- Mar 27, 2011
- 7,045
- 1,000
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
For those of us who have been believers for any length of time, we probably have all heard various stories with how the Corinthians, be it with some visiting unbelievers or even that some odd believers were in some way cursing the name of Jesus in their meetings.
First, some introduction into the history of the subject:
In 2000 Anthony Thiselton released his comprehensive 1446 page work titled;
- The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
On pages 911 to 927 (17 pages) he discusses these two verses in obviously some detail where he discusses the twelve recognized interpretations for verse 3 alone with no real conclusion on his part.
In 2006 he released a revised much shorter and less complicated 325 page commentary for pastors titled;
- 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary
On pages 193 to 196 he spent some time discussing the work of Bruce Winter which came out only a few months after his first book on 1st Corinthians whereby Thiselton accepted that Winters new solution for these two verses seemed to be the best option, even though he granted that Winters view could not be categorically proven, but at least it provided the most sound and plausible reason for Pauls wording.
Bruce W. Winter;
- After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change
The solution that Winter provided can be summed as:
- "Jesus curse (this person)" instead of "Jesus be cursed".
Thiselton summarised Winters work, at least in part and I have included the main portion of his comments regarding Winters work. Pages 193-194
"This prepares the way for Bruce Winter's exploration of the otherwise
extremely difficult v. 3: No one who speaking through the
agency of the Spirit of God says, "Jesus [is] cursed," or (more probably)
"Jesus grants a curse." This verse has attracted many attempts at
an explanation. In my larger commentary I discussed twelve possibilities
(First Epistle, pp. 917-27). The key to Winter's new interpretation is
twofold. First, because the Greek contains no verb but simply has
"Jesus-anathema" (Anathema Iesous), the translation need not be (as in
the twelve suggestions) "Jesus is a curse," or "is accursed"; it may be
"Jesus grants a curse." Second, in recent years some twenty-seven ancient
curse tablets made of lead have been unearthed in or around
Corinth (fourteen on the slopes of Acrocorinth in the precincts of pagan
temples), and these witness to the practice of appealing to pagan
deities to "curse" rivals or competitors in business, love, litigation, or
sport (Winter, "Religious Curses and Christian Vindictiveness, I Cor.
12-14").
Winter argues that the allusion to when you were pagans, you
used to be carried away to idols (v. 2) refers not to some bogus "spirituality"
of pagan religious frenzy or ecstasy, but to the religious world
in which pagan worshipers sought the aid of their deities to gain advantage
over rivals and competitors in various areas of life. This would
offer a parallel to manipulative advantages in 6:1-8. Many years ago
A D. Nock drew attention to this practice in the so-called "Magical"
Papyri.
Winter argues that within the setting of Corinth attitudes of jealousy
and strife (cf. p-3) might manifest themselves in explicit requests
for the deity to set in motion a curse imposed upon those over whom
the pagan worshiper sought to gain advantage. In the light of p-3, 6:1-
8, and other passages, it is plausible that some Christians claimed to be
"spiritual people" at the same time as asking Jesus to impose some
"curse" of this order against those who had earned their disfavor. Paul
declares that this contradicts any claim that the Holy Spirit is manifest
in their life. This cannot build or manifest Christ's Lordship.
This may well be the best explanation of 12:2-3, but it remains a
strong hypothesis rather than an established fact. Hence we cannot
simply write off more traditional approaches."
Undoubtedly this interpretation will disturb many cessationists who seem to relish the notion that there were some characters (even maybe congregational members) who were apparently blaspheming the name of Jesus.
If nothing else Im simply happy that someone has finally provided what may be the definitive answer to this age old problematic text.
First, some introduction into the history of the subject:
In 2000 Anthony Thiselton released his comprehensive 1446 page work titled;
- The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
On pages 911 to 927 (17 pages) he discusses these two verses in obviously some detail where he discusses the twelve recognized interpretations for verse 3 alone with no real conclusion on his part.
In 2006 he released a revised much shorter and less complicated 325 page commentary for pastors titled;
- 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary
On pages 193 to 196 he spent some time discussing the work of Bruce Winter which came out only a few months after his first book on 1st Corinthians whereby Thiselton accepted that Winters new solution for these two verses seemed to be the best option, even though he granted that Winters view could not be categorically proven, but at least it provided the most sound and plausible reason for Pauls wording.
Bruce W. Winter;
- After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change
The solution that Winter provided can be summed as:
- "Jesus curse (this person)" instead of "Jesus be cursed".
Thiselton summarised Winters work, at least in part and I have included the main portion of his comments regarding Winters work. Pages 193-194
"This prepares the way for Bruce Winter's exploration of the otherwise
extremely difficult v. 3: No one who speaking through the
agency of the Spirit of God says, "Jesus [is] cursed," or (more probably)
"Jesus grants a curse." This verse has attracted many attempts at
an explanation. In my larger commentary I discussed twelve possibilities
(First Epistle, pp. 917-27). The key to Winter's new interpretation is
twofold. First, because the Greek contains no verb but simply has
"Jesus-anathema" (Anathema Iesous), the translation need not be (as in
the twelve suggestions) "Jesus is a curse," or "is accursed"; it may be
"Jesus grants a curse." Second, in recent years some twenty-seven ancient
curse tablets made of lead have been unearthed in or around
Corinth (fourteen on the slopes of Acrocorinth in the precincts of pagan
temples), and these witness to the practice of appealing to pagan
deities to "curse" rivals or competitors in business, love, litigation, or
sport (Winter, "Religious Curses and Christian Vindictiveness, I Cor.
12-14").
Winter argues that the allusion to when you were pagans, you
used to be carried away to idols (v. 2) refers not to some bogus "spirituality"
of pagan religious frenzy or ecstasy, but to the religious world
in which pagan worshipers sought the aid of their deities to gain advantage
over rivals and competitors in various areas of life. This would
offer a parallel to manipulative advantages in 6:1-8. Many years ago
A D. Nock drew attention to this practice in the so-called "Magical"
Papyri.
Winter argues that within the setting of Corinth attitudes of jealousy
and strife (cf. p-3) might manifest themselves in explicit requests
for the deity to set in motion a curse imposed upon those over whom
the pagan worshiper sought to gain advantage. In the light of p-3, 6:1-
8, and other passages, it is plausible that some Christians claimed to be
"spiritual people" at the same time as asking Jesus to impose some
"curse" of this order against those who had earned their disfavor. Paul
declares that this contradicts any claim that the Holy Spirit is manifest
in their life. This cannot build or manifest Christ's Lordship.
This may well be the best explanation of 12:2-3, but it remains a
strong hypothesis rather than an established fact. Hence we cannot
simply write off more traditional approaches."
Undoubtedly this interpretation will disturb many cessationists who seem to relish the notion that there were some characters (even maybe congregational members) who were apparently blaspheming the name of Jesus.
If nothing else Im simply happy that someone has finally provided what may be the definitive answer to this age old problematic text.