Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible: First Corinthians

Stephen C. Barton, James D. G. Dunn, John W. Rogerson

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781467454414
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

This extract from the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible provides Barton's introduction to and concise commentary on First Corinthians. The  Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible presents, in nontechnical language, the best of modern scholarship on each book of the Bible, including the Apocrypha. Reader-friendly commentary complements succinct summaries of each section of the text and will be valuable to scholars, students, and general readers.
 
Rather than attempt a verse-by-verse analysis, these volumes work from larger sense units, highlighting the place of each passage within the overarching biblical story. Commentators focus on the genre of each text—parable, prophetic oracle, legal code, and so on—interpreting within the historical and literary context.
 
The volumes also address major issues within each biblical book—including the range of possible interpretations—and refer readers to the best resources for further discussions.

1 Corinthians

Stephen C. Barton

INTRODUCTION

Reading 1 Corinthians

It has been well said that reading 1 Corinthians is like reading someone else’s mail. Here we have a letter from the earliest days of the Christian movement written, not for a modern readership, but for a fledgling group of “house churches” in the ancient Mediterranean city of Corinth. As we read it, we are given access to one side of a correspondence between Paul, the apostle and church founder, and members of the Corinthian church. Part of its fascination is that, as we read between the lines, the letter allows us to “lift the lid” on the life, loves, and hates of a particular church at the inception of Christianity. It also allows us to see firsthand how the great apostle exercised authority by giving guidance and responding to problems.

But the letter’s fascination goes further than that. For, to a greater or lesser extent, we who read 1 Corinthians are liable to find that the life, loves, and hates to which the text bears witness are ours as well (Ford 1989; Craddock 1990). This is partly what we mean when we say that the biblical text is “inspired.” But it is also related to the fact that 1 Corinthians has had a very significant “afterlife.” By its incorporation into the canon of Christian Scripture as a work of apostolic authority, 1 Corinthians has shaped who we are as readers. Seen in this light, the text can be understood as addressed not just to the house churches of first-century Corinth but to all who share their inheritance. This embraces all members of the Christian church down the ages and all who stand in those historical traditions and cultures which have been shaped by the canon of Christian Scripture. Indeed, according to Christian belief in the inspiration of Scripture, the truth to which 1 Corinthians testifies touches all humankind. What Paul says about “Christ crucified” in ch. 1, or about the true nature of love in ch. 13, or about the resurrection of the dead in ch. 15 is testimony of universal and eternal significance. That is why it is important that our engagement with the text be a dialectical one: that we engage in a two-way process whereby it is both we who read the text and the text which “reads” us.

The implications of this for our interpretation are wide-ranging. First, we have to take with full seriousness the historical contingency of the text. We can understand Paul’s letter only if we enter, imaginatively and with the aid of historical criticism in its various modes, into the world of the text itself. This involves finding out as much as possible about the values and structures of first-century city life, the thought world and common practices (Jewish, Greco-Roman and Christian) of Paul and his contemporaries, the practice of rhetoric and letter writing in the first century, the geography and archeology of Corinth, and so on. Such historical information allows us to understand the setting and content of 1 Corinthians more clearly. It also serves as a check on interpretation, on the dual assumption that the number of possible meanings is not indeterminate and that weight has to be given to what the text meant in its original context as far as that can be determined.

Second, we have to take with equal seriousness the text’s continuing significance in the life of the church. The significance of 1 Corinthians cannot be restricted to what it originally meant, for that is itself a matter of ongoing interpretation. Its significance is also ongoing, as people both within and outside the church read their stories in the light of the truth of God to which 1 Corinthians bears witness (cf. Webster 1998). Our task is not just an “archeological” one, therefore. To do justice to the ecclesiological aspect of the text, in its content, its place in the canon, and its contribution to Christian worship, we have to read it as the “word of God” for the church in its mission to the world. But to do justice to its spatial and temporal horizons, we also have to read it eschatologically, as the “word of God” for the present with a view to the future consummation of all things. Reading 1 Corinthians asks of us no less than that. It is a task which invites repeated return to the text in every generation.

