I will not be able to interact with all that you have presented here, but I hope to offer important and constructive suggestions for future work.The paper is not in Turabian format. You need to get a copy of Turabian, Manual, and read it carefully. Or you can download abbreviated versions from our website or elsewhere on the web. There should be a title page, a Table of Contents, and it should be double-spaced throughout. Footnotes should be in 10 pt font, single-spaced and double-spaced between each entry. Generally, I am giving very little weight to the format issue—this time. But I cannot guarantee that other professors will be as merciful.

I have made general comments below and I suggest you examinethese in situ.

Paul’s Alternative SocietyTheo 997

Floyd Schneider

I. Introduction

A. Previous Research

The desire to discover the truth of the past pushes theologians and pastors to study incessantly. The danger of feeling like we never have enough information to communicateour findings with assurance looms over the finished product like a vulture telling us that, if we stop prematurely to draw conclusions, we are misleading our students or congregation. The question of who was causing all the problems in the church in Corinth has driven some researchesto conclude that educated guesses will become the hallmark of our sophisticated research. Other researchers prefer the lack of concrete data so they can apply their presuppositions to the text in order to arrive at their foregone conclusions.

When social scientists join the fray, some researchers simply look the other way and attempt to ignore that

1

direction of inquiry. Meeks notes that “not everyone welcomes the renewed attempts to describe the social historyof early Christianity. A number of scholars, primarily theologians, have warned that sociological interpretations of religious phenomenon are evidently reductionist.”1 Meeks admits that, along with theologians, many philologers and ordinary historians have doubts about the usefulness of thisline of inquiry, but even these fields have their fair shareof reductionist conclusions.2 Meeks honestly admits that “The sociological interpreter is tempted to infer what must have happened and the conditions that must have been obtained on the basis of certain assumed regularities in human behavior.”3 He even admits that “there is no comprehensive theory of human social behavior to guide us…”4. That’s comforting. Without rejecting the positive contribution of social science research, staying as close aspossible to the actual text reappears as our best guide for interpreting the text.

In spite of the lack of concrete data, which leads to numerous theories, this paper will attempt to answer the question, “In the face of major conflicts from within the church in Corinth, did Paul write First and Second Corinthians for the main purpose of promoting an alternativesociety within the Christian community?” God guided Paul through the writing of these two epistles because God wants people to understand Him. Although we only have Paul’s side of these conversations, the information we do have falls under the category of Peter’s statement that the revealed Word of God provides us with “everything pertaining to life and godliness” so that believers can overcome their sinful lusts.5 Therefore, it is imperative that we continue our research of these two epistles using any and all methods that might enlighten us more about God’s plan for His 1 Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 2.2 Meeks, 3.

3 Meeks, 4.4 Meeks, 6. 5 2 Peter 1:3-4.

2

kingdom on earth and in heaven. We need as much clarity as possible. The Church today deserves and needs answers to theissues in these epistles, so they can continue, with confidence, to serve the Lord in His building plan.

Richard A. Horsley postulated that Paul sought “a political task, to establish an ‘alternative society’ within the setting of the Roman Empire.”6 This paper will attempt to demonstrate that Horsley’s thesis has serious merit, but with modifications dictated by the literal interpretation ofall of Paul’s writings. The author proposes that Paul did actually promote an alternative society for the church members in Corinth. This study will analyze the surroundingsof the Greco-Roman world, as well as the social and religious influences on the believers in the Corinthian church in an effort to determine how these influences affected Paul’s relationship with the church as he attemptedto promote an alternative society apart from the dominant culture of the day. Researchers and pastors will hopefully appreciate our findings, as these findings should allow further understanding of First and Second Corinthians for the purpose of applying that understanding today with more certainty and more appropriate applications that are based on the text of the epistles. As we search the sources for evidence of this alternate society, we will allow our research to determine the foundation and building blocks of Paul’s idea of an alternative society.Good introduction B. Framework

Every research project needs a framework. The frameworkdoes not exist apart from its own presuppositions. For scholarly work, “assumptions” might be better since it does not necessarily assume a discrete epistemology. The author’smain presupposition is based on the clearly stated doctrine of inspiration as found in Second Timothy 3:16 and Second 6 Edward Adams and David G. Horrell, Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2004, 227.

3

Peter 1:20-21. This foundation will inform every aspect of the data discovered as well as automatically reject other presuppositions. This will become evident during the course of analyzing a couple of viewpoints.

The research will be begin by clarifying the backgroundof the Church in Corinth before moving on to examine all thepotential causes of the conflict between Paul and the churchin order to set the stage for demonstrating the extent of God’s alternative society as presented by Paul.

Once this paper has researched the background of, and potential reasons for, the conflicts between Paul and the Church in Corinth, it will begin to show the details of Paul’s alternate society throughout his first epistle to theCorinthians. The basis for this aspect of the research will confine itself to the actual text of First Corinthians.

In order to determine 1) if Paul actually sought an alternative society and 2) the description of his proposed alternate society, we will follow the only available data wehave on hand: First and Second Corinthians. The reason for this approach is simple. The text is the only concrete data available to us. Theological reconstructions that are based on nebulous presuppositions and fragmentary details produce nebulous and fragmentary conclusions.

When did Paul arrive in Corinth? What were the earliestChristian congregations in Corinth really like? What was thesize and ethnic makeup of the Christian church in Corinth? Did they meet in homes of the poor or the wealthy? Is SecondCorinthians a composite of two epistles? Adams stresses the point that “We have only one side of the conversation, as it were, and to understand it we must guess (intelligently, one hopes) at some of the things said from the other side. Moreover, any historical reconstruction inevitably reflects the perspective and convictions (implicit or explicit) of the historian.”7 This is true of theologians, as well.

Based on the presupposition of verbal plenary inspiration, this author respectfully disagrees with Murphy-O’Connor’s view of Paul’s writings that what Paul says becomes “really intelligible only to the extent that we can

7 Adams, 13.

4

reconstruct the theological positions and social attitudes of his readers.”8 Granted the difficulties with attempting to understand everything Paul wrote in his two epistles to the Corinthians, the Church has been reading and interpreting and applying these two epistles effectively forover 2,000 years without the advantage of modern-day research.

This paper will put forth the thesis that God had called Paul to communicate His alternate society to the Church worldwide, and that Paul, in the midst of intense opposition and misunderstandings, was determined to carry out this mission in Corinth.Good thesis statement

II. Major Influences that Formed the Church in Corinth

A. Historical Setting

Corinth in the first century could be equated with any modern metropolis in any century. Diverse population, unevensocial strata, the freedom to climb the social ladder, growing economics, the choice of religion or philosophy, andcompeting power politics all contributed to a complex society built on human sin nature that Paul faced when he arrived to further God’s kingdom by planting a local church in that city.

1. Geography and History

The natural geography of Corinth brought war and wealthto the region. Corinth was far bigger than Athens, The University City, whose glory was long past. Corinth “rivaledAthens for supremacy as a Greek city–state and maritime power during the pre-classical and classical eras (6th to 4th

cents. B.C.).”9 Corinth controlled the land and sea trade

8 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, OP. New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 3.

5

routes in all directions.10 The Greeks arrived first. Numerous myths contribute little factual data to explain whosettled Greece first. The Mycenaean Society was in place around 2200 BC, and this society took over the Minoan Society in Crete between 1500-1100 BC. The Trojan War in 1200 BC resulted in numerous other invasions that produced chaos from 1100-800 BC and no centralized society. Herodotuspromoted the “Hellenikon,” the ethnic idea that the Greeks had shared blood, shared language, shared religions, and shared customs. This ethnic identity allowed the Greeks to separate themselves from the “barbarians.” This ethnic pridewas not enough to produce a centralized state or empire, however, which could rule over and represent the Greek society. Therefore, the Greeks’ local institutions took the lead in restoring political order to Greece. These City-states (polis) became the center of Greek society.

Following this development, Sparta rose to power. The Spartans considered all Spartans as equals and lived a very austere lifestyle, from which the word “spartan” comes. Theyemphasized self-discipline, identity through resolve in the face of adversity and danger, prowess and the military. Boysmoved into military barracks at the age of seven. They begantheir military career at twenty and served until death. It was one of their highest honors to die in battle for Greece.

Girls married between 18 and 20, and trained physicallyso they could bear lots of strong children, especially boys.The wives did not live with their husbands who were in the military. Spartan women had more education in the arts and athletics, more freedom and more authority than the women inAthens. Men played no role in the upbringing of their sons until the age of seven. Every Spartan understood his or her place in Greek society.

By 600 BC, the Helot slaves, who were the backbone of the Greek economy, outnumbered the Spartans ten to one. The ensuing battles produced Cypselus as the first tyrant of

9 Paul Barnett, The 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Erdmann’s Publishing Co., 1997.10 Adams, 2.

6

Greece, followed by his son, Periander, the second tyrant ofGreece. Periander’s fame focused on his cruelty and his understanding of economics. During his reign he had the Diolkes built.

The Diolkes was a “paved” road between the Gulf of Corinth and the Saronic Gulf. The Diolkes was six kilometerslong and ten meters wide. The Peloponnese was a large peninsula (technically an island since the 1893 constructionof the Corinth Canal) located in southern Greece that formedthat part of the country south of the Gulf of Corinth. Sailing around the southern tip of the Peloponnese was dangerous part of the year and impossible the rest of the year. Therefore, merchants used the Diolkes to unload their boats on one side of the isthmus, put them on wheels, pull them with oxen six kilometers along the paved Diolkes, unload them onto the water, and reload the goods into the boats. Both harbors were well-protected and safe from violent storms on each side of the isthmus. Commerce grew, and the idea of a Greek society firmly planted itself in theminds of the Greeks who cherished their extensive literatureand athletic competitions, which gave further support to their ethnic identity as a society.

The Romans took over in 146 B.C.E. when the Roman army under Lucius Mummius crushed the Achaian league, of which Corinth was a part, and Corinth paid the price of defeat. After a climb back out of war’s aftermath, a century later Corinth became a Roman colony. Corinth had become a political nonentity. Corinth’s Greek population was too small to have developed any centralized system of government. People survived by living from day to day. Many of the original civic buildings would have been destroyed, and the colonizers would have had little connection to the city’s Greek past. Roman style would succeed Greek style, and civic services would copy Rome, not Athens. Corinth would eventually develop into one of the “mini-Romes” that mirrored everything about Rome, including their religious buildings and ceremonies.

2. Ethnic Make-up

7

When Julius Caesar colonized Corinth, he populated it with a multi-cultural mix of people who left their previous social structures to discover no such social frameworks in Corinth. The uncertainty of many items concerning Corinth’s ethnic mix surfaces when Adams says that “The origin of the early settlers is unclear.”11 Corinth had become multi-ethnic: freedmen, army veterans (probably), Greeks from everywhere in the Roman empire, Romans, and Jews. The two visible levels of society consisted of the citizens and non-citizens (Greeks), but the lack of a landed bourgeoisie allowed people from all ethnic groups and levels of society to improve their stations in life.

3. Social Levels

Ethnic groups develop their own societies. Corinth was no different. Change occurred in the cities more than in thecountryside. The villages were barely surviving and therefore could not risk changing. Local differences in the cities did not hinder anyone’s understanding of city life. In Corinth, the urbanite and the village dweller knew how tonavigate the city, whether finding the temple for worship orthe theatre for entertainment or the taverns for escape. A few aristocrats complained that the non-aristocrats “have dared to claim the status to which their education, intelligence, skill, power, and wealth accord but which is forbidden by their birth, origin, and legal rank,”12 but to no avail.

Even the women were able to ascend the social ladder. Meeks notes that, “…upwardly mobile women must have been constantly reminded that they were crossing boundaries a good part of the society held sacred.”13 Women were always active in the various religions, which would raise them socially within the society of those groups. Men and women from various social classes participated in the voluntary

11 Adams, 3. 12 Meeks, 22.13 Meeks, 23.

8

associations and clubs in the Greek and Roman cities. Meeks notes that “Trade and professional associations were especially important in Rome.”14 Some associations had gender restrictions, allowing the men and women to develop their own authority within their own local societies.

