Corinthians, First Epistle To The

VIEW:67 DATA:01-04-2020
CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
1. Occasion of the Epistle.—Some four or five years had elapsed since St. Paul’s first evangelization of Corinth when he addressed the present Epistle to the Christians in that great centre of commerce. No doubt there had been frequent communications, especially during the Apostle’s stay in Asia, for the journey between Corinth and Ephesus was a very easy one; but the communications were probably by letter only. A former epistle is mentioned in 1Co_5:9, in which St. Paul had bidden his disciples ‘to have no company with fornicators’—advice which was no doubt considered hard to obey in the most vicious and pleasure-loving city of the world, and which to some extent is modified in the present Epistle (1Co_5:10 f.); and a letter from the Corinthians to St. Paul is the immediate object of the Apostle’s writing on the present occasion (1Co_7:1). But before answering it, he reproves the Corinthians for certain abuses which he had heard of from ‘the [household] of Chloe’ (1Co_1:11), namely, schism and party spirit, a bad case of incest, and litigiousness; for ‘they of Chloe’ seem to have been St. Paul’s informants on all these matters. Chloe was perhaps a woman of importance who carried on a trade in Corinth, as Lydia of Thyatira did at Philippi (Act_16:14). She therefore not improbably belonged to Asia Minor—the reference to her seems to imply that she was not a Corinthian,—and ‘they of Chloe’ would be her agents who passed to and fro between Ephesus and Corinth. Having reproved the Corinthians for these abuses, the Apostle answers the questions put in their letter to him, as to marriage and other social questions; perhaps also as to Christian worship, the doctrine of the Resurrection, and the collection for the poor of Judæa. We may consider these topics in order.
2. The state of the Corinthian Church.—It will be remembered that the majority of the Christians at Corinth were Gentiles, though there were some Jews among them (Rom_16:21, 1Co_7:18; 1Co_9:20; 1Co_12:13), including such influential men as Crispus (Act_18:8) and (probably) Sosthenes (Act_18:17, 1Co_1:1). It was the heathen antecedents of the Corinthians that led to most of the evils for which St. Paul rebukes them (1Co_6:11, 1Co_12:2). The Apostle, though he had not intended to stay long in Corinth when he first went there, desiring to return to Macedonia (1Th_2:18), yet, when his wish was found to be impracticable, threw himself with all his heart into the task of making heathen Corinth, the famous trade centre which lay on one of the greatest routes of communication in the Empire, into a religious centre for the spread of the gospel (cf. Act_18:5). But the difficulties were not those with which he had met in Athens, where the philosophic inhabitants derided him. At Corinth the vices of the city had lowered the tone of public opinion; and when St. Paul preached Christ crucified with all plainness of speech (1Co_1:17 ff.), many heard him gladly, but retained with their nominal Christianity their old heathen ideas on morals. He preached no longer ‘wisdom’ to the Jewish lawyer or the Greek sophist (1Co_1:20), but salvation to the plain man; the Gentiles had no sense of sin, and the preaching of a personal Saviour was to them ‘folly’ (1Co_1:23). We need not indeed suppose, as Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor VI. [i.] 98) points out, that the passage 1Co_1:26 ff. describes Corinthian Christians as distinguished from those in other places; the disciples at Corinth were not merely the ‘dregs of society,’ separated from the rest of the population, as the negro from the white man in some countries to-day. Ramsay thinks that the special work of the Church was to raise the thoughtful and educated middle classes. It certainly included men of means (1Co_11:20 ff.). Still, the upper classes and the learned were everywhere less attracted by Christianity than were the poor, with certain conspicuous exceptions, such as St. Paul himself.
It has been debated how far the Church was organized at Corinth at this time. The ministry is seldom referred to in these two Epistles; the ‘bishops and deacons’ of Php_1:1 are not mentioned; but we read of apostles, prophets, and teachers (1Co_12:28). It would, however, be unsafe to conclude that there was not a settled local ministry at Corinth. St. Paul had certainly established presbyters in every Church on his First Journey (Act_14:23), and so apparently in Asia on his Second (Act_20:17). In this Epistle the regular ministers are perhaps not explicitly mentioned, because they were the very persons who were most responsible for the disorders (Goudge, Westminster Com. p. xxxvi), while in ch. 12 the possession of ‘spiritual gifts’ is the subject of discussion, and the mention of the regular ministry would not be germane to it. A settled order of clergy is implied in 1Co_9:7; 1Co_9:12; 1Co_9:14.
3. Party Spirit at Corinth.—It is more correct to say that there were parties in the Church than that the Corinthians had made schisms. We read, not of rival organizations, but of factions in the one organization. It is noteworthy that Clement of Rome (Cor. 1, 47), writing less than 50 years later, refers to the factions prevalent at Corinth in his time. The Greeks were famous for factions; their cities could never combine together for long. In St. Paul’s time there was a Paul-party, and also an Apollos-party, a Cephas-party, and a Christ-party (1Co_1:12), though the words ‘but I [am] of Christ’ are interpreted by Estius (Com. ed. Sausen, ii. 110) and many Greek and Latin commentators, and also perhaps by Clement of Rome (see below, § 10), as being St. Paul’s own observation: ‘You make parties, taking Paul, Apollos, Cephas as leaders, but I, Paul, am no party man, I am Christ’s’ (cf. 1Co_3:23). If, however, we take the more usual interpretation that there were four parties, we may ask what lines of thought they severally represented. The Apollos-party would probably consist of those who disparaged St. Paul as not being sufficiently eloquent and philosophical (cf. 1Co_2:1; 1Co_2:13, Act_18:24, 2Co_10:10; 2Co_11:6). The Cephas-party would be the party of the circumcision, as in Galatia. At Corinth the great dispute about the Law was as yet in its infancy; it seems to have grown when 2 Corinthians was written (see § 7 (c) below). The Christ-party, it has been conjectured, was the ultra-latitudinarian party, which caricatured St. Paul’s teaching about liberty (cf. Rom_6:1); or (Alford) consisted of those who made a merit of not being attached to any human teacher, and who therefore slighted the Apostleship of St. Paul. Another view is that the Christ-party consisted of the Judaizers mentioned in 2 Co. and Gal. as denying St. Paul’s Apostleship (Goudge, p. xxi.: cf. 2Co_10:7 where St. Paul’s opponents claim to be peculiarly Christ’s); but it is not easy in that case to distinguish them from the Cephas-party. There is no sufficient reason for deducing from 1Co_1:12; 1Co_9:5 that St. Peter had visited Corinth, and that this party consisted of his personal disciples.—St. Paul, then, reproves all these parties, and most emphatically those who called themselves by his name. They were united by baptism with Christ, not with him (1Co_1:13).
4. Moral Scandals (ch. 5).—A Christian had married his (probably heathen) step-mother. Perhaps his father had been separated from her on his becoming a Christian, but (if 2Co_7:12 refers to this incident) was still alive; and the son thereupon married her. The Corinthian Church, in the low state of public opinion, did not condemn this, and did not even mention it in their letter to St. Paul. St. Paul reproves them for tolerating ‘such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles’ [the word ‘named’ of the AV [Note: Authorized Version.] text has no sufficient authority]. There is a difficulty here, for the heathen tolerated even more incestuous connexions, as between a man and his half-sister. Ramsay (Exp. VI. [i.] 110) supposes the Apostle to mean that the Roman law forbade such marriage. The Roman law of affinity was undoubtedly very strict, and Corinth, as a colony, would be familiar with Roman law; though the law was not usually put in force. The Jews strongly denounced such connexions (Amo_2:7). The Apostle says nothing of the punishment of the heathen step-mother (cf. 1Co_5:12), but the man is to be ‘delivered unto Satan’ (1Co_5:5, cf. 1Ti_1:20).
This phrase probably means simple excommunication, including the renouncing of all intercourse with the offender (cf. 5:13), though many take it to denote the infliction of some miraculous punishment, disease, or death, and deny that the offender of 2Co_2:1-17; 2Co_7:1-16 is the incestuous Corinthian of 1Co_5:1-13. Ramsay conjectures that the phrase is a Christian adaptation of a pagan idea, that a person wronged by another but unable to retaliate should consign the offender to the gods and leave punishment to he inflicted by Divine power; Satan would be looked on as God’s instrument in punishing the offender; and the latter, being cast out of the Christian community, would be left as a prey to the devil.
