Difference between revisions of "First Epistle To The Corinthians"

        <li> The concluding part (15; 16) contains an elaborate defense of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which had been called in question by some among them, followed by some general instructions, intimations, and greetings. <p> This epistle "shows the powerful self-control of the apostle in spite of his physical weakness, his distressed circumstances, his incessant troubles, and his emotional nature. It was written, he tells us, in bitter anguish, 'out of much affliction and pressure of heart...and with streaming eyes' ( 2 Corinthians 2:4 ); yet he restrained the expression of his feelings, and wrote with a dignity and holy calm which he thought most calculated to win back his erring children. It gives a vivid picture of the early church...It entirely dissipates the dream that the apostolic church was in an exceptional condition of holiness of life or purity of doctrine." The apostle in this epistle unfolds and applies great principles fitted to guide the church of all ages in dealing with the same and kindred evils in whatever form they may appear. </p> <p> This is one of the epistles the authenticity of which has never been called in question by critics of any school, so many and so conclusive are the evidences of its [[Pauline]] origin. </p> <p> The subscription to this epistle states erroneously in the Authorized Version that it was written at Philippi. This error arose from a mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 16:5 , "For I do pass through Macedonia," which was interpreted as meaning, "I am passing through Macedonia." In 16:8 he declares his intention of remaining some time longer in Ephesus. After that, his purpose is to "pass through Macedonia." </p> <p> </p> <div> <p> [[Copyright]] StatementThese dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated [[Bible]] Dictionary, [[Third]] Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> Bibliography InformationEaston, Matthew George. Entry for 'Corinthians, First [[Epistle]] to the'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/c/corinthians-first-epistle-to-the.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

        <p> <strong> CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE </strong> </p> <p> 1. [[Occasion]] of the [[Epistle]] . Some four or five years had elapsed since St. Paul’s first evangelization of [[Corinth]] when he addressed the present Epistle to the [[Christians]] in that great centre of commerce. No doubt there had been frequent communications, especially during the Apostle’s stay in Asia, for the journey between Corinth and [[Ephesus]] was a very easy one; but the communications were probably by letter only. A former epistle is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9 , in which St. Paul had bidden his disciples ‘to have no company with fornicators’ advice which was no doubt considered hard to obey in the most vicious and pleasure-loving city of the world, and which to some extent is modified in the present Epistle ( 1 Corinthians 5:10 f.); and a letter from the Corinthians to St. Paul is the immediate object of the Apostle’s writing on the present occasion ( 1 Corinthians 7:1 ). But before answering it, he reproves the Corinthians for certain abuses which he had heard of from ‘the [household] of Chloe’ ( 1 Corinthians 1:11 ), namely, schism and party spirit, a bad case of incest, and litigiousness; for ‘they of Chloe’ seem to have been St. Paul’s informants on all these matters. [[Chloe]] was perhaps a woman of importance who carried on a trade in Corinth, as [[Lydia]] of [[Thyatira]] did at [[Philippi]] ( Acts 16:14 ). She therefore not improbably belonged to Asia Minor the reference to her seems to imply that she was not a Corinthian, and ‘they of Chloe’ would be her agents who passed to and fro between Ephesus and Corinth. Having reproved the Corinthians for these abuses, the [[Apostle]] answers the questions put in their letter to him, as to marriage and other social questions; perhaps also as to [[Christian]] worship, the doctrine of the Resurrection, and the collection for the poor of Judæa. We may consider these topics in order. </p> <p> <strong> 2. The state of the [[Corinthian]] [[Church]] </strong> . It will be remembered that the majority of the Christians at Corinth were Gentiles, though there were some Jews among them ( Romans 16:21 , 1 Corinthians 7:18; 1 Corinthians 9:20; 1 Corinthians 12:13 ), including such influential men as [[Crispus]] ( Acts 18:8 ) and (probably) [[Sosthenes]] ( Acts 18:17 , 1 Corinthians 1:1 ). It was the heathen antecedents of the Corinthians that led to most of the evils for which St. Paul rebukes them ( 1 Corinthians 6:11 , 1 Corinthians 12:2 ). The Apostle, though he had not intended to stay long in Corinth when he first went there, desiring to return to [[Macedonia]] ( 1 Thessalonians 2:18 ), yet, when his wish was found to be impracticable, threw himself with all his heart into the task of making heathen Corinth, the famous trade centre which lay on one of the greatest routes of communication in the Empire, into a religious centre for the spread of the gospel (cf. Acts 18:5 ). But the difficulties were not those with which he had met in Athens, where the philosophic inhabitants derided him. At Corinth the vices of the city had lowered the tone of public opinion; and when St. Paul preached [[Christ]] crucified with all plainness of speech ( 1 Corinthians 1:17 ff.), many heard him gladly, but retained with their nominal [[Christianity]] their old heathen ideas on morals. He preached no longer ‘wisdom’ to the [[Jewish]] lawyer or the [[Greek]] sophist ( 1 Corinthians 1:20 ), but salvation to the plain man; the [[Gentiles]] had no sense of sin, and the preaching of a personal [[Saviour]] was to them ‘folly’ ( 1 Corinthians 1:23 ). We need not indeed suppose, as Sir W. Ramsay ( <em> Expositor </em> VI. [i.] 