The southern part of Greece is joined to the rest of the country by a narrow strip of land. Corinth was situated on the southwest end of this isthmus. It controlled the port of Leohaion to the west on the Gulf of Corinth and Cenchreae to the east on the Saronic Gulf. Goods from east and west were transported   across the isthmus (nearly 4 miles across).

The city had been destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C. but had been refounded in 46 B.C. by Julius Caesar who settled veteran soldiers, Italian freedmen, and dispossessed Greeks there. As a center of trade it attracted people of all races and was a highly cosmopolitan city.

Archaeologists have discovered the remains of a temple to Apollo and one for Asclepius, the god of healing, as well as temples to Egyptian, Phrygian, and Syrian deities. On top of the hill around which the city was built was a temple to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and about a thousand ritual prostitutes are alleged to have served in this temple. The moral reputation of old Corinth was very low-“to Corinthianize” meant to live in a dissolute manner—and probably the new Corinth was no better. This illuminates Paul’s “Neither the immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. . .” (6:10-11).^[1]In sections I to X, most references to 1 Corinthians will not be accompanied by 1 Cor. but will indicate only the chapter and verse.

The emperor Augustus made Corinth the capital of Achaia (most of Greece) and the seat of the Roman proconsul in 27 B.C. Archaeologists have discovered the bema (judgment seat) near the center of the market place, almost certainly the place where Gallia gave a favorable verdict for Paul against his Jewish accusers according to Acts 18:12-16.

Two further archaeological finds are of interest: a block of marble with an inscription “Synagogue of the Hebrews” and an inscription mentioning the word for market place which Paul also employs at 10:25.

 

II

Paul was the founder of the church at Corinth. In the course of the letter he shows, in varying ways and pictures, this fact and the unique relationship which therefore   existed between him and the church. They may have numerous guides but only one father—he gave birth to them through his preaching (4:14-15), and so he has the right to admonish them as his beloved children (4:1-15). He planted, while Apollos watered, but God alone ensured their growth (3:6). He as a master builder laid the foundation (3:10). If others challenged his right to be an apostle, the Corinthians cannot, for they, by their very existence, are a “seal” on his apostleship (9:1-2). He came to the city and preached “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” He did not rely on current rhetorical skills and devices nor did he deck out his message with a veneer of sophistication. His message demonstrated, in contrast to human techniques, the power of God’s Spirit. Paul preferred that his converts’ faith should rest on God’s power, not human wisdom. So Paul described his initial visit in 2:1-5.

The description in Acts 18:1-18 does not really add a great deal. According to Luke this initial visit lasted eighteen months and followed the pattern of commencing in the synagogue. Paul converted the leader of the synagogue, Crispus (Paul baptized Crispus, I Cor. 1:14), but because of Jewish opposition withdrew and lodged with a Gentile god-fearer, Titius Justus.

Luke’s reference to Gallia is, however, extraordinarily valuable in affording some help in dating Paul’s stay, since an inscription has been found at Delphi which shows that Gallia was proconsul of Achaia   in A.D. 52. A proconsul had a one or two-year term of office. Gallia may therefore   have held office A.D. 51 July to A.D. 52 July. Paul appeared before him sometime within these twelve months and may therefore have started his work in Corinth in A.D. 50.

Some time after Paul left, Apollos visited the church at Corinth (Acts 18: 27-28; I Car. 3:5-6) and made a big impact, sufficient to attract the affection and support of many (1:12). It is also possible, but by no means certain, that Peter also visited Corinth (he figures in the party slogans of 1:12 but not in the discussion of those who worked at Corinth in chaps. 3-4).

