Perichoresis

Volume 17. Single Author Supplement 2 (2019): 27-40

DOI: 10.2478/perc-2019-0021

THE SOCIAL BACKGROUND OF 1 CORINTHIANS 1-4

CORIN MIHĂILĂ *

Emanuel University

ABSTRACT. The social structure of the Corinthian ecclesia is a reasonable cause for the dissen-
sions that had occurred between her members. The people from the higher social strata of the
church may have sought to advance their honor by desiring to extend their patronage over
those teachers in the church that could help them in that regard. This situation was aided by
the fact that the members of the Christian community have failed to allow the cross to redefine
the new entity to which they now belonged. Rather, they perceived the Christian ecclesia ac-
cording to different social models that were available at that time in the society at large: house-
hold model, collegia model, political ecclesia, and Jewish synagogue. As a result, the apostle Paul,
in the first four chapter of 1 Corinthians, shows how the cross has overturned the social values
inherent in these models. He argues that the Christian ecclesia is a new entity, with a unique
identity, and distinct network of relations, which should separate those inside the Christian
community from those outside.

KEYWORDS: networks, social structure, identity, ecclesia, Corinthians, dissensions, honor,

shame, patronage, client

Introduction
Dissensions in a church can have many causes. Invariably, there is also a
social factor. More specifically, members of a church tend to think of the
church and the relationships therein in terms of the social structures that
they are used to in the larger society. This is also the case with the dissen-
sions in the Corinthian church, an issue addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians
1-4. Timothy Lim has observed that, ‘It is difficult not to recognize that a
sociological interpretation, not to the exclusion of but complementing the
theological exegesis, is also needed, for Paul in this passage [1 Corinthians
2:1-5] employs terminology which traditionally belongs to rhetoric and ap-
pears to be distinguishing himself from the other preachers who were circu-
lating in the Corinthian church’ (Lim 1987: 137).

* CORIN MIHĂILĂ (PhD 2006, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) teaches

New Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutics at Emanuel University of Oradea. Email:
[email protected].

© EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

28 CORIN MIHĂILĂ

Much has been written on ‘the social setting of Pauline Christianity’, to

borrow the title of Gerd Theissen’s foundational and influential book
(Theissen 1982), and therefore, we will seek to paint only in broad strokes
the sociological factors at work in the Corinthian church. In this regard, we
will discuss issues such as the social structure of the city of Corinth and of
the Corinthian church, the social networks extant in the Corinthian society
at large and to which the Corinthian Christians belonged, and Paul’s re-
sponse to the Corinthians’ confusion of the identity of the church with other
networks which led to dissensions.

The Social Structures in Corinth and in the Corinthian Church

Corinth was re-founded as a Roman colony in 44 B.C., after its destruction
in 146 B.C. The new settlers belonged mostly to the liberti (i.e., freedmen)
who were seeking to move upwardly in a culturally heterogeneous society
that offered opportunities for social advancement (Robertson 2001: 88).
Upward mobility in terms of social status was achieved by means such as
wealth, family lineage, and cultural sophistication (Witherington 1995: 22-
24). As such, the members of the nouveau riche sought to increase their hon-
or and esteem in at least two ways (DeSilva 2000: chap. 2). First, they sought
to enter into a patronage/client relationship with those of unequal status,
which involved the offering of beneficia to their clientèle and the receiving of
praise in return from the recipients of such beneficia (Chow 1992: chaps. 2
and 3), and the invitation of sophists to entertain their guests at a meal (i.e.,
symposium) with an encomium or other form of epideictic rhetoric (Withering-
ton 1995: 191-95, 243-47). Second, the upwardly mobile persons also
sought to advance socially by seeking to enter into friendships with equally
status persons, which entailed certain established social expectations such as
gift exchange (Marshall 1987: chaps. 1 and 2). Such a focus on enhancing
one’s status and increasing one’s honor in the Roman Corinth led not only
to competition for status and honor among people, which most often than
not was associated with hubris, (Clarke 1993: 96), but it also led to a clearer
distinction among social classes evident in the conventional social relation-
ships and networks (Theissen 1982: 102).
Such a social stratification seems to characterize the Corinthian church
as well. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Adolf Deissmann has
concluded based on his analysis of the Greek used in the New Testament
that the early Christians belonged to the middle and lower social classes
(Deissmann 1927: 9). Since then, a ‘New Consensus’ (Malherbe 1977: 31)
has formed which defends the idea that the Pauline congregations reflected
a fair cross-section of urban society, including people from a relatively high
social strata (de Vos 1999: 203; Gill 1993: 323-37). At least three pieces of
evidence are set forth to support this assessment. First, it is argued that

