2. CI-IAPTER XII
GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULINE LETTERS
It cannot be denied that there is a sapiential Christology in the Pauline
letters; a fact that, from time to time, has not prevented exegetes fram
discussing the background of the terms used by Paul. l But here, 1 will not
study Paul's Christology and its sapiential coloration; 1 will rather question
his parsimony in using the vocabulary ofwisdom and determine his reasons.
Then, 1 will examine the increasing place, fram the hom%goumena to the
antilegomena, given to "mystery" (Jlua1"~pLOv) and its cOlillection to
wisdom in order to highlight its hermeneutical importance.
'1. How DOES PAUL SPEAK OF WrsDoM AND THE WrsE?2
The Twofo/d Reference
The Pauline use of the vocables is, as everyone knows, very dissimilar
and is reflective of two distinct usages: Greek and biblica!.
I Take for example Col 1: 15-20. The sapiential background is more than probable because
it is confirmed byall the clues. This has not prevented Fossum from most recently re· peating the
hypothesis of an "Anthropos-Christology," and of rejecting the sapiential influence, with
arguments !hat do not hold up: in the final analysis, the context, and it alone; allows coming to a
decision aboutthe pertinence of hypotheses on the background of a passage. Cf. Fossum,
"Colossians 1,15·18 in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism."
2 On this point, one can consult the different dictionaries or vocabularies (TWNT, etc.). Rere
is a list of some terms. The adjective sophos, applied to men, negatively (Rom 1 :22; 1 Cor 1:
19,20,26,27; 3: 18, 19, 20), positively (Rom 1:14; 16: 19; 1 Cor 3: 10; 6:5; Eph 5: ¡ 5), or to
God (Rom ¡ 6:27; 1 Cor 1:25), The substantive oo<jJta. applíed to men (or their discourse),
negatively (1 Cor 1: 17, 19,20,21,22; 2:1, 4,5, 13; 3: 19; 2Cor 1: 12; Col 2:23), positively (Col
¡ :9,28; 4:5), or to God (Rom 11 :33; ICor 1 :21,24,30; 2:6, 7; 12:8; Eph ] :8, 17; 3: 1 O; Col
2:3). The verb OOrjJ[(EW, used positively in 2Tim 3: 15.
l'

3. l. .1
290 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETlNG THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS
Let us begin with the Greek usage. In Rom 1: 14, sophos designates the The other set ofpassages reflect rather the usage ofthe Bible, in whl
cultured, civilized man in contrast to the ignorant man, who lacks in- aman, who is knowledgeable or cultivated, a great orator or moral t11~
tellectual refinement. The interna! parallelism ofthe verse indicates, more- retician,7 is not called wise. For in the Bible, wisdom is primarily a mat ,
over, that from this point of view, the paragon of culture is the Greek, with of discenunent, of tact, in relationships (good manners) and in maki
all that it represents at that time: science-mathematical, physical, astro- choices.8 This finesse can be put into the service of evil, and then it t
nomical, medicat;3 rhetoric, analytical ability, but also mastery of concepts, comes gui!e.9 If, on the contrary, it comes from God, if it makes kn01 . His
argumentation, disputation, and dialogues, especially in the political will and serves to promote the good and justice, the one who receÍ it is
sphere.4 However, this cultural mastery could not but have had social con- shrewd, prudent, wise with God's wisdom.1o
sequences: its authority elicits recognition, respect, public admiration, but
also competition, emulation, rivalry, Numerous exegetes detect such a Moreover in 1Cor 1-4, Paul, in accordance with the Bible and par;
background in the antagonisms that were undennining the Church in estamentary Judaism, uses all or almost all ll of the vocabulm:y that ] lates
Corinth (lCorl-4).5 Let us add that aman who could show only scientific or to wisdom, and emphasizes, at every possible opportunity, ti God, and He
cultural competence was not declared wise; the moral component was alone, gives wisdom. In this passage, the Apostle contra; the Divine
essential: in order to be wise and to be recognized as such, his life had to Wisdom to human wisdom, in a series ofinversions in whi the chronic
correspond to his teaching and speech.6 incapacity ofthe second to know the first is pointed out,
The antonym !foo<jJo<; (Eph 5: 15). Paul uses other words not fram the raot oo<jJ-: syn onyms, 7 1 do not mean that the biblical usage was not intluenced by I-lellenism. For ti one can
such as <jJpóvq.l.O<; inI Cor 4: 1 O; 10: 15; OÚVEOL<;, YVc,'lOL<;, E1TL YIJWOL<;, consult von Lips, Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament, 100-112. 1 the Jewish faith
cppÓIJ1l0L<;, etc; antonyms, such as &cppwv (Rom 2 :20; 2Cor 11: 16, 19; 12 :6·11; Eph 5: 17), had taken a position on the origin ofwisdom and on its true recipier all the distinctions and
O:VÓlllO<; (Rom 1:14), f.lWpó<; (ICor 1:25,27; 3:18; 4:10), f.lWplo: (ICor 1:18,21; 2:4; 3:19), contrasts that are already found in Sirach and in Dan 2 are peated in the paratestamentary
f.lWPCtLVW (Rom 1:22; ¡ Cor 1 :20), f.lWpoAoyLa (Eph 5:4), etc. literature and in Paul. .
3 So it wil1 not be surprising to find a small treatise on astronomy and meteorology in the 8 The two aspects (finesse and erudition) are joined in the figure of the scribe.
Jewish apocalyptic books fram the Hellenistic Age (cf. lHenoch, 72-79). Knowl· edge of Sir39:I-ll.
celestialmechanics in all jts complexity neither should have nor could have re mained unknown to 9 Such as Jonadab, a very crafty man (2Sam 13:3 RSY) (sophos sphodra) in 2} 13:3 LXX.
those who saw it. The "knowledgeable" component of Jewish wisdom has not been excluded fram Although the "guile" of the narrator is not to intimate explicitly the me coloration of this
all the paratestamentary writings, far from it. wisdom: at no time does Jonadab say to Amnon to lie with Tarr Good advice or bad advice?
~ J. de Romílly has shown this well. Cf. Pourquoi la Crece?, In particular, pp. 125-152. Guileful in any case. Paul, as far as 1 know, does not I the tenns oo<jJó<;, ao<jJ la with this
In ICor 1 :22, Paul seems to mean this "total" wisdom, to whích Greek culture aspired. connotation.
5 Horsley is undoubted1y the first to have asserted that the wisdom to which Paul is alluding is IOThis is the connotation of ICor 6;5; ROlll ]6:19; Col 1:9; 1:28; 4:5 and orE 1:17;
eloquence. Cf. "Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth." The exegetes of I Corinthians 5:15·16.
agree that, in addition to this rhetorical component, the background is Greek. 11 Some passages that do not be long to ICor 1-4 retlect, nevertheless, exactly same contrasts
(, For good infonnation about this setting and a description of the wise in the Greek world of and evaluations: Rom 11 :33; 16:27; Col 2:3; Eph 3: 10 speak of infir wisdom, polymorphous
the time, see Malherbe, "Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament," (the description of the wise fram God (or from Christ), and 2Corl: 12; Rom 1:22; Col2 of human wisdom opposed to divine
on pp. 293·30 1). grace, of human wisdom reduced to folly by e or eYen ofpractices only having the appearance
ofwisdom.

