The oldest superscription was probably, "To the Corinthians, the first (ΠρὸςΚορινθίουςπρώτη)." This is found in à, A, B, C, D. 1 Corinthians 1:1-3 The greeting. An opening salutation is found in all the Epistles of St. Paul, and in every Epistle of the New Testament except the Epistle to the Hebrews and the first Epistle of St. John, both of which were more in the nature of treatises than letters. 1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul. After the beginning of the first missionary journey (A.D. 45) he seems to have finally abandoned his Hebrew name of Saul. Called. The word "called" is absent from A, D, E, and other manuscripts, but may have been omitted as superfluous. It occurs in the greeting of Rom 1:1, but not in any other Epistle. The words might also be rendered "a called or chosen apostle." To be an apostle. He uses this title in every letter except the private one to Philemon, the peculiarly friendly and informal one to the Philippians, and the two to the Thessalonians, which were written before the Judaizers had challenged his claim to this title in its more special sense. The Epistle to the Romans is the first in which he calls himself "a slave of Jesus Christ" (comp. Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1). It was necessary for him to assert his right to the apostolate in the highest sense of the word, as one who had received from Christ himself an authority equal to that of the twelve (see 1 Corinthians 9:1-5; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 11:5; 2 Corinthians 12:11, 2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 1:1-19, etc.). Of Jesus Christ. In the Gospels the word "Christ" is all but invariably "the Christ," i.e. the Anointed, the Messiah. It is the designation of the office of Jesus as the promised Deliverer. We trace in the New Testament the gradual transition of the word from a title into a proper name. In the two names together our Lord is represented as "the Saviour," and the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, first of the chosen people and then of all mankind. Through the will of God. This special call to the apostleship is emphatically expanded in Galatians 1:1. The vindication of the Divine and independent claim was essential to St. Paul’s work. It was not due to any personal considerations, but to the necessity of proving that no human authority could be quoted to overthrow the gospel which was peculiarly "his gospel" (see Galatians 1:11; Ephesians 3:8), of which one main feature was the freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of Judaic bondage. And Soathenes. The association of one or more brethren with himself in the greeting of his letters is peculiar to St. Paul. Silas and Timothy are associated with him in 1 and 2 Thessalonians; and Timothy, though so much his junior, in 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon; doubtless he would have been associated with St. Paul in this Epistle had he not been absent (1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 16:10). The practice arose partly from St. Paul’s exquisite courtesy and consideration towards his companions, partly from his shrinking from mere personal prominence. It is owing to the same reasons that in the earlier Epistles he constantly uses "we" for "I," and sometimes when he can only be speaking of himself (1 Thessalonians 2:18). But even in the Epistles to the Thessalonians he sometimes relapses from "we" into "I" (2 Thessalonians 2:5). Our brother; literally, the brother; i.e. one of "the brethren". Of Sosthenes nothing whatever is known. He may possibly be the amanuensis whom St. Paul employed for this letter. Later tradition, which in such matters is perfectly valueless, spoke of him as" one of the seventy disciples, and Bishop of Colophon" (Eusebius, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ Ecclesiastes 1:12). There is a Jewish Sosthenes, a ruler of the synagogue, in Acts 18:17; but it is only a vague conjecture that he may have been subsequently converted, and may have joined St. Paul at Ephesus. It is obvious that the persons named in the greetings of the Epistles were not in any way supposed to be responsible for their contents, lot St. Paul begins with "I" in Acts 18:4. Brother. At this time there was no recognized title for Christians. In the Acts they are vaguely spoken of as "those of this way." Among themselves they were known as "the saints," "the faithful," "the elect." The name "Christians" was originally a nickname devised by the Antiochenes. In the New Testament it only occurs as a designation used by enemies (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). 1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the Church. This form of address is used in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. In St. Paul’s later Epistles, for some unknown reason, he prefers the address "to the saints." These forms of address show the absence of any fixed ecclesiastical government. He does not in this Epistle address any "bishops" or "presbyters" whom he might regard as responsible for the growing disorders which prevailed at Corinth, but he appeals to the whole Church. The word ecclesia—signifying those who were "called out of the world," and so primarily applied to "the congregation of Israel"—came ultimately to mean "a congregation." The only apostle who uses the word "synagogue" of the Christian assemblies is St. James (James 2:2). Of God. Not the Church of this or that party leader. Some commentators give to these words an emphasis and importance which does not seem to belong to them. Which is at Corinth. So in 2 Corinthians 1:2. In 1 and 2 Thessalonians he prefers the form, "the Church of the Thessalonians." "The Church at Corinth" was an expression which involved the sharpest of contrasts. It brought into juxtaposition the holiest ideal of the new faith and the vilest degradations of the old paganism. It was "a glad and great paradox" (Bengel). The condition of society at Corinth, at once depraved and sophistical, throws light on many parts of the Epistle. Cicero describes the city as "illustrious a like for wantonness, opulence, and the study of philosophy." Even them that are sanctified. The apostles could only write to Churches as being really Churches, and to Christians as being true Christians. In all general addresses they could only assume that the actual resembled the ideal. They never conceal the immense chasm which separated the real condition of many members of their Churches from the vocation which they professed. They knew also that it is (as Calvin says) "a perilous temptation to refuse the name of Church to every Church in which there is not perfect purity." Ideally even the Corinthian Christians were redeemed by Christ’s expiation, consecrated and sanctified by the work of the Holy Spirit. They could only be addressed in accordance with their ostensible position (see Hooker, ’Eccl. Pol.,’ Ecclesiastes 3:1; Ecclesiastes 5:1-20:68). Our Prayer book is constructed on the same principle. The harvest is still a harvest, though amongst the corn there may be many tares. In Christ Jesus. The words, "in Christ," constitute what has been happily called "the monogram of St. Paul." The life of the true Christian is no longer his own. The Christ for him has become the Christ in him. His natural life is merged into a higher spiritual life. Baptized into Christ, he has become one with Christ. Called to be saints. (On this Christian calling, see Ephesians 4:1, Ephesians 4:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 3:1; 2 Peter 1:10.) They are called to be united saints, not schismatic partisans or members of antagonistic cliques. The description of what they were ideally is the more emphatic because he feels how much they had fallen away. With all that… in every place. Perhaps this may mean the same as 2 Corinthians 1:1, "With all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia;" or the words may imply that St. Paul’s exhortations are applicable to all Christians, wherever they may be and (as is expressed in the next clause) whatever may be their varying shades of individual opinion. It was well in any case to remind the Corinthians that they formed but a fraction of the Christian communities. Catholicity, not provincialism, makes the true Church of God. Call upon the Name. The Greek verb is here in the middle voice, not "who are called by the Name"(comp. James 2:7; Amos 9:12, LXX.). It means, therefore, all who reverence the Name of Christ, all who adore their one "Lord" in the fulness of his nature (see Joe 3:5; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:1-21:24; 2 Timothy 2:22, etc.); in other words, "all who profess and call themselves Christians" (comp. Acts 25:11). Their Lord and ours. I connect these words, not with "place," as in the Vulgate, In omni loco ipsorum et nostro—which, however it may be twisted, can give no good sense—but with "Jesus Christ." It has been in all ages a fatal temptation of party Christians to claim a monopoly of Christ for themselves and their own sects, as though they only taught the gospel, and were the only Christians or the only "Evangelicals." But Christ cannot thus be "parcelled into fragments" (see 2 Corinthians 1:12, 2 Corinthians 1:13), nor has any party a right to boast exclusively, "I am of Christ." The addition, "and ours," could not be regarded as super fluous in writing to a Church of which one section wanted to assert an exclusive right in Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace to you and peace. This is St. Paul’s greeting in all the Epistles except the pastoral Epistles, in which he beautifully adds the word "mercy." It is a remarkable blending of the Greek and Jewish salutations. The Greeks said Χαίρειν, and to them the word "grace" involved the notions of joy and brightness and prosperity. The calmer and more solemn greeting of the East was, "Peace be to thee." The Church unites both forms of greeting—"grace," the beginning of every blessing; "peace," the end of all blessings; and into both she infuses a deeper meaning, that of a "joy" which defied all tribulations, and a" peace which passeth all understanding." From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. God is the Source of "every good gift and every perfect gift." God is our Father as our Creator, and as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we become, in a higher sense, his children. Christ, in his mediatorial kingdom, is specially and immediately "our Lord," though that phrase, now so universal, only occurs (in its isolated form) in Hebrews 7:14. Jesus Christ. One of St. Paul’s peculiarities of style is the constant reiteration of one dominant word. In the first nine verses of this Epistle, the Name "Jesus Christ" is repeated no less than nine times. "Observe," says St. Chrysostom, "how he nails them down to the Name of Christ, not mentioning any man, either apostle or teacher, but continually mentioning him for whom they yearn, as men preparing to awaken those who are drowsy after a debauch. For nowhere in any other Epistle is the Name of Christ so continually introduced By means of it he weaves together almost his whole exordium." 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 The thanksgiving. The thanksgiving is a feature in almost every Epistle of St. Paul, except the Epistle to the Galatians, in which he plunges at once into severe reprobation. 1 Corinthians 1:4 I thank my God. It is probable, from papyrus rolls in the British Museum, that the general form and outline of letters was more or less conventional. In St. Paul, however, this thanksgiving is the natural overflow of a full heart. It was no mere compliment or rhetorical artifice like the captatio benevolentiae, or endeavouring to win the hearers by flattery, which we find in most ancient speeches. My God (Romans 1:8). Always; that is, constantly; on all occasions of special prayer. He could still thank God for them, though his letter was written "with many tears" (2 Corinthians 2:4). For the grace of God. The grace (χάρις) of spiritual life showing itself in many special spiritual gifts (χαρίσματα), such as "the gift of tongues." Which was given you. This is one of St. Paul’s "baptismal aorists." He always regards and speaks of the life of the soul as summed up potentially in one supreme moment and crisis—namely, the moment of conversion and baptism. The grace given once was given for ever, and was continually manifested. In Christ Jesus. St. Paul regarded the life of the Christian as "hid with Christ in God," and of Christ as being the Christian’s life (see Romans 6:23; 2 Corinthians 4:10, 2 Corinthians 4:11; Colossians 3:3, Colossians 3:4; 2 Timothy 1:1; 1 John 5:11, etc.). 1 Corinthians 1:5 In everything; i.e. of course, every gift which belongs specially to the Christian life. In all utterance; i.e. in all "eloquence’’ (λόγῳ), or perhaps "in all doctrine" (so Luther, Calvin, Meyer, etc.). The word for" utterance" is rhema; loges means "discourse" and "reason". Knowledge. From the word guests is derived the name Gnostic, which was applied to so many forms of ancient heresy. There was danger to the Corinthian Christians in the exaggerated estimate of what they took for gnosis, and many of them were tempted to pride themselves on purely intellectual attainments, which were valueless for the spiritual life. St. Clement of Rome also, in writing to them (’Ep. ad Corinthians 1.’) speaks of their "mature and established knowledge." 1 Corinthians 1:6 Even as; i.e. "inasmuch as." The testimony of Christ. The testimony borne to Christ by the apostle. The genitive is thus objective (about Christ), not subjective (" the testimony borne by Christ"). In reality, however, the meaning’ would be the same in either case, for if the apostles testified concerning Christ, so, too, Christ spoke in the apostles. Was confirmed in you. This does not merely mean "that the truth of Christianity was established among them," but that they were living confirmations of the apostolic testimony. 1 Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift. The "gifts" are here the charismata, graces, such as powers of healing, etc., which were the result of the outpouring of the Spirit. The sequel shows that they were rather outward than inward; they were splendid endowments rather than spiritual fruits. Yet even these were not wholly wanting, as we see from 2 Corinthians 8:7. The Greek may also mean "causing you not to be conscious of inferiority." Waiting; expecting, not fearing it, This was the constant attitude of the early Christians (Romans 8:19-25; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 9:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Colossians 3:4; Titus 2:13). Love for Christ’s manifestation was a Christian characteristic (2 Timothy 4:8). The revelation. Three words are used to express the second advent: apokalypsis (as here and in 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7, 1 Peter 1:13); parousia (as in Matthew 24:3, Matthew 24:27, etc.; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; James 5:7, James 5:8, etc.); and epiphaneia, in the pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:1-8; Titus 2:13). St. Paul, however, only uses parousia six times in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and once in 1 Corinthians 15:23. All Christians alike expected the return of Christ very soon, and possibly in their own lifetime (1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, etc.; 1 Corinthians 15:51; James 5:8, James 5:9; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Revelation 22:20, etc.). Their expectation was founded on the great eschatological discourse of our Lord (Matthew 24:29, Matthew 24:30, Matthew 24:34), and on his express promise that that generation should not pass away before his predictions were fulfilled. They were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and the close of the old dispensation, though they await a stilt more universal fulfilment. 1 Corinthians 1:8 Who; clearly Christ, though his Name is again repeated in the next clause. Shall also confirm you. This natural expression of the apostle’s yearning hope for them must not be overpressed into any such doctrine as "the indefectibility of grace." All honest and earnest students must resist the tendency to strain the meaning of Scripture texts into endless logical inferences which were never intended to be deduced from them. Unto the end; namely, to the end of "this age," and to the coming of Christ (Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 3:6, Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 6:11). That ye be unreprovable; rather, unimpeached (anenkletous), as in Colossians 1:22; 1 Timothy 3:1-16:18; Titus 1:6. It is not the word rendered "blameless" (amemptos) in Philippianws Titus 2:15 or in 2 Peter 3:14. A Christian can only be "blameless," not as being sinless, but as having been forgiven, renewed, sanctified (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 8:30). In the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the same as the apokalypsis or parousia. It is sometimes called simply "the day". 1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful. He will not leave his promises unfulfilled or his work unfinished (1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; Hebrews 10:23; Romans 8:28-30). Through whom. By whom, as the moving cause and agent in your salvation. Ye were called. The calling was a pledge of the final blessing (Romans 8:30). Into the fellowship of his Son. Union (koinonia, communion) with Christ is the sole means of spiritual life (John 15:4; Galatians 2:20). Through the Son we also have fellowship with the Father (1 John 1:3). The perfect sincerity of the apostle is observable in this thanksgiving. He speaks of the Church in general in terms of gratitude and hopefulness, and dwells on its rich spiritual endowments; but he has not a word of praise for any moral advance such as that which he so lovingly recognized in the Thessalonians and Philippians. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 Party spirit at Corinth. This subject is pursued in various forms to 1 Corinthians 4:21. 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now. The particle implies the transition from thanksgiving to reproof. Brethren. This very title involves an appeal to them to aim at unity among themselves; and St. Paul, like St. James (v. 10), uses it to soften any austerity which might seem to exist in his language (1 Corinthians 7:29; 1 Corinthians 10:1; 1 Corinthians 14:20, etc.). Through the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, by the whole idea of Christ’s being and office—the strongest bond of union between true Christians (see the powerful appeal in Ephesians 4:1-6). That ye all speak the same thing; that is, "that ye may all with one mind and one mouth glorify God" (Romans 15:6). They were doing the very reverse—each glorifying himself and his party (verse 12). Divisions (σχίσματα); "schisms" used of bodies within the Church, not of separatists from it (1 Corinthians 11:18). The word is only used in this special sense in this Epistle. In Matthew 9:16 and Mark 2:21 schisma means "a rent;" in John (John 7:43; John 9:16; John 10:16), "a division of opinion." There would be little or no harm in the schismata so far as they affected unessential points, if it was not their fatal tendency to end in "contentions" (erides) and "factions" (haireseis, 1 Corinthians 11:19). Corinth was a place where such divisions would be likely to spring up, partly from the disputatious vivacity and intellectual conceits of the inhabitants, partly from the multitudes of strangers who constantly visited the port, partly from the numerous diversities of previous training through which the various sections of converts had passed. Perfected together; literally, repaired, reunited. In the same mind and in the same judgment; that is, in what they think and believe (νοΐ̀), and in what they assert and do (γνώμῃ). The exhortation, "be of one mind," in every sense of the word, was as necessary in the ancient as in the modern Church (Romans 15:5; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Philippians 1:27; Philippians 2:2; 1 Peter 3:8). 1 Corinthians 1:11 It hath been signified unto me. He had heard these saddening rumours towards the close of his stay in Ephesus. By them which are of the household of Chloe. The Greek only has "by them of Chloe. St. Paul wisely and kindly mentions his authority for these reports. Nothing is known of Chloe or her household. It has been conjectured that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, Corinthians who were now with St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:16), may have been Chloe’s slaves or freedmen. Contentions. These are the works of the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20; 1 Timothy 6:4). The condition of the Church was the same when St. Clement of Rome wrote to them. He had still to complain of the "strange and alien and, for the elect of God, detest able and unholy spirit of faction which a few rash and self willed persons kindled to such a pitch of dementation" (’Ep. ad Corinthians 1.’). 1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I mean; in other words, "what I mean is this." Their "contentions" are defined to be equivalent to "religious partisanships; "antagonistic adoption of the names and views of special teachers. Each one of you saith. That party spirit ran so high that they were all listed on one side or another. None of them were wise enough and spiritual minded enough to hold aloof from parties altogether. They prided themselves on being "uncompromising" and "party men." Saith; in a self-assertive way (1 Corinthians 3:21). I am of Paul. He shows his indignation at their partisanship by first rebuking those who had used his own name as a party watchward. He disliked Paulinism as much as Petrinism (Bengel). All the Corinthians would probably have been in this sense Paulinists but for the visits of subsequent teachers. At present the Paul party consisted of those who adhered to his views about Gentile freedom, and who liked the simple spirituality of his teaching. St. Paul rose above the temptation of considering that party spirit is excusable in our own partisans. He reproves factiousness even in the party of freedom. And I of Apollos. Apollos personally was absolutely loyal and honourable, but his visit to Corinth had done mischief. His impassioned oratory, his Alexandrian refinements, his allegorizing exegesis, the culture and polish of his style, had charmed the fickle Corinthians. The Apollonians were the party of culture. They had, as we see from later parts of the Epistle, exaggerated St. Paul’s views, as expounded by Apollos, into extravagance. Puffed up with the conceit of knowledge, they had fallen into moral inconsistency. The egotism of oratorical rivals, the contemptuous tone to wards weaker brethren, the sophistical condonations of vice, were probably due to them. Apollos, as we see by his noble refusal to visit Corinth under present circumstances (1 Corinthians 16:12), was as indignant as St. Paul himself at the perversion of his name into an engine of party warfare. (On Apollos, see Acts 18:24-28; Acts 19:1 Titus 3:13.) Nothing further is known respecting him, but he is the almost undoubted author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which proves that he was of the school of St. Paul, while at the same time he showed a splendid originality in his way of arriving at the same conclusion as his teacher. I of Cephas. The use of the Aramaic name (1 Corinthians 3:22; 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 15:6; Galatians 2:9), perhaps, shows that these Petrinists were Judaizers (though it should be added that St. Paul only uses the name "Peter" in Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:8). They personally disliked St. Paul, and questioned his apostolical authority. Perhaps the extravagances of the "speaking with tongues" arose in this party, who recalled the effects of the outpouring of the Spirit after Peter’s great sermon on the day of Pentecost. And I of Christ. We trace the origin of this party to one man in particular (2 Corinthians 2:7), who was, or professed to be, an adherent of James, and therefore one of the more rigid Judaizers. He may have been one from the circle of Christ’s earthly relatives—one of the Desposyni (see 1 Corinthians 9:5), and, like St. James, may have had views resembling those of the Essenes and Ebionites. If so, he was probably the author of the questions about celibacy and marriage; and perhaps he prided himself on having seen "Christ in the flesh." This party at any rate, like some modern sects, was not ashamed to degrade into a party watchword even the sacred name of Christ, and to claim for a miserable clique an exclusive interest in the Lord of the whole Church. It is the privilege of every Christian to say, "Christianus sum;" but if he says it in a haughty, loveless, and exclusive spirit, he forfeits his own claim to the title. This exclusive Christ party is, perhaps, specially alluded to in 2 Corinthians 10:7-11. The view of Chrysostom, which takes these words to be St. Paul’s remark—"But I belong.to Christ," is untenable, and would make trim guilty of the very self-assertiveness which he is reprobating. 1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Has Christ been parcelled into fragments? "Is there a Pauline, a Petrine, an Apollonian, a Christian Christ?" Whether you call yourselves Liberals, or Intellectualists, or Catholics, or Bible Christians, your party spirit is a sin, and all the worse a sin because it pranks itself out in the guise of pure religious zeal. This is more forcible than to take the clause affirmatively:" Christ has been parcelled into fragments." In either ease we see" the tragic result of party spirit." Was Paul crucified for you? Again he rebukes the partisanship which attached itself to his own name. This showed a splendid courage and honesty. The introduction of the question by the negative μὴ expresses astonished indignation: "Can you possibly make a watchword of the name of a mere man, as though he had been crucified for you?" This outburst of feeling is very important, as proving the immeasurable distance which, in Paul’s own view, separated him from his Lord. It is also instructive to see how St. Paul at once denounces the spirit of party without deigning to enter into the question as to which party of these wrangling "theologians" was most or least in the right. He did not choose to pander to their sectarian spirit by deciding between their various forms of aggressive orthodoxy. Into the name (comp. Matthew 28:19). 1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you. St. Paul, in his characteristic manner, "goes off at the word" baptize. He thanked God, not by way of any disparagement to baptism, but because he had thus given no excuse to the undue exaltation of his own name. Compare the practice of our Lord himself, in leaving his disciples to baptize (John 4:2). The apostles would not have approved the system of wholesale baptisms of the heathen which has prevailed in some Romanist missions. Save Crispus. The ruler of the synagogue (Acts 18:8). Doubtless there were some strong special reasons why, in these instances, St. Paul departed from his general rule of not personally baptizing his converts. And Gaius. Gaius of Corinth (Romans 16:23). It was one of the commonest of names. There was another Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4), and another known to St. John (3 John 1:1). 1 Corinthians 1:15 I had baptized. The better reading, followed by the Revised Version, is, Ye were baptized unto my name; à, A, B, C. 1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also. This he recalls by an afterthought being, perhaps, reminded of it by Stephanas himself. The household of Stephanas. Stephanas and his house were the first converts in Achaia (1 Corinthians 16:5). When converts became more numerous, St. Paul ceased to baptize them personally (comp. Acts 10:48). I know not. The inspiration of the apostles involved none of the mechanical infallibility ascribed to them by popular dogma, He forgot whether he had baptized any one else or not, but this made no difference as regards his main argument. 1 Corinthians 1:17 Sent me not to baptize, but; that is, according to Semitic idiom, "not so much to baptize, as" (Matthew 28:19). The word "sent" (apesteilen) involves the meaning "made me an apostle" (apostolos). The primary function of the apostles was "to bear witness" (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8, etc.). To preach the gospel. St. Paul again "goes off" at this word, and dwells for eight verses on the character of his preaching. Not in wisdom of words; not, that is, in a philosophic and oratorical style. The simplicity of the style and teaching of the apostles awoke the sneers of philosophers like Celsus and Porphyry. The cross of Christ. The central doctrine of Christianity, the preaching of a crucified Redeemer. Should be made void. The rendering of the Authorized Version is too strong; the cross cannot "be made of none effect." The word means "should be emptied"; made void of its special and independent power. The words, "the cross of Christ," form the emphatic end of the sentence in the Greek. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 The nature of true Christian preaching. 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross; rather, the word of the cross. To them that are perishing; rather, to the perishing; to all those who are now walking in the paths that lead to destruction (2 Corinthians 2:15). To them it was foolishness, because it requires spiritual discernment (1 Corinthians 2:14); and, on the other hand, human wisdom is foolishness with God (1 Corinthians 3:19). Foolishness. It shows the heroic character of the faith of St. Paul that he deliberately preached the doctrine of the cross because he felt that therein lay the conversion and salvation of the world, although he was well aware that he could preach no truth so certain at first to revolt the unregenerate hearts of his hearers. To the Jews "the cross" was the tree of shame and horror; and a crucified person was "accursed of God" (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13). To the Greeks the cross was the gibbet of a slave’s infamy and a murderer’s punishment. There was not a single association connected with it except those of shame and agony. The thought of "a crucified Messiah" seemed to the Jews a revolting folly; the worship of a crucified malefactor seemed to the Greeks "an execrable superstition" (Tacitus, ’Ann.,’ 1 Corinthians 15:44; Pliny, ’Epp.’ 10:97); yet so little did St. Paul seek for popularity or immediate success, that this was the very doctrine which he put in the forefront, even at a city so refined and so voluptuous as Corinth. And the result proved his inspired wisdom. That very cross became the recognized badge of Christianity, and when three centuries had elapsed it was woven in gold upon the banners and set in jewels on the diadems of the Roman empire. For had not Christ prophesied, And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me"? Unto us which are being saved; who are on the way of salvation. The same present participle is used in Luke 13:23; Acts 2:47; 2 Corinthians 2:15; Revelation 21:24. It is the power of God. Because the cross is at the heart of that gospel which is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16; Romans 8:3), though many were tempted to be ashamed of it. It could never be a carnal weapon of warfare, and yet was mighty for every purpose (2 Corinthians 10:4, 2 Corinthians 10:5). 1 Corinthians 1:19 It is written. This formula (1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 3:19; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Corinthians 10:7; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 8:15) is chiefly used in letters to Churches in which there were many Jews. This is a free citation from the LXX. of Isaiah 29:14 (the same thought is found in Job 5:12, Job 5:13; see too Matthew 11:25). The original passage refers to penal judgments from the Assyrians, which would test the false prophets of Israel. 1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? etc. (Isaiah 33:18); rather, Where is a wise man? i.e. a scribe, etc., which is even more incisive. These questions are triumphant, like the "Where is the King of Hamath and of Arpad?" The same impassioned form of speech recurs in 1 Corinthians 15:55 and in Romans 3:27. The questions would come home to the Jews, who regarded their rabbis and the "pupils of the wise as exalted beings who could look down on all poor ignorant persons (amharatsim, or "people of the land"); and to the Greeks, who regarded none but the philosophers as "wise." The scribe. With the Jews of that day" the scribe" was" the theologian," the ideal of dignified learning and orthodoxy, though for the most part he mistook elaborate ignorance for profound knowledge. The disputer. The word would specially suit the disputatious Greeks, clever dialecticians. The verb from which this word is derived occurs in Mark 8:11, and the abstract substantive ("an eager discussion") in Acts 28:29. If St. Paul has Isaiah 33:18 in his mind, the word "disputer" corresponds to "the counter of the towers" (comp. Psalms 48:12). Even the rabbis say that when Messiah comes human wisdom is to become needless. Of the world; rather, of this age, or aeon. The old dispensation, then so rapidly waning to its close, was called "this age" (olam hazzeh); the next or Messianic age was called "the age to come" (olam habba). The Messianic age had dawned at the birth of Christ, but the old covenant was not finally annulled till his second coming at the fall of Jerusalem. Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? rather, Did not God (by the cross) stultify the wisdom, etc.? The oxymoron, or sharp contrast of terms—a figure of which St. Paul is fond (see 1 Timothy 5:6; Romans 1:20, etc.; and my ’Life of St. Paul,’ 1:628)—is here clearly marked in the Greek. The thought was as familiar to the old prophets (Isaiah 44:25) as to St. Paul (Romans 1:22); and even Horace saw that heathen philosophy was sometimes no better than insaniens sapientia (Horace, ’Od.,’ 1.34, 2). 1 Corinthians 1:21 In the wisdom of God; that is, as a part of his Divine economy. The world through its wisdom knew not God. These words might be written as an epitaph on the tomb of ancient philosophy, and of modern philosophy and science so far as it assumes an anti-Christian form (Luke 10:21). Human wisdom, when it relies solely on itself, may "feel after God," but hardly find him (Acts 17:26, Acts 17:27). Through the foolishness of the preaching. This is a mis-translation. It would require keruxeos, not kerugmatos. It should be by the foolishness (as men esteemed it) of the thing preached. 1 Corinthians 1:22 Jews ask for signs; rather, Jews demand signs. This had been their incessant demand during our Lord’s ministry; nor would they be content with any sign short of a sign from heaven (Matthew 12:38: Matthew 16:1; John 2:18; John 4:48, etc.). This had been steadily refused them by Christ, who wished them rather to see spiritual signs (Luke 17:20, Luke 17:21). Greeks seek after wisdom. St. Paul at Athens had found himself surrounded with Stoics and Epicureans, and the same new thing which every one was looking for mainly took the shape of philosophic novelties (Acts 17:21). 1 Corinthians 1:23 Christ crucified; rather perhaps, a crucified Messiah. It was only by slow degrees that the title "the Christ," i.e. the Anointed, the Messiah, passed into the name Christ. A stumbling block. They had for centuries been looking for a regal and victorious Messiah, who should exalt their special privileges. The notion of a suffering and humiliated Messiah, who reduced them to the level of all God’s other children, was to them "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence" (Romans 9:33; comp. Isaiah 8:14). These two verses, translated into Syriac, furnish a marked play on words (miscol, stumbling block; mashcal, folly; seed, cross); and some have seen in this a sign that St. Paul thought in Syriac. Unto the Greeks; rather, unto Gentiles; à, A, B, C, I). Unto the Jews… unto the Greeks. Both alike had failed. The Jew had not attained ease of conscience or moral perfectness; the Greek had. not unriddled the secret of philosophy; yet both alike rejected the peace and the enlightenment which they had professed to seek. Foolishness. The accent of profound contempt is discernible in all the early allusions of Greeks and Romans to Christianity. The only epithets which they could find for it were "execrable," "malefic," "depraved," "damnable" (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc.). The milder term is "excessive superstition." The heroic constancy of martyrs appeared even to M. Aurelius only under the aspect of a "bare obstinacy." The word used to express the scorn of the Athenian philosophers for St. Paul’s "strange doctrine" is one of the coarsest disdain (ἐχλεύαζον), and they called him "a seed pecker" (Acts 17:18, Acts 17:32), i.e. a mere picker up of "learning’s crumbs." 1 Corinthians 1:24 Unto them that are called (see Ram. 8:28); literally, to the called themselves. Both Jews and Greeks. Henceforth the middle wall of partition between them is thrown down, and there is no difference (Ram. 1 Corinthians 9:24). Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. These words are a summary of the gospel. St. Paul is the best commentator on himself. He speaks elsewhere of "the exceeding greatness of God’s power to usward who believe which he wrought in Christ" (Ephesians 1:17-20), and of "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" as being "hid in Christ" (Colossians 2:3). And the world, once so scornful, has learnt that Christ is indeed the Power of God. When Rudolph of Hapsburgh was being crowned, and in the hurry no sceptre could be found, he seized a crucifix, and swore that that should be his only sceptre. When St. Thomas of Aquinum asked St. Bonaventura what was the source of his immense learning, he pointed in silence to his crucifix. 1 Corinthians 1:25 The foolishness of God… the weakness of God; the method, that is, whereby God works, and which men take to be foolish and weak, because with arrogant presumption they look upon themselves as the measure of all things. But God achieves the mightiest ends by the humblest means, and the gospel of Christ allied itself from the first, not with the world’s strength and splendour, but with all which the world despised as mean and feeble—with fishermen and tax gatherers, with slaves, and women, and artizans. The lesson was specially needful to the Corinthians, whom Cicero describes (’De Leg. Age,’ 2:32) as "famous, not only for their luxuriousness, but also for their wealth and philosophic culture." 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 The method of God in the spread of the gospel. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For behold; or, consider (imperative, as in 1 Corinthians 10:15; Philippians 3:2). Your calling; the nature and method of your heavenly calling; the "principle God has followed in calling you" (Beza); see Ephesians 4:1; Hebrews 3:1. Not many wise after the flesh. Those who hear the calling arc alone the truly wise; but they are net wise with a carnal wisdom, not wise as men count wisdom; they have but little of the wisdom of the serpent and the wisdom of "this age." The Sanhedrin looked down on the apostles as "unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). "God," says St. Augustine, "caught orators by fishermen, not fishermen by orators." Not many mighty; i.e. not many persons of power and influence. Almost the first avowed Gentile Christian of the highest rank was the consul Flavius Clemens, uncle of the Emperor Domitian. This was the more marked because the Jews won many rich and noble proselytes, such as the Queen Helena and the royal family of Adiabene, Poppaea the wife of Nero, and others. The only illustrious converts mentioned in the New Testament are Joseph of Arimathaea, Nicodemus, Sergius Paulus, and Dionysius the Areopagitc. Not many noble. All this was a frequent taunt against Christians, but they made it their boast. Christianity came to redeem and elevate, not the few, but the many, and the many must ever be the weak and the humble. Hence Christ called fishermen as his apostles, and was known as "the Friend of publicans and sinners." None of the rulers believed on him (John 7:48). It must, however, be borne in mind that these words apply mainly and primarily to the first age of Christianity. It was essential that its victory should be due to Divine weapons only, and that it should shake the world "by the irresistible might of weakness." After a time, the wisest and the noblest and the most powerful were called. Kings became the nursing fathers of the gospel, and queens its nursing mothers. Yet the ideal truth remains, and human power shows utter weakness, and human wisdom is capable of sinking into the depths of folly. 1 Corinthians 1:27 God chose; not, hath chosen out. We may remark, once for all, that there was no reason why the translators of 1611 should thus have turned the Greek aorists of the New Testament into perfects. In this and in many instances the change of tense is unimportant, but sometimes it materially and injuriously affects the sense. The foolish things… the weak things. So, too, the psalmist, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength" (Psalms 8:2); and St. James, "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith?" (James 2:5). 1 Corinthians 1:28 And the base things; literally, low-born, unborn; "those who are sprung kern no one in particular"—nullo patre, nullis majoribus. Nothing could be more ignoble in the eyes of the world than a cross of wood upheld by feeble hands, and yet before it "kings and their armies did flee and were discomfited, and they of the household divided the spoil." And the things that are not. The not is the Greek subjective negative (μὴ); things of which men conceived as not existing—"nonentities." It is like the expression of Clement of Rome, "Things accounted as nothing." Christianity was "the little stone, cut without hands," which God called into existence. We find the same thought in St. John the Baptist’s sermon (Matthew 3:9). 1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory. For the weak instruments of God’s triumphs are so weak that it was impossible for them to ascribe any power or merit to themselves. In contemplating the victory of the cross, the world could only exclaim, "This hath God wrought." "It is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes." 1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus. Ye do not belong to the wise and noble. Your strength will consist in acknowledged weakness; for it is solely derived from your fellowship with God by your unity with Christ. Who was made unto us, etc. These words rather mean, "Who was made unto us wisdom from God—both righteousness and sanctification and redemption.’’ The text is a singularly full statement of the whole result of the work of Christ. as the source of "all spiritual blessings in things heavenly" (Ephesians 1:3), in whom we are complete (Colossians 2:10). Righteousness (see 2 Corinthians 5:21). "Jehovah-tsidkenu—the Lord our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:1-40. 5). This is the theme of Rom 3:7. Sanctification (see especially 1 Corinthians 6:11 and Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:26). Redemption. One of the four main metaphors by which the atonement is described is this of ransom (λύτρονἀπολύτρωσις). The meaning and nature of the act, as regards God, lie in regions above our comprehension; so that all speculations as to the person to whom the ransom was paid, and the reason why it was indispensable, have only led to centuries of mistaken theology. But the meaning and nature of it, as regards man, is our deliverance from bondage, and the payment of the debt which we had incurred (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18; Matthew 20:28; Romans 8:21-23). In all these cases, as Stanley well observes, the words have a double meaning—both of an inward act and of an outward result. 1 Corinthians 1:31 As it is written. A compressed quotation from the Septuagint Version of Jer 9:23, Jeremiah 9:24; 1 Samuel 2:10. Let him glory in the Lord. The word rendered "glory" is more literally, boast. The reference is to Jeremiah 9:23, Jeremiah 9:24; 1 Samuel 2:10 (LXX.). The prevalence of "boasting" among the Corinthians and their teachers drove St. Paul to dwell much on this word—from which he so greatly shrinks—in 2 Corinthians 10:12. (where the word occurs twenty times), and to insist that the only true object in which a Christian can glory is the cross (Galatians 6:14), not in himself, or in the world, or in men. To feel, to be, and to desire. "Paul, called to be an apostle," etc. This salutation of Paul suggests (1) what all minister’s should feel; (2) what all Christians should be; and (3) what all men should desire. I. WHAT ALL SHOULD FEEL. They should feel: 1. That they have a call to their mission. Paul did so. "Called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God." No man will do his work effectively in any sphere unless he is assured in his own mind that he is called to it. The inner evidence of this call is sympathy with the work and aptitude for it. 2. That their call is Divine. Paul felt called "through the will of God." It is one thing to feel you have a call to a mission, and another thing to feel that call is Divine. The predominence of the sympathy and the pre-eminence of the aptitude will give this assurance. No man succeeds in any mission unless he feels called to it. II. WHAT ALL MEN SHOULD BE. The description given of the persons addressed suggests what all men should be. What? 1. Religiously social. They should be identified with a religious community. "The Church of God which is at Corinth." All men should be in fellowship with the good, not isolated. 2. Consecrated to Christ. "Sanctified in Christ Jesus." Set apart to him, devoted to him, and thus "called to be saints." Called to live holy lives. "In every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord." A reverent, conscious dependence on him everywhere. 3. A catholic participation in Christ. "Both theirs and ours." There are those who feel that Christ is their special property, they would monopolize him. An un-Christly feeling this. The feeling should be our Christ. "Our Father which art in heaven." There is no personal Christianity that is not catholic in spirit. III. WHAT ALL MEN SHOULD DESIRE. "Grace he unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." In this we have the highest philanthropy—a philanthropy that desires for man: 1. The highest good. "Grace and peace." If men have these they have all. 2. The highest good from the highest Source. "God the Father." Men need this good; Heaven only can bestow it. Exemplary gratitude and precious confidence. "I thank my God always on your behalf," etc. Here we have two blessed states of mind— (1) exemplary gratitude, and (2) precious confidence. I. . "I thank my God always on your behalf." The gratitude here was: 1. Unselfish. "On your behalf." It is right and well to praise God for what he has done for us, but it is a higher and nobler thing to praise him for what he has done for others. No man rightly appreciates a blessing who does not desire others to participate in it. The sublimity of a landscape is more than doubly enjoyed when one or more stand by your side to share your admiration. 2. For spiritual good. "For the grace of God." (1) That grace which "enriched in all utterance and in all knowledge." Two splendid gifts these, where they are inspired by the "grace of God," and properly related. "Utterance," apart from "knowledge," is worthless and pernicious. Volubilities and garrulousness are social evils. "Knowledge" is of no value to others, unless it has effective "utterance." Knowledge, with a powerful natural oratory, will move the world; it has shivered dynasties, converted millions, and created Churches. (2) That grace which confirmed in their experience the testimony of Christ. Their spiritual experience confirmed the testimony. What higher gift than this—a personal realization of Christianity? (3) That grace which inspired them with a practical hope of the appearance of Christ. "Waiting for the coming of our Lord." 3. An habitual state of mind. "I thank my God always." It was not an occasional sentiment; it was a settled attitude of heart. II. . The apostle seems to have had confidence in three things in relation to Christ. 1. In his perfecting character. "Who shall also confirm you unto the end." So perfecting it that it shall be "blameless." All moral imperfections removed. 2. In his appearing again. "In the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." The day—when he will appear. This day is the day of days for humanity. 3. In his granting them companionship. "Unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." "Where I am there ye shall be also." Unshaken confidence in these things, how precious! 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 The importance of spiritual unity. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord," etc. Here the apostle comes to the grand object of writing this letter: it was to put an end to that party spirit that had riven the Church at Corinth into conflicting divisions. His remarks on this subject continue to 1 Corinthians 4:20. There are two things here which show the transcendent importance which he attached to spiritual unity— (1) his solemn exhortation, and (2) his earnest expostulation. I. HIS SOLEMN . "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing," etc. What union does he seek? Not ecclesiastical union, conformity to the same system of worship. Not theological union, conformity to the same scheme of doctrine. Such unions cannot touch hearts, cannot weld souls. They are the union of the various parts of the machine, not the union of the branches of a tree. 1. The unity he seeks is that of spiritual utterance. "That ye all speak the same thing." Not the same thing in letter, but in life. Let the utterances be as varied as all the notes in the gamut, but let love, like the keynote, tune them into music. 2. The unity he seeks is that of unity of soul. "That ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." These include unity of the supreme sympathy and aim. Of such unity Christ alone is the Centre. Creeds divide; Christ unites. According to the laws of mind, all that love Christ supremely, though separated in person by distances immeasurable, are one in heart, one as planets are one, revolving round the same centre. This is the union that Paul sought; this is Divine socialism. No wonder that he was solemn in his entreaties. "In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ" he asks it. II. HIS EARNEST . Divisions or schisms were rife and rampant in the Church at Corinth at this time. Some person of the name of Chloe, unknown to us, but evidently well known to Paul and his contemporaries of the Corinthian Church, brought these divisions under Paul’s notice, told him of the contentions. We must, I suppose, assume that this Chloe was a good character, although, as a rule, the most unamiable persons are the most ready to parade the imperfections of others. Now, what were the divisions against which he protests? "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ," etc. Their divisions consisted in rabid preferences for certain ministers. One party set up Paul as pre-eminent; another party set up Apollos as unapproached in excellence; others Cephas, or Peter; and others gave Christ the pre-eminence, and they were right. Now, to put down these divisions, these schisms, Paul expostulates with great vehemence. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" Party spirit has been the greatest curse to Christianity; it has filled Christendom with conflicting sects. Alas! that any professed minister of the gospel should defend the existence of separate sects and Churches. How often have I heard preachers on platforms compare the different denominations to regiments in the same army! Do regiments in an army fight one with another, and do they misinterpret the grand purpose of the campaign? However, so long as men have vested interests in sects, and live by denominations, I fear nothing but the crash of doom will destroy sectarianism. The world’s greatest blessing and its greatest evil. "Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." Here we have - I. The greatest in the world. "The cross of Christ." By "the cross of Christ" the apostle did not mean, of course, the timber on which Christ was crucified, or any imitation of that in wood, brass, marble, gold, silver, or paint. He uses the word as a symbol, as we use the words "crown," "court," "bench," etc. He meant the eternal principles of which the cross of Christ was at once the effect, evidence, and expression—he meant, in one word, all that we mean by the gospel. And this, we say, is the greatest blessing in the world today. The human world lives under a system of mercy, and mercy pours on it every hour blessings innumerable. But no blessing has come to it, has ever been found in it, or will ever come to it, equal to the cross or the gospel. Look at it, for example, in only three of its many aspects, and you will be impressed with its incomparable worth. 1. As a revealer. The chief value of the material universe is, that it reveals the spiritual and the eternal; but the gospel reveals all that the material does of God and the universe with much greater fulness and effect. It presents the "image of the invisible God." All true theological doctrine and ethical science come to us through the cross. It is the moral light of the world. 2. As an educator. That in human life which is the most successful in quickening, evolving, and strengthening all the powers of the human mind is its chief blessing. The "cross of Christ" has done this a thousand times more effectively than any other agency. Art, government, science, poetry, philosophy, owe infinitely more to it than to any other agent in the world. The cross is to the human soul what the vernal sunbeam is to the seed; it penetrates, warms, quickens, and brings all its latent powers out to perfection. 3. As a deliverer. The cross is more than a revealer or an educator; it is a deliverer. The human soul is condemned, diseased, enthralled; everywhere it groans under the sentence of its own conscience. It languishes under a moral malady; it is fettered by lusts, prejudices, evil habits, and social influences; its deepest cry is, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?" The cross bears a pen to cancel the sentence, a balm to heal the wound, a weapon to break the fettering chain. Such, and infinitely more, is the cross. What would human life be without it? A voyage without a compass, chart, or star. II. The greatest EVIL in the world. What is the evil? Making this cross of "none effect." That is "none effect" so far as its grand mission is concerned. Some effect it must have; it will deepen the damnation where it does not save. "We are unto God a sweet savour," etc. We offer three remarks concerning this tremendous evil. 1. It is painfully manifest. The fact is patent to all, that the cross has not to any great extent in Christendom produced its true effect. Though it has been in the world upwards of eighteen hundred years, not one-tenth of the human population know anything about it, and not one-hundredth of those who know something of it, experience its true effect. Intellectually, socially, politically, it has confessedly done wonders for mankind; but morally, how little! How little genuine holiness, disinterested philanthropy, self-sacrificing devotion to truth and God! How little Christliness of life! In all moral features, England is well-nigh as hideous as heathendom.£ 2. It is easily explained. How is it done? The apostle in this verse indicates one way in which it could be done, that is, by "wisdom of words," by which we understand him to mean gorgeous rhetoric. What is called the Church has done it; that is, the assembly of men who profess to be its disciples, representatives, ministers, and promoters. The Church has done it: (1) By its theologies. In its name it has propounded dogmas that have clashed with reason and outraged conscience. (2) By its polity. It has sanctioned wars, promoted priestcraft, established hierarchies, which have fattened on the ignorance and poverty of the people. (3) By its spirit. The spirit of the Church, as a rule, is in direct antagonism to the spirit of the cross. The spirit of the cross is self sacrificing love; the spirit of the conventional Church has been to a great extent that of selfishness, greed, ambition, and oppression. Malrepresentation of Christ by the Church is the instrument that has made the cross of "none effect." 