Satan Talk in Corinth: The Rhetoric of Conflict

Lee A. Johnson
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.

Pul’s writings have never been readily adaptable to sys-

tematic analysis, due both to Paul’s chameleon-like reac-
way of characterizing one’s actual enemies
ment
as the embodi-

of transcendent forces&dquo; (13). Her thesis, however, is

tion to variable circumstances and the particularity of the most readily applied to the gospel writings, with the Pauline

genre of his writings. Therefore, determining such an issue
as Paul’s social response to the world, a requisite prelimi-
nary 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 refer-
ences to Satan as a basis for developing a consistent cosmol,
ogy in the letters, with unsatisfying results.
Some scholars are willing to attribute inexplicable in,
consistencies to Paul as they describe the multifaceted por-
trait 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 de-
scribes the Satan in 2 Corinthians 2:11 as the &dquo;great adver-
sary of Christ&dquo; (128), and finally explains that the Satan of 2
Corinthians 12:7 is similar to the Joban character, who in-
flicts suffering with God’s permission (178). Likewise, Fur-
nish 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 &dquo;the subject of cos,
mic war serves primarily to interpret human relation-
ships-especially all-too-human conflict-in supernatural
form. The figure of Satan becomes, among other things, a
references receiving only a cursory treatment, predictably,
for one is hard-pressed to observe a &dquo;cosmic war&dquo; (which in.
cludes 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 &dquo;prime adversary of
Christ,&dquo; 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 clas-
sifying 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
&dquo;radically dualistic&dquo; worldview in which &dquo;the kingdom of
Satan, where sin and death reign&dquo; (72) wars with God’s
kingdom of life and peace. However, the passage central to
Neyrey’s argument is the disputed 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:11
(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
Lee A. Johnson is a Ph.D. candidate and sessional lecturer in bibli,
bibli-
cal 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 &dquo;The Epistolary Apostle:
Paul’s Response to the Challenge of the Corinthian Congregation.&dquo;

145
7:5, but even Neyrey begrudgingly admits that the purpose
of the Satan in 2 Corinthians 12:7 &dquo;seems to be to keep Paul
from sin&dquo; ( 176) .
In light of the apparent failure of these various inter-
pretations 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 (as-
suming 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 Pau-
line letters in which Paul logically could have invoked the
name of Satan as God’s chief nemesis, but does not. For ex-
ample, 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 hu-
man 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 Corin-
thian letters shows that the instances out of which such lan-
guage arose were not vehicles for Paul’s cosmological
instruction to his converts, such as is the case with the pre-
viously mentioned passages, rather, the Corinthian refer-
ences 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 relation-
ship to his father’s woman and the failure of the community
to deal with him in the manner which Paul suggests; in 1
146
Corinthians 7:5, Paul objects to the sexual abstinence of
married couples in Corinth; the reference to Satan in 2 Co-
rinthians 2:11 occurs because the Corinthians have not re-
acted properly toward an offender; 2 Corinthians 11:14
accuses Paul’s opponents in Corinth of practicing the de-
ceptive 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 satis-
factorily 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 appropriat-
ing Paul’s Satan talk into a radically dualistic cosmology
which does not readily apply to each of these passages, a so-
ciological model does in fact provide a more suitable expla-
nation for the phenomenon of Satan language in the
Corinthian letters.
The curious concentration of references in the Corin-
thian correspondence may indicate that the particular so-
cial 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 apos-
tolicity 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 possibil-
ity 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 ex-
plained as the result of such societal pressures.
The former problem will be examined via cross-cul-
tural comparisons of five strikingly different cultures rang,
ing from the modern to the pre,medieval eras in which
Satan language and witchcraft accusations are promul-
gated. Using Mary Douglas’ conclusion of concordance be-
tween 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 par,
ticular 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 exami-
nation 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 situa,
tion-specific, non-universal nature of the passage; 2) Sa-
tan’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 theologi-
cal 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 charac,
teristics of five different societies, from modern to ancient
eras, which engaged in Satan talk and/or witchcraft accusa-
tions. 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 con-
fused, 3) close unavoidable interaction, 4) underdeveloped
tension-relieving techniques and no procedure for reconcil-
ing conflicts, 5) weak authority, and 6) intense and disor,
derly 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 com-
munities is transitory, a phenomenon arising from the mani-
festation of a very particular set of circumstances. These
five examples below will demonstrate such extenuating cir-
cumstances 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 per-
formed 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
their societies’ economic transformations, but, in
prior to
each community, the role of the devil expanded in conjunc-
tion 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 &dquo;already,conspiratory&dquo;
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 be-
ings (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 de-
mands 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 commu-
nity and to regulate power throughout the society.
The seminal work, WITCHCRAFT, ORACLES AND
MAGIC AMONG THE AZANDE, the result of Ev-
ans,Pritchard’s three year study of the Zande tribe from
central Africa during the 1920’s, exposes a particularly lim,
ited scope of witchcraft activity; the social situations in
which witchcraft practices are evoked among Azande, ac-
cording to Evans-Pritchard, all involve physical misfortune.
Misfortune and witchcraft are inextricably linked; witch,
craft does not arise apart from
misfortune, neither does mis- ’
fortune 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 dis-
tant neighbor’s fortunes. Thus, whenever Azande suspect
that they are under the power of witchcraft, they immedi-
ately consider those nearby as the possible perpetrators of
their bewitching (47).
Witchcraft is a direct function of misfortune and per-
sonal relations, but, according to Evans-Pritchard, it also
comprises moral judgment:
147
 Indeed, Zande morality is so closely related to their notions of
witchcraft that it may be said to embrace them. The Zande
phrase &dquo;It is witchcraft&dquo; may often be translated simply as &dquo;It
is bad&dquo;
... 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 dis-
closes [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 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.
The personal profile of the New England accused
witch, as compiled by Demos from the Essex County Court-
house 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 cen-
tury 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 in-
fluence 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 val-
ues 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 tangi-
148
ble and personal nature of physical daily operations in sev-
enteenth century New England. Although the New
Englanders understood the cosmos in dualistic terms prior
to their colonization, the excessive use of witchcraft lan-
guage was fueled by a society fervently devoted to maintain-
ing order through homogeneity.
More contemporary to the Corinthian situation is Pe-
ter Brown’s study of the irrational in society in late antiq-
uity. Sorcery accusations and practices arose during the
pre-medieval era, as observed by Brown, when two systems
of power clashed within one society: the &dquo;articulate power&dquo;
of those in high places and the &dquo;inarticulate power&dquo; that is
linked to the &dquo;disturbing intangibles of social life; the im-
ponderable advantages of certain groups; personal skills
that succeed in a way that is unacceptable or difficult to un-
derstand&dquo; (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 unde-
served power of the achieved power group (125). Knowl-
edge about sorcery came from the fluid group of society, and
as Roman society became more stable and defined, the sor-
cery 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, &dquo;loss of memory invariably provoked accusa-
tions of sorcery among such men; for loss of memory dam-
aged 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&dquo; ( 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 af-
flicted ones could attempt to regain stature by claiming that
their sub-par performance was due to some outside influ-
ence and then by identifying a jealous colleague as the per-
petrator of the sorcery.
Within each of these groups, Satan talk was not moti-
