Paul Hardships and Suffering PDF

Luther Seminary
Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary

Faculty Publications Faculty & Staff Scholarship
2003
Paul, Hardships, and Suffering

David E. Fredrickson
Luther Seminary, dfredric@luthersem.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/faculty_articles

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Christianity Commons
Recommended Citation
Fredrickson, David E., "Paul, Hardships, and Suffering" (2003). Faculty Publications. 212.
http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/faculty_articles/212
Published Citation
Fredrickson, David. “Paul, Hardships, and Suffering.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World : A Handbook, edited by J. Paul. Sampley,
172–97. Harrisburg, Pa. : Trinity Press International, 2003.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty & Staff Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. For more information, please contact
akeck001@luthersem.edu.
(§)
PAUL, H A R D S H I P S ,
AND S U F F E R I N G
David £. Fredrickson
I focus m y exam ination of suffering o n the concept of grief (A.ujrr|, type), w hich in
the G reco-R om an w orld w as w idely considered one type of passion. The G reek
term for passio n (7id 0 o<;, pathos) denotes the self being acted u p o n ra th e r than act
in g u p o n th e external w orld. To suffer (ndayeiv, paschein) is to be m oved by exter
n a ls .1 From the philosophic perspective, it m attered little w h eth er this m ovem ent
w as occasioned by grief or by the other m ain types of passion (fear, pleasure, lust,
and, in som e sources, anger). This association of suffering w ith passion in general,
th o u g h correct, w o u ld indicate too broad a range of inquiry. For practical reasons,
therefore, I lim it this investigation to w h a t E nglish-speakers norm ally m ean by
suffering— em otional p ain or grief .2 F urtherm ore, I h ighlight aspects of the a n
cient discourse ab o u t grief that bear directly on the interpretation of P au l's letters:
som e p ertin en t form s of grief, h ard sh ip s an d h a rd sh ip lists, the role of grief in
m oral reform ation; tw o ancient letter types that m ake grief them atic; an d the n o
tion of shared suffering in friendship.
P art I. H ardships and Suffering

in G reco -R o m an Philosophy and Epistolography
T h e Psychology o f S u ffe rin g
G rief as irrational contraction (auGToA.fi, systole) of the soul or heart is a com m on
place in Stoic psychology (Diogenes Laertius 7.111,118; SVF 1.51.26-31; 3.94.14-
15; 3.95.17-18, 24-25, 41-43; Epictetus, frg. 9; Plutarch, Lib. aegr. 1,7) .3 Cicero
show s th at the m etaphor of grief as soul shrinkage w as so well established in
G reek w riters th at it su rv iv ed the translation of philosophical term s into Latin:
"Distress [aegritudo] then is a new ly form ed belief of present evil, the subject of
w hich thinks it right to feel depression an d shrinking of soul [ileinitti contrahique
172
P a u l, H a r d s h ip s , a n d S u ff e r in g 173
animo]” (Cicero, Tusc. 4.14; cf. Tusc. 1.90; 3.83; 4.66-67; Quint, fratr. 1.1.4; Seneca,
Ep. 99.15). Some of the varieties of grief im ply the idea of contraction. For exam
ple, groaning (oxevaypdg, stenagmos) conveys the notion of contraction in the root
cxev (sten; see Rom 8:23, 26; 2 Cor 5:2,4 ).4 Soul shrinkage accounts in the philoso
phers for the experience of grief at its m ost fun dam ental level .5
N ot all types of em otional pain, how ever, exhibit contraction of soul. O ne
such variety of grief often treated by the philosophers w as regret (pexapeAeia,
mctameleia), a particularly sharp form of suffering. The stan d ard definition of re
gret w as "grief over sins done as though h ap p en in g th ro u g h one's o w n self ." 6
W hat m akes regret so painful is self-hatred an d self-condem nation: "R egret is a
factious passion of the soul w hich brings unhappiness, for to the extent th at the
one is encom passed by regrets an d is grieved at the things w hich have hap p en ed ,
to this degree he is angry at him self, since he becam e the cause of these things"
(SVF 3.149.20-24; m y translation). A ccording to Plutarch, the soul th at regrets a
deed is filled w ith no other th o u g h t than "h o w it m ight escape from the m em ory
of its iniquities, drive out of itself the consciousness of guilt, regain its purity, an d
begin life anew " (Plutarch, Sera 556A). Such persons condem n their lives, feel re
m orse, hate them selves, an d are distressed over w h a t they have done (Plutarch,
Sera 566E). The notion that, as Seneca p u t it, "he w ho has sinned has already p u n
ished him self," echoed th ro u g h o u t ancient w ritings (Seneca, Ira 2.30.2).7 Seneca
com m ents fu rth er that "no m an is m ore heavily pu n ish ed than he w h o is con
signed to the to rtu re of rem orse" (Seneca, Ira 3.26.2).
P hilosophers used the notion of self-condem nation to explain the n atu re of
regret. A ristotle form alized a connection probably found already in everyday
speech: "But a good m an does not rebuke him self either at the tim e, like the u n
controlled, n or yet his form er self his later, like the p en iten t [6 peTapeA/rynKoi;, ho
metameletikos] . . . because w hen m en blam e them selves they are p u ttin g them
selves to death" (Aristotle, Eth. end. 7.6.14-15; m odified translation).
Plutarch d raw s ou t the analogy betw een regret an d punishm ent. Like p riso n
ers sentenced to death, every w icked m an suffers "terrors, forebodings, an d the
p an g s of rem orse" (pexapeAefoo;, mctameleias; Plutarch, Sera 554E-F). H e also
w rites that w h en "despots . . . desire to m ake m iserable those w hom they punish,
[they] m aintain executioners an d torturers, o r devise b randing-irons a n d w edges;
vice . . . fills the m an w ith grief an d lam entation, dejection a n d rem orse" (juexape-
Xeiaq, mctameleias; Plutarch, An vit. 498D; cf. Sera 554A-B). C onsciousness of a sin
"leaves behind it in the soul regret [pe'capeA.eiav, metameleian] w hich ever contin
ues to w o u n d an d prick it. For the other pangs reason does aw ay w ith, b u t regret
[pexavovav, m etanoian] is caused by reason itself, since the soul, together w ith its
feeling of sham e, is stu n g and chastised by itself" (Plutarch, Tranq. an. 476E-477B;
cf. Gen. Socr. 592A-B).
174 P aul in th e G re co -R o m a n W orld
This u n d ersta n d in g of regret in juridical m etap h o rs occurred frequently in

discussions of conscience an d repentance .8 W riters used courtroom im agery for
th e self-exam ination of conscience (Seneca, Ira 3.36.3; Juvenal, Sat. 13.2-3). The
n o tio n of a self-im posed sentence of d eath figures prom inently: "genuine repen
tance is utterly to root ou t of the soul the sins for w hich a m an has condem ned
him self to d eath " (C lem ent of A lexandria, Quis div. 39; cf. Strom. 4.22.143).
H a rd s h ip s a n d H a rd s h ip Lists
The w o rk of John T. Fitzgerald on h ard sh ip s a n d h ard sh ip lists in ancient m oral

philo so p h y has pro ven to be a rich resource for stu d en ts of the P auline epistles .9
H e sum m arizes w h a t w riters h ad in m ind w h e n recounting hardships:
The intim ate connection betw een v irtu e a n d adversity has been th o r
oughly do cu m ented in the preceding pages. Since peristaseis [difficulties]
constitute a test of h u m a n character, they have both a revelatory an d a
dem o n strativ e function. The m an w ith little or no integrity collapses
u n d e r the w eight of his burdens. His peristaseis reveal and prove his defi
ciencies as a person. The proficiens [one w ho m akes progress], by contrast,
show s greater strength of character in dealing w ith his hardships, so th at
his peristaseis reveal his progress, w h a t he is becoming. Since they help to
form his character, they play a crucial role in his paideia [education]. For
the sapiens [wise m an], how ever, peristaseis no longer h av e this educative
character. They provide the proof that he is educated. C onsequently, they
exhibit w h o he is, w h a t he has become?0
F itzgerald h as accounted for tw o functions of the philosophic discourse about

h ard ships. First, the philosophers tau g h t th at reason is su p erio r to all the vicissi
tu d es of life, a n d because the self is identified w ith reason, noth in g external can
cause h a rm .11 H ard sh ip s provide an o p p o rtu n ity for this lesson to be illustrated in
an actual life .12 Second, by the tim e of Paul, m ost p hilosophers h ad ab an d o n ed the
absolute distinction betw een the w ise m an a n d the fool an d h ad settled o n a doc
trine of progress in m oral v irtu e .13 The notion th at h ard sh ip s train the proficiens
(one w h o m akes progress) in virtue and th at suffering produces character in the
one striving for w isdom h ad w idespread ap p e al .11
We h av e seen th at h ard sh ip s dem onstrate the sage's virtue or train the person
asp irin g to the serenity of the sage. There w as yet a third function of representing
the sage's endurance: to d em onstrate his philan th ro p y (Epictetus, Diatr. 2.12.17-
25; Lucian, Peregr. 18). Rem iniscent of A ntisthenes' depiction of O d ysseus's d a n
gers (A ntisthenes, frg. 15.1-3, 9) , 15 Dio C hrysostom distinguishes him self from
philo so p h ers w ho refused to associate w ith the crow d an d face danger: "For som e
am ong th at com pany do not ap p ear in public at all an d prefer no t to m ake the
P a u l, H a r d s h ip s , a n d S u f f e r in g 175
venture, possibly because they d esp air of being able to im prove the m asses" (Dio
C hrysostom , Alex. 8 ; cf. Alex. 24; 1 Tars. 15).16 The genuine philosopher "stan d s
ready, if need be, to subm it to ridicule an d to the disorder a n d the u p ro a r of the
m ob" (Dio C hrysostom , Alex. 32.11). H e should be com pared w ith Diogenes,
w h o se free speech w as often no t en d u red (Dio C hrysostom , Isthm. 9.7-9 ).17
G r i e f a n d M o r a l R e fo rm a tio n
H arsh Cynic p h ilosophers regarded m oral failure as justification for causing grief
(A.wtr|, lype) (Ps.-Socrates, Ep. 24; Lucian, Pise. 20 ) . 18 From a text representing harsh
Cynicism , w e learn th at the lau g h ter of D em ocritus aim ed to condem n h u m an ity
for its foolishness .19 N ot regarding laughter a strong en o u g h m easure against
h u m a n vice, how ever, D em ocritus w ished "to discover som ething even m ore
p ain fu l [Xwrripov, lyperon] to use against them " (Ps.-H ippocrates, Ep. 17.45 [Her-
cher, Epistolographi Graeci 304, m y translation]). C ynic m oral reproof w as often
p ain fu l because it w as in o p p o rtu n e (Ps.-H ippocrates, Ep. 17.19-20,34). H ippocra
tes protests th at D em ocritus's lau g h ter at others' m isfortunes does no t consider
th e circum stances of those he m ocks (Ps.-H ippocrates, Ep. 17.20-21). Likewise,
Plutarch denounces those w ho cause suffering w h en the circum stances of the
hearer d em an d en couragem ent a n d consolation (Plutarch, Adul. amic. 69A).
In response to these criticism s, som e Cynics sought to place their frank speak
in g in a better light by stressing p hilanthropic aim s (Plutarch, Virt. mor. 452D; Sto-
baeus, Flor. 3.13.42).20 They claim ed that alth o u g h w ords of tru th are som etim es
painful, in the en d they are beneficial, because they are no t m otivated by hatred
b u t by a desire to heal others (Seneca, Vit. beat. 26.5). It is the d u ty of the philoso
p h er to benefit others, even if this requires a painful dose of truth-telling (Epicte
tus, Diatr. 3.1.10-11; cf. Dio C hrysostom , Alex. 5, 7,11; Lucian, Hermot. 51).
In his in troduction to E pictetus's Discourses, A rrian testifies to the concept of
ap p ro p riate suffering in the reception of m oral exhortation:
Fie w as clearly aim ing at nothing else b u t to incite the m inds of the h ear
ers to the best things. If, now, these w ords of his should produce that
sam e effect, they w o u ld have, I think, just th at success w hich the w ords
of philosophers ou g h t to have; bu t if not, let those w h o read them be as
sured of this, th at w hen E pictetus him self spoke them , the hearer could
n o t help b u t feel [naoxetv, paschcin] exactly w h a t Epictetus w an ted him to
feel [rtocSeTv, pathein]. (Arriani epistula ad Lucium Gellium 5-7)
Epictetus him self com pared the lecture hall of the p h ilosopher to a hospital,
from w hich stu d en ts should no t w alk o u t in pleasure "b u t in pain" (Epictetus,
Diatr. 3.23.30; cf. 3.1.10-11; 3.23.37).21
176 P a u l in th e G re co -R o m a n W orld
The role of p a in in m oral im provem ent w as controversial. For the Epicureans,

