Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach

Durham E-Theses

Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach

BRIONES, DAVID,EMILIO

How to cite:
BRIONES, DAVID,EMILIO (2011) Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach, Durham

theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3285/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP
e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk
Pauls Financial Policy:
A Socio-
Socio-Theological Approach
By
David E. Briones
Submitted For The Degree of Doctor Of Philosophy
At The
University of Durham
Department of Theology and Religion
June 2011
i
Abstract
This thesis attempts to provide a reason for Pauls seemingly inconsistent financial policy, insofar as he
accepts monetary aid from the Philippians (and others) but refuses it from the Corinthians.
After outlining and critiquing a variety of approaches to the quandary of Pauls financial policy
(Chapter 1), we then contextualise Paul in his ancient socio-economic background (i.e., the context of
patronage, benefaction, reciprocity, and various other gift-exchange relationships in antiquity) and
also place him in ideological comparison with Senecas De Beneficiis, the major gift-giving treatise of the
first century (Chapter 2). This chapter serves as a reference point, adding argumentative support to
subsequent chapters by situating Paul in his ancient context.
In Chapter 3, we provide an exegetical analysis of the positive gift-giving relationship between
Paul and the Philippians, teasing out the particular relational features that comprised their intimate
bond. What appears is a three-way relational pattern with God as the source of Pauls gift-exchange
relationship with the Philippians. In Chapters 4 and 5, we turn to investigate Pauls negative
relationship with the Corinthians, primarily 1 Cor. 9 and 2 Cor. 10-12 but incorporate 1 Cor. 1-4, 11:17-
34, and 12:12-31, in order to highlight the absence of the particular features found in the apostles
relationship with the Philippians. We then propound a socio-theological reason for Pauls refusal of
Corinthian gifts.
By placing the social context of gift-exchange in dialectical relationship with Pauls theology of
gift-giving (or grace), we conclude that he refused Corinthian support, not because they desired to
patronise him as a dependent client (which has become commonplace among NT scholars), but because
they sought to be under Paul as their superior, an act that neglected God as the superior source of all gifts
in the divine economy. Paul therefore refuses their support to avoid two-way relationships of gift so
prevalent in ancient society (i.e., the social aspect) and to underscore the source of the gift of the gospel,
the one from whom and through whom and to whom are all things God (i.e., the theological aspect).
Thus, a socio-theological reason for Pauls financial policy will emerge.
i
Statement of Copyright
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. All information derived from this thesis must be
acknowledged appropriately.
ii
Declaration
This work has been submitted to the University of Durham in accordance with the regulations for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It is my own work, and none of it has been previously submitted to the
University of Durham or in any other university for a degree.
iii
Contents
Abstract....i
Statement of Copyright..ii
Declaration..iii
Contents...iv-viii
Acknowledgements.ix-xi
Abbreviations.........xii
CHAPTER 1: APPROACHES TO PAULS FINANCIAL POLICY................................................................

.................................................................
................................. 1
1. Reappraising Various Approaches............................................................................................................. 3

1.1. The Psychological Approach ............................................................................................................... 4
1.2. The Economical Approach .................................................................................................................. 6
1.3. The Moral/Ethical Approach .............................................................................................................. 8
1.4. The Theological Approach ................................................................................................................ 14
1.5. The Sociological Approach ................................................................................................................ 16
1.5.1. Rabbinic Tradition ...................................................................................................................... 16
1.5.2. Itinerant Philosophers ................................................................................................................ 17
1.5.3. Itinerant Missionaries ................................................................................................................ 19
1.5.4. Patronal Relations ....................................................................................................................... 21
1.6. Summary............................................................................................................................................. 28
2. Offering a Combined Alternative A Socio-Theological Approach .................................................... 30
2.1. Sociology and Theology Friends or Foes? .................................................................................... 30
2.2. The Nature of this Approach ............................................................................................................. 31
2.2.1. The Social Aspect ........................................................................................................................ 32
2.2.2. The Theological Aspect .............................................................................................................. 33
2.3. The Anticipated Outcomes of this Approach ................................................................................... 34
3. The Trajectory of this Study .................................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXTUALISING PAUL ................................................................

..............................................................................................
.............................................................. 37
iv
1. Pauls Socio-Economic Climate ................................................................................................................ 38
1.1. Patronage, Benefaction, and Reciprocity: A Tangled Web of Complexity .................................... 38
1.1.1. Patronage and Benefaction: Identical or Distinct? .................................................................. 40
1.1.2. Defining Patronage ................................................................................................................... 43
1.1.3. The Shape of Reciprocity.......................................................................................................... 46
1.1.4. Summary...................................................................................................................................... 50
1.2. Patterns of Reciprocal Exchange in the Ancient World ................................................................. 51
1.2.1. Patron-Client ............................................................................................................................... 51
1.2.2. Friend-Friend .............................................................................................................................. 52
1.2.3. Parent-Child ................................................................................................................................ 53
1.2.4. Teacher-Pupil .............................................................................................................................. 55
1.2.5. Patron-Broker-Client .................................................................................................................. 56
1.2.6. Summary...................................................................................................................................... 59
2. Pauls Ideological Climate ......................................................................................................................... 60
2.1. Patterns of Reciprocity in Senecas De Beneficiis .............................................................................. 61
2.1.1. Aberrations of Gift Exchange in Senecas Ancient Economy .................................................. 62
2.1.2. Senecas Two-Level, Philosophical Framework: Paradox as a Solution ................................. 67
2.1.3. Seneca, Paul, and the Modern Myth of the Pure Gift ............................................................. 78
3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 84
CHAPTER 3: PAULS POSITIVE GIFT-

GIFT-GIVING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PHILIPPIANS .................. 85
1. The Relational History of Paul and the Philippians ............................................................................... 87

1.1. Evidence of a Positive Relationship from Acts ................................................................................ 88
1.2. Evidence of a Positive Relationship from Philippians. ................................................................... 89
1.2.1. Reciprocity of a Mutual ............................................................................................. 89
1.2.2. The of Paul and the Philippians ................................................................................ 93
1.3. Evidence of a Financial Relationship from Philippians .................................................................. 94
1.3.1. Philippians 1:3-6 .......................................................................................................................... 94
1.3.2. Philippians 2:25-30 ...................................................................................................................... 95
1.3.3. Philippians 4:10-20 ...................................................................................................................... 96
v
1.4. Pauls Circumstances in Prison ......................................................................................................... 97
1.4.1. The Location of Pauls Imprisonment ....................................................................................... 97
1.4.2. The Socially-Grievous Conditions of Imprisonment ................................................................ 98
1.5. Summary........................................................................................................................................... 103
2. The Nature of Pauls Relationship with the Philippians ...................................................................... 104
2.1. A Dysfunctional Relationship .......................................................................................................... 104
2.2. A Roman Consensual Societas .......................................................................................................... 106
2.3. A Friendship Relationship ............................................................................................................... 110
2.3.1. Textual Parallels between Ancient Friendship and Philippians ........................................... 110
2.3.2. Friendship among Equals ....................................................................................................... 112
2.3.3. Friendship among Unequals .................................................................................................. 113
2.3.4. A Non-Obligatory Friendship ................................................................................................... 116
2.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 117
3. Exegetical Investigation of Philippians 1:7, 1:12-30 ............................................................................. 118
3.1. The Trajectory of in the Gospel through their .................................................. 120
3.1.1. Philippians 1:7 The Shape of Pauls with the Philippians ................................ 120
3.1.2. Philippians 1:12-18c: The Present Trajectory of through their ................ 125
3.1.3. Philippians 1:18d-26: The Future Trajectory of through their with One
Another................................................................................................................................................ 129
3.2. The Power of in their Three-way ........................................................................ 139
3.2.1. Philippians 1:27-30: A Bond of Gift and Suffering Leading to Salvation............................... 139
4. Exegetical Investigation of Philippians 1:3-6, 2:25-30, and 4:10-20 .................................................... 148
4.1. Gifts from Philippi to Paul ............................................................................................................... 149
4.1.1. Philippians 4:15 The Timing of Philippian Gifts ................................................................. 149
4.1.2. Philippians 2:25-30 and 4:18 The Transmission of the Gift via Epaphroditus ................. 153
4.1.3. Philippians 2:25-30 The Twofold Purpose of the Gift via Epaphroditus........................... 154
4.2. Pauls Theological Figuring of the Philippians Gift ...................................................................... 157
4.2.1. God as the Crucial Third Party in Philippians 1:3-6 ............................................................... 159
4.2.2. God as the Crucial Third Party in Philippians 4:10-20 ........................................................... 166
4.3. The Relational Contours of Reshaped by the Divine Third Party ............................... 173
vi
4.3.1. in Suffering (4:14) ...................................... 173
4.3.2. in Gift (4:15) ................................... 175
5. Conclusion: Pauls with the Philippians ............................................................................... 193
5.1. The Inclusion of the Third Party .................................................................................................... 193
5.2. Social Dynamics of Giving and Receiving in Christ ..................................................................... 194
5.3. The Nature of Pauls Financial Relationship with the Philippians .............................................. 195
CHAPTER 4: PAULS NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORINTHIANS (1 COR.

COR. 9) .................. 198
1. The Social Ethos of Corinth .................................................................................................................... 199

1.1. The City Corinths Legacy of Prosperity .................................................................................... 199
1.2. The People The Social Conventions of Wealth and Honour at Corinth .................................. 202
1.2.1. Patronage and Honour ............................................................................................................. 203
1.2.2. Patronage and Honour in an Agonistic Environment ........................................................... 205
1.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 206
2. The Cultural Conformity of the Corinthians Post-Conversion ........................................................... 207
2.1. Conversion at Corinth ..................................................................................................................... 208
2.2. The Corinthians Culturally-Conditioned Lifestyle ....................................................................... 211
2.2.1. 1 Corinthians 1-4: Competitive Boast in Leaders for Honour ............................................... 212
2.2.2. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34: Competition for Honour at the Lords Supper ................................ 216
2.2.3. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31: Spiritual Gifts and the Competitive Hierarchy for Honour ........... 219
2.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 224
3. Pauls Response to the Corinthians Culturally-Conditioned Lifestyle............................................... 227
3.1. An Appraisal of their High Spiritual Status ................................................................................... 227
3.2. A Theological Reconfiguration of Roles and Status in the Divine Economy ............................... 230
3.2.1. God is the Source of All Possessions ........................................................................................ 231
3.2.2. Paul is the Mediator of Gods Commodity of ................................................................ 234
3.2.3. The Corinthians are Unworthy Recipients of ............................................................ 237
3.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 240
4. The Socio-Theological Strategy behind Pauls Financial Policy.......................................................... 243
4.1. 1 Corinthians 9 A Response to the Offer of a Gift or a Pre-Established Policy? ...................... 244
vii
4.2. Pauls Financial Policy in Social Perspective ................................................................................. 247
4.3. Pauls Financial Policy in Theological Perspective ....................................................................... 252
4.3.1. The Theological Strategy of 1 Cor. 9 and 1 Thess. 2 ............................................................... 253
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 267
CHAPTER 5: PAULS NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORINTHIANS (2 COR. 11-

11-12)........... 271
1. Reconstruction of Events between 1 and 2 Corinthians ...................................................................... 273

2. The Corinthians Culturally-Conditioned Lifestyle Maintained.......................................................... 276
2.1. A Corinthian Assessment of Apostolic Status ................................................................................ 276
2.1.1. Pauls Apostolic Status.............................................................................................................. 277
2.1.2. The Super Apostles Status ....................................................................................................... 280
2.1.3. Status Differential between Paul and the Super Apostles ..................................................... 281
2.2. The Exploitative Gift-Giving Relationship of the Corinthians and the Super Apostles ............. 282
3. The Gift-Giving Relationship (or lack thereof) between Paul and the Corinthians .......................... 286
3.1. Pauls Refusal of Corinthian Gifts ................................................................................................... 287
3.1.1. 2 Corinthians 11:7-12 ................................................................................................................ 287
3.1.2. 2 Corinthians 12:13-16a ............................................................................................................ 303
3.1.3. Summary.................................................................................................................................... 310
3.2. Pauls Never to accept Corinthian Gifts......................................................................... 311
3.2.1. The Indefinite Refusal of Support Permanent or Contingent? ......................................... 312
3.2.2. The Significance of Pauls Geographic in 11:10, 12 and 10:12-18 ......................... 316
4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 325
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS................................
CONCLUSIONS................................................................
................................................................................................
...............................................................................
............................................... 327
1. Pauls Financial Policy in Socio-Theological Perspective .................................................................... 327

2. The Achieved Goals of the Socio-Theological Approach to Pauls Financial Policy .......................... 335
3. Implications for Further Study .............................................................................................................. 338
viii
Acknowledgments
Given the subject matter of this thesis, it is fitting to give God thanks first and foremost,
particularly for the way in which he sovereignly orchestrated this entire project through the
assistance of so many people. I am immensely grateful for the penetrating insight, incisive
criticism, and unceasing encouragement of Professor John M.G. Barclay, whose diligent
supervision and excellent scholarship guided this thesis to completion. Thank you, John, for
your kindness, generosity, and compassion as a scholar and a friend. It was an honour to have
studied under you.
During Johns sabbatical, Dr. Stephen Barton and Professor Francis Watson skillfully
advanced this project with their erudition and constructive criticisms. For that, I am grateful.
My examiners, Professor N.T. Wright and Dr. Lutz Doering, not only offered many helpful
suggestions on how to improve this thesis (which were warmly welcomed) but they also dealt
graciously with me on the day of trepidation (i.e., the viva). My gratitude also goes to Dr. G.W.
Peterman and Dr. Todd Still for their kind support and challenging critiques. And words
cannot express my appreciation for my fellow postgrads at 37 N. Bailey, especially for the fine
balance between intellectually-stimulating conversations in the hallway and hilarious
moments during coffee breaks. All of you really made it a joy to come into the office. I am
particularly thankful to John Goodrich for the many conversations about Pauls apostleship in
1 Corinthians and for always making me laugh; Ben Dunson for his very helpful comments
after reading my entire thesis and for the unforgettable Dunson moments; Wesley Hill, Jono
Linebaugh, and Orrey McFarland for their friendship, encouragement, and extraordinary
insight into Pauline theology; and Peter Orr for his feedback on some portions of this thesis
and for his British/Northern Irish/Australian sense of humor.
ix
My time in Durham, not least my theological framework, was enhanced by monthly
theological pub nights with Ben Dunson, Steve Bagby, and David Baker. You guys tested my
thinking on a variety of levels and created some wonderful memories that I will always
treasure. Thank you. My pastor, Duncan Woods, was a great source of spiritual encouragement
as a faithful friend. Thanks for sharing in my sufferings and joys in Christ, Duncan. Our church,
Christ Church Durham, which embraced me and Mindy when we first arrived in England,
fostered an atmosphere characterized by intimate fellowship and mutuality. It was a joy to
share those moments with Hamish and Marije Sneddon, Adam and Emy Straker, Luke and Clare
Garnham, and many others.
Nevertheless, if I failed to mention my family and their ongoing support, then I would
have failed to mention the most important people in my life. Thanks are due to Mindys
parents, Bill and Barbara Edmonson, who supported the PhD endeavour from beginning to end
in ways too numerous to mention. I really appreciate everything that you have done for us! I
also want to thank my Mom, Casta Briones, for proclaiming and embodying the gospel to me
since I was a young child, for praying endlessly to God that I would become a Christian when I
was a teenager, and for always supporting me in my desire to love and serve Christ as an adult.
I love you, Mom.
Finally, it is such a joy to thank my beautiful wife, Mindy. Thank you for being a
brilliant wife to me and an amazing mother to Micah. Thank you for all of your hard work in
Durham as you supported us financially. Thank you for never growing tired of listening to me
explain the arguments of certain chapters on our walks. Thank you for clarifying my thoughts
during those late nights when I was on the verge of a mental breakdown. Thank you for
keeping me grounded in my faith by reminding me of the primary goal of my labours. And
thank you for being so Christ-centred. I really admire you, Mindy. Your love for God and
x
people is awe-inspiring. And now to see you lavish Micah with that same love is overwhelming.
You deserve a PhD just as much as I do and therefore I dedicate this book to you. I love you
with all my heart.
xi
Abbreviations
Abbreviations of ancient literature generally follow the conventions of Patrick H. Alexander, et
al. (eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, MA, 1999), though when biblical texts are
abbreviated, a period is used. The editions used are those from the Loeb Classical Library
unless otherwise indicated.
xii
CHAPTER 1: APPROACHES TO PAULS FINANCIAL POLICY
Introduction
Pauls financial policy has never been the subject of a single monograph. To be sure, many
sophisticated approaches have been constructed. Yet they either appear as subsidiary points of
a much larger argument (which is primarily the case) or in monographs that present an
insufficient treatment of the issue.1 A sustained, balanced, and narrowly-focused thesis is
needed. For among all the perennial issues in Pauline circles, two basic questions concerning
Pauls policy have largely gone unresolved: (i) why did Paul refuse pay for the gospel (1 Cor. 9;
1 Thess. 2), but gladly accept financial support from the Philippians (Phil. 4:10-20)?; and (ii)
why did he accept from the Philippians and others (2 Cor. 11:8-9), but loudly refuse from the
Corinthians, despite the offence this caused (2 Cor. 11-12)?2 These questions especially remain
open because popular answers have been perpetuated in NT scholarship as the communis
opinio. Thus, we are constantly reminded in several commentaries and monographs that Paul
1. For example, both Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians
(WUNT 2/23; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) and G.W. Peterman, Pauls Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange
and Christian Giving (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) apportion most exegetical space to
the specific church under their consideration rather than offering a comprehensive thesis that equally analyses
both Pauls relationship with the Philippians and the Corinthians.
2. Although these questions may sound identical, the distinction being drawn here will only become apparent
after arguing that 1 Cor. 9 does not presuppose the offer of a gift to Paul. Rather, it records the apostles policy
during his initial entrance into a city. But this will not become evident until Chapter 4.
1
refused Corinthian support because they sought to become his patrons, that he grudgingly
accepted the Philippians gift, and that his fiscal decisions were basically ad hoc and inconsistent.
However popular these lines of argumentation may be, they nevertheless suffer from
social-historical and exegetical problems. They misunderstand the rules of exchange in
antiquity and impose modern sensibilities of gift anachronistically onto Paul, and they also
inadequately resolve the exegetical questions concerning Pauls financial policy, such as: why
did Paul always work a trade during his initial visits instead of accepting finances (cf. 1 Thess.
2:9; 1 Cor. 9:12, 15, 18; 2 Cor. 11:7; Phil. 4:15)? Does 1 Corinthians 9 presuppose the offer of a gift
to Paul? What did he mean by not wanting to become a burden (, 1 Cor. 9:12)? Why did
he declare that he would never accept money from the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:9, 12; 12:14),
when he obviously procured funds from them for travel expenses (1 Cor. 16:6; 2 Cor. 1:16)? Did
Paul assume different types of support? What distinguished Pauls relationship with the
Philippians and others churches ( , 2 Cor. 11:8), making them more suitable
candidates to assist him financially? Insufficient answers to these crucial questions, in addition
to the misinformed social-historical conclusions outlined above, indicate the need to step back
and reevaluate the Pauline evidence afresh.
Various approaches have been carved out in the attempt to resolve the quandary of
Pauls monetary policy. Some are more convincing than others. But if we are to move further
2
in this endeavour, we must critically appraise both past and present advancements, teasing
out the particular problems of methodology, presuppositions, exegesis, and social history
within each. Only then will it become apparent that every attempt to explain Pauls financial
practice in the last century, while indeed illuminating in many respects, has largely neglected
an essential component one which challenges the accepted norms of ancient gift-exchange
in Pauline scholarship, provides a firmer exegetical foundation, adds a consistent structure to
his seemingly inconsistent practice, and thereby creates a new approach to a familiar question.
1. Reappraising Various Approaches
So why did Paul refuse financial support? This question, though simply put, is immensely
perplexing and has generated multiple explanations. And yet, as David Horrell bluntly asserts,
A number of possible explanations of Pauls [financial] behaviour must be rejected because of
the direct evidence we have.3 Convinced of this assessment, we have categorised the possible
explanations under the headings of psychological, economical, moral/ethical, theological, and
sociological approaches,4 all in order to gauge their viability against the direct evidence we
have. Although some approaches closely intertwine with others, so that a combination of a few
3. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (SNTW;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 211.
4. This is a slight modification and extension of Peter Marshalls categorisation (cf. Enmity, 233).
3
can be held without any contradiction, the following will be an attempt to disentangle and
differentiate clearly the various approaches to Pauls financial policy.
1.1. The Psychological Approach
According to C.H. Dodd, Paul has a psychological complex about money, an inner
conflict of the soul.5 With the feelings of a well-to-do bourgeois6 (though he had chosen
poverty for ideal ends), he has no need for finances and can only discuss the issue with much
embarrassment. This, for Dodd, is confirmed by Philippians 4:10-20, where Paul couches his
discussion of money in the technical language of commerce (e.g., , 4:17; . .
., 4:18), giving the transaction a severely business aspect which allows him to
skirt around the awkwardness of exchange. After identifying this abhorrence of finances in
Phil. 4:10-20, Dodd then reads it into the financial text of 1 Corinthians 9:15-18 and essentially
presents a Paul who has a higher-class, snobbish perspective towards money, since he could
never think of himself as a member of the poor, to whom alms might be offered without
suspicion of offence.7 His refusal of aid can therefore be explained by his internal aversion to
finances.
5. The Mind of Paul: I in New Testament Studies (Manchester: University Press, 1953), 67-82, esp. 71-72.
6. The Mind of Paul: I, 72.
7. The Mind of Paul: I, 72.
4
Although many notable commentators have followed Dodd, such as F.W. Beare,8 R.P.
Martin,9 and J.-F. Collange,10 several reasons speak against this approach. To begin with, it is
primarily based on an inferential reading of 1 Cor. 9.11 Nowhere does this chapter disclose an
intrinsic loathing of money. It merely conveys Pauls freedom to enforce or forgo his apostolic
in the gospel to support. But this decision is solely predicated on whether it will create
an obstacle for others (9:12), not on his own personal repulsion towards money. Moreover,
Dodds psychologising of Pauls discourse in Phil. 4:10-20 is ultimately an explanation for the
absence of his gratitude in this pericope that is, rather than saying thanks, he piles up
commercial terminology to conceal his embarrassment. Yet Paul often employs commercial
terminology to describe his most intimate relationships (e.g., Phil. 4:15).12 Also, his supposed
thanklessness towards the Philippians may actually have been an expression of thankfulness to
God, the one who gives through the church as mediators of his divine beneficence. But we
suspend the possibility of this argument until Chapter 3.
8. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1959), 15152.
9. Philippians (NCB; London: Routledge, 1976), 161.
10. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians (trans. A. W. Heathcote; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1979), 14849.
11. More forthrightly, Marshall exclaims, Dodds inference from 1 Cor. 9 is wrong (Enmity, 158).
12. See Peterman, Gift Exchange, 5189.
5
1.2. The Economical Approach
Could it be that Paul eschews monetary support from some because they had very little
to give? David Dungan thinks so.13 He contends that Paul could not confidently request help
from the Thessalonian or Corinthian communities, because they were impoverished and thus
lacked the necessary resources to assist their apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26). If Paul insisted on this
, irrespective of their socio-economic level, it would place an unnecessary burden on
them and would engender sceptical views towards his ministry, prompting the scathing
remark, The Word of Grace comes dear these days!14 For Dungan, then, the apostles resolve
to leave the gospel unhindered (1 Cor. 9:12b) means that he strategically preaches in places
which could not afford to support him,15 a philosophy of ministry that eradicates any
misgivings about his ministry and keeps him from burdening his churches in Thessalonica (1
Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8) and Corinth (2 Cor. 11:9; 12:13, 14).16
13. The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), who follows Philipp Bachmann, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (KNT 7;
Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1905), 38; Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK 5; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1910, repr. 1970), 238.
14. Sayings, 31.
15. Sayings, 31.
16. Richard Horsley presents a slight modification of this approach. After suggesting that Paul, as a former
Pharisee, benefitted from the revenues of Judaean villagers under the system of tribute, he could not participate
in the horizontal economic reciprocity of village communities in the early Jesus movement. He therefore refused
support to avoid unfairly living off poverty-stricken people (1 Corinthians [ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998], 249
50).
6
But what about the church at Philippi? Paul conspicuously accepted funds from them
while ministering in Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15-16) and Corinth (2 Cor. 11:9). Could they be
classified as an impoverished community? Dungan suggests that the Philippians were actually
financially stable. And, as the first church that he planted, he purposely began a fiscal
relationship with them in order to avoid piling up financial ties as he went along, or working a
new one out with each new mission congregation he established.17 But even Dungan admits
that this argument is hypothetical.18
Unfortunately, the Economical approach is built entirely on the highly debatable claim
that the Corinthians were impoverished, a view that has been challenged recently, with many
suggesting that certain figures in the church existed within a socio-economic middle level.19
But even if they were extremely poor, as Dungan contends, Paul still called on them to provide
money for the saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:10-12; 9:3-5). It therefore cannot be the case that he
only preached in places without the necessary funds to help him. Conversely, the higher,
socio-economic level of the Philippians is based primarily on an inappropriate use of mirror-
17. Sayings, 31.

18. See Sayings, 31 n1.
19. See, for instance, Bruce Longenecker, Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the
Study of Early Urban Christianity, JSNT 31 (2009): 24378; idem, Socio-Economic Profiling of the First Urban
Christians, in After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later
(ed. Todd Still and David Horrell; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 3659; idem, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the
Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010); Steven Friesen, Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-
Called New Consensus, JSNT 26 (2004): 32361, though the counter-arguments of Justin Meggitt should be
seriously considered (Paul, Poverty and Survival [SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998]). Yet this is beyond the scope
of this chapter.
7
reading.20 This can be seen in Dungans reasoning that since Paul did not feel confident enough
to ask for money at Thessalonica and Corinth, they must have been destitute. If they were
destitute, then we may assume, he deduces, that just the opposite was the case with the
Philippian congregation.21 Clearly, this latter conclusion is based on the speculative premise
that the Corinthians were poverty-stricken, and so renders this approach infeasible.
1.3. The Moral/Ethical Approach
The reason Paul refrains from accepting support, according to this approach, stems
from his desire to validate the moral or ethical nature of his ministry. He did not want to be
affiliated with those who rapaciously sought personal gain. This perspective has been
endorsed by multiple scholars in a variety of ways.
J.C. Hurd claims that Paul denied himself support in order to remove any appearance of
greed in the collection for the Jerusalem saints. Hurd begins by rejecting the idea that 1 Cor. 9
is a response to an offer of a gift. If that were the case, he would not have been
constitutionally opposed to accepting money from his churches (cf. Phil. 4:15-16, 19),22 which
leads Hurd to conclude that they had not offered him financial support.23 Instead, 1 Cor. 9
20. For an appropriate use and critique of mirror-reading, consult John Barclay, Mirror-Reading a Polemical
Letter: Galatians as a Test Case, JSNT 31 (1987): 7393.
21. Sayings, 31.
22. John Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965), 204.
23. Origin, 204.
8
represents a counter-argument to those who perceive the collection as a faade for his own
travelling needs.24
Yet even though Hurd correctly refutes the notion that Paul replies to an offer of a gift
in 1 Cor. 9, neither does this chapter say anything about the collection or his travelling needs.
This position rests entirely on implication, as even Hurd admits.25 Rather, 1 Cor. 9 relates his
stance towards accepting finances during his initial visit at Corinth and in every other city he
founded. The importance of this point will be teased out in Chapter 4.
C.K. Barrett concurs with Hurds connection between Pauls policy and his efforts in the
collection but takes it a step further. He claims that Paul refused in order not to misrepresent
the gospel message before unbelievers. If accepting the gospel led to the obligation of
supporting missionaries, potential converts may construe the gospel of grace, a message which
conveys the unilateral and self-sacrificial gift of Christ for humanity, as a crooked avenue for
profit among self-interested preachers.26 Echoing Barretts position,27 Nils Dahl notes that the
apostles sacrifice in refusing support removed a possible stumbling block from the path of
24. Origin, 205.

25. Cf. Origin, 204.
26. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1971), 207.
27. Others who follow Barrett include: Gerhard Dautzenberg, Der Verzicht auf das apostolische
Unterhaltsrecht: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 9, Bib 50 (1969): 21232; Ernst Ksemann, New Testament
Questions of Today (trans. W.J. Montague; London: SCM, 1969), 23334; Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure
of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB, 1978), 92; Hans
Lietzmann and W.G. Kmmel, An die Korinther I/II (HNT 9; Mohr Siebeck: Tbingen, 1969), 42; Archibald Robertson
and Alfred Plummer, I Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914), 18687; F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (NCB;
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 85; G. Sthlin, , TDNT 3:857.
9
prospective converts; they had no cause to believe that he was motivated by greed.28 Likewise,
Robinson Butarbutar contends that it is Pauls own perception of the gospel that motivates his
refusal of financial support.29 The gospel is Christ crucified, thus Paul crucifies his right to
support, for he embodies the gospel. The connection between message and messenger is
lucidly explained by Paul Gardner. He writes, Paul did not want anyone to think they had to
pay to hear the gospel. This would have denied the fundamental gospel concept of grace.30 In
other words, the messenger must be conformed to the message. Since Paul preaches a free
gospel, the gospel must be given freely. He cannot receive a return. Doing so only creates a
distortion of grace.
Refusing support as an embodiment of the gospel also serves a paradigmatic purpose
for those in the church. Emphasising the paradigmatic rather than defensive role that 1 Cor. 9
plays in the larger context of 8:1-11:1,31 Wendell Willis concludes that Pauls refusal of funds, a
28. Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 34.

29. Paul and Conflict Resolution: An Exegetical Study of Pauls Apostolic Paradigm in 1 Corinthians 9 (PBM; Milton
Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 206.
30. The Gifts of God and the Authentication of a Christian: An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 811:1 (Maryland:
University Press of America, 1994), 84.
31. Other scholars who, like Willis, argue against the thesis of an apologetic emphasis in 1 Cor. 9 include: Hurd,
Origin, 12631; Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 390 n71,
39294; Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and
Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), 24445; Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 666. But one wonders
whether it is necessary to understand this chapter as either paradigmatic or a defence, since Paul could present a
paradigmatic example within a polemical context. This possibility will be explored further below in Chapter 4,
section 4.1.
10
practice he had the right to enforce, operates as an implicit appeal to the Corinthians (cf. 8:13;
11:1). He hopes that his example of forsaking his right in the gospel will encourage them to do
the same for one another and so exhibit the selfless love of Christ in the church.32
Focusing more on the conflict at Corinth, Savage looks to Pauls opponents, who
skewed the Corinthians outlook, to uncover the reason for his refusal.33 Being influenced by
the rivals, the Corinthians conformed to the social practices of Hellenistic culture, esteeming
the strong traits of physical presence, boasting, and rhetoric, and so became immensely
dissatisfied with their lowly apostle who worked a trade. They reasoned that an impoverished
leader was a contradiction in terms.34 Instead, they supported the Corinthian rivals, who
gladly accepted their support (cf. 2 Cor. 11:20). Thus, for Savage,35 Pauls refusal accomplished
multiple purposes: (i) it turned these rivals into a negative example, while he became a
positive example by foolishly boasting in his abstention of aid; (ii) it also prevented his
converts from boasting in their own generosity towards Paul; and (iii) it forced his converts to
participate in his humility and thus to conform, albeit unwillingly, to the pattern of Christ.36
32. An Apostolic Apologia?: The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9, JSNT 24 (1985): 3348.
33. Power Through Weakness: Pauls Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians (SNTSMS; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), 8099.
34. Power Through Weakness, 87.
35. Following the contributions of Wilhelm Pratscher, Der Verzicht des Paulus auf finanziellen Unterhalt
durch seine Gemeinden. Ein Aspekt seiner Missionsweise, NTS 25 (1979): 28498.
36. Power Through Weakness, 93.
11
As a model conformed to the gospel, the apostle draws the Corinthians into that same Christo-
centric pattern of living.
Another slant on the moral/ethical approach is that Pauls denial of money can be
identified as an anti-sophistic stand, as he endeavours to distinguish himself from those who
greedily charge high fees for their teaching. H.D. Betz, for example, although considering
Pauls renunciation as an acceptance of Cynic begging and poverty, discovers an anti-sophistic
topos in his vitriolic attack against the opponents in 2 Cor. 10-13.37 Bruce Winter advances this
view further, interpreting 1 Cor. 2:1-5 and 1 Cor. 9 as subtle critiques of Sophistic practices,
which the Corinthians would have picked up on since they were exposed to Sophists who took
advantage of their students in Corinthian society.38
To be sure, the Moral/Ethical approach, with its several strands of argumentation,
provides insight into the general nature of Pauls refusal. But it should only complement other
approaches. On its own, it fails to account for every factor of his financial policy and therefore
cannot provide a comprehensive answer to the question of why Paul refuses monetary aid.
One particularly debilitating weakness of this approach must be mentioned: it imposes
modern ideals of morality and ethics onto ancient texts about reciprocal exchange. As we
37. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner Apologie 2 Korinther 1013
(BHT 45; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972), 11517.
38. Philo and Paul Among the Sophists (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 164; cf. also
Holmberg, Paul and Power, 90; Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (9th edition; K. Meyer; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1924), 298.
12
noted above, interpreters reason that because the gospel of grace is unmerited, Paul merits no
pay for the message he preaches. Gardners quote is representative here. Paul did not want
anyone to think they had to pay to hear the gospel. This would have denied the fundamental
gospel concept of grace.39 The problem with this logic is that while it coincides well with 2 Cor.
11:7 (I preached the gospel of God free of charge []), it nevertheless contradicts the
chief argument of 1 Cor. 9, which affirms the apostles right to receive a return, a for
preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 9:11, 14, 18; cf. , 2 Cor. 11:8). More than this, if Gardner is
correct, then we have to assume that the other apostles (), mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:12 and
perhaps 9:5, preach something other than the message of grace, since Paul insinuates that they
enforced their right in the gospel to receive support from the gospel.
This logical inconsistency needs to be rectified. Not only does it betray a modern
aversion to reciprocity and entirely disregard the ancient context of Pauls social practice, but
it also overlooks the Corinthians awareness of the apostles right to material support as
completely in line with the gospel itself (1 Cor. 9:11, 14). Closer attention, therefore, needs to
be paid to the socio-cultural elements of gift-exchange in antiquity; only then will we be able
to reassess the fundamental concept of grace in Paul.
39. Gifts of God, 84.

13
1.4. The Theological Approach
Gerhard Dautzenberg best represents this view by linking Pauls refusal with his
theology of suffering (Leidenstheologie), insofar as the vivid images of enduring () and
willingness to die (, 1 Cor. 9:12, 15) reflect the redeeming work of Christ in Pauls
apostolic existence (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9; 6:10; 4:10-12). The apostles denial of support is thus
construed as part of his suffering on behalf of the Corinthians ultimate salvation. As
Dautzenberg writes,
Paulus versteht seine Arbeit wie sein Leiden als Ausdruck seiner apostolischen
Existenz, als Teil seiner besonderen Beziehung zum Leiden Christi. Und wie das Leiden
Christi Ausdruck seiner Erlserliebe zu den Menschen ist, so ist die Arbeit des Apostels,
bzw. sein Verzicht auf Unterhalt durch die Gemeinden Ausdruck der Liebe des Apostels
zu seinen Gemeinden, fr deren Heil er sich nach dem Heilsplan Gottes verantwortlich
weiss.40
One can detect a slight overlap with the moral/ethical approach here, but the distinctly
theological element emerges from the salvific implications of his financial decision.
Instead of highlighting Pauls suffering alone, Timothy Savage, whose argument we
previously mentioned under the moral/ethical category, accentuates the significant notion of
partnership in suffering between Paul and his churches as the fundamental reason for either
accepting or refusing. He explains,
40. Unterhaltsrecht, 225. H.D. Betz also proposes a connection between the Socratic traditions of Hellenistic
culture and Pauls Christology in order to explain his financial dealings at Corinth (Tradition, 5157, 67).
14
It is immediately noticeable that the Macedonians attitude to giving differs markedly from the
Corinthians. They view their support as an opportunity to participate with Paul in his affliction
( , Philippians 4:14) and to share in the service of the saints
( , 2 Corinthians 8:4). They give from the depths
of their poverty (2 Corinthians 8:2) and beyond their ability (8:3). They beg Paul for the favour
of this ministry ( . . . , 8:4) and thus are conformed to the favour of Christ
( , 8:9), making themselves poor that others might be
made rich (8:9). It is therefore because they have already conformed themselves to the Lord (8:5) that
Paul accepts their money. To bring the Corinthians to the same position Paul must refuse their
support. Pauls policy on support thus varies according to the spiritual maturity of his converts. . . .
The criterion in each case is the same. Paul seeks not the gift itself, but the profit which will
increase to his converts account (Philippians 4:17).41
Pauls acceptance and refusal of funds can therefore be explained on the basis of the churchs
level of maturity. Savage has, in our opinion, tapped the vein of a propitious thesis which we
will pursue in the course of this study.
Overall, the theological approach is certainly commendable. Dautzenberg accurately
perceives the integral relationship between the message and the messenger, between Gods
grace and its recipient, whereas Savage makes a unique connection between Pauls policy and
the spiritual maturity of his churches. Nevertheless, in speaking about theological treatments
of Pauls fiscal policy, Ronald Hock remarks that they tend to isolate Paul from his cultural
context and to view the whole matter too abstractly, that is, exclusively in terms of theology
with no consideration of the social realities involved.42 We could not agree more with Hocks
41. Power Through Weakness, 9899; my emphasis.

42. The Social Context of Pauls Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 1980), 51.
15
critique.43 Pauls social context is essential for understanding the rationale behind his self-
support. In fact, as we will demonstrate later, Savages proposal offers the middle ground
where sociology and theology can meet. Before that, however, we must review certain
proposals that primarily account for the sociological dimensions of Pauls refusal.
1.5. The Sociological Approach
This approach is constituted by four subcategories, each offering a plausible
explanation for Pauls denial of Corinthian aid relating to (i) rabbinic tradition; (ii) itinerant
philosophers; (iii) itinerant missionaries; and (iv) patronal relations.
1.5.1. Rabbinic Tradition
Martin Hengel and A.E. Harvey argue that Pauls denial of monetary aid manifests the
influence of his rabbinic education, which emphasised the Jewish ideal to combine the study of
Torah with working a trade and endorsed the Jewish perspective of Hillel and Zadok, who
exhorted teachers to impart the word of God gratuitously.44 In the second century, Hengel
notes, the rabbis required fathers to teach their sons a craft, a practice which. . .probably goes
back to the early Pharisaic period in the first century BCE; for the Pharisaic scribes in the
period before 70 also needed a secure way of earning their bread, and at that time crafts
43. Though we will take issue with his unbalanced approach in Chapter 4, section 4.
44. m. Abot 1.3, 13; 2.2; 4.5 (ed. H. Danby); cf. George Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The
Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1927), 2:97.
16
already were golden opportunities.45 According to this view, Pauls occupation as a leather
worker (, Acts 18:3), coupled with his rabbinic training, granted him the privilege
to expound the law without pay. His decision not to accept money for his preaching and
teaching, then, stems from his Jewish heritage. The apostle conducted himself as a true
Rabbi.46
Paul may arguably have set aside an injunction by Christ to accept support (1 Cor. 9:14)
in favour of a prior Jewish tradition, but the fact that this rabbinical idea itself arose only after
the time of Paul47 casts doubt on its validity. This also explains Hengels uncertainty above,
when advancing the possibility of this custom dating back to the Pharisaic scribes of the first
century.
1.5.2. Itinerant Philosophers
To explain why Paul decided to work a trade rather than accept pay, many scholars
turn to the moral traditions of the Greco-Roman philosophers. The most seminal work on
Pauls trade has been produced by Ronald Hock.48 While he acknowledges that the apostle
sought to disassociate himself from the popular practices of Sophists, who accepted fees for
45. The Pre-Christian Paul (Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1991), 1516; my emphasis.
46. A.E. Harvey, The Workman is Worthy of His Hire: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church, NovT 24
(1982): 20921 at 213.
47. Hock, Social Context, 66, who avers that Paul learned his trade in a familial setting rather than an
educational context (24).
48. Social Context; cf. also idem, Pauls Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class, JBL 97 (1978): 55564.
17
their rhetorical and intellectual prowess,49 he situates Paul in the Socratic-Cynic tradition of
non-charging philosophers.50
Various philosophers in this tradition plied a trade. For instance, the Stoic Cleanthes
worked, according to Seneca, at a well and served as a hired man watering a garden,51 and
Simon the shoemaker, the artisan-philosopher and ideal Cynic,52 is depicted as having
frequently discussed philosophy in his workshop with Antisthenes, Socrates, Pericles, and
other like-minded men.53 These philosophers supported themselves and dispensed their
wisdom freely, a philosophical tradition which, for Hock, provides a suitable parallel to Paul,
the tentmaking apostle.
Although Hocks contributions are valuable, his argument that Paul belonged to the
Socratic-Cynic traditions of non-charging philosophers, while indeed feasible, is difficult to
square with his acceptance of aid from the Philippian church (2 Cor. 11:8; 12:13; Phil. 4:14-19).
49. Social Context, 5253; cf. also the moral/ethical approach above.
50. Hock follows the work of Abraham Malherbe, who locates Paul in the Cynic philosophical traditions of his
day, viewing him as a gentle philosopher who disaffiliates himself from the harsh charlatan (cf. The Letters to the
Thessalonians [AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000]; idem, Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1
Corinthians 8 and 9, in Paul in His Hellenistic Context [ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1994], 23155; idem, Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess. 2, NovT 12 [1970]: 20317; idem,
Exhortation in First Thessalonians, NovT 25 [1983] 238-256). Hock also further develops the arguments made by
Betz, Tradition, and Dieter Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur religisen Propaganda in der
Sptantike (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964).
51. Ep. 44.3; cf. also Epictetus Diatr. 3.26.23; Diogenes Laertius, 7.168-69.
52. Hock, Social Context, 39.
53. See Abraham Malherbe, ed., The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 1726,
2931, 246, 248, 250, 266; Ronald Hock, Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic, GRBS 17 (1976): 4153.
18
This is especially the case because we remain unconvinced by Hocks attempt to interpret
in 2 Cor. 11:8 and in Phil. 4:17 as a form of giving that cannot be referred to as a
salary; or, otherwise stated, any form of permanent gift-exchange relationship.54 Instead,
Hock maintains that it was spontaneous and temporary. This argument will be indirectly
challenged in Chapter 3, when we discuss the nature of their
(Phil. 4:15). For now, we move to another influential sociological approach.
1.5.3. Itinerant Missionaries
Gerd Theissen constructs a reason for Pauls refusal by positioning him within a conflict
between two kinds of primitive Christian preachers, itinerant charismatics and community
organisers, each of which adopted a particular attitude toward finances and brandished
opposing forms of legitimation.55
Itinerant charismatics, arising out of the Palestinian region, held to a demonstrable
asceticism, which finds its basis in the Synoptic tradition (Lk. 10:3-8). These charismatic
missionaries were homeless, roving propagandists without roots or means of livelihood,56
manifesting a true reliance on the grace of God and so a special standing in relationship with
God, which entitled them to support. As associates of Jesus, these preachers carefully observed
54. Social Context, 50, 92 n1; cf. also Chapter 5 n62.

55. Gerd Theissen, Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare,
NTS 21 (1975): 192221; ET: The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (ed. and trans. John Schtz;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 2767; cf. also Pratscher, Verzicht. at 295-96.
56. Social Setting, 27.
19
the dominical injunction to poverty and the right to support (Mk. 9:41), for they obtained
lodging and material assistance from those who received them (Mt. 10:40-42). Theissen calls
this charismatic begging.57
Community organisers, represented by Paul and Barnabas, arose from their mission
into Hellenistic territory. Unlike itinerant charismatics, they belonged to the higher strata of
society, enjoyed the ability to work for a living, and resided in a particular setting where
charismatic begging would be deemed inappropriate.58 In fact, because Paul and Barnabas
ministered among Hellenistic communities with a strong mistrust of religious charlatans, they
renounced the norms of early Christianitys itinerant-charismatic posture, relinquishing their
right to financial support. This renunciation, as Theissen concludes, arose from concrete
conditions in order to make the pioneering mission as effective as possible in this new
territory.59 But itinerant charismatics criticised Paul, as a community organiser, for lacking
trust in Gods grace and for disobeying Jesus commands regarding the right to support, a
critique which surfaces in 1 Cor. 9 and 2 Cor. 11-12.
This position, although intriguingly original, has little support in the text. Nothing in 2
Corinthians suggests that the church is comparing Paul to itinerant preachers from Palestine,
despite Theissens attempt to interpret in 2 Cor. 11:7 and in 2 Cor. 12:13 as the

59. Social Setting, 40; cf. also 43-44.
20
failure to uphold Jesus dominical command in 1 Cor. 9:14 (Thus also the Lord commanded
that those who preach the gospel ought to live from the gospel).60 Because Theissen reads too
much of 2 Corinthians 11-12 into 1 Corinthians 9, this hypothesis carries little weight. It lacks
textual support and mainly focuses on the origin of competing missionaries and their means of
support rather than the specific dynamics of the Corinthian conflict.
1.5.4. Patronal Relations
Up to this point, we have seen that the sociological approach contains several and
diverse cultural lenses that helpfully illumine neglected aspects of Pauls financial dealings
with his churches. Yet the inadequacies of many of these explanations, Marshall rightly
asserts, are in measure due to the failure to see the social context of giving and receiving,61 a
sociological lens that has now become the standard among Pauline scholars who investigate
the apostles financial policy.
The first to use the ancient practice of giving and receiving to emit light on Pauls
rationale was E.A. Judge.62 In a variety of publications, he identified at least forty persons in the

61. Enmity, 242.
62. See the various essays in David Scholer, ed., Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal
Essays by E.A. Judge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008) as well as idem, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the
First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation (London: Tyndale Press, 1960)
and The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community, JRH (196061): 415, 12537: 4-15, 125-37. See also Stephen
Mott, The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence, in Current Issues in Biblical and
21
Corinthian church who belonged to the cultivated social elite,63 occupying positions of
elevated status and conferring benefits on Paul and upon the others who came to his meetings
that should have created obligations.64 These well-to-do members, corrupted by the
hierarchical structure of patronal relations, familiarised the Corinthian community with the
practice of patronage. They functioned as patrons by sponsoring private meetings in their
households, providing protection for Paul, and equipping him with all the necessities for
preaching in major cities. Coming under the patronage of these members, according to Judge,
was the apostles regular practice.65 His abstention from Corinthian support and decision to ply
a trade, therefore, emphatically hints at a serious problem.66
Ronald Hock and Peter Marshall have advanced the rich contributions of E.A. Judge,
though in different directions. Hock rebuts Judges assumption that Pauls standard practice
was to reside in the households of the rich. Instead, he lists four options ancient philosophers
Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students (ed. G.F. Hawthorne; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 6072.
63. Scholastic Community: 128-130.
64. St Paul as a Radical Critic of Society, in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by
E.A. Judge (ed. David Scholer; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 196; Social Pattern, 60.
65. St. Paul and Classical Society, JAC 15 (1972): 1936 at 28 and 32.
66. Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents, in Social
Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century (ed. David Scholer; Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2008), 16667. Judge
also states, In the case of his claim not to have accepted maintenance from his audience, it can be shown that he
only refused it to make a point, that he always insisted on his right to support, and did in fact accept it in the
normal way where it was not an issue (Scholastic Community, 136).
22
had to support themselves.67 The first was the practice of charging fees, popularised by
philosophers in general and Sophists in particular. The second, used by philosophers, rhetors,
and even grammar teachers, consisted of living in the household of an opulent patron and
providing instruction for the son(s) of the household as a resident intellectual. The third, less
popular option, was begging, a custom widely practised by Cynic philosophers. And the final
source of income was working a trade, a socially-demeaning and humiliating option in the
Greco-Roman world.68 Of the four, Hock concludes (against Judge) that Pauls normal practice
was to ply a trade, whereas the Corinthians probably expected him to enter the households of
the well-to-do.69 To their great dismay, however, Paul opted to work in order to circumvent
their socially-binding patronage.
Marshall builds on the work of Judge in a more positive manner, adding a higher degree
of sophistication to the general thesis of his Doktorvater. He surmises that the offer of a gift by
certain wealthy Corinthians was in fact an offer of friendship.70 But when closely inspected,
their generous gift, offered under the guise of friendship, was in reality an attempt to create
an obligatory, patron-client relationship. Since this sort of patronal friendship carried
unwanted ties of obligation, Paul quickly refused the offer of his would-be benefactors. For, in

68. Social Context, 5259.
69. According to Hock, residing at the homes of the wealthy was also the practice of Pauls opponents (Social
Context, 65).
70. Enmity, 232.
23
the ancient world, accepting a gift obliged a person to the initial giver and required the return
of a counter-gift in order not to lose face in society, an exchange that often spiralled into a
competitive match of challenge and riposte to maintain the upper-hand over the other.71 In
this context, Pauls denial of support engendered a critical response from opulent givers. They
construed it as a refusal of friendship and therefore an acceptance of enmity, since to
repudiate a gift in antiquity belittled the honour and status of the one who offered it.72 Indeed,
it was comparable to declaring war.73 The fact that Paul accepted Philippian gifts only
amplified the Corinthians resentment towards their apostle, a resentment that, for Marshall,
can be heard in the supposed rejoinders of 1 Cor. 9 and 2 Cor. 11-12.74
The dissimilar arguments promoted by Hock and Marshall, which find their genesis in
the work of E.A. Judge, can be distilled into a single sentence: Paul refused Corinthian support
to escape the obligations of a patron-client relationship; he will not become their client
because he is actually their patron. This argument has become commonplace in Pauline
scholarship and has indeed brought us a step closer to discovering the reason for Pauls
71. Enmity, 113.

72. Enmity, 1321.
73. Enmity, 2; cf. also Marcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies (trans. W.D.
Halls; London: Routledge, 1990), 13.
74. Enmity, 284. We will challenge this assumption in Chapter 4, section 4.1.
24
refusal.75 Nevertheless, this popular approach exhibits several exegetical, social-historical, and
even philosophical deficiencies which cripples, if not completely nullifies, its methodological
legitimacy.
The first is that Paul avoids debt. He preemptively cuts obligatory ties by refusing the
Corinthians gift. But does Paul actually evade debt and obligation? Some passages suggest that
the complete opposite is true, that he, like other ancient writers, actually condones obligatory
relationships (cf. 2:25-30; 4:10-20).76 Does not the Patronal approach, then, impose modern
ideals of autonomy onto Pauls ancient gift-exchange relationships? Does it not force the
modern pure gift into the apostles hands, so that if a hint of self-interest or obligation
appears, then that gift can no longer be called a gift? Modern ideals of autonomy and self-
sufficiency, as we will demonstrate, can certainly cloud an ancient vision of gift.
75. Although many of these works contain slight modifications, the general thread of the patronal argument is
maintained: John Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992); Andrew Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical
Study of 1 Corinthians 16 (AGJU 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 3136; Peterman, Gift Exchange, 89, 16274; Timothy Carter,
Big Men in Corinth, JSNT 66 (1997): 4571 at 63-64, 67; Christopher Forbes, Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony:
Pauls Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric, NTS 32 (1986): 130 at 14-15; Horrell, Social Ethos, 210
16; Dale Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1990), 13839; Lincoln Galloway, Freedom in the Gospel: Pauls Exemplum in 1 Cor 9 in Conversation with the Discourses of
Epictetus and Philo (CBET; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 177; Clarence Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean
and Early Christian Psychagogy (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 26970. The most notable commentators who subscribe to this
reconstruction are Fee, First Corinthians, 410, 415, 417, 422; Victor Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; New York:
Doubleday, 1984), 50708; Thiselton, Corinthians, 68990.
76. We will support this bold claim in Chapter 3.
25
The second problem is that money represents patronage. Since the Corinthians offered
money, one unspoken assumption is that they attempted to patronise Paul. For, in the ancient
world, patrons gave money to clients, and clients never offered money as a return to their
patron. But does giving money make a person a patron? Assuming that it does so denies the
fluidity of symbolic capital.77 Contrary to modern thinking, money does not always exist as
the higher-value commodity. Its value depends on the context. For instance, a higher value is
attached to the knowledge of teachers than the payment of pupils. And in the same way,
spiritual goods in the divine economy carry a higher value than material payments (cf. 1 Cor.
9:11, 14; Rom. 15:27). So it cannot be that money necessarily represents patronage. It functions
within other gift-exchange relationships in contradistinction to the patron-client bond.
The third issue is the claim that the Corinthians gift makes them patrons. By
promoting this view, advocates presuppose that a client, by giving a gift in return for one
received, can be promoted to the social position of a patron, while the initial giver, after
accepting the return gift, is demoted to the position of a client. Although they do not
knowingly espouse this presupposition, it is the implication of applying the patron-client
model to Pauls gift-giving relationship with the Corinthians. For an exegetical investigation
confirms that the apostle gave (or, we shall argue, passed on) the initial gift of the gospel, while
77. To use Pierre Bourdieus terminology in The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), 11221.
26
the Corinthians reciprocated with money as a counter-gift. That would make Paul the patron
(from their perspective), and the Corinthians the clients. Consequently, if the Corinthians
furnished a return gift, it would not create what Zeba Crook calls an ontological shift.78 That
never occurred in the ancient world, and that certainly would not have happened if Paul
accepted Corinthian support. It would have been a clients return to their patron, or, perhaps
better, a pupils return to their teacher (from the Corinthians perspective).79
This loophole in the patron-client model calls its legitimacy for analysing Pauline texts
into question, not least because it forces every form of exchange into the mould of the patron-
client relationship and neglects the wide range of distinct, gift-exchange relationships in the
Greco-Roman world (i.e., father-child, friend-friend, teacher-pupil, etc.).80
The last, most detrimental deficiency is that it can only account for two parties: the
patron and the client. But what about God? God is excluded. Only two-way exchanges can be
analysed. Yet God is a vital third party of every relationship in the economy of . He is the
essential component that we mentioned in the introduction that no approach has factored into
Pauls policy. But we will show that God is the missing link. When his divine role is factored
78. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean
(BZNW 130; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 58.
79. In Chapters 4 and 5, we will attempt to unearth the relational pattern that the Corinthians expected to
share with Paul and, against Hock, contend that they, as pupils, most likely desired to support him as their
teacher the first option philosophers had to support themselves.
80. These different relationships will be outlined in Chapter 2, section 1.2.
27
into Pauls gift-giving relationships, it radically alters the rules of exchange among human
interlocutors and further confirms the interpretive limitations of the patron-client model.
1.6. Summary
How, then, do these approaches measure up to the direct evidence we have? For the
reasons noted after each section, the psychological and economical approaches can be rejected
out of hand, while the approaches pertaining to rabbinic tradition, itinerant philosophers, and
itinerant missionaries are certainly feasible but highly unlikely. The most convincing attempts,
at least according to our analysis, are the moral/ethical, theological, and patronal approaches,
for they rightly emphasise Pauls desire to disaffiliate himself from the less credible practices
of Sophists or greedy teachers (moral/ethical), perceptively link the spiritual maturity of his
churches with the apostles financial decisions (theological; specifically Savages view), and
admirably locate Paul in the ancient context of giving and receiving (patronal relations).
And yet, even these approaches are fraught with problems. The moral/ethical approach
introduces modern ideals into Pauls ancient thinking, supposing that a material return denies
the fundamental concept of grace in the gospel. Underlying this logic, however, is the modern
celebration of unilateral giving and a denigration of social reciprocity, which is ironically a
cause for mourning in antiquity. Similarly, the modern ideals held by the Patronal approach
cause it to misunderstand not only gift-exchange in antiquity but also Pauls specific gift-
28
giving relationships with his churches. More than this, it excludes God, the crucial third party,
from those exchanges. This divine exclusion also appears in the theological approach. Savage
brilliantly connects partnership in suffering with becoming partners in giving, with the act of
co-suffering with Paul as an indication of spiritual maturity which permits entrance into a gift-
giving relationship with him. But Savage does not situate this partnership in the ancient
context of giving and receiving, nor does he incorporate God as the crucial third party of Pauls
policy. Even so, he has broken new ground in the discussion, and we intend to build on his
findings.
To do so, we will combine sociology and theology into a single approach. For the
overview of approaches has hopefully shown the necessity to account for the sociological
dimensions of Pauls theology as well as the theological dimensions of Pauls sociology, with a
particular focus on giving and receiving. This dialectical relationship between sociology and
theology will not only demonstrate that Paul, as a theologian, engaged in and influenced the
social practices of his cultural milieu, but that his social context also naturally influenced his
theology. Both played a pivotal role in constructing Pauls monetary policy. This fresh angle on
the familiar can therefore be called a socio-theological approach.
29
2. Offering a Combined Alternative A Socio-Theological Approach
Before expounding the precise nature and anticipated outcomes of this approach, it is worth
briefly considering the complicated relationship between sociology and theology.
2.1. Sociology and Theology Friends or Foes?
These disciplines share a checkered history of methodological distrust.81 Theologians
have accused sociologists of producing empiricist techniques that reductionistically
misinterpret religious phenomena, whereas sociologists have accused theologians of unjustly
legislating what questions may be asked of the text.82 Among Pauline scholars, especially since
the renewal of interest in social history in the 1970s,83 the salient works of Gerd Theissen,84
Wayne Meeks,85 and John Gager86 have done much to allay the relational tension between
81. See the seminal article by Robin Scroggs, The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: The
Present State of Research, NTS 26 (1980): 16479.
82. See, for example, the sharp criticisms made by John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular
Reason (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 51143 and David Martin, Jesus Christ and Modern Sociology, in Crisis in
Christology (ed. W.R. Farmer; Livonia, MI: Dove, 1995), 3946. See also Robin Gill, The Social Context of Theology: A
Methodological Enquiry (London: Mowbrays, 1975); idem, Theology and Sociology: A Reader (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1987).
83. Methodologically speaking, there is no distinction between sociology and history. In fact, Horrell contends
that we should abandon the unsustainable attempt to distinguish and separate historical and sociological
research. Such a division is both intellectually untenable and practically unhelpful. The value of sociological
approaches, Horrell suggests, is not to stand as an alternative, but rather to challenge, to broaden and to
reformulate the methods of historical criticism (Social Ethos, 30; contra Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the New
Testament: An Appraisal [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990], 4).
84. Social Setting.
85. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).
86. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975).
30
sociology and theology (though critical voices may still be heard).87 In any case, many have
come to realise the theological payoff sociology can provide, allowing a new set of questions to
be put to the text and reaping exegetical insights as a result.88 As such, socio-historical works
no longer demand a methodological atheism. To the contrary, their work has the capacity to
enhance our understanding of Pauline theology.89 The long, complicated relationship between
sociology and theology has therefore recently improved. They now exist peaceably as friends
rather than antagonistically as foes.
2.2. The Nature of this Approach
Intrinsic to the socio-theological approach is the dialectical relationship between Pauls
social context and his theology of giving and receiving. But to present a more refined
definition of this approach, it needs to be broken down into its two composite parts: the social
and the theological.
87. Especially over the use of sociological models to examine Pauline churches (e.g., Bengt Holmberg,
Sociological Versus Theological Analysis of the Question Concerning a Pauline Church Order, in Die Paulinische
Literatur und Theologie [ed. Sigfred Pedersen; Aros: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980], 187200; Clarke, Leadership, 4
n12).
88. As evident from the recent works of Jerome Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1991), 97122; Philip Esler, Modelling Early Christianity (London: Routledge, 1995); Gerd Theissen,
Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993);
Horrell, Social Ethos.
89. See, for example, Wayne Meeks, The Social Context of Pauline Theology, Int 36 (1982): 26677; Andrew
Clarke, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership (LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2008).
31
2.2.1. The Social Aspect
Paul and his churches were embedded within the cultural fabric of society. They
therefore would have been influenced by the expectations and apprehensions of gift-exchange
in antiquity. This is not to say that Paul or his churches did not deviate from these social
norms. They certainly did. The gospel that dictated their lifestyle was, after all, counter-
cultural.90 But neither should we assume that they remained oblivious to the culturally-
acceptable practices around them. As adherents of the patronal approach have argued, they
would have been aware of the need to reciprocate benefits, the enmity created by refusing a
gift, and the social debt incurred by accepting a favour. They would also have known about the
several options teachers and philosophers had to earn a living as well as the negative and
positive consequences of each. And they would have been exposed to the deceitful practices of
those who financially exploited others. All these social elements must be taken into account.
As we mentioned earlier, however, the patronal approach exhibits several exegetical,
social-historical, and even philosophical deficiencies in its arguments. We therefore need to
reevaluate Pauls social context in the light of a careful, exegetical study of his financial policy.
In particular, the rules of exchange in society need to be revisited and compared to the
patterns of exchange between Paul and his churches. Once that occurs, it will become evident
that the widely-held patronal model, which has misled the majority of Pauline scholars, may
90. In Chapter 4, however, we will show that this was definitely not the case with the Corinthian church.
32
be replaced with a more fitting relational pattern, one which leaves room for a third party and
offers a more cogent reason for Pauls refusal and acceptance of support. More than this, the
three-way relational pattern illumines other quandaries of his policy, such as the reason why
he always refused when initially entering a city and why he declared that he would never
receive Corinthian support.
2.2.2. The Theological Aspect
Paul has a theology of giving and receiving. Although this claim will become clearer
after an exegetical and theological analysis of relevant passages is carried out, we can
anticipate some of those conclusions here. At the core of this theology of gift is a fundamental
relational pattern, one which incorporates God into every gift-giving relationship in the divine
economy. He therefore becomes the ultimate giver of every gift on the human level, and this
naturally recalibrates two-way exchanges into three-way transactions, with God as the source
and Paul and his churches as mediators of his divine commodity. Surprisingly, only a few
Pauline scholars mention Gods role in Pauls monetary dealings,91 but none employ the three-
way relational pattern between God, Paul, and his churches to discover the rationale behind
his aberrant policy. But can this triangulated relationship unlock the rationale for Pauls
91. We will explicitly interact with these scholars in Chapter 3.

33
financial dealings with the Philippians and the Corinthians as a consistent practice and
effectively resolve the numerous issues produced by earlier approaches?
2.3. The Anticipated Outcomes of this Approach
Having briefly sketched the socio-theological approach, which will be more sharply
defined in subsequent chapters, we intend to probe the multifaceted character of Pauls policy.
We will do so by challenging the commonly held assumptions that the Corinthians attempted
to oblige Paul to himself, that Paul unpredictably accepted and refused gifts, that his gift-
giving relationship with the Philippians was an exception to the norm, that he grudgingly
accepted from Philippi, and that he eradicated obligation and self-interest from Christian gift-
giving. We will also explore new territory, determining whether the Philippians fellow-
suffering with Paul led to a sharing in giving and receiving, and if God, as a third party, plays a
part in their partnership of giving and suffering. Conversely, we will examine the reason for
the lack of suffering among the Corinthians, ascertain the cause of their spiritual immaturity,
and then discover whether or not their practical lifestyle can be linked to Pauls refusal.
Furthermore, against the majority of Philippian scholars, we will posit a theological intention
behind Pauls socially-offensive thanklessness in Phil. 4:10-20.
34
3. The Trajectory of this Study
To arrive at the anticipated outcomes of the socio-theological approach, this study will set Pauls
operative gift-giving relationship with the Philippians in comparison to the inoperative gift-
giving relationship with the Corinthians in order to uncover the social and theological
rationale behind his fiscal policy. Thus, the following chapters will be outlined as follows:
Chapter 2 begins by contextualising Paul in his ancient socio-economic and ideological
climate. Two intentions drive this chapter, both levelled against the patronal and
moral/ethical approach. The first is to question the legitimacy of appraising every gift-
exchange relationship in Paul through the patron-client framework. We will do so by
demonstrating the complexity of patronage, benefaction, and reciprocity and the variety of
distinct gift-exchange relationships in antiquity. The second intention will be to situate Paul
within ancient, rather than modern, ideals on gift, by introducing Seneca, a suitable dialogue
partner on the nature of obligation and self-interest in giving. The main purpose of this
chapter will be to establish a reference point that adds argumentative force to the overall
contention of this thesis.
Chapters 3-5 will be a social-historical, exegetical, and theological analysis of pertinent
Pauline texts on financial support. Chapter 3 will focus on the special relationship with the
Philippians, extracting key relational elements from Phil. 1, 2:25-30, and 4:10-20 which granted
35
them entrance into a partnership of gift with Paul. After determining the shape of this well-
functioning gift-exchange relationship, Chapters 4 and 5 will then turn to investigate the lack
thereof with the Corinthians. In particular, Chapter 4 will locate the church within the social
ethos of Corinth to assess whether they conformed to their cultural surrounding, whether this
cultural conformity made them spiritually immature, and whether their spiritual immaturity
compelled Paul to refuse their gift. Thereafter, the social and theological dimensions of his
policy in 1 Cor. 9 and 1 Thess. 2 will be investigated. Chapter 5 will analyse 2 Cor. 10-12,
discerning the sort of gift-giving relationship that the Corinthians expected to have with their
apostle and assessing the socio-theological reason for his refusal, with particular attention on
his adamant insistence never to accept their support (2 Cor. 11:9, 12; 12:13-14). It will become
clear that these exegetical chapters have two primary targets in their sight, the patronal
approach and overtly modern interpretations of Pauls financial relationships.
Chapter 6 will summarise the overall thesis of this study and draw out its benefits for
comprehending Pauls theology of giving and receiving in other contexts.
36
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXTUALISING PAUL
Introduction
Context is everything. Without it, an argument will be lost in a sea of subjective hypotheses,
the interpretation of a text will be subject to a host of historical inaccuracies, and a historical
figure will be separated from the very forces that influence his or her own thinking. Context
gives shape to social beings in particular environments, and the same can certainly be said of
Paul. In fact, contextualising the apostle within his socio-economic and ideological climate will
enlarge our understanding of his theology of giving and receiving in the economy of .
This chapter will therefore unfold in the following way. We will first situate Paul in his
socio-economic climate.1 This will alert us to the complexities of social institutions, such as
patronage, benefaction, and reciprocity, as well as the variety of gift-exchange relationships in
antiquity, which, in turn, will demonstrate that the common interpretation of the patron-
client model can neither appropriately contain nor fully explain the social dynamics of gift-
giving relationships in the Pauline corpus. Then, second, we will locate Paul in his ideological
1. Our focus will not be on the socio-economic level of early Christians. That social ground has been covered
thoroughly and bears little relevance for our purposes. For some of the most recent works on this issue, see
Chapter 1 n18.
37
climate by studying a comparable thinker on gift (Seneca) to act as a point of contemporary
comparison with the apostle. By doing so, we will find that Seneca is a suitable ideologue for
dialogue on gift with Paul. Of particular importance is that both Paul and Seneca add a realistic
edge to their ideal gift-exchange relationships: they equally affirm the presence of certain
elements in giving which are deemed unethical by moderns.
While the exegetical and theological fruitfulness of contextualising Paul will not be
immediately gleaned in this chapter, it will nevertheless operate as a reference point that will
be revisited throughout the course of this study to support its primary argument.
1. Pauls Socio-Economic Climate
1.1. Patronage, Benefaction, and Reciprocity: A Tangled Web of Complexity
Systems of reciprocity, such as Roman patronage (patrocinium) and Greek benefaction
(euergetism), have operated as interpretive frameworks for scholars to analyse and explain
gift-exchange relationships embedded within particular social structures, norms, and values.2
Due to the complexity of these social relationships, however, many NT scholars conflate these
distinct forms of exchange into the single model of patronage or patron-client relations.3
2. John Elliot, Patronage and Clientage, in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (ed. Richard
Rohrbaugh; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 14456 at 150.
3. Two factors most likely caused this general categorisation to arise: first, as Jo-Ann Shelton writes, The
patronage system was one of the most deep-rooted and pervasive aspects of ancient Roman society (As the
Romans Did: A Source Book in Roman Social History [New York: Oxford University Press, 1988], 14); and, second, NT
38
Although this methodological conflation is, to some extent, necessary after all, the purpose
of employing cultural models is to simplify complex realities it nevertheless exhibits two
fundamental flaws. The first is that it overly simplifies the entangled complexity of patronage,
benefaction, and reciprocity, a critique which has been frequently voiced by various scholars,4
while the second is that, by employing the term patronage, these scholars impose (intentionally
or unintentionally) the patron-client relationship in antiquity, with its specific rules of
exchange, onto every gift-giving relationship in the biblical text.
To legitimate this twofold critique, the immediate section will briefly examine three
different entanglements attending the complex web of patronage, benefaction, and the notion
of reciprocity. Then, in section 2, we will outline a variety of exchange relationships in
scholars have been heavily influenced by Richard Saller (Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982]), the edited work of Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (Patronage in Ancient Society
[London: Routledge, 1989]), and S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger (Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and
the Structure of Trust in Society [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984]; S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger,
Patron--Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22
[1980]: 4277), who define patronage broadly enough to include every other form of exchange.
4. Frederick Danker was among the first to raise this concern. It is unfortunate that the narrow term patron-
client relationship should have entered the discussion rather than the more comprehensive term reciprocity
system of which patron-client more accurately describes an ancient subset (Pauls Debt to the Corona of
Demosthenes: A Study of Rhetorical Techniques in Second Corinthians, in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New
Testament Rhetoric in Honour of George A. Kennedy [ed. D.A. Watson; JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1991], 26268 at 230). More recently, Erlend MacGillivray has reiterated Dankers critique, stating, It has been
gradually realized. . .that dependence upon the patronage model and confidence in its comprehensive nature has
issued a far too limiting, even misleading, view of ancient reciprocityignoring and obscuring its polyvalent
nature (Romans 16:2, /, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament
Texts, NovT 53 [2011]: 18399 at 186). For other objections, see Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002), 7; Jonathan Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of
Luke (WUNT 2/259; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 2553.
39
antiquity. The sole intention of both sections will be to expose the illegitimacy of employing
the patron-client relationship as a universal model for every form of social exchange.
1.1.1. Patronage and Benefaction: Identical or Distinct?
The first entanglement that we encounter is whether Roman patronage (patrocinium)
supplanted or coexisted with Greek benefaction (euergetism) as Rome spread into the Greek
East. Scholars are divided on this issue.
Those who view patronage and benefaction as two separate institutions,5 while
acknowledging the similar components of reciprocity, mutual obligations, and recognition,
underscore the following dissimilarities: (i) patronage was comprised of individual
relationships in personal exchange of goods and services,6 whereas euergetism was public
benefaction, given to all citizens;7 (ii) patronage was self-interested and exploitative, while
benefaction, like parenthood, exhibited selflessness for the collective good;8 (iii) patronage
5. Stephan Joubert, One Form of Social Exchange or Two? Euergetism, Patronage, and New Testament
StudiesRoman and Greek Ideas of Patronage, BTB 31 (2001): 1725 at 23; cf. also Donald Engels, Roman Corinth: An
Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 87; Erlend D. MacGillivray, Re-
Evaluating Patronage and Reciprocity in Antiquity and New Testament Studies, JGRChJ 6 (2009): 3781 at 55.
6. Anton Blok, Variations in Patronage, Sociologische Gids 16 (1969): 36578 at 366.
7. Paul Veyne, Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (trans. Brian Pearce; London: Penguin,
1992), 1013, though he does not distinguish patrocinium and euergetism.
8. T.R. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought, CQ 42
(1992): 42136 at 430. Stephan Joubert appeals to Aristotle (Nic. Eth. Books 3-4) and Seneca (De Beneficiis) to support
this argument (cf. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Pauls Collection [WUNT 2/124;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 3751; idem, Coming to Terms with a Neglected Aspect of Ancient Mediterranean
Reciprocity: Senecas Views on Benefit-Exchange in De Beneficiis as the Framework for a Model of Social Exchange,
in Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible: Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina [ed. John J.
Pilch; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 4763).
40
terminology, such as patronus and cliens, took a long time to appear in Greek circles, suggesting
that it must have been distinct from benefaction;9 (iv) although Greeks called the Romans
after they became the dominant force in the East,10 this does not mean that
amounts to patronus;11 rather, it just means that patronage coexisted with other
forms of exchange;12 and (v) literary evidence suggests that Romans and Greeks alike
considered patronage to be a distinctly Roman phenomenon.13
Those who insist that patrocinium supplanted euergetism respond with the following
counter-arguments, each corresponding to the points above: (i) patronage and benefaction
were public and private systems of exchange, the former displayed in community patronage,14
9. Only after the Third Punic War did patronus appear in Greek honorary inscriptions in reference to Roman
officials (cf. J. Touloumakos, Zum rmischen Gemeindepatronats im griechischen Osten, Hermes 11 [1988]: 304
24; Eilers, Patrons, 1718).
10. Andrew Erskine, The Romans as Common Benefactors, Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte 43 (1994): 70
87.
11. J.-L. Ferrary, The Hellenistic World and Roman Political Patronage, in Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture,
History, and Historiography (ed. P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey, and E.S. Gruen; Hellenistic Culture and Society 26;
Berkeley: University of California, 1997), 10519 at 110 and 112. Moreover, Eilers investigates 396 benefaction
inscriptions in the province of Africa Proconsularis, of which only 11 contain the dual appellation of patron and
benefactor (Patrons, 98102, 10508), a title that became more frequent after the first century (cf. E. Rawson, The
Eastern Clientelae of Clodius and the Claudii, Historia 22 [1973]: 21939 at 230). But rather than viewing these rare
instances as confirmation that patronage came to include euergetism, Eilers insists that the title patron was solely
a reward for generosity (Eilers, Patrons, 10708; cf. also Touloumakos, Gemeindepatronats at 318-19).
12. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage in Roman Society: From Republic to Empire, in Patronage in Ancient
Society (ed. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill; London: Routledge, 1989), 6387 at 69.
13. Cicero expected to be honoured by his Greek subordinate with the titles patron and savior, because the
Roman title alone was not satisfying enough (Verr. 2.2.154). Also, many writers criticised Roman patronage (cf.
Lucian, Nigr. 22; Polybius, Hist. 30.18).
14. John Nicols, Patrons of Provinces in the Early Principate: The Case of Bithynia, ZPE 80 (1990): 10181; L.
Harmand, Un aspect social et politique du monde romain: Le Patronat sur les collectivits publiques des origines au Bas-
41
the latter in ritualised friendship;15 (ii) the idea of selfless benefaction is not only a modern
anachronism, which fails to consider the balance of ideolology and reality in the writings of
Aristotle and Seneca,16 but it also falsely assumes that a seemingly selfless practice does not, at
one point or another, operate as a means of exploitation; (iii) even if Roman terminology is
absent or delayed in its appearance in Greek circles, it does not negate the presence of the
practice itself;17 (iv) if some inscriptions contain the dual appellation patron and benefactor,18
then we have some instances in which the terms apply to a single, social phenomenon;19 (v) the
writings of Roman and Greek authors vilifying the practice of patronage as a distinctly Roman
relationship can be explained as promoting ones ideology20 or employing satire.21 In
contradistinction to the opposing view above, then, this position accepts a similarity in
Empire (Publications de la Facult Des Lettres de lUniversit de Clermont, Ser. 2; Paris: Presses universitaires de
France, 1957).
15. G. Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1013.
Osiek even mentions a private correspondence with classicist John Bodel, who notified her of various inscriptions
and literature, which have not been analysed, that evidence Greek private patronage (The Politics of Patronage
and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of the Ways, BTB 39 [2009]: 14352 at 147).
16. See n8 above.
17. M. I. Finley, Politics in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 41; Andrew Wallace-
Hadrill, Patronage, 69. Saller suggests that the infrequent appearance of patronus and cliens in literature lies in
the social inferiority and degradation implied by the words (Personal Patronage, 9). Erich Gruen explains the
absence by contending that [p]atrocinium was not a Roman invention, but that the Romans found a pre-existing
model of patronage already established in the East, which they reinterpreted for their own purposes (The
Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome [CA: University of California Press, 1984], 18384).
18. See n11 above.
19. See Crook, Conversion, 6465.
20. As in the case with Cicero, Verr. 2.2.154 (cf. K. Verboven, Review of Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek
Cities, BMCR 6.19 [2003] http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2003/2003-06-19.html [accessed 05/04/2011]).
21. As in the case of the satirist Lucian of Samosata (cf. Osiek, Politics, 146).
42
substance but dissimilarity in form.22 Roman patrocinium ultimately converged with Greek
euergetism.
This brief sketch reveals the perplexing difficulty in determining the convergence or
divergence of patronage and benefaction. These social practices, to be sure, shared general,
structural similarities, such as reciprocal exchange, mutual obligations, and honour, but they
also retained their distinct institutional forms of exchange, regardless of the appearance of
specific terminology. In fact, the stress on terminology is misleading. The same terms can cover
a range of different forms/institutions, and different terms can be applied to the same
forms/institutions. In any case, we hope that the intricacy and inconclusiveness of this
discussion confirms the obvious problem with stretching the patron-client relationship over
every form of exchange without any qualification.23 It is much more complicated than that.
1.1.2. Defining Patronage
The second entanglement of social exchange concerns the definition of patronage. The
issue is that patronage lends itself to limitless variations and distinctions, for it shares
characteristics with other categories of relations into which it merges.24 This makes it nearly
22. John Nicols, Pliny and the Patronage of Communities, Hermes 108 (1980): 36585 at 380, who follows the
seminal work of Matthias Gelzer, The Roman Nobility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969) and E. Badian, Foreign
Clientelae (26470 B.C.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
23. E.g., Halvor Moxnes, Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts, in The Social World of
Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. Jerome Neyrey; Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991), 24168; Bruce Winter,
Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 4260.
24. Saller, Personal Patronage, 1.
43
impossible to pin down a universal definition of patronage,25 a fact attested to by the perennial
debate among classicists and social historians.26
At the core of this debate is the appropriate source for ones definition of patrocinium.
The classical approach derives its definition from ancient sources, while the social historical
approach applies sociological theories to ancient texts in order to produce a transcultural
definition. The most notable yet highly criticized socio-historical definition is that of Richard
Saller. He contends that a patron-client relationship is (i) reciprocal; (ii) asymmetrical; and (iii)
long-term,27 a threefold structure which has become widespread, even commonplace, among
NT scholars.28
While acknowledging the value of Sallers analysis, Claude Eilers nevertheless
challenges this popular definition,29 insisting that it erroneously permits any relationship that
25. Nicols, Patronage, 365: Few historians would disagree with the statement that patronage is one of the
most important, and yet elusive bonds in Roman society. . .it is not easy to define what patronage is.
26. In addition to the references on Roman patrocinium cited in the previous section, see G.E.M de Ste. Croix,
Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage, BJS 5 (1954): 3348; Koenraad Verboven, The Economy of Friends: Economic
Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic (Brussels: Latomus, 2002); Theodor Mommsen, Das rmische
Gastrecht und die rmische Clientel, in Rmische Forschungen (2 vols.; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,
1864), 1.32690; A. Brunt, Clientela, in The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1988), 382442.
Other helpful studies on socio-historical patronage include: S.W. Schmidt, et al., Friends, Followers, and Factions:
A Reader in Political Clientelism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); E. Gellner and J. Waterbury, eds.,
Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Duckworth, 1977).
27. Personal Patronage, 1. Two other components are usually added: (iv) a voluntary relationship; and (v) a
relationship that can also exist among individuals and communities, even between communities (cf. Miriam
Griffin, Of Clients and Patrons, CR 40 (1990): 399403 at 400).
28. See, for example, Chow, Patronage and Power, 3133.
29. Cf. also Griffin, Patrons.
44
meets this threefold criterion to be labelled patronage, even relationships, such as suffragium-
patronage and literary patronage, which were not recognized by the Roman world as
patrocinium. Sallers approach, according to Eilers, robs patronage of its specificity and lacks
correct knowledge of the Roman world, which is necessary to develop a general definition.30 In
the end, Eilers writes, Definitions are valuable not only for what they include, but also for
what they exclude. The above definition disallows almost nothing. Our pullover has been
stretched into a circus tent.31 But as significant as Eilers work may be, it, too, has not escaped
scholarly assail,32 leaving the definition of patronage open for discussion.
It seems, however, that both approaches are speaking right pass each other. The cause
of this miscommunication is that Eilers, for instance, scrutinizes patrocinium from an emic
perspective, which greatly depends on the actual term itself, but Saller investigates the
institution from an etic perspective, which emphasises the general social dynamics of
patrocinium and can therefore apply them to other relational forms.33
30. Patrons, 118; cf. also Jonathan Marshall, Jesus, 4344.

31. Patrons, 7.
32. Verboven, Review of Claude Eilers: Eilers. . .firmly places himself in the classical tradition. The reasons
why are revealed in the introduction, where he makes a number of objections to the sociological concept of
patronage. Not all arguments are to the point, and Eilers doesnt always seem to have a sufficient grip on the
concept itself.
33. See Sydel Silverman, Patronage as Myth, in Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (ed. E. Gellner and J.
Waterbury; London: Duckworth, 1977), 719 at 10, who suggests that an etic and emic point of view, and the
interrelation between the two, are necessary to define the phenomenon of patronage.
45
At any rate, the lack of resolution of this discussion has led many to turn their attention
to the broader notion of reciprocity of which both patrocinium and euergetism were a part
as a more promising way to describe social interchange.
1.1.3. The Shape of Reciprocity
Reciprocity marks the third and final entanglement. Generally speaking, classicists and
NT scholars adopt one of two methodological approaches in appraising the precise contours of
reciprocity. Some search the literary works of Greek authors, ranging from the 8th to 3rd
century B.C., to arrive at a definition,34 while others rely on Roman authors, such as Cicero
(106-43 B.C.), Seneca (4 B.C.-A.D. 65), and Dio Chrysostom (A.D. 40-120), as well as inscriptional
evidence.35 But the problem with ancient sources is that they lack terminological precision and
fail to explain the various factors, ideologies, and social forces involved in antiquity,36 and can
thus only offer a broad definition such as Richard Seafords: Reciprocity is the principle and
practice of voluntary requital, of benefit for benefit (positive reciprocity) or harm for harm
34. The most substantial work on this topic is Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford,
eds., Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), which adequately demonstrates the
diversity of Greek thought on reciprocity.
35. According to Danker (Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St.
Louis: Clayton, 1982), 2829) and Harrison (Pauls Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context [WUNT 2/172;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003], 24), this sort of evidence has the advantage of presenting a non-lite perspective,
while literary works only possess a view from the top down.
36. A point made by Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 1415.
46
(negative reciprocity).37 Recognising this generality, classicists and NT scholars adopt a third
method by applying cross-cultural, anthropological taxonomies in order to add form to the
amorphous phenomenon of ancient reciprocity.38
Marshall Sahlins has produced the most notable taxonomy of reciprocity, manifested in
three genres: (i) general reciprocity, occurring among kinship and friends, exhibits unilateral
and altruistic giving of pure gifts, with a discreet yet indefinite expectation of a return; (ii)
balanced reciprocity is a less personal and calculable exchange of commensurate gifts without
delay, attended by the economic interests of each party; and (iii) negative reciprocity features
overt exploitation, with each party looking to maximise their own utility at the others
expense.39
Yet Sahlins threefold taxonomy has been modified by Wolfgang and Ekkehard
Stegemann,40 who emphasise the social status of the interlocutors involved. Four types of
reciprocal exchange are postulated: (i) familial reciprocity (egalitarian status, non-
37. Introduction, in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (ed. C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, and R. Seaford; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998), 111 at 1.
38. Many scholars nevertheless discourage the use of cross-cultural models, insisting that they better
represent the primitive culture of hunter and gatherer tribes than the ancient culture of the Greco-Roman
world, with its centralised form of government (e.g., Zeba Crook, Reflections on Culture and Social-Scientific
Models, JBL 124 [2005]: 51520 at 515-16; cf. also the forthright critique of E.A. Judge, Rank and Status in the
World of the Caesars and St Paul, in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge
[ed. David Scholer; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008], 140).
39. Stone Age Economics (NY: Aldine, 1972), 19396.
40. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (trans. O.C. Dean Jr.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1999), 36; cf. also George Dalton, ed., Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi [Boston: Beacon,
1968], esp. ch. 1 and 7). Sahlins, Polanyi, and the Stegemanns nevertheless build on the well-known work of
Marcel Mauss, The Gift.
47
competitive);41 (ii) balanced reciprocity (equal status, symmetrical relationship); (iii) general
reciprocity (unequal status, asymmetrical relationship); and (iv) negative reciprocity (hostile
relationship).42 The most relevant outcome of this model especially for the purposes of this
study is that it offers a categorical distinction between gift exchange and patron-client
relations, subsuming the former under balanced reciprocity and the latter under general
reciprocity.43
Zeba Crook helpfully parses this categorical distinction between gift exchange and
patronage. He explains that a gift is not patronage, since receiving a gift does not make one a
client. Conversely, he continues, reciprocating a benefaction on the part of a client does not
result in an ontological shift in which patron or benefactor suddenly becomes client and vice
versa.44 Gift, then, for Crook, belongs to the realm of equals or close equals and requires a
counter-gift of equal or greater value (i.e., balanced reciprocity),45 whereas benefaction and
patronage46 belong to the realm of unequals and necessitate a return of honour, gratitude,
41. This needs to be qualified. Obviously, a father and a child were unequal in status, but, in comparison to
those in the outside world, they shared a closer proximity of social position.
42. Jesus Movement, 36.
43. Sahlins collapses both under general reciprocity, insofar as the exchanges of patrons and clients are not
commensurate in worth.
44. Conversion, 58. By benefaction, Crook refers to patronage, since he recognises their difference but affirms
that they are often extraordinarily difficult to distinguish from one another (ibid, 66).
45. One wonders how participants would appraise the value of each others gifts, though. Would good advice
count as much as or more than saving a friends life? If so, who decides?
46. These social institutions are not identical for Crook, but, because of their multiple commonalities, he
places both under general reciprocity (Conversion, 59).
48
and loyalty (i.e., general reciprocity).47 Gift exchange, therefore, features two (more or less)
equal parties, who share a mutual obligation to give to one another and who take turns being
the one in debt to the other, while dependent clients were primarily obliged to lite patrons or
benefactors, with both parties residing in asymmetrically-fixed social positions. No
ontological shift in status occurs when a client furnishes a return to a patron. The client
remains a client and the patron a patron.
Yet the patronal interpretation, which seems to be ubiquitous among Pauline scholars,
assumes, albeit unconsciously, that a client could become a patron after giving a counter-gift,
since they contend that the Corinthians attempted to become Pauls patron by offering him a
gift with strings attached. But if the patron-client model is applied to their relationship, then
Paul would obviously represent the patron. After all, he is the higher-status apostle who gave the
initial gift of the gospel to them. Providing a return, then, would not transform the ontology of
the Corinthians into patrons. Far from it. It would instead solidify their role as dependent
clients, whose duty it is to reciprocate gratitude, loyalty, and honour. In Chapter 4 and 5, we
will consider whether the patron-client model is even applicable to the apostles financial
dealings with his churches. For the time being, we only highlight the necessity for a
categorical distinction to be made between being in debt (or social obligation) to another in
47. Nevertheless, see Alan Kirk, Karl Polanyi, Marshall Sahlins, and the Study of Ancient Social Relations,
JBL 126 (2007): 18291, who presents a perceptive challenge to Crooks dependence on and the validity of the
Stegemanns model.
49
gift exchange and becoming a dependent client in a patronage relationship. The two are not
synonymous.
1.1.4. Summary
The main endeavour of this section was to relay the complexities of social exchange
rather than resolve them by describing three complex issues: (i) the identical or disparate
nature of patrocinium and euergetism, (ii) the definition of patronage, and (iii) the shape of
reciprocity. In so doing, we sought to confirm the claim with which we began, that the patron-
client model, as a conflation of all forms of social exchange, is an oversimplification that not
only confuses social history but also wrongly imposes a specific relational pattern, with its
particular rules of exchange, onto relationships that more accurately mirror other patterns of
reciprocal exchange in antiquity.48 In the end, gifts need a historical context before being
situated in a particular mould. Natalie Zemon Daviss assessment of the patterns of gift-giving
in sixteenth-century France is instructive here. The spirit of gifts was carried out not by
names alone, but by whole situations.49 The historical situation of any given relationship must
therefore be evaluated. Who is giving, and who is returning? Are they equal or unequal? And
what is the relational sphere in which they are exchanging? These questions concerning the
48. As a result, many NT scholars have taken, what Harrison calls, a city by city approach (Pauls Language of
Grace, 16 n63), specifically analysing patron-client and/or benefactor-beneficiary relations in specific geographic
locations (e.g., Holland Hendrix, Benefactor/Patronage Networks in the Urban Environment: Evidence from
Thessalonica, Semeia 56 [1992]: 3958; Lukas Bormann, Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus
[NovTSup 78; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995]).
49. The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin, 2000), 14.
50
route of the gift, the status of participants, and the relational sphere in which they participate
can be better assessed by exploring the various gift-exchange relationships in the Greco-
Roman world and their distinct social dynamics, to which we now turn.
1.2. Patterns of Reciprocal Exchange in the Ancient World
The patron-client relationship was one of many ancient forms of reciprocal exchange.
Though many NT scholars affirm this in theory, they deny it in practice. The purpose of this
section, therefore, will be to offer a general description of the various relationships in the
Greco-Roman world that involved giving and receiving, with the twofold intention of, first,
emphasising the distinct nature of each relationship and then, second, offering a more suitable
model through which to examine Pauls financial dealings with his churches.
1.2.1. Patron-Client
This reciprocal exchange features two asymmetrical parties with varying degrees of
power, resources, and responsibilities.50 The patron possessed the tangible means to express
his influence by meeting the social, economic, and political needs of the client, whereas the
client, though unable to reciprocate in kind, provided what the patron desired, namely, honour,
loyalty, political allegiance, and public gratitude. Although both parties were bound by social
50. Patron-client relations appeared in several different shapes: Emperor/empire; landlord/tenant;

patrician/freedman; patron/collegia; patron/communities; patron/free-born individuals of lower social standing;
and patronage in legal advocacy.
51
obligation and the inner force of honour,51 this relationship may actually have been an
exploitative transaction couched in terms of personal loyalty or reciprocity.52 In any case, the
client was obliged to express gratitude, and the patron, at least in theory, was obligated to
fulfil his responsibilities to his clients and promote their well-being.53
1.2.2. Friend-Friend
Aristotle identifies three kinds of friendships: those based on utility, pleasure, and
virtue.54 Of the three, he considers the bond of virtue to be the perfect form [] of
friendship,55 being grounded in love rather than gain or enjoyment.56 This virtuous friendship
consists of two parties possessing one soul ( ) and sharing all things in common
( ), such that this sort of friendship is equality ( ). In line with
Aristotle, Cicero maintains that friends think the same thing57 and participate in reciprocal
exchange.58 These relational characteristics, although representing ideology rather than
51. Jonathan Marshall, Jesus, 45.

52. Peter Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), 58.
53. Engels, Roman Corinth, 87. See Nicols, Patronage, 377, 385, who distinguishes between patronage in theory
and patronage in practice.
54. Nic. Eth. 8.3.1-9. For other ancient perspectives, see the various essays in John T. Fitzgerald, ed., Greco-Roman
Perspectives on Friendship (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997).
55. Nic. Eth. 8.3.6.
56. Nic. Eth. 7.3.1-2.
57. Amic. 15; cf. Planc. 5.
58. Amic. 26, 58; cf. Off. 1.15.47-48; 2.17.59; Aristotle, Nic. Eth. 8.13.8-9; 8.14.3; 9.2.3.
52
reality,59 differentiate friendship from other relational patterns. To be sure, a single definition
of ancient friendship is, at the moment, nonexistent, especially since ancient friendship
assumed diverse forms in the classical world.60 Nevertheless, the core of the relationship could
be understood as two-way, reciprocal exchange of gifts, which was characterised as a mutually
intimate, obliging, and loving bond among more or less equal parties marked by native
solidarity rather than kinship ties.61
1.2.3. Parent-Child
The Greco-Roman household was the basis of social obligations, the means by and
through which both status and wealth were essentially transmitted.62 The father (paterfamilias)
especially played a major role in the family, financially supporting and exercising authority
over his children, known as patria potestas. In return, children were obliged to reciprocate
gratitude, loyalty, honour, and even provision when their parents became unable to support
59. Classicists debate whether fluidity existed between patronage and friendship, insofar as the congenial title
of friend often disguised the humiliating label client (cf. Saller, Personal Patronage, 1115; David Konstan,
Patrons and Friends, CP 90 [1995]: 32842; P.A. Brunt, Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic, Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society 11 [1965]: 120).
60. Such as, for example, political friends, philosophic friends, and fictive-kinship friends.
61. See David Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 1. Much
debate, however, revolves around the issue of whether friendship actually existed separately from kinship,
citizenship, and other roles in antiquity (cf. Julian Pitt-Rivers, The Kith and the Kin, in The Character of Kinship
[ed. Jack Goody; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], 89105 at 90).
62. Tim G. Parkin and Arthur J. Pomeroy, eds., Roman Social History: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 2007), 72.
53
themselves, known as pietas (i.e., the obligation to fulfil ones duties).63 As such, the father-child
relationship was an asymmetrical, ongoing circle of exchange, sealed by the bond of kinship
and maintained by mutual obligations towards one another. However, the combination of the
fathers authority as paterfamilias over the child, the etymological connection between pater
and patronus,64 and ancient writers who occasionally parallel patronage with kinship has led
many NT scholars to blur the lines between the two relationships. They rhetoricise the father-
child relationship as a patron-client alliance and thereby unreasonably compound two distinct
entities.65 For instance, patrons and clients enact a bond voluntarily and on the basis of utility,
with clients having the right to transfer their allegiance to another patron, but the father and
child enter into relationship by necessity66 and on the basis of familial love,67 with the
63. Because they owed their existence and upbringing to their parents, and because they received financial
help throughout their lifetime, children accrued a debt to support them in their old age (cf. Aristotle, Nic. Eth.
9.2.7-10; Cicero, Off. 1.17.58, 45.160; Seneca, Ben. 6.23.5).
64. For example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus points out that Roman patrons ought to do for their clients what
fathers do for their sons with regard both to money and to the contracts that are related to money (Rom. Ant.
2.10.1). But this is only a parallel and not meant to be understood as making the two kinds of relationship
identical. Also, although the personal title Pater Patriae is widely attested in epigraphic, numismatic, literary
evidence as an honorific title accorded to Roman emperors, we wonder if the impersonal designation patronus was
ever applied to fathers in antiquity? But this exceeds the boundaries of this chapter.
65. As will be shown in Chapter 5, this is a prevalent practice among NT scholars when interpreting 2 Cor.
12:14 (For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children) in light of Pauls
refusal of the Corinthians gift.
66. Of course, some have proposed a form of patronage which was hereditary (Saller, Personal Patronage, 186
87), but this, according to Eilers, is more complex than some have made it seem (cf. Patrons, 6183).
67. Seneca writes that a duty is performed by a son, or a wife, or by persons that are stirred by the ties of
kinship, which impels them to bear aid (Ben. 3.18.1).
54
theoretical threat of death if the child transferred his/her allegiance to another other than
his/her own father.68
1.2.4. Teacher-Pupil
For an advanced education, students travelled to metropolitan cities to seek out a
teacher of grammar (grammaticus) or rhetoric (rhetor).69 If a student desired to enter
professional and political life, they were sent to the schools of the Sophists,70 who were famous
for their oratorical skills.71 Alternatively, they could hire a private tutor.72 In either case, most
educators followed the regular pattern of charging their students a fee for their teaching,73
though the Sophists were frequently accused of exploitation.74 Itinerant Sophists and teachers
also made grand entrances into cities, where they would deliver speeches, be surrounded by
throngs of interested pupils, and not incur a single expense.75 Consequently, irrespective of
teaching privately or publicly, to individuals or to crowds, a reciprocal exchange of commodity
occurred between the two. The teacher distributed education, while the pupil/audience
68. Shelton, Source Book, 18.

69. Parkin and Pomeroy, Social History, 136.
70. J.W.H. Walden, Universities of Ancient Greece (London: Routledge, 1912), 7879.
71. G.W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 13.
72. Winter, Sophists, 2530.
73. See Clarence A. Forbes, Teachers Pay in Ancient Greece (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1942), 4345.
74. See Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.9; 35.1; Philo, Mos. II.212; Plato, Prot. 313c-d; Menex. 92A; Euthyd. 277B; Xenophon,
Mem. 1.2.7; Plutarch, Mor. 131a.
75. Dio recounts that, when he visited the great cities of the empire, he was escorted with much enthusiasm
and honour, the recipients of my visits being grateful for my presence and begging me to address them and advise
them flocking about my doors from early dawn, all without my having incurred any expense or having made any
contribution, with the result that all would admire me (Or. 47.22). See also Bruce Winter, The Entries and Ethics
of Orators and Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:112), TynB 44.1 (1993): 5574.
55
reciprocated money or material goods. Nevertheless, before we are tempted to perceive the
student/audience as the patron and the teacher as the client, largely because a patron
provided money and a client returned services, we have to consider a distinguishing factor. In
the scholastic realm, the teacher occupied the superior position because he/she possessed the
higher-value symbolic capital of education and, unlike the patron-client bond, was in no way
beholden to the student/audience just because they gave money. Different social settings
attribute varying degrees of status to the commodity exchanged. It is therefore important to
note that the teacher-pupil relationship, while sharing close affinities with the patron-client
model, is still distinct from it.76 This relational demarcation will prove beneficial as we
progress into Chapters 4 and 5, where we will critique many NT scholars for not
acknowledging this vital distinction.
1.2.5. Patron-Broker-Client
Various ancient relationships have been outlined above which feature two-way forms
of exchange. But the patron-broker-client relationship, which has been largely neglected in
Pauline studies, distinguishes itself by including a three-way bond between a source (patron), a
mediator (broker), and a beneficiary (client). While the rules of exchange between the patron
76. Contra Crook, Conversion, 18692, who merges the two as the Patronage of Philosophy. There is danger in
coalescing these practices. The fact that they exhibit similar characteristics does not mean that they share the
same symbolic capital.
56
and client remain intact, the inclusion of a broker modifies the contours of this patronage
relationship.77
The broker, like a telegrapher,78 provides a profitable link between two parties or
segments of society, transmitting the patrons material goods and services to the client and,
likewise, the clients gratitude and loyalty back to the patron.79 As a telegrapher connecting
higher- and lower-ranking people or groups, the broker facilitates access to an otherwise
unattainable resource and therefore bridges the social chasm in a way that is profitable for
both parties.80 Various examples from the letters of the younger Pliny, who enjoyed an
analogous relationship with the emperor Trajan as well as others,81 illustrate this intermediary
practice in the Greco-Roman world.82 For example, Ep. 2.13 captures Plinys right to solicit the
patronage (fortuna) of Priscus for Voconius Romanus. Plinys access to emperor Trajans
patronage is projected in Ep. 10.4, where Pliny entreats Trajan to grant a senatorial office to
Romanus, of which Pliny, by virtue of his connection with the emperor, confidently awaits
77. This model is a subset of Roman patrocinium. For a more exhaustive analysis of the brokerage model, see my
article: Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study of 2 Cor. 1.311, NTS 56 (2010): 53656 at 539-43.
78. Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions (Pavilion; Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1974), 148, 153.
79. Eric Wolf, Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relations in Complex Societies, in Friends, Followers, and
Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism (ed. Steffen W. Schmidt, et al.; Berkeley: University of California, 1977), 167
76 at 174.
80. Boissevain calls this a second order resource, which pertains to strategic contacts with patrons who
possess the first order resource of land, jobs, and protection (Friends, 14748).
81. See Saller, Personal Patronage, 75-77.
82. See Ep 6.32; 2.4, 18; 3.2, 8, 11; 10.11, 21, 23, 26, 33, 37, 51, 58, 85, 86a and b, 87, 93, 94, 95, 96, 104, 106; cf. also
Fronto, Ad Amicos 1.5; 2.8.
57
Trajans favourable judgment, not only for himself but also for Romanus, the client. In
another letter, Pliny brokers a Praetorship for his friend, Accius Sura, whose high view of
Trajan prompts him to hope [that] he may experience [receiving a Praetorship] in this
instance (Ep 10.12). Viewed together, these examples of unwavering certainty in receiving
what has been petitioned, by the client and Pliny alike, and of Plinys right to make requests of
opulent members of society, demonstrate the brokers privileged access to the rich storehouse
of patrons on behalf of clients. Consequently, this three-way relational pattern can be
diagrammed as follows:
Patron
$$ Gratitude
$$
Broker Client
We have argued elsewhere that the classical model of brokerage does not precisely fit
the Pauline vision of gift-exchange relationships, primarily because Paul radically fabricates
his own version of mutual brokerage.83 Without rehearsing the argument here, we simply
want to assert that this three-way relationship serves as a more fitting model than the patron-
client relationship. For the patron-client model (like every other relationship mentioned
above) can only measure reciprocal exchange between two parties. Nevertheless, as will be
demonstrated in the next three chapters, every gift-exchange relationship in the divine
83. See Mutual Brokers, 54356.
58
economy necessarily involves a third party God. It will be argued, therefore, that the patron-
client model obscures rather than clarifies matters, and that the brokerage model offers a
clearer heuristic lens through which to analyse Pauls financial policy with his churches.84
1.2.6. Summary
What then emerges from this succinct outline of various relationships in the Greco-
Roman world? One important discovery is that, even though some ancient relationships
shared certain characteristics of the patron-client alliance, they nevertheless retained their
own distinctive identity. This means that stretching patronage as a universal model for every
form of unequal social exchange is methodologically faulty, with the term itself being based on
criteria that do not line up with historical facts.85 Once again, simplifying complex realities is
the purpose of models, but Pauline scholarship has, by and large, been misled by the over-
simplification of patronage, turning it into a chameleon-like model that adjusts its properties
according to its relational environment. We therefore aim to dismantle this prevalent
interpretive method and offer a more fitting relational framework through which to appraise
Pauls financial policy.86 Before that, we enter another climate which helps contextualise the
apostle.
84. We are not presenting the brokerage model as a universal model to replace patronage. Instead, we are only
affirming that it more closely resembles the tripartite relational pattern found in financial texts in Paul.
85. See section 1.2 above.
86. This framework mirrors the brokerage model but will be extracted from the text itself.
59
2. Pauls Ideological Climate
Senecas De Beneficiis, as the only exhaustive treatment of gift exchange in the first century,
creates an ancient and thus a more fitting climate in which to situate Paul. While many
scholars assume that Seneca only offers unreachable ideals, he actually sets ideal goals at the
end of realistic paths. Put differently, he aims to turn the bad man (vir malus) into a good man
(vir bonus) or wise man (sapiens) by providing practical steps towards a more virtuous
lifestyle,87 and one can detect the same pedagogical technique in Pauls writings.88 But instead
of viewing the apostle in line with ancient ideological methods, many interpreters impose
modern ideals of gift onto Paul, especially when it comes to self-interest and obligation in gift-
giving. They automatically assume that because these elements deprive gifts of their inherent
philanthropy in the Western, modern world, they must have done so in Pauls day. Yet, as we
will see, these interpreters have wrongly located Paul in a modern environment and analysing
Senecas De Beneficiis will help us substantiate this fact.
In what follows, therefore, we will pay close attention to the issues in gift exchange
that Seneca confronted and sought to reform, beginning with general aberrations in society
87. A point helpfully explained in Miriam Griffin, Senecas Pedagogic Strategy: Letters and De Beneficiis, in Greek
and Roman Philosophy 100 BC - 200 AD (eds. Richard Sorabji and Robert W. Sharples; London: Institute of Classical
Studies, 2007), 89113.
88. For an example of this, see Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000),
though we are not entirely convinced of the extent of Pauline dependence on Stoic philosophy that Engberg-
Pedersen affirms.
60
and moving to the more pertinent elements of self-interest and obligation. After determining
his ancient perspective, we will then compare it with the modern conception of gift. The
purpose in doing so will be to lay the groundwork of subsequent chapters, where we will
challenge scholars who impose modern categories of gift onto Pauls ancient gift-giving
relations with his churches.
2.1. Patterns of Reciprocity in Senecas De Beneficiis
Although De Beneficiis is a somewhat neglected work in the corpus of an often
undervalued author,89 it is nevertheless hailed as a masterpiece.90 Written between AD 56 and
mid-64 during Neros reign,91 this social-political and ethical treatise examines the highly
practical mechanisms of social relations.92 Being motivated by the fact that the giving,
receiving, and returning of benefits constitutes the chief bond of human society (maxime
humanam societatem alligat),93 Seneca offers a lex vitae for interlocutors in exchange, a code of
beneficence meant to curtail the serious problems in ancient society and promote the ongoing
cycle of gifts.
89. Brad Inwood, Politics and Paradox in Senecas De Beneficiis, in Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), 69.
90. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 18 on the Logic of Gods
and Its Human Response, HTR 101 (2008): 1544 at 18.
91. Miriam Griffin, Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 396.
92. Griffin, Pedagogic Strategy, 93.
93. Ben. 1.4.2. The translations of this section come from the LCL edition and translation of De Beneficiis (trans.
J.W. Basore; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1935), though a few changes are made and Latin key phrases are
added in certain places.
61
2.1.1. Aberrations of Gift Exchange in Senecas Ancient Economy
When assessing the state of Roman society, Seneca observes a rapid decline of morality
and virtue. Citizens are obstinately self-focused, unjustly oppressive towards the weak and
poor, adultery is glamourised as the most seemly sort of betrothal,94 and he anticipates a day
when chastity will no longer be prized, the shameful scourge of feasting will prevail, and
honour will be bestowed on the person who can hold the most wine.95 Indeed, times will
change but the verdict will always remain the same: wicked we are, wicked we have been, and,
I regret to add, always shall be.96
For Seneca, however, describing the macrocosm of a profligate society is merely a
philosophical stepping stone into the microcosm of impaired gift-exchange relationships. For
above all the immorality in society, such as homicides, tyrants, thieves, adulterers, robbers,
sacrilegious men, and traitors, the most heinous vice, and perhaps the root of all these other
vices, is ingratitude,97 among both givers and receivers alike. If this bilateral ungratefulness
persists, the indispensable system of social exchange, a system which undergirds all of
society,98 will inevitably collapse. Foreseeing this great catastrophe, Seneca delivers an
illuminating critique of givers and recipients of gifts.
94. Ben. 1.9.4-5.

95. Ben. 1.10.2.
96. Ben. 1.10.3; cf. 5.15.1-5.17.7; 7.27.1-3.
97. Ben. 1.10.4.
98. See Ben. 1.4.2; 1.15.2.
62
2.1.1.1. Givers Critiqued
Everyone hates ingratitude, and yet everyone is held by its grasp,99 not least givers of
gifts. Three critiques are particularly illuminating. The first is that, although disgruntled givers
were blaming recipients for not reciprocating gratitude,100 Seneca ironically blames givers as
the cause for the ingratitude of receivers. From the several causes of ungratefulness in society,
he insists that the chief and foremost is that givers do not pick out [non eligimus] those who are
worthy [dignos] of receiving [their] gifts.101 They lack discernment (iudicium) and reason (ratio)
in their giving, failing to consider to whom to give [a benefit], and how and why.102 He
forthrightly calls this kind of giving, thoughtless benefaction and the most shameful sort of
loss, explaining that it is certainly the fault of another if we have received no return, but, if
we did not select [non elegimus] the one to whom we were giving, the fault is our own.103 His line
of reasoning is that if [benefits] are ill placed, they are ill acknowledged.104 In other words,
they reap what they sow, or, more precisely, they reap how they sow, for the cause of
ingratitude lies in the manner of givers, not the return or lack of it from recipients.
99. Ben. 1.1.2; cf. 1.10.4; 5.15.1-5.17.7; 7.27.3.

100. Ben. 1.1.9-10.
101. Ben. 1.1.2; cf. 3.11.1.
102. Ben. 4.10.2-3; cf. Ep. 89.15.
103. Ben. 4.10.3; cf. 1.14.1. My italics.
104. Ben. 1.1.1.
63
The second critique is that, when bestowing their benefits, wealthy givers would shame
their beneficiaries in several ways. They would delay their gifts;105 or worse, hesitate in
granting them, with the air of one who was robbing himself, a dreadful act that Seneca
considers the next thing to refusing106 and that also forces the recipient to beg for the
promised gift before lowering his eyes in shame for uttering the words.107 More degrading than
this, givers would incessantly mention the favours that have been granted. For example,
Seneca paints an amusing picture of a man, who, after being exonerated from the hand of
Caesar by a benefactor, screams, Give me back to Caesar! For this liberated person could no
longer endure the egotism of his liberator, who repeatedly declares, It is I who saved you, it is
I who snatched you from death. Annoyed with such pomposity, the freed person replies, I
owe nothing to you if you saved me in order that you might have someone to exhibit. How
long will you parade me? How long will you refuse to let me forget my misfortune? In a
triumph, I should have had to march but once!108 This comical script discloses the culturally
acceptable means to honour by broadcasting ones munificence and parading ones
beneficiaries before the public eye like a conquered enemy. But from Senecas philosophically-
105. Ben. 2.6.1-2.

106. Ben. 2.1.2.
107. Ben. 2.2.1.
108. Ben. 2.11.1-2.
64
trained eye, these sorts of givers only do violence to their conferred benefits,109 permitting
their pride to turn every benefit into an injury.110
The third critique concerns the proclivity to give with purely self-interested motives.
It is a contemptible act, Seneca exclaims,
without praise and without glory, to do anyone a service because it is to our own
interest [quia expedit]. What nobleness is there in loving oneself, in sparing oneself, in
getting gain [adquirere] for oneself? The true desire of giving a benefit summons us
away from all these motives, and, laying hand upon us, forces us to put up with loss,
and, forgoing self-interest [utilitates], finds its greatest joy in the mere act of doing
good.111
Although self-interest will be discussed extensively below, it is worth simply noting
here that this vice is a point of contention for Seneca and a prevalent issue in his society. This
is in addition to the first critique of indiscriminately disseminating gifts that generate
ingratitude and the second about shaming recipients at the moment of giving. Together, these
three critiques help steer givers towards virtuous giving.
2.1.1.2. Recipients Critiqued
Seneca turns his critical eye towards two particular manifestations of ingratitude
among recipients. To begin with, ungrateful beneficiaries accept gifts in an unacceptable
manner. Instead of humbly receiving benefits, they embody an air of pride, a mistake, Seneca
109. Ben. 2.5.1.

110. Ben. 2.13.1; cf. 2.11.16.
111. Ben. 4.14.3-4.
65
insists, which is never excusable.112 They accept with an air of fastidiousness, pretentiously
asserting, I really do not need it, but since you so much wish it, I will surrender my will to
yours. Or they accept in submission and humility, ironically showing themselves more
ungrateful than if [they] had kept silent.113 Some recipients possess too high an opinion of
themselves, assuming that they deserve what they are given and so receive a gift as an
outstanding payment rather than as a generous benefit.114 Others jealously compare
themselves with competing recipients,115 and still others, unsatisfied with the benefits already
received, avariciously seek out further gifts. True is Senecas critique in this regard, the more
we get, the more we covet,116 with the devastating result that beneficiaries forget the givers
past beneficence.
Failing to recall previously bestowed gifts constitutes the second critique. As Seneca
testifies, I cannot deny that, while some fall into the vice [of ingratitude] from a natural
perversity, more show it because remembrance disappears with the passing of time; for
benefits that at first lived fresh in their memory wither as the days go by.117 Again, while there
112. Ben. 2.18.1.

113. Ben. 2.24.3.
114. Ben. 2.26.2.
115. Ben. 2.28.1.
116. Ben. 2.27.3.
117. Ben. 3.1.2.
66
are many kinds of ingrates,118 the most ungrateful of all is the man who has forgotten a
benefit.119 Why? Because there is no possibility of a man ever becoming grateful, if he has lost
all memory of his benefit.120 As memory diminishes so does gratitude rightly owed to the
giver.
With the prevalent and variegated manifestations of ingratitude among givers and
receivers, Seneca must administer a philosophical treatment to cure his readership of the
disease of ungratefulness and thereby restore the essential, social practice of interpersonal gift
exchange.121 But how does he perform this operation in De Beneficiis?
2.1.2. Senecas Two-Level, Philosophical Framework: Paradox as a Solution
Although many have criticised Senecas high-minded nonsense,122 perceiving De
Beneficiis to be an amalgamation of loosely connected philosophical musings,123 Brad Inwood124
118. Seneca mentions three kinds of ingrates: (i) one who denies that he received a benefit, when, in fact, he
has received one; (ii) one who pretends that he has not received one; and (iii) one who fails to return a benefit
(Ben. 3.1.3; cf. 7.26.1-7.27.3).
119. Ben. 3.1.3.
120. Ben. 3.1.4.
121. Likening philosophy to an art concerned with the cure or therapy of the soul is a recurrent theme in the
work of Epicurean and Stoic thinkers (cf. Galen PHP 5.2.23; Cicero Tusc. 3.6; Epictetus Diatr. 1.15.2). Among Stoics
specifically, Martha Nussbaum explains, Philosophys medical function is understood as, above all, that of toning
up the souldeveloping its muscles, assisting it to use its own capabilities more effectively (The Therapy of Desire:
Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994], 317).
122. Ramsey MacMullen, Personal Power in the Roman Empire, AJPh 107 (1986): 51224 at 521.
123. A criticism that reaches as far back as Caligulas description of Senecas literary works as sand without
lime (Suetonius Cal. 38).
124. Inwood refers to it as a two-level mode of discourse, with protreptic value (Politics and Paradox at 90).
67
and Miriam Griffin125 have uncovered a two-level mode of paradoxical discourse.126 One level
promotes the social ideal,127 while the other acknowledges the social reality. To give one
example of this pedagogical strategy, Seneca writes, For, in the case of the benefit, this is a
binding rule for the two who are concernedthe one should immediately forget [oblivisci] that
it was given, the other should never forget that it was received.128 By the time you reach Book
VII, however, he clarifies what he really means. Yet it is a mistake to suppose that, when we
say that the person who has given a benefit ought to forget [oblivisci], we would rob him of all
memory [memoriam] of his act, especially if it was a very honourable one. This sounds
contradictory, but here is the key. We overstate some rules in order that in the end they may
reach their true value [quaedam praecipimus ultra modum, ut ad verum et suum redeant]. . . .
Hyperbole never expects to attain all that it ventures, but asserts the incredible in order to
arrive at the credible [sed incredibilia adfirmat, ut ad credibilia perveniat].129 Otherwise stated,
125. Griffin calls it the pedagogical technique of hyperbole (De Beneficiis and Roman Society, JRS 93
[2003]: 92113 at 94).
126. Paradoxical, of course, not in the sense of involving illogical oddities but in the sense of being at odds
with the common opinion, for, from a Stoic perspective, paradoxes were simply true (cf. Inwood, Politics and
Paradox, 74 n40).
127. Although Griffin contends that Senecas (and Ciceros) ideals appear in the more theoretical writings of
Pliny and others, suggesting that the ideals of the former could actually be considered the social ideal (De
Beneficiis, 10206).
128. Ben. 2.10.4.
129. Ben. 7.22.1-7.23.2. On Senecas pedagogical use of hyperbole, see Inwood, Politics and Paradox, 9092;
Griffin, De Beneficiis, 94.
68
Seneca sets the bar of morality obscenely high so that his readers will reach an attainable goal
and so perpetuate the fundamental practice of reciprocal exchange.
This philosophical tactic is made possible by the fact that there are two levels of
activity in any social exchange, the material and the intentional.130 As Seneca claims, Goodwill
we have repaid with goodwill; for the object we still owe an object [Voluntati voluntate satis
fecimus; rei rem debemus]. And so, although we say that he who receives a benefit gladly has
repaid it, we nevertheless also bid him return some gift similar to the one he received.131 In
this way, paradox has the practical purpose of healing fractured gift-exchange relationships by
encouraging givers to give freely despite the possibility of no return and receivers to endure
the burden of indebtedness with confidence and dignity.132 As Inwood explains, the
metaphysically bound ethics of pure intention can actually strengthen social and political ties
in the real world.133
While space prevents a full explanation of how Senecas two-level philosophical
framework resolves all the relational tensions noted above, we will focus on two issues with
direct relevance to Pauls vision of gift-giving relationships: self-interest and obligation. The
purpose in doing so will be to lay the groundwork of subsequent chapters, where we will
130. Inwood, Politics and Paradox, 89.

131. Ben. 2.35.1.
132. Politics and Paradox, 92; cf. also Ben. 4.40.5.
133. Politics and Paradox, 91.
69
challenge scholars who impose modern categories of gift onto Pauls ancient gift-giving
relationship with the Philippians and the Corinthians. What we will discover is that when it
comes to the matter of gift exchange, Paul shares more in common with Seneca than with his
modern interpreters. Before doing so, however, a word must be said about Senecas overall
view of gift-giving.
2.1.2.1. The Perpetual Cycle of Grace: Giving, Receiving, and Returning
Two apt images in De Beneficiis epitomise gift-giving relationships in Senecas
philosophical economy: (i) the three Graces (1.3.4-5); and (ii) the ball game illustration (2.17.3-
7), both borrowed from Chrysippus.134
The three Graces sisters who joyously dance with hands joined in a perpetual circle
represent giving, receiving, and returning, with the gift flowing through each party and
always returning to the giver. If the perpetual cycle is anywhere broken, the beauty of the
whole is destroyed, since it has most beauty if it is continuous and maintains an
uninterrupted succession.135 As such, certain characteristics of the three Graces represent
different aspects of giving and receiving. As Seneca explains,
Their faces are cheerful, as are ordinarily the faces of those who bestow or
receive benefits. They are young because the memory of gifts ought not to grow
old. They are virgins because benefits are pure and undefiled and holy in the
134. Inwood, Politics and Paradox, 92.

135. Ben. 1.3.4.
70
eyes of all; and it is fitting that there should be nothing to bind or restrict them,
and so the maidens wear flowing robes, and these, too, are transparent because
benefits desire to be seen.136
The ball game illustration presents a similar picture. The game is comprised of a
thrower (i.e., giver) and a catcher (i.e., recipient), with the ball symbolising a gift. The aim of
the game is to keep the ball in the air. If it drops to the ground, the game is ruined. To prevent
that from happening, the more skilled player must assess the skills (i.e., character [persona]) of
the other. He/she does so by determining whether the other player is dexterous of hand, can
catch long, firm throws, and immediately throw it back. Or, if the player is a novice who
requires a short, gentle lob, basically guiding the ball directly into his/her hand. If skilled
players do not follow this course of benefits, they prove to be the cause of ingratitude in
others, insofar as their throws are impossible to catch, let alone return.137 As a result, the
success of the ball game rests on cooperation (consentium), which, in turn, demands givers and
receivers to adapt their performance to the skills of the other and therefore keep the ball in
the air.
Proceeding from these illustrations are a few noteworthy dynamics of gift-giving
relationships. For Seneca, a beneficium binds two parties together,138 creating a common bond
136. Ben. 1.3.5.

137. Ben. 2.17.5.
138. Ben. 6.41.2; 7.19.7-8.
71
that places equal demands on both to give, receive, and return.139 The giver should then toss
the gift in such a way that will engender gratitude, verbally and materially, while the catcher
should always seek opportunities to show gratitude, even if not yet materially. In this sense,
mutual cooperation is necessary for the beauty of reciprocal exchange to be preserved.
With the general contours of giving and receiving in De Beneficiis outlined, we can now
discern whether, for Seneca, self-interest and obligation disrupt or preserve the course of gifts
in social relations.
2.1.2.2. Self-Interest in Ideal Perspective
At first glance, Seneca completely eradicates all self-interest from giving. After all, the
golden rule of gift exchange in De Beneficiis is that the one should immediately forget [oblivisci]
that it was given, the other should never forget that it was received.140 Forgetting implies
disinterestedness, which, in turn, displays virtue. For virtus does not invite by the prospect of
gain [lucro]; on the contrary, she is more often found in voluntary contributions. We must go
to her, trampling under foot all self-interest [calcatis utilitatibus].141 Unless a person strips him-
or herself of self-interest,142 they cannot furnish a benefit, since a beneficium has in view only
139. Ben. 2.18.1-2.

140. Ben. 2.10.4; cf. also 1.4.3, 5; 2.6.2.
141. Ben. 4.1.2.
142. See Ben. 4.11.2-6.
72
the advantage of the recipient [accipientis utilitas].143 Disinterested givers therefore imitate the
gods, who give with no thought of any return (sine spe recipiendi)144 or regard for their own
advantage (commodum).145 Yet those with self-interested motives emulate money-lenders
[feneratores],146 placing their so-called benefits where they can derive the most gain
[quaestuosissime habeas].147 And yet, Seneca exclaims, feneratores are incapable of giving
benefits, for that which has gain [quaestum] as its object cannot be a benefit [non est
beneficium].148 Instead, a benefit views the interest [commodum], not of ourselves, but of the
one upon whom it is bestowed; otherwise, it is to ourselves that we give it.149 Clearly, then,
self-interested givers hand out loans, disinterested givers bestow benefits.
The disease of self-interest, however, plagues gift exchange on both ends, for recipients
also exhibit self-interested motives. Tell me, Seneca asks, what is the motive that leads to
[repayment of good services with gratitude]? Gain [Lucrum]? But he who does not scorn gain is
ungrateful.150 And what is the aim of one who is grateful?, he inquires. Is it that his gratitude
143. Ben. 4.9.1.

144. Ben. 4.9.1.
145. Ben. 4.3.2.
146. Ben. 3.15.4.
147. Ben. 4.3.3.
148. Ben. 4.13.3; cf. 3.13.2.
149. Ben. 4.13.3. If gifts were given solely with the expectation of receiving a return, Seneca reasons, we should
give, not to the most worthy, but to the richest, men. Moreover, if it were only self-interest [sola nos invitaret
utilitas] that moved us to help others. . .the rich and powerful and kings, who need no help from others, would not
be under the least obligation to bestow them (Ben. 4.3.1-2).
150. Ben. 4.17.1.
73
may win for him more friends, more benefits? . . . He is ungrateful who in the act of repaying
gratitude has an eye on a second giftwho hopes while he repays.151
What becomes evident from these examples is that, ideally, self-interest should never
attend the exchange of gifts. Only disinterested interlocutors convey the glory, honour, and
virtue inherent in gift-giving. On closer inspection, though, Seneca has a specific kind of self-
interest in mind the kind that exploits others for the sake of selfish gain, indicated by the terms
lucrum, utilitas, commodum, and quaestus. But as one progresses through De Beneficiis, another
level of discourse slowly emerges.152
2.1.2.3. Self-Interest in Real Perspective
After stating the ideal, namely, that exploitative self-interest is inherently evil, Seneca
redefines (rather than abolishes) self-interest by adding a level of reality in his paradoxical
discourse. Unlike most moderns who consider any kind of self-regard to be unethical, Seneca
affirms a philanthropic mode of self-interest, one which we will call, other-oriented self-interest.
This sort of other- and self-regard begins to emerge as early as Book II, when he states,
Let us never bestow benefits that can redound to our shame. Since the sum total of
friendship consists in putting a friend on an equality with ourselves, consideration
must be given at the same time to the interests of both [utrique simul consulendum est]. I
151. Ben. 4.20.2-3; cf. also 4.24.2.

152. Griffin envisages an educational strategy in De Beneficiis which matches the moral progress of his
readership, possibly personified in Aebutius Liberalis (who Griffin argues is a real addressee). The end of Book IV
marks a shift in pedagogical strategy, with Books V-VII being comparable to a graduate level course in officia
aimed at the advanced progressive (proficiens) (Pedagogic Strategy at 109-10). If this is the case, it is striking that
the level of real discourse on self-interest primarily appears in Books V-VII.
74
shall give to him if he is in need, yet not to the extent of bringing need upon myself; I
shall come to his aid if he is at the point of ruin, yet not to the extent of bringing ruin
upon myself, unless by so doing I shall purchase the safety of a great man or a great
cause.153
But it becomes clearer in a couple of passages at the end of Book IV and in Book V:
It is not true, therefore, that that which has also some extraneous profit [cui aliquid
extra quoque emolumenti adhaeret] closely attached to it is not something to be desired in
itself; for in most cases the things that are most beautiful are accompanied by many
accessory advantages [multis et adventiciis comitata sunt dotibus], but they follow in the
train of beauty while she leads the way.154
A benefit. . .possesses this commendable, this most praiseworthy, quality, that a man
forgets for the time being his own interest [utilitatis interim suae oblitus est] in order that
he may give help to another.155
Nevertheless, the clearest example of other-oriented self-interest appears in Book VI:
I am not so unjust as to feel under no obligation to a man who, when he was profitable
to me, was also profitable to himself. For I do not require that he should consult my
interests without any regard to his own; no, I also desire that a benefit given to me
should be even more advantageous to the giver, provided that, when he gave it, he was
considering us both, and meant to divide it between himself and me. Though he should
possess the larger part of it, provided that he allowed me to share in it, provided that
he considered both of us, I am, not merely unjust, I am ungrateful, if I do not rejoice
that, while he has benefited me, he has also benefited himself.
non sum tam iniquus, ut ei nihil debeam, qui, cum mihi utilis esset, fuit et sibi; non
enim exigo, ut mihi sine respectu sui consulat, immo etiam opto, ut beneficium mihi
datum vel magis danti profuerit, dum modo id, qui dabat duos intuens dederit et inter
me seque diviserit. Licet id ipse ex maiore parte possideat, si modo me in consortium
admisit, si duos cogitavit, ingratus sum, non solum iniustus, nisi gaudeo hoc illi
profuisse, quod proderat mihi.156
For Seneca, gleaning some form of profit (utilitas) from granting a gift is acceptable, as
long as the receiver also obtains a share in the profit (si modo me in consortium admisit) and the
giver, at the moment of giving, acknowledges the interests of both parties (si duos cogitavit).
153. Ben. 2.15.1.

154. Ben. 4.22.4.
155. Ben. 5.11.4-5. The term interim reminds the reader of the necessity to reciprocate a material counter-gift
and, at the same time, the primitivism of demanding one (cf. 2.35.1).
156. Ben. 6.13.1-2.
75
Unlike the majority of Westerners who place every kind of self-interest under the
category of exploitative, Seneca actually draws a fine distinction here between acting for
oneself and acting for oneself and another, between self-interest and self- and other-interest.
Self-interested givers, who exploit others with gifts for their own advantage, certainly lack
virtue. But self-interested givers, who place the interests of recipients above their own
honourable interests, actually embody virtue.157 And this other-oriented self-interest, from Senecas
perspective, adorns rather than corrupts the gift and preserves the perpetual cycle of
reciprocal exchange forged by beneficia.
2.1.2.4. Obligation in Ancient Perspective
The presence of obligation in gift exchange does not necessitate Senecas two-level
mode of paradoxical discourse. Like most ancient writers, he never questions its existence.
This can be distilled from the three Graces or the ball game illustration, which calls for the
active and necessary participation of each party. But a couple of examples make this point
even clearer. The giving of a benefit is a social act, explains Seneca, it lays someone under
obligation [obligat].158 To return [a gift] is to give something that you owe [debeas] to the one
to whom it belongs when he wishes it.159 And lastly, I am able to place a man under obligation
157. Following in the train of beauty while she leads the way in 4.22.4 above is a reference to being led by
virtue and reason.
158. Ben. 5.11.5.
159. Ben. 7.19.2.
76
[obligare] only if he accepts; I am able to be freed from obligation only if I make a return
[reddidi].160 What is striking about these passages is that Seneca has no qualms about
transferring legally-binding language of loans, such as debeo and obligo, to the realm of
beneficia.161 To be sure, he distinguishes between the two,162 but the common characteristic in
both is the social dynamic of obligation. So, while there are strings attached to gifts, they are
not legal strings, since a person could not send someone to court for not returning a gift.163
Indeed, in Senecas day, many beneficiaries refused to play the social game of gift
exchange, attempting to cut obligatory ties and free themselves from their indebtedness to
givers. Some did so by making really quick returns,164 others by repudiating gifts
preemptively,165 and still others by praying that some harm may come upon the giver, so that
the tables might be turned and they might assist them as the superior party.166 But there was a
reason for this evasion of obligation, and it was due to the detestable manner in which givers
160. Ben. 7.18.2.

161. Later, however, Seneca discourages language linked to debt, preferring gratiam referre (voluntary return)
over gratiam rederre (payment on demand, Ep. 81.9), though this distinction may simply be a way to express that
the first phrase was more common than the second (cf. Griffin, De Beneficiis, 99 n52).
162. For instance, a gift is incalculable (3.10.2, 15.3), selfless (5.11.4-5), engenders friendship (2.18.5), and not
returning a counter-gift is not punishable by law (3.14.2). Conversely, a loan is calculable (3.10.1, 15.1-2; 4.39.2),
interested in selfish gain (2.10.2, 31.2; 4.3.3, 13.3), engenders no lasting relationship (2.18.5), and non-payment of a
loan is punishable by law (3.7.1-2).
163. Ben. 3.6-17. While Seneca discusses at length the possibility of making ingratitude illegal because of its
frequent appearance, he ultimately concludes that such sanctions would be impractical for three reasons: it
would be difficult to assess various cases of ungratefulness, giving and receiving would lose moral ground, and
citizens would be discouraged from the act of gift giving.
164. Ben. 4.40.1-5.
165. Ben. 6.25.1.
166. Ben. 6.25.1-6.41.2; cf. also 6.27.1-2; 6.35.3; 6.41.1.
77
were bestowing gifts they gave self-interestedly. For instance, anticipating a question that
may be raised by his addressee, Aebutius Liberalis, Seneca writes:
I already know what you wish to ask; there is no need for you to say anything; your
countenance speaks for you. If anyone has done us a service for his own sake [sua. .
.causa], are we, you ask, under any obligation to him [debetur aliquid]? For I often hear
you complain that there are some things that people bestow upon themselves, but
charge them up to others.167
Beneficiaries were fed up with receiving gifts that only served the interests of the ones who
bestowed them, and so sought to be released from the ties of obligation to these self-interested
benefactors. Consequently, then, Senecas call to embrace mutual obligation and other-oriented
self-interest operate as the glue that holds ruptured social bonds of gift together and thereby
secure the success of gift exchange in a very complex and fragile society.
2.1.3. Seneca, Paul, and the Modern Myth of the Pure Gift168
If we were to imagine Senecas De Beneficiis on one side of the gift-exchange spectrum
and the modern conception of the pure gift on the other, where would we situate Paul? To
determine the answer, we first need to understand both positions before matching Pauls
vision of gift-giving relationships with its appropriate counterpart.
167. Ben. 6.12.1.

