Christ crucified and the inversion of Roman imperial ideology in 1 Corinthians.

Abstract

A number of recent monographs and articles have emphasized the significant influence of the Imperial cult within first-century CE religious and socio-political life. At the same time social-scientific studies have, for some time, elucidated the wider social-setting of the Second Testament within its social context, especially under the influence of notions of honour and shame. But despite having had a voluminous number of monographs and articles written on it, the letter of 1 Corinthians has remained relatively untouched by studies on either subject. The aim of this article is to draw together lines of enquiry from both. It suggests that Paul's language may be seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the power and influence of the imperial cult and to see it replaced by a paradigm of Christ crucified with all the social stigmatism of shame which this implies. In so doing, it presents a fresh reading of many aspects of the letter.

**********

In all of Paul's letters, the opening salutations are of vital import in establishing a framework of thought that the apostle will subsequently develop and expound throughout the body of the letter (see especially Sanders; White; O'Brien; Stowers; Aune). 1 Corinthians is no exception. There are a number of linguistic nuances within its salutation, which are perhaps lost on the modern reader but which were designed to be a salutary reminder (or, indeed, to have a profound impact upon the hearer/reader), of the supremacy of the lordship of Christ. Although Paul frequently predicates kurios [Lord] of Christ (some 180 times in the genuine letters), the conjunction of the term with the nouns christos [Christ] or Iesous [Jesus] occurs less frequently--59 times in the same letters. The stricter use of kurios conjoined to both nouns is found twenty-eight times, most often in 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians ten times, Romans six times, I Thessalonians five times, Galatians three times, Philippians twice, and Philemon twice. What is most surprising, however, is the latter's particularly frequent use in the introduction and salutation of 1 Corinthians. Whereas in the other letters, and in the remaining chapters of 1 Corinthians, the phrase is evenly distributed, here it occurs six times within the space of only nine verses (1 Cor 1:2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10; and note the repeated use of kurios in v 2)! Such a unique emphasis on the lordship of Christ in the introduction to one of Paul's letters forces the exegete to explain why this is so, for such unparalleled concentration perhaps points to more than just Paul's christocentrism, especially as the letter is written to one of the major seats of Roman imperial power.

The suggestion in the present article is that underlying Paul's salutation, and thereafter at numerous and key points in the letter, there is a clearly articulated attempt to undermine the focus of the imperial cult in Corinth. In so doing, the apostle seeks to elevate the lordship of Christ to its rightful place--both above the pretender to Christ's throne, the emperor, and back into the very centre of the hearts and minds of the Christ-followers of Corinth. At the same time, notions of honor come to the fore. The imperial cult existed within a cultural framework of honor-shame, the power of which Paul begins to undermine both by placing emphasis upon Christ as the one crucified and so shamed (the language of "shame" and of the "cross," and the foolishness of its proclamation, come up thirteen times between 1:13 and 2:8), and upon his own dishonor as one found in weakness, fear and trembling (2:3). Hence, in focusing upon that most horrific of symbols, the cross of Christ, with all the cultural stigmatism of shame it entails, Paul makes a deliberate effort to deracinate social norms and to present a new and radical paradigm for life as a Christ-follower. He does so to demonstrate the (culturally radical) necessity of eschewing the pursuit of honor and pursuing instead the "imitation of Christ," which, he maintains, his apostleship so adequately demonstrates.

The Imperial Cult

As a prelude, it must be stressed that there was probably no such thing as "the imperial cult." Rather, there were a number of different cults sharing a common focus in the worship of either the emperor, his family, or his predecessors, but operating quite differently according to a variety of local circumstances (e.g., depending upon the Roman status of the communities in which they were found, the pre-existing religious traditions of the area, and the degree of central Roman involvement in establishing the cult). In addition there was no sharp boundary between the imperial cult and other religious forms. The incorporation of the emperor into the traditional cults of provincial communities, i.e., his association with other deities, was often just as important as the worship which focused specifically and solely on him. Cults of the emperor were not an independent element of religious life; sometimes the emperor was placed under the protection of the Olympian pantheon or linked with the traditional gods, and sometimes cult was offered directly to him.

The Roman imperial ruler-cult clearly derived from roots in Egypt and the Hellenistic East. Since the time of both the Pharaohs and the Greek rulers and kings, leaders had been ascribed the virtues of deity, occasionally while they were alive but more often upon death (Cuss: 24-27, 30-32). In the West, Julius Caesar was the first Roman to be recognized upon death as a god in a public state cult (Suetonius, Julius. 88). Such apotheosis seemed a natural corollary of his supreme honor--he certainly had greater political power than any Roman before him, and in 68 BCE he became the first living Roman noble to make the claim of divine descent, from Venus, through Aeneas (Hopkins: 202-03; Beard/North/Price: 145-46). But even during his lifetime as a dictator he was given honors similar to those given to a god: his statue was set up in the temple of Quirinus with the inscription "To the Unconquered God" (Dio Cassius, History 43.45); at the circus games, an ivory statue of his image was carried in solemn procession along with those of the gods; the senate ordered that a temple be built "to Julius Caesar and his Clemency"; and a special priesthood (flamen), similar to that of Jupiter, was instituted in his honor (Dio Cassius, History 44.6). (The whole question of Caesar's apotheosis before his death is one of debate and contention; see especially the summary of Beard/North/Price [141].)

As is well known, his "divine" elevation provoked intense opposition, and he was assassinated by a band of nobles who could not endure his supreme power and quasi-divinity. Following his death, Appian records that an angry crowd reacted to his assassination by burning down the senate-house in which he had been murdered and then attempted "to bury his body in the temple [of Jupiter on the Capitol] along with the gods" (Civil Wars 2.148; cf. Suetonius, Julius 88-89). Shortly after his death, he was given other marks of divine status (e.g. altars and sacrifices), and in 42 BCE the Senate voted to have him included among the gods of the state and passed a formal decree of deification, making him divus [divine] Julius. His worship was thus associated with that of Dea Roma [the goddess Rome], and his genius (his "spirit" or "life-force") was admitted to the Pantheon. Such deification after death may well have been a legitimating manoeuvre by his political successors-particularly by his adopted son and heir Octavian, who then became "son of god," divi filius (see Frend). Suetonius appears to construe the extravagance of such devotion to Caesar, even while still living, as a decisive break with Roman piety of the past,

   For not only did he accept excessive honors, such as an
   uninterrupted consulship, the dictatorship for life, and the
   censorship of public morals, as well as the forename Imperator,
   the surname of Father of his Country, a statue among those of the
   kings, and a raised couch in the orchestra; but he also allowed
   honors to be bestowed on him which were too great for a mortal man
   ... altars, and statues beside those of the gods; a special priest
   ... and the calling of one of the months by his name. In fact, there
   were no honors which he was not pleased to accept or assume
   [Julius 76.1].

Certainly, the socio-political objectives of the leaders of the Roman state, on its transformation from Republic to Empire, were found to have a distinct advantage in the religious concept of apotheosis. For example, when, in 29 BCE, Octavian dedicated the first temple to Julius, its purpose was twofold: it provided a specific focus both for the unity of the Empire, and so for the loyalty of its citizens; and, to a not inconsequential extent, it provided the machinery for the control of any subversive groups whose religious and political loyalties may have lay elsewhere (Weinstock: 385-401; Benko & O'Rourke: 247; Cuss: 32-33). Though such apotheosis marked a decisive breach with previous tradition, it was, nevertheless, welcomed in many places throughout the Roman world, and it heralded preparation for the institution of the imperial cult under Octavian.

Octavian's victory over Antony at Actium in 31 BCE gave him such dominance over the Empire that his official Roman name, Imperator Caesar, seemed no longer adequate to represent his exceptional status, and from 27 BCE on, he was officially re-titled Imperator Caesar Augustus. The word was previously known only as an epithet (used particularly of places) with the meaning "consecrated by auguries." As such it evoked not only the favor of the gods, but also the auspices that marked the founding of Rome, and like Romulus, indicated that the bearer was uniquely favoured by the gods for the service of Rome. (The story is told that when Octavian was campaigning for his first consulship in 43 BCE a number of vultures appeared [Dio Cassius, History 46.46.1-3; Suetonius, Augustus. 95; Appian, Civil Wars 3.94], echoing a myth told of Romulus, and suggesting that Octavian, too, would (re)found the city of Rome.) Like the title divi filius, it symbolized his superiority over the mass of humanity (Ovid, Fasti 1.587-616).

Augustus also stood as the ideal embodiment of all the old Roman virtues (The Achievements of the Divine Augustus 37 [34.2]), and these were further reinforced by his religious charisma. Virgil and Horace described Augustus as one of the mightier gods--Mercury, Apollo or Hercules--who appeared among men, maintaining that he was the Messiah and the savior of the Roman empire. Poetic flight for the two writers, perhaps, but it may have been a sentiment acceptable to the general populace (see Braund: 66, 107, 122, 127, 164, 181, 680a). Certainly, Rostovtzeff describes the influence of Augustus in striking terms:

   There cannot be any doubt that with the masses of the people
   throughout the empire Augustus was exceedingly popular, if we
   may use this modern word to describe the half-religious awe
   which the Romans felt towards the new ruler. For them he was
   really a superman, a higher being, the savior, the restorer, the
   bringer of peace and prosperity [43].

Emperor worship in a broad sense, that is, the public association of the emperor with the gods, the institution of sacred rites, the building of altars and temples, began to flourish almost everywhere under Augustus, and the list of honors voted to him is extraordinary. In 29 BCE, the senate decreed that his name be included in its hymns equally with the gods; and that "a tribe should be called the Julian tribe after his family name, that he should wear the triumphal crown at all festivals ... that the day on which he entered the city of Rome should be honored with sacrifices by the whole population and be held sacred for evermore" (Dio Cassius, History 51.20). In addition, an altar was set up in Rome to his Victory, and temples were built to Fortune which vouchsafed both his Safe Return (Fortuna Redux) and the Augustan Peace. Augustus became High Priest in 12 BCE, and immediately made radical changes to the office. He declined a move into the traditional High Priest's house (giving it instead to the Vestal Virgins) and turned part of his own house into a public shrine. In this way the gods of the state were now under the roof of Augustus. In effect, the emperor had the direct "support" of the gods (Beard/North/Price: 185). When, in 13 CE, a statue was erected celebrating and personifying the Justice of Augustus, it was simply part of the policy of getting as near as possible to deifying the emperor while he was still alive (indeed, Dio Cassius claims that Octavian deliberately employed "Augustus" to signify that he was more than human (53.16.8; cf. Tacitus, Annales 1.10.5; Virgil, Aeneid 791-807).

Yet another distinctive symbol of the restructuring of religion by Augustus was the image of the emperor officiating at sacrifice. From the reign of Augustus onwards almost no one other than the emperor (and his immediate family) was depicted at sacrifice in public images. Such images were often stamped on Roman coins, and even seem to have been stamped on the sacrificial cakes distributed to the masses at festivals throughout the empire (Zanker 1997). The reign of Augustus was also a productive period for temple building (in contrast to the following fifty years, when only two new state temples were built), and this served to place the emperor more visibly in a unique relationship with the gods, so increasing his importance (cf. Ovid, Fasti 2.59-64; Livy, The Early History of Rome 4.20.7; Suetonius, Augustus 29-30). Moreover, all the state temples built in Rome in the Augustan period, or immediately afterwards, refer directly or indirectly to the emperor, and one of the new temples to Apollo was built on what had been his own land (Ovid, Fasti 4.949-54). This complex of divine and human residence (emperor's palace, shrine of Vesta, and temple of Apollo) was without precedence in the city.

In Rome itself, strictly speaking, there was no official public cult celebrating Augustus as a god. He received public honors, however, when he was worshipped together with Roma; or when his genius was worshipped; or his numen (his divine spirit, see Fishwick for the distinction between genius and numen), or his personified virtues. Paradoxically, the establishment of the official cult signalled that although the emperor himself, in person, was not actually receiving cult due to the gods, there was nonetheless very little that separated Augustus from the gods. In other words, there was little difference between worshipping his numen and worshipping Augustus himself. Dio Cassius relates that at the beginning of the New Year in 40 CE, the senate in a body went to the Capital and offered the regular sacrifices; and then because the emperor was away from Rome, they abased themselves before his empty throne in the temple of Jupiter. Returning to the senate house they then "spent the whole day in praising the emperor and saying prayers on his behalf" (59.24; cf. Pliny, Epistles 10.13, 35; Fronto, Epistles 1.228-30; Hopkins; Price 1984:114-17; Beard/North/Price: 248.)

In the East, the situation was very different. The Greeks, in particular, had always shown dislike for the abstract conception of the goddess Roma, and their "worship" of a succession of provincial governors was an acute financial drain (Jones: 101ff). Hence, Octavian's emergence as the supreme ruler of the Empire was greeted almost with relief (Bowersock 1965: 111ff). Directly after Actium, the Greek East hastened to worship him, with many cities asking leave of Octavian to build temples to him in their respective provinces and to celebrate his cult in provincial festivals (Bowersock 1965: 116ff; Jones). Unlike Rome, the East already had the symbols and visual imagery of the Hellenistic ruler cult which it could apply to this new monarch whose power to bring peace and restore order was everywhere visible. Although the outward forms of the new imperial cult were essentially the same as those with which Greek cities had earlier honored Alexander and the Hellenistic kings (and some Roman governors and generals--acts that died out under Augustus; see Cicero, Atticus 21.7; Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem 1.1.26; Beard/North/Price: 140-49), in its proportions and geographical extent it represented a striking new phenomenon. Previously, the ruler cult was instituted sporadically in one city or another, usually for a particular occasion. But now it appeared everywhere, almost simultaneously, not only in "free" cities, but in the administrative centers of the provinces, and even in settlements without civic status. The imperial cult rapidly became the most widespread of all cults (Price 1984; Zanker 1997). Only rarely did Augustus take any initiative, but it appears that once he had granted permission (in the winter of 30/29 BCE) to the provincial assemblies of the Greeks in Bithynia for cult worship of his person--with, however the proviso that the goddess Roma must be associated with him in the cult and that he not be named explicitly as a god--the floodgates, were opened (Zanker 1997: 7; Hopkins: 203-04; Price: 1984). Worship throughout the Eastern provinces could now be offered to the Emperor directly (see Dio Cassius, History 51.20.6-7; Suetonius. Augustus 52; Pliny, Panegyricus 72.1; Tacitus, Annales 4.37; Sherk: 13-14, 73-76; Mellor: 97743; Hendrix: 305; Lintott: 182).

One of the significant political changes that this entailed was that Roman rule became consolidated into a much more unified entity than a mere collection of provinces (Galinsky: 6). In the cities of Greece and Asia Minor imperial power relations became constituted in the images, shrines, temples, and festivals of the emperor cult. Moreover, since the provincial elite (in some senses, imperial clients), were also the principal sponsors of the imperial cult, the politico-religious institutions in which power relations were constituted became virtually inseparable from the local socio-economic networks of imperial society. Indeed, the reasons for the long term vitality of this elaborate system of cult lay in its capacity to exploit the competitive values of the urban elite, and, as has long been recognized, the administration of the cult was entrusted to the affluent and educated elite in the various parts of the Empire (Bowersock 1973: 181; cf. Hopkins; Suetonius, Caligula 22). Under a regular procedure, a wealthy individual could give a city a sum of money for the purpose of the cult, which formed a special fund administered by the civic administrators. In this way the donors were assured of continuing prestige in a variety of ways. Cities also invited individuals to contribute to the cost of building imperial temples.

Outside Rome, towns and cities now competed in the search for appropriate honors to pay their monarch, and, naturally, sought those which would bring most glory upon themselves (SYLLOGE INSCRIPTIONUM GRAECARUM 797; Zanker 1997). Many of the embassies sent to Rome were sent, not simply in the hope of receiving certain privileges (e.g., financial support for building projects, or help in times of need), but for presenting the city as an important, well-run, and loyal member of the Empire. And such was deemed a necessity not only by the elite, for all participated in the civic festivals and public games held in the emperor's honor and in the celebrations honoring his birthday and other anniversaries. One of the most significant decrees was that from Mytilene (on Lesbos, Asia Minor) which awarded Augustus some of the most explicit divine honors found anywhere--it speaks of Augustus attaining "heavenly glory" and possessing "the eminence and power of gods." The decree goes on to make elaborate comparisons between the actions of the emperor and those of the gods, and Augustus is, in a rhetorical manner, even praised above the gods! Gratitude in the Roman world was a public virtue, to be publicly displayed as a claim to honor. To requite the emperor's benefaction with acts of cult was itself an act of philotimea (love of honor), competitive ambition for honor (INSCRIPTIONIS GRAECAE AD RES ROMANAS PERTINENTES 4.1756.26). So too were acts of cult by deference. Mytilene did not modestly hide its extravagant reverence for Augustus' honor, but sent copies of its decree to Pergamum, Actium, Brundisium, Antioch in Syria, Massilia in Gaul, and Tarraco in distant Spain. This last may have inspired Tarraco to the emulative construction of an altar to the emperor (Lendon 166-67).

