THE
FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE
CORINTHIANS
Commentary
by A. R. Faussett
INTRODUCTION
The Authenticity of this Epistle is attested
by Clement of Rome [First
Epistle to the Corinthians, 47], Polycarp
[Epistle to the Philippians, 11], and Irenaeus
[Against Heresies, 4.27.3]. The city to which it was sent was famed for
its wealth and commerce, which were chiefly due to its situation between the
Ionian and AEgean Seas on the isthmus connecting the Peloponese with Greece. In
Paul’s time it was the capital of the province Achaia and the seat of the Roman
proconsul (Ac 18:12). The state of morals in it was notorious for debauchery,
even in the profligate heathen world; so much so that “to Corinthianize” was a
proverbial phrase for “to play the wanton”; hence arose dangers to the purity
of the Christian Church at Corinth. That Church was founded by Paul on his
first visit (Ac 18:1–17).
He had
been the instrument of converting many Gentiles (1Co 12:2), and some Jews (Ac
18:8), notwithstanding the vehement opposition of the countrymen of the latter
(Ac 18:5), during the year and a half in which he sojourned there. The converts
were chiefly of the humbler classes (1Co 1:26, &c.). Crispus (1Co 1:14; Ac
18:8), Erastus, and Gaius (Caius) were, however, men of rank (Ro 16:23). A
variety of classes is also implied in 1Co 11:22. The risk of contamination by
contact with the surrounding corruptions, and the temptation to a craving for
Greek philosophy and rhetoric (which Apollos’ eloquent style rather tended to
foster, Ac 18:24, &c.) in contrast to Paul’s simple preaching of Christ
crucified (1Co 2:1, &c.), as well as the opposition of certain teachers to
him, naturally caused him anxiety. Emissaries from the Judaizers of Palestine
boasted of “letters of commendation” from Jerusalem, the metropolis of the
faith. They did not, it is true, insist on circumcision in refined Corinth,
where the attempt would have been hopeless, as they did among the simpler
people of Galatia; but they attacked the apostolic authority of Paul (1Co 9:1,
2; 1Co 9:1, 2, 2Co 10:1, 7, 8), some of them declaring themselves followers of
Cephas, the chief apostle, others boasting that they belonged to Christ Himself
(1Co 1:12; 2Co 10:7), while they haughtily repudiated all subordinate teaching.
Those persons gave out themselves for apostles (2Co 11:5, 13). The ground taken
by them was that Paul was not one of the Twelve, and not an eye-witness of the
Gospel facts, and durst not prove his apostleship by claiming sustenance from
the Christian Church. Another section avowed themselves followers of Paul
himself, but did so in a party spirit, exalting the minister rather than
Christ. The followers of Apollos, again, unduly prized his Alexandrian learning
and eloquence, to the disparagement of the apostle, who studiously avoided any
deviation from Christian simplicity (1Co 2:1–5). In some of this last
philosophizing party there may have arisen the Antinomian tendency which tried
to defend theoretically their own practical immorality: hence their denial of
the future resurrection, and their adoption of the Epicurean motto, prevalent
in heathen Corinth, “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die” (1Co 15:32).
Hence, perhaps, arose their connivance at the incestuous intercourse kept up by
one of the so-called Christian body with his stepmother during his father’s
life. The household of Chloe informed Paul of many other evils: such as
contentions, divisions, and lawsuits brought against brethren in heathen law
courts by professing Christians; the abuse of their spiritual gifts into
occasions of display and fanaticism; the interruption of public worship by
simultaneous and disorderly ministrations, and decorum violated by women
speaking unveiled (contrary to Oriental usage), and so usurping the office of
men, and even the holy communion desecrated by greediness and revelling on the
part of the communicants. Other messengers, also, came from Corinth, consulting
him on the subject of (1) the controversy about meats offered to idols; (2) the
disputes about celibacy and marriage; (3) the due exercise of spiritual gifts
in public worship; (4) the best mode of making the collection which he had
requested for the saints at Jerusalem (1Co 16:1, &c.). Such were the
circumstances which called forth the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the most
varied in its topics of all the Epistles.
In 1Co
5:9, “I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators,” it is
implied that Paul had written a previous letter to the Corinthians (now lost).
Probably in it he had also enjoined them to make a contribution for the poor
saints at Jerusalem, whereupon they seem to have asked directions as to the
mode of doing so, to which he now replies (1Co 16:2). It also probably
announced his intention of visiting them on way to Macedonia, and again on his
return from Macedonia (2Co 1:15, 16), which purpose he changed hearing the
unfavorable report from Chloe’s household (1Co 16:5–7), for which he was
charged with (2Co 1:17). In the first Epistle which we have, the subject of
fornication is alluded to only in a way, as if he were rather replying to an
excuse set up after rebuke in the matter, than introducing for the first time [Alford]. Preceding this former letter,
he seems to have paid a second visit to Corinth. For in 2Co 12:4 2Co
13:1, he speaks of his intention of paying them a third visit, implying
he had already twice visited them. See on 2Co 2:1; 2Co 13:2; also see on
2Co 1:15; 2Co 1:16. It is hardly likely that during his three years’ sojourn at
Ephesus he would have failed to revisit his Corinthian converts, which he could
so readily do by sea, there being constant maritime intercourse between the two
cities. This second visit was probably a short one (compare 1Co 16:7);
and attended with pain and humiliation (2Co 2:1; 12:21), occasioned by the
scandalous conduct of so many of his own converts. His milder censures having
then failed to produce reformation, he wrote briefly directing them “not to
company with fornicators.” On their misapprehending this injunction, he
explained it more fully in the Epistle, the first of the two extant (1Co 5:9,
12). That the second visit is not mentioned in Acts is no objection to its
having really taken place, as that book is fragmentary and omits other leading
incidents in Paul’s life; for example, his visit to Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia
(Ga 1:17–21).
The Place of Writing is fixed to be Ephesus
(1Co 16:8). The subscription in English Version, “From Philippi,” has no
authority whatever, and probably arose from a mistaken translation of 1Co 16:5,
“For I am passing through Macedonia.” At the time of writing Paul
implies (1Co 16:8) that he intended to leave Ephesus after Pentecost of that
year. He really did leave it about Pentecost (a.d. 57). Compare Ac 19:20. The allusion to Passover imagery
in connection with our Christian Passover, Easter (1Co 5:7), makes it likely
that the season was about Easter. Thus the date of the Epistle is fixed with
tolerable accuracy, about Easter, certainly before Pentecost, in the third year
of his residence at Ephesus, a.d.
57. For other arguments, see Conybeare
and Howson’s Life and Epistles
of St. Paul.
The
Epistle is written in the name of Sosthenes “[our] brother.” Birks supposes he is the same as the
Sosthenes, Ac 18:17, who, he thinks, was converted subsequently to that
occurrence. He bears no part in the Epistle itself, the apostle in the very
next verses (1Co 1:4, &c.) using the first person: so Timothy is introduced,
2Co 1:1. The bearers of the Epistle were probably Stephanas, Fortunatus, and
Achaicus (see the subscription, 1Co 16:24), whom he mentions (1Co 16:17, 18) as
with him then, but who he implies are about to return back to Corinth; and
therefore he commends them to the regard of the Corinthians.
Excerpt from:
A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Visit www.e-sword.net