 

III

Although Paul says that “not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many powerful, not many of noble birth” (1:26), he implies that some fell into these categories. This is supported by the   evidence   of the letter which shows that at the church meal the wealthier members were eating and drinking before the poorer members arrived (11:22); it was probably the more educated to whom the idea of wisdom appealed (chaps. 1-2) ; probably those most likely to attend pagan religious rites (8:10; 10:14-22) would be those who held public office or had professional duties, while it would be mainly the wealthy who would have more social contacts with pagans (10:27). It may be too that it was the wealthier members who resorted to litigation (6:1-11). Of individuals mentioned Caius (1:14) was wealthy enough to own a house of sufficient size for the church to meet there, and he acted as Paul’s host (Rom. 16:23); Erastus was a financial officer of the city (Rom. 16:23); Stephanas’ household had time to serve the church, and Stephanas had visited Paul at Ephesus (16:15-17). Crispus, the ex-Synagogue leader (Acts 18:8), would also probably be a man of some wealth, since that office was more likely to be given to the wealthier than poorer members of the Jewish community. Titius Justus (Acts 18:7) also acted as a host to Paul.

We must not overestimate the low social standing of the members of the congregation. Some were clearly wealthy and influential. Occasionally socio-economic differences did obtrude themselves into church life.

 

IV

Sometime between his departure and our I Corinthians, Paul wrote a letter, now lost,^[2]Many scholars believe that in 2 Cor. 6:14 to 7:1, we have a fragment of this. On the other hand, many commentators (C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce, G. R. Beasley-Murray) do not share this view. It should be noted that whereas 1 Cor. 5:9 specifically mentions immoral people, 2 Cor. 6:14 to 7:1 is more generally phrased and speaks of unbelievers, idols, and of moral purity. Dr. Barrett believes that the transition from 2 Cor 6:13 to 6:14, while abrupt, is by no means impossible for Paul. in which he commanded the Corinthians not to associate with immoral people (5:9), meaning immoral church members (5:10-11), but his instructions had been misinterpreted to mean that church members should withdraw from the world (5:19).

We do not know what prompted Paul to write this particular instruction. Probably Paul was stating a general truth, since the Corinthians could hardly have mistaken particular and detailed instructions about a specific church member in the way they did.

 

V

The next steps in the relations between Paul and the church were that they wrote a letter to Paul (7:1), which was possibly delivered by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16.:17). Then about the same time, members of Chloe’s household visited Paul and told him about church matters (1:11). Thus, Paul had two sources of information about the church-the official church letter and an unofficial source, Chloe’s household.

We can isolate several questions which the official church letter raised because of a recurring phrase peri de (RSV “Now concerning . . .”). Using this, we may say that the issues raised by the official church letter were:

1. Should Christian couples have sex (7:1)? Probably their letter asserted, “It is well for a husband not to touch (have sex with) his wife.”
2. Should engaged couples get married (7:25, 36)?
3. Should Christians eat meat which had been offered previously as a sacrifice to a pagan god (8:1)?
4. Should women be veiled during worship (11:5)?
5. Is speaking in tongues the foremost sign of the Spirit’s gifts (12:l; 14:6)?
6. Is it necessary to believe in the idea of the resurrection of the dead-have Christians not already entered the new life (15:12, 35)?
7. What plans does Paul have for the collection for the Jerusalem church ( 16:1)?
8. Will Apollos be visiting Corinth again (16:12)?

Some of these reflect issues which a Christian community in a predominantly pagan society faced (3); they reveal a young church trying to work out Christian freedom (4) or to interpret the implications of its new-found faith (1, 2, 5, 6). Others reflect tension between some of the Corinthians and Paul (7, 8). That there had been some criticism of Paul seems certain from the passionate way in which he defends himself in chap. 9 (e.g., vv. 3, 12, 15), which at first sight may seem a digression, but which is germane (if not central) to the point. If Paul was willing to curb his freedom (8:13), some might have queried his apostleship. We have here more than a hint of a difference between some, at least, of the Corinthians and Paul on the role and conduct of an apostle, which comes out into the open in II Corinthians.

 

VI

Presumably from Chloe’s dependents Paul learned that there were also: divisions in the fellowship, centering upon personalities (1:10-12); divisions at the Lord’s Supper reflecting social and economic differences in the community (11:17-34); a case of a man living with (probably) his step-mother, and the offender had not been disciplined (5:1-2); and lawsuits among the church members (6:1-8).

 

VII

We detect an undercurrent of spiritual arrogance on the part of some of the Corinthians: they vaunted the gift of speaking with tongues and their freedom to eat what they liked and to set aside customs like the veiling of women. They were spiritual supermen capable of abstaining from sex in marriage. They were guilty of an unloving and uncaring attitude which looked down on those who did not speak with tongues or feel bound by food laws. They felt little or no concern for the poor members of their fellowship. Evidently some of these views could go hand in hand with membership of a wealthy, socially influential class of society. These views could afford a theological justification of continuing to mix freely in pagan society, hold public office, and participate in pagan rites at public festivities and ceremonies. Some wealthy Christians, used to socially homogeneous club life, might not immediately adapt themselves to the ideals of brotherhood in the Christian communities.

Some at Corinth thought that they were already enjoying the kingdom of God (4:8) and the sacraments automatically guaranteed eternal life (the implication of 10:1-13; cf.15:29 with the reference to baptism on behalf of the dead-perhaps someone had died before being baptized and someone else was baptized vicariously on their behalf). Some thought that they possessed spiritual wisdom (note how often “wisdom” occurs in chaps. 1-3) and were receiving in the gift of speaking with tongues-the highest form of inspiration by the Spirit. Sure of their spiritual position, they felt that they could act in a way which Paul deemed not merely unwise (6:12) but also positively dangerous both for them (e.g., 7:5; 10:12) and for others whose faith they might help to destroy (e.g., 8:9, 11-13).

 

VIII

We may identify this spiritual arrogance with the “Christ group” (1:12). The “Cephas group” were probably Jewish Christians (conservative in keeping the food laws and on women being veiled in worship). They might have revered Peter as the leader of Jesus’ earthly companions. That he actually visited Corinth is not demanded by anything that Paul actually writes in I Cor. 1-3, though 9:5 shows that Peter was an itinerant missionary. The fact that Paul mentions him might point to his having been at Corinth.

It is more difficult to be sure of the nature of Apollos’ ministry. Paul mentions him with appreciation (3:5-6; 4:6). If as Acts suggests, he was an eloquent preacher he may have appealed to some in the Corinthian church who wanted to hear him again (16:12). Some scholars believe that he stressed the idea of wisdom, but this is only conjecture, though reasonable (his Alexandrine origin is however not sufficient proof). Theologically Paul and Apollos may have been fundamentally at one (3:5) but the latter may have deemed it better if he did not return (16:12 ), lest his presence exacerbate existing divisions within the church (1:12). Paul acknowledged that he himself was not a powerful speaker (see a criticism of him on this score at II Cor. 10:10 which he does not deny; cf. I Cor. 2:1-5).

 

IX

How did Paul react to the situation? The first part of the letter-written either late 53 or early 54, thus allowing for a period back in Antioch and a journey to Ephesus and a ministry there (Acts 19:lff.), from where he wrote (I Cor. 16:8, 19)-deals with problems of which Paul had learned from Chloe’s people. 1:10 to 4:21 deals with the problem of divisions within the church and the proper attitude to Christian leaders (see especially 1:11-15; 3:1 to 4:6). Paul included an extended treatment of wisdom, true and false (1:18 to 2:16). One of the senses of wisdom which Paul rejects is that of cleverness of skill in disputation, the use of oratorical techniques (which the Greek Sophists taught for their livelihood). This meaning can be seen at 1:17 to 2:1 where Paul says that he refused to rely on such methods. Then there is another sense of wisdom which Paul rejects-the wisdom of this world or age (1:20-21; 2:5, 13; 3:19), though he does not fully elucidate what he means. Negatively it does not center on Christ crucified. It believes that it has within itself the ability to achieve and understand the truth, to penetrate to ultimate reality.

