HOME |
1 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians
| Galatians | Romans |
Page ^
Circumstances | Unity of 1 Corinthians | Page ^
The First Epistle was written from Ephesus. This is shown in xvi.8, 9. After saying that he would visit his readers when he had passed through Macedonia, and hoped to stay some time with them, the Apostle adds, 'But I am staying on at Ephesus till Pentecost, for a great and effectual door is open to me'. In keeping with this he sends salutations {v.19) from 'the Churches of Asia', and from Aquila and Priscilla, who, according to Acts xviii.18 f., had travelled with him to Ephesus. He had left them there, and had travelled to Jerusalem and then to Antioch. After some time he retraversed the route which he had taken in his second tour, through Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, and arrived at Ephesus.
The time of writing is doubtful, but his own words show that he wrote shortly before a
Pentecost, say early in May; and he implies, in xvi.1, 2, that the Corinthian collections for the poor of Jerusalem had not yet
been begun. But in 2 Cor.viii.10; ix.2, he speaks of the Corinthians as having begun the collection
'last year' (ἀπὸ πέρυσι - (apo perusi)). The relation between the dates of the two
epistles depends upon this phrase. 2 Corinthians was written from Macedonia after he had left Ephesus (see below), and after that
he was three months at Corinth (Acts xx.3) before leaving Philippi for Jerusalem 'after the days of Unleavened Bread' (v.6).
This would be at about the end of March, so that 2 Corinthians must have been written in the previous November or perhaps earlier.
Now when St. Paul says 'last year' he may have reckoned the year either, as a Roman, from January, or as a Jew, from
September-October. In the former case 'last year' for one writing in November would mean the previous December at latest. But in
the latter it might mean any time up to the autumn New Year, just over a month before he wrote, though the context renders this
improbable. If, however, he arrived in Macedonia and wrote 2 Corinthians in September, just before the autumn New Year, then 'a
year ago' would mean that the collection was begun in the previous September at the latest. Thus if 2 Corinthians was written in
September-November, 1 Corinthians was written in the spring either of the same, or of the previous, Roman year, i.e. five or six
months before, or a year and five or six months before. (M. Goguel discusses the date
more fully (op. cit. iv. a, pp. 144-6) but he regards the two letters as composite (ibid., p. 86).)
After dealing with the first matter that required attention, party factions at Corinth, he states that he has already dispatched Timothy to Corinth, and announces his intention of visiting them himself (iv.18 f., 21; xi.34). Meanwhile he wanted to stay on at Ephesus till Pentecost, and was sending them this letter, which would evidently reach them before Timothy. He asks them to receive him well and not despise him, and to forward him in peace on his journey back to him with the brethren, who were probably the bearers of the letter (xvi.10, 11). This seems to be the same mission of Timothy as that mentioned in Acts xix.22, where it is said that Timothy and Erastus were sent to Macedonia. This would explain why the letter—sent straight across the sea—would reach Corinth first. But St. Paul does not mention Erastus, and Acts does not relate Timothy's arrival at Corinth. It is not certain, therefore, that he arrived there; something may have occurred to prevent him from doing what he was sent to do. St. Luke was not in possession of all the facts of this troubled period. We know only that Timothy was in Macedonia when 2 Corinthians was written, for he joins in the opening salutation. But whether from Timothy or from other sources St. Paul heard news that made him pay the visit to Corinth that he had intended, of which Acts says nothing. But the report was evidently so bad that he felt it imperative to go to them as soon as possible. So, on the hypothesis that 2 Corinthians is a unity as it stands now in our Canon, he made up his mind to visit them twice, once immediately, crossing direct by sea from Ephesus, and then again after going from them to Macedonia (2 Cor.i.15, 16). The former of these was paid; but the visit was so painful that he could not bring himself to go a second time. There was thus a double change of plan: he did not stay in Ephesus till Pentecost, and he did not visit Corinth twice. For this he was accused of vacillation, against which he defends himself in 2 Cor.i.17-ii.1. His reason for refraining from the second visit is given in i.23: 'But I call God as a witness upon my soul that to spare you I came no more ('I forbare to come' (RV), and 'I came not as yet' (AV) are incorrect renderings, which seem to have been occasioned by the desire to avoid the admission that St. Paul paid a visit to Corinth unrecorded by St. Luke.) (οὐκέτι ἦλθον - (ouketi helthon)) to Corinth', and ii.1: 'I determined this for myself that I would not come again to you with sorrow.' The painful visit, not recorded in the Acts, was the second that he had actually paid them; he went to them for the first time on his second tour (Acts xviii.1-17), when he wrote to the Thessalonians. Hence he says, 'This is the third time I am ready to come to you' (2 Cor.xii.14); 'This is the third time I am coming to you ... I say beforehand as [I said] when I was present the second time' (xiii. 1,2). The visit was the more painful because it proved a sad failure. St. Paul returned, as we have seen, to Ephesus instead of going to Macedonia, and in the depths of depression wrote a sorrowful letter (2 Cor.ii.4), which he even feared might have been too stern (vii.8). Titus took it. Then St. Paul went up via Troas to Macedonia, and at last, to his infinite relief, Titus came with the good news that the letter had done its work and produced in them a repentant sorrow (vii.6-16). This made him write what we know as 2 Corinthians. The reason for the painful visit and this sorrowful letter is not clear. It is perhaps something quite unknown to us; but if it is one of the subjects with which 1 Corinthians deals, it may be either the factions, or the crime of incest, or the litigation in heathen courts. Possibly the last two were connected; some have thought that it was the injured father who brought the son before a heathen court. (SeeJ. H. Bernard, Studio Sacra, 1917, ch. ix.) Many have thought that part of the sorrowful letter is preserved in 2 Cor.x-xiii.10; others that it is lost, and that 2 Corinthians is a unity (see below).
One exception, at least, to its unity is widely recognized, 1 Corinthians is not the first letter that the apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth. In 1 Cor.v.9 he says, 'I wrote to you in my letter not to be mixed up with fornicators'; and there is nothing in the opening chapters of the epistle to which the words could refer. He seems to have heard that some of them were behaving in an unworthy manner with regard to the immorality with which Corinth was saturated. But when he wrote to protest, they had misunderstood him, and he was obliged to explain that he did not mean that they must separate themselves entirely from all fornicators, otherwise they would have to leave the world altogether, but that they must keep clear of any brother, i.e. Christian, who was guilty of the sin. It is very probable that a fragment of this letter has been preserved in 2 Cor.vi.14-vii.1, a passage which might have been so misunderstood, and which breaks the close connexion of thought between vi.13, 'be ye also enlarged' (i.e. enlarge your hearts towards me), and vii.2, 'make room for us' (sc. in your hearts).
Furthermore, J. Weiss (The History of Primitive Christianity (Eng. trans., 1937), i. 340 f.) drew attention to 'different points of view or attitudes' in 1 Corinthians which led him to split this letter into three parts:
|
A. |
|
The rigorous demands concerning idolatry and fornication, the discussion about the unveiling of women and the common meals. |
x.1-23, vi.12-20, xi.2-34, xvi.7?, 8 f., 20 f.? |
|
B. |
1. |
The vigorous expositions on marriage, eating idol meat, Paul's renunciation, spiritual gifts, resurrection. |
vii, viii, ix, x.24-xi.1, xii-xv, xvi.1-6 (7?), 16-19? |
|
|
2. |
The expositions on parties, the incestuous person, the lawsuits before heathen magistrates. |
i.1-9, i.l0-vi.n, xvi. 10-14, 22-24 |
Similarly J. Hering (La premiere epitre de S. Paul aux Corinthiens, 1948, p. 11.) contrasts iv.19 with xvi.5 f., the references to arrival, and x.1-22, the rigorist attitude to pagan sacrifice, with viii, x.23-xi.1, the liberal attitude to 'weak' or scrupulous brethren; and he notes that ix picks up abruptly the problem of the apostolate already discussed in i-iv. He splits the letter into two:
|
A |
i-viii, x.23-xi.1, xvi.1-4, 10-14 and |
|
B |
ix, x.1-22, xi.2-xv, and the
rest of xvi (xiii 'etant d'ailleurs de toute maniere un hors-d'oeuvre'!). |
M. Goguel (see below on 2 Cor.) divides 1 Corinthians rather differently.
There is no textual evidence at all in favour of these partition views. The oldest papyrus of Paul's letters, the third-century Chester Beatty codex P46 treats each of the two letters as a unity in the order familiar to us. However, it is possible that the first collector of St. Paul's Corinthian correspondence found his material on different pieces of papyrus and put together two letters as best he could and that all our textual evidence is derived from his arrangement. It is equally possible that St. Paul was great enough to be inconsistent at some points and that he did not have the thoroughness of the German or the lucidity of the French mind.
Taken as it stands, 1 Corinthians is the most intensely practical of all St. Paul's letters. It was written to meet immediate needs of his converts, of which he heard from, apparently, three sources,
1. He was informed by 'them of Chloe' (i.e. probably Christian slaves of a Corinthian lady who had come with her, or had been sent by her, to Ephesus) that the Corinthian Church was rent by party factions. He deals with this in i.l0-iv.21. He learnt, probably from the same source, that a Christian in Corinth had committed incest with his stepmother (ch.v), that Christians were bringing lawsuits against Christians before heathen, Roman, courts (vi.1-11), and that with an abuse of Christian 'liberty' some were yielding to the prevalent pagan vice of fornication (vi.12-20).
2. But after dealing, with passionate eagerness, with these four matters which had reached him by report, he had to discuss some points apparently raised by the Corinthians themselves in a letter brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaieus. He refers to each point in turn with the same formula:
|
'Now concerning what you wrote' - with regard to |
… marriage |
vii.1-24 |
|
|
|
… virgins’1 |
vii. 25-40 |
|
|
|
… idol-foods' |
viii.1-xi.1 |
|
|
|
… Spirit-filled persons' |
xii.1-xiv.40 |
|
|
|
… the collection' |
xvi.1-11 |
(combined with some personal matters) |
|
|
… Apollos' |
xvi.12. |
|
3. In addition to these the apostle treats of three other matters on which he learnt, probably from the bearers of their letter to him, that rebuke and counsel were needed: Irregularity, of which some women were guilty, with regard to dress at public worship (xi.2-16); Unworthy behaviour on the part of some of the richer Christians in the eating of the food at the Eucharistic feasts (xi.17-34); Denial by some Christians, probably Gentiles only, that there would be a Resurrection of the dead, which St. Paul meets first by arguing from the Resurrection of Christ, as he had received it in tradition, and which he takes for granted (xv.1-28), and on other grounds (vv.29-34), and then by discussing the nature of the Resurrection body, granting, of course, the contention of his opponents that the material body could not inherit the divine kingdom (vv.35-58). He concludes with some personal matters and salutations (xvi.19-24). No other writing in the New Testament reveals more vividly the meaning of the words, 'that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the Churches'.
1(In vii. 36-40 'daughter' has been added to the RV translation on the assumption that the problem was, should a
father allow his unmarried daughter to marry before the Parousia? but the reference may be to the practice in pre-monastic days
of men and women, dedicated to celibacy, living under the same roof, cf. Hermas, Sim. ix. n ; Eusebius, H.E. vii.
30. 12 and Canon 3 of the Council of Nicaea; cf. M. Maude, 'Who were the B'nai Q'yama ?', J.T.S. xxxvi, 1935, pp. 13-21. (Contrast Allo, i Corinthians, Excursus, vii,
and E. Alzas, Revue de theologie et de philosophic, xxxviii, 1950, pp. 226-32.) If so, the problem was, should a virgin dedicated to Christ marry a Christian man
living perhaps under the same roof?)
The above sketch of the Circumstances shows that this epistle was written at a moment of intense revulsion of feeling. St. Paul's temperament was such that he felt things more acutely than most people. His converts from paganism, who included 'not many wise, not many powerful, not many of noble family', but probably many slaves, and others who belonged, for the most part, to the humblest and uneducated classes, were in greater need than those of any other Church of being supported and controlled by the strong hand of authority. He had been racked with fear that they might defy his authority by refusing to listen to the pleadings and to follow the directions in his sorrowful letter. His relief was unbounded when he heard from Titus that they had accepted his letter in the right spirit, and had shown their penitence by dealing strongly— almost too strongly—with the offender. And he at once wrote this letter. It was not a moment for dealing with Christian doctrine or Church practice; the letter is simply a pouring out of the man himself. We learn from it more of his personal character and temperament than from all his other writings put together.
After the opening salutation (i.1, 2) and thanksgiving (vv.3-14), the latter of which, owing to the circumstances, is much more than an epistolary convention, the epistle falls into three main parts:
|
A. |
|
|
He dwells on … |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
his relations with the Corinthians. |
i.15-ii.13, and |
|
|
(b) |
|
his apostolic authority |
ii. i4-vii. 4. |
|
|
|
|
In the latter section he describes: |
|
|
|
|
(i) |
his office: the nature of his work—a
sacrificial odour rising to God, |
vv. 14-16 |
|
|
|
|
the sincerity of his teaching , |
v. 17 |
|
|
|
|
his independence of human commendation, since his
converts themselves are his living and visible commendation, |
iii. 1-3 |
|
|
|
|
the divine dignity of his ministry, as that of the New
Covenant, |
vv. 4-18 |
|
|
|
|
and its high character in keeping with this; |
iv. 1-6 |
|
|
|
(ii) |
His sufferings;
|
iv.7-v.10
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
His life,
|
(v.11-vi.10) |
|
|
|
|
its motive, |
v.11-15 |
|
|
|
|
its nature, |
v.16-vi.2) |
|
|
|
|
and the earthly marks which show its nature, |
|
|
|
|
|
i.e. sufferings, |
vi.3-5 |
|
|
|
|
Character. |
vv.6, 7 |
|
|
|
|
and a spiritual independence of circumstances; |
vv.8-10 |
|
|
|
(iv) |
His personal feelings for the Corinthians. |
vi.11-13 and vii. 2-4 |
|
|
|
|
(The intervening passage, vi.14-vii.1, as said above, is probably a fragment of an earlier letter.) |
|
|
B. |
|
|
The
Collection. He presses upon them the duty of almsgiving, and tries to spur them to liberality by pointing to the example of the
Macedonians. |
viii, ix |
|
C. |
|
|
But the
submission of the majority of the Corinthians did not mean that he had no opponents left. And to these he turns in the remainder
of the letter. He reasserts his authority, and utters stern rebukes and warnings, sharpening the edge of them with touches of
mordant irony. |
x-xiii. |
Many have thought that this is not wholly lost, but is partly preserved in Section C (x.1-xiii.10), so that 2 Corinthians consisted originally of only Sections A and B, with the conclusion (xiii.11-13). But A. H. McNeile was inclined to the opposite view, that the sorrowful letter is lost to us, and that the epistle as we have it (Apart from the fragment vi.14-vii.1.) is a unity.
The principal arguments for the former view (This view is best stated by J. H. Kennedy, The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians; cf. R. H. Strachan, s Corinthians, pp. xiv-xxii ;J. Weiss, op. cit., pp. 347-57.) are as follows, the corresponding arguments for the latter view being given where necessary.
|
'Being in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled.'— 2 Cor. x. 6. |
'For to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you, whether ye are obedient in all things.'—2 Cor. ii.9. |
|
'If I come again I will not spare.'—2 Cor. xiii. 2. |
'To spare you I came no more to Corinth.'—2 Cor. i. 23. |
|
'For this cause I write these things from a distance, that I may not when I come deal sharply.'—2 Cor.xiii.10. |
'And I wrote this same thing that when I came I might not have sorrow.'—2 Cor.ii.3. |
According to K. Lake, 'These three pairs of passages are very striking and lose nothing if read in their context. It seems impossible to deny that in each pair the same thing is referred to twice; in 2 Cor.x-xiii in the present or future tense and in 2 Cor.i-ix in the past.' However, according to McNeile, the two sets of passages do not necessarily refer to the same visit. Those in the second column look back to the fact that the apostle substituted the sorrowful letter for a visit from which he shrank. Those in the first look forward to the visit that he did in fact pay, according to Acts xx.2, 3, when he went from Macedonia into Greece. His disciplinary measures upon the minority would be much easier to enforce, now that he had the support of the majority.
For the theory that chs.x-xiii are the sorrowful letter it is unfortunate that the occasion which called it forth, the wrongdoing of an individual offender, and the attitude that St. Paul desired the Corinthians to take towards him (see ii.5-10), are not so much as mentioned in the chapters. And the supporters of the theory are obliged to suppose that chs.x-xiii are only a fragment, the portion dealing with the offender having been lost or suppressed. But this, of course, is not impossible. The portion that was not lost or suppressed may have been added to the Pauline corpus when all the available fragments from his pen were collected. J. Weiss (Op. cit., pp. 347-57.) accepts the view that chs. x-xiii originally preceded i-ix but he put together with x-xiii both ii.14-vi.13 and vii.2 ff., and then the rest of i-ix. Goguel1 splits 2 Corinthians into three parts (not counting vi.14-vii.1), x.1-xiii.10; i.1-vi.13 and vii.2-viii.24; ix.1-15, leaving xiii.11-13 as an indeterminable element. In a footnote he lists other divisions of this letter.
1(Op. cit., pp. 72-86. Goguel's resume of the classification of the elements in both letters is:
|
A. |
II, vi.14-vii.1. I, vi.12-20, x.1-22. |
|
B. |
I, v.1-vi.11; vii.1-viii.13; x.23-xiv.40. xv.l-58(?). xvi.1-9, 12. |
|
C. |
I, i.10-iv.21; ix.1-27; xvi.10 f. |
|
D. |
II, x.1-xiii.10. |
|
E. |
II, i.1-vi.13; vii.2-viii.24. |
|
F. |
II, ix.1-15. |
|
B or C. |
I, xvi.15-18. |
Indeterminable elements: I. i.1-9; xvi.13-14, 19-24; II, xiii.11-13.)
It is probable that all four theories will continue to find supporters; and it may be that final agreement will never be reached.
Destination | Date & place of writing | Causes of writing | Contents
| Page ^
|
This has been the subject of much dispute. In the course of his first missionary tour St. Paul with Barnabas visited Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts xiii.14, 51; xiv.6, 20), which lay in the Roman province of Galatia. In this narrative, however, the name of the province is not mentioned. In the second tour he traversed, with Silas, the same route in the converse direction, revisiting Derbe and Lystra (xvi.1). It is then added that as they passed through the cities they delivered to them the decrees of the Council, and that 'panel' of the history (see p. 97) is closed with the usual summary {v.5). The next panel contains their arrival in Europe via Troas, the beginning of the journey thither being described in v. 6: 'And they passed through τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν - (ten Phrygian kai Galatiken Choran) having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.' The one article τήν - (ten), according to the most probable interpretation, makes Φρυγίαν - (Phrygian) to be an adjective as well as Γαλατικήν - (Galatiken), both qualifying χώραν - (choran).1 |
1(Moffatt (Intr. Lit. N. T., p. 93) adduces to the contrary διελθὼν τὴν Μακεδονίαν καὶ Ἀχαίαν - (dielthon ten Makedonian kai Achaian) (xix.21), and κατὰ τὴν Κιλικίαν καὶ Παμφυλίαν - (kata |