1 Corinthians
The City of Corinth
Corinth is an ancient city with a complex past. The origins of the city go back well before historical sources to time immemorial, but a brief sketch of the history of Corinth will help to give a sense of the city by Paul’s day.[1] By the fourth century B.C., Corinth was already a prosperous city.[2] In part this was due to the strong leadership of a number of able leaders, who were able to bring stability and prosperity.[3] More importantly, the location of Corinth was ideally situated for trade. Its position on the Isthmus of Corinth between the Aegean and Ionian seas made it a city that benefited from trade that went both east and west. The two ports were Lechaeon, on the Gulf of Corinth, and Cenchreae, on the Saronic Gulf.[4] The Greeks knew the benefits of their location early on and even tried to make a canal as early as the sixth century but failed.[5] Instead they paved a road, which allowed cargo and small ships to be carted across. The ancient geographer, Strabo, writing in the 7 B.C., gives a sense of the prosperity of the city. He writes, “Corinth is called “wealthy” because of its commerce, since it is situated on the Isthmus and is master of two harbors, of which the one leads straight to Asia, and the other to Italy; and it makes easy the exchange of merchandise from both countries that are so far distant from each other.”[6] Donald Engels offers a picture of what a person might have seen in Paul’s day. He writes:
The man-made harbour – one of the largest in the Roman world – would be crowded with vessels from all over the Mediterranean. Its quays and warehouses would be packed with goods coming from as far as India, China and even Indonesia: spices, silks, precious stones, exotic woods, marble blocks of every color in the rainbow from Anatolia, North Africa, Italy and producing areas of Greece, amphora’s filled with wines, olive oils, and other vegetable oils, copper and tin ingots from the city’s bronze foundries and blocks of Corinth’s own building stone for export.[7]
In the light of this enormous trade, it is no wonder that Corinth was renown for its wealth. What gave Corinth additional prestige and income was that it hosted the Isthmian games, an event that was second only to the Olympic games.[8] As Strabo writes, “But to the Corinthians of later times still greater advantages were added, for also the Isthmian Games, which were celebrated there, were wont to draw crowds of people.”[9] All of this wealth did not go unnoticed. Corinth’s neighbors cast an envious eye and indelibly tarnished the reputation of Corinth as a city of excess and sexual immorality. For example, Athenian writers made Corinth the symbol of immorality. “Aristophanes coined the verb korinthiazesthai, ‘to fornicate’ (Fr. 354). Philetaerus and Poliochus wrote plays entitled Korinthiastes, ‘The Whoremonger’ (Athenaeus 313c, 559a). Plato used korinthia kore, ‘a Corinthian girl,’ to mean a prostitute (Rest. 404d).”[10] In reality, Corinth was probably no better or worse than any other prosperous port city.
In 146 B.C. Corinth faced an enormous setback as it found itself on the wrong side of the Roman military machine. When Rome went to war with the Achaean league, of which Corinth was prominent member, the Roman consul Lucius Mummius destroyed and plundered the city.[11] Corinth became a shadow of its former glory until Julius Caesar made it into a Roman colony in 44 B.C.[12] We can say that Rome resurrected Corinth and made it into a real Roman colony, not just a Greek city with a Roman façade.[13] For example, of the 104 texts that date before the emperor Hadrian only 3 are in Greek, the architecture is distinctly Roman, and the city is laid out according to Roman city planning.[14] Rome likely saw the economic benefits of Corinth. Caesar even planned to build a canal.[15] As for the settlers, most of them were probably freed slaves and an interesting fact is that these freed slaves could even rise to the highest magistrates of the city.[16] In time, others looking for wealth would settle in the city and bring further prosperity.[17] That we are on the right track with this interpretation is confirmed by the resumption of the Isthmian games within fifty years of the city’s refounding. By the first century A.D., Corinth also became an important financial center, which makes sense in view of their great commerce.[18] Therefore, the Corinth of Paul’s time was a bustling city in every respect. Scholars estimate that approximately 50,000 to 100,000 people lived in Corinth, which is an enormous number for an ancient city.