Over against these “bad” senses of wisdom, there stands God’s wisdom, his saving plan and activity, revealed and demonstrated in Christ crucified (1:21-23). Therefore for the believer wisdom is one of the blessings of salvation (1:24, 30; 2:6-19). Basically for Paul divine wisdom is God’s plan of salvation centered on the cross (1:17-18) and   the   blessings which flow from Christ crucified. It is therefore contained in the word of the cross. Chap. 5 touches on the question of the man living with his step-mother and insists on his excommunication to preserve the purity of the church. 6:1-11 handles the issue of litigation   among   church   members. Paul disapproves of such steps and believes that there ought to be church members wise enough to adjudicate in such disputes. He also raises the deeper implications of their quarrels—a failure in fellowship and a failure in the capacity to receive wrong without retaliation.

(Perhaps Paul deferred treating the question of the Lord’s Supper in order, to handle matters pertaining to worship in one block, in chaps. 11-14).

The section 6: 12-20 constitutes a kind of transition from dealing with issues learned unofficially to dealing with those raised by the official letter (7:1), and, since it deals with sexual matters, affords an easy transition into the questions handled in chap 7. Within 6: 12-20 we meet a phenomenon characteristic of certain parts of chaps. 7-16, viz, that Paul appears to quote from the official letter. The RSV and most modern translations put these passages in inverted commas. It must be stressed for the Greekless reader that there were no such devices in the Greek language used by Paul. What these modern translations are doing is registering a more or less agreed consensus of scholarly opinion that Paul is picking up what the Corinthians had said. Thus, in 6:12ff., the Corinthians appear to have   said:   “All   things   are   lawful for   (us)” (v. 12) and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food” (v. 13). The implication would be that the sexual organs are for sex when a person feels the urge. Paul roundly condemns such a view in v. 13b, “But the body is not for fornication but for the Lord.”

It might surprise us that the Corinthians’ claim to be Christians could be so deficient in ethical implications as to suggest that they might do anything they liked in the body and that it would have no spiritual consequences. However, if some Corinthians had been used to a low view of the material world before their conversion, they might interpret the idea of salvation in terms of freedom from the material, transient world. One possible corollary of this could be that conduct does not matter and a person would be free to act as he wanted without damaging his true spiritual state. (Some went in the opposite direction and embraced asceticism-see 7:lff.). For Paul the body is the temple of the Spirit, and what is done in the body must be honoring to God and in harmony with the Christian’s union with Christ-the body is for the Lord and therefore fornication should be avoided ( 6: 19, 13d, 18a). The body is the sphere in which God must be served (6:20).

Sexual matters therefore occupy much of chaps. 5 and 6 and afford a link with the topics which Paul takes up from the Corinthian letter in chap. 7.

The slogan “All things are lawful” is repeated by Paul at 10:23, again to express modified agreement and to introduce a qualification by means of the concept of “building-up.” It seems likely that Paul also quoted the words of the Corinthians in 8:1, 4: “All of us possess knowledge,” “An idol has no real existence,” and “There is no God but one.” Again there is the same kind of handling-partial agreement accompanied by modification. We may possess knowledge but knowledge inflates price. It is love which builds a person up in the Christian life (8:2). There may be truth in the assertion that an idol has no real existence but this does not mean that for Paul there were no evil powers to tempt and enslave men (see 7:5; 10:20-22) through idolatrous rites. There is indeed one God, but his one God has revealed himself through the Lord Jesus Christ supremely in the cross, and it is Christ who determines how a life pleasing to God ought to be lived (8:9-13).

 

X

From 7:1 onwards Paul answers the queries of the official letter, with the addition of the problems associated with the church meal, and the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34). We have al­ ready mentioned the recurring phrase “Now concerning . . .” (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12). There are two apparent exceptions to this, viz. 11:2-16 and 15, but 11:2 seems to be a reference to an assertion by the Corinthians, with vv. 3-16 urging his own view against a different one, while 15:12, 35 strongly suggest that the issue had been raised by the Corinthians.

