Satan talk in Corinth: the rhetoric of conflict.

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to take seriously Paul's references to Satan in their contexts. This language has generally been appropriated by scholars who posit that merely by the mention of Satan Paul's cosmology is radically dualistic, despite the fact that these references to Satan are neither consistent with that portrait of Satan as the antithesis of God, nor do they appear in cosmological discourses. Furthermore, Paul rarely mentions Satan outside of the Corinthian correspondence, where, in each instance, the rhetoric is invoked in light of the disobedience or disloyalty of the community. Witchcraft language is similarly appropriated in various cultural situations, leading to the conclusion that Paul's Satan talk is a phenomenon arising out of social conflict over Paul's authority in Corinth, rather than a reflection of Paul's cosmology.

**********

Paul's writings have never been readily adaptable to systematic analysis, due both to Paul's chameleon-like reaction to variable circumstances and the particularity of the genre of his writings. Therefore, determining such an issue as Paul's social response to the world, a requisite preliminary step for the interpretation of his letters, according to socio-rhetorician V. K. Robbins (71-73), is no simple task. Biblical scholars have attempted to rely upon Paul's references to Satan as a basis for developing a consistent cosmology in the letters, with unsatisfying results.

Some scholars are willing to attribute inexplicable inconsistencies to Paul as they describe the multifaceted portrait of Satan in the letters. For instance, Thrall interprets the Satan mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:5 as the leader of the world outside the Christian community (40), then describes the Satan in 2 Corinthians 2:11 as the "great adversary of Christ" (128), and finally explains that the Satan of 2 Corinthians 12:7 is similar to the Joban character, who inflicts suffering with God's permission (178). Likewise, Furnish describes Satan in one instance (2 Cor 12:7) as akin to the character in Job 2:6-7, thus the agent of God's purpose (547), and in another (2 Cor 2:11) as God's archenemy, the very personification of evil (158).

Other biblical scholars, having recognized the seeming inconsistencies in the Pauline depiction of Satan, simply avoid the conundrum. Elaine Pagels' ORIGIN OF SATAN, for example, attempts to locate social settings for the subject of cosmic war in the First Testament, in apocryphal stories such as THE LIFE OF ADAM AND EVE, and in the scrolls of the Essene community. She argues that "the subject of cosmic war serves primarily to interpret human relationships--especially all-too-human conflict--in supernatural form. The figure of Satan becomes, among other things, a way of characterizing one's actual enemies as the embodiment of transcendent forces" (13). Her thesis, however, is most readily applied to the gospel writings, with the Pauline references receiving only a cursory treatment, predictably, for one is hard-pressed to observe a "cosmic war" (which includes Satan) in any of Paul's letters. Similarly, J. B. Russell attempts to present a homogeneous portrait of Satan in the New Testament, labeling Satan as the "prime adversary of Christ," largely supported by the temptation and possession stories from the gospels.

Scholars such as Jerome Neyrey make a third attempt, the consistent, yet ill-fitting approach, of selecting and classifying one Pauline reference to Satan and then applying that interpretation of Satan to each other reference. Neyrey interprets Paul's references to Satan as evidence of Paul's "radically dualistic" worldview in which "the kingdom of Satan, where sin and death reign" (72) wars with God's kingdom of life and peace. However, the passage central to Neyrey's argument is the disputed 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 (rejected as Pauline by Betz 88-108), which allows him to describe Belial as the antithesis of Christ in his dualistic schema (83). The Satan in 2 Corinthians 11:4 might fit within this depiction, as could the Satan in 1 Corinthians 7:5, but even Neyrey begrudgingly admits that the purpose of the Satan in 2 Corinthians 12:7 "seems to be to keep Paul from sin" (176).

In light of the apparent failure of these various interpretations of the Pauline Satan, what then, may be noted about Paul's use of Satan? First, Satan does not appear at all in Galatians, Philemon and Philippians and is mentioned only seven times in the remaining four Pauline epistles (assuming that the Pauline corpus consists of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Neither are other designations such as diabolos, poneros, and beliar, those typically assigned to malevolent beings, present in Paul's writings (except in the disputed passage employed by Neyrey). Furthermore, outside of a mention in the epilogue of Romans (16:20) and in 1 Thessalonians 2:18, all the references to Satan occur in the Corinthian letters. Notably, both of these other references do not occur in a cosmological discussion; each is a brief, unelaborated, self-contained statement. Therefore, with the exception of the Corinthian correspondence, Satan is an insignificant figure in the Pauline letters.

Finally, there are key theological passages in the Pauline letters in which Paul logically could have invoked the name of Satan as God's chief nemesis, but does not. For example, one would expect that in the writings of Paul, as a proponent of a dualistic worldview, Satan would be a prime candidate for the forces in Romans 8:38-39 that separate one from the love of God, or certainly that Satan would be listed in 1 Corinthians 15 along with the enemies that must be subjected before the resurrection can occur, or perhaps that Satan would be included in the discussion of God's act of reconciliation with humanity in 2 Corinthians 5, or surely that Satan would appear in Romans 5 when the sinful human predicament is explained. However, Satan is glaringly absent from these cosmic discourses in Paul, and arguably, not by mere oversight.

