PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

God. Certainly this terminology seems to be employed in this way in 2 Corinthians 10-13,
Galatians 6:13-14, and Philippians 1:26. 183
My argument, to summarise, is that in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians Paul
interprets and critiques the divisive political struggles over status and leadership in the
church of Roman Corinth as exemplifying a fundamental pastoral-theological problem of
boastful, present-obsessed, human autonomy:
1:10-2:5: The cross and human wisdom
2:6-3:4: The Spirit and human capability
3:5-4:5: Divine work and human authority
4:6-21: Divinely ordained death and human boasting
6. Relation to Other Conceptions of the Corinthian
Problems
It will be evident that I am in agreement with Mitchell that the nature of the factions at
Corinth was political rather than explicitly doctrinal. 184 I am convinced, along with
Winter, that the varied problems in Corinth (including, but not limited to, the political
partisanship) arose in association with accommodation to secular patterns of life in Roman
Corinth. In particular I am persuaded with Litfin that these secular patterns involved
rhetorical competitiveness, and with Clarke, that issues of church leadership were critical:
183 In a recent exploration of the theme of boasting in 1 Corinthians, Kate C. Donahoe
argues, “Like the Greco-Roman writers who distinguish between acceptable selfpraise and
unacceptable ‘boasting,’ Paul also distinguishes between these two categories. Unlike the
Greco-Roman definitions, Paul defines these categories in terms of praising the Lord. For
Paul, ‘boasting’ is a grievous matter that extends well beyond the Greco-Roman notions of
social decorum. That which aims to increase one’s social status or honor is deemed
unacceptable ‘boasting,’ whereas that which seeks to bring glory to the Lord is acceptable
‘boasting.’” Donahoe, “From Self-Praise to Self-Boasting”, 71.
184 Welborn, among others, has rightly criticised the view that the Corinthians themselves
were consciously taking part in a theological controversy: “It is no longer necessary to
argue against the position that the conflict that evoked 1 Corinthians was essentially
theological in character. The attempt to identify the parties with views and practices
condemned elsewhere in the epistle, as if the parties represented different positions in a
dogmatic controversy, has collapsed under its own weight”. Welborn, “Discord in
Corinth,” in Christianity at Corinth (ed. Adams and Horrell), 143.
181