by
Jerry W. McCant

No one ever accused Paul of being "simple" or easy to understand! Indeed, as early as the second century, it was the opinion of some that in Paul's letter "There are some things in them hard to understand . . ." (2 Pet. 3:16). "Hard to understand" writings of Paul do not get easier when they are eschatological.¹ Kasemann comments that when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, the resurrection of Christ was "regarded as the starting point of all theology."²

This essay is a response to the so-called "competing Pauline eschatologies" of 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 5, or more precisely 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10. The common concern of these passages is the "body," the understanding of which is the major alleged difference between the two passages. Scholars have described these differences in terms of conflict, contradiction or developed Pauline eschatology. Methodologically the exegesis of this essay relies on rhetorical criticism.

Few New Testament texts have been subjected to more diverse interpretations than 2 Cor. 5. There are at least three distinguishable lines of exegesis. Scholars disagree radically as to the source of Paul's ideas in this passage, the relationship of 2 Cor. 5 to 1 Cor. 15, and the basic subject in 2 Cor. 5. There appears to be no unanimity regarding 2 Cor. 5 as Pauline eschatology. This scholarly presupposition needs to be reexamined.

Promise of Rhetorical Interpretation

Most New Testament scholars assume that 2 Cor. 5 presents a different eschatological perspective than 1 Cor. 15. They disagree in their explanations of whether it is a significant theological development or merely an aberration. A majority of scholars consider 1 Cor. 15 to be more traditionally Jewish and 2 Cor. 5 more Hellenistic. However, there is no scholarly consensus as to the source of Paul's ideas in 2 Cor. S or its relationship to 1 Cor. 15. So far as I know, no one has sought a rhetorical interpretation of 2 Cor. 5. Rhetorical exegesis of these two passages provides evidence that their differences reflect contrasting rhetorical situations, not competing eschatologies .

A rhetorical situation is an exigency in which one is, or feels, compelled to offer a response. It is a "complex of persons, events and relations presenting an actual or potential exigency which can be completely or partially removed if discourse introduced into the situation can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about a significant modification of the exigency."³ But Paul, like Soren Kierkegaard, knows that "in all eternity it is impossible for me to compel a person to accept an opinion, a conviction, a belief. But one thing I can do: I can compel him [sic] to take notice."⁴

Since the late nineteenth century numerous Pauline scholars have considered 2 Cor. 5 to be a hellenized adaptation of Paul's earlier Jewish-apocalyptic eschatology.⁵ Development proponents refer to a transition from a futurist to a realized eschatology.⁶ Three stages of development have been hypothesized: (1) Paul's earliest view, reflected in 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11, was a Jewish view of a physical, bodily resurrection at the Parousia, on the last day; (2) Subsequently Paul moved to a position assuming the natural (psyckikon) body to one assuming a spiritual (pneumatikon) body on the day of the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15); (3) His final view, the hellenized eschatology of 2 Cor. 5, assumed the transition from the physical to the spiritual was to occur at death rather than at the Parousia.⁷ Scholars who deny development in the Apostle's theology within the extant letters generally suggest that Paul simultaneously held "both Jewish and Greek concepts without any thought of their essential inconsistency."⁸

This essay attempts to show that the Hellenistic elements of 2 Cor. 5 express the eschatology of Paul's Corinthian opponents, which he exploits in order to challenge their misunderstanding of his apostolic ministry. In 2 Cor. 1:3-7:16 Paul is concerned exclusively with a defense of the legitimacy of his ministry.⁹ Paul thought the Corinthians should be the letter of commendation for his apostleship (2 Cor. 3:2), but they failed him (2 Cor. 12:7). Refusing to consider himself inferior to the "super apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11), Paul defends his ministry by inverting the Corinthian criteria of apostleship, standing it on its head, and the~ ironically supports his, and, he believes, God's criteria.

Scholars have suggested a variety of opponents responsible for Paul's troubles at Corinth, ranging from Judaizers to Gnostics, originating inside or outside the church. Methodologically, any definition of his opponents rests on the assumption that Paul responds apologetically to specific accusations and/or allegations against his person, office and/or message. Often called "mirror reading," this interpretive method reconstructs a picture of the situation that produced the letter by reversing the data in the letter; i.e., Paul supposedly denies what his opponents assert and vice versa. But, if Paul's rhetoric, not outside opponents shapes apparent "charges" against him, we may never know whether there were actual opponents or precisely what they believed.

Second Cor. 1:3-7:16 is a defense speech, but it is a philosopher 5 apologia and not a rhetorical apologia. It is a "dialogue" between Paul and the Corinthians about the nature of the true apostolate-Paul's apostolate. "It is not possible to simply conclude from the words of the defense that there must have been a corresponding accusation."¹⁰ The "charges" accurately reflect only Paul's perception of his opposition in Corinth. That the apologia is intended for the Corinthians is clearly evident after an even cursory reading of the speech.¹¹ However the"opponents are characterized-Gnostic, gnosticizing, Judaizers, pneumatics, etc.-the only opponents even remotely suggested in this apologia are the Corinthians."¹²

The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Cor. 15

Except for chapters 1-4 and 9, 1 Cor. is epideictic rhetoric of the negative type: invective.¹³ In epideictic oratory "the speaker turns educator."¹⁴ Forensic oratory (i.e., apologia) in chs. 1-4 and 9 is saturated with irony¹⁵ and sarcasm. There seems to be some "bad blood" between the church and Paul; some of the people are opposed to Paul.¹⁶ First Corinthians is the Apostle's response to a report from "Chloe's people" (chs. 1-6) and subjects about which the Corinthians have written to Paul (chs. 7-16). Major issues to be resolved include: apostolic ministry (chs. 1-4 and 9); incest, lawsuits, marriage and sexuality (chs. 5-7); meat sacrificed to idols (8:1-11:1); worship (11:2-14:40); the resurrection (ch. 15); and the collection for Jerusalem saints (16:1-4). The rhetorical exigency to which Paul offers a fitting response is the uncertainty of his apostolic ministry. The basis for his defense rests on the conviction that in the cross God has claimed those things which are foolish, weak, and ignoble so that they no longer signify powerlessness, but the divine power to bring life out of death.

Paul's famous chapter on the resurrection of the dead is "a perfect example of rhetorical argumentation."¹⁷ Like most of 1 Cor., ch. 15 is epideictic. Paul becomes educator as he writes about the resurrection of the dead. His "speech" on the resurrection is in the form of a diatribe, with the possible exception of 15:1-11.^{' 18} The "speech" begins (15:1-2) quite sermonically,¹⁹ reminding²⁰ the Corinthians of his gospel, which he had preached and they had accepted. Thus, he establishes ethos and their basis of agreement with a hint of invective and insinuatio.²¹ The narration in vv. 3-11 traces his gospel to tradition ("delivered. . . received")²² and creed (vv. 3b-Sa).²³ With a forensic touch, he calls witnesses as "proof" of Christ's resurrection,²⁴ adding himself as a witness and reaffirming his apostleship (vv. 8-10) already established in chs. 1-4 and 9. He attributes his apostolic accomplishments to the grace of God. thus avoiding the odium of periautologia (v.1 1).²⁵

Only when the reader reaches v.12 does Paul's stasis of fact (basic issue of the case) become clear.²⁶ "Some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead" and the stasis continues through v.19. Stasis in vv. 3-19 reveals a series of hypothetical consequences in the form of a sorites (i.e., an interlocking chain of syllogisms)²⁷ pushing the Corinthian position ad absurdum, ending with pathos (v. 19).²⁸ With invective and irony, Paul argues that the logical consequence of their position is that they have no gospel, faith, forgiveness, and no hope for their beloved dead, and thus no purpose in life.

After emphatically declaring "Christ has been raised,"²⁹ Paul states the proposition for argumentation: Christ is "the first-fruits of those who are asleep" (15:20).³⁰ Argumentation commences with the Christ-Adam; paradigm and is amplified³¹ by chronologizing a series of eschato1ogical events (another sorites) in vv. 21-28.³² Seeking to provide further support for his doctrine of the resurrection of believers,³³ Paul poses two rhetorical questions about baptism for the dead³⁴ and fighting with "wild animals" in Ephesus (vv. 29, 32).³⁵ With anaphora (vv. 29, 32), Paul raises his last question with a quotation from the Epicureans (v.32)³⁶ and a proverb from the pagan poet Menander (v. 33).³⁷ This section ends with considerable invective and pathos, exhorting the Corinthians to cease sinning and pejoratively adds with invective, "I say this to your shame" (v.³⁴). This whole paragraph is saturated with pleonastic pathos. Clearly, Paul's appeal is to faith, not "proofs."

The balance of 1 Cor. 15 deals with the fact of the resurrection of believers in vv. 12-34 framed by hoti ("that" in v.12) and its mode in vv. 35-58 framed by P05 ("how" in v. 12).³⁸ All that follows v.35 shows that the important question is "With what kind of body do they come?" (v. 35). The real Corinthian problem is the body.³⁹ Paul expresses his disdain for the question with a sarcastic "You fool!" (v. 36)-ad hominem and invective.

Analogy is the major rhetorical technique. In vv. 36-38 Paul argues from the analogy of the seed, which dies before it lives, that a "naked" (gymnos) seed is sown, but God gives it another body. He amplifies the seed analogy into analogies of different kinds of bodies in vv. 39-41. In vv. 40-49 antithesis continues the discussion, contrasting the pre-resurrection and post-resurrection body: perishable/imperishable; living being/life-giving spirit; earthly/heavenly. The importance of the two-Adams analogy (vv. 21-28) is indicated by its reiteration in vv. 45-50.⁴⁰

"What I am saying" (v.50) signals the conclusion of the argument. The address "brothers and sisters" (v.50, NRSV) and the Proclamatory nature of the conclusion shows that it is still diatribe and epideictic.⁴¹ Proclamation describes the eschatological resurrection of believers. A rising crescendo of pleonastic antitheses declares the Pauline eschatological mystery (v.51). With climactic and ringing oratory Paul personifies and triumphantly mocks death with the citation of Scripture. This technique and the entire conclusion is radical Christian rhetoric. Against the Corinthians, Paul argues for a somatic (soma) resurrection, albeit a "spiritual body" (soma pneumatikon) and he does not define the latter for the reader. Paul concludes with a thanksgiving (v.57), exhortation (v.58), and pathos: "You know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain!"

The Rhetorical Situation of 2 Cor. 4:13~5:1O⁴²

Virtually all interpreters⁴³ seem to agree that 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 is an integral part of an apostolic apology. There a basic consensus that the apology includes at least 2: 14-7:4.⁴⁴ Yet, scholars consistently fail to take this context seriously in their interpretations of the passage. Journal articles routinely ignore the apologetic nature of 2 Cor. 5:1-10; eschatology seems to be their only interest. The rhetorical situation and the ironic character of the text are also ignored. I am suggesting that consideration of the rhetorical exigencies, the irony and the judicial rhetoric employed effectively, resolve the question of "competing eschatologies" in 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10. This approach also helps to explain some of the ambiguities of the eschatological language in 2Cor. 4:13-5:10.

Apparently the Corinthians had questions about Paul's behavior (1:12). Paul hopes they can understand his defense (1:13). He is not undependable, fickle or dishonest (1: 17ff). He admits that instead of going to Corinth, he had written an angry letter, which Titus delivered (2:3-4). This "sorrowful letter" responded to Paul's reception in Corinth during his intermediate visit (between 1 and 2 Cor.), when an unnamed person seriously offended him (2:5-11). Although the exact nature of this offense is never described, Paul acknowledges that in response to his letter, the majority (but not everyone!) had agreed to punish the offender.

Nevertheless, lingering questions about Paul's integrity demand a reply. Did Paul have something to hide? Was he weak and fragile (4:7-9, 16-17)? He responds that he always bears in his body "the death of Jesus" and paradoxically "so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in [his] body" (4: 10).⁴⁵ With antithetical irony he adds, "So death is at work in us [i.e., me] but life in you" (4:12). Suspicions or charges had necessitated self-commendation (3:1-3; 4:2; 5:12). Paul's perception is that the Corinthian complaint concerns his "outward appearance" (5:12) and perhaps his mental stability (5:13). Was Paul's ministry a hindrance to others (6:3; cf. 7:2)? Was he not only weak in body (6:4-5), but also in character (6:6-10)? Did he really not love the Corinthians (6:11 - 13)? Paul admits that he is an "afflicted apostle," "disputes without and fears within," (7:5) and he has been "downcast" (7:6).

There can be little doubt that 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 is situated within an accusatory context. Paul had promised to visit Corinth (1 Cor. 16:5-9), but did not exactly keep that promise. Instead, he paid an unannounced visit which turned out badly and then he did not see them on the promised visit. Their primary complaint was that he had refused to go to Corinth and instead had written a "painful letter" that had caused them great grief. Apparently going back on his promise was "the bone of contention at Corinth." The Corinthians interpreted the letter as being overly severe. Paul was both undependable and insensitive to their feelings. Paul explains the canceled visit but he knows that his apostolic integrity is the more important issue. His credibility as an authentic apostle is the more important threat and the one that demands defense.

This situation is precisely what caused the Corinthians to say Paul's letter was heavy and burdensome (baros), yet also forceful and effective (ischyros), "but his bodily presence is weak" (2 Cor 10:10).⁴⁶ What finally invalidates Paul's apostolate in the minds of the Corinthians is his "weakness" (astheneia). An authentic apostle is filled with the Spirit and the pnetima is characterized by "power," not "weakness."

Careful analysis of Paul's language of affliction reveals his deepest convictions, what he assumes to be self-evident truths. These perceptions

shape his understanding of the Corinthians .⁴⁷ In virtually all of his letters Paul engages "affliction language" to interpret human life and the gospel that empowers life. Nowhere is this language more persistent than in his Corinthian correspondence. Converging vectors of Paul's theology of the cross, his own concession to weakness, and his perception of the world-alienating religion in Corinth mean that his language of affliction is at the center of the controversy. "Throughout the correspondence this language participates in the persisting conflict over Paul's authority and the nature of the conflict, which, at every turn, calls into question the power and implications of his gospel."⁴⁸

In apologetic discourse Paul typically concedes some form of weakness or limitation. He concedes that he did not fulfill his promised visit (1:16-21); that he hurt the Corinthians (2:2); that he experienced distress, anguish and tears (2:4); that he had no credentials (3:1-3); that he was incompetent (3:4-5); that his gospel is veiled (4:3); that his body was analogous to a clay pot (4:7); that he is an "afflicted" apostle (4:8-11); that death was at work in him (4:11-12) and that his outer nature is wasting away (4:16). These concessions are not simple candor; admissions of weakness reflect real or perceived accusations at Corinth. Concession is a form of "anticipatory refutation" and conscripts allegations for one's own defense.⁴⁹ The Apostle concedes weakness as "evidence" designed to trap his opponents and invert their criteria of apostleship.⁵⁰

Perhaps the one point about which there is no dispute is the difficulty of 2 Cor. 4:l3~5:10.⁵¹ Many attempts in commentaries, doctoral theses, monographs, and journal articles have sought to resolve its complexities.⁵² The history of research on this passage is strewn with speculative hypotheses, but so far as I can determine, no one has analyzed it rhetorically.⁵³ Hopefully this paper will help to bridge the gap.

C. K. Barrett is aware that Paul's primary intention here is not to define eschatology, but he thinks of it as "a sketch of the pattern of Christian existence in general" and illustrates "the unimportance of the earthenware vessel" in 4:7.⁵⁴ Gunther Bornkamm believes that in this passage Paul uses eschatology to affirm that Christians "live by something they are not yet, something that still awaits them."⁵⁵ While he provides no rhetorical analysis, A. T. Lincoln has observed that this passage should not be seen simply as "an eschatological crux but as part of the apostle's prolonged digression in 2:14-7:4." As "an apology for his office [this digression] plays its role in the argument by setting out the sufferings and rewards of that office."⁵⁶

Some commentators have suggested that in 2 Cor. 5 Paul suffers from "an unconscious ambiguity of thought."⁵⁷ Such "breaks" actually function ironically to create a "disparity of understanding"⁵⁸ or "cognitive dissonance" to push the readers to reorient their way of thinking and consider another perspective. These breaks in consistency are not simple mistakes.⁵⁹ Paul did not make a mistake or write sloppily, but used literary mechanisms by which he hoped to break the Corinthians' bondage to familiar patterns of thinking.

Contextual interpretation is essential if one wishes to understand the Pauline letters. Too often interpreters have treated this passage, especially 5:1-10, as an eschatological soliloquy and sought to interpret it in isolation from the rest of the letter, with unfortunate results. No portion of any text has meaning apart from the whole, but only in some context that locates it in a specific sphere of discourse.⁶⁰ Only in context does a text become perceptible and particular. The context of 2 Cor. 1:3-7:16 is apologetic i.e., judicial rhetoric (implicit accusation and explicit defense) which is further located in the context of the irony of affliction. Although Paul does not play the role of a "fool" (aphrnn/eiron) here as he does in 2 Cor. 11-12, he is indeed the ironic self-depreciator.⁶¹ Under the heading of sincerity, the rhetorical unit (4:13-5:10) is eschatological irony.⁶²

That the rhetorical unit begins at 4:13 and not at 5:1 is indicated when Paul in the first sentence raises the topic of the resurrection for the first time (4:13-14). As in 3:4, 12 and 4:1, 7, the participial form of the verb "to have" in 4:13 provides the transition to a new line of argumentation. Echontes is best construed by "we also have" and should be understood causally, i.e., "Because we also have the same spirit of faith . . .we also believe."⁶³ Somewhat ironically, into this context of apostolic suffering Paul weaves the theme of "apostolic boldness" (cf. 2:14; 3:4, 12; 4:1, 13, 16; 5:6, 8). Paul continues his defense with the first direct Biblical quotation in this letter. His assurance in the face of adversity is like the psalmist who also wrote in a threatening time: "I believed and therefore I spoke" (Ps. 116:10).

Verses 13-18 are inextricably related to 4:7-2 where Paul has engaged in ironic concession.⁶⁴ He concedes weakness analogous to "clay pots,"⁶⁵ but declares that the "jar" holds the precious "treasure" of the gospel and his apostleship. With this concession, the trap is set for him to declare his apostolic ministry valid as a bearer of the gospel. The treasure comes in a clay pot "so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us" (4:7, NRSV). Always he carries the "death of Jesus" in his body so that, ironically, "the life of Jesus may also be made visible" in his body (4:10), i.e., in his "mortal flesh" (4:11). A final concession is made with biting irony, perhaps even sarcasm: "Death is at work in me, but life in you" (4:12).

"Clay pot" is a transparent metaphor referring to Paul's weak, transitory body, and the "treasure" is clearly the gospel, to which he ties his apostolic ministry. The antithesis contrasts the Apostle's "appearance" and his actual apostolic status (cf. 2 Cor. 10:10). Somewhat atypically, he mentions the human name of Jesus six times in 4:10-14. Not only is the apostle afflicted, but ironically his weakness allows the display of the incomparable power of God (cf. 3:5; 4:7; 12:9b; 13:4). The gospel which the apostle preaches is "God's power" (Rom. 1:16) present in "the word of the cross" (1 Cor. 1:18, 24) demonstrating that "God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong" (1 Cor. 1:27; cf. vv. 26-31).

Paul concedes weakness, vulnerability, and suffering in order to demonstrate that they, in fact, characterize his apostleship. This line of argument shows that the Apostle does not believe his autobiography must be one of glory, but one of death and life. In his ministry the afflictions are the work of the death and life of Jesus. Apostolic affliction is the presentation of the passion and resurrection of Jesus and they are fully consonant with an apostle who preaches "Jesus and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). Afflictions provide apostolic credentials (cf. 3:1-3) rather than invalidating them.

Affliction means that the death and life of Jesus function in Paul's ministry. Because, like the Psalmist, he has believed, the Apostle can speak. What he speaks is the gospel (the treasure in clay pots in 4:7). He also defends his apostleship even if death "is at work" in him. Somewhat ironically for a "dead man," Paul's boldness to speak is based on his knowledge "that the one who raised Jesus will also raise us with Jesus" (4:14). The dying apostle's ground for confidence/boldness is Jesus' resurrection, which guarantees his own resurrection. This declaration is precisely the point of 1 Cor. 15.

Nothing in 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 even insinuates that the Corinthians have accepted a Pauline view of the resurrection (I Cor. 15). Quite the contrary is the case. Paul is not concerned to educate them about the true nature of the resurrection of believers. Nevertheless, in the words of Kierkegaard, his "resurrection language" compels them to "take notice." He hopes it will precipitate a reorientation of their conception of apostolic ministry to that a weak and dying apostle will be resurrected by God's power.

In 4:15 Paul emphasizes that he is concerned only for the faith of the Corinthians. This concern is a theme throughout the apology (cf. 1:15, 17, 24; 3:2-3; 4:5, 12,15; 7:3; 8:6). Paul will not allow the Corinthians to forget that his afflictions, which they so eagerly depreciate, have all been for their sake.⁶⁶ Paul was willing to suffer for Jesus' sake (4:11), for the Corinthians' sake (4:15), and for the sake of the glory of God (4: 15).⁶⁷

Because of the unfortunate and unwarranted placement of a chapter division after 4:18, many interpreters miss the vital connection of 4: l6-18 to 5:1 - 10. Actually 5:1 - 10 belongs more to what precedes than to what follows.⁶⁸ Paul continues to defend his apostleship and affirms that the hardships experienced have enhanced and validated his ministry, Apostolic boldness is possible because Paul's theology of ministry is grounded in his understanding of the cross and his conviction that an apostle, like the Lord, is called to be a suffering servant, always serving in the shadow of the cross. What Paul says in 4:16-5:10 must not be interpreted as a "detached theological soliloquy." Instead it is to be understood as an integral part of an apostolic response to a critical misunderstanding of apostolic ministry.

At 4:16 Paul resumes his affirmation of apostolic boldness with a verbatim repetition of 4:1 (cf. 3:12 and 4:13). From the context, especially 4:2-7, 10-13, 16, it is certain Paul is not expressing courage in the face of death. Rather, despite many afflictions and the false perceptions of the Corinthians regarding his weakness, he is bold concerning his apostolic status. Antithetical irony⁶⁹ and eschatological language aid in Paul's continued apologia. Antitheses used by Paul include: outer/inner (4:16); transient/eternal (4:17); trifling/abundant (4:17); momentary light affliction/heavy eternal glory (4:17); seen/not seen (4:18); temporary/eternal (4:18); earthly/heavenly (5:1-2); tent/building (5:1); destructible/indestructible (5:1); naked/clothed (5:2-4); mortality/life (5:4). With antithetical irony Paul is able to command attention, depend on reciprocal interpretation of the elements, and create a sense of expectation that will urge assent to his position.

Jean Hering comments that, if one disregards the context, 2 Cor. 4:16-18 could have been written by Philo or any other Platonist.⁷⁰ Bultmann thinks these verses are evidence of a Gnostic vocabulary.⁷¹ 'Both Martin and Barrett find parallels in Hellenistic literature.⁷² With all the antitheses, irony, ambiguity, and Gnostic/Hellenistic language, one might suppose interpreters would seek a new avenue of understanding rather than trying to reconcile Paul's eschatology and linguistic usage with what he writes elsewhere. If the language and concepts are consistent with Gnosticizing Corinthianism, one should explore the possibilities of the rhetorical use of irony. Perhaps Paul ironically is giving the reader Corinthian eschatology in order to invert their criteria for apostleship and encourage them to accept him as their apostle.

Antitheses in 4:16-18 certainly possess attentional novelty. If allowed, the antithetical elements will be mutually interpretive. All of the antitheses (including the ones in 5:1-10) can be subsumed under the contrast of the seen/unseen of 4:18. On the one hand, what can be seen is Paul's outer, transient, present, temporary, and earthly affliction. On the other hand, what cannot be seen is inner, eternal and heavenly reality. That Paul wanted a reorientation of apostolic criteria is confirmed by his ironic antitheses. Thus, exhaustive analysis of each antithesis destroys the intended rhetorical effect. Paul's singular point in all of the antitheses is that the Corinthians have misjudged him on the basis of his appearance by failing to reckon with God's reality.

This persistent antithetical pattern creates cognitive dissonance. In each antithesis the Corinthian view, as perceived by Paul, is contrasted with the Apostle's view. The Corinthians evaluate apostleship on the basis of outward appearance; Paul's judgment is based on "things not seen." His principle of apostolic ministry is revealed in the words: "We walk by faith, not by sight" (5:7). His inversion of apostolic criteria based on appearance may suggest his familiarity with the Socratic apologetic tradition.

Paul can hardly deny the obvious facts of his mortal existence. Deterioration of the outer person is an ongoing process (4:16). The "outer person" is wasting away, but the "inner person" is constantly being "renewed." This antithesis raises questions of the source of such apparently anthropological dualism, which is otherwise completely foreign to Paul. Furnish thinks this language has been "influenced by the widespread anthropological dualism of the ancient world,"⁷³ but Bultmann traces it to Plato, Stoicism, Plotinus, and Gnosticism.⁷⁴ In Hellenistic and particularly in Stoic literature, the physical body is often described as a container for the "mind" or "soul."⁷⁵ The exo anthropos is the bodily and earthly "container" for the eso anthropos, the "true" person.

As much as Paul shared the Hellenistic view of human mortality, his intention in 4:16 has nothing to do with a contrast of the "mortal body" and "immortal soul." The term "soul" (psyche) appears only at 1:23 and 12:15 in this entire document, and in these two instances there is no; contrast of the body and soul. In Gnosticism, the "inner person" is an absolutely supernatural, transcendent entity. Paul's concept of the self is shaped by neither Hellenistic nor Gnostic dualism. That he was not a dualist is proven by his insistence on a somatic resurrection. In both 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 Paul opposes a Gnosticizing eschatology. But in the latter, Paul's major concern is neither eschatology nor Gnosticism; the eschatological language is the servant of an apologia. Here, as with all of the antitheses, his principal defense is "we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen . . . for we walk by faith, not by sight" (4:18; 5:7).

"This slight momentary affliction (v.17) must surely be Paul's greatest understatement (cf. 4:8-9; 6:4-10; 11:23-29)! The use of "affliction" modified by "insignificant" or "trivial" is an oxymoron intended to trivialize the Corinthian criteria for apostleship. Similarly, his hyperbolic antithesis, "eternal weight of glory beyond all measure" (in English, "to the nth degree") further diminishes the effects of criticism against him as an afflicted person, not worthy of apostleship.

Although English translations begin a new sentence with v.18, the Greek clause is dependent on what has preceded. It explicates what precedes while preparing for and introducing what follows. This construction lends support to my hypothesis that "things seen" versus "things not seen" is the focus of the antithetical irony in 4:16, 5:10. What Paul literally says is: "We do not see the things that can be seen, but we see the things that cannot be seen." However it is handled by interpreters, this statement is at once oxymoronic, paronamasiacal, ambiguous, paradoxical, antithetical, and ironical. Paul is saying that he does not focus his attention on " the things that are seen". Rather, as an apostle, he aims for a higher goal: " things that are not seen" things "eternal"

Few New Testament texts have been severed from their context as violently as 2 Cor. 5:1-10. Such practice ignores several important factors: (1) the introductory "for" (gar) connects 5:1-10 inextricably to 4:17-18 just as it connects 4:17-18 with 4:16; (2) the structure of 5:1 continues that of 4:13-18; (3) the first person plural persists in 5:1-10 ( and for the most of 4:13-15) and all of the antithesis are eschatological; (4) all of the antithesis are concerned with the "seen" and "unseen" (5) in all of the antithesis, Paul concedes to the "seen" (6) "eternal" (aionia) in 4:18 is repeated in 5:1. Surely these data confirm that 5:1-10 is as much a part of the apostolic apologia as anything that precedes or follows and that 4:13-5:10 is a rhetorical unit. Paul's concern in this rhetorical unit is with the consequences of the Corinthian eschatology: the Corinthians could not reconcile a "weak" apostle with the "power" of the Spirit in Paul.

Eschatology apologetic with antithetical irony, supported with metaphorical language and "For we Know" (5:1 introduces the reason for concentrating on the as yet unseen heavenly realities) Here, as in 1 Cor. 15:44, Paul is concerned only to contrast the earthly, tent-like house in 5:1. The "things not seen" (4:18) refers to the "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" in 5:1. Paul's present body that is "being destroyed" stands in contrast to the permanent, eternal "building". Note that the contrast in not between a disposable container and its enduring contents. Paul's analogy presumes no Hellenistic/Gnostic anthropology or eschatology.

Paul's argument proceeds in vv.2-4, rhetorically refining and amplifying his argument. He amplifies his thought by adding that in the "earthly house" (his body) he "groans" because he longs to be clothed with his "heavenly dwelling" (spiritual body). This produces a hopelessly mixed metaphor; the antithesis is between the "tent" and the "heavenly" building. Although we do not normally clothe ourselves with buildings, the metaphor is clear; it is adequately clarified by its context.

While the Apostle "groans" in his earthly tent, he longs to be clothed with his "heavenly garment." Because he lives by the "unseen," not by the "seen" (4:18), by "faith" and not by "sight" (5:7), and because God has given the Spirit as a "down payment" (arrabon; 5:5), Paul has hope Perhaps the Corinthians claim to possess already what Paul only longs to have. Paul continues to live with the tension of the "already . . . not yet." He still lives in a collapsing tent. But, this evidence testifies for him, not against him. The concession becomes a challenge to the criteria by which the evidence is to be evaluated. The ironic vision does not relieve his suffering, but it does take the fear out of the affliction!

If 5:1 is crucial for understanding 5:1-10, then 5:3 must be most difficult verse in this passage for interpretation. If one adopts the textual variant ekdusamenoi ("we have taken it off") rather than endusamenoi ("we have put it on") in 5:3, the verse essentially repeats the point of 5:1. The tent in which Paul "groans" in 5:2 is the deteriorating tent in 5:1. The "house not made with hands" (5:1) is the "heavenly dwelling" (5:2). Thus, according to 5:3, by being thus clothed, he will not be naked. From 4:16 Paul has been saying the same thing repeatedly, changing metaphors, adding new words and refining the topic. This is the technique of amplification or expolitio. With pleonastic style he bombards the Corinthians with a plethora of metaphors, conceding his weakness and inverting the criteria by which the Corinthians have judged his apostleship.

Even as Paul concedes that he is being "stripped naked" (5:3a), he is confident that he will not be found "naked" (5:3b). Some commentators see in Paul's mention of nakedness a fear of a disembodied intermediate state.⁷⁶ Other scholars think it is simply an "afterthought,"⁷⁷ a "spasm of unbelief,"⁷⁸ or a reference to the shame and guilt of judgment.⁷⁹ All of these explanations read too much into the text and ignore the context. Paul expresses no interest at all in an "intermediate state." He never says when the "shift" or "transformation" from the tent to the building is to take place. His only concern is to affirm, in the face of suspicion, the legitimacy of his apostleship. Eschatology is not his major concern.

In explicit apologetic, polemical form, 2 Cor. 5:4 reiterates the argumentation of 5:2-3. Here Paul posits a reason for his "groaning"-he is burdened (baroumenoi) with the afflictions of a weak and dying body. Having already conceded that he expects to die, Paul now concedes even more: "1 do not want the body to die; what I want is a new body. As in 1 Cor. 15:53-54, he declares the "necessity" for the "perishable" to be clothed with "imperishability" and the "mortal" with "immortality." Paul believes the resurrection will happen as a great transforming event "in a moment, the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15:51-52).

Paul concludes this phase of his argument with v.5 where the antithetical irony is present but less obvious. He explains the reason for the certainty expressed in vv. 1-4. His hope is not fantasy or illusion; it is confirmed by God through the gift of the Spirit as a "down payment" (arrabon). Despite his weakness, Paul triumphantly trusts that God who has "prepared" him for "this very thing," mortality being swallowed up by life (5:4). That is, God has "prepared" or "equipped" him for immortality.⁸⁰ His frail tent cannot invalidate his apostleship; the Spirit validates his apostleship and he is intimidated neither by adversities nor by adversaries.⁸¹

In the following paragraph (5:6-10), Paul abandons the metaphors "tent," "house," "building" and "clothing." Now he uses plain rather than symbolic speech and for the first time in this passage he explicitly mentions the "body." Symbolic language in 5:1-5 clearly refers to the body, but the term itself is not used. In 5:6-10 "body" (soma) is used five times, indicating a new style of argumentation that is less sensitive to the Corinthian disdain for the body. A similar pattern of argumentation may be observed in 1 Cor. 15, where "body" is conspicuously absent in vv. 12. 34, but appears ten times in vv. 35-45.

Beginning with v.6, Paul introduces new imagery that will govern the argumentation in vv. 6-10: "at home" and "away from home.' Because of his assurance through the arrabon, he remains confident "whether he dies soon or lives till the Lord returns."⁸² To be "at home" in the body in 5:6 is synonymous with living in the "tent" of 5:4 and thc "earthly, tent-like house" of 5:1 (cf. 4:10-11). Paul adopts Corinthian slogans in order to correct their use and encourage a reorientation of their world view. Paul is not interested in "location," whether on earth or in heaven, as the Corinthians are. His interest is in the orientation of their lives. For the Apostle, it is not their "place of residence," but their "home address," i.e., what claims their loyalty.⁸³

Paul's "correction" in 5:7 assures the validity of this interpretation. What Paul affirms here is synonymous with the "seen" and "not seen" in 4:18 as well as with "the earthly tent-like house" and God's house . . . eternal in the heavens" in 5:1. A polemical edge is detectable when Paul, in his explanation, avers that as an apostle he "conducts his life" on the basis of faith and not on the basis of outward appearances.

Gnosticizing Corinthians tended to neglect the simple fact that the Eschaton had not yet arrived (cf. 1 Cor. 4:5, 8; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). If my hypothesis is correct, that eschatological language in this passage serves an apologetic function, Corinthian reservations about Paul's apostolic status are quite easily explained. Paul conceded his weaknesses but argued that he did not conduct his apostolic life on the basis of "things seen." On the contrary, an afflicted apostle is following the pattern of the crucified Christ; his ministry has been conducted in the shadow of the cross.

Now, Paul reverses the order of "being at home" and "being away from home" (v.8). Throughout the history of the exegesis of this passage, "away from the body" (v.8) has been assumed to describe the intermediate state.⁸⁴ Ellis rejects this view and rightly so. Paul's interest here is neither to affirm nor to deny such a doctrine. On this subject, as on many others, Paul is silent and remains a reverent agnostic." His concern is to invert the false criteria of apostleship evoked by a Gnosticizing, Corinthian eschatology.

Certainly bodily existence is not incompatible with life in Christ in the Apostle's thought (cf. 5:7; Gal. 2:20). Nevertheless, his resolve is to orient himself "toward" (pros) the Lord and "away from" the concerns of the body. By thus transforming the Corinthian slogan, alluded to in v.6, from a metaphor of "location" to one of "direction" (cf. Phil 3:13), Paul essentially de-eschatologizes the slogan. The "already . . . not yet" dialectic, with which Paul always struggles, is in evidence here. He is "already on the road, but he is not yet home."⁸⁵

Not until 5:9 does Paul complete the idea begun in v.6. His confidence (v. 6) is justified by the "down payment" of the Spirit's presence that his salvation will be finalized (v.5). The Apostle is resolved to conduct his apostleship on the basis of "faith" and not on "sight" (v.7). He is determined to orient his life in the direction of the Lord and away from the body (v.8). Such determined resolve emerges from his deep desire to "please the Lord" (v.9) 50 that he will be prepared to appear before the judgment seat of Christ (v.10).

The "home place" metaphor of the Corinthians (v.6) is adopted so that he can criticize and nullify its significance. In v.8 Paul de-eschatologizes the imagery, only to jettison the imagery entirely in v.9. The Pauline apostolate is committed only to the gospel and not to its own welfare, as he has always claimed (cf. 2:17; 4:2, 5, 15). That his apostolic ministry might be judged pleasing to the Lord is Paul's highest ambition and driving motivation.

An ethical concern "to please the Lord" (v. 9) persists with a forward glance to the "judgment seat of Christ" (v.10). Introducing the judgment motif serves only to strengthen the polemical character of this entire passage. "All of us," including Paul along with the Corinthians, will be laid bare, "naked" (gymnos) for all the world to see their true character. Throughout this apology, Paul's attention has been focused on the body, especially the afflictions and infirmities of his own body. Although he has relativized and de-eschatologized their somatic obsession, polemical irony must strike once more: "All of us will be judged on precisely the basis of the deeds done through the instrumentality of the body" (5:10).

At the judgment "Paul's gospel will receive its vindication and those who oppose him can expect eschatological ruin."⁸⁶ In the context of this eschatological apologia, what is at issue is the Corinthians' attitude toward the apostolicity of Paul, not their particular esehatological opinions.

Concluding Remarks

Eschatologies in 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 do not compete, contradict, or stand in tension with one another. Nor does 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 represent a radically developed Hellenistic eschatology. Fascinating questions of modern curiosity-seekers are not on Paul's agenda. Eschatological speculation seems to have been neither his vocation nor his avocation. On many such esoteric issues Paul consistently remained a "reverent agnostic."

Most of the interpreters seem to have read Paul with assumptions of plain rather than symbolic speech. Even when they concede the apologetic context of 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10, their exegetical focus remains on eschatology. They ignore the rhetorical context of both passages. Efforts to find competing eschatologies in 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. S have further complicated and hindered the exegetical process. Only when the two very different rhetorical contexts are taken seriously can one hear what Paul intended to say in each of these passages.

Gnosticizing Corinthians seem to have had a problem with the body, a problem reflected in both 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul is dealing with, and seeking to correct, an over-realized eschatology that forced Paul to argue for the resurrection of the body, albeit a "spiritual body" (soma pneumatikon), which he neither defines nor explains. On the other hand, 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 is a rhetorical unit within an apostolic apologia where Paul finally de-eschatologizes Corinthian slogans in defense of his apostleship and the gospel he preaches. Thus, 1 Cor. 15 is clearly eschatological, but 2 Cor. 4:13-5:10 uses eschatological language in the service of an apologia. Paul's eschatology may be deduced from this passage, but the function of the text is apologetic.

The man of "one book," John Wesley would be quite comfortable with Paul's views. Wesley, like Paul, refrained from useless eschatological speculations and, like Paul, remained a "reverent agnostic" eschatological matters. Wesleyans have generally avoided dogmatic eschatological pronouncements. Reformed theologians, who believe God knows the beginning from the end (not unlike Augustine's "eternal now"), can be more certain on eschatology. Wesleyans, on the other hand, with their views of freedom and grace, have generally understood the future to be more open. As a people of one book, Wesleyans would do well to follow Paul's example of moving ever "toward the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8), seeking to "please the Lord" (v.9) in preparation for appearing before "the judgment seat of Christ" (v.10).

His "irony of affliction" allows Paul to concede the truth of the Corinthian "charges" that he is a weak, afflicted, and suffering apostle. Paul accepts and embraces his weakness, believing that in doing so he is imitating Christ. Rather than invalidating his apostleship, it is the sine qua non for apostolic service. Thus his view of ministry is grounded in the cross and becomes essentially Christocentric. Wesleyan theology, as I understand it, is essentially Christocentric. Modern "Wesleyans" would do well to develop a more Christocentric theology of ministry-the minister as a suffering servant who is never very far from the cross.

Paul's "ironic vision" sets the afflicted free, not from suffering, but from the fear of its assumed meaning, the expectation that affliction and weakness drive away the presence of God and the communion of human beings. The "ironic vision" frees one from the dread that in our dying we are alone, cut off from God and life.⁸⁷ Truly apostolic ministry, in Pauline understanding, is always lived out in the shadow of the cross. When weakness is not only conceded, but embraced, it has the power to bind both the apostle and the people to the irony of the cross. The way of irony and the way of the cross are one way!

¹Little has changed since Moule commented: "Everybody knows that the relation between Paul's beliefs about life beyond death and those of his contemporaries is obscure and hotly disputed." C. F. D. Moule, "St Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection," NTS 12 (1966): 106-123.

²Ernst Kasemann, NEW TESTAMENT QUESTIONS TODAY (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 137.

³This concept was first promulgated by Lloyd F. Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC l (1968):4. He observes that a particular discourse comes into existence because of some specific condition or situation which invites utterance. The situation controls the rhetorical response in the same sense that the question controls the answer and the problem controls the solution (6). What Bitzer means by "exigency" is a situation under which an individual is called upon to make some response. The response made is conditioned by the situation and in turn has some possibility of affecting the situation, and in turn has some possibility of affecting the situation or what follows from it (1-l4).

⁴Soren Kierkegaard, THE POINT OF VIEW FOR MY WORK AS AN AUTHOR (New York: Harper & Row; Torchbooks, 1962; written in 1848 and published in Copenhagen in 1859), 35. To the above statement, SK adds: "In one sense this is the first thing; for it is the condition antecedent to the next thing, i.e. the acceptance of an opinion, a conviction, a belief. In another sense it is the last-if, that is, he [sic] will not take the next step."

⁵Otto Pfleiderer, PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY: ITS LITERATURE AND DOCTRINE DESCRIBED IN HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP, tr. W. Montgomery (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1906).

⁶Cf. R. H. Charles, THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE LIFE. (London, 1913): 437ff; A. Plummer, SECOND CORINTHIANS (Edinburgh, 1915): 153;W. L. Knox, ST. PAUL AND THE CHURCH OF THE GENTILES.(Cambridge, 1939): 128ff; J. Lowe, "An Examination of Attempts to Detect Developments in Paul's Theology," JTS, 42(1941): 121ff; J. A. T. Robinson,

JESUS AND HIS COMING. (London, 1957): 101, 160f; R. F. Hetlinger, "2 Cor. 5:1-10," SJT 10 (1957): 174ff; M. J. Harris, "2 Corinthians 5:1-10: Watershed in Paul's Eschatology?" TB 22(1971): 32-57.

⁷"The two diverse strains in Paul's conception of resurrection" come from Hellenistic Judaism. W. D. Davies, PAUL AND RABBINIC JUDAISM. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967); first ed., (1948):319. Also see R. H. Charles, FUTURE LIFE, 453; R. F. Hetlinger, "2 Cor. 5," 192, thinks 2 Cor. 5 represents only a "temporary aberration" caused by recent afflictions in Asia (2 Cor. 1:8-9) and in Phil. 4:6, Paul resumes his earlier parousia hope.

⁸Otto Pfleiderer, PAULINISM. (London, 1891), 1:264; 1. Lowe, "An Examination of Attempts," 129ff.

⁹Emst Kasemann, "Die Legitimat des Apostels," ZNW (1942):33-71. See also Johannes Munck. PAUL AND THE SALVATION OF MANKIND (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977), 168-195; J. Munck, "La Vocation de lvV'Apotre Paul," STUDIA THEOLOGICA 3(1950):96-1 10; J. Cambier, "Le Cntere paulinien de l'apostolat en 2 Cor. 12:6s," BIBLICA 43(1962), 481-518.

¹⁰Hans Dieter Betz, PAUL'S APOLOGY: II CORINTHIANS 10-13 AND THE SOCRATIC TRADITION, Protocol of the 2nd Colloquy, Ed. Wilhelm Wuellner (Berkeley: Center for the Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1975), 3.

¹¹Already in the proemium (1:3-7)/thanksgiving (1:3-11), Paul says his affliction and consolation are for the Corinthians (1:6). He does not want them to be "ignorant" of his sufferings in Asia (1:8). The Corinthians help him by their prayers (1:11). He writes to them only what they can read and understand (1:13). He and they share a reciprocal "boast" (1:14). Because he loved the Corinthians, Paul did not visit them before going to Macedonia (1:15-22) contrary to his previously announced plans (1 Cor. 16:1-9). He declined "another painful visit" to Corinth (2:1) because he desired to "spare" them (1:23). Paul says that the motive of his "painful letter" was love (2:3-4). Pain for Paul is also pain for the Corinthians (2:5) and the Corinthian majority have punished the offender and he should now be forgiven (2:6-8). Paul's "painful letter" was to test Corinthian obedience (2:9). The Corinthians should have been the only "letter of recommendation" Paul needed (3:1-3). Sensing their restricted affection for him, Paul pleads, "Open wide your hearts also (6:13; 7:2). Paul does not wish to condemn them (7:3); he boasts in pride about them (7:4, 14-15) and has "complete confidence in them."

¹²Already I have demonstrated that Paul's only opponents in his apostolic apologia in 2 Cor. 10-13 are the Corinthians. See Jerry W. McCant, "Paul's Thom of Rejected Apostleship," NTS 34 (1988):553-58. Since no one to my knowledge questions that 2 Cor. 8-9 was meant for the Corinthians, it may be safely assumed that the only "opponents" in 2 Cor. are the Corinthians.

¹³1n epideictic the basic argument involves the question of a change of attitude or deepening of values such as the honorable and good, or in a Christian context, belief and faith. Invective is the negative form of epideictic; encomium is the positive form (cf. 1 Cor. 13). Aristotle characterized epideictic as "praising" (encomium) and "blaming" (invective). If a preacher inveighs against some group for irreligious or immoral actions and the congregation has no power to act against them, invective is being practiced. George A. Kennedy, NEW

TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION THROUGH RHETORICAL CRITICISM (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 87, however, thinks that with the exception of 1:13-17 and ch. 9, 1 Cor. is deliberative rhetoric. Also Elisabeth Schtissler Fiorenza, "Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians," NTS 33 (1987): 36-40 argues that 1 Cor. is deliberative. But, Wilhelm Wuellner, "Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation," in W. R. Schoedel and R. Wilken, eds., EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND THE CLASSICAL INTELLECTUAL TRADITION, in Honorem Robert Grant; THEOLOGIE HISTORIQUE 53 (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979): 177-188, argues for epideictic, relying on the work of Chaim Perelmann and L. Olbrechts Tyteca, THE NEW RHETORIC: A TREATISE ON ARGUMENTATION, tr. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1969): 48ff. Also see Burton L. Mack, RHETORIC AND THE NEW TESTAMENT (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 56.

¹⁴Perelmann and Olbrechts-Tyteca, THE NEW RHETORIC, 51.

¹⁵5ee Karl A. Plank, PAUL AND THE IRONY OF AFFLICTION (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 33-70.

¹⁶Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, HOW TO READ THE BIBLE FOR ALL IT'S WORTH (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 50.

¹⁷Burton L. Mack, RHETORIC, 56. My analysis of 1 Cor. 15 relies on Mack, 56-59. However, I disagree with his conclusion that 1 Cor. 15 is deliberative rhetoric.

¹⁸Cf. George A. Kennedy, CLASSICAL RHETORIC AND ITS CHRISTIAN AND SECULAR TRADITION FROM ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 6th printing, 1987), 125-32. Hans Conzelmann, 1 CORINTHIANS, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975):80, says 15:5-58 is "loose diatribe style." Paul set out not from fact, but from proclamation and faith. Proclamation is a kind of diatribe (i.e., keryssein). Diatribe has emerged finally and essentially as epideictic in character, according to S. K. Stowers, THE DIATRIBE AND PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMANS, SBL Dissertation Series (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1961). On 15:1, Jeremias has observed that "The following address, adelphoi, is a style of preaching," "Flesh and Blood," 151.

¹⁹There is no consensus on the question of whether Paul's discussion responds to the report from "Chloe's people" (1:11) or to a letter(s) from Corinth. The formula 'Now concerning" q)eri de), probably indicating a response to their letter at 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1,12, is missing at 15:1. It may have come from Paul's own sense of their need for instruction on this topic.

²⁰Gnorizein, "to make known," must be understood in the sense of a "reminder," since they have already received this information from the Apostle. This "to make known" does not indicate a first-time instruction.

²¹"Unless you have believed in vain" (v.2) indicates the possibility of their rejection of the gospel; it is explicitly stated in v. 12. On insinuatio see RHETORIC TO HERENNIUS, 1:9-11.

²²This formula is generally understood to refer to the traditioning process.

²³Generally considered to be credal language: Christ died for our sins; Christ was buried; Christ was raised on the third day; Christ appeared to. . . . Cf. 1 Cor. 2:2 to appreciate that the essence of Paul's gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

²⁴G. A. Kennedy, NT INTERPRETATION, 7, says: "When a doctrine is purely proclaimed and not couched in enthymemes I call the technique radical Christian rhetoric."

²⁵According to Plutarch, "On Praising Oneself Inoffensively," 542E-543A, and Paul (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17, based on Jer 9:24), boasting is inoffensive if the success is attributed to God.

²⁶Rudolf Bultmann, KERYGMA AND MYTH, ed. H. W. Bartsch, tr. Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1953)1:39, has criticized this "one passage where St. Paul tries to prove the miracle of the resurrection by adducing a list of eyewitnesses" as "a dangerous procedure." In THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, tr. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), 1:295, he says that Paul gave the list of witnesses "because he was forced to it by his gnosticizing opponents." Note that "Some of you say," clearly indicates the diatribe style.

²⁷Paul's argument rests upon this "If . . ., then which is a sorties. On ei with the indicative of reality in the "logical reasoning of Paul," see F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, tr. and rev., Robert W. Funk (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1961; first edition by Blass, 1896), ¶ 372(2b).

²⁸Compare Paul's pathetical (i.e., pathos) note: "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" (I Cor 15:9) with "For if there were this life only, which belongs to all men, nothing could be more bitter than this" (2 Baruch 21:13) in R. H. Charles, THE APCORYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973; first edition, 1913).

²⁹There seems to have been no denial of the resurrection of Christ in Corinth. Walter Schmithals, GNOSTICISM IN CORINTH: An Investigation of The Letters to the Corinthians, Tr. J. E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; original, 1956), 156, says the heretics would have conceded at least the resurrection of Christ. Cf. H. Conzelmann, 1 Cor., 265. The Corinthians did not deny life after death, but the resurrection of the body as indicated by Paul's 10 references to "body" (soma) in 1 Cor. 15:35-45.

³⁰"Sleep" in v.20 is a euphemism for death. There is no basis whatever for a doctrine of "soul sleep" in the Pauline letters. See D. E. Whiteley, THE THEOLOGY OF ST. PAUL (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 262-269 and Ronald Cassidy, "Paul's Attitude to Death in II Corinthians 5:1-10," EQ 43 (1971):216.

³¹Amplification is a rhetorical technique for expanding on what one wishes to say. Modem rhetorical theory calls it pleonasm, a term derived from the Greek rhetorician Phoebammon. In RHETORIC TO HERENNIUS 4:52 it is called frequentatio. In Quintillian (8.4.27) it is syathroismos. Epideictic tends toward amplification. The technique of amplification involves developing the subject (ergasia), repetition of basic ideas several times in different words, illustrating what it means and relating the subject to the experience of the audience.

³²Sorites is an interlocking chain of syllogisms and takes the "If . . . then pattern; sorites seeks to amplify the proof. See Burton L. Mack, RHETORIC, 57.

³³H. Conzelmann, 1 CORINTHIANS, 265: "The Christological character of the proof has the result that the question of dead Christians can be dealt with, not that of the dead as such." Paul does not mention the resurrection of non-believers, two resurrections (that idea is reserved for Revelation), an intermediate state or a "general resurrection." Cf. Ernst Kasemann, NTQ, 34; J. Hering, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS (London: Epworth, 1962), 166; C. K. Barrett, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, Harper's NT Commentaries (New York and Evanston, 1968), 362-364.

³⁴0n baptism for the dead, see D. E. H. Whiteley, THE THEOLOGY OF ST. PAUL, 173-174; A. T. Lincoln, PARADISE NOW, 36, says Paul's argument is ad hominem. Also see A. T. Robertson and A. Plummer, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1971 ed.), 361-363. Concerning the paragraph encompassing vv. 29-34, Gordon D. Fee, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 761, says "It is pure ad hominem. In this same section Paul poses three rhetorical questions.

³⁵Cf. A. J. Malherbe, "The Beasts of Ephesus," JBL 37(1968):71-80, and R.E. Osborne, "Paul and the Wild Beasts," JBL 85(1966):225-230. Fee, FIRST CORINTHIANS, interprets it metaphorically.

³⁶C. K. Barrett, FIRST CORINTHlANS, 367, finds the quotation in Isa.22:13 in a different context; likewise, Robertson and Plummer, FIRST CORINTHIANS, 363. See Prov 7:21; Wisd. 8:18; Origen, Hom 31 in Luke, who thinks Paul borrows heathen words and "hallows them."

³⁷Menander, THAIS 218. C. K. Barrett, who thinks this may be a proverb Menander found or that which Menander said had become proverbial, believes that Paul probably had not read THAIS.

³⁸loachim Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God," NTS 2(1956):151-159.

³⁹A. T. Lincoln, PARADISE NOW, 38, observes that "Paul gets to the heart of the Corinthians' difficulty with the resurrection of the dead and indeed the heart of many of their problems, namely the place of the body."

⁴⁰Paul uses Gen. 2:7 quite freely, expands it with the adjective "first" (added because Paul needs another name to balance with Christ, whom he intends to describe as the "last Adam." With psychikon he intends to describe Adam with a natural body. See 1 Enoch 46:lff; 4 Ezra 123:ff.

⁴¹J. Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood," 154, notes that in vv. 50-54 Paul employs chiasmus. He also thinks that "flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (v.50) speaks of the transformation of the living at the Parousia and not of the resurrection of the dead.

⁴²While I accept full responsibility for what follows, I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to G. A. Kennedy, NT INTERPRETATION.

⁴³For examples see R. Bultmann, THE SECOND LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985; German original, 1976), 16. He believes Paul defends the "apostolic office." "His person is at issue only insofar as he is the bearer of the apostolic office." C. K. Barrett, THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1984); Frank G. Carver, "II CORINTHIANS," BBC (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1968); W. G. Kummel, INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, tr. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 17th ed, 1975); Helmut Koester, INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972).

⁴⁴R. Bultmann, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 61ff, W. G. Kummel, 281; Marion Soards, THE APOSTLE PAUL (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 89; H. Koester, 1:127; C. K Barrett, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 95ff. Some scholars exclude 6:14-7:1 since they see it as an interpolation. G. A. Kennedy, NT INTERPRETATION, and F. Carver, "II CORINTHIANS," 490, identify the beginning of the unit as 1:7 and 1:12 respectively. Ralph Martin, 2 CORINTHIANS, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word Books, 1986), 43ff, ends the unit at 7:16 as does Kennedy. Only Carver concludes the unit earlier than the consensus, at 6:10. Thus, all agree that the passage under consideration here falls entirely within the apology.

⁴⁵This "charge" (real or perceived) is similar to the one made in 2 Cor.10:10. S. Corates responded to just such a "charge" in the Platonic version of his APOLOGY; Plato, THE LAST DAYS OF SOCRATES, tr. Hugh Frederick (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), 45.

⁴⁶V. Furnish, II CORINTHIANS, 468, observes that "In this citation Paul himself has provided us with the earliest documented assessment of his letters." For comments on Paul's letters from a later period, see Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (3:2) and 2 Pet. 3:15-16. Edwin A. Judge, "Paul's Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice," ABR; 16(1968):41, notes the apocryphal correspondence between "Paul" and Seneca (3rd century) and from the fourth and fifth centuries, Gregory of Nyssa, AGAINST EUNOMIUS I, 253B (NPNF, second sermon, V.37); Jerome's Commentary on Gal. 2:4; Chyrsostom, ON THE PRIESTHOOD, 5.5-6 (NPNF, first sermon, IX.66-67) and Augustine, ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, IV.vii, discussed on 38-40.

⁴⁷The language of affliction, grounded in his theology of the cross, permits the reader to discover the lens through which Paul sees life and its reality. This language so pervades his letters that almost any aspect of Paul's theology must consider it. "Affliction" language is so fundamental to Pauline thought that it is not simply another theological topic in the Pauline Compendium, but the very ground on which he "does" theology. See Karl A. Plank, IRONY OF AFFLICTION, 4.

⁴⁸Chaim Perelman and L Olbrechts-Tyteca, THE NEW RHETORIC: A TREATISE ON ARGUMENTATION, tr. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1961), 501.

⁴⁹0n the rhetoric of concession Perelman observes: "Each time a speaker follows the interlocutor onto his own ground he makes a concession to him, but one which may be full of traps. One of these is to recognize that the opponent's position cannot be invalidated, and to give up opposing it at a certain level, while pointing out at the same time the little importance of that level" (THE NEW RHETORIC, 489).

⁵⁰There are various opinions on the delimitation of this pericope. I follow Kennedy, NT INTERPRETATION, 90, who believes the rhetorical unit is 4:13-5:10. A. T. Lincoln, PARADISE NOW, 59, places the limits around 4:16-5:10. R. Martin, 2 CORINTHIANS, 97, makes 5:1-10 the unit, but says "in the first section [5:1-5] Paul continues (gar, "for") the exposition begun in 4:7." R. Bultmann, 2 CORINTHIANS, 130, delimits to 5:1-10 and thinks 5:1-5 is a digression "since the apostolic office is not in view here." V. Furnish, II CORINTHIANS 252ff, makes 4:7-5:10 the pericope, and notes that it is part of the apologia. F. Carver, II CORINTHIANS, 535, places the limits at 4:7-5:10 but later notes that the chapter division at 5:1 is "purely arbitrary," because "this paragraph [5:1-10] belongs more to what precedes than to what follows." C. K. Barrett, 2 CORINTHIANS, 149ff, treats 5:1-10 as a unit, but sees it as a digression illustrating "the relative unimportance of the earthen vessel. Almost all journal articles treat 5:1-10 as the unit for exegesis, with very little reference to what precedes it.

⁵¹A. T. Lincoln, PARADISE NOW, 59.

⁵²For a history of the exegesis of this passage, see F. G. Lang, 2 KORINTHER 5, 1-10 IN DER NEUREN FORSCHUNG (Tubingen:, 1973), 9-161; M. J. Harris, THE INTERPRETATION OF 2 CORINTHIANS 5:1-10 AND ITS PLACE IN PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Manchester, 1970).

⁵³G. A. Kennedy, NT INTERPRETATION, 90, who certainly knows the rhetorical character of this passage, unfortunately restricts his remarks on such a difficult text to saying it comes under the heading of "sincerity." Given the difficulty of the passage, it is surprising that Kennedy does not provide a rhetorical analysis. One would hope for more!

⁵⁴C. K. Barrett, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 149.

⁵⁵Gu~nther Bornkamm, PAULUS (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1969), 230. He thinks believers "von dem Leben, was sie noch nicht sicht sind, was aber ihrer wartet."

⁵⁶A. T. Lincoln, PARADISE NOW, 59. Rhetorically .2:14-7:4 is not a digression, but rather it is the central part (i.e. "the body") of the apologia; everything in 1:3-7:16 constitutes a Pauline apologia.

⁵⁷W. D. Davies, PAUL AND RABBINIC JUDAISM, 317. He also thinks Paul's experience in Asia (1:8) forced him to think about death and the beyond and thus 2 Cor. 5 is not characteristically eschatological.

⁵⁵J. A. Cuddon, A DICTIONARY OF LITERARY TERMS (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), s.v. 'irony."

⁵⁹Richard A. Lanham, A HANDLIST OF RHETORICAL TERMS (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 61.

⁶⁰R. Bultmann, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 130, and C. K. Barrett, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 149 treat 5:1-10 as a digression. A. T. Lincoln, PARADISE NOW, 65-66, perhaps correctly, thinks of v.3 as parenthetical and v. 7 as an "aside." R. Martin, 2 CORINTHIANS, 97, can't imagine why Paul included 5:2-4 in this letter. He notes that Paul speaks of being clothed, then intrudes ideas of being unclothed, naked. He correctly says that 5:6 is an anacolouthon (109).

⁶¹Robert Scholes and Robert Kellogg. THE NATURE OF NARRATIVE (New Haven: Yale University), 240-241.

⁶²Such breaks as one finds in this passage act as hindrances to comprehension and so force the readers to examine their habitual orientation. If one tries to ignore such breaks, or to blame them as faults in accordance with classical norms, one is in fact "attempting to rob them of their function." Wolfgang Iser, THE ACT OF READING: A THEORY OF AESTHETIC RESPONSE [Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1978], 18).

⁶³Archibald T. Robertson, A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 1134.

⁶⁴Both Plato and Aristotle used eironeia to describe the self-depreciation of the eiron in contrast to the self-appreciating alazon. Cf. Plato, REP, 337A; Aristotle, EN, 1 124b, 30; RHET, 1379b. Eironeia is first recorded in Plato's REPUBLIC. Applied to Socrates, it meant a smooth, low-down way of taking people in. For Demosthenes, an eiron was a citizen who evaded responsibility by pretending unfitness. Theophrastus said an eiron was evasive and noncommittal, conceals enmities, pretends friendships, never gives a straight answer. Cf. D. C. Muecke, IRONY, Critical Idiom Series, 13 (London: Methuen and Co), 14. Irony is virtually as old as speech itself according to Wallter J.Ong, INTERFACES THE WORD (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 287. Eiron is related to eiren, "to say or to speak," or perhaps more closely to the Ionic eiromai, "to ask questions." G. G. Sedgwick, OF IRONY, ESPECIALLY IN THE DRAMA (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1935), 7. The eiron wore a mask of goodwill, which concealed enmity. He was a grinning fox, a scoundrel not to be trusted. It was precisely with this sense of disdain that the epithet eiron was hurled at the man who came to typify and later to dignify the term: Socrates. Paul D. Duke, IRONY IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL (Atlanta: John Press, 1985), 8. Modern examples of the eiron include characters such as Br'er Rabbit, Charley Chaplin, and Columbo. Examples of the alazon include characters like Barney Fife, Donald Duck, and at times, Matlock.

⁶⁵0n the interpretation of "clay pots," see V. Furnish, II CORINTHIANS, 278; R. Bultlmann, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 112; H. Windisch, DER ZWEITE KORINTHERBRIEF, 141ff; W. D. Davies, PAUL, 313.

⁶⁶With this argument, Paul is employing anastasis.

⁶⁷For this insight I am indebted to my colleague, Frank Carver, II CORINTHIANS, 540.

⁶⁸F. Carver, II CORINTHIANS, 542.

⁶⁹K. Plank, IRONY OF AFFLICTION, 77-80.

⁷⁰Jean Hering, LA SECONDE EPITRE DE SAINT PAUL AUX CORINTHIENS, Commentaire de Nouveau Testament, Vol 8 (Paris: Delachaux and Niestle, 1958, ET, 1967), 45. See P. E. Hughes, PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 154ff.

⁷¹ R. Bultman, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 124-129. Walter Schmitals, GNOSTICISM IN CORINTH, 259-275, finds Gnostic ideas throughout 5:1-10. He comments that Paul becomes a Gnostic to the Gnostics, in order to win the Gnostics, 273.

⁷² R. Martin, 2 CORINTHIANS, 91-92; C.K. Barret, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 145-146.

⁷³V. Furnish, II CORINTHIANS, 261.

⁷⁴R. Bultmann, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 124.

⁷⁵Marcus Aurelius 111.3; VIII.27; X.38; XII. 1-3. CorpusHermeticum, 17; Cicero, TUSCULAN DISPUTATIONS, i.XXII.52; Philo, ON DREAMS, 1.26; EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE, III; ON HUSBANDRY, 9; ON NOAH'S WORK AS A PLANTER, 42; THE WORSE ATTACKS THE BETTER, 22-23; 2 ESDRAS 4.10-11; 7.88; Gos. PhiL 11.3, 63 (NHLE), 1138; Seneca, TO MARCIA, X.3; MORAL EPISTLES, LXXI, 26-27.

⁷⁶R. Martin, 2 CORINTHIANS, 106. Oscar Cullmann, IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL OR RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

⁷⁷A. Plummer, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 147.

⁷⁸C. F. D. Moule, ST PAUL AND DUALISM, 21.

⁷⁹E. E. Ellis, "II Cor. v.1-10," especially pp.220-221. That nakedness, shame, and judgment are all related to gymnos is not in question. Ellis has demonstrated that well. But the entire context of this passage, both the concession and the future, are related to the body and especially 5: 1ff. Adam "heard the sound" of God and hid because he was "naked" (Gen. 3:10). Israel, "naked" of virtue, is clothed with God's covenant blessing (Ezek. 16:7f). Sheol is naked before God (Job 22:6). See Ezek. 16:37, 39; 23:26, 29; Isa. 20:2-4; Micah 1:8. Because the Laodicean church is "poor, blind and naked," it is counseled to buy clothes so that "the shame of your nakedness does not appear" (Rev. 3:17-18). See Oxyrh. Pap. 655: "He himself will give you your garment. His disciples say unto him, when will you be manifest to us, when shall we see you? He says, "When you shall be stripped and not be ashamed."

⁸⁰W. Bauer, GREEK LEXICON, s.v. katergazomai, 3. Epictetus (III.xxiv.63f) uses the word in this way.

⁸¹W. Schmithals, GNOSTICISM IN CORINTH, 266, suggests that 2 Cor 5:5 allows us clearly to recognize the fundamental contrast that separates Paul from the Gnostics. "For them the Pneuma itself is life, for which reason they also long for the liberation from any soma which restrains the Pneuma. For Paul the Pneuma is God's initial gift to the person who has laid hold in faith upon the life promised to him, a pledge that God will actually give him eternal life if he walks "in the Spirit" (Gal 5:25). Thus the Pneuma is not zoe itself, nor is zoe already a possession. The life is rather a free gift of God which is still awaited.

⁸²A. Plummer, SECOND CORINTHIANS, 150.

⁸³V. Furnish, II CORINTHIANS, 303.

⁸⁴As early as Clement of Alexandria, STROMATA, iv, xxvi and Teriullian, de resur. carnis, XIII and in the consensus of modem opinion. E. E. Ellis, "II Corinthians V.1-10," 222 states: "In view of the influence of Greek philosophy from a very early period one would expect the exegesis to take this direction."

⁸⁵V. Furnish, II CORINTHIANS, 303

⁸⁶C. J. Roetzel, JUDGMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, NovTSup (Leiden:

Brill, 1972), 175. Cf. also 1 Cor. 4:2-4

⁸⁷K. Plank, IRONY OF AFFLICTION, 94.

Edited by Jason Gingerich and Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.