A brief glance at the references to Satan in the Corinthian letters shows that the instances out of which such language arose were not vehicles for Paul's cosmological instruction to his converts, such as is the case with the previously mentioned passages, rather, the Corinthian references to Satan all occur within very particular social circumstances in Corinth. Furthermore, the setting for each of the references to Satan involves conflict between Paul and the community, either in their personal response to him or in his instructions. The 1 Corinthians 5:5 reference arises out of the Corinthians' reaction to a man and his relationship to his father's woman and the failure of the community to deal with him in the manner which Paul suggests; in 1 Corinthians 7:5, Paul objects to the sexual abstinence of married couples in Corinth; the reference to Satan in 2 Corinthians 2:11 occurs because the Corinthians have not reacted properly toward an offender; 2 Corinthians 11:14 accuses Paul's opponents in Corinth of practicing the deceptive tactics of Satan; and 2 Corinthians 12:7 argues Paul's authenticity as an apostle through his thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan.

Therefore, since the Pauline use of Satan cannot satisfactorily be explained through the Thrall approach, who is willing to attribute a completely inconsistent cosmology to Paul, or via Pagels, who largely avoids discussing Paul's use of Satan, or by means of Neyrey, who persists in appropriating Paul's Satan talk into a radically dualistic cosmology which does not readily apply to each of these passages, a sociological model does in fact provide a more suitable explanation for the phenomenon of Satan language in the Corinthian letters.

The curious concentration of references in the Corinthian correspondence may indicate that the particular social situation in Corinth, i.e., both that Paul's authority had been seriously challenged there by other apostles who did not always agree with Paul's teachings or his claims to apostolicity and the Corinthians' own divergence from Paul's teachings, fosters the use of Satan talk. In order to support this thesis, two tasks must be undertaken. First, the possibility of Satan talk arising out of societal conflict, rather than as the logical rhetorical consequence of a dualistic society, must be demonstrated as possible; second, the appearance of Satan in Paul's letters to the Corinthians must be explained as the result of such societal pressures.

The former problem will be examined via cross-cultural comparisons of five strikingly different cultures ranging from the modem to the pre-medieval eras in which Satan language and witchcraft accusations are promulgated. Using Mary Douglas' conclusion of concordance between symbolic and social experience, (63-64) I will similarly argue that societies that use witchcraft accusations and/or Satan talk (Neyrey argues that one such witchcraft accusation occurs in 2 Corinthians 11:14 [91]) record a marked increase in such language which parallels increased discomfort or confusion with the general structure of their particular societies. Beginning with the most recent, each society's unique use of Satan talk will be explained as a particular cultural phenomenon, arising out of, or enhanced by, the pressures of human interaction, thus demonstrating that Satan talk may occur as a common rhetorical tactic within many different societal situations.

The pursuit of the latter problem will involve an examination of each of Satan's appearances in the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor 5:5, 1 Cor 7:5, 2 Cor 2:11, 2 Cor 11.14 and 2 Cor 12:7). In each of these passages three points of comparison will be made: 1) the Corinthian situation-specific, non-universal nature of the passage; 2) Satan's ambiguous role, both within a single reference and when references are compared; and 3) the centrality of Paul's authoritative position to each passage, leading to the final conclusion that Paul's use of Satan talk is not theological in nature, but is instead the rhetorical result of his strained relationship with the Corinthians, designed to draw them into assent with his standard of morality and with his authority over their community.

A Survey of the Social Dynamics of Witchcraft Societies

This section will briefly summarize the social characteristics of five different societies, from modern to ancient eras, which engaged in Satan talk and/or witchcraft accusations. The intent of the survey is to support the assertion that witchcraft accusations or Satan talk are motivated by societal circumstances and are exacerbated by community pressures. Mary Douglas has articulated a list of common characteristics of societies that use witchcraft accusations as a method of societal control: 1) external boundaries that are clearly marked, 2) internal boundaries that are confused, 3) close unavoidable interaction, 4) underdeveloped tension-relieving techniques and no procedure for reconciling conflicts, 5) weak authority, and 6) intense and disorderly competition occurring constantly (107-09). The implication of Douglas' list is that a social restructuring will account for a change in attitude toward Satan/witchcraft activities. In other words, witchcraft influence within communities is transitory, a phenomenon arising from the manifestation of a very particular set of circumstances. These five examples below will demonstrate such extenuating circumstances that allow for an amplification of Satan talk/witchcraft accusations in their communities.

Michael Taussig's socio-political study, THE DEVIL AND COMMODITY FETISHISM IN SOUTH AMERICA, charts the rise of the influence of the devil in two distinct societies in South America, both of which recently had undergone the economic conversion to capitalism. The Cauca Valley peasants were transformed from small land owners who performed subsistence farming to landless wage laborers in the sugar cane plantations, and the Bolivian farmers were forced to abandon their fields to become laborers in the tin mines. The devil was not absent from either belief system prior to their societies' economic transformations, but, in each community, the role of the devil expanded in conjunction with the economic changes.

The sugar cane workers, having surrendered their land to the plantation owners, commenced making contracts with the devil in order to augment production on their plots of cane. Those who prospered were deemed by their peers to be in contract with the devil because of their success. Those who were not successful felt pressure to join forces with the devil in order to keep pace with their "already-conspiratory" neighbors.

In the Bolivian tin mines, the devil was considered the owner of the mines, the one who had the power of life and death over the miners. In the remainder of the country, the spirit owners, those who ultimately controlled the land, were considered providential caretakers, but in the mines the spirit owners were predominately and actively evil beings (144). Any accidents that befell the workers in the mines were attributed to the malevolence of the devil.

In both of these societies, the role of the devil in their communities changed dramatically along with their societal organization. Along with the pressure of the production demands of a capitalistic system and the displacement from the land, there developed a vocalization of exaggerated devil influence over the lives of the workers, who invoked the devil in order to enhance their position in the community and to regulate power throughout the society.

The seminal work, WITCHCRAFT, ORACLES AND MAGIC AMONG THE AZANDE, the result of Evans-Pritchard's three year study of the Zande tribe from central Africa during the 1920's, exposes a particularly limited scope of witchcraft activity; the social situations in which witchcraft practices are evoked among Azande, according to Evans-Pritchard, all involve physical misfortune. Misfortune and witchcraft are inextricably linked; witchcraft does not arise apart from misfortune, neither does misfortune exist that is not thought to be the product of witchcraft activity (45). Witchcraft attacks come from one's closest neighbors and are believed to be the result of their hatred, greed, envy or jealousy, due to the fact that those farther away are not likely to be concerned with a distant neighbor's fortunes. Thus, whenever Azande suspect that they are under the power of witchcraft, they immediately consider those nearby as the possible perpetrators of their bewitching (47).

Witchcraft is a direct function of misfortune and personal relations, but, according to Evans-Pritchard, it also comprises moral judgment:

   Indeed, Zande morality is so closely related to their notions of witchcraft
   that it may be said to embrace them. The Zande phrase "It is witchcraft"
   may often be translated simply as "It is bad" ... Witchcraft tends to
   become synonymous with the sentiments which are supposed to cause it, so
   that Azande think of hatred and envy and greed in terms of witchcraft and
   likewise think of witchcraft in terms of the sentiments it discloses [48].

Because behavior and witchcraft are so intertwined, those who are accused most often of bewitching others are those who offend the rules of conduct for the society. Therefore, the witchcraft accusation also becomes a moral condemnation.

The personal profile of the New England accused witch, as compiled by Demos from the Essex County Courthouse records from the late seventeenth century, resembles that of the repeatedly accused person among the Zande. The supposed witch was prone to conflict with peers, local institutions, and moral structures, a competent person who was able to bring a disruptive force to the community (86-91).

Witchcraft beliefs and accusations in seventeenth century New England were a natural result, if not a necessity arising out of a unique social system, according to Demos. Organized religion in New England was pervasive in its influence throughout the communities, who saw themselves as participants in a cosmic struggle between good and evil. This theological self-definition was set in a narrow social web of only about one hundred families, all well-known to each other. Witchcraft operated as a conservative, cohesive force within a society where community was a key value and the main point of tension was between cooperative values that promoted one single societal ideal and individual values that may have threatened the communal values (309).

The special breeding ground for witchcraft activity in New England had to do with the intensity of the unseen and supernatural in society coupled with the heightened tangible and personal nature of physical daily operations in seventeenth century New England. Although the New Englanders understood the cosmos in dualistic terms prior to their colonization, the excessive use of witchcraft language was fueled by a society fervently devoted to maintaining order through homogeneity.

More contemporary to the Corinthian situation is Peter Brown's study of the irrational in society in late antiquity. Sorcery accusations and practices arose during the pre-medieval era, as observed by Brown, when two systems of power clashed within one society: the "articulate power" of those in high places and the "inarticulate power" that is linked to the "disturbing intangibles of social life; the imponderable advantages of certain groups; personal skills that succeed in a way that is unacceptable or difficult to understand" (124). The sorcerer is active in the area of overlap between these two vestiges of power.

When overt political opposition was unthinkable, the more covert rebellion against power was made through the allegation of sorcery, according to Brown. The accusations were usually made against the holders of the traditional power structures by those who sought to explain the undeserved power of the achieved power group (125). Knowledge about sorcery came from the fluid group of society, and as Roman society became more stable and defined, the sorcery accusations waned.

In line with the beliefs of the Zande tribe, the sorcery attacks were conceived as the most intimate aggressions against an individual. Skills that defined one's personality were particularly susceptible to sorcery. In the case of a rhetorician, "loss of memory invariably provoked accusations of sorcery among such men; for loss of memory damaged a man's identity at just the point where he was most certain of himself--in his mastery of classical literature through having memorized it" (133). The incongruity of the rhetorician's memory loss and the shame that accompanies such a failure were best explained in the ancient world as the intrusion of sorcery. Once sorcery was alleged, the afflicted ones could attempt to regain stature by claiming that their sub-par performance was due to some outside influence and then by identifying a jealous colleague as the perpetrator of the sorcery.

Within each of these groups, Satan talk was not motivated by cosmological events, such as a natural disaster, but arose from the personal problems or conflicts of the members of the group. Individual misfortunes were attributed to witchcraft by the Zande, the rhetorician's memory lapse was due to sorcery, and the South American workers' devil pacts coincided with their new status as laborers, the rhetoric of each community reflecting the level of its stability. The fortunes of the society and its individual members determine whether Satan talk and witchcraft accusations serve a prominent role in community life or whether they fade away.

