Module Eighteen

Letters to the Corinthians

18.1 Introduction

There is good evidence to suggest that Paul corresponded with the Jesus-followers living in Corinth more often than with any other community he founded. With the help of the chronology in Acts, we can assume that Paul’s relationship with the city and its house church (or cluster of house churches) lasted for about seven years—from around 50 CE when he founded the church to about 57 CE when he made his final stop in the city on his way to Jerusalem.

Apart from the first eighteen months, which were devoted to the founding of the congregation, much of Paul’s interaction was through letters and occasional visits. It is difficult to integrate some of the details about Paul’s stay in Corinth recorded in Acts 18, such as the violent opposition of the Jews and Paul’s tribunal hearing before Gallio (proconsul of Achaia). Nevertheless, Paul must have created close relationships with the believers since he affectionately regards himself as their “father through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15). He personally baptized some of the founding members, namely Crispus, Gius, and the household of Stephanus who are described as “the first converts of Achaia” (1 Cor 1:14–16; 16:15). According to Acts, Aquila and Priscilla can be also included among the founding members (Acts 18:1–18; cf. 1 Cor 16:19).

For Paul, the founding of the Corinthian church was his “work in the Lord” and the “seal of apostleship” (1 Cor 9:1–2). The early converts were probably intrigued not only by Paul’s preaching, but also by his “demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor 2:4), which may coincide with his performance of “signs and wonders and mighty works,” which he associates with being a “true apostle” (2 Cor 12:12). After Paul left Corinth for unknown reasons, he left his co-worker Apollos in charge to continue the growth of the ministry (1 Cor 3:6).

Despite his close and extended connections, the Corinthian congregation was riddled with ethical, interpersonal, and theological disputes. In 1 Corinthians, we get a glimpse into this turbulent congregational life, which has fascinated scholars interested in the social dynamics of earliest Christianity. Paul’s response to the range of issues, such as sexual promiscuity, misuse of spiritual gifts, offerings to idols, and a leadership vacuum, allows us to see how he understood Christian communal identity, and its practices and rituals, like baptism and the Eucharist, in relation to its pagan culture. The letter reveals how Paul pragmatically practiced his theology within congregational ministry as he sought to develop spiritual unity and maturity.

Some of the issues in this letter resonate for many Christian today who find themselves in socially diverse congregations that attempt to navigate a devout life challenged by cultural pressures. In 2 Corinthians, Paul addresses fewer inter-congregational issues, but his interpersonal conflict with the Corinthians escalates. While the letter includes many commendations and gratitude for the congregation’s commitment to Paul’s teaching and authority, it also includes very strong condemnations. How these shifts in Paul’s message cohere with each other in the same letter is discussed below.

The broader social context of Corinth plays an important role in understanding the issues that faced the congregation. Corinth became one of the most prosperous cities in the ancient world. During the first-century CE, it was the capital and largest city of the Roman province, Achaia, which today is part of Greece.

In Paul’s day, it is estimated that urban Corinth had eight thousand residents with another twenty thousand residing in the surrounding countryside. It was ideally located on the famous isthmus (a narrow strip of sea-surrounded land dividing two larger bodies of land), which separated the Ionian and Aegean Seas. In order to improve transportation, there were several attempts in antiquity—some by Roman emperors like Nero—to build a canal connecting the two seas, but none were successful. The Corinthians resourcefully placed ports on either side of the isthmus and built a road between them in order to transport the cargo of large vessels. Smaller vessels were not unloaded, but transported along the six-kilometer road across rollers. The port-to-port service, powered by slave labour, was tremendously profitable to transportation companies because it shortened the longer sea journey and avoided rough seas at the foot of the Greek peninsula.

Corinth was well known throughout the empire for several reasons. First, the city was famous for its production of “Corinthian bronze (or brass)” which was a highly valued compound of precious metals (including copper, gold and silver) used in the production of cherished objects such as vases and statues. Second, since Corinth was economically vibrant, it had the reputation of attracting entrepreneurs who could employ their capital in a variety of thriving business ventures. The opportunities appealed equally to those who wanted to seize on the opportunity to climb social ladders through legal and illegal means. Third, like other large port cities, Corinth had the reputation of welcoming new philosophical, religious, and social ideas and expressions. Archaeological evidence, like the discovery of coin deposits, points to a vibrant pagan culture that revered deities like Zeus, Heracles and Dionysus.

Since the honouring of the gods was linked with political prosperity, the Roman state encouraged cultic worship and festivals and even funded the restoration of the Asclepeion, which was a sanctuary dedicated to the healing god Asclepius, who was known as the son of Apollo. Corinth had an ancestral connection with the Julian-Claudian dynasty (which comprised of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero) since it was founded by Julius Caesar (the adoptive father and great uncle of Augustus) as a Roman colony in 44 BCE after its destruction a century earlier. This meant that the worship of Asclepius also showed reverence to Augustus and the Empire. It was a cosmopolitan city that brought with it positive and negative consequences. By the time Paul entered the city, it was known for its expressions of decadence and self-indulgence. The city boasted in its many entertainment offerings, including theatres, casinos and brothels. The expression “to act like a Corinthian” was slang in some parts of the Empire for engaging in sexual promiscuity.

Finally, Corinth was well known for hosting the “Isthmian Games,” which rivalled the renowned Athenian Olympian Games. Although Corinth and Athens were geographically close and shared in the same sporting reputation, they were socially and ideologically at odds with one another. Since the resettling of Corinth by freed slaves in the middle of the first century BCE, the residence of Athens viewed the Corinthians as a lower-class of people in contrast to their own perceived sophistication. This caricature of the Corinthian residents is famously expressed by the first-century Greek poet Crinagoras of Mytilene, who writes, “What inhabitants, O luckless city, have you received? And in place of whom? Alas for the great calamity to Greece! … Such a crowd of scoundrelly slaves!” (Greek Anthology 9.284)

First Corinthians

18.2 Authorship, Place, and Date

Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians is not in dispute. At the beginning of the letter, Paul identifies himself as “a called apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,” which is meant to convey his authority. As is often the case in Paul’s letters, he also includes his associate(s), who is here identified as “Sosthenes, the brother” (1Cor 1:1). It is not clear who Sosthenes was, but his designation as a brother conveys that he is a fellow believer and at the same time distanced from the title “apostle.”

Paul writes to the Corinthian Jesus-followers as an absent apostolic leader who continues to exercise his role, albeit with frustration. In addition to addressing the turbulent issues, both Corinthian letters are written to encourage the congregation not to abandon its participation in Paul’s fundraising effort for the impoverished believers in Jerusalem, which was a major concern during his Aegean ministry. The reluctance of the Corinthians to participate must have added to an already strained situation precipitated by the arrival of competing Jewish Christian missionaries, who are addressed in 2 Corinthians.

When read in sequence, the letters express an increasingly deteriorating relationship that Paul desperately wants to repair. The personal tone in both letters reveals Paul’s attitude toward the congregation(s), his missionary practices, and his rhetorical strategy for winning (and correcting) his audience. Conversely, much is also learned about the perceptions of Paul by his congregants and rival missionaries.

The designations “1” and “2” Corinthians gives the impression that these are the only letters that Paul wrote to Corinth. In addition, the designations can imply that they are self-contained letters independent of one another. A closer reading, however, indicates that Paul corresponded with the Corinthians more often. How often he wrote to them (and they wrote to him) is difficult to say. In 1 Cor 5:9, Paul briefly refers to a previous letter that asked the Corinthian believers not to associate with “sexually immoral people.” This letter may have been answered as part of the report given to Paul from “Chloe’s people” about the quarrels within the congregation (1 Cor 1:11). Alternatively, it may be a reference to a personal visit. Additional references to other correspondences appear in 2 Corinthians, which are discussed in more detail below.

The issue becomes even more complicated when 1 and 2 Corinthians are viewed as composites of smaller letters, which has been a topic of debate since the eighteenth century. If they are composites, then the number of correspondences expands. Another possible explanation for the unevenness in 1 Corinthians is that it was composed over a prolonged period of time in the context of a chaotic and hectic ministry.

Despite the number of correspondences, when we encounter 1 Corinthians, we are joining a conversation that spanned several years.

Info Box 18.1: Is 1 Corinthians a Combination of Smaller Letters?

