Since the popularisation of Rhetorical Analysis, it has been a commonplace to view 1:10 as the “thesis statement” or “propositio” of 1 Corinthians:
Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose.
So, for example, this is the position of Margaret Mitchell and of Ben Witherington. According to their readings, this issue of “unity”/”division” is then the main theme of the letter, right through to its climax in chapter 15.
One reason I find this problematic is that chapter 15 just has to be squeezed so hard to make it fit: It simply isn’t presented as being about the problem or solution to ecclesial divisions. For this and other reasons, I like what I’ve recently encountered in a new German introduction to the New Testament: Pokorny and Heckel suggest that in fact, 1:18 ought to be viewed as the thesis statement of the letter:
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Pokorny and Heckel (p231) view it as no accident that the letter begins with an exploration of the cross and ends with an exploration of the resurrection. Amen to that!
RSS - Posts
I am no scholar, but in studying 1 Cor 1 intensively and 1 Corinthians as a whole in our group study, I’m surprised that 1:18 would be viewed as a thesis statement. I think 1:10 is much better and is also seems to be Paul’s focus in general.
Is it fair to have only one verse (or sentence) as a thesis statement?
Jeff
Why does there need to be a thesis statement? Paul is addressing a number of different issues in this letter. Verse 10 or 18 might work for the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, but after that Paul goes on to deal with other issues.
Mitchell & Witherington III talk about “thesis statement” in a technical rhetorical sense – as the “propositio” that sets out the main theme of the letter, a theme under which every other issue of the letter is said to be subsumed. This assumes that Paul’s letter incorporates a macro-structure governed by the rules of Greco-Roman speech-rhetoric.
I don’t think this is the best way to view Paul’s letters – and I don’t think that the problem of “disunity” turns out to be the unifying theme of 1 Corinthians (or even necessarily of chapters 1-4 – by chapter 4 this issue is notably absent).
So I don’t think there has to be a single thesis statement – but I DO think that the introduction of the “word of the cross” in 1:18, as the adversary of human boasting, turns out to be a significant current that travels throughout the letter and finds a climactic conclusion with the “word of the resurrection” in chapter 15.
Matthew, concerning your last comment, 1 Cor 1:10 and 1:18-19 are dealing with the same issue. The boasting of the Corinthians has been the cause of their divisions. Thus chapters 1-5 are very much a unity. They deal with divisions and the boasting that has caused them.
1 Corinthians is unlikely to have a single thesis statement since it is Paul’s response to different reports. In chapters 1-5 he responds to troubling information that he has received from Chloe’s people. In much of the rest of the letter he answers questions that the Corinthians had delivered to him and the more refreshing news from Stephanas.
I do, however, think that Paul may be returning to the problem of disunity in 16:15-16 when he asks the Corinthians to put themselves at the service of Stephanas. He wants them to unite behind Stephanas.
Thanks for adding your reflections Richard… I think you’re exactly right that the boasting of the Corinthians has been the cause of their divisions. As it turns out, it is this boasting that ends up hogging the limelight in chs.1-4, and so I think that the ecclesial divisions are the symptom rather than the central problem: The central problem is that they are “puffed up” on behalf of humans, rather than dependent on God.
This problem, decisively confronted with the cross in chapters 1-4, then receives ethical elaboration in chs.5-14:
In chs 5-7, the usual first-step ethical issues of sexual immorality, greed, and impurity of bodies are discussed, beginning with the accusation that the Corinthians are “puffed up” over a case of incest.
In chs 8-14, the usual second-step ethical issues of mutual indwelling, relational submission, and love are discussed, beginning with the accusation that the Corinthians’ knowledge “puffs up”, whereas love “builds up”.
Chapter 15 then returns strikingly to the language and topics of chapters 1-4; but while the earlier section focused on the cross as the antidote to puffed up human boasting, this climactic chapter focuses on future participation in Christ’s resurrection as the counterpart-antidote to the same problem: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God… but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
So I think that although it is true that Paul is responding to a range of reports, verbal and written, he has chosen to select and characterise and arrange those issues in a way that seems to exhibit a logical flow & unity.
This is really great, Maffhew. I’m not enough of an expert on 1 Cor to really be able to evaluate what you’re saying, but I’m very sympathetic to it. Thanks for sharing!
Matthew, thanks for the clarification. That helps a lot. So, 1 Corinthians is Paul’s response to the hubris of the Corinthians and its consequences. I wonder, is the same true of 2 Corinthians?
Hmmm yeah I’ve also wondered about 2 Corinthians but haven’t really put enough work into it. One recent book that aims to account for the unity of both 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians is by a guy called Hall, and is called something like ‘The Unity of 1 and 2 Corinthians’. I found this quite a helpfully provocative read: He sees the two letters as responding in quick succession to the same set of issues in Corinth.