The automatic identification of neighborhoods took place easily, as Meeks points out, “…when a stranger arrivedin the city [. . .]. It is taken for granted that he knew, or could easily learn, where to find immigrants and temporary residents from his own country or ethnos and practitioners of his own trade.”15 Such familiarity made it easier for the city to grow as money flowed into the region.When Paul arrived, business was booming in Corinth. Evidencesuggests that agriculture and commercial and service industries all supported Corinth’s rise to economy prominence.16 Adams alliterates that “traders, travelers, and tourists […] came to Corinth from all over the Mediterranean world.”17 Murphy-O’Connor points to the numberof buildings erected in Corinth during this time and the funding needed to host the Isthmian Games as evidence of Corinth’s economic growth.18 Banking became an obvious necessity to support this thriving metropolis. The prevalence of Latin as the formal administrative language, and Greek as the everyday language, provided more opportunities for economic exchange. The lack of an established upper class opened the door for the fierce competition in the business world. The weak did not survive well in this climate without any social or religious or political control to protect them.

14 Meeks, 31.15 Meeks, 29.

16 J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival. Studies Of The New Testament And Its World(SNTW). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Nov. 14, 2000, 41-73.17 Adams, 5. He references Donald Engels’ work, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition, May 29, 1990, 33-39.18 Murphy-O’Connor, 5.

9

4. Religions and Philosophies

The religions and philosophies of Corinth did not favorthose with a higher sense of morality. Adams mentions that “Traditional gods and goddesses of the Greek and Roman pantheons were worshipped alongside specifically Corinthian deities [. . .], uniquely Roman gods, and oriental divinities (including Isis and Serapis).”19 Many of these gods promoted low moral values. Until recently the old city of Corinth was known as the city of Aphrodite. To “corinthianize” meant to fornicate, and a “Corinthian girl” referred to a prostitute. Murphy-O’Connor claims that “the dominant mythical figure at Corinth was not Aphrodite but Sisphus”20 whose failed craftiness led him to become the symbol of the “futility of existence.”21 This image of loneliness in the midst of prominent immorality would easilyattract people to an alternate society that offered the kindof fellowship that God wanted believers to experience in thechurch. Some of the newcomers would not be drawn to the immorality of the dominant society and would appreciate the “safe haven” of a local church. More recent research claims that Corinthian morality had not remained as low morally as it had been during its earlier days, but godless societies do not have a positive record of improving their morality levels the older they become.

5. Greek and Roman Relationships Affecting on the Church

What was the relationship between the Greek and Roman populations, and how did this affect the rise of Christianity in Corinth? As noted earlier, virtually all government documents were in Latin, but everyone knew Greek,which was the language of the people. The government, however, was Roman.22 Meeks notes that “in those early

19 Adams, 6.20 Murphy-O’Connor, 5.21 Murphy-O’Connor, 6.22 Meeks, 49-50.

10

years, then, within a decade of the crucifixion of Jesus, the village culture of Palestine had been left behind, and the Greco–Roman city became the dominant environment of the Christian movement.”23 He continues, “The prevailing viewpoint has been that the constituency of early Christianity, Pauline congregations included, came from the poor and dispossessed of the Roman provinces.”24 The extremely wealthy and extremely poor do seem to be missing from the Church, although the data is scanty.

This overview of Corinth’s historical context brings usto the question: How did these five items affect the relationship between Paul and the Church, as Paul attempted to establish an alternative society among the believers in Corinth? We are very aware of the excessive opposition to his ministry as evidenced in his epistles to the church in Corinth. How did the culture of Corinth influence this process? This is where you could have minimized the size of your study. The background discussion could have been reduced to a brief summary of the “five factors” influencingthe church in Corinth—with suggestions for further reading. Your thesis doesn’t really require that this be discussed inany great detail. What follows is, of course, much more relevant to your thesis.

Before we look at the various possible causes of the conflict, we need to determine the affect that the secular society of Corinth had on the believers in the Church. Meeksquotes Thiessen’s belief that the church had the same make-up as the society around them. “The conflicts in the congregation are in large part conflicts between people of different strata and, within individuals, between the expectations of a hierarchical society and those of an egalitarian community.”25 Meeks cites Theissen’s argument that the different social levels caused much of the conflictin the issues of eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor 8-10), the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11), and the roles of men in women (1 Cor 11 and 14). Even Paul’s refusal to accept funding for

23 Meeks, 11.24 Meeks, 52.25 Meeks, 53.

11

his ministry showed that he rejected the practice of patronage, which Augustus had used “to build a network of personal dependency between the upper classes [. . .] and himself.”26 Meeks believes that “a Pauline congregation generally reflected a cross–section of urban society area.”27 Ethnic groups did not dictate Paul’s choice of his mission field. He thought regionally. He chose cities that had this kind of ethnic character. He planted churches wherehe felt that the various ethnic groups would carry the Gospel back to their own peoples in the surrounding towns.

Paul had led a few people to Christ in Athens, but he left Athens without planting a church there. His motivation for moving on to Corinth so quickly seems to rest on the twofacts that Athen’s influence on greater Greece was long past, and the economy of Corinth supported evangelism easierand more automatic than in Athens. Paul would lead people toChrist, and the booming economy would move more people in and out of Corinth faster than in Athens. This movement would accelerate the planting of more churches on the ever-expanding outer spokes of Corinth as the hub.

B. Potential Causes of the Conflict between Paul and the Church

1. Paul was the problem

Two theories that purport to have discovered the answerto the causes of the conflict in Corinth places Paul in a negative light. John Hurd, in his work, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, argues that all the problems between Paul and thechurch in Corinth were caused by Paul himself. When Paul wasconfronted with the problems in the church, Paul changed hismessage, and this upset the people. When Paul founded the church, he preached that “all things are lawful” as exemplified in the eating of meat offered to idols, and he told the believers that they would see the Lord’s return. After Paul attended the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, his

26 Meeks, 12.27 Meeks, 73.

12

message became more legalistic, resulting in Paul’s demand for abstention from the accepted moral laxity of the Corinthians.28

This theory places Paul’s writings outside the presupposition of verbal plenary inspiration as taught by Paul and Peter, as noted earlier. His assumptions are just that: assumptions. See my comment above. This places you in an awkward position if you are a “presuppositionalist.” While I agree with your assessment of Hurd’s view, the epistemological starting point assumed by him is entirely valid. He just has different presuppositions. This is why I prefer to work with the evidence to direct my theory. What you call “presuppositions” for me represent a “working hypothesis.” That said, the conservative as well as the skeptic can work from the same database—the text—to establish whether the predictions of the hypothesis demonstrate the accuracy of the theory. In taking this approach I don’t fall into the trap of dismissing ideas because I deem the assumptions behind to be wrong. Rather I demonstrate that the data itself calls in question the assumptions behind bad ideas. Hurd’s view also attributes arbitrariness to Paul’s entire ministry. If Paul would change his mind so dramatically in Corinth, how can we know that his other epistles do not contradict his oral teachingsthat have never surfaced in print? Hurd’s view rejects the inspiration of the Scriptures, which dictates giving Paul’s oral teachings the benefit of the doubt, instead of viewing them as arbitrary changes of mind. Rather than demonize Hurdon this point (against your assumptions—not his) it seems tome that a better approach would be to show that a better case can be made of the unity of the text than the one suggested by Hurd. In the end, you only need one possible scenario to explain the apparent contradictions. The burden of proof is on Hurd to show that contradiction is “necessary” to explain the text.

A second theory that places Paul in a negative light claims that Paul was a chauvinist who misrepresented the facts. Feminist theologians Fiorenza, Wire and MacDonald

28 Adams, 24.

13

portray Paul as using creative historical imagination in hiseffort to conceal the truth because he was male.29 No supporting sources confirm this theory. The motivation for this theory rests on the author’s willful rejection of the obvious and clear interpretations of Paul’s letters. This theory replaces exegesis with eisegesis. As stated in our presuppositions, the Holy Spirit inspired the text that Paulwrote, thereby eliminating any possibility of misrepresentation of the historical and theological facts, intentional or otherwise.

On the positive side, without rejecting inspiration, the ideas brought forth by these two theories raise questions about the accuracy of the numerous interpretationsto date. Wrong answers to good questions still increase our knowledge and motivate researchers to continue working toward more accurate interpretations. Constant challenges toold assumptions goad researchers into re-examining their previous findings, even if for no other reason than to provethe new theories to be incorrect.

2. Realized Eschatology

Thiselton counters both of these theories by claiming that the believers in Corinth caused the conflicts with Paul. Basing his views primarily on 1 Cor 4:8, Thiselton contends that they had misunderstood Paul’s message and created numerous misconceptions, especially in their emphasizing that God’s kingdom was already here, while neglecting the “not yet” aspect of God’s timing. This “overrealized eschatology” produced a hyper-spirituality on the part of the believers, and this produced all the conflicts in the Church. His views have been mildly contested, and Thiselton has modified his beliefs by adding the negative “secular attitudes” within the church as partial cause of the conflicts.30

Thiselton’s work should not be dismissed quickly. It was quite plausible that some of the believers in Corinth

29 Adams, 34.30 Adams, 107-108.

14

held the misconception of “realized eschatology” without understanding the “not yet” aspect of God’s kingdom, therebycausing part of the conflict with Paul. Dunn states, “Paul’sgospel was eschatological not because of what he still hopedwould happen, but because of what he believed had already happened, [. . .] (Easter and Pentecost) had already the character of the end and showed what the end would look like.”31 “Eschatological” is not defined simply as those things that happen at the end, but the fact that “the powersof the age to come” (Hebrews 6:5) were already shaping livesand communities, as they would also, in due course, shape the cosmos.”32 Fee states that “the resurrection of Christ marked the beginning of the end, the turning of the ages. However, the end had only begun; they still awaited the final event, the (now second) coming of their Messiah Jesus,at which time they, too, would experience the resurrection/transformation of the body.”33 Fee sums up, “They lived ‘ between the times’; already the future had begun, not yet had it been completely fulfilled.”34 Peter taught this biblical tension in Jerusalem shortly after Pentecost.35

This discussion is entirely pertinent to your thesis, but what is missing are the “connections.” The reader wants to know how this relates to the thesis. Why are talking about these matters? In what way(s) do they suggest how and why Paul is shaping an alternative society?

3. Peter versus Paul

Ferdinand Baur proposed one of the first answers to thecause of the conflicts in Corinth. He postulated that 1 Cor

31 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998, 465.

32 Dunn, 465.33 Gordon D. Fee, God’s empowering presence: the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul.

Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, Inc., 1994, 803.34 Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the spirit, the people of God. Peabody: Hendrickson

Publishers, Incl, 1996, 51.35 Acts 3:19-21, especially verse 21.

15

1:12 referred not to four groups, but to two conflicting groups, and “the basic cause of the conflict and division atCorinth, then, was the tension and disagreement between Jewish Christians, linked with Peter, and Pauline Christians, who followed Paul’s critical stance toward the law.”36 This tension came about, according to Baur, due to an early opposition between Jewish and Gentile believers.

Adams notes Harris’ criticism of this theory by statingthat “the theory may be accused both of ignoring the true diversity of texts and arguments within early Christianity and also reading its particular theme of conflict into situations where it seems not to be evident.”37 Adams gives Baur credit for wanting to “approach the documents of early Christianity free from the constraints of ecclesiastical dogma, and to subject them to rational, historical, scientific criticism.”38 Although Baur’s work has been severely criticized, his desire to replace dogma-guided research with more valid methods should motivate other researchers to continue their study in the same way. Baur’s conclusions, though not completely accurate, still show thatthe conflict between Gentile and Jewish believers could be plausible partial answers in determining the source of Paul’s disagreements.

4. Gnosticism, religions & philosophy of the day.

Due to the desire to set the study of Christianity in abroader context, researchers have compared the biblical texts with non-Christian sources, especially religious parallels. These comparisons have brought to light the possibility that Paul was actually quoting “Corinthian opinions or ‘slogans’ (‘All things are lawful’, 6.12; 10.23;‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food’, 6.13; ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman’, 7.1: ‘All of us possess knowledge […]’, 8.1; ‘No idol in the world really exists. [. . .] There is no God but one’, 8.4; ‘There is no

36 Adams, 14.37 Adams, 15.38 Adams, 16.

16

resurrection of the dead’, 15.12).”39 Opinions on the usefulness of this possibility have ranged from denying any serious ability to know what these slogans mean or how they fit together to believing that they “form a consistent set of ideas and values and that this theological perspective underlies most, if not all, of the problems and controversies that Paul addresses in the letter.”40 Without more concrete data, the conclusions will remain nebulous, and the door will remain open for more research on this subject.

