1 Cor - Being Saved Without Honor

7/30/2019 1 Cor - Being Saved Without Honor

1/25

JSNT29.2(2006) 187-210 Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://JSNT.sagepub.com

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X06072838

JovnallorihtSnM!) efibtNerTeimea

'Being Saved without Honor':A Conceptual Linkbetween 1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Enoch 50?*

Ronald Herms

Northwest University, 5520 108th Ave. N.E., Kirkland, WA98033, [email protected]

Abstract

Do early Jewish and Christian traditions of eschatological salvation includethe possibility of an inferior or diminished state of'being saved' for certainindividuals? This article explores the possibility that both 1 Cor. 3.10-15and 1 En. 50.1-5 represent either a common eschatological tradition or simi

lar rhetorical strategy. Each passage is evaluated in its own literary settingwith a viewto determining its author's rhetorical objective. The results arecompared in order to ascertain whether Paul employs an eschatologicaldescription of 'being saved without honor', which also appears in earlyJewish literature and, ifso, whether he does this on grounds uniquelyhis own.

Key Words

1 Enoch 50,1 Corinthians 3, judgment metaphors, apocalyptic eschatology

Introduction

And on the day of trouble calamitywill be heaped up over the sinners, butthe righteous will conquer in the name of the Lord ofSpirits; and he willshow(this) to others that they may repent and abandon the works of theirhands. And theywill have no honor before the Lord of Spirits, but in hisname theywill be saved; and the Lord of Spirits will have mercy on them,for his mercy(is) great. (7 En. 50.2-3)

[T]he workof each one will become plain ( ), for the Daywill make it clear, because it will be disclosed byfi ( ) d h fi ill

xJSrf
http://jsnt.sagepub.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://jsnt.sagepub.com/


2/25

188 Journal for the Studyofthe New Testament29.2 (2006)

[] ). Ifanyone's work which he has built upon

(the foundation) survives, he will receive a reward (" vos , ); ifanyone's workis consumed, he will

suffer loss; he himselfwill be saved, but onlyas through fire ( vos

, , airrs , orrcs

). (1 Cor. 3.13-15)

LimitsofInquiry

Do early Jewish and Christian traditions of eschatological salvationinclude the possibilityofan inferior or diminished state of'being saved'

for some people? This appears to be the case in both 1 Cor. 3.10-15 and1 En. 50.1-5. On the one hand, Paul attempts to warn spiritual leaders inthe Corinthian church ofthe possibility that theirpresent status and accomplishments may suffer significant diminishing in thefinaleschatologicalaccounting. On the other hand, the author of the Similitudesdescribes conditions on the Day ofJudgment that suggest the possibilityofan inferiorlevel ofsalvation for those not otherwise linked to 'the righteous'. What,ifany, relationship may be observed between Paul's eschatological meta

phor of the testing byfire and the Similitudes9

vision of a third group of'others' who 'will be saved without honor'? Do both instances reflect thepresence of a shared eschatological framework? Or does each respectiveauthor independently employ a common apocalyptic metaphor?

Reading these texts alongside one another necessitates several qualifying observations. First, the ongoing debate on the dating and provenanceof the Similitudesmakes any claim to direct correlation between thesedocuments untenable. Second, the historyofinterpretation of1 Cor. 3.

5 presents a range ofpossibilities that spans the confessional spectrumofChristianity. This diversityof interpretation includes, on the one hand,the Eastern Fathers who, following the preaching ofChrysostom, arguedthat the apostle envisioned ultimate punishment in the fires of hell for

which its recipients would be preserved. On the other hand, the RomanCatholic tradition found primarysupport for the doctrine ofpurgatory inthis text.1 More recently, Protestant readings rejected both interpretationsin favor of afigurativeunderstanding of Paul's language as a metaphor

for the narrowescape of a believer on the Day ofJudgment.

2

Third, unsuccessful attempts have previously been made to locate Paul's apocalyptict h i 1 C 3 15 ithi li t f J i h t diti (


3/25

HERMS 'Being Savedwithout Honor' 189

below). Therefore, the present study seeks to make observations regarding

possible points of contact between the tradition represented in 1 En. 50and the symbolic universe of Paul's own thinking, rather than attempting

to argue for direct parallels or literary interdependence.

In order to facilitate an examination of these questions, this study (1)

locates each text within its literary context and the larger narrative logic

of each respective document, (2) provides a more detailed profile of the

primary referents of each respective text, (3) evaluates the purpose and

intended impact of each author's use of 'honor'/'shame' categories in

their communicative strategies, and (4) makes observations about theinherent differences and possible similarities between apocalyptic visions

of eschatological judgment.

Recent Attempts at Locating Paul's Apocalyptic Metaphor

Two previous attempts to trace the conceptual roots of Paul's metaphor to

(supposed) pre-existent material in early Judaism illustrate the problem at

hand. John T. Townsend (1968) suggested that this text reveals Paul's

earlier experience as a Shammaite Pharisee. According to Townsend,Paul alludes here to the D

M3ira (i.e. those who were neither wholly good

nor wholly bad) whom the School of Shammai believed wouldbe refined

in the fires of Gehinnom and then be raised to eternal life (b. Ros. Has.

16b-17a bar.; cf. t. Sanh. 13.3).3

Townsend's reconstruction of Paul's

background is built largely on inference and speculation.4

More impor

tantly, he glosses over the difference between the imagery of an apoca

lyptic metaphor (Paul) and a literal appeal to thefiresof hell (Shammaites).

As such his claim to conceptual dependence on Shammaitic thought byPaul is less real than apparent. His failure to take seriously the differences

between them actually leads Townsend to read a view of eschatological

salvation back into Paul's thought (i.e. the possibility of salvation after

going through hellfire) which appears to contradict the theological and

rhetorical point of the metaphor (as argued below). Further, how such an

otherwise undeveloped allusion to a distant tradition mightfitPaul's over

all eschatological scheme is never adequately addressed by Townsend.5


4/25

190 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 29.2 (2006)

Alternatively, Charles W. Fishburne (1970) suggested that Paul was

directly dependentuponthe imagery employedin the T. Ab. 13 (RecensionA). In the Testament of Abraham the archangel Michael conducts Abraham

on a tour to thefirstgate of heaven, where he is shown the judgment of

souls as they leave their bodies. The patriarch sees further that both

righteous deeds and sins are weighed by balance and tested by firethe

latter description containing a remarkable linguistic parallel to 1 Cor.