4. 292 NEW APPROACHES FOR lNTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WISOOM ANO MYSTERY IN THE PAuLINE LETTERS 2
incapacity sea1ed by the death on the Cross of Jesus Christ, when the Divine Thus, one speaks of wisdom at Corinth. But why? This is truIy't major
Wisdom attained its utmost, because it definitively took the fonu of its problem of contemporary conunentators: to recover the backgrou in which
opposite, foUy (in the eyes ofthe world). 1 will spare the reader an in-depth Paul's reaction makes sense. In other words, what are the nah and the origin
semantic analysis of this section being content to emphasize some points that ofthe aoepto; against which theApostle is polemicizing? Paul, as numerous
are decisive for my comments. Because what is astonishing is the absence of commentators think, following Horsely already m( tioned, referring tú the
the words ao~ó~, ao~Co;, and their antonyms prior to ICor and Rom. Why, itinerant preachers, the apostIes and their collar. rators, and their ma1lller
with the exception of ICor 1-4, are the homologoumena so silent on the ofpresenting the faith in Jesus: with a knowled of Greek rhetorical
subject ofwisdom and the wise? techniques, in short, with all the qualities of eloquen that one expects
inmissionaries, so that their discourse carries convictio Without this effort at
enculturation, how could the message ofthe GoS! have been able to
Wisdom in 1 Cor 1-4
penetrate into a Greek wor1d proud of its culture? E: quence do es not
The Background signify sophism or even a delusion, It prevents it. W an engaging, or at the
least intelligible, presentation, the Corinthians w01 have entered into this
All exegetes of ICor admit that there is a cOlmection between the di-
process of reflection, of argumentation, on the Clu' tian faith. And, seeing
visions (schismata, 1: 10), the quarrels (erides, 1: 11), and Paul's discourse
the emulation that it provoked, with its ensuing valries and jealousies, Paul
on wisdom (in 1 Cor 1-2 above all), because by repeating the two themes, the
would have reacted strongly.
peroratio in 3; 18-23 indicates their dependence or connection: if the Apostle
Without denying that the Pauline reachon is referring to the type,
has made a long detour on wisdom and ventures to make fundamental
wisdom preached by one of the groups in Corinth, other exegetes thi rather
distinctions on the subject, it is without any doubt because it was a question
ofa debate betweel1 the Judaizers (Peter's party) al1d the non-J daizers
of wisdom in Corinth, in a context of emuIation and in reference to certain
(Pau! and ApoUos) over the Scriptures, the tensions and the vaIries arising
apostles.12
from the differil1g (midrashic) interpretations (especial: of the Torah.13 In
fact, several tenns and expression can be explaip on1y ifthe background is
12 Is it necessary to recaIl the rhetorical divisions ofthe passage? 1 repeat, with con- Jewish; the YPo;f.Lf.Lo;TEÚ~ of 1 :20, a scribe exp' in the art of
·siderable modifications, the composition proposed by Bunker, Briej[ormular. The exordium interpreting the Torah; also, the OI)K EV rrH80LC; aoep( AóYOlC; of2:4, which
(1: 10-17) describes the situation and the elements of the problem; it cnds with a statement (1: is reminiscent ofthe Greek Bib1e.14 Does this ma
17) in which the two major parts of the argumentation (the probatio) are announced: (i) the
discourse on the Crass as a subversion of the discourse of wisdom (1 : 18 .... :):4); (ti) the
functionof the Apostle: to serve (3: 1-17); the development ends, as it should, with a peroratio
(3: 18-23) in which the strong elements of the probatio arc repeated. But Paul causes his 13 An interpretation recently repeated by Goulder, "Sophia in 1 Corinthians," cording to
argumentation to tebound (4: 1-13) by describing the itinerary ofthe aposUes, which reproduces whom there were assuredly Jews in the community in Corinth, who forrr a faction, after a
the Passion ofChrist and illustrates the discourse on wisdom-folly fram the beginning; verses 4: vis!t by Peter or one of his associates, that relied upon his authorit) promote or impose their
14-21 ate a transition that prepares for what follows. It should be noted (a) that the oppositions halakic interpretation ofthe Scriptures. According to Goulc the expression "words/speech
of v. 17 are repeated almost word for word In 2:4,13; (b) that the propositio (when there is one) ofwisdom" (ICor 2:4) would designate the halakic f' ulatiotls of the "Judeo-Christians,"
and the peroratio he]p the reader determine the theme of an argumentation. traces of which he locates in 1-2Cor.
14 Cf. p~llo::m aocpLIX¡; in Dan TH ] :20; Sir LXX 39:7.
l' '1

5. 1, ,1
294 NEW APPROACHES FOR fNTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 2
it necessary to condude that the error of the believers in Corillth consisted in The Jews and the Divine Wisdom
considering the sage as superior to the others (thereby consistent with Sir There is some tmth in Goulder's hypothesis because the Jews l6 play
38:24-33), famous and respected, indeed, praised for his correct way of a part as actors in the drama. Indeed, Paul includes them in the group' those
interpreting the Torah, more than his eloquence (a Greek criterion) and his who have misunderstood the Divine Wisdom. With the Greeks, th for111 a
theoretical intelligence?15 Tt remains to be seen, binomial (01' a merism) whose function is inclusive: these t, groups, Jews
Por a certain type of historical-critical exegesis, as 1 have said, the major and Greeks, claim that wisdom is in their possession. It because of their
problem is determining the nature ofthe wisdom against which Paul is declarations that Paul mentions them together, coup. them, by addillg that
protesting. But to do this, the procedure is of importance. And since, as is neither ofthe two groups can recognize the wisdc of God in the kerygma
often the case in his argumentations, Pau! shifts the questions, enlarges the announcing the death of Jesus Christ on the ero Consistent with biblica!
writers and clearly confirmed by the parates mentary texts, Judaism was
debate, do es not directly repeat the positions of his presumed adversanes but convinced of having been visited by the 1 vine Wisdom, even ifthere is !ittle
rather devotes himselfto showing the disastrous consequences for the faith optimism about the number ofthose . whom God has revealed and will
and for the unity of the Church, it is very difficult, if not to say impossible, to revea! the ways of wisdom. 17 Inde, the motif of a wisdom rejected by
determine the identity of his opponents. In ICor 1-4, Paul is not interested in hrunans and re-ascending to the heave is well-known in the Judaism ofthe
whether their discourse on wisdom consists in a halakic interpretation of era, but happi!y there were those w cou!d see, having been invited to the
Scripture or in a Hellenized presentation of the Gospel. What he does retain heavens and retumed to earth in on to transmit and divulge the divine secrets
is not the content but the worm that erodes their wisdom, the contradiction and designs that they. had h the privilege of contemplating above. Thus for
them, the Divine Wisdc
that lives in them, because it brings with it pride, a lack of charity, a disunity
can still (re)descend to the People ofthe Covenant. '.
that undermines the composition of the ecc!esial fabrico Because for Paul,
On the contrary, Paul puts the Jew in the same situation as the
ifwhat drives us towards wisdom is the enigma ofthe cosmos and the designs
Gre( The sages, the scribes ofIsrael'8 have "lacked" the decisive rendezvo
ofGod, ifthus the desire of wisdom ultimately tends towards God, why does
with wisdom. By crucifying, with the rest of humanity, the Lord
one arrive at conceit, arrogance, and division? ICor 1-4 disc10ses the
Apostle's pessimism on al! human attempts at wisdom. Thus, here is a main
reason that explains, but only partial1y, the parsimonious usage ofthe
vocabulary ofwisdom in the proto-Pauline !etters.
16 'Iou6o;io~ appears in 1 Cor 1 :22, 23, 24, coupled with EAAl1V in vv. 22, 24, ¡ 'Éevll
in v. 23.
17 Cf. the passages mentioned aboye, in the status quaestionis, especially IHen' 104:
12-13; 4Esd 12:35-39; 14:26.37-48.
15 Cf., for ex., Dayis, Wisdom and Spirit. AIso, Goulder, "Sophia in 1 Corinthians" 521, 18 Goulder (with others) is right to see in lhe ao<pó~ and ypCq .. lI.lo;TEÚ~ in 1 Cor 1
according lO whom wisdom would haye been for the Corinthians "a way of living in accord [repeated from Isa 33: 18 LXX] allusions to the emblematic figures ofwisdom in the
with the Torah." duism of the era,

6. 296 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 2
glory,19 they have shown the fundamental superficiality oftheir wisdom, and these are "the men," Jews and Greeks together. 22 And this 1S the seco reason,
they also find themselves stmck by folly. c1early stated in 1 Cor 1-3 (2: 1-5 and 3: 1-3, in particular), whi forces
Moreover, the eminently paradoxical character of the Pauline argu- Paulllot (or on1y a litt1e) to call the Gospel wisdom in the homl ogoumena:
mentation comes from the fact that it al so applies the biblical categories to the what wou1d presenting a discourse as wisdom signify, wh one knows that it
Jews. Let us take the citation of ICor 2:9: "What no eye has seen, nor ear could not be received as such, since it would be (1 cause it had already
heard ... , what God has prepared for those who love him."20 Like the been) received as folly?
sapiential books on wisdom,21 it affinns the impossibility ofhuman forces
knowing the divine designs. But for a Jew, "those whom God loves" are the The Essentially Paradoxical Wisdom of the Gospel
Jews faithful to the Law, the wise ofthe people, enraptured to the heavens in More than anyone else, Paul has perceived that the Gospel can 11' ther
order to contemplate "what the eye has not seen nor the ear heard." Here is the be nor must not be accepted as wisdom by mankind at the cost' losing its
real reversal, and it is, if you wil! allow me to use the word, the "mse" force and being sugar-coated. 1t is not only because huma receive it as folly
ofDivine Wisdom: those, who had been designated by the biblica! texts as its that the message ofthe Cross must not be immediat( called wisdom, but
recipients, find themselves stmck by blindness since they do not see that they because it is something crazy. The Cross is, and ml remain, a scandal,
have not seen it. That is why the Divine Wisdom keeps its promises. because with it, the (wise) folly ofGod and th~ hum incapacity to espouse
. Rom 1 :22, which is later than 1 Cor 1-4, goes in the same direction: it His designs are inseparably manifested .
imp1icitly associates the Jews and the Greeks in the same pretentiouslless-that
Indeed, Paul also says that the believers in the Gospel of the Cross,
ofwisdom, and for this reason they have been stmck by folly. Indeed, Rom 1
which weakness and folly are shocking, is also a proclamation ofpower a
seems to designate only the pagans, but we do kl10W that Paul names no one
wisdom. Thus, Paul does not separate wisdom and Christ; on the contra for
in order to include a11 of humanity, ido1atrous in its rejection of God; those
believers it is Christ who has become the wisdom and power of G( justice,
whose wisdom has been transfoffi1ed into folly,
sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor 1 :24, 31). In 1 :31 the titles t] follow
that of "wisdom" have been various1y interpreted, Many exege l think that
their function is more to complete-indeed, correct-the title "wisdom" than to
19 ICor 2:8 on the apxovtE~, has drawn a lot of ink, as one knows. For a history of
explain its content.23 It seems to me rather tl1at here, as other passages, Paul
. the interpretation, see Pesce, Paolo e gli Arconti a Corínlo, Brescia 1977. According to this is proceeding by accumulation: more than completi or cOlTecting, the
author, &pXOVTE~ designates the Jewish authorities, and the immediate context sup ports titlesthat accompany that of"wisdom" are aiming to t press that by/inChrist
him, even if, and I repeat, Paul proceeds aselsewhere by a generalizing synecdoche, in order the be1ievers have a11 been received by GOd,24,
to enlarge the debate, and so that the woi-ds are applíed to severa! categories, because it is all
of humanity who is responsible for the crucifixion.
20 A mixture from Isa 64:3-4, Jer 3:16 LXX. Cf. Ponsot, "D'[sale LXIV, 3 a [ Corinthiens
Il,9," who clearly shows the Dtr aspect of the contents and the sapiential fonn ofthe verse. 22 See Aletti,"Rom 1,18-3,20. "
Paul is neither the first nor the on]y one to have mixed biblical pas sages; cf. the similar text 23 Thefact that Paul has added other vocables after wisdom (itself already qualified: (
from l QS 11, 5-9 (very interesting because it al so combines (he images of planting and of Theou) would then indicate a preference for these terms, which he has the habi.t ofusing 24
building used in ICor 3). The Greek express ion te kaí could be translated thus: "justice just as well as sa tification
21 Cf. Pro v 30:1-4; Sir 1:]0; Job 28; Bar 3:23. and redemption".
l'

7. I
298 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WlSOOM ANO MYSTERY iN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 2
But eVen if for Paul the Cross is the definitive and utmost manifestation but of correeting and sparking the transformation of the Corinthians ( 3: 18)
ofthe salvific ways ofGod, it does not replace the other expressions ofthe by showing the fundamental ambiguity of tbe voeabulary of w dom, which
Gospel, whieh are also paradoxieal, and are disseminated through. out his reflects ahuman search that sooner or later is led astray, 1: cause it arrives at
argumentations. Some examples will suffice! Christ, though he was rich yet its opposite, namely at rivalries and divisions. TI . move by Paul results in
for our sake was made poor so that by his poverty you might be come rich the Gospel and its fundamental paradoxes bei placed at a distance from the
(2Cor 8:9). He became for us a curse to redeem us from the curse (GaI3: 13). conceptual representation, always tempt to dominate the coherence that it
God made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become perceives ..
the righteousness of God (2Cor 5:21) ... Tbe language of the Cross do es not In Rom 11 :33, the same hermeneutical attitude is found, but this tÚ it
suppress tbe other paradoxieal expressions of tbe salvific design, rather it is used positively. After having stated the function ofthe rejection of1
appeals to them. But all these fonnulations distort human logie and only Gospel by Israel and having reoriented the divine plan in paradoxi( terms
make sense to believers. How eould they beeome tbe diseourse ofwisdom in ("F or God has consigned al! men to disobedience, that he may ha. merey
tbe eyes ofthe world? Moreover, the paradox is redoubled sinee Paul in no upon all," Rom 11 :32), fiHed with wonder, Paul exclaims: "O 1 depth
way wants to reduce it, to reabsorb it: "If any one among you thinks tbat he oftbe riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchal are his
is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise!" (1 Cor judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" Said about Ood,.1 tenns "wise"
3: 18). But that which he does not want to transform into (worldly) wisdom and "wisdom", when written by Paul, aequire their natu place in the
remains all the same sapiential in its express ion if it is true that paradox is an doxological exclamations. Rom 16:27 confirms this. To spe ofthe Divine
eminently sapiential genre. Wisdom is to confess it, to proclaim it: not by knowledgeal discourse, but
Thus, we can go further in our response. Wbile expressing bis Gospel in a by that which is marvelously humble! In Paul's letters, 1 vocabulary of
sapiential manner, beeause it is fundamentally paradoxieal, Paul, wisdom has a funetion of interpreting; in this sense, it mer the
nevertheless, refuses to make it a wisdom discourse, sinee it is really an qualification of "hemieneutic" on the condition of adding that this :
announeement offolly and received as sueh by the worid. And even for the terpretatiol1 is not conceptual but rather grateful.
believers, who have adhered to the message of the Cross, he avoids lingering
over the label of "wisdom", beeause he fears seeing them be" come
accustomed to this extreme too quickly and making it reasonable, "wise" 2. THE EVOLUTION OF THE VOCABULARY
aecording to the world.
Thus for the homologoumena, the matter ofthe parsimonious usage
The Hermeneutical Function ofthe VocabularyofWisdom wisdom is explained. From now on, one can legitimately be amazed to ~
the reappearance ofthe vocables eonnected to knowledge and wisdom25
Thus, ICor 1-4 providesan explanation ofthe Apostle's reticence to use
the voeabulary of wisdom and its rare appearance in the homologoumena.
25 Besides ao~6~ (Eph 5:15) and aO~llX (Co] ]:9; 1:28; 2:3; 2:23; 3:16; 4:5; E 1 :
And if this vocabulary is used as much as itis in the first chap. ters of 1 Cor,it 8, 17; 3: 10), here are some characteristic words:
is for hermeneutical purposes. Indeed, the passage adds nothing new to the
- ÓT]AOUIJ Col 1:9; ICor 1:11; 3:1.
kerygma: it does not have the function of revealing - <jlaIJEpOUIJ Col 1:26; 3:4 (2x); 4:4; Eph 5:13.

8. 300 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETfNG THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL COSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 3
Col and Eph. 1 am now going to defend the following thesis: in the antile- More than the similarity of the situations, it is the articulation w
gomena, the retum to the vocabulary of wisdom is linked to the notification dom/mystery in Dan 2:30 that is thought-provoking: the sages ofBat Ion
of the jJu(Jr~pLOv, Then 1 will show that, without being a substitute for the can neither understand nor a fortiori interpret the mystery abe which King
vocabulary ofwisdom, this vocable, nevertheless, gives it its content. Nebuchadnezzar is inquiring, and Daniel's knowledge o; does not come
from a superior human wisdom. This mystery and all t others are not
within the reach ofthe wise (or ofhumans in genera!), t cause their origin
Wisdom and Mystery: The Differences and the Similarities
is divine.27 Thus, the passage allows detennihing t respective function of
Daniel 2 each entity: mystery designates the event or evel that God wants to reveal,
and wisdom designates the gift that enabl knowing it, understanding it,
Some biblical texts, in particular Dan 2, show that there were already
and announcing it. In other words, mysté designates the object and
connections between wisdom and mystery, and these motifs have been
wisdom the conditions of knowing it. Let immediately add another
repeated by Paul in 1 Cor 1-4: (i) the contrast between the wisdom of Ood
characteristic: the mysteries are connected events that must occur
and that of this world, (ii) the divine origin of true wisdom (Dan 2:21), (iii)
afterward at the end of time (Dan 2:29-30). there any need to recall the
the recipients, chosen by God, not from among the arrogant, but from among
il11portance ofrelating the terms aocpL<X a jJuaT~pLov to each other?
the poor, the oppressed (Daniel and his companions in prison).26 Moreover,
The second clearly indicates that there w( contacts between the
when one synoptically reads 1 Cor 1 with Dan 2, what is striking is the
apocalyptic and sapiential currents that had be progressivelyentwined.
similarity ofthe situations: in one, there are young men imprisoned, and in
the other, the poor, the "little," to whom God reveals his ways. And as these
motifs appear also in the paratestamentary literature, the Pauline usage
certainly has its origin in Dan, directly or by the intennedialY ofthe Judaism The homologoumena
ofhis day. The usage that the homologoumena, especial1y ICor 2: 1-1 O, l11ake
the tenn jJlJaT~pLOV c1early reflects that ofDan 2. But it differs from D
- YV(¡)pt(ELV Col 1:27; 4:7, 9; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 5,10; 6:19. 2, in which the revelations touch upon future events, because in ICor the
- KllPÚOOELV Col 1 :2. jJlJa't~p ~ov designates events that have already occurred, Christ's de, on
- AOJ.ELV CoI4J, 4; Eph 4:25; 5: 19; 6:20. fue Cross: here, the content of the jJuaT~p wv is Christologi'cal. Let
- ETr[yvwaL~ Col 1 :9, 10; 2:2, 3,10; Eph l; 17; 4:13.
- E:lTLywwOKELvColl:6. irnmediately addthat if the death on the Cross has already taken pla' Pau1,
- YVWOL~ Col 2:3; Eph 3: 19. nevertheless, considers it as aneschatological everit, even the escl
- yLLiwOKELV Col 4:8; Eph 3:19; 5:5; 6:22. tological event par e.xcellence;28 this component, present in Dan 2, th1
- OÚVEOL~ Col 1 :9: 2:2; Eph 3:4.
doesuot disappear in ICor 1-4; ICor 15:51; R0l11l1:33.29
In Col, note the absenee ofthe words IX1TOKO:ÁÚ1T1:ELV and alTOKtiÁt)llL~ (ef. Eph
1: 17; 3:3.5). For an explanation of the phenomenon, see Aletti, Építre aux Colossiens (EB NS
20; Paris 1993) 140.
27 "But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries" Dan 2:29 (RSV). 28 Cf.
26 Dan 2:27-23, 47-48 LXX. The homoJogies that exist between Dan 2 and J Cor 12 are sueh
Gal 4:4: "when the time had fully come."
(and at alllevels) thatit is absolutely necessary to exelude the idea ofPau]'s borrowíng voeabulary
29 There is no reason to rejeet ICor 13:2; 14:2 (in which there is the plural). I these
from the mystery religions.
passages are too ¡aeonie to eome to a decision with eertítude,
l' ,I 'r'

9. .1
302 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAJNT PAUL COSPEL, W1SDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE L.ETTERS
In 1 Cor 2: 1, the relationship of mystery/(human) wisdom is similar to ICor 2:7, wisdom (i) has remained hidden for a long time,35 (ii) and hidd'
that established in Dan 2. It is a connection of opposites: the content of the from the wise of this world, (iii) in order that it may be revealed, (iv) the
evangelical announcement is the mystery, and human wisdom is what poor, (v) and also having a connection to the events at the end oftin which
remains fundamentally incapable ofunderstanding i1.30 has been prepared for the glory of believers. Thus, the phrase flUCJTllPley
Another expression from the same chapter also associates wisdom and qualifies, in a decisive maruler, Divine Wisdom and, withe any doubt,
mystery: "we impart [says the Apostle] a secret and hidden wisdom of God" prepares for its later usages in Col and Eph.
(2:7).31 Here, the association between the two is positive: (Divine) Wisdom The homologoumena have revealed several points of contact (in Da!
designates the message's content and mystery its qualification. But how to and in Paul) between wisdom and mystery: both have their origin in GOl
interpret EV ¡JuaTllPL0? As a substitute for an adjective? And which one: and appear in analogous situations. 37 Both can also refer to numerous evel
¡JúaTll<;?32 Or one ofthe following adjectives that are more or less or truths ofwhich the content is not necessarily ChristologicaP8
synonymous: flUaTllPlKÓ<;, flUaTllPL<;, ¡JuanKó<;, ¡JuaTrlPlwn<;, with a
designative connotation ("relative to the mysteries")?33 But all these ad- Wisdom and Mystery in the antilegomena
jectives refer to the Mystery Cults, and one can understand why Pau! avoids
In the antilegomena, the vocables aocjlla and I-LUOT~PLO)J appear
them in ICor 2:7. If one interprets the prepositional phrase EV flUOTllPley as
me often. The use offluaT~pLOv is fixed to the singular with the article, a
an adjective,34 and as qualifying the wisdom arulounced by the Apostle as
each time it desiguates the SaJIle reality, that is, the Gospe1. 39 As for the
"mysterioils" (or "in the fonn of a mystery"), it is, however, necessary that the
COl ponents ofthe mystery, they are the SaJIle as irl the homologoumena.4o
meaning be that ofDan 2, as is indicated by the rest of
lS The passive perfect participle ¡hroKEKPU¡.q.l.ÉVll connotes this temporal dimensi 16
)0Since 1 Cor 2:7 suffices to verify my purpose, l will not spend too much time on 2: 1, all the Wisdom comes tTom God who gives it to the wise (it is a GIFT and not a conqUi and mystery
more since the rcading ¡'¡'O:P'ÚpLOi can be preferred, for excellent reasons. 11 Commentators (or mysteries) is also divine.
have already sufficicntly shown that EV ¡.LUa~llPl<;J is connected with the nearest vocable, the 17 See, for ex., their respective modalities (they are manifested in weakness anc an
substantive aocjJlO: (and not the verb AD:AOÚ¡'¡'EIJ), although it is still necessary to make this unexpected way), as well as tbeir recipients (the poor and the faithful; not those '" declare
point. themselves wise in this world).
J2 In the passive, [lúmll¡; can be translated by "initiated ¡nto the mysteries" or "concerning Jk Cf., for ex., Rom 11 :25. Refoulé, El 10111 [sraidl sera sauvé, has c1early shown t the
the initiated"; in the active, by "initiator," "initiating into the mysteries," a usage that explains rnyslery notified by Paul is not the salvatton of all Israel (announced by Isaiah, a: indicated in
why this adjective had be come the epithet of some gods: Bacchus, Apollo, Hercules. the biblica! citation in vv. 26-27), but that the bardening ofthe greatnum is not definitive, that
J) The adjective [lUO'1:llPtWOll~ (and its corresponding adverb, [lUO'llPLWOWr;) seems to it willlast until the entrance of all the pagans.
me later than the Pauline usage, as is confirmed by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: all the uses 19 This is cieariy said in Eph 6:19, but already in Co!ossians, the term ¡,¡.ua'~pwi places
are patristic, except Plutarch (8 times), from whom perhaps the word comes. Thus, I have not that of EuaYYEAWi that after 1 :23 nO 10nger appears. Rere, ¡ will not show tha'
added it to the list. Colossians Paul is proceeding by substitution.For more information, see Aletti, Épitre
34 Thus, one must not be too quick in contrasting wisdorn and mystery based on their ( Colossiens, 132. The thesis ofReynier, Évangile el mystere, defended in 1990 and pl Iished
grammatical usage, by saying, for example, that the adjective "wise" is said ofGod (cf. Rom by Cerf in 1992, shows the link between the two realities; and although it does tackle the shift
16:27) and of man, but that there is not an equivalent adjective for mystery: the absence of an from aocjJto: to ¡,¡.ua'~pwi, in the homologoumena to the antilegomen, take advantage of it
adjective is for religious reasons! in order to focus on this question that is even more important.
40 (i) The mystery has adivine origin; it is the object of God's eterna! and unchan.l

