In 1 Cor 9:19-23, Paul seems to wear his Jewishness very lightly. He claims, for example, that he is not “under the law” and that he “became as a Jew” in order to win Jews. These claims are often cited as evidence that Paul was indifferent to Jewish identity and Torah observance. David Rudolph’s monograph seeks to demonstrate that this “consensus” reading of 1 Cor 9:19-23 cannot be sustained. Rudolph’s primary aim is to demonstrate “that scholars overstate their case when they maintain that 1 Cor 9:19-23 is incompatible with a Torah-observant Paul.” As a secondary aim, Rudolph also seeks to show “how one might understand 1 Cor 9:19-23 as the words of a law-abiding Jew” (p. 19).
In part I (chs. 2-4), Rudolph aims to destabilise the consensus reading of 1 Cor 9:19-23. Chapter 2 deals with intertextual issues. He first argues that key texts often used to support the idea that Paul’s Jewishness is erased or inconsequential in Christ (esp. Acts 16:3; Rom 14; 1 Cor 7:19; 10:32; Gal 1:13; 2:14; 3:28; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:8) do not clearly support this idea. Rather, the texts can be interpreted to mean that Paul’s Jewishness is less important than his belonging to Christ. Rudolph then examines other key texts (esp. Acts 21:17-26) which suggest that Paul viewed Jewishness as a distinct “calling in Christ”. Chapter 3 examines 1 Cor 8:1-11:1, arguing that Paul’s whole approach to idol-food fits well within the bounds of Torah-observant Judaism. Paul was not indifferent to idol-food; he simply took a more nominalist Jewish position (what matters is a person’s intention in eating) as opposed to a realist position (idol food is intrinsically dangerous). Paul’s instructions can, in fact, be read as a contextualised application of the apostolic decree (Acts 15). Chapter 4 discusses 9:19-23 directly. He first argues that Paul’s “all things to all people” discourse is consistent with the Jewish practice of accommodation in table-fellowship. Although there was variation in the interpretation of food-laws amongst first-century Jews, there is also ample evidence that many Jews were willing and able to share meals with others (stricter Jews, less strict Jews and Gentiles) without compromising their own purity. Rudolph then examines individual phrases within 9:19-23, showing that they are compatible with the view that Paul was a Torah-observant Jew. For example, the phrase “under the law” does not necessarily mean “under the authority of the Mosaic law”; it might simply refer to those who live according to a strict Pharisee-like interpretation of the law.
Chapter 5 offers his proposed interpretation of 9:19-23. Paul is a Torah-observant Jew who does not personally violate the biblical dietary laws, and he is as “strict” about his Torah-observance as the Pharisees. Paul imitates the gospel-tradition concerning Christ’s accommodation towards others and open table-fellowship. Thus, when Paul claims that he “became like a Jew”, he means that he received the hospitality of various kinds of Jewish hosts. He did not adopt a chameleon-like approach to Jewish identity and practice.
Rudolph’s most interesting contribution is his formulation of Jewish identity as a distinct “calling in Christ” (pp. 75-88). On the one hand, Paul did not view Jewish Torah-observance as a means of eschatological salvation. On the other hand, Jewishness is not erased or inconsequential in Christ. Rather, for Paul, Jewish Torah-observance is a distinct “calling” or a “vocation” within a more fundamental Christian identity (7:19). The Mosaic law, therefore, applies to Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in different ways. Paul understood this difference; hence he lived consistently as a Jew, but never insisted that Gentile converts do the same. This nuanced formulation of Paul’s Jewish identity undergirds the cohesiveness of Rudolph’s entire thesis. It also helps to integrate Paul’s letters with evidence from other sources, for example, the story of Paul’s law-observant actions in the temple in Acts 21:17-26 (pp. 53-57). Furthermore, it has significant implications for other important areas of discussion, such as Paul’s view of male-female distinction in Christ (e.g., p. 31), Paul’s reliance on Jesus-traditions (e.g., pp. 179-90), and the role of Paul’s letters in Jewish-Christian dialogue (e.g., p. 211).
However, Rudolph’s presentation of Torah-observance as a “calling in Christ” also raises significant unresolved tensions concerning the role of the Mosaic law in Paul’s theology. When discussing the law, Rudolph focuses almost entirely on questions of halakhah—that is, how did Paul live day by day, and how did he expect others to live? Yet apart from a brief discussion of the ambiguity of the phrase “under the law” (pp. 154-59), Rudolph does not adequately deal with the soteriological implications of Paul’s use of the word “law”. He tends to skim past Paul’s frequent (often negative) utterances concerning the relationship of the law to eschatological blessing and salvation. However, most expressions of the “consensus view” Rudolph is seeking to oppose are written in the context of these soteriological considerations. Ultimately, then, if Rudolph’s thesis is to be convincing, it needs to be integrated and reconciled with a more comprehensive understanding of Paul’s view of the Mosaic law, particularly its relationship to salvation in Christ.
Lionel Windsor Durham University Durham, England, UK
This is an astonishingly profound and helpful summary of Luther’s understanding of the significance of God’s “Law”. I commend it especially to preachers. A warning though: Don’t try to read it on the run. You need some time and space to digest it properly.
Here’s a nice 90-second video showing the various empires which have controlled the middle-east down through the ages – including during the biblical period. Good for quickly introducing people to the historical and geographical context of biblical books (especially Isaiah!)
Gentiles don’t need to be included in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true; we Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ without being included in Israel. That’s one of the apostle Paul’s big points in Romans and Galatians … Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are united, not in Israel, but in the promises to Abraham and ultimately in Christ.
The natural counter to this claim is: “What about the allegory of the olive tree in Romans 11? Doesn’t that clearly assume that the Gentiles join Israel?” This question is based on a common assumption that the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 refers to Israel, and that the image of the Gentiles being “grafted in” to this olive tree (e.g. 11:17) must therefore refer to the Gentiles joining Israel. That is, the olive-tree analogy is commonly read ecclesiologically.
But really, this ecclesiological reading of the olive tree doesn’t work when you start to read the passage carefully. I think that it makes far more sense to read the olive tree theologically (with, of course, implications for both Israel and the Gentiles). That is, the all-important root of the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 doesn’t stand for Israel, but for God’s promises of salvation (and I think especially his promises to Abraham, who is not only the father of Israel but the father of many nations, see Romans 4).
I’ve just read an article by Nikolaus Walter which makes this point very clearly. Since the article is in German, I thought I’d translate some of the key points for English readers:
When interpreting an allegory, we must always be controlled by the question: What does the author probably want to say in the given context, and what lies beyond his immediate horizon? The main problem for the interpretation of Romans 11:17-24 seems to me to be the question: Who or what is Paul speaking about when he talks about the olive tree with its root, trunk and “sap”; i.e. the olive tree along with the “fatness” which proceeds from the root, which is of course the distinguishing honour of the olive tree and makes it suitable as an allegory of salvation?
[pp. 179-180]
In my opinion the olive tree, or the trunk, and particularly the root, “is” not = Israel, despite Jeremiah 11:16 ff. For “Israel” is in fact what has branched out of the olive tree, which currently–by virtue of its non-acceptance of Christ Jesus–is in its greater part excluded from the olive tree (Rom 11:25 b).
[p. 180]
If the cultivated olive tree, its root and the fat which flows from it into the branches (or fruits!) (Rom 11:17) is to point concretely at anything, then it points above all to God–to his election and promises and the grace of salvation which flows out from him–but it should not be immediately identified with Israel as a people. Israel, which until now has been that which branches out of the olive tree, has grown on this cultivated olive tree; it has its own history of God and salvation in its past and as its foundation; however it “is” not itself this foundation; the root, the trunk, the fat.
(pp. 180-181)
And now they [the Gentiles] are through God’s salvific action in Christ planted not in Israel, but rather they are included in the salvific activity of the God of Israel.
(p. 181)
The often-applied sentance Rom 11:18 b does not imply that the Gentile Christians are supported by Israel as their “root”. Rather, what is actually said to the Gentile Christians is that they should not boast with respect to the now-broken-off branches, i.e. with respect to Israel; for even they, the Gentile Christians, “support” not the root, but rather are supported by it (but not by the broken-off branches); i.e. they have not become branches on the olive tree and participated in its “fat” by their own power, but rather they are “supported” by God and his gracious election enacted in Jesus Christ, just as formerly Israel was and also yet again will be.
(pp. 181-182)
Walter, Nikolaus. “Zur Interpretation von Römer 9-11.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 81 (1984): 172-195.
Μὴ γένοιτο! No way! Gentiles don’t need to be included in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true; we Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ without being included in Israel. That’s one of the apostle Paul’s big points in Romans and Galatians.
We are, of course, included in the promises given to Abraham (Rom 4:11, 16; Gal 3:7). But being a child of Abraham is not the same as being a member of Israel. That’s why Paul says that Abraham is the Father of many nations (Rom 4:17-18), not that Abraham is the father of one nation, Israel, that has somehow been redefined or expanded to include other nations. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are united, not in Israel, but in the promises to Abraham and ultimately in Christ.
The idea that the Gentiles are included in Israel is one of the (if not the) fundamental exegetical mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul.
PS that’s probably why Paul almost always speaks of the church using familial terms, such as “children” and “sons”, rather than political terms (i.e. as a “people”, which is a political word).
Gadenz, Pablo T. Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11. Edited by Jörg Frey, WUNT II.267. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, esp. page 82.
After some years in the wilderness, Beginning with Moses is back in action, with a new generation of contributions and a promising future. The core of the site is its “biblical theology briefings”, which aim to “state as clearly as we can that the Bible has a storyline and that this big picture must by necessity affect the way we approach individual biblical texts.” But there’s a whole lot more than this – the site is full of in-depth resources for Bible teachers including articles on biblical theology and preaching, book reviews and more. Check it out.
