Kingship and Thrones for All Christians: Paul’s Inaugurated Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 4

Abstract

The central argument presented here is that 1 Corinthians 4–6 reflects a single eschatological vision of the identity of the Corinthians. This single vision works itself out in two separate references as Paul addresses them as both ‘kings’ and ‘judges’. This conclusion is based on a fresh reading of Paul’s identification of the Corinthians as ‘kings’ in 1 Cor. 4 and ‘judges’ in 1 Cor. 6. This study proposes that these labels actually reflect a single reality based on Paul’s inaugurated eschatology.

Keywords

Corinthians kings judges thrones eschatology rhetoric

Introduction

The thesis of this article is that Paul has one single eschatological reality as the basis for his pastoral ethics and this single reality explains the identity of the Corinthians as both kings and judges. This study proposes a connection between Paul’s reference to the Corinthians as “kings” (βασιλεύω) in 1 Cor. 4:8 and his description of them as “judges” (κρίνω) in 1 Cor. 6:1–3. This connection is rarely mentioned at all in contemporary scholarship on 1 Corinthians. This study argues that these two references are best understood as reflecting the same eschatological reality. This study proceeds by analyzing these references separately and then arguing for thematic connections between the two that support a holistic reading of the status of the Corinthian Christians through the lens of already/not yet inaugurated eschatology. This study proceeds by analyzing the references to “kings” in chapter 4 and “judges” in chapter 6 independently. Then, arguments are put forth that demonstrate that these are best understood as reflecting a unified vision of identity related to Christ. For Paul, the solution to the Corinthians’ problems lies in their identity in Christ. They must redefine who they are in the present by considering who they will be and how they will function in the future. This leads to the conclusion that for Paul, kingship and thrones are the present and future possessions of all Christians.

The Corinthians and Inaugurated Eschatology

It is almost taken for granted nowadays that Paul uses inaugurated eschatology as the organizing framework for 1 Corinthians.¹ Inaugurated eschatology, as classically exposited by G. E. Ladd, employs an already/not yet tension and describes the future as having broken into the reality of this present world.² One could say that Paul utilizes the eschatology of a present-future. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the singular event that confirms and establishes Paul’s eschatology (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15).³ This inaugurated eschatology stands in contrast to a completely realized eschatology or completely future-oriented eschatology.⁴ An eschatology that is “inaugurated” means that something has already begun but is not yet complete. It is characterized by elements of “fulfillment” and “new beginnings.”⁵ The conclusion that an already/not yet tension plays a decisive role in 1 Corinthians has worked its way into commentaries and monographs.⁶

The inaugurated eschatology found in 1 Corinthians parallels the concepts found in the Jewish writings at Qumran.⁷ For example, the Qumran community “thought of an inaugurated eschatology, seeing itself as already in fellowship with the angels prior to the end of the age in which it lived.”⁸ The text of 1QSa 2.8–9 refers to the presence of the “angels of holiness.”⁹ And the text of 1QM 7.3–7 excluded those with bodily imperfections from the “day of battle” because of the “holy angels.”¹⁰ This means that the now/not yet approach to eschatology was used by a wide range of religious sects and movements within the diversity of Judaism.¹¹ All of this scholarly consensus surrounding already/not yet eschatology provides the basis for exploring potential relationships between seemingly disparate textual units within the letter of 1 Corinthians.

The Corinthians as Present and Future Kings

In the first series of statements, Paul views the whole church of Corinth as presently being “kings”: “Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings (βασιλεύω)! And would that you did reign (βασιλεύω), so that we might share the rule (συμβασιλεύω) with you!” (1 Cor. 4:8). This section seeks to argue that the Corinthians do indeed possess the identity of kings in their union with Christ but they are not acting out of their identity.¹² This section focuses on identity and irony in order to support this conclusion that the Corinthians are present and future kings.

The kingship of the Corinthians is an issue of identity

The reason why Paul’s rhetoric is powerful in 1 Cor. 4:8 is that the audience can agree with him, even if only for a moment. It is likely that they initially agreed that they were defined by success and sufficiency as he listed these three qualities: (A) already you have all you want, (B) already you have become rich, (C), without us you have become kings. The series of statements in 1 Cor. 4:8a–c provides several deictic or temporal markers that indicate that this is the present tense: (ἤδη… ἤδη… χωρὶς…). The adverbial word ἤδη indicates “now, already, by this time.”¹³ The third statement in 1 Cor. 4:8c (“Without us you have become kings!”) uses the aorist tense verb βασιλεύω. As an aorist, this is semantically undefined (lacking semantic encoding) as the aorist relies on the pragmatics and context to determine temporal reference.¹⁴ The context leads to the grammatical conclusion that the aorist in the third statement should be understood in the present tense: the Corinthians are currently kings.

The adverb “already” (ἤδη) has been used to argue that the Corinthians were in error of having an over-realized eschatology or a “belief that the kingdom of God had already arrived in all its fullness.”¹⁵ According to some, the Corinthians’ problem was that they believed that the “kingdom had already arrived.”¹⁶ However, this does not fit well with the inaugurated eschatology that characterizes much of Paul’s thinking.¹⁷ In Paul’s theology of judgment, “the verdict of the future is enacted in the present.”¹⁸ For example, Christ is the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). Nor does this explain how Paul can state, a few paragraphs later in 1 Corinthians 6, that the Corinthians should indeed reflect on their status as future eschatological judges of the world—a point taken up in the next section of our study. The problem Paul is addressing with his irony is not the timing of the kingdom of God, but the nature of the kingdom of God.

The transition to Paul’s deeply ironical contrast between the apostles and the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4:10–13 is marked by another surprising statement. Paul states, “And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!” (1 Cor. 4:8d–e). Paul’s statement can be taken “somewhat sourly” or rhetorically because the pattern is deeply ironic.¹⁹ The statement “without us you have become kings” (1 Cor. 4:8c), might be understood as a reference to their supposed spiritual growth without the presence of Paul. Although Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:1–18), he did not stay but a year and six months (Acts 18:11)—an incredibly long time, by Paul’s standards. The following two statements in 1 Cor. 4:8d–e set up the transition to follow. He wants them to reign as kings because that is what their identity truly is in Christ and he earnestly desires to share in their identity as co-regents (συμβασιλεύω).²⁰ But, as they will soon find out, this kingship is not what they think it is.

The kingship of the Corinthians is an issue of irony

Although Paul’s statements in context are highly rhetorical, this does not mean that he is not using the truth in service of his pastoral and apostolic discipline. To suggest that Paul’s rhetoric and multiple references to “kings” and “co-regency” are “hyperbole” is to misread this text as an overly simplistic contrast.²¹ Paul does create an extended contrast between the Corinthians and the apostles in 1 Cor. 4:10–13 that consists of foolishness vs wisdom, weakness vs strength, honor vs dishonor, sufficiency vs need, clothed vs homeless, etc.. Paul concludes that “We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things” (1 Cor. 4:13). But the complexity in Paul’s contrast is easy to miss. First, Paul acknowledges the truth of their claims to prosperity and kingship in 1 Cor. 4:8–9; they do indeed have these qualities. Then, in 1 Cor. 4:10–13, Paul turns these truths into an epistolary “rod” of discipline (cf. 1 Cor. 4:21).²² The contrast between the Corinthians and the apostles is evident in the way they live, and their identity does not match up with the reality of the apostles who truly imitate Jesus and the glory of the cross.

The irony is “still total”.²³ If the apostles are weak, it is because “they align themselves with the ‘weakness’ of God that is in fact stronger than all human strength”.²⁴ If the Corinthians are truly kings they must draw this identity from Christ and imitate him. They are already rich and have become kings—but not in the way that they think. The three qualities of sufficiency, wealth, and kingship as identified in 1 Cor. 4:8 are only true because they are “in Christ.” Their view of leadership is secular because the cross of Christ does not define what these qualities mean.²⁵

It is possible that Paul was overturning philosophical notions of kingship as he progressed in his rhetoric against the Corinthians. It is possible that the Corinthians had imbibed some of their Greco-Roman cultural trappings and concluded that they were self-sufficient.²⁶ For example, they may have been following the thought of Philo of Alexandria, who stated that the virtuous and wise person is like a king: “But the kingdom of the wise man is bestowed upon him by God; and the virtuous man receiving it is not the cause of evil to anyone, but is rather the author to all his subjects of the acquisition and also of the use of good things, proclaiming to them peace and obedience to the law” (Philo, Abr. 261). In the Platonic philosophical tradition, the “king” is “the chief image of highest principle.”²⁷ This idea of kingship carried over into both Stoic and Cynic philosophies. Epictetus stated, “Who, when he lays eyes upon me, does not feel that he is seeing his king and master?” (Diss. 3.22.49). If the Corinthians viewed themselves as “wise” they only reflect the wisdom of the world and not the wisdom of the cross. What Paul is doing with his reference to kingship is to present identity in Christ as the solution to the social and cultural morass in which they are entangled. They are to redefine kingship and thus redefine themselves. Paul is trying to communicate that wisdom, kingship, kingship, honor, virtue, and maturity are all defined by Christ and the cross alone.

In summary, Paul is speaking the truth to the Corinthians about their identity as kings in an ironic way. They are indeed kings because of their union with Christ but they are not acting the part. Scholars continue to debate whether the Corinthians were over-emphasizing the role of eschatology,²⁸ or denying that they had any definite eschatology at all.²⁹ For our purposes, it is enough to state that the Corinthians had misunderstood Paul’s eschatology in some manner. This study focuses on their self-perception and identity as their core issue and Christ-centered inaugurated eschatology as the solution. Whether the Corinthians viewed their present status as “kings” in connection with first-century philosophy or other sources, it was not according to Christ. This is why Paul’s statement about their identity as “kings” is ironic: it is both true and false at the same time. It is true that they are kings in Christ but it is false that they are kings according to God’s true wisdom, knowledge, maturity, and possessions. If they truly understood Christ’s kingship they would follow and imitate him. This is why Paul contrasts his work as an apostle with their kingship. From the vantage point of inaugurated eschatology, the Corinthians do possess kingship in Christ (already), just not in its fullness (not yet). In other words, they are not presently displaying the virtues of their future eschatological roles. Because their actions do not match their identity, they are subject to Paul’s caustic irony as a form of discipline.³⁰ They are kings acting like spiritual paupers.

The Corinthians as Present and Future Judges

Whereas the first important statements in 1 Cor. 4:8 explicitly refers to the whole Corinthian church as “kings,” the second series of statements in 1 Cor. 6:1 refers to their future act of “judging” (κρίνω) the world. This arguably explains and develops what Paul thinks their kingship entails. This judgment covers a wide range of issues and situations. As we will see, Paul’s inaugurated eschatology best explains how the Corinthians can be understood as judges in the present and in the future. Before proceeding it is important to observe that the entire church is involved in the act of judgment. The pattern throughout the entire section refers to what happens “among you” (Cor. 5:1; 13) and this group is specifically identified as the “church” (1 Cor. 5:12).

The Corinthians are judges of each other (the church)

Paul utilizes the images of “insiders” and “outsiders” to create identity boundaries around the church. This is most clear when he rhetorically asks: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:12–13). This series of rhetorical questions identifies the church at the center of one’s identity. Either a person is inside the church (a rudimentary form of church membership) or outside the church. This identity leads to responsibility. Those who are outside are judged by God and their actions lay outside the purview of the church. Hans Conzelmann states, “Paul is not excluding his own person altogether from the function of judging, but is explaining that he and those who belong to the community are not competent where ‘the outsiders’ are concerned.”³¹ But those who are inside the church are to judge each other by removing evil people from their midst.