168. A phrase borrowed from one of John Barclays De Carle Lectures, entitled, Paul, Reciprocity, and the
Modern Myth of the Pure Gift (University of Otago, 31st March 2010).
78
2.1.3.1. The Modern Perception of the Pure Gift
The notion of the pure gift, a gift that is given spontaneously, voluntarily, and free of
charge, with no strings attached, is held by Western, modern society to be the most virtuous
(or, if you like, altruistic) kind of gift. Conversely, the impure gift comes with strings
attached, the inextricable ties of self-interest and obligation which corrupt its inherent
virtue and turns a so-called gift into a problem. It becomes a problem because these strings
make the gift look like pay. For when a benefit possesses traces of self-regard and the
obligation to return, moderns immediately locate it in an entirely different, more exploitative
sphere the sphere of the market place, where little, if any, relationship exists, where an item
can be bought without any regard for the person behind the till but with total regard for ones
own needs, and where a material exchange, a quid pro quo, a tit for tat can take place, with
each party looking out for their best interests.
The question, however, is why moderns presuppose that if any element of pay or
reward appears in what is called gift-exchange, then that gift is no longer a gift? It is now a
unilateral, destructive form of pay. But if that were the case, would not all gifts be considered
pay? Can a gift be given without expecting one in return? Can anyone receive a gift without
feeling compelled to furnish a counter-gift, lest one seem ungrateful? These mixed emotions
reveal a double-mindedness on gift-giving in Western society. Ideally, the disinterested,
79
unconditional gift is praiseworthy. The anonymous giver of an enormous check to charity, to
whom a return cannot be made, is honoured. But, in reality, we acknowledge the inescapable
truth that our giving possesses the very impure elements that we abhor: self-interest and the
expectation of reciprocity.
Pierre Bourdieu calls this ideal/reality bifurcation the dual truth of the gift but
attempts to resolve the apparent tension by exposing a collective and individual self-deception
that is made possible by the lapse of time between gift and counter-gift. In other words,
although gifts ought to be granted disinterestedly, they also require a return of gratitude, so a
common misrecognition of the gifts logic must attend the exchange of gifts, as givers and
receivers deceive one another and themselves by pretending to be motivated by altruism.169 At
the level of individual intentions, however, Bourdieu denies that an entirely gratuitous gift is
possible.
In line with Bourdieu, Jacques Derrida exclaims that for there to be a gift, there must
be no reciprocity, return, exchange, countergift, or debt. If the other gives me back or owes me
or has to give me back what I give him or her, there will not have been a gift, whether this
restitution is immediate or whether it is programmed by a complex calculation of a long-term
169. MarginaliaSome Additional Notes on the Gift, in The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity (ed.
Alan D. Schrift; New York: Routledge, 1997), 23143 at 231-34.
80
deferral or difference.170 Even recognising a gift as gift suffices to annul it.171 The exact
minute one says thank you, those very words begin to destroy its gift properties.172
Consequently, he classically remarks, if there is no gift, there is no gift, but if there is gift
held or beheld as gift by the other, once again there is no gift; in any case the gift does not exist
and does not present itself. If it presents itself, it no longer presents itself.173 Thus, for both
Derrida and Bourdieu, a gift that is not wholly gratuitous cannot be considered a gift. Self-
concern and obligation only corrupt the virtue of gift-giving.
Troels Engberg-Pedersen, nevertheless, accurately contends that
both Derrida and Bourdieu start from a false presupposition, which has its roots in
Kant: the idea that for an act to be truly other-regarding and altruisticand a gift is
necessarily thatit must not involve any self-regarding concern whatsoever. In Kant
that idea is famously expressed in the claim that a moral act must be done exclusively
from duty and not from inclination. That idea, I think, underlies the modern insistence
on the complete gratuitousness of a gift. But both the Kantian idea itself and its modern
transference to gift-giving are false.174
Nothing could be closer to the truth. The reason it is false is that modern Westerners
recognise the dual truth of the gift, the ideal and the reality, but permit the questionable
nature of the reality (i.e., gifts contain self-interest) to taint indelibly the virtue of the ideal (i.e.,
170. The Time of the King, in The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity (ed. Alan D. Schrift; New York:
Routledge, 1997), 12147 at 128; authors italics.
171. Derrida, King, 129.
172. Jacques Derrida and John D. Caputo, eds., Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida
(New York: Fordham University Press, 1997), 1819.
173. King, 131; cf. also idem, The Gift of Death (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1995).
174. Gift-Giving, 16.
81
gifts ought to be purely disinterested). The reality is therefore eradicated in order to preserve
the gifts ideal purity. By doing so, however, they are only left with the ideal and are forced to
turn a blind eye to real, empirical facts. At the base of this subconsciously-widespread
philosophical view is, therefore, a tenuous premise that the ideal is also the reality.
2.1.3.2. Senecas Ancient Perception of the Gift
On a cursory reading of De Beneficiis, Seneca appears, prima facie, to be a pre-modern
modern, with his view of disinterested giving coalescing with the modern pure gift
perspective. But this, as we have seen, is solely on the ideal level of discourse. On the level of
reality, he allows for other-oriented self-interest and also assumes the presence of mutual
obligation.175 So, in contrast to the one-sidedness of the puristic conception of gift, Seneca
refrains from trumping the reality with the ideal. Instead, his two-level mode of paradoxical
discourse holds ideology and reality together on a systemic level, all in the effort to oil, as it
were, the social mechanism of gift-exchange and to celebrate the capability of furnishing a
virtuous gift as gift.
2.1.3.3. Pauls Vision of Gift: Modern or Ancient?
Having laid out the landscape of gift, with the modern notion of a pure gift on one side
and Senecas ancient conception of gift on the other, we can now survey Pauls position on the
175. Even on the ideal level, he primarily discourages exploitative self-interest (see section 2.1.2.3 above).
82
matter in the following chapters. Is his vision of gift closer to a modern or ancient perspective?
This question may seem trivial, but the majority of Pauline scholars attribute a puristic
conception of gift to the apostle. Could it be, though, that Paul affirms the reality of other-
oriented self-interest and mutual obligation in his ideal gift-exchange relationship, thereby
more closely aligning with his philosophical counterpart, Seneca?
Although the points of convergence between Paul and Seneca will become apparent
later, one fundamental point of divergence may be noticeable already they ultimately reside
within two different gift economies. Senecas economy consists of two-way transactions which
uphold society, while, for Paul, the divine economy is upheld by three-way relationships, with
God as the crucial third party who actively distributes through participants in reciprocal
exchange. In this triangulated bond of gift, the social dynamics of mutual obligation and other-
oriented self-interest are necessarily redefined in Christ, having been created by the Christ-
event that, as Friedrich Nietzsche perceptively noted, entails a reevaluation of antique
values.176 How this comes about, and what relational impact this has on participants in the
economy of , will be discussed in the next chapter.
176. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (trans. R.J. Hollingdale; London: Penguin Books,
1973), 75.
83
3. Conclusion
Two problems in Pauline scholarship set the tone of this chapter. One is the common practice
of subsuming every form of exchange under the overly-simplified model of patronage. To this,
we responded by accentuating the neglected complexities of reciprocity, patrocinium, and
euergetism, and by describing the wide array of gift-exchange relationships in the Greco-
Roman world, both of which, in my opinion, definitively speak against the legitimacy of the
methodological conflation promoted by the patronal approach. Even if one is not yet
convinced by this claim, the strongest proof will come from Paul himself in the exegetical
chapters to follow. The other problem concerns the anachronistic imposition of modern
categories of gift onto Pauls ancient perspective. Seneca helpfully cleared the air by
demonstrating that the presence of self-interest and obligation (rightly defined, of course)
does not annul a gift. To the contrary, these elements actually create and sustain giving,
receiving, and returning. But can one prove that Paul would readily agree with this claim? This
question will partly occupy the focus of the next chapter.
Having created a reference point here, which will support and enhance the overall
argument of this thesis, we will now explore the reason for Pauls acceptance and refusal of
monetary support by closely examining his positive bond with the Philippians, before
investigating his negative relationship with the Corinthians.
84
CHAPTER 3: PAULS POSITIVE GIFT-
GIFT-GIVING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
THE PHILIPPIANS
Introduction
Rudolf Peschs 1985 monograph, entitled Paulus und seine Lieblingsgemeinde, is a clear indication
of how the majority of scholars have perceived the relationship between Paul and the
Philippians. One chief reason for this positive assessment is that the Philippians were the only
community who enjoyed a gift-giving relationship with Paul. And you yourselves know,
Philippians, that. . .no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except
you alone [ ] (4:15).177 But this begs the question, why were the Philippians the
only church to partake in this financial privilege?
Markus Bockmuehl provides a common answer. Why Paul should. . .have entered such
a financial partnership with Philippi in the first place, despite his principles in the matter, and
why only with Philippi, is of course impossible to answer.178 Gordon Fee shares his agnosticism and
177. Reconciling the mention of other churches ( , 2 Cor. 11:8), from whom Paul accepted
support, with Phil. 4:15 will be dealt with in Chapter 5.
178. The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1998), 257; latter italics mine.
85
adds, That [Paul] did so, is what we learn from this passage [i.e., 4:15-16], and nothing more.179
But unlike Bockmuehl, Fee, and a host of other scholars, Bengt Holmberg refuses to cast the
why question irretrievably into the depths of impossibility. Instead, he propounds a
provocative thesis. He claims that the Philippians were admitted into a financial relationship
with their apostle because a full, trusting had been previously established.180 This
hypothesis, while certainly ambitious, has the potential to be confirmed by the text and offers
a promising entry point into the question of Pauls financial policy. Yet it also raises three
additional questions that Holmberg does not address: (i) what does a full, trusting
look like, and (ii) is this a relational criterion that Paul applies in his financial policy? If so, (iii)
can a relational pattern be uncovered in Philippians, compared to his relationship with the
Corinthians, and then applied to the much larger question of why Paul accepts and refuses
financial support?
While questions (ii) and (iii) can only be answered after examining Pauls relationship
with the Corinthian church (Chapters 4-5), this present chapter will attempt to answer the
first question: what does a full, trusting look like? To do so, we will need to
reconstruct the relational pattern of their , presenting the history of their
relationship through textual evidence before critiquing disparate interpretations of the nature
179. Pauls Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 447.
180. Paul and Power, 91.
86
of that relationship (i.e., disunified, legal, friendship, equal, unequal, non-obligatory). After
laying that foundation, the core of this chapter will be dedicated to an exegesis of relevant
passages that reveal the characteristic relational pattern of in the divine economy.
Once that has been uncovered, its relational features will come to the fore and a full, trusting
will be displayed, a relationship that manifests a criterion which Paul expects his
churches to conform to before supporting him financially.
1. The Relational History of Paul and the Philippians
Every relationship has a history. Within that history, particular relational features evolve
through lifes trials and joys, features that serve to distinguish one relationship from another.
The following section is an attempt to recount the history of Pauls relationship with the
Philippians. Beginning with Acts and moving into Philippians itself, we will pinpoint the
specific features that classify this relationship as a full, trusting . Attention will first
be paid to the positive nature of this close bond and then the financial aspect of their
exchange.
87
1.1. Evidence of a Positive Relationship from Acts
If Acts 16 is thought to be historically reliable,181 it recounts the founding of the church
at Philippi, with Paul preaching the gospel to three individuals: a merchant of luxurious goods
named Lydia (Acts 16:13-15), a frightened jailer (16:25-34), and (possibly) a clairvoyant slave
girl (16:17-18). Out of this narrative, two pertinent facts about the Philippian church may be
culled, both of which contribute to the portrait of their positive relationship with Paul.
The first is that the church most likely had the financial means to assist Paul in his
missionary efforts.182 Given that Philippi was a leading city of the district of Macedonia
(16:12), and that Lydia was capable of housing Paul, Silas, and Timothy as a seller of purple
goods (, 16:14-15),183 the church at Philippi possessed the necessary resources to
support Paul. The second fact, however, is even more noteworthy. From the very beginning,
Paul and the Philippians shared a common experience of suffering. After casting a demon out
of the slave-girl, Paul and Silas were beaten with rods before the magistrates and eventually
thrown into the inner prison, their feet fastened in the stocks (16:19-24; cf. 1 Thess. 2:2).
Conversely, the Philippians, we may assume, encountered the same fate as Paul and Silas,
181. Appraising the historicity of Acts is beyond the limits of this section. For a discussion on the matter, see
Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1979); Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the
Setting of Hellenistic History (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989), 129.
182. On the socio-economic level of Macedonian women, see Bockmuehl, Philippians, 5, 8, 18.
183. Lydias involvement with the luxury of purple dye reflects her wealth (David W.J. Gill, Acts and the Urban
lites, in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting [ed. David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1994], 10518 at 114).
88
intimated by the magistrates abhorrence of Jewish practices (16:20-21). What is already
beginning to emerge, albeit implicitly, is a mutual relationship that involves finances and
suffering a peculiar combination for a positive relationship.
1.2. Evidence of a Positive Relationship from Philippians.
What follows will inevitably be relational ideals. Unlike some, we will not try to reach
beyond Pauls ideology and into the reality of their well-functioning relationship.184 Our
primary concern in this chapter is with Pauls ideal gift-giving relationship and with his
perception of the Philippians.
1.2.1. Reciprocity of a Mutual 185
Relationships are reciprocal. Without reciprocity, without giving and receiving, there is
no relationship only solitude. While the reciprocation of material commodities will be
surveyed below, this section will explore the reciprocal exchange of immaterial goods,
stemming from a mutual between Paul and the Philippians.
is a highly significant and theologically-packed term. The verbal form appears
ten times (1:7; 2:2 [2x]; 2:5; 3:15 [2x]; 3:19; 4:2; 4:10 [2x]) and reflects the patterns of thinking,
184. E.g., Joseph Marchal, With Friends Like These...: A Feminist Rhetorical Reconsideration of Scholarship and
the Letter to the Philippians, JSNT 29.1 (2006): 77106, though he ends up with a very negative assessment that we
will critique below.
185. Although the verbal form does not appear in Philippians, it will be used for the sake of
grammatical accuracy.
89
feeling, and acting.186 Two verses plainly convey the exchange of between Paul and
the Philippians. In 1:7, Paul declares that it is right for him to think () with confidence
about Gods activity in the Philippians, whereas, in 4:10, the Philippians express their concern
() through their gift to Paul in prison. travels from one party to the other,
and then returns on the same route, producing a mutual bond. Yet this word carries more
relational depth than first meets the eye. For exactly what constitutes is fleshed out
by a rich variety of endearing phrases and reciprocal acts throughout the letter. Analysing
each side of this -exchange will allow us to reach some conclusions as to the positive
nature of their relationship.
1.2.1.1. Pauls for the Philippians
Paul earnestly loves the Philippian community. Whenever he recalls their gospel
partnership (1:5), he thanks God and consistently prays for them with joy ( , 1:3-4).
He holds them in his heart [],187 yearns [] for all of them with the affection
[] of Christ Jesus (1:7-8), and desires to be with them (1:25-27; 2:24). Being in prison,
he sends Timothy to hear about their progress in the faith, so that his heart may be
186. Stephen Fowl, Philippians (THNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 28.
187. The grammar of this clause is ambiguous, but Jeffrey Reed has shown that, when an infinitival
construction is followed by two accusatives, the first is the subject and the other is the object (The Infinitive with
Two Substantival Accusatives: An Ambiguous Construction? NovT 33 [1991]: 127).
90
encouraged (, 2:19).188 And through his letter, he dispels their anxiety () with
comforting exhortations to pray and to receive the peace of God (4:6-7). Whether present or
absent, whether imprisoned or free, they remain his beloved (), whom he loves and
longs for ( , 4:1; cf. 2:12), his joy (), crown (, 4:1), and
boast (, 2:16) on the day of Christ.
More than this, Pauls affection for the community prompts his willingness to suffer on
their behalf, suppressing his desire to be with Christ and instead remaining and continuing
with them for their progress and joy of faith ( , 1:23-25). This
sacrificial ministry, driven by the selfless love of the Christ-event (cf. 2:5-8), is, for Paul,
necessary and becomes an offering () and service () for their faith (,
2:17), which is directly linked to their joy (2:17-18; cf. 1:25). In a word, Pauls other-oriented
ministry is a resolute commitment to the spiritual progression and ultimate salvation of the
Philippians. He therefore prays for their love to abound in order to approve what is excellent
and to become pure and blameless on the day of Christ (
, 1:9-11). To this end, he implores them to become imitators () of his
Christ-centred example and to guard their faith and pattern of living against the practices of
his adversaries (3:2-19). And even though they have always obeyed, he still beckons them to
188. Even his plan to send Timothy displays Pauls own affections for the Philippians, since only a like-minded
person (), who will genuinely be concerned (. . .) for the community (2:20), is a
suitable candidate to visit the beloved congregation.
91
work out [their] salvation [ ] with fear and trembling
(2:12), and so become pure and blameless ( ) in the midst of a world gone
awry (2:14-15). These sorts of exhortations, which are usually matched with an equal
confidence in God for the progression of their faith (cf. 1:6, 2:13; 3:20-21), unveil a
soteriological commitment to the Philippians spiritual growth. He voluntarily suffers for their
perseverance in the faith.
Consequently, these passages present a more comprehensive view of Pauls
for the community. It includes the immaterial acts of sacrificial service, prayer, affection, and
joy. In turning to the Philippians towards Paul, a corresponding concern may be
detected, adequately demonstrating their positive relationship.
1.2.1.2. The Philippians for Paul
The communitys matches Pauls in three ways. To begin with, they
reciprocate sacrificial service that leads to joy. Just as Pauls sacrificial ministry is likened to a
and on the Philippians behalf, so, too, their gift for Paul, which springs from
their (4:10), is also considered a (4:18) and (2:30), the outcome of
which is their mutual joy ( , 2:17-18). Next, they reciprocate prayer that
leads to salvation. Just as Paul prays (/) for their final salvation (1:4, 9-11; cf.
1:28; 2:12), so they will also pray () for his salvation (), physically from prison as
92
well as eschatologically from death (1:19).189 Lastly, they reciprocate affectionate concern. This
emerges from the nexus of emotions in 2:25-30, where Epaphroditus functions as a mediator of
Paul and the Philippians mutual affection. The Philippians affection is displayed through the
sending of their envoy () and minister () for Pauls spiritual and financial
need (, 2:30; 4:18), whereas Pauls affection manifests itself through sending Epaphroditus
back to the community, so that the anxieties of both Epaphroditus and the Philippians may be
relieved (2:26). The outcome of this mutual affection is the collective joy of all, including Paul
himself (cf. 2:27-28).
The community therefore exhibits a corresponding for Paul, expressed
through the reciprocal acts of affection, prayer, sacrificial ministry, and joy, all of which
contributes to Pauls affirmative appraisal of their relationship as one of .
1.2.2. The of Paul and the Philippians
The positive nature of their relationship is crystallised by the prevalent use of the word
.190 In Phil. 1:5, Paul commends them for their partnership in the gospel (
), revealing the more striking reality of being joint partakers of grace
( , 1:7). When closely examined, this involves entering into
189. For the bivalent use of , as deliverance from prison and eschatological salvation, see section
3.1.3.1.
190. and its cognates appear more in Philippians than in any other Pauline letter (1:5, 7; 2:1; 3:10;
4:14, 15).
93
the apostles sufferings in prison as well as the defence and confirmation of the gospel (1:7).
Later in the letter, he recounts how they sacrificially shared in [his] affliction
( , 4:14), and how they alone shared [with him] in the matter
of giving and receiving ( , 4:15). Constituting their
, therefore, is a mutual sharing in gospel advancement, grace, suffering, and finances;
a strange combination, to say the least, but one which positively distinguishes the Philippians
from any other Pauline community.
1.3. Evidence of a Financial Relationship from Philippians
Having shown the evidence for a positive relationship, we will now outline its financial
aspect, since the Philippians were the only church to engage the apostle in a of giving
and receiving. This monetary relationship appears in 1:3-6, 2:25-30, and 4:10-20. Briefly
sketching each of these texts here will serve as the foundation for the exegetical section to
follow.
1.3.1. Philippians 1:3-6
While it will be argued in greater detail that an implication of the Philippians gift to
Paul resides in this text, we advance those conclusions here. Three key phrases, in particular,
reveal an allusion to the gift that Paul discusses in greater detail in 4:10-20. The first is in
1:3. Rather than being Pauls remembrance of the Philippians, refers to the Philippians
94
remembrance of Paul, disclosing, at least in part, the care they showed him through their gift.
The second key phrase is (1:5). Once again, while this includes
more than just the gift for Paul, it nevertheless reveals their partnership in gospel
advancement through their financial giving. The last phrase is (1:6). In this
verse, Paul expresses his confidence in Gods faithfulness to carry out the Philippians work.
When compared to the work of Christ ( ) that Epaphroditus the courier of
their gift completes on behalf of the community (2:30), it seems likely that the gift partially
comprises what Paul means by in 1:6.
This passage emits light on their financial relationship, insofar as it elucidates the
transmission and purpose of the gift. The Philippians gift is transmitted through Epaphroditus,
who nearly died delivering it to the imprisoned apostle (2:25, 30). The purpose of this delivery
is twofold: (i) to meet Pauls need (, 2:25); and (ii) to fill up what was lacking in their
service to him ( , 2:30). While both
purposes describe how the community supplied Paul with the necessities of life, since
prisoners would have been deprived of food and provision, the second specifically includes an
overlooked element in their relationship: the task of providing for Paul was obligatory.
95
Although this relational element will be further expounded below, it is worth mentioning that
their binds them together in an obligatory relationship.
This passage contains Pauls response to their generous gift. He begins, quite
appropriately, by drawing attention to God who revived their concern to give to Paul, because,
for some unknown reason, they previously lacked the opportunity () to be
charitable (4:10). In response to their gift, Paul warmly declares, I have received all things and
abound (4:18a). They have met his need () once again, just as they did more than once in
Thessalonica ( , 4:16).191 Only this
time, they shamelessly assisted him during his shameful imprisonment, which filled Paul with
immense joy (, 4:10). However, wanting to distance himself from their material gift (4:11-
13, 17), he places the accent on what their gift represents a in his affliction (,
4:14), which, for Paul, is a pleasing aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God [
] (4:18).
A new relational feature, one which faintly appeared in the previous sections, is now
clearly discernible. Not only is their relationship positive, including the exchange of finances,
but it also entails a mutuality of suffering. Nevertheless, the scale of their in
191. Leon Morris, , NovT 1 (1956): 20508.
96
suffering, especially its significance in relation to the gift in 4:10-20, remains indiscernible
without understanding the shameful circumstances that surround Pauls suffering in prison.
1.4. Pauls Circumstances in Prison
Before detailing the shameful conditions of ancient imprisonment, as well as the
financial needs of prisoners, a brief word must be said about the location of Pauls
incarceration. This will help us understand Pauls financial policy within the chronology of his
letters.
1.4.1. The Location of Pauls Imprisonment
Determining the precise locality of Pauls confinement remains a complex endeavour.
There are plenty of historical reconstructions to choose from,192 though each position has its
own set of problems. Given that the argument of this chapter does not rest on the exact
location of Pauls imprisonment,193 and since it is not clear that ones decision on these
192. The most plausible options are Rome (cf. Peter OBrien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the
Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991], 1921; Dodd, The Mind of Paul: I, 83108) and Ephesus (cf.
G.S. Duncan, St Pauls Ephesian Ministry: A Reconstruction [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1955]; Frank Thielman,
Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians, in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F.
Hawthorne [ed. Amy M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003], 20523). Less
probable is a Caesarean imprisonment, a view first proposed by H.E.G. Paulus in 1799 and later supported by Ernst
Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930), 3
4, 1516, 4041 and W.G. Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1965), 22935. Even less
likely is Corinth (cf. A. Moda, La lettera a Filippesie gli ultimi anni di Paolo prigioniero, BeO 27 [1985]: 1730).
193. Silva rightly warns scholars that any theory on Pauls imprisonment remains little more than a theory,
and any exegetical conclusions that lean heavily on it must be regarded as methodologically weak or even invalid
(Philippians [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 7).
97
matters makes much interpretive difference,194 we tentatively promote an Ephesian
incarceration as the most probable hypothesis. If this is true (though it could only ever dwell
in the realm of possibility), then Philippians would have been written at the end of Pauls
Ephesian ministry (AD 56-57), sandwiched chronologically between 1 and 2 Corinthians, with
the contrast between the Philippian and Corinthian congregations at the forefront of the
apostles mind two congregations where he exercised dissimilar approaches to financial
support. By provisionally subscribing to an Ephesian imprisonment, however, we are not
promoting the view that Paul changed his financial policy over time. To the contrary, it will be
argued that he maintained a consistent policy with his churches. But before arriving at this
conclusion, we must first grasp the full significance of the Philippians gift to Paul by
examining the socially-grievous conditions and material needs that he most likely experienced
as a prisoner.
1.4.2. The Socially-Grievous Conditions of Imprisonment
1.4.2.1. Shameful Pain of Chains
In addition to the cramped, sweltering days and the pitch-black nights of ancient jail
cells, prisoners experienced the physical anguish of chains. Being fettered by bonds, either
194. Fowl, Philippians, 9.
98
singly, in pairs, or in groups, around the leg(s), wrist(s), or neck,195 caused intense physical
agony. Chains were fashioned from iron and varied in weight, depending on the size and
offence of the criminal, in order to obstruct mobility and prevent escape.196 These heavy
clamps, which became rusty in damp environments, sent excruciating pain through the frail
limbs of malnourished prisoners. Plutarch captures the unimaginable torment of chains well.
In speaking of the joys of sleep, he writes, Sleep makes light the chains of prisoners, and the
inflammations surrounding wounds, the savage gnawing of ulcers in the flesh, and tormenting
pains are removed from those who are fallen asleep.197
Suffering from inflammatory wounds, gnawing ulcers, and tormenting pains, however,
did not compare to the social humiliation that arose from imprisonment. The first-century
Greco-Roman world highly prized the social currency of honour and shame.198 Residing in a
place of dishonour such as prison199 a place only fitting for malefactors depreciated ones
social status and resulted in public shame. For at the moment of receiving iron manacles, the
195. See Lucian, Tox. 29, 32, 33.

196. Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 207.
197. Mor. 165e; cf. Lucian, 72f.; Cyprian, Ep. 76.2.
198. For a comprehensive discussion on honour and shame, consult the excellent works of Carlin A. Barton,
Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001) and J.E. Lendon, Empire of
Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
199. Incarceration and dishonour were inextricably linked (cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.6.25; 1.4.23f; Cicero, Caec. 100;
Seneca, Ad Lucilium Ep. 85.41).
99
honour rating of the alleged social deviant instantly fell in the eyes of society.200 To be
convicted of a crime was to receive the perennial sentence of public ridicule, since, before the
public eye, former felons remained felons, never escaping the inexorable shame their crime
had merited.201 Thus, whether a person was imprisoned or freed, shameful reproaches and
negative consequences followed,202 not least for those closely affiliated with them.
1.4.2.2. Shameful Affiliations with the Imprisoned
Family and friends encountered immense pressure to abandon the imprisoned, largely
because, like an infectious disease, shame was easily transmitted. Euxitheus, for instance,
regrets that, as a result of his imprisonment, his accusers have brought lifelong disgrace on
[him] and [his] family.203 Seneca, in his renowned epistle on friendship, advises the reader to
avoid becoming friends with purely self-interested fellows, for at the first rattle of the chain
such a friend will desert him.204 [W]hen Lucius Scipio was being taken to prison, Livy
200. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 18.189-19.295; War. 7.36; Suetonius, Vit. 7.17.1; Tacitus, Ann. 1.58; 4.28; 11.1; Pliny, Ep.
10.57.
201. Rapske, Roman Custody, 28990. In speaking of the life-long degradation of prisoners, Rapske also notes,
Terms for prison and its accoutrements were applied derisively, including jail guard (custos carceris), fetter
farmer (catenarum colonus), exconvict and jail bird (ex compedibus atque ergastulo) and jail bird (desmotes)
(Prison, Prisoner, in Dictionary of New Testament Background [ed. Craig Evans and Stanley Porter; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000], 829).
202. Honour was so highly valued that prisoners commited suicide to avoid the indignity of prison, trial
hearings, and especially the disdainful probability of living the rest of their lives in shame (Craig Wansink, Chained
in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Pauls Imprisonments [JSNTSup 130; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996], 5859).
203. Antiphon, De caed. Her. 18.
204. Lucil. 9.9.
100
recounts, no one of his colleagues was coming to his assistance.205 Abandoning the shameful
of society, therefore, occurred most often among those who guarded themselves from public
opprobrium.
Another reason for deserting the imprisoned was because caring for them placed the
welfare of family and friends at risk. Brian Rapske points to a number of sources that provide
numerous instances of the dangers in helping prisoners.206 Of particular interest is the danger
of associating oneself with formerly influential figures. Merely visiting them or, even worse,
publicly adopting their political or religious views implicated oneself in criminal activity. For
instance, before Apollonius arrest, the number of his students decreased from thirty-four to
eight, because they were scared to affiliate themselves with a soon-to-be social outcast.207 The
incarcerated Musonius, recognising that informers monitored conversations for subversive
plots, only spoke indirectly to Apollonius, so that their lives might not be endangered.208
From these examples, one fact becomes obvious: shame was communicable to the close
acquaintances of prisoners, and this shame oftentimes jeopardized their social status, their
205. 38.57.3f.
206. Helpers, 2329.
207. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.37.
208. Vit. Apoll. 4.46.
101
property, even their well-being, prompting friends and family to evade harm and possibly
death by forsaking the incarcerated.209
1.4.2.3. The Material Needs of Prisoners
In ancient confinement, the state barely provided lifes necessities, especially food and
drink, compelling prisoners to depend on the generosity of those outside prison walls. Unlike
modern incarceration, the responsibility to feed prisoners fell on friends and relatives.210
Without recourse to external help, impecunious convicts were seized by absolute misery, for it
meant depending upon the prison ration which, because of its lack of variety, quality and
quantity, often put life in peril.211 Even when rations were provided, they were so meagre that
even the heartiest were gradually enfeebled by hunger, thirst and illnesses which resulted
from such niggardly portions.212 Against this backdrop, one can sense a grateful cry of relief in
Pauls reception of Philippian goods via Epaphroditus I received all things, and I abound!
(4:18).
209. No wonder affiliation with the imprisoned is deemed admirable in the New Testament. The parable of the
sheep and the goats commends those who visit (and presumably care for) prisoners, but condemns those who,
either out of fear or shame, neglect this indispensable practice (Mt. 25:34-36, 41-45). Also, the author of Hebrews
applauds Christians who sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of [their]
property (Heb. 10:34), exhorting them to persist in this work and calling them to [r]emember the prisoners, as
though in prison with them, and those who are ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body (Heb. 13:3).
210. Rapske, Roman Custody, 214.
102
But Epaphroditus not only met Pauls material needs, he also provided the material
presence of a brother in Christ (2:25).213 Even though access to prisoners may have proved
difficult at times,214 either because of prison regimens or inimical personnel,215 friends and
relatives were generally admitted to visit their loved ones. This explains how Epaphroditus
gained access to minister to Paul in a personal manner, informing him of specific situations in
Philippi later addressed in this letter (e.g., Euodia and Syntyche, 4:2) and encouraging his
heart, downtrodden by his grim predicament.216 Neither shame nor fear prevented
Epaphroditus, and thus the Philippians who sent him, from being affiliated with a social
deviant. They shared in his suffering. In response to this selfless act of bearing his shame, Paul
directly honours Epaphroditus (2:29) and, in so doing, indirectly commends the Christ-
followers in Philippi for their support (4:14, 18).
1.5. Summary
We have drawn attention to three important aspects of Pauls with the
Philippians from Acts, Philippians, and the social conditions of ancient confinement. First,
being bound by a mutual for one another, their relationship is positive and reciprocal,
insofar as they exchange affectionate concern, sacrificial service, prayer, and joy. Second, their
213. Fowl, Philippians, 139. This is supported by the verb in 2:30 in light of its meaning in 1 Cor.
16:17-18, though exclusively interpreting 2:30 this way will be challenged below.
214. Homil. Clement. 3.69: . . .so far as you can, help those in prison. . . .
216. On encouraging prisoners, see Rapske, Roman Custody, 38588.
103
relationship is financial, as evidenced by passages that describe their gifts to Paul (1:3-6; 2:25-
30; 4:10-20) and especially the mention of their exclusive relationship in giving and receiving
(4:15). Third, their relationship is marked by mutual suffering, inasmuch as they willingly
affiliate themselves with and share in the sufferings of an alleged felon. Otherwise expressed,
Paul and the Philippians enjoyed a positive relationship in gift and suffering. Not all scholars
agree with this positive assessment, however. In fact, the precise nature of their relationship
has been the subject of considerable debate.
2. The Nature of Pauls Relationship with the Philippians
Several views have been propounded to explain the nature of the relationship between Paul
and the Philippian community. Each emphasises one aspect over another, thereby
constructing antithetical portrayals of a single relationship. These portrayals may be
categorised as follows: (i) a dysfunctional relationship; (ii) a consensual societas; (iii) a
friendship among (a) equals and (b) unequals, and (c) a non-obligatory friendship.217
2.1. A Dysfunctional Relationship
Davorin Peterlin surmises that the relationship between Paul and the Philippians was
dysfunctional, insofar as the church split into two strands, one pro-Paul, the other anti-
217. Although these perspectives overlap on a number of points, this simplified categorisation is an attempt to
demarcate each view clearly.
104
Paul.218 These groups, led by Euodia and Syntyche (4:2-3), influential leaders of house-
congregations in Philippi,219 held conflicting views over whether or not to support Paul
financially.220 Eventually, the pro-Paul group sent him a gift, but Paul responds to their
generosity in 4:10-20 with considerable unease, reflecting his awareness of the anti-Pauline
lobby in the church and their scathing criticisms of him.221 For Peterlin, then, the disunity
between Paul and the Philippians unfolds in two ways among the community itself and
between the anti-Paul group and the apostle over the issue of financial support.
Peterlins reconstruction, however, is tenuous. The major flaw of this thesis stems from
his faulty methodological approach, which results in multiple instances of over-
interpretation.222 He works his way exegetically through the entire letter, detecting allusions
to the so-called strife-situation and interpreting overt appeals to unity (1:27; 2:2-4) and
problems in the church (2:14; 4:2-3) in a way that fits his already pre-established
reconstruction. Admittedly, there may have been disagreements among members (2:14; 4:2),
provoking Paul to exhort them to be united (1:27; 2:2-4; 4:2), but to leap from these
218. Pauls Letter to the Philippians in the Light of Disunity in the Church (NovTSup 79; Leiden/New York: Brill,
1995), 224.
219. Disunity, 123.
220. Taking his cue from G.B. Caird (Pauls Letters from Prison [New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1976], 149), Peterlin insists that the contention between Euodia and Syntyche is the primary reason for the
widespread disunity in Philippi (Disunity, 102 n9). Also contributing to this disunity is the Philippians general
experience of external pressure, their pagan religious background, and their perfectionist tendencies (219).
221. Disunity, 216.
222. For this categorical distinction, see Barclay, Mirror-Reading, 73-93 at 79-80.
105
disagreements to the view that an anti-Paul group and the apostle were relationally disjointed
is a large leap in logic. This is especially true when we consider that every appeal to unity in
Philippians refers to the members of the church. Paul never calls them to be united with
himself. Also, Peterlins pro-Paul and anti-Paul dichotomy, forcefully read into 4:2-3, does
not account for the absence of acclamations, such as I am of Apollos! or I am of Paul! (1 Cor.
1:12), or any text that even hints in the direction of a divided allegiance at Philippi.
As it stands, then, a dysfunctional relationship between Paul and the Philippians is far
from the picture actually displayed in the letter, and it is therefore no surprise that Peterlins
fanciful portrait has been rejected by many scholars. For instance, Troels Engberg-Pedersen,
unconvinced by this overbold, one-sided, and fullblown picture drawn by Peterlin,
considers it too speculative,223 and Markus Bockmuehl accurately calls it a considerable
overkill.224
2.2. A Roman Consensual Societas
Paul Sampley225 situates the relationship between Paul and the Philippians within a
Roman consensual societas, a verbal agreement, made between two or more participants, to
223. Paul and the Stoics, 31213.

224. Philippians, 239.
225. The societas relationship between Paul and the Philippians, as Sampley acknowledges, was noticed earlier
by J. Fleury, Une socit de fait dans lEglise apostolique (Phil. 4:10 22), in Mlanges Philippe Meylan (Lausanne:
Universit de Lausanne, 1963), 4159.
106
maintain a legally binding, reciprocal partnership toward a common goal.226 Three chief
characteristics of societas undergird Sampleys hypothesis that Paul established a societas Christi
with the community.227
The first characteristic is the legal obligation among participants to meet one anothers
needs. In societas, the expenses incurred by one of the partners in his work on behalf of the
partnership are to be reimbursed by the remaining partners.228 Panning over to Pauls receipt
of the Philippians gift, Sampley discovers the same social act in 4:10-20, particularly in the
terms and . is translated as need-request, denoting his legal right to
remuneration by requesting payment from his partners;229 while amounts to a formal
receipt (I have received [] full payment, and more [4:18]) in response to their gift-
payment (),230 which was only delivered after receiving his need-request ().231
The second analogous characteristic is that the Greek equivalent of societas is
.232 For Sampley, this becomes evident when one examines the commercial
terminology revolving around in Phil. 4:10-20 (e.g., ,
226. Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1980), 1120; esp. 13. He derives his information for societas from Cicero, Pro Roscio Comoedo and Pro
Quinctio; Gaius, Institutes; and Digest 17.2 Pro Socio.
227. Pauline Partnership, 72.
230. Similarly, Sampley translates (4:17) as both gift and payment (Pauline Partnership, 54).
232. Pauline Partnership, 1213, 6062.
107
4:15; , 4:17; , 4:18). Indeed, he asserts that the commercial technical terms
associated with [in 4:15-16 specifically] leave it unmistakable that the partnership is
societas.233
The third characteristic is the notion of like-mindedness. The idea of being of the same
mind (in eodem sensu) is constitutive of societas. It is a shorthand way of saying that the aim of
the societas remains central and functional for the partners.234 Neither party can turn this
mutual relationship into a self-centred enterprise. If the interests, reciprocity, and mutual
trust between both parties toward a common goal are not maintained, then the relationship
can be legally terminated.235 Sampley reads the notion of into this framework, a
prevalent theme in Philippians as already mentioned, which depicts their mutuality in Christ
(1:7; 2:2; 2:5; 3:15; 3:19; 4:2; 4:10).236 In fact, through the gift given to Paul, the Philippians
confirmed their mutual partnership ( ) toward the same objective of
spreading the gospel (4:10).237 Viewed together, these three characteristics, according to
Sampley, prove that the Philippians and Paul understood themselves as societas Christi.238
There are many admirable components of Sampleys application of societas to
Philippians 4:10-20. He rightly understands the positive nature of their relationship, their

108
mutual trust, the mutual obligation to reciprocate, the need to be self- and other-interested,
and the like-mindedness among participants towards a common goal. Nevertheless, many
counter-arguments have been levelled against his reconstruction.239 The most detrimental is
that, while can be a possible analogue for societas, it does not necessarily imply that
Greek speakers used as a label for societas, nor that Paul himself employed the term
with this in mind.240 Moreover, his translation of as need-request does not coincide with
Pauls explicit statement that he did not seek the gift ( , 4:16).
Furthermore, many have recognised that the commercial terminology need not be understood
within the parameters of a legally-binding relationship.241 It may also be read within a social
context, such as the intimate bond of friendship.242
239. See, for instance, Peterman, Gift Exchange, 12327; Bormann, Philippi, 18187.
240. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 125. Also, Peterman rightly draws attention to a text in Seneca (Ben. 4.18.1-2),
where societas functions as the basis of a social exchange of goods and services rather than a legal relationship
(126).
241. Following Sampley, Brian Capper also argues that the commercial terminology unveils a societas
relationship between Paul and the Philippians. Yet Capper argues that, because Pauls travelling ministry had
been cut short by imprisonment, the Philippians accused Paul of being in breach of his legal contract and so
withheld their support. In response, Paul negotiated a settlement in order to maintain their partnership, argues
that imprisonment was not a violation of their agreement in Phil. 1-2, and calls the community to embody Christ-
like humility (Pauls Dispute with Philippi: Understanding Pauls Argument in Phil 12 from His Thanks in 4.10
20, TZ 49 [1993]: 193214). But the same critique levelled against Peterlin applies here. There is little evidence of
the dispute that Capper uncovers, especially since 4:10 does not convey a lack of concern but a lack of
opportunity ().
242. See Peterman, Gift Exchange, 5665.
109
2.3. A Friendship Relationship
Abraham Malherbes ground-breaking address at the 1990 SBL Annual Meeting, in
which he suggested that friendship language in the Greco-Roman world merited further
investigation, prompted several works to appear on Pauls monetary relationship with the
Philippians.243 Friendship proponents generally subscribe to one of two views. They either
consider Pauls friendship with the community as an (i) equal or (ii) unequal gift-exchange
relationship. Which view they adopt is determined by their understanding of ancient
friendship parallels in connection to Philippians.
2.3.1. Textual Parallels between Ancient Friendship and Philippians
Those who advocate for the topos of friendship as the epistolary genre of Philippians, or
simply apply the Hellenistic moral paradigm of to the letter, read the financial
relationship in 4:10-20 through the lens of Aristotles Nichomachean Ethics (though the writings
of Plato, Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca, and others are also consulted). In Books VIII and IX on
Friendship, Aristotle identifies three categories: (i) friendships based on utility;244 (ii)
243. Even before this, Malherbe had already promoted the topic of friendship in Ancient Epistolary Theorists
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), though long before Malherbes work, the topic of friendship was already well-
known among classicists (cf. John Reumann, Philippians, Especially Chapter 4, as a Letter of Friendship:
Observations on a Checkered History of Scholarship, in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on
Friendship in the New Testament World [ed. John T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 84).
244. This utilitarian category, coupled with Ciceros comments that a friendship should not be cultivated on
the basis of need (Amic. 51), leads Malherbe to hypothesise that the Philippians may have sent a letter with the
gift expressing their desire to meet his need (), which, to Paul, disclosed a utilitarian and therefore
erroneous perspective on their relationship (Pauls Self-Sufficiency [Philippians 4:11], in Friendship, Flattery, and
110
friendships based on pleasure; and (iii) friendships based on virtue,245 of which the virtuous
friendship is considered by Aristotle to be the perfect form [] of friendship.246
The textual parallels between Aristotle and Philippians are quite striking.247 For
instance, just as Aristotle asserts that friends share one soul ( ),248 so also Paul calls on
the community to strive together with one soul ( ). More than this, he calls them to
stand in one spirit ( , 1:27) and even to become fellow souls () with
one another (2:2). He also expresses his friendship with Timothy by designating him, of equal
soul (, 2:20). What is more, Paul describes his relationship with the Philippians as one
of (1:5, 7; 4:14, 15), sharing the same semantic field as Aristotles famous dictum:
.249
Depending on how one applies these parallels to Philippians determines the stance one
takes on whether their friendship exhibits equality or inequality.
Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World [ed. John T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 137
38). John Fitzgerald builds on this and more confidently asserts, In denying that he is in need, Paul is rejecting
any suggestion that his friendship with the Philippians is utilitarian, which is how some of the Christ-believers in
Philippi quite likely construed their relationship with the apostle (Christian Friendship: John, Paul, and the
Philippians, Int 61 [2007]: 263; cf. John Reumann, Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and to
Earliest Christianity, NTS 39 [1993]: 45556).
245. Nic. Eth. 8.3.1-9.
246. Nic. Eth. 7.3.6.
247. For friendship language in Philippians chs. 1-3, see John T. Fitzgerald, Philippians in the Light of Some
Ancient Discussions of Friendship, in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New
Testament World (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 14447; for ch. 4, see Ken Berry, The Function of
Friendship Language in Philippians 4:1020, in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in
the New Testament World (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 10724.
248. Cf. also Plutarch, Amic. mult. 96f.; Diog. Laer. 5.20.
249. A saying that goes back to Pythagoras (Diog. Laert. 8.10).
111
2.3.2. Friendship among Equals
Some latch on to the idealistic descriptions of ancient friendship and argue that
equality characterised Pauls relationship with the Philippians. L.M. White, for example,
considers them equal friends, insofar as he is their spiritual patron, just as they are his
economic patron, a reciprocity of patronage which is the basis for their bond of friendship
with one another, just as with Christ.250 For Luke T. Johnson, equality constitutes a
fundamental component of reciprocity, which undoubtedly characterised Pauls dealings with
Philippi.251 And Stanley Stowers claims that Philippians displays a remarkable symmetry
between the relationship of Paul and of the Philippians.252 To be sure, these scholars admit
that almost every ancient source stresses equality among friends as an ideal rather than as a
reality,253 and that, by this time, friendship basically merged with the exploitative nature of
patronage. But they nevertheless maintain that equality characterised Pauls financial
friendship with the community, albeit paradoxically. Paul employs the language of friendship,
250. Morality Between Two Worlds: A Paradigm of Friendship in Philippians, in Greeks, Romans, and Christians:
Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. David Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne Meeks; Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 21415 n59.
251. Making Connections: The Material Expression of Friendship in the New Testament, Int 58 (2004): 160,
16465, 167. Other supporters of this position include: Abraham Malherbe, Self-Sufficiency; John T. Fitzgerald,
Ancient Discussions; idem, Christian Friendship.
252. Stanley Stowers, Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven: Reading Theology in Philippians, in
Pauline Theology, Volume I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (ed. Jouette M. Bassler; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991), 119; my italics.
253. See L.M. White, Paradigm of Friendship, 211; Stowers, Friends and Enemies, 111.
112
but with a novel twist254 or in a creative way,255 which is to say, without the oppressive brand
of inequality and exploitation so prevalent in antiquity.256
2.3.3. Friendship among Unequals
Others are not so optimistic (or, perhaps better, idealistic), insisting that amiable words
of equality only disguise a patently asymmetrical relationship. For instance, Peter Marshall
traces the social conventions of friendship in antiquity, which clearly contained inequality and
obligation,257 and contends that Paul does not dismiss the practice of friendship and that many
of its conventions continue to govern his relationships with others.258 Though Marshall does
not take an explicit stand on the equality or inequality of Pauls relationship with the
Philippians, since his monograph focusses on the Corinthian church, many have followed his
implicit trajectories towards unequal friendships, otherwise known as a patronal friendships.
Ben Witherington, for example, deduces an unequal friendship from the apostles
authority to send Epaphroditus back to Philippi. It demonstrates, he writes, that Paul has
ultimate authority over them all, indicating that his partnership with the Philippians is not
one of complete equality. He is the senior partner and has the power to override, correct, or
254. Stowers, Friends and Enemies, 120.

255. Johnson, Making Connections, 164.
256. Fee insists that Paul skews the Greco-Roman conventions of gift. He concedes that, since the Philippians
assisted Paul materially, Paul became client to their patronage, in this sense. But, he continues, precisely
because their friendship was predicated on their mutual belonging to Christ, these two expressions of patron-
client relationship were leveled by total mutuality and reciprocity (Philippians, 445; my italics).
257. See Saller, Personal Patronage, 11, 75.
258. Marshall, Enmity, 134.
113
reverse decisions made at the local level.259 That is why, in 4:10-20, Paul simultaneously
receives and removes himself from their gifts. He must remind them that he is not his
audiences client and, even after receiving and accepting this gift, is not in their debt.260 Along
the same lines, Morna Hooker surmises that Paul intentionally eschews Philippian patronage,
so as not to become their client and they his superior paymasters.261
Lukas Bormann examines 4:10-20 through Senecas framework of patron-client ties in
De Beneficiis and Epistulae Morales,262 concluding that the Philippians, as a Roman colony under
Julio-Claudian patronage, operate with a quid pro quo mentality characteristic of amicitia, which
Paul forthrightly rejects.263 Paul does not want to become their patron or be further indebted
to them, so, instead, he attempts to make the Philippians an emancipated clientele
(emanzipierte Klientel) by correcting their faulty understanding of gift exchange in 4:10-20,
while simultaneously maintaining his superiority over them as his children.264
A more antagonistic approach to an unequal friendship has been taken by Joseph
Marchal, who extracts four hierarchical strategies among the oppressive elite from Pauls
259. Friendship and Finances in Philippi (The New Testament in Context; Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1994), 168
n19; cf. 123.
260. Finances, 126; my italics. Ken Berry also suggests that Paul maintains his independence in case some of the
Philippians might be tempted to become proud in supposing Paul was dependent on their patronage (Function of
Friendship Language, 123).
261. The Letter to the Philippians, in The New Interpreters Bible (ed. L.E. Keck et. al.; 12 vols.; Nashville:
Abingdon, 2000), 11:543.
262. Though many doubt that Senecas writings have patronage in view (cf. Griffin, De Beneficiis).
263. Philippi, 1184.
264. Philippi, 20506.
114
rhetoric in Philippians: (i) the prioritising of himself as authority and model; (ii) his exclusive
alignment with the divine; (iii) elevation of authoritative status; and (iv) his demands for
obedience and subjection in their friendship.265 The end result of this hermeneutic of
suspicion is that Paul closely resembles his aristocratic, cultural counterparts. He
manipulatively exploits the Philippians and enforces a stark hierarchy between himself and
the church.
While the friendship paradigm certainly illumines the relational dynamics of
Philippians within its particular social context, it typically downplays one significant detail
Gods presence in the relationship. Pauls friendship with the Philippians, as will be argued, is a
three-way bond with God. This is precisely where the friendship model, like the patron-client
model,266 falls short. Both of these relational frameworks can only account for two parties in
exchange. To be sure, supporters of the friendship paradigm note the presence of three parties
in Philippians. Gordon Fee, for example, regards the three-way relationship as the glue that
holds the letter together from beginning to end,267 and Stephen Fowl, speaking specifically of
4:10-20, observes that it lies at the root of this entire passage.268 And yet, they do not tease out
the relational modifications that the divine third party generates in the two-way relationship
265. Friends, 9699.

266. See Chapter 1, section 1.5.4.
268. Philippians, 200. Other scholars who detect a third party include: Peterman, Gift Exchange, 49, 10405 n65;
Witherington, Finances, 13132; Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2009), 310.
115
between Paul and the community. For Gods presence, we will argue, resolves the
equal/unequal tension in their relationship.
2.3.4. A Non-Obligatory Friendship
Just as there has been unceasing debate over the issue of equality and inequality, so,
too, many have questioned whether Pauls monetary relationship carried obligatory ties to
reciprocate. Though the nature of obligation, self-interest, and reciprocity, three interwoven
elements of gift-giving, will be further explicated in the exegetical sections on 2:25-30 and
4:10-20 below, we offer a brief account of the non-obligatory friendship advocated by Martin
Ebner and G.W. Peterman.
Ebner contends that the Philippians had been tainted by der Verpflichtungscharakter der
Freundschaft,269 but that Paul corrects this obligatory understanding of by connecting
friendship, money, , and especially in 4:10-20. For Ebner, by proclaiming
his Autarkie, that is, his dependence on God (4:13), Paul invites the Philippians to become self-
sufficient as well, thereby transforming their two-way Freundschaftskoinonia into a three-
way Koinonia mit Gott.270 Consequently, this triangular relationship or, as Ebner puts it, this
Beziehungsdreieck cuts the ties of any moralische Verpflichtung between Paul and the
269. Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief: Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus
(FB 66; Wrzburg: Echter, 1991), 358; cf. also his helpful diagram of this relationship on 359.
270. Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, 364.
116
Philippians.271 Against Ebner, however, it will be argued below that, rather than cutting the
horizontal ties of debt and obligation, Paul reties them into a three-way knot, with God as the
third party to whom Paul and the church share a mutual obligation.
In the same vein, G.W. Peterman insists that Pauls letter to the community contains
no mention of debt or obligation, neither on the Philippians part nor on Pauls.272 The
language of obligation is missing, either generally in the content of the letter or specifically in
wording such as (I owe) or (to repay a favour).273 So, to assume that
obligation triggers the Philippians gift, for Peterman, well exceeds the dynamics of this gift-
exchange relationship.274 While his argument will be challenged later at length, it becomes
apparent that Peterman, like Ebner, considers debt and obligation to be part of Paul and the
Philippians social world but a foreign element to the world of Christian gift-giving.
2.4. Conclusion
Conflicting views over the nature of Pauls relationship with the Philippians have been
surveyed above. Peterlin renders it dysfunctional, Sampley considers it a legally-bound societas
Christi, friendship proponents, depending on whether they apply an idealistic or realistic
271. Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, 363.

272. Gift Exchange, 148.
274. Those who have followed Petermans argument include: Witherington, Finances, 12628; esp. 131; Stephen
Fowl, Know Your Context: Giving and Receiving Money in Philippians, Int 56 (2002): 4558.
117
reading of /amicitia, either promote an equal or unequal relationship, while Ebner and
Peterman eradicate any sort of debt or obligation from their gift-exchange relationship.
From this analysis and critique of various positions, one pressure point in the
discussion becomes evident. Whatever stance one takes on the nature of their financial
relationship, the need remains for scholars to consider Gods role as the third party and its
relational implications for Paul and the Philippians. We therefore intend to show how the
insertion of a vertical party modifies horizontal dealings, an exegetical task that will occupy
the rest of this chapter. We will begin by first extrapolating the three-way relational pattern
from Phil. 1:7 and 1:12-30, before turning to detect this same relational pattern in the gifts
from Philippi to Paul, mentioned in 1:3-6, 2:25-30, and 4:10-20. Only then will we be able to
discern how the inclusion of a divine third party naturally reconfigures Pauls full, trusting
with the Philippians, and why they were allowed entrance into a gift-giving
relationship with their apostle in the first place.
3. Exegetical Investigation of Philippians 1:7, 1:12-30
In order to comprehend the complex triangulated relationship between God, Paul, and the
Philippians, two primary questions will govern the exegesis that follows. First, what is the
shape of Pauls with the Philippians? That is, are there particular relational features
that comprise their partnership? Second, what is the trajectory of in their partnership of
118
the gospel?275 More specifically, where does begin and end? Does it end? Through whom
does it travel? To whom does it go? And does God play a role in its progression? Tracing the
route of among its participants will enable us to define their three-way relationship
more sharply.
Outlining the route of seems especially appropriate for the letter of Philippians
because Paul very unusually brackets this correspondence with a greeting in the
beginning (paired with ; 1:2) and a wish at the end (4:23).276 Although Philippians
is not unique when compared to his other letters (cf. Rom. 1:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 1:3; 16:23; 2 Cor. 1:2;
13:13; Gal. 1:3; 6:18; 1 Thess. 1:1; 5:28; Phlm. 1:3, 25), it is unique in comparison to Greco-Roman
conventions. Consequently, the effect of this bracketing of is to place the apostles
theology of grace within a dynamic in which grace is continually expected to be supplied from
God/Christ ( , 1:2). This will prove significant
for the exegetical sections that follow. And yet, what this does in terms of the text-pragmatics
275. Stephan Joubert rightly notes that and , without being synonyms, are often used
interchangeably ( in Paul: An Investigation into the Apostles Performative Application of the Language
of Grace within the Framework of his Theological Reflection on the Event/Process of Salvation, in Salvation in the
New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology [ed. Jan G. van der Watt; NovTSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2005], 187211 at 194).
Although we recognise a distinction between and , we will employ the phrase in the
gospel and other similar expressions throughout our exegetical analysis. This is meant to retain the gift aspect of
the gospel, since a gift in antiquity, not least in Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 8-9), was often referred to as a . In support of
this is the greeting formula: . . . (Phil. 1:2).
276. This grace formula, as Judith Lieu refers to it, is unparalleled in non-Christian letters, The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all (Grace to You and Peace: The Apostolic Greeting BJRL 68 (1985/86): 161-
78).
119
is just as significant.277 By bracketing his letter with , Paul calls into their present
situation, and surrounds their present on-going relationship with, a grace-dynamic that makes
real his theology of sharing in .
In order to trace the trajectory of in the letter, however, we must first determine
the form of Pauls with the Philippians. Identifying the relational contours of their
partnership will provide insight into the cause of their well-functioning bond of gift. In this
regard, the most informative passage is Phil. 1:7.
3.1. The Trajectory of in the Gospel through their
3.1.1. Philippians 1:7 The Shape of Pauls with the Philippians
After rendering thanks to God for the Philippians partnership in gospel advancement
from the first day until now (1:5), Paul moves into greater detail about the shape of their
, the essence of which is a mutual participation in divine . He
writes,

,
(1:7).
277. On whether or not the style of Pauls greetings points to a Jewish pre-Pauline tradition, see Lieu,
Apostolic Greeting, 167-70; Ernst Lohmeyer, Probleme paulinischer Theologie: I. Briefliche Gruberschriften,
ZNW 26 (1927): 158-73; Cilliers Breytenbach, Charis and Eleos in Pauls Letter to the Romans, in The Letter to
the Romans (ed. U. Schnelle; BETL 226; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 247-77.
120
But what does mean in this context? It can either refer to Gods saving activity278
or Pauls apostolic ministry.279 It all depends on whether one construes the possessive genitive
as modifying (translated as my fellow-sharers of grace [i.e., Gods saving
activity]) or as modifying (translated as fellow-sharers of my grace [i.e., Pauls
apostolic ministry]).
Peter OBrien presents the strongest case for the former translation (my fellow-sharers
of grace = Gods saving activity), garnering support from (i) the order of the pronouns, (ii) the
fact that, when Paul speaks of grace peculiar to himself, he never says, my grace but the
grace given to me (cf. Rom. 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor. 3:10; Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 15:10), (iii) the article ()
before , showing that the well-known grace of God is primarily in view, and (iv) a similar
construction of a noun with a double genitive, of the person and the thing, which occurs at
Phil. 1:25 and 2:30.280
But we remain unconvinced. Although one could contend that , like the other
instance in 1:7 (i.e., ), should follow , it nevertheless precedes the noun in
4:14, where the community shares Pauls affliction (
). Also, in response to (ii) and (iv), Paul characteristically appeals to in
278. See, for example, Marvin Vincent, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to
Philemon (ICC; T&T Clark, 1922), 10; OBrien, Philippians, 6970.
279. See, for example, Martin Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I II, an die Philipper (HNT 11; Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1937), 63; Silva, Philippians, 47; Akira Satake, Apostolat und Gnade bei Paulus, NTS 15 (196869): 96107 at
99; Collange, Epistle, 47.
121
reference to his apostolic ministry (cf. Rom. 1:5), and it is primarily his ministry that 1:7 has in
view (the defence and confirmation of the gospel).281 This explanatory clause also outweighs
argument (iii) that a single article () points to the saving of God. And lastly, Brent
Nongbri, in favour of the reading fellow-sharers of my grace, calls attention to some neglected
Wirkungsgeschichte, a textual variant in the so-called Western witnesses of Pauls letters which
places after ( ). Lamentably, Nestle-Alands critical
apparatus excludes this reading, due to the fact that a single fourth-century witness does not
trump a reading supported by P46, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus.
Against this textual exclusion, however, Nongbri avers that even though
there is. . .insufficient evidence to suggest that

represents the earliest recoverable text of Phil 1:7, this reading could represent an early
clarification of the verse and thus could provide evidence for how some early readers of
the ambiguous understood that phrase.282
Further bolstering his case is a fragment from Theodore of Mopsuestias commentary on Phil.
1:7, in which he includes to allow to modify (
).283 Thus, finding the reading fellow-sharers of my grace more persuasive, we maintain
281. Silva, Philippians, 47.

282. Two Neglected Textual Variants in Philippians 1, JBL 128 (2009): 80308 at 805; authors italics.
283. Textual Variants, 806.
122
that, in 1:7, Paul integrates the Philippians into the of his apostleship,284 with the result
that their exhibits two grace-shaped dimensions.
The first dimension is a mutual sharing in suffering. According to 1:7, the Philippians
are in Pauls chains. But how? Each instance of in the letter recounts the
apostles physical suffering in imprisonment (1:7, 13, 14, 17), whereas the Philippians are
hundreds of miles removed from his dire predicament.285 Their gift to Paul provides the
answer. It closes the gap of distance and permits the Philippians to enter into his suffering, as
they lovingly despise the shame of affiliating themselves with a social outcast and express
their interconnected dependence with Paul, being bound together by . Within this nexus
of grace, when the apostle suffers, the entire community () suffers. The fate of one
naturally affects the other. The gift, therefore, becomes more than just financial help. It
reinforces their mutual ties of and suffering286 a that will become clearer as
we move exegetically through the letter.
284. Interestingly, Nongbri likens Paul as to a broker of divine benefaction, yet implicitly assumes that the
Philippians are not brokers in the same sense, and that their participation in this grace accrues glory and praise
for Paul instead of God (Textual Variants, 808). But, as will be demonstrated, Paul and the Philippians equally
distribute divine benefaction to one another (1:18d-26). In this sense, they are mutual brokers of divine
beneficence.
285. Contra Ernst Lohmeyer who maintains that Paul connects their experience to his because the Philippians
share the same of imprisonment in 1:30 and the same prospect of Martyrium (Der Brief an die Philipper
[Gttingen: Dandenhoed & Ruprecht, 1956], 2227). See section 3.2.1.2.2 below.
286. Concluding his discussion on 1:29-30, Lohmeyer accurately states, So sind sie in Leid und Gnade
verbunden (Philipper, 80), though we disagree with his definition of Leid as Martyrium.
123
The second grace-shaped dimension is a mutual sharing in gospel advancement. They
are with Paul in the defence () and confirmation () of the
gospel. These nouns form a hendiadys, being closely connected by the preposition , the
single governing article , and the genitival phrase .287 Together, these
forensic terms288 contribute to the creative interplay between Paul and the gospel in the
courtroom. To the question how it is with him, writes Karl Barth, an apostle must react with
information as to how it is with the Gospel, 289 since, as Morna Hooker asserts, he sees his own
imminent trial as part of a much greater event in which the gospel itself is on trial.290 Paul will
expand on this in 1:12-27. For now, he intentionally draws the Philippians into this interplay,
heightening their participation in his and suffering for the gospel, as he takes a stand for
Christ or, perhaps better, in Christ ( , 1:13). And, once again, even though the
community is not physically present with Paul, they are said to be fellow-sharers in this
extension of in the gospel through his chains, undoubtedly by virtue of their union in
287. BDF, 442(16); Silva, Philippians, 48. Against this interpretation, see OBrien, Philippians, 69. Having adopted
this position, however, we deny that the entire clause
is a hendiadys. The construction . . . and the repeated preposition prohibits such a view
(although is missing from some manuscripts). Instead, chains, a metonymy for imprisonment, is the sphere
through which defence and confirmation of the gospel is carried out.
288. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 10809.
289. The Epistle to the Philippians (trans. James Leitch; London: SCM Press, 1962), 26; authors italics.
290. Philippians, 11:484.
124
With this two-dimensional partnership laid out, as a mutual sharing in gospel
advancement and suffering, the essence of which is divine , we now turn to trace the
trajectory of in the gospel through their in the present (1:12-18c) and in the
future (1:18d-26). This will permit the divine third party to take centre stage.
3.1.2. Philippians 1:12-18c: The Present Trajectory of through their
While their was simply mentioned in 1:5, Paul now provides
a concrete example of his partnership with the Philippians in 1:12-18c. The surprising feature
of their gospel partnership is that they are not alone. A divine third party undergirds and even
propels their ministry endeavours. Paul and the Philippians are actually mediators of Gods
to others.
3.1.2.1. from God through Paul and the Philippians to Others291
Paul begins 1:12-18c by informing the community that his imprisonment, rather than
capping the flow of grace in the gospel, actually ()292 contributes to its advancement
291. This is not a four-party relationship between God, Paul, the Philippians, and others, since Paul and the
Philippians constitute the second party that mediates the gospel to others. They are co-workers in its
advancement.
292. Some translate as more, implying that some expected Paul to embrace suffering and martyrdom
more than he actually did (cf. John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB
33B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 193). Collange translates it as rather, indicating that the adverb is
opposing. . .two conflicting views about the actual consequences of the events in question (Epistle, 53), which
Hawthorne attributes to hearing rumours (Philippians [WBC 43; Waco, TX: Word, 1983], 34) and Capper to a
relational rift (Pauls Dispute, 20809). By contrast, it seems more plausible to interpret as denoting the
opposite of what they might have expected, translating the phrase actually but without presupposing a conflict
125
(, 1:12). The term , appearing in 1:12 and 1:25, forms an inclusio and discloses
the main thrust of this section the progression of in gospel advancement. Importantly,
the mysterious subject behind this graceful thrust in 1:12 is God, who advances the gospel
through the hostile impediments of Pauls imprisonment (of which the Philippians are
) to others. or , therefore, flows from Gods beneficence and
streams through their partnership, making its powerful presence known inside and outside
prison walls.
Inside prison walls, is communicated through Pauls chains to non-Christ
believers. [I]t has become known, he declares, throughout the whole praetorium and to all
the rest293 that my chains are in Christ (1:13). The precise function of in this verse
has been vigorously debated, though it seems best to take it adverbially, modifying the entire
clause and not solely or . . ..294 Accordingly, this verse
among the Philippians (cf. R.L. Omanson, A Note on Phil. 1:12, BT 29 [1978]: 44648). If anything, it may simply
express their earnest desire to see the gospel advance.
293. takes in a wider circle, probably of pagans, who heard of Pauls imprisonment and its
reasons (OBrien, Philippians, 94).
294. Those who link with emphasise the spirit in which Paul endured his imprisonment
(my chains have become manifest in Christ; cf. James H. Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians [MNTC;
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928], 31), but the word order of the sentence rules this out. Conversely, those
who connect the phrase with highlight the cause of his chains (my chains-in-Christ have
become manifest; cf. Hansen, Philippians, 68), yet the separation of these phrases by makes this
unlikely. Instead, we follow Fritz Neugebauer, who states, Die Bezugsverhltnisse sind darum ganz eindeutig,
sofern eben in Christo hier zu dieser prdikativen Verbindung gehren muss (In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zum
paulinischen Glaubensverstndnis [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961], 121; cf. Joachim Gnilka, Der
Philipperbrief [HTKNT 10/3; 2nd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1968], 5657). In this way, signifies the death and
resurrection of Christ, the saving activity of God which determines Pauls apostolic existence.
126
comes to mean that Pauls confinement, with its painful as well as disgraceful sufferings,
somehow manifests the of God, either through his teaching or through hearing about his
reasons for his charge. In any case, one thing is certain. Pauls existence became
known through his sufferings for Christ.295 This is because the humiliating act of God in Christ
determines, shapes, and imbues Pauls entire life and thought. He therefore exists as an
embodiment of the Christ-event, a reenactment of the sufferings of Christ (cf. 3:10; 2 Cor.
1:5),296 which derive from embracing the weakness and power of the cross (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-25).
Like the cataclysmic Christ-event in history, which issues life-giving glory through agony,
shame, and death, so, too, Pauls disgraceful imprisonment functions as a rich opportunity for
the grace in the gospel to spread to others. Ironically, disgrace gives way to grace.
Outside prison walls, in the gospel extends through Pauls chains and generates a
new impulse for gospel proclamation through two Christ-believing groups. Being unified in
their content, these groups are disunified in their motivations. One group evangelises on
account of good will, out of love, and truthfully (1:15-16, 18), knowing that [Paul] has been
appointed for the defence of the gospel (1:16) and therefore trust in the Lord because of [his]
295. More than likely, those in the praetorium would not have interpreted his chains in this way, but Paul here
is giving a divine perspective on suffering for the Philippian Christians that will extend into 1:27-30.
296. John Schtz, in speaking of Phil. 3:10, perceptively writes, Not only is shown here literally to
mean being shaped by Christs death and resurrection; it also is clear that being so shaped, being , is
interpreted by Paul as experiencing power and suffering in the same indissoluble unity that characterizes Christs
death and resurrection as salvation events (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority [SNTSMS 26; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1975], 221; cf. also 207-08; Robert Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in
Pauline Theology [BZNW 32; Berlin: Tpelmann, 1967], 11429).
127
chains (1:14).297 The other group does so out of envy and strife and under pretence (1:15, 18),
supposing298 to afflict [him] in [his] chains (1:17). And yet, both proclaim Christ (
, 1:15). Although their preaching methods and motives conflict, they equally
participate in its advancement. Neither ulterior motives nor projected ambitions can
successfully deter the of through gospel proclamation, a progression which
ultimately leads Paul to rejoice (, 1:18c). His passion is for Christ to be proclaimed, for
to continue flowing through Christ followers, and for this divine commodity to abound
towards others. This is the trajectory of . It is constantly moving towards the other, either
in prison or in the church, and breaks through any obstacle in its path, whether chains or
corrupt motives. It is, after all, God who is behind its .
297. Since Paul normally addresses fellow believers in Christ as brothers and sisters, it would be superfluous
for to modify . Rather, modifies (cf. Vincent, Philippians, 17).
298. . . . in 1:17 is set in antithetical parallelism with . . .
in 1:16. Those who know () rightly interpret Pauls incarceration as a divine
appointment () to defend the gospel, whereas those who imagine () stumble at Pauls captivity and
weakness, not recognizing that Christs saving activity is manifested in his imprisonment, and so through it the
gospel advances (OBrien, Philippians, 10102).
128
The relational pattern arising from this section would therefore resemble the following
diagram:
Inside Prison Walls:

God
Paul/ Praetorian Guard

Philippians and Others
Outside Prison Walls:

God
Paul/ Two Christ-

Christ-believing Others
Philippians Groups
3.1.3. Philippians 1:18d-26: The Future Trajectory of through their with One Another
The shift in tense ( , 1:18c-d) not only marks a shift in time but also a
shift in direction.299 Paul presently rejoices in his partnership with the Philippians and God in
mediating to others, but he anticipates a time in the future when they will mediate Gods
to one another, the outcome of which will be their mutual and ultimate salvation to the
glory of God. This is a shift in the of , a change of direction in their
299. The majority of commentators affirm a break at the end of 1:18 (Bockmuehl, Philippians, 81).
129
, which reveals a vital, reciprocal relationship between God, Paul, and the
Philippians.
3.1.3.1. from God through the Philippians to Paul (1:18d-20)
The first part of their reciprocal relationship appears in 1:18d-20. Looking out into the
unforeseeable future, Paul grounds () his anticipated joy in Gods progression of the gospel.
He writes: , (1:18d-19a).
points back to in 1:18c, not in 1:12,300 continuing Pauls emphasis on
the of in the gospel, as the inclusio of 1:12 and 25 suggests. Only now, takes
on the form of . Some commentators interpret solely as Pauls physical
deliverance from prison,301 which partially does justice to the context (cf. 1:25-26). But it
neglects the soteriological import of the term.302 Indeed, Moiss Silva convincingly
demonstrates that denotes physical and eschatological salvation.303 In fact, the
300. Against OBrien and many others, who argue that Paul has his present situation of suffering in mind (cf.
Philippians, 109 and n9).
301. E.g., Hawthorne, Philippians, 40.
302. Satake, Gnade, 104: Es gibt nur eine einzige Stelle, wo Paulus direkt mit dem Wort sein eigenes
Heil bezeichnet: Phil. 1.19.
303. Without completely denying that Paul expected to be physically released from prison, Silva lists five
convincing reasons for also understanding eschatologically: (i) Pauls adversity will result in his
deliverance, which makes little sense if physical deliverance is in view; (ii) the phrase,
, implies a deliverance beyond the grave; (iii) the blaring resonance of Job 13 in Pauls discourse (
, Phil. 1:19; Job 13:16 [LXX]) portrays a heavenly vindication (cf. Richard Hays, Echoes
of Scripture in the Letters of Paul [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989], 2124); (iv) the emotive comment,
, surpasses a mere reference to physical liberation; and (v) the combination of
and parallels Rom. 5:5, where appears with and promotes the notion of
130
eschatological overtones of the term heighten the pivotal role that the Philippians play in this
exchange they occupy the intermediary role of Gods supply that leads not only to Pauls
deliverance from prison but also from eschatological death.
This becomes evident from the following prepositional clause, where Paul explains how
his will be enacted:
(1:19). The preposition indicates a intermediary role, while the single article ()
governs and , revealing a quasi
partnership between God and the Philippians.304 As such, God and the Philippians relate to one
another as human petition and divine supply, writes Bockmuehl, with the remarkable
outcome that both serve as contributing, not to say instrumental, factors in Pauls
salvation.305 God will provide []306 the spirit of Jesus Christ307 through () the
Philippians prayers,308 to produce boldness () in the apostle to undergo the only
shame found in Isa. 28:16, not the subjective feeling of guilt but the objective disgrace experienced by those on
whom the judgment of God falls (Philippians, 6972).
304. Though the term is absent, one discerns a co-working on the divine and human level
conceptually, especially if 1:7 is understood as an incorporation into Pauls as an apostle, a role which, in 1
Cor. 3:9, may arguably be conceived as a co-partnership with God. This is not completely foreign to Paul, seeing
that he envisages a co-working () between the Corinthians and God in 2 Cor. 1:11 (cf. Briones,
Mutual Brokers, 549 n55).
305. Bockmuehl, Philippians, 83; authors italics.
306. The translation help is sustained on the grounds of ancient marriage contracts. But, in light of the use of
in Gal. 3:5, it most likely means provide or supply (Fee, Philippians, 133 n30).
307. The genitive, , is an objective rather than subjective genitive, denoting the provision of the
Spirit to the apostle (Fee, Philippians, 132; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 84; pace Vincent, Philippians, 24; Gnilka,
Philipperbrief, 6768).
308. Note the same relational (and prayerful) pattern in 2 Cor. 1:11.
131
shame that matters, that which is endured for the sake of Christ.309 In the end, this mediation
will result in Pauls . Thus, just as Paul prays to God for the Philippians final salvation
in the introductory thanksgiving (1:4-6, 9-11), the Philippians will likewise pray to God for
Pauls ultimate salvation. Through this intermediary exchange,310 a three-way bond emerges,
and the mutuality that produces between Paul and the Philippians is, once again,
apparent. God in Christ, through the Philippians, provides the spirit of Christ to Paul (
, 1:19), culminating in his present/final salvation and ultimately glorifying Christ
( , 1:20).311 This relational pattern may be diagrammed as follows:
God

Paul Philippians
3.1.3.2. from God through Paul to the Philippians (1:20-26)
Previously, in 1:12-18c, God, being the implied agent behind , advances the
gospel through Pauls suffering to manifest Christ ( , 1:13-14) and also works
309. In view of Greco-Roman society, it is safe to assume that Paul, released or executed, will indeed be shamed
to some degree. But earthly shame pales in comparison to the possibility of being shamed before God. Pauls chief
and only fear is not remaining loyal to Christ (cf. Beare, Philippians, 62).
310. As noticed by Fee, Philippians, 127.
311. What Paul means by Christ being glorified through his life or death ( . . .
) carries various nuances in 1:18d-26: (i) Christ is glorified now as always (
) in prison, possibly before an earthly tribunal; (ii) since Paul expects to live through his imprisonment, Christ
will also be glorified when he ministers among the Philippians again; and (iii) Paul will glorify Christ at the
heavenly tribunal.
132
sovereignly through disparate motivations to proclaim Christ ( , 1:15-
18). In turning to the second half of their reciprocal relationship in 1:18d-26, nothing changes.
As we have just seen in 1:18d-20, God advances in the gospel through the Philippians
prayers to magnify Christ in Paul. And now, in 1:20-26, God will also work through Paul in order
to glorify Christ in the Philippians (1:20-26). This mediating exchange between Paul and the
community becomes clear from the phrase . OBrien sums it up nicely:
The wording is carefully chosen, for instead of using the first person active
construction of the verb [], which would correspond with
but which would have given undue prominence to himself, the apostle
changes to the third person. Christ becomes the subject ( ) and
Paul is simply the instrument by which the greatness of Christ shines out: behind the
passive voice the activity of God is implied, with Paul being the instrument in the divine hands.312
But if God glorifies Christ through Pauls body, how is Christ glorified? The obvious
answer is whether through life or through death ( , 1:20). Yet
Paul is genuinely torn () between the two in 1:21-24, fluctuating between both
prospects:
. ,
, . ,
, []
[] .313
312. Philippians, 115; my italics. See also J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Pauls Epistle to the Philippians: A Revised Text with
Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (London: Macmillan, 1896), 91.
313. This text is an exegetical and syntactical minefield which cannot be fully explored at the present moment,
such as the extremely complex sentence of 1:18-26 (cf. Fee, Philippians, 12830), the obscure wording of 1:22 (cf.
OBrien, Philippians, 12425), and whether or not Paul contemplated suicide (cf. Arthur J. Droge and James D.
Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among Christians and Jews in Antiquity [San Francisco: Harper, 1991]).
133
Yes, life and death equally magnify Christ. But, for Paul, dying means gain (), not
in the sense of escaping earthly troubles,314 but because death permits deeper fellowship with
Christ.315 It means to be with Christ ( ), so, naturally, his desire () is to
embrace this far greater (. . . ) reality. Nevertheless, he stifles this
desire, revealing a close conformity to the pattern of the Christ self-gift in 2:5-11, as he
willingly gives himself on account of the Philippian community ( ).316
Two reasons explain this selfless decision. The first is that this () that is,
remaining in the flesh ( )317 means fruitful labour. , an agricultural
metaphor, is not in antithetical parallelism with the financial metaphor in 1:22.318 Paul
never hesitates to mix metaphors in order to speak of a single concept (cf. 1 Cor. 9:7 and 19-22),
which, in this case, is Christ (cf. , Phil. 3:7-8). Either Christ will be gained by Paul through
death, or Christ will be reaped by the Philippians through Pauls ministry. To paraphrase 1:21
accordingly: To live is Christ for you to die is Christ for me. To be sure, all parties in this
exchange will (in some sense and in different ways) enjoy the fruit that is reaped in the
314. Contra D.W. Palmer, To Die is Gain (Philippians 1:21), NovT 17 (1975): 20318, who compiles list of
quotes from lyric poetry, drama, philosophy, and rhetoric to show that death was commonly understood as gain
() in Greek literature, because it relieves people from their earthly troubles. He then wrongly attributes
this common belief to Paul.
315. OBrien, Philippians, 123, 130.
316. Notice the Christological overtones of in 2 Cor. 8:9, which also appear in 2 Cor. 4:15.
317. points back to rather than to .
318. Collange, Epistle, 63.
134
process,319 but Paul gives special prominence to the Philippians experience of this fruitful
labour, especially since points back to the
in 1:11 and ahead to in 4:17.
Even more significant is how Paul depicts his work among the church as a joint effort, a
co-working, we might say, between him and God. This subtly appears in the word . Every
instance of this term in the letter denotes Gods doing. God begins and completes the good
work ( ) in and through the community (1:6), and he also, paradoxically, works
() within the working of their salvation (2:12-13). Epaphroditus even spends himself on
behalf of the work of Christ ( , 2:25). Additionally, the emphatic placement of
in 1:22 encompasses more than just Pauls doing. If it was only that, we would have
expected to read: .320 Evidently, then, God will labour through Pauls toil
on Philippian soil, a co-operation that will fruitfully benefit the community.
Pauls second reason for remaining and labouring among the Philippians is that it is
more necessary for [their] sake ( , 1:24). Necessity dare we say
obligation drives the apostolic office (cf. 1 Cor. 9:16), not a social obligation due to humanity
in general (although, obviously, Paul does not deny this [cf. Gal. 2:10; 6:10]), but a soteriological
319. God in Christ will be glorified, praised, and magnified in the communitys bearing of fruit (1:11, 19, 26),
Paul will obtain an eschatological boast by labouring among them (2:16; cf. 4:1), and the Philippians will be
established in the gospel (1:25, 27).
320. OBrien, Philippians, 126 n52. Paul could have co-workers in mind, as OBrien suggests, but this is foreign to
Phil. 1:12-26, where the accent falls on Gods progression of the gospel through his labourers. More than likely, a
human-divine co-working is implied.
135
commitment due to humanity . Within this Christo-sphere, Paul and the Philippians
are bound by the mutual, obligatory ties of in grace, suffering, and gospel
advancement, vulnerably depending on one another to meet each others needs.321 This is
partly why Paul considers it necessary () to minister among them. As we will see in
the following section, the community is experiencing some sort of suffering (, 1:29),
sharing the same as their apostle (1:30). Whatever their agony turns out to be, it
obviously threatens their faith in the gospel, which is exactly what moves Paul to remain
[] and continue [] for [their] progression and joy of faith (1:25).322
The expression has been interpreted in a
variety of ways.323 Breaking down the phrase, it seems best to consider as
a single unit, being governed by , and as an objective genitive. It
therefore takes on a creedal sense like in 1:27,324 translated as for
your progress and joy in the faith. The of in the gospel, then, began behind bars
and moved outside through two evangelistic groups in 1:12-18c. It changed its course in 1:18d-
20, working through the Philippians prayers for the apostles salvation. Now, in 1:20-26, it
321. Gerald Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Rev. ed. 2004), 62: Need
determines the direction his life is to take.
322. Paul Hoffmann suggests that the , in line with Rom. 1:13 and 1 Cor. 9:19-23, refers to gaining new
converts (Die Toten in Christus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zur paulinischen Eschatologie
[Mnster: Aschendorff, 1966], 292), but this cannot be the case. It refers to the communitys progression and joy
in the faith. The is Christian perseverance, not conversion.
323. For the three major interpretive options, see OBrien, Philippians, 140.
324. Hawthorne, Philippians, 52.
136
moves in the opposite direction, flowing through Pauls labour for the Philippians ultimate
salvation. This becomes evident from the purpose clause of 1:26:
. What God will
accomplish through () Pauls presence325 and ministry will serve as the grounds of the
Philippians , a boast which will abound in Christ Jesus (
).326 is both the sphere in which they reside and the object of their boast.327 God
does the work through Paul, so God in Christ gets the glory.
Nevertheless, when placing their in conjunction with Pauls in 2:16, we
discover that their boast will not only occur when their apostle arrives into Philippi but also
on the day of Christ, that is, the day of final salvation. Since Paul links his eschatological boast
( ) with his labour () among the Philippians in 2:16, and
since his labour serves as the basis of their in 1:26 (
), it necessarily follows that if they continue in the progress and joy in the faith, and
therefore do not render the apostles work void ( ), then both of them will retain their
boast. This intricately interdependent relationship manifests a significant relational dynamic
in the economy of the eschatological / of one party lies in the mutual
325. Of course, even in Pauls absence, God will work () with the community () to bring
about their (2:12-13).
326. , taking on a causal sense (because of me), also contributes to the grounds of their .
327. Fee, Philippians, 155.
137
concern of the other,328 with both parties directing their gaze to God in Christ as the main
supplier of through the other. This three-way, mutual relationship in 1:18d-26 can be
diagrammed as follows:
God

Paul Philippians
3.1.3.3. Summary
Throughout 1:12-26, Paul incorporates God as a third party into their
for others in the present (1:12-18c) and for one another in the future (1:18d-26). For
Paul, the progression of is an unstoppable force, enveloping everything in its path, both
pagans and Christians, and magnifying Christ at every point of contact. Nothing can frustrate
this divine momentum of . It flows from God through the mediation of human agency to
others, in the form of preaching (1:12-18c), prayer (1:18d-20), or ministry activity (1:21-26). It
never remains in one spot. It is never fully possessed by one person. It is always being received
in order to be passed on. And the Philippians, being caught up into this divine momentum,
328. In contrast to A. Satake, who argues that Paulus sieht also sein eigenes Heil in engstem Zusammenhang
mit seinem Dienst als Apostel, insofar as his salvation necessarily depends on the progress of the gospel
(Gnade, 104), we offer a slight yet substantially different approach. Pauls eschatological salvation does not rely
on the progression of the gospel as such, but it depends, at least partially, on his relationship with the
community, their . He depends on their mutual relationship that furthers the gospel,
particularly in the lives of one another (cf. 1:18d-27), rather than the furtherance of the gospel itself. For a similar
distinction, see Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Pauls Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 293.
138
participate in Pauls apostolic . They are bound to their apostle, and their apostle is bound
to them, as they further the gospel, enter into one anothers suffering, and labour for the sake
of the others final salvation. In short, Paul and the Philippians enjoy a of gift and
suffering, with God, the divine third party, circulating in this triangulated relationship.
3.2. The Power of in their Three-way
The gift. . .is never at any time separable from its Giver. It partakes of the character of
power, in so far as God himself enters the arena and remains in the arena with it.329 But how
does God exert his power through the gift in the arena of a three-way ? Phil. 1:27-30
provides an answer.
3.2.1. Philippians 1:27-30: A Bond of Gift and Suffering Leading to Salvation
As we approach this text, one which has been deemed the linchpin of the letter,330 we
need to keep the divine initiative of God in 1:12-26 foremost in view. For Paul now sets his
theological gaze on this crucial third participant. He specifically centres his discussion on the
relation between divine gift and suffering, since the divine gift of the Christ-event (or, the
Christ-gift) the very instantiation of (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) powerfully institutes a new
manner of life in the Christian community, one marked as much by grace (or, gift) as by
suffering. Paul expounds on this new existence in Christ in order to exhort the Philippians to
329. Ksemann, Questions, 174.

