The Cross of Christ

Facilitator: Rev. Dr. B. Varghese Presenter: D. Lijo

Class: M.Th. Department: New Testament
Introduction
The importance of cross to Paul’s declaration of the gospel is captured by the phrase “We preach Christ
crucified” (1Cor 1:23) from the Corinthian correspondence. The terminology of the cross is used infrequently in
the letters of Paul. In all of its occurrences (except perhaps for Romans) the overall context is polemical; that is,
the apostle seems to be in dialogue with and debate against some opposing group or his community concerning
some ideological/ theological position or religious/ethical practice (e.g., 1 Cor. 1-4). Paul does not employ cross
terminology to express his theology per se, but he might exploit its rhetorical and evocative power. This study
seeks to explore how cross terminology functioned in Paul’s literary debates and also seeks to show how Paul’s
creative reworking of two conventional systems of perception, wisdom and apocalyptic, allows the cross
discourse to move his hearers first toward the destruction of what he takes to be a false, enslaving world and
then toward reconciliation in God’s new creation.
A. Terminology of the cross
The practice of crucifixion was a cruel form of execution popular in the first-century Roman Empire.
Numerous sources from both Christian and non-Christian attest to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth under
Pontius Pilate. Outside the Gospels and Acts Paul is responsible for all but one use of both the verb “to crucify”
(stauroō: 1 Cor. 1:13, 23; 2:2, 8; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal 3:1; 5:24; 6:14; cf. also “to crucify with” [sustauroō]: Rom
6:6; Gal 2:19) and the noun “cross” (stauros: 1 Cor. 1:17, 18; Gal 5:11; 6:12, 14; [Eph 2:16]; Phil 2:8; 3:18; Col
1:20; 2:14). For him, the historical event of Jesus’ execution on the cross had enormous theological importance,
even if it proved to be a major obstacle in the early Christian mission (1 Cor. 1:18– 25; Gal 3:1–14).1 In
Philippians and several instances in Paul’s other letters (namely, 1 Cor. 1-4; 2 Cor. 10-13; and Galatians), Paul
utilizes the terminology ‘cross’; ‘crucify’ in appeals to his communities and in rhetorical contestation with his
competitors. Paul conflicts with some opposition (internal and/or external) in all of the letters where cross
terminology appears (except Rom. 6.6).2 Ernst Kasemann has argued that the ‘theology of the cross is a
polemical theology.’ His assertion is correct as cross terminology in Paul’s letters appears almost exclusively in
conflictual/polemical contexts. Therefore the terminology of the cross when it is used is primarily the
terminology of contestation.3
B. The Discourse on the Cross and its Conventional Setting
      Most Scholars agree that 1 Corinthians 1-4 should be treated as a unit. Firstly the text is marked off by at
least two inclusios the exhortation (1:10 and 4:16) and the mention of the gospel (in 1:17 and in 4:15). Secondly
one can notice the prominence of antithetical pair σοφία/μωρία occurring frequently and almost exclusively in
this part of the letter in1 Cor. 1:17- 2:16; 3:18-23; 4:10. Thus one can see that1 Cor. 1:10- 4:21 forms a unit
with relatively clearly defined boundaries indicating that the passage begins and ends on the same issue.4
As Paul writes his discourse on the cross in 1 Corinthians 1-4, he addresses a church divided by competing
ideologies and ego struggles. The issues that divide the Corinthians are recognizable: in chapter 1, it is baptism;
in chapters 9-11, the Lord’s Supper; in chapters 12-14, ministry, and worship. Chapters 5-7 reveal that Paul’s
1
J. B. Green, “Crucifixion,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and R.P. Martin (Illinois: Intervarsity
Press,1993),169
2
Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies of the Cross: The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians (New York: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2002), 1.
3
Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies…, 2-3.
4
Corin Mihaila, The Paul- Apollos Relationship and Paul’s Stance toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric: An Exegetical and Socio-
historical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 12-13.
hearers are divided about sexual ethics and prone to resort to civil lawsuits rather than church negotiation to
settle their disputes. Throughout the letter, class distinctions and the divisions they engender seem to hover just
beneath every social and religious problem.5 Paul has heard some in Corinth boast of their superior knowledge
and their exclusive access to its spiritual source (1:11-12; 3:18; 4:8; 6:12; 8:1,). He has watched as they lifted
their words of wisdom, expressed not least in doctrinal disputes, above all other concerns of the community
(1:10; 5:1ff.; 6:1-20; 11:17-22;); he hears in their rhetoric the claim to have attained through gnosis
(knowledge) a sort of “instant eschatology” whereby they are already resurrected, already free of the bondage
and responsibility of bodily life (8:1; 15:12-19, 35). He is sure that in their spiritual and intellectual enthusiasm,
they have devalued the cross of Christ (2:1-5).6
C. Primary Approaches to Understand the Situation of 1 Corinthians 1-4
       There are mainly three approaches to understand the situation of 1 Corinthians 1-4. Paul combats either
Gnostics, or wisdom speculation, or the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition.7 One approach, probably the most
common, is to explain Paul’s emphasis on the cross as a corrective to alternative ideas. His theologia crucis is
polemical, arising from the need to counter opposing ‘theologies’-Gnostic triumphalism in Corinth, Such
explanation has obvious merit. The priority is given to the communication of ideas, both to insiders and
outsiders are an explicit confirmation of this in early Christianity.8 A theological perspective has prevailed in
the past, but such an approach has begun to change due to the resurgence of rhetorical approaches to
interpreting the New Testament. It is suspected that Paul is most likely responding to the Greco-Roman
rhetorical tradition. Duane Litfin and Stephen Pogoloff have argued convincingly that according to rhetorical
analysis, some in Corinth criticized Paul because his preaching did not meet the expected standards of Greco-
Roman culture, which was profoundly influenced by an unparalleled rhetorical heritage (cf. 2:1-5). Paul defends
himself in 1 Corinthians 1-4 (esp. 1:17-2:5) against this criticism because speaking (indeed preaching) in the
public arena was essential to his apostolic mission and calling. Thus, the most appropriate background against
which to see (‘wisdom of words, eloquent speech’) and Paul’s statements about his modus operandi as a
preacher is the broad and persuasive rhetorical tradition that played such an essential role in first-century
society.9
D. Paul’s Apocalyptic Outlook
There is evidence in the letter that the Corinthians ground their way of knowing in appeals to certain
Hellenistic philosophical traditions that combine with Jewish and Christian ideas. Chief among the traditions
they call upon are those associated with wisdom and the order of the cosmos. In these traditions, the world is
ordered in discernible patterns—e.g., paired opposites—that are everywhere evident. Following the cosmic
order, the wise person leads a good life by choosing good over evil, life over death, law over sin. Both evil and
right actions have predictable rewards. This is a sage’s view of reality. It functions best where life is coherent
and manageable, where those who define reality for the culture are in consensus about what matters. It is a
compelling view, especially today amidst the chaos of competing values, the seeming collapse of all
agreements.10
But not every ancient accepted this definition of reality. At times of crisis in Israel’s history, the
conventions of wisdom broke down. Epistemological consensus collapsed. There rose in Israel two other figures
at these times, namely, the prophet and the apocalyptic visionary, who saw things very differently. For them, the
5
Alexandra R. Brown, “Apocalyptic Transformation in Paul’s Discourse on the Cross,” Word & World. (Vol. 16, No. 4, Fall 1996),
427-428.
6
Alexandra R. Brown, “Apocalyptic Transformation…, 429.
7
Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies…, 33.
8
Stephen Barton, “Paul and Cross: A Sociological Approach” Theology. (Vol. 85, No. 103, January 1982), 14.
9
Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies…, 33.
10
Alexandra R. Brown, “Apocalyptic Transformation…, 429-430.
center claimed by the traditions of wisdom did not hold. God was free to invade and disrupt the status quo on
behalf of the outsider, the dispossessed, all those whose unfathomable tragedies find no place in the cosmic
order.
Paul shows himself to be the inheritor of such prophetic and apocalyptic (i.e., counter-culture) traditions
throughout his discourse on the cross. In 1 Cor. 1:19, for example, he draws upon Isaiah’s critique of the
wisdom tradition as he quotes that prophet, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the cleverness of the
clever I will thwart.” The same point is made more expansively by his use of Jer. 9:22-23, quoted directly at 1
Cor. 1:31 but echoed through his entire exposition on wisdom and folly: “Let not the wise man glory in his
wisdom; let not the mighty man glory in his might. Let not the rich man glory in his riches...but let him who
glories, glory in this, that he understands and knows that I am the Lord who practices love, justice, and
righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight” (Jer. 9:22-23).
E. Using Conventions to Overturn Conventions
Paul used the phrase “Word of the Cross” (logos tou staurou), and in the Corinthian world, there is the
troubling image of the cross, the tree that bore the cursed body of God's Son. It is a scandal for the Jews because
crucifixion invokes the law’s curse (Deut 21:23 and Gal 3:13); For Jews, the logos was the law and Wisdom.
