat again, 

so that my brother or sister might not stumble. (8:13) 

Though being free of all, I have enslaved myself to all, in order that I might gain 

many. (9:19) 

The bread that we break – is it not a participation in the body of Christ [κοινωνία τοῦ 

σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ]? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body 

[ἓν σῶμα]. 16 (10:16-17) 

Everything is “lawful”, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is “lawful” but 

not everything builds up [οἰκοδομεῖ]. Let no one seek their own good, but that of the 

other. (10:23-4) 

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body [διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα] bring 

judgement upon themselves. 17 (11:29) 

15 Although “love” here is a noun rather than an imperative verb, it is clear that the verse is 

introducing an extended summons for a renewal of attitude and action in Corinth, characterised 

especially by “love” and “building up”. This sense matches the pattern as it occurs elsewhere 

in the material surveyed. 

16 Again, there is no imperative to act as “one body” here, but rather the statement that the 

Supper assumes (or creates) this identity. As with 8:1, however, the imperatival implication of 

this statement is clear: the Corinthians are to act as those who are collectively one body, 

participating in Christ himself. 

199

You together 18 are the body of Christ [ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ], and individually parts of 

it. (12:27) 

And if… I do not have love [ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω], I am nothing. (13:2) 

Let everything be done for the sake of building up [πρὸς οἰκοδομήν]. (14:26) 

2 Corinthians 12:20-21 

In this vice list, there appears to be a conscious distinction between the two areas that have 

been identified, although here they occur in the reverse of the usual order: 

2 Corinthians 12:20: Theme II: strife, zeal, evil speech, etc. 

For I fear that when I come I might not find you as I wish to find you, and that you 

might not find me as you wish – that there might be strife [ἔρις], zeal [ζῆλος], 19 anger 

[θυμοί], squabbles [ἐριθεῖαι], slander [καταλαλιαί], gossiping, pride, and disorder. 

2 Corinthians 12:21: Theme I: (former) impurity, sexual immorality, debauchery 

I fear that when I come, my God might humble me and that I might have to mourn 

over many who had sinned previously and not repented of the impurity [τῇ 

ἀκαθαρσίᾳ] and sexual immorality [πορνείᾳ] and debauchery [ἀσελγείᾳ] which they 

had practised. 

17 The textual variants at this point do not jeapardise the point that this verse evidences a 

summons to acknowledge the corporate body. It seems that ἀναξίως and τοῦ κυρίου are later 

clarifying additions, brought in from 11:27. 

18 This translation attempts to communicate the corporate nature of the plural indicative. 

19 I consider that these two nouns (ἔρις, ζῆλος) are better taken as being singular (as in 1 

Corinthians 3:3); and that the plural variants arise from scribal conformation to the other plural 

nouns in context. 

200

Firstly, Paul expresses fear that he will encounter interpersonal problems such as quarrelling 

and anger; secondly, he expresses fear that he will encounter a failure to deal with fundamental 

sins of impurity (ἀκαθαρσίᾳ), sexual sin (πορνείᾳ), and debauchery (ἀσελγείᾳ). Thus 

although the two areas are described in the reverse of the usual order, the latter vices are 

assumed to be logically prior. 

Philippians 3:17–4:9 

The ethical teaching of Philippians cannot be limited to one section at the end of the letter. 

Nevertheless, this passage represents an extended hortatory section, bringing to a conclusion 

the call to embody Christ-likeness that pervades the letter. 20 The section follows Paul’s 

reflection on his own embodiment of this call (3:1-16; so 3:10: “[I want] to know him and the 

power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings, becoming like his death, if 

somehow I might attain the resurrection of the dead”.) The next section begins (3:17) 

“Become imitators of me…”; and 4:9 may be seen to form an inclusio: “And that which you 

have learnt and received and heard and seen in me – do these things”. 

This section commences with a negative injunction against the misuse of bodies. There is no 

explicit mention here of sexual immorality, but, reminiscent of Romans 1, there is an ironic 

exposing of human commitment to shame rather than glory, earthliness rather than heaven, and 

the idolatry of the human body (ἡ κοιλία 21 ). The Philippians are to live in contrast to this way 

of life, given their union with Christ: 

20 Loveday Alexander rightly argues, “Paul’s converts are called to follow the pattern of 

voluntary humiliation exhibited in the Christ-hymn not only in encountering persecution (1.27- 

30) but also, and perhaps more immediately, in their relationships with one another (2.1-5; 4.2- 

3)”. Loveday Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians,” 

JSNT 37 (1989): 87-101; 99. 

21 The connotation of this word in context has been greatly debated. In favour of the view that 

it points to the appetites rather than to Jewish dietry laws, Markus Bockmuehl rightly notes, 

“The word koilia, which literally denotes the abdomen…, refers to visceral appetites in Rom. 

16.18, and in 1 Cor. 6.13 it is used to make a point about sexual ethics (Sir. 23.6).” Markus 

Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1997), 231. 

201

Philippians 3:17–4:1: Theme I: renewal of bodies 

Their end is destruction, their god is the stomach [κοιλία], and their glory is in their 

shame, having their minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, 

from which we await our saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body 

of our humiliation [τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως], conforming it to his glorious body 

[σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ] (3:19-21) 

The passage moves on immediately to an inter-personal struggle in Philippi that requires a 

commitment to church unity: 

Philippians 4:2-9: Theme II: pursuit of unity 

I urge Euodia and Syntyche to have the same mind in the Lord. (4:2) 

This positive injunction (παρακαλῶ) is followed with further positive injunctions to rejoice, 

pray, and consider praiseworthy things. Thus although neither sexual immorality nor love are 

explicitly mentioned in this hortatory section, there does appear to be a movement from 

negative injunctions related to pre-Christian misuse of the body, to positive injunctions that 

begin with church unity. The rhythm of Pauline ethical arrangement detected so far, then, may 

also exist here. 

Romans 1 

In Romans 1:24, those who face the ironic judgement of God are said to be handed over, in the 

desires (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις) of their hearts, to the impurity (ἀκαθαρσίαν) of dishonouring their 

bodies (τὰ σώματα): 

Romans 1:24: Theme I: lusts, impurity, bodies 

Therefore God gave them over in the desires [ἐπιθυμίαις] of their hearts to impurity 

[ἀκαθαρσίαν], to the dishonouring of their bodies [σώματα] with one another. 

202

This dishonouring of bodies is elaborated in sexual terms in 1:25-27. Following this depiction 

of the ironic divine punishment for human rebellion as a “giving over” to bodily impurity and 

sexual decadence, Paul extends this “giving over” to “every kind of evil” - which especially 

appears to involve acts of relational dissension: 

Romans 1:28-31: Theme II: “all” unrighteousness: strife, deceit, etc. 

God gave them over to an unsound mind, to do things that should not be done, filled 

with every kind of injustice [ἀδικίᾳ], 22 wickedness [πονηρίᾳ], evil greed [πλεονεξίᾳ 

κακίᾳ]; full of envy [φθόνου], murder [φόνου], strife [ἔριδος], deceit [δόλου], being 

people of corrupt character [κακοηθείας], gossips [ψιθυριστάς], slanderers 

[καταλάλους] 

Moo notes this movement from sexual to relational vices: 

In vv. 22-24 and 25-27 Paul has shown how the sexual immorality that pervades 

humanity has its roots in the rejection of the true God in favor of gods of their own 

making. In the third and final portrayal of this sin-retribution sequence (vv. 28-32), 

he traces sins of inhumanity, of man’s hatred of his fellow man in all its terrible 

manifestations, to this same root sin of idolatry. 23 

22 In agreement with the committee for the Nestle Aland 27, I find it unlikely that the variant 

“πορνείᾳ” is original at this point. Such an intrusion makes little sense of the flow of the 

passage, and may be explained as a scribal mis-reading of the subsequent word, πονηρίᾳ. 

23 Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 117. 

203

Romans 12–15 

Just as 1:24-28 presented the dishonouring of bodies as the fundamental expression of godless 

desire, so in chapter 12, the sacrificial presentation of holy bodies (τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν 24 ) to God 

is the fundamental expression of minds in renewal: 25 

Romans 12:1-2: Theme I: bodies devoted to God 

I urge you then, brothers and sisters, because of the mercies of God, to present your 

bodies [τὰ σώματα] as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God 

In a movement similar to that in chapter 1, the climactic ethical discussion beginning in 

chapter 12 proceeds from bodies (12:1-2) to relationships within the one body (ἓν σῶμά), 

requiring mutual service and other-honouring love (ἀγάπη): 

Romans 12:3–15:33: Theme II: love, concern for the other, one gifted body 26 

For just as in one body we have many parts, and the parts do not all have the same 

function, so, though many, we are one body in Christ [ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ], and 

are members of one another, having gifts according to the grace with which he 

distributed them to us. (12:4-6) 

Let love [ἀγάπη] be genuine…. Love your neighbour as yourself. (13:9-10) 

24 James Dunn rightly comments on this verse, “The point to be emphasized… is that σώμα 

denotes not just the person, but the person in his corporeality, in his concrete relationships 

within this world.” James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1988), 709. 

Subsequent to this in Romans 12, as seen below, references to σώμα refer to the corporate 

body. 

25 David Peterson points out that the introductory verses of chapter 12 appear to announce a 

reversal of the spiral of sin of chapter 1: David Peterson, “Worship and Ethics in Romans 12,” 

TB 44/2 (1993): 271-288. 

26 In Romans, love terminology is used for exhortation only beginning at 12:9. The noun 

ἀγάπη and its cognate verb occur as an exhortation in Romans 12:9, 13:9-10, 14:15. 

204

If you grieve your brother or sister on account of food, you are no longer walking in 

love [ἀγάπην]. (14:15) 

Therefore welcome one another, just as Christ welcomed you for the glory of God. 

(15:7) 

Thus there is a movement from the ethics of the corporeal body to that of the corporate body. 

However, there is not an equivalence of emphasis between each issue at each point. When 

Paul is focusing negatively on sin or idolatry (as in chapter 1), he emphasises the impurity 

associated with individual bodies; when he is focusing positively on sanctification (such as 

from chapter 12), he emphasises interpersonal love within the body of Christ. The “downward 

spiral” of Romans 1 is introduced with the theme of passionately-pursued bodily impurity, and 

expanded in terms of sexual decadence before it is briefly extended to issues of relational 

dissension; whereas it is the relational issues that come to prominence in the positive ethical 

material beginning in chapter 12, rather than the former issues. Apart from the plural “bodies” 

(12:1), with its obvious allusion to 1:24-27, 6:12-13, 6:19 and 8:10-13, this major positive 

ethical section focuses on issues of relationship, selflessness, and love – extending through to 

chapter 15. To over-simplify, Paul envisages a bodily movement from personal impurity to 

mutual love. 

205

Disputed Paulines 27 

Colossians 3–4 

Again, the opening vice list is divided into two distinct sections, the first including sexual 

immorality (πορνείαν), impurity (ἀκαθαρσίαν), passionate desire (πάθος ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν) 

and greed (πλεονεξίαν), and the second involving anger and other inter-personal vices: 

Colossians 3:5-7: Theme I: sexual immorality, impurity, evil lusts, greed, idolatry 

Put to death, therefore, those parts that are earthly: sexual immorality [πορνείαν], 

impurity [ἀκαθαρσίαν], evil passionate desire [πάθος ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν], and greed 

[πλεονεξίαν], which is idolatry [εἰδωλολατρία] – on account of which the wrath of 

God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. 28 You used to walk among them, when 

you pursued these things. 

Colossians 3:8: Theme II: wrath, evil speech 

But now you must also get rid of all things such as wrath [ὀργήν], anger [θυμόν], evil 

[κακίαν], slander [βλασφημίαν], shameful speech from your mouth [αἰσχρολογίαν]. 

Once more, this is followed by a “virtue” section (including much of chapters 3 and 4) that 

climactically emphasises mutual love (ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην) within the one body 

(ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι): 

Colossians 3:12–4:1: Theme II: love; one body 

27 Even if the remaining epistles are not Pauline, they at least represent an early conscious 

attempt to sit faithfully within Pauline tradition. Thus, as extended letters in the Pauline 

tradition, they will still be of interest. For this reason, my examination of Pauline ethics 

includes contested Pauline epistles. As it turns out, the non-contested epistles remain 

prominent in terms of the pattern I am arguing for. The letters that appear least to fit the 

pattern that I am suggesting are the Pastorals. 

28 I leave this textually uncertain phrase in my translation, but its presence or absence does not 

bear upon my point. 

206

Ephesians 2 

Clothe yourselves, then… with merciful compassion [σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ], kindness 

[χρηστότητα], humility [ταπεινοφροσύνην], gentleness [πραΰτητα], patience 

[μακροθυμίαν], bearing one another [ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων] and forgiving one 

another [χαριζόμενοι]…. Above all, clothe yourselves with love [ἀγάπην]…. And 

let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which you were also called in one body 

[ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι] (3:12-15) 

This chapter functions, similarly to the beginning of Romans, to establish a theological basis 

for the ethical injunctions that will be the emphasis of a later part of the letter. Hoehner 

characterises the progress of this chapter, which explores the achievement of Christ on behalf 

of his people, as a movement from “new position individually” (2:1-10) to “new position 

corporately” (2:11-22). 29 

It does indeed appear that Paul relates the salvific union between Christ and his people firstly 

to the passions and desires of the flesh 30 (ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς: 2:1-10): 

Ephesians 2:1-10: Theme I: lusts of flesh, confronted with death & resurrection in 

Christ 

We all once behaved in the desires of the flesh [ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς] (2:3) 

And secondly Paul relates the salvific union between Christ and his people to the ethnic 

diversity of Jews and Gentiles (ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι: 2:11-22): 

29 

Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker 

Academic, 2002), 305; 351. 

30 

Although the mention of “desires” here matches the pattern under investigation, there is no 

certainty that “of the flesh” refers solely to bodily appetites. Andrew T. Lincoln tentatively 

suggests that the distinctive wording may “confine ‘flesh’ to the sensual”. Andrew T. Lincoln, 

Ephesians (WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1990), 98. 

207

Ephesians 2:11-22: Theme II: division, confronted with death & resurrection in 

Christ; one body 

But now in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have been brought near by the 

blood of Christ…. [Christ has] reconciled both in one body [ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι] to God, 

through the cross. (2:13, 16) 

Thus through union with Christ in his bodily accomplishments, former desires are reversed 

(2:1-10), and distant Jews and Gentiles find bodily reconciliation (2:11-22). 

Ephesians 4–6 

Chapters 4–6 form the major hortatory section of the letter, and again, one can detect a 

movement between (I) sanctification of the church that emphasises avoidance of sexual 

immorality, impurity and greed (in relation to bodies); and (II) sanctification of the church that 

emphasises the promotion of mutual gifted love (within the body). In this instance, however, 

these two themes alternate: 

Ephesians 4:1-16: Theme II: bear with one another in love. There is one body… 31 

With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love [ἐν 

ἀγάπῃ] (4:2) 

One body [ἓν σῶμα] and one Spirit (4:4) 

Ephesians 4:17-24: Theme I: Gentiles have given themselves over to debauchery, 

impurity, greed 

They have given themselves over to debauchery [ἀσελγείᾳ] in works of all impurity 

[ἀκαθαρσίας], with greed [πλεονεξίᾳ]. (4:19) 

31 In Ephesians, love terminology is used for exhortation only from 3:17, and in the passages 

described here as exhibiting “Theme II”: Ephesians 3:17, 4:2, 4:15-16, 5:1, 5:25-33. 

208

Ephesians 4:25–5:2: Theme II: build each other up in love, being members of one 

another 

We are members of one another [ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων μέλη] (4:25) 

Ephesians 5:3-14: Theme I: among you there must not be even a hint of sexual 

immorality, impurity, greed 

Sexual immorality [πορνεία] and all impurity [ἀκαθαρσία] or greed [πλεονεξία] must 

not even be named among you (5:3) 

Ephesians 5:15–6:9: Theme II: live wisely, filled with the Spirit, submitting to one 

another 

Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another… submitting to one another in the 

fear of Christ (5:18-21) 

Christ cares for the church, because we are members of his body [σώματος αὐτοῦ] 32 

(5:29-30) 

Thus there is a movement between largely negative injunctions related to sexual immorality 

(πορνεία), impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) and greed (πλεονεξία); and largely positive injunctions 

related to self-restraining mutual love (ἐν ἀγάπῃ) within the one body (ἓν σῶμα). Ephesians 

thus flexibly evidences the pattern under investigation. 

Pastorals 

Interestingly, the list of requirements for overseers in Titus begins with their marital integrity, 

before moving on to other issues: 

Titus 1:6-8: beginning with marriage 

32 The context here is the way in which wives and husbands relate; but the point of interest for 

this survey is that their way of relating is framed within the wider concerns of the “Theme II” 

subsection, using the imagery of the corporate body of Christ. 

209

Blameless, the husband of one wife, having children of faith… 

It would seem that the central conception of salvation and its effects is expressed in Titus in a 

way that is reminiscent of Romans, involving a movement from “worldly passions” (κοσμικὰς 

ἐπιθυμίας) to the purified (καθαρίσῃ) pursuit of good deeds (2:11-14). 

The list of requirements for overseers in 1 Timothy likewise begins with the necessity of 

marital integrity, before moving onto interpersonal issues: 

1 Timothy 3:2-3: beginning with marriage 

It is necessary for an overseer to be above reproach, the husband of one wife, 

temperate… 

George W. Knight III comments: 

The items focus on two areas: (1) personal self-discipline and maturity, and (2) ability 

to relate well to others and to teach and care for them. These two are intertwined, 

although there seems to be a tendency to move from the personal to the 

interpersonal. 33 

Along with this movement from personal to interpersonal, it is noteworthy that in virtue lists of 

the Pastorals, faith-driven love remains primary: 

The pistis-agapē combination forms the core of nine virtue lists, serving to ground 

acceptable behaviour in faith in Christ. 34 

33 George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; 

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 156. 

34 Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the 

Pastoral Epistles (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 167. 

210

It may be then that there is a discernible likeness here to the general pattern of Pauline ethics 

explored so far, although the pattern is less apparent here than in the earlier letters. 

A Pauline Pattern 

It has repeatedly been seen that the grasping desire for basic appetitive taboos is generally 

dealt with first in ethical sections, especially involving the themes of sexual immorality, 

impurity, and greedy desire (πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, ἐπιθυμία, πλεονεξία). 

“Sexual immorality” (πορνεία, πόρνος) is used in the Pauline literature almost exclusively in 

the sections examined above (with the one addition being 1 Timothy 1:10), and almost always 

appears as the primary vice. 35 

Porneia, well translated by the encompassing notion of immorality, seems to be a 

focal term with which Paul associates vices and improper conduct (1 Thess. 4:3). 36 

“Impurity” (ἀκαθαρσία) is likewise used in Paul only in the catechetical lists and 

“sin/sanctification” sections that have been cited above, except for one instance, in which the 

context suggests the NRSV’s translation “impure motives” (1 Thessalonians 2:3). 37 

Contextually it is hard to determine a clear difference in meaning between ἀκαθαρσία and 

πορνεία in these sections. 

35 

The word occurs in some textual variants in Romans 1:29 (followed in the Textus Receptus), 

notably in connection with “greed”, and occurs in 1 Corinthians 5:1, 5:9, 5:10, 5:11, 6:9, 6:13, 

6:18, 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3, 5:5; Colossians 3:5; 1 

Thessalonians 4:3. In the latter five passages of this list, the term occurs first in a string of 

related injunctions or vices. The word is also used in 1 Timothy 1:10, in a vice list that 

appears to follow the ordering of the Decalogue. 

36 

J. Paul Sampley, Walking Between the Times: Paul’s Moral Reasoning (Minneapolis, Minn.: 

Fortress Press, 1991), 57. 

37 

This word occurs in Romans 1:24, 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 

4:19, 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:7. 

211

As L. William Countryman points out, purity is a significant concern of the Torah, a concern 

which includes, but is by no means limited to, sexual regulation: 

The reader of the Torah can scarcely miss its intense concern with purity, and this 

concern was one of the principal forces keeping Israel distinct from the Nations. 38 

However, Klawans suggests an understanding of moral defilement as a metaphorical expansion 

of the concept of impurity, and it would seem that this meaning is closest to Paul’s use of the 

term in the contexts above: 

The notion of “moral” defilement, as we and others have described it elsewhere, 

concerns the idea that certain grave sins are so heinous that they defile. These acts– 

often referred to as “abominations”… – include idolatry (e.g., Lev 19:3 1, 20:1-3), 

sexual sins (e.g., Lev 18:24-30), and bloodshed (e.g., Num 35:33-34). They morally, 

but not ritually, defile the sinner (Lev 18:24), the land of Israel (Lev 18:25; Ezek 

36:17), and the sanctuary of God (Lev 20:3; Ezek 5:11). 39 

Another conceptually similar term, “debauchery” (ἀσέλγεια), is, again, only used in the 

“sin/sanctification” sections and catechetical lists mentioned above, along with one other vice 

list (which perhaps follows a similar pattern, moving from bodily self-indulgence to 

interpersonal strife) in Romans 13:13. 40 

“Greed”/“the greedy” (πλεονεξία, πλεονέκτης) occurs in many of the same sections examined 

above (and infrequently elsewhere), often next to ἀκαθαρσία or πορνεία. 41 The conceptually 

38 L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and 

Their Implications for Today (rev. ed.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2007), 19. 

39 Jonathan Klawans, “Pure Violence: Sacrifice and Defilement in Ancient Israel,” HTR 94/2 

(2001): 133-155; 152-153; emphasis original. 

40 The word occurs in Romans 13:13; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19. 

41 These words occurs in Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:10, 5:11, 6:10; 2 Corinthians 9:5 (in a 

very different context); Ephesians 4:19, 5:3, 5:5; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:5 (again, in 

a contrasting context). 

212

elated word ἐπιθυμία, when used negatively, occurs almost entirely in the same contexts, 

excepting its use in the Pastorals. 42 

Rosner draws on the work of Reinmuth to confirm the importance of both sexual immorality 

and greed in Paul and his theological heritage: 

[H]is major achievement in relation to the present study is the carefully documented 

assertion that sexual immorality and greed are two key vices in the Scriptures (A), 

Jewish moral teaching (B), and Paul’s ethics (C). Although not labelled as such by 

Reinmuth, these data constitute a fine example of the mediation of Scripture via 

Jewish moral teaching to Paul’s ethics. That Paul’s ethics are pervaded by an 

opposition to these two vices is thus explicable in terms of indirect dependence upon 

the Scriptures. 43 

Countryman suggests that the association of greed/covetousness with sexual immorality may 

be understood in relation to the concept of sexual property: 

Christians held firmly to the notion of private sexual property and made this the 

foundation for constructing their sexual ethic…. Greed, in this sense, is not simply 

desire, but a kind of grasping behaviour that enhances one’s own property at the 

expense of another or delights in possessing more than another. 44 

This property ethic gave rise to certain prohibitions deemed necessary to protect it. 

Adultery was wrong because it was theft of a neighbor’s property. Incest was wrong 

because, being defined primarily as a revolt of the young against the old, it upset the 

42 

This word occurs in Romans 1:24, 6:12, 7:7-8 (used as exemplary of fundamental sin), 

13:13-14; Galatians 5:15-17, 5:24; Ephesians 2:3, 4:22; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:5; 1 

Timothy 6:9; 2 Timothy 2:22, 3:6, 4:3; Titus 2:11-12, 3:3. 

43 

Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7 (Leiden: Brill, 

1994), 37. 

44 

Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex, 144-145. 

213

internal hierarchy of the family. Prostitution, though a less serious concern, was 

wrong insofar as it represented the triumph of individual gratification over against the 

principle of subordination to the household…. [T]he Torah’s definition of sexual 

property and the ethic relative to it was the one that Jesus and Paul found current in 

their own time. 45 

This may indeed help explain certain Pauline passages, such as 1 Thessalonians 4:4-6. 46 

However, it is not clear that the concept of property consistently replaces the concept of purity 

in New Testament sexual ethics, as Countryman argues. Paul’s use of purity terminology 

noted above hints that as members of Christ, believers are to embody the calling to (personal 

and corporate) bodily purity that was foreshadowed terminologically in Israel’s commitment to 

ritual purity, and by metaphorical extension in Israel’s insistent repudiation of moral 

“defilement”; an insistence which, by the first century, especially focused on the rejection of 

porneia. 

Indeed, at a number of points, the lustful or greedy attitude that Paul mentions alongside the 

pursuit of sexual immorality seems to have nothing to do with sexual property concerns, but to 

be either a reference to a similarly fundamentally-godless desire for material wealth or a 

general assertion of committed selfishness, the opposite of the attitude of surrender implicit in 

“offering” the body to God. Indeed, Rosner comments: 

It is my contention that when the evidence is carefully examined it weighs against 

taking πλεονεξία/πλεονέκτης to signify sexual greed in Colossians 3:5 and 

Ephesians 5:5. 47 

45 Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex, 162-163. 

46 Rosner concludes that this use of the verb πλεονεκτεῖν may well have been an idiom 

referring to adultery, “wronging the husband or father of the woman involved in the sexual 

liaison”. Brian S. Rosner, Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor 

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 107. 

47 Rosner, Greed as Idolatry, 105. 

214

It would seem that in the Pauline literature, fundamental ethical godlessness or wickedness 

may be encapsulated with the attitude of grasping self-assertion (often in terms of passionate 

desire) 48 and with the personal bodily practices characterised as idolatrous greed and 

impurity/sexual immorality. 

Correspondingly, it has repeatedly been seen that Paul’s exhortations regarding corporate 

bodily life are generally dealt with second in ethical sections, and involve mutual love as the 

primary virtue, usually occurring either first or as a climactic encompassing finale. This 

occurs both in virtue lists and in extended hortatory sections. 

The centrality of love (especially ἀγάπη) in Paul’s writings has been well established, 

and is documented in virtually every major work on Pauline theology and ethics. To 

summarize briefly, ἀγάπη, for Paul, is the greatest of the Christian “virtues”, the most 

important ethical trait of the Christian life…. Paul’s whole understanding of ethical 

righteousness now seems to be dominated by the concept of love. 49 

This theme appears generally to be expressed as a self-denying commitment to make peace 

with, edify, or submit to others within the community, in a spirit of unity. A large proportion 

of instances of “love” terminology in the letters attributed to Paul occur in the passages that 

have been examined above; that is, occurring distinct (and often subsequent) to sections 

dealing with the restraint of bodily immorality and greed. 50 In Romans, for example, love 

terminology is used for exhortation only beginning at 12:9. In 1 Corinthians, such usage 

occurs only in chapters 8–16. In Ephesians, it occurs only from 3:17, in the passages 

48 G.D. Collier argues that a greedy desire to go beyond the boundaries is the root of all 

covetous sins and the content of the Decalogue: G.D. Collier, “‘That We Might Not Crave 

Evil’: The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10.1-13,” JSNT 17/55 (1995): 55-75. 

49 Roger Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives (Cambridge: 


50 The noun ἀγάπη and its cognate verb occur as an exhortation in Romans 12:9; 13:9-10; 

14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:1; 13; 14:1; 16:14; 2 Corinthians 2:8; 8:8, 24; 13:11; Galatians 5:6, 13- 

14, 22; Ephesians 3:17; 4:2, 15-16; 5:1, 25-33; Philippians 1:9; 2:2; Colossians 2:2; 3:12-14, 

19; 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10; 5:8, 13; 1 Timothy 1:5; 2:15; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Timothy 1:7; 2:22; 

Titus 2:2; Philemon 9. 

215

described above as exhibiting “Theme II”. In 1 Thessalonians, this usage of hortatory love 

terminology occurs only from 4:9. 

It would seem that for Paul, personal bodily impurity (whether viewed as actual or as a more 

abstract realm of identity) quintessentially represents defiant decadent autonomy, while mutual 

love quintessentially represents the fruit of the Spirit of Christ in those who are united to 

Christ. Those who, by faith, share in Christ’s bodily achievements must identify with Christ 

bodily, by turning from (theologically former) idolatrous and greedy desire in relation to their 

bodies, and worshiping God, giving themselves up for one another in self-denying love as 

members together of Christ’s body. 

2. This Pattern in 1 Corinthians 5–14 

Perhaps then, chapters 5–14 of 1 Corinthians represent an observable Pauline pattern for a 

major hortatory section, sandwiched between, and providing application for, two more 

“theological” sections (1–4 and 15) within the main body of the letter: 

1-4 The Cross 

5-7 The Cross Applied Ethically (I): Sexual immorality, greed, bodies belonging 

to the Lord 

8-14 The Cross Applied Ethically (II): Self-restraint, love, participation in the one 

body 

15 The Resurrection 

216

Chapters 5–7: Glorify God in Your Body 

Themes of Chapters 5–7 

The themes of chapters 5–7 seem to fit the pattern that I have been arguing exists in Paul’s 

ethics: the church at Corinth is here called to surrender their bold claims to bodily self- 

ownership implied in issues of sexual immorality, impurity, and greed. 

Thus in each section, Paul depicts the Corinthians in a way that is continuous with the critique 

of the Corinthian church that was developed in chapters 1–4. They are depicted as boldly 

parading their assumed self-ownership. In each section Paul challenges the various 

expressions of this puffed up self-assertion, alluding to the cross as that which demands 

humble submission to divine ownership: 51 

In 5:1-13, the community is warned to turn their pride in a man of immorality 52 into a 

willingness to be rid of impurity (here pictured as leaven), in view of Christ’s sacrifice: 

5:1-2: Actually it is said that among you there is sexual immorality [πορνεία]…And 

you are puffed up [πεφυσιωμένοι]! 

5:6-7: Your boasting [καύχημα ὑμῶν] is not good…. Clean out [purify: ἐκκαθάρατε] 

the old yeast, in order that you might be new dough… For our Passover lamb, Christ, 

has been sacrificed [ἐτύθη]. 

In 6:1-11, the church is called to turn their acceptance of unrestrained greed into a 

commitment to judge greed and to forgo personal gain: every item in the closing vice list may 

51 This does not sum up the full complexity of Paul’s argumentation in each of these 

subsections; it rather notes a general pattern that appears to be common to each. 

52 It seems reasonable that, if the man at fault here is a rich benefactor, the resistance of the 

church to condemning his open sin represents conventional goodwill in response to continued 

patronage. See chapter 6 in Clarke, Secular and Christian. See also John K. Chow, 

Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); 

especially 139. My suggestion is that Paul interprets this goodwill as evidence of (to use 

Chrysostom’s terminology) the “disease” of puffed-up pride that effectively downplays 

dependence on God in Christ. 

217

e related to either the perception of corporeal revelry involved in Roman cultic celebrations 

and parties, 53 or the greedy pursuit of gain at the expense of another. The section as a whole 

has been rightly characterised by Hall as an elaboration on the theme of judging greed: 

The trigger for the digression [6:1-11] may have been the word πλεονέκτης in the list 

of vices in 5.11. The Corinthians’ pride in their tolerance of sexual immorality seems 

to Paul to be symptomatic of their proud tolerance of immorality in general, and the 

case of πλεονεξία that forms the subject of 6.1-11 is a case in point. It is significant 

that near the end of 6.1-11 (in vv. 9-10) there appears a very similar vice list to that of 

5.11. 54 

Those who have benefited from Christ’s sanctifying work, however, should act differently: 

6:1: If any of you has a matter against another, dare you take it to be judged before 

the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 

6:8-11: But instead you treat unjustly [ἀδικεῖτε] and rob [ἀποστερεῖτε], and you do 

this to brothers and sisters! Do you not know that the unjust [ἄδικοι] will not inherit 

the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral [πόρνοι] nor 

idolaters [εἰδωλολάτραι] nor adulterers [μοιχοί] nor the sexually perverse [μαλακοί] 

nor man-bedders [ἀρσενοκοῖται] nor thieves [κλέπται] nor the greedy [πλεονέκται] 

nor drunkards [μέθυσοι] nor revilers [λοίδοροι] nor swindlers [ἅρπαγες] will inherit 

53 Seneca, for example, portrays the revelry of a Roman banquet in his description of the way 

that slaves are treated: “Another slave, the wine server, must wrestle back his age to model 

feminine attire. He is not able to escape boyhood, but is called back to it. And though he has 

the body of a soldier, his face is kept smooth, and body hair plucked out from the roots. And 

he is kept on watch all night, divided between his lord’s drunkenness and lust. And in the 

bedroom he is a man, but at the banquet, he is a boy”. Seneca, Epistles, 47.7. Philo similarly 

depicts Roman celebrations, in contrast to those of the Therapeutae: “Now I would like also to 

mention their [that is, the Therapeutae’s] common assemblies and the joyfulness of their 

symposia. For there are others who, when they have filled themselves with drink, behave as 

though it is not wine they have been drinking, but rather something herbal that causes frenzy 

and madness, and anything else that can be imagined that is more poisonous to reason. They 

cry out and rave in the manner of wild dogs, and they attack and devour one another…. And 

equally, some would approve the style of symposia now rife everywhere, through the pursuit 

of Italian expense and luxury, which is sought by both Greeks and Barbarians who desire show 

rather than celebration in making their preparations”. Philo, The Contemplative Life, 40; 48. 

54 Hall, Unity, 36 note 21. 

218

the kingdom of God. And some of you were these things. But you were washed; but 

you were sanctified; but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and 

in the Spirit of our God. 

In 6:12-20, the church is summoned to exchange assumed sexual freedom for surrendered 

bodily restraint. Those who have been “bought” 55 by God should evidence this non-self- 

possession in the exercise of their bodies: 

6:12: ‘Everything is lawful for me’ 

6:13, 19-20: But the body is not for sexual immorality [πορνείᾳ], but for the Lord – 

and the Lord for the body. 

Do you not know that your body [σῶμα] is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, 

whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought 

[ἠγοράσθητε] at cost. Therefore glorify God in your body. 

In chapter 7, Christians in various situations are urged to give up self-possessing 56 approaches 

to sex, abstinence and marriage, and renew their attitudes toward these practices “ἐν κυρίῳ” 

(7:22, 39). Once again, the Corinthians are reminded that they have been “bought” by God. 

The distinction between belonging to humans and belonging to God (7:23-4) is clearly 

reminiscent of the same distinction that had been so strongly emphasised in chapters 1–4 (e.g. 

3:21-23). 

7:1, 4-5: “It is good for a man not to touch [μὴ ἅπτεσθαι] his wife”. 57 

55 

That the body of a slave was thought of as the possession of the Greco-Roman owner is 

illustrated in Aristophanes’ Plutus, lines 1-7 (spoken by the slave Cario): 

“How painful a thing it is, O Zeus and the gods, 

to be the slave of a foolish master. 

For he may give the best of advice, 

but if the master does not do what has been advised, 

it is necessary for the slave to share the burden of his evils. 

For the gods have not permitted the exerciser of the body to control his body, 

but rather the one who has bought it”. 

56 

There is perhaps a play on words when Paul concludes the section by saying that he thinks 

he “has” the Spirit of God (7:40: ἔχειν). 

57 

That the wording refers to sexual pleasure or exploitation is confirmed by Roy E. Ciampa, 

“Revisiting the Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7.1,” JSNT 31/3 (2009): 325-338. 

219

The wife does not exercise authority over her own body [τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ 

ἐξουσιάζει] but her husband does. And likewise, the husband does not exercise 

authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not rob [μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε] one 

another… 

7:23-24: You were bought [ἠγοράσθητε] at cost; do not become slaves of humans 

[ἀνθρώπων]. Let each remain, before God [παρὰ θεῷ], in the situation in which they 

were called. 

The themes of chapters 5–7, then, cohere with the pattern of ethical arrangement exhibited 

elsewhere in the letters of the Pauline Corpus, applying the corrective of the cross of Christ 

(introduced in chapters 1–4) to the Corinthian expressions of “puffed up” bodily sexual 

immorality, greed, and impurity. 

Regardless of the exact way in which the section on lawsuits relates to the sections on either 

side about sexual immorality (and the sections are at least related in terms of requiring a 

commitment to communal judgement), each of the issues represented in this part of the letter 

recalls the usual themes that open Pauline ethical discussion. Ciampa and Rosner see the 

presence of the section on lawsuits as the biggest exception to their own outline of the letter, 

which views 4:18–7:40 as being about the problem of sexual immorality and 8:1–14:40 as 

being about the problem of idolatry. 58 They concede that greed is indeed viewed as another 

fundamental vice in Paul and early Judaism/Christianity, but it sits uneasily within a section 

that is otherwise, in their estimation, only about sexual immorality. It would seem less 

strained to view the section as a whole (chapters 5–7) as relating generally to the church’s bold 

acceptance of the fundamental bodily vices of sexual immorality, impurity, and greed, 

associated with an idolatrous orientation. 

58 Ciampa and Rosner, “Structure and Argument,” 212. My own perspective is that chapters 8- 

14 are far more consistently about the need to avoid interpersonal exploitation than the need to 

avoid idolatry. 

220

Terminology of Chapters 5–7 

The terminology of chapters 5–7 seems to affirm this pattern. Of the 12 occurrences of the 

word σώμα in this section (after no occurrences in chapters 1–4), all refer to personal bodies. 59 

The words πορνεία/πόρνος occur 8 times in this section (including each chapter), and 

nowhere else in 1 Corinthians. 60 The word πλεονέκτης occurs 3 times in chapters 5–6, and 

nowhere else in 1 Corinthians. 61 The words related to purity/cleansing occur twice in these 

chapters (once in chapter 5, once in chapter 7), and nowhere else in 1 Corinthians. 62 

Chapters 8-14: Discern the Body 

Themes of Chapters 8–14 

The themes of chapters 8–14 also seem to fit the pattern, bearing a strong similarity to the 

themes dealt with in Romans 12:9 to 15, Colossians 3 to 4, 1 Thessalonians 4 (from verse 9), 

the relevant sections of Ephesians 4-6, the latter (relational) themes of many vice lists, and the 

themes of many virtue lists. In 1 Corinthians 8–14, Paul consistently summons those in 

Corinth to put away the proud and exploitative exercise of possessions, rights and abilities, 

which have been resulting in community instability (8:10-11), division (11:18), and 

jealousy/resignation (12:14-26). These divisive practices are to be replaced with a 

commitment to unity and love within the one body. 

On the unity of this section, Thiselton comments: 

59 5:3, 6:13 (twice), 6:15, 6:16, 6:18 (twice), 6:19, 6:20, 7:4 (twice), 7:34. 

60 5:1, 5:9, 5:10, 5:11, 6:9, 6:13, 6:18, 7:2. The cognate verb πορνεύω occurs in two verses of 

1 Corinthians: in 6:18, in relation to bodily sin; and in 10:8, in which the sins of Israel are 

rehearsed, moving notably from idolatry to sexual immorality to testing Christ to grumbling. 

61 5:10, 5:11, 6:10. 

62 5:7: ἐκκαθάρατε; 7:14: ἀκάθαρτά. 

221

It is very surprising how readily virtually all commentators appear to ignore the 

fundamental continuity between the arguments and themes of 8:1–11:1 and the 

application of these very same themes to issues concerning public or corporate 

worship in 11:2–14:40. 63 

Indeed, in each section, some believers are called to restrain themselves for the sake of others, 

as Thiselton points out elsewhere: 

Chapters 8–14 place individualism, individual freedoms, and “autonomy” under a 

relativizing question-mark. In these chapters even “being right” is not enough if this 

brings damage to another. 64 

Accordingly, Senft sums up chapters 8–14 as dealing with issues of community and worship. 65 

Gorman asserts that chapters 8–14 form a unified application of Paul’s theme of cruciformity 

generally to “liturgical” issues. 66 Ackerman argues that chapters 8–14 apply Paul’s paraenesis 

to “problems concerning love”. 67 Ciampa and Rosner see that chapters 8–14 are undergirded 

by “the double command of love”. 68 

The consistent exhortation to self-restraint for the sake of the other can be seen in each of the 

main subsections within chapters 8–14: 

In 8:1-13, the opening verse makes clear that a spiritual “possession” (knowledge) is to be 

tempered by love. Indeed this important transition verse alludes back to chapters 1–4, where 

the problem of “puffed up” spirituality was emphatically countered with the message of the 

63 

Thiselton, First Epistle, 799. 

64 

Anthony C. Thiselton, “The Significance of Recent Research on 1 Corinthians for 

Hermeneutical Appropriation of This Epistle Today,” Neot 40/2 (2006): 320-352; 331. 

65 

Christophe Senft, La Premiere Épitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Paris: Delachaux & 

Niestle: 1979). 

66 

Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord, 238. 

67 

Ackerman, Lo, I Tell You a Mystery, 116. 

68 

Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 370. 

222

cross; and forward to chapters 12–14, where the theme of edifying ecclesial love reaches its 

peak. Here, as that theme is first introduced, the bold practice of reclining in an idol temple 

(ostensibly arising from firm Corinthian possession of “knowledge”) is to be restrained for the 

sake of the weaker brother or sister, who may otherwise be emboldened (ironically, 

οἰκοδομηθήσεται) to eat idol meat. 

8:1: Now concerning meat sacrificed to idols, we know that “we all have [ἔχομεν] 

knowledge”. Knowledge [γνῶσις] puffs up [φυσιοῖ], but love [ἀγάπη] builds up 

[οἰκοδομεῖ]. 

8:13: Therefore, if food causes my brother or sister [τὸν ἀδελφόν μου] to stumble, I 

will not eat meat ever again, in order that my brother or sister might not stumble. 

In 9:1-27, Paul’s own freedom and rights as an apostle are shown to be put under self- 

restraint, for the sake of others’ salvation (so 19-22), and to avoid his own disqualification on 

account of lazy over-confidence (so 23-27). 69 

9:1, 4: Am I not free [ἐλεύθερος]? Am I not an apostle?... 

Do we not have the right [ἐξουσίαν] to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to 

bring along a believing wife…? 

9:19: For, although I am free [Ἐλεύθερος] of all, I have enslaved myself to all, in 

order that I might win many. 

9:26-7: This is how I run: not aimlessly; and this is how I fight: not beating the air. 

But I beat my body and enslave it, in order that I might not proclaim to others, and yet 

become disqualified myself. 

69 A variety of Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds has been suggested for this section. For 

a discussion of various possible backgrounds to this section, see Mitchell, “Pauline 

Accommodation,” in Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, 

197-214. See also chapter four of David J. Rudolph, “A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of 

Pauline Flexibility in 1 Cor 9:19-23” (Ph.D. diss., Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, 

2006); revised version forthcoming (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). Whether Paul’s 

accommodation is best understood as an adaptability with regard to Torah (conventional view) 

or Pharisaic halakha (Rudolph) or rhetoric (Mark Nanos, “When in Rome, Would the Paul of 

‘All Things to All People’ (1 Cor 9:19-23) Do as the Romans Do?” [paper presented at the 

Paul and Pauline Literature Group, International Meeting of the SBL, Rome, 2 nd July 2009]), 

my point is that this theme of accommodation functions within chapters 8–10 to illustrate the 

call to self-restraint for the sake of others (even if it concurrently serves as self-defence). 

223

In 10:1-11:1, the example of Israel’s over-confident lack of restraint is given. Israel is shown 

to have had spiritual “possessions” equivalent to those of the self-assured in Corinth. But 

spiritual privilege is shown to bring with it a corresponding need for humility (10:12) and 

dependence upon Christ, as mutually participating members of his body (10:16). In-principle 

freedom is to be subservient then to the expression of dependence on the Lord (10:22) and 

consequently to pursuing the good of others within his body (10:23-11:1, where the “someone” 

who points out that the meat is consecrated is probably to be taken as a fellow believer). 

10:12: So let the one who thinks they stand watch that they do not fall. 

10:22: Or shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than him, are 

we? 

10:23-24: “Everything is lawful” – but not everything benefits. “Everything is 

lawful” – but not everything builds up [οἰκοδομεῖ]. No one should be self-seeking, 

but rather should be other-seeking. 

10:28: But if someone says to you, “This is consecrated meat”, do not eat it for the 

sake of the one who told you. 

10:31-33: Do not become a reason for the stumbling of Jews or Gentiles or the church 

of God – just as, in all things, I aim to please all people; not seeking to benefit myself, 

but to benefit many, in order that I might save them. 

Chapter 10 thus arguably functions to apply the Pauline example of chapter 9 as follows: 70 

Chapter 9a: Paul’s intention to serve others by restraining his own freedoms and rights 

Chapter 9b: Paul’s intention to avoid disqualification by restraining self-confidence 

Chapter 10a: The warning of Israel’s misplaced self-confidence: eating with humble 

self-restraint before God 

70 Ciampa and Rosner draw on Senft and Chrysostom in arriving at a similar conclusion: First 

Letter, 433-4. 

224

Chapter 10b: The situations of marketplace food and invitations: eating with a view to serving 

others 

Merklein, 71 Oropeza, 72 Hall, 73 and others view chapters 8–10 in a similar way to this, seeing 

the two related but distinct problems of participation in cult meals and consuming idol-meat as 

underlying a carefully constructed argument against the “strong”, who are both endangering 

others and endangering themselves. It is noteworthy in terms of the present argument that it is 

the interpersonal application that both begins (chapter 8) and ends (chapter 10b) this section. 74 

In 11:2-16, it appears that again, Paul believes that some sort of freedom or autonomy is being 

claimed and abused. 75 Both men and women are warned not to shame their “head” – which is, 

in parallel to 3:21-23, presented in a way that defies the Corinthian desire for possession: no 

one may be said to be or to possess their own head; and the ultimate head is God. Paul’s 

response thus again involves the corrective that freedom does not mean autonomy – in relation 

to others, or fundamentally, to God. Autonomy is to give way to mutuality “in the Lord” (ἐν 

κυρίῳ). 

11:3-5: I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and man is the head 

of woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who prays or prophesies with a 

covering coming down from his head shames his head. And every woman who prays 

or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head. 


72 Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy, 60-61. 


74 A fact that perhaps argues against Garland’s suggestion that the “weak” of chapter 8 are 

hypothetical: Garland, 1 Corinthians, 347. 

75 I take it that with regard to men, Paul is referring (perhaps hypothetically) to the desire for a 

position of religious esteem associated with the capite velato. Plutarch mentions this practice 

in his question, “Why, when they are praying to the gods, do they [i.e. Roman men] cover the 

head, and yet when they meet people worthy of honour while they have the himation on their 

head, they uncover it?” Plutarch, Roman Questions, 10. With regard to women’s 

headcoverings, perhaps Paul is concerned that suspicious visitors (τοὺς ἀγγέλους?) might 

interpret the worship of the Corinthian Christian women with images of autonomous Roman 

wives or ecstatic female Bacchus-devotees or mystery priestesses in mind. Regardless, my 

emphasis here is that Paul responds to the situation by insisting on God-dependent mutuality. 

225

11:11-12: Nevertheless neither woman is apart from man nor man apart from woman 

in the Lord [ἐν κυρίῳ]. For just as woman came from man, so also man comes 

through woman. But all come from God [ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ]. 

In 11:17-34, it seems that personal “rights” are being exercised at the expense of others’ 

dignity. Paul calls some to restrain their exercise of these rights, for the sake of those others 

who are being put to shame. The proclamation of the Lord’s death ought to be expressed in 

the context of concern for other believers. 

11:26-7, 29: For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim 

the Lord’s death until he comes. So whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup of 

the Lord unfittingly will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord… For the one 

who eats and drinks without discerning the body [τὸ σῶμα] eats and drinks judgement 

on themselves. 

11:33: So, my brothers and sisters, wait for one another when you come together to 

eat. 

In 12:1-30, the claim to “spirituality” is being used to hurt or exclude others. Paul urges that 

the self be seen as part of a wider inter-dependent body, activated by the Spirit, in which 

arrogant exploitation is entirely out of place. 76 

12:27: Now you are the body of Christ [σῶμα Χριστοῦ], and each is a member [μέλη] 

of it. 77 

76 My reading fits well with Bruce Winter’s suggestion that the concept of cursing one another 

in the name of a god (as illustrated in the curse tablets associated with the cult of Demeter and 

Persephone at the base of Acrocorinth) may underlie Paul’s statement here. The introductory 

verses would thus be an attack on interpersonal vilification rather than blasphemy: “I want you 

to know that no one who speaks by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus, curse!’”. See the discussion 

in Winter, After Paul, chapter 8. 

77 Here Paul adapts a conventional image used in the discussion of interdependent societies. 

Aristotle, for example, had declared, “Rather, all belong to the city. For each is a part of the 

city. And the supervision of each part is achieved with regard for the supervision of the 

whole”. Aristotle, Politics, 8.1. Often the metaphor is used in order to preserve the role of the 

“greater parts” of the political body (cf. Livy, The History of Rome, 2:32, 7-11). Paul rather 

goes on to use the image to insist on the honour of the “less noble” parts. 

226

In 13:1-13, Paul demonstrates “the most excellent way”. Personal spirituality is to be 

expressed in love for others, rather than in a self-seeking pride in spiritual possessions. Love 

is ironically spoken about as a “possession” here, and depicted in a way that contrasts sharply 

with the claimed possessions of the self-assured in Corinth: 

13:2: And if I have [ἔχω] prophecy and I see all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I 

have all faith so as to move mountains, but I do not have love [ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω], I 

am nothing. 

In 14:1-40, Paul urges that the better gifts are those that (verbally) serve others, for their 

edification. Self-restraint should be pursued in certain situations, for the sake of this common 

edification. 

14:3: The one who prophesies speaks to people for their edification [οἰκοδομὴν] and 

encouragement and consolation. 

14:26, 28, 30, 34: Let everything happen for edification [πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν 

γινέσθω]…. 

But if there is no interpreter, let them be silent [σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ] in church…. 

But if a revelation comes to another, who is seated, let the first be silent [σιγάτω]…. 

Let the women in the churches be silent [ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν]. 78 

It would seem that as a whole, chapters 8–14 serve to call the Corinthians to replace bold self- 

assertion with sensitive self-restraint for the sake of other believers. This pattern of willing 

self-restraint matches Paul’s emphatic depiction of his own experience in the climactic irony 

of 4:8-13, which precedes the solemn imperative: “Become imitators of me!” In fact, Paul’s 

exhortation in chapters 8–14 turns out to be a summons to a strangely similar way of life. 

Having depicted himself as emphatically weak, he calls upon the strong in Corinth to restrain 

themselves for the sake of those who are weak in knowledge. Having depicted himself as 

78 In his 2009 revision of his 1986 article “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians”, Murphy-O’Connor 

lists Senft, Lang, Fee, Klauk, Hays and Walker alongside himself in viewing the verses about 

women as an interpolation. I do not enter into the issue here, as it would not affect my 

argument. 

227

hungering and thirsting, he calls upon those who are rushing ahead at the Lord’s Supper to 

refrain from publicly gorging themselves. Having depicted himself as responding to verbal 

abuse with verbal blessing, he calls upon those who are speaking in church to consciously limit 

themselves to building up others. 

In calling the Corinthians to replace bold self-assertion with sensitive self-restraint, Paul is 

continuing to summon them to imitate his own embodiment of cruciform, self-sacrificial love, 

in the context of the relationships within the church body. Again, the pattern of arrangement 

of Pauline ethics suggested above would appear to be exhibited here. 

Terminology of Chapters 8–14 

The terminology of chapters 8–14 seems to affirm this pattern. Of the 25 times that the word 

σῶμα occurs in this section, 2 refer to Paul’s own body, 79 3 refer to the personal or Eucharistic 

body of Christ, 80 and 20 refer to the church as the body of Christ. 81 The word ἀγάπη, after not 

occurring at all in chapters 5–7, occurs 11 times in this section, mainly in chapter 13, which, as 

Conzelmann hints, 82 fits perfectly into chapters 12–14 in drawing this theme that underlies 

chapters 8–14 to a climax. 83 

3. The Sources and Backgrounds of this Ethical Pattern 

It is arguable that this pattern of ethical arrangement is Paul’s christocentric development of 

the ethical model that he had inherited from his “former life in Judaism” (Galatians 1:13) as a 

79 9:27, 13:3 

80 10:16, 11:24, 11:27 

81 10:17, 11:29, 12:12 (3 times), 12:13, 12:14, 12:15 (twice), 12:16 (twice), 12:17, 12:18, 

12:19, 12:20, 12:22, 12:23, 12:24, 12:25, 12:27 

82 Reading 8:1, Conzelmann comments, “The commentary on ἀγάπη is supplied by chap. 13, 

that on οἰκοδομεῖ, ‘builds up,’ by chaps. 12 and 14… where the antithesis emerges between 

freedom slogans (as understood by the Corinthians) and ‘upbuilding.’ οἰκοδομεῖν in Paul does 

not refer primarily to the ‘edification’ of the individual (secondarily used in this sense in 14:4), 

but to the building up of the community”. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 141. 

83 This word occurs in 8:1, 13:1, 13:2, 13:3, 13:4 (3 times), 13:8, 13:13 (twice), 14:1. The 

cognate verb also occurs once in this section (and not at all in chapters 5-7), in 8:3; however 

the reference is to love for God rather than mutual love within the church. 

228

Pharisee. In particular, three related features of ethical arrangement in many Jewish/Christian 

works of the Hellenistic-Roman period are worthy of note, and will be explored below. At the 

outset, however, it is important to recognise that this exploration does not arise from a 

“history-of-religion” interest in uncovering an evolving development of religious ethical 

reflection. Rather, as in the rest of the dissertation, I am seeking to demonstrate the feasibility 

of the view that Paul’s kerygma of the Messiah who died, rose, and awaits cosmic exaltation 

creatively shapes his utilisation and adaptation of other rhetorical resources. So far I have 

suggested that this occurs with regard to the macro-structure of 1 Corinthians as various 

oratorical and literary techniques (such as the motif of the “boastful ruler” or the technique of 

“digression”) are brought into the service of an overall kerygmatic arrangement of dual 

reversal. Here I wish to show that Paul’s ethical discussion similarly brings existing resources 

into the service of a creatively kerygmatic formulation. 

The three related features of ethical arrangement worthy of note are the following: 

• An emphasis on the fundamentality of the problems of sexual immorality, greed and 

impurity, often related to idolatry 

• The latter placement of discussion of sins of interpersonal social interaction 

• A logic in which the behaviour of the individual goes on to affect the community 

These are by no means to be thought of as universal rhetorical rules, but rather recurring 

features found within a range of relevant literature. Indeed the choice of literature below is 

designed to illustrate the breadth of this range, more than a singular path of literary evolution. 

An Emphasis on the Fundamentality of Sexual Immorality, Greed, and Impurity, and 

their Relation to Idolatry 

It is worth noting firstly that, in terms of Greek ethical reflection, Plato had influentially 

presented the “appetites” or “passions” for sex and food as being the basest expressions of 

human desire, which need to be controlled by “reason”. The following is part of an argument 

229

that develops a view of the soul as tripartite, consisting of rational, spirited, and appetitive 

parts: 

Plato, Republic 4.439d 

We shall think that these things are twofold and different to one another: the one that 

reasons in the soul we call rationality, and the other that loves and hungers and thirsts, 

and concerning the other desires feels disturbance, we call the irrational and 

appetitive, companion of various fulfilments and pleasures. 

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle disapproved of unrestrained desire for the pleasures of sex and 

food, seeing such slavery to appetite as unfitting for the virtuous; and these emphases were 

influential on rival Hellenistic claimants to their legacy. 84 Demosthenes’ assumptions about 

virtue and pleasure are illustrative of broader convention: 

Demosthenes, 60.2 “Funeral Speech” 

With good men, the needs of acquisitions and the enjoyments of the pleasures of life 

are looked down upon, but rather their whole desire is for virtue and praises. 

84 Of course, Hellenistic ethics were not uniform. In general, however, philosophers and 

moralists alike viewed the unrestrained or luxurious feeding of bodily appetites as a 

fundamental cause of disturbance and corruption. Even Epicurus, whose positive evaluation of 

bodily functions seems to challenge Plato’s schema above, distrusted erotic love, luxury, and 

greed, holding that false beliefs about such things must be corrected by philosophy. Nussbaum 

paraphrases Epicurus’ thought in this regard: “Cravings for unlimited quantities of food and 

drink, for meat, for gastronomic novelties, for exquisite preparations – cravings all not natural 

but based on false beliefs about our needs – obscure the desire’s built-in limit…. Again, the 

longings associated with erotic love are held to result from a belief-based corruption of sexual 

desire, which itself is easily satisfied”. Nussbaum, Therapy, 112-113. Kathy L. Gaca argues 

that Paul’s charge to “flee fornication” is a call for avoidance of Gentile-idol-fertility sexuality, 

by aiming to keep sex within Christian marriage. It is thus a “sharp divide” with Greco- 

Roman sexual ethics because it restricts appropriate sexual activity to certain relationships 

within the boundary of only one religion. However, I am not persuaded that this is a fair 

representation of the evidence. Roman moralists of the first century, in particular, appear just 

as ready to denounce “fornication” as Paul; and Paul’s denunciation does not appear to be so 

clearly related to alleged idolatrous practices as Gaca implies. See Kathy L. Gaca, Making of 

Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity 

(Ewing, N.J.: University of California Press, 2003), 293. 

230

Boring, Berger and Colpe note that similar vices are still grouped together in Greco-Roman 

ethics by the time of Plutarch, who often combines “getting sexually involved with one’s 

mother, eating forbidden foods, restraining oneself from no vice”. They postulate: 

The repeated naming of this series by Plutarch (in the second passage with an allusion 

to Plato) shows that the series of topics treated by Paul [beginning in 1 Corinthians 5] 

may possibly have a pagan tradition as its model. In each author the leading theme is 

“complete lack of restraint and thoroughgoing lawlessness”. 85 

This may be the case, although it is by no means certain that Paul is drawing directly on 

“pagan” models. Jewish encapsulations of the Torah in the Hellenistic period often appear to 

exhibit a similar conception of the fundamentality of the bodily passions of sexual desire and 

greed. 

A comparison of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 of the Hebrew and Greek texts reveals that the 

ordering of the second table has been rearranged in the Greek translation of the Hebrew 

Scriptures, moving the prohibition of adultery to a place of priority: 

Masoretic Text Septuagint 

1. No other gods No other gods 

2. No idols No idols 

3. Using the name of the LORD Using the name of the LORD 

4. Keeping Sabbath Keeping Sabbath 

5. Honouring father & mother Honouring father & mother 

6. No murder No adultery 

7. No adultery No stealing 

8. No stealing No murder 

85 M. Eugene Boring, et al., eds., Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville, 

Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 397. 

231

9. No false witness No false witness 

10. No coveting No coveting 

Philo later makes much of this fact that the second table of the Decalogue (as seen in the 

Septuagint above) begins with the prohibition of sexual sin, a vice of “pleasure” that he takes 

to be universally fundamental. 86 

Here Philo summarises the two “sets” of commandments: 

Philo, On the Decalogue 121-123 

And having wisely given these words concerning the honour of parents, he brings to 

an end the other “divine” set of five. In writing the other set, concerning prohibitions 

related to humans, he begins with adultery, taking this to be the greatest of crimes. 

For firstly it springs from the love of pleasure, which both enfeebles the bodies of 

those it holds, and loosens the tendons of the soul and destroys the very existence, 

consuming all that it touches as an unquenchable fire, leaving nothing safe in human 

life. 

Later Philo moves from discussing the first set of five commandments to discussing the second 

set. Again he emphasises that adultery is the “heading” of this set: 

86 It is often noted that Philo’s ethics involves a merging of the Mosaic with the Hellenistic 

(specifically, Stoic): according to Roberto Radice the material of the work On Virtue “simply 

superimposes Mosaic morality on Greek aretology, relating the former to the idea of grace and 

the imitation of God”. Roberto Radice, “Philo and Stoic Ethics. Reflections on the Idea of 

Freedom,” in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy (ed. Francesca Alesse; 

Leiden: Brill, 2008), 141-168; 142. It is worth noting, however, that Philo’s engagement with 

“pagan” thought (to the extent that it is conscious) is not considered by him to represent 

concession or syncretism, but rather illumination, as the best of contemporary values are 

shown to have a grounding in God’s revelation through Moses. Josephus similarly views the 

best of the Greek philosophers as standing in the tradition of Moses: “For first of these 

[Gentile imitators of Judaism] were the Greek philosophers, for whom it seemed that they 

observed their forefathers; but who in deeds and in philosophy followed that one [i.e. Moses], 

similarly thinking about God, and teaching simplicity of life and fellowship with one another” 

(Against Apion, 2.281). This perspective may be helpful in considering other examples of 

Jewish ethics presented in this section. 

232

Philo, On the Decalogue 168-169 

And the first set, each having the form of a summary, contains these five; while the 

special laws are not few in number. In the other set [i.e. the second table of 

commandments] the first heading is against adultery, under which come many 

directions: against corrupters, against pederasty, against lustful living, participating 

both in unlawful intercourse and licentious defilement. 

Elsewhere Philo relates different sets of commands to each other, characteristically expanding 

“adultery” to incorporate the pursuit of “pleasure” more generally: 87 

Philo, The Special Laws 3, 8 

In the second tablet, the first commandment is this: “Do not commit adultery”, 

because, I think, everywhere in the inhabited world, pleasure is a great force, and no 

part has escaped its domination. 

In relation to the Enochic Book of the Watchers, William R.G. Loader finds that 1 Enoch 6-11 

applies the commitment to proper “ordering” of chapters 1-5 to the issue of sexuality, as the 

angelic Watchers pursue sexual disorder in the model of the god Pan. This sexual disorder 

brings “impurity” (cf. 10:20-22) and draws on luxurious adornment (cf. 8:1ff); but the 

consequences of this “great sin” for humankind and for the Watchers’ offspring (cf. 10:9-10: 

the “sons of πορνεία”) are not necessarily sexual in nature. 15:11 summarises the sin of the 

offspring in terms of violence and affliction, perhaps illustrating the devastating social end of 

87 This expansion is common to many of the examples seen here. Robert Travers Herford 

views Rabbinic ethics as a continuation of such an approach: “The Old Testament gave a 

strong and unfaltering lead in the direction of sexual purity, continence, modesty, chastity, and 

the Rabbis followed that lead – or, rather, they built on that foundation a structure of their own, 

more elaborate in its details and more severe in its lines than that sketched in the older 

Scriptures. The commandment in the Decalogue [concerning adultery] was extended to 

include every kind of sexual offence, or even irregularity; and the breach of this 

commandment, so extended, was made one of the three deadly sins which the Jew must die 

rather than commit. The other two were idolatry and bloodshed.” R. Travers Herford, Talmud 

and Apocrypha: A Comparative Study of the Jewish Ethical Teaching in the Rabbinical and 

Non-Rabbinical Sources in the Early Centuries (New York: Ktav, 1971), 163. 

233

the pursuit of taboo intermarriage. In chapters 17-19 the relation to idolatry becomes explicit. 

Loader summarises: 

At its heart is an action of sexual wrongdoing. Much of its impact, however, is not 

described in terms of further actions of sexual wrongdoing, either by the offspring or 

by their evil spirits. 88 

A prayer in Sirach illustrates the way in which appetites for food and sex became thought of 

as fundamental vices to be avoided in much Jewish literature. This is presented as a prayer to 

the one who has the power to discipline the mind and discern sin: 

Sirach 23:4-6 

O Lord, Father and God of my life, do not give me conceited eyes, and turn lust away 

from me. Do not let the desires of the belly and intercourse overpower me, and do 

not give me over to a shameless soul. 

Pseudo-Eupolemus presents Abraham’s piety as resulting in him being above greed and 

beyond the reach of sexual sin: 

Pseudo-Eupolemus, Fragment 1, 3-7 89 

Having pursued piety, Abraham was pleasing to God…. 

When the elders came to him, suggesting that he might receive wealth in order to 

release the prisoners, he did not choose to take advantage of the unfortunate. But, 

having taken food for his young men, he returned the spoils…. 

88 William R.G. Loader, Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality 

in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees (Grand 

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 59. Loader (cf. especially 63) finds a similar pattern in the 

Animal Apocalypse: the sexual transgression of the Watchers precedes sins of violence and 

oppression among their heirs. 

89 Not much of the original context of this fragment survives. It seems that the author is 

pointing out the virtues that would have been applauded as pious. This version clearly differs 

from the Biblical account. 

234

Further, he reported that the king was not able to have intercourse with Abraham’s 

wife, and that his people and household were perishing. 

The book of Jubilees closely links both (Gentile-like) idolatry and (Gentile-like) sexual 

immorality with impurity: idols themselves are impure, and thus need to be avoided (11:4, 15- 

16; 20:7; 21:5); and sexual immorality (even when committed by an individual) could bring 

defilement to Israel as a whole (4:22; 7:27; 16:5-6; 20:3-6; 25:1; 25:7; 30:13-15; 33:7; 33:10- 

11; 33:20; 35:14; 41:17; 41:25-26). This emphasis on the necessity of purity is a feature of 

much Jewish literature subsequent to the events associated with the Maccabean revolt against 

the Hellenisation of Antiochus Epiphanes. 90 

In chapter 16 the sin of Sodom is summarised: 

Jubilees 16:5 (Latin version) 

All of their works are wicked and they are great sinners, making themselves unclean 

and enacting immoralities in their flesh, and accomplishing abominations throughout 

the land. 

Later in the book Abraham teaches Ishmael, Keturah, Isaac, and their children. The verse 

below is representative of his whole teaching in this context: 

Jubilees 20:7 (Latin version) 

And therefore I charge you, my sons: love the God of heaven, and adhere to all of his 

commands. And refuse to go after all their idols and all their impurities. 

90 There is, of course, variation. Loader notes a contrast between Jubilees and the Temple 

Scroll: whereas the Temple Scroll has an interest in the relatively narrow (ritual) “purity” issue 

of seminal emission, the book of Jubilees more broadly “expands the tendency evident in the 

incest prohibitions [of the Holiness Code] to see sexual immorality as something which 

defiles”. William R.G. Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards 

Sexuality in Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 

2009), 52. 

235

James C. VanderKam notes: 

The heroes of the book exhort their children to avoid impurity along with fornication 

and injustice (Noah, 7.20; Abraham, 20.3-6, where sexual impurity is stressed; 21.5; 

22.14, 19, 23). 91 

The Wisdom of Solomon frequently depicts sexual immorality as a fundamental vice, and 

views sexual immorality and other sins as arising from idolatry. 92 The verse below is part of a 

section that condemns the absurdity of idol worship: 

Wisdom of Solomon 14:12 

For the idea of idols was the beginning of sexual immorality, and their invention was 

the corruption of life. 

This sexual immorality connected to false religion may also be characterised as impurity, as in 

Jubilees. The problems below are presented as the result of a commitment to idols. Note the 

loss of purity: 


It was not enough for them to stray concerning the knowledge of God, but also, living 

in great conflict due to ignorance, they call such evils peace! For, killing their 

91 

James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 

131. 

92 

Although Greco-Roman philosophers and moralists themselves often denounced erotic 

infatuation, Jewish works of this era often appear to stereotype the “Gentiles” as obsessed with 

sex. Herford’s comments about the perception of the Rabbis are also applicable to this earlier 

period: “They were confronted by the fact that the Gentile world, in the midst of which they 

lived, was under little or no restraint in regard to sexual relations, either from public opinion or 

force of law. The Jew, wherever he turned, was liable to come in contact with what he felt to 

be abomination. Unless he retired from the world altogether, like the Essenes, he must guard 

himself somehow from moral contamination, from a danger that was not merely a matter of 

ritual purity, but a source of grave social corruption”. Herford, Talmud and Apocrypha, 164- 

165. W.D. Davies opines, “The yetzer ha-ra was regarded as expressing itself chiefly in two 

directions; it led to idolatry and to unchasitiy”. W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: 

Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1955), 30. 

236

children in sacrifice, or celebrating mysteries, or leading frenzies of strange rituals, 

they are pure neither in life nor marriage. Yet they lie in wait for one another in 

ambush or cause one another distress by committing adultery. 

Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles appears to conceive of the chief vices of the nations as 

arrogant greed and sexual immorality – at times connected with false worship. 93 The 

following occurs as an admonition that interrupts oracles of judgement, and is characteristic of 

the ethical emphases of this third Sibylline book. Such emphases may anticipate the later 

“Noachide Commandments”: 

Sibylline Oracles 3.762-766 

But enliven your thinking in your breast, 

Flee unlawful worship, worship the living one. 

Guard against adultery and homosexual intercourse. 

Nourish and do not murder the children you have borne. 

For the immortal one will become angry at the one who sins in these things. 94 

93 Rieuwerd Buitenwerf suggests that the chief vices in Book III (which he dates to the first 

century BCE) are greed (avarice) and fornication; and that such vices occur in a context of 

idolatry: Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and its Social Setting With an 

Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2003), chapter 3. John J. Collins 

suggests that the chief vices in Book 3 are idolatry, greed, and fornication: John J. Collins, The 

Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2 nd ed,; Grand 

Rapids, Mich.; Eerdmans, 1998), 123. 

94 Marcus Bockmuehl comments on the predecessors to the Noachide Commandments: “As 

soon as we move beyond the bounds of the canon, there are numerous texts of considerable 

relevance to the subject of universal ethics… the most important links in the apocryphal and 

pseudepigraphal writings include the Book of Wisdom (notable for its connection of Gentile 

idolatry with sexual immorality and other corruptions, 14.12-31), various texts from the 

Sibylline Oracles 3-5, and especially Jubilees 7 and Pseudo-Phocylides”. Markus Bockmuehl, 

Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics 

(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 156. Roland Deines argues for a “creation ethic” that was 

prior to the formulation of the Noachide Commandments, and that was influential for the 

Jerusalem Decree of Acts 15. This creation ethic forbade idolatry, the consumption of blood, 

and sexual immorality. On the latter, Deines writes: “Ebenso widerspricht jede Form von 

„unnatürlicher“ Sexualität dem Schöpfungswillen Gottes, der den Menschen im Zueinander 

von Mann und Frau und im Hinblick auf die Möglichkeit der Fortpflanzung geschaffen hat”. 

Roland Deines, “Das Aposteldekret – Halacha für Heidenchristen oder christliche 

Rücksichtnahme auf jüdische Tabus?” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World (ed. Jörg 

Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz and Stephanie Gripentrog; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 323-395; 393-394. 

237

The book of 4 Maccabees, clearly reminiscent of a Platonic evaluation of the passions, 

presents an argument for the control of the desires for (firstly) sex and food, by reason. This 

opening section sets up the theme of this philosophical treatise: 

4 Maccabees 1:1, 3-4 

Godly reason is master of the passions…. 

If therefore it is plain that reason can master those passions that hinder self-control, 

gluttony and lust, then it will also become evident that it is able to rule those passions 

that hold back justice, such as malice; and those passions that hold back courage, such 

as suffering and fear and pain. 

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs present sexual immorality and greed as the chief 

expressions of sin against God. These foundational vices are occasionally explicitly linked to 

idolatry and impurity. It is largely agreed that the Testaments as we currently have them 

evidence a degree of Christian influence. It is also largely agreed that they express continuity 

with Jewish ethical argumentation, 95 and so it is interesting to see a continuation of a number 

of the ethical traditions examined so far, including an emphasis on the fundamental depravity 

of sexual immorality, idolatry and greed. 

95 Johannes Thomas boldly states, “Also, it has the special feature of being, at least basically, a 

Jewish book, and so one of the relatively few works of Hellenistic Judaism that everybody will 

agree is (also) paraenetic. Discussion of this work as a specimen of paraenesis will therefore 

add appreciably to our understanding of a genre for which our evidence is otherwise mainly 

Greco-Roman and Christian”. Johannes Thomas, “The Paraenesis of the Testaments of the 

Twelve Patriarchs: Between Torah and Jewish Wisdom,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in 

Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 157- 

190; 157. More conservatively, Harm W. Hollander asserts that “there is much to be said for 

the assumption of a Jewish Hellenistic background and origin of the ethics of the Testaments. 

But this conclusion by no means implies that the paraenesis either is Christian or cannot be 

Christian. For we should be aware of the fact that Christianity adopted (nearly) all the 

standard topics of Jewish paraenesis”. Harm W. Hollander, Joseph as an Ethical Model in the 

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 12-13. Martinus de Jonge, who 

strongly asserts that the Testaments are a Christian product, affirms that they evidence 

continuity with Jewish ethical argumentation, which is exactly the point I am hoping to 

demonstrate: “Many parallels simply illustrate the continuity in content and diction between 

Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian paraenesis”. M. De Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old 

Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve 

Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 177. 

238

The Testament of Reuben is first of the twelve, and introduces many of the themes of the 

collection. This Testament is summarised as concerning “thoughts”, and the section below 

deals especially with sexual immorality: 

Testament of Reuben 4:6 

For sexual immorality is the destruction of the soul, separating it from God and 

bringing it near to idols. 

The Testament of Judah is summarised as being about “courage and the love of money and 

sexual immorality”: 

Testament of Judah 18 

Also I have read, in the books of Enoch the righteous, of the sorts of evil that you will 

do in the last days. Guard yourselves then, my children, from sexual immorality and 

from the love of money; listen to Judah your father, because these things remove you 

from the law of God…. For one who is enslaved to these two passions before the 

commands of God cannot obey God, because the passions have blinded that person's 

soul, making them go about during the day as though it is night. 

The Testament of Dan is summarised as concerning “anger and lying”. The figures of Levi 

(representing priesthood) and Judah (representing royalty) are prominent throughout the 

Testaments. Here these two key figures are linked to sexual immorality and greed: 

Testament of Dan 5:6-8 

For I have read in the book of Enoch the righteous that your ruler is Satan, and that all 

of the spirits of sexual immorality and of arrogance will be subject to Levi, to trap the 

sons of Levi, making them sin before the Lord. And my sons will come near to Levi 

and sin with them in everything. And the sons of Judah will be caught up in greed, 

swindling the others as lions. On account of this, you will be led away together with 

239

them, into captivity, and there you will be inflicted with all of the plagues of Egypt 

and all of the wickedness of the Gentiles. 

The Latter Placement of Discussion of Sins of Interpersonal Social Interaction 

The fundamental vices identified above are not infrequently presented prior to vices of social 

interaction. 

As mentioned above, Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles pictures the chief vices of the nations as 

arrogant greed and sexual immorality. Sometimes these vices are portrayed as giving way to 

interpersonal havoc. Book 3.175-193 provides a useful example. The arrogance of the nations 

results immediately in a craving for impiety among them, involving homosexual sex. The 

ensuing affliction may be said to arise from shameful greed and ill-gotten wealth, and has the 

effect of stirring up interpersonal strife, in the form of hatred and deceit: 

Sibylline Oracles 3.182-191 96 

And they will oppress mortals. But for those people there will be a great fall, when 

they begin their unrighteous arrogance. And among them will develop a compulsion 

for impiety, and men will have intercourse with men, and they will put children in 

shameful brothels. And a great distress will come to those people, and bring 

everything into confusion, and cut everything up and fill everything with evils, in 

shameful greed and ill-gotten wealth – in many areas, but mostly in Macedonia. And 

hatred will arise, and every sort of deceit will be among them. 

Verses 3-8 of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides may be viewed as an attempt to summarise 

the Decalogue. 97 This summary prioritises sexual sin, placing such vice prior even to respect 

96 This is presented as an oracle of judgement against the “kingdom” from the “western sea”, 

arising after the rule of the Greeks and Macedonians – presumably, Rome. 

97 See P.W. Van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides with Introduction and 

Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 112. More broadly, many of these examples of Jewish 

240

for parents and God. Sexual sin, impurity, and the unjust accumulation of wealth are 

prominent in close proximity to one another. Stealing, lying, and honouring others are placed 

subsequently: 

Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 3-8 98 

Do not commit adultery, nor stir homosexual passion. 

Do not sew together deceit, nor defile your hands with blood. 

Do not become wealthy unjustly, but live from honourable means. 

Be content with your possessions and abstain from those of another. 

Do not tell lies, but always speak truth. 

First honour God, and thereafter your parents. 

In the Gospel of Mark Jesus is presented as illustrating the way in which a person is made 

impure by listing the sorts of sins that proceed from within. Once again there appears to be a 

general movement from vices including sex and greed to vices of social interaction: 

Mark 7:20-23 

He said, “It is that which comes out of a person that defiles the person. For from the 

heart of the person proceed evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 

greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, foolishness. All 

these evils come from within and make a person unclean”. 

When the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus as being asked to list the commands of God, he lists 

the commands of the second table of the Decalogue, appending the command to honour father 

and mother. Luke alters the ordering of Matthew and Mark (where murder begins the list) to 

ethics might be seen as attempts to rehearse or summarise the themes of the Torah in a new 

linguistic or cultural context. Thomas notes of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, “[W]e 

have the legacy of the law expressed in non-legal forms”. Thomas, “The Paraenesis,” in Early 

Christian Paraenesis (ed. Starr and Engberg-Pedersen), 187. 

98 These verses follow immediately from the introductory prologue. 

241

prioritise the prohibition of adultery, perhaps in order to keep to the priorities of the 

Septuagint: 

Luke 18:20 

You know the commands: do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not 

bear false witness, honour your father and mother. 

This ordering is reminiscent of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, 3-8 above. 

Josephus’ discussion of the law in Against Apion loosely follows the ordering of the 

Decalogue in the Septuagint, placing the discussion of sexual laws immediately after the laws 

related to God and Temple, and prior to discussion of laws relating to the interactional issues 

of honouring parents, lying, and stealing. As in Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides and Paul, sexual and 

family issues are combined. In summary: 

Josephus, Against Apion 2.190-208 

1. (2.190ff): God – creator; no images may be made; responded to with the worship of 

virtue 

2. (2.193ff): Temple – priesthood; sacrifices; laws; prayers; fellowship; purifications 

3. (2.199ff): Marriage/Sex – man and wife; homosexual sex; getting married; 

submission; assault/adultery; abortion; purifications; Children – sobriety in 

upbringing, education, moral grounding; The Dead – funerals 

4. (2.206): Honouring Parents – second to honouring God; respect to elders 

5. (2.207): Lying – no secrets; confidence; no bribes 

6. (2.208): Stealing – taking goods, laying hands on neighbour’s property; taking 

interest 

“These and many similar regulations are the ties that bind us together”. 

242

Josephus’ discussion of the penalties prescribed by the law in the same work follows a similar 

order: 

Josephus, Against Apion 2.215-217 

1. Sexual crime 

2. Fraud/stealing 

3. Dishonouring parents 

4. Impiety toward God 

Josephus viewed the Greek philosophers as having drawn on Moses to commend the dual 

themes of (individual) simplicity of life and (corporate) fellowship with one another: 

Josephus, Against Apion 2.281 

In deeds and in philosophy [the Greek philosophers] followed that one [i.e. Moses], 

similarly thinking about God, and teaching simplicity of life and fellowship with one 

another. 

At a number of points in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, it is clear that the 

fundamental vices of greed and sexual immorality precede vices of social interaction. In the 

example below seven “spirits of error” seem to be presented as a reversal of God’s good order 

of creation: sexuality is depicted as the last element of divine ordering, but the first spirit of 

error, and so on: 

Testament of Reuben 3:3-7 

First [of the spirits of error], the spirit of sexual immorality dwells in the nature and in 

the senses. Second, the spirit of greed, in the stomach. Third, the spirit of fighting, in 

the liver and the gall. Fourth, the spirit of flattery and trickery, in order that through 

meddling a person might appear seasonable. Fifth, the spirit of arrogance, in order 

that a person might be boastful and high-minded. Sixth, the spirit of falsehood, with 

243

destruction and jealousy, to fake words and conceal words from family and friends. 

Seventh, the spirit of injustice, with which come stealing and profiteering, in order 

that a person might achieve the pleasures of their heart. For the spirit of injustice 

works together with the other spirits, through bribery. On top of all of these is the 

spirit of sleep, the eighth spirit, which comes together with deception and fantasy. 

The Testament of Benjamin concludes and sums up the concerns of the Twelve Patriarchs 

under the heading of a “pure mind”. Once again there seems to be a movement from passion 

and greed through to sins of interaction: 

Testament of Benjamin 6:1-6 

The mind of the good person is not in the hand of the spirit of deception, Beliar. For 

the angel of peace guides their soul. They do not look passionately at perishable 

things, or gather wealth for the love of pleasure. They do not delight in pleasure, or 

grieve their neighbour, or fill themselves with food. They do not stray into the 

superficialities of what is seen, for the Lord is their portion. The good mind does not 

wait on the praise or dishonour of humans, and does not know any deceit or falsehood 

or fighting or reviling, for the Lord dwells in it and enlightens its soul; and it rejoices 

with all people at all times. 

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr suggests that the topics of the ethical lists of the Testaments of the 

Twelve Patriarchs, in their common ordering, may be represented in the first column of the 

table below. 99 Interestingly Niebuhr demonstrates a general movement, beginning with 

prohibitions of sexual immorality, adultery, greed, selfishness (in failing to show merciful 

provision for the bodily needs of others) and covetous desire, and moving subsequently to 

interpersonal issues of daily interaction such as stealing, arrogant behaviour, lying, evil speech, 

zeal, envy, deceit, and fighting. The other columns compare this ethical arrangement with a 

number of ethical sections of the Pauline Corpus: 

99 Column 1 reproduced from Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Gesetz und Paränese, 161. 

244

Twelve 

Patriarchs 

πορνεία 

μοιχεία 

πλεονεξία 

ἔλεος 

ἀπληστία 

κλοπή 

ὑπερηφανία 

ψεῦδος 

καταλαλία 

ζῆλος 

φθόνος 

δόλος 

μάχη 

Galatians Ephesians 4:17-32 Colossians 

5:16-21 

3:5-8 

πορνεία ἀσέλγεια 


ἀκαθαρσία ἀκαθαρσία ἀκαθαρσία 

ἀσέλγεια πλεονεξία πάθος 

εἰδωλολατρία ἐπιθυμία 

ἐπιθυμία 

φαρμακεία 

πλεονεξία 

ἔχθρα ψεῦδος 

ὀργή 

ἔρις 

λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν θυμός 

ζῆλος ὀργίζομαι κακία 

θυμός κλέπτω 

βλασφημία 

ἐριθεία λόγος σαπρός αἰσχρολογία 

διχοστασία πικρία 

ψεύδομαι 

αἵρεσις θυμός 

φθόνος ὀργή 

μέθη κραυγὴ 

κῶμος βλασφημία 

1 Thessalonians 

4:1-12 


ἐπιθυμία 

πλεονεκτέω 

ἀκαθαρσία 

φιλαδελφία 

ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους 

The similarity in ethical arrangement is clearly striking. Niebuhr elsewhere affirms that 

Jewish Hellenistic ethics are formed by an association of behaviour directions of the Torah 

with popular-philosophical principles of the Hellenistic ethical tradition. 100 

A Logic in which the Behaviour of the Individual Goes on to Affect the Community 

In a number of works that reflect on the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes in the 

160s BCE, there is a logic in which the actions of a special few affect the wellbeing of the 

entire community. 

The following examples from 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees and the later 4 Maccabees show 

that the special few who act in zeal, purity and righteousness may bring about the purity of the 

whole nation. 

100 “Jüdisch-hellenistisches Ethos bildet sich somit aus in der Verbindung von 

Verhaltensanweisungen der Tora mit popularphilosophischen Grundsätzen der hellenistischen 

ethischen Tradition. Es dient der Wahrung jüdischer Identität angesichts konkreter 

Herausforderungen im Alltag der hellenistischen Diaspora und entfalltet sich im Rückbezug 

auf die eigene religiöse Überlieferung unter Heranziehung kultureller und philosophischer 

Traditionen der hellenistisch-römischen Welt”. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Hellenistischjüdisches 

Ethos im Spannungsfeld von Weisheit und Tora,” in Ethos und Identität: Einheit und 

Vielfalt des Judentums in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (ed. Matthias Konradt and Ulrike 

Steinert; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2002), 27-50; 42. 

245

1 Maccabees 3:8 

And [Judas Maccabeus] went through the cities of Judah and destroyed the ungodly 

out of Judah, and turned wrath from Israel. 


But Judas Maccabeus, and a handful who had come with him, withdrew into the 

desert, and he survived in the manner of the wild animals in the mountains, together 

with those who were with him; and they continued to live on the nourishment of 

vegetation, so that they would not share in the defilement. 


For it was not only the people in general who were amazed at their courage and 

endurance, but also those who were doing the torturing, as they were the cause that 

brought down the tyranny against the nation, having conquered the tyrant by their 

endurance, so that through them the homeland was purified. 

This motif of the impact of the special few on the nation was further democratised by those 

who inherited the Judaism bequeathed by the Maccabean successes. The action of every 

individual in responding to the Torah became effective in a way that was comparable to 

Maccabean zeal. 

From the perspective of the Pharisees, the adherence of individuals to the Torah and the 

traditions, and their avoidance of Gentile idolatry, affected the purity of the nation as a 

whole. 101 

101 On the nature of the Pharisees as an influential group pushing for national reform, see 

Roland Deines, “The Pharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism’” in Justification 

and Variegated Nomism Vol.1 (ed. D.A. Carson et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 443- 

504; 461. See also Deines, “Pharisäer,” in Theologishes Begriffslexikon zum Neuen 

Testament: neubearbeite Ausgabe, Band II (ed. Lothar Coenen and Klaus Haacker; Wuppertal: 

Brockhaus, 2000), 1455-1468; 1461. 

246

The Psalms of Solomon arguably express this Pharisaic perspective. 102 In a number of these 

Psalms, it seems that the judgement of God that has come upon Jerusalem is interpreted as 

being due to the Gentile-like immorality of individuals, as in the example below: 

Psalms of Solomon 2:11-16 

They [i.e. the Gentiles] held up the sons of Jerusalem to ridicule, 

because of the prostitutes among her. 

Every passer-by entered in to them in broad daylight. 

They [the Gentiles] mocked their lawless ways compared to their own doings. 

In broad daylight they displayed their evil deeds. 

And the daughters of Jerusalem are polluted according to your judgement. 

For they defiled themselves in promiscuous disorder. 

My stomach and my innards are sick because of this. 

I will justify you, O God, with an upright heart, 

because in your judgements there is justice, O God, 

because you have repaid sinners according to their works, 

according to their exceedingly wicked sins. 

But the general logic of a relationship between individual behaviour and communal health is 

not only to be found in association with the Pharisees. In Philo’s On the Virtues 34-50, he 

pictures “the Hebrews” as those who are marked by monotheism and consequent mutual love. 

Their enemies realise that if the Hebrews can be enticed to sexual immorality and idolatry, 

their mutual love will have lost its foundation, and will fall apart. The enemies act on this 

insight and find some success, before those Hebrews of greater virtue (the vast majority) 

retaliate and find ultimate victory. It is clear for Philo that the pursuit of personal (particularly 

102 For the association of the Psalms of Solomon with the Pharisees, see, for example, Mikael 

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and 

Paul’s Letters (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995). 

247

sexual) virtue and the avoidance of idolatry directly affect corporate mutuality and peace. He 

concludes: 

Philo, On the Virtues 47 

Therefore, Moses says in the Exhortations, “If you should pursue righteousness and 

godliness and the other virtues, you will live a life free of war and in uniform peace”. 

It may be, then, that these broad contours of ethical discussion in the period around the time of 

Paul are reflected in Paul’s own ordering of ethical sections. 

A “Christologisation” 103 of Inherited Ethics 

I view the source materials discussed above as illustrative of a broad conceptual pattern of 

ethical argumentation that began in Judaism of the Hellenistic era, in which the themes of the 

Torah were summarised or expressed in a culturally relevant (and culturally influenced) way, 

often involving a flow from fundamental vices of sexual immorality, greed, and impurity, to 

secondary vices of violent or exploitative social interaction, or involving a movement from the 

personal to the corporate. But this by no means exhaustively explains the ethics of Paul the 

apostle of Jesus Christ. It could never be said that a modification of the Torah is at the centre 

of Paul’s ethics. 104 Rather, Christ himself is at the centre of Paul’s ethics: 

Philippians 1:21 

For to me, living is Christ. 

103 I use the term “christologisation” rather than “Christianisation” simply to emphasise the 

fact that Paul’s adaptation is not a direct transfer of ethical assumptions from a “Jewish” to a 

“Christian” sphere; but a transference mediated by fulfilment in the person of Jesus the 

Messiah. 

104 Furnish rightly notes, “Paul never seeks to assemble, codify, or interpret in a legalistic way 

the statutes or wisdom of the Old Testament. It is not a ‘source’ for his ethical teaching in this 

sense”. Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 34. 

248

For Saul the Pharisee, coming to Jesus as the Christ forced a major re-evaluation of what he 

had formerly assumed and held dear. Roland Deines’ comment illustrates the nature of this re- 

evaluation: 

The pharisaic yearning for the commandments concerning the areas of holiness and 

purity (which cannot be separated) inevitably led to conflict with Jesus of Nazareth, 

who announced, in Messianic freedom and authority, a new Torah – or at least a 

totally changed Torah-understanding: purity and holiness are no longer ritually 

conveyable or representable, but rather are Jesus’ gift to those who believe in his 

coming. 105 

My contention, then, is that Paul’s ethics might be seen fruitfully as a “christologisation” of 

Paul’s Pharisaic tradition of Jewish ethics – a “christologisation” that is especially seen in the 

concept of embodiment: Christ died and rose in his “body of flesh”, bringing to fulfilment the 

ritual and ethical demands of the Torah; and believers are those who are “in Christ”, benefiting 

from and identifying with Christ’s bodily death and resurrection. Believers are called, then, to 

an ethical identification with Christ that is both corporeal (putting away sexual immorality, 

greed, and impurity of bodies, and rather offering one’s body to God) and corporate (putting 

off social vices/autonomy, and rather pursuing edifying love within the body of Christ). 

It is in fact striking how often the Pauline literature refers both to the achievement of Christ 

and the identity of the believer in “bodily” terms. An example from each of the first seven 

letters of the canonical Pauline Corpus will suffice to demonstrate: 

Romans 7:4: So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of 

Christ. 

105 Deines, “Pharisäer,” 1464; translated from the original German. 

249

1 Corinthians 10:16: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the 

blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of 

Christ? 

2 Corinthians 4:10: Always bearing the death of Jesus in the body, in order that the 

life of Jesus might also become manifest in the body. 

Galatians 6:17: For I bear the marks of Jesus in my body 

Ephesians 2:16: And to reconcile both of them, in one body, to God, through the 

cross, putting the enmity to death in it. 

Philippians 1:20: [It is] my eager expectation and hope that I might not be put to 

shame in any way, but that, in all boldness, now and always, Christ might be exalted 

in my body. 

Colossians 1:22: But now he has reconciled you in the body of his flesh, through 

death, to present you holy and unblemished and blameless before him. 

It seems reasonable that Paul’s christocentric kerygma, stemming especially from his 

Damascus Road experience, gave a new centre and logic to the ethics that he had already 

inherited as a Pharisee: Christian believers are to identify ethically with Christ, whose bodily 

crucifixion and resurrection they share. Thus they are to turn from godless bodily habitation 

(sexual immorality, greed, impurity), and inhabit the body of Christ (relating to their fellow 

believers in partnership and love). This need not be thought of as the only concrete way in 

which Paul could elaborate on his conviction that “living is Christ”; nevertheless it appears to 

be a common pattern. 

250

Thus the movement that can be described judicially by Paul as being from boastful works to 

divine justification; and which can be described relationally by Paul as being from heart- 

hardened enmity to reconciliation, can also be described religio-ethically by Paul as being 

from idolatrous immorality, impurity, and greed to surrendered loving incorporation, in the 

worship of God. 

4. The Function of this Ethical Pattern within 1 Corinthians 

It should be recognised that such a conception of christocentric ethics is, to use the 

terminology of this dissertation, kerygmatic: it implies dependence on God’s Messiah who 

died and rose bodily. The governor of Christian conduct is Christ, whose own embodied 

crucifixion, resurrection, and future glory are read as part of the story of God’s purposes for 

humankind that began at Eden and then focused on Israel. The church accepts the salvific 

embrace of Christ, and evidences this union with Christ in personal and communal bodily 

habitation, exuding Christ’s cruciformity, Christ’s risen-ness, and a longing for Christ’s future 

appearance in glory. In other words, the Christian church is called to follow Christ and 

dependently express identification with him, bodily. 106 

This ethical logic – of dependence on God in Christ – is perfectly fitting in terms of the themes 

and flow of 1 Corinthians. The opening verses of the letter anticipate the main themes of the 

letter by insisting that everything the Corinthians possess comes as a gift from God in Christ: 

I thank my God always concerning you, because of the grace of God that he has given 

you in Christ Jesus – that in every way you have been made rich in him, in all speech 

and all knowledge, just as the testimony of Christ has been confirmed among you, so 

that you are not lacking in any gift as you eagerly await the revelation of our Lord 

Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you until the end, blameless on the day of our 

106 “In the bodily obedience of the Christian, carried out as the service of God in the world of 

everyday, the lordship of Christ finds visible expression and only when this visible expression 

takes personal shape in us does the whole thing become credible as Gospel message”. Ernst 

Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (trans. W.J. Montague; London: SCM, 1969. 

London: SCM Press, 1969), 135; emphasis mine. 

251

Lord Jesus. God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with his 

son, Jesus Christ our Lord. 

As Chrysostom perceives, the emphasis of these verses is that the Corinthians have received 

the grace of God in Christ, and look forward to the future fulfilment of God’s work in Christ. 

They are to view themselves (and their possessions) as utterly dependent on God in Christ – a 

position that ought to cure the disease of proud autonomy: 

Do you see the repetition of the name of Christ? By this it is clear even to those who 

are exceedingly dim that he [Paul] does not do this vainly or simple-mindedly, but so 

that through concentrated application of this good appellation he might oppose their 

inflammation, and clean out the decay of their disease [τὴν σηπεδόνα τοῦ 

νοσήματος]. 107 

I have argued in chapter 3 of this dissertation that the first main section of the letter body, 

1:10-4:21, exhibits precisely this emphasis. In these chapters Paul pits Corinthian 

autonomous, boastful, triumphalistic reliance on that which is human against the grace of God 

epitomised in the cross of Christ: 

It is from God that you are, in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom for us from God, 

that is, righteousness and sanctification and redemption – in order that, just as it is 

written, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord”. (1 Corinthians 1:29-31) 

Given the investigation of Pauline ethics and 1 Corinthians above, it would appear that in 

chapters 5–14 of 1 Corinthians, Paul goes on to apply the “cruciform corrective” of chapters 

1–4, via his own example, to the progression of issues that he would customarily pursue in an 

ethical section. That is, the confrontation of the cross with triumphalistic human autonomy is 

applied to the church firstly in relation to issues connected with sexual immorality, greed, and 

107 Homily 2 on 1 Corinthians; PG 61.19. 

252

impurity; and secondly in relation to issues of (potentially exploitative) relationships within the 

church body. In particular, chapters 5–7 see Paul countering the bold assumption of bodily 

self-ownership with a challenge to acknowledge that the cross demands surrender to the claims 

of divine ownership in Christ. Chapters 8–14 see Paul countering self-assertion in the realm of 

church relationships with a challenge to pursue (cruciform) self-restraint for the sake of others 

in Christ’s body. 

5. Relation to Other Conceptions of Pauline Ethics 

Paul and Solidarity 

An emphasis on union with Christ as the bedrock of Pauline ethics is nothing new. For Calvin, 

a transformed life arises from this fundamental solidarity of believers with their Lord: 

Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become 

ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called “our Head” [Eph. 4:15], and 

“the first-born among many brethren” [Rom. 8:29]. We also, in turn, are said to be 

“engrafted into him” [Rom. 11.17], and to “put on Christ” [Gal. 3:27]; for, as I have 

said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is 

true that we obtain this by faith. 108 

Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins – that is, newness of life and free 

reconciliation – are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through 

faith. 109 

Pope Benedict XVI draws on Pauline terminology to indicate that Christian ethics flows from 

solidarity with Christ, particularly in terms of death and resurrection: 

108 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. and index Ford 

Lewis Battles; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1960), III.i.1; emphasis mine. 

109 Calvin, Institutes, 1960. III.iii.1. 

253

The disciple is bound to the mystery of Christ. His life is immersed in communion 

with Christ: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). The 

Beatitudes are the transposition of Cross and Resurrection into discipleship. But they 

apply to the disciple because they were first paradigmatically lived by Christ 

himself. 110 

In agreement with many historic and recent 111 studies of Pauline ethics then, the conception I 

have outlined in this chapter emphasises identification with Christ as an essential foundation. 

However, I have sought to freshly highlight the way in which the image and terminology of 

the “body” is especially important for Paul in making this connection. 112 

This conception of Pauline ethics differs just slightly from recent conceptions of Pauline ethics 

that heavily emphasise the ecclesial dimension (notably by Richard B. Hays 113 and David G. 

110 Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan 

to the Transfiguration (London: Doubleday, 2007), 74. 

111 For example, Furnish writes “the decisive factor behind this [ethical] teaching is the 

apostle’s understanding of what it means to be ‘in Christ’ and to ‘belong’ to him”. Furnish, 

Theology and Ethics, 211. Schrage writes, “The starting point and basis for Paul’s ethics is the 

saving eschatological event of Jesus’ death and resurrection”. Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics 

of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 172. Burridge asserts that “there is a 

basic commitment to the story of Jesus underlying both Paul’s ethical teaching and his wider 

theology”. Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament 

Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 143. 

112 Joseph Sittler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (as evidenced in the citation at the beginning of this 

chapter), and Eduard Lohse are similarly distinctive in emphasising the body as the primary 

context and image for Christian ethics. Sittler writes, “The Church is the fellowship of the 

faithful which is created and bound together, not by men’s mutual perception of a common 

faith in themselves, or religion, or even in God, but by the faithfulness of God become 

concrete in a body. This body was the actual historical appearing of a Man; and the Church, 

the body of Christ, is the organic household of the ‘members’ of the body”. Joseph Sittler, The 

Structure of Christian Ethics (LTE; Louisianna, Ky.: Louisianna State University Press, 1958; 

repr. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 11. Lohse writes, “Christians are aware 

that their body belongs to the resurrected Lord, so that life is now lived by looking to him”. 

Eduard Lohse, Theological Ethics of the New Testament (trans. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis, 

Minn.: Fortress Press, 1991), 116; trans. of Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaements 

(Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988). 

113 Richard B. Hays, “Ecclesiology and Ethics in 1 Corinthians,” ExAu 10 (1994): 31-43; Cited 

16 th October 2007. Online: http://www.northpark.edu/sem/exauditu/papers/hays.html 

254

Horrell 114 ), in that I would subordinate the ecclesial “body of Christ” dimension to a more 

general ethics of union with Christ. Horrell writes: 

[T]he first and most fundamental moral norm in Pauline ethics is that of corporate 

solidarity. 115 

As extremely important as corporate solidarity is to Paul, I would suggest that a necessarily 

more fundamental norm is Christ himself, with whom identification may be flexibly 

expressed. The ethical norma normans for Paul is Jesus Christ, who took on flesh, died, rose, 

and awaits future revelation. Paul may apply his ethics of “living is Christ” creatively in a 

variety of ways, including desire for Christ, witness to Christ, and individual and corporate 

bodily imitation/habitation of Christ. My claim in this chapter is that in consciously “ethical” 

sections of his letters, this christocentric ethic appears quite frequently to be expressed in a 

summons from godless, independent bodily habitation to Godward, dependent bodily 

habitation, involving surrender of the corporeal body to God’s ownership through Christ and 

submission to God’s placement in the corporate body of Christ. 

The main ethical section of 1 Corinthians (5–14) follows this pattern, and in this case 

particularly emphasises the commitment to present humility, restraint, hardship and hiddenness 

called for by the pre-parousia shadow of the cross. The cross is alluded to in 5:6-7; 6:9-12, 

20; 7:23-24; 8:11; 10:16; 11:1 (by extension); and 11:23-26. The deferred future destination 

of Christ and his people is alluded to in 5:5; 6:2, 14; 7:26 (by extension); 9:24-27 (by 

extension); 11:32; and 13:8-12. In this letter then, Paul’s flexible approach to ethically 

applying the norm of identification with Christ allows him to relatively downplay the 

motivation of present “risenness” (which is far more prominent in other ethical portions within 

the Pauline Corpus such as Romans 6, Galatians 5 and Colossians 2-4), and to accentuate this 

particular perspective of solidarity with Christ. 

114 David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics 

(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2005). 

115 Horrell, Solidarity, 129. 

255

Paul and Passion 

David Charles Aune has attempted to summarise the movement in scholarly thought 

concerning “Paul’s negative assessment of sexual passions and desires”: 

As we have seen, Paul repeatedly connects specific terms for “passion”… and 

“desire”… with immoral behaviors. Paul’s negative characterization of these 

passions fits within a larger complex of issues, including idolatry, impurity, and 

various sexual practices. Recent studies have focused on the precise relationship 

between fleshly desire, immoral behaviour, and Paul’s conception of sin and 

sexuality. 116 

My own examination above agrees with this recent scholarly tendency to be attentive to the 

“complex of issues” apparent in Paul’s “negative” ethical characterisations. My own 

contribution is not to examine the relationships within this “complex” (although I would add 

“greed” to Aune’s list), but to see how the complex functions within the flow of Paul’s ethical 

sections. Generally, it appears to represent Paul’s conception of bodily habitation outside of 

Christ. It is a (theologically) “previous” way of life, to which believers should not return; and 

the rejection of this embodied lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the assumption of a new 

embodied lifestyle “in the Lord”. 

116 David Charles Aune, “Passions in the Pauline Epistles: The Current State of Research,” in 

Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; London: 

Routledge, 2008), 221-237; 228. 

256

Paul and Love 

Richard A. Burridge hints at a Christocentric bodily conception of Pauline ethics, but seeks to 

understand “other-regarding love” as the primary application, to which other applications 

should be subordinated. 117 

However, I have sought to argue that it is possible to understand “other-regarding love” as 

Paul’s quintessential positive ethical imperative, without seeing it as the sieve through which 

all other ethical outworkings of Christic identification must pass. Paul has a certain freedom 

in giving ethical expression to identification with Christ, allowing a range of applications, 

including apostolic commitment, personal mortification of sexual sin, corporate solidarity, 

non-retaliation toward evildoers, and, supremely, other-regarding love. It is Christ himself 

who remains central, and if any concept is a sieve for further application, it is perhaps most 

often the concept of “body” – though even this would be claiming too much. 118 It is more 

accurate to say that Paul’s frequent practice in giving sustained moral application to churches 

is to use the concept of the “body” to indicate the ways in which identification with Christ 

should have ethical expression; and this ethical expression is often conceived in terms of 

surrender of the body to God’s ownership through Christ and submission to God’s placement 

in the ecclesial body of Christ (quintessentially pursuing self-sacrificial love). 

Paul and Ethical Innovation 

Martin Dibelius proposed in 1928 that: 

117 “Horrell argues that Paul’s concerns for holiness and purity are part of what it means to be 

in Christ. Paul appeals for holiness because we are the body of Christ – and a member of that 

body cannot be one flesh with a prostitute (1 Cor. 6.15-16). Yet that same idea of the body of 

Christ produces Paul’s conern for unity, seen in ‘look to the good of your neighbour’ (1 Cor. 

10.24) and a regard for others, especially the ‘inferior’ or less honoured among the many 

different members of the body of Christ in 1 Cor. 12.12-26. This means that there can be no 

judging of others”. Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 152; emphasis mine. 

118 For example, it is never explicit in Paul that non-retaliation toward the evil of outsiders is 

subsumed under an overarching concept of “body”. Equivalently, it is not clear in Paul that 

avoidance of porneia is consistently subsumed under an overarching concept of “love”. 

257

“Pauline paraenesis” consists of materials appropriated from the Hellenistic world 

and then “Christianized” by the apostle. 119 

Since then, the relative influences of Hellenistic 120 and Jewish/Old Testament 121 ethics on the 

ethics of Paul have been debated. Horrell usefully summarises the essential insight and 

question that arises from these debates: 

[A]t a number of points, the content of Paul’s moral exhortation exhibits similarity 

with, and probably the influence of, contemporary Graeco-Roman as well as Jewish 

moral traditions. Nor is it to be denied, in contrast, that Paul gives to his ethical 

instruction a distinctively Christian, theological basis and motivation. What remains 

open to debate is the extent to which this theological basis shapes and forms the 

character and content of Pauline ethics, or, put the other way round, the extent to 

119 Cited in Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 260. 

120 For example, seeing substantial dependence: Lauri Thurén: “New Testament scholars have 

failed to demonstrate much original material in the early Christian exhortations themselves, 

although their combination and function may deviate from those of the neighboring cultures. 

Yet surely the first Christians did not invent an essentially new set of rules or guidelines for a 

proper life. Instead, an opposite trend can be discerned…. It seems, however, that there was 

something special, indeed exceptional, about early Christian paraenesis: the motivation, that is, 

the way in which willingness to comply with these instructions is created. Somehow the 

recipients’ status as Christians was seen as providing a new impetus for leading a proper life”. 

Lauri Thurén, “Motivation as the Core of Paraenesis – Remarks on Peter and Paul as 

Persuaders,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg- 

Pedersen; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 354. And seeing substantial dissimilarity, Leander 

Keck: “The vocabulary of ethics used in the major philosophical traditions is generally absent 

from the New Testament…. Moreover, even when some terms common in contemporary 

ethics discourse do appear, they are used in quite different ways…. Like the rest of the New 

Testament writers, [Paul] stands in a different stream of tradition and is at home in a different 

kind of community”. Leander E. Keck, “Re-thinking ‘New Testament Ethics’,” JBL 115/1 

(1996): 3-16; 8-9. 

121 For example, Brian S. Rosner, who argues that the Old Testament and its reception were of 

decisive importance: “When scholars investigate the Jewish background to New Testament 

ethics, the impact of Scripture in three directions ought to be taken into account: the influence 

of Scripture directly upon early Jewish moral teaching, its influence directly upon the New 

Testament, and the indirect influence of Scripture upon the New Testament via the mediation 

of early Jewish moral teaching”. Brian S. Rosner, “A Possible Quotation of Test. Reuben 5:5 

in 1 Corinthians 6:18a,” JTS 43/1 (1992): 123-127; 127; emphases original. 

258

which they reproduce what was morally commonplace or presume a model essentially 

derived from other ancient traditions. 122 

It may be observed that my own suggestions in this chapter concur with those views that 

emphasise the decisive influence of the Christ event on Paul’s theology and ethics. 123 For 

Paul, ethics is bound up with identification with Christ. I am also in agreement with Rosner 

that the Torah and Jewish tradition were of crucial importance to Paul; but I would emphasise 

that the Jewish interpretative tradition was itself impacted by Hellenistic moral discourse, and 

that Paul was often directing his material to those who lived in Roman cities and colonies. So 

in terms of formulation (e.g. the denigration of evil “passions”) and literary features (e.g. the 

use of catechetical lists and conventional imagery), Paul exhibits resonance with Greco-Roman 

moral discourse. 

Wayne Meeks rightly notes the resulting mixture of apparent backgrounds: 

Even more striking than in 1 Thessalonians is the way in which [in 1 Corinthians] 

Paul can mix together commonplaces of Greek and Roman moral rhetoric, arguments 

from Jewish scripture, and beliefs and rules peculiar to the Christian sect. 124 

I concur then that the primary originality of Paul’s ethics lies in what Dibelius called the 

“Christianization”, and what I have called the “chistologisation”, of his inherited ethics. I 

view this as a thoughtful kerygmatic adaptation rather than a simple transference. Because 

Christ is the embodied fulfilment of the Torah, those who are enlivened by Christ’s Spirit 

manifest the Christic ideals to which the Torah (and its ongoing interpretation) bore witness. 

122 Horrell, Solidarity, 24. 

123 For example, Furnish: “Undoubtedly, Paul’s own personal background in Judaism and his 

experiences as a Jew, the general moral climate of his age, and the specific moral problems he 

encountered in his congregations – all helped to determine the direction of and give shape to 

his concrete ethical teaching. But the decisive factor behind this teaching is the apostle’s 

understanding of what it means to be ‘in Christ’ and to ‘belong’ to him”. Furnish, Theology 

and Ethics, 211. 

124 Meeks, Moral World, 131. 

259

6. Kerygmatic Rhetoric and Pauline Ethics 

Chapters 5–14 may be seen as the main hortatory section of 1 Corinthians, and may be 

summarised as follows: 

Chapters 5–7: The Cross Applied I: “Your Body Belongs to the Lord” 

Sexual Immorality, Impurity and Greed 

A: 5:1-13: Sexual Immorality (the refusal to judge) 

B: 6:1-11: Greedy exploitation (an apparent inability to judge) 

A ’ : 6:12–7:40: Sexual Immorality, the body, marriage 

Chapters 8-14: The Cross Applied II: “Discern the Body” 

Knowledge and Rights 

A: 8:1-13: Meat offered to idols (using knowledge and rights to endanger weaker 

brothers and sisters) 

B: 9:1-27: Paul’s example/defence (foregoing rights for others and self) 

A ’ : 10:1–11:1: Meat offered to idols (foregoing rights for self and others) 

Tradition and Division 

A: 11:2-16: “I praise you for keeping the traditions I passed on” (public worship) 

B: 11:17-22: “I do not praise you” (in both v17 and v22) 

A ’ : 11:23-34: “I passed on to you what I also received” (tradition of Lord’s Supper) 

Gifts and Love 

A: 12:1-31: Gifts within the body (mutual interdependence) 

B: 12:31–13:13: Love 

A ’ : 14:1-40: Gifts (for ordered edification of the whole) 

The broad movement of this structure evidences similarity with ethical sections in other letters 

of the Pauline Corpus, and seems to reflect a kerygmatic renegotiation of the ethics that Paul 

inherited as a Pharisee of the Roman period. Within 1 Corinthians this functions to apply the 

cruciform corrective of chapters 1–4 to a conventional Pauline sequence of ethical issues. 

Those who imitate the apostolic way of the cross of Christ are called to express their 

identification with Christ by restraining the proud pursuit or allowance of particular bodily 

appetites, and pursuing self-sacrificial love within Christ’s body. 


In this chapter I have argued that Pauline hortatory sections often evidence a commonality of 

flow, moving from an emphasis on sanctification of the church that involves avoidance of 

260

sexual immorality, impurity, and greed/passionate desire in relation to bodies, to an emphasis 

on sanctification of the church that involves the avoidance of inter-relational sin, and the 

promotion of love within the body of Christ. I have examined numerous hortatory sections of 

the Pauline Corpus, and found this pattern to be well represented, although less so in the 

Pastorals than in the earlier letters. 

This progression seems to be present in 1 Corinthians 5–14, in which both the themes and the 

terminology of chapters 5–7 and chapters 8–14 strikingly match the respective elements of the 

identified pattern. 

It seems that such a progression of ethical issues may draw on a number of emphases in early 

Jewish ethical formulation – which was itself influenced by Greco-Roman moral reflection. In 

particular, one finds in a range of relevant literature an emphasis on the fundamentality of the 

problems of sexual immorality, greed, and impurity; the latter placement of sins of 

interpersonal social interaction; and a logic in which the behaviour of the individual goes on to 

affect the community. My contention, however, is that Paul’s reception of such a heritage is 

once again renegotiated with his kerygma of the Messiah who died and rose bodily. 

This conception of Paul’s ethics agrees, then, with the common emphasis in scholarship on 

union with Christ as the bedrock of Pauline exhortation. However, it especially draws 

attention to the way in which this union is often expressed in bodily terms. 

In 1 Corinthians, then, the kerygma that creatively shapes Paul’s utilisation and adaptation of 

existing oratorical or literary resources in the opening and closing of the letter body is also 

evident in chapters 5–14. Together, these sections call for dependent identification with God’s 

Messiah who died, rose, and awaits cosmic manifestation. 

261

Chapter 5 

1 Corinthians 15: Disregard for the Dead is Set 

Against the Future Inhabitation of Christ’s 

Resurrection

1. The Placement of the Discussion of Resurrection 

John Chrysostom states: 

[In 1 Corinthians, Paul] places the most severe issue of all last – that concerning the 

resurrection. 1 

John Calvin ponders: 

[W]hy it is that he has left off or deferred to the close of the Epistle, what should 

properly have had the precedence of everything else? 2 

That is, if, in denying the resurrection of the dead, some in Corinth indicate that they have “no 

knowledge of God” – as Paul reveals in 1 Corinthians 15 – why spend fourteen chapters 

dealing with less pressing issues before disclosing this catastrophic error? 

I have argued in chapter 1 of this dissertation that 1 Corinthians exhibits a Christian 

renegotiation of the Jewish motif of dual reversal. The letter can therefore be characterised as 

employing kerygmatic rhetoric, moving from a corrective summons to follow the way of the 

cross in chapters 1–4 through to a corrective summons to await manifest resurrection in 

chapter 15. I noted that the concepts and terminology of the motif of dual reversal are found 

substantially in 1 Corinthians, and are especially present in chapters 1–4 and chapter 15. In 

this chapter I suggest that attention to the motif of reversal allows a smooth and convincing 

reading of the resurrection chapter. 

I begin by considering scholarly interpretation of the chapter. 

1 Homily 26; PG 61.212. 

2 Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles, Vol.2; 7. 

263

2. Scholarly Interpretation of Chapter 15 and its Situation 

The main problem addressed in chapter 15 (or at least the presenting problem) is clear (in 

15:12), but interpretatively problematic: 

Why do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 

The interpretative problem is that it is hard to envisage how first-generation Christians, whose 

conversions had been centrally related to a message about one who had been resurrected from 

the dead, could see no problem in saying “There is no resurrection of the dead”. 3 Certainly, 

Paul’s argument relies on the fact that they do not consciously aim to deny Christ’s 

resurrection from the dead. Nevertheless an intentional denial of resurrection in general seems 

astonishingly bold. A number of explanations have been put forward. Anthony C. Thiselton 

groups these overlapping categorisations of the problem as follows: 4 

1. Certain people in Corinth found themselves unable to believe in any kind of 

postmortal existence 

2. Certain people in Corinth believed that the resurrection had already occurred 

3. Certain people in Corinth had difficulties with belief in the resurrection of the body 

The examination of Paul’s argumentation in this chapter usually recognises discrete sections 

along similar lines to the following: 5 

1-11: The resurrection of Christ 

12-19: The denial of the resurrection 

20-28: The consequences of Christ’s resurrection 

3 See Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 562; Helmut Merklein, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 

Kapitel 11,2 - 16,24 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005), 304. 


5 This particular wording comes from Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (TNTC; Nottingham, IVP 

Academic, 2008); repr. of The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (2 nd ed. Grand Rapids, 

Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985). 

264

29-34: Arguments from Christian experience 

35-49: The resurrection body 

50-58: Victory over death 

These divisions are largely agreed upon, although they may be said to express topical 

organisation (Holleman, 6 Garland, 7 Johnson 8 ), conventional rhetorical organisation (Watson, 9 

Thiselton, 10 Wegener 11 ), or chiastic organisation (Welch, 12 Hull 13 ). 

A difficulty in attempting to posit a conceivable coherent problem behind the issues in this 

chapter is the fact that each of the groupings identified by Thiselton above finds apparent 

confirmation in different parts of the chapter, although none of the three explanations is 

comprehensively satisfying. 

First Grouping: Certain People in Corinth Found Themselves Unable to Believe in Any 

Kind of Postmortal Existence 

This perspective finds some support in those parts of the chapter that counter a mis-estimation 

of “vanity”, a distaste for labour, a lack of perseverance and general moral laxity: 

15:17: But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless, you are still in your sins. 

6 

Joost Holleman, Resurrection & Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology 

in 1 Corinthians 15 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995). 

7 

Garland, 1 Corinthians. 

8 

Andrew Johnson, “Firstfruits and Death’s Defeat: Metaphor in Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in 

1 Cor 15:20-28,” WW 16/4 (1996): 456-464; “Turning the World Upside Down in 1 

Corinthians 15: Apocalyptic Epistemology, the Resurrected Body and the New Creation,” EQ 

75/4 (2003): 291-309. 

9 

Duane F. Watson, “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Corinthians 15,” in Rhetoric and the New 

Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (ed. Stanley E Porter and Thomas H. 

Olbricht; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 231-49. 

10 

Thiselton, First Epistle, 1177-8. 

11 

Mark I. Wegener, “The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Corinthians 15,” CTM 31/6 (2004): 438- 

455. 

12 

John W. Welch, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): 

Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” JBL 114/4 (1995): 661-82. 

13 

Michael F. Hull, Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the 

Resurrection (Leiden: Brill, 2006). 

265

15:19: If for this life alone we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all 

people. 

15:32b: If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” 

15:58: So, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always 

abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the 

Lord. 

A Corinthian focus on the need to enjoy the present may hint that there is no hope beyond the 

grave. Strabo recounts a grave inscription in which an apparent lack of hope for an afterlife 

calls for enjoyment of pleasures in the present: 

Strabo, Geography 14.5.9 

“Sardanapallus, child of Anakundaraxis, built Anchiale and Tarsus in one day. Eat, 

drink, play! – as all this is not worth it”, meaning a snapping of the fingers. Choirilos 

also reminds of these things, and indeed these verses are well-travelled: “I have these 

things: as much as I have eaten and sown my wild oats and have felt the delights of 

love; but these many blessings I have left behind”. 

The resurrection-deniers of Corinth would thus be somewhat similar to the “self-lovers” 

identified by Philo, who view the termination of death as a reason to enjoy the body while one 

has it: 

Philo, The Worse Attacks the Better 33 

[Self-lovers reason to themselves:] But did nature create pleasures and enjoyments 

and all of the delights along the way of life, for the dead or for those never born, and 

not for those who are living? And wealth and glory and honour and rule and other 

266

such things – what will persuade us not to seek these things, which supply not only a 

safe life, but a happy life? 

The “ungodly” identified in the Wisdom of Solomon are similarly parodied for supposing that 

impending death justifies licence in life: 

Wisdom of Solomon 1:12,15-2:1,6,21-22 

Do not seek death by the deception of your life…. For righteousness is immortal. 

But the ungodly, with their actions and their words, have called death upon 

themselves: having considered it to be a friend, they have become dissolute and made 

an allegiance with it, because they are worthy to share in it. For they reasoned within 

themselves wrongly: “Our life is short and tedious, and there is no cure for the end of 

a person’s life, and no one has been known to be released from Hades…. Come then 

and let us enjoy the good things that are here, and let us use creation to the full, as in 

youth”…. These things they reasoned, and were deceived. For they were blinded by 

their own wickedness, and did not know the mysteries of God or hope for the reward 

of holiness or discern the prize for blameless souls. 

Likewise, the “sinners” identified in the Epistle of Enoch are depicted as embracing sin 

because of their wrong assumptions about death and the afterlife: 

1 Enoch 102:6-9 (Greek version) 

When you [that is, the godly] died, then the sinners declared, “The godly died 

according to fate – and what did they gain from their works? They die just like us! 

See how they die with grief and darkness – what is the benefit to them? From this 

time, will they be raised, and will they be saved, and see into the age? We [or 

“They”] eat and drink for this very reason, swindling and sinning and stealing and 

seizing property and seeing good days”. 

267

Indeed, Insawn Saw follows Mitchell 14 in pointing out that the final and climactic verse of 1 

Corinthians 15 contextualises the whole chapter as a persuasion to spend the present in labour 

(rather than despair or licentiousness): 

Paul’s ultimate goal is not merely to give a correct teaching regarding the resurrection 

of the dead, but to persuade the audience, the Corinthians, to continue in their work of 

the Lord. 15 

Gordon Fee 16 notes further that both major sections of the chapter (1-34; 35-58) end with an 

ethical appeal. The position of Walter Schmithals 17 and others, then, certainly fits neatly with 

this emphasis. Those who say “there is no resurrection of the dead” are rejecting hope for the 

future of those who die, and therefore embracing licentious living in the present. 

However, it is not clear that a morally lax emphasis on the present can only be explained by a 

lack of belief in postmortality. As Winter points out, 18 such an attitude may be an expression 

of belief in non-bodily postmortality (as is probably the case in the quotation from Philo 

above). Alternatively, it may even be an expression of presumed inaugurated immortality, in 

which the present is viewed no longer as a time for death, deprivation and labour, but for 

freedom, feasting and unfettered fulfilment. 

Furthermore, it is not clear how such an explanation of the situation in Corinth fits with Paul’s 

apparent assumption in 6:14 that he may appeal to a common belief that God will raise “us”. 

If a significant number of the Corinthians are committed to the idea that any sort of 

resurrection is unthinkable, how could Paul have made such an appeal in chapter 6 without any 

qualification? 

14 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 38; 290-91. 

15 Insawn Saw, Paul’s Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 15: An Analysis Utilizing the Theories of 

Classical Rhetoric (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1995), 5. 

16 Fee, First Epistle, 716-7. 


18 Winter, After Paul, 98. 

268

It is not obvious, then, that the resurrection-deniers in Corinth were committed to the idea of 

personal dissolution at death. 

Second Grouping: Certain People in Corinth Believed That the Resurrection had 

Already Occurred 

This conception of the Corinthian situation finds support in a number of themes of the chapter. 

Firstly, there are those parts of the passage that evidence Corinthian doubts about, or taunting 

of, mortality. It appears that some in Corinth needed to be convinced that there remained a 

need to wait upon divine grace for the overcoming of mortality: 

15:26: The last enemy to be destroyed is death 

15:36: Fool! Do you not know that that which you sow will not come to life unless it 

dies? 

15:53-4: For it is necessary for this perishability to be clothed with imperishability, 

and this mortality to be clothed with immortality. And when this perishability is 

clothed with imperishability and this mortality is clothed with immortality, then that 

which is written will occur. 

Saw notes that the theme of death is of great importance in this chapter, and has been touched 

upon previously in the letter, perhaps suggesting that there was a problem related to present 

mortality in Corinth. 19 H.W. Hollander and J. Holleman propose: 

19 “However, we find that death is mentioned in 7:39 and 11:30 (see also 15:6, 18, 29). In this 

regard we may infer that the issue mentioned in 1 Cor 15:12 reflects dissension in response to 

death among Corinthians”. Saw, Paul’s Rhetoric, 182-3. That dissension itself is the issue, 

however, is not at all apparent in the text, as I have noted in chapter 2. 

269

Paul stresses the power of death in the present age, because his Corinthian addressees 

seemed to neglect it in their enthousiastic [sic] experiences of the gifts of the Holy 

Spirit. They felt wise, free, superior, and powerful, and they taunted death as 

something irrelevant. Such behaviour was common in Stoic and Cynic circles, and 

their slogans and ideas were obviously attractive to the Corinthians. 20 

Whether or not the Corinthian Christians were influenced by Stoic and Cynic circles in this 

way, it does appear that Paul is at pains to present the necessity of death in this chapter. 

Indeed, the climax toward which the chapter builds is a victory over death that is accomplished 

not by “flesh and blood” but by God (15:50-57). Christopher Tuckett wonders whether this 

problematising of mortality is Paul’s intention from the beginning of the chapter: 

The meaning of ἐκτρώμα is of course notoriously uncertain, but it would make good 

sense here if the reference is primarily to an aborted foetus, to something/-one who is 

in a state of death and is given life solely by divine grace and as a result of a divine 

miracle. If this is the main emphasis in vv.6 + 8-10, and since in turn these verses 

dominate the section as a whole, then the section may be primarily not so much about 

the certainty of resurrection; rather it is that resurrection, and resurrection witness, 

all take place within a context of death. 21 

The view that the Corinthians believed that the resurrection had (in some sense) already 

occurred also finds support in the parts of the chapter in which the assumption of present, 

static participation in the risen Christ’s victory is opposed by Paul to necessarily future 

participation in apocalyptic victory. At a number of points, it seems that Paul aims to correct 

a mistaken sense of the logic and timing of full Christian spirituality: 

20 

H.W. Hollander and J. Holleman, “The Relationship of Death, Sin and Law in 1 Cor 15:56,” 

NovT 35/3 (1993): 270-291; 276. 

21 

C.M. Tuckett, “The Corinthians Who Say ‘There is no resurrection of the dead’ (1 Cor 

15,12),” in The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bieringer; Leuven: Leuven University 

Press, 1996), 247-275; 263; emphasis mine. 

270

15:22-23: For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But 

each in their own turn: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ, at his 

coming. 

15:42-49: What is sown in perishability is raised in imperishability. What is sown in 

dishonour is raised in glory. What is sown in weakness is raised in power. What is 

sown a natural body is raised a Spiritual body…. But the Spiritual does not come 

first, but the natural, and then the Spiritual…. And just as we have borne the image 

of the one of dust, so also we will bear the image of the one of heaven. 

Martinus de Boer rightly notes the importance of attending to Paul’s apocalyptic language: 

The language of Ps 110,1b, which Paul has modified for his own purposes, enables 

him to portray the risen Christ’s session at God’s right hand as a dynamic, apocalyptic 

process (over against the static, spatial conception of the Corinthians), whereby the 

inimical principalities and powers are being destroyed..., culminating in the 

destruction of Death, the last enemy. 22 

The Corinthians, it would seem, under-estimate the ongoing power of sin and death in the 

present, and are summoned to look to the future consummation of Christ’s resurrected victory 

for the time of their own victory over mortality. Rather than an autonomous, triumphalistic 

understanding of Christian “spirituality”, Paul presents a Christ-dependent conception of 

Christian self-understanding that looks ahead to Christ’s own appearing. Kwiran reads Barth 

correctly on this point: 

22 Martinus C. de Boer, “Paul’s Use of a Resurrection Tradition in 1 Cor 15,20-28,” in The 

Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bieringer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 639- 

651; 648. 

271

For Barth the resurrection is futuristic for us in that we can only hope in the grace of 

God who already has shown his grace to our Lord Jesus Christ. 23 

It is worth noting further that this view appears to receive support from the section in which 

Paul draws attention to the incongruous activity of those who give tacit (or unwitting) approval 

to “baptism on account of the dead” and yet deny the resurrection of the dead. Whether one 

interprets this controversial section as referring to a vicarious ritual, or the expression of a 

longing for future reunion with relatives, 24 or normal baptism conducted in relation to 

(metaphorically) “dead” bodies 25 or “dead” apostles, 26 Paul’s response seems to indicate that 

the practice effectively demands future resurrected vindication. 

Tuckett, 27 Stephen Wellum, 28 and others thus insist that the chief problem behind this chapter 

is a lack of comprehension of the futurity of Christian resurrection. That this theme is present 

to some degree would seem undeniable. Graham Tomlin is misleading when he claims that: 

there is nothing explicit in 1 Corinthians 15 to suggest that any of the Corinthians 

actually thought of themselves as already raised to resurrection life, or that the 

resurrection was past, or that they would not die. 29 

23 

Manfred Kwiran, “The Resurrection of the Dead: 1 Corinthians 15 and its Interpretation,” 

Spring 39/1 (1975): 44-56; 52. 

24 

Maria Raeder, “Vikariatstaufe in 1 Cor 15:29?” ZNW 46:3-4 (1955): 16-18; John D. 

Reaume, “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, ‘Baptized for the Dead’,” BSac 152 (1995): 

457-475; Thiselton, First Epistle, 1248. 

25 

Winter, After Paul, 104. See Chrysostom’s similar understanding in Homily 23; PG 61.191. 

26 

Joel R. White, “‘Baptised on Account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in 

its Context,” JBL 116/3 (1997): 487-499; James E. Patrick, “Living Rewards for Dead 

Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15:29,” NTS 52 (2006): 71-85. I comment 

further on this interpretation later in this chapter. 

27 

“It seems hard to deny that the main force of Paul’s argument here is the assertion of a 

radical discontinuity between present existence and resurrection life”. Tuckett, “Corinthians 

Who Say,” 261. 

28 

“This is what the Corinthians have failed to grasp. They had adopted false views of 

spirituality that have led them to believe that they had assumed the ‘heavenly’ existence now, 

hence their denial of the future resurrection of the dead. But Paul says no; that final reality 

still awaits the second coming of the Lord of Glory. The fact that it will happen is certain, but 

it is still future”. Stephen J. Wellum, “Christ’s Resurrection and Ours (1 Corinthians 15),” 

SBJT 6/3 (2002): 76-93; 87. 

29 

Graham Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans in 1 Corinthians,” JSNT 68 (1997): 51-72; 56. 

272

In the passages above it does seem that Paul is attempting to persuade the Corinthians that 

immortality has not yet begun, and cannot begin until Christ himself has defeated death and 

proceeded to clothe his people with (his) immortality. 30 

However, there is also a significant difficulty with this grouping of views. Paul does not sum 

up the problem in Corinth in terms similar to 2 Timothy 2:18, in which it is clearly stated that 

the opponents claim “that the resurrection has already taken place”. Rather, Paul alleges, 

“some of you are saying that there is no resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:12). Thus 

although the Corinthians appear to need to be convinced of the futurity of immortality, they do 

not seem to hold to a present or past resurrection. 

Third Grouping: Certain People in Corinth had Difficulties with Belief in the 

Resurrection of the Body 

Again, this grouping of views finds some significant support in the text, particularly in verses 

35-49, where the theme of the body is undeniably important. 

15:35: But someone will say, “How will the dead be raised? With what sort of body 

will they come?” 

30 Tomlin argues, “[A]t several points in the letter, Paul indicates that the Corinthians have 

indeed arrived at a kind of fullness. 1 Cor. 1.5 suggests that they are rich, 3.22 claims that 

both the present and the future are in fact already theirs, and 2.7-10 indicates that God has 

already revealed his wisdom to them. It is surely unlikely that Paul would risk such language 

if the main problem in Corinth was faulty eschatology”. “Christians and Epicureans,” 58. 

However, Tomlin fails to recognise that these very indications of fullness represent Paul’s 

ironic subversion of Corinthian expectations: the fullness that the Corinthians do possess, 

according to Paul, is found in Christ from God, and is thus presently obscured from worldly 

esteem by the shame of the cross. This “hidden” fullness will not be made manifest until 

Christ himself appears. The Corinthians, in contrast, desire and effectively claim that future 

“glorious” manifestation as a present right. This is not to say that it is a consciously held 

eschatological doctrine; nevertheless it may be usefully described as “premature triumphalism” 

or “over-manifest spirituality” from Paul’s perspective. 

273

15:44: It is sown a natural body, it is raised a Spiritual body. If there is a natural 

body, there is also a Spiritual body. 

It seems that Paul anticipates incredulity in Corinth at the idea of the revivification of dead 

bodies, and perhaps their entry into some sort of celestial habitation. 

Fee, 31 Winter, 32 and Garland, 33 among others, argue that this aversion to (or confusion about) 

“bodiliness” is the key problem behind the chapter, making sense of the array of issues that 

Paul addresses here. Garland summarises this position, approvingly citing Soards: 

The Corinthians do not deny the futurity of the resurrection by assuming that it has 

already occurred and is past (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18) but have come to believe that there is 

“life after death without a resurrection of the dead” 34 

De Boer understands Paul’s assertion of the necessity of future divine victory over bodily 

mortality to be in direct opposition to a Corinthian assumption of bodily inconsequence: 

Death exerts and manifests its murderous rule most visibly and terribly in physical or 

bodily demise. Because Paul understands bodily demise to be the mark of subjection 

to an enslaving, suprahuman power, bodily dying is not a “neutral” or “natural” 

process for him, one intrinsic to the world of matter, nor is it, as it was for the deniers 

of the resurrection of the dead in Corinth, the moment of the liberation of a primal, 

immortal spirit. 35 

31 Fee, First Epistle, 715. 




35 Martinus C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and 

Romans 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 183. 

274

A number of scholars further understand a Corinthian problem with the idea of bodies entering 

celestial habitation to be behind Paul’s argumentation right through to 15:50-57. 36 Bodies, it is 

said, were held by “some” in Corinth to be incapable of being adapted for heavenly occupancy. 

They needed to understand that it was both possible and essential for God to adapt human 

bodies for their future home. 

Witherington states about verse 50: 

Here the focus is not on moral qualifications or disqualifications for entering or 

inheriting the basileia, but on physical disqualification. In short, Paul is asserting that 

human beings in their present mortal physical bodies cannot inherit the basileia. 37 

However, this reading of “flesh and blood” as referring to “present mortal physical bodies” is 

problematic. Other uses of this phrase in Paul and the rest of the New Testament argue against 

this understanding. Elsewhere the phrase indicates emphatic humanness as opposed to divinity 

(Gal. 1:16; Eph 6:12; cf. Matthew 16:17). This reading is confirmed here by Paul’s expansion 

of his depiction of the incapability of “flesh and blood” to include the influence of law, sin, 

and death, those factors that hamper and frustrate humanity. 

Patristic writers, on the whole, read “flesh and blood” as referring to fallen, sinful, mortal 

humanity. Athenagoras makes a distinction between having flesh and being flesh: the former 

is essential to resurrection, while the latter is incongruous with it. 38 Tertullian thinks of the 

phrase “flesh and blood” as referring to “the old man”, caught up in an earthly manner of life. 39 

36 Jeffrey R. Asher, for example, writes: “Given the nature of Paul’s argument in vv35-57, it 

seems quite likely that some of the Corinthians denied the resurrection because they believed it 

violated the principles of their cosmological doctrine. They probably argued that it is absurd 

to think that a terrestrial body could be raised to the celestial realm” Jeffrey R. Asher, 

“Speiretai: Paul’s anthropogenic metaphor in 1 Corinthians,” JBL 120/1 (2001): 101-123; 103. 

37 Ben Witherington III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New 

Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1992), 56. 

38 Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, chapter 31. 

39 Tertullian, On the Resurrection. See Against Marcion Book 5, Chapter 10, in which 

Tertullian defines “flesh and blood” as “the works of flesh and blood”. 

275

Irenaeus understands the phrase as referring to humans without the Spirit of God, likening the 

“flesh and blood” person to a fruitless wild olive which has not been tended and grafted. 40 

Augustine reads the phrase as referring to humanity subject to decay. 41 Elsewhere he gives as 

synonymous the terms “corruption”; 42 “mortality”; 43 or “human corruption”. 44 Ambrosiaster 

takes the phrase to be a reference to human disobedience. 45 Chrysostom understands the 

phrase to refer to intentional evil deeds: “For he calls evil deeds ‘flesh’ here”. 46 As Joachim 

Jeremias affirms (on different grounds), “the meaning of verse 50 is: neither the living nor the 

dead can take part in the Kingdom of God – as they are”. 47 

The dichotomy between reliance on that which is human and reliance upon God is established 

in chapters 1–4, and may similarly underlie this climactic chapter (see for example 15:32, 

where it is not for “human” reasons that Paul labours). Indeed, this endpoint of the chapter’s 

rhetorical movement in 15:50-57 as divine victory over powers that cannot be “humanly” 

conquered calls into question the idea that “bodilyness” is actually the key problem addressed 

throughout the chapter. 

Birger Albert Pearson 48 and Winter’s 49 insistence that νεκροί could be naturally understood to 

mean “corpses” throughout the chapter – that is, dead bodies – ought to be carefully 

considered. But the fact that Paul assumes a difference in meaning between νεκροί (as dead 

40 

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 5 Chapters 9-10. 

41 

Augustine, Sermon 362. 

42 

Enchiridion, chapter 91. 

43 

Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 16. 

44 

On the Psalms, 51. 

45 

Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles. 

46 

Homily 42; PG 61.363. Chrysostom comments on verse 58: “Do you not know that the 

promise is beyond humans? It is not possible for those who march about on the ground to 

ascend to heavenly arches”. Homily 42; PG 61.366. 

47 

J. Jeremias, “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God,” NTS 2 (1956): 151-59; 

152. Similarly, N.T. Wright writes, “‘flesh and blood’ is a way of referring to ordinary, 

corruptible, decaying human existence”. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 359. 

48 

“It seems to me preferable, on the basis of the clear statement in 15.12 and the whole context 

of Paul’s argument, to posit the existence in Corinth of people who denied the resurrection of 

the body”. Birger Albert Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology: A Study in the 

Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism (SBL 

Dissertation Series 12; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973), 15. 

49 

See for example Winter’s rendering of 15:32b: “What does it profit me if dead bodies are 

not raised?” Winter, After Paul, 103. 

276

people) and σώμα (as the body of the dead) in 15:35 calls such an understanding into question. 

Furthermore, the νεκροί are repeatedly paralleled with τῶν κεκοιμημένων, a term that for Paul 

most naturally refers to dead people rather than corpses (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). 

Correspondingly, ἀνάστασις is paralleled in 15:21-22 with ζῳοποιηθήσονται, “made alive”. It 

would seem that Paul has not gone out of his way to draw exclusive attention to the physicality 

of the afterlife (although he assumes it). In 15:1-11, similarly, Paul labours the witnessed- 

resurrection of Jesus without specifically emphasising that it occurred in a body. 

It is simply not evident that Paul exclusively envisages the physicality of the dead as being 

problematic in Corinth. Tuckett points out that even in the section that undeniably focuses on 

the body, 15:35-49, it is not just the problem of renewed physicality but the broader issue of 

life proceeding from death that is intentionally present (“Fool! Do you not know that a seed 

will not come alive [ζῳοποιεῖται] unless it dies [ἀποθάνῃ]?”): 

Garland objects: 

It seems hard to deny that the main force of Paul’s argument here is the assertion of a 

radical discontinuity between present existence and resurrection life…. Paul is thus 

stressing the reality and facticity of death quite as much as emphasizing the certainty 

of resurrection. 50 

The assertion that the seed does not live unless it dies is not intended to underline a 

pattern of dissolution and new life or to underscore the necessity of death (contra 

Godet 1887: 403; Riesenfeld 1970: 174; cf. John 12:24), since Paul specifically 

argues in 1 Cor. 15:51-54 that not all will die. 51 

50 Tuckett, “Corinthians Who Say,” 261. 


277

But this objection is problematic. Firstly, it renders the whole of verse 36 both unnecessary 

and a distraction. This verse is unnecessary for setting the theme of “sowing” since the 

subsequent verse adequately achieves this. The verse becomes a distraction because it appears 

to be patently affirming the necessity of death, an affirmation that Garland denies is intended. 52 

Secondly, Garland’s appeal to 51-54 needs qualification: Paul does not insist there that all will 

not die; he insists that all will not “sleep”. It would seem that in 1 Corinthians (as in 1 

Thessalonians), the euphemism of sleep is only used to refer to the physical decease of 

Christians (11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; Cf. 1 Thess. 4:13, 14; 5:10). “Death”, “die”, or “dead”, 

contrastingly, are at times used to refer to physical decease (15:3, 22); a personified 

apocalyptic enemy (15:26, 54-56); and toil or cruciformity (15:30-32; Cf. ektroma 15:8-10). It 

is significant that Paul employs this latter use in a chapter about the resurrection of “the dead”. 

Indeed, throughout the letter, Paul has arguably been calling the Corinthians to imitate his own 

metaphorical appropriation of the death of Christ (4:16). 53 It ought to be considered, then, 

whether perhaps Paul aims to insist in this chapter that all Christians must accept death – 

whether literally or metaphorically – as the precursor to the divine gift of resurrection; but 

those who will not literally die (i.e. those who will not “sleep”) must still receive 

eschatological change from God. 

It is simply not apparent in the text that the Corinthians perceive bodies as contemptible, yet 

death as “the moment of the liberation of a primal, immortal spirit”, as de Boer suggests 

above. 54 Rather, it would seem that the Corinthians make no such distinction between the two: 

both death (26, 36, 53-4) and the body (35) are looked down upon in Corinth; whereas for 

Paul, death and the body form the necessary setting and locus for divine victory. 

52 Irenaeus, for one, appears to assume that an affirmation of the necessity of death is intended: 

Irenaeus uses this verse as a proof that mortality is bodily, necessarily involving corporeal 

corruption, before corporeal incorruption. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 7, 

1-2. See similarly Minucius Felix, The Octavius Chapter 34. 

53 I argue for this extensively in chapters 3 and 4. 

54 See footnote 35. 

278

Paul’s strenuous argument for the resurrection of Christ and of the dead who belong to him 

seems to be more than simply the corrective to an ill-formed conception of the nature of the 

afterlife. At stake is a bigger problem: a lack of knowledge of the God who graciously gives 

life to the dead: 

So wie ohne Liebe alles nichts ist (13,1-3), so ebenso ohne die Auferstehung Jesu und 

damit auch der Toten (15,12-19). 55 

Each of the three groupings of views identified by Thiselton, then, offers useful insights, but 

fails to suggest exclusively a coherent explanation for the problem of those who deny the 

resurrection of the dead in Corinth: 

The first grouping rightly acknowledges that Paul is addressing a relatively straightforward 

objection (“There is no resurrection of the dead”), and that this objection appears to result in a 

licentious attitude. However, this grouping of views may be hard to reconcile with the 

apparent assumption of 6:14 that some sort of future resurrection already represents common 

ground for an ethical appeal. It is also not the only reconstruction that makes sense of a 

morally lax attitude in Corinth, and provides no explanation for Paul’s insistence on the 

deferral of immortality. 

The second grouping is rightly attentive to Paul’s insistent emphasis on the presence of death, 

and the futurity of resurrection/immortality. However, this grouping of views requires a rather 

qualified understanding of the Corinthian stance “There is no resurrection of the dead”. 

The third grouping rightly perceives that Paul expects resistance to the corporeal in Corinth, 

along with at least an openness to the concept of immortality. But this grouping (if taken to be 

55 Wolfgang Schrage, Studien zur Theologie im 1. Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Neukirchener, 

2007), 207. Further, Merklein rightly notes that Paul goes out of his way to emphasise the 

issue of the dead: “Allerdings fügt Paulus gegenüber dem tradierten Wortlaut des Kerygmas 

der Auferweckungsaussage () (v.4b) den Präpositionalausdruck von den 

Toten () hinzu”. Merklein, Der erste Brief, Kapitel 11,2 - 16,24, 303. 

279

a comprehensive account of the situation) has no satisfying explanation for Paul’s emphatic 

insistence on the necessity of death (e.g. 15:36) and the futurity of immortality; or Paul’s 

assumption that the resurrection-deniers are effectively setting their hope on this life (15:19). 

J. Delobel rightly warns: 

The problem is perhaps that all three elements [the reality of death, the futurity of 

resurrection, the problem of corporeality] should be taken into account, whereas the 

solutions mentioned above most often concentrate on one (or two) of them, either by 

not taking into account the others or by dismissing them as being of secondary 

importance. A one-sided choice may produce more easily a coherent explanation, but 

it falls short of integrating all the data of the text. 56 

Positively, it would seem that Paul’s response to the issues includes at least: the overall setting 

of an encouragement to present labour; the necessity of present mortality (literal and 

metaphorical); the futurity of participation in the consummation of Christ’s victory; the 

inability of humans to autonomously claim this victory; and the importance of God’s ability to 

raise bodies. 

Most interestingly, all of these themes (labour, mortality, futurity, humanness, and divine 

ability) are found in the rhetorical destination of the chapter, 15:50-58. Any attempt at a 

comprehensive conception of the nature of the resurrection-denial in Corinth, then, will need 

to do justice to the fact that this chapter peaks with the necessity of future gracious divine 

victory over present human fallen mortality; a future victory which has present ethical 

implications for apparently vain human labour. 

56 J. Delobel, “The Corinthians’ (Un-)belief in the Resurrection,” in Resurrection in the New 

Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht (ed. R. Bieringer et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 343-355; 

348. 

280

3. Rhetorical Entextualisation 

In considering this flow of the chapter, it should be noted that Paul has chosen to represent his 

opponents in a certain way, and to frame his correction correspondingly. This decision by 

Paul may tell us more about his rhetorical intention than about the historical problems of the 

Corinthian church. Anders Eriksson warns: 

A… problem with many reconstructions is the assumption that Paul correctly 

represents the Corinthian opinions. Even those interpreters who claim that Paul does 

not correctly represent the Corinthians, claim that he, in that case, must have 

misunderstood them. Seen as a rhetorical argumentation, the assumption that Paul is 

so “accurate” and “truthful” in his use of sources that he gives an unbiased account is 

naïve. In a rhetorical argumentation, the biased representation of opponent opinions 

is the rule. 57 

The value of Eriksson’s warning is not the allowance that Paul may be using deception 

(indeed, an intentional misrepresentation of his opponents would surely not advantage his 

persuasion). Rather, the value lies in the reminder that Paul has a rhetorical purpose that may 

not be exhaustively revealed by socio-historical reconstructions. 58 Paul has his own reasons 

for selecting, placing, and framing this issue. 

To speak about the inscribed rhetorical situation is to speak about the entextualization 

of the situation. That is, the rhetorical situation exists as a textual or literary 

presentation within the text or discourse as a whole. It is possible to think of the 

rhetorical situation as a literary construct embedded in the text as a rhetorical device 

57 Anders Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians 

(ConB, New Testament Series 29; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998), 237. 

58 Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele make a similar point: “The Paul of the text is in 

fact the ‘Paul’ the author most desires to give to (and be for) his readers; to try to go behind 

that is to miss the primary function of rhetorical constructions of ēthos”. Todd Penner and 

Caroline Vander Stichele, “Unveiling Paul: Gendering Ēthos in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” in 

Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse (ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and 

Anders Eriksson; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 214-237; 228. 

281

or figure which contributes to the overall rhetorical aim or to the argumentation of the 

text. 59 

I suggest, then, that it may be fruitful to consider the rhetorical function of the entextualised 

problem of resurrection denial before returning to relate it to a conceivable historical 

reconstruction. 

4. The Rhetoric of Reversal and the Resurrection of the Dead 

We thus turn to the question: What rhetorical function is served by this discussion of the 

resurrection of the dead? 

Chapters 1–4 and Chapter 15 

As signalled already in the first chapter of this dissertation, a striking feature of 1 Corinthians 

that has been largely neglected is the number of themes that are conspicuously common to 

chapters 1–4 and chapter 15. In fact, in considering the main sections of chapter 15, one can 

see that each of the points Paul makes in response to the resurrection-deniers has been 

anticipated in chapters 1–4, with a similarity of terminology and rhetorical function: 

15:1-11 

In both chapter 15 and chapters 1–4 Paul insists that he proclaimed the gospel (1:17-18, 21, 23: 

εὐαγγελίζεσθαι/ κηρύσσομεν; 15:1-2, 11: εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν/ κηρύσσομεν), and that the 

Corinthians received it with faith (2:4-5; 4:15: ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν; 15:11: οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε). In 

both parts of the letter he hints at the danger of this proclamation being made vain by the 

Corinthians (1:17: ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 15:2, 14: εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε/ 

59 Dennis L. Stamps, “Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation: The Entextualization of the 

Situation in New Testament Epistles,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 

1992 Heidelberg Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht; Sheffield: 

Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 193-210; 199. 

282

κενὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν). Thus the wisdom-boasters in chapters 1–4 and the resurrection- 

deniers in chapter 15 are warned that their behaviour is inadvertently endangering the apostolic 

kerygma. 

15:12-28 

In both chapters 1–4 and chapter 15 Paul indicates that believers are on their way to salvation 

and vindication at the time of God’s future judgement (1:18; 2:9; 4:5: σῳζομένοις/ ἡτοίμασεν 

ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν/ ὁ ἔπαινος γενήσεται ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ; 15:22: ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ 

πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται), while hostile rulers are destined for destruction (1:18-19; 2:6-9: 

ἀπολλυμένοις/ τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων; 15:24-7: καταργήσῃ 

πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν). Just as the Epistle of Enoch foresees the doom 

of “sinners” who scoff at the thought of a divine reversal of fortunes, 60 Paul considers that the 

proud, gospel-endangering behaviour of the wisdom-boasters in chapters 1–4 and the 

resurrection-deniers in chapter 15 must be corrected by appeal to an apocalyptic eschatology. 

15:29-34 

Just as in chapter 15 Paul confronts resurrection-deniers with the reality of those whose 

baptism on behalf of the dead (15:29: οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν) and deathly 

apostolic conduct (15:31: καθʼ ἡμέραν ἀποθνῄσκω) imply a hope for future resurrection, so in 

chapters 1–4 Paul raises the issue of baptism in relation to the apostles (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου 

ἐβαπτίσθητε;), 61 and presents his apostolic vocation of proclaiming “Christ crucified” (1:23; 

60 1 Enoch 102:6-9: “When you died, then the sinners declared: ‘The godly died according to 

fate – and what did they gain from their works? They die just like us! See how they die with 

grief and darkness – what is the benefit to them? From this time, will they be raised, and will 

they be saved, and see into eternity? We eat and drink for this very reason, swindling and 

sinning and stealing and seizing property and seeing good days’”. 

61 On a connection between the two sections on baptism, see especially White, “Baptised on 

Account of the Dead” and Patrick, “Living Rewards for Dead Apostles”. White in particular 

argues convincingly that those who are “baptised on account of the dead” are the Corinthians 

themselves, who are squabbling (evidenced in chapter 1) over which of the leaders baptised 

283

2:1-5: κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον) and of being “condemned to death” (4:8-13: τοὺς 

ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίους). In both parts of the letter the imagery of 

the arena is adopted to picture the apostolic example 62 (4:9: ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ 

κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀνθρώποις; 15:32: εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα). Both wisdom- 

boasters in chapters 1–4 and resurrection-deniers in chapter 15 are expected to feel “shame” 

(4:14; 15:34) at the incongruity that this apostolic example illuminates in relation to their own 

conduct. They are depicted in a similar way to the “ungodly” in the Wisdom of Solomon, 

whose lack of faith in divine reversal leads them to treat the present as a time for satisfied 

indulgence rather than dependent hope. 63 

15:35-49 

Like the mother who reminds her dying son of the creative power of God to bring about 

eschatological reversal in 2 Maccabees, 64 Paul labours God’s creative power and initiative with 

regard to resurrection and spirituality in chapter 15 (15:38,46: θεὸς δίδωσιν αὐτῷ σῶμα καθὼς 

ἠθέλησεν/ ἀλλʼ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν). 

Similarly in chapters 1–4 Paul insists that God chose “the things that are not” in order to 

reduce to nothing “the things that are” (1:26-31: τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ). He 

emphasises that God is the source of the Corinthians’ life (1:30: ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν 

Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ), and that God alone is able to grant and interpret that which is “spiritual” (2:10- 

them – leaders who are, according to Paul’s irony, pursuing a vocation of death. Murphy- 

O’Connor likewise notices the relation of apostolic suffering to the mention of “the dead”: 

“Verse 30 gives the impression of being a transition which suggests that there is, in Paul’s 

mind, some intrinsic relationship between vv. 29 and 31-2”. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, 

“‘Baptized for the Dead’ (1 Cor 15:29): A Corinthian Slogan?” in Keys to First Corinthians: 

Revisiting the Major Issues (rev. and enl.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 242-256; 

243. 

62 V. Henry T. Nguyen hints at a link between 4:9 and 15:32: V.H.T. Nguyen, “The 

Identification of Paul’s Spectacle of Death Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 4.9,” NTS 53/4 (2007): 

489-501; 496. 

63 Wisdom of Solomon 2: see above. 

64 2 Maccabees 7:28-9: “I beg you, child: Look up to heaven and to the earth, and see 

everything that is in them, and know that God did not create them out of existing things – and 

so it is also with the human race. Do not fear this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers 

in also accepting death, in order that in His mercy, I might receive you back along with your 

brothers”. 

284

16: ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ, μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ 

οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται). According to Paul, both the wisdom- 

boasters and the resurrection-deniers are effectively claiming “spiritual” status in a way that 

undermines the ultimacy of God. 

15:50-58 

Just as in chapter 15 Paul scoffs at the ability of “flesh and blood” – a phrase which is 

elsewhere used to mean “mere humanity” (Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 6:12; cf. Matthew 

16:17 65 ) – to inherit the kingdom of God (15:50: σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι 

οὐ δύναται), so in chapters 1–4 he repeatedly emphasises the inability of humans to usurp 

God’s position as the object of Corinthian security and boasting (1:31; 2:9; 3:21; 4:7: ὥστε 

μηδεὶς καυχάσθω ἐν ἀνθρώποις), lamenting that the Corinthians are acting in a way that is 

“human” (3:4: οὐκ ἄνθρωποί ἐστε;). Following the Jewish wisdom tradition, Paul presents 

himself in chapters 1–4 as being the recipient of the revealed “mystery” of divine wisdom, as 

opposed to the “wise men” in positions of elite influence (1:20; 2:1-8; 4:1). Similarly, in 

15:51, Paul expresses his assertion about the necessity of divinely granted transformation as 

the disclosure of a “mystery”. Wisdom-boasters and resurrection-deniers alike are confronted 

with human inability and divine enablement in Jesus Christ, revealed in a mystery. However, 

whereas chapters 1–4 relentlessly emphasise the absurdity of human boasting, chapter 15 

finally gives way here to exalted thanksgiving for divine victory, much like the thanksgiving 

sections of Psalms of lament. 66 

65 Pheme Perkins rightly notes that this phrase is “a Semitic expression for human being” that 

“often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality”. Pheme Perkins, 

Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, N.Y.: 

Doubleday, 1984), 306. 

66 Or the elaborate thanksgiving of the “three Jews” after they receive divine vindication 

following the fiery furnace: Prayer of Azariah 1,88: “Bless the Lord, Hananiah, Azariah and 

Mishael; sing and highly exalt him forever, because he has taken us out of Hades, and saved us 

from the hand of Death, and rescued us from the midst of the flaming furnace, and freed us 

from the fire!” 

285

It would seem that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is not simply setting out a corrective for a 

confused understanding of the afterlife; he is carefully returning to the themes and terminology 

of chapters 1–4. The difference is that in chapters 1–4 the emphasis is on the way in which the 

cross confronts the divisive values of boastful status and secular power that tempt the 

Corinthians, while in chapter 15 the emphasis shifts to the way in which the resurrection lays 

bare such an exalted disdain for things marked by death, by ensuring the future end of would- 

be powers 67 and the divinely-wrought vindication of those who presently belong to the cross: 

15:1-11: The gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection, proclaimed by Paul, believed by the 

Corinthians, but in danger of vanity 

15:12-28: The trajectory of Christ’s resurrection from the dead – a trajectory that ends with 

the resurrection of believers and the destruction of enemy powers 

15:29-34: The example of those who effectively accept death in this life, including Paul’s 

ongoing experience of death 

15:35-49: God’s creative ability to raise bodies and initiate Spiritual status for those who 

would otherwise be “natural” 

15:50-58: A deferral of immortality to the power and timing of God, rather than the ability of 

flesh and blood 68 

67 It is noteworthy that here the rulers are not particular humans. They are hostile powers, and 

ultimately, death itself. This is one indication that Paul’s rhetoric of reversal should not be 

thought of as a straightforward rhetoric of revenge: Paul does not envisage a simple exchange 

of power, but rather an eschaton in which the values of power, victory, wealth and wisdom 

have been radically “christo-morphed”. 

68 Thus, rather than culminating an appeal for congregational unity, as Mitchell argues (Paul 

and the Rhetoric, 38, 290-91), verse 58 may be heard more naturally as an encouragement to 

the sort of God-dependent cruciform labour that has shaped Paul’s summons to self-imitation 

throughout the letter: “Each will be rewarded according to their own labour. For we are God’s 

co-workers” (3:8-9); “We work with our own hands” (4:12); “Are you not my work in the 

Lord?” (9:1); “Is it only myself and Barnabas who must work for a living?” (9:6); “I worked 

harder than all of them – but not myself, but the grace of God that was with me” (15:10). 

Interestingly, Paul, Timothy and Stephanas are all modelled as taking part in “the work” in 

chapter 16. 

286

A Challenge: Join the Dead 

So chapter 15 presents a challenge to those who deny the resurrection of the dead, which is in 

fact a heightening of the same challenge that Paul has been presenting throughout the letter: 

join the ranks of the dead, and so look forward to divinely granted resurrection. 

Consider again to what extent this chapter exudes an obsession with the inescapability of 

death: 

15:1-11: 

15:12-28: 

15:29-34: 

He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at once, of whom most 

remain alive to this day, but some have fallen asleep 

And last of all, as to one who had been miscarried, he appeared also to me 

But if it is proclaimed that Christ was raised from the dead, how is it that some of you 

are saying that there is no resurrection of the dead? 69 

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead as the firstfruits of those who have 

fallen asleep. 

The final enemy to be brought down is death. 

Every day I die, as surely as you are my boast 

69 As John Chrysostom notes, Paul is “continually adding ‘from the dead’”. Homily 39; PG 

61.332. 

287

15:35-49: 

15:50-58: 

You should know that the seed that you sow will not come to life unless it dies 

It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. 

For the trumpet will blast and the dead will be raised imperishably, and we will be 

changed. For it is necessary for… this mortality to be clothed with immortality. 70 

Death [will be] consumed by victory. 

Where, O Death, is your victory? 

Where, O Death, is your sting? 

….But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Paul thus uses the problem of “denial of resurrection of the dead” as the ultimate paradigm of 

the puffed up, status-obsessed Corinthian refusal to adopt the position of the crucified. There 

is something of a parallel here to the rhetorical function of an insistence on resurrection in the 

book of 2 Maccabees. George W.E. Nickelsburg writes: 

The book in general is directed toward the non-Jewish reader, who might think that 

people who suffer in this way have no portion with God. 71 

Likewise, those in Corinth who consider the foolish (4:10), the defrauded (6:7-8), the obligated 

(7:5), the weak (8:7), the enslaved (9:19), the restricted (10:23), the subject (11:3), the 

unimpressive (12:15), the restrained (14:28), and the dead (15:12) – that is, the cruciform – to 

70 Chrysostom draws attention to the fact that even those who are alive are thus labelled with 

death: “What he means is this: We will not all die, but we will all be changed, even those who 

do not die – for they are also mortal”. Homily 42; PG 61.364. 

71 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 123. 

288

have no portion with God have fundamentally misunderstood the God who raises the dead. 

Those who look down on the dead have no knowledge of the God who raises the dead. 

Nickelsburg’s comments on the Wisdom of Solomon similarly echo the rhetorical function of 

Paul’s discussion of death and resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 

[T]here is a sense in which there is an identity, or at least continuity between death 

and exaltation. This exaltation is not the prerogative of every righteous person. It is 

promised only to the persecuted righteous (3:1-9) and, in the context of the story, only 

to those who are put to death for the faith. Viewed in this manner, the righteous 

man’s persecution and death are the cause of his exaltation. 72 

The Corinthians, in Paul’s estimation, are faced with a challenge: Will they embrace the death 

of the Righteous Man, and so look forward to being clothed with his resurrection when he 

appears? There can be no leaping ahead of present labour to manifest glory and immortality. 

Rather, the one pre-requisite for resurrected immortality is the inhabitation of death – Christ’s 

death – in the present. In imitation of its apostle, the Corinthian church is called to “die every 

day”, persevering in cruciform labour, even if Christ should return before they fall asleep. 

Paul’s interest is not just “to correct [a] misinformed opinion” in Corinth resulting from 

“honest confusion” 73 about the afterlife. His interest is more cunningly to confront what John 

Chrysostom would call their “disease” – their proud preference for Roman status over a 

Roman cross. 

72 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 115. Nickelsburg notes that this continuity between death and 

vindication in Wisdom of Solomon has resonance with Paul’s conception of the work of Jesus 

in Philippians 2. 


289

5. The Situation Behind 1 Corinthians 15 

Throughout this dissertation I have contended that socio-historical and pastoral-theological 

perspectives on 1 Corinthians may be viewed as complementary. It is therefore worth 

considering whether this reading of the pastorally-driven rhetorical function of the resurrection 

discussion fits with a conceivable historical reconstruction of the situation in Roman Corinth. 74 

It has been demonstrated above that no one of the interpretative groupings identified by 

Thiselton provides a comprehensively satisfactory reconstruction. 75 It may be that elements of 

the different views make up a coherent scenario. In particular, I find two such elements 

worthy of further consideration: disregard for the body and disregard for the dead. 

Disregard for the Body 

It will be useful, firstly, to demonstrate that Jewish, Greek and Roman literary sources all 

evidence significant variation in conceptions of corporeality and the afterlife. 

Although Plato certainly held to the immortality of the soul (as opposed to the body), it seems 

noteworthy that the two main Greek philosophical schools of Paul’s time – the Epicureans 76 

and the Stoics 77 (whom, according to Acts 17, Paul had addressed in Athens prior to arriving in 

Corinth) both believed in the mortality of the soul. 

74 De Boer argues that an ability to pinpoint the precise nature of the situation is unnecessary 

because the chapter consists of “a case for the resurrection of the dead, not a case against a 

presumed alternative”. There is certainly an extent to which this is true; however if our 

interpretation cannot be squared with any likely historical reconstruction, the interpretation 

itself may justifiably be called into question. Therefore an investigation into possible 

historical backgrounds is not out of place. See Martinus de Boer, “The Deniers of the 

Resurrection and Their Social Status,” in Saint Paul and Corinth: 1950 Years Since the 

Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians (ed. Constantine J. Belezos; Athens: Psychogios 

Publications, 2009), 329-345; 345. 

75 Thiselton himself notices this and suggests a combination of views two and three. 

76 Tomlin argues that “there are good reasons for thinking that this [that is, the widespread 

influence of Epicureanism] was especially so in Corinth.” Tomlin, “Christians and 

Epicureans,” 55. 

77 Albert V. Garcilazo argues that higher-status members of the Corinthian church were 

influenced by the cosmology, anthropology, and ethics of the Roman Stoa, resulting in a 

290

The Epicureans held, following Epicurus himself, that the soul was extinguished with the 

death of the body. This is because the soul itself was corporeal, being intermixed with the 

bodily parts in such a way that post-mortal survival was impossible. On the corporeality of the 

soul, Epicurus writes: 

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus 67 

So those who say that the soul [ψυχήν] is incorporeal are speaking vainly. 

Lucretius, writing in Rome in the first century BCE, similarly argues: 

Lucretius, 3.175-6 

Therefore the soul [animi] is necessarily of a corporeal nature, as it labours under the 

impact of corporeal spears. 

3.275 

Intermixed with our members and entire body is the power of the soul and of the 

spirit. 

Epicurus consequently reasons that death is nothing to be feared: 

Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 125 

Therefore death, the most fearsome of evils, is nothing to us, seeing as when we exist, 

death is not present; and when death is present, we do not exist. So death is nothing 

to those who are living or to those who have died, seeing as for the former, it is 

nothing, and for the latter, they are nothing. 

Again, Lucretius concurs: 

rejection of the future resurrection of the dead. Albert V. Garcilazo, The Corinthian 

Dissenters and the Stoics (New York: Peter Lang, 2007). 

291

Lucretius, 3.830 

Death, therefore, is nothing to us – of no concern at all, if we understand that the soul 

has a mortal nature. 

Stoicism similarly appears to have held to the non-eternality of the soul, although at the time 

of Paul, this did not necessarily mean immediate extinction upon the death of the body. Like 

the Epicureans, Stoics held that the soul could not be usefully thought of as independently 

incorporeal, given that it was inextricably linked to sensation and activity – characteristics of 

the corporeal. Sextus Empiricus reports: 

Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors 8.263 

For according to them [the Stoics] the incorporeal is not such that it can either act or 

suffer. 

Plutarch states (as a critic): 

Plutarch, On Stoic Self-Contradictions 1053d 

And the proof he [the Stoic Chrysippus] uses that the soul is generated – and 

generated after the body – is mainly that the manner and character of the children 

bears a resemblance to their parents. 

Eusebius elucidates a (middle/late) Stoic conception of the afterlife, 78 indicating that some 

souls might be expected to endure without the body for quite a time, while others would be 

destroyed: 

78 The position Eusebius describes would seem to be true of the Stoics of Paul’s time, although 

earlier Stoicism denied any personal afterlife. 

292

Eusebius, Evangelical Preparation 15.20.6 

They [Stoics] say that the soul is both generated and mortal. But it is not immediately 

destroyed upon being separated from the body. Rather it remains for some time by 

itself – that of the diligent remains until the dissolution of all things by fire; and that 

of the foolish remains only for a limited time. About the endurance of the soul they 

say this: that we ourselves remain as souls which have been separated from the body 

and have been changed into the lesser substance of the soul; whereas the souls of 

irrational beings are destroyed along with their bodies. 

It would certainly be too simplistic, then, to claim that a “Greek” notion of the afterlife in the 

first century generally involved the liberation of the soul into utopian immortality. Greco- 

Roman understandings of corporeality, immortality and the afterlife in the first century were 

clearly varied. 

Judaism of the period also tolerated a degree of diversity. Alongside beliefs in bodily 

resurrection (exhibited in 2 Maccabees, for example), was a range of Jewish beliefs about the 

immortality of the soul and the nature of the afterlife. 

The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides evidence a Jewish belief in immortality of the soul: 

Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 105-108 

For souls remain unharmed in those who have perished. For the spirit is God’s loan 

to mortals, and his image. For we have a body from the earth; and then after we are 

released to earth again, we are dust. But the air receives the spirit. 

115 

The soul is immortal and ageless, living forever. 

Likewise, the Wisdom of Solomon envisages the afterlife as involving immortal souls: 

293

Wisdom of Solomon 3:8 

They [that is, the immortal souls of the once-persecuted righteous] will judge the 

nations, and rule over peoples, and the Lord will rule over them for eternity. 

The Epistle of Enoch looks ahead to the blessed survival of good souls after death: 

1 Enoch 103:1-3 

I swear to you: I understand this mystery…. That goodness and joy and honour have 

been prepared and written down for the souls of those who have died while godly. 

Similarly, Josephus appears to hold to the immortality of the soul, as opposed to the (initial) 

temporality of the body: 

Josephus, Against Apion 2.203 

For [in the act of sex] the soul is divided, departing to another place; for it suffers 

when being implanted in bodies and similarly at death when it is divided from them. 

Therefore purifications for all of these things are commanded. 

According to Josephus, even the Pharisees, like the Essenes, held to a “Greek-like” idea of an 

immortal soul for all people. Unlike the Essenes, they held that good souls would also receive 

new bodies: 79 


For this is their doctrine [that is, the Essenes]: that bodies are mortal, and their 

material is not permanent; but that souls are immortal and endure forever; and that 

79 Of course, it should be kept in mind that Josephus may have had a significant rhetorical 

purpose in presenting the views of the “sects” in such a way. C.D. Elledge suggests: 

“Josephus… has translated these underlying beliefs [about the afterlife] into a Hellenistic 

philosophical synthesis that has obscured their original forms”. C.D. Elledge, Life After Death 

in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 98. 

294

they come out of thin air, so that they are bound to their bodies as to a prison, drawn 

in by a certain natural enticement; but being released from their fleshly bonds, as set 

free from a long slavery, they then rejoice and rise upwards. And this is similar to the 

opinions of the Greeks who hold that good souls have a dwelling beyond the ocean. 

164 

[The Pharisees say that] every soul is immortal, but that only those of good people are 

removed into another body; while those of the simple are subjected to everlasting 

punishment. 

The Psalms of Solomon, arguably representative of Pharisaic thought, only once refer to 

resurrection, and there the reference is not unambiguously to a bodily experience: 

Psalms of Solomon 3:11-12 

The destruction of the sinner is forever 

And such a person will not be remembered when God visits the righteous. 

This is the fate of sinners forever; 

But those who fear the Lord will be raised to eternal life. 

And their life will be in the light of the Lord, and it will not go out. 

It is worth considering which views of the plight of the dead may have been influential for 

those in the first century who had yearnings for Roman respectability, a yearning generally 

present in Corinth, 80 and specifically notable in the church. 81 One obvious resource is 

80 Sophia B. Zoumbaki demonstrates that in this period, Corinth represented a centre of elite 

Greek desire for Roman respectability: “Connections of the upper Peloponnesian class with the 

most prominent colonists, especially of Corinth, could be equally useful both for economic and 

political benefit. It is not a mere coinsidence [sic] that wealthy and ambitious Peloponnesians, 

who obtained Roman citizenship as a first step necessary for the fulfilment of their dreams of 

pursuing a Roman career, were in closer contact with the colony of Corinth, where they indeed 

held colonial offices”. Sophia B. Zoumbaki, “The Composition of the Peloponnesian Elites in 

the Roman period and the Evolution of their Resistance and Approach to the Roman Rulers,” 

Tek 9 (2008): 25-52; 45. 

295

Josephus, who, it seems, consciously attempted to present Jewish conceptions of the afterlife 

in a way that would make sense and appeal to his Greek-reading Roman readership. 82 

It is worth noting that although Josephus generally highlights a dualism between body and soul 

(with the soul being immortal), 83 he apparently does not consider the idea of future 

inhabitation of new bodies to be completely inaccessible to his readership. 

Josephus’ presentation of the views of the Pharisees in this regard (above) is evocative of the 

reception of both Pythagoras and Socrates, in allowing for the return of the soul to an earthly 

body. Elledge cites Poseidonius’ summary of Pythagorean teachings: 

For the teaching of Pythagoras is strong among them…, that the souls of men are 

immortal… and after an ordained number of years they come to life again…, as the 

soul enters into a different body. 84 

Similarly, Socrates is presented by Plato as holding that “the living come to life again from 

among the dead”. Elledge identifies this as “an ancient tradition of palingenesis” 85 – a word 

81 Clarke argues that “in 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically addresses some in the congregation 

who were from the higher classes of Graeco-Roman society”. Clarke, Secular and Christian, 

57. Chrysostom comments: “He was sending this to the Corinthians, among whom there were 

many philosophers, who were always making fun of these things”. Homily 39; PG 61.339. 

82 Lester L. Grabbe comments: “Josephus is an apologist for Judaism and attempts to interpret 

Jewish history and religion in categories that would appeal to the educated Greek or Roman. 

On the negative side, this can lead to distortions; but, on the positive side, he makes clearer the 

common beliefs held by both Jew and gentile of the Mediterranean world”. Lester L. Grabbe, 

“Eschatology in Philo and Josephus,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After- 

Death, Resurrection, and the World to Come (ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner; 

Leiden: Brill, 2000), 163-186; 174. 

83 Elledge draws attention to this: “The majority of Josephus’ comments on immortality 

present a dualistic anthropology. This anthropology preserves the immortality of the soul by 

accentuating the mortality of the physical body”. Elledge, Life After Death, 128; emphasis 

original. 

84 Cited in Elledge, Life After Death, 104. Grabbe notes that this Pythagorean concept was 

influential on the “Middle Platonism” evidenced in Philo: “Eschatology,” in Judaism in Late 

Antiquity (ed. Avery-Peck and Neusner), 165. However, Grabbe concludes of Philo: “One 

cannot imagine Philo’s looking with favor on the idea of a general resurrection in which the 

souls of the righteous were again reunited with the body”. 173. 

85 Elledge, Life After Death, 107; emphasis original. Thomas Aquinas believed that Platonists’ 

belief in the soul’s immortality was necessarily accompanied by belief in re-incorporation 

296

utilised in the New Testament in relation to renewal (Titus 3:5) and, arguably, to the 

resurrection at the end of time (Matthew 19:28). 86 

Josephus himself puts forward the view that virtuous souls will return to human bodies: 


We all, indeed, have mortal bodies, and they are made up of perishable matter; but the 

soul is immortal forever…. Do you not know that those who depart from life in 

accordance with the law of nature, giving back the loan they had received from God, 

when the Giver wishes to reclaim it, receive eternal fame, and their houses and 

families are kept firm, and their souls remain pure and obedient, being assigned to the 

holiest place in heaven. From there, at the revolution of the ages they return to 

inhabit sanctified bodies. 87 

This echoes similar wording in Wisdom of Solomon: 


I was a good child, receiving a good soul, or rather, being good, I came into an 

undefiled body. 

(Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on 1 Corinthians (trans. Fabian Larcher, O. P. and Daniel 

Keating) 923; Cited March 2010. Online: http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Aquinas- 

Corinthians.pdf). 

86 J. Duncan M. Derrett surveys the ancient use of this word: “Palingenesia (resurrection) was 

visualized (1) in quite actual terms: of nature regenerated, of the world re-established, the dead 

reanimated, and animals resuscitated; (2) metaphorically of memory, or revival from fright, 

‘rebirth’ in a substitute, revived fortunes, a spiritual regeneration; and (3), by way of fantasy, 

in Buddhist or Hindu reincarnation, Pythagorean or Stoic or Philonic/Pharisaic theory, of 

entities in space, of Dionysus or doctrines related to him, of Osiris, in Hermetic, magical and 

Mithraic cults, in Johannine soteriology, by Christian baptism, and in resurrection”. J. Duncan 

M. Derrett, “Palingenesia,” JSNT 20 (1984): 51-58; 58. 

87 A similar idea is found in Against Apion 2.30: “To those who keep the laws, and if it is 

necessary to die for them, eagerly die, God has granted them to exist again, and a better life at 

the revolution [of the ages]”. Grabbe comments that this perspective (of transmigration of 

souls into new bodies) is often overlooked in the study of Josephus: “This belief in 

metempsychosis seems to be a problem for some commentators, because they either ignore it 

(e.g., Bousset) or attempt to explain that this was not Josephus’ view”. Grabbe, 

“Eschatology,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity (ed. Avery-Peck and Neusner), 176. 

297

It seems that the idea of a soul entering a body was not necessarily objectionable in a “Jewish 

Hellenistic” context, so long as it was a body fit to receive a soul. Such a possibility also 

appears to be the case in Seneca’s (notably, first century Roman) Stoicism. Elledge points to 

Seneca’s conception of future bodily restoration following a cosmic conflagration: 

In the future, 

when the time shall come in which the world extinguishes itself in order to be 

renewed, these things will destroy themselves by their own powers, and stars will 

clash with stars and whatever now shines forth from the (current) order (of the world) 

will burn, as all matter blazes in a single fire – us too. When it will seem good to God 

to set these things in motion once again, as all things are falling, we who are blessed 

souls and who have been allotted eternal things shall be turned again to our former 

elements as a small appendage to this vast ruin. 88 

It should not be immediately assumed, then, that those inclined to fashionable Roman views in 

first-century Corinth would have found the idea of the enlivening of “our former elements” 

utterly inaccessible. Winter is too sweeping when he claims: 

[R]esurrection would have been a complete enigma to the first-century Gentile who 

believed in the immortality of the soul and the cessation of the body’s senses at 

death. 89 

It is certainly true that resurrection was a foreign belief in Roman Corinth, but it is not 

necessarily the case that the idea would have been an inaccessible enigma – especially for 

those who had been converted to a religion for which Messianic resurrection was central. 90 

88 Cited in Elledge, Life After Death, 112; emphasis mine. 


90 Tomlin appears not to take this significant point into account when he states: “The difficulty 

the Corinthians have with the idea of resurrection is not that it has already taken place, but that 

298

Thus it may be that alongside a denial of “the resurrection of the dead” in Corinth was an 

insistent preference for the immortality of the bodiless soul; but it would seem that a universal 

conviction on this matter is by no means certain. A general disregard for bodiliness, however, 

is common to many of the varied perspectives examined above and is implied by 15:35 (as 

well as earlier in the letter, in 6:13; for further exploration of this theme, see the section on the 

“third grouping” above). 

Disregard for the Dead 

One other feature of a range of early views of the afterlife is worthy of further consideration. 

Despite arguing for the extinction of the soul at death, Epicurus insists that a qualitative sort of 

immortality will be borne by those who practise his ways: 

Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 135 

But you [the follower of Epicurus’ ways] will live as a god among humans. For a 

person living amidst immortal goods is nothing like a mortal being. 

The fact that Plutarch refers to Epicureans as those who call themselves immortal/imperishable 

indicates that such a concept of “qualitative” immortality was alive in the first century: 91 

Plutarch, Against Epicurean Happiness 1091b-c 

What great pleasure belongs to these people [the Epicureans], and what blessing they 

enjoy, rejoicing about their lack of suffering and grief and pain! Therefore, is it not 

given the corruptibility of the body, it just cannot happen.” Tomlin, “Christians and 

Epicurians,” 61; emphasis mine. The fact that Paul argues from a shared belief in the bodily 

resurrection of Christ (15:1-11) to a necessary belief in the bodily resurrection of Christians 

would indicate that it was not the conceivability of resurrection per se that was the issue. 

Delobel urges: “One ought not to forget that they regarded themselves as Christians!” 

Delobel, “The Corinthians’ (Un-)belief,” in Resurrection in the New Testament, 351. 

91 Garcilazo, The Corinthian Dissenters, suggests that an idea of inaugurated immortality may 

have arisen through Stoic influence. 

299

fitting, on account of these things, also to think and to speak as they do speak, calling 

themselves imperishable and equal to gods…? 

Indeed, the Epicurean “rejoicing” in personal immortality went hand-in-hand with their lack of 

hope for the dead, a taunting of death that Hollander and Holleman also find in the Stoics and 

Cynics of the first century. 92 

It may be possible that for Christian converts in Roman Corinth, a bold assumption or 

implication of qualitative personal immortality developed alongside Christian ideas of 

inaugurated spirituality, and accompanied the effective dismissal of the continued significance 

of community members (perhaps including leaders 93 ) who had died. Thus the problem would 

not primarily be focused on the personal postmortal expectations of the sloganists themselves 

but rather on the standing of the dead. Such a disdainful attitude need not have involved the 

conclusion that the dead were eternally lost; simply that their witness or participation was 

unable to be retrieved for the present enthusiastic experience of Christian spirituality. In the 

words of Aquinas’ caricature: 

I do not care about sins, I do not care about the dead, as long as in this life I have 

peace and quiet. 94 

This is somewhat similar to the way in which Charles A. Wanamaker envisages the problem in 

Thessalonica. 95 The “dead” are not considered to be beyond salvation or out of God’s hands; 

but they are assumed to be disqualified from participating in the immanent (or, in Corinth, 

present-obsessed) experience of superior spirituality and, in some sense, immortality. 

Whereas in Thessalonica this led to mourning, conceivably the equivalent situation in Corinth 

92 As mentioned above; see Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship of Death,” 276. 

93 It is interesting that “the dead” largely includes those who bear foundational witness to the 

gospel, including the 500 (“some of whom have fallen asleep”) and Paul (who “labours” and 

“dies every day”). The subsequent chapter then commends respect for those local leaders who 

“labour”. 

94 Aquinas, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 923. 

95 Wanamaker, Epistles to the Thessalonians. 

300

led to actual or implied boasting: “Don’t worry about the dead; we are the spiritual and 

immortal ones”. 

Perhaps, then, Wayne Meeks’ summary of the situation in Corinth could be fruitfully adapted: 

The pneumatikoi of Corinth are using eschatological language, especially in forms 

that have already been adapted in the ritual of baptism, to warrant their claim to 

transcend some norms of ordinary behaviour and to support their conviction that their 

status is superior to that of persons still concerned with the fleshly world, including 

“weak” and “psychic” Christians. 96 

To Meeks’ list of “weak” and “psychic” Christians could be added “the dead” as the allegedly 

pitiable inferiors of Corinthian spiritual superiority. 

I take these two general orientations of disregard for the body and disregard for the dead to be 

historically reasonable elements of a worldview in first century Roman Corinth for Christian 

converts who demonstrably emphasised overconfident “spiritual” status. 97 Together, they 

provide a strikingly agreeable backdrop for the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 provided in 

this chapter. From Paul’s perspective the Corinthians evidenced proud human autonomy in 

discounting the need for future divine enablement of “spirituality” and “immortality”. Against 

this situation, Paul emphasises the perspective that humans are in need of the embodied 

Spiritual immortality that comes from God to the dead who belong to the resurrected Jesus 

Christ, at the time of his future revelation. To rephrase, I reiterate what was said earlier. Both 

death and the body are looked down upon in Corinth; whereas for Paul, death and the body 

form the necessary setting and locus for divine victory. 

96 

Meeks, “Social Functions,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World (ed. Hellholm), 

699. 

97 

Delobel reasons: “The emphasis on salvation through baptism (v. 29!) proves that the 

Corinthians relate eternal life to a specifically Christian experience, the possession of the 

πνεύμα. The Corinthians are convinced that they are πνευματικοί already”. Delobel, “The 

Corinthians’ (Un-)belief,” in Resurrection in the New Testament, 350. 

301

6. Kerygmatic Rhetoric and the Resurrection Chapter 

Paul uses the problem of “denial of resurrection of the dead” as a paradigm of presumptuous 

human autonomy. In doing so, he strikingly uses terms and concepts that are reminiscent of 

chapters 1–4, where this fundamental pastoral problem was established. This revisiting of 

previous themes serves to signal a return from hortatory application to densely theological 

argumentation, and to bring to those themes intensifying reinforcement and climactic 

resolution. Corinthian boasting in the face of the cross (chapters 1–4) swells into proud (but 

perhaps unwitting) denunciation of the plight of the dead (chapter 15); but Paul insists that it is 

the dead in Christ who will be raised to share Christ’s resurrected Spirit-uality and 

immortality. 

It may be that the slogan “there is no resurrection of the dead” represents Paul’s 

entextualisation of a proudly superior attitude in Corinth by which it was implied that “the 

dead” were disqualified from participating in the present experience of heightened spirituality. 

It would seem reasonable that the culturally recognisable issues of disregard for the body and 

disregard for the dead held some influence in the Corinthian church and go some way to 

illuminating the situation behind this chapter. 

It would seem then that the question prompted by John Chrysostom and John Calvin regarding 

the placement of this discussion at the end of the letter might be answered with reference to the 

pastoral motivation of Paul’s kerygmatic rhetoric. Hearing about a variety of culturally-driven 

problems among the Christians of Corinth, Paul creatively perceives a unifying orientation of 

boastful, present-obsessed human autonomy. He seeks to subject this orientation, with its 

varied manifestations, to the corrective of his apostolic kerygma, insisting that believers must 

identify with the cross of Christ in the present, while looking ahead to sharing in Christ’s 

resurrected glory. The issue of “denial of the resurrection of the dead” thus lends itself 

naturally to the pinnacle of this rhetorical movement. The issue represents the epitome of bold 

Corinthian unwillingness to inhabit Christ’s cross, and provides an opportunity for Paul to 

302

counter this unwillingness with the climactic solution of the divine gift of future resurrection 

for the dead in Christ. 

They gave up their lives for the crucified one. 98 

The one who has descended will rise with great gain. 99 


In this chapter I have noted that both Chrysostom and Calvin comment that the placement of 

the resurrection discussion defies the expectations of an arrangement governed by priority of 

importance. 

Scholars often attempt to account for the material in this chapter by understanding the 

underlying issue as either a rejection of postmortality, a belief that the resurrection had already 

occurred, or a rejection of postmortal corporeality. Each of these perspectives brings clarity to 

some parts of the chapter, but none is exclusively sufficient. 

The discussion may be illuminated by considering its rhetorical function before returning to 

consider the underlying situation. This rhetorical function, I argue, is best understood in terms 

of Paul’s kerygmatic rhetoric of reversal. All of the main issues in the chapter are anticipated 

in chapters 1–4, such that the resurrection discussion heightens the problem of proud human 

autonomy raised in those chapters, while bringing climactic resolution: humans are in need of 

the glory and immortality that can only come from God to the dead in Christ. 

The historical situation behind this discussion may be illuminated by the themes of disregard 

for the body and disregard for the dead, observable to varying degrees, for example, in first 

century Stoicism and Epicureanism. It seems possible, in particular, that some in Corinth are 

downplaying the ongoing significance of those who have died for the present experience of 

98 John Chrysostom, Homily 7; PG 61.65. 

99 Homily 22; PG 61.185. 

303

“spirituality” and “immortality”. Paul counters that true Spirit-uality and immortality are only 

promised to the dead in Christ, at the time when present powers will be destroyed. Paul’s 

kerygmatic rhetoric of reversal is thus brought to a climax. 

304

Conclusion 

There are three broad areas in which this dissertation might be seen to offer a contribution to 

scholarship: firstly, the relationship between certain interpretative approaches to 1 

Corinthians; secondly, the study of Pauline rhetoric; and thirdly, the coherence and 

arrangement of 1 Corinthians. 

1. Interpretative Approaches to 1 Corinthians 

One consistent interest throughout this study has been the complementarity of socio-historical 

and pastoral-theological perspectives on the issues of 1 Corinthians. These two perspectives 

enlighten situation and entextualisation respectively. 

In the last three decades, much fruitful work has been done on the socio-historical background 

to the “problems” addressed in 1 Corinthians. Throughout the dissertation I have drawn on 

such investigations that elucidate the problems as accommodations to secular ethics in Corinth 

(particularly secular models of leadership). There are also many interpreters who have 

explored the pastoral or theological direction of the letter. 

I pointed out in chapter 3 that John Chrysostom models an approach that combines both of 

these modes of attention. He understands the presenting situation in Corinth to relate 

especially to the prominence in the community of polished orators, whose would-be elite 

followers developed a disregard for the truly godly leaders. Chrysostom concurrently views 

this situation (and the parallel situation in fourth century Antioch) along the grain of Paul’s 

pastoral evaluation. The situation exudes boastful, present-obsessed human autonomy. In 

other words, in preferring polished orators while looking down upon socially unimpressive 

(but godly) leaders, the believers in Corinth are attaching their status to humans rather than to 

Christ, and are failing to defer their expectations for the full manifestation of “spirituality” and 

“immortality” to the time of Christ’s cosmic manifestation.

My own approach, in emulation of John Chrysostom, has been to complement the recent 

socio-historical work on the letter by focusing on the way in which a pastoral-theological 

perspective illuminates the arrangement of these issues as cohesive communication. Thus I 

have viewed the issues of chapters 1–4 both as political squabbles over leadership and as 

proud human autonomy. I have viewed the correctives of chapters 5–14 both as responses to 

secular ethical standards and as the summons to identify bodily with Christ. I have viewed the 

denial of the resurrection in chapter 15 both as a culturally observable response to the body 

and the dead and as the ultimate refusal to take on the role of the cruciform sufferer. 

2. Pauline Rhetoric 

This “pastoral-theological perspective”, of course, relates to the nature of Paul’s rhetoric, a 

major interest in this study. I have argued that Rhetorical Criticism as it has often been 

practised in the investigation of macro-structure is a rather narrow exercise, involving 

essentially the attempted detection of particular forms, or the detection of functional 

correlations between letter sections and the conventional parts of a speech. I have suggested 

that attention to the conceptual imagery of the kerygma may be a fruitful way of further 

broadening the investigation of Pauline rhetoric. 

I have suggested that it is too simplistic to view the communicative strategies of a particular 

subculture within the Roman Empire as being effectively dissolved into a generic “Greco- 

Roman rhetoric”. Rather, Paul is a figure whose experience on the Damascus Road led him to 

a life-altering kerygma of the Messiah who died, rose, and awaits cosmic manifestation. This 

kerygma, it seems, went on to shape the ways in which Paul adopted and adapted rhetorical 

resources, whether Jewish or Greco-Roman. 

I have sought, therefore, to account for the rhetoric of 1 Corinthians by giving attention not 

only to general Greco-Roman oratorical and literary devices or topoi (such as the technique of 

digression or the image of the multi-membered body), or general Jewish literary techniques 

(such as culturally relevant summaries of the Torah in the Hellenistic period), but most 

306

fundamentally to Paul’s kerygma of Jesus Christ. It is in this kerygma that the pervasive 

cultural conceptualisation of divinely arranged reversal in early Judaism is renegotiated to 

become the message of the crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus Christ. It is in this kerygma 

that traditional patterns of (Greco-Roman-influenced) Jewish ethical catechesis are 

renegotiated to represent identification with Jesus Christ in his bodily death, resurrection, and 

deferred manifestation. And it is this kerygma that gives shape and substance to the body of 1 

Corinthians. 

I contend that this not only does better justice to the identity of Paul the “rhetor”, but results in 

a more persuasive reading of 1 Corinthians. In particular, the placement and meaning of the 

resurrection chapter, which Mitchell’s rhetorical analysis fails to elucidate, are explained 

simply and elegantly by the application of what I have called kerygmatic rhetoric. 1 

This dissertation therefore represents one answer to the recent calls by Thomas Olbricht and 

Peter Lampe: 

We need to invent a rhetorical criticism that is consonant with biblical discourse. 2 

Future research should carefully note also the features of Paul’s rhetoric that cannot 

be “compared” and thus have become typically Pauline and Christian rhetoric. 3 

1 This broader conception of Pauline rhetoric, which views the conceptualisation of the 

kerygma as a rhetorical resource, may prove fruitful beyond 1 Corinthians. Indeed, it should 

be noted that the letters of the New Testament commonly arose in an environment in which 

Jesus was experienced and conceptualised (not least in liturgy) as died-and-exalted Messiah 

and archetype. This conceptualisation may be evidenced flexibly in the arrangement and 

formulations of many New Testament letters – whether in a “kerygmatic rhetoric of reversal” 

(1 Corinthians), a “rhetoric of kerygmatic identity and outworking” (Ephesians), a “rhetoric of 

kerygmatic exemplars” (Philippians), or other forms. This is not to deny the adoption of 

Greco-Roman epistolary or rhetorical features in these letters; but rather to be attentive to the 

context in which such adoption or adaptation occurred: that of a cultural group decisively 

transformed by the kerygma of Jesus Christ. 

2 Olbricht, “Rhetorical Criticism,” 27. 

3 Lampe, “Rhetorical Analysis,” in Paul and Rhetoric, (ed. Sampley and Lampe), 19. 

307

I do not consider it unreasonable to describe 1 Corinthians as evidencing “deliberative 

rhetoric”, if by that term one means that the letter attempts to persuade its hearers to take a 

particular course of action. But I contend that the concept of a kerygmatic rhetoric of reversal 

presented in this study carries greater explanatory power than the conventional macro-structure 

of a deliberative speech as an account of the movement of 1 Corinthians. 

3. The Coherence and Arrangement of 1 Corinthians 

I therefore present a summary of the arrangement of 1 Corinthians, expressing the coherence 

of the letter as a pastorally-formulated response to problems of cultural compromise in Corinth 

(arising especially from contentions over leadership), urging dependent identification with 

Christ in his death and deferred risen manifestation as an alternative to the present Corinthian 

boastful, present-obsessed human autonomy. 4 

4 Although my study has particularly concerned the generally-agreed main body of the letter 

(1:10-15:58), it will be evident from this overview that chapter 16 fits entirely with the 

direction I have suggested for the rest of the letter. Paul applies the climactic exhortation of 

15:58 to the primary presenting problem in Corinth, calling the community to honour those 

who labour (rather than being puffed up over them or crowding them out). 

308

Chapters 1–4: Divisive Boasting Over Human Leaders is Set Against the Present 

Inhabitation of Christ’s Cross 

1:10–2:5: The cross and human wisdom 

2:6–3:4: The Spirit and human capability 

3:5–4:5: Divine work and human authority 

4:6-21: Divinely ordained death and human boasting 

Chapters 5–14: The Cross Applied 

Chapters 5–7: The Cross Applied I: “Your Body Belongs to the Lord” 

Sexual Immorality, Impurity and Greed 

A: 5:1-13: Sexual Immorality (the refusal to judge) 

B: 6:1-11: Greedy exploitation (an apparent inability to judge) 

A ’ : 6:12–7:40: Sexual Immorality, the body, marriage 

Chapters 8–14: The Cross Applied II: “Discern the Body” 

Knowledge and Rights 

A: 8:1-13: Meat offered to idols (using knowledge and rights to endanger 

weaker brothers and sisters) 

B: 9:1-27: Paul’s example/defence (foregoing rights for others and 

self) 

A ’ : 10:1–11:1: Meat offered to idols (foregoing rights for self and others) 

Tradition and Division 

A: 11:2-16: “I praise you for keeping the traditions I passed on” (public 

worship) 

B: 11:17-22: “I do not praise you” (in both v17 and v22) 

A ’ : 11:23-34: “I passed on to you what I also received” (tradition of Lord’s 

Supper) 

Gifts and Love 

A: 12:1-31: Gifts within the body (mutual interdependence) 

B: 12:31–13:13: Love 

A ’ : 14:1-40: Gifts (for ordered edification of the whole) 

Chapter 15: Disregard for the Dead is Set Against the Future Inhabitation of Christ’s 

Resurrection 

15:1-11: The gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection, proclaimed by Paul, believed by the 

Corinthians, but in danger of vanity 

15:12-28: The trajectory of Christ’s resurrection from the dead – a trajectory that ends with 

the resurrection of believers and the destruction of enemy powers 

15:29-34: The example of those who effectively accept death in this life, including Paul’s 

ongoing experience of death 

15:35-49: God’s creative ability to raise bodies and initiate Spiritual status for those who 

would otherwise be “natural” 

15:50-58: A deferral of immortality to the power and timing of God, rather than the ability of 

flesh and blood 

Chapter 16: Concluding Local Application: Those Who Labour 

16:1-4: Collection for Jerusalem 

16:5-12: External figureheads: Paul, Timothy, Apollos 

16:13-18: Church labourers: Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus 

16:19-24: Greetings 

309

Bibliography 

Reference and Exegetical Aids 

Computer Concordances and Grammatical Aids 

Logos Bible Software 4. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 1992-2011. 

Other Reference Works 

Allenbach, J., ed. Biblia Patristica; Index des Citations et Allusions Bibliques dans la 

Litterature Patristique. 3 rd ed. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 

1975-1982. Online: http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/ 

Anderson, R. Dean Jr. Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms Connected to Methods of 

Argumentation, Figures and Tropes from Anaximenes to Quintilian. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. 

Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian 

Literature. Translated and revised by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker. 2 nd ed. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. 

Borgen, P., K. Fuglseth, and R. Skarsten. The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to 

the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. 

Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. 

Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. 

Glare, P.G.W. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. 

Hatch, E., and Redpath, H.A. A Concordance to the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Versions 

of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 

1998. 

Kittel, G., ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. 10 

vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964-76. 

Kohlenberger, John R. III, E.W. Goodrick, and J.A. Swanson. The Exhaustive Concordance to 

the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995. 

Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. 

Liddell, H.G. and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement. Revised by 

H.S. Jones and R. McKenzie. 9 th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. 

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2 nd ed. Deutsche 

Bibelgesellschaft, 1994, 2001. 

Swanson, Reuben, ed. New Testament Greek Manuscripts: 1 Corinthians: Variant Readings 

Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2003. 

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New 

Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Ancient Greco-Roman Literature (Greek and Latin Texts) 

Collections Consulted 

Evelyn-White, Hugh G. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation. 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914. No pages. Cited 8 th June 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0137:hymn=2 

Long, A.A., and D.N. Sedley, eds. The Hellenistic Philosophers Vol. 2: Greek and Latin Texts 

with Notes and Bibliography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 

Mommsen, Theodor, and Paul Krueger, eds. Digesta Iustiniani. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870. No 

pages. Cited 20 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.archive.org/details/digestaiustinia00mommgoog 

Additional Sources 

Achilles Tatius. The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon. Cited 7 th May 2009. Online: 

http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/Hodoi/concordances/intro.htm#ACHILLES%20TATIUS 

Aeschines. “Against Timarchus.” In Aeschines with an English translation by Charles Darwin 

Adams. Translated by Charles Darwin Adams. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 

1919. No pages. Cited 7 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0001%3aspeech% 

3d1 

Aeschylus. “Agammemnon.” In Aeschylus, with an English Translation. Translated by Herbert 

Weir Smyth. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926. No pages. Cited 12 th 

May 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253atext%253a1999.01.0003 

__________. “Prometheus Bound.” in Aeschylus, with an English Translation. Translated by 

Herbert Weir Smyth. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926. No pages. 

Cited 12 th May 2009. Online: 


Apuleius. Metamorphoses. Translated by J. Arthur Hanson. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press, 1996. 

Aristophanes. “Lysistrata.” In Aristophanes Comoediae, vol. 2. Edited by F.W. Hall and W.M. 

Geldart. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. No pages. Cited 15 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus%3Acorpus%3Aperseus%2 

Cwork%2CAristophanes%2C%20Lysistrata 

__________. “Plutus.” In Aristophanes Comoediae, vol. 2. Edited by F.W. Hall and W.M. 

Geldart. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. No pages. Cited 15 th May 2009. Online: 


Cwork%2CAristophanes%2C%20Plutus 

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Edited by J. Bywater. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894. 

__________. Politica. Edited by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. 

Demosthenes. “Erotic Essay” in Demosthenis Orationes. Edited by W. Rennie. Oxford: 

Clarendon Press, 1931. No pages. Cited 15 th June 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0079:speech=61 

311

__________. “Funeral Speech” in Demosthenis Orationes. Edited by W. Rennie. Oxford: 

Clarendon Press, 1931. No pages. Cited 15 th June 2009. Online: 


Dio Chrysostom. Dio Chrysostom. Translated by J. W. Cohoon. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, 

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932-1939. 

__________. First Tarsic Discourse. No pages. Cited 8 th June 2009. Online: 

http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/Textes/Dion_Chrysostome/dio_Chrys_Tarse_33 .txt 

__________. On Concord with the Apameians. No pages. Cited 8 th June 2009. Online: 

http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/Textes/Dion_Chrysostome/dio_Chrys_concorde_Ap 

amee_40.txt 

__________. The Rhodian Oration. No pages. Cited 8 th June 2009. Online: 

http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/Textes/Dion_Chrysostome/dio_Chrys_rhodiens_31. 

txt 

Diodorus Siculus. “Library”. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes with an English 

Translation. Vol. 4-8. edited by C. H. Oldfather. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 

1989. No pages. Cited May 7 th 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus%253Acorpus%253Aperse 

us%252Cauthor%252CDiodorus 

Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Robert Drew Hicks. 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925. Reprint with an introduction by Herbert 

Strainge Long, 1972. No pages. Cited 27th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0257%3Abook% 

3D1%3Achapter%3Dprologue 

Epictetus. “Orations” in Epicteti Dissertationes ab Arriano Digestae: Epictetus. Edited by 

Heinrich Schenkl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1916. No pages. Cited 12 th June 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0235:text=disc 

Euripides. “The Bacchae” in Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 3. Edited by Gilbert Murray. Oxford: 

Clarendon Press, 1913. No pages. Cited 3 rd June 2009. Online: 


Cwork%2CEuripides%2C%20Bacchae 

Flaccus, Q. Horatius (Horace). “Satires” in The Works of Horace. Edited by C. Smart. 

Philadelphia, Pa.: Joseph Whetham, 1836. No pages. Cited 10 th June 2009. Online: 


Isocrates. “Areopagiticus” in Isocrates With an English Translation in Three Volumes. Edited 

by George Norlin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1980. No pages. Cited 8 th June 

2009. Online: 


Maximus of Tyre. Oration 15. No pages. Cited 27 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/Textes/Maxime_Tyr/dissert_15.txt 

Pausanius. Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner 1903. No pages. Cited 

30 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0159 

312

Plato. Platonis Opera. Edited by John Burnet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903. No 

pages. Cited 25 th May 2009. Online: 


Cauthor%2CPlato 

Pliny the Younger. Letter to Avitas (II 6). No pages. Cited 25 th May 2009. Online: 


Plutarch. Life of Agis and Cleomenes. No pages. Cited 26 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/Textes/PLUTARQUE/uita_Agis_et_Cleomenes.txt 

__________. Life of Caesar. No pages. Cited 26 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/Textes/PLUTARQUE/uita_Caesaris.txt 

__________. Life of Demosthenes. No pages. Cited 26 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.sflt.ucl.ac.be/files/AClassFTP/Textes/PLUTARQUE/uita_demosthene.txt 

__________. “On Praising Oneself Inoffensively.” in Plutarch: Moralia Vol.7. Edited by 

Philip H. De Lacy and Benedict Einarson. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 

1959. 

Polybius. “The Histories” in Polybius: Historiae. Edited by Theodorus Büttner-Wobst. 

Leipzig: Teubner, 1893. No pages. Cited 25 th May 2009. Online: 


Rufus, Gaius Musonius. C. Musonii Rufi: Reliquiae. Edited by O. Hense. Leipzig: Teubner, 

1905. Repr. Leipzig: Teubner, 1990. 

Sophocles. The Oedipus at Colonus of Sophocles: Edited with Introduction and Notes. Edited 

by Richard Jebb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1889. No pages. Cited 25 th May 

2009. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0189 

Strabo. Geographica. Edited by A. Meineke. Leipzig: Teubner, 1877. No pages. Cited 25 th 

May 2009. Online: 


Suetonius Tranquillus. De vita Caesarum. Edited by Maximilian Ihm. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. 

No pages. Cited 25 th May 2009. Online: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%2BJul.%2B74%26fromdoc=Perseus%25 

3Atext%253A1999.02.0061 

Ancient Inscriptions 

Hopkinson, Neil ed. A Hellenistic Anthology. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1988. 

Horsley, G.H.R. ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 1: A Review of the Greek 

Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976. Sydney: Macquarie University, 1981. 

Hunt, A.S, and C. C. Edgar. Select Papyri: Private Affairs, With an English Translation. LCL. 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932. 

Kent, John Harvey. Corinth Vol. VIII, Part III: The Inscriptions 1926-1950. Princeton, N.J.: 

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966. 

313

Llewelyn, S.R. ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 9: A Review of the Greek 

Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1986-87. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. 

Meecham, Henry G. Light From Ancient Letters: Private Correspondence in the Nonliterary 

Papyri of Oxyrhynchus of the First Four Centuries, and its Bearing on New Testament 

Language and Thought. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1923. 

The Packard Humanities Institute Greek Inscriptions. No pages. Cited on 26 th August 2009. 

Online: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/ 

Ancient Jewish Literature (Greek and Hebrew Texts 

Besides Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, Apocrypha and Greek 

New Testament) 

“The Gabriel Revelation/Vision” in Messiahs and Resurrection in ‘The Gabriel Revelation’. 

By Israel Knohl. London: Continuum, 2009. 

Charles, R.H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 

Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. 

Geffcken, Johannes. The Sibylline Oracles, Book III. Manchester, N.H.: Ayer Company 

Publishers, 1979. Repr. Die Oracula Sibyllina, Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller 8. 

Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1902. 

Gurtner, Daniel M., with David M. Miller, and Ian W. Scott, eds. “2 Baruch” Edition 2.0. No 

Pages in The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha. Edited by Ken M. Penner, David M. Miller and 

Ian W. Scott. Atlanta, SBL, 2007. Cited April 2009. Online: 

http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/2Bar.html 

Josephus, Flavius. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, 

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965. 

Kittel, Bonnie, ed. The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 

1981. 

Miller, David M., and Ken M. Penner, eds. “Jubilees” Edition 1.0. No pages in The Online 

Critical Pseudepigrapha. Edited by Ken M. Penner, David M. Miller and Ian W. Scott. 

Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Cited April 2009. Online: http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/Jub.html 

Penner, Ken M., and Ian W. Scott, eds. “1 Enoch” Pre-publication Edition. No pages in The 

Online Critical Pseudepigrapha. Edited by Ken M. Penner, David M. Miller and Ian W. Scott. 

Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Cited April 2009. Online: http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/1Enoch.html 

Philo of Alexandria. Philo. Translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker. 10 vols. LCL. 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929-1962. 

Pseudo-Eupolemus. “Fragments.” Pages 157-188 in Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish 

Authors, Volume 1: Historians. Edited by Carl R. Holladay. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 

1983. 

Pseudo-Phocylides, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides with Introduction and Commentary. 

Edited by P.W. Van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1978. 

Scott, Ian W., ed. “Testament of Job” Edition 1.0. No pages, in The Online Critical 

Pseudepigrapha. Edited by Ken M. Penner, David M. Miller and Ian W. Scott. Atlanta: SBL, 

314

2006. Cited April 2009. Online: http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/TJob.html 

Wright, Robert B., ed. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. London: 

T&T Clark, 2007. 

Ancient Christian Literature 

Jewish-Christian Works 

De Jonge, M., ed. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek 

Text. Leiden: Brill, 1978. 

Stone, Michael E., ed. The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Recensions. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 

1972. 

Tischendorf, C., ed. Vita Adam et Evae: Apocalypsis Mosis. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1866. 

Patristics 

Collections Consulted 

The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 

vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. 

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Edited by Michael W. Holmes. 

3 rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. 

The Faith of the Early Fathers. Volumes 1-3. Edited by William A. Jurgens. Collegeville, 

Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1970-1979. 

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 1. Edited by Phillip Schaff. 1887. Repr. Peabody, 

Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. 

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 2. Edited by Phillip Schaff. 1893. Repr. Peabody, 

Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007. 

Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. 

Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864. 

Additional Sources 

Augustine, Aurelius. The City of God Against the Pagans. Edited by R.W. Dyson. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1998. 

__________. Letter 130: To Proba. No pages. Cited 12 th February 2008. Online: 

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/768/Letter_130_to_Proba_Augustine .html 

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Epistles of Paul and the Hebrews. Edited by Frederick 

Field. 7 vols. 1849-1862. 

315

Medieval and Reformation Literature 

Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on 1 Corinthians. Translated by Fabian Larcher, O. P. and 

Daniel Keating. No pages. Cited March 2010. Online: 

http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Aquinas-Corinthians.pdf 

Calvin, John. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. 2 vols. 

Translated by John Pringle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979. 

__________. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated and 

indexed by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1960. 

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works, Vol. 28: 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 15, Lectures on 1 

Timothy. Edited by J.J. Pelikan, H.C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann. Saint Louis, Mo.: 

Concordia, 1973. 

Modern Authors 

Aberbach, David. Imperialism and Biblical Prophecy 750-500 BCE. London: Routledge, 

1993. 

Ackerman, David A. Lo, I Tell You a Mystery: Cross, Resurrection, and Paraenesis in the 

Rhetoric of 1 Corinthians. Eugene, Oreg: Pickwick Publications, 2006. 

Adams, Edward, and David G. Horrell, eds. Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline 

Church. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 2004. 

Ahearne-Kroll, Stephen P. The Psalms of Lament in Mark's Passion: Jesus’ Davidic Suffering. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 

Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the 

Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2 nd ed. 

Translated by Erroll F Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989. 

Alexander, Loveday. “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians” JSNT 37 

(1989): 87-101. 

Anderson, R. Dean Jr. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Rev. Ed. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. 

Anthony, Alfred Williams. “The Ethics of Paul.” TBW 34/4 (1909): 249-258. 

Antier, Guilhen. “Entre Resurrection et Croix: Nommer L’Événement Selon Paul (1 

Corinthiens 15).” ETRel 79/4 (2004): 477-492. 

Ascough, Richard S. “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community-Building Language in 1 

Thessalonians 4:13-18.” JBL 123/3 (2004): 509-530. 

Asher, Jeffrey R. “Speiretai: Paul’s Anthropogenic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians.” JBL 120/1 

(2001): 101-123. 

Assman, Jan and John Czaplicka. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” NGC 65 (1995): 

125-133. 

316

Aune, David Charles. “Passions in the Pauline Epistles: The Current State of Research.” Pages 

221-237 in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. Edited by John T. 

Fitzgerald. London: Routledge, 2008. 

Bailey, Kenneth E. “The Structure of I Corinthians and Paul’s Theological Method with 

Special Reference to 4:17.” NovT 25/2 (1983): 152-181. 

Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55. Translated by Margaret Kohl. 

Hermen. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001. 

Barclay, John M.G., and Simon J Gathercole, eds. Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His 

Cultural Environment. London: T&T Clark, 2006. 

Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 

1997. 

Barrett, C.K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC 7. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 

1968. 

Bartchy, S. Scott. MAΛΛON XPHΣAI: First-Century Slavery and I Corinthians 7:21. SBL 

Dissertation Series xi. Missoula, Mont.: 1973. 

Barth, Karl. The Resurrection of the Dead. Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Reprint of The 

Resurrection of the Dead. Translated by H. J. Stenning. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1933. 

Translation of Auferstehung der Toten, Munich: Kaiser, 1924. 

Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. 

Leiden: Brill, 1998. 

__________. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the 

Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. 

Bayer, Oswald. Living by Faith: Justification and Sanctification. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 

Eerdmans, 2003. 

Becker, Jurgen. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Translated by O.C. Dean, Jr. Louisville, Ky.: 

Westminster John Knox, 1993. Translation of Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker. Tübingen: 

Mohr, 1989. 

Bell, Richard H. Provoked to Jealousy. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. 

Belleville, Linda L. “Continuity or Discontinuity: A Fresh Look at 1 Corinthians in the Light 

of First-Century Epistolary Forms and Conventions.” EQ 59/1 (1987): 15-37. 

Bird, Michael F. “Reassessing a Rhetorical Approach to Paul’s Letters.” ExpT 119/8 (2008): 

374-379. 

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late 

Antiquity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. 

Bockmuehl, Markus. The Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1997. 

__________. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian 

Public Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. 

__________. Revelation and Mystery. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. 

317

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Translated by Neville Horton Smith. London: SCM, 1955. 

Translation of Ethik. Edited by Eberhard Bethge. Munich: Kaiser, 1949. 

Boring, M. Eugene, Klaus Berger, and Carsten Colpe, eds. Hellenistic Commentary to the New 

Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1995. 

Brandon, S.G.F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive 

Christianity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. 

Bray, Gerald, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VII: 1-2 

Corinthians. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1999. 

Brown, Alexandra R. “Apocalyptic Transformation in Paul’s Discourse on the Cross.” WW 

16/4 (1996): 427-436. 

Brueggemann, Walter. “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon.” JSOT 50 

(1991): 63-92. 

__________. Praying the Psalms: Engaging Scripture and the Life of the Spirit. 2 nd ed. Milton 

Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. 

Bruce, F. F. “Paul the Apostle.” Pages 696-720 in Vol 3 of International Standard Bible 

Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 4 Vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 

1979, 1995. 

Brunt, P.A. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. 

Bryan, Christopher. Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. 

Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting. SVTP. Leiden: 

Brill, 2003. 

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 

London: SCM, 1952-1955. Translation of Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr, 

1948–53. 

Burke, J. Trevor, and J. Keith Elliott, eds. Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community 

in Conflict. Leiden: Brill, 2003. 

Burket, Walter. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. 

Burridge, Richard A. Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Grand 

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. 

Butarbutar, Robinson. Paul and Conflict Resolution: An Exegetical Study of Paul’s Apostolic 

Paradigm in 1 Corinthians 9. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. 

Callan, Terrence. Dying and Rising with Christ: The Theology of Paul the Apostle. New York: 

Paulist Press, 2006. 

Callow, Kathleen. “Patterns of Thematic Development in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13.” Pages 194- 

206 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by David A. Black. Nashville, 

Tenn.: Broadman, 1992. 

Campbell, A.V., “Dying with Christ: The Origin of a Metaphor”. Pages 273-293 in Baptism, 

the New Testament and the Church. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield 

318

Academic Press, 1999. 

Carrez, M. “La Confiance en l’Homme et la Confiance en Soi Selon l’Apotre Paul” RHPR 44 

(1964): 191-199. 

Carroll, Kenneth L. “The Expansion of the Pauline Corpus.” JBL 72/4 (1953): 230-237. 

Castor, George D. “Johannes Weiss’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians.” AJT 15/4 (1911): 628- 

630. 

Chafe, Wallace. “Beyond Beads on a String and Branches in a Tree.” Pages 49-65 in 

Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Edited by Adele E. Goldberg. Stanford, 

Calif.: CSLI, 1996. 

__________. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious 

Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: Darton, 

Longman & Todd, 1985. 

__________. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. Cambridge: 


Chase, Frederic Henry. Chrysostom: A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation. 1887. 

Repr., Charleston, S.C.: Bibliolife, 2009. 

Cheon, Samuel. The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: A Study in Biblical 

Interpretation. Sheffield: Sheffied Academic Press, 1997. 

Chilton, Bruce D. God in Strength: Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom. Freistadt: Verlag F. 

Plöchl, 1979. 

Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. Sheffield: JSOT 

Press, 1992. 

Ciampa, Roy E. “Revisiting the Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7.1.” JSNT 31/3 (2009): 325- 

338. 

__________, and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids, 

Mich.: Eerdmans, forthcoming. 

__________, and Brian S. Rosner. “The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A 

Biblical/Jewish Approach.” NTS 52 (2006): 205-218. 

Clarke, Andrew D. A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. LNTS 362. London: T&T 

Clark, 2008. 

__________. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical 

Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Repr., Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. 

Clines, D.A. I, He, We and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53. JSOT Supplement 1. 

Sheffield: Continuum, 1976. 

Cluysenaar, Anne. Introduction to Literary Stylistics. London: B.T. Batsford, 1976. 

Collier, G.D. “ ‘That We Might Not Crave Evil’: The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 

10.1-13.” JSNT 17/55 (1995): 55-75. 

319

Collins, A.Y. “The Appropriation of the Psalms of Individual Lament by Mark.” Pages 223- 

241 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. Leuven: Leuven University 

Press, 1997. 

Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic 

Literature. 2 nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. 

__________. “The Root of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom.” HTR 71/3 

(1978): 177-192. 

__________. Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. SacP 7. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999. 

Combs, William W. “Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and New Testament Interpretation.” GTJ 8.2 

(1987): 195-212. 

Conzelmann, Hans. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Hermeneia. Edited 

by George W. MacRae. Translated by James W. Leitch. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1975. 

Translation of Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. 

Cosmopoulos, Michael B., ed. Greek Mysteries: The Archeology & Ritual of Ancient Greek 

Secret Cults. London: Routledge, 2003. 

Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. London: SPCK, 1989. 

Countryman, L. William. Dirt, Greed, & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their 

Implications for Today. Rev. ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2007. 

Crossan, John Dominic. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. Sonoma, Calif.: 

Polebridge, 1992. 

Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History. 

2 nd ed. London: SCM, 1962. 

Cummins, Stephen Anthony. “Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, 

and the Covenant Community in Paul.” Pages 190-209 in The Messiah in the Old and New 

Testaments. Edited by Stanely E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. 

__________. Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 

1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 

Davies, Philip R. “The Social World of Apocalyptic Writings.” Pages 251-274 in The World of 

Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives: Essays by Members 

of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by Ronald Ernest Clements. Cambridge: 


Davies, W.D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 

London: SPCK, 1955. 

Davis, James A. Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:18-3:20 Against the 

Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period. Lanham, Md.: 

University Press of America, 1984. 

De Boer, Martinus C. “The Composition of 1 Corinthians.” NTS 40/2 (1994): 229-245. 

320

__________. The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 

5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. 

___________. “The Deniers of the Resurrection and Their Social Status.” Pages 329-345 in 

Saint Paul and Corinth: 1950 Years Since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians. 

Edited by Constantine J. Belezos. Athens: Psychogios Publications, 2009. 

__________. “Paul’s Use of a Resurrection Tradition in 1 Cor 15,20-28.” Pages 639-651 in 

The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by R. Bieringer. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 

1996. 

De Jonge, M. Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case 

of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve. Leiden: Brill, 

2003. 

Deines, Roland. “Das Aposteldekret – Halacha für Heidenchristen oder christliche 

Rücksichtnahme auf jüdische Tabus?” Pages 323-395 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman 

World. Edited by Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog. Leiden: Brill, 

2007. 

__________. “How Long? God’s Revealed Schedule for Salvation and the Outbreak of the Bar 

Kokhba Revolt.” Forthcoming. 

__________. “Pharisäer.” Pages 1455-1468 in Theologishes Begriffslexikon zum Neuen 

Testament: Neubearbeite Ausgabe. Band 2. Edited by Lothar Coenen and Klaus R. Haacker. 

Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2000. 

__________. “The Pharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism.’ ” 443-504 in 

Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol.1. Edited by D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and 

Mark Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. 

Delobel, J. “The Corinthians’ (Un-)belief in the Resurrection.” Pages 343-355 in Resurrection 

in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Edited by R. Bieringer, V. Koperski and B. 

Lataire. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. 

Deming, Will. Paul on Marriage & Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. 

2 nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. 

Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Palingenesia.” JSNT 20 (1984): 51-58. 

Donahoe, Kate C. “From Self-Praise to Self-Boasting: Paul’s Unmasking of the Conflicting 

Rhetorico-Linguistic Phenomena in 1 Corinthians.” Ph.D. diss., University of St. Andrews, 

2008. 

Donfried, Karl Paul. Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2002. 

Doyle, Robert C. Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. 

Dunn, J.D.G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek 

Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. 

__________. “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus as Sacrifice.” Pages 35-56 in 

Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology. Edited by S.W. Sykes. Cambridge: 


__________. Romans 9-16. WBC. Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1988. 

321

Dutch, Robert S. The Educated Elite in 1 Corinthians: Education & Community Conflict in 

Greco-Roman Context. London: T & T Clark, 2005. 

Eades, Diana. “Aboriginal English.” Primary English Teachers’ Association, Pen 93 (1993): 2. 

Cited 23 rd July 2010. Online: 

http://www.elit.edu.au/mediaLibrary/documents/pens/PEN093.pdf. 

__________. Aboriginal English and the Law: Communicating with Aboriginal English 

Speaking Clients: A Handbook for Legal Practitioners. Brisbane: Queensland Law Society, 

1992. 

Ekem, John D. “ ‘Spiritual Gifts’ or ‘Spiritual Persons’? 1 Corinthians 12:1a Revisited.” Neot 

38.1 (2004): 54-74. 

Elledge, C.D. Life After Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus. Tübingen: Mohr 

Siebeck, 2006. 

Emdens, Jacob. “Rabbi Jacob Emdem’s Views on Christianity and the Noachide 

Commandments.” Translated by Harvey Falk. JES 19.1 (1982): No pages. Cited 16 th October 

2007. Online: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html 

Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ed. Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Louisville, Ky.: 

Westminster John Knox, 2001. 

Eriksson, Anders. Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians. 

ConB, New Testament Series 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998. 

__________, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker, eds. Rhetorical Argumentation in 

Biblical Texts. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002. 

Everson, Stephen, ed. Companions to Ancient Thought 4: Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, 1998. 

Fairchild, Mark R. “Paul’s Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-examination of Gal. 1.14 

and Acts 22.3.” NTS 45 (1999): 514-532. 

Farmer, William Reuben. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish 

Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. 

Farnell, L.R. Outline-History of Greek Religion. Chicago: Ares Publishing, 1974. 

Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. 2 nd rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 


__________. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, Mass.: 

Hendrickson, 2007. 

Fergusson, David. “Barth’s Resurrection of the Dead: Further Reflections.” SJT 56/1 (2003): 

65-72. 

Finch, Jeffrey. “Irenaeus on the Christological Basis of Human Divinization.” Pages 86-103 in 

Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology. Edited by Stephen Finlan and Vladimir 

Kharlamov. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2006. 

Finegan, Jack. Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical 

World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1989. 

322

Fiori, B. “ ‘Covert Allusion’ in 1 Corinthians 1-4.” CBQ 47 (1985): 85-102. 

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 

AYB. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008. 

__________. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. 

Forbes, Christopher. “Paul and Rhetorical Comparison.” Pages 134-171 in Paul in the Greco- 

Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. P. Sampley. Harrisburg, TPI, 2003. 

__________. Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic 

Environment. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. 

Fotopoulos, John. Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical 

Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. WUNT 2/151. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. 

Fowl, Stephen E. Philippians. THNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. 

Furnish, Victor Paul. The Love Command in the New Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 

1972. 

__________. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1968. 

Gaca, Kathy L. Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek 

Philosophy and Early Christianity. Ewing, N.J.: University of California Press, 2003. 

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. 

Marshall. 2nd rev. ed. London: Continuum, 2004. Translation of Wahrheit und Methode: 

Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. 2nd ed. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1960. 

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation. Milton 

Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2006. 

__________. “ ‘Life-Giving Spirit’: Probing the Center of Paul’s Pneumatology.” JETS 41/4 

(1998): 573-589. 

Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. 

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995. 

__________. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & 

Stock, 2002. Reprint of The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. GBS. 

Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1985. 

__________. “The Redaction of the Pauline Letters and the Formation of the Pauline Corpus.” 

JBL 94/3 (1975): 403-418. 

__________. The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary 

Criticism. Studies and Documents 42. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977. 

Garcilazo, Albert V. The Corinthian Dissenters and the Stoics. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. 

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003. 

Garrison, Roman. The Graeco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature. Sheffield: 

Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. 

323

Gathercole, Simon J. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in 

Romans 1-5. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. 

Gibson, J. “Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a ‘Sign’ (Mk 8.11-13).” JSNT (1990/12): 37-66. 

Gitay, Yehoshua. “Psalm 1 and the Rhetoric of Religious Argumentation.” Pages 232-240 in 

Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L.J. de Regt, J. de 

Waard and J.P. Fokkelmann. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. 

Goodblatt, David M. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge 


Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His 

Letters. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. 

__________. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 


Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. 

Grabbe, Lester L. “Eschatology in Philo and Josephus.” Pages 163-186 in Judaism in Late 

Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection, and the World to Come. Edited by 

Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 2000. 

__________. Wisdom of Solomon. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffied Academic Press, 1997. 

Grayston, Kenneth. Dying, We Live: A New Inquiry into the Death of Christ in the New 

Testament. London: Longman and Todd, 1990. 

Gregory, Andrew F., and Christopher Mark Tuckett. The Reception of the New Testament in 

the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. 

Grieb, A. Katherine. “Last things first: Karl Barth’s theological exegesis of 1 Corinthians in 

The Resurrection of the Dead.” SJT56/1 (2003): 49-64. 

Grindheim, S. “Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church.” JBL 

121/4 (2002): 689-709. 

Gundry, Robert H. Sōma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology. 


Habib, M.A.R. A History of Literary Criticism and Theory From Plato to the Present. Oxford: 

Blackwell, 2005. 

Hall, David R. The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence. London: T&T Clark, 2003. 

Harris, Murray. “Resurrection and Immortality: Eight Theses.” Them 1.2 (1976): 50-55. 

Harvey, John D. Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 

Baker, 1998. 

Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s 

Scriptures. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. 

__________. “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 

Corinthians.” NTS 45 (1999): 391-412. 

324

__________. “Ecclesiology and Ethics in 1 Corinthians.” ExAu 10 (1994): 31-43. Cited 16 th 

October 2007. Online: http://www.northpark.edu/sem/exauditu/papers/hays.html 

__________. First Corinthians. Interp. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997. 

Hellholm, David, ed. Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. 

Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 

1979. 2 nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. 

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. 

London: SCM, 1977. 

__________. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the 

Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1974. Translation of 

Judentum und Hellenismus. WUNT, 10. 2 nd ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973. 

__________. The Zealots: Investigations Into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period 

From Herod I Until 70A.D. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989. 

Translation of Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von 

Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. AGAJU 1. 2 nd ed. Brill: Leiden, 1976. 

__________, and Roland Deines. The Pre-Christian Paul. Translated by John Bowden. 

London: SCM, 1991. 

__________, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch. Translated by 

John Bowden. London: SCM, 1997. 

Herford, R. Travers. Talmud and Apocrypha: A Comparative study of the Jewish Ethical 

Teaching in the Rabbinical and Non-Rabbinical Sources in the Early Centuries. New York: 

Ktav, 1971. 

Héring, Jean. The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by A. W. 

Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. London: Epworth, 1962. Translation of La Première Épître de 

Saint Paul aux Corinthiens. 2 nd ed. CNT 7. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1959. 

Hester, James D. “Rhetoric and the Composition of the Letters of Paul.” No Pages. Cited 4 th 

May 2007. Online: http://rhetjournal.net/HesterComp.html 

Heydrich, Wolfgang, Fritz Neubauer, Janos S. Petofi, and Emel Sozer, eds. Connectivity and 

Coherence: Analysis of Text and Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. 

Hill, C.E. “Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28.” NovT 30/4 

(1988): 297-320. 

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker 

Academic, 2002. 

Holland, Tom. Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on 

Paul’s Biblical Writings. Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2004. 

Hollander, Harm W. Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 


__________, and J. Holleman. “The Relationship of Death, Sin and Law in 1 Cor 15:56.” 

NovT 35/3 (1993): 270-291. 

325

Holleman, Joost. Resurrection & Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology 

in 1 Corinthians 15. Leiden: Brill, 1995. 

Horrell, David G. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology 

from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. 

__________. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. 

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2005. 

__________. “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 

8.1-11.1.” JSNT 20/67 (1998): 83-114. 

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians. ANTC. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998. 

__________. “ ‘How Can Some of You Say That There is No Resurrection of the Dead?’ 

Spiritual Elitism in Corinth.” NovT 20.3 (1978): 203-231. 

Hoskyns, E.C. and Noel Davey. Crucifixion-Resurrection: The Pattern of the Theology and 

Ethics of the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1981. 

House, H. Wayne. “Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth.” BSac 140/558 (1983): 

134. 

Hovey, Craig. To Share in the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today’s Church. Grand 

Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2008. 

Huby, Pamela. Greek Ethics. Bristol: Thoemmes, 1967. 

Hughes, Frank W. “George Kennedy’s Contribution to Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline 

Letters.” Pages 125-138 in Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy’s Rhetoric of the New 

Testament. Edited by C. Clifton Black, and Duane F. Watson. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University 

Press, 2008. 

Hull, Michael F. Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the 

Resurrection. Leiden: Brill, 2006. 

Hultgren, Arland J. “Paul’s Pre-Christian Persecutions of the Church: Their Purpose, Locale, 

and Nature.” JBL 95.1 (1976): 97-111. 

Hultgren, Stephen. “The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15.45- 

49.” JSNT 25.3 (2003): 343-370. 

Humphreys, W. Lee. “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel.” 

JBL 92/2 (1973): 211-223. 

Hurd, John C. “Good News and the Integrity of 1 Corinthians.” Pages 38-62 in Gospel in 

Paul: Studies in 1 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. Edited by L. Ann Jervis and Peter 

Richardson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. 

__________. “The Jesus Whom Paul Preaches.” Pages 73-89 in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in 

Honour of Francis Wright Beare. Edited by Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd. Waterloo, 

Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. 

__________. The Origin of 1 Corinthians. London: SPCK, 1965. 

Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand 

Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2006. 

326

__________. “Jesus’ death as paradigmatic in the New Testament.” SJT 57/4 (2004): 413-433. 

__________. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, 

Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. 

Isherwood, Lisa, and Elizabeth Stuart. Introducing Body Theology. Sheffield: Sheffield 


Jeffers, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the NT Era. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1999. 

Jeremias, J. “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God.” NTS 2 (1956): 151-59. 

Jewett, Robert. “The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School.” 

JAAR 44/4 Supplement (1978): 398-444. 

Johnson, Alan F. 1 Corinthians. IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, 

Ill.: IVP 2004. 

Johnson, Andrew. “Firstfruits and Death’s Defeat: Metaphor in Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in 1 

Cor 15:20-28.” WW 16/4 (1996): 456-464. 

__________. “Turning the World Upside Down in 1 Corinthians 15: Apocalyptic 

Epistemology, the Resurrected Body and the New Creation.” EQ 75/4 (2003): 291-309. 

Johnson, Lee A. “Paul’s Epistolary Presence in Corinth: A New Look at Robert W. Funk’s 

Apostolic Parousia.” CBQ 68 (2006): 481-500. 

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. SacP. Collegeville, Minesota: Order of St. 

Benedict, 1992. 

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early 

Christianity. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1988. 

Käsemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W.J. Montague. London: 

SCM, 1969. 

Keck, Leander E. “Re-thinking ‘New Testament Ethics’.” JBL 115/1 (1996): 3-16. 

Keener, Craig S. 1-2 Corinthians. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 

Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill, 

N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. 

Kent, John Harvey. Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by The American School of 

Classical Studies at Athens, Volume VIII, Part III: The Inscriptions 1926-1950. Princeton, N. 

J.: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966. 

Kern, Philip H. Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle. Cambridge: 


Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981. 

Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis. 

Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006. 

327

Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 

2000. 

__________. “Pure Violence: Sacrifice and Defilement in Ancient Israel.” HTR 94/2 (2001): 

133-155. 

Klutz, Todd E. “Re-reading 1 Corinthians after Rethinking ‘Gnosticism.’ ” JSNT 26/2 (2003): 

193-216. 

Knight, George W. III. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. 

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992. 

Knight, W.F. Jackson. Elysion: On Ancient Greek and Roman Beliefs Concerning a Life After 

Death. London: Rider & Company, 1970. 

Koester, Helmut. History, Culture & Religion of the Hellenistic Age. 2 nd ed. New York: De 

Gruyter, 1995. 

__________. History & Literature of Early Christianity. 2 nd ed. New York: De Gruyter, 2000. 

Kolarcik, Michael. The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1-6: A Study of Literary 

Structure and Interpretation. AnB 127. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. 

Kovacs, Judith L., ed. 1 Corinthians Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Grand 


Kratz, Reinhard G. “Israel in the Book of Isaiah.” JSOT 31/1 (2006): 103-128. 

Krentz, Edgar. “1 Thessalonians: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints.” Pages 255- 

286 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? 

Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. 

Kugler, Robert A. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffield 


Kwiran, Manfred. “The Resurrection of the Dead: 1 Corinthians 15 and its Interpretation.” 

Spring 39/1 (1975): 44-56. 

Kwon, Oh-Young. “A Critical Review of Recent Scholarship on the Pauline Opposition and 

the Nature of its Wisdom (σοφία) in 1 Corinthians 1-4.” CBR 8/3 (2010): 386-427. 

Ladd, George Eldon. Jesus Christ and History. Chicago: IVP, 1963. 

__________. “The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom.” JBR 31/3 (July 1963): 193- 

199. 

Lampe, Peter, “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross.” Interp 48 (1994): 36-49. 

Lee, Michelle V. Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press, 2006. 

Leonhardt, Jutta. Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. 

Lewis, Scott M. So That God May Be All in All: The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Corinthians 

15:12-34. TGST 42. Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1998. 

Lincoln, Andrew T., Ephesians. WBC. Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1990. 

328

Lindemann, Andreas. Der erste Korintherbrief. HNT 9/1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. 

Litfin, Duane. St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-Roman 

Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 

Loader, William R.G. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in 

Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. 

__________. Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in the Early 

Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 


Lohse Eduard. Theological Ethics of the New Testament. Translated by Eugene Boring. 

Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1991. Translation of Theologische Ethik des Neuen 

Testaments. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988. 

Longenecker, Bruce W., ed. Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Louisville, 

Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002. 

Longenecker, Richard N., ed. The Road From Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on 

His Life, Thought, and Ministry. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. 

Malcolm, Ian G. and Farzad Sharifian. “Aspects of Aboriginal English Oral Discourse: An 

Application of Cultural Schema Theory.” DisS 4/2 (2002): 169-181. 

__________. and Susan Kaldor. “Aboriginal English: An Overview.” Pages 67-84 in 

Language in Australia. Edited by Suzanne Romaine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

1991. 

Malherbe, Abraham J. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Atlanta Ga.: SBL, 1988. 

__________. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 

1986. 

__________. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1989. 

Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995. 

__________. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New 

Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990. 

Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985. 

__________. Word Biblical Themes: 1,2 Corinthians. Dallas, Tex.: Word Publishing, 1988. 

Marxsen, Willi. New Testament Foundations for Christian Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 

1993. 

Mayer, Wendy, and Pauline Allen. John Chrysostom. ECF. London: Routledge, 2000. 

McDonough, Sean M. “Competent to Judge: The Old Testament Connection Between 1 

Corinthians 5 and 6.” JTS 56/1 (April 2005): 99-102. 

McKim, Donald D., ed. Calvin and the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 

329

McKnight, Scot. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand 


Meeks, Wayne. The Moral World of the First Christians. London: SPCK, 1986. 

Merklein, Helmut. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Vols 1-3. ÖTKNT 7. Gütersloh: 

Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992-2005. 

__________. “Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes.” ZNW 75 (1984): 153-183. 

Metts, Roy. “Death, Discipleship, and Discourse Strategies: 2 Cor 5:1-10 Once Again.” CrTR 

4.1 (1989): 57-76. 

Michielin, Maico. “Bridging the Gulf Between Biblical Scholars and Theologians: Can Barth 

and Wright Provide an Answer?” SJT 61/4 (2008): 420–434. 

Mitchell, Margaret M. “Concerning περὶ δέ in 1 Corinthians.” NovT 31/3 (1989): 229-256. 

__________. The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation. 

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Repr., Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002. 

__________. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the 

Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991. 

Mitchell, Matthew W. “Reexamining the ‘Aborted Apostle’: An Exploration of Paul’s Self- 

Description in 1 Corinthians 15:8.” JSNT 25/4 (2003): 469-485. 

Mohrlang, Roger. Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives. Cambridge: 


Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. 

Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. TNTC. Nottingham: IVP Academic, 2008. Reprint of The First 

Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. 2 nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985. 

Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J.J. Menken, eds. Isaiah in the New Testament. London: T&T 

Clark, 2005. 

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2009. 

__________. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. 

__________. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, Minn.: 

Liturgical Press, 1995. 

Nanos, Mark. “When in Rome, Would the Paul of ‘All Things to All People’ (1 Cor 9:19-23) 

Do as the Romans Do?” Paper presented at the Paul and Pauline Literature program unit, 

International Meeting of the SBL. Rome, 2 nd July, 2009. 

Neyrey, Jerome H. “The Social Location of Paul: Education as the Key.” Pages 126-164 in 

Fabrics of Discourse. Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins. Edited by David B. Gowler, L. 

Gregory Bloomquist and Duane F. Watson. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2003. 

Nguyen, V. Henry T. “The Identification of Paul’s Spectacle of Death Metaphor in 1 

Corinthians 4.9.” NTS 53/4 (2007): 489-501. 

330

Nicholl, Colin R. From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 


Nickelsburg, George W.E. “An ἐκτρώμα, Though Appointed From the Womb: Paul’s 

Apostolic Self-Description in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1.” HTR 79.1/3 (1986): 198-205. 

__________. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2 nd ed. Minneapolis, 

Minn.: Fortress Press, 2005. 

__________. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and 

Early Christianity. Expanded ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. 

Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der 

frühjüdischen Literatur. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. 

__________. “Hellenistisch-jüdisches Ethos im Spannungsfeld von Weisheit und Tora.” Pages 

27-50 in Ethos und Identität: Einheit und Vielfalt des Judentums in hellenistisch-römischer 

Zeit. Edited by Matthias Konradt and Ulrike Steinert. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2002. 

Nussbaum, Martha C. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. 

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. 

O’Day, Gail R. “Jeremiah 9:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31: A Study in Intertextuality.” JBL 

109/2 (1990): 259-267. 

Olbricht, Thomas H. “Rhetorical Criticism in Biblical Commentaries.” CBR 7/1 (2008): 11-36. 

__________, and Anders Eriksson, eds. Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical 

Discourse. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. 

Oropeza, B.J. “Laying to Rest the Midrash: Paul’s Message on Meat Sacrificed to Idols in 

Light of the Deuteronomic Tradition.” Bib 79 (1998): 57-68. 

__________. Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the 

Corinthian Congregation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. 

Pagels, Elaine H. “ ‘The Mystery of the Resurrection’: A Gnostic Reading of 1 Corinthians 

15.” JBL 93/2 (June 1974): 276-288. 

Palmer, Gary B. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas 

Press, 1996. 

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “A Theology of the Cross.” WW 8/2 (1988): 162-172. 

__________. Systematic Theology. Vol II. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: 

T&T Clark Ltd, 1991. Translation of Systematische Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 

Ruprecht, 1991. 

__________. Theology and the Kingdom of God. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1969. 

Parker, D.C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: 


Patrick, James E. “Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 

Corinthians 15:29.” NTS 52 (2006): 71-85. 

331

Pearson, Birger Albert. The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology: A Study in the Theology of 

the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism. SBL Dissertation Series 12. 

Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973. 

Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. Garden 

City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984. 

Perrin, Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. London: SCM, 1963. 

Peterson, David. “Worship and Ethics in Romans 12.” TB 44/2 (1993): 271-288. 

Pickett, Raymond. The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of Jesus. 

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. 

Pogoloff, Stephen M. Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians. Atlanta 

Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. 

Pokorný, Petr and Ulrich Heckel. Einleitung in das Neue Testament: seine Literatur und 

Theologie im Überblick. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. 

Porter, Stanley E., ed. The Pauline Canon. Leiden: Brill, 2004. 

__________. “Understanding Pauline Studies. An Assessment of Recent Research: Part One.” 

Them 22.1 (1996): 14-25. 

__________, and Craig A. Evans, eds. New Testament Interpretation and Methods: A Sheffield 

Reader. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. 

__________, and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds. Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 

1992 Heidelberg Conference. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. 

Poster, Carol. “A Conversation Halved: Epistolary Theory in Graeco-Roman Antiquity.” 

Pages 21-51 in Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present: 

Historical and Bibliographic Studies. Edited by Carol Poster and Linda Mitchell. Columbia, 

S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2007. 

Powers, Daniel G. Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the 

Believers’ Corporate Unity With Christ in Early Christian Soteriology. Leiden: Peeters, 2001. 

Price, Robert. “Evolution of the Pauline Canon.” HvTSt (1997): 36-67. Cited 22nd July 2008. 

Online: http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPcanon.html. 

Prior, William J. Virtue and Knowledge: An Introduction to Ancient Greek Ethics. London: 

Routledge, 1991. 

Probst, Hermann. Paulus und der Brief: Die Rhetorik des antiken Briefes als Form der 

paulinischen Korintherkorrespondenz (1 Kor 8-10). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. 

Radice, Roberto. “Philo and Stoic Ethics. Reflections on the Idea of Freedom.” Pages 141-168 

in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. Edited by Francesca Alesse. Leiden: 

Brill, 2008. 

Raeder, Maria. “Vikariatstaufe in 1 Cor 15:29?” ZNW 46:3-4 (1955): 16-18. 

Rahner, Hugo. Greek Myths and Christian Mystery. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. 

Ramsay, William, M. Historical Commentary on First Corinthians. Revised and updated by 

332

Mark Wilson. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1996. Reprint of Historical Commentary on First 

Corinthians. Vol 1-3. The Expositor. Series 6. 1900-1901. 

Ratzinger, Joseph/Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to 

the Transfiguration. London: Doubleday, 2007. 

Reaume, John D. “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, ‘Baptized for the Dead’.” BSac 152 

(October-December 1995): 457-475. 

Reid, Robert S. “Paul’s Conscious Use of the Ad Herennium’s ‘Complete Argument’.” RSQ 

(04/2005): 65-92. 

Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and 

Collection. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2004. 

__________. “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” BBR 8 (1998): 151-166. 

Richardson, Peter. “Judgment in Sexual Matters in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11.” NovT 25/1 (1983): 

37-58. 

__________, and John C. Hurd, eds. From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright 

Beare. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. 

Riches, John. Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 

1980. 

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 

First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911. 

Robertson, C.K. Conflict in Corinth: Redefining the System. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. 

Robinson, D.W.B. “Charismata versus Pneumatika: Paul’s Method of Discussion.” RTR 21.2 

(1972): 49-55. 

Robinson, John A.T. The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology. London: SCM, 1952. 

Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. 4 th ed. Louisville, Ky.: 

Westminster John Knox, 1998. 

Rosner, Brian S. “The Concept of Idolatry.” Them 24.3 (May 1999): 21-30. 

__________. Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor. Grand 


__________. “A Possible Quotation of Test. Reuben 5:5 in 1 Corinthians 6:18a.” JTS 43/1 

(1992): pp123-127. 

__________. Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7. Leiden: Brill, 1994. 

__________. “Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.” NovT 40/4 (1998): 336-351. 

__________, ed. Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Grand Rapids, 

Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. 

Rudolph, David J. “A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Cor 9:19- 

23.” Ph.D. Diss., Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, 2006. (Forthcoming in revised 

version, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 

333

Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford 


Ryle, Herbert Edward. Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon. 


Sampley, J. Paul. Walking Between the Times: Paul’s Moral Reasoning. Minneapolis, Minn.: 

Fortress Press, 1991. 

__________, and Peter Lampe, eds. Paul and Rhetoric. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. 

__________, Robert W. Wall, and N.T. Wright, The New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts – 1 

Corinthians. Vol. 10. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2002. 

Sanders, Jack T. “Wisdom, Theodicy, Death, and the Evolution of Intellectual Traditions.” JSJ 

36/3 (2005): 263-277. 

Saw, Insawn. Paul’s Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 15: An Analysis Utilizing the Theories of 

Classical Rhetoric. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1995. 

Schenk, Wolfgang. “Der 1 Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung.” ZNW 60 (1969): 219-243. 

Schmithals, Walter, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians. 

Translated by John E. Steely. 3 rd ed. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1971. 

__________. “Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung.” ZNW 64 (1973): 263-288. 

Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. HTA. Wuppertal: 

Brockhaus, 2006. 

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. God’s Rule and Kingdom. London: Burns & Oates, 1968. Reprint of 

God’s Rule and Kingdom. Translated by John Murray. New York: Herder & Herder, 1963. 

Translation of Gottes Herrschaft und Reich. Freiburg: Herder, 1963. 

Schoedel, William R., and Robert L. Wilken, eds. Early Christian Literature and the Classical 

Intellectual Tradition: In Honorem Robert M. Grant. Paris: Beauchesne, 1979. 

Schowalter, Daniel N. & Steven J. Friesen, eds. Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: 

Interdisciplinary Approaches. HTS 53. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005. 

Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. 4 vols. EKKNT, 7. Zürich: Benzinger, 

1991-2001. 

__________. The Ethics of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. 

__________. Studien zur Theologie im 1. Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Neukirchener, 2007. 

Schuller, Eileen. “A Hymn from a Cave Four Hodayot Manuscript: 4Q427 7 i + ii.” JBL 112/4 

(1993): 605-628. 

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. “Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revelation and Paul.” 

JBL 92.4 (1973): 565-581. 

__________. “Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians.” NTS 33 

(1987): 386-403. 

334

Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William Montgomery 

London: Adam & Charles Black, 1953. Translation of Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus. 

Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr, 1930. 

Schweizer, Eduard. Lordship and Discipleship. SBT 28. London: SCM, 1960. Translation of 

Erniedrigung und Erhöhung bei Jesus und seinen Nachfolgern. Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1955. 

Sellin, Gerhard. “Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes.” ANRW II, 25.4 (1987): 2940- 

3044. 

__________. “1 Korinther 5-6 und der ‘Vorbrief’ nach Korinth: Indizien für eine 

Mehrschichtigkeit von Kommunikationsakten im ersten Korintherbrief.” NTS 37 (1991): 535- 

558. 

__________. Die Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 

1986. 

Senft, Christophe. La Premiere Épitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens. Paris: Delachaux & 

Niestle, 1979. 

Sharifian, Farzad. “On Cultural Conceptualisations.” JCC 3/3 (2003): 187-207. 

Shillington, V. George. “People of God in the Courts of the World: A Study of 1 Corinthians 

6:1-11.” DJ 15/1 (1986): 40-50. 

Shuman, Joel, and Brian Volck. Reclaiming the Body: Christians and the Faithful Use of 

Modern Medicine. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2006. 

Simon, Marcel. St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church. London: Longmans, 

1958. 

Sittler, Joseph. The Structure of Christian Ethics. LTE. Louisianna, Ky.: Louisianna State 

University Press, 1958. Repr. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1998. 

Smit, Joop F.M. “The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13 in the Light of Classical Rhetoric.” NovT 33/3 

(1991): 193-216. 

__________. “ ‘What is Apollos? What is Paul?’ In Search for the Coherence of First 

Corinthians 1:10-4:21.” NovT 44/3 (2002): 231-251. 

Smith, Jay E. “The Roots of a Libertine Slogan in 1 Corinthians 6:18.” No pages. Cited 8 th 

February 2007. Online: http://www.ntgateway.com/bnts/Social/Smith.pdf 

Soards, Marion L. “1 Corinthians.” Pages 1163-1190 in Mercer Commentary on the New 

Testament. Edited by Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University 

Press, 2003. Repr. from Mercer Commentary on the Bible. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University 

Press, 1995. 

Spawforth, Anthony J.S. “Corinth, Argos, and the Imperial Cult: Pseudo-Julian, Letters 198.” 

Hesperia 63.2 (1994): 211-232. 

Stanton, Graham N. and Guy G. Stroumsa. Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and 

Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 

Starr, James and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, eds. Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Berlin: 

De Gruyter, 2004. 

335

Stirewalt, M. Luther. Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 1993. 

Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 

1986. 

Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91-108. CEJL. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. 

Suggs, M. Jack. “Wisdom of Solomon 210-5: A Homily Based on the Fourth Servant Song.” 

JBL 76/1 (1957): 26-33. 

Talbert, Charles H. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the 

Apostles. 2nd ed. RNT. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. 

__________. Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. 2nd ed. RNT. 

Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2003. 

Tannehill, Robert C. Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology. Eugene, 

Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1967. 

Taylor, S.M. Justin. “The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20,29 and 21.25) and the Incident at 

Antioch (Gal 2.11-14).” NTS 46 (2001): 372-380. 

Terry, Ralph Bruce. “An Analysis of Certain Features of Discourse in the New Testament 

Book of 1 Corinthians.” Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1993. No pages. Cited 

14 th January 2007. Online: http://web.ovc.edu/terry/dissertation/ 

Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982. 

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 


__________. “God will be All in All: ‘Luther and Barth on 1 Corinthians 15: Six Theses for 

Theology in Relation to Recent Interpretation’.” Pages 767-792 in Thiselton on Hermeneutics: 

Collected Works with New Essays. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Repr. pages 258- 

289 in The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Essays in honour of James Atkinson. JSNT 

Supplement series 105. Edited by W. P. Stephens. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. 

__________. The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. 

__________. “Knowledge, Myth and Corporate Memory.” Pages 45-78 in Believing in the 

Church: The Corporate Nature of Faith. DCCE. London: SPCK, 1981. 

__________. “The Meaning of Sarx in 1 Corinthians 5:5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of 

Logical and Semantic Factors.” SJT 26 (1973): 204-27. 

__________. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” NTS 24 (1978): 510-526. 

__________. “The Significance of Recent Research on 1 Corinthians for Hermeneutical 

Appropriation of This Epistle Today.” Neot 40.2 (2006): 320-352. 

Thornton, L.S. The Common Life in the Body of Christ. 2nd ed. Westminster: Dacre, 1944. 

Thorsteinsson, Runar M. “Paul and Roman Stoicism: Romans 12 and Contemporary Stoic 

Ethics.” JSNT 29.2 (2006): 139-161. 

Thurén, Lauri. Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law. 

Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000. 

336

Tinsley, E.J. The Imitation of God in Christ: An Essay on the Biblical Basis of Christian 

Spirituality. London: SCM, 1960. 

Tomlin, Graham. “Christians and Epicureans in 1 Corinthians.” JSNT 68 (1997): 51-72. 

Torrance, Thomas F. Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology 1910 – 1931. 2 nd rev. 

ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. 

Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the 

Pastoral Epistles. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. 

Trapp, Michael, ed. Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translation. Cambridge: 


Tripolitis, Antonia. Religions of the Helenistic-Roman Age. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 

2002. 

Tucker, J. Brian. “Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches: A Review 

Article.” JBS 6/1 (June 2006): 38-54. 

Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Corinthians Who Say ‘There is no Resurrection of the Dead’ (1 

Cor 15,12).” Pages 247-275 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by R. Bieringer. 

Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. 

__________. “Paul, Scripture and Ethics. Some Reflections.” NTS 46 (2000): 403-424. 

Van Der Horst, P.W. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides With Introduction and Commentary. 


VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. 

Van Henten, Jan Willem. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study 

of 2 and 4 Maccabees. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 

Villanueva, Federico G. The “Uncertainty of a Hearing”: A Study of the Sudden Change of 

Mood in the Psalms of Lament. Leiden: Brill, 2008. 

Visser ‘T Hooft, W.A. “Triumphalism in the Gospels.” SJT 38 (1985): 491-504. 

Vlachos, Chris Alex. “Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference 

to 1 Corinthians 15:56.” JETS 47/2 (2004): 277-298. 

Wagner, J. Ross. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. 

NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. 

__________. “Epistolary vs. Rhetorical Analysis: Is a Synthesis Possible?” Pages 255-286 in 

The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by 

Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. 

__________. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the 

Romans. Leiden: Brill, 2002. 

Walchenbach, John R. John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An Investigation into Calvin’s 

Use of John Chrysostom as an Exegetical Tutor. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2010. 

337

Walker, William O. Jnr. “Is First Corinthians 13 a Non-Pauline Interpolation?” CBQ 60/3 

(1998): 484-499. 

Charles A. Wanamaker. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text 


Wang Peng. “Koinonia and Ethical Thought in Paul’s Epistles.” CTR 19. No pages. Cited 12 th 

May 2008. Online: http://www.amitynewsservice.org/page.php?page=1665 

Warner, Martin, ed. The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility. 

London: Routledge, 1990. 

Watson, Duane, ed. The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament. SBL, 

Symposium 14. Atlanta: SBL, 2002. 

Watson, Francis. “Scripture in Pauline Theology: How Far Down Does it Go?” Cited 12th 

April 2007. Online: 

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/documents/ScriptureinPaulineTheology.doc 

Wedderburn, A.J.M. “Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases ‘in Christ’ and ‘with 

Christ’.” JSNT 25 (1985): 83-97. 

Wegener, Mark I. “The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Corinthians 15.” CTM 31/6 (2004): 438-455. 

Weima, Jeffrey A.D. “The Pauline Letter Closings: Analysis and Hermeneutical Significance.” 

BBR 5 (1995): 177-198. 

Weiss, Johannes. Der erste Korintherbrief. KEKNT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 

1910. 

Welborn, L.L. “On the Date of First Clement.” BR 29 (1984): 35-54. 

__________. Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the Comic-Philosophic 

Tradition. London: T&T Clark, 2005. 

__________. Politics & Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University 

Press, 1997. 

Welch, John W. “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): 

Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology.” JBL 114/4 (1995): 661-82. 

Wellum, Stephen J. “Christ’s Resurrection and Ours (1 Corinthians 15).” SBJT 6/3 (2002): 76- 

93. 

White, Joel R. “ ‘Baptised on Account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its 

Context.” JBL 116/3 (1997): 487-499. 

Williams, Charles K., and Nancy Bookidis, eds. Corinth, The Centenary. The American 

School of Classical Studies in Athens, 2003. 

Williams, Guy. “An Apocalyptic and Magical Interpretation of Paul’s ‘Beast Fight’ in Ephesus 

(1 Corinthians 15:32).” JTS 57/1 (2006): 42-56. 

Williams, H.H. Drake III. “Living as Christ Crucified: The Cross as a Foundation for Christian 

Ethics in 1 Corinthians.” EQ 75/2 (2003): 117-131. 

338

Wills, Lawrence Mitchell. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. New York: Cornell 


Wilson, R. McL. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968. 

Winninge, Mikael. Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon 

and Paul’s Letters. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. 

Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. 


__________. Philo and Paul Among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a 

Julio-Claudian Movement. 2 nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. 

Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Carlisle, 

Cumbria: Paternoster, 1998. 

__________. Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 

Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. 

__________. Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament 

Eschatology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1992. 

__________. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and 

of the New Testament. Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2009. 

Wolff, Christian. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. 2 nd ed. TKNT 7. Leipzig: 

Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2000. 

Wright, G. Ernest. God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital. London: SCM, 1952. 

Wright, N.T. “Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans.” Pages 173-193 in A Royal 

Priesthood: The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically. Edited by C. Bartholemew. 

Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002. 

__________. The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, 

Vol. 3. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2003. 

Wuellner, Wilhelm. “Haggadic Homily Genre in 1 Corinthians 1-3.” JBL 89/2 (1970): 199- 

204. 

Yeo, Khiok-Khng. Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with 

Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic. Leiden: Brill, 1995. 

Yinger, Kent L. Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds. Cambridge: Cambridge 


Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: 


__________. “John Chrysostom on First and Second Corinthians.” SP 18/1 (1986): 349-352. 

__________. “They Speak to Us Across the Centuries 3. John Chrysostom.” ExpT 109/2 

(1997): 38-41. 

Zoumbaki, Sophia B. “The Composition of the Peloponnesian Elites in the Roman period and 

the Evolution of their Resistance and Approach to the Roman Rulers.” Tek 9 (2008): 25-52. 

339

PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?