Paul’s Relationship with the Corinthians

Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians developed through a series of letters and visits marked by factional rivalry, disputes over his authority, and suspicions surrounding his collection for Jerusalem. A critical reading of Acts and a reconstruction of five letters within canonical 2 Corinthians trace this relationship from Paul’s initial activity in Corinth through conflict and eventual reconciliation.

See also Paul and the Corinthians: Reconstructing the Relationship and the Letters (Eerdmans, 2026).

By Paul B. Duff
Professor Emeritus
The George Washington University
Department of World Religions
September 2026

Of the various communities that Paul set up, the one in Corinth stands out. This is because we know more about the relationship between Paul and the Corinthian Jesus followers than we do about his relationship with any other group. Although the New Testament contains only two letters to the Corinthians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, a close examination of those canonical letters reveals that many more than two letters passed between Paul and the Corinthians. This, in turn, suggests that the relationship was more complicated than one might initially think.

The Sources

We have two sources that provide information about the apostle and his relationship with the Corinthians: The Acts of the Apostles—written by the third evangelist (AKA Luke)—and the letters written to the Corinthians by Paul himself. Unfortunately, each of these sources has limitations.

Acts as a Source

Acts was written over a generation after Paul’s death, and it was often shaped by Luke’s theological concerns. Consequently, although Acts contains some valuable historical data, its narratives must be tested. Below, we will break up Acts’ narration of Paul’s arrival in Corinth (Acts 18:2–6) into two parts and examine each part for historical reliability. In the first part, Acts 18:1–3 claims:

18:2[In Corinth Paul] found a Jew named Aquila from Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3and, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them, and they worked together—by trade they were tentmakers.

There are three significant claims to be tested here.

1. Paul found and stayed with Aquila and Priscilla (18:2): Since we know from Rom 16:3 that Paul knew Aquila and Priscilla, this claim is likely accurate.
2. Aquila and Priscilla came to Corinth because Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome (18:2): This is an important data point because, if true, it provides important information about the date of Paul’s entry. Unfortunately, Acts’ statement is only partially accurate because, although Claudius exiled Jews from Rome in 49 CE, he did not expel them all. Perhaps Luke’s source was inaccurate. Regardless, Claudius most likely exiled only those Jews who were stirring up trouble in the city, probably Jesus-following Jews who skirmished with non-Jesus-following Jews over the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Aquila and Priscilla must have been among the troublemakers who were exiled (Lampe 2003, 11–16).
3. Paul was a tentmaker (18:3): There are a couple of reasons to accept this claim as historically accurate. First, since 1 Cor 4:12 discloses that Paul worked with his hands, the claim that he was a tentmaker seems reasonable. Second, although Luke depicts Paul as a sophisticated member of Greco-Roman society, any artisan, including a person who made tents, would be on the low end of the socio-economic scale. In short, Paul, a mere tentmaker, goes against Luke’s overall portrait of a sophisticate who rubbed shoulders with the elites of the Empire. Consequently, the claim that Paul was a tentmaker is almost certainly genuine.

The latter half of the narrative about Paul’s entry states:

4Every Sabbath [Paul] would argue in the synagogue and would try to convince Jews and Greeks. 5When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus. 6When they opposed and reviled him, in protest he shook the dust from his clothes and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the gentiles.”

This second part of the narrative (Acts 18:4–6) almost certainly comes from Luke. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion, but several stand out.

1. We know that Paul had considered himself an apostle to the gentiles prior to his arrival in Corinth (cf. Gal 2:1–9, esp. 2:7). This was not a decision that he made in that city (cf. 18:6);
2. Paul’s letters give no indication of any Jewish antagonism toward Jesus followers in Corinth (cf. 18:6);
3. A similar scene of Paul preaching in a synagogue and meeting strong Jewish resistance is inconsistent with Paul’s self-declared mission as apostle to the gentiles (e.g., Rom 1:5; Gal 2:7); and
4. Paul’s preaching in a synagogue followed by strong Jewish hostility (cf. 18:4–6) is a Lukan literary trope (Duff, 60–61). We find it in various narratives in Acts when Paul preached to Jews in:
   1. Damascus (9:19–24),
   2. Pisidian Antioch (13:14–47),
   3. Iconium (14:1–2),
   4. Thessalonica (17:1–5),
   5. Beroea (17:10–13),
   6. Corinth, and
   7. Ephesus (19:8–9).