5. Legal Scandals.—St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for litigiousness, 1Co_6:1-8. This passage is usually interpreted as superseding heathen imperial tribunals by voluntary Christian courts for all cases, such as the Jews often had. Ramsay (Exp. VI. [i.] 274) suggests that the Apostle, who usually treats Roman institutions with respect, is not here considering serious questions of crime and fraud at all, nor yet law courts whether heathen or Christian, but those smaller matters which Greeks were accustomed to submit to arbitration. In Roman times, as this procedure developed, the arbiters became really judges of an inferior court, recognized by the law, and the magistrates appointed them. In this view St. Paul reproves the Corinthians for taking their umpires from among the heathen instead of from among their Christian brethren.
6. Questions of Moral Sin and of Marriage (1Co_6:12 to 1Co_7:40).—Probably the passage 1Co_6:12-20 is part of the answer to the Corinthian letter. The correspondent had said, ‘All things are lawful for me.’ But all things (the Apostle replies) are not expedient. ‘Meats are for the belly, and the belly for meats’ (i.e. just as food is natural to the body, so is impurity). But both are transitory, and the body as a whole is for the Lord; in virtue of the Resurrection fornication is a serious sin, for it destroys the spiritual character of the body. True marriage is the most perfect symbol of the relation between Christ and the Church (1Co_6:15 ff.; cf. Eph_5:23 ff.). In ch. 7 the Apostle answers the Corinthians’ questions about marriage. It is usually thought that they wished to extol asceticism, basing their view on our Lord’s words in Mat_19:11 f., that they suggested that celibacy was to be strongly encouraged in all, and that the Apostle, though agreeing as an abstract principle, yet, because of imminent persecution and Jesus’ immediate return (Mat_7:26; Mat_7:29), replied that in many cases celibacy was undesirable. But Ramsay points out that such a question is unnatural to both Jews and Gentiles of that time. The better heathen tried to enforce marriage as a cure for immorality; while the Jews looked on it as an universal duty. Ramsay supposes, therefore, that the Corinthians wished to make marriage compulsory, and that St. Paul pleads for a voluntary celibacy. Against this it is urged that the Essenes (a Jewish sect) upheld non-marriage. But it is difficult to think, in view of Mat_11:11 and Eph_5:23 ff., that St. Paul held the celibate life to be essentially the higher one, and the married life only a matter of permission, a concession to weakness.—After positive commands as to divorce (1Co_7:10 ff.) the Apostle answers in 1Co_7:25 ff. another question: which would be either (see above) a suggestion that fathers should he discouraged from finding husbands for their daughters, or that they should be compelled to do so. On the latter supposition, St. Paul says that there is no obligation, and that the daughter may well remain unmarried. The subject is concluded with advice as to widows’ re-marriage.
7. Social Questions (1Co_8:1 to 1Co_11:1)
(a) Food.—Another question was whether Christians may eat meats which had previously been offered to Idols, as most of the meat sold in Corinth would have been. St. Paul’s answer is a running commentary on the Corinthians’ words (so Lock, Exp. V. [vi.] 65; Ramsay agrees): ‘We know that we all have knowledge; we are not bound by absurd ceremonial restrictions.’ Yes, but knowledge puffeth up; without love and humility it is nothing; besides not all have knowledge. ‘The false gods are really non-existent; we have but one God; as there is no such thing really as an idol we are free to eat meats offered in idol temples.’ But there are weaker brethren who would be scandalized. ‘Meat will not commend us to God: it is indifferent.’ But do not let your liberty cause others to fall (note the change of pronoun in v. 8f.).
Why is the decree of Act_15:29 not quoted? Lock suggests that it is because at Corinth there was no question between Jew and Gentile, but only between Gentile and Gentile, and Jewish opinion might be neglected. Ramsay (Exp. VI. [ii.] 375) thinks that the decree is not mentioned because it was the very subject of discussion. The Corinthians had said (he supposes): ‘Why should we be tied down by the Council’s decree here at Corinth, so long after? We know better than to suppose that a non-existent idol can taint food.’ St. Paul replies, maintaining the spirit of the decree, that offence must not be given to the weaker brethren (so Hort).
(b) Idol Feasts (1Co_8:10-13, 1Co_10:14 to 1Co_11:1).—St. Paul absolutely forbids eating at idol feasts. Probably many of the Corinthians had retained their connexion with pagan clubs. The pagan feast meant a brotherhood or special bond of union; but the two kinds of brotherhood were incompatible. A Christian who, out of complaisance, attends an idol feast, is really entering a hostile brotherhood.
(c) Digression on Forbearance (1Co_9:1 to 1Co_10:13).—St. Paul says that he habitually considers the rights of others and does not press his own rights as an Apostle to the full; he implies that the Corinthians should not press their liberty so as to scandalize others. This passage shows how little as yet the Judaizers had been at work in Corinth. St. Paul announces his position as an Apostle, and the right of the Christian minister to live of the gospel, but he will not use his rights to the full (1Co_9:18 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). He teaches self-denial and earnestness from the example of the Isthmian games (1Co_9:24 ff.), and shows that the Israelites, in spite of all their privileges, fell from lack of this self-discipline. It is noteworthy that he speaks of ‘our fathers’ (1Co_10:1). Perhaps, having addressed the Gentiles in particular in ch. 9, he now turns to the Jewish section of the Corinthian Church; he refers to a Rabbinical legend in 1Co_10:4. Or he may he considering the whole Church as being the spiritual descendants of Israel.
8. Christian Worship (1Co_11:2 to 1Co_14:40)
(a) Veiling of Women.—In reply (as it seems) to another question, St. Paul says that it is the Christian custom for men ‘praying or prophesying’ to have their heads uncovered, but for women to have theirs covered. This apparently trivial matter is an instance of the application of Christian principles to Christian ceremonial. The Jews of both sexes prayed with head covered and with a veil before the face (cf. 2Co_3:14 ff.); therefore St. Paul’s injunction does not follow Jewish custom. It is based on the subordination of the woman to the man, and is illustrated by the existence of regulated ranks among the angels; for this seems to be the meaning of 1Co_11:10.
(b) The Eucharist.—The Corinthians joined together in a social meal—somewhat later called an Agape or Love-feast—and the Eucharist, probably in imitation both of the Last Supper and of the Jewish and heathen meals taken in common. To this combination the name ‘Lord’s Supper’ (here only in NT) is given. But the party-spirit, already spoken of, showed itself in this custom; the Corinthians did not eat the Lord’s supper, but their own, because of their factions. St. Paul therefore gives the narrative of our Lord’s Institution as he himself had received it, strongly condemns those who make an unworthy communion as ‘guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,’ and inculcates preparation by self-probation.
It is chiefly this passage that has led some to think that the writer of the Epistle is quoting the Synoptic Gospels (see below, § 10); the Lukan account, as we have it in our Bibles, is very like the Pauline. But the deduction is very improbable. Even if our Lukan text is right, the result is only what we should have expected, that the companion of St. Paul has taken his master’s form of the narrative, which he would doubtless have frequently heard him use liturgically, and has incorporated it in his Gospel. As a matter of fact, however, it is not improbable that the Lukan form was really much shorter than the Pauline, and that some early scribe has lengthened it to make it fit in with 1Co_11:23 ff. (Westcott-Hort, NT in Greek, ii. Append. p. 64).
(c) Spiritual Gifts (1Co_12:1-31; 1Co_13:1-13; 1Co_14:1-40).—The public manifestation of the presence of the Spirit known as ‘speaking with tongues’ (see art. Tongues [Gift of]), seems to have been very common at Corinth. After the magnificent digression of ch. 13, which shows that of all spiritual gifts love is the greatest, that it alone is eternal, that without it all other gifts are useless, St. Paul applies the principle that spiritual gifts are means to an end, not an end in themselves; and he therefore upholds ‘prophecy’ (i.e., in this connexion, the interpretation of Scripture and of Christian doctrine) as superior to speaking with tongues, because it edifies all present. He says, further, that women are to keep silence (i.e. not to prophesy?) in the public assemblies (1Co_14:34 f., cf. 1Ti_2:12). In 1Co_11:5 (Cf. Act_21:9) some women are said to have had the gift of prophecy; so that we must understand that they were allowed to exercise it only among women, or in their own households. But possibly the Apostle has chiefly in his mind questions asked by women in the public assemblies (cf. 1Co_14:35).