For Greeks, the logos signified the reason behind the cosmic order and the advances of philosophy in
understanding that order. For neither Jew nor Greek does the death by crucifixion of God's Son conform to that
cosmic order. In neither system can what is antithetical to reason, to law, that is, to logos itself, confer salvation.
This “logos of the cross” constitutes a contradiction in terms offensive to the reasoned and the religious mind.
The Corinthian ear is offended by Paul's odd pairing of opposites here. The Jew or Greek who heard "folly" in
the first half of the sentence would expect its customary partner, “wisdom,” to follow; But Paul will not
describe the cross utilizing this standard pair. Instead, he inserts, in place of Wisdom, “God's power,” To the
Jew or Greek of the first century, and perhaps to some in the twentieth century as well, For Paul Word of the
Cross is an active agent of God.11
     Hearers of this sentence, then and now, recognize its eschatological tone. It is about the end-time, a time
already beginning, at which the cross divides the perishing from the saved. Paul renders the thought more
obviously apocalyptic and, at the same time, gives it more significance for the present by replacing folly's
conventional opposite “wisdom” with “power.” When Paul calls the Word “power of God,” he has in mind the
Word of Yahweh in Isaiah that goes out to accomplish Yahweh’s purpose and will not return empty (Isa 55:1-
11); or again, Jeremiah’s Word “like a fire” that breaks rocks in pieces (Jer. 5:14; 23:29). In these contexts,
God’s Word is an active agent whose power belongs to God and whose effect is to cause human beings to
discern their true relation to God
The cross is the powerful strike of God that destroys the world of sin and death (the world of the
perishing”), freeing its captives and at the same time creates a new world (the world of the “ones being saved”)
through the self-giving love of God in Christ. Paul does not ask in this context that his hearers choose folly or
wisdom, the old world or the new world; he shows by pointing to the cross how God’s own gracious and loving
choice for them frees them from the hostile powers of the old world and draws them into the new creation. He
has seen this new creation been drawn into it involuntarily by the revelation (apocalypse) of God’s son (Gal 1:
13- 17)—that Paul construes the world in such strange ways.
Paul makes an ad hominem attack by using the community’s current composition to bolster his argument
(1.26-31). According to human standards, not many of them were wise or of noble birth, for God chose those
who were weak, lowly, and despised in the world to reverse the values of the world. The humiliation and
suffering of Christ can be viewed in the same way. From a human point of view, it seems foolish to proclaim a
weak and crucified savior, but therein lies the mystery of God’s power and wisdom for Paul. God used the cross
and its proclamation to form the eschatological community and institute a new value system. For this reason, no
one can boast of personal and individual accomplishments: ‘Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord’ (1.31).12
11
Alexandra R. Brown, “Apocalyptic Transformation…, 432-433.
12
Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies…, 34.
F. The Spirit as Mediator of Divine Mystery
The second half of the cross discourse in 2:1-16 begins by establishing the role of the Spirit in the
apocalyptic economy.13 While 2:1-5 is about how the apostle preaches the gospel, 2:6-16 deals with how the
preacher comes to know the gospel. Here, also, the Pauline argument covertly targets the party strife. The
argument’s goal can be described in this way: One comes to know the gospel through God's spirit (2:10-13, cf.
v. 6), not through the human mind; and that implies not through the apostles’ human mind either, which
otherwise could recommend these preachers for partisan praise. In opposition to the wrong Corinthian attitude,
2:6-16 points out that “we preach God's wisdom, which God predestined” (2:7); “God revealed” (2:10) . . . and
so forth. The word “God” occurs ten times in 2:6-16. Here we encounter the argument’s point and the polemic
against the Corinthians. Facing the veneration of apostles, Paul calls out “God, God,” not “Paul,” not “Apollos,”
not “Cephas” In sound theology, God speaks. Therefore the glory is all God’s (1:31) and not the theologians'.14
Paul’s introduction of the Spirit as a mediator of the mystery of the cross is part of a rhetorical strategy that
enhances the argument’s performative qualities. Paul’s narrative structure in 1 Cor. 1-2 allows the hearer to
imagine, and thus possibly also live out, the liberating movement from captivity to a new life in the Spirit of the
crucified and risen Christ.
