¹ So e.g. Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 98Google Scholar; Branick, V. P., ‘Source and Redaction Analysis of 1 Corinthians 1–3’, JBL 101 (1982) 262–3.Google Scholar

² Kuck, D. W., Judgment and Community Conflict. Paul's Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5 (Suppl. NT 66; Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1992) 185.Google Scholar

³ According to Weiss, J., for instance, there are ‘hier also eigentlich 3 Bilder in einander geflochten’ (Der Erste Korintherbrief [KEK 5; 9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910] 82)Google Scholar; F. Lang speaks of ‘vier geläufige Vorstellungen’ brought together by the apostle ‘in lose Verbindung’, viz., ‘… 1. das Motiv vom brennenden Haus …, 2. die Erwartung, dass der kommende Herr mit Feuer erscheint …, 3. die Vorstellung der eschatologischen Feuerprobe … und 4. die sprich wörtliche Redewendung vom Gerettet-werden durchs Feuer’ (ThWNT 6.944); and Radl, W. even distinguishes ‘mindestens vier Feuer-Motiven’ (Ankunft des Herrn. Zur Bedeutung und Funktion der Parusieaussagen bei Paulus [BET 15; Frankfurt a.M./Bern/Cirencester: Lang, 1981] 105).Google Scholar

⁴ So e.g. W. Radl, Ankunft, 101.

⁵ D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 181.

⁶ On these parties, see esp. Barrett, C. K., ‘Cephas and Corinth’, Abraham unser Vater. Festschrift für Otto Michel (Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1963) 1–12Google Scholar; Fitch, W. O., ‘Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ’, Theology 74 (1971) 18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ph. Vielhauer, , ‘Paulus und die Kephaspartei in Korinth’, NTS 21 (1974–1975) 341–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sellin, G., ‘Das “Geheimnis” der Weisheit und das Rätsel der “Christus-partei” (zu 1 Kor 1–4)’, ZNW 73 (1982) 69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baumann, R., Mitte und Norm des Christlichen. Eine Auslegung von 1 Korinther 1, 1–3, 4 (2nd ed.; Münster: Aschendorff, 1986) 49–55.Google Scholar

⁷ See also 1En 100.7; 2En 44.5; QuesEzra B 14; Matt 16.27; Rom 2.6; 2 Cor 11.15; 2 Tim 4.14; 1 Pet 1.17; Rev 2.23; 20.12–13; 1Clem 34.3; 2Clem 17.4, etc. The thought that everybody is rewarded according to his works is already found in the LXX (see Ps 62.13; Prov 24.12; Isa 40.10; 62.11; Jer 17.10; Sir 16.12–14), but its application to God's final judgment in the eschaton is a later development. See Heiligenthal, R., Werke als Zeichen. Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum (WUNT 2. Reihe 9; Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1983) esp. 143–64Google Scholar; 171–82; 234–64.

⁸ Cf. W. Radl, Ankunft, 99–100. There is no difference of meaning between κόπος and ἔργον which is more usual in this context (see also v. 13). Κόπος and ἔργον are found together in e.g. 1 Thess 1.3; 3.5; Rev 2.2; 14.13. Cf. in particular Wis 10.17, ἀπέδωκεν ὁσίοις μισθòν κόπων αὐτῶν. Cf. also R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 210 n. 176. See also n. 26.

⁹ By using the word ἴδιος in v. 8b twice, Paul wants to underline once more that God is absolutely impartial and righteous, carefully weighing as it were one's deeds and will recompense each individual missionary according to his individual achievements within the context of his specific task. He does not speak here about a general reward for all those who are called to the service of the Lord. Cf. Mattern, L., Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus (ATANT 47; Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1966) 170Google Scholar; R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 209–10.

¹⁰ The association of the two images is common: see e.g. Jer 1.10 (Jeremiah's call); 18.9; 24.6; Sir 49.7; Philo Leg. all. 1.48; OdesSol 38.16–22. See also Vielhauer, Ph., Oikodome (München: Kaiser, 1979) 7–8Google Scholar; 37–8; 40–2; 74 n. 4.

¹¹ Cf. 15.10; Rom 1.5; 12.3; 15.15; Gal 2.9; Eph 3.7–8. Paul refers here to his apostolic commission. Or, in the words of Ollrog, W.-H., Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis des paulinischen Mission (WMANT 50; Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979)Google Scholar: ‘Fundamentsetzer ist er als Apostel. Ebenso gilt aber zugleich das Umgekehrte: Als Apostel ist er Fundamentsetzer’ (176).

¹² Cf. Isa 3.3, and also Plutarch Alex. 26 (679F).

