The Structure of 1 Corinthians
Many commentators follow Mitchell (1991) in affirming that Paul’s main purpose in writing the letter is to unify the congregation (see the thesis statement in 1:10). Most also note that Paul deals with oral reports in chapters 1–6 before addressing matters raised in the Corinthian letter to Paul in chapters 7–16 (7:1: “Now concerning [peri de] the matters about which you wrote”; cf. peri de repeated in 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12). Rhetorical and other approaches have also been used to analyze the structure of this letter. However, such summaries and outlines of the letter, though not without some validity, are deficient in that they largely neglect the content of Paul’s instructions. In 1 Corinthians Paul deals with two main vices that, according to Jewish moral teaching based on the OT, were typical of pagans: sexual immorality and idolatry. Paul explicitly ties these two vices to OT background in his discussion of Israel’s failures in 10:7–8, and their inclusion in the vice list of 5:11 is based on their inclusion in a list of sins associated with a Deuteronomic expulsion formula (see commentary on 1 Cor. 5:9–11 below).
Chapters 5–7 deal primarily with issues related to sexual immorality, first in a negative treatment of its manifestations in Corinth (chaps. 5–6) and then in a positive treatment of marriage and sexual relationships in the church (chap. 7; note how the chapter is introduced in 7:2). This arrangement of ethical material is reminiscent of Hellenistic Jewish parenesis (reported by Niebuhr 1987: 232) that discusses sexual deviations such as incest, homosexuality, and sexual relations in marriage in close proximity.
Chapters 8–14 deal with the issue of idolatry, beginning, again, with a negative treatment of its manifestations in Corinth (chaps. 8–10) and then moving to a more positive treatment of the proper worship of the one true God (chaps. 11–14; note how 12:2 relates the following material back to the issue of idolatry).
Toward the end of each negative section (chaps. 5–6, 8–10) Paul provides both a negative imperative and a positive imperative relating to the broader theme. In concluding the negative section on sexual immorality, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to “flee sexual immorality” (6:18) and to “glorify God” with their bodies (6:20). In concluding the negative section on idolatry, Paul exhorts them to “flee idolatry” (10:14) and to do everything “to the glory of God” (10:31).
Paul’s emphasis on true versus false wisdom in 1 Cor. 1–4 suggests that his treatment of sexual immorality and idolatry in this letter is following the logic of his discussion of the same subject in Rom. 1:21–25. There it is the lack of true wisdom (Rom. 1:22) that leads to idolatry and sexual immorality (Rom. 1:23–25). To Paul’s way of thinking, true wisdom (1 Cor. 1–4; cf. Rom. 1:22) should keep one from sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5–7; cf. Rom. 1:24) and idolatry (1 Cor. 8–14; cf. Rom. 1:23). As in his treatments of sexual immorality and idolatry, Paul’s discussion of wisdom here begins with a negative treatment (1:18–2:5) but then moves to a more positive one (2:6–3:4).
The only other specific vice to be “fled” (pheugō) in the NT apart from sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6) and idolatry (1 Cor. 10) is greed (1 Tim. 6:11; in context, philargyria, “love of money” [6:10]). Typically, Jews added greed as a third member of the unholy triad of vices that rightly condemn the heathen (see Rosner, forthcoming). Greed (pleonektēs) is mentioned alongside sexual immorality and idolatry in each of this letter’s three vice lists (5:10, 11; 6:10), and it is likely that greed was a primary motivation for the lawsuit in 6:1–11.
The letter comes to a climax in chapter 15 with Paul’s discussion of the resurrection as it relates to the ultimate triumph of Christ over all adversaries and the ultimate transformation of our corruptible humanity into humanity that fully reflects God’s glory. It is no surprise that Paul offers the resurrection as the decisive basis for his ethical instruction (see O’Donovan 1986).
1:2
Those who “call on the name of the Lord,” like “saints,” is another name for Christians (Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16; 2 Tim. 2:22). The phrase is used frequently in the OT to refer to one who worships the one true God (Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25; 1 Kings 18:24; 1 Chron. 16:8; Ps. 75:1; 79:6; 80:18; 99:6; 116:4, 13; Isa. 64:7; Lam. 3:55; Joel 2:32; Zeph. 3:9; Zech. 13:9).
Paul mentions that the Corinthians are united with “all those who call on the name of our Lord in every place.” A key theme in Deuteronomy is the Lord’s selection of one particular place where people would call on his name (understood to refer to Jerusalem). Repeated reference is made to “the place which the Lord your God will choose to have his name called upon” (cf. Deut. 12:11, 21, 26; 14:23–24; 16:2, 6, 11; 17:8, 10; 26:2).
Rather than refer to that place, however, Paul says that the Corinthians join those who call on the name of our Lord “in every place” (en panti topō). He is the only NT author to use the expression (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Tim. 2:8), and he uses it to refer to the worship of God which is spreading around the world through his ministry to the Gentiles.
The expression echoes Mal. 1:11 LXX, which (in a context of frustration over the way the Lord is being worshiped in Jerusalem) prophesies a future time when God would be worshiped by Gentiles “in every place”: “For from the rising of the sun until its setting my name will be glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place [en panti topō] incense is offered to my name and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the LORD Almighty” (see Towner 2000: 333). The echo suggests that the Corinthians are part of the fulfillment of God’s eschatological plan that he be worshiped among all the Gentiles.
Censure of Corinthian Factionalism (1:10–4:17)
Introduction
Following an appeal for unity in 1:10, Paul mounts a long and complex argument against divisions in the church (1:10–4:17 is marked off by the repetition of parakalō hymas, “I appeal to you” [1:10; 4:16]). The Corinthian church (like Corinthian society in general) was keenly conscious of social status. Caught up in rivalries, they boasted about their own possession of wisdom and rhetorical eloquence or that of their favorite leaders. A point of contention with Paul was his failure to display this status-enhancing rhetoric expected of a “wise” and cultured person worthy of their allegiance.
The Role of Scripture in the Argument
Ellis (1977) and others claim to have found a standard Jewish form of biblical exegesis in the opening chapters of the letter, the “proem midrash,” which was used in the synagogue as a kind of homily or sermon. Ellis finds two examples in 1 Cor. 1–2, which have a tripartite structure. The first is 1 Cor. 1:18–31: (1) 1:18–20: theme and initial texts, Isa. 29:14; 19:11–14 (cf. 33:18); (2)1:20–30: exposition linked to the initial and final texts by the catchwords sophos (1:26–27), sophia (1:20, 21, 22, 24, 30), mōros (1:25, 27), mōria (1:21, 23), kauchasthai (1:29); (3) 1:31: final text, Jer. 9:22–23. The second is 1 Cor. 2:6–16: (1) 2:6–9: theme and initial texts, Isa. 64:4; 65:16 (LXX); (2) 2:10–15: exposition linked to the initial and final texts by the catchwords anthrōpos (2:11, 14 [cf. 12:3]), idein (2:11–12), ginōskein (2:11, 14); (3) 2:16: final text, Isa. 40:13, and application.
However, three reservations caution against detecting these structures in 1 Corinthians: (1) the Jewish form in question opened with pentateuchal texts, not texts from Isaiah; (2) the final texts in the above examples are not clearly linked to the initial texts; (3) the Jewish examples are much longer (as in, e.g., Philo). Nevertheless, Ellis’s work alerts us to the crucial role of OT texts at every level in these passages.
The summary by Hays (1999: 402–3) of the role of Scripture in the section is accurate: “The backbone of the discussion in 1.18–3.23 is a series of six OT quotations (1.19; 1.31; 2.9; 2.16; 3.19; 3.20) all taken from passages that depict God as one who acts to judge and save his people in ways that defy human imagination.” In the following sections the six quotations will be analyzed, along with several allusions and scriptural motifs.
1:17
For Paul, the apostolic work of the ministry of the word is crucial; God sent him to “preach the gospel” (euangelizesthai). Paul restricts his usage of euangelizesthai in his letters to the activity of duly authorized proclaimers. Key to understanding his perspective is Isa. 40–66. As Dickson (2003: 176) has shown, “Paul’s usage of gospel-terminology [esp. euangelizomai] was heavily influenced by the particular significations contained in the messenger traditions arising from Isa 40:9, 52:7 and 61:1, wherein ‘secular’ messenger language had been transposed to a higher, eschatological level, depicting the end-time herald(s) commissioned by Israel’s God to announce his salvific reign.” Many texts in Palestinian Judaism adopt this interpretation of the word. Targum Isaiah, for instance, draws out from the OT the notion that the herald stands for Zion’s prophets: “Get you up to a high mountain, prophets who herald tidings to Zion” (Tg. Isa. 40:9); “A spirit of prophecy before the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has exalted me to announce good tidings to the poor” (Tg. Isa. 61:1). Paul’s use of Isa. 52:7 in Rom. 10:15 offers explicit support for making these connections and for taking euangelizesthai to refer to Paul’s gospel heralding as an eschatological, divinely commissioned activity (Stuhlmacher 1991: 156–65).
1:18–25
Along with announcing the main theme of the paragraph by quoting Isa. 29:14 in 1 Cor. 1:19 (Koch 1986: 273–75), Paul also echoes Isa. 33:18 in 1:20 and Isa. 28:16 in 1:21–24 (Williams 2001: 47–102). All three texts are drawn from the woe oracles of Isa. 28–33.
1:19
A. NT Context: God’s Sentence of Judgment on Human Wisdom. Paul shows that there is implacable opposition between human wisdom and the “word of the cross.” The quotation in question helps establish that this observation is linked to the OT narrative of judgment and grace and shows that the paradox of the cross—foolishness to some, but in reality power for salvation—is in accord with Scripture.
B. Isa. 29:14 in Its OT Context. Several features of Isa. 29:14 and surrounding verses suggest its attractiveness to Paul and its aptness in relation to his argument. Part of a woe oracle condemning various human practices (cf. 29:1, 3), the preceding verse associates wisdom with “lip service” to God: “These people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (29:13).
The first part of 29:14 indicates that the judgment of the “wisdom of the wise” will occur when God will do “shocking and amazing” things. The threefold appearance of the Hebrew root for “wonder” (plʾ) in this verse may imply messianic involvement. The first name of the messianic figure in Isa. 9:6 is “wonderful” (cf. 25:1), and in 28:29 the Lord, who announces the plan of salvation, is said to be “wonderful in counsel.” Furthermore, that the Messiah should be associated with the judgment of human wisdom is suggested by the involvement of Cyrus, a type of the Messiah in the reversal of wisdom in 44:25.
