Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 3 1 CORINTHIANS 4
Introduction
In 1 Cor 1–3 Paul addresses the single issue of patronal factionalism. In 1 Cor 5–6 Paul addresses the three issues of incest, law court abuses, and sexual immorality. It will be argued that these three issues of 1 Cor 5–6 are closely connected to the powerful patrons in the congregation. However, before Paul addresses these three issues he first endeavors to regain a position of power, namely the power of a father. Thus, it will be argued that 1 Cor 4 is Paul’s attempt to regain a position of power so that he can address the abuses of the powerful patrons in 1 Cor 5–6. This chapter will continue to utilize textual rhetoric which focuses on the style and the developments of argumentation.1
Paul attempts to gain his position of power through a series of interconnected arguments. These interconnected arguments are outlined as follows:
- The Ultimate Tribunal, 4:1–5
- Do Not Go Beyond What is Written, 4:6–7
- Kings and Criminals, 4:8–13
- A Letter of Recommendation, 4:14–16
- Timothy, the Apostle’s Apostle, 4:17–21
These five arguments will be examined from the perspective of textual rhetoric, with a special focus on Paul’s use of the social values of honor and shame. While honor and shame have been central to Paul’s argument in the first three chapters, now, in 1 Cor 4, Paul employs a new aspect to his argument, namely that of “staying in one’s proper place.” It will be demonstrated that this “staying in one’s proper place” will form a core theme of Paul’s five arguments in 1 Cor 4. Thus, “staying in one proper’s place” also forms part of the central theme of the chapter and is foundational to Paul’s attempt to reestablish himself to his proper place of authority, which is that of apostle of Jesus Christ and father of the Corinthian Christians.
The Ultimate Tribunal, 4:1–5
Paul begins this section by defending his ministry and by making a forensic apology. Collins writes, Once again Paul turns to a reflection on his own ministry. The passage is replete with forensic language, the language of the courtroom. “Judging” (vv. 3, 4, 5), being found trustworthy (v. 2), knowing of something that could be held against oneself (v. 4), “being acquitted” (v. 4), “bringing to light” (v. 5), “ making intentions manifest” (v. 5), and “commendation” (v. 5) bespeak the setting of a courtroom.2
deSilva has demonstrated that there is a distinct difference between how honor and shame is achieved and ascribed in the dominant culture and in the minority cultures. He cites examples from both Greco-Roman philosophical writings and Jewish literature to demonstrate how minority cultures establish and maintain their honor and shame in contrast to and often in competition with the dominant culture. deSilva argues that one of the central arguments of the minority culture is an appeal to a court that is higher than the court and opinions of the dominant culture; it is an appeal to the court of God.3
Paul, in v. 1, uses two words, servant (υπηρε’της) and steward4 (οικονο‘μος), to describe himself and Apollos. Οικονο’μος is used only here by Paul, and it was typically used to describe “one who functions as a helper, frequently in a subservient role.”5 In contrast, υπηρε’της was a position of great responsibility, and even honor.6 This honor is made all the greater due to the fact that the secret things of God were the items entrusted to Paul and Apollos. Thus, with these two words Paul continues to present himself and Apollos as faithful clients, who are servants and stewards, who were willing to humble themselves before their patron. Yet, this humbling resulted in their receiving a position of status and honor from the patron. No doubt these secret things refer back to Paul’s discussion in 3:6–16. Bassler writes, Paul thus had two serious problems to address—a general overvaluation of human leadership in the community and a criticism of undervaluation (by some) of his own ministry and gospel. Furthermore, he had to address these problems in such a way that his solution to one did not exacerbate the other. Paul resolved this dilemma by focusing on the servant ministry of the apostles. As mere servants of God they are not to be evaluated above their master (3:5–9), but as servants of God they are answerable only to the master and not to human critics.7
In v. 2 Paul notes that the core quality demanded of a steward is trustworthiness (πιστο’ς). That is, he must be trusted to carry out the requirements of his office. There is nothing new here, Paul is simply restating a basic principle concerning stewards that his audience would have been well aware of. Thus, Paul is not teaching new information, rather he is laying the premise that he will build upon. Yet, in v. 3, before Paul even attempts to justify or defend his tenure as a steward he immediately clarifies who will judge his faithfulness as a steward. Paul declares that it is a little thing (ελα’σσων, superlative, it is the least thing) that he is examined or questioned by the Corinthians, or any human court. Indeed, Paul will not even question himself about his faithfulness as a steward. Paul’s repeated use of ανακρι’νω (examine or question) suggests that he is indeed drawing on a judicial or a tribunal concept.8
In v. 4, the NRSV translation accurately conveys Paul’s use of courtroom language. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. Paul clarifies what he means by the previous statement (I do not even judge myself). He is not saying he is beyond examination, rather, he has indeed examined himself and is not aware of anything against himself. However, Paul states that his own self-perception of innocence is not enough for an acquittal (δικαιο’ω). The only one who can examine Paul’s service as a steward and the only one who can pass judgment on him is his Lord.