Author and Date

There can be no doubt that 1 Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul. What the text itself makes explicit at its beginning and end (1:1; 16:21) and what is explicit also in 2 Corinthians (1:1) is confirmed by the testimony of 1 Clement: “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle.… With true inspiration he charged you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had made yourself partisans” (1 Clem. 47:1–3). Additional corroboration is provided by the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles, which correlates well with 1 Corinthians. For example, Acts confirms that Paul was the founder of the church at Corinth (Acts 18:1–11), that Apollos made a significant contribution to the life of the church there after Paul had moved on (Acts 18:27–19:1), and that Paul numbered people like Timothy (Acts 18:5) and Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2, 18) among his fellow workers there. So we can be very confident that 1 Corinthians comes from Paul. This is important not just for reasons of historical authenticity but also for how we receive the text and respond to it in the life of the Christian church, what authority we give it. As a letter from one “called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (1 Cor 1:1), it has special, canonical status, for it bears decisive witness to Christ and the truth of the gospel.

The likely date of the letter can also be established with confidence as sometime in the years AD 54–55. From Acts 18:2 we learn of Paul’s partnership at Corinth in the tentmaking trade with Aquila and Priscilla, the latter having come from Italy as a result of Claudius’s decree ordering the expulsion of Jews from Rome. Since the decree can be dated to 49, it is likely that Paul arrived in Corinth in about AD 50. Acts also refers to the fact that Gallio was proconsul in Achaia and had oversight of judicial proceedings which involved Paul (and Sosthenes) and which led to his departure (Acts 18:12–17). Gallio’s proconsulship has been confirmed by epigraphic evidence which allows a dating of his term of office to 51–52. According to Acts 18:11, Paul stayed in Corinth for eighteen months, so we can be reasonably certain that the years of his stay were AD 50–52 (on the evidence relating to Claudius and Gallio, see Murphy-O’Connor 1983: 129–52).

After his departure, there was a substantial lapse of time during which Paul visited Jerusalem and Antioch, traveled through Galatia, and made his base for two years in Ephesus (Acts 18:22–23; 19:1–20). This was also the time when Apollos ministered in Corinth (Acts 18:27–19:1; cf. 1 Cor 16:12). Given this time lapse, it is reasonable to conclude that the letter we know as 1 Corinthians was written in Ephesus in the period AD 54–55 (see, in general, Jewett 1979).

The Occasion of the Letter

Precisely what triggered the writing of the letter is hard to determine. It is clear, nevertheless, that the letter is part of an ongoing interaction between Paul and the Corinthians, something unsurprising given the relatively close proximity of Ephesus and Corinth. We know, for example, that Paul received oral reports from visitors making him aware of scandal and division within the church (1 Cor. 4:17; 5:1; 11:18). One such report is attributed to “Chloe’s people” at the letter’s opening (1:11) to the effect that factions were developing between groups claiming different spiritual leaders as their respective patrons and benefactors (1:12). At the letter’s close, there is also mention of a delegation made up of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17), and it is reasonable to assume that Paul learned much about the situation at Corinth from them also.

In addition to oral reports, there is reference in 7:1 to a letter from the church itself (perhaps brought by Stephanas), asking for Paul’s advice. We do not know precisely what matters were raised in the Corinthians’ letter to Paul, nor in what order. However, the formula peri de (“Now concerning …”), which occurs at 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12, is a significant verbal indicator of the subjects about which Paul, at least, wanted to give instruction. These include: rules for the married (7:1–24) and for the unmarried (7:25–40), whether or not to eat food offered to idols (8:1–11:1), the proper exercise of “spiritual gifts” (12:1–14:40), the collection for Jerusalem (16:1–4), and the situation regarding Apollos (16:12). Included in this sequence is instruction on two other significant matters: abuses at the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34) and disagreements over the resurrection of the dead (15:1–58).

We can only speculate why the Corinthian church fell victim to factionalism and why it needed instruction on such a range of fundamental issues. Some possible reasons will be explored in the commentary. Most likely, they had to do with factors both external and internal: influences upon the church from the outside world and dynamics within the church especially in the period after Paul moved on (cf. Hurd 1965). By extrapolating from Paul’s response in 1 Corinthians, some have tried to reconstruct in a fairly thoroughgoing way a “Corinthian theology” manifesting itself in various ways in the church’s common life. For example, some see the problem as gnosticism manifesting itself in an “overrealized” eschatology (Schmithals 1971), others detect the influence of Hellenistic-Jewish “wisdom” speculation (Pearson 1973), others identify the interests and activity of “spiritual enthusiasts” (Fee 1987), while yet others locate the problem in the beliefs and practices of a group of female prophets (Wire 1990).