3. It is terribly criminal. It is wonderful that man has the power thus to pervert Divine institutions and blessings; but such perverting power he has, and he uses it every day even in natural things. He forges metals into weapons for murder, he turns bread corn into liquids to blight the reason and to damn the souls of men. Wonderful power this! and terrible is the crime in employing it for perverting the cross of Christ. A greater crime than this you cannot conceive of. Were you to turn all bread into poison, make the flowing rivers pestiferous, quench the light of the sun, mantle the stars in sackcloth, you would not perpetrate a crime half so enormous as that of making the cross of Christ of" none effect." . Two questions. 1. What is the spiritual influence of the cross on us? Has it crucified unto us the world; destroyed in us the worldly spirit—the spirit of practical atheism, materialism, and selfishness? 2. What are we doing with the cross? Are we abusing it or rightly employing it? 1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 1:19 Two classes of gospel hearers. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Instead of the "preaching of the cross," the New Version reads, the "word of the cross," and the word of the cross stands in contrast to the word of worldly wisdom. How great is the contrast! We have here two classes of gospel bearers. I. The one is gradually , the other is gradually BEING SAVED. The perishing and the saving are gradual. 1. There is a class in every congregation, perhaps, gradually perishing. They are gradually losing moral sensibility—contracting fresh guilt, etc. They are not damned at once. 2. There is a class in every congregation, perhaps, gradually being saved. Salvation is not an instantaneous thing, as some suppose. II. To the one class the gospel is , to the other the POWER OF GOD. 1. It is "foolishness" to them that are perishing, because it has no meaning, no reality. 2. It is a Divine "power" to them that are being saved. Enlightening, renovating, purifying, ennobling. The power of God stands in contrast with mere philosophy and eloquence. 1 Corinthians 1:20, 1 Corinthians 1:21 Philosophy and the gospel. "Where is the wise?" etc. The "wise" (σοφός) here refers specially to the sages of Greece. They were called at first "wise men," and afterwards assumed a more modest title, "lovers of wisdom," philosophers. The "scribe" refers to the learned among the Jews. The appeal of the text, therefore, is to the wisdom or the philosophy of the world, including that of the Greek or Jew. Here we have— I. Philosophy by the gospel. The apostle here challenges the wise men of the world to accomplish the end which the gospel had in view. That end was the impartation to men of the saving knowledge of God. Where, unaided, had it ever succeeded in accomplishing this? Who amongst the wise will come forward to give one single instance? II. Philosophy by the gospel. "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1. By doing what philosophy could not do. "The world by wisdom knew not God." Though the pages of nature lay open to the eye, with God’s signature on the whole, man failed to discover him. 2. By doing by the simplest instrumentality what philosophy could not do. The proclamation of the history of Jesus of Nazareth, and that by a few simple men regarded as the offscouring of all things, did the work. Hath not God in this way "made foolish the wisdom of the world"? III. Philosophy by the gospel. "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." The preaching is not foolish in itself, only in the estimation of the would be wise men. The great want of men is salvation—the restoration of the soul to the knowledge, the likeness, the fellowship of God. This want philosophy cannot supply; but the gospel does. It has done so, it is doing so, and it will continue to do so. 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 Christianity viewed in three aspects. "For the Jews require a sign," etc. Our subject is Christianity; and here we see it in three aspects. I. As associated with a GREAT FACT. "Christ crucified." This fact may be looked at: 1. Historically. As an historical fact, it is the most famous, influential, and best authenticated in the annals of time. 2. Theologically. It unfolds the Divine, it rends the veil in the great temple of theological truth, and exposes the inmost and holiest sanctuary; it is a mighty expression of God’s idea, government, and heart. 3. Morally. It is fraught with the most quickening, elevating, and sanctifying suggestions. II. As associated with POPULAR OPINION. It was a "stumbling block" to the Jew; it was "foolishness" to the Greek. It had not sufficient of the gorgeous philosophical ritualism for the speculative and pedantic Greek, nor sufficient of the gorgeous religious ritualism for the sensuous and bigoted Jew. What is it in popular sentiment now? To the millions it is nothing. They have formed no idea of it; they do not think about it. To the sceptic it is a fable; to the formalist it is a creed to be repeated, and a ceremony to be attended to on certain occasions, and nothing more. III. As associated with . "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God." The Christian sees the highest wisdom in a system which, in saving the sinner, does four things. 1. Manifests the righteousness of the insulted Sovereign. 2. Augments the influence of moral government. 3. Maintains intact all the principles of moral freedom. 4. Develops, strengthens, and perfects all the original powers of the individual soul. He sees, too, the highest power in the difficulties it surmounts, the revolutions it effects, the deeds to which it stimulates, the hopes it inspires, and the deep fountains of pleasure which it opens up. He feels it is both wise and powerful. What is Christianity to us? As a fact, there it is in the archives of humanity, for ever independent of us; nothing will ever blot it out from the page of history. As a fact, though centuries old, it is more influential than ever. It will be a fact eternally. What is it to us? Is it folly and weakness; or is it wisdom and power? This is the question. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 God destroying the conventionally great by the conventionally contemptible. "For ye see your calling, brethren," etc. These verses remind us of two facts. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 St. Paul’s own method. 1 Corinthians 2:1 And I; "I too;" I in accordance with God’s method. When I came to you. The date of his first visit was in A.D. 52, and he had stayed a year and a half (Acts 18:11). He had since been (roughly speaking) "three years" (τριετίαν, Acts 20:31) at Ephesus. Of speech or of wisdom. I spoke to you neither oratorically nor philosophically. Hence the Apollos party, fond of the brilliant rhetoric of the young Alexandrian, spoke of Paul’s speech as "contemptible" (2 Corinthians 10:10). The testimony of God; that is, the witness borne to Christ by the Father (1 John 5:10, 1 John 5:11). 1 Corinthians 2:2 I determined. The unadorned simplicity of my teaching was part of a fixed design. Not to know anything. Not, that is, to depend on any human knowledge. Of course, St. Paul neither means to set aside all human knowledge nor to disparage other Christian doer, toes. His words must not be pressed out of their due context and proportion. Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Christ, in the lowest depth of his abasement and self sacrifice. He would "know" nothing else; that is, he would make this the central point and essence of all his knowledge, because he knew the "excellency" of this knowledge (Philippians 3:8)—knew it as the only knowledge which rose to the height of wisdom. Christ is the only Foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11). In the person and the work of Christ is involved the whole gospel. 1 Corinthians 2:3 I was with you; literally, I became or proved myself, towards you, as in 1 Corinthians 16:10. In weakness. St. Paul was physically weak and liable also to nervous weakness and depression (1 Corinthians 4:7-12; Galatians 4:13; 2 Corinthians 10:1, 2 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Corinthians 12:7, 2 Corinthians 12:10). He shows an occasional self distrust rising from the consciousness of personal infirmities. This enhances our sense of his heroic courage and endurance. Doubtless this physical weakness and nervous depression were connected with his "stake in the flesh," which seems to have been an acute and distressing form of ophthalmia, accompanied with cerebral disturbance (see my ’Life of St. Paul,’ 1:215-221). In fear, and in much trembling. Probably the words are even literally true, though they are a common phrase (2 Corinthians 7:15; Philippians 2:12, Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 6:5). It must be remembered that in his first visit to Corinth St. Paul had gone through stormy and troubled days (Acts 18:1-12). 1 Corinthians 2:4 My speech and my preaching; the form and matter of my discourse. He would not attempt to use the keen sword of philosophical dialectics or human eloquence, but would only use the weapon of the cross. Was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom; rather, with persuasive words of wisdom (the word anthropines is a gloss). This simplicity was the more remarkable because "Corinthian words" was a proverb for choice, elaborate, and glittering phrases (Wetstein). It is not improbable that the almost total and deeply discouraging want of success of St. Paul in preaching at Athens had impressed him mere strongly with the uselessness of attempting to fight Greek philosophers with their own blunt and imperfect weapons. In demonstration of the Spirit and of power. So he says to the Thessalonians," Our gospel came not to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." The plain facts, so repellent to the natural intellect, were driven home with matchless force by spiritual conviction. The only heathen critic who has mentioned St. Paul’s method is Longinus, the author of the treatise on ’The Sublime and Beautiful,’ who calls him "a master of unproved dogma," meaning apparently that his force lay in the irresistible statement of the facts which he came to preach. 1 Corinthians 2:5 In the power of God. So in 2 Corinthians 4:7 he says that the treasure they carried was "in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 The apparent foolishness is the only wisdom. 1 Corinthians 2:6 Howbeit. In this passage he shows that in reality a crushing irony lay in his description of the gospel as being, in the world’s judgment, "weak" and "foolish." It was the highest wisdom, but it could only be understood by the perfect. Its apparent folly to the Corinthians was a proof of their blindness and incapacity. Among the perfect. The word either means (1) the mature, the full grown, as opposed to babes in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1); or (2) the fully initiated into the mysteries of godliness (ἐποπται 2 Peter 1:16). A wisdom not of this world; literally, of this seen. The word kosmos means the world in its material aspect; aeon is read for the world in its moral and intellectual aspect. "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Corinthians 3:19). Nor of the rulers of this world. Some have taken these "rulers" to be the same as "the world rulers of this darkness," i.e. the evil spirits, in Ephesians 6:12 (John 13:27; Luke 22:53). Ignatius (?) seems to have understood it thus; for he adopted the strange notion that "the prince of this aeon" (i.e. Satan) had been deceived and frustrated by the incarnation from a virgin, and the death on the cross (Ignat., ’Ad. Ephesians,’ 19). It means more probably "wisdom," as understood by Roman governors and Jewish Sanhedrists, who treated the Divine wisdom of the gospel with sovereign contempt (Acts 4:27). That [who] come to nought; literally, who are being done away with. Amid all the feebleness of the infant Church, St. Paul saw empires vanishing before it. 1 Corinthians 2:7 In a mystery; that is, "in a truth, once hidden, now revealed." The word is now used for what is dark and incomprehensible, but it has no such meaning in the New Testament, where it means "what was once secret, but has now been made manifest" (Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:4, Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 3:16). It implies the very reverse of any esoteric teaching. Hidden. It was "hidden from the wise and prudent, but revealed to babes" (Matthew 11:25). Before the worlds; literally, before the ages; before time began. Unto our glory. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly states that "the future age" is in God’s counsels subjected, not to the angels, but to man. But "our glory" is that we are "called to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus" (1 Peter 5:10). 1 Corinthians 2:8 Had they known it; literally, had they recognized; had they got to know it. The apostles often dwell on this ignorance as being in part a palliation for the sin of rejecting Christ (see especially Acts 3:17; Acts 13:27; comp. Isaiah 2:1). Jews and Romans, emperors, procurators: high priests, Pharisees, had in their ignorance conspired in vain to prevent what God had foreordained. The Lord of glory. This is not a mere equivalent of "the glorious Lord," in Psalms 24:10. It is "the Lord of the glory," i.e. "the Lord of the Shechinah" (comp. Ephesians 1:17, "the Father of the glory "). The Shechinah was the name given by the Jews to the cloud of light which symbolized God’s presence. The cherubim are called, in Hebrews 9:5, "cherubim of glory," because the Shechinah was borne on their outspread wings (see, however, Acts 7:2; Ephesians 1:17). There would have been to ancient ears a startling and awful paradox in the words "crucified the Lord of glory." The words brought into juxtaposition the lowest ignominy and the most splendid exaltation. 1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written. The whole sentence in the Greek is unfinished. The thought seems to be, "But God has revealed to us things which eye hath not seen, etc., though the princes of this world were ignorant of them." Scriptural quotations are often thus introduced, apart from the general grammar of the sentence, as in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 1:31. Eye hath not seen, etc. The Revised Version is here more literal and accurate. The quotation as it stands is not found in the Old Testament. It most resembles Isaiah 64:4, but also vaguely resembles Isaiah 53:1-12:15; Isaiah 65:17. It may be another instance of a loose general reminiscence. "Non verbum e verbo expressit," says St. Jerome, "sed παραφραστικῶς eundem sensum aliis sermonibus indicavit." St. Chrysostom regards the words as part of a lost prophecy. Origen, Zacharias of Chrysopolis, and others say that the words occurred in an apocryphal book, the ’Apocalypse of Elias,’ but if so the apocryphal writer must have had the passage of Isaiah in his mind. Some regard the words as a fragment of some ancient liturgy. Origen thought that they came from the ’Revelation of Elijah.’ They were also to be found in the ’Ascension of Isaiah’ (Jeremiah on Isaiah 64:4). and they occur in the Talmud. In a curious fragment of Hegesippus preserved in Photius, that old writer indignantly repudiates this passage, saying that it is futile and "utterly belies (καταψεύδεσθαι) the Holy Scriptures and the Lord, who says, ’Blessed are your eyes which see, and your ears which hear.’" Photius cannot understand why (ὅτικαὶπαθὼν) Hegesippus should speak thus. Routh hardly knows how to excuse him; but perhaps if we had the context of the fragment we should see that he is attacking, not the words themselves, but some perversion of them by heretics, like the Docetae. The phrase, "As it is written," decisively marks an intention to refer to Scripture. Neither have entered into the heart of man; literally, things which have not set foot upon the heart. The general thought is that God’s revelations (for the immediate reference is to these, and not to future bliss) pass all understanding. The quotation of these words as referring to heaven is one of the numberless instances of texts inaccurately applied. 1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us. They are secret no longer, but are "mysteries which now it is given us to know" (Matthew 13:11). By his Spirit. The Spirit guides into all truth (John 13:16). In 1 Corinthians 12:8-11 St. Paul attributes every gift of wisdom directly to him. Searcheth. "How unsearchable are his judgments!" (Romans 11:33). Yea, the deep things of God. This expression, "The depths of God," passed into the cant expression of the Gnostics, and it may be with reference to their misuse of it that St. John uses the phrase, "The depths of Satan" (Revelation 2:24). "Oh, the depth," etc.! (Romans 11:33). 1 Corinthians 2:11 The things of God none knoweth. Some manuscripts have not the same word (οῖδεν) as that rendered "knoweth" in the earlier clause, but "hath learnt" (ἔγνωκεν); comp. John 21:17; 2 Corinthians 5:16. All that is meant is that our knowledge of God must always be relative, not absolute. It is not possible to measure the arm of God with the finger of man. 1 Corinthians 2:12 The spirit of the world. The heathen world in its heathen aspect is regarded as under the power of the devil (2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:11, Ephesians 6:12). Freely given to us by God. The word "freely" is here involved in the verb (χαρισθέντα) "graciously bestowed." It is different from the phrase used in "Freely ye have received," which is gratuitously (δωρεὰν, Matthew 10:8). All God’s gifts are "without money and without price" (Isaiah 55:1), and not "to be bought with money" (Acts 18:20). 1 Corinthians 2:13 Comparing spiritual things with spiritual. The meaning of this clause is very uncertain. It has been rendered, "Blending spiritual things with spiritual" (Kling, Wordsworth), i.e. not adulterating them with carnal admixtures (2 Corinthians 2:17; 1 Peter 2:22). "Interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men". "Explaining spiritual things in spiritual words." This meaning the Greek will not bear, but Calvin and Beza get the same meaning by rendering it, "Adapting spiritual things to spiritual words." It is doubtful whether the Greek verb (sunkrinontes) can be rendered "comparing,’’ which comes from the Vulgate, comparantes. Wickliffe has the version, "Maken a liknesse of spyritual things to goostli men, for a besteli man persuyved not through thingis." The commonest sense of the word in the LXX. is "interpreting’’ (Genesis 40:8, etc.), and the best rendering is, "Explaining spirituals to spiritual men." If it be supposed that the verb συγκρίνω acquired the sense of "comparing" in Hellenistic Greek (2 Corinthians 10:12; Wis. 7:29; 15:18), then the rendering of our Authorized Version may stand. 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man. The Greek word is ψυχικὸς (psychical); literally, soulish, i.e. the man who lives the mere life of his lower understanding, the unspiritual, sensuous, and egoistic man. He may be superior to the fleshly, sensual, or carnal man, who lives only the life of the body (σωματικὸς); but is far below the spiritual man (πνευματικός). St. Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:23) recognizes the tripartite nature of man—body, soul, spirit. Receiveth not; i.e. "does not choose to accept." He judges them by the foregone conclusions of his own prejudice. Because they are spiritually judged. The organ for the recognition of such truths—namely, the spirit—has become paralyzed or fallen into atrophy, from neglect; therefore the egoist and the sensualist have lost the faculty whereby alone spiritual truth is discernible. It becomes to them what painting is to the blind, or music to the deaf. This elementary truth is again and again insisted on in Scripture, and ignored by sceptics (Romans 8:6, Romans 8:7; John 3:3; John 6:44, John 6:45; John 14:17; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6). This verse is sometimes used to depreciate knowledge, reason, and intellect. On that abuse of the passage, see Hooker, ’Eccl. Pol.,’ 3. Ecclesiastes 8:4-11, an admirable passage, which Bishop Wordsworth quotes at length. It is, perhaps, sufficient to say that if God has no need of human knowledge, he has still less need of human ignorance. 1 Corinthians 2:15 Judgeth all things. If he can judge the higher, lie can of course judge the lower. Being spiritual, he becomes intellectual also, as well as more than intellectual. He can see into the difference between the dream and the reality; he can no longer take the shadow for the substance. He can not only decide about ordinary matters, but can also "discriminate the transcendent,’’ i.e. see that which is best even in different alternatives of good. "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him" (Psalms 25:14). He himself is judged of no man. He may be judged, condemned, depreciated, slandered every day of his life, but the arrow flights of human judgment fall far short of him. These Corinthians were judging and comparing Paul and Apollos and Cephas; but their judgments were false and worthless, and Paul told them that it was less than nothing to him to be judged by them or by man’s feeble transitory day (1 Corinthians 4:3). "Evil men," as Solomon said, "understand not judgment" (Proverbs 28:5). 1 Corinthians 2:16 Who hath known the mind of the Lord? "The Lord" is Jehovah (see Isaiah 40:13, LXX.; Romans 11:34). This is the reason why no one can judge the spiritual man in his spiritual life. To do so is like judging God. We have the mind of Christ. So Christ himself had told the apostles (John 15:15); and St. Paul always claimed to have been taught by direct revelation from Christ (Galatians 1:11, Galatians 1:12). They had the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), and therefore the mind of Christ. A faithful picture of a true gospel preacher. "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech," etc. These words may be regarded as a faithful picture of a true gospel preacher. I. The grand subject of his ministry is the CHRIST. 1. Christ crucified, because he is the highest revelation of God’s love for man. 2. Christ crucified, because he is the most thrilling demonstration of the wickedness of humanity. 3. Christ crucified, because he is the grandest display of loyalty to moral rectitude. This is the theme—a personal "Christ crucified;" not a creed or creeds written in books. He himself; not the theories of theologians about him. II. The grand subject of his ministry is TO HIM SOUL . "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." The man who has some paramount sentiment looks at the universe through it, ay, and values the universe so far as it reflects and honours that sentiment. Hence to Paul Christ was "all in all." All other subjects—political and philosophical—dwindled into insignificance in its presence; it swallowed up his great soul. III. The grand subject of his ministry makes him TO ALL . "I… came not with excellency of speech." In order to exhibit this theme to men, he never thought of brilliant sentences and polished periods and studied composition; not he. The theme was independent of it, infinitely too great for it. Does the splendid apple tree in full blossom require to be decorated with gaudy ribbons? Christ crucified is eloquence, mighty eloquence. Tell the story of his life in plain vernacular, with the notes of nature, however rough, and in vital sympathy with its spirit; and your discourse will be a thousand times mightier than the orations with which Demosthenes shook the proud democracy of Greece. IV. The grand subject of his ministry SUBDUES IN HIM ALL SELF . "I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling." This Paul was naturally a strong, intrepid soul, but in the presence of this grand theme he felt weak and trembling. "Who is sufficient for these things?" he exclaims. Vanity in any man is a vile and disgusting incongruity, but in a preacher it is a thousand times worse. A vain preacher is an anomaly, an impostor. He has failed to realize the grand theme about which he prates. V. The grand subject of his ministry INVESTS HIM WITH DIVINE POWER OVER MAN. "My preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, hut in the rower of God." There is as truly Divine power in the ministry of a true preacher as there is in the heaving of ocean or the rolling of planets; but a higher power withal, power over mind, it is "the power of God unto salvation." "Would I describe a preacher such as Paul," etc. (Cowper.) 1 Corinthians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 2:7 The gospel: its description, preachers, and hearers. "Howbeit we speak wisdom," etc. In these words we have three things concerning the gospel. I. A OF ITS NATURE. Paul calls it the" wisdom of God." The wisdom of a system may be determined by two things. 1. By the character of the end it contemplates. A system which aims at an insignificant or unworthy end would scarcely be considered wise. What is the end the gospel aims at? The restoration in human souls of supreme sympathy with God. The absence of this sympathy is the cause of all the crimes, evils, and sorrows that curse humanity. 2. By the fitness of the means it employs. Though a system contemplate a grand end, yet if the means it employs are unadapted, it could scarcely be called wise. What are the means Christianity employs to generate this love for God in unloving souls? Ask what the souls destitute of this love must have in order to get it, and our answer will be three things: (1) a personal manifestation of God; (2) a human manifestation of God; (3) a loving manifestation of God. These things we think essential in the nature of the case, and these three things the gospel gives. It is, therefore, emphatically the "wisdom of God." II. A RULE FOR ITS . "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect." The apostle clearly means by the word "perfect" those in the Christian community who were more advanced in the knowledge of Christ, who stood most in contrast with those who are but" babes in Christ." One of these ideas may be attached to the language of the apostle. Either that he had an exoteric and esoteric doctrine for men, or that the most advanced Christian alone could discern the wisdom of his doctrine, or that he adapted his teaching to the capacity of his hearers. The last is the idea which I think we are to accept as the meaning. In another place he tells the Christians at Corinth that he had hitherto "fed them with milk, and not with meat, because they were not able to bear it" His conduct is, I take it, a rule for all true preaching. III. AN UPON ITS HEARERS. If the higher aspects of gospel religion can only be appreciated by these who are "perfect," those who have attained to a high stage of Christian knowledge, it is manifestly their duty to advance beyond the "first principles of the oracles of God." This duty hearers owe (1) to themselves; (2) to their minister; (3) to the system of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:8, 1 Corinthians 2:9 Spiritual ignorance the cause of immense evil and the occasion, of immense good. "Which none of the princes of this world," etc. The words lead us to look on spiritual ignorance—i.e., ignorance of God and our obligations to him—in two very opposite aspects. I. AS THE CAUSE OF IMMENSE EVIL. These "princes of the world," through ignorance, "crucified the Lord of glory." A greater crime was never perpetrated. It involved: (1) The grossest injustice. He was innocent. (2) The basest ingratitude. He did. good, and good only. (3) The most heartless cruelty. They crucified him—the most excruciating death that infernal malignity could desire. (4) The most daring impiety. Whom did they treat thus? "The Lord of glory." How this spiritual ignorance was the cause of immense evil is evident from two considerations. 1. Because it is in itself an evil, and like will produce like. There is an ignorance that is a calamity. When mind and means are absent, ignorance is a calamity; but when they are present, it is always a crime. These "princes" had both. Their ignorance was a sin, and sin, like virtue, is propagated. That this spiritual ignorance was the cause of evil is clear from the fact that: 2. Had it not existed, such an evil could never have been perpetrated. The words lead us to look at spiritual ignorance II. AS THE OF IMMENSE GOOD. Paul tells us that this Crucifixion introduced things that "eye had never seen nor ear heard." Divine pardon, spiritual purity, immortal hopes, are all things that come through the Crucifixion. From the subject learn: 1. That the sinner is always engaged in accomplishing that which he never intended. These "princes" did two things they never intended. (1) They ruined themselves; (2) they served God. 2. That whatever good a man may accomplish contrary to his intention, is destitute of all praiseworthiness. What oceans of blessings come to the world through the Crucifixion! Yet who can ever praise the crucifiers? 3. That no man should act without an intelligent conception of what he is doing. How many act from prejudice and blind impulse! how few trove a right conception of what they are doing! 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 The gospel school. "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit," etc. Because man naturally craves for knowledge and deeply needs it, schools abound everywhere throughout the civilized world, especially here in England—schools of science, schools of philosophy, schools of art, etc.. But there is one school that transcends all—the gospel school. Three facts are suggested concerning this school. I. That here the student is IN THE . "Deep things of God." Things, not words, not theories. "Deep things;" deep because undiscoverable by human reason; deep because they come from the fathomless ocean of Divine love. What are these deep things? The primary elements of the gospel, and the necessary condition of soul restoration. These "deep things" we are here told are: 1. The free gifts of Heaven. "Freely given to us of God." 2. Freely given to be communicated. "Which things also we speak," etc. He who gets these things into his mind and heart, not only can communicate, but is bound to tell them to others, and that in plain natural language, free from the affectations of rhetoric, the language which the "Holy Ghost teacheth," language which is suggested by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Men think in words; thoughts come dressed in their own language; the intellectual thoughts have their own language, and spiritual thoughts have a language all their own. II. That here the student is TAUGHT BY THE TEACHER. Who is the Teacher? The Divine Spirit himself, here called the "Spirit of God" and the" Holy Ghost." 1. This Teacher has infinite knowledge. "The Spirit searcheth all things." The word "searcheth" must not be taken, I presume, in the sense of investigation, but rather in the sense of complete knowledge. In the last clause of the next verse it is said, "The things of God knoweth no matt, but the Spirit of God." He knoweth those things of God; he knows them in their essence, number, issues, hearings, relations, etc. 2. This Teacher is no other than God himself. "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." The implication is that this Spirit is as truly God as man’s mind is man. No one knows the things in man’s mind but man himself; no one knows the "deep things of God" but God himself. "Who teacheth like God?" He knows thoroughly the nature of the student, and how best to indoctrinate that nature with his own "deep things." III. That here the student MUST DEVELOP HIS HIGHER NATURE. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Man has a threefold nature, designated by St. Paul as soma, psyche, and pneuma—body, soul, and spirit. The first is the animal, the second is the mental, and the third the moral or spiritual. This is the conscience, with its intuitions and sympathies, and this is the chief part of man, nay, the man himself, the core of his being, that which Paul calls" the inner man," the man of the man. Now, this part of the man alone can receive the "things of the Spirit of God." Set these things before the "natural man," his mere body; they are no more to him than Euclid to a brute. Set them before the mere psychical or intellectual man, and what are they? Puzzles over which he will speculate; nay, they are "foolishness unto him." Mere intellect cannot understand love, cannot appreciate right. It concerns itself with the truth or falsehood of propositions, and the advantages and disadvantages of conduct—nothing more. Moral love only can interpret and feel the things of moral love, the "deep things of God." Hence this moral pneuma, this spiritual nature, this conscience must be roused from its dormancy, and become the ascendant nature before the "things of the Spirit" can be "discerned," and then the man shall judge all things, all spiritual things, whilst he himself will not be judged rightly by any "natural man." "For who hath known the mind of the Lord?" Who, thus uninstructed, can "know the mind of the Lord"? BY C. How St. Paul preached the gospel. A great truth is capable of manifold presentations. To be seen fully it must be viewed in various aspects, each of which is relative to the wholeness of the idea, while supplying to the student an increased sensibility to its excellence. Sir Joshua Reynolds speaks of his disappointment when he first saw the painting of the Transfiguration, but it grew upon him and educated his eye, the mind in the eye, to appreciate its sublimity. Hazlitt mentions a similar experience in his own case. Such impressions are not due to simple recipiency; the active intellect is aroused, and the thinker himself becomes a voluntary party to the object affecting him. Evidently, now, St. Paul’s idea of preaching, as given in the first chapter, returned upon him and solicited further consideration. Accordingly, we find him in the second chapter detailing his personal history as a preacher while at Corinth, and, as usual in his Epistles, the autobiographical clement discloses its presence in his logic. Whenever there was an important issue in his ministry, we see the man in the fulness of his proportions and look into his very heart, so that we are at no loss to understand the reason of his impassioned energy. In this instance he declares that he did not come to the Corinthians "with excellency of speech or of wisdom," as the world regarded speech and wisdom. But he was with them "in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling." It was not the "weakness" of cowardice, nor the "fear" that brings a snare, nor the "trembling" that conies from an apprehension of criticism and hostility. Agitation and solicitude were the product of his fine sensibility, not rising from below, but descending from the highest realm of his being, the ideal of duty and responsibility so vast within him as to oppress the capacity of performance. A most blessed "weakness" this, the best possible assurance of truthful power, the most reliable token our latent nature offers as a promise of success. The throb of the engine in a huge Atlantic steamship sends its own quiver into every plank and bolt of the vessel. There is a "trembling" in all its compartments, but it is the trembling of power. St. Paul had no gift more remarkable than the gift of feeling to the utmost the doctrines of the gospel. Christ in him, Christ as the self of self, was the Christ he preached; and hence no discourse he ever delivered, no letter he ever wrote, affected others as much as they affected him. Effective speakers and writers are never on a level with their hearers and readers. They see more, feel more, than those whom they impress, and their personality is no small constituent in the effect produced. Rightly enough, St. Paul specializes "my speech and my preaching." The "my" means a man "determined not to know anything… save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Self exaltation he had none; for self exaltation is always a parody on the truthfulness of one’s nature, and Christ was so real to St. Paul that he could not be other than real to himself in his ministerial work. And, in accordance with this fact, his manner of preaching the gospel is itself evidential of the divineness of the gospel. It was a "demonstration of the Spirit and. of power." Of what avail that the "Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom"? Give them the "sign" and the "wisdom:" what then? The belief, or "faith," if you so call it, is the man’s own product, standing in his own strength, the pride of his own intellect, the joy of his own vanity. Not so the doctrine of "Christ crucified." The way it comes to the soul proves its infinite truth. It does not approach a man on the sense side of his nature, but on the spiritual side. Unlike education and culture, which begin with the intellect of the senses and develop upward, Christianity arises from the instant of its initial contact with the human soul at the highest moral capacity, and recognizes this soul as it stands related to God its Father, to Christ its Redeemer, to the Holy Ghost its Convincer and Sanctifier. Man as the image of the natural universe is regarded subsequently. Therefore the emphasis of St. Paul on the "demonstration of the Spirit and of power," and therefore the strength and glory of faith, which stands, not "in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."—L. 1 Corinthians 2:6-13 Contents of the revelation. But the apostle claims "wisdom" for the gospel. The counterfeit has been exposed, and the genuine coin is now presented. And how does he proceed to verify his right to use a term that, in the estimation of all thinkers, commanded respect and admiration? He will honour the Word; he will restore its meaning and clear it of obscurity, nay, expand its significance and invest it with a charm not known before. Solomon had used his splendid intellect to give the word "wisdom" a wide currency among his people, and Socrates had laboured for the Greeks in a similar way, each of them an agent of Providence, to teach intellect its legitimate uses and rescue it from bondage to the senses. And there was that old world in which these men, under very different circumstances and sharing very unlike illumination, had taught their countrymen what they knew of wisdom, and this remnant of its former state—the mere effigy of earlier grandeur—stood confronting St. Paul at Corinth, with its conceits, prejudices, and animosities, arrayed most of all against him, because he resisted, so bravely its earthly arts and methods. From a far loftier standpoint than Greeks and Jews acknowledged, an infinite distance, indeed, between the disputants of either side, he preached wisdom that came from God—a wisdom long hidden and hence called "a mystery," but now revealed in the fulness of the times. Yet, during the ages when this wisdom had been concealed, when eye and ear and the subtlest imagination had been unable to probe the secret, when human thought had exhausted itself in vain research, and had sunk at last into unnatural content with its own imbecility,—through all this probation of intellect in the school of the senses, God had reserved "the hidden wisdom" for "our glory." The demonstration of man’s utter weakness had to be made, and Judaea and Greece had been chosen to make it. Rome’s task was to gather up the results and exhibit them in a solidified form; nor could there have been such a Rome as that of the Caesars unless the experiment with the "wisdom of this world," and of the "princes of this world," had proved a failure disastrous in the extreme. That time had passed. And now this "hidden wisdom" had been made known as a spiritual certainty, which was nothing less than a "demonstration of the Spirit and of power." "There is a spirit in man," and it "knoweth the things of a man." Who can gainsay its consciousness? Who can appeal from its testimony to anything higher in himself? So too the Spirit of God "searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God," and, furthermore, the Holy Spirit is given to our spirit so that we "might know the things that are freely given to us of God." Just before St. Paul had stated that the mystery, the hidden wisdom, had been held back for "our glory." And is not the truth of that statement now attested? Understand wherein "our glory" lies. It is in this—man has a spirit, and God communicates his own secret intelligence unto it in the shape of a "demonstration of the Spirit and of power." Not wisdom alone, not only perception and reflection, but realization and assimilation in the attending form of power, the act of the recipient of grace not being the functional act of a faculty, but of the whole mind; "comparing spiritual things with spiritual"—the spirit of the renewed man most fully conscious of itself, because of the presence of God’s Spirit and the expansion thereby of its own consciousness, What a comparing power suddenly wakens! What an outreaching process begins! This capacity of comparing, beginning our development in childhood and continuing till old age, is one of the mind’s foremost activities. It is susceptible of more culture than any mental property. The inventive genius of poets and artists, the skill of the great novelist, the discriminating power of the sagacious statesman, are alike dependent on the diversified energy of comparison. Accuracy of judgment, depth of insight, breadth of sympathy so essential to largeness of view, are mainly due to this quality. Give it fair treatment, and three score and ten years witness its beautiful efflorescence. But its spiritual uses are its noblest uses. "Comparing spiritual things with spiritual" is its grandest office. When the human spirit receives the Divine Spirit, what a glorious enlargement, by reason of the superaddition of "the things of God," to the domain of thought, emotion, impulse! Calmly the mind works on; its laws never disturbed, its strength invigorated, its ideal of greatness opened in fuller radiance, its range and compass widened by a new horizon, a motive power brought to bear it never knew, and the repose of strength deepening evermore in the peace of Christ.—L. 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 Natural man and spiritual man. The natural man, who had not been forgotten by St. Paul in the first chapter, now comes under closer inspection. We can see him from the point of view occupied in the second chapter What is said of him? He "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Nature is represented here as very different from grace, and the difference has the breadth of contrast. Low and vulgar forms of nature are not enumerated, nor would it have been like the apostle to select his illustrations from exceptional cases of human depravity. Corinth could have easily supplied such instances. But the noticeable fact is that he avoids this sort of specification, and chooses his typical examples from "the wise," "the scribe," "the disputer of this world," yea, the very "princes of this world;" and these are they who lack all spiritual discernment, and in their blindness look upon the glorious gospel of Christ as "foolishness." And the portraiture is not finished till these "princes of this world" are sketched against the darkest of possible backgrounds, even the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. It is not the brutal mob that he pictures on his canvas, but the best specimens, according to current opinion, of the mind and culture of the age. Against these—the guides of public sentiment and the accepted leaders of society, men of character and position—he directs his condemnation. And the grief of his heart is that these are the very men whose evil spirit has infected the Corinthian Church, and introduced vitiating elements long ago abandoned by believers as utterly inconsistent with morality and religion. The natural man of that day was not the creature of the day, not an accident of those volcanic times when the foundations of civil order were shaking, and. even the majestic hills of Rome were threatened with upheaval, life; time and opportunity and ample means for development had been allowed; the fairest portions of the world had been given him for home and commerce; a thousand miles around the Mediterranean yielded everything that material civilization demanded; art and philosophy and government had afforded whatever the intellect of the senses craved; and Judaism had diffused itself far and wide, till even Stoicism had felt its influence. After all, however, the natural man has wound up the history of ancient culture by crucifying the Lord of glory; and now, the stain of holy blood upon him, he has learned nothing from his own experience, but persists in treating the gospel as "foolishness", Nor can it be otherwise so long as the man remains under the thraldom of nature. Anomalous it may seem, but it is none the less true, that nature is morally known to us as the opposite of spirituality; and, though a human spirit is in the man, it is wholly incapable of itself to see, to feel, to will, to act, as a spirit in anything that concerns the truly Divine functions of spirit. Hence the need of the Holy Spirit to create spiritual discernment, and hence the supreme distinction of the Christian is that he has a spiritual judgment. "The things of God" are not discovered by him, but are revealed unto his spirit by the Holy Ghost. The discovering intellect of man is a splendid endowment, and yet it is altogether limited to the senses and their connections, nor can it pass under any urgency beyond the sphere of the visible universe, and penetrate the secrets of the Almighty. If, indeed, he could discover them, he would not be a Christian believer; for the traits of the natural man would adhere to him and be merely enhanced by power thus exerted, and there would be less room than before in his capacious soul for intellectual docility, for childlike trustfulness, for the obedience of self abnegation. And, therefore, the work of the Holy Ghost consists in teaching us to understand, to appreciate, to assimilate, the Divine truths disclosed by him; and, accordingly, what he reveals is not content to remain as ideas and dogmas, but seeks the inmost heart, allies itself with the instincts, and communicates to man a sense of himself and of the possibilities of character hitherto unimagined. Finally, St. Paul argues, "We have the mind of Christ" within us; and what better compendium of all embraced in spiritual discernment than this expression, "mind of Christ"? Far more than the truths he taught, and the practical lessons he enforced, is meant here; for it includes the entire method, the spirit, the aim, of his teachings, as imparting his own life to those believing in him. No moral principle, no doctrinal fact, no phenomenon of spiritual experience, now occupies ground and sustains relations to thought and volition and action that are independently its own. Not one of them is competent to self existence. There is not, there cannot be, a single abstraction in Christianity. "The mind of Christ" is in every ethical truth, in every miracle, in everything that involves taste, sensibility, reason, conscience, affection; and the life in one is the life in all. To dislocate is to destroy. And this "mind of Christ," the apostle urges, is in us, and, by virtue of its abiding presence and infinite "wisdom" and "power," the breadth of contrast between the natural man and the spiritual man is fully brought out. After eighteen centuries, the distinction is as luminous as ever. The very words remain to us—"wisdom," "power," "foolishness"—and "the princes of this world" attest their ancient lineage. The "natural man" of our day has grown to large dimensions. Never had the sense man, the intellectual man, the man of physical civilization, so much to boast of; for he has well nigh made good the claim of his sceptre to universal dominion. "Wisdom" was never so conspicuous. "Power" has been developed in a greater degree than its uses. And yet in this very hour, when destructive strength is the daily terror of mankind, and when liberty is ever threatening to riot in licentiousness, we see just what St. Paul saw in old Corinth; and the commentary on God’s Word which the nineteenth century, like all centuries since Christ’s advent, has written for our eyes, only enforces the truth that "the natural man" knows not God, and "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." In science and art, in government, in all sorts of internal sovereignty, "the natural man" has made a vast advance upon himself. But all this has brought him and his institutions and his well being no nearer to "the mind of Christ."—L. BY J.R. THOMSON None but Christ crucified. What is personal is here, as throughout these Epistles to the Corinthians, remarkably combined with what is doctrinal. These are the utterances of a noble minded and tender hearted man, writing to fellow men in whom he takes the deepest personal interest. Hence he writes of himself, and he writes of his correspondents; and to his mind both have the highest interest through their common relation to the Word of life. These Epistles are a window into the heart of the writer, and they are a mirror of the thoughts and conduct of the readers. How naturally, when thinking of present successes and discouragements, Paul reverts in memory to his first visit to Corinth! He has the comfort of a good conscience as he calls to mind the purpose and the method of that ministry. Human philosophy and eloquence may have been wanting; but he rejoices to remember that from his lips the Corinthians had received the testimony of God and the doctrine of Christ crucified. I. THE ONE GREAT THEME OF THE AND OF ALL . 1. A Divine Person is exhibited. Christian preaching sets forth, not rabbinical learning, not Hellenic wisdom, not a code of morals, not a system of doctrine, not a ritual of ceremony, but a Person, even Jesus Christ. 2. An historical fact is related, even the crucifixion of him who is proclaimed. Everything relating to Christ’s ministry was worthy of remembrance, of repetition, of meditation; but one aspect of that ministry was regarded, and still is regarded, as of supreme interest—the Cross, as preceded by the Incarnation, and as followed by the Resurrection. In his earliest Epistle Paul had written, "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross;" in one of his latest he taught that the incarnate Redeemer became obedient unto "the death of the cross." 3. Religious teaching of highest moment was based upon this fact regarding this Person. Thus sin was condemned, redemption was secured, a new motive to holiness was provided; for the cross of Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of God. II. REASONS FOR IN THE OF TO THIS ONE GREAT THEME. 1. A personal and experimental reason on the part of the preacher. Paul had a personal experience of the excellence and power of the doctrine of the cross. The knowledge which he prized he communicated, the blessings he had received and enjoyed he could offer to others. So must it be with every true preacher. 2. A more general reason—the adaptation of the gospel to the wants of all mankind. For Christ crucified is (1) the highest revelation of the Divine attributes of righteousness and mercy; (2) the most convincing testimony and condemnation of the world’s sinfulness and guilt; (3) the Divine provision for the pardon of the transgressors; and (4) the most effectual motive to Christian obedience and service. The same doctrine is also (5) the mighty bond of Christian societies; and therefore (6) the one hope of the regeneration of humanity. . 1. Here is a model and an inspiration for those who teach and preach Jesus Christ. 2. Here is a representation of the one only hope of sinful men; what they may seek in vain elsewhere they will find here reconciliation with God, and the power of a new and endless life.—T. Spiritual power. Language like this sometimes refers to those special, supernatural gifts which were bestowed upon the members and officers of the Church in the apostolic days. But, as the apostle is speaking of the gospel of the cross of Christ and of its moral and spiritual effects, it seems reasonable to take the very strong expressions here employed as referring to the Divine vigour and energy accompanying the Word of salvation. I. IS THE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD. The Jews would have received it had it been a dispensation of miracle and prodigy; the Greeks, had it been a dispensation of rhetoric and philosophy. But God’s Spirit has his own mode of operation, withheld from the apprehension of carnal natures. The same Spirit who abode upon the Saviour at his baptism, rested as the Spirit of truth and illumination upon the inspired apostles, and as the Spirit of power accompanied their word to the hearts of men. He is from above, as the Breath, the Wind, the Fire, the Dew, the Rain, the Dove of God. II. HUMAN SOULS ARE THE FIELD OF THE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD. Christianity is no mechanical religion; its ends are not to be secured by any external conformity; it does not consist in buildings, ceremonies, priesthoods, etc. He only understands the nature of Christ’s purposes who can join in the consecration and confession— "I give my heart to thee, O Jesus most desired; And heart for heart the gift shall be, For thou my soul hast fired. Thou hearts alone wouldst move; Thou only hearts dost love; I would love thee as thou lov’st me, O Jesus most desired!" III. THE GOSPEL IS THE AND WEAPON OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD. God’s Spirit approaches man’s spirit in every true, pure, and lofty thought, in every revelation of pity, love, and sacrifice. But God’s mind is made known with special reference to man’s position and needs in "the truth as it is in Jesus." It is because the Spirit is in the Word that the Word is living and powerful, and sharper than the two-edged sword. IV. FAITH AND , AND , ARE THE POWER AND OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD. Here we have "the witness of the Spirit," telling us that the source of such streams is above. Here we have "the fruits of the Spirit," telling us whence is the life which embodies itself in such results. Doubtless under the conviction of the Spirit there present themselves displays of feeling, deep and signal. But the great and reliable proofs of the presence and action of the Divine Spirit are to be sought in those moral effects which can be traced to no inferior cause. The weeds sow themselves; but an abundant and precious crop is witness to the skill and the energy of the husbandman. V. IS IN THE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 1. The preacher of the gospel is reminded that his reliance should be, not upon his own gifts, but upon the Word and Spirit of God. 2. The Church of Christ is admonished neither to "quench" nor to "grieve" the Holy Spirit. 3. The hearer of the gospel is warned that to refuse the gospel is to reject the Spirit; and deliberately, persistently, and finally to do so is to sin against the Holy Ghost.—T. The Divine mystery. The Apostle Paul was accustomed to press into his service, as a Christian teacher, all the institutions and usages of the societies with which he was in any way and at any time associated. Thus in this passage he makes use of the Eleusinian mysteries, with which his readers were doubtless familiar, to set forth the profundity of the Divine wisdom, and the distinction and happiness of those who were initiated into the glorious secrets of Christianity. "We speak God’s wisdom in a mystery." I. THE OF THE MYSTERY. There is little reason to believe that the ancient Grecian mysteries had any substantial and valuable truth to conserve and communicate. Observe the contrast: the New Testament tells us of the purpose of God to save mankind; not Jews only, but Gentiles also, in the exercise of his wisdom and compassion. II. THE HIDING OF THE MYSTERY. It is not for us to explain why a purpose so gracious should have been so long concealed. So it was. And for generations and ages the human race was unacquainted with the purpose which the Supreme had conceived in the counsels of eternity. We can see that the Law had been a "pedagogue" to bring the Jews, and philosophy to bring the Gentiles, to Christ. But the fulness of the time was known only to God. III. THE OF THE MYSTERY. This took place when Christ came and, in his ministry and sacrifice, made known the gracious designs of the Father, that all men should be drawn unto himself, and that the world might not be condemned but saved with an everlasting salvation. IV. THE OF THE MYSTERY. This took place in the gospel. The fervour which Paul and his fellow labourers displayed in the preaching of the glad tidings shows how deeply those tidings had sunk into their nature, and how precious the reception of them appeared to their enlightened minds. They unfolded what had been wrapped up; they brought to light what had been buried beneath the soil, even "the hid treasure;" they brought out from the deep sea that "pearl of great price" which is for the enrichment of every possessor and for the delight of every beholder.—T. "The Lord of glory." When the Jews and the Roman governor united in effecting the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, neither party to the proceeding can be said to have understood and realized what was being done. The enemies and murderers of the Prophet of Nazareth saw neither the glory of his character and person more than very dimly, nor the glory of his redemption in any measure at all. Jesus himself had declared, "They know not what they do;" and Paul here says that, had they known the counsels of God, they would not have crucified Christ. This does not justify or excuse their act; for they certainly knew that they were putting to a cruel death One who was innocent and just. Christ is the Lord of glory— I. IN RIGHT OF HIS OWN NATURE AND PERSON. This he himself asserted, when he spoke of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was. And such was the teaching of the apostles concerning him who was "the Emanation, the Effulgence, of the Father’s glory, and the very Image of his substance." II. IN VIRTUE OF THE OF HIS AND . It is true that the life of Jesus upon earth was accompanied by lowly circumstances, and was not likely to dazzle the carnally minded. In his incarnation he emptied himself of his glory and took the form of a slave. Yet those who had eyes to see could look through the humiliation to the glory behind and within. And they have left their witness on record: "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Spiritual discernment recognized Divine glory even amidst the ignominy of the awful death of the Redeemer. III. BY HIS AND THE EVENTS THAT IT. The Resurrection and Ascension were the completion of the work which was begun by the Incarnation and the Sacrifice. If in the earlier of these movements constituting the redemptive work the glory was hidden, in the later it was conspicuously revealed. Jesus arose "in the glory of the Father;" he ascended, "carrying captivity captive; "he shed forth the gifts of the Spirit in royal profusion; he occupies his immortal throne. To his people he is the eternal "King of glory." IV. BECAUSE HE SECURES THE OF ALL HIS PEOPLE. Christ is described as "bringing many sons unto glory." The context refers especially to "our glory," i.e. to the heavenly happiness, dignity, and reign of those who have a part in Christ’s redemption, who share his conflict here, and to whom it is assured that they shall be partakers of his majesty and of his dominion hereafter. The honour of Christ is bound up with that of his people. It is not intended that they shall behold his majesty and splendour from afar, as something to admire and to adore, but not to share. On the contrary, his glory shall be reflected upon them; as the Lord of glory, he will admit them to participate in it, and this very participation shall be the means of its enhancement.—T. 1 Corinthians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 2:10 The revelation of things unseen and unheard. It may perhaps have been complained, though unreasonably enough, that Paul’s compositions were lacking in logic, and his language in eloquence. There was in the substance of his teaching enough to compensate any deficiencies of such kinds. No sage communicated such wisdom, no poet such wonders, as he. Deep things, drawn by the Spirit from the ocean of God’s unfathomable nature, were brought up, and were by him presented to the Church of Christ—to all who possess the spiritual capacity to recognize their meaning and to appreciate their worth. I. WHAT THESE WERE. In the original prophecy the reference was to marvellous and Divine deliverances wrought for Israel; the apostle "accommodates’’ the prophet’s language to his own purpose, to express the display of Divine wisdom and power evinced in the gospel, in which Christ is made unto his people wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. The privileges of the Christian calling enjoyed in the present are an earnest of the higher joys of the eternal future. The gospel manifests the favour and fellowship of God, assures of sonship and of heirship. It reveals Divine truth, and it imparts Divine grace. II. OBSERVE HOW THESE WERE TO THE POWERS OF MEN. The eye can range over the surface of this beautiful earth, and can explore the glories of the majestic firmament. The ear has receptivity for the manifold sounds of nature and for the intricacies and the charms of music. The heart speaks often and profoundly: "A man’s mind is sometimes wont to tell him more than seven watchmen that sit in a tower." But the revelations here alluded to are not like the features of nature, which are recognizable by sense, or like the inspirations of practical sagacity. The eye can see the works of God, but not the Artificer; the ear can hear the voice of God, but knows not the Speaker; the heart can echo the appeals of God, but these appeals must reach it from above. III. REMARK THAT THESE ARE MADE BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD HIMSELF, We possess a spiritual nature susceptible of Divine impression and appeal, and with this nature, created after his own likeness, the Father of spirits is in direct communication. Not that truth is miraculously conveyed; the Spirit takes the revealed facts and applies them to the mind, quickening and illumining the powers so that they receive and rejoice in the truth of God. IV. PONDER THE OF THIS . The revelations are for those who love God. Not the great, or the wise, or the outwardly righteous are the recipients of Heaven’s best blessing; but those who possess this moral and spiritual qualification. They who "wait for God," as Isaiah puts it; they who "love God," as it is phrased by Paul,—are the enlightened and the enriched. The spirit that is filled with gratitude and with love is thereby prepared to understand and appreciate the mysteries of Divine grace. The true love, which puts on the form of obedience, is the path to spiritual perfection. Love grows, and with it knowledge; and heaven is attractive because it is at once the abode of perfect love and the sphere of perfect knowledge.—T. "The mind of Christ." Some professed Christians have the name, and only the name, of Christ. Some are satisfied to have in sacramental bread what represents the body of Christ. "We," says the apostle, and all true Christians will in a lowly grateful spirit unite in the same profession—"we have the mind of Christ." I. WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE MIND OF CHRIST"? His earthly ministry, his counsels and promises to his disciples, his willing sacrifice, revealed that mind; and that so fully and so clearly that we may justly say, that mind has become and. is the richest heritage and possession of humanity. 1. His was the mind that saw the truth. He did not reason it out or accept it from authority; he looked it in the face; he was naturally and perfectly and always acquainted with it. 2. His was the mind that loved the good. It was through no fierce struggle that Jesus came to admire and to appreciate moral beauty; for goodness was natural to him and perfectly congenial and delightful to his being. 3. His was the mind that chose the right. The will of man is often vacillating and varying, and in some cases it persistently chooses evil. But throughout Christ’s ministry, righteousness was not the law to which he submitted, but the very life he lived. There is no instance of his preferring the wrong; he was without sin. 4. His was the mind that thought and planned and suffered for all men. It is not a just view of the mind of the Lord Christ to regard it as personal character. For he was the Son of man, and took all humanity into the embrace of his great and comprehensive mind. He thought and spake of all men as most closely related to himself. To know his mind is to know alike the mind of man and the mind of God. II. How can WE PARTAKE "THE MIND OF CHRIST"? When we consider what that mind was, we may well be all but hopeless of possessing and of sharing it. Yet it is his will that his mind should be ours, and he has made provision for our participation in, our appropriation of, his mind. 1. We acquire knowledge of that mind through the record of the gospel. His words, his miracles, his conduct, his sufferings, were all a revelation of his mind; pondering them, we come near to the thought, to the heart, of our Saviour. 2. We receive with faith the all sufficient redemption he has effected. He is not only a Teacher, he is not only a Revelation of the Father; he is the Saviour. And it is in accepting the salvation which is through him that we are re-created in the likeness of his holy mind and nature. 3. We do his will, and learn that obedience is the method by which we attain to a more thorough sympathy with him. Thus a growing revelation on his part brings about a growing appropriation on ours. III. HOW CAN WE PROVE TO HAVE "THE MIND OF CHRIST"? 1. By our judgment concerning spiritual things; for these are spiritually discerned by the disciplined, the sympathetic, mind. 2. By our life of loving service; for "if a man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."—T. BY E. Pauline preaching. I. WHAT IT WAS NOT. 1. It was not "with excellency of speech." Paul did not come as a rhetorician; his utterances were not orations of highly wrought eloquence. He did not seek to make the gospel palatable by presenting it with "enticing words." His manner was simple and unaffected; his diction plain and easily understood. He did not aim to carry everything before him with a flood of words, neither did he, a preacher, seek fame as an orator. He had a message to deliver, and would not obscure it by many words; he dreaded lest anything should divert attention from its all important terms. It is recorded of James II. that he once sat for his portrait to a great flower painter, but so completely was the canvas filled with beautiful garlands of flowers, that the king himself was lost sight of. So many paint Christ in their sermons; when they preach Christ they preach everything except Christ. 2. It was not the impartation of human wisdom. Paul did not come as a philosopher; he came as a herald. He had certain facts and truths to proclaim, and he would not philosophize about them, at all events until they were accepted, for, until accepted, their true philosophy could not be understood. Human wisdom had failed; Paul brought something which would not fail. Paul was no enemy to human wisdom; he despised it only as a means of human redemption; it was very contemptible to him when it attempted to transcend its sphere. II. WHAT IT WAS. It was the proclamation of "Christ and him crucified." This was pre-eminent, excluding philosophies and subordinating all other things. The apostle would not know aught besides; this should fill his consciousness. If the Corinthians would not receive this, he had nothing more for them; he must turn to others more willing. A myriad other things had been presented to them by philosophers and various teachers; all had failed. He would present Christ, and this Christ crucified, and stake everything upon the issue. That which was the sum and substance of Paul’s preaching is, in much preaching, like the proverbial needle in the haystack—exceedingly difficult to discover at all. 1. His theme was: (1) The person of Christ. The subject of prophecy, of history, of the apostle’s own knowledge. Christ the Sent of God. Christ the Son of God and the Son of man. (2) The office of Christ. Christ the Saviour of men. Exhibited as the Saviour especially in that tragedy of the cross, when "he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 The carnal conceit of the spiritually immature. 1 Corinthians 3:1 I… could not speak unto you as unto spiritual. Though softened by the word brethren, there was a crushing irony of reproof in these words: "You thought yourselves quite above the need of my simple teaching. You were looking down on me from the whole height of your inferiority. The elementary character of my doctrine was after all the necessary consequence of your own incapacity for anything more profound." As unto carnal. The true reading here is sarkinois, fleshen, not sarkikois, fleshly, or carnal; the later and severer word is perhaps first used in 1 Corinthians 3:3. The word sarkinos (earneus), fleshen, implies earthliness and weakness and the absence of spirituality; but sarkikos (carnalis) involves the dominance of the lower nature and antagonism to the spiritual. As mite babes in Christ. The word "babes" has a good and a bad sense. In its good sense it implies humility and teachableness, as in 1 Corinthians 14:20, "In malice be ye babes;" and in 1 Peter 2:2, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word;" and in Matthew 11:25. Here it is used in its bad sense of spiritual childishness. 1 Corinthians 3:2 I fed you with milk. The metaphor is expanded in Hebrews 5:13, "Every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the Word of righteousness; for he is a babe." The same metaphor is found in Philo; and the young pupils of the rabbis were called "sucklings" (תוקונית) and "little ones" (camp. Matthew 10:42). Not with meat; not with solid food, which is for full grown or spiritually perfect men (Hebrews 5:14). For hitherto; rather, for ye were not yet—when I preached to you—able to bear it. The same phrase is used by our Lord in John 16:12, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now;" and he taught them in parables, "as they were able to bear it" (Mark 4:33). Not even now are ye able. Though you imagine that you have advanced so far beyond my simpler teaching. 1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal. This is the reason for the spiritual dulness which your pride prevents you from recognizing. Envying, and strife, and divisions. The two latter words are omitted in some of the best manuscripts, and may have been added from Galatians 5:20. Partisanship and discord, the sins of the Corinthians—sins which have disgraced so many ages of Church history—are works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19), and involve many other sins (James 3:16), and are therefore sure proofs of the carnal mind, though they are usually accompanied by a boast of superior spiritual enlightenment. As men; that is, "as men, not as Christians." To walk as a mere ordinary human being is not to "walk in the Spirit" (Galatians 5:25); comp.," I speak as a man" (Romans 3:5). 1 Corinthians 3:4 For when one saith, I am of Paul. This is a proof that there were jealousies and partisanships among them. We again notice the generous courage of St. Paul in rebuking first those adherents who turned his own name into a party watchword. Are ye not carnal? The true reading is, "Are ye not men?" (à, A, B, C, and so the Revised Version); i.e. Are ye not swayed by mere human passions? The Spirit which you received at baptism ought to have lifted you above these mean rivalries. You ought to be something more than mere men. Religious partisanship is, in the eye of St. Paul, simply irreligious. He sets down party controversies as a distinct proof of carnality. Those who indulge in it are men devoid of the spiritual element. 1 Corinthians 3:5-15 The one foundation and the diverse superstructure. 1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul? The better reading is what? (à, A, B). The neuter would imply a still greater depreciation of the importance of human ministers. Ministers. The same word as that rendered "deacons" (diakonoi); "ministers of Christ on your behalf" (Colossians 1:7). Through whom ye believed. Through whom," not "in whom" (Bengel). They were merely the instruments of your conversion. In the second Epistle (2 Corinthians 3:3) he calls them "the epistle of Christ ministered by us written… with the Spirit of the living God." As the Lord gave to him. The gifts differ according to the grace given (Romans 12:6). 1 Corinthians 3:6 I planted. St. Paul everywhere recognized that his gift lay pre eminently in the ability to found Churches (comp. Acts 18:1-11; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:1). Apollos watered. If, as is now generally believed, Apollos wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, we see how striking was his power of strengthening the faith of wavering Churches. Eloquence and a deep insight into the meaning of Scripture, enriched by Alexandrian culture, seem to have been his special endowments (Acts 18:24, Acts 18:27). The reference of the word "watered" to baptism by Augustine is one of the numberless instances of Scripture distorted by ecclesiasticism. God gave the increase. The thought of every true teacher always is, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name give the praise" (Psalms 115:1). 1 Corinthians 3:7 Anything. The planter and the waterer are nothing by comparison. They could do nothing without Christ’s aid (John 15:16), and were nothing in themselves (2 Corinthians 12:11). But God that giveth the increase. The human instruments are nothing, but God is everything, because, apart from him, no result would follow. 1 Corinthians 3:8 Are one; literally, one thing. God is the sole Agent; the teachers, so far from being able to pose as rival leaders, form but one instrument in God’s hand. Their relative differences shrink into insignificance when the source and objects of their ministry are considered. His own reward… his own labour. In the lower individual sphere the work of teachers shall be fairly estimated and rewarded as in the parable of the pounds and talents (comp. John 4:36; Revelation 22:12). 1 Corinthians 3:9 God’s fellow workers. Throughout the Bible we are taught that God requires the work of man, and that he will not help those who will do nothing for themselves or for him. The world was to be evangelized, not by sudden miracle, but by faithful human labour (Mark 16:20). God’s husbandry; rather. God’s field, or tilled land. The thought which he desires again and again to enforce is that they belong to God, not to the parties of human teachers. The word" husbandry" may also mean vineyard, and the metaphor is the same as in Isaiah 1 Corinthians 5:1; 27:2; John 15:1; Matthew 13:3-30; Luke 13:6-9; Romans 11:16-24. God’s building. This is one of St. Paul’s favourite metaphors, as in Romans 11:16, Romans 11:17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; —Ephesians 2:20-22; Romans 15:20; 2 Timothy 2:19. 1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me; rather, which was given. Here, again, we have St. Paul’s baptismal aorist—his habit of regarding his whole spiritual life as potentially summed up in the one crisis of conversion and baptism. This phrase is a favourite one with him (1 Corinthians 15:10; Romans 15:15; Galatians 2:9; Ephesians 3:2). As a wise master builder. "Wise" only in the sense of subordinating every pretence of human wisdom to the will of God; and here the adjective only applies to the wisdom required by a builder. In other words, "wise" is here equivalent to "skilful." Since Paul had received the grace of God for this very purpose, he was made "wise" by the knowledge of Christ (for the metaphor of building, see Matthew 7:24; Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:21; 1 Peter 2:5). The foundation; rather, a foundation. Though in truth there is but one foundation, as he proceeds to say, St. Paul always refused to build on the foundation laid by another (Romans 15:20). Another. Perhaps the special allusion is to Apollos. 1 Corinthians 3:11 Other foundation can no man lay. Any "other" gospel is not merely "another," but "a different" gospel (Galatians 1:9). That which is laid; rather, that is lying. It has not been placed there (τεθέντα) by any human bands, but lies there by the eternal will. Which is Jesus Christ. "The doctrine of Jesus Christ is the foundation of all theology; his person of all life." This is again and again inculcated in Scripture: Isaiah 28:16, "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation." On this rock the Church is built (Matthew 16:18: Acts 4:11, Acts 4:12; Ephesians 2:20). 1 Corinthians 3:12 Gold, silver. Perhaps St. Paul thought for a moment of the gorgeous metals rod rich marbles used in the Corinthian temples, as well as in the temple at Jerusalem. But it is surely fantastic to suggest that his reference is an historical reminiscence of the melting of gold and silver in the burning of Corinth by Mummius, nearly two hundred years before. Costly stones; i.e. costly marble from Paros, Phrygia, etc. Wood, hay, stubble. These words seem to symbolize erroneous or imperfect doctrines, which would not stand the test, and which led to evil practices. Such were the" philosophy and vain deceit," "the weak and beggarly dements," "the rudiments of the world," of which he speaks in Galatians 4:9; Colossians 2:8. So in the Midrash Tehillin, the words of false teachers are compared to hay. The doctrines to which he alludes are not anti christian, but imperfect and human—such, for instance, as, "Humanas constitutiunculas de cultu, de victo, de frigidis ceremoniis" (Erasmus). 1 Corinthians 3:13 Each man’s work shall be made manifest. The real nature—the worth or worthlessness—of each man’s work, will be made clear sooner or later. The day shall declare it. "The day" can only mean "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:8), which would specially "make manifest the counsels of the hearts" (1 Corinthians 4:5), and "judge the secrets of men" (Romans 2:16), and make all men manifest "before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:10). It shall be revealed by fire; rather, because it is being revealed in fire. The phrase "is being" is called bad English, but some such phrase is positively needed to render the continuous present tense, which here expresses certainty, natural sequence, perpetual imminence. This tense is constantly used to express the continuity and the present working of Divine laws (comp. Matthew 3:10). As the nominative is not expressed, it is uncertain whether "it" refers to "each man’s work" or to" the day." Either gives an apposite sense (Malachi 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:8). Some would make "he" (namely, Christ) the nominative, because "the day" means "the day of Christ;" and in favour of this view they quote 2 Thessalonians 1:7, "The revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven in flaming fire." But the ellipse of an unexpressed nominative is harsh. The fire itself shall prove each man’s work. This is the "probatory" or testing fire of the day of the Lord, of which we read very frequently in the Fathers. The doctrine of purgatory has been in some measure founded on this verse; but such a view of it cannot be maintained. The reader will find the subject examined and the quotations from the Fathers given in the writer’s ’Mercy and Judgment,’ p. 69. All that is said here is that the fire of Christ’s presence—the consuming fire of God’s love—shall test the work, not purge it. The fire is probatory, not purgatorial, and it is not in itself a fife of wrath, for it tests the gold and silver as well as the inferior elements of the structure. It is the fire of the refiner, not of the avenger. 1 Corinthians 3:14 If any man’s work shall abide. St. Paul is speaking primarily of teachers, though, of course, his words apply by analogy to all believers. He shall receive a reward. One of the teacher’s rewards will be his converts (1 Thessalonians 2:19), who will be "his joy and crown of glorying" (Philippians 2:16); another will be "a crown of glory that fadeth not away" (1 Peter 5:2, 1 Peter 5:4; Daniel 12:3); yet another will be fresh opportunities for higher labour (Matthew 25:23). 1 Corinthians 3:15 He shall suffer loss. He shall not receive the full reward to which he might otherwise look (2 John 1:8). He himself shall be saved. It is an inexpressible source of comfort to us, amid the weakness and ignorance of our lives, to know that if we have only erred through human frailty and feebleness, while yet we desired to be sincere and faithful, the work will be burnt, yet the workman will be saved. Some of the Fathers gave to this beautiful verse the shockingly perverted meaning that "the workman would be preserved alive for endless torments," "salted with fire" in order to endure interminable agonies. The meaning is impossible, for it reverses the sense of the word "saved;" and makes it equivalent to "damned;" but the interpretation is an awful proof of the distortions to which a merciless human rigorism and a hard, self styled orthodoxy have sometimes subjected the Word of God. Yet so as by fire; rather, through or by means of fire (διὰπυρός). We may be, as it were, "snatched as a brand from the burning" (Zechariah 3:2; Amos 4:11; Jude 1:23), and "scarcely" saved (1 Peter 4:18). Similarly it is said in 1 Peter 3:20 that Noah was saved "through water" (διὗδατος). The ship is lost, the sailor saved; the workman is saved, the work is burned. 1 Corinthians 3:16-23 The peril and folly of glorying in men. 1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not. The phrase is used by St. Paul in this Epistle to emphasize important truths, as in 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 6:2,.9, 15; 1 Corinthians 9:13, 1 Corinthians 9:24. Out of this Epistle it only occurs in Romans 6:16; Romans 11:2. That ye are the temple of God. "Ye," both collectively (Ephesians 2:21) and individually; "God’s shrine;" not built for men’s glory. The word "temple" in the Old Testament always means the material temple; in the Gospels our Lord "spake of the temple of his body;" in the rest of the New Testament the body of every baptized Christian is the temple of God (1 Corinthians 6:16), because "God dwelleth in him" (1 John 4:16; comp. John 14:23). In another aspect Christians can be regarded as "living stones in one spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5). The temple; rather, the shrine (uses) wherein God dwells (naiei), and which is the holiest part of the temple (hieron). 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God. The verb is the same as in the next clause, and should be rendered, If any man destroy the temple of God; but the word is perhaps too strong, and the word "mar" or "injure" might better convey the meaning (Olshausen). The two verbs are brought into vivid juxtaposition in the original: "God shall ruin the ruiner of his temple." St. Paul was, perhaps, thinking of the penalty of death attached to any one who desecrated the temple of Jerusalem. Inscriptions on the chel, or "middle wall of partition," threatened death to any Gentile who set foot within the sacred enclosure." Which temple ye are; literally, the which are ye; i.e. ye are holy. St. Paul is here referring to the Church of Corinth, and to the false teachers who desecrated it by bringing in "factions of destruction" (2 Peter 2:1). Ideally the Church was glorious, "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" (Ephesians 5:27). 1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. Like the other formula, "Be not deceived" (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Galatians 6:7); "Deceive not yourselves" (Jeremiah 37:9); "Let no man deceive you" (Marl 24:4; Luke 21:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Ephesians 5:6; 1 John 3:7). We are so liable to self deception (1 John 1:8; Galatians 6:3), as well as to being deceived by others (2 Timothy 3:13), that there was need to repeat this warning incessantly. Seemeth to be wise; rather, thinketh that he is wise. He is referring specially to the Apollos party, who vaunted their esoteric knowledge, and so were "wise in their own eyes, prudent in their own conceits" (Isaiah 5:21). 1 Corinthians 3:19 The wisdom of this world. Here the word for "world" is kosmos, in the last verse it was alert. Kosmos is the world regarded objectively; aion the world regarded in its moral and intellectual aspect. He that taketh the wise in their craftiness. This is one of the few references to the Book of Job in the New Testament. It comes from the speech of Eliphaz in Job 5:13, but St. Paul substitutes the words "clutching" (drassomenos) and "craftiness" (panourgia) for the milder katalabon and phronesei of the LXX. 1 Corinthians 3:20 The Lord knoweth, etc. A quotation from Psalms 94:11. St. Paul substitutes "the wise" for the "men" of the original, because the psalmist is referring to perverse despisers of God. Dialogismoi is rather "reasonings" than "thoughts." It is used in a disparaging sense, as in Romans 1:21; Ephesians 4:17. 1 Corinthians 3:21 Wherefore. St. Paul, with this word, concludes the argument of warning of the previous section, as in 1 Corinthians 3:7; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 8:1-13:38; 1 Corinthians 11:33; 1 Corinthians 14:39; 1 Corinthians 15:58 (Wordsworth). All things are yours. It is always a tendency of Christians to underrate the grandeur of their privileges by exaggerating their supposed monopoly of some of them, while many equally rich advantages are at their disposal. Instead of becoming partisans of special teachers, and champions of separate doctrines, they might enjoy all that was good in the doctrine of all teachers, whether they were prophets, or pastors, or evangelists (Ephesians 4:11, Ephesians 4:12). The true God gives us all things richly to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). 1 Corinthians 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. All were their servants for Jesus’ sake (2 Corinthians 4:5). Instead of becoming partisans of either, they could enjoy the greatness of all. Or the world. The sudden leap from Cephas to the world shows, as Bengel says, the impetuous leap of thought. There is a passage of similar eloquence in Romans 8:38, Romans 8:39. The "hundredfold" is promised even in this world. Or life. Because life in Christ is the only real life, and Christ came that we might have life, and have it more abundantly (see Romans 8:38). Or death. To the Christian, "to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21). So that death is no more than "The lifting of a latch; Nought but a step into the open air Out of a tent already luminous With light which shines through its transparent folds." Or things present, or things to come. "He that overcometh shall inherit all things" (Revelation 21:7), because Christ has received all things from the Father. 1 Corinthians 3:23 And ye are Christ’s (see 1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 Corinthians 15:23; Romans 14:8; Galatians 3:29). Christians possess because they are possessed by Christ (Meyer). Christ is our Master, and God our Father (Matthew 23:10). And Christ is God’s; because "Christ is equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, but inferior to the Father as touching his manhood." Hence in 1 Corinthians 11:3 he says, "The head of Christ is God;" and in 1 Corinthians 15:28, we read of Christ resigning his mediatorial kingdom, that God may be all in all. Perhaps St. Paul implies the thought that Christ belongs, not to a party, but to God, the Father of us all. But the ultimate climax from Christ to God is found also in 1 Corinthians 4:1: Romans 15:5, etc. 1 Corinthians 3:1-8 Reflections for Churches. "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual," etc. In these verses are three subjects worthy of the profoundest contemplation. I. THE METHOD OF . "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk," etc. Truth is to be administered with a practical regard to the receptive powers of the student, just as the administration of bodily food must have regard to the digestive capacities of those who need it; "milk" for children, "meat" for men. This is Paul’s metaphor; though men might live on milk, strong meat would kill children. There are truths in the gospel of such an elevated character, requiring so much intellect and culture to appreciate them, that to enforce them on the attention of mental and moral children would be positively to injure them. Christ practised this method of teaching. He had many things to say which his disciples could not bear. Had he preached to them the doctrines of the cross at first, they would have been shocked. When at one time they were merely intimated, they produced a kind of revulsion in Peter, and he exclaimed, "That be far from thee, Lord." This method of teaching shows: 1. That a minister that may be useful to one class of men may be unprofitable to another. 2. The necessity of all who would enjoy the higher teaching to cultivate their mental and moral powers. II. THE OF . "For whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" etc. By Churchisms I mean sectarianisms, denominationalisms, etc. What are Churches? The best Churches in Christendom today are but the organization of certain opinions concerning Christ and his gospel. Some men extol one class of opinion more than another, and they set up one Church in opposition to another, and so on. Paul says this is "carnal." Carnal, because it engrosses the soul: 1. In the human rather than the Divine. 2. In the personal rather than in the universal. 3. In the selfish rather than in the self denying. 4. In the transitory rather than in the permanent. III. THE UNITY OF ALL TRUE . "Who then is Paul? and who is Apollos? but ministers by whom ye believed," etc. Again, "He that planteth and he that watereth are one." 1. One, notwithstanding the diversity of talents and kinds of labour. Paul, Peter, and Apollos differed in many personal respects; they differed in ,the kind and measure of their faculties, in their temperaments and attainments; still they were one in spirit and aim. 2. One in grand practical aim. What were they working for? The spiritual cultivation of mankind. One planting, another watering, etc. Different kinds of labour, but still one. 3. One in their connection with God. (1) Whilst all depended on God for success, God gave the "increase." (2) All were coworkers with him; "labourers together with God." 4. One in their ultimate reward. "Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." Each from the same God, each according to his work. God a Husbandman. "We are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry," etc. The words lead us to look at God as the great Husbandman of human souls. As a husbandman— I. HE IS WITH THE SOIL. 1. He knows its original state. The soil in its pristine state, with all its original powers, he knows. 2. He knows its present condition. Its present barren and wilderness state he understands. To him it seems like the "field of the slothful" mentioned by Solomon. It is stony, weedy, and thorny. 3. He knows its tillable capabilities. He knows what can be made of it, notwithstanding its present condition. He knows what every soul is capable of producing. He knows that some are far more capable than others. Some can become the majestic cedar, whilst others only the shrub. II. HE HAS ALL . This stony, weedy ground requires certain well contrived implements to work it into a fruitful condition. 1. He has them in the events of life. All the dark and painful circumstances in life are his implements to break up the fallow ground. All the pleasant and propitious are instruments for mellowing the soil. 2. He has them in the revelations of truth. There is Law and love, Sinai and Calvary. All are soul culturing implements. III. HE THE PROPER SEED. The seed he has to sow is good seed, and seed adapted to the soil. What is it? His Word. His Word is seed in many respects. 1. In vitality. Every seed has life in it. His Word is Spirit and life. 2. In completeness. The seed is complete in itself. 3. In prolificness. One seed in course of time may cover a continent. The Word of God is wonderfully fruitful. IV. HE THE . The best agriculturists, who understand the soil, possess the best implements and the best seed, are thwarted in their efforts, because the elements are not propitious. God has command over the elements. He is the great Husbandman of souls, and we his husbandry. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 The true foundation of character. "According to the grace of God," etc. The words suggest certain important thoughts concerning character. I. That there is an ANALOGY BETWEEN THE OF AND THE OF A . "If any man build," etc. It is like a building in three respects. 1. In the variety of its materials. Buildings are generally formed of a variety of materials—stone, wood, iron, etc. Moral character is built up by a variety of things—the impressions that are made on us, the emotions that rise in us, etc. 2. In the unity of its design. Every building is formed on some plan. One design shapes the whole. So with character. The master purpose of the soul, whatever it may be, gives unity to the whole. 3. In the function it fulfils. Buildings are generally residences of some kind or other. The soul lives in the character. It is its home. In some cases the home is the mere sty of the animal; in some, the shop of the barterer; in some, the prison of the guilty; in some, the temple of the saint. II. THAT CHRIST IS THE ONLY OF A TRUE . "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." There are sometimes splendid edifices and poor foundations, and the reverse. All characters are based upon some one idea. 1. Some are based on the sensual idea; such as that on which the prodigal son started, etc. 2. Some are based on the secular idea. On this Judas, the young lawyer, and Demas built. 3. Some are based on the ambitious idea. Absalom, Haman, Herod, are examples. 4. Some are based on the Christian idea. What is that? Supreme sympathy with God; and this requires Christ. Christ is its Foundation, for he does two things to generate this supreme sympathy in the soul. (1) Demonstrates to man the propitiableness of God. (2) Reveals to man the moral loveliness of God. III. THAT TO CHRIST, AS A , MEN BRING AS WELL AS . Some build edifices of "gold, silver, precious stones," and some of "wood, hay, stubble." 1. There are edifices partially formed of "wood, hay, stubble." (1) The mere creedal character is worthless. (2) The mere sentimental character is worthless. (3) The mere ritualistic character is worthless. All these characters are formed of "wood, hay, stubble "—things of no solidity, no value, no duration. 2. There are edifices entirely formed of valuable materials brought to Christ. They are formed of "gold, silver, precious stones." The profoundest thoughts, the strongest sympathies, the gold and silver of the soul, are connected with Christ. IV. THAT THERE IS AN ERA TO DAWN WHEN ALL THE BUILT ON THIS SHALL RE TRIED. "Every man’s work shall be made manifest." Heaven has appointed a day for testing character. Individually, it is the day that dawns at the end of our mortal life; universally, it is the day that dawns at the end of this world’s history. 1. This day will be injurious to those who have built on this foundation with worthless materials. (1) They will suffer loss—the loss of labour, opportunity, position. (2) Though they suffer loss, they may be saved—"saved, yet so as by fire." Though his favourite theories and cherished hopes shall burn like "wood and hay," yet he himself may survive the flames. 2. This day will be advantageous to those who have built on this Foundation with right materials. "If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." 1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 3:17 Humanity the temple of God. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." The apostle is writing not to those who were spiritually perfect; on the contrary, to those who were characterized by most salient moral defects. Yet he says, "Ye are the temple of God." Let us, therefore, look at man— I. As A DIVINE "TEMPLE." "The temple of God." In what respects a temple? 1. He is a special residence of God. God is in all material objects, but he is especially in moral mind. 2. He is a special manifestation of God. God is seen everywhere in this world, but never so fully as in the mind of man. "We are all his offspring," and we are like the Father in essence, conscience, freedom. 3. He is a special meeting place with God. The temple at Jerusalem was God’s special meeting place with man. "There will I commune with thee." Man can meet with God in material nature, but not so fully and consciously as in mind. "The highest study of mankind is man." II. As a Divine "temple" THAT MIGHT BE . "If any man defile [destroy] the temple of God." The destruction of a temple does not mean the destruction of all its parts, but the destruction of its use. Man might live forever, and yet be destroyed as the temple of God, the special residence, manifestation, and meeting place of God. Now, mark, this destruction, if it takes place, is not by God. He will not destroy the temple, only by man. "If any man defile [destroy] the temple." Alas! men are destroying this temple, i.e. destroying their natures as the temple of God. An awful work this! III. As a Divine temple, the OF WHICH WILL BE BY GOD HIMSELF. "Him shall God destroy." Destroy, if not his existence, all that makes existence worth having or even tolerable. "He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption." "The temple of God is holy," that is, ideally holy, ought to be holy. 1 Corinthians 3:18-20 Worldly wisdom. "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." The "wisdom" here referred to is what Paul calls elsewhere "fleshly wisdom," the "wisdom of the world," or of the age. It is the same wisdom as he refers to in 1 Corinthians 1:20. The "wisdom of this world" may be regarded as mere intellectual knowledge, applied to secular and selfish ends; however vast and varied its attainments, it is worldly in the apostolic sense; it is "earthly," "sensual," "devilish," not like the "wisdom which is from above," which is "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits." In relation to this wisdom three remarks are here suggested. I. It is SELF . "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world," etc. 1. This worldly wisdom deceives a man, inasmuch as it leads him to overrate the value of his attainments, he imagines that this kind of knowledge, "wisdom," is everything for a man. Hence the enthusiastic promotion of secular schools and colleges. But all such knowledge is of no value to man as man, and beyond his brief and uncertain earthly, life. He deceives himself in its value. 2. This worldly wisdom deceives a man, inasmuch as it leads him to overrate his own importance. He is "vainly puffed by his earthly mind," as Paul says elsewhere (Colossians 2:18). Such a man imagines himself to be very great; he becomes a pedant; he "struts and stares and a’ that." II. It is . A man with this worldly wisdom must "become a fool, that he may be wise." Two things are here implied. 1. That with all his wisdom he is already really a "fool." He is a "fool;" for he looks for happiness where it is not to be found. Happiness does not spring from a man’s brain, but from his heart; not from his ideas, but from his affections. Moreover, he is a "fool" because he practically ignores the chief good, which is love for, resemblance to, and fellowship with, the great God. Hence God esteems this wisdom as foolishness. "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." The most illustrious scholar, sage, orator, who is considered by himself and by most of his contemporaries to be a man of wonderful wisdom, to the eye of God is a fool. III. It is . "It is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." It must confound a man sooner or later, either (1) here in his conversion, or (2) yonder in his retribution. "Who are the wise? They who have govern’d with a self control Each wild and baneful passion of the soul, Curb’d the strong impulse of all fierce desires, But kept alive affection’s purer fires; They who have pass’d the labyrinth of life Without one hour of weakness or of strife, Prepar’d each change of fortune to endure, Humble though rich, and dignified though poor, Skill’d in the latent movements of the heart, Learn’d in the lore which nature can impart, Teaching the sweet philosophy aloud Which sees the ’silver lining’ of the cloud, Looking for good in all beneath the skies!— These are the truly wise." (Prince.) 1 Corinthians 3:21-23 A call to the utmost expansiveness in religious sympathy. "Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours," etc. The attendants on a Christian ministry may be divided into two classes. 1. Those who esteem the doctrine because of the teacher. There are not a few in all congregations who accept doctrines simply because of the strong sympathies they have with the preacher. Paul seems to have thought of these when he wrote this chapter. He alludes to the men in the Church at Corinth who had been taken more with the teachers than with their doctrines. The other class of attendants on a Christian ministry are: 2. Those who esteem the teacher because of his doctrines. A man who preaches to them they feel is estimable only as he embodies and propounds the true doctrines of the gospel. The impropriety of glorying in teachers rather than in their doctrines is strikingly illustrated in these verses by three things. I. THE IS FOR THE CHURCH. "All things are yours." "All things," not some things. 1. The ministry is for the Church. "Whether Paul, or Apollos." There is no agency more valuable on earth than the Christian ministry; in every way it serves man—intellectually, socially, materially. But its grand aim is to restore the human spirit to the knowledge, image, and fellowship of its God. Why, then, should it glory in one form? Let those who like Paul take Paul, and be thankful, and not find fault with those who regard Apollos as the most effective preacher. 2. The world is for the Church. By the world we mean the earth, with all its beauties and blessings. In the sense of legal possession the world, of course, is not the property of Christians, nor is it the property of others. For he who claims the largest number of acres has but a handbreadth compared with its numerous islands and vast continents. Yet in the highest sense it is the property of the Christian. He feels an intense sympathy and oneness with God who created it. 3. Life is the property of the Church. "Or life." There are certain conditions in which we find men on this earth, in which they cannot be said to live. There are some chained in their cell, under the sentence of death; they have forfeited their life. There are others whose limbs are so paralyzed that they can neither speak nor move; life is not theirs. Morally, sinful man is as a criminal; he is under the sentence of death; he is dead in trespasses. But life is the Christian’s; his sentence of death is removed; his moral infirmities are healed, and all his faculties and powers are alive unto God. 4. Death is the property of the Church. "Or death," What is death? Who shall define it? Who shall penetrate its meaning? The word has unfathomable depths of the wonderful and the terrible. But it is for the Christian; it is his. It delivers him from the imperfections of the present state; it frees him from all that is incompatible with his peace, his safety, and his advancement; it introduces him into the scenes, the services, the society, of a blessed immortality. It is his; it is the last step in the pilgrimage. 5. General events are the property of the Church. "Things present, or things to come"—an expression including all the circumstances of existence. "Things present," whatever their character, are ours. "Things to come:" what things are those? Now, if all these things are for the Church, why should any of its members give themselves up to any one particular ministry to the disparagement of others? II. THE CHURCH IS FOR THE . "Ye are Christ’s." There are two very different senses in which Christian men are Christ’s. They are his: 1. By his relationship to them. He is the Creator of all. "By him were all things created." He is the Mediator of all. 2. By their pledge to him. They have pledged themselves to him as their moral Leader. They have vowed unqualified obedience to his teaching. If they have thus consecrated themselves to him as their great Teacher, how absurd to glory in subordinate and fallible teachers! Why live under the rays of the rushlight, when you can bask under the beams of the sun? Follow a Plato in philosophy, a Solon in law, a Demosthenes in eloquence, a Bacon in sciences, but no one but Christ in religion. Value the Calvins, the Luthers, the Wesleys, for what they are worth, but disclaim them as leaders. III. THE IS FOR GOD. "And Christ is God’s." Jesus, as a Mediator, is the Messenger and Servant of the Eternal. 1. Christ is God’s Revealer. He is the Word of God, the Logos. (1) He reveals him in creation; (2) he reveals him in his personal ministry. 2. Christ is God’s Servant. He came here to work out God’s great plan of saving mercy. Learn from this subject: 1. The infinite worth of Christianity. It gives all things to its true disciples. None of the "all things" specified here are possessed by those who are not his genuine disciples. The ministry is not theirs. If they attend preaching they are mere instruments in the hands of the preacher; they are carried away by the emotions of the hour. The world is not theirs, however large a portion of it they claim legally; the world uses them as its tools. Life is not theirs; it is forfeited to justice. They have no true enjoyment in it. Death is not theirs; they are its. "Through fear of death they are all their lifetime subject to bondage." "Things present and things to come" are not theirs; they are the mere creatures of circumstances. It is Christianity alone that makes all these things man’s. It attunes the soul to the influences of God, as the AEolian harp is attuned to the winds; and every passing breeze in its history strikes out in music the anthem, "The Lord is my Portion, saith my soul." 2. The contemptibleness of religious sectarianism. How wretchedly mean and base does sectarianism appear in the light of this subject! The men who glory in their own theological peculiarities, ecclesiastical sect, and religious teachers, have never felt the grandeur contained in the text, that the universe is for the Church, the Church is for Christ, and that Christ is for God. BY C. Spiritual condition of these Corinthian partisans characterized. These men were in a low state of Christian development, their growth in grace having been arrested by the jealousy and strife dominant in their midst. Under such circumstances, personal progress and Church progress were impossible. Individual self assertion and arrogance could net but lead to the depreciation of others, nor could envious rivalries tolerate merit and worth in those whom it sought to crush. On the other hand, looking at the Church as an organic body, its virtue was a common stock, to be cherished, honoured, and diligently maintained by every one of its members. Its zeal was not a solitary flame burning on an isolated altar, but the combined warmth of many hearts. Diversity, too, is God’s law, diversity reaching down into temperament, diversity in the highest realm of gifts, diversity of insight and experience, and this factious temper was fatal to diversity. Agreeably to the Divine method, diversity was preliminary to unity, and men were allowed free action of individuality, that the strongest and best elements of character, and especially its latent qualities, might be brought out and incorporated in the totality of the Church. A very miscellaneous world environed these Corinthians; the Christian community itself was made up of Jews, Greeks, and Romans; and the reasons were, therefore, exceptionally stringent that they should, as brethren, be very closely banded together in one mind, "the mind of Christ." Had they been a homogeneous people, circumstantial motives, which have a very important part to play in the scheme of providence, would not have been so imperative. But these dissensions involved their national peculiarities, and hence the antecedents of blood, the residuum of former bitterness, would surely come in to aggravate their animosities. They were "babes in Christ," and furthermore, they were "carnal;" and this infantile and carnal state, in which all growth had been stopped, was due solely to intestine discord. Had they considered what a grievous evil it was? Paul and Apollos, Tarsian and Alexandrian, had been put by no choice of theirs in a position very unenviable, nay, in despite of their earnest remonstrance. Leaders they were, leaders they must be, leaders of the Church; and on this very account, nothing could be more ill timed, nothing more abhorrent to their personal feelings, nothing so little like "the mind of Christ," as the attempt to make them heads of factions. Alas for such unwise friends, blocking up their way and multiplying the hazards, already enormous, of their ministry in Achaia! If this audacious effort continued, how could they withstand their enemies? The heart of St. Paul is stirred, and, in this chapter, it swells to the full compass of his apostleship. Intellectual heroism is needed now, and in that, as in the other qualities of an habitual hero, he is never wanting.—L. 1 Corinthians 3:5-10 St. Paul’s view of the ministry. After declaring to the Corinthians that they were carnal in their estimates of God’s ministers, the apostle exposes their folly in this particular, by assuring them that he and Apollos were but ministers, or servants, whom God had commissioned to labour in their behalf. Halfway work he never did. To show their error, and prove that it was a worldly sentiment disguised under a fictitious admiration, he sets before them the true idea of the ministry, as an instrument through which the Divine agency of the Holy Ghost operated. No one enjoyed proper sympathy and affectionate regard more than St. Paul, whose heart overflowed into everything that offered a channel for its diffusion. There is nothing about him of Cato, whose virtue runs into the fanaticism of hatred; or of Coriolanus, who looks upon the people as "if he were a god to punish, and not a man of their infirmity." Nevertheless, he guards his tenderness against effeminacy, nor will he accept the slightest tribute to himself at the expense of truth. The hardest thing in our nature to organize is impulse; and yet this man, whose sensibilities were so quick and strong (1 Corinthians 4:14, 1 Corinthians 4:15; 2 Corinthians 2:13), could not tolerate the homage paid him by partisans. And in this spirit he asks, "Who then is Paul?" Only a medium used by the Spirit for their faith, and the medium itself valueless, except so far as the Spirit made it effective. Their very capacity to receive St. Paul’s influence was the gift of God, and would they now turn the gift against the Giver? St. Paul’s figures are not poetic, but practical, and his imagination is always the offspring of the reason; and hence the illustrative image—"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase"—began and ended in a breath, with no delight in it beyond utility. Two conclusions follow: one, the entire dependence upon God for the increase; and the other, the coworking with him who is the only Source of the increase. Neither the sower nor the seed, however good, can secure the yield; this is from the great Husbandman, who apportions the result according to his sovereignty, and under conditions which St. Paul subsequently points out. The workman is rewarded for his labour; he does not create the reward, but receives it from God; nor could reward have any other basis than free and unmerited grace, seeing that we are coworkers with God. If this were not the law of nature and providence, it could not be a law of grace, nor could the figure of seed and sower have any logical force. But, at the same time, the workman under the gospel has a special relation to God, and, in a sense peculiar to the gospel, is a "coworker." This is one of St. Paul’s favourite ideas (see 2 Corinthians 6:1). It is not working, but co-working, that evidences the spirituality of the work and gains the recompense. Among the sources of deception, not one is so insidious as our work. The old man, long a servant of God, looks back upon his labours; his eye is tranquil now; it has grown to be a very honest eye; and nothing in the past surprises him so much as the mixture of self with work that he once thought was unselfish. Early manhood and middle life, if not absolutely incompetent to form a perfect idea of disinterestedness, are yet very prone to fall into a mistake on this subject. No doubt St. John imagined that he was doing Christ’s work when he forbade the man casting out devils in Christ’s Name; and, likely enough, St. Peter put a special value on his courage in the garden, when he drew his sword for the Lord’s defence. If our tastes and self will can be gratified, we are often ready to be enthusiastic workers for what we suppose is the cause of Christ. But God’s rule is unyielding. You must labour according to his will, or the work will be rejected. And just here, his thought in transition to another aspect of the great topic, St. Paul brings into view the co-relationship of ministers and people, God being all in all. "We" and "ye"—"we" are co-labourers with God, and "ye" are not our husbandry and building, but God’s. What claims he for himself? He is a builder, a master builder, a wise one too; and he is free to assert it, because it is the utterance of humility, and humility is under obligation to speak the exact truth about itself, under valuation being wrong, as well as over valuation. The preface attests the spiritual purity of the avowal: "According to the grace of God which is given unto me," while the elaboration of the figure, taken from architecture, indicates more of the Grecian mode of illustration than the Jewish.—L. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Workmen and their works. St. Paul affirms that he had laid just such a foundation in Corinth as became a wise master builder. Like a good architect, he had made sure of a solid basis, but had the edifice in process of erection been true to the cornerstone? There was but one Foundation—Jesus Christ—and a man might build rightly or wrongly on it in the materials used. The range of substances which might be employed in the superstructure was large. Large it must needs be, for, it’ the builders are many, the material must be manifold. Individuality in workmen must be respected, and, though the risks are numerous and great, yet Christianity can only adhere to its fundamental principle of each man as a man in himself. Brutus sacrificed his instincts to what he deemed patriotism in the murder of Caesar; Rome taught her best men to have no conscience except what she dictated; but Christianity laid a stress on personality in the human will in order to secure the full activity of individual responsibility. Providence ordains our home and life in a very ample world. The amplitude is seen, not in its size nor in the mere variety of its objects, but in the endless adaptability to human tastes and dispositions. Despite the curse, this earth is a grand historic memorial of the original idea of humanity, and a prophecy likewise of a glory be recovered. "The field is the world;" and this is true of every man in it, so true indeed that our connections with the great world are far more vital and operative on our destiny than we imagine. This, furthermore, is our discipline. We have a world from which to choose our resources, means, and opportunities, and hence the wonder of experience is the multitudinous additions ever making to the world we inhabit as our own world. Now, to each Christian, "the field is the world;" and therein he finds a vast miscellany—"gold, silver, precious stones," and they are side by side with "wood, hay, stubble." Redeemed man is treated by Providence and the Holy Ghost, not on the bare idea of what he is in an earthly condition, but also and mainly on the ideal of his capacity in Christ. And consequently, when St. Paul says (1 Corinthians 3:21), "All things are yours," he has only formally wrought out the truth involved in the workman’s command of his diversified materials. Just because the worker is in such a vast and heterogeneous world, he must "take heed." Nothing short of spiritual discernment can protect him against woeful blunders. A hard worker he may be, a sincere and enthusiastic worker, but he must have Divine insight, and show himself" a workman that needeth not to be ashamed," and the work must be true and acceptable work, or his labour will inevitably perish. St. James is often referred to as the supporter and defender of the doctrine of work. From his point of view Christianity was the final outgrowth of Judaism, its culmination and crown, and, quite in accord with his instincts, he presents the work side of religion with a very vigorous emphasis. St. Paul, however, confines himself in the text to the kind of work, and puts forth his strength on a single line of thought. What is uppermost in his mind is the absolute need of spiritual insight. The practical man is in the eye of St. James, and he writes of "religion pure and undefiled" as its spectator and analyst among the actualities of the world. Caesar, in the ’Commentaries,’ is not more terse and compact, nor does he observe more rigidly the requirements of intensiveness as a mental law than St. James in his great monograph. Be it noticed, however, that St. Paul is viewing this matter as a branch or offshoot of a topic engrossing at the time his sympathies, and, consequently, he limits himself to the difference between work which shall be found worthy of reward and work undeserving of recompense. Two cases are before him—in the one the man is saved and his work rewarded; in the other, the man is saved and his work disallowed and destroyed. The latter suffers loss, but not the loss of his soul, and, though the ordeal be severe, the man is "saved, yet so as by fire." Now, this view of work, truthful in itself, was specially suited to these noisy, impulsive, erratic Corinthians. And may we not reasonably conjecture that he had the products of partisanship in his eye while writing of the fiery test? Looking at the world’s history, we can scarcely fail to see that the fruits of factions are the most perishable things in civilization, and, in Church history, the fact is still more obvious. But the apostle has something further to say.—L. Believers as the temple of God. Previously St. Paul had said, "Ye are God’s building;" and now he adds, "Ye are the temple of God." Along with this comes the idea of sanctity: "The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." If, then, these Corinthians were the temple of God, and if the Spirit of God dwelt in them, no stronger motive could bear upon them than the need of holiness; and this holiness is a personal matter. "If any man"—whoever he be and whatever his gifts—"if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." The man’s duties to the Church are duties to the Spirit of God in the Church; and the purity of principle and affection, purity of motive and aim, purity of life, which he is bound to maintain,—in brief, his spiritual character, grows out of his relation to the Holy Ghost. "Know ye not" this fact—that the Church is much more than a society for mutual helpfulness, much more than a human institution, and most truly human when most Divine? To violate this relation in such a way as to "defile the temple of God" is to incur a fearful punishment: "Him shall God destroy." Hitherto in the argument no such language had been used. Did the thought of the gross sin—the son taking the father’s wife—cross his mind at the instant, and leave its darkness in his memory? Whether so or not, St. Paul knew of moral corruption in the Church as well as religious defection, and he reminded the Corinthians of their peril. Observe the change; a man’s work, if rejected, shall be burned, but he shall be "saved, yet so as by fire." Amid the danger, God will rescue him. But if a "man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." And now the exhortations: "Let no man deceive himself." And wherein lies the danger of deception? It is in the "wisdom of this world." Intellect exposes us to dangers because it is the great organ of receptivity, by means of which the outer world finds unceasing access to our souls. Through the open avenues of the senses, myriad influences gain an entrance within and distribute themselves over every portion of our nature. Very many of them are unchallenged. Few men criticize their senses and hold them accountable for truth and fidelity in their momentous functions. What habits come from this facile power of sensuousness over the mind, we all understand, alas! too well. The natural man (animal man) has the world of sensation on his side. Instead of the body growing more and more into harmony with spirit and participating in its elevation, the opposite more commonly occurs, so that men become in large measure the creatures of the senses. St. Paul had a very clear insight into this fact. No man makes so many references, direct and indirect, to the physiological connections of sin. As a writer of Scripture, the terrible truth of the "fleshly mind" is often before him, and from him we learn the supreme necessity of keeping the body under, lest we become castaways. "Castaways" are far more numerous than we take knowledge of. Short of downright materialism and its counterpart in sensual degeneration, we have innumerable evidences of the wreck of the spiritual nature. These nerves of ours—delicate threads that interlace the whole body and are frequently too fine for the eye—what a machinery for the hand of Satan, skilled by the practice of centuries, to play upon! We err when we confine our view of materialism to its professed advocates. We err also when we measure the sensualism of the age by its grosser forms. Far greater, far more harmful, and far more widespread, are the deleterious effects, often unrecognized, that work havoc among our spiritual sensibilities. It is this deadening of the intellect by the sensuousness that keeps itself aloof from overt sensualism which St. Paul so earnestly assails as "the wisdom of this world." Not seldom it beasts of morality, cultivates beauty, patronizes aesthetics, and abounds in animalized poetry and eloquence and science. Meantime it lends all its aid, acting through an army of auxiliaries, to encourage men in a bloated sense of self sufficiency, until there is no felt need of God and still less of Christ. Most of all, this state of mind is inimical to the agency of the Holy Ghost upon the human heart, and consequently we find in our times a much more wilful and violent rejection of the Holy Ghost and a contempt for his gracious offices than hostility to the Father and the Son. Against this most evil and fatal habit St. Paul lifts a vehement remonstrance. And he was the only man of his day competent to this task. No rude Galilean was he; no obscure and unlettered person; but a cultured soul, whose endowments had been signalized before he went forth to convert an empire to Christ. "Become a fool"—a fool in the world’s estimation—"that ye may be wise." It is "craftiness," argues the man who had experimentally known it all, and, furthermore, it ensnares itself in its own net. And hence glory not in man; there is no wisdom in it, no plea and no excuse for it, since "all things are yours." Party spirit shuts us up in narrow limits; Christianity gives the freedom of the world. Party spirit makes us the disciples of men; Christianity declares that we do not belong to Paul, Apollos, Peter, but that they belong to us, and all Divine in them ministers to the Divine in ourselves, so that our life superabounds by means of theirs. Nor is this all. The vast inventory embraces things as well as men: "The world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours." No room for pride here, since it is a common possession; no opportunity to thank God like the Pharisee that we are not as others are, for God’s grace humbles the natural man, that it may endow and then exalt the Christian. If we undertake to be Christians of a particular sort, it is certain that we shall be cast in a very dwarfing mould, and get our colouring from a very earthly pigment. To be a true Christian is not to adopt the Name of Christ as the watchword of a sect or party, but to accept and venerate it as the watchword of humanity redeemed in the Son of man. Any other use of Christ’s Name is essentially schismatic. All things are ours only so far as we are Christ’s. And it is the Christ of God, the Son of God, the anointed Messiah, who was filled with the unction of the Spirit, and who said, "I do nothing of myself,"—it is this Christ who is ours. Seen in hint, life redeems itself from everything low, groveling, and merely sensuous; and even the human body, whose wants and demands are the unmanageable factor in all civilization, and whose warfare against the Spirit is the most fearful hazard in moral probation, becomes, through Christ, the temple of the Holy Ghost. Spiritualize in this sense the human body; sanctify its large and. beautiful capacity for a true sensuousness; organize its habits until it becomes almost the automaton of the Spirit, and self denial, prayer, and praise, by virtue of the automatic and semi automatic laws of the physical system, are well nigh incorporated in the nervous functions. Ask art, science, philosophy, to attempt such a task, and would they set themselves to it? Political economy, physiology, hygiene, sanitary: science, concern themselves much with the human body, and are entitled to honour for their interest in its welfare—welfare only, however, stopping very far short of genuine well being. Let no word of ours be understood as depreciating these invaluable services. But, nevertheless, their field lies in a department of life comparatively humble—life as existence, as organic and vegetative, life as intellectual and moral, not in life as spiritual. Now, at this very point, the incomparable glory of Christianity demonstrates itself by a profound interest in the human body as a religious question, and, first and last, its words are, "temple of God." No wonder that St. Paul rises to the height of exultation. The eagle wing smites the upper air in its buoyant strength, and the eagle eye, catching a radiance unknown in the thick atmosphere of earth, commands the scope of a vast horizon. One of his grand powers was this instinct—shall we call it?—of exultation, always held in check till the Divine fulness of Christ and the sublimity of humanity in Christ kindled it into rapture. Nor is he ever more like himself nor ever nearer to us than in these moments—"such high hour of visitation from the living God."—L. BY J.R. THOMSON 1 Corinthians 3:6-8 Spiritual husbandry and growth. A man, looking upon the world, sees according to his power of vision; i.e. not simply according to what he finds in it, but to what he brings to it. To the eye of the Apostle Paul, the world was a wilderness which might be made a garden. There was, he saw, rude, worthless growth to be extirpated, rich soil to be tilled, plants of worth and renown to replace the weeds. His prophetic eye beheld the desert rejoice and blossom as the rose. And to his mind Christians were plants, and Christian ministers were gardeners and husbandmen. I. NEEDS HUMAN . There is need, in order to the progress and perfection of the work of God, of: 1. Intelligent and willing labourers. Men are employed by Divine wisdom to labour among their fellow men. Saved, renewed, and consecrated labourers have ever been blessed in the work of securing a spiritual harvest. The olive yard, and the vineyard cannot flourish and prosper without unstinted toil, vigilance, skill, and care; so is it with the garden of the Lord. 2. Divinely commissioned labourers. They work best for Jesus who have heard his voice saying, "Go, work today in my vineyard;" whom the authoritative Lord has addressed in his own commanding language, "Unto men I now send thee." II. DEMANDS A VARIETY OF AND ABILITY IN THE TOILERS. 1. One class of labourers are especially adapted to the work of planting. There are Christian missionaries and evangelists who have the gift of awakening attention, arousing concern, eliciting inquiry, calling forth repentance, founding Churches even among the ignorant and degraded heathen. 2. Another class possess the grace of watering the plants already placed in the spiritual soil. These, as pastors and bishops, impart instruction, administer consolation, exercise guidance and control. Catechists and teachers carry on the work which missionaries have begun. 3. All classes co operate towards the one great end in view. All true labourers are one in motive and in aim, in spirit, in mutual confidence and love. None may say to the other, "I have no need of thee." Each has his service, and none is more indispensable than another. 4. All are individually noticed, appreciated, and rewarded. "Then shall every one have praise of God;" "I will give unto every one of you according to your works;" "My reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." III. DEPENDS FOR ITS AND SUCCESS UPON THE OF THE LORD. 1. From God comes the vitality of the spiritual plant; his is the gospel and his the Spirit, by whose co-operation the result is brought about. 2. From God comes the preparation of the labourer; whose intellectual gifts, whose emotional sympathy, and whose spiritual power are all alike of heavenly origin. 3. From God comes the living energy to which is owing the progress and increase of that which man plants and waters. Thus the excellency of the power is seen to be of God, and not of us.—T. "God’s fellow workers." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 Judgments, human and Divine, respecting ministers. 1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us. Since it is inevitable that Christians should form some estimate of the position of their ministers, he proceeds to tell them what that estimate should be. Ministers are not to be unduly magnified, for their position is subordinate; they are not to be unduly depreciated, for if they are faithful they may appeal from frivolous human prejudices and careless depreciations to that only Judge and Master before whom they stand or fall. Ministers; here huperetas; in 1 Corinthians 3:5 diakonous. They are huperetai (in its derivation "under rowers") in their relation to Christ; diakonoi in their relation to men. Of Christ; and therefore responsible to Him. Stewards; dispensers, subordinate distributors. These "agents" were higher slaves (Luke 16:1-8). Of the mysteries of God. The word "mysteries" means truths once hidden but now revealed; as in Luke 8:10, "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God." In later patristic usage the word means "sacraments;" but St. Paul has expressly said (1 Corinthians 1:17) that his mission was to preach the gospel, not primarily to administer the sacraments. (For descriptions of the work of a minister according to St. Paul’s lofty ideal, see the pastoral Epistles, and 1 Thessalonians 2:7-11; Colossians 1:25-29; Acts 20:18-21, Acts 20:24-28. St. Peter’s is given in 1 Peter 4:10, 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Peter 5:2-4.) A minister is not to be estimated as a supernatural teacher, or a civil autocrat, or an infallible critic, but as an ambassador from Christ, who reveals to the "initiated" that which they could not otherwise know. 1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover. The true reading (à, A, B, C, D, F) is ὧδεκοιπὸν, here, moreover; i.e. "on this earth." It may be required of him as a minister that he should be faithful, but if, being faithful, he is misjudged and depreciated, his appeal lies to a truer and loftier tribunal. It is required. This is the reading of à, A, C, D. Other manuscripts have "ye require;" but the sound of the two words in Hellenistic Greek would have been almost indistinguishable. That a man be found faithful. We have a right to demand that on trial he be proved to be honest and diligent. So our Lord has described the "faithful and wise steward" in Luke 12:42, Luke 12:43. What is required of ministers is neither brilliancy, nor eloquence, nor profound knowledge, nor success, but only—fidelity. 1 Corinthians 4:3 But. The Corinthians might have expected that the conclusion of St. Paul’s remarks would be a recognition of their right to sit in judgment on his faithfulness; but it is, on the contrary, an expression of his complete indifference to their shallow and unfair estimate, and an appeal to the approval of his own conscience and to the judgment of the Lord. It is a very small thing; literally, it is for the least. That I should be judged of you; rather, that I should be examined by you (anakritho). Technically the word anakrisis means "an examination preliminary to trial." Or of man’s judgment; literally, of man’s day. The brief day of human life is bounded by too narrow an horizon for accurate judgments. Many of the greatest and best men have felt, like Lord Bacon, that they must leave to other generations the right estimate of their characters, views, and actions. St. Jerome reckons the expression "day" for "judgment" among the "Cilicisms" of St. Paul (Jeremiah, ’Ad Algas.,’ 10), i.e. the expressions due to his early training in Cilicia. More probably (as Grotius thinks) there is a reference to the "day" fixed for earthly trials (diem dicere, equivalent to "to impeach’’), and to the phrase "the day of judgment"—"the woeful day" of Jeremiah 17:16. The word "day" in all languages and idioms signifies "judgment" (Hammond). From dies, a day, comes the phrase "a diet." A "daysman" means an arbitrator. Yea, I judge not mine own self. Here, as in the previous clause and in 1 Corinthians 6:4, the verb is not krino, I judge, but anakrino, I examine. Thus the verse discourages all morbid self introspection. It also shows that St. Paul is not arrogantly proclaiming himself superior to the opinion of the Corinthians, but is pointing out the necessary inadequacy of all human judgments. The heart is too liable to self deceit (Jeremiah 17:9, Jeremiah 17:10) to enable it to pronounce a judgment with unerring accuracy. Hence neither a man’s contemporaries nor the man himself can form any final estimate of him or of his fitting position, because their knowledge is too imperfect. History often reverses the decision of contemporaries. 1 Corinthians 4:4 I know nothing by myself; rather, nothing against myself. The phrase of the Authorized Version originally meant this, but is now obsolete in this sense. "I am sorry that each fault can be proved by the queen," says Cranmer to Henry VIII. It is like the Latin Nil conscire sibi. The same phrase occurs in the LXX. of Job 27:6. St. Paul says, "The verdict of my own conscience acquits me of all intentional unfaithfulness;" but this is insufficient, because God sees with clearer eyes than ours. "Who can understand his errors?" asks the psalmist (Psalms 19:12); and the "secret faults" against which he prays are not hidden vices, but sins of which he was himself unconscious. It must be remembered that St. Paul is here only speaking with conscious integrity of his ministerial work. Nothing could have been further from the mind of one who elsewhere calls himself" the chief of sinners" than to claim an absolute immunity from every form of self reproach. They who claim immaculate holiness can as little quote the sanction of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 9:27; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Ephesians 3:8; Philippians 3:13, etc.) as of any other saint. The confessions of the holiest are ever the most humble. Yet am I not hereby justified. Because "every way of a man" is apt to be "right in his own eyes," but God pondereth the hearts, and therefore in God’s sight "no man living is justified." St. Paul is here using the word in its legal rather than its theological sense. He that judgeth me is the Lord. This is a reason for serious awe and deep self searching of heart (Psalms 130:3; Job 9:2). Yet also for hope and confidence when a man can, like the modern statesman, "look from the storm without to the sunshine of an approving conscience within." For God, being "greater than our hearts" (1 John 3:21), may count "the long ’yes’ of life" against the one "no," or the single faithless minute. Knowing whereof we are made, remembering that we are but dust, he looks on us "With larger other eyes than ours, To make allowance for us all." 1 Corinthians 4:5 Judge nothing. St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, insists with some indignation on this duty of checking the tendency to vain depreciation, both because we have not the capacity for forming adequate judgments, and because censoriousness is a very common though thoroughly unchristian vice (Romans 14:4, Romans 14:10, Romans 14:13). Before the time. The time is when God shall "judge the secrets of men" (Romans 2:16), and when "the day shall try every man’s work of what sort it is" (1 Corinthians 3:13). Until the Lord come. The advent is called in the New Testament sometimes the "epiphany," and sometimes the parousia of Christ. The word used for "until" (heōs an) points to a time entirely indefinite. Both; rather, also; i.e. among other things. The hidden things of darkness. "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Hebrews 4:13; comp. Ecclesiastes 12:14). God "shall illuminate the crypts of the darkness which naturally fills the self deceiving heart." The counsels of the hearts. These may bear no scrutiny, even when the actions of the life have been made to look plausible enough. And then. God only "seeth in secret" (Matthew 6:4), and therefore the praise and blame of men may in this life be equally unjust. Shall every man have praise of God; rather, each one shall then have his praise (i.e. such praise as he deserves) from God. Some of the Greek Fathers (e.g. Theophylact) here make "praise" a "word of intermediate sense," involving either praise or blame. But St. Paul says "praise" for two reasons—partly because he is thinking of faithful teachers like Cephas, Apollos, and himself, who were depreciated by rival factions; and partly because he, like other apostles, shows an invariable tendency to allude to the bright rather than to the dark side of judgment. The "praise from God"—the "Well done, good and faithful servant"—is so infinitely precious that it reduces to insignificance the comparative value of human praise or blame. 1 Corinthians 4:6-13 Contrast between the inflated self sufficiency of the Corinthians and the earthly humiliation of the apostles. 1 Corinthians 4:6 Brethren. The occasional use of this and similar expressions ("beloved," etc.) often serves to strengthen an appeal, or, as here, to soften the sternness of a rebuke. I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos. The meaning seems to be that St. Paul has prominently transferred to himself and to Apollos, or rather to the parties who chose their names as watchwords, the proof as to the sin and futility of partisanship which applied equally well to the parties which ranged themselves under other names. (For the verb "transfer"—more often "transform" see 2 Corinthians 11:13, 2 Corinthians 11:14, 2 Corinthians 11:15; Philippians 3:21.) He abstains purposely and generously from publicly naming the fuglemen of the antagonistic factions. For your sakes. By rebuking party spirit in his own partisans and those of the teacher who was most closely allied to himself, he robbed his remarks of all semblance of personality or bitterness. It showed his generous delicacy not to allude rather to the adherents of Cephas and the Judaean emissary. Than ye might learn in us. I made Apollos and myself instances of the undesirability of over exalting human teachers, that by our case you might learn the general principle. Not to think of men above that which is written. The true reading is merely, not above the things which have been written, as though the words were a sort of proverb, like Ne quid nimis or Milton’s "The rule of not too much" (μηδὲνἆγαν). The word "to think" is omitted in the best manuscripts. The phrase, "which have been written," is of very uncertain meaning. It may refer generally to "the scriptural rule" that all boasting is wrong (Jeremiah 9:23), or to the humble estimate of teachers which he has just been writing down for them. All his Old Testament quotations so far (1 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 3:19) have referred to humility. Some see in it a reference to Matthew 23:1-39. 8 "Be not ye called Babbi;" but it is uncertain whether St. Matthew’s Gospel was yet written; and St. Paul never refers so directly to any written Gospel. Perhaps it is a sort of proverb," Keep always to strict evidence;" "Say nothing which cannot be proved in black and white." The text, like so many others, has only a very remote connection with the sense in which it is usually quoted. That no one of you he puffed up. St. Paul was painfully impressed by this inflation of the Corinthians, and he often recurs to this word as a description of their vain conceit (1 Corinthians 4:18, 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 13:4; 2 Corinthians 12:20). In other Epistles the word is only found once (in Colossians 2:18). For one against another. The expression is a profound one. The glorying in men (1 Corinthians 3:21), undesirable in any circumstances, becomes the more pernicious because the exaltation of one set of teachers is almost invariably accompanied by mean and unjust depreciation of any who could be supposed to be their rivals. The Corinthian who was "for Cephas" would be almost certain to be, to some extent, "against Paul." 1 Corinthians 4:7 Who maketh thee to differ? literally, Who distinguisheth thee? He means that this glorification and depreciation of rival views and rival teachers sprang from unwarrantable arrogance. It involved a claim to superiority, and a right to sit in judgment, which they did not possess. That thou didst not receive? Even supposing that you have some special gift, it is a gift, not a merit, and therefore it is a boon for which to be thankful, not a pre-eminence of which to boast. "Satan, I know thy power, and thou know’st mine, Neither our own, but given. What folly, then, To try what arms can do!" (Milton, ’Paradise Lost.’) 1 Corinthians 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich; rather, already ye have been sated, already ye grew rich. There is a strong but healing irony in these expressions, and in the entire contrast between the comfortable, full fed, regal self satisfaction of the Corinthians, and the depression and scorn in the midst of which the apostles lived. The loving delicate irony is, in a different way, as effective as the stern denunciation of St. John: "Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17). St. Paul’s satire is always akin to charity; it is never satire with no pity in it. Ye have reigned as kings. The word simply means "ye reigned." Like the Stoics, so each little Corinthian sectarian regarded himself as a king. "To reign" was, however, a proverbial phrase (like the Latin vivo et regno) for being "happy as a king." Without us (comp. Hebrews 11:40). The Corinthians were cultivated enough to appreciate the deep irony of the phrase, "We poor apostles have become quite needless to you in your lordly independence." And I would to God ye did reign. The words "to God" should be omitted. The loving heart of St. Paul could never long keep up a strain of irony. He drops the satire, and passes on to impassioned and affectionate appeal. That we also might reign with you. If the exalted eminence which you now only enjoy in your own conceits had been but real, then we, whose "hope, and joy, and crown of exultation you are in the presence of Christ" (1 Thessalonians 2:19), should share the grandeur with you. 1 Corinthians 4:9 For. This word shows how different was the reality. Hath set forth; displayed as on a stage (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Us the apostles. St. Paul identifies them with himself; but undoubtedly he had "laboured more abundantly than they all." Last. Servants of all; in the lowest circumstances of humiliation. The apostles. Not the twelve only, but those who might be called apostles in a wider sense, who shared the same afflictions (Hebrews 10:33). As it were appointed to death. This daily doom is referred to by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:30, 1 Corinthians 15:31; 2 Corinthians 4:11; Romans 8:36. Tertullian renders the word "veluti bestiaries," like criminals condemned to the wild beasts (’De Pudicit.,’ 14). But the day had not yet come when Christians were to hear so often the terrible cry, "Christianos ad leones!" A spectacle; literally, a theatre. The same metaphor is used in Hebrews 10:33. To angels. The word, when used without an epithet, always means good angels, who are here supposed to look down in sympathy (comp. Hebrews 12:22). 1 Corinthians 4:10 We are fools for Christ’s sake. The irony is softened by the intervening sentences, and as regards the apostles there is no irony. St. Paul was called "a seed pecker" (spermologos) by the Epicureans and Stoics at Athens, and Festus in full court called him "mad." Ye are wise in Christ. He could not say as before, "for Christ’s sake;" for even though he is using the language of irony, "the pseudo wisdom of the Corinthians had other motives." We are weak. The consciousness of physical and personal weakness weighed heavily on the mind of St. Paul in moments of depression (2 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4). Ye are honourable, but we are despised; literally, ye are glorious, but we are dishonoured. The word "dishonoured" also means "disfranchised.’’ 1 Corinthians 4:11 Unto this present hour. In these three verses he draws a picture of the condition of the apostles, especially of the trials to which he was himself subjected, on which the best comment is in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. This letter was written from Ephesus, where he had so much to do and to endure (Acts 20:31). Hunger and thirst. "In hunger and thirst, in fastings often" (2 Corinthians 11:27). Are naked. And are buffeted. The verb means literally, are slapped in the face. Such insults, together with scourgings, fell to the lot of St. Paul (Acts 23:2, etc.) and the other apostles (Acts 16:23, 1 Peter 2:20), as well as to that of their Lord (Matthew 26:57, etc.). It showed the utter contempt with which they were treated; for though St. Paul ought to have been exempt from such violence, both as a freeman and a Roman citizen, he was treated as vilely as if he had been a mere foreign slave. Have no certain dwelling place. This homelessness was among the severest of all trials (Matthew 8:20; Matthew 10:23). 1 Corinthians 4:12 Labour, working with our own hands. St. Paul supported himself by the dreary toil and scant earnings of a tent maker, in the express determination to be no burden upon his converts (Acts 18:3; Acts 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8; 1 Corinthians 9:6; 2 Corinthians 11:7, etc.). Such conduct was the more noble because all mechanical trades were looked down upon by the Greeks as a sort of banausia. And though it was repellent and mechanical work to be handling the strong scented black goats’ hair all day, yet by this labour he maintained not only himself but also his brother missionaries (Acts 20:34). Being reviled. The early Christians were falsely accused of the most execrable crimes, so that the very name "Christian" was regarded as equivalent to "malefactor" (1 Peter 4:14, 1 Peter 4:16). We bless. Herein they obeyed the direct precept of our Lord (Matthew 5:44), as well as his example (Luke 23:1-56. 44; 1 Peter 2:23; 1 Peter 3:9). 1 Corinthians 4:13 Being defamed, we entreat. The expression "we entreat" is very general. It may mean "we entreat men not to speak thus injuriously of us" (Calvin); or "we exhort them to do right." As the filth of the world. The Greek word katharmata has a technical sense, in which it means "men devoted to death for purposes of expiation" (homines piaculares). The word perikatharnmta has the sense of "sin offerings" in Proverbs 21:18; Tobit 5:18. It is, however, doubtful whether this meaning of the word could have been at all familiar to Greek readers, and it is only in a very general and distantly metaphorical sense that the sufferings of God’s saints can be regarded as, in any sense of the word, vicarious. It is better, therefore, here to retain the sense of "refuse" (purgamenta, things vile and worthless). The offscouring of all things; perhaps rather, of all men. The word peripsema means "a thing scraped off," and this word also was used in expiatory human sacrifices, where the formula used to victims thus flung into the sea, in times of plague or famine, was, "Become our peripsema". Thus in Tobit (v. 18), Anna the wife of Tobias says, "Let the money be used as a peripsema for the child;" and Ignatius uses the phrase, "I am your peripsema." From this and the similar phrase in the Letter of Barnabas," I am the peripsema of your love," it seems to have become a current expression of tenderness among Christians, "I am your peripsema." But in this case also it may be doubted whether the sacrificial idea was present in the apostle’s mind. He is thinking of scenes which he had already faced and would have to face hereafter, when mobs shouted against him that lie was "a pestilent fellow" (Acts 24:5) and not fit to live (Acts 22:22). 1 Corinthians 4:14-21 The practical steps which he intends to take with reference to these party divisions. 1 Corinthians 4:14 To shame you. Such seems to be the meaning of the word, for it is so used in the LXX. (compare the use of the verb in 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Titus 2:8; and of the substantive in 1 Corinthians 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:34). I warn; rather, I admonish. St. Paul here gives the reason why he cannot write angrily or bitterly, even though he has used strong expostulation and keen irony. It is because he regards himself as their spiritual father. 1 Corinthians 4:15 Ten thousand; never so many. The word in Greek is used indefinitely, but here implies a touch of impatience at the itch of teaching which seems to have prevailed at Corinth. Tutors; rather, pedagogues, in a technical sense. We have no exact equivalent in English to the paidagogos, the slave who led boys to school. The word also occurs in Galatians 3:24, Galatians 3:25. The father loves most, and has the nearer and dearer claim. In Christ. So he says, "The Law was our paidagogos to Christ." These guides or guardians were such "in Christ," i.e. in the sphere of Christian life. Not many fathers. St. Paul felt a yearning desire that his unique claim as the founder of their Church should not be so ungratefully overlooked, as though it were of no importance. I have begotten you. The word is here only used in a secondary and metaphoric sense, as in Philemon 1:10; Galatians 4:19. In the highest sense we are only begotten by the will of God, by that Word of truth (James 1:18), to which he alludes in the words "through the gospel." The "second birth" is, however a doctrine more dwelt on by St. John (John 3:3; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:1, etc.) than by St. Paul, who, as Mr. Beet observes, only refers to it in Titus 3:5. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Be ye followers; rather, imitators. He makes the same appeal in 1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17. Of course, he only uses his human example as a guide to them in the special virtues of humility, self denial, and faithfulness (1 Peter 5:3; Hebrews 13:7). In the highest sense we can only be "imitators of God" (Ephesians 5:1). 1 Corinthians 4:17 For this cause. Because, as your spiritual father, I naturally take the deepest interest in your well being. Have I sent; rather, I sent. Timothy had started before this letter was despatched (Acts 19:22), but he did not reach Corinth till after its arrival, because he had been unable to go by sea, and had to travel round by Macedonia. St. Paul, on hearing the grave news from Corinth, seems to have countermanded him (1 Corinthians 16:10, "If Timotheus come"), but was uncertain whether the messenger would reach him in time. The necessity for despatching Titus had been more immediate. My beloved son, and faithful in the Lord; rather, who is my beloved and faithful child (teknon) in the Lord. St. Paul had converted him, and felt towards him all the love of a father (1 Timothy 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; Philippians 2:20-22). Shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ. The expression shows all St. Paul’s delicacy. He is not sending the youthful Timothy as an authoritative teacher, since the Corinthians, fond of high pretension and soaring oratory, might scorn to show any submission to a shy and shrinking youth; but he is only sending him because, as his closest companion, Timothy would be best able to explain to them his plans and wishes in the organization of Churches. 1 Corinthians 4:18 Are puffed up; rather, were puffed up; at the time that they made these disparaging comparisons of me with others. As though I would not come to you; rather, as though I were not coming to you. St. Paul was on the eve of starting for Macedonia on his way to visit them (1 Corinthians 16:5), but, owing to the grievous state of the Church, he subsequently changed his purpose (2 Corinthians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 1:23). When he left them he had promised to return, "if God wilt" (Acts 18:21). His many enemies and critics were likely to say, "He is afraid to come himself, and so he sends Timothy." They flattered themselves that he was alarmed by their culture and intellectualism. 1 Corinthians 4:19 I will come to you shortly (Philippians 2:24; 2 Timothy 4:9). He came soon after writing the Second Epistle. At this time he was preparing to leave Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:8); his actual departure was precipitated by the tumult (Acts 20:1-38. l, 2). If the Lord will. The apostolic use of the phrase was something more than a mere form (Romans 15:32; Hebrews 6:3; James 4:15); it expressed a real and humble spirit of dependence. Not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. He will use his gift of spiritual discernment to discover whether the haughty self assertion and sounding phraseology of these inflated partisans would not collapse when confronted with real authority. The "speech" was there in abundance; but was there anything genuine, any real spiritual force, behind it? 1 Corinthians 4:20 The kingdom of God. The Christian life, with all its attainments and all its hopes. Is not in word, but in power. It is not a matter of profession, or of eloquence, or of phrases, but of transforming efficacy. St. Paul always appeals for the corroboration of his authority to the signs and power of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 10:1-18:45; Romans 15:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:5), to the "demonstration’’ of which he has already referred (1 Corinthians 2:4). 1 Corinthians 4:21 What will ye? "The whole thing lies with you" (Chrysostom). With a rod; literally, in a rod a not uncommon Greek phrase. The meaning of this expression is best seen from 2 Corinthians 10:2; 2 Corinthians 13:10. In love. He would come to them "in love" in any case; but if they now rejected his appeals the love would be compelled to manifest itself in sharpness and stern deeds. In the spirit of meekness. Meyer here gives to the word "spirit" the sense of "the Holy Spirit," as in John 15:26; 2 Corinthians 4:13; but the simpler sense of the term is almost certainly the true one. 1 Corinthians 4:1-7 A true and a false estimate of genuine ministers of the gospel "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ," etc. Here we have— I. A TRUE of genuine ministers of the gospel. 1. They are servants of Christ. "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ." There are some who regard ministers of the gospel as servants of their Church. The Churches guarantee their stipend, and they require that their dogmas shall be propounded and their laws obeyed. The paymasters, whether deacons, or elders, or the state, naturally expect subordination in their ministers. He who yields in any measure to such an expectation degrades his position, and is not in the truest sense a minister of Christ. He who is the true servant of Christ will feel and act as the moral master of the people—the leader and commander. "Obey them that have the rule over you," etc. There is no office on this earth so dignified and royal as that of the true servant of Christ. 2. As servants of Christ, they are responsible. "Stewards of the mysteries of God." The "mysteries of God" here mean the gospel, which in the second chapter is said to be "the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world." The gospel is a mystery, not in the sense of absolute incomprehensibility, but in the sense of progressive unfoldment, both in respect to communities and individuals. It is a mystery to the man who at firsts begins its study, but as he gets on it becomes more and more clear. The true minister is entrusted with these "mysteries;" he is to bring them out, translate them into intelligible ideas, and dispense them to the people. As a steward of such things, his position is one of transcendent responsibility. 3. As servants of Christ, they are faithful. "Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." Fidelity is an essential attribute of a true minister. He must be faithful to his trust, not abuse it, but use it according to the directions of its owner. Faithful to its owner, in all things regulated by his directions. He must be faithful to his hearers, seeking no man’s applause, fearing no man’s frown, "commending himself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." 4. As servants of Christ, they are independent. "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment." Whilst no true minister will despise the favour or court the contempt of men, he will not be concerned about their judgment so long as he is faithful to his God. Paul gives utterance to this sentiment in order, no doubt, to reprove those preachers in the Corinthian Church who were seeking the praise of men. Paul seems to indicate here three reasons for this feeling of independency. (1) His own consciousness of fidelity. "For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified." "The sense is," says a modern expositor, "I am not conscious of evil or unfaithfulness to myself; that is, in my ministerial life." It is well remarked by Calvin that "Paul does not here refer to the whole of his life, but only to his apostleship. And the sense is, ’I am conscious of integrity in this office. My own mind does not condemn me of ambition or unfaithfulness. Others may accuse me, but I am not conscious of that which should condemn me or render me unworthy of this office.’" (2) His confidence in the judgment of God. "But he that judgeth me is the Lord." I am content to abide by his judgment. If his judgment of me agrees not with my own judgment of myself, I will loyally submit. (3) His belief in a full revelation of that judgment. "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness," etc. Do not let us judge one another; do not let us even trust too much to our own judgment of ourselves. Let us await Heaven’s judgment. (a) There is a period appointed for that judgment, "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come." There is a "day appointed in which he will judge the world in righteousness." Ah! that day. (b) At that period there will be a full revelation of our characters. "Who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." (c) At that period, too, every man shall have his due. "And then shall every man have praise of God." "Praise" here does not mean approbation, but that every man shall receive his just due. Such considerations as these may well make ministers independent of the judgments of men, and regardless alike of their smiles and their frowns. II. A FALSE of genuine ministers of the gospel. "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos," etc. Paul here means to say that he spoke of himself and Apollos to show the impropriety of one minister being pitted against another. The members of the Corinthian Church had evidently formed an incorrect estimate of the true gospel minister. 1. They seemed to estimate ministers in proportion as they met their views and feelings. Every true preacher preaches the gospel as it has passed through his own mind, and as it passes through his own mind it will, of course, be more interesting to the minds most in harmony with his own experience, capacity, and sympathies. Hence, in the Corinthian Church, those who preferred Peter’s preaching thought no one was like Peter; those who preferred Apollos’ thought there were none like him; and so with Paul. It is so now. "There is no minister like our minister; all others are grades below." This is very false, for inasmuch as the great bulk of the community are more or less uneducated, unreflecting, and sensuous, the preacher who approximates most to their type of mind will attract the largest crowd and get the loudest hosannas. But is he on that account superior to others? By no means. Thus it is that some of the most inferior preachers are over rated and the most elevated and devoted degraded; whereas all true ministers are "servants of Christ," the "stewards of the mysteries of God," and as such should be honoured. 2. They seemed to estimate ministers according to the greatness of their natural endowments. "Who maketh thee to differ from another?" etc. Between the natural endowments of Paul, Apollos, and Peter there was a great difference, and, indeed, between all ministers of the gospel there is a difference in natural endowments, and a great difference in the quality and measure of mind. But what of that? There is nothing in those natural endowments for boasting; for they all came from God. The man of the most far reaching intellect, the most brilliant imagination, and transcendent genius has nothing which he has not received from that Spirit which distributes to every man according to his own will. No man or angel deserves credit on account of natural abilities. . "Let us strive," says F. W. Robertson, "as much as possible to be tranquil. Smile when men sneer; be humble when they praise; patient when they blame. Their judgment will not last; ’man’s judgment,’ literally, ’man’s day,’ is only for a time, but God’s is for eternity. So, would you be secure alike when the world frowns its censure or its applause upon you? feel hourly that God will judge. That will be your safeguard under both. It will be a small thing to you to be judged of any man’s judgment; for your cause will be pleaded before the Judge and the Discerner of all secrets." Apostolic treatment of vanity. "Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." Vanity is a state of mind at once the most prevalent and detestable; it is a plant that springs from self ignorance, and is disgusting to the spectator in all its forms and fruits. See how the apostle treats it here. I. WITH SARCASM. "Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us." The Bible furnishes us with many instances of irony (see 1 Kings 18:27; Job 12:2), but nowhere have we it in language more full and forceful than here. "Now ye are full," or "already are ye tilled." You have had enough, you want nothing; "ye are rich" or "already ye are become rich." You are affluent in all gifts and graces. "Ye have reigned as kings without us." "Here are three metaphors, the first taken from persons tilled with food, the second from persons so rich that they require no more, the third from those who have reached the highest elevation—obtained a throne." Paul seems to say to these conceited teachers that they were so great that they did not require such services as his. We scarcely know of a more effective way of treating vanity than by sarcasm. Treat the vain, swaggering man before you, not according to your judgment of him, but according to his estimate of himself. Speak to him as one as stupendous as he believes himself to be, and your irony will stab him to the quick. Sarcasm is often the instrument of a great manly soul when roused into indignation. II. WITH A NOBLE . "I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you;" or, "I would ye did reign." Here the north wind of sarcasm gives way to the south breezes of love. What he means is a wish that they were as truly full, rich, and royal as they thought themselves to be. The irony of a Christly man, however pungent, is not malign, but generous. Man an object of angelic observation. "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." The margin reads "theatre" for "spectacle," from the Greek word θέατρον. The reference, in all probability, is to the ancient amphitheatre, whose arena was surrounded by circular seats, capable of accommodating thousands of spectators. In this arena trained athletes struggled for prizes in the ancient games; on such an arena Paul speaks of himself and fellow labourers as struggling, the objects not only of human but of angelic spectators. The world is indeed a moral theatre, every man an actor, and disembodied spirits look on as spectators. "We are encompassed about," etc. Angels as spectators are intelligent, interested, numerous, constant. If the eyes of such intelligences are constantly upon us, what are the practical conclusions? I. THAT OUR CONDUCT HERE THE . No man lives unto himself; each unit is a link in being’s endless chain. His actions must tell banefully or beneficently on the creation; hence all loving and loyal intelligences direct, their attention to him with deep and unabating interest. Besides, men and angels are offsprings of the same Father, participators of the same nature, subjects of the same moral government. No wonder they are so concerned. II. THAT OUR PART SHOULD BE PLAYED. How doubly careful are our actors on the stage, in the presence of spectators distinguished for the highest genius, erudition, and artistic culture! It behoves every man to be cautious how he acts in the presence of his fellow creatures, whether they are children or adults, plebeians or princes; but how much more cautious should he be when he knows that angels, whose pure natures loathe sin in all its forms, have their keenest gaze fastened ever on his life. III. THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE OF OUR SIN. The attempt to cloak or dissemble our sins is absurdly futile. Whilst there is One who reads the heart, there may be millions who mark all our overt acts, whether wrought in darkness or in light. IV. THAT WE MAY EXPECT HELP IN ALL HOLY . Those celestial spirits are sent forth to minister to the heirs of salvation. They have received a Divine commission to bear us up, lest we dash our feet against a stone. In all ages they have rendered assistance to the good. They helped Abraham on the plains of Mamre, and Lot in his flight towards Zoar; they freed the apostle from the prison; they bore the spirit of Lazarus to the bosom of Abraham. . "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us" (Hebrews 12:1). 1 Corinthians 4:10-14 Paul’s treatment of self. conceited teachers. "We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you." Paul is still thinking of those teachers of the Corinthian Church who were "puffed up," inflated with conceit. He treats them here with— I. AN IRONIC APPEAL. "We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised;" or, "ye have glory, but we have dishonour." "W are fools," we know nothing, "but ye are wise," you know everything; "we are weak," timid, and feeble, "but ye are strong" and fearless. "ye are extolled, but "we are despised," the "offscouring of all things." All this is sarcasm again, well deserved, and well directed. How would our little penny-a-liners feel if such a man as Thomas Carlyle were to stand before them and speak in this way? If they had any sense remaining, they would quiver into nothingness. How much more would those small pretentious teachers in the Corinthian Church feel this stroke of satire dealt out to them by the great apostle to the Gentiles! II. A HISTORY. Here he refers to his privations: "Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place"—without nourishment, without clothing, without the shelter of a home. Here he refers to his labours: "And labour, working with our own hands." Here he refers to his persecutions: "We are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things." Then he refers to the spirit in which he endured the sufferings: "Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat." Now, why did he state all this? Not for the sake of parading his great trials and toils, but for the sake of bringing these proud teachers to their senses. They could not fail to acknowledge that he was an apostle—a pre-eminent minister of Christ; notwithstanding this, in the world he was treated with cruelty and contempt, he was poor and despised. What, then, had they to be proud of as ministers? . From this subject it is natural to ask—Who in the present age engaged in the Christian ministry are most likely to be of apostolic succession? Those who are "full," and "rich," and royal, and "wise," and "strong," who pride themselves in all these things; whom the people favour and flatter? or those who, like the Apostle Paul, in the discharge of their ministry, endure privations, persecutions, and all in the magnanimous spirit of self abnegation and generous forgiveness of enemies? Call no man a successor of the apostle who has not the apostolic character. To call a man a successor of the apostle who has not the apostolic character—manfully noble, Christly loyal, and withal self sacrificing—is a mischievous imposture. Spiritual paternity. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." The subject of these words is spiritual paternity, and three remarks are suggested. I. THAT ONE MAN MAY BECOME THE FATHER OF ANOTHER. What is it to become the spiritual father of another? 1. Something more than to become the father of one’s ideas. There are men in society gifted with that intellectual vitality and vigour which enables them to generate the leading ideas in the minds of their contemporaries. This they do by their conversation, their speeches, their writings. But these are not spiritual fathers, they are mere schoolmasters or teachers. Coleridge and Carlyle are examples of this. 2. Something more than the author of a certain style of thinking. There are men in society who not only generate leading thoughts in the minds of their contemporaries, but, what is perhaps something higher, a style of thinking—a style characterized by precision, freshness, and force. Aristotle, Bacon, etc., are examples. But a spiritual father is one who is the father of man’s moral character, one who generates in another his own spirit, sympathies, and aims, one who transforms the character of another into his own image. II. THAT THE NOBLEST FATHER IS HE WHO BEGETS IN ANOTHER THE . Many are the moral characters prevalent amongst men—the sensual, the sceptical, the selfish. The Christly character stands in sublime contrast to these; it is disinterested, spiritual; Divine. 1. The man who generates in others this character imparts the highest good. In the Christly character is harmony, kinghood, and paradise. To be like Christ is the highest end of being, it is the summum bonum of souls. 2. The man who generates this character in others creates the highest mutual affection. Far deeper and profounder is the affection subsisting between the spiritual father and his offspring than that which exists between the physical. Christ recognized this when he said, "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brothel and my sister, and my mother." Paul called Timothy his "beloved son;" and elsewhere he speaks with inexpressible tenderness of his converts as his little children, with whom he travailed in birth (Galatians 4:10). III. THAT THE IS ONLY IN OTHERS BY THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. "I have begotten you through the gospel." Natural religion cannot do it; Judaism cannot do it; Mohammedanism cannot do it; heathenism cannot do it; no speculative creeds, no moral codes, no ritualistic religions can do it. The gospel alone is the power to generate in man the true Christly character; it is that transformative glass into which as we look we get changed into the same image from "glory to glory." . Learn from this: 1. The supreme interest of man. What is that?—learning, wealth, fame? No; Christliness. He who has this has everything; all things are his. He who has not this has "nothing," says Paul. 2. The grandest distinctions amongst men. What are they?—sages, soldiers, sovereigns? No; spiritual sires. The man who generates in another the Christly character has done a greater work than any sage as sage, king as king, has ever done. Every man may and ought to become a spiritual father. 1 Corinthians 4:16-21 Six subjects worth reflection. "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me," etc. There are six noteworthy subjects in these verses. I. A REQUEST. "Be ye followers of me." Were Paul an ordinary man, such an exhortation would resound with arrogance; but he was a man of preeminent excellence, Christly in spirit, deportment, and ministry. There were three reasons why they should imitate him. 1. He was a follower of Christ. There was no living man who had followed his Master so closely. Elsewhere he says, "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." 2. He was their spiritual father. He had begotten them in the gospel; they were his moral offspring. They had numerous instructors, but he was their father; they gave them ideas, he gave them character. 3. He was no partisan. Other teachers amongst them became the leaders of parties, these parties were contending one with another; but Paul belonged to no party, he followed Christ, knew "nothing amongst men but Christ, and him crucified." Such a man was justified in calling on others to follow him. "Ministers," says an old writer, "should so live that their people may take pattern from them, and even after their copy; they should guide them by their lives as well as by their lips, go before them on the way to heaven, and not content themselves with pointing." II. A HIGH . "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every Church." He is dear to me as a "son;" he is "faithful in the Lord;" he knows my "ways." High testimony this. And this is the man he promises to send to them. What for? That he might give them good reasons why they should be followers of him. I do not want you to follow me in the dark; I send him that he may throw light upon my ways everywhere, "in every Church." A man must have a high consciousness of rectitude who can trust the representation of his character to one who knows him as well as a son knows his father, and withal a man of incorruptible honesty. III. A FOOLISH . "Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you." There were those in the Church at Corinth who were out of sympathy with Paul, and who had no desire that he should visit them, and as the "wish is father to the thought," when they heard he was coming they would not believe it. When the intelligence that he was sending Timothy to them reached them, they would be likely to say, "This proves the truth of our assertion; he is afraid to come himself, and so he sends Timothy." In this they seem to have rejoiced; they were "puffed up." Now, I rail this a foolish exultation, because the visit of Paul to them was what they deeply needed, and was intended to confer on them the highest blessing. How often do we foolishly rejoice in deliverance from visitations fraught with priceless blessings! "Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take, The clouds ye so much dread Are big with mercy, and shall break In blessings on your head." (Cowper.) IV. AN . "But I will come to you shortly if the Lord will," etc. Paul believed that God had a will concerning him, and that will determined his destiny. Hence on this he based all his calculations in life; all his plans and purposes were subject to that will. "If the Lord will." This is an exemplary decision. His will is not only absolute and righteous, but benevolent; therefore to acquiesce in that will is not only right, but wise. "Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain; whereas ye know not what will be on the morrow? V. A SYSTEM. "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." By this he means, I presume, the gospel ministry. It is a divinely regal "kingdom;" it is not a thing of sentiments or ceremony; it is invested with Divine authority. It is not a thing of mere "word;" it transcends all language, however logical in force or rhetorical in beauty; it is "power"—the "power of God unto salvation." VI. A SOLEMN . "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" In any case I shall come as a father. Shall I come as a father to chastise you with a "rod," or with looks of "love" and words of commendation and sympathy? God’s minister is bound to deal with men according to their states of mind. His ministry to some must be as the severity of Sinai, with others as the tenderness of Calvary. Evermore is it true that the effects of Divine visitations depend on the spirit in which they are received, and what this spirit shall be is for man to determine. God says to every man, "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" This is the solemn proposal. BY C. Ministers as stewards. The idea of the ministry as a Divine institution, set apart as a peculiar calling and charged with an infinite trust, cannot as yet relax its hold on St. Paul’s mind. Tenacity of a great truth is not altogether a matter of our volition. At first the will has much to do in directing attention to a truth and keeping it fixed; but in no long time, if the man has trained himself to reflect, and, above all, if he is an earnest man, the truth recurs by some process of self suggestion. After a while, indeed, it happens with many who give themselves to profound investigations, that the subject gains a certain mastery over them, so that it costs more effort to dismiss it than was originally needed to concentrate attention. No capacity of the mind is so pliant as the capacity to be absorbed in an object of thought, and it seems independent of idiosyncrasy. Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Walter Scott both refer to the difficulty they had in discharging a topic from their minds if it had enlisted their interest. St. Paul had said much on the office of the ministry, but the theme was by no means exhausted. One aspect, a special one, remained, viz. stewardship. Ministers are "stewards of the mysteries of God;" if so, fidelity is their highest duty, or rather the soul of every duty. If the preacher had to set forth so unpopular a doctrine as Christ crucified, so obnoxious to worldly culture, so alien to the civilization of the age, then this "foolishness of preaching" was a very urgent reason for faithfulness. What need of watchfulness here! "Who can understand his errors," and especially these errors? Apostles were "men of like passions" with others; and this very likeness, while fraught with dangers both obvious and occult, made them fit, under God, for their work. The idea of stewardship was familiar to these Corinthians, perhaps keenly so to some of them; for in the business of that day much had to be entrusted to agents. Now, the master in such cases cannot give detailed instructions to his stewards, and hence a good deal must be left to their judgment. The hazard, let it be observed, is not on the side of the understanding; no rare intellectual outfit was requisite in this instance; the one supreme doctrine of Christ crucified had wisdom and power sufficient to impart truth of thought and emotion to all subordinate doctrines. But the danger lay in a want of fidelity. And had not St. Paul evinced this faithfulness while with these Corinthians? Yet, whether they admired or blamed, whether acquitted or condemned, what was that to him? "A very small thing was man’s judgment;" nor, forsooth, would he judge himself, but leave all judgment to the Lord Jesus. Spiritual discernment has its functions; insight is a glorious gift; but the Lord reserves judgment to himself. That judgment awaits its day of revelation, when "the hidden things of darkness" and the "counsels of the hearts" shall be made manifest. Then, indeed, men shall see themselves as Christ sees them. Here, in this world, even in our most enlightened state, consciousness is partial. Much of a man lies far down in unillumined depths; the secrets of motives and impulses evade his personal cognizance; only in fragments can he realize himself; how much less can he comprehend others! And, "therefore, judge nothing before the time." Obviously, then, humility of judgment is not only an intellectual excellence but a spiritual virtue. It is a Divine discernment of our limitations, a Divine insight into the fact that there is an unconscious man no less than a conscious one in every human being, and that, meantime, fidelity stands free of all restrictions and abatements. Does fidelity look at office? It does not see popularity, honour, preferment, but duty, duty alone, duty ever; and this sense of duty, inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost, educates the man in tact and skill, in diligence and patience. Does fidelity look at others? It neither exaggerates nor depreciates them, nor can it regard them as rivals, since no man can possibly have a sense of rivalry who realizes Christ in the most essential fact of work, viz. brotherhood. And consequently, one of the many beautiful provisions of Christianity to secure fidelity is found in the brotherhood of Christians. Does fidelity look into its own heart? Even then infirmity clings to its energetic searching. On its good side it may be too self exacting, morbid, harshly critical of itself; on its weak side it may be lenient and over indulgent. And hence St. Paul, while conscious of knowing nothing against himself, declares, "Yet am I not hereby justified," and relies solely on the justification of Christ at that great assize, which, among all its wonders, shall surprise men most of all by its divinely revealed estimates of human character. "For your sakes," so he argues, "I have been thus explicit and emphatic, transferring these things to myself and Apollos," in order that the Corinthians might clearly see his own disinterestedness. This point assured, the way is open for remonstrance. Why are ye puffed up? If we are recipients; if Paul and Apollos are mere stewards of the Master’s riches; if self judgments and judgments of others are impossible to men under the limitations of consciousness and observation; if "the counsels of the hearts" keep out of sight and hold their latency intact for the final day; and if, meantime, fidelity to duty is the supreme concern and adequate to call out and employ all the spiritual resources of our nature under grace; and, finally, if you owe all your means of acting on one another and the world to the brotherhood of the Church;—why do ye stand arrayed in sharp hostility against one another and rend asunder the Lord’s body?—L. 1 Corinthians 4:8-13 A vivid contrast. Having shown that the Christian consciousness was a twofold realization of the worthlessness of whatever was its own, and the infinite worth of the "all things" in Christ, and having proceeded thence to the idea of stewardship and the urgent need of faithfulness, how can St. Paul withhold the stern application of such truths? Had it been a childish self complacency with which he was dealing, we know how he would have treated it. But it was an active jealousy, a pompons arrogance, a virulent self conceit, a carnal temper in which the natural man survived, that he had to combat. Now, therefore, he would show them what they were. The weapons of his warfare were not carnal, but, nevertheless, they were weapons, and withal such weapons as Elijah had employed, and even the Lord Jesus had not disdained to use. If, by means of contrast, we know everything external, and if thereby we know ourselves too and realize our identity by discriminating one mood of consciousness from another, it follows that irony has its legitimate place and may be sanctified to the best purposes, Men are acutely sensitive to its caustic probe, and, as they will not exercise it on themselves, its application is one of those offices, severe but humane, which must be performed on them. Is the conflict over and the victory won? Full and rich, lo! ye are reigning "as kings," and significantly enough, "without us," the apostles, the sent of God, in this movement. And what dominion is that from which we are excluded? Where are your apostles in this hour of your coronation as kings? "God hath set us forth"—a terrible contrast to their self glorification—at this instant are we so set forth, like criminals doomed to death, and made a spectacle as in a vast theatre, "unto the world, and to angels, and to men." Alas! the only use just then to which the great Apostle to the Gentiles could put his knowledge of Greek games in the amphitheatre was in an outburst of indignation and sorrow. And then follows one of his characteristic sentences, in which impassioned feeling is quite as condensed as strong thought: fools, weak, despised, are we the apostles, while ye are wise and strong and honorable. The formal contrast is dropped, and now, how like the rapid summation of his experience to the sufferings of his Lord? Fidelity in suffering, fidelity to suffering, reconciliation to it, acceptance of its law as basic to his life, not an exceptional thing occurring at rare intervals as most of our sad experiences, but common and habitual, wounds unhealed and yet deeper wounds, "even unto this present hour." Hunger and thirst, nakedness, buffetings, homeless, refusing all remuneration and earning our own support, returning good for evil and blessing for cursing, objects of persecution, denied recognition as the friends of humanity and lovers of their kind, abused and vilified, ay, treated in the centres of this world’s intelligence and refinement as "the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things," and no break or cessation, "unto this day." The sameness of these sufferings is twice mentioned, and the wondrous biography, first and last, is one chapter of woes. Over all stands a single motto, which came and could only come from Christianity: "For Christ’s sake." At this juncture, call to mind a fact of some moment. Men are wonderfully individualized by sufferings. Considering how suffering abounds, it is noticeable that few truly regard themselves as providential sufferers, and realize in their experience the Divine discipline they are appointed to undergo. There is much selfishness in our ways of enduring the ills of life, in the uses made of affliction, and the habits of intellect and sensibility growing therefrom; and St. Paul strikes the heart of the subjects when he connects his sufferings with "Christ’s sake." This gives an instant pathos to the recital and an instant nobility to the apostle as a sufferer. Furthermore, only for "Christ’s sake" does he go into this affecting detail of the number, variety, and continuation of iris sorrows. A noble sufferer like St. Paul could find no selfish pleasure in such an enumeration; nay, in itself it would be painful. Vain men, ignoble men. gratify their littleness in recounting what they have endured, and these pensioners of public opinion—it may be the public opinion of a very diminutive world—find their account in the illusory sense of sympathy. Far from this weakness—very far—was this heroic man, to whom it was a new suffering to tell his sufferings, but who, in the courage of humility, the most courageous of the virtues in a true man, was even ready to uncover a bleeding heart for "Christ’s sake." We shall now see that his love for these erring Corinthians prompted him to make the narration of his sufferings.—L. Warnings of tenderness. From mood to mood, yet in all, St. Paul had the same dominant zeal and affection in behalf of his converts. Rebuke was not with him a pleasure to which the natural man ministered, but a very painful duty that proceeded from conscience and kept sensibility unalloyed by animal passion. Herein he is distinguished from men who love authority because it is a signal of personal eminence and a means to make others feel their inferiority. A really superior round never likes to dwell on the infirmities of ignorance and littleness in those below him. The mountain points upward, and the higher the summit the more is it lost in the heavens. "Who maketh thee to differ?" is always present as the interrogatory of consciousness in such a nature, and the answer thereunto, whenever a true man has to vindicate his authority and especially in rebuke, is as Divine as the question. The delicacy of the apostle and his depth of insight have not forsaken him in this trying hour, nor would he expose the vanity of such as made themselves leaders and assumed transcendent powers, save in a manifest spirit of self abnegation. Manner is not a mere mode; it is a spirit; it is the very spirit of a man taking on a visible embodiment, and hence the rebuke administered by St. Paul is impregnated with the humility of his soul. There are men who commit "Mischievous foul sin in chiding sin;" but it would be a poor compliment to the apostle to say that he was not one of this class. What is most truly to his honour is his purpose to make the Corinthians sensible of the wrong to their better nature, and quicken from that side of their character the feeling of repentance. This brings out the sentiment of his soul in the words, "I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you;" and again the master thought of all his thinking recurs—Christ Jesus—in whom he had begotten them through the gospel, urging them to be imitators of Christ in him. To be genuinely serviceable, imitation must not be mechanical and servile, not be the literal copying of a pattern or model, but an education in the art of discriminating, and particularly a sense of the ideal in those whom we follow. For this reason, that they may be reminded of his "ways which be in Christ," he has sent Timotheus unto them. Prudence dictated this course. Circumstances were such as that absence would be his most effective presence—one of those occasions when a man’s thoughts had better do their work unattended by the emphasis of eye and voice. But would they misinterpret this and attribute it to cowardice? "I will come to you shortly," leaving the time to the will of the Lord, for in executing a grave purpose it is not enough that we have the Spirit in our motive and aim, but we must wait patiently on the providence of the Spirit, which is often our best discipline. St. Paul’s expectations were rarely fulfilled promptly, instance his visit to Rome; hope grew more reverent by delay; and in no aspect is his career more interesting than in that which shows how postponed gratification of desire ennobled the desire itself and secured a larger good to others. Fruit must grow, ripen, mellow, especially inward fruits, and St. Paul prized the mellowing touch of time. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 5:1-8 Excommunication of an incestuous offender. 1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported. The abruptness with which the subject is introduced shows the intensity of St. Paul’s feelings, and his indignation that he should have been left to hear of this crime by common report. The news had come to him "from those of Chloe’s household." But St. Paul was not acting on mere "report." The Greek phrase implies, "It is notorious that there is uncleanness among you." St. Paul must have felt it to be a bad feature in the character of the Corinthian Church that they had not mentioned this gross scandal in their letter. Commonly; rather, actually or absolutely; Elsewhere in the New Testament the worn only occurs in Matthew 5:24; 1 Corinthians 6:7; 1 Corinthians 15:29. Tertullian renders it "in totum." St. Paul has no need in this instance to name his informants. Every one knew of this scandal. Fornication; a general word for all kinds of impurity. And. The word involves an indignant climax, "Yes, and uncleanness of such a kind that," etc. Is not so much as named. The true reading is, does not even exist. This form of incest was, indeed, "named" among the Gentries, for it forms the basis of the story of Hippolytus, the scene of which was in the neighbourhood of Corinth; but the feelings even of pagans were so shocked by it that Cicero alludes to such a crime in the words, "Oh, incredible wickedness, and except in this woman’s case—unheard of in all experience!" (’Pro Cluent.,’ 5). At this very epoch Nero deepened the general execration against himself by the generally accepted suspicion that he had been guilty of a yet more flagrant crime. Should have; rather, that a certain person has his father’s wife. Apparently this was some nominal Christian, who was living in open sin with his stepmother, and thereby braving the curse of Lev 18:17; Deuteronomy 27:20. We gather from 2 Corinthians 7:12 that the father was living, and had also joined the Christian community. From the complete silence as to the crime of the woman, it must be inferred that she was a heathen. Whether she had been divorced or not does not appear, nor whether the offender was nominally married to her or not. His father’s wife. He might have used the one Greek word for stepmother (μητρυιά), but the periphrasis might remind some of the heinousness of the sin, and of Lev 18:8. 1 Corinthians 5:2 And ye are puffed up; perhaps rather, And have ye been puffed up? The "ye," being expressed m the Greek, is emphatic—"ye, the very persons whose horror ought to have been most intense." It might seem inconceivable that any community calling itself Christian would fall so low as to be puffed up at the existence of such an offence among them. There is, indeed, a subtle and close connection between arrogance and sensuality, and beth are sometimes fatally linked to the conceit of religious knowledge without the reality. But not even a heathen community could have been "puffed up" on such grounds. Yet the Corinthians may have been "puffed up" with the conceited reasons which induced them to leave the offence unrebuked, because they boasted the possession of some spurious "knowledge." Perhaps they bad seized some deadly notion of antinomian liberty, such as has existed at times among Gnostic sects, like the Ophites in ancient and the Anabaptists in modern days. Perhaps they sheltered themselves under the arrogant Jewish rule that all a man’s conditions of life were altered by becoming a proselyte—that old relationships were for him entirely abolished; for the Jews held that a prosolyte was like "a newborn child," and had begun life a second time (Bechoroth, f. 47, 1), and might marry any of his relatives. Such miserable sophisms would acquire fresh force from the universal impurity with which Corinthian society was stained, and which rendered it necessary for St. Paul in these Epistles to utter his most solemn warnings against every kind of sensuality (1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:15-18; 1 Corinthians 10:8; 1 Corinthians 15:1-58:83, 34; 2 Corinthians 5:11, etc.). But besides all this, St. Paul’s remark does not necessarily mean that their "inflation" was exclusively connected with Gnostic excesses, which bore on the ease of this offender. It may mean, "Here is a gross fault in the midst of you, and yet—not propter hoc, but cum hoc—the characteristic of your religious factions is pride and conceit." This was indeed Κορινθιάζεσθαι, "to play the Corinthian," in the worst sense, of that proverbial taunt. Possibly the prominence or wealth of the offender may have led to a more easy condonation of his crime. Exculpatory sophism may have been suggested by self interest. That; i.e. in order that, as a result of your godly sorrow, the offender might be removed from your midst. He that hath done this deed. The language of St. Paul, as always, is as delicate as clearness would allow. The fact that the verb is in the past aorist may perhaps allow us to hope that the offence, at any rate in its most aggravated forms, had ceased to be committed. The manner of the crime ("in such a way") seems to have been an aggravation of the crime itself. In this indignant verse we have, as Stanley says, "the burst of the storm, the mutterings of which had been heard in the earlier chapters." So intense was the effect produced by St. Paul’s stern severity, that a great part of the Second Epistle had to be devoted to allaying the agitation which these words had excited (see especially 2 Corinthians 7:8-12). 1 Corinthians 5:3 For I verily. The broken structure of the verse shows the deep emotion with which it was penned—as it were with sobs. St. Paul contrasts the line which he means to take with the lax condonation granted by the Corinthian Church. As absent; rather, being absent or though absent. The as is omitted in the best manuscripts. But present in spirit; literally, in the spirit;’ but he is referring to his own spirit: "Bodily I am absent; but speaking as though my spirit were present in your assembly [comp. 2 Kings 5:26], I have already judged," etc. Have judged already. My decision was instantaneous and is final. As though I were present. My sentence is as clear as though I were at this moment standing in the midst of you. That hath so done. The verb is not as before, poiesas, but katergasamenon, which is stronger, "the perpetrator of this deed." The "so" means "with all these circumstances of aggravation.’’ The same verb is used in Romans 1:27. The broken periods of the Greek reflect the emotion of the writer. The passage is as it were written with sobs (Wordsworth). 1 Corinthians 5:4 In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word "Christ" is probably an addition. The clause may either be taken with "when ye are gathered together," or with "to deliver". With the power of our Lord Jesus. Each clause adds solemnity to the scene in which St. Paul imagines himself as standing with them in the spirit, and joining with the assembly of the Church, and armed with the authority of Christ, while he pronounces on the offender the sentence on which he had already determined. That he could claim "the power of the Lord" resulted from his possession of the Holy Spirit. and the special commission to bind and to loose, to remit and to retain, on earth, which Christ had entrusted to the apostles (Matthew 18:18, Matthew 18:20; John 20:23). 1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan. Scripture nowhere defines the character and limits of such a sentence as this. By cutting off an offender from Church communion (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:15), that is, from all the visible means of grace, he was for the time separated from spiritual influences, and was, therefore, so far handed over to Satan. The phrase is also applied to Hymenaeus and Alexander, in 1 Timothy 1:20. It is very doubtful whether it was necessarily meant to involve such physical inflictions as fell on Ananias, Sapphira, or Elymas. It is, however, important to observe that the intention of the sentence, like the true intention of excommunication, when exercised in a right spirit (see Hooker, ’Eccl. Pol.,’ Ecclesiastes 3:1, § 13), was not wrathful, but merciful. It was, as Calvin says, "medicinale remedium"—"not for destruction, but for edification’’ (2 Corinthians 10:8). Hymenaeus and Alexander were handed to Satan, not for their final ruin and damnation, but with a kind and remedial purpose, "that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20), and this offender with the express object ’, that his spirit may be saved." Had these facts been more deeply studied, there would have been a very different tone and spirit in many of the mediaeval anathemas. Such a one. He seems to hold aloof from the man’s very name. So "such as she" (τὰςτοιαύτας) is used of the adulteress in John 8:7. For the destruction of the flesh; i.e. that all carnal influences in him might be destroyed. It is not his "body" which is to be destroyed, but the , "flesh," the jetzer hara, or "evil impulse," as the Jews called it. When this was destroyed, the body might once more become a temple of the Holy Ghost. That the spirit may be saved. The destruction of the lowest element of our human nature is the salvation of the highest; it is the cutting away of the dead corpse from the living soul. In the day of the Lord; when the Lord should judge the quick and the dead. The merciful intention of St. Paul is clearly developed in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11. He looked on God’s judgments as remedial, not as solely retributive (1 Corinthians 11:29-32). Here, as Chrysostom finely says, the apostle lays down, as it were, his laws to the devil, telling him how far, and how far only, he can proceed. The object of excommunication is to save the offender, and not to do the devil’s work by ensuring his eternal ruin. We can imagine how awful would be the solemnity of these words when they were first read aloud to the little Christian communities of Corinth. It was natural that they should produce an overwhelming excitement. 1 Corinthians 5:6 Your glorying; rather, the subject of your boasting, the point on which you glorify yourselves. The Greek word does not mean the act of boasting, but the thing of which we boast. Not good. The Greek word is not agathon, but kalon, an almost untranslatable word, which implies all moral beauty, and resembles the English word "fair" or "noble." When he says that it is "not good," he uses the figure called litotēs; i.e. he employs an expression intentionally too weak, that it may be corrected into a stronger one by the involuntary indignation of the reader; as when Virgil calls the cannibal tyrant Busiris "unpraised." Hence the clause is equivalent to "the thing of which you are boasting is detestable." Know ye not. This clause is used by St. Paul in specially solemn appeals, and almost exclusively in these Epistles (1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 Corinthians 9:13, 1 Corinthians 9:24). A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (Galatians 5:9). The taint alluded to is not only the presence of the unpunished offender, but the general laxity and impurity displayed by their whole bearing in the matter (comp. the line of Menander quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:33, and the "root of bitterness" in Hebrews 12:15). (For the word "lump," see Romans 11:16.) 1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore. The word "therefore" is absent from the best manuscripts, and the abruptness is more emphatic without it. No doubt the metaphor was suggested by the fact that St. Paul was writing about the time of the Passover (Acts 16:8). The most essential requisite of the Jewish regulations, with which his whole training had made him so familiar, was the absolute putting away, and even destruction, of every trace of leaven, which was diligently sought for the day before the Passover began. The putting away of leaven was a type of sanctification. The old leaven. "Old" as belonging to their unregenerate and unconverted condition; a remnant of the day when they had been Gentiles and Jews who had not known Christ. The least willing tolerance of the taint would cause it to work throughout the whole society. As ye are unleavened. Leaven is the type of evil in its secret and corrupting workings. Ideally, Christians can only be addressed as "unleavened," i.e. as "purged from their own old sins" (2 Peter 1:9); and it is the method of Scripture (indeed, it is the only possible method) to address Christians as being Christians indeed, and therefore in their ideal rather than their actual character. Some have taken these words to mean, "You are actually keeping the Passover, and therefore have no leaven among you;" but (1) the words cannot bear this meaning; nor (2) was St. Paul likely to appeal so prominently to a Jewish ordinance; and (3) he is thinking of the Christian Easter, and only borrowing a casual illustration from the Jewish Passover. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; rather, in the true reading, for our passover also was sacrificed—even Christ. As Christians, the Gentile Corinthians certainly did not keep the Jewish Passover; but St. Paul reminds them that they too had a Passover—that for them, too a Paschal Victim had been offered, whose sacrificial blood had been shed for their redemption (John 1:29; John 19:36; 1 Peter 1:19). (Comp. Hebrews 13:10, "We have an altar.") 1 Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast. Let us keep the Christian feast of Christ’s resurrection in that spirit of holiness—of purging away sin from the midst of us—which was symbolized by the Jewish removal of leaven. Not with old leaven. For now ye are "in Christ," and, therefore, are a "new creation." Leaven is the type of hypocrisy (Luke 12:1) in its secret workings, but more generally it is a type of every corrupting influence. Of sincerity and truth. "All that corresponds to an unsullied, uncontaminated, and genuine Christian character." The beautiful Greek word for "sincerity" means freedom from all admixture. It is, perhaps, derived from "testing in the sunshine," and is used by St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 2:17. "Truth" means "reality." 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Correction of a mistaken inference which they had deduced from a former letter of St. Paul’s. 1 Corinthians 5:9 In an Epistle; rather, in the Epistle; in some former letter to the Church, which is no longer extant. The attempt to get rid of so plain a statement, in the supposed interests of some superstitious notion that every line which an apostle wrote to a Church must necessarily have been inspired and infallible, is at once unscriptural and grossly superstitious. The notion that "the Epistle" intended is this Epistle is an absurdity invented in the interests of the same fiction. The only hypothesis which could give the least plausibility to such a view is that which makes this paragraph a postscript or marginal addition after the letter was finished; but there is little or nothing in favour of such a view. Not to company with. The Greek word is rather stronger: not to be mingled up among. The spirit of the injunction is repeated in Ephesians 5:11, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." 1 Corinthians 5:10 Yet not altogether. The words correct a false inference, and mean, "I did not intend absolutely to prohibit all communication with Gentiles guilty of this sin under all circumstances." Of this world. Those outside the pale of the Christian Church. Or with the covetous. St. Paul often uses the Greek word in immediate connection with sins of impurity (1 Corinthians 6:10; 2 Corinthians 9:5; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:3), and, though it does not exclude the connotation of greed and avarice (2 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:5), it seems to have been used euphemistically of the deadliest form of heathen sensuality. The principle of selfishness may work equally in greed and in lust. Extortioners. The word may also mean "ravishers," but there is no reason to abandon the sense of "rapacious." Idolaters. This is the earliest instance of the use of this word, which does not occur in the LXX. No Christian could still be an open "idolater." So, unless we suppose that the expression has slipped in involuntarily, we must here give the word a metaphorical sense, as in Colossians 3:5. We must else be driven to suppose that there were some half and half Christians, like Constantine, who "feared the Lord, and served their own gods". For then must ye needs go out of the world; for in that case (as they had perhaps implied in their letter of questions to St. Paul) ye would have been morally bound to leave the world altogether and seek a new one. The Greek particle ara perhaps refers to the astonishment caused by their misapprehension of St. Paul’s rule. The clause throws painful light on the condition of the heathen world. If all communication with "fornicators’’ was to be forbidden, the sin was so universal, especially at Corinth, that all intercourse with Gentiles would have be. come impossible. Even some who professed to be stern moralists among the heathen, like Cato and Cicero, looked on the sin as being, at the worst, quite venial, and even, under certain circumstances, commendable. 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you. The tense used is, perhaps, the epistolary aorist, and is therefore equivalent to "but now I write to you;" otherwise the sense is, "but what I meant in my letter was," etc. The position of the words rather favours this view. St. Paul expressly tells them in 1 Corinthians 10:27 that he never intended to forbid all intercourse with heathens. They were not to be "taken out of the world," but to be free from evil (John 17:15). If any man that is called a brother. The word "brother" was used before the name "Christian" was accepted by the members of the Church. Or an idolater (see 1 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 10:7, 1 Corinthians 10:14). He might call himself a Christian, and yet be in reality an idolater (Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5; Galatians 5:20; 1 John 5:21). With such a one no not to eat. If the phrase be pressed, it would involve exclusion from all privileges of the body, for the Holy Communion was celebrated in connection with the agapae. But the general meaning is that of 2 Thessalonians 3:6, "We command you... that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly." 1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? To pass sentence on heathens is no concern of mine; it is no part of my office. The phrase "them that are without" was originally a Jewish phrase. To the Jews all men were outsiders (chitsonin) except themselves. The phrase was adopted by Christians, but in a less contemptuous sense (1 Thessalonians 4:12; Colossians 4:5). We find a description of "those that were without"—"aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise"—in Ephesians 2:12. Do not ye judge them that are within! An appeal to their own practice and to common sense. Christian rules can, of course, only apply to Christian communities. 1 Corinthians 5:13 God judgeth. To that "judgment of God" (Romans 1:29) Christians must leave them. They have no jurisdiction over them. The mention of "judging" forms a natural transition to the next chapter. Therefore. The word is omitted in the best manuscripts. The command is more abruptly forcible without it. Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. The command would come the more powerfully because it is a direct reference to the language of Deu 17:7; Deuteronomy 24:7. The explanation, "Put away the evil one [i.e. the devil] from among you!" is adopted by Calvin, but is too general. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 The socially immoral in Churches. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you," etc. The greater portion of this chapter is taken up with one subject, that is, gross social immorality. The verses before us suggest three general remarks— I. THAT THE IMMORAL FIND THEIR WAY INTO . It had been reported to Paul that there were some members of the Corinthian Church guilty of gross "fornication;" that one of the members had actually married his father’s wife—not, however, his own mother, but his stepmother. Such a piece of immorality would be regarded with the utmost abhorrence, even through the whole Roman empire. Paul says that such a case was not "so much as named among the Gentiles." How such a character became a member of the Christian community is not stated. It is reasonable, however, to suppose that it was through imposition on the one hand and the lack of scrutiny on the other. It is to be feared that the admission of the socially immoral into Churches has in every age been too common. How many Churches are there in England entirely free from those who every day outrage the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"? There are merchants that cheat their customers, lawyers that swindle their clients, doctors that take advantage of their patients, statesmen that deceive their constituents and in the name of patriotism promote their own selfish ends, masters and mistresses that oppress their servants, servants unfaithful to their employers. Ay, the Church is a field in which grows the tare as well as the wheat, a net in which there is the "unclean" as well as the "clean." II. THAT IN THEIR ARE IN DANGER OF THE IMMORAL AMONG THEM. "And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned." Probably there were those in the Church who were proud of the membership of this incestuous man; perhaps he was an orator, or had a long purse, or was a person of great social influence. We have known joint stock swindlers who have been made chairmen of religious meetings, and who have been cheered to the echo. Party feeling was so strong, and religious disputation so rife amongst them, that such immoralities escaped their notice. Who is the best preacher? what is the sound doctrine? what are the ceremonies to be observed? Such questions as these were all absorbing amongst them. Moral character was a secondary thing, theories and beliefs primary. This has ever been too much the case in Christian Churches. Creeds are more thought of than character, doctrines than doings, heretics dreaded more than rogues. Some of the worst men morally I have ever known have been prominent members of Churches. Hence the saying, "Sooner trust a man of the world than a professor of religion." III. THAT THE BY THE OF SUCH MEMBERS FROM THEIR MIDST IS AN URGENT DUTY. A true Church is a community of Christly men, and the presence of such characters in it is an outrage. The verses teach: 1. That their expulsion should be practised with the utmost zeal. It would seem that no sooner did Paul hear of this abomination than he determined to put an end to it. "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed." As if he had said, "Though absent from you, as soon as I heard it I determined to get such a vile character expelled forthwith from the community;" and to do it when they were gathered together "in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ," that is, by the authority and power of Christ. Paul seems to burn with zeal in the matter. Zeal is not an uncommon thing in Churches: in some cases and seasons it becomes a glowing passion; but, alas! it is too often concerned more with the tenets of creeds and the interests of sects than with purity of life in its members. 2. That the expulsion should be practised with the utmost zeal, not to destroy, but to save the offender. "Deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Satan was regarded as the origin of all physical evils, and the meaning here may be—deliver the immoral person over to the sufferings of excommunication. But what for? Not to destroy him, but "that the spirit may be saved." All punishment should be reformative—should be inflicted to correct, not to crush. "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one." 1 Corinthians 5:6-13 The true Church a feast. "Your glorying is not good," etc. There are numerous Churches, but only one true Church, viz. that community of men who possess the Spirit and exemplify the character of Jesus Christ. These verses lead us to look upon the true Church— I. In its . It is called here a "feast." Truly the association of such Christly spirited men is a "feast" of the sublimest kind, a feast to each and all. A "feast:" 1. Because it contains the choicest elements for spiritual nourishment. The quickening, elevating, and suggestive ideas current in such fellowship, current, not only in language, but in looks, and bearing, and acts, and spirit, constitute the soul banquet, a "feast of fat things," etc. 2. Because it contains the choicest elements for spiritual gratification. A feast implies not merely nourishment, but pleasure and delight. What is a higher delight than the loving intercourse of kindred souls, free interchange of the most lofty thoughts and purest sympathies, loving souls flowing and reflowing into each other? The true Church is not a moody, melancholy assemblage, speaking in sepulchral tones, and singing doleful dirges; it is the brightest and most jubilant fellowship on earth. "These words have I spoken unto you, that your joy may be full; Rejoice,... and again I say, rejoice." II. In its TO THE UNGODLY. 1. There is a connection with ungodly men that it must avoid. They must not be admitted to its "feasts." "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." As the Jews put away leaven at the celebration of the Passover, so all corrupt men must be excluded from the Church feasts. Christ is its Passover, its Feast. It is suggested that the presence of corrupt men at the feast would be contagious. It would be likely to act as "leaven" through the community. As leaven kneaded into a lump of dough spreads from particle to particle, ferments in its process, spreads through the whole, and assimilates all to its own character, so a bad man’s spirit may work through the community of the good. Therefore, because it is so contagious and pernicious, exclude it. "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." No Church that has such leaven in it, whatever its intellectual, social, or spiritual advantages, has any reason for exultation. "Your glorying is not good," says Paul: "know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?’ Be grave, be serious, look well to the moral character of your members. 2. There is a connection with ungodly men that it cannot avoid. "I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world." You cannot avoid contact and some kind of intercourse with the ungodly men outside. You cannot attend to the temporal affairs of your life without them. Nor can you discharge your spiritual obligations without going amongst them. As a Christian you are bound to go amongst them, to correct their mistakes, to enlighten their darkness, to reprove their wrongs, and to endeavour to "turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." Over such you have no legal control, you can exercise no jurisdiction; they are without. You have no power to exclude them from your neighbourhood or your country; they are to be left alone in that respect. "Them that are without God judgeth." But if you find such characters inside the Church, you are to deal with them. "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat." Observe here: (1) Sin in man takes various forms. Paul adds to the incestuous man, the "fornicator," the "covetous" man, the "idolater," the "railer," the "drunkard," the "extortioner;" all have to be avoided. Sin is to be avoided whatever form it takes; and it takes many forms. What is a temptation to one man is not to another. Hence one is tempted to be a "fornicator;" another a miser, "covetous;" another an "idolater," worshipping false gods; another a scorner, a "railer;" another a "drunkard," intemperate; another an "extortioner," overreaching, overexacting, tyrannic. (2) In whatever forms this "leaven" shows itself, it must not be tolerated for a moment. It must be excluded at once. BY C. Excision of a flagrant offender from the Church. No haste was evinced by the apostle to reach a question that gave him much anxiety. Among the striking phenomena incident to mind as connected with body, the rate of movement in ideas is worthy of notice. Certain classes of ideas, such as those associated with instinctive action, are very rapid. And equally noticeable is the fact that thoughts involving the spontaneous intellect are more swift than those belonging to the volitional intellect. And, moreover, the same man thinks with more rapidity in some moods than in others. We all know how the physical heart is accelerated in its beat and how the lungs breathe faster under certain circumstances; and, beyond doubt, there is a correlation in these phenomena between mind and matter. Now, at first sight, this fact may not strike us, but, on a nearer view, we see that intellectual and moral discipline is very intimately bound up therewith. Take the case of St. Paul in the matter under consideration. Here was a scandal in the Corinthian Church, a case of incest, a son taking his father’s wife, publicly known, so shocking as to be under the ban of heathenism. A man such as St. Paul, intense, full of impulse, with a temperament eager to act on the spur of the moment—a man whose sensations instantly turned into sensibilities, and whose thoughts naturally tended to immediate words and deeds,—this man, in one of his most anxious seasons as an apostle, holds his painful solicitude in check and will not utter his heart till the way has been fully prepared. Rare self control this, and most honourable—all the more so, indeed, as he had other grounds for just indignation. But he was writing "for Christ’s sake," and this was enough. He will not hurry to relieve his overfull mind. Other things had to be said first. The glory of his Lord as the Wisdom and Power of God, the Divine idea in the ministry, the broad contrast between preaching the gospel and all utterances merely human, the evil of partisanship, the humiliation and suffering of the apostles, and especially his fatherly care over sons disturbing the peace of the Christian household,—all these truths were to be set forth, illustrated, enforced, before he entered on practical questions. Is there not something here worthy of reflection? The world’s practicalness is not very tolerant of general ideas and their elaboration. With it, brain and hand are near neighbours; its thoughts and actions hasten into alliances. If a proper degree of precaution be used, this is unquestionably a wise general rule. There is indeed "A tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;" but the same representative thinker of humanity warns us that when we "mean to build," we should "survey" "The plot of the situation, and the model; Consent upon a sure foundation." Promptness is not always the synonym of prudence, and where one Hamlet wastes excessive sensibility on mere ideas and their images, so that "enterprises lose the name of action," scores of men wreck themselves in an opposite direction. Between these extremes, St. Paul was happily poised. He had mastered principles, he understood details by virtue of these principles, and he was an exception even among great leaders, because he saw very deeply into the springs of action. So that when he came to deal with the case of the notorious offender among the Corinthians, a broad space had been cleared for himself. The ideal of the Church, of the ministry, of Christianity itself, had been resplendently displayed. Thought had been elevated, feeling quickened, selfishness put to shame, and a state of mind created in himself, and we may hope in his brethren, favourable to fortunate issues. How much these Corinthians needed just such instruction, and, more particularly, what obligations were laid upon them by Christianity to be humble, we see plainly enough in this chapter. "Instead of expelling the offender with mourning and shame, you—oh, strange mystery of the invariable connection between sensuality and pride—have been inflated with sophistical excuses about the matter" (Dr. Farrar). And yet, all the while, though this wickedness is an outrage on common decency, and in shameless contempt of public opinion, at which even paganism would blush, St. Paul approaches the subject from the standpoint of Christianity. He never takes a lower way when the higher is possible. For with him it is a cardinal principle that the higher includes the lower; this is his method of thought; and agreeably thereunto he is the profoundest of intellectual philosophers, even in his exposure of the meagreness and vanity of the world’s reasonings. So that we see in this instance that he felt himself set for the defence of true reason, no less than of genuine religion, working down to the instinct of the reason as he worked down to the depths of consciousness in all else. The reality of the position, the solemnity of the transaction, the whole body of circumstances, rise with instant vividness before the eye of the mind, never so much an eye as when outer vision is suspended. Away in Ephesus, the apostle had brooded over this severe trial so taxative to skill and patience, since the roots of the horrible evil were as a cancer spreading its poisonous fibres through the body. Night and day it clung to him, and, wherever he went, some new rumour of the disgrace awaited his heart. Ionia was as Achaia. So long had he dwelt upon it, so many prayers had gone up to God for enlightenment and guidance, so agonizing had been the wrestlings of his spirit, that he was as if on the spot. "Absent in body," says he, "but present in spirit," and I have "judged already, as though I were present" with you in the body. And thus ideally in their midst, the whole procedure not only before the Church, but the Church participating in the judicial act, he himself a witness and an actor, and Christ Jesus with them in the power of the Spirit, this shocking offender must be delivered to Satan. Not only had the Church been dishonoured by the guilty man, but they themselves had shared the sin and the reproach by neglecting to exercise that discipline which was one form, and a very important form, of the kingdom that was "not in word, but in power." Deliverance to Satan means excommunication from Christian fellowship. How much more is implied it is difficult to determine. Taking the passage in its immediate bearings and in connection with the general tenor of the Scriptures, it would seem to indicate that the culprit was surrendered to the power of Satan, by whose influence he had already been corrupted; his own will consenting to the depravation. This act of the Church gave him over to the malignant agency of Satan, and in so doing fulfilled a Divine judgment. Yet it contemplated besides a merciful discipline. The punishment was punishment since it was "for the destruction of the flesh," and coincidently a disciplinary process that "the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Mercy and truth meet together here, and righteousness and peace kiss each other. The door of repentance is not closed; still less is the possibility of reconciliation forestalled. Christ demonstrates himself in and through the Church, his representative, as Christ the Judge. But it is Christ, Head of the Church, not Christ, the Judge of the nations, on the throne of the last day. Suffering in the body was ordained for the well being of the spirit. Natural laws, if violated, revenge themselves on the violator. Apparently, however, much more is meant in this instance. The culprit had gone beyond natural law. A member of the Church, and nominally retaining his place among those "called to be saints," he had sacrificed, in a most ruthless manner, those spiritual relations which are to the immortal man more sacred and enduring than any and all other ties. If his vice, reeking and dripping with the foulest slime of earth, had invaded the spiritual realm of Christ’s kingdom, the act of excommunication cannot pause at simple excision. Nay; of that other world, whose mysteries envelop us—a world of spirit and spirits within the world of the senses—the offender and the Church and St. Paul were inhabitants, and, hour by hour, the realities of life were most real in this occult domain. There—the great secrets lie, the secret sources of motive and purpose, of strength and weakness, and of life and death. There—we get our tragedies, so that Shakespeare found it impossible to write ’Macbeth’ without "supernatural solicitings," and even the Platonic Brutus must face the vengeance of the other world in the tent near Sardis. And there—this judgment allies itself with Satanic agency in subordination to Christ’s authority. And there, finally, over all, is infinite tenderness; and, though ruin might be wrought on the outward man, seeing that his sin was specially heinous and involved in a signal way the most terrible retributions of an outraged body, yet it remained possible that his spirit might be "saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."—L. Supplementary views and explanations. Was nothing necessary except to get rid of the offender? That was to be done, but something else was quite as much of an exigency. Here, then, we see the extent to which the enormous evil had spread, for the whole Church had been infected. If the vice had assumed in one man the completest form of social iniquity, what was the state of the atmosphere in which this was possible? Such corruption was not sporadic: the whole air was poisoned; and in this state of things nothing short of a general purification would suffice. For, in the midst of this widespread taint, you are breathing out your complacent self conceits Glorying (boasting) is not good. To glory in a time like this of your privileges, gifts, eloquence, devotion to leaders, is a wretched delusion, bad enough under any circumstances, incomparably worse now, because of the immense contrast between your state of mind and your actual condition. This is St. Paul’s argument. But his logic is not content to be logic only. Buoyant and flexible as are his reasonings, be must have the help of metaphors, since all our greatest thoughts tend to perfect themselves by means of the imagination. Beyond the illustrative imagination (for he is very utilitarian in the use of images) he seldom goes, and he is especially given to the habit of using the interrogatory imagination. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" Purge it out—an earnest word; cleanse and purify by ridding the Church of its moral defilement, and so complete the work begun in the excommunication of the incestuous man. It is "old leaven," the relic of the natural man, and it threatens to destroy the new man of Christ’s kingdom. For what now is the Divine ideal of a Christian? A new creature in Christ. And what the ideal of the Church? A new brotherhood of humanity in Christ. Therefore, purge out the old leaven, and be a new lump, remembering that even discipline executed in Christ’s name has its dangers, and may divert us from attention to our own spiritual condition. Inasmuch, then, as St. Paul looked on the excision of the ungodly member of the Church, and the internal purification of the Church in all its members, as branches of one and the same duty, he presses his argument under the idea of a new lump not a mere outer reform, but a thoroughgoing inward renewal by the grace of the Spirit. Such language could have emanated from no man who had not been a religious Jew. Nor could it have proceeded from one who was simply a spiritual Jew. It was a Christian thinker, a thinker of catholic insight, who saw into Judaism from the cross of Calvary, when that cross and its Divine Sacrifice had the great darkness under which they stood cleared away by Pentecost. Once St. Paul had understood the scrupulous removing of the leaven by the Jews from their homes in a very different way. Once he had seen in the Pass over and kindred institutions a life giving and perpetual force. Now, however, the images lingered in his thoughts, only to remind him that Christians were "unleavened," and that all the leaven of impurity must be put away from them. For them the Paschal Lamb had been slain, and in the Victim’s death they had redemption. "Let us keep the feast;" our consecrated life a festival of gladness, and our thanksgiving continually ascending to God. And how shall this long and sacred festivity be observed? No external demonstrations are mentioned. Could the Jew conceive of a festival like this? Would not the pomp and show of national reunions, the booths and palm boughs, the cheer of open air life, and the music and domestic joy of the congregated caravans, rush upon him with their thrilling recollections? And would not the Greek, whose senses were so finely attuned to whatever was beautiful in material nature, and whose very birthright was the luxury of existence beneath skies and amid landscapes that seemed to pour their sympathies into his bosom,—would not he recall the theatre and the games? And yet St. Paul tells them of a festival which the renewed soul may keep without any of these things, and be supremely happy. "The old leaven," especially "the leaven of malice and wickedness," must be excluded, and the feast must be kept "with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The evil in our nature must be destroyed, and, in its place, must be had the genuine excellence which has been tried and proved, and the harmony that comes from self control because the human will is controlled by the indwelling Spirit of God. Virtues such as sincerity and truth need society, and, assuredly, society needs them. Eager to communicate and in turn to receive, what shall be the law of their intercourse with mankind? Fellowship is a Christian designation that cannot have its meaning in the world. But Christians are in the world, and a very important element in its life. To deny its associations and segregate themselves from others is to commit a species of suicide. On a former occasion St. Paul had written an Epistle touching this subject. But he had been misunderstood, and now he would rectify their error. They had blundered, not he. And now he sets the matter clearly before them by impressing on these Corinthians that there was not only a distinction between the Church and the world, but likewise between the good and the evil in the Church itself. Tares must grow with the wheat, but that was no reason why they should treat the tares as wheat. Fornicators in the Church or out of it were fornicators, and the brethren were not to keep company with them. And hence his explicitness, "not to company" with any man who was a fornicator, though he might be "called a brother." Nor does he stop here. Covetous men, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, they were not to associate with on such terms of social companionship as would be symbolized by eating with them. How could he as an apostle judge those who were without? If he did not do this, could they suppose that he meant to require it of them? The outer world must be left with God. And now St. Paul returns to the matter engrossing his solicitude: "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." If, indeed, Christ is our Paschal Lamb; if through that offering of expiation and reconciliation in itself forever perfect and by us realized in pardon and renewal and sanctification, life becomes an Easter of glad thanksgiving; we must make this sincerity (purity) and this truth (harmony) visible to the world in our social sympathies. Bodily sins are easily condoned among men: beware of that evil. Extortion and covetousness grow out of the idolatry of the senses, and they must not be countenanced by familiar association. How modern is this Epistle! No thought had St. Paul of us and our century, but these words of his rise from their local connections and assume universality of application. Corinth is at our doors, because its spirit is in all unsanctified hearts. And yet—thanks to the grace of the Spirit—in all the foremost civilizations of this age and over a wider space than ever before, the Paschal Lamb is precious to thousands. Since the days of the apostle, human life has expanded its outward area. Myriads of things, unknown to it then, are its possession and strength and glory now. Two wonderful enlargements have gone on—that of the universe to our comprehension, and this of the globe and the world to which we belong. And, in the midst of all the widening, specially in the fuller opening of human sympathies and the growth of human intercourse, the blessed festival of Christian life repeats its ancient joy and multiplies the participants of its Divine gladness.—L. BY J.R. THOMSON 1 Corinthians 5:1, 1 Corinthians 5:2 Impurity in the Church. There could scarcely be stronger internal evidence of the genuineness of this Epistle than is supplied by this very painful chapter. Real circumstances alone could account for the devotion of a considerable portion of this document to such a theme as is here treated. The solicitude and indignation of the apostle are highly characteristic; whilst the insight afforded into the moral state of the Corinthian congregation is obviously one which only unmistakable facts can justify and explain. Moral lessons of high value may be deduced from the apostle’s treatment of a distressing subject. I. WE OBSERVE THE DEBASED MORAL AND WITH WHICH HAD TO CONTEND. We need not go to the moralists, the satirists, the poets of classical literature, in order to form a judgment as to the corruptions which prevailed among the nations previously to the promulgation of Christianity. The New Testament, especially St. Paul’s writings, are a sufficient witness. We have the opportunity of learning, through our travellers and missionaries, how largely the state of the heathen world at the present time corresponds with that of pre-Christian paganism. 1. The passage before us furnishes an example of fornication, which was scarcely thought to be a vice, and indeed was a religious observance among the voluptuous society of Corinth. 2. But the case was one of aggravated adultery and incest, which the moralists of antiquity admitted to be crimes, but which it surprises us to find, even in an individual case, in one of the early Christian communities. Such, however, was the moral condition for which our Divine religion brought a remedy. II. WE REMARK THE LAXITY ON THE PART OF A WHICH COULD SUCH AGAINST . 1. The Church at Corinth allowed the offender to remain unreproved in their midst, as though nothing had happened which called for especial notice and vigorous and immediate action. 2. They did not even mourn, did not distress themselves, did not make the event an occasion of humiliation and mourning; which showed a sad insensibility to the evil. 3. So far from this, at the very time when their fellowship was so disgraced, they were "puffed up," boasting themselves of their spiritual gifts and intellectual distinction! III. WE NOTE THE PROTEST OF THE APOSTLE AGAINST THE CONDUCT BOTH OF THE AND OF THOSE WHO HIM. It may occur to some readers of the Epistle to ask—Is not the very fact that such sin existed and was suffered in the bosom of a Christian society a proof that Christianity had little real, moral, beneficent power in the world? Wherein was this Church at Corinth better than any heathen society? Could a worse state of things exist without than that which admittedly existed within? The answer to this objection is obvious and sufficient, and is very instructive to us. 1. The conduct of the offender was in direct violation of the laws upon which the society to which he nominally belonged was built. Purity was, as much as justice or benevolence, a fundamental law of the Christian kingdom. 2. This conduct was also in flagrant contrast and antagonism to the spirit and life of the Divine Founder of that religion which was professedly received by these Corinthian Christians. Jesus was the model of purity of heart, and his life and character were sinless, holy, blameless. 3. The inaction and tolerance which were blamable in the congregation were inconsistent with their well known duty. The Christian Church is not a club, whose members are at liberty to receive and reject whomsoever they choose. It is a society of which Christ is the Head and Lord, and is bound to receive those who possess his Spirit, and to reject those who openly and unmistakably grieve and outrage that Spirit. The members of the Church were termed "the holy," or "saints;" and although all were and still are in character far short of the designation they bear, there can be no question as to the inconsistency of a life of incest with a Christian profession. 4. The case called for the stern interference of the apostle, as an authority over the Churches His language was intended to quicken the conscience, to enlighten the judgment, to call forth the action, of those who were very negligent and culpable. It Was a new thing in heathendom that such a stand should be made as that which was on this occasion made by the apostle of the Gentiles. 5. Further, the action of the Church, when Brought to a proper state of mind, was such as to show that one great end of the existence of Christian societies was the promotion of moral pretty. The excision of the members was necessary to the preservation of the health of the body. 6. The ultimate repentance and restoration of the offender is a proof to us that the Christian Church was designed to promote, not only the purity of the pure, but the recovery of the lapsed. In this the Church showed herself to be penetrated with the compassionate Spirit of her Divine Master and Head.—T. "Absent in body, but present in spirit." Much as Paul loved his converts in the city of Corinth, he could not, at the period when he wrote this Epistle, think of visiting them. Their conduct in the matter treated in this chapter so distressed his pure and affectionate heart, so disappointed his expectations, that he felt constrained to remain absent from them. But in so doing he was not showing any lack of interest in their Christian life or their Church proceedings. Quite the contrary; he was content to stay away because, as the text makes evident, he knew there was a sense in which he was really with them. I. THE SPECIAL OF THIS IN THE CASE OF PAUL AND THE . In what senses could the apostle deem himself to be with these Corinthian Christians "in spirit"? 1. By his teaching. He had long laboured in word and doctrine in this great centre of Greek commerce and literature, and amongst this company, of whom not many were wise or noble, but many were called and washed and sanctified by the gospel of Christ and by the Spirit of God. His teaching laid the foundation upon which Apollos and others had built. And we know enough of that teaching to be sure that it included many precepts and motives to holiness. This instruction had sunk into the hearts of the spiritually susceptible, and by it the apostle yet spake of this society, summoning them to a holy life, and bidding them maintain a standard of social purity. 2. By his authority. Paul never forgot that he was an inspired apostle of the Lord. He spake by the Spirit of the Lord, and his counsels were not those of human wisdom merely, but of celestial authority. What the Corinthians were directed to do they were to do in his name, and with the assurance that their action would be sanctioned by the Divine Head of the Church. In vindicating the purity of Christian communion, in cleansing the Bride of Christ from any stain of the world that had fallen upon her white robe, the Corinthians were to feel that the apostle was with them, inspiring and corroborating their lawful necessary action. II. THE GENERAL OF THIS IN THE LIVING CHURCH OF CHRIST JESUS. 1. The great Saviour and Founder of the Church is absent in body, but present in spirit. He himself assured his disciples that it was good for them that he should go away, for that thus the Comforter should come. And the spiritual and universal and perpetual presence of the great Head of the Church is thus delightfully and graciously secured. 2. The action of Christ’s Church, when in accordance with the express and plain instructions of our Lord and of his inspired apostles, must be recognized as prompted by his Spirit and sanctioned by his authority. In the application of this principle there are and will be many differences among the people of Christ, but with regard to the principle itself there should be no diversity or hesitation. We do not see his form or hear his voice; but we cannot question his spiritual presence. And he is at hand, not only to teach the disciple, to comfort the sufferer, to counsel those perplexed but to impart a Divine authority to the actions and to the discipline of who rely upon his Word and do his will.—T. 1 Corinthians 5:6, 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Purge out the old leaven." The apostle sought the illustrations with which he enforced Christian doctrine and duty from every source, Hebrew and Gentile alike. In this passage he derives, from the practices of his countrymen during the festival of the Passover, a figure by which he brings before his readers the necessity of moral purity in life and in fellowship. As the Jews were accustomed at the approach of the feast to search out every scrap of leaven to be found in their houses, that they might duly keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread, so were the Corinthians exhorted to clear themselves of all moral taint, that they might be a people meet for the fellowship and the service of the holy Redeemer. I. THE IDEAL STATE OF THE HEART AND OF THE SOCIETY IS ONE OF PERFECT FREEDOM FROM ALL TAINT OF SIN. It was a high and noble aim that which the Divine Founder of Christianity set before him—the formation of a society which should be pure with his own purity, i.e. both of life and of heart. It is to such an aim that he himself, and after him his inspired apostles, encourage all Christians to aspire: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." II. THERE IS A LEAVEN OF SINFUL IN HUMAN NATURE AND IN HUMAN SOCIETY WHICH THE PURITY OF THE CHURCH. 1. The presence of such a leaven was very painfully manifest in the society at Corinth. But where is the Christian community which is absolutely pure? There are societies which make great professions in this matter; but their "glorying is not good." Where is the individual Christian in whose nature there is no trace of the old, worldly, sinful, corrupt humanity? The purest and the best are foremost to acknowledge that this is so. 2. Leaven furnishes an illustration of the diffusive, contagious, corrupting power of sin. A little leaven leavens the lump. A sin tolerated, a sinner countenanced, in a Christian society, may imperil the general purity. "One sickly sheep infects the flock;" "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" These and other proverbial intimations of the power of this principle are sufficient to put us upon our guard. Each heart is aware of the secret temptations to evil to which it is most exposed; and perhaps every one’s experience can show how evil habit grows when unchecked and indulged. III. THE DIVINE SUMMONS THAT THE LEAVEN OF SIN BE REMOVED THAT THE MASS MAY BE IN PURITY. 1. The case of the Corinthians reminds us that the excision of an offending member may be necessary in order to vindicate Christian purity and to protest against the encroachments of sin. The old leaven must, in this sense, be "purged out." 2. There is, however, a wider application of this principle. Corruption creeps into every nature, into every society. And the apostle here enjoins that we submit to no truce, to no compromise with sin, but that, for the sake of our own spiritual and eternal interests, we keep a watch upon ourselves, lest the sour leaven steal in unobserved, and corrupt our nature ere we be aware of its operation, or at all events its power. Holiness becometh the house of the Lord forever.—T. "Christ our Passover." The connection of this illustration with the passage in which it occurs is obvious. The Jews commenced the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the slaying, roasting, and eating of the Paschal lamb. Now, the apostle has been urging the Corinthians to moral purity, and has enjoined them to put away the leaven of wickedness, and keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth; and, as a motive to do this, he reminds them that the Christian dispensation is as a spiritual Passover, which commenced with the sacrifice of "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world." The Paschal lamb is regarded as a symbol of Christ. I. IT A GREAT . The Israelites were reminded by the Passover feast of the bondage from which their ancestors had been delivered when they were brought out of Egypt "with a high hand and a stretched out arm." The nation had been emancipated from the tyranny of the Pharaohs, and had been spared the doom of the first born of the people of the land. Christ’s redemption set his people free from the tyranny, the bondage, the unrewarded toil, the darksome night, the dreary hopelessness, of sin; and brought them out into the freedom, the light, the gracious privileges, the glorious hopes, of the gospel. II. IT WAS SLAIN AS A ORDERED AND , Put to death by the head of the family, the lamb was taken to the priest, who sprinkled its blood upon the altar and burned its fat, according to the ordinance. Although the lamb was offered yearly, it was in the first instance that it was regarded most strictly as a sacrifice. Christ was offered once only; "There remaineth no more offering for sin." Yet the Eucharist is a perpetual memorial of the great Sacrifice of Calvary. It is by the willing, accepted, vicarious sacrifice of our Redeemer that mankind have been reconciled and consecrated unto God. III. IT WAS BY THE IN THE PASCHAL MEAL. It was in this way that every Hebrew family was reminded of its share in the covenant mercy and faithfulness of the Eternal. As they ate the lamb in the appointed way, and with the appointed observances and accompaniments, the children of Israel were led to appropriate, in faith and obedience, the spiritual provision which the God of their fathers had made for them. In like manner the members of the spiritual commonwealth of Israel "eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man," taking Christ as the nourishment of their souls, and appropriating the strength, the wisdom, the grace of God himself. In the sacrament of the Supper, they who eat and drink in faith participate in the provisions of Divine bounty and love. IV. IT WAS OF , OF , OF , PURITY. In connection with the Paschal meal, several circumstances may be noted. The lamb was without blemish; the house was freed from leaven; all were careful to avoid ceremonial defilement. These arrangements symbolized "holiness unto the Lord," and they remind us that those who regard the Christ of God as their Passover are bound by every sacred consideration to seek that purity of heart, that sanctification of nature, which can alone render a man and a society acceptable to a holy and heart searching God.—T. The Christian festival. The apostle seems to represent the whole of the Christian life as one long Passover festival and solemnity, and to invite his readers to unite with him in an appropriate and perpetual observance. I. THIS IS BASED UPON THE AND OF CHRIST JESUS. As the events connected with Israel’s emancipation from Egypt constituted the foundation of the national and religious life of the Hebrews, so we Christians date our fellowship, our standing, our privileges from the redeeming and mediatorial work of our Divine Saviour. Apart from him there would have been no foundation for our new life and hallowed communion; he accounts for all, and is himself "all and in all." II. THE OF THIS MUST WITH THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE OF OUR LORD. "The leaven of malice and wickedness" has no place in the household of faith and holiness. As the Israelites ate the unleavened bread during the celebration of the Passover festival, so are Christians called to make their daily spiritual feast upon the purity, the sincerity, the truth which are the appropriate aliment of the consecrated Israel of God. In the Church which Christ has purchased with his precious blood, nothing impure, corrupt, defiling, should be tolerated. The Eucharistic meal should impart something of its character to all meals; and the holy and public observances of the Church should cast something of their glow and beauty upon the daily employments of the Lord’s consecrated people. III. THIS IS AN AND . The times and seasons, the sabbaths, new moons, and festivals, which were observed among the Jews, were doubtless designed to inculcate the practice and to familiarize with the idea of holiness. And they were intended to prepare for the dispensation which teaches that all days and all scenes, all relationships and all actions, are holy unto God. The spiritual festival to which Christians are bidden is one which never ends, the viands of Divine grace are never exhausted, the fellowship of the saints never wearies, and the Master of the banquet never departs.—T. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 The limits of fellowship. "No man liveth unto himself." Attempts have been made to build a science of human nature and a scheme of human life upon the foundation of the individual existence, but such attempts have failed. Man is born into society and lives in society, and is inexplicable apart from society. For good or for evil we are with one another. "As iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend;" "Evil communications corrupt good manners; He that walketh with wise men shall be wise." I. ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE SOCIETY OF THEIR FELLOW . St. Paul possessed no small measure of what has been humorously called "sanctified common sense." He saw clearly and at once that if a man set out with the determination to have no intercourse with those of different principles and sentiments from himself, he would be driven in consistency to "go out of the world." So far from forbidding such intercourse, he permitted it, and even in some instances encouraged it. 1. The example of the Lord Jesus and of his apostles sanctions intercourse with general society. Jesus talked with persons of all sorts and conditions, accepted invitations to the houses of strangers, and even of enemies. And we find the apostles seeking introduction to Jews and Gentiles, to the virtuous and the vicious. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 Litigation before heathen courts forbidden. 1 Corinthians 6:1 Dare any of you? rather, Dare any one of you? It is in St. Paul’s view an audacious defiance of Christian duties to seek from the heathen the justice due from brother to brother. A matter; some ground of civil dispute. Against another; i.e. against another Christian. When one of the litigants was a heathen, Christians were allowed to go before heathen law courts, because no other remedy was possible. Go to law before the unjust. The "unjust" is here used for "Gentiles," because it at once suggests a reason against the dereliction of Christian duty involved in such a step. How "unjust" the pagans were in the special sense of the word, the Christians of that day had daily opportunities of seeing; and in a more general sense, the Gentiles were "sinners" (Matthew 26:45). Even the Jews were bound to settle their civil disputes before their own tribunals. The ideal Jew was jashar, or "the upright man," and Jews could not consistently seek integrity from those who were not upright. A fortiori, Christians ought not to do so. Before the saints. All Christians were ideally "saints," just as the heathen were normally "unjust." If Christians went to law with one another before the heathen, they belied their profession of mutual love, caused scandal, and were almost necessarily tempted into compliance with heathen customs, even to the extent of recognizing idols. Our Lord had already laid down the rule that "brothers" ought to settle their quarrels among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17). 1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know? The word "or" should be supplied from à, A, B, C, D, F, etc. Bishop Wordsworth points out that this emphatic question occurs ten times in these two Epistles (1 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:3, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:15, 1 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 Corinthians 9:13, 1 Corinthians 9:24), and only twice in all the rest (Romans 6:16; Romans 11:2). It was a fitting rebuke to those who took for knowledge their obvious ignorance. It resembles the "Have ye not so much as read?" to Pharisees who professed such profound familiarity with the Scriptures. That the saints shall judge the world. So Daniel (Daniel 7:22) had said, "The Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High." Our Lord had confirmed this promise to his apostles, "Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Various modes of evading the literal sense have been adopted, but even in the Book of Wisdom we find, "They [the righteous] shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people" (Wis. 3:8). All speculation as to the manner and extent in which the saints shall share in the work of Christ as Judge of the quick and dead, are obviously futile. Shall be judged; literally, is being judged—the present points to the future, as though that which is inevitable is already in course of fulfilment. To judge the smallest matters; literally, of the smallest judgments. 1 Corinthians 6:3 That we shall judge angels. Angels, i.e. some who belong, or once did belong, to that class. The statement furnishes no data for further speculation. It can hardly mean "evil spirits," for where the word is entirely unqualified it always means good angels; otherwise we might refer it to the "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 1 Corinthians 1:6). It is impossible, and not straightforward, to explain away the word "angels" as meaning Church officials, etc., or to make the word "judge" mean "involve a condemnation of them by comparison with ourselves." All that we can say is that "God chargeth even his angels with folly, and in his sight the very heavens are not clean" (Job 4:18); and that "to angels hath he not subjected the world to come" (Hebrews 2:5). We must take the plain meaning of the apostle’s words, whether we can throw any light on his conceptions or not. The only alternative is to suppose that the word means "those who once were good angels," but are now fallen spirits. It was so understood by Tertullian, Chrysostom, etc. How much more; rather, to say nothing of. The accurate rendering of these verses is a matter of some difficulty, but not to an extent which affects the material sense, or which can be explained without a minute knowledge of Greek. 1 Corinthians 6:4 If then ye have, etc. The verse implies that civil disputes might naturally occur among them. What he is here reprobating is their objectionable method of settling them. Set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church. This implies an utter scorn of trivial quarrels about personal rights. Surely the lowliest, the most unregarded members of the Church—those of no account—have wisdom enough to decide in such small matters. Thus when there arose a murmuring between Hebrews and Hellenists about the daily distribution to widows, the apostles, thinking that they had much more important work in hand than the adjustment of such jealousies, left the whole matter in the hands of the seven deacons. Some understand "those held of no account in the Church" to mean heathens; but he is here forbidding them to bring their quarrels before the heathens. Of course, ideally, none ought to be "despised" or "held of no account" in the Church; but St. Paul is here speaking relatively, and with reference to the views of the Corinthians themselves, and not without irony. The perfect participle, "those who have been set at nought," perhaps means persons of proved inferiority of judgment. 1 Corinthians 6:5 I speak to your shame. He adds this to account for the severe irony of the last remark. Not a wise man among you. Among you, who set yourselves up as so specially wise! To judge; rather, to decide. 1 Corinthians 6:7 Now therefore; rather, Nay more, already. Utterly; rather, generally, "altogether," "looking at the question as a whole." A fault. The word means "a defect," or possibly "a loss" (Romans 11:12, "the diminishing"). Your going to law is an inferiority or deficiency; you ought to know of "a more excellent way." Why do ye not rather take wrong? Strange as such advice would sound to heathens, who prided themselves on the passionate resentment of injuries as though it were a virtue, this had been the distinct teaching of our Lord; "Resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39). 1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong and defraud. Thus they violated a rule which Paul had laid down to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 4:6), and incurred God’s anger. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not; rather, Or know ye not, as before. Are you defying God, or does your sin arise from mere ignorance? The unrighteous; better, that wrong doers, the verb being the same as "ye do wrong" in 1 Corinthians 6:8. Perhaps the Corinthians thought that they would be saved by the mere fact of having been admitted into God’s kingdom (the Christian Church in all its highest privileges) by baptism. St. Paul here lays down, as distinctly as St. James does, that faith without works is dead, and privileges without holiness are abrogated. The spirit of his warning is the same as that of Jer 7:4, "Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord… are these;" or that of St. John the Baptist, "Say not unto yourselves, We be Abraham’s sons." Christians have often been liable to the temptation of underrating the peril which results from the falling asunder of action from knowledge. There can be no greater danger than that of talking slightingly of "mere morality." Religion is not an outward service, but a spiritual life manifested by a holy living. Be not deceived. So our Lord says," Let no man deceive you". St. Paul uses the warning very solemnly again in 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Galatians 6:7, and St. James in James 1:16. The self deception of merely verbal orthodoxy is the most dangerous of all. Neither fornicators. The first four classes of sinners were specially prevalent at Corinth, where, indeed, impurity formed part of the recognized cult of the local Aphrodite. Lists of these "works of the flesh," which were the all but universal curse and stain of heathendom, occur also in Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Timothy 1:10, etc.; Colossians 3:5-7. 1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, etc. (see Revelation 22:15). 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you; literally, and these things some of you were. As Gentiles, many of them had been "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). (For a similar contrast of the change wrought by the Spirit of God, see Titus 3:3-7.) But ye are washed. The voice and tense in the original differ from those of the following words. This cannot be accidental. It is better, therefore, to render, But ye washed away your sins; i.e. ye, by your baptism, washed away those stains (Acts 22:16). The very object of Christ’s death had been that he might cleanse his Church "by the washing of water by the Word." But ye are sanctified, but ye are justified; rather, but ye were sanctified, but y? were justified, namely, at your conversion. By "sanctified" is meant, not the progressive course of sanctification, but the consecration to God by baptism (Wickliffe, "halowed"). (For what St. Paul meant by justification, see Romans 3:24-26.) In the Name of the Lord Jesus, etc. This clause and the next belongs to all the three previous verbs. Of our God. In the word "our" is involved that appeal to Christian unity of which he never loses sight throughout the letter. 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 The inexcusable sin and shame of fornication. 1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me. The abruptness with which the phrase is introduced perhaps shows that, in the letter of the Corinthians to St. Paul, they had used some such expression by way of palliating their lax tolerance of violations of the law of purity. By "all things," of course, is only meant "all things which are indifferent in themselves." They erroneously applied this maxim of Christian liberty to that which was inherently sinful, and thus were tempted to "make their liberty a cloak of viciousness." St. Paul, as Bengel observes, often, and especially in this Epistle, uses the first person generally in gnomic or semi-proverbial sentences (1 Corinthians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Corinthians 10:23, 1 Corinthians 10:29, 1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Corinthians 14:11). But. This is St. Paul’s correction of too broad a formula. Are not expedient. St. Paul illustrates this in 1 Corinthians 8:8-10. We have no right to do even that which is innocent, if it be disadvantageous to the highest interests of ourselves or others. "He alone," says St. Augustine, "does not fall into unlawful things who sometimes abstains by way of caution even from lawful ones." Will not be brought under the power. The play of words in the original might be imitated by saying, "All things are in my power, but I will not be brought under the power of any." In other words, "boundless intemperance" may become a tyranny. The pretence of moral freedom may end in a moral bondage. "Obedience is better than freedom? What’s free? The vexed foam on the wave, the tossed straw on the sea; The ocean itself, as it rages and swells, In the bonds of a boundless obedience dwells." I will be master even over my liberty by keeping it under the beneficent control of law and of charity. 1 Corinthians 6:13 Meats for the belly, etc. The argument of the Corinthians about the indifference of eating "meats" which were merely ceremonially unclean was quite tenable. Things Levitically unclean might be essentially pure, and both food and the body which lives thereby are things "which perish in the using" (Colossians 2:22). Shall destroy; shall bring to nought. This would occur when the physical body becomes a spiritual body, like that of the angels of God (1 Corinthians 15:51, 1 Corinthians 15:52). How vile, then, is it to make a god of the belly—only to sleep and feed! Both it and them. There shall be no need for the belly when men "shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more" (Revelation 7:16); and the meat alluded to is "meat which perisheth" (Luke 15:16). Now the body is net for fornication, but for the Lord. The argument, therefore, which would class this sin as a matter of indifference, as was the Levitical distinction between different kinds of food, at once fell to the ground. Food was a necessity, and the stomach was formed for its assimilation. Fornication is not a venial but "a deadly sin." It is not a natural necessity, but a consuming evil. The body was created for higher ends—namely, to be a temple of God. "God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness" (1 Thessalonians 4:7). And the Lord for the body. Therefore our members ought to be used "as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Romans 5:13), and our bodies presented as a living, holy, reasonable, acceptable sacrifice to him (Romans 12:1). The end of our existence is "to serve God here and enjoy him forever hereafter." 1 Corinthians 6:14 God hath both raised up the Lord. St. Paul always grounds man’s resurrection] and immortality on the resurrection and ascension of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-58.; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Romans 6:5, Romans 6:8; Romans 8:11). 1 Corinthians 6:15 Members of Christ. We find the same metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12:12, 1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 5:30. The Church is often alluded to as "the body of Christ" (Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 1:18; Colossians 2:19, etc.). Elsewhere the union between Christ and Christians is described by the metaphor of a tree and its branches; a building and the stones of which it is composed (Ephesians 2:21, Ephesians 2:22). God forbid. An admirable idiom to express the real force of the original, which means, "May it never be!". It occurs in Romans 3:4, Romans 3:6, Romans 3:31; Romans 6:15; Romans 7:7, Romans 7:13; Romans 9:14; Romans 11:1, Romans 11:11; Galatians 2:17; Galatians 3:21. The formula, which involves the indignant rejection of some false conclusion, is characteristic of the second group of St. Paul’s Epistles, but especially (as will be seen) of the Epistle to the Romans. 1 Corinthians 6:16 What, know ye not, etc.? The clause is used to explain and justify the strong expression which he had used in the previous verse. It involves an argument against the sin which is the most original and impressive which could have been used. To this passage especially is due the tone taken by Christians as to these sins, which differed so totally from that taken by heathen. They two. The words do not occur in Genesis 2:24, but are always so quoted in the New Testament. Saith he. This is a vague Jewish formula of quotation, adopted to avoid the needless introduction of the sacred Name. "He" is "God" in Scripture. Shall be one flesh; rather, shall become. This appeal to Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:5) is equivalent to the rule that no intercourse between the sexes is free from sin except under the sanction of marriage. 1 Corinthians 6:17 That is joined unto the Lord. This phrase, indicating the closest possible union, is found in Deuteronomy 10:20; 2 Kings 18:6. Is one spirit. There is a "mystical union," not only "betwixt Christ and his Church," but also between Christ and the holy soul Hence, to St. Paul, spiritual life meant the indwelling of Christ in the heart—the life "in Christ;" so that he could say, "It is no more I that live, but Christ that liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 3:17). 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. In the battle against sensual sins, there is no victory except in absolute flight, for the reason which immediately follows, namely, that these sins have their dwelling in that body which is part of our being, and which yet they tend to destroy. They make a man his own deadliest enemy. Every sin... is without the body. Some have supposed that this cannot apply to gluttony and drunkenness, which they therefore class with fornication; but even in those sins, as in suicide, the cause of and incentive to the sin is external, whereas the source of uncleanness is in the heart and in the thoughts, which come from within, and so defile the man. Other sins may be with and by means of the body, and may injure the body; but none are so directly against the sanctity of the whole bodily being as fornication. Sinneth against his own body. By alienating it from the service of him to whom it belongs; by incorporating it with the degradation of another; by staining the flesh and the body (Proverbs 5:8-11; Proverbs 6:24-32; Proverbs 7:24-27); by subtly poisoning the inmost sanctities of his own being. St. Paul is here thinking mainly, however, if not exclusively, of the moral injury and defilement. 1 Corinthians 6:19 That your body is the temple (or rather, a sanctuary) of the Holy Ghost. He has already said that the Church is a shrine or sanctuary of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 3:16); but here for the first time expression is given to one of the deepest and newest truths of Christianity. Three great epochs are marked by the use of the word temple. In the Old Testament it means the material temple, the sign of a localized worship and a separated people; in the Gospels our Lord uses it of his own mortal body; in the Epistles it is used (as here) of the body of every baptized Christian, sanctified by the indwelling Spirit of God. Ye are not your own. We cannot, therefore, use our bodies as though they were absolutely under our own control. They belong to God, and, "whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s" (Romans 14:8). 1 Corinthians 6:20 Ye are bought with a price. That price is the blood of Christ, wherewith he purchased the Church (Acts 20:28; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18, 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation 5:9). This metaphor of ransom (1 Corinthians 7:23; 2 Peter 2:1) has its full and absolute applicability to man. The effect of Christ’s death for us is that we are redeemed from slavery and prison, and the right of our possession is with Christ. Thus by various metaphors the effects of redemption are revealed to us on the human side. When we unduly press the metaphor, and ask from whom we were purchased, and to whom the price was paid, we build up scholastic systems which have only led to error, and respecting which the Church has never sanctioned any exclusive opinion. The thoughts touched upon in this verse are fully developed in the Epistle to the Romans. Glorify God; by behaving as his redeemed children, and therefore by keeping yourselves pure. In these few brief words St. Paul sums up all he has said, as he did in 1 Corinthians 5:13. In your body. The following words, "and in your spirit, which are God’s," are a perfectly correct and harmless gloss, but are not found in the best manuscripts, and are foreign to the drift of the passage. Your body is a temple, and in that temple God must be honoured. "Unchastity dishonours God, and that in his own temple (Romans 2:23)" (Meyer). In these clauses St. Paul has touched on three subjects which occupy important sections of the remainder of the Epistle, namely, (1) the relation between the sexes (1 Corinthians 7:1-40.); (2) the question of idol offerings (1 Corinthians 8:1-13.); and (3) the doctrine of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-58.). 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 The ideal Church a tribunal. "Dare any of you, having a matter against another," etc.? In our sketch on the preceding verses we looked on the true Church as a feast. Here we have to look on it as a tribunal, a court of judicature, where disputes are to be settled and grievances redressed. It would appear that questions arose among the Corinthian Christians that required settlement—questions of wrong done to persons or to property, and that too the litigious spirit was so rife in their midst that they took their grievances to the heathen courts. For this the apostle reproves them. "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?" Three remarks about the ideal Church as a tribunal. I. IT IS TO OTHER ON THE EARTH. 1. It is a court formed of morally righteous men. This is implied in the words, "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?" Saints, or just men, form the tribunal. In worldly courts of judicature men are judged by legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Not so in this court. It is a court of equity, a court that tries cases not by statutory precepts, nor by ecclesiastical laws, but by scriptural principles, and these principles as they arc embodied in the teaching of him who delivered the Sermon on the mount. The true Church is his representative and administrator. 2. It is a court whose jurisdiction is universal. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" In many ways men of Christly lives are judging the world now. Their ideas of right and wrong, between man and man, and man and God, form that standard of character to which the consciences of men are constantly appealing, and to which they are forced to bow. All men at last wilt be judged by the character of Christ, and the Church is the representative of that character. "The words I say unto you, they shall judge you in the last day." Not only does this Church tribunal judge the world, but judges angels also. "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" Redeemed humanity is in some respects higher than angelic natures. It has passed through greater changes and is brought into closer connection with the Divine. They who have in them the spirit of absolute justice in the highest measure are the best judges of character. In modern courts this spirit is often very feeble, and in some cases extinct. Hence the sad blunderings about the interpretation of statutes and the decisions of judges. But the spirit of absolute justice reigns in the true Church. II. IT IS A FOR THE OF ALL . Paul intimates that it is to judge disputes on the "smallest matters," and of "things pertaining to this life." These expressions seem to comprehend all disputes—not merely religious, but secular; not only disputes on great subjects, but disputes on minor subjects as well. The instinct of Christly justice which inspires it peers into the heart of all moral conduct. It has an "anointing from the Holy One, by which it knows all things." The more spiritually pure a man is the more readily will he detect the wrong. Only a few years ago some of our judges occupied twelve mouths or more, at an enormous expense to the nation, in order to find out whether a man was an impostor or not. To a mind full of moral justice an impostor is detected instinctively and at once. No logic can read the hidden principles of a man’s heart. Christ knew "what was in man," and those highly imbued with his Spirit are to some extent gifted with the same insight. III. WHO WILL NOT HAVE THEIR CASES SETTLED IN THIS COURT ARE JUSTLY LIABLE TO . 1. Reference to another court is unwise. "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church." The meaning is that any other court to which the case is taken is of no account in the estimation of the Church it is a morally inferior institution. The tribunal of man in comparison to Christ’s tribunal is a truly contemptible thing. You Christians degrade yourselves by taking disputes to such tribunals. "I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wine man among you?" It is a shame to you to have your disputes carried to such tribunals, a shame that you cannot settle your disputes among yourselves, that "brother should go to law with brother, before the unbelievers." 2. Reference to another court is wrong. "Now therefore, there is utterly a fault [a defect] among you, because ye go to law one with another." Better than to do this, better than in go to a worldly tribunal to settle your disputes, better you should suffer wrong than take your grievance into the worldly courts. "The Church has principles," says Robertson, "according to which all such matters may be set at rest. And the difference between the worldly court of justice and the Christian court of arbitration is a difference of diametrical opposition. Law says, ’You shall have your rights;’ the spirit of the true Church says, ’Defraud not your neighbour of his rights.’ Law says, ’You must not be wronged;’ the Church says, ’It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.’" 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Genuine reformation. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Reformation of some kind or other is an object most earnestly pursued by all in every land who are alive to the woes and wrongs of life. Some of the reformations sought are of a questionable utility; none will prove of any essential and permanent service but that presented in the text. The reformation is— I. A OF THE MORAL OF MANKIND. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," etc. Sin, which may be defined as self gratification, is here presented in a variety of forms—"fornication," idolatry, avarice, intemperance, etc. All these manifestations are hideous developments of the same ungodly principle, self gratification. The principle of sin, like holiness, is one and simple, but the forms are multifarious. Now, these morally corrupt classes we are here told were changed; they were "washed," and "sanctified," and "justified," which, stripped of figure, means, they were changed in the very root and fountain of their character. They were, to use Scripture phraseology, converted, regenerated, created anew in Christ Jesus to good works. The reformation was not doctrinal, ecclesiastical, or institutional, but moral. II. A TO A HAPPY DESTINY. What is the only happy destiny for man? To "inherit the kingdom of God." What is the "kingdom of God"? Righteousness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost. It is the reign of truth, purity, light, harmony, and blessedness. To "inherit" that empire, to be in it, not as occasional visitors, but as permanent citizens, holding fellowship with its Sovereign, and mingling with the great and the good of all worlds,—this is our high destiny. For this we were made, and for nothing lower. Hence Christ urges us to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness," which means come under the Divine reign of truth and right. Now, there is no getting into this kingdom without this moral reformation. All who have not undergone this reformation are excluded. III. A BY THE AGENCY OF CHRIST. "And such were some of you: but ye are [were] washed, but ye are [were] sanctified, but ye are [were] justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." This means that they had been cleansed from all moral foulness, "washed;" that they had been consecrated to holiness, "sanctified;" that they had been made right in their being and relationships, "justified." And all this, how? "In the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." This is the reformative measure, the gospel; nothing on this earth will effect this moral change but this. Not the enactments of legislations, not the creations of genius, not scientific systems. I disparage none of these, but they cannot effect this reformation of soul, the reformation which humanity wants, a reformation without which all other reformations are but reformations on parchment, a change in mere outward forms of life. "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Christianity in relation to the body. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient," etc. It would seem that there were those in the Church at Corinth who regarded Christianity as giving them a kind of liberty to do whatsoever they wished. Some of them having left Judaism with its various restraints, and others paganism, which also had restrictions, they were too ready to push the doctrine of religious liberty, as proclaimed by Paul, far beyond its limits. The apostle here states, perhaps in answer to a question on the subject, that there is a limitation to Christian liberty. He says, "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." As the liberty which they seemed to covet was a liberty in relation to the gratifications of bodily appetites, he takes occasion to state certain things in relation to the body. His remarks suggest to us the relation of Christianity to the human body. We observe— I. THAT IT TO THE NATURAL NEEDS OF THE BODY AS PROPER. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats." This means the body has appetites, and there are provisions intended and fitted to satisfy them. Christianity allows man to partake of those provisions in nature necessary to satisfy and strengthen his physical nature. To act thus is to act in harmony with the constitution of nature. All animal existences act in this way. Christianity, instead of requiring you to starve the body by lastings, and to exhaust its energies by painful pilgrimages and self mortifications, says, "Eat and be satisfied, eat and be strong, take care of your bodies. If you choose to eat the meat offered to idols to allay your appetites and to invigorate your frames, well, eat it." Feeding the body, however, Christianity regards, though proper as very temporary; both the food and the body must perish. They are not like spiritual existences and spiritual supplies, that have regard to an immeasureable hereafter. "All flesh is grass." II. THAT IT IN THE OF THE BODY AS WRONG. "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body." This is not a necessity of the body, like eating and drinking, but an immoral indulgence of its propensities. Man should attend to his bodily propensities as reliefs, not as gratifications. He who attends to his physical propensities in order to get pleasure out of them, sinks lower than a brute, violates the laws of his nature, degrades his being, and offends his God. Hence intemperance, whether in eating or drinking, is a moral outrage. The crime and curse of men in all ages have been seeking happiness out of the gastric, the sexual, and other propensities of their physical being. III. THAT IT THE PROPER OF THE BODY AS WITH CHRIST. 1. It is a property of Christ. It is "for the Lord; and the Lord for the body." It is not ours; we are its trustees, not its proprietors; we hold it "for the Lord," and we should use it according to his directions. It is his will that it should be used by the soul to convey from the external universe quickening and hallowing impressions of the Divine, and used to express and develop the holy thoughts and purposes which such impressions should produce. It is to let in God to the soul and to reveal God to our race. 2. It is a member of Christ. "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?" If we are genuine Christians, he regards even our bodies as having a vital connection with him. He had a human body, and that human body raised to heaven is the model into which our bodies shall be changed. This being so, the prostitution of the body to sensual indulgence of any kind is an incongruity and an outrage. "Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit," etc. 3. It is a temple of Christ. "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God?" Christ, by his Spirit, claims the body as a temple, in which he is to dwell, be revealed and worshipped. It is his property. "Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." The language here is, of course, figurative. It does not mean that there was a strictly commercial transaction in the redemption of man, a literal quid pro quo, for the thing spoken of pertains to spiritual interests and relations, and not to commerce. BY C. Civil relations and Church membership; litigation before heathen courts. The chapter opens abruptly. "Dare any of you"—a strong expression of disapproval—"having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust?" Judaism had taught the Jews not to go before Gentile judges with a lawsuit against their brethren; the Romans had accorded to the Jews the right to settle their disputes among themselves, and Christians at that time might avail themselves of this rule (Lunge). But St. Paul, true to his ruling method, views the matter from Christian ground and treats it solely on the principles of the gospel. The argument in the preceding chapter concerned social relations, the present argument applies to civil relations, and yet they are sympathetic in his mind. Emotion is an associative force, and often establishes or rather discloses connections of ideas not perceptible in the "dry light" of intellect. In both these arguments the underlying sentiment is the same, viz. the dignity of Christian character and the supremacy of its obligations over interest, custom, usage, and every form of self not compatible with the generous spirit of sacrifice "for Christ’s sake." Bear in mind, then, in reading St. Paul’s Epistles, that if at times you lose the compactness of logic and its tenacious unity, you are always sure to find that more interior tie which binds thought to sentiment and displaces order for the gain of a higher method. Method, rather than order, marks the thinker whose vocation is to instruct the mass of mankind. Saints, as saints exist in the ideal of Christianity, "shall judge the world." They are to rule with Christ, to share his glory, and be acknowledged by the universe as participants in the final triumph of his mediatorial authority. If so, the mediatorial honour in future prospect has a certain scope of present activity, since it could not be then unless it were now. Of the character of these functions and the circumstances incident to their display, what know we? They fall under that law of reserve which the Lord Jesus spoke of when he said, "Of the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power," we are kept ignorant, and are the better for the ignorance. Details of great facts may intensify the intellect of sense, and work damage to the higher mind. If Christ was the Son of man, and as such filled the sphere of humanity, while admitting as such the limitation of his knowledge in one direction, viz. "of that day and hour knoweth no man," surely we need not perplex ourselves as to specific theories bearing on this subject. Christianity lays the stress on intelligence rather than on information, and, in fact, assures us that restraint is essential in our condition to equable development. St. Paul argues from the future to the present; thus, "shall judge the world,… shall judge angels;" and the conclusion is emphasized,—"how much more things that pertain to this life!" On this ground of the spiritual superiority of the saints in Christ, he claims that the judgment of believers may now be most advantageously exercised. It is a training in the school of Christ, and the discipline, while varied, is adapted to the highest good. Does St. Paul mean to put earthly tribunals under the ban? By no means. Again and again he sought their protection against Jews and Gentiles, and, if Roman law had not befriended him, his apostleship as men reason would have had a speedy termination. Who was more explicit and earnest than he in urging the doctrine that human government was a Divine ordinance, and as such to be obeyed and honoured? And who among statesmen and philosophers ever saw as deeply into the nature and functions of sovereignty as an essential element of the idea of man in the scheme of the universe? In law, in its administration of justice, in its protection of persons and property, in its power to verify and conserve the multitudinous interests of society, he recognized the right arm of Providence. The sense of providence must be social no less than individual, must transcend geographical bounds, and embrace the human family as a family of "one blood," or it failed of its office. So, then, he has no issue with law and its adjudications as such. But the uses of the law by Christians; the common and facile resort to it in order to gratify covetousness, pride, ambition, revenge, and any and every form of selfishness;—that is the grave matter before his mind. "There is utterly a fault among you," a weakness, a repudiation of noble sentiment, a departure from the idea of the true self in Christ, "because ye go to law one with another" before unbelievers; brother arrayed against brother; and this exposure of a mutilated unity, with its accompanying evils, made in the presence of men whose criticisms would be only too eager to detect and magnify your imperfections. This is one aspect of the matter. But you gain your rights. Ay, and rights may be purchased too dearly. Go to law and get your rights; and then, as you retire from the seat of judgment, think of what you leave behind you—what losses of sentiment, trust in others, hope of humanity, brotherliness of heart, perchance even integrity and honour. Right and rights, how often they part company, and the one is the burlesque, the shame, the bitter contempt of the other! "Rather take wrong;" it is altogether a manlier thing, if done for Christ’s sake. Lord Erskine, when at the bar, once said to Dr. Parr, "Accommodate the difference amicably.… I can scarcely figure to myself a situation in which a lawsuit is not, if possible, to be avoided." This is another aspect of the matter. Alas! there is an aspect yet sadder. Law is used as a means to inflict a wrong. "Ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren." What gigantic wrongs have been perpetrated under the name of law, we all know; but who can tell how far this spirit, which uses justice to accomplish injustice, has gone forth into all the relationships of men, and vitiated life among the sacred retreats of home and the Church? The depravity of man’s lower nature is fearful, not because it is cruel and brutal, but because it is continually reinforced and invigorated by the depravity of his higher nature. What is true of the individual in this respect is true also of society. History and our own observation warrant the statement that the grossest perverters of law and justice have been found among those who were wealthy, or in high office, or otherwise influential. Their example, in very many instances, has worked downward, just as certain poisonous gases, too heavy to ascend, have infected the air on a level with us. Then follows a question containing its own answer: "Know ye not that the unjust shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" His impassioned formula, "Be not deceived," introduces a catalogue of immoralities that shut out men from God’s kingdom, in which we have a startling revelation, common with St. Paul, of bodily sins. Such were some of you. But how different now!—washed, sanctified, justified, in the Name of Christ, and by the Spirit. Would they fall back into their heathenish practices? Within the compass of a few verses, St. Paul gives us principles that permeate civil society no less than religious. If carried out, we should have much less law and much more equity, and both law and equity would be immense gainers by the change. The tendency of the argument is the thing to notice. That tendency is to give men a true spiritual conception of themselves, and to develop their thought of self in accordance with God’s thought of them. The sense of public justice may compel us to resort to law, but this will not conflict with St. Paul’s idea. ’On the other hand, any abuse of an institution, whether governmental or domestic, whether ecclesiastical or earthly, is an abuse of manhood, and on this truth he expends the force of his reasoning. In these verses, as in the previous chapters, arguing, denouncing, exhorting, pleading,—it is the voice of a grand doctrine and a lofty trust and a sublime hope that we hear. And we hear it in the midst of strife and turbulence, out of the depths of a heart most sorrowful and yet "always rejoicing," and able to command itself and its faculties and resources whenever and wherever needed.—L. The human body and its relation to Christ. Among the objects about him proper for use and enjoyment—those objects which accorded with his nature and position as a redeemed man—was there anything from which he was excluded? "All things are lawful unto me," and, in this sense, liberty and law are identical, the measure of the one being the measure of the other. If law is of God, so is freedom; if the former is the expression of the Divine will and character, so is the latter; and if man is the image of Christ in law, so is he in freedom. Observe, then, that it is not law and liberty as existing in a perfect world that the apostle is considering, but as found in this mixed and disordered world, in which probation is going on to its eternal issues. Ideally "all things are lawful," and yet, because life is a discipline, how could it be otherwise than that liberty should be abridged? One of the main purposes of probation is to discipline the will, to choose for itself among a multitude of objects addressing our sensibilities. Scores of things appeal daily to our senses, and, if all our sensations are converted into desires, thence into motives, thence accepted by volition, and made a part of ourselves, then certainly this is not freedom for the ends of moral discipline, but freedom for simple and universal gratification. Freedom in St. Paul’s view is not a final cause, it is a means; and he would have the Corinthian remember that one of their greatest obligations was to restrain this freedom. The freedom itself had a large range as to the objects allowed its use and enjoyment. Should it cover the whole area of activity? Nay, says the apostle, this would be bondage in another form. "I will not be brought under the power of any," for "all things are lawful unto me," which is to say, "all things are in my power," and I will exercise my power by imposing limitations on self indulgence. Of course, then, this restraint put on individual freedom is our own voluntary act. Such is the stress laid on personality that a man’s Christian virtue must be specifically his own, and recognized by infallible signs as his own. Development is a common duty, self development segregates a man from his fellows that he may grow in a given way. Self denial is a common duty, but under this law of individuality in using our freedom, self denial assumes a variety of shapes, and becomes wonderfully potential in human affairs by the diversity it presents. In this view the self denial of A is no guide for B. The special form of your self denial may not commend itself to me, nay, it may be hurtful to me; and, assuredly, it will lose its virtue if I adopt it merely because it is yours. And hence the value of example in this respect is not to create a slavish imitation on the part of others, but to set forth the worth inherent in the spirit of self denial. If this principle, so boldly urged by St. Paul, had been faithfully adhered to, it would have saved the Church from many inconsistencies. Private opinion, while it is content to be such, may be over stringent, and yet do no great harm. But in many cases it exceeds the limits of individuality and takes shape as the tyranny of public opinion. Morbidness is rarely satisfied till it acquires notoriety before the eyes of men, and so it comes to pass that we have ecclesiastical agitation and legislation about many things—for instance, amusements—concerning which no exact standard can be set up foreverybody. If we could have an exact standard, it would not compensate for the loss of personal freedom, since this is precisely one of those matters in which self denial owes all its excellence to the restrictions that it imposes upon itself. St. Paul’s emphatic "I" in this connection is the "I" of every redeemed man, and accordingly, as a universal prerogative, this exalted characteristic of individuality is most carefully guarded. And how is it guarded? To say nothing of what Christian freedom is in itself as delegated by God in Christ, and conditioned widely different from Adam’s sovereignty in Eden; to say nothing of its original limitations by the Divine Law, and the fixed barriers over which it may not pass, and, if true to itself, cannot pass; what is this liberty but a glorious privilege to be made still more glorious by our own self enacted laws of restraint? It is a new limitation peculiar to man. It is a limitation which each man under the grace of the Spirit originates and executes in attestation of his own endowments as God’s redeemed servant, It is sonship in its most beautiful and tender form—the "Abba, Father," which is not heard in the responses of the Church, nor in hymns of social worship, but is an utterance that rises to God in those hours when loneliness is a supreme joy. I have the power; I will not use it; I will deny myself its exercise, and I will do it because "all things are not expedient." What other eye save his own could penetrate those mysteries, from which he draws reasons and motives for particular acts of self denial? Mysteries, we say; for many an advanced believer yields in this phase of experience to half awakened instincts and undefined impulses. How can ministers of the gospel, how can Churches in their official capacity, get at the knowledge of what is wisest and best in those matters that belong to the very highest attributes of personality as the ground of individuality? "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." "Fully persuaded" he can never be unless he use his liberty untrammelled. If you dogmatize and legislate, the full persuasion cannot be the outcome of "his own mind." If God can trust him, why not you? The safeguard has been provided—it is expediency. And this sense of expediency or of fitness and propriety is a conservative and prudential force, which operates to check all excesses, and binds about the man the golden cestus of moderation. Expediency is never self willed and arbitrary. It presides over tastes and the minor moralities no less than over the more prominent virtues; nor does it trifle with trifles nor disdain the helps of look and tone and manner, but is cardinal to whatsoever reflects the man upon his associates. Keenly alive to discriminations, it educates us to know the best from the merely good, and, by its fine tact and subtle sagacity, goes on swift wing to the noblest objects. It considers, as though it were a part of itself, the welfare of others, and thus becomes a guarantee that a man’s liberty shall not invade the rights of his fellow man. And remembering that "all things" are his only so far as he is Christ’s, he realizes that it is "no more I that live, but Christ liveth in me." Then St. Paul proceeds to dwell on the sanctity of the human body—a favourite topic, on which he expends much thought. In the third chapter he had discussed it, and in subsequent passages, every one of them singularly clear and vivid, he recurs to this great topic. Here the leading idea is that our bodies "are the members" of Christ’s body. "The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." And hence St. Paul, in his concrete method of thinking, refuses to separate, even in thought, body and soul, as they are connected with redemption, Matter and mind are perfectly unlike; they are known to us only by their infinite contrariety; and yet matter and mind meet and unite as body and soul, and the union is human nature. These two substances grow each in its own way, the natural union at birth becoming closer and yet closer as years progress, and the body subordinating itself more and more to the mind’s service, in the mature man—the mechanic, the accountant, the artist, the poet, the philosopher—a vast advance has occurred in i he nearness and adaptability of the corporeity to the wants, demands, and aspirations of the spirit. If the providential idea in education and culture be fulfilled, the cooperative activity constantly increases, each forward step a step for both, and the law of development taking effect in mutuality of advantage. Still more fully is this fact brought out in Christian experience. St. Paul’s figures on this subject stand for facts. Bodily appetites cease to be mere animal instincts. They are elevated and purified. If Christ was raised from the dead, so too our bodies shall be raised, for the companionship of mind and matter as soul and body is not a transient but an eternal fact. One may speak of being "here in the body pent" and of the "body of humiliation" (vile body), but the idea of body as an investiture of spirit and an auxiliary to its functions is a part of the original scheme of humanity, and will have its complete development in the future life. Little do we realize that the resurrection man is now in a process of training as to his corporeal form. This training is double—mental and material—and hence, while it is true that certain physical functions will expire and be known no more, yet the effects of their experience will survive in the soul itself. "A spiritual body" is assured us by Christianity and confirmed to us by Christ’s resurrection; and, agreeably to this doctrine, the present growth of body into the mind’s service, the tuition of the senses, the reduction of the nerves to the will, the command which is acquired over the lower organs, all indicate that the resurrection man of body and spirit is now in process of formation. If this is true; if the resurrection is not only a prospective glory but a realization now going on by means of the present ennoblement and sanctification of the human body; and, furthermore, if Christ’s education of his own body to the offices he filled as Teacher, Miracle Worker, Philanthropist, Redeemer, etc., as to the spirit actuating him, an example to his followers;—then surely we have the weightiest of reasons for regarding the body as the "temple of the Holy Ghost." Greek philosophy had abused the truth that all creatures are for man, and that he is the measure of all things. Professing Christians had followed a carnal philosophy in the application of this truth. And now that St. Paul has rescued it from its perversions and set it in its proper light, he may well urge the conclusion, "Ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." Could anything more timely, more momentous, more significant of the aim of Christianity as it respected the social regeneration of mankind, have been said by St. Paul? The sin of the body; that one sin which surrenders the body to another and degrades it as nothing else can degrade; that sin of sins, which debauches the body where it ought to be purest, and sinks lowest that which should be highest;—could its wickedness be set forth in stronger language than when he speaks of the body as the tabernacle, in which not only the soul but the Holy Ghost dwells? "Which ye have of God," and therefore "not your own," but "bought with a price." And yet this redeemed possession, the purchase of Christ’s blood, a member of his mystical body, a tabernacle of the Spirit, alienated, abused, prostituted to the most shameful and the most fatal of all vices. Of nothing is it so true as of this vice, that we become like that with which we associate. Association is assimilation, and, in this case, assimilation is the most dreadful form of desecration. These verses (18-20) contain, as has been suggested (Alford), the germ of the three weighty sections of the Epistle about to follow. And we do well to enter into their meaning and implore the grace of God to assist us, lest we fail to receive the profound impression sought to be made. It is useless to blink the fact that among Christian nations and in the nineteenth century this colossal vice of a desecrated human body is the Satanic citadel of iniquity. Take all the vices and sins on earth, aggregate them in one huge bulk, and the misfortunes, evils, catastrophes, tragic disasters, put together, would not outweigh the consequences morally and socially viewed of this enormity. Half of the man goes straight and quick into the hands of the devil, and the other half, unless God interpose, follows on in a fascination of blindness exceptional among illusions. God help us! For verily "vain," in this instance, "is the help of man." We need a much larger and bolder discussion of the religion of the human body; and if writers and preachers would study the art of doing this work, the Church and the world would be vast gainers. Any way, this is open to us all, viz. to lay a much greater stress than is commonly done on the dignity, worth, and glory of the human body as seen in the light of Christ’s teaching. Full justice is not done this subject, not even approximative justice, and, therefore, no wonder the body is disparaged, vilified, tolerated by many as a nuisance, and immolated by thousands as a creature of appetite and lust. "Bought with a price," the blood of the Lord Jesus paid for it—a glorious thing to be bought and not too precious a ransom paid, and now sprinkled by that blood and hallowed by the indwelling Spirit. Oh what intenseness of soul should go into the pleading, "Glorify God in your body"!—L. BY J.R. THOMSON Litigation; or, How shall Christians settle their differences and disputes? Remarkable is the insight which this Epistle affords us into the interior life of a Church of the first age. We seem to be brought into the presence of remarkable virtues and of remarkable faults, and are impressed with the incongruity of the picture. One thing is certain, that human nature was then what it is now, and that Christianity offers the one Divine remedy for individual and for social ills. I. IT IS TO BE THAT AND WILL ARISE WITHIN THE OF . The occasions are manifold; the conflict of interests and of opinions and of tastes will account for not a few. It is irrational to suppose that human nature can be at once transformed from the condition of the self indulgent pagan, for example, to the position of a mature and holy servant of God. There are to be found in the Church on earth persons occupying every point intermediate between these extremes; and among such "offences will come." II. IT IS THAT SUCH SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE A HEATHEN . The Greeks were an especially disputatious and litigious race. It was natural enough that those who in the days of their heathenism had been accustomed to refer their disputes to the judges of the city should still carry any differences that might arise into the same courts. But reflection, as the apostle urges, must have made manifest the unwisdom of such a proceeding. Christianity proclaimed itself a religion of peace and love; and its adherents spoke of one another as brothers; whilst it was known that the great Lord had enjoined the forgiveness of injuries, and had himself set an example of such forgiveness. It is clear that for Christians to go to law with one another before the tribunals of the heathen was to create a scandal, and to bring both the religion and its professors into contempt. The same reasonings apply wherever, in our own day, the powers that be are unchristian, and the followers of Jesus are but as leaven in the mass of heathenism. III. EVERY SOCIETY WITHIN ITSELF CAPABLE OF DEALING WITH SUCH . According to the apostle’s teaching, the "saints" shall be assessors with the Lord Christ in the judgment of the world and of angels; and those destined to fulfil functions so majestic may surely be entrusted with the settlement of trivial disputes. It is best if the two persons between whom a misunderstanding has arisen can compose their differences with no outside assistance; if this cannot be done, it is well to call in the aid of a Christian of calm, impartial character and of large experience, with a common agreement to accept his award without murmuring. There is surely a large opportunity for the exercise of the virtues of wisdom and justice in such directions as these. Much bickering and heart burning might be avoided were there a sincere and general desire to act upon the counsels of the apostle. The courts of justice, even in Christian countries, might thus be relieved of much of their business, to the advantage of the whole community. IV. THE BEST OF IS A TO SUFFER RATHER THAN TO RESENT OR EVEN TO REDRESS WRONG. There is something very startling and very grand in the apostle’s sudden, unexpected questions, "Why not rather take wrong’? why not rather be defrauded?" These are "counsels of perfection." The alternative already suggested is good; but this is better far, however it be opposed to the inclinations of" the natural man." Christ has given us an example of suffering wrong. From the world we are bound, if it be so ordered, to accept with patience language of contumely or treatment of injustice. And it is suggested that, even amongst those who are fellow members of the same body, there may be mutual forbearance, there may be a patience amounting to magnanimity, a renunciation of rights which shall make it clear of how little importance are all those matters upon which it is possible for good men to differ. "Learn how sublime a thing it is To suffer, and be strong!" T. Past, present, and future. In the two preceding verses the apostle has described, in terse, plain terms, the awful vices to which the heathen inhabitants of Corinth were addicted. To his enlightened mind the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God were diametrically opposed; and the test by which Paul judged them was the test of moral character—a test which the reason and conscience cannot but approve. The apostle knew from what a slough some of his Corinthian converts had been delivered, and he points the contrast between the kingdom in their person and history. I. A AS THE PAST: THE IS WASHED FROM MORAL . The language of this passage must have gone home with power to some hearts: "Such were some of you!" They had indulged in sins of the flesh and of the spirit, in vices which were deemed pardonable, and in vices which were deemed vile, in transgressions against their own nature and against society. Some had been notorious and flagrant, others ordinary, offenders. But all had contracted moral defilement. And what had Christianity done for them? What has it done for all to whom it has come? It has purified them from their old sins. "Ye were washed." The lustration of baptismal waters was a symbol of the purification wrought in the spirit by the redemption of Christ, by the Holy Spirit of God. II. A AS THE PRESENT: THE IS RENEWED IN . Forgiveness and cleansing from impurity may justly be regarded as the means to an end; i.e. to hallowing or sanctification. This is the positive, to which the other is the negative, side. Set free from vice and crime, the subject of the Divine power of the cross comes under a new and inspiring influence. The Holy Spirit creates the nature afresh. No inferior power is adequate to produce a change so vast. It is a proof of the Divine origin and adaptation of Christianity that it attempts and achieves a task so superhuman. These moral miracles of sanctification constitute an evidence of Christianity which is to many minds the most conclusive of all. III. A AS THE FUTURE: THE IS FROM . The expression employed refers to the government of God and our relation to it. Justification is acquittal at the bar of the righteous Judge. By anticipation Scripture represents this acquittal as already pronounced in the case of those who have accepted the terms of salvation. For such the Name of Jesus Christ avails, and in such the Spirit of God graciously works. Justification is conferred now; but the full benefit of it will appear by contrast in the day of judgment. . 1. The question is suggested to every hearer of the gospel—Could the apostle have used this language with reference to me? Are the signs of this mighty change manifest in my life? 2. The reflection is suggested to those who have experienced this moral transformation—How wonderful and how effectual is the grace of God! How vast is the debt of gratitude we owe to the Father who loved us, the Saviour who redeemed us, the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us!—T. 1 Corinthians 6:12-16 The sanctity of the body. At Corinth idolatry assumed a most imposing, luxurious, and voluptuous form. It is quite in accordance with all we know of the opulent and pleasure loving inhabitants of and visitors to "the star of Hellas," that those controversies and scandals which are dealt with so fully in this chapter should arise in a Christian society planted by the apostle at Corinth. It should be more especially noticed that there is a sufficient reason for the remarkable fact that sexual matters should be treated more fully in this Epistle than in any other part of the New Testament. The apostle in this passage demolishes the sophistical arguments and excuses by which certain professed Christians at Corinth were disposed to defend the practice of fornication. It was said that matters relating to the bodily life were indifferent to the moral welfare of men, that as an enlightened man will eat this food or that, irrespectively of any superstitious prejudices, inasmuch as food and the digestive system are naturally in corelation with each other, so he will satisfy the sensual appetites of his body in whatever way may be convenient and agreeable to him. Against this doctrine of devils Paul here argues, not on grounds of asceticism, but on grounds which must be conceded as secure by the moral and especially by the Christian thinker. I. THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE OF THE BODY. As here presented, they may appear to some readers to be mystical, but in fact they are in harmony both with the facts of human nature and with the great doctrines of the New Testament. 1. The Lord Christ and the body of man are "for" each other. In his incarnation Christ has assumed the human body, in his ministry he has honoured it, in his death he has redeemed it. Not the soul only, but the body, is God’s creation, and the object of Christ’s regard, and partaker of the benefits of his mediation. As the Lord is for the body, so is the body for the Lord. 2. More particularly, the bodies of Christians are members of Christ. The ransomed and renewed humanity is one glorious whole, one Divine organism, the Lord Jesus being himself the authoritative Head. If the Head, the informing Spirit, is holy, must not also the subordinate members be also pure and consecrated? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 Answers to the inquiries of the Corinthians respecting marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:1-11 The lawfulness of marriage, and its duties. 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning. This refers to questions of the Corinthians. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. The word used is not agathon, good, but kalon, fair; "an excellent thing." In 1 Corinthians 7:26 he limits the word by the clause, "good for the present necessity." There is no limitation here, and it is probable that St. Paul is quoting the actual words of the letter which he had received from Corinth. There had sprung up among them some antinomians, who, perhaps by perverting his own teaching or that of Apollos, had made liberty a cloak of lasciviousness. In indignant reaction against such laxity, others, perhaps, with Essene proclivities, had been led to disparage matrimony as involving an inevitable stain. Gnosticism, and the spirit which led to it, oscillated between the two extremes of asceticism and uncleanness. Both extremes were grounded on the assertion that matter is inherently evil. Ascetic Gnostics, therefore, strove to destroy by severity every carnal impulse; antinomian Gnostics argued that the life of the spirit was so utterly independent of the flesh that what the flesh did was of no consequence. We find the germs of Gnostic heresy long before the name appeared. Theoretically, St. Paul inclines to the ascetic view, not in the abstract, but in view of the near advent of Christ, and of the cares, distractions, and even trials which marriage involved in days of struggle and persecution. Yet his wisdom is shown in the cautious moderation with which he expresses himself. The tone of the letter written by Gregory the Great to Augustine with reference to similar inquiries about Saxon converts is very different. The example of St. Paul should have shown the mediaeval moralists and even the later Fathers how wrong it is "to give themselves airs of certainty on points where certainty is not to be had." Not to touch a woman. St. Paul means generally "not to marry" (comp. Genesis 20:4 [LXX.]). Celibacy under the then existing conditions of the Christian world is, he admits, in itself an honourable and morally salutary thing, though, for the majority, marriage may be a positive duty. He is not dreaming of the nominal marriages of mediaeval ascetics, for he assumes and directs that all who marry should live in conjugal union. 1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless. In this single word St. Paul practically refutes all the dangerous and unwarrantable inferences drawn by St. Jerome and others from the previous clause. St. Jerome argues: "If it is good for a man not to touch a woman, it must be bad to do so, and therefore celibacy is a holier state than marriage." He also says, "I suspect the goodness of a thing which the greatness of another evil enforces as a lesser evil." Such reasoning shows: 1. The danger of pressing words to the full extent of the logical inferences which may be deduced from them. 2. The errors which always arise from arguing upon isolated texts dissevered from their context, and from all consideration of the circumstances under which they were written. 3. The necessity of following the guidance of the Holy Spirit when he shows, by history and experience, the need for altering precepts with reference to altered conditions. There is in celibacy a moral beauty—it is kalon; there are cases in which it becomes a duty. But in most cases marriage, being no less a duty, as St. Paul proceeds to show, is even fairer and more excellent. Neither state, the wedded or the unwedded, is in itself more holy than the other. Each has its own honour and loveliness, and can only be judged of in connection with surrounding circumstances. Those who make St. Paul judge slightingly of marriage contradict his own express rules and statements (Ephesians 5:24, Ephesians 5:31, Ephesians 5:32; 1 Timothy 2:15), and make him speak the current heathen language of heathen epicures, who, to the great injury of morals, treated marriage as a disagreeable necessity, which was, if possible, to be avoided. If the "it is a good thing" of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1 were to be taken absolutely, it would have to be corrected (1) by the example of Christ, who beautified with his presence the marriage at Cana (John 2:1, John 2:2); (2) by the primeval law which said, "It is not good for man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18); and (3) by the fact that marriage is the chosen analogue of the relation between Christ and his Church. But the very phrase he uses, as will be seen by reference to 1 Corinthians 9:15; Matthew 15:26; Romans 14:21, etc., is a relative not an absolute one, and St. Paul uses it here concessively, but with the object of pointing out limitations which almost reversed it. To avoid fornication; rather, because o f fornication; i.e. because of the many forms of impurity which were current every where, but especially at Corinth. Some have argued that St. Paul takes a "low" and "poor" view of marriage by regarding it only in the light of a remedy against fornication. The answer is: 1. That the reason which he assigns is a true reason in itself, and with reference to the masses of mankind; for which reason it is adopted by our Church in her Marriage Service. 2. He is addressing those who were living in a corrupt and semi-heathen atmosphere. 3. He is not here speaking of the idealized and spiritual aspect of marriage, but only of large practical necessities. When he speaks of marriage as a high Christian mystery (as in 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:22-33), he adopts a very different tone. Let every man have. A rule, not a mere permission. He here implies the truth that married love bears no analogy whatever to the vagae libidines of those who live like "natural brute beasts." In marriage the sensuous impulse, by being controlled and placed under religious sanctions is refined and purified from a degradation into a sacrament. Instead of being any longer the source of untold curses to mankind, it becomes the condition of their continuance and an element in their peace, because it is then placed under the blessing of God and of his Church. 1 Corinthians 7:3 Due benevolence. An euphemistic and needless modification by the copyists of the pure and simple expression of St. Paul, which, as shown by the best manuscripts, is "her due"—debitum tori. St. Paul is evidently entering on these subjects, not out of any love for them; but because all kinds of extreme views—immoral indifference and over scrupulous asceticism—had claimed dominance among the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power, Marriage is not a capricious union, but a holy bond. "They two" become "one flesh." 1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not. St. Paul purposely leaves the expression general. Primarily he is thinking of "the due" or "the power" which each has over the other, as is shown by the next verse; but he does not confine the expression to this. Except it be; literally, unless by chance. The exception he regards as something possible, but not normal. For a time. By this and the next words he disparages, by anticipation, the celibate and separate married lives which, in a corrupt age, were so much and so unwisely admired in the ascetic saints of the Middle Ages. Temporary separation for special reasons had been recognized from the earliest times (Exodus 19:15; 1 Samuel 21:4). Ye may give yourselves; rather, ye may have leisure. The verb is in the aorist, which shows that the "leisure" contemplated was for brief periods, not during continuous years. It was altered to the present by the officious copyists, who believed in external and mechanical rules of holiness. To fasting and prayer. "Fasting" is an ascetic interpolation, not found in à, A, B, C, D, F. On this interpolation, and perhaps on the analogy of the rule given by Moses at Sinai (Exodus 19:15), rose the practice of married persons living apart at Lent (Stanley). Come together again. The prepossessions of ascetic scribes have again tampered with the text. The true reading is, "be together again" (ῆτε), not "come together" (συνέρχησθε). For your incontinency; rather, because of. Their past lives and their present temptations were a warning that they could not lay on themselves burdens which God did not require. They should not strive "...to wind themsleves to high For sinful man beneath the sky." Violent, unnatural, self tormenting, repressions beyond what God demands, and adopted without reference to the strength or the circumstances of individual natures, only tend, as all ascetics have confessed, to increase rather than to diminish the force of sensual temptations. 1 Corinthians 7:6 I speak this. The "this" applies to his advice in general, but especially to the last verse. By permission. This phrase is generally misunderstood. It does not mean that St. Paul was permitted though not commanded to give this advice, but that his gentle advice was given "by way of permission" to Christians, not "by way of injunction." He means to say that he leaves the details of their lives, whether celibate or married, to their individual consciences, though with large hearted wisdom and charity he would emancipate them from human and unauthorized restrictions. The clause is not, therefore, a parallel to the restrictions on the authority of his utterances, such as we find in 1 Corinthians 7:12, 1 Corinthians 7:29, 1 Corinthians 7:40, and in 2 Corinthians 8:10; 2 Corinthians 11:17. 1 Corinthians 7:7 For I would. The verb here used is thelo (will). In 1 Timothy 5:14 he says, "I prefer (boulomai) that the younger women marry." Even as I myself; endowed, that is, with the gift of continence, which would (in the expected nearness of Christ’s coming) render marriage needless, and the condition of man like that of the angels in heaven, who neither marry nor are given in marriage. His proper gift. The "gifts" alluded to are the "graces" (charismata) of the Holy Spirit; and the grace of perfect continence does not exist equally in all (Matthew 19:11). One after this manner, and another after that. The remark is general, but also has its special application to continence and marriage (Matthew 19:12). 1 Corinthians 7:8 To the unmarried; including widowers. In my ’Life of St. Paul,’ 1:75-82, I have given my reasons for believing that St. Paul was a widower. It is good for them. It is an expedient, honourable, and morally "beautiful thing," but, as he so distinctly points out further on, there might be a "better" even to the "good." Even as I. In the unmarried state, whether as one who had never married, or, as I infer from various circumstances, as a widower (so too Clemens of Alexandria, Grotius, Luther, Ewald, etc.); see my ’Life of St. Paul,’ 1:169). Tertullian and Jerome (both of them biassed witnesses, and with no certain support of tradition) say that St. Paul was never married. 1 Corinthians 7:9 If they cannot contain; rather, if they have not continency. Let them marry. In 1 Timothy 5:14 he lays down and justifies the same rule with reference to young widows. It is better to marry than to burn. The original tenses give greater force and beauty to this obvious rule of Christian common sense and morality. The "marry" is in the aorist—"to marry once for all," and live in holy married union; the "burn" is in the present—"to be on fire with concupiscence." Marriage once for all is better than continuous lust; the former is permitted, the latter sinful. 1 Corinthians 7:10 And; rather, but. Unto the married; to Christians who have already married. I command. This is an injunction, not a mere permission as in 1 Corinthians 7:6. Not I, but the Lord. Because the rule had been laid down by Christ himself. Let not the wife depart. By divorce or otherwise. The wife is mentioned, perhaps, because the Christian wife, in the new sense of dignity and sacredness which Christianity had bestowed upon her, might be led to claim this spurious freedom; or perhaps the Christian women of Corinth had been more impressed than their husbands by the Essene notions of purity. The exception of divorce being permissible in case of fornication is assumed (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9). 1 Corinthians 7:11 If she depart. The reference throughout the verse is to separation due to incompatibility of temper, etc.; not to legal divorce. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Directions about mixed marriages. 1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest. That is, to those who are married, but are heathen. They were the remaining class about whose duties the Corinthians had made inquiry. Not the Lord. The Lord had made no express reference to such eases, since it had been no part of his mission to lay down minute details which would be duly settled from age to age by the wisdom taught by the Holy Ghost. She be pleased to dwell with him. It is assumed that, if she did not please, the poor Christian convert would have no protection of his fights; pagan courts would regard conversion as a sufficient reason for breaking off marriages. 1 Corinthians 7:13 Let her not leave him. The verb is the same as in the clause rendered "let him not put her away." 1 Corinthians 7:14 Is sanctified; literally, has been sanctified, the status has been rendered (so to speak) theoretically clean. By the wife; literally, in the wife. The bond is still holy; its holiness rests in the believing wife or husband. The reasoning would remove any scruples which Jewish Christians might derive from Deuteronomy 7:3, etc. By the husband; rather, in the brother. The liberty implied by these remarks, contrasting so strongly with the rigid rules laid down in the days of Ezra (Ezra 9:1-15.; Nehemiah 9:1-38.) recall the change of dispensation. Unclean; i.e. not placed in immediate covenant relation to God. But now are they holy. This does not necessarily imply that they were baptized as infants, but only that they were hallowed as the fruit of a hallowed union. See the remarkable words of Malachi (Malachi 2:15). "If the root be holy, so are the branches" (Romans 11:16). 1 Corinthians 7:15 If the unbelieving depart. The sense of the word rendered "depart" is rather "wishes to be separated." Is not under bondage; literally, has not been enslaved. Our Lord assumes one cause alone—unfaithfulness—as adequate for the disruption of the marriage tie; but he was not contemplating, as St. Paul is, the case of mixed marriages. To peace; rather, in peace. Peace is to be the sphere in which the calling comes, and in which it issues. Milton, in his ’Tetrachordon,’ quotes Maimonides to the effect that "divorce was permitted by Moses to preserve peace in marriage and quiet in the family." Similarly, a voluntary separation might be the only possible means of preserving moral peace where the union was between souls separated from each other by so vast a gulf as those of a pagan and a Christian. 1 Corinthians 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, etc.? The meaning is as follows:—You may, perhaps, plead that, by refusing to sever the union, the believing partner may convert the unbelieving; but that possibility is too distant and uncertain on which to act. St. Peter does indeed show that so blessed a result is possible; but he is only speaking of cases in which the unbelieving husband did not wish the union to be dissolved. The ancient misinterpretation of the passage (due to neglect of the context and of the argument as a whole) viewed it as an argument for mixed marriages, founded on the chance of thereby winning souls. Most misinterpretations of Scripture have done deadly harm; this one, however, has been overruled for good, and led, as Dean Stanley points out, to such happy marriages as that of Clotilde with Clovis, and Bertha with Ethelbert of Kent. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 Corroborative instances of the duty of remaining in the state wherein each was called. 1 Corinthians 7:17 But; literally, if not. The phrase introduces a caution. The rule is that the circumstances of our lives are regulated by the providence of God, and must not be arbitrarily altered at our own caprice. Christ allotted his portion to each Christian, God hath called each man; that lot and that call are to guide his life. "Qua positus fueris in statione mane" (Ovid). Hath distributed; rather, apportioned. So ordain I in all Churches. He proceeds to give specific instances to which his rule applies. 1 Corinthians 7:18 Being circumcised. The first instance he gives is that of Judaism and paganism. The circumcised Jew is to remain circumcised; the uncircumcised Gentile is not to undergo circumcision. Become uncircumcised. The Hellenising Jews in the days of the priest Menelaus (l Macc 1 Corinthians 1:15; Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 12.5, 1) had discovered a process for obliterating the appearance of circumcision; such persons were known as masochim. St. Paul does not permit the adoption of this course. In the rebellion of Barcocheba many obliterated the sign of circumcision, and were afterwards, at great danger to themselves, recircumcised. (’Yevamoth,’ tel. 72, 1). Let him not be circumcised. This rule was of much more practical significance than the other. The early fortunes of Christianity had been almost shipwrecked by the attempt of Jewish rigorists to enforce this odious bondage on the Gentiles, and their deliverance flora it had been due almost solely to St. Paul. It was his inspired insight which had swayed the decision of the synod at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-41.); and at a later period his Epistle to the Galatians was the manifesto of Gentile emancipation. He proved that after Christ’s death "circumcision" (peritome) became to Gentiles a mere physical mutilation (katatome) (Philippians 3:2). 1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing. The Jews regarded it as everything; and to make this assertion at so early an epoch of Christian history, required all the courage of St. Paul, and proved his grand originality. He was the first to prove to the Jews that circumcision had become a thing intrinsically indifferent, which might, under some circumstances, be desirable (as in the ease of Timothy), but could never be reckoned among essentials. And uncircumcision is nothing. The same sentence occurs three times in St. Paul, summing up, as it were, the liberty which it had cost him endless peril and anguish to achieve. Each time he concludes it with a weighty clause to show what is everything: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Corinthians 7:19); "... but faith which worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6); "... but a new creation" (Galatians 6:15). But the keeping of the commandments. So St. John says, "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." 1 Corinthians 7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling, etc. In accordance with this general principle, which illustrates the distinction between Christianity and violent social revolutions, St. John the Baptist had not bidden publicans or soldiers to abandon their callings, but to do their duty in that state of life to which God had called them (Luke 3:12-14). The "calling" alluded to is not what is described as "a vocation," a calling in life, but the condition in which we are when we are called by God. 1 Corinthians 7:21 Being a servant. This is the second instance of the rule. One who was converted whilst he was a slave is not to strive over anxiously for freedom. The word "emancipation" sometimes seems (as in the letter to Philemon) to be "trembling on Paul’s lips," but he never utters it, because to do so would have been to kindle social revolt, and lead to the total overthrow of Christianity at the very commencement of its career. Our Lord had taught the apostles to adapt means to ends; and the method of Christianity was to inculcate great principles, the acceptance of which involved, with all the certainty of a law, the ultimate regeneration of the world. Christianity came into the world as the dawn, not as the noon—a shining light, which brightened more and more unto the perfect day. Care not for it. Do not be troubled by the fact, because in Christ "there is neither bond nor free" (Galatians 3:28), and because earthly freedom is as nothing in comparison with the freedom which Christ gives (John 8:36). But if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. The words may mean, (1) "use freedom"—avail yourself of the opportunity of emancipation; or (2) "use slavery"—be content to remain a slave. In favour of the first interpretation is the fact that there is nothing extravagant or fantastic in Christian morality; and that, considering what ancient slavery was—how terrible its miseries, how shameful and perilously full of temptations were its conditions—it sounds unnatural to advise a Christian slave to remain a slave when he might gain his freedom. Yet the other interpretation, remain a slave by preference, seems to be required: 1. By the strict interpretation of the Greek particles. 2. By the entire context, which turns on the rule that each man should stay in the earthly condition in which he first received God’s call. 3. By the fact that even the Stoic moralists—like Epictetus, who was himself a slave—gave similar advice (Epict., ’Dissert.,’ 3:26; ’Enchir.,’ 1 Corinthians 10:32.) 