em otional p ain (A/6 nr|, lype) w as som ething to be avoided, because tranquillity,
th e goal of E picurean m u tu al exhortation, w as the opposite of grief .22 In their
view, p ain w as a sign of m isapplied or m isu n d ersto o d frank speech (Philodem us,
Lib. 12,13, 31, 61-62, XVA, XVIB, XXIIB). This Epicurean ju d g m en t is not far re
m o v ed from the p osition of the earlier Stoics, w ho argued against the usefulness
of p ain in m oral transform ation. They considered regret over one's errors a char
acteristic of the b ad person (SVF 3.100.33; 3.149.18-24; 3.150.24-27). The later Sto
ics, on the o th er h an d , em phasized progress in the m oral life an d m itigated the
absolute distinction betw een the w ise m an a n d the fool .23 In this context, grief
over o n e's errors w as a good thing— the beginning of the m oral life an d a sign of
progress (Cicero, Amic. 90; Lucian, Nigr. 4, 35; P lutarch, Virt. prof. 82C).
P lutarch illustrates the function of grief in m oral transform ation w hen he d e
scribes the w ay stu d en ts should listen to the frank speech of ph ilo so p h ers .21 Al
th o u g h cow ardly grief is to be avoided, the stu d en t has to feel som e p ain (Plu
tarch, Rec. rat. and. 46C). The stu d e n t m u st see th at the teac h er's speech aim s to
reform character. A dm onitions should be allow ed to penetrate like a biting d ru g
a n d cause hum iliation, sw eating, an d dizziness, an d a b u rn in g w ith sham e in the
soul (Plutarch, Rec. rat. and. 46D). Yet P lutarch does not w a n t the stu d e n t to expe
rience excessive grief:
For this reason h e w h o is taken to task m u st feel an d suffer som e sm art,

yet he sh o u ld n o t be crushed or d ispirited, b ut, as th o u g h a t a solem n rite
of novitiate w h ich consecrates him to philosophy, he should subm it to the
initial p urifications a n d com m otions, in the expectation th at som ething
delectable an d sp len d id w ill follow u p o n his p resen t distress a n d p e rtu r
bation. (Plutarch, Rec. rat. and. 47A)
G r i e f a n d E p is to la ry T h e o ry
In the epistolary h and b o o k of Ps.-Libanius (fo urth-sixth centuries c.E.) w e dis

cover the follow ing definition of the grieving style: "The grieving style is th at in
w h ich w e p resen t ourselves as being g riev ed ."25 M ore instructive is his sam ple
letter:
The letter of grief [A'onri'UKfi, Lypetike]. You caused m e extrem ely m uch
grief [AeA,'U7tr|Kaq, lelypekas] w hen you d id this thing. For th at reason I am
very m uch vexed w ith you, and bear a grief [Twtouiaca A,U7ir|v, lypoumai
lypen] th at is difficult to assuage. For the grief [Awioa, lypai] m en cause
their friends is exceedingly difficult to heal, an d holds in greater insults
th an those they receive from their enem ies. (Ps.-Libanius, Charact. Ep. 90,
in M alherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 80-81)
The grieving style has overtones of rebuke (G regory of N azianzus, Ep. 40.1-4;
Basil, Ep. 44.1) .26 F riendship language calls attention to the unexpected pain the
w riter has suffered at the h an d s of his friend and thereby increases the force of the
rebuke.
Two letters attrib u ted to D em osthenes, both of doubtful authenticity, exhibit
the grieving style. In Epistle 2, D em osthenes com plains to the council an d assem
bly of the un fair treatm ent he has received. The letter is full of in dignation an d re
proach (D em osthenes, Ep. 2.1, 3, 8 , 12). D em osthenes portrays him self as grief-
stricken over the w rongs he has received from his readers (D em osthenes, Ep.
2.13, 21-22). N ear the conclusion of the letter, he expresses his suffering one last
time:
Let not one of you think, m en of A thens, th at through lack of m anhood

or from any other base m otive I give w ay to m y grief from the beginning
to the end of this letter. N ot so, b u t every m an is u n g ru d g in g ly indulgent
to the feeling of the m om ent, an d those that now beset m e— if only this
h ad never com e to pass!—are sorrow s an d tears [A-unca Kai S&Kpua, lypai
kai dakrya], longing b oth for m y country an d for you, and p o n d erin g over
the w rongs I have suffered, all of w hich cause m e to grieve. (Dem os
thenes, Ep. 2.25; cf. Ep. 3.44)
Notice especially D em osthenes' reference to his tears a n d the rebuke they com
m u nicate .27
The conciliatory letter w as an o th er epistolary type th at m ade suffering th e
matic. A ccording to Ps.-Libanius, the conciliatory style w as ap p ro p riate w h en the
w riter h ad grieved the letter's recipient: "The conciliatory style is th at in w hich
w e conciliate som eone w ho has been caused grief by us for som e reason. Some
also call this th e apologetic style" (Ps.-Libanius, Charnct. Ep. 19, in M alherbe, An
cient Epistolary Theorists, 68-69). As the exam ple below w ill illustrate, the w riter
does n o t den y th at he h ad caused the recipient pain. In fact, he acknow ledges the
p ain his w o rd s h a d inflicted. H e does, how ever, assert th at causing p ain h ad no t
been his intention. F urtherm ore, even if pain d id arise, its real significance, so it
is asserted, is the healing that it bestow ed in the end:
The conciliatory letter. In ad d itio n to m aking the statem ents that I did, I
w e n t on (to p u t them ) into action, for I m ost certainly d id no t think that
they w o u ld ever cause you sorrow [\mr|0fjGeG0ai, lypethesesthai]. But if
y ou w ere u p set by w h a t w as said o r done, be assured, m ost excellent sir,
th at I shall m ost certainly no longer m ention w h a t w as said. For it is m y
aim alw ays to heal m y friends ra th e r than to cause them sorrow [A.vrceTv,
lypeiti]. (Ps.-Libanius, Charnct. Ep. 6 6 , in M alherbe, Ancient Epistolary The
orists, 76-77)
T h e conciliatory letter reflects th e philosophic teaching concerning the reform ing

p o w e r of grief b ro u g h t o n by bo ld w o rd s u ttere d in friendship (Cicero, Quint,
fratr. 1.2.12-13; G regory of N azianzus, Epp. 17.1-3; 59.1-4).
Shared S u ffe rin g and Friendship
T he n o tio n of friends sh arin g suffering w as no t the invention of philosophers.

"S u p p o se the m isfortunes of friends to be y o u r ow n," M enander w rote, echoing
w h a t w e can assu m e to be a w id esp read o p in io n .28 Yet the philosophers explored
sh ared suffering in friendship an d , significantly, set lim its u p o n it.
A ristotle recognizes as a friend "o n e w h o shares his frien d 's joys a n d sor
row s" (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 9.4.1). F urtherm ore, he points o u t th at suffering is in
d eed "lig h ten ed b y the sy m p ath y of friends" (A ristotle, Eth. nic. 9.10.2; cf. Cicero,
Amic. 22). A ristotle hesitates to answ er definitively w h e th e r the p ain is actually
shared, or w h eth er it is sim ply the pleasure of com rades' com pany a n d "con
sciousness of their sy m p ath y ” th at m itigates pain. H e does m aintain, how ever,
th a t it is "w o m an ish" for one p erso n to allow another to share in p a in (Aristotle,
Eth. nic. 9.11.4).
Later w riters enforce a sim ilar lim itation. O n the one han d , it is necessary to
risk d an g er on account of friendship (Cicero, Amic. 23; Plutarch, Amic. mult. 96A;
Lucian, Tax. 7 ,9 ). Yet sh ared suffering m u st n o t go so d eep as to touch the soul of
the friend w h o gives com fort (Epictetus, Ench. 16.1). It is also problem atic
w h e th e r a frien d sh o u ld share in a n o th e r's d isrep u te (Cicero, Amic. 61), alth o u g h
som e w riters believe this to b e the case w ith true friends (Plutarch, Amic. mult.
96B; Lucian, Tox. 46; M axim us of Tyre, Or. 14.5). In spite of these lim its im posed
by som e p h ilosophers, w e find the com plete sharing of adversity, even pain, sor
row, a n d grief, to b e a com m onplace pertain in g to frien d sh ip (Cicero, Amic. 4 6 -
48). In fact, according to Lucian this sh arin g is the first thing th at m u st be said
ab o u t frien d sh ip (Lucian, Tox. 6 ). The g ro u n d for su ch a n o tio n is th at friendship
is a k in d of sharing, th at friends have all things in com m on (Seneca, Epp. 6.2;
48.2-4; T hem istius, Or. 22.269, 270, 274).
T he u ltim ate d em o n stratio n of friendship w as w illingly to suffer d ea th for a n
o th er (Diogenes L aertius 10.120; P lutarch, Amic. mult. 96C-D; Lucian, Tox. 20,36-
37; M axim us of Tyre, Or. 14.3).29 Cicero reports th at theatergoers w ere m oved to
stan d in g ov atio n at scenes of such devotion (Cicero, Amic. 24), a n d w e kn o w from
literary sources th at the them e of d ea th for frien d sh ip 's sake w as gaining great
p o p u larity in the first century b.c .e .30 Again, how ever, there w as a lim it. The one
for w h o m suffering a n d d eath are e n d u red m u st be good. This qualification is
based on the req uirem ent th at a friendship be established only w ith the good p e r
son. F rien d sh ip is possible only after testing to see if the potential friend p o s
sesses v irtu e (Cicero, Amic. 79, 85).
P a rt II. H ardships and Suffering in Paul's L etters