C. Isa. 29:14 in Early Judaism. A wide range of Jewish texts, which have affinities with Isa. 29:14, treat the theme of the absence and judgment of wisdom (Williams 2001: 61–73): Bar. 3:9–14; 2 Bar. 48:31–37; 70:3–6; 4 Ezra 5:9–13; 13:29–32; 1 En. 39:8; 42; 1Q27 1 I, 1–9; 1QHa XI, 13–18; 3 Macc. 6:19–29; Tg. Isa. 29:13–14.
In these texts the absence of wisdom occurs in situations where strife and division are plaguing a community. Under such circumstances God’s people are enjoined to appreciate his future intervention in order to help sort out their present difficulties. In particular, a dearth of wisdom is seen as part of a great judgment or as a sign pointing to the final, universal judgment. The absence of wisdom and its ultimate judgment are associated with the work of the coming Messiah.
D. Textual Matters. Paul quotes the LXX text verbatim except that he changes the final word from krypsō (“hide”) to athetēsō (“frustrate”). As Stanley (1992: 186) notes, the latter term serves Paul’s purposes better: “Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 1.18–29 is not that God has simply ‘hidden’ understanding from the ‘wise,’ but rather that he has done a work in the death of Jesus that defies all purely rational understanding. By substituting the stronger athetēsō, Paul creates a chiastic parallel with the preceeding apolō [“destroy”] that serves to drive home his point to his readers.”
E. The Use of Isa. 29:14 in 1 Cor. 1:19. Isaiah 29:14 seems to have exerted an influence on Paul’s language and thought at various points in the surrounding verses. “Those who are being destroyed” in 1:18 anticipates the “destruction” (apolō) in 1:19. A purely verbal show of piety—the very thing that Paul faults the Corinthians for in chapters 1–4—recalls the superficial “lip service” condemned in Isa. 29:13. The “wonderful” yet “shocking” things (29:13–14) that the prophet foretells, with messianic overtones, are what Paul declares to have now transpired through Christ crucified.
F. Theological Use. Especially when read in the context of its early Jewish interpretation, Isa. 29:14 is used by Paul to announce that God’s eschatological judgment and salvation are taking place in the midst of the Corinthians. As Hays (1999: 403–4) puts it, “God has already put the wise to shame through the foolishness of the cross, the apocalyptic event that has shattered the old order of human wisdom.” The Corinthians who still value “the wisdom of the wise” have failed to notice God’s apocalyptic judgment on such wisdom through the crucified Messiah. The fact that in 1:18 people are still in the process of being saved (or destroyed) indicates that the unfolding of the drama of salvation is not yet complete. Isaiah’s words are for Paul not just a judgment on ancient Judean leaders, but also “an indictment of the rhetorical affectations of the Corinthians” (Hays 1999: 404).
1:20
Robertson and Plummer (1911: 19) label the presence of Isa. 33:18 in 1 Cor. 1:20 “a very free citation from the general sense.” Although other commentators have suggested the influence of other texts, both OT and postbiblical, this proposal is the most plausible.
Both Isa. 33:18 and 1 Cor. 1:20 contain three questions beginning with the word “where” (pou), the only two places where this structure appears in the LXX and the NT. Both texts refer to the ineffectiveness of individuals who oppose God’s people. Both contain rhetorical questions expecting the response “nowhere.”
Isaiah 33:18 concerns the whereabouts of the chief officer, the one who weighed the tribute, and the one who counted the towers, a composite reference to the oppressors of God’s people. It announces the end of their ascendancy and dominance. The surrounding context refers to an ideal king, probably the Messiah, who will overthrow the oppressors (33:17, 21–22). In related early Jewish texts (see Williams 2001: 73–80) the oppressors disappear following a great judgment. In fact, the end time is characterized by their absence and by the presence of a messianic ruler. Intriguingly, the absence of the oppressors coincides with the failure of human plans and the disappearance of wisdom.
In this light, the echo of Isa. 33:18 in 1 Cor. 1:20 recalls the overthrow by the Messiah of all those who oppose God and his people in the end time, reinforcing the passage’s Christology and eschatology.
1:21–24
A number of OT texts claiming that God possesses all wisdom and power are relevant to these verses on a thematic level (e.g., Job 12:13; Jer. 10:12; Dan. 2:23; cf. Bar. 3:9–4:4; see Hübner 1990–1995: 2:114–16).
A more specific connection to another Isaiah text also merits consideration, a prominent text in early Jewish and Christian circles: Isa. 28:16, which concerns “the cornerstone, a sure foundation.” Paul uses the text in Rom. 9:33–10:14 (cf. 1 Pet. 2:6), where the themes of dualistic predestination and stern warning are developed: perdition or salvation are the consequence of a person’s response to the stone (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23–24). Along with developing these same themes, 1 Cor. 1:21–24 evinces some terminological overlap with the Isaiah text, with 1:21 containing a participial use of pisteuō, as does Isa. 28:16 (in both texts God saves “those who believe”). The use of the word skandalon (“stumbling block”) in 1:23 may also have been picked up from the broader associated “stone” tradition (which emerges in 1 Cor. 3:10–15); the word appears in Rom. 9:33 in connection with Isa. 28:16; 8:14.
1:26–31
Paul cites Jer. 9:23/1 Kgdms. 2:10 in 1:31 and alludes to both texts and their surrounding contexts in 1:26–29. Both texts support his contention that the Corinthians should not evaluate themselves by human criteria before God; God called them by different standards. They should consider themselves in the light of the salvation plan of God in Christ. Both the allusions and the hybrid quotation can be dealt with together, but in reverse order, since the latter provides the clue to the recognition of the former. Further echoes of both OT texts may be heard in 4:6–13, which refers back to 1:31 (Wagner 1998).
1:31
A. NT Context: Boast Only in the Lord. As we noted above, there are two equally likely sources for the scriptural warning in question. The wording of Jer. 9:24 (9:23 LXX) and of 1 Kgdms. 2:10 is virtually identical, and both provide rich subtexts for Paul’s argument (note that 1 Kgdms. 2:10 contains material not found in 1 Sam. 2:10, which is based on the MT). We are not forced to choose, for, as Hays (1999: 404) observes, “significant writing often mingles the echoes of multiple precursors.”
If 1:18–25 considers those who reject the message of the cross, 1:26–31 shifts the focus to those who accept. Paul uses the Corinthians themselves as an illustration of the pattern of eschatological reversal that characterizes the work of Christ. The low social status of most of the Corinthians itself points to the cross, which was anything but impressive, humanly speaking, and radically overturned expectations.
B. Jer. 9:24/1 Kgdms. 2:10 in Their OT Contexts. The warning in Jeremiah is part of a series of judgment oracles. God’s judgment is coming on those people guilty of a variety of sins: lies, oppression, idolatry (specifically, Baal worship) (8:3–9:26). Those who claim to be wise will suffer judgment (e.g., 8:9: “The wise shall be put to shame . . . ; since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what wisdom is in them?”). The climax of the section is 9:23–24, which warns against all boasting save in God. The verb “boast” occurs five times in 9:23–24 in negative and positive senses, the improper boasts being human wisdom, strength, and riches.
First Kingdoms 2:10 concludes Hannah’s song of praise, in which God is exalted for reversing the fortunes of the poor and the downtrodden. A celebration of God’s gracious blessing, the accent here is on this startling reversal, rather than on eschatological judgment as in Jeremiah.
C. Jer. 9:24/1 Kgdms. 2:10 in Early Judaism. A number of Jewish texts, especially Jer. 9, cite or take up themes from the two LXX texts. Consonant with Paul’s use, these place the warning about improper boasting in the broader context of future universal judgment. They also discourage boasting in human attainments and instead promote trust in the plans of God (Williams 2001: 113–24).
D. Textual Matters. Stanley (1992: 188), who considers only the Jeremiah text, labels Paul’s use “a generalized appropriation of an attractive phrase from Jer 9.23 LXX by Paul himself.” The small differences between the precursor text and Paul’s rendition are three: (1) he omits the initial conjunction; (2) he advances “let the one who boasts” to the beginning of the sentence; (3) he changes the object of the boasting from toutō (“this,” referring to “that the one who boasts understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who . . .”) to en kyriō (“in the Lord”). The changes are not substantial. The third one does not change the meaning of the verse, “but it does create a concise and generalized expression that could be adapted to a variety of contexts (cf. 2 Cor. 10.17)” (Stanley 1992: 188). The phrase en kyriō, “in the Lord,” appears frequently in Paul’s letters.
First Kingdoms 2:10 is identical to Jer. 9:23 LXX except that the object of boasting is briefer and in fact closer to Paul’s citation: syniein kai ginōskein ton kyrion, the one who boasts “understands and knows the Lord.”
E. The Use of Jer. 9:24/1 Kgdms. 2:10 in 1 Cor. 1:26–31. The texts in question and their surrounding contexts have influenced the vocabulary, structure, and main theme of the paragraph in 1 Corinthians. The culminating pithy maxim in 1:31 is only the tip of the iceberg of scriptural dependence.
Jeremiah provides the pattern for Paul’s threefold dismissal of the wise, the powerful, and the well-born; 1:26–28 recalls Jer. 9:23: “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom, or the strong boast of their strength, or the rich boast of their riches.” Further, the reference to Christ in 1:30 becoming “righteousness” echoes the last part of Jer. 9:24 (“I act with mercy, justice, and righteousness”).
The connection to 1 Kgdms. 2:10 and the Song of Hannah underscores the reversal of status, a theme that Paul discusses in terms of wisdom and folly and strength and weakness throughout 1:18–31. The first reference to boasting in 1 Kgdms. 2:1–10 is negative and appears in 2:3. It resonates powerfully with Paul’s critique of the Corinthians’ obsession with rhetoric and could just as easily have been quoted (along with 2:10): “Do not boast [mē kauchasthe], and do not speak lofty things; do not let grandiloquence [megalorrēmosynē] come out of your mouth, because the Lord is a God of knowledge, and God prepares his own designs” (Hays’s [1997: 405] translation).
The allusions and citations in context supply the ideas of shame and role reversal in 1:26–29, help Paul move from past to future judgment in 1:27–29, and indicate how a personified boast in a wise messianic figure could emerge in 1:30.
F. Theological Use. Paul uses the texts in question to support his contention that through the cross God has turned the world’s values upside down. As Wagner (1998: 287) concludes, “Far from being an irrelevant reminder, Paul’s reference to the Scriptural command, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord,’ undergirds and advances his censure of the Corinthians’ behavior.” The paradoxical nature of salvation in Christ turns out, no less than his death and resurrection, to be “according to the Scriptures.” Paul’s disparagement of wisdom, power, and privilege is rooted in the OT. Thus Paul uses the text to sum up a point about the doctrine of salvation that has ethical implications for Corinthian factionalism.
