PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

counter this unwillingness with the climactic solution of the divine gift of future resurrection
for the dead in Christ.
They gave up their lives for the crucified one. 98
The one who has descended will rise with great gain. 99
Conclusion to Chapter 5
In this chapter I have noted that both Chrysostom and Calvin comment that the placement of
the resurrection discussion defies the expectations of an arrangement governed by priority of
importance.
Scholars often attempt to account for the material in this chapter by understanding the
underlying issue as either a rejection of postmortality, a belief that the resurrection had already
occurred, or a rejection of postmortal corporeality. Each of these perspectives brings clarity to
some parts of the chapter, but none is exclusively sufficient.
The discussion may be illuminated by considering its rhetorical function before returning to
consider the underlying situation. This rhetorical function, I argue, is best understood in terms
of Paul’s kerygmatic rhetoric of reversal. All of the main issues in the chapter are anticipated
in chapters 1–4, such that the resurrection discussion heightens the problem of proud human
autonomy raised in those chapters, while bringing climactic resolution: humans are in need of
the glory and immortality that can only come from God to the dead in Christ.
The historical situation behind this discussion may be illuminated by the themes of disregard
for the body and disregard for the dead, observable to varying degrees, for example, in first
century Stoicism and Epicureanism. It seems possible, in particular, that some in Corinth are
downplaying the ongoing significance of those who have died for the present experience of
98 John Chrysostom, Homily 7; PG 61.65.
99 Homily 22; PG 61.185.
303