The Character of Paul’s Opponents in 1 and 2 Corinthians
The Character of Paul’s Opponents in 1 and 2 Corinthians
The diversity of theories as to the nature of Paul’s opponents in these two epistles makes it necessary to begin by enumerating pitfalls to be avoided.
1. One must not read the situation of 2 Corinthians back into 1 Corinthians—at least, not without observing several distinctions. In particular, there is no evidence whatsoever that at the time of writing 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul was facing a church that had been taken over by leaders from the outside. By the time of 2 Corinthians 10-13, that has certainly happened.
2. Protestations to the contrary, there is no evidence that the root cause of the opposition behind 1 Corinthians was the influence of Judaizers (as defined above). Paul’s insistence on his own Jewish credentials, in order to minimize their importance, does not take place until 2 Corinthians 11:16ff., and they are presented so as to confront the false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13-15), who, so far as we know, have not arrived on the scene at the time 1 Corinthians was written. More important, the argumentation in 1 Corinthians is not slanted to refute Jews—certainly not Jews from any conservative background. For instance, those who are wary of eating meat offered to idols (chs. 8,10) do not hesitate because of Jewish scruples, but because they were once idolators themselves, and now they want to avoid what has been offered to idols (8:7; that is why they have a "weak conscience”). This means that before their conversion they were pagans, not religiously observant Jews. Those in 1 Corinthians 8 who feel perfectly free to eat such meat are also unlikely to be Jews. Both groups, in other words, spring from non-Jewish backgrounds. Again, as we shall see, the reasons why many Corinthians did not affirm the reality of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15) did not lie in, say, the theological commitments of (Jewish) Sadducees, but in a thought world indebted to certain forms of Greek philosophy.
3. Despite the strenuous arguments of Schmithals and a few others, there is no satisfactory evidence that the dominant problem confronting Paul was Gnosticism, in the sense usually understood of the full-blown movement that can be traced in the second and third centuries (see discussion in chap. 21, on the Johannine Epistles). Too much evidence has accumulated to allow us to read later sources back into the New Testament. 52 None of the essential features of mature Gnosticism are present in the Corinthian epistles, except some elements of the dualism between spirit and body, which can be accounted for on other grounds—in particular, the pervasive influence of neoplatonism. Doubtless this was the sort of soil in which Gnosticism would later mushroom, but for the period in question, Hengel is surely right: "It is time to stop talking about Gnosticism in Corinth.” 53
More positively, we can state several things about Paul’s opponents.
1. The opponents are simultaneously divided against each other and, in some measure, opposed to Paul. The former point is customarily stressed in the commentaries. The division within the community is apparent on the very surface of 1 Cor. 1:10-4:21. If believers were taking each other to court (ch. 6), it is not hard to imagine that support for each side could be found within the church. If some were sexually promiscuous (6:12-20), others thought it best to be entirely celibate (ch. 7). Some thought they should not eat meat offered to idols; others thought it to be a matter of indifference—perhaps, even, a means of demonstrating their liberty. By the balanced way the arguments are put in 11:2-16, it appears that there were competing opinions in the church over the appropriateness of the head covering for women. Some differences were socioeconomic (11:18-19). Certainly there were differences of opinion over the relative status of various spiritual gifts (chs. 12-14). These internal divisions go some way toward explaining what some have called the "yes, but” form of some of Paul’s arguments (e.g., 7:1-2; 8-9; 8:1-6, 7; 14:5, 18-19).
In contrast, Fee minimizes the amount of internal division and stresses the opposition of virtually the entire church to Paul. 54 Certainly such opposition accounts, in part, for the defense of Paul’s apostleship (1 Cor. 4, 9), for his insistence that they submit to his authority (14:37-38), and for his addressing himself, on issue after issue, to the entire church and its letter to him (7:1ff.). Fee’s approach is a salutary correction and explains the continuing, festering relationship between Paul and the Corinthians alluded to in the "painful visit,” the "severe letter” and especially in 2 Corinthians 10-13. The fact remains, however, that they have written to Paul and sought his opinion on a number of matters, and he feels free to instigate the collection among them (16:1-4): the breakdown between Paul and the Corinthians was far from total. More important, internal divisions and a fundamental misapprehension about Paul are not mutually exclusive faults, and it appears that Fee has minimized the latter.
2. The heart of the Corinthian opposition turns on several tightly held and intertwined positions. The Corinthians are convinced they are spiritual (see esp. 1 Cor. 12-14), but this has less to do with conduct and ethics than Paul insists on, and more to do with status. They appear to treat baptism and the Lord’s Supper as almost magical rites guaranteeing life, regardless of conduct (10:1-5; 11:17-34). They are puffed up and arrogant (4:6, 18; 5:2). But their view of what is spiritual is influenced by a neoplatonic depreciation of the material. That is probably what makes it possible for some of them to view sexual intercourse with a prostitute as morally indifferent (6:12-20); that is also why they take the stance they do regarding the resurrection. They do not deny that there is a future resurrection, as did the Sadducees; nor do they deny that Jesus rose from the dead. Rather, they think they have already been raised, that such "resurrection” pertains to their present spiritual existence, and what they will be at the end is nothing other than what they are now, minus their physical body. This unswerving confidence in their own spirituality is tied, as well, to a brand of "overrealized” eschatology that assumes that all or most of the blessings of the age to come are already being experienced in their fullness. 55 That accounts not only for Paul’s scathing outburst in 1 Corinthians 4:8-13 but also for the kind of moral indifferentism and supercilious arrogance (4:6, 18; 5:2) that will not easily listen to the apostle (9:3; 14:37-38) precisely because he speaks so much of perseverance and self-denial in the context of a world order that is still fallen and opposed to God and his gospel. Paul would not for a moment want to depreciate the presence and power of the Spirit in the believer’s life and in the church in the present age. But for him this means the body is the Spirit’s temple (6:19-20) and therefore must serve God wholly; and the resurrection is still to come.
3. From what source did the Corinthians derive their spurious notions of spirituality? Perhaps the dominant theory today is that the Corinthian distortion derives from wisdom speculation in Hellenistic Judaism. 56Certainly many remarkable parallels can be found in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism to what is assumed to be the language of the Corinthians that calls forth these Pauline Epistles. What one must ask, however, at least of 1 Corinthians, is whether what is most convincing in these parallels is determined by Hellenistic Judaism or by Greek pagan thought more generally. It remains wholly unlikely that Paul’s intended readership was substantially Jewish (see 1 Cor. 6:9-11;
8:7; 12:2, and discussion above). Moreover, as Fee points out, 57Paul explicitly assigns "wisdom” to the Greek quest, while Jews demand "miraculous signs” (1:22). It is inadequate, with Davis, to dismiss the dichotomy on the grounds that it is merely an instance of Paul’s rhetoric. 58"Even as rhetoric, the statement is quite explicit, while the idea that the section reflects a Jewish midrashic homily against wisdom is speculative at best.” 59 It appears that the most likely source of the spurious Corinthian approach to wisdom and spirituality is their own pagan past.
4. We can be more specific. Winter has convincingly argued that one of the underlying problems of the Corinthian church was its reliance on the Sophist movement. 59By the first century A.D., the "second sophistic” had begun. 61 It was characterized by rhetors whose skill and training in oratory attracted public admiration, not to mention students to their schools. By this period, the particular philosophy held by rhetors was relatively incidental; it was their power to expatiate on it, to declaim in public assembly, to speak convincingly and according to strict conventions in legal, business, religious, and political contexts that won them their acclaim. Their influence in the Mediterranean world was enormous, not least in Corinth. They thought themselves wise, the purveyors of wisdom.
Winter argues that, especially in 1 Corinthians 1-4, Paul self-consciously frames his argument to counter Sophist claims (not least in 2:1-5). Many other themes in the Corinthian epistles—Paul’s denunciation of "jealousy and quarreling” (3:3), the stratification of society prompted in part by sharp divisions between benefactors and those dependent on them, arrogant boasting about knowledge, the place of boasting— can be tied to Paul’s confrontation with the Sophist movement. Against this background, one can also understand the high place many in Corinth assigned to Apollos.
5. As we have seen, by the time 2 Corinthians was complete, the Corinthian church had been invaded by outsiders. Although they were Jews, steeped in Hebrew language and culture (2 Cor. 11:21ff.), they were well familiar with the Hellenistic world (as Paul was), and they espoused many Sophist values and rhetorical devices. 62These Paul eschewed, judging them inimical to the gospel itself (11:4). Thus 2 Corinthians presents us with a new kind of Judaizing: a Hellenistic Jewish movement that opposed Paul but was less concerned (so far as we know) with circumcision and with detailed observance of the Mosaic law than with prestige and power in accord with the contemporary values of the Sophists. Paul’s ultimate response (2 Cor. 10-13) is the most intense, revealing, and emotional of all his writings.