The remainder of the body of this epistle deals with questions the Corinthians had put to Paul in a letter. Paul introduced each of these with the phrase peri de("now concerning,"7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12).
"Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was probably a response to Paul's Previous Letter mentioned in 5:9, in which they were taking exception to his position on point after point. In light of their own theology of spirit, with heavy emphasis on wisdom' and knowledge,' they have answered Paul with a kind of Why can't we?' attitude, in which they are looking for his response."160
The first subject with which he dealt was marriage. He began with some general comments (vv. 1-7) and then dealt with specific situations.
"The transition from chapter 6 to chapter 7 illustrates the necessity Paul was under of waging a campaign on two fronts. In chapter 6 he dealt with libertines who argued that everything was permissible, and in particular that sexual licence [sic] was a matter of ethical indifference. In chapter 7 he deals with ascetics who, partly perhaps in reaction against the libertines, argued that sexual relations of every kind were to be deprecated, that Christians who were married should henceforth live as though they were unmarried, and those who were unmarried should remain so, even if they were already engaged to be married."161
". . . the controlling motif of Paul's answer is: Do not seek a change in status.' This occurs in every subsection (vv. 2, 8, 10. 11. 12-16, 26-27, 37, 40) and is the singular theme of the paragraph that ties the . . . sections together (vv. 17-24)--although in each case an exception is allowed."162
"Two other features about the nature of the argument need to be noted: First, along with 11:2-16, this is one of the least combative sections of the letter. Indeed, after the argumentation of 1:10-6:20, this section is altogether placid. Furthermore, also along with 11:2-16, this is one of the least authority-conscious' sections in all of his letters. Phrases like I say this by way of concession, not of command' (v. 6), it is good for them' (vv. 8, 26), I have no command, but I give my opinion' (v. 25; cf. 40) are not your standard Paul. Second, in a way quite unlike anything else in all his letters, the argument alternates between men and women (12 times in all). And in every case there is complete mutuality between the two sexes."163
The Corinthians had asked Paul another question, evidently in a combative spirit judging by the apostle's response. It involved a practice common in their culture.
The commentators understand the situation that Paul addressed in two different ways. Some of them believe that the eating of marketplace food that pagans had previously offered to idols was amoral in itself, but it was controversial enough to cause division among the church members. If this was indeed the issue that Paul addressed, it is only one of many similar "doubtful things."Advocates of this view believe that the apostle's directions to his readers here give us guidance in dealing with contemporary doubtful (amoral) matters.
Other interpreters believe that eating food sacrificed to idols involved a specific form of idolatry and was, therefore, not amoral but sinful (cf. 5:10-11). They assume that Paul was responding to the Corinthians' objection to his prohibition of this practice that he had written in his former letter to them. This view sees 8:10 and 10:1-22 as expressing the basic problem to which Paul was responding. I believe the text supports this interpretation of the facts better than the former one.
"That going to the temples is the real issue is supported by the fact that the eating of cultic meals was a regular part of worship in antiquity. This is true not only of the nations that surrounded Israel, but of Israel itself. In the Corinth of Paul's time, such meals were still the regular practice both at state festivals and private celebrations of various kinds. There were three parts to these meals: the preparation, the sacrifice proper, and the feast. The meat of the sacrifices apparently was divided into three portions: that burned before the god, that apportioned to the worshipers, and that placed on the table of the god,' which was tended by cultic ministrants but also eaten by the worshipers. The significance of these meals has been much debated, but most likely they involved a combination of religious and social factors. The gods were thought to be present since the meals were held in their honor and sacrifices were made; nonetheless, they were also intensely social occasions for the participants. For the most part the Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had probably attended such meals all their lives; this was the basic restaurant' in antiquity, and every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion.
"The problem, then, is best reconstructed along the following lines. After their conversion--and most likely after the departure of Paul--some of them returned to the practice of attending the cultic meals. In his earlier letter Paul forbade such idolatry'; but they have taken exception to that prohibition and in their letter have made four points:
"(1) They argue that all have knowledge' about idols [i.e., that there are no such things, so participation in these meals is not an issue, cf. vv. 1, 4]. . . .
"(2) They also have knowledge about food, that it is a matter of indifference to God (8:8) . . .
"(3) They seem to have a somewhat magical' view of the sacraments; those who have had Christian baptism and who partake of the Lord's Table are not in any danger of falling (10:1-4).
"(4) Besides, there is considerable question in the minds of many whether Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter. In their minds this has been substantiated by two factors: first, his failure to accept support while with them; and second, his own apparently compromising stance on idol food sold in the marketplace (he abstained when eating with Jews, but ate when eating with Gentiles; cf. 9:19-23)."197
This section and the next (11:17-34) deal with subjects different from meat offered to idols, but Paul did not introduce them with the phrase "now concerning."These were additional subjects about which he wanted to give the Corinthians guidance. He had evidently learned of the Corinthians' need for instruction in these matters either through their letter to him, from the messengers that brought that letter to Paul, or from other sources.
Most of the Corinthians had been following Paul's instructions regarding women's head coverings so he commended them (v. 2), but he could not approve their practice at the Lord's Supper. They needed to make some major changes there. What they were doing cut at the heart of both the gospel and the church. This is the one certain situation in the Corinthian church that Paul addressed in chapters 7-16 that the Corinthians themselves had not asked him about. He wrote that he had heard about it (v. 18).
By way of background, we need to remember that in antiquity meals typically accompanied public worship in the early church, in Judaism, and in the pagan world. The early Christians observed the Lord's Supper as part of such a meal, often called the love feast.
Paul had been dealing with matters related to worship since 8:1. He had forbidden the Corinthians from participating in temple meals but had allowed eating marketplace meat under certain circumstances (8:1-11:1). Then he dealt with two issues involving their own gatherings for worship: head coverings and the Lord's Supper (11:2-34). The issue of spiritual gifts (chs. 12-14) was the third issue involving their own gatherings for worship. This is the most important of the three as evidenced by the amount of text Paul devoted to it and by the issue itself. Paul explained that being "spiritual"at present, for the perfect state has not yet come (13:8-13), means to edify the church in worship.
"More than any other issue, the Corinthians and Paul are at odds over the role of the Spirit. For them Spirit' has been their entrée to life in the realm of sophia(wisdom') and gnosis(knowledge'), with their consequent rejection of the material order, both now (7:1-7) and for the future (15:12), as well as their rejection of the Christian life as modeled by Paul's imitation of Christ (4:15-21). Their experience of tongues as the language(s) of angels had allowed them to assume heavenly existence now (4:8), thought of primarily in terms of nonmaterial existence, rather than ethical-moral life in the present. Thus Paul tries to disabuse them of their singular and overly enthusiastic emphasis on tongues (the point of chaps. 12-14); but in so doing, he tries to retool their understanding of the Spirit so as to bring it into line with the gospel."266
Paul wanted to correct the Corinthians in this section, not just provide more teaching, as he did throughout this epistle. This becomes clear in chapter 14. They were abusing the gift of tongues. The whole section divides into three parts and structurally follows an A-B-A chiastic pattern, as do other parts of this letter (i.e., chs. 1-3; 7:25-40; chs. 8-10). First there is general instruction (ch. 12), then a theological interlude (ch. 13), and finally specific correction (ch. 14).
". . . there is not a single suggestion in Paul's response that they were themselves divided on this issue or that they were politely asking his advice. More likely, the crucial issue is their decided position over against him as to what it means to be pneumatikos(spiritual'). Their view apparently not only denied the material/physical side of Christian existence (hence the reason why chap. 15 follows hard on the heels of this section), but had an element of spiritualized (or overrealized) eschatology' as well.
"The key probably lies with 13:1, where tongues is associated with angels. As noted elsewhere (7:1-7; 11:2-16), the Corinthians seem to have considered themselves to be already like the angels, thus truly spiritual,' needing neither sex in the present (7:1-7) nor a body in the future (15:1-58). Speaking angelic dialects by the Spirit was evidence enough for them of their participation in the new spirituality, hence their singular enthusiasm for this gift."267
The Apostle Paul did not introduce the instruction on the resurrection that follows with the formula that identifies it as a response to a specific question from the Corinthians (i.e., peri de). From what he said in this chapter he apparently knew that some in the church had adopted a belief concerning the resurrection that was contrary to apostolic teaching. They believed that there is no resurrection of the dead (cf. vv. 12, 16, 29, 32). Apparently he included this teaching to correct this error and to reaffirm the central importance of the doctrine of the resurrection in the Christian faith.
". . . the letter itself is not finished. Lying behind their view of spirituality is not simply a false view of spiritual gifts, but a false theology of spiritual existence as such. Since their view of spirituality' had also brought them to deny a future resurrection of the body, it is fitting that this matter be taken up next. The result is the grand climax of the letter as a whole, at least in terms of its argument."357
"This chapter has been called the earliest Christian doctrinal essay,' and it is the only part of the letter which deals directly with doctrine."358
Evidently the Corinthians believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but belief in His resurrection did not necessarily involve believing that God would raise all believers in Christ. Christ's resurrection gave hope to believers about the future, but that hope did not necessarily involve the believer's resurrection. This seems to have been the viewpoint of the early Christians until Paul taught them that their bodily resurrection was part of their hope, which he did here. Thus this chapter has great theological value to the church.
". . . apparently soon after Paul's departure from Corinth things took a turn for the worse in this church. A false theology began to gain ground, rooted in a radical pneumatism that denied the value/significance of the body and expressed in a somewhat overrealized,' or spiritualized,' eschatology. Along with this there arose a decided movement against Paul. These two matters climax in this letter in their pneumatic behavior (chaps. 12-14) and their denial of a resurrection of the dead (chap. 15), which included their questioning of his status as pneumatikos([spiritual] 14:36-38) and perhaps their calling him an abortion' or a freak' (15:8). Thus, as elsewhere, Paul sets out not only to correct some bad theology but at the same time to remind them of his right to do so."359
I have chosen to include this section with the others that deal with questions the Corinthians had asked Paul rather than with Paul's concluding comments because it begins "peri de"(7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:12; cf. 8:4). Probably they had asked about the collection Paul was assembling in a letter or through messengers. This is the least confrontational section in this epistle, though we can detect tension here too.402
