The Problem Of Two Level Christianity At Corinth

The Problem

of Two-Level

David R. Nichols*

99

Christianity

at Corinth

century Christianity

was vided into two

categories: says

that Paul’s contrast between

It is common to

suppose

that in the Pauline churches of the first

a monolithic structure with the world di-

believers and unbelievers.

TOU

ness in

understanding

Spirit

all believers

article vcie

“pneumatics,”

realized

eschatology.

not

qualitative,

stand Paul’s otherwise

E. Schweizer rrvEVuarcKds (spiritual)

and

no neutral

ground …

Not to

Thus

they

came to an incorrect

OXLK6s, (carnal, natural) “Recognizes

have the

7me-Olia (spirit)

of God is to be controlled

by

the

rrvEVE.ca

(spirit

of the

world)

While the hard

categories- believer and unbeliever must be

used, they

are of a limited useful-

the

problems

of the Pauline

churches, espe- cially

at Corinth. The

understanding

that in

respect

to the

Holy

are on the same level is a misconception. In this

will maintain that the

problematic people

at

Corinth,

the

had a false view of Christian

maturity

based on a completely

two-level

Christianity

which Paul

replaced

with a correct two-level understanding,

but

realizing

that some Christians are more mature than others. This

position

will

help

us to under-

obscure

language

in some

places.

It will also

help

us to allow the Corinthians to be

rational, thinking

Chris- tians of their time. No false doctrine or

teaching

in Christendom is

to its adherents. This is

certainly

true of the Corinthians as well.

We will establish this

position by arguing

in the

following

man- ner.

(1)

The Corinthians were

rational, thinking,

people

who were Christians. In

spite

of Paul’s sometimes colorful

language,

this

if we are to understand the

message

of the

obviously

false

must be

kept

in mind

people

displays

epistle. (2) JrYEU?.LQTlK6$’?TTYEUf,LaTLKCf (spiritual ones, pneumatics) are

very important

terms for 1 Corinthians. A

study

of these words in their 1 Corinthians contexts

supports

the contention that such

existed at Corinth.

(3)

There is evidence to

support

Schwei- zer’s case in 1 Corinthians 2:13-15, but 2:15 must somehow

agree with 14:37.

(4)

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 is evidence

against

Schweizer and for

“eschatological pneumatics.”

the

completely

realized

eschatology

(5) Paul’s irony

in 4:8

of the .Corinthians,.

*David Nichols serves as Assistant Professor in Pastoral Studies at North Central Bible College in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

logical Dictionary of

lEduard Schweizer, “TTVriip.a, m?ccaruc6s” in Gerhard Friedrich, ed. Theo-

the New Testament, trans. G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 6:437.

1

100

(6)

The context of 12:1-4 indicates that

TrvEV?aTCKCw is masculine, thus

denoting persons.

These

persons

need instruction in how

they should conduct themselves with

regard

to the

gifts

of the

Spirit (chapters 12-14). (7)

In the minds of the

Corinthians, speaking

in tongues proved

their

eschatological position.

Paul refutes this in chapter

14.

(8)

The denial of the resurrection of the dead

(15:12)

is evidence of belief in a present realized

eschatological

existence.

The Corinthians as

Opoptaot

When we consider the

scope

of the Corinthians’

problems,

it is easy

to think of them as foolish to the

point

of

being simple.

With the

presence,

even the celebration of

incest, immorality

of several kinds,

and abuses of the

spiritual gifts,

we would

expect

Paul to berate their mental

capacities.

After

all, he had been with them for 18 months

(Acts 18:11).

Paul does not do this. But he does comment on their

spiritual maturity.

Paul’s

approach

to the Corinthians is as to

?povf?,coc, (10:15): sensible, thoughtful,

or

prudent.2

It is not

likely

that Paul is

speak- ing sarcastically here, although

he does in other

passages

of this epistle.

Paul’s

approach

to the Corinthians in 10:14-22 is in the form of a rational discourse in which he

attempts

to persuade’them

with a reasoned

argument.

The evidence is

pre- sented,

the witnesses are called, and’ the Corinthians must make a decision based

upon

the facts

they

now

possess.

It is valid for us to infer from this that

although

some of the Corinthians were

spiri- tually immature, they

were still

thinking people

whose errors were not

obviously wrong

to them. This

insight

will

help

us

greatly

in understanding

some otherwise difficult

passages

in this

epistle.

The

Importance

of

lTvEV?tarcK6slTIvEV?tarcKCf

The

word(s) mrEV?arcxds/rrvEV?CaTCxa

occur 26 times in the New Testament. Of

these,

24 are Pauline.3 Of these 24 Pauline occurrences,

15 are in 1 Corinthians.4

Clearly

this is a

significant term for the

understanding

of 1 Corinthians. A

study

of the uses of these words in the

epistle

shows us that the

gender

of the

given occurrence

(masculine

or

neuter)

is

very important. ?YEUf,LaTIKlS,S’

2Walter Bauer, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early

Christian Literature, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingroich, trans., 5th ed., (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979), 866…

–

3James D. G. Dunn claims that even the two occurrences in 1 Peter 4:10 are “from a typically Pauline passage.” Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, (London: SCM Press, 1975) 205. If this is true, it strengthens the understanding of these Biblical terms as nearly exclusive to Paul. If it is not true, our case is not harmed.

4Kurt Aland, ed. Computer-Konkordanz zum Novum Testamentum Graece, (Berlin:

Walter DeGruyter & Co., 1980), 1568. _

2

101

(masc.)

refers to “one who

possesses

the

Spirit”

while

IIvEV?carcKCf (neuter)

refers to “spiritual

things

or matters.”5

The occurrence of these terms in 1 Cor. 2:13 and 12:1 in the plural

dative and

genitive

forms

may

be either masculine or neuter. The context must determine the

gender.

If the context favors the masculine,

then 2:13 and 12:1 will

support

our

argument.

Exegesis

of 1 Corinthians 2:12-15

A surface

reading

of this

passage

seems to

support

the case against

which we are

arguing (above).

If we

question

the wide- spread assumption

that

?lrvXcK6s refers only

to unbelievers, we

may arrive at a different

meaning,

and one which

supports

our case. In the first

place

Paul is not

writing

to

unbelievers, but believers. The ?rvXcKds (v.14)

is a Christian who

attempts

to understand 7d [trYEV?Carcrc?]

TOIJ 7TYE1/?1aT05′ ToD 9EOU (the

things

of the

Spirit of

God) by

means of natural wisdom. Paul

spends

much time in this

epistle refuting

the false claims to wisdom made

by

the Corinthians. This is

especially

clear in

1:18-2:5,

where Paul shows the

folly (in

natural

[OVXLK6,-] understanding)

of

believing

in and preaching

a crucified Messiah. The Corinthian believers are seek- ing

to understand

spiritual things by

means of natural wisdom, and Paul cannot allow this to continue.

In 2:6-13 Paul stresses the

positive, showing

that the

things

of God are

only

revealed

by

the

Spirit

of God. This wisdom of God is hidden

(v.7)

that it

might

be revealed in a PVC-7-4pLOP (mystery, v.7).

The

purpose

of the entire

passage

1:18-2:13 is to show to the Corinthians the

inadequacy

of human wisdom

for

Christians. When the Corinthians

operate

in human

knowledge, they align themselves with T6jv ‘ ‘apX6v7o)t, roD al6jvoS’ rorirov

(the

rulers of this

age, v.8).

That Christians should

align

themselves with cosmic forces of evil6 is a contradiction which

challenges

the

very basis of the Christian faith. In

light

of this

preceding context,

it is very

difficult to see how Paul can be

referring

to an unbeliever

by r?rvXcx6s

in 2:14. But Christians who conduct themselves after the fashion of the world have

put

themselves in a

place

where the things

of God are indeed foolish to them

(v.14),

since

they

know these

things by

means of the “wisdom of the world.” This

supports the idea of a two-level

Christianity

at Corinth. Paul corrects the Corinthians’ view that a

triumphalistic

treatment of two levels is normal, by showing

them that their

own immaturity

has created an unnatural,

two-level

Christianity.

It is important to

note, however, that Paul does

ackowledge

these two levels in Christians.

5Bauer, Lexicon, 679. 6Bauer, Lexicon, 114.

3

102

As it

stands, verse 15 has the

possibility

of

setting up

authorities in addition to that of Paul. Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 14:37 that he assumed a unique right to judge the affairs of

Corinth,

even to judge the

7rve-vlja-rLK6,-.

This

being

the

case,

it

hardly

seems likely

that he would set

up

all the

rrvEV?CarcKOt of 2:15 on a par with his own

authority.

If Paul is

speaking ironically

in

14:37,

our case is not

harmed,

since it still is not

proved

that there were no actual

rrvEvE,carcK6c in Corinth.7 There were real rrvEVE,carlK6G at Corinth,

as is evidenced

by

Paul’s

language

in 11:19. The “approved

ones” were to be evident

among

the Corinthians as a result of

aL’plae-Lg (division,

false

teaching).

It

seems, then,

that 2:15 is best read thus: “and the

spiritual

one

judges

all

things,

but is himself to be judged

by

no one

(who

is not a

rvcvlLa-rLK6g).,,8

We understand from this that there exist at least

two,

and

possibly

three categories

of believers: first are ol

77vevI.La-rLK6L, these who could be judged only by other

rrYfv?CarcK6c,

and

by

Paul.

Second,

there are the

Christians

who are not

?ryEVf.carcxdc,

and who therefore may

not judge.

Third,

there is Paul

himself,

the

apostle,

who

judges all Christians in this church.9

lt seems safe to assume, then, that Paul himself is a rrvEV?CarcKds, although

he wishes to redefine the term for the Corinthians who are using

it

incorrectly.

James Dunn has called Paul a charismatic as over

against

the

Corinthians,

who were enthusiasts. Dunn sets forth three tests which Paul

applied

to

spiritual

activities and

persons. These

delineate,

for Dunn, the difference between Paul and the Corinthians. ‘

One test is provided by the kerygmatic and Jesus traditions which he passed

on to his converts when they formed themselves into a new church … Another test is provided by love. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is obviously

directed against a kind of enthusiasm, where zeal for the more spectacular charismata … had provoked jealousy, arrogance, irritability, and kindred sins. A third test is that of community bene- fit, denoted by the word olKOBo,urf in Greek.l0

‘Most scholars see the “pneumatics” as a problem group at Corinth, not as the whole church. Cf. Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An tion Letters to the Corinthians, John

Steely, trans., (New

York: Investiga- of the

Abingdon Press, 1971) 115, 116; also

I Corinthians, (Linham: Univ.

Wayne Grudem,

The

Gift of Prophecy

in

of America Press, 1982) 54, 55.

8George Cannon, unpublished

lecture notes, St. Paul: Bethel Theological Seminary, Spring,

1980.

9Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 208,

275-291. also Grudem, The

Gift of Prophecy, 43ff., 71, 72, 207ff.

lOJames D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character

of Earliest Christianity, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977),192,193.

4

103

Paul stands in a

unique relationship

to the Corinthian

church,

and seeks to redefine for them the

meaning

of

rrvEU?caTLK6s.

IIvEV?Carirc6c and ?apKCVOI (those

of the

flesh)

in

1 Corinthians 3:1-3

In this

passage

it becomes clear that there were some believers at Corinth

who were not in the

category

of

TfYEiIf.LQTIKdI. Paul addresses them as

capKLvotg, 0′)SI vr?rrlocs

Ev

Xpco?rc;? (fleshly ones,

as babes in

Christ).

These similes of Paul

may

not be explained away merely

as

figurative language,

since he makes the declarative statement In

yap aapKLKol

eo-re-

(for you

are

yet carnal)

in verse 3. In the

following

context Paul defines the term crc/3/?/rot

for the Corinthians. Strife or discord and jealousy

or

envy

are evidence to Paul that the Corinthi- ans are not mature.

Rudolf

Schnackenburg argues

that the Corinthians’

immaturity resulted from a misunderstanding of the

teaching

of

Apollos

when he ministered in the Corinthian church.

Apollos’ background

as a trained orator from Alexandria is seen as the

culprit.13

In Schnackenburg’s

view,

Apollos preached

“the

gospel

in unadulter- ated form and

with no ulterior

motive,”

but some Corinthian “wisdom seekers” misunderstood him. This led to a proto-Gnostic view of

Christianity,

which Paul must correct.

Schnackenburg provides important

evidence for our

argument

in this statement:

.

But how can we explain … this dialectical Yes and No to the status of the Corinthians as pneumatics? Verse 12, which alludes unmis-

shows us the way. The basis is the tension between (a) the possession of the Spirit given in baptism and takeably,to baptism,

the absent or defective attitude as “men of the Spirit” which (b) would show itself in the practice of the faith and of Christian life…. thus can we understand what Paul

says in the present

section about

Only the teleioi and the pneumatikoi

(vv.

6 and 13, which make a and about the

pair)

sarkinoi-nepioi (3 : 1), whom he does not recognize as real

Teleios, “perfect” endowed with

divine “pneumatics.”

insight

into

wisdom, is a title of the Christian as pneumatikos, as a man of the Spirit, when he allows himself to be taught the divine wisdom by the Spirit of God who was given to him. Nepios, “underage,”

(an image

which Paul now develops, perhaps from teleios, which can also have the meaning of “full-grown”) applies to the Christian in spite

of his spiritual equipment, when he does not behave like a man of the Spirit, when he is still “carnal” and wallcs the way of ordinary men. The attribute “carnal,” on which the Apostle here insists (he uses it three times), represents for him the opposite of “spiritual”

.

1 Bauer,

Lexicon, 309.

12Bauer, Lexicon, 337.

l3Rudolf

Schnackenburg, “Christian Adulthood According to the Apostle Paul,” trans. James Quigley, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 25 (1963), 355.

5

104

such a Christian behaves as though he did not possess the

14

divine

Spirit

Birger

Pearson

argues

that these terms can best be understood against

the

background

of Hellenistic

Judaism,

rather than Gnosti-

cism or mystery

religions. 15

While

many helpful insights

are

gotten by

this means, there seems to be a lack of

reckoning

with the uniquely

Christian

problem

at Corinth. Whatever the source of the opponents’ views,

we must understand that

they

have an element of Christian

persuasion

which shows

through

all the other

wrappings, be

they

Hellenistic Judaism, Gnosticism,

mystery religions,

or some combination of these. This

uniquely

Christian

perspective

is eschatology,

the claim that Jesus has come and fulfilled the Old Testament

prophecies.

But Christian

eschatology

is in a state of tension

now,

since Christ has

inaugurated

the

Kingdom

of God

by His

preaching, death,

and

resurrection, without

bringing

in the complete

Messianic

Kingdom.

The Corinthians found in this Chris- tian

eschatology

a way to combine elements and

teachings

of their culture into their Christian faith. The

problem

at Corinth is

syncre- tism,

which resulted in a completely “realized”

eschatology. 16

This belief structure

provided

them an

escape

from the demands of Christian

ethics in a morally corrupt society.17 It was also reason- able to a

thinking

Corinthian believer. Some of the specifics

of this belief structure are

suggested by

Gordon Fee.

1.

]Topmeta (sexual immorality)

is

acceptable,

since it

only

harms the

flesh-(1

Cor. 5; 6:12-20).

2.

L??Bo.lurpla (worship

of

idols)

is

acceptable,

since we

are

presently triumphing

with Christ

(1 Cor. 8-10).

3.

Speaking

in

tongues

validates our excesses and

proves

we are “resurrected”

(1 Cor. 13, 14).

4. We have

already experienced

whatever resurrection

there will be

(1 Cor. 15).18

14Schnackenburg, “Christian Adulthood,” 359. (emphasis mine).

Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology, SBL Disserta- tion 15Birger Series, (Missoula: Univ. of Montana Press, 1973), 27-30. .

16Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 316, 317.

l7The

First-century proverb,

“ov 1TdVTOS’ dv8pos is’

K6puaeov

?0-6 6

demonstrates the of Corinth as a place of sexual license. The thousand of reputation temple-slaves

Aphrodite are well-known in this regard. The Geog- raphy of Strabo, VITI, 378, ed. E. Capps, et al. (London: William Heinemann, 1927), 4:190-191.

lBGordon Fee, “rongues-Least of All the Gifts? Some Exegetical Consid- erations On I Corinthians 12-14” Pneuma: The Journal

of the Society for Pentecostal Theology, 2:2 (1980), 8.

..

6

105

This reconstructed belief structure shows us the

importance eschatology

in the

thought

of the Corinthian

“pneumatics.”

of

Paul’s

Language

in 1 Corinthians 4:8

It is

fairly

well

agreed among

scholars that in 4:8a Paul uses irony.

It also seems

likely

that here Paul is

responding

to the Corinthians’ own claims about themselves. 19 Thus the Corinthians were

claiming

to be filled and to be rich in the

present

time. The context makes it plain that the Corinthian

“pneumatics”

meant for these claims to be understood as present

spiritual possessions.

That the Corinthians were not

talking

about material wealth seems clear from 1:26-28, where Paul recalls their common social status. No, the Corinthian claim to riches was in the realm of the

Spirit.

This in their own

opinion

is where

they really

excelled. Paul

says

as much in

1:7-“you

are not

lacking

in

any Xaptolia-rL (gift).”

It is not likely

that Paul is

using irony here,

since he is

attempting

to win the Corinthians to his

argument

in the introduction

(1:1-9). In like manner, in 1:5 Paul admits that the Corinthians are enriched. This

introductory material,

with its

straightforward

lan- guage, _ gives

us a basis for

understanding

the more difficult language

in 4:8. There is no

point

in

denying

that the Corinthians were

exercising

the

gifts

of the

Spirit,

or that the

gifts they

mani- fested were false

gifts.

The

problem

was their realized

eschatology which led them to

claim,

on the basis of their

gifts,

that

they

were above the normal limitations of

earthly

existence. The

problem

at Corinth is

succinctly

rehearsed

by

Paul in 4:8a:

rj?c?v ?/?aQC.IEUQar?’

from us

you reigned).

The aorist tense here seems to indicate that this false ?apart

understanding

had been in exis- tence at Corinth, but now Paul,

present by

means of his

letter, would

bring

the

“reign”

to a screeching halt.

Apart

from the

apos- tolic

authority

which founded their

community,

the Corinthians reigned;

now Paul intends to dethrone them.

The use of the intensive

particle (indeed)

shows that Paul is correcting

their

improper understanding

mentioned in the first

part of the second half of 4:8; “and would indeed that

you

did

reign.” Obviously, they

are not

reigning,

for if

they were,

Paul would be sharing

in it with them. The Corinthians had an exalted view of themselves, which Paul

plainly

intends to correct. This view is best understood as a present realization of

spiritual

benefits which are reserved. (in

the

proper teaching)

for the future.

l9pe?on, The

Gnosticism in Corinth, 181.

Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology, 27,

28 against Schmithals,

20F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Robert W. Funk, trans. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 226.

7

106

rlyEV?arcKCw

in 1 Corinthians 12:1

The issue in 1 Corinthians 12:1 is whether the

ambiguous rrYEVE,carcKiw

is neuter or masculine. If it is neuter, it refers to spiri- tual

things

or

matters;

if

masculine,21

it refers to

spiritual people. The latter is to be preferred for the

following

reasons. The immedi- ate context indicates that Paul is

dealing

with

persons.

Verse 2 dis- cusses the Corinthians’ former existence as

Gentiles,

that

is, per- sons

apart

from Christ. The issue in verse 3 is how a TT?f?oT’t/cd?* should conduct himself or herself. Paul does not discuss

spiritual gifts

until verse 4, where he

actually

uses the word. Paul is

capable

of

using XaplQ?cara

and

irile-ulia-rLKa” (neuter) together

as he does in Romans 1:11. He does not use that construc- tion here because he wants to deal first with the

“pneumatics” (vv. 1-3),

then with their

practices (12:4-14:40).

The entire discussion of

spiritual gifts

is set in the context of the realized

eschatology embraced

by

the Corinthians. This

eschatology

caused them to think that

they. were

above sin and

evil,

no matter what

they

did with their bodies.

The use of

rrepl

81 (now

concerning)

here, indicates that this is a matter

about

which the Corinthians wrote to Paul

(this

section begins

in 7:1,

where Paul

begins

to address the matters of which they wrote).

Thus, the Corinthians

would have asked: “How

may we know who is a m?EVf,carcK6s, is it not

by

the XaptolLa-ra which they

manifest?” Paul’s answer is found in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Gordon Fee would have the Corinthians much more vociferous, demanding

of Paul

why

their

gifts

did not validate their excesses.22 In either

case,

the main issue is the status of

persons

as it is supported by gifts,

so that the

gifts

themselves are an

important secondary

issue.