Each of these suggestions may have something to commend it. But the hypothetical nature of such proposals has to be recognized given the absence of independent testimony and the difficulty of correlating a theological or religious viewpoint with any of the groups alluded to in 1:10–12. Furthermore, as Gerd Theissen (1982) has helped us to see, it may be that the causes of the various problems are as much social and cultural as “theological,” and that it is Paul (rather more than his “opponents”) who responds theologically and ecclesiologically. As Hays (1997: 8) puts it: “The brilliance of Paul’s letter lies in his ability to diagnose the situation in theological terms and to raise the inchoate theological issues into the light of conscious reflection in light of the gospel.” It is certainly providential for us that this wide range of problems did arise and that Paul gave such a comprehensive theological and ecclesiological response in his letter. It is the profundity of Paul’s letter which has made it so significant in Christian moral and theological reflection down the ages.

The Unity and Structure of the Letter

There have been various scholarly arguments to the effect that apparent dislocations in the flow of the letter require us to posit a kind of partition theory according to which either the letter is a composite of several separate fragments or the letter was written in stages (cf. Hurd 1965: 43–58; de Boer 1994). The possibility that later, post-Pauline material has been interpolated into the text is also a matter of vigorous debate. The material on the place of women in the church (11:2–16; 14:33b–36) is a case in point and has obvious significance for debates in modern times about the role of women (cf. Fee 1987: 699–708). The status of each text needs to be examined on its merits. What needs to be said here is that, whether or not such “problem texts” are deemed part of Paul’s original letter and therefore part of Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians, their appropriation as the “word of God for today” requires Christian theological interpretation within the ongoing life of the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Barton 1997b: 98–115).

In spite of arguments to the contrary, however, a good case can be made that 1 Corinthians is a literary unity. Study of the form and style of ancient letters has shown that the way Paul begins and ends his letter is a Christian improvisation upon a recognizable epistolary genre. Furthermore, awareness of analogies in ancient letter writing makes it possible to identify 1 Corinthians as a real and coherent letter (cf. Stowers 1986). It begins with the conventional address, greeting, and thanksgiving (1:1–9) and ends with the conventional travel plans, greetings, autograph, and benediction (16:5–23).

Perhaps even more important has been recent study of ancient rhetorical practice. The work of Margaret Mitchell (1992) in particular has shown that, from a rhetorical point of view, Paul’s letter is a unity. Its content and structure conform to that form of persuasion known as “deliberative rhetoric” in which an appeal is made—based upon arguments about what is “advantageous” (to sympheron) and backed up by supporting examples (paradeigmata)—with a view to action toward a future goal, a goal which often has to do with achieving “concord” (homonoia). Instead of breaking the text up into (hypothetical) fragments of previous letters or trying to achieve the impossible task of correlating the conflicting “religious” parties in Corinth with the various pastoral and theological issues Paul tackles, Mitchell argues that the common denominator which ties all the issues together is that they all contribute to factionalism, and that it is factionalism itself (rather than particular factions) which Paul is attempting to combat from the beginning of 1 Corinthians to its end. In this connection, Mitchell shows that many of the commonplaces found in ancient deliberative rhetoric concerned with concord are scattered throughout 1 Corinthians and bind it together (cf. the summary in 1992: 180–81). Her analysis produces the following outline of the letter’s structure (1992: x–xi):

I.1:1–3 Epistolary Prescript

II.1:4–9 Epistolary Thanksgiving

III.1:10–15:58 Epistolary Body

A.1:10 the main thesis statement (prothesis) of the entire letter

B.1:11–17 a statement of the facts (narratio) underlying the argument in the body of the letter

C.1:18–15:57 the principal argument or “proof” (probatio) in four sections

1.1:18–4:21 first section of proof: censure of Corinthian factionalism

2.5:1–11:1 second section of proof: the integrity of the Corinthian community against outside defilement from sexual immorality (5:1–7:40) and idol meats (8:1–11:1), with a pertinent digression or egressio in ch. 9

3.11:2–14:40 third section of proof: manifestations of Corinthian factionalism when “coming together” (divisive customs in worship, 11:2–16; divisions at the Lord’s Supper, 11:17–34; spiritual gifts and unity, 12:1–14:40, with another digression or egressio in ch. 13)

4.15:1–57 fourth section of proof: the resurrection as the final goal and the need for unity in the tradition

D.15:58 conclusion (peroratio) summarizing the argument of the body of the letter

IV.16:1–24 Epistolary Closing, including instructions on the collection (vv. 1–4), travel plans (vv. 5–12), recapitulation of the argument (vv. 13–18), greetings (vv. 19–21), and final curse and prayer for unity in love (vv. 22–24).

