1 Corinthians: A Church Divided John B. Polhill John B. Polhill is the James Toward the end of his third missionary The Occasion and Purpose of Buchanan Harrison Professor of New period, Paul had extensive contact with the 1 Corinthians Testament Interpretation at The South- Corinthian church. One would never guess Paul’s third missionary period centered ern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. this from the account in Acts. Acts men- primarily in Ephesus, where he ministered Polhill has taught at Southern since tions only a final visit of Paul to Corinth for two-and-one-half to three years (Acts 1969. He has written numerous articles after completion of his long Ephesian min- 19:1–20:1, 31). It was likely toward the end and a widely acclaimed commentary on istry and before his departure to Jerusalem of this time, perhaps in the spring of A.D. Acts in the New American Commentary. with a collection for the saints (Acts 20:1– 56, that Paul received news from Corinth This article is reprinted with slight 3). It is apparent from Paul’s letters, how- which prompted his writing 1 Corinthians. adaptation from chapter twelve of John ever, that the apostle was quite involved He had written them a letter some time Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: with the Corinthians during the course of previously which had prompted some Broadman and Holman, 1999). All rights his third mission. Before the final visit men- questions from the Corinthians. One of his reserved. Used by permission. tioned in Acts 20:1–3, he wrote at least four reasons for writing 1 Corinthians was to letters to the Corinthians and made at least clarify these matters. one additional visit to the city, which is not mentioned in Acts. It was a time of consid- The Previous Letter (1 Cor 5:9-13) erable stress for the Corinthians and for In the earlier letter Paul had told the Paul. The church was divided, and some Corinthians “not to associate with sexually even challenged Paul’s apostolic authority. immoral people” (5:9). In 1 Corinthians he Of the four letters to Corinth, two were proceeded to clarify himself. He did not written from Ephesus—1 Corinthians and mean that they were not to associate with an earlier letter that Paul mentioned in the immoral outside the congregation. If 1 Corinthians 5:9–13. This “previous letter” that were the case, they would have to is evidently lost. This chapter will deal with withdraw from the world altogether. this period of Paul’s Corinthian correspon- Instead, he meant that they were not to dence. It represents the early stages of the associate with those who claimed to be conflict between Paul and the Corinthians. Christians who had flagrantly immoral life- After the writing of 1 Corinthians the rela- styles. He had just recommended that they tionship between the Corinthians and their expel one such person from the congrega- apostle worsened, necessitating a brief visit tion, a man living in an incestuous relation- of Paul to Corinth from Ephesus, during ship (1 Cor 5:1). which he seems to have been personally The “previous letter” mentioned in 1 assaulted by at least one person. Corinthians 5:9 is in all probability now Leaving in haste and frustration, he lost. It has sometimes been argued that wrote an angry letter to the Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 is a portion of the which is either lost or partially preserved previous letter. The passage deals with in 2 Corinthians. In any event, 2 Corin- the issue of Christians associating with thians records the events of this period of immoral people, and it breaks the context strained relationships. It will be the sub- in which it appears. (2 Cor 6:13 and 7:2 fit ject of the next chapter. together; 6:14–7:1 interrupts the flow of 4 thought.) There are two main problems, to be inconsistent. In chapter 8 and in 10:23– however, with seeing 6:14–7:1 as a frag- 11:1, Paul took a “tolerant” position toward ment of the letter mentioned in 1 Corin- meat that had been sacrificed to idols. The thians 5:9. The first is that the two refer- “strong” Christians with a clear conscience ences do not deal with the same sort of must abstain from it only when in the pres- people. Second Corinthians 6:14–7:1 deals ence of a “weaker” Christian whom it with unbelievers, while 1 Corinthians 5:9– might offend. In 10:1–22 he took a harder 13 treats immoral Christians. A second line: one should not participate at all in problem is accounting textually for the cultic meals (the “table of demons”). A interpolation of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 into final example is the argument that Paul’s its present place. There is no manuscript mention of women praying and prophesy- evidence that the passage was ever miss- ing in worship (1 Cor 11:5) is contradicted ing from the text of 2 Corinthians, and it by the command that they be silent in 14:34. would be hard to explain what would The solution offered for these alleged prompt a scribe to place a fragment in contradictions is to place the conflicting such an awkward place. It is more easily passages into different letters. The recon- accounted for if one views 6:14–7:1 as a struction of Schmithals will serve as an Pauline digression. Perhaps Paul took a example. According to him, letter A (the break from writing the letter at 6:13. When “previous letter”) consisted of 2 Corin- resuming, the issue of Christian holiness thians 6:14–7:1; 1 Corinthians 6:12–20; 9:24– was at the front of his mind, and he penned 10:22; 11:2–34; 15; 16:13–24. Letter B (the (or dictated) 6:14–7:1. Then he resumed his response to the Corinthian letter to Paul) previous thought at 7:2 by repeating the consisted of 1 Corinthians 1:1–6:11; 7:1– concluding words of 6:13.1 9:23; 10:23–11:1; 12:1–14:40; 16:1–12.2 It can Others would see the previous letter as be readily seen that for every supposed imbedded in our present 1 Corinthians. inconsistency cited above, Schmithals These scholars view 1 Corinthians as a resolves the problem by assigning the composite of two original letters, one of conflicting passages to different epistles. which would be the previous letter. Sev- The resolution of a few seeming incon- eral scholars, such as J. Weiss, J. Héring, sistencies by such partitioning raises and W. Schmithals, have maintained this more problems than it solves. The recon- two-letter hypothesis. There is, however, structions differ radically from scholar to little agreement between their individual scholar. The inconsistencies are overblown. reconstructions of the supposed letters. The Paul could well have changed his travel basis of the two-letter hypothesis is the plans between the writing of chapters 4 and feeling that 1 Corinthians contains certain 16. He probably composed the long letter irreconcilable inconsistencies that could not over a number of days. The idol meat pas- possibly have been in the same letter. For sages are not inconsistent but deal with instance, it is argued that Paul’s travel plans different contexts, as do the passages which are inconsistent in 1 Corinthians. First treat the activity of women in worship. Corinthians 4:19 presupposes a quick com- Finally, the problems of compilation are ing to Corinth, while 16:5–9 seems to enormous. There is really no evidence for allow for a longer delay. The treatment of scribes combining two letters in such a idol meat in chapters 8 and 10 is also seen fashion, deleting introductions and end- 5 ings, radically dividing up individual These involved Christian celibacy (7:1), epistles. One can understand why few whether single Christians should marry scholars have been attracted to compilation (7:25), the consumption of meat that had theories involving 1 Corinthians. Most been sacrificed to idols (8:1), spiritual gifts assume the integrity of the epistle. (12:1), Paul’s collection for the saints (16:1), and when Apollos would visit them The News from Corinth (16:12). Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus, Paul’s third source of information was primarily to address questions and prob- an official delegation of three men who had lems within the congregation which had come from Corinth to deliver the Corin- come to his attention. He had three sources thians’ letter to Paul. They are mentioned of information. One was the servants of a in 16:17–18—Fortunatus, Achaicus, and certain Chloe who informed Paul of seri- Stephanas. Along with Chloe’s people, ous divisions within the congregation they offered Paul verbal reports about the (1:11–12). The Corinthians were treating congregation. It was probably from these their Christian leaders like the popular personal reports that Paul learned of the Greek sophists, pitting their favorite “wis- sexual problems treated in chapters 5 and dom teacher” against the others. Paul 6, of the lawsuits among members (6:1–11), addressed the problem of the Corinthian of the lack of decorum in worship (11:2– wisdom speculation in chapters 1-4. 16), and of those who were denying the Chloe’s servants may also have informed resurrection of believers (ch. 15). Paul of the disunity and abuse of the Lord’s The Corinthian problems were mani- Supper (11:17–22).