Williams (2001: 133–56) perceives an echo of Zech. 4:6 in 2:3–5 that helps establish the character of Paul’s preaching: “Paul’s fear and trembling as a weak human being emphasize his cornerstone message of God’s power and presence. Therefore, the Corinthians should not despise the day of ‘small things’ (Zech 4:10)” (Williams 2001: 156).
Intriguingly, both Paul and Zechariah are establishers of foundations of a new temple (Zech. 4:6–10; 1 Cor. 3:10–11; cf. the Corinthians as a temple [1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16–18] and Paul as a temple worker [1 Cor. 9:13–14]). Combined with some shared terms (“spirit,” “wisdom,” “power”) and the importance of the text elsewhere in the NT (esp. Revelation), Zech. 4:6 resonates with Paul’s emphasis on his founding work among the Corinthians being in weakness and yet exhibiting divine power: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.”
2:6–12
The theme statement of 2:6–3:4 is 2:6a: “But [in contrast to human wisdom] we [the apostles and prophets/preachers at Corinth] speak wisdom [the gospel of Christ crucified in its fullness] among the mature [knowledgeable, discerning, experienced Christians]” (cf. 14:20). Picking up key elements of this statement, Paul expounds “wisdom” in 2:6b–12 negatively and positively, “we speak” in 2:13, and “the mature” in 2:14–3:4.
That Paul is quoting Scripture in 2:9 is suggested by the words “as it is written.” Nowhere else does he cite anything but the OT using this formula. However, what follows does not match closely any particular text in the Greek or Hebrew Bibles. In the third century Origen attributed the quotation to the now no longer extant Apocalypse of Elijah, and a similar quotation turns up in Gos. Thom. 17 as the words of Jesus. In fact, alternative hypotheses suggest that Paul is citing not only an apocryphal source or Jesus, but also a wisdom tradition and his opponents in Corinth. A range of OT texts have also been proposed as his source. After considering the best candidate for the precursor text to 2:9 (see Williams 2001: 157–208), we will also note an echo of Dan. 2:19–23 in 2:6–8, 10–11 (Hübner 1990–1995).
2:9
A. NT Context: No Eye Has Seen. Although we cannot be certain, a loose quotation of Isa. 64:4 (64:3 LXX), “From of old no one has heard or perceived by the ear, no eye has seen a God besides you,” in 2:9 has much to commend it. Both texts assert that no human being is able to understand the divine revelation without God’s enabling. The fact that the references to the ear and eye in Isa. 64:4 are in the reverse order compared to 1 Cor. 2:9 does not rule out a link between the texts; such alterations were an accepted aspect of citation technique in antiquity (see Stanley 1992).
The Hebrew idiom “go up onto the heart,” which appears in 2:9, is not found in Isa. 64:4 but does occur in the Greek of Isa. 65:17. This has led some to suggest that Paul combines Isa. 64:4 and 65:17 in his citation. However, two differences between Isa. 65:17 and 1 Cor. 2:9 weigh against it: (1) whereas the tense of the verb in Isaiah is future, in 1 Corinthians it is aorist; (2) the Isaiah text has “their heart” rather than “the heart of man.” The conclusion by Thiselton (2000: 251) is fair: “The widespread suggestion that Paul combines Isa. 64:4 and 65:17, although possible, seems too imprecise for certainty, even if Paul does combine various quotations in a catena or free collection elsewhere (e.g., in Rom. 3:10–18).”
In 2:8–12 Paul discusses the revelation of the wisdom that came to the apostles and prophets through the Holy Spirit. Negatively, it was not known (perceived or grasped) by the rulers of this age (2:8–9); positively, it was revealed by God through the Spirit to the apostles and prophets, who received the Spirit of God (2:10–12).
B. Isa. 64:4 in Its OT Context. Isaiah 64:4 concerns the uniqueness of God’s plan of salvation, which remains hidden. Judgment against God’s enemies also appears, as in the plea for divine intervention in 64:1 and the appearance of fire in 64:2 (cf. “to make your name known to your adversaries”).
C. Isa. 64:4 in Early Judaism. A range of texts associated with Isa. 64:4 stress the inability of humanity to understand God’s ways and connect it with the stone tradition and the theme of the new creation (cf. Isa. 65:17; see Williams 2001: 175–84).
D. Textual Matters. The loose form of citation precludes any discussion of textual differences.
E. The Use of Isa. 64:4 in 1 Cor. 2:9. In its new context the text is straightforward with one grammatical exception: semantically, what does the relative pronoun “what” (ha) look back to? While Conzelmann is right that the construction is difficult to unravel, Findlay and Ellicott’s suggestion makes sense of the connection: “what” looks back to “we speak” in 2:6–7, giving the sense: “we speak God’s wisdom . . . what no eye has seen. . . .” Thus Paul, in citing this Scripture, shows that the wisdom that he and other apostles and prophets preach is nothing less than the fullness of God’s plan of salvation. What Isaiah promised as part of a dramatic divine intervention (see 64:1), Paul takes to be fulfilled in the message and proclamation of the cross.
F. Theological Use. With this citation Paul develops further the apocalyptic dimension of divine wisdom. Those who love God understand his salvation as true wisdom. Having affirmed that Paul does teach wisdom among the mature, we are reminded by Isa. 64:4 that we relate to God through love, not primarily through wisdom or knowledge: “these things God has prepared for those who love him.” Those “in the know” are not there by virtue of their own ingenuity; they receive “what no human mind has conceived.” God prepares things beyond human comprehension for those who are his. As Paul will say in 2:16, “the mature” are not those who boast of their superior mind but rather “have the mind of Christ.” Paul uses the text to promote systemic humility among the proud Corinthians.
2:6–8, 10–11
When God reveals to Daniel the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Dan. 2:16, Daniel responds in a prayer that shares language and ideas similar to those in 1 Cor. 2:6–8, 10–11. In both passages wisdom (Dan. 2:20–21, 23; 1 Cor. 2:6) from God is associated with a mystery (Dan. 2:19; 1 Cor. 2:7), and both claim that this mystery reaches to the depths: “he reveals deep [bathys] and hidden things” (Dan. 2:22); “the Spirit searches all things, even the depths [bathos] of God” (1 Cor. 2:10). The similarities, though noteworthy, are insufficient to regard this as more than a possible echo.
2:16
A. NT Context: The Mind of Christ. Having declared that he has received God’s wisdom by the Spirit of God (2:10–11), Paul explains in 2:12–3:4 the relationship that the Spirit has to him and to others. In 2:16 he quotes the question from Isa. 40:13: “Who has known the mind of the LORD?” Paul’s answer in the same verse is that “we have the mind of Christ.”
B. Isa. 40:13 in Its OT Context. One of several rhetorical questions in 40:12–14, Isa. 40:13 expects the answer “no one.” Isaiah 40:15–17 stresses further the gulf between humans and God: even “the nations are like a drop in the bucket.” In context, the “spirit of the Lord,” which no one can know, involves God’s plan of salvation (11:2; 40:7; 59:19; 63:14). Likewise, no one is qualified to be God’s “counselor” (11:2; 19:3; 30:1). Isaiah 40 itself concerns God’s intention to deliver his people, as 40:1–11 indicates. As Williams (2001: 214) observes, 40:13a could be paraphrased, “Who is able to comprehend the salvific plan of God?”
Another dimension to the “spirit of the Lord” in Isaiah is its association with the figure of the servant who acts as God’s agent in salvation (42:1; 48:16; 61:1; 63:10).
C. Isa. 40:13 in Early Judaism. The use of this text in Jewish literature anticipates Paul’s use in a number of ways (Williams 2001: 216–25). The spirit of the Lord is connected with the mind of the Lord not only in the LXX, but also in Wis. 9:13, 17. Furthermore, the link to God’s plan of salvation is clear in various texts from Qumran that emphasize human inability to grasp God’s spirit, mind, and ways. Other texts indicate that there is a group of people, effectively a remnant, who due to divine intervention do indeed grasp his plan of deliverance (e.g., Qumran, 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra).
D. Textual Matters. The MT reads, “Who has measured the spirit of the LORD? Or what man shows him his counsel?” while the LXX reads, “Who has known the mind of the Lord? And who has become his advisor so as to instruct him?” The MT and LXX differ significantly only in regard to the verbs “measure” and “know” and the nouns “spirit” (rûaḥ) and “mind” (nous). First Corinthians 2:16 begins exactly as the LXX, with the addition of “for,” but omits the middle clause. The change from “spirit” to “mind” is understandable in Paul’s case because the two are virtual synonyms in 1 Cor. 2:10–15.
E. The Use of Isa. 40:13 in 1 Cor. 2:16. Introduced with an explanatory gar (“for”), the question and answer conclude 2:12–16. That the citation leads into 3:1–4 is indicated by the conjunction kagō (“and I”) at the beginning of 3:1, since the word is normally used to link its clause or statement (or the author/speaker) with what preceded. Paul’s use of the Isaiah text clarifies a number of puzzling features of the passage.
Paul’s audacious claim that we have the mind of Christ represents a biting ironic twist against the Corinthian elitists. His identification of Christ with the “spirit”/“mind” of Isa. 40:13 is explicable in the light of its connection in Isaiah with the servant. Paul is not asserting his possession of a spiritual insight above his fellow Christians. The wisdom of which he speaks is not exclusive or esoteric but nothing more or less than the cross and the salvation that it wrought (1:18–25).
The disjunction between the times of Isaiah and of Paul is underscored in the stunning final assertion of 2:16b. “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” The anticipated answer is “no one.” Yet Paul follows the question with the answer, “But we have the mind of Christ.” “Mind” here is “not an instrument of thought,” but rather “a mode of thought” or “mindset” (Thiselton 2000: 275). The “mind of Christ,” then, is God’s profound wisdom regarding salvation through a crucified Messiah, which was hidden but now revealed by the Holy Spirit. In keeping with earlier uses of the first-person plural pronoun in such statements, “we” here does refer to the apostles specifically, but also to those who are spiritual, for they receive the message of God’s wisdom (2:6).
The change from “Lord” to “Christ” is a subtle indication that Paul sees himself and the Corinthians living in the messianic age of fulfillment. As Jewett (1971: 377) puts it, “The change of expression from ‘Lord’ in 16a to ‘Christ’ in 16b binds the true divine wisdom to the crucified Christ.” The Spirit does not impart wisdom out of thin air, for the Spirit and the cross go together. The mind of Christ is not exercised by thinking about nothing. Rather, those who are spiritual habitually turn to the cross (2:8), as Paul did in the face of divisions in Corinth in 1:18–2:5. For the cross is where we find Christ’s mindset on such behavior.