This was originally published on the Biblical Theology Briefings website (beginningwithmoses.org) in 2006. The Biblical Theology Briefings aim to provide worked examples of sermons that apply the insights of evangelical biblical theology.
As part of a series on the Lord’s Prayer, I was charged with preaching a sermon on this line: ‘Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One’ (Matthew 6:13). In Matthew, the Lord’s Prayer occurs in the midst of Jesus’ teaching about prayer (6:5-15) which in turn is part of Jesus’ famous ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (Matthew 5-7). Even a brief glance at the Sermon on the Mount reveals that Old Testament forms a significant part of the background for Jesus’ discourse (5:12, 17, 21, 27, etc.). Indeed, the whole Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus, the son of David, the son of Abraham (1:1), as the one who fulfils Old Testament categories and expectations [1]. At some points, Jesus recapitulates significant events in Israel’s history—e.g. the Exodus (2:15) and the exile and return (2:17). Jesus is also depicted as succeeding where Israel failed—e.g. the temptation in the wilderness (4:1-11) and the restoration of the far reaches of the promised land overrun by Gentiles (4:15, cf. Isa 9:1). When, in 5:1-2, Jesus sits and begins to teach his disciples on ‘the mountain’, there are strong echoes of the two great mountains of Old Testament revelation: the historical Sinai (e.g. Exo 19:3) and the eschatological Zion (e.g. Isa 2:3). It soon becomes apparent that in this ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (5:1-7:29), Jesus is forming his disciples into a new eschatological people. The Sermon’s unifying theme is ‘the kingdom of heaven’, a phrase which occurs at significant points in the Sermon (5:3, 10, 17; 6:10, 33; 7:12, 21-23; cf. 4:17, 23) [2]. The Sermon ‘provides ethical guidelines for life in the kingdom, but does so within an explanation of the place of the contemporary setting within redemption history and Jesus’ relation to the OT.’ [3] Hence the identification of Old Testament background, and the nature in which Jesus’ disciples are to ‘fulfil’ the Old Testament, are primary interpretive questions for the Sermon on the Mount and its constituent parts. The primary difference between the eschatological ‘kingdom of heaven’ and the Old Testament kingdom of Israel is the nature of the relationship between God and his people. ‘[T]he emphasis in the Gospels on God as “Father” rests directly upon the announcement of the eschatological salvation that brings about this new relationship between God and his people. The expression “Father in heaven” is remarkable in that it combines the personal, or immanent, element of fatherhood with the transcendental element of God’s otherness, “in heaven.”’ [4] Hence the Lord’s Prayer, which begins, ‘Our Father in Heaven’ (6:9), is the prayer of the new people of God—a people who are the fulfilment of the expectations of the Old Testament people of Israel but who go far beyond Old Testament Israel in their relationship to God as both universal Lord and personal Father.
Inadequate trails
Suggestions that I received from others about how to apply the text, ‘Lead us not into temptation’ were mainly along the lines of advice about avoiding various temptations (e.g. install Internet blocking software to avoid Internet pornography). Unfortunately, this advice by itself wasn’t very helpful given that Matthew 6:13 is found in a prayer rather than in a piece of ethical exhortation. It’s about asking God to not lead you into temptation—not about how to avoid temptation yourself per se. Furthermore, when people in our society (Sydney) use the word ‘temptation’, they’re generally thinking about relatively trivial things. There’s the game-show ‘temptation’ that tempts contestants with various materialistic prizes like internet fridges and Volvos. ‘Temptation’ is also used of things like food and sex. But if this is what ‘temptation’ is all about, then it doesn’t seem important enough to explain why ‘lead us not into temptation’ is the sole negative request in the Lord’s Prayer, up there alongside such cosmic and theological concerns as ‘your will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ and ‘forgive us our sins’. What is ‘temptation’ anyway? Carson comments that the word for ‘temptation’ (peirasmos) almost always outside the NT means ‘testing’ rather than ‘temptation’ [5]. He goes on to suggest that in the light of James 1:13-14, which says that God cannot ‘tempt’ anyone or be ‘tempted’ himself (assuming that the word here means ‘tempt’ and not ‘test’), it is hard to see that peirasmos means ‘temptation’ in Matthew 6:13, for then it would be asking God not to do something that is impossible for him to do anyway. On the other hand, Carson continues, if the word means ‘testing’ there is another problem, because the Bible promises that we will face testings of various kinds and we should consider them pure joy (James 1:2). Carson suggests that we read it more expansively, ‘trial or temptation that results in fall’, and that we simply run with the tension between asking God to spare us testing but rejoicing when such testing comes anyway. A large part of the problem, of course, is that we are dealing with a Greek word (peirasmos) that has a different semantic range to any of our English equivalents (e.g. ‘trial’, ‘test’, ‘temptation’). In answer to the question, ‘What does peirasmos mean?’ we could answer that sometimes it comes close to the English words ‘trial’ and ‘test’ (e.g. James 1:2, 12) and sometimes it has the same meaning as the English word ‘tempt’ (e.g. James 1:13-14). Or, we could answer, it means both. Or we could answer that it is ambiguous. However, in this case there is a better way. We don’t have to import our own preconceived notions about what ‘temptation’ or even ‘testing’ might mean from the English usage of these words. Instead, we can look at what the Bible itself says about the word peirasmos. Who was ‘tested / tempted’ in the Old Testament, by whom, how, where, when and why?
Understanding the Old Testament Background
I began with a word study on the word peirasmos as it appears throughout the Bible [6]. Of course, it’s important to realise that word studies by themselves can be misleading. This is because there is never a perfect overlap between a word and a concept. A word study can fail to pick up other words associated with the same concept, and can pick up usages of the word that are extraneous to the concept under investigation. The main way to guard against this is to look at the context of every instance of the word to check out how it is being used; and to follow up on other words that consistently appear in these contexts. Nevertheless, in this case there seemed to be a very close relationship between the word peirasmos and the concept of ‘testing’. This is mainly because the word peirasmos in the Old Testament is most commonly the name of a place, ‘Massah’. This place is named in Exodus 17:7. ‘Massah’ is simply the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word peirasmos; it seems to be derived from the piel feminine singular participle of nasah, to test or ‘put to the test’, hence ‘place of putting to the test’. The Greek verb equivalent is peiraz?. Although in later references the name has the definite article (e.g. Deut 6:16, 9:22, Psa 94:8) when originally introduced it has no article (Exo 17:7; as here in Matt 6:13). ‘Massah’ was a place named after an event. In my sermon, I explained this by reference to a few place names in Australia. When Captain James Cook was exploring the East Coast of Australia in the 1700’s, his boat the Endeavour struck a reef, and nearly sank. He wasn’t a very happy sailor at the time. The first thing next morning he looked out and saw a Cape. He called it ‘Cape Tribulation’. Behind it was a mountain. He called it ‘Mount Sorrow’. Up the coast, the place where they finally rested for repairs was called ‘Weary Bay’. They’re all places with stories attached to them, and ‘Massah’ is the same. In the OT, Massah was the paradigmatic place where Israel’s relationship with God was fractured and God became somewhat distant from them, despite his covenantal commitment just recently demonstrated in their deliverance from Egypt. In Exodus 14-15, God had saved the nation of Israel from slavery in Egypt, taking them through the Red Sea into the wilderness of Sin. This great event is summed up in the word rhuomai, ‘to deliver’ (cf Matt 6:13, ‘deliver us from the evil one’):
Exodus 14:30 Thus the LORD delivered (errusato) Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. 31 Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.
But no sooner had God delivered Israel from the Egyptians, then they began to grumble and complain against God their deliverer. They had been delivered through two walls of water ‘into the wilderness’, and their first act on being delivered was to complain about the lack of water (Exod 15:24). They seemed to think that the God who had just parted the Red Sea couldn’t give them a few mouthfuls of water in the desert! From that time on, God’s relationship with the Israelites was a relationship characterised by ‘testing’. God gave them water, but in doing so he ‘tested’ Israel to see if they would obey his commandments (Exod 15:25). Next, they complained about food, so he gave them bread, but even the bread-giving included a ‘test’ from God, a command not to gather too much (Exod 16:4)—which many failed (Exod 16:20). Then, once again, in Exodus 17 the people complained about lack of water. Moses ominously describes this complaint as ‘putting the Lord to the test’, that is, ‘testing’ God to see if he really loved them and cared for them (Exod 17:2). God again gives them water, but the place is named from that time on ‘Massah’, the place of testing (Exod 17:7):
Exodus 17:7 And he called the name of the place Massah (peirasmos) and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested (peirazein) the LORD by saying, “Is the LORD among us or not?”
God had delivered them from Egypt because of his love. But he had then led them into ‘testing’ in the wilderness, the place where God tested their commitment to him and where the people tested God’s love for them. I suggested that God and Israel are like a newlywed husband and wife; on the honeymoon, the wife complains that her husband doesn’t love her and wishes she were back home as a single woman and the husband sets up surveillance cameras and hires a Private Eye to make sure she’s going to be faithful. Like any relationship that begins on such a rocky start, the prognosis was not good. Sure enough, the ‘testing’ continued. Later on, just before the people are about to enter the Promised Land, they again ‘tested’ God. God had promised them the land of Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey, to be theirs. But the people didn’t believe him. They were afraid of the previous inhabitants of the land, they suspected that God didn’t love them and they didn’t trust God. They didn’t enter the land. As a result, God told them they would not inherit the land for forty years. This ‘test’ was the final straw for God; his people didn’t trust him and so he banished them to forty years’ wandering in the wilderness (Num 14:22-23). Throughout the rest of the OT, ‘Massah’ is referred to as that terrible place of testing, the place where mutual suspicion entered into the relationship between God and his people (which was not God’s fault, of course for he was always faithful to his promises. They had no right to test God). The law and the prophets began to refer to Massah, the ‘place of testing’, as if it applied to the whole wilderness experience, from the crossing of the Red Sea until the entry into the Promised Land 40 years later. (Deut 6:16, 8:2, 9:22, 33:8; Psa 78:18, 78:41, 78:56, 95:8-9, 106:14) In the end, Israel emerged chastened and humbled by the whole ‘testing’ experience (Deut 8:16). But even then, the people still had a problem: they did not fully trust God, and so the testing continued throughout Israel’s history. God tested them to see if they would obey him (Deut 13:3; Judg 2:22, 3:1, 3:4; 2 Chron 32:31) and they generally failed; for their part, the people tested God to see if he really cared for them and loved them and would keep his promises (Judges 6:39). In the light of the OT, Matthew 6:13 literally means ‘Don’t lead us into Massah’. That is, it is a prayer asking God to make sure that we don’t relive that desert experience of Israel, where they suspected God of foul play, and God (quite rightly) suspected them of ungrateful and disobedient hearts.
Jesus: the ultimate test
One of the first acts of Jesus is to go out into the wilderness after emerging from the waters of baptism. He is led into the wilderness by the Spirit of God, but he is not actually tested by God. Instead, he is tested by Satan (Matt 4:1, 3; Heb 4:15). And instead of failing the test, like the people of Israel did, Jesus passes. He proves that he completely trusts God as God’s loving and faithful Son. He is hungry, but trusts God’s Word to sustain him (Matt 4:4). He isn’t suspicious of God his Father; he completely trusts his Father to give him whatever he needs – whether it is food in the wilderness or authority over the world. He doesn’t ‘put God to the test’ (Matt 4:7).
From then on, there are two types of people. There are those who continue the pattern of the old Israel, people who ‘test’ God and Jesus, people who don’t trust God but are suspicious of his love and care for them. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Pharisees and associated hangers-on are like this (16:1, 19:3, 22:18, 22:35). But those who follow Jesus, his disciples, must be characterised by trust in God and Jesus. They mustn’t go by the way of Massah, they mustn’t have an attitude of ‘testing’ but of ‘trusting’ (1 Cor 10:9, Heb 3:8-9).
In the Garden of Gethsemane, that place of great fear and anxiety before Jesus is arrested and taken to die on the cross, Jesus tells his disciples to ‘watch and pray that you may not enter into testing.’ The cross of Jesus is the ultimate act of deliverance, where we are saved from our sins, where we can have confidence that our debts are forgiven (Matt 6:12). But it looked like the ultimate disaster, where God’s Son Jesus seemed defeated by the world and all the authorities. In the midst of this greatest trial of all, the disciples are urged to pray that they will not enter into testing – suspecting God of reneging on his word, and so turning away from Jesus.
Testing and God’s redeemed people
God never tests his people in the NT like he did in the OT. Christians certainly do undergo ‘tests’ in the NT, but these ‘tests’ are not an act of God ‘testing’ us to see if we will obey him, like a distant examiner or a suspicious husband. Christians never undergo special ‘tests’ such as God gave his people in the wilderness, but simply the ‘trials’ that are common to humanity (1 Cor 10:13), or the temptations of Satan (1 Thess 3:5). God always provides a way of escape from these type of trials (1 Cor 10:13, 2 Pet 2:9). They are described like a refiner’s fire, proving our trust in God and our willingness to follow Jesus (1 Pet 1:6, 4:12). In all these things, God’s attitude to us is always as a loving heavenly father, never as a ‘suspicious heavenly examiner’.
The book of James provides an extended commentary on the theme of testing, applying the ‘testing’ that Jesus mentions in his prayer to a Christian’s everyday life with all of its economic inequalities—(modified ESV):
James 1:2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet testings (peirasmois) of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. 9 Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, 10 and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. 11 For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. 12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under testing (peirasmon), for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tested (peirazomenos), ‘I am being tested (peirazomai) by God,’ for God cannot be tested (apeirastos) with evil, and he himself tests (peirazei) no one. 14 But each person is tested (peirazetai) when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Exposition of Matthew 6:13
Here, then, is the text of the first part of my sermon. I began with popular contemporary definitions of the word, ‘temptation’:
Our world is just full of temptation. Turn on the TV at 7 PM each weeknight, and you’ll have half an hour of ‘Temptation’. Here’s what the Channel 9 promo has to say:
“Be tempted beyond your wildest dreams with Australia’s most successful quiz show, Temptation, the new Sale Of The Century … Temptation has new twists to the format that will increase the pace of the show and add more temptation for contestants. Fabulous prizes will include trips to Hawaii, Paris and Vanuatu, Volvo cars, Louis Vuitton luggage, plasma televisions, Versace watches, Internet fridges, jewellery, Bang and Olufsen and Pioneer home entertainment packages, Harley Davidson motorbikes and giant cash jackpots!’
And it’s not just the TV is it? All around us there are temptations of the senses: food, chocolate, alcohol, internet pornography. Temptation is everywhere
I then tried to help people realise that the Bible is not necessarily talking directly about the things we care about—it often has far more important things to teach us:
Now when we read the Bible, sometimes we can read it as if it’s talking directly about our own issues. So we might read this line, ‘lead us not into temptation’, and we think it’s a prayer asking God to miraculously guide our steps away from internet fridges and Harleys and hi-fat chocolate ice cream.
Of course the Bible is deeply relevant to our personal lives. But sometimes we need to just pause and ask ‘What exactly is the Bible saying?’ before we presume we know what’s it’s all about. You see; what, exactly what does Jesus mean by this word ‘temptation’? And what is so bad about it?
Do you notice that ‘lead us not into temptation’ is the only negative request in the Lord’s Prayer? All the others are positive, asking God to do something. ‘Give us our daily bread’, ‘Forgive us our sins’. But ‘lead us not into temptation’ is the only thing in this prayer that we specifically ask God not to do. It’s a serious thing. Surely it’s not just about game shows and chocolate?
I spent some time talking about the Old Testament background, because I wanted to define the word ‘temptation’ using the concrete biblical story rather than define it according to abstract terms or contemporary usage.
Well if you looked up any decent Bible Dictionary you’d soon find that the word ‘temptation’ is the same as the word ‘testing’ in the original language of Jesus’ day. A ‘test’ is something you do to somebody to see what they’re made of, to check out their performance. So another way of saying this line of the prayer is, ‘Lead us not into testing’.
NB I mentioned the Bible Dictionary to help people to see that the original languages are not actually beyond the reach of the ordinary lay person who attends church each week. Even if they can’t read Greek, they can all read a Bible Dictionary! They don’t have to rely on me to tell them what the word ‘temptation’ actually means.
But more than that, the word ‘testing’ is actually the name of a place in the Bible. There’s a place called ‘Massah’ in the Bible—and ‘Massah’ means ‘place of testing’. Massah is one of those places with a story behind it. There’s places like that in Australia. When Captain James Cook was exploring the East Coast of Australia in the 1700’s, his boat the Endeavour struck a reef, and nearly sank. He wasn’t a very happy sailor at the time. Now Cook was in the business of naming places. So first thing next morning he looked out and saw a Cape. He called it ‘Cape Tribulation’. Behind it was a mountain. He called it ‘Mount Sorrow’. Up the coast, the place where they finally rested for repairs was called ‘Weary Bay’. They’re all places with stories attached to them
And it’s the same with Massah (Exodus 16-17). Just to set the scene—God had just delivered his special people Israel, from slavery in Egypt. God parted the waters of the Red Sea, and the Israelites escaped from the Egyptians:
(Let’s read Exodus 14:30-31)
Now you’d think Israel would be grateful and would trust God after that amazing miraculous rescue. But no! The first thing Israel did on being rescued was to whinge! You see, on the other side of the Red Sea was wilderness, desert, and as soon as Israel got into the desert, they whinged that they were thirsty! Even though God had just parted the Red Sea, even though God had just shown them his awesome power over walls of water, they whinged that God couldn’t give them a few mouthfuls of water in the desert! God gave them water—he was faithful. But next, they whinged about food. So God gave them bread, bread from heaven—he was faithful. But when he gave them the bread, he also gave them a test:
(Let’s read Exodus 16:4)
In the interests of time I compressed the story of Exodus and Numbers somewhat, just bringing out the salient points:
Then again, in the very next chapter, the people complained about being thirsty.
(Let’s read Exodus 17:2)
Again, they get their water—God was faithful. But Moses was fed up.
(Let’s read Exodus 17:7)
This is bad, this testing of God. Can you see why it is so horrible? God had saved this people. He had shown his unconditional, undying love for them. He’d carved up the ocean for them, for goodness sake! But there in the wilderness, the people wouldn’t trust him. They wouldn’t trust that God cared for them, that he would give them little things like food and water. They complained, they tested. And God knew their hearts weren’t right. So instead of a relationship of love and trust it became a relationship of testing, of suspicion. It’s like God and Israel are a newlywed husband and wife, and on the honeymoon, the wife complains that her husband doesn’t love her and wishes she were back home, single again and the husband suspects something, so he sets up surveillance cameras and hires a Private Eye just to check up on her. On the honeymoon! At Massah, Israel tested God. God tested Israel. Mutual love turned into mutual suspicion.
And it didn’t end there. The whole Bible is full of references to Massah, to the place where the relationship between Israel and God turned sour as soon as it started. Look at Psalm 95, for example:
(Let’s read Psalm 95:7-11)
An explanation of Jesus’ successful recapitulation of the ‘story’ of Israel was needed before moving to application:
But when Jesus came, more than 1,000 years later, something wonderful happened. You see, Jesus succeeded where Israel had failed. In Matthew chapter 4, after Jesus is baptized (chapter 3), he comes out of the water. Let’s read from verse 1:
(Let’s read Matthew 4:1-11)
Jesus is sort of reliving the experience of Israel. God’s Spirit led him into the desert to be tempted. It’s as if God led Jesus back into Massah. He didn’t eat for forty days. And he was hungry, starving. But Jesus didn’t do what Israel did in the desert. Jesus did the opposite of Israel. No complaining, no whingeing
The evil one came, the devil, Satan. He ‘tested’ Jesus. He lied. He tried to capitalise on Jesus’ weakness and hunger. He quoted the Bible at Jesus, verses out of context, trying to get Jesus to stop trusting his Father. And what did Jesus do? He refused to test God. He trusted God, he served God, he worshiped God, even in this most extreme situation. He proved through his obedience that the relationship between him and God his Father is one of pure love. No suspicion. No testing required on either side.
Then we move on to talk about the relevance of Jesus for us and our situation, through his death on the cross:
What has that got to do with us? When Jesus died on the cross for us, he brought us into a perfect relationship with God. He brought complete forgiveness by his death. And he rose from the dead, to bring us life. He gives us a relationship with God as dearly loved children. The kind of relationship where God is pleased with us—because he is pleased with Jesus. A relationship with God where there is love, not suspicion; trusting, not testing.
And you can see that by the kind of prayer Jesus gives his disciples to pray. The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer of trust in God our Father. It begins ‘Our Father in Heaven’. You can only pray the Lord’s Prayer if you trust God as your heavenly Father, like Jesus did. You can only pray this prayer if you trust that God’s name is wonderful and holy (‘hallowed by your name’), that his kingdom and his will is the best thing for us, that he will give us our daily bread, that he will forgive us our sins.
And so when you pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation’, you’re asking God to keep you trusting him, to stop you from doubting his loving care for you, to form you more and more as his child, just like Jesus.
Applying Matthew 6:13
Hence the prayer of Matthew 6:13 is a prayer of confident trust, asking God to keep us trusting his loving care for us. It is a prayer that God our Father will keep our focus firmly on his ultimate act of care and provision for us: the deliverance from sin provided by Jesus’ death on the cross. It is a prayer that, in the midst of the common trials of this life, God will help us remember that he is not distant from us, he is not standing back and testing us to see if we will obey, he is not inflicting these things on us as a test; but that he is lovingly refining us and making us more like his Son Jesus Christ. It is a prayer asking God to ‘give us our daily bread’, not to test us to see if we will obey him (as he did when he gave bread to the people in the wilderness), but simply to provide us with what we need as a loving heavenly Father. It is a prayer to deliver us out of the clutches of Satan, who lies to us, who tells us that God does not have our best interests at heart in the midst of these trials, who wants us to become suspicious of our Father and forget how much he loves us. The evil one wants us to think that we know best, and that God doesn’t love us as much as we love ourselves. We may not know exactly why we are suffering; like Job, we may never find out the precise reason for until the Lord returns – all we may know is that God is compassionate and merciful in our suffering (James 5:11). But that is enough.
The application part of my sermon, therefore, was along these lines:
Of course, when life is easy it’s easier to trust God’s care for you, isn’t it? But how do you react when things are tough? When it looks like God’s abandoned you?
You see, in our life, things can sometimes look a lot like they did for Israel back at Massah. The Israelites passed through the Red Sea—they were saved from slavery and mortal danger. But out in the desert, they were thirsty. They were hungry. They knew God had saved them. But they felt that had to test God to see if he was really still with them. They suspected that God had just brought them out into the desert to starve to death. You might be tempted to think the same thing. You might be confident that God has done the big things for you—saved you, died on the cross for you, given you eternal life. But you might start to think—that’s all very well, but does God actually care about me day to day? Especially when I’m hungry or thirsty or in pain, grieving, abandoned, used, persecuted, ripped off, depressed. You might start to think that God is testing you. That he’s fiddling with your life. Up there in heaven with his computer watching you on the screen, and putting various tests in your way to see how you’ll react. Tempting you.
James has a lot to say about testing, trials and temptation (James 1:12-15). James tells us that God never tempts us. God is quite simply not like that. He is our heavenly Father, not our heavenly examiner. There are trials in our lives. But these trials aren’t tests from God to see if we’re worthy, as if he didn’t know already. No, they’re simply there to show to us and the world that we are God’s children. To make us more like Jesus.
But Satan, the evil One, is still hanging around, waiting to lie to us. Wanting to tell us that God doesn’t really care about us. That God doesn’t really know what’s best for us. Or if he does he doesn’t care, that he’s a meany who’s giving us these tests just to see what we’ll do. The greatest lie we can ever hear from the Evil One is that God doesn’t care for the people he saved, that God has saved us through the precious blood of Jesus … only to bring us in the desert to starve to death. Satan wants us to believe that we really should give in to the trial and just, well, just do what’s easiest, just sin, just give in to our own evil desires. And when we do that, when we suspect God’s goodness and stop trusting him, that is temptation. That’s why we need to pray: ‘Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one’.
When would you need to pray, ‘Lead me not into temptation’?
Maybe you have accepted that Jesus died for you and brought you into heaven … But you still think your life is a desert wilderness, and you need stuff to fill up the void. You suspect God because you don’t trust that he will give you what you need. So instead of generosity and love, your life is about greed and holding on to things that you don’t really need. Satan is just as active in material things as he is in spiritual things. You need to pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one’
Maybe you are tempted when it comes to your relationships. Maybe you’re unhappy with whatever relationships you have, or unhappy because you don’t have a relationship that you long for. You may be single, widowed, divorced, married, friendless, unappreciated, just tired of giving. And you know that God has saved you from sin, and given you eternal life. But you suspect that he doesn’t really have your best interests at heart when it comes to these human relationships. And you think he’s being mean; he’s saved you from the greatest enemy of all—sin and death—but he’s just brought you into a dry desert wilderness and he’s not going to give you anything to drink.
Of course, that can lead to disaster, can’t it? You are tempted to look for other ways to gratify your desires, ways that God hates. You join in with your mates when they drink too much so you’ll be accepted by them. Or you look for cheap thrills. But you don’t care because God doesn’t seem to care for you. You need to pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one’, trusting God’s goodness, even in the desert.
Addiction can be a form of temptation too, can’t it? When you start to feel that some thing can look after you, or ease the pain, because you think that God doesn’t care. Whether it’s alcohol or pornography or sex or even food.
Of course, it might be helpful to take some active steps to remove these temptations from your life. Don’t watch the TV shows that provoke you to greed or lust. Put blocking software on your computer. Whatever. But the most important thing you can do is to pray.
And do you know, this is quite an amazing prayer? Because the act of praying is itself part of the answer to the prayer! If you ask God to not lead you into temptation, to help you to trust him, that prayer is itself an act of trust. When you talk to God, you trust him. And the more you trust, the less you suspect him of being mean, and the less you are tempted; because you know that God is good to you, even in the hard times.
You may not know why your life seems like a desert now. You may never know until the end of time. But we do know that God is our Father. And God is our Father because Jesus has died for us and made us God’s children.
As Paul says in Romans,
(Read Romans 8:34-39)
Resources
Carson, D. A.. ‘Matthew’. Pages 1-599 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8. Edited by Frank E. Gæbelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993.
Packer, J. I. ‘Temptation’. Pages 1532-33 in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Leicester: IVP, 1980.
The New Bible Dictionary article by Packer was very informative and a helpful synthesis of the data of both testaments. However, it did not bring out the biblical theological movement—the way that Jesus’ ‘testing’ is the lynchpin of the idea of testing in the whole Bible.
The two commentaries I consulted (Carson and Hagner) both (quite helpfully) cross-referenced a number of other NT and texts (Matthew 4:1-11; James 1; 2 Peter 2:9; 1 Cor 7:5; 1 Thess 3:5; Rev 2:10) and also Sirach 2:1, 33:1 to aid in their discussion of the verse. The main hermeneutical issue they discussed was whether the ‘testing’ was a future time of severe apostasy and trial (which they both rejected). However, neither commentary looked in any detail at the Old Testament background. This meant that there was very little to say positively about the verse. After reading these commentaries I could tell the congregation what the verse doesn’t mean, but not much about what it actually does mean.
ENDNOTES
[1] D. A. Carson, ‘Matthew’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8 (ed. Frank E. Gæbelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 1-599 (28-29).
[2] Carson, ‘Matthew’, 127-28.
[3] Carson, ‘Matthew’, 128.
[4] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (Word Biblical Commentary 33A; Dallas: Word, 1993), 101.
[5] Carson, ‘Matthew’, 173-74.
[6] Using the computer program Bibleworks, I performed a search on all words with roots beginning with the letters peira in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) and in New Testament. I confirmed this with a search on the equivalent Hebrew root N-S-H in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, and cross-checked with the article by J. I. Packer, ‘Temptation’ in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (ed. J. D. Douglas; Leicester: IVP, 1980), 1532-33.
This was originally published on the Biblical Theology Briefings website (beginningwithmoses.org) in 2006. The Biblical Theology Briefings aim to provide worked examples of sermons that apply the insights of evangelical biblical theology.
I recently preached at the commissioning of two dear friends of mine who have now gone as missionaries to work as ministers in a church in Malaysia, serving the gospel of our Lord. These people have left their comfort, their lifestyle, their careers; they have moved away from those they love (and many of those who love them, like myself). I am told that Christian work in Malaysia is like this: it’s hot and humid, they get paid barely enough to live on, husband and wife are expected by their church to work tremendously long hours with only a few hours of sleep a night (the wife has just borne their second child), and nobody respects them really because they’re not doing anything worthwhile or socially respectable. Furthermore, if it’s proved that they have spoken about Jesus to a Muslim, then they risk jail under the laws of the Malaysian states who interpret the constitution.
Frankly, it’s insane, it’s senseless and it’s irrational. These people are foolish… in the eyes of the world. But I preached on wisdom, from 1 Corinthians 1. And we discovered, as we looked at this text in its Old Testament context, that they are doing the wisest, most sensible, sane, reasonable, prudent, practical thing they could possibly be doing.