In 77 A.D. the city experienced another setback. An earthquake severely damaged the city, but in time the city rebounded. Rome responded with aid and a new lease of life was given. Pausanias’ Description of Greece reflects this new city.[19]
In terms of government, Corinth, as a Roman colony, followed the basic constitution of Rome. The city was divided into tribes and it elected magistrates.[20] The senior magistrates were called duoviri iure dicundo. The duoviri were assisted by two aediles, who were responsible for the daily maintenance of the city as well as whatever the duoviri needed them to do. Scholars believe that one of these aediles was a part of one of the early churches of Paul. In Romans 16:23, Paul mentions an Erastus from Corinth, whom Paul describes as an oJ oi˙kono/moß, an aedile.[21] This point is significant, because it shows that the early Christians were not only from the lower classes, as assumed in popular imagination. Wayne Meeks clearly demonstrates that the early church was a healthy social cross-section of society.[22]
As for religion, it is safe to say that Corinth was a typical city with adherence to the divinities of the Greco Roman world as well as the imperial cult. The religious milieu was polytheistic and pluralistic. For example, references and remains of many shines exist – Apollo, Aphrodite, Asclepius, and Kore, to name a few. What is also relevant is the importance of itinerant teachers, called sophists, who played an important role is the education of the elite.[23] There is evidence that some of the Corinthians judged Paul by the standards of rhetoric, the craft of the sophists.[24] In short, Paul chose to remain in a city for eighteen month[25] that was in many ways at the crossroads of the Eastern world.
From this brief survey of the city of Corinth, a few impressions are worth emphasizing. First, Corinth was a cosmopolitan city with an advanced economy. We must not think that modern issues of city life with its struggles, temptations, and challenges are particular to places like New York, Shanghai, and London. Paul dealt with them two millennia ago. From this perspective, we can say that the best manual for urban church life is the Pauline corpus. Second, since Corinth was refounded in 44 B.C. with a new population of freedmen, issues of social status were particularly acute. In short, people were eager to distinguish themselves sharply from others. Therefore, a close reading of 1 Corinthians may offer invaluable insights into how a church can deal with social and economic differences. Third, by reading 1 Corinthians we can gain a better understanding of Paul’s stance towards cities and what his desire is for them.
[1] For a narrative of the physical description of Corinth and a few sections on the mythological founding of the city, see Paus. 2.1.1-2.5.5.
[2] As early as Homer’s Iliad, Corinth is called Wealthy. Hom. Il 2.570, 8.664.
[3] Str. 8.6.20. For a brief description of this time period, see: John Fine. The Ancient Greeks (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 108-114
[4] Paus. 2.1.5
[5] D.L. Periander 6
[6] Str. 8.6.20.
[7] Donald Engels. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 12.
[8] For a brief discussion of the Isthmian games, see: Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. St. Paul’s Corinth (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2002), 12-16.
[9] Str. 8.6.20.
[10] J. Murphy-O’Connor. “Corinth” ABD. Vol. 2 (1982), 1135-1136.
[11] Str. 8.6.23; Paus.7.16.7-7.16.10.
[12] There is some evidence that Corinth was not completely desolate. Cic. Tusc. 3.53.
[13] For a brief description of the building flurry in Corinth, see: Glen W. Bowersock. Augustus and the Greek World. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 94. On the Roman character of Corinth, see: Bruce Winter. After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 7-25.
[14] John Harvey Kent. Corinth. Vol. 8, pt. 3 The Inscriptions 1926-1950 (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966), 69. See also: Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. St. Paul’s Corinth (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2002), 8.
[15] Suet. Jul. 44. Caesar’s assassination thwarted the building of the canal. There were several attempts to build a canal. Periander in the 7th century (D.L. Periander 6), Demetrius, one of the Diadochi in the Hellenistic period (Str. 1.311), and the Roman Emperor Nero (Seut. Nero 19). To Nero’s credit, he actually broke ground and gathered some six thousand people to build the canal. Like, Caesar, he died before the project could get into full swing. Andreas Syngros finally built a canal in 1893.
[16] Str. 8.6.23; App. BC. 8.136
[17] Wayne Meeks. First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 48.
[18] Plutarch mentions brokers from Corinth in the context of the dangers of borrowing money. Plu. Moralia. 831.
[19] Paus. 2.1.1-2.5.5.
[20] J. H. Kent. Inscriptions 1926-1960. Corinth: Results, volume 8, pt.3. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 27.
[21] Wayne Meeks. The First Urban Christians, 58-59.
[22] Wayne Meeks. The First Urban Christians, 51-73.
[23] Bruce Winter offers an excellent sketch of the importance of sophists in the training of the elite. He also shows how this ethos may have had a negative role in Paul’s ministry. Bruce W. Winter. After Paul Left Corinth, 31-43
[24] 1 Corinthians 2:1-5
[25] Acts 18:11
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
It is easy to overlook the remarkable way in which Paul opens his letter to the Corinthians. Paul not only states that his apostleship rests on the call and will of God, which assumes that God calls people and has a will, but he also describes the Corinthians as the church of God (ekklesia tou theou), holy (hagios), and those sanctified (hagiazo) in Jesus.[1] He even states that he always (pantote) gives thanks to God for them. Anyone who has read the book of Corinth will know how unbelievable these words are. He or she may even be tempted to believe that Paul is being insincere. A good case can be made that the church of Corinth was one of the worst churches of Paul’s day by any standard. They were factious and divisive (1 Cor. 1:10-17; 3:1-23), arrogant (1 Cor. 4:1-21), sexually immoral and even incestuous (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:12-20), excessively litigious (1 Cor. 6:1-11), confused about marriage (1 Cor. 7:1-40), selfish in their use freedom (1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:23-33), critical of Paul’s apostleship (1 Cor. 9:1-27), abusive of the Lord Supper based on social status (1 Cor. 11:17-34); arrogant about spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:1-31; 14:1-40), unloving (1 Cor. 13:1-13), and doubtful the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-58). Therefore, for Paul to call the Corinthians holy, sanctified or the church of God is get at heart of the wonder of grace.
