We insert here an interlude to explain some background. During Paul’s time at Ephesus, he wrote a letter to Corinth that he mentions (1 Corinthians 5:9), but which we do not have today. We guess that whomever was the messenger carrying that letter returned to Paul with disturbing news. The church wrote back to him. Our 1 Corinthians is Paul’s response to this exchange.
This second letter — 1 Corinthians — does not solve the problem. It’s likely Paul made a hurried visit (1 Corinthians 16:5-8; 2 Corinthians 13:1-2), but either way, he exercises his apostolic authority to demand some changes. It is quite a painful experience for everyone involved. We believe this is the source of those who complained that Paul was so forceful in his letters, but lacked the kind of social charisma that would match such writing. If Paul came in person, he didn’t thunder vocally, but simply fell on his face in front the whole body and prayed, weeping in the Spirit until people began to break down with him.
The chronology isn’t quite clear at this point. It would appear that this was about the time Paul left Ephesus and headed for his planned trip through Macedonia (today’s northern Greece). He seems to have gotten as far as Troas before taking ship. Things were still not right in Corinth, so Paul dawdles there, and writes a third letter that, again, we do not have today (mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:4, 7:8). It is the “strong letter” that caused even more sorrow. He’s not going to go back to see them with another humiliation scene that caused so much distress. This third letter was delivered by the hand of Titus.
Paul continues on his journey to Macedonia and waits for Titus to return. Titus comes back finally with a good report. Still busy with the churches in Macedonia, Paul writes his fourth letter — our 2 Corinthians — to celebrate with the church their recovery back to the right path. He’s promising to make his way to them in a while.
The basic issue with the church in Corinth was apparently two-fold. First, there was the influence of a highbrow philosophical analysis of the issues God had revealed. It’s the same basic fundamental rejection of revelation in favor of human reason that constitutes the Fall. We believe this may have been the birthplace of the Gnostic heresy. This was rooted in the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. The fundamental reasoning was that Jesus could not have been God and man at the same time. Either He was a phantom spirit that simply manifested in human form, but left no footprints in the sand, or He was just a man who lied about being divine. The core of Mediterranean Gnosticism comes from this false dichotomy.
Second, this left the door open for creeping paganism. People in the church brought with them the loose pagan social mores that were common in the moral filth that was native to the City of Corinth. The church at Corinth was quite large and encompassed the same cosmopolitan mix as lived in that city. The church began dividing into factions, miniature tribes that insisted on keeping some part of their fleshly identity intact.
Thus, when the church leadership sought to discipline anyone according to the ancient Hebrew morals of Christ, there was an organized resistance that nearly broke up the church. This is where we learn the perils of mixing too many different backgrounds into a church body. At the very minimum, such a church must demand that people ditch their human ethnic identity and human capabilities to embrace a new identity that is more of Jesus and His background. You are marrying into a New Nation of Israel. A single church body cannot function with mixed identities.
Of course, the other issue is that the nature of holiness is not up for debate. One of the specific issues Paul addressed was the morality of marriage (1 Corinthians 5:1-8). Under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:7-8), a man and his son cannot have sex with the same woman, even if it is not the son’s actual mother (the father’s additional wife). It doesn’t matter if the father has died. This defiles the woman and the men involved, along with the whole household. As far as Paul was concerned, this Old Covenant requirement carried over into the Covenant of Christ.
Thus, we again see that, at the very least, Christians must seek to understand the underlying issue with the demands in the Law of Moses. Some do not translate into parables, but remain literal. There is a strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
