Class Conflict in 1 Corinthians

Insights from Bruce Winter's After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change

"Why had Paul not dealt with some, if not all, of the problems he addressed in 1 Corinthians while he was in Corinth?"

This is the central question Bruce Winter addresses in his book, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. According to Acts 18:11, Paul spent a significant amount of time - at least eighteen months - with the church he established in Corinth before departing for Ephesus. Approximately three years later, Paul wrote the letter we now know as 1 Corinthians. In this letter he answered six questions raised by official church correspondence (7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 14:1; 16:1; 16:12) and addressed firsthand reports from members of Chloe's household (1:11; 16:17) concerning internal strife and division within the Corinthian church. Apparently, as Winters notes, the reports provided by Chloe's household were "matters the church as a whole seems to have felt no corporate desire to consult Paul by letter" (p. 3). These matters included:

Divisions in the church (1:120, the incestuous man (5:1-13), engaging in vexatious litigation against fellow Christians (6:1-8), indulging in the unholy trinity of eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse with prostitutes provided at private banquets (6:12-20), the veiling of men and the unveiling of wives (11:2-16), abuses at the Lord's Supper (11:17-34), and hedonistic conduct (15:33-34). (p. 3)

Why was it, that within the space of only three years, the Corinthian community was unable to address internal and external concerns without Paul's aid? Had Paul not dealt with the issues raised by the Corinthian correspondence during his eighteen-month ministry? Were the problems new, created by the pressure of culturally accepted social ethics within the context of profound social changes in Corinth?

Bruce Winter answers the latter question in the affirmative. Since Paul commends the Corinthians for observing all the traditions he had delivered while among them (1 Cor. 11:2, 17-34; 15:3-4), it appears that Paul had "provided no apostolic traditions for the problems raised in 1 Corinthians" (p. x). Winter argues that the negative influence of secular ethics combined with profound social changes in the Roman colony of Corinth brought new challenges to Christian ethics that called for further questions and answers.

Originally a Greek city, Corinth was ransacked by the Romans in 146 B.C. and subsequently rebuilt a Roman city: "in layout, organization and religious practice, Corinth was a Roman colony and not simply a restoration of a Greek city" (p. 11). At all levels of society, "the cultural milieu which impacted life in the city of Corinth was Romanitas. This does not mean that there were no ethnic minorities, but it does mean that the dominant and transforming cultural influence was Roman" (p. 22).

The dominant Roman culture of Corinth is the backdrop against which Paul's Corinthian correspondence must be read. Other backdrops such as "incipient Gnosticism", "overrealised eschatology", or a theologically conservative shift in Paul's theology do not account for all the problems that arose only after Paul left Corinth. Only "the influence of cultural conditioning and the impact of social changes" provide a proper context for understanding the Corinthian situation.

By incorporating all available literary, nonliterary, and archaeological sources, Winter seeks to shed light on the questions and concerns of the Corinthian church. In part one, he addresses the culturally accepted secular ethics and social conventions that wreaked havoc on true Christian community. In part two, Winter presents a number of the social changes that occurred after Paul's departure that raised new questions calling for new apostolic answers.

Secular Ethics

The Corinthians had allowed the pressure of culturally accepted secular values to create division and strife among themselves in regard to a number of issues.

In regard to teachers, they followed the competitiveness of the disciples of the sophists and rhetoricians. Like their secular counterparts, they demonstrated their loyalty to one teacher over another by promoting the oratorical skills and educational prowess of their favorite teacher while criticizing and ridiculing the deficiencies of others. This was the culturally accepted way that Roman disciples expressed zeal for their teacher. By playing favorites with their Christian teachers, the Corinthian believers were wittingly or unwittingly embracing this secular value.

The Corinthians also succumbed to their society's partial attitudes toward the privileged. It is very likely that the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5 was a man of high social status. The Roman system of jurisprudence was partial to those with great clout, providing legal advantages for those of high status. Paul argued that the Corinthians must not share this same partiality.

This partiality toward the elite combined with the Roman way of expressing zeal for one's favorite teacher converged in elite believers from the Corinthian church using their status to defend the teacher to whom they were partial. Not everyone had the right to prosecute in the Roman colony of Corinth. "Generally, lawsuits were conducted between social equals who were from the powerful of the city, or by a plaintiff of superior social status and power against an inferior" (p. 60). It appears that two of the leading Christians in the Corinthian community were taking their strife and jealousy over Christian leadership into the Roman court system to conduct a power struggle that was leading to greater hatred and division within the church. According to Paul, this was no activity for "brothers" (1 Cor. 6:6), and thus he sought to shame those involved (1 Cor. 6:5).

Unlike those of lower status whose options were limited, the elite had the luxury of "doing whatever they wished" (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). The unholy trinity of gluttony, drunkenness, and sexual immorality was a common feature of Corinthian brothels. First-century Platonic anthropology (the body is made for pleasure), philosophical hedonism (one's immortal soul is unaffected by one's conduct), and Roman social conventions are the reasons behind Roman justification of loose living. Only those who possessed status would have the right to pursue such indulgences. This temptation would be particularly strong when eighteen year-old males received the Roman toga virilus - "a symbol of adulthood and the assuming of responsibility for one's actions" (p. 90). Though socially accepted, Paul argued that to participate in the excesses of this rite of passage is nothing other than fornication (1 Cor. 6:13, 18). Contrary to Platonic anthropology, the body is God's and made for God (1 Cor. 6:13-20). This fundamental misunderstanding concerning the importance of the body also underscores Paul's extended treatment of bodily resurrection in chapter 15. The temptations of gluttony, drunkenness, and sexual immorality would also arise for those Roman citizens privileged enough attend the dinners given during the Isthmian games.

Though those with status often needed to swim against the stream of Corinthian social conventions, the one place they must not do so is in their public meetings together as a church. At their Christian meetings, they needed to hold to cultural standards for the sake of "messengers" (1 Cor. 11:10) who may "spy" upon their proceedings to sniff out any possible sedition. Unlike the standard monthly meeting of Roman associations, Christians met weekly. Some in the community, suspicious of sedition, may have attended the weekly meeting in order to confirm or deny their suspicions. Because of this, Christian men and women needed to uphold the goodness of marriage (p. 137). In contrast to the promiscuous conduct of the "new" Roman wife who dressed "unveiled", Christian wives were to veil their heads in worship. Unlike the Roman associations where only the leading elite men covered their heads in order to deliberately draw attention to their social status, no man was to do so in the Christian meeting.

While meeting together, those of high status were eating their dinners in the presence of those who had none, causing the Lord's Supper to degenerate into a Roman "private dinner" (p. 158). Though socially acceptable, this practice undermined the very meaning of the Supper.

During their meetings, the rivalry between factions in the church was amplified by those who used Jesus' name in order to curse the competition (1 Cor. 12:3). In league with their pagan past, it was common practice to call upon the gods to curse one's enemies (1 Cor. 12:2). Paul taught that this is not the way the Spirit of God works within the church.

In short, the Corinthians were walking like "mere men" (1 Cor. 3:1, 3-4). Whether wittingly or unwittingly, their practice demonstrated that the socially accepted secular ethics of Roman society was negatively influencing their community, creating division and hatred rather than unity and love. This was heightened by the fact that there were some elite among the Christian community (some, not many, 1 Cor. 1:26) who chose to use their status and influence in ways that undermined the unity of God's people and the impartiality of God's love. The elite were not exempt from the censure of fellow Christians. Against accepted social conventions, Paul would not allow a "two-tier system of ethical behaviour" (p. 109) to operate between the elite and non-elite in the Corinthian church.

Social Changes

Around 54 A.D. "a provincial or federal imperial cult was created which from then on was celebrated annually in Corinth" (p. 5). This fact, coupled with evidence of three severe grain shortages in Corinth (probably early 51, late 52 and early 55) reveal the profound social change that occurred in the short period after Paul left Corinth. This change created new questions concerning marriage and the eating of sacrificial meat.

Paul arrived late 49 A.D. or early 50 A.D. with a ministry lasting 18 months. The grain shortages took place during and after his ministry. Great social unrest attended the grain shortages. In light of this, early Christians may have experienced a heightened expectation of Christ's return, remembering Jesus' words that "there will be famine" (Mark 13:8). They may have also remembered that being pregnant or suckling a child could be difficult in light of the coming crisis (Mark 13:17). Abstention from sexual intercourse seemed to be the only possible means to prevent birth (1 Cor. 7:1). It is within this new social context that questions concerning marriage arose.

Prior to Paul's departure, the early Christians in Corinth probably had access to specially slaughtered meat in the marketplace provided as a special civic provision for Jews. This provision was probably withdrawn in light of Jewish banishment from Rome (cf. Acts 18:2). This would deprive Christians of this meat as well, creating a new situation Paul did not have to deal with during his ministry in Corinth. It is within this new social context that questions concerning the eating of meat sacrificed to idols arose (1 Cor. 8 - 10).

Conclusion

Winter has done a remarkable job of demonstrating why so many new questions and problems arose within the space of only three years after Paul's departure from Corinth. A greater awareness of the socially accepted secular ethics of Corinth combined with an understanding of the unique historical context of the writing of Paul's epistle sheds much light on the many difficulties that the Corinthian church experienced.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2003