This point of grace must not be overlooked, because it offers an incredible insight into the nature of Christian community. God loves his church not because the church is lovable or does something well. God loves his church, because he is gracious. He loves his church, in spite of it, simply because it is in Christ. This is Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1:4; 1:5; 1:6; 1:9. God’s love is based on his character and the work of his son. The implications of this theology are powerful for community. Paul loves the Corinthian community without reason (1 Cor. 13), serves with great sacrifice (1 Cor. 9), and even offers thanks on account of them (1 Cor. 1:4). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor, scholar, and martyr writes:
If we do not give thanks daily for the Christian fellowship in which we have been placed, even where there is no great experience, no discoverable riches, but much weakness, small faith, and difficulty; if on the contrary, we only keep complaining to God that everything is so paltry and petty, so far from what we expected, then we hinder God from letting our fellowship grow according to the measure and riches which are there for us all in Jesus Christ.[2]
Again he writes:
What may appear weak and trifling to us may be great and glorious to God. Just as the Christian should not be constantly feeling his spiritual pulse, so, too, the Christian community has not been given to us by God for us to be constantly taking its temperature. The more thankfully we daily receive what is given to us, the more surely and steadily will fellowship increase and grow from day to day as God pleases.[3]
From this perspective, Paul’s thanksgiving for the Corinthians is profound. It is a far cry from the consumeristic love of many Christians today, who shop for churches, worship and friendships, as they would a car. This point is not to suggest that people should indiscriminately select a church, but to check their reasons for doing so. Are the reasons selfward or Godward? Is it about one’s comfort or the worship of God? On the flipside, do churches incessantly offer reasons why people should attend their church by offering their distinctives? If so, churches may be guilty of falling prey to consumerism as well by commodifying themselves. I wonder if the distinctives, which churches are wont to advertise, are unwittingly a part of the consumeristic matrix of modern America.[4] Any reason apart from Christ is building on shifting sand. We should love the church, because it is his.[5]
What makes Paul’s statements even more amazing is that he employs the language of the Old Testament to describe how he views the Corinthians. Just as God called Israel to be holy and set apart for his work, he now calls the largely gentile community in Corinth into that divine narrative to continue his work. This point comes out clearly, if one examines the LXX of Leviticus 19:2 and Exodus 19:5, 6. The Corinthians are now God’s covenant people. They have been brought near to him, and have been entrusted with a mission to the world.
In 1 Corinthians 1:5-8, Paul foreshadows some of the content of his letter. He writes that God has enriched them in knowledge and spiritual gifts. In this way, Paul is able to affirm the goodness of the gifts of God, but also intimate how they can be misused, if not accompanied by love. Remember that the readers of this letter already know what has been going on in Corinth, unlike the modern reader. Hence, Paul’s mention of knowledge and gifts are loaded in this social context. Giftedness and maturity are two different things. One does not presuppose the other, and a person must not allow the former to minimize the importance of the latter.
Finally one cannot help but notice that Paul writes with such confidence concerning the Corinthians. One might ask, “how does Paul know that the Corinthians will remain strong until the day of Jesus (1:8)?” His confidence, no matter how bad the situation is (as we will see), rests on the faithfulness of God. If they are in Christ, they will persevere, because God perseveres.
[1] For a good discussion on Paul’s apostleship, see: Anthony C. Thiselton. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 62-68. Thiselton argues that Paul’s apostleship is both a witness to the death and resurrection of Christ and a experience of sharing in the weakness of the cross and the power of the resurrection.
[2] Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Life Together (New York: Harper One, 1978), 29.
[3] Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Life Together, 30.
[4] The conclusion of an article that was published in 1986 states: “It therefore behooves those in the advertising profession to consider churches as viable potential clients for advertising services. This is particularly true when one considers that churches comprise the largest single type of nonprofit organization in the United States. The findings from this study should be useful as advertising professionals work with individual churches to effectively communicate the message of the church to its market.” Stephen W. McDaniel. “Church Advertising: Views of the Clergy and General Public” Journal of Advertising. 15.1, (1986), 28-29.