(2 C orinthians 1-7; Rom ans 5:1-1 I; and 8:18-39)
G r i e f a n d th e O c c a s io n o f 2 C o rin th ia n s 1 - 7
Second C orinthians 1 -7 is full of references to suffering a n d hardships. P au l's ac

kn o w led g m en t of the suffering of the C orinthian com m unity opens (1:3-7) and
closes (7:8-11) this portion of the letter. References to P aul's o w n suffering are fit
ted betw een the p o rtrayals of the church's grief in tw o w ays. First, h e n arrates his
travel from Asia M inor into M acedonia (1:8—11; 2:12-16; 7:5-6). It is a journey of
w oe. Second, Paul em ploys the philosophic convention of h ard sh ip lists (4:7-12;
4:16-5:5; an d 6:3-10). O ur current task is tw ofold: to reconstruct the occasion of
2 C or 1-7 and to u n d ersta n d its rhetorical strategy, using w h a t w e kn o w ab o u t the
ancient w ays of speaking about suffering an d hardships. We treat the occasion
first.
In 2 C or 2:4, Paul refers to a letter w hich has been n am ed ap propriately "the
letter of tears": "For o u t of m uch affliction [0A.U|/eoo<;, thlipseds] an d contraction of
h ea rt [ouvoxn? KapSiaq, synoches kardias] 1 w rote to you th ro u g h m any tears" (8 ta
noXk(£)V S a K p u c o v , din pollen dakrydn, m y translation). This letter w as a critical event
betw een the w ritin g of 1 a n d 2 C orinthians .31 Paul h ad m ad e an em ergency visit
to C orinth to deal w ith the troubles in the church .32 D uring this interm ediate visit,
an in d iv id u al injured o r insulted P aul (2 C or 1:15, 23; 2:1—11; 7:12; 12:21-13:2).33
The identity of this in dividual is u nknow n, b u t in the secondary literature he is
frequently called 6 dSiKfjoac; (ho adikesas, "th e one w ho caused injury") after 2 Cor
7:12. A fter Paul left C orinth, he w rote a letter that rebuked the church for not tak
in g disciplinary action against "th e one w ho caused injury ."34
O u r k n o w ledge of the grieving style in ancient epistolography (see above) al
low s u s to see the rebuking function of this letter an d to assess its im pact on the
C o rinthian com m unity. P aul p o rtray ed him self as w eeping an d m ade his grief the
stated m otivation for w riting. As w e have seen, shrinking soul is a com m onplace
in Stoic psychology, in w hich expressions sim ilar to P au l's "affliction an d contrac
tion of the heart" signify grief. We also know from 2 C or 7 : 8 th at this letter caused
p ain to the congregation at C orinth.
T here is m ore evidence th at the pain caused by this letter w as a factor in the
occasion of 2 C or 1-7. M any scholars agree that 6:11-13 states P au l's reconciling
p u rp o se in w ritin g 2 C or 1-7, although a full appreciation of his use of the psy
chology of suffering h as n o t accom panied this correct insight .35 In 6:11, P aul refers
to his fran k speech w ith the phrase "o u r m o u th stan d s o p en tow ard y o u ."36 H e
th e n places his bold speech in the context of friendship. P au l's friendship for the
C orinthians is indicated by the joy that accom panies his speech. Joy, und ersto o d
b y th e ph ilosophers as the opposite of grief, w as often depicted as a w idening of
180 P au l in th e G re co -R o m a n W orld
the h eart (SVF 3.105.17-18; Seneca, Ep. 59.2). In 6:12, Paul reiterates his joy for the
C orinthians by d en y in g th at they are the cause of any grief to him . Reflecting the
philosophic definition of grief as soul shrinkage, he says that the church is no t re
stricted (aTevo%copeTa0 e, stenochdreisthe) in his heart, even as he, as a friend, uses
frank speech in m oral adm onition. Yet in 6:12b, Paul points out the narrow ness in
the chu rch 's affections tow ard him , an d he exhorts his hearers to retu rn his
frien d sh ip by w id en in g their hearts so th at he m ight exist there. S hrinking soul
covered a range of suffering, including annoyance. Indeed, the term s Paul em
ploys to depict the church's attitu d e tow ard him in 6:11-13 are rem iniscent of the
definition of annoyance (Diogenes Laertius 7.111; SVF 3.100.29; Plutarch, Sera
564B-C; Seneca, Dial. 2.10.2-3; Ira 2.6.1; M arcus A urelius 9.32).
So far, w e h ave accounted for tw o w ays in w hich the issue of suffering con
trib u ted to the occasion of 2 Cor 1-7. P aul suffered grief over the com m unity's in
difference to th e injury th at he h ad received, an d the congregation w as grieved at
being reb u k ed by Paul th ro u g h the letter of tears. A nother grief m u st be consid
ered as w ell. In 2 Cor 2:5-11, P aul skillfully m inim izes the w ro n g that "th e one
w h o caused injury" h ad done to him an d pleads w ith the congregation to affirm
love for the m an. A pparently, the "letter of tears" h ad w orked too well. The C o
rin th ian congregation h ad disciplined the offender too harshly, an d now, alien
ated from the com m unity, he suffered from excessive grief, possibly in d an g er of
suicide. P au l's plea in 2:5-11 for the com m unity to exhort, love, a n d forgive him
parallels the philosophical concern for ap p ro p riate grief in the context of m oral
reform ation.
To appreciate the grief "th e one w ho caused injury" experienced, attention
m u st be g iven to the term e rtra g ia (epitimia) in 2:6. H ere en v u g ia is synonym ous
w ith en m p riau ; (epitimesis, "rebuke " ).37 R ebuke w as defined as a type of m oral ex
h o rtatio n (Isocrates, Demon. 1.38; Dio C hrysostom , Alex. 33; Lucian, Demon. 55;
Jupp. trag. 23; Fug. 12; Pseuclol. 3; Stobaeus, Flor. 3.13.42).38 Philo d raw s u p a list of
th e salu tary form s of m oral discourse:
If I sp eak in the general assem bly I w ill leave all talk of flattery to others
a n d resort only to such as is salu tary a n d beneficial, reproving [enragw v,
epitimon], w arning, correcting in w o rd s stu d ied to shew a sober frankness
w ith o u t foolish a n d frantic arrogance. (Philo, Ios. 73; cf. Cicero, Off.
1.38.137; Seneca, Ep. 94.39; C lem ent of A lexandria, Paed. 1.9.75.1;
1.9.77.1 ) 39
Striking is the inclusion of encouragem ent an d com fort in the contexts in

w hich rebuke is treated as a type of m oral exhortation (Plutarch, Superst. 168C;
Lucian, Demon. 7; C lem ent of A lexandria, Paed. 1.9.75.1; 1.9.87.2; Seneca, Ira 1.15.1;
Ep. 99.32; Ps.-D em etrius, Form. Ep. 6 ; Julian, Or. 6.201 C). Because the final goal of
rebuke w as m oral im provem ent, once sham e an d grief h ad taken h old an d repen
tance h ad been b ro u g h t about, w ords of encouragem ent a n d com fort w ere to be
ad d ed lest excessive suffering lead to alienation an d even d eath (Plutarch, [Lib.
ed.] 13D -E ).10This is P au l's stated fear, a n d exhortation an d affirm ation of friend
ship is the rem edy he pleads for the church to em ploy for the sake of the now
grief-stricken "one w ho caused injury."
O ne last grief rem ains to be described. It is P aul's o w n grief, suffered as he
m ade his w ay from Asia M inor to M acedonia in o rd er to receive from Titus new s
of the congregation's reaction to the severe rebuke in the letter of tears: "W e do
not w a n t you to be u naw are, brothers a n d sisters, of the affliction [0 A.f\|/ecog,
thlipseos] w e experienced in Asia; for w e w ere so utterly, unbearably crushed th at
w e d esp aired of life itself" (2 C or 1:8). Paul exaggerates his suffering for rhetori
cal purposes, w hich w e will explore m ore fully below .41 It is en o u g h here to p in
point th e exact n atu re of the affliction.
In 1:9, Paul indicates to his hearers th at he suffered from regret. H e h ad
passed the "sentence of death" ( t o oaiOKpipa t o o Gavaxou, to apokrima tou thmm-
tou) u p o n him self. We have learned th at the m etap h o r of self-condem nation w as
a com m on w ay of speaking ab o u t regret, a variety of grief. Second C orinthians 7:8
confirm s th at the em otion he describes in 1:9 is regret: "For even if I grieved
[eXtmriaa, elypesa] you w ith m y letter, I do not regret [gexa|ie/\,o|iai, metamelonmi]
it, th o u g h I did regret [pexa|xeX6|J.r|V, metamelomen] it, for I see th at I grieved [eA.x>-
rtrioev, ehjpesen] you w ith that letter, though only briefly." The philosophical u n
d erstan d in g of regret as self-condem nation allow s us to connect chapters 1 a n d 7.
Some of P au l's references to his pain in the intervening passages (2:13; 4:8-11;
7:4-7), w hich otherw ise m ight be u n d ersto o d as allusions to the general suffer
ings of an apostle, can be seen as the regret he claim s to have suffered after w rit
ing the letter of tears.
S u ffe rin g in th e R h e to ric a l S tra te g y o f 2 C o rin th ia n s 1 - 7
H aving po in ted o u t the w ay grief sets the stage for the letter, w e tu rn now to P aul's
rhetorical strategy w ithin the letter itself. Paul adopts an d ad ap ts philosophic and
epistolographic conventions to reconcile the C orinthian com m unity, w ho h ad been
stu n g by rebuke in the letter of tears. Paul em ploys four aspects of the ancient dis
course about suffering: the notion that friends share both joy and sorrow ; the epis
tolographic conventions of the conciliatory letter; the idea of appropriate grief in
the reception of m oral exhortation; and the endurance of hardships.
Second C orinthians 1:3-7 develops the notion that friends share both joy and
suffering. The key term that connects P aul's rhetoric w ith the philosophic d is
course ab o u t suffering is xoc 7ia 0 i)|iaxct (ta pathemata):
1:5: the sufferings (to: 7xa0 f||_iaTce, ta pathemata) of C hrist abound in us

1 :6 : the same sufferings (naOrpaTcov, pathematon) w hich w e ourselves
h av e (ndoxogev, paschomen)
1:7: partners in the sufferings (koivcovoi eoxe toov mBrpaTcov, koinonoi este
ton pathematori, my translation)
S hared suffering is the necessary condition for tru e friendship. This goes to
the h ea rt of trad itional teaching on friendship. C hrist, Paul, an d the church are
one because they share em otions. N ot only did this identity of em otions provide
the g ro u n d for friendship, it also defined its task (Plutarch, Adul. antic. 49F; Antic,
mult. 95F-96D; Dio C hrysostom , 3 Regn. 3.100-103; Gnomologium Vaticanum 273;
Cicero, Amic. 48, 64; Seneca, Ep. 6.3). Friends w ere to share sorrow, or in the P aul
ine idiom in 2 Cor 1:3-7, to share in affliction (0 Xu|ac;, thlipsis). It is no surprise,
then, th at in 1:7 Paul uses the key term for this sharing of em otion in friendship:
Koivcovfa (koinonia) (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 8.9.1; 8.12.1; 9.12.1; Eth. eud. 7.9.1; Plutarch,
Amic. mult. 96D; Lucian, Tox. 6-7; Julian, Or. 8.240A-B; 241C).42
Second C orinthians 1:3 -7 underscores the friendship that P aul claim s exists
betw een the com m unity an d him self. S haring suffering is proof th at they are
friends. H ere P aul does not call attention to the fact th at he caused th e com m unity
its grief. The vocabulary of suffering is vag u e enough to allow P aul to categorize
the sting of rebuke felt by the church a n d his o w n regret to be categorized u n d er
the sam e term s. Later in the letter (beginning in 2:1-4 a n d culm inating in 7:9-10)
Paul deals directly w ith the pain he caused, characterizing it as ap p ro p riate grief.
Before exploring th at strategy in detail, how ever, w e need to exam ine the
w ays 2 C or 1 -7 exhibits characteristics of the conciliatory letter. First, stating one's
regret for acting offensively or having w ritten in severe tones w as an elem ent in
the letter of reconciliation (Cicero, Quint, fratr. 1.2.12-13; C hariton, Chaer. 4.4; Phi-
lo stratus, Vit. soph. 562-563; Fronto, Ad M. Ceas. 5.59).n Paul m akes such state
m en ts in 1:8-9 an d 7:8. Second, P aul follow s the conventions of the conciliatory
letter by saying th at the intention of his rebuke w as no t to cause p a in b u t to
d em o n strate his friendship (2:4 an d 7:3; see above). Finally, Paul claim s th at the
in ten t an d the effect of his severe w o rd s w ere to prom ote healing. In 7:8-12, Paul
review s for his readers the salutary effects of the rebuke conveyed in the grieving
letter. Behind these verses stands the topos th at a friend does no t intend his frank
speech to cause pain b u t to bring about repentance a n d m oral healing. The pro
gression in 7:9-10 from grief to repentance and then to salvation places P aul's
characterization of his treatm ent of the church squarely in the psychagogic tra d i
tion (see above).
T he distinction betw een godly grief an d w orldly grief in 7 :9 b -lla fu rth er
d em o n strates P au l's use of the G reco-R om an tradition of soul-care in o rd er to ju s
tify the severity of the grieving letter. G odly grief a n d the grief of the w orld w ere
Paul, Hardships, and Suffering 183
distin g u ish ed in their effects: repentance leading to salvation on the one hand,
a n d d eath on th e other.44 Plutarch contrasts the grief th at G od inflicts w ith the
p ain caused by h u m ans. G od causes p ain in o rd er to bring ab o u t repentance; h u
m ans sim ply p u n ish w ith o u t a view to m oral im provem ent (Plutarch, Sera
551C-E).45 M oreover, unlike hum ans w ho get angry, cause pain, an d then regret
their severity (Plutarch, Cohib. ira 464C-D; Sera 550E-F; 551C; Seneca, Ira 2.6.2),
G od know s no rem orse an d causes no d am age (Philo, Cotif. 171). In 7:9, Paul
claim s th at godly grief caused by the grieving letter did the church no dam age.
We h ave m oved from the epistolographic conventions of 2 C or 1-7 to the
philosophical topos of ap p ro p riate em otional pain in the context of m oral exhor
tation. This is natu ral, because the rhetoric of conciliation d raw s from the philo
sophic trad itio n of soul-care. Paul had already invoked the notion of ap p ro p riate
grief in 2:5-11 an d em phasized th at the grief inflicted by m oral adm onition
sh ould be com bined w ith exhortation a n d affirm ations of friendship. H e reiter
ates this them e in 7:2-4, only now to am eliorate the suffering he h ad caused the
church. In 7:3a, he denies th at his speech aim s to condem n his readers (Jtpo<;
KaxdKpiciv on Xeyoo, pros katakrisin ou lego).46 The uses of frank speech for m oral
edification, on the one han d , an d condem nation, on the other, w ere w ell-know n
(Stobaeus, Flor. 3.13.63; Isocrates, Paneg. 4.130; 8.72; P hilodem us, Lib. 37-38, IB;
Lucian, Pseudol. 3; Dear. cone. 2; Icar. 30; Ps.-D iogenes, Ep. 29.2-3; M arcus A urelius
11.6.2.).47 As w e have seen, h arsh Cynics w ere w ell-know n for their u n b rid led use
of free speech to condem n the ills of hum ankind. D em ocritus's lau g h ter con
dem n ed h u m an ity for its inconsistency (Ps.-PIippocrates, Ep. 17.40). The n otion of
the p h ilo so p h er's rebuke of sin as the guilty verdict in a legal proceeding is found
in Cynic self-description (Ps.-Heraclitus, Epp. 7.2; 9.8; Gnomologium Vaticanum
116,487). Similarly, the harsh C ynic u n d erstood bold speech as p u n ish m en t of
h u m an erro r (Ps.-Diogenes, Ep. 29.1, 4; Ps.-Socrates, Ep. 12; Ps.-H eraclitus, Epp.
7A; 9.3; Plutarch, [Vit. X orat.] 842D; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.94, 97-98; Dio C hrysos
tom , Is thru. 8).
Paul distances him self from these harsh practitioners of frank speech by o p
posing the excessive grief their w o rd s inflict. This brings us to the last of his
rhetorical strategies in 2 C or 1-7. Paul uses hard sh ip lists to shape his im age as a
bold-speaking friend w hose chief concerns are reconciliation and the salvation of
his hearers.
In o rd er to u n d ersta n d how the h ard sh ip s in 4:7-15 shape P au l's im age, I first
consider his reliance on G od an d abasem ent for the sake of the church. Second
C orinthians 4 :5 -6 anticipates the hard sh ip s in 4:7-15 by raising the issue of the
source of P aul's authority. H e claim s n o t to preach him self b u t Jesus C hrist as
Lord, a n d him self as the church's slave. The h ard sh ip s in 4:7-15 am plify these
tw o claim s. They depict the free an d bold-speaking Paul, w ho nevertheless relies
entirely on G od, not his o w n virtue, an d w ho subordinates him self to the C orin
th ian congregation.
A n am b ig u ity in 4:7 prepares the reader to m ove from the them e of G od as
source of p o w e r (4:8-9) to P au l's abasem ent for the sake of the church (4:10-15).
O n th e one h an d , the term Griaccupo^ (thesauros, "treasure") suggests P au l's illu
m in ed a n d tran sform ed soul.48 T he ph rase " in earthen vessels" evokes the
fragility of his o u ter self in anticipation of 4:16-5:5, a n d the "tran scen d en t pow er"
p o in ts to G o d 's p o w er to preserve the fragile Paul in the m idst of hardships.49 O n
th e o th er h an d , "treasure" could also refer to P au l's m inistry. T hen earth en po t
tery den o tes the abasem ent he accepts for the sake of the church,50 and "tran scen
d e n t po w er" evokes the life-giving p o w er of P au l's m inistry.51 The am biguity of
4:7 reflects the correlation of the salvation Paul has received from G od a n d G o d 's
salv atio n of h u m an ity th ro u g h P au l's m inistry (cf. 1:4; 4:1; 5:18-19).
The catalog of h ard sh ip s in 4:8-9 illustrates the d angers of P au l's m inistry, his
en d u ran ce, and, m ost of all, his source of pow er—G od.52 T hat P au l's pow er d e
rives n o t from him self b u t from G od distinguishes him from the w ise m an w hose
au th o rity d ep en d s u p o n his ability to m ake all things dep en d u p o n him self. By
m ak in g him self d ep e n d en t u p o n G od in this way, P aul prepares for his self-pres
entatio n as a reconciler.
The h ard sh ip s in 4:10-15, how ever, p o in t no longer to P au l's G od-given
p o w er to en d u re difficulties b u t to en d u ran ce of ignom iny a n d d eath for the sake
of the church. P aul now becom es a suffering bold-speaker w hose concern is the
salvation of the church. The p u rp o se clauses in 4:10-11 suggest the v o lu n tary n a
tu re of P au l's suffering. M oreover, if Jiapa8i86p.e0a (paradidometha, "w e h an d o u r
selves over") is in the m iddle voice, the v o lu n tary quality of P aul's suffering finds
fu rth er em phasis.53 The philanthropic aspects of P au l's h ard sh ip s com e o ut clearly
in 4:12: "So then, death is at w ork in us, b u t life is at w o rk in you." The them e of
P au l's v o lu n tary enslavem ent to the C orinthian church also ap p ears in 4:15, in
w h ich h e asserts that all things he does are for its sake.
In 4:16-5:5, P aul's h ard sh ip s no longer em phasize the enslavem ent them e b u t
und ersco re his spiritual transform ation. T he renew al of P au l's inner self is treated
in 4:16-17, w hile the renew al of his o u ter self is expressed in 5 :l-5 .51 In both cases,
P aul calls u p o n , yet also m odifies, the philosophic them e of h ard sh ip s as the
sag e's train in g in virtue. The them e of training is p resen t in 4:17 w hen P aul claim s
th at affliction produces glory. Yet hard sh ip s p rep are a future w eight of glory, not
a sage train ed a n d perfected in reason. P aul m odifies the philosophic topos by
stressing th e eschatological dim ension of the transform ation th at G od is w orking
in him . H e does n o t yet possess the transform ed self b u t points to G od's daily re
n ew al of his in n er self an d G od's p reparation of an eternal dw elling (cf. Phil 3:12-
14). By stressing progress instead of perfection, P aul distinguishes him self from
the notion in the philosophic tradition th at bold speech derived from the m oral
su p erio rity of the sage.
We turn to the last h ard sh ip list in 2 Cor 1-7. In 6:3-10, P aul uses a list of h a rd
ships to com m end him self to the C orinthians.55 A gain, w e see that Paul is n o t sat
isfied sim ply to reproduce a philosophic topos. In ad d itio n to the h ard sh ip s that
Paul en um erates in 6:4-5, 7b-10, w hich po rtray him as courageous an d steadfast,
w e find term s in 6:6-7a that seem anom alous: "by purity, know ledge, patience,
kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, an d the pow er of
G od. . .." These term s m ake sense if they are view ed in light of the G reco-R om an
psychagogical tradition.56 The phrases "tru th fu l speech" an d "genuine love" refer
to frank speech. Paul describes him self, the servant of G od, as a bold speaker.57
P au l's creativity here consists of introducing insights from philosophic soul-care
ab out the w ay m oral criticism is to be applied to avoid excessive grief.
The notion of excessive grief is present in 6:3, although m o d ern translations
an d exegesis obscure it. The nrsv reads: "We are p u ttin g no obstacle [7tpoCTK07tfiv,
proskopen] in any o ne's way, so that no fault m ay be found w ith o u r m inistry." Ex-
egetes have incorrectly regarded the term 7ipooKonq as equivalent to JipoaKoppa
(proskomma, "obstacle").58 A very different u n d ersta n d in g em erges, how ever, if
TtpoaKOTtfi is seen in contexts associated w ith bold speech. In these instances, it
designates arousal of hatred because of the grief inflicted by m oral rebuke (Poly
bius 38.4.2-4; Sextus Em piricus, Math. 2.54; Cicero, Antic. 88-89).5<) ripooKOJif) is
th e alienation caused by bold speech (Isocrates, Ep. 9.12; D ionysius of H alicarnas
sus, Ant. rom. 11.9.1; Ps.-Socrates, Ep. 1.7; Dio C hrysostom , Diod. 4; Lucian, Her-
mot. 51; A ristides Rhetor, Or. 3.668). If this lexical insight is b ro u g h t to bear o n 6:3,
then the reason Paul a d d s the ph rase "so th at no fault m ay be found w ith o u r
m in istry " becom es clear. A ccording to 5:18-19, P aul's m inistry aim s at reconcilia
tion. H e w o u ld su b v ert this p u rp o se if his speech alienated those he aim ed to w in
over. If his speech only caused suffering, it w o u ld be inconsistent w ith the m in
istry of reconciliation. In 6:3-10, Paul presents him self as one w ho com bines
w o rd s of tru th w ith kindness an d encouragem ent in o rd er no t to alienate those
w hom h e has add ressed w ith bold speech. Yet kindness and patience should no t
be m istaken for tim idity, because the h ard sh ip s he has e n d u red d em onstrate
courage.
T h e P ro b le m o f S u ffe rin g R e c o n s tru c te d : R o m a n s 5 : 1 - 1 1 a n d 8 : 1 8 - 3 9
N o passages better d em o n strate P aul's fam iliarity w ith philosophic discourse