98) points out, that the passage 1 Corinthians 1:26 ff. describes Corinthian Christians as distinguished from those in other places; the disciples at Corinth were not merely the ‘dregs of society,’ separated from the rest of the population, as the negro from the white man in some countries to-day. Ramsay thinks that the special work of the Church was to raise the thoughtful and educated middle classes. It certainly included men of means ( 1 Corinthians 11:20 ff.). Still, the upper classes and the learned were everywhere less attracted by Christianity than were the poor, with certain conspicuous exceptions, such as St. Paul himself. </p> <p> It has been debated how far the Church was organized at Corinth at this time. The ministry is seldom referred to in these two Epistles; the ‘bishops and deacons’ of Philippians 1:1 are not mentioned; but we read of apostles, prophets, and teachers ( 1 Corinthians 12:28 ). It would, however, be unsafe to conclude that there was not a settled local ministry at Corinth. St. Paul had certainly established presbyters in every Church on his First [[Journey]] ( Acts 14:23 ), and so apparently in Asia on his Second ( Acts 20:17 ). In this Epistle the regular ministers are perhaps not explicitly mentioned, because they were the very persons who were most responsible for the disorders (Goudge, <em> [[Westminster]] Com </em> . p. xxxvi), while in ch. 12 the possession of ‘spiritual gifts’ is the subject of discussion, and the mention of the regular ministry would not be germane to it. A settled order of clergy is implied in 1 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Corinthians 9:12; 1 Corinthians 9:14 . </p> <p> <strong> 3. Party [[Spirit]] at Corinth </strong> . It is more correct to say that there were parties in the Church than that the Corinthians had made schisms. We read, not of rival organizations, but of factions in the one organization. It is noteworthy that [[Clement]] of Rome ( <em> Cor </em> . 1, 47), writing less than 50 years later, refers to the factions prevalent at Corinth in his time. The [[Greeks]] were famous for factions; their cities could never combine together for long. In St. Paul’s time there was a Paul-party, and also an Apollos-party, a Cephas-party, and a Christ-party ( 1 Corinthians 1:12 ), though the words ‘but I [am] of Christ’ are interpreted by Estius ( <em> Com </em> . ed. Sausen, ii. 110) and many Greek and [[Latin]] commentators, and also perhaps by Clement of Rome (see below, § <strong> 10 </strong> ), as being St. Paul’s own observation: ‘You make parties, taking Paul, Apollos, [[Cephas]] as leaders, but I, Paul, am no party man, I am Christ’s’ (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:23 ). If, however, we take the more usual interpretation that there were four parties, we may ask what lines of thought they severally represented. The Apollos-party would probably consist of those who disparaged St. Paul as not being sufficiently eloquent and philosophical (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 2:13 , Act 18:24 , 2 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Corinthians 11:6 ). The Cephas-party would be the party of the circumcision, as in Galatia. At Corinth the great dispute about the Law was as yet in its infancy; it seems to have grown when 2 Corinthians was written (see § <strong> 7 </strong> ( <em> c </em> ) below). The Christ-party, it has been conjectured, was the ultra-latitudinarian party, which caricatured St. Paul’s teaching about liberty (cf. Romans 6:1 ); or (Alford) consisted of those who made a merit of not being attached to any human teacher, and who therefore slighted the Apostleship of St. Paul. Another view is that the Christ-party consisted of the [[Judaizers]] mentioned in 2 Co. and Gal. as denying St. Paul’s Apostleship (Goudge, p. xxi.: cf. 2 Corinthians 10:7 where St. Paul’s opponents claim to be peculiarly Christ’s); but it is not easy in that case to distinguish them from the Cephas-party. There is no sufficient reason for deducing from 1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 9:5 that St. Peter had visited Corinth, and that this party consisted of his personal disciples. St. Paul, then, reproves all these parties, and most emphatically those who called themselves by his name. They were united by baptism with Christ, not with him ( 1 Corinthians 1:13 ). </p> <p> <strong> 4. Moral Scandals </strong> (ch. 5). A Christian had married his (probably heathen) step-mother. Perhaps his father had been separated from her on his becoming a Christian, but (if 2 Corinthians 7:12 refers to this incident) was still alive; and the son thereupon married her. The Corinthian Church, in the low state of public opinion, did not condemn this, and did not even mention it in their letter to St. Paul. St. Paul reproves them for tolerating ‘such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles’ [the word ‘named’ of the AV [Note: Authorized Version.] text has no sufficient authority]. There is a difficulty here, for the heathen tolerated even more incestuous connexions, as between a man and his half-sister. Ramsay ( <em> Exp </em> . VI. [i.] 110) supposes the Apostle to mean that the [[Roman]] law forbade such marriage. The Roman law of affinity was undoubtedly very strict, and Corinth, as a colony, would be familiar with Roman law; though the law was not usually put in force. The Jews strongly denounced such connexions ( Amos 2:7 ). The Apostle says nothing of the punishment of the heathen step-mother (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:12 ), but the man is to be ‘delivered unto Satan’ ( 1 Corinthians 5:5 , cf. 1 Timothy 1:20 ). </p> <p> This phrase probably means simple excommunication, including the renouncing of all intercourse with the offender (cf. 5:13), though many take it to denote the infliction of some miraculous punishment, disease, or death, and deny that the offender of 2 Corinthians 2:1-17; 2 Corinthians 