Introduction: To this day, we can still observe
from the stories and movies depicting the then world of Greece in the early
centuries; that those were the days where human, with his/her all efforts,
strived to get the utmost pleasure possible. As such, problem was inevitable in
Corinth especially considering the immorality problems. Most of the sources of
problems (particularly theological problems) in Corinth, can be traced back to
the Hellenistic culture which so influenced the Corinthians like spirituality
and dualism regarding body/soul or material/immaterial dualism which disdained
the physical world for the “higher” knowledge and wisdom of spiritual
existence. But it is beyond our mandatory to deal with the history of the
problem, rather in this paper we will be dealing with the problems with their
manifestations, and how Paul responded. But first, in order to have an adequate knowledge about
the problems, we will be dealing with the sociology of Corinth in general.
1. Sociology of Corinth: As a Greek city-state, Corinth flourished both before and
after the golden years of Athens (5th century BCE). But it was
destroyed by the Roman consul Lucius Mummius in 146 BCE. The site lay dormant
for one hundred years, until it was re-founded in 44 BCE by Julius Caesar as a
Roman colony. As described by Strabo, some fifty years later prosperity returned
to the city almost immediately. Since money attracts people, Corinth quickly
experienced a great influx of people from both west and east.[1]
There seems
to be considerable intermixing of races in its population, and this resulted in
a variety of religious cults. Corinth’s chief shrine was the temple of
Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and life. In Corinth her cult appeared in
a dishonored form, due to the admixture of certain Oriental influences.[2]
It is said that there were at least 26 sacred places (not all were temples)
devoted to the “gods many” (the Roman-Greek pantheon) and “lords many” (the
mystery cults).[3]
This meant a low moral tone and even caused sexual perversion in a possibly
attested cult of sacred prostitution. According to Strabo, “the Temple of
Aphrodite was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple-slaves,
courtesans, whom men and women had dedicated to the goddess.” Because of the
luxury and vice of Corinth the word “corinthianize” i.e., to fornicate, was
coined as an infamous sign of the wealth and immorality for which the city was
renowned in the ancient world.[4]
F. L. Godet
calculated that at the time when Apostle Paul arrived in it, there were from
six to seven hundred thousand inhabitants, of whom two hundred thousand were
freemen and four hundred thousand slaves.[5] In
such a place, according to Acts 18:1–11, the church was formed as a result of
Paul’s preaching in the local synagogue. A large proportion of its members must
have been drawn from the pagan world, with its heterogeneous standards of life
and conduct. Because of this, it is probably correct to assume that the church
members were Gentile, converted to Christ from a pagan background.[6]
Stambaugh and Balch have given roughly a classification of the population of
the Roman world into three divisions: viz., i) The upper classes comprising a
large group known as equites (equestrians
or knights), who were wealthy landowners. ii) Lower class who were below the
aristocracy, small landowners, craftsmen, shopkeepers and the lower ranks of
Roman citizens in the army and iii) Really poor at the bottom most- were those
who had no property and supported themselves by piecework at the docks, in
construction, or on farms. The lowest legal status of all was the slave. Stambaugh
and Balch assessed that most of the Christians listed in the New Testament
belonged to the Lower class group.[7]
1.1. The Social Status of the Christian
Community: In
Pauline Christianity there seems to have existed several social strata, related
to one another in mutual support and cooperation.[8] Many
scholars argued that Christianity was a religion of the slaves and the
oppressed, made up of poor and peasants and workers. Among them is Adolf
Deissmann who says that primitive Christianity was a movement within the lower
strata.[9]
Gager said that though the first Christians did not belong to the absolute
bottom end of the society, but they did not come from the higher strata than
the middle classes.[10]
Almost similar to this view, Clarence T. Craig wrote that Paul's work was
confessedly among the lower classes (1:26-31). He assumed that the individuals
whom Paul names may have been among the few who were wealthy or wise, but
freedmen and slaves surely comprised the majority of his converts. In short, the
bronze workers, potters, shopkeepers, and dock hands drawn to the new faith
were joined by few of the powerful and well born.[11]
At the same
time, Holmberg stated that early Christianity is seen to be more spread in
different social strata, and more a phenomenon of marginalized middle strata.
At no time or place was the Christian church a movement located primarily in
the lowest stratum of society, as it attracted people from different social
strata right from its inception. One remarkable fact of the early Christians
church is that its social base to a high degree consisted of private home of
the wealthy, the only houses large enough to receive guests and regular
congregational meetings and meals. According to the letter of Pliny to the
Emperor Trajan, the Christians have attracted a great number of people of all
estates. E. A. Judge also stresses that members of the lower strata also joined
the Christian community as part of the followers of those from the higher
classes.[12]
Like other
scholars like A. Deissmann, Godet also asserts that the majority of the members
of the Corinthian church did not belong to the upper, rich, cultivated classes;
they were for the most part poor, slaves, people despised for their ignorance
and their low social condition.[13]
On the contrary, E.A Judge has expressed the opposite view asserting that the
Christians were dominated by a socially pretentious section of the population
of the big cities. Incidentally, Theissen suggests that both opinions are
probably correct as the Corinthian congregation is marked by internal
stratification.[14]
Thus, we shall now look into more detail of the social stratification and other
problems in Corinth.