Mitchell’s case for the unity of 1 Corinthians is impressive and has met with general approval (e.g., Witherington 1995: 73–77). Broadly speaking, it is the position taken in this commentary also. Awareness of the overall structure and unity of the letter is important primarily insofar as it contributes to our ability to read it with greater sensitivity, to identify the “real issues” it raises, and to understand the “theo-logic” of Paul’s argument as a whole.

COMMENTARY

Greeting (1:1–3)

Paul begins by identifying himself, along with his brother-in-Christ Sosthenes (cf. Acts 18:17), as senders of the letter. The language Paul uses to identify and situate both himself and his addressees is significant. The focus is on what they have in common: God, Christ, and the call of God to be members of a new covenant people under the authority of Christ. This is the theological and ecclesial foundation upon which Paul wants to construct his whole argument.

Thus, in 1:1, Paul presents himself as “called” according to the will of God to be an “apostle” (or envoy) of Christ (cf. Gal 1:15–16). Therein lies his particular authority and role. He is not acting out of self-interest but in obedience to God’s will and Christ’s call. The Corinthians are also “called” (1:2). As in the case of Paul, their new life is grounded in grace, not in any achievement of their own. However, their call is not to apostleship but to be “saints” (hagioi), individuals set apart by union with Christ—“sanctified (hēgiasmenois) in Christ Jesus”—who together make up a single body in one place, “the church of God that is in Corinth,” and who belong at the same time to a society which is translocal, made up of “all those in every place” who acknowledge the lordship of Christ.

The call by God to be “saints” is biblical language for the election of Israel to be God’s chosen people (cf. Lev 19:1–2); but here, in a way which must have been shocking to Jewish sensibilities (cf. Acts 10), it is applied to a mixed, predominantly Gentile, solidarity. This transformation of language represents a transformation of reality, the coming into being of a new covenant community. The “church of God” is a society which transcends old boundaries and brings God’s grace to people previously ignorant of it. The blessing with which Paul’s greeting ends (1:3) sums up this new order of things. It is an order of “grace and peace” which has been bestowed upon the Corinthians as a gift from God. But with the gift comes an implied obligation. Indebtedness to God and Christ as their heavenly benefactors places the Corinthians under obligation to practice grace and peace in their relations with one another, something which, as the letter goes on to reveal, runs against the grain.

Thanksgiving (1:4–9)

As literary and rhetorical convention dictate, Paul now proceeds, as in his other letters, from greeting to thanksgiving (cf. Rom 1:8–17; Phil 1:3–11; 1 Thess 1:2–10; 2 Thess 1:3–12; and Doty 1973: 27–47). This section—known in rhetorical terms as the proem—serves a twofold purpose. By praising his addressees together (but indirectly, in the form of a prayer of thanksgiving to God), he unifies them and gets them “on side” in a manner which paves the way for their more ready reception of the stern advice and correction to follow (in 1:10ff.). At the same time, as with the greeting, the thanksgiving allows him to introduce ideas which become central to his argument later on—“grace,” “riches,” “speech,” “knowledge,” “spiritual gift,” “establish,” “call,” and “fellowship.” In other words, Paul’s thanksgiving is genuine, but it is also weighted toward a particular rhetorical and pedagogical goal (cf. Mitchell 1992: 194–97).

The thanksgiving begins (1:4) by picking up on the theme of the grace of God introduced already in the words of the blessing in v. 3. Although it becomes clear subsequently that Paul is concerned with the ways in which the many manifestations of God’s grace among the Corinthians have been abused (e.g., 4:6–21), it is nevertheless the case that Paul’s starting point is celebration: God is to be thanked “conti...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface (James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson)
• Abbreviations
• 1 Corinthians
• Get the complete commentary!