Rethinking Wisdom in 1 Cor 1 by A - Teh

Re-thinking Wisdom:
Paul’s Use of Wisdom in

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Submitted by:
Abigail R. Teh
Ph.D Biblical Exegesis
Date: September 7, 2011

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Wisdom and Knowledge in Paul’s World 3
Wisdom in the Hebrew Scriptures 3
Wisdom in the Hellenistic World 5
Corinth: The City and Its People 6
Social and Religious Background 7
Honor and Status-Seeking 7
The Church at Corinth and the Nature of Its Conflict 9
The Baur Thesis 11
Sociological Factors 11
Call to Unity, Call to Re-thinking Wisdom 13
Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 14
Rhetorical Structure 14
Literary Structure 16
Verse-by-Verse Analysis 18
Re-thinking Wisdom: Paul’s Use of Wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1-3 29
The Wisdom that Paul Rejects 31
Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies 31
Theological Approach 34
Digression 34
Scripture as the Basis of Paul’s Authority 36
Redefinition or Code-Switching 37
Shifting the Ground of Boasting 37
A Change of Status, A Change of Symbols 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY 41
INTRODUCTION
F or both the Jews and the Greeks in the first century C.E., the pursuit of wisdom and
knowledge was a highly prized endeavor.
Wisdom had always been valued in Israel. From the beginning of Israel and throughout
its history, the family and tribe were spheres for traditional clan wisdom handed down by parents
and elders. Starting from the time of Solomon, royal wisdom emerged as an intellectual tradition
in a relatively restricted role encouraged and fostered at the royal court. But the Second Temple
period in Jewish history (5th c. BCE to 1st c. CE), the tail-end of which takes us to the time of
New Testament Christianity, was a vulnerable time for the nation and saw the rise to prominence
of Jewish sages. With foreign conquerors effectively cutting off the monarchy and aristocracy,
groups like the wisdom and priestly circles exercised leadership in the struggling Jewish
community in Palestine as well as communities in the diaspora. The Jewish wisdom writings
“enjoyed a new popularity and usefulness.” 1
It is hard to overestimate the impact of Greek civilization on the world. The Hellenistic
age ushered in by the conquests of Alexander the Great beginning in 332 BCE has been called
“the ancient world’s first truly international period,”2 bringing Greek language, learning,
architecture, science, humanism, and lifestyle throughout the vast empire.
Philosophy is one of the gifts of Greek culture to human civilization; the word filosofi,a
literally means “love of wisdom.” “In the ancient world philosophy was considered a normal
part of the education that would prepare a youth for a public career or even military leadership.
1
Ronald E. Clements, “Wisdom and Old Testament Theology,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in
Honour of J. A. Emerton, ed. by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 273.
2
Jack T. Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 1.
2
Hence philosophy’s influence was widespread among the upper classes and people of wealth
who could afford an education.”3
The first communities of Christians emerged in such a context. The apostle Paul’s
familiarity with Greek rhetoric and philosophy is evident in the writings he has left us. Many
aspects of Paul’s life and letters are illumined by comparison with Greco-Roman culture.4 Paul’s
hometown of Tarsus, in fact, had a flourishing school of philosophy.5
The apostle Paul was influenced by both Jewish and Hellenistic conceptions of wisdom.6
With Christ replacing the Torah as the center of the Judeo-Christian faith, how would the
greatest theologian of the New Testament church integrate the understanding of the role and
place of wisdom vis-a-vis the Gospel of Christ?
In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians has the highest concentration of the usage of
sofi,a/sofo,j. Of the 51x the word sofi,a “wisdom” is used in the NT, 16x occurs in the book. 7
In 1 Cor 1-4, the apostle gives an extended discussion about the relationship between wisdom
and Christ. This study will focus on 1 Cor 1:18-25 where Paul juxtaposes wisdom with the cross
of Christ. The paper will also answer the question “What rhetorical strategies did Paul use to
integrate wisdom and the Gospel in the context of the problems faced by the Corinthian
community?” Today when we need “creative fidelity” in bringing Scriptural values to bear upon
3
Terence P. Paige, “Philosophy,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P.
Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 713-14.
4
Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 68.
5
Paige, “Philosophy,” 714.
6
Palestinian influence on Paul comes from his upbringing in Jerusalem and education. Although it is not
clear whether he was a member of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, Paul was the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6) and later
became a Pharisee himself (Phil 3:5; Acts 23:6; 26:5). As a Pharisee, he received strict orthodox education, even
studying under the leading Pharisaic scholar Gamaliel who was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:3; 5:34). Paul’s
training as a Pharisee and Torah scholar brought him into contact with Jewish wisdom writings and extra-biblical
literature (Eckhard J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Traditional Historical Enquiry into the
Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics [Tübingen: Mohr, 1985], 228-230).
7
H. Hegermann, “sofi,a|,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, ed. Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 258.
3
our postmodern ever-changing world, what can we learn from the creativity of Paul in crafting
new symbols and redefining old symbols for his community?
Wisdom and Knowledge in Paul’s World
Before we focus on 1 Corinthians, a brief discussion of wisdom in Paul’s world is in
order.
Wisdom in the Hebrew Scriptures
Paul’s training as Pharisee and Torah scholar brought him into contact with Jewish
wisdom writings and extra-biblical literature. Wisdom arose out of three social locations: the
family, the royal court, and legal circles.8 For the Jewish sage, wisdom revolves around three
areas: right thought, right discourse, and right action.9 In terms of thought, wisdom affirmed the
acquisition of knowledge and the comprehension of life and reality through observation,
experience, and sustained reflection. Because God embedded harmony and order within creation
and gifted humanity with the faculties to find it out, it is still revelation but of a different kind
from historical encounter, prophetic word, or legal pronouncements that the history of Israel is
replete with.
In terms of discourse, wisdom focused on teaching, exhortation, right speech and the
ability to form and understand mashals, which include aphorisms or parables or riddles (Prov 1).
But the telos or end of the pursuit of wisdom is right action. “The characteristic wisdom style
does not, however, stop with observation and reflection, since its goal is to develop life strategies
that will integrate the individual's existence with the perceived order of the world. Wisdom aims
8
For a fuller discussion, read Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible—A Socio-Literary Introduction
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 567-69.
9
Eckhard J. Schnabel, "Wisdom," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph
P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 967.
4
for a practical and comprehensive ethic . . .”10 Conduct is a consequence of right perception,
proper behavior in everyday life and capable workmanship leading to self-control, prudence,
industry, and reasoned speech.11
One of the most remarkable achievements of the wisdom circles is the personification of
wisdom (Prov 8; Job 28; Sir 24; Wis 8-9). As a personified figure, wisdom became a symbol of
God’s immanent and salvific activity and takes on cosmic dimensions.12
Yet as to Paul’s discussion of wisdom in his Corinthian letters, recent scholarship has
moved away from locating it against a Jewish background to connecting it instead with Greco-
Roman rhetoric. Johannes Munck points out that in 1 Cor 1:22, Paul associates Corinthian
wisdom with Greek cultural values, not Jewish concerns. 13 Various scholars have argued for a
Stoic or Cynic or Epicurean background to the Corinthian slogans of 1 Cor 4:8, for example.14
While these scholars may argue this way, it is really impossible to view Paul’s theology
and isolate it from his Jewish mindset and background. Jewish wisdom itself was in interface
with Greek ideas as the books of Wisdom of Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon written by two
Jews in two different cultural milieus can attest. The Wisdom of Ben Sira (dated 190-175 BCE)
and the Wisdom of Solomon (dated 1st century BCE to 1st century CE and written in Alexandria,
Egypt) represent two modes of dealing with the inroads of Hellenistic culture. Di Lella calls
10
Gottwald, 566.
11
Schnabel, “Wisdom,” 967-68.
12
Elizabeth A. Johnson, "Jesus, the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for Non-Androcentric Christology,”
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 61 (1985): 273. As Schnabel (“Wisdom,” 968) put it:
Wisdom is the first creation or firstborn (Prov 8:22-31); wisdom was created "from eternity, in the
beginning" (Sir 24:9); wisdom was present when God made the world (Prov 8:27-30; Wis 9:9); God
founded the earth by wisdom (Prov 3:19; 8:30); wisdom is an "initiate in the knowledge of God and an
associate in his works" (Wis 8:4) . . . Wisdom is not given the status of an independent entity, a
hypostasis. It is "rather a vivid poetic personification expressing God's nearness, God's acts and God's
personal call."
13
Horrell and Adams, 21.
14
Horrell and Adams, 21-22.
5
them the “conservative” and “progressive” strands respectively. 15 Jewish wisdom sought to
integrate Yahwistic faith with Greek science and intellectual thought.
Wisdom and Knowledge in the Hellenistic World
Paul declares that the Greeks look for wisdom (1 Cor 1:22). For the Greeks, wisdom
consisted of both metaphysical speculation as well as moral exhortation to live a life of virtue.
Paige identifies four major strands of Greek philosophy: Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism,
and Cynicism.16
For Malherbe, the aspect of Greek philosophy with whom Paul should be compared is not
the metaphysics which specialized in systematizing abstractions but “the preachers and teachers
who saw their main goal to be the reformation of the loves of people they encountered in a
variety of contexts, ranging from the imperial court and the salons of the rich to the street
corners.”17
Therefore Paul’s references to the wise in 1 Corinthians are best understood when
understood as reflecting the actions of a particular group—sophistic teachers. The sophists were
itinerant philosophers who, in entering cities, displayed their skills in public oratory, “for
acceptance or rejection by the city.”18 Dio Chrysostom (Orationes 37.33) described the
Corinthians’ love of public orations. Because Christianity placed an emphasis on public
preaching, its audiences would naturally evaluate them according to the standards of sophistic
rhetoric.19 The sophists were also known to recruit disciples and engage in bitter rivalry. When
15
Alexander A. Di Lella, “Conservative and Progressive Theology: Sirach and Wisdom,” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 28 (1966): 139. By conservative, Di Lella means “characterized by a tendency to preserve or keep
unchanged the truths and answers of the past because only these are adequate as solutions for present problems.”
Progressive means “characterized by a tendency to reexamine, rephrase, or adapt the truths and answers of the past
in order to make them relevant to present problems.”
16
Paige, “Philosophy,” 713.
17
Malherbe, 68.
18
Grindheim, 692.
19
Bruce W. Winter, “Rhetoric,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 820-21.
6
Paul describes his low-key arrival and demeanor in 2:1-5, he seemed to be highlighting his
difference from the sophists.
CORINTH: THE CITY AND ITS PEOPLE
Corinth, the capital city of the province of Achaia, was strategically located on the
isthmus or narrow land bridge connecting the Peloponnesian peninsula with the mainland of
Greece. It went through both a Greek and a Roman period. It was a Greek city until 146 BCE,
at which time it was destroyed by the Romans. About a hundred years later (44 BCE), it was
20
refounded as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar shortly before his assassination. By mid-first
century CE when Paul arrived during his second missionary journey, it was a flourishing
senatorial city pulsing with commercial activity. It not only commanded the land trade route in
that region but also the sea trade route between Asia and Italy.21
20
Photos were taken from http://www.ambassador4christ.net/billjennings/maps/FSPaul's%20 second%20
missionary% 20journey.jpg and http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6997/corinth_ast_
2005129.jpg; accessed March 20, 2011.
21
Greek historian Strabo described the city “the master of two harbours”—Cenchrae leading straight to
Asia and Lechaeum leading to Asia. Cargo was offloaded from ships on one side of the isthmus and dragged
overland to be reloaded on the other side. If the vessel was small enough, it could be dragged overland over the
distance of about four miles (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 1; Horrell and Adams, 2-4).
7
Social and Religious Background
In terms of layout, architecture, political organization, ethos, and religious practice,
Corinth was a Roman colony in a Greek province—“geographically in Greece but culturally in
Rome.”22 While Latin served as the official language of the bureaucracy, Greek was the street
language of the people.23
Roman colonies were established to solve overcrowding in Rome and to promulgate
Roman civilization across the world. In essence, along with its “potentially restless army
veterans,”24 Rome exported its poor and its slaves who were now given freedman status. These
people entered a situation where they could rebuild the city and their lives from scratch. As
Garland explains, “[w]ithout an entrenched aristocracy, the citizens of Corinth were not fated ‘to
remain in their allotted position on the social scale’ but had a real opportunity for upward social
mobility, primarily by attaining wealth and buying friendships and clients.”25
Honor and Status-Seeking
Honor and status are basic values in the Greco-Roman context. Honor and shame are
“pivotal values of the first-century Mediterranean world,”26 reflected in Jewish and Egyptian
writings.27 Honor and shame was also vitally important in Hellenistic society.
Homer’s epics are dominated by the warrior’s search for honor. In the Hellenistic
world people gained honor by their benefactions to their cities. Honor and shame were
22
Garland, 3.
23
24
Garland, 2.
25
Garland, 2 citing Carter.
26
Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta, GA; John
Knox, 1981).
27
In the Old Testament, honor lies behind the action of Dinah’s brothers against the Shechemites in Gen 34
and the complaint of Job in Job 31 (John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age [Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1997], 34). Honor and shame gains particular prominence in post-exilic literature, as
reflected in the psalms and wisdom books. The Book of Proverbs uses the reward of honor and threat of dishonor to
promote the values of the dominant culture (David Arthur DeSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and
Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 152
[Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995], 69-77). The concern to earn and guard one’s good name and the resultant
shame-based caution can be found in Egyptian wisdom tradition as well (Sanders, Ben Sira, 1).
8
very much at stake in sexual relations. A man was shamed by the loss of chastity on the
part of a woman under his control. The pursuit of honor was sometimes criticized by
Hellenistic philosophers, especially epicureans and Cynics, but such criticism had little
impact on popular culture.28
In Corinth, as with much of the Graeco-Roman world, “people sought every means to
gain esteem, honor, and success.”29 In a society that was heavily mercantile and entrepreneurial,
the drive to attain public status, promote one’s honor, and secure power was magnified. The
demonstration of rhetorical skills and philosophical acumen ranked high among the ways to do
so, along with conspicuous displays of wealth. The new elite also used various means to restrict
access to their group, such as wealth, marriage, and social ties. 30
In the bustling economic climate in Corinth, this situation led to intense competition
among the populace for wealth, status, and prestige and spiralled quickly to societal inequalities.
Ironically this created a replication of the situation in Rome, with many of the freedmen settlers
still having ties to their former Roman masters and possibly serving as their business agents.31
Garland points out how Greek writers of that time took note of the ill social conditions and
poverty in the city. Evidence points to famine and grain shortages in the period after Paul’s visit
that worsened the gap between rich and poor. 32
“Status inconsistency” is the term coined by Wayne Meeks to describe such a volatile
society. In a situation of rapid rise in socioeconomic status, other components of status—such as
prestige, education and knowledge, family and ethnic-group position—do not automatically
follow. Thus the Corinthians adopted the behavior of boasting and self-promotion in social
28
Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina Vol. 7 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999),
34.
29
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New
International Greek Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 170.
30
Garland, 5.
31
Garland, 3.
32
Alciphron (Epistles 3.60) in the 2nd century wrote: “I learned in a short time the nauseating behaviour of
the rich and the misery of the poor.” Strabo (Geogr. 8.6.20) and Horace (Ep. 1.17.36) both cite a proverb which
says: “Not for every man is the voyage to Corinth” (Garland, 2-3).
9
circles. This trickled down into even their religious life.33
As with other cosmopolitan cities, the Corinthian religious scene was marked by
diversity. The Greek and Roman pantheon were prominently worshipped, as was the emperor
cult. The temple dedicated to the emperor located at its eastern end was constructed to tower
over all other temples.34 The city’s elite preferred the Roman cults, chiefly those of Poseidon
and Aphrodite, both deities of the sea so vital for the success of Corinth’s economy. The
biennial Isthmian games, which in antiquity were second only in importance to the Olympic
games in Athens, were held in honor of Poseidon.35
“The wealthier members of the Corinthian church would have faced enormous social
pressure to conform to religious expectations, particularly those related to the imperial cult, if
they were to advance or to preserve their place in society.”36 By the time of Paul’s arrival, the
resulting mix of Roman freedmen, indigenous Greeks, and immigrants from all over the empire
would prove to be an explosive one.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH AND THE NATURE OF ITS CONFLICT
Paul founded the Corinthian church with Silvanus and Timothy during his second
missionary journey (Acts 18; 1 Cor 3:10; cf. 3:6; 4:15; 2 Cor 10:14 ff). He stayed there for 18
months; New Testament scholars’ best conjectures place this from 49 to 52 CE.37 From Corinth,
he wrote his two letters to the Thessalonians ca. 52 CE. In turn, the letter we now know as 1
33
Paul combated this by insisting on the reversal of value in self-humiliation and assumption of a servant
role in 1 Cor 9:1-9 and 2 Cor (Thiselton, 12-13).
34
Garland, 3-4, 9.
35
36
Garland, 12.
37
Soon after his arrival, he met Aquila and Priscilla, two Christians recently expelled from Rome (Acts
18:2-3). Claudius’ edict expelling Jews from Rome for rioting at the instigation of Chrestus is dated at around 49
CE. When Paul left Corinth, Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12). Gallio is believed to have held the
position from 50 to 52 (Horrell and Adams, 9-10).
10
Corinthians38 was written by Paul while he was at Ephesus (16:8; cf. 15:32) around 53-54 CE.
The latest possible date would be 57 CE.39
What circumstances precipitated the letter? The Corinthian church was a community of
both Jews and Gentiles, with the latter being the majority. 1 Cor 12:2 and 8:7 describe the
believers’ Gentile background while 7:18-19 imply a Jewish presence.40 The letter reveals a
fairly well-established Christian community which met in private homes where they shared
psalms, teachings, prophecies, revelations and interpretations (14:26) and the Lord’s Supper as a
common meal (11:17-34). In contrast to other communities such as in Thessalonica and Philippi,
the Corinthians did not experience persecution from outsiders but strife and disagreement from
within (1:11).41
1 Corinthians reveals a wide range of problems and issues faced by the community:
litigation, sexual immorality, questions on marital relations, food offered to idols, and
controversies in the practice of spiritual gifts.42 Yet Paul regarded these conflicts as rooted
primarily in the main problem of a mis-appreciation of true wisdom. The situation had become
so severe as to necessitate a report from Chloe’s people (1:11) and spurred the apostle to begin
his letter with an impassioned response.
The divisions addressed in 1 Cor 1-4 were precipitated by the boasting and attachments
certain factions were making towards the apostles Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and even Christ. Each
38
1 Corinthians is not Paul’s first correspondence to the community. An earlier letter alluded to in 5:9 is
considered lost. The apostle also references a letter from the Corinthians (perhaps in reply to his earlier one) raising
questions which he is responding to in 1 Corinthians. In all, Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, of which we
have two (David G. Horrell and Edward Adams, “Introduction: The Scholarly Quest for Paul’s Church at Corinth: A
Critical Survey,” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, ed. by Edward Adams and David G.
Horrell [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004], 12).
39
Collins, First Corinthians, 8, 14, 24.
40
Horell and Adams, 10.
41
The church in Thessalonica was founded within months of the church in Corinth. In 1 Thessalonians,
one can find passages which talk about their painful relations with outsiders (1Thess 1:6; 2:2, 14-16; 3:3) and a
sense of alienation from society and hostility toward it (1 Thess 4:5, 13: 5:7) [Garland, 7].
42
Horrell and Adams, 13.
11
clique claimed to be the sole possessors of spiritual wisdom. This esoteric wisdom was best
demonstrated in eloquence of speech and rhetorical skill. Hence there were some in Corinth who
denigrated Paul due to his lack of both eloquence and imposing appearance (1 Cor 2:1-5; 2 Cor 5
10:10). This wisdom was much sought after for it accorded its adherents with exalted spiritual
status as evidenced in the description—“wise, powerful, of noble birth, rich, honoured, strong,
kingly” (1 Cor 1:26; 4:8-10)—that Paul rejects.43
The Baur Thesis
As far back as 1831, F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school posited the conflict in Corinth to
be that between a Pauline group of Gentile Christians critical toward the Law and a Petrine group
of Jewish Christians more favourable to it.44 Baur’s view shaped the discourse of New
Testament scholarship for decades. An alternate view was proposed as early as 1908 identifying
the opponents of Paul as Gnostics (W. Lutgert), with a recent variation of this to identify them as
proto-Gnostics—“Gnostics before Gnosticism” (Bultmann, Schmithals, Wilckens, Winter).45
Since then, other scholars have attempted to explain the conflict as arising from believers
misguided by Jewish wisdom tradition (Conzelmann, Windisch, Dupont, Feuillet), Hellenistic-
Jewish traditions such as Philo (Horsley, Pearson, Davis), or a form of wisdom or philosophy
combined with apocalyptic elements (Scroggs, Brown).46
Sociological Factors
Yet the problems at Corinth may have been rooted in sociological rather than purely
theological or doctrinal issues. Differences in ethnicity, culture, and religious backgrounds as
43
Ray Pickett, “Conflicts at Corinth,” in Christian Origins: A People’s History of Christianity, Vol. 1, ed.
Richard A. Horsley (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), 126-27.
44
F. C. Baur’s article was entitled Die Christuspartei (Horrell and Adams, 13-14).
45
46
Collins, First Corinthians, 96-97; Thiselton, 166. For a comprehensive summary of the views on the
divisions in Corinth, read Horrell and Adams, 13-23.
12
well as economic differences between the rich and the poor (1 Cor 11:21-22) were causing
disunity.47 Starting from Gerd Thiessen and Wayne Meeks in the 1970s48, there has been a shift
among scholars from identifying the heresy in Corinth to studying the socio-cultural pressure
points and culturally ingrained habits and values from their pagan past that caused this
competition for power and control within the community.49 As Garland put it,
The discordant factions within the community did not revolve around fine points of
theological interpretation [unlike in Galatians and Thessalonians] but developed
between rival leading figures who may have been the hosts of different house churches.
Paul does not address specifically the theology of the factions but condemns the fact
that the Corinthians were aligning themselves along party lines and around specific
persons. . . . Because they ranked higher socially and because the group met on their
turf, they could control worship practices, the distribution of honors, organize patterns,
and even doctrine, and they would be looked upon by others as examples to follow.50
As discussed earlier, the population of Corinth consisted mainly of freedmen who had a
chance to rebuild their lives. In their quest for prestige and status, they resorted to boasting and
self-display. Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians are unique in the New Testament for the high
frequency of usage of the kauc–root of the word for “boasting” (36x).51 The Corinthian
believers in their quest to remain culturally and economically relevant remained assimilated to
the pagan culture around them. In contrast to the Thessalonians and Philippians, believers in
Corinth participated in feasts in pagan temples (10:27), went to court to settle differences (6:1-8),
and unbelievers attended worship gatherings (14:24-25).52 But the ‘haves” thought nothing of
47
Sigurd Grindheim, “Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians
2:6-16),” Journal of Biblical Literature 121/4 (2002): 691, FN#3.
48
Thiessen’s “groundbreaking” essays on the social stratification of the Corinthian church were first
published in Sociologie des Urchristentums and later translated into English as Social Setting. Wayne Meeks’ The
First Urban Christians was another influential book on the use of social-scientific methods (Horrell and Adams, 28-
29).
49
Grindheim, 690. Cf. As recently as 1991 though, Michael Goulder has sought to revive the Baur
interpretation of early Christianity. Goulder wrote “Sofi,a in Corinthians” in New Testament Studies (1991): 516-34
and republished in Horrell and Adams, 173-81.
50
Garland, 6-7.
51
Grindheim, 692.
52
Garland, 8.
13
flaunting their wealth and social status with the ‘have-nots’ at the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34).53
The factionalism in 1 Cor 1-4 was based on competition by worldly standards, not so much a
theological dispute swirling around Peter, Apollos, Paul, or any other party.
Call to Unity, Call to Re-thinking Wisdom
Whatever the source and nature of the conflict, Paul exhorts the Corinthian believers to
unity and harmony in what is regarded as the “thesis statement”54 of the letter: “Now I appeal to
you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement
and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same
purpose” (1:10).55 In the letter, the apostle Paul addresses the concerns of various groups within
the community.56
Yet even as we say that the roots of the conflict are more likely sociological, Paul’s
response is theological and pastoral. Paul’s response was to clarify the proper theology
Corinthian believers were to have. Though sociological and ethical primarily, the conflict had
theological implications.57 And Paul’s solution was to expound the theology first.
53
Garland, 7.
54
Grindheim (690) sees it as the thesis statement of the first section (ch 1-4) but it can easily be taken as the
thesis of the whole letter.
55
All Scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard version unless otherwise indicated.
56
Collins, First Corinthians, 8, 14. The letter offers us then a unique inside look into the life of a first-
century Christian community and show how Christian theology and practice were evolving to meet practical needs
(Horrell and Adams, 13).
57
Grindheim, 689. See also FN #1. I agree for the most part with Grindheim’s discussion that Paul warned
them against defining themselves by worldly standards and status, the same way as people from whom the gospel
was hidden were doing so. I do not believe though that they were in danger of forfeiting their salvation as
Grindheim concluded (pp. 690, 709).
14
EXEGESIS OF 1 COR 1:18-25
Rhetorical Structure
Although not denying that Jewish wisdom traditions may have influenced Paul’s
language, the primary background seems to be rhetoric.58 1 Corinthians 1-459 is an example of
deliberative rhetoric, one of three kinds of rhetoric used by the Greeks.60 Deliberative rhetoric
was concerned with leading its audience to make a decision by persuading on what is
advantageous and dissuading from what is harmful. In fact, one common form deliberative
rhetoric took was that of speeches on political concord or unity,61 which corresponds to what
Paul was seeking to do in his letter.
According to classical rhetorical handbooks, there are six parts in a deliberative speech:
(1) The introduction defines the character of the speaker and the central issue addressed;
(2) The narration narrates the events related to the central issue;
(3) The proposition summarizes the central theses to be proved;
(4) The confirmation sets forth the logical arguments;
(5) The refutation refutes the opponents’ arguments; and
(6) The conclusion recapitulates the basic points and evokes a sympathetic response. 62
Applying these to 1 Cor 1-4, we can identify the following:
(1) Introduction (1:1-10)
In his introduction, Paul affirms his bond with the Corinthian believers, citing his
affection and aspirations for the church he founded. He issues his main appeal to the Corinthians
58
Grindheim, 691, FN#4.
59
Some see the whole section as 1 Cor 1-3; others extend it to 1 Cor 4 (e.g. Grindheim, 690-91).
60
Forensic rhetoric was concerned with the past and leading its audience to make a judgment; its proper
venue was the courtroom. Demonstrative rhetoric was concerned about the present and used to offer praise or
blame; its venue was celebration or a funeral. Deliberative rhetoric was concerned about the future; the typical
venue of deliberative rhetoric was the public political assembly (Collins, First Corinthians,19).
61
Collins, First Corinthians, 19.
62
Walter G. Hansen, “Rhetorical Criticism,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 823.
15
in 1:10 to be united in Christ.
(2) Narration (1:11-17)
Paul relates that he is informed about the situation in the community, having received
reports from Chloe’s household and he identifies the actual source of conflict—factions among
the believers.
(3) Proposition (1:18-25)
In dealing with the issue of unity, Paul launches into a sustained reflection and argument
on the true nature of divine wisdom and power that the Corinthians are claiming for themselves.
He sets out two contrasts, the first between wisdom and foolishness, the second between power
and weakness. He argues that God’s wisdom, illustrated by the cross of Christ and which the
world dismisses as foolishness, is greater than all forms of human wisdom and that God’s power
as demonstrated by the cross, which again the world regards as weakness, is the only power that
can transform lives. By their factionalism, they showed they possessed the inauthentic kind of
wisdom.
(4) Confirmation (1:26-31; 2:1-5)
Paul presents twin proofs for his argument. In 1:26-31, the Corinthians’ own experience
with the proclamation of the cross shows that God chooses precisely those the world considers
weak, foolish and ordinary. In 2:1-5, Paul’s actual founding of the church is the second proof.
He did not come with eloquent speech and manner but preached the simple message of the cross,
in reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit to win their hearts.
(5) Refutation (2:6-16; 3:1-17)
This section again consists of two pericopes. First in 2:6-16, Paul insists that while he
rejects human wisdom as propounded by the Corinthians, in truth he does know and speak
16
wisdom—only it’s a spiritual wisdom for the mature. Since it is wisdom from the Holy Spirit,
the unspiritual cannot recognize it as wisdom. Only spiritual persons can receive it and the result
is they possess the mind of Christ (2:16b).63
Only in the second passage (3:1-17) does Paul return to the subject of factions and what
consists the proper evaluation of God’s servants. Paul names Apollos and the other apostles
again and using two analogies of the apostles as farmhands (vv 5-9) and master-builders (vv 10-
15), he reminds the community that the leaders they are fighting over are all servants of God,
whose success comes from God and ultimately, judgment too. Therefore it is folly to exalt one
over the other. Likewise, God will judge anyone who destroys the temple of God, which is the
community (vv 16-17).64
(6) Conclusion (3:18-4:5; 4:6-21)65
Garland sees a double recapitulation in Paul’s conclusion. In 3:18-23, Paul reiterates that
the world’s wisdom is foolishness and stands under God’s judgment. In 4:1-5, Paul appeals to
them as their spiritual father and reminds his readers to adopt the proper perspective toward
God’s servants and to emulate them as apostles who live according to the wisdom of the cross.66
Literary Structure
The theme of God’s power (du,namij qeou/) in vv. 18 and 24 forms an inclusio that
delineates the passage as a unit. 1:25 is a summary statement that also serves as a transition to
1:26-31, which in turn is marked by another inclusio in vv. 26 and 31 formed by citations from
63
Garland, 90-91.
64
Garland, 104-105.
65
Thiselton follows Schrage and Witherington in identifying the narratio, the main thesis of what is
disputed, as 1:11-17 with 1:18-2:5 as the probation or argumentation, which demonstrates the case (Thiselton, 129;
Witherington, 44.) The two examples from church life confirm the argument in 1:26-31 and 2:1-5 (Thiselton, 172-
73).
66
Garland, 130.
17
Jer 9:23 [22 LXX].67
Furthermore, both 1:18-25 and 1:26-31 form a single larger literary unit circumscribed by
a scriptural citation introduced by ge,graptai “it is written” (vv 19, 31).68 This larger unit (1:18-
31) is Paul’s reflection on power and wisdom as evidenced by three textual supports.
First, 1:18 is a “rhetorical partition”69 taking up the themes of wisdom and power from
1:17: ouv ga.r avpe,steile,n me Cristo.j bapti,zein avlla. euvaggeli,zesqai( ouvk evn sofi,a| lo,gou( i[na
mh. kenwqh/| o` stauro.j tou/ Cristou/ “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the
gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its
power.”
Second, Paul writes in 1:22— evpeidh. kai. VIoudai/oi shmei/a aivtou/sin kai. {Ellhnej
sofi,an zhtou/sin “For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom.” The signs shmei/a that
the Jews demanded from Christ and his followers are signs of power or miracles.
Third, wisdom is the focus of vv. 18-25 with nine uses of the sof-root for “wise” and five
uses of the mwr-root for “foolish.”
Paul mainly addresses the theme of wisdom in 1:18-25 although he also necessarily
touches upon power. It is 1:26-31 where he turns his focus to divine power with his commentary
on the social situation of the Corinthians. The fact that the Corinthian believers came from lowly
backgrounds—“not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not
many were of noble birth” (1:26)—precisely is a demonstration of the power of God.
And as a further support that much of the problem in Corinth were sociological in nature,
Collins points out that “[e]thnicity serves as the social framework of the first unit, social division
67
Collins, First Corinthians, 90. 1:26 alludes to Jer 9:26 while1:31, a more succinct version (Thiselton,
148).
68
Collins, First Corinthians, 90-91.
69
18
as the background of the second. Ethnicity and social division are issues to which Paul will
return later in . . . 7:17-24.”70
Verse-by-Verse Analysis
1:18 ~O lo,goj ga.r o` tou/ staurou/ toi/j me.n avpollume,noij mwri,a evsti,n( toi/j de. sw|zome,noij
h`mi/n du,namij qeou/ evstinÅ
“For the proclamation of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to those
who are being saved the power of God.”
Thiselton argues for the translation to be “the proclamation of the cross” rather than “the
message of the cross” (Barrett, NIV, NJB). The translation “message” would focus on the
cognitive or informational content while downplaying the transformative effects of
proclamation.71
The proclamation of the cross is the power of God because through it “God’s promise
and transformative activity becomes operative, effective, and actualized.”72 As Paul wrote later
to the Romans, “But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are
they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without
someone to proclaim him?” (10:14).
One wonders though whether it is necessary to separate the message from the
proclamation. For Mitchell, the phrase ~O lo,goj ga.r o` tou/ staurou which she translates “the
word of the cross,” is a kind of “shorthand” phrase that stands for the entire gospel narrative.
Technically, it is a synecdoche, where “the whole is known from a small part or a part from the
whole” and is one of the ancient rhetorical techniques used by the Greeks known as braculogi,a
70
71
Thiselton, 153.
72
Thiselton, 155.
19
“brevity.”73 By using it, Paul is able to “allude to the gospel and incorporate it into particular
argumentative contexts without reciting the whole all over again each time.”74
The cross of Christ is not only the means by which believers obtain salvation and
atonement for their sins but the transformative power to live out their lives in a Godly way. “In
Paul’s theology the cross is more than (but not less than) a remedy and atonement for past sins.
It provides the basis for Christian identity and his transformative power to reshape Christian
existence in the present and the future.”75 This is the significance of Paul using the present
participles toi/j avpollume,noij “those who are perishing” and toi/j sw|zome,noij “those who are
being saved” in 1:18.76
1:19 ge,graptai ga,r( VApolw/ th.n sofi,an tw/n sofw/n kai. th.n su,nesin tw/n sunetw/n avqeth,swÅ
For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the
discerning I will thwart."
Using the formula “it is written,” Paul cites Isaiah 29:14, “so I will again do amazing
things with this people, shocking and amazing. The wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the
discernment of the discerning shall be hidden.” In comparison, the LXX has “Therefore behold
I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent.”
In the second line, Paul uses “I will thwart/nullify” avqeth,sw from avqete,w instead of the
LXX’s translation “I will hide” kru,yw from kru,ptw, either under the influence of Ps 33:1077 or
because he cites from memory or another textual tradition. Either translation has the same
73
Margaret M. Mitchell, “Rhetorical Shorthand in Pauline Argumentation: The Functions of ‘The Gospel’
in the Corinthian Correspondence,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies in Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N.
Longenecker, ed. by L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, JSNTSS 108 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994),
65-66.
74
Mitchell, 65.
75
Thiselton, 147.
76
Thiselton, 147.
77
“The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples.”
20
meaning; God renders worldly wisdom ineffective.78
In Isa 29:14, the “wisdom of the wise” refers to the political advisers of Judean king
Hezekiah urging him to fight the Assyrian vassalage by allying with Egypt (e.g. 30:1-5; 31:1-5).
Instead God declares he is about to set in motion a marvelous plan to save his people (29:14a;
absent in the LXX translation). Isaiah is condemning the political counsels and sagacity of
Jerusalem leaders who sought to keep the nation secure without placing their trust in God. Such
wisdom is ineffectual against God’s plans.
Paul’s reference to wisdom corresponds to Isaiah’s use of the term.79 In 1 Corinthians,
Paul applies it “to every form of human wisdom that exalts its own cleverness.80 Moreoever, “in
the wisdom of his own purposes God chose to reverse what was perceived as wise in an event
which appeared to consist in weakness and failure, but would lead in the longer term to new
beginnings and to a chastened, transformed, people. . . Paul’s appeal to Isaiah 29 therefore
matches his [Paul’s] own context.”81
In a later section, Paul’s reliance on the Hebrew Scriptures as his basis of authority will
receive a more thorough treatment.
1:20 pou/ sofo,jÈ pou/ grammateu,jÈ pou/ suzhthth.j tou/ aivwn/ oj tou,touÈ ouvci. evmw,ranen o` qeo.j
th.n sofi,an tou/ ko,smouÈ
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has
not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
With the three-fold pou/, Paul uses the rhetorical device of anaphora, which means
“repetition of an initial expression.” The use of the three-fold rhetorical question is said to be
78
Garland, 64.
79
The idea of God’s judgement on the wisdom of humans is not only found in Isaiah or Jeremiah, but also
in the Jewish writing Baruch 3:9-4:4 although Paul does not cite him explicitly (Collins, First Corinthians,94).
Bar 3:27-28: “God did not choose them, or give them the way to knowledge; so they perished because they had no
wisdom, they perished through their folly.”
80
Garland, 64.
81
Thiselton, 161.
21
reminiscent of the Stoic diatribe.82 Paul also echoes the rhetorical questions of Isaiah 19:12 and
33:18.83
The three terms— sofo,j “wise one,” grammateu,j “scribe”/“learned one” and the
suzhthth.j tou/ aivwn/ oj “the debater of this age”—could correspond to the Hebrew ~k'x' ḥakam,
rpeso soper, and vrEAd doresh (Hengel), or to the Greek philosopher, Jewish scribe, and a generic
term used for both roles (Lightfoot, Fee); or to the three types of tertiary scholars: the
rationalistic scholar, the Jewish legal expert, and the rhetorician (Judge).84 What is common
about them is that they are professional experts—those who regard themselves as wise and
learned, which precisely makes them vulnerable to self-deception and was inimical to God’s
revelation.85
The grammateu,j “learned one” is one who is lettered, i.e. a scribe. In the New Testament,
they referred to the scribes associated with the various movements within Judaism. They were
not only skilled copyists who were able to transcribe biblical manuscripts; they were also well-
versed in the Scriptures themselves86 as exemplified by figures like Ezra (Ezra 7:6, 10) and Ben
Sira, a scribe in Jerusalem who ran a scribal wisdom school and composed the Wisdom of Ben
Sira in 180 B.C.E.87 Conzelmann and Barrett ascribe to it a Jewish bkgd.88
The suzhthth.j, translated as “searcher” by Collins, was one who searches for wisdom by
means of a discursive and dialectic process.89 Lautenschlager translates it “philosopher” to refer
82
83
Isaiah 19:12 “Where now are your sages?” Isa 33:18 “Where is the one who counted? Where is the one
who weighed the tribute? Where is the one who counted the towers?”
84
Garland, 65.
85
Garland, 65.
86
87
Sirach 38:24-39:11 describes the disposition and profession of a scribe as compared to various skilful
people in the Hellenistic world.
88
Thiselton, 163.
89
22
to a seeker after philosophical truth.90 Wilckens and Bailey consider Paul’s use of the term as his
polemic against Greek philosophy, with the Corinthians’ wont to compare Christian preachers to
rhetors competing for attention among popular philosophers of that day.91
All three terms therefore stand for well-known figures in the Jewish and Gentile
Hellenistic cultures. “For the Jews, the “wise” were those who had practical common sense and
a knowledge of God; Hellenists considered the wise to be people endowed with an understanding
of science, philosophy and culture.92 This verse therefore anticipates his argument in 1:22 of
their misplaced search for signs and wisdom.93
Paul delineates that all three groups of wise belong to “this age.” Paul’s use of tou/
aivwn/ oj tou,tou “of this age” is understood to indicate an apocalyptic outlook, with its dualistic
division of history into this age and the age to come. Intertestamental literature uses aivwn/ oj
principally with a future, often eschatological meaning.94 The Christ-event signals the change in
world order had begun.
Another support for Paul’s apocalyptic outlook here is his reversal of the world’s
standards—human wisdom is actually folly, and the cross is actually power and wisdom. This
“eschatological reversal”95 is a characteristic of eschatological texts. The eschaton changes the
way we evaluate things and events. Human wisdom is contrasted with divine power; Jews are
contrasted with the Hellenes, the saved with the perishing, divine wisdom with human folly.
“This age” (v. 20) assumes “the age to come.” There are expectation of displays of God’s
90
Garland, 65.
91
Thiselton, 163.
92
93
94
Collins, First Corinthians, 104, referring to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Joseph and
Aseneth.
95
Collins, First Corinthians,104. The Synoptic eschatological pronouncements are characterized by
reversals such as the exalted will be brought low, the humble will be exalted (Luke 1:52) [Thiselton, 159]. CHECK
23
power.96
In developing his argument Paul uses the rhetorical strategy of “redefinition”97 or “code-
switching.”98 Paul redefines the meaning of “wisdom” and “power.” Genuine wisdom is not
wisdom according to the world’s standards but according to God’s. Christ is the wisdom of God.
The “power of God” is seen in apparent weakness and defeat—Jesus’ death on the cross. The
cross is the new frame of reference for Christians.99 “The wisdom of the world is made foolish
by God. The aorist tense of the verb puts this in a specific time frame . . . The time when God
made foolish this age’s wisdom was the time of the crucifixion.”100
The division of humanity into two camps is a feature of apocalyptic mindset. Paul
divides humanity into two camps—the Jews and the Gentiles (Ellhnej “Greeks”), following
common Jewish categories of the people (Hb. ~['h' ha’am; Gk. o` lao,j and the nations (Hb. ~yIAg
goyyim; Gk. ta. e;qnh). Yet both the Jews and Hellenes share the same unresponsiveness to the
Gospel.101
1:21 evpeidh. ga.r evn th/| sofi,a| tou/ qeou/ ouvk e;gnw o` ko,smoj dia. th/j sofi,aj to.n qeo,n(
euvdo,khsen o` qeo.j dia. th/j mwri,aj tou/ khru,gmatoj sw/sai tou.j pisteu,ontaj\
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God
decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.
The causal epeide “since” links this verse to the preceding. God revealed the wisdom of
this age as what it actually is by choosing to save the world through the folly of the kerygma
(Rom 10:14-15). For all its accomplishments, human wisdom does not lead to salvific belief and
96
Eschatological reversal is also seen in Isa 29:14, which Paul quotes earlier in 1:19. The Isaiah text is a
message on the destruction of human wisdom and cleverness which Paul has rendered more powerful than the
original text in Isaiah (Collins, First Corinthians, 93).
97
98
Thiselton uses the term “code-switching.”
99
Thiselton, 166.
100
101
24
the experience of God.102
The three main verbs here are in the aorist tense: e;gnw “did not know,” euvdo,khsen
“decided,” and even the infinitive sw/sai “to save” to bring out the effective force of the aorist as
a single action in the past. The kerygma tou/ khru,gmatoj here is not the act of preaching but the
content of that proclamation.103
1:22 evpeidh. kai. VIoudai/oi shmei/a aivtou/sin kai. {Ellhnej sofi,an zhtou/sin(
For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom,
Jews already had access to wisdom in their scriptures, but demanded for miraculous signs
[shmei/a] to test any claim regarding God’s plan of salvation (Matt 16:1). The signs that the Jews
sought is equated with power or miracles. During Jesus’ ministry, the Jews are portrayed as
repeatedly seeking signs of legitimation that Jesus came from God (Mat 12:38-39; 16:1, 4; Mar
8:11-12; Luk 11:16, 29-30; Joh 2:18; 6:30; 12:18). “The Jews demand that religious claims be
legitimized by powerful proofs “from above.”104 But no proof is given them except the sign from
above—the cross of Christ (v 23a). To worldly perception, the cross is a display of weakness,
not power, and thereby scandal. The Jews in fact get their sign although it is not one they
accept.105
On the other hand, the {Ellhnej “Hellenes” seek the validity of any proposition or
teaching through the test of acceptability from any of their various schools of philosophy, which
they deemed as the valid test for any human thought.106 Paul’s choice of {Ellhnej rather than
Gentiles e;qnh may be due to his polemic against dependence on Hellenistic wisdom. In the
102
103
Thiselton, 167.
104
Lampe, 120.
105
Lampe, 121.
106
Wisdom for the Hellenists is what will bring success in politics, the courtroom, philosophy, or in
everyday affairs of trade, love, or the household: what will bring “mastery” of life and especially the approval or
admiration of patrons, masters, and their own peer group” (Thiselton, 170).
25
Hellenistic era, the term {Ellhnej was used with a sense of social superiority, referring to people
who spoke the Greek language, had an education, and embraced the Greek culture. Paul’s use
therefore is “appropriate in a letter written to a community within which the problematic element
is a group of people who are puffed up with pride as a result of the knowledge they possess
(4:18, 19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4).”107
1:23-24 h`mei/j de. khru,ssomen Cristo.n evstaurwme,non( VIoudai,oij me.n ska,ndalon( e;qnesin
de. mwri,an( auvtoi/j de. toi/j klhtoi/j( VIoudai,oij te kai. {Ellhsin( Cristo.n qeou/
du,namin kai. qeou/ sofi,an\
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to

Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power
of God and the wisdom of God.
In this verse, Paul demonstrates that God is not indifferent to the quest of the Jews and
Greeks and makes his boldest declaration: the cross of Christ, contrary to all expectations, fulfils
both the Jews’ need for signs (miraculous signs) and the Greeks’ quest for wisdom. As 1 Cor
1:24 states, Cristo.n qeou/ du,namin kai. qeou/ sofi,an\ Christ is the one whom Jews and Greeks
seek! God condescends to answer the Jews’ and Greeks’ demand—only they need to give up
their definitions and accept God’s.
The power of God referred to by qeou/ du,namin is not what we commonly understand now
in the post-industrial age as the “force” of electrical voltage or dynamite explosives. Du,namij
pertains to “having special competence in performing some function; having the ability to carry
out something.”108 In the New Testament it is used for the miraculous, i.e. “deeds manifesting
great power” (Matt 7:22; 11:20-23; Mar 5:30; Luk 1:17; etc.) and the coming of the Holy Spirit
(Acts 1:8). “[T]he resurrection of Christ constitutes the sign that the cosmic turning point has
arrived and casts essential light on the Christological and cosmic significance of Jesus of
107
108
Thiselton, 155-56.
26
Nazareth.”109
The Corinthian believers were seeking a shortcut to “power” without the cross, seeking to
become wise, rich, noble, exalted, etc. without the self-sacrifice and humiliation of the “apostolic
cruciform lifestyle” (4:9-13).110 According to Paul, this was not God’s way. This was not Jesus’
way—as evidenced by the cross.
Because they were not open to the possibility God could work in ways they could not
fathom, the death of Christ has become a ska,ndalon to the Jews and mwri,a “folly” to the e;qnesin
“Gentiles.” Paul contrasts his activity and that of Christian evangelists with the ‘misplaced’
expectations of the Jews and Gentiles (this time using e;qnesin, not {Ellhnej). For the Jews, how
could crucifixion, considered a curse in Deut 21:22-23, be a sign of God’s saving action? For
the Gentiles, how could crucifixion not be folly? And yet the cross is the very reversal of a
“mastery” of life that brings success, honor, and esteem.
Ska,ndalon (v. 23) is translated variously as “scandal,” “an affront,” “an obstacle they
cannot get over” (NJB), “what is offensive and may provoke someone to a negative or even
rebellious reaction.”111 Ska,ndalon as used in the LXX translates the Hebrew words vqeAm
moqesh and lvok.mi mikshol which mean “trap,” “snare.” Paul draws from two OT passages, both
of which talk about something which should have been good that has become a trap and snare.
In Psa 69:22 [23 MT],112 the psalmist prays that the table of his enemies may become vqeAm “a
trap” (eivj ska,ndalon in the LXX) for them. In Isa 8:14, the prophet laments that if Israel had
trusted God, he would have been a sanctuary for the nation, but since they had not, God has
109
Thiselton, 170.
110
Thiselton, 157.
111
Thiselton, 170-171.
112
MT refers to the Masoretic Text or Hebrew Bible.
27
become a rWc lAvk.mi “a stone of stumbling” (LXX li,qou prosko,mmati113) and a vqeAm “trap”
(LXX pagi,di) for them. Hence a stumbling-block is “something that is closest to Israel,
something good that it ought to relish, [which has become] the source of its stumbling and its
fall.”114
In 1:23 as in 1:18, it is Christ crucified, not the risen Christ as in 15:11-12, that Paul
makes central, because it is his death on the cross that precisely makes the Gospel so offensive to
the world. Because of their cultural valuations of wisdom and knowledge, both Jews and
Gentiles closed themselves to the gospel of the crucified Christ, although they differed in what
offense they found in the crucifixion.115 Everyone who looks at Christ from worldly standards
share that lot.
In all the New Testament, it is only here (v. 24) and v. 30 that Christ is explicitly
identified as the “wisdom of God.”116 By this Christ effectively takes over the salvific role of
wisdom in the Hebrew Scriptures.117 As to Christ being the “power of God,” the act by which
God the Father raised him from the dead was the act that endowed him with power (Rom 1:4;
Phil 3:10).118 Continuing with this theme, Paul would later declare to the Romans that the
Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, both Jew and Greek
(1:16).
1:25 o[ti to. mwro.n tou/ qeou/ sofw,teron tw/n avnqrw,pwn evsti,n kai. to. avsqene.j tou/ qeou/
ivscuro,teron tw/n avnqrw,pwnÅ
For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is
stronger than human strength.
113
Li,qou prosko,mmati is the same term Paul uses in Rom 14:20.
114
Collins, First Corinthians,107.
115
116
117
Refer to discussion of Hebrew wisdom in the next section.
118
28
This verse serves as a summary of the current passage as well as a transition to the next.
One would expect that after v. 24, Paul would continue to speak of God’s power and wisdom.
Instead he writes about God’s foolishness and weakness. Using the rhetorical device of
redefinition or code-switching,119 Paul crafts his argument by starting from the Corinthians’
definitions. Yes, the cross may have demonstrated divine foolishness and weakness according to
the world’s standards. Yet it is precisely this “foolishness” and “weakness” which has saved us.
The cross is the power of God to save us. And it is part of God’s wise plan, a mystery from ages
past.
The cross of Christ is the mode of action that conveys God’s power and God’s wisdom.
“It operates not on human calculations or mastery of life or turn of phrase but on the power of
sacrificial and self-giving love not status-seeking.” It is “power-in-weakness.”120
Two opposing understandings of power and wisdom are provided by the world and by
God. According to Mitchell, “The Gospel story, as the exemplification of God’s paradoxical
logic, necessarily entails a re-evaluation of sofi,a, du,namij, and euvgenia (‘wisdom, power, and
noble birth’) which dismantles the ‘human’ constructs which are still so operative in the
Corinthians’ lives and dealings with one another. In place of all this, the gospel offers Christ
crucified, a new kind of sofi,a. 121
Further proof of the authenticity of the Christian claim—it is contrary to human wisdom.
Human folly and weakness is demonstrated by the turmoil and divisions that the Corinthians’
claims to wisdom and power have produced. On the other hand, divine folly and weakness have
resulted in what is “effective, operative, powerful, and transformative.”122
119
Refer to discussion on page 19.
120
Thiselton, 172.
121
Mitchell, 71.
122
Thiselton, 154.
29
RE-THINKING WISDOM: PAUL’S USE OF WISDOM IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1-3
1 Corinthians has the highest concentration of sofi,a/sofo,j in the Pauline corpus. The
noun sofi,a “wisdom” occurs 51x in the NT, most frequently in Paul (19x).123 Of the 19, sixteen
are found in 1 Cor 1-3; seven are found in our passage alone.124 In the rest of 1 Cor, the word
appears elsewhere only once (12:8) in reference to spiritual gifts. Its adjectival form sofo,j
“wise” occurs 20 times in the entire New Testament; half of which can be found in 1 Cor 1-3 and
only 4x elsewhere in Paul.125 The importance of this theme is such that only in 1 Corinthians is
Christ explicitly called sofi,a (1:24, 30) in all the New Testament.126
Wilckens notes that the wisdom-folly contrast was a key value in the Graeco-Roman
world and almost certainly represented theological slogans or catchwords at Corinth. Similarly,
Lampe believes that Paul’s heavy use of sofi,a points it being a key term used by the Corinthian
factions. The Corinthians believed themselves to be wise (3:18-20; 4:10; cf 1:5). By praising
their leaders—whether Apollos, or Peter, or Paul—they were in effect praising their own
wisdom, “their theological perception that they had taken over from their own apostle.”127
The word mwri,a “folly” is found in the NT only in 1 Corinthians while mwro,j
“fool”/”foolish” occurs only twice outside of this epistle as well. 128
As Paul uses it in 1 Cor 1-4, the word sofi,a is usually modified by a genitive. In nine
instances, it refers to human/worldly wisdom which Paul and God reject; six times to divine
123
H. Hegermann, “sofi,a|,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, ed. Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 258; Garland, 66, FN#8.
124
1 Cor 1:17, 19, 20, 21 [2x], 22, 24, 30; 2:1, 4, 5, 6 [2x], 7, 13; 3:19
125
H. Hegermann, “sofo,j,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, ed. Horst Balz
and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 261; Garland, 66, FN#8. The references are 1
Cor 1:19, 20, 25, 26, 27; 3:18 [2x], 19, 20; 4:10; 6:5
126
Schnabel, "Wisdom," 969.
127
Peter Lampe, “Theological Wisdom and the ‘Word About the Cross’: The Rhetorical Scheme in I
Corinthians 1-4,” Interpretation 44/2 (1990): 118.
128
mwri,a (1 Cor 1:18, 21, 23; 2:14 and 3:19); mwro,j (1 Cor 1:25, 27; 3:18; and 4:10; 2 Tim 2:13 and Tit
3:9). Thiselton, 154.
30
wisdom to which the former is contrasted; and once it references a more neutral stance on
wisdom.
References to human wisdom (9)