330. Fowl, Philippians, 59.
139
unity in the midst of hostility (1:27-28) and to explain the Philippians present suffering within
a three-way perspective (1:29-30).331
3.2.1.1. The Christ-Gift from God to the Heavenly in Philippi (1:27-28)
Whether Paul actually arrives at Philippi or simply hears about them, he exhorts the
community to do one () thing: (1:27). By
employing (derived from ),332 Paul evokes the image of a city. According to
Aristotle, the in ancient Greece was a sort of partnership ( ), whereby each
citizen incurred the mutual obligation to carry out civic duties by using their gifts for the
corporate good of all.333 As we have seen, some of the social dynamics within the ancient
are carried over to the heavenly one by Paul, such as mutuality, interdependence, and
obligation.334 Even so, he distances this city from all others in one monumental way the
constitution of this is , a legislation to which the Philippians,
with citizenship () of a heavenly (3:20), must conduct themselves worthily
().
331. OBrien envisages two themes in 1:27-30: (i) standing firm against the world; and (ii) being united with
one another (Philippians, 144). But Jervis argues against OBrien, insisting that Paul explicates the meaning and
significance of suffering as a believer (At the Heart of the Gospel: Suffering in the Earliest Christian Message (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 53). But unless a reconstruction is posited, such as Paul having to correct their false
notions about suffering, then we are unsure whether these options are mutually exclusive.
332. The precise meaning of this term has been vigorously debated (cf. Silva, Philippians, 80 n1).
333. Pol. 1252a.
334. See Beare, Philippians, 66; Hawthorne, Philippians, 69.
140
What Paul means by living is explained by the -clause in 1:27c:

,

,
, (1:27c-28c).
With one spirit ( ) and one mind ( ), Christ-followers at Philippi,
like that of ancient societies, constitute a single body.335 But unlike other societies, they stand
() and strive () for the faith of the gospel ( ).336 In
other words, the Philippians are to stand united in their suffering for the cause of the faith
its spread and growth,337 without becoming frightened ( ) by their opponents
( ),338 which () serves as a sign of destruction to them but of salvation for
the community (1:28). While grammatically anticipates , the whole of 1:27c-28 is
most likely its antecedent.339 Cast in this way, their united, steadfast resolve for the gospel in
the midst of opposition and suffering is what Paul means by living , which operates as a
sign () of their ultimate salvation ().
335. For the prominence of the body metaphor to describe the in Greco-Roman society, see Dale Martin,
The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 337.
336. Following OBrien, we interpret as a dative of advantage and as a genitive of
origin (Philippians, 152).
337. OBrien, Philippians, 152.
338. For a comprehensive list of how scholars have identified these rivals, see OBrien, Philippians, 2635.
339. Bockmuehl, Philippians, 101; Fee, Philippians, 168.
141
If we were to stop there, it would logically follow that if they, out of some innate worth,
prove themselves , then their actions will result in their . Paul, however, inserts a
critical phrase that undercuts that line of reasoning (1:28d). In this
divine economy, is divinely created rather than naturally cultivated. not only
points back to but to the whole of their worthy conduct in 1:27c-28,340 demonstrating
that it is God who enables their steadfast unity in the gospel through hostility, and this gift
( ) will result in their ultimate salvation. Sensing the need to provide a reason for this
theologically-weighty claim, Paul continues: ,
The term (a cognate of ) depicts God as the primary giver in this
heavenly , who graces the community with a threefold gift of faith, suffering, and
salvation: (i) in the gospel grants entrance into the (1:29); (ii) , coupled
with the divinely-granted perseverance of the community in 1:27c-28, characterises Christian
life within this economy (1:29); and (iii) is the ultimate end of their heavenly
(1:28). All of this, from start to finish, is energised by the power of Gods .
Truly, as 1:6 makes plain, God begins () and ends () all Christian doing.
Whereas, for Aristotle, doing precedes being,341 for Paul, being (made worthy) precedes doing
340. Silva, Philippians, 83.

341. Nic. Eth. 2.1.4.
142
and doing confirms being (made worthy) (cf. 2:12-13). This is the unnerving logic of , a
radical rationale which subverts every cultural notion of . Unlike Senecas economy,
recipients do not need to become digni (worthy) before receiving gifts in the economy of
.342 Instead, they receive the Christ-gift in order to become digni. Thus, the source of the
communitys resides efficaciously in . Once recipients take hold
of the Christ-gift (or, perhaps better, once the Christ-gift takes hold of them), they then
become what they are, as it calls worth into being that did not previously exist and
reconstitutes civic life in the heavenly .343
3.2.1.2. Christian Life (1:29-30)
A necessary word of clarification. By speaking of a heavenly , Paul ultimately
speaks of the sphere in which he and the Philippians reside, most easily, albeit ambiguously,
described by the phrase (cf. 1:13, 26). This mutual participation in Christ helps
clarify the interrelated three-way bond between God in Christ, the community, and the apostle
in 1:29-30. In these verses, Paul moves into a theological explanation of their present suffering,
first in relation to Christ and then in relation to himself, both of which expose the triangulated
relationship .
342. Ben. 4.10.5.

343. John Schtz, Apostolic Authority, 50.
143
3.2.1.2.1. The Suffering of the Philippians in relation to Christ (1:29)
After stating that the Philippians final will be achieved by God in 1:27-28, Paul
provides the reason: because it has been granted [] to you on behalf of Christ [
], not only to believe in him but also to suffer on behalf of him [ ]
(1:29). Astonishingly, Paul frames the Philippians suffering as a reciprocal response to Christs.
Just as Christ suffered on behalf of () the ungodly (cf. Rom. 5:6), so, now, the Philippians
suffer on behalf of () Christ.344 With this, Paul makes suffering part and
parcel of life .
Through faith, believers participate in Christs humiliation, suffering, and death (cf.
3:10; Rom. 6:3), physically embodying, even reenacting, the sufferings of Christ in the world.
But that is only one side of the picture. Sharing in the dying of Christ necessarily means that
they share in the resurrection life of Christ. This is precisely why Paul grounds Gods ultimate
of the community with the -clause of 1:29.345 Just as the pattern of the Christ-event
344. This reciprocal relationship, Hooker exclaims, is extraordinary. Suffering for Christ, means. . . that
the Philippiansbecause they are in Christ are granted the privilege of sharing in the redemptive work of
Christ (Philippians, 498). This is, of course, not in any absolute sense, as if their suffering carries atoning
efficacy (contra Anthony Hanson, The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St Paul [JSNTSup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1987], 141), but in the sense that their suffering occurs in Christ and for the propagation of the gospel
of Christ.
345. Although some link the -clause to in 1:28, giving the reason why the community ought
not be intimidated by their opponents (cf. N. Walter, Christusglaube und heidnische Religiositt in paulinischen
Gemeinden, NTS 25 [1979]: 42536 at 425), we connect with , which, in turn, modifies all of
1:27c-28, explaining how their suffering will result in (cf. Vincent, Philippians, 35).
144
is exaltation through humiliation (2:5-11), so also the pattern of the Philippians life is
glorification through suffering (cf. Rom. 8:17).
This road of suffering, however, is not travelled alone. Although the term does not
appear in 1:27-30, the of 1:7, which joins Paul and the Philippians in a mutual
relationship of gift and suffering, conceptually and concretely manifests itself in 1:30.
3.2.1.2.2. Mutuality of Suffering between Paul and the Philippians (1:30)
Although miles apart, Paul and the community share the same conflict (
, 1:30).346 Bemused scholars have attempted to explain the nature of this shared
experience. Ernst Lohmeyer, for example, understands literally. Certain members of
the community experienced Roman confinement and expected to be martyred, just as Paul did
during his imprisonment. Es ist der gleiche Kampf, den die Gemeinde zu Philippi und den
Paulus im Kerker durchzufechten hat; hier wie dort ein Martyrium fr Christus.347 Yet
nothing in the letter suggests that the community had either suffered the agonies of
346. V.C. Pfitzner maintains that the word group depicts the apostles incessant conflict for the gospel
and faith (Paul and the Agon Motif: Tradition Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967], 12629;
cf. also 1 Thess. 2:2).
347. Philipper, 79. More recently, Stephen Fowl, Believing Forms Seeing: Formation for Martyrdom in
Philippians, in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation (ed. William P. Brown;
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 31730 promotes a milder Lohmeyerian reading of Philippians, claiming that
while Lohmeyer might be wrong in thinking Philippians is directly about martyrdom, he was on the right track to
the extent that Philippians is about the habits and dispositions that would enable people to offer their lives back
to God in the face of intense hostility with martyrdom as a possible consequence (318; cf. also idem, Philippians
1:28b, One More Time, in New Testament Greek and Exegesis (ed. Amy M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 16779).
145
incarceration or awaited martyrdom.348 Other explanations have also been proposed, such as
external persecution,349 economic hardship caused by a breakdown of financial relationships,350
and political oppression for failure to participate in the imperial cult.351 Although informed,
these reconstructions remain speculative, with a paucity of hard evidence making it
impossible to ascertain the precise nature of their suffering. Even so, some conclusions may be
drawn about the form of their joint suffering.
The that Paul and the Philippians experience most likely refers to a similar,
though not identical, form of suffering. Joachim Gnilka convincingly argues,
Die Gleichsetzung beruht nicht auf einer Gleichheit der Fakten, sie ist theologisch begrndet.
Leiden und Bedrngnisse der Glubigen, mgen sie hart oder leicht sein, sind Leiden und
Bedrngnisse um Christi willen. Der Geist, in dem sie getragen werden oder wenigstens
getragen werden sollen, macht sie wesentlich gleich.352
348. Against Lohmeyers reconstruction, Gordon Fee bluntly asserts that to go so far as Lohmeyer and to see
the entire epistle as having to do with martyrdom, takes this theme far beyond the realities of the text itself
(Philippians, 29; authors italics; cf. also Dibelius, Philipper, 6970; Reumann, Philippians, 282).
349. J.E. Stambaugh and D.L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1986), 3236; Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians (JSNTSup 78; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993), 158.
350. Peter Oakes, Philippians: From People to Letter (SNTSMS 110; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), 77102; esp. 89-96.
351. C.S. de Vos, Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthians, and Philippian
Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities (SBLDS 168; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 26465; M. Tellbe, Paul
Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians (ConBNT
34; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001), 25059; Bormann, Philippi, 4850. For a detailed critique of this view, see
Dean Pinter, Divine and Imperial Power: A Comparative Analysis of Paul and Josephus (PhD Thesis, Durham
University, 2009), 190229.
352. Philipperbrief, 10102.
146
Their sufferings are theologically grounded (theologisch begrndet) insofar as the
community has been united to Christ through the sacramental death of baptism, such that
these sufferings are endured in the same spirit (der Geist), namely, in behalf of [Christ] (
). In other words, their joint suffering, though distinct in nature, derives from a common
origin (i.e., the of God [, 1:29]) and carries the same ( ) vertical
purpose they suffer .
Additionally, however, their mutual suffering also contains a horizontal purpose. As
fellow-sharers in and (or gift and suffering, 1:7), neither Paul nor the Philippians
suffer apart from one another. No matter the physical distance, they endure suffering
together. The struggle believers know is a joint one, Ann Jervis notes, and the Philippians
share the same as Paul (and Christ, 1:30). The suffering of one in Christ mingles with
the suffering of the many in Christ. Paul does not conceive of solitary suffering in
Christ.353 To help illustrate this, we could imagine two circles as representing their individual
sufferings. Both emerge from a mutual participation in , and both are individually
distinct, yet they overlap one another. Where they overlap is the mingling point, the point in
which the individual sufferings of one come into contact with the sufferings of the other. At
353. At the Heart of the Gospel, 62. Miroslav Volf also adeptly notes that solidarity refers to struggling on the
side of, rather than simply to suffering together with, solidarity may not be severed from self-donation
(Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation [Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press, 1996], 24).
147
the very core of each circle is (3:10), the deepest level of a person
, which is precisely the location where the community enjoys with Paul. This
is an intimate bond indeed.
What is beginning to emerge here is a mutuality of suffering that will become clearer
only when we reach 4:10-20. For the time being, Paul merely alludes to this mutual
engagement in one anothers sufferings, endured on behalf of Christ. Within this co-sharing of
suffering, grace passes through one party and reaches the other in need. All the while, it is God
who works in and through human agency to ensure the consummation of their salvation.
4. Exegetical Investigation of Philippians 1:3-6, 2:25-30, and 4:10-20
In the previous exegetical section, we attempted to expose the divine third party in Pauls
partnership with the Philippians, demonstrating that their is a
three-way exchange, in which comes from God, streams through one party, and reaches
the other. And this three-way bond is no less present in material gifts sent from Philippi to
Paul. That the communitys gifts are a continuation of the reciprocal, relational pattern of
1:12-30 becomes clear from the similarities between 2:17-18 and 2:25-30. In the former, Paul
presents his ministry among the Philippians, which he explicates in 1:20-26, as a sacrifice
() and service () for their joy and progression in the faith. In the latter, as we
will see, the Philippians send a sacrifice (, 4:18) with Epaphroditus, their , and
148
so complete what was lacking in their service () to him (2:30). This spiritual is
nothing other than their material gifts, and their gifts are nothing other than a tangible
expression of their mutual .
To prove this, however, we first need to reconstruct the timing, transmission, and
purpose of Philippian gifts, before discerning how Paul figures it in 1:3-6 and 4:10-20. What we
intend to find is a theological tactic that involves incorporating God into their gift-giving
relationship as a third party. Once that emerges, then the horizontal relational implications
that a vertical party creates may be detected. All of this will enable a clearer picture of their
full, trusting , a triangulated in grace and suffering that arose in 1:7 and
1:12-30 but will now be seen to express itself through the giving of material gifts.
4.1. Gifts from Philippi to Paul
Before focussing on the transmission and purpose of the Philippians most recent gift
through Epaphroditus, we need to determine when Paul would accept gifts from Philippi. This
will give us better insight into his financial policy.
4.1.1. Philippians 4:15 The Timing of Philippian Gifts
At what point did Paul start accepting Philippian gifts? Where was he at that time? To
arrive at an answer, we must wrestle with a complicated phrase nestled within Phil. 4:15:
149
, , ,
,
.
What does Paul mean by , and how does this relate to
? Had he not been preaching by this time for about fourteen years in
Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:18-2:1) as well as in Cyprus and Galatia (Acts 13-14), and all this before
setting foot in Macedonia? Four views have been posited.
(i) M.J. Suggs considers from Pauls viewpoint, initiated when he
entered Macedonia, not when he departed from there. To arrive at this conclusion, Suggs rejects
the witness of Acts, dates Pauls Macedonian ministry in the 40s, and appeals to key phrases in
Pauls letters, such as from the first day (Phil. 1:5) and first fruits (2 Thess. 2:13), which
strongly suggest that Pauls Macedonian ministry came very early in his missionary career,
sufficiently early that he could regard Macedonia as the beginning of the gospel.354
(ii) Martin Dibelius promotes the view that Paul writes 4:15 from the Philippians
viewpoint, so that corresponds to his initial preaching in Philippi. He
asserts, Einfacher ist die Annahme, dass man in Philippi von jener Zeit als dem Beginn der
354. Concerning the Date of Pauls Macedonian Ministry, NovT 4 (1960): 6068 at 68. Gerd Ldemann,
however, critiques Suggss dependence on the connection between Phil. 1:5 and 4:15, which he finds untenable
(Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology [ed. Stanley F. Jones; London: SCM Press, 1984], 10307, 137 n193;
cf. also Rainer Riesner, Pauls Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1998], 26971).
150
Heilspredigt sprach.355 OBrien concurs with Dibelius, linking Phil. 4:15 with the active
participation in gospel advancement in 1:3-5 ( ). It is
appropriate, then, OBrien concludes, to regard the time reference as denoting the beginning
of the gospel from the standpoint of the Philippians.356 Thus,
includes his ministry in Philippi since Thessalonica, where the Philippians sent him aid
(4:16), is also in Macedonia as well as his ministry in Achaia after he left Philippi.357
(iii) A slightly different perspective is proposed by Otto Glombitza, who places the
accent on the gospel rather than the beginning. While conceding that Paul preached
elsewhere before coming to Macedonia, Glombitza nevertheless insists that the apostles work
there outweighs in importance all other previous ministry endeavours. Das Evangelium ist
erst mit meiner Predigt zu euch und nach Mazedonien gekommen; was zuvor verkndigt
wurde, war eben nicht die frohe Botschaft von der Gnade.358 The expression
therefore represents the point in which the joyous message of grace (die frohe
355. Dibelius, Philipper, 96.

357. To support this interpretation, proponents render as a pluperfect aorist (after I had left), a
common practice, according to Fee, in narrative (Philippians, 441 n13).
358. Der Dank des Apostels: zum Verstndnis von Philipper iv 1020, NovT 7 (196465): 13541 at 140.
151
Botschaft von der Gnade) began to be preached, with the result that can only be used
from Macedonia onwards.359
(iv) A more convincing position is propounded by Lohmeyer, Gnilka, and Collange,
among others.360 During the time of Acts 13-14, Paul was a consultant (Beauftrager) next to
Barnabas, not yet leading his own evangelistic campaign.361 But once he left Philippi, a leading
city of the district of Macedonia (Acts 16:12), he began a new phase of ministry, and it is at this
moment that Paul considers the real beginning of gospel proclamation.362 The point of
reference for is therefore Pauls departure from Philippi.363 While I
generally agree with this position, some proponents wrongly assume that because Paul
mentions receiving support in Thessalonica, he also accepted aid during his stay in Philippi.364
But if this were true, why would Paul emphatically mention that the Philippians understood
that their gift-giving relationship only began once he departed from Macedonia (
359. OBrien criticises Glombitza, stating that this reconstruction flies in the face of the evidence of Pauls own
letters and of Acts to suggest that the term can only be used from Macedonia onwards or that what he
had preached before was not the joyful message of grace! (Philippians, 532).
360. See also Hawthorne, Philippians, 204; Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Pauls Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1979), 58.
361. Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185. While Ldemann generally agrees with this position, he nevertheless maintains
that Lohmeyers statements suffer from an impermissible harmonization of Acts and Pauls letters (Apostle, 105).
362. Lohmeyer, Philipper, 185: Sie wrde hier so stark betont sein, dass alles frher Geleistete vor diesem
Anfang des Evangeliums gleichsam aufgehrt htte zu existieren. See also Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 177.
363. Although Lohmeyer and Gnilka understand in a punctual manner, it ought to be interpreted
temporally (Alfred Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie [StNT 11; Gtersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 1975], 10304).
364. E.g., Ldemann, Apostle, 136 n188.
152
, 4:15)?365 Instead, we agree with Holmberg, who argues, Only when Paul has
left a church he has founded does he accept any money from it, in order to stress the fact that
it has the character of support in his continued missionary work.366 This aligns well with their
partnership with Paul in the gospel and his financial policy elsewhere (cf. 1 Thess. 2:9; 1 Cor. 9),
as will be argued later. Only after establishing the gospel among them and departing to
minister elsewhere does Paul see it fit to engage the Philippians in a gift-giving relationship.367
Consequently, relates to insofar as it
communicates an apostolic policy to refuse support during his initial ministry in any given
community.
4.1.2. Philippians 2:25-30 and 4:18 The Transmission of the Gift via Epaphroditus
When the Philippians heard about Pauls imprisonment, they generously gathered their
resources and entrusted them to Epaphroditus. As an appointed envoy () and
minister () of the community, he willingly travelled the perilous route from Philippi
365. This suggests that both Paul and the community understood that the apostles departure marked a new
phase in his ministry.
366. Holmberg, Paul and Power, 91; cf. Dungan, Sayings, 32.
367. The objection that this was certainly not the case with the Corinthians may be raised. In fact, Paul
explicitly refrains from accepting their gift at his initial visit and in the near future, which may call into question
the consistency of his financial policy (cf. 2 Cor. 11:9, 12; 12:14). But we refrain from responding to this objection
at the moment, since it will be dealt with at length in Chapter 5.
153
to the place of Pauls imprisonment,368 contracting a sickness en route that nearly ended his
life (cf. 2:26-27, 30). Eventually, though, he arrived at Pauls prison cell and delivered the gift(s)
from Philippi (cf. , 4:18), thereby completing his mission. One could imagine the
joy that Paul would have expressed on seeing Epaphroditus. Instead of abandoning him for
fear of public shame, leaving him to rot in his cell with no recourse to food or provisions,369
Epaphroditus graciously lavished the necessities of life (or the means to attain them) onto the
imprisoned apostle. He shamelessly participated in Pauls shameful sufferings of imprisonment
(cf. 4:14). No wonder Paul greatly commends Epaphroditus, and even calls the Philippians to do
the same (cf. 2:29), for he risked his social standing in society and even his life to complete
what Paul calls the work of Christ ( ) and the communitys service to [him]
( , 2:30).
4.1.3. Philippians 2:25-30 The Twofold Purpose of the Gift via Epaphroditus
The most recent gift from Philippi, which is a continuation of a series of gifts (cf. 4:16),
possessed two purposes. The first is to meet Pauls need () in prison. Judging from the
context of 2:25-30, as well as the use of in 4:16, the apostles need was primarily material,
since, as previously mentioned, prisoners are left to fend for themselves. The appearance of
368. Assuming that Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus, Epaphroditus, according to G.S. Duncan, would have had
to travel seven to ten days, averaging as much as fifteen miles a day and travelling 740 land miles in total, not
including an intermediate sea-journey with unpredictable connections (Ephesian Ministry, 82).
369. See section 1.4.2.2 above.
154
supports this financial connotation (2:25, 30). According to Paul Veyne,
signified largesses and services to the public generally where, in fact, it was almost a
synonym of euergesia.370 Their is therefore better understood as monetary
assistance, which is why Paul rightly confers on Epaphroditus the appellation
(2:25).
The second purpose of their financial is to fulfil their obligation to their
apostle. This emerges from the -clause of 2:30:
. This text speaks of lack () that existed in the Philippians service
(), which Paul expected the community to fill up (), and which they
eventually did by sending Epaphroditus. Although the undercurrents of obligation run deep
within this verse, many scholars, uncomfortable with the notion of obligation, interpret this
shortage () as an absence of physical presence rather than a lack in their financial
giving. This common interpretation appeals to the use of and in 1 Cor.
16:17, a text that describes how the coming of some Corinthian brothers made up ()
for the absence () of the Corinthians. In the same way, Epaphroditus made up for the
370. Bread and Circuses, 93.
155
absence of the Philippians physical presence in 2:30.371 To view this text any other way, runs
the argument, is to insinuate that Paul was being critical of the Philippians.372
While we certainly reject the view that Paul reprimands the community for
withholding support, especially since he clearly attributes it to a lack of opportunity, not of
concern in 4:10, several factors nevertheless lead us to conclude that this passage conveys an
obligation on the Philippians part to assist their imprisoned apostle. In the first place, instead
of reverting to 1 Cor. 16:17 as a parallel for 2:30, perhaps a more suitable parallel is the use of
terms in the financial contexts of 2 Cor. 8:14, 9:12, and 11:9, where and
refer to a filling up of a material lack, not an absence of physical presence. In both of these texts,
refers to a lack consisting of material needs and provides a better parallel with Phil.
2:30, not least because the word appears in 9:12 (cf. Rom. 15:27).373 In the Hellenistic
world, was an obligatory task to the state, a civic duty which, according to some
inscriptions, was rewarded with honour ().374 Small wonder that Paul exhorts the
Philippians to give honour () to Epaphroditus, the of the community (1:29).
Besides this, the letter to the Philippians never commends them for Epaphroditus
371. OBrien, Philippians, 34344.

372. E.g., Silva, Philippians, 142; Hawthorne, Philippians, 120.
373. Silva mentions an interesting parallel in 1 Clement 38:2, where the poor man is exhorted to thank God for
providing a rich man through whom his lack might be supplied ( ;
Philippians, 142).
374. Edgar Krentz, Paul, Games, and the Military, in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (ed. Paul J.
Sampley; London: Trinity Press International, 2003), 362.
156
encouraging presence (although this probably took place). Rather, Pauls acknowledgement
concentrates on their expressed through the material gift (cf. 4:18). Furthermore,
throughout the NT, and thus in the Christian tradition surrounding Pauls writings, it was
incumbent on Christians, indeed virtuous, to render help to prisoners.375 Therefore, the
that the Philippians filled up through Epaphroditus was not physical presence per se,
but their obligatory and financial to Paul.
4.2. Pauls Theological Figuring of the Philippians Gift
When Paul accepted the gift from Philippi, how did he figure it? Did he envisage two
parties in exchange or three? If we were to base our answer solely on the empirical level, that
is, on the human-human level, their gift-giving relationship would consist only of two parties,
with Paul assuming the inferior position.
While languishing in prison (1:7, 12-26), Paul had no other choice but to rely on the
community for his well-being. On receiving their gifts, he sent confirmation of reception (cf.
4:18), but his destitute condition prevented him from reciprocating a suitable return. Socially
speaking, this would have given the community an advantage over him. Whether they seized
this opportunity to exert their social power and position like some despotic patron over a
subservient client will be discussed below. For present purposes, it may suffice to note that,
375. See Mt. 25:34-36, 41-45; Heb. 10:34; 13:3; Ignatius, to the Smyrneans 6.2.
157
from the empirical perspective, the Philippians operated as the source of the gift, while Paul
willingly embraced their generosity as the recipient in the relationship. Much like the picture
of a friendship, only two parties constitute this relational pattern:376
Philippians $$ Paul
(Source) (Recipient)
(Provisions)
Paul, however, works from within this two-way relationship and reshapes it from the inside-
out by creating a three-way pattern of exchange, one which envisions God as the source of the
gift, the Philippians as the mediator or broker, and Paul as the beneficiary. This divine
incorporation drastically modifies the contours of their and helps disclose the
Pauline agenda underlying Philippians 1:3-6 and 4:10-20.
Assuming the integrity of the letter,377 these passages function as parallel texts that
bookend the epistle, with the first chapter foreshadowing and paving the way for the latter.
376. Since Epaphroditus, a member of the community, most likely contributed to the gift for Paul, he operated
as a representative rather than a mediator or broker. A broker never directly possessed resources. He or she only
mediated the resources of another. Of course, this is an argument from silence, because we have no information
on whether or not Epaphroditus actually contributed to the gift. Regardless, if he were a broker, this would not
disprove the primary argument of this chapter. It would only complicate the picture drawn here.
377. Engberg-Pedersen alludes to a partial consensus concerning the unity of the letter. He asserts that the
recent trendin English-language, though hardly in German scholarshipis towards unity. I think this is right
and that it is not just a trend that may move in the other direction in ten years. What we find here in scholarship
is a healthy reaction to overconfidence in scholars with regard to the urge towards speculation (Paul and the
Stoics, 82). The chief reasons for partition theories are as follows: (i) the apparent shift in tone in 3.1; (ii) the
location and temporal delay of 4.10-20; (iii) the lexical parallels throughout the disputed sections of this letter;
and (iv) the genre. But many scholars have presented explanations for these issues, producing a strong case for
the unity of the letter (cf. Robert Swift, The Theme and Structure of Philippians, BibSac 141 [1984]: 23454; Robert
Jewett, The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians, NovT 12 [1970]: 4053; David Garland, The
158
Within these bookends, Paul manages to communicate much more than a formal
acknowledgement378 of their recent gift and affirmation of their , as many scholars
recognise. He additionally and more significantly factors God the crucial third participant
into the relational equation.379 This recalculation naturally changes the empirical role of the
Philippians as the source to occupying the theological role as mediator,380 which completely
changes the way they relate to Paul. To tease out this reconfiguring tactic and its implications,
the theological strategy of Philippians 1.3-6 and 4.10-20 must be explored.
4.2.1. God as the Crucial Third Party in Philippians 1:3-6
From the outset of Philippians 1:3-6, Paul, as Stephen Fowl notes, draws the Philippians
into his thanks to God in a way that establishes the three-way nature of this relationship.381
Beginning at 1:3, Paul declares, I thank my God, and follows this expression of gratitude with
three successive reasons: (i) because of () their every remembrance of Paul (1:3); (ii) because
Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors, NovT 27 [1985]: 15758; William J. Dalton,
The Integrity of Philippians, Bib 60 [1979]: 102). For an exhaustive overview of the literary debate, consult Jeffrey
T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate Over Literary Integrity (JSNTSup 136;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 12452, and for the Teilungshypothesen in German scholarship since
World War II, see Bormann, Philippi, 10818.
378. Paul Holloway, Consolation in Philippians (SNTSMS 112; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 155.
379. Mainly noted by Ebner, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, 33164; Witherington, Finances; Fee, Philippians;
Peterman, Gift Exchange; Fowl, Philippians; Hansen, Philippians.
380. This categorical distinction, albeit a modern one, is simply an attempt to distinguish the different ways
that the relationship between Paul and the community may be interpreted. At the outset, two parties appear to be
in gift exchange, but Paul includes a third participant. What we are not arguing is that the Philippians held to an
empirical view, which Paul had to correct. This assumes severe, relational tension between them, a claim that
finds little support in the text itself.
159
of () their partnership in the gospel with him (1:5); and (iii) because () Paul was convinced
that the one who began a good work in [them] will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus
(1:6). Several exegetical decisions constitute this reading of 1:3-6. In verse 3, the clause is
interpreted causally, functions as a subjective genitive, rendering as the
Philippians remembrance of Paul rather than Pauls remembrance of them, and the causal
clauses of verses 3, 5, and 6 are subsumed under the principal verb .382

. . .
. . .
.
But before discussing how these interpretive moves manifest the presence of a divine party,
two major objections, levelled against the rendering of 1:3 which supports the structural
layout of 1:3-6, must be dealt with.
First of all, it has been argued that interpreting as introducing a causal clause in
verse 3 departs from the conventional Pauline thanksgiving formula.383 For Paul, usually
takes on a temporal sense (on every remembrance; cf. Rom. 1:10; 1 Thess. 1:2; Phlm. 4), which
would mean that the apostle, in Phil. 1:3, gives thanks to God every time he remembers the
382. Paul Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (BZNW 20; Berlin: Tpelmann, 1939), 7182;
Peter OBrien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 2046. The clause
of 1:6 can either be subsumed under (1:6) or (1:3). Commentators are split down
the middle on this issue, since it can be grammatically dependent on the main verb or the preceding participle (cf.
Fee, Philippians, 85 n61). Nevertheless, we follow those who subsume the -clause of verse 6 under .
383. Michael, Philippians, 10. For a concise summary of the arguments against construing
as the Philippians remembrance of Paul, see OBrien, Thanksgivings, 4243.
160
Philippians rather than because the Philippians remember him.384 Yet Peter OBrien asserts
that only takes on a temporal sense when a genitive proceeds it, as in Rom. 1:10, 1 Thess.
1:2, and Phlm. 4. When occurs with the dative, however, as in Pauls thanksgiving sections
(cf. 1 Cor. 1:4; 1 Thess. 3:9; Phil. 1:5), it always carries a causal sense.385 Additional support for
this argument is garnered from expressions of gratitude in extra-biblical literature, where ,
followed by the dative, is used after and always expresses the ground for
thanksgiving.386 But perhaps the most compelling case for the causal interpretation of in
1:3 is that Paul, only two verses later, gives thanks because () of the Philippians
partnership with him (1:5).
The second and more debatable objection is against in 1:3 as a subjective genitive.
J.T. Reed argues that with the genitive () always refers to Pauls remembrance of the
recipient (cf. Rom. 1:9, 1 Thess. 1:2, and Phlm. 4).387 Nevertheless, in each of these instances,
appears with or , making the subject explicit, whereas these verbs do not
appear in Phil. 1:3. Reed acknowledges this fact but still proceeds to base his conclusion on
384. Another way scholars have argued for the temporal sense of in verse 3 is by insisting that, because
and share the same semantic field, the former ought to be translated as mention. If this is
correct, the argument runs, then must be interpreted temporally, on every remembrance (Silva,
Philippians, 54; Collange, Epistle, 43). However, , according to OBrien, only means remembrance when used
in a prepositional phrase and its connotation mention when used with (Philippians, 60).
385. OBrien, Thanksgivings, 43.
386. OBrien, Thanksgivings, 43; authors italics. In support, he appeals to Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 31; Spec. Leg. 1.67,
283, 284; 2.185; Josephus, Ant. 1.193. Convinced by OBriens arguments for a causal interpretation of , J.T. Reed
adds one early, unambiguous epistolary example to the list: UPZ 1.60.8 (Discourse Analysis, 200 n169).
387. Discourse Analysis, 200, citing P. Bad. 4.48.1-3.
161
these other instances in the New Testament with the verbs or . Admittedly, the
instances where occur with a subjective genitive are infrequent.388 But this does not
completely rule out the grammatical, rhetorical, and contextual plausibility of this
interpretive option, as many who argue otherwise have pointed out.389 Also, against the further
objection that there should be a definite mention of the object of remembrance, it is possible,
as OBrien avers, that the allusion would have been quite clear to Paul and his addressees, the
Philippians.390
Having substantiated the plausibility of as the Philippians remembrance of Paul
and the causal reading of , we can now turn to analyse the three principle causes of verses
3, 5, and 6 that give rise to Pauls thanksgiving to God,391 centring the discussion on how this
gratitude serves to incorporate God as the crucial third party.
The first cause for Pauls thanksgiving is the Philippians remembrance of him (1:3).
While conveys the various ways () that they have expressed their concern for their
388. OBrien, Philippians, 59 n12; Peterman, Gift Exchange, 9596; cf. Baruch 5.5 for an example of a subjective
genitive with .
389. For instance, even though Bockmuehl disagrees with this view, he still considers it rhetorically plausible
and grammatically possible, too, if somewhat unusual (Philippians, 58), while Silva finds this construal most
intriguing and supported by the immediate context, but he ultimately discards it (Philippians, 54). Joining Silva
in rejecting this interpretation, inter alia, are Barth, Epistle, 1314 Beare, Philippians, 52; Collange, Epistle, 43;
Michael, Philippians, 10; Hansen, Philippians, 4546, and especially Fee, Philippians, 7780. Supporters of this view,
however, include: Schubert, Form and Function, 74 OBrien, Thanksgivings, 4146; idem, Philippians, 5861; Peterman,
Gift Exchange, 9496; Reumann, Contributions, 441; Witherington, Finances, 36.
390. Thanksgivings, 44. For an exhaustive defence against the objections raised here and many others, see
Schubert, Form and Function, 7182; OBrien, Thanksgivings, 4146.
391. OBrien, Thanksgivings, 25.
162
apostle, the several acts of financial support on behalf of his ministry play an important part in
that concern, as they assist him materially inside and outside prison walls (cf. 4:14-16).
The second cause for Pauls thanksgiving to God is the fellowship in the gospel that
Paul shares with the community (1:5). This 392 consists of their active participation in
contributing to the advance of the gospel, primarily, but not exclusively, through their
financial support, which springs from their participation in divine .393 For the physical
nature of support and the spiritual nature of intertwine, insofar as their tangible
gifts concretely express their intangible partnership in (1:7).394 Astonishingly, though, for
this work accomplished by the Philippians in verses 3 and 5, Paul renders thanks to God.
392. For the current state of the discussion on , see Andrew Lincoln, Communion: Some Pauline
Foundations, Ecclesiology 5 (2009): 13660, and for the primary works on this topic, consult Norbert Baumert,
KOINONEIN und METECHEIN synonym? Eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung (SBB 51; Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 2003); Heinrich Seesemann, Der Begriff KOINNIA im Neuen Testament (ZNW 14; Gttingen: Tpelmann,
1933); Josef Hainz, KOINNIA: Kirch als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982); George Panikulam,
Koinnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life (AnBib 85; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979);
J.Y. Campbell, KOINNIA and Its Cognates in the New Testament, JBL 51 (1932): 35280.
393. OBrien rightly translates 1:5 as your cooperation [in promoting] the gospel. He offers three reasons for
this interpretation: (i) the active meaning of with appears in other appearances of this contruction
(cf. Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 9:13) and accords well with what follows ( ); (ii) Pauls
other personal and dynamic uses of in introductory thanksgivings (cf. 1 Thess. 1:5); and (iii) in the
immediate context, should be regarded as a noun of agency (Philippians, 62). He nevertheless situates
this active interpretation of in 1:5 within the passive state of 1:7, where Paul and the Philippians are said
to be joint partakers () of . The Philippians active commitment to the gospel, OBrien explains,
sprang from their common participation in Gods grace and was evidence that God had been mightily at work in
their lives (The Fellowship Theme in Philippians, RTR 37 [1978]: 12; cf. also Michael McDermott, The Biblical
Doctrine of , BZ 19 [1975]: 7172; P.C. Borl, KOINNIA: Lidea della communione nellecclesiologia recente e nel
Nuovo Testamento [Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1972], 86126).
394. As Bockmuehl explains, Their partnership. . .in the gospel is certainly spiritual in nature. . . . But this
spiritual reality has found its concrete expression both in the Philippians participation in the task of
proclamation (1.7) and in their repeated financial contributions to Pauls mission (4.15) (Philippians, 60).
163
The third and ultimate cause for Pauls thanksgiving to God is the faithful activity of God
in the Philippians (1:6). The apostle interprets their various deeds ( ) as concrete
manifestations of the operative grace of God, which God alone initiated ( ) and will
bring to completion () in or among ()395 the Philippians.396 In other words, God
operates as the originator, provider, and sustainer of the good work carried out through the
community (cf. 2:12-13). Although interpretations on the precise meaning of
abound,397 it is best to understand it in a broad sense, pointing back to the initial work of grace
in the gospel that prompts their past, present, and future good works, not least their recent
contribution.398 This is why Paul affirms their both in gospel advancement and grace
395. Although can be rendered in the instrumental sense of through (Hawthorne, Philippians, 21; cf. BDF
295), it seems best to understand it in a local sense (in or in your midst), since the emphasis of this verse falls
on the activity of God within the Philippians (OBrien, Philippians, 64 n42). Nevertheless, this does not prohibit the
view proposed here, namely, that God works through the Philippians to benefit Paul, for what Gods operative
grace begins within them necessarily takes on the external form of outside of themselves.
396. This does not preclude human agency, it only qualifies it. The view taken here coincides with John
Barclays third model of divine agency: non-contrastive transcendence. Barclay explains, Gods sovereignty does not
limit or reduce human freedom, but is precisely what grounds and enables it . . . the more the human agent is
operative, the more (not the less) may be attributed to God. He adds, But divine transcendence also here implies
agencies that are non-identical: God is radically distinct from human agency and not an agent within the same
order of being or in the same causal nexus . . . created human agencies are founded in, and constituted by, the
divine creative agency, while remaining distinct from God. Gods unconditional sovereignty is here operative with
regard to creatures who have their own will and their own freedom (Introduction, in Divine and Human Agency in
Paul and His Cultural Environment [ed. John M.G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; London: T&T Clark, 2006], 7).
397. Cf. Reumann, Philippians, 11314 for the various interpretations of .
398. Dibelius discerns an allusion to die pekuniare Hilfeleistung (Philipper, 26), and Judith M. Gundry Volf
perceptively identifies verbal and thematic parallels between 1:6 and other passages in the letter concerning the
Philippians gift to Paul, demonstrating an implicit reference to their gift in chapter 1 (Paul and Perseverance:
Staying in and Falling Away [WUNT 2/37; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990], 4243; cf. esp. 33-47).
164
(1:5, 7),399 for, in so doing, he attributes every accomplishment in their lives, especially the
ostensibly mundane task of providing aid, to the creative activity of God, the ultimate giver of
their gift.
Many scholars, however, object to an allusion to the Philippians gift in 1:3-6. John
Schtz forthrightly jettisons this view, insisting that it is contradictory to the tenor of the
entire thanksgiving to tie it to this particular mundane transaction.400 But perhaps he is
reacting against J.B. Lightfoots statement, which places the financial contribution foremost in
the Apostles mind.401 Lightfoot certainly overstated his case, and yet to omit any reference to
their gift is equally mistaken. On balance, it seems best to discern an inference to their
pecuniary support, particularly since phrases such as , , and
, although encompassing more than the gift mentioned in 4:10-20, nevertheless
contain an intimation, however faint, of their monetary support. And if Paul does have their
gift in mind, then he recognises God as the ultimate giver of the Philippians gift and directs
his thanks to a third party. By incorporating this divine participant, the Philippians relational
role shifts from being the source of money to becoming mediators of Gods divine beneficence,
for, in all three causes (vv. 3, 5, and 6), Paul grounds his thanksgiving in Gods creative
399. Pace Peter Oakes, Jason and Penelope Hear Philippians 1.111, in Understanding, Studying and Reading. New
Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton (ed. Christopher Rowland and Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 164, who argues that an implication to their gift is absent from 1:7.
400. Apostolic Authority, 49; cf. Wolfgang Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,
1984), 95.
401. Epistle to the Philippians, 83; cf. Hawthorne, Philippians, 19.
165
provision carried out in (or, we could even say through) the Philippians generosity. Cast this
way, the triangular, theological pattern emerges from 1:3-6. God is the source and the
Philippians are mediators of divine provision to their imprisoned apostle.
4.2.2. God as the Crucial Third Party in Philippians 4:10-20
An identical relational pattern to that found in Philippians 1:3-6 also appears in 4:10-20.
What is initially striking about this text is its central focus on God, not least because the
discussion revolves around the communitys gift. From the beginning of this pericope to its
doxological end, Paul navigates a close course between acknowledging the Philippians gift, on
the one side, and identifying God as the ultimate source of that gift, on the other, with a view
to integrating the most important participant in this three-way bond.
To begin with, although many deny that a theological interpretation of the gift appears
before verse 14,402 they nevertheless overlook the theological shape of verse 10:
, ,
. The phrase I rejoice in the Lord not only inserts God as the essential third party, as Fowl
observes,403 but also identifies this divine participant as the object and cause of Pauls joy as
402. For example, Silva identifies the theological implications of verses 4:14, 15 but does not include 4:10
(Philippians, 20607), whereas many others focus so exclusively on the commercial language of 4:10 that they lose
sight of the theological contours of this passage (e.g., Dodd, The Mind of Paul: I, 72, 152f).
403. [H]ere in 4:10 Paul himself rejoices greatly in the Lord. Not only does this clause echo 4:4, but it also
allows Paul to insert God as the crucial third party in his relationship with the Philippians (Philippians, 192).
166
well as the ultimate cause behind the communitys revived concern.404 Like in 1:3, their
concern () involves, among other things, the gift delivered to Paul, a generous act that
reinforced their already present .405 For the material gift, in and of itself, meant little
to him (as 4:17 demonstrates). What mattered most was what the gift communicated and
confirmed:406 their in gospel (1:5), grace (1:7), affliction (4:14), and finances (4:15). Out
of this multifarious spawned a deep concern () for Paul. The Philippians
shared a kind of phronetic , an other-oriented which owes its revived
existence to Gods causation and nurture,407 without which their support for Paul would never
have materialized. Once again, just as the introductory thanksgiving was rooted in Gods
creative and faithful provision (cf. 1:6), so, too, Pauls joy derives from Gods work through the
Philippians contribution, not the supply of material provision per se but in what that provision
came to represent, their phronetic .
404. To arrive at this conclusion, we have connected the intransitive verb, , with the infinitival
expression, , as an accusative of reference (H.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to
the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885], 211-12; OBrien,
Philippians, 51618; Schenk, Philipperbriefe, 64; Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 173; Norbert Baumert, Ist Philipper 4,10 richtig
bersetzt? BZ 13 [1969]: 25662). It is also worth repeating that the Philippians did not lack concern for Paul, as
he will go on to explain, but that they lacked opportunity (, 4.10).
405. Bockmuehl, Philippians, 258: Contrary to the impression given in a number of recent treatments, [4:10-20]
is not about finances at Philippi. . .but about a uniquely comprehensive partnership for the gospel which also
expresses itself in material support.
406. As Peter OBrien concurs, [T]he object of his concern was the giver rather than the gift (Philippians, 538).
407. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 129: Therefore, Pauls joy is in the Lord because, in the final analysis, he will
ascribe the cause to God. Acknowledging the divine cause of human acts is a common Pauline practice which also
appears in Phil. 2:12-13 and 2 Cor. 8:1.
167
To avoid the misunderstanding that his joy somehow stemmed completely from their
financial gift,408 Paul expresses his independence from the Philippians resources. After noting
that he does not speak from lack, for he has learned to be content () in whatever
circumstances (presumably through experience rather than esoteric knowledge),409 he states
that he knows and has learned the secret to contentment (4:12). What is this secret? That
whether materially abased or abounding, he can do all things in God who strengthens him
(4:13). Paul here defines as a term that signifies self-sufficiency within the confines
of divine-dependency. At first glance, this may seem to be in line with Stoic philosophy (at
least Epictetus).410 But a vital dissimilarity between the Stoics and Paul is that the latter
perceives God as a separable participant in this exchange, whereas the former recognise God to
be an inseparable component of ones being.411 Thus, from Pauls perspective, self-sufficiency is
divine-dependence on a distinct being who empowers () him to endure the polar
408. Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 175.

409. The verbs, , , , signify a learning process through experiential circumstances. As Barth
observes, Paul has been initiated into the mystery of life with its ups and downs of having and being without
(Epistle, 127).
410. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Self-Sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul,
in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (ed. John M.G. Barclay and Simon Gathercole;
London: T&T Clark, 2006), 135. But see John Barclay, Security and Self-Sufficiency: A Comparison of Paul and
Epictetus, Ex Auditu 24 (2008): 6072 for the stark differences between Paul and Epictetus.
411. E.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.14.6: Our souls are joined together with God as parts and fragments of him; Seneca,
Ep. 62.12: Reason is nothing else than a part of the divine spirit sunk in a human body; Marcus Aurelius, 5.27: The
soul is a part, an outflow, a fragment, of God; Philo, Opif. 135: the human soul is a divine breath that migrated
hither from that blissful and happy existence. . .the part that is invisible.
168
extremes of the economic spectrum, whether lack () or abundance (). But
how Paul reaches the state of material abundance is conveniently fleshed out with a paradox.
Although Paul declares his independence from the Philippians resources by
emphasizing his God-sufficiency in 4:11-13,412 the communitys gift nevertheless enables him
to experience the God-given state of abundance! I have received all things, Paul announces
in 4:18, and I abound []. On one level, Paul is dependent on God alone to experience
the state of abundance (4:12-13), but, on another level, the Philippians have caused him to
abound.413 This two-tiered paradox demonstrates that, behind the communitys provision,
resides a divine source who ultimately provides for Paul through human agency.414 By looking
back at the meaning of in 4:11-13 in light of 4:18, then, we can now further define his
412. Bockmuehl, Philippians, 261.

413. Commentators acknowledge the fact that Paul indeed abounds through the gift of the Philippians. Fee
states, Paul who knows both how to be abased and how to abound, has experienced both in his present
imprisonment humiliation from the imprisonment itself, the abounding at least in part from their gift, as he
now acknowledges (Philippians, 451; my italics). Likewise, Peterman observes, The contentment of the apostle is
clearly related to material goods, the sort which he has received from the believers in Philippi (Gift Exchange, 137
38).
414. Although the Philippians mediate Gods commodity to Paul, so that he enters a state of abundance, note
the strong contrast in 4:14 () and his focus on the results of the gift rather than the gift itself in 4:17 (
, ). Ultimately, Paul detaches himself
from the Philippians gift. He can do without it, but he cannot do without them. He longs to maintain the bond that
compels them to meet his needs; that is, their with him. [W]e cannot imagine [Paul] saying that he has
learned how to enjoy koinnia and how to do without it, writes Barclay. Mutual encouragement, mutual struggle,
and mutual dependency are for Paul core constituents of life in Christ; it is only by this means that his joy can be
complete (Phil 2:2) (Self-Sufficiency, 70).
169
self-sufficiency as utterly dependent on God through the mediation of others.415 As with the
theological pattern of 1:3-6, the Philippians act as conduits of Gods abundant commodity, a
sacrificial act which he considers well-pleasing to God (4:18; cf. 2:25-30).416 Consequently, this
theological-relational pattern, found in 1:3-6 as well as 4:10-20, resembles the following
diagram:
God

Paul Philippians
Having mapped out a theological-relational pattern which envisages the gift flowing
from God through the Philippians to Paul, it seems appropriate to question whether this pattern
runs in the opposite direction and thus contains the element of reciprocity. After all, their
partnership is one of giving and receiving ( , 4:15), not
simply giving. Indeed, Paul alludes to reciprocity when he explains that the route in which
their gift came to fill his need (, 4:16; cf. 2:25) is precisely the same route by which the gift
415. Barclay, Self-Sufficiency, 70: The God on whose encouragement he relies supplies his needs through
others, and he is desperately at a loss when they fail to play their part (authors italics).
416. Pauls metaphorical use of this sacrificial language, OBrien insists, does not suggest that the gifts from
Philippi were given to God (Philippians, 542). But do gifts given to Paul and gifts given to God have to be mutually
exclusive options? According to 2 Cor. 8:5, the Macedonians gave themselves first to the Lord and then to us by
the will of God. It therefore seems that, for Paul, a gift can be given to God in being given to a person. As such,
their gift is well-pleasing to God, in that it fills up Pauls need () and so contributes to the advancement of
Gods gospel.
170
will return to supply their every need ( , 4:19). My God,417 Paul confidently
exclaims, will supply your every need [ ] according to his riches []
in glory in Christ Jesus. While God will clearly be the one who supplies for all their needs, it is
less clear whether a mediating party will be involved in this transaction. Yet a linguistic
connection between in 4:16 and 4:19, coupled with the meaning of , provides
some clarity.
There is little doubt that in 4:16 refers to a material lack. The question is whether
his use of three verses later carries the same meaning (4:19), and if refers to
heavenly or material riches. Many argue that, because the phrase in glory ( ) modifies
, Paul has heavenly reward specifically in view,418 but others insist that he has material
riches solely in view.419 Wanting to avoid the interpretive either-or pendulum swing, Fee
incisively contends that it is the addition of the otherwise unnecessary , plus the
expansive conclusion, in keeping with his wealth in glory in Christ Jesus, that makes one
think Paul is embracing both their material needs and all others as well.420 In agreement with Fee, it
417. Paul is not claiming God for himself here, as if he alone had private access to God, his patron. The phrase
in 1:3 and 4:19 simply denotes Pauls access to God through prayer, since God is the one who works
within the Philippians (1:6) and fills up () what is lacking in their service to Paul (4:19; cf. ,
2:30). Similarly, the Philippians share this direct access to God through prayer (cf. 1:19). With equal access to God,
Paul and the Philippians mutually reciprocate the single commodity of Gods to one another.
418. E.g., Alfred Plummer, A Commentary on St Pauls Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1919), 10506.
419. E.g., Hawthorne, Philippians, 274.
420. Fee, Philippians, 452 n12; my italics. Pace Hawthorne, Philippians, 20809, who argues that these needs are
present material needs, needs that the Philippians have here and now (cf. 2 Cor. 8:2). Hence, should not be
171
seems best to regard as both eschatological reward and physical provision, with
in the first instance referring to material needs, just as it does in 4:16. But this begs the
question: how will physical beings receive heavenly riches in time of need? Unless we are to
believe that tangible riches will miraculously fall from the sky, we must assume that Gods
supply will stream through a human conduit, whether Paul or another church,421 in order to
alleviate the financial straits of the Philippians (whenever hardship may come). In 4:10-18,
then, Paul expresses his dependence on God through the Philippians, but a time will come when
they will trade places and the Philippians, according to 4:19-20, will equally depend on Gods
heavenly riches through Paul or another, exhibiting a characteristic relational pattern in the
economy of (cf. 2 Cor. 8-9):422
God

Paul Philippians
given any futuristic meaning, but should be curtailed and limited here to a description of Gods wealth: it is
magnificent, eye-catching, splendid, renowned. . ..
421. The ambiguity of this verse prohibits a definitive answer, though 4:15 provides more support for the
former. If the latter, however, then this widens the meaning of , opening the circle of grace to include
more than just God, Paul, and the Philippians.
422. A picture from Romans 11:17 helps illustrate this kind of . In the same way that the Gentiles
became joint sharers () with the Jewish people of the root of the olive tree, so Paul and the
Philippians equally share in and draw from a single, divine source (cf. Robert Jewett, Romans [Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007], 685).
172
4.3. The Relational Contours of Reshaped by the Divine Third Party
If, then, as we are suggesting, God is the source of all gifts in the economy of ,
while Paul and the Philippians are alternating mediators of his divine beneficence (depending
on who is in need), what sort of implications does this relational pattern have on their
with one another? In other words, how does the divine inclusion affect horizontal
dealings?
4.3.1. in Suffering (4:14)
Paul commends the community for their gift ( ) and figures their act of
generosity as a fellow-sharing in [his] suffering ( ). As OBrien
rightly affirms, Through their gift, the Philippians identified with Paul in both his and
his .423 In other words, having been incorporated into his (1:7), they gain access
into his .424 The relational dynamic that was alluded to earlier in 1:7 and 1:29-30, where
the Philippians were said to be Pauls fellow-sharers () of his chains () and
423. Philippians, 530 n107. It is unclear, however, as to whether OBrien is summarising another persons view
or promoting this interpretation, especially since he denies the reading of 1:7 as fellow-sharers of my grace. See
section 3.1.1.
424. Some attach eschatological significance to (cf. H. Schlier, TDNT, 3.144-47). But this, in view of 1:7
and 17, this is unlikely. Paul almost certainly has in mind the of imprisonment (Bockmuehl,
Philippians, 262).
173
engaged in the same conflict ( ), now concretely manifests itself through their
gift, and this in two ways.
Socially, the Philippians, by implication, bear the shame of Pauls imprisonment
through Epaphroditus, being easily transmittable through aiding and affiliating oneself with a
felon. Theologically, because they reside , they participate in
(3:10), which comprises the deepest level of their being and the precise location of
their . In this sphere, as we have already mentioned,425 the sufferings of one coalesce
with the sufferings of the other (though they remain distinct), creating a bilateral channel
whereby grace may be imparted to alleviate the needs of the other. Both aspects of their
intimate comprise the basis of the apostles commendation of their generosity, as
they tangibly express the spiritual bond in the economy of . But lest we forget who
initiates and completes their life in this economy, we recall the critical phrase of 1:28,
, and the divine actor behind the verb in 1:29, who powerfully graces
the community with the Christ-gift.
Of particular importance for this study is the fact that Paul could not utter the words of
4:14 in his letter to the Corinthians. They knew nothing about suffering for the gospel, nor
anything about co-suffering with their apostle, the absence of which, according to John
Barclay, discloses a failure to comprehend the counter-cultural impact of the message of the
425. See section 3.2.1.2.2 above.
174
cross.426 The significant implications of this difference between Philippi and Corinth,
especially in relation to Pauls financial policy, will be explicated in the next chapter. For now,
we turn to a second relational alteration.
4.3.2. in Gift (4:15)
Were Paul and the Philippians obliged to reciprocate gifts with one another? Did
obligation undergird their gift-giving ? Peter Marshall and G.W. Peterman, two notable
scholars on Paul and gift, arrive at two opposing conclusions. To be sure, both agree that the
phrase does not refer invariably to the commercial
world, but that it also belongs to the ancient realm of friendship and social reciprocity.427 They
even agree that reciprocal relationships of this sort carry serious obligations.428 Where they
part ways is in their conflicting interpretations of how Paul understands and employs the
expression in Philippians 4:10-20. Laying out their argumentative routes will helpfully sharpen
the profile of the middle course that we will tread.
426. John Barclay, Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity, JSNT 15 (1992): 5760.
427. The arguments of Marshall and Peterman depend on literary evidence of the phrase, but for an argument
from inscriptional evidence that and refer to cultic presentation of honours rather than mutual
obligation incurred by friendships, see Peter Pilhofer, Philippi, Vol. 1: Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas
(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 24546. For the purposes of this study, though, we will only deal with literary
evidence.
428. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 88. According to Peterman, the OT and extra-biblical literature also entailed
serious obligations (Gift Exchange, 50).
175
4.3.2.1. Differing Perspectives on Gift and Obligation Marshall and Peterman
Peter Marshall insists that Pauls monetary friendship with the Philippians entails
mutual obligation. He arrives at this conclusion by situating their relationship within the
ancient paradigm of patronal friendship. Ancient discussions of friendship among Greek and
Roman writers, Marshall explains, placed as much stress upon the moral duty of returning a
favour as on the virtue of conferring one. . . . The obligation to return gifts weighed heavily
upon the recipient.429 From this socially-binding practice among friends, he concludes that, for
Paul, is an idiomatic expression indicating
friendship,430 which involved reciprocity and mutual obligations.431 Marshall, therefore, has
no problem considering Pauls friendship like any other friendship in the Greco-Roman
world as a mutually-binding relationship that entailed a reciprocal exchange of gifts.432
Peterman, however, levels two primary arguments against Marshalls conclusion and
promotes a non-obligatory friendship between Paul and the community.433 The first is that the
text of Philippians. . .contains no mention of debt or obligation, neither on the Philippians
part nor on Pauls.434 Expressions of social debt, such as (to repay a favour),
429. Marshall, Enmity, 910; my italics.

430. Enmity, 163.
431. Emity, 173.
432. Enmity, 173: . . .it is Pauls mutual obligations with the Philippians, implied by giving and receiving, . . . .
(cf. also 164).
433. See also Ebner, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, 363; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 266.
434. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 148.
176
or terms that clearly denote obligation, such as (I owe), are completely lacking in the
letter.435 His second argument is that Paul intentionally employs
, a well-known expression of social obligation, precisely within a pericope devoid of
any language denoting obligation, debt, or repayment (from the apostle himself).436 This
rhetorical move on Pauls part, according to Peterman, is to offer instruction on the place of
such sharing in the life of the Christian community,437 largely because the community has a
skewed view on giving and receiving, having been debased by the normative conventions of
the Greco-Roman world. For Peterman, then, the mention of their in giving and
receiving, far from carrying the ties of mutual obligation, actually functions as a corrective,
being couched within the instructive, non-obligatory statements of 4:10-20.
Several factors, however, speak against Petermans conclusion. To begin with, although
explicit language, such as and , is lacking in Philippians, the
undercurrents of obligation run deep in 2:30, as demonstrated earlier,438 and in 4:15. It is, after

436. Peterman asserts that there is reciprocity, and yet no obligation, because he envisions a three-way
relationship. He writes, His relationship with the Philippians is unique in that there is reciprocity. But God is the
one who repays (Gift Exchange, 149).
437. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 158: . . .should not these statements at least in part be understood as reflecting
Pauls desire to avoid the assumption that he has contracted a personal social obligation by accepting this gift? Instead of an
expression of debt or of his intention to repay, the apostle relates his personal reflection, gives moral
commendation and offers a theological interpretation of the gift. From this it should be clear that the purpose of
Philippians 4:10-20 is not simply to offer a personal response to financial support, but rather to offer instruction on the place of
such sharing in the life of the Christian community (my italics).
438. See section 4.1.3 above.
177
all, a of giving and receiving between Paul and the community, not a reciprocal
relationship between God and the Philippians that excludes Paul. As Peterman insinuates,
Paul does not state his intention to repay the Philippians. . . . Nor does he solicit their
requests so that he might do them a favour in return. He has said that they supplied his
need with their gift. Now in response God will supply their every need. The Philippians
do indeed get a return, but, in keeping with the Old Testament on this issue (cf. Prov.
19:17), they get their return from a far greater Benefactor.439
By holding this view, Peterman is indeed hard-pressed to make sense of 4:19-20,
especially if he interprets as a material need and as physical riches.440 Divine
riches must be physically mediated.441
More than this, to arrive at his overall conclusion, Peterman must assert that
in Philippians is not a material for spiritual exchange. Though Pauls material-spiritual contrast
implies debt [or, we could say, obligation] and though he actually draws out this conclusion in
Romans 15.27, this is not precisely the relationship in Philippians. They are not exactly giving
back for his teaching but are partners with him to bring the teaching to others.442 Later,
however, Peterman seems to come back on himself, stating, It was not simply Pauls giving the

440. Though he does not explicitly come down on an interpretation in his section on 4:18b-20.
441. See section 4.2.2 above.
442. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 151. My italics highlight Petermans intention behind this quote, for, in his
conclusion, he admits, Doubtless we are to understand that the apostle contributed spiritual things and they the
material things (cf. Rom. 15.27; 1 Cor. 9.11). Yet the reciprocity is not restricted to this, as we have seen. While
their reciprocity may not be restricted to this, if this element is included, then we find it difficult to maintain
such bold assertions as obligation is not a concept found in this epistle (ibid., 147). If Peterman is to remain
consistent, a little room must be made for mutual obligation.
178
gospel to them which has caused this relationship to be formed. Rather, it is his giving, their
receiving [of the gospel], their giving in return and finally his acceptance of their return [of
money] which has established their partnership in the gospel.443 Clearly, then, the Philippians could
not have become Pauls partners without first accepting the gospel (i.e., the spiritual gift) and
then supporting him financially in his missionary endeavours to others (i.e., material gift)
spiritual for material, the very ingredients of obligation, as in Rom. 15:27. So, even by
Petermans own standards, this relationship still entails the mutual obligation to reciprocate,
even if the language of obligation is absent.444
All of these factors lead us to reject Petermans non-obligatory friendship, especially
because his position rests on the unverifiable conjecture that Christian giving at Philippi had
been demoralised by the cultural ties of social obligation, which the apostle had to rectify. This
is not only an argument from silence, as Peterman himself recognises,445 but it also
presupposes one kind of obligation the kind that exploits another for the sake of selfish gain.
443. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 183; my italics.

444. The cause of Petermans inconsistency, in my opinion, is his disagreement with Josef Hainz over the
meaning of . Hainz thinks that he has uncovered das paulinische Prinzip , that those who are
taught are obligated to support their teachers financially (derived from Gal. 6:6), which he imports into the
of Phil. 4:15 (KOINNIA, 113). Interpreted this way, the Philippians gift becomes an expression of their
debt of gratitude in return for the preaching of the gospel (i.e., material for spiritual). While Petermans
methodological critique of Hainz is entirely justified, his unspoken assumption, that obligation ceases to exist in
Philippians 4:15 once this so-called Pauline principle has been dismantled, is entirely unjustified.
445. Peterman, Gift Exchange, 149: Though an argument from silence, it surely must be significant that Paul
does not express feelings of debt, neither for this particular gift nor the many that he has received in the past.
179
As we have seen in our study of Senecas De Beneficiis,446 however, this understanding of gift-
exchange is neither ancient nor Pauline. It is a modern ideal imposed on an ancient text. At the
same time, we also reject Marshalls unqualified, obligatory relationship. For although he
alludes to Gods presence in their gift-giving relationship,447 he nevertheless fails to tease out
the horizontal implications caused by the divine inclusion, an illuminating task to which we
now turn.
4.3.2.2. Advancing a Middle Route Obligation and Self-Interest in the Economy of
When speaking about reciprocity, the components of obligation and self-interest are
intertwined. An explanation of one requires an explanation of the other. So this section will
reevaluate these horizontal components of gift within the three-way relational framework
outlined above.
4.3.2.2.1. Obligation Retied into a Three-way Knot
Because God provides the immaterial and material benefits that Paul and the
Philippians reciprocate, no party can claim ownership of their gifts. All gifts are Gods.
Recipients merely pass on the commodity of another as mediators or mutual brokers. In this
446. See Chapter 2, section 2.

447. We must not simply focus upon the gift and services nor, as some have, see in the phrase a simple two-
way transaction. Gifts and services, while of great importance in the initiating and maintaining of a reciprocal
relationship, are one part of the total nexus of relations involved in giving and receiving. . . . Though he himself
cannot reciprocate in kind, he is confident that God would more than make good the gift out of, and in a manner
befitting, his boundless wealth in Christ Jesus (v. 19) (Enmity, 16364).
180
way, both mediating parties equally share a vertical tie of obligation to God, which partly
(though not completely) disentangles the horizontal ties of obligation to each other. Put
simply, because of the divine third party, obligation ceases to be primarily between Paul and
the Philippians. No longer does one party, after giving a gift, hold the superior position over
the other as the source. No longer does the recipient, after receiving a gift, become subservient
to the demands of the giver. When participants exchange gifts in the divine economy, they are
caught up into a divine momentum of mediation. God owns everything and gives to those in
need through the mediation of those who have already received gifts. This other-oriented
movement prevents anyone from hoarding gifts and so accruing social power for themselves.
It also preserves relationships from degenerating into destructive competitions of one-up-
manship. Instead, in this divine movement, gifts take on a divine purpose. They are received in
order to be given away and given away in order to be received, and on goes the cycle of ,
with God as the ultimate giver of all gifts and the chief recipient of all gratitude.
This is the sort of that Paul envisions, one that
preserves the element of horizontal obligation and yet undergoes a relational reconfiguration,
inasmuch as beneficiaries share a vertical tie of obligation to the benefactor of all goods in the
economy of . In a word, Paul and the community are bound together by webs of need and
181
of gift,448 with the divine party as the unifying factor. Thus, like Seneca and the majority of
ancient writers, obligation underlies, even maintains, gift-exchange for Paul. But unlike these
writers, the presence of God modifies its relational contours and social expressions.
4.3.2.2.2. Self-Interest Converted into Other-Oriented Self-Interest
In Chapter 2, Seneca alerted us to a redefined perspective on self-interest that can be
revisited here. In reaction to those who exhibited exploitative self-regard, Seneca promotes a
self-interest that is primarily geared towards the other and secondarily interested with the self.
This other-oriented self-interest, for Seneca, maintains the threefold flow of gift giving,
receiving, and returning. When it comes to Pauls perspective on gift, we discover an
analogous pattern in the tension between 2:30 and 4:17. In 2:30, Paul acknowledges the
communitys to him ( ), which suggests (at least to some extent) that he is
self-interested, not because he seeks to exploit the community for selfish gain but because he has
a need that they, as fellow-sharers of his suffering, can meet. At the same time, however, in
4:17, Paul considers his interest secondary and their interests primary, when he writes, Not that
I seek [] the gift, but I seek [ ] the fruit which abounds to your account [
]. So, according to 2:30 and 4:17, self- and other-interest seem to be held in
448. John Barclay, Manna and the Circulation of Grace: A Study of 2 Corinthians 8:115, in The Word Leaps the
Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine
Grieb; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 40926 at 425; my italics. Although Barclay applies this to the collection,
the model presented in 2 Cor. 8:1-15 is the master paradigm of all gift-giving relationships in the divine economy.
182
tension, but held together nonetheless. This sort of other-focused self-regard also appears in
1:21-25, where Paul downplays his own interest to depart and be with Christ because it is more
advantageous for them that he remain with them.449 Yet this results in fruitful labour for Paul
( , 1:22) and for the community (1:25). Again, like 2:30 and 4:17, self- and
other-interest leads to mutual gain. In this regard, Paul closely resembles his ancient
counterpart, Seneca.
Nevertheless, contrary to Seneca, other-oriented self-interest in the economy of
is patterned after the self-giving love of God in the Christ-gift. Since the Christ-event brought
three-way, gift-giving relationships into existence, it is therefore fitting that this creative,
cataclysmic event would become the paradigm of Christian behaviour in the community. Or, as
John Barclay calls it, the policy for the creation of community,450 a policy which, according to
2:5, calls the community to have the same mind that was in Christ Jesus. How? By considering
one another more significant than oneself ( , 2:3) and
by looking not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others (
[] , 2:4). The appears in P46, Codex
Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus. But even if it did not, the inclusion of
also must be assumed. For unless we are to reduce these other-oriented statements to a self
449. Interestingly, Paul uses the word necessary () when he speaks of subsuming his interests under
theirs.
450. Paul, Reciprocity, and the Modern Myth of the Pure Gift.
183
negation of the entire community, then we have to assume that Paul expected everyone in the
community to reciprocate this other-oriented self-interest. Put differently, Paul cannot be
calling all the Philippians to be other-oriented because no one would receive anything. Only
giving to the other would be allowed. The apostles communal policy, therefore, anticipates an
economy where the other is just as eager to meet your needs as you are to meet theirs. This
policy, to be sure, is open to dangerous and potentially destructive relationships, for it places
your well-being, your state of abundance, if you will, in the hands of another. Nevertheless,
because Christian gift-exchange is predicated on the activity of God in and through the
community, it is safeguarded. God assures the completion of distributing grace to another. For
Paul, then, other-oriented self-regard is deeply rooted in and shaped by the Christ-event, held
as the policy of Gods economy.
4.3.2.3. Redressing the So-Called Thankless Thanks451
Gods role as a third party not only reties horizontal obligations and converts self-
interest into other-oriented self-interest, but it also sheds immense light on Pauls so-called
Thankless Thanks, a glaring problem in 4:10-20.
The Philippians graciously delivered a gift, but Paul, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, failed to reply with a simple thank you a flagrant violation of proper
451. For fuller treatment of this issue, especially in relation to the brokerage model, see my forthcoming
article Pauls Intentional Thankless Thanks in Philippians 4.10-20, JSNT 34 (2011): 47-69.
184
etiquette in ancient (as well as modern) gift exchange. To mitigate this issue, bemused scholars
have searched endlessly for the slightest trace of gratitude in 4:10-20. The problem is that
and its cognates are completely absent. Despite this absence, however, scholars
still claim to have detected faint whispers of gratitude.
Ralph Martin, for example, suggests that Paul implicitly discloses his thankfulness in
4:14, you did well ( ).452 Many have rightly criticized this view, however,
conceding that this phrase may be commendation, or even, as Paul Holloway states, formal
acknowledgement,453 but certainly not gratitude.454 Other scholars abandon the search for
gratitude altogether and ironically label this pericope a thankless thanks (dankloser Dank).455
But many have balked at this coined paradox, insofar as it unfairly portrays Paul as
thoughtlessly committing the heinous crime of ingratitude,456 without providing a rationale
for this cultural misdemeanour.
452. Philippians, 164; cf. Hawthorne, Philippians, 202. Another popular view is proposed by Wolfgang Schenk. He
claims that Pauls joy in 4:10 discloses his thanks, since shares a common semantic field with
(Philipperbriefe, 43). But this semantic connection is an etymological stretch, for although joy may in fact
communicate thankfulness, an unequivocal word of thanks is still missing (OBrien, Philippians, 517; Silva,
Philippians, 208).
453. Consolation, 155.
454. Peterman correctly argues that cannot be understood as an expression of gratitude,
because it does not acknowledge social debt, it does not appear that the past tense [of with ] carries
the meaning thank-you, and [i]t does not smack of servility, as a client praising a benefactor (Gift Exchange, 145
n128).
455. E.g., Dibelius, Philipper, 95; Lohmeyer, Philipper, 178; Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 173.
456. Compared to all the [h]omicides, tyrants, thieves, adulterers, robbers, sacrilegious men, and traitors,
Seneca contends that the most heinous vice, and perhaps the root of all these vices, is ingratitude (Ben. 1.10.4).
185
In response to these competing views, many have attempted to absolve Paul from the
well-known offence of ingratitude457 by turning to the Greco-Roman conventions of giving and
receiving.458 Among the most plausible theories, one in particular has piqued the interests of
the majority of scholarship in the last couple of decades:459 Petermans article entitled
Thankless Thanks: The Epistolary Social Convention in Philippians 4:10-20.460
Peterman advances a plausible reason for the thankless thanks by appealing to the
social convention of verbal gratitude in non-literary papyri. Among the many papyrus letters
he draws upon, the most noteworthy is P. Merton 12.461 There, a certain Chairas informs
Dionysius, a physician-friend, that he will dispense with writing to you with a great show of
thanks [ ]; for it is to those who are not friends that we must give thanks in
457. Ingratitude repeatedly appears in De Beneficiis as a vice which everyone considers to be the worst
committed among men (cf. 3.6.1; 4.16.3; 4.18.1; 5.15.1-2). Even the ungrateful themselves concede to this fact
(3.1.1; c.f. also Cicero, Off. 2.18.63).
458. See, for example, Fleury, Une Socit de Fait; Sampley, Pauline Partnership, 5157; Capper, Pauls Dispute;
Bormann, Philippi, 161205; L.M. White, Paradigm of Friendship; Berry, Function of Friendship Language;
Glombitza, Dank des Apostels. For explanations unrelated to ancient conventions of gift, see Loveday Alexander,
Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians, JSNT 37 (1989): 87101 at 98; Dodd, The Mind of Paul:
I, 7172; Michael, Philippians, 20910.
459. To name a few who subscribe to Petermans view: Holloway, Consolation, 15657 n58; Fee, Philippians, 446
n31; Reumann, Philippians, 688; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics, 319 n39; Jeffrey T. Reed, Discourse
Analysis, 28283; Ben Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2
Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 147 n71, 168 n11.
460. Thankless Thanks: The Epistolary Social Conventions in Philippians 4:1020, TynB 42.2 (1991): 26170.
461. Because P. Merton 12 is the most compelling piece of evidence for Petermans case, there is no need to
scrutinize each individual letter he puts forward, especially when the principal argument against his thesis deals
with his underlying assumption that Philippians ought to be regarded as a letter of friendship (see below).
186
words [ ].462 From this and some twenty-five
other letters, Peterman unearths an epistolary convention in which verbal gratitude was
withheld among intimate friends, a popular convention he sees reflected in the so-called
thankless thanks.463
The scholarly approbation of Petermans proposal comes as no surprise, given the
recent trend to read Philippians in light of the topos of friendship.464 Nevertheless, although the
friendship model is exegetically promising, it becomes problematic when scholars claim
(either explicitly or implicitly) that Philippians should be read exclusively as a letter of
friendship,465 which is precisely how Peterman handles Philippians 4:10-20. By solely
comparing this text to papyrus letters among friends, he assumes that this section mirrors the
literary pattern of friendship letters in antiquity. What is important in connection with
Philippians 4:10-20 is that these [friendship] letters allow us to assert that Pauls response to
462. Text and translation is available in John L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1986), 145.
463. Thankless Thanks, 264, though he correctly maintains that material gratitude was still required (ibid.,
266-68).
464. But many proponents of the friendship paradigm disagree with Peterman for a number of reasons. See
Capper, Pauls Dispute, 208 n33; Reumann, Letter of Friendship, 96.
465. Helpful in this regard is the corrective made by Markus Bockmuehl, warning scholars to beware the
temptation of employing comparative models schematically and prescriptively, for no one social convention
adequately captures what is undeniably a new and distinctive social phenomenon (Philippians, 3738; cf. also Fee,
Philippians, 424 n9). For a helpful discussion on the appropriate use of methods and models generally, see Philip
Esler, Models in New Testament Interpretation: A Reply to David Horrell, JSNT 78 (2000): 10713; David Horrell,
Models and Methods in Social-Scientific Interpretation: A Response to Philip Esler, JSNT 78 (2000): 83105; David
Horrell, Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested
Methodologies and the Future, in After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity
Twenty-Five Years Later (ed. Todd D. Still and David G. Horrell; London & New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 620.
187
the Philippians gift is not remarkable owing to the lack of . Among these
documents his so-called thankless thanks are not at all unusual.466 Implied within this
statement is the underlying assumption that Pauls socially-offensive silence in 4:10-20
remains socially enigmatic apart from the topos of friendship. Four points speak against this
line of reasoning, however.
Firstly, Philippians embodies a variety of epistolary features found within familial,467
friendship,468 and consolation letters,469 containing multiple purposes, theological
formulations, and moral exhortations.470 Its eclectic genre can hardly be pinned down to one
distinct form. Secondly, unlike friendship letters in the ancient world, the terms and
do not appear in the text,471 despite some recent attempts to translate in 2:12
466. Peterman, Thankless Thanks, 26566.

