The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament

Craig S. Keener

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780830877829
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Comentario bíblico

Christianity Today's Books of the YearPreaching's Preacher's Guide to the Best Bible ReferenceThis revised edition of the standard reference work in its field has been expanded throughout to now provide even more up-to-date information by Craig Keener, one of the leading New Testament scholars on Jewish, Greek and Roman culture.To understand and apply the Bible well, you need two crucial sources of information. One is the Bible itself. The other is an understanding of the cultural background of the passage you're reading.Only with the background can you grasp the author's original concerns and purposes. This unique commentary provides, in verse-by-verse format, the crucial cultural background you need for responsible—and richer—Bible study. It includes a glossary of cultural terms and important historical figures, maps and charts, up-to-date bibliographies, and introductory essays about cultural background information for each book of the New Testament.Based on decades of in-depth study, this accessible and bestselling commentary is valuable for pastors in sermon preparation, for Sunday-school and other church teachers as they build lessons, for missionaries concerned not to import their own cultural biases into the Bible, for college and seminary students in classroom assignments, and for everyday Bible readers seeking to deepen and enhance their study of Scripture.

1 Corinthians

INTRODUCTION

Authorship. All scholars accept 1 Corinthians as Pauline.

Corinth. Corinth was one of the major urban centers of the ancient Mediterranean and one of the most culturally diverse cities in the empire. A Greek city by location, the capital of Achaia (which made up most of ancient Greece), Corinth had been a Roman *colony for nearly a century, officially resettled by Romans long after its destruction, and Greek and Latin cultures coexisted. Its citizen class, however, viewed itself as Roman and was proud of its Roman identity. Its location on the isthmus of Corinth, a short land route across Greece that spared seafarers the more treacherous voyage around the south of Greece, made it a prosperous mercantile community. Although a wide disparity between rich and poor characterized the Roman empire more generally, this problem was particularly acute in Corinth. Its mercantile character contributed to the presence of foreign religions and may have accelerated the level of sexual promiscuity, although some promiscuity was characteristic of ancient Greek urban male culture in general. Corinth was known for its prosperity, and the proverbial sexual looseness of ancient Greek Corinth seems to have continued in Roman Corinth as well.

Language. Although Latin was used for official business in Corinth, most people could speak Greek, and this was especially true of settlers from elsewhere in Greece and further east, including most Jewish immigrants. (Some Greeks had continued to live onsite after the city’s destruction, but it was the Roman settlers who became the founding citizens of New Corinth in 44 B.C.) Clearly the Corinthian *church, to whom Paul wrote his letters in Greek, understood him. Later in the first century, Clement of Rome also wrote to this church in Greek, which became Corinth’s official language again in the early second century.

Situation. Roles were determined by social status in antiquity, and those with wealth and power preferred religious, philosophical and political ideologies that supported their base of power. Reading 1 Corinthians in light of ancient culture generally, including conflicting status ideals, cuts through much of the speculation of earlier commentaries; although theological errors were involved, a central issue was that people were not getting along. Once we get past the cultural and language differences, the Corinthian Christians’ values were very much like those of most Christians today. They had their own social interests, which seemed natural from their own perspective, but Paul summoned them to think instead as servants.

Thus higher-status members of the community seem to have preferred a more *rhetorically skilled speaker like Apollos; and, sharing the values of their peers they hoped to reach with the *gospel, they rejected manual labor as a suitable occupation for a moral teacher. Manual laborers in the church, however, appreciated a voluntarily lower-status, working teacher like Paul, even if his personal delivery in speeches left something to be desired (chaps. 1–4). Philosophical ideals held by some higher-status members may have been used to justify sexual offenses (chaps. 5–7); status issues likely factor into the minor division over head coverings (11:2-16) and possibly the approaches concerning meat and communal meals (chaps. 8–11). Philosophic views, often linked to status or at least the economic access to some kinds of education, probably also inform issues regarding the body and immortality (chap. 15) and, less likely but not impossibly, some philosophical mystical currents (chaps. 12–14). Most Greeks did not envision an end of the age in the sense in which Paul emphasizes future eschatology in his letter. In other words, the conflicting values of diverse groups in the broader society had been carried over into the church as divisive issues, and on other matters as well the values of society had obscured Paul’s biblical message.

Commentaries. Helpful commentaries with a focus on background include Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: ­Eerdmans, 1987); David Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003); Craig S. Keener, 1 & 2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); on a less technical level, C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987). Also helpful are general works on social relations in antiquity, such as Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); for such relations in the New Testament, see Wayne E. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983); Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); and other works in the LEC series cited in the bibliography in the introduction to this volume. On Corinth specifically, one may sample Pausanias, Description of Greece Book 2; Donald W. Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2002); Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). On the unity theme, see Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991); on 1 Corinthians 7, see chapters five and six in my earlier book . . . And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991); Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); for 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34-36 see my Paul, Women and Wives (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 19-100; for 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, see Wendell L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, SBLDS 68 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985).

1:1-9
Opening Greetings

These verses follow a standard ancient way to open letters; see the introduction to *New Testament letters and comments on Romans 1:1 and 7.

1:1. Letters in antiquity were not usually coauthored; thus Paul may have authored the letter and Sosthenes (cf. perhaps Acts 18:17) served as *scribe, writing it down (cf. 1 Cor 16:21); or Sosthenes may have contributed to the letter’s contents or (more likely) merely concurred with Paul’s message. Sometimes composite authorship claims in (normally much shorter) ancient letters simply provided greetings (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 16.1.title).

1:2. “*Saints” means “set-apart ones,” and “sanctified” means “set apart,” “holy, consecrated or separated for God.” This language was applied to Israel in the *Old Testament; it meant that God had set apart Israel to himself when he redeemed them, and they were therefore to live for God, not like the nations around them.

1:3. “*Grace” adapts a standard Greek greeting, and “peace” a Jewish one. By invoking Jesus alongside the Father as the source of grace and peace in a blessing or wish-prayer (wish-prayers for the hearers were common in letter openings), Paul presupposes Jesus’ divinity.

1:4. Thanksgivings sometimes appear in ancient letters (e.g., 2 Maccabees 1:11). As in speeches, official letters might open with a proem praising the reader, which was designed to secure the reader’s favor for the rest of the letter. Moralists who gave rebuking speeches or wrote rebuking letters also usually mixed in praise to make their advice easier to accept.

1:5. Opening sections of speeches or literary works commonly introduced some of the themes that would recur throughout the letter. “Speech” and “knowledge” were important to the Corinthians. In fact, the nearby Isthmian Games (see comment on 9:24-25) included speech contests, and knowledge was associated with philosophical wisdom or the ability to speak extemporaneously on any topic (a skill in which *rhetoricians, or public speakers, were trained). Here Paul means spiritual, not merely natural, gifts, but the Corinthians had learned to excel in these particular gifts precisely because these mattered most to them in their culture.

1:6-8. “The day of our Lord Jesus Christ” here fulfills the role assigned to “the day of God” in standard Jewish tradition (cf., e.g., Is 13:6, 9; Joel 2:1, 11, 31; Amos 5:18, 20; Zeph 1:7-8, 14; 2:2-3). Some elements of Judaism, especially in the *Diaspora, played down the future aspects of biblical hope; Paul wants to reverse this tendency among the Corinthian Christians.

1:9. Ancient philosophers often spoke of human “fellowship” or “communion” with other people. Paul could mean fellowship with others in Christ, or intimacy with the Lord himself, or both.

1:10-17
Christ Not Divided

Later *rhetoricians would have classified at least 1 Corinthians 1:10–4:21 (addressing unity), and perhaps the whole letter, as a letter of admonition. Paul is not defending himself against opponents (as in 2 Corinthians) but addressing the misbehavior of the Corinthians. The context shows that they are favoring specific teachers (Paul and Apollos) on the basis of their respective rhetorical or philosophical skills (1:18–4:21).

1:10. For the first three centuries of its existence, the *church met mainly in homes; those belonging to more well-to-do members of the congregation could naturally hold the most people (see comment on 11:17-34). Because the size of these homes limited the size of congregations and forced Christians to meet in different house churches, divisions could easily arise among them. A major basis for the Corinthian Christians’ division, however, derives from differences in social status and perspectives within the congregations. One type of ancient speech (known as a homonoia speech) lamented divisions and called for unity; Paul’s readers would immediately recognize the nature of his argument. Paul states a thesis in 1:10 and then (following the custom in ancient works) outlines the events leading up to the present situation (1:11-12).