concerning h ard sh ip s a n d suffering than Rom 5:1-11 and 8:18-39. Fam iliarity is
p erh ap s too w eak a w ord. Paul is so acquainted w ith the philosophic tradition
th at he uses its com m onplaces effortlessly. Yet Paul m anipulates theses com m on-
place sayings a n d ideas in o rd er to criticize p h ilo so p h y 's claim ab o u t the capac

ity of th e w ise m an to e n d u re suffering. In o th er w ords, Paul both em ploys anti
subverts the p attern ed discourse of philosophy w ith its confidence in reason to
conquer hardships.
H e does this for a purpose. In place of virtue or reason as the solution to the
p roblem of suffering, P aul advances the notion of shared suffering. A lthough he
derives from the philosophic trad itio n the idea that friends share joy, suffering,
a n d ev en d eath, P aul radically expands the pool of friends to include G od, Christ,
th e H oly Spirit, a n d all of creation. The controlling im age in these tw o passages is
n o t th e sage, p ro tected from h ard sh ip s by his reason, b u t the friend su rro u n d e d
b y friends w h o share all things.
A t first glance, Rom 5:3-4 sim ply reproduces the notion th at h ard sh ip s train
th e sage in v irtue.60 Suffering builds character (see above). Paul w rites, " A n d no t
only that, b u t w e also boast in o u r sufferings, know ing th at suffering produces
end u ran ce, a n d en d u ran ce produces character, an d character produces h o p e . . . "
P au l recasts this com m onplace philosophical n otion in a fam iliar rhetorical figure,
clim ax.61
Yet som e unfam iliar aspects of P au l's arg u m en t w o u ld h av e frustrated the a n
cient re a d e r's expectations. N otice that P aul com pletes the clim ax in 5:4 b y say
ing th at "character produces hope." From the philosophic standpoint, this is an
o d d conclusion to an account of the w ay suffering b u ild s character.62 Som e
philo so p h ers reg arded ho p e as a m oral disease, because h o p e placed hap p in ess
in externals, over w hich no one has control. P u rsu it of externals can only lead to
sham e (Seneca, Epp: 5.7; 13.13; 23.2; 24.1; 71.14; 99.5,13; 101.4).“ Thus, by in tro
d u cin g ho p e as the p ro d u ct of character, P aul begins his critique of the p hilo
sophic view of suffering as the training of reason.
In its place, Paul explores the relationship betw een friendship a n d suffering.
I m u st p o in t o u t the w ays P aul w orks the friendship m otif into the arg u m en t as a
replacem ent of philosophic reason. In 5:5 w e read th at hope is secure, "because
the love of G od has been po u red into o u r h earts th ro u g h the H oly Spirit th at has
b een given to us." The p u tativ e exegetical dilem m a th at w ould force a decision
w h eth er "love of G od" is a n objective genitive (the love w e have for G od) or a
subjective genitive (G od's love for us) likely is a false problem . The central m eta
p h o r of the sentence, love as a liquid, suggests a m u tu ality of love. The idea of
love as a liquid po u red into the heart is found in am atory literature. It depicts the
beloved as the source of the lo v er's affection.64 If Paul is u sin g this notion of m u
tu al love, th en the reason w h y hope is secure an d can replace reason in the face of
h ard sh ip s becom es clear: friendship w ith G od m eans a m u tu al sharing of suffer
ing an d joy. Paul has already alluded to this sharing in 5:2 w h en he boasts on the
ho p e of sh aring the glory of God.
In 5:6-8, Paul reiterates the them e of friendship an d suffering from a differ

ent angle: "For w hile w e w ere still w eak, at the right tim e C hrist died for the u n
godly. Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—th o u g h perh ap s for
a good p erson som eone m ight actually dare to die. But G od proves his love for us
in th at w hile w e still w ere sinners C hrist died for us." This verse echoes the p hilo
sophic idea th at the ultim ate proof of friendship w as to u ndergo h ard sh ip s and
even to die for the friend. Paul construes Jesus' d eath for others in just this way.
N otice also that Jesus' death also dem onstrates G o d 's love (5:8). There are som e
im p o rtan t distinctions, how ever, w hich set P au l's argum ent ap a rt from the usual
discussion of this m atter. The philosophers w ere careful to p u t a lim it on friend
ship. F riendship is possible only betw een the v irtu o u s (see above). Jesus (and by
im plication God) violates this canon of friendship. Jesus dies for the w eak, sin
ners, an d enemies.
The final w ay Paul w orks the friendship m otif into the arg u m en t is the re
p eated use of KaxaAA&aaeiv (katallassein) in 5:9-11. This term , translated som e
w h a t m isleadingly as "to reconcile," does not sim ply m ean the cessation of
anim osity, alth o u g h this is the w ay com m entators invariably regard it. The term
regularly referred to the establishm ent of friendship (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 8.6.7; Dio
C hrysostom , Meow. 11,41,47-48), a n d w ith friendship com es the notion of sh ar
ing all things. Thus, w e h av e com e again to the p o in t that began the passage:
P au l's confidence resides in his ho p e of sharing G o d 's glory. Paul does n o t take
the p h ilo so p h er's approach of view ing suffering as the occasion to display or to
train h u m a n reason. In the last analysis, h u m a n suffering is a test of divine friend
ship. Will the sh aring b etw een suffering h u m an ity a n d G od be com plete? If there
is to be a h u m an boasting in G o d 's glory will there also be G o d 's participation in
h u m an suffering?
R om ans 8:18-39 m akes the case for divine participation in h u m an suffering.
This passage takes u p the issue of suffering, as the opening verse clearly indicates:
"I consider th at the sufferings of this present tim e are not w o rth com paring w ith
the glory ab o u t to be revealed to us." There are num erous parallels betw een
8:18-39 an d 5:1-11. The m ost obvious is the h ard sh ip lists in 8:35-39 th at rem ind
the read er of 5:3-4:
W ho w ill sep arate [ycoploei, chdrisei] us from the love of Christ? Will h a rd
ship, or distress, or persecution, o r fam ine, o r nakedness, o r peril, or
sw ord? As it is w ritten, "For y o u r sake w e are being killed all d ay long;
w e are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things w e
are m ore th an conquerors [wtepviKCopev, hypemikomen] th ro u g h him w ho
loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, n o r life, nor angels, nor
rulers, n or things present, n o r things to com e, n o r pow ers, n o r height, nor
d ep th , n o r an y th in g else in all creation, w ill be able to separate [xcopfocu,
chorisai] u s from the love of G od in C hrist Jesus o u r Lord.
T he item s in the first list (8:35) are typical of the dan g ers en d u red by the w ise
m an. T he provocative aspect of bo th lists, how ever, is their rhetorical function.
N eith er list w o rk s in any of the three w ays h ard sh ip s w ere u sed in the ancient d is
course ab o u t the w ise m an. V irtue is n either d isp lay ed n o r trained here, n o r is the
p h ilan th ro p y of P aul a n d his readers exhibited. Paul is p u ttin g these hard sh ip
lists to a n o vel use, a n d w h a t h e does no t say ab o u t suffering m ight h av e seem ed
to his hearers to h ave as m uch im portance as w h a t he d id say.
The novelty of P au l's use of these h ard sh ip lists is th at he p u ts them in the
context of friendship. Instead of calling a tten tio n to an in d iv id u a l's v irtu e or p h i
lanthropy, the lists n am e the things th at cannot separate Paul a n d his readers from
th e love of G od. P aul m entions separation tw ice (8:35, 39) th u s p u ttin g his h ear
ers in m in d of a problem often treated in discussions of friendship (Aristotle, Eth.
nic. 8.5.1; P lutarch, Amic. mult. 95A; Seneca, Ep. 55.8-11; 63.3). S eparation w as the
greatest grief friends m ight suffer. Yet there w as com fort. Even w h e n physically
ab sent from one another, friends w ere inseparable, because they w ere one soul in
tw o bodies. H a rd sh ip s in P au l's h ands, then, serve the rhetorical p u rp o se of re
co nstructing the problem of suffering. Suffering is n ot the occasion for the display
o r th e train in g of v irtu e as w o u ld have been the case for Stoics an d indeed for
m uch of th e G reco-R om an w orld. For Paul, h ard sh ip s produce or exhibit noth in g
in them selves; rather, a n d simply, h ard sh ip s do n o t o bstruct the friendship am ong
G od, Paul, an d his hearers.
P aul fu rth er challenges the u n d ersta n d in g of suffering in the philosophic tra
d ition w h en he em ploys the phrase "w e are m ore than conquerors [tmepviKcouev,
hypernikomen] th ro u g h him w ho loved us." To u n d ersta n d w hy this is a challenge,
w e need first to appreciate the claim the victory m otif m akes for the suprem acy
of reason in the face of m isfortune. The victory m otif w as a p o p u lar m etap h o r in
the philosophic p ortrayal of the w ise m an 's superiority to hardships. The w ise
m an conquers h ard sh ip s (Seneca, Dial. 1.2.2; 2.10.4; Polyb. 17.1-2; Elelv. 2.2), w hile
he him self is invincible (aviKrixog, aniketos; Ps.-D iogenes, Ep. 33; Epictetus, Diatr.
1.18.21-23; Ench. 19.2; Seneca, Ep. 85.29; Vit. beat. 4.2; Elelv. 5.5). F ortune v a n
quishes lesser souls (Seneca, Helv. 1.1). Both m ilitary an d athletic victory served
as a point of com parison for the sage's indom itable soul.65 The victory could be
over external d angers or over one's ow n passions.66 Seneca, w ho used the m eta
p h o r extensively,67 ends a discourse on suffering like Paul w ith the rhetorical
flourish su p p lied by the victory motif:
A nd w h en will it be o u r privilege to despise both kinds of m isfortune?

