The above account assumes that St. Paul's second visit to Corinth was paid before 1 Corinthians was written, but it is thought by some writers of repute that it was paid after 1 Corinthians was written and before 2 Corinthians.
[Sidenote Character and Contents.]
This Epistle, like each of the three other Epistles belonging to the same group, has a perfectly distinct character of its own. It expounds the doctrine of a crucified Christ as applied to social difficulties. What Romans does as a theological treatise, and Galatians as a controversial admonition, and 2 Corinthians as a record of personal experience and vocation, this 1 Corinthians does as an instruction for influencing a corrupt urban life with the leaven of the gospel. It is very practical in tone, and the doctrine which it contains is not stated separately, but is throughout woven into the cords of the apostle's argument. There is nothing in the New Testament equal to this Epistle in its power of bringing us close to the difficulties of the Church in an ancient city. We seem to see the men and women who composed it—their eagerness for religious novelties, their debased surroundings, their anarchic divisions, their frail sense of moral responsibility. And a modern reader will probably lay the letter down with a conviction that our great modern cities have much to learn from the words written by St. Paul to Corinth, "the light of Greece."
The Epistle is very olderly in arrangement. It deals first with the report which St. Paul had received about the Corinthian Church (i.-vi.); then it answers various questions {137} which the Corinthians had submitted to him (vii.-xi. 1). Then follow directions based on the report and the questions.
The letter opens with a significant salutation and thanksgiving (i. 1-9). St. Paul then proceeds to rebuke the Corinthian tendency to party spirit. There were apparently four parties in the Church. The first asserted that they were followers of Paul; the second preferred the rhetorical preaching of Apollos to Paul's simplicity; the third—probably Judaizers—ranged themselves under the name of Cephas as the leader of the original apostles; the fourth repudiated human leaders, and arrogantly named their clique that of Christ, thereby insinuating that the other parties were less Christian than themselves. It is evident that all these four names were really used as party watchwords. St. Paul says that he has transferred by a fiction (iv. 6) the action of the wranglers to himself and Apollos. He means by this, not that the Corinthians did not employ these names in their strife, but that he and Apollos were in no sense responsible for the strife. Some perplexity has been caused by the name of the Christ-party. It is thought by some that they were rigid Jewish Christians from Jerusalem (2 Cor. iii. 1; xi. 22). But it is more probable that they were only a body of Christians who protested against the parties named after human leaders, and saying, "We are the people," made a new party of their own.
St. Paul shows that this sectarian spirit is entirely alien to the whole principle and history of the Christian faith. That faith, though it is a wisdom which comes from God, does not lend itself to pride of intellect. It is deliberately content to be counted foolish by the world; its sign is the cross, its converts are the poor and insignificant Corinthians, its eloquence the unpolished speaking of the apostle himself. And as to their personal preferences for receiving spiritual benefits from one Christian teacher rather than another, this shows a complete misconception as to the source of the benefit and the position of the teacher. This is explained in iii. 1-iv. 5. All spiritual {138} increase comes from God. Christ is the Foundation. Human teachers are not figure-heads of different schools, but the instruments and the stewards through whom God dispenses His gifts. It is not the duty of Christian teachers to put forward original ideas on religion.
Then the apostle, after referring to their ostentatious self-righteousness, pathetically shows the unfitness of pitting against one another teachers who share in an equality of forlorn destitution and contempt (iv. 6-13). He concludes this section with an affectionate but authoritative speech: he says that he has sent Timothy to Corinth, and hopes shortly to come himself (iv. 14-21).
The apostle proceeds with sharp decision to deal with a case of incest. The Corinthians had treated this gross offence almost with levity, but St. Paul declares that the offender shall be excommunicated and shall be punished by disease (v. 1-8). After explaining some advice of his earlier letter (v. 9-13), he goes on to rebuke a third abuse—litigation between Christians in pagan law-courts. The love of law-suits was mischievous in itself, as involving a breach of Christian brotherhood. It was also scandalous in its effects, as exposing the bickerings of the disciples of Christ to the ridicule of unbelievers. A stern rebuke of vice follows (vi. 1-11). Then comes an indignant and lofty argument against fornication, which is a defilement of the temple of the Holy Ghost (vi. 12-20).
St. Paul now turns to the various questions that the Corinthians have asked him. He first gives some advice about matrimony, carefully distinguishing between statements which he makes on his own authority, and rules laid down by Christ, and also between counsels of perfection and the obligations of ordinary Christians. It is excellent to lead a single life, but in view of prevailing sensuality, he recommends marriage as generally more prudent. He advises that when people do marry, there should be a fulfilment of conjugal duties except for {139} occasional devotion "unto prayer." One permanently important assertion in the apostle's teaching is that both marriage and celibacy imply a "gift from God." St. Paul would have had no sympathy with either any mediaeval depreciation of married life, or the modern English notion that a man has not "settled down" until he has married (vii. 1-40).
The next question is whether converts may eat meat that has been offered to idols. With strong common-sense, the apostle points out that there is here no alternative between essential right and wrong. You may eat it, because an idol is nothing, but you must take care not to hurt the consciences of other Christians (viii.). You may eat anything that you buy in the market-place, but you must not attend an idolatrous feast in a temple, and if you are at a private house you must not eat food offered to idols if your attention has been directly called to its character (x. 23-32). St. Paul illustrates his meaning by reference to his own self-denial—the policy he had at Corinth of exacting no payment for his ministry, his tactful caution, his severe self-control (ix.). The need of such self-control is proved by the fact that the ancient Jews, in spite of their high privileges, fell into carelessness and sin (x. 1-13). The Corinthians must not be like the Jews. The nature of the Eucharist warns them to be scrupulously careful about temple feasts. There cannot be a drinking of the chalice of Christ and of the cup of devils (x. 14-22).