Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Listers,

I would like us to look at the past conflict which Paul addresses in 2 Cor
2:3-11; 7:2-15, and try to work out how it relates to the tensions in
evidence in 1 Corinthians. Here are some thoughts.

It is generally agreed that the matter reflected in  2 Cor 2:3-11; 7:2-15
had involved a challenge to Paul's authority, or something similar. I think
this is correct, but I think there is more that we can say, albeit
speculatively.

In the tearful letter Paul had been severe towards the Corinthian church as
a whole (see 2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:7-11), but they proved themselves to be
essentially innocent in the matter (see 2 Cor 7:11). This shows that there
had probably been poor communication between Paul and the Corinthians in the
period leading up to the writing of the tearful letter.

This misunderstanding may well have involved a letter of Paul which had been
misunderstood, for such a letter is alluded to in 2 Cor 1:13-14:

"For we write you nothing other than what you can read and also understand;
I hope you will understand  until the end - as you have already understood
us in part - that on the day of the Lord Jesus we are your boast even as you
are our boast."

These verses refer to a misunderstanding, which may well help to explain how
the 'innocent' Corinthians had caused such grief to Paul. But this is not
the only connection between these verses and 2 Cor 7.  The final part of
1:14 refers to the Corinthians' recognition of Paul, and is reminicent of
7:12 ("your zeal for us might be made known to you before God")  and 7:7
("your zeal for me"), as well as 7:2 ("Make room for us in your heart") and
6:13 ("open wide your heats also"). This allows us to identify the
underlying issue, namely the Corinthians comprimising with pagan practices
(see 6:14-7:1). Putting the pieces together we get the following scenario:

1. Paul had written to the Corinthians telling them to dissociate themselves
from Pagan practices.
2. The letter had been misunderstood (1:13) and this had caused some of them
to reject Paul's authority.
3. Paul received allarming and incomplete reports about this from Corinth.
4. He wrote the tearful letter in response.
5. The Corinthians were distressed by Paul's tearful letter and demonstrated
their innocence to Titus: they had misunderstood Paul's earlier letter and
had not really been at fault.
6. The Corinthians shunned an individual or individuals who had been
instrumental in the defiance of Paul's authority.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should, because much of this occured
BEFORE 1 Corinthians. Let's take the elements of the scenario one at a time
and see how they are reflected in 1 Corinthians.

1. Paul had written to the Corinthians telling them to dissociate themselves
from Pagan practices.

This is confirmed by 1 Cor 5:9-10. Notice the mention of idolators.

2. The letter had been misunderstood (1:13) and this had caused some of them
to reject Paul's authority.

The misunderstanding of the letter is clear from 1 Cor 5:10. Evidence that
this led them to reject Paul's authority is found in 1 Cor 9:3 where Paul
writes, "this is my defence to those who would examine me". The context is
the idol meat question (1 Cor 8 and 10) and the Corinthians' conclusion that
Paul was not a real apostle because he was not 'free' on this issue. They
had questioned Paul's apostleship because they thought that he had said in
the former letter that they should disociate themselves completely from
non-Christian idolators and sexually immoral, and they felt that such a
policy was incompatible with Christian liberty.

The rejection of Paul's authority is also witnessed by chapter 4, which has
stong links with chapter 5. This confirms that the opposition to Paul was
connected with their interpretation of the former letter.

3. Paul received allarming and incomplete reports about this from Corinth.

The negative reports from Corinth had come to Paul from Chloe's people (see
John Hurd's book). Paul's informatoin from Chloe's people had been
incomplete and unreliable. They had reported the divisions in Corinth (1 Cor
1:10-11), but after receiving better information from Stephanas, Paul only
'partly' believed it (see 1 Cor 11:18). Chloe's people were not closely
connected with the Corinthian church: Paul mentions them as the source of
his information in order to shame the Corinthians, as if to say, "even
outsiders are aware of the divisions among you". It is therefore likely that
Chloe's people did not have good information about the state of the
Corinthian church.

Some time later Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived and refreshed
Paul's spirit (1 Cor 16:18). The situation had not been as bad as Chloe's
people had led him to believe. Even at the time of 1 Corinthians Paul seems
quite allarmed by the situation in Corinth (see 4:8-21). He must have been
very distressed before the arrival of Stephanas who brought better
information and refreshed his spirit. The existance of an earlier distressed
period is demonstrated by 1 Cor 16:10 which shows that when Timothy had left
Ephesus he had been anxious about Corinth.

4. He wrote the tearful letter in response.

We have no direct reference to the tearful letter in 1 Corinthians. However,
it is likely that the tearful letter was carried by Titus and that Titus and
Timothy were one and the same person. We know that Timothy was on his way to
Corinth when 1 Corinthians was written so this fits.

5. The Corinthians were distressed by Paul's tearful letter and demonstrated
their innocence to Titus: they had misunderstood Paul's earlier letter and
had not really been at fault.

There is no reference to this in 1 Corinthians because the tearful letter
arrived in Corinth after 1 Corinthians.

6. The Corinthians shunned an individual or individuals who had been
instrumental in the defiance of Paul's authority.

This happened after 1 Corinthians but is anticipated by 1 Cor 5:11 "do not
even eat with such a one". Notice the use of the singular 'brother' and
'such a one' in 1 Cor 5:1. This matches the use of the singular in 2 Cor 2
and 7.


To sum up:
Paul wrote the former letter telling the Corinthians to dissociate
themselves from immoral brothers. The main culprits rejected Paul's
authority (for obvious reasons). His former letter had appeared to say that
the Corinthians were to dissociate themselves from immoral people in
general. The culprits argued that such a request was obsurd and it
undermined Paul's credibility as an apostle. The church then looked for
alternative leaders and became very divided. Chloe's people gave Paul
allarmist reports of the Corinthians' rejection of his authority. Paul wrote
a tearful letter which told them to shun the culprits and respect his
authority. This letter was carried by Timothy, who was anxious about whether
the letter would work. While Timothy was on his way to Corinth, Stephanas
arrived in Ephasus and brought reassuring news. He revealled to Paul that
the situation was not quite as bad as he had been led to believe, and that a
misunderstanding of Paul's former letter was in large part responsible. The
former letter had caused confusion on what was Paul's stance on such matters
as sexual immorality, idolatry and idol meat. The Corinthians had writen a
letter to Paul asking for clarification. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to
reassert his authority and answer the Corinthians' questions. The tearful
letter arrived in Corinth shortly after 1 Corinthians. It caused great
concern but had the desired effect: Paul's authority had been re-established
and the main culprit (or culprits) had been shunned.

All this explains the strong parallels in the sequence of thought in 1 Cor
4-5 and 2 Cor 5-6. (See Michael Goulder's "2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as an integral
part of 2 Corinthians" Nov. Test. 36 (1994)).

Richard Fellows.