2. Social Problems and respective responses by Paul:
2.1. Schism: A casual reader of the epistle of I
Corinthians would be able to note the existence of schism in the community.
Paul’s address to this problem is found explicitly, or at least implicitly,
throughout the epistle for different occasions. Theissen has classified this
stratification into the following categories:-
2.1.1. The Rich and
the Poor: The main root
problem was the schism between the rich and the poor.[15] The
majority of the members, who come from the lower classes, stand in contrast to
a few influential members who come from the upper classes. This internal stratification
is not accidental but the result of structural causes. Theissen points out the
existence of higher class groups substantially as follows:
i) In Paul’s statement about the
community as a whole, he addresses three categories of people- the wise, the powerful and the noble birth
(I Cor 1:26). The ‘powerful’ would
be influential people; the ‘wise,’ those who belong to the educated classes
(that is, ‘wise according to worldly standards’) for whom wisdom is also a sign
of social status. But noble birth (euvgenei/j)
brings into play something entirely new; a specific
sociological category which Paul emphasizes was also attested in Hellenistic
Judaism (Philo, De virtutibus). Thus,
If Paul says that there were not many in the Corinthian congregation who were
wise, powerful and wellborn, then this much is certain: there were some.[16]
ii) In his
statement about individual members, we also find glimpses in his accounts on holding office, houses, assistance rendered
to the congregation and travel which can serve as criteria for elevated
social status. And respectively as such, Crispus, one of the first Christians,
who was a synagogue ruler[17]
is assumable he possessed high social status.[18]
Theissen assumes that the term house connotes the household, including slaves (cf
Col 3:18ff.; Eph 5:22ff.; Rom 14:4; I Peter 2:18 etc.) and that the families
mentioned in this epistle talks about the elevated families with an elevated
social status.[19]
On account of assistance/service rendered by Gaius, Paul speaks not of a
“house-congregation” but of the “whole congregation.” This means that Gaius had
sufficient space for the whole congregation since the congregation at Corinth
was large. So, it is inferable a high status for Gaius.[20]
There are 17 names mentioned out of which 9 were engaged in travel, they are
Chloe’s people, Aquila, Erastus, Priscilla, Phoebe, Sosthenes, Stephanas,
Fortunatus, and Achaius. Theissen concluded that these nine people belong to
the upper classes. Because of this, Theissen proposes that the great majority
of the Corinthians known to us by name probably enjoyed high social status.[21]
Gordon Fee,
basing on I Cor 12:13, argues for the presence of the Jew, Greek, slaves and
free people among the believers and that not many of them came from the upper socio-economic strata (I Cor 1:26)
while there were also slaves (7:20-24).[22] C.
K. Barrett also confirms the presence of slaves in the Corinthian church, but
they were not entirely servile status.[23]
On account of the division of the Corinthian church as
belonging to Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ, Kümmel said that the followers of
Peter are advocates of Jewish Christianity which appeals to the primitive
apostles of Jerusalem. The Apollos’ people can be regarded as advocates of a
cultured Christianity of eloquent wisdom, which can also attest the social
schism.[24]
2.1.2. The Strong and the Weak: The quarrel
between the Strong and the Weak in the Corinthian congregation is , according
to Theissen, just a matter of such different customs. The weak avoid all meat
sacrificed to idols since it could never be known with certainty that rituals
actions had not accompanied the slaughter of the meat. The strong, on the other
hand, appeal to their “knowledge” there is only one God; there are no idols and
hence “no meat sacrificed to idols” (I Cor. 8:4ff.).[25]
While Theissen refers it to as difference in customs, Conzelmann refers it to
the social inequality by stating that Weak ones would be the poorer members of
the church and the strong ones would be the richer and more educated members
who were used to easy mixing and socializing.[26]
Here, Paul urges the general waiver of a right, the right to participate in
temple meals with appropriate mental reservations. But Paul is inconsistent in
responding to public and private meals (10:23ff.). He is inclined to go along
with the weak where the eating of meat takes on an official character (sacred
meat) and with the strong when the problem is one of a private setting. Here,
Theissen identifies that the weak do not necessarily belong to Gentiles and strong belonging to Jews or vice versa. He deduces that there were two different
types of weak Corinthians: weak Gentile and weak Jews.[27]
2.1.3. Different
groups at sacramental activity: The celebration of the Lord’s Supper
actually takes place in conjunction with a communal meal. It denotes that the
Lord’s Supper comprised of both a ‘fellowship meal’ (later called agape) and a ‘cultic meal’ (Eucharist).
According to Bornkamm, in the Corinthian celebration the two meals were
differentiated one from the other, but not yet separated.[28] The
agape preceded the Eucharist.
Gradually personal interests and hostilities intruded into its celebration.
Each one went ahead with his/her own meal; consequently one is hungry and
another is drunk.[29]
The Christians
in Corinth met together in the homes of the rich (since they alone could
accommodate them). These occasions were full meals with plenty of food and
drink. The rich brought plentiful food for themselves (including meat), whereas
the poorer members had to make do with their own scanty fare. There is one view
that the richer members came early and ate and drank plentifully before the
arrival of the poorer members who would have brought much scantier fare with
them. The poorer members of the church could not come so early (because of
their work commitments) nor bring food of the same quality. It is pointed out
that the poorer people would have had to be content with bread and not much
besides, whereas the rich would have had meat and a variety of delicacies.
Thus, although the rich opened their houses to the church, they did so in a way
that emphasized social divisions.[30]
The division
within the society had deep effects among the Christians as well. Such example
can be seen from the Corinthian church. According to Derek Tidball, such
different social classes were still found even after their conversion to
Christianity. The quarrelling and division in I Corinthians chapter 1,
according to Tidball, may be the demonstration of how these social distinctions
were displayed at Corinth. [31]
Paul’s
Response: Paul taught the
Corinthians to accept and remain in the status and position in which they are
called regarding circumcision and slavery (1 Cor 7: 17-21). In this issue of
the social status, Paul shows that no status whether high or low is a barrier
either to acceptance or usefulness in the church of God. Paul stressed that
lack of importance of status and their reinterpretation in the light of what
Christ had done is rather removal of distinction.[32]
In chapter 10:31ff. Paul brings closure to the arguments by addressing the
question of conduct in nonessential matters, which began with the overarching
principle that the Christian does not seek his/her own good but that of one’s
neighbor. But that must be construed as eliminating personal freedom. Thus, he
concludes with two imperatives that must control Christian behavior on such
questions- i) everything must be to the glory of God and ii) one must give no
offence to anyone- Jew, pagan or fellow believer.[33]
However, sociology is not Paul’s concern; he is theological, and he is
capitalizing on the less-than-pretentious social standing of the majority-
which at the same time may have had philosophical overtones- to make his point.
Paul infers that God has forever aligned with the disenfranchised; at the same
time having played out before our eyes God’s own overthrow of the world’s false
standards.[34]
2.2. Immoralities
and Disorders: In Chapter
5, a great alteration took place and it entirely discussed with an issue of immorality
in the Church, a reference to the ground of moral purity and also instruction
in regard to the Church discipline. Here Paul speaks of moral lapses in the
life of both inside and outside the Church.[35]
2.2.1. Incest: There is only one instance recorded
in Paul’s letters where incest is addressed: “a man has his father’s wife” (1
Cor 5:1). Having father’s wife, in
its simplest explanation is that after the death of his father he has married
his father’s widow, his step mother. The present form of e;cein, ‘have,’
points to a lasting state, marriage or concubines. Also conceivable is that his
father has secured a divorce and is still alive. We can rule out a marriage
with his own mother, which is forbidden in Lev 18:7. Such a marriage is inconceivable
even in Greece and Rome.[36] Marriage to a man’s stepmother was
forbidden in Lev 18:8 and carried the death penalty (Lev 21: 11, Deut 22:30,
27:20). This relationship was also forbidden even by Roman law. Here lies one
of the points of tension between the faith and worship, witness of the Church
and its pagan environment.[37]
Paul’s
Response: Paul takes up a very particularly serious case that a member of
the church living with an immoral relationship with his stepmother is obviously
beyond Christian Law. The Apostle method of dealing with this; the incestuous
man must be ruthlessly expelled from the church (5:1-5). Fornication such as
marked the orgies in Corinth was intolerable within the Church. A man cannot
belong to Church and to a harlot.[38]
Conzelmann interprets that this idea is to be understood in the first instance
within the context of contemporary history: the view of curse and ban as
entertained by the whole ancient and Jewish world. The case here is not a case
mere exclusion from the church, but of a dynamistic ceremony. The holiness of
the church is conceived in metaphysical categories. In the meantime, the point here does not lie
in the physical aspect of the working of a supernatural power, but in the fact
that the accursed man is thrust out of the body on Christ into the realm of
wrath. This is plain from the purpose of the ceremony, the saving of the pneu/ma.[39] John
Calvin says that while Christ reigns within, so Satan reigns outside, the
church, which means that the man should be excluded in which Satan exercised
his authority.[40] Instead,
the translation of the Mishnah as “extirpation” is more suitable then the
smoother translation physical death
because of the nature of the context (to turn the offender over to Roman
officials for punishment, but one cannot rely on this hypothesis because there
is no evidence that the Jews ever referred to roman officials as the Satan).[41]
C. K. Barrett supposes this punishment as an exclusion of the offender from the
society, which means excommunication.[42]
Guthrie adds that Paul's request here was to serve subsequently as a basis for the
practice of excommunication. However, he further advice that when someone
sorrow their sins and seek God’s forgiveness, their sins must be forgiven.
Christ is referred as a sacrificed paschal lamb to cleanse us from all our sins
and gives us an assurance of eternal redemption. Paul may probably mean that a
person may be out of the fellowship of the Church, but the Apostle regards this
as only remedial, and his desire is that the person spirit might be saved.[43]
2.2.2.
Fornication: There is a clear evidence of the presence of a libertine’s
attitude regarding this. Some members of the community were saying, "All
things are lawful" (6:12). By that they meant that sexual conduct was as
morally indifferent as eating. Among these we should probably look for the
supporters of the man guilty of incest (5:1-5). Paul may have ascribed to this
group a more consistent practice of their theory than was actually the case,
but clearly there were defenders of decidedly loose sexual standards.[44] Here Loewenich claims that some were still
under the spell of their heathen past, giving full play to their desires, and
arrogantly gave their reasons as ‘Christian
liberty and Knowledge.’[45]
Paul’s Response:
The exhortation that Paul used is to flee from fornication (6:18). Paul was not
contented to urge the Corinthians to merely avoid it. Rather, he exhorted them
to run away from it. It seems that temptations to fornication were so common in
Corinth that mere disapproval was likely to be inadequate; strong evasive
action would be necessary.[46]
In the meantime, Paul’s definition of fornication also creates exegetical
problem. In 6:18, he says, “Every sin that a person commits is outside the
body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself.” It seems that there is
a distinction between fornication and all other sins in respect of their
relation to the body. In order to overcome this difficulty, Moule suggested
that the sentence pa/n a`ma,rthma o] eva.n poih,sh| a;nqrwpoj evkto.j tou/ sw,mato,j evstin (Every sin that a person commits is outside
the body, 1 Cor 6:18 ) might be regarded as a slogan of the Corinthian
libertines, which means no sin can affect a man’s true body: physical lust
cannot touch the secure ‘personality’ of the initiated. On the contrary, Paul’s
assertion is that anyone who commits fornication is committing an offence
against his/her very ‘personality.’[47]
Furthermore, Paul said that fornication is a sin not only against God, and not
only against the other person involved, but against the fornicator’s own body,
which is designed to belong not to a harlot, but to the Lord (6:13).[48]
James D. G. Dunn translates pornei,a as “unlawful sexual intercourse.” In this
sense, he states that Paul was not hostile to sexual relation as such. It was
the abuse of sex to which he was opposing and that abuse covered the whole
range of illegal sexual practice, including homosexual practice and sexual
immorality in general.[49]
2.2.3. Food Sacrificed to Idols: This
topic has previously been dealt with to point out the schism and differences in
social status among the Corinthians (2.1.2. The Strong and the Weak in pg 4,).
But as for now, it will be dealt with to identify the problems in the diversity
of practice and ideology.
It can be assumed that it was the Gnostic group[50]
which drew the conclusion from the fact that idols had no real existence.
Therefore, for the strong, food offered to idols could be no different from
other food, and "all things are lawful" (10:23). They built their
standpoint on the basis of gnosis-religious knowledge. They accepted that there
is only god; the sacrifices are therefore offered to non-existent beings, so
that the process of sacrifice leaves the meat untouched, unpolluted. It may
therefore be eaten. Opposed to them were those with a weak conscience (8:10)
for whom idol meat had emotional associations too strong to be shaken off so
quickly. Obviously these were not former Jews still under the influence of kosher
regulations but former Gentiles since they had up till now been
"accustomed to idols" (8:7). They built their understanding on
sacraments. They thought that they had been baptized; they ate spiritual food
and drink spiritual drink. So, no harm can touch them.
Paul’s Response: The
viewpoint of the stronger Christians, who believed that the idols and the food
offered to their sacrifices do not pollute them because they are the people of
one God who is not a heathen god, is quite true. In the meantime, those who
think that those foods pollute them were weak Christians who were likely
underestimating the true nature of God. They were still bothered by their
heathen background and environments. However, Paul warned even the stronger
Christians if their practice and freedom cause the weaker fellows to fall, they
should not go to that extent because Christ died even for those weaker
Christians also, and said that such kind of freedom is nothing, but a sin. [51] On the
contrary, Whiteley comments in different tone- to Paul, such enlightened Corinthians, who took share
in the heathen sacrifice as part of some civic function but justified
themselves with their freedom was a mere empty form.[52]
The problem with the weak is not that they are offended by what the Gnostics
are doing; their conscience is being built up in such a way that they are being
led also to eat what is sacrificed to idols. But still, what for others is food
only, is for them food sacrificed to the idols.[53]
2.2.4.
Litigation/Lawsuits: In chapter 6:1ff. Paul deals with another cause of
scandal, he was deeply shocked saying, even Jews living in heathen cities did
not take such cases before gentile courts. Paul detected three tragedies in
this situation. First the believers were presenting a poor testimony to the
lost. Even the unbelieving Jews dealt with their civil cases in their own
synagogue courts. To take the problems of Christians and discuss them before
the "unjust" and "unbelievers" was to weaken the testimony
of the Gospel. Second, the congregation had failed to live up to its full
Position in Christ Since the saints will one day participate in the judgment of
the world and even of fallen angels, they ought to be able to settle their
differences here on earth. The Corinthians boasted of their great spiritual
gifts. Why, then, did they not use them in solving their problems? Thirdly, the members suing each other had already
lost. Even if some of them won their cases, they had incurred a far greater
loss in their disobedience to the Word of God. "Now, therefore, there is
utterly a fault among you" (1 Cor 6:7) can be translated, "It is
already a complete defeat for you."[54]
Paul’s Response: Paul is not suggesting that pagan
courts are corrupt, as a good citizen; the Christian acknowledges civil Law and
claimed its protection (Rom 13:1-7, Acts 18:12f. 25:16). However to invoke
pagan courts to settle a lawsuit between believers was a confession of
Christian failure, therefore he encourages them that the matter should be
decided before the saints or the Church.[55]
Paul recognizes the disputes between the brethren so the point he makes was
with the use of rhetorical question, he said when such dispute arises it should
be settled within the brotherhood. Paul’s complaint was not that the believers
would not obtain justice in heathen court however that had no business to
appear there at all. He further exhorted them that the saints will assist in
the final judgment of the world. This may go back to the teaching of our Lord,
who associated the twelve with him in judgment (Matt 19:28, Luke 22:28f).[56]
The Church must find a suitable judge to attribute disputes without appealing
to those outside the faith; they had a responsibility not only in this life but
also in the one beyond. Those who belong to Christ will judge both this world
and heaven’s angel.[57]
2.2.5. Problems of Marriage and Celibacy: Fitzmyer suggests that this was one of the topics treated in
a letter that has been sent to him by Corinthian Christians.[58]
His own views on marriage as it was to be lived among Christians are extensively
essentially expressed in I Thess 4:3-8 and I Cor 7:1-40. Apparently
one of the questions the church asked was, "Is celibacy more spiritual
than marriage?" Paul had been dealing with the sins reported to be known
in the Corinthian congregation. And so here he encounter with the moral issue
of marriage and celibate. He is not spelling out a complete theology of
marriage but considers as well what the rest of the passage has to say about
this important subject.[59]
The first topic that Paul takes up, marriage is related to the issues of sexual
morality treated in chaps. 5 and 6, and v. 2 will echo what Paul has been
discussing in 6:12–20. In those chapters, sexuality was partly a matter of an
open and free way of living (“for me all things are permissible”), and Paul had
to deal with adulterous incest and fornication or harlotry in such a context.
Now the topic has a different perspective as it reflects a more restricted view
of Christian life. The problem of marriage must be viewed against the lose
standard of the pagan’s world. To understand fully we will have to know
precisely, what the questions were and why there were problems? Again, it seems
that the Corinthians have misunderstood Paul’s teaching and advice so now they
seek clarification. In this regard some went extreme and regard sexual
activity, even in marriage as totally in appropriate for the committed
Christians.[60]
Paul’s Response: Now as Paul deals with
this very issue, he starts with their slogan, ‘It is not good for a man to touch a woman’ (I Cor 7:1). Some say
in effect, that Christian should not marry, but why? May be they have the
misconception of marriage and sexual relationship. However this in not Paul’s
opinion but that of certain Corinthians who idealistically believed that married
couples should abstain from sexual relation. God designed and established
marriage and sexuality is God’s gift for intimacy, so to enjoy that privilege
and also to prevent sexual immorality, man must own a wife and wife must own
husband. Why then not to touch? Marriage without sexual relation is incomplete.
Paul exhorts and allows for the possibility of sexual abstinence, but only
under three conditions; that it should be for the purpose of prayer, that there
be mutual agreement and that the period should be limited to a short time, that
Satan may not over take them (7:5). Paul prime care is to safeguard the freedom
of both the wife and the husband, and to preserve the holiness of the bond that
binds them together.[61]
Paul replied that it is good for a man or a woman to have the gift of celibacy,
but the celibate state is not better than marriage, nor is it the best state
for everybody. Wuest translates Paul's reply, "It is perfectly proper,
honorable, morally befitting for a man to live in strict celibacy."[62]
Then he moves on to state celibacy to be more preferable. He exalts celibacy
above the married state, but at the same time recognizes that not all can
exercise such self control. Four times, Paul expresses the view that it is
preferable for Christians not be marry (7:8, 25-35, 36-38, 39), the unmarried
should remain unmarried. Though
Paul chose celibacy for himself and advised it for others, he had no wish to
restrict people’s freedom. He advised them to promote good order and
unhindrance devotion to the Lord (7:35). [63]
2.2.6. The Charismatic Group: Apparently,
some Corinthian Christians have been maintaining that certain gifts of the
Spirit were better than others, were striving for so-called higher gifts, and
even claiming that speaking in tongues was a sign for unbelievers, and that
prophecy was meant for believers. They were also querying the role of women in
the church.[64]
This group, who knew themselves as people filled
with the spirit, boasted that they alone, had already reached the state of
“perfection” and were in possession of “spirit” and “knowledge” (2:6; 3:1ff.;
8:1). This “knowledge’ does not mean intellectual knowledge, but knowledge
derived from revelation, which allowed them already to share in the powers of
the divine world and liberated them from the lower world’s domination, the
powers of fate and death.[65]
T. W. Manson suggests on the contrary
that it was due to the Palestinian influence of the Cephas party. He thinks
that the problem arose after Paul's departure. Stress on speaking in tongues
was a demand which was being made by the Cephas party as the essential
demonstration of possession by the Spirit (Acts 2:1-12). However,
Craig assumed that these people may have been found primarily among the
Gnostic-libertines, but that identification has no certainty. Those who
suffered from a sense of inferiority because their gifts that are
less spectacular may well have included people from all the parties mentioned
in chapters. 1-4. The self-styled
"spiritual" have much in common with the Gnostics of chapters 1-2, but we do not know that
they comprised a fixed grouping, and they are not to be identified with the
followers of Apollos or of Cephas. [66]
But equally important, this dualism also
provided the conceptual support which made the Corinthians so liable to an
“over-realized eschatology” that spiritualized the future resurrection as
already having taken place in their own experience (cf. 1 Cor 4:8; 15). One’s
present life was therefore viewed as already participating in the fullness of
the heavenly reality of the world to come. Such an over-realized eschatology
further inflated the Corinthians’ estimation of their spiritual knowledge,
gifts and religious experiences, especially that of tongues, which they saw as
indicating that they too shared the spiritual existence of the angels (cf. 1
Cor 13:1; 14:37). This in turn led to more boasting and disunity in the church,
as well as to the eventual rejection of Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle and of
his gospel.[67]
Paul’s response: Paul shows that the
gifts of the Spirit are varied but that each is meant to contribute to the
common good, but he insists that love must be the indispensable motivation of
all of them, that intelligible speech is needed for common worship and
evangelization, and that Christian worship demands the building up of all
members in the community, male and female alike. He told these enthusiasts who believe
themselves to be already partaking in the life of heaven, that the resurrection
of the dead lies still in the future. In this regard, Paul judges them in the
light of the gospel of salvation view in its entirety. As guiding lines he
takes the saving word concerning the Crucified One, regarded as the foolishness
of God which negates the validity of human wisdom. Paul also stressed that the
true freedom alone opens people’s eyes to see their neighbor in love (cf I Cor
13). Paul emphatically reminded them that living in time impose limitations,
rather than perfection.[68]
Paul
encounters them and often views their
present existence in the light of the future since they have not yet arrived
that stage (1:5-8; 3:13-15, 17; 4:5; 6:13-14; 7:26-31; 11:26, 32; 15:24, 51-56;
16:22).[69]
Paul explains all these things from the light of the event of Christ, his death
and resurrection, and the subsequent gift of the Spirit. In his understanding,
the End has begun. But the fact is that there is yet a future Parousia of the
Lord (11:26; 15:23) with a subsequent resurrection (15:20-28). What has begun has
not yet been fully brought to consummation. Thus for Paul, believers are
thoroughly eschatological people, determined and conditioned by the reality of
the future that has already begun, but still awaiting the final glory. We are
therefore both “already” and “not yet.” In other words, the future that begun
and absolutely conditions present existence still awaits its final
consummation. But such a
future is as certain as
life itself.[70]
Evaluation & Conclusion: From the Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, we can assume
that the Greece, in the earliest centuries (Common Era) was well dominated by
immoralities of various kinds at the peak. In such a situation, it is
understood how strenuous and complex it would be to (not to mention planting a
church) even find a person who would leave aside all the pleasures and join a
pious-devoted life. It would also be quite normal to have such problems among
those newly converted from the pagans. Paul, tactfully and in spirit, responded
to these problems as per the need of the hour. At this juncture, taking into
our context, Paul’s responses may be evaluated as follows-
F In dealing with the schism, Paul taught the Corinthians to accept and
remain in the status and position in which they are called regarding
circumcision and slavery (1 Cor 7: 17-21). As Fee infers, Paul’s approach was
not sociological, but theological; thus, his response may not be quite
relevant to the need of our time. Theological approach should be sociological,
and not abstract. Thus, if Paul came back to our world, he would have to twist his
response to the problem of schism with new theology and challenge the social stratifications
in terms of Dalit-theology, tribal theology etc.
F The Apostle method of dealing with sexual
immoralities that the incestuous man must be ruthlessly expelled from the
church (5:1-5). The exhortation that
Paul used is to flee from fornication (6:18). Paul was not contented to urge
the Corinthians to merely avoid it. Rather, he exhorted them to run away from
it. Furthermore, Paul said that fornication is a sin not only against God, and
not only against the other person involved, but against the fornicator’s own
body, which is designed to belong not to a harlot, but to the Lord. On one hand,
Paul seems to be rude in giving a strong response to the extent of expulsion,
but on the other, taking into consideration the context where he found that
many of the members had been engaged in it, Paul might have got into
irritation. But here, it is notable that Paul later justified himself that if
the person concerned repented, s/he would be accepted. This perhaps is the
model of most of the churches now where if a member is excommunicated, s/he
would be accepted and re-enrolled after some period of time.
F Paul does not suggest to invoke pagan
courts to settle a lawsuit between believers was a confession of Christian
failure; therefore he encourages them that the matter should be decided before
the saints or the Church. Here, it may not be necessarily true that Paul had
the idea that the interference of the pagans defiled the church; rather, we can
see how Paul had the zeal and burden for the prestige of the church. And as for
our context, being living in a multifaceted country with diverse faiths and
beliefs, it is definitely important to check the prestige of the church but
also at the same level it is crucial to identify ourselves with our brothers
and sisters surrounding us instead of staying aloof from them.
