First Letter to the Corinthians – Part Two

LET’S KNOW THE BIBLE

The Christian community of Corinth sent a delegation of three men to the apostle Paul, who was in Ephesus named Stephen, Fortunatus and Achaicus, who brought the apostle a letter asking him to clarify some questions. And so, in the second part of the first letter to the Corinthians, from chapter 7 to the end, Paul answers to these questions, so it is a very varied section since it deals with different issues.

This is a series of answers that a lecturer gives to the different questions that the public brings to his or her attention. We could say that there is little unity in the letter as a whole; it is true because he goes from one subject to another, changing many subjects, but the unity is given by Paul’s person, his mentality, his Christian style and he unifies all these diverse themes in the center: always in the person of Jesus Christ. In chapter 7, we find the first theme that refers to marriage.

This is how the apostle begins: “As to the questions which were put to me in your letter….” So, it is from here that we deduce that the Corinthians have written to him. Paul takes that up and answers. The first question concerns marriage. We have already said that a basic problem in the Corinthian community was Gnosticism, a Greek intellectualistic mentality that despised everything that was material, so marriage also fell into this category.

The problem was that some thought that marriage was immoral because it concerned bodily life, specifically affective, and misinterpreting one of Paul’s teachings, they said that marriage was forbidden. Another theorized on the opposite extreme, saying that any sexual behavior was lawful because the flesh counts for nothing. These are the two extremes to which gnostic error tends; by despising matter, one ends up not giving it any weight; therefore, with the body, one can do anything, it is indifferent; I only need the conceptual adhesion. Or the negativity of the flesh is exaggerated and, therefore, with the body I don’t have to do anything because whatever I do with the body is sin; and, therefore, all the physical dimensions must be eliminated, and only the spiritual dimension must be valued.

The question of marriage and sexual life was a topical issue in the Corinthian community and the Christians who had just come to the faith were not at all clear in their ideas, so that when they found themselves amid discussions of this kind, they needed to ask the apostle Paul for explanations. Paul does not deal with the subject of marriage but limits himself to offering examples to underline how the election of a life of chastity is a good and preferable option from his point of view, but he reiterates with all his might that there is nothing wrong with the choice of marriage, much less sinful. He reports the opinion of the Lord, reaffirming the sanctity of marriage and, therefore, the uniqueness and indissolubility. of the marriage bond.

He then gives his own opinion as advice for living chastely without the marriage bond, but he is careful to distinguish between the Lord’s teaching and his own personal opinion. He is trying to say that the fundamental thing must be the tension to the final fulfillment. The criterion he offers to resolve the question is to remain in the condition one was in when he became a Christian. This criterion is valid for a beginning community; they became Christians as adults, and Paul explains, ‘when you have accepted the Gospel and were united to a woman, do not separate; when you have accepted the Gospel and you were not attached to a woman, do not go to seek her, remain in the situation in which you were.’ The eschatological tension is very strong.

That is, the whole life is oriented to the encounter with the glorious Christ, with his imminent parousia. It seems that Paul still expects an imminent coming of the glorious Christ. And he explains this concept when he says: “In a word, brethren, time is running out.” Time is short in the face of the work of Christ. “From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, 31 those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.”

The future perspective relativizes everything. Being so important the attention towards Christ, the concrete situation of the present is not so determinant; it is not so determinant to have a wife or not to have a wife, to weep or to enjoy, to possess or not to possess. If you think about it, it is a bit like the situation that the spouses evoke at the moment of their wedding formula. They say that they promise each other love regardless of life situations, in good and bad situations, in health and sickness. They mean that there is something more important that is not determined by health or disease; therefore, health and disease are relativized as opposed to the personal relationship of love which is considered more important. This is what Paul intends to say. The relationship with Christ is so important that it relativizes everything else.

The second question he addresses is found in chapters 8, 9 and 10. It is a strange question for us because it is no longer relevant. Even the term used is strange. In fact, it’s called ‘idolotiti,’ and it refers to meat sacrificed to idols. We should know that in ancient times there were no secular butcheries, in the sense that the slaughterhouses were closely linked to the temples, i.e., to the sanctuaries of the different divinities, so that whoever bought meat was not simply buying food but was also participating in the celebration in honor of this or that deity. So, even what for us are restaurants in the ancient world were, in fact, banquets in the shadow of the temples.

These were festive celebrations with the meat of animals that had been sacrificed to a deity so that eating that meat meant to participate in idolatrous worship. ‘idolo thita’ means: something sacrificed – ‘thiton’ in Greek, sacrificed to an idol, and for this reason, the Jews had procured independent butcheries; and where there were large Jewish communities, they organized themselves in such a way as to have a meat production independent of the public slaughterhouses, not to be contaminated by that meat sacrificed to idols, to be sure that the meat had been prepared according to the rules of the law.

The Christian community found itself in an embarrassing situation because, on the one hand, there are the heirs of the Jewish tradition who want to preserve these distinctions; ‘we can’t eat those meats because it means to participate in idol worship.’ Even the simple people of the Greek world who have been converted to the one God feels that they must abandon those practices they used to have as a sign of change in their faith. On the other hand, some are strong, that is, able to reason and, in fact, they are right; they say: ‘But what does it matter.’ Paul had already explained: ‘There is no difference in the food; any kind of meat is fine.’

Therein lies the question, the problem is one of conscience, and these chapters are very important in clarifying the question of consciousness. The rule itself is not of much value. The theory says that food is effectively indifferent, no problem, but the problem, Paul says, is not simply one of food, but relationships with people who may have a weak conscience. A strong Corinthian Christian can easily afford to go and eat in the sanctuary precincts of Apollo because he is indifferent to that religious tradition, he knows that meat is meat; whether it is sacrificed to Apollo is of no interest to him. According to him, it’s not a problem, it’s not bad at all, but it’s possible for a weak Christian from Corinth, seeing that other person eating in the sanctuary of Apollo would be scandalized, would consider him a sinner, or worse, deduce that, if that mature and competent Christian eats immolated meat of Apollo, it means that the cult to Apollo is also valid for Christians. Therefore, that weak person is scandalized and finds an obstacle, a stumbling block; his simple faith is damaged.

The teaching that Paul offers is that of respect for the weak conscience and asks the strong people of Corinth to restrain themselves, not to be presumptuous and overbearing, saying that if they do not understand, so much the worse for them; but to be able to accept the difficulties and weaknesses of others, attending to their needs. This is how Paul poses the question in chapter 8, but in chapter 9, he opens a long and splendid parenthesis in which he speaks of himself. He seems to change the subject, but in reality, he goes deeper into the question. He presents his own way of life, saying that he freely made himself a servant of all, although he was free from everything. He would have had the right to do whatever he wanted, but instead, he put himself at the service of the people.

He gives a very concrete example: He would have had the right to be maintained, but he thought that this right of his could harm the faith of the simple people, thinking that Paul did it for a living and that he would gain by it. Then, in order not to hinder the weak Christians of Corinth, Paul did support himself. He says that he worked with his own hands, he never asked for money from his people to show how his preaching, his proclamation, was absolutely unselfish. ‘I was not forced, I did it freely,’ “I made myself a slave to everyone to win as many as possible.”

Then he closes the personal parenthesis, and in chapter 10, he draws the consequences and offers practical rules on how to eat meat. ‘It’s true there is no problem, but out of respect for others, you must adapt.’ In an exclamation typical of his impetuous character, Paul says, ‘I will eat meat no more forever if I realize that my food scandalizes my brother.’ This is the rule, the respect for the conscience of the weak. In chapter 11, the apostle addresses a liturgical question; the manner of celebrating the Eucharist and reiterates the necessity for women to wear the veil. We remember how until a few years ago, there was this custom of wearing the veil for women in the Eucharistic celebrations; it was a custom linked to the culture of the time that was strongly characterized by the sense of respect and Paul perhaps was reacting to an attitude a little too libertine of the Corinthian mentality.

This is an example of a historical precept of a transitional liturgical norm, linked to cultural needs which has no theological foundation; while the second part of the chapter is much more relevant and criticizes the behavior of the Corinthians in the celebration of the Eucharist. The first Christian community used to dine together and, therefore, the Christians met in the house of someone wealthy who had a room large enough to accommodate the whole community, to eat together on the Lord’s Day, Sunday. These meetings took place on Saturday evening, in the evening between Saturday and Sunday. These people would gather together, and obviously, each one would bring something to eat; they shared the supper, during which they commemorated the death and resurrection of Christ with the eucharistic bread and wine.

In the Corinthian community, a situation of division soon arose, and it is logical that those groups of which we have spoken also, had their divisions in the celebrations, and here we see even more the social contrast. Some rich people do not work and can stay from six o’clock in the evening and eat a lot. On the other hand, there are others who are forced to work, and they are the ones who work the most and have the longest shifts. In the city of Corinth, being far south, they worked a lot in the afternoon so that they could finish their work at nine or ten o’clock at night; and they were ready to come to the community dinner only in the late afternoon, maybe bringing a sandwich and a handful of olives.

Meeting up with others who had already been there for several hours, feasting on succulent food and drinking a lot of wine. Some are half-drunk, while others are hungry. They don’t wait for each other but then they all follow the rite. ‘In this, I do not praise you,’ says Paul. ‘This is not the Lord’s supper; this is your supper.’ And so, with authority, the apostle proposes the first major liturgical reform. ‘Enough with the communal supper; the eucharistic celebration implies only bread and wine, the same for all. Eat in your homes, and when you are together, you wait for each other and celebrate the Lord’s supper, remembering the apostolic preaching, meditating on the scriptures.’ Thus, separating the banquet which by this time was becoming oppressive.

Chapter 12 begins another treatment that occupies three chapters; it deals with the question of charisms, the gifts of the Spirit. Someone, probably from that Gnostic group, gave so much weight to a spiritual gift which in technical language is called ‘glossolalia,’ that is, speaking in tongues, but not in a known and understandable language. It is the emission of sounds without logical meaning and to give voice to the spirit, to an inner joy like when a phrase is sung with ‘la la la,’ without saying anything and expressing a state of mind. Paul admits that this is possible and beautiful but that this is not fundamental in the experience of the Christian life. And, above all, neither this element is necessary as a manifestation of the Spirit.

Paul maintains, rather, the importance of prophecy, that is, of logical, intelligent discourse, which is understandable and able to communicate a message. It is the logic of formation, of participation with the whole body, therefore, also with material, concrete intelligence.

In the middle, in chapter 13, Paul praises charity, and it is the splendid hymn to ‘agape.’ The criterion is agape, this generous and ablative love of Christ. This is the way to build community; and note that this splendid list does not speak of concrete works but spiritual and psychological attitudes.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.” Agape is this relationship of authentic love that God has poured into our hearts, making us able of authentic human relationship. It is the agape that builds; it is the agape that lasts forever because it is the right relationship of person to person, person to God, and people.

Finally, in chapter 15, the last great argument, the resurrection. The Corinthian Gnostics denied the resurrection, the resurrection of the flesh because they considered it absurd, simply alleging the immortality of the soul, a traditional doctrine of the Greek world; that the flesh should come to life seems illogical. Paul stresses, on the other hand, how Christ’s resurrection is linked to his body and consequently those of Christ are resurrected like Christ. He affirms the fact and then confronts the modality, but in this case, to the question how will we be resurrected? He answers ‘we do not know’; a grain sown produces an ear; who would have thought it by seeing only the seed? If I have a seed of a plant that I do not know can I say what plant will come? No, but that same plant will come. Our mortal body, sown in death, will produce a spiritual body that we do not yet know but which is already inscribed in the seed, which is our body. Paul forcefully reaffirms the truth but cuts off the possibility of speculation about the form, ‘we do not know… we shall see… we trust in him who promised us.’

And thus closes this splendid letter. With strength and decision, Paul answered very important questions that the Corinthians had asked him.