[5] The phrase, “church of God” (ekklesia theou) is worth pondering. The church does not belong to any other than God. Ephesians 5:25.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
A number of scholars argue that 1 Corinthians 1:10 is the main point of Paul’s letter to the church of Corinth based on the insights of rhetorical analysis.[1] Commenting on 1:10, Ben Witherington writes, “In Greco-Roman rhetoric the propositio is the thesis statement of the entire discourse. In a deliberative discourse it is the main advice the rhetor recommends.”[2] There is much to commend this view, even apart from a rhetorical analysis of 1 Corinthians.[3] It is clear that one of Paul’s main concerns is the importance of unity. He directly addresses the problem of divisions and urges unity in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, 3:1-23, he employs the imagery of the body in 12:1-31, and calls people to the preeminent virtue of love without which unity is not possible in 13:1-13. There are also a number of passages that presuppose the importance of unity. For example, he addresses the wrongfulness of lawsuits (6:1-11), the lack of concern of the consciences of others (8:1-13, 10:23-33), and the abuse of the Lord’s Supper along the line of social status (11:17-34). Therefore, Paul’s main purpose is not far from the question of how people from different social backgrounds can achieve unity.
In this section, Paul writes that Chole’s people[4] have informed him that there were divisions (schisma), strife (eris), and even slogans of loyalty based on personalities (Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ) among the Corinthians. Gordon Fee persuasively argues that we should not see a community that is totally divided.[5] That Paul is able to address the Corinthians as a single community points to a situation of inchoate divisions, rather than complete divisions. In this sense, the epistle of 1 Corinthians can be seen as Paul’s preemptive attempt to fight full out discord.[6] Moreover, we could reasonably assume that the divisions in view are not theological in character, since there is very little in 1 Corinthians to suggest this.[7] As for the nature of the conflict, Paul’s words are sufficiently vague that we cannot reconstruct the historical situation with confidence, even if scholars have endlessly tried.[8] The simplest solution is to say that there was probably a cult of personality, something that was a part of the fabric of ancient cities. Lexical and historical considerations lend support to this reading. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-11, Paul’s choice of words (schisma and eris) would have been read in a way that reminded his hears of political factions that surrounded individuals, as both words were part of the stock vocabulary in political discourse.[9] In addition, there is evidence of great rivalry among teachers in the ancient world.[10] Dio Chrysostom gives a vivid story of one episode.[11]
That was the time, too, when one could hear crowds of wretched sophists around Poseidon’s temple shouting and reviling one another, and their disciples, as they were called, fighting with one another, many writers reading aloud their stupid works, many poets reciting their poems while others applauded them, many jugglers showing their tricks, many fortune-tellers interpreting fortunes, lawyers innumerable perverting judgment, and peddlers not a few peddling whatever they happened to have.[12]
From this description, it is not hard to make the case that the Corinthians imported their pre-Christian ethics and practices into their new Christian context. What makes this situation sadder is that these fledging house churches are already fighting each other. However, we should not be too critical of the Corinthians, because divisions run deep in the modern church, even where theological differences are minimal. It really is a sad commentary that Sunday mornings are the most segregated time in America. Apart from the obvious divisions based on race, the “wrong” type of worship song or a different set of social etiquettes or sensibilities have divided and continue to divide churches today. Divisions also occur when people are more loyal to certain celebrity pastors, scholars, denominations or theological traditions than they are to Christ. What makes the situation worse is when those in power actually perpetuate loyalties to their cause, or still worse, themselves.
To go one step further, it appears that the ethos of seeking power is such a part of the commonsense view of the world that the church cannot distance itself from it (who would ever want to give up power?); in this sense, the church has been absorbed.[13] From this perspective, Paul’s stance in 1 Corinthians 1:14-15 is not only counter-cultural, but also a powerful challenge to the church. The last thing Paul desires is a group of disciples or a coterie of devoted followers. In fact, he is glad that he baptized only a handful of persons, so that only a few could say (wrongly, of course) that he or she was a disciple of Paul. Paul’s wisdom is anything but worldly, something that he will expound upon in the next section.