vated by cosmological events, such as a natural disaster, but
arose from the personal problems or conflicts of the mem-
bers 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 rheto-
ric of each community reflecting the level of its stability.
The fortunes of the society and its individual members de-
termine whether Satan talk and witchcraft accusations
serve a prominent role in community life or whether they
fade away.
Douglas notes that fluctuations in witchcraft cosmol-
ogy 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 hurl accusations of
witchcraft at each other until the succession problem is set-
tled, then misfortunes are again attributed to deceased an-
cestors who regulated tribal behavior through the chief
elder (121). Upon examination, the five appearances of Sa-
tan in the Corinthian letters will uphold Evans-Pritchard’s
terse description of Douglas’ anthropological discovery:
&dquo;witchcraft as a system for explaining events does not in fact
postulate any mysterious spiritual beings-only the mysteri-
ous powers of humans&dquo; (xxi).
The Appearance of Satan in
the Corinthian Letters
Akey motivation for Paul’s correspondence with Cor-
inth his concern over their schismata and erides (1 Cor
was
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 con-
flicted 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 in-
cident or issue at Corinth; (2) Satan’s role must not be con-
sistent throughout the references. For instance, the label of
&dquo;chief nemesis of God&dquo; must not be applicable throughout
the Corinthian correspondence; and (3) Paul’s relationship
with the Corinthians must clearly be at issue in each men-
tion 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 spe,
cific ; one particular man is involved in a socially awkward
relationship with his father’s &dquo;woman.&dquo;
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 re-
moved from among you. For though absent in body I am pres-
ent 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 situa-
tion. Furthermore, Paul condemns the Corinthians’ reac-
tion to this one man’s &dquo;illicit&dquo; relationship, which is more
troublesome to him than the actions of the man himself
(Snyder 59-60; Conzelmann 95-96), called a &dquo;purgation of
the community&dquo; by Meeks (130). They have reacted to be-
havior, 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 &dquo;exit ritual,&dquo; wherein the offender is ousted from the
community and becomes an outsider, thus maintaining
strict community boundaries, and despite Satan’s descrip.
tion by Orr and Walther as the &dquo;plenipotentiary of
evil&dquo;(188), Satan’s role is ambiguous here. The ultimate
purpose of &dquo;delivering this man to Satan&dquo; is to provide sal-
vation 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
149
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 accep-
tance of this man would be at odds with Paul’s teachings, as
well. Therefore, the Corinthians’ tolerance of this pomeia
sets them in opposition to Paul’s authority over their com-
munity. 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 rhetori-
cal agent here. Their expulsion of this man would result in
the salvation for the man himself and would thereby dem-
onstrate 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 tempta-
tion 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 hus-
band. 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 ex-
cept perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote
yourselves to prayer; but them come together again, lest Sa-
tan 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 Chris-
tian response to the world was unique to Corinth, according
tothe 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 eleva-
tion 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
150
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 dili-
gence against it (Orr & Walther 208-09: Barrett 1968:
157). As Snyder notes (255-56), Satan’s function in chap’
ter 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 is-
sues in chapter 7 were undoubtedly encouraged by Paul’s
own teachings and lifestyle while among them. Yet, the Co-
rinthians 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 (11
Cor 7:6, 12) and defers to a known command of the Lord (11
Cor 7:10) with which he equates his own position, &dquo;and to
the unmarried I command, yet not I, but the Lord.&dquo; 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 Co-
rinthians to heed Paul’s teachings. If they do not, then they
may fall under the temptation of Satan. The phrase in 1 Co-
rinthians 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 chap-
ter 5, Satan is not the issue in chapter 7. He is an added de-
terrent 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 &dquo;false
 his words are directed toward the Corinthians
apostles,&dquo;
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 Sa-
tan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if
his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteous-
ness. Their end will correspond 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 APOC-
ALYPSE OF MOSES; but Furnish (495) and Danker (174) as-
sume 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 oppo-
nents 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 comparisotl 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 &dquo;very archetype of evil&dquo; (Barnett 595) who de-
ceived Eve (2 Cor 11:3) and now seeks to divert the Corin,
thians 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 forfh by the false
apostles in Corinth. In contrast to the previous passages in 1
Corinthians where Satan talk was uttered as encourage,
ment 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 wel,
come recompense for his labor. Paul’s ability as a speaker,
apparently was not as impressive
as some of his contempo-
raries’, further damaging Paul’s acceptance as the primary
authority in Corinth (1 Cor 10:10) . Likewise, Paul’s contin-
ued absence from Corinth in the face of his frequent prom-
ises 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
&dquo;false apostles,&dquo; 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 unmen,
tioned ; the issue is the fate of Paul’s reputation as an apos,
tle, 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 character,
ized 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 ap-
pears again. This most notorious of Satan references, Paul’s
&dquo;thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan,&dquo; is unique within
the Pauline letters because of the glimpse it provides into
Paul’s mystical experiences. Paul reluctantly reveals this au-
tobiographical information, as yet unmentioned, to the Co-
rinthians 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 theologi-
cal 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, &dquo;My grace is
&dquo;
sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.&dquo;
I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the
power of Christ may rest upon me [2 Cor 12:5-9].
Although Satan appears twice within a few verses in
this letter (11:14, 12:7), Satan’s role here has little in com-
mon with the mythological &dquo;deceiver&dquo; of 11:14. Further,
the extent of Satan’s dominion in 12:7 is one point of rare
151
common agreement among scholars. The Satan in this pas-
sage 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), in.
dicates 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 emphati-
cally, &dquo;It is God himself [sic] who is encountered in the
counterforce&dquo; that opposes Paul (225). More than in any of
Paul’s other references to Satan, this passage parallels the
Satan, as documented by Russell (1977: 174-220), por-
trayed 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 attor-
ney against Job (Job 1-2).
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.
It has been noted that bodily diseases are sometimes at-
tributed 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 af
flict 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 (sko-
lops)with regards to his own experience (12:8).
The very reason that Paul resorts to telling this &dquo;boast-
ful&dquo; tale of his revelatory experience is his lack of commen-
dation 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 au-
thority in Corinth. The first part (10:1-11:15) concentrates
on discrediting Paul’s opponents who have established a fol.
152
lowing 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 emo-
tional context of the letter, its rhetoric must be understood
as a product of that situation. These words attempt to dis-
credit Paul’s opponents, to shame the Corinthians and to
exonerate Paul. Thus, Satan may appear as the great de,
ceiver 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 refer-
ences to Satan have quite disparate applications, the de-
sired 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 Corinthi-
ans reject their teachings. Paul’s inclusion of the skolops, de-
livered 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 Co-
rinthians 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 which Paul refers in 2 Corinthians 7:8 (Watson
to
324-46), then the reference to Satan in 2 Corinthians 2:111
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 pres-
ence 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 com-
mon 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 circum,
stances in 2 Corinthians 2:11 are quite Corinth-specific, as
well. A man has been disciplined by the community, per-
haps 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, &dquo;take
advantage of’ (pleonekteo) and &dquo;his designs&dquo; (ta noemata),
indicate that Satan’s role in this passage is &dquo;to mislead or en,
trap God’s people&dquo; (Danker 45). Barnett notes that on a
theological level, the failure to forgive members may rein-
troduce the &dquo;dominion of darkness&dquo; to the community, be-
cause such obstinacy is in line with Satan’s schemes (132).
However, Barnett recognizes the unique use of the first per-
son 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 in-
structions 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 lis,
ten to these interlopers, which would result in an unrecon,
ciled congregation, both among themselves and toward
Paul. Therefore, this reference to Satan does not likely de,
scribe 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 Cor-
inth than in 2 Corinthians 11, yet, once again labeling the
source of their authority as Satan.
Paul himself unabashedly states in the two verses im-
mediately preceding the reference to Satan that he was
compelled to write the tearful letter to determine their per-
sonal loyalty to him: &dquo;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&dquo; (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 suc-
cessful &dquo;letter of sorrow&dquo; and is trying to rally the entire con-
gregation around the issue of this one man and Paul’s
leadership in Corinth. Their further obedience in this mat-
ter, 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 op,
posing apostles, the Corinthians are left with little recourse;
they must follow Paul. This instance of Satan talk is an ulti-
matum for the Corinthians; either they adhere to Paul’s in-
structions or they welcome the influence of Satan into their
community. If the Corinthians, having received these in-
structions 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 posi-
tion as pater of Corinth is reaffirmed.
Each of the Pauline references to Satan in the Corin-
thian letters is situation-specific. Paul’s words address par-
ticular individuals, assumed to be well-known within the
community, although they remain unnamed. Paul gives di-
rectives for the congregation based upon these specific cir-
cumstances. 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. There-
fore, 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 se-
verely with respect to his opponents, and finally to 2 Corin-
thians 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
153
the Corinthians to preserve their status with God, they
must embrace Paul’s authority.
Conclusion
The appearances of Satan in the Corinthian correspon-
dence do not tell us much of anything about Satan, his ac-
tivity 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 Corinthi-
ans 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 com-
munity has ignored Paul’s commands and openly ascribed
to a different course of behavior. On two separate occa-
sions, 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 tenu-
ous at best.
It is into this unstable society that the otherwise largely
ignored figure of Satan appears five times. Paul’s use of Sa-
tan 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 elabo-
rates 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 fash-
ion 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. Edin-
burgh, 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 Co-
rinthians. London, UK: Adam & Charles Black.
1973. A COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CO-
154
RINTHIANS. London, UK: Adam & Charles Black.
Betz, Hans Dieter. 1973. 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1: An Anti-Pauline Frag-
ment? JBL 92, 88-108.
Brown, Peter. 1972. Sorcery, Demons and the Rise of Christianity:
From Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages, RELIGION AND SOCI-
ETY 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 CORINTHI-
ANS. 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: WITCH-
CRAFT 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 CORINTHI,
ANS. 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 Ha-
ven, 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: Ran-
dom House.
Russell, Jeffrey Burton. 1981. SATAN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRA-
DITION. 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 COMMU-
NITY COMMENTARY. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Taussig, Michael T. 1980. THE DEVIL AND COMMODITY FETISH-
ISM IN SOUTH AMERICA. Chapel Hill, NC: University Press.
Snyder, Graydon. 1992. FIRST CORINTHIANS: A FAITH COMMU-
NITY COMMENTARY. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Taussig, Michael T. 1980. THE DEVIL AND COMMODITY FETISH-
ISM 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 Pun-
ishing, 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
Corinthians, JTS 35: 324-46.
Wire, Antoinette Clark. 1990. THE CORINTHIAN WOMEN
PROPHETS. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
155