Given the irregular flow and frequent topical shifts in 1 Corinthians, some scholars question whether it was originally written as we have it today. They argue that much of the letter reflects the original composition by Paul, but notice that select passages may have been added later. For example, 1 Cor 10:1–22 may have been a separate letter (or part of one) that was later inserted by an editor into what is now 1 Corinthian since it disrupts the flow of Paul’s discussion of the believer’s freedom from ethnic practices (Jewish and Gentile). When it is bypassed, a more consistent flow is restored. A second example is 1 Corinthians 13, which is often called “the love chapter.” It too may have been a separate letter (or part of one) since it appears to break the continuity of Paul’s discussion on spiritualized expressions in chapters 12 and 14.

Some scholars propose that 1 Corinthians is the product of editing that took shape after Paul’s death. While several reconstructions offered of the hypothetical underlying letters, one proposal is as follows:

Letter A consisted of 10:1–22; 6:12–20; 11:2–34.

Letter B consisted of 7:1–9:23; 10:23–11:1; 12–15; 16.

Letter C consisted of 1:1–6:11.

Not all scholars, however, agree with this or similar compositional reconstructions. A strong case, for example, is presented by Margaret Mitchell who argues that the letter is unified from the start. She argues that the topics vary greatly because Paul wants to make the case for a unified church despite its many challenges.

If we take 1 Corinthians as a unified whole, then Paul’s reference to Ephesus at the end of the letter (1 Cor 16:8) identifies his location. This can be linked with the account of Paul’s travels in the book of Acts. In Acts 18–19, Luke records that Paul stayed in Corinth during his second missionary journey for at least eighteen months, which would place him in the city somewhere between 50 and 53 CE. Subsequently, according to Acts, Paul travelled eastward across the Aegean Sea and remained for a while in Ephesus sometime between 53–57 CE.

18.3 Audience

We know more about the Corinthian congregation than any other audience to which Paul wrote. In addition to the letters themselves, we can glean insights from Romans (especially chapters 15–16) and 1 Thessalonians (and possibly Galatians) since these were written in Corinth. The geographical and social origin of a writing can sometimes unveil additional perspectives for reconstructing the author’s situation. Luke also provides information about Paul’s founding visit to Corinth in Acts 18:1–17. Finally, the late first-century letter written to the Corinthians, 1 Clement, provides insights into the situation of the congregants four decades later.

One of the enduring mysteries is the size of the congregation. As mentioned above, it is not clear if the Corinthian believers consisted of a cluster of house churches that gathered as one congregation or were simply a single house church. If we assume the latter, then the church was riddled with interpersonal and ethical problems that required intervention. Given all of the problems that Paul addresses, the modern reader might assume that the congregation numbered in the hundreds, but if they indeed met in one house church, then there may not have been more than 30 congregants if the patron owned a villa. If the house was smaller, then the congregation may have numbered in the teens.

In the letter itself, there is considerable detail about the composition of Paul’s audience. The majority of Paul’s converts appear to have been from the lower classes as is suggested in his comment, “not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth” (1 Cor 1:26). By implication, a minority may have been well-educated, influential, and of noble birth. The economic diversity partly explains the social conflicts that Paul addresses.

One example is the conflict related to communal meals (1 Cor 11:17–34). Paul chastises the congregation for its lack of unity when they come to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Instead of participating as a unified body of believers, some congregants were arriving at different times, feasting and drinking with no concern for others. Socio-economic diversity might explain the root to the problem. Wealthy believers could arrive early to the meals because they enjoyed more leisure time. Whereas the poorer believers, especially if they were slaves, were under more time constraints and probably arrived well after the others had finished.

The diversity also extended to ethnicity. While the congregation was predominantly Gentile (1 Cor 12:2), it also included Jewish believers. For example, Paul lived and worked in the tentmaking trade with a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, who were fellow Jewish believers (Acts 18:2–3; cf. 1 Cor 16:19). In addition, Paul mentions Crispus and Sosthenes who were leaders of Jewish synagogues before being baptized (1 Cor 1:14 cf. Acts 18:8 and 1 Cor 1:1 cf. Acts 18:17). The social integration of members from different economic, social, and ethnic groups contributed to the tensions that faced a community which was struggling with unification and spiritual maturity.

The Corinthians Say…

“All things are lawful” (6:12)

“Food is meant for the body, and the body for food” (i.e., it is only natural to satisfy one’s appetites) (6:13)

“It is well for a man not to touch a woman” (i.e. even married persons should practice celibacy) (7:1–5)

“All of us possess knowledge” (8:1)

Speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers (14:22–23)

18.4 The Purpose and the Central Role of the Resurrection of the Dead

Since the letter is a response to a series of problems that have caused instability and fragmentation in the Corinthian congregation, it is not focussed on any one dominant issue. However, it can be argued that there is a root cause that gave rise to all the other issues because it targets the congregation’s new identity in Christ. It becomes explicit toward the end of the letter (1 Corinthians 15) when Paul strenuously responds to the Corinthians’ misunderstanding of the resurrection.

It can be surmised from Paul’s lengthy response that many of the congregants did not believe in the resurrection of the dead because they saw themselves as already living in a resurrected state. They viewed their charismatic experiences, like speaking in tongues and prophesying, as expressions of the resurrected life and in turn may have considered their questionable behaviour as inconsequential. By exaggerating their resurrected state, they separated the spiritual from the physical and thereby considered the actions that were done “in the body” as having no impact on their communal life “in Christ.”

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul begins by summarizing his gospel message, that Christ was resurrected from the dead. This becomes the basis for addressing a widespread belief among the Corinthians that “there is no resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:12). The Corinthians, however, did not appear to have a problem with the idea of resurrection in and of itself. Their problem lay in its occurrence after death, which is where they diverged from Paul. For the Corinthians, resurrection was a current state of affairs that was being manifested in their community. As a result, there was no need to await a future resurrection after death. Their view was not that dissimilar from pockets of other early believers.

Info Box 18.3: Resurrection before Death?

Many modern readers correctly assume that conceptions of resurrection in antiquity required a literal or biological death that led to new forms of embodiment. This was Paul’s view and was commonly shared by his Jewish contemporaries. However, it was not the only view among the earliest Jesus-followers.  

When historians investigate to see if there was some cohesive idea about the resurrection of the dead in early Christianity, they find a variegated world of ambiguity that even envelops concepts of death. For example, the Finish biblical scholar Outi Lehtipuu has convincingly shown that the resurrection of the dead is not always conceived as a physical phenomenon nor is it always limited to post-mortem existence (e.g. John 5:25–29). It may refer to a transformed existence, but not to the ultimate outcome for humanity.

One of the ways that early Christian conceptions incorporated a temporal paradox that enabled them to participate in resurrection, while still alive, was through the ritual of baptism. While Paul only associated baptism with a new life freed from the bondage of sin before resurrection, some of his (perhaps former) followers viewed baptism as a participation in the resurrected life (Col 2:12–13).

Others, however, appeared to have opposed the idea that “the resurrection has already taken place” (2 Tim. 2:16–18). Since views differed, the nature of the resurrected form dominated the debate in some sectors of early Christian thought.

In response, Paul reminds his congregants that the tradition they received—that Christ was raised from the dead—should correct their divergent view and guide their faith going forward (1 Cor 15:3–11). He infers that if there is no (future) post-mortem resurrection, then Christ did not rise from the dead at all. And if Christ was not raised from the dead, then Paul’s gospel message has been preached in vain and the Corinthians’ faith has been futile (1 Cor 15:13–19).

Paul conceives of resurrection as a wholistic transformation that does not allow for the retention of an earthly body, which directly confronts the Corinthian belief. He explains that the nature of Christ’s resurrected body should serve as a precedent for what will happen to the believer’s body in the future resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:20), which he believed would happen during his own lifetime (1 Cor 15:51–52).

Paul argues that Christ was transformed from having a perishable “flesh and blood” body to a non-perishable “spiritual body” when he was raised (1 Corinthians 15:42–50). While Christ’s spiritual body still retained its physicality since his earthly form was recognizable to his followers, it is hard to know how Paul conceived of that physicality and its state in heaven.

It is no surprise that many scholars have struggled to find cohesion within Paul’s thought on the nature of the resurrected body. Our questions, however, are not Paul’s questions. Paul was probably less interested in constructing a theology of the resurrection, and much more interested in responding to the practical implications stemming from the Corinthians’ belief about it.

While 1 Corinthians addresses more issues than any of the other Pauline letters, like them it contains a theological reflection that arises out of troubled situations and fragmented relationships. The critical reflections about the death and resurrection of Christ, and their implications for a new kind of humanity (consisting of Jews and Gentiles) that is supposed to be unified like the parts of a human body, takes shape through a whole range of negative and positive experiences that Paul encountered.

As a broader principle, the purpose of this letter, like that of his others, is not only to resolve the pending issues, but to instill a way of thinking about an identity in Christ that affects positive relationship within the community and with God.

Paul knew well that patterns of belief directly affect patterns of behavior. This is why some scholars have referred to Paul’s theology as a “problem-based theology” that is formulated from the ground up so that it can be lived out. It is also why many scholars view Paul primarily as a pastor (as opposed to an academic theologian) who grounded his preaching in the believer’s participation “in Christ,” which not only identified a new people of God that awaited the imminent return of Jesus, but also a conception of ideal humanness.

18.5 Themes

A Disunified Church

One of Paul’s pleas throughout the letter is that the Corinthian Jesus-followers abandon their hostility toward each other and be unified as a community “in Christ” (1 Cor 1:10–11; 11:18–19). The disunity appears to have been somewhat organized. Some congregants were aligning themselves with various factions, which presumably had their own leaders. Paul writes that some aligned themselves with Apollos (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; cf. Acts 18:24–19:1; Titus 3:13), others with Cephas or Peter (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; cf. Gal. 2:7–9, 11–14), and others still with Paul. Instead of supporting the “Paul faction” and viewing the others as rivals, he condemns the fragmentation because all of these leaders, which God provided, contribute to a common mission (1 Cor 3:5–7).

Paul’s conception of their unity is conveyed through two images. First, he refers to the community as “the temple of God” (1 Cor 3:16–17). As a community, they are a holy place where God’s Spirit dwells. Disunity violates the sanctity of God’s holy dwelling among his people. Second, Paul refers to the community as “the body of Christ” whereby the individual members are portrayed metaphorically as body parts, such as hands, arms, legs, and feet. Though the parts have different functions, they are all members of, and contribute to, one body (1 Cor 12:12–27). Consequently, when one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers.

Chasing Earthly Wisdom and Power

The Corinthian Jesus-followers appear to have been obsessed with the pursuit of worldly wisdom and power. The Greek word for wisdom is sophia, which along with its related terms occur twenty-five times in the first three chapters. Paul presents the earthly origin of sophia as incongruous with the imminent return of Christ and its ultimate significance. Since, for Paul, worldly wisdom and power, which did not recognize God, is fleeting, it is incomparable with the power and wisdom of God awaiting those who are “being saved.”

Worldly or human wisdom is “foolishness to Gentiles” and a “stumbling block to Jews” because it can never grasp the divine wisdom revealed through Christ’s crucifixion (1 Cor 1:18, 23–24). Paul challenges the Corinthians to think in ways that are contrary to the constructs of the world, which requires humility and a realization that God does not work through the proud and strong, but through those that the world considers weak and foolish (1:18–29; 2:14; 3:18–20). Failing to see this, obscures the power of the resurrection from the dead and the return of Christ.

Understanding the difference between human wisdom and divine wisdom has significant implication for how the congregation identifies itself and how it forms its expectations. The implications, for example, can be applied to how Paul perceives leadership in distinction from the Corinthians, who are swayed by popular opinion. While the Corinthians are divided in their loyalites to different leaders, Paul advocates that true leadership should reflect the way of the cross, which elevates service and suffering over and against self-boasting and self-aggrandizement. Paul attempts to radically alter the congregants’ thinking about God who revealed himself in the suffering and death of Christ, which is the pinnacle of obedience, service, and love from God’s perspective.

Though the cross makes no sense to human logic since it conveys failure, weakness and ultimate defeat, it is the very place where God reveals his power and wisdom. The inversion of human expectation could not be more blatant: God’s love for the world enables violent suffering and death of his son to be redemptive. Yet, this is only known through revelation of the Spirit and not through human wisdom.

Paul is convinced that if the Corinthians approach their divisions from the perspective of the cross and by participating in the cross (e.g., in the proper practice of the Lord’s Supper), which is consistent with the faith they initially received, then they will be able to rethink the meaning of wisdom and power which will lead to a stronger and unified community.

Resurrection “According to the Scriptures” and the Witnesses

As noted above, the post-mortem resurrection of the body is the theological epicentre of the letter. Paul’s conceptualization of it begins by reminding the Corinthians that it is the essence of the good news that they “received” and in which they “stand” and through which they are “saved” (1 Cor 15:1–2). Paul does not view himself as the originator of the message, but as a messenger who delivers what he himself received, that Christ died for their sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day “in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3–4).

While Paul believed that his message was in continuity with the Scriptures, and consequently with the heritage of Israel, he provides no quotation or allusion to alert his readers about which passage he has in mind. This reference to Scripture has baffled scholars. One possibility is that he is referring to the entirety of the Scriptures since they are considered to be fulfilled in Christ. Since the Scriptures were the common source of authority for all Jewish groups and many nascent Christian groups, they were zealously appropriated in support of distinct beliefs and practices. In the minds of Paul’s Jewish opponents, the Scriptures did not speak of a Messiah who was to be crucified by the enemies of Israel and then raised from the dead. Instead, it was commonly believed that the Scriptures pointed to a Messiah who will be crowned in Jerusalem and liberate his people from foreign dominance.

Paul then goes on the confirm Jesus’ resurrection from the dead by listing an array of witnesses which includes Cephas (Peter), the Twelve, “five-hundred brothers at one time,” James and all the Apostles, and then finally himself (1 Cor 15:5–8). Despite the addition of “and sisters” in some English translations of 1 Cor 15:6 (e.g. NRSV, NIV), Paul does not mention women. If a misunderstanding of resurrection is systemic in the Corinthian congregation, then Paul’s appeal to Scripture, along with the list of witnesses, function to persuade the Corinthians that they are not living in a resurrected state. Since Christ’s resurrection is the model, it will occur after death.

Info Box 18.4: Conceptions of Afterlife in Paganism

In the broader Greco-Roman world, pagan conceptions of afterlife were diverse and often vague, but they did not dominate religious thinking in the same way that one finds in the first-century Christian and Jewish literature. Pagan thought and practice focussed largely on the present life. In a general sense, despite the state of death being imagined by most as a kind of phantom existence, there were three conceptions of afterlife that Paul would have encountered in Corinth.

The first is annihilation, which denies post-mortem existence of any kind. This view appears to have been popular as suggested by a large number of tombstones with inscriptions that state that life ends in non-existence. A standard Latin inscription, which was much like our present-day RIP (“Rest in Peace”), was NFNSNC (“I was not, I am not, I care not”).

The second conception is disembodied existence, which viewed the human soul or spirit surviving the body. The influence probably stemmed from Plato’s conception of reality which distinguished between pure forms and imperfect copies. The body was viewed as an imperfect copy, experiencing pain and suffering, that ultimately led to death. Conversely, the soul was still a substance, but a pure substance that could not decay. At death, the soul was liberated from the bondage of the body.

The third conception was bodily resurrection, which regarded the body not as a prison of the soul, but simply as a fragile vessel that decays. This view, of course, incorporates early Jewish and Christian conceptions, but also includes streams of pagan tradition which included the resurrection of some deities. Second-century Christian apologists like Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch even claimed that Jesus’ resurrection was analogous to the raising of the divine heroes Heracles and Asclepius.

Sexual Morality

The Corinthian Jesus-followers were all over the map when it came to sexual morality. Some had no misgivings about visiting prostitutes (1 Cor 6:15–18), whereas others refrained from sex altogether, even in the context of marriage (1 Cor 7:1). Interestingly, each extreme was viewed as contributing to a positive spiritual experience.

Those who were sexually active, and even promiscuous by traditional standards, saw no harm in their actions because their physical bodies were no longer considered significant within their conception of Christian identity. It was the spirit, which was distinguished from the body, that was of importance.

For those who abstained from sexual activity, they may have done so with the understanding that it pleases God. Sexual activity may have been viewed as a desecration of the body.

Paul considers both extremes to be wrong.