In view of further articles in this issue, we will but briefly survey Paul’s answers:

(1) 7:1-24. If we are right that v. 1b is a quotation from the church letter, then Paul goes ”half way” (as it were) to this position: he permits abstinence from sex, provided that the couple agreed, they devote themselves to prayer, and the abstinence is temporary only. Other issues are dealt with in vv. 8-24 (e.g., divorce).

(2) 7:25-40. While preferring that couples should remain unmarried in the short period before the End, Paul assures those who want to get married that they will not be sinning by doing so. But the unmarried can devote all their time to the service of Christ.

(3) 8:1 to 11:1. Here Paul distinguishes three areas concerning meat offered to idols. First, meat offered in the butchers’ shops may be eaten without asking any questions (10:25-26). Second, if when invited by a pagan friend to dinner, a weaker brother tells you that the meat to be served up has been involved in sacrifice previously, then you should abstain out of respect for him and his conscience. Otherwise eat what is served up without   asking any questions (10:27-30). Third, participation in a banquet held in a pagan temple is to be avoided completely because it may result in the spiritual downfall of a weaker brother who sees you and is led by your example to act against his conscience, an action which ultimately may destroy his faith (chap. 8, especially vv. 10-13). In other words we should be prepared to surrender our liberty out of consideration for others, a step which Paul himself had taken in waiving his right, as their apostle, to be supported   financially   (chap. 9).

(4) 11:2-16. Paul maintains that women should only pray and prophesy in church (note that it is assumed that they do these things) with their heads veiled., Although in the realm of nature woman is set under man (vv. 3, 7-9), in the realm of redemption (“in the Lord” v. 10) they are mutually dependent on one another and need each other ( vv. 11-12), and therefore women should cover that sign of their subservience to man (their hair)-not to do so would dishonour their Head, Christ (v. 5a—a pun on the word “head”). The veil is their sign of authority, in Christ, to pray and prophesy.

(5) 11:17-34. Paul rebukes the wealthy for eating and drinking before the poorer members arrive and thus shaming them (vv. 21-22). Their behavior is a denial of fellowship and contradicts the nature of the Lord’s Supper (cf. also 10:16-17). They should make sure that they have taken the edge off their appetites at home so that they will not behave in an unseemly way “in church” (vv. 33-34).

(6) 12-14. The use of the picture of the body in relation to the church and treatment of love are essential background against which Paul proceeds to discuss the issue of speaking with tongues. He does not condemn the practice; indeed he himself has so spoken (vv. 4a, 5a, 18, 38); but he seeks to regulate the practice by insisting on an interpreter being present and that only two or at most three in turn should so speak (vv. 5, 13, 27-28). Paul’s preference is for prophecy since that is uttered in rational language so that others can understand and be built up in the faith (vv. 1, 3, 4b, 5, 9, 19) . He equally regulates prophesying in church (vv. 29-33). The capacity to build up is the test of any spiritual gift.

(7) 15. To deny the resurrection of the body (15:12) is in effect to deny that Christ has been raised (vv. 13, 16), with all the appalling consequence which would ensue from that (vv. 14-19), and is going back on the basic affirmation of the church’s kerygma (vv. 3-11). Paul de fends the idea of a spiritual body in vv. 36-49 and then recounts the scenario of the End (vv. 50ff.), insisting that all-dead and living alike-must be changed (vv. 51, 53).

(8) 16:1-4. Paul asks for weekly contributions as each could afford, for the Jerusalem Collection which would be delivered by church delegates, probably accompanied by himself.

(9)16:12. Apollos was not able to come for the moment.

 

XI

Paul’s relations with the church at Corinth were subsequently rather stormy and checkered. It is not easy to chart the sequence of what happened. Scholarship is divided over whether II Corinthians is a unity; whether II Cor. 10-13 was written first, then 1-9; or whether II Cor. 1-9 was written and then later 10-13. Here it will be assumed that II Corinthians is a unity.

(1) Some Jewish Christian apostles (11:13, 22)^[3]References to 2 Corinthians will be listed with just chapter and verse. arrived at Corinth, backed by letters of recommendation. They made a big impression on the majority of the congregation.