F Paul also exhorts celibacy
to be more preferable. He exalts celibacy above the married state, but at the
same time recognizes that not all can exercise such self control. The context
once again justifies the emphatic insistence. It was in the context where
sexual immorality was at its peak and temptations were severe. Thus, a man
often remarried or committed adultery even after his marriage which Paul
countered stating that celibacy was better, if possible, instead of defiling
one’s own body and the church. The severity of temptation of our time may not
be to the extent of comparison with that of Corinth, but Paul’s response here
will always be immensely significant to combat against any problem that arises.
It is better not to have instead of having the material which causes disgrace.
Thus, Fee’s view is argumentative
that Paul’s approach to problems limits only to theological, in the light of
Re-interpretation and considering the context, Paul was truly concerned with
the sociology of his time. He is a context-boundless apostle whose teaching
harmonizes every context of any time.
******************************************************************************
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur George, The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. X. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1953.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary of the First epistle of the
Corinthians, 2nd ed. London: Adam & Charles Black, [1968],
1971.
Barrett, C. K. Paul: An introduction to his Thought. London:
Geoffrey Chapman, [1994], 1996.
Bornkamm, G. “herrenmahl
und Kirche bei Paulus,” ZTK 53 (1956) 319, quoted in Vincent Alappatt, “Pauline
Perspective on the “Lord’s Supper”,” Bible
Bhashyam: An Indian Biblical Quarterly, 26/01 (2000).
Collins, Raymond F. “Marriage”
in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
vol.4, edited by D. N. Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Conzelmann, Hans. I Corinthians: A Commentary on the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1975.
Craig, Clarence T.
The interpreter’s Bible: The First
Epistle to the Corinthians. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976.
Deissmann, A. Light from the Ancient East. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1927.
Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Commpany, [1987], 1989.
Fitzmyer, Joseph
A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. London: Yale University, 2008.
Godet, F. L. Commentary of the First Epistle of St. Paul
to the Corinthians, vol. I. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.
Guthrie, Donald.
New Testament Introduction
(Secunderabad: OM books, [1961], 2003.
Hilyer, Norman. ‘I
Corinthians,’ in New Bible Commentary, third edition, edited by D. Guthrie,
J.A.Motyer, et al. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1970.
Holmberg, Bengt. Sociology and the New Testament: An
Appraisal. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Howard, W. F. “I
and 2 Corinthians” in The Abingdon Bible
Commentary, edited by F.C. Elselen, Edwin Lewis et al. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1971.
Judge, E. A. The Social Pattern of Early Christian Groups
in the First Century. London: Tyndale Press, 1960.
Kroeger, Catherine C. “I
Corinthian,” in The IVP Woman’s Bible Commentary, edited by C.C.
Kroeger and Mary J. Evens. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2002.
Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament (London:
SCM Press Ltd, 1965.
Loewenich, Walter
Von. Paul His Life and Work. Edinburgh:Oliver
and Boyd, 1960.
Marrow, Stainley B. Paul His letter and His theology. New
York: Paulist Press, 1986.
Marshal,
I Howard. “Lord’s
Supper,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F.
Hawthorne Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1993.
Martin,
Ralph P. Word
Biblical Commentary, Volume 40: 2 Corinthians. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1986.
Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.
Michigan: The Tyndale Press, 1985.
Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Orr, William F. and James Arthur
Walther, I Corinthians: The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Company,
Inc., 1976.
Short, John. The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, edited
by George Arthur Buttrick, W.R.Bowie, et al. Nashville: Abindon Press, 1953.
Stambaugh John E. and David L.
Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1986.
Teylor, Michael J. Paul His Letters, Message and Heritage, a
Reflective Commentary. New York: Albe house, 1997.
Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:
Essays on Corinth. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990.
Tidball, Derek. An Introduction to the Sociology of the New
Testament. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1983.
Whiteley, D. E. H.
The Theology of St. Paul. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1964.
Wiersbe, Warren W. A New Testament study-I Corinthians. Secunderabad:
Om Books, 2004.
NOTES
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Commpany, [1987], 1989), 1f.
[2] Ralph P.
Martin, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 40: 2 Corinthians (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986), xxviii.
[3] Gordon D. Fee, op. cit., 3.
[4] Ralph P.
Martin, op. cit., xxviii.
[5] F. L. Godet, Commentary of the First Epistle of St. Paul
to the Corinthians, vol. I (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1957), 5.
[6] Ralph P.
Martin, op. cit., xxix.
[7] John E. Stambaugh and David L.
Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), 110-113.
[8] Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: An
Appraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 75.
[9] A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1927), 144.
[10] Holmberg, op. cit., 28, 34.
[11] George Arthur, Walter Russel
Bowie, Paul Scherer, John Knox, Samuel Terrien, eds., The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. X (New York: Abingdon Press, 1953),
4.
[12] E. A. Judge, The
Social Pattern of Early Christian Groups in the First Century (London:
Tyndale Press, 1960), 60.
[13] F. L. Godet, op.cit., 10.
[14] Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:
Essays on Corinth (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), 69.
[15] I Howard
Marshal, “Lord’s Supper,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by
Gerald F. Hawthorne Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downer’s Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), 571.
[16] Gerd Theissen, op.cit., 70.
[17] The synagogue ruler,
avrcisuna,gwgoj, is the nominated official who should have the care of external
order in public worship and the supervision of the concerns of the synagogue in
general.
[18] Gerd Theissen, op. cit., 74f.
[19] Ibid., 86.
[20] Ibid., 87-89.
[21] Gerd Theissen, op. cit., 92-95.
[22] Gordon D. Fee, op. cit., 3.
[23] C. K. Barrett, A Commentary of the First epistle of the
Corinthians, 2nd ed. (London: Adam & Charles Black, [1968],
1971), 23.
[24] Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London:
SCM Press Ltd, 1965), 201.
[25] Gerd Theissen, op. cit., 121.
[26] Ibid., 101.
[27] Ibid., 124.
[28] G. Bornkamm, “herrenmahl und
Kirche bei Paulus,” ZTK 53 (1956) 319, quoted in Vincent Alappatt, “Pauline
Perspective on the “Lord’s Supper”,” Bible
Bhashyam: An Indian Biblical Quarterly, 26/01 (2000): 7.
[29] G. Bornkamm, op.cit., 66.
[30] I. H. Marshall,
“Lord’s Supper,” Dictionary of Paul and
His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers
Grove, Il: Inter Varsity Press, 1993),
571.
[31] Derek Tidball, An Introduction to the Sociology of the New
Testament (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1983), 99.
[32] Ibid., 101.
[33] Gordon D. Fee, op. cit., 488.
[34] Ibid., 82.
[35] C.K.Barrett op. cit., 120.
[36] b)f t#f$)a (LXX:
gunh. patro,j, father’s
wife) is an OT
and rabbinical designation for a stepmother. Cf. Lev 18:8 etc., in Hans
Conzelmann, I Corinthians: A Commentary
on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia Series (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1975), 96.
[37] John Short, The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, edited by George Arthur Buttrick,
W.R.Bowie, et al
(Nashville:
Abindon Press, 1953), 60.
[38] Walter Von Loewenich, Paul His Life and Work (Edinburgh:Oliver
and Boyd, 1960), 112.
[39] Hans Conzelmann, op. cit., 97f.
[40] John Calvin, quoted by C. K.
Barrett, A Commentary on the First
Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam & Charles Black, [1968],
1971), 126.
[41] William F. Orr and James Arthur
Walther, I Corinthians: The Anchor Bible (New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), 186
[42] C.K.Barrett op. cit., 126.
[43] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
(Secunderabad: OM books, 2003, [1961]), 184.
[44] Clarence T. Craig, The interpreter’s Bible: The First Epistle
to the Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976.
[45] Walter Von Loewenich, op. cit., 112.
[46] C.K. Barrett, op. cit.,150.
[47] C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959), 196.
[48] C.K. Barrett, op. cit.,151.
[49] James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 690.
[51] C. K. Barrett, Paul: An introduction to his Thought (London:
Geoffrey Chapman, [1994], 1996), 16.
[52] D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1964), 227.
[53] C. K. Barrett, A Commentary of the First epistle of the
Corinthian., 384.
[54] Warren W. Wiersbe, The
Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament from PC Study Bible software.
[55] Norman Hilyer, ‘I Corinthians,’ in New
Bible Commentary, third edition, edited by D. Guthrie, J.A.Motyer, et al
(Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1970), 1058.
[56] Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
(Michigan: The Tyndale Press, 1985), 93.
[57] Catherine C. Kroeger, “I
Corinthian,” in The IVP Woman’s Bible Commentary, edited by
C.C. Kroeger and Mary J. Evens (Illinois
[58] Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
First
Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (London: Yale University, 2008),
273.
[59] Warren W. Wiersbe, A New Testament study-I Corinthians
(Secunderabad: Om Books, 2004), 75.
[60] Michael J. Teylor, Paul His Letters, Message and Heritage, a
Reflective Commentary. New York: Albe house, 1997., 70.
[61] Stainley B. Marrow, Paul His letter and His theology (New
York: Paulist Press, 1986), 124.
[62] Raymond F. Collins, “Marriage”
in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
vol.4, edited by D. N. Freedman, et al (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 569-70.
[63] W. F. Howard, “I and 2
Corinthians” in The Abingdon Bible
Commentary, edited by F.C. Elselen, Edwin Lewis et al (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1971), 1180.
[64] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, op. cit.,
454.
[66] T. W. Manson, "St. Paul in Ephesus, The
Corinthian Correspondence," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXVI
(1941), 101-20, quoted in Craig, The
Interpreter’s, op. cit.
[67] S. J. Hafemann, “Corinthians, Letter to the,” Dictionary of Paul …
op. cit., 175.
[68]
Bornkamm, op. cit., 74.
[70]
Ibid., 16f.
No comments:
Post a Comment