At this point, it might be worth thinking about from where comes the human desire to create divisions. To be sure, there will be no one answer to such a complex question. However, there appears to be a strong correlation between divisions and issues of power and status. Commenting on the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, Dale B. Martin writes, “Finally, since Paul infiltrates his rhetoric with so many status terms, much, if not all, of the conflict among the Corinthians must have centered on issues of status.”[14] To put it another way, those who have status and power do not want to give it up, and one of the ways to gain more status and power is by creating a base of power, namely, a faction. Martin, once again, writes:
Paul’s language, especially in this introductory section but also throughout the letter, derives much of its power precisely from its polyvalence or, as Mikhail Bakhtin would put it, “heteroglossia.” As we will see more fully below, Paul wants to place two different worlds in opposition to one another: the world of Greco-Roman rhetoric and status, with its attendant upper-class ideology, and a somewhat hidden world of apocalyptic reality proclaimed in the gospel of Christ, which has its own, alternative system of values and status attribution, which is some sense “mirrors” the values of “this world” but in another sense counters and overturns those values.[15]
Paul begins to suggest a solution to the various divisions in Corinth. In 1:10, he urges the Corinthians to put aside their differences in the name of Jesus. A literal translation of 1:10 is: “I exhort you, brothers, on account of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing (to auto) and that there be no divisions among you, and that you be mended in the same mind (en to auto voi) and in the same opinion (en ta auta gnoma).” The emphasis on the word “same” cannot be missed.[16] In 1:13, he asks a number of rhetorical questions to show the utter foolishness of divisions. “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” Finally, he states that what the Corinthians need is not more worldly wisdom with its emphasis on status and power, but God’s wisdom and the logic of the cross. When Christians are filled with the latter, they will seek unity, not because they necessarily agree with one another or even like each other, but for the sake of Christ. This is a lesson not only for the Corinthians, but also for the church of every generation. I would also add that those in power should start the process by holding loosely their power and status.
[1] M. M. Mitchell. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1992), 1. Ben Witherington. Conflict and Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 94-97.
[2] Ben Witherington. Conflict and Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 94.
[3] Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians (Louisville, John Knox, 1997), 21.
[4] There is not much known about Chloe. She is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. She was probably a wealthy woman who had some Christian associates.
[5] Gordon D. Fee. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 52-60.
[6] There is an important pastoral implication here. It is always wise to look ahead and prepare a congregation of what may be in store.
[7] See Paul’s letter to the Galatians for an example of theological correction. L. L. Welborn argues against theological factions. “On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics. 106.1, (1987), 85-90.
[8] F. C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831) 61-206; J. Hurd. The Origin of 1 Corinthians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983) 96-107; N. A. Dahl, “Paul and the Church at Corinth in 1 Cor. 1:10-4:21,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer et al.; Cambridge: University Press, 1967) 313-35; Anthony Thiselton. First Corinthians, 115-136.
[9] Even though L. L. Welborn offer numerous potentially anachronistic examples of the language of 1 Corinthians and the political context of Greco-Roman politics, his cumulative evidence is impressive. L. L. Welborn. “On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics. 106.1, (1987), 85-111.
[10] Bruce Winter. After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 31-43.
[11] Dio Chrysostom was a contemporary of Paul and in the following excerpt he is describing an incident from Corinth.
[12] Dio 8.9
[13] For a insightful chapter on the social construction of knowledge, and the challenges that the church faces in the world, see: Peter Berger. A Rumor of Angels. (New York: Anchor Books, 1990), 1-30.
[14] Dale B. Martin. The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 61.
[15] Dale B. Martin. The Corinthians Body, 57.
[16] Unity is urged, but we must not believe that Paul wants uniformity, since he does speak about the diversity of the body in 1 Corinthians 12.
1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5
With Paul’s emphasis on wisdom and foolishness, it may appear that he is leaving the topic of divisiveness. However, it is best to view this section as laying the theological groundwork for why divisions are incompatible with Christian communities.[1] The wrong type of wisdom leads to boasting, rivalries, and divisions, whereas the wisdom of God brings peace. Paul begins by quoting Isaiah 29:14. In this context, God warns Judah not to rest on the counsel of religious and political advisors, who seek a worldly solution by making an alliance with Egypt, instead of trusting in God.[2] The LXX of Isaiah 29:13-14, which Paul quotes, states:
And the Lord said: “These people draw near to me and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching commandments and doctrines of men. On account of this, behold, I will add the removing of this people and remove them; I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and I will hide the intelligence of the intelligent.”[3]
If we take the context of Isaiah into consideration, Paul’s point is that the Corinthians are only superficially religious. They might be able to speak eloquently and even have a semblance of wisdom, but in the end these things are in vain on account of their divisions.[4] What they need is the wisdom of God, even if it appears foolish. Herein lies the challenge. The Corinthians must invert their common sense view of the world by viewing the world through the lens of the cross of Christ. As Clifford Geertz remind us:
…Common sense is as totalizing as any other: no religion is more dogmatic no science more ambitious, no philosophy more general. Its tonalities are different, and so are the arguments to which it appeals, but like them – and like art and like ideology – it pretends to reach past illusion to truth, to as we say, things as they are.[5]
Paul continues this line of reasoning by pointing out that the wise man (sophos), scholar (grammateus) and philosopher of this age (suzetetes tou aionos toutou) for all their learning are not a step closer to knowing God.[6] Part of the reason for this situation is because their wisdom is still dependant on this age (tou aionos toutou),[7] instead of the new age, which Christ has ushered through his death and resurrection.[8] For this reason, the Jews still wait for a sign and the Greeks look for worldly wisdom, when God has already revealed himself through the preaching of the cross of Christ. Who would have ever thought of this, except for God? As Hays memorably writes, “God has blown away all apparently reasonable criteria: the Christ is a crucified criminal.”[9] It is no wonder the proclamation of the cross was a stumbling block to the Corinthians.
To unpack the paradox of the cross even further, Paul reminds the Corinthians about their status when God called them; they were not wise (sophoi), influential (dynatoi), or wellborn (eugeneis).[10] The calling of the Corinthians, therefore, is another example of the workings of God in a way that is humanly unexpected. In addition, Paul presumably brings up the topic of boasting at this juncture, because the Corinthians were boasting in their human leaders for all the wrong reasons.[11] As Paul will point out in 1 Corinthians 3:5, “What, therefore, is Apollos? And what is Paul?” The cross of Christ should destroy all human boasting. The cross, properly understood, leads only to the exaltation of God’s grace. To this end, Paul quotes the LXX of Jeremiah 9:22, 23 to sharpen his focus on the right type of boasting.
The Lord says these things, “let the wise man not boast in his wisdom, or the strong man boast in his strength, or the rich man boast in his riches, but let the one who boasts boast in this that he understands and knows that I am the Lord working mercy, justice and righteousness on the earth that my will is in these things.”
Because Christ has become the wisdom of God, that is, the solution to the problem of sin though the work of the cross, righteousness, holiness and redemption are present realities for the people of God.[12] In the milieu of a status hungry society, we cannot help but view these qualities as Paul’s answer to what people really need. The implications are profound. For one thing, satisfaction of the human heart can only be found in the God who acts on behalf of people through the work of the cross. In addition, if the Corinthians are going to boast, let them boast in the work of Christ.
At this point, Paul offers a positive example of the application of the cross in his own ministry. He recounts the manner and content of his work among the Corinthians. As for content, he emphasizes the Christ-centered nature of his preaching – nothing but Christ and him crucified.[13] As for the manner of his labor, he states that he was not marked with eloquence or wisdom, but with much fear and trembling.[14] He also gives a rationale for why he has resolved to conduct his ministry in this way. He wanted the Corinthians’ faith to rest on power of God though the Holy Spirit, instead of worldly persuasions based on rhetoric or cleverness. The cross of Christ must be the ultimate reason. As Thiselton writes, “Christian proclamation does not allow for high-sounding rhetoric or a display of cleverness which could impede the gospel by putting first what pleases the audience and the personal ‘style’ of the speaker.”[15]
Paul’s words might appear removed from our context, but a little reflection will show that the themes that he touches upon have a deeply contemporary resonance. First, the hunger for wealth, status, and recognition has never diminished in human history. In some circles, the right address, school, and connections are still the basic ingredients for success and cause for boasting. In addition, those Christians who have these things rarely will give them up and incorporate the poor. As Gordon Fee points out:
“Unfortunately, the means (the cross as a divine scandal) and the evidence (God’s choice of the lowly) for this conclusion do not always get the same hearing…[for Paul the glory of the gospel] lies in his mercy towards the very people whom most of the affluent tend to write off – the foolish, the weak, the despised. Such people do not fit well into the ‘suburban captivity of the church.’”[16]
Second, the message of the cross is just as paradoxical and foolish sounding today as it was in Paul’s day. In fact, we can make a case that the Corinthians are actually in a better situation than we. At least the Jews looked for a sign, and the Greeks wisdom; we in the modern world seek none of these things in a postmodern world. To a large extent, we are driven by our emotions and so we ask questions about how we individually feel. In short, our emotions have become the only sacrosanct standard of truth.[17] Finally, we need to emphasize that Paul addresses the church and not the world. To be sure, Paul does make a distinction between the world and the church in 1 Corinthians 1:18, but by and large his point is that the church in Corinth have not grasped the implications of the wisdom of the cross. In this sense, we would do well to note the use of the present participle in 1:18 “to those being saved” (tois sozomenois). Christians, therefore, are the ones who have a hard time understanding the message of the cross. They are the ones who have difficulty applying the dynamics of the cross to their lives and community. They are the ones who are filled with worldy wisdom at times. What the church needs is a paradigm shift based on the cross of Christ in various areas of their lives.
[1] As Hays writes, “…[Paul] is artfully laying the theological groundwork for his critique of the Corinthian’ divisiveness.” Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians, 26. See also: Anthony Thiselton. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 153.
