(3) Occasion and Purpose. The epistle seems to have been occasioned partly by some intelligence received by the Apostle concerning the Corinthian church from the domestics of Chloe, a pious female connected with that church (i :it), and, probably, also from common report (tiKaerat, it is heard,v:1); and partly by an epistle which the Corinthians themselves had addressed to the Apostle, asking advice and instruction on several points Orli ), and which probably was conveyed tc him by Ste phanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicu (xvi :17). Apol los, also, who succeeded the Apostle at Corinth, but who seems to have been with him at the time this epistle was written (xvi :12), may have given him information of the state of things among the Christians in that city. From these sources the Apostle had become acquainted with the painful fact that since he had left Corinth (Acts xviii :18) the church in that place had sunk into a state of great corruption and error. One prime source of this evil state of things, and in itself an evil of no inferior magnitude, was the existence of schisms or party divisions in the church. 'Every one of you,' Paul tells them, `saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ' (i :t2). This has led to the conclusion that four great parties had arisen in the church, which boasted of Paul. Apollos, Peter, and Christ, as their respective heads. The existence in many of the early churches of a strong tendency towards the ingrafting of Judaism upon Christianity is a fact well known to every reader of the New Testa ment; and though the church at Corinth was founded by Paul and afterwards instructed by Apollos, yet it is extremely probable that as in the churches of Galatia so in those of Achaia this tendency may have been strongly manifested, and that a party may have arisen in the church at Corinth opposed to the liberal and spiritual sys tem of Paul, and more inclined to one which aimed at fettering Christianity with the restrictions and outward ritual of the Mosaic dispensation. But that there really were in the Corinthian church sects or parties specifically distinguished from each other by peculiarities of doctrinal sentiment may be seriously questioned. That erroneous doctrines were entertained by individuals in the church, and that a schismatical spirit pervaded it, cannot well he doubted. But these two in all likelihood were not formally connected with each other. Schisms often arise in churches from causes which have little or nothing to do with diversities of doc trinal sentiment among the members: and such probably were the schisms which disturbed the church at Corinth. At least this is to be legitimate ly inferred from the circumstance that the exist ence of these is condemned by the Apostle, with out reference to any doctrinal errors out of which they might arise; whilst, on the other hand, the doctrinal errors condemned by him are denounced without reference to their having led to party strifes. We may therefore take it for granted
that the schisms arose merely from quarrels among the Corinthians as to the comparative excellence of their respective teachers—those who had learned of Paul boasting that he excelled all others, and the converts of Apollos and Peter advancing a similar claim for them, whilst a fourth party haughtily repudiated all subordinate teaching, and pretended that they derived all their religious knowledge from the direct teaching of Christ. The language of the Apostle in the first four chapters, where alone he speaks directly of these schisms, and where he resolves their criminality not into their relation to false doctrine, but into their having their source in a disposition to glory in men, must be regarded as greatly favoring this view. Comp. also 2 Cor, v :16.
Besides the schisms and the erroneous opinions which had invaded the Church at Corinth, the Apostle had learned that many immoral and dis orderly practices were tolerated among them, and were in some cases defended by them. A con nection of a grossly incestuous character had been formed by one of the members, and gloried in uy his brethren (v :1, 2) ; law-suits before heathen judges were instituted by one Christian against another (vi :1) ; licentious indulgence was not so firmly denounced and so carefully avoided as the purity of Christianity required (vi :9-20) ; the pub lic meetings of the brethren were brought into disrepute by the women appearing in them un veiled (xi :3-to), and were disturbed by the con fused and disorderly manner in which the persons possessing spiritual gifts chose to exercise them (xii-xiv); and in fine the dydirai, love feasts, which were designed to be scenes of love and union, became occasions for greater contention through the selfishness of the wealthier mem bers, who, instead of sharing in a common meal with the poorer, brought each his own repast, and partook of it by himself, often to excess, while his needy brother was left to fast (xi :2o-34). The judgment of the Apostle had also been solicited by the Corinthians concerning the comparative advantages of the married and the celibate state (vii :1-4o), as well as, apparently, the duty of Christians in relation to the use for food, of meat which had been offered to idols (viii :1-13). For the correction of these errors, the remedying of these disorders, and the solution of these doubts, this epistle was written by the Apostle.
(4) A Previous Epistle. ll'os there an epistle to the Corinthians before this one? From an expression of the Apostle in chapter v: 9, it has been inferred by many (Dean Farrar among others) that the present was not the first epistle addressed by Paul to the Corinthians, but that it was preceded by one now lost. For this opinion, however, the words in question afford a very unsat ;sfactory basis. They are as follows : ?-yponfra.