9. The Resurrection of the Body (1Co_15:1-58).—This, the only doctrinal chapter of the Epistle, contains also the earliest evidence for our Lord’s resurrection. Apparently the Gentile converts at Corinth felt a great difficulty in accepting the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; it appeared to them too material a doctrine to he true (1Co_15:12, cf. 2Ti_2:18). St. Paul replies that Christ has risen, as many still alive can testify, and that therefore the dead will rise. For his treatment of the subject see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 10, The Corinthian scepticism does not seem to have died out at the end of the century, for Clement of Rome, writing to Corinth, strongly emphasizes the doctrine (Cor. 24f.).
St. Paul concludes the Epistle with directions about the regular collecting of alms for the poor Christians of Judæa, and with personal notices and salutations.
10. Date and genuineness of the Epistle.—It is referred to as St. Paul’s by Clement of Rome, c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 95 (Cor. 47), who speaks of the parties of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, but omits the Christ-party (see above § 3); we cannot infer from his phrase ‘the Epistle of the blessed Paul’ that he knew only one Epistle to the Corinthians, as early usage shows (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 143). There are other clear allusions in Clement. Ignatius (Eph. 18f.) refers to 1Co_1:20; 1Co_1:23 f., 1Co_4:13 and probably 1Co_2:6; Polycarp (§ 11) quotes 1Co_6:2 as Paul’s; references are found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in Justin Martyr, and in the Epistle to Diognetus; while Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian at the end of the 2nd cent. quote the Epistle fully. Of the 2nd cent. heretics the Ophites and Basilides certainly knew it. Internal evidence fully hears out the external; no Epistle shows more clearly the mark of originality; and the undesigned coincidences between it and Acts, which Paley draws out, point in the same direction. It is in fact one of the four ‘generally accepted’ Epistles of St. Paul. See art. Paul the Apostle, i. 2, for the general arguments adduced against their genuineness. Against that of our Epistle in particular it has been alleged that it is dependent on Romans—thus, 1Co_4:6 (‘the things which are written’) is said to be a quotation of Rom_12:3, surely a most fanciful idea—and on the Synoptic Gospels, especially in two particulars, the account of the Last Supper (see § 8 (b) above), and that of the Resurrection appearances of our Lord (1Co_15:4 ff.). The real problem of the latter passage, however (as Goudge remarks, p. xxvii.), is not to account for the extent to which it runs parallel with the Gospels, but to explain why it does not run more nearly parallel with them. Few will he convinced by a criticism which practically assumes that a Christian writer of the 1st cent. could only know the facts of our Lord’s earthly life from our Gospels. We may then take the genuineness of the Epistle as being unassailable.
If so, what is its date? Relatively to the rest of the Pauline chronology, it may he approximately fixed. In the year of his arrest at Jerusalem, St. Paul left Corinth in the early spring, after spending three months there (Act_20:3; Act_20:6). He must therefore have arrived there in late autumn or early winter. This seems to have been the visit to Corinth promised in 2Co_13:1, which was the third visit. Two visits in all must have therefore preceded 2 Cor. (some think also 1 Cor.), and in any case an interval of some months between the two Epistles must be allowed for. In 1Co_16:6 the Apostle had announced his intention of wintering in Corinth, and it is possible that the visit of Act_20:3 is the fulfilment of this intention, though St. Paul certainly did not carry out all his plans at this time (2Co_1:15 f., 2Co_1:23). If so, 1 Cor. would have been written from Ephesus in the spring of the year before St. Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem.
This date is favoured by the allusion of 5:7f., which suggests to many commentators that the Easter festival was being, or about to he, celebrated when St. Paul wrote. It is a little doubtful, however, whether the Gentile churches kept the annual as well as the weekly feast of the Resurrection at this early date; see art. ‘Calendar, The Christian,’ in Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] i. 256.
Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. p. 275) thinks that we must date our Epistle some six months earlier, in the second autumn before St. Paul’s arrest. The events alluded to in 2 Cor. require a long interval between the Epistles. Moreover, the Corinthians had begun the collection for the poor Jews ‘a year ago’ when St. Paul wrote 2 Cor. (2Co_8:10; 2Co_9:2), and it seems, therefore, that at least a year must have elapsed since the injunction of 1Co_16:1. It is suggested, however, that we should rather translate the phrase ‘last year,’ and that to one who used the Macedonian calendar, and who wrote in the autumn, ‘last spring’ would also be ‘last year,’ for the new year began in September. On the whole, however, the argument about the Easter festival seems to be precarious, and the conditions are probably better satisfied if a longer interval be allowed, and the First Epistle put about 18 months before St. Paul’s arrest. The absolute, as opposed to the relative, date will depend on our view of the rival schemes given in art. Chronology of the NT, § iii.
A. J. Maclean.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909


kō̇-rin?thi-anz:
I. Authenticity of the Two Epistles
1. External Evidence
2. Internal Evidence
3. Consent of Criticism
4. Ultra-Radical Attack (Dutch School)
II. Text of 1 and 2 Corinthians
Integrity of 1 Corinthians
III. Paul's Previous Relations with Corinth
1. Corinth in 55 ad
2. Founding of the Church
IV. Date of the Epistle
V. Occasion of the Epistle
1. A Previous Letter
2. Letter from Corinth
VI. Contents
1. General Character
2. Order and Division
3. Outline
(1) 1 Corinthians 1 through 6
(2) 1 Corinthians 7 through 10
(3) 1 Corinthians 11 through 16
VII. Distinguishing Features
1. Party Spirit
2. Christian Conscience
3. Power of the Cross
Literature
I. Authenticity of the Two Epistles
1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans, all belong to the period of Paul's third missionary journey. They are the most remarkable of his writings, and are usually distinguished as the four great or principal epistles; a distinction which not only is a tribute to their high originality and intrinsic worth, but also indicates the extremely favorable opinion which critics of almost all schools have held regarding their authenticity. Throughout the centuries the tradition has remained practically unbroken, that they contain the very pectus Paulinum, the mind and heart of the great apostle of the Gentiles, and preserve to the church an impregnable defense of historical Christianity. What has to be said of their genuineness applies almost equally to both.
1. External Evidence
The two epistles have a conspicuous place in the most ancient lists of Pauline writings. In the Muratorian Fragment (circa 170) they stand at the head of the nine epistles addressed to churches, and are declared to have been written to forbid heretical schism (primum omnium Corinthiis schisma haeresis intredicens); and in Marcion's Apostolicon (circa 140) they stand second to Gal. They are also clearly attested in the most important writings of the subapostolic age, e.g. by Clement of Rome (circa 95), generally regarded as the friend of the apostle mentioned in Phi_4:3; Ignatius (Ad Ephes., chapter xviii, second decade of 2nd century); Polycarp (chapters ii, vi, xi, first half of 2nd century), a disciple of John; and Justin Martyr (born at close of let century); while the Gnostic Ophites (2nd century) were clearly familiar with both epistles (compare Westcott, Canon, passim, and Index II; also Charteris, Canonicity, 222-224, where most of the original passages are brought together). The witness of Clement is of the highest importance. Ere the close of the let century he himself wrote a letter to the Corinthians, in which (chapter xlvii, Lightfoot's edition, 144) he made a direct appeal to the authority of 1 Cor: ?Take up the letter of Paul the blessed apostle; what did he write to you first in the beginning of the gospel? Verily he gave you spiritual direction regarding himself, Cephas, and Apollos, for even then you were dividing yourselves into parties.? It would be impossible to desire more explicit external testimony.