In a similar way, the assembly of the province of Asia decided circa 29 BCE to offer a golden wreath for the person who devised the greatest honors "for the new god," Augustus (Hopkins: 207; Georgi: 1997a:149; Price: 1997:52-53, 59; Zanker 1997: 78). The prize was finally awarded in 9 BCE to the Roman proconsul Paullus Fabius Maximus (consul in 11 BCE), for suggesting "an honor to Augustus hitherto unknown among the Greeks, namely to start the year on his birthday" (ORIENTIS GRAECI INSCRIPTIONIS SELECTAE 458). His suggestion was that the old luni-solar Macedonian calendar should be replaced by a more convenient calendar based on the new Julian system, and that in future the New Year, and thus the installation of all city officials, should begin on Augustus' birthday, September 23. The idea was taken up with public enthusiasm:

   The birthday of the most divine emperor is the fount of every
   public and private good. Justly would one take this day to be the
   beginning of the Whole Universe.... Justly would one take this
   day to be the beginning of Life and Living for everyone
   [CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM GRAECARUM 3957b].

In other cities also, the emperor's birthday and other anniversaries were publicly celebrated by sacrifice, rituals, ceremonies and games.

After his death Augustus was officially promoted to the divine status long held by Caesar. The expectation was expressed in his lifetime that he would ascend to his rightful place in heaven, and immediately after his death Augustus was duly made a divus. As a result he was accorded "heavenly" honors, which included a temple built for him between the Capitol and the Palatine, a flamen (priest), who was to be a member of Augustus' own family, and a priestly college comprising leading members of the senatorial order. And so, "Augustus, like his ancestor Romulus, went to join the gods" (Beard/North/Price: 209). After his funeral, cremation and burial, a senior senator, who was said to have been rewarded with a million sesterces by Augustus' widow, Livia, declared on oath to the senate that he had actually seen Augustus ascending to heaven (see Suetonius, Augustus 100.4; Dio Cassius, History 56.46.2; 59.11; Price 1987: 78-79). The senator was later subjected to Seneca's cruel and witty satire; see Apocolocyntosis 1.

The practices of the Augustan age established the basic framework that prevailed for the rest of the imperial period. Emperors and members of their families were given divine honors by vote of the senate only after their death (and then only in recognition of the fact that they had, by their merits, actually become gods). In the eastern provinces, however, they were now regularly honored as gods, and honors and prayers could not be refused without giving gratuitous offense, which might undermine the provincials' loyalty (see Bowersock 1965:118; Hopkins: 218). But, equally, they could not afford to be seen, especially by the Roman elite, to welcome divinity. The considerations of deity were now a delicate issue for the emperors. Tiberius and Claudius rejected claims of divinity but were forced by political considerations to accept a certain amount of divine worship, especially in the eastern provinces and in the newly annexed provinces of the West (Braund: nn. 127, 571; Cuss: 33-34, 44-48). Claudius, for example, attempted to restrict the excesses of his predecessors even in the East but was not always successful, as can be discerned in his reply to the Alexandrians in 41 CE, who wished to establish his cult, "First I allow you to keep my birthday as a sacred day as you have requested, and I permit you to erect ... a statue of me and my family.... But I decline the establishment of a high-priest and temples to myself ... in the belief that temples and the like have been set apart in all ages for the gods alone" (LOEB SELECT PAPYRI: 212). However, the Alexandrian proclamation publicizing this letter went ahead in referring to "the greatness of our god Caesar" (Hopkins: 204). In Rome, this was certainly not the case. It was regarded as abhorrent that Gaius, after a popular start to his reign, began to make assertions of his own personal divinity (Suetonius, Caligula 22, 52; Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius 78-113; Dio Cassius, History 59.26-28; 60.20.8).

Nero made renewed efforts to "develop" the imperial cult (Alfoldy: 154). He had an oversized statue of himself erected in the Temple of Mars (Tacitus, Annales: 13.8.1), and when in 66 CE Tiradates, king of Armenia, came to Rome to receive the crown from Nero's hands, he knelt before the statues of Nero and paid them reverence and sacrifice (Dio Cassius: 62.23.3-4; Benko & O'Rourke: 58). Cult was offered to the emperor because of the greatness of his honor and because of his benefactions--both from deference and from reciprocity. What was the modest Greek town of Acraphia to do when Nero granted it, along with the rest of Greece, freedom, including immunity from taxation? Its inhabitants reinscribed their altar of Zeus to Nero and placed statues of Nero in the temple of Apollo, "so that our city might appear to have employed every possible honor and act of piety towards the house of the lord Nero Augustus" (cited in Price 1984a: 83).

In terms of the wider cultural context, the Roman emperor ruled his empire not only as head of state and government, but also, in the eyes of his contemporaries, as head of a society that defined rank by honor--indeed, the imperial cult consisted of actions seeking to bring honor to the emperor and members of the imperial family. The basis of the cult lay in the recognition of the emperor as the defender of the empire, the one who brought and sustained world unity, peace, and prosperity through a pact with the gods (the emperor was regularly represented as being under the protection of the gods--cf. Pliny, Panegyricus 67.7; 68.1; 72.1-2; 94.1-2; Seneca, De Clementia 1.4.1; Ogilvie: 118; Fears: 57-60; Price: 1984: 54; Beard/North/Price: 349-50). Hence, it is not surprising that the imperial cult was the fastest growing religion of the early principate (so, Wright 2000: 2; 2000a: 3-4, 9), nor that it was found in most cities and villages, where it was adopted enthusiastically (Smallwood: 64.49-5; Wardman 1982: 87; Price 1984: 83-84). The visible expressions of honoring the emperor may have varied throughout the Empire, but would normally have consisted of the building of altars or imperial temples, the commissioning of imperial statues, the celebration of games or festivals, the staging of processions, and the offering of sacrifices in honor of the imperial house (Braund: nn. 124-27,564, 571; Smallwood: nn. 361,371; Price 1984: 3). The simple volume of honors directed at the emperor by provinces, cities, associations, and individuals was remarkable. Even the Judeans, singled out by ancient authors as grudging in this respect, erected in their synagogues shields, crowns, plaques, and inscriptions in honor of the emperor (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius 133; cf. 140-42). It was geographically and socially widespread, carried on both in public and in private, and vast resources were devoted to it (over eighty temples and sanctuaries associated with the imperial cult have been counted in Asia Minor, with traces of more than fifty statues dedicated to the emperor having been found in Ephesus alone--cf. Lendon: 160). It was a multifaceted institution that surrounded the emperor with an aura of divinity that helped him rule--and it was driven by the notions of gratitude and deference to the emperor, participated in and enforced by cultural structures of honor and shame (see Tacitus, Annales: 1.10; Suetonius, Augustus 52; Rostovtzeff: 455; Sherk: 111; Sherwin-White: 15-16; Fears: 97; Price 1984a: 85).

But there is also a broader religious, or politico-religious, ideology in which the imperial cult can be placed. Following Augustus, the social cohesion of most of the Empire meant that it no longer needed to be maintained by the exercise of great military power, but instead, became articulated most visibly in patterns of social relations. (As Wright, 2000a: 4, observes, "you don't need such a strong military presence to police an empire if the citizens are worshipping the emperor.") These were not focused primarily in terms of an individual's faith or personal relationship with a god as in contemporary culture. Rather, religious expressions were the most vital elements: loyalty to the gods and emperor, sacrificial rituals, community festivals, and even the (religious) structuring and decor of public urban space. The physical setting of the cult was usually in the middle of a city, integrated into the center of religious, political, and economic life, where direct communication with the emperor, through the medium of the cult, gave rise to a new and positive sense of belonging to the Roman Empire (Price 1984: 136-46; Rothaus; Zanker 1997; Wright 2000b: 11; Horace, Odes 4.5; Ovid, Letter of Ponto 4.9.105-16; on prayers and praise offered to the emperor, Price 1984a: 90-93). In short, the emperor was set beside the gods as the power that penetrated into every aspect of the life of the Empire and its people, and under the principate, disloyalty to the imperial cult was regarded as impiety, with cities being charged with neglect of the cult or penalized for failure to fulfill promises relating to the cult (Tacitus, Annales 4.36; Price 1984: 66; Lintott: 184). Since acts of cult were "approved by all men everywhere" (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius 152-53), it was important to be seen to be properly grateful and deferential. Publicly failing to show one's gratitude, one's loyalty, could be dangerous. Dio Cassius narrates events "worthy of a place in history" when he tells the tales of the town of Cyzicus which was deprived of its freedom because the citizens had not completed the shrine to Augustus which they had begun to build. So, too, he tells that a man who had sold a statue of Tiberius was brought to trial and condemned to death (Dio Cassius 57.24.6). The action of later Christ-followers who not only refused to offer cult to the emperor but rejected the entire worldview of which he was at the center, was seen by many as a crime of heinous proportions (Tacitus, Annales 15.44; Hist. 5.5; Pliny Ep. 10.96-97; Justin, Apology 53.2; Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus 13; Tertullian, Apology 10.1, 24, 28.3, 35-40; Origen, Against Celsus 2.39-40; 8.17; Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 7.11.6-10).