Douglas notes that fluctuations in witchcraft cosmology do occur, but only as a result of a change in the societal organization. She cites the example of the Lugbara tribe, whose witch beliefs are latent until competition for the leadership of the tribe arises. The rivals huff accusations of witchcraft at each other until the succession problem is settled, then misfortunes are again attributed to deceased ancestors who regulated tribal behavior through the chief elder (121). Upon examination, the five appearances of Satan in the Corinthian letters will uphold Evans-Pritchard's terse description of Douglas' anthropological discovery: "witchcraft as a system for explaining events does not in fact postulate any mysterious spiritual beings--only the mysterious powers of humans" (xxi).

The Appearance of Satan in the Corinthian Letters

A key motivation for Paul's correspondence with Corinth was his concern over their schismata and erides (1 Cor 1:10-11) with regards to leadership loyalty directed towards Apollos, Cephas, Christ and himself (1 Cor 1:12). These few verses expose the confusion concerning authority over the Corinthian church. Others who preached Christianity had established sizable followings which challenged Paul's absentee leadership, leading to revolts against his specific directions for church governance. Therefore, Corinth as a community had several of the ingredients that Douglas lists as targets for a change in the rhetoric within a community: (1) a close, small community which has undergone recent changes in structure, (2) a desire to maintain cohesion of the group and unity of thought, and, most important, (3) an unestablished leadership.

In order to argue that Paul's references to Satan are not a reflection of his radically dualistic cosmology, rather that this rhetoric is more appropriately attributable to his conflicted position of authority over the Corinthians, each of these five references must meet three assertions: (1) the passage that contains the reference to Satan must not be part of a formal theological discourse with possibilities of universal application, but must be specifically tied to one incident or issue at Corinth; (2) Satan's role must not be consistent throughout the references. For instance, the label of "chief nemesis of God" must not be applicable throughout the Corinthian correspondence; and (3) Paul's relationship with the Corinthians must clearly be at issue in each mention of Satan. Therefore, Satan's name has been invoked to command a response from the Corinthians that is favorable to Paul.

The problem in 1 Corinthians 5 is unquestionably specific; one particular man is involved in a socially awkward relationship with his father's "woman."

   It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind
   that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's
   wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has
   done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present
   in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the
   name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are
   assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you
   are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his
   spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus [1 Cor 5:1-5 RSV].

On the basis of this cryptic description, Paul assumes that the entire Corinthian congregation will understand who the offenders are and will be familiar with their situation. Furthermore, Paul condemns the Corinthians' reaction to this one man's "illicit" relationship, which is more troublesome to him than the actions of the man himself (Snyder 59-60; Conzelmann 95-96), called a "purgation of the community" by Meeks (130). They have reacted to behavior, which Paul considers reprehensible, with arrogance rather than sorrow (1 Cor 5:2).

Although Neyrey (90) claims this passage as evidence of Paul's dualistic understanding of the world, specifically as an "exit ritual," wherein the offender is ousted from the community and becomes an outsider, thus maintaining strict community boundaries, and despite Satan's description by Orr and Walther as the "plenipotentiary of evil" (188), Satan's role is ambiguous here. The ultimate purpose of "delivering this man to Satan" is to provide salvation for the offender. Satan may be considered as the one who controls the realm outside the Corinthian community (Hodge 1857: 85), but the very act of forcing this man into that realm may be the one thing that saves him (Barclay 50). Therefore, Satan is antagonistic towards the church, but still may be a tool for the ultimate purpose of God, an agent for punishing (Thornton 151; Baird 67).

It was noted earlier that it is the community's reaction to this man that is the focus of Paul's harsh rhetoric. Their arrogance about the situation (pephysiomenoi) indicates that they consciously were taking a stance contrary to that which would be expected from them. Their puffed-up state may have been towards the whole of Greco-Roman society (5:1), but they likely realized that their continued acceptance of this man would be at odds with Paul's teachings, as well. Therefore, the Corinthians' tolerance of this porneia sets them in opposition to Paul's authority over their community. Paul's call for the deliverance of this man to Satan is a challenge to the remainder of the congregation to renew their loyalty to Paul and his teachings. Because the man's relationship was a source of pride to them, his expulsion from their community would denote a sympathetic stance toward Paul. The threat of Satan's realm is a helpful rhetorical agent here. Their expulsion of this man would result in the salvation for the man himself and would thereby demonstrate the community's improved self-understanding, which is to Paul an acknowledgment that they are his church, subject to his authority.

The issue in chapter 7 is similarly Corinth-specific, this time concerning marital relationships. Husbands and wives were attempting to live together without sexual relations:

   Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not
   to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man
   should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should
   give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
   For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does;
   likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do
   not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you
   may devote yourselves to prayer; but them come together again, lest Satan
   tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way concession, not
   of command. I wish that all were as I myself am [1 Cor 7:1-7a].

