Folks, (Nijay here), we are continuing a Friday Substack series on 1 Corinthians. Dr. Timothy Brookins is a great historian and biblical scholar, and author of several books including the **brand new** Eerdmans title REDISCOVERING THE WISDOM OF THE CORINTHIANS: PAUL, STOICISM, AND SPIRITUAL HIERARCHY (2024). Tim was kind enough to agree to do a 6-part series introducing some of the key ideas and insights from his scholarship on the background and context of 1 Corinthians. This is PART 2. For PART 1, CLICK HERE.
Paul and His Philosophical School in Corinth
Dr. Timothy Brookins
Part 2: Corinthian Wisdom and God’s Wisdom
My first post (CLICK HERE) summarized Part I of my book (chs. 1-2). In the book’s final chapters (chs. 9-12) I get to the “sub-Stoicism” of the church’s wise group and their conception of their group as a Pauline philosophical school (faction). But first I devote about a third of the book to close exegesis of 1 Cor 1:17b-4:21 (chs. 3-8). The purpose of these chapters is to test current readings and to lay out a reading that I think points in the direction of the comparison I am proposing.
This first major unit of the letter’s body (1:17b-4:21) introduces the “wisdom” problem, developing an antithesis throughout between what Paul calls the wisdom of God on the one hand (1:21, 24; 2:7; Christ as wisdom of God in 1:24), and the wisdom of the world (1:20; 3:19), the wisdom of humanity (2:5), or human wisdom (2:13) on the other. Several times Paul references “the wise man,” a title that some in the church seem to have adopted for themselves (3:18; 6:5; cf. 1:19, 27; 3:19, 20). I’ll summarize my reading of these chapters in two posts, treating 1:17b-16 in the present post, and 3:1-4:21 in the next.
One Word Against Another (1:17b-31)
The very first verse of this section furnishes some key terms based on which advocates of the “rhetorical” reading (see first post) begin hurriedly developing their thesis. Here Paul poses a contrast between preaching “in wisdom of word” (ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου) on the one hand, and “the cross of Christ” (v. 17b) on the other. The two terms constituting the former expression (σοφία and λόγος) occur together here and three additional times in 1:17b-2:16 (also in 2:1, 4 [in variant reading], 13). While versions of the rhetorical thesis vary (cf. B. Winter; S. Pogoloff; D. Litfin), all take the qualifying genitive λόγου (“of word”) as an indication that the particular kind of “wisdom” (σοφία) in view is a wisdom of speaking, i.e., refers to the ability to speak eloquently.
Space doesn’t permit a demonstration of all the reasons why this interpretation of the construction jumps to a conclusion too quickly. I’ll only note the exegetical significance of how v. 17b connects with v. 18. Here Paul reformulates the preceding contrast lexically through the invocation of a second kind of “word,” or λόγος. Hence, ὁ λόγος ... ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ in v. 18 merely relabels ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ (v. 17). The article preceding the genitive (ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ) is anaphoric, and indicates: out of the two “words” just alluded to, “I refer to the second one, i.e., ‘the one that is (ὁ) of the cross.’” Thus:
1:17b-c —> “wisdom of word” vs. “word of the cross”
1:18—> [“the word that is (ὁ) of wisdom”] vs. “the word that is (ὁ) of the cross”
The result is an antithesis between two “words,” or “accounts.” These are two “wisdoms,” two particular ways of looking at the world. As Paul develops the antithesis in the sections that follow, we find that one is the “wisdom of the world”—an “account” of reality that prioritizes the good of higher status and establishes a principle of personal distinction based on criteria of worth. Opposite is the wisdom of God—an ethos characterized by the value of humiliation, particularly in service of others, and a rejection of personal distinction based on criteria of worth—an ethos embodied in “Christ-crucified.”
Verses 26-31 narrow the focus of the preceding verses to the principle of “incongruous worth” already implied in Paul’s equation of God’s wisdom with “Christ-crucified” (vv. 22, 24). The rhetorical thesis misconstrues Paul’s point in these verses as a contrast between salvation by means of eloquent preaching and salvation by means of the God’s initiative. This section is not about agency (although God’s work is surely efficacious). Rather, Paul asserts that the Corinthians’ salvation is not conditioned by any qualities of their own (wise, powerful, well-born) but by God’s election, enacted apart from—or in spite of—any worthy qualities that they might have. Salvation is incongruous with worth. It is this that removes any grounds for “boasting” (1:29, 31).
Proclaiming Christ Crucified (2:1-5)
The next chapter transitions from the theological framework that Paul has just established to Paul himself as an embodiment of the wisdom that he is promoting (thus κἀγώ = “and for my part”). It would require a systematic exegetical demonstration to show why Paul’s references here to “preaching” and “wisdom” and “word” don’t imply his rejection of “rhetoric” or “sophistic” practices. Rather, what Paul means is that when he came to Corinth he didn’t preach a “wisdom” of the type he has just condemned but a “wisdom” whose content was “the mystery of God,” that is, “Christ-crucified” (v. 2). Paul himself embodied Christ’s lowliness with his deportment of “weakness and fear and much trembling” (v. 3). His message did not consist “in” (ἐν) the wisdom (“account”) of the type he is rejecting but in a demonstration, or laying forth, of the theme of “weakness,” that is, the account of Christ-crucified (v. 4). The result was that the Corinthians put their faith not “in” (ἐν) one kind of wisdom but “in” (ἐν) another (v. 5).
A Spiritual Wisdom (2:6-16)
1 Corinthians 2:6-16 is entirely continuous with what precedes. Paul affirms that some understand the wisdom he preaches and others don’t. Here continues the stark, essentially apocalyptic, contrast between two wisdoms, two ways of thinking, and just two kinds of people.
Paul, however, now formulates the contrast in new terms. Some people are “spiritual” (πνευματικοί) and others “unspiritual” (ψυχικοί). The former understand the things of God, the latter do not. The change in terms is not to be understood as an indication that the discourse breaks sharply at this section, as if Paul moves to discuss a totally new kind of wisdom. Rather, the new antithesis remains analogous to the “two wisdoms” antithesis, but is introduced into the discourse due, as most interpreters agree, to usage of these terms among the Corinthians themselves. Some (the wise) call themselves “spiritual” and others “unspiritual.” Only, as Paul appropriates the terms, he turns the Corinthians’ language polemically against them (what Lee would call “competitive appropriation”), now reversing the terms’ application: those who consider themselves “spiritual” by their very mindset prove themselves to be the opposite.
Final Comments
So far I’ve focused on tracing Paul’s main train of thought in the letter’s first two chapters. I should note that these chapters contain some fairly abundant allusions to an appropriations of philosophical, and often specifically Stoic, discourse. I will discuss some of these further when we begin discussing the Corinthians’ sub-Stoicism in later posts.
If you appreciated this post, subscribe to Engaging Scripture so you can make sure to get PART 3 directly to your email inbox! Dr. Brookins will offer further explanations and proofs for his approach.