7:1-16 is the incestuous Corinthian of 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 . Ramsay conjectures that the phrase is a Christian adaptation of a pagan idea, that a person wronged by another but unable to retaliate should consign the offender to the gods and leave punishment to he inflicted by [[Divine]] power; [[Satan]] would be looked on as God’s instrument in punishing the offender; and the latter, being cast out of the Christian community, would be left as a prey to the devil. </p> <p> <strong> 5. Legal Scandals </strong> . St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for litigiousness, 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 . This passage is usually interpreted as superseding heathen imperial tribunals by voluntary Christian courts for all cases, such as the Jews often had. Ramsay ( <em> Exp </em> . VI. [i.] 274) suggests that the Apostle, who usually treats Roman institutions with respect, is not here considering serious questions of crime and fraud at all, nor yet law courts whether heathen or Christian, but those smaller matters which Greeks were accustomed to submit to arbitration. In Roman times, as this procedure developed, the arbiters became really judges of an inferior court, recognized by the law, and the magistrates appointed them. In this view St. Paul reproves the Corinthians for taking their umpires from among the heathen instead of from among their Christian brethren. </p> <p> <strong> 6. Questions of Moral Sin and of Marriage </strong> ( 1 Corinthians 6:12 to 1 Corinthians 7:40 ). Probably the passage 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 is part of the answer to the Corinthian letter. The correspondent had said, ‘All things are lawful for me.’ But all things (the Apostle replies) are not expedient. ‘Meats are for the belly, and the belly for meats’ ( <em> i.e. </em> just as food is natural to the body, so is impurity). But both are transitory, and the body as a whole is for the Lord; in virtue of the [[Resurrection]] fornication is a serious sin, for it destroys the spiritual character of the body. True marriage is the most perfect symbol of the relation between Christ and the Church ( 1 Corinthians 6:15 ff.; cf. Ephesians 5:23 ff.). In ch. 7 the Apostle answers the Corinthians’ questions about marriage. It is usually thought that they wished to extol asceticism, basing their view on our Lord’s words in Matthew 19:11 f., that they suggested that celibacy was to be strongly encouraged in all, and that the Apostle, though agreeing as an abstract principle, yet, because of imminent persecution and Jesus’ immediate return ( Matthew 7:26; Matthew 7:29 ), replied that in many cases celibacy was undesirable. But Ramsay points out that such a question is unnatural to both Jews and Gentiles of that time. The better heathen tried to enforce marriage as a cure for immorality; while the Jews looked on it as an universal duty. Ramsay supposes, therefore, that the Corinthians wished to make marriage compulsory, and that St. Paul pleads for a voluntary celibacy. Against this it is urged that the [[Essenes]] (a Jewish sect) upheld non-marriage. But it is difficult to think, in view of Matthew 11:11 and Ephesians 5:23 ff., that St. Paul held the celibate life to be essentially the higher one, and the married life only a matter of permission, a concession to weakness. After positive commands as to divorce ( 1 Corinthians 7:10 ff.) the Apostle answers in 1 Corinthians 7:25 ff. another question: which would be either (see above) a suggestion that fathers should he discouraged from finding husbands for their daughters, or that they should be compelled to do so. On the latter supposition, St. Paul says that there is no obligation, and that the daughter may well remain unmarried. The subject is concluded with advice as to widows’ re-marriage. </p> <p> <strong> 7. Social Questions </strong> ( 1 Corinthians 8:1 to 1 Corinthians 11:1 ) </p> <p> ( <em> a </em> ) <em> Food </em> . Another question was whether Christians may eat meats which had previously been offered to Idols, as most of the meat sold in Corinth would have been. St. Paul’s answer is a running commentary on the Corinthians’ words (so Lock, <em> Exp </em> . V. [vi.] 65; Ramsay agrees): ‘We know that we all have knowledge; we are not bound by absurd ceremonial restrictions.’ Yes, but knowledge puffeth up; without love and humility it is nothing; besides not <em> all </em> have knowledge. ‘The false gods are really non-existent; we have but one God; as there is no such thing really as an idol we are free to eat meats offered in idol temples.’ But there are weaker brethren who would be scandalized. ‘Meat will not commend us to God: it is indifferent.’ But do not let your liberty cause others to fall (note the change of pronoun in v. 8f.). </p> <p> Why is the decree of Acts 15:29 not quoted? Lock suggests that it is because at Corinth there was no question between Jew and Gentile, but only between [[Gentile]] and Gentile, and Jewish opinion might be neglected. Ramsay ( <em> Exp </em> . VI. [ii.] 375) thinks that the decree is not mentioned because it was the very subject of discussion. The Corinthians had said (he supposes): ‘Why should we be tied down by the Council’s decree here at Corinth, so long after? We know better than to suppose that a non-existent idol can taint food.’ St. Paul replies, maintaining the spirit of the decree, that offence must not be given to the weaker brethren (so Hort). </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) <em> Idol [[Feasts]] </em> ( 1 Corinthians 8:10-13 , 1 Corinthians 10:14 to 1 Corinthians 11:1 ). St. Paul absolutely forbids eating at idol feasts. Probably many of the Corinthians had retained their connexion with pagan clubs. The pagan feast meant a brotherhood or special bond of union; but the two kinds of brotherhood were incompatible. A Christian who, out of complaisance, attends an idol feast, is really entering a hostile brotherhood. </p> <p> ( <em> c </em> ) <em> Digression on [[Forbearance]] </em> ( 1 Corinthians 9:1 to 1 Corinthians 10:13 ). St. Paul says that he habitually considers the rights of others and does not press his own rights as an Apostle to the full; he implies that the Corinthians should not press their liberty so as to scandalize others. This passage shows how little as yet the Judaizers had been at work in Corinth. St. Paul announces his position as an Apostle, and the right of the Christian minister to live of the gospel, but he will not use his rights to the full ( 1 Corinthians 9:18 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). He teaches self-denial and earnestness from the example of the Isthmian games ( 1 Corinthians 9:24 ff.), and shows that the Israelites, in spite of all their privileges, fell from lack of this self-discipline. It is noteworthy that he speaks of ‘ <em> our </em> fathers’ ( 1 Corinthians 10:1 ). Perhaps, having addressed the Gentiles in particular in ch. 9, he now turns to the Jewish section of the Corinthian Church; he refers to a Rabbinical legend in 1 Corinthians 10:4 . Or he may he considering the whole Church as being the spiritual descendants of Israel. </p> <p> <strong> 8. Christian [[Worship]] </strong> ( 1 Corinthians 11:2 to 1 Corinthians 14:40 ) </p> <p> ( <em> a </em> ) <em> Veiling of [[Women]] </em> . In reply (as it seems) to another question, St. Paul says that it is the Christian custom for men ‘praying or prophesying’ to have their heads uncovered, but for women to have theirs covered. This apparently trivial matter is an instance of the application of Christian principles to Christian ceremonial. The Jews of both sexes prayed with head covered and with a veil before the face (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:14 ff.); therefore St. Paul’s injunction does not follow Jewish custom. It is based on the subordination of the woman to the man, and is illustrated by the existence of regulated ranks among the angels; for this seems to be the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:10 . </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) <em> The [[Eucharist]] </em> . The Corinthians joined together in a social meal somewhat later called an [[Agape]] or Love-feast and the Eucharist, probably in imitation both of the Last [[Supper]] and of the Jewish and heathen meals taken in common. To this combination the name ‘Lord’s Supper’ (here only in NT) is given. But the party-spirit, already spoken of, showed itself in this custom; the Corinthians did not eat the <em> Lord </em> ’s supper, but their own, because of their factions. St. Paul therefore gives the narrative of our Lord’s [[Institution]] as he himself had received it, strongly condemns those who make an unworthy communion as ‘guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,’ and inculcates preparation by self-probation. </p> <p> It is chiefly this passage that has led some to think that the writer of the Epistle is quoting the Synoptic [[Gospels]] (see below, § 10); the Lukan account, as we have it in our Bibles, is very like the Pauline. But the deduction is very improbable. Even if our Lukan text is right, the result is only what we should have expected, that the companion of St. Paul has taken his master’s form of the narrative, which he would doubtless have frequently heard him use liturgically, and has incorporated it in his Gospel. As a matter of fact, however, it is not improbable that the Lukan form was really much shorter than the Pauline, and that some early scribe has lengthened it to make it fit in with 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff. (Westcott-Hort, <em> NT in Greek </em> , ii. Append. p. 64). </p> <p> ( <em> c </em> ) <em> [[Spiritual]] Gifts </em> ( 1Co 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 ). The public manifestation of the presence of the Spirit known as ‘speaking with tongues’ (see art. Tongues [Gift of]), seems to have been very common at Corinth. After the magnificent digression of ch. 13, which shows that of all spiritual gifts love is the greatest, that it alone is eternal, that without it all other gifts are useless, St. Paul applies the principle that spiritual gifts are means to an end, not an end in themselves; and he therefore upholds ‘prophecy’ ( <em> i.e. </em> , in this connexion, the interpretation of [[Scripture]] and of Christian doctrine) as superior to speaking with tongues, because it edifies all present. He says, further, that women are to keep silence ( <em> i.e. </em> not to prophesy?) in the public assemblies ( 1 Corinthians 14:34 f., cf. 1 Timothy 2:12 ). In 1 Corinthians 11:5 (Cf. Acts 21:9 ) some women are said to have had the gift of prophecy; so that we must understand that they were allowed to exercise it only among women, or in their own households. But possibly the Apostle has chiefly in his mind questions asked by women in the public assemblies (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:35 ). </p> <p> <strong> 9. The Resurrection of the Body </strong> ( 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 ). This, the only doctrinal chapter of the Epistle, contains also the earliest evidence for our Lord’s resurrection. [[Apparently]] the Gentile converts at Corinth felt a great difficulty in accepting the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; it appeared to them too material a doctrine to he true ( 1 Corinthians 15:12 , cf. 2 Timothy 2:18 ). St. Paul replies that Christ has risen, as many still alive can testify, and that therefore the dead will rise. For his treatment of the subject see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 10, The Corinthian scepticism does not seem to have died out at the end of the century, for Clement of Rome, writing to Corinth, strongly emphasizes the doctrine ( <em> Cor </em> . 