Chapter 1
Introduction
Tension, strife, division, rivalry, and unhealthy competition among leaders and members afflict the church from time to time. Yet not many leaders are able to respond appropriately to these challenges. Notwithstanding the fact that no church wants bad press concerning these challenges, failure to handle them properly worsens such situations. Understanding how such developments come about and evaluating how they have been handled in the past put one in a better position to handle such matters competently in todayās church. This is what this book offers. The Corinthiansā perception and treatment of Paul and Apollos as reflected in the words of Paul, who felt poorly rated by members of his congregation, provide us with essential sociocultural dynamics from which we can learn. Understanding Paulās feelings about the situation also prepares one for some of the unfortunate realities of ministry. By appreciating the developments that resulted in the situation as reflected in 1 Corinthians, one comes to terms with the negative effects of some attitudes of church leaders and members, making the need for guarding against these attitudes imperative.
The book demonstrates the beauty, elegance, and force of Paulās rhetoric. Some puzzles in 1 Corinthians 1ā6 are resolved, giving fresh insight into spiritual truths with respect to Paulās pronouncements. By setting the events in 1 Corinthians against the right background, this book helps the reader to appreciate how the attitude of the Corinthians toward teachers of wisdom and inspired men in their city influenced the problematic attitude of the believers toward their church leaders. To what extent did Paulās attempt to defend himself influence the tone of his arguments? How are the readers rated in terms of the very bases on which they had judged Paul? How do Paulās arguments reveal his emotions regarding how the Corinthians treated him? These and many more questions of practical relevance for todayās church are answered in this study.
Several rhetorical studies have focused on 1 Corinthians. Most of these studies are preoccupied with the identification of the rhetorical devices used and the points made with those devices. They, however, present aspects of Paulās writings belonging to the same rhetorical unit as though they were disjointed and unrelated. The situation is not better in commentaries that employ other approaches to the study of Paulās writings. In a number of instances, Paul is presented as digressing from his address of a particular issue. I contend that Paul is a very consistent writer. It takes a little patience for one to appreciate the coherence of his writings. What this rhetorical critical approach brings to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1ā6 is the demonstration of coherency within the first two rhetorical subunits and how this enhances understanding of the subunits. The insistence of the approach on following the development of the writerās thought, step by step, and identifying how each division relates to the other (and/or gives support and meaning to the writerās view) makes this coherence evident.
Among others, the attention given to the Greek text contributes immensely to the clarification of a number of issues on which other scholars have held different views that create difficulties in understanding Paul. Three examples should suffice here:
(1) Almost all existing commentaries on 1 Corinthians 2:1ā3 fail to recognize the nexus between the image of one āin weakness and in fear and much tremblingā that Paul paints of himself in 1 Corinthians 2:3 on the one hand, and his resolution to preach nothing but Christ and him crucified in the preceding two verses on the other hand (1 Cor 2:1ā2). The failure to recognize this nexus is due to lack of attention not only to the flow of the argument, but also to the verb, į¼Ī³ĪµĪ½ĻĪ¼Ī·Ī½ (I became) in 1 Corinthians 2:3.
(2) There is a prevailing tendency to present the judgment Paul speaks about in 1 Corinthians 3:5ā15 as applicable to Paul and Apollos and other workers in the Corinthian church. This interpretation fails to recognize three things from Paulās argument: (i) The distinct roles Paul assigns to himself (as the planter [į¼ĻĻĻĪµĻ
ĻĪ±] and sole layer of the foundation [į¼ĪøĪ·ĪŗĪ±]) on the one hand, and the roles he assigns to Apollos (as one who waters [į¼ĻĻĻĪ¹ĻĪµĪ½] as well as the builder upon the foundation [į¼ĻĪæĪ¹ĪŗĪæĪ“ĪæĪ¼Īµįæ] Paul laid) on the other hand; (ii) the fact that Paul does not find anything wrong with his work which he did as a āwiseā or āskillfulā (ĻĪæĻį½øĻ) layer of the foundation, but raises caution about the work of the builder on the foundation; and (iii) the fact that Paul applies all the argument in the rhetorical subunit to himself and Apollos.
(3) Attempts to interpret literally Paulās injunction that the sexually immoral man be handed over to Satan has led to difficulties in interpretation in existing commentaries. A careful look at Paulās argument, however, shows that it cannot be another way of expressing the judgment of excommunication. Indeed, it is a sarcastic depiction of the very thing the immoral man had done. He had given his body to Satan in sexual immorality, confident that he was going to obtain the salvation of his spirit.
On the rhetorical devices Paul used and their significance, not much attention has been given in rhetorical studies to how they reveal Paulās intent of demonstrating that his readers were infants in Christ who were worthy only of milk. Not much focus is given to how these devices reflect his tendency to prove that the readers are unspiritual (1 Cor 3:1) and lack sound knowledge and wisdom. The uniqueness of the rhetorical devices he employs in 1 Corinthians 1ā6 as compared with his other writings is indicat...