3.13-15. While initially recognizing the difficulties which the issues of

date, redaction and possible interpolation present, Fishburne judges the

Testament of Abraham to be earlier than 1 Corinthians. He does so byattempting to determine which theological perspective is more likely to

have developed from the other. Ultimately, he opts for a view that Pauline

eschatology based in Jewish precedent is more likely than the option of a

legalistic re-working of Paul's theology by a subsequent Jewish Christian

(Fishburne 1970:114). This secondary line ofreasoning simply cannot be

sustained from the textual evidence. Allison (2003: 16-17, 38, 291-92)

has demonstrated that several sections in the longer Greek recension of

the Testament ofAbraham do not appear in the shorter (and older) Greekversion and thereby reflect later 'Christian' insertions into the text.

Further, in the specific case ofT. Ab. 13.12-13, Allison demonstrates that

on the basis of its parallelism, the dependence of the Testament of

Abraham upon Paul's metaphor in 1 Cor. 3.14-15 is assured (2003:291).

Thus, the evidence of date and literary development suggests that

Fishburne's proposal is anachronistic and ultimately unfruitful.

Backgroundto the Similitudes of Enoch (\ Enoch 37-71)

The Similitudes ofEnoch (7 En. 37-71) is an apocalyptic vision of events

concerned with the eschatological Day of Judgment. This cosmic descrip

tion ofthe future is set in an ancient literary and thematic framework

common to other early Enochic literaturenamely, the days of Enoch

(and Noah: cf. 1 En. 10.1-2; 65.1-69.26; 106-107; 108). Although recon

structions of the historical circumstances that may have occasioned this

material are anything but certain, the socio-political symbolism and

rhetoric of the text suggest a present crisis of some sort for the author and

his community.6 A survey of the recent research and debate on the


5/25


Similitudes1reveals an almost singular interest by New Testament scholars

in the appearance ofa 'Son of Man'figureparticularlyas cast in themessianic role of eschatological judge. In spite of the implications of this

figure in theSimilitudes for New Testament Christology, the absence of the

Similitudes at Qumran (the only section of the Enochic corpus not found

there) has fueled great debate regarding date and provenance.8

His

groundbreaking work on the Ethiopie text of7 Enoch notwithstanding,

J.T. Milik's argument both for a late date (mid-third century CE) and for

Christian authorship has been widely rejected. It appears now that dating

the Similitudes to the late part of thefirstcentury CE is well within therealm of possibility.9

Regardless of how one ultimately interprets the issues of authorship and

date, this document nevertheless represents a complex of eschatological

ideas that may helpfully inform a study of those instances in the New

Testament where expectations for an apocalyptic event of cosmic justice

7. See Black 1989,1992; Charlesworth 1985; Collins 1998; VanderKam 2000a,

2000b.8. See Milik 1976: 89-98 for his proposal that an author with ties to certain

Christian 'Sibylline Oracles circles' produced theSimilitudes in the late third century

CE. He believed that the text reflected both the persecution of Christians by the

Emperors Decius and Valerian in 249-259 CE (47.1-4; 62.11), and the invasion of

the West by Sassanid Sapor I in 260 CE (56.5-7). Further, as a later Christian com

position that eventually replacedthe Book of Giants as the second part of an 'Enochic

pentateuch', the Similitudes drew theologically upon the Son of Man sayings in the

New Testament Gospels. Virtually every point of Milik's proposal has come under

criticism. In summary they are: ( 1 ) absence from the libraryat Qumran is by no meansconclusive proof that a document did not exist at that time; (2) continued analysis and

editing of Ethiopie / Enoch has produced virtual unanimity among scholars since

Milik's proposal that the text is characteristic of Hebrew/Semitic writing; (3) the 'Son

of Man' passages present no substantial dependence on or development of the Son of

Man material in the New Testament Gospels. Their inspiration is better understood as

coming from Dan. 7.9-14. In fact, the reverse casethat the New Testament Gospels

use and adapt the Enochic Son of Man figureis more plausible; (4) if the reference

to Parthians in 56.5-7 may be placed historicallyand that in itself is tenuousit

seems to reflect a situation where Jerusalem is still a defensible city. Further, if onecould demonstrate that the document was composed post-70 CE, it lacks any indi

cation that Jerusalem had fallen to the Romans such as one finds in 4 Ezra and


6/25


share some common features. The importance of the 'Son of Man' figure

notwithstanding, one may well argue that the primary interest of theauthor lies with the bigger picture of salvation (vindication) and judgment

(punishment). Belief in the certainty ofthese twin eschatological elements

serves as the leitmotifnot only oftheSimilitudes, but is in fact predominant

in each ofthe major sections of 1 Enoch, in spite of the likelihood of

multiple authors/editors and varied dating (see Isaac 1983: 9). In the

Similitudes, the author advances this agenda by employing a dual com

municative strategy: (1) the inclusion both of detailed descriptions of the

final places of destiny and the corresponding responses tofinaljudgmentof all parties concerned; and (2) the use of various labels or epithets with

which he identifies and categorizes the participants in thefinaleschato

logical drama. These include: 'the Watchers', 'the kings and powerful of

the earth', 'sinners', as well as the 'righteous ones'the community of

the faithful.10

The theological impression signaled by these features sug

gests that the author operates within narrow, well-defined parameters

with respect to the issues of salvation (vindication) and judgment. The

reader is left with the sense that, while the present circumstances of thecommunity for which the author is writing may be tumultuous and un

certain, there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity inhowthings will ultimately

turn out for them.11

One exception to this otherwise consistent eschatologicalframeworkis

1 En. 50.1-5, where, even as the author reaffirms the vindication of the

righteous and the doomed fate of the 'oppressors', he allows for the possi

bility of'being saved without honor' for a third group simply referred to

as 'others'. This surprising vision raises several important issues: Does itimply a belief in a two-tier system of 'being saved'?12 Could this

10. The author uses a number of terms to delineate thisfinalgroup: qeddusn 'holy

(ones)', sadeqn 'righteous (ones)' andxeruyn 'chosen/elect(ones)'. Determining

when these terms refer to angels or humans is primarily dependent on careful con

textual analysis.