This celebration of celibacy as the quintessential Christian response to the world was unique to Corinth, according to the Pauline corpus. Several scholars have noted that the strong presence of women in the Corinthian congregation led to the emphasis of freedom as preached by Paul in the baptismal creed of Galatians 3:27-28 and then to the elevation of those who maintained their virginity and chastity to places of honor in the church (Wire; MacDonald). It is these particular women and their marital status that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7.

Satan's name is invoked here as a warning to those who push the practice of abstinence to the point of being tempted to be unfaithful outside of their marriage. Satan is the one who tempts (peirazo) them through lack of self-control (akrasia). Although Satan appears to be in an adversarial role to the Corinthian believers here, the limits of his power are apparent. Satan is a tempter, yet he is only encouraged through the reckless actions of the people who abstain from sexual relations too long (Conzelmann, 118); his power to seduce to sin is enhanced by their lack of diligence against it (Orr & Walther 208-09: Barrett 1968: 157). As Snyder notes (255-56), Satan's function in chapter 7 is similar to that observed in the Hebrew writings, a prosecuting attorney for God's law, who appears out of our brokenness with God and is symbolic of the evil that exists when people live apart from GOd. Therefore, though Satan is a tempter of people, his actions ultimately protect the community and law by exposing the distance between God and God's people.

The issue in chapter 7 differs from the one previously discussed in chapter 5, in that the former was a question posed to Paul by some of the Corinthians, where the latter was Paul's reaction to news that had been brought to him, perhaps by Chloe's people. Furthermore, the abstinence issues in chapter 7 were undoubtedly encouraged by Paul's own teachings and lifestyle while among them. Yet, the Corinthians seem to be in conflict with Paul's wishes because of their (in Paul's view) exaggerated position on celibacy.

Paul's authority over the Corinthians is interwoven with the issues of matrimony and sexuality throughout chapter 7 as he promulgates commands for married life (1 Cor 7:6, 12) and defers to a known command of the Lord (1 Cor 7:10) with which he equates his own position, "and to the unmarried I command, yet not I, but the Lord." Castelli argues that the notion of mimesis functions in Paul's letters as a strategy of power that rationalizes as true and natural a particular set of power relationships within a society. Paul does not employ that precise language (mimetai) here, yet he does set up his chaste lifestyle as an example that he wishes could be the norm for the community (1 Cor 7:7).

Satan's role in this instance is an incentive for the Corinthians to heed Paul's teachings. If they do not, then they may fall under the temptation of Satan. The phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:5c gives Paul's instruction impact and authority: if one does as Paul says, one can avoid temptation, but the reckless could fall under Satan's spell. As observed in chapter 5, Satan is not the issue in chapter 7. He is an added deterrent to the apathy that the Corinthians had demonstrated for Paul's authority. Paul places himself at the opposite pole from Satan. Thus, if the church rejects Satan, they align themselves with Paul.

Two of the five references to Satan occur in Paul's emotional apostolic defense in 2 Corinthians 10-13. Even though Paul targets his opponents in Corinth, the "false apostles," his words are directed toward the Corinthians who have been less than loyal in their devotion to Paul and his teachings.

   And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of
   those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on
   the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful
   workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for
   even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if
   his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their
   end will conrrespond to their deeds [2 Cor 11:12-15].

In 2 Corinthians 11:14, specifically labeled by Neyrey as a witchcraft accusation, Paul invokes imagery derived from Jewish legends about Eve's deception by the devil, the source of which, according to Teyssedre (116) is the APOCALYPSE OF MOSES; but Furnish (495) and Danker (174) assume that both THE LIFE OF ADAM AND EVE and the APOCALYPSE OF MOSES contributed to this legend. Each of these two works describes Satan transforming himself into an angel of light, and such deception, Paul claims, is being perpetuated upon the Corinthians by his opponents there.

Despite the fact that Paul has harsh words for his opponents in several of his other letters, Galatians and Philippians, in particular, he reserves his most dramatic rhetoric for those who oppose him in Corinth. The term pseudapostoloi occurs nowhere else, ergatai dolioi appears elsewhere only in Philippians 3:2, and the comparison of the false apostles' deception with Satan's action towards Eve is reserved for Paul's opposition in Corinth.

Satan's role has none of the redemptive quality in this reference that was observed in 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 7:5. He is the "very archetype of evil" (Barnett 595) who deceived Eve (2 Cor 11:3) and now seeks to divert the Corinthians from the word of God. Satan's work is not useful, nor under God's providential plan. Satan is simply a threat to the existence of the church to be carried forth by the false apostles in Corinth. In contrast to the previous passages in 1 Corinthians where Satan talk was uttered as encouragement to the Corinthians to adopt a course of behavior, when Paul applies this language to his opponents here, there is no ambiguity of the nefarious role of Satan within the community.

It is within chapters 10-13 that it is most apparent that Paul is under scrutiny from other evangelists because of his lack of apostolic credentials. He did not accept money from the Corinthians, which was a point of contention between himself and the Corinthians (1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 11: 8-9; 12:13), some of whom contended that a true apostle would welcome recompense for his labor. Paul's ability as a speaker, apparently was not as impressive as some of his contemporaries', further damaging Paul's acceptance as the primary authority in Corinth (1 Cor 10:10). Likewise, Paul's continued absence from Corinth in the face of his frequent promises to visit led to characterizations of Paul as a vacillator (2 Cor 1:12-18). The intent of this letter of Paul's (2 Cor 10-13) was to win back support from the Corinthians, whose loyalties were, at best, divided between Paul and the "false apostles," thus, the issue of Paul's authority in Corinth is not merely an ancillary issue, but the issue of this letter.