467. Alexander, Hellenistic Letter-Forms.
468. Berry, Function of Friendship Language.
469. Holloway, Consolation, 5583.
470. David Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC; Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1987), 203:
Most early Christian letters are multifunctional and have a mixed character, combining elements from two or
more epistolary types. . . . Paul in particular was both a creative and eclectic letter writer. The epistolary
situations he faced were often more complex than the ordinary rhetorical situations faced by most rhetoricians.
Many letters therefore exhibit combinations of styles. While proponents of the friendship model acknowledge
this point (e.g., John T. Fitzgerald, Ancient Discussions, 142), they, nevertheless, on the basis of similarities
between Philippians and Hellenistic friendship letters and essays, conclude that it may still be appropriately
labelled a letter of friendship. This is why, for instance, Stowers considers Philippians a hortatory letter of
friendship (Stowers, Friends and Enemies at 107).
471. Malherbe suggests that Paul intentionally avoids friendship language because of its Epicurean overtones,
but this remains pure, though obviously informed, conjecture (Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition
of Pastoral Care [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987], 10102).
188
and 4:1 as dear friends.472 Thirdly, as a letter written to a community, it does not conform in a
strict sense to the criteria of Greco-Roman rhetorical and epistolary handbooks or private
correspondences.473 Finally, and perhaps most substantially, the friendship model attributes
two-way rules of gift exchange to Pauls relationship with the Philippians. But, as we have
seen, Philippians 1:3-6 and 4:10-20 jointly disclose a three-way gift-exchange relationship
between God, Paul, and the Philippians, which naturally alters the rules of exchange. For these
reasons, interpreting Philippians exclusively as a letter of friendship, as Peterman does, is
reductionistic and therefore interpretively problematic,474 especially if God is excluded from
the relational picture.475
If, then, a three-way relationship emerges from 1:3-6 and 4:10-20 (with God as the
source, the Philippians as mediators, and Paul as the beneficiary), one can easily see how this
three-way relationship furnishes a plausible solution to the so-called Thankless Thanks:
Pauls thanks is intentionally thankless because the Philippians are mediators of Gods
472. Hansen, Philippians, 6, 169.

473. Reed explains, The rhetorical camp treats [Pauls letters] fundamentally as speeches, that is, orations
embodying the canons of the rhetorical handbooks (Discourse Analysis, 173). But he considers it methodologically
suspect to read Pauls letters according to the rhetorical handbooks in the light of (i) the evidence from the rhetorical
and epistolary theorists themselves and (ii) the absence of formal parallels between Pauls letters and other so-
called rhetorical letters (157), a critique he proceeds to develop (cf. 157-78).
474. This is not to say that the friendship model should not be employed at all, especially when it emits much
light on certain relational dynamics between Paul and the Philippians. My only contention is that it cannot fully
explain the gift-giving relationship, and especially the act of gratitude, without allowing God as the third party to
reshape the model.
475. Peterman only considers the role God plays as benefactor in his larger work (Gift Exchange, 49, 10405
n65). The third party does not appear in his article on the Thankless Thanks.
189
commodity, not the source. Or, in the perceptive words of Miroslav Volf (who notes in
passing): Most likely [Paul] doesnt thank them directly because he believes that he hasnt
received gifts from them but through them. The giver is God. They are the channels.476 As a
beneficiary of a divine gift, therefore, Paul rightly directs his thanks to God, the ultimate
source, in 1:3, before inviting the community, in 4:10-20, to express their gratitude to the
primary giver in the economy of ,477 only now in liturgical fashion: Glory be to our God
and Father forever and ever. Amen (4:20).
But if Paul renders his thanks to the ultimate giver in the divine economy,478 and
instead of thanking the Philippians, welcomes them to do the same, what specific intention lies
behind this culturally-questionable practice? And should this practice be deemed a corrective
or a conviction? One popular proposal explains the apostles silence as an intentional desire to
eschew Philippian patronage, so as not to become their client and they his superior
paymasters.479 This theory, nevertheless, erroneously assumes that a recipient of a gift, upon
making a return, automatically becomes a patron in any gift-giving relationship. This was
476. Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 11213;
authors italics.
477. Although Schenks proposal goes too far (see n273 above), gratitude may still be expressed through
in 4:10. Silva explains the position taken here: Without leaning on the etymological connection between
and , we should recognize that this expression of joy certainly communicates thankfulness
(Philippians, 208; my italics). But the contention of this investigation is that this thankfulness is directed solely to
God for reviving their concern via their monetary gift. After all, Pauls joy is found (4.10).
478. Though he rightly commends the community in 4:14 ( ).
479. Hooker, Philippians, 11:543; cf. also Witherington, Finances, 123, 168 n19; Fee, Philippians, 445; Berry,
Function of Friendship Language, 123.
190
clearly not the case in ancient society,480 nor was it the case in Pauls relationship with the
Philippians. Simply because the community reciprocated a favour in response to Pauls initial
gift of the gospel does not automatically make them his patron. He certainly would have been
in debt to them,481 but accruing a debt is categorically different than becoming a client.
Furthermore, this reconstruction casts unfavourable light on Pauls relationship with the
community, when internal evidence482 does not portray a strained relationship caused by
conformity to exploitative conventions of gift, unlike that of his dealings with the Corinthians.
Instead, judging from the favourable tone of the letter, the social rules of gift giving,
and the nature of their intimate , it seems best to regard his so-called thankless
thanks as a theological conviction (rather than a corrective) that only God occupies the
position of benefactor.483 He is the one who deserves all gratitude, while the church distributes
his commodity among one another. That is why, throughout his other letters, Paul goes to
great lengths to integrate and highlight Gods role as provider and those in Christ as channels
480. This view oversimplifies the multidimensional enterprise of gift exchange in antiquity, assuming that
every reciprocal relationship can and ought to be classified a patron-client relationship. However, a client never
became the patron in an established patron-client relationship. This view also neglects the variety of gift-giving
relationships in ancient society (e.g., teacher-pupil, parent-child, etc.). For a critique of this methodology, see
Chapter 2, section 1.
481. Giving a gift made one superior in the ancient world, insofar as the recipient occupies the position of the
debtor (see, e.g., Seneca, Ben. 2.13.2).
482. Indeed, the multiple occurrences of and its cognates throughout Philippians suggests otherwise,
sharply demarcating their distinguished gift-giving relationship from that of other churches.
483. This conviction nevertheless becomes a theological corrective in the case of the Corinthian church, which
we will explore in the next chapter.
191
of . In 1 Cor. 4:1, for instance, he emphasises his mediation of Gods gospel, echoing the
claim of 9:17, that he is a steward [; or mediator] of the mysteries of God [
]. In 1 Thess. 2:1-13, the phrase, the gospel of God ( ), emphatically
appears three times at crucial points in the argument, stressing the origin of his gift to the
community (cf. 11:7). In 2 Cor. 9:12, the Jerusalem saints, after receiving gifts from the
Corinthians, will render many thanksgivings to God ( ). The
Corinthians give, but God unexpectedly receives the gratitude precisely because God gives
through the Corinthians.
All this suggests that, for Paul, inhabitants within Gods economy are drawn into a pay
it forward momentum of , a momentum set in motion by the grace of the Christ-event (2
Cor. 8:9), which powerfully transforms Christ-followers into conduits of grace for one another.
This not only alleviates the needs of others but also empowers others to flourish in this
interdependent work of abounding grace. Accordingly, the circle of could be mapped out
as follows. Grace cascades from God the benefactor, flows in, through, and among participants
in Christ, and eventually returns back as to God, the supreme giver. Ironically,
then, a rich theology of grace-shaped relationships may be heard from the apostles loud
silence.
192
5. Conclusion: Pauls with the Philippians
We began this chapter with the question, what does a full, trusting look like?
Having exegetically trekked through Phil. 1:3-30, 2:25-30, and 4:10-20, we are now in a position
to provide some conclusions and tease out some implications for Pauls financial policy. It is
worth noting that these conclusions are based on Pauls perception of his with the
Philippians, not the reality of that relationship. Yet, for our purposes, we are only concerned
with Pauls perceptions, since his policy depends on them.
5.1. The Inclusion of the Third Party
Tracing the trajectory of solidified the three-way nature of Paul and the
Philippians . The movement of in the gospel begins and ends with God. He is
the one who initiates Pauls with the Philippians (1:3, 5; cf. 1:29),
the one who supplies the commodity of in all its varied forms,484 the one who maintains
its progression (, 1:12, 26) through hostile impediments to reach those in the world
(1:12-18c) as well as those in Christ (1:18d-30), and the one who ultimately receives thanks
(, 1:3), glory (, 1:11; 2:11; 4:20; cf. 1:20, 26), and praise (, 1:11) from
mediating recipients in the divine economy. Givers and receivers, then, are caught up into a
divine momentum, a circle of , with God working in and through human agency to mediate
484. E.g., the boldness to preach (1:14, 20), joy (1:18), present and future deliverance (1:19), faith, perseverance
in suffering, ultimate salvation (1:27-30), and material gifts (1:3-6, 4:10, 19).
193
his divine resources to those in need (1:3-6, 19; 2:12-13; 4:10, 19). A full picture of the trajectory
of in the divine economy can therefore be illustrated as follows:
/ God /

Paul Philippians

5.2. Social Dynamics of Giving and Receiving in Christ
After establishing the incorporation of a divine third party in their , we
examined the horizontal implications that Gods presence generated. We unearthed four
relational alterations. The first is that, because God is the source of all commodity, Paul and
the Philippians, as mediators of divine goods, share a mutual obligation to this source, a
vertical tie which modifies, but does not sever, the horizontal ties of obligation (2:25-30; 4:15).
The second modification is that, because God aims to meet needs, gifts carry the obligation to
be distributed, especially since Paul and the community are bound within a nexus of gift and
suffering. Third, because God mediates gifts through them, they cannot use them to accrue
social power for themselves. Gifts are meant to be passed on, meant to meet needs, which
ensures that the inherent power within gifts is constantly being transferred into the hands of
another. Finally, because God works through one to meet the needs of others, such as the gift
194
from Philippi to Paul, an oscillating asymmetry emerges, with one party in a position of need,
while the other has the abundance to meet their need. But since no one can act as the source,
and both parties will equally have needs that the other can fill, this asymmetry will constantly
be in flux. Consequently, all of these relational alterations, created by the incorporation of the
divine third party, allow us to reach a conclusion as to the nature of Pauls financial
relationship with the Philippians that differs from the proposals listed at the beginning of this
chapter.
5.3. The Nature of Pauls Financial Relationship with the Philippians
Paul and the Philippians share a full, trusting of gift and suffering. They
exhibit mutual concern and affection for one another. They spend themselves in sacrificial
ministry and in prayer on behalf of each others faith, joy, and ultimate salvation in the midst
of suffering. And they willingly exchange gifts with one another in order to meet pressing
needs. These positive, reciprocal acts cancel out Davorin Peterlins dysfunctional relationship,
Joseph Marchals antagonistic evaluation, and any other reconstruction that proposes a
negative assessment of their relationship. Also, the non-obligatory relationship advocated by
Ebner and Peterman does not do justice to 2:25-30 and 4:10-20, as we have shown. Paul and the
Philippians share a of giving and receiving, and even though God is singled out as the
one who will repay the Philippians, his divine commodity nevertheless requires an earthly
195
conduit (4:19).485 Consequently, Gods presence propels rather than eradicates social
reciprocity on the human level. Lastly, the three-way relational pattern calls into question the
legitimacy of the friendship and patron-client model as appropriate frameworks for
understanding monetary relationships in Pauline texts. Since every relationship in the divine
economy includes God as the crucial third party, two-way relationships and thus two-way
rules of exchange no longer apply directly. Conversely, the brokerage model serves as a more
accurate heuristic lens through which to examine Pauls financial dealings, though this social
framework carries its own set of problems.486 Moreover, the issue of whether Paul and the
Philippians had an equal or unequal friendship becomes superfluous. Both are true, if viewed
through the oscillating asymmetry outlined above, an asymmetrical relationship which, in 2
Cor. 8:14, Paul paradoxically calls equality ().
What we have uncovered in this chapter, then, is a theological, three-way relational
pattern between God, Paul, and the Philippians that informs the shape of their full, trusting
. Although many relational dynamics have been unearthed, the essence of their
can be summed up in two words: gift and suffering. Interestingly, the Corinthians
lacked both. They neither suffered for the gospel or with their apostle, nor were their gifts
accepted by Paul. They had no in gift and suffering. The aim of the next chapter,
485. See section 4.2.2.

486. We explore the fitting and unfitting parts of this model with regard to 2 Cor. 1:3-11 in Briones, Mutual
Brokers.
196
therefore, is to determine why this was the case, and whether the absence of these relational
components directly relates to Pauls financial policy at Corinth.
197
CHAPTER 4: Pauls Negative Relationship With the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9)
9)
Introduction
In the previous chapter, we asked why the Philippians were the only church with whom Paul
entered into a gift-giving relationship. To provide an answer to this seemingly impossible
question, we examined the positive nature of their relationship and deduced the key features
of their full, trusting . What emerged was a three-way relational pattern between
God, Paul, and the Philippians, being distinguished by a mutuality in gift and suffering. In other
words, the community embraced the gift of the gospel, willingly endured suffering on behalf of
it, entered into Pauls ministry of suffering through their gift, and helped mediate the gift of
the gospel to others. All of this led the apostle to render thanks to God, the vital third party,
for actively working in and through the Philippians.
Now that we have uncovered the relational dynamics of an operative gift-exchange
relationship with Paul, we can turn the why question onto the Corinthians: why did Paul refuse
Corinthian gifts? And embedded within the why is a what. What were the determining factors
that prevented the Corinthians from supporting their apostle? To answer these questions, we
will take a socio-theological approach. Our investigation will begin with the social ethos of
198
Corinth, starting with its historic legacy of prosperity and moving into the celebrated
conventions of wealth and honour among its people in the first century. We will then
demonstrate the resemblance between the interactions of ancient society and the interactions
of the Corinthian church, proving that they indeed were conformed to the dominant culture
around them. After confirming their culturally-conditioned lifestyle from specific passages in 1
Corinthians, we will bring in Pauls appraisal of their spiritual state, his reconfiguration of
their worldly perspective, and lastly the socio-theological strategy behind his financial policy in
1 Cor. 9. What will become apparent is that the relational features found at Philippi, that of
Gods active role in their partnership with Paul and their shameless commitment to the
counter-cultural gospel of the Christ-event, was completely absent at Corinth, an absence
which discloses Pauls reason for refusing their gifts.
1. The Social Ethos of Corinth
1.1. The City Corinths Legacy of Prosperity
Corinthian history is a tale of two prosperous eras. Prior to 146 BC, Corinth flourished as
the leading Greek city-state of the Achaean league. By virtue of its prime location between two
harbours (Lechaeum to the west and Cenchreae to the east), the city controlled overland
movement between Italy and Asia and so operated as a vital intersection for Mediterranean
199
trade.1 Naturally, this strategic position led to material prosperity,2 raising Corinth to the
zenith of economic glory and civic honour.3 That is, of course, until Lucius Mummius
plundered their treasures and virtually decimated this defiant city4 a catastrophic event
which brought Corinths first prosperous era to a close.5
In March 44 BC, however, Julius Caesar renewed the faded glory of Greek Corinth by
refounding the city as a Roman colony, ushering in a new era of prosperity in Corinthian
history. M.E.H. Walbank explains,
The refounding of Corinth, a great commercial centre of the past, was in keeping with
Julius Caesars economic and colonial policies of relieving economic distress at home,
particularly at Rome, and of developing the provinces. Since the suppression of piracy
by Pompey, the east Mediterranean had become, in effect, a free trade area in which
Corinth, with its unique situation, was a key factor. 6
1. The paved roadway (diolkos) alongside the Isthmus connecting the two harbours, which permitted merchant
ships to circumvent the dangerous six-day alternative voyage around the Southern Cape of the Peloponnese,
assured Corinth of an early, important role in ancient commerce (James Wiseman, Corinth and Rome, I:228 B.C.-
A.D. 267, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt II, 7.1 [ed. H. Temporini; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1979], 438548 at
446; cf. G.D.R. Sanders, Urban Corinth: An Introduction, in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth [ed. Daniel Schowalter
and Steven Friesen; HTS 53; Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005], 1124 at 13-14).
2. Thucydides called Corinth a market [] for the exchange of goods, which, in his estimation, was
powerful and rich (War 1.13.5), while Homer sang of Wealthy Corinth (Il. 2.570).
3. On civic pride and rivalry, see Dio Chrysostom, Or. 44.9, 46.3; Aristides, Or. 26.97-99; Cicero, Off. 2.17; cf. C.P.
Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978), 8690.
4. Corinth rebelled against Romes campaign to dissolve the Achaean league (cf. Cicero, Agr. 1.5; Strabo, Geogr.
8.4.8; 8.6.23; Pausanias, Descr. 2.1.2).
5. According to Strabo, Corinth was laid waste for 102 years (Geogr. 8.6.23).
6. M.E.H. Walbank, The Foundation and Planning of Early Roman Corinth, JRA 10 (1997): 95130 at 99.
200
By recolonising Corinth with primarily Greek-speaking freedmen,7 most of whom were
eager entrepreneurs,8 Julius Caesar regained the mercantile glories of the city that Mummius
had destroyed in 146.9 With inhabitants to ensure its commercial success and its strategic
location reclaimed, Corinth once again became the epicenter of commercial trade.10 Between 7
BC and AD 3, the biennial Isthmian games were also reinstituted. This athletic festival, being
second in importance only to the Olympian games, attracted members of lite families,
participants, and spectators from all over the Meditteranean11 and generated an influx of
profit to local businesses, increasing the citys opulence.12 Arguably, this revival of economic
glory made Corinth one of the wealthiest cities in the Greco-Roman world.13 Small wonder that
the apostle Paul decided to centre his missionary efforts there.
Two factors, in particular, most likely compelled Paul to consider Roman Corinth as an
optimum location for ministry. To begin with, as the central market of the Mediterranean as
well as the host of the Isthmian games, Paul would have encountered numerous traders and
7. There may have been some veterans, but they would have been a small minority (Jerome Murphy-
OConnor, St. Pauls Corinth: Texts and Archaeology [3rd ed.; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002], 64).
8. Walbank, Roman Corinth, 107.
9. Edward Salmon, Roman Colonization Under the Republic (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life; London: Thames
and Hudson, 1969), 135. Aristides comments on Corinths renewed splendour: Not even the eyes of all men are
sufficient to take it in (Or. 46.25; cf. 46.27-28).
10. Antony Spawforth explains, By the late 1st cent. AD the colony was a flourishing centre of commerce,
administration, the imperial cult, and entertainment (Corinth: Roman, in The Oxford Classical Dictionary [ed.
Simon Hornblower; 3rd edition; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], 39091 at 391).
11. Pausanias, Descr. 2.2.2; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.5-10; Aristides, Or. 46.23; cf. Murphy-OConnor, St. Pauls
Corinth, 1215; Oscar Broneer, The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games, BA 25 (1962): 231.
12. Murphy-OConnor, St. Pauls Corinth, 54.
13. See Aristides, Or. 46.23.
201
travellers with various religious backgrounds, who, converted or not, could take word of the
new religion to many distant places.14 The other reason is that there would have been a high
demand for leather workers during the games, providing countless evangelistic
opportunities.15 Throughout the rest of the year, Pauls workshop would have been one of
three venues in which to share the message of Christ.16 But, ironically, while the benefits of
Corinths economy primarily drew Paul to the Corinthians, the citys preoccupation with
wealth and honour, as we will see, was precisely what drew the Corinthians away from Paul.
1.2. The People The Social Conventions of Wealth and Honour at Corinth
The city is not a cause but a consequence; not an active entity but an entity that is acted upon
by its people. It is a mirror in which their social, economic, and political institutions and values
are reflected.17 Corinths drive for economic glory simply reflects the social values of its
people. One particular avenue for honour, which is especially noteworthy for the purposes of
14. Engels, Roman Corinth, 112.

15. Although Engels accurately states that the Corinthian church was neither composed of transient
merchants, travelers, and tourists nor spectators and participants at the Isthmian games (Roman Corinth, 113), a
leather workshop nevertheless provided a setting in which intellectual discourse could take place with some
from these groups, as Ronald Hock demonstrates (Social Context, 3742; cf. Murphy-OConnor, St. Pauls
Corinth, 19298).
16. Stanley Stowers argues that the private home was the most important locus for Pauls preaching activity,
primarily because [p]ublic speaking and often the use of public buildings required status, reputation, and
recognized roles which Paul did not have (Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The
Circumstances of Pauls Preaching Activity, NovT 26 [1984]: 5982 at 81; esp. 66-70). David Horrell, however,
combines the arguments of Hock and Stowers and accurately identifies three social settings for Pauls missionary
activity in Corinth: the workshop, the house and probably the synagogue (Social Ethos, 7377).
17. Engels, Roman Corinth, 66.
202
this chapter, was through the exchange of gifts and services, the chief bond of human
society.18 In fact, the social system of gift exchange, embedded within an honour and shame
culture, played an integral role not only in the Greco-Roman world but also in Corinthian life.
In separate studies, Peter Marshall, John Chow, and Andrew Clarke have aptly shown
the importance of patronage practices for understanding the church at Corinth,19 but it is not
the intention of this section to reiterate their arguments or even challenge them (for the time
being).20 Here, we will supply a broad brush-stroke of the attainment of honour through wealth
within the agonistic environment of the Greco-Roman world, before discerning the level of
assimilation to these social values in the Corinthian church.
1.2.1. Patronage and Honour
Honor, writes John Lendon, was a filter through which the whole world was viewed, a
deep structure of the Greco-Roman mind,21 and patronage greatly informed this embedded
framework. According to H.A. Stansbury, the Roman system of patronage is one of four major
sources for the ethos of honour and shame in the world of the first century and especially in
Corinth.22 Indeed, patronage allowed the lite, semi-lite, and non-lite, albeit within their
18. Seneca, Ben. 1.4.2.

19. See Enmity; Patronage and Power; Leadership, respectively.
20. See Chapter 5, section 3.1 for an exegetical critique of the patronal interpretation.
21. Lendon, Empire, 73.
22. Corinthian Honor, Corinthian Conflict (PhD Thesis, University of California, 1990), 3132. The others
include: the warrior culture of the Homeric age, the institution of slavery, and the authoritarian patriarchal
family.
203
respective circles,23 to accrue honour, status, and worth for oneself and before others. This
twofold quest is succinctly explained by Julian Pitt-Rivers. Honour is the value of a person in
his own eyes, but also in the eyes of society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to
pride, but it is also the acknowledgement of that claim, his excellence recognized by society,
his right to pride.24 So, in short, claim must be turned into right. For a personss self-estimation as
worthy (dignus) to become a social-estimation,25 it had to be confirmed by those whose opinion
mattered.26 One way to achieve this honorific outcome, at least within lite circles, was by
displaying ones social worth through acts of generosity. As Andrew Clarke rightly notes,
First century Graeco-Roman society was a society where success at many levels
depended on status, reputation and public estimation, which in turn depended entirely
on friendships [i.e., patronage among so-called equals]. Such friendships were
maintained through a continuous flow of generosity in two directions. It may therefore
be seen that success [i.e., honour and status] was dependent at root on wealth, even
considerable wealth.27
23. Carlin Barton notes that the lite were most preoccupied with honour, but, emotionally, the slave was
every bit as sensitive to insult as his or her master. The plebeian was as preoccupied with honor as the patrician,
the client as the patron, the woman as the man, the child as the adult (Roman Honor, 11; cf. 13; my italics).
24. Honour and Social Status, in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (ed. J.G. Peristiany;
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), 2177 at 21; cf. 27; my italics.
25. Barton, Roman Honor, 219: Dignitas was worthiness of honor.
26. Honor, Bruce Malina writes, is the value of a person in his or her own eyes (that is, ones claim to worth)
plus that persons value in the eyes of his or her social group. Honor is a claim to worth along with the social
acknowledgement of worth (The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology [Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993], 31). Similarly, Halvor Moxnes explains, When someones claim to honor is
recognized by the group, honor is confirmed, and the result is a certain status in society (Honor and Shame,
BTB 23 [1993]: 16776 at 168).
27. Leadership, 32. Timothy Savage further notes that, because the aggressive citizens of Corinth pride
themselves on their wealth (Or. 9.8) and are ungracious. . .among their luxuries (Alciphron Ep. 3.15.1), [h]ere,
more than elsewhere, wealth was a prerequisite for honour and poverty a badge of disgrace (Power Through
Weakness, 88; cf. Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 [New Haven, MA: Yale University
Press, 1974], 109).
204
1.2.2. Patronage and Honour in an Agonistic Environment
Carlin Barton describes the cultural milieu of Rome as a contest culture, a sometimes
brutally competitive, hierarchical society in which ones status and being were perpetually
tested.28 The road to glory was therefore marked indelibly by competition, so that Roman
honor required will, determination, and effective energy [virtus].29 In a contest culture where
every Roman had to be the best, the greatest, the first, the unus vir,30 striving to prove their
dignitas and virtus,31 there was always an adversary to be conquered, one who stood in the way
of gloria, laus, and decus. For without an adversary, Seneca asserts, virtus shrivels. We see how
great and how viable virtus is when, by endurance, it shows what it is capable of.32 Those
competing for social worth, then, were simultaneously a tiger on a leash and a bug under a
glass33 intimidating and being intimidated, overcoming to attain and protecting to retain.
To the modern mind, this competition for honour, where one persons honour was
another persons shame, may seem socially barbaric. Yet it becomes comprehensible if, as
Stansbury insists, honor is thought of as a commodity in limited supply. A person must then
28. Roman Honor, 237.

29. Barton, Roman Honor, 37. Virtus, Barton explains, was, in the words of Georges Dumzil, la qualit
dhomme au maximum. There was no virtus in the Republic without the demonstration of will (36; citing Horace
et les Curiaces [Paris: Gallimard, 1942]).
30. Roman Honor, 47 n70.
31. The whole glory of virtue, according to Cicero, resides in activity (Off. 1.6.19).
32. De Prov. 2.4.
33. Barton, Roman Honor, 229.
205
compete for it, perhaps utilizing conventional methods such as gifts, valor, or demonstrations
of rhetorical skill and philosophical insight.34 Gifts, in particular, often instigated a
competitive, though outwardly dignified, contest. Competition of one-up-manship, for
example, flared up amongst social equals,35 with both seeking to outdo the other by granting a
greater gift than the one they received.36 In this sense, gifts were not unlike honourable duels.
Both parties competed with one another to retain or restore ones honour in society, each
risking their wealth to save face in society.
1.3. Conclusion
Having outlined the cultural values of patronage (or wealth) and honour (or worth) in
the ancient world generally, which appeared within the prosperous city of Corinth, we can
now conclude by listing three socially dangerous side effects that wealth, honour, and
competition produced in Corinthian society that will reemerge when we analyse the
Corinthian church.
34. Honor, 418; my emphasis.

35. It is very important to note, writes Malina, that the interaction over honor, the challenge-response game,
can take place only between social equals (New Testament World, 35; authors italics).
36. It was the thirst for honor, the contest for applause, that worked so powerfully to impoverish the rich
(MacMullen, Social Relations, 62; cf. Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture
[London: Duckworth, 1987], 15556).
206
(i) Roman emphasis on social stratification developed criteria for measuring worth,
clearly demarcating the worthy (i.e., honestiores) from the unworthy (i.e., humiliores) on the
basis of wealth.
(ii) Since worth, honour, and status were attained through the exchange of wealth,
especially through the parading of ones fortune before the public eye,37 outward expressions
of pride were encouraged, such as the culturally-acceptable practice of boasting.
(iii) Individuals competing for honour promoted themselves while neglecting others,
creating a self-promoting atmosphere.38
With these social ramifications of wealth and honour in mind, that of the outward
displays of fortune through ones gifts and boasting, the social criteria of worth, and the
indifferent attitudes of the competitive towards the other, we will now determine whether the
Corinthians, after their encounter with the gospel, stripped themselves of these cultural values
of gift and worth or integrated them into the life of the church.
2. The Cultural Conformity of the Corinthians Post-Conversion
After Paul proclaimed the counter-cultural gospel of the Christ-event at Corinth, and they
willingly accepted this gift of grace, did it produce a counter-cultural people? Or did they, after
37. MacMullen, Social Relations, 6162.

38. Savage notes that people began to focus on themselves and in particular on cultivating self-worth. For
many, self-appreciation became the goal and self-glorification the reward (Power Through Weakness, 19).
207
genuinely converting (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-2), retain the cultural framework of the Greco-Roman
world rather than adopt Pauls apocalyptic worldview? To provide an answer, we will
investigate the Corinthians understanding of conversion before analysing specific texts in 1
Corinthians which suggest that the church adopted the norms of gift and worth outlined
above.
2.1. Conversion at Corinth
Stephen Chester has provided an incisive assessment of the Corinthians understanding
of conversion within the Greco-Roman context. He draws on B. Jules-Rosettes definition of
conversion as an experience rooted in both self and society. It involves a personally
acknowledged transformation of self and a socially recognised display of change,39 and then
sets it within structuration theory developed by Anthony Giddens. His conclusion on the
Corinthians interpretation of conversion is worth quoting at length:
The Corinthians responded to Pauls advocacy of conversion and adopted a new

Christian set of religious symbols. Yet the significance which they granted to these
specifically Christian symbols was not solely determined by Paul. The Graeco-Roman
society and culture in which they lived also played a part. At the level of discursive
consciousness transformation dominates but, at the level of practical consciousness,
there is also a significant degree of reproduction. The Corinthians understanding of
their own conversion and its consequences inevitably indigenises their new faith to
some degree.40
39. B. Jules-Rosette, The Conversion Experience: The Apostles of John Maranke, Journal of Religion in Africa 7
(1976): 13264 at 132.
40. Conversion at Corinth: Perspectives on Conversion in Pauls Theology and the Corinthian Church (SNTW; London:
T&T Clark, 2003), 317.
208
In other words, the Corinthians reside on the same discursive level of consciousness as
Paul, having embraced the religious symbols of his message.41 But the problem stems from how
they construed the significance of these symbols on the practical level of consciousness,
where they exhibit little transformation (i.e., modification of previous social structures) but
plenty of reproduction (i.e., continuity of previous social structures).42 This imbalance of
discursive and practical consciousness manifests the presence of another force at work on
their practical behaviour other than Pauls counter-cultural message. According to Chester,
this force is the cultural norms of Greco-Roman society.
This substantiates a seminal claim made previously by John Barclay. The [Corinthians]
perception of their church and of the significance of their faith could correlate well with a life-
style which remained fully integrated in Corinthian society.43 Chester, however, makes
Barclays claims more pronounced, particularly identifying the quest for status through
patronage in voluntary associations and mystery-cult initiation rites as the primary (though
not the only) factors behind the underlying issue that Paul confronts in 1 Corinthians
discord in the church but concord with the world.44 Chesters analysis is particularly insightful,
41. Chester, Conversion, 215.

42. For a definition of these terms, see Chester, Conversion, 3638.
43. Thessalonica and Corinth, 71.
44. One of the most significant, but least noticed, features of Corinthian church life, Barclay affirms, is the
absence of conflict in the relationship between Christians and outsiders (Thessalonica and Corinth, 57, esp. 56-
60; cf. Chester, Conversion, 318).
209
especially since he identifies patronage and status or, we could say, gift and worth as the
principal causes of Pauls uneasy relationship with the Corinthians. To be sure, other causes
have been advocated,45 such as Gnosticism,46 Hellenistic Judaism,47 over-realized eschatology,48
Stoicism,49 and even Pauls earlier preaching ministry.50 Nevertheless, it has been convincingly
argued that the majority of the problems at Corinth stem from a close conformity to the
dominant culture around them,51 of which gift and worth operated as a sub-cause that put
their practical consciousness at odds with the counter-cultural shape of the gospel.52 Yet we
intend to build on previous research by particularly identifying the Corinthians deficient
45. Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT 7/13; Neukirchen-Vluyn/Zrich and Dsseldorf:
Neukirchener Verlag/Benziger Verlag, 1991), 4763.
46. E.g., Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians (trans. John E.
Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971).
47. E.g., R.A. Horsley, Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth, CBQ 39 (1977): 22439; idem,
Consciousness and Freedom Among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 810, CBQ 40 (1978): 57489; James Davis,
Wisdom and Spirit. An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:183:20 Against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the
Greco-Roman Period (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984).
48. Anthony Thiselton, Realized Eschatology at Corinth, NTS 24 (1978): 51026. Although he maintains this
hypothesis, Thiselton has recently acknowledged the cultural influence that Corinth may have had on the church
(cf. Corinthians, 4041).
49. E.g., Albert Garcilazo, The Corinthians Dissenters and the Stoics (SBL 106; New York: Peter Lang, 2007); Will
Deming, Paul on Marriage & Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004);
Abraham Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will.
50. Hurd, Origin.
51. In addition to the works of Barclay and Chester, as well as those in the following note, see also Edward
Adams, Constructing the World: A Study in Pauls Cosmological Language (SNTW; Scotland: T&T Clark, 2000), 85103.
52. Admittedly, the conventions of gift and worth simply represent one facet of the Corinthian situation
among (and even as a part of) many other conventions, such as, for instance, leadership (Clarke, Leadership),
sophistry (Winter, Sophists), rhetoric (Duane Litfin, St. Pauls Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 14 and Greco-
Roman Rhetoric [SNTSMS 79; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994]), Roman persona (Henry Nguyen,
Christian Identity in Corinth [WUNT 2/243; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008]), and ancient politics (L.L. Welborn, On
the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 14 and Ancient Politics, JBL 106 [1987]: 85111).
210
practical consciousness as part of the reason for Pauls refusal of their financial support, a
connection that will become clearer as we continue. At the moment, we need to explore key
texts within 1 Corinthians that reveal the indigenised faith of the Corinthians. What we will
find is that the cultural influences of gift and worth distorted their view of the gospel, severely
disrupted the unity of the church, and tragically crippled their relationship with Paul.
2.2. The Corinthians Culturally-Conditioned Lifestyle
Several passages in 1 Corinthians reflect the cultural influences of gift and worth within the
social interactions of the church, albeit in slightly different ways. Whereas material
possessions are used in society to obtain honour, the Corinthians, as we will discover, used
material and spiritual possessions to achieve status in the church.53 They permitted their
surrounding culture, one which prizes wealth as a primary means to glory, to infiltrate the
ecclesial sphere, cultivating a corporate mindset dictated by the social structures of Corinthian
society and ultimately dismembering the body of Christ. Three passages, in particular, disclose
53. Since we are comparing social practices involving material possessions with ecclesial practices involving
material and spiritual possessions, this may be a methodological stumbling block for some. However, many
scholars have noticed a direct correlation between the two at Corinth. Margaret Mitchell, for instance,
perceptively notes, Not only worldly possessions, but also spiritual goods are part of the disputes. She
continues, Boasting in ones own possessions (spiritual or material) is to be seen as another component of the
party conflicts within the Corinthian church (Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 9495). Mitchell builds on Peter Marshalls
previous claim that the principal source of opposition in the church were lite members who, being influenced by
the tradition in society (Philo, Virt. 177), elevated aspects of social status such as material wealth and
oppressed those in the community of a lesser social value (Enmity, 182218). Although Marshall does not
incorporate the misuse of spiritual possessions in his monograph, holding Mitchell and Marshall in balance helps
substantiate the validity of our methodological approach.
211
the Corinthians culturally-conditioned lifestyle and its spiritual side effects: 1 Cor. 1-4, 11:17-
34, and 12:12-31.
2.2.1. 1 Corinthians 1-4: Competitive Boast in Leaders for Honour
Two cultural attitudes exhibited in these chapters betray the cultural sway that Greco-
Roman society held over the church. The first was the promotion of status-enhancing
affiliations. In their search for honour, they formed opposing factions () in support of
particular leaders in the community, each ()54 verbalising their competitive rivalry
() against one another. They proclaimed, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of
Cephas, or I am of Christ ( , , ,
, 1:12).55 Scholars have attempted to read these competitive slogans through various
relational frameworks in the ancient world. For instance, in light of the similar terminology in
ancient politics (e.g., , , and ), Larry Welborn and Margaret Mitchell
interpret these party slogans as representing the relationship between political figures and
54. This may include the entire community rather than a select few, especially with the addition of and
the phrase in 1:10 (J.B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St Paul from Unpublished Commentaries
[London: Macmillan, 1895], 153), though some rightly warn against pressing this point (cf. Hans Conzelmann, 1
Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975], 32;
Theissen, Social Setting, 148).
55. There is no indication that these parties were divided by theological differences (cf. Johannes Munck, Paul
and the Salvation of Mankind [Atlanta: John Knox, 1959], 13839; Clarke, Leadership, 9192), nor were there four
distinct groups, since the latter two (Cephas and Christ) were most likely an instance of rhetorical hyperbole
(Stephen Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians [SBLDS; Georgia: Scholars Press,
1990], 17880; cf. 3:3-5). This, however, should not lead us to limit the number of parties to two (Paul and Apollos).
could entail more.
212
their supporters.56 Others situate these rivalrous allegiances within the ancient
Sophist/teacher-pupil relationship, where students competitively sought to be trained by
famous Sophists.57 Whichever interpretive approach one adopts,58 both affirm a common
practice in the ancient world whether one was a pupil, a political supporter, or even a client,
associating oneself with a wealthy, high-ranking superior raised the honour and social status
of the inferior party.59
The second cultural attitude in the church was the practice of boasting. This was the
culturally acceptable means, both in the political60 and rhetorical sphere,61 to make ones
lucrative associations evident to all and to accrue honour as a result.62 Andrew Clarke has
perceptively shown the similarity between boasting in ancient society and boasting in the
56. Welborn, Discord; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 68111.

57. E.g., Winter, Sophists, 3143; Litfin, Proclamation; Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia.
58. Though it seems best to adopt the Sophist/teacher-pupil framework, largely because it accounts for the
over teachers in the Christian rather than political figures in a secular assembly, and it
adequately explains the Corinthian fascination with throughout the entire letter (cf. Witherington, Conflict
& Community, 100 n4). To be sure, Paul, as Welborn and Mitchell point out, employs political terminology in 1 Cor.
1-4, but to assume that he therefore envisions a political assembly at Corinth may be carrying too much over from
the world of ancient politics.
59. Andrew Clarke, Leadership, 9295, succinctly describes the conventions of patronage, sophistic loyalty, and
politics in connection to the benefits of belonging to a superior member of society.
60. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 9195.
61. See Winter, Sophists, 186202; A. Strobel, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (ZBK; Zrich: Theologischer Verlag,
1989), 3839.
62. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 41: In Corinth, perhaps more than anywhere else, social ascent was the
goal, boasting and self-display the means, personal power and glory the reward.
213
Corinthian church.63 Both, he argues, extend in two directions: in leaders and in symbols of
status. Boasting in leaders clearly appears in 3:21 ( ) and
4:6 ( ), drawing our attention back to the
party slogans of 1:10, while their boasting in status symbols emerges from 1:29 and 31 in
conjunction with 1:26 and the paraphrase of Jeremiah 9:23-24. From these texts, Clarke rightly
concludes that the Corinthians elevated the labels , , and as symbols of
social status in the church, the very aspects of status highly valued in ancient society.64
The cultural practices of status-enhancing affiliations and competitive boasting for
honour come to a head in 3:1-4, where Paul attributes these manifestations of society to a
culturally-conformed worldview. From Pauls perspective, the Corinthians suffer from a
misguided zeal () which cultivates strife ()65 and ultimately leads to factionalism.66
This kind of behaviour is fleshly () and worldly ( , 3:3),67
for, Paul asks, when one says, I follow Paul, and another, I follow Apollos, are you not
63. Boasting is a common theme in the Corinthian Correspondence (cf. 1 Cor. 1:29, 31; 3:21; 4:7; 5:6; 9:15, 16;
13:3; 15:31; 2 Cor. 1:12, 14; 5:12; 7:4, 14; 8:24; 9:2, 3; 10:8, 13, 15-17; 11:10, 12, 16-18, 30; 12:1, 5-6, 9). On boasting
generally, consult Betz, Tradition; Christopher Forbes, Pauls Boasting; Kate Donahoe, From Self-Praise to Self-
Boasting: Pauls Unmasking of the Conflicting Rhetorico-Linguistic Phenomena in 1 Corinthians (PhD Thesis,
University of St. Andrews, 2008); Michael Wojciechowski, Paul and Plutarch on Boasting, JGRChJ 3 (2006): 99109.
64. Leadership, 97.
65. progresses into rather than forming a synonymous unit of thought (Robertson and Plummer, I
Corinthians, 53; Thiselton, Corinthians, 293; pace Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 72 n32).
66. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 97: The terms and make explicit reference to Corinthian
factionalism.
67. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 8182.
214
mere men [ ]? (3:4). By describing the community as fleshly, worldly, and
mere men, due to the divisive acts of and , Paul deems their lifestyle entirely
consistent with the values of their society.68 Which cultural values specifically is difficult (if not
impossible) to ascertain.69 It is nevertheless noteworthy that, whether one identifies the
Corinthians behaviour with the conventions of sophistic loyalty, ancient politics, or patron-
client relations, these social practices involved the exchange of money or gifts. Students paid
fees to renowned teachers to be taught by them and to boast in them, while clients or
supporters provided political allegiance in return for monetary gifts from wealthy patrons. In
this regard, the norms of gift and worth may be discerned in the fractious behaviour of the
Corinthians in 1 Cor. 1-4. Of particular importance for this study is one devastating outcome of
their behaviour they neglect the vital third party in their social relations. They boast in men
rather than in God (cf. 1:31).
68. Mitchell, for instance, maintains that and amount to subscribing to earthly and secular values
of political glory and strength (Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 8182, 9799; cf. also Welborn, Discord, 87), while Winter
attributes the phrase to the Corinthians adapting to the lifestyle of the Roman world (After
Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001], 4043).
69. Many have tried to pin down one convention. Winter, for instance, argues that the Corinthians were
influenced by the secular educational mores of Corinth (After Paul Left Corinth, 43), whereas Welborn holds
ancient politics as the supreme influence in the church (Discord).
215
2.2.2. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34: Competition for Honour at the Lords Supper
Recent exegesis of 11:17-34, according to Stephen Chester, has paid little attention to
competition for honour as a possible cause of the problems.70 Of course, Gerd Theissen alludes
to competition in his perceptive work on this passage. He explains how the well-to-do
displayed their social status and wealth before the poor during the common meal,71 shaming
those who have nothing ( , 11:22) and thereby gaining honour
for themselves.72 Yet, against Theissen, little competition can exist within asymmetrical
relationships, where the rich display their social worth before the poor who can only watch
passively. More than this, Theissens bifurcation of rich and poor is too simplistic.73 It does
not account for the divisions () and factions () at the Lords Supper, which
could imply more than two parties.74 Nor does it clarify Pauls mystifying comment that
divisions are necessary () so that those who are approved ( ) may become evident
among the community (11:19). This seems to introduce another party in addition to the two
70. Conversion, 246.

71. For a critical assessment of Theissen, see Meggitt, Poverty, 11822.
72. [W]ealthier Christians, Theissen explains, made it plain to all just how much the rest were dependent on
them, dependent on the generosity of those who were better off. Differences in menu are a relatively timeless
symbol of status and wealth, and those not so well off came face to face with their own social inferiority at a most
basic level. It is made plain to them that they stand on the lower rungs of the social ladder. This in turn elicits a
feeling of rejection which threatens the sense of community (Social Setting, 160; my italics).
73. Cf. D.E. Smith, Meals and Morality in Paul and His World (SBLSP; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 328; Pogoloff,
Logos and Sophia, 25455.
74. Pace Theissen, Social Setting, 148: It is only from 1 Cor. 11:22 that we learn that there are two groups
opposed to one another, those who have no food, the , and those who can avail themselves of their
own meal, .
216
already mentioned. These gaps in Theissens work lead Chester to posit an alternative
interpretation.75
Instead of considering the problem as between the rich and the poor in 1 Cor. 11:17-
34 (specifically verses 17-22), Chester contends that the real issue is between the wealthier
members of the community, who competed for honour amongst themselves and, in so doing,
neglected the needs of poorer members. In his own words,
those of higher social status compete against themselves for honour and influence. . . .
[And as] the elite focus on the distribution of honour amongst themselves, the poorer
members of the church are neglected. 11:20-22 describe not the problem but its
symptoms; not a competition between richer and poorer, but the consequences of a
competition for honour between the richer members.76
The ensuing picture is one of wealthy members vying against one another for honour
in the Christian community, while the less fortunate are shamed by neglect.
While Chester presents a compelling case for competition among the lite, rightly
incorporating the key phrases and (11:18-19), he nevertheless fails to
mention the integral role that gifts or possessions play in this quest for honour.
When you come together, Paul avers, it is not the Lords Supper [ ]
that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal [ ]. One
goes hungry, another gets drunk. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in [
]? Or do you despise [] the church of God and shame those who
have nothing [ ]? (11:20-22).
75. Though Chester builds on, what he considers, the solid exegetical conclusions reached by Theissen in
relation to vv. 20-22 (Conversion, 249).
217
It becomes clear from this passage that food is simultaneously a means of honour and a
cause of shame. The quality and quantity of food and drink displays ones social status and
accrues more honour in the competition among the lite, but it also serves to demarcate the
richer from the poorer, since the latter would have received a less elegant meal.77 In this sense,
food carries the same social power as gifts or possessions in the ancient world. This is
especially true when one considers that the wealthier would have contributed the food
consumed at the Lords Supper, which is exactly why Paul excoriates them. It is not the
that they eat, Paul exclaims, but (11:20-21).
Theissen rightly notices the intentional contrast between and
.78 He argues that, because the sacred meal was not regulated, the wealthier began
eating and drinking before the words of institution could be uttered over their food and drink
(cf. 11:23-26). These words effectively converted private possessions into community property,
so that [b]read which has its origin is thus publicly declared to be the Lords own,
to be .79 And since and refer to questions of ownership,80 it
77. Theissen, Social Setting, 15359. For a recent exchange between Theissen and Meggitt on 11:17-34, see Gerd
Theissen, Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and
Survival, JSNT 25 (2003): 37781; Justin Meggitt, Response to Martin and Theissen, JSNT 24 (2001): 94; cf. idem,
Poverty, 11822.
78. On whether the private meal differed from the Lords supper, see Theissen, Social Setting, 15253, 159; Paul
Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl. Studien zur paulinischen Eucharistie-auffassung (Mnich: Ksel, 1960), 7172; Fee, First
Corinthians, 541 n52.
79. Theissen, Social Setting, 14849.
218
becomes essential for the entire community, especially wealthy contributors, to recognise that
all things, including their own possessions, come from God (cf. 4:7; 10:26). This ritual serves to
incorporate God as the source of all the communitys goods, to acknowledge him as the crucial
third party, the one who provides for every need. By not acknowledging Gods ownership over
the communitys goods, as well as his role as the divine host of the sacred meal, the wealthy
capitalise on their private possessions by gaining honour and status for themselves81 through
food, drink, and perhaps seating arrangements.82 These opulent members, therefore, exhibited
a faulty practical consciousness, influenced by the cultural mores of gift and worth within
household meals, which they implemented into church life. By their actions, they removed
God as the source of all things and assumed his divine role in community worship.
2.2.3. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31: Spiritual Gifts and the Competitive Hierarchy for Honour
The indigenised faith of the Corinthians can also be seen in the use of spiritual gifts
within the community. According to 1 Cor. 12:12-31, the church at Corinth understood their
81. Theissen notes, Those who through their contribution made the common meal possible were in fact acting
like private hosts, like patrons, supporting their dependent clients (Social Setting, 158). Stephen Barton also
asserts that the divisions at Corinth are between households or groups of households, with the pace set by the
rich household heads competing for dominance (Pauls Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to
Community Formation in Corinth, NTS 32 [1986]: 22546 at 238).
82. Jerome Murphy-OConnor describes the Roman villa as composed of two sections. The more prestigious
group would dine in the triclinium, while the majority ate their meals outdoors in the atrium (St. Pauls Corinth, 153
61). This evidence, however, rests on the supposition that the Corinthians regularly met in the homes of the more
lite, which seems unlikely if the majority of the church came from non-lite circles (cf. David Horrell and Eddie
Adams, The Scholarly Quest for Pauls Church at Corinth: A Critical Survey, in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for
the Pauline Church (ed. Edward Adams and David Horrell; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 147 at
130).
219
gifts in a manner consistent with the values of Corinthian society rather than the divine
intentions of the giver.
God granted gifts to the church for the common good ( , 12:7),83 so
that the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you [ ], nor again
the head to the feet, I have no need of you [ ] (12:21). Having been
united by a common participation in the (cf. 1:9), divine gifts were intended
to engender mutual concern and interdependence within a socially-diverse community (12:17,
19-20).
Yet the Corinthians had other plans for these gifts. They first developed a spiritual
hierarchy. The diversity of gifts/roles84 was interpreted as indicating varying degrees of worth
within the body, just as in society.85 In the ancient world, the higher end of the social ladder
(i.e., honestiores) was accorded more dignitas than the lower end (i.e., humiliores). This is
primarily because wealth is power, and the richer could display it bombastically. The less
83. Mitchell has thoroughly demonstrated that Pauls use of , as is common in deliberative
rhetoric, moves from carrying the sense of self-interest in 6:12 and 7:35 to conveying a community-interest or
common advantage in 10:23, 33 and especially in 12:7 (Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 3339).
84. The hierarchy established at Corinth comprises both gifts and persons, not merely one or the other
(Horrell, Social Ethos, 182; cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 61820; Dale Martin, Tongues of Angels and Other Status
Indicators, JAAR 59 [1991]: 54789 at 569 n45).
85. Martin has shown that the human body was a widespread analogy for society in the Greco-Roman world,
which explained how unity can exist in diversity within the macrocosm of society, and how it functioned as
conservative ideology to support hierarchy and to argue that inequality is both necessary and salutary
(Tongues, 56364; idem, Body, 9296; cf. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 15764, 26670). Yet Paul, as David
Horrell has argued, aligns himself with this ancient view of the body, not to eradicate superiority and inferiority
but to show the need for diversity in the united body of Christ (Social Ethos, 17981).
220
fortunate, however, could only acknowledge such persons as honourable and stay clear of their
relentless quest for glory.86
The same distribution of honour and rank can be detected in the Corinthian church.87
Members who possessed high-status gifts most likely wisdom, knowledge, and tongues88
prospered as the spiritual lite, whereas those with dispensable or less honourable gifts
were marginalised, considered extraneous and inferior parts of the body (12:22-23). This
hierarchy naturally produced in the church (12:25). The more respectable parts of the
body ( , 12:23) were self-sufficient, without any need for other members (
, 12:21),89 while the less presentable members were humiliated to the point of not
feeling like part of the body at all ( , 12:15).90 Consequently, what
emerged in the church was a pecking order of spiritual status, like that of Roman society,
which ranked certain gifts/roles within a spectrum of honour and shame.
86. Wealth, writes Ramsay MacMullen, declared itself as one of many signs of rank. . .. Such a person [of
wealth] went about with a grand and showy retinue. His motive hardly needs explanation: he sought status
(Social Relations, 106).
87. Martin draws attention to various terms in 12:22-24 which carry status significance but are often lost in
translation: , , , , , (Body, 94).
88. Martin argues that the gift of tongues was a symbol of higher-status at Corinth (Tongues, 558; cf. Horrell,
Social Ethos, 17678). He makes a compelling case, especially in the light of Pauls subversive priority of gifts in
12:8-10, where tongues occupies the lowest place. Fee, however, rejects this hypothesis (First Corinthians, 612, 615,
622).
89. Both the direction and content of what is said [in 12:21] imply a view from above, says Gordon Fee,
where those who consider themselves at the top of the hierarchy of persons in the community suggest that
they can get along without some others, who do not have their allegedly superior rank (First Corinthians, 612).
90. Where there is a hierarchy of honour, Julian Pitt-Rivers explains, the person who submits to the
precedence of others recognizes his inferior status (Honour, 23).
221
Second, some of the Corinthians exhibited a competitive drive for the more honourable
gifts. Within a hierarchical community, where selected gifts/roles are accorded more honour
than others, it follows that a competitive impulse for high-status gifts would evolve, at least
among those in the higher strata.91 This may be extrapolated from Pauls statement in 12:31,
Eagerly desire the greater gifts ( ),92 where he argues
tongue-in-cheek, as Thiselton puts it, to continue pursuing their so-called greater gifts but
invites them to transpose their understanding of what counts as the greatest.93 In so doing,
he attempts to redirect their zeal from considering the greater gifts to be those at the top of
the hierarchy to those administered within the sphere of love and for the purpose of edifying
the body.94 As mentioned in our discussion on 3:1-4, the Corinthians suffered from a misguided
91. This competition for honour and status was not necessarily between the spiritually rich and poor, but
among those of the upper echelon of the community. If this were not the case, Paul would have only created more
problems for himself and for the church by promoting a hierarchy of status reversal, in which the less honourable
members are granted more honour by God (12:24). This conclusion is compatible with Chesters reconstruction
of the competition for honour among the lite at the Lords Supper (see above).
92. Many have understood in 12:31 as an indicative that introduces ch. 13 (e.g., G. Iber, Zum
Verstndnis von 1 Cor. 12.31, ZNW 54 [1963]: 4352; Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther
[THKNT 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982], 116; Arnold Bittlinger, Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on 1
Corinthians 1214 [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1967], 7375). Yet, because of the imperatives in 14:1 and 39, it is
best to regard as an imperative, marking a transition into the next chapter (Weiss, Korintherbrief, 390; Fee,
First Corinthians, 62324). Interpreted this way, Paul, J.F.M. Smit concludes, continues to teasingly stimulate the
ambition of the Corinthians, while at the same time directing their zeal at a useful gift, which reaps little glory.
With fine irony he asks his ostentatious public to strive zealously for serving the community inconspicuously
(Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.3: A Rhetorical Solution, NTS 39 [1993]: 24664 at 255).
93. Corinthians, 1024. Smit has convincingly argued that 12:31 conforms to the rhetorical device of irony in the
ancient handbooks, in which the speaker urgently recommends the listeners to be sure of doing as they like with
all the evil consequences thereof, although the speaker personally is in complete disagreement (Two
Puzzles, 252).
94. Bittlinger, Gifts, 7475.
222
, the cause of their competitive boasting in 1 Cor. 1-4. Only now in 1 Cor. 12, their
competitive drive, their earnest zeal centres on obtaining spiritual possessions that produce an
honourable standing in the community. As in 4:6, they continue to be puffed up one against
another, competing for high-ranking and embodying the ethos of their
surrounding culture. But, worse of all, they did so at worship meetings, the very place where
they were meant to express their unity in Christ. Thus, the divinely sacred became culturally
profaned.
Having considered specific texts in 1 Corinthians, we can therefore summarise our
findings as follows:
(i) 1 Cor. 1-4: Within this section, we discovered that the fractious Corinthians built
status-enhancing alliances with and competitively boasted in respected leaders of superior and
spiritual rank in the community (1:10, 12; 3:4, 21).
(ii) 1 Cor. 11:17-34: In this passage, we noted the presence of competition for honour among
the lite, who, through their possessions at the Lords Supper, created discord among the
community, shaming poorer members by neglect and assuming Gods role as the host of the
sacred meal. Because of their quest for honour, ownership of their property was never
transferred. It was , not the (11:20-21).
223
(iii) 1 Cor. 12:12-31: Some of the Corinthians disregarded the divine intention for spiritual
gifts, establishing a gift-hierarchy that generated a competitive zeal for honour and clearly
demarcated between the honourable and dishonourable members of the community, an act
which spiritually stratified the church.
In view of these telling passages,95 we can safely assume that the Corinthian church
embodied the social values of Corinthian society rather than the values of the divine economy.
2.3. Conclusion
Two chief conclusions can be made concerning the overall state of the Corinthian
church. First, God is being neglected as the primary giver. Human leaders (1:12; 3:21; 4:6), and
even the Corinthians themselves (4:7), occupy Gods exclusive position as the only worthy
object of boasting in 1 Cor. 1-4, whereas the wealthy play God by offering their goods to the
community at the Lords supper in 11:17-34. This reveals a deficiency in their understanding of
divine gifts. 2:12 is instructive in this respect:
,
.
95. Other texts could obviously be included. In 5:1-13, the sexually immoral man, in whom some were
boasting, was most likely a leading figure in the community who may have had financial interests in his
incestuous relationship (Clarke, Leadership, 8588; Chow, Patronage and Power, 13041). In 6:1-11, Clarke contends
that those of relatively high social standing brought their legal disputes before secular authorities to restore their
social honour over and against their fellow brothers (Leadership, 71). And the controversy in 1 Cor. 8-10 may also
have much to say about their conformity to gift and worth, since the disagreement over eating meat offered to
idols was triggered by [c]lass-based variations in diet and social practice (Horrell, Social Ethos, 10509; cf. also
Theissen, Social Conflicts, 38189; pace Meggitt, Poverty, 10712).
224
Interpreted positively, if a person possesses , they understand ()
the things with which God has graced () them. Interpreted negatively since Paul
expects to be heard this way if they do not understand the things with which God has
bestowed on them, they prove to be behaving like those who possess ;96
that is, those who live in accordance with worldly values.97 Of course, which divine gifts Paul
specifically has in view (i.e., the nature of the gift, the indebtedness one receives with a gift, or
the appropriate use of the gift) cannot be known with absolute certainty. Judging from the
context of 1 Cor. 1-4, however, this text, at the least, highlights the Corinthians failure to
acknowledge God as the chief and only giver in the divine economy, though this is already
deducible from the passages previously mentioned (1:12; 3:21; 4:7; 11:17ff.).
Significantly, gift transactions and the competition for honour were predominately
between two parties in ancient society, whether that be between a benefactor and a city, a
patron and a client, a teacher and a pupil, a parent and a child, or two friends.98 In the same
96. By the spirit of the world, Paul does not have demonic spirits in mind (pace E.E. Ellis, Prophecy and
Hermeneutic in Early Christianity [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993], 2930). Rather, he highlights the origin of the
Spirit of God. It is , not . God is the giver of this .
97. Since Margaret Mitchell rightly understands as closely synonymous with
, her general definition of human wisdom equally applies to the spirit of the world: The wisdom of
the world is the set of values and norms which divide persons of higher and lower status into separate groups, a
wisdom which prefers dissension to unity, superiority to cooperation (Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 21112; cf. Barrett,
1 Corinthians, 75).
98. See Chapter 2, section 1.2.
225
way, a two-way relational framework dominated the social interactions of the church, leaving
the third party out of the relational equation. They merely operated on the horizontal plane.
Second, even on the horizontal plane, the spiritual lite failed to recognise others in the
body as rightful recipients of their divine possessions. God, the one who purposely configured
the bodys diversity, intended that spiritual gifts be used for the sake of others, for the
common good ( , 12:7). As such, the Corinthians were meant to be mediators
of grace or, more specifically, of Gods gifts (). But instead, they constructed a
competitive hierarchy in 12:12-31, neglected the needs of the have-nots in 11:17-34, and thus
obstructed the trajectory of divine gifts. They acted as if gifts ended with them rather than
handing them on to others. So, unlike the Philippians, the Corinthians repressed the divine
momentum of . Of course, these conclusions are based on Pauls perception of them,
which may or may not represent reality. Yet we are only concerned with Pauls perspective,
since his financial policy depends on it.
Just how Paul attempts to overturn this culturally-informed framework of relationships
and roles, so deeply embedded within the Corinthians practical consciousness, will constitute
the focus of the next section.
226
3. Pauls Response to the Corinthians Culturally-Conditioned Lifestyle
3.1. An Appraisal of their High Spiritual Status
[M]en in general judge more from appearances than from reality. All men have eyes,
but few have the gift of penetration.99 This saying of Machiavelli rings true for the situation at
Corinth, albeit anachronistically. Based on appearances, the Corinthians consider themselves
, , and (2:6; 3:18-23; 4:10; 14:36-38), but Pauls penetrating eye sees
beyond the shroud of externality and into their indigenised faith.
For my part, brothers, I could not address you [ ] as people

of the Spirit [ ] but as people moved by entirely human drives [
], as infants in Christ [ ]. I gave you milk to drink, not
solid food [ , ]; for you could not take it. Indeed, even now
you still cannot manage it. You are still people moved by human drives [
]. For where jealousy and strife prevail among you, are you not centred on
yourselves and behaving like any merely human person? When someone declares, I am
of Paul, and another asserts, I am of Apollos, are you not all too human [
]? (3:1-4).100
By unabashedly identifying the Corinthians as , , and especially
, all of which are reminiscent of the in 2:14, Paul provides
a biting diagnosis of their current state the Corinthian church suffers from spiritual
immaturity.
99. Niccol Machiavelli, The History of Florence and the Prince (London: H.G. Bohn, 1847), 8081.
100. Slightly adapted from Thiseltons translation in Corinthians, 286.
227
Although the precise nature of the Corinthians immaturity has long been a question of
debate, we champion the view propounded most notably by James Francis101 that, rather than
interpreting 3:1-4 as a criticism of their failure to progress intellectually in the Christian
faith,102 this passage discloses a failure of comprehension.103 Stated otherwise, the milk and
solid food mentioned here represent two different perspectives on the gospel from the
communitys perspective, not two different levels in the content of Pauls teaching.104 In
comparison to the wisdom of the world, the Corinthians thought Pauls teaching of the gospel
tasted more like milk than solid food.105 In their own estimation, they were too mature for
101. As Babes in Christ - Some Proposals Regarding 1 Corinthians 3.13, JSNT 7 (1980): 4160.
102. This position, advocated by Walter Grundmann (Die in der Urchristlichen Parnese, NTS 5 [1958
59]: 188205) and followed by various commentators (e.g., James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
[MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938], 36; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 7980; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 7172),
argues that the Corinthians are Christians but possess a very basic sense of Christianity (Die , 191), which
leads Paul to consider them (3:1) as opposed to (2:6), and instead of
(3:1). They require milk (i.e., basic instruction of the gospel) before they can digest solid food (i.e., advanced
instruction of the gospel). By calling them mere and drawing a distinction in the content of his own
teaching (milk/solid food), Paul chides the Corinthians for failing to advance in their Christian understanding.
Spiritual immaturity is therefore a deficiency in their intellectual progression, an inability to grow out of the
rudimentary truths of the gospel and toward the deeper teachings of God.
103. Francis, Babes in Christ, 43. Unlike Grundmanns view, Paul is rebuking his readers not because they are
babes still, and had not progressed further, but because they were in fact being childish, a condition contrary to
being spiritual (Ibid; cf. Weiss, Korintherbrief, 74).
104. Morna Hooker, Hard Sayings, I Corinthians 3:2, Theology 69 (1966): 1922 at 20. On the relationship
between 3:1-3a and Pauls apostleship, consult Beverly Gaventa, Our Mother Saint Paul (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2007), 4150; Brendan Byrne, Ministry and Maturity in 1 Cor. 3, ABR 35 (1987): 8387.
105. Yet, Hooker remarks, while he uses their language, the fundamental contrast in Pauls mind is not
between two quite different diets which he has to offer, but between the true food of the Gospel with which he
has fed them (whether milk or meat) and the synthetic substitutes which the Corinthians have preferred (Hard
Sayings, 21).
228
the bottle and preferred to feast on the meat offered at Corinth (most likely the of gifted
orators and Sophists).
To combat this miscomprehension of the gospel, Paul first recalls his initial preaching
at Corinth (3:1-2a), when they existed as people of the world, and then begins reproving them
in 3:2b-4 for reverting back as Christians to that prior existence.106 They accepted the
paradoxical but seek the ; they received the
but live by the . Their discursive and practical levels of consciousness were
misaligned on account of their alignment with the . This is why, as Dale Martin has
convincingly shown, Paul delineates in 1 Cor. 1-4 between two opposing realms of reality and
their value and status systems, the worlds and Gods.107 In 2:1-16, Paul shows himself to be the
exemplar of the other realm and its different values.108 But, in 3:1-4, he places the Corinthians
on the other side of that divide, since they strive after a new exalted religious status109 by
means of the status symbols of the rather than the status symbols granted to them in
Christ (1:27-28).110 Pauls appraisal is therefore unsurprising. Seeking an exalted, religious
status through worldly criteria, he confers on them the lowest, worldly status without denying
106. Francis, Babes in Christ, 55.