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

 The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4 29

most of the people in the Corinthian congregation mentioned by Paul by

name are of ‘high status inconsistency’ (Meeks 1983: 73). Hans Dieter Betz
may be correct to assess that at Corinth ‘the Pauline mission had succeed-
ed—for the first time, it seems—in winning converts from the better edu-
cated and cultured circles’ (Betz 1986: 24). Second, the terminology of 1
Corinthians 1:26 used to describe the Corinthians at the time of their con-
version carry indubitable social connotations and point to the fact that
though the majority of the members were of low status, a few were from
among the elite of society. Third, some of the Corinthian Christians regard-
ed themselves as people who have acquired wealth and status since their
conversion (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:10) (Barclay 1992: 57). That this is the case
is evident from the fact that Paul expects the Corinthians to participate in
the collection for Jerusalem (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2) (Hall 2003: 76, 79),
from the fact that some were involved in litigations against other brothers
(cf. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8)—presumably the rich against poor brothers, since
the poor, on the one hand, had no financial means to take the rich to court,
and on the other hand it was socially improper and disadvantageous for the
poor to do so (Winter 1991: 559-72)—and from the fact that Christians met
for worship in house-churches, which had to be large enough to accommo-
date a congregation of 50 to 100 people (de Vos 1999: 203-5).
Based on these observations, it is argued that the social stratification of
the Corinthian congregation was in part the cause of dissensions in the
church. This is supported by reference, among others, to the conflict at the
Lord’s Supper between the ‘have’ and the ‘have-nots’ (cf. 1 Corinthians 11)
(Theissen 2003: 377-81), to the disagreements between the ‘weak’ and the
‘strong’ concerning the food offered to idols (cf. 1 Corinthians 8-10) (Theis-
sen 1982: 121-43), to the litigations between the rich and the poor (cf. 1
Corinthians 6) (Clarke 1993: 59-71), and to the dissensions of chapters 1-4
allegedly between the local leaders who competed for honor by offering
food and lodging to different teachers who could enhance their status by
entering into a patronage and/or friendship relationships (Theissen 1982:
54-57, 64).
This New Consensus has been recently challenged by Justin J. Meggitt,
particularly in his book Paul, Poverty and Survival, arguing that the Corinthi-
ans were from among the ‘poor’ of the first century (Meggitt 1998: 179).
Thus, he argues against the claim that there were any among the Corinthi-
an Christians who were of the elite of society (Meggitt 1996: 218-23). How-
ever, while his criticism of the claim that Christianity was actually an elite
movement is correct, few have embraced Meggitt’s attempt to revive the
Old Consensus (Martin 2001: 51-64). It is not the place here to rehearse the
arguments and reactions to his claims, but suffice it to say that there is clear
evidence in Paul’s epistles, including 1 Corinthians, to support the claim