2. Internal Evidence
Within themselves both epistles are replete with marks of genuineness. They are palpitating human documents, with the ring of reality from first to last. They admirably harmonize with the independent narrative of Acts; in the words of Schleiermacher (Einltg., 148), ?The whole fits together and completes itself perfectly, and yet each of the documents follows its own course, and the data contained in the one cannot be borrowed from those of the other.? Complex and difficult as the subjects and circumstances sometimes are, and varying as the moods of the writer are in dealing with them, there is a naturalness that compels assent to his good faith. The very difficulty created for a modern reader by the incomplete and allusive character of some of the references is itself a mark of genuineness rather than the opposite; just what would most likely be the ease in a free and intimate correspondence between those who understood one another in the presence of immediate facts which needed no careful particularization; but what would almost as certainly have been avoided in a fictitious composition. Indeed a modicum of literary sense suffices to forbid classification among the pseudepigrapha. To take but a few instances from many, it is impossible to read such passages as those conveying the remonstrance in 1 Cor 9, the alternations of anxiety and relief in connection with the meeting of Titus in 2 Cor 2 and 7, or the ever-memorable passage which begins at 2Co_11:24 of the same epistle: ?Of the Jews five times received I,? ere, without feeling that the hypothesis of fiction becomes an absurdity. No man ever wrote out of the heart if this writer did not. The truth is that theory of pseudonymity leaves far more difficulties behind it than any it is supposed to solve. The unknown and unnamable literary prodigy of the 2nd century, who in the most daring and artistic manner gloried in the fanciful creation of those minute and life-like details which have imprinted themselves indelibly on the memory and imagination of mankind, cannot be regarded as other than a chimera. No one knows where or when he lived, or in what shape or form. But if the writings are the undoubted rescripts of fact, to whose life and personality do they fit themselves more exquisitely than to those of the man whose name stands at their head, and whose compositions they claim to be? They suit beyond compare the apostle of the missionary journeys, the tender, eager, indomitable ?prisoner of the Lord,? and no other. No other that has even been suggested is more than the mere shadow of a name, and no two writers have as yet seriously agreed even as to the shadow. The pertinent series of questions with which Godet (Intro to New Testament; Studies on the Epistles, 305) concludes his remarks on the genuineness may well be repeated: ?What use was it to explain at length in the 2nd century a change in a plan of the journey, which, supposing it was real, had interest only for those whom the promised visit of the apostle personally concerned? When the author speaks of five hundred persons who had seen the risen Christ, of whom the most part were still alive at the time when he was writing, is he telling his readers a mere story that would resemble a bad joke? What was the use of discussing at length and giving detailed rules on the exercise of the glossolalia at a time when that gift no longer existed, so to say, in the church? Why make the apostle say: 'We who shall be alive (at the moment of the Parousia)' at a time when everyone knew that he was long dead? In fine, what church would have received without opposition into its archives, as an epistle of the apostle, half a century after his death, a letter unknown till then, and filled with reproaches most severe and humiliating to it??
3. Consent of Criticism
One is not surprised, therefore, that even the radical criticism of the 19th century cordially accepted the Corinthian epistles and their companions in the great group. The men who founded that criticism were under no conceivable constraint in such a conclusion, save the constraint of obvious and incontrovertible fact. The T?bingen school, which doubted or denied the authenticity of all the rest of the epistles, frankly acknowledged the genuineness of these. This also became the general verdict of the ?critical? school which followed that of T?bingen, and which, in many branches, has included the names of the leading German scholars to this day. F.C. Baur's language (Paul, I, 246) was: ?There has never been the slightest suspicion of unauthenticity cast on these four epistles, and they bear so incontestably the character of Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable ground for the assertion of critical doubts in their case.? Renan (St. Paul, Introduction, V) was equally emphatic: ?They are incontestable, and uncontested.?
4. Ultra-Radical Attack (Dutch School)
Reference, however, must be made to the ultra-radical attack which has gathered some adherents, especially among Dutch scholars, during the last 25 years. As early as 1792 Evanson, a retired English clergyman, rejected Rome on the ground that, according to Acts, no church existed in Rome in Paul's day. Bruno Bauer (1850-51-52) made a more sweeping attack, relegating the whole of the four principal epistles to the close of the 2nd century. His views received little attention, until, in 1886 onward, they were taken up and extended by a series of writers in Holland, Pierson and Naber, and Loman, followed rapidly by Steck of Bern, Volter of Amsterdam, and above all by Van Manen of Leyden. According to these writers, with slight modifications of view among themselves, it is very doubtful if Paul or Christ ever really existed; if they did, legend has long since made itself master of their personalities, and in every case what borders on the supernatural is to be taken as the criterion of the legendary. The epistles were written in the 1st quarter of the 2nd century, and as Paul, so far as he was known, was believed to be a reformer of anti-Judaic sympathies, he was chosen as the patron of the movement, and the writings were published in his name. The aim of the whole series was to further the interests of a supposed circle of clever and elevated men, who, partly imbued with Hebrew ideals, and partly with the speculations of Greek and Alexandrian philosophy, desired the spread of a universalistic Christianity and true Gnosis. For this end they perceived it necessary that Jewish legalism should be neutralized, and that the narrow national element should be expelled from the Messianic idea. Hence, the epistles The principles on which the main contentions of the critics are based may be reduced to two: (1) that there are relations in the epistles so difficult to understand that, since we cannot properly understand them, the epistles are not trustworthy; and (2) that the religious and ecclesiastical development is so great that not merely 20 or 30 years, but 70 or 80 more, are required, if we are to be able rationally to conceive it: to accept the situation at an earlier date is simply to accept what cannot possibly have been. It is manifest that on such principles it is possible to establish what one will, and that any historical literature might be proved untrustworthy, and reshaped according to the subjective idiosyncrasies of the critic. The underlying theory of intellectual development is too rigid, and is quite oblivious of the shocks it receives from actual facts, by the advent in history from time to time of powerful, compelling, and creative personalities, who rather mould their age than are moulded by it. None have poured greater ridicule on this ?pseudo-Kritik? than the representatives of the advanced school in Germany whom it rather expected to carry with it, and against whom it complains bitterly that they do not take it seriously. On the whole the vagaries of the Dutch school have rather confirmed than shaken belief in these epistles; and one may freely accept Ramsay's view (HDB, I, 484) as expressing the modern mind regarding them, namely, that they are ?the unimpeached and unassailable nucleus of admitted Pauline writings.? (Reference to the following will give a sufficiently adequate idea of the Dutch criticism and the replies that have been made to it: Van Manen, EB, article ?Paul,? and Expository Times, IX, 205, 257, 314; Knowling, Witness of the Epistles; Clemen, Einheitlichkeit der p. B.; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, ICC; Godet, J?licher and Zahn, in their Introductions; Schmiedel and Lipsius in the Hand-Commentar.)
II. Text of 1 and 2 Corinthians
Integrity of 1 Corinthians
The text of both epistles comes to us in the most ancient VSS, the Syriac (Peshito), the Old Latin, and the Egyptian all of which were in very early use, undoubtedly by the 3rd century. It is complete in the great Greek uncials: Codex Sinaiticus (original scribe) and a later scribe, 4th century), Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (A, 5th century, minus two verses, 2Co_4:13; 2Co_12:7), and very nearly complete in Codex Ephraemi (C, 5th century), and in the Greek-Latin Claromontanus (D, 6th century); as well as in numerous cursives. In both cases the original has been well preserved, and no exegetical difficulties of high importance are presented. (Reference should be made to the Introduction in Sanday and Headlam's Romans, ICC (1896), where section 7 gives valuable information concerning the text, not only of Roman, but of the Pauline epistles generally; also to the recent edition (Oxford, 1910), New Testament Graecae, by Souter, where the various readings of the text used in the Revised Version (British and American) (1881) are conveniently exhibited.) On the whole the text of 1 Cor flows on consistently, only at times, in a characteristic fashion, winding back upon itself, and few serious criticisms are made on its unity, although the case is different in this respect with its companion epistle Some writers, on insufficient grounds, believe that 1 Corinthians contains relics of a previous epistle (compare 1Co_5:9), e.g. in 1Co_7:17-24; 9:1-10:22; 15:1-55.
III. Paul's Previous Relations with Corinth
1. Corinth in 55 Ad
When, in the course of his 2nd missionary journey, Paul left Athens (Act_18:1), he sailed westward to Cenchrea, and entered Corinth ?in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling? (1Co_2:3). He was doubtless alone, although Silas and Timothy afterward joined him (Act_18:5; 2Co_1:19). The ancient city of Corinth had been utterly laid in ruins when Rome subjugated Greece in the middle of the 2nd century bc. But in the year 46 bc Caesar had caused it to be rebuilt and colonized in the Roman manner, and during the century that had elapsed it had prospered and grown enormously. Its population at this time has been estimated at between 600,000 and 700,000, by far the larger portion of whom were slaves. Its magnificent harbors, Cenchrea and Lechaeum, opening to the commerce of East and West, were crowded with ships, and its streets with travelers and merchants from almost every country under heaven. Even in that old pagan world the reputation of the city was bad; it has been compared (Baring-Gould, Study of St. Paul, 241) to an amalgam of new-market, Chicago and Paris, and probably it contained the worst features of each. At night it was made hideous by the brawls and lewd songs of drunken revelry. In the daytime its markets and squares swarmed with Jewish peddlers, foreign traders, sailors, soldiers, athletes in training, boxers, wrestlers, charioteers, racing-men, betting-men, courtesans, slaves, idlers and parasites of every description. The corrupting worship of Aphrodite, with its hordes of hieródouloi, was dominant, and all over the Greek-Roman world, ?to behave as a Corinthian? was a proverbial synonym for leading a low, shameless and immoral life. Very naturally such a polluted and idolatrous environment accounts for much that has to be recorded of the semi-pagan and imperfect life of many of the early converts.
2. Founding of the Church
Paul was himself the founder of the church in Corinth (1Co_3:6, 1Co_3:10). Entering the city with anxiety, and yet with almost audacious hopefulness, he determined to know nothing among its people save Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1Co_2:2). Undoubtedly he was conscious that the mission of the Cross here approached its crisis. If it could abide here, it could abide anywhere. At first he confined himself to working quietly at his trade, and cultivating the friendship of Aquila and Priscilla (Act_18:2 f); then he opened his campaign in the synagogue where he persuaded both Jews and Greeks, and ultimately, when opposition became violent, carried it on in the house of Titus Justus, a proselyte. He made deep impressions, and gradually gathered round him a number who were received into the faith (Act_18:7, Act_18:8; 1Co_1:14-16). The converts were drawn largely but not entirely from the lower or servile classes (1Co_1:26; 1Co_7:21); they included Crispus and Sosthenes, rulers of the synagogue, Gaius, and Stephanas with his household, ?the firstfruits of Achaia? (1Co_16:15). He regarded himself joyfully as the father of this community (1Co_4:14, 1Co_4:15), every member of which seemed to him like his own child.
IV. Date of the Epistle
After a sojourn of eighteen months (Act_18:11) in this fruitful field, Paul departed, most probably in the year 52 (compare Turner, article ?Chron. New Testament,? HDB, I, 422ff), and, having visited Jerusalem and returned to Asia Minor (third journey), established himself for a period of between two and three years (trietı́a, Act_20:31) in Ephesus (Act_18:18 onward). It was during his stay there that his epistle was written, either in the spring (pre-Pentecost, 1Co_16:8) of the year in which he left, 55; or, if that does not give sufficient interval for a visit and a letter to Corinth, which there is considerable ground for believing intervened between 1 Cor and the departure from Ephesus, then in the spring of the preceding year, 54. This would give ample time for the conjectured events, and there is no insuperable reason against it. Pauline chronology is a subject by itself, but the suggested dates for the departure from Ephesus, and for the writing of 1 Corinthians, really fluctuate between the years 53 and 57. Harnack (Gesch. der altchrist. Litt., II; Die ChronZ., I) and McGiffert (Apos Age) adopt the earlier date; Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler), 56; Lightfoot (Bib. Essays) and Zahn (Einl.), 57; Turner (ut supra), 55. Many regard 57 as too late, but Robertson (HDB, I, 485-86) still adheres to it.
V. Occasion of the Epistle
1. A Previous Letter
After Paul's departure from Corinth, events moved rapidly, and far from satisfactorily. He was quite cognizant of them. The distance from Ephesus was not great - about eight days' journey by sea - and in the constant coming and going between the cities news of what was transpiring must frequently have come to his ears. Members of the household of Chloe are distinctly mentioned (1Co_1:11) as having brought tidings of the contentions that prevailed, and there were no doubt other informants. Paul was so concerned by what he heard that he sent Timothy on a conciliatory mission with many commendations (1Co_4:17; 1Co_16:10 f), although the present epistle probably reached Corinth first. He had also felt impelled, in a letter (1Co_5:9) which is now lost, to send earnest warning against companying with the immoral. Moreover, Apollos, after excellent work in Corinth, had come to Ephesus, and was received as a brother by the apostle (1Co_3:5, 1Co_3:6; 1Co_16:12). Equally welcome was a deputation consisting of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1Co_16:17), from whom the fullest information could be gained, and who were the probable bearers of a letter from the church of Corinth itself (1Co_7:1), appealing for advice and direction on a number of points.
2. Letter from Corinth
This letter has not been preserved, but it was evidently the immediate occasion of our epistle, and its tenor is clearly indicated by the nature of the apostle's reply. (The letter, professing to be this letter to Paul, and its companion, professing to be Paul's own lost letter just referred to, which deal with Gnostic heresies, and were for long accepted by the Syrian and Armenian churches, are manifestly apocryphal. (Compare Stanley's Corinthians, Appendix; Harnack's Gesch. der altchrist. Litt., I, 37-39, and II, 506-8; Zahn, Einleitung., I, 183-249; Sanday, Encyclopedia Biblica, I, 906-7.) If there be any relic in existence of Paul's previous letter, it is possibly to be found in the passage 2 Cor 6:14 through 7:1; at all events that passage may be regarded as reminiscent of its style and message.) So that 1 Corinthians is no bow drawn at a venture. It treats of a fully understood, and, on the whole, of a most unhappy situation. The church had broken into factions, and was distracted by party cries. Some of its members were living openly immoral lives, and discipline was practically in abeyance. Others had quarrels over which they dragged one another into the heathen courts. Great differences of opinion had also arisen with regard to marriage and the social relations generally; with regard to banquets and the eating of food offered to idols; with regard to the behavior of women in the assemblies, to the Lord's Supper and the love-feasts, to the use and value of spiritual gifts, and with regard to the hope of the resurrection. The apostle was filled with grief and indignation, which the too complacent tone of the Corinthians only intensified. They discussed questions in a lofty, intellectual way, without seeming to perceive their real drift, or the life and spirit which lay imperiled at their heart. Resisting the impulse to visit them ?with a rod? (1Co_4:21), the apostle wrote the present epistle, and dispatched it, if not by the hands of Stephanas and his comrades, most probably by the hands of Titus.
VI. Contents
1. General Character
In its general character the epistle is a strenuous writing, masterly in its restraint in dealing with opposition, firm in its grasp of ethical and spiritual principles, and wise and faithful in their application. It is calm, full of reasoning, clear and balanced in judgment; very varied in its lights and shadows, in its kindness, its gravity, its irony. It moves with firm tread among the commonest themes, but also rises easily into the loftiest spheres of thought and vision, breaking again and again into passages of glowing and rhythmical eloquence. It rebukes error, exposes and condemns sin, solves doubts, upholds and encourages faith, and all in a spirit of the utmost tenderness and love, full of grace and truth. It is broad in its outlook, penetrating in its insight, unending in its interest and application.
2. Order and Division
It is also very orderly in its arrangement, so that it is not difficult to follow the writer as he advances from point to point. Weizs?cker (Apos Age, I, 324-25) suggestively distinguishes the matter into (1) subjects introduced by the letter from Corinth, and (2) those on which Paul had obtained information otherwise. He includes three main topics in the first class: marriage, meat offered to idols and spiritual gifts (there is a fourth - the logia or collection, 1Co_16:1); six in the second class: the factions, the case of incest, the lawsuits, the free customs of the women, the abuse connected with the Supper and the denial of the resurrection. It is useful, however, to adhere to the sequence of the epistle In broadly outlining the subject-matter we may make a threefold division: (1) chapters 1 through 6; (2) chapters 7 through 10; and (3) chapter 11 through end.