11. On this point I disagree with Kuck (1992: 58), who identifies these same

emphases on the part of the author but suggests that the lines of distinction areunclear. Clarity is difficult at the level of terminology (i.e. classification) but not in

terms of final destiny


7/25

HERMS 'BeingSavedwithout Honor' 193

unexpected development reveal a theological stream within apocalyptic

thought that makes room for a final, 'last minute' extension of God'smercyto non-Jewish sinners? In light ofhis otherwise strictly dualisticconception of eschatological destiny, whom could the author possiblyhave in mind with this third group of'others'? And, to keep the originalquestion of this article in focus, does this vision reveal substantive conceptual similarities to Paul's eschatological metaphor oftesting by fire?

1 Enoch 50 and the Identityof the 'Others'who 'WillBe SavedwithoutHonor'

1And in those days a change will occur for the holy and the chosen; the

light of days will rest upon them, and glory and honor will return to the

holy. 2And on the day of trouble calamitywill be heaped up over the

sinners, but the righteous will conquer in the name of the Lord ofSpirits;

and he will show (this) to others that they may repent and abandon the

works oftheir hands. 3And theywill have no honor13 before the Lord of

Spirits, but in his name theywill be saved; and the Lord ofSpirits will

have mercy on them, for his mercy(is) great.4

And he (is) righteous in hisjudgment, and before his glory iniquity will not (be able to) stand at his

judgment: he who does not repent before him will be destroyed. 5And

from then on I will not have mercy on them, says the Lord of Spirits.

(lEn. 50.1-5)14

LiteraryContext and the Issue of Textual Unity

Abriefsummaryof the narrative logic of this passage may be offered asfollows: in response to the vindication of therighteousand punishment of

sinners (50.1 -2a), a 'third group' distinguishablefromthefirsttwo is giventhe opportunityto 'abandon the works of their hands' (50.2b). One is leftwith the impression that this unexpected opportunity for salvation comesas a direct result of the judgment already meted out to the two groups thatotherwise dominate the author's eschatological landscape. For those ofthe third group who respond with repentance there is the prospect thatthey 'will be saved without honor' (50.3);15 however, judgment awaitsthose who still refuse to repent (50.4-5). No further demonstration of

13 Here a minor textual variant (5 mss) omits the negation '/ by reading


8/25

194 Journalfor the Studyofthe NewTestament29.2 (2006)

mercyis to be expected. That these 'others' cannot ultimatelybe equated

oridentified with 'the righteous' in the author's perspective is ensured bythe presence of two striking features ofthis moment of conversion. First,the salvation granted this 'third group' seems to be envisioned on the DayofJudgment and after(or, as a result of) the vindication ofthe righteous.

And secondly, the status forthose who do repent nevertheless does notapproach the 'gloryand honor' ofthe righteous. The reader is left withthe impression ofa 'two-tier' system of salvation.

What appears tobe the 'inconsistent' characterof50.1-5 with the other-

wise dualistic perspective ofthe Similitudes has led some scholars toevaluate it as an interpolation.

16While the suggestion has been made that

this material represents the insertion of a Christian editor, the morecommon view among source critics was that what we have to do withhere is a misplaced strand oftradition. R.H. Charles (1913: , 228) suggested that this particular vision does not belong to the theologicalframework ofthe Similitudes and is bettersuited to the conceptual worldof subsequent Enochic writingspossibly chs. 83-90 or 91-104.

Alternatively, D.S. Russell (1964: 301-302) cited 1En.

50 as evidenceforthe capacity ofthe apocalyptic genre to hold inconsistent streams ofthought in tensiona common assertion among scholars of apocalypticthought. While this latter observation carries considerable merit on thewhole, the more immediate questions of literarycontext must be examinedin this particularinstance.

It should be noted that several features ofthe text actuallyargue fortherelative consistency of50.1-5 with the rest ofthe document: (1) the con-tinuing characterization of 'oppressing sinners' as standing injudgmentand 'the righteous' as receiving vindication (here the language of'gloryand honor'); (2) the consistent use ofthe name 'Lord of Spirits'

17which

appears throughout the Similitudes but is otherwise unattested in Jewishliteraturewith the possible exception of 2 Mace. 3.24,

18and the inscrip-

tional evidence from the island ofRheneia (near Delos);19

and (3) the

16. Charles 1913: II, 163-281. Cf. Sjberg (1946) who rejected Charles's sourcedivisions but regarded 50.1-4,56.5-8 and 57.1-3 as later additions (see VanderKam

2000b: 421).

17. The literal rendering of the Ethiopie ^egzia manafest which appears to be a


9/25


insistence on affirming the mercy of God in spite of the sure prospect of

judgment coheres with subsequent attempts to reconcile these facets ofhis character and eschatological activity(60.5,25; 61.5,13).

20The con

sistent appearance ofthese internal features throughout the Similitudesvirtuallyensures that this particular vision comesfromthe same source. Itis important not to lose sight of the fact that it is only the issue at handnamely the unexpected opportunity for the salvation ofothers beside thenamed 'righteous ones'which leads some commentators to suspect theplacement of this vision.

Not only does the consistent appearance in 1 En. 50 of literary conventions otherwise unique to the Similitudessuggest literary unity, butalso its vision of an opportunity for salvation on the Day of Judgmentmay not be altogether novel within the document. 1 Enoch 38.4 maycontain a veiled reference to the same eschatological idea ofa group ofpeople who belong neither to the 'righteous' nor to the oppressive rulersand sinners who stand in certain judgment.21 In the case of38.4, however,the language is much more vague and the terminology ofOthers' is not

employed. In thefinal

analysis, it appears that taking 1 En. 50 seriouslyas part ofthe author's eschatological frameworkmay not onlyprovide afuller understanding ofthatframework,but also allow for a reading of1 En. 38.4 as possibly foreshadowing one ofits more subtle nuances.

A Proposalfor the Identityof the 'Others'

The emergence of this 'third group' appears to be a subsidiarypart of themain argument of the Similitudesnecessitated in the mind of the authorby the implications ofthat argument.22 This may be argued for based on a

? ). Whether the presence of a definite article (in Greek) significantly

alters the idiom's frame ofreference cannot be determined at the linguistic level in

light of the ambiguity of the Ethiopie language, which does not supply any articular

forms. For a fuller treatment ofits implications for monotheism and the possibility of

evidence for an angel cult, see Stuckenbruck 1995: 183-85.

20. Even 1 En. 67.8-13 may be understood as hypothetical and unrealized mercy

for the kings and powerful of the earth!

21. 1 En. 38.4 reads, 'And from then on those who possess the earth will not be

mighty and exalted, nor will they be able to look at the face of the holy ones... ' Two


10/25


literary-narrative synthesis of the overall structure ofthe Similitudes. As

stated earlier, the driving theme of the workvindication and judgmentis onefromwhich the author never strays far. His interests appearto lie most urgently with the questions of the 'why' and 'how' of finaljudgment. In the case ofthe former, the reasons forfinaljudgment emphasize injustice and oppression by the rich and powerful as well as idolatry.The means of depicting the final judgment include portrayals of thereversal of fortunes for the righteous, visions ofeternal dwellings, andscenes of their vindication in the eschatological court. With increasing

detail and drama these themes are explored as a way of contextualizingthe current difficulties of those who are faithful against the backdrop ofeschatological hope. The climactic judgment of the earth's powerful(62.1-63.12)understood as vindication of the Oppressed righteous'isthe point of departure both for the second parable as a whole (45.1) andfor the particular vision of these 'others' (50.2a-b). In other words, whatever the author may be suggesting regarding the possible conversion of a'third group', he has not lost sight of his convictions with respect to the

certain judgment of those he views as sinners. His actual description ofthe Others' is by no means neutral; they are much more closely alignedwith 'sinners' than with 'the righteous'. This is clearfromthe demand thatthey 'repent and abandon the works of their hands' (50.2c).

23

What seems to be at stake for the author ofthe Similitudes is that something must be made eschatologically ofthose inhabitants ofthe earth whodo not immediately fall into his two primary groups. This raises twopossible explanations for the appearance of this 'third group': (1) boththe community of the 'righteous', which the author represents, and theiropponents reflect a relatively narrow stratum of society. Therefore,because the (certain) destinies ofthese two groups are described in cosmicterms and set within theframeworkof the eschatological Day of Judgment,some accounting for the rest of humanity in those terms must necessarilybe provided. Or (2) the author is simply moved by a theological commitment to the inexorable mercy of God (as noted above).

24This theme of

'despite the use of many traditional elements'. The recognition of such possibilities

certainly makes the presence ofa novel 'sub-stream' of theological material regarding


11/25


mercy should hearten those who currently suffer, while also serving to

highlight the stubborn posture of those doomed to punishment. The way

in which the author has framed this conceptually gives him latitude in

several directions. His own emphasis on the twin eschatological realities

of vindication and judgment remainsfirmlyintact. Furthermore, he is notnecessarily committed to an actual realization of this vision. Unlike the

unequivocal terms with which the destinies ofthe two primary groups are

depicted, this vision remains entirely in the realm of potential. Its realiza

tion depends upon the appropriate response ofa hypothetical group of

Others'. Ultimately, the final statement of the vision is decidedly negativeas though the author does not actually imagine such a scenario to

develop.

It may not be possible, or even necessary, to choose between the two

possible explanations offered above; each in their ownright,or both taken

together, may provide a plausible literary, theological and circumstantial

context for this material. While a case can be made for the author's use

and adaptation of biblical traditions at other points in the Similitudes^

50.1-5 clearly represents the author's own stamp with respect to suchtraditions. Those traditions, which envision 'Gentiles' or 'others' in an

eschatologically subservient statewith roles such asworship and bring

ing tributedo not appear to be reflected in the immediate concerns or

description of7 En. 50. However, even if the image of the 'honor-less

third group' is his own, the author of the Similitudesnot unlike the

authors of Jonah, Tobit and other prophetic voices in early Judaismis

motivated both by what he perceives as the necessity for repentance and

the persistent presence of God's mercy in light of the Day of Judgment.

The Function of 'Honor '/'Shame ' Categories

The considerable rhetorical force and motivational agenda of 'honor'/

'shame' categories in 1 En. 50 may be illustrated in three instances.26

In

thefirstplace, the depiction of the righteous is cast in terms of the 'gloryand honor' which their vindication grants them. While one may speculate

whether the importance of this restored honor reflects their present

humiliation (active) or simply their own apparent inconsequence (passive)over against the power-based systems of the world, there is no doubt that


12/25


the eschatological reversal of those fortunes figures prominently in the

author's vision. Secondly, while the author refers here only to 'sinners'

generically, that term belies a well-developed polemic (cf. 46.4-8; 48.8-

10). From the list of participants in the eschatological drama, it is evident

that theflauntingofpower and wealth (and presumably the related concept

of honor/status)ranks among the worst offences of'sinners' for the author.

E. Isaac, recognizing the distinct invective aimed against the kings and

powerful of the earth, allows his translation (in Charlesworth's OTP) to

lead the reader to this conclusion. He does so by translating the term

ye^exxezeww lamedr as 'landowners/landlords' where Knibb's translation simply renders either 'those who (dwell upon/possess) the earth' or

'those who rule the dry ground'.27

Such a semantically narrow translational

choice by Isaac within a wider idiomaticfieldin the text may be a case of

'over-reading'; however, it surely reflects the reality that the author takes

indignant exception to an oppressive abuse of political power and eco

nomic wealth by those who hold it. Finally, and with a view to the par

ticular focus of this paper, the author uses 'no honor' terminology (imply

ing 'shame') to describe the salvation attained by the group of'others' heenvisions. By contrasting thisfinalopportunity for salvation against the

vindication of the righteous (50.1, 'glory and honor will return to the

holy'; 50.3, 'they [others] will have no honor'), the author highlights his

impression of the inferior quality and secondary status of such salvation.

No one within his target audience could have imagined this kind of salva

tion to be a desirable fate.

By employing these 'honor'/'shame' categories the author effectively

reinforces several critical concerns. It enables him to describe the anticipated state of therighteouson the Day of Judgment in the grandest possible

terms. In making this point he asserts that any other opportunities for

salvationeven if their very possibility surprises the readerpale in

comparison. Secondly,framingthe issue this way also gives the author a

way of emphasizing not the condition of potential salvation as such, but

rather God's mercy in granting itand thereby perhaps further defending

God's own honor as one who graciously provides what God is not neces

sarily obligated to. Thirdly, this communicative strategy effectivelydiscourages anything less than total commitment to the cause of 'the

righteo s' among his a dience In this regard the a thor ofthe Si ilit d


13/25


history and eschatological) to encourage present reflection and response

among their hearers/readers.

Summary

I summarize the argument to this point as follows: 1 En. 50, while intro

ducing a new, subsidiary element to the visionary portrayal of the Day of

Judgment in the Similitudesnamely, the opportunity for 'honor-less'

salvation based on repentant acceptance of God's mercy by a third group

of 'others'does not necessarily compromise its dualistic view of eternal

destiny. On the contrary, by framing this vision of 'the others' in languagethat evokes 'honor'/'shame' categories, the author makes clear that he is

much less concerned with whether or not such a hypothetical third group

actually materializes. This vision is in fact a vehicle to reiterate the chief

elements ofhis message for the community ofthe faithful. On the one hand,

he seeks to re-affirm the merciful character of God. On the other hand, he

exhorts the faithful community to understand themselves as those who

will achieve the full honor of vindication on the Day of Judgment in spite

oftheir present experience of abuse and humiliation. The questions ofwhether 1 Cor. 3.10-15 represents either a similar view of conditions on

the Day of Judgment or Paul's employment ofa common communicative

strategy are what the remainder of this article now examines.

1 Corinthians 3 and 'Being Savedwithout Honor '

10According to the grace of God which was given to me, I laid a foundation

as a wise master craftsman, and someone else is building on it. However,let each one monitor how he builds upon it. nFor no one can lay anotherfoundation beside the one that has been laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12But

ifanyone builds on the foundation (with) gold, silver, precious stones,wood, hay, straw

13the work ofeach one will become plain, for the Day

will make it clear, because it will be disclosed byfire,and thefirewill testwhat sort ofwork the work of each one is.

14If anyone's work which he

has built upon (it) survives, he will receive a reward;15

ifanyone's work isconsumed, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as throughfire. (1 Cor. 3.10-15)

Literary Context of I Corinthians 3 10-15


14/25

200 Journal for the Studyofthe New Testament29.2 (2006)

sideration of the narrative development of its surrounding literarycontext

and the use of similar rhetorical devices at other points in the overallargument. The point of departure for Paul is the apparent preoccupation

with (1.17-31) on the part of Corinthian believers that pre

cipitated various manifestations of their own over-inflated sense of

spiritual achievement and status.29

As a primarymanifestation ofwisdom

'gone awry', the apostle addresses the development ofdivisive factions in

the church,30 which were based on members' competing allegiance to

prominent leaders associated with the community ( 1.10-4.21).31

While

denouncing any form ofpartisan behavior based on individual leaders asa matter ofprinciple (1.10-17; 3.3-9,21-23; 4.1-6), Paul also appears to

take this situation personally for at least two reasons: (1) he, as the found

ing apostle, was responsible for the formation ofthis Christian community

in Corinth (2.1-4; 3.10-11; 4.14-17); and(2) based on what maybe inferred

from the letter as a whole, a negative view of his own apostleship and

questioning of his authority on the part ofsome in the church (4.18-19;

9.1-3; 14.36-38)32 were likely a primary reason for the factionalism

reported to him.

33

By rehearsing his own ministry among them (2.1-5)

29. It may be argued that each of the major issues addressed in this letter by theapostledivisive partisan behavior (1.10-4.21), inappropriate sexual/marital conduct(5.1-7.40), ethical insensitivity(8.1-11.1), dysfunctional approaches topublic worship (11.2-14.40) and theological confusion (15.1-58)are all symptomatic ofatriumphalistic appropriation of'wisdom'.

30. The report from Chloe's household (1.11-12) is punctuated bythe threefold

adversative use of (1.12).31. Richard Horsley(1998: 34-38) hypothesizes that Paul's rhetoric indicates afundamental tension between his own preaching of'Christ crucified' and that of

Apollos as aproponent ofwisdom as the 'heavenlySophia' (based in the intellectualwisdom tradition ofAlexandria). This proposal not only fails to explain why Paulwould not have spoken more forcefully against Apollos as a 'false teacher' ratherthan as a co-worker (see, for example, 3.5-9), but also forces Horsleyto read Paul'sreference to Apollos in 16.12which he terms 'difficult' and 'puzzling'from astandpoint ofsuspicion (1998:223). Against Horsley, see also Kuck 1992:161-63.

32. Fee suggests that these Opponents' ofPaul are also to be understood in reference to the 'some ofyou' in 15.12 who 'say there is no resurrection ofthe dead'(1987: 740).


15/25

HERMS 'BeingSaved without Honor' 201

and by redefining what characterizes 'true' wisdom (2.6-16), he is prepared

to speakwith some degree ofauthority on how such a communityfacedwith the internal threat offactionalism and divisionmight more accu

rately perceive themselves, their leaders and Paul himself (3.1-4.21).

From a literary-narrative standpoint this apparent crisis in the Corinthian

church drives the communicative strategy of 1.10-4.21 in its entirety.

1 Corinthians 3 as a whole represents the practical centerpiece ofPaul's

argument against factionalism and division in the church. The specific

way in which he attempts to bring correction to their partisan view of

Christian leadership emerges in four discernable movements. Paul beginsby describing the cooperative nature and secondary role ofany leadership

structure in God's project ofbuilding the church (3.5-9). He then reminds

his audience that all workof 'Christian leadership' is ultimately subject

to a higher standard of evaluation that can be humanlydiscerned (3.

5). A stern warning follows as Paul describes the fate of those who

behave in a destructive way toward the communityofbelievers (3.16-17).

To conclude, he urges them to abandon 'the wisdom ofthe world' in order

to recognize and live by these principles of leadership within the Christian community (3.18-23).

Our present text then is part of a larger argument whose subject is,

without deviation, the role and responsibility ofChristian leaders.34 The

issue ofsingular concern in 3.10-15 is the way in which 'Godly wisdom'

views the workof apostles/Christian leaders against the backdrop of its

ultimate testing. Paul's argument begins bysetting up his own foundational

ministry among them as a paradigm for anyfuture ministry(Derrett 1997:

129-37). Any subsequent workmay claim validity not on the basis ofthebuilder's qualifications or gifts, but only by the content of what was

builtthat is, continuitywith Jesus Christ as the foundation (3.10-11).

Paul then prepares the reader for his 'eschatological fire metaphor' by

listing examples oftwo types of'building materials' : gold, silver, precious

stones (i.e. fire-resistant) and wood, straw, stubble (i.e. consumable).35

relationship to their instructors. It also provides evidence that secular educational

mores had been highly influential in shaping their understanding. In part Paul'ssolution wasframedin terms that made it clear that he chose anti-sophistic, non-discipleship and familial categories to describe the Christians Apollos and himself '


16/25

202 Journal fortheStudyofthe NewTestament29.2 (2006)

The type of building material with which a leader/ministerhas built will

be made plain on the Day of Judgment (3.12-13). All work of leadershipwithin the context ofthe Christian community can therefore be dividedinto two categories: that which builds effectivelyon, and in harmony

with, the foundation of Jesus Christ, and that which does not.36

Finally,Paul describes both possible outcomes in terms of reward and loss (3.14-15). His description ofthe negative outcome (ourprimary interest here)reflects more closely the imagery of his original metaphor and requiresgreater explanation since it is the option which he assumes his readers

have overlooked in theircurrent crisis of division. The practical/pastoralpoint Paul wishes to make is that anyinappropriate elevation ordismissiverejection ofa Christian leader based on external criteria risks doing so inignorance ofwhat a final accounting will reveal about that particularleader's work.

The remainder of Paul's argument regarding the Corinthians' partisanbehaviorand internal division urges them to reconsider themselves, theirleaders and Paul himselfmore cautiously in light of this unknown factor

of eschatological testing (esp. 3.21-4.6). If such a narrative contextual-ization of1 Cor. 3.10-15 is accurate, then it appears as though two genuinepoints ofcontact maybe observed with 1 En. 50.1-5: (1) both texts employthe terminologyof'being saved' (albeit in differing ways), and (2) bothappearto use 'honor'/'shame' categories to describe the state ofat leastsome of those 'saved'. We turn then to an evaluation of these two possi

bilities.

Paul'sUse

of 'BeingSaved'LanguageIt is important to note that when Paul affirms the future 'being saved'() of any Christian leader whose work of building the churchhas not stood the eschatological test, he does so precisely because thatissue was never in doubt forhim.

37This category of Christian leader

and precious stones actually represent are inconclusive and seem to miss the point of

the metaphornamely, they cannot be burned.

36. Whatever else, this passage cannot be made to read contextually as a general

statement regarding the testing of believers' works, nor is it an attempt to present a

full-orbed description of conditions on the eschatological Day of Judgment. Any


17/25


regardless of motives, effectiveness or the lack thereofis never any

thing but 'saved' as far as he is concerned.38 Paul could, ofcourse, havebeen even more vitriolic and pejorative toward those religious leaders andteachers with whom he could share no common ground.39 Further, in thetwo verses immediately following (3.16-17) he proves capable ofstatingoutright the possibility that someone influential in the church could behavein such a way as to ultimately be 'destroyed' by God ( $). Equally important is the fact that, in light oftheir own opinions ofthese leaders, the Corinthians unquestionably assumed their 'saved'

perhaps even 'elite'status (cf. Winter 2001:40-42). Paul never deniesthis in our text. These observations beg the question of why Paul's disclaimer to that effect was necessaryat all. Whywould the eternal destinyof such Christian leaders even merit doubt?

The answer surely lies in the devastatingly graphic implications ofPaul's metaphor: If everything such leaders have worked for might beobliterated and rendered inconsequential on the Day ofJudgment, what,if anything, positive can one possibly conclude regarding the fate ofthe

hypothetical leader? The rhetorical force ofthe metaphor is such that onemight imagine the reader to ask: Does such a result still qualifyas 'beingsaved'? Paul's answer, consistent with his claims elsewhere,40 and anticipatingjust such a possible responsefromthe Corinthians, is unequivocally'Yes!'41

Bywayofcomparison one maynote that in 1 En. 50.2 the author oftheSimilitudesis at pains to demonstrate that those who 'will be saved' aresaved because they repent and 'abandon the works oftheir hands', while

for Paul in 1 Cor. 3.15 the one who 'will be saved' is, in one sense,

38. Here Donfried overstates the case, no doubt in response to the debate regardingthe role of'good works' in Paul's viewof justification and thefinaljudgment, bysuggesting 'the verb in v. 15 has nothing to do with Christology and is usedhere in an entirely secular sense...' (1976:105).

39. For example, Gal. 1.6-8; 5.12; Phil 3.2; cf. Pogoloff 1992: 101.40. J.D.G. Dunn observes, 'Paul seems to have been willing to affirm a tension...

between God's savingrighteousnessand his wrath... Believers should not make themistake for which Paul criticizes Israel (Romans 2) bythinking that because they arein the process of being saved they will therefore be exemptfromthe moral conse


18/25

204 Journal forthe Studyof the NewTestament29.2 (2006)

assumed to be so already. Therefore, while both can employ similarlan-

guage to describe the fate ofcertain individuals on the DayofJudgment,theirreasons fordoing so in these particular texts appear to span thesemantic range ofthe wayin which salvation language can function inearlyJewish and Christian literature. On the one hand, the necessityofrepentance (i.e. change) is made clear(7Enoch); and on the other hand,an alreadyexisting condition is being affirmed from an eschatologicalperspective while qualified with a warning (1 Corinthians). A recognitionof these differing approaches leads to the conclusion that these two

instances of'being saved' language do not in fact represent a commonidea ofsalvation ordamnation. How these two texts each arrive at thepoint where they envision one who is 'saved' is apparently unrelated andseems to eliminate the concept of'being saved' as one that they hold incommon. What appears to be the final possibility for a common conceptualframeworkis that theyboth envision the status ofthis 'being saved'in less than ideal (or 'honor-less') conditions.

The Function of 'Honor'/'Shame 'Categories'Honor' and 'shame' categories playa significant role in the overall toneand communicative strategy ofPaul in 1 Corinthians (and, forthat matter,2 Corinthians as well).

42In our evaluation of3.10-15, it is important to

keep in mind that the entire argument of 1.10-4.21 appears to have beenbased on preciselythese issues. Theirposture of 'wisdom' had led someinfluential Corinthians to honorcertain leaders (i.e. Apollos, Peter) anddisparage others (Paul). That Paul himselffeels the force of such a tension

is no doubt in part what allows him to take up such rhetoric in defense ofthe message he preached and the manner in which he preached it (2.34;4.10).

43Having argued, by way of his own example, that how one builds

on the foundation of Christ (i.e. what building materials are used) will berevealed forbetterorworse on 'the Day', he moves on to describe ingreater detail the consequences ofa negative outcome. Thus Paul's choiceof language and the emphasis of his metaphorforeschatological testing

42. At least nine times in 1 Corinthians Paul employs negative language intended

to reinforce this ongoing dynamic of'shame' ( 1 27 [2]; 11 22; /


19/25


in a negative direction are telling. By analyzing the specific use ofterms,

which serve this communicative strategy, our inquirymay further highlightwhat motivational impact such language and images (and their underlyingconceptual categories) may have been intended to produce. The fact thathe emphasizes this negative possibility indicates that his purpose is notprimarilydidactic but rather motivational.

In the phrase TIVOSTO , the use ofthe verb is not entirely straightforward. Most often rendered 'sufferdamage, loss' (in either a material or moral/spiritual sense), it can also

suggest an experience ofpain 'to be punished'the latter being opted forby Bauer (BAGD: 338). This second definition no doubt informs thesymbolic world that gave rise to the use ofthis passage as a proof-text forthe doctrine of purgatory. However, in order to remain faithful to theoverall intent ofthe metaphor used byPaul, one is compelled to understand the sense as one in which the forfeit or loss ofa potential 'reward'is envisioned.44 Further, while is the subject of in thesubordinate clause, it is clearly not the workbut the 'worker' (vos) thatis the subject of as also in the parallel construction in 3.14

where TIVO is the subject of. Thus one mayconclude that, withthe use of, the apostle communicates the potential 'dis-honor'(i.e. shame) of lost reward on the Day of Judgment for those whocurrently serve as honored leaders in the Christian community withoutdirect use ofshame language. Paul subsequently makes explicit referenceto 'shame' () in 4.14 following a paragraph laced with irony andsarcasm (Fee 1987:184). What is more, in light ofthis theme's frequency(see n. 42 above), it seems reasonable to infer a 'shame-based' communi

cative intent despite the absence of explicit terminology. Indeed, that isthe function ofthis extended metaphor. This type ofmotivational agendais further demonstrated by the prior (brief) reference in 3.14 to thepositive 'reward' ( TIVO TO , ) gained by the one whose workstands the test offire.While thereward option is not further described or explained, it provides thenecessaryfoil for the possibility of 'loss'.45


20/25


Thus, tension between present 'honor' in the community and ultimate

' dishonoring' in the eschatological context is central to the communicativeintent of Paul's metaphor. This seems to be borne out by the role these

concepts play in the overall tone of 1.10-4.21. The repeated contrast

between those who are 'wise' (i.e. certain leaders in Corinth) and those

who are 'foolish' (Paul and his companions) serves as evidence of this

underlying rhetorical current. As such, Paul presents these two possibilities

as equally plausible options for the evaluation of the work of leaders in

the Christian communities.46

While both serve his purpose of promoting

serious reflection on the opportunity to either gain or lose honor in thatultimate setting, he unquestionably emphasizes the latterloss of honor.

This emphasis appears due primarily to the present crisis of an inappro

priate or inaccurate evaluation of Christian leaders (including himself) by

certain members of the church in Corinth. The entire argument appears

intended by Paul not merely to defend his own preaching and position,

but rather to serve as corrective to the way in which the community

related to leadership in general. In this regard then, while the subject of

Paul's metaphor in 3.10-15 is a hypothetical Christian leader, the object

(or target) of the motivational warning is the entire community.

Conclusion

A Comparative Summary

In light of the preceding analysis, I now state in broad terms the ways in

which 1 Cor. 3.10-15 and 7 . 50.1 -5 clearly represent divergent method

ologies, theological perspectives and practical concerns: (1) they employdiffering genres of literary compositionthe Similitudes reflect classic

Jewish apocalyptic writing, while in 1 Corinthians Paul employs rhetorical

persuasion in the more conventional form ofa letter (albeit while embed

ding an apocalyptic metaphor in the present case); (2) the implied audience

is virtually impossible to identify in the Similitudes, while 1 Corinthians

clearly addresses a Christian community which, according to the author,

is in need of specific correction and instruction; (3) while the narrative

purpose of the eschatological metaphor in 1 Cor. 3 can be related directlyto the overall argument in which it is located, the vision in 1 En. 50

appears to be more tangential to the o erall arg ment or perspecti e of


21/25


the Similitudes (as argued above); (4) the respective authors have

different 'categories' of people in mind about whom they employ theirrespective versions of the eschatological image of'being saved without

honor': in 1 En. 50 those envisioned are referred to as 'sinners' who must

repent of the 'works of theirhands', while in 1 Cor. 3 it is clearly Christian

leaders (apostles) who have 'built badly' whom Paul has in mind; and

(5) in each passage there is a different perception of the role of'works':

in 1 En. 50 the author refers explicitly to 'works' as the physical evidence

of one's ultimate eschatological destiny; Paul however, not only operates

with a contextually specific definition ofthe term in 1 Cor. 3 (i.e. theactions and behavior of church leaders with respect to the spiritual con

struction of the Christian community), but further explicitly insists that

such 'works' do not ultimately affect the condition of being savedonly

the status ofthat condition.

While one may suggest that similar metaphoric images are employed

by the two texts under discussion, it must be concluded that they do not

intend those images to carry the same kind of theological perspective or

content. On the one hand, 1 En. 50 clearly envisions an inferior third groupof people who, as sinners, receive mercy on the Day of Judgment. They

are contrasted with 'the righteous', whose vindication, while in the future,

is assured 'with honor'. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. 3 Paul clearly refers

to the potential fate ofleaders within the Christian communitywho, while

sharing in the same eschatological hope of 'being saved' as all other

Christian believers, might also experience the 'dis-honor' (i.e. shame) of

'lost reward' resulting from inadequate contributions to the building of

the church.

In spite of these differing conceptions of eschatological status, the

impact intended on each respective audiencewhileframeddifferently

functions similarly. In 1 En. 50 the vision of the third group of 'others'

functions to enhance the vindication of the righteous, while at the same

time discouraging anything less than total faithfulness in the present

context so as to avoid any other final fate. In 1 Cor. 3.10-15 the possi

bility of church leaders experiencing 'eschatological embarrassment' is

intended to appeal for humility on the part of leaders specifically and

believers in general. Such humility should serve to caution not only againstundue elevation of certain leaders (or the maligning ofa certain founding


22/25

208 Journal forthe Studyof the NewTestament29.2 (2006)

Synthesis

This study has sought to evaluate the possible points ofcontact betweenthe symbolic world ofthe apostlePaul and Jewish eschatological traditionssuch as onefindsin the apocalyptic vision of7 En. 50. While not arguingfor any direct influence ofone text upon the other, this studysuggeststhat the vision ofa third group of'others' who may potentially 'be saved,but without honor' in 1 En. 50 bears symbolic and rhetorical similaritieswith the eschatological metaphorofthe testing ofChristian leaders'works in 1 Cor. 3. Both passages envision individuals 'being saved' and

yet 'without honor'. Both passages seem to view such a possibilityas anundesirable concession ratherthan a positive expression of divine magnanimityeven ifone mayattribute such a fate to the mercy ofGod. Bothpassages employthe categories of'honor' and 'shame' (even if only byimplication in some cases) to discourage those in their respective communities offaith from settling forsuch an 'inferior status' in the finaleschatological landscape. While their individual narrative purposes anddistinctive theologies do not necessarily cohere, it is evident that theirrespective communicative strategies share significant similarities. Moststrikingly, both texts make use ofa common imagethat ofa potentiallyinferior state of 'being saved'to urge their audience toward greatercommitment to the faithful community.

Bibliography

Allison, Dale C, Jr

2003 The Testament ofAbraham (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter).

Black, Matthew1985 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: Brill).

1989 Bibliographyon 1 Enoch in the Eighties', JSP5: 3-16.

1992 'The Messianism ofthe Parables ofEnoch: Their Date and Contributions to

Christological Origins', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), TheMessiah: Develop

ments in EarliestJudaism andChristianity(Minneapolis: Fortress Press):

145-68.

Charles, R.H.

1913 ' 1 Enoch', in Apocrypha andPseudepigrapha ofthe OldTestament(2 vols.;

Oxford: Clarendon Press): 163-281.

Charlesworth, James H.

1985 The OldTestamentPseudepigrapha andthe NewTestament(SNTSMS, 54;


23/25


24/25

210 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

Stuckenbruck, L.T.

1995 Angel Veneration andChristology: A Study in Early Judaism andin theChristology ofthe Apocalypse ofJohn (WUNT, 2; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr

[Paul Siebeck]).

Suter, David W.

1979 Tradition andComposition in the Parables ofEnoch (Missoula, MT:

Scholars Press).

Thiselton, Anthony

2000 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGCNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Townsend, John T.

1968 Corinthians 3.15 and the School ofShammai', HTR 61: 500-504.

VanderKam, James C.2000a 'Messianism and Apocalypticism', in J. J. Collins (ed.), The Encyclopedia of

Apocalypticism (NewYork: Continuum): 1,193-228.

2000b 'Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son ofMan in 1 Enoch 37-71 ',

in From Revelation to Canon: Studiesin the Hebrew Bible andSecond

Temple Literature (JSJSup, 62; Leiden: Brill): 413-38.

Winter, Bruce W.

2001 AfterPaul LeftCorinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Witherington, Ben,

1995 Conflict andCommunityin Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentaryo

1 and2Corinthians(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).


25/25

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

1 Cor - Being Saved Without Honor