1 Corinthians 1 in literary and theological context
Smit has outlined a helpful structure for 1 Corinthians 1:10-4:21, based on syntactical considerations. [1] Following an introduction, in which the themes of ‘Word’ (logos) ‘wisdom’ (sophia) and party strife (especially between Paul and Apollos) are introduced, there are four major sections. Each section has a rhetorical argument followed by a personal address from Paul to the Corinthians. Section I (1:18-2:5) is about ‘word’ (logos): Paul contends that his initial visit to Corinth was in conformity with God’s reason, not human reason. Section II (2:6-3:4) is about ‘wisdom’ (sophia): Paul contends that the Corinthians themselves lack God’s wisdom, whereas he, Paul, has God’s wisdom. Section III (3:5-4:5) seems to shift ground to an argument about Paul and Apollos: Paul challenges the party strife by contending that they all belong to Christ, not to individual men. Once this is established Section IV (4:6-21) is Paul’s attempt to show that he does, indeed, have authority over them in Christ. The sections are linked by important keywords. Smit’s structure shows that the relationship between ‘word’, ‘wisdom’ and party strife is the major concern of the discourse.
What is ‘wisdom’? The word covers a broad range of concepts. In the ot, it was used to refer to reflective thought, articulate discourse and skilled action. [2] These three aspects are also present in 1 Corinthians: thought (1:19), discourse (1:17; 2:1, 4, 6, 13; 6:5; 12:8), and skill (3:10). Thus when applied to God, wisdom can refer to God’s plan for salvation (1:21) [3] or to the actual enactment of this plan, the ‘stuff of salvation’ (1:24, 30; 8:6). [4] Paul’s inclusion of the cross in his discussion of wisdom (1:17-18, 23; 2:2, is striking given that wisdom and crucifixion were utterly antithetical in the ancient world. Hengel’s detailed study shows that crucifixion was widespread, extremely cruel and inflicted mainly on the despised lower classes as a deterrent against the undermining of law and order. It was the most extreme form of public humiliation (social and ethical). Hence the ‘folly’ of the cross is not metaphorical: the cross would have been a sharp, provoking instrument for Paul’s preaching that would have met with real opposition in the mind, speech and action of his listeners. [5]
False trails
Much of the scholarship (discussed below) is interested in trying to find out what the exact situation was in Corinth. The theory seems to be that if we can find out exactly what was happening then, we can look for parallel situations now and apply the text to those situations. This isn’t necessarily a bad place to start. But in this case, there are two problems with this approach. Firstly, it’s notoriously difficult to work out what was happening in Corinth. The scholarship has ended up with a host of rival theories rather than helpful applications. Some believe Paul was countering Gnosticism, others that he was trying to unite Jew and Gentile, others that he was trying to defend himself against adherents of Apollos who were undermining his ministry, others that he is just trying to keep the peace like a good statesman. But more importantly, this approach generally doesn’t reckon with the way that Paul actually ends up solving the problem—by the use of the Old Testament Scriptures.
Another temptation for the preacher might be to fail to capture the breadth of the biblical idea of ‘wisdom’, and so to reduce the word ‘wisdom’ in this passage to a single idea, like practical know-how or ethical action or political prudence. In that case, the centrepiece of the passage (i.e. the cross of Christ) would have little to do with the application (e.g. be good, be united, etc.).
The difference biblical theology makes
The fact that Paul deliberately quotes from the ot using the word gegraptai, ‘it stands written’ (1:19, 31; 2:9; 3:19) with the perfect tense (denoting ongoing relevance) should not be treated lightly. [6] This is further enhanced by Paul’s description of the purpose (hina) of his discussion (tauta): ‘that you may learn in our [case]: “Not beyond that which stands written” (to me huper ha gegraptai)’ (4:6). This has been variously explained, [7] but the most straightforward reading is that Paul’s discussion has aimed to show that the Scriptures, particularly those he has referred to, are necessary and sufficient for the prevention of strife.
Williams has undertaken an important study into Paul’s use of Scripture in this section of 1 Corinthians, showing that it is a significant factor that must be taken into account alongside the historical situation in Corinth. [8] Paul uses Scripture (primarily Isaiah, and also Jeremiah and Daniel) with a high respect for its original context, but interprets it in relation to ‘the Christian time era or the Christ event.’ [9] Oropeza’s study shows that 1 Corinthians 1-4 is imbued with Isaianic themes, and that this is consistent with Paul’s thinking in terms of apocalyptic time frames (1 Cor 1:4-9; 15:20-28, 51-55; 16:22) with its characteristic ‘temporal dualism’. [10] Paul is fighting against a wrong eschatology, which was leading to moral misbehaviour and divisive conduct. [11] As we shall see, both ‘wisdom’ and ‘rule’ are significant motifs in each of the scriptural contexts from which Paul draws his teaching.
The book of Isaiah has a discernible ‘trajectory’ which takes place across the book as a whole and within its individual sections. [12] This trajectory takes us from the existing world order (with its ruling powers: Israel, Assyria and Babylon) to a new world order established by God. It takes place via demolition and reconstruction, judgment and salvation, in that paradoxical order. Its crucial transformative event is the forgiveness that comes through the discipline of a suffering servant, and it climaxes in God’s Spirit-empowered servants being sent out (e.g. Isa 61:1) to preach the same two-edged message which divides the world into two groups: the judged and the saved. [13]
In Isaiah, there are therefore two types of wisdom: human and divine. Both types of wisdom are ultimately attempts at salvation. [14] There is the human ‘wisdom’ of the nations (ethne, cf 1 Cor 1:23): their rulers (Isa 10:12-14, archontes 19:11 cf 1 Cor 2:6) and their advisers (sophoi, Isa 19:11-12), which will be brought to nothing (cf 1 Cor 1:20). There is also the human ‘wisdom’ of those within Israel who recommend trust in foreign rulers, the advisers (sophoi and sunetoi Isa 29:14, 1 Cor 1:19) and scribes (grammatikoi, Isa 33:18); [15] this, too, will be brought to nothing (1 Cor 1:19-20), for they are, in fact, oppressive enemies of the Messiah and God’s people. [16] Perhaps Paul’s intention in his series of three questions in 1 Cor 1:20 is to identify the debater of his own era of salvation-history (suzetetes tou aionos toutou) with these ‘wise’ enemies from Isaiah’s time. Aligning one’s self only with a human preacher is, in fact, a disastrous human attempt at salvation. [17]
Divine wisdom is also on show in Isaiah. There is a messianic figure introduced in 11:1, a ‘shoot from the stump of Jesse’, whose first characteristic is that the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel and might will rest upon him (cf 1 Cor 2:10). [18] Even though the ‘wise’ in Israel were blind and deaf (Isa 28:7, 12; 29:9-14; 30:9-11; 33:18), when Israel is restored and her righteous king reappears, the blind and deaf will see and hear again (Isa 29:18, 30:20-22, 32:1-5, 33:17-22). [19] This king will put into effect God’s plan of salvation, which is independent of human wisdom (Isa 40:13-14, quoted in 1 Cor 2:16). But, significantly, this salvific plan will come about in a strange and marvellous way. A suffering servant will come, and will suffer vicariously as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. This servant shall be wise (sunesei, Isa 52:13), and by his knowledge (sunesei) he will justify many (Isa 53:11). In this way, he will silence and amaze the rulers of the nations (Isa 52:15, alluded to in 1 Cor 2:9). [20] So the eschatological judgment, salvation and vindication of those who wait patiently for God is an amazing, unheard-of, unimaginable act of God’s wisdom (Isa 64:6, cf 1 Cor 2:9).
Von Rad is surely right to see an eschatological development of the Wisdom motif in the Jewish apocalyptic literature (including Daniel). [21] The apocalyptic hiddenness of God’s wisdom, which must be revealed in dreams to the apocalyptic seer, is a theme of Daniel, especially 2:19-23 which contains many of the themes in 1 Cor 2:6-11. [22] The Messiah, disguised to those who are not God’s people, is the chief figure of salvation. [23] The rulers of this age in Daniel are human kingdoms; in Paul they are human authorities. [24] In Daniel, the mature (cf 1 Cor 2:6) are those who look towards the endpoint of God’s plan, the outcome of the conflict between human kingdoms and God’s kingdom. [25] Paul has combined two strong apocalyptic motifs: special revelation to the apocalyptic seer, and the fact that historical events are the carrying out of God’s powerful plan. [26]
Space forbids an exploration of Paul’s use of numerous other Scriptural quotations and allusions in 1 Corinthians 1-4. In 1:31, he quotes from Jeremiah 9:23-24, which has similar themes to those in Isaiah. In 3:19-20, he quotes from Israel’s wisdom literature itself (Job 5:13 and a ‘wisdom’ Psalm 94:11) to show the supremacy of God’s wisdom over human wisdom. These Scriptural references combine with those from Isaiah and Daniel to give the unmistakable impression that Scripture, interpreted in the light of the cross of the suffering servant / Messiah Jesus Christ, is necessary and sufficient to understand how Christians should think and act in the present age (4:6).
The ‘wisdom’ that discerns this world order is different, and even opposed, to the God-given wisdom that discerns God’s new world order. Thus human ‘power’ in speech and factionalism is the antithesis of God’s new world order, brought about by the cross. In this new world order, one cannot say ‘“I am of Paul”, or “I am of Apollos”, or “I am of Cephas”, or [even] “I am of Christ”’ in the style of factions (1:12). Instead, God’s wisdom, supremely demonstrated in the death and resurrection of the Suffering Servant, has turned the times and powers and authorities upside down and placed them all in submission to Christ and his people. Hence, ‘everything is of you: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; everything is of you; and you are of Christ; and Christ is of God.’ (3:21-23). This is the wisdom of God; the wisdom of the cross.
Sermon structure
First, I raised the issue of wisdom in the concrete situation of my friend who were going as missionaries to Malaysia (I’ve called them X & Y)
I want to ask you a question now about X &Y. You don’t have to answer out loud. But please think about your answer to this question. The question is this: Are they being wise?
I know there’s lots of other things we could call them: Kind, generous, bold, admirable, courageous, inspiring, good-looking … But are they being wise? Are they being sensible, sane, reasonable, prudent, practical, in their decision to go to Malaysia?
We should expect them to be wise, of course. 1 Corinthians 1:30 says that:
‘It is because of him [God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.’
Christ Jesus is wisdom from God. So those who believe in Jesus, those who are righteous and holy and redeemed, should be wise. So are these our brother and sister being wise?
I went for a quick biblical definition of wisdom, trying to capture the scope of the OT concept.
The bible talks a lot about wisdom. Wisdom in the Bible is really the art of ‘Understanding the shape of the world and acting appropriately’. A wise farmer knows the right season to plant his crops. A wise builder knows what sort of foundation to build his house on.
But a truly wise person doesn’t just understand the shape of the physical world. A truly wise person will also understand the shape of the society around him. Wisdom isn’t just what you know but who you know. The wise person knows who’s in charge. Who calls the shots. The wise person knows who pours the tea [A Chinese illustration!]. The wise person knows how to be in the right place at the right time. To make sure that he or she is seen by those who call the shots. To do the work, to get the favours. Wisdom is power in this world we live in.
Now some context from 1 Corinthians, with a little explanation of what I thought was the historical background (see below, although my application is not absolutely tied to this theory).
In 1 Corinthians, the apostle Paul was writing to people who thought they were wise. The city of Corinth made a big deal about powerful speakers. People who wielded power through winning debates and giving persuasive talks. These speakers built up big followings, fan clubs, and in Corinthian society, what really mattered was which celebrity speaker you belonged to. The social shape of the world was built around these celebrity speakers and their clubs.
In fact, the Corinthians who Paul was writing to were even treating their own Christian teachers like celebrity speakers. See 1 Corinthians 1:12:
‘What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”’
The ‘wisdom’ of Corinth was all about following powerful speakers
Then I tried to broaden the application
What is the wisdom of our world like? We do sort of have celebrity clubs, but our world has other sorts of wisdom too.
There’s the wisdom of the family: The father or the mother is in charge, the sons and daughters need to submit and obey.
There’s the wisdom of the career: it’s the company bosses who are in charge, and the ‘wise’ career builder needs to understand the shape of the business world. They have to go to the right school and study hard, go to the right university, live in the right country, join the right company, work for the right boss, to get ahead and get the money and the power and the toys
There’s the wisdom of lifestyle: following the right trends, having the right kitchen
There’s also the wisdom of social order: the wise person knows how to keep the peace, not rock the boat. The wise person will follow the directives of Prime Minister John Howard and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. The wise person will not do or say anything to cause disharmony. The wise person will quietly remove himself from tense social situations to live a more peaceful quiet, pleasure-loving life
That is the wisdom of our world
Then I introduced Paul’s discussion of wisdom in the context of the cross
But you see, Paul was talking about a completely different type of wisdom.
‘It is because of him [God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.’ (1 Corinthians 1:30)
Paul is talking about wisdom from God. Not the wisdom of celebrity clubs, or career, or lifestyle, or family, or social order, but the wisdom of God.
God knows the shape of the world better than anybody, and God had revealed his wisdom to Paul. Paul knew the true shape of the world. Paul understood that God is the creator of the world. God has the ultimate power, far beyond any celebrity speakers or Prime Ministers or career bosses. Paul also understood that human beings have rebelled against God, as they play their power games. Paul understood that God will judge the world—He has set a day when he will call all people to account. He won’t let human power games go on forever. He’ll demand a personal account for the life of every human being
More than that, Paul understood that God has already taken charge of this world. God has sent his Son Jesus into this world, and Jesus has shown himself to the world as God’s king, the one who really calls the shots.
But the thing is, Jesus acted completely differently from all other human powers. Jesus didn’t come to be a celebrity speaker or a career boss.
But Jesus came to suffer. Jesus came to suffer. To die to take God’s anger for our rebellion upon himself. Then to rise as the ruler of this world. So that those who follow Jesus will be rescued from God’s anger
God had revealed this wisdom to Paul, and Paul was proclaiming it
I then looked back at Isaiah 52-53, which speaks about the ministry of the Suffering Servant in terms of ‘wisdom’
Now God had predicted this wisdom, hundreds of years before, through the prophet Isaiah
Isaiah says this:
‘See, my servant will act wisely. He will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him—His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man And his form marred beyond human likeness— So will he sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths because of him …
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows. Yet we considered him stricken by God. Smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon him. And by his wounds, we are healed …
it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, And though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering he will see his offspring and prolong his days and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied, and by his wisdom my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities…’ (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)
This is the wisdom of God. This is the shape of the world according to God. The person who’s in charge of the world is God’s suffering servant, Jesus, who suffered to rescue us, to make us right with God. And so Paul says 1 Corinthians 1:30
‘It is because of him [God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.’
Then an explanation of how this is seen to be foolish by the world
So God displays his unbelievable cleverness, by sending his suffering servant Jesus, in a way that the powerful people of this world would never, ever have guessed. Right under their noses, God has pulled off his ultimate act of power, his ultimate rescue. Not by the wisdom of social order. Not by the wisdom of celebrities or kings. But by the wisdom of suffering. The wisdom of suffering.
Right now, that wisdom looks foolish to the rulers of this world. To the kings, to the celebrities, to those climbing the corporate ladder, to those who are going to be judged by God and don’t know it. To those who think that the world is all about human power and money and prestige and comfort and order. To them. Jesus’ death on the cross doesn’t look like wisdom at all; it just looks like absurd, senseless, incomprehensible garbage. This is what Paul says verses 18-25:
‘For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written [in Isaiah]:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.’
X & Y, they believe in Christ crucified. They know that the world is cross-shaped. They are proclaiming a cross-shaped message, and they are living cross-shaped lives. They are leaving their comfort, their lifestyle, their careers, They are moving away from those they love, and many of those who love them. And that distance fills us with grief.
I followed with a description of how tough it is to be a minister in Malaysia (see introduction, above)
And frankly, it’s insane, senseless and irrational. It is foolishness … to those who are perishing. Because it is not the wisdom of the world. It’s the wisdom of God. It’s the wisdom of Jesus Christ.
X & Y are cross-wise. They have truly understood the shape of the world. That God’s world is a cross-shaped world. They know who is in charge, and it’s not the company, the country, the elder, the bishop. It’s the man who suffered and rose from the dead, it’s Jesus. And as they preach about this man who suffered, their lives are a living witness to their message
Of course, the world’s rulers will see their wisdom. On that day, when God judges this whole world through Jesus, every eye will see, every knee will bow, every tongue will confess, whether willingly or grudgingly, that Jesus Christ who died on the cross is Lord. The kings of the earth will see, the celebrities will see, the CEO’s will see, the Prime Ministers will see. One day they will all see. They will all know, that X & Y are doing the wisest, most sensible, sane, reasonable, prudent, practical thing they could possibly be doing. They are proclaiming Christ crucified to a world that doesn’t want to know, but a world desperately, desperately, needs to hear. Because Christ crucified is the world’s only hope of salvation
Then I tried to apply this wisdom to the hearers. I was not trying to work out how their situation was exactly the same as the historical situation of the Corinthians (e.g. avoid disunity; don’t be a Gnostic, etc.). Rather, I was trying to help them apply the ‘cross-shaped’ wisdom from God to their current situation—whatever it was.
Let me ask that question again. Do you think that X & Y are being wise? Or do you think they are fools? If these people do look like fools to you, Then it may well be that you are perishing
‘The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.’ (1 Corinthians 1:18)
So if you do think that it’s foolish to suffer for the sake of this message, it’s probably because you think the message itself is foolish. And if you think that the message of Jesus’ suffering for us on the cross to pay for our sins is foolish, then you’ve rejected the one person who can save you from God’s anger. And that means that you are perishing.
But if you believe they are wise, then the wisest thing to do would be to wise-up and follow their example, wouldn’t it? What is wisdom? ‘Understanding the shape of the world and acting appropriately’ The world, friends, is cross-shaped. Acting appropriately means trusting in the one who died for us on the cross, and living the life of the cross. And it’s not just for missionaries, is it?
It could be you need to rethink that career you are chasing. Why do you want it? Is it because you think that the world is all about working for the right person, living in the right country? Is it because you want a comfortable life, a happy existence? Jesus has proved that that way of thinking is completely senseless and foolish. X & Y need people to help them proclaim Jesus. And I’m sure if you could get a job in Sydney, you could get one in Malaysia, couldn’t you? Maybe lower paid, maybe harder, maybe not as fun. But of course, you’d be working for the right person then, wouldn’t you? You’d be in the service of Jesus, the king of the world.
Wherever we are, whatever we are doing day by day, we need to give thanks for these our friends, our brothers and sisters. We need to pray for them. We need to tell them that we know, we understand, why they are doing this. We need to support them and share with them whatever we can. We need to keep remembering that X & Y are wise, they are wiser than their elders, wiser than kings. They are going to a world that needs to be saved from God’s anger, and they are bringing that salvation through their message and through their lives.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. (1 Corinthians 1:25)
A discussion of the resources I used
While it is difficult to pin down exactly what the situation in Corinth was, there is a wealth of material out there to help, and we can have some degree of confidence in the results. The following discussion should be treated as an appendix to this Biblical Theology Briefing.
Older solutions to the problem of the historical situation at Corinth proposed that Paul was aiming to counter a form of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism. Horsley, for example, argues that Paul is facing a teaching based on the Jewish wisdom tradition that believes in a spiritual salvific power called Sophia. [27] Eloquence was an important element of this tradition (especially in Philo), even though empty Sophistry was rejected. [28] Hence ‘words of wisdom’ (1:17, 2:1, 2:4) are eloquent words imparted by Sophia. [29] The eloquent Apollos had not helped matters. ‘Through [his] ministry some of the Corinthians apparently had come to regard the (Christian) gospel as wisdom, the leaders as teachers of wisdom, themselves as wise’. [30] However, Paul does not want to be viewed as a wisdom teacher, because he is concerned with Christ crucified, not eloquence (1:17-18). His solution is to take Gnostic language and turn it on its head. So, for example, in 2:6, when Paul says that he speaks wisdom among the ‘mature’ (teleioi), he is using a Gnostic term that means spiritually advanced souls, but ironically referring to those who listen to his gospel message. Conversely, he refers to the Corinthians using the Gnostic terminology for less advanced souls, ‘infants’ (nepioi, 3:1). [31]
Kovacs rejects this theory, because it has to assume that Paul got too carried away with his Gnostic parody to the point of sounding Gnostic himself. [32] For Kovacs, 1 Cor 2:6-16 is Paul’s own apocalyptic interpretation of the death of Christ, not a parody of hidden Gnostic wisdom. The ‘cross’ is the key to the passage, not the idea of ‘the mature’. [33] Thus
‘The hidden wisdom of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 2.6ff. is not, as in Gnostic texts, a speculation on the origin and destiny of the elect soul, nor is it concerned to identify a Christian elite, as several interpreters suggest. It is concerned with God’s plan for salvation and judgment, a plan carried out in the arena of history.’ [34]
The core problem, according to Kovacs, is not Gnosticism but a wrong eschatology which is countered by the proclamation of the cross of Christ (as we have seen already from Isaiah).
Another, related, set of solutions to the puzzle stems from the hypothesis (given great impetus by F. C. Baur in the nineteenth century) that one can discern a fundamental division between followers of a Jewish, Law-based, Petrine Christianity and those of a Hellenic, Law-free, Pauline Christianity. [35] Grayson, for example, posits that the Cephas/Christ party was treating the words of the historical Jesus (logos) as a new Torah (nomos). They were basing wisdom (sophia) upon it, and rejecting Paul and Apollos whose teaching centred on the liberating freedom that comes through the preaching of the cross. But for Paul, wisdom is not based on Jesus’ instructions (1:17, ouk en sophia logou) but on the proclamation of the cross (1:18). [36] Davis’ thesis is similar, but identifies logos directly with the law. Documents from the Jewish wisdom tradition (Ben Sirach, Qumran, Philo) show a common theme: wisdom is identified with Torah, is only available to certain elite groups via the Spirit, and is associated with eloquence. [37] Davis detects an argument against this ‘nomistic’ wisdom in 1 Corinthians. It has been superseded by an entirely new Christological wisdom, for the judgment of the law has fallen on Christ. [38] Schnabel, too, sees the ‘wisdom’ in Corinth through a Hellenistic Jewish sapiental matrix, which relativises the cross of Christ, strips it of its uniqueness and so empties it of its effectiveness (1:17). [39]
There are a number of problems with this reconstruction. Firstly, although logos could possibly be taken to mean instructions from the Torah or Jesus, its cognate verb lego is applied to a variety of speech acts, even to the words of those who follow Paul and Apollos (1:10, 12, 15; 3:4). Secondly, it is difficult to detect any direct diatribe from Paul against law-based Christianity. The vocabulary he uses elsewhere to denigrate reliance on the law (such as ‘law’ and ‘works’, Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 27-28) is completely absent from 1 Corinthians 1-4. Later in the epistle, when he does refer to nomos, he draws positive ethical applications (9:8, 9; 14:21, 34). Finally, the reconstruction requires a ‘hidden agenda’ on Paul’s part, for he does not attack Peter (Cephas) as he does in Galatians 2:11-16. Rather, he picks up on the name Apollos (3:4-6). Goulder, who seeks to defend this view, argues that Paul used Apollos as an ‘easy example’ of unity and left the Corinthians to draw their own conclusions about Cephas (3:22). [40] However, as Tuckett observes, Goulder’s extensive thesis breaks down under the weight of complexity. Again, it is much simpler to see a wrong eschatology as the Corinthians’ problem, and to take Paul’s critiques at face value. [41]
Ker and Smit take Paul’s discussion of Apollos seriously, and believe that the primary problem in Corinth was that adherents of Apollos were undermining Paul’s authority. [42] Smit believes that Paul’s founding visit was being criticised for lack of philosophical finesse (2:1, 3; 3:1-2); Apollos was the logical, philosophical one (Acts 18:24, an aner logios); his adherents loved his wisdom based on human reason (sophia logou, 1:17). Paul’s gospel, however, was denigrated because it was one of paradox (1:18-31) and hiddenness (2:6-16). [43] Ker believes that Paul ultimately favours the ‘Paul party’ (1:12). [44] Smit is more balanced—Paul is at pains to express both the unity (3:5, 7-9, 22) and the right order between himself as founding father and Apollos as guardian and waterer (3:6, 10; 4:14-15). [45] However, both agree that in a volatile situation, Paul cannot assert his fatherly authority outright. He must be covert and indirect. [46] Paul thus employs a wordplay which subtly compares Apollos’ adherents (APOLLO, 1:12) to those who are perishing (APOLLUMENOIS, 1:18) and the wisdom that God will destroy (APOLO, 1:19). [47] His subsequent references to two types of ‘wisdom’ are then references to the human wisdom of Apollos’ adherents (1:20-22; 2:1, 4-5, 13; 3:19) and the paradoxical wisdom of Paul’s proclamation of the cross (1:21, 24, 30; 2:6-7).
Unfortunately, this solution also suffers from a tendency to subvert the plain meaning of the text: ‘[a]t one level of reading the text there is no problem [. . .] But there are other possibilities’. [48] One wonders if Ker and Smit should have taken more seriously the saying ‘not beyond what is written’ (4:6) in their own reading of Paul! Apollos is never denigrated by Paul; he is simply given his rightful position, united in purpose and distinct in role (3:6-9). Apollos is Paul’s ‘brother’ (16:12), which is a characteristic term of warmth and Christian unity (1:1, 10-11, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 5:11; 6:5-6, 8; 7:12, 15, 24, 29; 8:11-13; 9:5; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 31, 50, 58; 16:11-12, 15, 20) despite Ker’s plea that this verse sounds a bit chilly. [49] On the contrary, Paul’s own self-denigration is intriguing (1:13-16; 3:4-5, 22; 4:1). Elsewhere, Paul is not afraid to openly command allegiance to his own teaching and put others’ down, even in the face of opposition (Gal 1:6-9, 2:11, 5:10-12, 6:12-13; Phil 3:2; 2 Cor 11:4, 13-15). But here, he distances himself from such allegiance. Something else is going on. [50]
There is evidence that we should take the plural schismata (1:10) and the mention of four names (1:12) at face value and admit more than one fault line in the Corinthian community. There are places where Paul admits distinction between himself and other authorities, but deliberately closes off any suggestion of division. For example, he admits the existence of two sources of teaching: ‘the Lord’s’ (7:10, cf. 7:25) and his own (7:12, 25), but then goes on to assert their complementarity (7:35) and equal authority (7:40). He also admits two sorts of post-resurrection appearance of Christ: that to Cephas then others (15:5-7), and that to himself ‘as to one abnormally born’ (15:8), but then goes on to assert that the resulting proclamation and belief is the same in either case (15:11). It would be too much to claim definitively that these are the respective issues behind the ‘Christ’ and ‘Cephas’ parties (1:12), but it does show the existence of other divisions undermines the identification of a wisdom-loving ‘Apollos party’ as the sole source of division.
We might seek for an answer in 4:6, where Paul himself explains the procedure (meteschematisa) and purpose (hina [. . .] hina) of his previous discussion (tauta). Unfortunately, this verse has proved notoriously difficult! [51] The possible use of a well-known rhetorical device called logos eschematismenos ‘figure of speech’, or ‘covert allusion’ has been noted, [52] apparently providing a license for us to read between the lines in the previous discussion (as many have done). However, if it is such a device, Paul is not using it in the traditional way—by naming it its covert nature is nullified! [53] Also, the word is not schematizo but metaschematizo which in all its other occurrences means either ‘transform the shape’ or ‘disguise’. If it meant ‘covert allusion’, then this would be unique. [54] I prefer to translate literally, ‘I have transformed the shape’ of the previous discussion. That is, Paul has transformed a discussion of schismata in general (1:10-3:3) to focus on a particular schisma—a fault line between Paul’s and Apollos’ complementary ministries (3:4-17)—and then widened the discussion again to schismata in general (3:18-23), applying it to the issue of how to view any leader—as a servant of Christ, not a hero to be examined or applauded (4:1-5). In this way, nobody may be puffed up on account of any particular leaders against any other (4:6).
Other solutions see the very existence of schismata as the root problem in Corinth. Welborn downplays doctrinal differences in favour of a sociological model based on conflicts in Greco-Roman city-states. [55] His analysis is based on a comparison of Paul’s terminology with that used by Greco-Roman historians. Paul’s goal is not the refutation of heresy, but the prevention of stasis (strife, discord, uprising or rebellion). [56] 1:10 is ‘a mere call to consensus [. . .] hence his use of katartizein’. [57] In 1:20, the ‘debater’ (suzetetes) is the clever ‘rhetor’ who creates discord in the Greek city state. [58] ‘Wisdom’ is a claim by the rhetors to possess higher knowledge, which led to an elitism that reflected itself in political struggles. Paul had to claim wisdom for himself in order to regain his position as teacher and guide, so that he could call for an end to the factions (2:6-16). [59] Welborn’s study is a helpful reminder that human politics cannot be separated from theological disputes, but he is too quick to dismiss any possibility that the problem is more than sociological. In 1:20, he notes that the use of ‘wise man’ and ‘scribe’ from the ot background. However, it is only the third term, ‘debater’ (suzetetes), that has any significance for Welborn, apparently proving that ‘[t]he sophia which Paul fears will undermine the community is nothing other than rhetoric’. [60] Welborn also notes a theological move by Paul: ‘The strife of the factions is no petty quarrel [. . .] but a mirror of the cosmic conflict between the rulers of this age and the power of God.’ [61] However, Welborn is not impressed by this ‘eschatological gesture’ which masks ‘the reality of political conflict.’ [62]
Pogoloff and Winter have provided a more convincing model for the situation at Corinth, following the patterns of Greco-Roman rhetorical / sophistic rivalries. Pogoloff argues that sophia logou (1:17) means ‘cultured speech’. [63] The wisdom that Paul is opposing is rhetorical skill, which was seen as the possession of certain individuals who formed cult followings. Paul and Apollos, among others, had therefore become foci of divisive rivalries over status. This had theological implications: ‘rhetoric enhanced by practical skills’ empties the cross because it stops the cross from being an act of pure grace that any social class can access.
Winter provides a more comprehensive picture of first century sophistry, and argues that Paul’s discussion of wisdom is a point-by-point refutation of aspects of sophistic behaviour. Possibly Apollos’ own use of rhetoric at Corinth had incited sophist-style factionalism. [64] Sophists (sophistai), when they came, announced their own renown, extemporised, and used rhetoric with great flair.[65] They inspired a particular commitment and zeal for themselves amongst their disciples. [66] The terms zelos and eris (1:11, 3:3) are terms for Sophistic discipleship, also used by Philo to oppose Sophists’ love of form over content. [67] But Paul turns all the sophistic and rhetorical terminology on its head. [68] He needed no ‘topic’ to extemporise upon and so prove his rhetorical superiority (2:1); he had a message already to proclaim (2:2). He had no renown, but used weak, afraid, trembling oratory (2:3). He inspired confidence (pistis, 2:5), not by the ‘power’ (dunamis, 2:5) of ‘persuasion’ (peitho, 2:4) or rhetorical skill, but by the ‘clear proof’ (apodeixis) of the work of the Spirit in the listeners (2:4). He reverses the pattern of sophistic boasting (3:18-23) [69] and urges the Corinthians to ‘imitate’ him and ‘boast’ in him (as the Sophists did their leaders)—but in sufferings and afflictions, in the way of the cross (4:6-21). [70] Rhetoric would empty the cross (1:17) because sophistic methods would overshadow the message itself. [71]
The picture of sophistic-style factionalism at Corinth is a convincing one, but it should be noted that Paul is not just dissociating himself from a sophistic valuing of form over content. [72] For ‘in the mind of the first-century Graeco-Roman listener, education and eloquence were bound together’. [73] Hellenistic Jews, too, would agree that ‘by speech (logos) shall wisdom (sophia) be known’ (Sir 4:24). Rather, Paul is arguing against the whole worldview (sophia) expressed by the speech pattern (logos) of sophistry; a worldview that exalts human power in both form and content. The cross is the power of salvation that appears as weakness, and the speech pattern (logos) of the cross therefore takes a cruciform shape. [74] In order to nullify any human attempt at self-salvation, God ‘chose a means of revelation actually contradictory to [human] wisdom—the foolish proclamation of a crucified Savior (1:21b).’ [75] Instead of explaining human logic by human means, in 2:13 he explains spiritual things (pneumatika) by spiritual means (pneumatikois). Therefore, the truth of the cross ‘cannot be achieved through the best of human intellect and strength but must be received as a gift in the humble submission of faith and trust.’ [76] In fact, Paul’s own writing is highly rhetorical, but its rhetoric subverts sophistic speech and therefore sophistic wisdom. [77]
The existence of sophistic factions, therefore, is a spiritual, theological problem in and of itself. It is not just that the Sophistic divisions were in danger of falsifying Paul’s doctrine by their potential for men to rely on rhetorical skill rather than the gospel message. [78] Grindheim explains this theological problem in terms of the mysterious and irresolvable ‘paradox’ between human wisdom and God’s gospel. The gospel is all about the reversal of values, and must therefore be received in the paradox of Christ crucified by those who abandon attempts to excel by worldly standards. [79] Grindheim rejects any notions of redemptive history in Paul’s account. [80] However, redemptive history is hard to escape in 2:7-8: God’s wisdom is described as ‘predetermined before the ages’; and God’s purpose in hiding it is to ensure that a specific historical event (the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory by the rulers of this age) takes place. The connection between the sophistic factions and wisdom must be explained in terms of redemptive history and eschatology, as we have already alluded to above. [81] This connection can be seen much more clearly when we examine Paul’s use of the ot Scriptures. In fact, as we have seen, 1 Corinthians presents a Scriptural answer to sophistic factionalism.
ENDNOTES
[1] Joop F. M. Smit, ‘“What Is Apollos? What Is Paul?”: in Search for the Coherence of First Corinthians 1:10-4:21’, Novum Testamentum 44/3 (2002): 231-51.
[2] E. J. Schnabel, ‘Wisdom’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin & Daniel G. Reid; Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 967-68.
[3] Charles K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: A & C Black, 1971), 53.
[4] Barrett, First Corinthians, 56.
[5] Martin Hengel, Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1977), esp. 86-90.
[6] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 576.
[7] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 351-56.
[8] H. H. Drake Williams, The Wisdom of the Wise: The Presence and Function of Scripture within 1 Cor 1:18-3:23 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 335-36.
[9] Williams, Scripture, 337.
[10] B. J. Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah in the Rhetoric of Paul: New Exodus, Wisdom and the Humility of the Cross in Utopian-Apocalyptic Expectations’, in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament (ed. Duane F. Watson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 89.
[11] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 90, 103.
[12] Barry Webb, The Message of Isaiah (The Bible Speaks Today; Leicester: IVP, 1996), 30-31.
[13] Webb, Isaiah, 30-33.
[14] Williams, Scripture, 88-100.
[15] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 97-98.
[16] Williams, Scripture, 88-100.
[17] Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 189.
[18] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 98.
[19] Oropeza, ‘Echoes of Isaiah’, 98.
[20] Williams, Scripture, 159-65 fails to pick up this allusion.
[21] Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology Volume II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1965), II.306-15. He oversteps the mark, however, by severing the connection between the prophetic and apocalyptic literature.
[22] Williams, Scripture, 157-208.
[23] Williams, Scripture, 203-4.
[24] Williams, Scripture, 204-5.
[25] Williams, Scripture, 205-7.
[26] Judith L. Kovacs, ‘The Archons, the Spirit and the Death of Christ: do we Need the Hypothesis of Gnostic Opponents to Explain 1 Cor. 2:6-16?’, in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards; Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 228
[27] Richard A. Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39/2 (1977): 224-39.
[28] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 225-29.
[29] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 231.
[30] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 232.
[31] Horsley, ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom’, 232-34.
[32] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 217-18.
[33] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 218.
[34] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 219.
[35] James A. Davis, Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:18-3:20 Against the Background of Jewish Sapiental Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), 141.
[36] K. Grayston, ‘Not with a Rod’, The Expository Times 88/1 (1976): 13-16.
[37] Davis, Wisdom and Spirit, 9-62.
[38] Davis, Wisdom and Spirit, 141-48.
[39] Schnabel, ‘Wisdom’, 969.
[40] Michael D. Goulder, ‘SOPHIA in 1 Corinthians’, New Testament Studies 37/4 (1991): 516-34., 516-34.
[41] Christopher Tuckett, ‘Jewish Christian Wisdom in 1 Corinthians?’, in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce and David E. Orton; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 201-19.
[42] Donald P. Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos: Colleagues or Rivals?’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 77 (2000): 75-97; Smit, ‘Coherence’, 241-43, 246-47.
[43] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 244-47.
[44] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 79.
[45] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 241-43.
[46] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 84; Smit, ‘Coherence’, 242-43.
[47] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 243.
[48] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 75.
[49] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 94-96.
[50] Stephen M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians (SBL Dissertation Series 134; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 99-100.
[51] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 349-51.
[52] Benjamin Fiore, ‘“Covert Allusion” in 1 Corinthians 1-4’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47/1 (1985): 85-102; Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 196-97.
[53] Fiore, ‘Covert Allusion’, 95.
[54] F. Danker, ‘metaschematizo’, BDAG 641-42.
[55] L. L. Welborn, ‘On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics’, Journal of Biblical Literature 106/1 (1987): 86.
[56] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 89-90.
[57] Winter, Sophists, 181.
[58] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 102.
[59] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 103-6.
[60] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 102.
[61] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 109.
[62] Welborn, ‘Discord in Corinth’, 110.
[63] Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia, 99-127.
[64] Winter, Sophists, 177-78.
[65] Winter, Sophists, 144-47.
[66] Winter, Sophists, 185-87.
[67] Winter, Sophists, 175-76.
[68] Winter, Sophists, 149-50.
[69] Winter, Sophists, 195-96.
[70] Winter, Sophists, 195-202.
[71] Winter, Sophists, 188.
[72] contra Winter, Sophists, 188.
[73] Ker, ‘Paul and Apollos’, 77.
[74] Thiselton, First Corinthians, 157.
[75] John B. Polhill, ‘The Wisdom of God and Factionalism’, Review and Expositor 80/3 (1983): 329.
[76] Polhill, ‘Factionalism’, 330.
[77] Smit, ‘Coherence’, 247.
[78] contra Winter, Sophists, 188.
[79] 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): 689-709.
[80] Grindheim, ‘Wisdom for the Perfect’, 698-99.
[81] Kovacs, ‘Gnostic Opponents?’, 219; Tuckett, ‘Jewish Christian Wisdom?’, 201-19;
is striking given that wisdom and crucifixion were utterly antithetical in the ancient world. Hengel’s detailed study shows that crucifixion was widespread, extremely cruel and inflicted mainly on the despised lower classes as a deterrent against the undermining of law and order. It was the most extreme form of public humiliation (social and ethical). Hence the ‘folly’ of the cross is not metaphorical: the cross would have been a sharp, provoking instrument for Paul’s preaching that would have met with real opposition in the mind, speech and action of his listeners. [5]