Yet, if Paul does not care about the Corinthians’ judgment of him, why even write this apology? The answer would appear to be that Paul is carefully portraying himself as the humble client/servant/steward who is in full submission to his patron. So much so, that while he will examine (ανακρι’νω) himself, he did not even acquit (δικαιο’ω) himself. In so doing he raises the standard of faithfulness to the patron for all clients. Paul also challenges the Corinthians to be more concerned about the patron than each other, with regards to judgment. However, not only does Paul present himself as the model client, who is worthy to imitate, he also removes himself, his message, and the presentation of his message from any critique by the Corinthians. This is a very well crafted argument. Paul uses an established premise (Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful) and he applies it to himself to establish his faithfulness as a steward and to remove himself from the Corinthians’ critique.
In v. 5, as Paul wraps up this section (ω«στε), he commands (the imperative of κρι’νω) the Corinthians to follow the principle he has just established, namely, clients do not examine (ανακρι’νω) or judge (κρι’νω). Paul adds two reasons to encourage the Corinthians to follow his command.9 The first reason deals with the ability of the patron to make a thorough examination of his clients (who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart). Paul, in keeping with his elevation of Jesus in 1 Cor 1, once again presents Jesus as the super-patron by presenting him with supernatural examining abilities; specifically, Jesus can bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. Thus, part of Paul’s appeal to a higher court is this higher court’s ability to perform a more detailed examination. Garland notes, Praise bestows honor, blame heaps dishonor. . . . In the Corinthian context, we may infer that the congregation went to extremes in bestowing praise on individual teachers or leaders for their wisdom while berating others. It resulted in the friction dividing the church. Paul intends to drive home the point that ultimate praise comes from God in the judgment, and it is the only praise that matters.10
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION – REVIEW OF LITERATURE – METHODOLOGY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Review of Literature
1.3 Rationale For The Study
1.4 The Socio-Rhetorical Framework of 1 Corinthians 1–6
1.5 Method
1.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 2: 1 CORINTHIANS 1:1–2:5
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Slogans and Σοφι’α
2.3 The Rhetorical Unit
2.4 Greeting and Thanksgiving, 1:1–8
2.5 Paul’s Appeal, the Propositio, 1:10
2.6 The Narratio, 1:11–17
2.7 Insiders and Outsiders, 1:18–2:5
2.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: 1 CORINTHIANS 4
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Ultimate Tribunal, 4:1–5
3.3 “Do Not Go Beyond What Is Written,” 4:6–7
3.4 Kings and Criminals, 4:8–13
3.5 A Letter of Recommendation, 4:14–16
3.6 Timothy, The Apostle’s Apostle, 4:17–21
3.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: 1 CORINTHIANS 5–6
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Incestuous Man, 1 Corinthians 5
4.3 On Going To The Law Courts, 1 Corinthians 6:1–11
4.4 “All Things Are Permissible,” 1 Corinthians 6:12–20
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