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

30 CORIN MIHĂILĂ

that the Corinthian congregation was heterogeneous, numbering among its

members people from all social strata, even though we agree with David
Hall that ‘any estimate of the social composition of the Corinthian church,
or of the city of Corinth as a whole […] is bound to be speculative’ (Hall
2003: 77).
Moreover, it is undeniable that the heterogeneous composition of the
Corinthian congregation inevitably caused tensions in the church. However,
it would be reductionistic to speak of a single ‘fault line’ (i.e., socio-
economic) separating the Christians in Corinth (Martin 1995: 69). C. K.
Robertson is thus right to characterize such an understanding as static,
when in fact ‘there were more factors at work in Corinth than simply eco-
nomic ones’ (Robertson 2001: 23). Thus, there is need of a more dynamic
picture of the conflict in Corinth, which takes into consideration the multi-
ple overlapping networks to which many in the church already belonged.
As such, we concur with Robertson that ‘the interpersonal disputes in Cor-
inth resulted from ‘an even more fundamental problem concerning percep-
tion’ of the church itself, as the Christian ecclesia became seen as one more
relational system among other associations and networks’ (Robertson 2001:
54, 55-57). That this is so is hinted at in Paul’s accusation against the Corin-
thians that kata anthrōpon peripateite (cf. 3:4) and his stress on the unique
identity of the church—en christō. This contrast can be fully grasped only
when we compare the Christian ecclesia with other (secular) networks to
which the Corinthians belonged and with which they presumably confused
the new social entity—ekklēsia tou theou (Judge 1960: 216). Following Wayne
Meeks and C. K. Robertson, we will explore four models which resemble
the Pauline ecclesia in order to determine how belonging to any of these
networks might have shaped the (worldly) thinking of the Christian Corin-
thians in regard to belonging to the Christian ecclesia.

The Household Model

The first model comparable to that of the Christian community is that of the
household. Though the oikos was considered the ‘element from which a polis
is made, so to speak the seed-bed of the politeia’ (Robertson 2001: 58) given
certain rights that women, slaves, and clients enjoyed in the household,
makes the oikos a unique social network. One aspect worth mentioning here
is that of the concept of paterfamilias and the related concept of patria
potestas. We will only mention here that contrary to some who believe that
the father of a household acted like a tyrant, wielding power and discipline
indiscriminately throughout the household, according to recent studies it
has been shown that the father related to his children differently than to the
slaves of his household (Clarke 2000: esp. chap. 5). This will prove to be
crucial in understanding Paul’s use of the language of the oikos in 1 Corin-

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

 The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4 31

thians 1-4 for his purposes. Moreover, the Pauline congregations met in the
‘oikos of X’ (see 1 Corinthians 1:11, 16, 16:15-16; Romans 16:5, 23) (Barclay
1997: 73), which carried with it the danger of confusing the structures of a
household with those of the Christian ecclesia. Meeks explains:

The adaptation of the Christian groups to the household had certain implica-
tions both for the internal structure of the groups and for their relationship to
the larger society. The new group was thus inserted into or superimposed upon
an existing network of relationships, both internal—kinship, clientele, and subor-
dination—and external—ties of friendship and perhaps of occupation. The
house as meeting place afforded some privacy, a degree of intimacy, and stability
of place. However, it also created the potential for the emergence of factions
within the Christian body of a city… The household context also set the stage for
some conflicts in the allocation of power and in the understanding of roles in the
community… there were certain countervailing modes and centers of authority
in the Christian movement that ran contrary to the power of the paterfamilias,
and certain egalitarian beliefs and attitudes that conflicted with the hierarchical
structure (Meeks 1983: 76).

Among the ways in which the Christian ecclesia may have been perceived by
some of the wealthier people as a household network, was as an avenue for
status advancement by means of patron-client ties. It was not unusual for
literary men (e.g., poets, rhetors, etc.) to be the clients of rich people and
some of the Corinthians may have perceived, for instance, Paul’s rejection
of financial support as a declaration of enmity, since his decision would have
hindered their possibility for acquiring more honor (Chow 1992: 68-75;
Stowers 1984: 64-73).

The Collegia Model

The second model that may have influenced the thinking of the Corinthians
is that of the collegia, or of the voluntary associations. Robertson rightly ar-
gues that ‘the association was like a miniature polis in an era when the polis
of old had been swallowed up by the empire’ (Robertson 2001: 66). Mem-
bership in these associations was often based on ethnic connection, rank,
office, and professions. Meeks and others have pointed out that the collegia
were characterized by several elements: (1) they often incorporated persons
who shared a common trade or craft being thus more homogeneous in
terms of status; (2) they engaged in common meals which were graced with
the oratory of guest rhetors and provided the necessary context for socio-
economic advancement; (3) they participated in rituals and cultic activities;
and (4) they were able to function because of the beneficence of wealthier
persons who acted as patrons (Meeks 1983: 78-79; Clarke 2000: esp. chap.
4).

