Paul and the Churches: From Corinth to Rome
Previously:
The Incarnation in the Prologue of the Gospel of John and Paul’s letters
The communities of the letters may be idealized as to the length of Paul’s reach, like the seven communities of Revelation represents universality, not literal places. For example, considering Corinth as a literary entity the term “to Corinthianize” (Greek: korinthiazomai) was used in some Greek literature to mean living licentiously, suggesting a stereotype of moral laxity associated with the city. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians address specific issues in the church, including: Factionalism (1 Cor 1:10-17); Sexual immorality, including a case of incest (1 Cor 5:1-13); Lawsuits among believers (1 Cor 6:1-11); Misuse of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12-14); Confusion about the resurrection (1 Cor 15); Disorderly worship and social divisions (1 Cor 11). These issues contribute to the perception of Corinth as a morally troubled church in a corrupt city.
Paul uses strong language to correct and exhort the Corinthian believers. Describing their behavior as scandalous (e.g., “such immorality as is not even among pagans,” 1 Cor 5:1) amplifies the urgency of reform, a common technique in ancient moral discourse. By framing Corinth’s issues as particularly egregious, Paul may be employing hyperbole to shame or motivate the church to align with Christian ethics, contrasting their behavior with the ideal of holiness (1 Cor 6:19-20). The portrayal of Corinth as a corrupt backdrop could serve to highlight the transformative power of the Gospel in a challenging environment, a theme Paul emphasizes (1 Cor 6:9-11). Paul’s letters address specific problems reported to him (1 Cor 1:11; 7:1), which may not represent the entire church or city. The focus on scandals like incest or lawsuits could exaggerate the perception of widespread corruption. Other churches Paul wrote to (e.g., Galatians, Thessalonians) also faced issues, but Corinth’s letters are longer and more detailed, possibly giving a skewed impression of unique depravity.
A fictive Paul, portrayed as a well-educated Jew familiar with Greco-Roman culture, may have drawn on Corinth’s existing literary reputation as a decadent city to contextualize his critique. This would resonate with readers familiar with the stereotype, even if the reality was less extreme. The temple of Aphrodite and associated prostitution, while possibly overstated in earlier sources, could have lingered as a cultural trope, which Paul implicitly engages when addressing sexual sin (1 Cor 6:12-20). This all could imply the Corinth communications attributed to Paul are fictive.
The seven-letter group of Marcion’s “genuine” Pauline letter collection among his ten letters may pre-date Marcion, but it may not do so by very much time. Or, they may represent different writer groups in Marcion’s school. As I said in an earlier article, writing in role was an important feature of ancient education, as it is today with “RAFT” writing assignments: RAFT is a versatile writing strategy used in education. It stands for Role, Audience, Format, and Topic, Role: The writer’s perspective or position in the writing; Audience: The intended reader or recipient of the writing; Format: The type of writing (e.g., letter, poem, report); Topic: The subject matter of the writing.
All that is really established is regarding Marcion’s ten-letter collection, seven form a distinct group attributable to one viewpoint or syn-optic, which in no way establishes by how much time this precedes Marcion or if this goes back to a single figure, let alone the historical Paul. By analogy, Q 1 simply groups sayings in the Q source of a similar cynic flavor, which need not go back to a single sage of that school, certainly not necessarily to the historical Jesus. It may just reflect pagan syncretism with the early Jesus movement because the ones we know who talked about selling possessions and adopting the itinerant lifestyle like Jesus were the cynics. Price comments “An overarching unity among the Pauline epistles means only that there is the general conformity of a school of thought, not that of a single authorship. (Price, Robert M.. The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul (p. 50). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.”)
The notion of the Pauline literature emerging in a school of writers like Marcion’s makes sense of the inconsistencies in the “Pauline like” 1 Corinthians seeming to contradict the previous page every time you flip the paper. Ehrman has also noted contradictory accounts of salvation in Paul. Salvation in Romans is understood in different ways throughout Romans.
The backstory for Romans is different because Paul is supposedly writing to a church he did not himself create, so he is trying to be systematic about his message. In Romans, the topic is human beings are alienated from God because of their sinful lives, and the death and resurrection of Jesus can fix the relationship. This is like a RAFT writing prompt that has been given to students who solve it in completely different ways. Paul in Romans has different models for expressing this which appear to contradict each other with completely opposed views to what sin is (human transgressions vs a cosmic power). Romans is important because it simply lays out moral influence salvation beside substitution salvation blending the two major salvation paths in the Jesus tradition as though a Roman church that Paul didn’t create would simply understand this as though it was the most obvious thing in the world.
(A) There is the judicial model in Romans 1-4. God is a law giver. He also judges criminal cases. Everybody breaks God’s laws, so there is a penalty and it’s the death penalty. Everyone sins, so everyone dies. Put differently, you’ve incurred a fine and it must be paid. Jesus pays it for you. Jesus being raised from the dead shows the penalty has been paid because he’s no longer dead. We see this kind of substitutional view in 4 Maccabees. It’s long been debated whether if Christ paid the penalty everyone is saved. For Paul, you have to believe in Christ and accept the payment because if you don’t agree with Christ to pay your fine he can’t. It would be like your mom offering to pay your fine in court but you say no. Salvation comes when you believe and trust Christ’s payment works. This fits in with the ancient notion of sacrifice satisfying a god’s wrath.