Godet sees Gnosticism in 1 Cor 1.12 as the prime religious influence underlying the conflicts between Paul and the members of the church.41 Other researchers rejected this idea as speculative instead of exegetical. Michael A. Williams felt that “Gnosticism” was not a real historical fact, just a label to classify a very diverse group of texts.42 The uncertainty of this approach “raises the question as to whether the textual data is substantial and clear enough to locate Corinthian theology within a specificphilosophical or religious framework.”43 And yet, on the other hand, this approach draws our attention to the danger of rejecting valid data from outside the text and interpreting the text too narrowly.

5. From the Socio-historical approaches

Researchers have studied social questions about Christianity since the nineteenth century. Interest in that approach waned for a while, but came back in the early 1970s.44 Edwin Judge’s The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the

39 Adams, 17.40 Adams, 17.41 F. L. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians,vol. I

(Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, new series: Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 77.

42 M. A. Williams, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a DubiousCategory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).

43 Adams, 22.44 Adams, 26-27.

17

First Century45 disagreed with previous researchers by presenting the belief that the Church in Corinth was a cross-section of the city at large. Gerd Theissen used Judge’s work as a springboard to promote his view of social stratification in the Church in Corinth.46 Wayne Meek broadened the study in his landmark work The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul.

This approach has brought controversy into the field ofstudy. A lack of agreement over methods and the accompanyingpresuppositions have raised warning voices about the danger of believing that the methods and conclusions of social theories can be equally used in different cultures and different ages.47 The added problem of applying present-day circumstances to the world of the New Testament endangers valid conclusions. Models and theories can, and do, determine how evidence is interpreted. Theological research also has to contend with theological presuppositions “guiding the work, and at worst tendentiously ideological, concealing interests and commitments beneath a veil of disinterested objectivity.”48 As long as we and our peer researchers, theologians and social scientists alike, are open to questioning our own presuppositions, peer-reviewed publications can help curtain wild speculations.

The clear advantage of using social theory to evaluate this subject lies in understanding the data not contained inthe Scriptures, and how that understanding can properly expand the interpretation of the text itself. As a researcher keeps his presuppositions and methods transparentthroughout the entire process, others can properly ascertainthe validity of information outside the text that may not have been previously accessible. Everyone will then benefitfrom this external information as researchers apply this

45 E. A. Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale Press, 1960).

46 Gerd Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians (Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1993).

47 E. A. Judge, ‘The Social Identify of the First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History’, JRH 11 (1980) 201-17.

48 Adams, 30.

18

approach to all three of the dominant cultures of the New Testament time period.

6. Hellenistic Jews, Greeks and Romans

Richard Horsley’s initial research on this subject began with the proposal that the problems in Corinth lay with Hellenistic Judaism. He wrote numerous articles showingthe supposed connections between Judaism’s understanding of wisdom and the Greek and Roman understanding of wisdom. Among other connections, he showed the apparent parallel to Corinthian theology as it applied to the “gnosis” in 1 Cor 8.1-6.

An exact history of the development of Hellenistic Judaism is unclear. A brief history might help. The Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt quickly gave up Aramaic and adopted Greek.49

The process began slowly. Greek culture eventually took overtheir language, manners, customs and even their morals, ethics and religion. Greek nude wrestling became commonplaceamong Jewish youths.50 Hebrew remained a biblical language, while Aramaic was the language of the uneducated. Greek literature predominated, making it imperative that the Torahbe made accessible in Greek, both for the religious servicesand for private reading. The Jews attempted to adopt Greek intellectual values without sacrificing their Hebrew morality. Jewish philosophers tried to reconcile Jewish morality and ethics with Hellenistic logic and rationality. Philo was a Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher from one of the wealthiest families in Egypt. He received an excellent education in the Scriptures, in Greek literature and philosophy. He wrote on metaphysics, ethics and biblical books. He favored Jewish Law as the foundation of philosophy. He believed that Judaism was an all-encompassing

49 Martin Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians: Aspects of Hellenization of Judaism in the Pre-Christian Period, Trans.John Bowden. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).50 Max Dimont, Jews, God and History, (New York,: The New American Library, 1962) p.82.

19

religion: "The Law of Moses was enshrined in his soul."51 Philo allegorized almost everything in the Bible in an effort to play down God’s judgment in the Old Testament. He felt that this portrayed God like the Greek gods. He wanted to make Judaism viable to the Greeks, who had also allegorized their myths to water down the brutality and arbitrariness of their gods.The sources are scanty on the process of Hellenization, and study of the Greek influence on Judaism has gone in a numberof diverse directions. Some researchers felt that Hellenization played a very important role in Paul’s world, like Bickerman.52 Others viewed it as of little importance, like Tcherikover.53 There is truth in both positions. The villages had little contact with the Greek world and the rural changes were negligible. A larger impact occurred in the cities where the Greek influence reigned. The gymnasium was a school for all forms of training (politics, the arts, literature, rhetoric) and dominated the social world and wasthe main place of entertainment for the city, especially foryoung men. The more conservative Jews were repulsed by the Greek immorality, but Hellenism won the affection of the wealthy Jews and aristocrats. The data describing this development is fragmentary with the books of the Maccabees being the main sources. It is difficult to describe Hellenistic Judaism during Paul’s time, because it was in flux and changing as do all religions. Meeks adds, “Vagueness is most obvious in the case of Hellenistic Judaism.”54 Therefore, researchers have difficulty drawing any firm conclusions about the influences of this part of the culture on the situation in Corinth.How did the Jewish population relate to the Roman populationin Corinth? There did not seem to be any regular pattern in 51 Ronald Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World, Philo. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).52 Elias Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988).53 Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Trans. S. Applebaum (New York: Antheneum, 1970).

54 Meeks, 33.

20

the relations between Roman settlers and any other populations. Meeks comments, “The Jews were normally organized as a distinctive community, governed by its own laws and institutions, and often contended, sometimes successfully, for equality with the full citizens.”55 Concerning Judaism, “in most cities there seemed to have been some central body that could speak with the Jews in negotiations with the city magistrates or with Roman officials.”56 The Jews were fully aware that their “identitydepended on their maintaining some distinct boundaries between themselves and ‘the nations.’ Yet they also found themselves under strong pressures to conform to the dominantculture of the cities for reasons of expediency. Moreover, many of them experienced a powerful attraction to the valuesof that culture,”57 which would eventually separate them from strict Judaism.

Horsley viewed Hellenistic Judaism as the background tothe Corinthian theological problems, but further research has shifted the context of the Corinthian Church to the Greco-Roman world. It has been pointed out that Paul connected Corinthian wisdom with Greek values instead of Jewish ones in 1 Cor 1:22.

Horsley’s Alternative Society

I. Background

Horsley’s main contention focused on Paul wanting to replacethe Roman Empire with God’s Kingdom. This shift from emphasizing Hellenistic Judaism as the main influence on theChurch in Corinth to the Greco-Roman world’s influence requires an understanding of the Gentile nature of Corinth in order to place Horsley’s argument in context.

Ethnic Groups and Status

55 Meeks, 13.56 Meeks, 35.57 Meeks, 36-37.

21

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor points out that “Many factors contribute to fixing status, e.g. racial origins, legal status, personal statue, occupation, religion, sex, wealth, etc. Some indicators carry more weight than others, depending on the social context, and in addition are conditioned by the attitude of the person judging.”58 Corinth’s mixture of ethnic groups, and the freedom given these people in Corinth by Rome, allowed them to climb up the social and economic ladders without the hindrances foundin other cities that were less ethnically mixed. People could attain a higher “status” in society, without jumping through all the social hoops necessary in other cities. This“status” as a position of power arose from wealth rather than official position of “rank.”How did this ethnic make-up and social and economic climbingaffect the Church in Corinth? Judge believes that “Far from being a socially depressed group [. . .], if the Christians are typical, the Christians were dominated by a socially pretentious section of the population of a big city.”59 Adam’s view is that “the only people in Corinth whose names are to be found in the literature belong to the middle classor above, or were among their retinues. There must have beenmany poorer people, however, since the Christian congregation at Corinth was large. Moreover, as he [Paul] commented earlier,’ not many … were influential … of noble birth’ (1 Cor 1:26).”60 The sample of names from the church,as found in the Scriptures, apparently represent a good cross-section of Corinthian society.

Wealth, Status and Patronage

One unique group came from the wealthy urban elite, where patron–client relationships were customary. Adams 58 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 7.

59 Judge, 60.60 Adams, 7.

22

describes these relationships across the spectrum of Roman society by stating that “Patronage occurred not only from those who held political appointments (“rank”) but also at adomestic and social level from men and women of wealth (“status”).”61 The function of these patrons of rank and status within that society was to “provide hospitality and financial benefits to visiting rhetoricians who might come to Corinth to participate in the poetry–reading and public–speaking competition at the Isthmian games held every 2 years [. . .].”62

The co-dependency of this patronage system forced Paul to reject it because of the effect it would have had on the message of the Gospel. The Gospel was free, salvation was free, and human social systems that might hinder the freedomof the preacher to preach the truth were to be rejected. Money has often hindered the freedom of the pulpit.

Labor and Status

In addition, a speaker who had a patron was looked uponas engaging in work within higher society. As a businessman attempted to climb the social ladder, he would delegate the “menial” tasks, the hands-on activities of day-to-day labor,to the lower classes, who were apparently the only ones who performed actual work. “In refusing to accept such patronageby insisting on working (at a menial trade) to support himself, Paul identified with the lower orders. This rejection of these societal values represented an unresolvedtension between Paul and the Corinthians.”63

Rhetoric and Status

The Greco-Roman world had also elevated rhetoric to a position of prominence in debate and entertainment. The official goal of the typical rhetorician was to win the argument and entertain the crowds. He was to use his

61 Adams, 8.62 Adams, 8.63 Adams, 8.

23

superior arguments and expressive emotions to manipulate thecrowds and sway them to his beliefs. Truth, per se, was not important.

Was Paul capable of using these rhetorical techniques? Russell even raises the question of the appropriateness of using classical rhetorical canons to evaluate an epistle written by a Jewish Christian missionary.64 After referring to arguments from both sides of the question, Russell statesthat Paul had had extensive exposure to rhetorical training.Rhetorical training was well known in the Mediterranean world and Paul’s audiences would probably have expected it from him. In Hawthorne’s dictionary, it states, “In the Art of Rhetoric (mid-4th century B.C.), Aristotle summarized and expanded discussions of rhetoric by such notable predecessors as Gorgias, Protagoras and Plato. Aristotle’s work was the fountainhead for a stream of Greek and Latin handbooks on rhetoric down to the 1st century A.D.”65 Paul did use rhetoric to present his arguments, as his defense before Felix66 clearly demonstrates. Hawthorne’s dictionary again states, “The point of using the classical handbooks inan analysis of Paul’s letters is not to prove his dependenceupon them but to be guided by them in a description of Paul’s arguments.”67

Although Paul was well-versed in these techniques, he refused to use them in presenting the Gospel and correcting the wrong behavior of the Corinthian believers. This decision drew strong criticism about the validity of this ministry. Some wanted to claim that his Gospel could not be correct if Paul was not good enough to win arguments againsthis opponents. Paul’s harsh comparison of the world’s wisdom

64 Walter B. Russell, “rhetorical analysis of the book of Galatians, part 1*,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (July–September 1993): 344.65 Gerald F. Hawthorne, and Ralph P. Martin (eds), Dictionary ofPaul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1993), 822.66 Acts 24:1-21.

67 Gerald F. Hawthorne, 822.

24

versus God’s wisdom is a clear statement of Paul’s response to his critics and their attempts to belittle his ministry.

Adams concluded, “Paul’s rejection of patronage and hisunwillingness to fulfill their expectations of a public speaker were [. . .] in deliberate repudiation of patronage based on ‘status.’ He argues that while Paul called for subordination to those with rank, that is, to those who heldan official position whether in society or the church, he rejected conventions associated with status.”68

Morals and Status

Whether Corinth was as immoral during Paul’s time as itwas during the previous generation has not been clearly determined. However, as mentioned earlier, a nation never tends to improve in its practice of morality over the centuries, therefore, it is probably safe to assume that themorality level during Paul’s day was at least as horrific ashas been clearly documented in an earlier day with the Acrocorinth and Strabo’s report of 1,000 sacred prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite.69 Some postulate that Athens started the rumor of Corinth’s immorality in order to make Corinth look bad out of jealousy over Corinth’s rising prominence, but the supposition of a rumor is not serious research. Conzelmann’s work is groundbreaking in this area.70 The word korinthiazomai did mean “to fornicate,” and itwas derived from the city's name; however, this source of immorality may, or may not, have been the primary cause of the immorality in the Church.