The depth of emotional and religious experience in the imperial cult cannot be dismissed simply as a routine expression of allegiance to the state. Imperial feast days became the high points of the entire year, when the citizenry could experience a sense of community and when people came from neighboring towns and villages to join in the excitement (see further, Price 1984: chapter 5). Such a feast day may certainly have been a significant highlight in the lives of the poor. The high spirits also blended with a sense of pride in one's own city, and for prominent citizens it was an opportunity to exhibit their own status and wealth in a demonstration of largesse on honors for the emperor and enjoyment for their fellow citizens (Zanker 1997). In addition, there was also a constant daily reminder of the emperor. One encountered pictures and statues of him everywhere, and there were, as noted above, the coins with his likeness, minted in almost every city. The appearance of the emperor and his family in images even became the model for clothing and hairstyles (Zanker 1988: 302). In statues he was represented in military garb, like the gods, and portrayed naked (like the gods) or overlaid in gold (like the gods) or represented in colossal size (like the gods). And new sanctuaries for the emperor were often larger and grander than those of the traditional pantheon. The emperor's place among the gods was steadily secured and elaborated in the many interrelated traditional forms in which the Olympians were honored and worshipped. In itself this represented a unique means of honoring the world ruler on a scale never seen before. Perhaps Philo adequately summed up such attitudes when he wrote (of Augustus):

   The whole world voted him honors usually accorded the
   Olympian gods. These are so well attested by temples, gateways,
   vestibules, and colonnades that every city which contains
   magnificent works new and old is surpassed in these by the beauty
   and magnitude of those appropriated to Caesar [On the Embassy to
   Gaius 149-51].

The emperor was located at a focal point between the divine and human; he represented divinity to the society but also needed divine protection, secured by sacrifices to the gods on his behalf. The imperial cult, along with politics and diplomacy, constructed the reality of the Roman empire (see Price 1984: 248; on rituals and symbolism, Geertz: chapters 4-5; Price 1984: 239-41). Some scholars assert that the imperial cult was only superficially a religious phenomenon (Liebeschuetz: 78; Bowersock 1965: 112), but care must be taken not to drive a wedge between the religious and the political; the overlap of the two may be unlike our contemporary model of the two having quite separate and disparate functions (Price 1997: 65-71). Dio Cassius, looking back from the third century CE, saw the cult of the emperor as one unifying factor in the religions of the vast imperial territory, one aspect of worship that all Roman subjects shared (60.20.7).

Hence, cult was offered to the emperor not simply because of the greatness of his honor and benefactions, but from a sense that his honor was so vast, and his benefactions so great, that all other forms of honor were quite inadequate. An understanding of the imperial cult within the matrix of honor and shame is thus central to an understanding of Roman imperial government (Lendon: 10; Price 1984: 239-48).

The Imperial Cult in Corinth

The imperial cult was strongly promoted in Corinth during the first century CE, and by the end of the century the city was a flourishing center for the cult (Wiseman: 428-540; Chow: 57ff; Gregory; Witherington: 295-98). The image of the Roman emperor as the one who dominated the life of the colony could hardly be overlooked by the people of Corinth; indeed, its Latin name (Colonia Laus Julia Corinthiensis) stood as a constant reminder of the patron (Julius Caesar) who helped to refound it. But there were also additional symbols which conveyed the manifest presence and power of the emperor: the coins circulating throughout the city bore the images of the emperors (Edwards); imperial images of Augustus and his sons were erected (Johnson; Ridgeway); a Roman temple (Temple E) built probably in the reign of Claudius for the cult of the imperial family stood at the west end of the forum--all witnessed to the transcendent status of the Roman rulers (Wiseman: 519, 522; Gill: 10-11); and numerous other monuments and inscriptions were made to honor the emperors (see Kent: nn. 50-53, 55, 69, 72-81). There are also indications of the presence of personnel devoted to the cult, including flamen (priest), and pontifex (high priest) (Braund: nn. 468, 469; Kent: nn. 52, 53, 59). As such Roman priesthoods devoted to the imperial cult were more common in the West than in the East (Price 1984: 88), it is of interest that their presence demonstrates the influence and strength of the Roman tradition in Corinth.

The power wielded by the emperor over the colony and the reciprocal nature of deference and honor in return for imperial favor is most clearly seen under the principate of Nero. The cities of Greece had, for some time, adopted the practice of sending him every available prize for lyre-playing (a gesture which he accepted with great pleasure, Suetonius, Nero: 22), and in 67 CE he attended many of the athletic games there. At Olympia he was awarded the main prize for the chariot race (despite failing to finish), and during the Isthmian games in Corinth, on the eve of his departure, he stood in the middle of the stadium and presented the whole province with its freedom, and conferred Roman citizenship as well as large cash rewards upon the judges (Suetonius, Nero 24). In return for such supreme benefaction the decree of Boeotia hailed Nero as the lord of the whole world and decreed that he be worshipped at the altar dedicated to Zeus, and that his statue be placed among their ancestral gods in the temple of Apollo (Smallwood: 64, 1.31,35).

Many of the celebrations organized in Corinth were for the express purpose of honoring the emperor. Celebrations took place on the coronation of a new emperor and upon his birthday, and cults were founded to celebrate military victories or to celebrate the protection or invulnerability of the emperor (Braund: nn. 112, 126, 140, 564, 571; Smallwood: nn. 361, 370; West: nn. 86-90). In addition, the conjunction of the imperial games with the biennial Isthmian games emphasized supremely the power and glory of the Roman rulers, and these were enhanced by the addition of two new programs (by 50 CE) to the Isthmian games specifically to honor the imperial family. The "Caesaria" program, added in honor of Augustus' victory at the battle of Actium, included three contests, the delivery of an encomium each for Augustus and Tiberius, and a poem in honor of Livia (Kent: 28-29). The second program, the "imperial" contest, was added later, possibly in the reign of Tiberius, to honor the reigning emperor (although the exact program of this contest is unclear and may have changed with successive emperors; see Kent: 28f., 153, 156). Equally, Corinth was one of only two cities in Achaia known to have equipped themselves with an amphitheatre, the ultimate Roman setting for gladiatorial shows and imperial veneration. And not content with this facility, the Corinthians also converted their two theatres into arenas at one time or another (see Spawforth).

The development of such a wide range of activities suggests that the imperial cult was not only popularly supported, but was a vital element of Corinthian civic life at the time of Paul. As the rich paid for the expenses of the feasts, most likely including the games and any other additional items, these were occasions in which most, if not all, of the Corinthian populace could actively participate and enjoy (1 Corithians 9:24-27 provides Pauline imagery of provincial games; cf. Broneer: 2-31). Indeed, civic enjoyment by the masses was a necessary prerequisite in the eyes of the rich benefactors and public officials, for such occasions were also used to bring a degree of honor to themselves and to consolidate or improve their own social status in the city vis-a-vis other prominent people (Braund: n 130). It was thus vital for one's own prestige and honor status to be seen as a supporter of the imperial cult, and there would be few who would actively avoid it.

The power and rule of the Roman emperors and the need to grant them loyalty and honor cannot be overstated. It is now widely recognized that the central issue in the conflict between the Roman state and the early Christ-movement was the refusal of the latter to worship the gods of the state (see especially de Ste Croix; Benko; Bowersock 1995: 4) The imperial cult was organized and promoted by the socially powerful, namely the government officials and local leaders, most likely with an eye to acquiring greater prestige and honor (see Chow: 3842; on honor also from freedmen, Kent: 35 and n 62). The conjoining of the imperial games to the Isthmian games suggests that the city was keen to honor the emperor, and, certainly under the Principate of Augustus, the province enjoyed a time of great peace and prosperity and so had much to be thankful for (Kent: 21, 30, 153; Murphy O'Connor: 14, 67).

In sum, the influence of the imperial cult played a vital part in the structure and administration of Corinthian civic life, which, after all, was essentially Roman. To live in the shadow of Rome would have been intimidating for all those conscious of status, and would certainly have played a pivotal role in the determining of one's relationships and visible actions as well as expectations of social integration (see MacMullen: 58; Balsdon: 24-25).