10. 304 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SArNT PAUL GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 3
The two terrns are again in relation to each other,41 as they were in ICor Reflections on the Reasons for a Shijt
1-4. Because in the flua-r~pLOv, the Divine Wisdom is dedicated to its
With the antilegomena, the terrn fluaT~p LOV designates, in a very é
complete recognition (Eph 1 :8-9; 3: 10). Thus, if the vocable ao~ lcx appears
tensive way-which explains its repeated use-what was meant by t
more often in the antilegomena, it is because it is linked fo the notification
expression eEOU aO~lcxv EV flUOT'llPlY in ICor 2:7: in it is crystal!iz in
ofthe mystery; this phenomenon was the same in Dan 2, in which the
some way the Divine Wisdom. But by naming the Gospel fl)aT~p L and
mysteries were known only by those who received the Divine Wisdom: the
not ao~(cx, the antilegomena realizea veritable tour de force becal the
texts do not speak of the fluaT~p LOV without indicating the (sapiential)
mystery has all the marks ofwisdom (di vine origin, revealed or by God,
conditions of its knowledge! And this is really the advantage of the
etcl),43 without its ambiguities: a knowledge that is not the fr of ahuman
rapprochement. Without being a substitute for ao~ let., which is always the
condition sine que non42 of the believer's understanding, the flUOT~P lOV elaboration but of adivine revelation and al!ows avoidi al! that the
constitutes the object of this knowledge. Without lingering over the main vocabulary ofwisdom can connote about conceptual maste science,
component of each 1etter-because it is known that in Colossians the mystery is discoursiveness, in short, from rhetoric and from fame. Tbe hi ald of the
more Christological and in Ephesians more ecc1esiological-Iet us thus mystery declares himself poor and simple, "the very least al! the saints"
examine why the use of the terrn began to increase, why it even became a key (Eph 3 :8) and nevertheless without complexes.
term of the antilegomena. Without a doubt, its presence in Col 1 :26,27; 2:2;
4:3; Eph 1 :9; 3:9; 5:32 is explained by the prior usage. The author ofCol and The Opening ofthe Theological Field
Eph (Paular another, here it do es not matter) was able to utilize the term in But the terrn fluaT~pLov has other advantages. Up until th6 presenl have
order to designate the Gospel in its entirety, because c1early the spoken little ofits extraordinary or surprising aspect, which furtbi more
homologoumena had furnished a reason lhat justified its extension. Let's see explains the use of the term fluat~P LOV: is the fl)a-r~p LOV wl Paul's
which one! readerslhearers neither expect nor are able to conceive? Is it t same as in Rom
11 :25 in which the mystery notified by Paul is not t . salvation of Israel,
announced by the Prophets44 and hoped for by pious Jews, but that the refusal
ofthe Israel faithful to the Law to belie in Jesus ofNazareth in the name ofthis
design, even if it has not been known ulltil the present. (ii) It must be revealed by God, be - very Law is not forever, thal'
cause on his own man, even a believer, cannot know it. (iii) The recipients are not the wise
ofthe world, incapable ofrecognizing the way ofGod ín Christ, but the believers, generalIy
poor and oppressed. (iv) It explainstheunfathomable character ofthe divíne designs (its 43 The word[.LUaT~plOv has also been taken up and integrated in the wisdom
wisdom) and emphasizes their extraordinary realizatíon. In this sense, the mystery causes writi¡ (cf. in LXX, Sir 3:18; 22:22; 27:16,17,21; Wisdom 2:22; 6:22; 14:15.23), and, fr, this
surprise. Who could have been abJe to foresee the death of the Son on the Cross? There lS even fact, became a sapiential tenn (e ven if it was borrowed).
an element ofsurprise in Rom 11 :25 and 1 Cor 15:51. (v) It concems the eschatolog- 44 The unexpected aspect ofthe [.LUat~plOV or¡.J.U(Jt~p'lX goes hand in hand with
. ical events (or those that it is inaugurating). (vi) last but not least, the Christological com· fact that they have not been announced by the Scriptures. By the way, a passage I 1 Cor
ponent. These components have already been enumerated and commented on by Penna, Jl 15 :3-4 (on the deathlresurrection of Christ "according to the Scriptures"-and t the tradition
"mysterfon n paolino, 5 [-90 and by Reynier, Évangile et mystere, 125-167. has called the "Pasea] mystery") does not weaken these statements, if ( really wants to
41 Cf. C012:2-3; Eph 1 :8-9; 3:8-12. recall that in 1 Cor 1-2 the mystery Is not death fOf sinners, but its se: dalous modality,
42 It is a gift that comes from God alone (C011:9; 3: 16; 4:5; Eph 1:8, 17). "Jesus crucified," folly and weakness for mankind.
l'

11. 306 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WISOOM ANO MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 3
even serves God's salvific design, This element of surprise is al so found in the words ofhuman wisdom, it, nevertheless, testifies to the continuo'
1 Cor 15: 51, in which Paul says that the living themselves must be deepening of which the Gospel can and must be the object.47 And i1
transforrned in their bodies at the time of the Parousia of the Lord in order allows new forrnulations of the Gospel, it also establishes their legi macy.
to have a part in the final glory: never before has this been armouneed. Let us see how.
And in the antilegomena, this extraordinary aspect ofthe mystery remains The statements of Col and Eph on the Church and its relationship
present. And for this reason, the terrn is undoubtedly preferable to others. Christ truly were not imaginable. They had not been announced pre'
Because the situation of the Churches, new in many respects, could appear ously in the Scriptures: where can it be found that the Nations WOl not go
in contradiction with the prophecies: that the Gospel can be lived in each up to Jerusalem in order to proc1aim there the true God, that t group
culture and by all the nations ofthe world,4S without their having a need to ofbelievers would be the body ofthe Messiah? But one innllel ately sees
change identity (they remain "the Nations"), without their having to go up that if the announcement cannot be supported by the Scn tures, it risks
to Jerusalem (a metonym for the conversion to the true monotheistic eult, being invalidated, discredited. And it is here that the l of the vocable
and thus, to the observance ofthe Law), and that this diversity goes hand in lluaT~pLov derives all its importance, For it is itself t word of Scripture-
hand with a strong unity in Christ, to the point that the Church has just Dan 2 making up a part ofthe holy books-that h, already made known
been called hls body-this is quite new, it has never before been announced that Scripture had not announced everything, ti at the end oftime God
by Scripture.46 would say new, extraordinary things, A paradc ical usage of a scriptural
Undoubtedly, one will object that Eph 5 :31-32 sees the mystery in the terrn in order to justify the use of non-scriptu tenllS (body/head; ete.)!
union of Christ and the Church as the full realization of the divine order of Thus, in the antilegomena, the tem1 f.1UaT~pl has a triple function, (i)
Gen 2:24, or even in ROl11 16:26 in which Paul declares the mystery a1though it combines the same components wisdom, it does not present
revealed "through the prophetic writings," Later, 1 am going to retum to its difficulties or ambiguities; (ii) it hig lights the innovation ofwhat has
these passages, which far fro111 weakening my thesis, 011 the contrary, happened with and by the Gospel; (i but it also indieates that the new
support it. forrnulations of the Gospel are not i validated (although what is not
directly announeed by the SeriptUl must be immediately discredited),48
The f.1UaT~pLOV and Its Herrneneutical Function Thus, the mystery opens the fiE to an announcement that is in no way
repetitious, and with the sal
Thus, we are able to state another advantage ofthe tenll flua1~pLOV, lt
allows the Gospel to be forrnulated with the help of new concepts, And
this is really the paradox: having no theoretical pretension, unlike
47Cf. Reynier, Évangile el myslere, 205c263 .. 48 Cf. Aletti, RSR 73 (1985) 287, canceming
Usami's book on the Ephesians. "1 category of myslerion responds ta a difficulty that
comes fram the model itself: why I the Christ-Church unian and even the existence afthe
45 WhatCal calls "Christ amang you." Church (as lerlium quid differ at the same time fram the Jewish entity and the rest af the
[f Col 1 ;26-27 and 2:2 do n.o! explícitly say that the link between Christ and the Church
46 warld) nat been annaun< by the OT, in whích the terms af the body and the head are never
as the relatianship between head/bady is a part af the mystery, Eph 3: 1-3 and 5:32 go further, applíed lo Messia links with the group who will recagnize him? Utilizing a nan-biblical
by cambining the two languages, that of the mystery and that of the Church as body. See modelpose questian af validity." Alsa, in 1992, Reynier, Évangile el myslere, 216-219,
Reynier, Évangile el myslere, 1992, 173-203,