In response to the promiscuous, he argues that their bodily actions matter (1 Cor 6:13, 15, 19) because they are to please God (1 Cor 6:20). While they may all be “lawful,” they are not all beneficial when the body is viewed as a temple of the Holy Spirit that is to honour God. The believer’s body is no longer his/her own, but belongs to God who purchased it through the sacrifice of Christ.

In response to the celibate, he explains that sexual activity within marriage does not violate the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. While Paul prefers the believers to remain single and celibate, given his expectation of the imminent return of Christ, he views sex within marriage as pleasing to God since the body of each spouse belongs to the other, analogous to the way that the believer’s body belongs to God (1 Cor 7:1–16).

The Corinthian error, as has been mentioned several times, lay in their misunderstanding of the resurrected body. Paul addresses the problem by making a distinction between the present earthly body and the spiritual body which is attained in the resurrection. Paul stresses that the pattern is Christ, stating that “God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power” (1 Cor 6:14). The earthly body will be transformed into a new spiritual body. If Christ is the pattern, then it will be recognizable, though very different. The body will change from the “corruptible” to the “incorruptible” because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50). Paul likens the transformation to a seed that is buried and then rises out of the ground to become a plant (1 Cor 15:37–38).

Food Sacrificed to Idols

For modern Christians, the dedication of food for religious rituals is a difficult concept to grasp. In antiquity, however, it was a widespread practice that conveyed honour, respect and loyalty to gods or God, whose appeasement(s) meant prosperity and peace on a personal, familial, and societal level. In addition to communing with the gods, sacrifices played an important function for maintaining social cohesion. The meat that was sacrificed was often shared over a communal meal.

In chapters 8–10, Paul addresses the question whether food sacrificed to idols can be eaten by Jesus-followers. While it is likely that some of the Jesus-followers may have continued to participate in pagan practices, or were members of families and communities that did, the problem that Paul addresses was not limited to these incidents. The concern would have arisen from broader social conventions that affected all of the Jesus-followers. Two stand out.

First, every member of an urban society would have been impacted by gestures of resect and worship of deities (sometimes including sacrifices) at public events, such as banquets, weddings, birthdays, and business gatherings. Since Jesus-followers were not sectarian, but were integrated within the broader pagan culture, they would have been invited to participate.

Second, since almost all the meat in Greco-Roman markets came from animals that were sacrificed to idols, the problem of its consumption quickly arose among the Corinthian believers. While Paul is not opposed to the believers participating in society, he is restrictive when it comes to associations with those who call themselves believers (taking on the names “brother” or “sister”) and continue in what he considered immoral societal practices (1 Cor 5:10–12). The same principle is applied to the food issue. Meat offered to idols is not in and of itself a problem when one understands that they have no representational capability and that the consumption of the meat has no significance for one’s relationship with God the Father. Instead, the problem arises when believers consuming meat in temples of idols are seen by their “weak” counterparts, for whom it may be a stumbling block that causes an abandonment of their new faith. Paul regards this as a sin against the family of believers because it is a wounding of a weak conscience and consequently a sin against Christ (1 Cor 8:1–9:7).

In chapter 10, Paul tackles the same issue in relation to the practice of the Eucharist, which may stem from a different group of opponents. In a seemingly paradoxical response, Paul opposes the eating of meat offered to idols, but he does so only when its consumption is directly linked with its sacrificial origin and meaning. Invoking the example of Israel’s idolatry in the wilderness (I Cor 9:8–10–13), Paul is adamant that a believer cannot consume sacrificial meat in the context of pagan ritual while at the same time participating in the Lord’s Supper which honours the sacrifice of Christ.

It is a problem for Paul because the practice of ritual consumption unites the participant with the deity that is being honoured. Eating what is sold in the meat markets is not a problem, however, since it cannot take on devotional meaning. Once again, Paul appeals to each believer’s benevolent conscience as a guide (1 Cor 10:28–29).

Spiritual Gifts

Like most early congregations that Paul established, the one in Corinth was disorganized and lacked clear direction and leadership, which is not surprising since nascent Christianity had no institutional tradition on which to lean. It was a grass-roots movement, consisting of a handful of people. One of the pressing issues that seemed to have guided the Corinthians’ self-identification as “resurrected” Jesus-followers was their experiences of charismatic phenomena which were interpreted as gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed on the members of the community. Gifts from the Holy Spirit were wide-ranging and were considered to be beneficial to the community collectively (12:7; 11; 14:12, 26). They included wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, speaking in tongues, and their interpretation (12:8–10).

The gifts of tongues and prophecy are given more attention than all the others. Of these two, speaking in tongues dominates chapters 12–14. Presumably, it was the most enigmatic, public, and divisive.

Ultimately, all the gifts were viewed as a means to enhance faith, hope and especially love—which Paul claims, in chapter 13, should be the dominant characteristics of the congregants.

The English term “tongue” is a translation of the Greek glossa, which (apart from the organ in the mouth) can refer either to a known language or ecstatic speech that has no connection with the communicative function of human languages. This type of phenomena, commonly called “glossolalia,” was often associated with religious rituals and was not restricted to early Christian groups. While it is practiced today in some Christian denominations, such as Pentecostalism, it is also found in a few non-Christian religious groups.

References to “tongues” are also found in Acts where they take on both meanings. In Acts 2, human languages appear to be implied when language barriers were miraculously removed from celebrants of Pentecost who came to Jerusalem from various parts of the Mediterranean. Yet in other sections of Acts, the experiences of “tongues” appears to refer to ecstatic speech (Acts 10:46; 19:6). In both cases, the experiences appear as singular events, whereas in I Corinthians, speaking in tongues is practiced continually and at will.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul clearly endorses the practice, admitting that he speaks in tongues more than any of the congregants (1 Cor 14:18). At the same time, he encourages the exercise of prophecy more than tongues (14:5) because it is not individualistic and edifies the entire community. The Corinthians who participated in tongues-speaking considered it to be the best of the gifts, but it also appears to have been the main driver of divisions because it was not practiced inclusively. Paul is opposed to the public practice of tongues when there is no interpreter to share the message with the community (1 Cor 14:5). If one wishes to speak in tongues, Paul instructs that it be done in private.

Since Paul does not associate the practice of “tongues” explicitly with human languages, but with an unknown speech, that Paul rhetorically calls the speech of angels (1 Cor 13:1; 14:2, 9, 23), many scholars argue that we should today think of it as ecstatic speech expressed in contexts of intense emotional worship. A few scholars argue that Paul is referring to a human language—most notably Hebrew. Others have argued that since Corinth was also a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual city, “tongues” can be a reference to a variety of languages that were not commonly known among the congregants, so interpreters would have been required to avert chaotic gatherings. Like the gift of prophecy, which was not about predicting the future, speaking in tongues was a medium for communicating knowledge and revelation about God.

Second Corinthians

18.6 Introduction

Paul’s second letter to the Jesus-followers in Corinth responds to new problems incited by itinerant Christian missionaries who were hostile to Paul. As a result, its focus is directed less at the numerous congregational divisions and more at the congregation’s erratic relationship with Paul. One of the pressing matters is the recent infiltration of Christian-Jewish missionaries who have added to the disruptions.

In comparison to 1 Corinthians, Paul conveys a more personal and confrontational tone because the legitimacy of his apostolic ministry is challenged and perhaps even threatened. The spectrum of his emotional responses reveals a depth of conviction and theological reflection that is found nowhere else. The controversies that Paul addresses also uncover diverse perspectives and their accompanying power struggles that threatened to fragment and potentially eradicate the early Christian movement. The deep emotional swings expressed in this letter are intertwined with theological reflection.

To a lesser degree, we find the same kind of theological after-effects in Paul’s other letters. Here, though, extracting Paul’s thinking about God from his joy in one part of the letter and his pain from another part is particularly challenging. The entwining of deep emotion and theology raises questions, such as, “Is Paul’s anger toward the Corinthians representative of God’s anger?” “Is Paul simply thinking out loud in the heat of the moment?” and  “If God has strengthened, anointed, and set his seal upon believers by giving them his Spirit (2 Cor 1:21–22), then how can they so quickly be persuaded by missionaries that Paul calls “servants of Satan” (2 Cor 11:13–15)?”