1:11. Rivalry and enmity pervaded society, even in sports but especially in politics and public speech. Ancient urban culture, epitomized in Corinth, evaluated and compared speakers. One normally specified the source for one’s information unless it could harm the source. These informants may have been agents of Chloe, a wealthy businesswoman in Corinth or Ephesus (16:8), traveling between the two cities on business. As such, they may have been high-status slaves or *freedpersons belonging to her household. Members of a Corinthian church, they brought Paul the news; news and letters were most often carried by people traveling on other business. (Had they been her children rather than servants, they would have been named by their father’s household, even were he deceased.)

1:12. People often gravitated toward particular teachers and defended their schools’ interests. Occasionally students of competing teachers even came to blows, including in Corinth. Philosophers encouraged emotional attachment to themselves as a necessary part of developing morally and intellectually. Rabbis had their own schools, and disciples normally propagated their teacher’s views. Political parties sometimes took the slogans, “I am of so-and-so.” Using rhetorical repetition (here anaphora, which takes the form x . . . /x . . . ), Paul neatly caricatures the Corinthians’ divisions into four groups (though “Cephas” and “Christ” might be only hypothetical; cf. 3:5-6).

1:13. Paul here uses a common technique in argument: reductio ad absurdum, reducing an opponent’s position to its natural but absurd conclusion. Speakers sometimes piled up rhetorical questions (here, three) to drive home their point.

1:14-15. Corinth had many famous fountains and bath houses—no shortage of potential sites for public *baptisms. In some Greek *mystery cults an initiate would reportedly call the one who had introduced him to the cult “father”; probably here Paul is simply still reducing their position to the absurd (cf. 1:13). “Crispus” (cf. Acts 18:8) and “Gaius” (a common name, but cf. Rom 16:23) are Latin names and may reflect persons of high status in the congregation.

1:16. Paul may have recalled Stephanas separately because he may have met and baptized him elsewhere (16:15). One could add an afterthought in casual or informal letters (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Atticus 8.14.4) or use it as a deliberate rhetorical correction (in this case, perhaps to underline the secondary nature of the question). A “household” normally followed the religion of the head of the household; 16:15 implies that Stephanas was a believer and a person of some means.

1:17. Judaism used “baptism” as the final act of conversion for *Gentiles; early Christians followed this pattern. But Paul refuses to emphasize the act itself; his emphasis is on the message to whose reception baptism merely bears witness. Though using rhetoric to communicate, moralists commonly denied that they used skilled rhetoric to persuade their hearers, and they pointed out that they appealed only to the truth.

1:18-25
God’s Wisdom in the Cross

Judaism stressed the importance of divine Wisdom, which God revealed in his Word; Wisdom was sometimes personified (1:30). Given popular Greek respect for philosophy and *rhetoric (the primary two disciplines in which advanced studies were possible for those with funds), it is probable that some educated members of the church are especially interested in “wise speech.” Paul mistrusts such rhetoric (cf. 1:17, 20; 2:1, 4-5) and presumably worldly philosophy as well (cf. 1:21; 2:7-8; cf. Col 2:8). Apollos may have fit their preferred speaking style better than Paul did (1:12; see comment on Acts 18:24). Though minimizing rhetoric, Paul in this section employs rhetorical devices that his critics might recognize, including antithesis (1:18); four rhetorical questions with the triple repetition of “where is . . . ?” (1:20); and shockingly paradoxical oxymorons (1:25, also using antithesis).

1:18. Romans regarded crucifixion as a death appropriate for slaves; Jews also saw it as shameful (Deut 21:23). Those viewed as “*saviors” were normally gods, kings, wealthy benefactors or miracle workers. Roman society was built around power and status; power was concentrated in the male head of the household, in wealthy and aristocratic families, and so forth. Associating power with a crucified man—the epitome of dishonor and weakness—thus made no more se...