with regard to the controverted matters that are taken up in the
epistle. Yet some conjectures are possible. Paul and Apollos
were personally on friendly terms (xvi. 12, cf. iii. 5-9, iv. 6),
and were understood to be in fundamental agreement. But
doubtless the more elaborate discourses of Apollos were admired,
and Paul’s teaching seemed in contrast bare, plain and crude
(cf. 2 Cor. x. 10). The contrast between the Hellenic and Jewish
types of thought may well have played a part also. Paul seems
to be replying to such criticisms brought against him when he
declares that he deliberately chose to bring to Corinth not the
“wisdom of men” but the “power of God” (i. 17, ii. 1-5), and
informs them that he has a store of wisdom for those who are
ready for it (ii. 6). On the other hand the party of Cephas must
have had Jewish-Christian leanings. A little later, in the second
epistle, such a tendency is seen breaking out into violent opposition
to Paul. The “Christ-party,” if, as is probable, it existed,
must also have been a party with a Judaizing turn (cf. 2 Cor. x.
7, xi. 22 f.), perhaps of a more extreme character. The danger
of shattering the solid front of the Christian church against
surrounding heathenism was keenly felt by Paul, as nearly
every one of his epistles testifies. How serious it was at Corinth
is shown by the long passage (chaps, i.-iv.) in which he points
out that sectarianism is a mark not of superior but of inferior
maturity and devotion.
Other difficulties arose from various causes. The influences of the heathen world, from which most of the Corinthian Christians had come and to which their friends and neighbours belonged, were always with them, and the problems created by these relations were very numerous. Christianity had brought over and had even intensified the moral code of Judaism, and, especially in the relations of the sexes, this brought a strain upon the naturalistic impulses and lower standards of converts trained in a different system.
Again, there were law-suits in the ordinary courts, a natural result of the frictions and strains of an oriental trading community. To Paul this was abhorrent, and here too he urges a complete break with their past. With regard to the social customs of meals at which meat that had been offered in heathen sacrifices was a part, and of feasts actually at heathen temples, doubtful questions arose. Was it a denial of the faith to eat such food or not? Mixed marriages, too, had their problems; ought the believing wife to separate herself? Ought the believing husband to insist that his heathen wife stay with him against her will? And, further, in the case of slaves, does the consciousness of Christian manhood give a new motive for trying to gain worldly freedom? In all these matters Paul gives sensible advice. There were clearly two groups of Christians, the “weak,” or scrupulous, whose principle was to abstain, and the “strong,” or free, who maintained that the morally insignificant must not usurp a place to which it has no right. Paul sides with neither, but follows two principles, one that the church and its members must be kept pure, the other that the moral welfare not only of the individual but of his neighbour must be the controlling motive.
Not due so much to heathen influences as to the natural tendencies of imperfect and passionate human nature were other conditions. The most striking incident here, and one which gave Paul much concern, was the case of a man who after his father’s death had married his own stepmother (“the case of incest”). That this was rare in the ancient world and generally abominated both by Jews and Greeks made it seem to Paul the more imperative that this stain on the Christian church should be removed. His language shows his indignation and grief that the Corinthians themselves have not already taken the matter in hand.
Besides these troubles from heathenism there were questions of asceticism; the Greek reaction against naturalism held that nature was vile and marriage wrong. Paul had a qualified tendency to asceticism, but he shows excellent good sense in his discussion of these delicate matters.
A different set of difficulties arose from the freedom into which Christianity had introduced persons from all classes of life. What degree of freedom was permissible to a Christian woman? How far must a woman of the lower classes who became a Christian subject herself to the restrictions of a higher class of society? Might a woman, as a free child of God, take part in the Christian public meeting?
Also in matters pertaining to the common religious life of the new society the new situation raised new problems. How should reasonable order be maintained in the wholly democratic forms of the church devotional meeting? What value should be assigned to the different religious functions or “spiritual gifts”? Did any of them confer the right to a consciousness of God’s special favour? Again, the celebration of the Lord’s supper, which was associated with a proper meal, was marred by exhibitions of selfishness and irreverence that needed correction.
The great variety of practical problems present to the anxious minds of the Corinthians themselves and of germinant abuses revealed to the paternal scrutiny of the apostle, opens to us some notion of the exciting times in which the Corinthian Christians stood, and explains the intensity and detailed concern of the apostle. From every side and at every moment new and often difficult questions were arising; to every one of them belonged remoter relations that made it profoundly important. It is by no accident that Paul is in the habit of treating the simplest moral issues by reference to the highest principles of his theology. From the situation at Corinth we gain an idea of what was taking place in many cities, but in the seething life of so great a capital with more rapid and varied development.
Of strictly intellectual and theological problems or errors only one is treated systematically, although at many other points in the practical discussions we can detect the theoretical basis cf the errors combated and the theological foundations of Paul’s own judgments. Questions about the resurrection, however, had appeared, of a rationalistic nature and evincing an Hellenic failure to understand the Jewish view. In his reply Paul shows that he too recognizes the significance of the Greek’s difficulties and he presents a conception which, fortunately for the later Church, does some measure of justice to the superior scientific insight of their attitude.
Second Epistle.—After the despatch of First Corinthians there took place, it would appear, the riot in the theatre at Ephesus (Acts xix. 23 ff.), to which 2 Cor. i. 8 seems to refer. On leaving Ephesus Paul went to Troas (2 Cor. ii. 12), then to Macedonia, and from Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 5, viii. 1, ix. 2) he wrote Second Corinthians. This must have been in the autumn of one of the years A.D. 54–58, nearly or quite a year after First Corinthians was written (cf, “a year ago,” 2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2 and 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4). In the meantime there had been exciting developments in Paul’s relations with Corinth, the course of which we can partly trace by the aid of the second epistle. These events explain the great difference in tone between the second epistle and the first.
Several allusions in Second Corinthians show that Paul had already twice visited Corinth (2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, xii. 21, xiii. 2). The second of these visits is not mentioned in Acts; it is referred to by Paul as having a painful character. The most natural hypothesis is that, in consequence of a growing spirit of insubordination on the part of the Corinthians, Paul found it necessary to go to Corinth from Ephesus (probably by sea direct) at some time after First Corinthians was written. Of what happened on this visit, which the writer of Acts has naturally enough thought it unnecessary to mention, we seem to learn further from certain passages in the letter (2 Cor. ii. 5-11, vii. 9) which refer to some sort of an insult to Paul for which there has now been repentance and which the apostle heartily forgives. For the offender he entreats also the pardon of the church. It may well be that the sad affair had to do with the gross offender of the “case of incest” (1 Cor. v. 1-8), who with the support of his fellow Christians may have refused to conform to Paul’s imperative commands. We may suppose an angry scene, possibly an attack of Paul’s bodily ailment (especially if the “thorn in the flesh” be understood to be epilepsy), the immediate triumph of the adversaries, Paul’s speedy departure in grief.