(B) There is also a participation model in Romans 5-8. Sin brings about separation from God. Sin in this model is not a transgression but a cosmic power in the universe. It has imprisoned, trapped, and enslaved people: think of Satan entering Judas in the gospels (Luke 22:3, John 13:27), which is where Paul might be getting this model from. It controls people and forces them to do things against God’s will. In these blog posts I’ve tried to show how readers being implicated in the world turning on Christ / Christ’s death breaks the spell of Sin and opens people’s eye to their vileness. Sin is a power that forces you to do wrong even if you want to do right, and the power of Sin hands you over to the power of Death. Being implicated in Jesus’ death solves the problem of alienation from God here with your metanoia/renewal of mind/repentance, but not as a payment as with the judicial model. It’s not that you’re breaking the law, but that you’ve been enslaved, so you have to be liberated. The reader shocked at seeing themselves in the world that brought about Christ’s death interrupts the power of sin/breaks the spell, and the resurrected Christ indwells within you, uniting you with him as buried and raised when baptized, to combat Satan’s temptations. You participate in Christ’s death because when his death convicts you, your fleshly is crucified / circumcising your heart, revealing the Law written on it (Romans 2:14-15). Christ’s resurrection shows he nullified the Power of Death, which is important because the bible says if the dead are not raised we might as well be gluttons and drunks for tomorrow we die (1 Corinthians 15:32; Isaiah 22:13). By contrast, Paul urges “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).” Paul says “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:17).”
Thus in Romans we have 2 models of sin. One is consciously disobeying God, and the other is enslavement to the power of sin, each having different paths to salvation. What seems to have happened here is that we have the school setting noted previously where different students have proposed different models for Christians dealing with the problem of the human condition of alienation from God because of Sin. A teacher/editor then seems to have taken these disparate images of salvation and interweaved them. Since Martin Luther in the 16th century, the judicial model and justification by faith has been the main approach to Paul, the apocalyptic Death and Sin as “powers” participation model not really understood. And there are more in Paul. Another model in Paul is the reconciliation model where God and man are like 2 estranged friends and Jesus acts as mediator. Yet another model is that of a slave, not paying a fine like in the judicial model, but a ransom being paid to release the slave.
Analogously, modern biblical scholarship has proposed that the Gospel of John may have multiple layers of composition, potentially involving different authors or sources, with a final editor (or redactor) integrating them. A Pauline editor could do so here according to the pagan notion of a sophist who tries to argue in sometimes contradictory ways and say whatever they want to win the day (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). If Livesey is right that the letters are inspired by Acts, this all seems to reflect Paul’s teacher Gamaliel with his open-minded, flexible approach to the Law, and in cases of not knowing an answer brainstorming multiple perspective thereby letting God affirm His favorite choice. For instance, his famous advice in Acts 5:34–39, where he urged the Sanhedrin to show caution toward the apostles, reflects a pragmatic and open-ended approach: “If their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men.” This suggests a willingness to consider multiple possibilities without rushing to judgment, a mindset that could align with polysemous thinking. Recall that all Paul really “required” of a convert was “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).”
This fits well with Greek thought, which Gamaliel and Paul are thought to have connection to. Plato with his school/Academy frequently employs vivid imagery and metaphors to explore complex philosophical concepts, including the nature of the mind, soul, and human behavior like Paul does with the competing judicial model and participation model outlined above. Plato’s dialogues often feature characters using multiple, sometimes competing images to describe the same concept, reflecting different perspectives or aspects of a single idea. This technique is particularly evident in dialogues where characters grapple with abstract notions like the soul, knowledge, or justice. This may reflect Plato incorporating ideas from Socrates, himself, and his students into the dialogues. For example, In Theaetetus, Socrates discusses knowledge and the mind using two distinct images, which could be seen as competing ways to understand cognition: The Wax Tablet (191c–e): Socrates compares the mind to a wax tablet where perceptions and thoughts leave impressions. The quality of the wax (clear or muddy) determines how well one retains knowledge. This image emphasizes memory as a passive process of imprinting. The Aviary (197d–e): Later, Socrates likens the mind to an aviary filled with birds, representing pieces of knowledge. Some birds (knowledge) are caught and held, while others fly freely, symbolizing the active process of recalling or grasping knowledge. This contrasts with the wax tablet’s static nature by portraying the mind as dynamic and selective. These images are not explicitly in conflict, but Socrates uses them to highlight different problems: the wax tablet addresses perception and memory, while the aviary tackles the act of recalling knowledge. Theaetetus and Socrates explore these images sequentially, testing each to probe the nature of knowledge.
Some sources suggest that Paul’s teacher Gamaliel encouraged or engaged with Greek literature, which often included philosophical texts. For instance, one source claims that Gamaliel “insisted that his pupils study the Greek poets.” Since Greek poetry was frequently intertwined with philosophical themes in Hellenistic education, this could imply exposure to philosophical ideas. Another source notes that Gamaliel “studied not only Biblical law, but also Greek literature,” setting him apart from more zealous rabbinical colleagues. Paul, Gamaliel’s student, demonstrates familiarity with Greek philosophy in his writings and speeches. In Acts 17:16–34, Paul engages with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens, quoting Greek poets like Aratus and Epimenides and using Stoic concepts (e.g., God as the source of all life, Acts 17:25, echoing Seneca). Paul imports the notion of pneuma-spirit from stoicism, for instance. Paul’s ability to navigate Greek philosophical ideas suggests that his education, likely under Gamaliel, included some exposure to Hellenistic thought. One source explicitly states that “Gamaliel’s School (which Paul was a student of), encouraged the careful study of Greek Philosophy.” So, we might start to take Paul’s competing images for understanding how to overcome sin an reconcile with God in Romans, not literally, but figuratively. For example, Jesus does not literally pay a sin debt, as though the average person’s occasional naughtiness warrants the death penalty. Rather it means universality: salvation is open to all, whether you tell a white lie occasionally or by contrast are a serial murderer.
Next: