THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The genuineness of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans is
admitted by almost every modern critic, Christian or not Christian. It
was always acknowledged by F. C. Baur, who rejected all the Epistles
bearing the name of St. Paul except these four. This Epistle is
referred to in several writings of the 2nd century, and is unmistakably
mentioned in the letter written to the Corinthians by St. Clement of
Rome about A.D. 95. He says, "Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul
the apostle. What did he first write to you in the beginning of the
Gospel? Of a truth he sent a letter to you by the Spirit concerning
himself, and also Cephas and Apollos, because you had even then formed
parties" (cf. 1 Cor. i. 12). The style of the Epistle is spontaneous,
vivid, and coherent. The authenticity is only disputed by a tiny group
of infidel writers who, in reaction against Baur, have endeavoured to
make good their unbelief by asserting the genuineness of the Scriptures
which Baur rejected, and rejecting what Baur defended.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth" (i. 2). In former times
Corinth had been the most important city in Greece after Athens itself.
It was one of the earliest homes of Greek art, and its position made it
so favourable for commerce that it attracted a colony of Phoenician
traders at a very remote period. When its art declined, it remained
celebrated for its wealth and its {134} extreme licentiousness. The
patron deity of the Corinthians was Aphrodite, who was no other than
the foul Phoenician Astarte. Her temple on the rock of the
Acrocorinthus dominated the city below, and from it there came a stream
of impure, influences "to turn men into swine."
In B.C. 146 the city was captured by the Roman general Mummius. It was
left desolate until B.C. 46, when Julius Caesar refounded it as a Roman
colony. The Romans called the whole of Greece the province of Achaia,
and constituted Corinth the capital of it. While Athens was still the
seat of the greatest university in the world, where lived most
vigorously the glorious memories of bygone Greece, the government of
the province was directed from Corinth. When St. Paul visited it, it
was under a proconsul, Junius Gallio, the brother of the philosopher
Seneca. The possession of two good harbours, and its position on the
quickest route from Rome to the East, caused a rapid revival of
Corinthian wealth and Corinthian manners. There was also a good deal
of literary and philosophic culture. In the time of St. Paul the
descendants of the original Roman colonists probably formed a small
aristocracy among the mass of Greek dwellers at Corinth, and some
settlements of various nationalities, including one of Jews, were
living there. A few miles away, at the shrine of Poseidon, were held
the athletic Isthmian games, and still by the sea-shore there grow the
pine trees, such as furnished the quickly withering wreaths which were
given to the victors in the race.
The Church of Corinth was founded by St. Paul on his second missionary
journey, during his first visit to Europe. His stay at Corinth lasted
for eighteen months. There is an account of it in Acts xviii. He
laboured at tent-making, and found a home with a devout Jewish couple,
Aquila and Priscilla. At first he preached in the synagogue, where he
converted the ruler of the synagogue, Crispus. Being rejected by the
Jews, he turned to the Gentiles, and held his meetings {135} in the
house of Justus, a converted proselyte. The Jews prosecuted St. Paul
before Gallio, who, however, dismissed the case with contemptuous
indifference. The converts to Christianity were numerous. They were
mostly Gentiles (1 Cor. xii. 2), but there were a few influential
Jewish Christians and some Gentiles who had been proselytes of Judaism.
It is clear that the Church contained a few men of good birth and
education (1 Cor. i. 26), but the majority were from the poorer
classes. The Corinthians as Christians were by no means entirely free
from the characteristics which had marked them as citizens. They were
ready to form cliques and quarrel in the name of Christ, and they still
showed the same quarrelsome mood in the time of St. Clement. They
found it hard to hate the sensuality which in their earlier days they
had regarded as divine. They were puffed up with eloquence and
philosophic speculation, and forgot that there is no "sweetness and
light" comparable to the Gospel.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
This Epistle was written from Ephesus in the spring of A.D. 55. The
note at the end of the Epistle to the effect that it was written "from
Philippi," though ancient, is incorrect, and is due to a
misunderstanding of xvi. 5.
When St. Paul left Corinth in April, A.D. 52, to go to Jerusalem,
Apollos came to take his place, and preached with much success (Acts
xviii. 27). St. Paul returned to Ephesus at the end of the summer of
52, and Apollos left Corinth and joined St. Paul. Soon some Judaizing
teachers appeared at Corinth, and the apostle was obliged to go
thither, though "in sorrow" (2 Cor. ii. 1; cf. 2 Cor. xii. 14; xiii.
1). After this disciplinary visit he returned to Ephesus, and sent the
Corinthians a sharp letter, now lost, about the relations which they
should have with open and notorious evil-livers (1 Cor. v. 9).
St. Paul's next news from Corinth caused him to write this letter.
Some members of Chloe's household told him of the development of
factions there; and a letter was sent, perhaps {136} by the hands of
Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (xvi. 15-18), asking for advice
about matters of grave importance, including litigation between
Christians and an unseemly freedom in public worship. Realizing the
serious state of affairs, St. Paul determined to visit Corinth a third
time, and sent Timothy as his representative to prepare for his coming
(1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10). After Timothy's departure he wrote this
Epistle.
The above account assumes that St. Paul's _second visit_ to Corinth was
paid before 1 Corinthians was written, but it is thought by some
writers of repute that it was paid after 1 Corinthians was written and
before 2 Corinthians.
[Sidenote Character and Contents.]
This Epistle, like each of the three other Epistles belonging to the
same group, has a perfectly distinct character of its own. It expounds
the doctrine of a crucified Christ as applied to social difficulties.
What Romans does as a theological treatise, and Galatians as a
controversial admonition, and 2 Corinthians as a record of personal
experience and vocation, this 1 Corinthians does as an instruction for
influencing a corrupt urban life with the leaven of the gospel. It is
very practical in tone, and the doctrine which it contains is not
stated separately, but is throughout woven into the cords of the
apostle's argument. There is nothing in the New Testament equal to
this Epistle in its power of bringing us close to the difficulties of
the Church in an ancient city. We seem to see the men and women who
composed it--their eagerness for religious novelties, their debased
surroundings, their anarchic divisions, their frail sense of moral
responsibility. And a modern reader will probably lay the letter down
with a conviction that our great modern cities have much to learn from
the words written by St. Paul to Corinth, "the light of Greece."
The Epistle is very olderly in arrangement. It deals first with the
report which St. Paul had received about the Corinthian Church
(i.-vi.); then it answers various questions {137} which the Corinthians
had submitted to him (vii.-xi. 1). Then follow directions based on the
report and the questions.
The letter opens with a significant salutation and thanksgiving (i.
1-9). St. Paul then proceeds to rebuke the Corinthian _tendency to
party spirit_. There were apparently four parties in the Church. The
first asserted that they were followers of _Paul_; the second preferred
the rhetorical preaching of _Apollos_ to Paul's simplicity; the
third--probably Judaizers--ranged themselves under the name of _Cephas_
as the leader of the original apostles; the fourth repudiated human
leaders, and arrogantly named their clique that of _Christ_, thereby
insinuating that the other parties were less Christian than themselves.
It is evident that all these four names were really used as party
watchwords. St. Paul says that he has _transferred by a fiction_ (iv.
6) the action of the wranglers to himself and Apollos. He means by
this, not that the Corinthians did not employ these names in their
strife, but that he and Apollos were in no sense responsible for the
strife. Some perplexity has been caused by the name of the
Christ-party. It is thought by some that they were rigid Jewish
Christians from Jerusalem (2 Cor. iii. 1; xi. 22). But it is more
probable that they were only a body of Christians who protested against
the parties named after human leaders, and saying, "We are the people,"
made a new party of their own.
St. Paul shows that this sectarian spirit is entirely alien to the
whole principle and history of the Christian faith. That faith, though
it is a wisdom which comes from God, does not lend itself to pride of
intellect. It is deliberately content to be counted foolish by the
world; its sign is the cross, its converts are the poor and
insignificant Corinthians, its eloquence the unpolished speaking of the
apostle himself. And as to their personal preferences for receiving
spiritual benefits from one Christian teacher rather than another, this
shows a complete misconception as to the source of the benefit and the
position of the teacher. This is explained in iii. 1-iv. 5. All
spiritual {138} increase comes from God. Christ is the Foundation.
