Book Notice: 1 Corinthians (Ciampa and Rosner)

Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner

First Letter to The Corinthians

PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.

Available at Amazon.com

There are so many good 1 Corinthians commentaries. Fee and Thiselton are the must-reads, but one can hardly neglect Garland, Hays, and Witherington either (then there's Blomberg and Morris which ain't bad either). And Richard Horsley's and Jerome Murphy O'Connor's studies on 1 Corinthians are worth checking into too. But I have to say that Ciampa and Rosner have added another excellent book to the list of top Corinthian reads by producing a solid commentary that contains several unique approaches.

Ciampa and Rosner (henceforth CR) see the problems in Corinth emerging from the inability of the Corinthians to let the gospel message shape their gentile and Graeco-Roman lives and consequently misunderstand the message and misbehave. So the problems are fundamentally about relating to cultural values rather than, say, theological like Gnosticism or over-realized eschatology. The main subjects of 1 Corinthians according to CR are wisdom, sexuality, worship, and resurrection/consummation. The OT is key in Paul's exhortation in 1 Corinthians, esp. Deuteronomy and Isaiah. CR do not apply the categories of ancient rhetoric to 1 Corinthians since such rhetoric was rarely applied in letters (though see my Expository Times essay for a qualified approval of using rhetorical categories to letters). Another feature is that the authors apply the categories of verbal aspect to the Greek text though they seem to cautiously accept that Greek verbs do have tense unless contextually cancelled. CR believe that 1 Corinthians provides some good resources to enable Christians to meet the challenges of postmodernism. They summarize the argument of 1 Corinthians as follows:

Paul's attempt to tell the church of God in Corinth that they are part of the fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation of worldwide worship of the God of Israel, and as God's eschatological temple they must act in a manner appropriate to their pure and holy status by becoming unified, shunning pagan vices, and glorifying God in an obedience to the lordship of Jesus Christ (52).

For some highlights: 1:30: "Although the four qualities[righteousness, holiness, redemption, and wisdom] both characterize Christ and are imparted by Christ, the emphasis is on the fact that believers have them by virtue of being in union with Christ" (109); 4:9-13: "A better explanation of the Corinthians' spiritual pretensions than assuming that they betray a belief that the decisive eschatological events have already taken place is set forth in ancient sources. Imagining oneself to be be filled, rich, and reigning was in fact a claim made by Cynic and Stoic philosophers ... Hence, the Corinthian problems are not to be attributed to their faulty theology or premature eschatology so much as to their conformity to the norms and values of pagan culture. Paul's strategy is to encourage the Corinthians 'to understand themselves in terms of an apocalyptic narrative that locates present existence in between the cross and the parousia' [Hays]. It is true that the eschatological framework found throughout chapters 1-4 is at the heart of Paul's attack on Corinthian boasting. But eschatology is not so much the problem as the solution" (179-80); 7:10-11: "Paul stands with Jesus in holding that divorce may be justified only where one partner clearly manifests a radical refusal to respect one's marital commitments and maintain the fundamental integrity of the marriage" (293). 7:26: "Paul was not expecting the world to come to an immediate end, it seems, or he would not have been warning people about the implications of singleness and marriage for a life with more or less stress. It seems likely that even if he understood the present crisis to be part of larger eschatological developments, it would pass at some point" (337). 9:21: "Although Paul understood himself to live under the conditions of the new covenant in Christ rather than under the law of Moses, he was happy enough to observe the law when living among those who might have stumbled if he had not. Paul probably has in mind issues like the observance of food and Sabbath laws as well as halakic standards of the communities where he ministered" (427). 11:3: "Paul seems to be affirming that the creation pattern is still significant and cannot be shrugged off. While there is a tension between creation and new creation (esp. fallen creation and new creation), creation is the context in which Christians live out their lives, and it cannot be passed off as irrelevant" (510). 15:29: "It may be that Paul describes the people to whom he is referring in the third person rather than first- or second-person plural ('those who are baptized on account of the dead' rather than 'you/we who were baptized for the dead') because different people find different things about the Christian message particularly appealing. If so, Paul has in mind those who were particularly concerned about the afterlife and whose primary motivation in responding to the gospel message was its promise that those who trust in Christ need not fear death, since the dead in Christ will be raised in glory and power."

A fine volume and worth having in your personal library.

I should note that the next big 1 Corinthians commentary to look out for is Andrew Clark in the WBC series!

So who are Tongues and Prophecy for?

As I prepare my sermon on 1 Corinthians 14 tomorrow, I'm intrigued by vv. 20-25 and exactly who is Tongues and Prophecy for? Are they for believers or unbelievers? The line of argumentation is less than clear:

22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.

23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all,

25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you (ESV).

Probably the answer to this apparent contradiction is through the word "sign" (semeia). Notably the ESV probably gets it wrong by having "sign" twice in v. 22, since it only occurs in the first half of the verse in the Greek. Prophecy is not a "sign" for believers, but simply "for" believers. Garland offers some helpful comments in his BECNT commentary:

'In my view, “sign” has a double meaning in this context that is both negative and positive (cf. Grudem 1979; Fee 1987: 683). Glossolalia as a sign is to be taken in a negative sense with regard to unbelievers because it hardens them in their unbelief, as it did Israel in Isa. 28 (Rengstorf, TDNT 8:259; Sweet 1966–67: 244–45; Dunn 1975: 230–32; Grudem 1979: 390–91). It is a sign of alienation that will lead to judgment. On the other hand, glossolalia cannot be a negative sign for believers, because they are already believers. To Christians, speaking in tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit, though they may not understand what is said. Thiselton (2000: 1125) objects that tongues seem to have a negative effect on uninitiated Christians as well as on unbelievers. But Paul does not say that believers are driven away or hardened in their disobedience by witnessing someone speaking in tongues, only that they do not understand and consequently are not edified—a more neutral result.'

Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (650–651). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Are Idols non-entities or faces of demonic powers

It is interesting how in 1 Cor 8:4, Paul can say that idols “nothing,” but then in 1 Cor 10:19-21 he associates them with the worship of demons. Are idols nothing or are they a front for demonic powers? Perhaps it is the case that: “Idols are nonentities, but demonic powers used idols to inveigle humans into worshipping false gods” (David Garland, 1 Corinthians 372).

Tony Thiselton Reviews Joseph Fitzmyer's New Commentary

Over at RBL, Anthony Thiselton reviews Joseph Fitzmyer's new 1 Corinthians commentary in the Anchor Bible series.

The next major 1 Corinthians commentaries to look forward to will be Andrew Clark in the WBC and Bruce Winter in the NCCS.

Forthcoming First Corinthians Commentaries

Jo Fitzmyer's commentary on First Corinthians in the Anchor Bible series (published now with Yale University Press rather than Doubleday) is said to be out later this year, probably at SBL at a guess! Fitzmyer is an energetic and competent author and after reading his Romans commentary I think that he should be made an honorary Protestant! I have to wonder if the guy who put the imprimatur on that volume really read it, but that's another story. Yet I think Fitzmyer will have a hard time topping Thiselton, Fee, and Schrage for the best 1 Corinthians commentary in stock, but no doubt he'll come close. I should also mention that Andrew Clark of Aberdeen Uni is down to do the WBC volume on 1 Corinthians and Bruce Winter for the New Covenant Commentary Series as well - both guys have a wealth of knowledge on the Greco-Roman world.