Did St. Paul Fail with the Corinthians?

The New Testament contains two letters from St. Paul (d. 65) to the Corinthians. They deal with a lot of separate issues, but they also engage with an overlapping problem of religious authority.

One of the oldest non-scriptural pieces of Christian writing is an Epistle to the Corinthians written by St. Clement, the bishop of Rome (88–99). This letter almost exclusively deals with the single problem of religious authority.

The existence of Clement’s letter raises a question. Did Paul fail to properly resolve the Corinthian problem of religious authority, so that it flared up again and had to be ultimately resolved by Clement?

1. The Corinthian Context

Corinth was a bustling Greek port, at the heart of an important Mediterranean trading route. It was a contrast of mercantile wealth and the grinding poverty of transient workers.

Its population was extremely diverse, consisting of native Greeks, Roman military families and a significant Jewish community.

St. Paul arrived in Corinth around the year 50, and he then spent 18 months preaching. As was his custom, he preached firstly to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (Acts 18:1–6). His mission bore fruit, but the eclectic nature of the population meant that his converts had very different religious sensibilities and expectations.

Within a couple of years of Paul’s departure, serious differences emerged. So, around the year 53 Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. He probably had to follow up with a further “painful” letter or visit (2 Corinthians 2:1). Even so, problems still persisted and so sometime between the years 55 and 57 he wrote 2 Corinthians.

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was written (probably) sometime between 70 and 99. As such, its composition is around 20–40 years after Paul’s ministry.

2. What Was the Problem?

St. Paul’s letters show that there were a lot of issues troubling the Corinthians. In his first letter he deals with religious authority (Chs. 1–4), legal issues (Ch. 6), marital and sexual issues (Ch. 7), food and ministry issues (Chs. 8–10), liturgical problems (Chs. 11–14) and a doctrinal question about the Resurrection (Ch. 15).

In his second letter, Paul deals with various communication issues (Chs. 1–7) and issues of fundraising (Chs. 8–9). But the main thrust of the letter is still the problem of religious authority (Chs. 10–13). If anything, the problem seems to have worsened since Paul’s first letter, as Paul now finds himself having to justify his own credentials as an apostle.

Clement’s letter deals with a specific issue of religious authority, which has manifested itself through a rebellion against the community’s religious leaders. He writes:

It is disgraceful…and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. (1 Clement, chapter 47)

3. Factionalism

At the heart of the problems in Corinth is the existence of “factions.” Paul says:

It has been reported to me…that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:11–12)

Writing to the Corinthians several decades later, Clement references this very passage:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you…concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. (1 Clement, chapter 47)

The problem of factionalism is the all too human tendency to “differentiate” ourselves into “parties,” and to then use those differences against each other.

Differentiating, when it is done with charity, can be very helpful. It can be a prompt to work in nurturing small teams, or it can be a stimulating impetus to healthy competition. We can see its beneficial results in the annals of religious orders which were differentiated by varying charisms.

But differentiating can degenerate into a negative factionalism which sets people against each other. It can become the divisive tribalism which champions one individual at the cost of another. “I’m for Cephas” can all too rapidly become “down with Apollos.”

4. Judgementalism

At the heart of a negative factionalism is a judgementalism which seeks to justify the choice of a particular faction, by insisting that it is better than another. “I’m for Apollos” becomes “there is something wrong with Paul therefore I am for Apollos.”

This kind of judgementalism inevitably leads to conflict, as people understandably want to challenge the accuracy and fairness of the judgements. We can see this in our own day as people argue, and come into conflict, over whether they are for or against this pope, or that council.

Amongst the Corinthians, the cry that “I’m for Apollos” all too quickly became the accusation that Paul isn’t a real disciple. So, a key focus of 2 Corinthians is Paul’s attempt to defend his religious authority against that charge.

5. Stop Making Judgements

Paul offers a range of responses to the accusations against himself.

He suggests that people need to be cautious in judging others. After all, we cannot even be entirely confident of our own conscience’s judgements about ourselves (1 Corinthians 4:4). Only God’s judgements are infallible. So, people should be cautious before making judgements about others.

However pertinent this insight might be, it cannot resolve issues of religious authority. Christians do need to make judgements about each other. We can see this in 1 Corinthians itself, as Paul urges the community to judge, and expel, a sexual wrongdoer (1 Corinthians 5:3).

6. A Bush Is Known by Its Fruits

When Paul is pressed to justify his credentials, he suggests that the community is his “letter of recommendation” (2 Corinthians 3:2). Their holiness is the proof of the rightness of his ministry which has caused it, and so it demonstrates his religious authority as a leader.

This is essentially Jesus’ recommendation of judging a bush by its fruits (Matthew 7:16). There are contexts where this will work well, but it is problematic when it comes to questions of religious authority.

This is because it can take time to see fruits, and people may even disagree over how fruitful a ministry has been. Heresies can also give an initial impression of being more fruitful, because it can take time for their problems to emerge. This is one of the reasons why the Gnostic heresy spread so quickly in the second and third centuries.

So, Paul’s appeal to the holiness of the Corinthians is not necessarily an effective way of definitively resolving issues about his religious authority.

7. Personal Characteristics

Another approach suggested by Paul is an appeal to the personal characteristics of the individual who claims religious authority. Thus, he cites his mystical experiences to show that he has access to the “true” Christian knowledge, so he is just as good as the “super-apostles” whom the Corinthians are comparing him to (2 Corinthians 11:5).

Unfortunately, mystical factors are “private” experiences, so they cannot resolve a public dispute about religious authority. Others can claim their own private religious experiences and there is no way to adjudicate between people’s claims because the evidence is “private.”

The inability of private experiences to prove a public ministry is one of the arguments used against the second-century Montanists, who were appealing to their “private” experiences to justify their religious authority to assert heresy. (For further details see “Magisterium: Blessing or Curse?”)

So Paul’s claims about his mystical experiences are not an effective way of proving his religious authority.

Overall, Paul’s letters to the Corinthians do not seem to have a clear and definitive “public” criterion which can resolve a public dispute about religious authority.

8. Apostolic Commissioning

Clement’s approach to the rebellion at Corinth is very different. He doesn’t appeal to “private” personal characteristics or to the fruits of leaders’ ministry. Instead, he appeals to a public model of commissioning.

He writes:

Christ…was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments…were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders…[the apostles] went forth…[and] they appointed the first fruits [of their labours]…to be bishops and deacons. (1 Clement, chapter 42)

And:

Our apostles also knew…that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason…, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. (1 Clement, chapter 44)

In Clement’s view, leaders with religious authority are evident in a community because they have been publicly commissioned by Apostles, or by their (commissioned) successors.

This provides a simple and clear criterion to clarify who has religious authority. It also explains the unacceptability of rebelling against authority, as a rebellion is a judgement and rejection of God’s providence which has established the publicly visible chains of leadership.

9. Why Was Paul’s Answer Incomplete?

Clement’s answer draws upon a theme we can see in the Acts of the Apostles. Apostles are “commissioned” to tasks, by a public laying on of hands, and this can even be seen happening to Paul himself (Acts 13:1–3).

So why doesn’t Paul talk of a public commissioning to solve the problem of religious authority?

Paul does in fact refer to himself as commissioned, but it is a commission which has come directly from God. This turns the idea of a public commissioning into a private one (2 Corinthians 2:17). In his letter to the Galatians he even emphasizes that he received the Revelation of Jesus privately from God, and not from other apostles (Galatians 1:11).

This gives a strange contrast between an apparently fiercely independent Paul in the Epistles, and the Paul of the Acts of the Apostles who is commissioned through a laying on of hands.

Scholars have argued over these differences. Some claim that the Acts of the Apostles is a falsified idealistic account of the early Church, whereas Paul’s letters show us the messy reality of what really happened.

But there is an alternative explanation when we bear in mind that Paul was writing in a polemical situation where opponents dictated the issues which he was dealing with. We can see in 1 Corinthians that he was being compared less favorably to apostles like Cephas, who had known Jesus. In that context, Paul couldn’t cite a public commissioning of himself by other apostles, without reinforcing his enemies view that his ministry was lesser than that of the “real” apostles, like Cephas.

So, Paul’s arguments about religious authority, in his Corinthian letters, may well be suffering from a specific ad hominem problem, which makes it practically impossible for him to give the kind of clear and simple answer which Clement’s letter is able to give.

10. Conclusion: Was Paul a Failure?

The two letters to the Corinthians do not provide public criteria to resolve a dispute about religious authority. But that doesn’t mean that Paul was unsuccessful in solving the problem. We have no idea what else he may have written, or what he said orally to the Corinthians. So there is not enough information to warrant a claim that he failed to solve the Corinthian problem of religious authority.

The issue of religious authority which Clement is dealing with, may also be raised by entirely different Corinthians who had no direct memory of Paul’s ministry. So we cannot draw conclusions about Clement solving an issue which Paul was unable to solve.

However, a comparison of Paul and Clement is still instructive. It should remind us that Scripture cannot be cherry-picked, as if the writings of Paul alone will provide an answer to problems. Sometimes Paul’s expression is shaped by his context. So, Scripture needs to be read as a holistic whole, and even then, Clement is effectively appealing to a tradition which focuses its interpretation and significance.

What are modern Christians to make of all this? Perhaps at the very least there is an opportunity for reflection about divisions and factions. Perhaps Christians can ponder their contributions to their communities with the question of whether they are building community, or undermining it with the destructive type of factionalizing which we can see in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.