Question

How much evidence is there in 1 Corinthians that a distorted eschatology lies behind the errors and excesses of the Corinthian church? What do we learn from 1 Corinthians concerning Paul’s own eschatological perspective?

Abstract

This paper posits an ‘over-realised’ eschatology in Corinth as foundational to many of the errors and excesses observed and addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians. The evidence for this position is presented, largely following the work of Thiselton,¹ and defended against the competing claim of Hays that the Corinthians suffered from a lack of eschatological thinking rather than an overabundance.² This over-realized eschatology is then connected to many of the errors and excesses on view in 1 Corinthians, particularly those associated with their pneumatic enthusiasm. A second stream of eschatological distortion, a denial of future bodily resurrection based on a Hellenistic dualism, is then identified. This is tied to the errors and excesses of the libertines and ascetics in chapters 5-7. Throughout, the Apostle’s own eschatological position is traced, and found to reflect a dialectical tension between that which is and that which will be: the age to come is inaugurated in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and this brings attendant blessings; but the present age has not yet passed away, nor will it do so until all things (including death) are placed under Christ’s feet.

Essay

The Apostle Paul uses eschatological language throughout his first epistle to the Corinthians, starting in his opening prayer (1:7-9) and eventually climaxing in his sustained defence of a bodily resurrection (15:1-58). He frequently stresses future events as a basis for present action (4:5; 6:2, 9; 7:29-31; 11:26, 32; 15:58). In fact, this very stress on future events (as future events) has led numerous scholars to posit the presence of an eschatological distortion in the Corinthian church, which Paul attempts to correct in this epistle. The most common such reconstruction is that of an ‘over-realised’ eschatology, in which the Corinthians saw themselves as already living in the eschatological kingdom. This view boasts support from impressive array of scholars, including Barrett, Thiselton, Mearns, Fee and Witherington.³ Recent years, however, have seen the rise of a new theory, offered by scholars such as Hays (1997), Horsley (1997), and Wright (2003).⁴ This reconstruction suggests that the Corinthian problem was not one of too much eschatology, but rather too little. In spite of Wright’s confident assertion that ‘[m]any scholars have come round’ and that the earlier reading is ‘increasingly abandoned’, this latter is still by far the minority reading.⁵ The works of Thiselton and Hays may be considered representative of these two viewpoints, and will usefully serve as touchstones for the following comparison.

In his landmark article, Thiselton lays out the evidence for an over-realised eschatology in Corinth by showing that it provides a ‘single common factor which helps to explain an otherwise diverse array of apparently independent problems at Corinth’.⁶ Thus, he detects in chapters 1-4 a Corinthian party challenging the need for spiritual leadership now that all believers have the Spirit;⁷ an anti-nomian party in chapters 5-10;⁸ the Lord’s Supper interpreted as an eschatological banquet in chapter 11;⁹ eschatologically driven pneumatic enthusiasts in chapters 12-14;¹⁰ and a denial of a future bodily resurrection in chapter 15.¹¹ Repeatedly, on Thiselton’s reading, Paul urges the Corinthians to remember that significant aspects of the eschatological kingdom remain yet future. Christ will return (1:7-9; 11:26; 15:23) and it is in his wake that resurrection (15:23), judgement and reward (3:10-15; 4:5; 6:2, 9; 9:24-27; 11:32), perfect knowledge and wisdom (4:8-13; 8:2; 13:2) will follow.

Hays offers a number of criticisms of Thiselton’s reconstruction.¹² He accuses Thiselton of basing his hypothesis on ‘an improbable construction about Gnosticism in Corinth’,¹³ although Thiselton explicitly denies this in a later work.¹⁴ Hays’ primary criticism, however, is that Thiselton’s case rests on only two substantive texts (4:8 and 15:12).¹⁵ The rest, he says, is merely repeatedly showing that Paul appeals to future eschatology in order to correct the Corinthians’ behaviour, but this does not prove a realised eschatology. Hays’ criticism is undermined by his imprecise characterisation of Thiselton’s position,¹⁶ yet he is correct in his analysis of Thiselton’s exegetical support. 1 Corinthians 4:8 and 15:12 are the key texts upon which Thiselton’s case hangs.

Over against this position, Hays offers two theses: (a) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians to think eschatologically; and (b) Paul wanted the Corinthians to reshape their identity in the light of Israel’s Scripture.¹⁷ Of these the first is directly relevant to the present discussion, for it implies that the Corinthians did not have any concept of an eschaton to start with, whereas a realised or over-realised eschatology necessarily presupposes such an eschatological framework.¹⁸ Instead, Hays posits that the Corinthians drew upon non-eschatological Greco-Roman culture, and specifically popular Cynic and Stoic thought.¹⁹ In support of this he reads πάντα ἔξεστιν (10:23) as a Corinthian slogan reflecting the belief that the σοφός is free to do whatever he wishes for he possesses knowledge to choose.²⁰ On Hays’ reading, then, the source of freedom is wisdom and knowledge. But it may be argued in response that wisdom and knowledge were themselves considered eschatological gifts (cf. 12:8; 13:12b). Paul says that, when they were called, not many amongst the Corinthians were σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα (1:26), and the implication is that if they are now wise they are σοφοὶ κατὰ πνεῦμα. Hays has not disproved eschatological thinking in Corinth but may rather have identified a means by which it may have been expressed in the language of the contemporary culture.

Both sides claim 4:8 as positive evidence for their respective positions, and so this is the obvious place to begin comparing them. 1 Corinthians 4:8-13 represents biting irony on the part of the Apostle, made apparent by the emphatic ἤδη at the start of the first two statements.²¹ The difficulty lies in discerning Paul’s purpose in using such irony. Lincoln is here representative of the over-realised eschatology reading, arguing that the Corinthians believed themselves to be living – indeed, ruling (4:8) – in the eschatological kingdom, and thus the beneficiaries of the Spirit and attendant charismatic gifts.²² Hays concedes that they were ‘suffering from an excess of pride and self-satisfaction’ but responds that ‘there are other ways to arrive at such a state besides having an accelerated apocalyptic timetable.’²³ In support of this, he points out that claims to be rich and to reign were made by both Cynic and Stoic philosophers.²⁴ Witherington goes further, citing numerous specific instances.²⁵ Importantly, however, he does not find this insight incompatible with the over-realised eschatology reading.²⁶ In fact, in noting the presence of an imperial eschatology in Corinth he may well have suggested the idea linking the two.²⁷

Fee points out that the three verbs chosen – κεκορεσμένοι, ἐπλουτήσατε and ἐβασιλεύσατε – directly attack both the Corinthians’ pride in general and specifically their view of spirituality.²⁸ The aorist tenses of the latter two suggest eschatological fulfilment.²⁹ They believed that all gifts had been given and were enthusiastically exercising them to the exclusion of all else. This led to significant errors and excesses, such as arrogance (4:18), flirting with idolatry (8:9-13; 10:14-17), a ‘magical’ view of the sacraments (10:1-6; 11:28-30; 15:29)³⁰ and an exalted view of the χαριματα that precluded a need for others (12:21). They believed that by the Spirit, and especially the gift of tongues, they already spoke the language of the angels, the language of heaven (13:1).³¹ This last is particularly important, since it highlights a significant weakness in Hays’ reconstruction: it is unable to account for the evident pneumatic enthusiasm in Corinth. If the source of the Corinthian excesses and errors lies in their Stoic knowledge and wisdom, how did they understand the presence of the Spirit and the charismatic gifts? It is difficult to conceive of a Christian pneumatology not derived from eschatology; 1:7 suggests that Paul made an explicit connection between the two,³² whilst 13:1 may suggest the Corinthians did also. Thus Thiselton’s conjectured over-realised eschatology is to be preferred as it brings coherence to more of the overall epistle than does Hays’.

Paul attempts to correct both the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of the Corinthian position. He does this by emphasising the contrast with the acknowledged leaders of the church, the apostles, for whom suffering was a present and continuing reality (4:9-13).³³ He also reminds them later on that they are in a race not yet completed (9:24f.) and that they do not yet know as they ought (8:2; 13:8-10). On the subject of spiritual gifts and spirituality, he explains that they are not of the same order as those that characterise the eschatological kingdom, though they may herald it; they will not be needed in the age to come.³⁴ The only thing with abiding significance is love (13:8). As Thiselton writes, ‘Paul’s futurist perspective… is not only to qualify an over-realized eschatology at Corinth; it also represents an anti-enthusiastic stance’.³⁵

According to Paul, Christians live at the intersection of two ages: the proof that the new has come is the availability of eschatological gifts (1:7; 4:7);³⁶ the proof that the old is not yet gone is the continuing presence of affliction and death (4:9-13).³⁷ The Corinthians evidently think of themselves as having commenced life and reign in a kingdom (whether eschatological or otherwise) as evidenced by the repeated ingressive aorist ἐβασιλεύσατε (4:8, twice).³⁸ Paul instead points to a kingdom inaugurated but not yet consummated.³⁹ Similarly, the Apostle’s response in 15:54-57 suggests that the Corinthians made much of the ‘victorious’ life, so that Paul had to point to a victory still future.⁴⁰ The kingdom is inaugurated by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but will only be consummated when the full and final victory is won and every enemy is placed under his feet (15:25).⁴¹ And the last such enemy is death (15:26).

Death, or rather life after death, is the subject of another Corinthian eschatological distortion. That this is proved by 15:12 – ‘some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead’ – is not seriously contested by scholars. This is as far as the consensus goes, however, with the exact nature of the distortion hotly debated. Reconstructions are legion, but most commentators posit one or more of the following as Corinthian beliefs: (a) there is no life after death; (b) the resurrection has already occurred; (c) their Hellenistic dualism precluded belief in a bodily resurrection.⁴² To the first, Barrett objects that they could not have been considered Christians – ἐν ὑμῖν (15:12) – and hold such a belief. Mearns raises the possibility that this is Paul’s (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of the Corinthian position, but his case is unpersuasive.⁴³ Of the second there are many variant readings. Schweitzer argued that the Corinthians believed the Jewish notion that only those alive at the Parousia would enter the kingdom, and the corollary that those alive at the coming of the Messiah (a past event in their eyes) would enter the kingdom; thus, since they were alive at his appearing they must now have gone through the resurrection event (baptismal regeneration) and be living in the Messianic kingdom.⁴⁴ Davies argues against this, pointing out that there were unlikely to be such ultra-conservative Jews in Corinth, and that there are other far more plausible explanations.⁴⁵ Instead, Davies endorses Héring’s view that there was no need for resurrection, as they were already experiencing the blessings of the kingdom.⁴⁶ Mearns develops this further, suggesting that they believed the mechanism by which they were transferred into the kingdom was through baptism, and thus the Corinthians interpreted resurrection as a metaphor for baptism,⁴⁷ whilst both Fee and Lincoln suggest that the Corinthians’ magical view of baptism and eucharist was such as for them to preclude the possibility of death altogether.⁴⁸ Thiselton argues strongly against all of these, on the grounds that they could hardly have misconstrued Paul so thoroughly after he lived with them for 18 months.⁴⁹

The third main view, that the Corinthians were possessed of a Hellenistic dualism that held a low view of the body, is the majority view.⁵⁰ Such a preconception would cause a natural resistance to the new (to them) idea of a bodily resurrection.⁵¹ As Davies puts it, ‘it was escape from the body, not any future reunion with it in resurrection, that seemed desirable to the Hellenistic world owing to its particular anthropology’.⁵² The main textual evidence for this is that the apostle devotes substantial energy in 15:35-49 towards answering the questions: πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; and ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται; (15:35). Wright is persuasive in his argument that these are distinct, though related, questions.⁵³ On his reading, the first question pertains to the mechanism by which resurrection is accomplished (the Spirit) and the second relates to the nature of the post-resurrection existence.⁵⁴ The most attractive aspect of Wright’s hypothesis is the neatness of Paul’s use of σῶμα πνευματικόν as an answer to both questions. Ultimately, however, the syntax of 15:35 mandates against this as it would require δέ to function in a correlative manner without a corresponding μέν (or οὐ).⁵⁵ Thus the more natural reading is to take the second question as a specification of the first, with δέ functioning in a more mundane connective manner.⁵⁶ Thus Robertson and Plummer capture the sense of the first question in their paraphrase, ‘Can we conceive of such a thing? We cannot be expected believe what is impossible and inconceivable’.⁵⁷ In either case, judging by Paul’s response the emphasis seems to be on the second question: ‘With what kind of body do they [the dead who are raised] come?’ (15:35, NRSV). The nature of the anticipated objection is suggestive that Paul believed the Corinthians would not accept a future bodily resurrection.

In addition to denying the resurrection, the Corinthian disparagement of the body apparently led to errors and excesses in two other directions. Firstly, a party of libertines reasoned that if the body was doomed to eventual destruction anyway then what was done with, through and to it was of no importance. Their slogan was πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν (6:12; cf. 10:23). The results of this logic may be seen in the case of the incestuous man (5:1) and subsequent pride on the part of the church that such a thing should occur in their midst (5:2, 6). Similarly the sexual promiscuity on display in 6:12-20 may be attributed to this radical devaluing of that which is physical. The body was free to indulge fleshly appetites so long as the spirit was also free to meet spiritual appetites (6:13). To these people Paul offers the instruction δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν (6:20). Secondly, however, a party of ascetics applied their understanding of physical existence in a different direction. They reasoned that any indulgence of the σῶμα would be at the expense of the πνεῦμα.⁵⁸ Thus they argued that believers should abstain from sexuality altogether, reflected in their slogan  καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι (7:1b).⁵⁹ Paul is more circumspect in his response to this group, acknowledging that abstinence is indeed appropriate if it aids in serving the Lord (7:32-35); if it does not, however, there is nothing wrong with sexuality providing it is in the context of marriage (7:36). Thus, whilst Paul agrees to some extent with the ascetic party line, he does not agree with the reasoning that led them to it.⁶⁰

That Paul himself conceived of a bodily resurrection is quite clear. Resurrection is mentioned first in 6:14, in support of the argument that culminates in the imperative, ‘glorify God in your body’ (6:20, NRSV). Robertson & Plummer note that the inclusion of ἐκ νεκρῶν in 15:12 suggests a bodily resurrection, for Christ could not be conceived of as among the spiritually dead.⁶¹ The strongest evidence, however, is Paul’s response to the anticipated Corinthian objection (15:35). Paul offers two analogies that reveal the shape of his thought: (a) the planting of a seed (15:36-38); and (b) different kinds of bodies (15:39-41). The first emphasises both continuity and transformation.⁶² That which is sown goes from one existence to another by passing through death (36), at which time it is transformed from one body to another, according to the will of God (38). The second analogy stresses the adaptation of each body to its sphere of existence (39-41), with the implication that there will be an appropriate body for resurrection life. The σῶμα πνευματικόν is both continuous with and utterly distinct from σῶμα ψυχικόν. Thus Paul, whilst affirming a bodily existence in the age to come, distinguishes his position from a ‘crass Jewish conception of a “fleshly” resurrection’.

Neither σῶμα nor ψυχικόν hold negative connotations in this context, except possibly that of perishability (15:42b).⁶³ As Vos points out, the absence of the σαρκικός / σαρκινός word group in this passage is strong proof that the contrast here is between the creation body and the resurrection body, for these are Paul’s stock terms for describing the body invaded by sin (e.g. Rom 7:14; 1 Cor 3:1, 3; 2 Cor 10:4).⁶⁴ The Apostle is neither disparaging the ψυχικός nor exalting the πνευματικός but rather contrasting between the bodies belonging to the pre-eschatological and the eschatological ages respectively.⁶⁵

In 15:45-49, Paul appeals to the analogy of Adam and Christ, further reinforcing the eschatological flavour of his argument. Lincoln points out the progression in his comparisons: first, types of bodies (15:35-41); next, representatives of those types (15:42-46); finally Adam and Christ are reconsidered as representatives of two world orders, γῆ and οὐρανός (15:47-49).⁶⁶ Once again, the trajectory of Paul’s thought is an eschatological one.

What, then, may be said in conclusion? Thiselton’s case for an over-realised eschatology in Corinth is persuasive. The key exegetical evidence for the position is found in 4:8-13, wherein Paul satirises their arrogance and wilful blindness to the affliction that surrounds them, not least his own. The real strength of Thiselton’s argument is that it provides sufficient cause for the Corinthians’ pneumatic enthusiasm, something that Hays’ reading cannot. Even if one allows Hays’ position, however, this merely transforms the Corinthians’ eschatological distortion from too much eschatology to too little; rather than an over-realised eschatology they had an undeveloped eschatology. Either way, Paul’s consistent methodology is to repeatedly emphasise the remaining imperfections of the present age, and the blessings that await in the age to come. In particular, he lays great stress on a future somatic existence. In so doing, he comes into conflict with the second main stream of Corinthian eschatological distortion, a Hellenistic dualism that values the ‘spiritual’ (πνευματικός) to the exclusion of the ‘unspiritual’ (ψυχικός) and thus denies a future bodily resurrection (15:12). Between them, these two eschatological distortions may be seen to be causal in many, if not all, of the excesses and errors observed and addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Works cited

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London,: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Blomberg, Craig. 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994.

Carson, D. A. The Cross and Christian Ministry : Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians. Paperback ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2004.

Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism : Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Mifflintown: Siegler Press, 1980 (1947). Reprint, 1998.

Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987.

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997.

———. “The Conversion of the Imagination : Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 45, no. 3 (1999): 391-412.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians S.P.C.K, 1983.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.

Kreitzer, L. Joseph. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 19. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet : Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Mearns, Christopher L. “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 22 (1984): 19-35.

Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985.

Pate, C. Marvin. The End of the Age Has Come : The Theology of Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995.

Plevnik, Joseph. Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer and Charles Augustus Briggs. Second ed, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914.

Thiselton, Anthony C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” New Testament Studies 24, no. 4 (1978): 510-26.

———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 2003.

Yarbrough, O. Larry. “Not Like the Gentiles : Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul.” PhD, Scholars Press, Yale University, 1986.

Endnotes

1. Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” New Testament Studies 24, no. 4 (1978).
2. Richard B. Hays, “The Conversion of the Imagination : Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians,” New Testament Studies 45, no. 3 (1999).
3. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London,: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 108f.; Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology.”; Christopher L. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 22 (1984): 25.; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 12, 172.; Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 139, 292, 302-4.
4. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997), 70.; Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination.”; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 69.; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 2003), 279, 96-7.
5. Ibid., 279.
6. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 512.
7. Ibid.: 513ff.
8. Ibid.: 515ff.
9. Ibid.: 521-2.
10. Ibid.: 512, 22.
11. Ibid.: 523-4.
12. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 407-8. cf.
13. Ibid.: 408 n. 41.
14. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1174.
15. These are representative of two of the three main categories of eschatological thought found in this epistle: fulfilment/abundance (1:7-9; 4:8-13; 8:2; 10:11; 13:8-12; 15:20-28) and resurrection (6:14; 15:1-58). The third category is judgement/reward (3:10-15; 4:5; 6:2, 9; 9:24-27; 11:32).
16. In addition to reading a Gnostic element into Thiselton’s article (on which see above), Hays attacks the ‘tortuous interpretation’ of 15:12 as a belief that the Corinthians had already experienced resurrection ‘on the analogy of 2 Tim 2.17-18… which requires us to suppose that Paul misunderstands or misrepresents the Corinthians’ actual opinions’ (Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 408.). In this he misrepresents Thiselton, whose actual position was that the Corinthians ‘placed such weight on the experience of transformation in the past and present that when they thought about resurrection the centre of gravity of their thinking was no longer in the future.’ (Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 524.)
17. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 391.
18. Ibid.: 407.
19. Ibid.: 399. cf. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 279. Contra Barrett, First Epistle, 108f.
20. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 399. cf. 8:1.
21. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 172. Both Fee and Witherington note the possibility that these could be a continuation of the rhetorical questions in 4:7 (Ibid., 172 n. 36.; Witherington, Conflict & Community, 141.). The force of the irony remains undiminished in either case.
22. Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet : Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 33.
23. Hays, First Corinthians, 70.
24. Ibid.
25. Witherington, Conflict & Community, 142f.
26. Ibid., 139.
27. Ibid., 139, 304.
28. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 172.
29. Barrett, First Epistle, 108f.
30. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34. Lincoln suggests that the Corinthians viewed the sacraments as expressions of pneumatic existence in the kingdom.
31. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 12, 778. cf. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34, 41.
32. Admittedly the connection in this case is with the ‘already’ of Paul’s eschatological outlook, but the emphasis here seems to be on the fact that they are given for the interval until the parousia.
33. D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry : Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians, Paperback ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2004), 105.
34. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 295.
35. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 515.
36. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 477.
37. C. Marvin Pate, The End of the Age Has Come : The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995), 106.
38. Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 138. Kistemaker also argues that the periphrastic construction of the perfect passive participle κεκορεσμένοι together with the verb ‘to be’ in the present tense ‘signifies that for a considerable time the Corinthians have had all the things they needed’.
39. Of seven occurrences of the phrase ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Paul, five of them are found in this epistle (4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50). cf. Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 148.
40. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 52. Yet, as Lincoln points out, Paul can still use the present participle διδόντι for the giving of victory in 15:57
41. L. Joseph Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 19 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987), 148.
42. cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1172ff. Thiselton also notes the possibility that there may have been more than one group with more than one problem (Ibid., 1176.).
43. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development,” 24.
44. Schweitzer, cited in Barrett, First Epistle, 347.
45. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism : Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Mifflintown: Siegler Press, 1980 (1947); reprint, 1998), 292.
46. Héring, cited in Ibid. cf. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 37.; Kistemaker, First Corinthians, 540. This is the view that Hays latches on to as representative of Thiselton’s reconstruction of an over-realised eschatology in Corinth (on which, see above).
47. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development,” 20.
48. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 715.; Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34.
49. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 511.
50. So Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 11-12.; Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 301.; Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 200.; Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, 151.; Witherington, Conflict & Community, 306.; and Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 316, 30.
51. cf. John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (S.P.C.K, 1983), 286.
52. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 303.
53. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 343.
54. cf. Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed., The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985), 219.
55. cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996), 670.
56. So Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 775, 80. and Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 38.
57. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Second ed., The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), 368. and quoted in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1262.
58. Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The Niv Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 132.
59. O. Larry Yarbrough, “Not Like the Gentiles : Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul” (PhD, Scholars Press, Yale University, 1986), 119.
60. Ibid., 5.; Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 136.
61. Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 351.
62. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 779.
63. Both Fee and Wright follow Jeremias in suggesting that Paul’s usage of φθείρω in 15:42, 50 indicates ‘the dead’ οver against the living. On this reading, ‘perishable’ is an indication of mortality and not intrinsically negative. Ibid., 799.; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 358.
64. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 168.
65. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 40.
66. Ibid., 44.