Corinth Archives - Reading Acts

Paul’s Opponent in Corinth in 2 Corinthians

The issue in Second Corinthians was not a doctrinal problem or a theological dispute. It appears some members of the church has attacked Paul personally. The double reference in 2 Corinthians 7:12 to an injustice shows the issue was disaffection between fellow Christians. Paul appears to have been so angry over this dispute he could not even travel to Corinth to discuss to with meet the church face to face. Who was Paul’s opponent in Corinth?

The problems stem from a single individual as the primary reason for the disagreement. Second Corinthians 2:5, 6, 7, 8, 10; 7:12 all speak of a specific person. The problem was serious enough Paul changed his travel plans and instead wrote the “tearful letter” (1:23; 2:1, 3, 4; 7:8). In fact, the attitude of one individual was so serious that it poisoned the life of the entire church (2:5). It is remarkable how even a single individual can destroy what should be a unified body of believers!

Who was Paul’s opponent who was put out of the church? In 2 Corinthians 7:12 Paul says this person has wronged him, using a participle, τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος. The verb ἀδικέω as the sense mistreatment or injury, but the damages are to Paul’s reputation and honor rather than physical harm. The verb is used in Philemon 18 to refer to the damages which Onesimus might have caused when he left Philemon’s service.

The most common suggestion is the man is the incestuous man from 1 Corinthians 5. In 2:9 and 7:12 Paul refers to the fact he has already written to the church about this man, and we know from 1 Corinthians Paul did in fact recommend the incestuous man be expelled from the congregation. There is a connection between 1 Cor 5 (hand him over to Satan) and this passage, and it is very appealing to read this as saying that the incestuous man repented and returned to the church a changed man.

A second suggestion focuses on the situation in 1 Corinthians 6. People were suing one another in the courts over internal “family” matters which ought to have been handled by the church. It may be the case that an individual in the church disagreed with Paul so strongly he went to the courts and tried to overturn Paul’s commands for the church found in 1 Corinthians. It is shocking that a church dispute could have spilled over into the courts, but in the Roman world a perceived insult often did result in a lawsuit.

It is also possible there is a public attack on Paul’s ministry and authority in the background here, an attack so severe Paul must break off travel plans to the church. Some speculate the attack took place in front of Timothy or Titus, or even that Titus was the object of the attack. Whatever the attack was, it was interpreted by Paul as “an act of flagrant disobedience and revolt” (Suggested by C. K. Barrett, cited in Martin, 2 Corinthians, 34). This could include a party within the church that supported the incestuous man, or simply an attack on Paul’s authority as an apostle. Because the church has dealt with the problem, Paul feels that at least one hindrance to reconciliation is out of the way, he can return to Corinth now that the insult to him has been removed from the congregation.

It is quite remarkable to me that a church in the first century was so fragmented that someone might bring a lawsuit over a doctrinal issue or a leader’s decision or some perceived insult.I can think of any number of examples of this sort of thing in modern churches both in America and in the context of a mission church. People with strong personalities trying to lead a church as if it was a business will generate conflict. Although that conflict might be common in the world of big corporations and business, it is has no place in the local church and can only lead to he shame for the church in the community.

This is yet another example of the culture of Corinth warping the church which God established. The members of the church are still thinking like Romans not Christians.

Why Were Aquila and Priscilla Forced to Leave Rome?

When Paul arrives in Corinth he meets Aquila and Priscilla, Jews who had been expelled from Rome by Claudius. In A.D. 49, the emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome because of continued “rioting over Chrestus,” likely a Latinized christos, or messiah in Hebrew. The most likely explanation is that Jews who had been under that Apostolic teaching in Jerusalem had returned to Rome and brought the message of Jesus as Messiah to the synagogues of Rome (Suetonius Life of Claudius, 25.4; cited from Pervo, Acts, 446).

[Claudius] “expelled Jews from Rome because they were generating incessant unrest through the instigation of Chrestus
Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantis Roma expulit.

Almost every detail of this expulsion can be disputed. First, with respect to the date of the decree, Dio Cassius (60.6.6) says in A.D. 41 Claudius put restrictions on Jews meeting together. The same year a delegation (which included the well-known Jewish philosopher Philo) petitioned the emperor on behalf of the Jews of Alexandria.

