It is clear from even a cursory reading of 1 Corinthians, particularly its overall color and tone, that Paul is greatly disappointed and seriously distressed over the immaturity of the church in Corinth. History provides a few clues as to why this should be so. The book of Acts records that when Paul arrived in Corinth from Athens (ca. AD 50), he met with a couple, Aquila and Priscilla, who had recently moved to Corinth because the emperor Claudius had driven all the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2). In recording his Life of Claudius, the Roman historian Suetonius preserved this bit of intriguing extrabiblical confirmation of earliest Christian history: "He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of the riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus [a common misspelling of "Christ"]." As a piece of background information for the establishing of the church in Corinth, this incidental reference by Suetonius helps further establish a couple of key facts of early church history: (1) By AD 49, Christianity had already become a highly influential movement throughout the Roman empire. (2) As described in the NT, the Jews were openly and physically hostile to the Christians. Indeed, the Jews of Corinth brought Paul himself before Gallio, the Roman proconsul, in order to accuse him - and then beat him after hearing Gallio's disappointing verdict (Acts 18:12-17). Nonetheless, Paul worked diligently to found the church in Corinth, working as a tentmaker, teaching, and preaching for a year and a half in the face of repeated conflicts with the Jews and even his own fears (Acts 18:1-17).
Against this setting, Paul's frustration with the carnal-minded Corinthians is perhaps more understandable. For Paul and many other Christians, genuine faith in Christ was literally a matter of life and death, requiring courage, humility, faith, love, self-sacrifice and separation from the world. Yet despite Paul's best efforts to provide them with the "solid food" of spiritual instruction (v. 2) and a model of Christian behavior, the Corinthians were blending in perfectly with their pagan environment, proudly boasting of their own worldly wisdom, dividing themselves into factions, suing one another in the Roman courts, engaging in the worst forms of sexual immorality, partaking of the communion meal as if it were an all-you-can-eat (and drink) buffet, and exalting the apostles above the risen Christ. Their behavior and Paul's indignant response calls to mind Israel's sensuous idol-worship in the desert, and Moses' denunciation of their sin. In fact, Paul in chapter 10 warns the Corinthians of falling into the very sins of Israel in the wilderness (10:1-13).
Paul's insistence that Christ is the only foundation for a life of faith constituted a serious and radical alternative to the philosophy and lifestyle of a Corinthian culture abounding in idols, pleasures and amusements. Just outside the financially prosperous trade city stood the temple to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, reportedly surrounded by any number of temple prostitutes. This cultural background could help explain some peculiarities of the Corinthian church. For example, it could be argued that the Corinthians' penchant for idolatry translated directly into their elevation of particular church leaders such as Paul, as well as their easy acceptance of sexual immorality. First century cultural and economic factors would also explain Paul's selection of the agricultural and architectural metaphors as familiar rhetorical devices for depicting God's building of the church on the foundation of Christ. Greeks and Romans were especially proud of their architectural achievements. And Paul's reference to fire as an eternal means of testing work was especially suited to a first century Greco-Roman audience attuned to the philosophy of Greek naturalists such as Heraclitus, who believed that of the four basic elements (earth, air, fire and water), fire was primary and universal, the chief element of creation, war, change and judgment. There is good reason to believe the Corinthians were well-versed in Greek culture and philosophy, since Paul counters Epicureanism in chapter 15 (as he did in Acts 17), quoting the dramatist Menander in the process: "Bad company corrupts good morals" (v. 33).
First Corinthians may also be read as part of the larger genre on the Pauline epistles. This is important, as understanding where the literary unit in question fits into its genre aids further in the process of interpretation. We may assume, as an understanding of this genre (and the text itself, in this case) warrants, that Paul was familiar with this particular audience and was addressing issues particular to their situation at the time of the writing. So depending on the historical context, the instruction given in the letters is often as specific and practical as it is universal and theological. For instance, in First Corinthians Paul consistently downplays his own importance as an apostle, in deference to the undisputed centrality of Christ, in responding to a particular problem of personality cults and divisions in the church at that time. But later, as recoded in Second Corinthians, influential parties in the church revolted against Paul's authority altogether and he found himself having to defend his ministry and the importance of his own apostolic leadership. Thus certain of Paul's statements about himself which serve to bring understanding in the first epistle would only serve to cause confusion in the second.
Theological Work
Paul in 1 Corininthians 3:1-15 offers a number of significant contributions to a larger biblical-theological context, beginning with providing a theological solution to the general problem of divisions described repeatedly in First Corinthians. The Corinthians are divided over a singular issue: Who is the greatest of the apostles? Paul in effect peers into the minds of the believers in Corinth and dares to ask the question of himself and Apollos that others within the church had been asking among themselves all along: "Who is Paul? And who is Apollos?" (These mildly sarcastic rhetorical questions develop the same theme begun in chapter 1: "Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?") One can almost see the Corinthians reading this, searching Paul's answers for a subtle defense of his own superiority, or the primacy of his calling, perhaps coupled with a critique of the methods of Apollos. Instead, Paul's answer is that in light of who Jesus Christ is and in light of eternity, the question of who Paul is (or who Apollos or Cephas is) becomes irrelevant. Thus he at once defuses the question, reveals the key to unity, discloses the eternal implications of misplaced faith and places the entire matter in proper perspective. In so doing, he demonstrates genuine spiritual maturity, which he then recommends for the church in various places throughout the letter.
Within the corpus of Pauline literature, this passage contributes to a balanced understanding of apostolic authority, as a necessity for the church, but something given by God's grace on trust rather than on the basis of outstanding human leadership qualities. Paul sees himself as a "wise master builder" involved in a vital enterprise, yet only "according to the grace of God which was given to me" (v. 10). He defines his very calling in terms of grace again in Eph. 3:8: "To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach