Paul's known contacts with Corinth lasted for nearly a decade, and the Pauline correspondence addressed to that city is more abundant than that addressed to any other place. Indeed, traces of no less than seven letters have been detected. The disturbances in the church at Corinth explain the need for such attention. Paradoxically, the range of their problems (rival theologians, factions, problematic sexual practices, marital obligations, liturgy, roles in the church) makes the correspondence exceptionally instructive for troubled Christians and churches of our time. Attempts to live according to the gospel in the multi-ethnic, cross-cultural society of Corinth raised issues that are still being raised in multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and cross-cultural societies today. Paul's style of asking questions and debating with quotations makes his presentation of these issues lively and engaging, and has led scholars to discuss the precise rhetoric employed. For those who are studying Paul seriously for the first time and are limited to one letter to analyze in depth, 1 Corinthians may well be the most rewarding.

1. The Background

   Continental Greece (Achaia) is connected to the large Peloponnese peninsula to the south by a narrow isthmus 4 miles wide, with the Aegean Sea to the east and the Ionian or Adriatic Sea to the west. On a plateau controlling this isthmus, straddling the very important north-south land route to the peninsula and located between the ports of the two seas, was the city of Corinth (surmounted on the south by a 1,850 foot high acropolis, the Acrocorinth). At the time when the Corinth Canal did not exist, one has built a paved road between the port area of Cenchreae on the east of the isthmus and that of Lechaion on the west, which allowed small boats to roll from one place to another, after unloading their cargo. The city of Corinth is called "the light of all Greece" by Cicero, and it had already been inhabited for more than four thousand years when it effectively ended with the defeat against the Romans in 146 BC. The replacement city to which Paul went in 50/51-52 AD had been founded a century earlier (44 BC) as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar. In a sense, then, Corinth was similar to Philippi, but its strategic location attracted a more cosmopolitan population, as poor immigrants came from Italy to settle there, including freed slaves of Greek, Syrian, Jewish and Egyptian origin. The Greek poet Crinagoras, from the 1st century BC, described these people as scoundrels, but many of them soon became rich. Their skills allowed the site to prosper as a manufacturing (bronze and terracotta ware) and commercial center. Indeed, under Augustus, it became the capital of the province of Achaia, hence the presence of the proconsul Gallio (brother of the famous Seneca) who dealt with Paul (Acts 18:12).

   Archaeology allows an accurate reconstruction of the Roman city and attests to its multicultural atmosphere. Although Latin may have been the first language of the Roman colony, inscriptions show the widespread use of Greek, the language of commerce. Classical Greek deities were honored by temples, and Egyptian worship of Isis and Serapis is attested. Homage to the emperors was reinforced by the imperial patronage accorded to the Panhellenic games of Isthmus, which were held every two years in the spring (including 51 AD); they were exceeded in importance only by the Olympic games. Although archaeological evidence is lacking, with the exception of a synagogue lintel (see Acts 18:4), there was an important Jewish colony in the first century AD, with its own officials and internal management, perhaps reinforced by Claudius' expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 AD.

   Greek Corinth acquired an exaggerated reputation (partly due to slander) for sexual licentiousness, so that the Greek words for prostitutes, prostitution and fornication were coined to use the city's name. Despite the references to this "city of love" which had a thousand priestesses of Aphrodite (Venus), who were sacred prostitutes, only two small temples to this goddess have been discovered. Whatever about Greek Corinth, we should think that Roman Corinth simply had all the problems of a booming, relatively new city, located near two seaports. Yet it also had advantages from Paul's point of view. Travelers passing through Corinth, including those visiting the famous healing shrine of Aesculapius or attending the Isthmian games, needed tents for temporary lodging, so a tentmaker or leatherworker like Paul (and Aquila and Priscilla; Acts 18:2-3) could find work and support himself there. Because of the many people who came and went, he would not be rejected as a stranger or even a resident alien; and the seed of the gospel that he sowed in Corinth could well be carried far and wide by those he evangelized.

   Paul's contacts with Corinth were complicated. It may be helpful to use numbers to mark out all the moments and characters that led up to the writing of 1 Corinthians. In addition to numbers, capital letters should be used to designate Paul's letters to Corinth, some of whose correspondence has been lost.

   (#1) In the years 50/51 and 52. According to Acts 18:1-3, Aquila and Priscilla (almost certainly Jewish Christians) were in Corinth when Paul arrived there. Some dispute this sequence because in 1 Corinthians 3:6.10; 4:15 Paul states that in Corinth he planted and laid the foundations of the Christian community and was its father. We may ask, however, whether this language excludes the possibility that some Christians were already there before his arrival. Paul's experiences in Philippi and Thessalonica had been marked by hostility and/or rejection, so that he came to Corinth with fear and trembling (1 Cor 2:3); yet he remained there for a year and a half. Even allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, Paul's claim that he did not speak with the eloquence of human wisdom (2:4-5; also 2 Cor 11:6) probably means that he would not have appealed to academic sophistication - a change in tactics from his approach just before in Athens, if Acts 17:16-34 is any indication. In Acts 18:2-4, we see that Paul began evangelizing the Jews, staying in the house of his fellow workers Aquila and Priscilla and preaching in the synagogue. Then (Acts 18:5-7; 1 Thess 3:1.2.6) after the arrival of Silas and Timothy from Macedonia with news of the Thessalonian Christians, he moved to the Gentiles, staying in the house of Jason, a God-fearing (i.e., Jewish-sympathetic) Gentile. From the names mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:15-18 and Romans 16:21-23, we detect the presence in Corinth of both Jewish and Gentile converts, the latter being somewhat in the majority. Those converted by Paul belonged mainly to the lower and middle strata of society, with artisans and former slaves being much more numerous than the rich. We shall see that some of the difficulties concerning the Eucharistic meal may have been caused by the interaction of the rich and the poor in Corinth. Paul's initial preaching in Corinth must have been strongly eschatological or even apocalyptic, since he symbolically refused to accept money, lived a celibate life (an indication that this world was not sustainable), performed signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12), and spoke in tongues (1 Cor 14:18). Before the end of Paul's stay in Corinth, the Jews dragged him before the proconsul Gallion (Acts 18:12-17). But this backfired: Gallion released Paul, while Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, was beaten.

   (#2) From year 52 to 56. After Paul left Corinth in 52 with Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:18), other missionaries came; and the lively preaching of a man like Apollos may have catalyzed spirited elements within the Corinthian community, producing some of the enthusiasm that Paul would have to criticize in 1 Corinthians. (#3) 1 Cor 5:9 refers to a letter Paul had written (Letter A, lost), warning the Corinthians not to deal with immoral people.

   (#4) Around the year 56. During his stay in Ephesus (54-57), Paul received reports about Corinth, for example from "those in Chloe" (1 Cor 1:11; also 11:18). We know nothing about Chloe: whether she lived in Corinth (with contacts in Ephesus?) or in Ephesus; whether she was a Christian; whether "those of Chloe" were her family, her home or her business establishment; whether she sent them or whether they traveled from Corinth to Ephesus. (#5) Around the same time or shortly thereafter, in Ephesus, Paul received a letter from the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:1), perhaps in response to his letter A and apparently brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (16:17-18) who probably added their own reports. (#6) Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus (Letter B). Although there has been an attempt to view 1 Corinthians as an amalgam of formerly totally separate letters, it is best evaluated as a single missive sent to the Corinthian Christians, even though it was composed in two stages responding to #4 and #5 respectively. Against this backdrop, let us examine 1 Corinthians.

2. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Opening Formula (1:1-3)

      The opening formula associates Sosthenes with Paul as co-sponsor. This is apparently the same man, now a Christian, who was previously the head of the Corinthian synagogue and who was beaten before the bēma when Gallion refused to judge Paul (#1; Acts 18:17). Did Paul dictate the letter to him (16:21)? In the first nine verses, which include the thanksgiving, Paul mentions (Jesus) Christ nine times, an emphasis that suits the correction Paul will make to Corinthian factionalism by insisting that they were baptized in the name of Christ and no other. He also thanks the Corinthians for having received the grace (charis) who enriched them in word and knowledge, and for not having lacked any charisma - a touch of irony since he will have to castigate them in the letter about their supposed wisdom and their quarrels about charisms. Another way in which the thanksgiving anticipates the content of the letter is that it refers, at its conclusion, to the day of the Lord, the theme of 1 Cor 15:50-58.

   2. Part I Of The Body Of The Letter (1:10 - 4:21)

      Nearly four chapters are devoted to the problem of divisions or factions in Corinth, of which Paul was informed by members of Chloe's household (#4). As a result of the activity described in #2, but probably without any prompting from the missionaries themselves, there were now conflicting loyalties among the Corinthian Christians who had declared their preferences: "'I belong to Paul,' 'I belong to Apollos,' 'I belong to Cephas [Peter],' or 'I belong to Christ'" (1 Cor 1:12). Christians today have become accustomed to being divided, so except for the speed with which they have occurred, we are not surprised by these divisions. What is more likely to surprise us is Paul's response, for we are used to people defending their own choice among church divisions and attacking rival positions. Paul does not defend the faction that "belongs" to him or emphasize his own superiority, since all preachers are only servants (3:5). "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you, or was it in Paul's name that you were baptized?" (1:13) "Whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas ... you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God" (3:22-23).

      The existence of these divisions reflects different personal loyalties among the Corinthian Christians. But also, in choosing a particular preacher, such as Apollos, some of the Corinthians may have opted for what seemed to be greater wisdom, while Paul, without eloquence, had preached a folly that was truly wiser than human wisdom, namely Christ and him crucified (1:18 - 2:5). It was the mysterious wisdom of God, hidden from the rulers of the present age who crucified the Lord of glory; it was proclaimed by Paul in words taught by the Spirit - thus spiritual truths in spiritual words (2:6-16). Paul laid a solid foundation, in fact, the only possible foundation, Jesus Christ; and on the day of judgment, anything that is not solid will be exposed and burned (3:10-15). The Corinthians must realize that they are the temple of God, in which the Spirit dwells, and despise the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness in God's sight (3:16-23). In a very rhetorical way, Paul contrasts "we apostles" (4:9) with the Corinthians, who, in their religious attitude, are proud even though they have nothing they have not received (4:7). "Here we are, fools for Christ, while you are so wise in Christ..." (4: 10-13). This letter is a warning from a father to his children, and Timothy is sent to Corinth to remind them of Paul's life and teaching before Paul himself comes to test the arrogant. "Shall I come to you with a staff, or with love in the spirit of gentleness?" (4:17-21).

   3. Part II Of The Body Of The Letter (5:1 - 11:34)

      Next, Paul addresses various problems of Christian behavior among the Corinthians. Apparently, chapters 5 - 6 concern things he heard about the Christian practice of the Corinthians, and the issues of sex and marriage recur in more than half of his instructions. Responsible sexual behavior in and out of marriage is a major issue in life; and inevitably, what faith in Christ meant for such behavior became an issue, especially since the Jews and Gentiles who came to faith did not always share the same presuppositions. The first case Paul addresses (5:1-5) concerns a man and his mother-in-law. Apparently, the man's father is dead and he wishes to marry the second wife, a widow, who might be about his age. From Paul's own teaching that Christians are a new creation, did the man or even the community ("And you are proud") think that previous relationships no longer mattered? Paul's indignation at this behavior betrays his Jewish roots; indeed, marriage within such a degree of kinship was forbidden by the Mosaic law (Lev 18:8; 20:11). However, he bases his argument on the assertion that this behavior was not tolerated even among the Gentiles. This leads many scholars to believe that the Gentile converts to Christianity in Corinth had mistakenly taken Paul's proclamations of freedom to mean that there were no ancient rules of behavior (see also 1 Cor 6:12). Paul's authority to issue an excommunication, even from a distance, is invoked in 5:4-5; and what follows, with reference to the letter he had already sent to them (Letter A; #3), shows that his main concern is not the immorality of the world outside the community, but sin within the community that might defile it in a harmful way (5:6-13).

      Paul's Jewish distrust of the standards of the Gentile world is reflected in his insistence that disputes should be settled using fellow Christians as judges rather than Gentile courts (6:1-8) and in his list of vices of which the Corinthian Christians were once guilty (6:9-11). In 6:12 we hear a slogan in circulation in Corinth that is likely to be the source of much of what Paul condemns: "For me, everything is permitted." Paul qualifies it by insisting that not everything brings good and by insisting that none of our choices should make us slaves to anything. True freedom does not need to be expressed to remain freedom. People do not live in a neutral environment: Engaging in loose behavior is not freedom but enslavement to enslaving compulsions. Sexual permissiveness affects the Christian's body, which must be valued as a member of the body of Christ (6:15) and the temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19). A person's body is a means of communication with itself, and sexual intercourse therefore produces a union between partners. The union of the member of Christ with an unworthy partner, such as a prostitute, dishonors Christ, just as the marital union glorifies God (6:20).

      Based on what he heard about the Corinthians in chapter 7, Paul begins to answer the questions that were put to him. The first concerns the statement (his own or made up in Corinth?): "It is good for a man not to touch a woman". While sexual abstention is commendable in itself, Paul does not encourage it within marriage because it could create temptations and lead to injustice. He encourages marriage for those who cannot control themselves, even though "I would have them all be as I am" - Paul seems to mean without a wife (widowed or never married?) and, of course, practicing abstinence (7:2-9).

      To those who are already married (perhaps thinking of a specific couple), Paul repeats the Lord's ruling against divorce and remarriage (7:10-11), but then adds a ruling of his own that allows separation when one of the partners is not a Christian and does not want to live in peace with the believer (7:12-16). In 7:17-40, Paul shows how apocalyptic his thinking is: He would like all men (circumcised Jews, uncircumcised Gentiles, slaves, single men, married men, widows) to remain in the state they were in when they were called to Christ, because time has become limited. Certainly, this perspective remains a factor in advocating celibacy: As a Christian virtue, it is meaningless if it is not accompanied by other signs (voluntary poverty, self-giving) showing faith that this world is not sustainable.

      In chapter 8, Paul answers questions about food that had been sacrificed to the gods and then offered to anyone who wanted to buy it. Since there are no other gods but the one God, the Father and source of all things, it is of no consequence that food was offered to gods. Therefore, Christians have freedom: "We are not worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we do" (8:8). However, pastorally, Paul is concerned about weak converts whose understanding is imperfect and who might think that sitting and eating in the temple of a false god implies worship of that god and might therefore commit idolatry by eating. Care must therefore be taken not to scandalize these weak believers. Paul's position is governed by the statement with which he opens this discussion (8:2): Knowledge, even correct knowledge, can inflate the self, but love edifies others and therefore places constraints on selfish behavior. If eating brings them down, it is better not to eat (8:13). Somewhat disjointedly, he returns to this same issue in 10:23-33: "Never be a cause of offense to the Jews, to the Greeks or to the church of God" (10:32).

      In chapter 9, Paul passionately defends his rights as an apostle. Others may deny that he is an apostle; but he has seen the risen Lord, and the work he has done in conversion is proof of his apostleship. It was not the insecurity of his status that caused Paul to disregard his rights as an apostle, for example his right to be fed and supported, or to be accompanied by a Christian wife who should also be supported. Instead, he provided for himself and preached the gospel free of charge, lest a request for support be a barrier to faith (i.e., people would think he was preaching for money). Two extraordinarily rhetorical passages (9:15-18.19-23) show Paul at his best. He is clearly proud of what he has accomplished through his sacrifices; and yet, in another sense, he was under divine compulsion: "Woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!" And in this proclamation, he became all things to all people in order to win more people: To those who were under the Law, he was as one who was under the Law; to those who were not under the Law, as one who was not under the Law; to the weak, as one who was weak. In 9:24-27, he concludes this question of the difficulties he faced in his ministry with a fascinating use of the imagery of athletic competitions, which must have been very familiar to the Corinthians, for whom isthmic games were very important. He subjected himself to punishing disciplinary training, lest after preaching the gospel to others he himself be disqualified.

      Chapters 10-11 deal with other problems in Corinth, mainly those concerning community worship. In 10:1-13, citing the exodus where many Israelites who had crossed the sea and received divine nourishment nevertheless displeased God, Paul warns the Corinthians against sexual immorality, discouragement by trials, and the worship of false gods - all examples from Israel's wilderness trial that "were written as a lesson for us who are nearing the end of time." In 10:2.14-22, Paul speaks of baptism and the eucharistic cup of blessing which is a sharing of Christ's blood and the breaking of bread which is a sharing of Christ's body (10:16). Here Paul provides important insights for later sacramental theology, for he makes it clear that through baptism and the eucharist God delivers and sustains Christians, but he also shows that such extraordinary help does not make those who receive the sacraments immune from sin or exempt them from divine judgment. Since the many participants form one body, participation in the eucharist is irreconcilable with participation in pagan sacrifices that are in fact offered to demons and make people partners with demons. One cannot participate at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons at the same time. Interrupting the question of the eucharist, 11:1-16 provides guidance on the "liturgical behavior" of the community: A man should pray or prophesy with his head uncovered, while a woman should have her head covered. The theological basis for this requirement (the man is the glorious reflection of God, while the woman reflects the man; because of the angels, the woman must have a sign of authority on her head) may not have been considered fully convincing by Paul himself, for at the end (11:16) he defers to the authority of his own custom and that of the churches.

      Then, in 11:17-34, Paul returns to the Eucharist and the meal at which it was held, expressing his displeasure with the behavior of the Corinthians. The divisions (those of chapters 1 to 4?) are carried over to the "Last Supper", where the Corinthians gather as a Church (11:18) to re-enact the memory of what Jesus did and said on the night he was delivered up until his coming (11:20.23-26). It seems that some have a meal that precedes the breaking of the bread and the cup of blessing, while others ("those who have nothing") are excluded and hungry. Perhaps this echoes a social situation where the need for a large space means that Eucharistic meetings are held in the house of a rich person; all Christians, including the poor and slaves, are to be accepted in the hospitality area of the house for the Eucharist, but the owner invites only friends of high social status to his table for the preparatory meal. This is not Paul's idea of the Church of God (11:22); either all must come together to eat or they must eat in their own homes first (11:33-34). The whole purpose of the sacred breaking of bread is the koinōnia (10:16), not the division of the community. One also sins against the body and blood of the Lord if one eats the bread and drinks the cup unworthily (11:27), apparently not discerning that it is the body and blood of the Lord (11:29). In fact, Paul states that judgment is already coming upon the Corinthians, for some have died and many are sick (11:30). Despite the book of Job, the correlation between sin and sickness/death remained strong in Jewish thought!

   4. Part III Of The Body Of The Letter (12:1 - 14:40)

      Chapters 12 and 14 deal with the spiritual gifts or charisms given in abundance to the Corinthian Christians, while chapter 13, sometimes called the hymn to love, appears to be a corrective interruption of any gains in the matter of charisms. These chapters have received so much attention that it seems best to discuss them separately and more fully below. For the moment, let us comment on just one point.

      Because 12:28 lists apostles, prophets and teachers as the primary charisms, it is most often thought that the Corinthian community was administered by charismatics, that is, by those who were recognized as having received one of these charisms of the Spirit. Yet the picture is complicated, for a special charism of "administration" is also mentioned in 12:28. Moreover, we know relatively little about how the functions were divided among the apostles, prophets and teachers, and to what extent apostles other than Paul were involved. Even though Ephesians 4:11 was written years later, its order with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers warns us that the assignment of functions may not have been accurate or uniform. The description of the word of the prophets in 1 Cor 14:29-33 shows how difficult it is to be sure what the prophets were doing. In 14:34-35, immediately following a description of prophecy, women are excluded from speaking in the churches; yet 11:5 allows women to pray or prophesy with their heads covered. The idea that in the 50s all Pauline churches were administered charismatically as in Corinth (and that twenty or thirty years later this administration evolved into a more institutionalized structure of bishops and deacons as described in the Pastorals) is risky because of the lack of information in most of the other letters written at this time, and the reference to bishops and deacons in Philippi (Phil 1:1).

   5. Part IV Of The Body Of The Letter (15:1-58)

      Here Paul describes the gospel in terms of the resurrection of Jesus and then draws implications for the resurrection of Christians. Some Christians in Corinth have claimed that there is no resurrection of the dead (15:12). It is not clear what these people think about what happened to Jesus; but the argument makes sense if they think that Jesus rose from the dead with his body, and in 15:1-11 Paul reminds them of this common tradition. Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to such well-known figures as Cephas, the Twelve, James (the Lord's brother) and Paul himself (15:3-8; see also 9:1) - a tradition that is entirely consistent with the Scriptures and well attested: "Whether it was I or they, this is how we preached and this is how you believed" (15:11). As for the fate of the others, those whom Paul was going to correct may have thought that the equivalent of the resurrection had already been accomplished by the coming of the Spirit, so that there was nothing else to expect. Instead, based on what happened to Christ, Paul argues that all the dead must rise (15:12-19), that the resurrection is future (15:20-34) and bodily (15:35-50). In this argument he teaches that those who have fallen asleep in Christ are not lost (see also 2 Cor 4:14). Indeed, Christ is the first fruit of those who have fallen asleep: There is an eschatological order: first, Christ; then, at his return, those who belong to Christ; then, at the end, when he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power, and subdued all enemies (death being the last enemy), Christ will hand over the kingdom to the Father; finally, the Son himself will be subdued to God, who subdued all to him, so that God may be all in all (15:23-28).

      The resurrection is not an abstract question for Paul; on the contrary, the hope of being risen explains his willingness to suffer as he did in Ephesus, from where he writes this letter (15:30-34). In 15:35-58, Paul focuses on another objection raised in Corinth concerning the resurrection of the dead: With what kind of body? Paul gives a subtle answer: The resurrection will involve a transformed body, as different as the mature plant is from the seed - a body that is imperishable, not perishable; powerful, not weak; spiritual, not physical; like that which is of heavenly origin, not from the dust of the earth. In the end, whether we are alive or dead, we shall all be changed and clothed with the imperishable and immortal (15:51-54). The essence of the answer to the Corinthians who deny the resurrection is that death has lost its sting because God has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (15:55-58).

   6. Body Closing (16:1-18) And Concluding Formula (16:19-24)

      The closing of 1 Corinthians instructs the Corinthians to take up the collection for Jerusalem and outlines Paul's plan. Paul wants to stay in Ephesus at least until Pentecost (May/June 57 AD?) because, despite the opposition, an opportunity to evangelize has presented itself to him. However, he plans to come to Corinth by way of Macedonia and perhaps to spend the winter there (57-58?). If Timothy comes, he must be treated well (16:10-11). As for Apollos, although Paul has urged him to return to Corinth, he is not willing to do so for the time being, probably for fear of exacerbating the factions involved (16:12).

      Although the final greetings (including those of Aquila and Prisca/Priscilla) are warm, when Paul takes up the pen to add a touch of his own, he acts as a judge, cursing anyone in Corinth who does not love the Lord (16:22). His final words are nevertheless positive, not only extending love to all, but also uttering a prayer that evidently even the Corinthians know in Jesus' native tongue (Aramaic māránā thā': "Our Lord, come").

3. Those Criticized by Paul at Corinth

   In chapters 1-4, Paul corrects the factionalism among the Corinthians, not by addressing each group separately, but by criticizing the whole community of Christians for having allowed itself to be divided into three or four groups of adherents. He does not tell us whether there were theological differences between the groups, beyond their loyalty to different individuals, but the biblical scholars felt free to attribute distinct individual positions to each. For example, a conservative adherence to the Law is often attributed to the faction of Cephas (Peter), although 1 Cor 15:5.11 indicates that Cephas and Paul were preaching a common message. There is no evidence that the missionaries whose names designate the factions (Paul, Apollos, Cephas) were rebuked by Paul for encouraging such factionalism. Was the formation of the groups spontaneous, or did some of those whose slogans are criticized in later chapters of 1 Cor play a role in generating factionalism? Perhaps the groups gave voice to trends that were already present, such as an inadequate Gentile understanding of Christian ideas derived from Judaism. Were the three or four factions organized into separate house churches? The answers to this question are largely guesswork, for there is little information in 1-2 Corinthians about house churches beyond their existence (1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:23). Indeed, 1 Cor 14:23 contemplates the possibility of a gathering of the whole church.

   The words "wisdom" and "wise" appear more than twenty-five times in chapters 1 to 3. The criticism of the Jews and the Greeks, both of whom reject Christ who was the wisdom of God, shows that Paul is not criticizing one view of human wisdom, even though forms of Greek philosophy were included in the wisdom sought by the Greeks (1:22). Although in chapters 1-4, the gnōsis only appears in 1: 5, a considerable number of scholars have argued that Paul was criticizing a Gnostic movement in Corinth. For proof, they sometimes turn to the last chapters of 1 Corinth, e.g., "We all have knowledge" (8:1) and the discussion of knowledge in 8:7-11; see also 13:2.8; 14:6. Certainly there were Christians in Corinth who had more knowledge than others and who thought themselves superior. But does the term "Gnostics" fit them, as if they had much in common with the second-century systems that claimed special revealed knowledge about how the recipients possessed a spark of the divine and could escape the material world? Paul, the founder of the Christian community in Corinth, left around AD 52; had important Gnostic teachers come and influenced the Christians in 56? Did the denial of the resurrection of the dead by some in Corinth (15:12.29) stem from the Gnostic denial that Jesus was physically a human being who died and/or from the assertion that true believers were already spiritually resurrected? Did the Corinthian Christians really say "may Jesus be cursed" (12:3); and if so, did they thereby reject the idea that Christ (as distinct from Jesus) had a real earthly existence?

   This brings us to the problem of evaluating a number of slogans in 1 Corinth. In addition to those listed above, we might include the following: "All things are lawful for me" (6:12; 10:23); "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach for food" (6:13); "Avoid immorality; any other sin a person may commit is outside the body" (6:18); "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (7:1). Paul modifies these slogans in a corrective way, and they are therefore used by those he was going to admonish in Corinth. This modification, however, leaves open two major possibilities: These statements were originally invented either by Paul in the course of evangelizing the Corinthians (but are now being misused) or by Paul's opponents. In either case, one could postulate their use in a system of thought where higher knowledge leads a group (the party of "Christ"?) toward libertarianism on the premise that the body is irrelevant, both to what one does in the body and to what happens after death.

   Finally, there are other points in Paul's critique that may have nothing to do with a deep theological position. The tendency to go to the secular courts to sue (6:1-7) and the tendency of women to pray with their heads uncovered (11:5) may reflect nothing more than Corinthian social mores.

4. Paul's Critique of Fornicators and Homosexuals (6:9-10)

   Paul warns that those who practice certain vices will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Even today, almost all Christians would join in his condemnation of idolaters, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, slanderers and robbers, whether or not they would meet the same harsh fate. But major problems have developed over three designations: pornoi, malakoi, et arsenokoitai.

   Pornoi is understood to refer to the immoral (sexually) by the various French and English bibles. Today, the greater tolerance in first world society for unmarried men and women living together and/or having sex with each other has led to a debate about whether Paul was generally condemning "fornication." Given that in 6:15-18 Paul forbids a Christian to unite his body with that of a prostitute and condemns porneia, and that there was in Corinth a history of sacred prostitutes in the service of Aphrodite, some maintain that by pornoi in 6: 9, Paul meant only those who engaged in sexual relations for money, that is, those who had relations with prostitutes. However, in 5: 1, as an example of porneia among the Corinthians, Paul cites the man who lived with his mother-in-law - rarely sex for profit. Because there is no adequate evidence to restrict what is included in the word pornoi with Paul, then the translation "Those who engage in fornication" is more accurate than "Those who use prostitutes".

   The following two terms, malakoi et arsenokoitai, lead us to the question of homosexuality. Let us recall that in the Greco-Roman world there was no general condemnation of sexual relations with a person of the same sex. Indeed, in Greek circles, homosexual activity by an adult man with an attractive youth could be considered part of a cultured upbringing, since the beauty of the male body was highly valued. But in general, it was shameful for an adult male to be the passive partner or to play the role of a woman - this was for slaves. (Less information is available about female homosexuality, but there may have been a corresponding disdain for the woman who played the male or active role.) As for the Jews, they condemned homosexuality in any form, that is, both passive and active. Although some scholars disagree, it is quite likely that Paul, with his two nouns, also condemns passive and active homosexuality.

   Malakoi (literally, "soft") could refer to the effeminate, and some would argue for the translation "dissolute". However, in the Greco-Roman world, it was a designation of "catamites", men or boys (especially the latter) who were kept for sexual purposes, playing the female and receptive role. "Boy prostitutes" and "male prostitutes" are translations offered by the NABR and NRSV. But the debate focused on the arsenokoitai (literally, "those who go to bed with males"), translated as "sodomites" (NRSV) or "homosexuals" (NIV). The gay justice movements have led to challenges to such an interpretation, and some claim that Paul only condemns male prostitution because it brutalizes the active participant and victimizes the passive participant. This statement is highly questionable for several reasons. As mentioned above, an attempt to create a parallelism with pornoi, understood as those who have sex with prostitutes, is unlikely. In addition, the linguistic composition of arsenokoitai does not allow the term to be limited to the use of male prostitutes. The components arsen and koimasthai are found in Lev 18: 22 ; 20: 13, which forbid having sex with a man as with a woman, i.e. having coitus with a man. Paul, whose basic Bible was the Septuagint, certainly had these passages in mind when he used the compound word to condemn homosexuality. The fact that 1 Cor 6:9-10 places the reference to arsenokoitai in the context of many other condemned practices prevents us from evaluating the seriousness with which he considered it. His thought is more clearly stated in Romans 1:26-27, where he bases himself on God's creation of man and woman for each other, to be attached to each other. Consequently, he denounces as an explicit distortion of God's created order those women who have exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones and those men who have abandoned natural relations with women and have become inflamed with desire for one another. Overall, then, the evidence strongly supports the view that Paul was condemning not only the sexual activity of pederasts but also that of homosexuals - indeed, all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

   All statements by human beings, including those in the Bible, are limited by the worldview of those who made them. Our focus has been on what Paul was condemning in the first century. A different but essential question is how binding Paul's condemnation is on Christians today. We know much more about the physiology and psychology of sexual activity than Paul did. Nevertheless, the fact that in 1 Corinthians 6:16 Paul quotes Gen 2:24, "The two shall become one flesh," suggests that his condemnation of fornicators and homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is rooted in the fact that God created man and woman in God's image (Gen 1:27) and commanded that they be united in marriage - the same context cited against divorce by Jesus in Mark 10:7-8.

5. Charisms at Corinth (1 Cor 12 and 14) and Today

   In 12:28 we find a list of charisms, divided first into a group of three that Paul goes to the trouble of numbering, consisting of apostles, prophets and teachers, and then into an unnumbered group consisting of acts of power (miracles), gifts of healing, forms of help or assistance, administrative (or leadership) abilities, and various kinds of languages. This list is not exhaustive, for 12:8-10 also mentions the gift of wisdom, the gift of knowledge, the gift of faith, the gift of discernment of spirits, and a distinction between tongues and the interpretation of tongues; still others appear in Rom 12:6-8. Some who have one charism want another, and in 1 Cor 12:12ff. Paul uses the image of the human body and its many parts, probably borrowed from popular stoicism, to emphasize that diversity is necessary. Even the less presentable parts have an indispensable role. In 14:1-33 we find that the gift of speaking in tongues, perhaps because it was the most visible, was the main source of conflict. Paul criticizes the situation in several ways. Tongues must be interpreted, and therefore an additional gift of interpretation is needed (14:13). In addition to tongues, there are more excellent gifts, such as prophecy, which builds up the church (14:5). More radically, Paul urges us to seek love, which is more important than any charism (13:1-13), whether it be speaking in angelic tongues, prophecy or miracles. When he has made all his arguments, Paul argues that every true prophet and every true spiritual person will recognize that what he has written is a commandment of the Lord; and the person who does not recognize it should not be recognized in the community (14:37-38)! If Paul has to resort to this authoritative "bottom line", we know we are dealing with a difficult subject.

   Although there have always been small churches and even sects of Christians who exult in charismatic phenomena, in recent years "charismatics" have received more attention and are now found among members of most large churches. There is a wide variety of charisms in these modern experiences, but attention is often focused on speaking in tongues, "being smitten by the spirit" and detecting demons. It is generally accepted that charismatic experiences have the power to intensify people's religious or spiritual life. Yet, are charismatics today experiencing what is described in 1 Corinthians 12?

   A few remarks are in order:

   1. No person raised in the 20th century has the worldview of a person raised in the 1st century, and so it is impossible today to know or reproduce exactly what Paul is describing, no matter how sincere the charismatic's assurance. On the fundamental point of the Spirit, for example, Christians today are shaped by a Trinitarian theology developed in the fourth century; there is no evidence that Paul had such clarity about the person of the Spirit.

   2. As for speaking in tongues, Paul states that he speaks in tongues to a higher degree than those he addresses in Corinth (14:18). Yet it is not easy to be sure what he means by "tongues". He refers to speech that requires interpretation, speech addressed to God but not to others because no one understands the speakers, sounds that in themselves are unintelligible, a gift that builds up the individual rather than the church (14:1-19), and the tongues of angels (13:1). A few decades later, the author of Acts seems to propose two interpretations of speaking in tongues (2:4): one in which it is unintelligible chatter as if the speakers were drunk (2:13-15), and another in which it is speaking in foreign languages that one has not learned (2:6-7). Are the different understandings of the term "languages" what is meant by "various kinds of languages"?

   3. The charisms described by Paul are gifts freely given by God; not all of them seem to involve emotional experience or dramatic behavior. As noted earlier, one of the gifts is the kyberneseis (administration, leadership). Today, we can recognize that a person has a gift of administration and attribute it to God, but we do not normally place these people in the same charismatic category as speakers of tongues. Paul does.

   4. Modern appreciation of charisms sometimes overlooks the fact that they were divisive in Corinth. Inevitably, whether it is a charism or a function, when a Christian claims to have a role that others do not, questions of superiority and envy are introduced. Some NT reflections on the Spirit almost run counter to the idea of different charisms. According to John 14:15-16, everyone who loves Jesus and keeps the commandments receives the Paraclete Spirit, and there is no suggestion of different gifts or roles. In John's vision, all are disciples, and that is what is important.

   5. Finally, in evaluating modern charismatics, remaining faithful to the evidence of the NT, one can rejoice that the church of today, like that of Corinth, does not lack any spiritual gift (1:7). However, one can challenge those who argue that someone is not a Christian if he or she does not receive a special charisma, or who argue that when a charisma is received, the possessor is a better Christian than others who are not so gifted.

6. The "Hymn" to Love (I Cor 13)

   This chapter contains some of the most beautiful lines ever written by Paul, hence its name "Hymn". After the contrast between love and charisms, 13:4-8a personifies love and makes it the subject of sixteen verbs. This leads to a contrast between a present marked by charisms, in which there is only a faint reflection in a mirror, and a future where we will see face to face. There, faith, hope and love will remain, "but the greatest of all is love" (13:8b-13).

   What does Christian love (agapē) mean? Not all NT authors necessarily have the same understanding of the term, but the following applies to some of the key passages. As an introduction, we can distinguish between eros and agapē. Eros like love is attracted by the goodness of the object: people reach out or lift themselves up to the good they want to possess in order to be more complete. In the Platonic philosophy, eros would be a motivating factor to reach the perfect truth and beauty that exists outside this world. In the Aristotelian philosophy, eros would imply that the material or the limited would reach out to be less limited and thus climb the ladder of being. God, in whom all perfection is found, would be the supreme object of eros. Agapē, on the other hand, is not motivated; it confers goodness to the loved object. So agapē begins with God, who needs nothing from creatures, but through love brings them into being and ennobles them. In particular, Paul's notion of love is based on the self-giving of Christ, who loved us not because we were good, but while we were still sinners (Rom 5:8). As 1 John 4:8.10 proclaims: "God is love... In this is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." The eloquent personification of love in 1 Cor 13:5-8 makes love and Christ almost interchangeable. Valued (justified, sanctified) by the agapē of Christ, we become the channel of transmission of this love to others whom we love, without evaluating their goodness and without motivation: "Love one another as I have loved you" (John 15: 12).

7. Paul and the Risen Jesus (I Cor 15)

   The tradition preserved in 15:3ff. shows that there was an early sequence of Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and appearances - the building blocks of a passion narrative (especially when combined with 11:23 which places the Last Supper on the night before Jesus' arrest). It offers an argument for recognizing that a tradition about Jesus' earthly career was developing in parallel with Paul's preaching, which reports few details about that career. Although this chapter was included in 1 Corinthians as an argument for the reality of the resurrection of those who died in Christ, it has become a centerpiece in the argument for the reality of Jesus' resurrection. In its present form, there are two groups of three people by whom Jesus "was seen": Cephas (Peter), the Twelve, and over 500; then James, all the apostles, and "me last." The final reference to himself is extremely important since Paul is the only NT author who claims to have personally witnessed an apparition of the risen Jesus. We can list a number of problems:

   1. Paul places his experience of the risen Jesus, even though it was the last, on the same level as the appearance to all the other witnesses mentioned. The Acts of the Apostles gives a different picture, for after his appearances on earth, Jesus ascends into heaven (1:9); consequently, a light and a voice come from heaven to Paul (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8; 26:13-15). Few would give the Lucan image priority over the Pauline image.

   2. Paul uses the verbal sequence dead/buried/risen/appeared in 1 Cor 15:3-5 and reuses "appeared" (the passive of "see") three more times in 15:6-8. Nevertheless, some have argued that Paul does not refer to seeing Jesus in bodily form. Since, according to Paul, Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time, a purely internal vision seems excluded. Furthermore, one can assume that Paul's experience of the resurrected Jesus has something to do with his expectations concerning the resurrection of the dead in the rest of the chapter. There he speaks very clearly of a resurrection of the body (even if it is transformed) and uses the analogy of sowing in the earth and what comes out (15:35-37).

   3. Much has been made of Paul's silence about the empty tomb of Jesus, as if this silence contradicts the gospel accounts. Yet there is no a priori reason for him to mention the tomb, and the burial/resurrection sequence virtually presumes that the resurrected body is no longer where it was buried.

   4. Luke's description of a risen Jesus who speaks of himself as having flesh and bones and eating (Luke 24:39.42-43) seems contrary to the Pauline understanding of the risen body as spiritual and not flesh and bones (1 Cor 15:44.50). Luke (who does not claim to have seen the risen Jesus) may well have had a more concrete, tangible understanding of the risen body (of Jesus) than Paul (of the risen bodies of Christians). Once again, few would give Luke's image priority over Paul's.

8. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. The common view, adopted here, is that 1 Corinthians is a unified letter sent at one time. The motives for thanksgiving (1:5-7, e.g., possessing knowledge, not lacking charisms, awaiting revelation from Jesus Christ) anticipate the themes of 8:1; 12:1; 15:23. Yet there is no visible connection between the factions mentioned in chapters 1-4 and the corrections issued after 5:1. For example, there is no indication whether the members of the Cephas (Peter) or Apollos factions are the ones who deny Paul's being an apostle (9:2). The two opportunities for information mentioned in points 4 and 5 below best explain the disjointed nature of the letter, but leave open different theories of composition: for example, chapters 7 - 16 could have been composed first, before news from Chloe about serious problems in the community forced Paul to add chapters 1 - 6; or conversely, Paul could have written chapters 1 - 4, before news from Chloe forced him to write chapters 5 - 16.

   2. Paul's description of excommunication in 5:4-5 is not very clear, except that he insists that the sinful man should be expelled from the community. We find in Acts 5:1-11 the extirpation of those whose sinful presence would corrupt the community. The way a Christian community might treat someone who needs to be corrected is illustrated in Matthew 18:15-17. But notice that neither in Matthew (see 18:21-22) nor in 1 Corinthians (5:5b) was the expulsion of the sinner the last word; there was still hope of forgiveness or salvation.

   3. We see examples of Paul's understanding of his apostolic authority in 5:3-5 (excommunicating), 7:10-16 (issuing a decision that changes a decision of the Lord), and 15:9-11 (being a spokesman with others for an authoritative interpretation of the Gospel). There is an old axiom that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. This should not be taken in a mechanical sense, but was intended to mean that Christian revelation included not only what Jesus said in his ministry, but also the apostles' interpretation of Jesus, especially as recorded in the NT. Yet, in modern discussions of contentious issues (especially morality), one sometimes gets the impression that if Jesus himself did not affirm something and one must resort to the word of Paul, it is less authoritative. Moreover, although the mainline Christian churches have resisted the notion of new postapostolic revelation, other Christ-believers, from Montanus of Phrygia in the second century to Joseph Smith in the 19th century, have argued that new revelation could come through a prophet.

   4. In Acts 16:15.33 we find examples of Paul immediately baptizing those he had convinced about Christ; but according to 1 Corinthians 1:14, in a year and a half in Corinth, he personally baptized only Crispus (which confirms Acts 18:8) and Gaius. Nevertheless, Paul considered himself the only father of the Corinthians in Christ through the Gospel. What was the place of baptism in Paul's missionary enterprise? If he did not baptize most of the Corinthians, who did? Paul says he planted the seed and Apollos watered it (3:6). No pun intended, but did Apollos do the water baptism? That would be interesting in light of Acts 18:24-28 where he did not know there was a baptism beyond that of John the Baptist. What theology of baptism would explain the separation of the evangelizer and the baptizer? In 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul gives the sequence "washed, sanctified, justified" (a rare reference in 1 Corinthians to justification; see 1:30 and 4:4), showing that baptism had a central place. Chapter 10 compares baptism to Moses' deliverance of Israel from Egypt at the exodus, and places it in a context that speaks of the eucharist. See also the treatment in Romans 6:1-11.

   5. Paul's attitude in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 is that he would like everyone to be like him, single and abstinent, but the statement that it is better to "marry than to burn" has been the source of much discussion. See also 7:28: "If you marry, it is not a sin, but married people will have trouble"; and 7:32-33: "The unmarried man can attend to the Lord's business while the married man attends to worldly matters and how to please his wife." If one accepts that these statements are colored by the thought of the coming of Christ, they do not offer an enthusiastic picture of the sanctifying possibilities of married life. In later Christianity, the monastic movement for men and women led to the thesis that celibacy is preferable to marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. On the other hand, during the Reformation era, celibacy was attacked as a distortion of the Gospel; and where Protestantism was victorious, priests and nuns were often forced to marry. Today, many Catholics and Protestants want to avoid the "best" category and recognize that celibacy and marriage lived in God's love are both noble callings/choices. Reflection on this question is enriched by a study of Matthew 19:10-12 and Ephesians 5:21-33.

   6. Given Paul's pastoral attitude about eating food sacrificed to idols (chap. 8), what is so bad about Cephas' (Peter's) behavior in Antioch described in Gal 2:1ff? As a Jewish Christian, he knew he was free to eat with Gentile Christians; but when men from James came and objected, he stopped doing so. Paul objected to this behavior as timid and insincere (even though Barnabas sided with Peter); but in Peter's mind, was this not pastoral behavior to avoid scandalizing the less enlightened Jewish Christians? If there were people in Corinth who insisted on exercising their freedom and eating what they wanted, might they not have accused Paul of betraying the gospel of freedom by his cautious attitude, just as he had accused Peter of doing so in Antioch?

   7. In 10:1-4, Paul speaks of the ancestral Israelites who were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea, and who all ate the supernatural food and drank the supernatural drink. The rock in this scene of wandering in the wilderness was Christ. Given the references to the eucharist in 10:14-22, Paul is reflecting on both baptism and the eucharist in the OT context. This is one of the first indications of the close association of what would be referred to by later Christians as the principal sacraments. To what extent were they actually associated in the "liturgical" services of the early Christians? The passage on the eucharist (also 11:27) implies a great deal of attention to who could participate. Yet 14:22 suggests an assembly where the word was spoken and where unbelievers could enter. Were there separate Christian meetings for the eucharistic meal and for the proclamation of the word?

   8. Exacerbated by the disputes of the Reformation, differing ecclesiastical theologies of the eucharist have been a very divisive factor in Western Christianity. 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 11:17-34 are of extraordinary importance because they are the only references to the eucharist in the Pauline letters and also the earliest surviving written eucharistic testimony. Comparison of 11:23-25 and Luke 22:19-20 with Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-28 suggests at least two different preserved forms of Jesus' eucharistic words - perhaps three, if John 6:51 is taken into account. (Paul and Luke may be giving us the form used in the church at Antioch.) This is sobering: if there had been no abuse in Corinth, Paul would never have mentioned the eucharist; and many scholars would certainly argue that there was no eucharist in the Pauline churches, on the grounds that he could not have written so much and remained accidentally silent on the subject. Moreover, since the second passage mentions divisions over the practice and understanding of the eucharist in Corinth five years after the creation of the community, it reminds us how divisive the eucharist quickly became! One issue that divides Christian churches today is whether the eucharistic offering has a sacrificial aspect. Another area of contention concerns the real presence: Does the communicant really eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord? While the debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants certainly go beyond Paul's thinking, a reflection on 1 Cor 10:14-22 and 11:27-29 contributes to the discussion, as well as on John 6:51-64. These passages contain verses that have a sacrificial context and verses that emphasize the realism but also the necessity of faith.