Here’s an attempt at a brief summary:
I argue that 1 Corinthians is a unified composition that exhibits flexible kerygmatic rhetoric. I demonstrate that the Jewish motif of dual reversal, whereby boastful rulers are destined for destruction while righteous sufferers are destined for vindication, serves as an influential conceptual motif in the formulation of Christian kerygma, and may be seen as an interpretative framework and rhetorical resource available to Paul and Sosthenes.
In 1 Corinthians 1-4 Paul evaluates struggles over leadership in the Corinthian congregation as an implicit expression of human autonomy, and responds by summoning the Corinthians to identify with Christ, by forgoing the role of the boastful ruler and adopting the role of the cruciform sufferer. This identification with the cruciform Christ consequently gives shape to Paul’s ethical instruction in 1 Corinthians 5-14. In the final chapter of the main body of the letter (1 Corinthians 15), Paul utilises the Corinthian denial of “the resurrection of the dead” as the ultimate paradigm of their refusal to adopt a cruciform orientation, and urges that the dead in Christ will be raised to immortal glory, while present powers will be brought to nothing.
I suggest that this attention to the conceptual imagery of Paul’s Hebrew background represents an important addition to the tools of the Pauline rhetorical analyst, resulting in an historically attentive and exegetically persuasive account of the letter’s arrangement.
Outside of the obvious chp 15 for your cruciform orientation, Is there a crucial text between 5-14, or is this question not warranted and therefore missing the point?
I reckon that Pauline ethical sections in general very often summon believers to identify with Christ in terms of his death, his resurrection, and/or the deferral of his exaltation.
In 1 Corinthians 5-14 in particular, Paul emphasises the commitment to present humility, restraint, hardship and hiddenness called for by the pre-parousia shadow of the cross. The cross is alluded to in 5:6-7; 6:9-12, 20; 7:23-24; 8:11; 10:16; 11:1 (by extension); and 11:23-26.
So I see chapters 5-14 as applying the cruciform corrective of chapters 1-4 to an observable series of ethical situations.
Matt, you write, “In 1 Corinthians 1-4 Paul evaluates struggles over leadership in the Corinthian congregation as an implicit expression of human autonomy, and responds by summoning the Corinthians to identify with Christ, by forgoing the role of the boastful ruler and adopting the role of the cruciform sufferer.”
Now, Paul had sent Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his “ways in Christ Jesus”. Can we assume, then, that this was necessary because of the boastful struggles over leadership? Had Timothy, then, been sent to counter the arrogant challenges to Paul’s authority evinced in chapter 4?
I do think it’s interesting that Timothy is sent, while Apollos and Paul are both deferring their own presence in Corinth. My guess would be that Paul’s strategy of dealing with the leadership troubles in a pastorally sensitive way is to move progressively:
1) A letter – 1 Corinthians
2) A representative – Timothy
3) His own presence
Interesting. I would add that Timothy was sent before 1 Corinthians (but arrived after it). Also, Timothy may have been sent with a letter. Paul’s strategy with regard to Timothy’s mission, as you outline it, was the same as his strategy with regard to Titus’s mission (2 Cor 1:13-2:13). I have argued that Titus was Timothy and that the two missions were one and the same:
Paul sent Titus-Timothy (with the tearful letter) to Corinth (via the land route) to address the challenges to his leadership there and thus prepare for a visit by Paul on his (Paul’s) way to Macedonia (the plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16). Paul did not want to visit Corinth until Titus-Timothy had completed his mission – to spare them (the rod). Unfortunately, Titus-Timothy was delayed and had not arrived in Corinth by the time Stephanas et al left Corinth. By the time of 1 Corinthians there was therefore no longer time for Paul to visit Corinth on his way to Macedonia, so he told them apologetically that he would not visit until after his trip to Macedonia. Later Titus-Timothy arrived in Corinth and announced the visit that Paul had already abandoned! Titus-Timothy’s delay was such that he was unable to meet Paul in Ephesus, or to intercept him in Troas. They met in Macedonia and Paul wrote 2 Corinthians.
Or do you see differences between the missions of Timothy and Titus, or differences in the problems that each mission was to address?
Yes – true, Timothy was sent beforehand, but arrived after 1 Corinthians was delivered, as he went via other destinations.
Looking again at 2 Corinthians – yes, I can see what you’re saying – the strategy certainly seems to be the same. And the problems addressed would seem similar…. hmmm I’ll have to spend some more time in 2 Corinthians to think about it further.
And your stuff on this topic is mostly summarised in your blog, right?
Yes, my most up-to-date thinking is on my blog here. I am part way through a series of blog posts on Titus-Timothy right now. Further material is on my web site here.
Also take a look at my JSNT paper (‘Was Titus Timothy?’, JSNT 81 (2001) 33-58) for detailed arguments that Timothy’s mission in 1 Cor is identical to Titus’s in 2 Cor. Note, though, that I now see “Timothy” as Titus’s new name, and I no longer partition 2 Corinthians.
Do let me know if you have any questions or comments. By the way, I made good use of the biblical studies section of your university library when I lived in Loughborough.
As well as looking at Titus in 2 Corinthians, you may find that 2 Cor 5-6 can also shed some light on what Paul is doing in 1 Cor 4-5 since these two passages contain essentially the same sequence of thought (see Michael Goulder’s “2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as an Integral Part of 2 Corinthians” Nov Test 36, 1 1994 p47-57). But maybe you have already looked at this.
ahhh… Luger-beruger…
Yep, I recall coming across your article – interesting to hear your updated thinking. I’ve seen some of your posts about the Titus-Timothy issue, & will stay tuned for more!
Matthew,
concerning the unified composition of 1 Corinthians, I have built on Bailey’s work to argue that 4:17-21 introduces chapters 5 and 6, as well as continuing chapter 4. I also quote you. See here.
Hey Richard, looks good! Thanks for pointing it out