F. Theological Use. Paul’s discussion of wisdom is not philosophical, but rather apocalyptic in character. Based on OT and Jewish traditions, and in keeping with his use of other OT texts elsewhere in chapters 1–4, Paul speaks of “this age,” a “hidden mystery” “decreed before the ages,” and a “glory” that is “revealed.” As Hays (1999: 407) notes, “Paul was trying to remake the minds of his readers by teaching them to interpret their lives in light of an eschatologically interpreted Scripture.”
In 3:5–9 Paul uses an agricultural image in dealing with the preoccupation of the Corinthians with specific leaders. Hays and Williams have detected an echo here of Isa. 5:1–7, a prominent text in early Jewish interpretation of Scripture. Overlapping features include the planting as the people of God, God’s role as the chief worker and owner of the vineyard/field, the relative unimportance of human workers and their role as mediators, and the notion of inappropriate fruit. In particular, like 1 Cor. 3:5–9, Isa. 5:2 mixes building and planting metaphors (cf. Jer. 18:9; 24:6; Ezek. 36:9–10).
3:10–17
Turning to architectural imagery to describe his role in Corinth, Paul echoes Isa. 3:3 in 3:10 (Robertson and Plummer 1911; Hübner 1990–1995, vol. 2) and Mal. 3:2–3 in 3:12–15 (Proctor 1993; Schrage 1991–2001), and he picks up a biblical theme in 3:16–17.
In 3:10 Paul refers to himself as “a wise master builder.” Only in Isa. 3:3 and here do we find the combination of sophos and architektōn. Both passages speak of wisdom and of judgment in relation to the leaders of God’s people.
A number of OT and Jewish texts swirling around a general motif of judgment may have influenced Paul in 3:12–15. Malachi 3:2–3 is a specific parallel. The two texts use similar terminology (gold, silver, day, fire). Both envisage a judgment in which fire consumes certain materials. Both “the temple” (1 Cor. 3:16) and its leaders are seen in relation to a judgment that will distinguish valid from ineffectual service.
The motif of temple and holiness (naos occurs over sixty times in the LXX; hagios over five hundred times) in 3:16–17 is a biblical one that has relevance to 5:1–13 (on which, see commentary below). Descriptions of the temple as God’s dwelling and warnings to those who would profane or destroy God’s temple are common in Scripture.
The comparisons of the church to “God’s field” and “God’s building” may in fact be related. Beale (2004: 245–52) lays out the evidence. The “building” in question turns out to be a temple in 3:16, for which the most obvious model is that of Solomon’s temple. As Beale states, “The only other place in Scripture where a ‘foundation’ of a building is laid and ‘gold,’ ‘silver,’ and ‘precious stones’ are ‘built’ upon the foundation is Solomon’s temple” (1 Kings 5:17; 6:20–21, 28, 30, 35; cf. 1 Chron. 29:1–7; 3–4). Indeed, “one hundred thousand talents of gold and a million talents of silver” were prepared for the construction of Solomon’s temple (1 Chron. 22:14). Furthermore, the description of Solomon’s temple combined precious metals with botanical features, such as wood-carved “gourds and open flowers” (1 Kings 6:18), “palm trees” (1 Kings 6:29, 32), “pomegranates” (1 Kings 7:18–20), “a lily design” (1 Kings 7:22), rows of “gourds” (1 Kings 7:24–26, 42), and lampstands resembling a grove of trees with blossoms (1 Kings 7:49–50). Significantly, later Judaism spoke of Solomon’s temple as a “field” (Tg. Ps.-J. 27:27; Pesiq. Rab. Piska 39). And in the early Christian Odes of Solomon, 38:17–21 describes a “saint” being “established” on “foundations [that] were laid” and also as a “cultivation” that was “watered” by God. These traditions build upon the fact that in the OT “the Garden of Eden, Israel’s garden-like promised land, and Israel’s future restoration in a garden-like land were either equated or associated with a temple” (Beale 2004: 246). All this suggests that in 3:5–18 Paul is comparing the Corinthians not just to any cultivated field and temple, but to nothing less than Solomon’s garden temple.
3:19
A. NT Context: Catching the Wise. In order to demonstrate further the futility of human wisdom, Paul appeals to two more OT texts in 3:19–20. Together they offer a pithy summary of Paul’s argument in 1:18–3:21 (Koch 1986: 275). The first declares God’s ability to frustrate the goals of those claiming to be wise: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.”
B. Job 5:13 in Its OT Context. The unit in which the verse appears, part of the first speech of Eliphaz, reinforces the idea of God’s superiority over human wisdom and strength. Job 5:8–16, in a passage depicting the God who does “great, unsearchable, and marvelous things” (5:9), sets up an opposition between “the wise” and “the poor.” The passage in question develops the theme of God’s deliverance of the latter (“he saves the needy from the sword of their mouth . . . so the poor have hope” [5:15–16]) and his frustration of the former (“the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end” [5:13b]).
C. Job 5:13 in Early Judaism. A number of Jewish texts develop themes arising out of or overlapping with the sentiments of Job 5:13 (Williams 2001: 307–15). For example, Bar. 3:20–28 protests the futility of human striving to attain wisdom, which can be granted only by God’s revelation (cf. 3:36–4:4). That God makes certain wise people ineffectual and thwarts their plans is seen in Pss. Sol. 8:20 (the wise Jewish leaders when the Romans captured Jerusalem); Wis. 17:7–11 (the wise Egyptians at the time of the exodus); 3 Macc. 1–2 (King Ptolemy planning to enter the holy of holies); Jdt. 2:2–3 (Holofernes and Nebuchadnezzar planning to decimate Judea).
D. Textual Matters. The MT, LXX, and 1 Cor. 3:19 carry an equivalent sense but differ in some details. Compared to the LXX, Paul has drassomai rather than katalambanō (both meaning “lay hold of”), and en tē panourgia autōn (“in their craftiness”) instead of en tē phronēsei (“in prudence/understanding”). Concerning the latter, the Hebrew is closer to Paul’s rendition, using a word that implies a sly and crafty form of wisdom. The differences may be explained as Paul offering his own Hebraizing revision of the present LXX or his own translation of the Hebrew, or that he is quoting a wholly independent translation of the Hebrew text of Job (see Stanley 1992: 188–94).
E. The Use of Job 5:13 in 1 Cor. 3:19. In the book of Job as a whole, Job’s friends’ advice is shown to be unhelpful, misapplied wisdom. Hays (1997: 59), however, rightly asserts that “Paul cites Job 5:13 here as an authoritative disclosure of the truth about God’s debunking of human wisdom.” The immediate context of the quotation resonates with the themes of reversal and the mystery of divine mercy that Paul introduced earlier in the letter (1:18–2:16).
F. Theological Use. See commentary on 1 Cor. 3:20 below.
3:20
A. NT Context: The World’s Wisdom Is Folly. If in 1:18–25 Paul says that what God does in wisdom seems foolish to the world, here we have the converse: what the world thinks is wise, God declares to be futile folly (Fee 1987: 152).
B. Ps. 94:11 in Its OT Context. Psalm 94 is a prayer for God to overthrow the wicked oppressors and vindicate the righteous. The summary by Thiselton (2000: 323) is accurate: “Psalm 94 stresses that in spite of manipulative and corrupt leadership by those in authority (Ps. 94:5–7, 16), the ‘schemes’ of these human persons fail because their best ‘thinkers’ are fallible (Ps. 94:11).” The psalm also promises that blessing awaits those who depend on God; he will not abandon them, but rather will teach them and aid them in their time of need (94:12–23).
C. Ps. 94:11 in Early Judaism. The contrast between human thinking and God’s thoughts is widespread in Jewish literature (Williams 2001: 315–25). The Targum of Job contains numerous references to the futility of the human intellect without God’s revelation. Likewise, Bar. 3:29–37 asserts the inaccessibility of God’s wisdom. In 1 Macc. 2:61–64 the plans (dialogismos) of sinners will perish. Other texts emphasize the benefits of cooperating with God’s plans and call on people to turn to God asking for wisdom.
D. Textual Matters. The MT, the LXX, and 1 Cor. 3:20 are equivalent except that Paul renders Ps. 94:11 (93:11 LXX) as describing the thoughts of “the wise” instead of “men” (anthrōpōn). No OT manuscript has any other reading. A few lesser Pauline manuscripts agree with the MT and the LXX and read anthrōpōn instead of sophōn in 3:20, but this is probably a deliberate conforming of Paul’s wording to the psalm. “There is little reason to doubt that the present modification goes back to Paul himself” (Stanley 1992: 195).
The futility of human wisdom is a central theme for Paul in 1:19–27a; 2:4–6; 3:18–19. However, it is not that he has altered the text in cavalier fashion simply to suit his argument. Paul’s allusion to 94:14 in Rom. 11:2 indicates that he knew the psalm well. What makes the form of his quotation in 3:20 explicable is the link that Ps. 94 itself forges between “fools” and the “wise”: “Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?” (94:8). The “humans” spoken of in 94:11, whose thoughts the Lord knows to be futile, are the same group described as “fools” earlier in the psalm. That Paul feels free to label them, ironically, as “the wise” fits his rhetoric and does no violence to the larger context of the psalm.
E. The Use of Ps. 94:11 in 1 Cor. 3:20. Psalm 94 and early Jewish literature emphasize not only that God thwarts the plans of the wise, but also that there is great blessing for those who are part of and cooperate with God’s plans. Thus, not only does the citation of Ps. 94:11 signal the futility of acting or thinking independently of God, but also, as 3:21–23 goes on to celebrate, there are great benefits to those who boast not in human leaders, but rather in God.
F. Theological Use. Together the texts cited in 3:19–20, which testify to the futility of human thoughts apart from God’s revelation and the consequent emptiness of human wisdom, support Paul’s conclusion in 3:21a: “Let no one boast about human leaders” (NRSV). Paul uses the two citations in 3:19–20 to bolster the paradoxical nature of his doctrine of salvation. The gospel spells the end of human pride.
Described by Conzelmann (1975: 86) as “unintelligible,” the words “not [to go] beyond the things which are written” (4:6) are most naturally taken as a reference to Scripture; 4:6 instructs the Corinthians not to transgress the exhortations found in and constructed from the Scriptures, to boast exclusively in the Lord (not in human leaders), and to recognize the unity of the people of God. Hays (1997: 69) defends this interpretation convincingly:
The phrase “what is written” in Paul always refers to Scripture. . . . Paul has prominently spotlighted six Scripture quotations in the first three chapters of the letter (1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20). In the case of the first two and the last two, the application of the texts is explicitly spelled out: No boasting in human beings. First Corinthians 3:21a links the two quotations in chapter 3 back to the quotations in chapter 1. . . . Furthermore, the two quotations in chapter 2, though they are not explicit admonitions against boasting, reinforce the same theme by juxtaposing God’s gracious ways to all human understanding. The cumulative force of these citations is unmistakable: the witness of Scripture places a strict limit on human pride and calls for trust in God alone. What would it mean to go “beyond” this witness of Scripture? It would mean, quite simply, to boast in human wisdom by supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God. The last clause of 1 Corinthians 4:6 confirms this interpretation.