3. Outline
(1) 1 Corinthians 1 Through 6
After salutation, in which he associates Sosthenes with himself, and thanksgiving for the grace given to the Corinthians (1Co_1:1-9), Paul immediately begins (1Co_1:10-13) to refer to the internal divisions among them, and to the unworthy and misguided party cries that had arisen. (Many theories have been formed as to the exact significance of the so-called ?Christus-party,? a party whose danger becomes more obvious in 2 Cor. Compare Meyer-Heinrici, Comm., 8th edition; Godet, Intro, 250ff; Stanley, Cor, 29-30; Farrar, Paul, chapter xxxi; Pfleiderer, Paulinism, II, 28-31; Weiss, Intro, I, 259-65; Weizs?cker, Apos Age, I, 325-33, and 354ff. Weizs?cker holds that the name indicates exclusive relation to an authority, while Baur and Pfleiderer argue that it was a party watchword (virtually Petrine) taken to bring out the apostolic inferiority of Paul. On the other hand a few scholars maintain that the name does not, strictly speaking, indicate a party at all but rather designates those who were disgusted at the display of all party spirit, and with whom Paul was in hearty sympathy. See McGiffert, Apos Age, 295-97.) After denouncing this petty partisanship, Paul offers an elaborate defense of his own ministry, declaring the power and wisdom of God in the gospel of the Cross (1:14 through 2:16), returning in chapter 3 to the spirit of faction, showing its absurdity and narrowness in face of the fullness of the Christian heritage in ?all things? that belong to them as belonging to Christ; and once more defending his ministry in chapter 4, making a touching appeal to his readers as his ?beloved children,? whom he had begotten through the gospel. In chapter 5 he deals with the case of a notorious offender, guilty of incest, whom they unworthily harbor in their midst, and in the name of Christ demands that they should expel him from the church, pointing out at the same time that it is against the countenancing of immorality within the church membership that he specially warns, and had previously warned in his former epistle Ch 6 deals with the shamefulness of Christian brethren haling one another to the heathen courts, and not rather seeking the settlement of their differences within themselves; reverting once more in the closing verses to the subject of unchastity, which irrepressibly haunts him as he thinks of them.
(2) 1 Corinthians 7 Through 10
In 1 Cor 7 he begins to reply to two of the matters on which the church had expressly consulted him in its ep., and which he usually induces by the phrase peri de, ?now concerning.? The first of these bears (chapter 7) upon celibacy and marriage, including the case of ?mixed? marriage. These questions he treats quite frankly, yet with delicacy and circumspection, always careful to distinguish between what he has received as the direct word of the Lord, and what he only delivers as his own opinion, the utterance of his own sanctified common-sense, yet to which the good spirit within him gives weight. The second matter on which advice was solicited, questions regarding eidōlóthuta, meats offered to idols, he discusses in 1Co_8:1-13, recurring to it again in chapter 10 to end. The scruples and casuistries involved he handles with excellent wisdom, and lays down a rule for the Christian conscience of a far-reaching kind, happily expressed: ?All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor's good? (1Co_10:23, 1Co_10:14). By lifting their differences into the purer atmosphere of love and duty, he causes them to dissolve away. Chapter 9 contains another notable defense of his apostleship, in which he asserts the principle that the Christian ministry has a claim for its support on those to whom it ministers, although in his own case he deliberately waived his right, that no challenge on such a matter should be possible among them. The earlier portion of chapter 10 contains a reference to Jewish idolatry and sacramental abuse, in order that the evils that resulted might point a moral, and act as a solemn warning to Christians in relation to their own rites.
(3) 1 Corinthians 11 Through 16
The third section deals with certain errors and defects that had crept into the inner life and observances of the church, also with further matters on which the Corinthians sought guidance, namely, spiritual gifts and the collection for the saints. 1 Cor 11:1-16 has regard to the deportment of women and their veiling in church, a matter which seems to have occasioned some difficulty, and which Paul deals with in a manner quite his own; passing thereafter to treat of graver and more disorderly affairs, gross abuses in the form of gluttony and drunkenness at the Lord's Supper, which leads him, after severe censure, to make his classic reference to that sacred ordinance (1Co_11:20 to end). Chapter 12 sets forth the diversity, yet true unity, of spiritual gifts, and the confusion and jealousy to which a false conception of them inevitably leads, obscuring that ?most excellent way,? the love which transcends them all, which never faileth, the greatest of the Christian graces, whose praise he chants in language of surpassing beauty (1Co_13:1-13). He strives also, in the following chapter, to correct the disorder arising from the abuse of the gift of tongues, many desiring to speak at once, and many speaking only a vain babble which no one could understand, thinking themselves thereby highly gifted. It is not edifying: ?I had rather,? he declares, ?speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue? (1Co_14:19). Thereafter follows the immortal chapter on the resurrection, which he had learned that some denied (1Co_15:12). He anchors the faith to the resurrection of Christ as historic fact, abundantly attested (1Co_12:3-8), shows how all-essential it is to the Christian hope (1Co_12:13-19), and then proceeds by reasoning and analogy to brush aside certain naturalistic objections to the great doctrine, ?then they that are Christ's, at his coming? (1Co_12:23), when this mortal shall have put on immortality, and death be swallowed up in victory (verse 54). The closing chapter gives directions as to the collection for the saints in Jerusalem, on which his heart was deeply set, and in which he hoped the Corinthians would bear a worthy share. He promises to visit them, and even to tarry the winter with them. He then makes a series of tender personal references, and so brings the great epistle to a close.
VII. Distinguishing Features
It will be seen that there are passages in the epistle of great doctrinal and historical importance, especially with reference to the Person of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Eucharist and the Resurrection; also many that illuminate the nature of the religious meetings and services of the early church (compare particularly on these, Weizs?cker, Apos Age, II, 246ff). A lurid light is cast on many of the errors and evils that not unnaturally still clung to those who were just emerging from paganism, and much allowance has to be made for the Corinthian environment. The thoroughness with which the apostle pursues the difficulties raised into their relations and details, and the wide scope of matters which he subjects to Christian scrutiny and criterion, are also significant. Manifestly he regarded the gospel as come to fill, not a part, but the whole, of life; to supply principles that follow the believers to their homes, to the most secluded sanctum there, out again to the world, to the market-place, the place of amusement, of temptation, of service, of trial, of worship and prayer; and all in harmony with knowing nothing ?save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.? For Paul regards that not as a restriction, but as a large and expansive principle. He sets the cross on an eminence so high that its shadow covers the whole activities of human life.
1. Party Spirit
Three broad outstanding features of a practical kind may be recognized. The first is the earnest warning it conveys against a factious spirit as inimical to the Christian life. The Corinthians were imbued with the party spirit of Greek democracy, and were infected also by the sporting spirit of the great games that entered so largely into their existence. They transferred these things to the church. They listened to their teachers with itching ears, not as men who wished to learn, but as partisans who sought occasion either to applaud or to condemn. Paul recognizes that, though they are not dividing on deep things of the faith, they are giving way to ?schisms? of a pettier and perhaps even more perilous kind, that appeal to the lowest elements in human nature, that cause scandal in the eyes of men and inflict grievous wounds on the Body of Christ. In combating this spirit he takes occasion to go below the surface, and to reveal the foundations of true Christian unity. That must simply be ?in Christ.? And this is true even if the divergence should be on higher and graver things. Any unity in such a case, still possible to cherish, must be a unity in Christ. None can be unchurched who build on Him; none severed from the true and catholic faith, who confess with their lips and testify with their lives that He is Lord.
2. Christian Conscience
The epistle also renders a high ethical service in the rules it lays down for the guidance of the Christian conscience. In matters where the issue is clearly one of the great imperatives, the conflict need never be protracted. An earnest man will see his way. But beyond these, or not easily reducible to them, there are many matters that cause perplexity and doubt. Questions arise regarding things that do not seem to be wrong in themselves, yet whose abuse or the offense they give to others, may well cause debate. Meat offered to idols, and then brought to table, was a stumbling-block to many Corinthian Christians. They said: ?If we eat, it is consenting to idolatry; we dare not partake.? But there were some who rose to a higher level. They perceived that this was a groundless scruple, for an idol is nothing at all, and the meat is not affected by the superstition. Accordingly, their higher and more rational view gave them liberty and left their conscience free. But was this really all that they had to consider? Some say: ?Certainly?; and Paul acknowledges that this is undoubtedly the law of individual freedom. But it is not the final answer. There has not entered into it a consideration of the mind of Christ. Christian liberty must be willing to subject itself to the law of love. Granted that a neighbor is often short-sighted and over-scrupulous, and that it would be good neither for him nor for others to suffer him to become a moral dictator; yet we are not quite relieved. The brother may be weak, but the very claim of his weakness may be strong. We may not ride over his scruples roughshod. To do so would be to put ourselves wrong even more seriously. And if the matter is one that is manifestly fraught with peril to him, conscience may be roused to say, as the apostle says: ?Wherefore, if meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore.?
3. Power of the Cross
A third notable feature of the epistle is its exaltation of the cross of Christ as the power and wisdom of God unto salvation. It was the force that began to move and unsettle, to lift and change from its base, the life of that old heathen world. It was neither Paul, nor Apollos, nor Cephas who accomplished that colossal task, but the preaching of the crucified Christ. The Christianity of Corinth and of Europe began with the gospel of Calvary and the open tomb. It can never with impunity draw away from these central facts. The river broadens and deepens as it flows, but it is never possible for it to sever itself from the living fountain from which it springs.
Literature
The following writers will be found most important and helpful:
1. On Matters of Introduction (Both Epistles)
Holtzmann, Weiss, Hausrath, Harnack, Pfleiderer, Godet, Weizs?cker, J?licher, Zahn, Salmon, Knowling, McGiffert, J. H. Kennedy, Ramsay, Sabatier, Farrar, Dobsch?tz, Robertson (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)), Sanday (Encyclopaedia Biblica), Plummer (DB), Ropes (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 11th edition).
2. Commentaries and Lectures (on 1 Corinthians or Both)
Meyer-Heinrici, Godet, T. C. Edwards, Hodge, Beet, Ellicott, Schmiedel (Hand-Comm.), Evans (Speakers' Commentary), Farrar (Pulpit Commentary), Lightfoot (chapters i through vii in Biblical Ess.), Lias (Cambridge Greek Testament), McFadyen, F. W. Robertson, Findlay (Expos. Greek Test.); and on 2 Corinthians alone: Kl?pper, Waite (Speakers' Comm.), Denney (Expos. Bible), Bernard (Expos. Greek Test.).
3. Ancient Writers and Special Articles
For ancient writers and special articles, the list at close of Plummer's article in Smith, Dictionary of the Bible should be consulted.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.


Corinthians, First Epistle To The
1. The testimony of Christian antiquity is full and unanimous in ascribing this inspired production to the pen of the apostle Paul (Lardner's Credibility, Works, vol. 2, plur. loc.; see also Heydenreich, Comment. in priorem D. Pauli ad Cor. epist. Proleg. p. 30; Schott, Isaqoge in N.T. p. 236, 239 sq.). The external evidences (Clem. Rom. ad Cor. ch. 47, 48; Polycarp, ad Phil. ch. 11; Ignat. ad Eph. ch. 2; Irenaeus, Haer. 3, 11, 9; 4:27, 3; Athenag. de Resurr. p. 61, ed. Col.; Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1:33; Tertull. de Praeser. ch. 33) are extremely distinct, and with this the internal evidence arising from allusions, undesigned coincidences, style, and tone of thought fully accords (see Davidson, Introd. 2:253 sq.).
2. The epistle seems to have been occasioned partly by some intelligence received by the apostle concerning the Corinthian church from the domestics of Chloe, a pious female connected with that church (1Co_1:11), and probably also from common report (ἀκούεται,v, i), and partly by an epistle which the Corinthians themselves had addressed to the apostle, asking advice and instruction on several points (1Co_7:1), and which probably was conveyed to him by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1Co_16:17). Apollos, also, who succeeded the apostle at Corinth, but who seems to have been with him at the time this epistle was written (1Co_16:12), may have given him information of the state of things among the Christians in that city. From these sources the apostle had become acquainted with the painful fact that since he had left Corinth (Act_18:18), the church in that place had sunk into a state of great corruption and error. One prime source of this evil state of things, and in itself an evil of no inferior magnitude, was the existence of schisms or party divisions in the church. “Everyone of you,” Paul tells them, “saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ” (1Co_1:12). This has led to the conclusion that four great parties had arisen in the church, which boasted of Paul, Apollos, Peter, and Christ as their respective heads. By what peculiarities of sentiment these parties may be supposed to have been distinguished from each other it is not difficult, with the exception of the last, to conjecture. It appears that the schisms arose merely from quarrels among the Corinthians as to the comparative excellence of their respective teachers — those who had learned of Paul boasting that he excelled all others, and the converts of Apollos and Peter advancing a similar claim for them, while a fourth party haughtily repudiated all subordinate teaching, and pretended that they derived all their religious knowledge from the direct teaching of Christ. The language of the apostle in the first four chapters, where alone he speaks directly of these schisms, and where he resolves their criminality, not into their relation to false doctrine, but into their having their source in a disposition to glory in men, must be regarded as greatly favoring this view. (Comp. also 2Co_5:16.)
The few facts supplied to us by the Acts of the Apostles, and the notices in the epistle, appear to be as follows: The Corinthian church was planted by the apostle himself (1Co_3:6) in his second missionary journey, after his departure from Athens (Act_18:1 sq.). He abode in the city a year and a half (Act_18:11), at first in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Act_18:3), and afterwards, apparently to mark emphatically the factious nature of the conduct of the Jews, in the house of the proselyte Justus. A short time after the apostle had left the city the eloquent Jew of Alexandria, Apollos, after having received, when at Ephesus, more exact instruction in the Gospel from Aquila and Priscilla, went to Corinth (Act_19:1), where he preached, as we may perhaps infer from Paul's comments on his own mode of preaching, in a manner marked by unusual eloquence and persuasiveness (comp. 1Co_2:1; 1Co_2:4). There is, however, no reason for concluding that the substance of the teaching was in any respect different from that of Paul (see 1Co_1:18; 1Co_16:12). This circumstance of the visit of Apollos, owing to the sensuous and carnal spirit which marked the church of Corinth, appears to have formed the commencement of a gradual division into two parties, the followers of Paul, and the followers of Apollos (comp. 1Co_4:6). These divisions, however, were to be multiplied; for, as it would seem, shortly after the departure of Apollos, Judaizing teachers, supplied probably with letters of commendation (2Co_3:1) from the church of Jerusalem, appear to have come to Corinth, and to have preached the Gospel in a spirit of direct antagonism to Paul personally, in every way seeking to depress his claims to be considered an apostle (1Co_11:2), and to exalt those of the Twelve, and perhaps especially of Peter (ch. 1:12). To this third party, which appears to have been characterized by a spirit of excessive bitterness and faction, we may perhaps add a fourth, that, under the name of “the followers of Christ” (1Co_1:12), sought at first to separate themselves from the factious adherence to particular teachers, but were eventually driven by antagonism into positions equally sectarian and inimical to the unity of the church. At this momentous period, before parties had become consolidated, and had distinctly withdrawn from communion with one another, the apostle writes; and in the outset of the epistle (ch. 1-4, 12) we have his noble and impassioned protest against this fourfold rending of the robe of Christ. This spirit of division appears, by the good providence of God, to have eventually yielded to his apostolic rebuke, as it is noticeable that Clement of Rome, in his epistle to this church (ch. 47), alludes to these evils as long past, and as but slight compared to those which existed in his own time. SEE DIVISIONS (IN THE CHURCH AT CORINTH).
Besides the schisms and the erroneous opinions which had invaded the church at Corinth, the apostle had learned that many immoral and disorderly practices were tolerated among them, and were in some cases defended by them. A connection of a grossly incestuous character had been formed by one of the members, and gloried in by his brethren, (1Co_5:1-2); lawsuits before heathen judges were instituted by one Christian against another (1Co_6:1); licentious indulgence was not so firmly denounced and so carefully avoided as the purity of Christianity required (1Co_6:9-20); the public meetings of the brethren were brought into disrepute by the women appearing in them unveiled (1Co_11:3-10), and were disturbed by the confused and disorderly manner in which the persons possessing spiritual Gifts chose to exercise them (1 Corinthians 12-14); and, in fine, the ἀγάπαι, which were designed to be scenes of love and union, became occasions for greater contention through the selfishness of the wealthier members, who, instead of sharing in a common meal with the poorer, brought each his own repast, and partook of it by himself, often to excess, while his needy brother was left to fast (1Co_11:20-34). The judgment of the apostle had also been solicited by the Corinthians concerning the comparative advantages of the married and the celibate state (1Co_7:1-40), as well as, apparently, the duty of Christians in relation to the use for food of meat which had been offered to idols (1Co_8:1-13). For the correction of these errors, the remedying of these disorders, and the solution of these doubts, this epistle was written by the apostle.