(2) Paul paid his second visit to Corinth^[4]As 12:14 and 13:1 refer to a third visit, a second one must have intervened. (promised in I Cor. 16:5-6; 4: 19): but this was by no means a happy visit, and Paul suffered some sort of rebuff (he calls it a painful visit, 2: 1). Some (unnamed) individual led an attack (2:5; 7:12), and the Corinthians do not seem to have taken Paul’s part (7:11). We may assume that this unnamed person was the leader of these Jewish-Christian apostles.

(3) Paul withdrew and left for Macedonia and Ephesus, abandoning the idea of a further visit. For this he was criticized (1:15-19).

(4) Paul wrote the “severe letter” (2:3-4, 9; 7:8)—now lost.^[5]Though some scholars identify this with 2 Cor. 10-13. This was delivered by Titus on what was Titus’ first (so 7:13-14 imply) visit. While at Corinth, Titus made a start on the Collection (8:6 refers to a beginning). (If I Corinthians was written late 53 or early 54 then this severe letter was probably composed before Pentecost 54. Cf. I Cor. 16:8 which refers to staying at Ephesus until Pentecost.) While waiting for Titus to return, Paul was very anxious indeed at Troas and Macedonia (2:12-13; 7:5), whether about the Corinthian situation or about Titus or both.

(5) Titus brought encouraging news (2:14; 7:6-16), yet not completely so. The Corinthians had rallied around Paul and had punished the leader of the attack on him (too severely in fact for Paul’s liking according to 2:6-11). Yet the false apostles were still present.

(6) Either Paul wrote II Corinthians as we have it today, around autumn 54, taking the opportunity also of urging the Corinthians to complete   the collection (chaps. 8-9) or Paul wrote II Cor. 1-9, but Titus had been overly optimistic about the situation and   Paul had to write again­ II Cor. 10-13. Eventually chaps. 1-9 and 10-13 were joined together.

As to these alternatives, it depends on whether we assume that 12:18 looks back on the mission of 8:16-23 and so is written after 8:16-23 or the brother of 12:18 ( the same as the brother of 8:22 ) also accompanied Titus when he took the severe letter and made a start to the Collection.

The advantages of taking II Corinthians as a unity are, first, we assume one flare-up of trouble and not two. The first would be when Paul was rebuffed (chaps. 1-9) and the second when the false apostles came to Corinth (chaps. 10-13). The Corinthians would be fickle indeed if after turning on the ringleader of the trouble (chaps. 2, 7) they then accepted the Jewish-Christian apostles and their criticisms of Paul (10:2, 10 etc.)! Second, we need not assume that Titus misread the situation. Rather, the continuing presence of the false apostles still posed a threat, even though their leader had been “sat upon,” and so Paul criticizes them. Third, opponents seem to be present in chaps. 1-9 (e.g., the exposition of Moses and the veil in chap. 3; the peddlers of God’s word in 2:17; 4:2; and those who have letters of recommendation in 3:1, cf. 5:12).

 

XII

So our canonical sources of Paul’s relation with Corinth end on a somewhat uncertain note. They were a troublesome church! Even when next we glimpse them-through I Clement, written ca. A.D. 96- they are still causing trouble, having deposed the duly appointed elders. This provoked the intervention of a leader of the church at Rome who reminded them of what Paul had said about the need for unity in I Corinthians!

 

Further Reading

The best commentary on I Corinthians is C. K. Barrett in the Harper’s (Black’s) New Testament Commentary. F. F. Bruce in the New Century Bible is sound but briefer than Barrett. The Broadman Bible Commentary by Raymond Bryan Brown is also good.

Interesting and stimulating monographs are J. C. Hurd, The Origin of I Corinthians; W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth; and G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Hurd’s work is a fascinating piece of detective work on the situation preceding the letter, even if not all his suggested explanations are right. Schmithals emphasizes–one-sidedly–the “gnostic” element in the dispute. Theissen explores the socio-economic factors in the church situation and sheds light on many passages by his analyses.