107. Body, 55. This apocalyptic antithesis has recently been considered a consensus (cf. James G. Samra, Being
Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of Maturity, Maturation and the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles
[London: T&T Clark, 2008], 56).
108. Martin, Body, 63.
110. Samra describes the mature believer as a person whose life conforms to his/her status as an heir of Gods
kingdom (Maturity, 59).
229
their conversion (3:1),111 an infantile way of life completely at odds with
the gospel. In fact, it is a state without the gospel, a state ruled by the wisdom of the world and
not the wisdom of God revealed in the Cross,112 since, to the apostles dismay, they display
neither the degree of internal unity nor the degree of separation from unbelievers desired by
Paul.113 In a word, the church resided far too comfortably within the for Pauls
apocalyptic tastes.114
3.2. A Theological Reconfiguration of Roles and Status in the Divine Economy
Every relationship in the divine economy includes a crucial third party God. But due
to their culturally-indigenised faith, the Corinthians disregarded their vertical tie to God, as
seen in their status-enhancing affiliations with superior leaders. They therefore operated
within two-way exchanges that exploited rather than benefitted others. From Pauls view, this
unacceptable behaviour betrays their low status as . So, to overturn their
worldly categories of relational roles and status, he carves out the three-way relational pattern
of the economy of , with God as the source of all possessions, Paul as the mediator of divine
111. Martin, Body, 64: The Corinthians are implicated in the lowest possible form of human existence.
112. Francis, Babes in Christ, 49. As John Barclay observes, In the Corinthians easy dealings with the world
Paul detects a failure to comprehend the counter-cultural impact of the message of the cross (1.18-2.5); the
wisdom of the world to which they are so attracted is, he insists, a dangerous enemy of the gospel (Thessalonica
and Corinth, 59).
114. Barclay, Thessalonica and Corinth, 60: The Corinthians, however, seem to understand the social
standing of the church quite differently. They see no reason to view the world through Pauls dark apocalyptic
spectacles and are no doubt happy to enjoy friendly relations with their families and acquaintances.
230
goods, and the Corinthians as unworthy recipients. Indeed, establishing this tripartite
relationship will not only rectify their culturally-conditioned perspective but also illumine the
theological strategy behind Pauls refusal of financial support.
3.2.1. God is the Source of All Possessions
That Paul desires the Corinthians to recognise that the gift of , which produces
their , comes from God and not from them is evident from 1 Cor. 1:4-9.115 From the
very beginning of this thanksgiving, Paul purposely designates God as the direct object of his
gratitude (Thanks be to my God [ ], 1:4a), before disclosing the primary reason for
his thankfulness: because of the grace of God [ ] given to you [
] in Christ Jesus (1:4b).116 Paul then lists three divine acts accomplished among the
Corinthians that stem from this initial gift of .
The first is that God spiritually enriched () them in all speech and all
knowledge (1:5).117 Next, by manifesting these gifts of the Spirit, God confirmed ()
115. Alexandra Brown writes, The focus of his thanksgiving [in 1:4-9]falls on what God graciously has done
among them in Christ, not on their own particular qualities (cf. 4:7). He gives credit where credit is due, to God,
the source of these eschatological blessings (The Cross and Human Transformation: Pauls Apocalyptic Word in 1 Corinthians
[Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995], 67 n5; my italics). Also, Peter OBrien remarks, Pauls thanksgiving was
directed to God, based on His activity in His Son and looked forward to the future with a confidence based on
Gods faithfulness. In this thanksgiving there was no attention paid to the achievements of the Corinthiansand
with good reason! (Thanksgivings, 137).
116. In no other introductory thanksgiving, OBrien observes, is the grace of God found to be the basis or
ground for the giving of thanks (Thanksgivings, 111).
117. The -clause is not dependent on as a second reason for thanksgiving (pace BDAG, 416).
Rather, further explicates . As Philipp Bachmann states, fgt. . .der explikative Satz mit
einen mehr konkreten Zug an (Korinther, 44).
231
the testimony of Christ among them (1:6), insofar as they did not lack ( ) in
anything as they patiently await the revelation of the Lord Jesus (1:7).118 And finally, in the
future, God will display his faithfulness by confirming () them blameless until the
end, and solely because he called () them into the fellowship of his Son (1:9).119 Pauls
gratitude for these multiple acts accomplished by God, as indicated by the five divine
passives,120 extol him as the supreme giver and indispensable source of to the
community.121
Gods exclusive role as source also appears in 4:7.122 What do you have that you did not
receive []?, Paul asks. And if you indeed received it [], why do you boast
[] as if you did not? The irony is quite obvious. Paul stresses the passive nature of
spiritual gifts in 1:4-9, he even highlights Gods role as the source of all things throughout chs.
1-4. But the Corinthians, with these God-given possessions at their disposal,123 illogically boast
in themselves rather than in the Lord (cf. 1:31). They wrongly declare themselves to be self-
118. OBrien, Thanksgivings, 116: Gods grace had been bestowed on the Corinthians in Christ. Thus they were
rich in every way, and the presence of such wealth was a sign that grace had been given.
119. For an assessment of Pauls distinctive use of , see Chester, Conversion, 77111.
120. Paul had stressed the divine initiative at almost every point in the passage [i.e., 1:4-9] (OBrien,
Thanksgivings, 133: cf. Raymond Collins, First Corinthians [SP 7; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999], 58).
121. Against the view that this whole section exhibits sarcasm on Pauls part, see Fee, First Corinthians, 36.
122. Arguments resting on this passage are admittedly based on mirror-reading. On the appropriate use and
dangers of this method, see Barclay, Mirror-Reading.
123. Granted, Paul does say all things are yours in 3:21, but this statement should be balanced out with 3:23,
you are Christs, and Christ is Gods. They indeed possess wealth, but only because God in Christ, who owns all
things, possesses them.
232
sufficient, to be the source of divine gifts.124 So Paul sternly reminds them, with rhetorically-
piercing questions, that their gifts find their origin in God alone. They have no right to boast.
Whether they recognise it or not, their gifts are not expressions of [their] own autonomous
spiritual capacity or brilliance.125 God is the source of both and .
Pauls discussion on in ch. 12, while not explicating Gods role as the source
of gifts explicitly, at the least implies that all gifts find their origin in God. It is, after all, the
same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God who works all of them in everyone (12:4-6; cf.
12:11), and who intentionally places () them in their specific location (12:18, 28). As a
result, every part of the body shares a common source the God who sovereignly designs,
gifts, and sustains it. To think otherwise, as the Corinthians erroneously did, is to dethrone the
preeminent giver of the divine economy, to lack the necessary posture of dependence before
God, and, most devastatingly, to misunderstand the nature of grace completely.126
Furthermore, other parts of the letter consistently describe God as the source from
whom all good things flow, whether it be the gospel of Christ (1:18-25; 2:1-5), the Spirit (2:10-
124. Underlying [1 Cor. 4:7], Marshall correctly affirms, is the idea of God as the benefactor who bestows all
things upon the human race (Enmity, 205).
125. Richard Hays, First Corinthians (IBC; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997), 18.
126. Fee, First Corinthians, 171: Instead of recognizing everything as a gift and being filled with gratitude, they
possessed their giftssaw them as their ownand looked down on the apostle who seemed to lack so much. Grace
leads to gratitude; wisdom and self-sufficiency lead to boasting and judging. Grace has a leveling effect; self-
esteem has a self-exalting effect. Grace means humility; boasting means that one has arrived. Precisely because
their boasting reflects such an attitude, Paul turns to irony to help them see the folly of their boasting (authors
italics).
233
12; 6:19-20), wisdom (2:6-7, 12), or salvation itself (1:21, 27-31; 6:11). All things, Paul
emphatically declares, belong to God (3:18-23; 8:6; 11:12)!127
3.2.2. Paul is the Mediator of Gods Commodity of
While God is indeed the source of all things, he nevertheless resolves to distribute his
gift of through Pauls apostolic preaching to the Corinthians. God sent () Paul
as an apostle to proclaim the gospel at Corinth (1:17; cf. 1:1), the content of which is Jesus
Christ and him crucified (2:2; cf. 1:17, 23), the mystery of God (2:1; cf. 4:1), and, albeit
paradoxically, the very power [] and wisdom [] of God (1:24). When the
Corinthians encountered this proclamatory gift,128 as it were, they willingly received (15:1)
and believed it (3:5; 15:11). So remarkable was their acceptance that Paul even asserts that
they now (at the time of writing) stand (15:1) in the gospel and are even being saved by it
(15:2). But in order to avoid being mistakenly identified as the origin of this gift, and thus
exalted above the heavenly giver, Paul employs two different (yet related) slave metaphors,
that of the servant () and the managerial slave ().129
127. Consequently, Fee concludes, by means of thanksgiving Paul redirects their confidence from themselves
and their own giftedness toward God, from whom and to whom are all things (Fee, First Corinthians, 44).
128. Thiselton, Corinthians, 223: [T]he proclamation of the gospel. . .is itself a gift of God. Cf. 2 Cor. 11:7
( ).
129. Of course, this is not the only reason why Paul uses these metaphors. Mitchell has drawn attention to the
unifying purpose of these metaphors to unite the work of Paul and Apollos (Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 9899). Also,
the term will not be discussed here, since it simply emphasises the servitude and subordination already
present in (cf. John Goodrich, Paul, the Oikonomos of God: Pauls Apostolic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians
and Its Graeco-Roman Context [PhD Thesis, University of Durham, 2010], 15556).
234
The metaphor explicitly describes the role of the apostles as intermediary
agents. Paul asks, What then is Apollos? What is Paul? He answers, Servants []
through whom [ ] you believed,130 and each as the Lord gave [] (3:5).131 The Lord
sovereignly provided apostles to operate as mediators (indicated by ) of his divine grace
and salvific work in the community. Paul likens this work to agricultural development, but
with a theological twist. Paul planted the seeds and Apollos watered, but neither role
ultimately matters. The only one who is anything () is God (3:6-7). Without him, the
productivity of Paul and Apollos would be entirely unproductive. He alone causes growth in
the lives of the Corinthians, which leaves the apostles operating as instruments,132 mere
channels through whom ( ) the gospel of grace would travel to reach the Corinthians.133
They are workers who erect Gods building, who till Gods field, and who construct Gods
temple (3:9, 16-17). No longer should the Corinthians declare, I am of Paul! or I am of
Apollos! Paul makes it crystal clear, you are of God! (3:21-23).
130. Thiselton, Corinthians, 300: The genitive pronoun with . . .indicates the means or channel of belief, not
its source. In this sense ministers serve Gods good purposes (authors italics).
131. Contextually, the giving of the Lord in 3:5 refers to the different tasks given to the servants rather than
God granting the Corinthians faith. According to Fee, part of Pauls concern here is that they focus not on the
servants, but on the Lord himself, whose servants they are all to be (Corinthians, 131).
132. In speaking of 1 Cor. 1:30, Chester explains, Paul does not consider that his preaching ability played any
part in the Corinthians conversion, instead conceiving of himself as simply a channel for the power of God
reaching out to them. Again, the emphasis is firmly on divine initiative. The Corinthians are in Christ (of
him, 1:30), not because of Paul (Conversion, 83).
133. W.A. Beardslee, Human Achievement and Divine Vocation in the Message of Paul (SBT 31; London: SCM Press,
1961), 60: God is at work, and has chosen to work through men.
235
The other metaphor Paul employs, which also emphasises the apostolic, intermediary
role, is that of a managerial slave (, 4:1).134 In the ancient world, an
administered the commodity of his master to his clientele, anything from provisions to
payments.135 But, in Pauls case, he functions as an who dispenses a unique
commodity, the mysteries of God ( ).136 With this metaphor, the apostle
accentuates the source of the gospel. It is a heavenly resource bestowed by God, his divine gift
of ,137 delivered through the word of the cross which Paul proclaimed at Corinth. Both
servant metaphors, therefore, take on different forms but share one purpose. They underscore
Pauls mediatory, apostolic role in the economy of .
Before Paul can mediate the gift of , however, he must receive it himself. This two-
stage process is especially noteworthy for the purposes of our study, for it unveils a
characteristic relational dynamic in the divine economy.138 Paul speaks of the grace of God
134. For works on the metaphor against its Greco-Roman background, consult Goodrich,
Oikonomos of God; Martin, Slavery, esp. 6885; John Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline
Christianity: A Traditio-Historical and Exegetical Examination (WUNT 2/162; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Benjamin
L. Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearings on First
Corinthians (BZNW 160; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008).
135. Goodrich, Oikonomos of God, 79.
136. Taken as a genitive of source (BDF 162).
137. If the mysteries of God allude to the wisdom Paul imparts, which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor
the heart of man imagined (2:9), then there is a direct link between wisdom, the mysteries of God, and grace.
Especially when one considers that the neuter plural article (the [things]) in 2:12, which have been given
[] to us by God, points back to the neuter plurals of 2:9, which clearly speak of Gods wisdom. Read in
this way, the wisdom of God is nothing other than salvation through the crucified one (1:23-24; 2:2) Gods gift
of grace in the Christ-event.
138. See my article Mutual Brokers.
236
given to [him] ( , 3:10; cf. 15:3, 10), which transformed him
into an apostle and empowered him to beget the Corinthians through the gospel (
, 4:15), that is, through mediating the creative grace of God to others. What is being
depicted here is a cascade of grace. As grace streams from God, it flows through Paul and other
apostles in Christ, and ultimately saturates the community. This is the route of God is
the benevolent source, Paul and other apostles are intermediary servants, while the
Corinthians, as we will see, are unworthy recipients of grace in the gospel.
3.2.3. The Corinthians are Unworthy Recipients of
When the Corinthians initially received the gift of , they were foolish, weak, base,
and contemptible, unworthy of the least of all gifts (cf. 1:26-28). Strangely, after their
conversion experience, they appealed to worldly criteria in order to announce their worth in
the community. But this lofty attitude, as we saw in the scathing appraisal of 3:1-4, actually
opposes the gospel, for the essence of , at least from Pauls perspective, is that it is given
to those who do not deserve it, to those who are unworthy. The criterion of , therefore,
subverts the criteria of the .
To bestow a gift on an unworthy person was a major faux pas in ancient society. Seneca,
for instance, repeatedly exhorts his readership to discern the worth (dignitas) of prospective
recipients before granting a gift to them (Ben. 1.14.1; 4.10.2-3). Not doing so will only produce
237
an ungrateful recipient, for if [benefits] are ill placed, they are ill acknowledged (1.1.1; cf.
1.1.9-10). Indeed, from the several causes of ingratitude, Seneca insists that the chief and
foremost is that givers do not pick out [non eligimus] those who are worthy [dignos] of receiving
[their] gifts (1.1.2; cf. 3.11.1). Contrary to Seneca, however, God willingly chooses ()
recipients who are unworthy in the worlds eyes to receive the gift of .
In 1:26-29,139 Paul reminds the Corinthians of the culturally-subversive nature of
to eradicate boasting and to engender utter dependence on God alone.
Consider your calling, brothers, that not many of you were wise according to worldly
standards [ ], not many were powerful [], not many
were of noble birth []. But God chose [] what is foolish in the world
[ ] to shame the wise; God chose [] what is weak in the
world [ ] to shame the strong; God chose [] what is low
and despised in the world [ ], even things that
are not [ ], to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might
boast in the presence of God.
From the divine perspective, the social badges of worth (i.e, , , and
) pale in comparison to that of the divine economy (i.e., , , ,
, ), albeit counterintuitively. The purpose of this reversal of status140 is
precisely , that is, so that no one would seek
worth according to worldly standards ( ) but according to Gods standards in
Christ (1:29), the source of their worth.
139. On the exegetical history of this passage, consult K. Schreiner, Zur biblischen Legitimation des Adels:
Auslegungsgeschichtliche Studien zu 1. Kor 1,2629, ZKG 85 (1974): 31747.
140. Welborn, Discord, 93.
238
This counter-cultural status reversal, however, not only governs life before Christ but
also life after, as seen in 1 Cor. 12:12-31. Although certain members possessed a low status in
the world,141 and so were deemed weaker and less honourable in the community (12:22-24),
Paul strongly asserts that they actually receive greater honour in the divine economy than
the esteemed, necessary, and honourable members possessing a high status in the world
(12:22-23). As such, The lower is made higher, and the higher lower, Martin explains, with the
result that the dominant Greco-Roman common sense that honour must accord with status
and that status positions are relatively fixed by nature is completely, albeit confusingly,
thrown into question by Paul.142
According to 12:24b-26, two divine purposes143 lie behind this reversal of status: (i) to
prevent in the body (12:25a) and (ii) to generate mutual concern for one another (
, 12:25b), exhibited through their fellow-suffering ()
and fellow-rejoicing () with one another. The two are entwined. If mutuality is
attained, there will be no in the church, but the mutuality advocated here stands in
141. Martin shows that, by referring to them as necessary members (; namely, the genitals), Paul
simultaneously admits and denies the low status of the weaker members of the body (12:22). For although the
male organ may seem shameful, our very attention to them our constant care to cover them and shield them
from trivializing and vulgarizing public exposure demonstrates that they are actually the most necessary of the
bodys members, those with the highest status (Body, 9495).
142. Dale Martin, Body, 96. Horrell similarly argues that this divine redistribution of honour represents a
demand that an alternative pattern of values and relationships be embodied within the (Social
Ethos, 181).
143. The first -clause in 12:24b-26 governs the latter clause separated by (Thiselton, Corinthians, 1010
11).
239
direct contrast to the reality of factionalism at Corinth. They care more about their own
reputation than those in need, they inflict suffering with their superior attitude and
competitive behaviour instead of humbly entering into the suffering of another, and they
strive to outdo one another by competitively hoarding honour for oneself rather than happily
attributing honour to others (cf. Rom. 12:10), all social tendencies which pervaded the Greco-
Roman world. Paul, however, turns these cultural principles on their heads by placing every
member, regardless of their worldly status and rank, on an equal plane.144 They must embrace
the reality that they are one body, not two in competition with each other, but a single entity
with a common bond, status, and purpose unworthy recipients of Gods , deemed
worthy in Christ, through Pauls proclamation of the gospel.
3.3. Conclusion
The three-way relational pattern of the economy of , in which God operates as the
source, Paul as the mediator, and the Corinthians as unworthy recipients, now comes into
plain view. But what purpose does this theological reconfiguration serve in a study concerning
Pauls financial policy at Corinth?
It first serves the purpose of (re)positioning God as the giver of the gift of , and
Paul as the mediator of that divine gift to the Corinthians. Of course, it is not that the
144. Even though Paul acknowledges diversity within the body (cf. Horrell, Social Ethos, 17981).
240
Corinthians have reverted back entirely to their pagan ways, as those who do not know God
(cf. 1 Thess. 4:5). They know God, at least on the discursive level, and, in that sense, they have a
three-party relationship. What they lack is a three-way relationship with others, not least with
Paul. This expresses itself in the Corinthians status-enhancing dependence on him (I am of
Paul!, 1:12; 3:4), like a client beneath a patron, a political supporter behind a politician, or a
pupil under a teacher, and it is this two-way relational pattern that his theological
reconfiguration attempts to abolish.
To be sure, not all were of the same stamp at Corinth. Some indeed criticized Paul for
his lack of rhetorical flair and spiritual gifting (2:1-5; 3:1-4; 4:3-5). But whether members were
for or against Paul, neither party claimed a superordinate position over him.145 Even those who
criticised him most likely did so under the shadow of Apollos (cf. 1:12; 3:4). This point bears
direct relevance to the issue of financial support, for it has become commonplace in Pauline
scholarship to assume that the Corinthians, by offering Paul a gift, attempted to patronise him
as a dependent client. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. As we will demonstrate
later, it seems likely that the Corinthians actually viewed Paul as the source of the gospel, the
patron, as it were, and therefore the one to whom they ought to provide a return gift. This
naturally flows from the two-way relational pattern embedded in their practical
145. In our opinion, 1 Cor. 4:8 ( , ,

, ) is too rhetorical to support the conjecture that the
Corinthians wanted to become Pauls superior.
241
consciousness, a pattern which controverts the three-way framework of gift that governs
Pauls financial dealings, as seen in his gift-exchange relationship with the Philippians.146
The second purpose of the theological reconfiguration is that the three-way relational
framework operates as the social and theological filter of Pauls financial policy. As we will see,
this framework dictates his financial decisions, such as refusing aid when initially entering a
city in 1 Cor. 9, accepting support from the Philippian church (cf. Phil. 2:25-30; 4:10-20), and
ultimately refusing the Corinthians gift in 2 Cor. 11-12. The three-way relational framework,
however, not only determines all of Pauls decisions, he also expects his churches, who wish to
support him financially, to recognise his role as a mediator of the gospel rather than its source,
as a mutual mediator of grace rather than the fount of the divine commodity itself. The
criterion by which he assesses this is whether a full, trusting has been established,
which, as brilliantly exemplified by the Philippian church, is primarily gauged on a mutuality
of suffering with their apostle. But because a fellow-sharing of suffering for the gospel neither
characterised the Corinthians relationship with one another (cf. 12:25-26) nor with Paul (cf.
4:8, 10),147 they exhibited a misapprehension of his counter-cultural vision of the gospel,148
preventing them from entering into a gift-exchange relationship with their apostle.
146. See Chapter 3.

147. Barclay notes that Paul, with some bitterness, contrasts his dishonourable () suffering with the
honourable () dealings of the entire church in society. Clearly, he concludes, whatever individual
242
While both purposes of the theological reconfiguration have been sketched briefly
above, we will now lay out a fuller picture of how this relates to Pauls financial policy in 1
Corinthians 9.
4. The Socio-Theological Strategy behind Pauls Financial Policy
There are two perspectives from which his policy may be examined, the social or the
theological. Hock noticed a general trend in favour of the latter, insisting that recent
treatments of Pauls defence of his self-support tend to isolate Paul from his cultural context
and to view the whole matter too abstractly, that is, exclusively in terms of theology with no
consideration of the social realities involved.149 But although Hock admirably presents a
sociological case, and even affirms a theological meaning in Pauls self-support,150 he
nevertheless only contributes to the sociological dimensions of the debate. In what follows, we
will attempt to redress this scholarly imbalance, presenting a case for a socio-theological
strategy behind Pauls decision to refuse financial support from the Corinthian church.
exceptions there may be, Paul does not regard social alienation as the characteristic state of the Corinthian
church (Thessalonica and Corinth, 5758).
148. Barclay, Thessalonica and Corinth, 73.
149. Social Context, 51, following the lead of E.A. Judge and Gerd Theissen.
150. Theological considerations are not to be denied, but, as we shall see, sociological dimensions must also be
recognized (Social Context, 94 n8). The same could be said of Theissen, who states, The theological question of an
apostles legitimacy is indissolubly linked with the material question of the apostles subsistence (Social
Setting, 54).
243
4.1. 1 Corinthians 9 A Response to the Offer of a Gift or a Pre-Established Policy?
Pauls discussion in 9:1-18 assumes the shape of a rhetorical tour de force, with no less
than seventeen questions, four vocational images, and a weighty appeal to the Law (9:9-10) and
even the Lord himself (9:14), in order to confirm his apostolic right () in the gospel to
live from the gospel (9:11, 14).151 Unexpectedly, however, he builds this tower of legitimate
rights only to tear it down, refusing any recompense for his labours at Corinth. But why?
Many scholars explain this wrecking of rights as a negative response to the offer of a
gift. This has been advocated most influentially by Peter Marshall. Modifying the earlier
151. Because this section is part of a larger unit (8:1-11:1), many scholars disagree as to the rhetorical function
of ch. 9. Some consider it a self-exemplary argument, with Paul presenting himself as an example to be imitated
(e.g., Willis, Apologia; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 24350; Schrage, Korinther, 2:28081; Joop Smit, The
Rhetorical Disposition of First Corinthians 8:79:27, CBQ 59 [1997]: 47691 at 478; Joachim Jeremias, Chiasmus in
den Paulusbriefen, ZNW 49 [1958]: 14556 at 156), while others, though not completely denying a paradigmatic
purpose, primarily read 9:1-27 as a digressive self-defence (, 9:3), with Paul abruptly defending his rights
as an apostle (e.g., Hock, Social Context, 6061; Marshall, Enmity, 282317; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 153; Fee, First
Corinthians, 393, 395; Joseph Fitzmeyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 32;
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 353; Weiss, Korintherbrief, 23134). Both rhetorical strategies contain
substantial elements. The apologetic approach elucidates Pauls use of forensic terms, the vigorous rhetoric and
length of interruption in verses 1-14, and the recurrence of certain themes from the defensive stance taken in
chs. 1-4 (cf. E. Coye Still III, Divisions Over Leaders and Food Offered to Idols: The Parallel Thematic Structures of
1 Corinthians 4:621 and 8:111:1, TynBul 55 [2004]: 1741; Richard Liong-Seng Phua, Idolatry and Authority: A Study
of 1 Corinthians 8.111.1 in the Light of the Jewish Diaspora [LNTS 299; London: T&T Clark, 2005], 17985). Conversely,
the paradigmatic approach accounts for thematic and verbal parallels throughout chs. 8-10 and, more
significantly, provides the only explanation for 11:1 (Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ). For unless 9:1-27 is
identified as the personal example he has in mind in 11:1, one wonders where such an example to imitate would
be found. For these reasons, I agree with David Horrell that these rhetorical approaches may be viewed as
complementary rather than mutually exclusive (Social Ethos, 20405).
244
proposals of E.A. Judge and Ronald Hock,152 Marshall surmises that the defensive tone of 1 Cor.
9 comes as a critical reaction to certain wealthy members (i.e., the hybrists), who offered a
gift to Paul with the intention of obliging him. Paul nevertheless denies their gift,
circumventing their attempts to patronise him as a dependent client, a decision which,
Marshall reasons, would have been a serious affront to the status of his would-be
benefactors,153 equal to that of declaring war. To make matters worse, these wealthy
Corinthians somehow became aware of the Philippians gift to Paul which he gladly accepted,
giving rise to the accusation that their apostle deals inconsistently with his churches.
Marshalls historical reconstruction, while helpful in emphasising gift-exchange
conventions as a cause of the relational problems at Corinth, is nevertheless improbable. To
begin with, Marshalls methodology has been rightly criticised for importing 2 Cor. 11-12 into 1
Cor. 9,154 since, without this methodological move, the conjecture that 1 Cor. 9 comes as a
response to the offer of a previous gift would be unfounded, only proven by implication.155
152. Hock argues that, of the four options for philosophers to make a living (i.e., charging fees, entering the
households of the wealthy, begging, and working), entering a household. . .was probably what the Corinthians
expected Paul to do (Social Context, 65; cf. Judge, Classical Society, esp. 28, 32).
154. See Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 246 n332; Dale Martin, Review of Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth:
Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians, JBL 108 (1989): 54244.
155. Proponents of this view usually posit that the offer of a gift was brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and
Achaicus when they visited Paul in 1 Cor. 16:17-18. This is certainly possible, especially since and
in this passage, as in Phil. 2:30, could signify a filling up of material as well as spiritual needs (cf.
Horrell, Social Ethos, 91; Welborn, Discord, 98). But this is a slender thread on which to hang a weighty
reconstruction. Phil. 2:30 is clearly part of the financial context of 4:10-20 (as the verbal parallels suggest), where
Paul clearly responds to the Philippians gift. Yet the financial content of 1 Cor. 16 centres on the collection and
245
Even Marshall recognises this when he plainly admits, It is true that Paul never says in 1 Cor 9,
I refused your offer.156 Thus, the sheer silence and the necessity to import 2 Cor. 11-12 makes
it highly unlikely that a gift was offered before 1 Cor. 9 was written.
Another major piece in Marshalls historical portrait of which we are sceptical, as
already mentioned, is that some wealthy Corinthians attempted to obligate Paul to themselves,
just as a patron would a client. To be sure, every gift in ancient society entailed obligation and
debt. But to assume that every gift-giving relationship in antiquity could be subsumed under
the patron-client rubric is simply incorrect. As seen in chapter 2, gift-exchange took on a
variety of forms (e.g., teacher-pupil, father-son, friend-friend, etc.), so this raises the question
of whether it is right, with the majority of scholars, to interpret Pauls refusal as an escape
from the financial constraints of these would-be benefactors. Nevertheless, since we remain
unconvinced by Marshall and others that 1 Corinthians 9 is a response to an offer of a prior
gift,157 we need not, as of yet, provide an alternative to the patronal interpretation. That will
wait until our section on 2 Cor. 11-12, where Paul undoubtedly responds to the offer of a gift.
What can be concluded at this point is that Marshalls reconstruction of 1 Corinthians 9
as a refusal of a gift, offered by the so-called hybrists in the attempt to oblige Paul, lacks hard
future plans to be helped by them. There is no indication whatsoever that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus
presented Paul with a gift.
156. Enmity, 242; cf. 174.
157. Neither are we persuaded that Pauls discussion of self-enslavement ( ) and freedom
() in 9:19 entails a financial freedom from wealthy members (contra Hock, Tentmaking at 559). A
thorough critique of this position will be presented below.
246
evidence. Instead, we maintain that this passage discloses a pre-established financial policy,
not a general policy that he enforces at all times (since he obviously accepted support from the
Philippians; cf. 4:10-20), but a specific policy he employs when initially entering into a city.158 This
policy, however, is comprised of two strands, one social and the other theological. Examining
them separately and then tying them together in the conclusion will permit a socio-theological
rationale to emerge.
4.2. Pauls Financial Policy in Social Perspective
In light of the social circumstances of the first century, Paul implemented a specific
policy to refuse support when initially entering a city in order to disassociate himself and his
message from the popular wisdom teaching of itinerant Sophists and philosophers, who lived
on the fees and donations of their hearers.159 Whereas they expected a return for their wisdom,
Paul expected nothing. When he first arrived at Corinth, his was that he received no
158. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 336: Paulus hat also mehrfach Untersttzung von auswrts angenommen, nur
nicht von der Gemeinde, der er gerade diente; cf. Holmberg, Paul and Power, 91; Dungan, Sayings, 32; Pratscher,
Verzicht, 29092. Also, see Chapter 3, section 4.1.1, where we argue that Paul did not accept the Philippians gift
until he departed from Philippi.
159. The ancient sophistic convention of entry (), as explicated by Bruce Winter (Orators at 57-60;
idem, Sophists, 16366), provides an interesting parallel. By appealing to accounts of entering cities by famous
orators, such as Dio Chrysostom, Aristides, Favorinus, and Philostratus, he explains how itinerant Sophists, who
were thoroughly preoccupied with honour () and glory (), received wealth and fame in public life
(), education (), and the courts on arriving at various cities. Eventually, though, these professional
rhetors gained a poor reputation in the eyes of the public, as seen in Dio Chrysostoms disassociation from their
unethical conduct: Gentlemen, I have come before you not to display my talents as a speaker nor because I want
money from you, or expect your praise (Or. 35.1; cf. also Or. 8.9; 32.10; Plato, Protagorus 313c-d; Apol. 19E-20A;
Xenophon, Mem. I, vi; Aristotle, Nic. Eth. 9.1.5-7). Like Chrysostom, Paul also seeks to separate himself from these
Sophists and philosophers (see also Betz, Tradition, 11517; Holmberg, Paul and Power, 90, 93).
247
. The logic of this paradoxical non-payment payment160 appears in three verses
which comprise the heart of his argument in 1 Corinthians 9:
, ,
(9:12b).
.161 ,
-- (9:15).
;
(9:18).
Just as the strong should forgo their to avoid placing a stumbling block
() before the weak (, 8:8-9),162 so also Paul gives up his , enduring all
things ( ) most certainly hardships in general and slender wages of manual
labour in particular rather than accepting monetary support from the Corinthians,
foreseeing that it would place an obstacle ()163 in the way of the gospel of Christ (
160. Fee, First Corinthians, 420.

161. Although the word is lacking, this is nevertheless what Paul has in mind. The plural
demonstrative corresponds to (9:12), and even though other rights are obviously in the
background (9:4-6), the primary right in this chapter is the right to support (cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 416 n12).
162. We nevertheless resist the temptation to deem those who are susceptible to stumbling in 9:12b solely as
the weak; that is, those who possess a low social status (cf. Martin, Slavery, 12324). While the social self-lowering
of the apostle, as seen in his decision to ply a trade, and the curious omission of in 9:22 suggests an
accommodating stance toward the weak, it remains difficult to determine exactly who Paul has in view.
takes on a variety of meanings throughout the epistle (1:27; 4:10; 11:30; 12:22) and could just as easily refer to the
entire church in 1 Cor. 9, especially if 9:20-22 parallels 10:32-33, where the weak (9:22) could correspond to the
church of God (10:31) (Thomas C. Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [2nd ed.; London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1885], 239; Gardner, Gifts of God, 99). But since the argument of this chapter does not rest on
the precise definition of , we remain agnostic on the matter.
163. On the synonymity of and , Dautzenberg explains, Damit drfte aber das von Paulus
Gemeinte noch nicht voll erfasst sein, denn steht durch den Kontext in Analogie zu den Begriffen
248
, 9:12).164 Some interpret here as the content of preaching,165
advocating the view that accepting funds in return for the gospel is somehow out-of-step with
the message of grace.166 But Horrell criticises this view, perceptively stating that it is not clear
why accepting support from churches, especially after they were well established, should be
incompatible with the gospel of grace. Moreover,. . .being utterly dependent upon the grace of
God, expressed through the generosity of others, could equally express gospel theology.167
Rather, more accurately refers to the act of preaching during Pauls initial
ministry at Corinth before they were, as Horrell puts it, well established. That said, one can
certainly discern how Paul, by accepting money in return for his message, could easily have
been mistaken as an avaricious Sophist, teaching wisdom only to acquire wealth and thus
placing an before the gospel (9:12). But by initially refusing support instead, he
dispelled a variety of possible misconceptions. He was not a self-interested teacher of worldly
(8,9), (8,13) und zur Forderung des (10,32) (Unterhaltsrecht, 21232 at

219; cf. Sthlin, TDNT ).
164. The gospel is most certainly at the forefront of Pauls mind in 9:1-23, since and
only appear twice in chs. 1-4 (1:17; 4:15) and three times in ch. 15 (15:1 [2x], 2), but nine times in this chapter (9:12,
14 [2x], 16 [2x], 18 [3x], 23).
165. John Schtz discerns three categories of meaning for : (i) the content of preaching; (ii) the act
of preaching; and (iii) the gospel as an on-going entity in which one can be or stand, of which he adopts the
third option (Apostolic Authority, 52).
166. Gardner, Gifts of God, 84: [Paul] did not want anyone to think they had to pay to hear the gospel. This
would have denied the fundamental gospel concept of grace (cf. also Bachmann, Korinther, 325; Dautzenberg,
Unterhaltsrecht, 21832).
167. Social Ethos, 211. As a point in case, consider Pauls gift-giving relationship with the Philippians, a
spiritual-for-material exchange which embodies the gospel by vulnerably operating as mediators of divine grace
to one another in times of need. See Chapter 3, section 3.2.1.
249
wisdom (cf. 1:18-2:16), but a slave of God who preached divine wisdom free of charge
(, 9:18). He was not a Sophist who boasted in not knowing hard labour, but a labourer
who boasted ()168 in the renouncement of his right not to work (9:15).169 And, most
importantly, he was not an itinerant teacher who loved being placed on a pedestal, praised by
all as the source of what he provides, but repeatedly pointed to God as the divine source of his
teaching. Thus, he preached the gospel free of charge. If he imparted his own wisdom, then he
would deserve a . But because he imparted Gods commodity of to them, then it is
God who rightly deserves the return. Preaching free of charge, then, was not to avoid
distorting the content of the gospel of grace but to circumvent any affiliation with teachers of
worldly wisdom in the act of preaching the gospel.
The same specific policy found in 1 Cor. 9 also emerges from 1 Thessalonians 2:1-13. In
this passage, Paul urges the Thessalonian church to recall () how he refrained from
accepting monetary aid during his initial stay, working night and day so that he might not be a
burden () to anyone while proclaiming the gospel (2:9; cf. 2 Thess. 3:8-9). Although he
could have been a burden (, 2:6), he nevertheless refrained from becoming so at
Thessalonica in order to disassociate himself from disreputable Sophists and philosophers, as
168. Given the juxtaposition of 9:12b and 15, Pauls in the anacoluthon of the latter verse runs
parallel with the -clause of the former. Thus, by not invoking his , he avoided placing an before
the proclamation of the gospel and so declares that this boast will not be made void.
169. Winter, Sophists, 166.
250
in 1 Cor. 9.170 This becomes quite evident from the contrast between negative critiques and
positive self-descriptors:
2:3-4a . . .. . .. . .
2:4b
2:5 . . .. . . . . .
2:6-7 . . . . . . . . .
Whereas itinerant philosophers charged a large amount for their blandishing speeches and
teachings,171 in their craving for money, glory, and honour, Paul reminds the Thessalonians
that he proclaimed the gospel without flattering words ( ) and greedy
intentions ( , 2:5), neither did he seek glory (, 2:6) from anyone. His
only aim was to please God (, 2:4), having been approved by him and entrusted with the
gospel to proclaim and embody it, sacrificially giving his very life ( ) for the
Thessalonians (2:8). A deep love therefore resides at the core of his ministry (2:7, 11-12), yet it
manifests itself in the most peculiar way. Paul lovingly refuses their material assistance, as he
did at Corinth, so as not to cause people to stumble over the gospel (1 Cor. 9:12b). He does not
want to make it seem as if he and his audiences, like that of teachers and pupils, enjoyed a two-
170. For sophistry as the background to 1 Thessalonians 2, see Winter, Orators; Christoph vom Brocke,
Thessaloniki - Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus (WUNT 2/125; Tbigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 14351, for a
Cynic background, see Abraham Malherbe, Gentle, and for opposing perspectives on the cultural setting of 1
Thessalonians, see Holtz, Background and Vos, On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:112: A Response to
Traugott Holtz in The Thessalonian Debate: Methodological Discourse or Methodological Synthesis? (ed. Karl P. Donfried
and Johannes Beutler; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 69-88.
171. Although it is difficult to determine the exact rate that Sophists charged, G.B. Kerferd considers them
relatively high (The Sophistic Movement [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], 145; cf. 28).
251
way gift-exchange relationship: Paul as the source of his teaching, and they as students who
pay for it. And this reluctance to operate within a two-way relational pattern with his
churches is as much a sociological decision as it is theological, a complementing perspective
we now turn to consider.
4.3. Pauls Financial Policy in Theological Perspective
Scholarly efforts to uncover a plausible reason behind Pauls refusal of Corinthian
support, whether sociologically or theologically-driven, overlook the divine participants role
in the relationship. The starting point for these scholars, in every case, is the gift offered by the
Corinthians to Paul, supposedly found in 1 Cor. 9 which we have argued against or in 2 Cor.
11-12. In either case, the first, more essential part of the apostles gift-exchange relationship
with the church is neglected: the initial gift of in the gospel from God through Paul to the
Corinthians. This is a triangulated relational framework which constitutes Pauls vision for gift-
giving relationships in Christ. Having outlined this initial exchange above,172 and with the
social aspect of his strategy explained, we can now unearth the theological aspect behind his
specific policy to refuse support when initially entering a city.
172. See section 3.2.
252
4.3.1. The Theological Strategy of 1 Cor. 9 and 1 Thess. 2
With these texts identified, through a social perspective, as a disaffiliation from the
cultural practices of itinerant Sophists and philosophers, who enjoy two-way relationships with
their pupils and are highly esteemed as the source of their teaching, we will now disclose the
theological strategy underlying Pauls fiscal policy.173 Four theological moves, in particular,
constitute this strategy.
4.3.1.1. The Divine Inclusion
In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul incorporates God in Christ as the crucial third participant of
their relationship. He does so by envisaging the Corinthian ground which he ploughs divine
property, which attests to his apostolic identity. Are you not my work in the Lord [ ]?,
he asks. Indeed, you are my seal of apostleship in the Lord [ ] (9:1-2).174 The precise
nuance of is uncertain here. But whether it carries a locative meaning (i.e., their
existence is in the Lord) or an instrumental sense (i.e., the Lord ultimately does the work),175 it
includes God in what could be misunderstood as a two-way relationship,176 as in 1:31 (Let the
one who boasts boast in the Lord [ ]). As a labourer is bound up with the fruit of his
173. Of course, the social and theological aspects are not at odds with one another. In reality, one illumines the
other.
174. Unlike Zeba Crook, who thinks that Pauls behaviour [in 1 Cor. 9:1] reflects that of proper and honouring
client conduct (Conversion, 158; cf. 168-69), we prefer to view him here as a broker or mediator (see below). To
view him as a client is to insinuate that Gods benefaction ends with him, which it obviously does not.
175. Fee, First Corinthians, 395 n19.
176. For this specific use of in Phil. 4:10, see Chapter 3, section 4.2.2.
253
labour, so, too, Paul and the Corinthians are interdependently bound to a divine party. More
than this, his apostolic role as an in 9:16-18 (which will be discussed more fully
below) underscores Pauls accountability and submission to one far greater than himself.
Although Pauls tactic shifts slightly in 1 Thessalonians 2, it produces the same result of
incorporating God as a third party. At pivotal points in the argument, he emphatically stresses
Gods position as the source of the gospel with the recurring phrases,
(2:2, 8, 9) and (2:13c).177 In addition to this, he further emphasises God as the
heavenly giver, who approvingly entrusts the gospel to Paul ( , 2:4a), who inspects
his motives and work ( , 2:4d; , 2:5, 10), who
has the right to place demands on beneficiaries of his commodity (
, 2:12), and who is ultimately
thanked for the outcome at Thessalonica ( , 2:13a). Truly, as Paul
proclaims elsewhere, from him, through him, and to him are all things (Rom. 11:36). Grace
begins and ends with God.
4.3.1.2. Pauls Intermediary Role
The divine inclusion of God is amplified by Pauls middleman position. In 1 Thess. 2:4-5,
Paul expresses his allegiance to God, the one who installed the apostle to act as a mediator
177. The phrase appears in 1 Cor. 9:12.
254
between him and the Thessalonians. As a broker was entrusted with the beneficia of a patron,
or an with the goods of his master, so Paul is also approved by God to be entrusted
() with Gods gospel ( ), Gods word ( ) in order to
dispense it, as it were, to Gods clientele. In all of this, his chief task is to proclaim this divine
gift ( , 2:4), inasmuch as it pleases the owner of this commodity, who stands as
a witness (, 2:5, 10) of his ministry. In all of this, divine entrustment and direct
accountability to the giver suggest that Paul endeavours to communicate more than a
disassociation from worldly philosophers (i.e., social rationale). He also clearly delineates God
as the sole giver of the gift and himself as a mediator of it (i.e., theological rationale).
Turning back to 1 Corinthians 9, however, we discover one of the strongest social and
theological statements concerning Pauls intermediary role of Gods gospel, found in the
portrayal of himself as an of God who proclaims the gospel involuntarily. By doing
so, he draws all attention to the true giver and possesses a special boast as an apostle who
preaches free of charge as his mediator. This can be best explained by comparing those who
receive financial support in 9:12 with Pauls figuring of himself as a servant of God in 9:16-18.
255
Some apostles, perhaps those mentioned in 9:5 (the other apostles, the brothers of the
Lord, and Cephas),178 availed themselves of the legitimate right to support (cf. 9:14). This is
assumed from the question of 9:12a, If others share this rightful claim over you [
],179 do not we even more? What is interesting, however, is how these
apostles are portrayed. For Paul (at least in the rhetoric of this chapter), those who accept
support reside within a pay economy, where work is rewarded with remuneration.180 This is
supported by the numerous vocations surrounding 9:12. Soldiers receive a wage or pay
() for services rendered,181 the vine dresser eats the fruit of his vineyard, the shepherd
178. The lack of excoriation and the slightest hint of disapproval makes it highly unlikely that Paul has rival
apostles in view, such as those which emerge in 2 Corinthians (pace Hock, Social Context, 6162; Chow, Patronage
and Power, 10708; Schrage, Korinther, 304).
179. Although it is feasible to interpret as a subjective genitive (a share of the right you bestow), the
objective rendering seems more likely (share in a right over you; cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 410; Schrage,
Korinther, 2:304 n157), though Hring doubts this on the basis of word order and meaning (The First Epistle of Saint
Paul to the Corinthians [trans. A.W. Heathcote and P.J. Allcock; London: Epworth Press, 1962], 7879). Plummer,
however, thinks that the sense is the same, however the genitive is interpreted. We have a better claim than
others to the right of maintenance (I Corinthians, 186).
180. To modern readers, this may sound antithetical to the economy of grace or gift, but, in the ancient world,
the notions of pay and gift resided on a single continuum, sharing considerable linguistic and conceptual overlap.
To be sure, pay was on the basis of work, while gift was on the basis of worth. But that is not to say that work
and worth do not share commonalities, such as the measurements of quality, status, character or achievement
(John Barclay, Paul, the Gift and the Battle Over Gentile Circumcision: Revisiting the Logic of Galatians, ABR 58
[2010]: 3656 at 49 n44, esp. 47-56).
181. BDAG, 747. The military imagery necessitates the definition of pay, wages, even salary, since an
enlisted Roman soldier would have been paid a monthly or weekly wage (cf. Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, and
Michael Whitby, eds., The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 15859). However, Chrys Caragounis (: A
Reconsideration of Its Meaning, NovT 16 [1974]: 3557), while admitting that the sense of wages cannot be
absolutely ruled out (57), insists that shoppings or provisions is the most natural sense of the word.
Nevertheless, he refuses to perceive the illustrations in 1 Cor. 9 as inviting the notion of salary. Neither the fruit
of the vine nor the milk of flock of which the labourer may taste, he writes, are regarded as his salary, any more
than the few bundles of wheat stalks which the threshing ox devours are his wages (ver. 9). The context speaks of
256
drinks the milk of his flock, the ploughman and thresher share in the crops, and the temple
worker shares in the sacrificial offerings on the altar (9:7, 9-10, 13). All are due a for
their work.182 In the same way ( , 9:14a), the Lord determined that preachers of the
gospel ought to receive a for their labours.
Nevertheless, Paul declines this legitimate (cf. 9:12, 15, 18),183 being free
() to do so (cf. 9:1, 19), with the result that he locates himself outside the pay
economy.184 Unlike the apostles of 9:12a, Paul likens himself to a managerial steward, an
,185 who involuntarily distributes Gods commodity, thereby highlighting the three-
way relational pattern in 9:16-18. Although numerous exegetical issues attend this text,
the barest means of life, not the luxury of salary (51-52). But what would comprise a salary for a farmer or vine
dresser, if not for the milk of the flock or fruit of the vine? These elements of their work are crucial to the
reception of pay and promise of sustenance. This is not the luxury of salary but reward for their work.
182. and appear to be synonymous in Pauls argument, even though Caragounis insists that
must never be understood as = absolutely, but only in certain contexts all of which bear,
indelibly imprinted on them, the underlying significance of provisions (, 5152). But having rejected
his rendering of as provisions, the context of 1 Cor. 9 makes it more palatable to interpret these words
as synonyms.
183. Of course, Barnabas is included in this refusal of rights (cf. 9:6). But, for the sake of simplicity, I will focus
on Pauls portrayal of his own apostleship, especially in light of the first person singular verbs in 9:16-18. On
whether Paul disobeys the Lord by refusing support, see David Horrell, The Lord Commanded...but I Have not
Used... Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor 9.1415, NTS 43 (1997): 587603; Dungan, Sayings, 20
40; Christopher L. Carter, The Great Sermon Tradition as a Fiscal Framework in 1 Corinthians: Towards a Pauline Theology
of Material Possessions (LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2010).
184. We are not building a law (pay)/grace (gift) dichotomy here. Once again, nothing in 1 Corinthians
suggests that the apostles of 9:12 were Judaizers or opposing Paul.
185. This is not to say that, in the ancient world, an did not receive pay for his labours, which has
been recently demonstrated by the comprehensive study of Goodrich, Oikonomos of God, nor that Paul does not
have this in mind, especially regarding his right to support. But since the pay that Paul receives is a paradoxical
non-payment payment, we can assume that he employs this metaphor in order to distance himself from the
monetary practice of other apostles.
257
especially in relation to the surrounding context,186 we will focus on the way in which Pauls
servitude to God in 9:17 illumines the of 9:16 and the preaching of the gospel
in 9:18, and then briefly attempt to bridge the conceptual gap with 9:19-23.
4.3.1.3. The Triangulated Relationship in 1 Cor. 9:16-18
Having just declared that he renounces support in order to retain his (9:15),
Paul provides the reason () behind this emotionally-charged decision.187 For if I preach the
gospel [], it cannot be a boast [], for compulsion [] is laid on me.
For woe is me if I do not preach the gospel [ ] (9:16). He then moves into the
heart of his argument in 9:17, which can be laid out as follows:
Protasis A: , 17a
Apodosis B: 17b
Protasis A: 17c
Apodosis B: 17d
But this perplexing passage requires clarification. Did Paul preach the gospel willingly ()
or unwillingly ()?
186. Ksemann famously described 1 Cor. 9:16-18 as a passage that cannot be fitted smoothly into the living
whole, since it contradicts it, and threatens to paralyse it (A Pauline Version of the Amor Fati, in
Questions, 22627).
187. Indicated by the anacoluthon of 9:15.
258
Two primary interpretations have been posited.188 One understands 17a-b as a real
condition but 17c-d as hypothetical.189 This conclusion is reached by placing 1 Cor. 8-9 within the
Stoic discussion on free will and determinism. The wise man, through reason and philosophy,
can be free from all passions that conflict with the predetermination of Fate ().190 He
can willingly desire a divine compulsion and so overcome it and be free. Likewise, Paul
willingly does what necessity has laid upon him and so exhibits a life of freedom.191 More
prosaically, his volition becomes compatible with divine necessity, insofar as his preaching,
while , was conducted rather than . Nevertheless, this position erroneously
assumes that Paul overcame compulsion () by willingly accepting the divine injunction
to preach. Nothing in the text discloses an absolute willingness on the apostles part.
Compulsion was laid on him (note the present tense of , 9:16a) and he was fearful to
do otherwise ( , 9:16b).
The other interpretation, which is supported by the majority of scholars, considers 17a-
b as hypothetical but 17c-d as a real condition.192 Paul preaches involuntarily (), and his
188. For a succinct outline of each position, see Goodrich, Oikonomos of God, 193202, who presents a slight
variation of the second interpretation, demonstrating that preaching involuntarily does not mean that Paul was
undeserving of a (cf. 202-06).
189. Mainly advocated by Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will; cf. also Hock, Tentmaking, 559.
190. Cf. Diog. Laer. 7.121; Philo, Prob. 60; Seneca, Ep. 37.3; 54.7; 61.3; De prov. 5.6; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.16.42; 4.1.70-
71, 74; 4.3.9.
191. Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will, 250.
192. Cf. Ksemann, Amor Fati, 149-53; Martin, Slavery, 7185; Fee, First Corinthians, 420; Schrage,
Korinther, 2:32426; Dautzenberg, Unterhaltsrecht, 227; Marshall, Enmity, 30204; Scott Hafemann, Suffering and
259
confession to being divinely compelled () confirms this reality (9:16). Thus, only
voluntary preaching merits a . So, as an involuntary preacher, he asks, what then is my
? He responds, To preach free of charge [] and not make use of my right in
the gospel (9:18). It is, as it were, a paradoxical , a non-payment payment,193 and in
this he boasts.194 Consequently, his does not come from preaching the gospel per se, as
9:16 demonstrates, but from preaching it involuntarily and free of charge.
But why stress these particular aspects of his ministry strategy at Corinth? Because
compulsion and freely giving jointly accentuate his intermediary role in distributing Gods gospel
and thus placards the three-way relational pattern of the divine economy before the
Corinthians. The of is Gods. It is his divine commodity. Paul is a mediator, a
compelled who simply distributes it to others without cost. This is not because the
message of is incompatible with the acceptance of pay. Far from it. The gift is freely
bestowed because it is theologically imperative that recipients acknowledge from whom they
have received, not Paul but God. He therefore refuses initially to avoid distorting the gospel of
Ministry in the Spirit: Pauls Defence of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:143:3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 14144;
Horrell, Social Ethos, 207.
193. Opinions vary on the nature of Pauls . Dungan interprets it as a facetious pun (Sayings, 23), others
as a present, inner satisfaction (Ksemann, Amor Fati, 223; cf. also Weiss, Korintherbrief, 239, who regards it as
innere Gehobenheit und Freudigkeit, man knnte fast sagen meine Freude an meinem Tun), and still others as
an eschatological, external recompense. Traditionally, this latter view has been promoted primarily by Catholic
exegetes (cf. G. Didier, Le Salaire du Dsinteressement [1 Cor ix: 1427], RSR 43 [1955]: 22851), though not
exclusively (cf. Adolf Schlatter, Paulus der Bote Jesu [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1956], 278).
194. Fee maintains that and refer to the same reality (First Corinthians, 421).
260
grace. To be sure, the giving of demands a return, in society as well as in Pauls theology.
But his major concern pertains to who gives the gift. If Paul gives it, then the belonged to
him. Since it obviously does not, he categorises himself as an unwilling () and compelled
() slave. For, according to Pauls criteria of gift giving in 2 Cor. 8-9, which, in this
respect, perfectly aligns with the social criteria of his day, a giver must not give from
compulsion (. . . , 2 Cor. 9:7) but willingly, that is, as that person has decided in
his/her heart (2 Cor. 9:7). This could only mean that, in 1 Cor. 9, Paul intentionally removes
himself from the realm of gift to stress Gods role as the giver. For nothing that inhabitants
(including the apostle) possess or give in the economy of begins or ends with them. All is
of God. flows from him, is recycled among Christ-followers, and then returns back to God
as . His special in preaching free of charge, therefore, can be better
understood as a boast in God as the primary giver and source of all goods in the divine
economy, a theological point he accentuated in 1:31 ( ).
This theo-centric boast is further enhanced by Pauls portrayal of himself as an
unwilling slave, especially when viewed through the ancient lens of gift-exchange. Although
Zeba Crook draws connections between 9:16-18 and the world of patronage and benefaction,195
he wrongly identifies Paul as a client, obligated to reciprocate (indicated by the woe of 9:16)
for the divine benefaction he has received, without which God, his patron, would be greatly
195. Martin also mentions the close ties between slavery and the system of patronage (Slavery, 2242).
261
dishonoured.196 But if Paul were a client, divine benefaction would end with him, which, as we
have seen, is certainly not the case. He is an who mediates his patrons goods to
others, not a client who merely receives benefaction.197 Indeed, when closely examining the
ancient rules of gift exchange in relation to slavery and compulsion, 9:16-18 may be heard in a
unique way.
In the ancient world, it was commonly assumed that a slave could not furnish a benefit.
Seneca, for instance, mentions that various philosophers distinguish between benefits
(beneficia = something given by a person who, without incurring criticism, might have done
nothing), duties (officia = performed by a son, wife, or persons stirred by kinship), and services
(ministeria = done by a slave).198 His imaginary interlocutor provides the reason for this:
For a benefit [beneficium] is something that some person has given when it was also
within his power not to give it [cum illi liceret et non dare]. But a slave does not have the
rights to refuse [non habet negandi potestatem]; thus he does not confer [non praestat], but
merely obeys [paret], and he takes no credit for what he has done because it was not
possible for him to fail to do it [quod non facere non potuit].199

197. Interestingly, even after acknowledging the middle management position of an , Crook still
concludes that as a slave of God, Paul is compelled to follow orders, but as an he has the added
distinction of being a client: either he honours his patron publicly, or he risks insulting that patron and incurring
the coming wrath ( ) (The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client, JGRChJ 2 [200105]: 926 at 18-
19).
198. Ben. 3.18.1.
199. Ben. 3.19.1.
262
In short, a slave is compelled and therefore cannot give a beneficium.200 Could this
comprise an element of what Paul wishes to communicate through the metaphor?
Though we cannot be absolutely certain, it would further bolster his over-arching desire to
illumine the divine third party in his specific policy, and this in two ways. First, it almost
entirely diminishes Pauls role in the exchange of . If he cannot furnish a gift as a
compelled slave, then it can only be God who gives to the Corinthians. Second, if it is God who
gives, then Paul cannot receive a return. Thus, his ,201 albeit paradoxically, is a theo-
centric boast in preaching free of charge, one which directs all eyes to the heavenly giver of
But how does this self-portrayal as a slave, driven by compulsion, boasting in the divine
initiative of Gods gift, and mediating to the community, carry over into the argument of
9:19-23?202
200. Of course, Seneca proceeds to dismantle this argument in Ben. 3.18.1-3.28.6, but it nonetheless represents
the ancient view of slaves.
201. In antiquity, could belong either to the discourse of pay- or gift-economies. This becomes evident
from the bivalent use of the term in Philo and other parts of the Scriptures, either as earned pay (e.g., Mos. 1.141,
2; Spec. 1.156; cf. Gen. 29:15; Sir. 34:22; Luke 10:7) or a gift-reward (e.g., Wis. 5.15; 10.17; cf. Spec. 4.98; cf. Gen. 15:1),
indicating that these economies are not antithetical to one another. I owe this insight to Jonathan Linebaugh.
202. The explanatory connects this section to the preceding, as Dautzenberg argues, Der Abschnitt 1 Kor
9,19-23 steht in einem inneren Zusammenhang mit dem Vorherigen. Das einleitende muss ernst genommen
werden; 9,19 will 18 begrnden und weiterfhren (Unterhaltsrecht, 228; cf. also Hring, First Epistle, 81).
Moreover, the terminological and thematic parallels, sprinkled throughout 9:1-18 and 9:19-23, such as the
free/slave motif (9:1, 17, 19), the commitment to the gospel (9:12, 16, 18, 23), and the financial metaphors and
terminology (, , ), confirm this connection.
263
4.3.1.4. The Progression of in 9:19-23
The main thrust of his argument comes at the beginning (9:19) and end (9:23) of this
section and reveals two aspects of the apostles lifestyle which become an example for the
Corinthians to emulate (cf. 11:1).

,

, ,

, ,

,

,
.
, (9:19-23)
In 9:19, Paul speaks of his freedom from all people ( ; cf. 9:1) and his self-
enslavement to all people ().203 He positions himself, once again, as the middleman, being
203. Hock contends that Pauls self-enslavement is his decision to work a trade that made him appear slavish
in society, since by entering the workshop he had brought about a considerable loss of status (Tentmaking, 559;
idem, Social Context, 5962). Just as Socrates could boast, Who among men is more free () than I,
who accepts neither gifts nor fee from anyone? (Xenophon, Apol. 16), so also Paul, by plying a slavish trade,
boasts of his economic freedom from the patronage of well-to-do Corinthians (Tentmaking, 61). But if the all
[people] ( ) represent the Corinthian patrons, then how can Paul say that he became a slave to all
[people] () immediately after (cf. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry, 13638)? This would mean that Paul
enslaves himself to patrons as well. More importantly, if Paul means what Hock wants him to mean, namely, that
he shared the snobbish attitude of the higher echelon of society toward work as slavish, then Todd Still is right,
Paul would have been shaking the very hands he was seeking to slap in Corinth! (Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor?
264
simultaneously enslaved to God, as 9:17 demonstrates, and to the Corinthians by relinquishing
his right to support and plying a trade. As such, he presents himself as a model of giving up
legitimate rights for the sake of others, most likely to inform the strong at Corinth (cf. 8:9),204
which is evidenced by the goal () of his particular missionary strategy in every city. He
financially supports himself during his initial visit in order to gain () and save ()
those of various social and ethnic boundaries (9:20-23a).205 This strategy is self-effacing and
other-oriented, the sort of lifestyle lacking in the Corinthians.206
But if 9:19 portrays Paul as an example for those who wished to maintain their freedom,
even if it caused others to stumble, then 9:23, as in 9:12, presents the apostle as a model of a life
conformed to the gospel, committed to its advancement. Scholars investigating 9:23 generally
wrestle with one important exegetical question. By employing the word , does
Paul have in view his participation in the work of the gospel or his fellow-sharing with the
Corinthians in its benefits? While the latter interpretation is plausible, the singular verb
Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostles Tentmaking and Social Class, JBL 125 [2006]: 78195 at
788). Savage rejects Hocks proposal on the Corinthians view of work (Power Through Weakness, 10203), but has
been criticised by Gardner, Gifts of God, 8284 and Margaret Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 2:70304.
204. According to Martin, Pauls main goal in 1 Corinthians 9 is to persuade the strong to modify their
behaviour to avoid offending the weak (Slavery, 209).
205. The absence of in 9:22 is indeed telling. If indicates social status, as many have argued
(Martin, Slavery, 11824; Theissen, Social Setting, 12143), it is noteworthy that Paul identifies the beneficiaries of
divine benefaction in the gospel as those who, in the eyes of the more lite Corinthians, would not have been
socially suitable to receive such a gift.
265
makes it more likely that he has himself in view. The - in , then,
corresponds to Pauls partnership with the gospel as a force during the act of proclamation
rather than speaking of the Corinthians as co-partners.207 But this begs the question, how does
Paul facilitate the advance of the gospel in his own life?
As we have attempted to show, Paul is a mediator of the gospel, divinely compelled to
distribute the gift of as he enslaves himself to the Corinthians, so that they may be
claimed by Gods gospel. We have also tried to show that the Corinthians assumed that divine
gifts ended with them, as evidence by their inappropriate use of provisions (11:17-34) and
spiritual gifts (12:12-31). They did not pass on their possessions to others but solely took pride
in and through them (cf. 4:7). As Morna Hooker incisively explains,
[The Corinthians] see themselves only as recipients of grace not as those who are
commissioned to pass it on for they have not grasped that the pattern of the gospel
must now be stamped on their own lives. They think of the interchange between Christ
and themselves in terms of simple exchange he gives, we take instead of in terms
of mutual give and take. But how can one give to Christ? It is not so much a case of
giving to Christ but giving in Christ that is, sharing in his giving.208
Perhaps, then, Paul, by exemplifying a life committed to passing on the gospel and
recognising the divine giver in his dealings with others, expects the Corinthians to make a
207. Pace Morna Hooker, A Partner in the Gospel: Pauls Understanding of His Ministry, in Theology and Ethics
in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (ed. Eugene Lovering and Jerry Sumney; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1996), 83100.
208. Morna Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 1990), 6465; my italics.
266
connection between his self-portrayal as a broker of and his call to become imitators of
me, as I am of Christ (11:1).
5. Conclusion
We have attempted to present a socio-theological rationale behind Pauls refusal of support,
tying together the social and theological strands that comprise his fiscal policy. The social
strand, on the one hand, can be identified as pragmatic. Paul refused monetary support, not
because he detected the Corinthians motive to patronise him, as many assume, but because he
evaded any associations with the monetary practices of itinerant Sophists and philosophers,
who avariciously capitalised on their initial visits into cities. Solidifying this conclusion is the
fact that this specific policy was enforced at Corinth and Thessalonica, two very different cities.
For, as John Barclay has shown, these sibling communities, though founded closely together,
diverged greatly in their individual perception and appropriation of the Christian faith. The
Corinthians exhibited culturally-conditioned lifestyles, while the Thessalonians embraced the
apocalyptic symbols of the gospel and experienced social dislocation.209 And yet, Paul enforces
the same financial policy in both communities. His refusal, therefore, could not have been
predicated on the ulterior motives of certain wealthy members. If that were the case, he would
not have employed this policy at Thessalonica. Rather, his refusal was based, at least in part,
209. Thessalonica and Corinth, 6672.
267
on the sociological factors of the cities that he evangelised. For accepting gifts initially could
potentially distort the gospel of grace, not its content but its source.
The theological strand, on the other hand, can be considered perspectival. What I mean
is that, when initially proclaiming the gospel, Paul deems it theologically necessary that the
Corinthians perceive God as the source of the gift of and himself as the mediator of it. This
is precisely where the social and theological threads overlap. As our analysis of 1 Cor. 1-4, 11:17-
34, and 12:12-31 demonstrate, the Corinthians operated primarily within a two-way relational
structure with Paul and other influential leaders, excluding the divine third party from their
social interactions, which may be diagrammed as follows:
$$ Paul and
Corinthians
Corinthians Other
Influential
Leaders
In their relationship with God and Paul, the Corinthians acted in a manner consistent
with two-way relationships in ancient society. Of course, as mentioned earlier,210 they believed
in the gospel on the discursive level, and so would happily affirm a three-party relationship
with Paul and others, with God at the head of each. What they lacked, however, was a three-
way relational pattern in their practical consciousness. In other words, unlike the Philippians
relationship with Paul, where the divine inclusion drastically modified their mutual bond, the
268
inclusion of a vertical party did not modify the Corinthians horizontal behaviour, neither with
Paul nor with other members. Again, the comparison between Thessalonica and Corinth is
theologically telling. When the Thessalonians heard the gospel preached , they
accepted it as a (1 Thess. 2:13). They accurately acknowledged the divine source
and consequently endured social dislocation. But when the Corinthians heard the gospel, they
viewed Paul and others as its source, as indicated by the party slogans (1:12), boasting in men
(3:21), and plainly rejecting (or possibly forgetting, 2:12) God as the fount of their material and
spiritual blessings (4:7), which resulted in social integration.
In their relationship with one another, the Corinthians erroneously assumed that
divine gifts ended with them instead of being conduits of grace. Gods intention for gifts was
for the common good ( , 12:7), to be shared and enjoyed by all. But they used
them for their own good, to accrue spiritual honour and status. That is why Paul, in addition to
exemplifying selflessness for the sake of others, might also be presenting himself as a
mediator-model, a slave of God who receives in order to give as a of the gospels
advancement (9:23). Through his example, he communicates a fundamental truth in the
economy of . All possessions, whether spiritual or material, find their beginning and end
with God. Divine commodity is simply mediated among his people, as captured by the
following diagram:
269
God

Paul as an Corinthians

This is the stamp of the gospel, whose imprint is missing from the practical lives of the
Corinthians.211
With the strands of the socio-theological rationale behind Pauls monetary policy
exposed and explained, along with the social and theological deficiency of the Corinthians,
that is, their desire to work within two-way relational structures due to their culturally-
conditioned mindset, we now turn to 2 Corinthians 11-12 in order to determine whether the
issues detected in 1 Corinthians illumine the rationale behind Pauls offensive refusal of their
gift.
211. Obviously, Paul would not have been aware of this until after departing Corinth, so this was not a factor in
his specific monetary policy of refusing during initial visits. However, we will see in the following chapter that
their worldly perspective on relational roles and status did play a role in the ultimate refusal of their gift in 2 Cor.
11-12.
270
CHAPTER 5: Pauls Negative Relationship with the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11-
11-12)
12)
Introduction
In Chapter 4, we encountered a socio-theological strategy within the financial text of 1
Corinthians 9. When initially entering into a city, Paul always refuses support. This specific
policy serves the pragmatic purpose of distancing himself from avaricious Sophists and
itinerant teachers (i.e., social aspect) and the perspectival purpose of accentuating the heavenly
giver of the gospel (i.e., theological aspect). This financial stance was not in response to a
previous offer of a gift, nor was it enacted because of the state of the church. As we already
mentioned, the same policy was enforced when he ministered at Thessalonica and Philippi.
And yet, when we arrive at 2 Cor. 11-12, we discover that something in the Corinthians
specifically compelled Paul to extend his initial policy into the distant future, even after the
founding of the church: I refrained [from accepting support] and will refrain from burdening
you in any way (11:9); What I do I will continue to do (11:12); I myself did not burden you . . .
Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden (12:13-14).
But why does Paul choose to minister among them as if he were initially evangelising
them? The most common explanation in Pauline studies is the patronal interpretation. Paul
271
refused Corinthian gifts, which carried the unwanted ties of obligation, because some wealthy
patrons in the church sought to make him their dependent client. The extension of his initial
policy therefore teaches the church that he is the patron in the relationship. But this position
is seriously flawed. It not only misunderstands patronage in antiquity and ignores other
ancient gift-exchange relationships as suitable frameworks,1 but it also wrongly assumes that
Paul is the source of the gospel instead of its mediator and inaccurately portrays him as a
modern who despises obligation and debt. More than this, however, it overlooks the
Corinthians propensity to be under influential figures, as our analysis of 1 Corinthians has
shown. This, in our opinion, is the Achilles heel of the patronal approach, and it will be the
objective of this chapter to prove it.
To that end, our examination of 2 Cor. 11-12 will begin by reconstructing the events
between 1 and 2 Corinthians, before comparing Paul and the super apostles. This comparison
will help us understand why the Corinthians shifted their allegiance to these rivals and what
exactly their gift-exchange relationship consisted of. From the relational pattern of this
exchange, we will be able to deduce the sort of financial relationship that the Corinthians
sought with Paul, whether they wanted to be the superior or inferior party. Thereafter, we will
provide an exegesis of Pauls reasons for refusing in 11:7-12 and 12:13-16a, particularly
demonstrating the inadequacy of the patronal approach. And lastly, a socio-theological approach
272
will be offered, one which takes the pragmatic and perspectival purposes of Pauls policy into
consideration and provides a counter-example to his well-functioning, gift-exchange
relationship with the Philippians. From this, a plausible reason for Pauls refusal will be
propounded.
1. Reconstruction of Events between 1 and 2 Corinthians
Because our position on this matter has been comprehensively argued by others,2 we will offer
only a brief sketch of events here.3 The discussion will be selective, focusing on the state of
Pauls relationship with the community in light of the -incident in 2 Cor. 1:23-2:11 and
7:5-16, and its relation to the issues in 2 Cor. 10-13.
After the writing of 1 Corinthians, the relationship between Paul and the community
rapidly declined. This relational descent was first set in motion by his insistence on working a
trade to support himself,4 but it eventually broke out into open conflict during, what Paul calls,
2. See Francis Watson, 2 Cor. x-xiii and Pauls Painful Visit to the Corinthians, JTS 35 (1984): 32446; L.L.
Welborn, The Identification of 2 Corinthians 1013 with the Letter of Tears, NovT 37 (1995): 13853; Horrell,
Social Ethos, 21720; 296-312; Lars Aejmelaeus, Streit und Vershnung: Das Problem der Zusammensetzung des 2.
Korintherbriefes (PFES 46; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1987).
3. For a close examination of the differing views on the events between 1 and 2 Corinthians, see Ivar Vegge, 2
Corinthians a Letter About Reconciliation (WUNT 2/239; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 912, and for a historical
overview on the discontinuity and continuity of these letters, consult Reimund Bieringer, Zwischen Kontinuitt
und Diskontinuitt: Die beiden Korintherbriefe in ihrer Beziehung zueinander nach der neueren Forschung, in
The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. Reimund Bieringer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 338; esp. 6-7.
4. As Horrell explains, 1 Corinthians may only have exacerbated their discontent. Dissatisfaction over the
particular issue of manual work and material support, moreover, is especially likely since the Corinthians are
clearly aware of another model of apostolic lifestyle practised by others, quite apart from Pauls informing
them of the rights of an apostle (Social Ethos, 217).
273
a painful visit (2:1), occurring at the second of three visits (cf. 2:1; 12:14; 13:1-2), where a
member of the church5 acted defiantly against the apostles authority (2:3, 5). In response, Paul
wrote a tearful letter (2:4; 7:8),6 which not only caused pain () to the wrongdoer, insofar
as it later produced repentance (2:6-8; 7:9-11), but it also served to castigate the entire
community (7:8-11).7 For, prior to this tearful letter, the Corinthians had taken no action
against the offender and were thus implicated in the offence against Paul, that is, deliberate
recalcitrance against his apostolic authority at Corinth. With traces of this offence in 2 Cor. 10-
13,8 especially in connection with the rival apostles, it seems likely that this section ought to be
identified as the tearful letter, chronologically preceding the writing of 2 Cor. 1-9.9 If this is
5. Identified by the singular phrases: (2:5); (2:6-7); (7:12).

6. For the multiple theories on the tearful letter, see Hurd, Origin, 5556; Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to
the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 58.
7. Because Paul obviously desired to evoke loyalty to his apostleship in the church, as gathered from one of his
chief reasons for the tearful letter (that [the Corinthians] zeal on [Pauls] behalf might be manifested to [them]
before God, 7:12), many scholars accurately reason that the offence was a collective defiance of his apostolic
authority (cf. Watson, Painful Visit at 340-45; J.H. Kennedy, The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians
[London: Methuen and Co., 1900], 8485).
8. As most notably shown by Kennedy, Epistles, 6368, 7994; Watson, Painful Visit, 33946; Ernst Ksemann,
Die Legitimitt des Apostels. Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 1013, ZNW 41 (1942): 3371.
9. While the argument of this chapter does not entirely depend on this partition theory, it does, however,
support the close connection that we will draw in the following section, namely, that the Corinthians deficient
practical consciousness, described in 1 Corinthians, carries over directly into 2 Cor. 10-13. Of course, the
hypothesis adopted here has been challenged, primarily on the basis of two problems: (i) the lack of reference in
10-13 to the brother who had wronged Paul, and (ii) Titus visit in 12:18, which, many argue, is described in 2 Cor.
8:16-9:5 and requires that the tearful letter was delivered at that time (cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 3336; Ralph P.
Martin, 2 Corinthians [WBC; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986], xlix; Frank Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary [NTL;
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2003], 297). In response to (i), multiple verbal and conceptual parallels exist
between 10-13 and the -incident (see n8 above), yet argument (ii) concerning Titus visit in 12:18 may, at
first glance, seem more persuasive. Nevertheless, Watson (Painful Visit, 3132) has shown that, if Titus visit in
8:16-9:5 precedes 10-13, then he was altogether incompetent, reporting news to Paul about the Corinthians
274
accurate, then 2 Cor. 10-13 contains a vitriolic defence against the criticisms of the
Corinthians, who, due to the influence and acceptance of the so-called super apostles,
considered Pauls vita apostolica to be inferior to his opponents (cf. 11:5; 12:11). This apostolic
subordination was a catastrophic blow to Paul, and it was the rival apostles who helped the
Corinthians deliver it. Just how they did so, and how the Corinthians were so easily misguided
by these rebels, emerges from the communitys love for honour, status, and worth in
connection with the social stature of Paul in comparison to the super apostles. This is
especially the case since, according to Wayne Meeks, 1 Corinthians failed to amend two issues.
It had not. . .put to rest the discontent with Pauls authority, nor the longing of some
Corinthian Christians to attach themselves to leaders more self-evidently grand.10
repentance and loyalty when, in fact, they were committed to the super apostles and practised all sorts of
immorality (12:20-21). Being unconvinced by argument (ii), then, which F.F. Bruce understands as the linchpin
against the view propounded here (1 and 2 Corinthians, 168), we therefore maintain that 10-13 is the tearful letter,
written before 1-9, though we refrain from being overly confident in this theory by not building major arguments
on this plausible reconstruction.
10. First Urban Christians, 118.
275
2. The Corinthians Culturally-Conditioned Lifestyle Maintained
With the practical consciousness of the Corinthians, driven by the cultural norms of gift and
worth in society, outlined in some detail in the previous chapter,11 we now seek to consider
how their culturally-conditioned lifestyle carried over into 2 Cor. 10-13. We will do so by first
discovering the motivation behind the Corinthians rejection of Pauls apostleship and
subsequent allegiance to the super apostles, a transfer of loyalty that revolved around the
giving of money. We will then reconstruct the specific gift-giving relational pattern that the
Corinthians shared with these rival missionaries in order to extrapolate the sort of gift-
exchange relationship that they sought to have with Paul. This comparison will give us a
glimpse into the precise role that the church desired to play in this gift-exchange relationship,
whether they sought to be superior over or inferior under the super apostles. But first, it is
necessary to ask why the Corinthians cut ties with Paul and affiliated themselves with his
opponents.
2.1. A Corinthian Assessment of Apostolic Status
In a culture mesmerised by honour and status, difficult decisions had to be made. One
pressing question was, With whom should I affiliate myself? Since ones decision on the matter
determined the social fate of the inquirer, it was imperative to assess the social standing of
276
influential candidates. And this was no less the case with the culturally-conditioned
Corinthians, as can be validated by comparing the status symbols exhibited by Paul with those
of the super (or false) apostles.12
2.1.1. Pauls Apostolic Status
Humility and weakness. These were the status symbols embodied by Paul that were
deemed inferior in ancient society. Humility, writes Savage, was scorned. The lowly had no
self-respect, no public standing they were slaves on a low scale.13 Interestingly enough,
Paul presents himself as writing to Corinth in the meekness () and gentleness
12. Many draw a distinction between the (11:5b; 12:11) and (11:13; cf.
Ksemann, Legitimitt, 3843, 4549; C.K. Barrett, Pauls Opponents in 2 Corinthians, NTS 17 [1970/71]: 23354;
Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry, 14748). Yet it seems best to consider them one and the same group, primarily
because the title is most likely an ironic designation for the . This is
confirmed by in 11:13 being sandwiched by the twofold reference to the in
11:5 and 12:11, by the comparison between Paul and the super apostles in 11:5, which directly follows his
description of the false apostles who preach another Jesus and give a different gospel and spirit (11:4), and by the
multiple appearances of , as a preposition or a prefix (10:14, 16), which Paul employs in his rebuttal against
the false apostles and ultimately culminates in the title (cf. Christopher Forbes, Pauls
Boasting, 17; Alfred Plummer, The Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915], 298
99; Josef Zmijewski, Der Stil der paulinischen Narrenrede: Analyse der Sprachgestaltung in 2 Kor 11, 112, 10 als Beitrag zur
Methodik von Stiluntersuchungen neutestamentlicher Texte [BBB 52; Bonn: Hanstein, 1978], 11617; Windisch,
Korintherbrief, 330; Philip Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1962], 37880). For a concise summary of the debate and support for the argument advocated here, see
Furnish, II Corinthians, 50205.
13. Savage, Power Through Weakness, 24 and n39. Two passages from Epictetus are illuminating in this regard,
both of which highly discourage presenting oneself as :
; ;
; (Diatr. 3.24.54); :
, (Diatr. 4.1.53-54). Similarly, Lucian speaks
of the wealthy who expect the lower classes to express the self-abasement of their soul (
) with a lowly bow (Nigr. 21). In another work, he asserts that one disadvantage of being a sculptor
is possessing a lowly opinion ( ), more than likely, in view of what follows (
), from others in society (Somm. 9). See also Dio Cassius 52.8.5 and Origen Cels. 6.15 on the disgrace of a
lowly lifestyle.
277
() of Christ, living among them in a humble manner ().14 These lowly
characteristics were equally despised and avoided in society as in the Corinthian church.15
Because of these, they accused him of living , that is, as a frail, weak, and powerless
apostle (10:1-3).16 For from the Corinthians perspective, to be as spiritually humble as Christ
was to be as socially despicable as a slave.
Of course, the letters of this weak slave were surprisingly considered weighty ()
and strong (). But their assessment was quickly disproven by his weak, physical
presence ( ) and contemptible speech ( ,
10:11; cf. 10:1; , 11:6). The city of Corinth highly praised rhetorical acumen17 and a
powerful self-display,18 both of which exponentially increased ones status and worth in
society. So it should be the cause of little wonder that the absence of these status markers in
14. The linkage of the term to the virtues of Christ (, ), Arthur Dewey asserts,
should not prevent one from noting that this term carries with it the pejorative social sense of low estate or
status (A Matter of Honor: A Social-Historical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10, HTR 78 [1985]: 20917 at 210; cf.
Marshall, Enmity, 323).
15. Since, as Murray Harris (Corinthians, 68) states, It is impossible to distinguish clearly between the views of
native Corinthians and the teaching of the rival apostles, for many of the Corinthians seem to have adopted some
of the ideas or attitudes of these intruders (11:4), we will treat them as a single entity, unless clearly
distinguished, since they influenced one another in their attack against Paul.
16. Scholars have variously taken to refer to Pauls trade (Hock, Social Context, 64; Theissen, Social
Setting, 45), illnesses (Betz, Tradition, 96), worldly inconsistency (Windisch, Korintherbrief, 295), or lack of oratorical
skill (Winter, Sophists, 212). Nevertheless, Thrall rightly concludes that the primary issue is that of power (Second
Epistle, 607), a general category that may include some of these specific factors. Of course, mirror-reading is
unavoidable when discerning the meaning of , so an awareness of its propriety as well as its dangers
are necessary (cf. Jerry Sumney, Identifying Pauls Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians [JSNTSS 40;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990], 95119; Samuel Sandmel, Parallelomania, JBL 81 [1962]: 113; Barclay,
Mirror-Reading).
17. See Judge, Cultural Conformity, 16566; Litfin, Proclamation, 15155, 15972.
18. MacMullen, Social Relations, 109; Winter, Sophists, 11617.
278
their apostle produced intense criticism, especially when he failed to deliver punitive action
during the sorrowful visit, causing the Corinthians to wonder if, in fact, he possessed the
authoritative power that he claimed to have in 1 Cor. 4:18-21.19 From this point on, they
became immensely suspicious of his asserted status and thus apostolic legitimacy.
From Pauls perspective, however, their categories of worth were completely upside-
down.20 Weakness and hardship characterised the entirety of his life as an apostle, and they
were, albeit counter-culturally, the worthy objects of his boasting (11:16-12:10; esp. 11:30; 12:5,
9). Their scepticism therefore evoked the defensive rejoinder, For I consider myself not in the
least inferior [] to these super apostles [ ] (11:5).21 But it
was too late. The Corinthians had assessed Paul on the basis of social criteria (i.e., rhetorical
skill and an authoritative self-display),22 concluded that he lacked the status symbols that they
expected in an apostle (cf. 12:20),23 and turned their allegiance to more superior figures. But
19. Savage surmises that the Corinthians must have assumed that Paul had something to hide. Perhaps he is
afraid that if he visits Corinth he will be exposed as the weak and cowardly person he really is! Maybe he is
intentionally concealing his humility! He is duplicitous! (Power Through Weakness, 67; cf. also Watson, Painful
Visit, 34243).
20. 11:16-21 is also an attempt to show the Corinthians their impaired judgment.
21. See also 12:11 where he includes, even though I am nothing ( ), and thereby paradoxically
claims a high status for himself through low status indicators.
22. Deweys analysis of the social functions and symbols in 2 Cor. 10 shows that Paul directly engages the
social reality as perceived and accepted by the community and the opposition (Honor, 216).
23. It is probably not accurate to state that the Corinthians did not consider Paul to be an apostle at all (pace
Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [trans. Roy Harrisville; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg,
1985], 234), but that they considered him to be an apostle of a lesser kind (cf. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the
Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997], 512).
279
who are these so-called , and what sort of status symbols did they
embody?
2.1.2. The Super Apostles Status
While the identity of these rival apostles remains shrouded in uncertainty and
methodological debates,24 a few remarks may be made concerning their apostolic status at
Corinth by investigating specific passages. First, irrespective of whether the assessment of his
oratorical performance in 10:10 and 11:6 comes from the opponents or the community itself,25
Pauls rhetorical deficiency places him in a lower social position particularly since education
is indissolubly linked with social class and therefore raises the status of the opponents
higher than the apostles.26 This is further supported by the response related to status in 11:5
( ) that precedes his concession (
) to being an in 11:6.27 Second, unlike Paul, the rivals powerful self-
display was anything but weak. If the pejorative description of 11:20 reflects a historical
24. See, for instance, the discussions in Sumney, Opponents; Gerd Ldemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish
Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989); J.J. Gunther, St. Pauls Opponents and Their Background: A Study of
Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup 35; Leiden: Brill, 1973).
25. It is difficult to determine who Paul refers to when he employs the singular (10:10), (10:7;
11:20[5x], 21b), or (10:11), since they can be generic singulars. Similarly, the plurals (10:2, 12) and
(11:13) can also be generic plurals.
26. Furnish accurately maintains that the intruders were skilled in the art of Hellenistic rhetoric (II
Corinthians, 50; cf. Marshall, Enmity, 33940).
27. Paul, according to Winter, suffered from a presentation which fell short of the quality expected of a public
orator or Sophist who aimed to persuade a first-century Corinthian audience. This attracted his opponents
attention because it was an irreparable deficiency (Sophists, 21718).
280
reality, in which these competitors enslave (), devour (), and strike the
Corinthians in the face ( . . .), then they most likely exerted the authoritative
power that Paul only spoke of but never administered (cf. 1 Cor. 4:18-20). Finally, they
promoted their social worth through boasting. As Paul describes it, they showed off their
apostolic credentials as , , ,28 and (11:22-
23),29 engaged in with one another (10:12, 18), and audaciously boasted in his labours
at Corinth (10:13-18; 11:12),30 all of which served to bolster their own apostolic status over
Pauls in the eyes of the Corinthians an intrusive endeavour which proved successful.
2.1.3. Status Differential between Paul and the Super Apostles
Contrary to Pauls life and ministry, the super apostles possessed a mighty self-display,
expressed through rhetorical grandiloquence, punitive action, and presumptuous boasting in
their social worth, with the shameful attributes of humility and weakness far removed from
their apostolic repertoire. Both in appearance and eloquence, they fit the social ideal for
28. By employing the terms , , and , the rivals may have appealed to their
genuine Jewishness as an attack against Pauls less than pure lineage as a Diaspora Hellenist, since he was not
born in Israel and probably had no personal knowledge of the earthly Jesus (Harris, Corinthians, 79496).
29. The terms in 11:8, which describes Pauls ministry, and in 11:15 (2x) and 23, which
depicts the super apostles ministry, deserve further explanation. J.N. Collins convincingly demonstrates that the
- word group, far from merely being defined as messenger, envoy, or servant, actually means
mediator, middleman, or in-between person (The Mediatorial Aspect of Pauls Role as Diakonos, ABR 40
[1992]: 3444 at 42). These definitions accord well with our construal of Pauls intermediary role of Gods gift of
to the Corinthians. By calling the rival missionaries , then, he presents them as a
competing model of intermediary ministry. They claim to be mediators of Gods gospel, but they nevertheless
mediate, in Pauls mind, the gifts of Satan, consisting of neither righteousness nor Christ.
30. This will be further explained in section 3.2.
281
Sophists, itinerant philosophers, and teachers. The Corinthians were therefore more than
willing to support them. After all, the status of these influential teachers naturally elevated
their own,31 but Pauls low status symbols only brought shame and embarrassment to the
community. Consequently, as those conformed to the dominant culture around them, the
Corinthians decision to support the rival apostles as opposed to Paul can be understood as a
quest for social status, honour, and worth, being acutely attuned to social rather than gospel
norms. In a word, their affiliation with Pauls competitors unveils their culturally-conditioned
lifestyle. They asked themselves, With whom should we affiliate ourselves? And they chose the
socially-esteemed super apostles.
Having noted why the Corinthians would attach themselves to these high-status
leaders, the following section will now inquire as to how they attached themselves to them.
2.2. The Exploitative Gift-Giving Relationship of the Corinthians and the Super Apostles
Gifts, like marriage, bind people together for better or for worse. But in the case of
the Corinthians bond with the super apostles, it was, in Pauls view, definitely for worse. He
portrays their rocky relationship in 11:20, For you tolerate it if someone []32 enslaves
[] you, or exploits [] you, or takes advantage [] of you, or puts
31. It is apparent, writes Furnish, that the point at issue [in 11:5-15] is not only Pauls status as an apostle
compared with the status of the so-called super-apostles. The status of the congregation is also involved (II
Corinthians, 508; cf. also Windisch, Korintherbrief, 397).
32. The singular takes on a collective sense and refers to the super apostles (Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:716;
Zmijewski, Narrenrede, 208).
282
on airs [], or strikes you in the face [].33 The highly figurative language in this
parody against the intruders should not be pressed too literally, but it nevertheless
communicates a general point, that Paul believes his rivals have tyrannized and exploited the
congregation.34 More specifically, though, this exploitation clearly involves finances, insofar
as and carry a pecuniary sense.35 But the telling question is: who is
financially exploiting whom?
The logic of the patronal interpretation leads to the conclusion that the Corinthians,
with their desire to become patrons over their leaders, exploited the super apostles through
33. The graphic metaphor, , whether placed in a Jewish or Greco-Roman social

domain, communicates the act of humiliating a person. In a Jewish framework, to slap someones cheek, especially
on the right side, with the back of the hand dishonoured them (cf. Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mt. 5:39; Baba m. Qamma
8:6). From a Greco-Roman viewpoint, the (or the Latin, facies), which manifested ones persona or social
reputation, was the battleground for honour (cf. Carlin A. Barton, Roman Honor, 5657). Being struck in the face,
therefore, brought intense shame to the object of abuse; in modern words, it was to lose face. One point of
interest is that, after describing the super apostles heavy handedness, Paul ironically claims that he lost face by
not striking their faces: , (11:21a).
34. Furnish, II Corinthians, 512.
35. Many scholars interpret as a reference to financial exploitation (cf. C.K. Barrett, The Second Epistle
to the Corinthians [BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1973], 288, 291; Bultmann, Second Corinthians, 213; Gerhard Friedrich,
Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief, in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gesprch ber die Bibel [ed.
O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt; AGJU 5; Leiden: Brill, 1963], 181215). The term , however, is much
more debatable, since it can have a variety of meanings (cf. BDAG, 583-85). Some consider it a repetition of
(E.B. Allo, Saint Paul: seconde ptre aux Corinthiens [Bib; Paris: Galbalda, 1937], 290), others an
amplification of (lay violent hands upon; C. Lattey, in 2 Cor. xi.20, JTS 44 [1943]: 148), and
still others define in view of 12:16 (if anyone gets you in his power; Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 288) or Lk. 5:5
(catch, Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:717). Nevertheless, Barretts translation, if anyone gets you in his power,
highlights the connection between the power or authority of the super apostles and finances, an issue that comes
to the fore in 11:7-12 and 12:13-16a. For ancient parallels that attach an exploitative connotation to , see
Philo Cher. 122 and Lucian Somm. 9.
283
their self-interested and obliging gifts. But, from Pauls perspective, this is not the case.36
Rather, the Corinthians are being exploited by these perpetrators (as the grammar and
language of 11:20 confirm), who behave malevolently over the church, like a patron over a
client.37 If this is accurate, then the Corinthians, as in 1 Cor. 1-4, long to be under well-known
leaders. To be sure, a client, in ancient society, would never give money to an opulent patron.38
They usually reciprocated honour, loyalty, political allegiance, and public gratitude. But before
we assume that the Corinthians must therefore be patrons solely because they gave money to
the super apostles, perhaps it is better to perceive the church as pupils of influential teachers,
paying for their services. In any case, whether a patron-client or teacher-pupil relationship is
in view, we can safely conclude that they did not function as the patron or the superior party.
They clearly occupied the inferior position, as they tolerated an abusive (in Pauls eyes),
though status-enhancing, gift-exchange relationship.39 More than this, even if patrons in
36. It could be argued that they attempted to patronise these apostles but their plans were subverted,
ultimately becoming the objects of exploitation. This is possible, but not likely, since the unstated premise in this
assertion is that Paul misunderstands the situation. After all, he claims that the Corinthians tolerate ()
the exploitative abuse of these rivals.
37. We are not assuming that every patron-client relationship was exploitative, but if 11:20 is viewed through
the lens of patronage, then these patrons would certainly be exploiting those beneath them.
38. Although Dionysius of Halicarnassus portrays clients providing financial aid to patrons (Ant. Rom. 2.10-11),
his ideals cannot be understood as normative in antiquity.
39. Ancient parallels for this sort of exploitative, teacher-pupil relationship may be garnered from Dio
Chrysostom, who distinguishes himself from teachers merely seeking after money (Or. 35.1), Philo (Vit. Mos. II.212)
and Plato (Protagorus 313c-d; Men. 92A; Euthyd. 277B) who rail against Sophists hawking their teaching around like
sellers in the market square (cf. Dio, Or. 8.9; cf. Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.7), and Plutarch (Mor. 131a) who notes that
greed drives sophistic practices (cf. also Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement, 2526). Of course, not every teacher-pupil
relationship was exploitative in antiquity.
284
antiquity provided money, this still does not require us to view the Corinthians as attempting
to be patrons over Paul. Different spheres in society carry varying symbolic capital. In the
marketplace (), for instance, the person with money is superior and exhibits more power
than shopkeepers. In the gymnasium (), however, the teacher possessing advanced
educational qualifications clearly occupies the superior position over their pupils. In this
sphere, pupils give money to pay their teachers, but no one would affirm that, just because
they offer money, they therefore occupy the superior position. Obviously, the higher-value
symbolic capital varies from one social sphere to another. The relationship between the
Corinthians and the super apostles clearly involved education (cf. 11:4), and this would render
the former group inferior, paying pupils.
The community, therefore, knew their place in this relationship of gift and worth with
the super apostles, and it certainly was not over them. Instead, they acknowledged their
inferiority by willingly enduring an exploitative relationship and accrued status as a result. In
this sense, they operated more like dependent clients than despotic patrons,40 or more like a
paying pupil than a knowledgeable teacher. And this was the sort of relationship that they
desired with Paul. In the following section, it will be argued that this was partly why he refused
Corinthian aid. He did not want dependent clients or paying pupils. He wanted partners in the
40. Once again, we are not asserting that every patron-client bond was exploitative. We are only applying the
model to the exploitative relationship from Pauls perspective of 11:20.
285
gospel who recognised God as the supreme giver. Of course, we will have to support this
argument with a close exegesis of 2 Cor. 11:7-12 and 12:13-16a, wherein we will challenge the
patronal interpretation which attributes Pauls refusal to the Corinthians desire to become his
patron.
3. The Gift-Giving Relationship (or lack thereof) between Paul and the Corinthians
Why did Paul refuse the Corinthians gift? Although this question has been the topic of
perennial debate,41 we will attempt to contribute to the discussion by advancing two specific
reasons. The first is that Paul refused because the Corinthians suffered from a skewed practical
consciousness, being preoccupied with worldly status, which inculcated a misunderstanding
about the relational pattern of the divine economy. They therefore strove to become Pauls
inferior dependents, like a client to a patron or a pupil to a teacher. The second reason for
refusal, logically following the first, is that this pattern of thinking reveals a spiritual
immaturity on the Corinthians part (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-4), provoking Paul to insist on his refusal
until they exhibit an appropriate degree of maturity in the faith. What exactly that maturity
consists of will be discussed below. For now, we solely attend to 2 Cor. 11:7-12 and 12:13-16a to
provide a close reading of these texts and to offer an alternative to the long-standing patronal
interpretation in Pauline scholarship.
41. See Chapter 1.
286
3.1. Pauls Refusal of Corinthian Gifts
3.1.1. 2 Corinthians 11:7-12
A quick word on the flow of the argument of this text. Although some scholars affirm a
logical connection between 11:6b and 11:7, supposing the latter to be the grounds of the
former,42 we prefer to view the argument of the larger section as follows:
Chief Accusation Paul is inferior to the super apostles (11:5)

Pauls Concession to being Inferior in Speech (11:6)
Pauls Concession to being Inferior in Gift (11:7-12)
Pauls Response to Chief Accusation So-called Super Apostles are False Apostles
(11:13-15)
11:6b, then, ends the first concession and 11:7 picks up the second, which underlies
much of the discussion in 2 Cor. 11-12, namely, that Pauls refusal betrays his inferiority to the
false apostles, who evidently accepted financial support from Corinth (cf. 11:20). That said, we
now offer an exegesis of 11:7-12.
With introducing a rhetorical question in 11:7,43 Paul asks,
, ? Rather
than interpreting 44 literally as a breach of the apostolic norm of charismatic poverty,45
42. In this way, 11:7 supports the claim of the previous verse in that it demonstrates the genuine nature of the
gospel (i.e., ) through his humble refusal and their subsequent exaltation (Zmijewski, Narrenrede, 12425;
Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry, 14950).
43. BDAG, 432 (1d).
44. It only appears here and in 5:21.
287
or as an insult to the Corinthians status as a patron congregation,46 this strong term probably
reflects their animosity towards Pauls refusal of their gift. In Greco-Roman society, this was an
extremely offensive act that degraded ones status.47 But their status was not one of a patron
congregation, as Furnish affirms, but a client or dependent congregation. This is especially the
case since their gift of money does not, in and of itself, make them superior patrons over Paul,
and since their gift is a return for the initial gift of the gospel. If seen through the patron-client
rubric, this would position them as clients in the relationship.48 In this sense, just as a teachers
knowledge is worth more than a pupils finances, so, too, Pauls spiritual goods are of higher
value than their money, a symbolic capital differential that characterises the divine economy
(cf. Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11). Nevertheless, instead of accepting their offer and thereby
operating as a status-enhancing leader/patron/teacher to whom the Corinthians may attach
themselves as clients/pupils, Paul humbled himself ( ) by working a trade, a
low social position with little accompanying worth.49 And yet, his subjective purpose () of
self-abasement was, albeit counter-culturally, to exalt () the community.
45. Contra Theissen, Social Setting, 4246. Judging from 11:11, the offence seems much more personal (Thrall,
Second Epistle, 2:683).
46. Contra Furnish, II Corinthians, 508.
47. See Judge, Cultural Conformity, 16667; Marshall, Enmity, 24546.
48. To operate as a patron, one must be the initial giver, and must possess a higher status than the other
party, two requirements that the Corinthians obviously did not meet.
288
Unlike the magniloquent apostles, whose social standing brought social exaltation,
Pauls social lowering brought spiritual exaltation,50 an act which resounds with Christological
overtones, as Barrett notes. Paul lives in physical poverty, that his hearers may become
spiritually rich (cf. vi. 10; ix. 11; 1 Cor. i.5); there is no respect in which Paul could be more like
the Lord himself (viii. 9).51 This humiliation/exaltation pattern of ministry echoes his previous
claim in 1 Cor. 9:12. He would rather endure all things than place an before the gospel
of Christ, which, in order to materialise, must be preached free of charge (, 2 Cor. 11:7;
cf. , 1 Cor. 9:18). Contrary to the practices of itinerant philosophers and Sophists, who
charge for their teaching, Paul, the teacher, paid a sacrificial price to preach the gospel freely at
Corinth. Implicitly, then, he asks, How can this be ?52 The anticipated reply is, It
cannot be!
What emerges from this passage (and consistently reemerges throughout the rest of
11:7-12 and 12:13-16a) is a battle of rhetoric between Paul and the super apostles, fought on the
grounds of redefinition. On the one side of the battlefield are the Corinthians, who assume that
the super apostles exalt them, whereas Paul, on the other side, redefines their exaltation as a
degradation of worth. Conversely, Paul views his refusal as their exaltation, but the
50. Harris, Corinthians, 755; Windisch, Korintherbrief, 334; Plummer, Second Epistle, 303; pace Bultmann who
interprets as a material exaltation; that is, since Paul refuses their offer, they possess more money
(Corinthians, 207).
51. 2 Corinthians, 282.
52. The -clause of 11:7 provides the content of the alleged offence (Hans Lietzmann and W.G. Kmmel, An
die Korinther I/II [HNT 9; Mohr Siebeck: Tbingen, 1969], 146).
289
community, being influenced by the super apostles, interpret this supposed exaltation as a
denigration of worth and even an act of sin (). Since Paul most likely anticipated this
sort of reaction on account of his refusal, being attuned to the cultural norms of gift-giving in
society,53 the question becomes: why did he deem it necessary to preach the gospel ?
A clue is provided in the emphatic juxtaposition of the words
, which Plummers translation sharply captures, Gods Gospel, that most precious
thing,for nothing!54 As we argued in the previous chapter,55 Paul longs for the Corinthians to
acknowledge the divine third party in the mediation of in the gospel. Their
gift-giving relationship is therefore triangulated, not merely a bilateral exchange, as the
Corinthians would have it. And, as will be argued in the course of this chapter, until they
recognise God as the giver of , and thus the one who deserves the return, Paul will
continue to refuse support from the community. What this tells us about their spiritual state,
particularly in light of the apostles insistence to abstain from accepting aid in the future and
distorting the gospel (cf. 11:9, 12; 12:14), will be explored later. For the moment, we simply
53. This may be supported by the common terminology that he employs in Phil. 4:
(4:15); (4:17); (4:18).
54. Second Epistle, 303; authors italics.
55. See sections 3.2.1 and 4.3.1.
290
note the important stress that he places on the divine origin of his gift to the Corinthians. It is,
he writes, Gods gospel ( )!56
Having underscored the divine origin of the gift, we can now comprehend the meaning
of . When interpreting this term, scholars generally reason that since Gods pure gift
of to humanity is unilateral, given without any thought of or need for a return,57 then
Paul, as a mediator of Gods gift, must replicate this divine pattern of giving.58 He therefore
proclaims the gospel free of charge, with no strings attached and without a trace of self-
interest. Thus, the gift from God through Paul to Corinthians is one-way, largely because God is
self-sufficient and does not need a return from humanity. In 11:7, then, Paul is basically saying
that he himself gives without requiring a return. But is this true? Does Paul give without
seeking anything in return, and does this reveal the unilateral flow of divine gifts?
56. For the emphasis on divine ownership of the gospel, see 1 Thess. 2:2, 4, 8, 9, 13.
57. But this idea is not a modern novelty. Many ancient philosophers explain the unilateral nature of divine
giving by insisting that humanity does not possess anything that God needs. So, for instance, Philo states that
God distributes his good things, not like a seller vending his wares at a high price, but he is inclined to make
presents of everything, pouring forth the inexhaustible fountains of his graces, and never desiring any return
[ ]; for he has no need of anything [ ], nor is there any created being
competent to give him a suitable gift in return (Cher. 123). In the same vein, Seneca insists that God bestows upon
us very many and very great benefits, with no thought of any return [sine spe recipiendi], since he has no need of
having anything bestowed, nor are we capable of bestowing anything on him (Ben. 4.9.1; cf. 3.15.4; 4.3.2-3; 4.25.3).
And yet, even though these philosophers are adamant about God not requiring a material return, they
nevertheless equally affirm that God seeks a return of spiritual or immaterial value. For Philo, it is bringing forth
virtue () and offering faith () through intellectual contemplation of God () (Cher. 84-85), while, for
Seneca, it is gratitude (5.17.7; cf. 2.29.1-3) and indebtedness to God(s) (4.6.1-6), which assumes the shape of a
devoted life (4.4.1-3). Consequently, far from Philo and Seneca affirming the modern myth of the pure gift, they
equally maintain that God requires an immaterial rather than material return.
58. See, for example, Gardner, Gifts of God, 84.
291
Evidence from the text suggests that the answer must be a resounding no. In 12:14, a
text that we will closely examine later, Paul explicitly asserts that he seeks a return:
. He also implicitly longs for the return of their love:
, (12:15)? He does not seek a material return but an immaterial (or
spiritual) return. It is, as we will show, a return of commitment to the gospel, loyalty to Paul,
and obedience to God in Christ. In a word, it is the spiritual return of their lives (i.e.,
, 12:15). Paul therefore mediated the gospel with this expectation of a return in
view, which, if interpreted through the framework of gift-exchange, amounts to a self-interested
gift. Of course, self-interest, for Paul, is always self- and other-interest.59 Nevertheless, to assume
that he anticipates no return whatsoever is to be utterly mistaken. He seeks a spiritual, not
material, return, at least when initially entering into a city, and this is what Paul means by
preaching the gospel . From this, we may also reason that God does not require a
material return, but he certainly expects spiritual commitment, loyalty, thanksgiving, praise,
honour, and glory (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:11; 4:15; 9:12-13, 15).60 But since this claim requires more
support than can be allotted in this thesis, we simply conclude that Paul, in 11:7, emphasises
59. See Chapter 3, section 4.3.2.2.2.

60. Investigating divine-human patterns of giving merits an entire monograph, so we will not prepare a
defence for this position. We are mainly concerned here with Gods role in Pauls financial policy among his
churches, though we recognise that human interactions carry massive implications for divine-human
relationships of gift, an interesting exploration that we hope to undertake in the future.
292
the divine origin of the gospel, and that does not necessarily imply a gift without a
return of any sort.
That said, we move to 11:8, where Paul turns to dispel Corinthian suspicions regarding
his missionary activity of Gods gospel and money:
. According to Furnish, the manner of expression here portrays Paul,
the one who rejected the gift of would-be patrons, as responding to the accusation that he
became the client of other churches.61 So, somewhat pejoratively, he writes that he did not
receive benefaction but plundered () others, receiving a wage ( )62 from
them.63 This is nevertheless an argumentum ex silentio. The context favours a reading that
interprets this verse as an accusation levelled against his inconsistent, perhaps even deceitful
(cf. 12:16), behaviour.64 He refused Corinthian support but accepted gifts from other churches
61. II Corinthians, 484, 492, 508, followed by Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:684.
62. Dungan argues that the Philippians support occurred frequently enough to be considered a salary
(Sayings, 29), whereas Hock, relying on Caragounis (), asserts that neither the word nor
(Phil. 4:17) imply, what we would term, a salary. Instead, it should be considered occasional aid in addition to his
work (Social Context, 50, 92 n1 and 2, emphasising the of 11:9). However, having shown
Caragounis argument, and thus Hocks, to be lacking (see Chapter 4, section 4.3.1 n182), and sensing an
anachronistic imposition of modern categories by Dungan, it seems best to affirm an ongoing exchange as
indicated by the phrase in Phil. 4:15 that is not enforced by necessity
but upheld by volition.
63. is clearly hyperbolic, but is less likely to be so, given that Paul uncritically mentions other
apostles in 1 Cor. 9, who, like a soldier, receive an in return for their labours (9:7), and that he himself
shares this right (9:12, 15, 18). The ironical emphasis seems to fall mainly on .
64. Plummer is incorrect to think that accusing Paul of duplicity would have marred their [i.e., the
opponents] argument, largely because his crime was that he declined to be treated as other Apostles were
treated, and to have mentioned the subsidies sent by the Philippians would have lessened the crime (Phil. iv. 15)
(Second Epistle, 303). But neither the Corinthians nor the opponents had to be reminded that he was an apostle.
293
and the brothers from Macedonia ( , 11:9b), which raises a
critical question regarding his financial policy at Philippi and Corinth that requires further
discussion.
If Paul accepted support from other churches ( ), how could he tell the
Philippians that, after he departed from Macedonia, they were the only church with whom he
entered into a partnership of giving and receiving (cf. , Phil. 4:15)? Many
scholars accuse Paul of being inconsistent here,65 but investigating two issues will show that
the discussion is much more complex than many assume. The first is the identity of these
. Three primary options exist. Plummer thinks that the phrase might be a
generalisation or a rhetorical ploy.66 Alternatively, Furnish and Peterman suggest that there
were house congregations in Philippi,67 even though no supporting evidence has emerged.68
Lastly, Thrall posits that these other churches are Thessalonica and Beroea (cf. Acts 16:11-
17:15), who, in addition to Philippi, assisted Paul with travels funds that also provided for the
first few days of residence at Corinth. This, she argues, mitigates the tension by explaining it as
After all, he founded the church in Corinth. Recalling a well-known, seemingly inconsistent practice, therefore,
would have greatly benefitted their argument against Pauls apostleship.
65. E.g., Marshall, Enmity, 25577; John H. Schtz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1975), 235 n1; Jouette Bassler, God & Mammon: Asking for Money in the New Testament
(Nashville, KY: Abingdon Press, 1991), 64, 75.
66. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (CGT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1903), 167.
67. II Corinthians, 492; Gift Exchange, 146 n134, respectively.
68. Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:685.
294
follows. When writing to Corinth, Paul has in mind leftover travel funds, which served the
same function as receiving a wage. When writing to Philippi, however, he has a formal, gift-
giving relationship in view, not one that only covers travel expenses.69 This intriguing theory
may quite possibly explain the inconsistency of Pauls statements to both communities, but it
draws too strong a distinction between, what we call, -support (i.e., monetary aid for
journeys; cf. 1 Cor. 16:6; 2 Cor. 1:16) and a distinct, gift-giving relationship.
While none of these theories are entirely satisfying, it would be unfair to accuse Paul of
acting inconsistently merely on the basis of the plural phrases and
in 12:13, especially when there could well have been multiple house churches in
Philippi. Though this argument is unverifiable, it seems to us most probable.
The second issue is the nature of -support. If Paul preaches the gospel freely
at Corinth, both during his initial and future visits (11:9, 12; 12:13-14), then how do we account
for passages which suggest that he accepted provisions or money from the Corinthians for
missionary journeys?
,
(1 Cor. 16:6; cf. also 16:11).

(2 Cor. 1:16).
69. Second Epistle, 2:68586; cf. also Harris, Corinthians, 75758; Martin, 2 Corinthians, 34647.
295
The verb is generally acknowledged to be a technical missionary term70 and
carries two possible meanings, either (i) to conduct someone who has a destination in mind,
accompany, escort, or (ii) to assist someone in making a journey, send on ones way with food,
money, by arranging for companions, means of travel, etc.71 Yet the difficulty lies in which
definition applies to 1 Cor. 16:6 and 2 Cor. 1:16 specifically.
Those who adopt definition (i) argue that no funds or provisions were involved. Paul
simply wants the Corinthians to accompany him when he departs,72 perhaps to bestow nothing
more than good wishes and prayers.73 In light of the fact that the definition to escort fits the
contexts of 1 Cor. 16:6 and 2 Cor. 1:16, this is a plausible option. However, the majority of
scholars opt for definition (ii), insisting that he expected the community to pay for travel
expenses necessary to mount an expedition.74 Despite the unconvincing attempts to furnish
70. See Dieter Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Rmerbrief (Stuttgart: Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), 70f; Abraham Malherbe, The Inhospitality of Diotrephes, in Gods Christ and His
People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (ed. Jacob and Meeks Jervell Wayne A; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,
1977), 22232 at 223; cf. also C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (2 Vols., ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975
79), 2:769; Peter Mller, Grundlinien paulinischer Theologie (Rm 15, 1433), KD 35 (1989): 21235 at 222.
71. BDAG, 873-74. In addition to 1 Cor. 16:6, 11 and 2 Cor. 1:16, also occurs in Acts 15:3; 20:38; 21:5;
Rom. 15:24; Tit 3:13; and 3 Jn. 6. For the variant meanings of outside of Paul, see John P. Dickson,
Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities (WUNT 2/159; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003), 19496.
72. Wolf-Henning Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen
Mission (WMANT 58; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 124.
73. Robertson and Plummer, I Corinthians, 388; cf. also Barnett, The Second Epistle, 101 n10; W. Sanday and A.C.
Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (2nd Edition, ICC; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1896), 411.
74. See Holmberg, Paul and Power, 86; Furnish, II Corinthians, 13334; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 197201.
296
textual arguments for this position,75 the Christian development of , as explicitly
entailing the provision of material possessions,76 adds weight to this construal. But the tension
still remains. Paul simultaneously refuses and accepts finances from Corinth, so how can that
be consistent?
There are a couple of ways to respond to this query. One is to assert that -
support only consists of company, not material resources option (i) above. While this is
possible, it is almost certainly not correct. The other is to affirm a categorical distinction
between financial support and an undefined, one-off, variable expense for travel necessities.77
Yet the evidence does not necessarily lend itself to this sort of dichotomy. The grammatical
tone of 1 Cor. 16:6 and 2 Cor. 1:16 implies an expectation that Corinth will pay for his travel
expenditures, which would be strange if it were a one-off gift. The most convincing response,
then, is to assume a qualitative difference between monetary aid and -support.78 For
75. Peterman, for instance, avers that, if Paul meant to be escorted, then why would he, in 1 Cor. 16:6, be
unclear about his final destination by employing the indefinite final clause (Gift Exchange, 165)?
But this can easily be explained by the fact that escorts would not have accompanied Paul throughout the entire
journey, so there would be no need to inform them. Or, this clause may just be an admission to the variable nature
of travelling.
76. Cf. 1 Macc. 12:4; 1 Esdr. 4:47; Acts 15:3; Tit. 3:13; 3 Jn. 6.
77. Nevertheless, Seneca explains the complexity of estimating the value of one gift, such as -
support, over another. Who will decree that benefits of one sort counterbalance benefits of another? I gave you
a house, you say. Yes, but I warned you that yours was tumbling down upon your head! I gave you a fortune,
you say. Yes, but I gave you a plank when you were shipwrecked! . . . Since benefits may be given in one form and
repayed in another, it is difficult to establish their equality (Ben. 3.9.3).
78. Peterman also promotes this view but on different grounds. He emphasises a qualitative difference on the
basis of Pauls claim never to have burdened the community (2 Cor. 11:9; 12:1), and then logically (and rightly)
297
it would have been bizarre, especially from the Corinthians perspective, if Paul had not drawn
a sharp distinction between the two in practice, particularly since accepting a service would
have looked identical to accepting a gift, at least on a superficial level. Furthermore, it is telling
that the mention of paying for a one-off expense never enters the discussion of 11:7-12 and
12:13-16a. Surely, if any accusation of inconsistency regarding money were to be raised by the
community or the super apostles, it would have been this one. The fact that Paul does not
attempt to absolve himself from this accusation actually speaks in favour of a qualitative
difference between the two, a monetary demarcation which must have been clear to Paul and
the Corinthians but is now lost to us.
Although this conclusion is built primarily on the silence of the text, the arguments
above lead us to adopt this approach to the quandary of Pauline inconsistency. Admittedly, we
cannot be absolutely certain on this matter, but even if this argument does not completely
liberate Paul from the indictment of inconsistency, then at least the complexity of this
dilemma may be appreciated and may prohibit hasty conclusions.
Moving ahead to 11:9, Paul mentions the result79 of being funded by other churches
while ministering at Corinth:
deduces that the veracity of this assertion can only be maintained if travel expenses did not cause him to become
a burden (Gift Exchange, 165).
79. The initial of 11:9a can be translated either in addition to, moreover or so that, that is. If one adopts
the former, a separate gift is being referred to when he recalls how the Macedonians supplied ()
298
80
,
.
The apostles manner of living among them is completely in step with his specific policy
never to accept support during the initial preaching of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 9; 1 Thess. 2), since
the Macedonians supplied () for Pauls material lack (),81 preventing
him from becoming a burden ()82 to anyone at Corinth. But what does it mean to
become a burden?
To the majority, becoming a burden is equivalent to becoming a client or social
dependent. Hock, for instance, maintains that if Paul had accepted the patronage of a
householder as a resident teacher or intellectual, which included room and board and other
gifts amounting to a salary, he would have imposed a burden on the Corinthians.83 Furnish
similarly insists that Paul, by employing , asserts his desire to be independent of
for his material need () during his initial stay at Corinth (11:9b; cf. Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:685); if the
latter, the same gift is in view in both 11:8 and 9a-b (cf. Pratscher, Verzicht, 289). But since 11:7 and 11:9 refer to
Pauls initial ministry in Corinth, it seems unlikely that 11:8 would refer to a time before arriving there (pace
Harris, Corinthians, 759). It should therefore be considered the same gift.
80. Zmijewski is probably right to interpret this participle as an ingressive aorist (Narrenrede, 133).
81. The verb , Hock suggests, means that the Macedonian aid was only something that filled
Pauls needs in addition to his work. . .. Paul continued to work, even when he received occasional support (Social
Context, 93 n2; cf. Plummer, Second Epistle, 305). But this should not completely rule out the rendering, fully
supply, nor should we think that Paul never received enough pay to stop working for a time.
82. , as a parallel of , occurs twice in 12:13-14 and carries the meaning of numbing by
applying pressure (Gen. 32:25-33 [LXX]) and thus to impose a burden (Martin, 2 Corinthians, 347).
83. Social Context, 30.
299
anyones patronage.84 Peterman further fleshes this out, stating that reflects a
resolution on [Pauls] part not to contract social obligations with the Corinthians through
money,85 and that he is making a veiled reference to his desire to avoid social dependence.86
However prevalent this interpretation of may be, the reasoning behind it is
questionable in view of the following counterpoints. First, if we are correct in arguing that
Pauls specific policy of initially refusing support stems, at least in part, from the practices of
itinerant philosophers and Sophists,87 primarily because he is providing communities with the
initial gift of Gods gospel, then the apostle here probably attaches an active rather than
passive sense to and its cognates. That is, he refrains from imposing a financial burden
by not charging fees for his teaching rather than by not depending on their finances.88 In support
of this claim is the statement made about preaching the gospel free of charge (, 11:7).
He gives them Gods gift without requiring a material return.89 This sounds more like a person
84. II Corinthians, 508.

87. Verbal and conceptual parallels between 2 Cor. 11-12 and 1 Cor. 9 & 1 Thess. 2 validate this connection: (i)
(1 Cor. 9:18) and (11:7); (ii) (1 Thess. 2:9) and / (2 Cor. 11:9; 12:13-
14); and (iii) alternative models of teaching ministry, with exploitative and greedy intentions (1 Thess. 2:1-6 and 2
Cor. 11:20).
88. The context demonstrates that , as with (12:16) and (1 Thess. 2:9), refers to
imposing a financial charge (cf. John Strelan, Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-Examination of
Galatians 6:2, JBL 94 [1975]: 26676 at 268-70), though it does not always carry this meaning (cf. 2 Cor. 1:8; 2:5;
4:17; 5:4). We nevertheless reject Dungans assumption that Paul refuses to receive support because the
Corinthians belonged to the urban poor (Sayings, 3031; cf. also Chapter 1, section 1.2).
89. For primary sources on the sophistic practice of charging fees, see Winter, Sophists, 9597, 164; idem,
Orators, 6061.
300
rejecting the clientage (or something analogous to it) rather than the patronage of others.
Second, since their money is a return for the initial gift of the gospel a material-for-spiritual
exchange90 Paul would not be a social dependent, as Peterman affirms. He would indeed be
in debt to them, like anyone else in antiquity who accepted a gift, but he would not necessarily
be a social dependent.91 We need to recall that he supplied them with the first gift, and that
giving a return would not have made the Corinthians a patron, nor would it have made Paul a
social dependent. To be sure, accepting their gift would have placed him in debt, just as
accepting his gift would have placed them in debt. But Paul condones mutual dependency, a
fluctuating disequilibrium of gift and debt, which we have already seen in his gift-giving
relationship with the Philippians. It is therefore wrong to assume, as Peterman does, that Paul
eradicates social dependency and mutual obligation from the economy of . He does
nothing of the sort. Instead, he longs to be bound with his churches in the mutual ties of giving
and receiving (cf. Phil. 4:15). Finally, if means refusing to become the Corinthians
social dependent, how would that be a burden to the Corinthians, since they are the ones
offering? All of these reasons lead us to conclude that if Paul avoids anything at Corinth, it is
90. Paul blurs the lines between material and spiritual possessions and assumes that a spiritual gift deserves a
material counter-gift. 1 Cor. 9:11 supports this point: If we have sown spiritual things [ ]
among you, is it too much if we reap material things [ ] from you? Three verses later, he
even appeals to a saying of Jesus for further support:
(9:14).
91. Peterman does not make this distinction because, for him, Paul eradicates obligation from characterising
gift-exchange relationships in Christ, a conclusion that we strongly disagreed with in Chapter 3, section 4.3.2.
301
burdening them by charging fees for the gospel and thereby permitting them to become his
social dependents. Instead, he longs for them to be dependent entirely on God, the giver of the
gift of , not on him as the broker of divine commodity.
The shock of 11:9 nevertheless comes from what follows. Not only does Paul keep
himself () from accepting support during an initial visit, but here he lengthens the
terms of his temporary fiscal policy into a continual practice in the future, and I will keep myself
[from accepting aid] (). To get the point across, he emphatically restates this policy in
11:12 ( , ) and 12:13-14 ( . . . ), going so far
as to say that this decision has become a cause of boasting () throughout the regions
of Achaia (11:10). From the Corinthians viewpoint, this may appear to be a deliberate affront
to their relationship, even a lack of love. But sensing this likely response, Paul asks, For what
reason [will I continue to refuse support]? Because I do not love you? ( ;
;). To which he replies by appealing to divine omniscience, God knows that I do (
, 11:12). Although the apostles policy to refuse now and in the future, and its
interconnection with his , will be dealt with more comprehensively in a later
section,92 the implicit accusation that he does not love the Corinthians whether from some
Corinthians, the super apostles, or both requires that we examine the parallel text of 12:13-
16a, where the major theme is that of love.
92. See section 3.2 below.
302
3.1.2. 2 Corinthians 12:13-16a
This section concludes the fools speech of 11:18-12:10 and provides a further reason93
for why Paul should have been commended by the Corinthians rather than being deemed
inferior to the super apostles (12:11):94 he refused their monetary aid out of an earnest love for
them. And yet, the super apostles probably construed his refusal as evidence of his apostolic
illegitimacy,95 to which the Corinthians, being corrupted in their practical consciousness by
the dominant culture, agreed with their erroneous assessment based on worldly criteria. As
already noted, refusing a gift was a sign of social enmity in ancient society,96 largely because it
was a direct attack on a persons honour, status, and worth.97 Yet a different set of criteria
governs the apostles lifestyle and decisions, and it is his prerogative to reform the
communitys interpretation of his decision to refuse Corinthian gifts.
He begins this endeavour with a question,
, (12:13a)? Like the rhetorical tactic of
93. On the first reason, that of the (12:12), see C.K. Barrett, The Signs of an
Apostle: The Cato Lecture, 1969 (London: Epworth, 1970).
94. Though some perceive a continuation of his discussion in 12:12, given that 12:13 begins with a (cf.
Martin, 2 Corinthians, 438; Harris, Corinthians, 878), it seems to make little difference. Either way, Paul defends his
apostolic legitimacy.
97. What this is all about, writes Witherington concerning the power struggles between Paul, the Corinthians,
and the rival apostles, is a struggle for status, power, and control (Conflict & Community, 457). Only instead of
viewing the Corinthians as striving to become the superior party, as Witherington does, it makes more sense to
view them as inferior dependents straining for honour and status by attaching themselves to influential leaders.
303
11:7, this question operates as a reductio ad absurdum argument.98 How can they feel socially
inferior () to other churches,99 perhaps even doubt their own status as a genuine
apostolic church,100 solely because Paul did not squeeze money out of them like the rivals
apostles? Forgive me this wrong! ( ), he ironically
exclaims.101 The biting sarcasm102 of this statement is meant to unveil the ludicrous nature of
their accusation. Contrary to what the Corinthians think, this policy represents a selfless,
other-oriented decision to endure hardship for the sake of their spiritual exaltation (cf. ,
11:7). This ought to have validated rather than cast doubt on his apostolic legitimacy. Out of
sheer love, he does what is best for them, even though they did not acknowledge it as such.
98. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 398.

99. These other churches are not, as Thrall suggests, under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem apostles and rival
missionaries in Corinth (Second Epistle, 2:84142). Contrary to what she assumes, the phrase does not
require this already dubious reconstruction. The emphasis simply serves to distinguish himself from the super
apostles.
100. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 397. Less likely is Martins proposal that the Corinthians felt inferior because
they believed Paul had cheated them out of their full charismatic inheritance (2 Corinthians, 438, following Georgi,
Die Gegner, 237).
101. As with the use of in 11:7, his refusal was considered offensive (). But we should not think,
like Lars Aejmelaeus does, that the rhetorical context in which these terms are couched imply the opposite of
what is said. Aejmelaeus argues that if the irony of 2 Cor. 10-13 is taken into consideration, one can clearly see
that Paul was not accused of refusing support from Corinth (The Question of Salary in the Conflict Between Paul
and the Super Apostles in Corinth, in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Essays in Honour of Heikki
Risnen [ed. Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni; Leiden: Brill, 2002], 34376). Yet this
argument rests wholly on a pessimistic view of Pauls rhetoric, as if no truth can be communicated through
hyperbolic statements. More importantly, however, the onus rests on Aejmelaeus to explain why Paul would
create an offence that did not exist, a ludicrous act that would only have further enhanced the Corinthians
loyalty to the super apostles.
102. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 323.
304
The earnest love that drives this inflexible policy at Corinth appears lucidly in 12:14.103
After explaining that he will continue to refuse their money during his forthcoming visit (
, 12:14a), he provides the reason: .
. Unlike the super apostles, and
rapacious Sophists for that matter, Paul desires the Corinthians themselves, not their money.104
To prove this, he employs a gnomic statement about family life (12:14c).105 He is the parent
(), presumably alluding to his role as their father,106 while they are his children
().107 He is therefore obligated () to store up () for them.108 But what
precisely does Paul wish to convey through the parent-child metaphor?
103. As Martin notes, Sometimes the severity that is found in chaps. 10-13 keeps us from seeing the tender
heart Paul has for the Corinthians, so noteworthy in 6:11-13; 7:2-4 (2 Corinthians, 441).
104. Windisch cites a striking parallel in Ciceros Fin. 2.26.85, Me igitur ipsum ames oportet non mea, si veri
amici futuri sumus (Korintherbrief, 399), which parallels Pauls relationship with his churches. What is true of his
gift-giving relationship with the Philippians is true here. He can do without the Corinthians material gifts, but he
cannot do without them.
105. If the lex naturae of this verse is taken literally, then Paul would have to refuse money from all of his
churches. Since this is obviously not the case (cf. 11:8-9), it seems better to interpret it as a general truth, a
proverb which is applicable in certain cases (as here) but not as a universal truth, binding at all times (Bultmann,
Second Corinthians, 233).
106. Especially since his apostolic legitimacy is under suspicion (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14-15; 2 Cor. 11:2; 6:13).
107. Although we will argue later that the Corinthians were indeed spiritually immature in their faith, and
this, in some respects, governed Pauls decision to refuse support, the term here ought not to be
understood as synonymous with in 1 Cor. 3:1-2 (pace James Scott, 2 Corinthians [NIBC; Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1998], 24344).
108. Cf. Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.245. It could be that Paul has, in some sense, provided them money by not taking any
from them. But, as will become apparent in 12:15, he lifts the discussion to a more spiritual level (Martin, 2
Corinthians, 441). Also, it should be noted that the negation (. . .) is not universally binding. By
considering 12:14c a proverbial saying, it may be concluded that Paul does not mean that children are under no
obligation to support their parents (Plummer, Second Epistle, 362). This sort of relational dynamic appears in the
mutual dependence of Paul and the Philippians (cf. Chapter 3, section 4).
305
Advocates of the patronal interpretation claim that Paul uses parental imagery to
assert his superiority as their father (i.e., patron) over and against their intentions to become
his patron. Marshall, for instance, appeals to Aristotle109 and Seneca110 in order to demonstrate
that parents were always depicted as generous benefactors and the children as loving
recipients.111 Peterman also maintains that Paul took very seriously his role as a spiritual
parent to his converts. As such he was their benefactor and could require a return on his
affection for them.112 Paul, according to Craig Keener, argues that he is no mere household
sage, but instead the congregations spiritual patron and father.113 And Barnett avers that Paul
was their father-provider (v. 14; cf. 11:2; 6:13), who will spend himself for them (v. 15), not
their client, to be patronized in the conventions of that culture; it was important to follow
the appropriate pattern.114 With these scholars, we agree that the father-child relationship
certainly entailed inequality, the child being perpetually in the fathers debt for the gift of
life.115 Even so, we strongly disagree with the underlying assumption of their argument, that
Pauls fatherly role was analogous to the role of a patron. This interpretive move defies logic.
As a syllogism, the patronal argument runs as follows:
109. Nic. Eth. 8.14.4.

110. Ben. 2.11.5; 3.1.5; 3.11.2; 3.29.1-38.3; 5.5.2; 6.24.1-2.
111. Enmity, 248.
113. 12 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 242.
114. The Second Epistle, 583; cf. also Witherington, Conflict & Community, 418.
115. See Chapter 2, section 1.2.3.
306
P1 Ancient examples present the father as the source of the childs life and thus the
one to whom the child is indebted as his/her patron or benefactor.
P2 Paul presents himself as a parent (i.e., father) who stores up treasure for his
children, the Corinthians.
Proposition Paul is therefore the Corinthians patron and not vice versa.
But a glaring problem stands out. When comparing ancient sources to the context of
the metaphor in 12:14, one quickly realises that although a father in antiquity functioned as a
patron over his children, Pauls use of this paternal metaphor suggests nothing of the sort. If a
metaphor is primarily determined by the context in which it is employed,116 then what is
relevant in 12:14 is not patronage even if some ancient texts use it that way but his
parental and obligatory () responsibilities for them and not vice versa. The patronal
interpretation, therefore, overextends the metaphor, stretching it far beyond Pauls purposes
in 12:13-16, which centres on his sacrificial lifestyle on behalf of his children. This
interpretation of the paternal imagery, as we will see, is confirmed by the rest of the section.
With an incessant, self-emptying love for the spiritual well-being of his children, Paul
declares in 12:15a, . The
postpositive denotes a consequence (so) or an explanation (for) rather than an negative
contrast (but),117 and the emphatic may denote a deliberate contrast with the status and
116. Contextual coherence, according to Nijay Gupta, is one of three important principles for determining the
source domain of a metaphor, the others being analogy and exposure (Towards a Set of Principles for
Identifying and Interpreting Metaphors in Paul: Romans 5:2 [] as a Test Case, ResQ 51 [2009]: 16981 at
174).
117. Cf. Harris, Corinthians, 885; pace Plummer, Second Epistle, 363.
307
practice of the super apostles,118 though we cannot be certain that they are in view.119 In any
case, Paul advances his self-sacrificial ministry, lived out before them since the founding visit
(irrespective of the future tense),120 which promotes the general truth of the father-child
relationship in 12:14. His point is not, I am the patron in this relationship! But, Just as a father
willingly commits his life to raising his child, so, too, I will gladly spend () and expend
() myself for your growth in the faith.121 The use of and ,122
intentionally corresponding to the adjective in 1 Cor. 9:18 and (less explicitly) to
in 11:7, heightens his mode of ministry among them. He preached and will continue to
preach free of charge, insofar as he willingly spends all that he has his strength, his health,
his status, his reputation, and his emotions. He does not charge fees like the Sophists, an
accusation which probably underlies 12:16b.123 Rather, just as Christ died on behalf of
118. Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:846 n579.

119. The same can be said of the phrase in 12:15b, understood as the apostle loving the
community more than the opponents. For more on this issue, see n127 below.
120. As Harris confirms, He is not instituting a new policy that would take effect when he arrived on his third
visit. Rather, he is reaffirming, with regard to that visit, what had always been true of his service to the
Corinthians (Corinthians, 886).
121. This is suggested by his statement in 12:19 that he does all things on behalf of their edification (
; note also the parallel phrase, , in 12:15). This edifying ministry is also described in
13:10 and, as we will argue later, conceptually appears in 10:15-16.
122. Windisch differentiates between the two terms, insisting that the former refers to Paul taking financial
responsibility for himself and the latter to a complete self-sacrifice (Korintherbrief, 400). However, it is preferable,
with Barrett, to interpret both terms as synonymous, involving monetary sacrifice and the cost of time, energy,
and love (Second Epistle, 324), with adding a perfective force to the grammatical construction (Thrall, Second
Epistle, 2:847).
123. Winter, Sophists, 21821. The phrase in 12:16 also appears in 1 Thess. 2:3, where many scholars
argue that Paul battles the antithetical model of Sophists, who overprice their teaching out of love for money.
308
humanity, so, too, Paul voluntarily pays the price with his life on behalf of the Corinthians
souls ( ; cf. Phil. 2:17). This Christ-shaped love is not only an answer to
the question of 11:11 but also tangibly embodies the gospel of . In this sense, he carries
around the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may appear in them (4:10). Thus, he later
reminds the community that death is at work in us, but life in you (4:12). And all of his
suffering is on behalf of ( ) their ultimate salvation, the building up of their
obedience of faith until that final day (cf. 10:6, 8; 12:19; 13:5).
After communicating the extent of his self-sacrificial, other-oriented love, he asks,
, (12:15b)?124 Once again, he repeats a claim that
pervades 11:7-12 and 12:13-16a. His refusal of support was an act of love because it was more
advantageous for them.125 Unconvinced, the Corinthians persist in viewing his refusal as a
depreciation of their status, being treated as inferior () to other churches (12:13).126
So, in retaliation, they love him less (). They refuse to reciprocate this so-called love,
124. On the complex textual issues of this verse, see Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:84849.
125. Marshall approvingly cites Seneca (Ben. 2.21.3) and Cicero (Fam. 5.9.1; 13.76; Att. 3.21), who allow for
refusal where accepting a benefit may result in some harm to the giver. He concludes, Paul should have been able
to expect the Corinthians to accept his refusal in terms of his not being a burden to them, as a sign of his love and
concern for them (Enmity, 24445).
126. Windisch surmises that Paul has other churches in mind when employing (more),
translated more than other churches (Korintherbrief, 401), though this rendering, according to Plummer, requires
to be emphatic (Second Epistle, 363). Others envisage the super apostles here, translated more than others do
(Lietzmann and Kmmel, Korinther I/II, 158). But this necessitates the addition of (Bultmann, Corinthians, 236
37). The preferable option is to avoid a comparison and interpret with (more. . .less), since
it is difficult to discern whether the super apostles are in view (Martin, 2 Corinthians, 444).
309
and instead bind themselves to the super apostles, who happily receive their monetary gifts
and so enhance the status and worth that Paul depreciated. Like a defiant child disciplined by a
loving parent, the Corinthians immaturity prevents them from seeing beyond the initial sting
of Pauls refusal.
3.1.3. Summary
We can now come back to the question that we began with, Why did Paul refuse the
Corinthians gifts? The conventional answer in Pauline studies has been to say that the
Corinthians attempted to become Pauls patron. But after analysing the sort of gift-giving
relationship that the community had with the super apostles, in which they clearly operated
as inferior dependents within this exploitative, yet status-enhancing, bond,127 we doubt the
veracity of this prevalent claim. Since the community functioned like clients or paying pupils
with the opponents, it is highly likely given that they transferred their allegiance and their
finances from him to the rival missionaries that they tried to enact this sort of two-way
relationship with Paul. They therefore desired to become inferior dependents of Paul as their
superior leader, and not the other way around. They attempted to give him a return, to be
dependent on him as the source of his gift of the gospel, and, in so doing, neglected God as the
essential third party. Their fascination with social worth, accrued through two-way, gift-giving
relationships, blinded them from seeing the three-way relational pattern of the divine
310
economy. Thus, Pauls specific policy never to accept during initial visits, a policy meant to
highlight God as the source of the gospel in 1 Cor. 9 and 1 Thess. 2, was lengthened into the
unforeseeable future. And his refusal was meant to rebuff their clientage and to demean
himself still further by working a low-grade trade (, 11:7; cf. 1 Cor. 4:12), as he
continued receiving support from others (11:8-9). But there is another side to this refusal, one
which only arises from an investigation of the nature and significance of Pauls boast regarding
his abstention from Corinthian aid.
3.2. Pauls Never to accept Corinthian Gifts
What became a matter of sin (11:9) and injustice (12:13) for the Corinthians became a
matter of boasting for Paul. He adamantly declares that he rejected their gifts in the past and
will continue to do so in the future (cf. . . ., 11:9; . . ., 11:12;
. . . , 12:13-14), and that this will be his cause of boasting
() throughout the regions of Achaia (11:10). In these verses, his indefinite refusal, on
the one hand, and his geographic boast, on the other, are interconnected. In order to make
sense of them, we need to examine each separately before ascertaining how they conjointly
illumine Pauls decision to deny the Corinthians offer.
311
3.2.1. The Indefinite Refusal of Support Permanent or Contingent?
Scholars are divided over the nature of Pauls negative statements concerning the
acceptance of future gifts in 11:9, 12 and 12:13-14. Two primary positions have been
propounded. The first is that the strong expressions communicate a permanent decision. Put
simply, Paul means what he says. He will never accept Corinthian gifts. Support for this
position is garnered from the future tenses of , , and (11:9, 12;
12:14),128 as well as the negation before the future verb (11:10),129 both of which
are interpreted as absolute. No matter what takes place in the future, he will never change his
mind, nor will his boast ever cease.
The other position views the apostles concrete language as hyperbolic and thus
contingent. In other words, he exaggerates in order to elicit a change of behaviour at Corinth.
Until that happens, he will never (in an exaggerated sense) accept their gifts. Consequently,
rather than seeing 11:10 as a distinct oath-formula, it is interpreted as an emphatic declaration
128. Windisch is representative of this view. He argues, Noch einmal betont er 9c, dass er von Kor. niemals
eine Steuer verlangt hat. Schon . . . sagt mehr als , es bezieht sich auf den
ganzen Aufenthalt, nicht bloss auf den Moment, wo zum ersten Mal der Mangel eintrat. Mit gibt er
seiner Haltung Kor. gegenber eine Ausdehnung bis in alle Zukunft; niemals, meint er, werde ich euch mit
Untersttzungsgesuchen zur Last fallen. Er will wohl auch den Verdacht abschneiden, als schreibe er dies, um
knftig Unterhalt von Kor. zu beziehen (Korintherbrief, 337).
129. This interpretive move stems from detecting an oath-formula in 11:10. As Betz asserts, Um nicht
miverstanden zu werden, schliet Paulus den Gedanken 11,9 mit der feierlichen Erklrung ab, da er von den
Korinthern, so wie er in der Vergangenheit niemals Untersttzung angenommen habe, auch in Zukunft nichts
annehmen werde. Das wird bekrftigt durch die Eidesformel (Tradition, 102; cf. also Jan Lambrecht, Second
Corinthians [SP 8; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999], 172, 177; Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 283; Plummer, Second
Epistle, 306).
312
which is liable to change,130 with the future tenses of 11:9, 12 and 12:14 denoting a contingent
response, not an absolute decision. As Furnish concludes: at least in the foreseeable future Paul
intends that the congregation shall not be burdened with responsibility for his
maintenance.131
Of the two options, we adopt the second, considering Pauls rigid statements to be
purposely exaggerated in order to communicate the detriment of their situation and to evoke
a behavioural response.132 But if this is true, then what is his refusal contingent on? What are
the circumstances which he hopes will subside in the future before accepting Corinthian
support? According to Wilhelm Pratscher, the apostle has in view the opponents and their
missionary infringement on his Corinthian territory. He writes,
Paulus verweigert solange die Annahme von Untersttzung seitens einer Gemeinde,
solange wegen der Annahme derselben durch gegnerische Agitationen seine
Missionsarbeit in der betreffenden Gemeinde bzw. das von ihm gebrachte Evangelium
gestrt oder gar vernichtet werden knnte. Da das gegenwrtige und zuknftige
Verhalten in der Angelegenheit der Untersttzung durch die korinthische Gemeinde
130. So Hughes, Commentary, 389; Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:687 n220. In support of this view, Cranfield has shown
that Rom. 9:1, an oft-cited parallel of an oath-formula, does not precisely fit this categorisation (Romans, 2:452 n1).
131. II Corinthians, 509.
132. The grounds on which we base this conclusion is fourfold: (i) the hyperbolic context of 10-13; (ii) the
imprecise parallel between 11:10 and distinct oath-formulas; (iii) the interpretive connection between 11:10, 12
and 10:15-16 which will be made below; and (iv) the fact that Pauls missionary activity requires financial
partnerships with his churches, and that we have no text which suggests otherwise. Admittedly, there are no
textual parallels where Paul makes an adamant claim, such as I will never do X, which is actually contingent on
the hearers behaviour. The only analogous parallel is found in 1 Cor. 16:5-6 and 2 Cor. 1:15-16, 23. In the former
passage, Paul promises the Corinthians that he will visit them after passing through Macedonia, but, in 2 Cor.
1:15-16, 23, he explains that he changed his plans in order to spare them. His travel plans were predicated on and
determined by their behaviour.
313
durch das Vorhandensein von Gegnern bestimmt ist, zeigen I Cor. 9.12 und II Cor. 11.12
direkt.133
What dictates Pauls refusal from Corinth, for Pratscher, is not his attitude towards
individual congregations but the different situations of those communities.134 Thus, as long as
the opponents feel welcomed at Corinth, he will continue to repudiate their gifts.135
A similar argument is proposed by Thrall. In dealing with the accusation that Paul is
inconsistent, she makes an insightful observation concerning the significance of the phrase
in 11:10:
Perhaps we should take more notice of the limiting phrase (v. 10) in the regions of
Achaia. What does it limit? Does it limit the congregations from whom Paul is willing to
receive financial assistance? Or does it limit the area within which money provided by
the Corinthians for further evangelism might be used? If the first, then Corinth is
totally excluded from giving him financial support, and the disparity of treatment
between Corinth and Philippi remains absolute. If the second, however, Paul does not
in principle rule out assistance from the Corinthians for evangelism outside this region.
Within it there would be the danger of further trouble from the rival missionaries, and
so further reason for his determination to maintain his distinction from them. 136
The from whom/within which distinction is very helpful indeed. Thrall, however,
champions the latter, which then leads her to affirm the same view as Pratscher. Accepting
support within the regions of Achaia, where the super apostles openly accepted money, will
only result in the danger of further trouble from the rival missionaries.
133. Verzicht, 294; cf. also 292-93.

134. In his own words, Liegt der Grund fr die tatschlich verschiedene Behandlung der Korinther und
Philipper aber nicht in seiner prinzipiell unterschiedlichen Haltung diesen Gemeinden gegenber, so kann er nur
in der jeweils unterschiedlichen Gemeindesituation liegen (Verzicht, 294).
135. See also Horrell, Social Ethos, 21314.
136. Second Epistle, 2:707; authors italics.
314
Nevertheless, contrary to Pratscher and Thrall, instead of identifying the opponents as
the direct problem, we perceive the super apostles as a by-product of the core issue: the
culturally-conditioned practical consciousness of the Corinthians. For the continuing presence
of the rival apostles is a direct corollary of the communitys worldly preoccupation with
honour, status, and worth, expressed through the cultural mores of rhetorical eloquence,
presumptuous boasting, and a powerful self-display, all of which the opponents extravagantly
flaunted. The core of the problem, then, was not the infiltration of the false apostles into
Corinth per se,137 but the acceptance of these false apostles by the Corinthians, who developed
status-enhancing, gift-giving relationships with them.
We therefore affirm that (11:10) indicates from whom Paul
vows never (in an hyperbolised sense) to receive again. And yet, if we were to stop there,
Thrall would be correct. Paul would clearly be inconsistent, and a disparity of treatment
between Corinth and Philippi would be unavoidable. But if the contingent refusal is primarily
based on the Corinthians spiritual maturity rather than the opponents presence at Corinth, as
we will argue in the next section, then this would absolve Paul from the accusation of
inconsistency and further our understanding about the apostles rejection of Corinthian gifts.
But to arrive at this conclusion, a thorough examination of 11:10, 12 in conjunction with 10:12-
18 is necessary.
137. This was indeed part of the issue but not the issue.
315
3.2.2. The Significance of Pauls Geographic in 11:10, 12 and 10:12-18
Many scholars note that the boasting of 11:10, 12 points back to the territorial boasting
of 10:12-18,138 but no one has analysed these passages in connection with the reason for Pauls
contingent refusal at Corinth. This calls for a close examination of this neglected parallel, which
we will do by first uncovering the twofold purpose behind his and then drawing
some conclusions regarding his financial dealings with the Corinthians, both at the time of
writing and in the foreseeable future.
3.2.2.1. The Twofold Purpose of Pauls
As the truth of Christ is in me, Paul forcefully exclaims, this boasting of mine will not
be blocked in the regions of Achaia (
139 ). With referring back to
(11:9), the content of this becomes his past (11:9),
present (11:12), and future refusal of support (11:9, 12), his preaching free of charge at
Corinth.140 In short, his is his contingent refusal,141 and this boast contains two
purposes.
138. E.g., Martin, 2 Corinthians, 347; Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, 177.

139. could mean either stop, seal or block, barricade. But, as Harris explains, Whichever sense of
is preferred, the general import of is the same. If an agent in the closure or blockage is
implied, it may be indefinite (by anything/anyone) or more specific (by my opponents) (Corinthians, 764).
140. Although some scholars envisage the Achaians boasting in Paul in 11:10, interpreting as the object
of their boast (cf. Zmijewski, Narrenrede, 139), we prefer, with the majority of scholars, to consider the boasting
316
The first is that Paul distinguishes his ministry from that of the super apostles in order
to advance the gospel. This becomes evident when we keep in mind the primary principle that
dictates his every decision the unhindered progress of Gods gospel. As in 1 Cor. 9:12, he
endures all things to avoid placing an before the gospel, becoming a co-sharer of it by
facilitating its advancement as a mediator of God (1 Cor. 9:23). Yet the rival apostles pose a
great threat to its divine momentum at Corinth. Paul therefore boasts about his refusal in 11:12
something they cannot do since they accepted support to put a stop to their obstructive
ministry: , , ,
While interpretations on the opponents intention ()142 and the content of their
boast () abound,143 we adopt the view proposed by Ralph Martin. These rival
missionaries, claiming to be sent by Christ (11:13) but actually propagating a spurious gospel
(11:4), sought to elevate their apostolic status over and against Paul.144 They had already
proven themselves superior in many ways (cf. 10:7, 10; 11:6, 22-23). Ultimately, though, they
done by Paul himself throughout the regions of Achaia. To think otherwise is contextually implausible (cf.
Furnish, II Corinthians, 493; Barrett, Second Epistle, 283; Harris, Corinthians, 764 n64; Martin, 2 Corinthians, 347).
141. That is, of course, if the above discussion on Pauls contingent refusal is found convincing.
142. For a concise summary of the various positions, see Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:69093.
143. Harris gives a list of seven options (Corinthians, 769).
144. It is not, as Hock suggests, that Paul wants his opponents to conform to his practice of self-support (Social
Context, 63 n118). This interpretation takes the second -clause of 11:12 to be dependent on
; however, the majority of scholars maintain that this -clause modifies (cf., Windisch,
Korintherbrief, 33940; Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 28485; Plummer, Second Epistle, 30708).
317
wanted to take over Corinth as their own missionary territory, usurp the apostles role as their
founding father, boast in the apostolic groundwork that they did not lay, and insist on
monetary aid. Then, they would fit the apostolic mould ( , 11:12).
Paul nevertheless exposes the intentions of these poachers and prevents them from
completely overtaking his field of operation. He does so by affirming his apostolic credentials:
he is their father in the faith (12:14; 1 Cor. 4:14-15);145 he lovingly preaches without
remuneration for their benefit (11:9, 11-12; 12:13-15; esp. 12:19); and his low status symbols,
though culturally despicable, are actually an embodiment of the humiliation/exaltation
pattern of the Christ-event on their behalf (cf. 6:10; 8:9; 11:7; 12:15).146 These credentials serve
to distinguish his gospel ministry from that of the rival apostles, who hinder the progression of
the gospel at Corinth. But Paul does all things, including repudiate gifts, to benefit his children
and to further the march of the gospel. In this way, his refusal of support, as Peterman
concludes, has a missionary motivation.147 It helps advance the gospel, despite the obstruction
of false apostles.
The second purpose of Pauls comes from the parallel passage of 10:12-18, for
not only does his boast deprive the opponents of the opportunity to be found as legitimate
145. Furnish, II Corinthians, 475: . . .there is no surer evidence for the validity of his claim to be an apostle of
Christ than their own faith in Christ and the very existence of their congregation.
146. Barrett notes that Pauls abstention of support is a manifestation of the Gospel itself, because it reflects
the voluntary poverty of Christ which makes others rich (Second Epistle, 284).
318
apostles, but it also calls the Corinthians to the obedience of faith (cf. 10:5-6, 8).148 He will
continue to boast in his refusal, until they undergo a change of behaviour. The super apostles,
as we noted earlier, are merely a consequence of the culturally-attuned lifestyle of the
Corinthians, manifested through their affiliation with these rivals. To use the language of 1
Cor. 3:1, they are . His contingent refusal therefore depends on the spiritual
maturity of the Corinthians, from whom149 he longs to receive money, so that the gospel may
reach unreached lands. This becomes clear from analysing the territorial boast of 10:12-18.
After mentioning the rhetorical practices of the super apostles, whereby they measure
() and compare () themselves with themselves,150 and so prove, from the
apostles perspective, to have no understanding at all (, 10:12),151 he sharply demarcates
his conduct with the emphatic , followed by the adversative in 10:13.152 Unlike the
opponents, he does not encroach upon the territory of others but only boasts () in
the area of influence ( ) that God has allotted () to him (cf.
148. In speaking of 10:6, Furnish asserts, Here, as in v. 5, obedience must refer above all to the obedience of
faith, obedience to Christ, and the completion of this obedience may perhaps be interpreted in accord with the
remark in v. 15 about the increase of faith in Corinth (cf. Bultmann, 188) (II Corinthians, 464; authors italics). It
is the latter connection with verse 15 that we will attempt to draw out in what follows.
149. To employ Thralls from whom/within which dichotomy regarding 11:10 (see section 3.2.1 above).
150. The concepts of comparison and self-praise belonged to the encomium, which promoted the conventions
of physical appearance, education and achievements (Marshall, Enmity, 327). For a fuller discussion of
among philosophers and teachers of rhetoric in relation to 2 Cor. 10:12f., see Christopher Forbes, Pauls
Boasting, 130; Betz, Tradition, 11921; Winter, Sophists, 22223.
151. In what respect, Paul does not say. But it could be, as Barrett surmises, that [w]hat they failed to
understand was that measurement by their own standards meant in effect the use of no standards at all (2
Corinthians, 263).
152. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 319; Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:644.
319
10:15a).153 This includes the Corinthians themselves ( ), since he
certainly did not overextend himself in reaching the Corinthians with the gospel (10:14). They
are his work () in the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1), and, as a general principle, he only ever tills
uncracked soil (cf. Rom. 15:18-21).
But it is not until we reach 10:15b-16 that we discover that Pauls contingent refusal, and
thus the progression of the gospel, depends on the spiritual maturity of the Corinthians:

,
.
Murray Harris perceptively notes that gospel ministry in these verses can be summed
up in one word, expansion (), which unfolds in four successive stages: two before
, and two after.154
The first stage is the spiritual growth of the Corinthians (
). As a genitive absolute, connoting a temporal sense (as your faith increases),155 this
phrase indicates a deficiency in their faith. There is a lack that needs to increase. But what
153. There is much debate as to how the terms and in the phrase are
related, when each carry the same meaning of rule or limit. To avoid tautology, many commentators choose to
translate the former as a standard of measurement (e.g., limit or area) and the latter in a geographic sense (e.g.,
jurisdiction or sphere). For a detailed discussion of this grammatical issue, see Harris, Corinthians, 71016;
Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:64447.
154. Corinthians, 72021. We slightly amend Harris four-stage construal by conflating stages 3 and 4 and by
including 10:16a as the climactic final stage of this Pauline drama.
155. Rather than after your faith increases, which would require to be an aorist participle
(Harris, Corinthians, 720).
320
does this lack of faith consist of? It is unlikely to be an ironical statement,156 alluding to their
confidence that, through the teaching of the super apostles, their faith had moved on to a
higher level.157 Rather, it most likely refers to a stunt in their spiritual growth, expressed
through a lack of commitment158 to God in Christ through Pauls apostolic mission,159 the cause
of which is their compromised consciousness. What could be in sight here is their spiritual
immaturity so clearly articulated in 1 Cor. 3:1-4 160 and tangibly displayed in 1 Cor. 1-4, 11:17-34,
and 12:12-31, which, as we argued in Chapter 4,161 consists of a miscomprehension of the gospel
due to their conformity to worldly criteria and affiliations with influential leaders. This does
not seem too distant from the context of 2 Cor. 10-13, though we cannot be absolutely certain.
But what can be said with a reasonable degree of certainty is that a spiritual growth in the
Corinthians must appear before Paul can move beyond them with the gospel.
156. The tone of this verse is too serious to be ironical (Thrall, Second Epistle, 2:651).
157. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 268.
158. It is less the content of their belief than their commitment to what they believe that seems to be in view
here (Furnish, II Corinthians, 48182).
159. Martin asserts that could refer to the Corinthians faithfulness to [Pauls] mission (2
Corinthians, 323), while Harris prefers to consider it a confident trust in Christ or God (Corinthians, 720). But these
are not mutually exclusive. In devoting themselves to Pauls mission, they devote themselves to God in Christ (cf.
11:2).
160. A textual parallel noted by Furnish, II Corinthians, 473.
321
The second stage involves the material assistance of the Corinthians, by your aid/with
your help ( ). Taken with 162 rather than what precedes,163 this phrase
could carry a local meaning (among you),164 or it could possess an instrumental sense (by
your aid).165 Both are equally plausible, yet the financial context of 2 Cor. 11-12 and the
missionary endeavours of 10:15-16, which require money to take place, may favour the
instrumental meaning. If so, then Paul will not receive money from the Corinthians, who
reside in the regions of Achaia (11:10), until a satisfactory degree of maturity may be
detected. Even if does not refer to the help of aid, this is implicit in the mention of the
Pauline mission, since financial support from his churches is necessary for mission.
The third stage is the expansion of his God-given sphere of ministry (
). As their faith increases, Paul will allow the Corinthians to partner with
him by providing monetary aid in support of gospel advancement.166 This will not only enlarge
162. Some attach a transitive sense to this passive infinitive, translated we may be praised among you (e.g.,
Furnish, II Corinthians, 473), but we prefer an intransitive sense, such as grow or increase (BDAG, 623), because
missionary expansion is at the forefront of the apostles mind (10:16).
163. Pace Bultmann, Second Corinthians, 198. In order for to modify , Bultmann argues
that the prepositional phrase must follow the infinitive. But Thrall convincingly argues that the construction
actually creates a chiastic arrangement (verb of increasing verb of increasing) which serves to
emphasise the responsibility of the Corinthians (Second Corinthians, 2:651 n397).
164. This rendering circumvents a tautologous translation with the preceding .
165. Suggested by F.F. Bruce, An Expanded Paraphrase of the Epistles of Paul (Exeter: Paternoster, 1965), 151.
166. As Thrall maintains, Once he is convinced that their faith is secure, and that they have progressed to a
satisfactory degree of maturity, he will be at liberty to extend his sphere of work, since they will make fewer
demands on his pastoral attention (Second Epistle, 2:651).
322
his divinely-ordained area of ministry () but will also overflow ()167 beyond it.
This is the language of abounding grace (cf. Rom. 5:15, 17; 1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 4:15; 8:1-2, 7; 9:8,
12).168 The gospel will claim more and more territory. Accordingly, must thus be
understood in a geographical sense; it refers to evangelization in other regions.169
The final stage is the progression of the gospel to unreached areas (
). Windisch, after calling 10:16 intolerable (unertrglich), attempts to
substitute for ,170 forming an infinitive of purpose or result with .
Although this grammatical move is contextually attractive, it nevertheless lacks textual
support.171 Even so, Thrall asserts that can still convey an expression of result
in a somewhat free way by itself,172 and that , which usually follows verbs of saying or
proclaiming,173 confirms this by producing the meaning, preaching the gospel to regions
beyond the Corinthians.174
From these four stages of gospel expansion, a fundamental standard for partnering
with Paul in a gift-giving relationship can be gleaned they must exhibit a higher degree of
167. This noun is an intensification of .

168. See the section entitled The Economics of Abundance in Frances Young and David Ford, Meaning and
Truth in 2 Corinthians (BFT; London: SPCK, 1987), 17275.
169. Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, 167.
170. Korintherbrief, 313.
172. Second Epistle, 2:651 n399, who cites BDR 391(4).
173. BDAG, 1.d.. could equally take on the meaning of (preach in areas; e.g., Martin, 2 Corinthians, 315).
174. For various views on the syntactical function of , see Harris, Corinthians, 722.
323
spiritual maturity before he can accept their monetary aid. This will play out in a behavioural
shift in their obedience of faith and commitment to the gospel of God, a shift in allegiance,
from the world to the cross, that will naturally bring about social dislocation. As they embrace
and apply the apocalyptic symbols of the Christ-event, they will inevitably embody the
sufferings of Christ. No longer will their only experience of suffering be Pauls painful
letter.175 A time will come when the gospel of grace will fully envelop Corinth practical
consciousness and all then powerfully progress through them to others. But before this
progression of can take place, they must truly appropriate Gods gift for themselves.
Thus, with the use of a reconstructive imagination, we can picture the sort of gift-
giving relationship that Paul hopes to enjoy with the Corinthians in the future. It is at this
point that the key features of his positive relationship with the Philippians may be recalled.
They exhibited a full, trusting with their apostle, which we defined as a mutuality in
gift and suffering. They suffered on behalf of Christ, willingly shared in Pauls suffering through
their gift, and thereby participated in the advance () of to others. In short,
suffering led to gift. Suffering becomes the benchmark of a life fully devoted to the gospel of
Christ, a life of spiritual maturity, which then permits them entrance into a of gift
with Paul.
175. Barclay, Thessalonica and Corinth, 7273.
324
This seems to be the same pattern faintly alluded to in 10:15-16. Paul requires the
Corinthians full commitment to the gospel, loyalty to him as their apostle, and obedience to
God in Christ, before he moves beyond them. Why? Because moving beyond them requires
their partnership. It necessitates a full, trusting , which, in turn, demands a growth
in spiritual maturity. If this growth does not take place at Corinth, then the power of the
gospel must first be experienced in their lives before paying it forward. The gospel must
claim Corinth before claiming other territories beyond them. And behind this joint effort in
advancing the gospel, even undergirding the entire process, is God, the essential third party.
He operates as the primary giver, mover, and sustainer of , who will propel it through the
of Paul and the Corinthians for the sake of others. This is the three-way relational
pattern of the divine economy, and it is this sort of relationship that Paul hopes to share with
the Corinthians. They only need to grow in the gospel.
4. Conclusion
Our analysis here has confirmed the findings of the previous chapter. The Corinthians,
although converted, retained a substantial degree of social integration, such that their lifestyle
was informed more by the cultural values of the world rather than the counter-cultural values of
the gospel. This cultural conformity generated strife in the church but social harmony in the
world, preparing the ground perfectly for the socially-acceptable rivals. When they entered
325
Corinth, the church became enamoured by their rhetorical eloquence, forceful self-display,
and ostentatious boasting. Captivated by their social glamour, the community transferred
their allegiance from Paul to these false apostles, sitting under them as pupils and dependent
on them like clients, all for the increase of their honour, status, and worth. These status-
enhancing affiliations were analogous to teacher-pupil and patron-client relations, the very
relational pattern that Paul avoided with the Corinthians. This was not because they sought to
be his patrons, but because they envisioned Paul as the source of the gospel, the source of their
worth, and so longed to supply him with a return gift of money. Paul, however, firmly refuses
their gift to direct their eyes to the heavenly giver, the one from whom all gifts flow and in
whom their worth is found, and to position himself as a mutual broker of divine commodity.
Hence, the emphatic declaration to continue preaching Gods gospel freely at Corinth (
, 11:7). This combines the social and the theological, the evasion of
sophistic practices, on the one side, and the divine exclusion from gift-giving relationships, on
the other. Like two sides of the same coin, they represent a single reality Pauls socio-
theological reason for refusing financial support.176
176. Admittedly, throughout this chapter and the previous one, we have been interpreting and can only
interpret the Corinthian church through Pauls eyes. But this should not weaken the argument proposed here,
since Pauls perceptions are necessary to uncover Pauls policy.
326
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS
Having examined Pauls positive gift-giving with the Philippians in comparison to his
negative relationship with the Corinthians, we can now offer a more nuanced answer to the
perplexing question: why does Paul refuse support from some but accept it from others?
1. Pauls Financial Policy in Socio-Theological Perspective
Pauls financial policy can be divided into two stages. The first stage is his initial entry into a
particular city. No matter the location, no matter the situation, Paul consistently refused
monetary support from the people to whom he was ministering. Whether at Philippi (Phil.
4:15), Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:9), or Corinth (1 Cor. 9:12, 15, 18), this specific policy remained
the same he worked a trade and denied fiscal aid. Underlying and even driving this policy of
initial refusal is a social and theological purpose. Socially, it serves to distinguish Pauls gospel
ministry from Sophists or itinerant philosophers and teachers who strive for personal,
financial gain. Theologically, it highlights the true giver of the gospel. The gospel is ,
not (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2, 4, 8, 9, 13; 2 Cor. 11:7). Paul mediates Gods gospel as a broker,
a middleman, to whom there can be no return. If a return does make its way to Paul, then
recipients are liable to confuse him as the source of his teaching. The issue here is the source
327
not the gracious/free content of the gospel. Paul does not believe the gospel expects no return
only that the return must be to God, not him. To circumvent this theological mistake, he
therefore invariably refuses when initially entering into a city.
The second stage is Pauls initial departure from one city and initial entrance into
another. After establishing a church on the gospel and emphasising the divine origin of his
message (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13), with no return being rendered to Paul, the apostle then departs
that newly founded church and continues his Gentile mission into other cities. While stage 1 is
repeated in the new city, stage 2 takes place with the recently established city. So, for instance,
we learn that Paul accepted gifts from Philippi during his initial ministry at Thessalonica (Phil.
4:16) and Corinth (2 Cor. 11:9), while simultaneously working a trade in order not to burden
the Corinthians or the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:9). This may seem like a double standard as
if he accepts money surreptitiously under the table, while supposedly bestowing the gospel
freely but it is simply an overlapping of the stages. Thus, only when Paul leaves a newly
founded congregation does he allow them to help financially in the advance of the gospel
towards others.
Within this two-stage process, the Philippians progressed from stage 1 to stage 2. They
assisted Paul monetarily after he departed from Philippi and during his initial ministry at
Thessalonica, Corinth, and even in prison. The Corinthians, however, never progressed past
328
stage 1. Pauls initial financial stance, recorded in 1 Cor. 9, was repeated during his second
visit, and he also anticipated repeating this policy during his third visit (2 Cor. 11:9, 12; 12:13-
14). To understand why the Corinthians did not advance to stage 2, and to discern what Paul
intended to teach them by repeating stage 1 of his policy, the distinctive relational features of
Pauls operative gift-giving relationship with the Philippians were set in contrast with his non-
gift relationship with the Corinthians.
Three primary features were found in Philippians:
(i) God as a third party. By tracing the trajectory of in the gospel throughout
Philippians, we discovered that Paul incorporates God as an essential third party, one who
initiates, sustains, and completes the exchange of gifts on the horizontal level. In other words,
gifts find their beginning and end with God. He revives the Philippians concern for Paul,
materialised in their gift (Phil. 4:10); he brings to completion the Philippians good work (
) that he began, which includes their financial support (1:6); he somehow receives gifts
that are given to Paul (4:18); he will distribute gifts for the needs of the Philippians through
Paul or another church (4:19); and he ultimately receives all thanks (, 1:3) and glory
(, 4:20) for the work he accomplishes through human agency. From Pauls perspective,
God is an active agent in and through his gift-giving relationship with the Philippians.
329
(ii) Mutuality in gift and suffering. After the Philippians accepted the in the gospel,
the gift of God, they immediately encountered social dislocation and suffering (1:27-30). They
suffered at the hands of persons unknown ( ), and, in so doing,
embodied and even reenacted the sufferings of Christ (1:28-29). Since suffering for Christ is part
and parcel of life in Christ, it naturally follows that Paul and the Philippians share the same
(1:30; cf. 1:7), a similar, though not identical, form of suffering . We pictured
this joint suffering as two circles partially overlapping one another, generating a sacred space
where the individual sufferings of one co-mingle with the other and create a channel through
which one party can meet the needs of the other. At the very core of each circle is
(cf. 3:10), the deepest level of a person , which is precisely the
location where the community enjoys with Paul. In this sense, their intimate bond of
co-suffering laid the groundwork for their in giving and receiving.
Their of gift, as already mentioned, includes a divine third party, such that
the horizontal contours of their gift-giving relationship are necessarily recalibrated. No party
can be the source of their possessions but only mediators, since all things belong to God. And
with God as the source, Paul and the Philippians share a mutual obligation to him. But since
Gods gifts aim to meet needs, they also share a mutual obligation to one another (2:25-30;
4:15). Moreover, if divine gifts are mediated through Paul and the Philippians, then neither
330
party can accrue social power for themselves. Gifts are only received to be passed on. Being
caught up into this cyclical exchange of gifts ( ,
4:15), Paul and the Philippians participate in an oscillating asymmetry that is constantly in
flux. When party A is in need, then party B will be enabled to meet that need, and when party
B experiences need, then party A will be enabled to return the favour, so that, in Pauls words,
there may be equality [] (2 Cor. 8:14):
Party A Party B etc.

abundance abundance
Party A
Party B
need
need
Thus, Paul and the Philippians participation in and embodiment of the Christ-gift
produced a mutuality in gift and suffering.
(iii) Participation in the divine momentum of . The Philippians establishment in the
gospel cultivated a full, trusting with Paul in the advancement of the gospel, allowing
God to distribute his divine commodity of through them to others. Grace abounded to
those both inside and outside prison walls (1:12-18c), with Christ being proclaimed and exalted
at every point of contact. No matter the actual situation whether imprisonment or the
ulterior motives of preachers nothing could frustrate the divine progression () of
331
the gospel. Divine grace also abounded towards Thessalonica and Corinth through Pauls
partnership with the Philippians, demonstrating that the Philippian community had passed
from stage 1 to stage 2.
When these relational features were outlined, we then recognised the absence of them
in the Corinthian church and the presence of three corresponding corrections that Paul sought
to communicate through his refusal of their support:
(i) Emphasis on God as the third party. Whereas Paul highlights a divine inclusion in
Philippians, he underscores a divine exclusion in 1 and 2 Corinthians. He emphatically reminds
them that God is the source and owner of all that they possess (cf. 1 Cor. 1:4-9; 2:12; 3:16, 21-23;
4:7; 8:6; 11:12), and that Paul and other leaders merely operate as mediators or brokers of his
divine commodity (cf. 3:5; 4:1; 9:17). The need for this reconfiguration of roles arose from their
faulty perspective on Christian leaders. The acclamations, I am of Paul! and I am of Apollos!
(3:4; cf. 1:12), and other exploitative interactions in the church (11:17-34; 12:12-31; cf. 5:1-13;
6:1-11; chs. 8-10), disclose a close conformity to two-way, status-enhancing relationships in
antiquity, whether patron-client, teacher-pupil, or politician-supporter, in which the inferior
party resides under influential figures to gain honour, status, and worth in society. They
neglect God as the primary giver of and instead place human leaders (1:12; 3:21; 4:6), and
even themselves (4:7), in Gods exclusive position as the only worthy object of boasting (1:31).
332
By excluding God from their social interactions, the supposed spiritually lite assumed the
divine role at the Lords supper (11:17-34) and even judged some parts of the body as unworthy
to receive their (12:12-31). They lived as if divine gifts ended with them rather than
handing them on to others. Thus, in a manner unlike the Philippians, the Corinthians
repressed the divine momentum of , and so Paul sternly reminds them that they own
absolutely nothing that was not first given to them by God (4:7), from whom are all things and
for whom we exist (8:6).
(ii) Exposing the Corinthians spiritual immaturity in Christ. The Corinthians exhibited an
indigenised faith in the church, being captivated by the status-enhancing way of the world.
This revealed a skewed practical consciousness that exhibited little transformation but much
reproduction of previous social structures after their conversion.1 This social assimilation
eventually led to the scathing verdict of 3:1. Although they appraise themselves as ,
, and (2:6; 3:18-23; 4:10; 14:36-38), Paul considers them
(3:1). They are spiritually immature. Thus, the culturally-acceptable practices of Corinth had
an opposite effect in the Corinthian church. Instead of accruing honour, it only brought about
shame. Small wonder. The church is, after all, built on the counter-cultural gospel of Christ.
1. For a distinction between the discursive and practical consciousness of the Corinthians, see Chapter 4,
section 2.1.
333
In 2 Cor. 10-12, we demonstrated that their spiritual immaturity, caused by a faulty
practical consciousness, was further fanned into flame by the super apostles. These socially-
esteemed figures offered what society held as honourable a mighty self-display, expressed
through rhetorical grandiloquence, punitive action, and ostentatious boasting. The
Corinthians therefore quickly turned away from their humiliating apostle and fiscally
supported these influential leaders (11:20). By this point, Paul had already refused their gifts
(11:7-12; 12:13-16), preventing them moving from stage 1 to stage 2 because of their spiritual
immaturity, generated by the social conventions of Corinth and encouraged by the super
apostles. Pauls refusal can therefore be traced back to the Corinthians spiritual immaturity.
(iii) Pauls future expectation of a three-way exchange of to others. Even though Paul
repeats stage 1 during his later visits at Corinth, he nevertheless envisages a time in the future
when their faith will increase and they will be permitted to contribute to the progression of
the gospel. This emerged from our comparison of the geographic boast of 11:10, where Paul
declares that his boast never to accept Corinthian support will not be stopped in the regions
of Achaia, and 10:15b-16, in which a glimmer of relational hope is found. There, Paul expresses
his desire to reach beyond the Corinthians to others with the gospel, insinuating that he will
call on their financial help to evangelise others. But before that can happen, their faith must
grow, they must exhibit a higher degree of maturity, which must correlate to the relational
334
features found in Philippians, since Paul did accept their gifts. What this demonstrates is that
stage 2 is available to the Corinthians (as it was to other churches [ , 2 Cor.
11:8]), and that Pauls seemingly irrevocable boast is actually contingent on their response to
the gospel.
In the end, the primary difference between the Philippians and the Corinthians
concerns their social experience (or practical lifestyle) after accepting the gospel. The
Philippians encountered social dislocation, while the Corinthians social integration, both of
which had ensuing effects on their lives as Christians. The Philippians suffered in society, but
the Corinthians were at social ease. More than this, their social awareness also dictated their
view of relationships. In the Corinthians desire for honour, they neglected God as a third
party, whereas the Philippians, at least from Pauls ideal perspective, co-worked with God to
benefit their apostle and others. Stemming from this comparison, therefore, is a sort of
criterion that a church must meet before engaging Paul in a gift-giving relationship the social
embodiment of the counter-cultural gospel of Jesus Christ that acknowledges God, the supreme giver, as
the essential third party of every gift-giving relationship in the divine economy. From this, one can see
why Paul would strongly refuse gifts from Corinth but happily accept those from Philippi.
2. The Achieved Goals of the Socio-Theological Approach to Pauls Financial Policy
Through the socio-theological approach, we aimed to reach the following goals:
335
First, this approach adds a consistent structure to Pauls seemingly ad hoc and
inconsistent financial policy. Rather than assuming the apostle had favourites among his
churches, or perhaps that he delighted in having the power to refuse or accept at will, we have
provided a criterion that Paul expected his churches to meet before financially assisting his
missionary endeavours in other locations. We have also dealt with various issues that may call
his consistency into question, such as his acceptance of -support (1 Cor. 16:6; 2 Cor.
1:16) but rejection of financial support and his resolution never to accept from Corinth (2 Cor.
11:9, 11; 12: 13-14).2
Second, we have shown that Pauls gift-exchange relationship with the Philippians is
the norm rather than the exception. Paul does not grudgingly accept their gifts, as if he
despised payment for his labours or reciprocity for that matter. To the contrary, by being
bound in a nexus of gift and suffering, their exchange of divine goods becomes necessary for
their livelihood. In fact, reciprocal exchange is the ordained means through which God
himself, as the source and giver of all things, meets the needs of his people.
Third, the socio-theological approach offers an alternative to the widespread patron-
client interpretation. Far from Paul refusing Corinthian support because they sought to make
him their client, the Corinthians actually tried to make Paul their superior, their source of
worth, a role that only God in Christ can occupy. They wanted to reside under, not over, their
2. See Chapter 5, section 3.1.
336
apostle, as evidenced by the relational pattern they had with the super apostles and other
textual indicators. The illegitimacy of the patron-client model was also demonstrated by
exposing its several exegetical,3 social-historical,4 and even philosophical weaknesses.5
Furthermore, our analysis has shown that a two-way exchange model like patronage (or even
friendship for that matter) cannot adequately capture gift-giving relationships in the divine
economy. Instead, the most suitable and illuminating relational pattern is the brokerage
model, though, admittedly, this heuristic lens also fails to capture fully Pauls vision of
triangulated bonds of gift.
Lastly, we attempted to expose the modern ideals of gift imposed on Pauls gift-
exchange relationships with his churches. Contrary to some scholars, we contended that the
presence of obligation and self-interest appear in Philippians, two relational elements that
preserve rather than eradicate the reciprocity of gifts. Like Senecas De Beneficiis (and unlike
modern scholars), Paul distinguishes between an exploitative self-interest and an other-
oriented self-interest,6 the latter of which he joyfully affirms.7 Unlike Seneca, however, Paul
incorporates God into this exchange, so that mutual obligation is retied into a three-way knot,
3. See Chapter 4, section 4, and Chapter 5, section 3.1.

5. These are sprinkled throughout the exegetical and social-historical critiques.
6. For Senecas perspective, see Chapter 2, section 2.1.2.
337
with God at the head of their relationship.8 We also challenged those scholars who reason that,
because God gives grace unilaterally, without any thought of a return, so, too, Paul preaches
the gospel at Corinth free of charge (2 Cor. 11:7). While Paul does not actively seek a material
return per se, he definitely expects a spiritual return (2 Cor. 12:14-15; cf. Phil. 4:17) and so does
God (cf. 2 Cor. 1:11; 4:15; 9:12-13, 15; Rom. 12:1-2).
At the root of all these modern ideals is the modern myth of the pure gift, that is, the
insistence on the complete gratuitousness of a gift, without any self-regard or duty in the act
itself a post-enlightenment hermeneutic which Engberg-Pedersen laconically yet
profoundly calls false.9 What then arises from the ash of modern sensibilities is a Paul who
operates within an ancient framework of gift, and yet, in his own way, modifies that social
framework with his embedded theology. Ultimately, his perspective on gift is neither modern
nor ancient per se, but radically Pauline.
3. Implications for Further Study
This study has intentionally focused on Pauls financial policy, but many of its findings bear
direct relevance to other discussions in Pauline studies. For instance, although many scholars
employ the patron-client model to illumine the collection for the Jerusalem saints in 2 Cor. 8-9,
it seems more suitable to apply the brokerage model or for those who have a methodological

9. Gift-Giving, 16.
338
aversion to social-historical paradigms the triangulated relational pattern between God,
Paul, and a particular church. Indeed, as of yet, no scholar has applied this triangulated
framework to 2 Corinthians in order to uncover the deeper fabric of his theology of giving and
receiving. Also, we noted the presence of an oscillating asymmetry of power in Philippians,
which is most lucidly portrayed in 2 Cor. 8:14. While this relationship partly correlates with
what Kathy Ehrensperger calls transformative power, where Pauls hierarchical authority
empowers his churches to maturation, we question Ehrenspergers claim that his apostolic
authority renders itself obsolete once his churches achieve maturity.10 Consequently, the
oscillating asymmetrical model not only offers an alternative to Ehrenspergers paradigm but
also to the previous works of John Schtz,11 Bengt Holmberg,12 Cynthia Briggs Kittredge,13 and
Sandra Polaski.14 Lastly, Senecas De Beneficiis has more to offer the Pauline world of gift than
could be explored in this study. We have mainly emphasised a few similarities between Paul
and Seneca, but the most illuminating points of comparison are their differences. This, it
seems to me, will certainly open up interdisciplinary avenues through which to irradiate
Pauline theology.
10. Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (LNTS; London: T&T
Clark, 2007), 13536.
11. Apostolic Authority.
12. Paul and Power.
13. Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the Pauline Tradition (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press,
1998).
14. Paul and the Discourse of Power (GCT 8; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999).
339
Bibliography
Adams, Edward. Constructing the World: A Study in Pauls Cosmological Language. SNTW.
Scotland: T&T Clark, 2000.
Aejmelaeus, Lars. The Question of Salary in the Conflict Between Paul and the Super
Apostles in Corinth. Pages 34376 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early
Christianity. Essays in Honour of Heikki Risnen. Edited by Ismo Dunderberg,
Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
. Streit und Vershnung: Das Problem der Zusammensetzung des 2. Korintherbriefes. PFES
46. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1987.
Alexander, Loveday. Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians. JSNT 37

(1989): 87101.
Allo, E.B. Saint Paul: seconde ptre aux Corinthiens. Bib. Paris: Galbalda, 1937.
Aune, David. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. LEC. Cambridge: James Clarke
& Co, 1987.
Bachmann, Philipp. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. KNT 7. Leipzig: A. Deichert,
1905.
Badian, E. Foreign Clientelae (26470 B.C.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Barclay, John. Introduction. Pages 18 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His
Cultural Environment. Edited by John M.G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole.
London: T&T Clark, 2006.
. Manna and the Circulation of Grace: A Study of 2 Corinthians 8:115. Pages 409
26 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B.
Hays. Edited by J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
. Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case. JSNT 31 (1987), 73

93.
. Paul, the Gift and the Battle Over Gentile Circumcision: Revisiting the Logic of
Galatians. ABR 58 (2010): 3656.
340
. Security and Self-Sufficiency: A Comparison of Paul and Epictetus. Ex Auditu 24
(2008): 6072.
. Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity. JSNT 15

(1992): 4974.
-------. Paul, Reciprocity, and the Modern Myth of the Pure Gift. De Carle Lecture
presented at the University of Otago, 31st March 2010.
Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1997.
Barrett, C.K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1971.
. Pauls Opponents in 2 Corinthians. NTS 17 (1970/71): 23354.
. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1973.
. The Signs of an Apostle: The Cato Lecture, 1969. London: Epworth, 1970.
Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Philippians. Translated by James Leitch. London: SCM Press,
1962.
Barton, Carlin A. Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 2001.
Barton, Stephen. Pauls Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community

Formation in Corinth. NTS 32 (1986): 22546.
Bassler, Jouette. God & Mammon: Asking for Money in the New Testament. Nashville, KY:
Abingdon Press, 1991.
Baumert, Norbert. Ist Philipper 4,10 richtig bersetzt? BZ 13 (1969): 25662.
. KOINONEIN und METECHEIN synonym? Eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung.

SBB 51. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003.
Beardslee, W.A. Human Achievement and Divine Vocation in the Message of Paul. SBT 31.
London: SCM Press, 1961.
Beare, F.W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1959.
341
Berry, Ken. The Function of Friendship Language in Philippians 4:1020. Pages 10724
in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New
Testament World. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Betz, H.D. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu
seiner Apologie 2 Korinther 1013. BHT 45. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972.
Bieringer, Reimund. Zwischen Kontinuitt und Diskontinuitt: Die beiden

Korintherbriefe in ihrer Beziehung zueinander nach der neueren Forschung. In
The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by Reimund Bieringer. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1996.
Bittlinger, Arnold. Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1214. London: Hodder
& Stoughton, 1967.
Blok, Anton. Variations in Patronage. Sociologische Gids 16 (1969): 36578.
Bloomquist, Gregory. The Function of Suffering in Philippians. JSNTSup 78. Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Bockmuehl, Markus. The Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1998.
Boissevain, Jeremy. Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions. Pavilion.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974.
Borl, P.C. KOINNIA: Lidea della communione nellecclesiologia recente e nel Nuovo
Testamento. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1972.
Bormann, Lukas. Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus. NovTSup 78.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.
. MarginaliaSome Additional Notes on the Gift. Pages 23143 in The Logic of the
Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity. Edited by Alan D. Schrift. New York: Routledge,
1997.
Breytenbach, Cilliers. Charis and Eleos in Pauls Letter to the Romans. Pages 247-
77 in The Letter to the Romans. Edited by U. Schnelle. BETL 226. Leuven: Peeters,
2009.
342
Briones, David. Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study of 2 Cor. 1.311. NTS 56 (2010): 536
56.
. Pauls Intentional Thankless Thanks in Philippians 4.10-20. JSNT 34 (2011): 47-

69.
Broneer, Oscar. The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games. BA 25 (1962): 231.
Brown, Alexandra. The Cross and Human Transformation: Pauls Apocalyptic Word in 1
Corinthians. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995.
Bruce, F.F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.
. An Expanded Paraphrase of the Epistles of Paul. Exeter: Paternoster, 1965.
Brunt, P.A. Clientela. Pages 382442 in The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
. Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical

Society 11 (1965): 120.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by Roy Harrisville.
Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985.
Butarbutar, Robinson. Paul and Conflict Resolution: An Exegetical Study of Pauls Apostolic
Paradigm in 1 Corinthians 9. PBM. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007.
Byrne, Brendan. Ministry and Maturity in 1 Cor. 3. ABR 35 (1987): 8387.
Byron, John. Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A Traditio-Historical
and Exegetical Examination. WUNT 2/162. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Caird, G.B. Pauls Letters from Prison. New Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1976.
Campbell, J.Y. KOINNIA and Its Cognates in the New Testament. JBL 51 (1932): 35280.
Capper, Brian. Pauls Dispute with Philippi: Understanding Pauls Argument in Phil 12
from His Thanks in 4.1020. TZ 49 (1993): 193214.
Caragounis, Chrys. : A Reconsideration of Its Meaning. NovT 16 (1974): 3557.
343
Carter, Christopher L. The Great Sermon Tradition as a Fiscal Framework in 1 Corinthians:
Towards a Pauline Theology of Material Possessions. LNTS. London: T&T Clark, 2010.
Carter, Timothy. Big Men in Corinth. JSNT 66 (1997): 4571.
Chester, Stephen. Conversion at Corinth: Perspectives on Conversion in Pauls Theology and the
Corinthian Church. SNTW. London: T&T Clark, 2003.
Chow, John. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. JSNTSup 75.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.
Clarke, Andrew. A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. LNTS. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1

Corinthians 16. AGJU 18. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Collange, Jean-Franois. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians. Translated by A. W.

Heathcote. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1979.
Collins, J.N. The Mediatorial Aspect of Pauls Role as Diakonos. ABR 40 (1992): 3444.
Collins, Raymond. First Corinthians. SP 7. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999.
Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Cranfield, C.E.B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 Vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 197579.
Crook, Zeba. The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client. JGRChJ 2 (200105): 926.
. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the

Ancient Mediterranean. BZNW 130. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
. Reflections on Culture and Social-Scientific Models. JBL 124 (2005): 51520.
Dahl, Nils. Studies in Paul. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977.
Dalton, George, ed. Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi. Boston:
Beacon, 1968.
Dalton, William J. The Integrity of Philippians. Bib 60 (1979): 97102.
344
Danker, Frederick W. Pauls Debt to the Corona of Demosthenes: A Study of Rhetorical
Techniques in Second Corinthians. Pages 26268 in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in
New Testament Rhetoric in Honour of George A. Kennedy. Edited by D.A. Watson.
JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St.
Louis: Clayton, 1982.
Dautzenberg, Gerhard. Der Verzicht auf das apostolische Unterhaltsrecht: Eine

exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 9. Bib 50 (1969): 21232.
Davis, James. Wisdom and Spirit. An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:183:20 Against the
Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1984.
de Ste. Croix, G.E.M. Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage. BJS 5 (1954): 3348.
de Vos, C.S. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian,
Corinthians, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities. SBLDS 168.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901.
Deming, Will. Paul on Marriage & Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1995.
. The Time of the King. Pages 12147 in The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of
Generosity. Edited by Alan D. Schrift. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Derrida, Jacques, and John D. Caputo, eds. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with
Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press, 1997.
Dewey, Arthur. A Matter of Honor: A Social-Historical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10.

HTR 78 (1985): 20917.
Dibelius, Martin. An die Thessalonicher I II, an die Philipper. HNT 11. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1937.
345
Dickson, John P. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities.
WUNT 2/159. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Didier, G. Le Salaire du Dsinteressement (1 Cor ix: 1427). RSR 43 (1955): 22851.
Dodd, C.H. The Mind of Paul: I. In New Testament Studies. Manchester: University Press,
1953.
Donahoe, Kate. From Self-Praise to Self-Boasting: Pauls Unmasking of the Conflicting

Rhetorico-Linguistic Phenomena in 1 Corinthians. PhD Thesis, University of St.
Andrews, 2008.
Droge, Arthur J., and James D. Tabor. A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among
Christians and Jews in Antiquity. San Francisco: Harper, 1991.
Duncan, G.S. St Pauls Ephesian Ministry: A Reconstruction. London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1955.
Dungan, David. The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition
in the Regulation of Early Church Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Ebner, Martin. Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief: Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion
der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus. FB 66. Wrzburg: Echter, 1991.
Edwards, Thomas C. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1885.
Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the
Early Christ-Movement. LNTS. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Eilers, Claude. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Eisenstadt, S.N., and L. Roniger. Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the
Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
. Patron--Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange. Comparative

Studies in Society and History 22 (1980): 4277.
346
Elliot, John. Patronage and Clientage. Pages 14456 in The Social Sciences and New
Testament Interpretation. Edited by Richard Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1996.
Ellis, E.E. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993.
Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 18

on the Logic of Gods and Its Human Response. HTR 101 (2008): 1544.
. Paul and the Stoics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
. Self-Sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul.
Pages 11739 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment.
Edited by John M.G. Barclay and Simon Gathercole. London: T&T Clark, 2006.
Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Erskine, Andrew. The Romans as Common Benefactors. Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte

Geschichte 43 (1994): 7087.
Esler, Philip. Modelling Early Christianity. London: Routledge, 1995.
. Models in New Testament Interpretation: A Reply to David Horrell. JSNT 78

(2000): 10713.
Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
. Pauls Letter to the Philippians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Ferrary, J.-L. The Hellenistic World and Roman Political Patronage. Pages 10519 in
Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography. Edited by P.
Cartledge, P. Garnsey, and E.S. Gruen. Hellenistic Culture and Society 26;
Berkeley: University of California, 1997.
Finley, M. I. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Fitzgerald, John T., ed. Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press, 1997.
347
. Philippians in the Light of Some Ancient Discussions of Friendship. Pages 141
60 in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New
Testament World. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Fitzgerald, John. Christian Friendship: John, Paul, and the Philippians. Int 61
(2007): 28496.
Fitzmeyer, Joseph. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Fleury, J. Une socit de fait dans lEglise apostolique (Phil. 4:10 22). Pages 4159 in
Mlanges Philippe Meylan. Lausanne: Universit de Lausanne, 1963.
Forbes, Christopher. Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Pauls Boasting and the
Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric. NTS 32 (1986): 130.
Forbes, Clarence A. Teachers Pay in Ancient Greece. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1942.
Fowl, Stephen. Believing Forms Seeing: Formation for Martyrdom in Philippians.

Pages 31730 in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical
Interpretation. Edited by William P. Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
. Know Your Context: Giving and Receiving Money in Philippians. Int 56

(2002): 4558.
. Philippians 1:28b, One More Time. Pages 16779 in New Testament Greek and
Exegesis. Edited by Amy M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2003.
. Philippians. THNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Francis, James. As Babes in Christ - Some Proposals Regarding 1 Corinthians 3.13.

JSNT 7 (1980): 4160.
Friedrich, Gerhard. Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. Pages 181215 in

Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gesprch ber die Bibel. Edited by O.
Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt. AGJU 5; Leiden: Brill, 1963.
348
Friesen, Steven. Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus.
JSNT 26 (2004): 32361.
Furnish, Victor. II Corinthians. AB 32A. New York: Doubleday, 1984.
Gager, John. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Galloway, Lincoln. Freedom in the Gospel: Pauls Exemplum in 1 Cor 9 in Conversation with the
Discourses of Epictetus and Philo. CBET. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.
Garcilazo, Albert. The Corinthians Dissenters and the Stoics. SBL 106. New York: Peter Lang,
2007.
Gardner, Paul. The Gifts of God and the Authentication of a Christian: An Exegetical Study of 1
Corinthians 811:1. Maryland: University Press of America, 1994.
Garland, David. The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary
Factors. NovT 27 (1985): 14173.
Garnsey, Peter. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and
Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Garnsey, Peter, and Richard Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture.
London: Duckworth, 1987.
Gaventa, Beverly. Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
Gellner, E., and J. Waterbury, eds. Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies. London:
Duckworth, 1977.
Gelzer, Matthias. The Roman Nobility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Georgi, Dieter. Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur religisen Propaganda in
der Sptantike. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964.
Gill, Christopher, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds. Reciprocity in Ancient
Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
349
Gill, David W.J. Acts and the Urban lites. Pages 10518 in The Book of Acts in Its First
Century Setting. Edited by David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1994.
Gill, Robin, ed. Theology and Sociology: A Reader. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1987.
. The Social Context of Theology: A Methodological Enquiry. London: Mowbrays, 1975.
Glad, Clarence. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian
Psychagogy. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Gladd, Benjamin L. Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple
Judaism with Its Bearings on First Corinthians. BZNW 160. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2008.
Glombitza, Otto. Der Dank des Apostels: zum Verstndnis von Philipper iv 1020.
NovT 7 (196465): 13541.
Gnilka, Joachim. Der Philipperbrief. HTKNT 10/3. 2nd ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1968.
Goodrich, John. Paul, the Oikonomos of God: Pauls Apostolic Metaphor in 1

Corinthians and Its Graeco-Roman Context. PhD Thesis, University of Durham,
2010.
Griffin, Miriam. De Beneficiis and Roman Society. JRS 93 (2003): 92113.
. Of Clients and Patrons. CR 40 (1990): 399403.
. Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.
. Senecas Pedagogic Strategy: Letters and De Beneficiis. Pages 89113 in Greek and
Roman Philosophy 100 BC - 200 AD. Edited by Richard Sorabji and Robert W.
Sharples. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2007.
Gruen, E.S. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. CA: University of California Press,
1984.
Grundmann, Walter. Die in der Urchristlichen Parnese. NTS 5 (195859): 188

205.
350
Gundry Volf, Judith. Paul and Perseverance: Staying in and Falling Away. WUNT 2/37.
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Gunther, J.J. St. Pauls Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish
Sectarian Teachings. NovTSup 35. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Gupta, Nijay. Towards a Set of Principles for Identifying and Interpreting Metaphors in
Paul: Romans 5:2 () as a Test Case. ResQ 51 (2009): 16981.
Hafemann, Scott. Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Pauls Defence of His Ministry in II
Corinthians 2:143:3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Hainz, Josef. KOINNIA: Kirch als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus. Regensburg: Pustet, 1982.
Hansen, Walter. The Letter to the Philippians. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.
Hanson, Anthony. The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St Paul. JSNTSup 17. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1987.
Harmand, L. Un aspect social et politique du monde romain: Le Patronat sur les collectivits
publiques des origines au Bas-Empire. Publications de la Facult Des Lettres de
lUniversit de Clermont, Ser. 2. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1957.
Harris, Murray. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Harrison, James. Pauls Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. WUNT 2/172.
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Harvey, A.E. The Workman is Worthy of His Hire: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early
Church. NovT 24 (1982): 20921.
Hawthorne, Gerald. Philippians. WBC 43. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.
-------. Philippians. WBC 43. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Rev. ed. 2004.
Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989.
. First Corinthians. IBC. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997.
351
Hemer, Colin. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1989.
Hendrix, Holland. Benefactor/Patronage Networks in the Urban Environment:

Evidence from Thessalonica. Semeia 56 (1992): 3958.
Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 1979.
Hengel, Martin, and Roland Deines. The Pre-Christian Paul. Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1991.
Herman, G. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987.
Hring, Jean. The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by A.W. Heathcote
and P.J. Allcock. London: Epworth Press, 1962.
Hock, Ronald. Pauls Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class. JBL 97
(1978): 55564.
. Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic. GRBS 17 (1976): 4153.
. The Social Context of Pauls Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Oregon: Wipf &
Stock, 1980.
Hoffmann, Paul. Die Toten in Christus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische

Untersuchung zur paulinischen Eschatologie. Mnster: Aschendorff, 1966.
Holloway, Paul. Consolation in Philippians. SNTSMS 112. Cambridge: Cambridge

Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as
Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB, 1978.
. Sociological Versus Theological Analysis of the Question Concerning a Pauline

Church Order. Pages 187200 in Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie. Edited by
Sigfred Pedersen. Aros: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.
. Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990.
352
Holtz, Traugott. On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:112. Pages 6980 in The
Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by
Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Hooker, Morna. From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 1990.
. Hard Sayings, I Corinthians 3:2. Theology 69 (1966): 1922.
. The Letter to the Philippians. Pages 11:467549 in The New Interpreters Bible.
Edited by L.E. Keck et. al. 12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000.
. A Partner in the Gospel: Pauls Understanding of His Ministry. Pages 83100 in

Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish.
Edited by Eugene Lovering and Jerry Sumney. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Horrell, David. Models and Methods in Social-Scientific Interpretation: A Response to

Philip Esler. JSNT 78 (2000): 83105.
. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1
Corinthians to 1 Clement. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
. The Lord Commanded...but I Have not Used... Exegetical and Hermeneutical

Reflections on 1 Cor 9.1415. NTS 43 (1997): 587603.
. Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation?

Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future. Pages 620 in After the
First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five
Years Later. Edited by Todd D. Still and David G. Horrell. London & New York:
T&T Clark, 2009.
Horrell, David, and Eddie Adams. The Scholarly Quest for Pauls Church at Corinth: A
Critical Survey. Pages 147 in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline
Church. Edited by Edward Adams and David Horrell. London: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2004.
Horsley, R.A. Consciousness and Freedom Among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 810.
CBQ 40 (1978): 57489.
. Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth. CBQ 39 (1977): 22439.
353
Horsley, Richard. 1 Corinthians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.
Hughes, Philip. Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1962.
Hurd, John. The Origin of 1 Corinthians. London: SPCK, 1965.
Iber, G. Zum Verstndnis von 1 Cor. 12.31. ZNW 54 (1963): 4352.
Inwood, Brad. Politics and Paradox in Senecas De Beneficiis. Pages 6594 in Reading
Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
Jeremias, Joachim. Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen. ZNW 49 (1958): 14556.
Jervis, Ann. At the Heart of the Gospel: Suffering in the Earliest Christian Message. Grand
Jewett, Robert. A Chronology of Pauls Life. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
. The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians. NovT 12

(1970): 4053.
. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Johnson, Luke T. Making Connections: The Material Expression of Friendship in the

New Testament. Int 58 (2004): 15871.
Jones, C.P. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1978.
Joubert, Stephan. Coming to Terms with a Neglected Aspect of Ancient Mediterranean

Reciprocity: Senecas Views on Benefit-Exchange in De Beneficiis as the
Framework for a Model of Social Exchange. Pages 4763 in Social Scientific Models
for Interpreting the Bible: Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina.
Edited by John J. Pilch. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
. One Form of Social Exchange or Two? Euergetism, Patronage, and New

Testament StudiesRoman and Greek Ideas of Patronage. BTB 31 (2001): 1725.
. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Pauls Collection.

354
. in Paul: An Investigation into the Apostles Performative Application of
the Language of Grace within the Framework of his Theological Reflection on the
Event/Process of Salvation. Pages 187211 in Salvation in the New Testament:
Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. NovTSup 121; Leiden:
Brill, 2005.
Judge, E.A. Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from
Contemporary Documents. Pages 15774 in Social Distinctives of the Christians in
the First Century. Edited by David Scholer. Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2008.
. The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community. JRH (196061), 415, 12537.
. Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St Paul. Pages 13756 in Social
Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge. Edited by
David Scholer. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the
Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation. London: Tyndale Press, 1960.
. St. Paul and Classical Society. JAC 15 (1972): 1936.
. St Paul as a Radical Critic of Society. Pages 99116 in Social Distinctives of the

Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge. Edited by David Scholer.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Jules-Rosette, B. The Conversion Experience: The Apostles of John Maranke. Journal of

Religion in Africa 7 (1976): 13264.
Ksemann, Ernst. Die Legitimitt des Apostels. Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 10

13. ZNW 41 (1942): 3371.
. New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W.J. Montague. London: SCM,

1969.
Keener, Craig. 12 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Kennedy, J.H. The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians. London: Methuen
and Co., 1900.
Kerferd, G.B. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
355
Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Pauls Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981.
Kirk, Alan. Karl Polanyi, Marshall Sahlins, and the Study of Ancient Social Relations.
JBL 126 (2007): 18291.
Kittredge, Cynthia B. Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the Pauline
Tradition. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998.
Konstan, David. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997.
. Patrons and Friends. CP 90 (1995): 32842.
Krentz, Edgar. Paul, Games, and the Military. Pages 34483 in Paul in the Greco-Roman
World: A Handbook. Edited by Paul J. Sampley. London: Trinity Press
International, 2003.
Kmmel, W.G. Introduction to the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1965.
Lambrecht, Jan. Second Corinthians. SP 8. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999.
Lattey, C. in 2 Cor. xi.20. JTS 44 (1943): 148.
Lendon, J.E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford
Lietzmann, Hans, and W.G. Kmmel. An die Korinther I/II. HNT 9. Mohr Siebeck:
Tbingen, 1969.
. An die Korinther I/II. HNT 9. Mohr Siebeck: Tbingen, 1969.
Lieu, Judith. Grace to You and Peace: The Apostolic Greeting. BJRL 68 (1985/86): 161-78
Lightfoot, J.B. Notes on Epistles of St Paul from Unpublished Commentaries. London:

Macmillan, 1895.
. Saint Pauls Epistle to the Philippians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and
Dissertations. London: Macmillan, 1896.
Lincoln, Andrew. Communion: Some Pauline Foundations. Ecclesiology 5 (2009): 13660.
356
Litfin, Duane. St. Pauls Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 14 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric.
SNTSMS 79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Lohmeyer, Ernst. Der Brief an die Philipper. Gttingen: Dandenhoed & Ruprecht, 1956.
. Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1930.
-------. Probleme paulinischer Theologie: I. Briefliche Gruberschriften. ZNW 26

(1927): 158-73.
Longenecker, Bruce. Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the
Study of Early Urban Christianity. JSNT 31 (2009): 24378.
. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2010.
. Socio-Economic Profiling of the First Urban Christians. Pages 3659 in After the
First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five
Years Later. Edited by Todd Still and David Horrell. London: T&T Clark, 2009.
Ldemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.
. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Edited by Stanley F. Jones.

London: SCM Press, 1984.
MacGillivray, Erlend D. Re-Evaluating Patronage and Reciprocity in Antiquity and New

Testament Studies. JGRChJ 6 (2009): 3781.
. Romans 16:2, /, and the Application of Reciprocal

Relationships to New Testament Texts. NovT 53 (2011): 18399.
Machiavelli, Niccol. The History of Florence and the Prince. London: H.G. Bohn, 1847.
MacMullen, Ramsay. Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven, MA: Yale
MacMullen, Ramsey. Personal Power in the Roman Empire. AJPh 107 (1986): 51224.
Malherbe, Abraham, ed. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
1977.
357
. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988.
. Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9.

Pages 23155 in Paul in His Hellenistic Context. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
. Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess. 2. NovT 12 (1970): 20317.
. The Inhospitality of Diotrephes. Pages 22232 in Gods Christ and His People:
Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl. Edited by Jacob and Meeks Jervell Wayne A.
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977.
. The Letters to the Thessalonians. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987.
. Pauls Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11). Pages 12539 in Friendship, Flattery, and

Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World. Edited by John
T. Fitzgerald. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Malina, Bruce. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Marchal, Joseph. With Friends Like These...: A Feminist Rhetorical Reconsideration of

Scholarship and the Letter to the Philippians. JSNT 29.1 (2006): 77106.
Marshall, Jonathan. Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke.
Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians.
Martin, Dale. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
. Review of Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations

with the Corinthians. JBL 108 (1989): 54244.
. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven: Yale
358
. Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators. JAAR 59 (1991): 54789.
Martin, David. Jesus Christ and Modern Sociology. Pages 3946 in Crisis in Christology.
Edited by W.R. Farmer. Livonia, MI: Dove, 1995.
Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986.
. Philippians. NCB. London: Routledge, 1976.
Matera, Frank. II Corinthians: A Commentary. NTL. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox,

2003.
Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated
by W.D. Halls. London: Routledge, 1990.
McDermott, Michael. The Biblical Doctrine of . BZ 19 (1975): 6477, 21933.
Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1983.
. The Social Context of Pauline Theology. Int 36 (1982): 26677.
Meggitt, Justin. Paul, Poverty and Survival. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
. Response to Martin and Theissen. JSNT 24 (2001): 8594.
Michael, James H. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. MNTC. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1928.
Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.
Mitchell, Margaret. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the
Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991.
Moda, A. La lettera a Filippesie gli ultimi anni di Paolo prigioniero. BeO 27 (1985): 17
30.
Moffatt, James. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. MNTC. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1938.
359
Mommsen, Theodor. Das rmische Gastrecht und die rmische Clientel. Pages 1.326
90 in Rmische Forschungen. 2 vols.; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1864.
Moore, George. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1927.
Morris, Leon. . NovT 1 (1956): 2058.
Mott, Stephen. The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic

Benevolence. Pages 6072 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation:
Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students. Edited by G.F.
Hawthorne. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975.
Moxnes, Halvor. Honor and Shame. BTB 23 (1993): 16776.
. Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts. Pages 24168 in

The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Edited by Jerome Neyrey.
Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991.
Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Atlanta: John Knox, 1959.
Murphy-OConnor, Jerome. St. Pauls Corinth: Texts and Archaeology. 3rd ed. Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002.
Mller, Peter. Grundlinien paulinischer Theologie (Rm 15, 1433). KD 35 (1989): 212
35.
Neuenzeit, Paul. Das Herrenmahl. Studien zur paulinischen Eucharistie-auffassung. Mnich:

Ksel, 1960.
Neugebauer, Fritz. In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Glaubensverstndnis.

Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961.
Neyrey, Jerome, ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
Nguyen, Henry. Christian Identity in Corinth. WUNT 2/243. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Nicols, John. Patrons of Provinces in the Early Principate: The Case of Bithynia. ZPE 80
(1990): 10181.
. Pliny and the Patronage of Communities. Hermes 108 (1980): 36585.
360
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Translated
by R.J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Books, 1973.
Nongbri, Brent. Two Neglected Textual Variants in Philippians 1. JBL 128 (2009): 803
08.
Nussbaum, Martha. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
OBrien, Peter. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand
. The Fellowship Theme in Philippians. RTR 37 (1978): 918.
. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. NovTSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Oakes, Peter. Jason and Penelope Hear Philippians 1.111. Pages 16164 in
Understanding, Studying and Reading. New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton.
Edited by Christopher Rowland and Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
. Philippians: From People to Letter. SNTSMS 110. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2001.
Ollrog, Wolf-Henning. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis
der paulinischen Mission. WMANT 58. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1979.
Omanson, R.L. A Note on Phil. 1:12. BT 29 (1978): 44648.
Osiek, Carolyn. The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of the
Ways. BTB 39 (2009): 14352.
Palmer, D.W. To Die is Gain (Philippians 1:21). NovT 17 (1975): 20318.
Panikulam, George. Koinnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life.
AnBib 85. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
Parkin, Tim G., and Arthur J. Pomeroy, eds. Roman Social History: A Sourcebook. London:
Routledge, 2007.
361
Peterlin, Davorin. Pauls Letter to the Philippians in the Light of Disunity in the Church.
NovTSup 79. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995.
Peterman, G.W. Pauls Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving.
SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
. Thankless Thanks: The Epistolary Social Conventions in Philippians 4:1020.

TynB 42.2 (1991): 26170.
Pfitzner, V.C. Paul and the Agon Motif: Tradition Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967.
Phua, Richard Liong-Seng. Idolatry and Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.111.1 in the
Light of the Jewish Diaspora. LNTS 299. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Pilhofer, Peter. Philippi, Band I: Die Erste Christliche Gemeinde Europas. WUNT 87. Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
-------. Philippi, Band II: Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi. WUNT 2/119. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009.
Pinter, Dean. Divine and Imperial Power: A Comparative Analysis of Paul and Josephus.
PhD Thesis, Durham University, 2009.
Pitt-Rivers, Julian. Honour and Social Status. Pages 2177 in Honour and Shame: The
Values of Mediterranean Society. Edited by J.G. Peristiany. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1965.
. The Kith and the Kin. Pages 89105 in The Character of Kinship. Edited by Jack
Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Plummer, Alfred. A Commentary on St Pauls Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan,

1919.
. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. CGT. Cambridge: Cambridge
. The Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915.
362
Pogoloff, Stephen. Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians. SBLDS.
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990.
Polaski, Sandra. Paul and the Discourse of Power. GCT 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1999.
Pratscher, Wilhelm. Der Verzicht des Paulus auf finanziellen Unterhalt durch seine
Gemeinden. Ein Aspekt seiner Missionsweise. NTS 25 (1979): 28498.
Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1994.
. The Importance of Helpers to the Imprisoned Paul in the Book of Acts. TynB 42.1
(1991): 330.
. Prison, Prisoner. Pages 82730 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited

by Craig Evans and Stanley Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Rawson, E. The Eastern Clientelae of Clodius and the Claudii. Historia 22 (1973): 21939.
Reed, Jeffrey T. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate Over
Literary Integrity. JSNTSup 136. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Reed, Jeffrey. The Infinitive with Two Substantival Accusatives: An Ambiguous

Construction? NovT 33 (1991): 127.
Reumann, John. Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and to Earliest

Christianity. NTS 39 (1993): 43857.
. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33B. New

Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
. Philippians, Especially Chapter 4, as a Letter of Friendship: Observations on a

Checkered History of Scholarship. Pages 83106 in Friendship, Flattery, and
Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World. Edited by John
T. Fitzgerald. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Riesner, Rainer. Pauls Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
363
Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. I Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1914.
Sabin, Philip, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby, eds. The Cambridge History of Greek
and Roman Warfare: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Sahlins, Marshall. Stone Age Economics. NY: Aldine, 1972.
Saller, Richard. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge
Salmon, Edward. Roman Colonization Under the Republic. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Sampley, Paul. Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of
Roman Law. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
Samra, James G. Being Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of Maturity, Maturation and
the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Sanday, W., and A.C. Headlam. The Epistle to the Romans. 2nd Edition. ICC. New York:
Charles Scribners Sons, 1896.
Sanders, G.D.R. Urban Corinth: An Introduction. Pages 1124 in Urban Religion in Roman
Corinth. Edited by Daniel Schowalter and Steven Friesen. HTS 53; Harvard, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2005.
Sandmel, Samuel. Parallelomania. JBL 81 (1962): 113.
Satake, Akira. Apostolat und Gnade bei Paulus. NTS 15 (196869): 96107.
Savage, Timothy. Power Through Weakness: Pauls Understanding of the Christian Ministry in
2 Corinthians. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Schenk, Wolfgang. Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1984.
Schlatter, Adolf. Paulus der Bote Jesu. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1956.
Schmidt, S.W., L. Guasti, C.H. Lande, and J.C. Scott, eds. Friends, Followers, and Factions: A
Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.
364
Schmithals, Walter. Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians.
Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971.
Scholer, David, ed. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by
E.A. Judge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKKNT 7/13. Neukirchen-
Vluyn/Zrich and Dsseldorf: Neukirchener Verlag/Benziger Verlag, 1991.
Schreiner, K. Zur biblischen Legitimation des Adels: Auslegungsgeschichtliche Studien

zum 1. Kor 1,2629. ZKG 85 (1974): 31747.
Schubert, Paul. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. BZNW 20. Berlin:
Tpelmann, 1939.
Schtz, John. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. SNTSMS 26. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Scott, James. 2 Corinthians. NIBC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998.
Scroggs, Robin. The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: The Present
State of Research. NTS 26 (1980): 16479.
Seaford, Richard. Introduction. Pages 111 in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Edited by C.

Gill, N. Postlethwaite, and R. Seaford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Seesemann, Heinrich. Der Begriff KOINNIA im Neuen Testament. ZNW 14. Gttingen:
Tpelmann, 1933.
Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did: A Source Book in Roman Social History. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1988.
Silva, Moises. Philippians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Silverman, Sydel. Patronage as Myth. Pages 719 in Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean
Societies. Edited by E. Gellner and J. Waterbury. London: Duckworth, 1977.
Smit, J.F.M. Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.3: A Rhetorical Solution. NTS 39
(1993): 24664.
365
Smit, Joop. The Rhetorical Disposition of First Corinthians 8:79:27. CBQ 59 (1997): 476
91.
Smith, D.E. Meals and Morality in Paul and His World. SBLSP. Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1981.
Spawforth, Antony. Corinth: Roman. Pages 39091 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary.
Edited by Simon Hornblower. 3rd edition; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Stambaugh, J.E., and D.L. Balch. The New Testament in Its Social Environment. LEC.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.
Stansbury, H.A. Corinthian Honor, Corinthian Conflict. PhD Thesis, University of

California, 1990.
Stegemann, E.W., and W. Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First
Century. Translated by O.C. Dean Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
Stevenson, T.R. The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman
Thought. CQ 42 (1992): 42136.
Still III, E. Coye. Divisions Over Leaders and Food Offered to Idols: The Parallel
Thematic Structures of 1 Corinthians 4:621 and 8:111:1. TynBul 55 (2004): 17
41.
Still, Todd. Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on
the Apostles Tentmaking and Social Class. JBL 125 (2006): 78195.
Stowers, Stanley. Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven: Reading Theology in
Philippians. Pages 1:10521 in Pauline Theology, Volume I: Thessalonians,
Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by Jouette M. Bassler. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991.
. Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Pauls
Preaching Activity. NovT 26 (1984): 5982.
Strelan, John. Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-Examination of Galatians

6:2. JBL 94 (1975): 26676.
Strobel, A. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. ZBK. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989.
366
Suggs, M.J. Concerning the Date of Pauls Macedonian Ministry. NovT 4 (1960): 6068.
Suhl, Alfred. Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie. StNT 11.
Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975.
Sumney, Jerry. Identifying Pauls Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians. JSNTSS
40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990.
Swift, Robert. The Theme and Structure of Philippians. BibSac 141 (1984): 23454.
Tannehill, Robert. Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology. BZNW 32.
Berlin: Tpelmann, 1967.
Tellbe, M. Paul Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civic Authorities in 1
Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians. ConBNT 34. Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 2001.
Theissen, Gerd. Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie

urchristlicher Missionare. NTS 21 (1975): 192221.
. Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J.J. Meggitt,

Paul, Poverty and Survival. JSNT 25 (2003): 37191.
. Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New
Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Translated and edited by
John Schtz. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
Thielman, Frank. Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians. Pages 20523 in New
Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne. Edited by Amy
M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
Thiselton, Anthony. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
. Realized Eschatology at Corinth. NTS 24 (1978): 51026.
Thrall, Margaret. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. ICC. 2 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
2000.
367
Touloumakos, J. Zum rmischen Gemeindepatronats im griechischen Osten. Hermes 11
(1988): 30424.
Vegge, Ivar. 2 Corinthians a Letter About Reconciliation. WUNT 2/239. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008.
Verboven, Koenraad. The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in
the Late Republic. Brussels: Latomus, 2002.
. Review of Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. BMCR 6.19, 2003.
Veyne, Paul. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism. Translated by
Brian Pearce. London: Penguin, 1992.
Vincent, Marvin. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to
Philemon. ICC. T&T Clark, 1922.
Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and
Reconciliation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996.
. Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2005.
vom Brocke, Christoph. Thessaloniki - Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus. WUNT
2/125. Tbigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Vos, Johan. On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:112: A Response to Traugott

Holtz. Pages 8188 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or
Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand
Walbank, M.E.H. The Foundation and Planning of Early Roman Corinth. JRA 10
(1997): 95130.
Walden, J.W.H. Universities of Ancient Greece. London: Routledge, 1912.
Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, ed. Patronage in Ancient Society. London: Routledge, 1989.
. Patronage in Roman Society: From Republic to Empire. Pages 6387 in Patronage

in Ancient Society. Edited by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. London: Routledge, 1989.
368
Walter, N. Christusglaube und heidnische Religiositt in paulinischen Gemeinden.
NTS 25 (1979): 42536.
Wansink, Craig. Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Pauls Imprisonments.
JSNTSup 130. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Watson, Francis. 2 Cor. x-xiii and Pauls Painful Visit to the Corinthians. JTS 35
(1984): 32446.
Weiss, Johannes. Der erste Korintherbrief. KEK 5. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1910, repr. 1970.
Welborn, L.L. The Identification of 2 Corinthians 1013 with the Letter of Tears.
NovT 37 (1995): 13853.
. On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 14 and Ancient Politics. JBL 106

(1987): 85111.
White, John L. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
White, L.M. Morality Between Two Worlds: A Paradigm of Friendship in Philippians.

Pages 20115 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J.
Malherbe. Edited by David Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne Meeks.
Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990.
Willis, Wendell. An Apostolic Apologia?: The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9.

JSNT 24 (1985): 3348.
Windisch, Hans. Der zweite Korintherbrief. 9th ed. K. Meyer. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1924.
Winter, Bruce. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.
. The Entries and Ethics of Orators and Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:112). TynB 44.1
(1993): 5574.
. Philo and Paul Among the Sophists. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
369
. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. MI: Eerdmans, 1994.
Wiseman, James. Corinth and Rome, I:228 B.C.-A.D. 267. Pages 438548 in Aufstieg und
Niedergang der rmischen Welt II, 7.1. Edited by H. Temporini. Berlin: De Gruyter,
1979.
Witherington, Ben. Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
. Friendship and Finances in Philippi. The New Testament in Context. Pennsylvania:

Trinity Press, 1994.
Wojciechowski, Michael. Paul and Plutarch on Boasting. JGRChJ 3 (2006): 99109.
Wolf, Eric. Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relations in Complex Societies.

Pages 16776 in Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism.
Edited by Steffen W. Schmidt, James C. Scott, Carl Land, and Laura Guasti.
Berkeley: University of California, 1977.
Wolff, Christian. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. THKNT 7. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1982.
Young, Frances, and David Ford. Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians. BFT. London: SPCK,
1987.
Zeller, Dieter. Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Rmerbrief. Stuttgart:
Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973.
Zemon Davis, Natalie. The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France. Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin, 2000.
Zmijewski, Josef. Der Stil der paulinischen Narrenrede: Analyse der Sprachgestaltung in 2 Kor
11, 112, 10 als Beitrag zur Methodik von Stiluntersuchungen neutestamentlicher Texte.
BBB 52. Bonn: Hanstein, 1978.
370
371

Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durham E-Theses

Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach

BRIONES, DAVID,EMILIO (2011) Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach, Durham

Submitted For The Degree of Doctor Of Philosophy

Department of Theology and Religion

subsequent chapters by situating Paul in his ancient context.

In Chapter 3, we provide an exegetical analysis of the positive gift-giving relationship between

Thus, a socio-theological reason for Pauls financial policy will emerge.

University of Durham or in any other university for a degree.

CHAPTER 1: APPROACHES TO PAULS FINANCIAL POLICY................................................................

1. Reappraising Various Approaches............................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXTUALISING PAUL ................................................................

CHAPTER 3: PAULS POSITIVE GIFT-

1. The Relational History of Paul and the Philippians ............................................................................... 87

CHAPTER 4: PAULS NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORINTHIANS (1 COR.

1. The Social Ethos of Corinth .................................................................................................................... 199

CHAPTER 5: PAULS NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORINTHIANS (2 COR. 11-

1. Reconstruction of Events between 1 and 2 Corinthians ...................................................................... 273

1. Pauls Financial Policy in Socio-Theological Perspective .................................................................... 327

studied under you.

balance between intellectually-stimulating conversations in the hallway and hilarious

and for his British/Northern Irish/Australian sense of humor.

fostered an atmosphere characterized by intimate fellowship and mutuality. It was a joy to

Garnham, and many others.

I love you, Mom.

keeping me grounded in my faith by reminding me of the primary goal of my labours. And

with all my heart.

Abbreviations of ancient literature generally follow the conventions of Patrick H. Alexander, et

unless otherwise indicated.

insufficient treatment of the issue.1 A sustained, balanced, and narrowly-focused thesis is

social-historical and exegetical problems. They misunderstand the rules of exchange in

and reevaluate the Pauline evidence afresh.

in Pauline scholarship, provides a firmer exegetical foundation, adds a consistent structure to

1. Reappraising Various Approaches

A number of possible explanations of Pauls [financial] behaviour must be rejected because of

explanations under the headings of psychological, economical, moral/ethical, theological, and

differentiate clearly the various approaches to Pauls financial policy.

1.1. The Psychological Approach

discussion of money in the technical language of commerce (e.g., , 4:17; . .

suspend the possibility of this argument until Chapter 3.

, irrespective of their socio-economic level, it would place an unnecessary burden on

that this argument is hypothetical.18

socio-economic level of the Philippians is based primarily on an inappropriate use of mirror-

17. Sayings, 31.

1.3. The Moral/Ethical Approach

endorsed by multiple scholars in a variety of ways.

founded. The importance of this point will be teased out in Chapter 4.

24. Origin, 205.

Refusing support as an embodiment of the gospel also serves a paradigmatic purpose

28. Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 34.

centric pattern of living.

identified as an anti-sophistic stand, as he endeavours to distinguish himself from those who

Pauls renunciation as an acceptance of Cynic begging and poverty, discovers an anti-sophistic

advantage of their students in Corinthian society.38

To be sure, the Moral/Ethical approach, with its several strands of argumentation,

One particularly debilitating weakness of this approach must be mentioned: it imposes

to reassess the fundamental concept of grace in Paul.

39. Gifts of God, 84.

theology of suffering (Leidenstheologie), insofar as the vivid images of enduring () and

construed as part of his suffering on behalf of the Corinthians ultimate salvation. As