Premature Triumphalism in Corinth *

The Question of Over Realised Eschatology in Corinth

In recent critique, the hypothesis of over realised eschatology behind 1 Corinthians has been presented as a twentieth-century phenomenon that is losing currency. It is said to be built on a framework developed by F. C. Baur, and tied especially to the postulation of Gnosticism. Wright states that the over realised eschatology view is being “increasingly abandoned”, and adds:

Many scholars have come round to the view argued by Richard Hays that the problem at Corinth was not too much eschatology but not nearly enough. The Corinthians were attempting to produce a mixture of Christianity and paganism; their “puffed-up” posturing came not from believing that a Jewish-style eschatology had already brought them to God’s final future, but from putting together their beliefs about themselves as Christians with ideas from pagan philosophy. ¹

Elsewhere, Wright expresses concern that the idea of a Corinthian over realised eschatology rests on faulty foundations introduced by F. C. Baur and exacerbated by the “history of religions” school:

[I]t was suggested [by those taking a “history of religions” approach] that, although Paul was the centre of one kind of “hellenistic Christianity”, there was another variety, which he opposed, which held an over-realized eschatology and a kind of super spirituality which…could be labelled “enthusiasm” ²

It is certainly the case that Baur utilised a sharp division between Petrine Hebraic/Judaising Christianity, and Pauline “Hellenistic” Christianity, particularly visible in Corinth. Baur states about Corinth:

We can however be sure only of this: that the Gentile Christian element was throughout overwhelmingly preponderant. And yet that the Judaising opponents of the Apostle, who had even here thrust themselves on him and established themselves firmly, were enabled to form this energetic opposition against him which he so earnestly resisted. ³

While Baur himself does not here emphasise the place of radical Hellenistic enthusiasts, it is not hard to see how his analysis lends itself to this perspective, with Paul facing Judaisers on the one hand, and radicalisers on the other. Paul’s gospel is viewed by Baur as bringing liberating freedom from strict Judaism, ⁴ and a measured realisation of eschatological hope:

In this absolute consciousness [the Christian] already possesses that life which is superior to everything worldly, fleeting, and finite; and all that remains is that this life should manifest itself outwardly and extensively in the resurrection of the body. ⁵

In Baur’s reading of Paul’s perspective, then, there remains a future hope that is awaited: “[W]e are now in the αἰὼν οὑτος, and … the αἰων μέλλων is to follow it.” ⁶ One can see how interpreters assuming Baur’s framework might conclude that Corinthian enthusiasts, primed by radical Jewish Hellenism, had become so swept up in the Pauline doctrine of present realisation that they had failed to acknowledge the need to wait further for the αἰων μέλλων.

Bultmann is one such interpreter. Like others of his time, he holds that Hellenistic Christianity was heavily influenced by Gnosticism, ⁷ as well as Stoicism. ⁸ It was Gnosticism that offered eschatological terminology to Hellenistic Christianity, accounting for the Corinthian conviction that proper Christians ought to be regarded as superior pneumatics. ⁹ Such pneumatics experience a heavenly ascent, through gnosis and the sacraments, which is at odds with Paul’s inaugurated but deferred (and embodied) eschatology:

[A] contrast in eschatology persists almost consistently, insofar as the Christian proclamation does not know the idea of the heavenly journey of the self made possible by Gnosis and sacraments, but does teach the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment. ¹⁰

1 Cor 15 is thus read as Paul’s “great polemic against the gnosticizing party in Corinth”. ¹¹ Paul was arguing, Bultmann thinks, against the view that the resurrection was the immaterial ascent of the self, rather than a material reality. It is important to note that Bultmann does not hold this party to have its most relevant heritage in Gentile paganism, but in Hellenistic Judaism, which was already influenced by Gnostic eschatology. ¹²

This point is assumed by Barrett, who states, “There was… Jewish gnosticism in Corinth”. ¹³ Käsemann likewise utilises categories that remind of Baur, even if in some ways he is also highly critical of Baur’s influence. Käsemann insists that Paul aims to restrain the “enthusiasm” of his radical followers by subjecting their over realised eschatology to the cross:

[I]t is not by chance that in 1 Cor 15:24ff. he distinguishes the lordship of Christ from the consummated lordship of God. For the moment the latter is present only in the mode of the former. Hence the Spirit is simply an earnest and pledge of what is to come. Present eschatology means the time of the gospel in the twofold sense of promissio as assurance and promise. This is put in a way which is highly provocative for enthusiastic Christianity in the Hellenistic sphere when life in the Spirit is defined as standing in hope, as post-Easter Jewish Christianity had already defined it. ¹⁴

Käsemann differs from Baur in holding that “[i]n opposition to the enthusiasts Paul had to go back to Jewish apocalyptic”. ¹⁵ He differs from Bultmann in that he insists that “Paul certainly does not presuppose Gnostic mythology” in responding to the enthusiasts. ¹⁶

But even if there are differences within this general viewpoint, it is this Baur-influenced conception of over realised eschatology as a manifestation of early Christian Gnostic/Hellenistic “enthusiasm” that is targeted by the criticisms of Hays, Wright, and certain others. Hays states, “The depiction of the Corinthians as ‘Gnostics’ with a realized eschatology was ‘canonized’ in Bultmann’s Theologie des Neun Testaments.” ¹⁷ It is clear that Hays regards the background of Gnosticism as essential to the ‘full’ hypothesis of over realised eschatology:

More recent commentators, recognizing that the hypothesis rests on an improbable construction about Gnosticism in Corinth, have backed away cautiously from the full-blown hypothesis and speak more cautiously about the Corinthians as having a “spiritualized eschatology” ¹⁸

A Broader Conception

A broader conception, which might still be called “over realised eschatology”, has strong representation in much interpretation of 1 Corinthians, which precedes, or else follows but rejects, the hypotheses of both Baur and Gnosticism. This broader conception features an emphasis on Corinthian behaviour that unwittingly bears theological weight, rather than an emphasis on consciously articulated doctrine. This theologically-loaded behaviour of the Corinthians is seen to arise from pride in “spiritual” status, and betrays implicit claims of eschatological arrival. To put it in two words, this broader conception finds “premature triumphalism” in Corinth. ¹⁹

So, John Chrysostom finds in 1 Corinthians a reflection of the wrongly placed obsession with the present that was a feature of his own congregation in Antioch. Commenting on 4:8, he writes:

Desiring then to take away their pride, and to show that these things are not only no basis for pride, but also that they are a cause for shame, he firstly makes fun of them, saying, “Without us you have begun to reign.” “What I mean is that for me,” he says, “the present time is not for honour or glory, which you are enjoying, but for persecution and insult, which we are suffering”. ²⁰

This detection of a Corinthian desire to leap over present suffering and land on future perfection is not limited to Chrysostom’s comments on this well-known verse. It saturates his homilies on the letter. For example, he holds that the problem of idol meat involves the Corinthians’ assumption that they had arrived at perfection in terms of knowledge. Chrysostom points out that, on the contrary, they had not yet reached the destination. He applies this to his hearers:

For those who seek rewards from God for labours in the present, and pursue virtue for the sake of present reward, have diminished their reward. ²¹

A good summary of Chrysostom’s sense of the Corinthian problems comes in the application of his first of forty-four homilies on the letter:

Let us possess the height that comes from humility. Let us observe the nature of human things, in order that we might burn with a longing for things to come. For there is no other way to become humble except by the love of divine things and the contempt of present things.… For, casting out the love of these [present] things, we will have that divine love, and we will enjoy immortal glory. May God grant that all of us obtain this, by the grace and compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²²

Thomas Aquinas, like Chrysostom, identifies pride as a key problem in the letter. He unpacks this by considering different manifestations of Corinthian pride, one of which is the assumption that they possess that which Scripture reserves for the time of glory (Ps 17.15). ²³

Erasmus makes the point that the Corinthians are behaving as though there is no future life:

[O]ne thing at any rate is obvious, that there are men, and particularly men in high worldly station, who live as if they have no belief whatever in a future life. ²⁴

It will be recalled that Paul has to remind the Corinthians that they were not of high worldly station, as much as they thirsted after it (1:26). While Erasmus holds that the Corinthian questioning of the resurrection was the fault of philosophy, he also repeats the emphasis on Corinthian spiritual pride seen in Chrysostom and Aquinas, seeing this as evidenced in the manner in which baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the gifts of the Spirit were celebrated. ²⁵

Calvin suggests that, although there are doctrinal faults in the problems behind 1 Corinthians, ²⁶ these arise not from openly false teachers, but rather from those who disturb the faith unwittingly.

But what of post-Baur interpreters? It should be noted that although Barrett does speak of faulty belief as “one aspect of Corinthian error”, ²⁷ even he is elsewhere able to point to faulty behaviour as the pertinent issue:

The Corinthians are behaving as if the age to come were already consummated, as if the saints had already taken over the kingdom (Dan. vii. 18); for them there is no “not yet” to qualify the “already” of realized eschatology. ²⁸

This thought is affirmed by Thiselton in his well-known 1978 article. ²⁹ Thiselton, furthermore, is at pains to present his proposal as an alternative to the hypothesis of Gnosticism in Corinth, rather than as a less-than-fully orbed presentation of the same hypothesis. Thiselton particularly aims to demonstrate that this hypothesis is not limited to a single passage, as is sometimes claimed by its critics:

I suggest that far from relating only to one particular passage [i.e., 4:8–13], the eschatological approach pinpoints a single common factor which helps to explain an otherwise diverse array of apparently independent problems at Corinth. ³⁰

In his later commentary, Thiselton gives greater credit to “cultural” factors than he had done in this earlier article. ³¹

Helmut Merklein also points to cultural influences on the Corinthians, including sayings from Stoicism. Like Thiselton, Merklein doubts that it is necessary to view Gnosticism as a notable influence on the church. Merklein also finds that there is realised eschatology at play in Corinth. ³² Paul urges “eschatological reservation” (eschatologischen Vorbehalt) in 4:8, although he does this with irony, by apparently wishing for the opposite: “I wish you really had begun to reign!”

While Thiselton is insistent that the over realised eschatology hypothesis is not limited to 4:8–13, this passage is clearly important. Zeller comments on the importance of the phrase ‘until now’ in this section, pointing out that Paul uses this temporal phrase to counteract the Corinthians’ temporal claim of ‘already’ in 4:8. ³³

Klaiber holds that a group in Corinth who emphasise the presence and gifts of the Holy Spirit are behaving as though they already have the fullness of what God has in store for those who belong to Christ. They are behaving “on earth” as though they already live “in heaven”, effectively claiming the future for the present. ³⁴

Schrage argues that Paul wishes to bring a corrective that properly balances inaugurated and deferred aspects of endtime expectation. Given the presence in Corinth of over-realised excess, Paul particularly emphasises the key deferred aspect of future resurrection of the dead. ³⁵ The resurrection chapter is thus the climax of the letter.

Fee shares this sense of Paul’s own position, and paints the Corinthians as marked by “false triumphalism” and “overrealized eschatology”. ³⁶ Reminiscent of Barrett and Thiselton, he understands this to mean that the Corinthians’ perspective “is one of ‘already’ with little room for ‘not yet’”. ³⁷ Against those who are inclined to misinterpret the importance of Stoic backgrounds in the claim to “kingly” status, Fee comments on the wording of 4:8:

in Paul’s sentence it refers not to their status as kings but to their activity of reigning.… Although the difference between the two may seem slight, the point is that Paul’s language here is thoroughly eschatological and reflects his Jewish heritage, which viewed the saints as sharing the reign at the End, but not themselves as becoming kings. ³⁸

Fee thus interprets this key verse as follows:

Paul thus sees their present boasting in spiritual status as tantamount to their supposing the final reign of God already to have begun. As with the Spirit’s giftings with which they have been enriched, so also with the kingdom of God. They have indeed entered the kingdom, of which the Spirit is the evidence. But they have not yet fully realized the End, of which the resurrection will be the evidence. ³⁹

The commentators above are not operating from Baur’s assessment of early Christianity, and generally see little if any place for Gnosticism in Corinthian Christianity. ⁴⁰ Yet they find some sort of behavioural over realised eschatology in Corinth. It seems to me that these varied commentators have discerned something significant in the text itself.

Key Texts in 1 Corinthians

This brings us to consider key texts in 1 Corinthians. As mentioned above, I consider 4:8–13 to be of some significance, not least because it functions to draw all of the first four chapters to a rhetorical climax. It thus represents not just “one verse” (4:8), but the crown of several chapters of Pauline argumentation. I also consider the various Pauline arguments for futurity or eschatological perspective, throughout the epistle, to be very important. These are well outlined by Thiselton (in his 1978 article) and Hays (in his 1999 article).

However, the issue that is currently in contention is whether these insistent applications of an eschatological perspective by Paul (both in 4:8 and elsewhere) are in response to some sort of over realised eschatology in Corinth, or rather express Paul’s eschatologically robust response to a philosophically influenced lack of eschatological awareness in the Corinthian church. ⁴¹ I wish therefore to focus attention at this point on one key part of the letter that indicates that Paul believed himself to be arguing against implicit eschatological assumptions: chapter 15. In this chapter, Paul’s insistence on futurity is notably polemical.

Wolff summarises Paul’s argumentation in this chapter as depending on “der leiblichen Auferstehung Jesu (15,1–22), auf das Noch-Ausstehen der Vollendung (15,23–28) und auf die Leiblichkeit als das bleibende Charakteristikum für Gottes Schöpfung (15,35ff.).” ⁴²

The importance, for Paul, of perfection/completion being emphatically not yet (“Noch-Ausstehen”) in this chapter needs to be recognised. Paul is not simply arguing that there is a future resurrection of the dead that needs to be taken into account; he is strenuously arguing that its attendant blessings must not be assumed to be in the current possession of the living. Käsemann’s comment is at least correct for 1 Corinthians: “In all Paul’s theology participation in coming glory does not mean that the cross can be dodged.” ⁴³

C. M. Tuckett argues persuasively that this strong polemical emphasis on futurity in chapter 15 needs to be taken into account, and that attempts to understand the chapter as simply an extended argument for the corporeality of the resurrection fail to do justice to Paul’s own argumentation. ⁴⁴ In agreement with Barth, he rightly recognises that verses 1–11 provide no apologetic “proof” of the veracity or corporeality of the resurrection, but rather reinforce the agreed fact of the resurrection of Christ as a basis for necessary belief in the future resurrection of “the dead”. Poignantly, this resurrection is announced by witnesses who are themselves stained by death. Of the first group that Paul adds to the received tradition of witnesses (ἀδελφοί), “some have fallen asleep”. In the second group that he adds (all the ἀποστόλοι), we find an ἐκτρώμα. ⁴⁵ This context of resurrection-witness among the dead sets up the chapter to affirm the future resurrection of the dead, rather than simply the corporeality of resurrection.

But while Tuckett provides a convincing demonstration of the fact that Paul is arguing against a denial of the futurity of resurrected glory, I am not persuaded that the Corinthians believed that the eschatological resurrection had already happened. ⁴⁶ I do not think that this is what they meant by the slogan, “there is no resurrection of the dead”. This slogan, even if a Pauline caricature, would seem too obscure to be effective in capturing the position of people whose key conviction was that an eschatologically sufficient spiritual resurrection had already occurred. It would seem slightly more natural to say that the Corinthians made no major claim about having achieved personal resurrection, ⁴⁷ but said or implied that it was not the destiny of “the dead”.

It does seem to me undeniable that Paul is not only arguing for a future resurrection of the dead, but also against the present realisation of full life/spirituality/imperishability/immortality of the living. Note the polemical negations of these sorts of assumptions in the resurrection chapter:

15:23: But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ at his coming.

15:36: That which you sow will not come to life unless it dies.

15:37: And that which you sow is not the body that it will become, but a bare grain

15:46: The spiritual is not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.

15:51–3: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed.… For it is necessary for this perishability to be clothed with imperishability, and for this mortality to be clothed with immortality.

Paul appears to be insisting—against those who are apparently committed to the opposite—that all people of God are marked by mortality, and must therefore be changed by God. Even apostles have as their lot to “die every day” (15:31). And even the living—whom Paul assumes will not strictly experience resurrection—cannot presume to have already attained “spiritual” or “imperishable” or “immortal” fullness.

From the exegetical data, as mentioned, it does not appear to me (contra Tuckett) that the Corinthians were overemphasising an application of ‘resurrection’ language to their present existence, but rather that they accompanied a lack of interest in “resurrection of the dead” with the assumption of their own imperishable, immortal, fully “spiritual” status. Other parts of the letter would back up this picture, evidencing “some” who regard themselves as “spiritual” (chapter 2), free (chapter 7), impervious to the influence of would-be gods (chapters 8–10), and able to manifest the fullness of spiritual maturity (chapters 12–14). Did they consciously emphasise the claim that they had already experienced eschatological resurrection? I do not think so; but did they behave as though they were as much superior to the dead and cruciform as immortality is to mortality? Yes. And this behaviour was captured by Paul in his cunning attention to the telling comment of some (no doubt influenced by pagan assumptions) that there was no “resurrection of the dead”.