G. The Mind of Christ: Embodiment of the Reconciling Word
 Paul brings the discourse to a close at 2:16 by citing Isaiah 40:13 and then making a bold claim to be in
(corporate) possession of Christ's “mind.” The shift of focus from “Spirit” to “mind” (nous) brings the full
discourse circle to Paul’s beginning appeal in 1:10, “I appeal to you...be united in the same mind (nous) and the
same knowledge.” It also requires one more transformative move by calling his hearers into active united
service through their corporate possession of Christ's mind.15
       Paul’s use of the term nous (mind) and its cognates reveals that by “mind,” Paul typically means more than
the intellect; for him, the mind is the whole self’s orientation, including the body toward or away from God. A
few examples from other letters will serve to illustrate the point: When the thoughts (noemata) are “captive” to
Christ, obedience to God results (2 Cor. 10:5). When the mind is renewed, bodily service to God follows (Rom
12:1-2). When the mind of Christ is embraced, unity in the Body of Christ, the church, is regained (Phil 2:5;
4:2). Likewise, in 1 Corinthians, possession of the consciously cruciform mind is what makes possible the unity
Paul calls for in 1:10, the mindful servanthood outlined in chapters 3-4, the recognition that the body is the
Lord’s in 6:19-20, and the mindfulness of prayer and praise to which he appeals in chapter 14. Thus one can see
the most explicit link in the discourse between transformed perception and transformed behavior.
Therefore, to have the mind of Christ is to complete the apocalyptic transfer to the new creation and, thus,
relocated, to find oneself no longer under the powers of the world but liberated for a life of obedience to God.
Whoever leaves the discourse without perceiving the cross as God’s power to save has not yet, in Paul’s terms,
been freed from the deceptive powers of the “present evil age.”
H. Paul’s Cross Theology and Christian Ethics
The challenge of 1 Corinthians 1-2 to traditional notions of ethics rests in Paul’s insistence that the
experience and behavior of “being saved” result not from choices available within the world, but the
apocalyptic (and therefore divinely initiated) relocation of the believer in the realm of free obedience to God.
For Paul, this obedience is both initiated and sustained by the divine love exemplified in the cross through
which all human strivings for salvation ended. To perceive that one is thus saved from oneself and from the
false gods to whom one once offered allegiance is, in Paul’s terms, to enter into the “obedience of faith” (Rom
1:5; 16:26). And since obedience is for Paul always embodied, his theology is explicitly ethical; it demands that
believers take sides with their bodies in the battle of the Spirit against the world’s false powers. Creation
13
Alexandra R. Brown, “Apocalyptic Transformation…, 434.
14
Peter Lampe, “Theological Wisdom and the ‘Word About the Cross.’ The Rhetorical Scheme in I Corinthians 1-4,” Interpretation:
A Journal of Bible and Theology. (Vol. 44, No. 2, April 1990), 127.
15
Alexandra R. Brown, “Apocalyptic Transformation…, 434-435.
matters immensely to him as it “groans in travail” for liberty and redemption (Rom 8:22-23). But he was an
apocalyptic visionary, endowed with the visionary’s gift of seeing, beyond the programs of the world, the
ultimate truth that God is not subject to the world’s wisdom. The challenge for Christ’s ministers would be to
bring Paul’s Word of the Cross to a divided and suffering world. One needs to find ways of translating his
vision of the cross as apocalyptic power for our times in preaching. The apocalyptic message must sound out
lest we also fall back under the powers of the world, claiming by their authority to be wise.16
Conclusion
As can be seen from the above discussion Paul’s discourse on the cross works as an apocalyptic message
that aims at the transfer of the believer from a false reality to the authentic reality characterized by having the
“mind of Christ.” It also has been noted Paul’s appeal for concord in the discourse on the cross has aspects of
weakness, reversal of values and the undermining of any human basis for boasting.

Bibliography
Barton, Stephen. “Paul and Cross: A Sociological Approach,” Theology Vol. 85, No. 103, January 1982, pp 13-
19.
Brown, Alexandra R. “Apocalyptic Transformation in Paul’s Discourse on the Cross,” Word & World Vol. 16,
No. 4, Fall 1996.pp. 427-436.
Green, J. B. “Crucifixion,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne and R.P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul
and His Letters. Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Lampe, Peter. “Theological Wisdom and the ‘Word About the Cross.’ The Rhetorical Scheme in I Corinthians
1-4,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. Vol. 44, No. 2, April 1990, pp. 117-131.
Mihaila, Corin. The Paul- Apollos Relationship and Paul’s Stance toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric: An
Exegetical and Socio-historical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4. New York: T&T Clark, 2008.
Williams, Demetrius K. Enemies of the Cross: The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians. New
York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

16
Alexandra R. Brown, “Apocalyptic Transformation…, 435-436.