The myth of Satan provided a convenient pre-painted portrait of a deceptive personality and Paul it employed in order to characterize the false apostles as devious. Notably, the notion of Satan's cosmic conflict with God is unmentioned; the issue is the fate of Paul's reputation as an apostle, not the fate of the world. Paul's use of Satan talk in 2 Corinthians 11 is akin to the sorcery accusations made by the pre-medieval Romans. When Paul perceived negative reactions to his authority, the false apostles were characterized as deceivers, determined to delude Paul's followers.

As the focus of Paul's self-defense moves away from his rivals and on to his own credentials in chapter 12, Satan appears again. This most notorious of Satan references, Paul's "thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan," is unique within the Pauline letters because of the glimpse it provides into Paul's mystical experiences. Paul reluctantly reveals this autobiographical information, as yet unmentioned, to the Corinthians as part of his campaign to reestablish his apostolic position among them via written words. The discourse in chapters 10-13 is a personal defense rather than a theological discourse, intended to provoke its hearers into remorse and repentance for their disloyalty to Paul.

   On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast,
   except of my weaknesses. Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool,
   for no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. And to
   keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was
   given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from
   being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it
   should leave me; but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my
   power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my
   weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me [2 Cor 12:5-91.

Although Satan appears twice within a few verses in this letter (11:14, 12:7), Satan's role here has little in common with the mythological "deceiver" of 11:14. Further, the extent of Satan's dominion in 12:7 is one point of rare common agreement among scholars. The Satan in this passage acts within the bounds of divine permission. The use of the divine passive of didomi, as noted by Barnett (568), Thornton (151), Hodge (1859: 285), and Furnish (528), indicates God's assent to Paul's affliction. Satan appears here as one who enacts the desires of God, much like the Joban Satan who is entirely subject to God (1:12, 2:6-7). God's parental discipline is exercised upon Paul through Satan (Bruce 248, Thrall 178). Bultmann states it more emphatically, "It is God himself [sic] who is encountered in the counterforce" that opposes Paul (225). More than in any of Paul's other references tb Satan, this passage parallels the Satan, as documented by Russell (1977: 174-220), portrayed in the Hebrew scriptures: the one who obstructed Balaam's path (Num 22:22-35), the accuser of Joshua to the angel of the Lord (Zech 3:1-2), and God's district attorney against Job (Job 1-2).

It has been noted that bodily diseases are sometimes attributed in the Bible as sent by Satan (Hodge 1859: 285) and that the ancients widely accepted the notion of illness as caused by demons (Furnish 549). Yet Satan's ability to afflict Paul was only possible through God's permission, and by Paul's own admission, the malady was prompted by God (Barrett 1973: 316). After initially begging for its removal, Paul finally acknowledges the value of the thorn (skolops) with regards to his own experience (12:8).

The very reason that Paul resorts to telling this "boastful" tale of his revelatory experience is his lack of commendation by the Corinthians (12:11). The credentials of others who claimed to be apostles had impressed at least some of the Corinthians and had led them to doubt Paul's authority. His stubborn refusal of their monetary support came to be associated at first with a lack of credentials and finally with guile (11:7-9; 12:16-17). This letter (2 Cor 10-13) was Paul's desperate attempt to recover his lost authority in Corinth. The first part (10:1-11:15) concentrates on discrediting Paul's opponents who have established a following in Corinth at his expense, accomplished in part through the reference to Satan as a deceiver as discussed earlier. The second part (11:16-13:14) focuses upon Paul's credentials as a superlative apostle. Satan appears here, also, but as God's agent, whose ever-present thorn in Paul provides evidence of his apostolic authenticity. The skolops appears as a counterbalance to Paul's revelation of paradise allowing him to retain a proper self-understanding in the wake of such heavenly revelations.

The discontinuity of the figure of Satan within this brief letter seems inexplicable if one uses these references to construct Paul's cosmology. Because of the highly emotional context of the letter, its rhetoric must be understood as a product of that situation. These words attempt to discredit Paul's opponents, to shame the Corinthians and to exonerate Paul. Thus, Satan may appear as the great deceiver in a witchcraft accusation against Paul's adversaries in chapter 11 and then may be the agent of God's design for Paul, the true apostle in chapter 12. Although the two references to Satan have quite disparate applications, the desired outcome of this language is the same: to align the Corinthians with Paul's authority. Paul's comparison of his opponents to beguiling serpents demands that the Corinthians reject their teachings. Paul's inclusion of the skolops, delivered by Satan, into his own description of his embattled apostleship--also seen in his use of peristasis catalogues, one of which precedes this passage in 11:23-29 (Fitzgerald, CRACKS IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL)--demands that the Corinthians accept Paul as a special apostle of God who has undergone sufferings akin to those inflicted upon Jesus (Furnish 547).