12. stroke, it a110wsNEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL
308 a theological reflection in which the biblica! writing is not GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAUUNE LETTERS 3
ídolízed and its status and function are clearly understood. 1 hope to have shown why the homologoumena have avoided calli the
Towards An Eclipse of retum to Eph 5:31-32 (and from there, to Rom 16:26).
We are now able to Sophia? Gospel aoepta: and why, along the same lines, the antilegomena hct
have indieated, the mystery is itself not it appeals to the characteristics of wisdom in order to descri . the
infavored the
whieh and
As the preceding developmentsvocable f.!uat~pLov expresses ilmovation(norvocable f.!Uat~pLOv.
Thus at the same time, the
primarily) a reading-even and above a11 typologieal-of a11inclusiveNevertheless, several points us add that, not content withmystery to its
statusmanner,
and behavior of Christ. Let remain obseure: (i) if the , plying t
coherence, Ílmovation in the coherence. Ideally, and in an the biblical past,
it manifests its hermeneutieal realities not announced until then. But, properties ofDivine does its increased use in also transfers
Christ thein the apoealyptie, Wisdom, the Paul ofColossia the antilegome
since it is an announcement of funetion since it effectively encompasses and
setting
this will notall the dimensions ofChristian knowledge. Now, onetoimplieatetheprerogatives ofthe sapiential in the apocalyptic, and, in shc a
covers astonish New Testament exegetes, this voeable, whose funetion dissolution up until then stated only abc God-without there
sees whythe
Christ a
is antilegomena call the Gospel mystery and not wisdom. If the being already both fields? (ii) Can one and taSon, evidently. Thus,of t New
príncipally to say the extraordinary (what up to then had not been shift, any confusion between the Father find proeess in the rest Col 1:
flattening of
announeedthe homologoumena and justified in 1this time was opportune and is analogous and Co12 "Christ, in letters? (iii) H( to place
13: "the Kingdom ofthe Son"; to that ofthe Pauline whom are hid a11 the
begun by by God), also opens other horizons, Cor 1-4, in the Testamentof
direction that
treasures of wisdom and knowledgí This signifies that for Col the
the past. Beeause it a110wsa11 misunderstanding, has itof the eternalprotected Christology ofthe antilegomena (in particular ( ] : 15-20) in
desirable in order to avoid entry into the inte11igenee not in short sapíential
the wisdorn
ofGod, into the paradoxieal coherence ofHis designs, the from the authorizeswisdomofthe f.!Ua't"~pLOv in these sameof Christ.1 have not
the theology from a proliferation of symbolic 'virtualities rnystery sapientia:l use do not suffice to ] ve al the status letters?
propertiesto the
relation of
the believers to (re)read the Scriptures handofthe mystery has, extraordinary it questions, as important asSl plementaryisreason forwas first
field? Moreover, the maximal extension in hand with the Undoubtedly, is here neeessary tQ see a they are, it beeal it the
taekled these
as an indireet
that has been lived and announced, such a way that the alerted reader will the the vocable IlUa't"~pLOv.
massive useto eonfront those ofwhich 1 have just spoken. Ne ertheless, 1
neeessary of
result, reduced that ofwisdom, in to perceive in it the correspondences, not
points of anchorage, sense that Rorn 16:26 rnust be read, if one wants to rernainwanted to make a diseourse on the method in d form~simply to
be astonished to is in a passage spiritual 1and typological Christ have not
49 Moreover, it see this for like Col : 15-20 not name readings,'at least
the Wisdom
Christologica1.49
coherent with the passages presented above. of God, at the same moment paths ....
suggest some
CONCLUsrON

13. '

14. CHAPTER XII
GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULINE LETTERS
It canllot be denied that there is a sapientiaI Christology in the Pauline
letters; a fact that, from time to time, has not prevented exegetes from
discussing the background of the terms used by Paul. l But here, 1 will not
study Paul's Christology and its sapiential coloration; 1 will rather question
his parsimony in using the vocabulary of wisdom and detennine his reasons.
Then, 1 will examine the increasing place, from the homologoumena to
theantilegomena, given to "mystery" (f.!)a't'~pLOv) and its co¡mectlon to
wisdom in order to highlight its hemleneutical importance.
1. How Do ES PAUL SPEAK OF W¡SDOM AND THE W¡SE?2
The Twofold R~ference
The Pauline Use ofthe vocables is, as everyone knows, very dissimilar
and is reflective of two distinct usages: Greek and biblical.
1 Take for example Col 1: 15-20. The sapiential background is more than probable be·
cause it is confirmed by all the c1ues. This has not prevented Fossum from most recently re·
peating the hypothesis of an. "Anthropos-Christo10gy,"and of rejecting the sapientíal
influence, with arguments that do not hold up: inthe final analysis, the context, and it alone,
allows coming to a decision about the pertinence ofhypotheses on the background of a pas -
sage. Cf, Fossum, "Colossians 1,15·18 in the Light of Jewish MysticíSIn and Gnosticism."
1 On this point, one can eonsult the dífferent dictionaries or vo~abularies (TWNT, ete.).
Here is a list of some terms. The adjeetive sophos, applied to men, negatively (Rom 1 :22; 1
Cor 1: 19,20,26,27; 3:18, 19,20), positively (Rom ¡ :14; 16: 19; ICor 3: 10; 6:5; Eph 5: 15), or
to God (Rom 16:27; ICor 1:25). The substantive aocjJLo: applied to men (or their discourse),
negatively (ICor 1: 17, 19,20,21,22; 2: 1,4,5, 13; 3: 19; 2Cor 1: 12; Col 2:23), positively (Col
1 :9,28; 4:5), or to God (Rom II :33; ICor 1:21,24,30; 2:6, 7; 12:8; Eph 1:8. 17; 3:10; Col 2:3).
The verbaocjJL(Ew, usedpositively in2Tim 3:15.
l' l'

15. '1 1
,
I
290 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WiSOOM ANO MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 2
Let usbegin with fue Greek usage. In Rom 1: 14, sophos designates the The other set ofpassages reflect rather the usage ofthe Bible, in whi
cultured, civi1ized man in contrast to the ignorant man, who 1acks in- aman, who is knowledgeab1eor cultivated, a great orator or moral
tellectua1 refinement. The interna1 parallelislll ofthe verse indicates, more- th{ retician,1 is not called wise. For in the Bible, wisdom is primarily a
over, fuat from this point of view, the paragon of cu1ture is fue Greek, with mat of discernment, of tact, in relationships (good manners) and in maki
a11 that it represents at that time: science-mathematica1, physical, astro- choices.8 This finesse can be put into the service of evil, and then it l
nomical, medicaV rhetoric, ana1ytica1 ability, but a1so mastery of comes guile.9 If, on the contrary, it comes from God, if it makes knm His
concepts, a~gumentation, disputation, and dialogues, especia11y in the will and serves to promote the good and justice, the one who recei it is
political sphere.4 However, this cultural mastery could not but have had shrewd, prudent, wise with God's wisdom.1O
social consequences: its authority elicits recognition, respect, public
admiration, but al so competition, emulation, rivalry. Numerous exegetes Moreover in 1 Cor 1--4, Paul, in accordance with the Bible and par;
detect such a background in the antagonisms that were undennining the estamentary Judaism, uses all or almost all l! ofthe vocabulary that 1 lates
Church in Corinth (1 Cor 1--4).5 Let us add that aman who could show to wisdom, and emphasizes, at every possible opportunity, tl God, and
only scientific or cultural competence was not declared wise; the moral He alone, gives wisdom. In this passage, the Apostle contra the Divine
component was essential: in order to be wise and to be recogmzed as such, Wisdom to human wisdom, in a series of inversions in whi the chromc
his life had to correspond to his teaching and speech.6 incapacity of the second to know the first is pointed out,
The antonym &oocpos (Eph s: IS). Paul uses other words not from the root oo<jJ-: synonyms, 1 1 do not mean that the biblica) usage was not influenced by Hellenism. For ti one can
such as cppóvq.lO~ in ICor 4: 10; 10: J S; OÚVEOLs, YVWOl~, EnL YVWOl~, CPPÓV1l0ls, consult von Lips, Weisheit/iche Traditionen im Neuen restament, 100-112. 1 the Jewish
etc; antonyms, such as lX<jlpwv (Rom 2:20; 2Cor 11: 16, 19; 12:6-11; Eph S: 17), UVÓlltO~ faith had taken a position on the origin ofwisdom and on lts true recipier' all the distinctions
(Rom 1;14), ¡J,wpó~ (ICor 1:2S,27; 3:18; 4:10), ¡J,wpLa (ICor 1:18, 21; 2:4; 3:19), ¡J,wpaLvw
and contrasts that are already found in Sirach and in Dan 2 are peqted in the
(Rom 1:22; ICor 1:20),¡J,wpoAoyLa (Eph S:4), etc.
paratcstamentary literature and in Paul.
3 So it will not be surprising to find a small treatise on astronomy and meteoro10gy in the
8 The two aspects (finesse and erudition) are joined in the figure of the scribe ..
Jewish apocalyptic books from the Hel!enistic Age (cf. 1 Henoch, 72-79). Knowl edge of
Sir 39:1-11.
celestial mechanics in al! its complexity neither should have nor could have remained unknown
9 Such as Jonadab, a very crafty man (2Sam 13:3 RSY) (sophos sphodra) in 2~ 13:3
to those who saw it. The "knowledgeable" component of Jewish wisdom has not been excluded
LXX. Although the "guile" of the narrator is not to intimate explicitly the me coloration of
from al! the paratestamentary writings, far from it.
this wisdom: at no time does Jonadab say to Amnon to lie with Tan Good advice or bad
4 J. de Romilly hasshown this well. Cf. Pourquoi la Grece?, in particular, pp. 125-152; In
advice? Guileful in any case. Paul, as far as 1 know, does not 1 lhe terms ao~ó~, ao<jl[lX
1 Cor 1 :22, Paul seems to mean this "total" wisdom, to which Greek culture aspired.
with this connotation.
5 Horsley is undoubtedly the fir~t lo have a~serted that the wisdom to which Paul is al!
10 This is the connotalion of 1 Cor 6:5; Rom 16: 19; Col 1 :9; 1 :28; 4:5 and of E 1:17;
uding is eloquence. Cf. "Wisdom ofWord and Words ofWisdom in Corinth," The exegetes of 1
5:15-16.
Corinthians agree that, in addition to this rhetorical component, the background is Greek.
11 Some passages that do not belong to 1 Cor 1---4 reflect, nevertheless, exactly same
6 For good information about this setting and a description ofthe wise in the Greek world of
contrasts and evaluations: Rom 11 :33; 16:27; Co12:3; Eph 3: lO speak ofinfir wisdom,
the time, see Malherbe, "Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament," (the description ofthe
polymorphous from God, (or from Christ), and 2Corl: 12; Rom ] :22; Col 2 of human
wise on pp. 293-301).
wisdom opposed to divine grace, of human wisdom reduced to folly by e or even of
practices only having the appearance of wisdom.