Alternatively, Wagner (1998) argues that 4:6a refers back in particular to the citation in 1:31, noting echoes of 1 Kgdms. 2:10 in 4:6–13.
The Case of the Incestuous Man (4:18–5:13)
Introduction
If the Corinthians’ fundamental problem is divisions, their most serious and pressing fault is that they are tolerating in their midst the presence of a man committing incest. In 4:18–21, a transitional section, Paul threatens the Corinthians with stern discipline if they do not acknowledge his authority. In 5:1–2 he rebukes the Corinthians for their inaction and tells them to remove the offender. In 5:3–5 he supplies authoritative support for this action. In 5:6–8 he offers further motivation, appealing to the spiritual self-interest of the Corinthians’ church: whereas removing the offender will benefit them, allowing him to remain will harm them. In 5:9–11 he further facilitates the offender’s removal by correcting a misunderstanding: it is such offenders within, not outside, the household of faith whom they must shun. Finally, in 5:12–13 he asserts the Corinthians’ responsibility to act and closes the section with a weighty command from Scripture.
Incest
Whether committed with one’s mother or with the wife of one’s father, incest is prohibited in the OT and early Judaism. Many commentators mention Lev. 18:8; 20:11 as the critical background to Paul’s decision to expel the sinner, noting the shared terminology gynē and patēr, “woman/wife” and “father” (5:1). Sexual intercourse with the “wife” of one’s father is also condemned in Gen. 49:4 (cf. 35:22); Ezek. 22:10–11. However, two verses in Deuteronomy are just as likely to have influenced Paul. First, Deut. 27:20, “Cursed is the man who sleeps with his father’s wife,” is perhaps the reason Paul “curses” the sinner in chapter 5. Second, Deut. 22:30, “A man must not marry his father’s wife,” may have been the impetus for Paul to quote the Deuteronomic expulsion formula in 5:13. A variation of that formula appears in Deut. 22:22 (“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both of them must die . . . ; you must purge the evil from Israel” [cf. 22:24]) and presumably carries the penalty for the incest prohibited in Deut. 22:30.
Judaism maintained this Deuteronomic resolve that incest be punished: m. Sanh. 7:4 (incest is punishable by stoning); 9:1 and m. Ker. 1:1 (incest is one of the first offenses punishable by expulsion); Jub. 33:10–13; t. Sanh. 10:1; CD-A V; 11Q19 LXVI. Josephus describes incest as “the grossest of sins” and “an outrageous crime” (Ant. 3.274), and of incest Philo asks, “What form of unholiness could be more impious than this?” (Spec. Laws 3.13–14; cf. 3.20–21).
Expulsion
The rationale that Paul provides for removing the offender recalls teaching from the Pentateuch, where expulsion is administered for (1) breach of the covenant and (2) guilt by association in order to (3) maintain holiness. The three motifs form a package of three perspectives on the identity of Israel: offenders are expelled because Israel is the sanctified (holiness motif) covenant (covenant motif) community (corporate responsibility motif) of the Lord, the holy God. These motifs undergird Paul’s teaching throughout the passage (Rosner 1999: 61–93).
4:21
The rod that Paul threatens to brandish reluctantly is what OT wisdom believed a father (cf. 4:15) should use to drive out folly from the heart of his children (Prov. 22:15; 23:13–14).
5:1–2
Paul’s rebuke of Corinthian arrogance and his call for the body to show passionate grief that will lead to action indicates that he considered the Corinthians in some sense implicated in the offense of the sinner. The verb pentheō (“grieve”) is used in the NT of mourning over the death of a loved one (Matt. 9:15; Mark 16:10; cf. Gen. 50:10) and for grief over a great loss (Rev. 18:11, 15, 19). Hence many commentators understand Paul to be enjoining a mourning over the impending loss of the sinning brother. However, the word is used elsewhere by Paul only in 2 Cor. 12:21 (cf. Jas. 4:9; 1 Clem. 2:6), where its sense closely parallels the concept of godly sorrow or repentance.
The use of “mourn” in the LXX suggests that in 5:2a Paul thought that the Corinthians ought to mourn in the sense of confessing the sin of the erring brother as if it were their own. The word occurs only six times in the LXX with reference to sin. In Ezra 10:6; Neh. 1:4; 1 Esd. 8:72 (8:69 LXX); 9:2; and Dan. 10:2 it refers to sorrow over the sins of others, and in Neh. 8:9 (cf. T. Reub. 1:10) it refers to sorrow over personal sin (but still in a corporate context). For example, in Ezra 10:6 Ezra “mourned over the unfaithfulness of the exiles.” In the former references the grief is given expression in prayers by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel in which the sins of others are confessed as if they are their own. Ezra 10 in particular is a distinct parallel to 1 Cor. 5. It is an Ezra-like Paul who deals with the expulsion of the sinner. Just as Ezra mourned over the sins of the community, so also Paul enjoined the Corinthians to mourn over the sin of the incestuous man. Just as Ezra demanded that the sinners separate from their foreign partners or else suffer expulsion (10:8), so also Paul demanded the expulsion of the sinner unless he separate from his illicit partner.
In biblical thought, failure to deal with a blatantly sinning member invites the possibility of judgment from God on the whole group (see Rosner 1992a). The corollary of corporate responsibility—the fear of God’s judgment on the community—evident in Josh. 7 and other OT texts, is also present in the incidents involving Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel. All three assumed that the nation stood under the covenant and that breach of responsibility could jeopardize the whole group before God. A sense of urgency gripped these leaders in their dealings with God and the nation. As Héring (1969: 35) states, “In the OT, belief in the efficacy of mourning and fasting for warding off public misfortune is well attested by 1 Kings 21.9; Amos 5.16; 8.10.”
In 5:4 the excommunication is to take place when the Corinthians “are assembled” in the name and power of the Lord Jesus. Whatever else this scene implies, it is comparable to the judgment scene of Deut. 19:16–20, which includes the command quoted in 5:13b. In Deut. 19 the discipline also takes place in the presence of the congregation (19:20a) and of God (19:17). Comparable texts are Lev. 24:14, 16 (“the entire assembly is to stone” a blasphemer); Num. 15:35 (“the entire assembly must stone” the sabbath-breaker); 35:24 (“the assembly must judge” a case of homicide). The forum for the judgment of offenders is the gathered community also in 1QS VI–VII. In biblical criminal law the entire community is involved in judgment.
Paul prescribes the actual judgment in 5:5: the offender is to be handed over to Satan for “the destruction of the flesh.” Some hold that Paul here enjoins the pronouncement of a curse on the immoral man that will lead to physical suffering and ultimately death (cf. NEB: “This man is to be consigned to Satan for the destruction of the body”). The word olethros (“destruction”), it is argued, is so strong a term that it must refer to death. In the LXX the cognate verb olethreuō frequently denotes utter ruin and sudden death (e.g., Exod. 12:23; Josh. 3:10; 7:25; Jer. 2:30), and Paul uses the related term, olothreutēs, in 10:10 in referring to loss of life at the hands of “the destroying angel.” Supposedly parallel ancient curses appear in secular Greek literature (the Magical Papyri) and Jewish sources, and similar tragic episodes of serious sin leading to loss of life occur in Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor. 11:30. Conzelmann (1975: 97) states the conclusion that seems to follow: “The destruction of the flesh can hardly mean anything else but death.”
However, the “curse/death” view of 5:5 is not the best interpretation. To hand the offender over to Satan is to turn him back out into Satan’s sphere, outside the edifying and caring environment of the church, where God is at work (see South 1993). The “flesh” to be “destroyed” is his sinful nature. In other words, 5:5 states metaphorically what Paul says literally in 5:2, 13: the man is to be excluded from the community of faith.
The resemblance of 5:5 to ancient curse formulas is only superficial. The closest parallels are OT formulas using the terms “drive out” and “cut off.” Second Temple Judaism regularly replaced execution with excommunication when applying these texts to their communities (see Horbury 1985, esp. 27–30). Also parallel perhaps are Job 1:12; 2:6, where Job is “handed over” to Satan, in which case suffering led to a positive result, and the loss of life was specifically excluded.
Why must the offending man’s flesh be “destroyed”? Three groups of observations support the case for reading chapter 5 (esp. 5:5) with 3:16–17 (“Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, and that is what you are”) with an OT temple/holiness motif in mind. The man must suffer “destruction” because he has destroyed God’s holy temple, the church. First, certain features of 3:16–17 suggest its affinity with chapter 5. The characteristic of the temple to which Paul draws attention in 3:16–17 is its holiness, which carries a demand for the maintenance of purity, a thought that Paul develops in 5:6–8. Second, temple imagery is prominent in both Corinthian epistles. In 2 Cor. 6:16 the church is identified as the “temple of God,” and in 1 Cor. 6:12–20 the need for sexual purity is linked to Christians being the “temple of the Holy Spirit.” Third, Horbury demonstrates that during the Second Temple period the scope of the laws of admission to the assembly found in Deut. 23:1–8 were expanded beyond stipulations of physique and descent to include moral requirements. Biblical evidence for this evolution includes the “entrance-torot” (Ps. 15; 24:3–5; Isa. 33:14–17), the exclusion of “rebels” in Ezek. 20:38–40 from the future congregation, and the indictment of Israel in Ezek. 44:6–9 for admitting into the sanctuary aliens who are “uncircumcised in heart.” Josephus and Philo build upon this biblical background and “take Deut. 23 to exclude not only aliens and defective Jews, but also gravely-offending Jewish sinners” (Horbury 1985: 26).
The likelihood that Deut. 23:1–8 played a role in the formation of Paul’s thinking in 1 Cor. 5 is increased by the fact that Deut. 22:30 addresses the very question that Paul is engaging: “A man must not marry his father’s wife; he must not dishonor his father’s bed.” That Paul linked the two passages has every possibility because, as Horbury (1985: 25) observes, “The admission-regulations of Deut. 23:2–9 (1–8) were linked in rabbinic exegesis with 23:1 (22:30), and correspondingly understood, as by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as marriage laws.” This exegesis may even have a basis in Deuteronomy. Fishbane (1985: 120) suggests that Deut. 22:30 and 23:1–8 are linked through the mention of the Ammonites and Moabites, who, according to Gen. 19:31–38, are the offspring of incest (Lot and his daughters).
