The Apostle wrote the letter from Ephesus and the date many conservative scholars

give is 55A.D., though C. K. Barrett suggests early 54 or the end of 53. It will be helpful

to reconstruct the background to the writing of the Corinthian epistles, derived from the

Acts and from the epistles themselves. Some of these points may be debated and there is

no unanimity among Bible scholars here, but we believe the following will not be far

from the true facts.

We have already mentioned Paul's visit to Corinth described in the Acts and referred

to in I Cor. 2: 1. After this visit he wrote them a letter which has not been preserved

(5: 9). We need have no concern that any part of inspired Scripture has been lost. The

Apostle must have written letters which do not form part of Holy Scripture and this is one

of them. Disturbing news came from believers in contact with the Corinthian assembly

and also a communication from them requesting information on certain problems. In

order to meet these needs Paul wrote I Corinthians.  Apparently this did not solve all

the difficulties, and in consequence Paul was forced to pay them a hurried painful visit

(II Cor. 2: 1; 12: 14; 13: 1, 2). Following this the Apostle wrote them a third letter of

very severe character (II Cor. 2: 4). His anxiety for the church there concerning their

condition and also how they would receive this severe epistle was so great that he could

not wait in Troas for Titus, the bearer of the severe letter, but hurried on to Macedonia

where he met him and learned with great relief that the letter had produced the needed

results and all was well. From Macedonia Paul then wrote the canonical II Corinthians

(II Cor. 2: 13; 7: 5-16).  After this he paid his last visit to the Corinthian church

(Acts 20: 1-4).

Some modern scholars hold that the "severe letter" is contained in II Corinthians and

that this epistle is not a unified work. They claim that 6: 14 - 7: 1 is an interpolation,

because it breaks the sequence of thought, that chapter 9: largely duplicates what is in

chapter 8:, and that the last section (10: 1 - 13: 14) is so different in character from the

earlier sections that it must be part or whole of the stern letter Paul sent to Corinth.

Against this there is absolutely no manuscript evidence for such a truncated epistle and a

close study will reveal that, far from being disjointed, it shows a remarkable unity.

It will be good to look at the background of I Corinthians a little more closely.

Apollos undoubtedly worked in Corinth (I Cor. 3: 6) and it is possible that Peter visited

it too.  Owing to their spiritual immaturity this tended to cause the Corinthians to

break down into groups and to range themselves under the name of one of these leaders

(1: 11, 12) thus producing disunity. There were problems and abuses at the Lord's Supper

(11: 18-22), public litigation among members (6: 1-8), a notorious case of immorality

(5: 1-5), arguments about eating food that had been sacrificed to idols (8: 1-13;

10: 14 - 11: 1),  disagreements about the need for marriage (7: 1-40) and of morality

outside marriage (6:. 12-20).  Resurrection was denied by some (15: 12) and Paul's own

apostleship questioned by those who were very likely Judaists (4: 3; 9: 1).  All this

was quite enough to produce an unhealthy spiritual state in the assembly and to cause

great concern to Paul. Some of this bad news had been brought to Paul by the household

of Chloe (1: 11). Additionally a trio, Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived from

the Corinthian church, probably bringing the problems which Paul was asked to answer