1 Corinthians 1:23-25 is a fascinating passage in which the apostle Paul speaks about how the Gospel of Messiah Yeshua and His crucifixion has been perceived by the unbelieving Jew and Gentile, those to whom the gospel is intended. The nature of these phrases and why they pertain specifically to each ethnic group is important to understand not only for context, but for its theological implications in understanding how the gospel is received. In understanding the good news that they opposed and the historical, social, and theological background of the phraseology “stumbling block” and “foolishness,” we better understand the gravity of what Paul was stating and the importance of overcoming the barrier that would lead them to salvation.

Stumbling Block to the Religious Jew

The notion of a crucified Messiah was a stumbling concept to the Jew. In 1 Corinthians 1:23-25, the apostle notes that the notion of Yeshua crucified, the Messiah undergoing crucifixion as a sacrificial and suffering servant, is a “stumbling block”. This language echoes Leviticus 19:14, which states: 

You shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.

To the religious Jew, those who have not accepted the Trinitarian understanding of יהוה are spiritually blind, and Yeshua as God the Son fulfilling the promised Messiah does not make theological sense; to affirm that would be to validate a “stumbling block” which would be sinful. To the religious Jew, they were not expecting a Messiah who would willingly die for sinners but rather, punish sins as a kingly warrior. They did not differentiate between the First and Second Coming of Christ, but rather, of two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph (the one who would suffer) and the Messiah ben David (the one who would serve). This theological interpretation was conceived from an incorrectly assumed contradiction from Zechariah 9 and 14 (cf. Testament of Simon 7.2; Rule of the Community 1QS 9.10-11; Sanhedrin 98a).

Furthermore, it is interesting that the above verse from Leviticus connects this all to a “curse.” This aligns with Deuteronomy 21:23, which teaches the “corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land.” It is this same verse the apostle Paul cites in Galatians 3:13 and he interprets this in a positive manner, in that Messiah, who being sinless, paid for our sins, and justified us. Hence, to the religious Jew, Yeshua as Messiah (the Son of God) is a stumbling block and curse while to Paul and believers past and present, Yeshua is a foundation stone (1 Corinthians 3:11) and a willing curse (cf. Galatians 3:13 cf. Didache 16:12). A crucified Messiah, was a dead Messiah, and the Jews were anticipating a holy reign that would physically – rather than spiritually – conquer their enemies, who at the time, was the oppressive Roman Empire and who had previously been the Greeks through the spectre of Hellenism. If the Messiah was indeed divine, rabbinical Judaism could not imagine Him dying.

The notion of a resurrected Messiah was a stumbling concept to the Jew. Jewish religious belief in the resurrection varies, from affirmation (Daniel 12:2-3) to rejection (Mark 12:8; Acts 23:8). It is evidenced in Scripture that the Jews demanded sigs of the Messiah (Matthew 12:38-39; 16:1-4; Mark 8:11-13; Luke 11:15-20; John 6:26-29, 30-34), but the sign of resurrection would be a theological conundrum to them; it would mean that He would die and that equalled failure. Even though they had witnessed Yeshua perform miracles, it was not the type they wanted, they needed, to affirm His messiahship. What is particularly interesting about the phrasing of 1 Corinthians 1:22 though, is that the Jew “asked” while the Greek “sought.” Godet notes that the former is the miraculous received from God, while the latter is discovered by labour:

It is obvious in this description of the ancient world, from the religious standpoint, the figure of the Jew is placed only for the sake of contrast; the Greeks are and remain, according to the context, the principal figure. It is always wisdom contrasted with the fact of salvation.

It could be contended though, that having been exposed to the revelation of יהוה, the religious Jew should have been more aware and therefore, more likely to receive stricter judgement than the Greek, who knew no better in their human ignorance.

Foolishness to the Religious Greek

Foolishness is a common theme throughout Scripture. Those that are foolish undisciplined in wisdom (Proverbs 19:3), amoral (Psalm 14:1), and sinful (Proverbs 24:9). This characteristic was a hallmark of the Greek, who has a theological disposition towards idols (Acts 17:16), responded with derision the notion of religious worldviews incompatible with their own (Acts 17:16-34), in addition to being inconsistent with their own worldview (cf. Acts 17:18). Thiers was a human wisdom, not divine. A worldly wisdom that has always been (Isaiah 10:12-14, 29:14) and will continue to thrive. As MacArthur notes,

The Greeks… wanted intellectual proof, something they could mull over, and figure out with their own minds. They… were insincere. As Paul had discovered in Athens, the Greek philosophers there were not interested in discovering truth, especially not truth about God. They were interested only in hearing and arguing about exciting new ideas and problems (Acts 17:21). They had no interest in seeking out eternal truth to believe and accept and follow. The wisdom they sought was not divine or eternal wisdom, but human and temporary wisdom. The wisdom they sought, as illustrated by the Athenian philosophers, was not divine truth but intellectual novelty… The idea of the incarnation, not to mention the crucifixion [and resurrection], was utter folly to Greek thinking.

Pride and the absence of humility had the Greek declaring that they knew what was right and rational. Yet the greater the human wisdom, the greater the foolishness before their Creator.

The notion of a crucified Messiah was a foolish concept to the Greek. Regarding crucifixion, the Greeks did not consider it as a form of physical punishment to be judicially considered and references to it range from commentary (Herodotus Histories 9.120-122; Polybius Histories 1:86) to empty threats (Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations 1.43). It was abhorrent and cruel and associated only with slaves, thieves, or enemies of the state. For a saviour to suffer such a fate, would be perceived as absurdity or failure in the eyes of the Greek. Noble deaths, whether by the hand of another or one’s self, was acceptable. To die in a demeaning manner and willingly so, was contrary to all the principles they upheld.

The notion of a resurrected Messiah was a foolish concept to the Greek. Scant Greek views of resurrection are identified from their mythology (e.g., Aeschylus’ Eumenides 647-648; Pythian Ode 9.137) but not their philosophers. Most Greeks rejected such a notion outright (Minucius Felix’s Octavius 11.2-4). Wright summarise the Greek philosophical outlook on the concept when he writes “[a]t no point in the spectrum of options about life after death did the ancient pagan world envisage that the denials of Homer, Aeschylus and the rest would be overthrown… [r]esurrection was not an option… [for t]hose who followed Plato or Cicero did not want a body again; those who followed Homer knew they would not get one.” As such, resurrection was not a widely held view of the afterlife, for most envisioned one remaining a spirit, transition to a star, or one could potentially be deified. Interestingly, though, Justin Martyr appealed to resurrection in 1 Apology 21 by making a connection to myths of resurrection and the historical resurrection of the Messiah. The flesh was the abode, even prison, of the material and physical realm; that in death, to return to it or be given a new one, would be countercultural.

Conclusion

The gospel of Messiah, prophesied in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15), introduced through the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:9-14), and realised in the First Coming of Yeshua, is to be proclaimed to all the nations, to the Jews in Israel and the Gentiles beyond. The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, revealed that which stood between them and the salvation of יהוה. To the Jew, it was their theological misinterpretation of Yeshua and His death as a “stumbling block” and to the Greek, their philosophical misinterpretation of Yeshua and His death as “foolishness.” In better understanding these phrases, both origin and nature, we can understand why Paul used them and how to better engage with those today who mirror the same claims concerning the only way, the only truth, and the only saving life that is found in the crucified Messiah who was resurrected forevermore. 

Bibliography

Godet, Frédéric Louis. Commentary on First Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977.

Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3rd rev. 

edn. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

MacArthur, John. 1 Corinthians – The Macarthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago, IL: 

Moody Publishers, 1984.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. London, UK: Fortress Press, 2003.