5:6–8
Having “cleansed the temple,” Paul calls upon the congregation to celebrate spiritually the festival of Passover/Unleavened Bread. That this sequence of events occurred to Paul’s mind may itself testify to the influence of the OT temple motif, since in the OT there is an observable link between cleansing or restoring the temple and celebrating the Passover. Following the “removal of all defilement from the sanctuary” in order to “reestablish the service of the temple of the LORD” (2 Chron. 29:5, 35), King Hezekiah calls upon the people to celebrate the Passover (2 Chron. 30). Similarly, King Josiah, after removing the articles of idolatry from the temple and repositing the sacred ark in its rightful place, orders the Israelites to celebrate the Passover and observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread (2 Kings 23:1–23; 2 Chron. 35:1–19). In Ezra the same pattern is followed: first the completion and dedication of the temple (6:13–18), then a joyous Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread (6:19–22).
Paul wants the Corinthians to be free from leaven, “a new batch,” without the evil influence of the sinning brother. The sense of “get rid of” (ekkathairō) in 5:7 is paralleled by the use of a similar verb (ekkatharizō) in Judg. 20:13, where the Benjamites are called upon by the other tribes of Israel to execute certain Gibeonite sexual offenders (see 19:22–26) and thereby “get rid of the evil from Israel.”
“Leaven” is a “little” portion of a previous week’s “batch of dough” that had been allowed to ferment. When added to the next batch, the leaven made the bread rise. It carried with it the slight risk of infection, especially if the process was left to go on indefinitely without starting afresh with a completely new batch. Each year the Israelites, in part perhaps as a health provision, had to cleanse their homes and the temple from all leaven (Exod. 12:14–20; Deut. 16:3–8). The unleavened bread from the Feast of Unleavened Bread would supply some “fresh” leaven and start the process anew for the next twelve months of baking bread. The Israelites left Eygpt in such a hurry that they did not have time to leaven their bread. The Feast of Unleavened Bread, a seven-day festival in which the Jews were forbidden to eat anything leavened, commemorates this event. Paul emphasizes (by emphatic word order in Greek) that although in only a “little” part of the church—one person, in fact—the evil would inevitably, slowly but surely, spread through the whole community if left unchecked. The example of willful sin in the church can have serious effects. Like leaven in bread, unchecked sin in the church spreads through the whole and irretrievably changes it.
With the mention of unleavened bread, Paul’s mind turns to Passover, that great founding event for God’s people Israel, and the cross, its even more relevant equivalent as a type for the church. Such events and institutions are regarded by Paul as patterns of God’s work of salvation in the OT that point to their greater analogue of salvation in Christ. In 5:8 Paul draws out a lesson from the fact that only unleavened bread was eaten during Passover. He broadens out the discussion of the unfortunate case at hand, without losing sight of it, to treat the Christian life as a whole, which he pictures most attractively as a celebration: “Therefore let us keep the festival,” a reference to holy living and moral purity in general.
5:9–11
In 5:10 Paul lists four examples of people with whom social contact in the world is unavoidable. Then in 5:11 he gives a representative list of six sinners that the church is to judge in terms of withdrawal of social integration. The verb synesthiō (“eat with”) appears in Ps. 100:5 LXX (101:5 MT) in a similar context: “He who slanders his neighbors secretly, he is banished; he who is of haughty looks and of a greedy heart, with him food is not shared [synēsthion].” There, as Newton (1985: 95) observes, “banishment is equivalent to [exclusion from] table fellowship” in comparable fashion to 5:11. In both 1 Cor. 5 and Ps. 100 LXX the faithful are not to eat with those guilty of slander, arrogance, and greed. In Ps. 100:7 LXX (101:7 MT) the presence of God in the temple and evil are said to be incompatible, supplying a further link with the temple theme in 1 Cor. 5: “No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsehood shall remain in my presence.” The psalm again demonstrates the OT roots of Paul’s instructions about exclusion from the people of God.
The representative list of sinners that the church is to judge (5:12b) is in one sense a list of covenantal norms that, when broken, automatically exclude the offender. Paul lists “sexual immorality” first, since that is the issue at hand. But what governs his choice of the next five vices in the catalog? Paul gives a clue in 5:13b: the sins to which the Deuteronomic formula “Expel the wicked person from among you,” which Paul quotes, is connected in Deuteronomy form a remarkable parallel to the particular sins mentioned in 5:11 (Rosner 1999: 68–70; Hays 1997: 88):
|
1 Cor. 5:11 |
Deuteronomy |
|
|
|
|
sexually immoral |
promiscuity, adultery (22:21–22, 30) |
|
greedy |
(no parallel, but paired with “robber” in 1 Cor. 5:10) |
|
idolater |
idolatry (13:1–5; 17:2–7) |
|
reviler |
malicious false testimony (19:16–19) |
|
drunkard |
rebellious drunken son (21:18–21) |
|
robber |
kidnapping, slave-trading (24:7; the LXX uses kleptēs [“thief”]) |
|
|
|
5:12–13
A. NT Context: Expelling the Sinner. In 5:13b Paul quotes a frequent expression of the LXX of Deuteronomy, where it is used on six occasions to signal the execution of a variety of offenders (13:6 [13:5 ET], using aphanizō rather than exairō; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7; cf. 17:12; 22:22; Judg. 20:13; 1 Macc. 14:14). The verb exairō (“expel”) occurs in the NT only here, suggesting Paul’s intentional and explicit use of the formula from Deuteronomy. Paul’s failure to introduce a quotation in 5:13b with “as it is written” or the like may be explicable on rhetorical grounds; the lack of connection suits the chapter’s emotionally charged atmosphere.
B. The Deuteronomic Expulsion Formula in Its OT Context. Deuteronomic expulsion formulas involving the verb “utterly remove” (BDB §129.3) are consistently associated with the idea of a covenant. This word is translated by exairō in the LXX of Deuteronomy, and it is one of these formulas that Paul quotes in 5:13b. People are expelled by these formulas in Deuteronomy for having breached the covenant. Deuteronomy 17:7 makes this clear; the expulsion takes place because a person has “violated the covenant” of Israel’s God (17:2). Commenting on Achan’s sin, Josh. 7:15 states: “He who is caught with the devoted things shall be destroyed . . . because he has violated the covenant of the LORD” (cf. 23:16: “If you violate the covenant of the LORD your God . . . you will quickly perish”).
Another reason for expulsion in this material is to deter a further breach of the covenant in the community. For example, Deut. 19:19b–20 states, “You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.” To dissuade further from sin is also a reason for expulsion in 13:12–18; 17:2–7, 12–13; 21:18–21. In such formulas the offender is expelled in order to maintain Israel’s obedience to the demands of the covenant. Read in the light of this material, the vice catalog of 1 Cor. 5:11 takes on new significance.
A second motif is associated with “utterly remove” formulas in Deut. 19:13; 21:9. In both cases the phrase “You must rid Israel of the guilt of innocent blood” expresses the penalty for the crime of murder. That “blood guilt” touches the whole community is made clear in Deut. 19:13, where the motivation for the expulsion is “so that it may go well with you [i.e., the nation]” (cf. Deut. 21:8). The notion of “blood guilt” introduces the motif of corporate responsibility, in which the community is held responsible for the sin of an individual.
C. Expulsion in Early Judaism. In the Damascus Document expulsion from the community for a variety of offenses is also consistently associated with the covenant.
As we noted above, in Paul’s day many Jews replaced execution with expulsion in applying the teaching from Deuteronomy.
D. Textual Matters. The texts in the LXX of Deuteronomy and 1 Corinthians are identical except for the verb, with the latter using a singular future indicative rather than a plural aorist imperative, presumably to suit Paul’s epistolary context.
E. The Use of the Deuteronomic Formula in 1 Cor. 5. The command to expel the sinner closes Paul’s instructions on the case of the incestuous man in an unambiguous and uncompromising way. At the end of chapter 5, along with connecting with the vice list of 5:11 (see above), it draws together the threads of covenant and corporate responsibility that run through the passage and complements Paul’s own authority with that of Scripture.
Once again we see Paul using Israel as an analogy for the church. If God’s people in Israel expelled certain sinners, then God’s people in Christ should do no less.
F. Theological Use. In all of Paul’s letters no instruction speaks more forcefully about the seriousness of sin, the holiness of God’s people, and their corporate standing before him than this passage, which is the longest text in the NT on the subject of church discipline. The church must expel the wicked man in the hope of regaining him and above all to protect the community’s standing before God and the world. This teaching is largely based on the Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy, as 5:13b suggests.
Civil Litigation in the Family of God (6:1–11)
Introduction
Paul turns his attention to another issue that involves judging. He is indignant that “the saints”—that is, members of the church in Corinth—are suing each other in secular courts. His case against lawsuits comprises two points: (1) in 6:1–6 he insists that Christians ought to be able to settle their own disputes; (2) in 6:7–11, going a step further, he contends that Christians ought to be willing to suffer injustice rather than engage in a dispute with another believer (see Rosner 1999: chap. 4).
The Processes of Law
In the OT there is a distinction between civil and criminal processes of law (Buss 1977). The link between 5:1–13 and 6:1–11 becomes clear when the two passages are read in the light of this distinction. Incest, the problem in 5:1–13, falls in the category of criminal law, and the dispute in 6:1–11 is covered by civil law that deals with relations within a group. Criminal cases “were decided by the head of a community on his own authority or by the people as a corporate whole” (Buss 1977: 53), both of which occur in 5:3–5, where Paul pronounces judgment and calls for the consent of the body corporate. Criminal legislation in the OT “speaks of the offender in the third person and addresses the breaching community in the second” (Buss 1977: 59) (e.g., Exod. 21:14, 23). This is precisely Paul’s style in 5:1–13.
Civil cases in the OT, on the other hand, were to be presented to the judges described in Exod. 18/Deut. 1 and related passages. It is the model of these judges that informs Paul’s discussion in 6:1–11.
It appears that Paul understood the scriptural distinctions between civil and criminal law and appropriated them in response to Corinthian problems in 5:1–6:11. First Corinthians 5:1–13 and 6:1–11 are related in that they both concern law, criminal and civil respectively.
The Appointment of Judges
Various attempts have been made to compare the Christian “courts” that Paul recommends in 6:1–6 with contemporary Jewish judicial practices.
There can be little doubt that Paul’s concern that judicial matters be settled internally was the common Jewish attitude of his day. It is also possible that the administration of justice in ancient Israel as presented in the Scriptures may have influenced Paul’s thinking in the appointment of judges. De Vaux (1965: 1:152–55) explains that Israel had three different jurisdictions involving priests, elders, and professional judges instituted by the authority of the king. All three groups are mentioned in the Pentateuch and take part in judicial affairs in other parts of the Scriptures. The third group of judges is relevant to 1 Cor. 6:1–6. Such judges find their prototypes in the competent laymen appointed to dispense justice by Moses upon the advice of Jethro, his father-in-law, in Exod. 18:13–26; Deut. 1:9–17. Deuteronomy 16:18–20; 17:8–13 give further directions for these judges.
The appointment of judges by prominent Israelite leaders is a well-attested practice in the Scriptures. Notices concerning the appointment of judges by Samuel, David, Jehoshaphat, and Ezra also occur in 1 Sam. 8:1; 1 Chron. 23:4, 2 Chron. 19:5–11; Ezra 7:25; 10:14. Contemporary Jewish custom also bears the imprint of the Moses material. Nor did it escape the notice of the early church that Moses appointed judges (see Rosner 1999: 98–99).
The Family of God
Paul emphasizes the inappropriateness and regrettable nature of the Corinthians’ behavior in 6:1–6 by depicting the situation as a family altercation between brothers. The generic adelphos (“brother”) is used three times in 6:5–6 and once in 6:8 for this very purpose. The term “brother” was in standard Jewish use (see, e.g., 1–2 Maccabees and many rabbinic texts) in Jewish communities and may well have enjoyed a relatively technical sense in early Christian communication (cf. “brother” in quasi-legal contexts in Matt. 18:15; Gal. 6:1). Paul’s concern that disputes between “brothers” be settled peacefully is shared by Exod. 18; Deut. 1. In Gen. 13:8, a text that records the legal controversy between Abram and Lot over the promised land, Abram says that there should be no strife between Lot and himself, because they are “brothers.” Psalm 133:1 captures Paul’s sentiment well: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity.” Paul was concerned that “brothers” in the family of God not squabble.
6:1–6
That Paul considers “unrighteous” judges, the adikōn, unsuitable—a description that simultaneously identifies them as unbelievers and as unfair judges—is not surprising in terms of the qualifications of judges taught throughout the OT, especially in Exod. 18/Deut. 1 and related passages (note in Deut. 16:18–20a LXX the four occurrences of dik- words).
Paul’s conviction in 6:2 that the saints will judge the world derives from the Jewish hope that God’s people will participate in the judgment of the last days expressed in Dan. 7:22 (Dodd 1953: 68), developed by postbiblical Jewish writings (e.g., Wis. 3:7–8; Jub. 24:29; Sir. 4:11, 15; 1 En. 1:9, 38; 38:5; 95:3; 96:1; 98:12; 108:12; 1QpHab V, 4–5) and picked up in early Christian teaching (e.g., Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30; Jude 14–15; Rev. 2:26–27; 20:4).
No prior text, to our knowledge, contains the thought of believers judging angels. It may simply be an extension from 6:2, “the world” including not only humankind on earth, but also heavenly beings. Though the OT does not specifically speak of human beings judging angels, Paul could have deduced the idea from Ps. 8:5 (a psalm that he quotes in 15:27), whereby a person’s ultimate destiny in Christ is to be above the angels (although the LXX [8:6] puts human beings a little lower than “the angels,” not “God” [cf. Heb. 2:7]), or from Dan. 7:18, whereby sharing the kingdom would involve sharing the king’s authority.
The situations in which Moses in Exod. 18/Deut. 1 and Paul in 6:1–6 find themselves are remarkably similar. Both Moses and Paul are overwhelmed by the judicial problems of the people of God. Both leaders decide to handle the more difficult cases themselves, with the Lord’s help (cf. Exod. 18:19b and 1 Cor. 5:3–5), and appoint judges to adjudicate the lesser cases (see Exod. 18:21–22; Deut. 1:15; 1 Cor. 6:1b, 4, 5b) by deciding between their brothers.
There are also impressive terminological links between 6:1–11 and Exod. 18/Deut. 1 LXX (and related passages). A total of eight terms, some of which occur rarely in both the LXX and Paul’s letters, can be traced from 6:1–8 to the tradition of Moses appointing judges in the Greek OT. There may be an echo of Deut. 1:16 in 6:5b (see Rosner 1991).
In 6:1–6 Paul applies the lessons of Exod. 18/Deut. 1 (and related passages) to the problem of lawsuits in Corinth. He follows the implications of the Moses material (because Moses provided the most important biblical precedent for what he was doing) but finds it unnecessary to signal his use of Scripture to the Corinthians either by quotation or allusion. Just as Moses appointed wise and righteous laity to decide lesser civil cases (including fraud) between their brothers, so also Paul rejected unrighteous judges and told the Corinthians to appoint wise laity to decide such cases between their brothers.
The fact that Paul expects the church to operate judicially like the Israel of old suggests that he views the Corinthian community as the beginning of the true Israel.
6:7–8
Paul is, in effect, calling for believers not only to forgo their rights, but also to suffer injustice and abuse willingly. Christians should avoid secular courts, which are based on the principle of retaliation for wrongs done.
Leviticus 19:13a LXX states, “You shall not wrong [adikēseis] your neighbor.” Paul is in agreement, contending that it would be better for the Corinthian Christians to suffer wrong (adikeisthe). Several commentators confidently ascribe the source of Paul’s teaching in these verses to the words of Jesus in Matt. 5:39–42 (cf. 5:40: “If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well”). However, the nonretaliatory ethic of Jesus itself stands in the tradition of OT ethics and of early Judaism (see Zerbe 1993).
The biblical theme of the suffering righteous, which can be traced through the intertestamental Jewish literature, forms the dominant background for the various Pauline discussions of suffering, including those found in 1 Corinthians (see Kleinknecht 1984).
Paul applies this theme as a help to understanding not only the sufferings of Jesus, but also his own sufferings, and in this case the sufferings that he advocates for his churches.
6:9–11
Above it was argued that two OT texts play a formative role in 6:1–8, even though they are not explicitly cited: Dan. 7:22 in 6:2–3 and Exod. 18/Deut. 1 in 6:1–6. The broader OT contexts of both may have prompted Paul to refer in 6:9–10 to inheriting the kingdom of God (Rosner 1996b).
Both Deut. 1 and Exod. 18 precede the giving of the law. In Deut. 1–6 the point is made repeatedly that the people of God will inherit the land if they obey the covenant stipulations set forth in the Ten Commandments (see, e.g., Deut. 6:1). Furthermore, in Deut. 3:21 the land that they will inherit is described as “the kingdoms” of the peoples whom they will dispossess. In Exod. 19:6 they are told that keeping this covenant will enable them to become a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Paul, in 6:9–10, connects inheritance with a list of ten vices. Although the Ten Commandments and Paul’s vice list overlap in content, the similarity is not so marked as to suggest dependence. It is not the case that Paul is giving a second Decalogue. Nonetheless, it is intriguing that both Moses and Paul gave God’s people “ten words” to ensure that they would receive their inheritance and become part of a kingdom.
In Dan. 7 “the saints” are said to have been given judgment to exercise (7:22), a function that Paul echoes for “the saints” (6:1) in 6:2–3. In the case of Daniel, in chapter 7 alone there are nine references to “kingdom(s).” In fact, in 7:22 it is stated that not only was “judgment given to the saints,” but also “the saints received the kingdom.” Whereas in Deuteronomy the inheritance, though desirable and from God, is temporal and limited (the land), in Dan. 7 the kingdom, as in 1 Cor. 6:9–10, is everlasting and universal (see esp. Dan. 7:27). The OT texts that influenced Paul in 6:1–6 continued, it seems, to have influenced him in 6:9–10 when he refers to inheriting the kingdom.
In Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Daniel, the references to inheriting the kingdom are set in the context of suffering. Whereas in the former texts the people have come out from slavery in Egypt (Exodus) or have endured the wilderness wanderings (Deuteronomy), in Daniel the theme of hardship and destruction matches both the courses of the four kingdoms that are narrated in rapid succession and the historical setting of God’s people in exile. In both cases inheriting the kingdom is held out as encouragement to fidelity and obedience in difficult circumstances.
This notion provides a bridge between 6:7–8 and the following three verses. Paul states in 6:9 that “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.” The natural question to ask is, Who will inherit the kingdom? The inheritors are those who suffer righteously by refusing to fight disputes with fellow believers (6:7–8). In 6:9–11 Paul provides encouragement to the Corinthians to follow his difficult advice in 6:7–8 (to avoid disputes with one another, even if it means suffering): those who choose to suffer wrong are the kind of people who will inherit the kingdom.
As we noted earlier in reference to 6:1–6, Paul applies categories originally reserved for Israel in ways that suggest that he regards the church to be the true Israel.
The vice list in 6:9–10 contains ten items, six of which are repeated from 5:11. Whereas one new term, “thieves” (kleptai), belongs especially to the concerns of 6:1–11, the other three deal with sexual sin and thus are in line with the main subject matter of the rest of chapters 5–7. “Adulterers” (moichoi) refers to married persons having sexual relations outside marriage. In the LXX the cognate verb moicheuō is employed in the Decalogue (Exod. 20:13 [20:14 ET]; Deut. 5:17 [5:18 ET]) and the Holiness Code (Lev. 20:10).
The two terms malakoi and arsenokoitai refer to homosexual behavior (of one form or another). Rather than being read as referring to “male prostitutes and homosexual offenders,” they are better understood as the passive and active partners in any homosexual act. With arsenokoitēs Paul employed a new term (cf. 1 Tim. 1:10) that may have been fashioned on the very basis of the Levitical prohibitions (cf. Lev. 18:22; 20:13; see D. F. Wright 1984). The only other occurrence of the word that is possibly contemporary with Paul (it may be a Christian interpolation) is Sib. Or. 2:73. Thus, it seems likely that “the arsenokoit- group of words is a coinage of Hellenistic Judaism or Hellenistic Jewish Christianity” (D. F. Wright 1984: 129).
Temple Prostitution (6:12–20)
Introduction
Although sacred prostitution probably was not prevalent in the Corinth of Paul’s day, there is evidence that many of the temple precincts hosted dinners after which prostitutes were on offer. It seems that some Corinthian Christians justified participation in such activities with the words “I have the right to do anything” (cf. 6:12; 10:23; see Rosner 1998).
Paul’s response underscores the serious nature of sexual union and calls for faithfulness to Christ by quoting Gen. 2:24 in 6:16 (see Rosner 1996a). Further, a possible quotation of T. Reub. 5:5 in 6:18 reveals Paul’s indebtedness to the Genesis account of Joseph fleeing Potiphar’s wife (Rosner 1999: 123–46; 1992b).
6:16–17
A. NT Context: Union with Christ. Paul warns against porneia at a number of levels. Central to his argument is a text from Genesis explaining the nature of marriage. He uses it to explore the implications of the statement that “the body is for [service of and communion with] the Lord” (6:13).
B. Gen. 2:24 in Its OT Context. In its original context Gen. 2:24b forms part of a description of the first, prototypical marriage. Its contribution is to emphasize the real and enduring bond that is created in a marriage through sexual union. The text is also used within the OT to prohibit divorce, as in Mal. 2:15–16: “Has not God made them one?”
C. Gen. 2:24 in Early Judaism. The text was used in discussions of marriage (e.g., by Philo) to explain the nature of marital union, as in Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31.
D. Textual Matters. “Apart from the intrusion of the introductory formula [‘For it is said’] . . . which occurs only here in the Pauline corpus, the quotation in 1 Cor. 6.16 follows the unanimous wording of the LXX tradition of Gen 2.24” (Stanley 1992: 195).
E. The Use of Gen. 2:24 in 1 Cor. 6. Paul’s use of Gen. 2:24 in 6:16–17 differs from Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31. Whereas the latter two instances appear in discussions of divorce and marriage per se respectively, 1 Cor. 6 discusses the problem of sexual immorality. All three uses pick up the notion of the unique bond created by marriage. In 1 Cor. 6 the quotation functions in three ways. First, Paul uses it to prove that sexual intercourse with a prostitute is not an insignificant or casual matter. The “for” introducing 6:16a indicates that Gen. 2:24 gives a reason for the assertion in 6:15 that “the one who cleaves to a harlot becomes one body [with her].” A compound of the verb kollaomai (“cleave”) occurs in the part of Gen. 2:24 LXX that is not quoted in the new 1 Corinthians context (“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave [proskollaomai] to his wife”).
Second, Gen. 2:24 draws attention to the spiritual marriage of the believer to Christ, a union that Paul assumes calls for faithfulness and purity. Paul presents two mutually exclusive alternatives in 6:16–17: cleaving to a prostitute or cleaving to the Lord. Thus the text is used not only to prove the seriousness of sexual union with a harlot, but also to introduce the notion of the believer’s nuptial union with Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 11:2).
Third, Paul takes up the thought introduced by Gen. 2:24—the intended permanence of sexual relationships—to highlight the uniqueness of the sin of porneia in 6:18b.
F. Theological Use. Paul’s reflections on the nature of the bond established in sexual relations via Gen. 2:24 are intended to impress upon the Corinthians a high view of the body and behavior involving the body. Throughout the paragraph Paul seeks to demolish Corinthian notions about the transience and consequent insignificance of the body. The text also supports the notion that our bodies are not our own, but rather belong to the Lord (not unlike spouses in marriage [cf. 7:4]). Genesis 2:24 gives credence to Paul’s assertions that “the body is for [service of and communion with] the Lord” (6:13b) and “you are not your own” (6:19b).
6:18–20
The paragraph’s central command in 6:18, pheugete tēn porneian, finds an exact parallel in T. Reub. 5:5 (with the addition of the conjunction oun). Even though the individual words are not uncommon, the specific injunction occurs only in these two places in ancient Greek literature (along with quotations of 1 Cor. 6:18 in the church fathers).
On the other hand, Gregory of Nyssa suggested a link between Paul’s advice in 1 Cor. 6 and the example of Joseph in Gen. 39 (Contra fornicarios oratio 9.214–215). Genesis 39:12 LXX uses pheugō to describe Joseph’s successful escape from Potiphar’s wife: “He fled out of her house” (cf. Gen. 39:13, 15, 18). Furthermore, Gen. 39 forms a contrast to Tamar’s prostitution in Gen. 38.
It is possible that both sources influenced Paul. As it turns out, T. Reub. 5 itself was written with Joseph in mind (see 4:8). The author not only warns his readers to “flee immorality,” but also notes the relevance of God’s indwelling to the state of chastity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19) and concluded that Joseph had “glorified” God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20). The Genesis Joseph account likewise describes Joseph as “one in whom is the Spirit of God” (41:38) and notes that his chief motivation in rejecting the advances of Potiphar’s wife was to avoid sinning against God (39:9), akin to glorifying him. Thus Testament of Reuben witnesses to a traditional interpretation of Gen. 39 that may also have influenced Paul. Alternatively, Paul perhaps quotes T. Reub. 5:5 directly, not as sacred Scripture but as an appropriate ethical maxim, a text to which he was driven because of its effective use of Joseph in its warnings against porneia.
Marriage, Divorce, and Singleness (7:1–40)
Introduction
In answer to a number of questions put to him in a letter (“Now for the matters you wrote about” [7:1]), Paul’s basic advice to the married, the unmarried, the “virgins,” and the widows is to seek no change in status (e.g., 7:2, 8, 10, 11). This guiding principle of contentment with one’s situation in life is taken up directly and reinforced in 7:17–24 with reference to circumcision and slavery. Although not made explicit, much of what Paul says here finds its roots in Scripture (Rosner 1999: 147–75).
7:1–7
Paul makes several points regarding marriage in these verses, most of which bear the marks of being influenced by his scriptural inheritance. The notion in 7:2 that sexual relations within marriage ought to act as a check on immorality (tas porneias) is reflected in Prov. 5:15, 18, 20 (“Drink water from your own cistern. . . . Rejoice in the wife of your youth. . . . Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman?”) and T. Levi 9:9–10 (“Be on your guard against the spirit of immorality [tēs porneias] . . . . Take for yourself a wife” (cf. Tob. 4:12). The related idea that the husband and wife are obliged to give themselves sexually to each other derives from Exod. 21:10, where the husband “shall not diminish her [his wife’s] food, her clothing, or her marital rights” (the expression “marital rights” being a euphemism for sexual relations).
In 7:4 Paul explains why sexual relations are due in marriage: the spouse’s body belongs to his or her partner. While a property ethic applied to sexuality was common in the ancient world, including the OT (e.g., Deut. 20:5–7; 28:30), the distinctive reciprocity of Paul’s comments (the husband’s body belongs to the wife and vice versa) recalls the notes of mutual belonging in the Song of Solomon (2:16a; 6:3; cf. 7:10).
Finally, periodic abstinence for the purpose of prayer, commended in 7:5, brings to mind similar voluntary deprivation before cultic activities (e.g., Exod. 19:15; Lev. 15:18; 1 Sam. 21:4–6) and finds a specific parallel in T. Naph. 8:8: “There is a time for having intercourse with one’s wife, and a time to abstain for the purpose of prayer.”
Paul’s prohibition of divorce for married couples is based on the teaching of Jesus, which later was preserved in Mark 10:2–12 (cf. Luke 16:18). To label this a departure from OT teaching is somewhat misleading, for although Deut. 24:1–4 presupposes the legitimacy of divorce, other texts disallow it under certain circumstances (Deut. 22:19, 28–29; Mal. 2:15–16).
7:12–16
In these verses Paul deals with a problem caused by the intrusion of the gospel. His response is that “mixed marriages are essentially Christian marriages” (Fee 1987: 298). The idea of a “holy family” takes up Jewish ritual language and rests on the presupposition of family solidarity. The notion that God’s loving concern extends to the whole family is illustrated in various OT texts (e.g., Gen. 6:18; 17:7–27; 18:19; Deut. 30:19; Ps. 78:1–7). Rabbinic Judaism’s view that proselyte children constituted full members of Israel is roughly parallel.
7:17–24
Two great social dividers appear in these verses as examples of Paul’s main point in the chapter: “Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called” (7:20 [cf. 7:24]). The sentiments in 7:18–19 concerning the relative irrelevance of circumcision (cf. Gal. 5:6; 6:15), despite the obvious contradiction of, for example, Gen. 17:10–14, are in effect an amplification of texts such as Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4, where membership in the covenant community is a matter of the heart, not an outward sign. Other figurative uses of circumcision (Exod. 6:30; Jer. 6:10; 9:26, which speak of uncircumcised lips, ears, and heart respectively) also point in Paul’s direction.
On the topic of slavery, Paul teaches that believers should be content with their lot, but if the chance to go free arises, he advises the slave to take it. This teaching is comparable to the ceremony of piercing the earlobe of a slave who, at the end of seven years service, instead of becoming free chooses to remain with his master (Exod. 21:5–6). Daube (1963: 46) points out that the Mekilta commentary on this passage parallels 7:22–23 in that it not only recommends that slaves become free if the opportunity arises, but also cites the notion that God is the master of every Jew because of the exodus event (the Jewish antecedent to the Christ event in 7:23a: “You were bought with a price”).
7:25–31
Paul gives two reasons why the “virgins” (probably young women who are betrothed but not yet married to men in the church) are to remain as they are: the present order of the world is going to pass away, and marriage presents hindrances to serving God. Hays (1997: 128) explains the logic of the first, which stands in the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic (for a late parallel, see 2 Esd. 16:40–48): “Paul’s teaching on detachment is based on the conviction that the future is impinging upon the present; consequently, ‘the present form of this world is passing away’ (v. 31b). Under such circumstances, it simply looks illogical to undertake long-term commitments such as marriage.”
7:32–35
Paul explains that he prefers singleness because marriage makes life more complicated and can be a distraction from devotion to Christ. The priority of pleasing God in these verses may have been derived from Deut. 6, which Paul alludes to in the next chapter (8:6). McNamara (1972:122–23) has noted the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch’s treatment of Deut. 6 and its relevance to NT teaching on the undivided heart: “Israel was commanded to love God ‘with all her heart’ [Deut. 6:5]. In the targum full devotion to God is described as ‘a perfect heart,’ i.e., one completely set on God, not divided between him and created things.” Furthermore, in several rabbinic texts worldly preoccupations, such as a wife, are seen as a potential distraction from the study of Torah (e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. a. 20). It would not be the first time that Christ replaces Torah in Paul’s appropriation of traditional teaching (cf., e.g., the use of Deut. 30:12–13 in Rom. 10:6–8).
7:39–40
Paul makes three points regarding the termination of marriage and remarriage for the benefit of Christian widows in Corinth. Tomson (1990: 120–22) argues that all three use “formulations directly related to Rabbinic halakha.” Biblical roots are also evident.
In 7:39a Paul indicates that the death of a husband terminates the marriage bond, so that the widow has the right to remarry. Deuteronomy 24:3 stipulates the same provision with the words “if the latter husband dies.” In 7:39b Paul states that the widow may marry whomever she wishes. This is similar to m. Giṭ. 9:3, in a tractate expounding the halakic implications of Deut. 24:1–4: “You are permitted to marry any man.” Finally, in 7:39c Paul adds the restriction “only in the Lord.” Similar clauses were in Jewish circulation in Paul’s day. For example, a Bar Kokhba divorce deed has an analogous specification: “You may go and be married to any Jewish man you want” (DJD 2, no. 19). The exclusion of marriage to a non-Jew has its basis in Scripture (Deut. 7:3; Josh. 23:12; Ezra 9:1–4; Neh. 13:23–27).