[2] R. E. Clements. Isaiah 1-39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 239.
[3] For the most part, Paul follows the LXX of Isaiah 29:14, with the exception of the final verb, which he changes from, krupso to astheteso. This change should not surprise us, because Paul often times quotes the Old Testament with considerable freedom.
[4] This is the very conclusion that Paul will draw in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4.
[5] Clifford Gertz. Local Knowledge (Basic Books, 2000), 84.
[6] With Corinth’s many itinerant teachers and professional rhetors, Paul’s words have some teeth. Also see: Bruce Winter. Paul and Philo (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1997), 189.
[7] 1 Corinthians 1:20.
[8] Romans 12:1, 2 offers a compact commentary of Paul’s theology of the need to have renewed minds in view of the in breaking of the new age. Also see: 1 Cor. 2:6; 15:24, 26.
[9] Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians, 31.
[10] It is important to keep in mind that Paul’s did not state that all the Corinthians were of low status. There is good evidence from Paul’s letter in 1 Corinthians that some were wealthy and influential. One of the most remarkable aspects of early Christianity was its heterogeneous character. See: Wayne Meeks. The First Urban Christians, 51-73.
[11] Bruce Winter. After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 31-43;
[12] It is best to view this verse as different ways of speaking of the same reality of salvation. Christ is the wisdom of God in our salvation, which leads to righteousness, holiness and redemption. For a snapshot of scholarly opinions, see: Anthony Thiselton. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 190-195.
[13] 1 Corinthians 2:2.
[14] It is important to emphasize that Paul was not devoid of rhetoric. Dale Martin makes a very helpful distinction. “When Paul calls himself ‘a layman with regard to speech,’ therefore, he is saying that he is not a professional orator or a teacher of rhetoric; but he is not denying that he has had a rhetorical education. In fact, in both his disparagement of rhetoric and his claims to be only a layman, Paul stands in a great tradition of rhetorical disavowals of rhetorical activity. Dale B. Martin. The Corinthians Body, 49.
[15] Anthony Thiselton. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 208.
[16] Gordon D. Fee. The First Letter to the Corinthians, 87.
[17] For a brilliant chapter entitled, “Nietzsche or Aristotle,” see: Alasdair MacIntyre. After Virtue (Indiana: Norte Dame, 1984), 109-120. “For it was Nietzsche’s historic achievement to understand more clearly than any other philosopher – certainly more clearly than his counterparts in Anglo-Saxon emotivism and continental existentialism – not only that what purported to be appeals to objectivity were in fact expressions of subjective will, but also the nature of the problems that this posed for moral philosophy.” Alasdair MacIntyre. After Virtue, 113.
1 Corinthians 2:6-16
Paul’s strong repudiation of the wisdom of the world may give the impression that he is opposed to any kind of wisdom. To draw this conclusion would be to misread Paul.[1] In 1 Corinthians 2:6, he points out that his message is one of wisdom. In 2:7, he even goes further and states that he speaks of the hidden and secret wisdom of God. However, Paul makes it clear that the wisdom about which he writes is markedly different than the wisdom the Corinthians seek. His is not a wisdom of this world or the type of wisdom that the rulers of the world espouse.[2] What, then, is the content of Paul’s wisdom? Paul does not unpack his understanding of the wisdom of God in this passage, but the observant reader would already know that Paul’s wisdom is the message of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18).[3] Herein lies Paul’s irony and sarcasm.[4]
The Corinthians prided themselves on not only being wise (sophoi), but also mature (teleioi). As Richard B. Hays writes, “We have already seen that sophia is one of the slogan-words of the Corinthians, and in 2:6 we encounter another one: ‘the mature’ (teleioi).”[5] Therefore, the choice of Paul’s word, teleioi, in 2:6 was most likely due to the Corinthian self-designation as oi teleioi. Paul’s words, from this point of view, are not only incisive, but also drip with ironic sarcasm. In essence, he states that if the Corinthians were truly mature, they would understand the wisdom of God, since he is writing to the mature (2:6). The very fact that they do not comprehend the wisdom of the cross as evidenced in their actions suggests that they are actually immature, the very opposite of what they think they are! In 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul will make this point explicit.
There is one caveat at this juncture.[6] Paul is not teaching some sort of spiritual elitism, where some have special wisdom and others lack it. Quite the contrary, Paul argues that this type of spiritual elitism is the problem among the Corinthians. There are too many divisions. The message of the cross or the wisdom of God does not create divisions, but unity. To put it another way, a crucified messiah does not allow any room for elitism, a point that all Christian groups need to heed. The wisdom of God is best seen in a unified body (1 Corinthians 12) and love (1 Corinthians 13).