3. The epistle consists of four parts. The first (1-4) is designed to reclaim the Corinthians from schismatic contentions; the second (5-6) is directed against the immoralities of the Corinthians; the third (7-14) contains replies to the queries addressed to Paul by the Corinthians, and strictures upon the disorders which prevailed in their worship; and the fourth (15-16) contains an elaborate defense of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, followed in the close of the epistle by some general instructions, intimations, and greetings.
The apostle opens with his usual salutation and with an expression of thankfulness for their general state of Christian progress (1Co_1:1-9). He then at once passes on to the lamentable divisions there were among them, and incidentally justifies his own conduct and mode of preaching (1Co_1:10; 1Co_4:16), concluding with a notice of the mission of Timothy, and of an intended authoritative visit on his own part (1Co_4:17-21). The apostle next deals with the case of incest that had taken place among them, and had provoked no censure (1Co_5:1-8), noticing, as he passes, some previous remarks he had made upon not keeping company with fornicators (1Co_5:9-13). He then comments on their evil practice of litigation before heathen tribunals (1Co_6:1-8), and again reverts to the plague-spot in Corinthian life, fornication and uncleanness (1Co_6:9-20). The last subject naturally paves the way for his answers to their inquiries about marriage (1Co_7:1-24), and about the celibacy of virgins and widows (1Co_7:25-40). The apostle next makes a transition to the subject of the lawfulness of eating things sacrificed to idols. and Christian freedom generally (1 Corinthians 8), which leads, not unnaturally, to a digression on the manner in which he waved his apostolic privileges and performed his apostolic duties (1 Corinthians 9). He then reverts to and concludes the subject of the use of things offered to idols (1 Corinthians 10-11 1), and passes onward to reprove his converts for their behavior in the assemblies of the church, both in respect to women prophesying and praying with uncovered heads (1Co_11:2-16), and also their great irregularities in the celebration of the Lord's Supper (1Co_11:17-34). Then follow full and minute instructions on the exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14), in which is included the noble panegyric of charity (1 Corinthians 13), and further a defense of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, about which doubts and difficulties appear to have arisen in this unhappily divided church (1 Corinthians 15). The epistle closes with some directions concerning the contributions for the saints at Jerusalem (1Co_16:1-4), brief notices of his own intended movements (1Co_16:5-9), commendation to them of Timothy and others; (1Co_16:10-18), greetings from the benediction (1Co_16:21-24).
4. From an expression of the apostle in 1Co_5:9, it has been inferred by many that the present was not the first epistle addressed by Paul to the Corinthians, but that it was preceded by one now lost. For this opinion, however, the words in question afford a very unsatisfactory basis. They are as follows: ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τ῝ῇ ἐπιστολῇ, κ. τ. 50· Now these words must be rendered either “I have written to you in this epistle,” or “I wrote to you in thy epistle;” and our choice between these two renderings will depend partly on grammatical and partly on historical grounds. As the aorist ἔγραψα may mean either “I wrote” or “I have written,” nothing can be concluded from it in either way. It may be doubted, however, whether, had the apostle intended to refer to a former epistle, he would have used the article τῇ simply, without adding προτέρᾷ, “former;” while, on the other hand, there are cases which clearly show that, had the apostle intended to refer to the present epistle, it was in accordance with his practice to use the article in the sense of “this” (comp. ἡ ἐπιστολή, Col_4:16, τὴν ἐπιστ. 1Th_5:27). In support of this conclusion it may be added,
1st, that the apostle had really in this epistle given the prohibition to which he refers, viz., in the verses immediately preceding that under notice; and that his design in the verses which follow is so to explain that prohibition as to preclude the risk of their supposing that he meant by it anything else than that in the church they should not mingle with immoral persons;
2d, that it is not a little strange that the: apostle should, only in this cursory and incidental manner, refer to a circumstance so important in its bearing upon the case of the Corinthians as his having already addressed them on their sinful practices; and,
3d, that, had such an epistle ever existed, it may be supposed that some hint of its existence would have been found in the records of the primitive Church, which is not the case. Alford, indeed (Comment. in 2Co_1:16), thinks that 1Co_4:18, contains an allusion likewise to the lost letter, but the information there spoken of may easily have been otherwise communicated. On these grounds we strongly incline to the opinion that the present is the first epistle which Paul addressed to the Corinthians (Bloomfield, Recensio a Synopt. in taken by Lange (Apost. Zeitalt. 1:205) and others.
5. There is a general agreement as to the date (at least the place) of this epistle. It was written from Ephesus (1Co_16:8), probably about the time of Passover (1Co_5:7-8) of the apostle's third year there (Act_19:10; Act_20:31), after his first severe treatment (chap. 15:32; Act_19:9) had somewhat abated (1Co_16:9; Act_19:17), and when he had formed the purpose of a journey through Macedonia and Greece (1Co_16:5; Act_19:21), and before the culminating act of mobbing (which cannot in any case be referred to in 1Co_15:32, since the apostle was still in Asia, 1Co_16:19; and he mentions this incident in his next letter as a special piece of news, 2Co_1:8), that only served to expedite his plan (Act_20:1; comp. 19:29). SEE ACTS. This opinion is further verified by the following coincidences: [chap. 1:1, “Sosthenes” here was a CHRISTIAN, and therefore different from the president of the synagogue at Corinth, Act_18:17] 1Co_1:11-16; 1Co_2:1; 1Co_3:1-6, Paul had left the Corinthian church in its infancy some time since, and Apollos had visited them meanwhile (Act_18:18; Act_19:1); 1Co_4:17; 1Co_4:19; 1Co_16:10-11, Paul had just sent Timothy to them, and designed visiting them himself shortly (Act_19:21-22; Act_20:1-2); 1Co_15:32, he had some time previously been violently opposed (ἐμάχησα) at Ephesus (Act_19:9); 1Co_16:1, he had visited Galatia not very long before (Act_18:23); 1Co_16:5-7, he was about to set out for Macedonia, and thence to Corinth, where he designed to spend the coming winter (Act_20:1-3); 1Co_16:8, he still expected to stay (ἐπιμενῶ) at Ephesus till Pentecost, which stay was prolonged till the uproar about Diana (Act_19:22-23); 1Co_16:3-4, he afterwards designed to visit Jerusalem (Act_19:21) [1Co_16:12, Apollos was at this time in the vicinity of Paul, but was not about to revisit Corinth just yet, Act_19:1]; 1Co_16:19, Paul was surrounded by the churches of Asia, in the capital of which Aquila and Priscilla were now settled (Act_18:18-19; Act_18:26). Finally, the subscription (so far as of any authority) agrees with all this (comp. 1Co_16:17), except as to Timothy, who was then on his way to Corinth (1Co_4:17; 1Co_16:10) [for from 2Co_8:17-18, it does not necessarily follow that Timothy (even supposing him to be there alluded to) did not visit Corinth till afterwards]; and also except as to the date at Philippi (the best copies read Ephesus), an error of tradition apparently arising from the fact that Paul was doubtless expecting to pass through (διέρχομαι) that city (Act_20:6). SEE TIMOTHY. (Comp. Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 2:33). The date assigned this epistle by the foregoing particulars is the spring of A.D. 54. The bearers were probably (according to the common subscription) Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had been recently sent to the apostle, and who, in the conclusion of this epistle (1Co_16:17), are especially commended to the honorable regard of the church of Corinth. For commentaries, see below. Of treatises on special points we may name the following (in Latin): those of Faust on the alleged lost epistle (Argent. 1671); on the schisms of the Corinthian Church, Dorscheus (Hafn. 1722), Mosheim (Helmst. 1726), Schongard (Hafn. 1733), Vitringa (Obs. sacr. 3, 800 sq.); on “leading about a wife,” Quistorp (Rost. 1692), Witte (Viteb. 1691); on other national allusions, Olearius (Lips. 1807), Schlaeger (Helmst. 1739), Wolle (Lips. 1731). SEE PAUL.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.





Norway

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!


Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

Tags