Assuming that 2 Corinthians 10-13 is the sorrowful letter to which Paul refers in 2 Corinthians 7:8 (Watson 324-46), then the reference to Satan in 2 Corinthians 2:11 follows an at least moderately successful letter campaign by Paul which included Satan rhetoric.

   But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some
   measure--not to put it too severely--to you all. For such a one this
   punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive
   and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you
   to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test
   you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Any one whom you
   forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything,
   has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from
   gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs [2
   Cor 2:5-11].

The reference in 2 Corinthians 2:11 has more in common with the one in 1 Corinthians 7:5, wherein Paul urges the congregation toward a course of action with the threat of Satan's intervention if they do not comply. The circumstances in 2 Corinthians 2:11 are quite Corinth-specific, as well. A man has been disciplined by the community, perhaps because of a personal attack against Paul (v.5). Paul now urges the Corinthians to reaffirm their love for him, a preventative measure to Satan's possible intrusion into their community. As in 1 Corinthians 5, the true concern for Paul was the reaction of the community rather than the transgression of the individual.

The words used in conjunction with Satan here, "take advantage of" (pleonekteo) and "his designs" (ta noemata), indicate that Satan's role in this passage is "to mislead or entrap God's people" (Danker 45). Barnett notes that on a theological level, the failure to forgive members may reintroduce the "dominion of darkness" to the community, because such obstinacy is in line with Satan's schemes (132). However, Barnett recognizes the unique use of the first person plural in verse 11, indicating that Paul himself may be disadvantaged by Satan's control over the community, thus their readmission of the offender is directly linked to their acceptance of Paul's authority (131-32). Furnish likewise notes Paul's insistence that the real danger is to the whole Corinthian church, drawing from this the inference that there was a group in Corinth who had opposed Paul's instructions on this matter (163) and who perhaps suggested that there should have been no discipline at all. The type of seduction that Paul fears stems from their willingness to listen to these interlopers, which would result in an unreconciled congregation, both among themselves and toward Paul. Therefore, this reference to Satan does not likely describe in general theological terms how Paul understands the workings and dominion of Satan over the people of God, but is a less overt reference to his opposition in Corinth than in 2 Corinthians 11, yet, once again labeling the source of their authority as Satan.

Paul himself unabashedly states in the two verses immediately preceding the reference to Satan that he was compelled to write the tearful letter to determine their personal loyalty to him: "For to this end also I wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things. To whom you forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes I forgave it in the person of Christ" (2 Cor 2:10-11). Having received some assurance of their sorrow, Paul now attempts to exercise his authority on a specific issue through another letter, involving one who had personally offended him.

If the opposition to Paul represented a faction that did not approve of the disciplinary action, as Furnish argues (163), then Paul is using the momentum built up by his successful "letter of sorrow" and is trying to rally the entire congregation around the issue of this one man and Paul's leadership in Corinth. Their further obedience in this matter, Paul claims, is a preventative to Satan's influence among them. Satan, who in this passage is one and the same with Paul's opponents, is applied as a threat to the disunified community, a reason to heed Paul's advice. The Corinthians are encouraged to perceive life in harmony with Paul's teachings as the antidote to Satanic activity within the church. If Paul can redraw the lines between himself and Satan, rather than between himself and the opposing apostles, the Corinthians are left with little recourse; they must follow Paul. This instance of Satan talk is an ultimatum for the Corinthians; either they adhere to Paul's instructions or they welcome the influence of Satan into their community. If the Corinthians, having received these instructions from Paul, now obediently forgive and receive the man back into their community, they have effectively approved of Paul's advice and have rejected his adversaries'. From Paul's view, everyone has won: the Corinthians are safe from the evil influence of the false apostles and his position as pater of Corinth is reaffirmed.

Each of the Pauline references to Satan in the Corinthian letters is situation-specific. Paul's words address particular individuals, assumed to be well-known within the community, although they remain unnamed. Paul gives directives for the congregation based upon these specific circumstances. When Satan's name is invoked, it is ancillary to Paul's concern for the problem in the community. In other words, Satan is not the focus of these passages. Therefore, to attempt to determine Paul's cosmology based upon these references is exegetically misguided. Moreover, a comparison of the references reveals that Satan's role in each instance varies widely, from an agent of God to the archenemy of God.

The issue that is central to each of these passages, the thing that provokes such language from Paul, is clearly his uncertain position of authority at Corinth. One can trace the relationship of Paul to the Corinthians beginning with their disagreements over issues of morality in 1 Corinthians 5 and 7, continuing with the crisis in their relationship in 2 Corinthians 10-13, where Paul's authority has eroded severely with respect to his opponents, and finally to 2 Corinthians 1-9, where Paul uses the issue of an ostracized member as a test case for the loyalty of the congregation. Paul's Satan talk is the language of ultimatums; in order for the Corinthians to preserve their status with God, they must embrace Paul's authority.

Conclusion

The appearances of Satan in the Corinthian correspondence do not tell us much of anything about Satan, his activity or Paul's cosmological view. The references are not really about Satan, but about Paul and his relationship to the Corinthians. The letters indicate that not all Corinthians accept Paul as their authority; they do not defer to his teachings on church polity, neither do they recognize Paul as chief spokesperson for Christ. At times, the entire community has ignored Paul's commands and openly ascribed to a different course of behavior. On two separate occasions, Paul and the Corinthians are at odds in reference to whom should be included in their Christian community. Although Paul was an influential figure for some in Corinth, his apostleship was not universally recognized and was not considered unique by many others; his leadership was tenuous at best.

