What cultural context influenced the behavior condemned in 1 Corinthians 5:1? Urban, Economic, and Spiritual Climate of First-Century Corinth Re-founded by Julius Caesar in 44 BC, Corinth sat astride the Isthmus, controlling two harbors—Lechaion (west) and Cenchreae (east). Archaeology (e.g., the Peirene Fountain inscription IG IV² 2.165) shows a population swollen with Roman freedmen, Greek artisans, sailors, traveling traders, and a sizeable transient under-class. Such diversity fostered moral pluralism; civic life mixed Roman pragmatism, Greek philosophic relativism, and Near-Eastern mystery cults. Strabo (Geog. 8.6.20) already called Corinth “wealthy and licentious,” a reputation undiminished by the first century. Greco-Roman Sexual Mores Classical writers routinely treat extra-marital relations as socially tolerable if they avoided another free citizen’s wife. Demosthenes (Orat. 59.122) states, “We keep mistresses for pleasure, concubines for daily care, and wives for legitimate heirs.” While Greek law stigmatized a son cohabiting with his step-mother, Roman custom was slower to prosecute. The Lex Iulia de Adulteriis (AD 17) forbade adultery but did not specifically address a widowed step-mother until later imperial rescripts (cf. Ulpian, Digest 38.11.1.3). Thus certain elite circles judged the offense “odd” yet not necessarily illegal. Patria Potestas and Roman Household Structure Under patria potestas a father could permit or forbid household relationships. If the father was dead, inheritance disputes often turned a blind eye to subsequent liaisons—as long as property remained within the gens. First-century jurist Gaius (Inst. 1.64) notes step-relations were excluded from strict incest taboos (incestum) applicable to blood kin. Hence a wealthy Corinthian convert might claim cultural liberty to “have his father’s wife” (1 Corinthians 5:1) without civil penalty. Jewish Ethical Baseline Known to Paul By contrast, Torah explicitly forbade the act: “A man is not to marry his father’s wife; he must not dishonor his father’s bed” (Deuteronomy 22:30, cf. Leviticus 18:8). First-century Diaspora synagogues in Corinth (Acts 18:4) would instantly recognize the breach. Philo (Spec. 2.50) brands such unions “pollution unfit for hearing.” The Septuagint uses the term porneia, precisely the noun Paul employs. The Corinthian church, steeped partly in synagogue teaching (Crispus, Sosthenes, Acts 18:8, 17), could not plead ignorance. Temple Prostitution and Religious Syncretism Corinth’s Acrocorinth housed a venerable temple to Aphrodite. Strabo (Geog. 8.6.20) notoriously recounts 1,000 hierodouloi (“temple slaves”) who “made the city wealthy.” Although modern scholarship debates the exact figure, recent excavations (e.g., the Kenchreai Archaeological Project, 2014 report) confirm votive plaques depicting ritual intercourse. Sexual activity, therefore, possessed cultic sanction, blurring moral boundaries for recent converts. Patron-Client Pressures and Social Boasting The church met in the homes of affluent patrons such as Gaius or Erastus (Romans 16:23; see the Erastus inscription, CIL I² 2667 near the theater). To preserve clientele status, patrons often flaunted libertine behavior at banquets. Paul’s remark that the sin was “of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate” (1 Corinthians 5:1) suggests the congregation had elevated social loyalty above holiness, perhaps boasting of their “freedom” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12). Stoic and Cynic Philosophic Undercurrents Stoic teachers like Musonius Rufus condemned adultery yet prized autarkeia (self-sufficiency). Some Corinthians misread Christian liberty through that lens—“All things are lawful” (1 Corinthians 6:12). Cynics mocked conventional mores; Diogenes Laertius (6.71) records them advocating sexual acts “in public like animals.” Intellectual fashion thus eroded traditional restraints. Specific Offense in 1 Corinthians 5:1 The Greek echō is present tense—“a man is having”—signaling an ongoing union, not a lapse. The woman is never called “mother,” only “father’s wife,” implying she was the father’s second spouse, still living or recently deceased. Public knowledge (“actually reported,” holōs akouetai) indicates unrepentant defiance. Why the Church Failed to Act 1. Misapplied grace: They were “inflated with pride” (5:2), perhaps celebrating tolerance as a badge of spirituality. 2. Fear of social fallout: Discipline of a wealthy member risked economic support. 3. The lure of syncretism: Pagan cults linked sexuality with divine favor; excising the offender might appear irreligious to outsiders. Paul’s Apostolic Corrective Paul cites Deuteronomy’s phrase “Remove the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 17:7; echoed in 1 Corinthians 5:13) to re-assert covenant boundaries now applied to the ekklēsia. Delivering the man to “Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (5:5) employs juridical vocabulary paralleling Qumran’s ban formula (1QS 5.13). The goal remains redemptive—“that his spirit may be saved.” Summary The Corinthian offense arose where Roman legal loopholes, Greek philosophical libertinism, cultic eroticism, and patronal pressures converged. Against this backdrop Paul re-establishes the unchanging moral order revealed in Torah, affirmed by Christ (Matthew 5:17-19), and empowered by the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). The episode illustrates the perpetual tension between cultural accommodation and holiness, a warning as urgent for modern assemblies as for first-century Corinth. |
    |