W hen w ill it be our privilege, after all the passions have been su b d u ed
an d b ro u g h t u n d er o u r control, to u tter the w ords "I have conquered
[vici]l"7 Do you ask m e w hom 1 have conquered [vicerim]? N either the
Persians, n o r the far-off M edes, nor the w arlike race th at lies beyond the
P a u l, H a r d s h ip s , a m i S u ff e r in g 189
Dahae; not these, b u t greed, am bition, an d the fear of death th at has con
quered the conquerors of the w orld [qui victores gentium vicit]. (Seneca, Ep.
71.37)
The m otif em phasized the im portance of placing all of one's hopes in oneself and
n o t in others (Ceb. Tab. 22-24; Seneca, Vit. beat. 8.3). It also p ointed to the capacity
of reason to protect the self from every m isfortune (Cicero, Tusc. 5.52-54; Seneca,
Epp. 9.18-19; 78.15-21; Dial. 2.5.7; 2.6.6).
Paul seem s to affirm the p h ilo so p h er's confidence in reason by introducing
the victory m otif into a discussion of hardships. N evertheless, h e dism antles the
philosophic view in tw o w ays. First, he claim s th at "w e are more than conquerors"
(em phasis added), im plying th at the m etaphor of victory over suffering m ay not
be adequate. Second, victory over suffering com es no t through an in d iv id u al's
use of reason b u t through friendship w ith God: "w e are m ore th an conquerors
th ro u g h him w ho loved us" (8:37). If anything is clear about the p h ilo so p h er's use
of the victory motif, it is this: the individual soul has w ithin itself all th at is nec
essary to overcom e suffering. Victory through an o th e r's agency w o u ld have ap
p eared ludicrous and an insult to the providence of G od, w ho saw fit to place a
fragm ent of divine reason in every h u m an soul.
If Rom 8:35-39 is the high point of P au l's attem p t to reconstruct the problem
of suffering from the perspective of friendship, then Rom 8:18-34 builds u p to this
conclusion by advocating the pow er of a frien d 's sym pathy (taken in the strong
sense of co-suffering) to console the sufferer.68 In these verses, Paul explores the
consolation of friendship as an alternative to the philosophic m ethod of dealing
w ith suffering th ro ugh rational control.69 H e p o rtray s four agents as friends w ho
share all things w ith h u m an sufferers: creation (8:19-22), the Spirit (8:26), G od
(8:31-33), an d C hrist (8:34). Space allow s only for developing the them e of shared
suffering in term s of creation an d the Spirit.
In 8.T9-22, creation is conceptualized as a person w ith em otions desiring to
share b oth in h u m an ity 's future freedom an d in its present suffering. In short, cre
ation is a friend:
For the creation w aits w ith eager longing for the revealing of the children
of God; for the creation w as subjected to futility, no t of its o w n will bu t
by the will of the one w ho subjected it, in ho pe th at the creation itself will
be set free from its bondage to decay an d will obtain the freedom of the
glory of the children of God. We know th at the w hole creation has been
groaning in labor pains [awTevo^ei Kai awcoStvei, systenazei kai synodi-
nei] until now.70
Paul d raw s u p o n m otifs found in G reek literature an d philosophy to p o rtray the

frien d sh ip of creation w ith hum ans. W hile for som e m o d ern readers it m ay be
rem iniscent of the opening chapters of G enesis a n d the developm ent of biblical
them es in Jew ish apocalyptic th ought,71 n atu re 's subjection to futility an d its
b o n d ag e to decay w as a stock them e in consolation philosophy (Philo, Cher. 7 7 -
78; Ps.-C rates, Ep. 35; P lutarch, [Cons. Apoll.] 104C-106C, 112D; Cicero, Tusc. 3.58-
61; Seneca, Ep. 71.11-16; Polyb. 1.1-4; M enander Rhetor, nepi eniSetKXiKcov 2.9).72
It w as th o u g h t th at those grieving m ight derive som e encouragem ent from the
th o u g h t th at all existing things m u st of necessity suffer a n d perish.
The second m otif is decidedly n o t from philosophical sources. The character
ization of n atu re o r an aspect of n atu re as a p erson in sym pathy w ith h u m an suf
fering is an ancient literary figure k n o w n in m o d ern parlance as the pathetic fal
lacy.73 "G ro an (crteveiv, stenein)," a n d "be in anguish (cbSiveiv, odinein)," w ere
frequently em ployed in instances of the pathetic fallacy to com m unicate n atu re 's
sy m p ath y a n d m o u rn in g for h u m a n suffering (Greek Anthology 7.10,142, 241, 268,
292, 328, 393, 468, 476, 481, 547, 549, 599, 633; 8.3; Bion, Epitaph. Adon. 35).74 C re
atio n is a friend, groaning over h u m an ity 's suffering, subject to the sam e futility,
y et h o p in g to share in the sam e freedom a n d glory.
In 8.26, w e discover th a t the Spirit also groans. This is a rem arkable statem ent,
b u t fits w ith the overall p u rp o se of the passage to assert the shared sufferings of
friends as an alternative to consolation th ro u g h rational self-control. The m oral
p h ilosophers co ndem ned groaning (oxeyayiioq, stenagmos) as a sign of w eakness
an d the lack of reason (Plutarch, [Cons. Apoll.] 113A; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.6.16-17).
N o good m an ever groans (Epictetus, Diatr. 1.1.12, 22; 1.6.29). It is a disgrace to
groan (Cicero, Tusc. 2.30-33). G roaning m ust be resisted (Cicero, Tusc. 2.42-50).
Paul, o n the o th er hand, m akes this particularly acute form of grief p a rt of the
S pirit's experience.75 The Spirit shares h u m an groaning and is therefore in solidar
ity w ith hum anity. G o d 's friendship w ith hu m an ity is im plied in suffering the
loss of the Son, or m ore accurately, in h an d in g the Son over to d eath (8:32). Finally,
the circle of friends is com pleted. As in the case of 5:6-8, C hrist's friendship is
d em o n strated th ro u g h his death for others (8:34; see above). P au l's reconstruction
of the problem of suffering is finished. H e has em ployed rhetorical form s and
com m onplace ideas associated w ith philosophy's confidence that reason con
quers suffering. Yet he has disarm ed that confidence. In place of the virtue of self-
control, he has advocated the shared suffering of friends, an d the circle of P aul's
friends includes all of creation and the divine com m unity.
P a rt III. O th e r Relevant Pauline and Paulinist T exts
Rom 2:9,15; 7:24; 8:1.7; 9:1-3; 12:12,15, 21; 15:1-3, 30

1 Cor 4:9-12, 21; 5:2; 7:35; 12:25-26; 13:3; 15:30-33
2 Cor 2:12-16; 5:14-21; 8:2; 11:23-33; 12:7-10; 12:21
Paul, Hardships, and Suffering 191
Gal 6:2
Phil 3:18
1 Thess 1:6; 2:1-2, 7 -8,13-16; 3:3-5; 4:13-18; 5:8,14
2 Thess 1:4-10
Col 1:24
Eph 3:13; 6:10-17
1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:10
2 Tim 1:8-2:13; 3:10-13; 4:6-8
P a rt IV. Bibliography
C lassical, H e lle n is tic , a n d G re c o -R o m a n
B raund, S. M., a n d C. Gill, eds. The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. C am
bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1997.
Buller, J. L. "T he Pathetic Fallacy in Hellenistic Pastoral." Ramus 10 (1981): 35-52.
Fowler, R. L. "The Rhetoric of D esperation." HSCP 91 (1987): 6-38.
Glibert-Thirry, A. Pseudo-Andronicus De Rhodes: I1EPI TIA0S1N. C orpus latinum
co m m en tario rum in aristotelem graecorum . S upplem ent 2. Leiden: Brill,
1977.
Gregg, R. C. Consolation Philosophy: Creek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two
Gregories. Patristic M onograph Series 3. C am bridge, Mass.: P hiladelphia Pa
tristic F oundation, 1975.
H oistad, R. Cynic Hero and Cynic King. Lund, Sweden: Carl Blom, 1948.
Johann, H.-T. Trailer und Trost: Line quellen- und strukturanalytische Untersuchung
der philosophischen Trostschriften iiber Tod. S tudia et Testam onia A ntiqua 5. M u
nich: W ilhelm Fink, 1968.
Perkins, J. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian
Era. N ew York: Routledge, 1995.
Strubbe, J. H. M. "E pigram s an d C onsolation Decrees for D eceased Youth." L'An-
tiquite classique 67 (1998): 45-75.
N e w T e s ta m e n t
Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of

Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. SBLDS 99. A tlanta: Scholars Press,
1988.
G lad, C. E. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psych-
agogy. N ovTSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
M alherbe, A. J. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. M inneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
--------- . Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care.
P hiladelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Talbert, C. H. Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the
Neio Testament and in Its Milieu. Collegeville, M inn.: Liturgical Press, 1991.
N otes
1. A. Glibert-Thirry, Pseudo-Andronicus De Rhodes: FIEPI TIA0QN (C orpus lat-
in u m co m m en tariorum in aristotelem graecorum , S upplem ent 2; Leiden: Brill,
1977), 223.
2. Cicero lim ited the topic in the sam e way. See A. Erskine, "Cicero an d the
E xpression of Grief," in The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature (ed. S. M.
B raund a n d C. Gill; C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1997), 41-42.
3. See M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa (2d ed.; 2 vols.; G ottingen: V andenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1959), 1:149; 2:77.
4. Philo (Leg. 3.111) cites w h a t ap p ears to have been a stan d ard definition:
"g ro an in g is intense a n d excessive sorrow [A,wtr|, hype]." U nless otherw ise in d i
cated, texts an d translations of ancient w orks are from the Loeb Classical Library.
5. If w e associate soul shrinkage w ith grief, w e are m ore likely to recognize
allusions to em otional p ain in P au l's letters. In ad d itio n to the w ords w ith the root
sten, contraction of soul is present in the follow ing term s in the P auline epistles;
note, how ever, that the English translations provided by the various m o d ern v er
sions (the nrsv is cited here) fail to convey the physiological aspect of the em o
tion: "affliction" (0\u|/i£, thlipsis; e.g., Rom 5:3; 8:35; 2 Cor 1:4, 6, 8; 2:4); "an g u ish
of heart" (ouvoyf) rapSfac;, synoche kardias; 2 Cor 2:4); "faint-hearted" (cAr/ovi/nyo^,
oligopsychos; 1 Thess 1:14).
6. Glibert-Thirry, Pseudo-Andronicus De Rhodes, 227, m y translation.
7. See A. C. van G eytenbeek, Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe (Wijsgerige
Teksten en S tudies 8; Assen, the N etherlands: Van G orcum , 1963), 138. See also
Plato, Gorg. 472D-479D; Isocrates, Nic. 53; Juvenal, Sat. 13.192-198.
8. See H. D eku, "Selbstbestrafung: M arginalien zu einem sehr alten, aber
no ch nicht g an z lexikonreifen Begriff," Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte 21 (1977): 4 2 -
58. See also Epictetus, Diatr. 2.22.35; Ench. 34; C lem ent of A lexandria, Strom.
2.12.55; M arcus A urelius, 8.53; 12.16; Lucian, Merc. cond. 42; 1 John 3:19-22.
9. John T. F itzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Cata
logues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS 99; A tlanta: Scholars
Press, 1988). Critics of Fitzgerald underestim ate the pow er of the G reek philo
sophical trad ition o n the Jew ish sources that, it is claim ed, w ere m ore of an influ
ence on Paul. F urtherm ore, they fail to u n d ersta n d F itzgerald's m ain contribu
tion, to show h ow the rhetorical use of h ardship lists flow ed o u t of the central
teachings of the philosophers o n the relation b etw een virtue a n d endurance. See,
for exam ple, N. W illert, "T he C atalogues of H ard sh ip s in the P auline C orrespon
dence: B ackground a n d Function," in The Neiv Testament and Hellenistic Judaism
(ed. P. Borgen a n d S. G iversen; A rhus, D enm ark: A rhus, 1995), 217-43.
10. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 115.
11. Ibid., 51-55.
12. See J. Perkins, The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the
Early Christian Era (N ew York: R outledge, 1995), 77-98.
13. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 55-70.
14. See N. C. Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebreios 12.1-13 in Its Rhetorical, Re
ligious, and Philosophical Context (SNTSMS 98; C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity
Press, 1999), 139-59.
15. See R. H oistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Lund, Sw eden: Carl Blom,
1948), 97. For the readiness of the w ise m an to suffer indignities for the good of
others, see A ntisthenes,/rys. 14.5-6; 15.5, 9. See H. D. Rankin, Antisthenes Sokrati-
kos (A m sterdam : H akkert, 1986), 168-70.
16. For the dangers faced by bold speakers, see Lucian, Pise. 20; Peregr. 32. See
A. M alherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 38.
17. See H oistad, Cynic Hero, 195-96.
18. For Cynic m isanthropy, see G. A. G erhard, Phoinix von Kolophon: Texte und
Untcrsuchungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909), 3 9,165-67,170-75.
19. Ps.-H ippocrates, Ep. 17.40 (in R. Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci [A m ster
dam : H akkert, 1965], 303).
20. See G erhard, Phoinix von Kolophon, 32-45.
21. See A. M alherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pas
toral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 21-28.
22. For the E picurean care of souls, see C. E. G lad, Paul and Philodenius: Adapt
ability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (NovTSup 81; Leiden: Brill,
1995), 101-81. N ote the em phasis on reason, truth, an d bold speech in Lucian's
(Alex. 47) account of the Epicurean p ath to tranquillity; no m ention is m ade of a
conversion involving pain, leading in tu rn to repentance.
23. See I. H adot, Seneca und die griechisch-romische Tradition der Seelenleitung
(Berlin: W alter de G ruyter, 1969), 71-78.
24. See H. G. Ingenkam p, Plutarchs Schriften iiber die Heilung der Seele (H ypom -
n em ata 34; G ottingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1971), 74-90.
25. Ps.-Libanius, Charact. Ep. 43. Text an d translation is A. M alherbe, Ancient
Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS 19; A tlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 72-73.
26. For expressions of grief as m oral condem nation in the philosophic trad i
tion, see th e C ynic ap p ro p riatio n of H eraclitus an d the philosophers w ho im i
tated his gloom iness: Ps.-H eraclitus, Epp. 5.3; 7.2-10; Lucian, Demon. 6; Vit. auct. 7;
Fug. 18.
27. For o th er exam ples of the grieving style, see Julian, Ep. 68; G regory of
N azianzus, Epp. 7 , 16; Basil, Epp. 45,156, 204, 207, 212, 223, 224, 270.
28. Mertandri sententiae 370. In the sam e w o rk w e read, "Suppose all the b u r
den s of friends to be in com m on" (534), and, "W hen a friend suffers w ith a friend
h e suffers w ith him self" (803; m y translations; see also 543K).
29. Both Plato (Symp. 179B-180B) an d Seneca (Ep. 9.10-12) recognize blurring
in th e distinction betw een friendship a n d erotic love w hen it com es to dying for
a friend.
30. S. Farron, Vergil's Aeneid: A Poem of Love and Grief (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 19n. 5.
31. See C. K. Barrett, "O AAIKHEAS (2 Cor 7.12)," in Verborum Veritas: Fest
schrift fiir Gustav Stdhlin (ed. O. Bocher an d I<. H aacker; W uppertal, Germ any:
T heologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, 1970), 149-57.
32. V. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; G arden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984),
54-55,143.
33. Barrett, "O AAIKHZAE," 149-52.
34. For argum ents against identifying the letter w ith either 1 C orinthians or
2 Cor 10-13, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 163-68.
35. Ibid., 367-71.
194 P a u l in th e G re c o -R o m a n W orld
36. D. Fredrickson, " n a p p r ja ia in the P auline Epistles," in Friendship, Flatten/,

and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the Nezv Testament World (ed. J. F itz
gerald; N ovT Sup 82; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 180.
37. A ncient exegetes view ed e n ra p fa here as e7tm|J.r|ai<; an d thus an aspect o f
m oral exhortation. See, for exam ple, C hrysostom , Horn. 4 in 2 Cor. 4 (PG 61.422).
38. For the goals of m oral exhortation, and rebuke in particular, see Fladot,
Seneca und die griechisch-romische Tradition der Seelenleitung, 168-69. P h ilo d em u s
(Lib. 31, 82, XXIVA) u n d e rsta n d s eitrapriau; as a form of frank speech.
39. See A. M alherbe, " 'P astoral C are' in the T hessalonian C hurch," NTS 36
(1990): 381-85.
40. For rebuke leading to sham e an d suicide, see Plutarch, Adul. amic. 70F-71C.
41. R. L. Fow ler ("The Rhetoric of D esperation," HSCP 91 [1987]: 6-38) h as
identified a rhetorical form em ployed from H om er to R om an tim es, w hich h e h as
n am ed "d esp era tio n speech." Its identifying m arks include indication of the ex
trem e w eig h t of suffering borne by the speaker, the im possibility of a solution
(atiopfa, aporia), questioning w h eth er life is any longer possible, not k n o w in g
w h e th e r to chose life or death, an d an exclam ation about how w retched one h as
becom e (p arodied in Epictetus, Diatr. 1.12.27). In addition to 2 Cor 1:8, tw o o th er
passages in Paul fit this form very well: Rom 7:24-25 an d Phil 1:21-26. Fow ler
(27-31) calls attention to the fact th at E uripides introduces the sym pathy of
friends as a so lution to the aporia of the speaker. Similarly, Paul introduces the n o
tion of frien d ship in each instance of his use of desperation speech.
42. F riends h ave like em otions (see P lutarch, Adul. amic. 51E; Amic. mult. 97A).
F riendship com es into being th ro u g h likeness, an d this includes the identity of
em otions (see A ristotle, Eth. nic. 83.6-7 ; Plutarch, Amic. mult. 96E-F; Cicero,
Amic. 50).
43. D. F redrickson, "P au l's Sentence of D eath (2 C orinthians 1:9)," in Cod,
Evil, and Suffering: Essays in Honor of Paul R. Sponheim (ed. T. Fretheim a n d
C. T hom pson; W ord a n d W orld S u pplem ent Series 4; St. Paul, M inn.: W ord &
W orld, 2000), 103-7.
44. "W orldly grief" recalls P au l's description in 2:7 of the grief suffered by
" th e o ne w h o caused injury."
45. For the role of em otional p ain o r grief in G o d 's intention to b rin g ab o u t
m oral reform , see P lutarch, Sera 549F-550A; 550E-F; 551C-E. Cf. Philo, Det. 144-
146; Conf. 180-182; Somn. 1.91; H eb 12:10-11; Rev 3:19.
46. O th er interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians
[BNTC; London: Black, 1973], 203; Furnish, II Corinthians, 369) regard this p h ra se
as P au l's attem p t to m itigate the severity of the previous denials (7:2), w hich they
view as his accusations against the church.
47. See G erhard, Phoinix von Kolophon, 36.
48. For the soul as treasure, see Philo, Leg. 3.104-106; Cher. 48; Det. 35,43; Deus
42, 91-93; Sobr. 41,68; Conf. 69; Plutarch, An. corp. 500D; Seneca, Ep. 92.31-32. Bar
rett (Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 137) gives good reasons to believe that Paul
is allu d in g to his illum ined soul; in the end, how ever, like o ther interpreters he
does n o t com e to this conclusion for fear of tu rn in g P au l's anthropology over to
H ellenistic ideas ab o u t the b o d y a n d soul. For P au l's ability to m an ip u late philo
sophic term inology, see n. 54 below.
49. So Fitzgerald, Cracks in Earthen Vessels, 167-69.

50. See H. B. W alters, History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman
(2 vols.; London: M urray, 1905), 1:135-36; 2:455, 479. Cf. Rom 9:21 and esp.
2 Tim 2:20.
51. The p ow er of G od to give life th ro u g h P aul's m inistry is the them e of 5:12.
Cf. 2 Cor 1:6; Gal 3:5; Phil 2:13; 1 Thess 2:13. For a sim ilar notion, in the philo
sophic tradition, of divine pow er, see Dio C hrysostom , Alex. 15.
52. Fitzgerald, Cracks in Earthen Vessels, 169-76. Fitzgerald believes, how ever,
th at the divine p o w er in P aul's w eakness in 4:8-9 is "one of the w ays in w hich the
C orinthians are to know th at he has been com m issioned by G od an d the w ord
th at he speaks com es from G od (172)." I w o u ld assert th at Paul distinguishes him
self from the p o p u lar conception of the philosopher, w hose claim to authority
rested on his ow n power.
53. So ibid., 180.
54. For P aul's use an d critique in 2 Cor 4:16-5:5 of philosophic com m onplaces
such as "b o d y as tem porary dw elling" a n d "d eath as strip p in g the soul of the
body," see D. Fredrickson, "P aul Playfully o n Time an d Eternity," Dialog 39 (2000):
21-23. For these com m onplaces incorporated into discussions of h ard sh ip s an d
suffering, see Seneca, Epp. 24.17-21; 92.30-35; 102.21-30; 120.13-19.
55. The view th at 6:3-10 is apologetic has been challenged w ith good reason
by Fitzgerald (Cracks in Earthen Vessels, 187-88). H e has dem o n strated (191-201)
th at 6:3-10 reflects the philosophic use of h ard sh ip s to depict the sage's courage
an d constancy. I disagree, how ever, w ith his view that P au l's self-com m endation
fosters his hearers' confidence in him . Som ething m ore specific is at stake,
nam ely, the integrity of the flexible approach to the care of souls suggested in
6:6-7. The constancy of Paul portrayed in 6:7-10 g uards against any accusation
th at his gentleness is flattery. For the them e of adaptability in the care of souls, see
G lad, Paul and Philodemus, 15-98.
56. Fredrickson, "riappriofa in the P auline Epistles," 179-80.
57. Ibid., 179.
58. See, for exam ple, R. M artin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco, Tex.: W ord
Books, 1986), 170-71.
59. For the sense of hatred, see SVF 3.102.40; Cicero, Tusc. 4.23-24; 4.26; Sen
eca, Ep. 14.7.
60. S ubstitute "C hristian" for "sage" an d you have P aul's m eaning. So C. FI.
Talbert, Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the Nczv Tes
tament and in Its Milieu (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991), 21-22.
61. J. W ettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum (2 vols.; A m sterdam : Ex officina
D om m eriana, 1752; reprint, G raz, G erm any: A kadem ische D ruck- u n d Verlagsan-
stalt, 1962), 46.
62. A sim ilar su rprise aw aits the reader in 1 Thess 5:8. The "arm o r of the sage"
constructed o u t of reason w as a w idespread philosophic motif. See M alherbe,
Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 95-103. Paul subverts the im age, how ever, by
constructing the arm o r o u t of faith, love, a n d hope. These m ake a person v u ln er
able to realities external to the soul. P aul's earliest interpreters w ere n o t so eager
to ab an d o n reason. N ote the m ore conventional construction of arm o r in Eph
6:10-17 and 1 Tim 1:18.
196 P a u l i n t h e G r e c o - R o m a n W o r ld
63. N evertheless, P au l's appeal to hope in affliction has parallels. For exam
ple, M en an d er (813K) w rites, "In adversity a m an is saved by hope." Does Rom
8:24a echo this saying? Cicero (Amic. 23, 59) believes that friendship provides
ho p e for the fu tu re an d does no t let the spirit grow faint. This connection b etw een
frien d sh ip an d ho pe is crucial for Rom 5 a n d 8.
64. See no tes by M. D avies, Hermes 111 (1983): 496-97, an d O. Vox, Hermes 120
(1992): 375-76. For additional exam ples, see D. Sider, The Epigrams of Philodemus:
Introduction, Text, and Commentary (New York: Oxford U niversity Press, 1997),
95-97.
65. A thletic victory: Ps.-D iogenes, Ep. 31; E pictetus, Diatr. 1.24.1-2; 3.25.1-6;
4.4.30-32; Philo, Agr. 110-21; Mut. 82.1; Prob. 26-27, 110-12. M ilitary victory:
P s.-D iogenes, Ep. 5; a n d m o st of the instances in Seneca, including Polyb. 15.3;
16.3.
66. Victory over external hardships: Seneca, Epp. 98.12, 14; 104.27. Victory
over passions: SVF 3.129.9; Ps.-H eraclitus, Ep. 4.3; Philo, Abr. 48-49; Epictetus,
Erich. 34. External a n d internal are b ro u g h t together in Ps.-D iogenes, Ep. 12; C i
cero, Tusc. 2.63.
67. For a brief account, see C. E. M anning, On Seneca's "Ad Marciam" (Leiden:
Brill, 1981), 62. Seneca reserves the victory m otif for a final flourish in Ep. 67, a d is
course on the en d u ran ce of hardships.
68. C om pared w ith the other techniques for m itigating em otional pain, w hich
focused on the irrationality of grief, a frien d 's sym pathy w as a little-utilized
them e in G reco-R om an consolatory literature. See J. FI. D. Scourfield, Consoling
Heliodorus: A Commentary on ]erome, Letter 60 (N ew York: O xford U niversity Press,
1992), 81. A few exam ples can be located: Plutarch, [Cons. Apoll.] 102A; Seneca,
Polyb. 12.2. For the rational th erap y of grief in philosophic consolation, see H.-T.
Johann, Trauer und Trost: Eine quellen- und strukturanalytische Untersuchung derphil-
osophischen Trostschriften fiber Tod (Studia et Testam onia A ntiqua 5; M unich: W il
helm Fink, 1968), an d R. C. Gregg, Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian
Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories (Patristic M onograph Series 3; C am bridge,
Mass.: P h iladelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975). O utside of the philosophic w rit
ings, how ever, the notion that sharing em otional pain has consolatory p o w er a p
pears to h ave been w idespread. See J. FI. M. Strubbe, "E pigram s an d C onsolation
Decrees for Deceased Youth," L'Antiquitd classique 67 (1998): 45-75. Stobaeus (Flor.
5.48.16-31) p ro v ides a collection of texts aro u n d this them e.
69. We can be certain th at Paul w as aw are of the form s of philosophic conso
lation, since he ad o p ts som e of them . See M alherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 5 7 -
58, a n d idem , Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 64-66.
70. The nrsv' s "in labor pains" is too free a translation of ouvcoStvei (synodi-
nei). The verbal aspect needs to be retained, and it is debatable w h eth er the birth
im agery sh o u ld be given such em phasis. The term cbStvco (odino) in the sense of "I
am in anguish" w as em ployed w ith "I groan" (oTevco, stend) in ep itap h s w ith o u t
calling atten tio n to b irth imagery. The early association of the term w ith b irth p ain
is no indication of actual usage in a later period.
71. O. Christoffersson, The Earnest Expectation of the Creature: The Flood-Tradi
tion as Matrix of Romans 8:18-27 (ConBNT 23; Stockholm: A lm qvist & W iksell In
ternational, 1990), 129-32.
72. See Johann, Trailer und Trost, 63-67,119-64.

73. J. L. Buller, "The Pathetic Fallacy in Hellenistic Pastoral," Ramus 10 (1981):
35-52; J. M. H u rw itt, "Palm Trees an d the Pathetic Fallacy in A rchaic G reek Po
etry an d A rt," CJ 77 (1982): 193-99; C. Segal, "D issonant Sym pathy: Song, O r
p heus, and the G olden Ages in Seneca's Tragedies," Ramus 12 (1983): 229-51; J. D.
Reed, Biun of Smyrna: The Fragments and the Adonis (C am bridge Classical Texts and
C om m entary 33; C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1997), 125, 215-16.
74. N atu re's sym pathy for h u m an suffering should no t be confused w ith the
Stoic doctrine of oupnccGeia (sympatheia), w hich tau g h t the im personal, causal in
terconnection of all things. See H. R. N euenschw ander, Mark Aurels Beziehungen
zu Seneca und Poseidonios (Noctes R om anae 3; Stuttgart: P aul H a u p t, 1951), 14-23.
75. For groaning as a type of grief, see above, n. 4.

Paul Hardships and Suffering PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 Hardships and Suffering PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luther Seminary

Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary

Paul, Hardships, and Suffering

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/faculty_articles

P art I. H ardships and Suffering

T h e Psychology o f S u ffe rin g

This u n d ersta n d in g of regret in juridical m etap h o rs occurred frequently in

The w o rk of John T. Fitzgerald on h ard sh ip s a n d h ard sh ip lists in ancient m oral

F itzgerald h as accounted for tw o functions of the philosophic discourse about

The role of p a in in m oral im provem ent w as controversial. For the Epicureans,

For this reason h e w h o is taken to task m u st feel an d suffer som e sm art,

In the epistolary h and b o o k of Ps.-Libanius (fo urth-sixth centuries c.E.) w e dis­

Let not one of you think, m en of A thens, th at through lack of m anhood

T h e conciliatory letter reflects th e philosophic teaching concerning the reform ing

Shared S u ffe rin g and Friendship

T he n o tio n of friends sh arin g suffering w as no t the invention of philosophers.

P a rt II. H ardships and Suffering in Paul's L etters

Second C orinthians 1 -7 is full of references to suffering a n d hardships. P au l's ac­

Striking is the inclusion of encouragem ent an d com fort in the contexts in

S u ffe rin g in th e R h e to ric a l S tra te g y o f 2 C o rin th ia n s 1 - 7

1:5: the sufferings (to: 7xa0 f||_iaTce, ta pathemata) of C hrist abound in us

T h e P ro b le m o f S u ffe rin g R e c o n s tru c te d : R o m a n s 5 : 1 - 1 1 a n d 8 : 1 8 - 3 9

N o passages better d em o n strate P aul's fam iliarity w ith philosophic discourse

place sayings a n d ideas in o rd er to criticize p h ilo so p h y 's claim ab o u t the capac­

In 5:6-8, Paul reiterates the them e of friendship an d suffering from a differ­

A nd w h en will it be o u r privilege to despise both kinds of m isfortune?

Paul d raw s u p o n m otifs found in G reek literature an d philosophy to p o rtray the

P a rt III. O th e r Relevant Pauline and Paulinist T exts

Rom 2:9,15; 7:24; 8:1.7; 9:1-3; 12:12,15, 21; 15:1-3, 30

C lassical, H e lle n is tic , a n d G re c o -R o m a n

Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of

36. D. Fredrickson, " n a p p r ja ia in the P auline Epistles," in Friendship, Flatten/,

49. So Fitzgerald, Cracks in Earthen Vessels, 167-69.

72. See Johann, Trailer und Trost, 63-67,119-64.

You might also like

In the epistolary h and b o o k of Ps.-Libanius (fo urth-sixth centuries c.E.) w e dis

Second C orinthians 1 -7 is full of references to suffering a n d hardships. P au l's ac

place sayings a n d ideas in o rd er to criticize p h ilo so p h y 's claim ab o u t the capac

In 5:6-8, Paul reiterates the them e of friendship an d suffering from a differ