The Problem Of Two Level Christianity At Corinth

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

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