24f.). </p> <p> St. Paul concludes the Epistle with directions about the regular collecting of alms for the poor Christians of Judæa, and with personal notices and salutations. </p> <p> <strong> 10. Date and genuineness of the Epistle </strong> . It is referred to as St. Paul’s by Clement of Rome, <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> a.d. 95 ( <em> Cor </em> . 47), who speaks of the parties of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, but omits the Christ-party (see above § <strong> 3 </strong> ); we cannot infer from his phrase ‘the Epistle of the blessed Paul’ that he knew only one Epistle to the Corinthians, as early usage shows (Lightfoot, <em> Clement </em> , ii. 143). There are other clear allusions in Clement. Ignatius ( <em> Eph </em> . 18f.) refers to 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 1:23 f., 1 Corinthians 4:13 and probably 1 Corinthians 2:6; [[Polycarp]] (§ 11) quotes 1 Corinthians 6:2 as Paul’s; references are found in the <em> [[Martyrdom]] of Polycarp </em> , in [[Justin]] Martyr, and in the <em> Epistle to [[Diognetus]] </em> ; while Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian at the end of the 2nd cent. quote the Epistle fully. Of the 2nd cent. heretics the [[Ophites]] and [[Basilides]] certainly knew it. Internal evidence fully hears out the external; no Epistle shows more clearly the mark of originality; and the undesigned coincidences between it and Acts, which Paley draws out, point in the same direction. It is in fact one of the four ‘generally accepted’ [[Epistles]] of St. Paul. See art. Paul the Apostle, i. <strong> 2 </strong> , for the general arguments adduced against their genuineness. Against that of our Epistle in particular it has been alleged that it is dependent on Romans thus, 1 Corinthians 4:6 (‘the things which are written’) is said to be a quotation of Romans 12:3 , surely a most fanciful idea and on the Synoptic Gospels, especially in two particulars, the account of the Last Supper (see § <strong> 8 </strong> ( <em> b </em> ) above), and that of the Resurrection appearances of our Lord ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ff.). The real problem of the latter passage, however (as Goudge remarks, p. xxvii.), is not to account for the extent to which it runs parallel with the Gospels, but to explain why it does not run more nearly parallel with them. Few will he convinced by a criticism which practically assumes that a Christian writer of the 1st cent. could only know the facts of our Lord’s earthly life from our Gospels. We may then take the genuineness of the Epistle as being unassailable. </p> <p> If so, what is its date? Relatively to the rest of the [[Pauline]] chronology, it may he approximately fixed. In the year of his arrest at Jerusalem, St. Paul left Corinth in the early spring, after spending three months there ( Acts 20:3; Acts 20:6 ). He must therefore have arrived there in late autumn or early winter. This seems to have been the visit to Corinth promised in 2 Corinthians 13:1 , which was the <em> third </em> visit. Two visits in all must have therefore preceded 2 Cor. (some think also 1 Cor.), and in any case an interval of some months between the two Epistles must be allowed for. In 1 Corinthians 16:6 the Apostle had announced his intention of wintering in Corinth, and it is possible that the visit of Acts 20:3 is the fulfilment of this intention, though St. Paul certainly did not carry out all his plans at this time ( 2 Corinthians 1:15 f., 2 Corinthians 1:23 ). If so, 1 Cor. would have been written from Ephesus in the spring of the year before St. Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem. </p> <p> This date is favoured by the allusion of 5:7f., which suggests to many commentators that the [[Easter]] festival was being, or about to he, celebrated when St. Paul wrote. It is a little doubtful, however, whether the Gentile churches kept the annual as well as the weekly feast of the Resurrection at this early date; see art. ‘Calendar, The Christian,’ in Hastings’ <em> DCG </em> <em> [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] </em> i. 256. </p> <p> Ramsay ( <em> St. Paul the Trav </em> . p. 275) thinks that we must date our Epistle some six months earlier, in the second autumn before St. Paul’s arrest. The events alluded to in 2 Cor. require a long interval between the Epistles. Moreover, the Corinthians had begun the collection for the poor Jews ‘a year ago’ when St. Paul wrote 2 Cor. ( 2 Corinthians 8:10; 2 Corinthians 9:2 ), and it seems, therefore, that at least a year must have elapsed since the injunction of 1 Corinthians 16:1 . It is suggested, however, that we should rather translate the phrase ‘last year,’ and that to one who used the [[Macedonian]] calendar, and who wrote in the autumn, ‘last spring’ would also be ‘last year,’ for the new year began in September. On the whole, however, the argument about the Easter festival seems to be precarious, and the conditions are probably better satisfied if a longer interval be allowed, and the First Epistle put about 18 months before St. Paul’s arrest. The <em> absolute </em> , as opposed to the relative, date will depend on our view of the rival schemes given in art. [[Chronology]] of the NT, § iii. </p> <p> A. J. Maclean. </p>