The Lordship of Christ and the Imperial Cult

As noted in the introduction, the salutations of Paul's letters are typically employed to establish a framework of thought that will be developed and expounded later throughout the text. In 1 Corinthians, however, there are also a number of terminological motifs which have a socio-political overlap with the world of the Caesar-cult. The language of ekklesia (assembly), basileia (kingdom), kurios (lord), euangelion (good news), and parousia (presence, coming), for instance, all of which are now commonplace in contemporary Christian vocabulary, had very different connotations in the world of the first century CE. These will be explored below.

So, too, as noted above, the world of the imperial cult was inextricably linked to notions of honor, and some of the nuances of Paul's honor-shame language in 1 Corinthians, particularly with reference to the cross, will be elucidated. Certainly, the influence of the imperial cult was pervasive and must have presented a significant dilemma for the nascent Christ-followers as they were urged to re-focus their social and spiritual lives upon a crucified, and so shamed, Messiah.

Within the salutations of the genuine Pauline corpus it is only in the two extant letters to the Corinthians that Paul conjoins the notion of "church" within the remit of God himself and under his divine authority--the Corinthian community is called the ekklesia tou theou (church of God, 1 Cor 1:2; cf. 2 Cor 1:1). Indeed, it is of interest that the phrase occurs almost exclusively in the Corinthian correspondence. While the term comes to Paul from the Septuagint, with strong connotations of the "assembly" of (all) Israel, its primary meaning in the Greek-speaking eastern Roman empire was the citizen "assembly" of the Greek city (Liddell, Scott, & Jones, GREEK ENGLISH LEXICON [henceforth LSJ] 509, and texts; THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [henceforth TDNT] 3.513ff). The ekklesia opened with prayers and sacrifices to the gods of the city and proceeded to make any number of decisions: changes to the law, appointments to official positions, important questions of city policy such as contracts, finance, treaties, or even the instigating of war (see Aristotle, Politics 45; Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 1.87; Xenophon, Hellenica 1.7.9; Josephus, Antiquities 12.164; 19.332). In special cases of a legal nature (e. g., treason), the ekklesia would be preferred over the regular courts. Lothar Coenen (NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY [Henceforth NIDNTT] 1.291) asserts, "ekklesia, centuries before the translation of the OT and the time of the NT, was clearly characterized as a political phenomenon."

Writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, Paul may well have employed ekklesia not only to represent a "cultic community" as such, but more pertinently to represent the assembly of those who are "in Christ," in pointed juxtaposition and "competition" with the official city assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:18; 1 Thess 1:1; Acts 19:39; 1 Cor 16:1, 19;2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1:2; 1 Thess 2:14). In this sense, the gathering of the ekklesia is the event by which God fulfills his election through his personal call, and for this reason Paul can speak of the kletoi (ones who are called), when he means the Christ-movement. The extensive use of both kalein (to call) and ekklesia in 1 Corinthians is probably no accident (the verb occurs 15 times and the noun 22 times, each figure representing half of the respective occurrences in the genuine letters). It is the call of God, proclaimed through the apostle in the form of an offer of reconciliation (cf. 2 Cor 5:19-20), that has established the Corinthian ekklesia--an assembly which can be understood only in relation to God himself, for it represents his new creation and delineates the very matrix of his people. Moreover, Paul understood that in creating local assemblies within and alongside the peoples and cities of the Mediterranean, he was building a multi-ethnic ekklesia which would stand as an alternative society to the Roman imperial order--an alternative society rooted in the history of Israel, in stark opposition to the pax Romana (Roman peace). For Paul, the promises to Abraham were now fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ and in his exaltation to heaven as the eschatological Lord (displacing Caesar, the imperial lord and savior).

The ekklesia too points directly to the present manifestation of the expected kingdom and rule of Christ, the basileia, spoken of as already present in 1 Corinthians 4:20. Indeed, the whole notion of the basileia, or more typically, the basileia tou theou (kingdom of God), is essential for Paul in 1 Corinthians and, within the genuine Paulines, occurs most frequently in this letter. In Greco-Roman literature, basileia is attested from the time of Herodotus as the area or state over which a king reigned, while basileus, attested from the time of Linear B, was employed as a general term for a ruler and, later, more specifically a king. For the earthly human king there is a corresponding earthly human kingdom which stands in contrast, although often unexpressed, to the basileia tou theou. The Second Testament follows the precedent of the First in predicating the title of "king" exclusively of God; although now, of course, also of Christ. In contrast, the earthly kings are those who set themselves up against God, particularly the Roman emperors (1 Tim 2:2; 1 Pet 2:13; Rev 17:9ff.). Only God is the king of the nations (Rev 15:3), and only Christ is king of kings (Rev 19:16). Certainly, the Christ-movement was denounced by the Jews for confessing allegiance to Jesus as another king (Acts 17:7).

In 1 Corinthians, Paul's use of basileia stands at some key points in the text. It first arises in 4:20, where the power of the basileia tou theou is contrasted with the wisdom and power of the arrogant. Here, it not only concludes the section 4:8-21, but also provides an apt summation of a stream of thought going back to 1:17, all of which focuses upon the putative wisdom of the arrogant in stark contrast to the inherent power of the kerygma. It is through the proclamation of the cross that the dynamic power of God is most clearly manifest and salvation is wrought for those who believe. The wisdom of the wise, indeed, the wisdom of the world, has no inherent power to save; rather, it is a stumbling block which leads to destruction. Yet from the foolishness of declaring a crucified savior, the profound wisdom and power of God are most suitably manifest (1:17-25). In this way, those considered the "wise, powerful and well-born" are simply reduced to nothing, while their antitheses, those rejecting worldly wisdom and believing, instead, in the proclamation of a shamed, crucified Messiah are granted new life in Christ. Paradoxically, it is the latter who receive righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 1:30; inherent traits of the basileia tou theou. Such qualities are noted again in 6:11 (although in reverse order), where they are set against the background of the unrighteous, a ten-fold list of those who will not enter the basileia tou theou, 6:9-10.

The section 4:8-21 begins and ends with the theme of kingship. In 4:8, Paul declares sarcastically that the puffed-up are posing as kings to be feted in high honor, while the apostles are the atimoi (the dishonored), like men publicly humiliated at the end of a military procession, and condemned to die as part of the Roman military triumph. For Paul, this is a visible manifestation of the "basileia" of the emperor and part of the vital ideology of the Roman imperium, in opposition to the basileia tou theou (Josephus, Jewish War 7.132-57; Versnel; Fee 1987: 174; NIDNTT 2.373).

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul returns to the theme of the basileia tou theou. Here, he asserts that following the resurrection, Christ will abolish all rule, authority, and power and will reign until he has subjected all things. This done, the basileia will then be handed over to God the Father (vv 24-27). The designation of "rulers, authorities and powers," while pointing to secular establishments (Rom 13:1-3; cf. Eph 1:21; 2:2; Col 1:13; Titus 3:1), also refers to the dark spiritual forces that perhaps lay behind them (Eph 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16). But Paul's point is that the resurrection and reign of Christ demonstrates supremely the inbreaking power of God's kingdom, through the Spirit, to effect salvation. And it is by reason of a Spirit-animated body (15:44), not a body of flesh and blood, that one will inherit the basileia tou theou (15:50).

As indicated in the introduction, the frequent use of kurios conjoined to both christos and Iesous within the salutation of 1 Corinthians is unprecedented in Pauline usage. Further, the letter as a whole employs the noun an astonishing sixty-six times (out of a total of 188 occurrences in the genuine Pauline corpus). Deissmann writes,

   We cannot escape the conjecture that the Christians of the East
   who heard St. Paul preach in the style of Phil ii. 9, 11 and 1 Cor
   viii. 5, 6 must have found in the solemn confession that Jesus
   Christ is "the Lord," a silent protest against other "lords," and
   against "the lord," as people were beginning to call the Roman
   Caesar" [355].

The term kurios has a definite political sense, for it was used in the eastern Mediterranean from the first century BCE with reference to the Roman emperors (cf. TDNT 3.1049-54; Deissmann: 352; on the earlier Hellenistic usage of the title and in general, Cuss: 53-63). In 12 BCE in Egypt the emperor Augustus was called theos kai kurios (god and lord--BERLINER GRIECHISCHE UP, KUNDEN 1197.I.15), and from the time of Nero, the subject of the first verifiable inscription of the title in Greece ("Lord of all the World," SYLLOGE INSCRIPTIONUM GRAECARUM 814.31), the title is found more frequently (see LSJ 1013; Bietenhard, NIDNTT 2.510-19; Donfried: 217; on Nero see also Acts 25:26; on Domitian Suetonius, Domitian 13.2). To quote Deissmann once again, "It may be said with certainty that at the time when Christianity originated 'Lord' was a divine predicate intelligible to the whole Eastern world" (350; cf. Tertullian, Apology 34.2).

For Paul, the full title "Lord Jesus Christ" emphasises the focal point of where his dialectical authority is concentrated--it lies in his very nature as fully God and fully man: it is the man Jesus, the craftsman from Nazareth, and the anointed one, of whom is predicated the divine title of "Lord." This is Paul's counterpoise to the Caesars, those who attempted to elevate themselves, or were elevated by others, into the status of "semi-divine"--awaiting their final "apotheosis" upon death. As such their "transcendence" was reinforced, as noted above, in a variety of contemporary religious and social institutions. In parallel to the placing of this emphasis, Paul also lays stress upon God as the source of his apostolic calling and the calling of the community. The projection of Paul's self-image is also of interest, for the introduction of the letter begins with special emphasis on his role as a called apostle, a title reserved exclusively for Paul, while the co-sender, Sosthenes, is designated simply as the "brother." This contrasts with 1 Thessalonians 2:7 where the title "apostle" is used of Paul and the co-senders. Paul's projection of this image as an authority figure in 1 Corinthians is best seen as his way to counteract some kind of opposition. There are additional images of authority projected in the letter: in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul casts himself in the role of a skilled master-builder; and in 4:14-15 he appears as the father of the church, which may well engage with the perception of the emperor as the Father of the empire (Suetonius, Julius 76.1).

Of additional relevance in association with the imperial cult is Paul's prevalent use of euangelion, a term used both in the early Christian proclamation and in the emperor cult. The promise of peace is linked with both the emperor and Christ, even if the peace that Christ gives is not the peace that the world gives (John 14:27; see further Deissmann; TDNT s.v.; LSJ s.v.; Theissen; Georgi 1997; 1997a; Donfried). The "divine" nature of the emperor is what gives euangelion its significance and power--he is the savior of the world and protector of the state, the one who also redeems individuals from their difficulties. His ordinances and commands are akin to the sacred writings, and his utterances are "divine acts" bringing to the world the long hoped-fur fulfilment of happiness and peace (and hence "salvation" from anarchy). The establishment of the Principate was the cause of good fortune for all, and extraordinary signs were said to accompany the course of the emperors' birth, coming of age, enthronement, and speeches and decrees (NIDNTT 2.108; 2.724; Deissmann: 366ff.).

Paul's emphasis in the opening verses of 1 Corinthians is upon his proclamation of the gospel of Christ (1:17), whose testimony had been strengthened among them (1:6). The proclamation centered upon the message of the cross and Christ crucified (1:18, 23; 2:2), by which salvation is wrought (1:18, 21). Hence, both the language of the imperial cult and that of Paul share the view that accession to the "throne," which introduces a new era and brings potential peace to the world, is a "gospel" for all (Paul makes frequent use of the euang- cognates in 1 Corinthians, especially when defending the integrity of his apostleship: 1:17; 4:15; 9:12, 14, 16, 18, 23; 15:1, 2). Hence, the Second Testament speaks the language of its day. But Paul's proclamation is rich in irony and potentially unpopular, for while it has a focus on peace and hope, it is achieved through an evangel of whom some might be ashamed, and as such his gospel remains a skandalon (scandal, 1 Cor 1:17, 23). Caesar and Christ confront one another: one is the supremely honored emperor on the throne while the other is the humiliated craftsman on the cross. Each proclaim, in his own way, the "good news" for all, and as such they have much in common; but essentially they belong to diametrically opposed worldviews.

Paul will later highlight the parousia of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom (within the genuine Pauline corpus nearly half of the instances of parousia and its cognates are found in the Corinthian correspondence: 1 Cor 15:23; 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6, 7:7; 10:10; cf. 1Cor 1:7; 11:26). The political terminology of parousia, when used as court language, can be traced from the Ptolemaic period down to the second century CE as the official language for a "visit of a person of high rank, especially of kings and emperors visiting a province" (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, & Danker, GREEK ENGLISH LEXICON 630/2b, and see the texts given there; LSJ 1343; TDNT 5.859ff.; NIDNTT 2.898-901; Cuss: 134-44). It was used of Alexander the Great (Josephus, Antiquities 11.328), of King Ptolemy IV Philopater of Egypt (3 Macc 3.17), and of King Antiochus the Great (Polybius, History 18.31.4). The parousia of the emperor to various parts of the empire led to the minting of special advent-coins and even the offering of advent-sacrifices. In the second century CE a new era was reckoned in Greece from the parousia of Hadrian, and special advent-coins were struck in various places in commemoration. An inscription at Tegea, a polls of Arcadia, demonstrates the excitement generated by Hadrian's visit, as well as his putative deification, when it speaks of "the first parousia of the god Hadrian in Greece" (Deissmann: 372). And that the parousia of the ruler could also be a sign of hope for those in distress is evident from the complaints and requests made on such occasions, e.g., those to the priestess of Isis in the Sarapeion at Memphis (161/162 BCE) and to the "gods" Ptolemy Philomater and Cleopatra (TDNT 5.860). In memory of the visit of the emperor Nero the cities of Corinth and Patras struck advent coins commemorating the visit of Nero--coins bearing the inscriptions Adventus Aug[usti] Cor[inthi] and Adventus Augusti (Deissmann: 371), where the Latin adventus corresponds to the Greek parousia. In 1 Corinthians, then, Paul appears to be contrasting the imagery of the presence of the "divine" Caesar with the expected "revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:7), the "Lord of glory" (2:8).

In sum, it appears that Paul engages vigorously with the debate over true kingship and asserts repeatedly that Jesus Christ is the one and only true king. As such, Christ stands as the critical counterpart to the Roman emperor, the man who was, after all, the central institution of the Empire and purported to be the "savior" of the world, and whose power was the single most cohesive force in maintaining the pax Romana. And this was a view held not only by the social elite but also by a broad cross-section of society, many of whom now constituted the Corinthian congregation. It is interesting, too, to detail the number of benefits elucidated by Paul that have accrued to the Corinthians from their prior belief in the lordship of Christ. By the grace of God given to them (v 2) they have been called into fellowship with Christ the true king (vv 2, 9) and are now considered sanctified and blameless (vv 2, 8). They have been enriched in speech and thought (v 5), in spiritual girls (v 6), and have been given the strength to persevere until the visible manifestation of Christ's supreme lordship is finally revealed for all to see (v 8). Paul's gospel enters into critical dialogue with the good news that universal peace has been achieved by the miracle of Actium, the prodigious "miracle" that brought respite and new life to a world suffering from centuries of war. If the terms chosen by Paul for his Corinthian readers have associations with the slogans of the Caesar religion, then Paul's gospel must be understood as competing directly and profoundly with the gospel of the Caesars. The "salvation" represented by Caesar and his empire is challenged by the salvation brought about by Christ. All of which suggests that Paul's gospel could easily be understood as violating the "decrees of Caesar" in a most blatant manner.

The Scandal of the Cross

Paul begins to develop a framework of thought in the opening section of 1 Corinthians which will not only underpin what he has to say in chapters 1-4 but which will proceed to inform an understanding of cross-centred praxis within the rest of the letter. Establishing such a framework is essential for Paul. The exigency of the situation and the various problems confronting him require that he articulate his (power-in-weakness, honor-in-shame, etc.) gospel urgently, and most cogently. If the issue of the striving and lust for honor was at the center of many of the problems at Corinth (Finney), then it should be of little surprise that Paul's opening gambit was to undermine the center of the power of honor-bound cultural constraints: the emperor himself. As noted, Paul does this by a repetitive announcement of the one true king--the Lord Jesus Christ; a salutary reminder for the Corinthians of where their true focus should be. After confronting the Caesar cult in this way, it is also of little surprise that he then proceeds to his central message of highlighting his lord and savior as the one crucified and so shamed (1:18if).

In 1:13-2:8 Paul begins to unravel the Corinthians' world-view, which is centered upon the pursuit of honor in contrast with that of his own world-view centered upon "the word of the cross." Outside 1 Corinthians and Galatians, Paul uses the language of "cross/crucifixion" only in Philippians 2:8b (a Pauline gloss?), 3:18, and Romans 6:6. Elsewhere, leaving aside the Passion narratives, there are only scattered references to Jesus' crucifixion and just a few references to the cross within the context of discipleship. But nowhere in the Second Testament is the image of the crucified Christ so finely drawn and so important for the argument as in 1 Corinthians, and it is not surprising to find that the opening section of Paul's letter has the highest concentration of cross/crucifixion language in the Pauline corpus and within the Second Testament.

It is evident that Paul attaches special importance to the fact that Jesus was crucified and that he continues to be the crucified one (thus the perfect tense in 1:23 and 2:2). Yet he does not here interpret the death on the cross as an act of atonement for sins (which becomes evident later: 8:11; 11:24; 15:3); rather, his specific point is that the crucified Christ discloses the very nature of God's power and wisdom, and hence, that the cross is definitive in an understanding of the very nature of God (Cousar 172). For God's self-disclosure in the cross places all human pretensions to power and wisdom under judgment, including, quite particularly, all "religious" claims and expectations. This is the point Paul is making when he contrasts the kerygma's offer of "Christ crucified" with the religious "signs" and "wisdom" so esteemed by the world (1:22-25). If this cross--in the world only a sign of utter shame and weakness--is indeed the defining event of God's power and wisdom, then every human pretension that sets itself up against these is foolishness (1:26-31). And, no less certainly, God's self-disclosure in the cross establishes a radically new paradigm for life in this age (Fee 1993: 41-42). Certainly, that Paul lays emphasis upon the cross in 1:17-2:8 to portray the focus of his gospel is by no means incidental, either to the contrast that he is drawing between God's wisdom and the world's or to the rhetorical strategy that he is pursuing. Even if the Corinthians are already familiar with his emphasis on the cross, as he claims (2:2), they could hardly fail to be surprised and even disarmed by what they would certainly regard as inappropriate references to it in this context.

Within the Greco-Roman cults to which most of the Corinthians had once belonged, cultic images were usually appealing symbols of fertility, life, and power--a stalk of grain, a basket of fruit, or an erect phallus (see Aristophanes, Acharnians 243; Augustine, The City of God, 7.21). Conversely, a cross, the horrific instrument of execution, would be identified immediately by anyone in Roman Corinth with shame, weakness, failure, and death. But paradoxically, in and through the cross of Christ comes salvation, for though cursed by the Old Testament law and denounced by the world, the shamed crucified Christ, is, through the resurrection, granted honor as the one true Son of God. Paul's proclamation of Christ crucified shatters the Greco-Roman worldview, for this utterly shameless act is transformed into one of superlative honor. Unsurprisingly, the word that Paul preaches is scandalous (1 Cor 1:17, 23), and Paul knows that this is the case. In employing the vocabulary of honor and shame he admits that such activity is foolish ("We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ," 1 Cor 4:10), but such folly is now to be identified with Christ's own humiliation.

Given the exigencies of the situation at Corinth, we may now comprehend why Paul devotes such considerable space to the contrast between worldly wisdom and the wisdom of God displayed in the cross. He does so in three ways.

First, he declares that the word of the cross is the means whereby God has rendered foolish the wisdom of the world (v 20b; in fulfilment of Isaianic prophecy, Isa 29:14, Septuagint). It is a word that appears as foolishness to the entire world; yet ironically it is manifest as the very power and wisdom of God. To those who consider themselves wise in the eyes of the world, Paul argues that the gospel, with the cross at its center, is diametrically opposed to worldly power and wisdom (Fung: 247-48).

Second, in vv 26-31, Paul points to the Corinthians themselves as evidence of this truth. Verse 26, often the starting point for sociological analyses of the community, describes a group comprising largely but not exclusively the lower classes. For Paul, this provides empirical proof that the strength and wisdom revered by human society are rejected by God, for through the proclamation of the cross God repudiates those who are considered strong and wise by the world.

And third, Paul describes his own preaching as characterized by "weakness, fear and trembling" and insists that it was not a message of human wisdom (2:1-5). The kerygma is wisdom, but not a wisdom "of this age" nor "of the rulers of this age, who are being brought to nothing" (2:6). Paul insists that the apostles, the proclaimers of the gospel, are only servants (3:5; 4:1), and are not to be exalted as heads of factions. Indeed, Paul's experience as an apostle stands in contradistinction to a life of success and honor (4:8-13). It is the crucified Messiah in whom the true character of God's wisdom is disclosed and through whom God's saving power is at work. Paul's prime objective is to deflate the spiritual arrogance of those in the community who claim to be endowed with special wisdom and knowledge about God, and therefore to be deserving of special honors and status.

Paul's language in this section has an apocalyptic character (he speaks of divine wisdom as a "hidden mystery," "decreed before the ages" and now "revealed" in "this age"). It is this divine wisdom demonstrated in the cross which is in the process of bringing to destruction the (political) rulers of this age; that is, those whose categories of wisdom revolve around earthly power, strength and honor (see Witherington: 127; Hays: 43-44; Horsley 1997: 244, 1998: 58). Ironically, by sending Christ to the cross, the imperial rulers had themselves implemented God's plan for their own end and destruction; for this act of God had a stark political dimension by which God was in the process of defeating the "rulers of this age." The cross reveals that "the scheme of this world" is coming to an end (1 Cor 7:31), for, as the cross unmasks the folly of human wisdom, it establishes within the present age the power of the age to come. This is why Paul can say of the present that "the ends of the ages have come" (10:11), and of the word of the cross, that it is "the gospel" (1:17-18) wherein the saving power of God is at work.

To conclude. Paul maintains that because the Corinthians have the Spirit, and thus the mind of Christ, they should have seen the cross for what it is--the very wisdom of God--and thereby have been able to make a true judgment of the dynamic of Christ crucified. By pursuing honor in their veneration of high-status apostles they act like those without the Spirit who are lusting for honor and see the cross as shameful and foolish. The net result--and the irony--is that they are "spiritual" yet "unspiritual"; they are pursuing worldly "wisdom," yet missing the very wisdom of God. Paul wants the Corinthians to understand that those who trust in the wisdom of this age and heroize human leaders do not flourish, but are to be counted among the perishing. By yielding to the tyrannical "powers" of this age (cf. 2:6) they are turning away from God, thereby alienating themselves from the true source of life. When Paul directs them to become "fools" that they may become "wise" (3:18; cf. 4:10a) he is directing them to the wisdom of the cross, rejected by this age (cf. 2:8), for this is precisely the means by which God has unmasked humanity's folly (3:20) and yet provided for its salvation (1:21-25). Paul is urging them to reappropriate the gospel, which has the cross of shame at its core, and through which, God called them to be baptized into the company of Christ--the believing community of "those who are being saved" (cf. 1:18-21).

For Paul, the sheer paradox of the crucified Messiah becomes the paradigm for an identical paradoxical relation between life in the ekklesia and the established structures of the Greco-Roman world--central to which was the seeking of honor, power and status. The result is a structural shift of a whole pattern of beliefs, so that the new and controlling paradigm of God's mode of action is firmly established in thought and praxis. But, more particularly, it is the offensive affirmation of a shamed and humiliated crucified Messiah, which transcends and even violates any expectations based either on reason or on Greco-Roman traditions (Fee 1993: 45). True wisdom and power, Paul maintains, are not to be found in anything or anyone "the world" may esteem as wise and powerful. They have been disclosed through the cross (1:18-25) and bestowed "in Christ Jesus" (1:30). The wisdom of the world is now confronted by the paradox of the crucified one; the one who turns out to be the true Lord of glory.

Works Cited

Alfoldy, G. 1985. THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF ROME. London, UK/Sydney, Australia: Croom Helm.

Aune, D. E. 1987. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN ITS LITERARY ENVIRONMENT. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 1979. ROMANS AND ALIENS. London, UK: Duckworth.

Beard, M., J. North, & S. Price. 1998. RELIGIONS OF ROME. Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Benko, S. 1984. PAGAN ROME AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Benko, S., & J. J. O'Rourke, eds. 1972. EARLY CHURCH HISTORY: THE ROMAN EMPIRE AS THE SETTING OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. London, UK: Oliphants.

Bowersock, G. W. 1995. MARTYRDOM AND ROME. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1973. Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult. Pp. 179-206 in LE CULTE DES SOUVERAINS DANS L'EMPIRE ROMAIN, edited by Den Boer. Geneva, Switzerland: Foundation Hardt.

1965. AUGUSTUS AND THE GREEK WORLD. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Braund, D. C. 1985. AUGUSTUS TO NERO: A SOURCEBOOK ON ROMAN HISTORY, 31 BC-AD 68. London, UK: Croom Helm,

Broneer, O., 1962. The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 25:2-31.

Chow, J. K. 1992. PATRONAGE AND POWER: A STUDY OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN CORINTH. JSNTSS 75.

Coenen, L. 1986. Church, Synagogue," Pp. 291-307 in NIDNTT.

Cousar, C. B. 1990. 1 Corinthians 2:1-13. INTERPRETATION 44: 169-73.

Cuss, D. Sr. 1974. IMPERIAL CULT AND HONORARY TERMS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Fribourg, Switzerland: The University Press.

Deissmann, A. 1927. LIGHT FROM THE ANCIENT EAST: THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED BY RECENTLY DISCOVERED TEXTS OF THE GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

De Ste Croix, G. E. M. 1974. Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? Pp. 210-49 in STUDIES IN ANCIENT SOCIETY, ed. M. I. Finley. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Donfried, K. P. 1997. The Imperial Cults of Thessalonica and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians. Pp. 215-23 in Horsley.

Edwards, K. N. 1933. The Coins, 1896-1929. Corinth: Results, VI. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fears, J. R. 1981. The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology. AUFSTEIG UND NIEDERGANG DER ROMISCHEN WELT (henceforth ANRW) 2.17.1: 3-141.

Fee, G. D. 1993. Toward a Theology of 1 Corinthians. Pp. 37-58 in PAULINE THEOLOGY Volume II: 1 & 2 CORINTHIANS, ed. Hay. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1987. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Ferguson, J. 1958. MORAL VALUES IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. London, UK: Methuen & Co., Ltd.

Finney, M. T. 2004. CONFLICT IN CORINTH: THE APPROPRIATENESS OF HONOUR-SHAME AS THE PRIMARY SOCIAL CONTEXT. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.

Fishwick, D. 1969. Genius and Numen. HTR 62: 356-67.

Frend, W. H. C. 1965. MARTYRDOM AND PERSECUTION IN THE EARLY CHURCH: A STUDY OF CONFLICT FROM THE MACCABEES TO DONATUS. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

rung, R. Y.-K. 1980.Justification by Faith in 1 & 2 Corinthians. Pp. 246-61 in PAULINE STUDIES, edited by D. A. Hagner & M. J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Galinsky, K. 1996. AUGUSTAN CULTURE: AN INTERPRETIVE INTRODUCTION. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Geertz, C. 1973. THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Georgi, D. 1997. Who Is the True Prophet? Pp. 36-46 in Horshy. 1997a. God Turned Upside Down. Pp. 148-57 in Horsley.

Gill, D. W. J. 1989. Roman Corinth: A Pluralistic Society? in TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT/BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY GROUPS PAPER.

Gregory, T., ed. 1993. THE CORINTH1A IN THE ROMAN PERIOD. JOURNAL OF ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY, SUPPL. 8.

Hays, R. B. 1997. FIRST CORINTHIANS, INTRODUCTION. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

Hendrix, H. L. 1986. Beyond Imperial Cult and Cults of Magistrates. Pp. 301-08 in SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, SEMINAR PAPERS.

Hopkins, K., ed. 1978. CONQUERORS AND SLAVES. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Horsley, R. A., ed. 1998. I CORINTHIANS, ABINGDON NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

1997. PAUL AND EMPIRE: RELIGION AND POWER IN ROMAN IMPERIAL SOCIETY. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Johnson, E P. 1926. The Imperial Portraits at Corinth. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 30: 158-76

Jones, A. H. M. 1974. THE ROMAN ECONOMY: STUDIES IN ANCIENT ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY, edited by P. A. Brunt). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Kent, J. H. 1966. THE INSCRIPTIONS, 1926-1950. CORINTH: RESULTS, VIII.3. Princeton, NJ: American Schools of Classical Studies at Athens.

Lendon, J. E. 1997. EMPIRE OF HONOUR: THE ART OF GOVERNMENT IN THE ROMAN WORLD. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 1979. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN ROMAN RELIGION. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Lintott, A. 1993. IMPERIUM ROMANUM: POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION. London, UK: Routledge.

Loeb Classical Library. 1911-present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MacMullen, R. 1974. ROMAN SOCIAL RELATIONS, 50 BC TO AD 284. New Haven, CT/London, UK: Yale University Press.

Mellor, R. 1981. The Goddess Roma. ANRW 2.17.2: 950-1030.

Murphy-O'Connor, J. 1983. ST PAUL'S CORINTH: TEXTS AND ARCHAEOLOGY. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier.

O'Brien, P. T. 1977. INTRODUCTORY THANKSGIVINGS IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL.

NOVT-SUP 49. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Ogilvie, R. M. 1969. THE ROMANS AND THEIR GODS IN THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS. London, UK: Chatto & Windus.

Price, S. R. F. 1997. Rituals and Power. Pp. 47-71 in Horsley.

1987. From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: the Consecration of Divine Emperors. Pp. 56-105 in RITUALS OF ROYALTY: POWER AND CEREMONIAL IN TRADITIONAL SOCIETIES, edited by D. Cannadine & S. Price. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universty Press.

1984. RITUALS AND POWER: THE ROMAN IMPERIAL CULT IN ASIA MINOR. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1984a. Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult. JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIES 104: 79-95.

Ridgeway, B. S. 1981. Sculpture from Corinth. HESPERIA 50: 429-35.

Rostovtzeff, M. 1926. THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Rothaus, R. M. 1993. Urban Space, Agricultural Space and Villas in Late Roman Corinth. Pp. 391-96 in STRUCTURES RURALES ET SOCIETE ANTIQUES, edited by P. N. Doukellis & L. G. Mendoni. Paris, France: Les Belles Lettres.

Sanders, J. T. 1962. The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Pauline Corpus. JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 81: 348-62.

Sherk, R.K. (ed.). 1988. THE ROMAN EMPIRE: AUGUSTUS TO HADRIAN. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sherwin-White, A. N. 1973. THE ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Smallwood, E. M. 1967. DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE PRINCIPATES OF CAIUS, CLAUDIUS AND NERO. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Spawforth, A. J. S. 1994. Corinth, Argos, and the Imperial Cult. HESPERIA 63/2: 211-32.

Stowers, S. K. 1986. LETTER WRITING IN GRECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Theissen, G. 1993. SOCIAL REALITY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS: THEOLOGY, ETHICS, AND THE WORLD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.

Versnel, H. S. 1970. TRIUMPHUS: AN INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND MEANING OF THE ROMAN TRIUMPH. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1970.

Weinstock, S. 1971. DIVUS JULIUS. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

White, J. L. 1971. Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter. JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 90: 91-97.

Winslow, D. 1972. Religion and the Early Roman Empire. Pp. 237-54 in Benko & O'Rourke.

Wiseman, J. 1979. CORINTH AND ROME I: 228 B. C.-A. D. 267. ANRW 2.7.1: 438-548.

Witherington, B. 1995. CONFLICT AND COMMUNITY IN CORINTH: A SOCIO-RHETORICAL COMMENTARY ON 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Wright, N. T. 2000. Jesus' Faithfulness in Pauline Exegetical Contexts: A Contribution to a Debate. Unpublished paper delivered at the British New Testament Conference 2000, Roehampton.

2000a. A FRESH PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL? THE T. W. MANSON MEMORIAL LECTURE. Now published as Christ and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans. Pp. 173-93 in A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD: THE USE OF THE BIBLE ETHICALLY AND POLITICALLY, A DIALOGUE WITH OLIVER O'DONOVAN, edited by C. Bartholomew et. al. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2002.

2000b. COMING HOME TO ST PAUL? READING ROMANS A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER CHARLES GORE. THE CHARLES GORE LECTURE 2000, Westminster Abbey, 14 November (unpublished).

Zanker, P. 1997. The Power of Images. Pp. 72-86 in Horsley.

1988. THE POWER OF IMAGES IN THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Note: .All citations of classical sources are taken from the Loeb Classical Library; see the full data in the Loeb listing above. As a convenience, full data are provided below for the lexicons referred to in text.

BAGD: W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, & F. W. Danker, editors. 1979. A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

LSJ: G. Liddell, R. Scott, & H.S. Jones. 1996. A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

NIDNTT: C. Brown, general editor. 1986. NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. Revised edition. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press.

TDNT: G. Kittel & G. Friedrich, editors. 1964-1976. THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 10 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Mark T. Finney, Ph.D. (St Andrews) is Teaching Fellow in New Testament Studies, University of St Andrews, Scotland. This article constitutes an unused chapter of his Ph.D. research, the thesis of which is entitled, CONFLICT IN CORINTH: THE APPROPRIATENESS OF HONOUR-SHAME AS THE PRIMARY SOCIAL CONTEXT (2004). His e-mail address is [e-mail].