Jews living in Rome had come into conflict with the government before. In 139 B.C. they were expelled for “corrupting Roman morals” (Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia, 1.3.3) and again in A.D. 19 because they were “flocking to Rome” and converting many (Dio Cassius 57.18.5). This makes the expulsion in A.D. 49 plausible, although what Suetonius meant by Chrestus is not at all clear.

The second problem is the name (or title) Chrestus. The common view is that Suetonius has misunderstood the Greek term Christos, thinking there was a person with this name who was stirring up these riots. Occasionally a writer will suggest that there was another messianic figure active in Rome with the name Chrestus, but this seems unlikely (Keener, Acts, 3:2709). As Keener shows, the use of Chrestian (rather than Christian) does appear “often” for the earliest followers of Jesus (3:2710).

Third, it is virtually impossible he would have expelled all Jews from Rome. Although many commentaries will point this out as an historical inaccuracy, it is quite typical of Luke’s literary style to use “all” where a modern writer might use “many” or “a great number.” For example, 13:44 “almost the whole city” turns out to hear Paul preach in the synagogue at Psidian Antioch.

Exile was normally a punishment for individuals (Keener, Acts, 3:2699). Keener also suggests the expulsion is plausible since Claudius revived some of the older forms of Roman religion. The Jews were always under suspicion because they practiced a superstitious eastern cult. Rome also banished astrologers from Italy in A.D. 52 (Tacitus, Annals, 12.52.3). At best, the ringleaders responsible for the unrest would be forced to leave the city of Rome.

What is important is Aquila and Priscilla were ordered to leave Rome as Jews, but they are Jewish Christians. From Rome’s perspective there is not much difference between Jews and Christians, they really the same thing.

Early followers of Jesus like Aquila and Priscilla may have heard the gospels as early as Pentecost. If they returned to Rome and argued in the synagogue that Jesus was the Christ, it is entirely possible the reaction was similar to the reaction against Paul several times in Acts. As with Stephen and Paul, the preaching of Jesus as the messiah in the synagogue met with some success, but often as not there was a zealous and violent response. While this is a speculation, it would seem reasonable that preaching Jesus as Messiah in a Roman synagogue would result in a similar reaction.

Acts 18 – What Went Wrong in Corinth?

The city of Corinth was an important cosmopolitan city in the middle part of the first century. (Was Corinth more sinful than other Roman cities? Click the link for my comments about that longstanding misunderstanding of history, as well as a followup comment from a read.) It was economically stable, attracting a wide range of businesses from all over the Empire. Paul established the church in this city for this very reason. Once Christianity takes hold in Corinth, the local churches themselves can continue the mission of spreading the gospel throughout the region.

In choosing as one of his main missionary centers a city in which only the tough were reputed to survive, Paul demonstrated a confidence oddly at variance with his protestations of weakness. Corinth, however, offered advantages that outweighed its dangers. In addition to excellent communications, the extraordinary number of visitors (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 37.8; Aelius Aristides, Or. 46.24) created the possibility of converts who would carry the gospel back to their homelands. In contrast to the closed complacency of Athens, Corinth was open and questioning, eager for new ideas but neither docile nor passive, as Paul’s relationship with the Christian community there amply documents (Murphy-O’Connor, ABD 1:1138).

Yet of all of Paul’s churches, this one seems to have had the most difficulties assimilating Christianity and their culture.

The books of 1 and 2 Corinthians deal with a number of problems that arose after Paul left the city. Why did Paul not deal with them as a part of his regular training of new believers and church leaders? What happened in Corinth that brought these particular problems to the forefront only after Paul left the city?

The thesis of Bruce Winter’s After Paul Left Corinth is that after Paul left the city the church began to explore how Christianity interacted with their Greco-Roman culture and social relationships. Their culture was a thoroughly Roman world-view, but it was also a world-view in flux.

There were several de-stabilizing factors in first century Corinth.

First, the institution of yearly festivals in the imperial cult. Participation in these festivals was something a Roman citizen would have associated with loyalty to Rome, a loyalty that the citizens of Corinth took very seriously.

Second, the Isthmian Games were based in Corinth, and there is evidence that when the games were celebrated the President of the games hosted a festival for Corinthians who were Roman citizens. In 8:9 there is a reference to having the “freedom” to eat; the Greek word is “authority,” or perhaps “right” to eat. Paul may be referring to these sort of elite social connections that some in the church had the right/freedom to participate in. Can a Christian really participate in this meal as a follower of Christ?

Third, Winter cites evidence that there were three severe grain famines in the first century that effected Corinth. There are ten inscriptions from Paul’s time that honor the “superintendent of the grain.” This office had the power to manage grain sales in an effort to keep prices down and supply flowing. This could involve a taxation system that paid for grain for the poor, or even a flooding of the market with grain in order to drive prices down. Even rumors of famine were enough to cause riots and generally de-stabilize an economy.

Last, the most difficult issues revolved around Roman cultural and social practices. In 1 Cor 3:3 Paul says that the church is “still worldly,” literally that they are thinking like the people of Corinth, not the people of God. The Christians in Corinth failed to see how the Roman world impacted their life in Christ.

Does this cultural background help us understand “what happened” in Corinth? Why did the church mis-handle so many of the challenges to their new faith in Christ? Is the Corinthian experience much different than Christianity in the modern West?

Bibliography: Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001).

Acts 18:1-4 – Paul in Corinth

As usual, Paul attends the synagogue meetings in the city and argues that Jesus is the Messiah. This ministry is more successful when Silas and Timothy catch up to Paul, allowing him to devote himself to preaching. It is as a result of this synagogue ministry that there is another “rejection” of the Jews, parallel to Acts 13 and 28. Paul declares that from that time on he will go to the Gentiles, as he did in Acts 13 as well.

Two key converts are mentioned – Titius Justus, a god-fearing Gentile and Crispus, the leader of the synagogue (See the comments for Richard Fellow’s view on Crispus and Sosthenes). A third convert is implied in Romans 16:23 – Erastus, the “director of public works” (NIV) or city treasurer. It is unusual for Paul to identify a person by title like this, but this is an important title (Theissen, 76) What makes this person of particular significance is that in 1929 an inscription was discovered honoring Erastus, identified as the aedilis of Corinth, a title normally translated by the Greek agoranomos. The title given in Romans is that of oikonomos of the city. While this is not exactly equivalent, it is close enough that many have made the connection between this convert in Romans 16:23 and the city manager of Corinth in the mid-50’s.

Erastus Inscription from Corinth (January 2019)

Paul may have been concerned that his success would breed a violent back-lash from the synagogue, as it had in Thessalonica. In fact, Paul has seen this happen before. The normal pattern is for him to enter the synagogue and face serious persecution. He is not afraid for his own life, in fact, he seems more than willing to suffer physically for the Gospel.

1 Cor 2:3-4 indicates that Paul was afraid his ministry was destined for failure. He does not yet know of the fate of the Thessalonican believers, perhaps even Berea is unknown to him. Athens likely did not result in a church. Will Corinth go just as badly? Yet in 1 Cor 2, Paul claims that any success in Corinth was based solely on the the power of the Holy Spirit, not his own rhetorical ability.

1 Corinthians 2:3-4 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.

In Acts 18:9-10 Luke tells us that Paul has a vision in which the Lord tells Paul that he will not be harmed in the city of Corinth and that there are many people in the city that are “the Lord’s.” There are three short, related commands: Do not fear, continue to speak, and do not be silent.

If these commands reflect Paul’s mood prior to Silas and Timothy’s return, then it is possible that Paul considered, like Jeremiah before him, do remain silent and not open himself up to further persecution (Jer 20:7-12). Like Jeremiah, Paul cannot keep the Gospel to himself, he must be what he is, the light to the Gentiles. Even if this means he will be persecuted. This vision encourages him to continue, since his Gospel message will be received in Corinth.

He will remain in the city 18 months, Paul’s longest place of ministry since his commission from Antioch in Acts 13.

Bibliography:

H. J. Cadbury, “Erastus of Corinth” JBL 50 (1931) 42–58; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Corinth That Saint Paul Saw” BA 47 (1984) 147–59; Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001)

Acts 18 – Corinth as “Sin City”

When I visited Corinth in January 2019 the tour leader made a big deal out of Corinth’s reputation as a “sin city” in the first century. He repeated the usual evidence for sexual immorality in ancient Corinth along with the evidence from 1 Corinthians. I tried to object this was a “classic Pastor’s preaching point,” but he totally disagreed with me and went back to his lurid description of first century Corinth. Sometimes Corinth is described as a “San Francisco of the ancient world.” I think Chuck Swindoll said this, so many pastors in the 1980s picked it up and tried to illustrate how bad Paul’s church was by comparing it to Haight-Ashbury circa 1967 or modern Las Vegas (“what happens in Corinth stays in Corinth”?)

This is one of those preaching points that gets picked up in popular commentaries and repeated with no additional research. I think some pastors get a perverse kick out of painting ancient Corinth as particular immoral. This salacious description makes for good preaching, but it is not accurate. As John Lanci says in a recent article, “there is no archaeological evidence that rituals of sacred sex were practiced in Corinth, and textual scholars have for some time questioned the reliability of Strabo and Athenaeus” (205). Lanci points out the term “companion” does not necessarily mean prostitute in a contemporary sense and the women in Athenaeus’s story prayed for the men of Corinth to become inflamed for war against the Persians. “Modern interpreters,” says Lanci, “have created sex slaves for Corinthian Aphrodite out of whole cloth of scholarly inferences” (213). Finally, Lanci questions the modern description of Aphrodite as a “goddess of love” as if that implies romance and sex, domesticating a terrifying and powerful goddess.

It was not for tips about lovemaking and cosmetics that the women of Corinth climbed haunting Acrocorinth in 480 B.C.E. They petitioned their goddess, but not to grant fertility to the land. No, they begged a great and terrifying divine force to inspire their warriors to overwhelm the horrifying, destructive power of war. (220)

Usually, the evidence for Corinth’s sexual freedom is that the city was built near two ports so it attracted sailors looking for a good time. In addition, there is usually some reference to the temple of Aphrodite with 2000 prostitutes. While the reputation is deserved, it has little to do with the city that Paul visited – all these sorts of things were true of Greek Corinth, almost 400 years prior to the time of Paul! I cite Jerome Murphy-O’Connor:

Such success inevitably provoked the envy of those less fortunate in their location and less industrious in their habits, and so in the 5th–4th centuries b.c., Athenian writers made Corinth the symbol of commercialized love. Aristophanes coined the verb korinthiazesthai, “to fornicate” (Fr. 354). Philetaerus and Poliochus wrote plays entitled Korinthiastes, “The Whoremonger” (Athenaeus 313c, 559a). Plato used korinthia kore, “a Corinthian girl,” to mean a prostitute (Rest. 404d). These neologisms, however, left no permanent mark on the language, because in reality Corinth was neither better nor worse than its contemporaries. (Murphy-O’Connor, ABD 1:1135).

In fact, the whole Roman empire at the time Paul visited the Corinth had sexual morals significantly different than those of the Jews and the early Christians. Corinth was no less moral that Ephesus or Thessalonica. This is not to say that the city of Corinth was virtuous, no one was singing “I Wish They Could All Be Corinthian Girls.” Perhaps it is better to think of the Greco-Roman world as having a radically different sexual ethic as Christianity. The type of sexual morality Paul’s gospel demands simply cut across the grain of the culture of the Greco-Roman world, as it should in the modern world.

When we teach that the Corinthian believers struggled with a culture that was oppose to Christianity in this way, we someone imply that things were better in Ephesus or Rome. That is absolutely not the case! All Christians struggled to relate this new faith to the culture in which they live, in A.D. 55 Corinth or modern America.

I think the problem in Corinth was not that the city was sexually immoral, but that the church members were wealthy and powerful and behaved like wealthy and powerful Romans. The problems reflected in the letters to the Corinthians are not the result of living in a city full of sinners who tempting pure-at-heart Christians. The problem was Christians insisting on living as wealthy powerful members of the Roman world, not as humble servants of other believers in Christ.

If we are going to accurately preach Corinthians, we need to stop relating the city of Corinth to San Francisco or Las Vegas. Rather, we need to start comparing the church at Corinth to the (wealthy, politically powerful) American church.

Bibliography: John Lanci, “The Stones Don’t Speak and the Texts Tell Lies: Sacred Sex at Corinth.” Pages 205-220 in Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen, eds. Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Harvard University Press, 2005.