        <p> 1. The testimony of [[Christian]] antiquity is full and unanimous in ascribing this inspired production to the pen of the apostle Paul (Lardner's Credibility, Works, vol. 2, plur. loc.; see also Heydenreich, Comment. in priorem D. Pauli ad Cor. epist. Proleg. p. 30; Schott, Isaqoge in N.T. p. 236, 239 sq.). The external evidences (Clem. Rom. ad Cor. ch. 47, 48; Polycarp, ad Phil. ch. 11; Ignat. ad Eph. ch. 2; Irenaeus, Haer. 3, 11, 9; 4:27, 3; Athenag. de Resurr. p. 61, ed. Col.; Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1:33; Tertull. de Praeser. ch. 33) are extremely distinct, and with this the internal evidence arising from allusions, undesigned coincidences, style, and tone of thought fully accords (see Davidson, Introd. 2:253 sq.). </p> <p> 2. The epistle seems to have been occasioned partly by some intelligence received by the apostle concerning the [[Corinthian]] church from the domestics of Chloe, a pious female connected with that church ( 1 Corinthians 1:11), and probably also from common report ( ἀκούεται,v, i), and partly by an epistle which the Corinthians themselves had addressed to the apostle, asking advice and instruction on several points ( 1 Corinthians 7:1), and which probably was conveyed to him by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and [[Achaicus]] ( 1 Corinthians 16:17). Apollos, also, who succeeded the apostle at Corinth, but who seems to have been with him at the time this epistle was written ( 1 Corinthians 16:12), may have given him information of the state of things among the [[Christians]] in that city. From these sources the apostle had become acquainted with the painful fact that since he had left [[Corinth]] ( Acts 18:18), the church in that place had sunk into a state of great corruption and error. One prime source of this evil state of things, and in itself an evil of no inferior magnitude, was the existence of schisms or party divisions in the church. "Everyone of you," Paul tells them, "saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ" ( 1 Corinthians 1:12). This has led to the conclusion that four great parties had arisen in the church, which boasted of Paul, Apollos, Peter, and [[Christ]] as their respective heads. By what peculiarities of sentiment these parties may be supposed to have been distinguished from each other it is not difficult, with the exception of the last, to conjecture. It appears that the schisms arose merely from quarrels among the Corinthians as to the comparative excellence of their respective teachers — those who had learned of Paul boasting that he excelled all others, and the converts of [[Apollos]] and Peter advancing a similar claim for them, while a fourth party haughtily repudiated all subordinate teaching, and pretended that they derived all their religious knowledge from the direct teaching of Christ. The language of the apostle in the first four chapters, where alone he speaks directly of these schisms, and where he resolves their criminality, not into their relation to false doctrine, but into their having their source in a disposition to glory in men, must be regarded as greatly favoring this view. (Comp. also 2 Corinthians 5:16.) </p> <p> The few facts supplied to us by the Acts of the Apostles, and the notices in the epistle, appear to be as follows: The Corinthian church was planted by the apostle himself ( 1 Corinthians 3:6) in his second missionary journey, after his departure from [[Athens]] ( Acts 18:1 sq.). He abode in the city a year and a half ( Acts 18:11), at first in the house of [[Aquila]] and [[Priscilla]] ( Acts 18:3), and afterwards, apparently to mark emphatically the factious nature of the conduct of the Jews, in the house of the proselyte Justus. A short time after the apostle had left the city the eloquent Jew of Alexandria, Apollos, after having received, when at Ephesus, more exact instruction in the [[Gospel]] from Aquila and Priscilla, went to Corinth ( Acts 19:1), where he preached, as we may perhaps infer from Paul's comments on his own mode of preaching, in a manner marked by unusual eloquence and persuasiveness (comp. 1 Corinthians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 2:4). There is, however, no reason for concluding that the substance of the teaching was in any respect different from that of Paul (see 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 16:12). This circumstance of the visit of Apollos, owing to the sensuous and carnal spirit which marked the church of Corinth, appears to have formed the commencement of a gradual division into two parties, the followers of Paul, and the followers of Apollos (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:6). These divisions, however, were to be multiplied; for, as it would seem, shortly after the departure of Apollos, Judaizing teachers, supplied probably with letters of commendation ( 2 Corinthians 3:1) from the church of Jerusalem, appear to have come to Corinth, and to have preached the Gospel in a spirit of direct antagonism to Paul personally, in every way seeking to depress his claims to be considered an apostle ( 1 Corinthians 11:2), and to exalt those of the Twelve, and perhaps especially of Peter (ch. 1:12). To this third party, which appears to have been characterized by a spirit of excessive bitterness and faction, we may perhaps add a fourth, that, under the name of "the followers of Christ" ( 1 Corinthians 1:12), sought at first to separate themselves from the factious adherence to particular teachers, but were eventually driven by antagonism into positions equally sectarian and inimical to the unity of the church. At this momentous period, before parties had become consolidated, and had distinctly withdrawn from communion with one another, the apostle writes; and in the outset of the epistle (ch. 1-4, 12) we have his noble and impassioned protest against this fourfold rending of the robe of Christ. This spirit of division appears, by the good providence of God, to have eventually yielded to his apostolic rebuke, as it is noticeable that [[Clement]] of Rome, in his epistle to this church (ch. 47), alludes to these evils as long past, and as but slight compared to those which existed in his own time. (See Divisions (In The [[Church]] At Corinth).) </p> <p> Besides the schisms and the erroneous opinions which had invaded the church at Corinth, the apostle had learned that many immoral and disorderly practices were tolerated among them, and were in some cases defended by them. A connection of a grossly incestuous character had been formed by one of the members, and gloried in by his brethren, ( 1 Corinthians 5:1-2); lawsuits before heathen judges were instituted by one Christian against another ( 1 Corinthians 6:1); licentious indulgence was not so firmly denounced and so carefully avoided as the purity of [[Christianity]] required ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-20); the public meetings of the brethren were brought into disrepute by the women appearing in them unveiled ( 1 Corinthians 11:3-10), and were disturbed by the confused and disorderly manner in which the persons possessing spiritual Gifts chose to exercise them (1 Corinthians 12-14); and, in fine, the ἀγάπαι, which were designed to be scenes of love and union, became occasions for greater contention through the selfishness of the wealthier members, who, instead of sharing in a common meal with the poorer, brought each his own repast, and partook of it by himself, often to excess, while his needy brother was left to fast ( 1 Corinthians 11:20-34). The judgment of the apostle had also been solicited by the Corinthians concerning the comparative advantages of the married and the celibate state ( 1 Corinthians 7:1-40), as well as, apparently, the duty of Christians in relation to the use for food of meat which had been offered to idols ( 1 Corinthians 8:1-13). For the correction of these errors, the remedying of these disorders, and the solution of these doubts, this epistle was written by the apostle. </p> <p> 3. The epistle consists of four parts. The first (1-4) is designed to reclaim the Corinthians from schismatic contentions; the second (5-6) is directed against the immoralities of the Corinthians; the third (7-14) contains replies to the queries addressed to Paul by the Corinthians, and strictures upon the disorders which prevailed in their worship; and the fourth (15-16) contains an elaborate defense of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, followed in the close of the epistle by some general instructions, intimations, and greetings. </p> <p> The apostle opens with his usual salutation and with an expression of thankfulness for their general state of Christian progress ( 1 Corinthians 1:1-9). He then at once passes on to the lamentable divisions there were among them, and incidentally justifies his own conduct and mode of preaching ( 1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 4:16), concluding with a notice of the mission of Timothy, and of an intended authoritative visit on his own part ( 1 Corinthians 4:17-21). The apostle next deals with the case of incest that had taken place among them, and had provoked no censure ( 1 Corinthians 5:1-8), noticing, as he passes, some previous remarks he had made upon not keeping company with fornicators ( 1 Corinthians 5:9-13). He then comments on their evil practice of litigation before heathen tribunals ( 1 Corinthians 6:1-8), and again reverts to the plague-spot in Corinthian life, fornication and uncleanness ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-20). The last subject naturally paves the way for his answers to their inquiries about marriage ( 1 Corinthians 7:1-24), and about the celibacy of virgins and widows ( 1 Corinthians 7:25-40). The apostle next makes a transition to the subject of the lawfulness of eating things sacrificed to idols. and Christian freedom generally (1 Corinthians 8), which leads, not unnaturally, to a digression on the manner in which he waved his apostolic privileges and performed his apostolic duties (1 Corinthians 9). He then reverts to and concludes the subject of the use of things offered to idols (1 Corinthians 10-11 1), and passes onward to reprove his converts for their behavior in the assemblies of the church, both in respect to women prophesying and praying with uncovered heads ( 1 Corinthians 11:2-16), and also their great irregularities in the celebration of the Lord's [[Supper]] ( 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Then follow full and minute instructions on the exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14), in which is included the noble panegyric of charity (1 Corinthians 13), and further a defense of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, about which doubts and difficulties appear to have arisen in this unhappily divided church (1 Corinthians 15). The epistle closes with some directions concerning the contributions for the saints at [[Jerusalem]] ( 1 Corinthians 16:1-4), brief notices of his own intended movements ( 1 Corinthians 16:5-9), commendation to them of Timothy and others; ( 1 Corinthians 16:10-18), greetings from the benediction ( 1 Corinthians 16:21-24). </p> <p> 4. From an expression of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 5:9, it has been inferred by many that the present was not the first epistle addressed by Paul to the Corinthians, but that it was preceded by one now lost. For this opinion, however, the words in question afford a very unsatisfactory basis. They are as follows: ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τ῝ῇ ἐπιστολῇ, κ . τ . 50 · Now these words must be rendered either "I have written to you in this epistle," or "I wrote to you in thy epistle;" and our choice between these two renderings will depend partly on grammatical and partly on historical grounds. As the aorist ἔγραψα may mean either "I wrote" or "I have written," nothing can be concluded from it in either way. It may be doubted, however, whether, had the apostle intended to refer to a former epistle, he would have used the article τῇ simply, without adding προτέρᾷ, "former;" while, on the other hand, there are cases which clearly show that, had the apostle intended to refer to the present epistle, it was in accordance with his practice to use the article in the sense of " this" (comp. ἡ ἐπιστολή, Colossians 4:16, τὴν ἐπιστ . 