Consequently, it seems clear that the latter part of Acts’ entry narrative (Acts 18:4–6) reflects not Paul’s action but Luke’s creativity.

From this quick exercise, we can see that, although Acts provides valuable information, its narratives cannot simply be taken at face value. They must first be tested for historical veracity.

1 and 2 Corinthians as Sources

Although the Acts narratives must always be tested, the information that we derive from Paul’s letters can usually be trusted as it stands. This is certainly the case with 1 Corinthians. Unfortunately, information appearing in 2 Corinthians is sometimes problematic because a later editor joined various independent letters together. This resulted in what we now know as 2 Corinthians.

Scholars have long attempted to reconstruct the letters contained within 2 Corinthians. Although some continue to insist that 2 Corinthians originally existed as it now stands in the New Testament, most see it as containing more than one letter. The latter group usually takes one of two positions:

1. 2 Corinthians contains two letters sent at different times, 2 Cor 1–9 and 2 Cor 10–13 (e.g., Furnish 1984, 35–41), although the order in which they were sent is sometimes disputed, or
2. 2 Corinthians contains five letters (e.g., Betz 1985, 141–44). This is my position (Duff 2026, 2–11). I believe that the various letters were written chronologically as follows:
   1. 2 Cor 9;
   2. 2 Cor 8;
   3. 2 Cor 2:14–7:4;
   4. 2 Cor 10–13; and
   5. 2 Cor 1:1–2:14; 7:5–16.

A correct separation of the five letters contained within canonical 2 Corinthians and the order in which they were sent, combined with information from 1 Corinthians and the tested material from Acts, enables us to discover the relatively long and somewhat complex relationship between Paul and the Corinthians.

A Historical Narrative of Paul’s Interactions with the Corinthians

We will begin with the authentic information about Paul’s entry into Corinth as narrated by Acts, information that we have already tested. From that source we know that Paul initially visited the city shortly after 49 CE and that he stayed and worked with Aquila and Prisca, Jesus-following Jews who were, like himself, tentmakers (Acts 18:1–3). Paul stayed in Corinth for a significant length of time. Acts tells us later that he stayed in Corinth a year and a half (18:11). That time period seems reasonable but is likely not precise. Regardless, it appears evident that Paul remained in Corinth somewhat longer than a year. While there, Paul converted several household assemblies (cf. 1 Cor 16:17; Acts 18:8). He eventually left and traveled to Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8; Acts 18:19; 19:1).

Sometime later, another missionary, Apollos, arrived in Corinth. Paul provides little specific information about Apollos and his visit but Acts indicates—probably correctly—that Apollos was a powerful speaker and, like Paul, was well-versed in the scriptures (Acts 18:24–28). Furthermore, like Paul, Apollos was evidently committed to preaching to non-Jews. He was also successful in making converts in Corinth. We can safely assume that he founded at least one household assembly, and possibly more in the city.

From 1 Corinthians, we learn that after Apollos left, rivalry arose between those who had been converted by Apollos and those converted by Paul. Apollos’s followers seem to have boasted about his eloquence and wisdom and contrasted that to Paul’s poor speaking ability and the lack of the kind of wisdom presented by Apollos (1 Cor 1:20–25; 2:6–13; cf. 2 Cor 10:10; 11:6). Conflicts between the household assemblies associated with Paul and those associated with Apollos flared up when they all came together for the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34).

Because Paul was informed that the Lord’s Supper had become contentious and disorderly (cf. 1 Cor 1:11; 11:18), he wrote 1 Corinthians to address the factionalism among the Corinthian assemblies. His strategy was not to favor one group over the other but rather to promote cooperation and love within the larger assembly. In Paul’s own words, both he and Apollos were mere “[s]ervants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (1 Cor 3:5–7). In 1 Corinthians, Paul also answered questions, at least some of which were included in a letter that the Corinthians had previously written to Paul (1 Cor 7:1).

While some assemblies likely took Paul’s advice to heart, others—perhaps one or more of Apollos’s assemblies—felt no obligation to pay attention to it. They may have been incensed that Paul not only lectured them on their behavior but even spoke to them as if he was their founder: “in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15). His command to imitate him in a couple of places in the letter (4:16; 11:1) must have also irritated them. They could understand imitating Apollos, their founder, but saw no reason to imitate Paul. Ultimately, it seems very unlikely that 1 Corinthians achieved the unity that Paul had hoped for. Indeed, it probably further divided the assemblies from one another (cf. Mitchell 1991, 302–3).

Another issue that appears in 1 Corinthians that may have added to the fragmentation of the Jesus movement in Corinth concerned a collection for the impoverished Jerusalem assembly (1 Cor 16:1–4). According to Gal 2:10, the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly (Peter, James—Jesus’ brother—and John) had approved Paul’s message to the gentiles, but they nevertheless “asked … one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.” As we will see, Paul’s collection for the poor in Jerusalem eventually caused a falling-out between Paul and the Corinthians.

This falling-out began with Paul’s instructions for the collection in the final chapter of 1 Corinthians. In the two letters that followed (chapters 9 and 8—in that order), he strongly urged contributions. But in chapter 8, he said something that aroused Corinthian suspicions (Mitchell 2017, 145–56). While in 1 Corinthians 16, he had told them that they would choose their own representatives to travel to Jerusalem with the collection money, in a later letter (chapter 8), he seemed to have cut them out of choosing and sending Corinthian representatives (Mitchell 2017, 153–54). In Paul’s words, “With him we are sending the brother who is praised among all the churches for his work for the gospel, and not only that, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us while we are administering this generous undertaking for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our goodwill” (2 Cor 8:18–19). Note that there is no mention of Corinthian participation.

Consequently, some (probably not those in assemblies founded by Paul) began to suspect that Paul had planned to pocket the money himself. Paul’s poor state of health was tied to this. Some considered Paul’s frail and sickly condition (cf. 2 Cor 10:10) to have resulted from God’s vengeance for his alleged attempt to fleece God’s people in Corinth. They then questioned Paul’s qualifications. Who was he? Where did he come from? He had no letters of recommendation. Did anyone authorize him? Some demanded letters of recommendation to assure them of Paul’s qualifications and honesty.

Paul did not accede to their request. In his next letter (a self-defense found in 2 Cor 2:14–7:4), he insisted that he did not need letters. The proof of the Corinthians’ conversion was all the assurance they needed; the Corinthians themselves constituted his letter (2 Cor 3:3). God, Paul insisted, had made him a minister “of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit” (2 Cor 3:6). Concerning his poor health, he did not deny it. Rather, he embraced it, saying that he was “carrying around—as in a procession—the dying of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10). This was part of the gospel message that he preached.

Those in assemblies established by someone other than Paul (e.g., Apollos) were likely angry that he refused to provide letters of recommendation. It was probably at this point that complaints against Paul by the “one who did wrong” mentioned in 2 Cor 7:12 began to gain significant traction. Meanwhile, Paul apparently assumed that his self-defense (2 Cor 2:14–7:4) had convinced the Corinthians. But his confidence in the efficacy of that defense proved ill-fated.

Paul traveled again to Corinth, no doubt expecting a warm welcome. We know almost nothing about his second visit. All we know is that it did not go well for the apostle. In a later letter, he stated, “I fear that when I come [for the third time] my God may humiliate me again before you” (2 Cor 12:21, my emphasis). Since there is nothing to indicate that Paul was humiliated during his initial visit—and because, in the same letter quoted above, he announced plans to visit a third time (2 Cor 12:14; 13:1)—the “again” in 12:21 must refer to a second visit.

We do not know how Paul was humiliated during this second visit. He claimed elsewhere that someone had said, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10). He does not say when that accusation was leveled. Perhaps here he is quoting something that someone said about him on the second visit. But, regardless of the reason for his humiliation, it seems that he quickly left Corinth.

Paul later claimed that he decided not to return to Corinth (2 Cor 2:1) but instead to send a letter. This letter, he said, was written “out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears” to let the Corinthians know of the “abundant love” that he had for them (2 Cor 2:4). The letter referred to here was a second self-defense, which is now found in 2 Cor 10:1–13:10.

Some important issues that Paul was forced to deal with in this second self-defense were his poor physical condition and his modest oratorical skills, things that he had attempted to address in his earlier self-defense (2:14–7:4). He was also forced to defend the fact that he labored while preaching in Corinth. He had addressed this issue as far back as 1 Corinthians (9:3–18) but apparently it continued to be an issue (2 Cor 11:7, 27). Finally, his honesty was once again called into question (2 Cor 12:16–18).

Apparently, in order to denigrate Paul, some in Corinth—probably led by the “one who did wrong” (7:12)—compared him to certain missionaries—missionaries that Paul sarcastically referred to as “super-apostles” (11:5; 12:11). Paul’s detractors believed that he could never measure up to these “super-apostles.” Thus Paul was placed in an uncomfortable position. He had already been forced to defend himself against suspicions in his first apology (2 Cor 2:14–7:4). Some had complained that Paul had boasted and commended himself throughout that letter (cf. 2 Cor 3:1; 5:12). So how could he assure the Corinthians that he did indeed measure up to the “super-apostles” without seeming to brag again? Anything he said about himself would no doubt be construed as boasting.

Consequently, he decided that he would boast about his credentials while playing the fool. In what is sometimes called the “fool’s speech,” Paul, claiming to be a fool over and over again (2 Cor 11:1, 16–19, 21, 23, 31; 12:1, 11), responded to concerns about his speech (11:6); his manual labor (11:7); his qualifications as an apostle (11:22–23); and his honesty (2 Cor 12:17–18). Furthermore, while again acting the fool, he told of a heavenly journey where he heard things “that no mortal is permitted to repeat” (12:4) and he claimed the ability to perform miracles, an ability that would befit an apostle (12:12). He concluded his second self-defense by voicing his intent to once again visit Corinth and he warned the Corinthians that if he found their behavior inappropriate, he would punish them. Paul’s second self-defense was harsh. Sometimes he was sarcastic; at other times, he was accusatory. Nevertheless, he then sent the letter, carried by Titus, to Corinth.

After sending Titus off with the letter, Paul began to grow anxious. He worried that the letter had been too severe and so he was uneasy about the Corinthian reaction. Because of his apprehension, he traveled north to Troas, presumably from Ephesus, to wait for Titus’s return (when Titus crossed the Hellespont—now the Dardanelles Strait—he would land at Troas). But Paul’s worry continued to grow and, even though he had made an opening among the gentiles in Troas, he decided to cross the Dardanelles himself and travel to Macedonia to find Titus. Finally, “God, who consoles the downcast, consoled us by the arrival of Titus [in Macedonia]” (2 Cor 7:6). From Titus, he learned that the Corinthians had repented.

His last letter, the conciliatory letter, was the olive branch that Paul held out to the Corinthians. In it, he expressed his desire to reconcile with them. Apparently, his conciliatory letter was well received and a resolution to the earlier crisis was finally achieved. He then made his third trip to Corinth. Prior to his arrival, he had already collected the funds that had been gathered from the Macedonians. He then picked up the Corinthian money when he arrived in their city. Paul later tells the Romans, “At present … I am going to Jerusalem in a ministry to the saints, for Macedonia and Achaia [including Corinth] were pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints at Jerusalem” (Rom 15:25–26).

Unfortunately, what happened in Jerusalem is only reported by Acts and we have no assurance of the accuracy of that account (Murphy-O’Connor 1996, 347–48). Some scholars claim that the collection was refused by the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly. Others argue that it was accepted. Still others propose that some compromise was reached that enabled the Jerusalem leaders to gracefully accept the money. A compromise is the claim made in Acts (Acts 21:18–24). Whatever the case, the story of Paul and the Corinthians came to an end when Paul left Corinth for the holy city.

Bibliography

Betz, Hans Dieter. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Duff, Paul B. Paul and the Corinthians: Reconstructing the Relationship and the Letters. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2026.

Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians: Translated with an Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 32A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984.

Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. HUT 28. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991.

Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Emergence of Christian Textuality: Early Christian Literary Culture in Context. Collected Essays, Volume 1. WUNT 393. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.