The main problem that continues to impact how scholars interpret the letter, how they situate it in relation to 1 Corinthians, and how they reconstruct its underlying problems and opponents is its unity. The designation “2” Corinthians in today’s New Testament gives the impression that this is a unified and self-contained letter, but this is not at all clear. In fact, the “editorial seams” (which refers to the abrupt literary shifts that indicate the stitching together of prior material) are more obvious here than in 1 Corinthians, which indicates that the letter is a composition of other letters.

18.7 Authorship, Date, and Literary Unity of the Letter

Aside from the problem of how the letter may have been stitched together, Paul’s authorship is not disputed. At the beginning, he identifies himself together with “Timothy, our brother” as co-authors (2 Cor 2:1:1). If the letter is not a unified whole, then Paul and Timothy may have written shorter letters at different times that were stitched together at a later date, or they may have written and/or edited the version that we today have in our New Testaments.

This uncertainty affects how the letter is dated. If it was written in one piece, then it can be dated as early as 57–58 CE, which would be within two years of the writing of 1 Corinthians. If the letter is a composite, consisting of two to five individual letters, then the dates would range from the early to the late 50s CE.

Why is the letter so often considered to be a compilation of pervious letters? This is certainly not a question that is posed to Galatians or Romans, for example. The overarching reason is that the letter contains inconsistencies in tone that are often marked by abrupt transitions.

The main case in point is chapters 10–13 in which Paul threatens a third visit so that he could bring direct judgment against the Corinthian Jesus-followers. This section of the letter is marked by frustration, sarcasm and negativity. For example, in 13:5 Paul presses the Corinthians, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? —unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test!” His frustration leads him to wonder if they are even believers anymore.

An entirely different tone is expressed in chapters 1–9 where Paul states that he has cancelled his pending visit because there was no longer a need to inflict further pain on the Corinthians (e.g. 2 Cor 2:1). The initial pain to which Paul refers was the content of the “tearful letter” that Titus delivered (2 Cor 2:2–4; 7:8). When Titus returned back to Paul and reported that the letter affected its desired goal of making amends, Paul no longer saw a need to pay the Corinthians a visit (2 Cor 7:5–9). The tone is warm, encouraging, and overall positive. For example, in 7:4, he writes, “I often boast about you; I have great pride in you; I am filled with consolation; I am overjoyed in all our affliction.” And in 7:16, he repeats, “I rejoice, because I have complete confidence in you.”

Despite appearing after chapters 1–9, many scholars argue that chapters 10–13 (or part of it) is the “tearful letter” that supposedly caused the Corinthians pain (2 Cor 2:2–4). Certainly, the abrupt transition in 10:1 contains the features typically found at the beginning of letters. If this is the case, then chapters 1–9 expresses Paul’s gratefulness that he and the Corinthians are reconciled again. According to this reconstruction, 2 Corinthians is an amalgamation of two letters that were woven together. This conflating practice was not unusual in antiquity. Scholars have long known that smaller pieces of writing that may have consisted of one or several sheets of papyrus were sometimes copied onto a scroll, which would have allowed for easier archiving and distribution.

Many scholars maintain that 2 Corinthians does not consist of two previous letters, but possible up to five letters. The reasoning is again based on abrupt transitions, repetitions, and inconsistencies, such as Paul and Timothy’s past visits, present location, and future travel plans. Chapters 1–7 are particularly cumbersome in ascertaining their itineraries.

If indeed 2 Corinthians is a pastiche of several letters, then they could have originally been addressed to churches that Paul founded elsewhere. There is no necessity to restrict their original destination to Corinth. Since chapters 10–13 is a consistent section, scholars focus their various “partition theories” on chapters 1–9, which certainly opens itself to these kinds of questions. As a thought-provoking literary exercise, readers of 2 Corinthians are advised to read chapters 1–9 for themselves and answer the following questions:

• Does Paul’s fundraising request, which can be viewed rhetorically as a potential shaming of the Corinthians (when compared to the contribution made by the poor Macedonians), constitute a new topic that appears awkwardly in relation to the previous section which focusses on the good news about the Corinthians’ desire to reconcile? Is 2 Cor 8:1 the start of a separate letter?
  
  

• 2 Cor 9:1 is constructed as if a new topic will ensue. However, from 9:2 onward it continues to address that same issue as chapter 8. Why would Paul repeat himself in such close proximity? Could chapter 9 at one time have been a separate letter? What other reason might explain the transitional language in 9:1?

   

• Does the section consisting of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 appear out of place? The reason why some scholars think it does is because this section is preceded and followed by the same language. In the verse preceding this section (6:13), Paul urges the Corinthians to open their hearts to him. Likewise, in the verse following this section (7:2), Paul asks the Corinthians to make room in their hearts “for us.” The section separating these two verses is about associations with unbelievers. Some have even argued that this section contains noticeable non-Pauline expressions. For example, in this section we find an uncharacteristic reference to “Beliar” (6:15), where Paul normally uses “Satan,” and instructions to not associate with unbelievers, which appear to be at odds with the permissibility of such associations in 1 Cor 10:27, 32–33. Where did 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 originate? Has this passage come from another Pauline letter? Or did it come from a letter not written by Paul?

Scholars who are convinced that these factors are indicative of editorial seams argue for up to five letters that were merged to form our 2 Corinthians. In summary, a common reconstruction that emerges from this five-letter “partition theory” is as follows. Letter A: 1:1–6:13; 7:2–16. Letter B: 6:14–7:1 (perhaps part of a non-Pauline letter?). Letter C: 8:1–24 (a fundraising letter). Letter D: 9:1–15 (a fundraising letter to another church?). And Letter E: 10:1–13:13 (the “tearful” letter or its part).

Info Box 18.5: Conflation of Writings in Non-Christian Literature

Is there an ancient precedent for conflating multiple letters into a single composite letter? The short answer is yes. But some additional questions are important to ask if we are to assess the plausibility of partition theories for 2 Corinthians, such as:

How long after the sending and reception of individual letters were their composites constructed?

Were individual letters edited or altered in any way when they were later combined?

Three examples of letter-collecting in the ancient Mediterranean world are often used as comparisons to establish a precedent for 2 Corinthians. These examples consist of Latin compilations of Roman writers, Coptic compilations by a third-century monk, and compilations found in Greek papyri. Consider each one in more detail.

The Latin evidence is among our earliest examples of non-fictional letter-collections outside the New Testament. Select letters of Cicero (106–43 BCE), Seneca (c. 1–65 CE), and Pliny the Younger (c. 61–112 CE) were on occasion collected into a single compilation and circulated. However, the manuscripts that have survived to the present are very late. Therefore, scholars cannot accurately date these collections. Regardless, there are two insights worth noting.

First, the collectors or editors did not arrange the letters chronologically. Instead, and unlike modern organizational expectations, the letters were arranged by theme and/or addressee. In fact, when writings were found to be collected and arranged chronologically, they take on the genre of historical or biographical narrations.

Second, letter-collections were intended to be circulated during the lifetimes of the writers, and beyond in posterity.

The Coptic evidence comes from the monk, Pachomius. Until recently, the letters of Pachomius were only known in their late Latin translations by Jerome (5th century). However, Coptic manuscripts (which was the language of original compositions) have been discovered along with Greek ones that date approximately to the time when Jerome was constructing his translations.

The primary insight to note here is that the Greek and Coptic collectors/editors of these letters have arranged them in an inconsistent manner. Due to these differently arranged compilations, individual letters can be easily detected. In some instances, we observe the collector/editor conflating two smaller letters into one larger letter. And conversely, we observe a longer letter being divided into smaller ones, which could be then organized thematically.

The evidence from Greek papyri demonstrates the widespread practice of archiving letters by conflating them onto rolls. Although these are not widely discussed documents in New Testament studies, examples such as Letters from Heliodorus (P. Sarapion 87–9) and Letters from Isidora to Asclepiades (BGU 4.1206–7) attest to this phenomenon. In addition, papyri such as P. Lille 1.3 and P. Panopolis Beatty 2 further demonstrate what happens to some letters when they undergo conflation.

Since ancient letters contained formulaic openings and closings (as we find in Paul’s letters), these epistolary sections were susceptible to being omitted or altered, probably because there was not enough space on a papyrus sheet.

18.8 Purpose

Paul’s attempt to address the crisis in leadership and unity is fundamental to the purpose of both 1 and 2 Corinthians. While the former is focussed on the many problems arising from within the church, the latter also addresses problems that have been imported by rival missionaries.