16. 292 NEW APPROACHES POR INTERPRETlNG THE LETTERS OP SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE l'AULINE LETTERS 2
incapacity seaIed by the death on the Cross of Jesus Christ, when the Divine Thus, one speaks of wisdom at Corinth. But why? This is tlU1y t major
Wisdom attained its utmost, because it definitiveIy took the fom1 ofits problem of contemporary commentators: to recover the backgrou in which
opposite, folly (in the eyes ofthe world). 1 will spare the reader an in-depth Paul's reaction makes sense. In other words, what are the nan' and the
semantic anaIysis of this section being content to emphasize some points that origin of the aocp LIX against which the Apostle is po1emicizing? Paul, as
are decisive for my comments. Because what is astonishing is the absence of numerous commentators think, fo11owing Horsely already me tioned,
the words aocpói;, aocp (a, and their antonyms prior to ICor and Rom. Why, referring to the itinerant preachers, the apostles and their co11at rators, and
with the exception of 1 Cor 1-4, are the homologoumena so siIent on the their manner ofpresenting the faith in Jesus: with a knowled ofGreek
subject ofwisdom and the wise? rhetorica1 techniques, in short, with a11 the qua1ities of eloquen that one
expects in missionaries, so that their discourse carries convictio Without
this effort at encu1turation, how could the message of the GOS¡ have been
Wisdom in 1Cor 1-4
abIe to penetrate into a Greek world proud of its cuIture? E: quence does
The Background not signify sophism or even a de1usion. It prevents it. W an engaging, or at
All exegetes of 1 Cor admit that there is a connection between the di- the 1east intelligib1e, presentation, the Corinthians wOl have entered into
visions (schismata, 1: 1 O), fue quarrels (erides, 1: 11), and Pau1's discourse this process of reflection, of argumentation, on the Cht tian faith. And,
on wisdom (in 1 Cor 1-2 above a11), because by repeating the two themes, seeing the emulation that it provoked, with its ensuing valries and
the peroratio in 3: 18-23 indicates their dependence or connection: if the jealousies, Paul wou1d have reacted strongly,
Apostle has made a long detour on wisdom and ventures to make funda- Without denying that the Pauline reaction is referring to the typ~
mental distinctions on the subject, it is without any doubt because it was a wisdom preached by Olle ofthe groups in Corinth, other exegetes thi rather
question of wisdom in Corinth, in a context of emulation and in reference to of a debate between the Judaizers (Peter's party) and the non-J daizers
certain apostles.12 (Paul and Apollos) over the Scriptures, the tensions and the vaIries arising
from the differing (midrashic) interpretatiolls (especial: of the Torah.13 In
fact, several terms and expression can be explain only ifthe background is
11 Is it neeessaty to reeall the rhetorical divisions ofthe passage? 1 repeat, with con - Jewish: the ypalllllX1:EÚi; of 1 :20, a scribe exp in the art of interpreting
siderable modifieations, the eomposition proposed by Bunker, Briefformular. The exordium (1: the Torah; also, the OUK EV TfE teole; aocp ( AóYOle; of2:4, which is
1 0-17) describes the situation and the elements of the problem; it ends with a statement (1: 17)
in which the two major parts ofthe argumentation (the proba/io) are announeed: (i)
reminiscent ofthe Greek Bib1e. 14 Does this ma
thediscourse on the Cross as a subversion of the diseourse of wisdom (I: 18-3:4); (ii)
thefunction of the Apostle: to serve (3: 1-17); the development ends, as it should, with a
perora/io (3; 18-23) in which the strong elements of the proba/io are repeated. But Paul causes 13 An interpretation recently repeated by Goulder, "Sophia in 1 Corinthians," cording
his argumeritation to rebound (4; 1-13) by describing the itinerary of the apostles, whieh to whom there were assuredly Jews in the cornmunity in Corinth, who fom a faction, after a
reproduces the Passion of Christ and illustrates the diseourse on wisdom-folly fram the visit by Peter or one of his associates, that relied upon his authorit) promote or impose their
beginning; verses 4: 14-21 are a transition that prepares for what follows. It should be noted halakic interpretation of the Scriptures. Aceording to Goule the expression "words/speech
(a) that the oppositions of v. 17 are repeated almost word for word in 2:4,13; (b) that lhe ofwisdom" (ICor 2:4) would designate the halakic r, ulations ofthe "Judeo-Christians,"
propositio (when there is one) and the peroratio help the reader detennine the theme of an traces ofwhich he locates in 1-2Cor ..
argumentation. 14 Cf. p~f.Latc(, aolj¡la~ in Dan TH 1:20; Sir LXX 39;7.

17. 294 NEW APPROACHES FOR lNTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 2
it necessary to condude that the error of the believers in Corinth consisted in The Jews and the Divine Wisdom
considering the sage aS superior to the others (thereby consistent with Sir There is some truth in Goulder's hypothesis because the Jews l6 play a
38:24-33), famous and respected, indeed, praised far his correct way of part as actors in the drama. Indeed, Paul includes them in the group those
interpreting the Torah, more than his eloquence (a Greek criterion) and his who have misunderstood the Divine Wisdom. With the Greeks, th forrn a
theoretical intelligence?15 It remains to be seen. binomial (or a merism) whose function is inclusive: these 't, groups, Jews
For a certain type of historical-eritical exegesis, as 1 have said, the major and Greeks, claim that wisdom is in their possession. It. beeause of their
problem is determining the nature afthe wisdam against which Paul is declarations that Pau! mentions them together, eoup: them, by adding that
protesting. But to do this, the procedure is of importance. And since, as is neither of the two groups can reeognize the wisdc . ofGod in the kerygma
often the case in his argumentations, Paul shifts the questions, enlarges the mmouncing the death of Jesus Christ on the Cro Consistent with biblical
debate, does not directly repeat the positions of his presumed adversaries but writers and clearly confirmed by the parates mentary texts, Judaism was
rather devotes himself to showing the disastrous consequences for the faith convinced ofhaving been visited by the 1 vine Wisdom, even ifthere is little
and for the unity of the Church, it is very difficult, if not to say impossible, to optimism about the number ofthose whom Ood has revealed and will
determine the identity of his opponents. In 1 Cor 1-4, Paul is not interested
reveal the ways of wisdom, 17 Indet the motif of a wisdom rejected by
in whether their discourse on wisdom consists in a halakic interpretation of
humans and re-ascending to the heav~ is we11-known in the Judaism ofthe
Scripture or in a Hellenized presentation of the Gospel. What he does retain
era, but happily there were those w could see, having been invited to the
is not the cOlltellt but the worrn that erodes their wisdom, the contradiction
heavens and returned to earth in 0[( to transmit and divulge the divine
that lives in them, because it brillgs with it pride, a laek of charity, a disunity
secrets and designs that they had h the privilege of contemplating above.
that underrnines the composition of the ecclesial fabrico Because for Paul, if
Thus for them, the Divine Wisd(
what drives us towards wisdom is the enigma of the cosmos and the designs
ean sti11 (re)descend to the People ofthe Covenant. .
of Ood, if thus the desire of wisdom ultimately tends towards Ood, why does
Gn the contrary, Paul puts the Jew in the same situation as the
one arrive at conceit, arrogance, and division? ICor 1-4 discloses the
Ore¡ The sages, the scribes ofIsrael l8 have "lacked" the decisive rendezvo
Aposde's pessimism on all human attempts at wisdom. Thus, here is a main
with wisdom. By crucifying, with the rest of humanity: the Lord
reason that explains, but ollly partially, the parsimonious usage ofthe
voeabulary ofwisdom in the proto-Pauline letters.
16 'Iou6aio~ appears in 1 Col' 1 :22, 23, 24, coupled with EUr¡V in vv. 22, 24, ' E8vT]
in.v. 23 ..
17 Cf. the passages mentioned above, in the status quaestionis, especiaIly lHen·
104:12-13; 4Esd 12:35-39; 14:26.37-48.
15 Cf., for ex., Davis, Wisdom and Spirit. Also, Goulder, "Sophia in 1 Corinthians" 52!, 18 Goulder (with others) is right to see in the aorpó~ and ypaflflaTEú~ in 1 Cor ]
according to whom wisdom would have been for the Corinthians "a way of living in accord [repeated fram Isa 33: 18 LXX] allusions to the emblematic figures ofwisdom in the
with the Torah." daism of the era.