In this

context, then,

it seems that the difficult

saying,

”

(Jesus

be

cursed!)

is an actual statement which the Corinthians claimed

they

could

say

based on their

present

eschato- logical

existence.23 This was

being

done

by

the same Corinthians who saw no sin in

consorting

with

temple prostitutes.

Gnosticism (in

various

forms)

has received most of the blame for this

behavior, but a realized

eschatology

could have the same effect for a thinking Corinthian Christian. Hadn’t Paul said that the

earthly

Jesus was

2lgauer, Lexicon.

22Fee, ??ongues-Least of All the Gifts?”, 4-6.

23Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, 124, however, we disagree with his attribution of this

speech

to unbelievers. From 14:20-25 it seems that the

of drnaroc is not practiced at Corinth, so Paul instructs them in this matter. If the Christians are to be cautious so as not to offend the unbeliever participation

(14:23), it hardly seems likely that the unbelievers were behaving ecstatically. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 234ff.

8

107

now transformed, resurrected, exalted to heaven, and

glorified? Who needs the

earthly Jesus,

now that we are

transformed,

resur- rected,

and

glorified?

Thus the

problem

at Corinth is seen as a logi- cal

(however incorrect)

extension of the

teaching

that Paul himself had done at Corinth.24

The Role of Tongues and

Prophecy

in the Corinthian Belief

Structure

The amount of

space

which Paul

spends

on the

gifts

of

tongues and

prophecy

leads us to believe that

they played

a very significant part

in the belief structure of the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 12-14 provides

us a unique glimpse at the

worship

service of a first cen- tury congregation.

It seems that the realized

eschatology

of the Corinthians had caused them to focus on individual

spirituality

at the

expense

of edification of the

Body

of Christ. A. Thiselton argues

that the

phenomena

of 1 Corinthians 12-14 are best under- stood as

proceeding

from a realized

eschatology

and an enthusias- tic

theology

of the

Spirit

which interact

causally

with each other.25 The

problem

with the

gift

of

tongues

at Corinth seems to be its overuse and abuse.26 It is

significant

that nowhere in this

pericope does Paul

denigrate

the use of

tongues

or

deny

that the

tongues

the Corinthians

spoke

were from God. The

tongues-speakers

at Corinth had this common

problem,

that

they

manifested the

gift

in such a way

so as not to

edify

their brothers and

sisters,

but to

edify only themselves

(14:4-5).

This calls to mind the

language

of Paul in 2:14-3:3 where he

points

out their

immaturity

to them. It also ties us into realized

eschatology

once

again,

for we have

already demonstrated that this is the

background

for 2:14-3:3.

The best reconstruction of the Corinthian

worship

situation will involve 1 Corinthians 14:23 as a statement of fact for Corinthian worship,

not

just

a

hypothetical possibility.27 Why

would the Corinthians all

speak

in tongues at once in the

public

service?

They were not irrational. Such behavior was a

sign (maybe

the

sign)

of their

eschatological

status. As such, it was

very important

to them. Paul answers the Corinthians’ assertion

(not question) by stressing the

necessary diversity

in the

Body

of Christ

(12:12-31).

The scenario was

probably something

like this: the Corinthians were logically extending

the

teaching

of

Paul, probably

to validate their excesses.

Among

these was the excessive use of

tongues

in public worship.

For these

people, tongues

was

the supernatural stamp

of

24Anthony Thiselton,

“Realized Eschatology at Corinth” New Testament Studies, 24 (1978), 512..

25Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 523.

‘

26Fee, “Tongues–Least

of All the Gifts?” 7-8.

‘

27Ibid.

9

108

among

this elite

group

but also on their doctrine.

approval,

not

only

on their

conduct,

From

2:13,14

and 14:37 it is

plain

that there were individuals who claimed to be

rrvEV?Caruc6c. How can we tell who

is and who is not

which has received the knowledge that such activities as

iropxe-ta (chap. 5)

and

(chap. 10)

are now

permissible? By

the exercise of ecstatic

gifts,

of which

the most

spectacular.

This is the best evidence of the presence

of the fullness of the

Age

to Come.28

the observation that Paul and the Corinthian

tongues

was

This leads us to

“pneumatics”

both constructed pneumatics’ understanding

this error

by setting up

the

?yam?f

chapter prophecy,

could almost worship

eschatology. (those

faith,

not

necessarily

standing

of

a “two-level

Christianity.”

The

was false, because it was based on jeal- ousy

and strife,

exalting

one

person

above another. Paul corrects

real two-level

Christianity

which we have

already

seen in 2 :12-3 :3.29 In this

understanding, genuine

is the hallmark of Christian

maturity (chap.l3).

The

implications

of this for

public worship

are worked out in

14. Here

tongues

without

interpretation

are subordinated to

which edifies

everyone

who is

present (14:4, 5). Again, the realized

eschatology

of the Corinthians

helps

us understand what Paul means.

Living

in the

Age

to Come meant that no inter- pretation

was

necessary,

for one who was a pneumatic could

speak in

tongues

in response to anothers’

speaking

in tongues. Chapter 14

be considered an instruction manual on

public

which is necessitated

by

Paul’s

adjustment

of the incorrect

The lack of concern for the

l8cc?rrac ?

á1TLOTOL

untrained or

unbelievers, 14:23)

is evidence of an immature

an irrational faith. In

chapter

14 Paul

places limits

upon

the Corinthian

worship

based

upon

his own under-

an

inaugurated eschatology.

The Corinthians were not commanded to cease their

manifestations,

bring

their

operations

into line with the

recognition

that

they

were

in an interim

period,

between the Old Covenant and the full realization of the

Age

to Come.30

In 14:2 Paul

explains why

the Corinthians must either

prophesy or

interpret

the

tongues

which

they speak.

In this

present Age

yàp cfxor?c, (no

one is

understanding).

not mean that he is not

heard, but

that he is not understood.31 Thus

living

the

non-pneumatics issue of

understanding

were

hearing,

is further

sharpened

but were instructed to

AK06,CL here does

but not

understanding.

This

in 14:5. The

exception

28Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 523.

29Ibid.

30Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” p. 522. Against John C. Hurd who says that “Paul here ‘damned’

glossalalia

with faint praise;” The Origin of Corin- thians (New York: Seabury Press, 1965), 188, 189.

3 l Bauer, Lexicon, 32 #7.

10

109

clause ex-r6g Ec I.L4 8cEp?.cr?EV? (except one

interprets)

is

neglected by many,

if not

most, scholars.

Yet the

exception

clause holds the key

to the correct

interpretation

of much of

chapter

14. If the exception

clause is taken

seriously,

Paul is not

arguing against any and all

tongues,

but

only against

those which are not

interpreted and thus do not

edify

the

Body.

It is

tongues

as a sign of

complete existence in the New

Age

which are

problematic

at Corinth. These tongues

do not need to be

interpreted,

in the Corinthians’ view. Paul shows them that the realities of

living

out an

inaugurated eschatology require interpretation

for

every tongue

uttered in the service. Paul also

argues

from the

reality

of the 6

?varr?r)pcvY

-r6m T6rrov ToD l8cc?irov

(he

who

occupies

the

place

of the

untrained). It is

possible

that there was a special

place

reserved in the church for initiates, babes in Christ, who as

yet

did not manifest the

gifts of the

Spirit,

or who had not

yet

been taken into full

membership. Paul contrasts the 18LO’J’-raL with the ?rrco-roc in

14:23,

and shows that the interests of both these

groups

must be taken into account. If we

bring

14:23 under the rubric of the

exception clause,

we see that Paul is not

forbidding

the use of all

tongues,

but

only

those

tongues which are not

interpreted

and are therefore

incomprehensible

to initiates or unbelievers. The

exception

clause of verse 5 also illu- minates the statement of Paul in verse “in church I would rather speak

five words with the mind than ten thousand words in a tongue.”

Our

understanding

of the Corinthians’

eschatology

as it relates to tongues

causes us to

argue

for an

ellipsis

as the correct under- standing

of this statement, thus: “I would rather

speak

five words with the mind than ten thousand words in a tongue

(which

are not interpreted).”

This

interpretation

is

required by 14:27,

where Paul gives

definite

permission

for the exercise of

tongues

in worship, as long

as

they

are

interpreted.

The lack of

regard

for the

interpreta- tion of

tongues among

the Corinthians is evidence for a realized eschatology among

them which saw no need for

interpreting.

.

.

.

..

Resurrection:

Past, Present,

or Future?

Anthony

Thiselton has refuted the claim of E. Ellis that 1 Corinthians 15 “offers doubtful

support

for the

eschatological interpretation

of 1 Cor. Ellis’ attack of the

argument

at this point gives

us an indication of its

importance

for the whole case we have been

trying

to build. If 1 Corinthians 15 can

legitimately explain

4:8, our case

will be established

firmly.

On the other

hand, if this is not the

case,

our

argument

will be

seriously

harmed.

‘

32??lton,

“Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” 510 contra E. Earle Ellis, “Christ Crucified,” in Robert Banks, ed., Reconciliation and

Hope (Grand Rapids :

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 73-74.

–

11

110

Scholarship

is divided on the

question

of whether the concerns of chapter

15 are raised

by

the

Corinthians,

or deduced

by

Paul from the letter

they

wrote

(7:1).33

The absence of

-rrcpl 8e, (it

is used to introduce all the

previous topics

since

7:1)

lends

support

to the idea that this is Paul’s deduction, but in 15:12 some Corinthians are reported

as

saying

that there is no resurrection from the dead. This would

support

the idea that the Corinthians raised the issue them- selves. This difference has an effect on our

argument

in that it is stronger

if Paul uses

chapter

15 to undergird all he has said

prior

to it,

rather than

understanding chapter

15 as just one more answer to a Corinthian

problem.

The

stylistic

difference

(noted above)

in Paul’s

presentation

leads us to conclude that the Corinthians

had, not written to Paul about this in their letter, but that Paul became aware of the denial of the resurrection

by

word of mouth

(likely through

the household of

Stephanas; 5:1; 16:17).

Thus Paul saved for last the most

important topic,

which underlies all the others he had dealt with so far. Paul’s success with the Corinthians

depends on his

ability

to’return them to a correct

(inaugurated) eschatology from their incorrect

(realized)

one. This he does in

chapter

15

by first of all

returning

to the

-irapd8oot,- (tradition),

then he bases the whole of Christian doctrine

squarely upon

the Resurrection. , Our contemporary question

about the

meaning

of the word- history

need not concern us here, for we are concerned with the meaning

of Paul for the Corinthians in their

thought

forms and categories.

Paul’s

meaning

for the Corinthians in 15:1-10 is that Jesus died, was resurrected, and

appeared

to people in a real,

bodily existence. This is

proven by

the traditions which Paul has

received, the seal of which is Jesus’

personal appearance

to Paul

(likely

on the Damascus road-Acts

9:1-9).

Paul then

proceeds

to handle the error of verse 12. The Corinthi- ans did not

deny

the resurrection as a general

principle, they merely denied the dkda7aoLs-

V6Kp6V (resurrection of the dead). Why? They

believed in a

spiritualized

resurrection which

they

had already experienced,

in which

they

were now

filled, rich, and

reign- ing (4:8).34

This was a logical extrapolation of the correct escha- tology

Paul had

taught

them while he was at Corinth himself.35 But the Corinthian error was so serious, so far-reaching, that Paul staked the whole Christian

message

on the

future, bodily resurrec- tion. The Corinthian resolution of the tension between

“already” and “not

yet”

meant that Christ was not raised

bodily.

Paul showed that if this were the case, faith was vain, and there was no salvation

33Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, 91. 34Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, 91. 35Thiselton, 511-512.

_

12

111

(15:16-19).

That the issue for the Corinthians is the Resurrection of the dead is

plain

from

15:35,

where Paul

anticipates

the Corinthi- ans’

arguments

about the

body.

The

necessity

of a bodily Resurrec- tion

destroys

the Corinthians’ false use of Paul’s

eschatology.

Conclusion

The Corinthians were a

group

of Christians who

pushed

Paul’s teaching

about the Resurrection much too far. Their “realized” eschatology

was used

licentiously

to

permit

a

variety

of immoral practices.

1 Corinthians was written

by Paul

to correct these abuses of his own

teaching

and doctrine. The most

important

result of the “realized

eschatology”

was the two level

Christianity

of the Corin- thians,

which

emphasized

visible

gifts.

Paul corrected the incorrect two-level

Christianity by replacing

it with a correct two-level

view, which

put

the

“pneumatics”

underneath.

.

‘

13