If we treat 2 Corinthians as a unified whole, then Paul’s main reason for writing is to defend the divine source of his apostolic ministry and authority so that the congregation can achieve some semblance of harmony and organization. If we, however, assume that 2 Corinthians is a compilation of smaller letters written over an extended period of time, then it will affect how we reconstruct the congregation’s situation and Paul’s relationship to it.

While the overall problems that Paul addresses remain the same, their sequence and interrelationship would be much more nuanced. As a result, one would have to provide a purpose for each reconstructed letter, which is beyond the aim of this introduction.

Let us assume that 2 Corinthians is a combination of two previous letters, namely chapters 1–9 and 10–13. Chapters 1–9 contains a powerful re-affirmation of the ministry that Paul began among the Corinthians. For this major section of the letter, 2 Cor 1:12–14 can serve as a thesis statement. On the heels of what appears to be a repaired relationship between Paul and the Corinthians, this section reaffirms that the believers are united members of Christ’s body and will soon come to experience the fulfillment of their new identity when Christ returns. Paul’s reassurance of his good relationship with the Corinthians clearly comes through when he writes, “For we write you nothing other than what you can read and also understand… that on the day of the Lord Jesus we are your boast even as you are our boast” (2 Cor 1:13–14).

In Chapters 10–13 we notice an abrupt shift from Paul’s affirmation of his ministry to a defense of his authority. This is precipitated by the arrival of Christian missionaries of Jewish descent who challenged Paul’s teachings and apostolic authority. We do not know their origin or their motives. They probably arrived soon after Paul left Corinth and just as quickly became his rivals, competing for the allegiances of the Corinthian Jesus-followers. Paul refers to them sarcastically as “super-apostles” (2 Cor 11:5) since they present themselves as superior to Paul in abilities, knowledge, ethnic status, and past successes (2 Cor 11:12–23). For example, they slander Paul by calling him “weak” and his speech “contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10). Holding nothing back, Paul responds by calling them deceitful workers, false apostles, and servants of Satan, countering any of their claims to being legitimate apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness (2 Cor 11:13–15).

Paul does not provide a clear explanation of what his rival missionaries were teaching. We can only surmise from his reference to their teaching of “another Jesus,” a “different spirit,” and a “different gospel” (2 Cor 11:4) that it was at odds with Paul’s message. Certainly, the legitimacy of his ministry was being challenged. Otherwise, he would not reiterate that both he and the Corinthians already “belong to Christ” (2 Cor 10:7; 13:3, 5).

The acceptance of these rivals among the Corinthians might be explained in part by their persuasive communication skills and in part by their endorsement of the charismatic practices, such as speaking in tongues and prophesying. They may have participated in them or shared their own charismatic expressions. If indeed this was the case, then it would have contravened instructions in 1 Corinthians 12–14, causing a public challenge to Paul’s teachings and authority.

Paul’s response is consistent with 1 Corinthians. He insists that the life of the believer is not yet in an elevated and glorified state. While the hope is real, the believer presently lives in a world of pain and suffering which is under the control of cosmic powers currently ruling this age (2 Cor 11:20–31). The suffering, however, is not in vain when related to the suffering of Christ on the cross since it reveals God’s paradoxical character in a way that was not customary among both Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 21–22). The suffering of Christ, that serves as a touchstone for Paul’s suffering, redefines power and wisdom both in relation to humanity and God. Suffering takes on a new value because it produces redemption in response to conventional notions of power and success. Those who belong to Christ, according to Paul, should embody a radically new value system and perspective on reality that stems from Christ’s suffering and death.

18.9 Chronology of Paul’s Interactions with the Corinthian Jesus-Followers

Trying to reconstruct Paul’s interactions with the Corinthians over several years is a complicated task because it relies on limited data and competing partition theories. The removal or rearrangement of one controversial datum will affect the sequence of events. Nevertheless, a basic sketch that includes Paul’s visits and letters is possible and helpful for understanding the long-standing relationship. The following chronological reconstruction is a viable option that can serve as a general starting point in making sense of the interactions. It assumes that 2 Corinthians is an amalgamation of two letters.

Paul’s First Visit. Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy arrived in Corinth in the early 50s CE. They preached the gospel and won several converts, whom they provided with basic instructions before leaving for other destinations (2 Cor 1:19; Acts 18:1–18).

The “Lost” First Letter. Paul claims that he wrote a previous letter (1 Cor 5:9), which did not appear to survive. It seems to have dealt with ethical issues, in much the same way that 1 Corinthians does. Some scholars argue that it did survive, however. The lost letter, or an excerpt from it, is supposedly 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 since it forms an odd interruption in Paul’s train of thought, as mentioned above. Moreover, it deals with the topic which Paul says he addressed in his “previous” letter (1 Cor 5:9).

The Corinthian Visitors. Paul receives visitors from the Corinthian church (which he calls “Chloe’s people”) who deliver a report to him about the state of affairs in Corinth (1 Cor 1:11). Some of 1 Corinthians was written in response to the visitors’ report.

The Corinthians’ First Letter to Paul. While it is unclear whether this letter was intended to be a response to Paul’s first (“lost”) letter, the Corinthians wrote Paul to inquire about ethical matters. In particular, they inquired whether or not married couples who are now Jesus-followers could have sex with each other (1 Cor 7:1). The letter may have been delivered by Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17).

Paul’s Second Letter, 1 Corinthians. In response to the oral report from Chloe’s people and the letter Paul received, Paul wrote what we today call 1 Corinthians addressing a litany of problems. He announces his plans to travel and visit for the winter (1 Cor 16:5–7). He likely had Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who were members of the Corinthian congregation, deliver the letter to their fellow believers living in Corinth (1 Cor 16:15–17).

Paul’s Second Visit. Paul’s second visit is recalled in 2 Cor 2:1–4, where Paul states that he does not want to make “another painful visit.” The visit to which he refers likely occurred soon after Paul wrote and sent what we know as 1 Corinthians. The visit presumably occurred in the winter as he earlier promised. The unpleasant experience may have resulted from a less than welcoming reception and perhaps even a public humiliation (2 Cor 2:5–11). Paul left Corinth, in pain, and threatened a retaliatory judgment against them (2 Cor 13:2).

Paul’s Third Letter (the “Tearful” Letter). Paul wrote this letter “out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears” (2 Cor 2:4) soon after his “painful visit” which caused considerable distress to both parties. This “tearful letter” would have addressed the interpersonal divisions experienced during Paul’s recent visit. As noted above, many scholars today suspect that 2 Corinthians 10–13 is this “tearful letter” or a good portion of it. It seems to fit the sort of letter that would have caused grief (2 Cor 7:8). Apparently, this letter achieved its desired effect. Titus delivered the letter and reported back to Paul that the Corinthians punished a nameless perpetrator that caused stress in the community (2 Cor 2:5–11), repented of the pain they caused Paul, and returned back to being aligned with Paul (2 Cor 7:5–12). Relieved, Paul cancelled his pending plans to visit (2 Cor 1:15–2:2).

Paul’s Fourth Letter. The fourth letter, which is sometimes called the “letter of reconciliation,” consists of a substantial portion from 2 Corinthians 1–9 (specifically 1:1–6:13; 7:2–16), though it should be remembered that there is no consensus on the possible editorial seams in this large section. Some scholars propose that chapters 8–9 should also be included in this fourth letter. Others argue that these two chapters constitute a separate letter. Still others claim that chapters 8 and 9 were once independent of each other. If so, then Paul would have written more than the four letters presented here. Nevertheless, if we opt for chapters 1–9 as a more or less unified letter, then it was written after Titus reported on the improving conditions in Corinth, which prompted Paul to write a friendly letter that expressed his gratitude and delight about the Corinthians’ change of heart (2 Cor 2:5–11; 7:5–16), and explains why he did not return for another visit (2 Cor 1:15–2:4).

18.10 Themes

The Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem

When most people think about Paul, they tend to focus on his theological acumen in contexts of controversy, but they rarely think of him as a fundraiser. In chapters 8–9, we find an extensive discussion by Paul on the importance of fundraising. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we find a more comprehensive treatment.

The fundraising effort stems from Paul’s promise to the Jewish Christian leaders in Jerusalem that he would take up a collection among the Gentile churches for the “needs of the saints” (Cor 9:12 cf. Gal 2:10; cf. Acts 11:29–30; 24:17). For the Jewish Jesus-followers in Jerusalem, it is not unreasonable to imagine that donations by their Gentile counterparts would have caused a dilemma in light of ethnic divides.

Curiously, Paul introduces the topic in 2 Cor 9:1 as though it is new, even though it is already discussed in the previous chapter. As mentioned above, for some, this represents a literary seam that reveals two separate letters. This is entirely possible since chapter 8 appears to be directed at believers in the city of Corinth, whereas chapter 9 appears to target the believers throughout the province of Achaia.

Alternatively, though the introduction in 9:1 might seem redundant, it does not necessarily indicate a different underlying letter. It could be the result of intended repetition for emphasis. Scholars who argue against 9:1 being an editorial seam claim that select expressions in chapter 9 (like “brother” and “boasting”) find their meaning in chapter 8.

Info Box 18.6: Poverty in the Ancient Mediterranean World

Poverty is a slippery term to universally define since it is relative to a specific cultural context. In the ancient Mediterranean world, poverty was viewed somewhat differently compared to our modern conceptions. In its most general sense, however, it concerns a financial lack that results in an inability to participate in the normal activities of society.

For the ancients, the causes of poverty were not that different from modern ones. They included poor health, unemployment, drought, debt, taxation, lack of government support, and ethnic and class discriminations. Macro-economic studies of the Roman Empire conclude that it was a strong and vibrant economy. However, the economic strength and stability of the Empire did not trickle down to all of the lower social classes. Social scientific studies reveal a wide economic gap between the elite and the peasantry. The vast majority of the population lived just above or below the subsistence level. In a study on urban centres of 10,000 inhabitants or more, seven socio-economic class groups were observed.

1. Imperial elites (e.g. senators), consisting of 0.04% of the population.

2. Regional or provincial elites (e.g. governors, wealthy landowners, priests), consisting of 1% of the population.

3. Municipal elites (e.g. city officials, wealthy landowners, priests), consisting of 1.76% of the population.

4. Those with a moderate surplus (e.g. larger traders, merchants, artisans), consisting of 7% of the population.

5. Those living on a stable or near subsistence level with reasonable hope of remaining above the subsistence/poverty line (e.g. smaller traders, merchants, artisans), consisting of 22% of the population.

6. Those living at the subsistence level and even below (e.g. small farming families, employed artisans, labourers, traders, merchants), consisting of 40% of the population.

7. Those living below the subsistence level (e.g. some farm families, unskilled labourers, disabled, widows, orphans, beggars, prisoners), consisting of 28% of the population.

To summarize, under 10% of the population lived well beyond a subsistence level. The other 90% constantly experienced economic pressure and two thirds of the total population lived (and died) in extreme poverty.

In Judea and Galilee, some studies have shown that the poverty rates were even higher in rural areas. This was due to the hostilities between Jewish militants and Roman authorities which were in part caused by the heavy taxations levied by the Roman Empire, the Temple, and the Herodian rulers. High taxes forced many peasants to borrow from landowners, especially during droughts, creating a debtor-society. This resulted in many losing ownership of ancestral lands, and even the loss of providing for children who would be forced to leave their village/family in search of a livelihood elsewhere.

During the years leading up to the Roman-Jewish War in 66–70 CE, many Galileans and Judeans declined from group 6 to 7 (above), and a number likely were forced into slavery.

Paul’s approach to fundraising exhibits his rhetorical skill. In addition to reporting on the generosity of the neighbouring Macedonian churches, he attempts to convince the Corinthians to contribute to the cause by avoiding the standard terminology for money. Instead, he uses euphemisms, namely “gift” (1 Cor 16:3), “privilege” (2 Cor 8:4), “generous undertaking” (2 Cor 8:6–7), “service” (2 Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12–13), “blessing” (2 Cor 9:5), and “fellowship” (2 Cor 8:4; 9:13). His choice of terms was intended to both persuade the Corinthians and to instruct them that generosity and a gracious willingness to share reflects gratitude for God’s reconciling grace through Christ.

For Paul, the relief effort was both a charitable act as well as a strategic one. As a charitable act, which resembled an earlier collection by the church at Antioch for the Judean believers (Acts 11:27–30), helping the poor was a fundamental expression of faithfulness to Christ who gave his life for the redemption of the world.

As a strategic act, it was to demonstrate to the Jewish Jesus-followers in Jerusalem that Gentile believers should be viewed as supportive, caring, and ultimately unified in the cause of Christ. A unified church consisting of both Jews and Gentiles was fundamental to Paul’s theology, which always integrated faith and action. The implication for Paul’s missionary agenda was potentially huge. Paul may have well thought that if the Jewish Jesus-followers in Jerusalem accepted the donation from the Gentiles, then it would lead to a broader acceptance of the gospel among Jews which would in turn lead to the fulfillment of his eschatological plan of “all Israel” being saved (Rom 11:14). Some of Paul’s thinking may have been influence by his reading of Isa 55:10, which he loosely quotes (“seed to the sower and bread for food”) in 2 Cor 9:10. The quotation, along with the previous one from Ps 112:9 in 2 Cor 9:9, conveys the biblical metaphor that God will provide an abundant harvest when his people sow generously.

The point that Paul wants to convey to the Corinthians is that their giving will be used by God to increase the yield of righteousness among the Jews in Judea.

Info Box 18.7: Gift Giving in the Ancient Mediterranean World

Ancient Mediterranean society utilized a gift-giving system that is best explained as quid pro quo. Whether poor or wealthy, everyone was expected to give generously; and every gift given was expected to be reciprocated. Failure to reciprocate a gift brought shame on the entire family or community.

The modern-Western ideal of a “no-strings-attached” gift was alien. Gift-giving created and sustained relationships—be they business relationships or friendships.

A material gift, such as money, could have been reciprocated with a non-material gift (such as honour and loyalty). This was typically the procedure for gifts between the wealthy and the poor. Non-material “gifts” such as gratitude, honour, loyalty, fame and glory were expected in return. For the poor, this system is especially important since on occasion their survival depended on it.

People were less inclined to give to those known as stingy since they would be more unlikely to reciprocate the gift.

What was initially conceived as one-time collection appears to have occupied much more of Paul’s time during his ministry around the Aegean Sea in the 50s. The importance of the relief effort extends beyond 2 Corinthians and is also mentioned in Rom 15:25–27 and 1 Cor 16:1–4, but for unknown reasons does not appear in Luke’s account of the Aegean ministry in Acts 16–20, though an allusion to it is found later in Acts when Paul defends his ministry before the Judean Governor, Felix (Acts 24:17). The collection and distribution of the money must have been a formidable undertaking that required considerable trust and security. Paul delegated Titus and two fellow workers in helping with the coordination of the collection.

Paul’s Apostolic Authority

Paul’s defence of his apostolic authority is given significant attention throughout 2 Corinthians. After the arrival of the “super-apostles” in Corinth, the internal faction-building and its resulting fragmentation that is seen in 1 Corinthians 1 now turns to an intense power struggle between Paul and these rival missionaries. They seek to undermine his apostolic authority in favour of their own with the aim of winning the Corinthians’ allegiance in the same name of Christ. Paul considers them a threat and a fraud, claiming that “such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13).

With his authority under attack, Paul adamantly reinforces that his authority is not of human origin, but comes directly from God with responsibilities. He warns the Corinthians that his divine authority entitles him to punish those who are disobedient with “weapons of warfare” that are not merely human (2 Cor 10:2–6). Paul sees the implications of the confrontation extending beyond a human political or relational struggle to one that affects their identity in Christ.

While Paul is not ashamed to threaten the Corinthians so they might conform to his authority (2 Cor 13:1–2), he is at the same time cautious so that he does not dismantle the congregation in the process. His main intention is to use his authority to build it up (2 Cor 10:8), which appears to be no simple task given their stubbornness (2 Cor 11:19–20).  

Paul is not one who tends to boast in his own accomplishments and status. He considers it unseemly, and on occasion writes, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; Gal 6:14). However, in his response to the “super-apostles” in 2 Corinthians, Paul boasts uncharacteristically to undermine their self-imposed authority and endorses his own. He matches them boast for boast. For example, Paul boasts that he too is an Israelite and descendent of Abraham (2 Cor 11:22), that he is a superior minister of Christ who has made many more sacrifices for the sake of the Gospel (2 Cor 11:23–29), that he has received visions and revelations from the Lord (2 Cor 12:1–7), and that he has worked signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12).