18. 296 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAINT PAUL COSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY IN THE PAULlNE LETTERS 2
glory,19 they have shown the fundamental superficiality oftheir wisdom, and these are "the men," Jews and Greeks togethcr.22 And this is the scco
they also find themselves struck by folly. reason, clearly statcd in 1 Cor 1-3 (2: 1-5 and 3: 1-3, in particular), whi
Moreover, the eminently paradoxical character of the Pauline argu- farces Paul not (or only a littlc) to call the Gospel wisdom in the horn(
mentation comes from the fact that it al so applies the biblical categories to ogournena: what would presenting a discourse as wisdom signify, wh one
the Jews. Let us take the citation of 1 Cor 2:9: "What no eye has seen, nor knows that it could not be received as such, since it would be (1 cause it
ear heard ... , what Ood has prepared for those who love him."20 Like the had already been) received as folly?
sapiential books on wisdoml21 it affirms the impossibility ofhuman forces
knowing the divine designs, But for a Jew, "those whom Ood loves" are the J The Essentially Paradoxical Wisdom of the Oospel
ews faithful to the Law, the wise of the people, emaptured to the heavens in
More than anyone else, Paul has perceived that the Gospel can ll' ther be
order to contemplate "what the eye has not seen nor the ear heard," Here is
nor must not be accepted as wisdom by mankind at the cost losing its force
the real reversal, and it is, if you will allow me to use the word,the "ruse"
and being sugar-coated, It is not only because huma . receive it as folly that
ofDivine Wisdom: those, who had been desighated by the biblical texts as its
the message ofthe Cross must not be immediate called wisdom, but because
recipients, find themse1ves struck by blindness since they do not see that
it is something crazy, The Cross is, arid ml remain, a scandal, because with
they have not seen it. That is why the Divine Wisdom keeps its promises.
it, the (wise) folly ofGod and the hum incapacity to espouse His designs are
Rom 1 :22, which is later than 1 Cor 1-4, goes in the same direction: it
inseparably manifested.
implicitly associates the Jews and the Oreeks in the same pretentiousness-
Indeed, Paul also says that the believers in the Gospel of the Cross,
that ofwisdom, and for this reason they have been struck by folly, Indeed,
which weakness and folly are shockIDg, is also a proc1amation ofpower a
Rom lseems to designate only the pagans, but we do know that Paul names
wisdom. Thus, Paul does not separate wisdom and Christ; on the contra
no one in order to include all of hurnanity, idolatrous in its
for believers it is Christ who has become the wisdom and power of
, rejection of God; those whose wisdom has been transformed into folly,
G( justice, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor 1 :24,31). In 1 :31 the
titles ti follow that of "wisdom" have been variously interpreted. Many
exegel think that their function is more to complete-indeed, correct-the
19 1 Cor 2:8 on the &pxovtE~, has drawn a lot of ink, as one knows, For a history of the
title "wisdom" than to explain its content. 23 It seems to me rather that here,
interpretation, see Pesce, Paolo e glí Arcanti a Carinta, Brescía 1977. According to this as other passages, Paul is proceeding by accumulation: more than completi
author, &pXOV'E~ designates the Jewish authorities, and the immediate context supports or correcting, the titles that accompany that of"wisdom" are aiming to
him, even if, and 1 repeat, Pau] proceeds as elsewhere by a generalizing synec doche, in order ( press that by/in Cluist the believershave all been received by GOd.24
toenlarge the debate, and sothat the words are applied to several categories, because it is
allofhumanity who is responsible for the crucifixion.
20 A mixture from Isa 64:3-4, Jer 3: 16 LXX. Cf. Ponsot, "D'lsa'ie LXIV, 3 a I Corinthiens
Il,9," who c1early shows the Dtr aspect of the contents and the sapiential fonn of the verse. 22 SeeAletti,"Rom 1,18-3,20."
Paul is neither the first nor the only one to have mixed biblical pas. sages; cf. (he similar text 23 Thefact that Paul has added other vocables after wisdom (itself already qualified: (
fram 1 QS 11, 5-9 (very interesting because it al so combines the images ofplanting and Theou) would then indicate a preference for these terms, which he has (he habit ofusing 24
ofbuilding used in ICor 3). The Greek express ion te kaí could be translated thus: "justice just as well as sa: tification
21 Cf. Prav 30:1-4; Sir 1:10; Job 28; Bar 3:23. and redemption",
r

19. 298 NEW APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETING THE LETTERS OF SAIl'.JT PAUL GOSPEL, WISDOM AND MYSTERY lN THE PAULINE LETTERS 2
But even if for Paul the Cross is the definitive and utmost manifestation but 'of correcting and sparking the transformation of the Corinthians ( 3:
ofthe salvific ways ofGod, it does not replace the other expressions ofthe 18) by showing the fundamental ambiguity of the vocabulary of "Y dom,
Gospel, which are also paradoxical, and are disseminated throughout his which reflects ahuman search that sooner or later is led astray, t cause it
argumentations. Some examples will suffice! Christ, though he was rich yet arrives at its opposite, namely at rivalries and divisions. TI move by Paul
for our sake was made poor so that by his poverty you might become rich results in the Gospel and its fundamental paradoxes bei placed at a
(2Cor 8:9), He became forus a curse to redeem us fram the curse (GaI3: 13). distance from the conceptual representation, always tempt to dominate the
God made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become coherence that it perceives.
the righteousness of God (2Cor 5 :21) ... The language of the Cross does not In Rom 11 :33, the same hermeneutical attitude is found, but this til it is
suppress the other paradoxical expressions of the salvific design, rather it used positively. After having stated the function ofthe rejection ofl Gospel
appeals to them. But all these formulations distort human logic and only by Israel and having reoriented the divine plan in paradoxi< . tenns ("For
make sense to believers, How could they become the discourse ofwisdom in God has consigned an men to disobedience, that he may ha mercy upon
the eyes ofthe world? Moreover, fue paradox is redoubled since Paul in no a11," Rom 11:32), fi11ed with wonder, Paul exclaims: "O 1 depth ofthe
way wants to reduce it, to reabsorb it: "If any one among you thinks that he riches and wisdom and knowledge ofGod! How unsearchal are his
is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may be come wise!" (ICor judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" Said about God, 1 terms "wise"
3: 18), But that which he does not want to transform into (worldly) wisdom and "wisdom", when written by Paul, acquire their natu place in the
remains a11 the same sapiential in its expression if it is true that paradox is doxological exclamations. Rom 16:27 confinns this. To spe ofthe Divine
an eminently sapiential genre. Wisdom is to confess it, to proclaim it: not by knowledgeal discourse, but
Thus, we can go further in our response. While expressing his Gospel in a by that which is marvelously humble! In Paul's'letters, 1 vocabulary of
sapiential manner, because it is fundamenta11y paradoxical, Paul, wisdom has a function of interpreting; in tbis sense, it mer the qualification
nevertheless, refuses to make it a wisdom discourse, since it is really an of "hermeneutic" on the condition of adding that this • terpretation is not
allliouncement of folly and received as such by the world. And even for the conceptual but rather grateful.
believers, who have adhered to the message ofthe Cross, he avoids lingering
over the label of "wisdom", because he fears seeing them become
accustomed to this extreme too quickly and making it reasonable, "wise" 2. THE EVOLUTION OF THE VOCABULARY
according to the world.
Thus for the homologoumena, the matter ofthe parsimonious usage
The Hermeneutical Function of the Vocabulary of Wisdom wisdom is explained. From nbw on, one can legititnately be amazed to í
Thus, 1 Cor 1-4 provides an explanation ofthe Apostle's reticence to use the reappearance ofthe vocables cOllliected to knowledge and wisdom 25
the vocabulary of wisdom and its rare appearance in the homologoumena.
Besides aotjJó~ (Eph 5:15) and aotjJto: (Col [:9; 1 :28; 2:3; 2:23; 3:16; 4:5; ¡: 1 :8, 17;
And ifthis vocabulary is used as much as it is in the first chapters of 1 Cor, it 25
3: 10), here are some characteristic words:
is for hermeneutical purposes. Indeed, the passage adds nothing new to the
- OT)ÁoDv Col 1 :9; 1 Cor 1: 11; 3: 1.
kerygma: it does not have the function of revealing - tjJCXVEpoGv Col 1:26; 3:4 (2x); 4:4; Eph 5:13,