Human teachers are not figure-heads of different schools, but the
instruments and the stewards through whom God dispenses His gifts. It
is not the duty of Christian teachers to put forward original ideas on
religion.
Then the apostle, after referring to their ostentatious
self-righteousness, pathetically shows the unfitness of pitting against
one another teachers who share in an equality of forlorn destitution
and contempt (iv. 6-13). He concludes this section with an
affectionate but authoritative speech: he says that he has sent Timothy
to Corinth, and hopes shortly to come himself (iv. 14-21).
The apostle proceeds with sharp decision to deal with _a case of
incest_. The Corinthians had treated this gross offence almost with
levity, but St. Paul declares that the offender shall be excommunicated
and shall be punished by disease (v. 1-8). After explaining some
advice of his earlier letter (v. 9-13), he goes on to rebuke a third
abuse--_litigation_ between Christians in pagan law-courts. The love
of law-suits was mischievous in itself, as involving a breach of
Christian brotherhood. It was also scandalous in its effects, as
exposing the bickerings of the disciples of Christ to the ridicule of
unbelievers. A stern rebuke of vice follows (vi. 1-11). Then comes an
indignant and lofty argument against fornication, which is a defilement
of the temple of the Holy Ghost (vi. 12-20).
St. Paul now turns to the various questions that the Corinthians have
asked him. He first gives some advice about _matrimony_, carefully
distinguishing between statements which he makes on his own authority,
and rules laid down by Christ, and also between counsels of perfection
and the obligations of ordinary Christians. It is excellent to lead a
single life, but in view of prevailing sensuality, he recommends
marriage as generally more prudent. He advises that when people do
marry, there should be a fulfilment of conjugal duties except for {139}
occasional devotion "unto prayer." One permanently important assertion
in the apostle's teaching is that both marriage and celibacy imply a
"gift from God." St. Paul would have had no sympathy with either any
mediaeval depreciation of married life, or the modern English notion
that a man has not "settled down" until he has married (vii. 1-40).
The next question is whether converts may eat _meat that has been
offered to idols_. With strong common-sense, the apostle points out
that there is here no alternative between essential right and wrong.
You may eat it, because an idol is nothing, but you must take care not
to hurt the consciences of other Christians (viii.). You may eat
anything that you buy in the market-place, but you must not attend an
idolatrous feast in a temple, and if you are at a private house you
must not eat food offered to idols if your attention has been directly
called to its character (x. 23-32). St. Paul illustrates his meaning
by reference to his own self-denial--the policy he had at Corinth of
exacting no payment for his ministry, his tactful caution, his severe
self-control (ix.). The need of such self-control is proved by the
fact that the ancient Jews, in spite of their high privileges, fell
into carelessness and sin (x. 1-13). The Corinthians must not be like
the Jews. The nature of the Eucharist warns them to be scrupulously
careful about temple feasts. There cannot be a drinking of the chalice
of Christ and of the cup of devils (x. 14-22).
Chapter xi. deals with _public worship_. St. Paul gives directions for
women to cover the head in church, and then comes a reference to the
Holy Eucharist which is of extreme interest and importance. It was the
custom for Christians to meet together before the Eucharist for a
common meal called the Agapé, which was intended to commemorate the
Lord's Last Supper. St. Paul complains that this meal has been made an
occasion of sin among the Corinthians: the richer people had overeaten
themselves, while the poor were left hungry and ashamed. The apostle
sets off the unfitness of {140} this conduct by a brief exposition of
the Eucharist; the preliminary meal, so much misused by these
ungracious and ungenerous Christians, was intended to be a preparation
for the ineffable Feast, at which the Fare was the very Body and Blood
of Jesus Christ, and at which His death was solemnly represented (xi.
2-34).
St. Paul deals next with _spiritual gifts_, saying that they come from
God, and so give no ground for boasting, and that the exercise of them
is only pleasing to God if it be joined with charity. After a sublime
chapter on charity, he lays down some regulations for those who
possessed these abnormal gifts, which, it is evident, were already the
cause of disorders in the Church. The Corinthians, with their craving
for the miraculous, tended to set a high value on speaking with
tongues, but St. Paul upholds the superiority of the more intelligible
and useful gift of prophecy (xii.-xiv.).
The Epistle concludes with a splendid argument for the reality of the
_Resurrection_. It is directed against some false philosophy. St.
Paul claims for the fact of the resurrection of Christ the witness of
Scripture, of many honest and intelligent Christians, and of himself.
Then he goes on to show to the Corinthian objectors what a denial of
the resurrection of the dead involves. It means that Christ did not
rise, that I am preaching deceit, that you are believing a lie, that
the dead in Christ have no existence except as memories, that we who
have foregone the pleasures of this life have done so in pursuit of a
delusive phantom. But it cannot be so. Christ is really risen. And
St. Paul passes on to demonstrate the happy consequences which follow
from this. The Resurrection is the earnest of all that Christ will do
for man; and in the light of it Christian baptism for the sake of the
dead[1] and Christian heroism have their meaning (xv. 1-34).
{141}
In order to remove difficulties from the mind of an objector, St. Paul
discusses the kind of body which we shall have at the Resurrection. He
shows by analogies from nature (a) that God is able to effect the
transformation of a seed-grain into a new product, and can therefore
transform us while retaining a connection between our present and
future body; (b) that God is able to create a variety of embodiments,
and can therefore give us a higher embodiment than we now possess.
There will be a spiritual body adapted to the spiritual world, as truly
as our natural body is adapted to life in this world. Thus the gospel
is truly a gospel for the body as well as for the spirit. Our whole
personality will be saved, and nothing will be discarded (xv. 35-58).
St. Paul concludes with an order for the collection of alms on behalf
of the faithful in Jerusalem, and says that he hopes to come soon to
Corinth. After some personal matters, he characteristically appends
with his own hand a curse on those who do not love the Lord, and a
prayer and loving message for the faithful.
ANALYSIS
Salutation, thanksgiving (i. 1-9).
(1) Evils in the Church: i. 10-vi. 20.--Sectarianism. This is rebuked
on the ground that all the apostles, etc., are working for one end, and
all their power is God's. Christ is supreme over all (i. 10-iv. 21).
Incest. The Church is to deliver the sinner to Satan (the severest
form of excommunication). St. Paul mentions a previous warning not to
associate with immoral Christians (v.).
{142}
Going to law with a Christian in the pagan courts is rebuked. Warning
against profligacy (vi.).
(2) Answers to a letter from the Corinthians: vii. 1-xi. 1.--Marriage
and celibacy. It is well to avoid marriage. But the married must not
separate. Under present circumstances, the apostle would prefer others
to be unencumbered as he is (vii.).
Food offered to idols. Christian liberty (viii.). St. Paul's example
in not claiming one's own rights (ix.). Danger of thinking that we
stand. We are "one bread," and must seek each other's good (x.-xi. 1).
(3) Other evils in the Church: xi. 2-34.--Women to be covered. Conduct
at the Eucharist and the Agapé. An account of the institution of the
Eucharist.
(4) Answer to a question concerning spiritual gifts: xii.-xiv.--Unity
in diversity (xii.). Charity the greatest gift (xiii.). Prophesying
and tongues compared (xiv.).
(5) Vindication of the Resurrection: xv.--The evidence for Christ's
resurrection.[2] The nature of our resurrection.
(6) Some directions and personal details: xvi.
[1] 1 Cor. xv. 29. This verse is very obscure. It has been
interpreted as meaning that when a convert died before it was possible
for him to be baptized, it was a custom of the Corinthians to allow a
friend to undergo baptism in his stead. But perhaps it simply means
being baptized for the sake of some dear one who was a sincere
Christian, and begged that his or her surviving relatives would be
baptized and meet him or her hereafter.
[2] It is important to notice that St. Paul, in writing of the death
and resurrection of our Lord, gives powerful evidence in support of St.
John's assertion that our Lord died on Nisan 14 (see above, p. 29). In
1 Cor. v. 7, 8 he says, "Our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even
Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast"; and in 1 Cor. xv. 20 he calls
Christ "the first-fruits of them that are asleep." Now, if Christ died
on Nisan 14, when the Passover lamb was sacrificed for a feast, and if
He rose on Nisan 16, when the Passover firstfruits were offered in the
temple, this double comparison is exquisitely appropriate. But if the
statement in John is false, St. Paul's comparison is forced and
unnatural.
{143}