Idolatry and True Worship (8–14)
Introduction
Chapters 8–14 are held together by the underlying unifying theme of worship, with 8:1–11:1 focusing on the avoidance of cultic associations with idols, and chapters 11–14 focusing on the proper worship of the one true God.
Love and Edification
Kim (2002: 26n94) suggests, “In 1 Cor 10:14–11:1 Paul summarizes and concludes his long, careful discussion of the problem of eating the meat offered to idols (1 Cor 8–10) in terms of the principles of Christian liberty and the double command of love, the wholehearted devotion to God which excludes idolatry, and the love to neighbors which demands giving up one’s right for the sake of the weak brethren.” Similarly, Youngman (1987: 128) summarizes the theme of 8:1–11:1 as “Do everything out of love for God and people; restrict the exercise of your rights for the sake of the gospel.” The double command of love (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18), though not cited in this book, clearly underlies Paul’s thinking here. Given the even more explicit stress on love found in 13:1–14:1 and on edification in chapter 14 (in light of the prior connection Paul established between love and edification in 8:1), it may be asserted that the double command of love undergirds all of chapters 8–14.
That love and edification are closely related in Paul’s thought and argument can be seen in Paul’s statement in 8:1 that “love builds up” and in the close relationship between Paul’s discussion of love in chapter 13 and the theme of edification in chapter 14. These texts signal that the themes of love and edification undergird all of chapters 8–14. (For more OT background on love, see commentary on 1 Cor. 13 below, and for discussion of edification, see commentary on 1 Cor. 14 below.)
Food Sacrificed to Idols
On food sacrificed to idols (8:1–11:1) Paul has three basic things to say: (1) in relation to their fellow Christians (8:1–13), the Corinthians are exhorted via Paul’s example not to cause a brother or sister to stumble by allowing themselves to be associated with idol worship (8:13); (2) in relation to God (10:1–22), the Corinthians are warned not to provoke the Lord to jealousy by association with idols (10:22); (3) in relation to their neighbors (10:23–11:1), the Corinthians are told to be careful not to give offense to anyone (10:31–11:1).
The issue of food sacrificed to idols would naturally be expected to be dealt with in the light of OT teaching on idolatry.
In early Judaism concerns regarding idolatry tended to revolve around the issue of eating. The association between eating and idolatry was established in some key OT texts. In chapter 10 Paul will cite the first of those texts, Exod. 32:6, which is found in the middle of the discussion of the fiasco with the golden calf. In that verse the description of Israel’s worship of the calf includes a reference to sitting down to eat and then rising up to engage in “play”—the latter generally understood as a reference to pagan revelry. Exodus 34:14–15 discusses the need to destroy pagan altars in terms of the need to eliminate the danger that an Israelite might be invited to eat of the sacrifices that they would otherwise offer. That worst-case scenario came to be realized in the event narrated in Num. 25:1–3, where the daughters of Moab invited the Israelites to their sacrifices, and the Israelites went and ate and worshiped their gods, inciting God’s anger against them. Paul’s discussion of food offered to idols reflects a similar concern with associations between believers and pagans through invitations to social and religious events in pagan contexts.
Paul is apparently citing from the Corinthians’ letter when he says “we all have knowledge” (8:1). It becomes clearer in 8:4 that the knowledge that they are claiming is based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of Deut. 6:4 (and perhaps other idol-rejecting texts of the OT; see, e.g., Deut. 32:17; 2 Kings 19:18; 2 Chron. 13:9; Isa. 37:19; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Hos. 8:6). That all peoples would come to recognize that Israel’s Lord is the only God was a basic prophetic and apocalyptic motif of the OT (Isa. 11:9; 37:20; 40:28; 43:10; 44:8; 45:5–6; 49:23, 26; 52:6; Jer. 9:24; Ezek. 6:14; 7:4, 9; 15:7; 20:38; 24:24, 27; 25:5, 7, 11, 17; 26:6; 28:23–24, 26; 29:9, 16, 21; 30:8, 19, 26; 32:15; 33:29; 35:9, 15; 36:11, 23, 38; 37:28; 38:23).
In saying that “there is no idol that really exists” and that “there is no God but one,” they evidently are arguing that since there is only one God, idols do not actually represent any spiritual (or other) reality, and therefore there is no reason to fear or avoid contact with their temples or with that which had been offered to them. Those who held to this position considered themselves the “knowing” in comparison to the “weak,” who had serious qualms about any association with idolatry or food tainted by it. The “knowing” may have considered their position unassailable because it is based on an interpretation of the most fundamental text of Jewish monotheism, the first verse of the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41), which was recited twice daily by faithful Jews and was central to the monotheistic understanding of early Judaism and Christianity. Yet other members of the church obviously were disturbed that some were even accepting invitations to dinners held in pagan temples (8:10).
In responding to the situation, Paul does not attack the theoretical basis of the position of the “knowing,” but he redirects their approach to the issue from one based on determining who has the best theological arguments to one based on the most basic issues of love toward God and neighbor (cf. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18; see Hays 1997). In doing so, Paul echoes other parts of the Shema, including Deut. 6:5; 11:13, when he says, “Anyone who loves God is known by him” (8:3). It is loving God, not mere theological knowledge, that is a defining characteristic of God’s chosen people. N. T. Wright (1992: 127) notes the significance of the Shema, pointing out that “Paul’s references to humans loving God, as opposed to vice versa, are few and far between, and in this case at least . . . the reason for the reference is that he wishes to allude to, or echo, the Jewish confession of monotheistic faith.” The Shema presents two alternatives: God’s people either will love and serve him (Deut. 6:5; 11:13) or will “turn aside and serve other gods and worship them” (11:16). In that context it is understood that “loving God” entails an unequivocal rejection of any flirtation with idolatry.
In its original context the Shema does not support the idea that since there is only one God, there is no actual danger associated with idol worship. Rather, proper recognition of God’s unique status requires absolute rejection of any association with the worship of other gods, regardless of their ontological status.
The language of Deut. 6:4 (“the LORD our God, the LORD is one”) governs Paul’s wording and argument in 8:5–6. He expands his opening statement that “there are many so-called gods” so as to allow the plurality of “lords” in the pagan world as well. References to “gods” are common in the OT, but they are not frequently referred to as “lords.” Paul is already thinking of the interpretation that he wants to provide of Deut. 6:4, however, so he speaks of “many gods and lords.” In that way his interpretive use of Deut. 6:4 in 8:6 is provided with a perfect contrast: “But for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came, and through whom we exist.” The key words “Lord,” “God,” and “one” are taken from Deut. 6:4 (“the LORD our God, the LORD is one”), in which “Lord” and “God” both refer to the deity who is declared to be “one.” But now Paul “has glossed ‘God’ with ‘the Father,’ and ‘Lord’ with ‘Jesus Christ,’ adding in each case an explanatory phrase: ‘God’ is the Father, ‘from whom are all things and we to him,’ and the ‘Lord’ is Jesus the Messiah, ‘through whom are all things and we through him’” (N. T. Wright 1992: 129). In this one text Paul has simultaneously reaffirmed strict Jewish monotheism and embedded Christ within the very definition of that one God/Lord of Israel (see Hays 1997; N. T. Wright 1992).
The references to the roles of the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ in creation (“from whom and through whom”) also reflect traditional scriptural affirmations of the roles of God and of Wisdom in creation (for the latter, see Prov. 8:22–31; Wis. 9:4, 9; Philo, Flight 109). In prophetic literature Yahweh’s absolute power as creator of heaven and earth is what sets him apart from idols, which, on the contrary, are human creations (e.g., Jer. 10:3–16; Isa. 44:9–24). The description of Christ in terms normally attributed to Wisdom (Wis. 8:1–6; 9:1–2, 9; Sir. 24) suggests that just as Jesus takes the place of “the Lord” in the Shema, he also takes the place of “Wisdom” within Hellenistic Judaism: “Paul has indicated that everything one might hope to gain through possessing [sophia (Wisdom)] can be gained rather by possessing Christ” (N. T. Wright 1992: 130).
Paul’s statement that “there are many so-called gods” and indeed “many gods and many lords” seems to affirm the OT’s recognition that pagan gods, while not really being gods in any sense comparable to the God of Israel (and thus are only so-called gods), do represent some reality. This may suggest an echo of Deut. 10:17, where, just a few chapters after the Shema, the Israelites are told “the LORD [MT: yhwh; LXX: kyrios] your God, he is God of gods and Lord of lords.” This is the only text in the Hebrew Bible where “gods” and “lords” appear in the same sentence as in 1 Cor. 8:5, and in that sentence Israel’s God is referred to as both Lord and God (as in the Shema), and his superiority over any other hypothetical claimant to that title is strongly affirmed as in 1 Cor. 8:5 (cf. Ps. 136:2–3).
The Shema was important both for its theological affirmation and for its sociological function. Early Judaism rallied around the one God who had redeemed them, and their allegiance to that one God was reflected both by their worship of him and by their rejection of all other claims to deity. It is notable that Paul’s christological modification of the Shema comes in a passage where he hopes that this statement might fulfill the very same roles that the Shema did in Judaism. If the Corinthians would rally together in loyalty to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in a way that signaled a radical rejection of all other claims to deity, it would go a long way toward promoting unity within the congregation and toward maintaining a distinct identity in contrast to the pagan environment.
8:9–10
Paul is concerned for the Corinthians that the exercise of the right to eat whatever food is placed before them might become a “stumbling block” (Gk. proskomma; Heb. mikšôl) to others; that is, it might lead others to fall into idolatry. In the OT idols are identified as, or directly associated with, stumbling blocks. Three verses in Ezek. 14 (vv. 3, 4, 7) repeat a refrain referring to those who “set up idols in their hearts and place the stumbling block [mikšôl] of their sin before their faces.” The line is alluded to, and the parallelism repeated, in 1QHa XII, 15 (and 4Q430 1, 3). In Exod. 23:33 LXX the Israelites are told, “And they [the former occupants] shall not dwell in your land lest they cause you to sin against me; for if you serve their gods, they will be a stumbling block [proskomma] to you.” Exodus 34:12 LXX uses the word in a similar way (seen in the context of 34:11–14). The association between stumbling blocks and idolatry is seen also in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 6a; 14a and in b. Menaḥ. 109a. The texts in b. ʿAbodah Zarah understand the reference to a stumbling block in Lev. 19:14 to relate to the promotion of idolatry among Gentiles.
By describing the behavior of the “knowing” as a potential stumbling block, Paul may be associating the potential outcome of that behavior with that which is attributed to idolatrous behavior in the OT. As 8:10 suggests, the weak are actually led to commit idolatry, or at least to do something that they understand to be tainted by idolatry.
A. NT Context: Paul’s Right to Compensation. In chapter 9 Paul begins what appears at first sight to be a digression in which he defends himself and some of his rights (9:1–14). He then points out that he has intentionally refused to take advantage of some of his rights (9:15–18). He explains that he does so based on his willingness to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to reach as many people as possible and gain the reward that Christ has in mind for him (9:19–27). This whole section of the letter fits into an A-B-Aʹ structure similar to those found elsewhere in the letter (most clearly in chaps. 12–14). That is, the Corinthians’ approach to dealing with food offered to idols (the issues explicitly addressed in chapters 8, 10) should be based not on their view of their rights, but rather on their concern for the spiritual well-being of those around them. Paul’s discussion of his rights in 9:1–14 focuses on his right to be compensated for his work, and he quotes Deut. 25:4 as evidence that the law teaches that workers are entitled to benefit from the fruit of their labor (see 9:7–11).
B. Deut. 25:4 in Its OT Context. Deuteronomy 25:4 says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” At first glance, this command seems to have little or nothing in common with the surrounding laws, since they have to do with humans while it deals with the treatment of oxen at work. It is difficult to discern any clear relationship between the surrounding statutes, which are commonly referred to as “miscellaneous laws.” The broader context shows a more general concern for the humane treatment of people (Hays 1997: 151). Deuteronomy 24:10–25:3 addresses the need for humane treatment of poor and marginalized people, and Deut. 24:19–22 discusses the need to allow sojourners, orphans, and widows to benefit from what is left in the field at the end of the harvesting process. The command of Deut. 25:4 comes soon after these passages, which are concerned to insure not only that those who work get the benefit of consuming the product of their labor, but also that other, needy and marginalized people be able to eat it. Given that context, it would be natural to understand the command of Deut. 25:4 as a particular extension of an already implied principle that those who work are allowed to partake of the fruit of their labors, since, when it comes to humans, that benefit even extends beyond the margins of those whose labors contributed to the harvest or production of food.
C. Deut. 25:4 in Early Judaism. The reason there is no specific law that states that those who work are free to benefit from the product of their labor is due probably to the fact that the principle was generally understood. Such a principle is in some places assumed and in other places argued in early Jewish literature.
Deuteronomy 25:4 is cited in the Temple Scroll of Qumran (11Q19 LII, 12) in the midst of a series of other laws relating primarily animal sacrifices. In fact, Deut. 25:4 and 22:10 are cited side by side and are the only stipulations that do not have to do with sacrifices. While some of the laws relating to sacrificial animals relate to the theme of avoiding excessive cruelty (11Q19 LII, 5–7), Deut. 22:10 is taken from a series of texts dealing with prohibitions of mixing. They are put together probably on the grounds that they both deal with the proper treatment of working livestock. It is possible that by being placed next to Deut. 25:4, Deut. 22:10 is understood to also relate to the theme of avoiding undue hardship on animals that are already worked hard by forcing them not only to do difficult work, but also to do so in tandem with a very different breed of animal.
Philo cites Deut. 25:4 as an example of a law relating to the humane treatment of animals (Virtues 145). Like 11Q19, Philo treats Deut. 22:10 immediately after his treatment of Deut. 25:4 and understands both to deal with the issue of the humanitarian treatment of animals (with emphasis given to the different natures of the two animals and the difficulty of one animal having to work with another that is much stronger). Philo’s use of Deut. 25:4 must be understood in the light of the way the entire section of Virtues 125–147 is introduced. Philo informs us that the section will address the extension of the same principles of humanity and compassion that were applied to all types of people “even to the race of irrational animals” (Virtues 125). As Philo concludes this section, he points to the significance of laws concerning the humane treatment of animals and lower forms of life. If we learn how to treat lower forms of life humanely, we will not fail to do likewise with humans (Virtues 160).
Josephus discusses Deut. 25:4 in Ant. 4.233, where it is both immediately preceded and followed by his discussion of the laws of gleaning (Lev. 19:9; 23:22) and those that allow people who pass through a field to pluck ears with their hands (Deut. 23:25), respectively. By placing Deut. 25:4 in the midst of various laws that provide people with access to food, Josephus may be treating the law concerning work animals as an extension of those that apply to people. That such is the case might be indicated also by the word that he uses to refer to the animals in this context. He says that one is not “to bind the mouth of the oxen treading out the corn on the threshing floor, since it is not right to restrain our co-workers [tous syneirgasmenous] of the fruit . . .” (Ant. 4.233).
The Mishnah refers to Deut. 25:4 in Ter. 9:3 and in B. Qam. 5:7. The former text discusses how one can comply with Deut. 25:4 and yet keep the animal from eating any of the grain that is dedicated to the heave offering. The question is raised in the context of a discussion about the importance of respecting the laws of gleaning and the poor person’s tithe (Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 14:28–29) without allowing any of the harvest that is dedicated to the heave offering to end up being diverted from it. In each case the concern to assure that the dedicated part of the harvest is not diverted from that purpose is satisfied without prejudicial effects on the poor (and the beast), who also are supposed to benefit from the harvest.
The Talmud’s treatment of Deut. 25:4 reflects some significant (and later) developments in the rabbinic interpretation of the text. In b. B. Meṣiʿa 88b the teaching that people may eat from the loose produce of the field in which they work (cf. m. B. Meṣiʿa 7:2) is first defended on the basis of an argument from the lesser to the greater (called kal wahomer in rabbinic literature and referred to in Latin as an argument a minore ad majus or a fortiori) from Deut. 25:4, perhaps influenced by Deut. 23:24 as well (see Tomson 1990: 125–31).
Since oxen are not allowed to eat food that is unplucked (or not loose) but people are, it follows that if even oxen are allowed to eat loose food, people must also be allowed to do so. This argument takes Philo’s logic further. The laws that extend humanitarian care to animals are an extension of those that provide for humans. Thus, in the proper context, what is applied to animals can also be applied to people. This is taken a step further on the next page (b. B. Meṣiʿa 89a), where Rabina argues, on the basis of the use of the word “ox” both here and in Deut. 5:14, that whatever applies to the muzzled (i.e., the ox and animals in general) applies to the muzzler (i.e., people) as well, since the Sabbath law of Deut. 5:14, which is explicitly applied to the “ox,” clearly applies generally to people and animals alike.
In b. Yebam. 4a the muzzling of the ox in Deut. 25:4 is applied metaphorically to the issue of levirate marriage, which is treated in the immediately following verses (25:5–10) to support the halakic view that a widow must not be forced to enter into a levirate marriage with a man whom she finds objectionable. The argument is based on relating Deut. 25:4 to the issue discussed in Deut. 25:5–10 through the principle of interpreting one text in the light of another text in close proximity. In doing so, the rabbis seem to be seeing a relationship between the various laws at the beginning of Deut. 25 that is similar to that which we proposed above: if an ox is free to eat and is not to be constrained as it labors, a woman who suffers the loss of her husband is not to be constrained to marry someone against her will. To “muzzle” her would be to force her to endure even greater hardship than she has already experienced.
D. Textual Matters. The MT and the LXX are in close agreement. There is a question about the text of Paul’s citation. External support (with 𝔓46 א A B2 C D1 ψ 33 1881 𝔐) favors phimōseis (“muzzle”), in agreement with the LXX, but that very agreement strongly suggests that kēmōseis (“muzzle” [found in B* D* F G 1739]) is to be preferred as the original reading. Assuming that in 9:9 Paul used the synonym rather than the word found in the LXX, we may conclude that probably he was quoting from memory (of either the Greek or the Hebrew text). There does not appear to be any semantic significance between the synonyms. First Timothy 5:18 quotes the same text but uses phimōseis (although D* has kēmōseis there as well).
E. The Use of Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9. Paul quotes Deut. 25:4 to support his argument that he is entitled to compensation for the work of the ministry. He argues that God’s overriding concern here is not for oxen (9:9b), but for “us” (9:10). Paul’s use of the verse has been categorized in a variety of ways, most frequently as allegorizing (see most commentaries, esp. Schrage 1991–2000: 2:298–300, and the views cited in Kaiser 1978: 11–14). It is probably more accurate to understand it as an argument from the lesser to the greater, as Jewish usage suggests (see above and the discussion in Instone-Brewer 1992: 554).
At first glance, it seems as though the cited text does indeed reflect concern for oxen (rather than people), but as we noted above, the near literary context does in fact reveal an emphasis on concern for human well-being.
Paul has set up the argument from the first verse of this chapter when he argues that the Corinthians are his “workmanship” (ergon), which means that just as the vineyard worker gets to eat some of the fruit of the vineyard, and the one who tends a flock gets to have some of the milk (9:7), and even an ox gets to eat some of the grain that it treads out, so also the one whose labor has resulted in the Corinthian community has the right to enjoy some compensation from that which has been produced. They are the field that he has sown, and he has the right to reap some fruit from its harvest (9:11). The logic of Deut. 25:4 clearly fits the logic of the other examples given in 9:7.
Barrett (1996: 206) argues against understanding this text in terms of an argument from the lesser to the greater. In his view, Paul is not saying, “If God cares for oxen, how much more for people,” but rather, “God cares not for oxen, but for people.” Barrett’s argument rests on a common reading of the last clause of 9:9 and the first clause of 9:10. First Corinthians 9:10a probably should not be translated “Does he not speak entirely for our sake?” however, but rather “Does he not surely say it for our sake?” (see BDAG, which gives “by all means, certainly, probably, doubtless” as possible glosses; Thiselton 2000: 686–87). That is, Paul’s statement should be taken not as an absolute denial that the law was given for the sake of animals, but rather as a strong assertion that God is even more concerned about humans (and that God was particularly concerned to give guidance for the eschatological community of the church). Martin Luther cleverly quipped that Deut. 25:4 obviously was not written for oxen, since “oxen cannot read.” As a general principle, ancient Jewish interpreters agreed that the law was written for human consumption. Philo said, “The law was given not for the sake of unthinking creatures, but for the sake of those who can think and reason” (Spec. Laws 1.260).
Hays (1997) argues that “our sake” indicates that Paul has his apostolic team specifically in mind. It may be better to understand the statement in terms of Paul’s other affirmations that scriptural texts were written (especially) for the community of the last days (as in 10:6, 11). It seems likely, however, that Paul’s use of the argument from the lesser to the greater presupposes a previously established apostolic halakah according to which apostolic missionaries are understood to be spiritual laborers, sowers, and reapers (Matt. 9:37–38; 10:10; Luke 10:2, 7; John 4:36–38; Rom. 1:13; 1 Cor. 3:6–9; 9:11; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17–18). If so, it would support Hays’s argument that the apostolic team is particularly in view. This halakic background may help solve a key question regarding the second half of 9:10. It is unclear whether it is to be understood as a quotation (“for it is for our sake it is written that ‘whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop’”) or as a justification of Paul’s interpretation of Deut. 25:4 (“for [Deut. 25:4] was written for our sake since whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop”). The first option is difficult because we do not know of any text that Paul could be citing. The strongest argument against the second option is the balanced parallel (poetic) nature of the two clauses and the apparently un-Pauline vocabulary (see Stanley 1992: 197n52). But if Paul is summarizing an orally transmitted halakic interpretation of Deut. 25:4, it would explain the formalized language and its relationship to the prior citation (see Instone-Brewer 1992: 558–59; Koch 1986: 42n33).
The suggestion that Paul is thinking in terms of a kal wahomer argument in 9:9–10 is strengthened by the observation that 9:11 operates by means of a reversed kal wahomer argument: “If a labourer may eat of a valuable crop he is working on, much more should he be allowed to eat from a less valuable crop instead” (Instone-Brewer 1992: 559 [see his fuller discussion]). In 9:12 Paul reveals that his biblical argument establishing his right to be supported through his work served as a foundation to support his observation that he does not exercise his rights if doing so would somehow hinder the work of the gospel.
Paul quotes Deut. 25:4 again in 1 Tim. 5:18, also in support of compensating church leaders. There it is quoted in exact agreement with the LXX (with the exception of D* which reads kēmōseis there as well).
F. Theological Use. This is another example of Paul’s use of Scripture as a guide for Christian conduct. Paul’s argument asserts that we should deduce from a proper interpretation of Deut. 25:4 that Christian leaders have a right to be supported in their ministries. Thus, it is not merely a matter of acceding to an affirmation of Paul’s apostolic authority on this subject, but rather of learning to understand how scriptural authority should inform our ethical understanding with respect to such issues.
9:13
Paul’s statement that “those employed in the temple service” get to partake of the sacrificial offerings is a principle reflected in the administration of both the Jerusalem temple (e.g., Lev. 6:16–18, 26; 7:6–8; Num. 5:9–10; 18:8–20; Deut. 10:9; 18:1–5; 1 Sam. 2:28; 2 Chron. 31:4) and pagan temples. Paul most likely has the Jerusalem temple and its priests in mind, however, since the connection to the following verse (“so also” [houtōs kai]) probably implies not that the Lord’s teaching happens to agree with other known religious practices, but that it was based on the scriptural pattern.
9:16–17
Paul’s role as preacher of the gospel is not something he has chosen for himself, but rather is a task assigned to him by God. His language is reminiscent of 20:9 (see, e.g., Hays 1997; Thiselton 2000).
Nasuti (1988) has suggested that Paul’s language entails an inversion of the self-directed woe that prophets sometimes declared in response to sufferings experienced as a result of their prophetic ministry. During his vision of the throne of God, Isaiah declares a woe on himself due to his sinfulness and that of the people of Israel (Isa. 6:5). Other such woes include Isa. 24:16; Jer. 10:19; 15:10; 45:3.
Like Jeremiah, Paul suffers because of his preaching, but rather than bemoan his suffering, he boasts in it. For Paul, not preaching the gospel would be grounds for lament. “Jeremiah wishes he had never been born because of his suffering (Jer. 15:10); Paul would rather die than give up the suffering which is his grounds for boasting in the gospel” (Nasuti 1988: 258).
Of course, Paul does finds himself at the stage of salvation history not where judgment and exile are the key messages, but rather where restoration and salvation are being preached to all nations. Jeremiah’s own message was expressed in terms of the contrasting messages of plucking up or planting, destroying or building (e.g., Jer. 1:10; 24:6; 31:3–4, 28; 33:7), and his hearers experienced plucking up and destruction. Paul’s hearers experience planting and building. His message is one that brings salvation (rather than judgment) to all the groups that he mentions in 9:19–22, and he is happy to do whatever he must for the sake of the gospel in order that he “may share with them in its blessings” (9:23).
9:19–23
Elsewhere Paul emphasizes that he is committed to pleasing God rather than humans (Gal. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:4). Here and in 10:32–11:1 Paul highlights his commitment to making a positive impression on those among whom he lives and works. The first set of passages deals with behaviors that please mortals but are dishonoring to God, while here Paul has in mind a limited accommodation in ways that would not be offensive to God as a strategy to bring people into life-transforming contact with the gospel. The desire to make a good impression on pagan neighbors in order to win them over (and thereby preserve or exalt God’s reputation) is an ethical motive found here and in other early Jewish and Christian writings (see van Unnik 1960) based on OT background (e.g., Exod. 32:12, 25; Num. 14:13–19; Deut. 9:25–29; Isa. 52:5 LXX; Ezek. 20:9–22; 36:20–23; cf. Paul’s quotation of Isa. 52:5 LXX in Rom. 2:24; see Rosner 1999: 110–11).
In chapter 10 Paul explicitly returns to the theme that has been his concern since chapter 8 and that motivated his discussion of the giving up of his rights in chapter 9. He does so through a typological (and ecclesiological) interpretation of the exodus, wilderness wandering, and apostasy of Israel.
Mitchell (1991: 138–40) has pointed out that Philo (Spec. Laws 4.129; Moses 1.161–164, 305; 2.174, 283; Posterity 182–185; Drunkenness 95) and Josephus (Ant. 3.295; 4.12, 140) refer to the same incidents that Paul mentions in 10:1–13 as notorious instances of factionalism (cf. 1:10–13; 11:18–19; 12:25). Corinth was not the first place where God’s people had experienced divisions relating to idolatry and sexual immorality!
In a way similar to that of Pss. 78; 106; Neh. 9:5–37; Deut. 32:1–43, Paul, in 10:1–13, rehearses the consequences of earlier rejections of God’s mercy as a warning to the author’s own generation of readers (Fee 1987).
In 10:1–4 Paul discusses the redemptive blessings experienced by the whole community of Israel (with “all” [pas] repeated five times) as parallels to those blessings experienced by Christians. In 10:5–10 he discusses Israel’s experience as a warning for “us” in light of the fact that God’s judgment fell on “most” of Israel due to the various things that “some” of them did (with “some of them” repeated four times). Four of the sins that brought God’s wrath upon Israel echo texts from Numbers. Paul mentions in 10:6 that they “craved evil things,” echoing Num. 11, where 11:4 and 11:34 serve as an inclusio around the narrative of Israel’s rebellious craving to eat meat (Collier 1994: 63). Collier (1994: 65) also points out that two key verbs from Exod. 32:6, kathizō (“sit down”) and anistēmi (“rise up”), occurred at the beginning (11:4) and end (11:32) of Num. 11 LXX, respectively.
As Collier (1994: 65) suggests, the linguistic ties provided Paul with “a midrashic link to Exod. 32.6 as a kind of summary of Numbers 11. Exodus 32.6 is understood midrashically as Numbers 11 writ small.” Paul ties together Exod. 32:6 and the theme of “craving” found in Num. 11 and related OT texts that mention food and the craving of evil things (Collier 1994: 65–66). So “when Israel sat down to eat, they sinned, for they craved the food of their own choosing, rather than what God had provided: (1) in idolatry (v. 7) it was eating and drinking in an idol feast in an attempt to fulfill their own desires (Exod. 32.6); (2) in harlotry (v. 8), it was a desecration against God himself as ‘the people blatantly practiced harlotry’ . . . , primarily a forsaking of God in idolatry, since the people ‘ate the [Moabite] sacrifices and worshipped their idols’ (. . . Num. 25.1–2); and (3) in testing (v. 9), it was the speaking against God . . . that was at issue, for the people said, ‘there is no food or water’ (. . . Num. 21.4–7)” (Collier 1994: 66). In 10:11–13 he concludes the passage with a final warning.
10:1–4
Paul’s statement that “our fathers were all under the cloud” suggests that even the Gentile readers of this letter are to think of the Israelites of the exodus as their adopted “fathers” through their inclusion in the covenant community (so Hays 1997: 160). The Israelites’ experience of redemption, idolatry, and destruction is used as a lens through which the Corinthians are to view and understand their own situation. The reference to “baptism into Moses” is evidently formulated by Paul in order to make the metaphorical parallel as clear as possible. The fivefold repetition of “all” (pantes) in 10:1–4 emphasizes that the experience of God’s redemptive acts was common to the community as a whole (both in Israel’s experience and, by analogy, in the experience of the Corinthian church).
References to the sea and the cloud are interspersed within Exod. 14:2–27. The fact that the Israelites were “under the cloud” and “passed through the sea” (10:1) is understood to correspond to the baptism experienced by the Corinthian Christians (10:2). The idea that the fathers were “under the cloud” is suggested in Exod. 14:24 when God “looked down” from the pillar of fire and cloud upon the Egyptians trailing the Israelites (see also Exod. 13:21–22; Num. 9:15–23; 14:14; Deut. 1:33; Ps. 78:14). That the Israelites passed through the midst of the sea is indicated in Exod. 14:22, 29. Paul’s language facilitates the identification between the experience of the Israelites and that of the Corinthians.
The divine provision of quail and manna is related in Exod. 16; Num. 11 and celebrated in Deut. 8:3, 16; Neh. 9:20; Ps. 78:24; 105:40. The water from the rock is mentioned in Exod. 17:6; Num. 20:8–11 and then celebrated in a series of texts, including Deut. 8:15; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:20; 105:41; 114:8; Isa. 48:21. Paul calls the food and drink that was miraculously provided “spiritual” (pneumatikos) food and drink, since he understands that they were provided by the Spirit and understands the elements of the Lord’s Supper also to be food and drink of the Spirit, who communicates the presence of Christ to his community. The early church’s (and Paul’s) understanding of Jesus’ last supper and the Lord’s Supper in terms of the Jewish Passover and the promised second exodus would have made the parallel between the Lord’s Supper (see commentary on 1 Cor. 11:23–26 below) and the Israelites’ experience in the exodus a natural one for Paul and his readers.
Paul draws on a rich Jewish exegetical tradition (e.g., L.A.B. 10:7; 11:15; t. Sukkah 3:11, b. Šabb. 35a; b. Pesaḥ. 54a; Gen. Rab. 62:4; Num. Rab. 1:2; 9:14; 19:25–26; Tg. Onq. Num. 21:16–20) when he speaks in 10:4 of the rock that followed Israel (see Ellis 1978a; Enns 1996). In inquiring how the interpretive tradition of a moveable well developed, Enns (1996: 30) notes that “the miraculous provision of water in the desert is mentioned only at the beginning of the wilderness wandering period (Exod. 17, Rephidim; also the waters of Elim in Exod. 15:22–27; see Bib. Ant. 11:15 . . .) and at the end (Num. 20, Kadesh; Num. 21, Beer).” According to the exegetical tradition, the answer to the natural question of what the Israelites had done for water between those times was that “the rock of Exodus 17 and the rock of Numbers 20 are one and the same. Hence, this rock must have accompanied the Israelites through their journey.”
This interpretation was facilitated by a potential ambiguity in Num. 21:16–20. Jewish tradition came to understand God’s promise to provide Israel water from the well (21:16) to entail giving them not just water from the well, but the well itself. In the following verse the Israelites sing to the well, calling on it to spring up (or go up), using a verbal form that in every other context (Num. 21:17; 1 Sam. 25:35; Isa. 21:2; 40:9; Jer. 22:20; 46:11) entails movement from one place to another. The understanding that the well/rock traveled with Israel was based on an interpretation that Paul and his colleagues evidently inherited from their forebears. Paul’s use of the basic conclusion regarding the traveling nature of the rock should be distinguished from suggestions that he is indebted to the fuller (and fanciful) legends found in later rabbinic material. Garland (2003: 456–57) suggests that “Paul may have incorporated a traditional Jewish interpretation of the following rock, but he gives it a uniquely Christian twist: ‘The rock was Christ.’ He is not thinking of a material rock following them, or a movable well, but of the divine source of the water that journeyed with them. He understands the replenishing rock in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense.”
The identification of the rock with Christ involves another hermeneutical step beyond that of a moveable well or rock. Although Hanson (1965: 17–22) argues for the “real presence” of Christ in the well, most scholars hold that Paul establishes an analogy between the role of the rock in Israel’s experience and the role of Christ in the church’s experience (Koch [1986: 211–16] considers it an allegorical interpretation). Philo identified the rock with God’s Wisdom (Alleg. Interp. 2.86). Other texts show that Paul’s understanding of Christ has parallels with Jewish thinking about the hypostatization of that particular divine attribute (1 Cor. 1:24, 30; 8:6; Col. 1:15–17), and it may be that Philo’s understanding of the rock shares some background with Paul’s. The identification of Christ with the rock may also be related to Paul’s use of Deut. 32 in this chapter, since “Rock” (ṣûr) is the preferred name for God in the Hebrew text of that chapter (cf. 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31; see Meeks 1982). Interestingly, the only other place where ṣûr is used in Deuteronomy outside chapter 32 is 8:15, which affirms that God “brought you water out of the flinty rock.”
10:6
The Language of Typology. In 10:6 Paul says that the events listed in 10:1–5 happened to serve as warnings or patterns (typoi) from which we should learn. The word that Paul uses provides the background for the concept of typology, which is the understanding that patterns found in persons, actions, events, and institutions can be expected to find correspondences in God’s future redemptive works (Goppelt 1982: 17–20). The use of “type” (typos) and “typical” (typikōs) as technical terms for typological interpretation is established by the time of the early church fathers. Goppelt (1982: 4) argues that Paul was the first to use these words for “the prefiguring of the future in prior history” (cf. Hays 1997: 162; Thiselton 2000: 731–32). Two of the key texts for this argument are found in this passage (1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Rom. 5:14). Paul clearly establishes a typological relationship between Israel and Christian experience in 10:1–4. It could be argued, however, that in 10:5–11 he points not to divinely established patterns, but rather to patterns that the Corinthians must avoid fulfilling (see Garland 2003: 459). Some interpreters understand typology to consist merely of retrospective interpretation by NT authors whereby they find correspondences between their own experience and that described in the OT. Many texts seem to reflect such an approach. If the OT text was written as a warning or pattern to guide the church in the last days (cf. 10:6, 11), however, it could be so only if it were understood that the experience of God’s eschatological community would follow patterns established in the OT such that one could deduce a lesson from Israel’s exodus experience and apply it to a context that was significantly different in its historical particularities. That the second exodus would follow the general pattern of the first exodus was an expectation found already in OT texts. Although Davidson (1981: 193–297), for example, pushes the predictive element of typological exegesis too far, the basic understanding that the church’s experience would correspond to patterns found already in Israel’s experience seems to be required by Paul’s argument.
10:7
A. NT Context: Postredemption Idolatry in Israel and Corinth. In 10:1–10 Paul describes the exodus and desert experience of Israel as a pattern in which idolatry followed on the heels of redemption. Some Corinthians are in danger of falling into the same pattern because of their attitudes and practices involving food sacrificed to idols (especially the practice of eating in pagan temples or participating in certain pagan meals).
B. Exod. 32:6 in Its OT Context. The episode of the golden calf is one of the most notorious in the OT (Exod. 32; cf. Deut. 9:8–21; Judg. 2:17; 1 Kings 12:28; Neh. 9:16–18; Ps. 106:19–23).
Exodus 32:6 depicts a perversion of the covenant-ratifying meal described earlier in 24:5–11. The preceding verse indicates that the behavior described in 32:6 was understood to consist of a “feast to the LORD,” but the report that they “rose up to play” suggests that they entered into pagan revelry (see Meeks 1982: 69–70). In 32:4 Aaron suggested that the golden calf represented the gods who delivered the Israelites from Egypt. Rather than properly worship the God who actually had redeemed them from Egypt, Israel now gave credit for the exodus to the gods represented by the calf.
C. Exod. 32:6 in Early Judaism. That the fiasco of the golden calf held a strong place in Jewish thinking is clear (see Childs 1974: 573–81). The story is recounted in Acts 7:39–43 as an example of Israel’s hard-heartedness and idolatry.
Philo refers to the event several times (Moses 2.161–162, 270; Drunkenness 95; Spec. Laws 1.79). Josephus does not mention it (cf. Ant. 3.99)—“the most glaring exception” to his promise to omit nothing (Thackeray 1930: 363). The story is retold again in L.A.B. 12. In t. Soṭah 3:10 the focus on eating and drinking is thought to suggest an arrogant, self-absorbed attitude on the part of the Israelites, while in t. Soṭah 6:6 the clearly idolatrous reference to “playing” in Exod. 32:6 is used to interpret Ishmael’s actions in Gen. 21:9 in a similar manner.
The event left an indelible mark on the history of Jewish thought about idolatry and functioned as the archetypal act of apostasy (see Hafemann 1995: 279–81).
D. Textual Matters. Paul’s text reproduces the LXX of Exod. 32:6, which is a literal rendering of the MT text (for minor textual variations in a few manuscripts see Stanley 1992: 197n54).
E. The Use of Exod. 32:6 in 1 Cor. 10. In 10:7 Paul quotes the LXX of Exod. 32:6 as proof that the Israelites committed idolatry. The references to eating and drinking in association with idolatry make Exod. 32:6 an obvious reference point for issues related to food sacrificed to idols. Paul marks Exod. 32:6 as his main text (pace Collier 1994) by its explicit citation (and important use of the key words for “eating,” “drinking,” and “rising up”). Allusions to Num. 11; 14 and other texts fill out the picture by pointing to subsequent situations where the same association between eating, drinking, and idolatry can be seen (along with other temptations that the Corinthians are facing).
F. Theological Use. Paul uses Exod. 32:6 to inform the Corinthians’ understanding of the ethical and spiritual danger that they are facing. As Hays (1989: 92) suggests, “By coaxing the reader to recall the golden calf story, he links the present Corinthian dilemma . . . to the larger and older story of Israel in the wilderness. This metaphorical act creates the imaginative framework within which Paul judges—and invites his readers to judge—the proper ethical response to the problem at hand.” The text serves as a warning against following in the footsteps of the Israelite ancestors.
10:8
Paul refers to the incident in Num. 25:1–9, where the first verse refers to Israel’s participation in gross sexual immorality (LXX: ekporneuō) with Moabite women, and the last verse refers to the consequential death of twenty-four thousand.
Paul highlights the Israelites’ involvement in sexual immorality associated with an idolatrous meal. Numbers 25:2 indicates that the incident began when Israelites, having been invited by Moabites to the sacrifices to their gods, ate the sacrifices and then bowed down to those gods/idols. Thus idolatry and sexual immorality are tied together in both Num. 25:1–2 and 1 Cor. 10:8 (not to mention the broader structure of this letter).
Although Paul clearly has the Numbers text in mind, he refers to twenty-three thousand casualties, while Num. 25:9 sets the number at twenty-four thousand. Koet (1996) suggests that Paul has fused together elements of the punishments mentioned in Num. 25:9 and Exod. 32:28 (which, unlike the Numbers text, says that the people died “that day” and that they “fell,” using the exact same word, epesan, as in 1 Cor. 10:8). Koet thinks Paul may have fused the two texts together so that the reference to Num. 25:9 would still be recognizable but that the echo of Exodus might also be heard. In his view, this explains why there is no mention of a punishment in 10:7: the punishment for the sin of Exod. 32:6 is incorporated into the reference to the punishment for the sin of Num. 25 in the subsequent verse.
Koet’s suggestion deserves serious consideration because it not only would clarify the numerical discrepancy (which many feel has not yet found a satisfying solution), but also would explain other features of Paul’s text. Still, unless or until other examples of such an intertextual use of numbers can be found in early Jewish or Christian literature, his argument will remain less than compelling.
10:9
The reference to destruction by serpents alludes to Num. 21:5–6, where the Israelites spoke against God, complaining about a lack of food and water. Elsewhere in the OT such complaining is described as “testing the LORD” (Exod. 17:2–3, 7 [concerning water to drink]) or “testing God” (Ps. 78:18 [demanding food that they craved], 41, 56 [provoking him through idolatry]; 106:14 [due to their craving]). Hays (1997: 165) suggests the parallel between the two halves of this verse does not necessarily imply that Israelites had put Christ to the test (on the textual issues for 10:9, see Metzger 1994: 494). Paul could be understood to say, “We should not put Christ to the test the way some of them tested God.” On the other hand, Paul has already identified Christ with the rock in 10:4, and in Exod. 17:2, 7 the people of Israel are described as testing “the LORD” (LXX: kyrion). Furthermore, in Num. 21:6 it is “the LORD” who sends the serpents in response to the complaining. Paul has already identified Christ as “the Lord” named in the Shema (see commentary on 1 Cor. 8:1–6 above), making the identification between Christ and the Lord in these texts a natural one. Numbers 21:5–6 probably is being read in the light of Ps. 78:18, where the incident is related to craving food—a theme found throughout this passage (see Hays 1997: 164; Collier 1994). When God’s people test his patience by insisting on things that they crave rather than what he provides, such insolence can expect to be met with judgment.
10:10
There is no agreement on what passage(s) Paul has in mind in this verse. Suggestions include Num. 14 (Hays 1997: 165), Num. 11 (Collier 1994: 66), and Ps. 106 (Garland 2003: 464). Numbers 11 begins “And the people were grumbling,” while 11:33–34 describes the plague of the Lord, which “takes place in the context of rampant epithumia [craving] . . . described as an insatiable (and deadly) craving for meat” (Collier 1994: 66). Psalm 106 shares several lexical and conceptual links with this passage (including “craving,” “testing God,” “grumbling,” spiritual “adultery,” and “destruction”). Thiselton (2000: 742–43) affirms that the reference to “grumbling” serves as a general allusion to the various pentateuchal texts that cite Israel’s guilt in this area.
Paul’s reference to “the destroyer” (ho olothreutēs) may echo Exod. 12:23, but Schneider (1967) is probably correct: “in good OT fashion” Paul has in mind the destroying angel who carries out any divine judgment (cf. Exod. 12:23; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chron. 21:12, 15; 2 Chron. 32:21; Wis. 18:25; Sir. 48:21; see Garland 2003: 463).
10:11–12
Paul says Israel’s experiences happened as examples (typikōs) and were written down to warn “us” (pros nouthesian hēmōn). The understanding that Scripture was always relevant to God’s people is common to ancient Jewish and Christian literature (see Rosner 1994: 98–102). The word that Paul uses for instruction or warning only occurs once in the LXX, in Wis. 16:6, which, in fact, speaking of Num. 11, says, “They were provoked as a warning [nouthesia] for a short time.”
Paul understands, however, that the Scripture has particular relevance “for our instruction, on whom the ends of the ages have come” (cf. Rom. 4:23–24; 15:4; Dan. 8:26; 9:24; 12:4, 9; Isa. 8:16; the pesharim of Qumran; see Hays 1989: 166–68). Paul understands that he and his communities are living in the days of the eschatological fulfillment of the OT promises and prophecies, related to the theme of the “latter days” (Deut. 4:30; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezek. 38:16; Dan. 2:28; 10:14; Hos. 3:5).
In 10:12 Paul uses the same word, piptō (“fall”), to describe the danger risked by those who think that they stand that he used in 10:8 to describe what happened to the Israelites who engaged in sexual immorality. Here the word carries an eschatological connotation as in Ps. 19:9 LXX (20:8 ET); 35:13 LXX (36:12 ET); Pss. Sol. 1:5; Rom. 11:11; 14:4; 1 Cor. 13:8.
10:13
The Corinthians are dealing with a temptation that is “common to humanity” (BDAG) (cf. Num. 5:6; Josephus, Ant. 1.22). Garland (2003: 467) correctly points out that the temptation should be understood “in the context of the warning examples he has just enumerated and the exhortation to flee idolatry that immediately follows.” Evidence suggests that the OT and early Judaism considered idolatry the most human of all temptations.
Paul’s reference to God’s faithfulness implies a dualistic contrast between the merely human power and origin of the temptation and the divine power of our God, who will provide for us a way through. The fact that only “some” of the Israelites fell into each of the sins listed in 10:7–10 suggests that the temptations were not irresistible. That God does not allow us to be exposed to irresistible temptations is a reflection of his faithfulness to us.
10:14–15
As Paul approaches the end of his treatment on food sacrificed to idols, he provides a summarizing exhortation similar to the exhortation to “flee from sexual immorality” that he gave near the end of his treatment on that subject (6:18).
10:16
The final cup of the Passover meal (and presumably the Last Supper) was called the “cup of blessing.” Just as participation in the Passover celebration entailed participation in the benefits of the Passover sacrifice (cf. Exod. 12:27; 34:25; Deut. 16:2, 5–6; 2 Chron. 35:1, 6, 11), participation in the Lord’s Supper entails participation in the benefits of his sacrifice for us. Hanson (1974: 115) suggests that the references to bread and wine (and “blood”) in Deut. 32:14 would have been “quite enough to point Paul to the Eucharist.” Although links to Deut. 32 in the near context (esp. 10:19–20, 22) make Hanson’s suggestion feasible, he goes a bit too far in describing 10:14–21 as “a Christian midrash on Deut. 32:17–21” (Hanson 1974: 115).
10:17
As Exod. 12:43–48 indicates, the Passover was to be celebrated by the whole community of Israel. It was to be a common and unifying experience for the nation. The Lord’s Supper should have played a similar unifying role in the Corinthian church, which was suffering from serious divisions (cf. 1:10; 11:18; 12:25).
10:18
The reference to “Israel according to the flesh” points to a distinction between true Israelites and the rest that already had begun to be made in the OT (e.g., Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 9:24). Elsewhere Paul refers to Christians as the “true circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29) and as the children of the “Jerusalem above” rather than the present Jerusalem (Gal. 4:25–26).
Paul points to the cultic practices of the Judaism of his day, based on OT teaching. While some sacrifices were consumed only by the priests and others by the whole community (see Reid 2000: 1038–44), to eat the food that had been offered in sacrifice was to participate in the cultic act of the sacrifice.
10:19–20
A. NT Context: The Significance of Pagan Worship. Since 10:16 Paul has been discussing the religious significance of participation in Christian and Jewish cultic meals as part of his argument against participating in pagan religious meals. Earlier (see commentary on 1 Cor. 8:1–6 above) he affirmed (in agreement with some of the Corinthians) that idols are not real and that there is only one real God. In 10:19 he concedes that food itself does not become spiritually contaminated by being sacrificed to idols. Paul’s reference to Deut. 32:17 clarifies the nature of his objection to participation in pagan religious meals: “They sacrifice to demons and not to God.”
B. Deut. 32:17 in Its OT Context. The Song of Moses in Deut. 32 recounts Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord. They provoked him to jealousy by strange gods (32:16) and “sacrificed to demons, not God, to gods they had not known; to new ones who had recently appeared, ones your ancestors had not known” (32:17). The “demons” (šēdîm) were not deities, but rather were less powerful spirits referred to in Mesopotamian texts as spiritual protectors of persons or places (see HALOT 4:1417–18; TWOT 2:906). The Israelites offered the worship due to God to inferior spiritual beings.
C. Deut. 32:17 in Early Judaism. In Deut. 32:17 God’s “sons and daughters” (32:19) sacrificed to demons (šēdîm), but in Ps. 106:37 Israel is condemned for sacrificing their own sons and daughters to demons (šēdîm) (the only two places in the OT where this word appears). It refers to later, even more shocking events that are probably understood in the light of Deut. 32:17. In Bar. 4:7 the exile is attributed to the fact that Israel provoked their Creator, “sacrificing to demons and not to God.” The reference to God’s nursing of Israel in Bar. 4:8 probably reflects the influence of Deut. 32:10–15 (esp. 32:13–14). In 1 En. 19:1 Enoch is told that the spirits of the angels who cohabited with women in Gen. 6 (see 1 En. 6) will lead the people to offer sacrifices to demons as though they were gods, and in T. Sol. 5:5 a captive demon identifies himself to Solomon as one born of a human mother and an angelic father and tells him that he and his colleagues will be freed and will deceive the human race into worshiping them as gods.
Sacrifices to demons reflect the extreme spiritual corruption of Israel and humanity. Leviticus Rabbah 22:8 associates Deut. 32:17 with the sacrifices to goat idols/demons mentioned in Lev. 17:7 and explains that the laws insisting that sacrifices be offered only at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 17:3–4) were intended to prevent such forbidden sacrifices from taking place in Israel.
D. Textual Matters. The best reading of Paul’s text agrees perfectly with the LXX, with the minor difference of using a present-tense verb rather than an aorist (“they worship” versus “they worshiped”).
Some manuscripts 𝔓46vid א A C P ψ 33vid 81 1739 𝔐 and the lectionaries) supply an explicit subject for the verb “sacrifice”: “the Gentiles/pagans” (ta ethnē). The editors of UBS4 considered it “an ancient gloss” intended to exclude a reference to the offerings made in Jerusalem (cf. 10:18). Most interpreters understand the words to represent an accurate interpretation of Paul’s meaning (even if a later gloss), but some argue that it completely misunderstands Paul (see Thiselton 2000: 773; Kistemaker 1993: 346–47). Hays (1989: 93) thinks that the gloss reflects a failure to recognize Paul’s allusion to Deut. 32:17.
E. The Use of Deut. 32:17 in 1 Cor. 10. Although Deut. 32:17 refers to the abhorrent unfaithfulness of Israel, most readers understand Paul to be speaking of the practices of the Corinthian Christians’ pagan neighbors (as did many ancient scribes). Paul’s other references to the scene of the golden calf in the context (and elsewhere) suggest that “Paul sees the Corinthian controversy about idol meat (v. 19) in double exposure with Israel’s wilderness idolatry” (Hays 1989: 93). Thus, while the sacrifices referred to in both Deut. 32:17 and 1 Cor. 10:20 are pagan sacrifices, “Paul’s real concern, like that of the Song of Moses, is that God’s own people are becoming implicated in this ‘abhorrent’ practice” (Hays 1997: 169). Although the Corinthians may not have been tempted to offer sacrifices to pagan gods, they, by partaking in pagan religious meals, were still considered participants in the sacrifices themselves (thus the relevance of Paul’s argument in 10:16–18 to his use of Deut. 32:17).
The concept of “demons” had developed since the time of Deut. 32:17 and “the wraps are taken off the demonic” in the NT (TWOT 2:906). Paul and his readers would understand Deut. 32:17 in that fuller light.
F. Theological Use. Paul seems to be drawing a broader theological conclusion (with clear ethical implications) from the statement about Israel’s practice in Deut. 32:17. Since Israel’s idolatrous sacrifices were offered to demons, idolatrous sacrifices in general should be similarly understood (certainly they could be no better).
10:21
The expression “Lord’s table” is used to refer to the altar in the OT (Mal. 1:7, 12; cf. Ezek. 41:22; 44:16). Paul’s reference to the Lord’s Supper as a participation in the “Lord’s table” suggests that the celebration of Christ’s sacrifice now serves as the centerpiece for Christian worship as did the altar—the Lord’s table in the OT—where the people of Israel went to worship by bringing their sacrifices to the Lord.
In Isa. 65:11 LXX the Lord complains against unfaithful Israelites who “prepare a table for the devil [daimōn] and fill up the mixture [of wine as an offering] for Fortune.” Paul emphasizes that one cannot worship the one true God and also participate in any other worship. The church remains committed to “the radically exclusive character of Israel’s monotheistic faith” (Hays 1997: 170).
10:22
Paul’s words “Shall we provoke the Lord?” echo the Lord’s complaint against Israel in Deut. 32:21 LXX: “They have provoked me with what is no god, angered me by their idols.” He essentially asks if he or the Corinthians would be foolish enough to follow in Israel’s footsteps by participating in pagan worship, provoking him by engaging in idolatrous associations or actions. Paul’s follow-up question, “Are we stronger than he?” probably also reflects Deut. 32 and its emphasis on the strength of the Lord. According to Deut. 32, one of the purposes of the coming judgment will be to impress on the nation their lack of strength and the Lord’s great power (cf. 32:30, 36–38). Craigie (1976: 387) comments on Deut. 32:36, “Since Israel’s defection was largely a result of the arrogance of believing in their own strength, that arrogance and belief in human strength had to be totally demolished before the people were in a position to realize their need of God’s strength. The rhetorical question posed in vv. 37–38 is designed to create awareness that other possible sources of strength were also useless.” The motif of God’s strength is also seen in the repeated use of the epithet “the Rock” (ṣûr) in Deut. 32 (32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31), which the Targumim understand as a figure for God’s strength, most frequently translating it as “the Strong One” (see Rosner 1999: 200). The motif relates to the Lord’s strength as reflected in his power to protect or punish his people. Paul’s question is designed not only to underscore the impotence of believers, but also to stress the omnipotence of God: surely we are not stronger than the Strong One! It entails a frightening threat of judgment upon those Corinthian Christians who provoke God to jealousy.
10:25–26
A. NT Context: Eating Food in Various Contexts. Paul discusses a variety of contexts in which food might be eaten (as part of a pagan religious meal, food purchased in the market for eating at home, food that one is offered when eating as a guest in another’s home) and gives advice for each context. One of the questions that Paul addresses is whether food sacrificed to idols becomes inherently inconsumable or if problems arise only when one participates in or is associated with the offering itself.
B. Ps. 24:1 in Its OT Context. Psalm 24 boldly declares that the Lord, the God of Israel (and no other deity) is sovereign Lord over all the earth: “The earth is the LORD’s and all of its fullness.” The earth does not belong to Baal or to any other god, but to the Lord of Israel. He alone is the glorious king who reigns over all the earth and over all of its inhabitants (see Craigie 1983: 212).
Psalm 24:4 is ambiguous (Broyles 1999: 129), but idol worship may be one of the two offenses listed as precluding one from the worship procession (cf. Ps. 25:1; see Kraus 1993: 1:314).
The Lord’s identification as the “King of glory” is mentioned four times in the last five verses of the psalm. Within those verses the motif of the Lord’s strength (see commentary on 1 Cor. 10:22 above) is stressed: The King of glory is the Lord “strong and mighty,” the Lord “mighty in battle.”
C. Ps. 24:1 in Early Judaism. Psalm 24:1 is most commonly cited in rabbinic literature to teach the obligation to thank God for one’s food. On the basis of this text it was taught that one should not taste any food until after having recited a benediction over it (t. Ber. 4:1; b. Ber. 35a; b. Šabb. 119a).
D. Textual Matters. The LXX translates the Hebrew quite literally, and Paul’s citation follows it exactly, with only the introduction of postpositive gar (“for”) to connect the citation to the context.
E. The Use of Ps. 24:1 in 1 Cor. 10. Paul is thoroughly Jewish and biblical in his understanding that creation is good and that the food we receive has been provided for us by God and should be received with thanksgiving (cf. 10:30). The doctrine of creation that Paul finds in Ps. 24:1 indicates that there is nothing wrong with the food itself, regardless of the way others have misused it in their religious ignorance. Psalm 24:1 says that it all belongs to the Lord, not to any god or demon to whom it may have been offered (regardless of what the pagans who offered it may have thought). As far as the Christian is concerned, whatever food is found in the market is part of God’s gracious provision and should be thankfully received as such.
F. Theological Use. Paul draws an ethical application from the text’s statement of God’s ownership of and sovereignty over all creation. Since all food belongs to the Lord and comes from him, it can be received with thankfulness regardless of how it has been used by others.
10:27–30
The particular concern regarding food sacrificed to idols and the contamination of idolatry from eating food is based on Exod. 34:15, which, in the midst of a passage preoccupied with the avoidance of contamination from idolatry, warns that the danger of allowing the inhabitants of the land to remain would be that “when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice.” This verse was a key text in the development of an important strand of Jewish thinking that condemned (accepting invitations and) eating with Gentiles (cf. Jub. 22:16; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 8a; S. Eli. Rab. 9 [8] 46–48; see Ciampa 1998: 159–63).
Paul’s permission to accept an invitation to a meal and to eat whatever is served (10:27) would seem to contradict Exod. 34:15 (so Hübner 1997: 277), but whereas that text refers to an invitation to a sacrifice, Paul’s instructions (10:28–30) suggest that he has a simple dinner invitation in mind and that the believer was to be careful to avoid eating any food that was explicitly identified as having been offered to an idol. This clearly does not follow the Jewish tradition cited above, but still it may be understood as a more “liberal” approach to avoiding association with pagan sacrifices (and thus to the spirit of Exod. 34:15) while still allowing believers to maintain and develop social relationships with their nonbelieving neighbors.
Paul concludes his discussion of whether to eat food sacrificed to idols by returning to the biblical motif of maintaining a good reputation before outsiders for the dual motives of protecting the honor of God’s name and winning over the heathen (see Rosner 1999: 109–11).
Paul says that he seeks not his own benefit, but rather “that of many [to tōn pollōn], in order that they might be saved.” Such an approach to life is to be expected of anyone who follows the example of the one described in Isa. 53:11–12 LXX as “the righteous one who serves many well [dikaion eu douleuonta pollois] . . . who will bear their sins” and “who bore the sins of many [pollōn].”
Paul’s exhortation to do everything (including eating and drinking) to God’s glory as he concludes his section on idol food parallels his exhortation to glorify God with our bodies in the conclusion to his section on sexual immorality (see 6:20).
Glorifying God in Christian Worship (11:2–14:40)
Having dealt with the issue of idolatry in 8:1–11:1, Paul now turns to discuss issues relating to proper Christian worship.
In chapter 11 he deals with commendable and condemnable ways in which the Corinthians are relating to traditions that Paul passed on to them. In chapters 12–14 he focuses on issues related to spiritual gifts and their use in the Christian worship gathering. In 11:2–16 creation traditions are in the foreground as Paul explains the ways in which men and women are to worship together in this new community. In 11:17–34 traditions relating to the (first and second) exodus take center stage as Paul explains the implications of the celebration of the new covenant meal for the way rich and poor are to worship together in the new community. In chapters 12–14 themes relating to the rebuilding of the new restored community and the role of the eschatological Spirit in that edification process are most prominent.
11:2–16
This is one of the most difficult passages in this letter because of statements that Paul apparently expects to be transparent to the Corinthians but that have been opaque to other readers. Some of our difficulty undoubtedly comes from our inability to know exactly what Paul had previously taught the Corinthians on this subject and what they had written to him about it. Most likely, some Corinthians had begun suggesting that all distinctions between men and women were to be avoided in worship, based on a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no ‘male and female’” (Gal. 3:28; perhaps one of the traditions he delivered to them [cf. 11:2]). The wearing of veils seems to have been a particular issue.
This is one of the passages at the heart of an ongoing debate over biblical teaching on the proper relationship between men and women. Many believe that this passage establishes a functional authority structure between husbands and wives (or men and women) while still underscoring the ontological equality of men and women in 11:11–12 (e.g., Schreiner 1991). This approach holds that with the inauguration of the end-time new creation the same dual reality is maintained (although no longer tainted by the fall), while at the consummation of the eschaton all functional distinctions will be erased.
Others believe that the passage does not establish an authority structure but does emphasize the importance of maintaining distinctions between men and women that reflect their distinctive origins (e.g., Jervis 1993). These also see a stress on ontological equality.
In several passages Paul seems to reflect a tension between a hierarchy that is reflected in creation (and in Gen. 2–3) and the understanding that the eschaton brings an end to authority structures based on gender distinctions. Some hold that 11:3–10 reflects Paul’s respect for gender and authority structures reflected in creation (as narrated in Gen. 2), while 11:11–12 reflects his recognition that in Christ we experience the inbreaking of the eschaton, such that the church lives in the tension between the norms of creation and new creation (see D’Angelo 1988).
In this passage Paul seems to point to a hierarchy of status based on the Genesis narrative of human origins, and yet his ultimate conclusion is that women may, in general, participate as freely as men, providing that their attire and comportment are respectful.
Paul’s primary concern is that all be done to the glory of God (cf. 10:31) and not to glorify or shame anyone else.
11:3
The language used to describe the husband as the “head” of the wife does not predate this letter (and is not as transparent as many think), but the OT clearly reflects a patriarchal context and understanding of the relationship between husbands and wives (even if a “softer” patriarchalism than in some other cultures). Much debate has taken place over the meanings of the words for “head” in the OT (rōʾš) and the LXX (kephalē) and their relationship to Paul’s meaning here. Even if by “head” Paul means “more prominent/preeminent partner” or “one through whom the other exists,” his language and the flow of the argument seem to reflect an assumed hierarchy through which glory and shame flow upward from those with lower status to those above them (see Thiselton 2000: 812–22; Watson 2000: 43–44n3; Loader 2004: 100). Our understanding of Paul is complicated by the fact that he engages in wordplay, alternating between literal and metaphorical referents. It may be that Paul reflects the idea that each member originates from the other (8:6 tells us all things are from God and through Christ; that women originated from men is explicitly stated in 11:8), and that each one brings glory or shame to the one from which it came (see Meier 1978: 217–18). The concept of primogeniture (where temporal priority correlates with privilege and preeminence) is implied.
There is significant debate regarding whether or not a patriarchal relationship is understood to exist between Adam and Eve before the fall. Most ancient readers of Gen. 1–2 would have assumed such a relationship (the only kind of marriage that they knew), and those texts make good sense in the light of such a reading. Many readers believe Paul’s argument here (and in 11:7–9) reflects a functional authority structure established in Gen. 2. Others think that the same verses are stressing the distinct origins of each gender (as part of a rationale for maintaining gender distinctions).
If some Corinthians were arguing that Christ, as head of the church, was head over men and women in the same way (since there was no longer any “male and female”), Paul affirms that the creation pattern is still significant and cannot be shrugged off. Although there is a tension between creation and new creation (especially fallen creation and new creation), creation is the context in which Christians live out their lives, and it cannot be passed off as irrelevant.
11:4–5
These two verses discuss how men and women can both pray and prophesy in the church without shaming their respective “heads.” Although there were female prophets in OT times (Exod. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Neh. 6:14; Isa. 8:3), Joel 2:28 indicated that one of the marks of the last days would be the outpouring of the Spirit on all God’s people with the result that Israel’s “sons and daughters shall prophesy.” Paul indicates that doing so in an inappropriate manner would bring shame (kataischynei) on one’s head, meaning one’s husband (in the case of a woman) or Christ (in the case of a man). Paul’s ultimate concern, in the broader context, is with the glory of God and Christ. The immediate concern seems to be that the behavior of some wives would bring shame on their husbands (for an insightful discussion of the relationship between veils, nakedness, and shame, see Watson 2000). The two verses preceding Joel 2:28 stress that in the eschatological time of restoration God would see to it that “my people will never again be put to shame [kataischynthē/kataischynthōsin]” (2:26, 27).
Paul’s words in 2 Cor. 3:13–16 may suggest a biblical background for his understanding that men’s heads should be uncovered and also for some Corinthians’ support for both men and women to be uncovered in God’s presence. There Paul says that “we are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face” (3:13), for in turning to the Lord “the veil is removed” (3:16), and as a result “we all with unveiled faces” reflect the glory of the Lord and are transformed into the image by the work of the Spirit (3:18). The conceptual and lexical ties between 1 Cor. 11:4–7 and 2 Cor. 3:13–18 are remarkable. Paul is referring to Moses’ experience as explained in Exod. 34:33–34, when he decided to wear a veil when in the presence of the people but remove it when he went into the presence of the Lord. If the Corinthians were already familiar with Exod. 34:33–34 and had heard Paul express something similar to 2 Cor. 3:13–18, then one could easily see how some might deduce that the women also should act like Moses and remove the veil when entering into God’s presence, since Paul indicates we should “all” approach God with “unveiled faces.” In the following verses Paul explains why women should continue to wear veils even when in the presence of the Lord.
11:7
First Corinthians 11:7–12 reflects Paul’s thinking on men and women in light of creation (as expressed primarily in Gen. 1:26–27; 2:18–23).
First, there is the image and glory of God and man. The traditional (and majority) reading of 11:7–9 takes these verses to reflect Paul’s understanding that Gen. 2 establishes a functional hierarchy reflected in the order in which the man and woman were created and in their respective purposes. (For an intriguing study of the translation of the creation narrative in the LXX and its potential importance for understanding the NT texts, see Loader 2004: 27–59, 99–104.) Others think that the point is that gender distinctions are reflected in the distinct origins of men and women (Adam and Eve) and should be maintained in the church.
Jewish interpreters struggled to understand the relationship between Gen. 1:26–27 and the narratives in Gen. 2. Many distinguished between the accounts and applied them in very different ways. Philo distinguishes between “the heavenly man” of 1:26–27 and “the earthly man” of 2:7 (Alleg. Interp. 1.31; 2.4–5; Creation 134). The former is “born” in the image of God and does not partake of the corruption of earthly existence; the latter is made out of clay and partakes of the vagaries of earthly existence and “has a helpmeet for him.”
Paul’s statement in 11:7 that the man is “the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man” suggests to some that Paul understood Adam, but not Eve, to have been created in the image of God. In 15:49, however, Paul says, “Just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one,” suggesting that he understands all humanity to share imperfectly in the image of God as it has been passed down to us through Adam and that part of our redemption in Christ entails the restoration of God’s perfect image in Christ (cf. Rom. 8:29 and 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18 and Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15).
Paul uses the term “glory” because it is associated with “image” (Hooker 1964: 415) and can substitute for “likeness” or “image” in references to Gen. 1:27 (cf. Ps. 8:5; 4Q504 8, 4). He can move smoothly from “image” to “glory,” which “then becomes the key term in 1 Cor. 11:7–9 and counterbalances the notion of ‘shame’ in 11:4–6” (Garland 2003: 523). The idea that the wife brings glory to the husband is found in Prov. 11:16 LXX; 1 Esd. 4:17.
Understanding 11:7 in the light of 15:49 suggests that for Paul, Adam was created directly in the image of God and that the rest of us (from Eve on) are made in God’s image as we inherit it from Adam and our parents (cf. Gen. 5:3; 9:6).
That is similar to a rabbinic way of interpreting Gen. 1:26–27 and understanding the relationships between those verses and the narratives in Gen. 2. As D’Angelo (1988), following Boucher, has shown, some rabbinic debates over the interpretation of Gen. 1:26 suggested that the plural forms in God’s speech (“let us,” “our”) referred to his intention to create the first man and woman in unique manners, after which he would create every other man and woman in conjunction with (through) a human father and mother (thus “our” image would be the image of God and the parents). Thus, “In the past Adam was created from dust and Eve was created from Adam; but henceforth it shall be ‘in our image, after our likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]; neither man without woman nor woman without man, and neither of them without the Shekinah” (Gen. Rab. 8:9; cf. Gen. Rab. 22:2; y. Ber. 9:1). Thus Adam and Eve were created in different manners, and neither was created in the manner of the rest of humanity (through a mother and father). The rest of humanity, however, was to come about through God working through both a mother and a father (on the variety of Jewish sources that relate to this theme, see D’Angelo 1988: 7–21).
The close relationship between Paul’s clear allusion to Gen. 1:26 in 11:7b and his statement in 11:7c that the woman is the glory of the man suggests that he understands Adam to have been uniquely made in God’s image (without any other human contribution), while God’s image was passed to Eve through Adam. Therefore, 11:7 is probably best understood as an interpretation of Gen. 1:26–27 “through the creation account in Gen. 2” (Garland 2003: 522).
Gundry-Volf (1997: 157) argues that Paul’s point is that “man and woman are both the glory of another and therefore both have an obligation not to cause shame to their heads.” But the question of whose glory each one reflects (and not just that it is of another) seems important to Paul’s argument. It is important because it is appropriate for God’s glory to be reflected in worship, but not that of man. One of the reasons Paul does not mention that the woman was also created in God’s image is probably “because he wants to stress the point that she is the glory of man” (Garland 2003: 523; cf. Gundry-Volf 1997: 156). Thus Paul’s point is not that women are not made in God’s image, but rather that the way the creation narrative distinguishes between the origin and purpose of the man and the woman suggests that the man (not originating from the woman or being created to complete her) does not reflect the woman’s glory (but only God’s), while the woman does reflect the glory of the man. In 11:8–9 Paul uses details from Gen. 2 to explain why the man cannot be understood as the glory of the woman, while the woman can be understood as the glory of the man.
Paul’s overarching point seems to be that nothing should happen in worship that detracts from God’s glory, including behavior that would draw attention to the glory of man. Hooker (1964: 415) points out that the woman’s head should be covered “not because she is in the presence of man, but because she is in the presence of God and his angels—and in their presence the glory of man must be hidden.”
11:8–9
In these two verses Paul supports the principle that he drew in 11:7 from the creation of Adam and Eve as described in Gen. 2. That man did not come from woman is patent in Gen. 2:7: he was formed from the dust of the earth. That the woman came from man is taught in Gen. 2:23. In fact, it is given as the explanation of her name.
Paul’s statement that the woman was created for the sake of the man (dia ton andra) is based on Gen. 2:18. The context indicates that the man would have been the only one of God’s creatures without a corresponding mate, and that was not good. That the woman originated from the man and that she was made because of him points to the anteriority of the man (see 1 Tim. 2:13; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 2.5) and evokes the concept of primogeniture with the implied prominence and precedence. (We should note that in Paul’s context wives would have almost always been significantly younger and less mature than their husbands [see Witherington 1995: 170], such that the husband could be expected to share an anteriority similar to that of Adam with regard to Eve.)
11:10
While some interpreters take the word “angels” [angelous] to actually refer to human messengers visiting the church rather than to angels overseeing its worship (see Winter 2001: 133–41; Murphy-O’Connor 1988), the majority understand it to refer to angels, which is how the word is used elsewhere in this letter (4:9; 6:3; 13:1; see the discussion in Garland 2003: 526; Thiselton 2000: 839–41). Angels are associated in such diverse ways with creation, worship (including prayer and prophecy), and women in the OT and in Jewish literature that it is difficult to discern which one(s) Paul might have had in mind here. It is also unclear whether he is referring to good angels or evil ones.
According to Jewish tradition, the angels worshiped Adam when he was created (e.g., L.A.E. 13–16; Gen. Rab. 8:10). It could be that by covering the face of the glory of the man Paul hopes to avoid distracting their attention from the worship of God to the worship of man (Hooker 1964: 415n2). In Isa. 6:2 the seraphs cover their faces in the presence of God, and perhaps Paul thinks that the women should behave in a similar fashion (while men are granted an exception). Some think that Paul may be concerned about the women’s vulnerability to angelic attention based on the common Jewish understanding that Gen. 6:2 referred to angels who mated with women. Some think that since, in light of Jewish tradition, angels were the guardians of creation order, Paul was concerned to make sure that nothing in the worship service would offend them.
It may be that Paul was thinking of the angels simply as divinely appointed observers of the community’s gathering who, like God, would be offended by any shameful displays during the worship (see Loader 2004: 102). Watson (2000: 71) suggests that the veil “is a prophetic sign to the angels that the new creation has dawned and that their jurisdiction has passed away” and that “the exousia [authority] of the woman prophet, represented by the veil, is greater than theirs.” It is unclear why the angels would have interpreted the use of the veil in that way without having read Paul’s argument. That women would simultaneously respect the men/husbands in the congregation and freely exercise a newly found authority to pray and prophesy alongside them may have served as such a sign for angels observing the scene.
11:11–12
After establishing in 11:8–9 principles for the behavior of men and women in worship from the narrative of the unique creation of the first man and woman, Paul now qualifies the implications of those narratives in light of the origin of every man and woman since that first pair. As we noted in the comments on 11:7, rabbinic tradition also distinguished between the origin of Adam and Eve and that of the rest of humanity. The language that they used is very close to Paul’s language here: “In the past Adam was created from dust and Eve was created from Adam; but henceforth it shall be ‘in our image, after our likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]; neither man without woman nor woman without man, and neither of them without the Shekinah” (Gen. Rab. 8:9 [italics added]). D’Angelo (1988: 21) sees three features in common between 11:7–12 and the rabbinic statements: “First, Paul advances the formula ‘neither woman without man nor man without woman’ as an interpretation of Gen. 1:26. Second, Paul also contrasts that phrase with the creations of Adam and Eve (1 Cor. 11:7–9). Third, Paul also makes a temporal distinction between creation and its aftermath, and on that basis rejects the creation of Eve as the basis for prescriptions about women.” It is not clear that Paul’s statement in 11:11 reflects his interpretation of Gen. 1:26 (although his allusion to the text and the use of his phrase elsewhere as an interpretation of that text raise that possibility). It may be based on a broader understanding of the relationship between Gen. 1 and 2, one that later rabbis based on Gen. 1:26 itself. Also, it is not the case that Paul “rejects the creation of Eve as the basis for prescriptions about women.” Paul introduces the verse with plēn (“nevertheless”), which introduces a qualification, not a rejection, of the prior statement. Paul is in agreement with other ancient interpreters of Gen. 1–2 in deducing some principles from the creation of Adam and Eve, while qualifying them in light of the recognition that their creation was unique and that other principles may be applied in light of the way all men and women have come into being ever since.
Paul’s statement that “neither woman without man nor man without woman” applies “in the Lord” (en kyriō) seems strange at first sight, since clearly the same reality applies to all of humanity, not merely to Christians. D’Angelo (1988: 24–25) suggests that Paul has taken the temporal distinction that other interpreters applied between the creation of the first pair and the formation of the rest of humanity and has applied it to the distinction between all creation and new creation in Christ. The point, presumably, would be similar to that made in the rabbinic texts: the community’s application of the principle drawn from the narration of the creation of the first human couple is tempered by the way God has determined to bring every other human being into his creation. In Paul’s case it is the community established “in the Lord” that is to live in the light of these truths. It may be that “in the Lord” suggests that the new creation in Christ relativizes the distinctions between men and women in a way similar to the observation based on the distinction between Adam and Eve and the rest of us.
If one were to take the final prepositional phrase instrumentally (en kyriō = “by/through the Lord”), then Paul’s meaning would correspond perfectly to a Jewish exegetical tradition about the Lord’s role in the formation of every human being (based in part on Gen. 4:1): “neither of them without the Shekinah” (y. Ber. 9:1; Gen. Rab. 8:9; 22:2). It would also strengthen the parallel between 11:11 and 11:12:
1. neither woman without man (v. 11)
≈ woman is from man (v. 12)
2. nor man without woman (v. 11)
≈ the man through the woman (v. 12)
3. en kyriō (“by/through the Lord”) (v. 11)
≈ all things are from God (v. 12)
In this case the only difference between Paul’s statement and the rabbinic view would be that “the Lord” in 11:11 refers to Christ.
Watson (2000: 79) sees Paul pointing to an aspect of the new creation in Christ that was foreshadowed in the narratives of Gen. 2:
Having moved forward from the old creation to the situation “in the Lord” (vv. 7–10), Paul is now in a position to look back at the old creation from the new perspective and to see the togetherness of man and woman in the Lord already foreshadowed there. The new creation redresses an imbalance in the old; but, seen retrospectively, the old creation is also prophetic of the new. Anticipations of the togetherness of man and woman in the Lord may be found in the simplest and most obvious phenomena of the first creation.
Paul then summarizes in 11:12 the interpretation of Gen. 1–2. The first clause (“as woman came/comes from man”) refers to Eve (or to her and to women in general). The second clause (“so also man comes through woman”) points not to the creation of the first man, but rather to that of every man since Adam (perhaps evoking Gen. 4:1 [see Watson 2000: 79]). The final clause (“all things are from God”) reminds the reader that God is the ultimate origin of every human being (and all creation), apparently relativizing the significance of other factors in the creation of men and women and clearly emphasizing that it is God’s glory and honor that must govern all that is done.
11:17–34
Craigie (1976: 242) points out that “the Passover became the act, symbolically speaking, of the one large family of God” (see also Routledge 2002: 207, 212, 216). Chapter 30 of 2 Chronicles depicts the celebration of Passover as a unifying and sanctifying event that “fit well into Hezekiah’s designs to reunify the nation” (Matthews, Chavalas, and Walton 2000: 453). The Lord’s Supper, like the Passover meal on which it was based, should serve as an experience that strengthens the unity of God’s people.
God’s concern for the poor, caring for the poor as a mark of piety, and the oppression of the poor as a mark of the wicked are key themes of the OT (see Ciampa 1998: 153n94).
11:23–26
The verb paredideto (“was handed over” or “was betrayed”) in 11:23 may be understood as a reference to Judas’s betrayal, but more likely Paul is echoing the LXX rendering of Isa. 53:6 (“the Lord gave him up [paredōken] for our sins”) and 53:12 (“his life was given up [paredothē] to death and . . . he was given up [paredothē] on account of their sins”) (see Hays 1997: 198). Paul understands Jesus’ death as the fulfillment of God’s plan as foreshadowed in Isa. 53.
Jesus would have broken the unleavened bread served at a Passover meal (cf. Exod. 12:8; see Routledge 2002: 215–17). Paul has already alluded to the unleavened bread and referred to Christ as “our Passover lamb” who has been sacrificed (see commentary on 1 Cor. 5:6–8 above), suggesting that he understood Jesus’ words at the Last Supper to mean that he was fulfilling the role of the sacrificial lamb in the establishment of the new covenant.
Deuteronomy 16:3 calls the unleavened bread “the bread of affliction,” referring to the sufferings of Israel. Jesus, in saying that the bread represents his body “which is for you,” makes it refer to the redemption that he is about to accomplish by his own suffering.
Jesus’ statement that the cup “is the new covenant in my blood” fuses together the language of Jer. 31:31 (“a new covenant”) and Exod. 24:8 (“the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you”). The latter text refers to the establishment of the covenant at Sinai, while the former consists of God’s promise to establish a new covenant in the time of postexilic restoration. By fusing the two texts together, Jesus interprets his impending death as the sacrifice that establishes the new covenant associated with the second exodus.
The celebration of the Passover entailed a focused reflection on the exodus redemption, stimulated and structured by discussion of the unusual elements of the Passover meal (m. Pesaḥ. 10:4–5; cf. Exod. 13:7–8; Deut. 16:3). Jesus reflects on the redemption that he is about to accomplish and reinterprets two elements of the traditional Passover meal (bread and wine) so that now they can communicate the message of the redemption that he brings.
Jesus’ statement that we are to partake of the Lord’s Supper in his “remembrance” reflects the nature of the Passover as a “memorial” (Exod. 12:14) during which the Israelites were to remember the day of their exodus redemption (Deut. 16:3).
For the Corinthians to truly celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they would need to take more seriously its nature as a celebration of new covenant redemption brought about through Christ’s self-sacrificing death for them on the cross. To recognize it as such would necessarily require a change in the ways the Corinthian Christians were treating each other.
11:27–34
Hugenburger (1998: 209n171) points out that “Paul’s threat that whoever eats and drinks unworthily will ‘eat and drink judgment upon himself’” reflects the nature of the Lord’s Supper “as a covenant-ratifying oath-sign” implying “a self-maledictory symbolism” such that “our infidelity deserves the same dreadful curse which overtook Christ, whose death is symbolized in the elements.” This is consistent with Paul’s depiction in 10:8–10 of the judgment that fell on Israel as a result of their infidelity to God’s covenant.
In this section of the letter Paul continues the theme of worship that he had already begun to develop in chapter 11 (chaps. 8–10 dealt with the avoidance of association with pagan worship). That this material relates back to chapters 8–10 is suggested by Paul’s reference to idols in 12:2. Chapters 12–14 reflect the A-B-A′ structure found in chapters 8–10, where an apparent digression turns out to provide a key to the apostle’s approach to the issue introduced in the previous chapter and developed in the following chapter. Chapter 12 introduces the issue of spiritual gifts and their function within the body of Christ. Chapter 13 stresses the importance, nature, and permanence of love, which is the only proper basis for the use of the gifts. Chapter 14 returns to the gifts of tongues and prophecy in particular and stresses the superiority of prophecy because of its ability to edify the body (the goal established by love).
The only biblical quotation in this section is Paul’s quotation of Isa. 28:11–12 in 14:21. The only other allusion to Scripture that has been identified in this section is one to Isa. 45:14 (cf. Zech. 8:23) in 14:25.
12:2
The OT knows of two types of people: idolaters and those who worship only the God of Israel (cf., from the central section of the Shema, Deut. 11:13, 16; see Meeks 1983: 690).
That idols are “dumb” is an OT theme taken up many times in Jewish sources (e.g., Ps. 115:4–5; 135:15–17; Isa. 46:6–7; Jer. 10:5; Hab. 2:18–19 [cf. 1QpHab XII, 10–17]; Gen. Rab. 84:10; b. Sanh. 7b). Whereas the idols are dumb, the Lord speaks through Isaiah and the other prophets (Isa. 41:22–42:9).
12:3
The OT teaching that true prophetic speech comes through God’s Spirit (Num. 11:25–29; 24:2–3; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23; 2 Sam. 23:2; Neh. 9:30; Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28; Mic. 3:8; Zech. 7:12) was commonplace in early Christian teaching (Luke 1:67; Acts 2:17–18; 19:6; 28:25; Eph. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:10–12; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 19:10) and is reflected throughout 1 Cor. 12–14.
12:4–6
Prophetic texts that looked forward to the outpouring of the Spirit anticipated a variety of manifestations. Joel 2:28–32, one of the more influential texts, refers to prophesying, dreaming (inspired) dreams, seeing visions, and God-given wonders. Other texts also look forward to a variety of qualities or manifestations (e.g., Isa. 11:1–5; 32:15–17; 44:3–5; 61:1–4).
That all the variety of manifestations must be understood to originate from the one God (rather than from a variety of spiritual beings [cf. 12:2]) is based on the presupposition of biblical monotheism (see commentary on 1 Cor. 8:1–6 above).
12:7
That the Spirit would be manifest in each person is suggested by Joel 2:28–29 as well as Ezek. 36:26–27; 37:14, and this may be understood as the fulfillment of the desire expressed by Moses in Num. 11:29, which is alluded to and developed by the Joel 2 text (Dillard 2000).
12:8–10
Several of the gifts that Paul mentions were already associated with the Spirit (or were referred to in terms of “a spirit of . . .”) in the OT and Jewish thought, including wisdom and knowledge or understanding (Exod. 31:3; 35:31; Isa. 11:2; Dan. 1:4; 5:11–12; 1QS IV, 3–4, 20–22; 4Q161 8–10 III, 11–12), healing (Isa. 61:1; 1QS IV, 6), and prophecy (e.g., Num. 11:29; Joel 2:28; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23; 2 Sam. 23:2).
Miracles were especially associated with God’s special intervention in the exodus and in the ministries of Elijah and Elisha.
In the OT healing was expected to accompany forgiveness and restoration of God’s people (Deut. 32:39; 2 Chron. 7:14; Job 5:18; Ps. 41:4; 103:3; 107:20; 147:3; Isa. 6:10; 19:22; 30:26; 42:4–6; 53:5; 57:18–19; 58:8; 61:1; Jer. 30:17; 33:6; Ezek. 47:12; Hos. 6:1; 14:4; Mal. 4:2). The Gospels (see esp. Matt. 11:4–5/Luke 7:22–23) make it clear that Jesus’ ministry of healing was understood as a fulfillment of such prophetic promises (perhaps especially Isa. 42:6–7).
It appears that in Acts and Paul, speaking in tongues (as a manifestation of the Spirit that requires interpretation) has taken the place of dreams and visions in Joel and the rest of the OT (cf. Acts 2:4, 16–19; 19:6; Joel 2:28–32).
12:13–26
There has been much speculation about the source of Paul’s identification of the church as the body of Christ. Kim (1984: 252–56) has argued that Jewish mystical (merkabah) speculation based on Ezek. 1:26 and Dan. 7 may have played a role. Paul describes the church as both a Spirit-filled temple (3:16; cf. 6:19) and a Spirit-filled body (12:13; cf. 6:19). There may be some relationship between Paul’s understanding of the church as the Spirit-indwelt temple of God and Jesus’ identification of his body with God’s temple (Matt. 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19–21). Paul’s usage of the body metaphor appears to be an interesting variation on an ancient rhetorical commonplace relating to corporate solidarity and unity (see Mitchell 1991: 157–64).
Paul’s statement that the Corinthians were all baptized into one body and were all given the one Spirit to drink (12:13) echoes his description of Israel’s experience in 10:2–4. The Israelites were all “baptized into Moses” and drank the same spiritual drink (cf. Ps. 78:15).
12:31
Paul’s promise to show the Corinthians a superior path to follow reflects an OT motif usually associated with the exodus or second exodus (Exod. 13:21; Deut. 1:33; Isa. 48:16–17; Mic. 4:2). Samuel also was committed to showing Israel the good and right way (1 Sam. 12:23).
13:1–13: INTRODUCTION
There is a long tradition of unpacking the meaning of the command to love one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18): Tob. 4:13; 2 Macc. 15:14; Matt. 5:43 (Jesus citing a contemporaneous interpretation), 44–46; 19:19; 22:39–40; Mark 10:21; 12:31–33; Luke 6:27–38; 10:25–37; John 15:12–17; James 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:17; 4:8; 1 John 2:10; 3:10–18, 23; 4:7, 11–12, 20–21; 5:1; 2 John 5–6; m. Ned. 9:4; Gen. Rab. 24:7; Lev. Rab. 24:5; b. Pesaḥ. 75a; b. Yebam. 62b; b. Ketub. 37b; b. Ned. 65b; b. Soṭah 8b; b. Qidd. 41a; b. B. Qam. 51a; b. Sanh. 45a, 52a–b, 76b, 84b; b. Nid. 17a.
Love is a central theme of Paul’s Christian ethical teaching (Rom. 12:9–10; 13:8–10; 14:15; Gal. 5:13–14; Eph. 1:15; 4:2, 16; 5:2), and in Rom. 13:10 Paul makes clear that he understands his teaching on love to be a reflection of Lev. 19:18, which he considers a summary of the law.
Söding (1995: 130–31) highlights “the eschatological and theocentric dimension” of love (agapē) in 1 Cor. 13 (see below) and suggests that it represents “God’s eschatological power.” Paul’s discussion of love focuses on qualities that have been lacking in the Corinthians’ behavior.
Forbes (1995) has argued that tongues would have been understood as unknown human languages, but Paul’s reference to the ability to speak the “tongues of angels” probably indicates that he and the Corinthians consider glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”) to be, or at least to include, the ability to speak angelic languages. D. Martin (1991: 558–61; 1995: 88–90) provides evidence that angels were thought to have their own languages (T. Job 48–50; Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 10.23; 11.22). The praise that angels give to God is mentioned in Ps. 103:20; 148:2, and the Qumran community manifested an extraordinary fascination with the subject (cf. 4Q400; 4Q401; 4Q403).
13:2–3
The eschatological nature of love is reflected in the affirmation that whether or not one “is” anything before God or “gains” anything from one’s actions (both of which have soteriological connotations) depends on the presence or absence of love.
The reference to “knowing all mysteries” evokes the portrayal of Daniel in Dan. 2; 4 (esp. 4:9).
The manuscripts of 13:3 are divided as to whether Paul speaks of giving up one’s body “to boast” or “to be burned.” The latter reading (which is slightly inferior on internal grounds) would echo Dan. 3:95 LXX, where Daniel’s friends “gave their bodies to be burned.”
13:4–7
The theocentric nature of love in this chapter is reflected in that much of what Paul says about it was previously affirmed of God in the OT and early Judaism (and is said about God by Paul himself elsewhere). Patience is one of God’s attributes (in the LXX, see Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 7:12; 85:15; 102:8; 144:8; Wis. 15:1; Sir. 5:4; 18:11; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2; Nah. 1:3; cf. Rom. 2:4; 9:22). The same can be said of kindness (in the LXX, see Ps. 24:7–8; 30:20; 33:9; 67:11; 85:5; 99:5; 105:1; 106:1; 118:68; 135:1; 144:9; Wis. 15:1; Pss. Sol. 10:7; Jer. 40:11; Dan. 3:89; 1 Esd. 5:58; cf. Rom. 2:4; 11:22; Titus 3:4). Söding (1995: 131) points out that not keeping count of evil (13:5) “is God’s prerogative and salvific will” (cf. Rom. 4:7–8; 2 Cor. 5:19), and that God is the one who supremely “hates injustice (cf. Rom. 1:28; 2:8) and bears all truth in himself (v. 6).”
13:8–10
The eschatological nature of Paul’s thinking about love is evident throughout these verses. He uses a variety of images to distinguish between that which is permanent and that which, being temporary, will pass away. Paul’s statement that love “never falls/fails [piptei]” reflects the eschatological connotations of piptō, which can be seen elsewhere (see commentary on 1 Cor. 10:11–12 above).
Paul’s references to things that “pass away” in 13:8, 10 employ the word katargeō, which consistently has an eschatological connotation in this letter, referring to those things that do not survive the transition from this age to the age to come (1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 13:8, 10; 15:24, 26).
13:12
In 13:12 Paul alludes to Num. 12:6–8, which contrasts Moses’ prophetic experience with that of all other prophets. Whereas other prophets receive revelation through visions and dreams (12:6; cf. Joel 2:28), Moses experiences the presence of the Lord face to face (stoma kata stoma), not indirectly (ou di ainigmatōn) and sees his form (LXX: “glory”): “With him I speak face to face, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD.” Paul says, “Now we see in a mirror [di esoptrou] indirectly [en ainigmati], but then face to face [prosōpon pros prosōpon]. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
According to Lev. Rab. 1:14, there was a debate regarding the difference between Moses and the other prophets based on Num. 12:8. Both sides held that Moses, like the other prophets, saw the Lord through a mirror (reading the word for “appearance” [marʾeh] in Num. 12:8 as though it meant “mirror,” another meaning of the word used for “vision” [marʾâ] in Num. 12:6 [cf. Exod. 38:8]). Some thought that the difference was that the other prophets saw the Lord through a series of mirrors rather than just one, while others thought that Moses saw the Lord through a polished mirror while the other prophets saw him through a blurred one. Fishbane (1986: 74) argues that this midrashic reading “may have preceded Paul or have been common coin among ancient homileticists.” Paul’s reference to a mirror in the context of an allusion to the same text would be a strange coincidence if he does not share some interpretive tradition with its authors.
Paul suggests that Christians now share the experience of seeing God indirectly, in a mirror (presumably analogous to his understanding of the prophets’ experience), but one day will see him face to face (as did Moses). Leviticus Rabbah 1:14 goes on to quote Isa. 40:5 and say that although only a few in this age were able to see God the way Moses did, in the age to come “all flesh shall see the glory of the Lord” (as Moses did).
The contrast between this age and the age to come matches Paul’s thinking precisely. The reference to the vision of “the glory of the Lord” (in the citation from Isa. 40:5) brings us to the LXX translation of Num. 12:8. Whereas the Hebrew text says that Moses saw the “likeness” or “form” (tĕmûnâ) of the Lord, the LXX says he saw the “glory” (doxa) of the Lord. The LXX both affirms Moses’ face-to-face experience with the Lord and interprets it as a vision of his glory (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18).
Fishbane also hints that Paul’s alteration of stoma kata stoma (“mouth to mouth”) in Num. 12:8 LXX to prosōpon pros prosōpon (“face to face”) may reflect the influence of Deut. 34:10, which refers to Moses as a prophet whom the Lord “knew” (egnō) “face to face” (prosōpon kata prosōpon). Philo also brought together Num. 12:8 and Deut. 34:10 (Heir 262). Deuteronomy 34:10 not only provides a closer parallel to Paul’s wording for “face to face,” but also supplies another link to the motif of “knowing” and “being known” (see also Num. 12:6 LXX: autō gnōsthēsomai), which is prominent in 13:12 (cf. 13:8).
Paul’s allusion to Num. 12:8, then, is consistent with other early Jewish interpretations in understanding that in the age to come all God’s people will have an experience similar to that which distinguished Moses from the other prophets. We already see the Lord as through a mirror (imperfectly) and know him as well as that experience allows (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18), but the day is coming when we will see him as Moses did, face to face, an experience of knowing him fully, as we are already fully known by him.
13:13
In keeping with his emphasis on the theocentric nature of love in this chapter, Söding (1995: 131) points out that love’s quality of enduring, both now and in the future, is a reflection of the fact that “God is the Eternal One, who has no beginning and no end (13:13; cf. Rom. 16:26).” Of all the things said to endure forever in the OT and early Jewish texts, God’s ḥesed, his loyalty, steadfast love or mercy, is mentioned most often (e.g., 1 Chron. 16:34, 41; 2 Chron. 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21; Ezra 3:11; Ps. 100:5; 106:1; 107:1; 118:1–4, 29; 136; 138:8; Jer. 33:11).
14:1
This verse signals a transition between the various themes of chapters 12–14. “Spiritual gifts” in general were the focus of chapter 12. Love was the center of attention in chapter 13 as the key to the significance and use of spiritual gifts and to the nature of new life in Christ. In chapter 14 Paul highlights prophecy as a spiritual gift whose exercise would be more naturally promoted by the principle of love than the gift of tongues because it more clearly serves to edify the church (which is what love seeks).
14:3–4
The motif of “building/edifying” finds its background in OT prophetic promises regarding God’s future plans for the redemption and restoration of Israel (with oikodomēo or anoikodomeō in the LXX: Isa. 44:26, 28; 49:17; 54:14; 58:12; 60:10; 61:4; Jer. 1:10; 12:16; 24:6; 37:18 [30:18 ET]; 38:4, 28, 38 [31:4 ET]; 40:7 [33:7 ET]; 49:10 [42:10 ET]; Ezek. 36:36; Amos 9:11, 14; Zech. 1:16; 6:12, 15; 8:9). In Jeremiah 1:10 “tearing down” (the prophetic ministry associated with judgment and exile) and “building up” (the prophetic ministry associated with salvation and restoration) are ascribed to Jeremiah’s own prophetic activity. Jeremiah tears down and builds as he proclaims God’s prophetic word, or alternatively, God acts through the prophet to tear down and build up his chosen nation/people.
Michel (1967: 139) points out that in the NT building “is primarily an apocalyptic and Messianic concept. . . . The Messiah will build the future temple and the new community.” The edification of the church is an activity for which the Spirit empowers the eschatological community, as Paul will make clear throughout this chapter. As Paul also makes clear, the prophetic ministry of the church carries particular edifying value. It is because Paul is concerned about the edification of the church that he puts such a high value on the prophetic ministry.
14:10–11
The reference to the diversity of languages in the world (14:10) and Paul’s reference to a speaker being “a foreigner [barbaros] to me” (14:11) suggest that he already has Isa. 28:11–12 in mind (see commentary on 1 Cor. 14:21–24 below). Paul will cite the text that deals with Israel’s experience of not understanding the strange, unknown language of its foreign invaders.
14:20
Paul is about to quote Isa. 28:11–12. In Isa. 28:9–10 the religious leaders complain that the prophet’s message is too simple and naïve. The irony is that “those who are ‘wise’ and ‘gifted’ in their own eyes dismiss the plain message as ‘childish,’ when in reality it is the supposedly wise who think and act like children” (Thiselton 2000: 1121). Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians to reason as adults rather than as children may echo Isaiah’s encounter with childish people who thought they were too wise to heed his message.
14:21–24
A. NT Context: Tongues and Prophecy in Corinth. In chapter 12 Paul argued that God had provided, and the church needed to exercise, a diversity of gifts (probably engaging the church’s fascination with one particular gift: tongues). Throughout this chapter Paul has been arguing for the superior value of prophecy over tongues for ministering in the church. That motif will be stressed again at the end of 14:26. In 14:21 Paul quotes Isa. 28:11–12: “‘By people of other tongues and by the lips of others I will speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord.”
B. Isa. 28:11–12 in Its OT Context. Isaiah 28:1–29 consists of an oracle against the political and religious leadership of God’s people (Samaria and Jerusalem). They had rejected God’s counsel to rest and trust in him as being naïve and had gone ahead in a policy marked by a drunken madness and formed other alliances. The leadership (rulers, priests, and prophets [cf. 28:1, 3, 7, 14–15]) refused to listen when God clearly and plainly explained to them what it meant to rest in him and to give rest to the weary (28:12), so now God’s voice of judgment will be heard in the barbarian language of the Assyrian invaders (28:11). The verses immediately preceding our text evidently represent their mockery of Isaiah’s message (28:9–10). The word used for “stammering” (lāʿēg) usually means “derision” (HALOT 2:532), and it may be that Isaiah intends a double entendre involving an ironic reversal: the “stammering” of the Assyrian invaders is God’s punishment for the “mocking” perpetrated by the nation’s leadership (Kwon 2004: 26). As Kwon (2004: 26) has suggested, “The judgment of unintelligible speech serves as a metonymy for the experience of foreign invasion in general and, perhaps, the experience of exile in particular.”
C. Isa. 28:11–12 in Early Judaism. In the Isaiah Targum and 1QHa (X, 19; XII, 16) the strange tongues and lips of Isa. 28:11–12 are those of God’s rebellious people (false teachers, according to the Qumran writers; the people in general, according to the Targum) who reject his revelation and his true prophets. In the LXX it is unclear whether the message of 28:12 was spoken by the drunken prophets and priests or by the invading Assyrians (see Johanson 1979: 182). Stanley (1992: 201), following Koch (1986: 64), argues that in the LXX “vv. 10–12 are mistakenly read as continuing the description of the disgraceful deeds of the ‘priest and prophet’ that begins in v. 7.” Lanier (1991) thinks that the LXX has turned 28:12 into a call for endurance in the face of taunting invaders (whose words are found in that verse).
Each text (regardless of which words are attributed to which people) understands the passage to deal with a radical division between faithful and unfaithful Israelites. In some cases the stammering lips and foreign tongue are considered a cause for God’s judgment, while in others they appear to be a sign of it.
D. Textual Matters. “Determining the precise relationship between the wording of 1 Cor. 14.21 and the text of the LXX is one of the greatest challenges in the entire corpus of Pauline citations” because of “the distance of the Pauline wording from both the LXX and the Masoretic Hebrew textual traditions” (Stanley 1992: 198).
Paul leaves out most of Isa. 28:12, evidently because he sees those clauses as irrelevant to his argument. His text appears to be an interpretive rendering, perhaps dependent upon an earlier Greek version that sought to conform more closely to the Hebrew text than the LXX (see Stanley 1992).
The Hebrew texts (MT and 1QIsaa) indicate that God would speak to his people “by stammering [or ‘mocking’] lips and by another tongue” because he had spoken to them before “but they were unwilling to hear.” The LXX says that it is “because of the contempt of lips and through another tongue they will speak [lalēsousin] to this people . . . but they did not want to hear.”
Paul follows the Hebrew texts in understanding the speaker to be the Lord, but his text uses the first person rather than the third person (lalēsō [“I will speak”]). It is unclear whether Paul’s reading is based on an ambiguous form in 28:12b (cf. Stanley 1992: 201–2) or is his adaptation. Whereas both the Hebrew texts and the LXX represent the final clause as a historical observation—“they were not willing to listen”—Paul’s text transforms it into a shocking prediction: oud’ houtōs eisakousontai (“even then they will not listen”). This seems to be his own modification, reflecting his interpretation of the significance of the strange language (in both Isaiah and the history of the nation). He also adds two other elements at the end that reinforce who the speaker is: the object pronoun “to me” (mou) followed by the formula “says the Lord” (legei kyrios). (For more detailed examination of the textual issues, see Stanley 1992; Lanier 1991.)
E. The Use of Isa. 28:11–12 in 1 Cor. 14. Paul introduces his quotation by identifying it as something “written in the law,” probably meaning only that it is a quotation from Scripture (it is not, strictly speaking, from the law). Paul emphasizes the idea of “other” or “foreign” tongues and lips through repetition (heteroglōssois . . . cheilesin heterōn). In Paul’s case the issue is the use of strange languages in worship. Whereas other early interpretations of the text could gloss over the text’s reference to unknown languages (and emphasize the idea of scornful or mocking words [e.g., 1QHa; Isaiah Targum]), Paul is interested in this text precisely due to its reference to God’s use of unknown languages to communicate a message to his people.
Paul agrees with the Hebrew texts (MT and 1QIsaa) in holding that it is the Lord who speaks through the stammering or strange lips and tongue. He emphasizes the point by adding the object pronoun (“to me,” referring to the Lord) and the final quotation formula (“says the Lord”). Paul and the Corinthians agree that glossolalia is divine speech. If there is a problem with the gift or its employment, it is not because God does not speak through it.
Paul’s greatest interpretive move related to the text form involves his perspective on the significance of the foreign language in the history of God’s relationship with his people. Isaiah 28:11–12 indicates God would speak to his people in judgment through a strange language because they did not listen to him earlier when he spoke in clear and simple terms. Paul’s rendering of the text indicates that God could not even get his own people to respond to him, even when he spoke to them in that extreme, attention-getting manner. Paul’s understanding that unbelieving Jews of his day continued to stand indicted by God and in need of redemption suggests that, in his view, not even exile brought the nation of Israel back to God (cf. Rom. 3:9–20; 9:2–8, 27–33; 10:1–3; Gal. 3:10–13; 4:4–5, 25; 1 Thess. 2:14–16).
The relationship between Paul’s quotation of Isa. 28:11–12 in 14:21, the conclusion drawn in 14:22, and the examples given in 14:23–25 has proven to be extremely difficult to unravel (see, besides the commentaries, Hodges 1963; Robertson 1975; Johanson 1979; Lanier 1991; Sweet 1967; Grudem 1979; Smit 1994; Sandnes 1996; Forbes 1995). Part of the solution may be found in the relationship between Paul’s quotation of Isa. 28:11–12 in 14:21 and his allusion to Isa. 45:14 and Zech. 8:23 in 14:25. While 14:22 mentions both believers and unbelievers, the illustrations in 14:23–25 focus exclusively on unbelievers and the way they respond to an encounter with a community that is speaking in tongues or one that is prophesying. The focus on unbelievers was signaled in the quotation’s reference to Israel’s unwillingness to listen to the Lord despite his attention-getting approach. In the OT context the experience of the invading Assyrians was God’s execution of the covenant curses on his unbelieving and unfaithful people (see Robertson 1975). Just as the experience in Isa. 28:11–12 did not result in the conversion of the hearers but instead expressed alienation between God and his people, so also Paul indicates that the use of tongues in the church will result not in the conversion of unbelievers but rather in their further alienation.
His allusion to Isa. 45:14, on the other hand, relates to a later phase in God’s relationship with his people, one when even Gentiles would come to recognize the presence of God in the midst of his people and would worship him for who he really is. The different responses in the two texts relate to those two consecutive phases in God’s relationship with his people. Different modes of communication are associated with each of those two phases.
Unintelligible communication from God was a sign to his unbelieving people that the curses of the Mosaic covenant had fallen on them, while the powerful prophetic ministry of the church is a sign that God’s presence has been restored to his redeemed (and believing) people.
F. Theological Use. Paul draws a theological conclusion about the appropriateness (or, rather, the inappropriateness) of the use of tongues in the congregation based on its function in Israel’s experience (and in salvation history) as in Isa. 28:11–12. God spoke to his people through unknown languages as a sign and tool of alienation before the age of redemption. Now that Christ has inaugurated the age of salvation, the prophetic message is to be employed (in public) as the means of accomplishing God’s purposes.
14:25
Paul’s expectation that the prophetic ministry of community gathered for worship will lead to the conversion of outsiders who will respond by bowing down and worshiping God and declaring “God is really here in your midst!” echoes Isa. 45:14 (Hays [1999: 391–93] thinks that it also alludes to Zech. 8:23 and perhaps Dan. 2:46–47; for other texts anticipating the eschatological recognition of the God of Israel, see commentary on 1 Cor. 8:1–6 above). Isaiah prophesies the conversion of Gentile nations in the time of the postexilic restoration of God’s people. At that time, he says, the various peoples will become Israel’s servants and will bow down to them and pray to them “since God is among you,” and they will say that “there is no god besides you, for you are God and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Savior.” Paul has changed the plural verb (“they will worship”) to a singular (“he/she will worship”) because he is describing the conversion of an individual, and he has changed the pronoun from the singular (“in your [soi] midst”) to the plural (“in your [hymin] midst”) because he is describing the gathered community rather than the nation of Israel (see Hays 1999: 393). Paul expects Isaiah’s script to be performed and his eschatological vision to be realized in the midst of the gathered community as it exercises its prophetic ministry (Hays 1999: 393). Hays (1999: 394) points to the dramatic transformation in Paul’s intertextual use: in Paul’s scenario “it is the church—itself a predominately Gentile community—through which God will accomplish the eschatological conversion of outsiders,” and the Corinthian believers have “stepped into the role originally assigned to Israel in Isaiah’s eschatological drama.” Hence the church is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy about Israel.
14:33–35
Paul says that the women (or wives) should be silent during the church gathering; they are not permitted to speak and should be in submission, “just like the law says” (for the textual issues, see Niccum 1997; Thiselton 2000: 1148–50). Paul cannot mean that women are not allowed to speak at all, since in chapter 11 he discusses their authority to pray and prophesy in the worship service (for evidence that the nature of the silence is expected to be contextually determined, see Grudem 1982: 242–44). He probably means either that women should not participate in the judging/evaluation of the prophetic messages of others (so Grudem 1982; Carson 1987: 229 [cf. 14:29]; or perhaps particularly the messages spoken by their own husbands? [cf. 14:35]), or that they must refrain from disruptive chatter or inappropriate conversations (so Paige 2002), perhaps especially with other men (cf. 14:35: “Let them ask their own husbands [tous idious andras]”).
Paul’s reference to the teaching of “the law” probably has the Genesis creation narratives in mind, with their implications for order and propriety in relationships between men and women (see Thiselton 2000: 1153–54; Bruce 1980: 136; Carson 1987: 129; Keener 1992: 86–87; see also commentary on 1 Cor. 11:2–16 above). Some think that Paul is alluding to Gen. 3:16 and its statement to the woman that her husband will rule over her (cf. 4Q416 2 IV, 1–8). That text, however, deals with a domination resulting from the curse of the fall (though see Grudem [1982: 253–54], who thinks that the source is Gen. 3:16 in conjunction with Gen. 2:18–23). Many take this text to forbid women (then and now) from enjoying “a church-recognized teaching authority over men” (e.g., Carson 1987: 130). Others believe that Paul’s point is that Scripture teaches the importance of maintaining respect and order in the worship setting (here, especially, the respect of women for their husbands), but that this principle might be applied rather differently in cultures where the social expectations of husbands and wives are markedly different from those in Paul’s world.
The Resurrection of the Body (15:1–58)
Introduction
The historical situation that gave rise to Paul writing this chapter is difficult to pinpoint with absolute certainty. Common to all mirror readings of the chapter is the recognition, based on 15:12 (“Some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead”), that some within the Corinthian congregation were skeptical about the concept of a future resurrection of believers. It is not that this group did not believe in any postmortem existence, since in 15:29 Paul speaks of a “baptism on behalf of the dead,” which, though puzzling for us, apparently was quite acceptable to them. Rather, the notion of bodily resurrection seems to have been in dispute. If in 15:1–34 Paul contends that the resurrection of the dead is central to the gospel, in 15:35–58 he explains how the bodily resurrection of believers is neither unintelligible nor inconceivable. Indeed, the double question of 15:35, along with Paul’s word of stern rebuke in 15:36, indicates that it was the very possibility of the body’s involvement in the afterlife that some in Corinth denied. “With what kind of body do they come?” (15:35) is at the heart of the dispute.
Resurrection Bodies
Unlike Greco-Roman philosophy, which expressed thoroughgoing skepticism regarding any place for the body in the afterlife, Paul’s Jewish inheritance affirms a sturdy belief in the resurrection of the body (Rosner 2004; N. T. Wright 2003). Although explicit affirmation is reserved for certain OT prophets, its foundations, as Bauckham (1998) argues, are firmly laid in the OT portrayal of God as Sovereign Creator, Righteous Judge, and Divine Warrior.
Whereas some OT texts use resurrection imagery to refer to national restoration (e.g., Ezek. 37:1–14), at least two texts declare a resurrection of the dead as a personal hope of life after death that is bodily in nature: Isa. 26:19 promises a resurrection (“your dead shall live”) that is explicitly corporeal (“their corpses shall rise”), and Dan. 12:1–3 speaks of the awakening of “many who sleep in the dust of the earth . . . some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Other texts, such as Job 14:14, Ps. 16:10; 49:15; 73:24, also seem to imply belief in life after death, although the exegesis of such texts is more controversial.)
Jewish intertestamental writings from almost every quarter include resurrection as central to their beliefs. Among apocalyptic texts, 1 En. 51:1; 62:14–16; 4 Ezra 7:32–33a; 2 Bar. 50:2, 4 describe resurrection in terms of the place where the dead are kept (variously in Sheol, hell, the earth, dust, and the chambers) “giving back” the deceased. In these texts those who rise eat, rest, and are clothed. Second Baruch 49:2 poses almost the same question as does Paul in 1 Cor. 15:35b, framed in a prayer: “In what shape will those live who live in your day?”
A prominent example of testamentary literature that reflects on the afterlife is the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. For example, T. Jud. 25:4–6 affirms the resurrection of those who have died in sorrow, poverty, or on account of the Lord, and T. Benj. 10:6–10 mentions a resurrection in which “all are changed,” with some to expect glory, and others dishonor.
As an example of historical literature, Josephus, in Jewish War, speaks of “the revolution of the ages” in terms of a new habitation of a chaste body (J.W. 3.374). In Jewish War and Antiquities he describes the belief of the Pharisees of a soul passing from one body to another (cf. 2 Macc. 7:10–13).
A marked difference between Paul and this Jewish background is that from Paul’s Christian perspective the general resurrection of the dead is preceded, and indeed made possible, by the resurrection of the Christ: “For one man alone to be raised is a great surprise in the Jewish apocalyptic framework” (Hays 1997: 263).
15:3–4
Paul asserts that the death and resurrection of Christ, the central events of his gospel (15:2), are kata tas graphas (“in accordance with the Scriptures”). That Paul refers to “the Scriptures” in the plural only rarely (Rom. 1:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Cor. 15:3–4; cf. Gal. 3:10) suggests that here he is speaking generally; the many references to “Scripture” in the singular are used routinely when citing a specific text. Barrett (1996: 338–39) understands Paul’s point in 15:3–4 to be that the cross is the climax of the events of salvation history as they are revealed in the OT, and that the message of the cross must be understood through the OT categories of sacrifice, atonement, suffering, vindication, and so forth (cf. Dodd [1953], who expounds this “substructure” of NT theology by observing the OT texts most commonly used by the NT authors, especially those from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Psalms).
Notwithstanding a reference to the OT in general, the description of Christ’s death as being “for our sins” may be an allusion to or echo of the portrayal of the Suffering Servant in Isa. 53:5–6, 11–12. And the psalms are a good candidate for seeing a prefiguring of the resurrection of Christ, especially those that praise God for delivering the righteous sufferer (see the use of Ps. 110 and Ps. 8 in 1 Cor. 15:24–28 [cf. Ps. 16:9b–10 in Acts 2:24–31]).
The reference to “the third day” in 15:4 may bring to mind Hos. 6:2; Jon. 1:17. However, the phrase “according to the Scriptures” modifies “was raised” rather than the temporal reference (cf. similar syntax in 1 Macc. 7:16).
15:14–18
In rehearsing the consequences for the Corinthians if Christ is not raised, Paul effectively reverts to an OT/Jewish view of their condition. If there were no resurrection of Christ, God would judge and condemn them in their sin. They would be, as Eph. 2:12 describes their former life, “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God” (cf. Eph. 2:1–3, 11–12; 4:17–19).
15:20
The metaphor of the firstfruits is, as de Boer (1988: 109) explains, “derived from the OT where it denotes the first portion of the crop (or flock) which is offered in Thanksgiving to God. As such, the term signifies the pledge of the remainder, and concomitantly, the assurance of a full harvest . . . the first installment of that part which includes, as by synecdoche, the whole.” In other words, Paul uses the image to underline the link between our fate and the fate of Christ; Christ’s resurrection is not an isolated event, but rather guarantees something even more stupendous.
15:21–22
Moving from metaphor to typology, Paul makes essentially the same point as in 15:20. His reference to Adam without explanation assumes that the Corinthians have some knowledge of the story of Gen. 1–3, which probably he taught to them while in Corinth. As in Rom. 5:12–21, Paul focuses on the differences between Adam and Christ. The consequences of the resurrection of Christ (life for all) correspond antithetically to the consequences of Adam’s sin (death for all). The former has broken the power of the latter. However, Paul is not teaching universalism (see 1 Cor. 1:18); the unqualified “all” of 15:22 who will be made alive is clarified by 15:23 with the phrase “those who belong to him.”
15:25
Hays (1989: 84) comments that in 15:25–27 Paul “alludes to Ps. 110:1 and Ps. 8:6 as prophecies of Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God and ultimate authority over all creation. Thus Paul offers the earliest documentation of a christological exegesis of these psalms.” Together they support Paul’s claim that all powers and authorities will be placed under Christ’s feet and thus be subjected to God. These two psalms are employed together also in Eph. 1:20–22; Heb. 2:5–8.
First Corinthians 15:25 (“until he has put all his enemies under his feet”) alludes to Ps. 110:1 (“until I make your enemies your footstool”). The use of this psalm suggests that the referent of “he has put” is God (cf. 15:28).
15:27
A. NT Context: Everything under His Feet. The words “when it says” (15:27b) make it clear that Paul is citing Scripture (Ps. 8:6) in 15:27a, as most English translations indicate with quotation marks around “has put everything under his feet.” In 15:27 Paul explains why death is to be destroyed (15:26), or more accurately, how human beings, through whom death came (15:22), can exercise dominion over all things. If with Ps. 110 authority and dominion is considered in relation to God’s right hand, with Ps. 8 it is seen in relation to all of creation.
B. Ps. 8:6 in Its OT Context. Psalm 8 is a psalm of descriptive praise for God’s majestic work in creation. The psalm alludes to Gen. 1:26–30 and comments specifically on the creation of humankind in the image of God and their function as God’s vice-regent over the earth (8:5–8), and it also carries the theme of the dominion of God over all creation (8:1, 3–5, 9).
C. Ps. 8:6 in Early Judaism. Jewish texts that refer to creation also carry the implication of God’s dominion and authority over it (cf. e.g., Sir. 16:17–20; 4 Ezra 3:1–5; 6:38–59; Philo, Creation 88; see Williams 2004: 172). A messianic interpretation of Ps. 8 and Ps. 110 is not evident in the Jewish literature (Koch 1986: 245).
D. Textual Matters. Paul follows the LXX (both textual traditions are united) of Ps. 8:6 (8:7 LXX), but with two differences. First, he changes the second-person verb hypetaxas (“you have put”) to the third-person hypetaxen (“he has put”). The second-person form is present in three of the four other NT citations of the psalm: Phil. 3:21; Heb. 2:6–8; 1 Pet. 3:22 (cf. Eph. 1:22, which conforms to the 1 Cor. 15:27 wording). This suggests that the change is due to literary contexts: whereas second-person verbs run through Ps. 8 in both the MT and the LXX, third-person verbs surround the quotation in 1 Cor. 15.
Second, Paul uses the preposition hypo instead of the LXX’s hypokatō, with no difference in meaning. It may simply be that Paul preferred the former, which is common in his letters, to the latter, which he never uses.
E. The Use of Ps. 8:6 in 1 Cor. 15:27. Garland (2003: 713) explains the contribution of Ps. 8:6 to Paul’s argument and the way he connects it to Ps. 110 in 1 Cor. 15:25: “The exegetical principle of gezerah shavah (comparing similar expressions) leads Paul to Ps. 8:6 (8:7 LXX): ‘And you set him over the works of your hands, having put all things under his feet.’ Paul interprets this psalm as applying to the Messiah as the one who brings to fulfillment God’s intentions for humanity. The key word he finds in this psalm is panta (all things), which he inserts in the allusion to Ps. 110:1 in 1 Cor. 15:25. He interprets ‘all things’ to include ‘death.’”
F. Theological Use. In 15:24–27 Paul deftly conjoins two psalms. His point is that Christ, as the last Adam, retrieved the situation that the first Adam lost. It is an explicitly christological use of the OT, with the OT notion of corporate representation as its presupposition; Christ represents his people (see 15:22–23). Hebrews 2:5–8 is comparable in its use of Ps. 8 and Ps. 110. There, the glorious destiny of humankind—coronation and dominion—which we failed to grasp, is fulfilled for us through Jesus.
15:30
Paul’s remark that the apostles are in constant danger from opponents of the gospel echoes the language of Ps. 44:22; 119:109.
15:32
A. NT Context: A Dissipated Lifestyle. In 15:32–33 Paul cites two sources, an OT text (15:32) and Menander (15:33), to point to the utter futility of a life without the direction and motivation given by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In 15:30–32a he cites his own positive example of how one ought to live in light of the resurrection. The polar opposite is illustrated in 15:32b, with reference to Isa. 22:13: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
B. Isa. 22:13 in Its OT Context. Isaiah depicts the reaction of the inhabitants of Jerusalem when faced with the Assyrian siege and the grim prospect of their impending annihilation (22:12–14). Instead of repenting, they decide to “party like there is no tomorrow” (Hays 1997: 268).
C. Isa. 22:13 in Early Judaism. This section of Isaiah does not have a distinctive history of interpretation.
D. Textual Matters. The text is quoted verbatim.
E. The Use of Isa. 22:13 in 1 Cor. 15:32. The slogan “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” is Paul’s way of summing up the logical entailment of denying or forgetting about resurrection. Misbehaving by eating and drinking brings to mind Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians for these very activities in the context of pagan temples (10:21–22) and the Lord’s Supper (11:20–22). Paul effectively accuses the Corinthians who deny bodily resurrection of having a flawed basis for a lifestyle that pleases God, which will lead them to idolatrous and immoral behavior.
F. Theological Use. As Garland (2003: 721) puts it, “Resurrection means endless hope, but no resurrection means a hopeless end—and hopelessness breeds dissipation.” In one sense, Paul’s use of the OT here is not critical, since the sentiment is widespread—note the words of the rich fool in Luke 12:19. Paul could have even cited a Greek historian such as Herodotus: “After rich men’s repasts, a man carries an image in a coffin, painted and carved in exact imitation of a corpse two or four feet long. This he shows to each of the company, saying, ‘While you drink and enjoy, look on this; for to this state you must come when you die’” (Hist. 2.78.1 [cited in Garland 2003]).
Thus Paul uses Isa. 22:13 to underscore the depravity of the human condition “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).
15:36
The scornful rebuke aphrōn (“Fool!”) in 15:36 echoes Ps. 14:1: “The fool [LXX: aphrōn] says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Paul quotes from this psalm in Rom. 3:11–12), but the contexts are different. Whereas in the psalm the fool fails to acknowledge any accountability to God, here the derision is occasioned by one’s failure to duly regard the power of God in conceiving of a resurrection body.
15:45
A. NT Context. Although 1 Cor. 15:45–49 is a difficult and controversial passage, its use of Scripture is relatively straightforward. Adam and Christ have already been compared in 15:21–22. Paul’s purpose in these verses is to explain how the poles of the earthly and heavenly are bridged through Christ.
B. Gen. 2:7 in Its OT Context. Part of the creation account that focuses on the creation of humankind—“the man of dust from the ground”—Gen. 2:7 appears at the beginning of the narrative: “So it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living being’” (1 Cor. 15:45a).
C. Gen. 2:7 in Early Judaism. Philo’s exegesis of Gen. 2:7 (Alleg. Interp. 1.31) is sometimes proposed as relevant to Paul’s interpretation. However, the differences outweigh the similarities. Philo takes Adam’s becoming a living soul to mean that God breathed into his corruptible, earthlike mind the power of real life. Whereas for Paul the earthly man is Adam and the heavenly man is Christ, for Philo both of these can be found in Genesis (albeit allegorically).
The notion of Adam as an embodied soul in a natural body finds a parallel in Wis. 15:11.
D. Textual Matters. Three changes are evident. First, Paul leaves out the initial kai (“and”), a typical omission to conform the quotation to its new context.
Second, he adds prōtos (“first”) to “the man.” As Stanley (1992: 208) notes, “The addition brings to formal expression the fundamental contrast between Adam and Christ as the first and last Adam (v. 45b) that forms the backbone of the ensuing argument.” Although the addition finds no textual support, it would not be out of place in the original text.
Third, the addition of “Adam” requires explanation. Paul has “the first man, Adam, became a living being,” whereas the LXX has simply “the man became a living being.” While none of the LXX manuscripts have the word “Adam,” both Theodotion and Symmachus have “the Adam man” (the reverse word order from Paul’s) at this point in their texts. The dual rendering in both these texts and in 1 Cor. 15:45 probably is due to the ambiguous sense of Hebrew ʾādām, which can be a generic noun or a proper name. Paul’s wording either reflects a common exegetical tradition or testifies to an earlier written text that he was using.
E. The Use of Gen. 2:7 in 1 Cor. 15:45. In 15:44a Paul introduces the principle that “an opposite presupposes its counterpart” (Garland 2003: 734): “If there is a natural body, then there is also a spiritual one.” In 15:45, introduced by houtōs (“thus”), the conclusion is drawn from this principle. In 15:45–46 Paul asserts that the terrestrial and celestial opposites are temporally successive, and he cites Gen. 2:7 to prove this point. Just as there is a natural and a spiritual, there is also a first and a last (in the sense of ultimate). Garland (2003: 735) explains (summarizing Asher 2000): “If there is a natural body represented by the first Adam in a sown body, then there must be a spiritual body represented by the last Adam, the risen Christ.” In other words, Adam received life as an embodied soul in a natural body, while Christ gives life as a life-giving spirit. Paul uses Gen. 2:7 to set up one side of the contrast and lead into the other.
F. Theological Use. The opening shot in a complex argument in 15:45–49, where Paul alludes to Adam as “the first man” and “the man of dust” (both twice), Paul’s use of Gen. 2:7 points to the significance of Jesus Christ, who is of equally universal bearing as our first ancestor. In naming Christ “the second man” and “the last Adam,” Paul, characteristically of his use of the OT in 1 Cor. 15, makes a point both christological and eschatological in nature.
15:52
The trumpet as a sign of the day of the Lord in 15:52 recalls Isa. 27:13; Joel 2:1; Zeph. 1:14–16 (cf. 2 Esd. 6:23).
15:54
A. NT Context: Death Gobbled Up. In 15:50–57 Paul fills out his answer to the question of the nature of the resurrection body (see 15:35b) by introducing the theme of transformation: “We will all be changed” (15:51b). In 15:50–53 he explains that the earthly body will become fit for heavenly existence at the parousia. Then in 15:54–57 he declares that at that time God will claim the final victory over death, which is vanquished by the resurrection.
B. Isa. 25:8 in Its OT Context. The text is part of an oracle of salvation in 25:6–10a that envisions God’s universal salvation of “all peoples” (25:6–7 [cf. “all nations” in 25:7]) and the ultimate destruction of the power of death.
C. Isa. 25:8 in Early Judaism. Isaiah 25:8 is cited in rabbinic literature as a divine promise that death would be no more in the age to come (m. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:9; Exod. Rab. 15:21; 30:3; Deut. Rab. 2:30; Lam. Rab. 1:41; Eccles. Rab. 1:7; b. Pesaḥ. 68a; b. Ketub. 30b).
D. Textual Matters. Paul’s words “Death has been swallowed up in victory” differ markedly from the LXX, which reads literally, “Death, being strong, swallowed (them) up” (the context suggests that the nations have been swallowed up by death). However, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus have differing variants, some of which are quite close to Paul’s citation (for the details, see Stanley 1992: 210–11). Paul probably was following a preexisting Greek text. Revelation 21:4 cites the same tradition.
Alternatively, as Hays (1997: 276) suggests, Paul may have altered dikē (“judgment”) in Hos. 13:14 LXX to nikos (“victory”) and inserted it in his quotation of Isa. 25:8 to create a word link with the next verse. It is also possible that the Isaiah citation supplies the word “victory” to the Hosea text (see below).
E. The Use of Isa. 25:8 in 1 Cor. 15:54. In Paul’s mind, the final destruction of death requires the resurrection of the dead. In citing Isaiah’s eschatological vision, Paul ties God’s triumph over death (and God’s universal salvation) to the resurrection of the body. For Paul, resurrection is the necessary outcome of what God has done in Christ and what he intends to do for his people.
F. Theological Use. Paul’s personification of death, following the lead of both Isa. 25:8 and Hos. 13:14 (see below), depicts death not as the inevitable and benign fate of all humans, but rather as “an alien, inimical power” (de Boer 1988: 184), nothing less than a tragedy. In the words of Isa. 25:7, death is “the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations.” Death, in Paul’s view, is a power that casts its ominous shadow over us all, and it must be not just removed, but defeated.
15:55
A. NT Context: Death Vanquished. Paul celebrates God’s final victory over death, both in the resurrection of Christ and in its implications for all humanity.
B. Hos. 13:14 in Its OT Context. The text is part of a prophecy of judgment upon Ephraim: “The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is kept in store” (13:12). Four rhetorical questions appear in 13:14. The first two expect a negative answer: “Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death?” Paul quotes the last two, which act as a summons to personified Death and Sheol: “O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting?”
C. Hos. 13:14 in Early Judaism. The text does not have a distinctive history of interpretation.
D. Textual Matters. The MT, LXX, and Paul’s citation exhibit various differences: (1) Hebrew: “Where, O Death, are your plagues? Where, O Sheol, is your destruction?” (2) LXX: “Where, O Death, is your judgment? Where, O Hades, is your sting?” (3) Paul: “Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” Aside from minor differences in word order that may be explained on stylistic or rhetorical grounds, Paul’s text, compared to the LXX, has “victory” (nikos) instead of “judgment” (dikē), and “Death” instead of “Hades.” It is difficult to imagine why the LXX translated the Hebrew deber (“plague”) as “judgment” in the first place. We are left to conjecture. Stanley (1992: 211–15) suggests that the LXX translators had a different non-Masoretic Vorlage and/or that Paul’s Greek Vorlage itself had “victory.” We should not rule out the possibility that Paul made the change to “victory” in order to link the present citation to the one in 15:54.
E. The Use of Hos. 13:14 in 1 Cor. 15:55. Interpreting the passage from the perspective of the resurrection of Christ, Paul turns the summons to death into a taunt. The rhetorical questions now sneer defiantly at death’s impotence in the face of God’s powerful act of mercy and forgiveness in Christ. If in Hosea death is called on to punish sin, Paul shows that such a role is no longer needed (15:3, 17). Death’s dominion over the whole earth has been ended, its “sting” (kentron [15:55–56]) drained of potency.
F. Theological Use. An eschatological hermeneutic is employed in the use of Hos. 13:14. Paul turns a text about judgment into one declaring salvation, for we are not under the law, and the resurrection of Christ signals the beginning of the new age of redemption. “Paul projects an eschatological vision of a stingless death precisely because Jesus Christ has himself absorbed the sting on the basis of how his death and resurrection addresses the problem of human sin and the law” (Thiselton 2000: 1300).
15:56
Paul’s epigrammatic statements in 15:56 consist of two maxims, the second being built upon the first. The nexus between sin and death is prepared for by the allusions to the fall in 15:21–22. Vlachos (2004) argues convincingly that rather than originating from an issue in the Corinthian church, Paul’s assertion that “the power of sin is the law” may arise out of an Edenic context. There is evidence that Paul found the triad of law, sin, and death present in the Garden of Eden. That law plays a catalytic role in Eden is implicit in the story depicted in Rom. 7:7–11. There, as in Rom. 5:12–14, the fall is the prototype for sins under the Mosaic law.
Final Instructions and Exhortations (16:1–24)
16:1–10
As Keener (1993: 489) points out, Paul’s instruction that each one should give according to his or her prosperity is an application of Deut. 15:14.
Paul’s reference to the approach of Pentecost (16:8) may explain some of the biblical texts that have been on his mind as he writes this letter.
16:13–23
Paul’s exhortation to “be strong and courageous” (16:13) reflects an OT motif of a call to courage under extremely challenging circumstances (Deut. 31:6–7, 23; Josh. 1:6, 9, 18; 10:25; 2 Sam. 10:12; 1 Chron. 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron. 32:7; Ps. 27:14; 31:24).
The key motif of love (agapē) is given a reprise as the letter comes to a close (16:14).
Paul describes Stephanas’s household as the “firstfruits” (aparchē) of Achaia (16:15). The OT background suggests the idea of the community as an offering dedicated to the Lord, of which the household of Stephanas is the first part to come to fruition in Achaia.
Paul calls for a curse on anyone who does not love the Lord (16:22). In the OT such a curse formula was “used when the intention was to discourage someone from transgressing . . . a far-reaching legal or ethical demand. In this case the curse formula is the most severe means of separating the community from the evildoer” (Scharbert 1974: 409–10). Here the fundamental demand upon the Christian community—that which distinguishes it as a community—is to love the Lord.
Paul moves right from the curse to the Aramaic expression “Maranatha” (“Our Lord, come!”), which points to “the coming of the Lord in judgment to redress wrong and establish right” (NIDNTT 2:897). The expectation that the Lord would come to redress wrong and establish his righteousness in the earth (see commentary on 1 Cor. 13:8–10, 12 above) grew out of OT prophetic and apocalyptic texts and is found throughout early Judaism (1 En. 1:9) and the NT (e.g., Matt. 3:7/Luke 3:7; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:14–16; Jude 14–15; Rev. 6:17).
Bibliography
Asher, J. R. 2000. Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection. HUT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Barrett, C. K. 1996. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Bauckham, R. 1998. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. NovTSup 93. Leiden: Brill.
Beale, G. K. 2004. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. NSBT 17. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Broyles, C. C. 1999. Psalms. NIBCOT 11. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Bruce, F. F. 1980. 1 and 2 Corinthians. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Buss, M. J. 1977. “The Distinction between Civil and Criminal Law in Ancient Israel.” Pages 51–62 in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 13–19 August 1973, under the Auspices of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Vol. 1. Edited by A. Shinan. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.
Carson, D. A. 1987. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Childs, B. S. 1974. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Ciampa, R. 1998. The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. WUNT 2/102. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Collier, G. D. 1994. “‘That We Might Not Crave Evil’: The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10:1–13.” JSNT 55: 55–75.
Collins, R. F. 1999. First Corinthians. SP 7. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Conzelmann, H. 1975. 1 Corinthians. Translated by J. W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Craigie, P. C. 1976. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
———. 1983. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Waco: Word.
D’Angelo, M. R. 1988. “The Garden: Once and Not Again; Traditional Interpretations of Genesis 1:26–27 in 1 Corinthians 11:7–12.” Pages 1–41 in Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis: Intrigue in the Garden. Edited by G. A. Robbins. SWR 27. Lewiston, NY: Mellen.
Daube, D. 1963. The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. All Souls Studies 2. London: Faber & Faber.
Davidson, R. M. 1981. Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical τύπος Structures. AUSDDS. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
de Boer, M. C. 1988. The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. JSNTSup 22. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
de Vaux, R. 1965. Ancient Israel. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dickson, J. P. 2003. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shame, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission. WUNT 2/159. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Dillard, R. B. 2000. “Intrabiblical Exegesis and the Effusion of the Spirit in Joel.” Pages 87–94 in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline. Edited by H. Griffeth and J. R. Muether. Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press.
Dodd, C. H. 1953. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. New York: Scribner.
Ellis, E. E. 1957. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
———. 1977. “How the New Testament Uses the Old.” Pages 199–219 in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Edited by I. H. Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster.
———. 1978a. “Note on 1 Corinthians 10:4.” Pages 209–13 in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
———. 1978b. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Enns, P. E. 1996. “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Corinthians 10:4: An Extra-Biblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text.” BBR 6: 23–38.
Fee, G. D. 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Fishbane, M. 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon.
———. 1986. “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Ezek. 43:3, Num. 12:8, and 1 Cor. 13:8 [sic].” HAR 10: 63–75.
Fitzmyer, J. A. 1990. “Introduction to the New Testament Epistles.” Pages 768–71 in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Forbes, C. 1995. Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment. WUNT 2/75. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Garland, D. E. 2003. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Goppelt, L. 1982. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Translated by D. H. Madvig. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Grudem, W. A. 1979. “1 Corinthians 14:20–25: Prophesy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitude.” WTJ 41: 381–96.
———. 1982. The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Gundry-Volf, J. M. 1997. “Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16: A Study in Paul’s Theological Method.” Pages 1151–71 in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by J. Ådna, S. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hafemann, S. J. 1995. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Hanson, A. T. 1965. Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. London: SPCK.
———. 1974. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hays, R. B. 1989. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press.
———. 1997. First Corinthians. IBC. Louisville: John Knox.
———. 1999. “The Conversion of the Imagination: Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians.” NTS 45: 391–412.
Héring, J. 1969. First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. London: Epworth.
Hodges, Z. C. 1963. “Symposium on the Tongues Movement: The Purpose of Tongues.” BSac 120: 226–33.
Hooker, M. D. 1964. “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor. 11:10.” NTS 10: 410–16.
Horbury, W. 1985. “Extirpation and Excommunication.” VT 35: 13–38.
Hübner, H. 1990–1995. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
———. 1997. Corpus Paulinum. Vol. 2 of Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hugenberger, G. P. 1998. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. BSL. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Instone-Brewer, D. 1992. “1 Corinthians 9:9–11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox.’” NTS 38: 554–65.
Jervis, L. A. 1993. “‘But I Want You to Know . . .’: Paul’s Midrashic Intertextual Response to the Corinthian Worshipers (1 Cor 11:2–16).” JBL 112: 231–46.
Jewett, R. 1971. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. AGJU 10. Leiden: Brill.
Johanson, B. C. 1979. “Tongues, a Sign for Unbelievers? A Structural and Exegetical Study of I Corinthians XIV.20–25.” NTS 25: 180–203.
Kaiser, W. C., Jr. 1978. “Current Crisis in Exegesis and the Apostolic Use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8–10.” JETS 21: 3–18.
Keener, C. S. 1992. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
———. 1993. The IVP Biblical Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Kim, S. 1984. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. 2nd ed. WUNT 2/4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
———. 2002. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Kistemaker, S. J. 1993. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Kleinknecht, K. T. 1984. Der leidende Gerechtfertigte: Die alttestamentlich-jüdische Tradition vom “leidenden Gerechten” und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus. WUNT 2/13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Koch, D. A. 1986. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Koet, B. J. 1996. “The Old Testament Background to 1 Cor. 10:7–8.” Pages 607–15 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by R. Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Kraus, H.-J. 1993. Psalms. 2 vols. Translated by H. C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Kwon, D. L. 2004. “Obfuscation and Restoration: Paul’s Use of Isaiah in 1 Corinthians 14:20–25.” ThM thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
Lanier, D. E. 1991. “With Stammering Lips and Another Tongue: 1 Cor. 14:20–22 and Isa. 28:11–12.” CTR 5: 259–86.
Liefeld, W. 1986. “Women, Submission, and Ministry in 1 Corinthians.” Pages 134–54 in Women, Authority, and the Bible. Edited by A. Mickelsen. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Lindsay, D. R. 1993. Josephus and Faith: Pistis and Pisteuein as Faith Terminology in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament. AGJU 19. Leiden: Brill.
Loader, W. 2004. The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament: Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Martin, D. 1991. “Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators.” JAAR 59: 547–89.
———. 1995. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Martin, R. P. 1984. The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Matthews, V. H., M. W. Chavalas, and J. H. Walton. 2000. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
McKnight, S. 2000. “Proselytism and Godfearers.” DNTB 835–47.
McNamara, M. 1972. Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible—A Light on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Meeks, W. A. 1982. “‘And Rose Up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22.” JSNT 16: 64–78.
———. 1983. “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity.” Pages 687–706 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by D. Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Meier, J. P. 1978. “On the Veiling of Hermeneutics (1 Cor 11:2–16).” CBQ 40: 212–26.
Metzger, B. M. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies.
Michel, O. 1967. “οἰκοδομέω.” TDNT 5:136–44.
Mitchell, M. M. 1991. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. HUT 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Murphy-O’Conner, J. 1988. “1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Once Again.” CBQ 50: 265–74.
Nasuti, H. P. 1988. “The Woes of the Prophets and the Rights of the Apostle: The Internal Dynamics of 1 Corinthians 9.” CBQ 50: 246–64.
Newton, M. 1985. The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. SNTSMS 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Niccum, C. 1997. “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor. 14:34–35.” NTS 43: 242–55.
Niebuhr, K.-W. 1987. Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur. WUNT 2/28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
O’Donovan, O. 1986. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Paige, T. 2002. “The Social Matrix of Women’s Speech at Corinth: The Context and Meaning of the Command to Silence in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36.” BBR 12: 217–42.
Proctor, J. 1993. “Fire in God’s House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT.” JETS 36: 9–14.
Reid, D. G. 2000. “Sacrifice and Temple Service.” DNTB 1036–50.
Robertson, A., and A. Plummer. 1911. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Robertson, O. P. 1975. “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing.” WTJ 38: 45–53.
Rosner, B. S. 1991. “Moses Appointing Judges: An Antecedent to 1 Cor 6.1–6?” ZNW 82: 275–78.
———. 1992a. “Ouchi mallon epenthēsate: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Corinthians 5.” NTS 38: 470–73.
———. 1992b. “A Possible Quotation of Testament of Reuben 5:5 in 1 Corinthians 6:18a.” JTS 43: 123–27.
———. 1994. “‘Written for Us’: Paul’s View of Scripture.” Pages 81–105 in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture. Edited by P. E. Satterthwaite and D. F. Wright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
———. 1996a. “The Function of Scripture in 1 Cor. 5:13b and 6:16.” Pages 513–18 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by R. Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Peeters University Press.
———. 1996b. “The Origin and Meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 in Context.” BZ 40: 250–53.
———. 1998. “Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20.” NovT 40: 336–51.
———. 1999. Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
———. 2004. ‘“With What Kind of Body Do They Come?”’ Pages 190–205 in The New Testament in Its First-Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter on His 65th Birthday. Edited by P. J. Williams et al. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans.
———. Forthcoming. Greed: The Second Idolatry. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Routledge, R. L. 2002. “Passover and the Last Supper.” TynBul 53: 203–21.
Sandnes, K. O. 1996. “Prophecy—A Sign for Believers.” Bib 77: 1–15.
Scharbert, J. 1974. “ארר.” TDOT 1:405–18.
Schneider, J. 1967. “ὀλοθρευτής.” TDNT 5:169–70.
Schrage, W. 1991–2001. Der Erste Brief an die Korinther. 4 vols. EKKNT. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Schreiner, T. R. 1991. “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.” Pages 124–39 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Edited by J. Piper and W. Grudem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Smit, J. F. M. 1994. “Tongues and Prophesy: Deciphering 1 Cor. 14:22.” Bib 75: 175–90.
Söding, T. 1995. Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus: Die Mahnung zur Agape im Rahmen der paulinischen Ethik. NTAbh 26. Münster: Aschendorff.
South, J. T. 1993. “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:1–8.” NTS 39: 539–61.
Stanley, C. D. 1992. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stuhlmacher, P. 1991. “The Pauline Gospel.” Pages 149–72 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Sweet, J. P. M. 1967. “Sign for Unbelievers: Paul’s Attitude to Glossolalia.” NTS 13: 240–57.
Thackeray, H. St. J., trans. 1930. Flavius Josephus. Vol. 4. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thiselton, A. C. 2000. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Tomson, P. J. 1990. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Towner, P. H. 2000. “The Pastoral Epistles.” NDBT 330–36.
van Unnik, W. C. 1960. “Die Rücksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der altchristlichen Paränese.” Pages 221–34 in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Edited by W. Eltester. BZNW 26. Berlin: Töpelmann.
Vlachos, C. A. 2004. “Law, Sin and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference to 1 Corinthians 15:56.” JETS 47: 277–98.
Wagner, J. R. 1998. “‘Not Beyond the Things Which Are Written’: A Call to Boast Only in the Lord (1 Cor. 4:6).” NTS 44: 279–87.
Watson, F. 2000. Agape, Eros, Gender: Towards a Pauline Sexual Ethic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, H. H. D., III. 2001. The Wisdom of the Wise: The Presence and Function of Scripture within 1 Cor. 1:18–3:23. AGJU 49. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2004. “The Psalms in 1 and 2 Corinthians.” Pages 163–80 in The Psalms in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. NTSI. London and New York: T&T Clark International.
Winter, B. W. 2001. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Witherington, B., III. 1995. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wright, D. F. 1984. “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10).” VC 38: 125–53.
Wright, N. T. 1992. “Monotheism, Christology, and Ethics: 1 Cor. 8.” Pages 120–36 in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress.
———. 2003. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Youngman, S. 1987. “Stratificational Analysis of a Hortatory Text: I Corinthians 8:1–11:1.” MA thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.
Zerbe, G. M. 1993. Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. JSPSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT Press.