¹³ That is, ‘the word of the cross’ (1.18), the knowledge of ‘Jesus Christ and Him crucified’ (2.2). Cf. also Maly, K., Mündige Gemeinde. Untersuchungen zur pastoralen Führung des Apostels Paulus im 1. Korintherbrief (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967) 67Google Scholar; W.-H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 167–9.

¹⁴ For the same imagery, see also Rom 15.20 and Eph 2.20. Its background is (Jewish) Hellenistic: see e.g. Epictetus Diss. 2.15.8; Philo Cher. 101; Conf. 5, 87; Gig. 30; Mut. nom. 211; Quis heres 116; Somn. 2.8; Vita contempl. 34. On the use of ἐποικοδομεῖν, see Ph. Vielhauer, Oikodome, esp. 75–81; I. Kitzberger, Bau der Gemeinde. Das paulinische Wortfeld οἰκοδομή/(ἐποικοδομεῖν(Würzburg: Echter, 1986) esp. 64–72; and D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 173–4.

¹⁵ It is doubtful if we should see in 3.10–15 ‘a reference to the work of all believers’ (D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 174; see also I. Kitzberger, Bau der Gemeinde, 66 and 70). It is true that in 1 Corinthians there are references to the individual responsibility for the upbuilding of the Christian community (see e.g. 12.7; 14.3–5, 12, 26). But in view of the direct context, esp. 3.4–5 and 3.21–2, it is more plausible that Paul is referring to those people who were appointed to be missionaries and teachers.

¹⁶ For the parenetic function of the imperative of βλεπέτω in the context of judment, see also Mark 4.24; 13.9; 1 Cor 10.12, etc. See also R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 211 n. 179.

¹⁷ As is the case in e.g. 4Ezra 7.52–61.

¹⁸ So rightly Lietzmann-W., H.Kümmel, G., An die Korinther I/II (HbNT 9; 5th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1969) 16Google Scholar; cf. also Schrage, W., Der Erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 1,1–6,11) (EKK 7/1; Zürich/Braunschweig: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991) 299.Google Scholar

¹⁹ So, with reference to 1 Chron 22.14–16; 29.2; 2 Chron 3.6, e.g. Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: University, 1965) 56–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; K. Maly, Mündige Gemeinde, 68; Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 140–1Google Scholar. Cf. W.-H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 170 n. 40; D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 177. The fact that the Christian community is called ‘the temple of God’ in vv. 16–17 cannot be used as an argument in favour of the assumption that the apostle had Solomon's temple in mind when he wrote vv. 10–12. Perhaps rather the reverse: the thought of the community as a building may have led to the introduction of the temple imagery in vv. 16–17 (cf. 2 Cor 6.16; Eph 2.21). Neither is it plausible that Paul has developed the theme while thinking of the Feast of Tabernacles and the building of sukkoth in vv. 10–12 (as Ford, J. Massyngberde, ‘You are God's “Sukkah” (1 Cor III.10–17)’, NTS 21 [1974–5] 139–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggests) or some kind of apocalyptic building (cf. Ph. Vielhauer, Oikodome, 75 n. 5; W. Schrage, Korinther, 300).

²⁰ See also J. Weiss, Korintherbrief, 80; Plummer, A. Robertson-A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC 7; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914) 62Google Scholar; W.-H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 170; W. Schrage, Korinther, 299–300.

²¹ It will not do to make a sharp distinction between a fire that ‘refines’ (in the case of gold and silver) and one that ‘burns’ (in the case of wood, hay and straw), as e.g. Ph. Vielhauer, Oikodome, 77–8 does. Paul just wants to underline that gold and silver are not consumed by fire, but ‘remain’ in one way or another, over against wood, hay and straw. Cf. Hermas Vis. 4.3.4 (see n. 33).

²² See further e.g. Num 31.22–3; Job 22.25; Ps 12.7; 66.10; Ezek 22.18–22; Zech 13.9; Mal 3.2–3; Wis 3.4–6; Philo Decal. 48; 1 Pet 1.7; 4.12; Rev 3.18; Didache 16.5; Hermas Vis. 4.3.4; Mart. Polyc. 15.2.

²³ Λίθους τιμίους certainly do not refer to some kind of costly building stones like marble (so, e.g., Deissmann, A., Paulus. Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze [2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1925] 243–7Google Scholar; J. Jeremias, ThWNT 4.272 n. 5). See also above.

²⁴ See further e.g. Aristotle Meteorologica 341 b 27 (καλάμη); Plutarch Non posse suaviter vivi sec. Epic. 14 (Mor. 1096 C) (χόρτον ἢ καλάμην); Diod. Sic. 3.29.2 (πυροῦσι τόν … χόρτον); 5.21.5 (καλάμων ἢ ξύλων); 16.41.5 (χόρτον ἐνέπρησαν); Josephus Bell. 6.153 (ξυλείαν ἢ χόρτον συλλογήν).

²⁵ See also e.g. Job 41.19–21; Isa 5.24; Joel 2.5; Obad 18; Mal 4.1; Wis 3.7; and 6Ezra 1.23; 1En 48.9; ApEl 1.4; 5.23; and cf. finally Matt 6.30.

²⁶ Here, the word ἔργον is used as the result of one's mission. There does not seem to be any difference of meaning with κόπος, which Paul uses in v. 8 (against I. Kitzberger, Bau der Gemeinde, 70–1). Cf. Pesch, W., ‘Der Sonderlohn für die Verkündiger des Evangeliums’, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. Festschrift für J. Schmid (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963) 199–206Google Scholar, esp. 200 n. 5; W.-H. Ollrog, Paulas und seine Mitarbeiter, 171; D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 174 n. 123; and see also n. 8.

²⁷ Cf. 1 Thess 5.4; Heb 10.25; Barnabas 7.9; 21.3, etc.

²⁸ See e.g. Isa 10.20; 13.6, 9; Amos 9.11; Zeph 1.15,18; 2.3; Zech 12.3–4; Mal 4.1–6.

²⁹ Δηλοῦν means in this context the disclosure of secrets, of things hidden so far (in this case: of the deeds of the church-builders). Cf. Ps 50.8 LXX, τὰ ἄδηλα καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῆς σοφίας σου ἐδήλωσάς μοι. See also R. Bultmann, ThWNT 2.61; W. Schrage, Korinther, 301; D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 179.

³⁰ Cf. R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 210; 214.

³¹ Most commentators are of the opinion that ‘the Day’ (ἡ ἡμέρα) is the intended subject of ἀποκαλύπτεται so e.g. J. Weiss, Korintherbrief, 81; A Robertson-A. Plummer, Corinthians, 63; H. Lietzmann-W. G. Kümmel, Korinther, 16; H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; 12th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 96 n. 18; G. D. Fee, Corinthians, 142; W. Radl, Ankunft, 103; D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 179. They refer to passages like Dan 7.9; Joel 2.3, 30; Mal 4.1 and 2 Thess 1.7 where this Day is associated with fire. But nowhere it is said that the Last Day ‘will be revealed’. The passive of the verb ἀποκαλύπτειν does not seem to go with ‘the Day’ (ἡ ἡμέρα…) in Greek. Consequently, it is more likely that τò ἔργον is the intended subject; so e.g. Bachmann, Ph., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (3rd ed.; Leipzig/Erlangen: Deichertsche, 1921) 164Google Scholar; Parry, R. St John, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Cambridge: University, 1916) 66Google Scholar (but see 67!); Ph. Vielhauer, Oikodome, 77. First, because it fits the context where ‘the disclosure of each one's works’ is mentioned; second, because it goes well with the item that even secret deeds and thoughts will become manifest on the Day of Judgment (see above; for ἀποκαλύπτειν associated with ‘secrets’, cf. Sir 1.30, ἀποποκαλύψει κύριος τὰ κύριος τὰ κρνπτος σον Luke 12.2); thirdly, because ἀποκαλύπτειν does go with ἀργον: see e.g. Sir 11.27, ἐν συντελείᾳ ἀνθρώπουἀποκἁλυψις ἔρλων αὐτοῦ; and finally, since redundancy is not foreign to Paul's style (see e.g. Rom 7.14–25; Gal 2.16), a supposed tautology in v. 13, an argument often put forward by the advocates of ‘the Day’ as subject, is certainly not a decisive point against ἔργον as subject. Quite the contrary!

³² For δοκιμάζειν in this context, see above (and n. 22).

³³ That is, ‘remains as it was’, ‘stands’, over against ‘is burned up’ in v. 15. Cf. Hermas Vis. 4.3.4, ‘The golden part is you, who have fled from this world, for even as gold is tried in the fire and becomes valuable, so also you who live among them, are being tried. Those then who remain (μείναντες) and pass through the flames shall be purified by them …’ (tr. Kirsopp Lake, ed. Loeb); and Didache 16.5.

³⁴ Μισθòν λήμψεται (cf. v. 8), which is here, of course, meant in a strictly positive sense: the church-builder, whose work survives, will be rewarded. The nature of the reward(s), which is obviously not eternal salvation as such, is not made explicit, but it seems clear that Paul anticipates some special joy for faithful missionaries. Cf. also W. Pesch, Sonderlohn, passim; D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 182.

³⁵ Ζημιωθήσεται, which means either ‘he will suffer loss’, that is, he will lose the reward, whatever that will be, or ‘he will be fined’, he will pay the penalty. Both interpretations have their pros and cons, but the latter is, in my opinion, to be preferred, as it is more suitable to the immediate context. For this rendering is the exact opposite of μισθòν λήμψεται, ‘will be rewarded’. Besides, ‘… will be fined’, which of course does not refer to a loss of salvation, but nevertheless sounds quite threatening, fits in very well with the following ‘but he himself will be saved, but only as through fire’. And finally, the statement ‘is in complete harmony with the payment policy found in many of the secular contracts relating to temple construction’, as Shanor, J. pointed out in the article ‘Paul as Master Builder. Construction Terms in First Corinthians’, NTS 34 (1988) 461–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 470. That Paul did not elaborate upon the nature of the fine(s) is not strange: neither did he in the case of the nature of the reward(s). For a discussion on the meaning of ζημιοῦν, see also W.-H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 172 n. 53; D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 182–3; W. Schrage, Korinther, 303.

³⁶ Σωθήσεαι. Since Paul is referring to God's judgment on the Last Day, the verb must be understood soteriologically. Paul speaks of the final salvation and not just of a narrow escape.

³⁷ Cf. e.g. Isa 66.15–16; Jub 9.15; SibOr 3.72–4; Matt 3.10. See further esp. D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 180 n. 155.

³⁸ Since v. 13c does not speak of fire as an instrument of God's punishing judgment, there is not a shift from theophany in v. 13c to testing in vv. 13d-15a (see also above and n. 31). Neither does Paul speak of the purging fire of purgatory or the fire of hell, which were opinions advocated by a number of early Christian and mediaeval church Fathers and theologians; cf. Gnilka, J., Ist 1 Kor 3,10–15 ein Schriftzeugnis für das Fegfeuer? Eine exegetisch-historische Untersuchung (Düsseldorf: Triltsch, 1955)Google Scholar; D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 180–1 n. 157–8.

³⁹ See esp. Fishburne, C. W., ‘I Corinthians III. 10–15 and the Testament of Abraham’, NTS 17 (1969–1970) 109–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He was not the first to mention this parallel in connection with 1 Cor 3. In note 2 on p. 109 he refers to J. Héring who brought up the TAb passage in his The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (1962). Earlier, however, J. Weiss did the same in his Korintherbrief.

⁴⁰ C. W. Fishburne thinks it does and he tries to prove Paul's dependence on TAb. His argumentation, however, is far from convincing, apart from the fact that it is quite unlikely ‘that T. Abraham was written and circulated early enough to have been known by Paul' (D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 91). One example may suffice here. On p. 112 he assumes that in 1 Cor 2.9 Paul ‘is quoting rather freely from the Isaianic passages mentioned (i.e. Isa 64.4 and 65.17)’. As to the words ποῖς ὰγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, which are not found in the Isaianic passages (ποῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν), he believes that Paul was dependent on TAb 3.3, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, who is summoning him (Abraham) to those who love him (ποῖς ὰγαπῶσιν αὐτόν).’ It is, however, far more probable that Paul did not quote freely from Isaiah, but joined an apocalyptic tradition found in a number of Jewish and Christian writings, a more or less fixed unity that could be altered, shortened or amplified according to the literary needs of each individual author. Cf. also Berger, K, ‘Zur Diskussion über die Herkunft von I Kor. II. 9’, NTS 24 (1977–1978) 270–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar. D. W. Kuck wants to explain the close verbal resemblances between vv. 13–15 and TAb 13.11–13 by ‘the activity of Christian scribes who reworked the text of the Testament of Abraham under the influence of their familiarity with 1 Cor 3’ (Judgment, 184; cf. 9; and cf. E. P. Sanders, OTPseud, 889). But such an influence on a scribe of TAb remains, though possible, highly speculative.

⁴¹ W. Radl, Ankunft, 101–2, thinks that both texts present the same traditional topoi. He is of the opinion that Paul and the unknown author of TAb were familiar with an existing scheme (‘ein vorgegebenes Schema’) that ran something like:

έκάστο τò ἔργον τò πῦρ δοκιμάσει

εἴ τινος εργον μενει, μισθον λημψεται

εἴ τινος τò ἔργον κατακαήσεται, ζημιωθήσεται.

But the verbal similarities between both texts do not necessarily point to a common (written) scheme, nor do the two εἴ τις (τινος) phrases, which are regular ‘Sätze heiligen Rechts’ (cf. Käsemann, E., ‘Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament’, NTS 1 [1954–5] 248–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berger, K., ‘Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts’, NTS 17 [1970–1971] 10–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Die sog. “Sätze heiligen Rechts” im N.T.’, Theol. Zeitschrift 28 [1972] 305–30)Google Scholar. R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 260–2, assumes an originally Persian tradition adopted by Paul and the author of TAb. The assumption is, however, based on no more than one piece of literature, viz., the Oracle of Hystaspes as found in Lactantius, Inst. Div. 7.21 (on this text, see below). Unfortunately, Heiligenthal has not examined the tradition behind 1 Cor and TAb more thoroughly.

⁴² On this story, see esp. Haag, E., ‘Die drei Männer im Feuer nach Dan 3:1–30’, Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie, ed. J. W. van, Henten together with Dehandschutter, B. A. G. M. and Klaauw, H. J. W. van der (Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1989) 20–50Google Scholar; and U. Kellermann, ‘Das Danielbuch und die Märtyrertheologie der Auferstehung’, ibidem, 54–7.

⁴³ Cf. PssSol 13.6, ὅτι δεινὴ ἡ καταστροφἡ τοῦ άμαρτωλοῦ, καì ου οῦδὲν ἐκ πάντων τούτων. These texts, particularly Dan 3.50, 94 LXX, explain the use of ἃπτεσθαι in TAb 13.13. Cf. also Mart. Polyc. 15–16: when Polycarp has been condemned to the stake and the men in charge of the fire start to light it, ‘those of us to whom it was given to see beheld a miracle … For the flames, bellying out like a ship's sail in the wind, formed into the shape of a vault and thus surrounded the martyr's body as with a wall. And he was within it not as burning flesh but rather as bread being baked, or like gold and silver being purified in a smelting-furnace … At last when these vicious men realized that his body could not be consumed by the fire (μὴ δυνάμενον αὐτοῦ τò σῶμα ὑπò τοῦ πυρòς δαπανηθῆναι) …’ (tr. Musurillo, H., The Acts of the Christian Martyrs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972])Google Scholar; and Mart. Pionii 22; The Legend of Paese and Thekla, in Till, W., Koptische Heiligen- und Martyrer-legenden (2 vols.; Roma: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1935–1936) 1Google Scholar.77–80 (text), 89–90 (tr.).On the influence of Dan 3 on martyrdom literature see U. Kellermann, Danielbuch, 51–9.

⁴⁴ See also SibOr 8.411; ApPet 6. In 2Bar 48.39, the fire seems to be a punishment rather than a means of testing people (sinners). The idea of a (river of) fire testing men in order to distinguish the good from the bad seems to derive from Persian belief. See on this esp. F. Lang, ThWNT 6.932–3 and R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 262.

⁴⁵ Cf. R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 248.

⁴⁶ Cf. e.g. 4Ezra 7.35 (see above) and see R. Heiligenthal, Werke, esp. 234–48.

⁴⁷ See e.g. 4Ezra 3.34; lEn 41.1; 2En 52.15. The motif of a balance in Jewish and Christian judgment scenes – another element to underline God's impartiality and objectivity -derives from the Jewish-Christian Umwelt, this time from the Egyptian culture and literature: see R. Heiligenthal, Werke, 253–60.

⁴⁸ Ώς διὰ πυρός. Cf. Amos 4.11; Zech 3.2; and 1 Pet 3.20, ‘… the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water (διεσώθησαν δι' ὓδατος)’ (RSV) (on this text, see Cook, D., ‘I Peter iii.20: An Unnecessary Problem’, JTS n.s. 31 [1980] 72–8)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also W. Schrage, Korinther, 304, ‘Gemeint ist also: Wie ein angekohltes Holzscheit gerade noch aus dem Feuer gerissen wird, so wird mit knapper Not auch der gerettet werden, dessen Werk verbrennt. Dieser Vergleich ist durch das Bild vom Feuer nahegelegt’; W. Radl, Ankunft, 105, ‘Es liegt vielmehr eine Redensart vor, und diese umschreibt das knappe Davonkommen’; and D. W. Kuck, Judgment, 183, ‘the phrase pictures the unexpected and narrow escape of those whose works will not stand up to the fiery test’.

⁴⁹ See also n. 38.

⁵⁰ On the opposition of φθείρεν and οίκοδομεîν in this context, see B. Gärtner, Temple, 59–60 and I. Kitzberger, Bau der Gemeinde, 68–9.