It is into this unstable society that the otherwise largely ignored figure of Satan appears five times. Paul's use of Satan rhetoric is anthropologically motivated in the same manner as described in the five communities above. None of these occasions has anything to do with the cosmic battle between good and evil and none of these references elaborates on the person or providence of Satan. He is employed to fit the argument of the moment, inexorably linked with Paul's personal, apostolic conflicts, much in the same fashion as with the Zande tribe or with the workers in South America. Paul's true enemies were his rivals, those who could unseat him in his position of authority in the churches. Satan language arises out of Paul's scramble to cajole, threaten and inspire the Corinthians to dissociate themselves with other leaders and to define themselves as his people.

Works Cited

Baird, William. 1964. THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH--A BIBLICAL APPROACH TO URBAN CULTURE. New York, NY/Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Barclay, W. 1954. THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS. Edinburgh, UK: St. Andrew Press.

Barnett, Paul. 1997. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Barrett, C. K. 1968. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthian. London, UK: Adam & Charles Black. 1973. A COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. London, UK: Adam & Charles Black.

Betz, Hans Dieter. 1973.2 Cor. 6:14-7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment? JBL 92, 88-108.

Brown, Peter. 1972. Sorcery, Demons and the Rise of Christianity: From Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages, RELIGION AND SOCIETY IN THE AGE OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. London, UK: Faber & Faber.

Bruce, F. F. 1978. 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS. London, UK: Oliphants.

Bultmann, Rudolf. 1985. THE SECOND LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. Trans. R. A. Harrisville. Minneapolis, MN: Augburg Publishing House.

Castelli, Elizabeth. 1991. IMITATING PAUL: A DISCOURSE OF POWER. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Conzelmann, Hans. 1975. 1 CORINTHIANS. Trans. J. W. Leitch. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Danker, F. W. 1989. II CORINTHIANS. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

Demos, John Putnam. 1982. ENTERTAINING SATAN: WITCHCRAFT AND THE CULTURE OF EARLY NEW ENGLAND. New York, NY/Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Douglas, Mary. 1982. NATURAL SYMBOLS: EXPLORATIONS IN COSMOLOGY. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1976. WITCHCRAFT, ORACLES, AND MAGIC AMONG THE AZANDE. Abr. Eva Gilles. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Fitzgerald, John. 1988. CRACKS IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Furnish, Victor Paul. 1984. II CORINTHIANS. AB 32A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.

Hodge, Charles. 1859. AN EXPOSITION OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. New York, NY: Hodder & Stoughton. 1857. AN EXPOSITION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. New York, NY: Hodder & Stoughton.

MacDonald, Margaret. 1990. Women Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7, NTS 36: 161-81.

Meeks, Wayne. 1983. THE FIRST URBAN CHRISTIANS. New Haven, CT/London, UK: Yale University Press.

Neyrey, Jerome. 1990. PAUL, IN OTHER WORDS. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Orr, William F. & James Arthur Walther. 1976. I CORINTHIANS. AB. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Pagels, Elaine. 1995. THE ORIGIN OF SATAN. New York, NY: Random House.

Russell, Jeffrey Burton. 1981. SATAN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION. Ithaca, NY/London, UK: Cornell University Press 1977. THE DEVIL. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.

Robbins, Vernon K. 1996. EXPLORING THE TEXTURE OF TEXTS: A GUIDE TO SOCIO-RHETORICAL INTERPRETATION. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

Snyder, Graydon. 1992. FIRST CORINTHIANS: A FAITH COMMUNITY COMMENTARY. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Taussig, Michael T. 1980. THE DEVIL AND COMMODITY FETISHISM IN SOUTH AMERICA. Chapel Hill, NC: University Press.

Snyder, Graydon. 1992. FIRST CORINTHIANS: A FAITH COMMUNITY COMMENTARY. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Taussig, Michael T. 1980. THE DEVIL AND COMMODITY FETISHISM IN SOUTH AMERICA. Chapel Hill, NC: University Press.

Teyssedre, Bernard. 1985. LE DIABLE ET L'ENFER. Paris, France: Albin Michel.

Thornton, Timothy. 1971-1972. Satan--God's Agent for Punishing, THE EXPOSITORY TIMES 83: 151-52.

Thrall, Margaret E. 1965. I & II CORINTHIANS. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Watson, Francis. 1984. 2 Cor X-XIII and Paul's Painful Letter to the Corithians, JTS 35: 324-46.

Wire, Antoinette Clark. 1990. THE CORINTHIAN WOMEN PROPHETS. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Lee A. Johnson is a Ph.D. candidate and sessional lecturer in biblical studies at Knox College, University of Toronto (59 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2E6, Canada). She is a contributor to the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies' forthcoming two-volume series RELIGIOUS COMPETITION AND COEXISTENCE IN CAESAREA MARITIMA (ESCJ Series, Wilfred Laurier Press), and is completing her dissertation entitled "The Epistolary Apostle: Paul's Response to the Challenge of the Corinthian Congregation."