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 connec tion of a grossly incestuous character had been formed by one of the members, and gloried in by 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 dis repute by the women appearing in them unveiled (xi. 3-so), and were disturbed by the confused and disorderly manner in which the persons possessing spiritual gifts chose to exercise them (xii.-xiv.) ; and in fine the d-ydrat, which were designed to be scenes of love and union, became occasions for greater contention through the selfishness of the wealthier members, 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. 20-34). 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 Apos tle. It consists of four parts. The first (i.-iv.) is designed to reclaim the Corinthians from schismatic contentions ; the second (v.-vi.) is directed against the immoralities of the Corinthians ; the third (vii.-xiv.) contains replies to the queries addressed to Paul by the Corinthians, and strictures upon the disorders which prevailed in their worship ; and the fourth (xv.-xvi.) contains an elaborate defence or the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, fol in the close of the epistle by some general instructions, intimations, and greetings.
From an expression of the Apostle in ch. v. 9, it has been inferred by many that the present was not the first epistle addressed by Paul to the Co rinthians, but that it was preceded by one now lost. For this opinion, however, the words in question afford a very unsatisfactory basis. They are as follows :—g-ypalka uµiv gv r17 girturoXf), K. r. X. Now these words must be rendered either I have written to you in this epistle,' or 'I wrote to you in that epistle ;' and our choice between these two renderings will depend partly on gram matical and partly on historical grounds. As the nori,t gypag/a may mean either I wrote' or I have written,' nothing can be concluded from it in either way. It may be doubted, however, whe ther, had the Apostle intended to refer to a former epistle, he would have used the article rij simply, without adding irporgpct; whilst, on the other hand, there are cases which clearly skew that had the Apostle intended to refer to the present epistle, it was in accordance with his practice to use the arti cle in the sense of (comp. n g7r6o-roXii Col. iv. 26, ri1v erco-r. I Thess. v. 27). In support of this conclusion it may be added, 1st, that the Apostle had really in this epistle given the prohibi tion to which he refers, viz., in the verses imme diately preceding that under notice ; and that his design in the verses which follow is so to explain that prohibition as to preclude the risk of their supposing that he meant by it anything else than that in the church they should not mingle with immoral persons ; 2d, that it is not a little strange that the Apostle should, only in this cursory and incidental manner, refer to a circumstance so im portant in its bearing upon the case of the Corin thians as his having already addressed them on their sinful practices ; and 3d, that had such an epistle ever existed, it may be supposed that some hint of its existence would have been found in the records of the primitive Church, which is not the case. On these grounds we strongly incline to the opinion that the present is the first epistle which Paul addressed to the Corinthians (Bloomfield, Recensio Synopt. in loc. ; Billroth's Commentary, E. T., vol. i. p. 4, note a; Lange, ilpost. Zeitalt. I. 205).
From 2 Cor. xii. 14, and xiii. 1, comp. with 2 Cor. ii. t, and xiii. 2, it has appeared to many that before the writing of that epistle Paul had twice visited Corinth, and that one of these visits had been after the Church there had fallen into an evil state ; for otherwise his visit could not have been described as one Iv and one during which God had humbled him before them. By
others this second visit to Corinth has been denied. There are difficulties on both sides ; but the balance of probability seems in favour of the affir mative. The words rpirov rdro gpxopat of 2 Cor. xiii. r, naturally convey the idea that the Apostle was then purposing a third visit to Corinth ; and the words rph-ov ropro grollites gxto exeez, are to the same effect. To this it is replied that the latter passage means only, I am a third time prepared to come,' and that, in accordance with this, the former may be rendered, This third time I am purposing to come to you ;' so that it is not of a third visit, but simply of a third pur pose to visit that Paul speaks. But this can hardly be accepted ; for (1) though gpxopat may signify I am coming' in the sense of purposing to come,' the whole phrase rpirov roDro gpx. cannot he rendered this is the third time I have purposed to come to you ;' as De \Vette remarks (ErkItirung in loc.), it is only when the purpose is close on its ac complishment, not of an earlierpurpose, that gpxop at can be so used. (2) The contrast of rpia-ov in xiii. with Scorepov in ver. 2, leads to the conclusion that it is of a third visit, and not of a third purpose to visit, that Paul is writing ; he had told them for merly when he was present with them the second time, and now when absent, in announcing a third visit, he tells them again, etc. Some, it is true, propose to render, as in the A. V., the by as if present, so as to make the Apostle intimate that he had not been oftener than once before at Corinth ; hut it is very doubtful ifcln is ever used to express the supposition of a case which does not exist (r Cor. v. 3 is not a case in point, for there the case supposed actually did exist), and, moreover, as it is connected here as well with as with irapdw, if we translate it as if,' the whole clause will read thus, I tell you beforehand, as if I were present the second time, and were now absent.' etc., which is of course as inadmissible on the ground of sense as the rendering in the A. V. is on critical grounds. (3) In xii. 14. the Apostle inti mates his being ready to go to Corinth in connec tion with his resolution not to be burdensome to the Christians there. Now, as it was not Paul's purpose to visit them that could impose any burden on them, but his actual presence with them, there seems no fitness in such a connection in his telling them of his mere repeated purpose to visit them ; in order to make congruity out of this, we must regard him as saying, was not burdensome to you when with you before, and now I have a third time formed a purpose to visit you ; but when I make out this visit, I will not be burdensome to you any more than at first, though it be a thrice purposed visit.' Surely to find all this in the few words he utters is to attribute to the Apostle a some what improbable breviloquence. On these grounds, the majority of scholars have decided for a double visit of the Apostle to Corinth before the writing of the second epistle. Onthe other hand, such a passage as 2 Cor. f. 15, 16, presents a serious difficulty in the way of such a supposition. There the Apostle speaks of a second benefit as to be anticipated by the Corinthians from his visiting them ; from which it is argued that he could only have been there once before, else would he have used consis tent language, and spoken of a third benefit, and not a second only. Po escape from this difficulty various expedients have been devised, such as tak ing xdput here =_–. Borlifiv (Bleek and Neander, after Chrysost. and Theodoret), and sup posing the term of the Apostle's residence at Co rinth (Acts xviii. -I 1) divided into two parts, in the interval between which he had made a short excursion from Corinth and back again, so that in one sense he had twice before visited that city, and, in another sense, had only once before visited it. But these are violent expedients, too mani festly devised to save a previous hypothesis to be accepted. The only tenable solution seems to be that proposed by Meyer, who takes the aarripa xcipts, in connection with the art?, MaKdovias gX0eiv 7p6s 4as; he determines to visit them first before going to Macedonia, and thereby secure to them a double benefit by going from thence to Macedonia, and returning to them from Macedonia in place of going to the later place first. (See, on the one side of this question, Bleek, Stud. u. Krit. 1830 ; Einleit., p. 393 ; Neander, Apostol. Zeitalt.