1 Thessalonians 5:27). In support of this conclusion it may be added, </p> <p> 1st, that the apostle had really in this epistle given the prohibition to which he refers, viz., in the verses immediately preceding that under notice; and that his design in the verses which follow is so to explain that prohibition as to preclude the risk of their supposing that he meant by it anything else than that in the church they should not mingle with immoral persons; </p> <p> 2d, that it is not a little strange that the: apostle should, only in this cursory and incidental manner, refer to a circumstance so important in its bearing upon the case of the Corinthians as his having already addressed them on their sinful practices; and, </p> <p> 3d, that, had such an epistle ever existed, it may be supposed that some hint of its existence would have been found in the records of the primitive Church, which is not the case. Alford, indeed (Comment. in 2 Corinthians 1:16), thinks that 1 Corinthians 4:18, contains an allusion likewise to the lost letter, but the information there spoken of may easily have been otherwise communicated. On these grounds we strongly incline to the opinion that the present is the first epistle which Paul addressed to the Corinthians (Bloomfield, Recensio a Synopt. in taken by [[Lange]] (Apost. Zeitalt. 1:205) and others. </p> <p> 5. There is a general agreement as to the date (at least the place) of this epistle. It was written from [[Ephesus]] ( 1 Corinthians 16:8), probably about the time of [[Passover]] ( 1 Corinthians 5:7-8) of the apostle's third year there ( Acts 19:10; Acts 20:31), after his first severe treatment (chap. 15:32; Acts 19:9) had somewhat abated ( 1 Corinthians 16:9; Acts 19:17), and when he had formed the purpose of a journey through [[Macedonia]] and [[Greece]] ( 1 Corinthians 16:5; Acts 19:21), and before the culminating act of mobbing (which cannot in any case be referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:32, since the apostle was still in Asia, 1 Corinthians 16:19; and he mentions this incident in his next letter as a special piece of news, 2 Corinthians 1:8), that only served to expedite his plan ( Acts 20:1; comp. 19:29). (See Acts). This opinion is further verified by the following coincidences: [chap. 1:1, "Sosthenes" here was a CHRISTIAN, and therefore different from the president of the synagogue at Corinth, Acts 18:17] 1 Corinthians 1:11-16; 1 Corinthians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 3:1-6, Paul had left the Corinthian church in its infancy some time since, and Apollos had visited them meanwhile ( Acts 18:18; Acts 19:1); 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, Paul had just sent Timothy to them, and designed visiting them himself shortly ( Acts 19:21-22; Acts 20:1-2); 1 Corinthians 15:32, he had some time previously been violently opposed ( ἐμάχησα ) at Ephesus ( Acts 19:9); 1 Corinthians 16:1, he had visited [[Galatia]] not very long before ( Acts 18:23); 1 Corinthians 16:5-7, he was about to set out for Macedonia, and thence to Corinth, where he designed to spend the coming winter ( Acts 20:1-3); 1 Corinthians 16:8, he still expected to stay ( ἐπιμενῶ ) at Ephesus till Pentecost, which stay was prolonged till the uproar about [[Diana]] ( Acts 19:22-23); 1 Corinthians 16:3-4, he afterwards designed to visit Jerusalem ( Acts 19:21) [ 1 Corinthians 16:12, Apollos was at this time in the vicinity of Paul, but was not about to revisit Corinth just yet, Acts 19:1]; 1 Corinthians 16:19, Paul was surrounded by the churches of Asia, in the capital of which Aquila and Priscilla were now settled ( Acts 18:18-19; Acts 18:26). Finally, the subscription (so far as of any authority) agrees with all this (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:17), except as to Timothy, who was then on his way to Corinth ( 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 16:10) [for from 2 Corinthians 8:17-18, it does not necessarily follow that Timothy (even supposing him to be there alluded to) did not visit Corinth till afterwards]; and also except as to the date at [[Philippi]] (the best copies read Ephesus), an error of tradition apparently arising from the fact that Paul was doubtless expecting to pass through ( διέρχομαι ) that city ( Acts 20:6). (See Timothy). (Comp. Conybeare and Howson's Life and [[Epistles]] of St. Paul, 2:33). The date assigned this epistle by the foregoing particulars is the spring of A.D. 54. The bearers were probably (according to the common subscription) Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had been recently sent to the apostle, and who, in the conclusion of this epistle ( 1 Corinthians 16:17), are especially commended to the honorable regard of the church of Corinth. For commentaries, see below. Of treatises on special points we may name the following (in Latin): those of [[Faust]] on the alleged lost epistle (Argent. 1671); on the schisms of the Corinthian Church, Dorscheus (Hafn. 1722), [[Mosheim]] (Helmst. 1726), Schongard (Hafn. 1733), Vitringa (Obs. sacr. 3, 800 sq.); on "leading about a wife," [[Quistorp]] (Rost. 1692), Witte (Viteb. 1691); on other national allusions, [[Olearius]] (Lips. 1807), Schlaeger (Helmst. 1739), Wolle (Lips. 1731). (See [[Paul]]). </p>

        <ref name="term_31102"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/easton-s-bible-dictionary/corinthians,+first+epistle+to+the First Epistle To The Corinthians from Easton's Bible Dictionary]</ref>

        <ref name="term_50157"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-bible/corinthians,+first+epistle+to+the First Epistle To The Corinthians from Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible]</ref>

        <ref name="term_2618"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/international-standard-bible-encyclopedia/corinthians,+first+epistle+to+the First Epistle To The Corinthians from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]</ref>

        <ref name="term_34724"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/corinthians,+first+epistle+to+the First Epistle To The Corinthians from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref>