•258 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
clothed -with this new spiritual body (1 Co 15^^,
2 Co SIS'- )• 10. St. Paul's attitude to practical questions. —
(a) eldu}\6dvTa.. — One of the problems which faced the Corinthian Christians was the question of their attitude to tlie eating of things sacrificed to idols. Tliis affected their social life very nearlj'. For much of the meat sold in the market had been ottered to idols, and their heathen friends would give banquets in idol-temples, using in the banquet foo<i that had been offered to the idols on domestic and other anniversaries. INIoreover, in the ordinary entertainments given by heathen there was a possi- bilit}^ that some of the food had been so ottered. It might have been supposed that the question would be regarded as settled for St. Paul by the Apostolic Decree (Ac 15). But, whatever be the reason, no allusion at all is made to any decree of the kind. St. Paul deals with the matter on first principles. He enunciates the law of liberty, which must, he saj's, be tempered by the law of love. At first he makes a strong assertion of monotheism. Idols, he saj's, are nothing (1 Co 8'*). But else- where he seems to admit that there is, or may be, the power of a dai/nSviov behind tlie idolatrous worship {10-"; see above, §9 (c)). Whatever that power may be, there is no danger to the Christian in the mere act of eating. But there is a danger for a man who has only recently emancipated himself from idolatrous belief and practice, lest he may be acting against his own conscience if he eats. There is also a danger lest by eating he may offend the conscience of his weaker brethren. And so St. Paul's conclusion is that Christians may eat what is set before them without asking questions, may accept invitations to dine with their heathen neighbours, but may not go and dine in a heathen temple, which would be a mere act of bravado. This is a good illustration of St. Paul's method of dealing with practical problems, and settling them upon fundamental Christian principles. The whole discussion of this question in the Epistle is rendered much more intelligible if we suppose that the op- ponents with whom he had to deal regarded them- selves as irvevfj.aTLKoL. This supjjosition accounts for the protest which he makes against self-styled yvQxTLs, on which men relied, and thus felt them- selves justified in ignoring the scruples of their brethren.
[b) Marriage and the position of women. — St. Paul's teaching upon this question is conditioned by the attitude to women common in the world in which he lived, and also by his expectation of the irapomla. As the time is so short, it is best for people to remain in the external circumstances in which they were when they were converted (1 Co 7i8-20)_ 4s j-Q ^jjg desirability of marriage, he lays stress upon the necessity of the avoidance of any- thing that can distract the Christian from the service of God. In most cases he thinks marriage will constitute a distraction. Therefore for most people celibacy is desirable. But if celibacy con- stitutes a greater distraction than marriage, then Christians should marry. There is no hint of any view of conjugal relations as being in themselves evil. The only consideration present to his mind is as to whether marriage will help or hinder a Cin-istian in the service of God, His view that celibacy from this point of view is the best state is put forward on his own authority.
But for the indissolubility of Christian marriage he claims the authority of Christ Himself (1 Co 7'"-^'). As to this he is quite explicit. A wife must not separate from her husband ; if she do so, she must not marry anotiier ; and a husband must not leave his wife. But where two non-Christians have been married, and one of them is afterwards converted, then, if the unbelieving partner is will-
ing, St. Paul thinks it is best that the marriage should be regarded as binding ; yet he allows divorce, apparently with liberty of re-marriage (7'^). His principle is quite clear. A marriage entered upon by two non-Christians is not a Christian marriage at all, and was never intended to be a i^ermanent bond. It is not fair to the non- Christian partner that it should be regarded as necessarily permanent. Yet, if he is willing, it had better be regarded as a Christian marriage. For that will be better for the children.
His attitude to women is, as has been said, attected by the current view of their position. Women are not to take part in the assemblies, and are not to be teachers. In one passage he speaks as though women occupied an inferior spiritual position to men (1 Co IP). But his language else- where is inconsistent with this. The fact is that St. Paul had not in this matter worked out his own principles, and he is therefore inconsistent. In his discussion of marriage he gives to women a position which is distinctly high The rights of the wife are safeguarded no less than those of the husband.
11. The character of St. Paul as revealed in the two Epistles. — There is no Epistle in which the personal character of St. Paul is so fnlly revealed as in 2 Corinthians. The ' severe letter ' brings before us a man acutely sensitive, att'ectionate, and at the same time determined. He is in a high degree impulsive. He writes a ' severe letter,' and is sorry for having written it (7**). An immense load is lifted from his heart by the news of the repentance of the Corinthians (7®* ''). He is intensely att'ectionate, and yearns for the att'ection of his converts (6'^"^^). He never spares himself. There is no limit to the demands which are made upon him by his converts. It is no attectation on his part to cro^vn the list of the sutt'erings which he has endured for Christ by the words ' anxiety for all the churches' (11-^). We see him as a true pastor, combining great practical wisdom with remarkable emotional intensity. He is a mystic, and he gives us an account of one of his mj-stical experiences (12''" ; there is no reason to doubt that in this passage he is speaking of himself). But he is fully alive to the danger of mysticism. No one could lay more emphatic stress upon the duty of letting religion bear fruit in good works. Indeed he is sometimes self-assertive where self-assertion is needed. He does not hesitate to tell the Cor- inthians to imitate him (1 Co 11'). But every missionary must speak so on occasions. And he was in the presence of teachers who asserted their own authority against his. Above everything else he is possessed with an over-mastering devotion to Christ ; for His sake he is willing to endure everything, even ridicule (2 Co 5'^- ^"'). Thus his correspondence with the Corinthians is of immense importance for the understanding of his character. For we see him dealing with dittlcult practical problems, and we see him when he is most deeply moved by personal slights, and again by personal reconciliation. It is absurd to look to such a man for a systematic doctrinal system. He speaks as he is moved. He makes experiments. He is often tentative. He provides the material on which doctrinal systems may be built. He is not himself their builder.