But to return to the objection that is sometimes offered: could these status markers (being “spiritual”, etc.) in fact be entirely due to the influence of pagan philosophy, rather than evidencing any actual eschatological conviction on the part of the Corinthians? This is the argument of Hays and Tronier, as well as others. While I am convinced that cultural factors were strongly at work in the Corinthians’ self-assessments, I find it implausible to say that the Corinthian Christians lacked any sense that their behaviour smacked of eschatological triumphalism. ⁴⁸

I would suggest that an emphasis on Spiritual manifestation and perfection in an early Christian context constitutes an eschatological claim, whether or not the claimants offer sophisticated doctrinal articulation. ⁴⁹ Though it is implicit, it is nevertheless real. It is for this reason that I suggest that this conception of Corinthian problems bears continuity with the phrase “over realised eschatology”, even if that phrase implies a more explicit doctrinal focus. It is important to notice that the particular expression of Spiritual “enthusiasm” in Corinth would seem to include the special celebration of “the spirituals” of tongues and prophecy in meetings of the ekklesia (chapters 12–14). This phenomenon—discussion of which gives way to the resurrection chapter in the letter—is worthy of further consideration.

It is clear that this phenomenon is tightly related to the issue that I am calling “premature triumphalism”: Paul regards their unloving celebration of tongues and prophecy as failing to reckon with the fact that “now we see as in a mirror, dimly”, and that then we will have the fullness of knowledge that is currently lacking (13:12). Furthermore, it would seem hard to deny that these activities are clearly reckoned to be signs of the eschaton in early Christianity. It is beyond argument that early Christians regarded the arrival of the Spirit as a major eschatological event. And it is hard to believe that, in spending eighteen months with the Corinthians prior to their correspondence, Paul had failed to make the eschatological significance of the Spirit known. After all, it was in this location that Paul’s proclamation was “in a demonstration of Spirit and power”; and it was from this location that Paul reminded the Thessalonians that they had received the same experience (1 Thess 1:6). There are in fact signs in the letter that Paul expected the Corinthians to recall his formative teaching on this topic. For example, in 12:13 Paul takes it as common knowledge that “we were all baptised by one Spirit … and we all drank from one Spirit”. In a study of Paul’s witness to his formative teaching, Benjamin Edsall determines that “the story of Christ’s death and resurrection and the demonstration and presence of the Holy Spirit” were topics of fundamental importance for Paul’s ministry in Corinth and elsewhere. ⁵⁰

Even if Paul had somehow failed to make known to the Corinthians that the onset of the Spirit—with the attendant manifestations of tongues and prophecy—was an inaugurated blessing of the eschaton, there are intriguing reasons to think that this conviction might have been a powerful feature of Apollos’ ministry in Corinth, which came between Paul’s visit and Paul’s letter. While one must be cautious in pursuing parallels between Paul’s letters and the book of Acts, there is an intriguing discussion of Apollos in Acts 18–19, which may be illuminating.

We meet Apollos in Acts 18, where he is a learned (or eloquent) man who has been teaching about Jesus in accordance with what he had learned from John the Baptist. Luke tells that Apollos left for Corinth at around the same time that Paul arrived from Corinth; and there are two parallel stories of the “correction” of unripe Christian conviction:

Presumably, Luke intends us to recognise that the latter group have a problem similar to the shortcoming of Apollos. So could it be that the respective corrections also involved elements of similarity? In other words, just as the unripe believers learn that there is a Holy Spirit, who enables tongues and prophecy, is this something Apollos also learned from Priscilla and Aquila? After all, it was John the Baptist who looked forward to the eschatological arrival of one who would baptise in the Spirit.

Subsequent to this instruction, Apollos went to Corinth and publicly convinced fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. It seems he became something of a hero to some in the Corinthian church. Could it be that, for the first time in early Christianity, Apollos also—perhaps unwittingly—provoked the adoption into church life of phenomena that had until then only been signals of missionary expansion: tongues and prophecy? (Perhaps this is why Luke, as Paul’s advocate, wanted to show that, behind the scenes, Paul was actually not inferior to Apollos in these matters, but was effectively his corrector.) ⁵¹

By the time Paul writes to the Corinthians, Apollos has moved on, and is unwilling to quickly return, perhaps because he is thrown by what has developed since he left: some members, resistant to local leadership, have attempted to exert influence, and have found it expedient to link themselves to the newer, more eloquent, more ‘spiritual’ style of Apollos. Others, in reaction, have aligned themselves with Paul (or other figureheads). The issue of baptism has especially come to the fore. Paul wants to respond in a way that shows solidarity with Apollos, while addressing the factionalism and underlying ‘spiritual’ pride in the community.

Of course, the eschatological status of the Spirit and “spirituals” does not depend on this speculative reconstruction of the influence of Apollos, but the reconstruction suggests a feasible way in which this eschatological status may have been driven to the forefront of the Corinthians’ attention prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians. They were celebrating these “spirituals” in a way that failed to accept that, despite the presence of this eschatological blessing, “now we see as in a mirror, dimly”.

Wolff is right, then, that according to Paul, the manifestations of the Spirit are treasured in the Corinthian church in such a way as to attempt to leap enthusiastically over the necessary present Christian emphasis on the crucified Christ, an emphasis which Paul presents paradigmatically in his own apostleship. ⁵²

Käsemann himself pursues this thought, even though he believes that pneumatism was an existing feature of the “Hellenistic world”:

If the OT and Jewish apocalyptic already related the gift of the Spirit to the end-time, primitive Christianity connected it with the resurrection of Jesus and the work of the exalted Lord in his community, in which it saw the dawn of the new aeon. Baptism imparts the Spirit to every believer and thus assures him of his share in the world of the resurrection.… Primitive Christian enthusiasm, which results from this experience, regards the community as the sphere in which the forces of the supernatural world increasingly manifest themselves. When an attempt is made to demonstrate this, the Spirit becomes a kind of metaphysical vitality which finds embodiment especially in miracle-workers and ecstatics. ⁵³

The point of this discussion is to make it evident that the Corinthians, who were priding themselves on Spiritual status and manifestations, were effectively making an eschatological claim, even if they were not articulating this in doctrinal formulations. Their triumphalism involved elements that were eschatological by definition, but according to Paul’s reckoning of the Messianic schedule (in which the experience of believers is tied to that of Christ), their effective assumption of the full degree of eschatological status was unwittingly premature. I see no reason to seek clear “sources” for this instinct in Hellenistic Judaism, Gnosticism, or paganism (though it is undoubtedly the case that among first century Judaisms there were tensions and disagreements regarding the extent to which God’s eschatological activity should be nudged along, claimed, or simply awaited).

Conclusion

Recent criticisms of the hypothesis of over realised eschatology in Corinth carry some weight. It seems unlikely that the Corinthians were divided along the lines envisaged by Baur in his reconstruction of early Christianity; that the Corinthians were impacted by Gnosticism, as popularised by Bultmann, or that the Corinthians held to clearly articulated doctrines of full eschatological inauguration. However, conceptions of over realised eschatology that are tied to Baur or Gnosticism are not the only possible versions of the hypothesis. It is possible to identify a broader conception of over realised eschatology that is now worth defining and foregrounding.

In going about this, it is important to take heed of the criticisms that have been offered, but to retain what is helpful in this broad perspective. This will involve, I believe, a change of name—from “over realised eschatology” to something along the lines of “premature triumphalism”. The latter term expresses more clearly that the phenomenon under discussion is chiefly behavioural rather than doctrinal. It is, secondly, largely unwitting rather than conscious. However, as I have argued, it is implausible that the Corinthians had no sense that their behaviour had eschatological weight, given their emphasis on the manifestations of the eschatological Spirit. Thirdly, the phenomenon is particularly a Pauline evaluation rather than a coherent Corinthian position. That is, like any social phenomenon, it is an interpreted phenomenon, and this interpretation comes to us through Paul himself. Paul holds that the various behaviours in Corinth constitute an attempt to attain imperishable spirituality without being tied to the Messianic schedule of Jesus himself, whose future appearance in glory is deferred while he is made known in the shame of the cross.