1:17 sofi,a| lo,gou lit. “words of wisdom”; “eloquent wisdom” (NRS)
1:19 th.n sofi,an tw/n sofw/n “the wisdom of the wise”
This verse is actually a quotation from Isaiah 29:14. Here
sofi,a is used in parallel with su,nesij (th.n su,nesin tw/n
sunetw/n). Su,nesij is the word used in the LXX to translate
hn"ybi bînāh “discernment/understanding.”
1:20 th.n sofi,an tou/ ko,smou “the wisdom of the world” which equals foolishness
2:1 lo,gou h' sofi,aj “lofty words or wisdom”
2:4 peiqoi/ÎjÐ sofi,aj Îlo,goijÐ skillful, persuasive wisdom; “plausible words of
wisdom” (NRS)
2:5 evn sofi,a| avnqrw,pwn “in the wisdom of men”
2:6b sofi,an de. ouv tou/ aivw/noj “the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age”
tou,tou ouvde. tw/n avrco,ntwn which is contrasted with the wisdom for the mature
tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou
2:13 avnqrwpi,nhj sofi,aj lo,goij “words not taught by human wisdom”
3:19 sofi,a tou/ ko,smou “wisdom of this world”
References to divine wisdom (6)

1:21 (2x) evn th/| sofi,a| tou/ qeou/ “in the wisdom of God”
dia. th/j sofi,aj to.n qeo,n “through the wisdom of God”
1:24 Cristo.n qeou/ du,namin kai. qeou/ sofi,an Christ is “the power and wisdom of God”
1:30 Cristw/| VIhsou/ . . . sofi,a h`mi/n avpo. qeou/ Christ is “wisdom from God”
2:6a Sofi,an . . . evn toi/j telei,oij “wisdom among/for the mature”
2:7 qeou/ sofi,an evn musthri,w|( th.n avpokekrumme,nhn God’s wisdom which is secret and hidden
Neutral stance on wisdom (1)

1:22 {Ellhnej sofi,an zhtou/sin Greeks desire wisdom
The wisdom Paul rejects is connected with the use of eloquent speech (1:17; 2:1, 4) to
prove something that is merely self-seeking and of human origin, value or impulse (“wisdom of
the/this world” 1:20; 3:19; “wisdom of men” 2:5, 13; “wisdom of this age or the rulers of this
age” 2:6b). It is “wisdom” for those who this world considers wise (1:19).
In contrast, God’s wisdom is not self-seeking or for empty show but saves the world and
enables humanity to know God (1:21). This knowledge and salvation comes in the person of
Christ, who twice is explicitly predicated to be the wisdom of and from God (1:24, 30).
Salvation through the cross of Christ is the hidden and secret plan of God now revealed and
31
destined from ages ago (2:7) and which now confounds the world which seeks spectacular
displays of power and wisdom.
1 Cor 1:22 is considered a neutral reference to wisdom because the wisdom that the
Greeks seek is fulfilled by God albeit unexpectedly through Christ on the cross. On the other
hand, the signs that the Jews sought is equated with power or miracles. In fact, the cross fulfils
both the Jews’ need for signs (miraculous signs) and the Greeks’ quest for wisdom. As 1 Cor
1:24 states, Cristo.n qeou/ du,namin kai. qeou/ sofi,an\ Christ is the one whom Jews and Greeks
seek!
The Wisdom that Paul Rejects
What is the “wisdom of the world” that Paul opposes? Many commentators have sought
in vain to identify one school of thought or philosophy. Collins lists the proposals: 129
• the Jewish wisdom tradition (Conzelmann, Dupont, Feuillet, Windisch)
• Hellenistic Judaism (Horsley, Pearson, Davis)
• some form of wisdom or philosophy combined with apocalyptic elements (Scroggs, Brown)
• primitive Gnosticism (Lütgert, Bultmann, Schmithals, Wilckens, Winter)
• wisdom taught in the rhetorical schools which was appealing to the Hellenists of Paul’s day
Garland has a similar list:130
• gnosticism and a redeemer myth (Bultmann, Wilckens)
• philosophy and sophistry (Munck)
• the wisdom tradition in Hellenistic Judaism of Philo introduced by Apollos (Pearson,
Horsley, Davis)
• Jewish wisdom merged with apocalypticism (Ellis, Scroggs)
129
Collins, First Corinthians, 96-97.
130
Garland, 66.
32
The variety and wide range of proposals seem to indicate that the textual data is
insufficient to warrant identifying a specific school of thought or type of wisdom. Paul’s
critique of wisdom is general and not provoked by special doctrinal aberrations. Collins
therefore advises against the futile/fruitless search to identify one stream or philosophical system
as “the wisdom of the world.” “At best one can speak of a popular philosophical trend, common
in the Mediterranean Hellenistic world, in which knowledge was highly valued and matter was
demeaned in such a way that all aspects of the human situation (anthropology, ethics,
cosmology) were viewed dualistically.”131
In Paul’s usage here, “wisdom” does not refer to a definable set of beliefs or to human
reason in itself but to an “attitude” characterized by “a competitive and self-serving outlook. It
glamorizes self-exaltation and elitism, not self-emptying; comfort and ease, not suffering;
personal honor and esteem, not humiliation. It seeks its own advantage no matter how much it
hurts others, and lies behind the breakdown of community.”132
In actuality, Paul counters all forms of human wisdom—whether Greek or Jew—that are
not centered on the cross. It is a pastoral statement on the wisdom that was drawing away the
Corinthians and getting them caught up in status, eloquence, power, etc. Paul in his arguments
with the Corinthians is not rejecting all forms of wisdom or rhetoric, but only those not in line
with the cross of Christ. The Corinthians tied wisdom to social status. He belittles the cultural
values and high social status attached to so-called “wise” speech.133
For even as he minimizes human wisdom and power—Paul declaring his not using
131
132
Garland, 67. “Wisdom” does not refer to a definable set of beliefs or to human reason in itself but to an
“attitude” characterized by hubris (Conzelmann). The wisdom of the world is not a system of thought so much as “a
style of life” (Baird), “a spirit of the age or an outlook of the time, a habit or fashion of thought which a person
might assimilate subconsciously merely by living within a certain society or culture” (Savage) [Garland, 66-67].
“Wisdom here has more to do with social status and influence than it does with a particular theological position”
(Pickett) [Garland, 69].
133
Garland, 60.
33
cleverness of speech in 1 Cor 2:1-5—he demonstrates his masterful use of rhetoric and
argumentation.
[His] exposition of the message of the cross is fraught with powerful literary and
rhetoric devices. The passage is characterized . . . by consistent parallelism [as well as]
the techniques of the rhetorical question, comparison and contrast, repetition,
paronomasia, gradation, and irony. Its method of argumentation is that of the
enthymeme. Paul’s direct mode of address echoes the Stoic diatribe. In sum, the
message of the cross is phrased in powerful rhetoric. 134
The apostle also said in 2:6-7 that he does approve of a certain wisdom but it is “a
wisdom for the mature . . . [which is] God’s wisdom.” Therefore “[i]t is not wisdom or reason
as such which Paul attacks, but that which is status-seeking, manipulatory, or otherwise flawed
in some way which diverts it from serving the purposes of God.”135 Paul does not reject the
human faculty of reason or thinks that faith and reason are irreconciliable. Paul scoffs at wisdom
because it is ‘worldly,’ not because it is wisdom.136
PAUL’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES
In conclusion, we seek to identify the strategies that Paul used in this passage to resolve
the problem of disunity within the Corinthian community. He did this primarily by integrating
wisdom into the Gospel message. As Matera insightfully points out, the focus of Paul’s theology
is the crucifixion and the redemption it brings. His own conversion experience leads Paul to
“[focus] on the redemptive moment of Christ’s death and resurrection to explain how God
justified and reconciled humanity to himself in and through Christ.”137 Paul’s theological
reflection led him to articulate that Christ’s death on the cross was the supreme demonstration of
134
135
Thiselton, 165.
136
Garland, 66.
137
Frank J. Matera [“Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New
Testament Theology,” Theological Studies 67 (2006)] discusses how Paul’s Christology of redemption complements
John’s Christology of incarnation. Their theology emerged from their different starting points and foundational
experience with the Lord Jesus.
34
divine wisdom, leading to a reversal of the values of mastery, success and honor valued by both
Jewish and Greek sages. Yet Paul showed that the way of the cross—the way of humility, self-
giving, and dependence on God’s resources—was precisely the life skill that followers of Jesus
are to live by.
Paul’s style of rhetoric was minus the fancy or merely persuasive, not speaker’s
cleverness or oratorical tricks that would get the audience to yield. Unlike the orators of his day,
he was straightforward and open, using his own life as an illustration, and aimed at getting
listeners to comprehend the content rather than win admiration after the speaker had proven their
case.
Theological Approach
Paul’s point of entry is his theological response to what is essentially a pastoral concern.
He showed that everything has a theological focus. He spoke about the proper valuation of
wisdom in the light of one’s commitment to Christ. Significantly also, he addressed the concerns
of both Jews and Gentiles. In this way, he pointed to the fact that there is a wider perspective at
stake here than just the issue of whose faction will emerge as the most preeminent.
Digression
Paul’s treatise on divine and human wisdom in our passage (1:18-25) initially seems
unrelated to the Corinthians’ factionalism, but Paul is using the rhetorical device which Collins
calls “digression” (and Lampe calls schēma).138 As defined by Lampe, a schēma is “covert
speech that forces the audience to puzzle over the true meaning or application of a statement [by
replacing] a thought that might cause an affront with a general thought not necessarily
related.”139 According to rhetorical theory, digression is used “to amplify an argument’s
138
139
Lampe, 130.
35
principal point, to abridge an argument, to make an emotional appeal, or to introduce topics
which can embellish the composition.”140
The main issue as the letter begins is the conflict among the Corinthian factions. But
instead of addressing this directly first, Paul gets his readers to agree with him on a common
point—the idea that it is not human wisdom that saves but divine “foolishness” through death on
the cross; therefore God alone is the object of praise since human wisdom pales in comparison to
divine wisdom on the cross. Only after this does Paul return to the issue of conflict in 1 Cor 3:1-
23 with his mention of Apollos and Cephas.141
Structurally, Paul’s digression fits into Hebrew chiastic structure. Chiasm, whether the
chiastic tricolon (A-B-A’) or the chiastic tetracolon (A-B-B’-A’), is a well-known Semitic way
of organizing thoughts and an important feature of Pauline style. Paul starts with a general
statement (A)—in this case, the conflict between various factions (1:10-17)—followed by a
digression that supports his argument (B)—the comparison between divine and human wisdom
(1:18-2:16)—and finally a further reflection that specifies the general reflection and responds to
the particular issue at hand (A’)—Paul’s pronouncement on the division (3:1-23).142
Instead of Paul directly confronting them about the issue of factions which he starts
talking about in 1:10-17, Paul digresses to a denunciation of worldly wisdom of the Jews and
Greeks to which the Corinthians would agree (1:18- 25) then gave two proofs of his argument
(1:26-31; 2:1-5) before finally giving his pronouncement on the issue in 3:3-23. Paul draws his
audience to agree with him before turning the tables on them by pointing to a similar fault in
them.
140
141
Collins , First Corinthians, 15.
142
Collins has a slightly different arrangement of verses. “In dealing with the issue of unity . . . Paul treats
the issue in general fashion in 1:10-2:5 (A), digresses in 2:6-16 (B), and returns to his initial topic in 3:1-23 (A’)”
[Collins , First Corinthians, 15].
36
Paul showed tremendous wisdom by exercising sensitivity and restraint, not castigating
the parties, nor siding with any faction nor rejecting their desire for wisdom. Instead Paul re-
directs their perspective by pointing to God’s valuations.
Scripture as Paul’s Basis of Authority
Whereas Hellenistic rhetoricians used the sayings of philosophers and statesmen as their
authority, Paul routinely turned to the Hebrew Scriptures as his appeal to authority. Isaiah was
his most frequent source. Paul generally quotes the LXX either citing from memory or using a
minority textual tradition and unlike other NT writers like that of the gospel of Matthew, for
example, generally sensitive to the original context.143 The OT is cited twenty times in 1
Corinthians, twice in 1:18-2:5 (Isa 29:14 in 1:19 and Jer 9:22 in1:31).144 In 1:18-3:23 alone, six
citations (1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20) all make the point that humans “cannot grasp God’s
wisdom through their own wisdom.”145
In Paul’s appealing to the Hebrew Scriptures, he sees the Scriptures as “actualized” in the
context of his own situation and Corinth. More than that, it is an affirmation that “the gospel
constitutes no sudden turn-around from the purposes of the one God of Jews and Christians.”146
Redefinition or Code-Switching
In developing his argument Paul uses the rhetorical strategy of “redefinition”147 or “code-
switching.”148 Paul redefines the meaning of “wisdom” and “power” in 1:18-25. Genuine
wisdom is not wisdom according to the world’s standards but according to God’s. Christ is the
wisdom of God. The “power of God” is seen in apparent weakness and defeat—Jesus’ death on
143
Collins, 94; Thiselton, 161.
144
Collins, 94. See his discussion on pp. 94-96 for how Paul appeals to the Scriptures.
145
Garland, 59, citing Gärtner.
146
Thiselton, 160.
147
Collins, 99.
148
Thiselton uses the term “code-switching.”
37
the cross. The cross is the new frame of reference for Christians.149 “The wisdom of the world
is made foolish by God. The aorist tense of the verb puts this in a specific time frame . . . The
time when God made foolish this age’s wisdom was the time of the crucifixion.”150
He also employs redefinition or code-switching in his discussion of genuine power and
weakness and in the valuation of the cross. One would expect that after v. 24, Paul would
continue to speak of God’s power and wisdom. Instead he writes about God’s foolishness and
weakness. Using the rhetorical device of redefinition or code-switching,151 Paul crafts his
argument by starting from the Corinthians’ definitions. Yes, the cross may have demonstrated
divine foolishness and weakness according to the world’s standards. Yet it is precisely this
“foolishness” and “weakness” which has saved us. The cross is the power of God to save us.
And it is part of God’s wise plan, a mystery from ages past.
Shifting the Ground of Boasting
Interestingly enough, Paul does not dissuade the Corinthians from boasting, as they had
been doing with their slogans—"I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to
Cephas," or "I belong to Christ" (1:12). If anything, he enjoined them to boast about the right
things. As Paul declares in 1 Cor 1:30-31, “He [God] is the source of your life in Christ Jesus,
who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in
order that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
The statements that Christ is the wisdom of God and the wisdom from God in 1 Cor 1:24
and 30 constitute the most explicit link in Paul, even the entire New Testament, between Christ
and wisdom. His Jewish audience would understand this to mean that Jesus Christ is credited
with the functions of salvation which the Jewish wisdom tradition ascribed to wisdom.
149
Thiselton, 166.
150
Collins, 104.
151
Refer to discussion on page 19.
38
In Proverbs 8, wisdom is the pre-existent mediator between God and humanity who was
active in creation. Through the cross, Jesus became the true mediator between God and
humankind (1 Tim 2:5). Both Baruch and Ben Sira identified the Torah as wisdom (Bar 4:1; Sir
24:23). For Paul, Jesus is the new Torah, not that he replaces the Torah, but that he gives it its
definitive interpretation. Jesus is the new and definite locus of wisdom, the new standard to
measure our relationship with God by. “In Christ a new wisdom has come into being, providing
life, holiness, and redemption.”152
1 Corinthians 10 is further proof of how Paul links Christ with wisdom. The Jewish
sages linked wisdom to specific acts of God’s salvific work in the history of Israel (e.g. Wis 10-
11 and Philo). Philo linked the rock that provided water to the people of Israel in the wilderness
with wisdom; in turn, Paul identifies the rock with Christ (10:4). It was Christ as the mediator of
God’s saving revelation accompanied Israel in the desert. 153
The crucified Christ is the wisdom of God because he is “the embodiment of God’s plan
of salvation and the measure and fullest expression of God’s continuing wisdom and power.”154
On the other hand, for the Hellenists, Paul’s identification of Christ with wisdom will
lead to a similar change in values for them. The Greeks with their tradition seek wisdom within
their tradition of philosophizing, speculation and pursuit of moral virtue. What God offers them
is the wisdom called Christ and him crucified. Again it is not wisdom such as they expect; it
breaks their categories, but it is divine wisdom that brings people to the knowledge of God,
unlike worldly wisdom that was concerned with self-display and exaltation.
152
Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 243-44, citing Davies. Schnabel disagrees with Davies who argues that
Jesus has replaced the Torah in Paul’s estimation. For Schnabel, this claim has no exegetical foundation for the
following reason: first, Paul does not polemicize against the Torah in 1 Cor 1 and (2) the Torah-centricity of wisdom
at Corinth cannot be established from the text.
153
Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 247.
154
Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 244 quoting J. G. Dunn.
39
The power that Paul talks about is likewise the opposite of the Hellenistic concept of
power. The power of rhetoric and eloquence wins its possessor fame and glory; it is the socio-
economic and political power of those who enjoyed wealth, status and honor. Divine power, on
the other hand, refers to “the effectiveness of the cross to make God known to humankind, to
accomplish salvation, to defeat evil, and to transform lives and values.”155
Garland calls the Christian valuation of the cross as a paradox: “The most powerful God
appears to be the most powerless.” God identifies with the shamed.156
A CHANGE OF STATUS, A CHANGE OF SYMBOLS
The surrounding culture had crept into the Corinthian church, competing with Paul’s
attempt to build a community based on love, selflessness, and the equal worth of each member.
Paul calls the Corinthians to a change of status, a change of values by a change of symbols.
From the bluster and rhetoric of sophistic teachers to the halting unimpressive speech of spirit-
led teachers, from honor and lofty status to shame and humiliation, from power and wealth to
weakness and self-giving. All summed up in one symbol—the cross!
The prevailing religious symbols of the major religions at that time were symbols of
fertility, life, or power such as a stalk of grain, a basket of fruit, fierce animals, or phallic
symbols. But Paul made it the cross.157 The cross was one of the cruelest forms of capital
punishment ever invented by man. The Romans reserved it for the worst of the worse—
hardened criminals, incorrigible slaves, and rebels against the Roman state. Cicero expressed the
revulsion in which it was held when he wrote: “The very word ‘cross’ should be far removed not
only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears.”158
155
Garland, 62.
156
Garland, 63.
157
Garland, 61, FN#2, citing Furnish
158
Garland, 61.
40
From the world’s perspective, the cross showed the emptiness of Jesus’ claims and the
defeat of Christianity. “[T]he unspeakable stigma of the cross exposed the preacher of this
message to woeful contempt.”159 Amazingly, Paul did not refer to Jesus’ death with
embarrassment or skip over the awkward facts. Quite the opposite, Paul made the cross central
to his preaching, making “Christ’s suffering and death to be God’s modus operandi in the world
. . . the message of the cross . . . [the] antidote to human self-glorification.”160 Thus the new
telos of the pursuit of wisdom should lead all to the cross of Christ.
This is a timely message not just for the Corinthians but for believers and leaders of the
church and world today.
159
Garland, 61.
160
Garland, 61.
41
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 Corinthians
Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina Vol. 7. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1999.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Grindheim, Sigurd. “Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1
Corinthians 2:6-16).” Journal of Biblical Literature 121/4 (2002): 689-709.
Hansen, Walter G. “Rhetorical Criticism.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Pages 822-826. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.
Hegermann, H. “sofi,a|.” In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3. Edited by

Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Pages 258-261. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
________. “sofo,j.” In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3. Edited by

Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Pages 261-262. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
Horrell, David G. and Edward Adams. “Introduction: The Scholarly Quest for Paul’s Church at
Corinth: A Critical Survey.” In Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline
Church. Edited by Edward Adams and David G. Horrell. Pages 1-43. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 2004.
Lampe, Peter. “Theological Wisdom and the ‘Word About the Cross’: The Rhetorical Scheme in
I Corinthians 1-4.” Interpretation 44/2 (1990): 117-131.
Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta, GA;
John Knox, 1981.
Matera, Frank J. “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of
New Testament Theology.” Theological Studies 67 (2006): 237-256.
Mitchell, Margaret M. “Rhetorical Shorthand in Pauline Argumentation: The Functions of ‘The

Gospel’ in the Corinthian Correspondence.” In Gospel in Paul: Studies in Corinthians,
Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker. Edited by L. Ann Jervis and Peter
Richardson. Pages 63-88. JSNTSS 108. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
42
Paige, Terence P. “Philosophy.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F.
Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Pages 713-718. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1993.
Pickett, Ray. “Conflicts at Corinth.” In Christian Origins: A People’s History of Christianity,

Vol. 1. Edited by Richard A. Horsley. Pages 113-137. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
2005.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
New International Greek Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Winter, Bruce W. “Rhetoric.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F.
InterVarsity, 1993.
Old Testament Wisdom
Clements, Ronald E. “Wisdom and Old Testament Theology.” In Wisdom in Ancient Israel:
Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M.
Williamson. Pages 269-286. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
1997.
DeSilva, David Arthur. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 152. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars Press, 1995.
Di Lella, Alexander A. “Conservative and Progressive Theology: Sirach and Wisdom,”

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 139-154.
Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible—A Socio-Literary Introduction. Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1985.
Johnson, Elizabeth A. “Jesus, the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for Non-Androcentric
Christology.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 61 (1985): 261-94.
Sanders, Jack T. Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry
into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985.
________. "Wisdom." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F.

InterVarsity, 1993.
43
Wilson, Gerald H. “Wisdom.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

and Exegesis, Vol. 4. Edited by Willem A. Vangemeren, 1276-1285. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1997.

Rethinking Wisdom in 1 Cor 1 by A - Teh

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rethinking Wisdom in 1 Cor 1 by A - Teh

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Re-thinking Wisdom:

Paul’s Use of Wisdom in

Date: September 7, 2011

knowledge was a highly prized endeavor.

“enjoyed a new popularity and usefulness.” 1

architecture, science, humanism, and lifestyle throughout the vast empire.

who could afford an education.”3

hometown of Tarsus, in fact, had a flourishing school of philosophy.5

place of wisdom vis-a-vis the Gospel of Christ?

new symbols and redefining old symbols for his community?

Wisdom and Knowledge in Paul’s World

Before we focus on 1 Corinthians, a brief discussion of wisdom in Paul’s world is in

Wisdom in the Hebrew Scriptures

industry, and reasoned speech.11

God’s immanent and salvific activity and takes on cosmic dimensions.12

integrate Yahwistic faith with Greek science and intellectual thought.

Wisdom and Knowledge in the Hellenistic World

Corinthians’ love of public orations. Because Christianity placed an emphasis on public

difference from the sophists.

CORINTH: THE CITY AND ITS PEOPLE

Social and Religious Background

In terms of layout, architecture, political organization, ethos, and religious practice,

Corinth was a Roman colony in a Greek province—“geographically in Greece but culturally in

language of the people.23

Roman colonies were established to solve overcrowding in Rome and to promulgate

mobility, primarily by attaining wealth and buying friendships and clients.”25

Honor and Status-Seeking

access to their group, such as wealth, marriage, and social ties. 30

that worsened the gap between rich and poor. 32

society. In a situation of rapid rise in socioeconomic status, other components of status—such as

circles. This trickled down into even their religious life.33

games in Athens, were held in honor of Poseidon.35

would prove to be an explosive one.

THE CHURCH AT CORINTH AND THE NATURE OF ITS CONFLICT

The latest possible date would be 57 CE.39

his letter with an impassioned response.

kingly” (1 Cor 1:26; 4:8-10)—that Paul rejects.43

The Baur Thesis

proto-Gnostics—“Gnostics before Gnosticism” (Bultmann, Schmithals, Wilckens, Winter).45

misguided by Jewish wisdom tradition (Conzelmann, Windisch, Dupont, Feuillet), Hellenistic-

combined with apocalyptic elements (Scroggs, Brown).46

theological or doctrinal issues. Differences in ethnicity, culture, and religious backgrounds as

Call to Unity, Call to Re-thinking Wisdom

EXEGESIS OF 1 COR 1:18-25

language, the primary background seems to be rhetoric.58 1 Corinthians 1-459 is an example of

Paul was seeking to do in his letter.

(3) The proposition summarizes the central theses to be proved;

(4) The confirmation sets forth the logical arguments;

(5) The refutation refutes the opponents’ arguments; and

Applying these to 1 Cor 1-4, we can identify the following:

(1) Introduction (1:1-10)

in 1:10 to be united in Christ.

(2) Narration (1:11-17)

(3) Proposition (1:18-25)

(4) Confirmation (1:26-31; 2:1-5)

in reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit to win their hearts.

(5) Refutation (2:6-16; 3:1-17)

is they possess the mind of Christ (2:16b).63

community (vv 16-17).64

(6) Conclusion (3:18-4:5; 4:6-21)65

Jer 9:23 [22 LXX].67

uses of the mwr-root for “foolish.”

many were of noble birth” (1:26)—precisely is a demonstration of the power of God.