Most interpreters assume that the pain (λύπη) created by Paul’s previous visit and letter (2 Cor. 2.1-7) has ceased because it appears indistinguishable from the fleeting ‘godly grief’ (7.5-16). This enables the view that the material constituting 2 Corinthians is largely offensive and directed at a hostile congregation. But a closer study of λυπ- words demonstrates that their semantic range incorporates Corinthian despair, heartbreak, and bitterness. These emotions are distinct from the godly grief and, upon surveying select passages, it is evident that the Corinthians can be understood to have ongoing pains. This significantly alters the situation – the community’s rebellion is fueled by troubling emotive experiences – and further reveals Paul’s overlooked agenda of communal transformation.

No abstract

No abstract

Michael Gorman’s ‘cruciformity’ concept (recently re-articulated as ‘resurrectional cruciformity’) is commonly used to interpret Paul’s paradox of strength in weakness (e.g., 2 Cor. 4:7, 12:9–10). However, Gorman never discusses the current conceptions of Pauline paradox. An analysis and summary of this literature – with reference to 2 Cor. 12:9–10 – reveals that Gorman’s approach fails to produce a technical articulation of paradox, largely due to its underdeveloped congruence between strength and weakness (cf., v. 9a, 10b). This leaves his work vulnerable to theological distortion, including masochism. In response, it is argued that ‘strength in weakness’ involves two opposed realities occurring simultaneously and mutually qualifying one another, without conflation or isolation – i.e., a coinherent paradox. This model offers a generative, rather than kenotic, reading of strength in weakness, in which the paradox increases human potential. It also offers connections with early Christology that set the paradox in a fresh theological frame.

REVIEWED BY It is nearly impossible to discuss self-help/mutual-aid Bill White societies without reference to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). With its more than two million members, international growth, organizational longevity, and adaptation to nearly every conceivable human problem, AA has become the standard with which all other mutual-aid groups are compared. AA's dominance obscures awareness of the large number of mutual-aid societies that preceded it (White, 2001) and the growing number of adjuncts and alternatives to AA.