Part of the reason for the difficulty of understanding the wisdom of God is because God’s wisdom is eschatological in nature, that is, his wisdom is not based on this world, but the world that Christ has ushered in through his death and resurrection. There are a number of indicators that favor this eschatological reading. First, in 2:6 and 2:8 Paul speaks of the wisdom and rulers of “this age.” It is important to bear in mind that “this age” presupposes “that age,” especially within a Jewish apocalyptic framework.
Second, he states that rulers of this world are coming to nothing (katargeo). Paul uses this verb in eight other places in 1 Corinthians: 1:28, 2:6, 6:13, 13:8, 13:10, 13:11, 15:24, 15:26. Of these verses, only one verse does not fit into an eschatological framework (6:13). Paul’s point, then, is that the old age will come to an end and give way to a new age. 2 Corinthians 5:17 is a good example of this type of theological reasoning: “If anyone is in Christ – new creation; the old things pass away, and behold new things emerge.” Finally, he speaks of glory as the final lot believers. Admittedly, Paul does not give a full teaching on how glory is connected to his eschatological framework in this context, but he does so in other letters. For Paul the new age is consummated in glory (Romans 8:17, 8:30; Corinthians 3:18). In short, because God has ushered in a new world, we need a new worldview with the cross of Christ at its center.
At this point, Paul address how we come to know the wisdom of God. He gives two answers; one is negative and the other positive. His first point is that it is humanly impossible to come to the wisdom of God. He quotes a passage of scripture, as he is wont to do with Greek verb grapho, “it is written” (gegraptai): no eye, no ear, or heart has conceived of what God would do. Paul’s theological thrust is clear; however, there are questions concerning whence Paul has taken this quote.
A conflation of Isaiah 64:3 and 65:17 is a good guess and Clement, an early church father, seems to suggest this in 1 Clement 34:8. Hays, however, offers an alternate source as he points out that the Gospel of Thomas 17 has similar wording:[7] “Jesus said: I shall give you what no eye has seen and no ear has heard and no hand has touched and (what) has not entered into the heart of man.” His point is that the text of Thomas may bear witness to an independent tradition. In the end, it is best to admit ignorance.
Now that Paul has established that man cannot come to know God unaided, starting in 2:11 he offers an analogy of the process of understanding the wisdom of God. His argument is that like knows like. Just as only an individual knows his or her own thoughts, so only God alone knows his thoughts. For this reason, only God can disclose himself to us. More specifically, Paul states since we have received the spirit of God we are able to know the wisdom of God. The implication of this is that if a person does not understand the wisdom of God, namely, the message of the cross, then that person does not have the spirit of God. True knowledge of the cross does not come through clever arguments or rhetorical eloquence, but through God’s self-revelation through his spirit.
1 Corinthians 1:15 may pose some difficulties of interpretation, because on the surface it seems as if Paul is saying that the Christian is not subject to anyone. However, we need to read this verse within context. If we do this, Paul is saying that because the Christian has the spirit of God, he is able to see the world through the vantage point of the cross of Christ, but the world cannot judge or even understand the Christian correctly, because the message of the cross is utter foolishness to the world. This interpretation accords well with what Paul has been saying all along. The cross renders the wisdom of the world to be foolishness. Therefore, the good news of this passage is that we have the mind of Christ through the spirit of God.
The implications of this passage are broad. First of all, it shows us what Christian maturity is and is not. It is not esoteric knowledge, worldly wisdom or standing, but the understanding and application of the cross of the Christ, as Paul will show throughout the letter. Second, Paul reminds us how a person can grow in the wisdom of God – reliance on the Spirit of God. We would do well to remember this point in conducting any ministry. The message of Christ is so paradoxical and the cross as a way of life so counter-intuitive that only God can persuade us of its wisdom. In a word, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we cannot grow in the knowledge of God. This is certainly why Paul came to Corinth with the determination to know nothing except Christ crucified.
[1] See: 1 Corinthians 1:21, 24, 30. These verses speak of the wisdom of God.
[2] Most likely the rules (archontes) refers to human rulers in power, rather than spiritual beings as in Ephesians 6:12. Contextual clues points to earthly rulers, since they are the ones singled out as the ones who crucified Jesus. See: Gordon Fee. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 103-1-4.
[3] It is important to note that these letters were read to a group in one sitting probably by a close companion of Paul, who was well versed in Paul’s theology. See: Ben Witherington III. Conflict and Community in Corinth, 44-48.
[4] For a good discussion on the use of irony, see: Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians, 40.
[5] Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians, 42.
[6] For a succinct discussion on teleioi and Greco-Roman Mystery cults, see: Anthony Thiselton. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 232-233. His basic point is that the occurrence of certain terminologies in various mystery religions have little significance, because Paul employs these words in a different context.
[7] Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians, 44-45.