8/4/2019 Ciampa2

1/2

Ciampa, Roy and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians. Eerdmans, 2010.

II. True and False Wisdom and Corinthian Factionalism, 1:10-4:17

C. and R. suggest that this section is demarcated by the phrase I appeal to you, found in 1:10

and 4:16. And so they treat it as such. They go on to write

Along with profound treatments of topics such as wisdom,

preaching, the Spirit, the church, and Christian leadership, the unit

is undergirded by an apocalyptic eschatology of the cross and a

consistent emphasis on the free and surprising grace of God (p.70).

While it is true that the first part of the sentence is accurate, the last is a tad eisegetical. First,

Paul doesnt hint at anything like an

apocalyptic eschatology of the cross

(whatever that mightbe) nor does he ever say anything about the free and surprising grace of God. These are catch-

phrases used by modern commentators but never by Paul. Indeed, what does it even mean tospeak ofapocalyptic eschatology of the cross? C. and R. never say.

And the suggestion that the grace of God is surprising is utterly un-Pauline. Paul expected

Gods grace to be poured out in and through Christ as the fulfillment of the ancient promises.Such an outpouring cant be termed surprising because then it would be unexpected.

Still, aside from such interpretive mis-steps our authors offer inspired flashes of insight, such asis found in their explanation of 1:16-

Pauls come to think of it or on second thoughts (sic!) is a

delightful demonstrations of the candid and uncontrived nature ofScripture, which, though lofty and inspired, communicates its

message in a fully human way (p. 85).

And

If in 1:18-3:4 Paul blames Corinthian factionalism on their failures to reflect on the entailments

of the gospel of a crucified Messiah, in 3:5-4:17 he adds that they had not truly grasped thenature of Christian leadership (p. 142).

And especially intelligent is their exam of 3:7

Paul is pressing the metaphor [of planting and harvesting] to give

perspective to the matter of assessing human leaders. Side by side,

and from a human perspective, Apollos and Paul are not nothing,but when standing next to God, the owner of the field and life force

of the harvest, they may as well be.

8/4/2019 Ciampa2

2/2

[Though I must admit that their use oflife force sounds a bit too new agey to me]

Ministers do have value. But when respect or fondness leads to an

exclusive loyalty, and when this causes division or detracts from a

proper theocentric or christocentric orientation, Paul wishes topoint out that only God, who makes things grow, is worthy of our

undivided gratitude and adoration (p. 147).

Certainly this is something that those in the Pentecostal camp, who are prone to exalt their

leaders to the status of near-deity, should pay heed to.

And of 3:16 the commentators point out the audacity of claiming that a rag-tag group of fleshlyCorinthians are actually compared to the center of the world where God encounters his people

and sits on his throne.

The section concludes with the observation that the universal Lordship of Christ is key.

In sum, the authors do a very fine job (even though, as mentioned above, they are at points givento eisegesis and language more suited to Oprah Winfrey than New Testament scholars).

Next, Paul deals with sexual immorality and the need of the Corinthians to glorify God with their

bodies.

Jim WestQuartz Hill School of Theology