ΠΡΟΣΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣΑ Chap. 1:1-3. Address and greeting. 1. It is doubtful whether κλητός is not spurious: see var. readd. The words διὰθελ . θεοῦ point probably to the depreciation of Paul’ s apostolic authority at Corinth. In Galatians 1:1 we have this much more strongly asserted. But they have a reference to Paul himself also: “ ratio auctoritatis ad ecclesias: humilis et prompti animi, penes ipsum Paulum.” Bengel. Chrys., referring it to κλητός , says, ἐπειδὴαὐτῷἔδοξεν , ἐκλήθημεν , οὐκἐπειδὴἄξιοιἦμεν . Hom. i. p. 4. Σωσθένης can hardly be assumed to be identical with the ruler of the synagogue in Acts 18:17: see note there. He must have been some Christian well known to the church at Corinth. Thus Paul associates with himself Silvanus and Timotheus in the Epistles to the Thessalonians; and Timotheus in 2 Cor. Chrysostom attributes it to modesty: μετριάζει , συντάττωνἑαυτῷτὸνἐλάττοναπολλῷ . Some have supposed Sosthenes to be the writer of the Epistle, see Romans 16:22. Possibly he may have been one τῶνΧλόης (ver. 11) by whom the intelligence had been received, and the Apostle may have associated him with himself as approving the appeal to apostolic authority. Perhaps some slight may have been put upon him by the parties at Corinth, and for that reason Paul puts him forward. ὁἀδελφός , as 2 Corinthians 1:1, of Timothy, our brother,— one of οἱἀδελφοί . 2. The remarks of Calvin on τῇἐκκλ . τ . θεοῦ , κ .τ .λ . are admirable: “ Mirum forsan videri queat, cur eam hominum multitudinem vocet Ecclesiam Dei, in qua tot morbi invaluerant, ut Satan illic potius regnum occuparet quam Deus. Certum est autem, eum noluisse blandiri Corinthiis: loquitur enim ex Dei Spiritu, qui adulari non solet. Atqui inter tot inquinamenta qualis amplius eminet Ecclesiæ facies? Respondeo, … utcunque multa vitia obrepissent, et variæ corruptelæ tam doctrinæ quam morum, extitisse tamen adhuc quæ dam veræ Ecclesiæ signa. Locus diligenter observandus, ne requiramus in hoc mundo Ecclesiam omni ruga et macula carentem: aut protinus abdicemus hoc titulo quemvis cœ tum in quo non omnia votis nostris respondeant. Est enim hæ c periculosa tentatio, nullam Ecclesiam putare ubi non appareat perfecta puritas. Nam quicunque hac occupatus fuerit, necesse tandem erit, ut discessione ab omnibus aliis facta, solus sibi sanctus videatur in mundo, aut peculiarem sectam cum paucis hypocritis instituat. Quid ergo causæ habuit Paulus, cur Ecclesiam Corinthi agnosceret? nempe quia Evangelii doctrinam, Baptismum, Cœ nam Domini, quibus symbolis censeri debet Ecclesia, apud eos cernebat.” On τοῦθεοῦ , Chrys. remarks, οὐτοῦδεκαὶτοῦδε , ἀλλὰτοῦθεοῦ ,— and similarly Theophyl., taking the expression as addressed to the Corinthians to remind them of their position as a congregation belonging to God, and not to any head of a party. Perhaps this is too refined, the words ἡἐκκλ . τ . θεοῦ being so usual with St. Paul,— see reff. The harshness of the position of ἡγιασμένοιςἐνχρ . Ἰης . is in favour of its being the original one:— hallowed (i.e. dedicated) to God in (in union with and by means of) Jesus Christ. τῇοὔσῃ — ‘ which exists,’ ‘ is found, at Corinth.’ So ἐνἈντιοχ . κατὰτὴνοὖσανἐκκλησίαν , Acts 13:1. κλητοῖςἁγίοις ] See Romans 1:7, note. σὺνπᾶσινκ .τ .λ .] These words do not belong to the designations just preceding, = ‘ as are all,’ &c., but form part of the address of the Epistle, so that these πάντεςοἱἐπικαλ . are partakers with the Corinthians in it. They form a weighty and precious addition,— made here doubtless to shew the Corinthians, that membership of God’ s Holy Catholic Church consisted not in being planted, or presided over by Paul, Apollos, or Cephas (or their successors), but in calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church of England has adopted from this verse her solemn explanation of the term, in the ‘ prayer for all sorts and conditions of men:’ “ More especially, we pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life.” ἐπικαλ .] not ‘ calling themselves by’ (though in sense equivalent to this, for they who call upon Christ, call themselves by His Name): the phrase ἐπικαλεῖσθαιτὸὄνοματοῦκυρίου was one adopted from the LXX, as in reff.; the adjunct ἡμῶνἸησοῦχρ . defines that Lord (Jehovah) on whom the Christians called, to be Jesus Christ,— and is a direct testimony to the divine worship of Jesus Christ, as universal in the church. The ὄνομαἐπικληθὲνἐφ ʼ ὑμᾶς (James 2:7) is not to the point, the construction being different. ἐνπαντὶτόπ . αὐτ . [τε ] κ . ἡμ .] In every place, both theirs (in their country, wherever that may be) and ours. This connexion is far better than to join αὐτ . [τε ] κ . ἡμ . with κυρίῳ , thereby making the first ἡμῶν superfluous. αὐτῶν refers to the πάντεςοἱἐπικαλ ., ἡμῶν to Paul, and Sosthenes, and those whom he is addressing. Eichhorn fancied τόπος to mean ‘ a place of assembly:’ Hug, ‘ a party’ or ‘ division:’ Beza, al., would limit the persons spoken of to Achaia: others, to Corinth and Ephesus:— but the simple meaning and universal reference are far more agreeable to the spirit of the passage. I may as well once for all premise, that many of the German expositors have been constantly misled in their interpretations by what I believe to be a mistaken view of ver. 12, and the supposed Corinthian parties. See note there. 3. See introductory note to the Epistle to the Romans. Olsh. remarks, that εἰρήνη has peculiar weight here on account of the dissensions in the Corinthian Church. 4-9. Thanksgiving, and expression of hope, on account of the spiritual state of the Corinthian church. There was much in the Corinthian believers for which to be thankful, and on account of which to hope. These things he puts in the foreground, not only to encourage them, but (as Olsh.) to appeal to their better selves, and to bring out the following contrast more plainly. 4. τ . θεῷμου ] so in reff. Rom. Phil. πάντοτε ] expanded in Philippians 1:4 into πάντοτεἐνπάσῃδεήσειμου . The ἡχάριςἡδοθεῖσα = τὰχαρίσματατὰδοθέντα (see below on ver. 7)— a metonymy which has passed so completely into our common parlance, as to be almost lost sight of as such. ‘ Grace’ is properly in God: the gifts of grace in us, given by that grace. ἐν ] not, as Chrys., Theophyl., Œ cum., for διὰ , [nor = by as E. V.,] but as usually in this connexion, in Christ,— i.e. to you as members of Christ. So also below. 5. ἐνπαντί ] general: particularized by ἐνπαντὶλόγῳκ . πάσῃγνώσει , in all teaching and all knowledge. λόγος (obj.), the truth preached. γνῶσις (subj.), the truth apprehended. They were rich in the preaching of the word, had among them able preachers, and rich in the apprehension of the word, were themselves intelligent hearers. See 2 Corinthians 8:7, where to these are added πίστις , σπουδή , and ἀγάπη . 6. τὸμαρτ . τ . χριστοῦ ] the witness concerning Christ delivered by me. καθώς , as indeed, ‘ siquidem.’ ἐβεβ ., was confirmed,— took deep root, among you; i.e. ‘ as was to have been expected, from the impression made among you by my preaching of Christ.’ This confirmation was internal, by faith and permanence in the truth, not external, by miracles. 7. So that ye are behind (others) in no gift of grace;— not, lack no gift of grace, which would be genitive. χάρισμα here has its widest sense, of that which is the effect of χάρις ,— not meaning ‘ spiritual gifts’ in the narrower sense, as in ch. 12:4. This is plain from the whole strain of the passage, which dwells not on outward gifts, but on the inward graces of the Christian life. ἀπεκδεχ .] which is the greatest proof of maturity and richness of the spiritual life; implying the coexistence and co-operation of faith, whereby they believed the promise of Christ,— hope, whereby they looked on to its fulfilment,— and love, whereby that anticipation was lit up with earnest desire;— compare πᾶσιντοῖςἠγαπηκόσιντὴνἐπιφάνειαναὐτοῦ , 2 Timothy 4:8. ἀπεκδ . κ .τ .λ ., is taken by Chrys.,— who understands χαρίσματα of miraculous powers,— as implying that besides them they needed patience to wait till the coming of Christ; and by Calv.,— “ ideo addit expectantes revelationem, quo significat, non talem se affluentiam illis affingere in qua nihil desideretur; sed tantum quæ sufficiet usquedum ad perfectionem perventum fuerit.” But I much prefer taking ἀπεκδεχομένους as parallel with and giving the result of μὴὑστ . κ .τ .λ . 8. ὅς ] viz. θεός , ver. 4, not Ἰησοῦςχριστός , in which case we should have ἐντῇἡμέρᾳαὐτοῦ . The καί besides shews this. ἕωςτέλ . ἀνεγκ .] i.e. εἰςτὸεἶναιὑμᾶςἀνεγκ .;— so ἀπεκατεστάθηὑγιής , Matthew 12:13. To the end, see reff.— i.e. to the συντέλειατ . αἰῶνος ,— not merely ‘ to the end of your lives.’ 9. See ref. 1 Thess.; also Philippians 1:6. The κοιν . τοῦυἱ . αὐτ ., as Meyer well remarks, is the δόξατῶντέκνωντοῦθεοῦ , Romans 8:21; for they will be συγκληρονόμοιτοῦχριστοῦ , and συνδοξασθέντες with Him,— see Romans 8:17, Romans 8:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:14. The mention of κοινωνία may perhaps have been intended to prepare the way, as was before done in ver. 2, for the reproof which is coming. Chrys. remarks respecting vv. 1-9, σὺδὲσκόπειπῶςαὐτοὺςτῷὀνόματιἀεὶτοῦχριστοῦπροσηλοῖ . καὶἀνθρώπουμὲνοὐδενός , οὔτεἀποστόλουοὔτεδιδασκάλου , συνεχῶςδὲαὐτοῦτοῦποθουμένουμέμνηται , καθάπερἀπὸμέθηςτινὸςτοὺςκαρηβαροῦνταςἀπενεγκεῖνπαρασκευάζων . οὐδαμοῦγὰρἐνἑτέρᾳἐπιστολῇοὕτωσυνεχῶςκεῖταιτὸὄνοματοῦχριστοῦ · ἐνταῦθαμέντοιἐνὀλίγοιςστίχοιςπολλάκις , καὶδιὰτούτουσχεδὸντὸπᾶνὑφαίνειπροοίμιον . Hom. ii. p. 10. 10-4:21. Reproof of the party-divisions among them: by occasion of which, the Apostle explains and defends his own method of preaching only Christ to them. 10. δέ introduces the contrast to the thankful assurance just expressed. διὰτ . ὀν ., as διὰτῶνοἰκτιρμῶντοῦθεοῦ , Romans 12:1: “ as the bond of union, and as the most holy name by which they could be adjured.” Stanley. ἵνα (reff.) not only introduces the result of the fulfilment of the exhortation, but includes its import. τὸαὐτὸλέγητε — contrast to λέγειἐγὼμὲν … ἐγὼδὲ … ἐγὼδὲ … ἐγὼδέ of ver. 12,— but further implying the having the same sentiments on the subjects which divided them: see Philippians 2:2. ἦτεδέ ] δέ here implies but rather, as in Thuc. ii. 98, ἀπεγίγνετομὲναὐτῷοὐδὲντοῦστρατοῦ , … προσεγίγνετοδέ . Hartung Partikellehre, i. 171, gives many other examples. καταρτίζω is the exact word for the healing or repairing of the breaches made by the σχίσματα ,— perfectly united. So Herod. v. 28, ἡΜίλητος … ἐπὶδύογενεὰςἀνδρῶννοσήσασαἐςτὰμάλισταστάσει , μέχριοὗμινΠάριοικατήρτισαν . νοΐ (reff.), disposition,— γνώμη (do.), opinion. 11. We cannot fill up τῶνΧλόης , not knowing whether they were sons, or servants, or other members of her family. Nor can we say whether Chloe was (Theophyl., al.) an inhabitant of Corinth, or some Christian woman (Estius) known to the Corinthians elsewhere, or (Michaelis, Meyer) an Ephesian, having friends who had been in Corinth. 12. λέγωδὲτοῦτοὅτι ,— not, ‘ I say this because,’ — but (see reff.) I mean this, that … ἕκαστ . ὑμ . λέγ .] The meaning is clear, but the form of expression not strictly accurate, the ἕκαστος being a different person in each case. Accurately expressed it would run thus, ὅτιπάντεςτοιοῦτότιλέγετε , ἐγώεἰμιΠ ., ἐγὼἈπολ ., ἐγὼΚηφ ., ἐγὼχριστοῦ ,— or as De W., ὅτιπάντεςλ ., ὁμέν , ἐγώεἰμι … ὁδέ , ἐγὼκ .τ .λ .— Respecting the matter of fact to which the verse alludes, I have given references in the Prolegg. § ii. 10, to the principal theories of the German critics, and will only here restate the conclusions which I have there (ib. parr. 5-9) endeavoured to substantiate: (1) that these designations are not used as pointing to actual parties formed and subsisting among the Corinthians, but (2) as representing the spirit with which they contended against one another, being the sayings of individuals, and not of parties : q. d. ‘ You are all in the habit of alleging against one another, some your special attachment to Paul, some to Apollos, some to Cephas, others to no mere human teacher, but barely to Christ, to the exclusion of us his Apostles.’ (3) That these sayings, while they are not to be made the basis of any hypothesis respecting definite parties at Corinth, do nevertheless hint at matters of fact, and are not merely ‘ exempli gratia:’ and (4) that this view of the verse, which was taken by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophylact, Calv., is borne out, and indeed necessitated, by ch. 4:6 (see there). ἐγὼ … Παύλου ] This profession, of being guided especially by the words and acts of Paul, would probably belong to those who were the first fruits of, or directly converted under, his ministry. Such persons would contend for his apostolic authority, and maintain doctrinally his teaching, so far being right; but, as usual with partisans, would magnify into importance practices and sayings of his which were in themselves indifferent, and forget that theirs was a service of perfect freedom under one Master, even Christ. With these he does not deal doctrinally in the Epistle, as there was no need for it: but involves them in the same censure as the rest, and shews them in ch. 2, 3, 4 that he had no such purpose of gaining personal honour among them, but only of building them up in Christ. ἐγὼΑπολλώ ] Apollos (Acts 18:24 ff.) had come to Corinth after the departure of Paul, and being eloquent, might attract some, to whom the bodily presence of Paul seemed weak and his speech contemptible. It would certainly appear that some occasion had been taken by this difference, to set too high a value on external and rhetorical form of putting forth the gospel of Christ. This the Apostle seems to be blaming (in part) in the conclusion of this, and the next chapter. And from ch. 16:12, it would seem likely that Apollos himself had been aware of the abuse of his manner of teaching which had taken place, and was unwilling, by repeating his visit just then, to sanction or increase it. ἐγὼΚηφᾶ ] All we can say in possible explanation of this, is, that as Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision,— as we know from Galatians 2:11 ff. that his course of action on one occasion was reprehended by Paul, and as that course of action no doubt had influence and found followers, it is very conceivable that some of those who in Corinth lightly esteemed Paul, might take advantage of this honoured name, and cite against the Christian liberty taught by their own spiritual founder, the stricter practice of Peter. If so, these persons would be mainly found among the Jewish converts or Judaizers; and the matters treated in ch. 7-11:1, may have been subjects of doubt mainly with these persons. ἐγὼδὲχριστοῦ ] A rendering has been proposed (Estius, al.) which need only be mentioned to be rejected: viz. that Paul having mentioned the three parties, then breaks of, and adds, in his own person, ἐγὼδὲ , χριστοῦ [not of any of these preceding]. Beza represents this as Chrysostom’ s view, but it is not: οὐτοῦτοἐνεκάλει , ὅτιτὸνχριστὸνἑαυτοῖςἐπεφήμιζον , ἀλλ ʼ ὅτιμὴπάντεςμόνον . οἶμαιδὲαὐτὸνκαὶοἴκοθεναὐτὸπροστεθεικέναιβουλόμενονβαρύτεροντὸἔγκλημαποιῆσαι , καὶδεῖξαιοὕτωκαὶτὸνχριστὸνεἰςμέροςδοθένταἕν , εἰκαὶμὴοὕτωςἐποίουντοῦτοἐκεῖνοι :— (Hom. iii. p. 16 f.):— meaning by οἴκοθεν , not, as his own sentiment, but of his own invention, to shew them the inconsistency of their conduct. The words seem to apply to those who make a merit of not being attached to any human teacher,— who therefore slighted the apostleship of Paul. To them frequent allusion seems to be made in this and in the second Epistle, and more especially in 2 Corinthians 10:7-11. For a more detailed discussion of the whole subject, see Prolegg. as above, and Dr. Davidson’ s Introd. to the N. T. ii. 222 ff. 13. Some (Lachmann has so printed it) take μεμέρισταιὁχρ . as an assertion,— ‘ Christ has been divided (by you),’ — or, as Chrys. mentions, διενείματοπρὸςἀνθρώπουςκ . ἐμερίσατοτὴνἐκκλησίαν . But it is far better to take it, as commonly, interrogatively: Is Christ (the Person of Christ, as the centre and bond of Christian unity— not, the Gospel of Christ (Grot., al.),— nor the Church of Christ (Estius, Olsh.): nor the power of Christ (Theodoret), i.e. his right over all) divided (not in the primary sense (Meyer, Exo_1), against Himself, as Mark 3:24, Mark 3:25, where we have ἐφ ʼ ἑαυτήν , but ‘ into various parts, one under one leader, another under another,— which in fact would amount, after all, to a division against Himself)? The question applies to all addressed, not to the ἐγὼχριστοῦ only, as Meyer, Exo_1. In that case μεμέρισταιῥχρ . would mean ‘ Has Christ become the property of one part only?’ as indeed Dr. Burton renders it. Meyer urges against the interrogative rendering, that the questions begin immediately after, with μή . But we may fairly set against this argument, that the μή introduces a new form of interrogation respecting a new individual, viz. Paul: and that it was natural, for solemnity’ s sake, to express the other question differently. In μεμέρισταιὁχριστός , the Majesty of Christ’ s Person is set against the unworthy insinuation conveyed by μεμέρισται ,— in μὴΠαῦλοςἐσταυρώθηὑπὲρὑμ .,— the meanness of the individual, Paul, is set against the triumph of divine Love implied in ἐστ . ὑπ . ὑμῶν . Two such contrasts could hardly but be differently expressed. μὴΠ . ἐστ . κ .τ .λ .] Surely Paul was not crucified for you? By repudiating all possibility of himself being the Head and ἐπώνυμος of their church, he does so à fortiori for Cephas and Apollos: for he founded the Church at Corinth. On εἰςτὸὄν . ἐβαπτ . see Matthew 28:19. 14. Olsh. characterizes it as surprising that Paul should not have referred to the import of baptism itself as a reason to substantiate his argument. He does not this, but tacitly assumes, between ver. 13 and 14, the probability that his having baptized any considerable number among the Corinthians would naturally have led to the abuse against which he is arguing. εὐχ . τ . θ .] ‘ I am (now) thankful to God, who so ordered it that I did not,’ &c. Crispus, the former ruler of the synagogue, Acts 18:8. Gaius, afterwards the host of the Apostle, and of the church, Romans 16:23. 15. ἵνα represents the purpose, not of the Apostle’ s conduct at the time, but of the divine ordering of things: ‘ God so arranged it, that none might say,’ &c. 16. He subsequently recollects having baptized Stephanas and his family (see ch. 16:15, 17),— perhaps from information derived from Stephanas himself, who was with him:— and he leaves an opening for any others whom he may possibly have baptized and have forgotten it. The last clause is important as against those who maintain the absolute omniscience of the inspired writers on every topic which they handle. 17. This verse forms the transition to the description of his preaching among them. His mission was not to baptize:— a trace already, of the separation of the offices of baptizing and preaching. ἄνθρωπονμὲνγὰρκατηχούμενονλαβόνταςκαὶπεπεισμένονβαπτίσαι , παντὸςοὑτινοσοῦνἐστιν · ἡγὰρπροαίρεσιςτοῦπροσιόντοςλοιπὸνἐργάζεταιτὸπᾶν , καὶἡτοῦθεοῦχάρις · ὅτανδὲἀπίστουςδέῃκατηχῆσαι , πολλοῦδεῖπόνου , πολλῆςτῆςσοφίας · τότεδὲκαὶτὸκινδυνεύεινπροσῆν . Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 18. It is evident that this is said in no derogation of Baptism, for he did on occasion baptize,— and it would be impossible that he should speak lightly of the ordinance to which he appeals (Romans 6:3) as the seal of our union with Christ. οὐκἐνσοφίᾳλόγου ] It seems evident from this apology, and other hints in the two Epistles, e.g. 2 Corinthians 10:10, that the plainness and simplicity of Paul’ s speech had been one cause among the Corinthians of alienation from him. Perhaps, as hinted above, the eloquence of Apollos was extolled to Paul’ s disadvantage. ἐνσοφ .] in wisdom of speech (i.e. the speculations of philosophy: that these are meant, and not mere eloquence or rhetorical form, appears by what follows, which treats of the subject, and not merely of the manner of the preaching) in order that the Cross of Christ (the great central point of his preaching; exhibiting man’ s guilt and God’ s love in their highest degrees and closest connexion) might not be deprived of its effect. This would come to pass rather by philosophical speculations than by eloquence. 18. For (explanation of the foregoing clause,— and that, assuming the mutual exclusiveness of the preaching of the Cross and wisdom of speech, and the identity of οἱἀπολλύμενοι with the lovers of σοφίαλόγου : q. d. ‘ wisdom of speech would nullify the Cross of Christ: for the doctrine of the Cross is to the lovers of that wisdom, folly.’ The reasoning is elliptical and involved, and is further complicated by the emphatic position of τοῖςἀπολλ . and τοῖςσωζ .) the [preaching (speech, or] doctrine “ there is a word, an eloquence, which is most powerful, the eloquence of the Cross: referring to σοφίαλόγου .” Stanley) of the Cross is to the perishing (those who are through unbelief on the way to everlasting perdition) folly: but to us who are being saved (Billroth (in Olsh.) remarks that τ . σωζ . ἡμ . is a gentler expression than ἡμῖντ . σωζ . would be: the latter would put the ἡμ . into strong emphasis, and exclude the opponents in a more marked manner. οἱσωζόμενοι are those in the way of salvation:— who by faith have laid hold on Christ and are by Him being saved, see reff.) it is the power (see ref. Rom. and note. Hardly, as Meyer,— a medium of divine Power,— etwas, wodurch Gott frastig wirft: rather, the perfection of God’ s Power— the Power itself, in its noblest manifestation) of God. 19. For (continuation of reason for οὐκἐνσοφίᾳλόγου : because it was prophesied that such wisdom should be brought to nought by God) it is written, &c. The citation is after the LXX, with the exception of ἀθετήσω for κρύψω . The Heb. is ‘ the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the prudence of the prudent shall disappear.’ (Lowth.) But Calv. says most truly, ‘ Perit sapientia, sed Domino destruente: sapientia evanescit, sed inducta a Domino et deleta.’ 20. See ref. The question implies disappearance and exclusion. σοφός , the wise, generally: γραμμ ., the Jewish scribe [interpreter of the law],— συνζητ ., the Greek disputer [arguer] (reff.). τοῦαἰῶν . τ . is best taken with the whole three,— of this present (ungodly) world. ἐμώρανεν ] μωρὰνἔδειξενοὖσανπρὸςτὴντῆςπίστεωςκατάληψιν , Chrys. 21. For when (not temporal, but illative = ‘ since,’ ‘ seeing that,’ — so Plato, Gorg. p. 454, ἐπειδὴτοίνυνοὐμόνηἀπεργάζεταιτοῦτοτὸἔργον , ἀλλὰκαὶἄλλαι … ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 259) in the wisdom of God (as part of the wise arrangement of God. De W., Meyer, al., render it ‘ by the revelation of the wisdom of God,’ which was made to the Gentiles, as Rom_1, by creation, and to the Jews by the law,— thus connecting ἐν with ἔγνω , and making τῇσοφ . τ . θ . the medium of knowledge:— Chrys. takes it for the wisdom manifest in His works only: τίἐστιν , ἐντ . σοφ . τ . θ .; τῇδιὰτῶνἔργωνφαινομένῃ , δι ʼ ὧνἠθέλησεγνωρισθῆναι . But I very much doubt the legitimacy of this absolute objective use of σοφία , as = those things by which the σοφία is manifested. I cannot see with Olsh. why the interpretation given above is ‘ ganz unpaulinisch:’ it is merely an expansion of ἐμώρανεν ,— and agrees much better with Paul’ s use of the words ἡσοφίατ . θεοῦ in reff. and in ch. 2:7) the world (Jew and Gentile, see next verse) by its wisdom (as a means of attaining knowledge: or, but I prefer the other, “ through the wisdom (of God) which I have just mentioned:” so Stanley) knew not (could not find out) God, God saw fit by the foolishness of preaching (lit., ‘ of the proclamation:’ gen. of apposition,— by that preaching which is reputed folly by the world) to save believers. Romans 1:16 throws light on this last expression as connected with δύναμιςθεοῦ in our ver. 18, and with what follows here. There the two are joined: δύναμιςγὰρθεοῦἐστιν (τὸεὐαγ . τ . χρ .) εἰςσωτηρίανπαντὶτῷπιστεύοντι , Ἰουδαίῳτεπρῶτονκ . Ελληνι . 22. ἐπειδή , not as in ver. 21, but = ‘ siquidem,’ and explains τ . μωρίαςτ . κηρ . καὶ — καί ] see Mark 9:13, unite (De W.) things resembling each other in this particular, but else unlike. Jews and Gentiles both made false requirements, but of different kinds. σημεῖααἰτ .] see Matthew 12:38, Matthew 12:16:1; Luke 11:16; John 2:18, John 6:30. The correction σημεῖον has probably been made from remembering the σημεῖον of these passages. The sign required was not, as I have observed on Matthew 12:38, a mere miracle, but some token from Heaven, substantiating the word preached. 23. Still the expansion of ἡμωρ . τ . κηρύγ . Now, σκάνδ . as regards the Jews, and μωρία as regards the Gentiles, correspond to the general term μωρία before. The δέ after ἡμεῖς is that so often found in clauses following the temporal conjunctions ἐπεί , ἕως , ὄφρα , &c., in Homer, and ὅς , ὡς , ὥσπερ , εἰ , &c., in Attic writers: e.g. Od. ξ . 178, τὸνἐπεὶθρέψανθεοί , ἔρνεϊἶσον … , τοῦδέτιςἀθανάτωνβλάψεφρέναςἔνδονἐΐσας ,— and Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 12, ὥσπεροἱὁπλῖται , οὕτωδὲκαὶοἱπελτασταὶκ . οἱτοξοταί . See many other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 184 f. It serves to give a slight prominence to the consequent clause, as compared with the antecedent one. 24. This verse plainly is a continuation of the opposition to ver. 22 before begun, but itself springs by way of opposition out of Ἰουδ . μὲνσκάνδ ., ἔθν . δὲμωρίαν ,— and carries the thought back to vv. 18 and 21. αὐτοῖςδὲτ . κλητοῖς ] Not, ‘ but to the elect themselves,’ which would be either αὐτοῖςδὲκλητοῖς , or τοῖςδὲκλητοῖςαὐτοῖς ;— but to these, viz. the elect,— the αὐτοῖς serving to identify them with the σωζόμενοι of ver. 18. There it was ἡμῖν ,— here αὐτοῖς , because by the mention of preaching joined with ἡμεῖς , he has now separated off the hearers. δύναμιν , as fulfilling the requirement of the seekers after a sign:— σοφίαν ,— of those who sought wisdom. The repetition of χριστόν gives solemnity, at the same time that it concentrates the δύναμις and σοφία in the Person of Christ; q. d. ‘ Christ even in His humiliation unto death, the power of God and wisdom of God.’ The use of δύναμις and σοφία here as applied to Him who was the greatest example of both, would not justify the absolute use of σοφία in this sense in ver. 21. 25. Because (reason why Christ (crucified) is the power and wisdom of God) the foolishness of God (that act of God which men think foolish) is wiser than men (surpasses in wisdom, not only all which they call by that name, but men, all possible wisdom of mankind); and the weakness of God (that act of God which men think weak) is stronger than men (not only surpasses in might all which they think powerful, but men themselves,— all human might whatsoever. For the construction of the genitives, see reff.). The latter clause introduces a fresh thought, the way for which however has been prepared by δύναμις , vv. 18, 24. The Jews required a proof of divine Might: we give them Christ crucified, which is to them a thing ἀσθενές : but this ἀσθενὲςτοῦθεοῦ is stronger than men. 26. βλέπετε , imperative, as in reff. If taken indicatively, it loses the emphasis which its place in the sentence requires. It would thus be τὴνγὰρκλῆσινὑμῶνβλέπετε . See a similar reminder on the part of the Apostle, 1 Thessalonians 1:4. γάρ seems best to apply to what has immediately gone before. As a proof that the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God stronger than men, he calls attention to the fact that the Christian church, so full of divine wisdom and strength by the indwelling Spirit of God, consisted for the most part, not of the wise or mighty among men, but of those whom the world despised. κλῆσιν , as in reff. the calling ἐνᾗἐκληθημεν — the vocation and standing of Christian men. ὅτιοὐπολλοὶ … ] that not many of you are wise according to the flesh (‘ significari vult sapientiam, quæ studio humano absque doctrina Spiritus Sancti potest acquiri,’ Estius), not many mighty (no need to supply κατὰσάρκα , which is understood as a matter of course), not many noble. This is far better than to supply (as E. V., and most Commentators) ἐκλήθησαν after εὐγενεῖς ; and thus Vulg., Chrys., Beza, Meyer, De Wette, al. Olsh. observes: “ The ancient Christians were for the most part slaves and men of low station; the whole history of the expansion of the church is in reality a progressive victory of the ignorant over the learned, the lowly over the lofty, until the emperor himself laid down his crown before the cross of Christ.” 27, 28. τὰμωρά , neut. for more generalization, but = τοὺςμωρούς . This is shewn by τοὺςσοφούς following, in that case it being necessary to use the masculine. τοῦκόσμ ., of (belonging to) the world: not in the eyes of the world, as Theodoret, Luth., Grot., Est., al.,— which would not fit τὰἀγενῆτ . κόσμ ., nor the sense: for they were not only seemingly but really foolish, when God chose them. καταισχύνῃ , by shewing to the wise and the strong, the foolish and the weak entering the kingdom of heaven before them. τὰἀγενῆ , matter of fact— the low-born: τὰἐξουθενημένα , matter of estimation, the despised. Without the καί , which is certainly the true reading, τὰμὴὄντα may belong to all four, the μωρά , ἀσθενῆ , ἀγενῆ , and ἐξουθεν .,— but more probably it has reference only to the last two. Nothing must be supplied after μὴὄντα : it means as good as having no existence: μή being subjective, and implying that the non-existence is not absolute but estimative. Were it absolute matter of fact, it would be expressed by τὰοὐκὄντα , as in 1 Peter 2:10, οἱοὐκἠλεημένοι , νῦνδὲἐλεηθέντες . See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 131; Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 5; and Philippians 3:3; Ephesians 5:4. Olshausen refines on the expression too much, when he explains it of those who have lost their old carnal life and have not yet acquired their new spiritual one: it more probably means, things (persons) of absolutely no account in the world, unassignable among men, which the ἀγενῆ and ἐξουθενημένα are. Meyer remarks that the threefold repetition of ἐξελ . ὁθεός , with the three contrasts to σοφοί , δυνατοί , and εὐγενεῖς , announces the fact with a triumphant emphasis. καταργ .] ‘ reduce to the state of οὐκὄντα .’ All the ὄντα , the realities, of the world, are of absolutely no account, unassignable, in God’ s spiritual kingdom. 29. That all flesh may have no ground of boasting before God. The negative in these clauses goes with the verb, not with the adjective; so that each word retains its proper meaning. 30. But (contrast to the boasting just spoken of) of Him are ye (from Him ye, who once were as οὐκὄντα ,— ἐστέ .— He is the author of your spiritual life) in (in union with) Christ Jesus, Who was made (not ‘ is made:’ see reff. On γενήθη see 1 Thessalonians 1:5 note) to us from God wisdom (standing us in stead of all earthly wisdom and raising us above it by being ἀπὸθεοῦ ;— Wisdom— in His incarnation, in His life of obedience, in His teaching, in His death of atonement, in His glorification and sending of the Spirit: and not only Wisdom, but all that we can want to purify us from guilt, to give us righteousness before God, to sanctify us after His likeness, (and) both righteousness (the source of our justification before God), and sanctification and form but one idea, that of Christian justification: δικαιοσύνη the negative side, in Christ’ s justifying work— ἁγιασμός the positive, sanctification, the imparting to us of sanctifying grace” ), and redemption (by satisfaction made for our sin, reff.:— or perhaps deliverance, from all evil, and especially from eternal death, as Romans 8:23: but I prefer the other). The foregoing construction of the sentence is justified, (1) as regards ἀπὸθεοῦ belonging to ἐγενήθη , and not to σοφία , by the position of ἡμῖν , which has been altered in rec. to connect σοφία with ἀπὸθ ., (2) as regards the whole four substantives being co-ordinate, and not the last three merely explicative of σοφία , by the usage of τεκαί — καί , e.g. Herod. i. 23, διθύραμβονπρῶτονἀνθρώπωντῶνἡμεῖςἴδμενποιήσαντάτεκαὶὀνομάσαντακαὶδιδάξαντα , and Hom. Od. ο . 78, ἀμφότερον , κῦδόςτεκαὶἀγλαΐηκαὶὄνειαρ ,— so that (see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 103; Donaldson, Gr. Gram. 551) the words coupled by τεκαί (compare the exegesis above) rank as but one with regard to those coupled to them by καί , compare ἀμφότερον above. Hence these three cannot be under one category, as explicative of σοφία , but must be thus ranged: σοφίαδικαιοσύνητεκαὶἁγιασμός , καὶἀπολύτρωσις . 31. The construction is an anacoluthon, the citation being retained in the original imperative, though the ἵνα required a subjunctive. It is freely made from the LXX. This verse declaring, in opposition to ver. 29, the only true ground of boasting, viz. in God and His mercies to us in Christ, closes the description of God’ s dealing in this matter. He now reverts to the subject of his own preaching. 2:1-5. Accordingly, Paul did not use among them words of worldly wisdom, but preached Christ crucified only, in the power of the Spirit. 1. I also when I came to you, brethren, came, not with excellency of speech or wisdom announcing (pres. part., not fut.,— as in ref., and in Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29, ἐςτὰςἈθήναςἔπλευσενἀγγέλλουσατὰγεγονότα . The time taken in the voyage is overlooked, and the announcement regarded as beginning when the voyage began) to you the testimony of (concerning) God. 2. For I did not resolve to know any thing among you, except Jesus Christ (His Person) and Him (as) crucified (His Office). It would seem that the historical facts of redemption, and especially the crucifixion of Christ, as a matter of offence, had been kept in the background by these professors of human wisdom. “ We must not overlook, that Paul does not say ‘ to know any thing of or concerning Christ,’ but to know Him Himself, to preach Him Himself. The historical Christ is also the living Christ, who is with His own till the end of time: He works personally in every believer, and forms Himself in each one. Therefore it is universally Christ Himself, the crucified and the risen One, who is the subject of preaching, and is also Wisdom itself: for His history evermore lives and repeats itself in the whole church and in every member of it: it never waxes old, any more than does God Himself;— it retains at this day that fulness of power, in which it was revealed at the first foundation of the church.” Olshausen. 3. κἀγώ , and I, coupled to ἦλθον in ver. 1, and ἐγώ repeated for emphasis, the nature of his own preaching being the leading subject-matter here. The weakness and fear and much trembling must not be exclusively understood of his manner of speech as contrasted with the rhetorical preachers, for ὁλόγοςμουκ . τὸκήρυγμάμου follow in the next verse,— but partly of this, and principally of his internal deep and humble persuasion of his own weakness and the mightiness of the work which was entrusted to him. So in Philippians 2:12, Philippians 2:13, he commands the Philippians, μετὰφόβουκ . τρόμουτὴνἑαυτῶνσωτηρίανκατεργάζεσθε , θεὸςγάρἐστινὁἐνεργῶνἐνὑμῖν . The ἀσθένεια may have reference to the παρουσίασώματοςἀσθενής of 2 Corinthians 10:10. Chrys., al., understand it of persecutions: but in the places to which he refers, it has a far wider meaning,— viz. infirmities, including those resulting from persecution. 4. And my discourse and my preaching (λόγος of the course of argument and inculcation of doctrine, κήρυγμα of the announcement of facts. This (De W.) is better than with Olsh. to understand λ . as his private, κ . his public discourse: see Luke 4:32, and ὁλόγοςτ . σταυροῦ , ch. 1:18) was not in (did not consist of, was not set forth in, see ref.) persuasive (πειθός = πιθανός , πειστήριος , πειστικός in Greek. The var. readings have been endeavours to avoid the unusual word, which however is analogically formed from πειθώ , as φειδός from φείδομαι , as Meyer) words of wisdom (ἀνθρωπίνης , a gloss, but a correct one. “ Corinthia verba, pro exquisitis et magnopere elaboratis, et ad ostentationem nitidis,” Wetst.), but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: i.e. either, taking the genitives as objective, demonstration having for its object, demonstrating, the presence or working of the Spirit and Power of God :— or, taking them subjectively, demonstration (of the truth) springing from the Spirit and Power of God (so most Commentators. I prefer the latter. It can hardly be understood of the miracles done by the Spirit through him, which accompanied his preaching (Chrys, al., Olsh.), for he is here simply speaking of the preaching itself. 5. ᾖἐν , may be grounded on,— owe its origin and stability to. “ The Spirit is the original Creator of Faith, which cannot be begotten of human caprice, though man has the capability of hindering its production: and it depends for its continuance on the same mighty Spirit, who is almost without intermission begetting it anew.” Olshausen. 6-16. Yet the Apostles spoke wisdom among the perfect, but of a kind higher than the wisdom of this world; a wisdom revealed from God by the Spirit, only intelligible by the spiritual man, and not by the unspiritual . The Apostle rejects the imputation, that the Gospel and its preaching is inconsistent with wisdom, rightly understood: nay, shews that the wisdom of the Gospel is of a far higher order than that of the wise in this world, and far above their comprehension. 6. δέ contrasts with the foregoing. λαλ .] viz. ‘ we Apostles:’ not ‘ I Paul,’ — though he often uses the plur. with this meaning:— for, ch. 3:1, he resumes κἀγώ , ἀδελφοί . ἐντ . τελείοις ] among the perfect,— when discoursing to those who are not babes in Christ, but of sufficient maturity to have their senses exercised (Hebrews 4:14) so as to discern good and evil. That this is the right interpretation the whole following context shews, and especially ch. 3:1, 2, where a difference is laid down between the milk administered to babes, and the strong meat to men. The difference is in the matter of the teaching itself: there is a lower, and there is a higher teaching. So Erasm., Estius, Bengel, Rü ckert, Meyer, De Wette, al. On the other hand, Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Calv., Grot., Olsh., al., understand the difference to be merely in the estimate formed of the same teaching according as men were spiritual or unspiritual, interpreting ἐντ . τελείοις , ‘ in the estimation of the perfect,’ which is philologically allowable, but plainly irreconcileable with the whole apologetic course of the chapter, and most of all with the οὐκἠδυνήθηνκ .τ .λ . of ch. 3:1, where he asserts that he did not speak this wisdom to the Corinthians. We are then brought to the enquiry,— what was this σοφία “ Meyer limits it too narrowly to consideration of the future kingdom of Christ. Rü ckert adds to this, the higher views of the divine ordering of the world with respect to the unfolding of God’ s kingdom,— of the meaning of the preparatory dispensations before Christ, e.g. the law,— of the manner in which the death and resurrection of Christ promoted the salvation of mankind. According to ver. 12, the knowledge of the blessings of salvation, of the glory which accompanies the kingdom of God, belongs to this higher species of teaching. Examples of it are found in the Epistle to the Romans, in the setting forth of the doctrine of justification,— of the contrast between Christ and Adam,— of predestination (compare μυστήριον , Romans 11:25), and in the Epistles to the Eph. and Col. (where μυστήρ . often occurs) in the declarations respecting the divine plan of Redemption and the Person of Christ: nay, in our Epistle, ch. 15. Of the same kind are the considerations treated Heb. 7-10: cf. 4:11 ff.” De Wette. But a wisdom not of this world,— not, as E. V., “ not the wisdom of this world,” which loses the peculiar force of the negative:— so in Romans 3:21, Romans 3:22, we have δικαιοσύνηθεοῦπεφανέρωται … δικαιοσύνηδὲθεοῦδιὰπίστ . Ἰησοῦχρ . See instances of the usage in note there. The ἄρχοντες are parallel with the σοφοί , δυνατοί , εὐγενεῖς , of ch. 1:26, and are connected with them expressly by the τῶνκαταργουμένων , referring to ἵνατὰὄντακαταργήσῃ , ch. 1:28. They comprehend all in estimation and power, Jewish or Gentile. ἄρχονταςδὲαἰῶνοςἐνταῦθαοὐδαίμονάςτιναςλέγει , καθώςτινεςὑποπτεύουσιν · ἀλλὰτοὺςἐνἀξιώμασι , τοὺςἐνδυναστείαις , τοὺςτὸπρᾶγμαπεριμάχητονεἶναινομίζοντας , φιλοσόφουςκ . ῥήτοραςκ . λογογράφους · καὶγὰραὐτοιἐκράτουν , κ . δημαγωγοὶπολλάκιςἐγίνοντο . Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 50. τῶνκαταργ .] who are (being) brought to nought, viz. by God making choice of the weak and despised, and passing over them, ch. 1:28: not said of their transitoriness generally, as Chrys., Theophyl., Rü ckert,— nor of their power being annihilated at the coming of Christ (Grot., Meyer, al.),— nor as Olsh., of their having indeed crucified Christ, but of their being καταργούμενοι by His Resurrection and the increase of His Church. 7. But we speak God’ s wisdom (emphasis on θεοῦ :— the wisdom which God possesses and has revealed) in a mystery (ἐνμυστ . does not belong to τὴνἀποκεκ ., as Theodoret and Grot., which must be τὴνἐνμυστ . ἀποκ .,— nor to σοφίαν , as Beza, Bengel, which though not absolutely, yet certainly here, seeing τὴνἀποκεκρ . immediately follows, would require the art., τὴνἐνμυστ .,— but to λαλοῦμεν ,— ‘ we speak God’ s wisdom in a mystery,’ i.e. as handling a mystery, dealing with a mystery. So τὴνσύνεσίνμουἐντῷμυστ . τ . χριστοῦ , Ephesians 3:4. Estius and the Romanists, taking the connexion rightly, have wrested the meaning to support the disciplina arcani which they imagine to be here hinted at, explaining ἐνμυστ ., “ non propalam et passim apud omnes, quia non omnes ea capiunt, sed … secreto et apud pauciores, scilicet eos qui spirituales et perfecti sunt,” Est.), which has been (hitherto) hidden (see Romans 16:25; ref. Col.):— which God foreordained before the ages (of time) to (in order to, the purpose of this preordination) our glory . 8. ἥν is in apposition with the former ἥν , and does not refer to δόξαν , as contra v. 6, vol. ii. p. 483,— “ subjicit de gloria nostra, quod eam nemo ex principibus hujus æ vi scierit … ,” for this would be departing from the whole sense of the context, which is, that the wisdom of God was hidden from men. εἰγὰρἔγν . κ .τ .λ ., is a proof from experience, that the rulers of this world, of whom the Jewish rulers were a representative sample, were ignorant of the wisdom of God. Had they known it, they would not have put to a disgraceful death (ὁσταυρὸςἀδοξίαςεἶναιδοκεῖ , Chrys.) Him who was the Lord of glory (reff.),— i.e. who possesses in his own right glory eternal, see John 17:5, John 17:24. These words are not a parenthesis, but continue the sense of the foregoing, completing the proof of man’ s ignorance of God’ s wisdom;— even this world’ s rulers know it not, as they have shewn: how much less then the rest. 9 f.] But (opposition to ver. 8) as it is written, The things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which came not up (reff.) upon heart of man, how many things God prepared for them that love Him, to us God revealed through His Spirit. There is no anacoluthon (as De W.) nor irregularity of construction, as some suppose, supplying after ἀλλά , λαλοῦμεν (Estius, &c.) or γέγονεν (Theophyl., Grot., al.); the δέ in the consequent clause after ὅς in the antecedent, which has occasioned these suppositions, is by no means unexampled;— so Herod. iii. 37, ὃςδὲτούτουςμὴὀπώπεε , ἐγὼδέοἱσημανέω ,— and Soph. Philoct. 86, ἐγὼμὲνοὓςἂντῶνλόγωνἀλγῶκλύειν , Λαερτίουπαῖ , τοὺςδὲκαὶπράσσεινστυγῶ . See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 184 f. Whence is the citation made? Origen says, ‘ In nullo regular libro invenitur, nisi in secretis Eliæ prophetæ ,’ a lost apocryphal book:— Chrys., Theophyl., give the alternative, either that the words are a paraphrase of Isa 52:15, οἷςοὐκἀνηγγέληπερὶαὐτοῦὄψονται , κ . οἳοὐκἀκηκόασισυνήσουσι , or that they were contained in some lost book, of which Chrys. argues that there were very many,— καὶγὰρπολλὰδιεφθάρηβιβλία , καὶὀλίγαδιεσώθη . Jerome, Ep. lvii. (ci.), ad Pammachium, de optimo genere interpretandi, 9, vol. i. p. 314, says, “ Solent in hoc loco apocryphorum quidam deliramenta sectari, et dicere quod de Apocalypsi Heliæ testimonium sumptum sit: cum in Esaia juxta Hebraicum ita legatur: A seculo non audierunt, nec auribus perceperunt, oculus non vidit, Deus, absque te, quæ præ paras tu expectantibus te. Hoc LXX multo aliter transtulerunt: A seculo non audivimus, neque oculi nostri viderunt Deum absque te: et opera tua vera, et facies expectantibus te misericordiam. Intelligimus, unde sumptum sit testimonium: et tamen Apostolus non verbum expressit e verbo, sed παραφραστικῶς eundem sensum aliis sermonibus indicavit.” I own that probability seems to me to incline to Jerome’ s view, especially when we remember, how freely St. Paul is in the habit of citing. The words of Isa 64:4, are quite as near to the general sense of the citation as is the case in many other instances, and the words ἐπὶκαρδίανοὐκἀνέβη may well be a reminiscence from Isaiah 65:17, not far from the other place, οὐμὴἐπέλθῃαὐτῶνἐπὶτὴνκαρδίαν . Such minglings together of clauses from various parts are not unexampled with the Apostle, especially when, as here, he is not citing as authority, but merely illustrating his argument by O. T. expressions. 10. τὸπνεῦμα ] the Holy Spirit of God— but working in us and with our Spirits, Romans 8:16. “ Sufficiat nobis Spiritum Dei habere testem: nihil enim tam profundum est in Deo quo non penetret.” Calvin. ἐραυνᾷ ] a word of active research, implying accurate knowledge: so Chrys., οὐκἀγνοίας , ἀλλ ʼ ἀκριβοῦςγνώσεωςἐνταῦθατὸἐρευνᾷνἐνδεικτικόν . τὰβάθη ] see reff. There is a comparison here between the Spirit of God and the spirit of a man, which is further carried out in the next verse. And thus as the spirit of a man knows the βάθος of a man, all that is in him, so the Spirit of God searches and knows τὰβάθη , the manifold and infinite depths, of God— His Essence, His Attributes, His Counsels: and being τὸπνεῦματὸἐνἡμῖν , besides being τὸπν . τοῦθεοῦ , teaches us according to our capacity, those depths of God. 11. For who among men knoweth the things of a man except the spirit of a man which is in him? Thus the things of God also none knoweth, except the Spirit of God. We may remark, (1) that nothing need be supplied after τά in each case, see reff. (2) that the comparison here must not be urged beyond what is intended by the Apostle. He is speaking of the impossibility of any but the Spirit of God conferring a knowledge of the things of God. In order to shew this, he compares human things with divine, appealing to the fact that none but the spirit of a man knows his matters. But further than this he says nothing of the similarity of relation of God and God’ s Spirit with man and man’ s spirit: and to deduce more than this, will lead into error on one side or the other. In such comparisons as these especially, we must bear in mind the constant habit of our Apostle, to contemplate the thing adduced, for the time, only with regard to that one point for which he adduces it, to the disregard of all other considerations. 12. ἡμεῖςδέ carries on the ἡμῖνδέ of ver. 10. τὸπν . τ . κόσμ .] Not merely, the mind and sentiments of unregenerate mankind, ‘ sapientia mundana et sæ cularis,’ as Estius, al., but the Spirit (personally and objectively taken) of the world, = τὸπνεῦματὸνῦνἐνεργοῦνἐντοῖςυἱοῖςτῆςἀπειθείας , Ephesians 2:2, where it is strictly personal. τὸπν . τὸἐκτ . θ .] Not only, ‘ the Spirit of God,’ but the Spirit which is from God,— to shew that we have received it only by the will and imparting of Him whose Spirit it is. And this expression prepares the way for the purpose which God has in imparting to us His Spirit, that we may know the things freely given to us by God, i.e. the treasures of wisdom and of felicity which are the free gifts of the gospel dispensation, = ὅσαἡτοίμασενὁθεὸςτοῖςἀγαπῶσιναὐτόν , ver. 9. 13. καί , also; τὰχαρισθ . ἡμῖν , we not only know by the teaching of the Holy Ghost, but also speak them, not in words (arguments, rhetorical forms, &c.) taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit. The genitives are governed by διδακτοῖς in each case: see ref., and cf. Pind. Olymp. ix. 153: τὸδὲφυᾷκράτιστονἅπαν . πολλοὶδὲδιδακταῖςἀνθρώπωνἀρεταῖςκλέοςὥρουσανἑλέσθαι · ἄνευδὲθεοῦκ .τ .λ . πνευμ … πν . συγκρ .] interpreting spiritual things to the spiritual. So Theophyl. altern., πνευματικοῖςἀνθρώποιςτὰπνευματικὰσυγκρίνοντεςκαὶδιαλύοντες · οὗτοιγὰρμόνοιδύνανταιχωρεῖνταῦτα . And very nearly so as regards συγκρίνοντες Chrysostom and Grotius; only they take πνευματικοῖς not masc. but neuter, ‘ by spiritual things:’ ὅτανπνευματικὸνκαὶἄπορονᾖ , ἀπὸτῶνπνευμακῶντὰςμαρτυρίαςἄγομεν . οἷονλέγω , ὅτιἀνέστηὁχριστός , ὅτιἀπὸπαρθένουἐγεννήθη . παράγωμαρτυρίαςκ . τύπουςκ . ἀποδείξεις , τοῦἸωνᾶ , κ .τ .λ . Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 55. ‘ Exponentes ea quæ Prophetæ Spiritu Dei acti dixere, per ea quæ Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit.’ Grot. Meyer denies that συγκρίνω ever means to interpret: but evidently the LXX do so use it in Genesis 40:8, ἐνύπνιονεἴδομεν , καὶὁσυγκρίνωνοὐκἔστιναὐτό . See also ib. vv. 16, 22, and Daniel 5:12, Theodotion . Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, De Wette, and Meyer render it, ‘ fitting, or attaching, spiritual words to spiritual things.’ And so I gave and defended it in my earlier editions. It seems to me now more natural to take πνευματικοῖς as masculine, and as leading to the introduction of the two men, the ψυχικός , and the πνευματικός , immediately after. 14. He now prepares the way for shewing them that he could not give out the depths of this spiritual wisdom and eloquence to them, because they were not fitted for it, being carnal (ch. 3:1-4). ψυχ . δὲἄνθ .] The animal man, as distinguished from the spiritual man, is he, whose governing principle and highest reference of all things is the ψυχή , the animal soul, αἰτίακινήσεωςζωικῆςζώων , Plato, Definit. p. 411. In him, the πνεῦμα , or spirit, being unvivified and uninformed by the Spirit of God, is overborne by the animal soul, with its desires and its judgments,— and is in abeyance, so that he may be said to have it not;— ψυχικοὶπνεῦμαμὴἔχοντες , ref. Jude. The ψυχή is that side of the human soul, so to speak, which is turned towards the flesh, the world, the devil: so that the ψυχικός is necessarily in a measure σαρκικός (ch. 3:3), also ἐπίγειος , and δαιμονιώδης , as in ref. James. This general interpretation of ψυχικός must be adhered to, and we must not make it merely intellectual, as Theodoret,— ὁμόνοιςτοῖςοἰκείοιςἀρκούμενοςλογισμοῖς ,— Grot. “ qui humanæ tantum rationis luce ducitur:” — Chrys.: ὁτὸπᾶντοῖςλογισμοῖςτῆςψυχῆςδιδούς , καὶμὴνομίζωνἄνωθέντινοςδεῖσθαιβοηθείας ,— nor merely ethical, as Erasm., Rosenmü ller , al.,— but embracing both these. οὐδέχεται , receives not, i.e. rejects, see reff.,— not, cannot receive, ‘ non capax est,’ understands not, which is against the context,— for we may well understand that which seems folly to us, but we reject it, as unworthy of our consideration:— and it besides would involve a tautology, this point, of inability to comprehend, following by and by:— and he cannot know them (τὰτοῦπνεύματος , the matter of our spiritual teaching, itself furnished by the Spirit) because they are spiritually (by the πνεῦμα of a man exalted by the Spirit of God into its proper paramount office of judging and ruling, and inspired and enabled for that office) judged of. 15. But (on the contrary) the spiritual man judges of all things , but himself is judged of by none (who is not also πνευματικός , see ch. 14:29; 1 John 4:1, where such judgment is expressly attributed to Christian believers). καὶγὰρὁβλέπων , πάνταμὲναὐτὸςκαθορᾷκαὶτοῦμὴβλέποντος , τὰδὲἐκείνουτῶνμὴβλεπόντωνοὐδείς . Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 57. 16. Proof of αὐτὸςδὲὑπ ʼ οὐδ . ἀνακρίνεται . In order for an unassisted man, not gifted from Christ, to judge the πνευματικός , he must know the νοῦςκυρίου , the intent and disposition of Christ; yea more, must be able to teach, to instruct, Christ— being not, as the πνευματικός ,— taught by Him, he must have an independent wisdom of his own, which Christ has not:— and who is there, of whom this can be said? But we (πνευματικοί , among whom he includes himself and the other Apostles) have (not a wisdom independent of Christ, nor do we know His mind, nor can we teach Him, but) the mind of Christ: the same mind, in our degree of apprehensiveness of it, by the imparting of His Spirit, which is in Him, and so can judge all things. The νοῦςκυρίου is the spiritual intent and designs of Christ. κυρίου in the prophecy is spoken of Jehovah; but in the whole of Isa_40, the incarnate Jehovah is the subject. The meaning of συμβιβάζω , to teach, belongs to the LXX: in the N. T. it is to conclude, to prove, to confirm, see reff. 3:1-4. He could not speak to them in the perfect spiritual manner above described, seeing that they were carnal, and still remained so, as was shewn by their divisions. 1. κἀγώ , I also; i.e. as well as the ψυχικός , was compelled to stand on this lower ground,— he, because he cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God: I, because you could not receive them. Or perhaps better, with Stanley, ‘ καὶἐγώ , as in 2:1, “ What I have just been saying, was exemplified in our practice.”  ’ σαρκίνοις is certainly the true reading, being, besides its manuscript authority, required by the sense. He was compelled to speak to them (this affirmative clause is to be supplied from the former negative one) as to men of flesh: not ὡςσαρκικοῖς , for that they really were, and he asserts them yet to be, ver. 3. I quite agree with Meyer (against De Wette) that the distinction between σάρκινοι and σαρκικοί is designed by the Apostle, and further regard it as implied in the very form of the sentences. Here, he says that he was compelled to speak to them as if they were only of flesh,— as if they were babes, using in both cases the material comparison, and the particle of comparison ὡς . But in ver. 3 he drops comparison, and asserts matter of fact— ‘ Are ye not still σαρκικοί , fleshly, carnal, living after the flesh, resisting the Spirit?’ — q. d. ‘ I was obliged to regard you as mere men of flesh, without the Spirit: and it is not far different even now: ye are yet fleshly— ye retain the same character.’ Both the σάρκινοι , the mere men of the flesh, and the σαρκικοί , the carnally disposed, are included under the more general ψυχικοί , which therefore, as Meyer observes, is not here used, because this distinction was to be made. ὡςνηπ . ἐνχρ .] The opposite term, τέλειοιἐνχρ ., is found Colossians 1:28, and in connexion with this, Hebrews 5:13, Hebrews 5:14. Schö ttgen (on 1 Peter 2:2) and Lightfoot adduce the similar Rabbinical term ת ּ ִ י נ ו ֹ ק ו ֹ ת , sugentes, used of novices in their schools. A recent proselyte also was regarded by them as a newborn infant. He speaks of his first visit to Corinth, when they were recently admitted into the faith of Christ,— and excuses his merely elementary teaching by the fact that they then required it. Not this, but their still requiring it, is adduced as matter of blame to them. 2. See the same figure in Hebrews 5:12. So also Philo de Agricult. § 2, vol. i. p. 301, ἐπεὶδὲνηπίοιςμένἐστιγάλατροφή , τελείοιςδὲτὰἐκπυρῶνπέμματα , καὶψυχῆςγαλακτώδειςμὲνἂνεἰεντροφαὶκατὰτὴνπαιδικὴνἡλικίαν … τέλειαιδὲκαὶἀνδράσιν … Basil, Hom. i. p. 403, ed. Paris, 1638, cited by Meyer, explains, γάλα , τὴνεἰσαγωγικὴνκ . ἁπλουστέραντοῦεὐαγγελίουδιδασκαλίαν : see also Hebrews 6:1,— τὸντῆςἀρχῆςτοῦχριστοῦλόγον . On ἐπότισα … βρῶμα , Wetst. quotes νέκταρτ ʼ ἀμβροσίηντε , τάπερθεοὶαὐτοὶἔδουσι , Hes. Theogon. 640. See Hom. Il. θ . 546. Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 2. e. οὔπωγὰρἐδύνασθε ] Either, for ye were not yet able ,— or, for ye were not yet strong, δύναμαι being used absolutely, as in Demosth. 1187. 8, δυνάμενοςτῷτεπράττεινκ . τῷεἰπεῖν , and 484. 25, τῶνπολιτευομένωντινὲςδυνηθέντες , and see other reff. in Meyer. In the former case, the ellipsis is harsh: the latter meaning seems preferable, though not found elsewhere in the N. T. ἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲἔτινῦν , but neither even now … ; the οὔτε of the rec. is grammatically inadmissible,— see Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 6. 3. On σαρκικοί , see above, ver. 1. ὅπου , not = ἐπεί , but putting the assumption in a local form, see reff. ζῆλος , emulation, in a bad sense; or as in reff., ‘ angry jealousy.’ κατὰἄνθρ ., see reff., according to the manner of (unrenewed and ungodly) man, = κατὰσάρκα , Romans 8:4; see note on ch. 15:32. 4. He names but two of the foregoing designations, ch. 1:12: intending, both there more fully, and here briefly, rather to give a sample of the sectarian spirit prevalent, than to describe, as matter of fact, any sects into which they were actually divided: see note there, and on ch. 4:6. Meyer sees in the mention here of Paul and Apollos only, a reference to the two methods of teaching which have been treated of in this section: but as I have before said, the German Commentators are misled by too definite a view of the Corinthian parties. ἄνθρωποι , i.e. walking κατὰἄνθρωπον ,— σαρκικοί . 5-15. He takes occasion, by example of himself and Apollos, to explain to them the true place and office of Christian teachers: that they are in themselves nothing (vv. 5-8), but work for God (vv. 9, 10), each in his peculiar department (ver. 10; cf. ver. 6), each requiring serious care as to the manner of his working, seeing that a searching trial of its worth will be made in the day of the Lord (vv. 10-15). 5. οὖν follows on the assumption of the truth of the divided state of things among them: ‘ Who then (What then) … , seeing that ye exalt them into heads over you?’ The question is not asked by an objector, but by Paul himself; when an objector is introduced, he notifies it, as ch. 15:35; Romans 9:19. ἐπιστεύσατε , as in reff.: ye became believers. ἑκάστῳὡς … , = ὡςἔδωκ . ὁκύρ . ἑκάστῳ , see reff. It refers, not to the teachers, but to the hearers, see below ὁαὐξάνωνθεός . In the rec. text, the question is carried on to the end of the verse by ἀλλ ʼ ἤ , which is good Greek for ‘ nisi,’ ‘ præ terquam,’ — so οὐδὲχρησόμεθαἐξηγητῇἀλλ ʼ ἢτῷπατρῴῳ , Plato, Rep. p. 427, see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 44,— but seems to have been inserted from not observing the form of the sentence. 6. The similitude is to a tilled field (γεώργιον , ver. 9): the plants are the Corinthians, as members of Christ, vines bearing fruit: these do not yet appear in the construction: so that I prefer, with De Wette, supplying nothing after ἐφύτευσα and ἐπότισεν , regarding merely the acts themselves, as in E. V. If any thing be supplied, it must be ὑμᾶς , which would but ill fit ver. 7. Apollos was sent over to Corinth after Paul had left it (Acts 18:27), at his own request, and remained there preaching during Paul’ s journey through Upper Asia (ib. 19:1). 7. ἐστίντι , either ‘ is any thing to the purpose,’ as in λέγειντι , &c., or absol. is any thing: which latter is best: compare εἰκαὶοὐδένεἰμι , 2 Corinthians 12:11. ἀλλ ʼ ὁαὐξ . θεός , scil. τὰπάνταἐστί ,— to be supplied from the negative clauses preceding. Theophylact remarks: ὅραπῶςἀνεπαχθῆποιεῖτὴνἐξουδένωσιντῶνπροεστώτωνἐνΚορίνθῳσοφῶνκ . πλουσίων , ἑαυτὸνκ . Ἀπολλὼκατὰτὸφαινόμενονἐξουδενώσας , κ . διδάξας , ὅτιθεῷδεῖμόνῳπροσέχειν , κ . εἰςαὐτὸνἀνατιθέναιπάντατὰσυμβαίνονταἀγαθά . 8. ἕν , in the nature of their ministry,— generically, κατὰτὴνὑπουργίαν · ἀμφότεραιγὰρτῷθείῳδιακονοῦσιβουλήματι . Theodoret. ἕκαστοςδὲ … ] Here he introduces a new element— the separate responsibility of each minister for the results of his own labour, so that, though κατὰτὴνὑπουργίαν they are one,— κατὰτὸἔργον (ib.) they are diverse. The stress is twice on ἴδιον . 9. Proof of the last assertion, and introduction of Him, from Whom each λήμψεται . The stress thrice on θεοῦ :— shall receive, &c.,— for it is of God that we are the fellow-workers (in subordination to Him, as is of course implied: but to render it ‘ fellow-workers with one another, under God,’ as Estius prefers, and Olsh., al., maintain, is contrary to usage: see reff.;— and not at all required, see 2 Corinthians 5:20; 2 Corinthians 6:1), of God that ye are the tillage, of God that ye are the building. This last new similitude is introduced on account of what he has presently to say of the different kinds of teaching, which will be more clearly set forth by this, than by the other figure. 10. κατὰτ . χάρ . &c., as an expression of humility (reff.), fitly introduces the σοφός which follows. So Chrys.: ὅραγοῦνπῶςμετριάζει . εἰπὼνγὰρσοφὸνἑαυτόν , οὐκἀφῆκεναὐτοῦτοῦτοεἶναι , ἀλλ ʼ ὅλονἑαυτὸνπρότερονἀναθεὶςτῷθεῷτότεἑαυτὸνοὕτωςἐκάλεσε . Hom. viii. p. 69. The χάρις is not the peculiar grace of his apostleship— for an apostle was not always required to lay the foundation, e.g. in Rome:— but that given to him in common with all Christians (ver. 5), only in a degree proportioned to the work which God had for him to do. σοφός , skilful, see reff., and many examples in Wetstein. The proof of this skill is given, in his laying a foundation: the unskilful master-builder lays none, see Luke 6:49. The foundation (ver. 11) was and must be, Jesus Christ: the facts of redemption by Him (obj.), and the reception of Him and His work by faith (subj.). The mascul. form ὁθεμέλιος is said by Thomas Mag. (in Wetst.) to belong to the κοινὴδιάλεκτος — the Attic form is θεμέλιον , or, if in the plur., οἱθεμέλιοι :— οἱγὰρθεμέλιοιπαντοίωνλίθωνὑπόκεινται , Thucyd. i. 93. ἄλλος , ‘ whoever comes after me,’ — another: not only Apollos. ἐποικοδομεῖ , pres., as the necessary state and condition of the subsequent teacher, be he who he may. The building on, over the foundation, imports the carrying them onward in knowledge and intelligent faith. πῶς , emphatic, = here, with what material. De Wette imagines that it also conveys a caution not to alter the foundations, and that the γάρ in ver. 11 refers to this. But the identity of the foundation is surely implied in ἐποικοδομεῖ . On the γάρ , see below. 11. θ . γάρ ] q. d. ‘ I speak of superimposing merely, for it is unnecessary to caution them respecting the foundation itself: there can be but one, and that one has already been (objectively, for all, see below) laid by God.’ At the same time, in taking this for granted, he implies the strongest possible caution against attempting to lay any other. δύναται , strictly can,— not ‘ nemini licet,’ as Grot., al., nor as Theophyl., οὐδύναταιθεῖναι , ἕωςἂνμένῃσοφὸςἀρχιτέκτων , ἐπεὶὅτανμὴᾖτιςσοφ . ἀρχ ., δύναταιθεῖναι , κ . ἐκτούτουαἱαἱρέσεις :— for it is assumed, that θεοῦοἰκοδομή is to be raised— and it can only be raised on this one foundation. All who build on other foundations are not συνεργοὶθεοῦ , nor is their building θεοῦοἰκοδομή at all. ἄλλον … παρά , see reff. and cf. Thucyd. i. 23, πυκνότεραιπαρὰτὰἐκτοῦπρὶνχρόνουμνημονευόμενα . κείμενον ] not, ‘ by me,’ but ‘ by God,’ for universal Christendom; but actually laid in each place, as regards that church, by the minister who founds it. De Wette denies this universal reference, as introducing a new element into the context. But surely the reference in ὁθεμέλιοςὁκείμενος is too direct to the well-known prophecy of the divinely-placed foundation or cornerstone, to surprise any reader or divert his mind from the train of thought by a new element. Ἰησοῦςχριστός , the personal, historical Christ, as the object of all Christian faith. If it be read as in rec., Ἰησοῦςὁχριστός , it need not necessarily be, that Jesus is the Christ, but may be in this case also, Jesus the Christ; not any doctrine, even that of the Messiahship of Jesus, is the foundation, but Jesus Himself (see var. readd.). 12. The δέ implies that though there can be but one foundation, there are many ways of building upon it. To the right understanding of this verse it may be necessary to remark, (1) that the similitude is, not of many buildings, as Wetst. and Billroth,— but of one, see ver. 16,— and that [one,] raised on Christ as its foundation;— different parts of which are built by the ministers who work under Him,— some well and substantially built, some ill and unsubstantially. (2) That gold, silver, &c., refer to the matter of the ministers’ teaching, primarily; and by inference to those whom that teaching penetrates and builds up in Christ, who should be the living stones of the temple: not, as , Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., , , , &c., to the moral fruits produced by the preaching in the individual members of the church,— εἴτιςκακὸνβίονἔχειμετὰπίστεωςὀρθῆς , οὐπροστήσεταιαὐτοῦἡπίστιςεἰςτὸμὴκολάζεσθαι , Chrys. Hom. ix. p. 77. (3) That the builder of the worthless and unsubstantial is in the end saved (see below): so that even his preaching was preaching of Christ, and he himself was in earnest. (4) That what is said does not refer, except by accommodation, to the religious life of believers in general— as Olsh., Schrader, see also the ancient Commentators above:— but to the duty and reward of Teachers. At the same time, such accommodation is legitimate, in so far as each man is a teacher and builder of himself. (5) That the various materials specified must not be fancifully pressed to indicate particular doctrines or graces, as e.g. Schrader has done, “ Some build with the gold of faith, with the silver of hope, with the imperishable costly stones of love,— others again with the dead wood of unfruitfulness in good works, with the empty straw of a spiritless, ostentatious knowledge, and with the bending reed of a continually-doubting spirit.” Der Apostel Paulus, iv. p. 66. This, however ingenious, is beside the mark, not being justified by any indications furnished in our Epistle itself. An elaborate ré sumé of the very various minor differences of interpretation may be seen in Meyer’ s Comm. Exo_2, in loc. Cf. also Estius’ s note; and Stanley’ s. λίθουςτιμίους ] Not ‘ gems,’ but ‘ costly stones,’ as marbles, porphyry, jasper, &c., compare 1 Kings 7:9 ff. By the ξύλα , χόρτον , καλάμην , he indicates the various perversions of true doctrine, and admixtures of false philosophy which were current: so Estius, “ doctrina non quidem hæ retica et perniciosa, talis enim fundamentum destrueret: sed minus sincera, minusque solida; veluti si sit humanis ac philosophicis, aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus admixta plus satis: si curiosa magis quam utilis; si vana quadam oblectatione mentes occupans Christianas.” Comm. i. p. 268 b. 13. Each man’ s work shall (at some time) be made evident (shall not always remain in the present uncertainty, but be tested, and shewn of what sort it is): for the day shall make it manifest (the day of the Lord, as Vulg., ‘ dies domini:’ see reff.,— and so most Commentators, ancient and modern. The other interpretations are (1) ‘ the day of the destruction of Jerusalem,’ which shall shew the vanity of Judaizing doctrines: so Hammond (but not clearly nor exclusively), Lightf., Schö ttg., al.,— against both the context, and our Apostle’ s habit of speaking, and under the assumption, that nothing but Jewish errors are spoken of:— (2) ‘ the lapse of time,’ as in the proverb, ‘ dies docebit;’ — so Grot., Wolf, Mosheim, Rosenm., al., which is still more inconsistent with the context, which necessitates a definite day, and a definite fire:— (3) ‘ the light of day,’ i.e. of clear knowledge, as opposed to the present time of obscurity and night: so Calv., Beza, Erasm.:— but the fire here is not a light-giving, but a consuming flame; and, as Meyer remarks, even in that case the ἡμέρα would be that of the παρουσία , see Romans 13:12:— (4) ‘ the day of tribulation:’ — so Augustine, Calov.: but this again is not definite enough: μισθὸνλήμψεται can hardly be said of mere abiding the test of tribulation);— because it (the day— not, the work, as Theophyl., Œ cum., al., which would introduce a mere tautology with the next clause) is (to be) revealed (the present ἀποκαλύπτεται expresses the definite certainty of prophecy: or perhaps rather the attribute of that day, which is, to be revealed, &c., as in the expressions ὁπειράζων , ὁσπείρων , &c.) in fire (‘ accompanied,’ ‘ clothed,’ ‘ girt,’ ‘ with fire;’ i.e. fire will be the element in which the day will be revealed. Cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:8, and Malachi 3:2, Malachi 3:3, Malachi 3:4:1, to which latter place the reference is,— see LXX. But notice, that this is not the fire of hell, into which the gold, silver, and costly stones will never enter, but the fire of judgment, in which Christ will appear, and by which all works will be tried. This universality of trial by fire is equally against the idea of a purgatorial fire, which lucrative fiction has been mainly based by the Romanists on a perversion of this passage. See Aug. de Civ. Dei, xxi. 26. 4, vol. vii. p. 745, who mentions the idea with ‘ non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est.’ See Estius, who does not maintain the allusion to Purgatory here; and Bisping, who does), and each man’ s work, of what kind it is, the fire itself shall try (this clause does not depend upon ὅτι , but ranges with the following futures. It is a question whether ἔργον is nom. or acc.,— of what kind each man’ s work is (Meyer),— or as above. In the only other places where Paul uses ὁποῖος , Galatians 2:6, 1 Thessalonians 1:9 (see also Acts 26:29), it commences a clause, as here if ἔργον be accus.;— we have a very similar expression, Galatians 6:4, τὸἔργονἑαυτοῦδοκιμαζέτωἕκαστος :— and it seems more natural that the action of the fire should be described as directly passing upon the work. For these reasons, I prefer the accus. τὸπῦραὐτό , the fire itself, of its own power, being a πῦρκαταναλίσκον . 14. If any man’ s work shall remain (i.e. stand the fire,— being of inconsumable materials. μενεῖ fut. (so latt syrr coptt), is better than the pres. of rec., as answering to εἰ … κατακαήσεται below), which he built on the foundation,— he shall receive wages : 15. if any man’ s work shall be burnt up (i.e. consist of such materials as the fire will destroy: Stanley adds, “ It is possible that this whole image, as addressed to the Corinthians, may have been suggested, or at least illustrated, by the conflagration of Corinth under Mummius: the stately temples (one of them remaining to this day) left standing amidst the universal crash and destruction of the meaner buildings” ), he shall [suffer loss (literally,) be mulcted. ζημιωθ ., scil. τὸνμισθόν , see ref. Matt., and Herod. vii. 39, τοῦδὲἑνός , τοῦπεριέχεαιμάλιστα , τὴνψυχὴνζημιώσεαι , and Plato, Legg., vi. p. 774, εἰςμὲνοὖνχρήματαὁμὴθέλωνγαμεῖντοσαῦταζημιούσθω ): but he himself shall be saved (having held, and built on, the true foundation Jesus Christ, he shall not be excluded from that salvation which is the free gift of God to all who believe on Christ, but shall get no especial reward as a faithful and effectual teacher. Cf. 2 John 1:8, βλέπετεἑαυτούς , ἵναμὴἀπολέσητεἃεἰργασάμεθα , ἀλλὰμισθὸνπλήρηἀπολάβητε . Meyer remarks, that our Lord hints at such persons under the name of ἔσχατοι , Matthew 20:16; Mark 10:31), but so, as through fire:— i.e. as a builder whose building was consumed would escape with personal safety, but with the loss of his work. Chrys., Theophyl., Œ , strangely understand it, that he shall be burnt for ever in the fire of Hell, unconsumed: οὐχὶκαὶαὐτὸςοὕτωςἀπολεῖταιὡςτὰἔργα , εἰςτὸμηδὲνχωρῶν · ἀλλὰμενεῖἐντῷπυρί , Chrys. σώζεται , τουτέστι , σῶοςτηρεῖται . δίκαςαἰωνίουςὑπέχων , Theophyl. But (1) the fire of Hell is quite alien from the context (see above),— and (2) the meaning given to σώζεσθαι is unexampled,— and least of all could be intended where the coming of the Lord is spoken of: cf. inter alia, ch. 5:5, παραδοῦναικ .τ .λ .… ἵνατὸπνεῦμασωθῇἐντῇἡμέρᾳτ . κυρίου . Grot., Elsn., al., explain ὡςδιὰπυρός as a proverb, ‘ tanquam ex incendio,’ for ‘ with difficulty.’ But this is needless here, as the figure itself is that of an ‘ incendium:’ and ὡς is not ‘ tanquam,’ but belongs to οὕτως , see reff. The whole imagery of the passage will be best understood by carefully keeping in mind the key, which is to be found in the θεοῦοἰκοδομή , and the ναὸςθεοῦ , as connected with the prophecy of Mal_3 and 4. There, ἐξαίφνηςἥξειεἰςτὸνναὸνἑαυτοῦκύριος … αὐτὸςεἰσπορεύεταιὡςπῦρχωνευτηρίου … καθιεῖταιχωνεύωνκαὶκαθαρίζωνὡςτὸἀργύριονκαὶὡςτὸχρυσίον .… διότιἰδοὺἡμέρα (add κυρίου A) ἔρχεταικαιομένηὡςκλίβανος , κ . φλέξειαὐτούς , καὶἔσονται … καλάμη , κ . ἀνάψειαὐτοὺςἡἡμέραἡἐρχομένη . The Lord thus coming to His temple in flaming fire, all the parts of the building which will not stand that fire will be consumed: the builders of them will escape with personal salvation, but with the loss of their work, through the midst of the conflagration. 16-23. The figure is taken up afresh and carried further: and made the occasion of solemn exhortation, since they were the temple of God, not to mar that temple, the habitation of His Spirit, by unholiness, or by exaltation of human wisdom: which last again was irrelevant, as well as sinful; for all their teachers were but their servants in building them up to be God’ s temple,— yea all things were for this end, to subserve them, as being Christ’ s, by the ordinance, and to the glory of God the Father. 16. The foregoing figures, with the occasion to which they referred, are now dropped, and the οἰκοδομὴθεοῦ recalled, to do further service. This building is now, as in Malachi 3:1, and as indeed by implication in the foregoing verses, the temple of God , the habitation of His Spirit. οὐκοἴδατεὅτι — Are ye ignorant that … an expression of surprise arising out of their conduct. καὶ … ἐνὑμῖν = ἐνᾧ , τουτέστιν , ἐνὑμῖν . Meyer rightly remarks, that “ ναὸςθεοῦ is the temple of God, not a temple of God: for Paul does not conceive (as Theodoret, al.) of the various churches as various temples of God, which would be inconsistent with a Jew’ s conception of God’ s temple, but of each Christian church as, sensu mystico, the temple of Jehovah. So there would be, not many temples, but many churches, each of which is, ideally, the same temple of God.” And, we may add, if the figure is to be strictly justified in its widest acceptation, that all the churches are built together into one vast temple: cf. ἐνᾧκαὶὑμεῖςσυνοικοδομεῖσθε , Ephesians 2:22. 17. φθείρει , [destroys, or] mars, whether as regards its unity and beauty, or its purity and sanctity: here, the meaning is left indefinite, but the latter particulars are certainly hinted at,— by ἅγιος below. φθερεῖ , either by temporal death (Mey.), as in ch. 11:30; or by spiritual death, which is more probable, seeing that the figurative temple is spoken of, not (as Mey.) the material temple:— and as temporal death was the punishment for defiling the material temple (Exodus 28:43.Leviticus 16:2 Leviticus 16:2 al. fr.), so spiritual death for marring or defiling of God’ s spiritual temple. ἅγιος , the constant epithet of ναός in the O. T., see Psalms 5:7; Psalms 10:5 (LXX). Habakkuk 2:20, and passim. οἵτινες , i.e. ἅγιοι , not, ‘ which temple are ye,’ which would be tautological after ver. 16, and would hardly be expressed by οἵτινες , ‘ ut qui,’ or ‘ quales.’ Meyer well remarks, that οἵτινέςἐστεὑμεῖς is the minor proposition of a syllogism:— ‘ Whoever mars the temple of God, him will God destroy, because His temple is holy; but ye also, as His ideal temple, are holy:— therefore, whoever mars you, shall be destroyed by God.’ 18-20. A warning to those who would be leaders among them, against self-conceit. 18. ἐξαπατάτω , not, as Theophyl., νομίζωνὅτιἄλλωςἔχειτὸπρᾶγμακαὶοὐχὡςεἶπον :— it is far more naturally referred to what follows, viz. thinking himself wise, when he must become a fool in order to be wise. If any man [seemeth to be (i.e.,] thinks that he is) wise among you in this world (ἐντῷαἰ . τούτῳ belongs to δοκεῖσοφ . εἶν . ἐνὑμ .,— to the whole assumption of wisdom made by the man, which as made in this present world, must be false: not (1) merely to σοφός , Grot., Rü ckert, al.,— as the arrangement of the words shews,— nor (2) to μωρὸςγενέσθω , Orig., Chrys., Luther, Rosenm., al., in which case, the stress being on μωρός , it must have been μωρὸςγενέσθωἐντῷαἰῶνιτούτῳ ), let him become a fool (by receiving the gospel in its simplicity, and so becoming foolish in the world’ s sight), that he may become (truly) wise. 19. Reason why this must be:— shewn from Scripture. παρὰθ ., in the judgment of God, reff. ὁδρασσ .] The sense of the Heb. is equally expressed by the Apostle and the LXX. The words are taken out of the context as they stand, which accounts for the participle, see Hebrews 1:7. The sense is, ‘ If God uses the craft of the wise as a net to catch them in, such wisdom is in His sight folly, since He turns it to their confusion.’ “ δρασσόμενος (possibly a provincialism) is substituted for καταλαμβάνων , as a stronger and livelier expression for ‘ grasping,’ or ‘ catching with the hand.’  ” Stanley. Cf. Judith 13:7. 20. The LXX have ἀνθρώπων ; the Psalmist however is speaking of the proud, ver. 2 f., and such, when διαλογισμοί are in question, would be the worldly wise. 21-23. A warning to them in general, not to boast themselves in human teachers. 21. ὥστε , viz. seeing that this world’ s wisdom is folly with God: or perhaps as a more general inference from what has gone before since ch. i., that as the conclusion there was, ὁκαυχώμενος , ἐνκυρίῳκαυχάσθω ,— so now, having gone into the matter more at length, he concludes, μηδεὶςκαυχάσθωἐνἀνθρώποις . This boasting in men is explained in ch. 4:6 to mean μὴεἷςὑπὲρτοῦἑνὸςφυσιοῦσθαικατὰτοῦἑτέρου . καυχάσθω after ὥστε is a change of construction. A somewhat similar change occurred in the parallel ch. 1:31, ἵνα … καυχάσθω : but there, by the citation being adduced in its existing form. πάνταγὰρὑμ . ἐστ .] ‘ For such boasting is a degradation to those who are heirs of all things, and for whom all, whether ministers, or events, or the world itself, are working together: see Romans 8:28: and 4:13. 22, 23. Specification of some of the things included under πάντα : and first of those teachers in whom they were disposed to boast,— in direct reference to ch. 1:12. But having enumerated Paul, Apollos, Cephas, he does not say εἴτεχριστός , but adding the world itself and its events and circumstances, he reiterates the πάνταὑμῶν as if to mark the termination of this category, and changing the form, concludes with ὑμεῖςδὲ (not only one part of you) χριστοῦ · χριστὸςδὲθεοῦ (see below). The expressions ζωή , θάνατος , ἐνεστῶτα , μέλλοντα , have nothing to do with the teachers, as Chrys., Theophyl., Grot.,— ἡζωή , φησι , τῶνδιδασκάλωνδι ʼ ὑμᾶςἔστινἵναὠφελῆσθεδιδασκόμενοι · κ . ὁθάνατοςαὐτῶνδι ʼ ὑμᾶς · ὑπὲρὑμῶνγὰρκινδυνεύουσικαὶτῆςὑμετέραςσωτηρίας , Theophyl.,— and “ præ sentia, … linguarum et sanationum dona … futura, … rerum futurarum revelationes,” Grot.,— but are perfectly general. ἐνεστῶτα is things actually present,— see note on 2 Thessalonians 2:2. 23. On the change of the possessives, see above:— Christ is not yours, in the sense in which πάντα are,— not made for and subserving you— but you are His,— and even that does not reach the Highest possession: He possesses not you for Himself; but (δέ again) κεφαλὴχριστοῦὁθεός , ch. 11:3. Christ Himself, the Incarnate God the Mediator, belongs to God, is subordinate to the Father, see John 14:28; and 17 passim. But this mediatorial subordination is in no way inconsistent with His eternal and co-equal Godhead: see notes on Philippians 2:6-9; and on ch. 15:28, where the subjection of all things to Christ, and His subjection to the Father, are similarly set forth. There is a striking similarity in the argument in this last verse to that in our Lord’ s prohibition, Matthew 23:8-10. See Stanley’ s beautiful note. 4:1-5. He shews them the right view to take of Christian ministers (vv. 1, 2); but, for his part, regards not man’ s judgment of him, nor even judges himself, but the Lord is his Judge (vv. 3, 4). Therefore let them also suspend their judgments till the Lord’ s coming, when all shall be made plain. 1. οὕτως , emphatic, preparatory to ὡς , as in ref. ἄνθρωπος , as E. V., a man, in the most general and indefinite sense, as ‘ man’ in German: not a Hebraism, nor = ἕκαστος . The whole is opposed to καύχησιςἐνἀνθρώποις : the ministers of Christ are but subordinates to Him, and accountable to God. ἡμᾶς , here, not, ‘ us ministers generally,’ see below, ver. 6, but ‘ myself and Apollos,’ as a sample of such. ὑπηρ . χριστοῦ , see ch. 3:5, 22, 23. But in οἰκον . μυστ . θεοῦ we have a new figure introduced. The Church, 1 Timothy 3:15, is the οἶκοςθεοῦ — and those appointed to minister in it are οἰκονόμοι , stewards and dispensers of the property and stores of the οἰκοδεσπότης . These last are the μυστήρια , hidden treasures, of God,— i.e. the riches of his grace, now manifested in Christ, ch. 2:7; Romans 16:25, Romans 16:26, which they announce and distribute to all, having received them from the Spirit for that purpose. “ Ea mysteria sunt incarnationis, passionis et resurrectionis Christi, redemptionis nostræ , vocationis gentium, et cæ tera quæ complectitur evangelica doctrina.” Estius, who also, as a Romanist, attempts to include the sacraments among the μυστήρια in this sense. The best refutation of this is given by himself: “ sed cum ipse Paulus dixerit primo capite, Non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare, rectius est ut mysteria Dei intelligantur fidei nostræ dogmata.” It may be doubted, whether, in the N. T. sense of μυστήρια , the sacraments can be in any way reckoned as such: for μυστ . is a (usually divine) proceeding, once hidden, but now revealed, or now hidden, and to be revealed; under neither of which categories can the sacraments be classed. 2. Moreover, here (on earth) (see var. readd. and reff. ὧδε is emphatic, and points to what follows, that though in the case of stewards enquiry was necessarily made here below, yet he, God’ s steward, awaited no such enquiry ὑπὸἀνθρωπίνηςἡμέρας , but one at the coming of the Lord. Lachmann, I cannot but think somewhat strangely, places ὧδε at the end of ver. 1: οἰκονόμουςμυστηρίωνθεοῦὧδε . Stanley takes ὧδε for ‘ in this matter,’ and supports the meaning by Revelation 13:10, Revelation 13:18; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 17:9) enquiry is made in the case of stewards (or, it is required in the case of stewards), in order that (or that, the purport of the requirement expressed as its purpose) a man may be found (proved to be) faithful (emph.). 3. But to me (contrast to the case of the stewards into whose faithfulness enquiry is made ὧδε , here on earth) it is (amounts to) very little judged (enquired into, as to my faithfulness) by you, or by the day of man ([i.e., of man’ s judgment,] in reference to ὧδε above, and contrast to the ἡμέρακυρίου , to which his appeal is presently made, ver. 5, and of which, as testing the worth of the labour of teachers, he spoke so fully ch. 3:13-15. Jerome, Quæ stiones ad Algasiam, Ep. xxxi. (cli.) 10, vol. i. p. 879, numbers the expression among the cilicisms of the Apostle. Estius, al., suppose it to be a Hebraism, referring to Jeremiah 17:16, which is irrelevant. All these are probably wrong, and the expression chosen purposely by the Apostle. Grot. compares ‘ diem dicere,’ ‘ to cite to trial;’ to which Stanley adds the English ‘ daysman’ for arbiter (see Job 9:33), and the Dutch ‘ dagh vaerden’ and ‘ daghen,’ to ‘ summon’ ),— nay, I do not judge even (hold not an enquiry on: lit. ‘ but neither do I,’ &c.) myself: 4. for I [know nothing against myself (i.e.)] am conscious to myself of no (official) delinquency; so Plato, Apol. p. 21, οὔτεμέγαοὔτεσμικρὸνξύνοιδαἐμαυτῷσοφὸςὤν ,— ib., Rep. i. (Wetst.), τῷδὲμηδὲνἑαυτῷἀδίκωνξυνειδότιἡδεῖαἐλπὶςἀεὶπάρεστι , and Hor., Epist. i. 1. 61, ‘ Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.’ The E. V., ‘ I know nothing by myself,’ was a phrase commonly used in this acceptation at the time; cf. Psalms 15:4, Com. Prayer Book version, ‘ He that setteth not by himself,’ i.e. is not wise in his own conceit. ‘ I know no harm by him’ is still a current expression in the midland counties. See Deuteronomy 27:16; Ezekiel 22:7, in E. V. So Donne, Serm. lvii., “ If thine own spirit, thine own conscience, accuse thee of nothing, is all well? why, I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified.” This meaning of ‘ by’ does not appear in our ordinary dictionaries), but I am not hereby justified (i.e. it is not this circumstance which clears me of blame— this does not decide the matter. There can be no reference (as Meyer) to forensic justification here, by the very conditions of the context: for he is speaking of that μισθός of the teacher, which may be lost, and yet personal salvation be attained, see ch. 3:15); but he that judges (holds an enquiry on) me is the Lord (Christ, the judge). 5. So then (because the Lord is the sole infallible dijudicator) decide nothing (concerning us, of merit or demerit) before the time, until the Lord shall have come (explains πρὸκαιρ .), who shall also (καί , inter alia: as part of the proceedings of that Day: or both) bring to light (throw light on) the hidden things of darkness (general— all things which are hidden in darkness), and shall make manifest the counsels of the hearts (then first shewing, what your teachers really are, in heart), and then shall the (fitting) praise accrue to each from God. ἔπαινος is not a vox media, praise or blame, as the case may be, but strictly praise. Theophyl., Grot., Billr., Rü ck., Olsh., suppose the word to be used euphemistically, “ unde et contrarium datur intelligi, sed mavult εὐφημεῖν ,” Grot.: Calv., Meyer, al., think that he speaks without reference to those who will obtain no praise: “ hæ c vox ex bonæ conscientiæ fiducia nascitur.” Calv. But I agree with De Wette, in thinking that he refers to καυχᾶσθαιἐνἀνθρώποις :— they, their various parties, gave exaggerated praise to certain teachers: let them wait till the day when the fitting praise (be it what it may) will be adjudged to each from God; Christ as the Judge being the ὡρισμένοςὑπὸτοῦθεοῦκριτής , Acts 10:42, and so His sentences being ἀπὸθεοῦ . See also Acts 17:31, and Romans 2:16, κρινεῖὁθεὸςτὰκρυπτὰτῶνἀνθρώπων , … διὰἸησοῦχριστοῦ . 6-13. He explains to them (ver. 6) that the mention hitherto of himself and Apollos (and by parity of reasoning, of Cephas and of Christ, in ch. 1:12) has a more general design, viz. to abstract them from all party spirit and pride: which pride he then blames, and puts to shame by depicting, as a contrast, the low and afflicted state of the Apostles themselves. 6. But (transeuntis: he comes to the conclusion of what he has to say on their party divisions) these things (De Wette, Meyer, al., limit ταῦτα to what has been said since ch. 3:5. But there surely is no reason for this. The Apostle’ s meaning here must on all hands be acknowledged to be, ‘ I have taken our two names as samples that you may not attach yourselves to and be proud of any party leaders, one against another.’ And if these two names which had been last mentioned, why not analogously, those four which he had also alleged in ch. 1:12? There can be no reason against this, except the determination of the Germans to regard their Paulus-parthei, and Apollos-parthei, and Petrus-parthei, and Christus-parthei, as historical facts, and consequent unwillingness to part with them here, where the Apostle himself by implication repudiates them as such) I transferred (the epistolary aorist) to myself and Apollos (i.e. when I might have set them before you generally and in the abstract as applying to all teachers, I have preferred doing so by taking two samples, and transferring to them what was true of the whole. This is far more probable than the explanation of Chrys., al., that he put in his own name and that of Apollos instead of those of the real leaders of sects, concealing them on purpose. On μετασχ ., see reff. and cf. Plato, Legg. x. p. 903, μετασχηματίζωντὰπάνταοἷονἐκπυρὸςὕδωρ ,— and p. 906, τοῦτοτὸῥῆμαμετεσχηματισμένον , Meyer) on your account, that ye by us (as your example: by having our true office and standing set before you) might learn this, “ Not above those things which are written” (i.e. not to exceed in your estimate of yourselves and us, the standard of Scripture,— which had been already in part shewn to them in the citations ch. 1:19, 31; 3:19. To refer γέγραπται to what has been written in this Epistle, as Luth., Calov., Calv. (altern.), is quite inadmissible, for, as Grot. remarks, “ γέγραπται in his libris semper ad libros Veteris Testamenti refertur.” But he (and Olsh.) refer the words to Deuteronomy 17:20,— whereas it is far better to give them a perfectly general reference. Chrys., Theodoret, and Theophyl. refer it to words of our Lord in the N. T., such as Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:3; Matthew 23:12; Mark 10:43, Mark 10:44, but these could not be indicated by γέγραπται ,— cf. ch. 7:10 and note. The ellipsis, as here, of the verb in prohibitory clauses, with μή , is common enough: thus, Aristoph. Vesp. 1179, μήμοίγεμύθους . Soph. Antig. 577, μὴτριβὰςἔτι , ἀλλάνινκομίζετ ʼ εἴσω . Demosth. phil. i. p. 46, μήμοιμυρίουςμηδὲδισμυρίουςξένους . Hartung, Partikellehre ii. 153, where see more examples), that ye may not one on behalf of another be puffed up against a third . There is a grammatical difficulty here, the occurrence of ἵνα with an indic. pres. This is variously explained. see winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 1. c. Some suppose that here, and in ref. Gal. st. Paul has commited a philogical error in the formation of the subjunctive, and written the indic. for it. It is at least remarkable, that that other instance, ἵνααὐτοὺςζηλοῦτε , is also in the case of a contracted syllable in ου ,— so that we might almost suppose that there was some provincial usage of forming the subj. of constracted verbs in οω , which our Apostle followed. At all events (especially considering that we have two other cases of ἵνα with an indic., see reff.) it is better to suppose a solecism or peculiar usage, than with Meyer to give ἵνα a local sense,— ‘ where,’ i.e. ‘ in which case ye are not (pres. for the future) puffed up,’ — i.e. if you keep to the Scripture measure: the double ἵνα of the purpose being, as he himself observes, according to Paul’ s usage, Romans 7:13; Galatians 3:14; Galatians 4:5, al., and here being absolutely demanded by the sense. 7. For (reason why this puffing up should be avoided) who separates thee (distinguishes thee from others? meaning, that all such conceits of pre-eminence are unfounded. That pre-eminence, and not merely distinction (Meyer), is meant, is evident from what follows? And (δέ connects interrogative clauses, as Od. α . 225, τίςδαίς , τίςδὲὅμιλοςὅδ ʼ ἔπλετο ; and Il. ε . 704, ἔνθατίναπρῶτον , τίναδ ʼ ὕστατονἐξενάριξεν ; See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 169) what hast thou which thou receivedst not ? but if (which I concede;— στέγαιδὲεἰκαὶἡμῖναὐτοῖςεἰσιν , ἀλλὰμὰΔί ʼ οὐχἵπποις ; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 14. Hartung, i. 140) thou receivedst it, &c. He speaks not only to the leaders, but to the members of parties,— who imagined themselves superior to those of other parties,— as if all, for every good thing, were not dependent on God the Giver. 8. The admonition becomes ironical: ‘ You behave as if the trial were past, and the goal gained; as if hunger and thirst after righteousness were already filled, and the kingdom already brought in.’ κωμῳδῶναὐτοὺςἔλεγενΟὕτωταχέωςπρὸςτὸτέλοςἐφθάσατε , ὅπερἀδύνατονἦνγενέσθαιδιὰτὸνκαιρόν . Chrys. Hom. xii. p. 138. The emphases are on ἤδη in the two first clauses, and χωρὶςἡμῶν in the third. The three verbs form a climax. Any interpretation which stops short of the full meaning of the words as applied to the triumphant final state (so Grot., Est., Calvin., Wetst., al., interpreting them of knowledge, of security, of the lordship of one sect over another), misses the force of the irony, and the meaning of the latter part of the verse. χωρὶςἡμῶν ] ‘ because we, as your fathers in Christ, have ever looked forward to present you, as our glory and joy, in that day.’ There is an exquisite delicacy of irony, which Chrys. has well caught: πολλὴἔμφασιςἐνταῦθακαὶπρὸςτοὺςδιδασκάλουςκ . πρὸςτοὺςμαθητάς . καὶτὸἀσυνείδητονδὲαὐτῶνδείκνυταικ . τὸσφόδραἀνόητον . ὃγὰρλέγει , τοῦτόἐστιν . ἐνμὲντοῖςπόνοιςφησὶνεἶναιπάντακοινὰκαὶἡμῖνκ . ὑμῖν , ἐνδὲτοῖςἐπάθλοιςκ . τοῖςστεφάνοιςὑμεῖςπρῶτοι . p. 99. The latter part of the verse is said bonâ fide and with solemnity: And I would indeed (γε strengthens the wish; so ἡδ ʼ εἵλεθ ʼ … ὥςγεμήποτ ʼ ὤφελενλαβεῖν … Μενέλαον , Eur. Iph. Aul. 70. Hartung, i. 373. ὄφελον is used in LXX and N. T. as a particle, with the indic.: also with optative. See, for both, reff.) that ye did reign (that the kingdom of the Lord was actually come, and ye reigning with Him), that we also might reign together with you (that we, though deposed from our proper place, might at least be vouchsafed a humble share in your kingly glory). 9. For (and there is abundant reason for this wish in our present afflicted state) I think,— God set forth (before the eyes of the world,— the similitude is in θέατρον following) us the Apostles (meaning all the Apostles, principally himself and Apollos) last (the rendering of Erasm., Clav., Beza, al., us who were last called to be Apostles, q. d. τοὺςἀπ . τοὺςἐσχ ., or τοὺςἐσχ . ἀποστ .,— is ungrammatical. ἐσχάτους , last and vilest: not, ‘ respectu priorum,’ last, as the prophets were before us, as Corn.-a-lap., and in part, Bengel) as persons condemned to death — for we are become a spectacle (θέατρον = θέαμα : so Achilles Tatius, i. p. 55 (Kypke), and θέατραποιητῶν , Æ schines, Dial. Socr. iii. 20:— see θεατριζόμενοι , Hebrews 10:33) to the world, as well to angels (good angels: ἄγγελοι absol., never either includes, or signifies, bad angels) as to men (κόσμῳ being afterwards specialized into angels and men). 10. Again, the bitterest irony: ‘ how different our lot from yours! How are you to be envied— we, to be pitied!’ There is a distinction in διὰχριστόν and ἐνχριστῷ — q. d. We are foolish for Christ’ s sake (on account of Christ,— our connexion with Him does nothing but reduce us to be fools), whereas you are φρόνιμοιἐνχριστῷ , have entered into full participation of Him, and grown up to be wise, subtle Christians. ἀσθενεῖς — ἰσχυροί are both to be understood generally: the ἀσθένεια is not here that of persecution, but that of ch. 2:3: the strength is the high bearing of the Corinthians. Ye are in honour (in glorious repute, party leaders and party men, highly honoured and looked up to), whereas we are despised (without honour). Then ἄτιμοι leads him to enlarge on the disgrace and contempt which the Apostle met with at the hands of the world. 11-13. He enters into the particulars of this state of affliction, which was not a thing past, but enduring to the present moment. 11. ἄχριτ . ἄρτιὥρας is evidently not to be taken strictly as indicative of the situation of Paul at the time of writing the Epistle, but as generally describing the kind of life to which, then and always, he and the other Apostles were exposed: οὐπαλαιὰδιηγοῦμαιπράγματα , ἀλλ ʼ ἅπερκαὶὁπαρώνμοικαιρὸςμαρτυρεῖ . Chrys See, on the subject-matter, 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. γυμνιτ .] are in want of sufficient clothing: cf. ἐνψύχεικ . γυμνότητι , 2 Corinthians 11:27. Meyer (after Fritzsche) believes γυμνιτεύομεν to be a mistake in writing the word, of very ancient date: but surely we are not justified, in such a conventional matter as the form of writing a word, to desert the unanimous testimony of the oldest mss. And we have the forms γυμνίτης , and γυμνῖτις : why not then γυμνιτεύω κολαφ .] are buffeted— see reff., there is no need to press the strict meaning. ἀστατ .] τουτέστιν , ἐλαυνόμεθα , φεύγομεν . Theophyl. 12. As testimonies to Paul’ s working with his own hands, see Acts 18:3; Acts 20:34; ch. 9:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8. That the other Apostles did the same, need not necessarily be inferred from this passage, for he may be describing the state of all by himself as a sample; but it is conceivable, and indeed probable, that they did. λοιδ .… κ .τ .λ .] ‘ So far are we from vindicating to ourselves places of earthly honour and distinction, that we tamely submit to reproach, persecution, and evil repute;— nay, we return blessing, and patience, and soft words.’ 13. παρακ ., ἀντὶτοῦ , πραοτέροιςλόγοιςκ . μαλακτικοῖςἀμειβόμεθα . Theophyl. ὡςπερικαθάρματα ] A climax of disgrace and contempt, summing up the foregoing particulars. We are become as it were the refuse of the world. περικ . from περικαθαίρω , that which is removed by a thorough purification, the offal or refuse. So Ammonius (in Wetst.): καθάρματα , τὰμετὰτὸκαθαρθῆναιἀποῤῥιπτόμενα :— Theophylact, ὅτανῥυπυρόντιἀποσπογγίσῃτις , περικάθαρμαλέγεταιτὸἀποσπόγγισμαἐκεῖνον : and similarly Œ cum. Wetst. gives many examples of the metaphorical usage of the term κάθαρμα as a reproach, from Demosth., Aristoph., Lucian, al., and of purgamentum in Latin. περικαθάρματα is found in Arrian, Epict. iii. 22, Πρίαμος , ὁνῦνγεννήσαςπερικαθάρματα . But Luther and very many Commentators suppose the word to imply piacula, as Schol., Aristoph. Plut. 454 (Wetst.), καθάρματαἐλέγοντοοἱἐπὶκαθάρσειλοιμοῦτινοςἤτινοςἑτέραςνόσουθυόμενοιτοῖςθεοῖς , τοῦτοδὲτὸἔθοςκαὶπαρὰῬωμαίοιςἐπεκράτησε . Meyer well remarks that περικαθάρματα will hardly bear this meaning, and that περίψημα in the sing. would not suit it. Still we may remark, with Stanley, that περικάθαρμα is so used in ref. Prov., and περίψημα in ref. Tobit: and that Suidas says, περίψημα .… , οὕτωςἐπέλεγοντῷκατ ʼ ἐνιαυτὸνσυνέχοντιτῶνκακῶνΠερίψημαἡμῶνγένου · ἤτοι , σωτηρίακαὶἀπολύτρωσις · καὶοὕτωςἐνέβαλοντῇθαλάσσῃὡσανεὶτῷΠοσειδῶνιθυσίανἀποτίννυντες . περίψ .] much the same as περικαθάρματα ,— but the expression is more contemptuous:— the individual περικαθάρματα are generalized into one περίψημα , the τοῦκόσμου is even further extended to πάντων ,— see ch. 3:22. 14-21. Conclusion of this part of the Epistle:— in what spirit the has written these words of blame: viz. in a spirit of admonition, as their father in the faith, whom they ought to imitate. To this end he sent Timothy to remind them of his ways of teaching,— would soon, however, come himself,— in mildness, or to punish, as the case might require. 14. οὐκἐντρέπων ] not as one who shames you, see reff., and ch. 6:5; 15:34,— and for the force of the participle, ch. 2:1. νουθετῶ contrasts with ἐντρέπωνγράφω , the construction being purposely adopted, to set in a more vivid light the paternal intention:— I am not writing these things (vv. 8-13) as shaming you,— but I am admonishing you as my beloved children. 15. Justification of the expression τέκναμου . μυρίους , the greatest possible number— see reff. παιδαγ .] He was their spiritual father: those who followed, Apollos included, were but tutors, having the care and education of the children, but not the rights, as they could not have the peculiar affection of the father. He evidently shews by μυρίους , that these παιδαγωγοί were more in number than he could wish,— including among them doubtless the false and party teachers: but to refer the word only to them and their despotic leading (as Beza, Calvin, al., and De Wette), or to confine its meaning to the stricter sense of παιδαγωγός , the slave who led the child to school, is not here borne out by the facts. See ref. and note: and for the wider sense of παιδαγ ., examples in Wetst. ἀλλ ʼ οὐ brings out the contrast strongly, giving almost the sense of ‘ at non ideo:’ so Æ sch. in Ctes. § 155, καὶγὰρἐὰναὐτὰδιεξίῃτὰἐκτοῦψηφίσματοςπροστάγματα , ἀλλ ʼ οὐτόγ ʼ ἐκτῆςἀληθείαςαἰσχρὸνσιωπηθήσεται . See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 40. ἐνγὰρχρ .] For in Christ Jesus by means of the gospel (the preached word being the instrument) I (emphatic) begat you (there is also an emphasis on ὑμᾶς , as coming before the verb, q. d. in your case, I it was who begat you). 16. οὖν , because I am your father. μιμηταί , not only, nor perhaps chiefly, in the things just mentioned, vv. 9-13,— but as ver. 17, in αἱὁδοίμουαἱἐνχρ ., my manner of life and teaching. See reff. 17. διὰτοῦτο ,— in order that you may the better imitate me by being put in mind of my ways and teaching: not, as Chrys., Theophyl., al., ἐπειδὴὡςπαίδωνκήδομαι , καὶὡςγεγεννηκώς ,— which would make ver. 16 a very harsh parenthesis, and destroy the force of what follows. On the fact, see Prolegg. to 2 Cor., § ii. 4. τέκνον ] see 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:2. Meyer remarks, that by the strict use of the word τέκνον in this passage (vv. 14, 15) we have a certain proof that Timothy was converted by Paul: see Acts 14:6, Acts 14:7 and note. “ The phrase seems to be used here in reference to τέκναἀγαπητά , ver. 14: ‘ I sent Timotheus, who stands to me in the same relation that you stand (in).’  ” Stanley. ἐνκυρίῳ points out the spiritual nature of the relationship. ἀναμνήσει ] Timothy, by being himself a close imitator of the Christian virtues and teaching of his and their spiritual father, would bring to their minds his well-known character, and way of teaching, which they seemed to have well-nigh forgotten. See 2 Timothy 3:10. καθώς specifies what before was expressed generally: so Luke 24:19, Luke 24:20, τὰπερὶἸησοῦ .… ὅπωςτεπαρέδωκαναὐτὸνοἱἀρχιερεῖςκ .τ .λ . and Thucyd. i. 1, τὸνπόλεμοντῶνΠελ . κ . Ἀθ ., ὡςἐπολέμησανπρὸςἀλλήλους . πανταχοῦἐνπ . ἐκκλ .] To shew the importance of this his manner of teaching, he reminds them of his unvarying practice of it: and as he was guided by the Spirit, by inference, of its universal necessity in the churches. 18-20. To guard against misrepresentation of the coming of Timothy just announced, by those who had said and would now the more say, ‘ Paul dare not come to Corinth,’ he announces the certainty of his coming, if the Lord will. 18. ὡςμὴἐρχομένου forms one idea, and the δέ is in consequence placed after it all: so Thucyd. i. 6, ἐντοῖςπρῶτοιδὲἈθηναῖοι : Isocr. περὶεἰρ ., p. 160, ὅτιἂντύχῃδὲγενησόμενον . Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 190. ὡς expresses the assumption in their minds: the present part. ἐρχομένου refers to their saying— οὐκἔρχεται , as Meyer. 19. ἐλεύσομαι is prefixed, for emphasis, being the matter in doubt: as we say, ‘ Come I will.’ ταχέως ] How soon, see ch. 16:8. γνώσομαι ] I will inform myself of— not the words of those who are puffed up (those I care not for), but their power: whether they are really mighty in the Spirit, or not. This general reference of δύν . must be kept, and not narrowed, as Chrys., Theophyl., to [the] power of working miracles: or “ quantum apud vos sua scientia et doctrina quam jactant profecerint,” Est.; or virtuous lives (Theodoret, al.), or energy in the work of the gospel (Meyer): he leaves it general and indefinite. 20. Justification of this his intention by the very nature of that kingdom of which he was the ambassador. ἡβας . τ . θεοῦ , the Kingdom (τ . οὐρ . Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17 and passim; τ . θ . Mark 1:15, al.) announced by the prophets, preached by the Lord and the Apostles, being now prepared on earth and received by those who believe on Christ, and to be consummated when He returns with His saints: see Philippians 3:20, Philippians 3:21; Ephesians 5:5. ἐνλόγῳ .… ἐνδυνάμει .… is not (i.e. does not consist in, has not its conditions and element of existence) in (mere) word, but in power— is a kingdom of power. 21. He offers them, with a view to their amendment, the alternative: ‘ shall his coming be in a judicial or in a friendly spirit?’ as depending on themselves. τί not for πότερον (as Meyer, De W.), but general, and afterwards confined to the two alternatives: What will ye (respecting my coming)? ἔλθω , must I come? ἐνῥάβδῳ , with a rod; but not only ‘ with,’ as accompanied with: the prep. gives the idea of the element in which, much as ἐνδόξῃ : not only with a rod, but in such purpose as to use it. There is no Hebraism: see Passow under ἐν , No. 3 and 4. He speaks as a father: τίἐστιν , ἐνῥάβδῳ ; ἐνκολάσει , ἐντιμωρίᾳ , Chrys. πνεύμ . τ . πραΰτητος ] Generally, and by De Wette, explained, a gentle spirit, meaning by πνεύμ . his own spirit: but Meyer has remarked, that in every place in the N. T. where πνεῦμα is joined with an abstract genitive, it imports the Holy Spirit, and the abstract genitive refers to the specific working of the Spirit in the case in hand. So πν . τῆςἀληθείας (John 15:26; John 16:13; 1 John 4:6), υἱοθεσίας (Romans 8:15), τῆςπίστεως (2 Corinthians 4:13), σοφίας (Ephesians 1:17), ἁγιωσύνης (Romans 1:4). (This does not however appear to be without exceptions: ef. πνεῦμαἀσθενείας , Luke 13:11; δουλείας , Romans 8:15; κατανύξεως , Romans 11:8; δειλίας , 2 Timothy 1:7; τῆςπλάνης , 1 John 4:6. We may indeed say, that in none of these cases is the πνεῦμα subjective, or the phrase a mere periphrasis: but the πνεῦμα is objective, a possessing, indwelling spirit, whether of God or otherwise.) And so Chrys., Theophyl.,— ἔνιγὰρκαὶπνεῦμααὐστηρότητοςκ . τιμωρίας , ἀλλ ʼ ἀπὰτῶνχρηστοτέρωναὐτὸκαλεῖ · ὡςκαὶτὸνθεὸνοἰκτίρμονακ . ἐλεήμονάφαμεν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐκολαστήν , καίτοιγεκαὶτοῦτοὄντα . Theophyl. 5:1-13. Concerning a gross case of incest which had arisen, and was harboured, among them (vv. 1-8): and qualification of a former command which he had given them respecting association with gross sinners (9-13). The subject of this chapter is bound on to the foregoing by the question of ch. 4:21: and it furnishes an instance of those things which required his apostolic discipline. 1. ὅλως , actually, ‘ omnino,’ see reff.: in negative sentences, ‘ at all.’ ἀκούεταιἐνὑμ . πορνεία ] another way of saying ἀκούουσίτινεςἐνὑμ . πόρνοι ,— the character of πόρνος is borne (by some) among you,— fornication is borne as a character among you. From missing this sense of ἀκούομαι , Commentators have gone wrong (1) as to ὅλως , rendering it ‘ commonly,’ to suit ἀκούεται , ‘ is reported,’ — (2) as to ἐνὑμῖν , joining it with πορνεία , whereas it belongs to ἀκούεται ,— (3) as to ἥτιςοὐδὲἐντ . ἔθν ., see below. καὶτοιαύτ . π .] And fornication of such a sort (the καί rises in a climax, there being an ellipsis of οὐμόνον … ‚ ἀλλὰ … before it; so Aristoph. Ran. 116, ὦσχέτλιε , τολμήσειςγὰρἰέναικαὶσύγε ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 134), as (is) not (borne as a character) even among the heathen. The ὀνομάξεται of the rec. is a clumsy gloss, probably from Ephesians 5:3: the meaning being, that not even among the heathen does any one ἀκούειπόρνος in this sense, that it was a crime that they would not tolerate as a matter of public notoriety. So that one among yon has (as wife most probably, not merely as concubine: the word ἔχω in such cases universally in the N. T. signifying to possess in marriage: and Meyer remarks that ὁτὸἔργοντοῦτοποιήσας (ver. 2), and τὸνοὕτωςτοῦτοκατεργασάμενον (ver. 3) seem to point to a consummation of marriage, not to mere concubinage) his father’ s wife (i.e. his step-mother, see Leviticus 18:8; οὐκεἶπεμητρυιὰνἀλλὰγυναῖκαπατρός , ὥστεπολλῷχαλεπώτερονπλῆξαι , Chrys. Hom. xv. p. 125). The Commentators generally refer to Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 5, 6, “ Nubit genero socrus, nullis auspicibus, nullis auctoribus, funestis ominibus omnium omnibus. O mulieris scelus incredibile, et præ ter hanc unam, in omni vita inauditum,” &c. It may seem astonishing that the authorities in the Corinthian church should have allowed such a case to escape them, or if known, should have tolerated it. Perhaps the universal laxity of morals at Corinth may have weakened the severity even of the Christian elders: perhaps, as has often been suggested, the offender, if a Jewish convert, might defend his conduct by the Rabbinical maxim that in the case of a proselyte, the forbidden degrees were annulled, a new birth having been undergone by him (see Maimon. in Wetst.). This latter however is rendered improbable by the fact that the Apostle says nothing of the woman, which he would have done had she been a Christian:— and that Jewish maxim was taxed with the condition, that a proselyte might marry any of his or her former relatives, ‘ modo ad Judaicam religionem transierint.’ The father was living, and is described in 2 Corinthians 7:12, as ὁἀδικηθείς ;— and from the Apostle saying there that he did not write on his account, he was probably a Christian. 2. καί often introduces a question, especially one by which something inconsistent or preposterous is brought out,— see reff.: and note on 2 Corinthians 2:2. πεφυς . ἐστέ ] Not, which would be absurd,— at the occurrence of this crime, οὐκἐπὶτῷἁμαρτήματι · τοῦτογὰρἀλογίας . Chrys.: neither, as he proceeds,— ἀλλ ʼ ἐπὶτῇδιδασκαλίᾳτῇἐκείνου , imagining the offender to have been some party teacher: so also Theophyl.:— but as before, with a notion of their own wisdom and spiritual perfection: the being puffed up is only cum hoc, not propter hoc. ἐπενθήσατε ] And did ye not rather mourn (viz. when the crime became first known to you), in order that (your mourning would be because of the existence of the evil, i.e. with a view to its removal) he who did this deed (the past part. ποιήσας is itself used from the past point of time indicated by ἐπενθήσατε , and must therefore be expressed by the past) might (may) be removed from among you (viz. by your casting him out from your society)? 3-5. justifies the expression ἵναἀρθῇ just used, by declaring the judgment which the Apostle, although absent, had already passed on the offender. 3. ἐγὼμὲνγάρ , I for my part … ‘ ego certe:’ so Aristoph. Plut. 355, μὰΔί ʼ , ἐγὼμὲνοὔ : see Hartung, Partikellchre, ii. 413. ὡςπαρών , as if really present, not, as being present in spirit. τὸνοὕτωςτοῦτοκατ .] The object is put foremost for emphasis’ sake, and after several intervening clauses, taken up again with τὸντοιοῦτον , ver. 5. οὕτως , Meyer thinks, alludes to some peculiarly offensive method in which he had brought about the marriage, which was known to the Corinthians, but unknown to us. Olsh. understands it, ‘ under such circumstances,’ ‘ being such as he is, a member of Christ’ s body.’ But this, being before patent, would hardly be thus emphatically denoted. Perhaps after all, τοῦτοκατεργασάμενον refers to πορνεία generally, οὕτως to τοιαύτηπορνεία , ver. 1. 4. We may arrange this sentence in four different ways: (1) ἐντῷὀν . may belong to συναχθέντων , and σὺντῇδυν . to παραδοῦναι ,— so Beza, Calov., Billroth, Olsh., al.: (2) both ἐντῷὀν . and σὺντῇδυν . may belong to συναχθέντων ,— so Chrys., Theophyl. (altern.), Calvin (quoting for σὺντῇδυν . Matthew 18:20), Grot., Rü ckert: (3) both may belong to παραδοῦναι ,— so Mosheim, Schrader, al.: or (4) ἐντῷὀν . belongs to παραδοῦναι , and σὺντῇδυν . to συναχθέντων ,— so Luther, Castal., Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al. And this, I am persuaded, is the right arrangement. For according to (2) and (3), the balance of the sentence would be destroyed, no adjunct of authority being given to one member of it, and both to the other: and (1) is hardly consistent with the arrangement of the clauses, the parenthetical portion beginning far more naturally with the participle than with ἐντῷὀν .,— not to mention that the common formula of the Apostles’ speaking authoritatively, is ἐντῷὀνόματιἸησοῦχρ . or the like: see Acts 3:16; Acts 16:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6. The sentence then will stand:— (I have decreed),— in the name of our Lord Jesus (when ye have been assembled together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus), (i.e. ‘ I myself, in spirit, endowed by our Lord Jesus with apostolic power:’ σὺντῇδυν . belongs to τοῦἐμοῦπνεύμ ., and is not, as in Chrys.,— see above— merely an element in the assembly) to deliver such an one (reff.) to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. What does this sentence import? Not, mere excommunication, though it is doubtless included. It was a delegation to the Corinthian church of a special power, reserved to the Apostles themselves, of inflicting corporeal death or disease as a punishment for sin. Of this we have notable examples in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas, and another hinted at 1 Timothy 1:20. The congregation itself could αἴρεινἐκμέσου ,— but it could not παραδοῦναιτῷσατανᾷεἰςὄλεθροντῆςσαρκός , without the authorized concurrence of the Apostle’ s πνεύματος , σὺντῇδυν . τ . κυρ . ἡμ . Ἰησοῦ . What the ὄλεθροςτ . σαρκός was to be, does not appear: certainly more than the mere destruction of his pride and lust by repentance, as some (Estius, Beza, Grot., al.) suppose: rather, as Chrys., ἵναμαστίξῃαὐτὸνἕλκειπονηρῷἢνόσῳἑτέρᾳ . Hom. xv. p. 127. Estius’ s objection to this, that in 2Co_2. and 7. we find no trace of such bodily chastisement, is not to the point,— because we have no proof that this παράδοσις was ever inflicted,— nor does the Apostle command it, but only describes it as his own determination, held as it were in terrorem over the offender. See note on ver. 13. Obs., σαρκός , the offending element, not σώματος . Paul could not say ὄλεθροντοῦσώματος , seeing that the body is to partake of the salvation of the spirit;— but not the σάρξ , see ch. 15:50. 5. ἵνατὸπν . σωθῇ ] The aim of the ὄλεθρ . τ . σαρ .,— which he said ἤδητῷδιαβόλῳνόμουςτιθείς , καὶοὐκἀφιεὶςαὐτὸνπεραιτέρωπροβῆναι , as Chrys. p. 128. Thus the proposed punishment, severe as it might seem, would be in reality a merciful one, tending to the eternal happiness of the offender. A greater contrast to this can hardly be conceived, than the terrible forms of excommunication subsequently devised, and even now in use in the Romish church, under the fiction of delegated apostolic power. The delivering to Satan for the destruction of the spirit, can belong only to those who do the work of Satan. Stanley remarks, “ For the popular constitution of the early Corinthian church, see i. 44 (p. 297): where the rulers of that society are described as having been appointed συνευδοκησάσηςτῆςἐκκλησίαςπάσης .” 6. ‘ How inconsistent with your harbouring such an one, appear your high-flown conceits of yourselves!’ καύχημα , your matter of glorying. Are you not aware that a little leaven imparts a character to the whole lump? That this is the meaning, and not, ‘ that a little leaven will, if not purged out, leaven the whole lump,’ is manifest from the point in hand, viz. the inconsistency of their boasting: which would not appear by their danger of corruption hereafter, but by their character being actually lost. One of them was a fornicator of a fearfully depraved kind, tolerated and harboured: by this fact, the character of the whole was tainted. 7. The παλαιὰζύμη is not the man, but the crime attaching to their character as a church, which was a remnant of their unconverted state, their παλαιὸςἄνθρωπος . This they are to purge out from among them. The ἐκκαθάρ . alludes to the careful ‘ purging out’ from the houses of every thing leavened before the commencement of the feast of unleavened bread. Schö ttgen, Hor. Hebr., in loc., gives a full account of the extreme care with which this was done. See also Stanley’ s note. That ye may be a new lump (opposed to the παλαιὸςἄνθρωπος of old and dissolute days), as ye are (normally and by your Christian profession) unleavened (i.e. dead to sin and free from it). This indicating the state by profession, the normal state, as a fact, and the grounding of exhortations on it, is common enough with our Apostle,— see Romans 6:3, Romans 6:4: ch. 3:16, al. freq., and involves no tautology here, any more than elsewhere. An unfortunate interpretation has been given to these words,— ‘ as ye are now celebrating the feast of unleavened bread;’ and has met with some recent defenders, e.g. Wieseler,— and Conybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, edn. 2, vol. ii. p. 40, note. But first, the words will not admit it; for ἄζυμοι cannot (as joined immediately with ἐνἀζύμοις , ver. 8) without much harshness be applied in its literal sense to the celebrators of the feast, but must indicate the material which was unleavened, see reff.,— ἄρτονζυμιτήν , ἄζυμον , Athenæ us iii. 109, and Genesis 19:3; Exodus 29:2. Secondly, the celebration of a Jewish feast would certainly not be predicated without remark of a whole mixed congregation of Gentiles and Jews, even supposing that the Gentile converts did celebrate it with the Jews. It is no answer to this, to cite passages (see Conyb.and Howson, ubi supra), where he seems to treat mixed churches, e.g. Galatians 4:8; Romans 7:1; Romans 11:18, as if they belonged wholly to one or other of their component elements. For this is not a parallel case. He would here, as above, be distinctly predicating, as a fact, of the whole church, a practice which he himself would have been the first to deprecate. See Galatians 4:10. Thirdly, it is not at all probable that the Apostle would either address the Corinthians as engaged in a feast which he, at Ephesus, was then celebrating, seeing that it would probably be over before his letter could be delivered,— or would anticipate their being engaged in it when they received his letter, if it were yet to come. For be it remembered, that in the sense required, they would only be ἄζυμοι during seven days. Here again, I do not see how the example of “ a birth-day letter to a friend in India,” adduced by Mr. Conybeare, as an answer to my objection, will apply. It seems to me that if strictly considered, in detail, it tells my way, not his. But, fourthly,— and even could all the other objections be answered, this would remain in its full force,— the reference is one wholly alien from the habit and spirit of our Apostle. The ordinances of the old law are to him not points on whose actual observance to ground spiritual lessons, but things passed away in their literal acceptance, and become spiritual verities in Christ. He thus regards the Corinthian church as (normally) the unleavened lump at the Passover; he beseeches them to put away the old leaven from among them, to correspond with this their normal state: for, he adds, it is high time for us to be ἄζυμοι in very deed (καὶγάρ — so Xen. Anab. v. 8. 7, ἀκούσατε , ἔφη , καὶγὰρἄξιον . It introduces a powerful reason, for (on other accounts and) also. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 137, 8), seeing that our Passover was sacrificed (see reff.: and cf. Hebrews 9:26, Hebrews 9:28), even Christ (the days of unleavened bread began with the Passover-sacrifice): therefore (reff.) let us keep the feast (not the actual Passover, but the continued Passover-feast of Christians on whose behalf Christ has died. There is no change of metaphor: the Corinthians are the living ἄρτοι , as believers are the living stones of the spiritual temple) not in (as our element) the old leaven (general— our old unconverted state), nor (particular) in the leaven of vice and wickedness (the genitives are of apposition,— ‘ the leaven which is vice and wickedness;’ see Winer, edn. 6, § 59. 8. a), but in the unleavenedness (τὰἄζυμα , unleavened things, see Exodus 12:15, Exodus 12:18) of sincerity and truth. The view here maintained is that of Chrys., καὶαὐτὸςδὲἐπιμένειτῇμεταφορᾷ , ἀναμιμνήσκωνπαλαιᾶςαὐτοὺςἱστορίας , καὶπάσχακαὶἀζύμων , καὶτῶνεὐεργεσιῶντῶντότεκαὶτῶννῦν , καὶτῶνκολάσεωνκαὶτῶντιμωριῶν · ἑορτῆςἄραὁπαρὼνκαιρός . καὶγὰρεἰπὼνἑορτάζωμεν , οὐκἐπειδὴπάσχαπαρῆν , οὐδὲἐπειδὴἡπεντηκοστή , ἔλεγεν , ἀλλὰδεικνὺςὅτιπᾶςὁχρόνοςἑορτῆςἐστικαιρὸςτοῖςΧριστιανοῖςδιὰτὴνὑπερβολὴτῶνδοθέντωνἀγαθῶν . Hom. xv. p. 128. With regard to the chronological superstructure which has been built (by Wieseler and others) on this passage, that the Epistle was written shortly before Easter, we cannot of course say that the approach of the Passover may not have suggested to the Apostle this similitude: and we know from ch. 16:8 that he was looking forward to Pentecost. But further than this it would not be safe to assume: see Prolegg. to this Epistle, § vi. 3, 4. 9-13. Correction of their misunderstanding of a former command of his respecting keeping company with fornicators. 9. I wrote to you in my letter (not this present epistle, which τῇἐπιστολῇ might mean, see reff.,— for there is nothing in the preceding part of this Epistle which can by any possibility be so interpreted,— certainly not either ver. 2 or ver. 6, which are commonly alleged by those who thus explain it— and ἐντῇἐπιστολῇ would be a superfluous and irrelevant addition, if he meant the letter on which he was now engaged:— but, a former epistle, which has not come down to us:— cf. the similar expression, ref. 2 Cor. used with reference to this Epistle,— and see note on 2 Corinthians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 1:16. So Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grot., Calov., Bengel, Wetst., Mosh., De Wette, Meyer: so also Lightfoot, understanding however an Epistle committed to Timothy, see ch. 4:17: which could not be, as Timothy was not coming to them till after they had received this Epistle, ch. 16:10, and thus the words would be unintelligible to them:— on the other side are Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Corn.-a-lapide, Wolf, al. It has been suggested (see Stanley, in loc.) that the whole passage, ch. 5:9-6:8, may have been a postscript or note inserted subsequently to the rest of the Epistle, and referring especially to ch. 6:9-20) not to keep company with fornicators. 10. οὐπάντως limits the prohibition, which perhaps had been complained of owing to its strictness, and the impossibility of complying with it in so dissolute a place as Corinth, and excepts the fornicators of this world, i.e. who are not professing Christians: not under all circumstances with the fornicators of this— world: so Theophr. C. P. vi. 25, cited by Wetst. on Romans 3:9, ποιεῖγὰροὐπάντως ,— ἀλλ ʼ ἐὰνοὐλήτιςᾖὑπόκαυστος . οὐ , not μή , because not the whole context of the prohibition is negatived, but only one portion of it, and thus οὐπάντωςτ . π . τ . κός . τ . stands together as one idea. So Thucyd. i. 51, ὑποτοπήσαντεςἀπ ʼ Ἀθηνῶνεἶναιοὐχὅσαςἑώρωνἀλλὰπλείους . See more examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 125, 6. τοῦκόσμ . τούτου , belonging to the number of unbelievers,— Christians who were πόρνοι being expressly excluded. So Paul ever uses this expression, ch. 3:19; (2 Corinthians 4:4;) Ephesians 2:2. πλεονέκταις and ἅρπαξιν are joined by καί , as belonging to the same class— that of covetous persons;— πλεονέκτης being an avaricious person, not a lascivious one, as sometimes rendered (e.g. Conybeare, vol. ii. p. 41, edn. 2), nor does it seem to have any where merely this meaning; see Ephesians 4:19 and note. Compare on the other side Stanley’ s note here, which however has not convinced me. The root of the two sins being the same, viz. lust or greed, they come often to be mentioned together and as if running into one another. See Trench, N. T, Syn. pp. 91, 2. On ἅρπαξιν , Stanley remarks, “ It is difficult to see why it should be expressly introduced here, especially if πλεονέκτης has the meaning of sensuality.” Certainly: but not, if πλ . retains its proper meaning, as containing the key to πορνεία on the one hand, and ἁρπαγή on the other. ἐπεὶὠφ .] For in that case ye must go out of the world,— as Chrys. and Theophyl., ἑτέρανοἰκουμένηνζητῆσαι . The past ὠφείλ ., as ἔχρην , al., because the necessity would long ago have occurred and the act have passed. 11. νῦνδὲἔγραψα ] But my meaning was … ;— ‘ but, the case being so, that ye must needs consort with fornicators among the heathen, I wrote to you, not to consort, &c.’ That this is the meaning and not ‘ But now I write (the epistolary aorist), &c.,’ seems plain, from the use of ἔγραψα twice so close together, and therefore probably in the same reference,— from the fact noticed by Meyer, that if a contrast had been intended between ἐντῇἐπιστολῇ and νῦν , ἐντῇἐπ . must have preceded ἔγραψα :— and from the usage of νῦνδέ , of which Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e.g. Plut. Protag. p. 347, νῦνδὲσφόδραγὰρκαὶπερὶτῶνμεγίστωνψευδόμενοςδοκεῖςἀληθῆλέγειν , διὰταῦτάσεἐγὼψέγω ,— and Lycurg. Leocr. p. 138, ἐβουλόμηνδ ʼ ἂν , ὦἄνδρες … νῦνδὲ … See also Hebrews 11:16. Thus by the right rendering, we escape the awkward inference deducible from the ordinary interpretation,— that the Apostle had previously given a command, and now retracted it. ἐάντις ] If one who is called a brother be, &c. Œ cumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, al., join ὀνομαζόμενος with πόρνος , and understand it either as = ὀνομαστός , ‘ be a notorious πόρνος , &c.,’ or ‘ be named a πόρνος &c.’ But ὀνομαζόμ . or even ὀνομαστός , in the bad sense, is hardly admissible,— and in either case Paul would have written ἀδελφόςτις , the stress on ἀδελφός in that case requiring it to precede τις , as it now precedes ὀνομαζόμενος . εἰδωλολάτρης ] One who from any motive makes a compromise with the habits of the heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices: Chrys. well remarks, προκαταβάλλεταιτὸνπερὶτῶνεἰδωλοθύτωνλόγονὃνμετὰταῦταμέλλειγυμνάζεσθαι . μέθυσος was, in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151 (but see Lobeck’ s note), μέθυσοςἀνὴροὐκἐρεῖς , ἀλλὰμεθυστικός · γυναῖκαδὲἐρεῖςμέθυσονκ . μεθύσην : and Pollux, vi. 25 (Wetst.), μέθυσοςἐπὶἀνδρῶνΜενάνδρῳδεδόσθω . Seeing that μηδὲσυνεσθίειν must imply a more complete separation than μὴσυναναμίγνυσθαι , it cannot be applied to the ἀγάπαι (as Mosheim, al.), but must keep its general meaning,— not even to sit at table with such an one. This rule, as that in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, regards only their private intercourse with the offending person: nothing is here said of public excommunication, though for some of these crimes it would be implied. 12. Ground of the above limitation. τίγάρμοι .… ] for what concern of mine is it … ? So Æ lian, Var. H. vi. 11, τοὺςδὲἄλλουςἐῶ . τίγάρμοικωφοῖςκ . ἀνοήτοιςσυμβουλεύειντὰλυσιτελέστατα ; see other examples in. Wetst. τοὺςἔξω ] reff. It was among the Jews the usual term for the Gentiles. Cf. Schö ttgen in loc. He means, ‘ this might have been easily understood to be my meaning: for what concern have I with pronouncing sentence on the world without, or with giving rules of discipline for them? I could only have referred to persons among yourselves.’ οὐχὶτοὺςἔσω ] “ Ex eo, quod in ecclesia fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum meum, ver. 9. Cives judicatis, non alienos: quanto magis ego.” Bengel. But I am not quite certain of this interpretation, which is also that of De Wette and Meyer, because it would more naturally correspond to οὐχὶτοὺςἔσωκαὶὑμεῖςκρίνετε ; A preferable way seems to be this; ‘ My judgment was meant to lead your judgment. This being the case, what concern had I with those without? Is it not on those within, that your judgments are passed?’ The arrangement mentioned by Theophylact, and adopted by Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Rosenm., al., οὐχί · τοὺςἔσωὑμεῖςκρίνετε , ‘ No: those within do ye (imper.) judge,’ — is clearly wrong, for οὐχί is no answer to τί , and would require ἀλλά after it,— even supposing μοιτοὺςἔξωκρίνειν and τοὺςἔσωὑμεῖςκρίνετε formed any intelligible logical contrast, which they do not. 13. But those who are without God judgeth. The pres. κρίνει both expresses better the attribute and office of God, and answers better to the other presents than the future κρινεῖ . I have therefore retained it. The future perhaps came from Hebrews 13:4. ‘ To judge those without, is God’ s matter.’ These remarks about judging form a transition point to the subject of the next chapter. But having now finished his explanation of the prohibition formerly given, and with it the subject of the fornicator among them, he gives, before passing on, a plain command in terms for the excommunication (but no more: not the punishment mentioned in vv. 3-5) of the offender. And this he does in the very words of Deu 24:7 (from which the reading καὶἐξαρεῖτε has come). ὑμῶναὐτῶν is in Deut., but need not therefore lose its emphatic force: from among your own selves. Chap. 6:1– 11. Prohibition to settle their differ ces in the legal courts of the heathen: rather should these be adjudged among themselves (1– 6): but far better not to quarrel— rather to suffer wrong, waiting for justice to be done at the coming of the Lord, when all who do wrong shall be excluded form his kingdom (6– 11). 1. On τολμᾷ , Dares … , Bengel remarks, “ Grandi verbo notatur læ sa majestas Christianorum.” τις , no particular individual, but any one: for he proceeds in the plur., vv. 4, 7. πρᾶγμα ] So ref. and Demosth. κατὰΣτεφ . α . p. 1120, τῷμὲνυἱεῖτῷτούτουπολλῶνπραγμάτωνὄντωνοὐπαρέστηπώποτεοὐδ ʼ ἐβοήθησεν ; κρίνεσθαι , reff., to go to law. So Eur. Med. 609, ὡςοὐκρινοῦμαιτῶνδεσοὶτὰπλείονα ,— and Anthol. ii. 30, δυσκώφῳδύσκωφοςἐκρίνετο , καὶπολὺμᾶλλονἦνὁκριτὴςτούτωντῶνδύοκωφότερος . Wetst. on Matthew 5:40. ἐπί (reff.), before, as judges. τῶνἀδίκων ] οὐκεἶπεν , ἐπὶτῶνἀπίστων , ἀλλ ʼ ἐπὶτῶνἀδίκων , λέξινθείς , ἧςμάλισταχρείανεἶχενεἰςτὴνπροκειμένηνὑπόθεσιν , ὥστεἀποτρέψαικ . ἀπαγαγεῖν . ἐπειδὴγὰρπερὶδίκηςαὐτῷὁλόγοςἦν , οἱδικαζόμενοιδὲοὐδὲνοὕτωςἐπιζητοῦσιν , ὡςτὸπολλὴνεἶναιπρόνοιαντοῦδικαίουπαρὰτοῖςδικάζουσιν , ἐντεῦθεναὐτοὺςἀποτρέπει , μονονουχὶλέγωνΠοῖφέρῃκαὶτίποιεῖς , ἄνθρωπε , τοὐναντίονπάσχωνὧνἐπιθυμεῖς , καὶὑπὲρτοῦτῶνδικαίωντυχεῖνἀδίκοιςἐπιτρέπωνἀνθρώποις ; Chrys. Hom. xvi. p 137. The Rabbinical prohibitions against going to law before Gentiles may be seen in Wetst.: e.g. “ Statutum est, ad quod omnes Israelitæ obligantur, eum qui litem cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare coram gentilibus.” Tanchuma, xcii. 2. καὶοὐχὶἐπὶτ . ἁγίων ] The Apostle does not mean that the Christians had their courts of law, but that they should submit their differences to courts of arbitration among themselves. Such courts of arbitration were common among the Jews. In Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 17, there is a decree by which the Jews of Sardis are allowed the use of a σύνοδοςἰδία … καὶτόποςἴδιος , ἐνᾧτάτεπράγματακ . τὰςπρὸςἀλλήλουςἀντιλογίαςκρίνουσι . Theodoret shews, ὡςοὐκἐναντίαταῦτατοῖςπρὸςῬωμαίουςγραφεῖσιν (Romans 13:1 ff.):— οὐγὰρἀντιτείνεινκελεύειτοῖςἄρχουσιν , ἀλλὰτοῖςἠδικημένοιςνομοθετεῖμὴκεχρῆσθαιτοῖςἄρχουσι . See Stanley in loc., who thinks the existence of such courts is here implied. But his support of his view from the Ap. Constt. and the Clementines, cir. a.d. 150, would only go to shew that the Apostle’ s injunction here had been obeyed, and that those courts were the result. 2. οὐκοἴδατε (reff.) appeals to an axiomatic truth. οἱἅγιοιτ . κ . κριν .] that the saints shall judge the world?— i.e. as assessors of Christ, at His coming: so Daniel 7:22 (Theod.), ἦλθενὁπαλαιὸςἡμερῶν , καὶτὸκρίμαἔδωκενἁγίοιςὑψίστου ; see also Matthew 19:28. So Calv., Beza, Grot., Est., Wolf, Olsh., Billroth, Rü ckert, Meyer, De Wette. All attempts to elude this plain meaning of the words are futile: whether of Chrys., Theophyl., Theodor-, Theodoret, Erasm.,— κρινοῦσιδὲοὐχὶαὐτοὶκαθήμενοικ . λόγονἀπαιτοῦντες , ἀλλὰκατακρινοῦσι (Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42), Chrys.— for this would be no parallel to the case in hand;— or of Lightf., Vitringa, Bengel (but only as a præ ludium futurorum), al.,— ‘ quod Christiani futuri sint magistratus et judices in mundo,’ — Lightf., which does not satisfy ver. 3, nor agree with the Apostle’ s earnest persuasion (see 2Co_5. al., and note on 2 Thessalonians 2:2) that the coming of Christ was near at hand: or of Mosheim, Ernesti, Rosenm., ‘ quod Christiani profanos judicare possint,’ Rosenm., in the sense of ch. 2:15, 16,— for no such meaning can be conveyed by the future, which is fixed here by the following κρινοῦμεν . καί brings out an inconsequence or a contradiction between the members of the sentence, which it is the object of the question to remove: so Xen. Cyr. 4:3. 11, ἀλλ ʼ εἴποιἄντις , ὅτιπαῖδεςὄντεςἐμάνθανον . καὶπότεραπαῖδέςεἰσιφρονιμώτεροιὥστεμαθεῖντὰφραζόμενακ . δεικνύμεναἢἄνδρες ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 147. ἐνὑμῖν ] Chrys. attempts by this prepos. to defend his view (see above),— οὐγὰρεἶπεν , ὑφ ʼ ὑμῶν , ἀλλ ʼ ἐνὑμῖν . But in vain: nor as Grot., al., ἐν , by:— for κρίνεσθαιἐν is the expression for to be judged before, as judges: the judges being the vehicle of judgment, its conditioning element, as in ref. Acts. So Aristides, Platon. ii. p. 214 (Wetst.), τινὲςἤδηλέγονταιτῶνἡρώωνἐνθεοῖςδικασταῖςκριθῆναι and Polyb. v. 29. 6, Πτολεμαῖον … κρίναςἐντοῖςΜακεδόσινἀπέκτεινε . See other examples in Wetst. Hence (Meyer) by this ‘ coram vobis’ it appears plainly, though it might be otherwise inferred from the context, that the Saints are to be the judges, sitting in judgment. ἀνάξιοίἐστεκριτ . ἐλαχ .] are ye unworthy of (i.e. to hold or pronounce) the smallest judgments? κριτήρια cannot be, as usually rendered, ‘ matters to be judged:’ it signifies either (1) criteria, lit. or metaphor., which sense is irrelevant here: (2) tribunals, courts of justice:— so Glossar. κριτήριον , δικαστήριον , and Polyb. ix. 33. 12, κοινὸνἐκπάντωντῶνἙλλήνωνκαθίσαςκριτήριον — or (3) judgments held in such courts, judicia,— as Lucian. bis accus. (§ 25, p. 253, ed. Hagan. 1526); Hermes describes Pyrrhon as being not in court, ὅτιοὐδὲνἡγεῖταικριτήριονἀληθὲςεἶναι : to which Δίκη replies, τοιγαροῦνἐρήμηναὐτοῦκαταδικάτωσαν . The last meaning suits both this place and ver. 4. So Cicero speaks of ‘ in privatis minimarum rerum judiciis.’ Here, they are ἐλάχιστα in comparison with the weighty judgments which shall be held hereafter; = βιωτικά , ver. 4. 3. The same glorious office of Christians is again referred to, and even a more striking point of contrast brought out. ἀγγέλους ] always, where not otherwise specified, good angels: and therefore here; the λειτουργικὰπνεύματα of Hebrews 1:14: but exactly how we shall judge them, is not revealed to us. Chrys., Theodoret, Œ cum., Theophyl., and most Commentators interpret it of bad angels, or of bad and good together: and Chrys. as before, understands that the bad angels will be condemned by comparison with us, ὅτανγὰραἱἀσώματοιδυνάμειςαὐταὶἔλαττονἡμῶνεὑρεθῶσινἔχουσαιτῶνσάρκαπεριβεβλημένων , χαλεπώτερονδώσουσιδίκην . p. 138. But see above on ver. 2. μήτιγε , to say nothing of, ‘ ut omittam:’ so Demosth. p. 24. 23, οὐκἔνιδ ʼ αὐτὸνἀργοῦνταοὐδὲτοῖςφίλοιςἐπιτάττεινὑπὲραὐτοῦτιποιεῖν , μήτίγεδὴτοῖςθεοῖς . See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 155. βιωτικά , matters relating to ὁβίος , a man’ s livelihood: see ref. and Alex. Strom. vii. 12 [69], p. 873 P., θλιβόμενονἐπικουφίζειπαραμνθίαις … , ταῖςβιωτικαῖςχρείαιςἐπικουρῶν . It is a word of later Greek usage, see Lexx. In classic Greek it would be τὰτοῦβίου . The meaning here then will be civil causes, matters of meum and tuum, as De Wette. The sense is best with only a comma at κρινοῦμεν . 4. βιωτικά is emphatically repeated, as being the only sort of κριτήρια which were in question here. Meyer compares Herod, vii. 104, τὰἂνἐκεῖνοςἀνώγῃ · ἀνώγειδὲτὠϋτὸἀεί , and Aristoph. Ran. 287 f. μὲνοὖν , ‘ immo vero,’ reff. (see below). It corrects a foregoing misapprehension: so Soph. Œ d. Col. 31, “ ἦδεῦροπροσστείχοντακἀξορμώμενον ;” “ καὶδὴμὲνοὖνπαρόντα .” Hartung, Partikell. ii. 400. See also Moulton’ s Winer, p. 556, note 2. κριτήρια , again, not matters to be judged, but judgments: the matters about which, are expressed in βιωτικά . The following words may be rendered in two ways: either, ‘ Yea, rather (so far from remembering your high prospect, of judging angels, your practice is), if ye have in hand judgments concerning civil matters,— those men who are of no account in the church (viz. the heathen), those you set up (place on the bench) as judges’ (i.e. by bringing your causes before them, you set them up as judges over you). καθίζω occurs in this sense in Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873, ἐὰνδὲἄψυχόντιψυγῆςἄνθρωπονστερήσνῃ , … δικαστὴνμὲναυτῷκαθιζέτωτῶνγειτόνωντὸνἐγγύτατονὁπροσήκωνγένει — and Polyb. ix. 33. 12, cited above on κριτήριον . Thus, making καθίζ . indicative, Valla, Castal., Luther, Calov., Wolf, al., Schrader, Rü ckert, Olsh., De Wette, Meyer. But Syr., Vulg., Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calvin, Grot., Estius, Bengel, Wetst., al., take καθίζετε as imperative, and τοὺςἐξουθεν . ἐντ . ἐκκλ . as ‘ minimos de piorum plebe.’ So E. V.: set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. And to this last interpretation I am inclined to accede, both from the context and from the arrangement of the words. The context is this: ‘ Your office is to judge angels:’ mere business causes of this world are almost beneath your notice. If such causes arise among you (he continues in a lofty irony) set those to judge them who are of no account among you:— do not go out of your own number to others to have them judged: the meanest among you is capable of doing it. Let it be noticed that he is passing to ver. 7, where he insists on the impropriety of βιωτικὰκριτ . between Christians at all, and is here depreciating them ironically. But the arrangement and construction of the words are even more strongly in favour of the imperative rendering. For (1) on the other, no account is given of the emphatic position of βιωτικά . (2) the μὲνοὖν is not so naturally rendered (see above) ‘ yea rather your course is,’ as ‘ yea rather let your practice be:’ it expresses more naturally a subjective correction, in the mind of the speaker, than an objective one: see below, ver.7. (3) if the sentence had referred to their existing practice of going before heathen tribunals, it would have been expressed not βιωτικὰμὲνοὖνκριτ . ἐὰνἔχητε , but β . μ . οὖνκρ . ἔχοντες , as in ver. 1. (4) οἱἐξουθενημένοιἐντῇἐκκ . are much more naturally the despised in (within) the church, than those who in (the estimation of) the church are held of no account. Meyer argues against this that it would be in this case τοὺςἐξουθ . τοὺςἐντῇἐκκλ ., but surely he can hardly be serious, or I do not understand him rightly. (5) καθίζετε applies much better to the appointing judges over a matter among themselves, than to going before judges already appointed. (6) as to the objection that on this rendering the word ‘ rather’ must be inserted, τούτουςμᾶλλονκαθίζετε , it has no force, for no such supplement is required. The command is absolute, but given to shew them the absurdity of their going to law about βιωτικά at all, rather than bona fide. 5. πρὸςἐντρ . ὑμ . λέγω refers to the ironical command in ver. 4— I say this to put you to shame. οὕτως ] Is there so completely a lack of all wise men among you.… He now suggests the more Christian way of settling their differences, viz. by arbitration: and asks, ‘ Are you come to this, that yon are obliged καθίζειν any δικαστάς at all,’ — have you no wise man among you (the rec., οὐδὲεἷς , would be ‘ quod est vehementius, cum sitis tam multi.’ Erasm.) who shall be able (in such event) to decide (as arbitrator) between his brother (i.e. his brethren)? This last is a harsh method of expression, and apparently only to be accounted for by the singular form of οὐδεὶςσοφός having attracted the other into the singular likewise, so that instead of σοφοὶοἳδυνήσονταιδιακρ . ἀνὰμέσοντῶνἀδελφῶναὐτῶν , we have σαφὸςὃςδυνήσεταιδιακρ . ἀνὰμ . τοῦἀδ . αὐτοῦ . But it is not without use: it prevents the apparent inference, which might be made if τῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ were used, that one wise man was to be appointed universal arbitrator,— and confines the appointment of the arbitrator to each possibly arising case respectively. 6. (It seems not to be so): nay, &c., as implied in ver. 1. ἀλλά after a question passes rapidly on to the other alternative, the particle negativing the question being suppressed. So Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2, πῶςοὖναὐτὸςὢντοιοῦτοςἄλλουςἂνἀσεβεῖς … ἐποίησεν ; Ἀλλ ʼ ἔπαυσεμὲντούτωνπολλούς , ἀρετῆςποιήσαςἐπιθυμεῖν . See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 37. 7. He gives his own censure of their going to law at all. μὲνοὖν as above, ver. 4. ὅλως , altogether, without the aggravation of ἐπὶἀπίστων . ἥττημα , a falling short, viz. of your inheritance of the kingdom of God— a hindrance in the way of your salvation: see ver. 9:— not as ordinarily understood (see especially Estius in loc.) a moral delinquency (cf. the usage in reff.), nor an ἡττᾶσθαιτῇὀργῇ , as Œ cum. κρίματα , matters of dispute, leading to κρίνεσθαι ; not = κρίσεις ,— μεθ ʼ ἑαυτῶν , with one another (reff.), as being brethren in Christ. ἀδικεῖσθε and ἀποστερεῖσθε not passives, but middle — allow yourselves to be wronged and defrauded. See Matthew 5:39 ff. 8. cannot be, as Meyer, a continuation of the question, on account of the emphatic ὑμεῖς , which would thus be without meaning. The account of this emphatic ὑμεῖς is to be found in an ellipsis after ἀποστερεῖσθε to the effect, ‘ as our Lord commanded us His disciples,’ or ‘ as it behoves the followers of Christ.’ Then ὑμεῖς comes in contrast: you on the contrary (ἀλλά , see above ver. 6) do wrong, and defraud, and that (your) brethren. 9. ‘ Ye commit wrong:’ this looks as if you had forgotten the rigid exclusion from the kingdom of God of all wrong-doers of every kind ; see Galatians 5:21. μὴπλανᾶσθε ] This caution would be most salutary and needful in a dissolute place like Corinth. It is similarly used, and with an express reference to ὁμιλίαικακαί , ch. 15:33. πόρνοι refers back to ch. 5, and is taken up again, vv. 12 ff. μαλακοί = παθικοί (see in Wetst.). μέθυσοι , see on ch. 5:11. 11. ‘ These things were the former state of some among you: but ye are now in a far different state.’ These things (I cannot think with Meyer that ταῦτα is used with an implication of contempt, such a horde, or rabble: it is rather ‘ of such a kind,’ see Winer, Gr. § 23.5) were some of you : but ye washed them off (viz. at your baptism. The 1 aor. mid. cannot by any possibility be passive in signification, as it is generally, for doctrinal reasons, here rendered. On the other hand the middle sense has no doctrinal import, regarding merely the fact of their having submitted themselves to Christian baptism. See ref. Acts), but (there is in the repetition of ἀλλά , the triumph of one who was under God the instrument of this mighty change) ye were sanctified (not in the dogmatic sense of progressive sanctification, but so that whereas before you were unholy, by the reception of the Holy Ghost you became dedicated to God and holy), but ye were justified (by faith in Christ, you received the δικαιοσύνηθεοῦ , Romans 1:17), in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and in the (working of the) Spirit of our God. These two last clauses must not be fancifully (as Meyer, al.) assigned amongst the preceding. They belong to all, as De Wette rightly maintains. The spiritual washing in baptism, the sanctification of the children of God, the justification of the believer, are all wrought in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and are each and all the work of the Spirit of our God. By the ἡμῶν again, he binds the Corinthians and himself together in the glorious blessings of the gospel-state, and mingles the oil of joy with the mourning which by his reproof he is reluctantly creating. 12-20. Correction of an abuse of the doctrine of Christian freedom which some among them had made, that, as meats were indifferent, so was fornication (vv. 12-17). Strong prohibition of, and dissuasive from this sin (vv. 18-20). 12. Statement of the true doctrine of Christian freedom. πάνταμοιἔξεστιν are the bona fide words of the Apostle himself, not, as some have understood them, the saying of an opponent cited by him. For (1) the sentiment is a true Christian axiom: πάντα being of course understood, as it evidently was even by the abusers of the doctrine, of things (supposed by them) ἀδιάφορα . (2) It is not introduced by any clause indicative of its being the saying of another, which is Paul’ s habit in such cases, see Romans 11:19. (3) The Apostle does not either deny or qualify the ἔξεστιν , but takes up the matter from another point of view, viz. the συμφέρει . The μοι is spoken in the person of Christians generally. “ Sæ pe Paulus prima persona singulari eloquitur quæ vim habent gnomes: in hac præ sertim epistola, ver. 15, ch. 7:7, 8:13, 10:23, 29, 30, 14:11.” Bengel. συμφέρει are advantageous— in the most general sense: distinguished from οἰκοδομεῖ , ch. 10:23, where the words again occur. Meyer cites from Theodor. Mops.,— ἐπειδὴγὰροὐπάντασυμφέρει , δῆλονὡςοὐπᾶσιχρηστέον , ἀλλὰτοῖςὠφελοῦσιμόνοις . ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐγὼἐξ .] Meyer thinks that the ἐγώ here has an emphasis, as meaning the real I, my moral personality. But this can hardly be so: the real emphasis is on οὐκ , and ἐγώ corresponds to μοι , expressed more to bring out the first person as the sample of Christians in general, than for any such formal distinction. ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ] I will not be deprived of my freedom by any practice;— i.e. indulge in any practice which shall mar this liberty and render it no real freedom, making me to be one under ἐξουσία , instead of one exercising it. The play on ἔξεστι and ἐξουσία cannot be given in English. 13, 14. “ a cibis ad venerem non valet consequentia.” Bengel. The argument is,— meats (of which he doubtless had often impressed on them that they were ἀδιάφορα , whence the abuse) are expressly created for the belly, and the belly for them, by its organization being fitted to assimilate them; and both these are of a transitory nature: in the change to the more perfect state, God will do away with both. Therefore meats are ἀδιάφορα . But neither is the body created for fornication, nor can this transitoriness be predicated of it: the body is for the Lord, and the Lord (in his mediatorial work) for the body: and God raised up the Lord, and will raise up us (i.e. our bodies): so that the body is not perishable, and (resumed ver. 18) he that fornicates, sins against his own body. Therefore, fornication is not an ἀδιάφορον . It is very remarkable how these verses contain the germ of three weighty sections of the Epistle about to follow, and doubtless in the Apostle’ s mind when he wrote them, (1) the relation between the sexes: (2) the question of meats offered to idols: (3) the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body. See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 401, note 21. 13. τῇκοιλ ., scil. ἐστιν . The belly is their appointed receptacle— they, its appointed pabulum. Of course even this part of the argument must be understood within the limits of οὐπάντασυμφέρει . ὁδὲθ .… καταργ .] viz. at the appearing of the Lord: when, ch. 15:51, 52, we shall be changed from a σῶμαψυχικόν , to be a σῶμαπνευματικόν : not, at death. τῇπορν .] The body was not made for the practice of fornication. The reciprocal subserviency of the belly and meats is shewn by their coextensiveness in duration, and perishing together: but when πορνεία (and even that lawful use which is physically the same, but which is not here contemplated) shall have for ever passed away, the body shall be subserving its real use— that of being an instrument for the Lord’ s work. κ . ὁκύρ . τῷσώμ .] not, only for the body: but for the body; to sanctify our bodies by His Spirit, and finally to glorify them for Himself, see Romans 8:11. This final reference must not be excluded here, though it is not the principal thought:— rather, the redemption of the body from sin, and making it into a member of Himself by the Spirit. 14. So far from the case of the Lord and the body answering to the other, God raised up the Lord (Romans 8:11, al. fr.), and will raise up us too by His power. I cannot adopt here the reading , or the view, of Meyer. He holds, that all reference to the resurrection, as a thing future, is out of place: that the Apostle refers to the virtual and proleptic resurrection which has already taken place in the case of the believer, as Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 2:12,— and thinks that the reading ἐξεγερεῖ has arisen from not seeing this. But how unnatural will the construction thus be— ὁδὲθεὸςκαὶτὸνκύριονἤγειρεν , καὶἡμᾶςἐξήγειρεν , διὰτ . δυν . αὐτοῦ ! I can conceive no account of such a sentence, except that some emphasis is meant to be laid on the distinction between ἤγειρεν and ἐξήγειρεν which idea (maintained by Bengel, al.) Meyer himself very properly repudiates: see below. The future corresponds to καταργήσει , and is used with ἡμᾶς ,— contrary to the usual practice of Paul, who expected to be alive at the παρουσία ,— as the expression, in the first person, of the truth of the future resurrection, not destruction of the body. ἤγειρεν , viz. ἐκνεκρῶν , Acts 3:15; Romans 4:24, and passim: ἐξεγερεῖ , viz. ἐκνεκρῶν . So that there is no real difference between the two words. 15. Resumption of τὸσῶματῷκυρίῳκ . ὁκύριοςτῷσώματι . The two are so intimately connected, that the Lord is a mystical Body, of which our bodies, parts of ourselves in our perfect organization, are members. This Christian axiom is introduced as before (reff.) by οὐκοἴδατεὅτι . Having then (οὖν , ‘ concesso,’ that my body is a member = my members are members of Christ) alienated ([or, taken away] ἄρας is not merely pleonastic, ‘ Shall I take … and make them.… ’ as E. V. This is shewn by its position first in the sentence) the members of Christ (i.e. my own members) shall I make them an harlot’ s members? The expression πόρνηςμέλη is put as coarsely and startlingly as possible, with the emphasis on πόρνης . ποιήσω may also be the aor. subj., ‘ must I, have I any right to, make them?’ But μὴγένοιτο answers better to the future. 16. Explanation and justification of the expression πόρνηςμέλη . ἤ , as De Wette well, “ Do you think the expression ποιήσωπόρν . μέλη too strong?” κολλ . “ ublicher Vusdrud fur Geschlechtsvereinigung.” De Wette. τῇπόρνῃ ] with a harlot, generic: or which in fact amounts to the same, with ‘ the harlot,’ presupposed in the hypothesis. ἓνσῶμα , viz. ‘ with her.’ The full construction would be ὅτιὁκολλ . τῇπόρ . καὶἡπόρ . ἓνσ . εἰσιν , but he is here bringing out the criminality of the fornicator, and leaves the other out of view. The citation is spoken of marriage; but here as above (see on ver. 13) he is treating merely of the physical act, which is the same in both cases. φησιν , viz. God, Who is the speaker in the Scriptures: so in citing the same words, our Lord gives them to ὁποιήσαςἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , Matthew 19:5. They were spoken by the mouth of Adam, but prophetically, divino afflatu. To render φησιν impersonal, ‘ it says,’ ‘ heiß t es,’ though justified by classical usage, see Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 9, would, as Meyer remarks, be altogether without precedent in the citations of Paul. The words οἱδύο are not in the Heb., but in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and are found in the Rabbinical citations of the passage. See note on Matthew 19:5. 17. Union to God, His service, and His ways, is often expressed by this word (κολλ .) in the LXX (reff.): but here that inner union with Christ in spirit is meant, which is the normal state of every believer, and of which it may be said that he ἓνπν . ἐστιν with Christ. See John 17:21, and the parable of Joh 15:1-7. Meyer rightly remarks, that the mystical marriage between Christ and His Church must not (as Olsh. from Ephesians 5:23 ff.) be pressed here, as the relations of the compared are not correspondent. Still, however, the inner verity of that mystical relation is the ground of both passages. 18-20. Direct prohibition of fornication, and its grounds. 18. φεύγετε might be followed by οὖν , but is more forcible in this disconnected form. πᾶνἁμάρτ .] The assertion, which has surprised many of the Commentators, is nevertheless strictly true. Drunkenness and gluttony, e.g. are sins done in and by the body, and are sins by abuse of the body,— but they are still ἐκτὸςτοῦσώματος — introduced from without, sinful not in their act, but in their effect, which effect it is each man’ s duty to foresee and avoid. But fornication is the alienating that body which is the Lord’ s, and making it a harlot’ s body— it is sin against a man’ s own body, in its very nature,— against the verity and nature of his body; not an effect on the body from participation of things without, but a contradiction of the truth of the body, wrought within itself. When man and wife are one in the Lord,— united by His ordinance,— no such alienation of the body takes place, and consequently no sin. 19. Justification of the εἰςτὸἴδ . σῶμ . ἁμαρτ . above,— and this by an amplification of the above σῶματῷκυρίῳ , and ἓνπνεῦμάἐστιν . Your body (i.e. the body of each man among you, but put singular, to keep, as in ch. 3:16, the unity of the idea of God’ s temple, or perhaps because the body in its attributes is in question here) is the temple of (possessed by, as His residence: the temple, not a temple, see note on ch. 3:16) the Holy Spirit who is in you (reminiscence of the reality of His indwelling), whom ye have from God (reminiscence, whose Spirit He is, and so preparation for the following inference), and are not your own (so that ye have no right to alienate your body, not being yours). 20. Proof, that ye are not your own. The possession of your body as His temple, by the Holy Ghost, is a presumptive proof that ye are not; but there is also a proof in matter of fact: For ye were bought (not, as E. V. are bought, which destroys the historic reference) with a price (viz. the blood of Christ, see 1 Peter 1:18, 1 Peter 1:19; Matthew 20:28; Galatians 3:13,— not as Vulg. prelio magno: τιμῆς merely recalls the fact here, that a price was paid and so the purchase completed). This buying is here mentioned mainly with reference to the right of possession, which Christ has thereby acquired in us. In other places it is alleged as a freeing from other services: e.g. that of sin (Romans 6:17, Romans 6:18), of the law and its curse (Gal_3.), of Satan (Colossians 1:13). δοξάς . δὴ .… ] Glorify then (δή , not exactly an inference from the foregoing, but = ‘ eja,’ ‘ agedum,’ tending to enforce and intensify the command: “ as a cheering or hortatory expression,” Stanley. So Od. v. 17, τέτλαθιδή , κραδίη ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 284 f.) God (i.e. not praise God, but glorify Him by your acts) in your body (not, by means of your body, but in your body, as the temple of God; see John 13:32). Chap. 7:1-40. Reply to their enquiries respecting marriage; by which occasion is given for various collateral instructions and commands. In order to the right understanding of this chapter, it will be well to remember, that the enquiries in the letter of the Corinthians appear to have been made in disparagement of marriage, and to have brought into doubt whether it were not better to avoid it where uncontracted, and break it off where contracted, or this last at all events where one of the parties was an unbeliever. These questions he answers, vv. 1-16: and puts on their true grounds, vv. 17-24. They appear also to have asked respecting virgins, what was their duty and that of their parents, as to their contracting marriage. This he discusses in its various aspects of duty and Christian expediency, vv. 25-38. Then he concludes with an answer and advice, respecting the liberty of a woman to marry after the death of her husband. The whole is written under the strong impression (see on this, notes, Acts 2:20; Romans 13:11, and 2Co_5: and Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. 5 § iv. 5-10) of the near approach of the end of this state of things (vv. 29-31), and as advising them under circumstances in which persecution, and family division for the Gospel’ s sake, might at any time break up the relations of life. The precepts therefore and recommendations contained in the chapter are to be weighed, as those in ch. 8 al., with reference to change of circumstances; and the meaning of God’ s Spirit in them with respect to the subsequent ages of the Church, to be sought by careful comparison and inference, not rashly assumed and misapplied. I may also premise, that in hardly any portion of the Epistles has the hand of correctors and interpolators of the text been busier, than here. The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostle’ s advice, on the point where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testimony against it, to be left in its original clearness. In consequence, the textual critic finds himself in this chapter sometimes much perplexed between different readings, and in danger of on the one hand adopting, on overwhelming manuscript authority, corrections of the early ascetics,— and on the other excluding, from a too cautious retention of the rec. text, the genuine but less strongly attested simplicity of the original. 1, 2. Concession of the expediency (where possible) of celibacy, but assertion of the practical necessity of marriage, as a remedy against fornication. 1. δέ , transitional, passing on to another subject. καλὸν .… ] not, morally good: for in ver. 28 expressly not sin, but inexpediency, is the reason for not marrying: nor good in the sense ὑπερέχον , of as Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7, vol. ii. p. 246, ‘ si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum ergo est tangere:’ but expedient, generally: ‘ more for a man’ s best interests under present circumstances:’ Angl. ‘ it is the best way,’ in the colloquial sense: so also throughout the chapter: see the word qualified ver. 26, καλὸν … διὰτὴνἐνεστῶανἀνάγκην . ἀνθρώπῳ ] though of necessity by what follows, the man only is intended, yet ἀνθρώπῳ does not here or in reff. = ἀνδρί , but as Meyer remarks, regards the man not merely in his sexual but in his human capacity. Thus in its deeper reference, it would embrace the other sex also. απτεσθαι ] so in reff.; and in Latin tangere, attingere, virgo intacta. See examples in Wetst. This expression is obviously here used in the widest sense, without present regard to the difference between the lawful and unlawful use of the woman. The idea that the assertion applies to abstinence from intercourse in the already married (see again below), is altogether a mistake. 2. The former course is expedient— would avoid much trouble’ in the flesh:’ but as a general rule it may not be, seeing that for a more weighty reason the contrary course is to be recommended. But on account of [the] fornications ) let each man possess her own wife, and let each woman possess his own husband. The ἐχέτω is (1) not concessive, but imperative; not ‘ habere liceat,’ but ‘ habeto.’ So the other expressions, γαμησάτωσαν ver. 9, μενέτω ver. 11, &c. (2) not here in the sense of ‘ utatur, eigue commisceatur,’ as Estius, al., which does not come into consideration till the next verse. (3) not emphatic, let each retain, according to the mistaken idea mentioned on ver. 1, that he is speaking to the married, who though they are not to cohabit are yet to remain together. Had either of the two latter senses been meant, the sentence would rather have stood ἐχέτωἕκ . τ . ἑαυτ . γυναῖκα , κ . ἐχέτωἑκάστητ . ἴδ . ἄνδρ . With regard to the assertion of Rü ckert, that the Apostle here gives a very low estimate of marriage, as solely a remedy against fornication, the true answer is, that Paul does not either here, or in this chapter at all, give any estimate of marriage in the abstract. His estimate, when he does, is to be found Ephesians 5:25-32. 3, 4. The duty of cohabitation incumbent on the married. This point was in all probability raised in the letter of the Corinthians. The Apostle’ s command is a legitimate following out of διὰτὰςπορνείας above. 3. τὴνὀφειλήν ] ‘ debitum tori’ . The rec. was perhaps an euphemism (we have also the varieties, ὀφειλομένηντιμὴν , Chrysostom once: ὀφ . τιμὴνκαὶεὔνοιαν in the ms. 40) for the same thing. Meyer will not concede this, but thinks it arose from a mistaken interpretation of ὀφειλή as meaning merely ‘ benevolentia:’ thinking that not εὔνοια , but φιλότης would be the word in the other case. But some of the later examples in Wetst. seem to bear out this meaning of εὔνοια . 4. The axiom is introduced without a γάρ , as frequently. τοῦἰδίου … οὐκἐξουσιάζει ] ‘ sui, cum potestatem non habet, elegans facit paradoxon.’ Bengal. The ground of this being another’ s while they remain their own, is to be found in the oneness of body, in which the marriage state places them. 5. ἀποστερεῖτε is applied by Meyer to τῆςἐξουσίας ,— by Billroth, al., to τῆςὀφειλῆς ; De Wette suggests τοῦσώματος , but prefers, and rightly, leaving its reference indefinite, to be supplied in the reader’ s mind. εἰμήτι , unless perchance (reff.). ἄν ] “ The verb is sometimes omitted after this particle, but always so that it can be supplied from a foregoing clause. So σὲδ ʼ ἄλληγυνὴκεκτήσεται , σώφρωνμὲνοὐκἂνμᾶλλον , εὐτυχὴςδ ʼ ἴσως .” Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 330. ἐκ , according to: the mutual agreement being the ground, and the measure, of the act. ἵνασχ .] in order that ye may have undisturbed leisure for prayer. The pres. σχολάζητε of the rec. would refer to the general habit, and would thus make τῇπρος ., ‘ your ordinary prayers,’ — being thus inconsistent with the direction given πρὸςκαιρόν : the aorist expresses this temporary purpose, and shews that the prayer meant is not ordinary but extraordinary,— seasons of urgent supplication. Both the alteration to the present and the addition of τῇνηστείᾳκαί , shew how such passages as this have been tampered with by the ascetics: see also Mark 9:29. ἦτε ,— not συνέρχησθε as it has been amended (nor -εσθε as it has been reamended), because εἶναιἐπὶτὸαὐτό in this sense is the normal state of the married. For the expression see reff. The subjunc. still depends on ἵνα — the aim of the temporary separation is not that you may keep apart, but for a certain end, and then that you may be united again. ἵναμὴπειρ .] Purpose of the re-union stated, by that which might happen did it not take place. πειράζῃ now is present, not aor., as betokening the danger of a state of abstinence if continued. ἀκρασία here, not that from ἄκρᾱτος ,— which signifies a bad mixture, as ἄκρ . ἀέρος , ‘ insalubrity of the air:’ but that from ἀκρᾰτής ,— incontinence; see reff. διὰτ . ἀκρ . ὑμ ., on account of your incontinence,— but hardly, as Meyer seems to think, with allusion to the proverbial fault of the Corinthians in this particular, which would be more definitely expressed, were it intended. The ὑμῶν is necessary to carry out the form of the sentence, corresponding to ὑμᾶς above. 6. But this I say by way of allowance (for you), not by way of command. τοῦτο refers, not to ver. 2, as Beza, Grot., and De Wette, because the precept there given depends on a reason also given, διὰτὰςπορνείας , from the nature of which reason it must be κατ ʼ ἐπιταγήν : nor to the whole since ver. 2, as Billroth, Rü ckert, al.,— because the precept in ver. 3 depends on the general truth in ver. 4, and is also a command: nor to πρὸςκαιρόν , as Theophyl.:— nor as the ascetics, , , Jerome, Estius (also Calvin), to ἐπὶτὸαὐτὸἦτε , because both these are but subordinate members of the preceding sentence:— still less to what follows, as Rosenm., al.:— but, as the context (ver. 7) shews, to the whole recommendation given in ver. 5. This recommendation all depended on the possibility of their being tempted by incontinence: he gives it not then as a command in all cases, but as an allowance for those to whom he was writing, whom he knew, and assumes, to be thus tempted. The meaning ‘ by permission,’ E. V., is ambiguous, appearing as if it meant by permission of the Lord (to say it): that given by Hammond, al., κατὰτὴνἐμὴνγνώμην , is philologically inadmissible. 7. I rather wish that all men were as I myself also am (καί comparandi, so Xen. Anab. ii. l. 22, καὶἡμῖνταὐτὰδοκεῖἅπερκαὶβασιλεῖ . See Hartung, Partikell. i. 126)— viz., ἐνἐγκρατείᾳ , which Chrys. seems to have read in the text; see below on ver. 8. ἀλλὰἕκαστος … said in the most general way, as a milder expression of ‘ all have not the gift of continence.’ οὕτως … οὕτως ] both are said generally, not one in the way in which I have it (of continence), another in the way of marrying (i.e. though he have not this, and be therefore better married, yet has some other), which should be ἐκείνως ,— but, one thus, and another thus,— i.e. ‘ one in one way, another in another.’ 8, 9. Advice to the unmarried, that it is best so to remain, but better to marry than be inflamed with lust. 8. λέγεδέ ] taking up the former λέγω , ver. 6, and bringing this advice under the same category as ver. 7, viz. his own wish that all were as himself. The stress is on λέγω , not on τοῖςἀγ . κ . ταῖςχ ., which would in that case be placed first, as τοῖςγεγαμηκόσιν below. τοῖςἀγάμοις , the unmarried, of both sexes: not as usually interpreted, widowers, or unmarried males alone: this is shewn by the contrasted term γεγαμηκόσιν , which embraces (see vv. 10, 11) both sexes. καὶταῖςχήραις may be added as singling out widows especially;— or more probably, because τοῖςἀγάμοις would naturally be taken as those who never were married, and thus widows would not be understood to be included. καλόν , see on ver. 1, it is good for them, i.e. ‘ their best way.’ ὡςκἀγώ ] i.e. ἄγαμος . This brings the Apostle’ s own circumstances more clearly before us than ver. 7, which might be misunderstood: and there can be little doubt from this, that he never was married. Grot. says, “ ex h. l. non improbabiliter colligitur, Paulo fuisse uxorem, quod et Clemens Alex. putat, sed cum hæ c scriberentur, mortuam.” But this rests on the mistaken interpretation of ἀγάμοις noticed above. The passage of Alex. (Strom. iii. [6. 53, p. 535 P., alluded to in Euseb. iii. 30) is grounded on Paul’ s having in a certain epistle addressed τὴναὐτοῦσύζυγον , ἣνοὐπεριεκόμιζε , διὰτὸτῆςὑπηρεσίαςεὐσταλές . But the words σύνζυγεγνήσιε , Philippians 4:3, certainly have no reference to a wife: see note there. 9. but if they are incontinent … οὐκ must be joined not with εἰ , which would require μή , but with the verb. So reff. and Soph. Aj. 1131, εἰτοὺςθανόνταςοὐκἐᾷςθάπτεινπαρών , ‘ vetas.’ See other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 122 f. ἐγκρατεύω is said by Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 44, not to be found except in the LXX and N. T. But both Phrynichus and Thom. Mag. say ἀκρατεύεσθαιμηδαμῶςεἴπῃς , ἀλλὰοὐκἐγκρατεύεσθαι . See in Wetst. γαμησάτ .] Lobeck, in Phrynichus, p. 742, says, “ post ἔγημαἐγάμησα invaluit quod non solum in N. T. libris, ut quidam putaverunt, sed etiam in ipsa Græ cia reperitur, auctore, ut videtur, Menandro: ἐγάμησενἣνἐβουλόμηνἐγώ , nihil impediente pedum modulatione quominus usitato uteretur aoristo.” ποροῦσθαι ] “ melius nuberent quam urerentur, id est, quam occulta flamma concupiscentiæ s in ipsa conscientia vastarentur.” de sancta Virginitate, 34, vol. vi. p. 415. 10, 11. Prohibition of separation after marriage; or in case of separation, of another marriage. These γεγαμηκότες , as the ἄγαμοι and χῆραι above, are all Christians. The case of mixed marriage he treats ver. 12 ff. They are those already married. 10. οὐκἐγώ , ἀλλὰὁκύριος ] Ordinarily, the Apostle writes, commands, gives his advice, under conscious inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. See ver. 40. He claims expressly. ch. 14:37, that the things ἃγράφωὑμῖν should be recognized as κυρίου . But here he is about to give them a command resting, not merely on inspired apostolic authority, great and undoubted as that was, but on that of the Lord himself. So that all supposed distinction between the Apostle’ s own writing of himself and of the Lord, is quite irrelevant. He never wrote of himself, being a vessel of the Holy Ghost, who ever spoke by him to the church. The distinction between that which is imperative, and that which is optional, that which is more and that which is less weighty in his writings, is to be made by the cautious and believing Christian, from a wise appreciation of the subject-matter, and of the circumstances under which it was written. All is the outpouring of the Spirit, but not all for all time, nor all on the primary truths of the faith. Not I, but the Lord, viz. in ref. Matt. See also Mark 10:12, where the woman’ s part is brought out. That it occupies the principal place here, is perhaps because the Christian women at Corinth may have been the most ready to make the separation: or perhaps, because the woman, from her place in the matrimonial union, may be more properly said ἀπὸἀνδρὸςχωρισθῆναι than the man ἀπὸγυναικὸςχωρισθῆναι . χωρισθ ., be separated, whether by formal divorce or otherwise; the καταλλαγήτω below, is like this, an absolutepassive; undefined whether by her own or her husband’ s doing. 11. ἐάν to καταλλαγήτω is parenthetical. It supposes a case of actual separation, contrary of course to Christ’ s command: if such have really taken place (καί , veritably: see note on 2 Corinthians 5:3, and Hartung, Partikell. i. 132), the additional sin of a new marriage (Matthew 5:32) must not be committed, but the breach healed as soon as possible. καταλλ .] see above on χωρισθῇ . κ . ἄνδρ . γυν . μὴἀφ .] The Apostle does not add the qualification παρεκτὸςλόγουπορνείας Matthew 5:32 (19:9), not found in Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18. But we cannot hence infer that he was not aware of it. The rule, not the exception, here was in his mind: and after what had been before said on the subject of fornication, the latter would be understood as a matter of course. 12-16. Directions for such Christians as were already married to Heathens. Such a circumstance must not be a ground per se of separation,— and why: but if the unbelieving party wished to break off the union, let it be so. 12. τοῖςλοιποῖς , the rest, perhaps in respect of their letter of enquiry,— the only ones not yet dealt with. At all events, the meaning is plain, being those who are involved in mixed marriages with unbelievers. ἐγώ , οὐχὁκύρ .] I, i.e. I Paul, in my apostolic office, under the authority of the Holy Spirit (see above on ver. 10), not the Lord, i.e. not Christ by any direct command spoken by Him: it was a question with which He did not deal, in His recorded discourses. In the right arrangement of the words (txt) the stress is not on ἐγώ , but on λέγω : But to the rest I say (I, not the Lord). συνευδοκεῖ presupposes his own wish to continue united. αὕτη , not αὐγή , and οὗτος , not αὐτός , below,— see reff. 13. The change of construction καὶγυνὴἥτις … καὶοὗτος … , is found frequently with καί : so Il. α . 78, ἦγὰρὀΐομαιἄνδραχολωσέμεν , ὃςμέγαπάντων | ἈργείωνκρατέεικαίοἱπείθονταιἈχαιοί . See reff., and Kü hner, ii. 526 (§ 799). Meyer remarks, that the Apostle uses the vox media ἀφιέναι here, of both parties, the husband and wife, not ἀπολύειν (as Matthew 5:31, &c.), which would apply only to the husband. In the E. V. this identity of terms is unfortunately neglected. The same word, part from, would well have expressed ἀφιέτω in both cases. By the Greek as well as Roman customs the wife had the power of effecting a divorce. At Athens,— when the divorce originated with the wife, she was said ἀπολείπειν the house of her husband: when with the husband, ἀποπεμπέσθαι . At Rome, the only exception to the wife’ s liberty of effecting a divorce appears to have been in the case of a freedwoman who had married her patronus. See Smith’ s Dict, of Gr. and Rom. Antt. artt. Divortium, and ἀπολείψεωςδίκη . Olsh. thinks that Paul puts both alternatives, because he regards the Christian party as the superior one in the marriage. But, as Meyer remarks, this would be inconsistent with the fundamental law of marriage, Genesis 3:16, and with the Apostle’ s own view of it, ch. 11:3, 14:34; Ephesians 5:22, Ephesians 5:23; 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:12. 14. Ground of the above precept. ἡγίασται ] The meaning will best be apprehended by remembering (1) that holiness, under the Gospel, answers to dedication to God under the law; (2) that the ἡγιασμένοι under the Gospel are the body of Christian men, dedicated to God, and thus become His in a peculiar manner: (3) that this being so, things belonging to, relatives inseparably connected with, the people of God are said to be hallowed by their ἁγιότης : so Theophylact, οὐχὅτιἅγιοςγίνεταιὁἝλλην . οὐγὰρεἶπενὅτιἅγιόςἐστιν · ἀλλ ʼ , ἡγίασται · τουτέστι , τῇἁγιότητιτοῦπιστοῦνενίκηται . Chrysostom well shews the distinction between this case and that in ch. 6:15, that being a connexion κατὰτὴνἀσέβειαν ,— in and under the condition of the very state, in which the other party is impure: whereas this is a connexion according to a pure and holy ordinance, by virtue of which, although the physical unity in both cases is the same, the purity overbears the impurity. ἐνγῇγ ., ἐντῷἀδελ .] in, i.e. his or her ἁγιότης is situated in, rests in, the other (see reff.: and note, ch. 6:2). ἐπεὶἄρα ] as ref., but here elliptically: since in that case (i.e. as understood, the other alternative,— the non-hallowing). ἐστιν , not ἂνεἴη , nor ἦν [E. V.], but pres.: because the supposed case is assumed, and the ind. pres. used of what has place on its assumption. ἅγια ] as ἡγίασται above: holy to the Lord. On this fact, Christian children being holy, the argument is built. This being so,— they being hallowed, because the children of Christians,— it follows that that union out of which they sprung, must as such have the same hallowed character; i.e. that the insanctity of the one parent is in it overborne by the sanctity of the other. The fact of the children of Christians, God’ s spiritual people, being holy, is tacitly assumed as a matter of course, from the precedent of God’ s ancient covenant people. With regard to the bearing of this verse on the subject of Infant Baptism,— it seems to me to have none, further than this: that it establishes the analogy, so far, between Christian and Jewish children, as to shew, that if the initiatory rite of the old covenant was administered to the one,— that of the new covenant, in so far as it was regarded as corresponding to circumcision, would probably as a matter of course be administered to the other. Those, as Meyer, who deny any such inference, forget, as it seems to me, that it is not personal holiness which is here predicated of the children, any more than of the unbelieving husband or wife, but holiness of dedication, by strict dependence on one dedicated. Notwithstanding this ἁγιότης , the Christian child is individually born in sin and a child of wrath; and individually needs the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, just as much as the Jewish child needed the typical purifying of circumcision, and the sacrificial atonements of the law. So that in this ἁγιότης of the Christian child there is nothing inconsistent with the idea, nor with the practice, of Infant Baptism. On νῦνδέ , see note, ch. 5:11. 15. But if the wish for separation (implied by the present χωρίζεται ,— is for being separated, see Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 2. a, and compare John 10:32, John 10:13:6, John 10:27) proceed from the side of the unbeliever , let him (or her) depart (be separated off). οὐδεδούλ .] οὐκἔχειἀνάγκηνὁπιστὸςἢἡπιστὴἐντοῖςἀπίστοιςτοιαύτην , οἵααὐτῷἐπίκειταιἐπὶτῶνπιστῶν . ἐκεῖμὲνγὰρπαντὶτρόπῳ , χωρὶςλόγῳπορνείας , οὐκἔξεστινἀπ ʼ ἀλλήλωντοὺςσυναφθένταςχωριαθῆναι · ἐνταῦθαδέ , ἂνμὲνσυνευδοκῇτὸἄπιστονμέροςτῷπιστῷσυνοικεῖν , δεῖμὴλύειντὸσυνοικέσιον . ἂνδὲστασιάζῃκαὶτὴνλύσινἐκεῖνοςποιῇ , οὐδεδούλωταιὁπιστὸςεἰςτὸμὴχωρισθῆναι . Photius, in Œ cumenius. ἐντοῖςτοιούτοις may be taken as masc., in the case of such persons,— as above by :— but the ἐν seems harsh; it is better therefore to render it, in such cases. ἐνδὲεἰρ .] Not = εἰςεἰρήνην [E. V.], but signifying the moral element in which we are called to be: see reff. and ver. 22 below. The meaning is, ‘ let the unbeliever depart, rather than by attempting to retain the union, endanger that peace of household and peace of spirit, which is part of the calling of a Christian.’ Observe, (1) that there is no contradiction, in this licence of breaking off such a marriage, to the command of our Lord in Matthew 5:32,— because the Apostle expressly asserts, ver. 12, that our Lord’ s words do not apply to such marriages as are here contemplated. They were spoken to those within the covenant, and as such apply immediately to the wedlock of Christians (ver. 10), but not to mixed marriages. De Wette denies this, and holds that Paul is speaking only of the Christian’ s duty in cases where the marriage is already virtually broken off,— and by his remarks on Matthew 5:32, seems to take πορνεία in a wide sense, and to regard it as a justifiable cause of divorce because it is such a breaking off. This however appears hardly consistent with ver. 12; for, if it were so, there would be a command of the Lord regarding this case. At all events, we may safely assume that where the Apostle is distinctly referring to our Lord’ s command, and supplying what it did not contain, there can be no real inconsistency: if such appear to be, it must be in our apprehension, not in his words. (2) That the question of re-marrying after such a separation, is here left open: ou this, see note on Matthew 5:32. (3) That not a word here said can be so strained as to imply any licence to contract marriages with unbelievers. Only those already contracted are dealt with: the ἑτεροζυγεῖνἀπίστοις is expressly forbidden, 2 Corinthians 6:14, and by implication below, ver. 39. 16. This verse is generally understood as a ground for remaining united, as ver. 13, in hope that conversion of the unbelieving party may follow. Thus ver. 15 is regarded as altogether parenthetical. But (1) this interpretation is harsh as regards the context, for ver. 15 is evidently not parenthetical,— and (2) it is hardly grammatically admissible (see below, for it makes εἰ = εἰμή ,— ‘ What knowest thou … whether thou shalt not save.… ?’ Lyra seems first to have proposed the true rendering, which was afterwards adopted hesitatingly by Estius, and of late decidedly by Meyer, De Wette, and Bisping: viz. that the verse is not a ground for remaining united, in hope, &c.,— but a ground for consummating a separation, and not marring the Christian’ s peace for so uncertain a prospect as that of converting the unbelieving party. τίοἶδαςεἰ thus preserves its strict sense, What knowest thou (about the question) whether.… ? and the verse coheres with the words immediately preceding, ἐνεἰρήνῃκέκλ . ἡμᾶςὁθ . I may observe, in addition to Meyer and De W.’ s remarks, that the position of the words further establishes this rendering. If the point of the argument had been the importance, or the prospect, of saving (= converting) the unbelieving party, the arrangement would probably have been εἰσώσειςτὸνἄνδρα , and εἰσώσειςτὴνγυναῖκα , whereas now the verb holds in both clauses a subordinate place, rather subjective to the person addressed, than the main object in the mind of the writer. Those who take εἰ for εἰμή , attempt to justify it by reff. 2 Kings, Joel, Jonah, where the LXX have for the Heb. מ ִ י י ו ֹ ד ַ ע ֵ , τίςοἶδενεἰ , to express hope: but (1) in every one of those passages the verb stands in the emphatic position, and (2) the LXX use this very expression to signify uncertainty, e.g. ref. Eccles., τίςεἶδε (οἶδεν : add τό Aא 3) πνεῦμαυἱῶντοῦἀνθρώπου , εἰἀναβαίνειαὐτὸἄνω ; The rendering then of the verse will be as follows: (Let the unbeliever depart: hazard not for an uncertainty the peace in which you ought to be living as Christians): for what assurance hast thou, O wife, whether thou shalt be the means of thy husband’ s conversion? Or what assurance hast thou, O husband, whether thou shalt be the means of thy wife’ s conversion? “ This interpretation is the only one compatible with the obvious sense of ver. 15, and of the expression (not τίοἶδαςεἰμή , but) τίοἶδαςεἰσώσεις ; and is also in exact harmony with the general tenor of the Apostle’ s argument, which is not to urge a union, but to tolerate a separation.” Stanley; the rest of whose note is deeply interesting as to the historical influence of the verse as commonly misunderstood. 17. εἰμή takes an exception, by way of caution, to the foregoing motive for not remaining together (ver. 16). The Christian partner might carry that motive too far, and be tempted by it to break the connexion on his own part; a course already prohibited (vv. 12-14). Therefore the Apostle adds, But (q. d. only be careful not to make this a ground for yourselves causing the separation) as to each (ἑκάστ . ὡς = ὡςἑκάστ ., reff.) the Lord distributed (his lot), as (i.e. ᾖκλήσει , ver. 20) God has called each, so (in that state, without change) let him walk (reff.). The εἰμή has raised considerable difficulties. (1) some cursives, with syr-marg and Sevrn., read εἰτὴνγυναῖκασώσεις , ἢμή ;— and Knatchbull, al., join εἰμή similarly to the foregoing; εἰ .… σώσεις ,— εἰμή . But as De W. remarks, this would be, as Matthew 22:17, ἢοὐ : and then we should have the strictly parallel clauses of ver. 16 rendered unequal, by an appendage being attached to the second, which the first has not: besides that ver. 17 would be disjoined altogether. (2) Pott would supply χωρίζεται ,— Mosheim, Vater, and Rü ckert, σώσεις , after εἰμή . But so, to say nothing of the irrelevancy of the idea thus introduced, εἰδὲμή , or εἰδὲκαὶμή (as Meyer), would be required. (3) Theodoret, al., join all as far as κύριος to the foregoing: ‘ What knowest thou, &c., except in so far as the Lord has apportioned to each?’ But thus the evidently parallel members, ἑκάστ . ὡςἐμ . ὁκύρ ., and ἑκάστ . ὡςκέκλ . ὁθ ., would be separated, and a repetition occasioned which, except in the case of intended parallelism, would be alien from St. Paul’ s habit of writing. οὕτως .… διατ .] τοῦτοεἶπεν , ἵνατῷἔχεινκαὶἄλλουςκοινωνοὺςπροθυμότεροιπερὶτὴνὑπακοὴνδιατεθῶσι . Theophyl. 18-24. Examples of the precept just given. εἶτασυνήθωςἀπὸτοῦπροκειμένουεἰςἕτεραμεταβαίνει , πᾶσινομοθετῶντὰκατάλληλα . Theodoret. 18-20. First example: Circumcision. 18. ἐκλήθη ] Was any one called in circumcision,— i.e. circumcised at the time of his conversion. ἐπισπάσθω ] By a surgical operation; see Theophyl., Wetst.,— Winer, Realwö rterbuch, art. Beschneidung,— Jos. Antt. xii. 5. 1; 1 Macc. 1:15; Celsus de Re Medica, vii. 25 (in Wetst.). The practice usually was adopted by those who wished to appear like the Gentiles, and to cast off their ancient faith and habits. Among the Christians a strong anti-Judaistic feeling might lead to it. περιτεμνέσθω ] See Galatians 5:2, al. 19. See Galatians 5:6, where our τήρησιςἐντολῶνθεοῦ is expressed by πίστιςδι ʼ ἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη ; and Galatians 6:15, where it is given by καινὴκτίσις . Cf. an interesting note in Stanley, on the relation of these three descriptions. After θεοῦ , supply τὰπάνταἐστίν : see ch. 3:7. 20. Formal repetition of the general precept, as again ver. 24. κλῆσις is not the calling in life, for it never has that meaning either in classical or Hellenistic Greek (in the example which Wetst. gives from Dion. Hal. Antt. iv. 20, κλήσεις is used to express the Latin ‘ classes,’ — ἃςκαλοῦσινῬωμαῖοικλήσεις , and so is not a Greek word at all); but strictly calling by God, as in ref. The κλῆσις of a circumcised person would be a calling in circumcision,— and by this he was to abide. ἐντῇ … ἐνταύτῃ ] See ch. 6:4: emphatic. 21-24. Second example: Slavery. Wert thou called (converted) [being] a slave, let it not be a trouble to thee: but if thou art even able to become free, use it (i.e. remain in slavery) rather. This rendering, which is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Œ cum, Phot., Camerar., Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, al., is required by the usage of the particles, εἰκαί ,— by which, see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 139, the καί , ‘ also,’ or ‘ even,’ does not belong to the εἰ , as in καὶεἰ , but is spread over the whole contents of the concessive clause: so Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 302, πόλινμέν , εἰκαὶμὴβλέπεις , φρονεῖςδ ʼ ὅμως , οἵᾳνόσῳξύνεστιν . Plato, Rep. p. 337, εἰδ ʼ οὖνκαὶμήἐστινὅμοιον , φαίνεταιδὲτῷἐρωτηθέντιτοιούτων . Aristoph. Lysistr. 254, χώρει , Δράκης , ἡγοῦβάδην , εἰκαὶτὸνὦμονἀλγεῖς . Thucyd. ii. 64, μήτεἐμὲδι ʼ ὀργῆςἔχετε … εἰκαὶἐπελθόντεςοἱἐναντίοιἔδρασαν , ἅπερεἰκὸςἦνμὴἐθελησάντωνὑμῶνὑπακούειν . See more examples in Hartung. It is also required by the context: for the burden of the whole passage is, ‘ Let each man remain in the state in which he was called.’ It is given in the Syr.: which has ܓ ܒ ܝ ܠ ܟ ܕ ܬ ܦ ܠ ܝ ܘ ܝ ܝ “ choose for thyself that thou mayest serve,” or simply, “ prefer servitude:” not as Meyer from the erroneous Latin of Tremelius, “ elige tibi potius quam ut servias” (I am indebted for this correction of some of my earlier editions to the kindness of the Rev. Henry Craik, of Bristol). The other interpretation,— mentioned by Chrys., and given by Erasm., Luther , Beza, Calvin, Grot., and almost all the moderns,— understands τῇἐλευθερίᾳ after χρῆσαι : ‘ but if thou art able to become free, take advantage of it rather.’ The objections to this are, (1) the position of καί , which in this case must have been after δύνασαι ,— εἰδύνασαικαὶἐλεύθεροςγενέσθαι , or have been absent altogether. (2) The clause would hardly have begun with ἀλλὰεἰ but with εἰ , δέ — so the alternative suppositions in vv. 9, 11, 15, 28, 36. The ἀλλά brings out a strong opposition to the μελέτω , and implies a climax which would ill suit a merely parenthetic clause, but must convey the point of the sentence. (3) The absence of a demonstrative pronoun after χρῆσαι , by which we are thrown back, not on the secondary subject of the sentence, ἐλευθερίᾳ , but on the primary, δουλείᾳ . (4) Its utter inconsistency with the general context. The Apostle would thus be giving two examples of the precept ἕκαστοςἐνᾧἐκλήθηἐντούτῳμενέτω , one of which would convey a recommendation of the contrary course. See this followed out in Chrysostom. (5) Its entire contradiction to ver. 22: see below. (6) It would be quite inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostle,— that in Christ (Galatians 3:28) freeman and slave are all one,— and with his remarks on the urgency and shortness of the time in this chapter (ver. 29 ff.),— to turn out of his way to give a precept merely of worldly wisdom, that a slave should become free if he could. (7) The import of χράομαι in such a connexion, which suits better the remaining in, enduring, labouring under, giving one’ s self up to, an already-existing state, than the adopting or taking advantage of a new one; cf. such expressions as τοιούτῳμόρῳἐχρήσατοὁπαῖς , Herod. i. 117: συμφορᾷ , συντυχίᾳ , εὐτυχίᾳ , χρῆσθαι , often in Herod.: ἀμαθίᾳχρῆσθαι , and the like. The instance quoted by Bloomfield for ‘ become free,’ ἑκὼνγὰροὐδεὶςδουλίῳχρῆταιζύγῳ , Æ sch. Agam. 953, tells just the other way. There χρῆται is used not of entering, but of submitting to, the yoke of slavery, as here. 22. Ground of the above precept. For the slave who was called in the Lord (not, as E. V. and De Wette, ‘ He who is called in the Lord, being a slave,’ which would be δοῦλοςκληθείς , see above, δοῦλοςἐκλῆθης : ἐνκυρίῳ , as the element in which what is about to be stated takes place) is the Lord’ s freedman (“ ἀπελεύθερος with genit. is not here in the ordinary sense of ‘ libertus alicujus,’ ‘ any one’ s manumitted slave:’ for the former master was sin or the devil, see on ch. 6:20;— but only a freedman belonging to Christ, viz. freed by Christ from the service of another. This the reader would understand as a matter of course.” Meyer): similarly he that was called being free (not here, κληθεὶςἐλεύθερος , see above) is the slave of Christ. Christ’ s service is perfect freedom, and the Christian’ s freedom is the service of Christ. But here the Apostle takes, in each case, one member of this double antithesis from the outer world, one from the spiritual. The (actual) slave is (spiritually) free: the (actually) free is a (spiritual) slave. So that the two are so mingled, in the Lord, that the slave need not trouble himself about his slavery, nor seek for this world’ s freedom, seeing he has a more glorious freedom in Christ, and seeing also that his brethren who seem to be free in this world are in fact Christ’ s servants, as he is a servant. It will be plain that the reason given in this verse is quite inconsistent with the prevalent modern rendering of ver. 21. 23. Following out of δοῦλόςἐστινχριστοῦ , by reminding them of the price paid whereby Christ purchased them for His (ch. 6:20): and precept thereupon, become not slaves of men: i.e. ‘ do not allow your relations to human society, whether of freedom or slavery, to bring you into bondage so as to cause you anxiety to change the one or increase the other.’ Chrys., al., think the precept directed against ὀφθαλμοδουλεία , and general regard to men’ s opinion. But it is better to restrict it (however it may legitimately be applied generally) to the case in hand. Hammond, Knatchbull, Michaelis, al., understand it as addressed to the free, and meaning that they are not to sell themselves into slavery: but this is evidently wrong: as may be seen by the change to the second person plur. as addressing all his readers: besides that a new example would have been marked as in vv. 18, 21. See Stanley’ s note. 24. The rule it again repeated, but with the addition παρὰθεῷ , reminding them of the relations of Christ’ s freedman and Christ’ s slave, and of the price paid, just mentioned:— of that relation to God in which they stood by means of their Christian calling. “ The usual rendering, Deo inspectante (Grot.), i.e. ‘ perpetuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu versari’ (Beza), does not so well suit the local word μενέτω .” Meyer. 25-38. Advice (with some digressions connected with the subject) concerning the marriage of virgins. 25. παρθένων is not, as Theodor-, Bengel, Olsh., al., unmarried persons of both sexes, a meaning which, though apparently found in Revelation 14:4 (see note there), is perfectly unnecessary here, and appears to have been introduced from a mistaken view of vv. 26-28. The emphasis is on ἐπιταγήν — command of the Lord have I none, i.e. no expressed precept: so that, as before, there is no marked comparison between ὁκύριος and ἐγώ . πιστὸςεἶναι ] to be faithful, as in ref.,— as a steward and dispenser of the hidden things of God, and, among them, of such directions as you cannot make for yourselves, but require one so entrusted to impart to you. This sense, which has occurred in the estimate given of himself in this very Epistle, is better than the more general ones of true (Billroth, Rü ckert) or believing (Olsh., Meyer, De Wette). 26. The question of the marriage of virgins is one involving the expediency of contracting marriage in general: this he deals with now, on grounds connected with the then pressing necessity. οὖν , then, follows on γνώμ . δίδωμι , and introduces the γνώμη . τοῦτο indicates what is coming, viz. τὸοὕτωςεἶναι . καλόν , see note on ver. 1: the best way. τὴνἐνεστῶς . ἀνάγκ .] the instant necessity: viz. that prophesied by the Lord, Matthew 24:8, Matthew 24:21, &c.: which shall precede His coming: see especially ver. 19 there: not, the cares of marriage, as Theophyl., διὰτὰςἐναὐτῷδυσκολίας , κ . τὰτοῦγάμουὀχληρὰ : nor persecutions, as Photius in Œ cum., al., which are only a part of the apprehended troubles. These the Apostle regards as instant, already begun: for this is the meaning of ἐνεστῶσαν , not imminent, shortly to come: see reff. and Jos. Antt. xvi. 6. 2, τὸἔθνοςτῶνἹουδαίωνεὐχάριστονεὑρέθη , οὐμόνονἐντῷἐνεστῶτικαιρῷ , ἀλλὰκαὶἐντῷπρογεγενημένῳ ,— where all time future is evidently excluded. See note on 2 Thessalonians 2:2, where this distinction is very important. ὅτικαλ . ἀνθ .… ] De Wette takes ὅτι as because, understanding τοῦτο above = τὸπαρθένονεἶναι , ‘ that this (virginity) is best on account of the instant necessity, because it is (generally) best for a man so to be (i.e. unmarried).’ But this seems constrained, and tautological, and the only rescue of it from the charge of tautology is found in the word ‘ generally,’ which is not in the text. Far better, with Meyer and most interpreters, to view the sentence as an anacoluthon, begun with one construction, τοῦτοκαλὸνὑπάρχειν , and finished, without regard to this, when on account of the intervening words it became necessary to restate the καλόν , with another construction, ὅτι , &c. Thus we shall have it, literally rendered: I think then this to be the best way on account of the instant necessity, that it is the best way for a man thus to be. ἀνθρώπῳ , not as in ver. 1 (which in its outward form will not bear the wider meaning), but here purposely general, including those treated of, young females. οὕτως = ὡςκἀγώ as ver. 8? or perhaps ὡςἐστίν , which seems better on account of the following context, ver. 27. This, in the case of the unmarried, would amount to the other: and the case of virgins is now that especially under consideration. 27. τὸοὕτωςεἶναι restated and illustrated: neither the married nor the unmarried are to seek for a change. The general recommendation here is referable alike to all cases of marriage, and does not touch on the prohibition of ver. 10,— only dissuading from a spirit of change, in consideration of the ἐνεστῶσαἀνάγκη . It seems better to take the verse thus, than with Meyer and De Wette, to regard it as inserted to guard against misunderstanding of the preceding γνώμη of the Apostle. λέλυσαι does not imply previous marriage, but as Phot., οὐχὶπρὸςτοὺςσυναφθέντας , εἶταδιαλυθέντας , … ἀλλα ʼ ἁπλῶςπρὸςτοὺςμὴσυνελθόνταςὅλωςεἰςγάμουκοινωνίαν , ἀλλὰλελυμένουςὄνταςτοῦτοιούτουδεσμοῦ ,— and Estius, “ intelligit liberum a conjugio, sive uxorem aliquando habuerit, sive non.” 28. Not sin, but outward trouble, will be incurred by contracting marriage, whether in the case of the unmarried man or of the virgin; and it is to spare them this, that he gives his advice. But if also (καί , of the other alternative: see ver. 21) thou shalt have married, thou didst not sin (viz. when thou marriedst); and if a virgin (if the art. is to stand, it is generic) shall have married, she sinned not; but such persons shall have tribulation in the flesh (it is doubtful, as Meyer remarks, whether the dative belongs to the substantive,— trouble for the flesh,— or to the verb,— shall have in the flesh trouble): but I (emphatic— my motive is) am sparing you (endeavouring to spare you this θλῖψιντῇσαρκί , by advising you to keep single). 29-31. He enforces the foregoing advice by solemnly reminding them of the shortness of the time, and the consequent duty of sitting loose to all worldly ties and employments. 29. τοῦτοδέφημι … q. d. ‘ What I just now said, of marrying being no sin, might dispose you to look on the whole matter as indifferent: my motive, the sparing you outward affliction, may be underrated in the importance of its bearing: but I will add this solemn consideration.’ ὁκαιρ . συνεστ . ἐστ . τὸλοιπόν ] The time that remains is short; lit., ‘ the time is shortened henceforth:’ — i.e. the interval between now and the coming of the Lord has arrived at an extremely contracted period. These words have been variously misunderstood. (1) ὁκαιρός has been by some (Calvin, Estius, al.) interpreted ‘ the space of man’ s life on earth:’ which, however true it may be, and however legitimate this application of the Apostle’ s words, certainly was not in his mind, nor is it consistent with his usage of ὁκαιρός : see Romans 13:11; Ephesians 5:16,— or with that in the great prophecy of our Lord which is the key to this chapter, Luke 21:8; Mark 13:33. (2) συνεσταλμένος has been understood as meaning calamitosus (so Rosenm., Rü ckert, Olshausen, al.). But it never has this signification. In such passages as 1 Macc. 3:6, 5:3; 2 Macc. 6:12, παρακαλῶ .… μὴσυστέλλεσθαιδιὰτὰςσυμφοράς : 3 Macc. 5:33, τῇὁράσει … συνεστάλη ,— it has the meaning of humbling, depressing, which would be obviously inapplicable to καιρός . The proper meaning of συστέλλεσθαι , to be contracted, is found in Diod. Sic. i. 41, διὸκαὶτὸνΝεῖλονεὐλόγωςκατὰτὸνχειμῶναμικρὸνεἶναικαὶσυστέλλεσθαι . It is, as Schrader well renders it, ‘ in Kurzem sturzt die alte Welt zusammen.’ συστέλλεσθαι and συστολή are the regular grammatical words used of the shortening of a syllable in prosody. (3) τὸλοιπόν has been by some (Tertull. ad Uxorem i. 5 (vol. i. p. 1283), de perp. virg. B. V. M. adv. Helv. 20 (vol. ii. p. 227), on Ezekiel 7:13 (lib. ii., vol. v. p. 69), on Ecc_3. (vol. iii. p. 410),— Vulg., Erasm., Luther, Calvin, Estius; also E. V. and Lachm.) joined to what follows; ‘ it remains that both they,’ &c. But thus the sense of ἵνα will not be satisfied— see below: the usage of τὸλοιπόν is against it, which would require it to stand alone, and the sense not to be carried on as it is in ‘ superest ut,’ τὸλοιπόν , ἵνα … ,— see reff. and Philippians 3:1, Philippians 3:4:8; (1 Thessalonians 4:1;) 2 Thessalonians 3:1. The continuity of the passage would be very harshly broken: whereas by the other rendering all proceeds naturally. We have exactly parallel usages of τὸλοιπόν in reff. ἵνακαὶ … ] The end for which the time has been (by God) thus gathered up into a short compass: in order that both they, &c.: i.e. in order that Christians, those who wait for and shall inherit the coming kingdom, may keep themselves loosed in heart from worldly relationships and employments: that, as Meyer, “ the married may not fetter his interests to his wedlock, nor the mourner to his misfortunes, nor the joyous to his prosperity, nor the man of commerce to his gain, nor the user of the world to his use of the world.” This is the only legitimate meaning of ἵνα with the subj. The renderings which make it = ὅτε , ‘ tempus … futurum cum ei qui uxores habent pares futuri sint non habentibus,’ Grot., or ‘ ubi’ (local), are inadmissible. We may notice that according to this only right view of ἵνα , the clauses following are not precepts of the Apostle, but the objects as regards us, of the divine counsel in shortening the time. 30. ὡςμὴκατέχοντες ] as not possessing (their gains). So in the line of Lucretius (iii. 984), “ Vitaque mancupio nulli datur, omnibus usu.” 31. χρώμενοι … καταχρώμενοι ] The κατά , as in κατέχοντες , appears here to imply that intense and greedy use which turns the legitimate use into a fault. This meaning is better than ‘ abuse,’ which is allowable philologically, and is adopted by Theodoret, Theophyl., Œ , Luther, Olsh., al., but destroys the parallel. I would render them, and they who use the world, as not using it in full. So, or merely ‘ as not using it,’ regarding καταχρ . = χρ .,— Vulg., Calv., Grot., Estius, al., and Meyar and de Wette. χρῆσθαι with an acc. is found only here: never in classical Greek, and very rarely in Hellenistic. Almost the only undoubted instance seems to be in a Cretan inscription, Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. ii. 400, καὶτὰἄλλαπάνταχρήμενοι , ἐνδὲτᾷὁδῷτὰςξενικὰςθοίνας . See Bornemann, note on Acts 27:17, where βοηθείας is a var. read. in some mss. παράγειγὰρ … ] gives a reason for ὁκαιρ . συνεσταλμ . ἐστ . τὸλοιπ ., the clauses which have intervened being subordinate to those words: see above. Emphasis on παράγει : for the fashion (present external from, cf. Herodian i. 9 ἀνὴρφιλοσόφονφέρωνσχῆμα , and other examples in Wetst.) of this world is passing away (is in the act being changed, as a passing scence ina play: cf. πάραγεπτέρυγας , Eur. Ion, 165). This shews that the time is short:— the form of this world is already beginning to pass away. Grot., al., according to the mistaken view of ver. 20,— ‘ non manebunt, quæ nunc sunt, res tranquillæ , sed mutabuntur in turbidas.’ Theophyl. and many Commentators understand the saying of worldly affairs in general— ἄχριςὄψεώςεἰσιτὰτοῦπαρόντοςκόσμου , καὶἐπιπόλαια :— but this is inconsistent with the right interpretation of ver. 29: see there. Stanley compares a remarkable parallel, 2 Esdr. 16:40-44, probably copied from this passage. 32-34. Application of what has been just said to the question of marriage. 32. θέλωδὲ … ] But (i.e. since this is so— since the time is short, and that, in order that we Christians may sit loose to the world) I wish you to be without wordly cares (undistracted). Then he explains how this touches on the subject. πῶςἀρέσῃ — how he may please: πῶςἀρέσει — ‘ how he shall please.’ The variety being not in reality a various reading, but only an itacism, I retain the form found in the most ancient mss. 34. See var. readd.: I treat here only of the text. Divided also is the (married) woman and the virgin (i.e.divided in interest (i.e. in cares and pursuits) from one another: οὐτὴναὐτὴνἔχουσιφροντίδα , ἀλλὰμεμερισμέναιεἰσὶταῖςσπουδαῖς , Theophyl.: not merely, different from one another, as E. V., Chrys., Luth., Grot., al. Divisa est mulier et virgo D-lat G-lat Tert). It may be well to remark as to the reading, on which see Digest,— that Jerome testifies to this having been the reading of the old Latin copies, and himself sometimes quotes the passage in this form; but, when speaking of it critically, he states that it is not in the “ apostohca veritas,” i.e., it would seem, the Greek as understood by him. “ Nunc illud breviter admoneo in Latinis codicibus hunc locum ita legi: ‘ Divisa est virgo et mulier;’ quod quamquam habent suum sensum, et a me quoque pro qualitate loci sic edissertum sit, tamen, non est apostolicæ veritatis. Siquidem Apostolus ita scripsit, ut supra transtulimus: ‘ Sollicitns est quæ sunt mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, et divisus est.’ Et hac sententia definita transgreditur ad virgines et continentes et ait: ‘ Mulier innupta et virgo cogitat quæ sunt Domini ut sit sancta corpore et spiritu.’ Non omnis innupta, et virgo est. Quæ autem virgo utique et innupta est. Quamquam ob elegantiam dictionis potuerit id ipsum altera verbo repetere, ‘ mulier innupta et virgo:’ vel certe definire voluisse quid esset innupta, id est virgo: ne meretrices putemus innuptas, nulli certo matrimonio copulatas” (Jer. contra Jovin. i. 13, vol. ii. p. 260). The sing. verb seems to be used, as standing first in this sentence, and because ἡγυνὴκ . ἡπαρθ . embraces the female sex as one idea: so e.g. Plato, Lys. p. 207, φιλεῖσεὁπατὴρκαὶἡμήτηρ : Herod. v. 21, εἵπετογὰρδήσφικ . ὀχήματακ . θεράποντεςκαὶἡπᾶσαπολλὴπαρασκευή : q. d. ‘ There loves thee father and mother,’ — ‘ there followed them,’ &c. See more examples in Kü hner, ii. p. 58 (§ 433, exception 1):— Reiche thinks that one and the same woman is intended at different periods: but ἡδὲγαμήσασα is against this: it would be γαμήσασαδέ (Meyer). The judgment of marriage here pronounced by the Apostle must be taken, as the rest of the chapter, with its accompanying conditions. He is speaking of a pressing and quickly shortening period which he regards as yet remaining before that day and hour of which neither he, nor any man, knew. He wishes his Corinthians, during that short time, to be as far as possible totally undistracted. He mentions as an objection to marriage, that which is an undoubted fact of human experience:— which is necessarily bound up with that relation: and without which the duties of the relation could not be fulfilled. Since he wrote, the unfolding of God’ s providence has taught us more of the interval before the coming of the Lord than it was given even to an inspired Apostle to see. And as it would be perfectly reasonable and proper to urge on an apparently dying man the duty of abstaining from contracting new worldly obligations,— but both unreasonable and improper, should the same person recover his health, to insist on this abstinence any longer: so now, when God has manifested His will that nations should rise up and live and decay, and long centuries elapse before the day of the coming of Christ, it would be manifestly unreasonable to urge,— except in so far as every man’ s καιρός is συνεσταλμένος , and similar arguments are applicable,— the considerations here enforced. Meanwhile they stand here on the sacred page as a lesson to us how to regard, though in circumstances somewhat changed, our worldly relations; and to teach us, as the coming of the Lord may be as near now, as the Apostle then believed it to be, to act at least in the spirit of his advice, and be, as far as God’ s manifest will that we should enter into the relations and affairs of life allows, ἀμέριμνοι . The duty of ver. 35 fin. is incumbent on all Christians, at all periods. 35. Caution against mistaking what has been said for an imperative order, whereas it was only a suggestion for their best interest. τοῦτο ] vv. 32-34. πρὸςτὸὑμ . αὐτ . σύμ .] For your own (emph.) profit,— i.e. not for my own purposes— not to exercise my apostolic authority: not that I may cast a snare (lit. ‘ a noose;’ the metaphor is from throwing the noose in hunting, or in war; so Herod. vii. 85, ἡδὲμάχητούτεωντῶνἀνδρῶνἥδε . ἐπεὰνσυμμίσγωσιτοῖςπολεμίοις , βάλλουσιτὰςσειρὰςἐπ ʼ ἄκρῳβρόχουςἔχουσας , ὅτευδ ʼ ἂντύχῃἤντεἵππουἤντεἀνθρώπου , ἐπ ʼ ἑωϋτὸνἕλκει · οἱδὲἐνἕρκεσιἐμπαλασσόμενοιδιαφθείρονται . See other examples in Wetst.) over you (i.e. entangle and encumber you with difficult precepts), but with a view to seemliness (cf. Romans 13:13) and waiting upon the Lord without distraction. De W. remarks, that πρὸςτὸπαρεδρεύειντῷκ . ἀπερ . would be the easier construction. Stanley draws out the parallel to the story in ref. Luke. 36-38. For seemliness’ sake: and consequently, if there be danger, by a father withholding his consent to his daughter’ s marriage, of unseemly treatment of her, let an exception be made in that case: but otherwise, if there be no such danger, it is better not to give her in marriage. But if any one (any father) thinks that he is behaving unseemly towards his virgin daughter (viz. in setting before her a temptation to sin with her lover, or at least, bringing on her the imputation of it, by withholding his consent to her marriage. Or the reference may be to the supposed disgrace of having an unmarried daughter in his house), if she be of full age (for before that the imputation and the danger consequent on preventing the marriage would not be such as to bring in the ἀσχημοσύνη . The ἀκμή of woman is defined by Plato, Rep. v. p. 460, to be twenty years, that of man thirty. See Stanley’ s note [and ref. Sir.]), and thus it must be (i.e. and there is no help for it,— they are bent on it beyond the power of dissuasion:— depends not on ἐάν , as the indic. shews, but on εἰ . οὕτως , viz. that they must marry. Theophyl. takes the words for the beginning of the consequent sentence = οὕτωςκαὶγενέσθω . But, as Meyer remarks, the words would thus be altogether superfluous, and after ὀφείλει , οὐχἁμαρτάνει would be inapplicable), what he will , let him do (τὸδοκοῦνπραττέτω , Theodoret), he sinneth not (ἁμαρτίαςγὰρὁγάμοςἐλεύθερος , Theodoret); let them (his daughter and her lover) marry. Some (Syr., Grot., al.) take ἀσχημονεῖν passively,— ‘ thinks that he is (likely to be) brought into disgrace as regards his daughter,’ viz. by her seduction, or by her being despised as unmarried. But this would require (1) the future ἀσχημονήσειν .— (2) ἐπί with a dative, the acc. shewing that the verb is one of action: Meyer compares ἀσχημονεῖνεἴςτινα , Dion. Hal. ii. 26. And (3) the active sense of the verb is found in this Epistle (ref.), the only other place where it occurs in the N. T. 37. But he who stands firm in his heart (= purpose,— having no such misgiving that he is behaving unseemly), not involved in any necessity (no ὀφείλειγενέσθαι as in the other case; no determination to marry on the part of his daughter, nor attachment formed), but has (change of construction:— the clause is opposed to ἔχωνἀνάγκ .) liberty of action respecting his personal wish (to keep his daughter unmarried), and has determined this in his own (expressed, as it is a matter of private determination only) heart (τοῦτο , not stated what, but understood by the reader to mean, the keeping his daughter unmarried:— but this would not be in apposition with nor explained by τοῦτηρ . τ . ἑαυτ . παρθ ., see below), to keep (in her present state) his own virgin daughter (the rec., τοῦτηρ ., would express the purpose of the determination expressed in κέκρικεν : not (as commonly given) the explanation of τοῦτο , which would require τὸτηρεῖν or τηρεῖν . It shews that the motive of the κέκρικεν is the feeling of a father, desirous of retaining in her present state his own virgin daughter. So Meyer, and I think rightly: see note on Acts 27:1. De Wette, on the other hand, regards the words τοῦτηρ .… , as merely a periphrasis for not giving her in marriage. Our present text merely explains the τοῦτο ), shall do well. 38. The latter καί has been altered to δέ because a contrast seemed to be required between καλῶς and κρεῖσσον . One account might be (as and De W.) that Paul had intended to write καλῶςποι . twice, but currente calamo, intensified the expression to κρεῖσσονποιῆσει . Perhaps a better one will be found by referring the καὶ — καί to that which καλῶς and κρεῖσσον have in common: ‘ both he who gives in marriage does well, and he who gives not in marriage shall do well, even in a higher degree.’ I need hardly remind the tiro that ‘ both— and’ here does not, as Bloomf. objects, represent τεκαί ,— each subject being accompanied by its own predicate. Observe the ποιήσει — ποιεῖ — ποιήσει ; the pres., of the mere act itself, the fut., of its enduring results. 39, 40. Concerning second marriages of women. 39. δέδεται ] viz. τῷἀνδρί , or perhaps absolutely, is bound, in her marriage state. γαμηθῆναι ] γαμηθῆναι and γαμῆσαι are later forms, reprobated by the grammarians: γαμεθῆναι and γαμέσαι being the corresponding ones in good Greek. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 742. Meyer cites Schol. on Eur. Med. 593, γαμεῖμὲνγὰρὁἀνήρ , γαμεῖταιδὲἡγυνή . But not invariably, see ver. 28. μόνονἐνκυρίῳ ] only in the Lord, i.e. within the limits of Christian connexion— in the element in which all Christians live and walk;— ‘ let her marry a Christian.’ So Tertull., , Ambrose, Jerome, Grot., Est., Bengel, Rosenm., Olsh., Meyer, De W. But Chrys. explains it μετὰσωφροσύνης , μετὰκοσμιότητος :— and so (but in some cases including in this the marrying of a Christian) Theodoret , Theophyl., Calv., Beza, Calov., al. This however seems flat, and the other much to be preferred; also as making a better limitation of ᾧθέλει . 40. μακαριωτέρα ] [not merely happier, in our merely social secular sense, but including this] happier, partly by freedom from the attendant trials of the ἐνεστῶσαἀνάγκη ,— but principally for the reason mentioned verse 34. “ To higher blessedness in heaven, which became attached to celibacy afterwards in the views of its defenders (Ambrose, Corn.-a-Lap., al.), there is no allusion here.” Meyer. δοκῶδὲκἀγώ ] This is modestly said, implying more than is expressed by it,— not as if there were any uncertainty in his mind. It gives us the true meaning of the saying that he is giving his opinion, as ver. 25: viz. not that he is speaking without inspiration, but that in the consciousness of inspiration he is giving that counsel which should determine the question. The rationalizing Grotius explains πνεῦμαθεοῦ , ‘ non revelationem, sed sincerum affectum Deo et piis serviendi,’ referring to ch. 4:21, where (1) the meaning is not this (see note); and (2) the expression is not πνεῦμαθεοῦ . κἀγώ ] ‘ as well as other teachers.’ Whether said with a general or particular reference, we cannot tell, from not being sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances. 8:1-11:1. On the partaking of meats offered to idols, and assisting at feasts held in honour of idols. Chap. 8:1-13. Though (vv. 1-6) for those who are strong in the faith, an idol having no existence, the question has no importance, this is not so with all (ver. 7); and the infirmities of the weak must in such a matter be regarded in our conduct (vv. 8-13). 1. δέ , transitional, as in ch. 7:1, al. fr. As regards the construction, we may observe, that περὶδ . τῶνεἰδ ., is again taken up ver. 4, περὶτῆςβρώς . οὖντῷνεἰδ ., after a parenthesis. We may also observe that in the latter case οἴδαμενὅτι is restated, bearing therefore, it is reasonable to suppose, the same meaning as before, viz. we know, that. This to my mind is decisive against beginning the parenthesis with ὅτι , and rendering ὅτι ‘ for,’ as Luther, Bengel, Valckn., al.:— ‘ we know (for we all have knowledge),’ &c. Are we then to begin it with πάντες , leaving περὶ … οἴδαμενὅτι broken off, corresponding to the words resumed in ver. 4? We should thus leave within the parenthesis a very broken and harsh sentence: πάντεςγνῶσινἔχομεν (what γνῶσις if γν . about the εἰδωλοθ ., it should be joined with the preceding; if γν . in general, it should be τὴνγνῶσιν , see ch. 13:2, which would be absurd; if some γν . on some subjects, as σὺπίστινἔχεις , James 2:18, it would here be irrelevant), ἡγν . φυσιοῖ , ἡδὲἀγ . κ .τ .λ . The first logical break in the sense is where the concrete γνῶσις , that περὶτῶνεἰδ ., is forsaken, and the abstract ἡγνῶσις treated of. Here therefore, with Chrys., &c., Beza, Grot., Calv., Est., al., De Wette, and Meyer, I begin the parenthesis,— … we are aware that we all (see below) have knowledge; knowledge, &c.; not however placing it in brackets, for it is already provided for in the construction by the resumption of περὶ … οὖν below; and is not a grammatical but only a logical parenthesis. The εἰδωλόθυτα were those portions of the animals offered in sacrifice which were not laid on the altar, and which belonged partly to the priests, partly to those who had offered them. These remnants were sometimes eaten at feasts holden in the temples (see ver. 10), or in private houses (ch. 10:27, f.), sometimes sold in the markets, by the priests, or by the poor, or by the niggardly. Theophrastus, Charact. xviii., describes it as characteristic of the ἀνελεύθερος ,— ἐκδιδοὺςαὑτοῦθυγατέρα , τοῦμὲνἱερείου , πλὴντῶνἱερῶν , τὰκρέαἀποδίδοσθαι . They were sometimes also reserved for future use: Theophr. mentions it as belonging to the ἀναίσχυντος ,— θύσαςτοῖςθεοῖςαὐτὸςμὲνδειπνεῖνπαρ ʼ ἑτέρῳ , τὰδὲκρέαἀποτιθέναιἁλσὶπάσας . Christians were thus in continual danger of meeting with such remnants. Partaking of them was an abomination among the Jews: see Numbers 25:2; Psalms 106:28; Revelation 2:14; Tobit 1:10-12; and was forbidden by the Apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem, Acts 15:29; Acts 21:25. That Paul in the whole of this passage makes no allusion to that decree, but deals with the question on its own merits, probably is to be traced to his wish to establish his position as an independent Apostle, endowed with God’ s Holy Spirit sufficiently himself to regulate such matters. But it also shews, how little such decisions were at that time regarded as lastingly binding on the whole church: and how fully competent it was, even during the lifetime of the Apostles, to Christians to open and question, on its own merits, a matter which they had, for a special purpose, once already decided. There should be a comma at εἰδωλοθύτων , as the resumed sentence (ver. 4) shews. πάντεςγνῶσινἔχομεν ] Who are πάντες Meyer says, Paul himself and the enlightened among the Corinthians: Estius, al., these latter alone; and some think it said ironically, some concessively, of them: Grot., “ pars maxima nostrum, ut Romans 3:12.” But it is manifest from vv. 4-6, which is said in the widest possible reference to the faith of all Christians, that all Christians must be intended here also: and so Chrys., Theophyl., Œ cum., Calov., al., and De Wette. But then, ver. 7, he says, οὐκἐνπᾶσινἡγνῶσις [obviously pointing at the weak Christian brother]: and how are the two to be reconciled? By taking, I believe, the common-sense view of two such statements, which would be, in ordinary preaching or writing, that the first was said of what is professed and confessed,— the second of what is actually and practically apprehended by each man. Thus we may say of our people, in the former sense, ‘ all are Christians; all believe in Christ:’ but in the latter, ‘ all are not Christians; all do not believe.’ γνῶσιν , scil. περὶαὐτῶν . From ἡγν . to end of ver. 3 (see above) is a logical parenthesis. ἡγνῶσις , knowledge, abstract,— scil. when alone, or improperly predominant: it is the attribute of ἡγνῶσις , ‘ barely’ [to puff up]. ἡἀγάπη ] viz. ‘ towards the brethren,’ see Romans 14:15, and ch. 10:23. οἰκοδ .] helps to build up (God’ s spiritual temple), ch. 3:9. 2, 3. The general deductions, (1) from a profession of knowledge, and (2) from the presence of love, in a man:— expressed sententiously and without connecting particles, more, as Meyer observes, after the manner of St. John in his Epistles. On the text, see var. readd. The case supposed is the only one which can occur where love is absent and conceit present: a man can then only think he knows,— no real knowledge being accessible without humility and love. Such a man knows not yet, as he ought to know: has had no real practice in the art of knowing. But if a man loves God (which is the highest and noblest kind of love, the source of brotherly love, 1 John 5:2), this man (and not the wise in his own conceit) is known by Him. The explanation of this latter somewhat difficult expression is to be found in ref. Gal., νῦνδὲγνόντεςθεόν , μᾶλλονδὲγνωσθέντεςὑπὸθεοῦ . So that here we may fairly assume that he chooses the expression ἔγνωσταιὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦ in preference to that which would have been, had any object of knowledge but the Supreme been treated of, the natural one, viz. οὗτοςἔγνωαὐτόν . We cannot be said to know God, in any full sense (as here) of the word to know. But those who become acquainted with God by love, are known by Him: are the especial objects of the divine Knowledge,— their being is pervaded by the Spirit of God, and the wisdom of God is shed abroad in them. So in ref. 2 Tim., ἔγνωκύριοςτοὺςὄνταςαὐτοῦ . See also Psalms 1:6. “ Cognitionem passivam sequitur cognitio activa c. xiii. 12. Egregia metalepsis: cognitus est, adeoque cognovit.” Bengel. γινώσκω does not seem, any more than י ָ ד ַ ע in Psalms 1:6, Psalms 37:18, for which the LXX have γινώσκω , to signify to approve, any further than personal knowledge of an intimate kind necessarily involves approval. 4. The subject is resumed, and further specified by the insertion of τῆςβρώσεως . οὖν resumes a broken thread of discourse: so Plato, Apol. p. 29, ὥστεοὐδ ʼ εἴμεἀφίετε … εἴμοιπρὸςταῦταεἴποιτε , &c.… εἰοὖνμε , ὅπερεἶπον , ἐπὶτούτοιςἀφίοιτε … See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 22. We know that there is no idol in the world, i.e. that the εἴδωλα of the heathen (meaning not strictly the images, but the persons represented by them) have no existence in the world. That they who worship idols, worship devils, the Apostle himself asserts ch. 10:20; but that is no contradiction to the present sentence, which asserts that the deities imagined by them, Jupiter, Apollo, &c., have absolutely no existence. Of that subtle Power which, under the guise of these, deluded the nations, he here says nothing. The rendering of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl. Œ cum., Vulg., E. V., Luther, Beza, Grot., Est., al. (‘ an idol is nothing in the world,’ ch. 10:19; Jeremiah 10:3. Sanhedr. 63. 2 (Wetst.), “ noverant utique Israelitæ idolum nihil esse” ), is certainly wrong here, on account of the parallel οὐδεὶςθεὸςεἰμὴεἷς which follows. And that there is no god, but One: the insertion of ἕτερος has probably been occasioned by the first commandment, οὐκἔσονταίσοιθεοὶἕτεροιπλὴνἐμοῦ . 5, 6. Further explanation and confirmation of ver. 4. 5. For even supposing that (εἴπερ makes an hypothesis, so that “ in incerto relinquitur, jure an injuria sumatur,” Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. See also Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 343, who gives many examples. καὶγὰρεἰ , as Eur. Med. 450, καὶγὰρεἰσύμεστυγεῖς , οὐκἂνδυναίμηνσοὶκακῶςφρονεῖνποτε ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 140 f.) beings named gods (not those who are named gods, οἱλεγ . θ ., i. esset, all who are so named) exist (the chief emphasis is on εἰσίν , on which the hypothesis turns), whether in heaven, whether upon earth, as (we know that) there are (viz. as being spoken of, Deuteronomy 10:17, ὁγὰρκύριοςὁθεὸςὑμῶν , οὗτοςθεὸςτῶνθεῶνκαὶκύριοςτῶνκυρίων , see also Psalms 135:2, Psalms 135:3) gods many, and lords many (the ὥσπερ brings in an acknowledged fact, on which the possibility of the hypothesis rests— ‘ Even if some of the many gods and many lords whom we know to exist, be actually identical with the heathen idols … ’ The Apostle does not concede this, but only puts it). This exegesis, which is Meyer’ s, is denied by De Wette, who takes εἴπερ as concessive, ‘ even though,’ and understands εἰσίν both times as only ‘ are,’ — in the meaning of the heathen,— imagining it impossible that Paul should have seriously said in an objective sense, ‘ there are gods many.’ But in the sense in which he uses θεοί (see above) there is no unlikelihood that he should assert this. Chrys. gives the following explanation: καὶγὰρεἴπερεἰσὶλεγόμενοιθεοί , ὥσπεροὖνκαὶεἰσίν , οὐχἁπλῶςεἰσίν , ἀλλά , λεγόμενοι , οὐκἐνπράγματι , ἀλλ ʼ ἐνῥήματιτοῦτοἔχοντες · εἴτεἐνοὐρανῷ , εἴτεἐπὶγῆς · ἐνοὐρανῷτὸνἥλιονλέγωνκ . τὴνσελήνηνκ . τὸνλοιπὸντῶνἄστρωνχορόν · καὶγὰρκαὶταῦταπροσεκύνησανἝλληνες · ἐπὶγῆςδὲδαίμονας , καὶτοὺςἐξἀνθρώπωνθεοποιηθένταςἅπαντας . Hom. xx. p. 172. And similarly Theodoret, Theophyl., Œ cum., Calv., Beza, Calov., Estius, Schrader, al. See the various minor differences of interpretation, in Pool’ s Synopsis and De Wette: and a beautiful note in Stanley. There is a sentence in Herodotus (9:27) singularly resembling this in its structure: ἡμῖνδέ , εἰμηδὲνἄλλοἐστὶἀποδεδεγμένον , ὥσπερἐστὶπολλάτεκαὶεὖἔχοντα , … ἀλλὰκαὶἀπὸτοῦἐνΜαραθῶνιἔργουἄξιοίἐσμεν , κ .τ .λ . Cf. also Hom. Il. α . 81 f.; φ . 576 f. 6. Yet (see reff. just given, and ch. 4:15) to us (emphatic: however that matter may be, we hold) there is one God, the Father (ὁπατήρ answers to Ἰησοῦςχριστός in the parallel clause below, and serves to specify what God— viz. the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ), of Whom (as their Source of being) are all things, and we unto (i.e. for) Him (His purposes— to serve His will); and one Lord Jesus Christ , by Whom (as Him by whom the Father made the worlds, John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2) are all things, and we (but here secondly, we as his spiritual people, in the new creation) by Him. The inference from the foregoing is that, per se, the eating of meat offered to idols is a thing indifferent, and therefore allowed. The limitation of this licence now follows. 7. But (sondern) not in all is the knowledge (of which we have been speaking: i.e. see above, is not in them in their individual apprehension, though it is by their profession as Christians): but (aber) some through their consciousness (or, according to the other reading, habituation) to this day, of the (particular) idol (i.e. through their having an apprehension to this day of the reality of the idol, and so being conscientiously afraid of the meat offered, as belonging to him: not wishing to be connected with him. τῇσυνειδήσειἕωςἄρτι is not = τῇἕωςἄρτισυν ., but ἕωςἄρτι stands separate, as above: so διὰτῆςἐμῆςπαρουσίαςπάλινπρὸςὑμᾶς , Philippians 1:26) eat it as offered to an idol, and their conscience, in that it is weak, is defiled. By ἕωςἄρτι , it is shewn that these ἀσθενεῖς must have belonged to the Gentile part of the Corinthian church: to those who had once, before their conversion, held these idols to be veritable gods. Had they been Jewish converts, it would not have been συνείδησιςτοῦεἰδώλου which would have troubled them, but apparent violation of the Mosaic law. 8. Reason why we should accommodate ourselves to the prejudices of the weak in this matter: because it is not one in which any spiritual advantage is to be gained, but one perfectly indifferent: not, with Calv., al., an objection of the strong among the Corinthians: no such assumption must be made, without a plain indication in words that the saying of another is being cited: see Romans 9:19; Romans 11:19; and as Meyer well remarks, if the eaters had said this, they would have expressed it, οὔτεἐὰνμὴφάγωμενπερισς ., οὔτεἐὰνφάγ ., ὑστερ ., as it has actually been corrected (see var. readd.) in some mss., and adopted by Lachm. in his last edn. The δέ carries on the argument. Bengel remarks (against the ordinary rendering, which takes παρίστημι = συνίστημι , ‘ commendo,’ which meaning it will not bear) that παραστήσει is a verbum μέσον , after which may follow a good or a bad predicate:— will not affect our (future) standing before God;— and to this indifferent meaning of παραστήσει answers the antithetic alternative which follows. 9. δέ — q. d. “ I acknowledge this indifference— this licence to eat or not to eat; but it is on that very account, because it is a matter indifferent, that ye must take heed,” &c. The particular πρόσκομμα in this case would be, the tempting them to act against their conscience:— a practice above all others dangerous to a Christian, see below, ver. 11. 10. Explanation how the πρόσκομμα may arise. τίς , scil. (see below) ἀσθενὴςὤν . τὸνἔχονταγνῶσιν seems to imply that the weak brother is aware of this, and looks up to thee as such. ἐνεἰδωλείῳκατ .] See on εἰδωλοθ ., ver. 1. εἰδωλεῖον , as Ποσειδεῖον , Ἀπολλωνεῖον , Ἰσεῖον , &c. “ οἰκοδομηθήσεται is not a vox media, as Le Clerc, Elsner, Wolf, al., nor is it impelletur, as Castal., Bengel, Kypke, al., nor confirmabitur, as Syr., Grot., Billroth, al.” (Mey.), but as Meyer and De Wette, æ dificabitur, not without a certain irony, seeing it is accompanied by ἀσθενοῦςὄντος ,— for thus the building up would be without solid foundation— a ruinosa æ dificatio, as Calv. 11. … and (thus) the weak perishes (hereafter: see the parallel, ref. Rom. and note) in (as the element in which,— he entering into it as his own, which it is not) thy knowledge,— the brother, in whose behalf Christ died? See again Rom. as above. 12. οὕτως , viz. as in vv. 10, 11. καί fixes and explains what is meant by ἁμαρτ . εἰςτ . ἀδ . τύπτοντες ] smiting: τίγὰρἀπηνέστερονἀνθρώπουγένοιτ ʼ ἂντὸννοσοῦντατύπτοντος ; Chrys. p. 176 13. Fervid expression of his own resolution consequent on these considerations, by way of an example to them. βρῶμα , food, i.e. any article of food, as ver. 8; purposely indefinite here; ‘ if such a matter as food.… ,’ but presently particularized. οὐμὴφάγω , strong future, I surely will not eat; ‘ there is no chance that I eat.’ κρέα ] ‘ Quo certius vitarem carnem idolo immolatam, toto genere carnium abstinerem.’ Bengel. σκανδαλίσω ] be the means of offending; “ commutatur persona: modo dixit si cibus offendit.” Bengel. “ Non autem hoc dicit quod hoc aliquo casu opus sit, sed ut ostendat multo graviora quam de quibus hic agitur sustinenda pro proximorum salute.” Grot. 9:1-27. He digressively illustrates the spirit of self-denial which he professed in the resolution of ch. 8:13,— by contrasting his rights as an Apostle with his actual conduct in abstaining from demanding them (vv. 1-22). This self-denying conduct he further exemplifies, vv. 23-27, for their imitation. See Stanley’ s introductory note; and Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. pp. 61, 457, edn. 2. 1. He sets forth, (1) his independence of men (contrast ver. 19); (2) his apostolic office (for the order, see var. readd.):— (3) his dignity as an Apostle, in having been vouchsafed a sight of Christ Jesus our Lord;— (4) his efficiency in the office, as having converted them to God. ἐλεύθ .] So that the resolution of ch. 8:13 is not necessitated by any dependence on my part on the opinion of others. ἑώρακα ] Not, during the life of our Lord on earth, as Schrader, nor is such an idea supported by 2 Corinthians 5:16; see note there;— but, in the appearance of the Lord to him by the way to Damascus (Acts 9:17; ch. 15:8: see Neand. Pfl. u. Leit. p. 151, note); and also, secondarily, in those other visions and appearance,— recorded by him, Acts 18:9 (?), 22:18,— and possibly on other occasions since his conversion. οὐμικρὸνδὲκαὶτοῦτοἀξίωμαἦν , Chrys. Hom. xxi. p.180. ἐνκυρίῳ is not a mere humble qualification of τὸἔργονμου , as Chrys. ib., τουτέστιτοῦθεοῦτὸἔργονἐστίν , οὐκἐμοῦ ,— but designates, as elsewhere, the element, in which the work is done: they were his work as an Apostle, i.e. as the servant of the Lord enabled by the Lord, and so in the Lord. See ch. 4:15. 2. At least my apostleship cannot be denied by you of all men, who are its seal and proof. εἰ .… οὐκεἰμί ] οὐκ , because it belongs closely to the hypothesis: ‘ if I am no-Apostle,’ see ch. 7:9. ἄλλοις , to others, i.e. in the estimation of others. ἀλλάγε , yet at least, is stronger than ἀλλά alone. The particle shews that the sentiment which it introduces has more weight than the other to which the ἀλλά is a reply. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 385. Meyer (after Klotz) remarks that “ in the classics ἀλλάγε is never found without one or more words intervening:” those words being emphatic: e.g. Aristoph. Nub. 399, πῶςοὐχὶΣίμων ʼ ἐνέπρησεν .… ἀλλὰτὸναὑτοῦγενεὼνβάλλει ; σφραγίς ] as being the proof of his apostolic calling and energy, by their conversion; better than,— by the signs and wonders which he wrought among them, as Chrys. (al.) from 2 Corinthians 12:11-13, and perhaps misled by the similarity of σημεῖον and σφραγίς . Their conversion was the great proof: so Theodoret, ἀπόδειξινγὰρτῶνἀποστολικῶνκατορθωμάτωντὴνὑμετέρανἔχωμεταβολήν . ἐνκυρ .] belongs to the whole sentence, see above, on ver. 1. 3. This belongs to the preceding, not to the following verses: αὕτη , viz. the fact of your conversion: this word is the predicate, not the subject— as in John 1:19; John 17:3, and stands here in the emphatic place before the verb; referring to what went before. With ver. 4 a new course of questions begins, which furnish no ἀπολογία . τοῖςἐμὲἀνακρ .] For the dat. see Acts 19:33; 2 Corinthians 12:19:— to those, who call me in question: ἐμέ , emphatic, as Chrys. says, of ver. 2, κἂνβούληταίτις … μαθεῖνποθενὅτιἀπόστολόςεἰμι , ὑμᾶςπροβάλλομαι , p. 181. 4. He resumes the questions which had been interrupted by giving the proof of his Apostleship. μὴοὐκἔχ .] μή asks the question: οὐκἔχομεν is the thing in question: Is it so, that we have not power.… ? The plur. seems to apply to Paul alone: for though Barnabas is introduced momentarily in ver. 6, there can be no reference to him in ver. 11. It may perhaps be used as pointing out a matter of right, which any would have had on the same conditions (see ver. 11), and as thus not belonging personally to Paul, as do the things predicated in vv. 1, 2, 15. This however will not apply to ver. 12, where the emphatic ἡμεῖς is personal. φαγεῖνκ . πεῖν ] To eat and to drink, sc. at the cost of the churches: not with any reference to the eating of things offered to idols (as Schrader, iv. 132), nor to Jewish distinctions of clean and unclean (as Billroth and Olshausen);— see below, vv. 6, 7. 5. Have we not the power to bring about with us (also to be maintained at the cost of the churches, for this, and not the power to marry, is here the matter in question) as a wife, a (believing) sister (or, ‘ to bring with us a believing wife:’ these are the only renderings of which the words are legitimately capable. Augustine, De Opere Monachorum, 4 (5), vol. vi. p. 552, explains it thus: “ Ostendit sibi licere quod ceteris Apostolis, id est ut non operetur manibus suis, sed ex Evangelio vivat:.… ad hoc enim et fideles mulieres habentes terrenam substantiam ibant cum eis, et ministrabant eis de substantia sua,” &c., and similarly Jerome adv. Jovin. 1:26, vol. ii. p. 277. So likewise Tertull., Theodoret, Œ cum., Pelus., Theophylact, Ambrose, and So too Corn.-a-Lap. and Estius. See Estius, and Suicer, γυνή , II. And from this misunderstanding of the passage grew up a great abuse, and such women are mentioned with reprobation by Epiphan. Hæ r. 78, vol. i. (ii. Migne), p. 1043, under the name of ἀγαπηταί . They were also called ἀδελφαί : and were forbidden under the name of συνείσακτοι by the 3rd Canon of the 1st Council of Nicæ a. See these words in Suicer), as also the other Apostles (in the wider sense, not only the twelve, for ver. 6, Barnabas is mentioned. It does not follow hence that all the other Apostles were married: but that all had the power, and some had used it) and the brethren of the Lord (mentioned not because distinct from the ἀπόστολοι , though they were absolutely distinct from the Twelve, see Acts 1:14,— but as a further specification of the most renowned persons, who travelled as missionaries, and took their wives with them. On the ἀδ . τοῦκυρ . see note, Matthew 13:55. They were in all probability the actual brethren of our Lord by the same mother, the sons of Joseph and Mary. The most noted of these was James, the Lord’ s brother (Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9, Galatians 2:12, compare Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18), the resident bishop of the Church at Jerusalem: the others known to us by name were Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, see note on Matt, ib.), and Cephas (Peter was married, see Matthew 8:14. A beautiful tradition exists of his encouraging his wife who was led to death, by saying μέμνησο , ὦαὕτη , τοῦκυρίου , Alex. Strom. vii. § 11 (63), p. 868 P. Euseb. H. E. iii. 30. Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. § 6 (52), p. 535 P., relates that he had children)? On a mistake which has been made respecting St. Paul’ s (supposed) wife, see note on ch. 7:8. 6. Or (implying what the consequence would then be, see ch. 6:2, 9: does not introduce a new ἐξουσία , but a consequence of the denial of the last two) have only I and Barnabas (why Barnabas? Perhaps on account of his former connexion with Paul, Acts 11:30; Acts 12:25; Acts 13:1-15. Acts 13:39; but this seems hardly enough reason for his being here introduced. It is not improbable that having been at first associated with Paul, who appears from the first to have abstained from receiving sustenance from those among whom he was preaching, Barnabas, after his separation from our Apostle, may have retained the same self-denying practice. “ This is the only time when he is mentioned in conjunction with St. Paul, since the date of the quarrel in Acts 15:39.” Stanley) not power to abstain from working (i.e. power to look for our maintenance from the churches, without manual labour of our own. The Vulg. has ‘ hoc operandi,’ so also Tertull., Ambrose, al., omitting μή , and against the usage of ἐργάζεσθαι , see reff.)? 7-12] Examples from common life, of the reasonableness of the workman being sustained by his work. 7. from the analogies of human conduct. (1) The soldier. ἰδίοιςὀψωνίοις ] with pay furnished out of his own resources,— the dativus modalis, see Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 7. στρατεύομαι , of the soldier, who serves in the army: στρατεύω , of the general, or the nation, that leads, or undertakes, the war. So Thucyd. iii. 101, of the states which joined the Peloponnesians, οὗτοικαὶξυνεστράτευονπάντες : but Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 29, of the wife of Tigranes, ἀνδρείωςξυνεστρατεύετοτῷἀνδρί . See Kü hner, ii. 18 (§ 398). (2) The husbandman. τὸνκαρπ . αὐτ . οὐκἐσθ .] τὸνκαρπόν , as Meyer observes, is simply objective: he does eat the fruit, though it may be only part of it. (3) The shepherd. Here it is ἐκτοῦγάλ ., perhaps on account of the inappropriateness of τὸγάλα .… ἐσθίει , and also of τὸγάλαπίνει , milk being for the most part made into other articles of food, which sustain the shepherd partly directly, partly by their sale. 8. Am I speaking these things merely according to human judgment of what is right? Or (see note, ver. 6) does the law too not say these things? 9. (It does say them): for in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not (on the fut. with an imperative meaning, ‘ Thou shalt not,’ i.e. ‘ This I expect of thee, that thou wilt not,’ common to all civilized languages, see Winer, edn. 6, § 43. 5. c; Kü hner, § 446. 2) muzzle an ox while treading out the corn — “ ἀλοᾷν dicuntur boves, quum grana ex aristis exterunt pedibus, qui mos Orientis, sed et Græ ciæ , ut ex Theophrasto et aliis discimus. Hic triturandi mos in Asia hodieque retinetur. Solent enim illarum regionum incolæ , postquam demessæ fruges sunt, non domum eas ex agris, more nostro, granis nondum excussis, in horrea convellere: sed in aream quandam sub dio comportare: deinde, sparsis in aream manipulis frugum, boves et bubalos immittunt, qui vel pedibus calcantes (see Micah 4:13), vel curruum quoddam genus trahentes super frumenta, ex aristis eliciunt grana.” Rosenmü ller. Is it for oxen (generic) that God is taking care? We must not, as ordinarily, supply μόνον , only for oxen, and thus rationalize the sentence: the question imports, ‘ In giving this command, are the oxen, or those for whom the law was given, its objects?’ And to such a question there can be but one answer. Every duty of humanity has for its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in that system of which man is the head: and therefore man’ s welfare. The good done to man’ s immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice, infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes. So Philo (de victimas offerentibus, § 1, vol. ii. p. 251) rightly explains the spirit of the law: οὐγὰρὑπὲρτῶνἀλόγωνὁνόμος , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπὲρτῶννοῦνκ . λόγονἐχόντων · ὥστεοὐτῶνθυομένωνφροντίςἐστιν , ἵναμηδεμίανἔχοιλώβην , ἀλλὰτῶνθυόντων , ἵναπερὶμηδὲνπάθοςκηραίνωσι . 10. Or (the other alternative being rejected) on our account (δι ʼ ἡμᾶς , emphatic— not on account of men generally, but as Estius, “ propter nos evangelii ministros:” cf. the ἡμεῖς of vv. 11, 12, with which this ἡμᾶς is inseparably allied) altogether (τὸπάντωςπροσθείς ,.… ἵναμὴσυγχωρήσῃμηδ ʼ ὁτιοῦνἀντειπεῖντῷἀκροατῇ . Chrys. p. 183) does it (ὁνόμος : or perhaps ὁθεός , but better the former, as above, τῷθεῷ being only incidentally introduced as the confessed Author of the law, and ὁνόμος remaining the subject of the sentence) say (this)? (on our account): for on our account it was written: because (argumentative, as the ground of ἐγράφη ,— not, as in some of my earlier editions, containing the purpose of ἐγράφη , expressed in its practical result) the plougher (not literal but spiritual, see below) ought to plough in hope, and the thresher (to thresh, see var. readd.) in hope of partaking (of the crop). The words used in this sentence are evidently spiritual, and not literal. They are inseparably connected with δι ʼ ἡμᾶς which precedes them: and according to the common explanation of them as referring to a mere maxim of agricultural life, would have no force whatever. But spiritually taken, all coheres. “ The command (not to muzzle, &c.) was written on account of us (Christian teachers) because we ploughers (in the γεώργιονθεοῦ , ch. 3:9) ought to plough in hope,— and we threshers ought to work in hope of (as the ox) having a share.” So Chrys. and Theophyl.: τουτέστιν , ὁδιδάσκαλοςὀφείλειἀροτριᾷν , καὶκοπιᾷνἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδιἀμοιβῆςκ . ἀντιμισθίας . So also Meyer and De Wette: but by far the greater part of interpreters (also Stanley) take it literally; understanding ἡμᾶς of mankind in general, and ὁἀροτριῶν and ὁἀλοῶν of labourers in agriculture. No minute distinction must be sought between the ἀροτριῶν and the ἀλοῶν . The former is perhaps mentioned on account of the process answering to the breaking up the fallow ground of Heathenism:— the latter on account of its occurrence in the precept. 11. The ἡμεῖς (both times strongly emphatic:— we need sorely some means of marking in our English Bibles, for ordinary readers, which words have the emphasis) is categoric, but in fact applies to Paul alone. The secondary emphasis is on ὑμῖν … ὑμῶν . It is one of those elaborately antithetical sentences which the great Apostle wields so powerfully in argument. The ἡμεῖς — ἡμεῖς , being identical, stand out in so much the stronger relief against the triple antithesis, ὑμῖν , πνευματικά , ἐσπείραμεν ,— and ὑμων , σαρκικά , θερίσωμεν . If we read the subjunctive, for the usage after εἰ , see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 2, end; ch. 14:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Kü hner, § 818 a. 1. The usage is common in Homer, Od. α . 204, al. fr.,— doubtful in Herod. 2:13; 8:49, 118,— and hardly ever found in Attic writers. See Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 198, εἴτινὺξἀφῇ , and Œ d. Col. 1442, εἴσουστερηθῶ . πνευμ . and σαρκ . (see Romans 15:27) need no explanation. The first are so called as belonging to the spirit of man (De W. and Meyer, as coming from the Spirit of God; but it is better to keep the antithesis exact and perspicuous), the second as serving for the nourishment of the flesh. 12. ἄλλοι does not necessarily point at the false teachers; others may have exercised this power. ὑμῶν is the objective genitive: power over you,— see reff. The second ἀλλά is not in apposition with the first, but in opposition to the idea implied in ἐχρ . τῇἐξ . ταύτῃ . Meyer compares Hom. Il. α . 24 f., ἀλλοὐκἈτρείδῃἈγαμέμνονιἥνδανεθυμῷ , Ἀλλὰκακῶςἀφίει . στέγομεν ] The word was commonly used, as may be seen in Wetst., of vessels containing, holding without breaking, that which was put into them; thence of concealing or covering, as a secret; and also of enduring or bearing up against. In this last sense Diod. Sic. iii. 34, uses it literally of ice, στέγοντοςτοῦκρυστάλλουδιαβάσειςστρατοπέδωνκ . ἁμαξῶνἐφόδους ,— and (xi. 25, Wetst. but?) of a besieged fort, οὐμήνγετὴνὁρμὴν … ἔοτεγεν … τὸ … τεῖχος , … ἀλλὰὑπείκεινἠναγκάζετο . So also Æ sch. Sept. c. Theb. 216, πύργουστέγεινεὔχεσθεπολεμίωνδόρυ . These last usages are very near akin to this of our text,— We endure all things: viz. labour, privations, hardships. The ἐγκοπαί would arise from his being charged with covetousness and self-seeking, which his independence of them would entirely prevent. 13, 14. Analogy of the maintenance of the Jewish priesthood from the sacred offerings, with this right of the Christian teacher, as ordained by Christ. Meyer rightly remarks, that οἱτὰἱερὰἐργαζόμενοι can only mean the priests, not including the Levites: and therefore that both clauses apply to the same persons. ἐργάζεσθαι , ἔρδειν , ῥέζειν , are technical words for the offering of sacrifice. See reff. to LXX. ἱεροῦ here, as θυσιαστηρίου is parallel with it below, is probably not ‘ the sacrifice,’ ‘ the holy thing,’ but the temple— ‘ the holy building.’ Similarly Jos. B. J. v. 13. 6, makes the Zealots say, δεῖ … τοὺςτῷναῷστρατευομένουςἐκτοῦναοῦτρέφεσθαι . παρεδρ .] So Jos. contra Apion. 1:7, speaks of the priests as τῇθεραπείᾳτοῦθεοῦπροσεδρεύοντας . On the practice referred to, see Numbers 18:8 ff.; Deuteronomy 18:1 ff. No other priesthood but the Jewish can have been in the mind of the Apostle. The Jew knew of no θυσιαστήριον but one: and he certainly would not have proposed heathen sacrificial customs, even in connexion with those appointed by God, as a precedent for Christian usage: besides that the idea is inconsistent with οὕτωςκαί : see below. 14. So also (i.e. in analogy with that His other command) did the Lord (Christ; the Author by His Spirit of the O. T. as well as the New) command (viz. Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7, Luke 10:8) to those who are preaching the gospel, to live of (be maintained by. Themistius (Kypke) has ζῇνἐξἐργασίας ) the gospel. Observe, that here the Apostle is establishing an analogy between the rights of the sacrificing priests of the law, and of the preachers of the gospel. Had those preachers been likewise sacrificing priests, is it possible that all allusion to them in such a character should have been here omitted? But as all such allusion is omitted, we may fairly infer that no such character of the Christian minister was then known. As Bengel remarks on ver. 13: ‘ Si missa esset sacrificium, plane Paulus versu sequente apodosin huc accommodasset.’ 15. οὐδενὶτούτων is best explained of the different forms of ἐξουσία ,— not, with Chrys. al., τῶνπολλῶνπαραδειγμάτων — πολλῶνγάρμοιπαρεχόντωνἐξουσίαν , τοῦστρατιώτου , τοῦγεωργοῦ , τοῦποιμένος , τῶνἀποστόλων , τοῦνόμου , τῶνπαρ ʼ ἡμῶνεἰςὑμᾶςγενομένων , τῶνπαρ ʼ ὑμῶνεἰςτοὺςἄλλους , τῶνἱερέων , τοῦπροστάγματοςτοῦχριστοῦ , οὐδενὶτούτωνἐπείσθηνεἰςτὸκαταλῦσαιτὸνἐμαυτοῦνόμον , καὶλαβεῖν . Hom. xxii. p. 193. True, that each of these examples pointed to a form of ἐξουσία , and none of these forms had he made use of. See ref. on ch. 7:21. ἔγραψα is the epistolary aorist— I wrote (write) not these things however, that it may be thus (viz. after the examples which I have alleged) done to me (in my case, see reff.):— for it were good (reff.) for me rather to die (or, better for me to die, see ref. Mark) than that any one should make void my (matter of) boasting. To understand ἀποθανεῖν as Chrys., Theophyl., Œ , Estius, Billroth, al., ἀποθ . λιμῷ , seems quite unnecessary. Further on, Chrys. himself expresses the true sense: οὕτωκαὶζωῆςαὐτῷγλυκύτερονἦντὸγινόμενον :— and Calvin, “ tantum Evangelii promovendi facultatem nimirum propriæ vitæ præ ferebat.” 16 ff.] The reason why he made so much of this materies gloriandi: viz. that his mission itself gave him no advantage this way, being an office entrusted to him, and for which he was solemnly accountable: but in this thing only had he an advantage so as to be able to boast of it, that he preached the gospel without charge. οὐαὶγάρ — explains the ἀνάγκη . On οὐαίἐστιν , see ref. Hos. 17. For (illustration and confirmation of οὐαὶγὰρκ .τ .λ . above) if I am doing this (preaching) of mine own accord (as a voluntary undertaking, which in Paul’ s case was not so, as Chrys., τὸἑκὼνκ . ἄκωνἐπὶτοῦἐγκεχειρίσθαικαὶμὴἐγκεχειρίσθαιλαμβάνων : not, as E. V., al., willingly, for this was so), I have a reward (i.e. if of mine own will I took up the ministry, it might be conceivable that a μισθός might be due to me. That this was not the case, and never could be, is evident, and the μισθός therefore only hypothetical): but if involuntarily (which was the case, see Acts 9:15; Acts 22:14; Acts 26:16), with a stewardship (οἰκ . emphatic) have I been entrusted (and therefore from the nature of things, in this respect I have no μισθός for merely doing what is my bounden duty, see Luke 17:7-10: but an οὐαί , if I fail in it. Chrys. observes well: οὐδὲγὰρεἶπεν , εἰδὲἄκων , οὐκἔχωμισθόν , ἀλλ ʼ οἰκ . πεπίστ . δεικνὺςὅτικαὶοὕτωςἔχειμισθόν , ἀλλὰτοιοῦτον , οἷονὁτὸἐπιταχθὲνἐξανύσας , οὐχοἷονἐκεῖνοςὁἐκτῶνἑαυτοῦφιλοτιμησάμενοςκ . ὑπερβὰςτὸἐπίταγμα . p. 194). The above interpretation, which is in the main that of Chrys., Theophyl., Œ cum. (altern.) al., Meyer, and De Wette, is the only one which seems to me to satisfy, easily and grammatically, all the requirements of the sentence, and at the same time to suit the logical structure of the context. The other Commentators go in omnia alia, and adopt various forced and arbitrary constructions of the verse. 18. Ordinarily, and even by De Wette, thus arranged and rendered: ‘ What then is my reward? (It is), that in preaching I make the gospel to be without cost, that I use not my power in the gospel.’ But this, though perhaps philologically allowable (against Meyer,— see John 17:3,— αὕτηἐστὶνἡαἰώνιοςζωή , ἵναγινώσκωσι … also John 15:8; 1 John 4:17 (?)), is not true. His making the gospel to be without cost, was not his μισθός , but his καύχημα only: and these two are not identical. The καύχημα was present: the μισθός , future. Meyer’ s rendering is equally at fault. He would make τίςοὖνμούἐστινὁμισθός ; a question implying a negative answer— ‘ What then is my reward? None: in order that I preach gratuitously,’ &c. But thus he severs off (see below) the whole following context, vv. 19-23: and as it seems to me, stultifies the καύχημα , by robbing it altogether of the coming μισθός . I am persuaded that the following is the true rendering: What then is my reward (in prospect) that I (ἵνα , like ὅπως in classical Greek, with a fut. indic., points to the actual realization of the purpose, with more precision than when followed by the subjunctive. So Xen. Cyr. ii. 4.31, Κῦρος , ὦἈρμένιε , κελεύειοἵτωποιεῖνσε , ὅπωςὡςτάχισταἔχωνοἴσειςκαὶτὸνδασμὸνκαὶτὸστράτευμα ,— Kü hner, Gramm. ii. 490, where see more examples) while preaching, render the gospel without cost (i.e. what reward have I in prospect that induces me to preach gratuitously) in order not to use (as carrying out my design not to use) [to the full] (καταχρ . see ref. and note: not, to abuse, as E. V.) my power in the gospel (= τῇἐξους . μουτῇἐντῷεὐαγγ ., as often; cf. τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα , Ephesians 6:5; οἱνεκροὶἐνχριστῷ , 1 Thessalonians 4:16, al. fr.)? 19 ff.] He now proceeds to answer the question, ‘ What prospect of reward could induce me to do this?’ [Yea (literally] For, q. d. the reward must have been great and glorious in prospect) being free from (the power of) all men, I enslaved myself (when I made this determination: and have continued to do so) to all, that I might gain (not τοὺςπάντας , which he could not exactly say, but) the largest number (of any: that hereafter Paul’ s converts might be found to be οἱπλείονες : see below on ver. 24). Bengel has remarked on κερδήσω , ‘ congruit hoc verbum cum consideratione mercedis:’ but ‘ congruit’ is not enough: it is actually the answer to the question τίςμούἐστινὁμισθός ; This ‘ lucrifecisse’ the greater number is distinctly referred to by him elsewhere, as his reward in the day of the Lord: τίςγὰρἡμῶνἐλπὶςἢχαρὰἢστέφανοςκαυχήσεως ; ἢοὐχὶκαὶὑμεῖς , ἔμπροσθεντοῦκυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦἐντῇαὐτοῦπαρουσίᾳ ; ὑμεῖςγάρἐστεἡδόξαἡμῶνκαὶἡχαρά . 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 1 Thessalonians 2:20. And it is for this reason that ἵνα .… κερδ . is three times repeated: and, as we shall presently see, that the similitude at the end of the chapter is chosen. 20-22. Specializes the foregoing assertion πᾶσινἐμ . ἐδούλωσα , by enumerating various parties to whose weaknesses he had conformed himself, in order to gain them. 20. τοῖςἸουδ . ὡςἸουδ .] See examples, Acts 16:3; Acts 21:26. οὐκεἶπεν , Ἰουδαῖος , ἀλλ ʼ ὡςἸουδαῖος , ἵναδείξῃὅτιοἰκονομίατὸπρᾶγμαἦν , Theophyl. after Chrys. The Jews here are not Jewish converts, who would be already won in the sense of this passage. τοῖςὑπὸνόμον … ] These again are not Jewish converts (see above); nor proselytes, who would not be thus distinguished from other Jews, but are much the same as Ἰουδαῖοι , only to the number of these the Apostle did not belong, not being himself (αὐτός contrasts with ὡς above) under the law, whereas he was nationally a Jew. 21. τοῖςἀνόμοιςὡςἄν .] The ἄνομοι are the Heathen; hardly, with Chrys., such as Cornelius, fearing God but not under the law. Paul became as a Heathen to the Heathen, e.g., when he discoursed at Athens (Act_17) in their own manner, and with arguments drawn from their own poets. μὴὢνκ .τ .λ .] not being (being conscious of not being, remembering well in the midst of my ἀνομία that I was not. This is implied by μή , which is subjective, giving the conviction of the subject, not merely the objective fact, as οὐκὤν would do) an outlaw from God (θεοῦ and χριστοῦ are genitives of dependence, as after κατήκοος , ἔνοχος , &c.) but a subject-of-the-law of Christ that I might gain those who had no law. κερδανῶ (here only in N. T.) and κερδήσω are both found in the classics; see Matthiæ , § 239, and Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 740. 22. The ἀσθενεῖς here can hardly be the weak Christians of ch. 8 and Rom_14, who were already won, but as in ref., those who had not strength to believe and receive the Gospel. This sentence then does not bring out a new form of condescension, but recapitulates the preceding two classes, τοῖςὑπὸνόμον .… τοῖςἀνόμοις . τοῖςπᾶσιν … ] This sums up the above, and others not enumerated, in one general rule,— and the various occasions of his practising the condescension (aorists) in one general result (perfect). To all men I am become all things (i.e. to each according to his situation and prejudices) that by all means (‘ omnino:’ or perhaps as Meyer, in all ways: but I prefer the other) I may save some (τινάς is emphatic: some, out of each class in the πάντες . It is said, as is the following verse, in extreme humility, and distrust of even an Apostle’ s confidence, to shew them the immense importance of the μισθός for which he thus denied and submitted himself). 23. But all things I do on account of the gospel, that I may be a fellow-partaker (with others) of it (of the blessings promised in the gospel to be brought by the Lord at His coming). 24 ff.] ‘ This is my aim in all I do: but inasmuch as many run in a race, many reach the goal, but one only receives the prize,— I as an Apostle run my course, and you must so run yours, as each to labour not to be rejected at last, but to gain the glorious and incorruptible prize.’ This, as compared with the former context, seems to be the sense and connexion of the passage. He was anxious, as an Apostle, to labour more abundantly, more effectually than they all: and hence his condescension to all men, and self-denial: accompanied with which was a humble self-distrust as to the great matter itself of his personal salvation, and an eager anxiety to secure it. These he proposes for their example likewise. 24. The allusion is primarily no doubt to the Isthmian games [‘ celebrated under the shadow of the huge Corinthian citadel’ (Stanley)]; but this must not be pressed too closely: the foot-race was far too common an element in athletic contests, for any accurate knowledge of its predominance in some and its insignificance in others of the Grecian games to be here supposed. Still less must it be imagined that those games were to be celebrated in the year of the Epistle being written. The most that can with certainty be said, is that he alludes to a contest which, from the neighbourhood of the Isthmian games, was well known to his readers. See Stanley’ s note: who, in following out illustrations of this kind, writes with a vivid graphic power peculiarly his own. βραβεἶον ] Wetst. quotes from the Schol. on Pindar, Olymp. 1, λέγεταιδὲτὸδιδόμενονγέραςτῷνικήσαντιἀθλητῇἀπὸμὲντῶνδιδόντωναὐτὸβραβευτῶνβραβεῖον , ἀπὸδὲτῶνἀθλούντωνἆθλον ,, and from the Etymol., βραβεῖονλέγεταιὁπαρὰτῶνβραβευτῶνδιδόμενοςστέφανοςτῷνικῶντι . οὕτωςτρ .] Thus (after this manner— viz. as they who run all, each endeavouring to be the one who shall receive the prize:— not, as the one who receives it (Meyer, De Wette),— for the others strive as earnestly as he: still less must we take ἵνακαταλάβητε for ὡςκαταλαβεῖν , which is barely allowable, and here would not suit the sense; the οὕτως being particularized presently by one point of the athletes’ preparation being specially alleged for their imitation) run (not καὶὑμεῖςτρέχετε , because the evident analogy between the race and the Christian conflict is taken for granted. If, as Dr. Peile imagines, a contrast had been intended, between the stadium where one only can receive the prize, and the Christian race where all may, it must have stood οὕτωςδὲὑμεῖςτρέχετε , ὡςκαὶ (πάντας) καταλαβεῖν . But such contrast would destroy the sense), in order that ye may fully obtain (the prize of your calling, see Philippians 3:14. On λαμβάνω and καταλαμβάνω see note, ch. 7:31). 25. The point in the οὕτως , the conduct of the athletes in regard of temperance, which he wishes to bring into especial prominence for their imitation:— as concerning the matter in hand,— his own abstinence from receiving the world’ s pelf, in order to save himself and them that heard him. The δέ specifies, referring back to οὕτως . The emphasis is on πᾶς , thus shewing οὕτως to refer to the πάντες who τρέχουσιν . ἀγωνιζόμενος is more general than τρέχων ,— q. d. ‘ Every one who engages, not only in the race, but in any athletic contest,’ and thus strengthening the inference. The art. (ὁἀγων .) brings out the man as an enlisted and professed ἀγωνιζόμενος , and regards him in that capacity. Had it been πᾶςδὲἀγωνιζ ., the sense would have been, ‘ Now every one, while contending,’ &c., making the discipline to be merely accidental to his contending— which would not suit the spiritual antitype, where we are enlisted for life. Examples of the practice of abstinence in athletes may be seen in Wetst. in loc. I will give but two: (1) Hor. de Arte Poet. 412: “ Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam, Multa tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit: Abstinuit venere et vino.” (2) Epict. c. 35: θέλειςὀλύμπιανικῆσαι ; κἀγὼνὴτοὺςθεούς , κομψὸνγάρἐστιν . ἀλλὰσκόπεικαὶτὰκαθηγούμενακαὶτὰἀκόλουθα , καὶοὕτωςἅπτουτῶνἔργων . δεῖσ ʼ εὐτακτεῖν , ἀναγποτροφεῖν , ἀπέχεσθαιπεμμάτων , γυμνάζεσθαιπρὸςἀνάγκηνἐνὥρᾳτεταγμένῃ , ἐνκαύματι , ἐνψύχει , μὴψυχρὸνπίνειν , μὴοἶνον · ὡςἔτυχενἁπλῶς , ὡςἰατρῷπαραδεδωκέναισαυτὸντῷἐπιστάτῃ , εἶταεἰςτὸνἀγῶναπαρέρχεσθαι . ἐκεῖνοι ] scil. ἐγκρατεύονται . μὲνοὖν , ‘ immo vero’ (reff.). The School. on Pind. Isthm. ὑπόθεσις , cited by Meyer, says: στέφοςδέἐστιτοῦἀγῶνοςπίτυς , τὸδὲἀνέκαθενσέλινακαὶαὐτοῦἦνὁστέφανος . ἡμεῖςδέ , scil. ἐγκρατευόμεθαἵναλάβωμενστέφανον . He takes for granted the Christian’ s temperance in all things, as his normal state. 26. I then so run as (οὕτως — ὡς , see reff.) not uncertainly (reff.: cf. also Polyb. iii. 54. 5, τῆςχιόνοςἄδηλονποιούσηςἑκάστοιςτὴνἐπίβασιν :— ‘ uncertainly,’ i.e. without any sure grounds of contending or any fixed object for which to contend; both these are included. Chrysostom rightly brings it into subordination to the main subject, the participation with idolaters:— τίδέἐστιν , οὐκἀδήλως ; πρὸςσκοπόντιναβλέπων , φησίν , οὐκεἰκῆκαὶμάτην , καθάπερὑμεῖς , τίγὰρὑμῖνγίνεταιπλέονἀπὸτοῦεἰςεἰδωλεῖαεἰσιέναι , καὶτὴντελειότηταδῆθενἐκείνηνἐπιδείκνυσθαι ; οὐδέν . ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐγὼτοιοῦτος , ἀλλὰπάνταἅπερποιῶ , ὑπὲρτῆςτῶνπλησίονσωτηρίαςποιῶ . κἂντελειότηταἐπιδείξωμαι , δι ʼ αὐτούς · κἂνσυγκατάβασιν , δι ʼ αὐτούς · κἂνὑπερβῶΠέτρονἐντῷμὴλαμβάνειν , ἵναμὴσκανδαλισθῶσι · κἂνκαταβῶπλέονπάντων , περιτεμνόμενοςκαὶξυρώμενος , ἵναμὴὑποσκελισθῶσι . Hom. xxiii. p. 201); so fight I, as not striking the air (and not my adversary). The allusion is not to a σκιαμαχία or rehearsal of a fight with an imaginary adversary, as Chrys. , Theophyl. al. m., but to a fight with a real adversary (viz. here, the body) in which the boxer vainly hits into the air, instead of striking his antagonist. So Entellus in the pugilistic combat, Æ n. v. 446, ‘ vires in ventum effudit,’ when Dares ‘ ictum venientem a vertice velox Præ vidit, celerique elapsus corpore cessit.’ See examples both of what is really meant, and of the σκιαμαχία , in Wetst. Obs., in both places οὐκ is used and not μή , as importing the matter of fact, and joined closely with the adverb in one case and the verb in the other. 27. But I bruise my body (ὑπωπιάζω , lit. to strike heavily in the face so as to render black and blue,— “ ὑπώπια ,— τὰὑπὸτοὺςὦπαςτῶνπληγῶνἴχνη , ut ait Pollux: sed latius dici sic cœ pere ἀφ ʼ οἱασδηποτοῦνπληγῆςτραύματα , ut ait Scholiastes ad Aristoph. Acharn., Cicero Tusc. 2, ‘ Pugiles cæ stibus contusi,’ i.e. ὑπωπιαζόμενοι .” Grot. The body is the adversary, considered as the seat of the temptations of Satan, and especially of that self-indulgence which led the Corinthians to forget their Christian combat, and sit at meat in the idol’ s temple. The abuse of this expression to favour the absurd practice of the Flagellants, or to support ascetic views at all, need hardly be pointed out to the rational, much less to the Christian student. It is not even of fasting or prayer that he is here speaking, but as the context, vv. 19-23, shews, of breaking down the pride and obstinacy and self-seeking of the natural man by laying himself entirely out for his great work— the salvation of the greatest number: and that, denying himself “ solatium” from without: “ My hands have been worn away (cf. χεῖρεςαὗται , Acts 20:34) with the black tent-cloths, my frame has been bowed down with this servile labour (cf. ἐλεύθερος .… ἐδούλωσα , ver. 19).” Stanley) and enslave it (‘ etiam δουλαγωγεῖν a pyctis desumptum est; nam qui vicerat, victum (vinctum?) trahebat adversarium quasi servum.’ Grot. But this seems to want confirmation. I can find no account of such a practice in any of the ordinary sources of information. Certainly Dares is not made the slave of Entellus in Æ n. v.: and Virgil is generally accurate in such matters. I had rather give a more general meaning: that viz. of the necessary subjection, for the time, of the worsted to the prevailing combatant), lest perchance having proclaimed (κηρ . absolute [answering to our use of preach]: as in Æ sch. Eum. 566, κήρυσσε , κῆρυξ , καὶστρατὸνκατειργάθου (peile). The subject of the proclamation might be the laws of the combat, or the names of the victors (Æ n. v. 245), each by one in the capacity of herald: probably here the former only, as answering to the preaching of the Apostles. The nature of the case shews, that the Christian herald differs from the agonistic herald, in being himself a combatant as well, which the other was not: and that this is so, is no objection to thus understanding κηρύξας . “ This introduces indeed a new complication into the metaphor: but it is rendered less violent by the fact, that … sometimes the victor in the games was also selected as the herald to announce his success. So it was a few years after the date of this Epistle, in the case of Nero. Suet. Nero, c. 24.” Stanley) to others, I myself may prove rejected (from the prize: not, as some Commentators, from the contest altogether, for he was already in it). An examination of the victorious combatants took place after the contest, and if it could be proved that they had contended unlawfully, or unfairly, they were deprived of the prize and driven with disgrace from the games. Such a person was called ἐκκεκριμένος , and ἀποδεδοκιμασμένος , see Philo de Cherub., § 22, vol. i. p. 152. So the Apostle, if he had proclaimed the laws of the combat to others, and not observed them himself, however successful he might apparently be, would be personally rejected as ἀδόκιμος in the great day. And this he says with a view to shew them the necessity of more self-denial, and less going to the extreme limit of their Christian liberty; as Chrys. εἰγὰρἐμοὶτὸκηρῦξαι , τὸδιδάξαι , τὸμυρίουςπροσαγαγεῖνοὐκἀρκεῖεἰςσωτηρίαν , εἰμὴκαὶτὰκατ ʼ ἐμαυτὸνπαρασχοίμηνἄληπτα , πολλῷμᾶλλονὑμῖν . p. 202. 10:1-22. He proceeds, in close connexion with the warnings which have just preceded, to set before them the great danger of commerce with idolatry, and enforces this by the example of the rebellions and rejections of God’ s ancient people, who were under a dispensation analogous to and typical of ours (1-11); and by the close resemblance of our sacrament of the Lord’ s Supper,— their eating of meats sacrificed,— and the same act among the heathen, in regard of the union in each case of the partakers in one act of participation. So that they could not eat the idol’ s feasts without partaking of idolatry = virtually abjuring Christ (vv. 15-22). 1. γάρ joins to the preceding. He had been inculcating the necessity of self-subduing (ch. 9:24-27), and now enforces it in the particular departments of abstaining from fornication, idolatry, &c., by the example of the Jews of old. οὐθέλω … , see reff. οἱπατ . ἡμῶν ] He uses this expression, not merely speaking for himself and his Jewish converts, but regarding the Christian church as a continuation of the Jewish, and the believer as the true descendant of Abraham. πάντες … πάντες … πάντες , each time with strong emphasis, as opposed to τοῖςπλείοσιν , ver. 5. All had these privileges, as all of you have their counterparts under the Gospel: but most of them failed from rebellion and unbelief. ὑπὸτὴννεφ . ἦσαν ] The pillar of cloud, the abode of the divine Presence, went before them, and was to them a defence: hence it is sometimes treated of as covering the camp, e.g. Ps. 104:39, διεπέτασενεφέληνεἰςσκέπηναὐτοῖς : and thus they would be under it. So also Wisd. 10:17, 19:7,— ἡτὴνπαρεμβολὴνσκιάζουσανεφέλη . See Exodus 13:21, Exodus 14:20. 2. εἰςτ . Μωυς . ἐβαπτ ., received baptism (lit. baptized themselves: middle, not passive, see var. read.) to Moses; entered by the act of such immersion into a solemn covenant with God, and became His church under the law as given by Moses, God’ s servant,— just as we Christians by our baptism are bound in a solemn covenant with God, and enter His Church under the Gospel as brought in by Christ, God’ s eternal Son: see Hebrews 3:5, Hebrews 3:6. Others (Syr., Beza) explain it ‘ per Mosen,’ or (Calv., al.) ‘ auspiciis Mosis,’ which εἰς will not bear,— not to mention that the formula βαπτίζωεἰς was already fixed in meaning, see reff. ἐντῇν . καὶἐντῇθ .] The cloud and the sea were both aqueous; and this point of comparison being obtained, serves the Apostle to indicate the outward symbols of their initiation into the church under the government of Moses as the servant of God, and to complete the analogy with our baptism. The allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely: for neither did they enter the cloud, nor were they wetted by the waters of the sea; but they passed under both, as the baptized passes under the water, and it was said of them, Exodus 14:31, “ Then the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and his servant Moses.” To understand, as Olsh., the sea and cloud, of water and the Spirit respectively, is certainly carrying the allegory too far: not to mention that thus the baptism by the Spirit would precede that by water. 3. They had what answered to the one Christian sacrament, Baptism: now the Apostle shews that they were not without a symbolic correspondence to the other, the Lord’ s Supper. The two elements in this Christian sacrament were anticipated in their case by the manna and the miraculous stream from the rock: these elements, in their case, as well as ours, symbolizing the Body and Blood of Christ. The whole passage is a standing testimony, incidentally, but most providentially, given by the great Apostle to the importance of the Christian sacraments, as necessary to membership of Christ, and not mere signs or remembrances: and an inspired protest against those who, whether as individuals or sects, would lower their dignity, or deny their necessity. βρῶμαπνευματικὸνκ .τ .λ .] The manna is thus called, from its being no mere physical production, but miraculously given by God— the work of His Spirit. Thus Isaac is called, Galatians 4:29, ὁκατὰπνεῦμαγεννηθείς , in opposition to Ishmael, ὁκατὰσάρκαγεννηθείς . Josephus calls the manna θεῖονβρῶμακαὶπαράδοξον , Antt. iii. 1. 6: and in Ps. 77:24, it is said ἄρτονοὐρανοῦἔδωκεναὐτοῖς . We can scarcely avoid recognizing in these words a tacit reference to our Lord’ s discourse, or at all events to the substanee of it,— John 6:31-58. “ For the sense of πνευματικός , as ‘ typical,’ ‘ seen in the light of the spirit,’ cf. Revelation 11:8, ἥτιςκαλεῖταιπνευματικῶςΣόδομα .” Stanley. 4. It is hardly possible here, without doing violence to the words and construction, to deny that the Apostle has adopted the tradition current among the Jews, that the rock followed the Israelites in their journeyings, and gave forth water all the way. Thus Rabbi Solomon on Numbers 20:2: “ Per omnes quadraginta annos erat iis puteus” (Lightf.): and Schö ttgen cites from the Bammidbar Rabba, “ Quomodo comparatus fuit ille puteus (de quo Numbers 21:16)? Resp. Fuit sicut petra, sicut alveus apum, et globosus, et volutavit se, et ivit cum ipsis in itineribus ipsorum. Cum vexilla castra ponerent, et tabernaculum staret, illa petra venit, et consedit in atrio tentorii. Tunc venerunt Principes, et juxta illum steterunt, dicentes,’ Ascende, putee, &c.’ (Numbers 21:17) et ascendit.” See other testimonies in Schö ttgen. The only ways of escaping this inference are, (1) by setting aside the natural sense altogether, as Chrys. (οὐγὰρἡτῆςπέτραςφύσιςτὸὕδωρἠφίει , … ἀλλ ʼ ἑτέρατιςπέτραπνευματικὴτὸπᾶνεἰργάζετο , τουτέστινὁχριστός , ὁπαρὼναὐτοῖςπανταχοῦ , καὶπάνταθαυματουργῶν · διὰγὰρτοῦτοεἶπεν , ἀκολουθούσης . p. 203), Theophyl.,— or (2) by taking πέτρα = τὸἐκτῆςπέτραςὕδωρ , as Erasm., Beza, Grot., Estius, Lightf.— and so Calvin, who says: “ Quomodo, inquiunt, rupes quæ suo loco fixa stetit, comitata esset Israelitas? Quasi vero non palam sit sub petræ voce notari aquæ fluxum, qui nunquam populum deseruit.” But against both of these we have the plain assertion, representing matter of physical fact, ἔπινονἐκπνευματικῆςἀκολουθούσηςπέτρας , they drank from a (or, after a preposition, the) [spiritual, or] miraculous rock which followed them: and I cannot consent to depart from what appears to me the only admissible sense of these words. How extensively the traditionary reliques of unrecorded Jewish history were adopted by apostolic men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apology of Stephen may bear witness. ἡπέτραδὲἦνὁχριστός ] But (distinction between what they saw in the rock and what we see in it: they drank from it and knew not its dignity: but the Rock was Christ. In these words there appear to be three allusions: (1) to the ideas of the Jews themselves: so the Targum on Isaiah 16:1: “ Afferent dona Messiæ Israelitarum, qui robustus crit, propterea quod in deserto fuit rupes ecclesia Zionis:” so also in Wisd. 10:15 ff., the σοφίαθεοῦ (see note on John 1:1) is said to have been present in Moses, to have led them through the wilderness, &c. That the Messiah, the Angel of the Covenant, was present with the church of the Fathers, and that His upholding power was manifested in miraculous interferences for their welfare, was a truth acknowledged no less by the Jew than by the Christian. (2) To the frequent use of this appellation, a Rock, for the God of Israel. See, inter alia, Deuteronomy 32:4, Deuteronomy 32:15, Deuteronomy 32:18, Deuteronomy 32:30, Deuteronomy 32:31, Deuteronomy 32:37; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2, and passim; 23:3, &c.; Psalms passim, and especially 78:20, compared with ver. 35: see also Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8. Hence it became more natural to apply the term directly to Christ, as the ever-present God of Israel. (3) To the sacramental import of the water which flowed from the rock, which is the point here immediately in the Apostle’ s mind. As well in sacramental import as in upholding physical agency, that rock was Christ. The miraculous (spiritual) food was (sacramentally) the flesh of Christ: the miraculous (spiritual) drink was the blood of Christ: so that the Jews’ miraculous supplies of food and drink were sacramentally significant of the Body and Blood of Christ, in kind analogous to the two great parts of the Christian Supper of the Lord. In the contents prefixed to the chapters in the E. V., we read as the import of these verses, “ The sacraments of the Jews are types of ours,” which though perhaps correctly meant, is liable to be erroneously understood; inasmuch as no sacramental ordinance can be a type of another, but all alike, though in different degrees of approximation, and by different representations, types of Him, who is the fountain of all grace. The difference between their case and ours, is generally, that they were unconscious of the sacramental import, whereas we are conscious of it: “ they knew not that I healed them,” Hosea 11:3: and in this particular case, that Christ has come to us “ not by water only, but by water and blood,” 1 John 5:6: His Death having invested our sacramental ordinance with another and more deeply significant character. To enter more minutely into the import of the words, ‘ the rock was Christ,’ would be waste of time and labour. The above reasons abundantly justify the assertion, without either pressing the verb ἦν beyond its ordinary acceptation, or presuming to fix on the Apostle a definiteness of meaning which his argument does not require. See in Meyer’ s note an example of the proceeding which I blame. 5. Howbeit with the more part of them (in fact the exceptions were Joshua and Caleb only) God was not well pleased. κατεστρ . γὰρ … ] The very words of the LXX, see ref. 6. Now (δέ transitional; the contrast being, between the events themselves, and their application to us) these things happened as figures (not ‘ types’ as we now use the word, meaning by type and antitype, the material representation, and the ultimate spiritual reality,— but figures, as one imperfect ceremonial polity may figure forth a higher spiritual polity, but still this latter may not itself be the ultimate antitype) of us (the spiritual Israel as distinguished from the literal),— in order that we might not be (God’ s purpose in the τύποι : of course an ulterior purpose, for they had their own immediate purpose as regards the literal Israel) lusters [the use of the substantive forcibly depicts the habit] after evil things (generally: no special reference yet to the Corinthian feasters, as Grot. supposes. So Theophyl. rightly: καθολικῶςπερὶπάσηςκακίαςλέγει , ἐπειδὴκαὶπᾶσακακίαἐξἐπιθυμίας . εἶτακαὶκατ ʼ εἶδοςτίθησιτὰςκακίας . Similarly Chrys.) as they also (καί , i.e. supposing us to be like them) lusted. The construction may be a verb substantive attracted into the plur. (or sing.) by the predicate,— one often found: so Herod. i. 93, ἡμὲνπερίοδος , … εἰσὶστάδιοιἕξ : and ii. 15, αἱΘῆβαιΑἴγυπτοςἐκαλέετο : so in Latin, Ter. iii. 3. 23, ‘ Amantium iræ amoris integratio est:’ see many other examples in Kü hner, § 429: or, which is perhaps better, as in ver. 11, where see note. The rendering, ‘ Now in these things they were figures of us’ (I know not by whom suggested, but I find it in Dr. Peile’ s notes on the Epistles), is inconsistent both with the arrangement of the words,— in which ταῦτα has the primary emphasis,— and with ἐγενήθησαν , which should be ἦσαν . 7. Now, the special instances of warning follow, coupled to the general by μηδέ in this negative sentence, as so often by καί in an affirmative one. Notice, that all four of these were brought about by the ἐπιθυμεῖνκακῶν , not distinct from it. This first instance is singularly appropriate. The Israelites are recorded to have sat down and eaten and drunken at the idol feast of the golden calf in Horeb: the very temptation to which the Corinthians were too apt to yield. And as the Israelites were actually idolaters, doing this as an act of worship to the image: so the Corinthians were in danger of becoming such, and the Apostle therefore puts the case in the strongest way, neither be (become) ye idolaters. παίζειν , צ ִ ח ֵ ק , ‘ choreas agere,’ ‘ saltare accinentibus tympanis vel cantoribus:’ see reff., where the same word occurs in the Heb. The dance was an accompaniment of the idol feast: see Hor. ii. 12. 19: ‘ Quam nec ferre pedem dedecuit choris … sacro Dianæ celebris die.’ 8. Another prominent point in the sins of the Corinthian church. εἰκοσιτρεῖςχ .] The number was twenty-four thousand, Numbers 25:9, and is probably set down here from memory. The subtilties of Commentators in order to escape the inference, are discreditable alike to themselves and the cause of sacred Truth. Of the principal ancient Commentators, Chrysostom and Theophyl. do not notice the discrepancy: Œ cum. notices it, and says that some ancient copies εἰκοσιτέσσαραςἔθεσαν here (so m tol syr-txt arm), but passes it without comment. Although the sin of Baal-peor was strictly speaking idolatry, yet the form which it exhibited was that of fornication, as incident to idolatrous feasting, see Numbers 25:1, Numbers 25:2. Thus it becomes even more directly applicable to the case of the Corinthians. 9. ἐκπειρ .— tempt beyond endurance, ‘ tempt thoroughly.’ Similarly ἐξαρνεῖσθαι , ‘ to persist in denying,’ al., as Suidas, ἡγὰρἐξπρόθεσις , ἐπίτασινδηλοῖ . See Musgr. on Eurip. Iph. Taur. 249, and cf. ἐκπληρόω , Acts 13:32. So also in Latin, ‘ oro’ and ‘ exoro,’ &c. τὸνκύριον ] There may be two views taken of the internal evidence concerning the reading here. On the one hand it may be said that χριστόν being the original reading, it was variously altered to κύριον or θεόν by those who found a difficulty in supposing that the Jews of old tempted Christ, or even by those who wished to obliterate this assertion of His præ -existence: and so De Wette, al. On the other it may be said, that κύριον being the original, it was variously explained in the margin χριστόν and θεόν , as is often the case: and so Meyer. On comparing these, it seems to me that the latter alternative is the more probable. The inference that τινεςαὐτῶνἐπείρασαν requires τὸνχριστόν as an object, is not a necessary one, and hardly likely to have produced the alteration, closely connected as τ . χρ . is with the verb in the first person. I have therefore with Meyer adopted the reading κύριον . The tempting of the Lord was,— as on the other occasions alluded to Numbers 14:22, where it is said that they tempted God ten times,— the daring Him, in trying His patience by rebellious conduct and sin. Cf. the similar use of πειράζω Acts 5:9; Acts 15:10. And he warns the Corinthians, that they should not in like manner provoke God by their sins and their partaking with idols. Chrys., Theophyl., and Œ understand the temptation of God to be the seeking for signs: Theodoret, to be in danger arising from those who spoke with different tongues, ἐπείραζονδὲκ . οἱταῖςδιαφόροιςκεχρημένοιγλώτταις , κατὰφιλοτιμίανμᾶλλονἢχρείανταύταςἐπ ʼ ἐκκλησίαςπροσφέροντες . ὑπὸτῶνὄφεων , by the (well-known) serpents. The art. is so often omitted after a preposition, that wherever it is expressed, we may be sure there was a reason for it. 10. γογγύζετε has been by Estius, Grot., al., and De Wette, understood of murmuring against their teachers, as the Israelites against Moses and Aaron, Numbers 14:2; Numbers 16:41. But not to mention that this was in fact murmuring against God, such a reference would require something more specific than the mere word γογγύζετε . The warning is substantially the same as the last, but regards more the spirit, and its index the tongue. Theophyl.: αἰνίττεταιδὲαὐτοὺςκαὶδιὰτούτου , ὅτιἐντοῖςπειρασμοῖςοὐκἔφερονγενναίως , ἀλλ ʼ ἐγόγγυζονλέγοντεςΠότεἥξειτὰἀγαθά , καὶἕωςπότεαἱκακώσεις ; similarly Chrys. The destruction referred to must be that related Numbers 16:41 ff. when the pestilence (which though it is not so specified there, was administered on another occasion by a destroying angel, 2 Samuel 24:16, 2 Samuel 24:17, see also Exodus 12:23) took off 14,700 of the people. The punishment of the unbelieving congregation in Num_14, to which this is commonly referred, does not seem to answer to the expression ἀπώλοντοὑπὸτ . ὀλοθρευτοῦ , nor to the τινες , seeing that all except Joshua and Caleb were involved in it. 11. τυπικῶς , see var. readd., by way of figure. Meyer cites from the Rabbis, ‘ Quidquid evenit patribus, signum filiis.’ The plural συνέβαινον expresses the plurality of events separately happening: the singular ἐγράφη , their union in the common record of Scripture. Similarly 2 Peter 3:10, στοιχεῖα … λυθήσονται … τὰἐναὐτῇἔργακατακαήσεται . See reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 3. a. δέ conveys a slight opposition to συνέβαινονἐκείνοις . τὰτέλητ . αἰών .] = ἡσυντέλειατοῦαἰῶνος of reff. Matt., and τὸἔσχατοντῶνἡμερῶντούτων of Hebrews 1:1, where see note: the ends of the ages of this world’ s lifetime. So Chrys.; οὐδὲνἄλλολέγειἢὅτιἐφέστηκελοιπὸντὸδικαστήριοντὸφοβερόν . The form νουθεσία belongs to later Greek. The classical word is νουθέτησις or νουθετία : see Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 512. κατήντ .] have reached. The ages are treated as occupying space, and their extent as just coincident with our own time. See a similar figure in ch. 14:36. 12. ἑστάναι , viz. in his place as a member of Christ’ s church, to be recognized by him at His coming for one of His. To such an one the example of the Israelites is a warning to take heed that he fall not, as they did from their place in God’ s church. 13. There are two ways of understanding the former part of this verse. Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Est., Bengel, Olsh., De Wette, al., take it as a continuation, and urging of the warning of the verse preceding, by the consideration that no temptation had yet befallen them but such as was ἀνθρώπινος , ‘ within the power of human endurance:’ but ‘ major tentatio imminet,’ Beng.:— while Calvin, al., and Meyer regard it as a consolation, tending to shew them that βλεπέτωμὴπέσῃ is within the limits of their power, seeing that their temptation to sin was nothing extraordinary or unheard of, but only ‘ according to man:’ and they might trust to God’ s loving care, that no temptation should ever befall them which should surpass their power to resist. This latter seems to me beyond doubt the correct view. For (1) in the parallel which they bring for the former sense, Hebrews 12:4, οὔπω is distinctly expressed,— and would have been here also, had it been intended. Besides, in that case, οὔπω , as having the primary emphasis, would have been prefixed, as in Hebrews 12:4: οὔπωπειρασμὸςὑμᾶςεἴληφεν … Then again (2) this restricts the sense of πειρασμός to persecution, which it here does not mean, but solicitation to sin, in accordance with the whole context. εἴληφεν — has taken you, not ἔλαβεν , ‘ took you,’ shews that the temptation was still soliciting them. ἀνθρώπινος ] not, as Piscator, al., and Olsh., originating with man, as opposed to other temptations originating with the devil, or even with God’ s Providence: but, as Chrys.: ξύμμετρος ,— opposed to ὑπὲρὃδύνασθε , adapted to man. πιστός ] He has entered into a covenant with you by calling you: if He suffered temptation beyond your power to overcome you, He would be violating that covenant. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:24, πιστὸςὁκαλῶνὑμᾶς , ὃςκαὶποιήσει . ὅς = ὅτιοὗτος . ποιήσει … καὶτὴνἔκβ ]. Then God makes the temptation too: arranges it in His Providence, and in His mercy will ever set open a door for escape. τὴνἔκβ .] the [way to] escape, i.e. which belongs to the particular temptation: τὴνἀπαλλαγὴντοῦπειρασμοῦ , Theophyl. τοῦδύν .] in order that you may be able to bear (it): obs., not, ‘ will remove the temptation:’ but, ‘ will make an escape simultaneously with the temptation, to encourage you to bear up against it.’ 14. Conclusion from the above warning examples: idolatry is by all means to be shunned; not tampered with, but fled from. φεύγετεἀπό (‘ fugiendo discedite a,’ Meyer) expressing even more strongly than the accus, with φεύγω , the entire avoidance. This verse of itself would by inference forbid the Corinthians having any share in the idol feasts; but he proceeds to ground such prohibition on further special considerations. 15-22. By the analogy of the Christian participation in the Lord’ s Supper, and the Jewish participation in the feasts after sacrifices, joined to the fact that the heathens sacrifice to devils, he shews that the partaker in the idol feast is a partaker with devils; which none can be, and yet be a Christian. 15. An appeal to their own sense of what is congruous and possible,— as introducing what is to follow. ὡς expresses an assumption on the Apostle’ s part, that they are φρόνιμοι . De W. compares Plato, Alcib. i. 104, ὡςἀκουσομένῳλέγω . λέγω and φημί both refer to what follows, vv. 16-21. ὑμεῖς is emphatic— be ye the judges of what I am saying. 16. The analogy of the Lord’ s Supper, which, in both its parts, is a participation in Christ. The stress throughout to ver. 20, is on κοινωνία , and κοινωνοί . τὸποτήριον is the accus., by attr. corresponding to τὸνἄρτον . τὸπ . τῆςεὐλ .] i.e. ὃεὐλογοῦντεςκατασκευάζομεν (Œ c.), as explained immediately by ὃεὐλογοῦμεν ,— over which we speak a blessing, the Christian form of the Jewish כ ּ ו ֹ ם ב ּ ְ ר ָ כ ָ ה , the cup in the Passover over which thanks were offered after the feast,— in blessing of which cup, our Lord instituted this part of the ordinance: see Lightfoot in loc., and note on the history in Mat_26. The rendering of Olsh., al., the cup which brings a blessing, is wrong, as being against this analogy. ὃεὐλογοῦμεν ] which we bless, i.e. consecrate with a prayer of thanksgiving: not, as Erasmus, Beza, ‘ quod cum gratiarum actione sumimus’ . Observe, the first person plural is the same throughout: the blessing of the cup, and the breaking of the bread, the acts of consecration, were not the acts of the minister, as by any authority peculiar to himself, but only as the representative of the οἱπάντες , the whole Christian congregation (and so even Estius, but evading the legitimate inference). The figment of sacerdotal consecration of the elements by transmitted power, is as alien from the apostolic writings as it is from the spirit of the Gospel. κοινωνία ] the participation (i.e. that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the Blood of Christ? The strong literal sense must here be held fast, as constituting the very kernel of the Apostle’ s argument. The wine is the Blood, the bread is the Body, of Christ. (In what sense the Blood and the Body, does not belong to the present argument.) We receive into us, make by assimilation parts of ourselves, that wine, that bread: we become therefore, by participation of that Bread, one Bread, i.e. one Body: hence the close and literal participation in and with Christ. If we are to render this ἐστιν , represents or symbolizes, the argument is made void. On the other band it is painful to allude to, though necessary to reprobate, the caricature of this real union with Christ which is found in the gross materialism of transubstantiation. See further on ch. 11:26, 27. ὃνκλῶμεν ] probably already the breaking of the bread in the communion was part of the act of consecration, and done after the example of our Lord in its institution. See ch. 11:24; Acts 2:42, Acts 2:20:7, Acts 2:11. For the rest, see above. 17. Because we, the (assembled) many, are one bread , one Body (by the κοινωνία of the Body of Christ, of which that bread is the vehicle); for the whole of us partake of that one bread. Meyer and De Wette and many other Commentators take εἷςἄρτος alone, ‘ there is one bread;’ and impugn the interpretation given above by saying that it is evidently not so, because the following clause uses ἄρτος in its literal sense. But it is for that very reason, that I adhere to the interpretation given. By partaking of that bread, we become, not figuratively but literally, one bread: it passes into the substance of our bodies, and there is in every one who partakes, a portion of himself which is that bread. The bread which was before, is now ἡμεῖς . But that loaf, broken and blessed, is the medium of κοινωνία of the Body of Christ; we then, being that one bread, are one Body; for we all partake of that one bread. So that there is no logical inversion, and no arguing (Meyer) from the effect to the cause. The argument is a very simple and direct one;— the bread is the Body of Christ; we partake of the bread: therefore we partake of the Body of Christ. Of these propositions, the conclusion is implied in the form of a question in ver. 16: the minor stated in the latter clause of ver. 17; its connexion with the major producing the conclusion given in the former clause ὅτι … ἐσμέν . The major itself, τοῦτόἐστιντὸσῶμάμου , is suppressed, as axiomatic. The above remarks shew also the untenableness of the rendering of Calv., Beza, Bengel, al.,— “ because there is one bread (antecedent), we being many are one body” (consequent): for this would parenthesize ver. 17, and take it altogether out of the argument, giving it a sense which, as occurring here, would be vapid— “ obiter hoc dicit, ut intelligant Corinthii, externa quoque professione colendam esse illam unitatem quæ nobis est cum Christo,” Calv. Meyer objects to rendering ἐκτοῦἑνὸςἄρτουμετέχομεν , we partake of that one bread: saying rightly that μετέχω is always found with a gen. or an acc., never with ἐκ . He would render, for we all, by means of that one bread, partake (viz. in the one Body: so μετέχ . is absol. ver. 30). This is exceedingly harsh, besides as it seems to me (see above) confusing the whole argument: and we may safely say would not have been thus expressed by the Apostle, leaving the most important words to be supplied from the context,— but would have been οἱγὰρπάντεςἐντῷἑνὶἄρτῳτοῦἑνὸςσώματοςμετέχομεν . The usage of ἐκ , too, would, though perhaps barely allowable, be very harsh, especially when it is remembered that the ἄρτος is not (by the hypothesis) the ultimate, but only the mediate object of participation. None of the examples given in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 230, which Meyer quotes for his sense of ἐκ , seem to justify it. They apply mostly to the subjective source, ἐκπρονοίας , or the circumstances originating, ὡςἐκτούτων ,— not to the medial instrument, which it appears to me would require διὰ . (In a subsequent edn. Meyer seems to have slightly modified his view, rendering, for from the one bread we all receive a portion.) 18. Another example of κοινωνία , from the Jewish feasts after sacrifice. τ . Ἰσρ . κατὰσάρκα ] (= τ . Ἰσρ . τὸνκατὰσάρκα : so we have τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα , Ephesians 6:5), the actual material Israel, as distinguished from ὁἸσρ . κατὰπνεῦμα , see Romans 2:29; Galatians 4:29; and ὁἸσρ . τοῦθεοῦ , Galatians 6:16. οἱἐσθ . τ . θυσ .] viz. those parts of the sacrifices which were not offered; see on ch. 8:1. The parts to be offered are specified, Leviticus 3:3; the practice of eating the remainder of the meat sanctioned and regulated, ib. 7:15-18. κοινωνοὶτοῦθυσ .] partakers with the altar (in a strict and peculiar sense,— the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion. The question has been raised, and with reason, why the Apostle did not say κοινωνοὶτοῦθεοῦ Meyer answers,— because the Jew was already in covenant with God, and the Apostle wished to express a closer connexion, brought about by the sacrifice in question:— De Wette,— because he was unwilling to ascribe so much to the mere act of sacrifice, see Hebrews 10:1 ff.: and to this latter view I incline, because, as De W. remarks, θεοῦ would have suited the analogy better than θυσιαστηρίου , but Paul avoids it, and evidently is reluctant to use it. But to carry this view further, and suppose with Rü ckert that he would not concede to the Ἰσρ . κατὰσάρκα any κοινωνίαθεοῦ , is (Meyer) contradicted by Romans 9:4, Romans 9:5. Still the inference lies open, to which our Saviour’ s saying points, Matthew 23:20, Matthew 23:21. The altar is God’ s altar). 19, 20. The inference from the preceding analogies would naturally be, that Paul was then representing the idols as being in reality what the heathen supposed them to be— and the eater of meats offered to them, as partaking with the idol. This objection he meets,— but with the introduction of a new fact to their consideration— that the things which the heathen sacrifice, they sacrifice really to devils. 19. τίοὖνφημι ; what am I then assuming? so Xen. Anab. i. 14. 4, τίοὖνκελεύωποιῆσαι ; ὅτιεἰδωλόθ . τίἐστιν ] that a thing sacrificed to an idol is any (real) thing (so sacrificed)? (i.e. has any real existence as a thing sacrificed? The accentuation τιἔστιν ; would come nearer to the sense of ch. 8:4, ὅτιοὐδὲνεἴδωλονἐνκόσμῳ ,— ‘ that there is any (such thing as an) offering to an idol?’ and in a matter so ambiguous it is impossible to decide between the two) or that an idol is any thing (real? e.g. that Jupiter is Jupiter in the sense of a living power)?— (Not so:— this ellipsis of the negative, taken up by ἀλλά , is found in classical Greek: e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2, πῶςοὖναὐτὸςὢντοιοῦτοςἄλλουςἂνἀσεβεῖς … ἐποίησεν ; ἀλλ ʼ ἔπαυσεμὲντούτωνπολλούς , ἀρετῆςποιήσαςἐπιθυμεῖν , &c. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 37.) But (I say) that the things which they (i.e. the Gentiles) sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God (δαιμ ., not ‘ false-gods,’ nor in the sense in which it is used in the mouth of idolaters themselves, Acts 17:18, and Xen. Mem. i. 1. 1, deities (see Stanley’ s note, in which this idea is ingeniously combined with the Christian sense given below),— but, as always in LXX and N. T. when used by worshippers of the true God, ‘ devils,’ ‘ evil spirits.’ The words are from Deut. (ref.), see also Psalms 95:5 . Heathendom being under the dominion of Satan , he and his angels are in fact the powers honoured and worshipped by the heathen, however little they may be aware of it): but I would not have you become partakers with devils (τῶν generic). 21. Reason of the οὐθέλω ,— sententiously expressed without γάρ . οὐδύνασθε applies of course to the real spiritual participation of the table of the Lord so as to profit by it: to moral possibility. The ποτήριονδαιμονίων is said as corresponding to the cup of which mention has been already made, not as Grot., al., and De Wette fancy, referring to the libation at an idol feast. τράπεζα is said by Pollux vi. 12 (Suicer) to be used in the sense of τὰσιτίατὰἐπ ʼ αὐτῶντῶντραπεζῶντιθέμενα . Compare the description in Herod. iii. 18, of the Ἡλίουτράπεζα ,— Polyb. iv. 35. 4, ὥστεπερὶτὸνβωμὸνκ . τὴντράπεζαντῆςθεοῦκατασφαγῆναιτοὺςἘφόρουςἅπαντας ,— and ref. Isa. From this passage probably, the τράπεζακυρίου became an expression current in all ages of the Christian Church: see Suicer in voc. 22. Or are we provoking (is it our wish to provoke, that He may assert His power) the Lord (Christ) to jealousy (by dividing our participation between Him and devils)?— see ref. Deut., which evidently is before the Apostle’ s mind:— are we stronger than He (are we then such, that we can afford to defy His power to punish)? 23-11:1. Now that he has fully handled the whole question of partaking in idol feasts, and prepared the way for specific directions as about a matter no longer to be supposed indifferent, he proceeds to give those directions, accompanying them with their reasons, as regards mutual offence or edification. 23. He recurs to the plea of ch. 6:12;— reasserts his modification of it, with a view, after what has passed since, to shew its reasonableness, and to introduce the following directions. οἰκοδομεῖ ] viz. the Christian body: tend to build up the whole, or the individual parts, of that spiritual temple, God’ s οἰκοδομή . 24. Further following out of οἰκοδομεῖ . This ought to be our object: the bringing on one another to perfection, not the pleasing ourselves, see Romans 15:2, Romans 15:3. In the second clause, ἕκαστος must be supplied from μηδείς (hence it has found its way into the rec.): so Plato, Rep. ii. p. 366 D, οὐδεὶςἑκὼνδίκαιος , ἀλλ ʼ … ψέγειτὸἄδικον ,— i.e. ἕκαστοςψέγει . See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 458. 25. The key to understanding this and the following verse is, to remember that συνείδησις is used in each case of the conscience of the person spoken of, i.e. in the two first cases, that of the reader,— in the third, as explained by the Apostle, that of the weak brother: see there. Every thing which is being sold (offered for sale) in the flesh-market (μάκελλον is adopted from the Latin. It was also used by the Rabbis, in the form מ ק ו ל י ן . See Stanley, and examples in Wetst.), eat, making no enquiry (whether it is meat offered to idols or not), on account of your conscience . The meaning being,— ‘ eat without enquiry, that your conscience may not be offended,’ If you made enquiry, and heard in reply, that the meat had been offered to idols, your conscience would be offended, and you would eat διὰπροσκόμματος to yourselves. De Wette, al., understand τὴνσυν ., all through, of the conscience of another, and apply to all the explanation of ver. 29. But as Meyer well observes, no reader could possibly refer τὴνσυνείδ . to any one but himself, no other person having been mentioned, until ver. 28, where ἐκεῖνοντὸνμηνύσαντα is introduced, and τὴνσυνείδησιν is to be referred (but even then not without special explanation given) to the new subject. 26. The principle on which such an eating ought to rest: that all is God’ s, and for our use: and where no subjective scruple is cast in, all to be freely partaken of: see 1 Timothy 4:4. 27. The same maxim applied to their conduct at a banquet given by a heathen. A miscellaneous banquet, and not a sacrificial feast, is meant. At such, there might be meat which had been offered to idols. Grot, says well on θέλετεπορεύεσθαι , “ Admonet tacite, melius forte facturos, si non eant: ire tamen non prohibet: supra, cap. 5:10.” On (διὰτ . συνείδ ., see above, ver. 25. 28. Who is the person supposed to say this? not, as Grot., al., think, the host, of whom τις could hardly be said, but it would stand ἐὰνδὲὑμῖνεἴπῃ : nor, as Chrys., Theophyl., al., and De Wette,— some heathen guest, by whom De W. imagines it said maliciously, or to put the Christian to the proof,— for his συνείδησις would hardly be so much taken into, account in the matter; but, as Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 399, and Meyer,— some weak Christian, wishing to warn his brother. ἱερόθυτον is apparently placed advisedly, to represent what would be said at a heathen’ s table. De W. supposes it on this very account to be a correction: but surely this is giving a corrector credit for more fineness of discrimination than they ordinarily shew. Much more probable is it, that the unusual and apparently incorrect ἱερόθυτον should give place to the ordinary and more exact term. δι ʼ ἐκ . τ . μην … ] On account of the man who informed you, and (καί specifying the particular point or points to which the more general preceding clause applies: as, τῶνδεεἵνεκα , καὶγῆςἱμέρῳ … καὶμάλιστατῷχρηστηρίῳπίσυνοςἐών , καὶτίσασθαιθέλων … Herod. i. 73. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 145) conscience: i.e. to spare the informer being wounded in his conscience. 29. Explanation of the last διὰτὴνσυνείδησιν , as meaning not your own, but that of the informer. True to his interpretation (see above), De W. supposes τοῦἑτέρου not to refer to τὸνμηνύσαντα , but to ‘ your weak Christian brother;’ but then how very harsh and clumsy are the various references to understood persons;— and how simple, on the other interpretation, is the reference in each case of τὴνσυν . to the subject of the clause. ἵνατίγάρ ] For why is my freedom judged by a conscience not mine own?— i.e. ‘ Why should I be to treated (hazard by my actions such treatment) that the exercise of my Christian freedom, eating as I do and giving thanks, should become matter of condemnation to another, who conscientiously disapproves of it?’ If (no copula) I partake thankfully ([not, as E. V., ‘ by grace’ ] dat. of the manner, cf. Soph. Antig. 616, σοφίᾳγὰρἔκτουκλεινὸνἔποςπέφανται ,— and Bernhardy, Syntax, p.101), why am I to be spoken ill of for that for which I give thanks? These words have been misunderstood. It has been generally supposed that the Apostle is impressing a duty, not to give occasion for the condemnation of their liberty by another’ s conscience. But the ground on which he is here arguing, is the unfitness, absurdity, injustice to oneself and the cause of God, ver. 31, of so acting as to be condemned for that in which a man not only allows himself, but for which he gives thanks to God. The sentiment is the same as in Romans 14:16, μὴβλασφημείσθωὑμῶντὸἀλαθόν . The emphasis is each time on ἐγώ . 31-11:1. General conclusion of this part of the Epistle,— enforced by the example of himself. 31. This εἴτεοὖν … , passing from the special to the general, is not without reference to the last verse, in which the hypothesis is, that the Christian and thankful act of the believer is marred by the condemnatory judgment of his weak brother. All such hindrances to God’ s glory they are to avoid; and in all things, eating or drinking, or any other particular of conduct , the glory of God is to be the aim, self-regard being set aside: and so,— 32. all offence is to be avoided (it being understood that this refers to ἀδιάφορα , for in other things, both Jews and Greeks must be offended, see ch. 1:23), whether to Jews or Heathens (both these out of the Church), or to the Church of God (their own brethren). 33. His own course of conduct:— As I in all things (accus. of that on which the subject acts, or over which the quality predicated extends, as in ἀλγῶτὴνκεφαλήν ;— so τοῦπάντ ʼ εὐδαίμονοςὄλβου , Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 1197. See Kü hner, ii. 222. 4) please (‘ am pleasing:’ as Meyer well remarks, not the result, but the practice on Paul’ s part; for πᾶσινἀρέσκειντὸνσυμβουλεύοντακ . τὰκοινὰπράττονταἀδύνατον , Demosth. 1481. 4). ἐμαυτοῦ and τῶνπολλῶν are opposed: see ver. 24. ἵνασωθ ., his great aim and end;— so ch. 9:22. 11:1. κἀγώ , scil. μιμητὴςγέγονα . Compare on the sense, Philippians 2:4, Philippians 2:5. 11:2-34. Reproofs and directions regarding certain disorders which had arisen in their assemblies: viz. (1) the not veiling of their women in public prayer (vv. 2-16): (2) the abuse of the ἀγάπαι (17-34). 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies. 2. δέ , implying a distinction from the spirit of the last passage, which was one of blame, and exhortation to imitate him. He praises them for the degree in which they did this already, and expresses it by the slighter word μέμνησθε . πάντα , see above, on ch. 10:33. And ye keep (continue to believe and practise) the traditions (apostolic maxims of faith and practice, delivered either orally or in writing, 2 Thessalonians 2:15), according as (according to the words in which) I delivered (them) to you. This was their general practice: the exceptions to it, or departures at all events from the spirit of those παραδόσεις , now follow. 3. “ It appears, that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for their sex an equality with the other, taking occasion by the doctrine of Christian freedom and abolition of sexual distinctions in Christ (Galatians 3:28). The gospel unquestionably did much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionian Greeks (not among the Dorians and the Romans) were kept in unworthy dependence. Still this was effected in a quiet and gradual manner; whereas in Corinth they seem to have taken up the cause of female independence somewhat too eagerly. The women over-stepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved,— as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy, as their removing the veil: here however he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till ch. 14:34. In order to confine the women to their true limits, he reminds them of their subjection to the man, to whom again he assigns his place in the spiritual order of creation, and traces this precedence up to God Himself.” De Wette. παντὸςἀνδρός ] ‘ of every Christian man’ (as Chrys., al., Meyer, De W.), certainly,— and for such the Apostle was writing: but not only of every Christian man: the Headship of Christ is over all things to His Church, Ephesians 1:22, and thus He is Head of every man. The word κεφαλή in each case means the head next above. This must be borne in mind, for Christ is the Head of the Christian woman, as well as of the Christian man. God is the Head of Christ, not only according to His human Nature: the Son is, in his Sonship, necessarily subordinate to the Father: see ch. 3:23, note, and ch. 15:28. From χριστός , the order descends first: then, in order to complete the whole, ascends up to God. Observe that though (Galatians 3:28) the distinction of the sexes is abolished in Christ, as far as the offer of and standing in grace is concerned, yet for practical purposes, and for order and seemliness, it subsists and must be observed. 4. The case of the man here treated, was regarded by the ancient Commentators, Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Œ , and Grot., Mosh., al., as an actually occurring one among the Corinthians:— but by recent ones, since Storr and Bengel, as hypothetically put, to bring out that other abuse which really had occurred. Had it been real, more would have been said on it below: but from ver. 5 onwards, attention is confined to the woman. προσευχ . praying in public: προφ . discoursing in the spirit; see on ch. 12:10. κατὰκεφ . ἔχων ] scil. τι . The Jews when praying in public put over their heads a veil, called the Tallith, to shew their reverence before God and their unworthiness to look on Him: Lightf., Hor. Heb. in loc. Grotius’ s note on the Greek and Roman customs is important:— “ Apud Græ cos mos fuit sacra facere capite aperto. Legendum enim apud Macrob. i. Saturn. 8, Illic Græ co ritu capite aperto res divina fit, apparet ex loco ejusdem libri c. 10, ubi itidem de Saturno agitur, et sacrum ei fieri dicitur aperto capite ritu peregrino; et ex loco iii. 6, ubi Varronem ait dicere, Græ ci hoc esse moris, aperto capite sacrificare. ἀπαρακαλύπτῳκεφαλῇ ait de ejusdem Saturni sacris agens Plutarchus in Romanis quæ estionibus. Lucem facere id dici solitum Festus testatur. Eodem modo, id est aperto capite, etiam Herculi in ara maxima sacrum fieri solere testatur, præ ter Macrobium dicto libro iii. 6, Dion. Hal. lib. i., nimirum quia id sacrum institutum erat ab Evandro homine Græ co. Sed Æ neas (?) contrarium morem in Italiam intulit sacra faciendi velato capite, ne quod malum omen oculis aut auribus obveniret: ut Virg. nos docet Æ n. iii. et ad eum Servius, et in Breviario Aurelius Victor: sed et Plutarchus in Romanis quæ stionibus. Et ejus moris etiam Plautus meminit in comœ diis quibusdam: ut solet admiscere Romana Græ cia. Paulus Græ cis Corinthiis scribens Græ cum præ fert morem, et causas adfert quales ferebat negotii natura. Ex Pauli præ scripto perpetuo hunc morem tenuere Christiani veteres. Tertul. Apologetico: ‘ Illuc suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocui: capite nudo, quia non erubescimus: denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus,’ &c. Nihil huc pertinet mos Septentrionis in reverentiæ signum caput velandi, qui quanquam per Germanicas nationes late manavit, et Judæ is tamen et Græ cis, et veteri Italiæ fuit incognitus.” καταισχ . τ . κεφ . αὐτοῦ ] dishonours his Head, i.e. Christ: not, his own head literally,— except in so far as the literal and metaphorical senses are both included,— the (literal) head of the man being regarded as the representative of his spiritual Head. See this brought out in Stanley’ s note: for the head of the man in this respect of honouring or dishonouring, has been, ver. 3, explained to be Christ. Him he dishonours, by appearing veiled before men, thus recognizing subjection to them in an assembly which ought to be conformed to Christian order. 5. The case of the woman is just the converse. She, if she uncovers herself (on the manner of covering, see below ver. 15, note) in such an assembly, dishonours her head (the man; not, as Meyer and many others, literally, her own head (but see above): of this kind of dishonour there is no mention at all in our passage, and ver. 3 has expressly guarded us against making the mistake) by apparently casting off his headship: and if this is to be so, the Apostle proceeds, why not go further and cut off her hair, which of itself is a token of this subjection? But if this be acknowledged to be shameful (it was a punishment of adulteresses, see Wetst. in loc. and Tacit. Germ. 19), let the further decency of the additional covering be conceded likewise. The reading ἑαυτῆς may have arisen from fancying that her own head is meant. ἓν … ἐστινκ . τὸαὐτό ] she: not it, τὸἀκατακάλυπτονεἶναι . The neut. is used because the identity is generic, not individual: cf. Eur. Med. 928,— γυνὴδὲθῆλυκἀπὶδακρύοιςἔφυ , and other examples in Kü hner, ii. 45 (§ 421). 6. the argument see above. οὐκατ .,— is to be unveiled, the pres. indicating the normal habit. καὶκειρ ., let her also, besides being unveiled, &c. κείρ . ἢξυρ .] ‘ plus est radi quam tonderi,’ Grot. 7-9. A second reason for the same,— from the dependence of the man on God only, but of the woman on the man. 7. γάρ refers back to and gives a reason for κατακαλυπτέσθω , the difference between the sexes being assumed,— that one should be and the other should not be veiled. The emphasis is accordingly on ἀνήρ . οὐκὀφείλει , should not, ought not: see reff. εἰκὼνθεοῦ , ref. Gen. This the man is, having been created first,— directly, and in a special manner: the woman indirectly, only through the man. κ . δόξαθ .] And the (representative of the) glory of God: on account of his superiority and godlike attributes among other created beings. This is obviously the point here brought out, as in Psalms 8:6: not, that he is set to shew forth God’ s glory (εἰςγὰρδόξανθεοῦὀφείλειὁἀνὴρὑποτετάχθαιτῷθεῷ , in Œ cum.), however true that may be: nor, as Estius, from Augustine, ‘ quia in illo Deus gloriatur:’ nor is δόξα the representative of the Heb. ד ּ ְ מ ו ּ ת , Genesis 1:26 , as Rϋ ckert, al., suppose, because the LXX have rendered ת ּ ְ מ ו ּ נ ָ ה , Numbers 12:8; Psalms 17:15, by δόξα : for, as Meyer observes, in so well-known a passage as Genesis 1:26, the Apostle could hardly fail to have used the LXX word ὁμοίωσις . Man is God’ s glory: He has put in him His Majesty, and he represents God on earth: woman is man’ s glory: taken (ver. 8) from the man, shining not with light direct from God, but with light derived from man, “ τὸθῆλυ , ἄῤῥενἀτελές , philosophis. Imperat materfamilias suæ familiæ , sed viri nomine.” Grot. This of course is true only as regards her place in creation, and her providential subordination, not in respect of the dependence of every woman’ s individual soul directly on God, not on man, for supplies of grace and preparations for glory. The Apostle omits εἰκών , because anthropologically the woman is not the image of the man, on account of the difference of the sexes: and also perhaps because thus he would seem to deny to the woman the being created in the divine image, which she is as well as the man, Genesis 1:26, Genesis 1:27. The former reason appears the more probable: and so De W. and Meyer. “ It may be observed that, whereas in Genesis the general character of man under the Hebrew name answering to ἄνθρωπος is the only one brought forward, here it is merged in the word ἀνήρ , which only expresses his relation to the woman.” Stanley. 8. γάρ gives the reason of the former assertion γυνὴδόξαἀνδρός ,— viz. that the man is not (emphasis on ἐστιν , which prevents the ἐκ having a figurative sense, of dependence:— ‘ takes not his being,’ in the fact of his original creation. The propagation of the species is not here in view) out of the woman, but the woman out of the man . 9. For also (parallel with ver. 8— another reason: not subordinate to it, as Meyer, who renders ἐκ in ver. 8, ‘ dependent on,’ and regards this verse as giving the reason) the man was not created on account of the woman, &c. In this verse, besides the manner of creation, ἐκτοῦἀνδρός , the occasion of creation, διὰτὸνἄνδρα , is insisted on; see Genesis 2:18 ff. 10. διὰτοῦτο , on account of what has just been said, by which the subordination of the woman has been proved:— refers to vv. 7-9, not as Meyer, to ver. 9 only: for vv. 8, 9, give two parallel reasons for γυνὴδόξαἀνδρός , the inference from which proposition has not get been given, but now follows, with ὀφείλει answering to οὐκὀφείλει above. ὀφ . ἡγ . ἐξουσίανἔχ . ἐπὶτῆςκεφ .] The woman ought to have power (the sign of power or subjection; shewn by the context to mean a veil). So Diodor. Sic. i. 47: εἰκόνα … εἴκοσιπηχῶν , μονόλιθον , ἔχουσαντρεῖςβασιλείαςἐπὶτῆςκεφαλῆς , ἃςδιασημαίνεινὅτικαὶθυγάτηρκαὶγυνὴκαὶμήτηρβασιλέωςὕπηρξε , where βασίλειαι evidently are crowns, the tokens of kingdom. And as there from the context it is plain that they indicated participation in the glory of the kingdoms, so here it is as evident from the context that the token of ἐξουσία indicates being under power: and such token is the covering. So Chrys. , Theodoret, Theophyl. , Œ cum., Beza, Grot., Est., Bengel, Wolf, al., Billroth, Rϋ ckert, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette. To enumerate the various renderings would be impossible. Some of the principal are, (1) a sign of power to pray and prophesy in public, bestowed on her by her husband. So Schrader, iv. 158: but this would be quite irrelevant to the context. (2) Some suppose ἐξουσίαν actually to mean a veil, because the Heb. ר ָ ד ִ י ד , ‘ a veil,’ comes from the root ר ָ ד ַ ד , ‘ subjecit.’ So Hammond, Le Clerc, al. But (see Lexx.) ‘ subjecit’ is not the primary, only a tropical meaning: the primary meaning, ‘ extendit, diduxit,’ is much more likely to have given rise to the substantive. It is certainly a curious coincidence that the Heb. terms should be thus allied,— and that alliance may have been present to the Apostle’ s thoughts: but this does not shew that he used ἐξουσία for a veil. (3) Kypke would put a comma after ἐξους ., and render ‘ propterea mulier potestali obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (see ver. 4) in capite habeat.’ But the sense of ὀφείλειντι would require (see Lexx.) ὑπακοήν , not ἐξουσίαν . (4) Pott renders, ‘ mulierem oportet servare jus (sive potestatem) in caput suum, sc. eo, quod illud velo obtegat.’ But this, though philologically allowable (see Revelation 11:6; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 14:18; and with ἐπάνω , Luke 19:17), is entirely against the context, in which the woman has no power over her own head, and on that very account is to be covered. (5) Hagenbach (in the Stud. und Krit. 1828, p. 401) supposes ἐξουσία here to mean her origin, ἐξ -οὐσία from ἐξ -εἰμι , as παρ -οὐσία from παρ -εἰμι :— to shew that she (ver. 8) ἐστινἐξἀνδρός . But apart from other objections to this, it must thus be, τὴνἐξ . or τὴνἐξ . αὐτῆς . Other renderings and conjectures may be seen in Meyer’ s note, from which the above is mainly taken: and in Stanley’ s. διὰτοὺςἀγγέλους ] On account of the angels: i.e. because in the Christian assemblies the holy angels of God are present, and delighting in the due order and subordination of the ranks of God’ s servants,— and by a violation of that order we should be giving offence to them. See ref. So Chrys. (οὐκοἶδαςὅτιμετ ʼ ἀγγέλωνἕστηκας ; μετ ʼ ἐκείνωνᾄδεις , μετ ʼ ἐκείνωνὑμνεῖς , καὶἕστηκαςγελῶν ; cited by Hammond, but from what work of Chrys. I have not been able to find. In his commentary on this passage he is not clear, but seems to take this view,— εἰγὰρτοῦἀνδρὸςκαταφρονεῖς , φησί , τοὺςἀγγέλουςαἰδέσθητι , Hom. xxvi. p. 234. In the Hom. on the Ascension, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 443 (Migne), he says, εἰβούλειἰδεῖνκ . μάρτυραςκ . ἀγγέλουςἄνοιξοντῆςπίστεωςτοὺςὀφθαλμούς , κ . ὄψειτὸθέατρονἐκεῖνο · εἰγὰρπῶςὁἀὴρἀγγέλωνἐμπέπλησται , πολλῷμᾶλλονἡἐκκλησία … ὅτιγὰρἅπαςὁἀὴρἀγγέλωνἐμπέπλησται , ἄκουσοντίφησινὁἀπόστολος , ἐντρέπωντὰςγυναῖκαςὥστεἔχεινκάλυμμαἐπὶτῆςκεφαλῆς · “ ὀφείλουσινκ .τ .λ .” ), Grot. (whose note see in Pool), Estius, Wolf, Rü ckert, Meyer, De Wette. (1) Others, with a modification of this rendering, take τοὺςἀγγέλους as the guardian angels, appointed, one to take charge of each Christian. So Theophyl. , Jerome (not de Trin. xii. 7, as Meyer, see below), Tbeodoret. But, though such angels certainly do minister to the heirs of salvation,— see Matthew 18:10, and note,— there does not appear to be any immediate allusion to them here. (2) Others again understand ‘ bad angels,’ who might themselves be lustfully excited; so Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 7, vol. ii. p. 899, “ propter angelos: scilicet quos legimus a Deo et cœ lo excidisse ob concupiscentiam fœ minarum.” See also cont. Marcion. v. 8, p. 488,— or might tempt men so to be,— Schö ttgen, Mosh, al.,— or might injure the unveiled themselves: so, after Rabbinical notions, Wetst. But οἱἄγγελοι , absol., never means any thing in the N. T. except the holy angels of God. See, in Stanley’ s note, a modification of this view, which is consistent with that meaning. (3) Alex. fragm. ix. ὑποτυπ . lib. iii. (p. 1004 P.) says, ἀγγέλουςφησὶτοὺςδικαίους , κ . ἐναρέτους . (4) Beza, the Christian prophets, “ in cœ tu loquentes ut Dei nuncios et legatos.” (5) Ambrose, the presidents of the assemblies. (6) Lightf., the angeli or nuntii desponsatiomum, persons deputed to bring about betrothals. (7) Rosenm., Schrader, and many others,— exploratores vel speculatores: “ Poterat nempe novæ consuetudinis notitia per ἀπίστους speculatores in publicum emanare, christianasque uxores tum Judæ is, de isto mulierum habitu pessime existimantibus, tum Græ cis quoque in suspicionem rei christianæ probrosissimam adducere.” Rosenm. Against all these ingenious interpretations is the plain sense of οἱἄγγελοι (Matthew 13:49. Mark 1:13.Luke 16:22 Luke 16:22. chap. 13:1 Chronicles 2:181 Ch 2:181 Ch 2:18. Hebrews 1:4, Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 1:7, Hebrews 1:13, al.), which appears to me irrefragable. But still a question remains, Why should the Apostle have here named the angels, and adduced them as furnishing a reason for women being veiled in the Christian assemblies? Bengel has given an acute, but not I believe the correct answer: “ mulier se tegat propter angelos, i.e. quia etiam angeli teguntur. Sicut ad Deum se habent angeli: sic ad virum se habet mulier. Dei facies patet: velantur angeli: Ephesians 6:2. Viri facies patet: velatur mulier.” Surely this lies too far off for any reader to supply without further specification. Aug. de Trin. xii. 7 (10), vol. viii. p. 1004, gives an ingenious reason: “ Grata est enim sanctis angelis sacrata et pia significatio. Nam Deus non ad tempus videt, nec aliquid novi fit in Ejus visione atque scientia, cum aliquid temporaliter aut transitorie geritur, sicut inde afficiuntur sensus vel carnales animalium et hominum, vel etiam cœ lestes angelorum.” (He makes no mention,— see above,— of guardian angels.) I believe the account given above to be the true one, and the reason of adducing it to be, that the Apostle has before his mind the order of the universal church, and prefers when speaking of the assemblies of Christians, to adduce those beings who, as not entering into the gradation which he has here described, are conceived as spectators of the whole, delighted with the decency and order of the servants of God. Stanley thinks the most natural explanation of the reference to be, that the Apostle was led to it by a train of association familiar to his readers, but lost to us: and compares the intimations of a similar familiarity on their part with the subjects of which he was treating in 2 Thessalonians 2:5-7. 11. Yet is neither sex insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life. ἐνκυρίῳ is not the predicate (as Grot., &c.),— ‘ neque viri exclusis mulieribus … participes sunt beneficiorum per Christum partorum:’ nor does it mean according to the ordinance of God, as Chrys., Beza, Olsh.,— for the phrase ἐνκυρίῳ is well known as applying to the Christian state, in the Lord. See e.g. Romans 16:2, Romans 16:8, Romans 16:11, Romans 16:12 (bis), &c. 12. And in this, the Christian life accords with the original ordinance of God. For (proof of ver. 11) as the woman is (was taken, Genesis 2:21 f.) out of the man, so the man is (is born, in the propagation of the human race) by means of the woman; but all things (both man and woman and all things else: a general maxim, see 2 Corinthians 5:18) are of (as their source,— thus uniting in one great head both sexes and all creation) God. They are dependent on one another, but both on Him: the Christian life therefore, which unites them in Christ, is agreeable to God’ s ordinance. 13. Appeal to their own sense of propriety: cf. ch. 10:15. ἐνὑμῖναὐτ .] Each man within himself, in his own judgment. 14. ἡφύσιςαὐτή , nature herself: i.e. the mere fact of one sex being by nature unveiled, i.e. having short hair,— the other, veiled, i.e. having long hair. This plainly declares that man was intended to be uncovered,— woman, covered. When therefore we deal with the proprieties of the artificial state, of clothing the body, we must be regulated by nature’ s suggestion: that which she has indicated to be left uncovered, we must so leave: that which she has covered, when we clothe the body, we must cover likewise. This is the argument. φύσις is not sense of natural propriety, but Nature,— the law of creation. κομᾷ ] So Eustathius, Il. γ . 288, in Wetst., κόμηνδὲἔχειν , καὶεὔκομονεἶναι , γυναικώτερόνἐστιν . διὸκαὶὁΠάριςὀνειδίζεταιὡςκόμηνἔχων . On φύσις and κομᾷ Pool observes, ‘ locus est vexatissimus doctorum sententiis;’ and gives a note of four folio columns; and Bengel has a long discussion on the lawfulness of wigs. The Apostle (see above) makes no allusion to the customs of nations in the matter, nor is even the mention of them relevant [: he is speaking of the dictates of nature herself.] 15. See on ver. 14: compare Milton, Par. Lost. iv. 304 ff. περιβόλαιον , properly a wrapper, or enveloping garment: see reff., and Eurip. Herc. fur. 549, and in a metaphorical sense, 1269. “ In this passage,” says Stanley, “ the Apostle would refer to the ‘ peplum,’ which the Grecian women used ordinarily as a shawl, but on public occasions as a hood also, especially at funerals and marriages,” See a woodcut in Smith’ s Dict. of Antt. art. ‘ peplum.’ 16. Cuts off the subject, already abundantly decided, with a settlement of any possible difference, by appeal to universal apostolic and ecclesiastic custom. But if any man seems to be contentious (i.e. ‘ if any arises who appears to dispute the matter, who seems not satisfied with the reasons I have given, but is still disputatious;’ — this is the only admissible sense of δοκεἶ in this construction: see reff.:— for the meaning, ‘ if it pleases any one,’ &c. would require τινιδοκεῖ : and ‘ if any one thinks that he may,’ &c. would not agree with φιλονεικεῖν , which is in itself wrong). ἡμεῖς ] declarative: let him know that … ; so, εἰδὲκατακαυχᾶσαι , οὐσὺτὴνῥίζανβαστάζεις , ἀλλ ʼ ἡῥίζασέ , Romans 11:18. We,— the Apostles and their immediate company,— including the women who assembled in prayer and supplication with them at their various stations, see Acts 16:13. τοιαύτηνσυνήθειαν ] The best modern Commentators, e.g. Meyer and De Wette, agree with Chrys. in understanding this, τοιαύτ . συνήθ ., ὥστεφιλονεικεῖνκ . ἐρίζεινκ . ἀντιτάττεσθαι . p. 235. And so Ambrose, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calov., al. But surely it would be very unlikely, that after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up all by merely a censure of a fault common to their behaviour on this and all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion:— ‘ If any will dispute about it still, remember that it is neither our practice, nor that of the Churches, to dispute.’ It would seem to me, but for the weighty names on the other side, hardly to admit of a question, that the συνήθεια alludes to the practice (see ref. John) of women praying uncovered. So Theodoret, Grot. Michaelis, Rosenm., Billroth, Olsh., al., and Theophyl. altern. He thus cuts off all further disputation on the matter by appealing to universal Christian usage: and to make the appeal more solemn, adds τοῦθεοῦ to αἱἐκκλ .,— the assemblies which are held in honour of and for prayer to God, and are His own Churches. Obs. αἱἐκκλησίαι , not ἡἐκκλησία . The plurality of independent testimonies to the absence of the custom, is that on which the stress is laid. This appeal, ‘ to the Churches,’ was much heard again at the Reformation: but has since been too much forgotten. See, on the influence of this passage on the Christian church, the general remarks of Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 198-200. 17-34. Correction of abuses regarding the Agapæ and the partaking of the Supper of the Lord. 17. Refers back to what has been said since ver. 2, and forms a transition to what is yet to be said. But this (viz. what has gone before, respecting the veiling of women; not, as Chrys., Theophyl, Grot., Bengel, al., that which follows: see below) I command you (not ‘ announce to you,’ nor ‘ declare to you from report,’ which are senses of παραγγ . unknown to the N. T., where it only means ‘ to command,’ — ‘ to deliver by way of precept:’ see reff., and ch. 7:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:4, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, 2 Thessalonians 3:12. This makes it hardly possible to refer τοῦτο to what follows; for if so, some definite command should immediately succeed) not praising (refers to the ἐπαινῶ of ver. 2, and excepts what has been said since from that category); because you come together not for the better (so that edification results) but for the worse (so that propriety is violated, and the result is to the hindering of the faith). These last words ὅτι … συνέρχ , are introduced with a manifest view to include more than the subject hitherto treated, and to prepare the way for other abuses of their assemblies to be noticed. 18. πρῶτον — where is the second particular founda, nswering to this πρῶτον Ordinarily, it is assumed that the σχίσματα are the first abuse, the disorders in the Agapæ (beginning with ver. 20), the second. But I am convinced, with Meyer, that this view is wrong. For (1) neither special blame, nor correction of abuse, is conveyed in vv. 18, 19: nor is it so much as intimated, on the ordinary hypothesis, what the character of these σχίσματα was. And (2) the words of ver. 22, ἐπαινέσωὑμᾶςἐντούτῳ ; οὐκἐπαινῶ , plainly refer back to ver. 17, and shew that the whole is continuous. Again (3) the οὖν of ver. 20, as so frequently,— see ch. 8:4, and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 22,— resumes the subject broken off by καὶμέρος … γέν . ἐνὑμῖν . The σχίσματα before the Apostle’ s mind are, specifically, those occurring at the Agapæ ,— but on the mention of them, he breaks off to shew that such divisions were to be no matters of surprise, but were ordained to test them,— and in ver. 20 he returns with the very words, συνερχομένωνὑμῶν ,— to the immediate matter in hand, and treats it at length. See more on vv. 21 ff. But the question still remains, where is the second point, answering to this πρῶτον Again with Meyer (and Macknight) I answer,— at ch. 12:1. The abuse of spiritual gifts, which also created disorder in their assemblies, ch. 14:23 al., and concerning which he concludes, 14:40, πάνταεὐσχημόνωςκ . κατὰτάξινγινέσθω ,— was the other point before his mind, when he wrote this πρῶτον . That he takes no notice in ch. 12:1, by any ἔπειταδέ or the like, of what has gone before, will be no objection to the above view to any one but the merest tiro in our Apostle’ s style. There is a trajection of the ἀκούω , which, in the sense, precedes συνερχ ., &c. ἐνἐκκλ .] in assembly; not local, as E. V., ‘ in the church,’ but =ἐπὶτὸαὐτό , ver. 20. [In ver. 16, where the word is used of distinct bodies of Christians, it was not possible to keep the word assemblies, but it should be done whenever the sense admits it, and it suits the matter in hand]. σχίσματα ] of what sort, is specified below; viz. that he does not here refer to the party dissensions of ch. 1:10, nor could he say of them μέροςτιπιστεύω , but strictly to σχίσματα which took place at their meetings together, viz. that each takes before other his own supper, &c. So Chrys.: οὐλέγει , ἀκούωγὰρμὴκοινῇὑμᾶςσυνδειπνεῖν · ἀκούωκατ ʼ ἰδίανὑμᾶςἑστιᾶσθαι , καὶμὴμετὰτῶνπενήτων · ἀλλ ʼ ὃμάλισταἱκανὸνἦναὐτῶνδιασεῖσαιτὴνδιάνοιαν , τοῦτοτέθεικε , τὸτοῦσχίσματοςὄνομα , ὃκαὶτούτουἦναἴτιον , Hom. xxvii. p. 241; and Theophyl., Œ c., Est., Pise., Grot., which last remarks, ‘ Accidebat jam illis temporibus, quod nostris multo magis evenit, ut res in stituta ad concorporandos fideles in vexillum schismatis verteretur.’ κ . μέροςτιπιστ .] Said in gentleness: q. d. “ I am unwilling to believe all I hear concerning the point, but some I cannot help believing.” 19. δεῖ , in the divine appointment, the ἵνα which follows expressing God’ s purpose thereby. Our Lord had said ἀνάγκηἐλθεῖντὰσκάνδαλα , Matthew 18:7:— and Justin Martyr, Tryph. 35, p. 132, quotes among His sayings prophetic of division in the church, ἔσονταισχίσματακ . αἱρέσεις . From the pointed manner in which δεῖγὰρκαὶαἱρέσεις … is said, I should be inclined to think that the Apostle tacitly referred to the same saying of our Lord: for there must be (not only dissensions, but) even heresies (not in the ecclesiastical or doctrinal sense,— as Pelag., Est., Calv., Beza,— see reff., but indicating a further and more matured separation, where not only is there present dissension, as in the Agapæ , but a deliberate choice and maintenance of party distinction. It does not appear, in spite of all that has been written in Germany on the supposed parties of ch. 1:10, that such separations had yet taken place among the Corinthians. Nor even in Clement’ s Epistle, forty years after this, do we find any allusion to such, but only, as here, to a general spirit of dissension and variance, see chaps, 3 and 14, pp. 213, 257. Chrys. would refer αἱρ . only to the Agapæ : οὐταύταςλέγωντὰςτῶνδογμάτων , ἀλλὰτὰςτῶνσχισμάτωντούτων , p. 242,— and so Theophyl., Œ c. But this hardly justifies the climax, δεῖγὰρκαὶαἱρ .) among you, that the approved [also] (i.e. as well as the other party, who would become manifest by their very conduct) may be made manifest among you; viz. through a better and nobler spirit being shewn by them, than by the contentious and separatists. 20. The same subject— resumed from the συνερχ . of ver. 18: see notes on πρῶτον . When then ye come together (are assembling, pres. and perhaps here, where he deals with particulars, to be pressed,— as their intention in thus assembling is blamed) to one place (reff. Acts) it is not to eat the Supper of the Lord (emphasis on κυριακόν , as opposed to ἴδιον below). κυρ . δεῖπν .] ‘ the Supper instituted by the Lord.’ This was an inseparable adjunct, in the apostolic times, to their agapæ or feasts of love. Chrys. on ver. 17, and Tertull. Apol. § 39, vol. i. pp. 474 ff., give an ample description of these feasts, which were of the nature of ἔρανοι , or mutual contributions, where each who was able brought his own portion,— and the rich, additional portions for the poor. See Xen. Mem. iii. 14, in which the circumstances bear a remarkable similarity to those in the Corinthian church. Not before this feast, as Chrys. (μετὰτὴντῶνμυστηρίωνκοινωνίανἐπὶκοινὴνπάντεςᾔεσανεὐωχίαν , p. 240), al.,— but during and after it, as shewn by the institution, by the custom at the Passover, by the context here, and by the remnants of the ancient custom and its abuse until forbidden by the council of Carthage,— the ancient Christians partook of the Supper of the Lord. The best account of this matter is to be found in the note in Pool’ s Synopsis on Matthew 26:26. It was necessary for the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper that all should eat of the same bread and drink of the same cup; and in all probability, that a prayer should be offered, and words of consecration said, by the appointed ministers. Hence cessation of the feast itself, and solemn order and silence, would be necessitated even by the outward requirements of the ordinance. These could not be obtained, where each man was greedily devouring that which he had brought with him: where the extremes were seen, of one craving, and another being drunken. This being their practice, there could be [no possibility, and at the same time] no intention of celebrating the Lord’ s Supper,— no [provision for it, nor] discernment of the solemnity of it. On the whole subject, see Stanley’ s note. 21. προλ ., as in E. V., takes before another, viz. during the feast (ἐντῷφ .), not, at home, before coming. Obviously the ἕκαστος must be limited to the rich: the poor had no ἴδιονδεῖπνον to take, and were the losers by the selfishness of the rich. πεινᾷ ] one is craving (the poor), another is drunken . 22. For (a reason for the blame in the foregoing: this should not be: for) have you no houses, to eat, &c.: meaning, ‘ at home is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren.’ Or do ye shew your contempt for (pres.) the congregation of God (θεοῦ to express, as Bengel, ‘ dignitatem ecclesiæ .’ This contempt was expressed by their not sharing with the congregation the portion which they brought),— and put to shame those who have not ? What must I say to you? Shall I praise you in this matter? I praise you not. (See ver. 17.) 23-25. To shew them the solemnity of the ordinance which they thus set at nought, he reminds them of the account which he had before given them, of its institution by the Lord. Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25.Luke 22:19 Luke 22:19, Luke 22:20. 23. For I (see ch. 7:28; Philippians 4:11) received from the Lord (by special revelation, see Galatians 1:12. Meyer attempts to deny that this revelation was made to Paul himself, on the strength of ἀπό meaning ‘ indirect,’ παρά ‘ direct’ reception from any one: but this distinction is fallacious: e.g. 1 John 1:5, αὕτηἐστὶνἡἐπαγγελίαἣνἀκηκόαμενἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . He supposes that it was made to Ananias or some other, and communicated to Paul. But the sole reason for this somewhat clumsy hypothesis is the supposed force of the preposition, which has no existence. If the Apostle had referred only to the Evangelic tradition or writings (?) he would not have used the first person singular, but παρελάβομεν . I may remark, that the similarity between this account of the Institution and that in Luke’ s Gospel, is only what might be expected on the supposition of a special revelation made to Paul, of which that Evangelist, being Paul’ s companion, in certain parts of his history availed himself) that which I also delivered (in my apostolic testimony) to you, (viz.) that the Lord Jesus, &c. παρεδίδετο ] the imperf.: He was being betrayed. “ There is an appearance of fixed order, especially in these opening words, which indicates that this had already become a familiar formula.” Stanley. ἄρτον ] not, as Meyer, ‘ a loaf,’ but bread: cf. the common expression, φαγεῖνἄρτον . 24. On εὐχ . ἔκλασεν , see note, Matthew 26:26. Meyer well remarks, that “ the filling up of τὸὑπὲρὑμῶν is to be sought in the foregoing ἔκλασεν .” Hence the insertion of κλώμενον . τοῦτοποι … ] See note on Matt. ut supra. 25. See Luke 22:20. ὡσαύτ . καὶτὸπ .] “ viz. ἔλαβενκαὶεὐχ . ἔδωκεναὐτοῖς . These last words are implied in ἔκλασεν above.” Meyer. ἡκαιν . δ . ἐστὶνἐντῷἐμῷαἵμ . is the new covenant in (ratified by the shedding of, and therefore standing in, as its conditioning element) my blood: = ἐστὶνἡκαιν . δ . ἡἐντῷἐμῷαἵμ . The position of ἐστιν is no objection to this, nor the omission of the art. Meyer would render it, ‘ is the N. C. by means of my blood:’ i.e. by virtue of its contents, which are my blood: and this solely on account of the position of ἐστιν . But the meaning is as harsh, as the rendering is unrequired. ὁσάκιςἐὰνπίν .] Not a general rule for all common meals of Christians; but a precept that as often as that cup is drunk, it should be in remembrance of Him: on these last words is the emphasis: see below. 26. γάρ gives an explanatory reason for εἰςτ . ἐμὴνἀνάμν ., viz. that the act of eating and drinking is a proclamation of the death of the Lord till His coming. The rendering of καταγγέλλετε imperative, as Theophyl.?, Luth., Grot., Rü ckert, is evidently wrong. The Apostle is substantiating the application of the Lord’ s words by the acknowledged nature of the rite. It is a proclamation of His death: and thus is a remembrance of Him. It is so, by our making mention of in it, and seeing visibly before us and partaking of, His body broken, and His blood shed. ἄχριςοὗἔλθῃ ] The καταγγ . is addressed directly to the Corinthians, not to them and all succeeding Christians; the Apostle regarding the coming of the Lord as near at hand, in his own time, see notes on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. Thdrt. remarks, μετὰγὰρτὴναὐτοῦπαρουσίαν , οὐκέτιχρείατῶνσυμβόλωντοῦσώματος , αὐτοῦφαινομένουτοῦσώματος · διὰτοῦτοεἶπεν , ἄχριςοὗἔλθῃ . The ἄν has been inserted from not being aware that its absence implies the certainty of the event. See examples in Lobeck on Phrynichus, pp. 15, 16, note. 27. A consequence, from the nature of the ordinance being, to proclaim the death of the Lord: the guilt of the unworthy participation of either of the elements. The death of the Lord was brought about by the breaking of His body and shedding His blood: this Death we proclaim in the ordinance by the bread broken— the wine poured out, of which we partake: whoever therefore shall either eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily (see below ver. 29) shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord: i.e. “ crimini et pœ næ corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit:” Meyer. Such an one proclaims the death of Christ, and yet in an unworthy spirit— with no regard to that Death as his atonement, or a proof of Christ’ s love: he proclaims that Death as an indifferent person: he therefore partakes of the guilt of it. Chrysostom strikingly says, σφαγὴντὸπρᾶγμαἀπέφηνεν , οὐκέτιθυσίαν , p. 247. But the idea ὡςκαὶαὐτὸςἐκχέαςτὸαἷμα , Theophyl. (and Chrys., τίδήποτε ; ὅτιἐξέχεεναὐτό , καὶσφαγ ., &c., as above), is irrelevant here, see ver. 29. The Romanists absurdly enough defend by this ἤ (the meaning of which is not to be changed to καί , as is most unfairly done in our E. V., and the completeness of the argument thereby destroyed) their practice of communicating only in one kind. Translated into common language, and applied to the ordinary sustenance of the body, their reasoning stands thus: ‘ Whoever eats to excess, or drinks to excess, is guilty of sin: therefore eating, without drinking, will sustain life.’ 28. The δέ implies an opposition to, and wish to escape from, the ἔνοχοςἔσται . δοκιμ . ἑαυτ .] prove himself— examine τὴνδιάνοιανἑαυτοῦ , as Theodor.-, in loc.: ascertain by sufficient tests, what his state of feeling is with regard to the death of Christ, and how far this feeling is evinced in his daily life— which are the best guarantees for a worthy participation. καὶοὕτως ] i.e. ‘ after examination of himself.’ The case in which the self-examination ends in an unfavourable verdict, does not come under consideration, because it is assumed that such a verdict will lead to repentance and amendment. 29. For he who eats and drinks (scil. of the bread and of the cup: certainly not, as Meyer, ‘ the mere eater and drinker, he who partakes as a mere act of eating and drinking,’ which is harsh to the last degree, and refuted by the parallel, ver. 27. ἀναξίως is spurious, see var. readd.) eats and drinks judgment to himself , as rendered in our E. V., a mistranslation, which has done infinite mischief), not appreciating (dijudicans, Vulg. μὴἐξετάζων , μὴἐννοῶνὡςχρή , τὸμέγεθοςτῶνπροκειμένων , μὴλογιζόμενοςτὸνὄγκοντῆςδωρεᾶς . Chrys. Hom. xxviii. p. 251) the Body (scil. of the Lord: here standing for the whole of that which is symbolized by the Bread and the Cup, the Body and Blood. The mystery of these, spiritually present in the elements, he, not being spiritual, does not appreciate: and therefore, as in ver. 27, falls under the divine judgment, as trifling with the death of Christ. The interpretation of Stanley, “ not discerning that the body of the Lord is in himself and in the Christian society, and that it is as the body of the Lord, or as a member of that body, that ha partakes of the bread,” is surely somewhat farfetched, after τοῦτόμουἐστὶντὸσῶμα , ver. 24). 30. Experimental proof of the κρῖμαἑαυτῷ , from the present sicknesses and frequent deaths among the Corinthian believers. Meyer distinguishes ἀσθενεῖς , weaklings, persons whose powers have failed spontaneously, from ἄῤῥωστοι , invalids, persons whose powers are enfeebled by sickness; and cites Tittmann, Synon. p. 76. ἀσθ . and ἄῤῥ . refer to physical, not (as Olsh., altern.) moral weaknesses. 31. δέ contrasts with this state of sicknesses and deaths: it might be otherwise. This διεκρινόμεθα (parallel with δοκιμαζέτω before) should be rendered by the same word as διακρίνων before, the idea being the same. ‘ Appreciate,’ if etymologically understood, is the nearest to the meaning: in Latin dijudico, which the Vulg. has, is an excellent rendering,— preserving also the ‘ judico,’ so essential to the following clause. In the E. V. ‘ If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged,’ the tenses are wrong: it should be, ‘ If we had judged ourselves, we should not have been judged:’ ‘ no such punishments would have befallen us.’ Thus I wrote in some former editions: and so also Stanley. But this collocation of the (imperfect) tenses may be rendered either way. Donaldson, Gr. Gr., p. 204, renders εἴτιεἶχεν , ἐδίδουἄν , ‘ si quid haberet, daret:’ and so we have it in Æ schyl. Suppl. 244, καὶτἄλλαπόλλ ʼ ἐπεικάσαιδίκαιονἦν , εἰμὴπαρόντιφθόγγοςἦνὁσημανῶν : Æ schin. Ctes. p. 86, εἰδ ʼ ἦνἀναγκαῖονῥηθῆναι , οὐΔημοσθένουςἦνὁλόγος : and other places (Bernhardy, p. 376). But as certainly, we find the other sense: e.g. Herod. iii. 25, of Cambyses, εἰ … ἀπῆγεὀπίσωτὸνστρατὸν … ἦνἂνσοφὸςἀνήρ . So that the E. V. may here be kept, if thought desirable. In John 5:46, our translators have adopted the other rendering: ‘ Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me:’ but in ib. viii. 39, 42, have rendered as here. 32. But now that we are judged, it is by the Lord (emph.) that we are being chastised (to bring us to repentance), that we may not be (eternally) condemned with the (unbelieving) world. 33. General conclusion respecting this disorder. So then , my brethren (milder persuasive: as has been the assumption of the first person, vv. 31, 32), when ye are coming together to eat, wait for one another . 34. The ἀγάπαι were not meals to satiate the bodily appetites, but for a higher and holier purpose: let the hungry take off the edge of his hunger at home: see ver. 22. τὰδὲλοιπά ] viz. things omitted (probably matters of detail) in the above directions. Perhaps they had asked him questions respecting the most convenient time or manner of celebration of the Lord’ s supper: points on which primitive practice widely differed. ὡςἂνἔλθω , see reff., whenever I shall have come. ὡςἄν , as ὅτ ʼ ἄν , implies uncertainty as to the event anticipated: see Kü hner, vol. ii. p. 535, § 807. Chapp. 12-14. On the abuse of Spiritual Gifts: especially prophesying, and speaking with tongues. The second particular requiring correction in their assemblies, see ch. 11:18, note. Chrys. well says: τοῦτοἅπαντὸχωρίονσφόδραἐστὶνἀσαφές · τὴνδὲἀσάφειανἡτῶνπραγμάτωνἄγνοιάτεκαὶἔλλειψιςποιεῖτῶντότεμὲνσυμβαινόντων , νῦνδὲοὐγινομένων . Hom. xxix. p. 257. 12. On the nature, intent, and worth of spiritual gifts in general. 1-3. The foundation of all spiritual utterance is the confession of Jesus as the Lord: and without the Spirit, no such confession can be made. 1. δέ transitional. Some have thought that the Corinthians had referred this question to the Apostle’ s decision: but from the οὐθέλωὑμ . ἀγνοεῖν , it rather looks as if, like the last, it had been an abuse which he had heard of, and of his own instance corrects. τ . πνευματικῶν ] Most likely neuter, as ch. 14:1, spiritual gifts: so Chrys., Theophyl., Œ , Beza, Calov., Est., al., De Wette, and Meyer:— not masc., as ch. 14:37: so Grot., Hammond, al., and Locke, who maintains that the subject of this section is not the things, but the persons, quoting ch. 14:5. But surely the things are the main subject, enounced here, vv. 4-11, and treated of through the rest of the chapter; the inspired persons being mentioned only incidentally to them. Others, as Storr, Billroth, Wieseler cited by Meyer, and De W., limit τὰπν , to the speaking with tongues, which indeed is mainly treated of in the latter part of the section (see ch. 14:1): but here the gifts of the Spirit generally are the subject. οὐθέλωὑμ . ἀγν .] Theodor.- cited by Meyer: θέλωὑμᾶςκαὶτῶνπνευματικῶνχαρισμάτωνεἰδέναιτὴντάξιν , ὥστεβούλομαίτικαὶπερὶτούτωνεἰπεῖν . See reff. 2. Reason why they wanted instruction concerning spiritual gifts— because they once were heathen, and could not therefore have any experience in spiritual things. Thus Meyer, and so far rightly: but the stress of this reason lies in the words ἄφωνα and ὡςἂνἤγεσθε , which he has not sufficiently noticed:— Ye know (that) when ye were Gentiles (the construction is an anacoluthon, beginning with οἴδατεὅτι , and then as if οἴδατεὅτι had been merely a formula for ‘ ye know,’ passing into the construction so common, that of placing ὅτε after such verbs as μέμνημαι , οἶδα , ἀκούω , and the like, an ellipsis taking place of τοῦχρόνου , as Lysias actually fills it up in one place, ἐκείνουτοῦχρόνουμνησθέντας , ὅτε … in Poliuch. (περὶδημεύσεωςκ .τ .λ .), p. 151, 34. Thus Il. ξ . 71, ᾔδεαμὲνγὰρὅτεπρόφρωνΔαναοῖσινἄμυνεν : Plato, Menon, p. 79, μέμνησαιὅτ ʼ ἐγώσοιἄρτιἀπεκρινάμην . See more examples in Kü hner’ s Gr. Gramm. ii. 480) led about to idols which were without utterance , just as ye happened to be led (scil., on each occasion: the force of ἄν being to indicate the indefiniteness, i.e. in this case, the repetition of the act: so Xen. Anab. i. 5. 2: οἱμὲνὄνοι , ἐπείτιςδιώκοι (whenever any followed them) προδραμόντεςἂνεἱστήκεισαν ,— and Eurip. Phœ n. 401: ποτὲμὲνἐςἦμαρεἶχον , εἶτ ʼ οὐκεἶχονἄν . See other examples in Kü hner, ii. 93, 94). These last words seem to me to imply the absence of all fixed principle in the oracles of Heathendom, such as he is about to announce as regulating and furnishing the criterion of the spiritual gifts of Christendom. This ὡςἂνἤγεσθε might take a man to contradictory oracles, the whole system being an imposture— their idols being void of all power of utterance, and they being therefore imposed on by the fictions of men, or evil spirits, who led them. Chrys., Œ c., Theophyl., make this refer to the difference between the heathen μάντις , who was possessed by an evil spirit, and therefore εἵλκετοὑπὸτοῦπνεύματοςδεδεμένος , οὐδὲνεἰδὼςὧνλέγει , and the Christian προφήτης ,— which however is entirely unwarranted by the context. 3. The negative and positive criteria of inspiration by the Spirit of God: viz. the rejection, or confession, of Jesus as the Lord. διό , ‘ because ye have been hitherto in ignorance of the matter.’ ἐνπν . θεοῦ — ἐνπν . ἁγ .] The Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost, is the Power pervading the speaker, the Element in which he speaks. So Schö ttgen, on Matthew 22:43, quotes from the Rabbis, ‘ David saw, ב ר ו ח ה ק ד ש in the Holy Spirit.’ λαλῶνλέγει ] On the difference of meaning between λαλῶ , ‘ to discourse,’ ‘ to speak,’ and λέγω , ‘ to say,’ the former of the act of utterance absolutely, the latter having for its object that which is uttered, see note on John 8:25. In all the seeming exceptions to this, λαλῶ may be justified as keeping its own meaning of ‘ to discourse:’ we may safely deny that it is ever ‘ to say’ simply. ἀνάθ . Ἰης .] Jesus (not Christ, the Name of office, itself in some measure the object of faith,— but Jesus, the personal Name,— the historical Person whose life was matter of fact: the curse, and the confession, are in this way far deeper) is accursed (see ref. Rom. note). So κύρ . Ἰης ., Jesus is Lord (all that is implied in κύριος , being here also implied: and we must not forget that it is the LXX verbum solenne for the Heb. Jehovah). By these last words the influence of the Holy Spirit is widened by the Apostle from the supernatural gifts to which perhaps it had been improperly confined, to the faith and confession of every Christian. It is remarkable that in 1 John 4:1, 1 John 4:2, where a test to try the spirits is given, the human side of this confession is brought out,— Ἰησοῦνχριστὸνἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα ,— John having to deal with those who denied the reality of the Incarnation. Or also, as Bengel: “ Paulus præ bet criterium veri contra gentes: Johannes, contra falsos prophetas.” 4-6. But (as contrasted to this absolute unity, in ground and principle, of all spiritual influence) there are varieties (in reff. 2 Chron. and Ezra, used of the courses or divisions of the priests) of gifts (χαρίσματα = eminent endowments of individuals, in and by which the Spirit indwelling in them manifested Himself,— the φανέρωσιςτοῦπνεύματος in each man:— and these either directly bestowed by the Holy Ghost Himself, as in the case of healing, miracles, tongues, and prophesying, or previously granted them by God in their unconverted state, and now inspired, hallowed, and potentiated for the work of building up the church,— as in the case of teaching, exhortation, knowledge. Of all these gifts, faith working by love was the necessary substratum and condition. See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. pp. 232 ff.), but the same Spirit (as their Bestower,— see the sense filled up in ver. 11): 5. and there are varieties of ministries (appointed services in the church, in which as their channels of manifestation the χαρίσματα would work), and the same Lord (Christ, the Lord of the church, whose it is to appoint all ministrations in it. These διακονίαι must not be narrowed to the ecclesiastical orders, but kept commensurate in extent with the gifts which are to find scope by their means, see vv. 7-10): and varieties of operations (effects of divine ἐνέργειαι : not to be limited to miraculous effects, but understood again commensurately with the gifts of whose working they are the results), and the same God. Who works all of them in all persons (all the χαρίσματα in all who are gifted). Thus we have God the Father, the First Source and Operator of all spiritual influence in all: God the Son, the Ordainer in His Church of all ministries by which this influence may be legitimately brought out for edification: God the Holy Ghost, dwelling and working in the church, and effectuating in each man such measure of His gifts as He sees fit. 7-11. These operations specified in their variety, but again asserted to be the work of one and the same Spirit. 7. To each individual, however (the emphasis on ἑκάστῳ , as shewing the character of what is to follow, viz. individual distinction of gifts. δέ again contrasted with the ὁαὐτός of the last verse; though the workings of One God, One Lord, One Spirit, they are bestowed variously on each man), is given the manifestation of the Spirit (not, as Meyer, al., the means of manifesting the Spirit which dwells in him (gen. obj.): but, as De W., the manifestation by which the Spirit acts (gen. subj.); it is a general term including χαρίσματα , διακονίαι , and ἐνεργήματα ) with a view to profit (with the profit of the whole body as the aim: see reff.). 8-10. It has been disputed, whether or not any studied arrangement of the gifts of the Spirit is here found. The most recent and best advocates of the two views are Meyer and De Wette. Meyer gives the following arrangement: grounding it mainly on what he believes to be the intentional use of ἑτέρῳδέ as distinguished from ἄλλῳδέ , and pointing out a new category:— I. gifts having reference to intellectual power: (1) λόγοςσοφίας . (2) λόγοςγνώσεως . II. gifts, whose condition is an exalted faith (glaubens-heroismus): (1) faith itself. (2) practical workings of the same, viz. (a) ἰάματα . (b) δυνάμεις . (3) oral working of the same, viz. προφητεία . (4) critical working of the same, the διάκρισιςπνευμάτων . III. gifts having reference to the γλῶσσαι : (1) speaking with tongues: (2) interpretation of tongues. To this De Wette objects, (1) that ᾧμέν , ἑτέρῳδέ , ἑτέρῳδέ , do not stand with any reference to one another, but ἑτέρῳδέ is in each case opposed to the ἄλλῳδέ which immediately precedes it, and followed by an ἄλλῳδέ similarly opposed to it: therefore neither can the one betoken the genus, nor the other the species. (2) If any thing could be relied on as marking a division, it would be the repeated κατὰτὸαὐτὸπν ., ἐντῷαὐτ . πν ., and the concluding πάνταδὲταῦτα ver. 11: but even thus we get no satisfactory partition, for in ver. 10 dissimilar gifts are classed together. (3) We must not look for a classification, for the catalogue is incomplete, see ver. 28. (4) The classification given is objectionable. Speaking with tongues is plainly more nearly allied to προφητεία than προφ . to gifts of healing: and the two, tongues and prophesying, are subsequently treated of together. Besides which, Kling (Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 482) rightly remarks, that both διάκρισιςπν . and ἑρμηνείαγλ . have reference to the understanding. I am inclined to think that De W.’ s objections are valid, as applied to a rigorous arrangement like Meyer’ s; but that at the same time there is a sort of arrangement, brought about not so much designedly, as by the falling together of similar terms,— λόγοςσοφ ., λόγοςγν .,— γένηγλωσσῶν , ἑρμ . γλωσσῶν . Unquestionably, any arrangement must be at fault, which proceeding on psychological grounds, classes together the speaking with tongues and the interpretation of tongues: the working of miracles, and the discernment of spirits. I believe too that Meyer’ s distinction between ἑτέρῳδέ and ἄλλῳδέ is imaginary: see Matthew 16:14; Hebrews 11:35, Hebrews 11:36. 8. γάρ appeals to matter of fact, as the ground of the assertion in ver. 7, both as to the δίδοται and as to the πρὸςτὸσυμφέρον . ᾧμὲν … ἄλλῳδέ , a loose construction, as in ver. 28. λόγοςσοφίας … λόγοςγνώσεως ] What is the distinction? According to Neander, σοφία is the skill, which is able to reduce the whole practical Christian life into its due order in accordance with its foundation principles (see Pfl. u. Leit. p. 247);— γνῶσις , the theoretical insight into divine things: and similarly Olsh. and Billroth. But Bengel, al., take them conversely, γνώσ . for the practical, σοφ . for the theoretical. Both, as De W. remarks, have their grounds in usage: σοφία is practical Colossians 1:9, as is γνῶσις Romans 15:14, but they are theoretical respectively in ch. 1:17 ff. and 8:1. Estius explains λόγοςσοφίας , ‘ gratiam de iis quæ ad doctrinam religionis ac pietatis spectant disserendi ex causis supremis,’ — as ch. 2:6 f.:— and λόγ . γνώσεως , he says, “ gratia est disserendi de rebus Christianæ religionis, ex iis quæ sunt humanæ scientiæ vel experientiæ .” Meyer says, “ σοφία is the higher Christian wisdom (see on ch. 2:6) in and of itself;— so that discourse which expresses its truths, makes them clear, applies them, &c. is λόγοςσοφίας . But this does not necessarily imply the speculative penetration of these truths,— the philosophical treatment of them by deeper and more scientific investigation, in other words, γνῶσις : and discourse which aims at this is λόγοςγνώσεως .” This last view is most in accordance with the subsequently recognized meaning of γνῶσις and γνωστικός , and with the Apostle’ s own use of σοφία in the passage referred to, ch. 2:6. κατὰτ . αὐ . πν .] according to the disposition (see ver. 11) of the same Spirit. 9. πίστις , as Chrys.: πίστινοὐταύτηνλέγωντὴντῶνδογμάτων , ἀλλὰτὴντῶνσημείων , περὶἧςφησινἘὰνἔχητεπίστινὡςκόκκονσιν . κ .τ .λ . (Matthew 17:20). καὶοἱἀπόστολοιδὲπερὶαὐτῆςἠξίουνλέγοντεςΠρόσθεςἡμῖνπίστιν (Luke 17:5). αὕτηγὰρμήτηρτῶνσημείωνἐστίν . Hom. xxix. p. 263. This seems to be the meaning here; a faith, enabling a man to place himself beyond the region of mere moral certainty, in the actual realization of things believed, in a high and unusual manner. ἐντ . αὐτ . πν .] in, i.e. by and through, as the effective cause and the medium. χαρίσματαἰαμάτων ] gifts of (miraculous) healings; plur., to indicate the different kinds of diseases, requiring different sorts of healing. ἐν , see above. 10. ἐνεργ . δυν .] operations of miraculous powers (in general). προφητεία ] speaking in the Spirit. Meyer gives an excellent definition of it: “ discourse flowing from the revelation and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which, not being attached to any particular office in the church, but improvised,— disclosed the depths of the human heart and of the divine counsel, and thus was exceedingly effectual for the enlightening, exhortation, and consolation of believers, and the winning of unbelievers. The prophet differs from the speaker with tongues.… in that he speaks with the understanding, not ecstatically: from the διδάσκαλος , thus:— ὁμένπροφητεύωνπάνταἀπὸτοῦπνεύματοςφθέγγεται · ὁδὲδιδάσκωνἐστὶνὅπουκαὶἐξοἰκείαςδιαλέγεται , as Chrys. on ver. 28.” (Hom. xxxii. p. 286.) διακρίσειςπν .] discernings of spirits: i.e. the power of distinguishing between the operation of the Spirit of God and the evil spirit, or the unassisted human spirit: see 1 John 4:1, and compare προσέχοντεςπνεύμασινπλάνοις , 1 Timothy 4:1. The exercise of this power is alluded to ch. 14:29. γένηγλωσσῶν ] kinds of tongues, i.e. the power of uttering, in ecstasy, as the mouthpiece of the Spirit, prayer and praise in languages unknown to the utterer,— or even in a spiritual language unknown to man. See this subject dealt with in the note on Acts 2:4, and ch. 14:2 ff. ἑρμηνείαγλωσσῶν ] the power of giving a meaning to what was thus ecstatically spoken. This was not always resident in the speaker himself: see ch. 14:13. 11. The Spirit is the universal worker in men of all these powers, and that according to His own pleasure: see above on vv. 4-6. ἰδίᾳ , ‘ seorsim,’ respectively, or ‘ severally,’ as E. V. This unity of the source of all spiritual gifts, in the midst of their variety, he presses as against those who valued some and undervalued others, or who depreciated them all. 12-30. As the many members of the body compose an organic whole, and all belong to the body, none being needless, none to be despised; so also those who are variously gifted by the Spirit compose a spiritual organic whole, the mystical body of Christ. First, however, vv. 12, 13, this likeness of the mystical Christ to a body is enounced, and justified by the facts of our Baptism. 12. The organic unity of the various members in one body, is predicated also of CHRIST, i.e. the Church as united in Him, see ch. 6:15. The γάρ confirms the preceding ἓνκ . τὸαὐτὸπνεῦμα , by an analogy. By the repetition,— τὸσῶμα , … τοῦσώματος … , σῶμα , the unity of the members as an organic whole is more strongly set forth. 13. This shewn from our being baptized into one body, and receiving one Spirit. For in (see on ver. 9) one Spirit also (the emphasis on ἑνὶπν ., to which words καί belongs) we all were baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freemen; and we all were made to drink of one Spirit (or, ‘ all watered by one Spirit,’ viz. the water of baptism, here taken as identical with the Spirit whose influence accompanied it). So (understanding the whole verse of baptism) Chrys., Theophyl., Œ c., Rü ckert, Meyer, De Wette. Luther, Beza, Calv., Estius, Grot., al., refer the latter half to the Lord’ s Supper: and this is mentioned by Chrys. and Theophyl.:— Bilhoth and Olsh. to the abiding influence of the Spirit in strengthening and refreshing. But the aor. ἐποτίσθημεν , referring to a fact gone by, is fatal to both these latter interpretations: besides that it would be harsh to understand even εἰςἓνπν . ἐποτίσθ . (see var. readd.) and impossible to understand ἓνπν . ἐποτ ., of the cup in the Lord’ s Supper. 14. Analogy, by which this multiplicity in unity is justified: it is even so in the natural body,— which, though one, consists of many members. The object of the continuation of the simile seems to be, to convince them that their various gifts had been bestowed by God on them as members of the Christian body, and that they must not, because they did not happen to possess the gifts of another, consider themselves excluded from the body,— in which the weaker as well as the stronger, the less comely as well as the more comely members were necessary. The student will remember the fable spoken by Menenius Agrippa to the mutinous plebs in Livy ii. 32. The passage is also illustrated by Seneca de Ira, ii. 31, ‘ Quid si nocere velint manus pedibus, manibus oculi? Ut omnia inter se membra consentiunt, quia singula servari totius interest: ita homines singulis parcent, quia ad cœ lum geniti sumus: salva autem esse societas nisi amore et custodia partium non potest:’ — and by Antonin. ii. 1, where in his morning meditations on the duty of repressing anger through the day, he says, γεγόναμενγὰρπρὸςσυνεργίαν , ὡςπόδες , ὡςχεῖρες , ὡςβλέφαρα , ὡςοἱστοῖχοιτῶνἄνωκαὶτῶνκάτωὀδόντων · τὸοὖνἀντιπράσσεινἀλλήλοις , παρὰφύσιν . See also id. vii. 13: ad Cor. c. xxxvii. p. 284: and other examples in Wetstein. 15. The ὅτι is rightly rendered in E. V. because. οὐπαρὰτ . κ .τ .λ .] These words [may be taken, here and in the next verse, “ it is not therefore not of the body.” But they] are best taken as a question, appealing to the sense of the reader: they thus have more of the vigour of the Apostle’ s style. παρά , see reff. ἐκτ . σ ., belonging to the body as an aggregate; so εἷςἐκτῶνδώδεκα ,— ἧσανἐκτῶνΦαρισαίων . The double negation strengthens,— see Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 9 b (he takes the two, in this case, as destroying one another (?), see ib. a). 17. The necessity of the members to one another, and to the body. Understand ἧν in each clause, which is indeed expressed in ver. 19. 18. νῦνδέ , but as the case really stands: see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25. τὰμέλη , generally,— ἓνἕκαστοναὐτῶν , severally. καθὼςἠθέλ . answers to καθὼςβούλεται , ver. 11. 19. The same ‘ reductio ad absurdum’ which has been made in the concrete twice in ver. 17, is now made in the abstract: if the whole were one member, where would be the body (which by its very idea μέληἔχειπολλά : see vv. 12, 14)? 20. Brings out the fact in contrast to ver. 19, as ver. 18 in contrast to ver. 17. 21-26. And the spiritual gifts are also necessary to one another. This is spoken in reproof of the highly endowed, who imagined they could do without those less gifted than themselves, as the preceding to those of small endowment, who were discontented with their gifts. 22, 23. Nay, the relation between the members is so entirely different from this, that the very disparagement, conventionally, of any member, is the reason why more care should be taken of it. I understand by the τὰδοκοῦνταμέλητοῦσώματοςἀσθενέστεραὑπάρχειν , those members which in each man’ s case appear to be inheritors of disease, or to have incurred weakness. By this very fact, their necessity to him is brought out much more than that of the others. 23. So also in the case of the parts ἃδοκοῦμενἀτιμότεραεἶναι — on which usage has set the stamp of dishonour. Perhaps he alludes (as distinguished from τὰἀσχήμ . below) to those limbs which we conceal from sight in accordance with custom, but in the exposure of which there would be no absolute indecency. So Chrys., καλῶςεἶπετὰδοκοῦντα , καὶἃδοκοῦμεν (but I should draw a distinction between the two, in accordance with the above explanation of ἀσθενέστ ., and render τὰδοκοῦντα , which appear to be [of themselves], and ἃδοκοῦμεν , which we think [conventionally]: notice also ὑπάρχειν and εἶναι , on which see Acts 16:20, note) δεικνὺςὅτιοὐτῆςφύσεωςτῶνπραγμάτων , ἀλλὰτῆςτῶνπολλῶνὑπονοίαςἡψῆφος . Hom. xxxi. p. 278. τιμ . περισς . περιτίθ .] viz. by clothing (garments of honour, as the Targ. of Onkelos on Genesis 3:21): honouring them more than the face, the noblest part, which we do not clothe. καὶτὰἀσχ .] Here there is no ἃδοκοῦμεν , and no ambiguity. Chrys. (ibid.) says: … ἀλλ ʼ ὅμωςπλείονοςἀπολαύειτιμῆς · καὶοἱσφόδραπένητες , κἂντὸλοιπὸνγυμνὸνἔχωσισῶμα , οὐκἂνἀνάσχοιντοἐκεῖνατὰμέληδεῖξαιγυμνά . 24. The comely parts are in some measure neglected, not needing to be covered or adorned: but God (at the creation) tempered the body together (compounded it of members on a principle of mutual compensation),— to the deficient part giving more abundant honour, 25. that there be no disunion (see ver. 21) in the body, but that the members may have the same care (viz. that for mutual well-being) for one another. The verb is plur., on account of the personification of the individual members (Meyer). 26. καί , and accordingly, in matter of fact: we see that God’ s temperament of the body has not failed of its purpose, for the members sympathize most intimately with one another. πάσχει … συνπάσχει ] καὶγὰρτῇπτέρνῃπολλάκιςπροσπαγείσηςἀκάνθης , ὅλοντὸσῶμααἰσθάνεταικαὶμεριμνᾷ · καὶνῶτοςκάμπτεται , καὶγαστὴρκαὶμηροὶσυστέλλονται , καὶχεῖρεςκαθάπερδορυφόροικ . ὑπηρέταιπροσιόντεςἀνέλκουσιτὸπαγέν , καὶκεφαλὴἐπικύπτει , καὶὀφθαλμοὶμετὰπολλῆςὁρῶσιτῆςφροντίδος . Chrys. p. 282. δοξάζεται … συγχαίρει ] Chrys. again with equal beauty instances, στεφανοῦταιἡκεφαλή , καὶἅπαςὁἄνθρωποςδοξάζεται · λέγειτὸστόμα , καὶγελῶσινὀφθαλμοὶκαὶεὐφραίνονται (ibid.). But perhaps the analogy requires that we should rather understand δοε . of those things which physically refresh or benefit the member, e.g. anointing or nourishment. 27. Application of all that has been said of the physical body, to the Corinthians as the mystical body of Christ: and to individuals among them, as members in particular, i.e. each according to his allotted part in the body. Each church is said to be the body of Christ, as each is said to be the temple of God (see ch. 3:16, note): not that there are many bodies or many temples; but that each church is an image of the whole aggregate,— a microcosm, having the same characteristics. Chrys. would understand ἐκμέρους — ὅτιἡἐκκλησίαἡπαρ ʼ ὑμῖνμέροςἐστὶτῆςπανταχοῦκειμένηςἐκκλησίας , καὶτοῦσώματοςτοῦδιὰπασῶνσυνισταμένοντῶνἐκκλησιῶν (Hom. xxxii. p. 285): but this, though true, does not appear to have been here before the Apostle,— only the whole Corinthian church as the body of Christ, and its individual components as members, each in his appointed place. 28. The divine disposition of the members in the spiritual body. οὓςμέν was apparently intended to be followed by οὓςδέ , but meanwhile another arrangement, πρῶτον , δεύτ ., τρίτ ., occurs to the Apostle, and οὓςμέν is left uncorrected, standing alone. See Ephesians 4:11, where τοὺςμέν is followed by τοὺςδέ , regularly. ἐντῇἐκκλ .] in the (universal) church, a sense more frequently found in the Epistle to the Ephesians, than in any other part of St. Paul’ s writings. πρ . ἀποστόλους ] Not merely the Twelve are thus designated, but they and others who bore the same name and had equal power, e.g. Paul himself, and Barnabas, and James the Lord’ s brother: see also note on Romans 16:7. προφ .] See above, on ver. 10. διδασκάλους ] See reff.: those who had the gift of expounding and unfolding doctrine and applying it to practice,— the λόγοςσοφίας and the λόγοςγνώσεως . δυνάμεις ] He here passes to the abstract nouns from the concrete,— perhaps because no definite class of persons was endowed with each of the following, but they were promiscuously granted to all orders in the church: more probably, however, without any assignable reason; as in Romans 12:6-8, he passes from the abstract to the concrete. ἀντιλήμψεις ] i.e. ἀντέχεσθαιτῶνἀσθενῶν and the like, as Chrys. forming one department of the διακονίαι of ver. 5: as do also κυβερνήσεις , a higher department, that of the presbyters or bishops— the direction of the various churches. γένηγλωσσῶν ] εἶδεςποῦτέθεικετουτὶτὸχάρισμα , καὶπῶςπανταχοῦτὴνἐσχάτηναὐτῷνέμειτάξιν ; Chrys. p. 287. There certainly seems to be intention in placing this last in rank: but I am persuaded that we must not, with Meyer, seek for a classified arrangement: here, as above, vv. 7-11, it seems rather suggestive than logical: the χαρ . ἰαμ . naturally suggesting the ἀντιλήμψεις ,— and those again, the assistances to carry out the work of the church, as naturally bringing in the κυβερνήσεις , the government and guidance of it. 29, 30. The application of the questions already asked vv. 17-19. 29. δυνάμεις ] not, as Meyer, al., accusative, governed by ἔχουσιν — which involves a departure from the parallelism, besides the harshness of construction:— but nominative, in apposition with πάντες . The Apostle has above placed the concrete, ἀπόστολοι , προφῆται , διδάσκαλοι , in apposition with δυνάμεις and χαρίσμ . ἰαμ ., and now proceeds with the same arrangement till he comes to χαρίσματαἰαμάτων , which being too palpably unpredicable of persons, gives rise to the change of construction,— μὴπάντεςχαρ . ἔχουσινἰαμάτων ; In the last two questions, he departs from the order of the last verse, and takes in again one particular from the former catalogue, ver. 10. Meyer compares Hom. Il. ν . 726-734. See Stanley’ s note and excursus. 31. But (he has been shewing that all gifts have their value: and that all are set in the church by God: some however are more valuable than others) do ye aim at the greater gifts (μείζ . is explained ch. 14:5). This exhortation is not inconsistent with ver. 11: but, as we look for the divine blessing on tillage and careful culture, so we may look for the aid of the Spirit on carefully cultivated powers of the understanding and speech;— and we may notice that the greater gifts, those of προφητεία and διδασκαλία , consisted in the inspired exercise of the conscious faculties, in which culture and diligence would be useful accessories. “ Spiritus dat, ut vult (ver. 11): sed fideles tamen libere aliud præ alio possunt sequi et exercere, c. xiv. 26.” Bengel. Compare also xiv. 39. There is thus no need to explain away ζηλοῦτε , as Grot. and others: or to depart from the known usage of χαρίσματα , and explain it to mean faith, hope, and love, as Morus, or the fruits of love, as Billroth. καὶἔτι ] And moreover: besides exhorting you to emulate the greatest gifts. καθ ʼ ὑπ . ὁδ .] An eminently excellent way, viz. of emulating the greatest gifts:— so Theophyl.: καὶμετὰτούτων , ἐὰνὅλωςζηλωταὶὑπάρχητεχαρισμάτων , δείξωὑμῖνμίανὁδὸνκαθ ʼ ὑπερβολήν , τουτέστιν , ὑπερέχουσαν , ἥτιςφέρειἐπὶπάντατὰχαρίσματα · τὴνἀγάπηνδὲλέγει . καθ ʼ ὑπερβ .] must not be joined with the verb,— ‘ est adhuc via quam vobis diligentissime demonstro’ (Pagnini’ s version, and some mentioned by Estius): see reff. and cf. ἡμάλισταἀναγνώρισις , Arist. Poet. ii. 6,— μάλαστρατηγόν , Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 39,— εὖπρᾶξις , Æ sch. Agam. 262,— σφόδραγυναικῶν , Plato, Legg. i. p. 639 c, and other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 338. The explanation of Estius and Billroth, that the way which he is about to shew them is ‘ multo excellentiorem iis donis de quibus hactenus egit’ (Est.), is clearly wrong: the opening verses of ch. 13 shewing, that he does not draw a comparison between love and gifts, but only shews that it is the only way, in which gifts can be made effectual in the highest sense. See also on ch. 14:1. Chap. 13:1-13. The panegyric of Love; as the principle without which all gifts are worthless (1-3): its attributes (4-7): its eternity (8-12): its superior dignity to the other great Christian graces (13). Meyer quotes from Valcknaer, p. 299: “ Sunt figuræ oratoriæ , quæ hoc caput illuminant, omnes sua sponte natæ in animo heroico, flagrante amore Christi et huic amori divino omnia postponente.” “ It may,” he adds, “ without impropriety be called ‘ a Psalm of Love:’  ” — the ש ׁ ִ י ר י ְ ד ִ י ד ֹ ת of the New Test. (see Psa_45 title). “ On each side of this chapter the tumult of argument and remonstrance still rages: but within it, all is calm: the sentences move in almost rhythmical melody: the imagery unfolds itself in almost dramatic propriety: the language arranges itself with almost rhetorical accuracy. We can imagine how the Apostle’ s amanuensis must have paused to look up in his master’ s face at the sudden change of his style of dictation, and seen his countenance lighted up as it had been the face of an angel, as the sublime vision of divine perfection passed before him.” Stanley. 1. ἐὰνλαλῶ supposes a case which never has been exemplified: even if I can speak, or as E. V. though I speak. So Isocr. eop. p. 142,— ἀλλ ʼ ἐὰνμὲνκατορθώσωσιπερίτιναςπράξεις , ἢδιὰτύχην , ἢδι ʼ ἀνδρὸςἀρετήν , μικρὸνδιαλιπόντεςπάλινεἰςτὰςαὐτὰςἀπορίαςκατέστησαν . See Matthiæ , § 523. 1. ταῖςγλώσσαιςτ . ἀνθρ . κ . τ . ἀγγ .] ὅραπόθενἄρχεται · πρῶτονἀπὸτοῦθαυμαστοῦδοκοῦντοςεἶναιπαρ ʼ αὐτοῖςκαὶμεγάλου , τῶνγλωσσῶν . Chrys. p. 289. It is hardly possible to understand γλῶσσαι here of any thing but articulate forms of speech: i.e. languages. Meyer and De W., who deny that the speaking with tongues was ever in an articulate language, vehemently impugn such a rendering here. But their own rendering is to me undistinguishable from it, as far as the sense is concerned: ‘ tongues speaking in all possible ways,’ surely, in the common acceptation of words, must mean, tongues speaking all possible languages, and the use of the word indifferently for the tongue and a tongue (a language), when this very gift is spoken of, e.g. Acts 2:4, compared with 11, and here as compared with ch. 12:30, is one of the strongest proofs that λαλεῖνγλώσσαις is to speak in languages: see note on Acts 2:4. Of men (generic) and of angels (generic): i.e. ‘ of all men and all angels,’ whatever those tongues may be. ἀγάπην ] Love to all, in its most general sense, as throughout the chapter: no distinction being here drawn between love to man and to God, but the general principle dealt with, from which both spring. The ‘ Caritas’ of the Latin versions has occasioned the rendering ‘ charity’ in most modern versions. Of this word Stanley remarks, “ the limitation of its meaning on the one hand to mere almsgiving, or on the other to mere toleration, has so much narrowed its sense, that the simpler term ‘ Love,’ though too general exactly to meet the case, is now the best equivalent.” γέγονα ] I am become; the case supposed is regarded as present: ‘ if I can speak … I am become.’ χαλκ . ἠχ .] Brass, of any kind, struck and yielding a sound: i.e. ἀναίσθητόντικ . ἄψυχον . Chrys, No particular musical instrument seems to be meant. κύμβαλον ] κύμβαλαἦνπλατέακ . μεγάλαχάλκεα , Jos. Antt. vii. 12. 3. The Heb. name is most expressive, צ ֶ ל ְ צ ְ ל ִ י ם . There appear to have been two sorts, mentioned in Psalms 150:5, צ ִ ל ְ צ ִ ל ֵ י ש ׁ ֶ מ ַ ע and צ ״ ת ר ו ּ ע ָ ה , rendered by the LXX, κυμβάλοιςεὐήχοις — and κ . ἀλαλαγμοῦ , as here. Winer thinks the former answered to our castagnettes, the latter to our cymbals. The larger kind would be here meant. See Winer, Realw. art. ‘ Becken.’ ἀλαλάζον ] see Psa_150 cited above. 2. τὰμυστήρ . πάντα are all the secrets of the divine counsel,— see Romans 11:25 (note); 16:25,— and reff. The knowledge of these would be the perfection of the gift of prophecy. The verb belongs to both μυστ . and γνῶσιν . The full construction would be εἰδῶμυστ . and ἔχωγνῶσιν . πᾶσαντὴνπίστιν hardly, as Stanley, implies ‘ all the faith in the world,’ but rather, ‘ all the faith required to,’ &c.: or perhaps the art. conveys the allusion to our Lord’ s saying, Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21: ‘ all that faith,’ so as, &c. 3. The double accus. after ψωμίζω is found in the reff. to LXX: but here the accus. of the person is omitted, and left to be supplied from the context: If I bestow in food all my substance. See the quotation from Coleridge in Stanley’ s note. παραδ . τὸσῶμ . μ . ἵνακαυθ .] So ref. Dan., καὶπαρέδωκαντὰσώματααὐτῶνεἰςἐμπυρισμόν , LXX. Theod.: see also 2 Macc. 7:37. He evidently means in self-sacrifice: for country, or friends. Both the deeds mentioned in this verse are such as ordinarily are held to be the fruits of love, but they may be done without it, and if so, are worthless. Stanley prefers καυχήσωμαι — and Lachmann has edited it. The objections to it seem to me to be, (1) It leaves παραδῶ standing in a very vague and undefined meaning— “ deliver, to what?” (2) It introduces an irrelevant and confusing element, a boastful motive, into a set of hypotheses which put forward merely an act or set of acts on the one side, and the absence of love on the other: and indeed, worse still, (3) it makes an hypothesis which would reduce the self-sacrifice to nothing, and would imply the absence of love; and so would render ἀγάπηνδὲμὴἔχω unnecessary. 4-7. The blessed attributes of love. 4. μακροθυμεῖ is the negative side, χρηστεύεται the positive, of a loving temper: the former, the withholding of anger; the latter, the exercise of kindness. οὐζηλοῖ , ‘ knows neither envy nor jealousy:’ both are included under the more general sense of ζῆλος . περπερεύεται ] The word occurs in Cicero ad Attic. i. 14: ‘ Di boni! quomodo ἐπερπερευσάμην novo auditori Pompeio!’ and Antonin. v. 5: ἀρεσκεύεσθαι , καὶπερπερεύεσθαι , κ . τοσαῦταῥιπτάζεσθαιτῇψυχῇ . Among the examples in Wetst. of πέρπερος and περπέρεια , is a good definition from Basil: τίἐστιτὸπερπερεύεσθαι ; πᾶνὃμὴδιὰχρείαν , ἀλλὰδιὰκαλλωπισμὸνπεριλαμβάνεταιπερπερείαςἔχεικατηγορίαν . And the Etymol. Mag.,— ἀντὶτοῦ , ματαιοῦται , ἀτακτεῖ , κατεπαίρεταιμετὰβλακείαςἐπαιρόμενος . The nearest English expression would perhaps be displays not itself. See Wetst. φυσ ., see, for a contrast, ch. 8:1. 5. οὐκἀσχημονεῖ seems to be general, without particular reference to the disorders in public speaking with tongues. τὰἑαυτῆς — Love is so personified, as here to he identified with the man possessing the grace, who does not seek τὰἑαυτοῦ : see ch. 10:33. οὐλογίζ . τὸκακόν ] imputeth not (the) evil: οὐδὲνπονηρὸνοὐμόνονοὐκατασκενάζειἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲὑποπτεύεικατὰτοῦφιλουμένου , Chrys. Hom. xxxiii. p. 304: and so Theod., Theophyl., Estius, Rü ckert, Meyer: and this is better and more accordant with the sense of λογίζεται , than the more general rendering ‘ thinketh no evil.’ And we must not overlook the article, which seems here to have the force of implying that the evil actually exists, ‘ the evil’ which is,— but Love does not impute it. So Theodoret, συγγινώσκειτοῖςἐπταισμένοις , οὐκἐπὶκακῷσκόπῳταῦταγεγενῆσθαιὑπολαμβάνων . 6. οὐχ . ἐπὶτῇἀδ .] rejoices not at (the) iniquity, i.e. at its commission by others,— as is the habit of the unloving world. συγχαίρειτῇἀλ .] Most Commentators, as the E. V., altogether overlook the force of the verb and the altered construction, and render, ‘ rejoiceth in the truth:’ others, who respect the verb, make τῇἀληθ . = τοῖςεὐδοκιμοῦσι (Chrys.), those to whom, as in 3 John 1:12, μεμαρτύρηταιὑπ ʼ αὐτῆςτῆςἀληθείας . But Meyer’ s rendering is the only one which preserves the force of both words: rejoices with the Truth, ἡἀλήθ . being personified, and meaning especially the spread among men of the Truth of the Gospel, and indeed of the truth in general,— in opposition to those who (ref. Rom.) τὴνἀλήθειανἐνἀδικίᾳκατέχουσι ,— who (ref. 2 Tim.) ἀνθίστανταιτῇἀληθείᾳ . 7. πάντα ,— i.e. all things which can be borne with a good conscience. So Bengel, of all four: ‘ videlicet, quæ tegenda vel credenda, quæ speranda et sufferenda sunt.’ στέγει ] bears: see note, ch. 9:12. Hammond, Estius, Bengel (above),— ‘ covers:’ but the variation in sense from ch. 9 is needless. πιστ .] viz. without suspicion of another. ἐλπίζ .] viz., even against hope— hoping what is good of another, even when others have ceased to do so. ὑπομ .] viz. persecutions and distresses inflicted by others, rather than shew an unloving spirit to them. 8-12. The eternal abiding of Love, when other graces have passed away. 8. πίπτει ] The exact word is that of the E. V., faileth: so Theod.: οὐδιασφάλλεται , ἀλλ ʼ ἀεὶμένειβεβαίακ . ἀσάλευτοςκ . ἀκίνητος , ἐςἀεὶδιαμένουσα . τοῦτογὰρδιὰτῶνἐπαγομένωνἐδίδαξεν . Of the two readings, we may illustrate πίπτει by Plato, Phileb., p. 22 e, ἀλλὰμήν , ὦΣώκρατες , ἔμοιγεδοκεῖνῦνμὲνἡδονήσοιπεπτωκέναικαθαπερεὶπληγεῖσαὑπὸτῶννῦνδὴλόγων : and Polyb. x. 33. 4, κἄνποτεπέσῃτὰὅλα , “ in case the whole plan should fail:” id. i. 35. 5: and ἐκπίπτει by Plato, Gorg. p. 517, εἰοὗτοιῥήτορεςἦσαν , οὔτετῇἀληθινῇῥητορικῇἐχρῶντοοὔτετῇκολακικῇ : where Heindorf,— ‘ proprie usurpatur de actoribus, citharœ dis, aliisque, qui a spectatoribus exploduntur et exsibilantur:’ and by the celebrated passage in Demosthenes περὶστεφ . p. 315,— ἐτριταγωνίστεις , ἐγὼδ ʼ ἐθεώρουν . ἐξέπιπτες , ἐγὼδ ʼ ἐσύριττον : where also, by the way, ἔπιπτες is a various reading. By εἴπε , εἴτε , εἴτε the general idea, χαρίσματα , is split into its species— be there prophesyings,— be there (speakings in) tongues,— be there knowledge. Chrys., al., understand the two first futures, καταργ ., παύς ., of the time when, the faith being every where dispersed, these gifts should be no longer needed. But unquestionably the time alluded to is that of the coming of the Lord; see ver. 12, and this applies to all these, not to the last only. The two first, προφ . and γλῶσσ ., shall be absolutely superseded:γνῶσις , relatively: the imperfect, by the perfect. 9, 10. Reason given;— that our knowledge, and our prophesying (utterance of divine things) are but partial, embracing but a part: but when that which is perfect (entire— universal) shall have come, this partial shall be abolished— superseded. See Ephesians 4:11-13, where the same idea is otherwise expressed. 11. Analogical illustration of ver. 10. νήπιος and τέλειος are used in contrast ch. 2:6-3:1; 14:20. ἐλάλουν , ἐφρόνουν , ἐλογιζόμην — I spoke, I [thought] (felt, was minded), I [reasoned (or] judged). There can hardly be an allusion, as Theophyl., Œ , Bengel, Olsh., al., think, to the three gifts, of tongues (ἐλάλ .), prophecy (ἐφρόν ., which suits but very lamely), and knowledge (ἐλογιζ .). ὅτεγέγ . κ .τ .λ .] Now that I am become a man, I have brought to an end the ways of a child: not, as E. V., ‘ when I became a man, I put away … ,’ as if it were done on a set day, and as if γέγ . and κατήργ . were aorists. For this use of ὅτε , cf. Demosth. Olynth. 1, init. ὅτετοίνυνταῦθ ʼ οὕτωςἔχει , προσήκειπροθύμωςἐθέλεινἀκούειν : see Kü hner, § 813. 2. 12. Contrast between our present sight and knowledge,— and those in the future perfect state. γάρ justifies the analogy of the former verse: for it is just so with us. ἄρτι , in our present condition, until the Lord’ s coming. δι ʼ ἐσόπτρου , through a mirror: i.e. as Billroth, Meyer, and De W.— according to the popular illusion, which regards the object, really seen behind the mirror, as seen through it. We must think, not of our mirrors of glass, but of the imperfectly-reflecting metallic mirrors of the ancients. The idea of the lapis specularis, placed in windows, being meant, adopted by Schö ttgen from Rabbinical usage (e.g. ‘ omnes prophetæ viderunt per specular obscurum, et Moses doctor noster vidit per specular lucidum’ (Wetst.): and see numerous examples in his Hor. Hebr. i. 646 ff.), and followed by many Commentators, is inconsistent with the usage of ἕσοπτρον , which (Meyer) is always a mirror (Pind. Nem, vii. 20: Anacr. xi. 2; xx. 5. Lucian, Amor. xliv. 48: see also reff.): the window of lapis specularis being δίοπτρα (Strabo, xii. 2, p. 540). ἐναἰνίγματι ] There is a reference to ref. Num., στόμακατὰστόμαλαλήσωαὐπῷἐνεἴδει , καὶοὐδι ʼ αἰνιγμάτων . Many take the words adverbially,— ‘ enigmatically’ (so E. V., ‘ darkly’ [and so we are almost obliged to do in an English version]): but this cannot be [the strict rendering], because αἴνιγμα is objective, not subjective: ‘ a dark hint given by words.’ I agree with Meyer, notwithstanding De Wette’ s strong objections, in believing ἐναἰνίγματι to mean ‘ in a dark discourse,’ viz. the revealed word, which is dark, by comparison with our future perfect knowledge. So also Luther: in einem bunteln Wort. Thus, as observes, ἐν will denote, as ἐντῷκρυπτῷ , Matthew 6:4, the local department, in which the βλέπειν takes place. τότε = ὅτανἔλθῃτὸτέλειον , ver. 10: ‘ at the Lord’ s coming, and after.’ πρόσωπ . πρὸςπρόσωπ .] Face towards face, i.e. by immediate intuition: so Heb. in reff. I shall thoroughly know even as I was (during this life: he places himself in that state, and uses the aor. as of a thing gone by) thoroughly known. In this life we are known by God, rather than know Him: see Galatians 4:9; ch. 8:3, note,— and cf. Philo de Cherub. 32, vol. i. p. 159, νῦνὅτεζῶμεν , κρατούμεθαμᾶλλονἢἄρχομεν , κ . γνωριζόμεθαμᾶλλονἢγνωρίζομεν . The sense of this aor. ἐπεγνώσθην must not be forced, as in E. V., to a present, or to a future, as by some Commentators. 13. Superiority of Love to the other great Christian graces. Some gifts shall pass away— but these three great graces shall remain for ever— faith, hope, love. This is necessarily the meaning,— and not that love alone shall abide for ever, and the other two merely during the present state. For (1) νυνὶδέ is not ‘ but now,’ i.e. in this present state, as opposed to what has just been said ver. 12,— but ‘ rebus sic stantibus,’ ‘ quæ cum ita sint,’ — and the inference from it just the contrary of that implied in the other rendering: viz. that since tongues, prophesyings, knowledge, will all pass away, we have left but these three. (2) From the position of μένει , it has a strong emphasis, and carries the weight of the clause, as opposed to the previously-mentioned things which καταργηθήσεται . (3) From τὰτρίαταῦτα , a pre-eminence is obviously pointed out for faith, hope, and love, distinct from aught which has gone before. This being the plain sense of the words, how can faith and hope be said to endure to eternity, when faith will be lost in sight, and hope in fruition? With hope, there is but little difficulty: but one place has inscribed over its portals, “ Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’ entrate.” New glories, new treasures of knowledge and of love, will ever raise, and nourish, blessed hopes of yet more and higher,— hopes which no disappointment will blight. But how can faith abide,— faith, which is the evidence of things not seen,— where all things once believed are seen? In the form of holy confidence and trust, faith will abide even there. The stay of all conscious created being, human or angelic, is dependence on God; and where the faith which comes by hearing is out of the question, the faith which consists in trusting will be the only faith possible. Thus Hope will remain, as anticipation certain to be fulfilled: Faith will remain, as trust, entire and undoubting:— the anchor of the soul, even where no tempest comes. See this expanded and further vindicated in my Quebec Chapel Sermons, Vol. i. Serm. viii. μείζωντ .] The greater of these,— not ‘ greater than these.’ “ The greater,” as De Wette beautifully remarks, “ because it contains in itself the root of the other two: we believe only one whom we love,— we hope only that which we love.” And thus the forms of Faith and Hope which will there for ever subsist, will be sustained in, and overshadowed by, the all-pervading superior element of eternal Love. Chap. 14:1-25. Demonstration of the superiority of the gift of prophecy over that of speaking with tongues. 1. Transition from the parenthetical matter of the last chapter to the subject about to be resumed. Pursue after Love (let it be your great aim,— important and enduring as that grace has been shewn to be): meantime however (during that pursuit; making that the first thing, take up this as a second) strive for spiritual gifts [see note on ch. 12:1], but more (more than πν . in general: i.e. more for this than for others[; chiefly]) that ye may prophesy . 2-20. Prophecy edifies the brethren more than speaking with tongues. 2. For he that speaks in a tongue, speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him (so ἀκούω in reff. and ix. p. 382, ἔλεγενῥήματαἃοὐδὲεἷςἤκουσενἄν , i.e. as a general rule, the assembly do not understand him; some, who have the gift of interpretation of tongues, may,— but they are the exception), but in the spirit (in his spirit, as opposed to in his understanding: his spirit is the organ of the Holy Ghost, but his understanding is unfruitful, see vv. 14, 15) he speaks mysteries (things which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from himself): 3. but (on the other hand) he who prophesies, speaks to men edification (genus) and (species) exhortation and (species) consolation. See the definition of prophecy given on ch. 12:10: and Stanley’ s excursus introductory to this chapter. παραμυθία occurs Plato, Axioch. p. 365,— ἀσθενῆτὴνψυχήν , πάνυἐνδεᾶπαραμυθίας : and Æ lian, V. H. xii. 1, fin., παρεμυθήσατοἈρταξέρξην , κ . τὸτῆςλύπηςἰάσατοπάθος , εἴξαντοςτοῦβας . τῇκηδεμονίᾳ , κ . τῇπαραμυθίᾳπεισθέντοςσυνετῶς . 4. ἑαυτ . οἰκ . does not necessarily involve his understanding what he speaks: the exercise of the gift in accordance with the prompting of the Spirit may be regarded as an οἰκοδομή : the intensity of the feeling of prayer or praise in which he utters the words is edifying to him, though the words themselves are unintelligible. This view is necessary on account of what is said in ver. 5, that if he can interpret, he can edify not only himself but the church. ἐκκλησίαν ] [i.e. the assembled Christians: see note on ch. 11:18] not, as Meyer, a congregation, but = τὴνἐκκλησίαν : the art. being often omitted when a noun in government has an emphatic place before the verb: accordingly in ver. 5, it is ἡἐκκλ . which is edified. 5. He shews that it is from no antipathy to or jealousy of the gift of tongues that he thus speaks: but that he wished them all to speak with tongues, but rather that they should prophesy. The distinction between the acc. and inf. after θέλω , as the simple direct object of the wish, and ἵνα with the subj., as its higher and ulterior object, has been lost in the E. V. The second δέ is opposed to the subordinate λαλ . γλ ., as in ver. 1 to τὰπνευματικά . μείζωνδέ ] δέ is transitional. μείζων ] see reff.,— superior in usefulness, and therefore in dignity. ἐκτὸςεἰμή is a mixture of two constructions, ἐκτὸςεἰ , and εἰμή . It is not a Hebraism, as Grot, supposes; Wetst. gives examples from Demosth., Aristides, Lucian, Sextus Empiricus: and from Thom. Mag., φαμέν , ἐκτὸςεἰμὴτόδε , καὶἐκτὸςεἰτόδε . διερμηνεύῃ ] viz. ὁλαλῶνγλώσσῃ , not τις , as suggested by Flatt. On the subj. with εἰ , giving a sense not distinguishable from the ind., see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 2 end, and Herm., on Soph. 706. 6. Example of the unprofitableness of speaking with tongues without interpreting,— expressed in the first person as of himself. νῦνδέ ] ‘ quod cum ita sit’ — viz. that there is no edification without interpretation. ἐὰνἔλθω ] Chrys. understands the first person to imply ‘ not even I myself should profit you,’ &c. But then αὐτὸςἐγώ or some expression similarly emphatic would have been used. The second ἐάν is parallel to the first, not dependent on ὠφελήσω . It is the negative side of the supposition, as ἐὰνἔλθωκ .τ .λ . was the affirmative. On this double apodosis Hermann remarks, Soph. Aj. 827,— ‘ Est enim hæ c verborum complexio ex eo genere, cujus jam apud Homerum exempla inveniuntur, quod duplicem habet apodosin, alteram præ missam, sequentem alteram: quæ ratio ibi maxime apta est, ubi in magno animi motu, quasi non satis sit id quod præ missum est, aliud infertur secunda apodosi, quod gravius sit et fortius.’ ἢἐνἀποκ … ] It seems best here, with Estius, to understand ‘ duo juga, ut conjugata sint revelatio et prophetia, ac rursus conjugata scientia et doctrina.’ So also Meyer, who observes that the ground of προφητεία is ἀποκάλυψις , and that of διδαχή , γνῶσις : the former being a direct speaking in the Spirit, and the latter a laying forth by the aid of the Spirit of knowledge acquired. Thus ἐν , as referred to ἀποκ . and γνώς ., denotes the internal element:— as referred to προφ . and διδ ., the external element, of the spiritual activity. 7-11. Instances to shew that unintelligible discourse profits nothing. And first,— 7-9. from musical instruments. 7. ὅμως occurs here and in the two other places where it is used in the N. T. (reff.) at the beginning of the sentence, out of its logical order, which would be before ἐὰνδιαστολὴν … , thus: Things without life which yield sound, whether flute or harp, yet, if they do not, &c. The renderings, ‘ even things without life’ (E. V.), or ‘ things which, though without life, yet give sound’ (Winer, edn. 6, § 61. 5. f.), are inadmissible,— the former because of the usage of ὅμως the latter because no such idea as any surprise at a thing without life yielding sound is here in place. φων . διδ .] so δίδουφωνάν Pind. Nem. 5:93. ἐὰνδιαστ .] If they (the ἄψυχαφ . δ .) shall not have yielded a distinction (of musical intervals) in their tones, how shall be known that which is being played on the flute or that which is being played on the harp (i.e. what tune is played in either case: the art. being repeated to shew that two distinct instances are contemplated, not necessarily ‘ one tune, either piped, or harped’ = τὸαὐλούμενονἢκιθαριζόμενον ;)? The observation of Meyer, that this example is decisive against foreign languages being spoken in the exercise of this gift, is shewn to be irrelevant by the next example, from which the contrary might be argued— the ἄδηλοςφωνή of the trumpet being exactly analogous to an unknown language, not to an inarticulate sound. But the fact is that all such inferences, from pressing analogies close, are insecure. 8. ἄδηλον , uncertain, in its meaning: for a particular succession of notes of the trumpet then, as now, gave the signals for attack, and retreat, and the various evolutions of an army. The giving the signal for battle with the trumpet is called by Dio Cassius τὸπολεμικὰνβοᾷν , by Æ lian τὸπαρορμητικὸνἐμπνεῖν : see Wetst., where many examples are to be found. 9. Application of these instances. διὰτ . γλώσσης is most naturally understood physically, by means of your tongue, as answering to the utterance of the sound by the musical instruments. But the technical rendering, by means of the tongue , is allowable. ἔσεσθε … λαλ .] This periphrasis of the future implies, ye will be, so long as ye speak, speaking, … On εἰςἀέρα , see ref.: it implies the non-reception by hearers of what is said. 10, 11. Another example of the unprofitableness of an utterance not understood. 10. εἰτύχοι , if it should so happen, i.e. peradventure:— it is commonly found with numerical nouns; but sometimes with hypothetical sentences in general, as in ch. 15:37. See reff. and examples in Wetst. It will not bear the rendering ‘ for example,’ though in meaning it nearly approaches it. It belongs here to τοσαῦτα , itself representing some fixed number, but not assignable by the information which the writer possesses, or not worth assigning. See similar expressions, Acts 5:8,— and 2 Samuel 12:8 in E. V. γένηφωνῶν ] kinds of languages: the more precise expression would be γένηφωνῆς or φωναί : we can hardly say, with Meyer, that each language is a γένοςφωνῶν . The use of φωνῶν , and not γλωσσῶν , is no doubt intentional, to avoid confusion, γλῶσσα being for the most part used in this passage in a peculiar meaning: but no argument can he grounded on it as to the γλῶσσαι being languages or not. εἰσίν (plur.), because it is wished to distinguish them in their variety. οὐδέν , scil. γένος Bleek renders, ‘ no rational animal is without speech;’ and Grot., reading as the rec. αὐτῶν , understands it as referring to men: others supply ἔθνος to οὐδέν . But the common rendering is both simpler, and better sense: none of them is without signification, as E. V.: or, is inarticulate. 11. οὖν , seeing that none is without meaning: for if any were, the imputations following would not be just. We assume that a tongue which we do not understand has a meaning, and that it is the way of expression of some foreign nation. βάρβαρος ,— a foreigner, in the sense of one who is ignorant of the speech and habits of a people. So Ovid, Trist. v. 10,— ‘ Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli:’ and Herod. ii. 158,— βαρβάρουςδὲπάνταςοἱΑἰγύπτιοικαλέουσιτοὺςμήσφισιὁμογλώσσους . (Wetst.) The appellation always conveyed a certain contempt, and such is evidently intended here. So Ovid, in the next line,— ‘ Et rident stolidi verba Latina Getæ .’ ἐνἐμοί , in my estimation: so Eurip. Hippol. 1335, σὺδ ʼ ἔντ ʼ ἐκείνῳκἂνἐμοὶφαίνῃκακός ,— ‘ in his judgment and in mine:’ see Kü hner, ii. 275. 12. Application of the analogy, as in ver. 9. The οὕτως is evidently meant as in ver. 9, but is rendered somewhat difficult by the change of the construction into a direct exhortation. It is best therefore to suppose an ellipsis; and give to οὕτως the pregnant meaning, after the lesson conveyed by this example. Meyer’ s rendering, since in such a manner (i.e. so as to be barbarians to one another) ye also are emulous, &c., is very harsh, besides making the second clause, standing as it does without a μᾶλλον or any disjunctive particle, mean (and I do not see that it will bear any other meaning), seek this βαρβαροφωνία to the edifying of the Church. Thus likewise ye (i.e. after the example of people who would not wish to be barbarians to one another,— avoiding the absurdity just mentioned), emulous as ye are of spiritual gifts (reff.), seek them to the edifying of the church, that ye may abound: or perhaps (but I can find no instance of ζητῶἵνα thus used: ch. 4:2 is no case in point, see note there) as in E. V. ‘ seek that ye may excel (abound in them) to the edifying of the church.’ 13. Hortatory inference from the foregoing examples. There is some difficulty in the construction of this verse. προσευχ . ἵναδιερμ . is rendered by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calv., Grot., Estius, Wetst., Bleek, Rü ckert, Olsh., al., ‘ pray that he may interpret.’ But the next verse shews that this is untenable. For the act of προσεύχεσθαιγλώσσῃ is there introduced in strict logical connexion with this verse, so as to shew that the προσευχέσθω here must have the same meaning as there, viz., that of praying in a tongue, openly in the church. Seeing this, Luther, Rosenm., al., render it, ‘ let.… so pray, that he may interpret:’ i.e. ‘ not pray, unless he can interpret.’ But this rendering of ἵνα is hardly allowable even where οὕτω is expressed, see note on ch. 9:24. The knot of the difficulty lies in the relation of ἵνα to verbs of this kind. It may be doubted whether in such expressions as προσεύχεσθαιἵνα (see reff.), the conj. ever represents the mere purport of the prayer, as in our “ to pray, that.” The idea of purpose is inseparably bound up in this particle, and can be traced wherever it is used. Thus προσεύχ . ἵνα seems always to convey the meaning, “ to pray, in order that.” At the same time, prayer being a direct seeking of the fulfilment of the purpose on account of which we pray,— not, like many other actions, indirectly connected with it,— the purport and purpose become compounded in the expression. This will be illustrated by γρηγορεῖτεκ . προσεύχεσθε , ἵναμὴεἰσέλθητεεἰςπειρασμόν : where it is plain enough that ἵναμή represents the ulterior object of γρηγορεῖτε and, now that it is joined with γρηγορεῖτε , of προσεύχεσθε ; but had it been merely, προσεύχεσθεἵναμὴκ .τ .λ ., the above confusion would have occurred. Now this confusion it is, which makes the words προσευχέσθωἵναδιερμηνεύῃ so difficult. Obviously, the προσευχέσθω is not merely used to express a seeking by prayer of the gift of interpretation, on account of the sense in the next verse: but as plainly, there is in προσευχέσθω a sense which passes on to ἵναδιερμηνεύῃ . The rendering of Meyer and De Wette, ‘ pray, with a view to interpret (what he has spoken in a tongue),’ is unobjectionable, but does not give any reason for the choice of προσευχέσθω , any more than εὐχαριστείτω , or the like. I believe the true rendering to be pointed out by the distinction in the next verse. If a man prays in a tongue, his spirit prays, but his understanding is barren. This prayer of his spirit is, the intense direction of his will and affections to God, accompanied by the utterance of sounds to him unintelligible. ‘ Let then him who speaks with a tongue, pray, when he does pray, with an earnest striving (in this prayer of his spirit) after the gift of interpretation.’ The meaning might be more strictly given thus in English: wherefore let him who speaketh with a tongue, in his prayer (or, when praying), strive that he may interpret. 14. This verse has been explained above. It justifies the necessity of thus aiming at the gift of interpretation. τὸπν . μου , not as in ver. 32, and Chrys. (Hom. xxxv. p. 325) τὸχάρισματὸδοθένμοικαὶκινοῦντὴνγλῶσσαν ,— but as in reff., my (own) spirit, taking himself as an example, as above, ver. 6: a use of the word familiar to our Apostle, and here necessary on account of ὁνοῦςμου following, ‘ When I pray in a tongue, my higher being, my spirit, filled with the Holy Ghost, is inflamed with holy desires, and rapt in prayer: but my intellectual part, having no matter before it on which its powers can be exercised, bears no fruit to the edification of others (nor of myself:’ but this is not expressed in ἄκαρπος ; cf. the usage of καρπός by Paul,— Romans 1:13; Romans 6:21, Romans 6:22; Romans 15:28; Galatians 5:22, al.). 15. What then is (the case) I will pray (on the reading προσεύξωμαι , see note on Romans 5:1) with the (my) spirit: I will pray also with my mind (i.e. will interpret my prayer for the benefit of myself and the church), &c. This resolution, or expression of self-obligation, evidently leads to the inference, by and by clearly expressed, ver. 28, that if he could not pray τῷνοΐ , he would keep silence. ψαλῶ ] hence we gather that the two departments in which the gift of tongues was exercised were prayer and praise. On the day of Pentecost it was confined to the latter of these. 16. The discourse changes from the first person to the second, as De W. observes, because the hypothesis contains an imputation of folly or error. ἐὰνεὐλ ] if thou Shalt have blessed in spirit (no art. now: the dat. is now merely of the manner in which, the element; not of the specific instrument, as in the last verse), how shall he that fills (i.e. is in) the situation of a private man (ἰδιώτης in speaking of any business or trade, signifies a lay person, i.e. one unacquainted with it as his employment. Thus in state matters, it is one out of office— Δημοσθένειὄντιἰδιώτῃ , Thuc. iv. 2; in philosophy, one uneducated and rude— ἡμεῖςμὴνοἱἰδιῶταιοὐδεδοίκαμεν , ὑμεῖςδὲοἱφιλόσοφοιδειλιᾶτε , Diog. Laert. Aristipp. ii. 71, &c. &c. See examples in Wetst. So here it is, one who has not the gift of speaking and interpreting. The word τόπον is not to be taken literally, as if the ἰδιῶται had any Separate seats in the congregation: the expression, as in ref. is figurative) say the Amen ; Nehemiah 8:6. From the synagogue,— on which see Wetst., Schö ttg. in loc., Winer, Realw., art. Synagogen, and Philo, Fragm. vol. ii. p. 630— συνεδρεύουσι … οἱμὲνπολλοὶσιωπῇ , πλὴνεἴτιπροσεπιφημίσαιτοῖςἀναγινωσκομένοιςνομίζεται ,— it passed into the Christian church; so Justin Mart. Apol. i. 65, p. 82, οὗσυντελέσαντοςτὰςεὐχὰςκαὶτὴνεὐχαριστίαν , πᾶςὁπαρὼνλαὸςπανευφημεῖλέγων , ἀμήν . See Suicer, sub voc. and Stanley’ s note here) to (at the end of) thy thanksgiving, since what thou sayest he knows not? This is, as Doddridge has remarked, decisive against the practice of praying and praising in an unknown tongue, as ridiculously practised in the church of Rome. 17. καλῶς is not ironical, but concessive: it is not the act of thanksgiving in a tongue that the Apostle blames, for that is of itself good, being dictated by the Spirit: but the doing it not to the edification of others. ὁἕτερος , the ἰδιώτης spoken of before. 18, 19. Declaration of his own feeling on the matter, highly endowed as he was with the gift. I thank God, I speak with a tongue (have the gift of speaking with tongues) more than you all. This juxtaposition of two clauses, between which ‘ that’ is to be supplied in the sense, is not unusual: βούλεισκοπῶμεν : ‘ fac videas,’ — Eur. Hippol. 567, ἐπίσχετ ʼ , αὐδὴντῶνἔσωθενἐκμάθω . Hom. Od. β . 195, Τηλεμάχῳδ ʼ ἐνπᾶσινἐγὼνὑποθήσομαιαὐτός , Μητέραἣνἐςπατρὸςἀνωγέτωἀπονέεσθαι . See Hartung, Partikell. ii. p. 134. 19. ἐκἐκκλησίᾳ , in (the) assembly, ‘ in the congregation’ [this is the better rendering here, and wherever there is a chance of the word church being mistaken as meaning a building],— not ‘ in an assembly,’ as Meyer. The art. is omitted after a preposition: so Middleton, ch. vi. § 1; the logical account of which is, that the prep. serves to categorize the substantive following it, and so make it general instead of particular. οέλω … , ἤ , as βούλομαι , ἤ , 11. α . 117: similarly ἐπιθυμέω , ζητέω ,— see Hartung, ii. p. 72. διὰτοῦνοός has probably been a correction, because λαλεῖντῷνοΐ was found harsh, the understanding being only the indirect instrument. 20. With this exhortation he concludes this part of his argument, in which he reproves the folly of displaying and being anxious for a gift in which there was no edification. ‘ ἀδελφοί ‘ suavem vim habet,’ Bengel. ταῖςφρεσίν , in your understandings, as this preference shews you to be. τῇκακίᾳ — dat. of reference, as regards vice: see Winer, edn. 6, § 31.6. 21-25. By a citation from the O. T. he takes occasion to shew that tongues are a sign to the unbelieving only: and that even for them they are profitless in comparison with prophecy. 21. έντῷνόμῳ , as John 10:34; John 12:34; John 15:25;— where the Psalms are thus quoted. The passage stands in the LXX: διὰφαυλισμὸνχειλέων , διὰγλώσσηςἑτέραςὅτιλαλήσουσιτῷλαῷτούταῳ … κ . οὐκἠθέλησανἀκούειν . The context is thus: The scoffers in Jerusalem (see ver. 14) are introduced as scorning the simplicity of the divine commands, which were line upon line, precept upon precept, as if to children (vv. 9, 10). Jehovah threatens them that, since they would not hear these simple commands, He would speak to them by men of other tongues, viz. the Assyrians, their captors. Here as in many other cases, the historical sense is not so much considered, as the aptness of the expressions used for illustrating the matter in hand; viz. that belief would not be produced in the unbelieving by speaking to them in strange tongues. The ὅτι answers in the LXX to כ ּ ִ י , ‘ for;’ or ‘ yea verily,’ as Louth. It forms part of the citation, not of the text. ἐνἑτερ .] in (in the person of) men of other tongues: Heb. with another tongue;— and it is placed second. The Apostle personifies it and gives it the prominence. ἐνχ . ἑτ .] in (as speaking in, using as the organ of speech) lips of others (strangers, see reff.): Heb. in (by) stammerers of lip: Louth, with a stammering lip. τῷλαῷτούτῳ ] in Isa., the Israelites: here taken generally for the unbelieving world. οὐδ ʼ οὕτωςεἰσακούσ .] This is the point of the passage for St. Paul’ s argument: see ver. 23:— “ for them, and not for us: but even for them, profitless in the main:” — not even under such circumstances will they listen to me: even this sign will be for them ineffectual. 22. ὥστε ,— viz. according to the words of the foregoing prophetic passage. αἱγλ .] the tongues, in the then acceptation of the term. He is not interpreting the prophecy, nor alluding to the tongues there spoken of, but returns back to the subject in hand— the tongues about which his argument was concerned. εἰςσημ . εἰσίν ] are for a sign: but there is no emphasis on the words,— the meaning being much the same as if εἰςσημεῖον were omitted, and it stood ὥστεαἱγλ . εἰσὶνοὐτοῖςπ . Not seeing this, Commentators have differed widely about the meaning of σημεῖον . So Chrys. (Hom. xxxvi. p. 335): εἰςσημεῖον , τουτέστιν , εἰςἔκπληξιν :— Bengel: ‘ quo allecti auscultare debebant:’ — Calvin: ‘ linguæ , quatenus in signum datæ sunt:’ &c. &c. All dwelling on the word σημεῖου would introduce an element foreign to the argument, which is, that tongues are (a sign) for the unbelieving, not for the believing. οὐτ . πιστ .] not to men who believe, but to unbelievers, i.e. ‘ men who do not believe:’ not, as Neander, Billroth, Rü ckert, and in substance De Wette, ‘ men who will not believe:’ ἄπιστος must be kept to the same sense through this whole passage, and plainly by ver. 23 it is not one who will not believe, but an unbeliever open to conviction. The mistake has been occasioned by regarding those to whom the prophecy was directed, and interpreting Paul by Isaiah, instead of by himself. ἡδὲπροφ .] scil. ἐστίν , as Meyer, or εἰςσημ . ἐστίν , as De Wette: it seems to me to import little which we supply, seeing that εἰςσημ . is of so very slight weight in the preceding clause. If emphatic meaning had been attached to σημεῖον as belonging to αἱγλ ., we must not have supplied it here: but if it be a mere indifferent word, to be interpreted according to the sense in which αἱγλ . and ἡπροφ . were σημεῖα , there can be no objection to it here: and the uniformity of construction seems to require it. Both here and above, τοῖςἀπίστ . and the other are datives commodi— for, not ‘ to,’ the unbelieving. ἡπροφητεία was a sign to the unbelieving, see vv. 24, 25. Prophecy, i.e. inspired and intelligent exposition of the word and doctrine, was eminently for believers, but, as below, would be also profitable to unbelievers, furnishing a token that God was truly among his assembled servants. 23-25. Instances given of the operation of both on the ungifted or the unbeliever. 23. οὖν , following up the axiom just laid down, by supposing a case = if then.… The first case put answers to the former half of ver. 22: the second, to the latter. The supposition is this: that all the (Corinthian) church is assembled, and all its members speak with tongues (not in a tumultuary manner— that is not part of the present hypothesis, for if it were, it must apply equally to ver. 24, which it clearly cannot:— but that all have the gift, and are in turn exercising it):— then ἰδιῶται , ‘ plain believers,’ persons unacquainted with the gift and its exercise, come in. It is obvious that the hypothesis of all being assembled, and all having the gift, must not be pressed to infer that no such ἰδιώτης could be found: no one hypothesizes thus rigidly. If any will have it so, then, as Meyer, we may suppose the ἰδιῶται to come from another congregation: but the whole difficulty seems to me mere trifling. The ἰδ . plainly cannot be, as De W. maintains, an unbeliever, for his case is separately mentioned. Such plain men, or perhaps a company of unbelievers, have come in:— they have no understanding of what is going on: the γλῶσσαι sound to them an unmeaning jargon; and they come to the conclusion, ‘ These men are mad;’ just as men did infer, on the day of Pentecost, that the speakers were drunken. 24. But if all (see above) prophesy (i.e. intelligibly lay forth, in the power of the Spirit, the Christian word and doctrine) and there enter any (singular now, setting forth that this would be the effect in any case: plural before, to shew that however many there might be, not one could appreciate the gift) unbeliever or plain man , he is convicted by all (the inspired discourse penetrating, as below, into the depths of his heart,— by all, i.e. by each in turn), he is searched into by all (each inspired speaker opening to him his character), the hidden things of his heart become manifest (those things which he had never before seen are revealed,— his whole hitherto unrecognized personal character laid out. Instances of such revelations of a man to himself by powerful preaching have often occurred, even since the cessation of the prophetic gift): and thus (thus convicted, searched, revealed to himself:— in such a state of mind) having fallen on his face, he will worship God, announcing (by that his act, which is a public submission to the divine Power manifest among you: or, but not so well, aloud, by declaration of it in words) that of a truth (implying that previously he had regarded the presence of God among them as an idle tale; or, if a plain Christian, had not sufficiently realized it) God is among you (or in each of you: by His Spirit). In this last description the ἰδιώτης is thrown into the background, and (see above) the greater achievement of prophecy, the conviction and conversion of the ἄπιστος , is chiefly in view. “ For a similar effect of the disclosure of a man’ s secret self to himself, compare the fascination described as exercised by Socrates over his hearers by the ‘ conviction’ and ‘ judgment’ of his questions in the Athenian market-place. Grote’ s Hist. of Greece, viii. 609-611.” Stanley. 26-35. Regulations respecting the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assemblies. 26. The rule for all, proceeding on the fact of each having his gift to contribute when they come together: viz. that all things must be done with a view to edification. τίοὖνἐστιν ] See ver. 15. ὅτ . συν .] whenever ye happen to be assembling together: the present vividly describes each coming with his gift, eager to exercise it. ψαλμόν ] most probably a hymn of praise to sing in the power of the spirit, as did Miriam, Deborah, Symeon, &c. See ver. 15. διδαχήν ] an exposition of doctrine or moral teaching: belonging to the gift of prophecy, as indeed do also ψαλμ . and ἀποκάλ ., the latter being something revealed to him, to be prophetically uttered. γλῶσσαν ] a tongue, i.e. an act of speaking in tongues: see vv. 18, 22. ἑρμηνείαν ] See below, and ver. 5. πάντ . πρ . οἰκ . γιν .] The General rule, afterwards applied to the several gifts: and 27, 28. to the speaking with tongues. εἴτε begins the construction, but is not carried on, ver. 29, where προφῆταιδέ answers to it. 27. κατὰδύο (scil. let it take place), by two (at each time, i.e. in one assembly: not more than two or three might speak with tongues at each meeting) or at the most three, and by turn (one after another, not together): and let one (some one who has the gift,— and not more than one) interpret (what is said in the tongue). 28. But if there be not an interpreter , let him (the speaker in a tongue, see reff.) be silent in the church: but let him speak for himself and for God: i.e. in private, with only himself and God to witness it. Chrys. καθ ʼ ἑαυτὸνφθεγγέσθω : which Theophyl. enlarges to τουτέστινἀψοφητὶκαὶἠρέμακαθ ʼ ἑαυτόν : which does not seem to agree with λαλείτω , the speaking being essential to the exercise of the gift. 29-33. Similar regulations for prophecy. 29. δέ , transitional. δύοἢτρεῖς , viz. at one assemblings;— not together; this is plainly prohibited, ver. 30. There is no τὸπλεῖστον as in the other case, because he does not wish to seem as if he were limiting this most edifying of the gifts. οἱἄλλοι , scil. προφῆται ,— or perhaps, any person possessing the gift of διακρίσειςπνευμάτων , mentioned ch. 12:10 in immediate connexion with προφητεία . Such would exercise that gift, to determine whether the spirit was of God: see ch. 12:3; 1 John 4:1-3. 30. But if a revelation shall have been made to another (prophet) while sitting by, let the first (who was prophesying) hold his peace (give place to the other: but clearly, not as ejected by the second in any disorderly manner: probably, by being made aware of it and ceasing his discourse). The rendering of Grot., al., ‘ let him (the second) wait till the first has done speaking,’ q. d., ‘ let the first have left off,’ is ungrammatical. See also vv. 28, 34. 31, 32. He shews that the ὁπρῶτοςσιγάτω is no impossibility, but in their power to put into effect. For ye have the power one by one all to prophesy (i.e. you have power to bring about this result— you can be silent if you please), in order that all may learn and all may be exhorted (or, comforted): 32. and spirits of prophets (i.e. their own spirits, filled with the Holy Spirit: so Meyer, and rightly: not, as De Wette, the Spirit of God within each: and so ver. 12: the inspired spirit being regarded as a πνεῦμα in a peculiar sense— from God, or otherwise. See the distinction plainly made 1 John 4:2: ἐντούτῳγινώσκετετὸπνεῦματοῦθεοῦ . πᾶνπνεῦμακ .τ .λ . The omission of the art. generalizes the assertion, making it applicable to all genuine Christian prophets) are subject to prophets (i.e. to the men whose spirits they are. But very many Commentators, e.g. Theophyl. (alt.), Calvin, Estius, and more recently Bleek and Rü ckert, take προφήταις to signify other prophets— τὸἔνσοιχάρισμα , καὶἡἐνέργειατοῦἔνσοιπνεύματος , ὑποτάσσεταιτῷχαρίσματιτοῦἑτέρουτοῦκινηθέντοςεἰςτὸπροφητεύειν (Theophyl.). But the command ὁπρῶτοςσιγάτω would be superfluous, if his gift was in subjection to another). 33. Reason of the above regulations. The premiss, that the church is God’ s church, is suppressed. He is the God of peace, not confusion: therefore those assemblies which are His must be peacefully and orderly conducted. And this character of God is not one dependent for its truth on preconceived views of Him:— we have a proof of it wherever a church of the saints has been gathered together. ‘ In all the churches of the saints, God is a God of peace: let Him not among you be supposed to be a God of confusion.’ I am compelled to depart from the majority of modern critics of note, e.g. Lachmann, Tischendorf (Exo_7 [and 8]), Billroth, Meyer, De Wette, and to adhere to the common arrangement of this latter clause. My reason is, that taken as beginning the next paragraph, it is harsh beyond example, and superfluous, as anticipating the reason about to be given οὐγὰρκ .τ .λ . Besides which, it is more in accordance with St. Paul’ s style, to place the main subject of a new sentence first, see 1 Timothy 3:8, 1 Timothy 3:11, 1 Timothy 3:12; and we have an example of reference to general usage coming in last, in aid of other considerations, ch. 11:16: but it seems unnatural that it should be placed first in the very forefront of a matter on which he has so much to say. 34, 35. Regulatian prohibiting women to speak publicly in the church, and its grounds. If ὡς … ἁγίων be placed at the beginning of this sentence, we must not, as Lachm. absurdly does, put a comma before τῶνἁγίων , which would throw the emphasis on it and disturb the sense: and which besides would then be expressed ἁγίωνγυναῖκες , or even ἁγίωναἱγυναῖκες , but certainly not τῶνἁγίωναἱγυναῖκες . 34. ἀλλὰὑποτάσσεσθαι , scil. κελεύεταιαὐταῖς . The same construction where a second verb must be supplied from the context, occurs 1 Timothy 4:3. So Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 236, τὸνἄνδρ ʼ ἀπαυδῶτοῦτον … μήτ ʼ εἰσδέχεσθαιμήτεπροσφωνεῖντινα , ὠθεῖνδ ʼ ἀπ ʼ οἴκωνπάντας : Lucian, χάρωνἢἐπισκοποῦντες , line 49 from ,— σὲδὲκαὶαὐτὸνκωλύσειἐνεργεῖντὰτοῦθανάτουἔργα , καὶτὴνΠλούτωνοςἀρχὴνζημιοῦν . See other examples in Kü hner, § 852 k. ὁνόμος — ref. Their speaking in public would be of itself an act of independence; of teaching the assembly, and among others their own husbands. 35. This prohibits another kindred irregularity— their asking questions publicly. They might say in answer to the former σιγάτωσαν , ‘ But if we do not understand any thing, are we not to ask?’ The stress is on μαθεῖν . ἰδίους , confining them to their own husbands, to the exclusion of other men. αἰσχρόν ] See ref.: indecent, bringing deserved reproach. 36-40. General Conclusion: the unseemliness and absurdity of their pretending to originate customs unknown to other churches, as if the word of God first went forth from them: and the enforcement of his apostolic authority. Then, a summary in a few words of the purport of what he has said on the spiritual gifts, and a repetition, in another form, of the fundamental precept, ver. 26. 36. I cannot agree with Meyer in referring this only to the regulation concerning women which has preceded. It rather seems to refer to all the points of church custom which he has been noticing, and to be inseparably connected with what follows,— the recognition of his apostolic orders, as those of God. 37. πνευματικός , one spiritually endowed: not quite as in ch. 2:15. ἃγράφω ] the things which I am writing, viz. ‘ these regulations which I am now making.’ κυρίου , emphatic: the Lord’ s (commandment): carrying His authority. No more direct assertion of inspiration can be uttered than this. “ Paul stamps here the seal of apostolic authority: and on that seal is necessarily Christ.” Meyer. 38. ἀγνοείτω ] implying both the hopelessness of reclaiming such an one, and the little concern which his opposition gave the Apostle. The other reading, ἀγνοεῖται , gives a passable sense— ‘ he is ignored,’ scil. by God: cf. ch. 8:2, 3; 13:12; Galatians 4:9. 39. ζηλοῦτε and μὴκωλύετε express the different estimations in which he held the two gifts. 40. δέ , only provided, that.… κατὰτάξιν ] i.e. in right time, and due proportion.— Meyer compares Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 5, of the Essenes: οὔτεκραυγήποτετὸνοἶκονοὔτεθόρυβοςμολύνει , τὰςδὲλαλιὰςἐντάξειπαραχωροῦσινἀλλήλοις . See Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 293 f. Chap. 15. Of the Resurrection of the Dead; which some in the Corinthian church denied. For the enquiry, who they were that denied the Resurrection, see note on ver. 12. 1-11. The Apostle lays the foundation of his intended polemical argument in the historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ. But he does not altogether assume this fact. He deals with its evidence, in relating minutely the various appearances of the Lord after His Resurrection, to others, and to himself. Then, in ver. 12, the proclamation of Christ’ s Resurrection as the great fact attending the preaching of the gospel, is set against the denial of the Resurrection by some of them, and it is subsequently shewn that the two hang together, so that they who denied the one must be prepared to deny the other; and the consequences of this latter denial are pointed out. But it by no means follows, as De W. (in part) and Meyer have assumed, that the impugners were not prepared to deny the Resurrection of Christ. The Apostle writes not only for them, but for the rest of the Corinthian believers, shewing them the historical certainty, and vital importance of Christ’ s Resurrection, and its inseparable connexion with the doctrine which they were now tempted to deny. 1, 2. δέ transitional. γνωρίζω , not, as most Commentators, aft. Œ , οἷονὑπομιμνήσκω , nor as Rü ck., ‘ I direct your attention to’ (both which meanings are inadmissible, from the usage of the word: see reff.),— but as E. V. I declare: i.e. ‘ declare anew:’ not without some intimation of surprise and reproach to them. τὸεὐαγγ .] the (whole) Gospel: not merely the Death and Resurrection of Christ, which were ἐνπρώτοις parts of it; the reproach still continues; q. d. ‘ I am constrained to begin again, and declare to you the whole gospel which I preached to you.’ ὃκαὶπαρ .] The thrice repeated καί indicates a climax:— which ye also received (see especially ref. John), in which moreover ye stand, by means of which ye are even being saved (in the course of salvation). τίνιλόγ .] if ye hold fast, with what discourse (not, as Moulton supposes me to interpret (in his Winer, Gr. Gr. p. 211, note 2,) = the discourse with which) I preached to you: the clause τίνιλόγ . being prefixed for emphasis’ sake. λόγος , of the import, not the grounds of his preaching: for of this he reminds them below, not of the arguments. Some Commentators take τίνιλόγῳκ .τ .λ . as a mere epexegesis of εὐαγγέλιον ,— ‘ the gospel.… , with what discourse I preached to you,’ as οἶδάσε , τίςεἶ . But as Meyer has remarked, in that case,— (1) σώζεσθε and εἰκατέχετε being altogether severed from one another, εἰκατέχετε becomes the conditional clause to γνωρίζωὑμῖν , with which it has no logical connexion: (2) εἰκατέχετε would be inconsistent with ἐνᾧκαὶἑστήκατε , which would thus be an absolute assertion: (3) the words ἐκτὸςεἰμὴεἰκῆἐπιστ . would have to be referred as a second conditional clause to εἰκατέχετε (see below). ἐκτὸςεἰμὴεἰκῆἐπιστ .] The only chance, if you hold fast what I have taught you, of your missing salvation, is the hardly supposable one, that your faith is vain, and the gospel a fable; see ver. 14, of which this is an anticipation:— unless (perchance) ye believed (not as E. V. ‘ have believed,’ which confuses the idea: it is, ‘ became believers,’ see reff.) in vain (εἰςκενόν , as ver. 14). So Chrys., who remarks: νῦνμὲνὑπεσταλμένωςαὐτόφησι , προϊὼνδὲκαὶδιαθερμαινόμενος · γυμνῇλοιπὸντῇκεφαλῇβοᾷκαὶλέγειΕἰδὲχριστὸςοὐκἐγήγερται , κ .τ .λ ., ver. 14. Hom. xxxviii. p. 352. This explanation of the words appears to me the only tenable one. Meyer, and in the main De W., understand them of a vain and dead faith, which the Apostle will not suppose them to have. But surely if the previously expressed condition of κατέχετε were fulfilled, their faith could not be vain or dead; and again the aorist is against this interpretation: unless ye became believers in vain, not, ‘ unless your faith has been a vain one.’ A still further reason is, the parallelism of εἰκῆἐπιστεύσατε here and οὕτωςἐπιστεύσατε , ver. 11: leading to the inference that εἰκῆ here relates, not to the subjective insufficiency of their faith, but to the (hypothetical) objective nullity of that on which their faith was founded. Œ c., Theophyl., Theodoret, Luther, Calv., Estius, and De W. connect ἐκτὸςεἰμή (see above) as a second conditional clause to εἰκατέχετε , supplying between, κατέχετεδὲπάντως (Theophyl.): but this is arbitrary and unnatural. 3-11. A detail of the great facts preached to them, centering in the Resurrecton of Christ. 3. ἐνπρώτοις ] in primis, with relation not to order of time , but to importance . So Plato, Rep. vii. 6; p. 522: τοῦτοτὸκοινὸν .… ὃκαὶπαντὶἐνπρώτοιςἀνάγκημανθάνειν . ὃκαὶπαρέλαβον ] viz. (see ch. 11:23 and note) from the Lord himself, by special revelation. Before his conversion he may have known the bare fact of the death of Jesus, but the nature and reason of that Death he had to learn from revelation:— the Resurrection he regarded as a fable,— but revelation informed him of its reality, and its accordance with prophecy. On the following clauses, ‘ the earliest known specimen of what may be termed the creed of the early Church,’ see Stanley’ s notes, and [his] dissertation at the end of the section. ὑπὲρτ . ἁμ . ἡμ .] on behalf of our sins: viz. to atone for them. Meyer makes the important remark, that this use of ὑπέρ with τῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμ . shews, that when Paul uses it in speaking of Christ’ s sufferings with ἡμῶν only, he does not mean by it ‘ loco nostri.’ He also quotes from Buttmann (Index to Meidias, p. 188), on the distinction between ὑπέρ and περί : “ id unum interest, quod περί usu frequentissimo teritur, multo rarius usurpatur ὑπέρ , quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. præ p. de et super locum obtinet.” It may be noticed, that in 3 Kings 16:19, where it is said that Zimri ἀπέθανενὑπὲρτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτοῦὧνἐποίησεν , it is for his own sins, as their punishment, that he died. So that ὑπέρ may bear the meaning that Christ’ s death was the punishment of the sins of that our nature which he took upon Him. But its undoubtedly inclusive vicarious import in other passages where ὑπὲρἡμῶν and the like occur, seems to rule it to have that sense here also. κατὰτὰςγρ .] This applies to Christ’ s Death, Burial, and Resurrection on the third day: see reff. 4. ἐγήγερται ] the perfect marks the continuation of the state thus begun, or of its consequences: so Herod. vii. 8, ἀλλ ʼ ὁμὲντετελεύτηκε , καὶοὐκἐξεγένετόοἱτιμωρήσασθαι : see Kü hner, § 441. 6. 5. That the following appearances are related in chronological order, is evident from the use of the definite adverbs of sequence, εἶτα , ἔπειτα , ἔσχατονδὲπάντων . See examples in Wetstein. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. der vier Evv. pp. 420 f., attempts to disprove this, but certainly does not succeed in getting over ἔσχατονπάντων , ver. 8. ὤφθηΚηφᾷ ] See Luke 24:34. τοῖςδώδεκα ] used here popularly, as decemviri, and other like expressions, although the number was not full. The occasion referred to seems to be that in John 20:19 ff.; Luke 24:36 ff. Clearly we must not with Chrys., suppose Matthias to be included as possibly having seen Him after His ascension: for the appearance is evidently one and the same. 6. He drops the construction with ὅτι , dependent on παρέδωκα , and proceeds in a direct narration. But evidently the sense of the former construction continues: he is relating what he had received and preached to them. ἐπάνωπεντακ . ἀδ . ἐφάπ .] From Matthew 28:17, it appears (see note there) that others besides the eleven witnessed the appearance on the mountain in Galilee. But we cannot say that it is the appearance here referred to:— nor indeed is it likely that so many as 500 believers in Jesus would have been gathered together in Galilee: both from its position in the list, and from the number who witnessed it, this appearance would seem rather to have taken place at Jerusalem, and before the dispersion of the multitudes who had assembled at the passover: for we find that the church of Jerusalem itself (Acts 1:15) subsequently contained only 120 persons. ἐφάπαξ ] not here in its commoner meaning of ‘ once for all,’ but at once, at one and the same time; as Theodoret, οὐκαθ ʼ ἕνα , ἀλλ ʼ ὁμοῦπᾶσιν . μένουσιν ] survive; see reff. The circumstance of most of them remaining alive is mentioned apparently by way of strengthening the evidence: q. d. “ and can attest it, if required:” — hardly for the reason suggested by Stanley, that the dead among them would have been worse off even than others, if there were no resurrection, having been “ tantalised by the glimpse of another world in the vision of their risen Lord.” 7. Ἰακώβῳ ] Probably, from no distinguishing epithet being added, the celebrated James, the brother of the Lord: see Galatians 1:19. So Chrys.: ἐμοὶδοκεῖ , τῷἀδελφῷτῷἑαυτοῦ , p. 355. See notes on ch. 9:5, Matthew 13:55, and the Prolegg. to the Epistle of James. On Wieseler’ s view that this is the appearance on the road to Emmaus, see note on Luke 24:13. This appearance cannot however be identical with that traditional one quoted by Jerome (from the Gospel according to the Hebrews), Catal. Script. Eccles. ii. vol. ii. p. 831 f.: “ Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentem a mortuis.” This would imply that the appearance was very soon after the Resurrection, and before any of those to large collections of believers, in which James would naturally be present. ἀποστ . πᾶσιν ] This is decisive for the much wider use of the term ἀπόστολος than as applying to the Twelve only: and a strong presumption that James, just mentioned, and evidently here and Galatians 1:19, included among the ἀπόστολοι , was not one of the Twelve. Chrys. (ubi supra) extends the term to the Seventy of Luk_10 and others: ἦσανγὰρκαὶἄλλοιἀπόστολοι , ὡςοἱἑβδομήκοντα . 8. But last of all (not masc., as Meyer, who refers it to τῶνἀποστόλων ,— for others than the Apostles have already been mentioned,— but neut., as in ref. and in the expression πάντωνμάλιστα (Plato, Protag. p. 330)), as to the abortively born (τῷ pointing out the Apostles as a family, and himself as the abortion among them,— the one whose relation to the rest in point of worthiness, was as that of the immature and deformed child to the rest of the family. That this is the meaning is evident from ver. 9, which drops the figure. On ἔκτρωμα , see examples in Wetstein. It is not, as τινες in Theophyl., τὸὕστερονγέννημα , ‘ a weakling child of old age.’ The grammarians find fault with the term, and prefer ἄμβλωμα or ἐξάμβλωμα : but it occurs in Aristotle, de generatione animalium, iv. 5,— οὐδύναταιτελειοῦν , ἀλλὰκυήματ ʼ ἐκπίπτειπαραπλήσιατοῖςκαλουμένοιςἐκτρώμασιν . The suggestion of Valcknaer, al., that τῷ is τῳ for τινι , is equally inconsistent with usage and the sense of the passage), He appeared to me also: viz. on the road to Damascus. This, and this only, can here be meant; as he is speaking, not of a succession of visions, but of some one definite apparition. 9, 10. Digressive, explanatory of ἐκτρώματι . 9. ἐγώ ] The stress is on ἐγώ , ‘ I, and no other.’ ὅς ] ‘ ut qui:’ assigns the reason. ἱκανός ] see reff. καλεῖσθαι ] ‘ to bear the honourable name of an Apostle.’ 10. χάρ . δὲθεοῦ ] “ With the humiliating conviction of his own unworthiness is united the consciousness of that higher Power which worked on and in him,— and this introduces his chastened self-consciousness of the extent and success of his apostolic labours.” De Wette. The position of χάριτιδὲθεοῦ , and the repetition of ἡχάριςαὐτοῦ afterwards, shew the emphatic prominence which he assigns to the divine Grace. ὅεἰμι ] viz. in my office and its results. The church has admirably connected this passage, as Epistle for the 11th Sunday after Trinity, with that other speech of a Pharisee, Luke 18:11,— ὁθεός , εὐχαριστῶσοιὅτιοὐκεἰμὶὥσπεροἱλοιποὶτῶνἀνθρώπων : see note there. ἡεἰςἐμέ ] which was (manifested) towards me: see ref. and Romans 8:18. ἀλλά opposed to κενὴἐγ .,— ‘ by means of God’ s grace’ being understood after ἀλλά , as afterwards explained. περισσότερον ] adverbial, as in reff.: or perhaps neut. accus. governed by ἐκοπίασα . αὐτῶνπάντων ] either, ‘ than any of them,’ or ‘ than they all,’ scil. together. Meyer prefers the latter, on account of τοῖςἀπ . πᾶσιν , ver. 7. But it seems hardly necessary, and introduces an element of apparent exaggeration. ἐκοπίασα ] Spoken of his apostolic work, in all its branches; see reff., especially Phil. οὐκἐγὼδέ ] explanatory, to avoid misapprehension: it had been implied (see above) in the ἀλλά :— not I, however, but the Grace of God with me (see var. readd.): scil. ἐκοπίασενκ .τ .λ . That is,— the Grace of God worked with him in so overwhelming a measure, compared to his own working, that it was no longer the work of himself but of divine Grace. Augustine, de Grat. et Lib. Arb. § 5 (12), vol. x. p. 889, hardly expresses this: “ Non ego autem, i.e. non solus, sed gratia Dei mecum: ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo:” — for he overlooks the entire preponderance of Grace, which Paul asserts, even to the exclusion of his own action in the matter. The right view of this preponderance of Grace prevents the misunderstanding of the words which has led to the insertion of the article, ἡσὺνἐμοί , whereby Grace becomes absolutely the sole agent, which is contrary to fact. On the coagency of the human will with divine Grace, but in subordination, see Matthew 10:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20; 2 Corinthians 6:1, and ch. 3:9, note. 11. He resumes the subject after the digression respecting himself:— it matters not whether it were I or they (the other Apostles)— such is the purport of our preaching— such was your belief:— οὕτως , after this manner, viz. that Christ died, was buried, and rose again, as vv. 3, 4. 12-19. On the fact of Christ’ s Resurrection, announced in his preaching, and confessed in their belief, he grounds (negatively) the truth of the general Resurrection:— If the latter be not to happen, neither has the former happened:— and he urges the results of such a disproof of Christ’ s Resurrection. 12. introduces the argument for the resurrection, by referring to its denial among a portion of the Corinthian church. δέ belongs to the whole question, and is opposed to οὕτωςκηρ . and οὕτ . ἐπιστ . of the foregoing verse. The position of χριστός before the verb gives it the leading emphasis, as an example of that which is denied by some among you: But if Christ is preached [not subjunctive, be preached: he is arguing from a matter of fact, not from a mere hypothesis] that He is risen from the dead (if an instance of such resurrection is a fact announced in our preaching), how say some among you (how comes it to pass that some say) that a resurrection of the dead does not exist (οὐκἔστ . as ver. 13)? If the species be conceded, how is it that some among you deny the genus? τινες ] It is an interesting question, who these τινες were; and one which can only be answered by the indications which the argument in this chapter furnishes. (1) Were they Sadducees? If so, the Apostle would hardly have begun his argument with the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. And yet we must remember that he is arguing not with the deniers, but with those who being as yet sound, were liable to be misled by them. But the opposition between Sadduceism and Christianity was so complete, that we have little reason to think that any leaven of the Sadducees ever found its way into the church. (2) Were they Epicureans? Probably not, for two reasons: the Epicurean maxim, “ Let us eat and drink,” &c., is represented as a legitimate consequence) of adopting their denial of the resurrection, not as an accompaniment of, much less as the ground of it: and had the Epicurean element entered to any extent into the Corinthian church, we certainly should have had more notice of its exceedingly antichristian tenets. It is possible that the deniers may have been, or been in danger of being, corrupted by mixture with Epicureans without, from the warning of ver. 33. (3) Were they Jews? If not Sadducees, hardly Jews at all, or Judaizers: a strong tenet of Pharisaism was this very one of the Resurrection, see Acts 23:6: and we know of no tendency of Essenism which should produce such a denial. (4) They must then have been Gentile believers, inheriting the unwillingness of the Greek mind to receive that of which a full account could not be given, see vv. 35, 36: and probably of a philosophical and cavilling turn. Meyer argues, from the antimaterialistic turn of the Apostle’ s counter-arguments, vv. 35 ff.,— that the objections were antimaterialistic also: De W. infers the very opposite, which certainly seems to me more probable. No trace whatever is found in the argument of an allegorizing character in the opponents, as was that of Hymenæ us and Philetus, who maintained that the resurrection was past already, 2 Timothy 2:17, 2 Timothy 2:18,— as Olsh. after Grot. supposes. Whether the Apostle regarded the resurrection of the body as inseparably bound up with a future existence of the soul, does not very clearly appear in this chapter. From the use of the word ἀπώλοντο , ver. 18, which must refer, not to annihilation, but to perdition, it would seem that he admitted an independent existence of the soul; as also from Philippians 1:23. But from ver. 32, εἰνεκροὶοὐκἐγείρονται , φάγωμενκ . πίωμεν , αὔριονγὰρἀποθνήσκομεν , it would seem that the Apostle regarded the denial of the resurrection as involving that of the future state and judgment. On the question, to which of the (supposed) Corinthian parties the opponents belonged, I have nothing to say, not recognizing the divisions into the Pauline, Apollonian, Petrine, and Christine parties as having any historical foundation; see note on ch. 1:12. 13. δέ is the but argumentandi, frequent in mathematical demonstrations. ἀν . νεκ . οὐκἔστιν ] the words of the deniers. οὐδὲχριστ . ἐγήγερται ] This inference depends, as Grot. observes, on the maxim, “ Sublato genere tollitur et species;” the Resurrection of Christ being an instance of the rule, that dead men rise; inasmuch as He is man. This is enlarged on, vv. 20-22. 14. δέ , again introducing a new inference. οὐκἐγ .] Again repeating and using as matter of fact the inference of the last verse; q. d. εἰδὲχρ . οὐκ -ἐγήγερται . κενόν ] idle, ‘ empty,’ ‘ without result:’ placed first for emphasis. ἄρα ] then: ‘ rebus ita comparatis’ (Meyer). καί ] also, q. d. “ If Christ’ s Resurrection be gone, then also our faith is gone.” Without the copula δέ , the clause is much more forcible:— idle also is our preaching, idle also is your faith. Thus καί both times refers to the hypothesis, εἰχρ . οὐκἐγήγ . 15. Not to be joined with the former verse, as Lachm., al., and Meyer: for it does not depend on εἰδὲχρ . κ .τ .λ ., but has its reason given below. δὲκαί , moreover. ψευδ . τοῦθ .] false witnesses concerning God (gen. obj.), not ‘ belonging to God’ (gen. subj.), as Billroth: and false witnesses, as bearing false testimony (see below), not, as Knapp, as pretending to be witnesses, and not being:— there is no such distinction as Mü ller attempts to lay down (Diss. Exeget. de loco Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, cited by De Wette) between ψευδεῖςμάρτυρες , ‘ qui falsum testimonium dicunt,’ and ψευδομάρτυρες , ‘ qui mentiuntur se esse testes:’ see reff., and compare (De Wette) see reff., and compare (De Wette) ψευδοδιδάσκαλος , ψευδοκατήγορος . κατὰτοῦθεοῦ ] not, as commonly, and even Meyer, ‘ against God:’ but as E. V., of, or concerning God: see, besides ref., Plut. de Liberis Educandis, § 4:— ὃκατὰτῶντεχνῶνκ . τῶνἐπιστημῶνλέγεινεἰώθαμεν , ταὐτὸνκαὶκατὰτῆςἀρετῆςφατέονἐστίν . ὡςεἰςτὴνπαντελῆδικαιοπραγίαντρίαδεῖσυνδραμεῖν , φύσιν , κ . λόγον , κ . ἔθος . εἴπερἄρα ] If in reality, as they assert, … , compare Plato, Protag. p. 319 (§ 27), ἦκαλόν , ἦδ ʼ ἐγώ , τέχνημαἄρακέκτησαι , εἴπερκέκτησαι , and see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 343. 16. Repetition of the inference in ver. 13, for precision’ s sake. 17, 18. Repetition of the consequence already mentioned in ver. 14, but fuller, and with more reference to its present and future calamitous results. 17. ματαία ] from μάτην , and thus more directly pointing at the frustration of all on which faith relies as accomplished,— e.g. the removal of the guilt and power of sin;— and of all to which hope looks forward, e.g. bliss after death for those who die in Christ. This is so, because Christ’ s Resurrection accomplished our justification (Romans 4:25), and, through justification, our future bliss, even in the disembodied state (for that seems here to be treated of). 18. ἄρακαί ] then also. οἱκοιμ .] those who fell asleep in Christ, perished (i.e. passed into misery in Hades). He uses the aorists, speaking of the act of death, not of the continuing state: the act of falling asleep in Christ was to them ἀπώλεια . ἐνχρ ., in communion with, membership of Christ. On κοιμηθέντες Meyer quotes a beautiful sentence from Photius (Quæ st. Amphiloch. 168 (al. 187 or 197), vol. i. p. 861, Migne): ἐπὶμὲνοὖντοῦχριστοῦθάνατονκαλεῖ , ἵνατὸπάθοςπιστώσηται · ἐπὶδὲἡμῶνκοίμησιν , ἵνατὴνὀδύνηνπαραμυθήσηται . ἔνθαμὲνγὰρπαρεχώρησενἡἀνάστασις , θαῤῥῶνκαλεῖθάνατον . ἔνθαδὲἐνἐλπίσινἔτιμένει , κοίμησινκαλεῖ . 19. Assuming this ἀπώλεια of the dead in Christ, the state of Christians is indeed miserable. It has perhaps not been enough seen that there are here two emphases, and that μόνον belongs to the aggregate of both. According to the ordinary interpretation, ‘ If in this life only we have hope in Christ … ,’ it would be implied that in reality we shall have hope in Christ in another state also, which would not agree with the perfect ἠλπικότεςἐσμέν . The right arrangement of the Greek gives the key to the sentence: εἰμόνον ,— ‘ if all we have done is merely having hoped in Christ in this life,’ ‘ if it is there to end, and that hope have no result … ’ The perf. ἠλπικότεςἐσμ . implies the endurance of the hope through our lives. ἐλεειν . πάντ .] We are most to he pitied (most miserable) of all men; viz. because they, all other men, live at ease,— we on the contrary are ever exposed to danger and death: because our hope is more intense than that of all others, and leads us to forego more: and to be disappointed in it, would be the height of misery. 20-28. Reassertion of the truth that Christ is risen from the dead,— and prophetic exposition of the consequences of that great event. 20. νυνί , ‘ as matters now stand:’ see reff. [and note.] ἀπαρχ . τ . κεκοιμ .] (as) (the) first-fruit of them that sleep (anarthrous, because categorematical). For the construction Meyer compares Eur. Or. 1098: Ἑλένηνκτάνωμεν , Μενελέῳλύπηνπικράν . The sense is, ‘ Christ, in rising from the dead, is but the firstling or earnest of the resurrection of the whole number of those that sleep.’ There does not appear to be any intended reference to the legal ordinance of the first-fruits (Leviticus 23:10, Leviticus 23:11): but however general the application of the analogy may be, it can hardly fail to have been suggested to the mind of a Jew by the Levitical ordinances, especially as our Lord rose on the very morrow after the Paschal Sabbath, when (l. c.) the first-fruits were offered. τῶνκεκοιμημένων , from the logical connexion, should mean, not the dead in Christ, but all the dead; see next verse: but it is the Christian dead who are before the Apostle’ s mind, when he calls our risen Lord ἀπαρχὴτῶνκεκ . 21. Man the bringer-in both of death and life: explanation (not proof) of Christ being the ἀπαρχὴτ . κεκοιμ .: and (1) in that He is Man: it being necessary that the first-fruit should be as the lump. The verity lying at the root of this verse is, that by man only can general effects pervading the whole human race be introduced. δι ʼ ἀνθρώπου , sc. ἐστίν . 22. (2) In that He is (and here the fact of His being the Lord of Life and Righteousness, and the second and spiritual Head of our nature, is assumed) to us the bringer-in of Life, as Adam was the bringer-in of Death. ἐντῷἈδ ., ἐντῷχριστῷ ] in community with, as partakers in a common nature with, Adam and Christ: who are respectively the sources, to the whole of that nature , of death, and life, i.e. (here) physical death, and rescue from physical death. The practice of Paul to insulate the objects of his present attention from all ulterior considerations, must be carefully here borne in mind. The antithesis is merely between the bringing in of death by Adam, and of life (its opposite) by Christ. No consequence, whether on the side of death or of life, is brought into consideration. That death physical involved death eternal— that life eternal (in its only worthy sense) involves bliss eternal, is not so much as thought of, while the two great opposites, Death and Life, are under consideration. This has been missed by many Interpreters, and the reasoning thereby marred. But the ancients, Chrys., Theophyl., Theodoret, Œ cum., and Olsh., De Wette, and Meyer, keep to the universal reference. Theophylact’ s note is clear and striking: αἰτίανπροστίθησιδι ʼ ἧςπιστοῦταιτὰεἰρημένα · ἔδειγάρ , φησιν , αὐτὴννικῆσαιτὴνἡττηθεῖσανφύσιν , καὶτὸνκαταβληθέντα , αὐτὸνἐκνικῆσαι · καὶγὰρἐντῷἈδάμ , τουτέστιδιὰτὸτοῦἈδὰμπταῖσμα , πάντεςτῷθανάτῳὑπέπεσον · οὕτωςοὖνἐνχριστῷπάντεςἀναστήσονται · τουτέστιδιὰτὸεὑρεθῆναιτὸνχριστὸνἀναμάρτητονκ . ἀνένοχοντῷθανάτῳ , καὶἑκόνταμὲνἀποθανεῖν , ἀναστῆναιδέ , καθὸοὐκἦνδυνατὸναὐτὸνκρατεῖσθαιὑπὸτῆςφθορᾶς , τὸνἀρχηγὸντῆςξωῆς . See on the great antithesis, Romans 5:12 ff., and notes. 23. But in this universal Resurrection, all shall not hold the same rank. Chrys. rightly, εἶτα , ἵναμὴτὴνζωοποίησινκοινὴνἀκούδας , καὶτοὺςἁμαρτωλοὺςνομίσῃςσώζεσθαι , ἐπήγαγενἕκαστοςδὲκ .τ .λ . Hom. xxxix. p. 367. τάγμα is not order of priority, but rank, or ‘ troop in an army,’ so Plut., Otho, p. 1072 (Wetst.): λεγεῶνες , οὕτωγὰρτὰτάγματαῬωμαῖοικαλοῦσινἐπίκλησιν . The three ranks are mentioned in order of priority, but this does not constitute their distinctive character:— Christ is the ἀπαρχή this is His ἴδιοντάγμα , see Colossians 1:18:— οἱτοῦχριστοῦ follow at His coming, who are the φύραμα , in the proper and worthiest sense, made like unto Him and partaking of His glory; then (after how long or how short a time is not declared, and seems to have formed no part of the revelations to Paul, but was afterwards revealed,— see Revelation 20:4-6: compare also 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) shall come the end, viz. the resurrection of the rest of the dead, here veiled over by the general term τὸτέλος ,— that resurrection not being in this argument specially treated, but only that of Christians. The key to the understanding of this passage is to be found in the prophecy of our Lord, Matthew 24:25 Matthew 24:25 Matthew 24:25, but especially in the latter chapter. The resurrection and judgment of οἱτοῦχριστοῦ forming the subject of vv. 1-30 there, and τὸτέλος ,— the great final gathering of πάντατὰἔθνη , of vv. 31-46. ἀπαρχή , therefore necessarily the first τάγμα : and hence the word stands first. οἱτοῦχρ .] = οἱνεκροὶἐνχριστῷ 1 Thessalonians 4:16. No mention occurs here of any judgment of these his ἴδιοιδοῦλοι , as in Mat_25, for it does not belong to the present subject. ἐντῇπαρ . αὐτ .] ἐν as forming part of, involved in, His appearing,— which, as the great event of the time, includes their resurrection in it. It ought to be needless to remind the student of the distinction between this παρουσία and the final judgment; it is here peculiarly important to bear it in mind. 24. εἶτα ] then, next in succession, introducing the third τάγμα ,— see above. τὸτέλος ] the end κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν : not the end of the resurrection, as Meyer, after Theodoret, Œ cum., Bengel, al.:— nor, of this present world, as Chrys., al.,— which properly happens at the παρουσία : nor exactly, of the Kingdom of Christ, as Grot. and Billroth: but generally, the End, when all shall be accomplished, the bringing in and fulness of the Kingdom by the subjugation of the last enemy, the whole course of [the] mediatorial work of Christ, the salvation of the elect; the time indicated by Mat_25 ult.: καὶἀπελεύσονταιοὗτοιεἰςκόλασιναἰώνιον , οἱδὲδίκαιοιεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον . ὅτανπαραδιδοῖ ] when He (Christ) gives up (the pres., for that which is certainly attached to the event as its accompaniment— ὅταν indicating the uncertainty of the time when, and the verb being probably subjunctive: see Winer, Moulton’ s Trans, p. 360, note 2), the Kingdom to God, and the Father (reff.: to Him who is God and His Father) Then the rest of the section as far as ver. 28, is in explanation of the giving up the kingdom. And it rests on this weighty verity: the kingdom fo Christ over this world, in its beginning, its furtherance, and its completion, has one great end,— the glorification of the Father by the Son. Therefore, when it shall be fully established, every enemy overcome, every thing subjected to Him, He will,— not, reign over it and abide its King, but deliver it up to the Father. Hence as in ver. 25, His reign will endure, not, like that of earthly kings, when He shall have put all enemies under His feet, but only till He shall have, &c.,— and then will be absorbed in the all-pervading majesty of Him for whose glory it was from first to last carried onward. It may be observed that the whole of this respects the mediatorial work and kingdom: the work of redemption,— and that Lordship over dead and living, for which Christ both died and rose. Consequently nothing is here said which can affect either (1) His coequality and coeternity with the Father in the Godhead, which is prior to and independent of this mediatorial work, and is not limited to the mediatorial kingdom; or (2) the eternity of His Humanity: for that Humanity ever was and is subordinate to the Father; and it by no means follows that when the mediatorial kingdom shall be given up to the Father, the Humanity, in which that kingdom was won, shall be put off: nay, the very fact of Christ in the body being the first-fruits of the resurrection, proves that His body, as ours, will endure for ever: as the truth that our humanity, even in glory, can only subsist before God by virtue of His Humanity, makes it plain that He will be very man to all eternity. τὴνβασιλείαν ] That kingdom, which in its fullest sense is then first His. At this very time of τὸτέλος , Matthew 25:34, He first calls Himself by the title of ὁβασιλεύς . The name will no sooner be won, than laid at the feet of the Father, thus completing by the last great act of Redemption the obedience which He manifested in his Incarnation, and in his Death. ὅτανκαταργήσῃ ] (aor.) when He shall have brought to nought, &c.: see above. πᾶς . ἀρχ . κ .τ .λ .] not only, as Meyer, &c., hostile power and government, but as the context necessitates, all power. Christ being manifested as universal King, every power co-ordinate with His must come under the category of hostile: all kings shall submit to Him: the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ:— and see the similar expressions Ephesians 1:21, where speaking proleptically, the Apostle clearly indicates that legitimate authorities, all the powers that be, are included. Compare by all means Revelation 11:15. 25. See on the last verse:— this is the divine appointment with regard to the mediatorial kingdom,— that it should last till, and only till, all enemies shall have been subdued to it. θῇ , viz. Christ, not the Father, as Beza, Grot., Est., Billr., al.: it is parallel with καταργήσῃ , and included in the mediatorial acts of Christ, who in His world’ s course goes forth νικῶνκαὶἵνανικήσῃ , Revelation 6:2. It is otherwise with ὑπέταξεν , ver. 27: see there. 26. Connect ἔσχατ . ἐχθρός together; not as Bloomf., “ last of all, the enemy Death is to be destroyed,” which is ungrammatical. If ἔσχ . is to stand alone, ἐχθρὸςκαταργεῖται must be “ is destroyed as an enemy.” Death is the last enemy, as being the consequence of sin: when he is overcome and done away with, the whole end of Redemption is shewn to have been accomplished. Death is personified, as in Revelation 20:14. καταργεῖται ,— pres., either as a prophetic certainty as παραδιδοῖ above,— or as an axiomatic truth. 27. Scriptural proof of the above declaration. ὑπέταξ . viz., from the Psalm,— God, the Father. See on the Psalm itself, Hebrews 2:6 ff. notes. εἴπῃ , scil. ὁθεός , the same subject as ὑπέταξεν . Meyer alone, as it seems to me, gives the right construction of ὅταν … ὑποτέτακται . “ The aor. εἴπῃ must be rendered regularly, not in the present sense, but as a futurum exactum: see Luke 6:26: Plato, Parm. p. 143, c (τίδ ʼ ὅτανεἴπωοὐσίατεκαὶἕν , ἆραοὐκἀμφοτέρω ;),— Ion, p. 535, b . The time referred to, is that when the as yet unfulfilled πάνταὑπέταξεν shall be fulfilled and completed: hence it is no longer the aor., but the perf. ὑποτέτακται . The meaning then is: ‘ when God, who in Psalms 8:6 has announced the ὑπόταξις , shall hereafter have declared that this ὑπόταξις is come to pass,’ … This form of expression was suggested to the Apostle by his having already expressed himself in the words of a saying of God.” I render then, But when God shall have declared that all things have been subjected to Him, it is evident that they have been subjected (ellipsis of the predicate of the foregoing sentence after δῆλονὅτι and οἶδ ʼ ὅτι is common; so Plato, Gorg. p. 475, c, ‘ οὐκοῦνκακῷὑπερβάλλοντὸἀδικεῖνκάκιονἂνεἴητοῦἀδικεῖσθαι ,’ — ‘ δῆλονδὴὅτι ,’ — scil. κάκιονἂνεἴη . Kü hner, § 852, d) with the exception of Him who subjected all things to Him. 28. On the sense, see above. “ The interpretations, that subjection is only an hyperbolical expression for the entire harmony of Christ with the Father (Chrys., Theophyl., Œ c.):— the limitation of it to His human nature (Theodoret, , Jerome, Est., Wolf, al.), with the declarative explanation, that it will then become plain to all, that Christ even in regard of His kingship, is, on the side of His Humanity, dependent on the Father (Flatt)— and the addition, that Christ will then in His divine nature reign with the Father ;— the interpretation (of αὐτὸςὁυἱός !) as referring to Christ’ s mystical Body, i.e. the Church (Theodoret),— are idle subterfuges (leere Ausfluchte).” De Wette. The refutation of these and all other attempts to explain away the doctrine here plainly asserted, of the ultimate subordination of the Son, is contained in the three precise and unambiguous words, αὐτὸςὁυἱός . ἵναᾖὁθ . πάνταἐνπᾶσιν ] that God (alone) may be all things in all,— i.e. recognized as sole Lord and King: ‘ omnia erunt subordinata Filio, Filius Patri.’ Bengel. Numerous examples of πάντα in this sense (less commonly τὰπάντα , Kü hner, § 422) may be found in Wetst. 29-34. Arguments for the reality of the resurrection, from the practice (1) of those who were baptized for the dead, (2) of the Apostles, &c., who submitted to daily peril of death. 29. ἐπεί resumes the main argument, which has been interrupted by the explanation since ver. 23 of ἕκαστοςἐντῷἰδίῳτάγματι . After it is an ellipsis of ‘ if it be as the adversaries suppose.’ τίποιήσουσιν ] There is in these words a tacit reprehension of the practice about to be mentioned, which it is hardly possible altogether to miss. Both by the third person, and by the art. before βαπτ ., he indirectly separates himself and those to whom he is writing from participation in or approval of the practice:— the meaning being, what will become of— ‘ what account can they give of their practice?’ οἱβαπτιζόμενοι ] those who are in the habit of being baptized— not οἱβαπτισθέντες . The distinction is important as affecting the interpretation. See below. ὑπὲρτῶννεκρῶν ] on behalf of the dead; viz. the same νεκροί who are spoken of in the next clause and throughout the chapter as the subjects of ἀνάστασις — not νεκροί in any figurative sense. τῶννεκρ ., the art. marking the particular dead persons on behalf of whom the act took place. Before we pass to the exegesis, it will be well to go through the next question— εἰὅλωςκ .τ .λ . If dead men are not raised at all, why do they trouble themselves (τίκαί as in reff.) to be baptized for them? Thus much being said as to the plain meaning of the words used, there can be no doubt as to their interpretation. The only legitimate reference is, to a practice, not otherwise known to us, not mentioned here with any approval by the Apostle, not generally prevalent (οἱβαπτ .), but in use by some, of survivors allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of (believing?) friends who had died without baptism. With the subsequent similar practices of the Cerinthians ( Hæ r. xxviii. § 6, p. 114) and Marcionites (Chrys., Tertull. de resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 864, adv. v. 10, p. 494 f.) this may or may not have been connected. All we clearly see from the text, is that it unquestionably did exist. With regard to the other interpretations, Bengel well says, “ Tanta est interpretationum varietas, ut is, qui non dicam varietates ipsas, sed varietatum catalogos colligere velit, dissertationem scripturus sit.” I will give a few of them, mostly in the words of their authors: Chrys. (Hom. xl. p. 379):— ὑπὲρτῶννεκρῶν , τουτέστιτῶνσωμάτων . καὶγὰρἐπὶτούτῳβαπτίζῃ , τῇτοῦνεκροῦσώματοςἀναστάσει , πιστεύωνὅτιοὐκέτιμένεινεκρόν . καὶσὺμὲνδιὰτῶνῥημάτωνλέγειςνεκρῶνἀνάστασιν · ὁδὲἱερεύς , ὥσπερἐνεἰκόνιτινὶ .… δείκνυσίσοι .… διὰτοῦὕδατος · τὸγὰρβαπτίζεσθαικ . καταδύεσθαι , εἶταἀνανεύειν , τῆςεἰςᾅδουκαταβάσεωςἐστὶσύμβολονκ . τῆςἐκεῖθενἀνόδου . διὸκ . τάφοντὸβάπτισμαὁΠ . καλεῖ (Romans 6:4),— Theophyl.: φησὶνοὖν , ὅτιοἱπιστεύσαντεςὅτιἔσταιἀνάστασιςνεκρῶνσωμάτων , καὶβαπτισθέντεςἐπὶτοιαύταιςἐλπίσι , τίποιήσουσινἀπατηθέντες ; τίδὲὅλωςκαὶβαπτίζονταιἄνθρωποιὑπὲρἀναστάσεως , τουτέστινἐπὶπροσδοκίᾳἀναστάσεως , εἰνοὐκἐγ .; and so in the main, Pelag., Œ cum., , Corn.-a-Lap., Wetst.— Theodoret:— ὁβαπτιζόμενός , φησι , τῷδεσπότῃσυνθάπτεται , ἵνατοῦθανάτουκοινωνήσαςκαὶτῆςἀναστάσεωςγένηταικοινωνός · εἰδὲνεκρόνἐστιτὸσῶμα , καὶοὐκἀνίσταται , τίδήποτεκαὶβαπτίζεται ; and so Castal., al. All these senses would require τίποιήσετεβαπτισθέντες , to say nothing of the impossibility of thus understanding ὑπὲρτῶννεκρῶν . Estius explains ὑπὲρτῶννεκρ . as = ‘ jamjam morituri,’ and Calvin justifies this, ‘ baptizari pro mortuis erit sic baptizari ut mortuis non vivis prosit.’ So too Epiph. (l. c.),— of catechumens who πρὸτῆςτελευτῆςλουτροῦκαταξιοῦνται :— and Bengel:— “ baptizantur super mortuis ii, qui mox post baptismum ad mortuos aggregabuntur.” But against this ὑπὲρτῶννεκρῶν is decisive,— as is ὑπέρ against ‘ over the dead,’ i.e. over their sepulchres (Luth., al.): this local sense of ὑπέρ not being found in the N. T. Le Clerc, Hammond, Olsh., al., explain ὑπ . τ . νεκρ ., ‘ to fill the place of the dead.’ But, as Meyer observes, such an idea can hardly be gathered from the words, but would want explaining in the context;— and besides, the question would thus be irrelevant, because, the place of the dead being supplied by their successors, it would be no matter to them, whether the dead themselves rose or not: whereas now, the benefits of baptism being supposed to be conveyed to the dead by the baptism of his substitute, the proceeding would be stultified, if the dead could never rise to claim those benefits. This, the only justifiable rendering, is adopted by Ambrose, and by Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, al., and recently by Billroth, Rü ckert, Meyer, De Wette, al. The ordinary objection to it is, that thus the Apostle would be giving his sanction to a superstitious usage, or at all events mentioning it without reprobation. But this is easily answered, by remembering that if the above view of τίποιήσουσιν is correct, he does not mention it without a slur on it;— and more completely still, as Rü ckert (in Meyer), “ usurpari ab eo morem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, in quo impugnando versabatur, radicitus evellendum; ipsius autem reprehendendi aliud tempus expectari.” See a multitude of other interpretations in Pool’ s Synopsis and in Stanley’ s note. His concluding remarks are worth quoting: “ On the whole, therefore, this explanation of the passage (that given above) may be safely accepted, (1) as exhibiting a curious relic of primitive superstition, which, after having, as the words imply (?), prevailed generally in the apostolical church, gradually dwindled away till it was only to be found in some obscure sects, where it lost its original significance: (2) as containing an example of the Apostle’ s mode of dealing with a practice, with which he could have no real sympathy; not condemning or ridiculing it, but appealing to it as an expression, however distorted, of their better feelings.” 30. Not only the practice of those just spoken of, but his own, and that of those like him, who lived a life of perpetual exposure to death, were absurd, if there be no resurrection. Observe that the argument here applies equally to the future existence of the soul; and so Cicero uses it, Tusc. Quæ st i. 15: “ Nescio quomodo in-hæ ret in mentibus quasi seculorum quoddam augurium futurorum … quo quidem demto, quis tam esset amens, qui semper in laboribus et periculis viveret?” 31. To die daily is a strong expression for to be daily in sight of death and expecting it. See 2 Corinthians 4:11. This he strengthens by an asseveration, grounded on his boast of them as his work in Christ: not that this is immediately or proximately at stake in the matter, but much as we should say, “ As I love you, it is true.” He would not think of deceiving those of whom he boasted before God in connexion with Christ. ὑμετ .] gen. obj., see reff. νή , the affirmative, as μά is the negative particle of adjuration: but ναὶμά is often found in an affirmative sense: see Kü hner, § 701. 32. The stress of the first clause is on κατὰἄνθρωπον , and its meaning, merely as man, i.e. ‘ according to this world’ s views,’ ‘ as one who has no hope beyond the grave;’ see ref. If thus only he fought, &c., where was his profit (seeing he despised all those things which κατὰἄνθρωπον might compensate for such a fight,— fame, praise, &c.)? The renderings, ὅσοντὸεἰςἀνθρώπους (Chrys. p. 381), i.e. ‘ so far as one can be said θηριομαχεῖν against men,’ — and κατὰἀνθρώπωνλογισμὸνθηρίωνἐγενόμηνβορά (Theodoret),— ‘ exempli causa’ (Semler, Rosenmü ller),— ‘ ut hominum more loquar’ (Estius and Bloomf.), are all constrained, and scarcely to be extorted from the words. ἐθηριομάχησα ] I fought with beasts (aor. referring to one special occasion). How? and when? Most ancient and modern Commentators take the expression figuratively, as used in Appian, B. C. ii. p. 763 (Wetst.), where Pompey says, οἵοιςθηρίοιςμαχόμεθα ,— and Ignat. ad Rom_5, p. 689 f., ἀπὸΣυρίαςμέχριῬώμηςθηριομαχῶδιὰγῆςκ . θαλάσσης , δεδεμένοςδέκαλεοπάρδοις , ὅἐστιστρατιωτικὸντάγμα . So, of our text, Tertull. de Resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 865: “ Depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas scilicet bestias Asiaticæ pressuræ .” And this explanation must be right: for his Roman citizenship would have precluded his ever being literally thrown to beasts: and even supposing him to have waived it, and been miraculously rescued, as , Theodoret, Erasm., Luther, Calv., al. suppose, is it conceivable that such an event should have been altogether unrecorded in the Acts? Adopting the figurative rendering,— we cannot fix on any recorded conflict which will suit the words. His danger from Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen (Act_19) had not yet happened (see Prolegg. § vi. 2): but we cannot tell what opposition, justifying this expression, the ἀντικείμενοιπολλοί of ch. 16:9 may ere this have made to his preaching. εἰνεκρ .] If dead men rise not, i.e. ‘ if none of the dead rise.’ These words are best joined with the following, as Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, Bengel, Griesb., Meyer, De Wette, al.— not with the preceding, as Theodoret, Grot., Est., Luther, al.[and E. V.] For κατὰἄνθρωπον already expresses their meaning in the preceding sentence; and the form of ver. 29 seems to justify this arrangement, besides that otherwise φάγ . κ . πίωμεν , &c., would stand awkwardly insulated. φάγ . κ . πίωμεν … ] In Isa. the words represent the recklessness of those who utterly disregard the call of God to weeping and mourning, and feast while their time lasts. Wetst. has collected very numerous parallels from the classics. The most striking perhaps is Herod. ii. 78. 33. The tendency of the denial of the resurrection, represented by the Epicurean maxim just quoted, leads him to hint that this denial was not altogether unconnected with a practice of too much intimacy with the profligate society around them. μὴπλαν ., as in ref., introduces a warning against moral self-deception. φθείρ . ἤθη … ] These words (according to the reading χρῆσθ ʼ , which has, however, hardly any support) form an Iambic trimeter, and occur in this form in a fragment of the Thais of Menander; but Alex. Strom. i. 14 (59), p. 350 P., says, πρὸςγοῦνΚορινθίους … ἰαμβείῳσυγκέχρηταιτραγικῷ — but this may be a mere inaccuracy. Socrates, Hist. Ecclesiastes 3:16, quotes it as a sufficient proof that Paul was conversant with the tragedies of Euripides. “ Perhaps,” says Dr. Burton, “ Menander took it from Euripides.” The Apostle may have cited it merely as a commonplace current, without any idea whence it came;— and χρηστά seems to shew this. The plur. ὁμιλίαι , points out the repetition of the practice. Meyer quotes Plato, Rep. viii. p. 550, διὰτὸμὴκακοῦἀνδρὸςεἶναιτὴνφύσιν , ὁμιλίαιςδὲταῖςτῶνἄλλωνκακαῖςκεχρῆσθαι . 34. ἐκνήψ .] Awake out of (your moral) intoxication, already possessing you by the influence of these men. δικαίως ] either, as is just,— as you ought (Wahl, al.),— or, in a proper manner (Olsh., al.),— or, ἐπὶσυμωέροντικαὶχρησίμῳ (Chrys. p. 382, al.), or so as to be δίκαιοι [i.e. so as to recover your righteousness, which you are in danger of losing], as E. V., Awake to righteousness. The last meaning is well defended by Dr. Peile from Thuc. i. 21: ἀπίστωςἐπὶτὸμυθῶδεςἐκνενικηκότα ,— ‘ so as to become incredible;’ — and seems to be the best. The aor. imper. ἐκνήψατε marks the quick momentary awaking; the pres. imper. μὴἁμαρτάνετε , on the other hand, the enduring practice of abstinence from sin (Meyer). But that this must not always be rigidly pressed, see Kü hner, § 445. 2. Anm. 1. ἀγνωσίαν ] The stress is on this word: for some (the τινές of ver. 12, most probably, are hinted at, and the source of their error pointed out) have (are affected with) ignorance (an absence of all true knowledge) of God. See ref. to Wisd. πρὸςἐντ . ὑμ . λ . shews that these τινές were ἐνὑμῖν ,— not the heathen without:— the existence of such in the Corinthian church was a disgrace to the whole. λαλᾶ ] I am speaking; not merely I say this; it refers to the spirit of the whole passage. 35-50. The argument passes from the fact of the resurrection, already substantiated, to the manner of it: which is indicated, and confirmed, principally by analogies from nature. 35. The new difficulty is introduced in the form of a question from an objector. This is put first generally, πῶς .… , In what manner,— and next specifically, ποίῳδὲσώματι , With what kind of body— ἔρχ ., do they (pres. transferring the action to that time,— as ἐγείρονται before: so Meyer and De W.:— or rather perhaps, as assuming for the moment the truth of the resurrection as a thing actually happening in the course of things) come (forth at that time)? 36-41. Analogies illustrative of the question just asked: and first, that of seed sown in the earth (36-38). 36. Meyer would point this, ἄφρωνσύ , ὃσπείρεις … , because according to the common punctuation there is necessarily an emphasis on σύ , which the context does not allow. But on the other hand, it seems to me, there is an objection to the introduction of a new matter so lamely as by ὃσπείρεις . Besides which, the emphatic σύ does not necessarily require any other agency to be emphatically set against it, but may imply an appeal to the objector’ s own experience (as Billr. in Dr. Peile):— ‘ thou say this, who art continually witness of the process, &c.?’ And let it be remembered that we have another σπείρειν below, vv. 42-44, which may be set against thy sowing. I retain therefore the stop at ἄφρων (nom. for voc. as freq. See Luke 12:20; Mark 9:25; Luke 8:54, al., and Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 2), and the emphasis on σύ . The similitude was used by our Lord of His own Resurrection, ref. John. οὐζωοποιεῖται ] Its life is latent in it; but is not developed into quick and lively action without the death of the deposited seed,— i.e. its perishing, disappearing from nature. The same analogy was used by the Rabbis, but to prove that the dead would rise clothed: ‘ ut triticum nudum sepelitur et multis vestibus ornaturm prodit, ita multo magis justi,’ &c. 37. Before, the death of the seed was insisted on: now, the non-identity of the seed with the future plant. There is a mixture of construction, the words ὃσπείρεις being pendent, as the sentence now stands. The two constructions as De W. observes are, εἴτισπείρεις , οὐτὸσ . τὸγεν . σπείρεις ,— and ὃσπείρεις , οὐτὸσ . τὸγεν . ἐστιν . He names the plant τὸσῶματὸγενησόμενον , having already in his eye the application to the Resurrection. εἰτύχοι ] if it should so happen,— peradventure: not, ‘ for example.’ See on ch. 14:10. τῶνλοιπῶν , scil. σπερμάτων . 38. ἠθέλησεν , willed, viz. at the creation: the aor. setting forth the one act of the divine Will giving to the particular seed the particular development at first, which the species retains: whereas θέλει would imply a fresh act of the divine Will giving to every individual seed his own body. But the whole gift to the species being God’ s, to continue or withhold, the pres. δίδωσιν still holds good. ἑκάστ . τῶνσπερμ .] to each of the (kinds of) seed; see above: τῶν is generic. ἵδιονσῶμα ] a body of its own. Such then being the case with all seeds, why should it be thought necessary that the same body should rise as was sown, or that God cannot give to each a resurrection-body, as in nature? 39-41. And the more,— because we have examples from analogy of various kinds of bodies; viz. (1) in the flesh of animals (ver. 39): (2) in celestial and terrestrial bodies (ver. 40): (3) in the various characters of light given by the sun, moon, and stars. σάρξ ] animal organism (De W.). Dean Stanley’ s former rendering (corrected in his 3rd edn.) of οὐπᾶσασάρξ , ἡαὐτὴσάρξ , ‘ no flesh is the same flesh,’ is contrary to the usage of the passages which he alleged to defend it, where the negative is always attached to the verb; οὐδικαιωθήσεταιπᾶσασάρξ , Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16. See Matthew 24:22 ; Acts 10:14; ch. 1:29; 1 John 3:15; Revelation 7:16; Revelation 9:4. On the other hand, where the negative is attached to πᾶς , as here, the sentence is a particular negative, not an universal: e.g. Romans 10:16, ἀλλ ʼ οὐπάντεςὑπήκουσαν : 9:6, 7; Hebrews 3:16; Matthew 7:21, οὐπᾶςὁλέγωνμοικύριεκύριεεἰσελεύσεταιεἰςτὴνβασιλείαντῶνοὐρανῶν ,— where the rendering in question would involve portentous consequences indeed. I observe that Conyb, also, although disapproving on the ground of the sense, adds, “ the words of the Greek text no doubt admit of such a rendering.” κτηνῶν ] properly animals possessed by man: but used in a wider sense for quadrupeds in general. 40. σώματαἐπουράνια ] not, according to our modern expression, heavenly bodies,— for they are introduced first ver. 41, and if we apply these words to them, we must suppose the Apostle to have imagined the stars to be endowed with bodies in the literal sense: for he is here comparing not figurative expressions, but physical realities:— nor (as Chrys., al.) the bodies of the righteous, as opposed to those of the wicked; for in these there is no organic difference whatever: but, as Meyer and De Wette, ‘ the bodies of angels,’ — the only heavenly organisms of which we are aware (except indeed the Resurrection-Body of our Lord, and that of those few who have been taken into glory, which, as belonging to the matter in question, are not alleged) which will bear comparison with bodies on earth. δόξα belongs to the ἐπουράνια more strictly than to the ἐπίγεια . In Luke 9:26, we have ἐντῇδόξῃαὐτοῦκαὶτοῦπατρὸςκαὶτῶνἁγίωνἀγγέλων . 41. This third analogy is suggested perhaps by δόξα just before. There is no allusion whatever here (as some have imagined,— even Chrys., Œ cum., Theodoret, Calov., Estius, al.) to different degrees of glorification of the bodies of the blessed; the introduction of such an idea confuses the whole analogical reasoning: which is, that even various fountains of light, so similar in its aspect and properties, differ; the sun from the moon and the stars: the stars (and much more vividly would this be felt under the pure sky of the East than here) from one another: why not then a body here from a resurrection body,— both bodies, but different? 42-44 a.] Application of these analogies to the doctrine of the Resurrection. 42. οὕτως , thus, viz. in the entire diversity of that which is raised again from the former body. σπείρεται ] “ Cum posset dicere sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur, ut magis insisteret similitudini supra sumtæ de grano.” Grot. ἐνφθορᾷ , ἐνἀφθαρσίᾳ ] in a state of corruption,— in a state of incorruptibility. 43. ἐνἀτιμίᾳ , ἐνδόξῃ ] in dishonour (τίγὰρεἰδεχθέστεροννεκροῦδιαῤῥυέντος ; Chrys. Hom. xli. p. 390. Cf. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 53,— τῆςψυχῆςἐξελθούσης ,.… τὸσῶματοῦοἰκειοτάτουἀνθρώπουτὴνταχίστηνἐξενέγκαντεςἀφανίζουσιν ,— in glory: regarding, as throughout this argument (see on ver. 23), only the resurrection of the just: see Philippians 3:21. ἐνἀσθενείᾳ ] in weakness,— the characteristic of the lifeless body, which is relaxed and powerless. Chrys. understands ἀσθ . of its inability to resist corruption: De Wette would refer it to the previous state of pain and disease: but it seems better to understand it of the powerlessness of the corpse, contrasted with ἐνδυν ., in vigour, viz. the fresh and eternal energy of the new body free from disease and pain. “ That which Grot. adds: ‘ cum sensibus multis, quos nunc non intelligimus,’ is very likely in itself true, but is not implied in ἐνδυνάμει .” Meyer. 44 a. σῶμ . ψυχ .] an animal body, of which the ψυχή , the animal soul, was the acting and informing power. This soul having departed out of it, does not do away with the correctness of the predicate: its whole organism which still remains when it is sown, is arranged to suit this predominance of the animal soul. σῶμαπνευματικόν ] Theophyl., having explained σῶμαψυχ .,— ἐνᾧἡψυχὴτὸκῦροςκαὶτὴνἡγεμονίανἔχει ,— proceeds πνευματικὸνδέ , τὸτὴντοῦἁγίουπνεύματοςκαταπλουτοῦνἐνέργειαν , καὶὑπ ʼ ἐκείνουτὰπάνταδιοικούμενον . εἰγὰρκαὶνῦνἐνἡμῖνἐνεργεῖτὸπνεῦμα , ἀλλ ʼ οὐχοὕτως , οὐδὲἀεί . ἀφίπταταιγὰρἁμαρτανόντων . καὶτοῦπνεύματοςδὲπαρόντος , ἡψυχὴδιοικεῖτὸσῶμα · τότεδὲδιηνεκῶςπαραμενεῖτοῖςσώμασιτῶνδικαίωντὸπνεῦμα . But this is not quite enough:— for thus the body might remain as it is, sin only being removed: whereas it shall be no longer a body in which the ψυχή predominates to the subordination of the higher part, the πνεῦμα , but one in which the πνεῦμα , and that informed fully by the Spirit of God, shall predominate,— its organism being conformed not to au animal, but to a spiritual life: see on ch. 6:13. Some understood πνευματικόν , æ therial, aery, κουφότερονκαὶλεπτότερον , καὶοἷονκαὶἐπ ʼ ἀέροςὀχεῖσθαι (Chrys. p. 391), or as Origen, ἀερῶδεςκ . αἰθέριον (see Theophyl.), but the other is certainly right. 44 b-49. Reassertion and Confirmation of the existence of the spiritual body. 44 b.] If there exists an animal body, there exists also a spiritual: i.e. it is no more wonderful a thing, that there should be a body fitted to the capacities and wants of man’ s highest part, his spirit, than (which we see to be the case) that there should be one fitted to the capacities and wants of his subordinate animal soul. The emphasis is both times on ἔστιν . 45. Confirmation of this from Scripture. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 16] Various directions and arrangements (1-18). Salutations (19, 20). Autograph conclusion and benediction (21-24). 1-4. Directions respecting the collection and transmission of alms for the poor saints at Jerusalem. 1. The construction is as in ch. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1;— the περὶδὲ … rather serves to introduce the new subject than to form any constructional part of the sentence. Similarly in ver. 12. λογίας ] λογία , συλλογή , λογίαν , τὴνσυλλογὴντῶνχρημάτωνκαλεῖ , Theodoret (Wetst.). The word is said in the Lexx. not to be found in classic writers. εἰςτ . ἁγ .] = εἰςτοὺςπτωχοὺςτ . ἁγίωντῶνἐνἹερουσαλήμ , ref. Rom. See also 2 Corinthians 8:1 ff.; 2 Corinthians 9:1 ff.: and on the poverty of the church at Jerusalem, note on Acts 2:44. That poverty was no doubt increased by the continual troubles with which Jerusalem was harassed in this, the distressful close of the Jewish national history. See other causes in Stanley. That the mother church of Christendom should be thus, in its need, sustained by the daughter churches, was natural; and it is at the same time an affecting circumstance, to find him the most anxious to collect and bear to them this contribution, whose former persecuting zeal had doubtless (see Acts 26:10) made not a few of those saints widows and orphans. ὥσπερδιέτ .] We do not find any such order in the Epistle to the Galatians: ch. 2:10 there being merely incidental. It had probably been given during his journey among them Acts 18:23,— or perhaps by message (?) from Ephesus. Not as E. V., ‘ as I have given order,’ but as I gave order. He refers to the occasion, whatever it was, when that order was given. Bengel remarks: “ Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, Corinthiorum exemplum Macedonibus, Corinthiorum et Macedonum Romanis proponit. 2 Corinthians 9:2.Romans 15:26 Romans 15:26. Magna exemplorum vis.” 2. μίανσαββ .] For this Hebraism, and σαβ . in the singular, signifying week, see reff. On the observance of the first day of the week, see notes, Acts 20:7, and Romans 14:5. Here there is no mention of their assembling, which we have in Acts 20:7, but a plain indication that the day was already considered as a special one, and one more than others fitting for the performance of a religious duty. παρ ʼ ἑαυτῷτιθ .] let each of you lay up at home (reff.) in store whatsoever he may by prosperity have acquired (lit. ‘ whatsoever he may be prospered in:’ i.e. the pecuniary result of any prosperous adventure, or dispensation of Providence): not, as Bengel, al.: ‘ quod commodum sit,’ — a meaning which the word will not bear. ἵναμή , … ] that there may not, when I come, then be collections to be made. His time would be better employed in imparting to them a spiritual benefit, than in urging them to and superintending this duty. 3. “ Vide quomodo vir tantus nullam suspicioni rimam aperire voluerit.” Grot. δι ʼ ἐπιστολῶν cannot belong to δοκιμάσητε (as Beza, Calv., Wetst., E. V.,— for what need of letters from them ὅτανπαραγένωμαι , or before his coming, if the person recommended were not to be sent off before his arrival?), but is emphatically prefixed, as the safe and proper way of giving credentials to those sent;— τούτουςπέμψω ,— the alternative which follows, of himself accompanying them, being already in the mind of the Apostle. ἐπιστολῶν , plur.,— not of the category merely, meaning one letter,— but meaning, either that each should have his letter of credentials,— or more probably, that Paul would give them letters to several persons in Jerusalem. Meyer well remarks: “ Hence we see how common in Paul’ s practice was the writing of Epistles. Who knows how many private letters of his, not addressed to churches have been lost? The only letter of the kind which remains to us (except the Pastoral Epistles), viz. that to Philemon, owes its preservation perhaps to the mere circumstance, that it is at the same time addressed to the church in the house of Philemon. See ver. 2.” χάριν ] see reff. Meyer compares Plato, Def. p. 113, E: χάρις , εὐεργεσίαἑκούσιος . 4. But if it (the occasion,— dependent on the magnitude of your collection) be worthy of my also taking the journey (i.e. if your collection be large enough to warrant an apostolic mission in order to carry it,— not said for security,— nor to procure himself a fair reception at Jerusalem,— but with a sense of the dignity of an apostolic mission: “ justa æ stimatio sui non est superbia,” Bengel), they shall go in my company (σὺνἐμοὶπ . contrast to δι ʼ ἐπιστολῶνπέμψω , and observing the same order). This did apparently take place, see Acts 20:4 ff. 5-9. Taking up ὅτανπαραγένωμαι , he announces his plan of visiting them. 5. This plan was a change from his former intention, which had been (see 2 Corinthians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 1:16, and note), to pass through them to Macedonia, and again return to them from Macedonia, and thence to Judæ a. This he had apparently announced to them in the lost Epistle alluded to ch. 5:9 (or in some other), and he now tacitly drops this scheme, and announces another. For this he was charged (2 Corinthians 1:17 ff.) with levity of purpose:— but his real motive was, lenity towards them, that he might not come to them in sorrow and severity (2 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 2:1). The second plan he adhered to: we find him already in Macedonia when 2 Cor. was written (2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 8:1; 2 Corinthians 9:2, 2 Corinthians 9:4), and on his way to Corinth (2 Corinthians 12:14; 2 Corinthians 13:1);— and in Acts 20:1, Acts 20:2, the journey is briefly narrated. Μακεδ . γ . διέρχ . is not parenthetical, but διέρχ . is opposed to παραμενῶ . The pres. implies, as in E. V., his now matured plan,— not, as in the erroneous subscription of the Epistle, that he was on his way through Macedonia, when he wrote the word. 6. παραμενῶ ] This, of which he speaks uncertainly, was accomplished; he spent (Acts 20:3) three months, and those (ib. ver. 6) the three winter months, in Greece (at Corinth). ὑμεῖς , Meyer justly remarks, is emphatic, and conveys an affectionate preference, in his present plan, for them. οὗ , with a verb of motion. The account of this is that the ideas of motion and rest are both involved in the verb: rest, when the motion is accomplished. So Luke 10:1;— Soph. Trach. 40, κεῖνοςδ ʼ ὅπουβέβηκενοὐδεὶςοἶδε :— Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 25, ὅπουβουληθεῖενἐξελθεῖν . See Kü hner, § 623, Anm. 2. Whither he should go from Corinth, was as yet uncertain, see ver. 4. 7. For I am not willing, this time to see you in passing. There is a slight, but a very slight, reference to his change of purpose (see above); but we must not take ἄρτι with θέλω (which Meyer charges Neander with doing, but clearly in error, see Pfl. u. Leit. p. 415 note): rather the ἄρτι refers to the occasion, the news from ‘ them of Chloe,’ which had made it advisable that he should not now pay them a mere passing visit. γάρ ] ground of οὐθέλω — but not the ultimate one, see above. ἐπιτρέψῃ ] shall have permitted me, i.e. ‘ if it shall so turn out, in the Lord’ s direction of my work, that I shall then find my way open to do so.’ 8, 9. His present plan regarding his stay in Ephesus (where he was writing). τ . πεντηκ .] viz. that next coming. This probably happened so, or nearly so, notwithstanding the tumult of Act_19: for he already (see there vv. 21, 22) was meditating his departure, and had sent on two of his company, when the tumult occurred. θύρα , see reff.: an opportunity of action. μεγάλη refers to the extent of the action thus opened before him: ἐνεργής , to its requirements: neither of them properly agreeing with the figure, but both with the reality. Meyer compares Plato, Phæ dr. p. 245, a: μουσῶνἐπὶποιητικὰςθύραςἀφίκηται . ἀντικ . πολλ . See Acts 19:9, Acts 19:23 ff. 10, 11. Recommendation of Timothy to their good reception and offices. He had preceded Paul (Acts 19:22) in the journey to Macedonia. From ἐὰνἔλθῃ , it would appear to have been probable, but not quite certain, that he would visit them. In ch. 4:17, he is described as sent on for that purpose: so that the ἐάν may merely refer to the uncertainties of the journey. 10. βλ . ἵναἀφόβ . γ .] There must have been some special reason for this caution respecting Timothy, besides that assigned by Meyer, al., that he would naturally be depreciated as only a subordinate of Paul, whom so many of them opposed. His youth occurs to us, mentioned 1 Timothy 4:12: but even that is not enough, and would hardly be intended here, without some reference to it. De Wette’ s conjecture may not be without foundation, that he was perhaps of a timid disposition. Meyer objects that we have no historical trace of this: but I think some are to be found in 1 Tim.:— e.g. 3:15; 5:22, 23. τὸἔργονκυρ .] see ref., note. 11. ἐνεἰρήνῃ ] χωρὶςμάχηςκαὶφιλονεικίας , Theophyl., and similarly Chrys. ἵναἔλθ .] the aim of προπέμψ .. ἐκδέχ . γὰραὐτ .] καὶτοῦτοφοβοῦντοςαὐτοὺςἦν . ἵναγὰρεἰδότες , ὅτιπάνταεἰρήσεταιπρὸςαὐτὸνἅπερἂνπάθῃ , ἐπιεικέστεροιγένωνται , διὰτοῦτοπροσέθηκεν · ἐκδ . γ . αὐτ . Chrys. Hom. xliv. p. 407. Theophyl. adds, ἅμαδὲκαὶαἰδεσιμώτεροναὐτὸνποιῶν , εἴγεοὕτωςἀναγκαῖοντοῦτονἔχει , ὥστεἐκδέχεσθαιαὐτόν . By μετὰτῶνἀδελφῶν it would appear, comparing ver. 12, that more brethren besides Erastus (Acts 19:22) accompanied Timotheus to Macedonia. It is hardly probable (as Calov. and De W., al.), that μετὰτ . ἀδ . is to be taken with ἐκδέχομαι : ‘ I and the brethren expect him.’ 12. Of Apollos: that he was not willing at present to go to them. δέ , transitional. On the construction of περὶ .… ἀδ ., see on ver. 1. παρεκάλ . ἵναἔλθῃ ] ἵνα denotes the aim, not only the purport of the exhortation. See remarks on ch. 14:13. “ Ideo excusat, ne suspicentur Corinthii ab eo fuisse impeditum.… Apud se quæ rere poterant: Cur hos potius quam Apollo nobis misit? Respondet, minime per so stetisse, &c.” Calvin. Meyer remarks, perhaps the Corinthians had expressly desired that Apollos should be sent to them. μετὰτ . ἀδελφ .] perhaps, those who went with Timotheus (see above): perhaps, those who were to bear this letter (ver. 17). καί ] and, not, ‘ but:’ see John 16:32; Romans 1:13. It merely couples the exhortation with its result. θέλημα ] Evidently the will of Apollos, not, as Theophyl.: τουτέστιν , ὁθεὸςοὐκἤθελεν . ὅτανεὐκαιρ .] The present καιρός not seeming to him a suitable one: apparently on account of the divisions hinted at in the beginning of the Epistle. 13. εἶταδεικνὺςὅτιοὐκἐντοῖςδιδασκάλοις , ἀλλὰκαὶἐνἑαυτοῖςὀφείλουσιτὰςἐλπίδαςἔχειντῆςσωτηρίας , φησί · γρηγ . κ .τ .λ . Chrys., who adds: διὸλέγει , γρηγορεῖτε , ὡςκαθευδόντων · στήκετε , ὡςσαλευομένων · ἀνδρίζεσθε , κραταιοῦσθε , ὡςμαλακιζομένων . πάνταὑμ . ἐνἀγάπῃγινέσθω , ὡςστασιαζόντων . p. 407 f. ἀνδρίζ .] Aristot. Eth. iii. 6. 12:— ἅμαδὲκαὶἀνδρίζονται , ἐνοἷςἐστινἡἀλκή , ἢκαλὸντὸἀποθανεῖν . Wetst.: where see other examples. 15-18. Recommendation of the family of Stephanas to their honourable regard: and bg occasion, expression of his own joy at the presence of Stephanas and his companions. 15. Some expositors (Erasm., Wolf, al.) take οἴδατε as imperative, and regard it as the command: but the imperative use of οἴδατε for ἴστε ) seems to be without example. We must therefore understand it as indicative, and the construction is the well-known attraction, οἶδάσετίςεἶ (Meyer). ἀπαρχή ] See Romans 16:5: the first Achæ an, converts. ἔταξαν , plur., referring to the noun of number, οἰκία . This family were among the few baptized by Paul, see ch. 1:16. ἔταξανἑαυτούς ] So Demosth. de falsa legat.: βούλομαιδὲὑπομνῆσαιεἰςτίνατάξινἔταξενἑαυτὸνΑἰσχίνης , Wetst.: where see other examples. The ἑαυτούς is not without meaning— they voluntarily devoted their services. εἰςδιακ . τοῖςἁγίοις ] to service for the saints: in what way, does not appear: but perhaps, from the fact of Stephanas being at that time in Ephesus,— for journeys and missions. 16. καὶὑμεῖς , you in your turn,— in return for their self-devotion. ὑποτάσσ .] viz. in honouring their advice and being ready to be directed by them: there is an allusion to ἔταξανἑαυτούς above. τοῖςτοιούτοις ] to such persons, meaning the individuals of Stephanas’ s family, whom they knew. See the usage of ὁτοιοῦτος in reff. συνεργοῦντι ] viz. with τοῖςτοιούτοις . 17. Perhaps Fortunatus and Achaicus were members of the family of Stephanas. The Fortunatus mentioned by Clement at the end of his Ep. i. to the Corinthians (c. 59, p. 328) may be the same. παρουσίᾳ ] viz. in Ephesus. τὸὑμέτερονὑστ .] The want of you (ref.): i.e. of your society. Grotius interprets it, “ Quod vos omnes facere oportuit, id illi fecerunt: certiorem me fecere de vestris morbis,” and holds them to have been οἱΧλοῆς of chap. 1:11. But it is very improbable that he should mention thus a family so distinguished as this: he names them just after, ch. 1:16, as the household of Stephanas:— and still more improbable that one of so fine feeling should add of the bearers of such tidings, ἀνέπαυσανκ .τ .λ ., which would on that hypothesis be almost ironical. 18. καὶὑμῶν ] this is a beautiful expression of true affection used in consciousness of the effect of this epistle on them: q. d. ‘ it is to their presence here that you owe much of that in this my letter which I know will refresh and cheer your spirits.’ Theophyl. explains it: ἔδειξεναὐτοῖςὅτιἡαὐτοῦἀνάπαυσις , αὐτῶνἐστιν . ὥστεἐπεί , ἐμοῦἀναπαυθέντοςπερὶαὐτῶν , καὶὑμεῖςἐκερδήσατεαὐτὸτοῦτο , τὴνἐμὴνἀνάπαυσιν , μηδὲνἄχαριπρὸςαὐτοὺςτούτουςἐνδείξησθε :— Grot., of the announcement which they would make on their return of Paul’ s love for the Corinthians. But this last can hardly be. ἐπιγινώσκετε ] know, the prep. giving force, and slightly altering the meaning to that of recognition. Grot, and Theophyl.,— ἐντιμῇαὐτοὺςἔχετε . 19, 20. Salutations. 19. ἐνκυρίῳ ] see note, Romans 16:2. On Aquila and Priscilla, see Romans 16:3, Romans 16:4; Acts 18:2. They had removed from Corinth (Acts 18:1) to Ephesus (ib. 26), and had there, as subsequently at Rome (Romans 16:3, Romans 16:5), an assembly of the faithful meeting in their dwelling. οἱἀδ . πάντες — the whole Ephesian church. ἐνφιλ . ἁγ .] see Romans 16:16, note. 21-24. Autograph conclusion. ὁἀσπασμός is the final greeting, which, according to ref. 2 Thess., was always in his own hand, the rest having been written (see Romans 16:22) by an amanuensis. Παύλου is in apposition with ἐμοῦ implied in ἐμῇ , as Il. ρ . 226, ὑμέτερονδὲἑκάστουθυμὸνἀέξω : ἐμὸςτοῦἀθλίουβίος , and the like. See Kü hner, § 499. 4. 22. He adds, as in Colossians 4:18; Ephesians 6:24, some exhortation, or solemn sentence, in his own hand, as having especial weight. On the distinction between φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾷν see notes on John 21:15. The negation here of the feeling of personal affection, “ has no love in his heart for,” is worthy of note, as connected with the curse which follows. ἤτωἀνάθ .] On ἀνάθεμα , see note, Romans 9:3:— let him be accursed. μαραναθά ] An Aramaic expression, מ ָ ר ַ ן א ֲ ת ָ א or מ ָ ר ָ נ ָ א א ֲ ת ָ א the (or our) Lord cometh : probably unconnected with ἀνάθεμα : and added perhaps (Mey.) as recalling some remembrance of the time when Paul was among them: at all events, as a weighty watchword tending to recall to them the nearness of His coming, and the duty of being found ready for it:— not added, as Rü ckert, to stamp genuineness on the letter,— for why here rather than in other Epistles, especially as those who were to bear it were so well known? See Stanley’ s note. 24. ἡἀγ . μου ] Because the Epistle had contained so much that was of a severe character, he concludes it with an expression of affection; so Chrys.: μετὰτοσαύτηνκατηγορίανοὐκἀποστρέθεται , ἀλλὰκαὶφιλεῖκαὶπεριλαμβάνειπόῤῥωθεναὐτοὺςὄντας . Hom. xliv. p. 411. ἐνχρ . Ἰησ .] τουτέστιν , οὐδὲνἀνθρώπινονἢσαρκικὸνἡἀγάπημουἔχει , ἀλλὰπνευματικήἐστικαὶἐνχριστῷ . Theophyl.