assistants (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.82, 95), and Moses as God’s faithful servant (Josephus Ant. 4.49). In our present context it may designate someone in an official capacity as subordinate to a higher authority.265 The apostles are depicted having an administrative position in God’s domain as delegated servants doing the bidding of their Lord, Jesus Christ. The second term, administrative steward (οἰκονόμος), portrays a similar image in which the apostles are commercial managers.266 John Goodrich’s study of this position distinguishes between different types of administrators and concludes that Paul resembles most the private administrator. These “were almost always slaves during the Roman period, normally serving a κύριος/dominus [lord] as business managers.”267 Paul and Apollos are portrayed metaphorically as God’s competent servant-treasurers entrusted with the mysteries of God (the wealth of God’s wisdom related to the plan of salvation). This position would be known and relevant for congregation members who knew Erastus, a fellow church member who served as οἰκονόμος for their city (Rom 16:23). Though unlike Paul’s nuance, Erastus seems to be a civic rather than private administrator and probably not a slave. As a fellow believer and Paul’s colleague, Erastus appears to have the time, money, and freedom to do missionary travelling, which would hardly be possible for slaves (cf. Acts 19:22; 2 Tim 4:20).268
As God’s administrative steward, Paul must be found faithful, a virtue that has implications for the Corinthians who must learn that faithfulness rather than clever words is the proper criteria for evaluation.269 Since Paul considers them incompetent as spiritual judges (cf. 2:11–15), he thinks it a very small matter that his ministerial and speaking performance should be evaluated and criticized by them in comparison with other leaders like Apollos. He mentions three incompetent tribunals—the Corinthians, the human court system, and Paul’s self-awareness: I do not even judge myself. Although he is not conscious of doing anything wrong, he is not acquitted on that basis, for there is one to whom Paul is accountable and that person can reveal things Paul may have neglected and forgotten about, whether good or bad. He implies here that if he cannot fully determine his own innocence and secret motives, how much less the Corinthians? The only competent judge is the Lord who will preside on judgment day. This takes place at the second coming of Christ and day of the Lord (cf. 3:13), which stands in contrast to any human day in which a human court is appointed to decide a case.270 Both Christ (2 Cor 5:10) and God seem to be active as the end-time judge (Rom 14:10; 1 Thess 3:13). Perhaps Paul imagines a judgment in which God works in and through Christ who is the visible representative of the divine presence on that day (cf. Rom 2:16). Hence, “Lord” in this context may refer to God in Christ. This apocalyptic scene partially resembles Dan 7:9–15, which depicts both the Ancient of Days in a courtroom as judge and also the Son of Man.
Paul mentions three things that will take place at this judgment. First, the Lord will bring to light what is hidden in the darkness. Here, darkness is not necessarily metaphorical for what is evil or immoral but what is unseen and secretive (cf. Ps 139:1–12; Dan 2:22; Matt 10:27). Second, the Lord will reveal the motives of the hearts. Paul’s assumption is that the Lord knows all things including human inner thoughts (Prov 15:11; 1 Cor 14:25; Rom 8:27; Heb 4:12–13).271 Third, each person will receive praise from God on that day. Our apostle’s words betray an optimism about that day probably because he thinks of Apollos and himself foremost as those being examined. As far as he can determine, he is free of any personal wrongdoing and is confident that faithful servants will be honored by God after the examination (4:4a; cf. 3:8, 14; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 2:19). Hidden motives are something the Corinthians cannot know; hence, unless given divine revelation they cannot properly criticize Paul.
Exhortations, Hardships, and Parental Instruction (4:6–21)
Paul’s appeal (παρακαλῶ) for the Corinthians to imitate him in 4:16 forms a subtle inclusio with 1:10 that signals the close of this entire letter section and first supporting proof against congregational divisions. A number of stylistic devices fill this pericope including ellipsis (4:6), rhetorical questions (4:7), anabasis (the gradual ascent of successive words) (4:8), irony (4:8a, 10), sarcasm (4:8b), antitheses (4:10, 12–13), hyperbole (4:8, 13b, 15), polysyndeton (multiple conjunctions) (4:9, 11–12a), asyndeton (no conjunctions) (4:12b–13), and epanalepsis (repetition after a break: “until this present hour,” “until now”) (4:11, 13).272 The text ends with an aphorism (4:20) and an ultimatum posed as a question (4:21). Paul provokes pathos by attempting to stir Corinthian emotions through strong exclamations (4:8), pity (4:9–13), shame (4:14), fear (4:18–20), familial affection (4:6a, 15, 17), parental instruction, exhortation, and admonition (4:6b, 14–17, 21). All this is aimed at deflating their arrogant and discordant attitude (4:6c–7, 18–19).
In 4:6 these things probably refers to the content of what Paul has written since 3:5. More particularly, it points to the different metaphors that describe Paul and Apollos as day laborers in a field, builders of a temple, and assistants and administrative stewards under the Lord’s authority. With these various occupational roles, Paul says, I have figuratively transformed into myself and Apollos for your sake.273 The apostle is not literally a farmer, building contractor, etc., but has in a figurative sense taken on these positions for the two-fold purpose of teaching his auditors not to go beyond proper boundaries they have been taught, and not to be arrogant.
If we unpack the latter purpose, no one among the Corinthians are to be puffed up in favor of the one against the other. This attitude by extension condemns all such dissensions in the congregation, but most immediately the “one” can refers to Paul and the “other” Apollos. This notion of over-estimation of oneself resurfaces elsewhere in the letter and may be understood as conceit and arrogance (φυσιόω: 4:18–19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4; cf. φυσίωσις: 2 Cor 12:20). Peter Marshall asserts that the word is further explicated in 4:7–8, which convey thoughts of self-superiority and boasting, and are further associated with the similar vice of hubris, a type of insolence that, among other things, characterizes the behavior of those with power who intend to dishonor others.274 The sophists are thus described with conceit and thinking themselves better than others (Dio Chrysostom Or. 6.21). Welborn appropriately adds regarding Corinthian arrogance:
It is all too familiar to the student of political history as the caricature of the political windbag, the orator inflated at his success (Ps.-Plato Alcibiades 2 145e; Plutarch Cicero 887b; Epictetus Diss. 2.16.10), the young aristocrat, the aspiring tyrant, filled with a sense of his own power (Alcibiades and Critias in Xenophon Mem. 1.2.25; Gaius in Philo Legat. 86.154; Pausanias in Demosthenes 59.97; see also Thucydides 1.132.1–3; Dio Chrysostom 30.19; 58.5), the supercilious officeholder (Demosthenes 19.314; Philo Legat. 69.255).275
With forceful riposte, then, the figures of Paul and Apollos’s service and servanthood challenges Corinthian arrogance.276 Divisive members should not deem themselves better than others by virtue of their leaders, status, or spiritual gifts.
The former purpose for Paul taking on figurative positions is that the Corinthians might learn the (saying) “not beyond what is written.” This may reflect a saying familiar to the Corinthians or one or more of Paul’s earlier Scripture citations. I suggest a merging of the two ideas in the form of double entendre as a viable alternative (see Excursus).
Excursus: Interpreting “What is Written” in 4:6
The Corinthians are to learn “the ‘not beyond what is written’” (τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται). The position of the neuter article τό (“the”) suggests Paul is introducing a quote, and the quote’s content is perhaps a popular one the Corinthians would recognize.277 Among many interpretations of this phrase, the most prominent are these: 1) some words fell out of the original text that our extant copies did not preserve, or conversely, a gloss was written into the extant copies; 2) Paul refers to what he has just written in this letter; 3) Paul refers generally to Scripture, the Old Testament canon; 4) Paul refers to a non-scriptural maxim; and 5) Paul refers to one or more of his previous scriptural citations in 1:19, 31; 2:6, 16; 3:19, 20.278
Option 1 is a formidable possibility, but there is no evidence in early manuscripts that directly supports it (and if we stopped here, it would take away the fun of speculating about other possibilities!). Option 2 is unlikely because we would expect the grammatical