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

32 CORIN MIHĂILĂ

It is not difficult to see from this characterization how the Christian eccle-
sia could have easily been regarded as another collegium (Kloppenborg &
Wilson 1996: 153-60). This can be seen, Robertson has pointed out, in the
conflict between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in 1 Corinthians 8-10 over par-
ticipation at certain banquets (Robertson 2001: 88-89). It can also be in-
ferred from the fact that the Christians belonging to these collegia were used
to a homogeneous, relatively equal status, gatherings, but when joining the
Christian ecclesia some have presumably found difficulty with its heteroge-
neous composition, that is, fellowship with people of lower status. Moreover,
some of the wealthier in the church may have sought to function as patrons
or sponsors of different teachers for the purpose of enhancing their status
and increasing their honor (Malherbe 1977: 88-89).

The Political Ecclesia Model

The third model that may have influenced the Corinthians in their assess-
ment of the Christian church is that of the secular (political) ecclesia. The
ecclesia was the place where citizens assembled together to deliberate the
needs and problems of the city. Robertson observes that, ‘In the politeia itself
or, more specifically, in the secular ecclesia or council, fellow citizens could
(and often did) vie with one another for power and primacy… The same
ecclesia which provided a channel for possible koinōnia between fellow citi-
zens also acted as the battleground for their rivalries, disputes and mutual
enmity’ (Robertson 2001: 64).
L. L. Welborn has analyzed the conflicts in the Corinthians church
through this political model. He has advanced the proposition that Paul’s
attempt to promote concord in the Christian assembly resembles the homo-
noia speeches delivered in the context of a political conflict (Welborn 1987,
86-88, 91-92). Despite the weakness of such background to the disputes in 1
Corinthians 1-4, it appears, as Robertson argues, that ‘several members
brought with them some of the patterns of the secular ecclesia, elevating
Paul and other Christian leaders to something like demagogues’ (Robertson
2001: 86).
This may not be surprising given the fact that, as Clarke points out, ‘It is
apparent that, from earliest times, the widely adopted designation of the
Christian communities was that of ‘church’ (ekklēsia)… This choice of word
may have raised problems for those Christians who, by virtue of their com-
parative wealth and social standing, were ‘naturally’ leaders in the local
community and were expected to adopt similar positions of honor and re-
spect within the Christian ecclesia’ (Clarke 2000: 152). The Corinthians’
complaint about Paul’s apparent lack of eloquence in speech resembles the
importance placed on oratory in the secular ecclesia (Clarke 2000: 153).

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

 The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4 33

The Synagogue Model

The fourth model that could provide some parallel (the most natural paral-
lel) to the Christian ecclesia is that of the Jewish synagōgē. Two things are rel-
evant to our discussion of the social background of the Corinthian disputes.
First, ‘the linkages between Jews in a city like Corinth were grounded in
family or household relationships’ (Robertson 2001: 68). Second, ‘like their
collegial counterparts, synagogues usually were composed of men only, alt-
hough there was far greater diversity in the latter, both in terms of occupa-
tions and social status’ (Robertson 2001: 68). There are thus evidences that
‘Jewish synagogue organization was significantly influenced by surrounding
Graeco-Roman culture, albeit maintaining some distinction’ (Clarke 2001:
167). At any rate, the fact that at first the Christian communities intersected
with the Jewish synagogues as far as organization, points to the fact that,
‘for some of the first believers their long-standing continuity with Jewish
tradition will certainly have suggested to them that elements of synagogue
community life provided an appropriate model to adopt and modify’
(Clarke 2001: 167). Among such aspects could be distinctions among per-
sons of different class, gender, and economics.

The Uniqueness of the Christian Ecclesia

From this survey of the four relational networks extant in parallel to the
Christian ecclesia, it is plausible to claim that there was not only acquaintance
with (in the sense that some of the Corinthians were members of these or-
ganizations), but also varying degrees of influence upon the Corinthian
Christians as they thought about the new network they entered in as a re-
sult of conversion to Christ. The similarities between the Christian ecclesia
and other networks may have been emphasized to the point of creating dis-
sensions among the members of the newly formed social entity. It is for this
reason that Paul felt the need to emphasize the unique identity of those en
christō. Meeks has suggested that the early Christian ecclesia ‘was all the old
things that observers in the first century might have seen in it: a Jewish sect,
a club meeting in a household, an initiatory cult, a school. Yet it was more
than the sum of those things, and different from the mere synthesis of their
contradictory tendencies’ (Meeks 1983: 120). Thus, the fundamental prob-
lem of the dissensions in Corinth was the confusion of the Christians con-
cerning the unique identity of their ecclesia. This unique identity is stressed
by Paul throughout his Corinthian correspondence, including 1 Corinthi-
ans 1-4.
We have already pointed out some of the aspects that distinguished the
Corinthian ecclesia from the various social networks to which some of the
Corinthian Christians belonged, such as heterogeneity vs. homogeneity,
equality vs. hierarchy, and inclusivism vs. exclusivism. In addition to these,

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

34 CORIN MIHĂILĂ

the unique identity of the Christian church can be gleaned from the termi-
nology Paul uses to characterize the ‘insiders’, the church. David Horrell
rightly states that, ‘What seems clear is that the frequent use of adelphoi lan-
guage reflects both an established designation for the members of the Chris-
tian assemblies and Paul’s efforts to ensure that social relationships en
ekklēsia are structured in a manner appropriate to their description as
groups of equal siblings’ (Horrell 2001: 303). This equality is further em-
phasized by other designations of the members of the church such as klētois
hagiois (1 Cor 1:2), without any differentiation of status implied in the terms.
Moreover, the characterization of the leaders of the church as diakonos (and
hypēretas Christou kai oikonomous mystēriōn theou cf. 1 Cor 4:1) has no parallel
in the hierarchical structure of other relational networks (see Clarke 2001:
233-243). That Paul uses the term ekklēsia to refer to the Christian church is
no indication that Paul thought of the Christian assemblies as modeled after
the political assemblies. Rather, its background is most likely the Old Testa-
ment concept of the q ehal yhwh as a sanctified assembly (Meeks 1983: 79).
It is for these reasons that Theissen characterized Paul’s relationship to
his members as ‘love-patriarchalism’, a term that preserves a certain strati-
fied system in the church while distinct from that of the larger society by
love (Theissen 1982: 107). Dale Martin has modified the term to ‘benevo-
lent-patriarchalism’, in order to reflect the reality that Paul

maintained social hierarchy by urging the lower class to submit to those in au-
thority and the higher class to rule benevolently and gently, accommodating its
own demands in order to protect the interests of those lower down the social
scale. Those of higher status might sometimes be encouraged to yield to those of
lower status on a particular point; but within the context of benevolent patriar-
chalism this yielding was not to result in any actual status reversal or confusion.
The upper class must continue to rule from a higher position of benevolent but
firm strength (Martin 1995: 42).

Thus, benevolent patriarchalism ‘was opposed, on the one hand, to the rad-
icalness of democracy, which would dangerously turn the natural status hi-
erarchy upside-down, and, on the other, to tyranny, which would endanger
itself by inflexibility’ (Martin 1995: 43). Paul’s emphasis on the uniqueness
of the Christian ecclesia must have meant more than the imposition of love
or benevolence over the hierarchy characterizing the other relational net-
works. In Paul’s view, it seems, the Christian church is a completely new
entity, with new structures and relationships. In fact, as we will see, Paul’s
concern was that the Corinthians were thinking of the church in terms of
another relational network. For Paul to preserve some of the hierarchical
structures of the other relational networks in the church would render his
argument for the uniqueness of the Christian ecclesia ineffective.

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

 The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4 35

Besides the unique terms that Paul uses to characterize the ‘insiders’, he
also designates the ‘outsiders’ in such a way that a distinction is clearly
drawn between believers and non-believers. According to Meeks, terms
such as apollymenois (1 Cor 1:18), ho kosmos (1 Cor 1:21), etc., are used by
Paul as a ‘language of separation’, distinguishing thus the Christians from
the non-believers (Meeks 1983: 94). Both ideas of ‘belonging’ and ‘separa-
tion’ perhaps can be best seen in the phrase ‘baptized eis christon’, alluded to
in 1 Cor 1:13. Robertson argues that a

‘fence’ for the church was Christian baptism, which distinguished those who
‘were being saved’ from ‘the perishing’ (1:18). At the same time, baptism served
as an ‘entrance gate’ into this Christian community. The key for Paul was that
through this gate, one would enter a new and unique network in which distinc-
tions of gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status were no longer relevant…
The movement of a believer ‘toward a new orientation’ through Christian bap-
tism at the same time meant ‘movement away from an old orientation’ such as
societal distinctions of ethnicity and status (Robertson 2001: 119).

The Cross as Marker of the Identity of the Christian Ecclesia

While all this terminology is used by Paul to clearly differentiate between
the Christian church and the other relational networks, what gives the
Christian church its unique identity is the cross (ho stauros). The cross points
to a new system with new values. Robertson again is right to note that,

The cross—ho stauros—was offered here as the primary identity marker for those
in the Christian ekklēsia… In essence, this ‘digression’ on ho stauros answered the
unspoken query, ‘If Christians were the set-apart ones, from what were they set
apart?’ For Paul, the cross created a new, all-encompassing dichotomy that effec-
tively reconstituted the Corinthians’ relational universe, replacing the more fa-
miliar dichotomies of Jew and Greek (1:22-24), foolish and wise (1:26-27), weak
and strong. Instead of multiple overlapping networks, now there were only two
mutually-exclusive ones: ‘those who are perishing’ (apollymenoi) and ‘those who are
being saved’ (sōzomenoi). The message of the cross was the instrument of ‘second-
order change’, as it were, by which these two networks were distinguished one
from another (Robertson 2001: 136-37).

He continues:

The cross stood, as it were, at the crossroads of their relational world: they con-
tinue to cling to a world and a Weltanschauung that was known and acceptable to
them, or they could embrace the identity of those for whom Christ had died.
The cross, therefore, served as a divider, marking those who looked to the cruci-
fied Christ as ‘the power and wisdom of God’ (1:24) as wholly set-apart from
those whose faith still rested on sophia anthrōpōn (2:5)… The cross was also a uni-
fier for those within the Christian network (Robertson 2001: 138-39).

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

36 CORIN MIHĂILĂ

By using the cross as an identity marker, then, Paul would remind the Co-
rinthians of the re-socializing effect of the cross. As already underscored,
the Corinthians were still marked by the social values of the surrounding
culture, therefore Paul must emphasize again that the church is a ‘commu-
nity whose rules govern all departments of life and he expects the members
to find in it their primary and dominant relationships’ (Barclay 1992: 60).
But how did the Corinthians view their new identity in light of the social
background described above?
John Barclay, in a study on the social contrasts between the Christian as-
semblies in Thessalonica and Corinth, has rightly pointed out that whereas
in Thessalonica the Christians suffered social conflict with the surrounding
society, ‘there are plenty of signs suggesting the social acceptability of the
Corinthian Christians’ (Barclay 1992: 58). Given their apparent lack of un-
derstanding of the impact of the cross and conversion upon their social rela-
tionships, they seemed to have continued to be fully integrated in society,
being in good terms with the wider community. They saw no reason to
break with the values and conventions of the larger society, presumably be-
cause they considered the Christian ecclesia as one among other relational
networks. Thus, according to Robertson, ‘the chief problem facing Paul was
[…] the tendency on the part of many Corinthians to give priority to the
claims and roles of their other, pre-existing networks rather than to those of
the Christian ekklēsia’ (Robertson 2001: 97).
It is not as if Paul denied the Corinthians any contact with the society;
the issue was rather that the Corinthians felt too much at ease and were too
friendly to the larger society to the point of neglecting any boundaries or
identity markers that separated them from the outsiders and united the
insiders (Robertson 2001: 98). Meeks rightly characterizes the Christian
community’s interaction with others in society with the phrase ‘boundaries
with gates’, the gates opening both ways. In other words, the gates were
opened from the church toward the world in that the Corinthians remained
part of the society but were also opened from the world toward the church
through baptism. It is not surprising, then, that a tension existed ‘between
measures needed to promote a strong internal cohesion, including rather
clear boundaries separating it from the larger society, and the intention to
continue normal and generally acceptable interactions with outsiders’
(Meeks 1983: 107).
From Paul’s perspective, then, ‘the Corinthians’ boundaries were overly
permeable or, using Meeks’ terminology, the “gates” were open far too
wide’ (Robertson 2001: 28). The same conclusion is reached by the sociolog-
ical exploration of the situation in Corinth by Timothy Carter as he reacts
to J. H. Neyrey’s conclusions (Neyrey 1986: 129-70). Carter states that ‘[t]he
community in Corinth suffers from porous boundaries’ (Carter 1997: 50).

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

 The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4 37

Both Carter and Neyrey use Mary Douglas’ ‘Grid and Group’ matrix to
compare and contrast Paul’s and the Corinthians’ attitudes regarding the
boundaries of the Christian community (Douglas 1982). According to Doug-
las, the horizontal ‘group’ axis measures the level of participation in a
bounded social unit: low group indicates a high degree of individualism;
high group indicates a high level of participation in a group. The vertical
‘grid’ axis measure the extent to which an individual accepts or rejects the
prevailing symbol system of the surrounding culture: high grid means the
individual shares the public system of classification; low grid means that this
is rejected in favor of a private system of classification (Carter 1997: 46, 70).
Contrary to Neyrey’s conclusions, Carter rightly locates Paul in the ‘high-
group/low-grid’ quadrant, while the Corinthians in the ‘high-grid/low-
group’ quadrant of competitive individualism (Carter 1997: 47-48). In oth-
er words, while Paul proves to be highly involved in the Christian ecclesia
and is determined to subvert the cultural values of the larger society by
means of discourse of the cross, the Corinthians seem less concerned for the
unity of their Christian community and all too ready to continue their com-
fortable integration within the polis. The distinction between Paul and the
Corinthians, then, can be described in terms of ‘two incompatible ways of
perceiving and judging… It is important to note, however, that perception
and judgment always presuppose values (i.e., criteria) in terms of which the
perceptions and judgments are made, and these values are always, to some
extent anyway, socially determined’ (Pickett 1997: 64).
The situation among the Corinthian Christians can then be described as
characterized by presence of conflict within the Christian community and a
relative absence of conflict between that community and its larger social en-
vironment. Paul, on the other hand, sought to bring unity among those be-
longing to the Christian community and separation from the cultural values
of the surrounding society. The contrast between Paul’s stance and the Co-
rinthians’ is aptly described by Robertson: ‘Theirs was a world of multiple
networks… but Paul was calling them to something not of this world’ (Rob-
ertson 2001: 98).
More precisely, what distinguishes Paul’s and the Corinthians’ percep-
tions concerning unity and identity is the degree of the impact of the cross
upon culture and its values. Clearly for Paul, the cross and the cultural val-
ues are at odds, and that is why one may speak of the ‘scandal of the cross’
as characteristic of Paul’s discourse on the cross in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25.
Pickett is thus right to assess that ‘Paul’s argument in 1:18-25 is in substance
a criticism of culture’ (Pickett 1997: 70). Thus, by means of the discourse on
the cross Paul addresses both the surface issue of unity and the more basic
issue of identity—the boundaries of the Christian community. The function

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

38 CORIN MIHĂILĂ

of the cross in Paul’s argument, then, can be seen as both deconstructive

and constructive (Pickett 1997:214).

Conclusion
The investigation of the social background of 1 Corinthians 1-4 has pointed
out some important features that may shed light on the dissensions in the
Corinthian congregation. First, the Corinthian congregation was heteroge-
neous, consisting of people of various socio-economic status, though the
majority were of lower status, at least at the inception of the Corinthian ec-
clesia. Second, the Corinthian Christians were confusing the Christian eccle-
sia with other relational networks to which they concomitantly belonged,
behaving thus according to the cultural values of the larger society. Third,
by means of the discourse on the cross, Paul seeks to complete the Corinthi-
an Christians’ resocialization into the new entity—en christō—by presenting
the cross as the identity marker for the Christian assembly. According to
Paul, the cross, a symbol of weakness and foolishness, has a countercultural
effect, overturning the social values of the polis.

Bibliography
Barclay JMG (1992) Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline
Christianity. JSNT 47: 49-74.
Barclay JMG (1997) The Family as the Bearer of Religion in Judaism and
Early Christianity. In Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social
Reality and Metaphor, ed. H. Moxnes, 66-80. London: Routledge.
Betz HD (1986) The Problem of Rhetoric According to the Apostle Paul. In
L’Apôtre Paul: Personalité, Style et Conceptiòn du Ministère, ed. A. Vanhoye,
16-48. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Carter RF (1997) Big Men in Corinth. JSNT 66: 45-71.
Chow JK (1992) Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth.
Sheffield: JSOT.
Clarke AD (1993) Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical
and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Leiden: Brill.
Clarke AD (2000) Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and
Ministers, First-Century Christians in the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Deissmann A (1927) Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated
by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. L. R. M. Stra-
chan. London, n.p.
DeSilva DA (2000) Honor, Patronage, Kingship & Purity: Unlocking New Testa-
ment Culture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

 The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4 39

De Vos CS (1999) Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the

Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic
Communities. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Douglas M (1982) Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pen-
guin, 3rd edn.
Gill DWJ (1993) In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church.
TynBul 44: 323-37.
Hall DR The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence. London: T&T Clark,
2003.
Hall DR (2001) From adelphoi to oikos Theou: Social Transformation in Paul-
ine Christianity. JBL 120: 293-311.
Judge EA (1960) The Social Identity of the First Christians. JRH 1: 201-17.
Kloppenborg JS and Wilson SG, eds (1996) Voluntary Associations in the Grae-
co-Roman World. London and New York: Routledge.
Malherbe A (1977) Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University Press.
Marshall P (1987) Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with
the Corinthians. Tübingen: Mohr.
Martin DB (1995) The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Martin DB (2001) Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival. JSNT 84:
51-64.
Meeks WA (1983) The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle
Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Meggitt JJ (1998) Paul, Poverty, and Survival. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Neyrey JH (1986) Body Language in 1 Corinthians: The Use of Anthropo-
logical Models for Understanding Paul and his Opponents. Semeia 35:
129-70.
Pickett R (1997) The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of Je-
sus. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Robertson CK (2001) Conflict in Corinth: Redefining the System. New York:
Peter Lang.
Stowers SK (1984) Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The
Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity. NovT 26: 59-82.
Theissen G (1982) The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth by
Gerd Theissen, ed. and trans. John H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Theissen G (2003) Social Conflicts in the Corinthians Community: Further
Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival. JSNT 25: 371-91.
Winter WB (1991) Civil Litigation in secular Corinth and the Church: The
Forensic Background to 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. NTS 37: 559-72.
Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)

40 CORIN MIHĂILĂ

[This article is part of chapter 2 of Corin Mihaila (2009) The Paul-Apollos

Relationship and Paul's Stance toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric. An Exegetical and
Socio-historical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 (LNTS 402). London: T&T Clark
International, pp. 150-173. Used by permission from the publisher]

PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019)