The Corinthians will be judges of the world

Paul reinforces his desire that matters be dealt with inside the church rather than have legal and public lawsuits between Christians. Here we see that the Corinthians will be judges of the world (κόσμος). Here, the cosmos does not mean “nature” but the totality of all created things subject to God’s judgment.³² His argument is a classic Jewish argument that moves from the greater to the lesser. He rhetorically asks, “Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (1 Cor. 6:2). The logic works this way: if the Corinthians will judge that which is greater (the world) then they should be able to judge that which is lesser (themselves).

The Corinthians will be judges of angels

The next object of the Corinthians’ judgment is angels (ἄγγελος). Paul continues his line of rhetorical questioning: “Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!” (1 Cor. 6:3). This ratchets the argument up another notch as Paul moves from the even greater to the lesser. If they are so wise, as they claim to be, then they should be able to avoid solutions that involve Christians taking each other to a secular court (1 Cor. 6:6). The extent to which Paul goes into the future about the judgment of angels in the eschaton goes to further the point that the Corinthians were not wrong to view themselves as kings or possessors of the kingdom of God. They simply needed to balance that with the truth that this possession is part of a reality that has only begun and it is not yet complete.

In summary, the Corinthians are identified judges in the present and in the future

Thus far, we have observed that Paul considers the whole church as judges of themselves, the world, and angelic beings. These acts of judgment can be broken down into those acts of judgment which Paul expects to happen in the present and those in the future. The judgment of those inside the church is in the present as indicated by Paul’s displeasure with lawsuits among the church members. But the judgment of the world and angels are both described using future active indicative verbs in 1 Cor. 6:2–3. These future actions seem to refer to an eschatological context, in which angels and people are both present to each other in a way they are not now. But these futuristic dimensions do not prevent Paul from applying them to the present. What will happen in the future eschaton should create an experience in the present that reflects the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. That is how Paul is able to ask, “How much more, then, in matters pertaining to this life!” (1 Cor. 6:3). Inaugurated eschatology drives Paul’s pastoral theology and ethics. Indeed, Paul’s pastoral ethics are motivated by his eschatology. Paul views the present age as “passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31). The use of the present tense verb παράγω to describe this passing is evidence that “Paul’s inaugurated eschatology is clearly at work.”³³ The heart of the matter in 1 Cor. 6:1–1 is that praxis much match their identity in Christ. This parallels the link between identity and praxis in Paul’s references to kingship in 1 Cor. 4:1–13. They possess the identity of eschatological judges but they are not acting out of this identity in the present.

A Unified Eschatology of Kingship and Judgment

This section offers the hypothesis that Paul’s discussion of kingship and judging can be read together in a unified and holistic way. We will draw from the studies of kingship and judgment above and seek to demonstrate how they might be read together. While our reading of 1 Corinthians 4 and 6 is admittedly novel, there are five reasons supporting this unified reading of kingship and judgment.

First, kingship and judgment are unified by application to all of God’s people

Paul’s letter addresses the Corinthians as inclusive of both Jew and Gentile. Like many other issues, the nature of Paul’s concern with schism and factionalism has been polarizing, with some arguing for factionalism at every point and some denying that it was an issue at all.³⁴ In chapters 4–6, there is nothing in the context of chapter four or chapter six that would lead the reader to conclude that his references to kingship or judgment are directed toward any single group, either Jew or Gentile, strong or weak, etc.. Leon Morris points out that in 1 Corinthians 4, “There is no indication at all that Paul is addressing a different audience here.”³⁵ The epistle was meant for the whole church and because both chapters four and six lack any indicators of a change in audience, the whole church would have ideally applied it to themselves.

Second, kingship and judgment are unified by their contextual proximity in the letter

The two topics occur within a relatively short distance from each other in the text of 1 Corinthians. The discussion of judging in the eschaton lies relatively close to the context for the more difficult verses about kingship. They are only separated by the three pericopes that make up 1 Corinthians 4. In support of this point is the “linear nature” of Paul’s letters. As linear texts, Paul’s letters are like pieces of music that gradually unveil their secrets through time as the performance unfolds, relying on repetition, recollection, themes, phrases, and other rhetorical forms in the process.³⁶ This means that Paul’s references to kingship in chapter four are perhaps explained and developed by the clearer verses about judging in chapter six. There are rhetorical units and sections of thought to be sure, but these are not so deep that all continuity is lost to a normal reader. Even if one maintains that an important shift in focus takes place in 1 Cor. 5:1, this shift is not so great as to lose all connections between chapters 4 and 6. It is this author’s belief that the shift in 1 Cor. 5:1 has been magnified out of proportion so that other connections are overshadowed. This point does not stand on its own but is supported by the following point about thematic connections between 1 Corinthians 4 and 6.

Third, kingship and judgment are unified by the kingdom of God

The kingdom of God is an important thematic connection between the pericopes referencing kingship in 1 Cor. 4:8–21 and judgment in 1 Cor. 6:1–11. The theme of the “kingdom of God” appears in both 1 Cor. 4:20 and 1 Cor. 6:10. In both instances, Paul draws from the Corinthians’ relationship to the “kingdom of God” in order to support his ethical imperatives. In the first example from chapter four, “power” cuts both ways because it is something that accompanies both authentic Christian leaders and Paul’s fatherly discipline. In the second example in chapter four, Paul twice states the “kingdom of God” is something that will be withheld from those who are outside of Christ and lack the qualities of being sanctified, washed, and justified (1 Cor. 6:9–11). Both of these brief examples demonstrate that Paul is concerned about the Corinthians’ worldly thinking and acting because it is not commensurate with their participation in the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God and participation in it form an important part of the unifying connection between kingship and judgment.

Fourth, kingship and judgment are unified by inaugurated eschatology

Are the Corinthians judges now or in the future? The answer is “yes” on both accounts. The same is true with respect to the state as kings (1 Cor. 4:8). Even if one avers that judgment in Paul is totally distinct from kingship, the only way to account for Paul’s interest in connecting the present and the future is to acknowledge the centrality of inaugurated eschatology. Inaugurated eschatology is evident in the fact that Paul refers to the kingdom of God as present in 1 Corinthians 4 and future in 1 Corinthians 6. In the first example from chapter four, Paul refers to the present quality of the kingdom of God being evident in not “in talk but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20). In the second example from chapter six, the kingdom of God is something that will be inherited in the future by those who reflect the justified status of being “washed” in Christ (1 Cor. 6:10). The Corinthians are already kings (in the present) and they will one day judge the world and even angels (in the future). This combination creates an “already/not yet” tension with practical and pastoral implications.

Fifth, kingship and judgment are unified by Christ

It is not because they are wise that they are kings. In fact, according to Paul’s disciplinary rhetoric, they are kings in spite of their lack of wisdom. Central to Paul’s argument is that the Corinthians have received much. But everything they have received is because of God’s grace. That is why Paul rhetorically asks, “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). Again, this question provides a Christological answer to their problems. They have received everything that they have “in Christ.”³⁷ Neither kingship nor the ability to judge allows anyone to boast because it is all derived from Christ’s gracious gift. This stands in contrast with philosophical views of kingship. For example, the fourth century Neo-Platonist Sallustius stated: “Souls that have lived in accordance with virtue have as the crown of their happiness that freed from the unreasonable element and purified from all body they are in union with the gods and share with them the government of the whole universe” (Sallust. Deor. et mund. 21).³⁸ Sallustius does have a concept of ruling over the “government of the whole universe” (τὸν ὅλον κόσμον συνδιοικοῦσιν ἐκείνοις) as part of one’s growth in Platonic states.³⁹ But in Paul’s thought, it is Christ who is the only wise king over the universe and those who reign as eschatological kings do so as they are in personal union with him. On this identity as co-judges with Christ, Conzelmann comments, “In Christianity the office of judge is transferred also to Christ. And thus those who are ‘in Christ’ also have part in it.”⁴⁰ Thus, when Paul calls for mimesis or imitation, he does so in relation to Christ: “That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17). The act of judging is connected to kingship vis-à-vis Christ, who is both.⁴¹

Summary

We have argued in this study that Paul has developed and extrapolated Jesus’ promise of kingship and thrones of judgment to the twelve disciples and applied it broadly to all of those who are in union with Christ, both Jew and Gentile, in 1 Corinthians 4–6. The case presented in this study is cumulative, and our thesis that Paul held to a doctrine that all Christians should self-identify as eschatological kings and judges rests on four elements. Foundationally, we sought to build upon the consensus that Paul utilizes an inaugurated eschatology scheme of already/not yet, in which the future is brought into the present owing to the death and resurrection of Christ. In the first section, we examined Paul’s reference to the Christians at Corinth as kings and argued that they possessed the identity of kings but were not defining this according to Christ and living out of that identity. In the second section, we examined Paul’s reference to the Corinthians as eschatological judges who needed to utilize this identity to judge among themselves in their present situations. The third section of this study drew from the first two sections and argued that the Corinthians’ status as kings and judges are two things that reflect one eschatological reality and identity.

One major conclusion of this study is that Paul views the Corinthians, and indeed all Christians by extension, as possessing identities reflecting the benefits of being in union with Christ. However, not all Christians live out of this identity. This is why a clear doctrine of inaugurated eschatology is vital for understanding Paul’s vision for Christian ethics. Paul’s ethical instructions for the Corinthians are driven, in part, by his belief that they are already, but not yet, kings and judges with Christ. From Paul’s perspective, the irony of the Corinthians is that they act like paupers even though they are “kings” in the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 4:8). And in 1 Corinthians 6, he teaches that they are eschatological judges who cannot seem to judge trivial matters of this world. In both scenarios, the Corinthians must take hold of their identity in Christ through faith and act out in the present what they will fully possess in the future.

Footnotes

1

For recent studies that affirm Paul’s use of inaugurated eschatology in 1 Corinthians see: Christopher L. Carter, The Great Sermon Tradition as Fiscal Framework in 1 Corinthians: Toward a Pauline Theology of Material Possessions, LNTS 403 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010), 129; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 578–83.

2

George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); A Theology of the New Testament, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993).

3

Referring in part to 1 Corinthians 15, N.T. Wright comments, “For Paul, then, the coming restoration of God’s glory has been accomplished in Jesus Christ. This is at the heart of his solidly inaugurated eschatology” (“‘Christ in You, the Hope of Glory’ (Colossians 1:27): Eschatology in St. Paul”, in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013), 384).

4

Grant Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, JSJSupp 115 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 2.

5

Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology, 231.

6

Gordon Fee finds that the “already but not yet” tension in 1 Corinthians is shared with the “rest of the NT writers” in 1 Corinthians, Revised Edition, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 188.

7

G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, “Introduction”, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), xxvii.

8

Maxwell Davidson, Angels and Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36; 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran, JSPSup 11 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1992), 321.

9

Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised and Extended 4th edn (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 121.

10

Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 132.

11

Heikki Räisänen, Challenges to Biblical Interpretation: Collected Essays, 1991–2000, BIS 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 115.

12

D. A. Carson argues that Paul’s takes issue with the Corinthians’ function or praxis: “Paul is not talking about the Corinthians’ status (‘become kings’) but about their perception of their function (‘you have begun your reign’) in The Cross and Christian Leadership: Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 103. As we will demonstrate, the argument utilizes irony that turns identity upside-down and defines it in light of the cross of Christ. In other words, Paul does want the Corinthians’ praxis to draw from their identity as kings but with the caveat that it is defined by the kingship of Christ.

13

BDAG, s.v. ἤδη p. 434.

14

For a discussion about pragmatics see Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 23.

15.

Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997), 70.

16

Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 357.

17

Carter observes the recent trend in scholarship on 1 Corinthians is focus on sociological and cultural issues over eschatological issues. Carter then responds to this trend by suggesting that eschatology can is the key to understanding why Paul was provoked by this situation (Great Sermon Tradition, 122).

18

N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Vol. 4: Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 979.

19

“Paul says somewhat sourly. ‘How I wish that you really had begun your reign [NIV, had become kings] so that we might have begun to reign with you [NIV, so that we might be kings with you]!’ (4:8)”. Carson, The Cross and Christian Leadership, 104.

20

Contra Joseph A. Fitzmyer, who states that 1 Cor. 4:8 Paul “seeks to tell the Corinthian Christians that he refuses to consider them ‘kings’” in First Corinthians, AB (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 218.

21

David E. Garland reads the reference to “kings” in 1 Cor. 4:8 as “hyperbole” in 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 137.

22

Paul’s goal of his disciplinary tone and comments is to admonish, not to shame (1 Cor. 4:14).

23

Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, 106.

24

Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, 106.

25

“The three images are descriptive of thoroughly secularised leadership.” Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6, AGJU 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 123.

26

For a treatment of primary sources related to kingship and philosophy see: Bruno Blumenfeld, The Political Paul: Democracy and Kingship in Paul’s Thought: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework, LNTS (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), passim.

27

Resp. 509d2; Ep. 2, 312e; Atticus frg. 4.12; Numenius frg. 12. David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 140.

28.

Those who view the Corinthian as having an “over-realized eschatology” include: Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 4 vols, EKK, no. 7 (Zürich: Benziger and Neukirchener, 1991–2001), vol. 1, p. 338; Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth”, NTS 24:4 (1978): 510–26. More recently, George T. Montague, First Corinthians, CCSS (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 86. For an argument against this view of over-realized eschatology see Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 106.

29

One of their problems (among many) was that they “lacked any definite eschatology.” Hays, First Corinthians, 70. Hays claims they did not have an over-realized eschatology, they had no eschatology at all other than their overblown perception of their wisdom in the present. “Their boasting is wrong not because it prematurely claims eschatological fulfilment but because it leaves eschatology out of consideration altogether.” Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as the Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 20. This is similar to the view of John M. G. Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity”, in E. Adams and D. G. Horrell (eds), Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (London: WJKP, 2004), 190.

30

Marion L. Soards states, “It is not so much their identity as their activity that Paul critiques” in 1 Corinthians, UCBS (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 94.

31

Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975), 102.

32

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 105.

33

T. Ryan Jackson, New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Context, WUNT 272 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 91.

34

Margaret M. Mitchell argues that “factionalism” was the “seminal problem at Corinth” in Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, KY: WJKP, 1993), 2. A more recent study takes the other extreme view by arguing “none of her [M. Mitchell’s] arguments offer convincing evidence for factionalism in 1 Cor. 5:1–11.1.” Daniel Ho, Paul and the Creation of a Counter-Cultural Community: A Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Cor. 5.1–11.1 in Light of the Social Lives of the Corinthians, LNTS 509 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 48.

35

Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 7 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 79.

36

Frances Young, The Art of Performance: Toward a Theology of Holy Scripture (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1990), 108.

37

Brian Dodd argues that 1 Cor. 4:7 “in support this Dodd reads the question in 1 Cor. 4:7 as “What do you have that you did not receive [from Christ]” and concludes that this “continues the theme of christological emphasis,” in Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”: Personal Example as Literary Strategy, LNTS 177 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1999), 59.

38

Sallustius, Concerning the Gods and the Universe, ed. Arthur Darby Nock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926), 36.

39

Sallustius, Concerning the Gods and the Universe, 36, lines 13–14.

40