While the boasting is intended to show the inferiority of his rival missionaries, it is also aimed at shaming the Corinthians who failed to defend Paul against attacks (2 Cor 10:10; 11:5–6; 12:11).

Paul certainly recognizes that his self-boasting is foolishness (2 Cor11:1, 16–19, 21, 23; 12:11), but he uses it rhetorically to reveal the folly and arrogance of the “super-apostles.” Paul changes the contest of boasting and hence its accomplishments. While his missionary rivals boast in their strengths according to human standards, Paul boasts in his weaknesses in accordance with God’s standards. In Paul’s logic, the weaker party is more likely the one through whom God is working since through grace “power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). Paul can remain content with hardships, insults, and persecutions because Christ’s power is revealed through them (2 Cor 12:10).

Info Box 18.8: Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh

In 2 Cor 12:7–10 Paul boasts of his weakness by providing an example of being plagued by a metaphorical “thorn in the flesh,” which he also calls “a messenger of Satan.” Despite three requests to have it removed, Paul claims that “the Lord” answered, “my grace is sufficient for you.” The meaning of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” has been debated for a long time.

Least convincing are psychological proposals, such as a negative self-image, not being accepted by his fellow Jews, or sexual temptation.

More common are physiological suggestions, such as poor eyesight (Gal 4:15), a speech defect (Gal 4:13; 2 Cor 10:10; 11:16), recurring malaria, or headaches.

The best option might be that it refers to his opponents, such as the “super-apostles.” The parallel reference to “a messenger of Satan” implies an external, personal source of affliction. In 2 Cor 11:14–15, he even identifies his adversaries at Corinth as “servants of Satan.” The continuous source of pain for Paul was the fact that none of his churches measured up to his expectations. There seemed to always be someone, in every community he founded, who caused him grief and who disrupted the community by propagating a contrary teaching.

God, Christ, and the Spirit as the Basis of Community

One of the most interesting theological ideas that emerges out of Paul’s volatile relationship with the Corinthians is his conception of the divine triadic integration of God, Christ, and the Spirit within the community.

For example, in 2 Cor 1:21–22 Paul writes, “But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.” And again, in the closing benediction, he writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor 13:13). Paul wants to instruct the Corinthians that it is God who unites the members of the community with each other, with its ministers, and with Christ in an indivisible relationship through the anointing of the Holy Spirit in baptism.

God’s triadic empowerment is the foundation to the congregation’s new identity, purpose and values. Although the doctrine of the Trinity (one God consists of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is not developed until the fourth century, Paul’s reference to God, Christ and the Spirit as the collective influence in the shaping of faith and the foundation of the community can be viewed as one of its early building blocks. God is presented as the primary actor. Christ is presented as the central figure who gives identity to a new humanity, since he died for all. And the Spirit is presented as a divine gift that unifies, edifies and empowers the community.

While it is difficult to know how thoroughly Paul’s reflections on this triadic process were developed, they were clearly foundational for his own identity as an apostle and his conception of a unified church. Of the three, Christ is central both as a person and as an event. As a person, his obedience to God, which exemplified authentic human existence resulted in suffering and death in the past and in a specific location, but its significance extended beyond the temporal and spatial realms. As an event, Christ’s death and resurrection transcends time and space. The victory over death and sin inaugurated a new era, and with it a new reality and a new creation, that allows others who follow Christ to share in the redemption affected by his death and resurrection. As a template for human identity, Christ as an event is the foundation for the Corinthians’ union with God in this life and the next. By being “in Christ,” the Corinthians are Spirit-empowered participants and agents in the reordering of the world that reconfigures access to God (2 Cor 5:16–21).

Motivated by the need to establish his apostolic authority in the face of opposing missionaries who view their commendation on the basis of letters of recommendation, Paul refers to the Corinthian Jesus-followers as his credentials that God has worked through him. In 2 Cor 3:1–18, Paul metaphorically calls his congregation a “letter of Christ” that was written not with ink on a papyrus or chiseled into a stone tablet, but by the Holy Spirit on the human heart. In short, Paul authenticates his ministry by appealing to the public work of God, Christ, and Spirit within the Corinthian church that he founded. The presence of the divine within the church makes them a living “letter of Christ” (2 Cor 3:3) that is accessible for all to “read.”

This triadic foundation of the community, which is identified with a new covenant (era of “Spirit”), is contrasted with the foundation of Israel established through Moses, which is identified with the old covenant of the law (era of “letter”). Paul explains that God, through Christ, no longer relates to his people in the written Torah, but through the Spirit (2 Cor 3:7). Christ is the hinge of history that ends one era and begins another.

The Jewish scriptures as a whole remain authoritative, but they are interpreted in relation to the new covenant. For Paul, the law that Moses delivered to Israel, despite its glory, was temporary and flawed in contrast to the permanent and “greater glory” of Christ (2 Cor 3:10).

Paul, however, preserves some consistency from one era to another by claiming that the “greater glory” also resided in Moses’ law, but it was “set aside” through the covering of his face by a veil because of Israel’s hardening in the wilderness. The point is that its true meaning and glory, which can only be achieved when it is viewed as a witness to Christ, was and is obscured to the Israelites. The same “setting aside” of the “greater glory” is applied to Paul’s Jewish contemporaries who now “set aside” Christ (2 Cor 3:12–18) because his true meaning as the basis of redemption is obscure to them.

Bibliography

Select Commentaries

1 Corinthians

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999.

Conzelmann, Hans. I Corinthians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Harrisville, Roy A. I Corinthians. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987.

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1997.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

Sampley, J. Paul.  The First Letter to the Corinthians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. The New Interpreter’s Bible 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002) 773-1003.

Soards, Marion L. 1 Corinthians. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999.

Thiselton, Anthony C.  The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

2 Corinthians

Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Betz, Hans Dieter. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Translated by Roy A.Harrisville from the 1976 German edition. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.

Danker, Frederick W. II Corinthians. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.

Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians. Anchor Bible, 32a. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.

Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Lambrecht, Jan. Second Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999.

Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary, 40. Waco: Word, 1986.

Sampley, J. Paul. The Second Letter to the Corinthians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. The New Interpreter’s Bible 11 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000) 3-180.

Thrall, Margaret E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: Clark, 1994, 2000.

Books and Articles on 1 and 2 Corinthians

Barrett, C. K. Essays on Paul. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.

Betz, Hans D., and Margaret M. Mitchell. “Corinthians, First Epistle to the.” Pages 1139–48 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Bieringer, Reimund, and Jan Lambrecht. Studies on 2 Corinthians. Biblioteca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 112. Louvain: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1994.

Brown, Alexandra R. The Cross and Human Transformation: Paul’s Apocalyptic Word in 1 Corinthians. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Burke, Trevor J., and K. Keith Elliott, eds. Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 109. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Crafton, Jeffery A. The Agency of the Apostle: A Dramatistic Analysis of Paul’s Responses to Conflict in 2 Corinthians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.

Dunn, James D. G. 1 Corinthians. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1995.

Furnish, Victor P. “Corinthians, Second Letter to the.” Pages 223–27 in vol. 1 of Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John H. Hayes. 2 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

––––––. The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; repr. 2003.

Gibson, R. K. “On the nature of ancient letter collections.”  Journal of Roman Studies 102 (2012): 56–78.

Harvey, A. E. Renewal Through Suffering: A Study of 2 Corinthians. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Hay, David M. ed. Pauline Theology: Volume II: 1 & 2 Corinthians. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Hurd, John C. “Corinthians, First Letter to the.” Pages 218–22 in vol. 1 of Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John H. Hayes. 2 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

Kreitzer, L. Joseph. 2 Corinthians. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1996.

Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Matthews, Shelly. “2 Corinthians.” Pages 196–217 in Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary. Edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Garden City: Hanover House, 1994.

Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 28. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1991.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology. Good News Studies 6. 3d ed. Collegeville: Liturgical (Michael Glazier), 2002

———. The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991

Neil, Bronwen and Pauline Allen, eds. Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Pages 3-17, 37-67.

Savage, Timothy B. Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996

Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Edited and translated by John H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.