In her book The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome Catherine Edwards demonstrates the numerous levels of society that played a significant part in the politics and morality of

68 Adams, 8.69 Strabo. The Geography of Strabo 8 Vols. Trans. Horace Leonard

Jones, Ph.D. LL.D., The Loeb Classical Library, ed. T.E. Page. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1961.

70 H. Conzelmann, H. “Korinth und die Maedchen der Aphrodite: Zur Religionsgeschichte der Stadt Korinth,” in Theologie als Schriftauslegund: Aufsaetze zum neuen Testament (BEvT 65; 1974) 152-66.

25

the day.71 Every level of society engaged in some aspect of sexual immorality. If the Church in Corinth was truly a cross-section of the Gentile population of the Roman Empire,then in order to explain the immorality in the Church, thereis no need to refer to the sacred prostitution, temple prostitution, or religious prostitution that was practiced as worship in Corinth in Paul’s time. The depth of immorality displayed in these sacred marriages that were performed as fertility rites, and which formed part of the sacred sexual rituals, was no worse than the immorality of the politicians and Hollywood equivalent of that day. Since at least a few wealthy members were part of the Corinthian Church, it is feasible to postulate that the immorality in the Church was tolerated primarily by (and in) the upper crust, because they tolerated it in secular society. And thelower crust would be motivated to tolerate what the upper crust tolerated for the sake of climbing higher in society themselves.

Politics and Status

As noted previously, numerous researchers have attributed Paul’s conflict in Corinth to two or more parties(1 Cor 1:12) over theological differences. The points of contact among these groups in the vocabulary of the four sections of Paul’s first epistle seem to provide sufficient evidence to justify these theories. Laurence L. Welborn believes that all of these theories have completely overlooked the language of ancient politics used throughout these two epistles of Paul. In the first section of his first epistle, “Paul’s text gives little indication as to any factual issues that separate the parties; rather he criticizes the way in which the Corinthians rally around certain leaders, competing for power and influence within the community.”72 Welborn notes the expressions of

71 Catherine Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

72 Adams, 139-140.

26

allegiance used in the Roman political world and Paul’s similar use of slogans, such as “I am of Paul.”

Welborn believes that numerous words used by Paul in his attempt to bring unity to the Church in Corinth had heavy political overtones, and would have been understood bythe first readers as applying to power politics in the Church. In 1 Cor 1:10 a “division” is a rift, a tear, as in a garment; it is used metaphorically as a cleft in politicalconsciousness.73 Welborn asserts that the author of 1 Clement uses this word to explain Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 1:10. That author labels the problem in Corinth as an abominable and unholy division, applies it to his own situation, and then asks the question, “why are their quarrels and anger and dissension in divisions (schismata) and war among you?”74 Not just the term “division” itself, but the words associated with it in this context indicate that “it is neither a religious heresy nor a harmless cliquethat the author has in mind, but factions engaged in a struggle for power.”75

In 1 Cor 1:11 Chloe’s people informed Paul of the ongoing quarrels in the church. The definition of this word “quarrel” is “hot dispute, the emotional flame that ignites whenever rivalry becomes intolerable.”76 This word appears in numerous accounts of ancient political life where it refers to the citizens being drawn into confused knots because of the pressure that comes from the approach of an enemy army or the election of hostile parties. Adams quotes Welborn as listing numerous texts in ancient Greek literature where this word is used in those contexts.77 WhenWelborn refers to Plutarch (Caes.33) describing the turmoil of Greek war and politics during Caesar’s time, Welborn describes the ensuing result of such conflicts by stating

73 Adams, 141, quoting Welborn. It is always best to go to the original source rather than depend on secondary sources.

74 Adams, 141, referencing Welborn who is quoting the author of 1 Clement.

75 Adams, 141, referencing Welborn.76 Adams, 141, referencing Welborn.77 Adams, 141, referencing Welborn, footnote 7.

27

that the “Conflicting emotions prevailed everywhere, and throughout the city violent disturbances erupted .”78 The Church was not exempt from these quarrels.

Paul uses the words “quarrel” and “jealousy” together. This “jealousy” is the “gnawing, unquiet root of civil strife–the real, psychological cause of war, according to Lysias (2.48), not the minor infractions both parties allege.”79 Welborn sees the political aspect of the verb “divided” in 1 Cor 1:13, and says that the first readers would have clearly understood this definition.

The word “party” had political connotations, according to Welborn. The word “dissension” refers to differences of opinion that could not be resolved, resulting in bitter opposition between the parties. Welborn believes that Paul is referring to this kind of dissension in the church. Welborn views the false teaching and immorality problems in the church as secondary to the political power struggles forcontrol, which would destroy the church.

Welborn presents one more phrase as descriptive of these power struggles. In 1 Cor 4:6, Paul writes that each person involved in the conflict is puffed up on behalf of one against another. Welborn fits this phrase perfectly intohis theory of power politics when he writes that this concept “is all too familiar to the student of political history as the caricature of the political windbag, the orator inflated at his own success [. . .], the young aristocrat, the aspiring tyrant, filled with a sense of his own power [. . .], the supercilious office holder [. . .].”80 Welborn closes off his diatribe against the worldly politics becoming religious politics by defining theentire situation as “the familiar image of self-conceit which gives rise to partisanship.”81

Welborn points out that Paul did not analyze the opinions of the various groups that were causing the problems of the church. Paul simply spoke to the church as a

78 Adams, 141, referencing Welborn.79 Adams, 141, referencing Welborn.80 Adams, 142-3, quoting Welborn.81 Adams, 143, quoting Welborn.

28

whole. Yes, there were doctrinal differences in church, and some people did claim to have more wisdom and knowledge thanothers. Paul, however, did not deal with the church primarily at the level of specific issues, but in the arena of partisanship. According to John Calvin, Paul dealt with false teaching in Galatians and Philippians differently thanhe dealt with partisanship in Corinth.82 Paul is not combating a different gospel in the Corinthian church; he istelling them to stop acting like normal human beings in a power struggle. The conflict in Corinth and Paul's response to it closely resemble the same problem in the Gentile secular world. And it would seem, that the majority of conflicts in local churches today fall into a similar category.

Ultimately, Welborn leads the study of the Corinthian church “away from the exploration of the religious or theological ‘background’ and toward a focus on the sociopolitical practices and customs that the Corinthians knew as citizens of a Roman colony.”83 Welborn seems to avoid the potential problem of reading present-day politics into the first century politics, and this makes his arguments much more plausible.

II. Overall Analysis

Horsley published his article “1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society”84 in 1997 to show that Paul wanted to replace the Roman Empire with an alternative society at all levels. His ground-breaking work focused our attention on “integration of religion and politics in the ancient world and specifically in the Roman Empire and thus forcing us to consider the ways

82 John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959) 8.

83 Adams, 140.84 Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an

Alternative Society, in “Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society” (ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997) 242-52.

29

in which early Christian faith and practice were intrinsically political as well as religious.”85 His articlehas set the stage for a detailed analysis of both epistles to determine if, in fact, Paul did promote an alternative society, and to exegete this society for application to Corinth in Paul’s day and for the present-day Church. Horsley’s article requires an evaluation of the best sourcesat hand, the text of the epistles and the rest of the New Testament. This paper’s presupposition of inerrant inspiration may conflict with Horsley’s premises and ideas of the pertinent Scriptures. Upon completion of this evaluation, the concept and principles of an alternative society will be applied in a detailed examination of the four major sections of First Corinthians, leaving the same research on Second Corinthians to be carried out in the future.

Horsley’s starting point is not simply a rejection of Roman politics as he perceives Paul’s mission to promote God’s plan for the church age. He wants to replace the entire Roman empire with the Church. The apostle Paul is faced with numerous struggles in the church in Corinth. The big issue is not just how to deal with the individual issues, as if they were isolated problems. Horsley wants to discover the framework that Paul used to find Paul’s answers. First he wants to establish “the wider horizon within which Paul understands the assembly’s struggles, thatis, to the fulfillment of history between crucifixion and exultation of Christ, in the immediate past and the parousia and general resurrection in the imminent future, and to Paul’s adamant opposition to Roman society.”86 The foundation is more important than the framework, as it should be.

Horsley views this foundation as Paul’s adamant opposition to the Roman Empire. Paul, however, nowhere states his adamant opposition to the Roman Empire, or any other political entity. If Paul is stating a case against

85 Adams, 228.86 Horsley, 242. The first citation is correct, the others should

use “ibid”

30

the Roman Empire in exchange for an alternative society, First Corinthians would be the best place to look, since First Corinthians tackles more problems in the church than any other single epistle.

Hoarsely begins his argument with an examination of thedetrimental relationship between Rome and Corinth. Rome practiced its most extreme form of imperialism on Corinth. Horsley states that the Romans initiated the war in 146 B.C.between itself and the Achaian league, of which Corinth was a part. Upon winning the war, Rome devastated the city of Corinth, killing all its men and turning its women and children into slaves. One hundred years later Julius Caesar build a colony at Corinth and populated it with people from different levels of society, many of whom were freed slaves.Horsley believes that this lower social status produced an ambitious “hypercompetitive urban ethos.”87 This new-found freedom of the lower classes produced a previously unknown elite class. Horsley refers to this mixture as “descendents of Roman riffraff and deracinated former slaves.”88

The ensuing grab for power for the cultivation of patronage of governors and emperors created in Corinth the “epitome of urban society created by empire: a conglomeration of atomized individuals cut off from the support of communities in particular cultural traditions that formally constituted their corporate identities in solidarity as Syrians, Judeans, Italians, or Greeks.”89 The majority of the population in Corinth had no “horizontal supportive social network.”90 A healthy church fellowship would have been an automatic drawing card for lost and lonely sojourners.

This situation led to more and more corruption in the city. Wealth creates its own problems. Corinth received the reputation as “uncultured and lacking in social graces, partly because the wealthy so grossly exploited the poor.”91

87 Horsley, 243.88 Horsley, 243.89 Horsley, 243.90 Horsley, 243.91 Horsley, 243.

31

Only the very rich and those on their way up the social ladder could claim to enjoy this kind of society, leaving the door wide open for the masses, and the Christians, to want an alternative society.

Horsley then builds the framework in 1st Corinthians: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Paul opens the book with the resurrection (1.17–2.8) and closes the book with his last major argument focusing on the resurrection (ch. 15). Horsley sees the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as the turning point. The old age of the Roman Empirewas giving way to the new age of God’s kingdom. Horsley believes that Paul viewed the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as the historical crisis that God had allowed for the purpose of changing the world, literally. Horsley sees Paul supporting his view “with references to the imminent judgment (3.12–15; 4.5; 5.5; 6.2–3), to the appointed time of fulfillment having been foreshortened so that the scheme of the present order is passing away (7.29, 31), to the ‘ends of the ages’ having come upon them (10.11), and to theLord’s coming anticipated in the very celebration of the Lord’s death (11.26).”92 Horsley argues that Paul viewed the crucifixion and resurrection as God’s plan for the fulfillment of history.

Horsley now states his main point. Our previous understandings of Corinthians ran along religious lines. Inaddition to the formation of religion, Horsley believes thatPaul is viewing these events to be political. God is rejecting the politics of the Roman empire and now desires to set up his own political kingdom.

Paul, however, is not reverting to the aristocratic Hellenistic culture. Greek politics were no better than Roman politicians. Paul made that very clear in First Corinthians. Horsley’s point is that “the gospel of Christ crucified is indeed utter foolishness to the elite who benefit from Roman characterization of subject peoples through crucifixion of rebellious provincials and intransigent slaves.”93 The cross of Christ rejects human

92 Horsley, 243.93 Horsley, 244.

32

power, human wealth, human wisdom, noble birth and honorificpublic office. Horsley believes that Paul is describing “notsimply a cultural elite but the provincial (Corinthian) political elite.”94

Horsley then states that God’s main reason for Jesus coming to establish his own political kingdom on earth during Paul’s time is God’s rejection of the Imperial “rulers of this age” (2.6–8). Horsley points to Romans 13.3 and the word “rulers” (archontes) as referring only to earthlypolitical rulers. Horsley states that other commentators believe that these rulers are demonic powers, but that thesecommentators have no real linguistic evidence on which to base their argument. Paul is probably not thinking about anyspecific Roman leader, like Pontius Pilate. He is rejecting the whole system in general as having earned its deserved destruction because the Romans crucified Christ “in their unthinking practice of violence.”95 This is confirmed, according to Horsley, in 15:24-28 when Paul apparently sees God completing these eschatological events in the destruction of the imperial rulers and all other enemies of Christ.

Overall, Horsley’s arguments are plausible, using the evidence from the text in the way he pieces it all together.The degree of plausibility depends, however, on the amount of conjecture employed, and Horsley has to use lots of conjecture, simply because the text of First and Second Corinthians does not make the statements that he contends. The support verses he uses to argue his case can just as easily be interpreted in other ways that do no violence to the text, and in many cases, make more sense.

III. The Prophecies on the Setting Up of God’s Kingdom on Earth

In order to properly evaluate Horsley’s argument, we need to define and describe God’s plan of the ages set down in the Old Testament before we analyze the New Testament

94 Horsley, 244.95 Horsley, 244.

33

contribution to this topic. God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15, if interpreted using a literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic, is very clear. In Genesis 12, God promised to Abraham, among other things, to make from him a great nation. In Genesis 15:18–21, God laid out the boundaries of this future Abrahamic nation. In Second Samuel seven, God established the throne of this nation, the throne of David. In Jeremiah 31:33, God promiseda new covenant with Israel that focused on their hearts and their relationship to God.

God did not revealed to Abraham the time of the fulfillment of God’s promises to him in Genesis 12 or 15. Genesis 15:18 only states the fact that God has given the land to Abraham’s descendants. “To your descendants I have given this land [. . .].” Although God revealed to David more about the Abrahamic covenant, God still did not reveal the timing of the fulfillment of his promises to David. “I will also appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them,that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, [.. .] and I will give you rest from all your enemies.”96 The prophet Jeremiah does not negate the Abrahamic or Davidic covenant when he reveals God’s new covenant with Israel, however, Jeremiah also does not reveal the timing of the fulfillment of this new covenant. “’But this is the covenantwhich I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be Mypeople.”97

Horsley obviously believes that the fulfillment of these promises was meant to take place during Paul’s lifetime. If Horsley’s view is correct, Paul was not advocating involvement in the politics of the Roman Empire, but an alternative to that political system. Was this alternative political in any way? Adams notes Horsley’s support for an alternative society, but nowhere in Horsley’sarticle does he clearly state that Paul should set up a political

96 Second Samuel 7:10-11.97 Jeremiah 31:33.

34

alternative society. He simply opposes the Roman political one. Adams expands his view by claiming that “part of the challenge of Horsley’s work lies precisely in its call for political interests and commitments, contemporary as well ashistorical, to be made conscious and explicit, rather than remaining veiled beneath a spurious claim to detached objectivity.”98 Yet Horsley offers no concrete plan or system for replacing the Roman Empire politically.

Welborn would probably tell Horsley to stop worrying about Roman politics and focus on Paul’s attempt to stop thebelievers in the church from relating to one another in the same way that Roman politicians and Roman generals strive for prominence. Politics and war contain the seed of dissention, the exact opposite of the unity that Paul wantedthe Church to work toward.

IV. Limitations (and Corrections) of Horsley’s Premise

A. The Roman Empire versus the World (physical)

Before we look at alternative interpretations of those verses that Hoarsely uses to substantiate his own viewpoint,we need to note a major objection to the Roman empire as being the main obstacle to the setting up of God’s Kingdom on earth. In Romans four Paul uses the Abrahamic covenant to demonstrate God’s righteousness. In the middle of his argument Paul writes in 4:13, “For the promise to Abraham orto his descendants that he would be heir of the world [. . .].” Paul is not directly addressing the boundaries of the Abrahamic Kingdom in this verse. Paul is stating that Abraham would be heir of the world. This raises the questionof Israel’s political control over the entire globe, once God has established his kingdom on the earth. Did God give the boundaries to Abraham in Genesis 15 as the official borders of the future nation as God’s complete promise, or does God intend more than what He promised? Will Israel be ruling the entire world when God finally sets up His kingdomon the earth? The answer lies in the future, but if the

98 Adams, 228.

35

answer is yes, the implications will negatively affect Horsley’s thesis.

If Paul was envisioning God setting up his kingdom on this earth to replace the Roman empire, that would be insignificant compared to what God has in mind in Romans 4:13. And from a purely historical standpoint, the nation ofChina, during the height of the Roman Empire, was in full bloom. Horsley’s suggestion that God is seeking to set up analternative society, but only alternative to the Roman Empire, appears parochial in comparison.

B. Identification of the “rulers of this age”

The “rulers of this age” appear in Ephesians 2:2; 6:12,16; and Romans 13:1-3. Although there are numerous words forrulers in the New Testament, the keyword for our study is kosmokratores, which may refer to physical or spiritual rulers. κοσμοκράτωρ, ορος m: one who rules over the whole world—“world ruler.” ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη … πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου “we are fighting [. . .] against the rulers and masters, the world rulers of this dark age.”99

The expression “world ruler” is not to be understood interms of merely ruling over the earth as a physical object but of “ruling over those who are on the earth.” Most scholars interpret κοσμοκράτωρ in Ephesians 6:12 as referring to a supernatural power (see 12.44), though it is possible to understand κοσμοκράτωρ in this context as meaning a human ruler.100 In a footnote Horsley states, “the Christian scholarly mystification of ‘rule and governing authority’ here and ‘ rulers of this age’ in 2.6–8 into ‘ cosmic forces’ is heavily influenced by their original spiritualization by Paul’s ’disciples’ in Colossians and

99 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996), Vol. 1, 480, 37.73.

100 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996), 12.44.

36

Ephesians.”101 Horsley decides to trace the origin of the interpretation of these words as relating to the spiritual world only as far back as Paul’s disciples, and their misunderstanding of those passage in Ephesians and Colossians, and not back to the text itself. This allows himto hang onto his thesis that Paul is promoting an alternative society to the physical Roman Empire, thus avoiding the implications of the larger spirit world of Ephesians 3:10.

C. Horsley’s Nebulas Conjecture

Horsley does not claim definitively that God wants Paulto promote the setting up of a new political alternate society to Imperial Rome. His choice of wording reveals the uncertainty of his premise:

In that context, then, we can perceive how at several points in 1 Corinthians Paul

articulates ways in which the assembly of saints is to constitute a community of a new society alternative to the dominant imperial society. [. . .] and related references in other letters provide just enough information for us to discern the structure of the mission and the nascent assembly(ies) in Corinth and the surrounding area.102

As support for his supposition, he references in a footnote Meek’s topical organization of useful material that seems topoint in the same direction.103

D. Viable Alternative Interpretations

Horsley supports his thesis, first, by rejecting the idea that Paul preached the gospel in public places. “Contrary to the popular image of Paul preaching the gospel

101 Horsley, 244.102 Horsley, 244.103 Horsley, 244-5.

37

in public places, he and his coworkers almost certainly avoided the marketplace of religious competition (cf. 2 Cor 2.17) for the more intensive interaction of small groups in people’s houses.”104 Luke mentions Paul’s preaching twelve times in the book of Acts. Luke uses the word εὐαγγελίσ- seven times, κηρύσσει four times, and διδάσκ- once. The wordεὐαγγελίς- refers to giving the good news of the Gospel. Theword κηρύσσει refers to the announcement or proclamation, i.e., communication, of the Gospel. The word διδάσκ- means to teach. None of these words define the form of the communication: in the open air, in a catecomb, behind a pulpit. When Paul told Timothy to “preach the word; be readyin season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction,”105 Paul did not limit the form of this “preaching” to any given setting. Reproving, rebuking and exhorting can occur in a variety of contexts. Horsley seems to limit the popular image of Paul’s preachingthe gospel to an open-air situation. Paul clearly proclaimedthe gospel in the open air, but this avenue did not limit Paul’s methods of preaching to just one form. Paul “preached,” i.e., communicated the Gospel using various methods in the book of Acts, as Acts 17:17 demonstrates whenPaul was in Athens.106 Therefore, Paul’s multiple methods of proclaiming the Gospel contribute nothing to Horsley’s thesis.

Horsley refers to Second Corinthians 2:17 to support his statement that Paul avoided the marketplace of religious competition. Notwithstanding a clear contradictionin Acts 17:17, this verse and its context have nothing to dowith the location of where Paul proclaimed the gospel. This verse refers to the quality of Paul’s gospel. He did not water down his gospel as others changed their message in order to please the public.

104 Horsley, 145.105 New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman

Foundation, 1995). 2 Ti 4:2.106 “[. . .] so he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and

the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present.”

38

Horsley’s conclusion about the early church being comprised of mainly house-based assemblies is accurate, but contributes nothing to his thesis that Christianity was an anti-Roman empire religion. He attempts to show some connection by stating, “the picture that emerges from such observations is not one of a religious cult, but of a nascent social movement comprised of a network of cells based in Corinth but spreading more widely in the province of Achaia.”107 The fact that some of these house assemblies were connected with one another, again, contributes nothing to his thesis. This emerging picture, however, can be just as easily understood as God spreading his kingdom throughoutthe entire world, with no reference whatsoever to the Roman Empire as the major obstacle to that expansion. God clearly urges group solidarity among believers in First Corinthians,but not in opposition to any specific political nation, Roman or otherwise.

Horsley’s second main point is that Paul demanded that Corinth “conduct its own affairs autonomously, in complete independence of ‘the world’, as he writes in no uncertain terms in 1 Cor 5–6.”108 Horsley rightly softens that view by saying that this did not mean “completely shutting themselves off from society in which they live.”109 He limitstheir autonomy to church discipline and internal disputes. Church discipline is to be carried out ethically and justly,as opposed to “the injustice of the dominant society.”110 Disputes among believers are to be handled under the elders within the local churches, as opposed to the established Roman courts.

As correct as Horsley is in these two points, he limitstheir application to the Roman Empire. He states, “the assembly stands diametrically opposed to ‘the world’…”111, whereby he means the Roman Empire. He believes that the court case mentioned in First Corinthians six was an

107 Horsley, 245.108 Horsley, 245.109 Horsley, 245.110 Horsley, 246.111 Horsley, 246.

39

economic dispute between believers. He concludes, “thus economic matters as well as matters of sexual morality were included in Paul’s concern that the assembly embodied just social relations within its autonomous community.”112

The problem with this conclusion rests upon his use of the word “just.” At this point in his argument he seems to negate his own caveat that the believers should not cut themselves off from all contact with the world. He is correct in his assessment that “the law and the courts in the Roman empire were instruments of social control, a vested interest of the wealthy and powerful elite which operated for their advantage over that of those of lesser status.”113 This statement can be applied to many governmentsover the past 2,000 years. Is Hoarsely rejecting all civil courts? Apparently, because he makes the negative comment ina footnote that many commentators “claim that Paul was not rejecting the civil courts.”114

Horsley rejects the idea that Paul’s message is simply about the separation of church and state. “Paul’s insistencethat the assembly run its own affairs was more of a completeDeclaration of Independence and autonomy, as in apocalyptic literature, where Judean scribes advocate independence of Judea or their own circles from Imperial governments or their local clients.”115 Horsley places a lot of weight on Paul being influenced by Judean apocalyptic literature and statements of self-government from Qumran.

Horsley’s third point underscores the believer’s separation from the world through Paul’s prohibition of the Corinthians eating food sacrificed to idols. Obeying Paul’s exhortation to refrain from this activity would “cut the Corinthians off from participation in the fundamental forms of social relations in the dominant society.”116 Horsley refers to recent research that attempts to remind Christianstoday that “religion in the ancient Roman world did not

112 Horsley, 246.113 Horsley, 246.114 Horsley, 246.115 Horsley, 246-7.116 Horsley, 247.

40

consist primarily of personal belief and was often inseparable from political, economic, and other fundamental social forms.”117 The Romans used sacrifices as one aspect ofgiving cohesion to the Roman Empire at all levels. Sacrificewas “integral to, indeed constitutive of, community life in Greco–Roman antiquity at every social level from extended families to guilds and associations to citywide celebrations, including Imperial Festivals.”118 Horsley states that 1 Corinthians 8–10 is “about far more than individual ethics.”119

Many commentators interpret this passage as pertaining to weak and strong believers, i.e., Jewish Christians who still feel obligated to followed Jewish food laws versus enlightened Christians, like Paul. Hoarsely states that the term “food offered to idols” does not occur in Jewish texts prior to Paul, and always refers to food eaten in a Temple. Horsley views this passage such that “Paul is addressing enlightened Christians who presume that they have the liberty to banquet in temples (since the gods supposedly honored there do not exist). His argument climaxes in 10.14–22 with the absolute prohibition of such banqueting, with 10.23–11.1 being a conciliatory afterthought and summary of his argument.”120 Based on this interpretation, Horsley believes that Paul is requiring the believers to break with society and politics, because both arenas, through their sacrifices, compromised believers by pushing them through peer-pressure into idolatry. Horsley may have a point about the politics of the day. Romans 13 has its limitations. Believers of all ages have to reject any political involvement that would lead them to idolatry.

Horsley refers to Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians “to maintain their group discipline until, analogously, theyreached their goal now ‘at the end of the ages.’”121 Does Horsley believe that the end of the age would occur during

117 Horsley, 247.118 Horsley, 247.119 Horsley, 247.120 Horsley, 248.121 Horsley, 248.

41

Paul’s lifetime? The Roman Empire ended around 700 A.D., butthe “end of the age” has not arrived yet.

Horsley claims that the word “body” was a “well-established political metaphor for the ‘body politic’, the citizen body of a city–state (polis).”122 This statement assumes that the word “body” could not have had a different meaning as Paul used it in First Corinthians 12. Horsley believes that Paul was teaching the believers that they had to break off their social networks and form an alternative society.

Horsley’s interpretation of the detrimental effects on the Christian community caused by Christian participation inmany of the social functions of the Greco-Roman society, which included eating meals offered to idols, should be taken seriously. It is now clear, however, that the Roman Empire did not immediately precede the end of the age. Some may consider the Roman Empire to be the first empire to haveexisted at the beginning of the end of this age, but that does not help Horsley’s thesis. Horsley’s interpretation that the Roman Empire was the main obstacle to be rejected in setting up God’s kingdom on earth and the age is incorrect.

If, however, we retain the broader meaning of the “end of the age” to include everything from Pentecost until the second coming of Christ, then we can apply Horsley’s thesis to every generation in the church age. When Horsley states, “[. . .] Paul insists on political-religious solidarity overagainst the dominant society [. . .]”,123 Horsley avoids offering any concrete suggestions as to how believers shouldset up the political aspect of their alternative society. Since he believes that Paul is promoting an alternative “society” (order? hierarchy? government?) instead of active involvement in the secular one, believers in every century will need to determine if they agree with Horsley’s rejection of believers involvement in secular politics, and if they do not agree, to what extent they should be involved. The level of Christian participation is secular

122 Horsley, 258.123 Horsley, 249.

42

governments, determined by the level of hostility toward Christians, is not the subject of this paper.

Horsley’s fourth point focuses specifically on economicrelations in the community of Christians. “Paul indicates that his assembly(ies) should embody economic relations dramatically different from those in Roman Imperial society.”124 Horsley claims that Paul illustrates his viewpoint by going against the culture himself when he refuses to receive support, “contrary to the norm within themovement.”125 At this point in his argument Hoarsely has to make some more assumptions. He assumes that Paul, prior to becoming a believer, “would have received support in the tributary system of the Jerusalem Temple state whereby the high priestly rulers ‘redistributed’ revenues they took fromJudean and other villagers (that is, if Paul had indeed beena Pharisee, Phil. 3.5).”126 In the secular world the tributary flow of goods originated from the peasants and proceeded upwards to the rulers. Horsley notes that the early church adapted “the horizontal economic reciprocity ofvillage communities following the traditional mosaic covenantal idea of maintaining the subsistence level of all community members (see, e.g., Levitucus 25).”127 An example of this appears in Mark 6:8-10 when Jesus sent the disciplesout on their missionary endeavors.

Horsley now makes a second assumption that Paul, in hisdistinctive refusal of such support, “may have been sensitiveabout continuing to live off of poverty–stricken people oncehe identified with them in joining the movement.”128 Earning one’s own income was despised in aristocratic cultures of the day, and this cultural point “may also have been anotherway he could identify with the humiliation of the crucified Christ (cf. 1 Cor 4:12).”129

124 Horsley, 249.125 Horsley, 249.126 Horsley, 249.127 Horsley, 249.128 Horsley, 250.129 Horsley, 250.

43

Horsley’s third assumption is that the Corinthians who were questioning Paul about this “must have been still attunedto the values of the patronage system that had permeated theprovincial cities of Greece during the early Empire. Perhapsone or more of the Corinthian householders was able to contribute to Paul’s and other apostles’ support were eager to enhance their own prestige and honor by serving as patron(s).”130 Peter Marshall’s research claims that Paul’s refusal of such support would have been a slap in the face to these patrons and rejection of their “friendship,” (as understood within the system of patronage of the day), whileadding insult to injury by choosing to earn his own living.131 Horsley’s assumptions continue to be evident in his arguments as he uses words like “surely” and “may have been,” but in this point, Marshall’s arguments are convincing. Paul apparently did not want his ministry to be evaluated in the light of the dominant society’s patronage practice of controlling and exploiting its clients and “friends.”

As much as Horsley would have liked Paul to have completed the task of setting up the kingdom of God on earthto replace the Roman empire, Horsley admits that “Paul did not come up with any vision of an alternative political economy for his alternative society….”132 In the area of finances Paul simply wanted to avoid the patronage system ashis part in rejecting the dominant society.

Horsley’s fifth point concerns the collection for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem in 1 Cor 16. Horsley seesPaul’s instructions on this collection as an indication thatthe “network of assemblies had an ‘international’ political–economic dimension diametrically opposed to the tributary political economy of the Empire.”133 Here again we have Horsley’s attempt to see an alternative political system in Paul’s writing of First Corinthians. He states, “The

130 Horsley, 250.131 Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Convention in Paul’s Relations with the

Corinthian (Tuebingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987).132 Horsley, 250.133 Horsley, 251.

44

collection embodies the politics as well as the economics ofthe movement, with delegates chosen by the assemblies themselves designated to bring the resources to the assemblyin Jerusalem.”134 Horsley views Paul’s purpose in this collection as one of motivating one subject people to help another subject people.

Horsley sixth and final point states that Paul used Greco–Roman political rhetoric in an attempt to persuade believers to follow his course of action. Horsley sets this rhetoric in the framework of the Greek city-state. His last 2 sentences are instructive: “Far from urging the Corinthian‘saints’ to conform with the Corinthian society, however, heinsisted that they maintain their solidarity as an exclusivecommunity that stands against the larger society.”135 This statement can easily be seen as biblically correct. “First Corinthians and his other letters were Paul’s instruments toshore up the assemblies’ group discipline and solidarity over against the imperial society, ‘the present evil age’ (Gal 1.4), ‘the present form of this world [that is] passingaway’ (I Cor 7.31).”136 In this concluding statement Horsley equates the present evil age with the Roman Empire. His arguments, however, contain too many assumptions to make this view credible. Alternative explanations that describe the “end of the age” as referring to the second coming of Christ fit the text of Scripture more accurately. This is good, but it would have been better to have briefly summarized this material instead of reproducing his argumentextensively has you have it. What follows is more pertinent to your thesis.

V. Benefits of Horsley’s Research

Having seen the deficiencies in Horsley’s arguments of equating the “end of the age” with the political Roman Empire, there is still much to be gleaned from Horsley’s research and thesis. We can apply numerous points directly

134 Horsley, 251, footnote 15.135 Horsley, 252.136 Horsley, 252.

45

to every generation in the Church Age. The keynote teaching resulting from Horsley thoughts is this: believers in every age are to reject the values of the dominant society, especially those values that would lead believers into idolatry. Present-day applications are obvious, if not preached enough from our pulpits: worshipping sports, worshipping politicians, watching movies of questionable morals, cheating on taxes. The list will be long in any generation.

The Reformers believed that the Christian Community needed to set up an alternative society. Luther began that process with the Magisterial Revolution. Calvin carried it to the ultimate expression by turning Geneva into a Christian city. He wrote all the city’s civil law codes and based them on the Bible. Given the situation at the time, where Geneva had become a haven for believers who were beingpersecuted and executed, Geneva was viewed by many as a piece of heaven. It did not last, of course, but it served the purpose of allowing freedom of religion to thrive so that Calvin could train and send hundreds of missionaries and pastors into France, his home country, to which he was never able to return. If we were to ask Calvin why he wrote all the city’s civil law codes by basing them on the Bible, I can imagine him answering with the question, “Why not?! You like a civil law code based on some lower form of morality?”

The Radicals during the Reformation took a different view. When they wanted to take the interpretation of Scripture further and get rid of baby baptism and military service, they were persecuted by the Protestants! There is something to be said for Spurgeon’s view of the believer’s relationship to secular governments in his sermon, “Citizenship in Heaven.”137 Brian Zahnd sees a national presidential election as a time when “millions of confessed followers of Christ will be swept up in this as they give vent to their anger, convinced that God is on their side.”138

137 John MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 2000, 147-169 (Spurgeon’s sermon).

138 Brian Zahnd, “Practical Political” Charisma, October, 2010, 39.

46

Zahnd raises the question whether the Great Commission can be defined as changing the world through politics. He makes an excellent point when he writes, “We should never forget that Jesus ushered in His kingdom by refusing to oppose Caesar on his terms.”139 His wording is memorable: “A politicized mind imagines power only as political domination.”140 Although the definition of the term “dominionism” is disputed, Calvin’s idea of believers controlling the secular government has its adherents today. If Horsley had included more detail as to how Paul’s alternative society should function politically, Horsley might have found himself allied with the dominionists of ourday.

Horsley’s work should affect further research in two ways. First, humility comes from the experience of learning things we did not know before and realizing that there is much more we still do not know. Adams asks, “To what extent does our understanding of Paul’s letters depend on a plausible construction of this Corinthian background?”141 As noted earlier, Meek raises the question as to whether the textual data is substantial and clear enough to discover a specific framework, religious or philosophical, for the Corinthian theology.142 If we cannot give a decisive “yes” answer, then humility requires that we accept the fact that God did not see fit to give us enough information to find that answer.

Second, holding onto the assumption that a historical reconstruction is necessary to the proper interpretation of Paul’s epistles raises the question of the usefulness of allthe theological writings during the past 2,000 years, whose authors have not had the advantage of modern-day scholarship. Without negating the positive contribution of all fields of research on these epistles, some are beginningto advocate a return to a more theological reading of the letters, simply because we do have the text right in front

139 Zahnd, 40.140 Zahnd, 40.141 Adams, 23.142 Meeks, 22-23.

47

of us, and the Church Fathers and pastors and theologians have been interpreting these letters theologically for centuries to the benefit of their congregations. Post-Enlightenment historical criticism offers more subjective assumptions than concrete data. Interpretation need not be “controlled” by a hypothetical background that has been reconstructed by researchers outside the theology arena. If the text is unclear, then the text is unclear. Background information may help in this matter, but this “help” may consist only of subjective assumptions, making it almost useless, if not misleading. If the background reconstructiondoes not help, then humility will dictate that we leave the unclear text and move on to a clear one.

Adams sums up the weaknesses of using “scholarship” as an infallible guide for interpretation, “given the general collapse of the illusion that scholarship can ever be simplyobjective and disinterested [. . .] [we] need critical and theoretical reflection, on the ways to use and interpret ancient evidence (Meggitt), on the ways to employ social–scientific resources (Holmberg), and on interests and ideologies that shape scholarship (MacDonald).”143

VI. Paul’s (biblical) Alternate Society. This section is nicely done. I would like to have seen it fleshed out more since it is vital to your these (more so than much of the ancillary material you include above.

Paul clearly advocated an alternate society in 1 Corinthians, but not against the political Roman Empire. Against the backdrop of the Greco-Roman society, the church in Corinth mirrored the culture of its time. The relentless competition for social status, worldly honor, wealth, and power plagued this new church from the start. Paul did not write his epistles to the believers in Corinth for the purpose of modifying the secular culture of the day. He wrote with the intent of promoting an entirely different society within the Christian Church. Paul’s projectory ? forhis task would begin with the ownership by the Lord (based

143 Adams, 43.

48

on the Lord’s ontology) of these new believers (1 Cor. 1:9),move the believers through a radical rejection of the world’s values and lifestyles, to be replaced by Paul’s inspired alternatives, and into a transformation of each believer (1 Cor 15:35-57) into the very image of the One whohad died on the Cross for their sins.

Paul established the foundation of this alternative society on the identify and person of Jesus Christ. AlthoughPaul does not directly teach the deity of Jesus in 1 Corinthians, he assumes it. This assumption surfaces clearlywhen Paul compares the worship carried out by the culture during their meals that were centered around the sacrifices made to demons in chapter 10. The Lord Jesus is set in juxtaposition to the worship of these demons, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”144 God’s jealousy appears when His people worship anything less than Himself, anything less that His being, His ontology.145

On the basis of the Lord’s ontology, His deity, worshipcan only be one directional, vertical, and never horizontal.Regardless of Caesar’s view of himself, members of Paul’s alternative society were forbidden to participate in idolatry, in idol worship. This applied to the entire pantheon of Greek gods, Egyptian gods, and any of the other myriads of gods that had settled down in Corinth. The dominant culture of Paul’s day, and every dominant (and minor) culture since, has arisen from fallen human nature (ontology), and Paul demands from the members of his alternative society a clear rejection of the worship required by these cultures.

Therefore, Paul begins his first epistle by teaching the members of his alternative society that they have been removed from the world and have been placed within the “fellowship of His [God’s] Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”146 Paul bases his first challenge in 1 Cor 1:10 to the

144 1 Cor 10:21-22.145 Ex 20:4-5.146 1 Cor. 1:9.

49

believers on the “name” of our Lord Jesus Christ. All of Paul’s corrections and instructions will emerge out of the Lord’s ontology. Their new identity (2 Cor 5:17) with Christas their new Lord would dictate their new lifestyle.

Paul faced the challenge of planting a church in a culture that opposed everything that Christ stood for. Paul had to present the believers with a new constitution, a new “Bill of Rights,” that applied only to the believers, followed by a new set of values and ethics that would make the believers stand out as completely different from their surrounding culture. He had to bring their wrong lifestyles and incorrect theology in line with these new values and modify their daily habits of living in every aspect of theirlives. Paul planted the church. He had become “the guardian of theological, social, or political correctness in the faceof the Corinthians obduracy and error.”147

The infiltration of worldly status had infected every aspect of the believer’s souls. No segment of society escaped the permeation of the never-ending pursuit for personal advancement: within and between the various ethnic groups, the rich versus the not-so rich versus the poor, thepatronage system, the low position of manual labor, the praise and condemnation of rhetoricians as entertainers, theacceptance of morality among those high enough to get away with it, the in-fighting for power between political groups.Paul’s alternative society has to replace the basic values of money, power and sex with the character qualities of Jesus Christ.

And this complete change in lifestyle, at all levels, would culminate in God’s

teleological purpose of conforming the members of this new society into the image of the one whom they were commanded to worship: Jesus. Paul had to instill in the believers the understanding that they would become like who they followed:Jesus or the world.

Over the past two thousand years an innumerable number of sermons have been given and an equal number of books havebeen written on every aspect of First Corinthians. The

147 Adams, 33.

50

author offers the following as a very generic overview of Paul’s radical alternative society, which God desires every generation to emulate.

A. 1 Cor 1:10-4:21 A New Constitution: Internal Cohesiveness

Spiritual unity has to overrule any and all differencesof opinion. The local church must focus on Jesus first, thenothers, with no time left over for personal egos. Looking tothe Lord Jesus for wisdom trumps wrong human wisdom. The Greco-Roman culture placed a positive connotation on the word “world,” whereas Paul reversed this definition to demonstrate that the “world’s” wisdom was blatantly useless,misleading and damaging. The believers would have to make a major shift in their thinking as members of a new society that rejected their previous worldview in favor of God’s wisdom.

Acceptance and mutually building up one another replaces being drawn into warring factions. Sectarianism hadto remain at the front door. Boasting for personal prestige contradicted God’s ownership of His members, whom He had brought into the new society by grace alone.

God’s power will rule through His Word, His Spirit and His wisdom, not through Greek rhetoric or Roman social status. This spiritual unity, which opposed the worldview ofthe unsaved, replaced all the values of that decadent society and laid the foundation for a complete change of lifestyle for the members of this new society. The believersbelong to Christ and His values, not to the society outside the Church.

B. 1 Cor 5:1-11:1 Boundaries with Gates: New Relationshipswith the Secular Culture (How Members Relate to Non-Members)

In order to preserve Judaism’s identify, boundaries required the Jewish people to keep a safe distance from the Gentiles. Paul based the Christian boundaries on the freedom

51

present within the Gospel. The loosening of the Jewish boundaries released the Christians from Jewish social legalism to mix with secular society. Paul’s alternate society will guide the believers into the world of shifting boundaries. Social relationships with non-members are encouraged as long as no idolatry is involved and other believers’ consciences are not hurt, leading them to sin. Noboundaries are constructed to keep non-members from becomingmembers. Once a person has been brought into the group, boundaries were set up to bring unity to the members. The believers were to reject their previous applications of the predominant Greco-Roman worldview to the other members within the new society, and apply the principals and relativized boundaries set down by Paul’s new society.

Chapter five. Proper theology of the human body will define the new society’s concept of morality and immorality among the believers. The lower level of morality among the wealthy and religious will no longer be tolerated. In the Alexandrian version of Hellenistic Judaism, the orientation toward Greek philosophy, particularly the Platonic view of the soul imprisoned in the flesh, led to a clear-cut dualismwith a negative attitude toward the body. Adam, however, wasperfect and good when God created him. Jesus was fully human, and therefore, our physical bodies are not intrinsically evil. The Holy Spirit lives inside of believers, and our bodies are simply on loan to us and must be treated accordingly. This new theology will stand out in stark contrast to the immorality that was rampant throughoutthe Greco-Roman world, especially when the unsaved outside the Church witness the ejection of a believer from the Church for gross immorality. This higher level of morality cannot be expected of, or applied to, those outside the Church.

Chapter six. Taking believers to court fails to measureup to the alternate society’s values placed on those God hasredeemed. It is inconceivable that a believer, who will judge the fallen angels, could even begin to trust a reprobate Roman judge in the secular court system when a problem arises with another believer. The secular courts are

52

not being rejected, since God uses them to keep order in secular society (Romans 13), but 1) the believers should be able to receive more justice from among themselves when disputes arise, and 2) believers should never air their dirty laundry to the world. (Even taking a non-believing neighbor to court can have repercussions on evangelism.)

The believer’s bodies belong to God, and must be treated accordingly. Recognizing the indwelling Holy Spirit must motivate believers to strive for a holier sexual lifestyle. The glorification of God in the member’s bodies would also cause them to stand out and provide a positive witness to Paul’s alternative society.

Chapter seven. Marriage is good and planned by God, butif a person chooses to stay single, that might be best in bad times. Remaining single or getting married to another believer does not directly affect a person’s spirituality. Sex was created by God and should, and must, be used within marriage. Personal holiness does not depend a celibate lifestyle, and depriving a marriage partner of sex within marriage is contrary to God’s design. Contentment in the place that God has placed the believer will lower his or herpersonal concerns and allow the believer to serve the Lord without distraction.

Chapter eight. Doing anything that causes another believer to violate his conscience is sin. Our Christian freedom should be used to serve others, not our personal egos. Causing another believer to sin is defined as sinning against that believer, and sinning against another believer is defined as sinning against Christ.

Chapter nine. Ministers have rights. Even Peter took the liberty of taking his wife on “mission” trips. Ministershave the right to be supported for their ministry by believers, but ministers also have the right to give up their rights if the secular culture would misrepresent the minister’s actions in proclaiming the Gospel. Methods are not inspired. They need to be grounded in sound theology andevaluated based on their effect on those being ministered to. Believers want self-discipline to define their lives, as

53

they strive to win the race through this life into the next one.

Chapter ten. Stop making the same mistakes that the Israelites made in the desert! Stop participating in the oldsociety’s forms of idolatry. Social climbing through networking that involves participating in idol worship no longer defines the believer. Stay away from those feasts andmeals that would identify you with the world’s values. Remember to whom you belong and how jealous He becomes when His people have any connection with idolatry in any form.

C. 1 Cor 11:2-14:40 Boundaries with Gates: New Relationshipswith Members of the

Alternative Society (How Members Relate to Members)

Chapters 11-14. Stop the selfishness at the Lord’s Table! Remember why you are there. If you don’t believe thatthe headcovering applies in your own culture, then ask yourselves “by what means do we show our respect for the principle?”148 Stop comparing yourselves with yourselves. Godhas redeemed each person and values each believer equally. Spiritual gifting is simply God’s way of making this alternate society (body) function most efficiently. Love, not prominence, must rule your relationships with one another. (And if you are from out of town—or from a later century—and want to know what “tongues” are [ontology], you will have to wait until Luke defines them for you when he writes the book of Acts.)

D. 1 Cor 15:1-58 How Members Relate to the Future

Chapter fifteen. How can any believer not believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Plato was wrong. Even the pagans believe in the concept of resurrection. God created the bodyas “good.” God places a very high value on the human body. Our alternate society rejects the negative attitude toward

148 Dr. Dan Mitchell, The Book of First Corinthians, (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2004), 165.

54

the present physical world (our bodies). Our society recognizes that this current alternative society is part of God’s kingdom that has already arrived, but the fulfillment of His kingdom is still to come. During this part of our existence, believers are being prepared for the final stage and fulfillment of God’s promises to us. We are being transformed into the image of the One Who died for our sins.

E. 1 Cor 16:1-4 Direct Application of the Alternate Society’s Prinicals

As we have already discussed, have the money and letters of recommendation ready to be delivered to the believers in Jerusalem.

VII. Conclusion

Paul’s epistles are a one-sided conversation with us today. The Corinthians knew and understood what he was writing about, because they had addressed the issues. Our lack of the other side of the conversation, however, has notstopped the Church over the past two millennium from interpreting and applying his writings faithfully and accurately enough to be used in the sanctification of those believers who taught and listened to these interpretations.

However, although God did not see fit to reveal a complete understanding of the surrounding social context, that does not mean that we should forego any attempt at discovering it to the best of our ability. The further away we get from Paul’s time, the more difficult it will be to reconstruct everything properly, but advances in archaeological technology should provide better tools that will allow researchers in the future to carry out a more thorough investigation of the data and artifacts discovered.

Paul’s final “defining” statement to the believers in Corinth: “If anyone does not love (phileo!) the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!”

55

Partially-Annotated Bibliography for the Paul’s AlternateSociety – THEO 997

(Books referenced, but not used extensively, have not beenannotated)

Floyd SchneiderExcellent Bibliography

Adams, Edward and Horrell, David G. Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline

Church. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2004.

56

Good book on all aspects of the culture and religion atCorinth during Paul’s time. Especially useful sections on social stratification andthe rhetorical situation and historical reconstruction.Part Two focuses on methodological reflections.

Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Erdmann’s

Publishing Co., 1997.Excellent detailed commentary of 2nd Corinthians in theNICNT series. His introduction encompasses the history of Corinth in the time of Paul, Paul’s relationship with the Christians in the city, his relationship with the Corinthians after he wrote the letter, and all of the major issues in the book: literary, historical and theological.

Barrett, C. W. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. London: A & C Black, 1973.

C. K. Barrett is emeritus professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, England, and Vice President of the British and Foreign Bible Society. His commentary is one of the "standards" on 2 Corinthians. Should be consulted on every part of the epistle.

Bickerman, Elias, Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University

Press, 1988).

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. (repr. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959).

Conzelmann, H. “Korinth und die Maedchen der Aphrodite: Zur Religionsgeschichte der

Stadt Korinth,” in Theologie als Schriftauslegund: Aufsaetze zum neuen Testament (BEvT 65; 1974).

57

Thorough treatment of the spiritual condition of Corinth during Paul’s time. Emphasizes points that other commentaries miss.

Crinagoras. The Greek Anthology: And Other Ancient Greek Epigrams (Penguin

Classics) [Paperback]. Various (Author), Peter Jay (Editor). Penguin Classics (May 27, 1982).

Some 4000 epigrams, short poems, inscriptions, and epitaphs of the original

collection have been whittled down to about 860, organized by era, and then again by ascribed author. For someone just starting to read in this field, this is a quality beginning.

Davies, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1964.Places the sermon in its historical setting within the

context of the world from which it originated. Davies examines it in five settings: 1) how Matthew himself intended the Sermon tobe understood, 2) within the Gospel as a whole, 3) Matthew presented Jesus as a second Moses and lawgiver,4) Jewish messianic expectation, and 5) contemporary Judaism. He asks whether contemporary Judaism or the early church determined Matthew’s interpretation, and whether Matthew was departing from the mind of Jesus Himself.

Dimont, Max. Jews, God and History, (New York: The New American Library, 1962).

Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1998.Seems to present Paul as a 'victim' of the process of Judaization. Did Paul ever teach that Jesus was God? Little technical jargon, but doesn't quote in full the

58

passages he is analysing. Very practical and comprehensive “systematic theology” of all the major themes of Pauline theology. Ends with a chapter on motivating principles and ethics in practice. Lots of primary literature.

Edwards, Catherine. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1993.Valuable information concerning aspects of the Roman

culture affecting the church in Corinth. Covers an important subject often overlooked by evangelical commentaries.

Elmer, Ian J. “More than charity.” Prayer and spirituality in the early church 5 Poverty

and Riches (2009).Journal.

Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City.Chicago:

University Of Chicago Press, 1 edition, May 29, 1990.Follows and adds to Meggitt’s work. Very thorough and

detailed viewpoint. Other commentators quote this work often. Seems to be one of

the standards in the field.

Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul.

Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, Inc., 1994.One of the most comprehensive treatments of Paul’s understanding of the Holy Spirit. Fee analyzes Paul’s statements about the holy spirit in each of the New Testament letters and then synthesizes Paul’s theology on the subject.

Fee, Gordon D. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Peabody: Hendrickson

publishers, Inc., 1996.

59

Fee’s book, God’s empowering presence, is a comprehensive treatment on the topic of the Holy Spirit from a Pentecostal perspective. In Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, he eliminates the exegetical basis of the large textbook for the purpose of making the material more accessible to a wider audience. Should be consulted first, if sermon preparation time is short.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1987.Thoroughly evangelical point of view. An in-depth understanding of the text while not bogging down in scholarly elements that are confusing. Clearly Charismatic in his interpretation of chapters 12-14. Considers verses 14:34-35 to be a scribal addition instead of part of the text. Regardless of one’s presuppositions, Fee is the ONLY Pentecostal theologianwriting excellent, exegetical commentaries today.

Furnish, Victor Paul. New Testament Theology: The Theology of the First Letter to the

Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.I enjoyed this book. One of the first books I’ve read

that gives such a concise, yet detailed, description of the systematic theology of a New Testament Epistle. Want to read Furnish’s commentary on Second Corinthians.

Georgi, Dieter. Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem.

English translation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1992.A very important and thorough text on the subject. It begins with the Jerusalem Council as the initial setting for the collection. Gives the start and temporary cessation of the collection. Demonstrates theunity of Jewish and Gentile believers as the eschatological people of God. Covers in detail the entire chronological process of the collection,

60

including everything about anybody who had to do with the collection, and all of their motivations, along with the spiritual significance as the collection related to justification, worship, God's sovereignty and eschatology. Closes with detailed discussions of the financial and spiritual ramifications of the study.May not agree with every conclusion, but thought-provoking. Murphy-O’Connor lists this book as one of the two main writings on this subject.

Godet, F. L., Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians,vol.I. Clark’s

Foreign Theological Library, new series: Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898.

Harris, Murray J. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Second

Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.

I will use this commentary as my primary one when I begin a sermon series on

Second Corinthians. Deep, yet very understandable. Doesnot avoid the difficult issues, and has very credible conclusions that often disagree with some mainstream viewpoints.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Martin, Ralph P., eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2nd ed., 2003.An encyclopedia of Paul's letters. All the important issues in Paul's letters are listed encyclopedically inthis book. The articles' authors have looked at all thepopular, scholarly and important commentaries, and havelined the commentators up on either side of every little minute Pauline controversy. Summarizes the positions and their supporters. For the purpose of thisstudy, this book describes five rhetorical techniques of argumentation, which they illustrate by applying them to the book of Galatians.

61

Hengel, Martin. Jews, Greeks and Barbarians: Aspects of Hellenization of Judaism in the

Pre-Christian Period. (Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).

Judge, E. A. ‘The Social Identify of the First Christians: AQuestion of Method in

Religious History’. JRH 11 (1980).

Judge, E. A. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some

Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideals of Social Obligation. London: Tyndale, 1960.Covers many aspects of social patterns within the various Christian groups in the 1st century.

Keck, Leander E. “The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament.” Zeitschrift fuer

die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kinde des Urchristentums 56(1965): 100-159.Journal article encompassing the entire range of viewpoints on who the ‘poor’ were in Jerusalem during Paul’s time. Excellent and thorough.

Kidd, Reggie M. Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles. Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1990.Asks and attempts to answer the question, Was there a middle class Christianity during Paul’s time? Describesthe rich and shape of the community. Closes out with a thorough discussion of the beneficence in the pastoral epistles.

Laing, Mark. “The Pauline Collection for the ‘poor’ in Jerusalem.” Bangalore

Theological Forum” 34 (June 2002): 83-92.Excellent, thorough treatment of the collection. Includes potential reasons for Jerusalem's poverty, a

62

chronology of the collections, Paul's potential motivations for the collection, which include political, Jewish temple tax, humanitarian, ecclesiological, and especially an eschatological motivation.

Lee I. A. Levine. "The Age of Hellenism." Ancient Israel, A Short History from

Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple. (Ed. Hershel Shanks. Englewood, Cliffs: Prentiss Hall, 1995).

Longenecker, Bruce. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World.

Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, November 12, 2010.

Previously, scholars have suggested that Paul's requestin Galatians to remember

the poor "was peripheral and secondary to the main issues of the Jerusalem" (p 157) council. Yet what doesPaul mean in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 when he passionately talks about Christians being one body? He insists we are all one body in Christ. It was "essential to the core identity of Jesus-followers" (p284) to be generous and loving towards one another.

Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Convention in Paul’s Relations with the

Corinthians. Tuebinger: Mohr [Siebeck], Coronet Books, Inc., October, 1987.

Marshall uses social analysis to discover the social conventions of friendship. He wants to determine if some current theological answers to unclear passages might better be answered with social responses, i.e., Paul’s refusal to accept money in some situations of ministry. A modern-day how-to-make-friends-and-keep-them book during the time of Paul in Corinth. Gives more than plausible social answers to shaky current theological ones. An original work with some material

63

appearing for the first time. Some speculation cannot be avoided. In-depth and thorough study of friendship and patronage during Paul’s time. A necessary contribution for insights into Paul’s actions and relationships with the people in the church in Corinth.

Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul.

New Haven: Yale University Press. 2nd Edition. 2003.Handles the question what was it like to become and be

an ordinary Christian in the first century. The approach is that of "social history" applied to the New Testament, a cooperative movement across several academic disciplines. Meeks also justifies his studies because of the potential rejection by theologians. Deals with the urban environment, the social level of believers, forming andgoverning of the church, rituals and patterns of beliefand life. Moves from external issues of group formation, urban environment, and status level to internal issues such as dealing with church conflicts. Bought the book.

Meggitt, J. J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Studies Of The New Testament And Its World

(SNTW). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Nov. 14, 2000.This social history of earliest Christianity radically

re-evaluates both the methods and models of other studies. Justin Meggitt draws on the most recent research in classical studies on the economy and society of the Roman Empire. He examines the economic experiences of the Pauline churches, and locates Paul and the members of his communities within the context of the first century Roman economy. He explores their experiences of employment, nutrition andhousing. He uncovers and describes the unique responsesthat they made to such a harsh environment. And he questions whether, from the outset, Christianity

64

included a number of affluent individuals. A thoroughlyresearched and ground-breaking study.

Millar Burrows. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: The Viking Press, 1969.

Burrow’s first work, The Dead Sea Scrolls, was published in1955, and then again

in 1986. The best layman's reference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Views the earliest find as early as March 1948, goes into great detail on the discovery, the contents, the historical allusions, and the implications for textual criticism. He even prints English translations of the main extra-biblical texts at the back of the book. He wrote More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1969.

Mott, S. C. “The power of giving and receiving: reciprocity in Hellenistic benevolence.”

Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (1975): 60.Journal. Good support material for the concept of

reciprocity in Paul’s time. Could be compared with other cultures in anthropology

research.

Murphy–O’Connor’s, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth: Text and Archaeology. Collegeville:

Liturgical Press, 2002.1st published in 1983, now in its 3rd edition, gathers together the ancient literary and nonliterary materialsrelevant to reconstructing the urban context of Paul’s mission the church he founded. Small book, but packed with data that will enhance our understanding of the culture in Corinth.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, OP. New Testament Theology: The Theology ofthe Second

Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

65

Interesting. Loved his use of English to express his views. Begins with the

supposition that two opposite groups, the Judaisers andthe “Spirit-People,” came together to oppose Paul. Attempts to be consistent in interpreting every text within the framework of his assumptions. Not sure I agree with his assumptions, but thought-provoking. Seems to have a very low view of verbal, plenary inspiration.

Nickle, Keith F. The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy. London: W &J MacKay,

1966.Older, but thorough treatment of the subject. Begins with the chronological history of the collection. Covers the analogies to contemporary Judaism: temple tax, charity, Qumran sources. Excellent chapter on the theological significance of the collection. Closes withthe history of events after the collection. Murphy-O’Connor lists this book as one of the two main writings on this subject.

Russell, Walter B. “Rhetorical analysis of the book of Galatians, part 1*,” Bibliotheca

Sacra 150 (July–September 1993).I used this article extensively in researching my

shorter paper, and it was very helpful in understanding Paul’s actions and reactions in 1 Corinthians as he promoted his alterative society.

Schoeps, Hans Joachim. “Ebionite Christianity”, JTS IV, 1953: 223f.

Scholarly article on Ebionite Christianity.

Strabo. The Geography of Strabo 8 Vols. Trans. Horace Leonard Jones, Ph.D.

LL.D., The Loeb Classical Library, ed. T.E. Page. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1961. Another

66

edition: The Geography of Strabo. Literally translated,with notes. The first six books by H.C. Hamilton, esq.,the remainder by W. Falconer [Paperback]. Nabu Press (August, 2010).Strabo (ca. 64 BCE to ca. 25 CE), an Asiatic Greek of Amasia in Pontus, studied at Nysa and after 44 BCE at Rome. He became a keen traveller who saw a large part of Italy, various near eastern regions including the Black Sea, various parts of Asia Minor, Egypt as far asEthiopia, and parts of Greece. His historical work is lost, but his most important Geography in seventeen books has survived. In outline he follows the great mathematical geographer Eratosthenes, but adds general descriptions of separate countries. The Loeb Classical Library edition of Strabo is in eight volume.

Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Trans. S. Applebaum (New

York: Antheneum, 1970).

Theissen, Gerd. the Social setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Edited

and translated by John H. Schuetz. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1982.

Essays translated from the German (1974 and 1975), republished in 2004. Develops the idea that Paul's followers were not all from the lower strata of society. The majority of Paul's followers in Corinth were poor, but some were wealthy and educated. These were the leaders. Thorough treatment of his view of thesubject concerning eating meat sacrificed to idols.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The First

Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Helpful in numerous ways and levels. Different insightsinto topics others had written on. I bought it.

67

Williams, M. A. Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious

Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World, Philo. (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1989).

Wiseman, J. “Corinth and Rome I:228 B.C.-A.D. 267”. Aufstieg und Niedergang der

roemishcen Welt 2.7.1 (1979) 438-548, esp. 450-62. [p2in Adams]

Describes the relationship between the Roman world and the Greek world in the city of Corinth during Paul’s time, and the background that led up to this relationship. Definitely worth consulting.

Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Commentary in Corinth: A Socio-RhetoricalCommentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.Examines the social and Greco-Roman rhetorical contextsof the Corinthian correspondence. Witherington defines rhetoric as the "art of persuasion" and believes that "particular literary devices and forms were used in antiquity to persuade a hearer or reader to some position regarding the issue that the speaker or writerwas addressing" (xii). Takes advantage of the extensivesocial science research of New Testament times that hasemerged in recent years. Applies rhetorical criticism to New Testament study. He abandons the ‘traditional’ methods of exegesis such as form and redaction criticism and believes that First and Second Corinthians must be studied in their final forms. He rejects the view that 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 are a post-Pauline interpolation and believes they were part of the original letter. Witherington breaks new ground by applying a rhetorical critical analysis to both 1 and 2 Corinthians. Liked the book so much, I bought it.

68

69