4. By the indifference which St. Paul felt and expressed towards mere earthly conditions (Galatians 3:28), as things of no real significance (Colossians 3:22). 5. By his appeal to the nearness of the day of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:29-31). 6. By the preponderance of high authorities—Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, etc.—in favour of this view 7. By its parallelism to the advice given to Christian slaves in 1 Timothy 6:2, where they are urged to serve Christian masters all the more zealously because they were brethren. 8. Lastly, all the apparent harshness of the advice is removed when we remember that St. Paul was probably thinking only of the Christian slaves of Christian masters, between whom the relation might be as happy as that of Philemon to the forgiven Onesimus. 1 Corinthians 7:22 Is the Lord’s freeman; rather, freedman. Clearly the entire bearing of this verse favours the view which we have taken of the previous verse. Christ’s servant. The sharp antithesis of this verse was often present to the mind of the early Christians. They knew that the bondage of Satan was so crushing that mere earthly bondage was, in comparison, as nothing; and that the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, though it might seem to take the form of service, was the sole perfect freedom. The freedmen of sin are the most hopeless slaves; the servants of God alone are free (see Romans 6:22; 2 Timothy 2:26; 1 Peter 2:16). 1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; rather, ye were bought, namely, by Christ; and the price paid for you was his blood (see 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Peter 1:18, 1 Peter 1:19). Be not ye; rather, become not. The servants of men. There is a grand play of words in the advice to them not to become slaves, at the very moment when he is advising them to continue in slavery. In that which the world called "slavery" the Christian slave might enjoy absolute liberty. The price which a master paid for them was but an unmeaning shadow; they had been bought once and eternally by an infinitely nobler price, and that purchase was the pledge of absolute emancipation. 1 Corinthians 7:24 Therein abide with God. The verse is a summary and reiteration of the advice contained in the whole paragraph. "With God;" literally, by the side of God; "as in God’s sight;" "doing service as to the Lord;" "for conscience towards God." The words sum up the essence of all apostolic counsels to Christian slaves in Ephesians 6:5-8; 1 Timothy 6:1, 1 Timothy 6:2; Titus 2:9, Titus 2:10; 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Peter 2:19, etc. 1 Corinthians 7:25-40 Advice respecting the unmarried. 1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins. This is doubtless another reference to questions contained in the letter from Corinth. No commandment of the Lord. Christ had never directly dealt with this subject. I give my judgment. The word "commandment’’ is rendered in the Vulgate consillum, and the word "judgment" praeceptum; and thus, as Stanley points out, has originated the modern Romish distinction between "precepts" and "counsels of perfection," which, however, have clearly no connection with the real meaning of the passage. To be faithful. As a steward of his Word, which is the first essential of true ministry (1 Timothy 1:12). "Faith makes a true casuist" (Bengel). 1 Corinthians 7:26 I suppose. St. Paul only states this modestly, and somewhat hesitatingly, as his personal opinion. For the present distress; rather, on account of the pressing necessity; in the urgent and trying conditions which at the present moment surround the Christian’s life, and which were the prophesied "woes of the Messiah" (Matthew 24:3, etc.). For a man; rather, for a person—whether man or woman. Be to be; that is, unmarried. The words are not improbably a quotation from the Corinthian letter. Otherwise we might explain the "so" to mean "as he is—whether married or unmarried." 1 Corinthians 7:27 Seek not a wife. It is entirely alien from St. Paul’s purpose to take this as an abstract or universal rule. He gives his reasons for it as a temporary necessity. 1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned. This advice merely touches on the question of expediency, not on questions of absolute right and wrong. Such. Those who marry. Trouble in the flesh. Their marriage will in these days necessarily involve much trouble and discomfort. Common experience shows that in days of "trouble and rebuke and blasphemy" the cares and anxieties of those who have to bear the burden of many besides themselves, and those dearer to them than their own selves, are far the most trying. Perhaps St. Paul was thinking of the "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days," of our Lord (Luke 21:23). But I spare you. I desire to spare you from adding to the inevitable distress which will fall upon you in "the great tribulation"—"the travail throes of the Messiah," which we all expect. 1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say. I will not dwell on those coming trials, but will only remind you that they are imminent, and that when they come all earthly distinctions will vanish into insignifiance. The time is short; literally, the season has been contracted; in other words, "The end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7). The word sunestalmenos cannot mean "disastrous." The verb is used for "folding up" in Acts 5:6; "Tempus in collecto est" (Tertullian). It remaineth, that. The reading and punctuation are here uncertain. The best reading seems to be "The time has been shortened henceforth, in order that," etc. The very object of the hastened end is that Christians should sit loose to earthly interests. As though they had none. They would thus be nearer to the condition of the "angels in heaven." 1 Corinthians 7:30 They that weep, etc. Earthly sorrow and joy and wealth are things which are merely transient and unreal when compared with the awful, eternal, permanent realities which we shall all soon have to face. 1 Corinthians 7:31 As not abusing it; rather, as not using it to the full—not draining dry the cup of earthly advantages. Like Gideon’s true heroes, we must not fling ourselves down to drink greedily of the river of earthly gifts, but drink them sparingly, and as it were with the palm of the hand. The fashion of this world passeth away. So St. John says, "The world passeth away, and the lust thereof" (1 John 1:1-10:18). It is but as the shifting scene of a theatre, or as a melting vapour (James 4:14). 1 Corinthians 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. In these words he reverts to 1 Corinthians 7:28, after the digression about the transiency of earthly relations. If they were "overcharged... with cares of this life," the day of the Lord might easily "come upon them unawares" (Luke 21:34). 1 Corinthians 7:33 Careth for the things that are of the world. St. Paul’s language must not be extravagantly pressed. It only applies absolutely to times in which the conditions are the same as they then were. The "anxious cares" which marriage involves may be more innocent and less distracting than those which attack the celibate condition; and when that is the case, marriage, on St. Paul’s own principle, becomes a duty. Thus some of the best and greatest of our missionaries have found their usefulness as God’s messengers vastly increased by marriage, in spite of the awful trials which marriage often involves. The apostles and brethren of the Lord felt the same. St. Paul’s opinions here are, as he tells us, opinions only, and admit of many modifications. Advice given to men and women when Christians believed that the Lord was coming, perhaps in that very age, to judge the world, is not universally applicable to all ages. In St. Paul’s later Epistles he does not revert to this advice, but assumes that marriage is the normal condition. 1 Corinthians 7:34 There is difference also, etc. The reading, punctuation, and exact sense are surrounded with uncertainty, which does not, however, affect the general meaning. This is probably given correctly in our English Version. He implies that the married woman must of necessity be more of a Martha than a Mary. Nevertheless, two things are certain: (1) that God intended marriage to be the normal lot; and (2) that marriage is by no means incompatible with the most absolute saintliness. It is probable that most, if not all, of the apostles were married men (1 Corinthians 9:5). The spirit of St. Paul’s advice—the avoidance of distraction, and the determination that our duty to God shall not be impaired by earthly relationships—remains eternally significant. Another common way of punctuating the words is, "The married man cares.., how he may please his wife, and is divided [in interests]." 1 Corinthians 7:35 For your own profit. My advice turns simply on questions of expedience. Not that I may cast a snare upon you. He does not wish to "fling a noose" over them to win them over to his own private views, and entangle them in rules which they might not be able to bear. That which is comely. Seemliness; "the beauty of holiness" (Romans 13:13). Without distraction. The phrases used in this clause make it probable that St. Paul had heard how Martha was "anxious" and distracted (περιεσπᾶτο) about much serving, while Mary sat at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:39-41). 1 Corinthians 7:36 Uncomely. If any father thinks, by keeping his virgin daughter unmarried, he is acting in a way which may cause sin or scandal, then let him permit her to marry her suitor. The word "uncomeliness" is terribly illustrated in Romans 1:27. (For "comely," see 1 Corinthians 7:25; 1 Corinthians 12:24.) His virgin. Obviously a daughter or ward. Pass the flower of her age. If she be more than twenty years old, which the ancients regarded as the acme of the woman’s life. And need so require. If there be some moral obligation or necessity in the case. Let them marry. The "them" means the virgin and her unmarried lover. 1 Corinthians 7:37 Steadfast. The general meaning of the verse is that the father, who, from high motives, remained unshaken in the resolve to dedicate his daughter (as Philip did) to the virgin life, doeth well, though neither Jews nor pagans thought so. Having no necessity. Because the maiden did not wish to marry or was not sought in marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:38 Doeth well. Because" marriage is honourable in all." Doeth better. Obviously not morally, because, if one course be morally better than another, we are bound to take it; but "better" with reference to expediency in "the urgent necessity" which rested on the Christian world in that day. It is quite clear that, if these words are meant to disparage matrimony in comparison with celibacy, or to treat celibacy in the abstract as a holier state that marriage, they have been set aside by the universal practice and theory of the Christian world. But, as we have seen, they are expressed by St. Paul only as a relative and diffident opinion. It is remarkable that not one word is said as to the choice of the virgin herself in the matter, which is one of the most essential points on which the decision must turn. St. Paul, no doubt, assumes the acquiescence or preference of the maiden as one of the elements in the absence of any "need" for her marriage; but also he writes after lifelong familiarity with the all but absolute control exercised by Jewish parents over their youthful daughters. 1 Corinthians 7:39 Only in the Lord. The second marriage of the Christian widow must be a holy and a Christian marriage (2 Corinthians 6:14). 1 Corinthians 7:40 Happier. Freer from cares, distractions, and entanglements. If she so abide. If she remain a widow. I think also that I have the Spirit of God; rather, I think that I also, as well as the other teachers who have claimed spiritual authority for the rules they have given you about these subjects. The claim to authoritative decision is obviously less emphatic than it is in 1 Corinthians 14:37; still, it is an expression of personal conviction that he has the Spirit, not an implied doubt of the fact. 1 Corinthians 7:1-14, 1 Corinthians 7:25-28, 1 Corinthians 7:32-40 Paul’s conception of marriage. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me," etc. All that Paul here says of marriage is in answer to some communication which the Church had addressed to him On the subject, and what he says he declares is not "of commandment," that is, not by Divine authority, but by "permission." All Scripture is therefore not inspired, even all the counsels of St. Paul do not seem to have been so. So desirous did he seem to be that all he says on this subject should be regarded as coming from himself without any inspiration of God, that he declares it not only in the sixth verse, but also in the twenty-fifth verse, in which he says, "I have no commandment of the Lord." My purpose now is to gather up from all these verses Paul’s personal ideas of marriage. His idea seems to be— I. That marriage is not a DUTY BINDING ON MANKIND. It is not a moral obligation, like "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," etc. He says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1); again. "I would that all men were even as I myself" (1 Corinthians 7:7); and again, "It is good for them if they abide even as I" (1 Corinthians 7:8). In referring to the widow, he says, "She is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7:40). So Paul seems to teach that the question of marriage is optional, not obligatory. Some may feel that celibacy is best for them, then let them remain single; others think that marriage is the most desirable state, then let them enter into that relationship. Now, it does strike one as something marvellous that this condition of life on which the very continuation of the human race depends should remain thus open and optional. Suppose that today every individual of the human race determined not to enter into this relationship, and to have no intercourse with the opposite sex, sixty years hence, at most, the race would be extinct; no man, woman, or child would be found on the earth. The earth would be as it once was, without a man, a school without a student, a theatre without a spectator, a temple without a worshipper. The answer to the question which some may give is this, that there is no reason for a written command on this subject—it is a law of nature. God does not command us to eat and drink, because it is not necessary—the law of our nature urges us to it. For the same reason he does not command us to marry. However, so it is, and it is a wonderful thought that upon the volition of this generation on this question, depends the continuation or noncontinuation of the race. II. That marriage is FOR ENDS. "The unbelieving husband is sanctified," etc. (1 Corinthians 7:14). The view given of the end of marriage in the Marriage Service, viz. the "procreation of children," is evidently not the idea that Paul had, and it is a somewhat degrading one. Paul’s idea throughout seems to be that the grand purpose of marriage is mutual spiritual influence, correcting faults, removing unbelief, establishing faith, serving the Lord. Those who enter on this relationship from fleshly impulses and with fleshly ends misunderstand the ordinance and are never truly married. There is not only no union of soul, but an inner division. True marriage means such a mutual spiritual affection as welds two souls into one moral personality. III. That marriage MUTUAL THE MOST SACRED, 1. Mutual benevolence. "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband." Benevolence, a hearty well wishing, each wishing the well being of the other. The New Version drops the word "benevolence." 2. Mutual identification. "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." The both are one. The equal rights of wife and husband are everywhere recognized in the Bible. 3. Mutual honesty. "Defraud ye not one the other." Deception is inimical to the true union of souls. Nothing cuts united hearts asunder so easily and effectively as artfulness and deception. 4. Mutual forbearance. "if any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwelt with her, let her not leave him" (1 Corinthians 7:12, 1 Corinthians 7:13). Should difference of opinion on religious subjects crop up, should the faith of one or the other in religious matters be shaken or wane, forbear, do not separate on that account, for the right may correct the wrong, the believing correct the unbelieving. 5. Mutual concession of personal freedom. "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace" (1 Corinthians 7:15). If the wife feels it in her conscience to be a duty to leave her husband, he should not coerce her, nor should she employ compulsion, should he feel it his duty to withdraw. . Such are roughly and briefly some of Paul’s personal opinions on the question of marriage. They seem to be on the whole wise and just. We have made marriage a civil contract, and we bind two persons together for life who never possessed those mutual affinities which are the essence of marriage. The essence of marriage is this—the strongest mutual sympathies and aims that one being can have for another; the bond of marriage is the solemn mutual pledge. Those who are thus married are united by a cord stronger than adamant, finer than the finest web, too weak to fetter, yet too strong to break. 1 Corinthians 7:15-24 Abide in Christliness, whatever the condition in life. "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart," etc. As St. Paul seems desirous that most of his utterances in this chapter should not be regarded as the language of inspiration, but rather that of his own private judgment (for twice he gives the assurance), we may be justified in criticizing his opinions. His opinions here refer to three conditions in man’s existence on earth: matrimonial life, ecclesiastical connection, and domestic slavery; and concerning each of these, he says, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called," Now, if by "calling" here he means that condition of life in which we find ourselves, irrespective of our choice, or into which we have entered by depraved choice, I can scarcely think that his principle here can be accepted. Apply it for example to— I. LIFE. If two persons have entered into this, of all relationships the most solemn, whose temperaments, beliefs, tendencies, tastes, and habits are soon found to be so antipathetic as to produce nothing but constant quarrellings and mutual miseries, are they to "abide" in that state? If Paul means this, we cannot accept his counsel, for such unions are not marriages at all. But he does not mean that, for in the fifteenth and other verses of this chapter he seems to authorize a separation. "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." Chain two vessels together on the ocean, allowing them to be some yards or even feet apart, and in the storm they will soon tear themselves to pieces and go down into the depths. But if you so rivet them together that the twain will be one, they will be mutual helps, and they will stand the tempest. So in marriage. Unless the two souls are so tightly riveted or clasped together by the strongest mutual affection, it is better to separate. If they are only joined by a chain forged by civil or ecclesiastical law, the speedier that chain is snapped asunder the better for both. Philanthropy is justified in promoting the divorce of such, and in this age methinks, it will find plenty of this merciful work to do. II. . "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." Does Paul mean by this—If you find yourself in an ecclesiastical system which has worthless or pernicious rites and ceremonies, abide in it, make no effort to abolish the unspiritual institutions? If you are in a Church which exalts ceremonies and creeds, works for money and by money, and thus misrepresents the sublime genius of the gospel, continue where you are? If he does, we cannot accept his advice. But he does not mean this, for it is opposed, not only to his own teaching, but to his own religious life. III. SLAVERY. "Art thou called being a servant [slave]?" Does Paul mean—If you find yourself the legal property of another, and treated by your master as mere goods and chattels, make no effort to break your bonds and to win your freedom? If he meant this, we repudiate his doctrine; it strikes against those aspirations for liberty, which are as deep as the human soul and as wide as humanity. But he does not mean this, as the history of his life and the genius of his teaching show. What, then, does he mean? The principle, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called," he here lays down in connection with these three things—matrimonial life, ecclesiastical connection, and. domestic slavery. And if he means by "calling," condition of life, it cannot apply to either. But by "calling" Paul does not mean this. "’Calling’ here must not be regarded in the modern sense of profession or condition of life; it is nowhere so used in the New Testament, but always signifies God calling to us (see Romans 11:29; Ephesians 1:18). Continue to be Christians of the kind which God’s call to Christianity made you. If you were circumcised, and so God’s call into the Christian Church made you a circumcised Christian, continue so; don’t do anything which would seem to imply, that some other change in addition to your call was necessary to complete your admission to the Church." Understanding the "calling" here, as I do, to be personal religion, or Christliness, which is elsewhere called the "heavenly calling," Paul’s advice to abide in that state, in whatever relationship or condition we are found, is intelligible and right. In relation to matrimony, it will then mean this—Though you feel your conjugal relation to be such a bondage and misery that you break away from it, sever your connection with your partner, don’t fail to "abide in your calling" or in your religion. Whatever your domestic grievances and storms and separations, hold fast to your religion. Though you lose your wife or your husband, hold fast your religion, your "calling." In relation to ecclesiastical connections, it will mean this—Whether you are "circumcised" or uncircumcised, whether you continue in your old Church connections or break away from them, "abide in your calling," your religion; that is something that is independent of all ecclesiastical institutions and ceremonies, can live with or without them. In relation to domestic slavery, it will mean this—Whether you are satisfied with your bondage, and settle down in it, or struggle to break your fetters and rise into full freedom, "abide in your calling," your religion. Personal Christianity may exist in all conditions of life; it is independent of family relations, independent of ecclesiastical institutions, independent of social distinctions, whether slave or master, rich or poor, and where it exists it should be retained amidst all changes and at all costs. "Abide in your calling." 1 Corinthians 7:22-24 Personal Christianity for the bond and the free. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God." Although the remarks in our previous sketch include these three verses, there is sufficient meaning in them to justify, if not to require, a separate notice. Understanding, as before intimated, the expression, "called in the Lord," and again, "abide with God," to mean personal Christianity, the verses include three general truths. I. That personal Christianity may be possessed BY THOSE IS SLAVERY AS WELL AS BY THOSE IS FREEDOM. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant [a slave], is the Lord’s freeman." Slavery under the Greek and Roman governments was an established institution. In Corinth slaves abounded. Many of these had been converted by the gospel, and were in connection with the Corinthian Church. Naturally enough, some would desire their emancipation, and the more so as Christianity gave them a sublime sense of their manhood. Paul’s advice is not to be too anxious on the subject of their enfranchisement, but rather to be anxious to "abide" in their "calling," their religion. Christianity is for man as man, not for him as rich or poor, erudite or rude, bond or free, but for him as a man; it comes to him as outward nature comes to him, with equal freeness and fitness for all. The physical, civil, or ecclesiastical condition of a man, therefore, in this life is no excuse for his not becoming a Christian: though bound in chains, his soul is free—free to think, to resolve, to worship, and it is with the soul that Christianity has to do. Hence religion in slavery is not an uncommon fact. Slaves were members of many of the first Churches, and religion reigned amongst a large number of those who were held in bondage in the Southern States of America. II. That the possession of personal Christianity, whether by the bond or the free, INVESTS MAN WITH THE HIGHEST LIBERTY. He is the "Lord’s freeman," whoever he is; the Lord has emancipated his soul, however firmly manacled his bodily limbs. All the inner chains that bound his soul, to mere earthly influence, fleshly pleasures, and sinful pursuits, are snapped asunder, and he revels in the liberty wherewith "Christ makes his people free." What freedom like this freedom from the dominion and consequences of moral wrong? This is the "glorious liberty of the children of God." "He is the freeman whom the truth makes free, And all are slaves besides." III. That the possession of the highest liberty LESSENS NO MAN’S MIGHTY TO SERVE CHRIST. "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." All creatures are the property of the Creator. No creature owns itself. The highest angel has nothing in him that he can call his own. Man is not merely the property of God on the ground of creatureship, but on the ground of Christ’s interposition. "Ye are not your own: ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." This being the case, however free and independent of men, you must ever be the servant of Christ; serve him heartily, faithfully, loyally, and forever. His service is perfect freedom, his service is heaven. . See how Christianity is to work out necessary reformations for the world, not by force but by influence, not from without but from within, by working from the centre to the circumference. "There are," says F. W. Robertson, "two mistakes which are often made upon this subject: one is the error of supposing that outward institutions are unnecessary for the formation Of character, and the other that of supposing that they are all that is required to form the human soul. If we rightly understand the duty of a Christian man, it is this—to make his brethren free inwardly and outwardly: first inwardly, so that they may become masters of themselves, rulers of their passions, having the power of self rule and self control; and then outwardly, so that there may be every power and opportunity of developing the inward life; in the language of the prophet, "to break the rod of oppression, and let the oppressed go free." "Who are the free? They who have scorn’d the tyrant and his rod, And bow’d in worship unto none but God; They who have made the conqueror’s glory dim, Unchain’d in soul though manacled in limb, Unwarp’d by prejudice, unawed by wrong, Friends to the weak, and fearless of the strong; They who could change not with the changing hour, The self same man in peril and in power; True to the law of right, as warmly prone To grant another’s as maintain their own; Foes of oppression wheresoe’er it be; These are the proudly free." BY C. Views concerning marriage: the institution in itself and in relation to circumstances, obligations, and duties. We have seen what a meeting place Corinth was for the schools of philosophy and Judaism—a sort of metropolitan Coliseum, in which the gladiators of intellect were in unceasing combat. Neither Rome, nor Athens, nor Jerusalem, afforded such a field of contention as this proud and sensual city, where worldly culture and elegance existed side by side with commercial wealth and luxury. Now, we know what occurs when the waters of the Gulf Stream, bearing northward its immense store of heat from the Gulf of Mexico, come in contact off Newfoundland with the Polar currents, and what a vast bank of fog rises from the condensation of warm vapour in a cold atmosphere. This may symbolize what was going on in Corinth at this time. A century before, the world had been agitated by the ideas and schemes of Julius Caesar, the foremost man of his age, and quite as great a revolutionizer of men’s ways of thinking as of political institutions. Imperialism was now in the ascendancy, and the nations were ostensibly a nation—a colossal Rome. But the quickening of thought remained, and this inured to the advantage of Christianity. There was not only external tranquillity, but the precise kind of tranquillity which St. Paul needed; and, though local disturbances often arose and at times violent commotions, yet the Roman law was his best earthly friend. At Corinth he had taught and preached and founded a Church. For three years he had been absent, and, meantime, what collisions had set in, and, amidst the surging to and fro of opinions and prejudices and enmities, what disorders had been tolerated! Over everything and everywhere was felt the chilly mist, a twilight to some, a midnight to others, a bewildering gloom to all. This, however, was providential. Teachers must remand pupils to themselves. Such a new and singular force as St. Paul was in the world—such pre-eminently as he had shown himself in Corinth by his opposition to the views of Greeks and Jews, and by his uncompromising zeal in behalf of the distinctive tenets of the gospel—must be suffered to do its work independently of his presence and immediate oversight. And we now see in this chapter, more fully than before, what conflicts of intellect and passion were in progress, what strange alienations had transpired, and how far gone many of his disciples were from the path in which he had expected their feet to tread. Had anything escaped this billowy sweep of strife? It was even dashing against the institution of marriage, which men had agreed to honour as the most important and the most venerable of earthly interests. Incest had been tolerated in the Church, and St. Paul had found it necessary to argue on the highest religious ground against the sensual evils of fornication. Of late we have heard much concerning a scientific basis of morality. If, however, we follow St. Paul, who never contradicts history, we see that even enlightened instincts cannot be trusted when withdrawn from the guidance and support of the Holy Spirit. Men may theorize as they please. One thing, nevertheless, is certain, and that one thing is, that whenever practical men deal with social questions, they accept St. Paul as the thinker of humanity. Even instincts need God to control them. Proceeding to discuss the questions submitted to him by the Corinthians, he begins this chapter by considering marriage in that aspect which was under debate just then at Corinth. Marriage in the abstract is only in view so far as recurrence is necessary, in the conduct of the argument, to the fundamental principles inseparable from the relation. He treats it, in view of existing circumstances, as a matter to be decided by expediency, each one judging what is best. Whether the unmarried shall be married or not must be determined by themselves in the light of their personal organization, and by the indications of Providence and the Spirit. Freedom within the bounds of law is freedom to deny the use of lawful rights and privileges—so St. Paul had just argued—and marriage comes under this provision. But here as everywhere, "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," and so reverential is he in his attitude towards humanity, that in the application of expediency to marriage, he will go no further than offer advice. Under the circumstances, it was the only proper course for him to adopt. No sympathy could he feel with the reaction against marriage in itself, which had set in more than a century before among the Romans, and, while an effect, was also a cause of the widespread demoralization of the age. Doubtless the cares of a family in that troubled period, and the supposed nearness of Christ’s advent, had their influence on his mind, and yet he is well aware that, in the lowest view of marriage, it was a protection against vice. Too well he knew the evils which were cursing society because of the popular freethinking on this subject. For five hundred and twenty years not a divorce had been known in Rome, but we may form some idea of the effect of class wealth and debauching leisure if we recall the facts that in the last days of the republic, Cato of Utica, a religious fanatic in his way, had separated from his wife because a friend wished to marry her and, after his friend’s death, had made her his wife again. "On the whole," says Mr. Lecky, "it is probable that the Roman matron was from the earliest period a name of honour; that the beautiful sentence of a jurisconsult of the empire, who defined marriage as a lifelong fellowship of all Divine and human rights, expressed most faithfully the feelings of the people; and that female virtue shone in every age conspicuously in Roman biographies." But a deplorable change had set in, such a change that Augustus had found it necessary to take measures for the encouragement of marriage. Nowhere was this corruption more rife than in Corinth, that only repeated on a larger scale the social enormities daily witnessed at Baiae, Herculaneum, and Pompeii. Now, in this state of free thinking, with its attendant wickedness, St. Paul’s duty was not without embarrassment. Towards the evil itself and its utter grossness his course was plain enough. On the other hand, there were questions of casuistry to be considered. Marriage as a safeguard of virtue, marriage as a union of hearts, marriage as the highest type of human oneness, marriage in its spiritual import—all involved in it as a Divine institution and as the basis, vitality, security, of all other institutions—this was realized then and always in his apostleship. But there were pure and honest minded persons among his Corinthian converts, who were troubled by doubts and misgivings, and to whom duty was by no means clear. The instincts of nature had something to say, end their voice was entitled to a hearing. And, at the same time, prudence and conscience were not to be dogmatically silenced. St. Paul saw what to do, and he did it. He was profoundly sensitive to principles, he was thoroughly sympathetic with persons, and his judgment was the product of a wise consideration of gospel truth and of the facts at Corinth with which he was dealing. There is an ideal view to which he refers in the opening verse of this chapter, but the practical view in contrast with it is that, in order to be guarded against temptation and escape falling into the worst of social sins, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." For, as Neander says, "we must not overlook the fact that Paul is here, not treating of marriage in general, but only in its relation to the condition of things at Corinth, where he feared the effect of moral prejudices concerning celibacy." Nor does he hesitate to say, "I would that all men were even as myself," and yet he qualifies this by stating that "every man hath his proper gift of God," a gift of grace, "one after this manner, and another after that;" so that, whether married or single, the "gift of God" must be recognized, since, as Bengel remarks, "that which in the natural man is a natural habit, becomes in the saints a gift of grace."—L. 1 Corinthians 7:12-28 Mixed marriages. "To the rest," those cases in which one party was a believer and the other not, "speak I, not the Lord." Yet, while St. Paul does not claim to expound and apply a formal law, he must not be considered as abnegating for the time his apostolic office and giving an opinion simply personal. The decision pronounced here is a very weighty one, and obviously it is an utterance of God’s will. "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, what shall he do? That depends on the wife herself. The initiative step is not with the husband: "If she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." So of the wife with respect to her husband. Obviously, then, personal will is contemplated, and the difference between marriage where both parties are Christians, and marriage where only one party is a Christian, lies in the fact that, in the latter instance, the continuance of the relationship is contingent on the adaptiveness of the parties each to the other and their ready disposition to be a mutual source of happiness. The will of the Lord is that they keep together, and they should endeavour to fulfil this will, but if controversies exist and the true ends of marriage are not only not met, but cannot be met, then at the option of the wife, the husband may put her away. The converse holds good, so that in the case of either party, individual will may interpose a bar to the continued union. "God hath called us to peace." In such a solemn act, no wilfulness, no passion, no worldly and selfish motives, must have place. "Peace," and "peace" only, can warrant the step. And in connection with "peace" he presents two views, one antecedent, the other subsequent, to the statement, that "a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." A Christian husband or wife sanctifies the marriage tie, and accordingly it was pleasing to God that the relationship should be perpetuated. "I am not the rose," says a Persian proverb, "but I live with the rose, and am therefore sweet" What grace comes to us through the tender associations of life, much of it unconscious, silent and secret, asking no leave, provoking no resistance, floating into us on the air and mingling with our blood, sweetening and purifying we know not how, and all the more precious because our agency is for a while quietly set aside, and the Spirit of the blessed Jesus asserts his Divine supremacy! "Children" too! The declaration is strong and unequivocal: "They are holy" Age was before the Fall; childhood came after; and childhood had net been possible but for the promise of the "Seed of the woman" antedating her other offspring. "Of such is the kingdom of heaven. Baptism does not create this holiness, but acknowledges its existence, and testifies, on the part of God and on behalf of the Church, that "your children" are in Christ and therefore "holy." What a motive this, that the marriage relation in these "mixed marriages" should be maintained! What an appeal to instinct, to memory and hope, to all the truest and noblest sentiments which are the strength and stay of home! All the grandest influences of Christianity come from the heart of Christ to our hearts; and whenever intellect is perplexed and doubts arise and logic confesses its weakness, we fall back on the great, sure, primal instincts of the heart, and work thence and upward into light and assurance. "Your heart shall live forever," and because it shall "live forever," it lives now amidst intellectual conflicts and bewildering questions with an inherent testimony to Christ and his truth such as could only spring from the immovable consciousness of its mortal birthright. Turn now to the subsequent statement contained in the sixteenth verse. Hatred and contentions may arise; if incurable, "peace" must be had by separation. But St. Paul is exceedingly anxious to prevent a severance of the marriage tie, and hence appeals to the believing husband or wife to continue in the holy relationship in view of the possible salvation of the unbelieving partner. By some learned men this interpretation is contested. According to their view, St. Paul meant to express uncertainty, to throw doubt on the sacred utility of the marriage union with regard to its prospective bearing on the salvation of the unbelieving party, and virtually to advise the believer to look after his or her own spiritual interest. This is not like St. Paul. It is not in accord with his generous solicitude to impress upon the parties the sanctity of their union. It is at variance with the declaration that Christianity recognizes the sanctification of the unbelieving party by the believing. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 The relation of lore to knowledge with respect to the question of eating idol offerings. 1 Corinthians 8:1 As touching things offered unto idols. This was doubtless one of the questions on which the Corinthians had asked for advice. We judge from the tone of the questions to which St. Paul here replies that the majority of the Corinthians, being liberal in their views, held that it was a matter of perfect indifference to eat idol offerings; and that, in acting upon this conviction, they contemptuously overrode the convictions of those who could not help thinking that when they did so they committed a sin. The practical decision of the question was one of immense importance. If it were unlawful under any circumstances to eat idol offerings, then the Gentile convert was condemned to a life of Levitism almost as rigorous as that of the Jew. The distinction between clean and unclean meats formed an insuperable barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Wherever they lived, Jews required a butcher of their own, who had been trained in the rules and ceremonies which enabled him to decide and to ensure that all the meat which they ate should be clean (tahor), not unclean (tame). They could touch no meat which was not certified as free from legal blemish or ceremonial pollution by the affixed leaden seal on which was engraved the word "lawful" (kashar). But Gentiles had always been accustomed to buy meat in the markets. Now, much of this meat consisted of remnants of animals slain as sacrifices, after the priests had had their share. So completely was this case, that the word "to sacrifice" had come to mean "to kill" in Hellenistic Greek. Theophrastus, in his ’Moral Sketches,’ defines the close-handed man as one who, at his daughter’s wedding feast, sells all the victims offered except the sacred parts; and the shameless person as one who, after offering a sacrifice, salts the victim for future use, and goes out to dine with someone else. The market was therefore stocked with meat which had been connected with idol sacrifices. The Christian could never be sure about any meat which he bought if he held it wrong to partake of these offerings. Further than this, he would—especially if he were poor—feel it a great privation to be entirely cut off from the public feasts (sussitia), which perhaps were often his only chance of eating meat at all; and also to be forbidden to take a social meal with any of his Gentile neighbours or relatives. The question was therefore a "burning" one. It involved much of the comfort and brightness of ancient social life (Thucydides, 2.38; Aristotle, ’Eth.,’ 7.9, § 5; Cicero, ’Off.,’ 2.16; Livy, 8.32, etc.). It will be seen that St. Paul treats it with consummate wisdom and tenderness. His liberality of thought shows itself in this—that he sides with those who took the strong, the broad, the common sense view, that sin is not a mechanical matter, and that sin is not committed where no sin is intended. He neither adopts the ascetic view nor does he taunt the inquirers with the fact that the whole weight of their personal desires and interests would lead them to decide the question in their own favour. On the other hand, he has too deep a sympathy with the weak to permit their scruples to be overruled with a violence which would wound their consciences. While he accepts the right principle of Christian freedom, he carefully guards against its abuse. It might have been supposed that, as a Jew, and one who had been trained as a "Pharisee of Pharisees," St. Paul would have sided with those who forbade any participation in idol offerings. Jewish rabbis referred to passages like Exodus 34:15; Numbers 25:2; Psalms 106:28; Daniel 1:8; Tobit 1:10, 11. Rabbi Ishmael, in ’Avoda Zara,’ said that a Jew might not even go to a Gentile funeral, even if he took with him his own meat and his own servants. The law of the drink offering forbids a Jew to drink of a cask if anyone has even touched a goblet drawn from it with the presumed intention of offering little to the gods. Besides this, the Synod of Jerusalem had mentioned the eating of idol offerings as one of the four things which they forbade to Gentile converts, who were only bound by the Noachian precepts (Acts 15:29). But St. Paul judged the matter independently by his own apostolic authority. The decision of the synod had only had a local validity trod was inapplicable to such a community as that of Corinth. St. Paul had to suffer cruel misrepresentation and bitter persecution as the consequence of this breadth of view (Acts 21:21-24); but that would not be likely to make him shrink from saying the truth. This treatment of the subject closely resembles that which he subsequently adopted in Romans 14:1-23. We know that we all have knowledge. It is very probable that this is a semi-ironical quotation of the somewhat conceited remark which had occurred in the letter from Corinth. No doubt there was a sense in which it might (theoretically) be regarded as true; but it was St. Paul’s duty both to disparage this kind of knowledge and to show that, after all, there were some among them who did not possess it (Romans 14:7). Knowledge puffeth up. The brief energetic clause, "Knowledge puffeth up; love buildeth up," shows the strong feeling with which the apostle enters on the discussion. There is a wide distance between theoretic knowledge and heavenly wisdom (James 3:13-18). "He who is full is rich; he who is puffed up is empty" (Stanley). "The first person puffed up was the devil" (Beza). Charity edifieth. There is no reason whatever for the rendering of ἀγαπὴ sometimes by "love," sometimes by "charity." The fondness for variation which led King James’s translators to do so only obscures the identity of thought which prevails among all the apostles respecting the absolute primacy of love as the chief sphere and test of the Christian life. Edifieth. Helps to build us up as stones in the spiritual temple (James 3:9; Romans 14:19; Ephesians 4:12). "If because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love" (Romans 14:15). 1 Corinthians 8:2 If any man think that he knoweth anything. Humility is the test of true knowledge, and love the inevitable factor in all Christian knowledge. The conceit of knowledge is usually the usurped self assertion of an imaginary infallibility. We only know "in part," and our knowledge, having at the best a purely relative value, is destined to vanish away (1 Corinthians 13:8). As he ought to know. True knowledge has in it an element of moral obligation, and saintliness is knowledge and supersedes the necessity for formal knowledge. Love is knowledge which has passed into heavenly wisdom. The student may say to the mystic, "All that you see I know;" but the mystic may retort," All that you know, I see." 1 Corinthians 8:3 If any man love God, the same is known of him. We should have expected the sentence to end "the same knows him." St. Paul purposely alters the symmetry of the phrase. He did not wish to use any terms which would foster the already overgrown conceit of knowledge which was inflating the minds of his Corinthian converts. Further than this, he felt that "God knoweth them that are his" (2 Timothy 3:1-17:19), but that, since we are finite and God is infinite, we cannot measure the arm of God by the finger of man. Hence, although it is quite true that "Every one that loveth is begotten of God and knoweth God" (1 John 4:7), yet in writing to those whose love was very imperfect, St. Paul deliberately chooses the passive form of expression as in Galatians 4:9, "Now that ye have known God or are rather known of God." 1 Corinthians 8:4 We know that an idol is nothing in the world. After his brief but pregnant digression on the nature of true knowledge, he returns to these questions, and probably once more quotes their own words. They had given this reason for open and public indifference with respect to meat offered to idols. With respect to idols, three views were possible to Christians: either (1) that they were "demons"—the spirits of deified dead men; or (2) that they were evil spirits—a favorite view among the Jews (via 1 Corinthians 10:20; Deuteronomy 32:17; 2 Chronicles 11:15; Psalms 106:37; Revelation 9:20); or (3) that they were merely. That there is none other God but one. This belief is the signature of Judaism, according to their daily and oft repeated shema (Deuteronomy 6:4, etc.). 1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods. The verse is a limitation of the phrase which perhaps he had quoted from their letter. There are, indeed, demons, and there are created things, like the host of heaven and the powers of nature, which are called gods and pass for gods. Gods many, and lords many. Perhaps a passing allusion to the use of elohim, gods, for men in great positions, and to the habitual deification of Roman emperors even in their lifetime. The title "Augustus," which they all had borne, was to Jewish ears "the name of blasphemy" (Revelation 13:1), implying that they were to be objects of reverence. Indeed, the worship of the Caesars was, in that strange epoch of mingled atheism and superstition, almost the only sincere cult that was left. 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us. The "but" means "nevertheless." We Christians only regard these "gods," "lords," and "idols" as nonexistent, except so far as they correspond to created and material things. The Father. Not only by creation and preservation, but much more by redemption and adoption, and as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 8:15; Galatians 3:26). Of whom are all things. All things, even including the gods of the heathen, "visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all firings were created by him and for him,… and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16, Colossians 1:17). And we in him; rather, into or for him. He is the End and Goal as well as the Author of our existence. One Lord. The only real "Lord," though the Roman emperors often took the title, and one of them—Domitian—insisted on the use of the expression, "Dominus Deusque noster" ("Our Lord and God"), as applied to himself (Suetonius. ’Domit.,’ 13). By whom are all things. "By whom," as the Agent of creation and redemption (John 1:3, John 1:10; Hebrews 1:2). And we by him. "By him,"as the Mediator and the Giver of life (Romans 11:36, "Of him, and to him, and through him are all things"). 1 Corinthians 8:7 There is not in every man that knowledge. A correction of the somewhat haughty assertion of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 8:1. With conscience of the idol; literally, by their consciousness of the idol. In eating meat offered to any god whom they had been accustomed to worship, "being used to the idol," as the Revised Version renders it (reading "by familiarity with," συνηθεία for συνειδῄσει) cannot dismiss from their minds the palatal sense that, in eating the idol sacrifice, they are participating in the idol worship. Their conscience being weak is defiled. Being Gentiles who till recently had been idolaters, the apparent participation in their old idolatry wore to them the semblance of apostacy. The thing which they were eating was, in its own essence, indifferent or clean, but since they could not help esteeming it unclean, they defied a conscientious doubt, and so their conduct, not being of faith, became sinful (Romans 14:14, Romans 14:23). St Paul admits that this was the sign of a conscience intellectually weak; but the weakness was the result of past habit and imperfect enlightenment, and it was entitled to forbearance and respect. 1 Corinthians 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God; rather, will not recommend us. God would think none the better of them for eating idol sacrifices, even though they asserted thereby a freedom which was the reward of clear insight. This verse will serve to show why "fasting" is nowhere rigidly enjoined on Christians. If fasting is a help to our spiritual life, then we should practise it, but with the distinct apprehension of the truth that God will think none the better of us merely because we eat less, but only if the fasting be a successful means of making us more pure and more loving. If the Bible had been in the hands of the people during the Middle Ages, this verse would have rendered impossible the idle superstition that to eat meat in Lent was one of the deadliest sins, or that there was any merit whatever in the Lenten fast except as a means of self improvement and self mastery. This verse says expressly, "We lose nothing by not eating; we gain nothing by eating." 1 Corinthians 8:9 Lest this liberty of yours become a stumbling block; rather, this power or right of yours. To lead any one to do that which he thinks to be wrong is to place a stone of stumbling in his way, even if we do not think the act to be wrong. For we make men worse if by our example we teach them to act in contradiction of their conscience. "Let your motto be forbearance, not privilege, and your watchword charity, not knowledge. Never flaunt your knowledge, seldom use your privilege" (Evans). 1 Corinthians 8:10 Sit at meat in the [an] idol’s temple. To recline at a banquet in the temple of Poseidon or Aphrodite, especially in such a place as Corinth, was certainly an extravagant assertion of their right to Christian liberty. It was indeed a "bowing in the house of Rimmon" which could hardly fail to be misunderstood. The very word "idoleum" should have warned them. It was a word not used by Gentiles, and invented by believers in the one God, to avoid the use of "temple" (ναὸς) in connection with idols. The Greeks spoke of the "Athenaeum," or "Apolloneum," or "Posideum;" but Jews only of an "idoleum"—a word which (like other Jewish designations of heathen forms of worship) involved a bitter taunt. For the very word eidolon meant a shadowy, fleeting, unreal image. Perhaps the Corinthian Christians might excuse their boldness by pleading that all the most important feasts and social gatherings of the ancients were held in temples. Be emboldened; rather, be edified. The expression is a very bold paronomasia. This "edification of ruin" would be all the more likely to ensue because self interest would plead powerfully in the same direction. A little compromise and complicity, a little suppression of opinion and avoidance of antagonism to things evil, a little immoral acquiescence, would have gone very far in those days to save Christians from incessant persecution. Yet no Christian could be "edified" into a more dangerous course than that of defying and defiling his own tender conscience. 1 Corinthians 8:11 Shall the weak brother perish. The fact that he was "weak" constituted a fresh appeal to pity. It made him more emphatically one of "Christ’s little ones," and Christ had pronounced a heavy malediction on all who caused such to offend. But if there is this "ruinous edification" upon the trembling and sandy foundation of a weak conscience, what could possibly follow but a gradual destruction? The tense is the present (the praesens futurascens), "and he who is weak, in thy knowledge, is perishing"—"the brother for whose sake Christ died." The order of the original often gives a force to the words, which it is difficult to reproduce, as here. The word "is perishing" becomes very emphatic by being placed first in the sentence. "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died" (Romans 14:16). Perish; terrificum verbum. Clarius. He could use no word which would more effectually point his warning. 1 Corinthians 8:12 And wound their weak conscience; rather, and in smiting their conseience which is weak. "What," asks St. Chrysostom, "can be more ruthless than a man who strikes one who is sick?" Was it not a cowardly exercise of liberty to strike the conscience of the defenceless? It is another form of "defiling" (1 Corinthians 8:7) the conscience, but brings out the cruelty of such conduct. Ye sin against Christ. Because Christ lives and suffers in the persons of the least of his little ones (Matthew 25:40, Matthew 25:45; Romans 12:5, etc.). 1 Corinthians 8:13 Make my brother to offend. "Make to offend" is, in the original, the verb "scandalize." The word for "meat" means any kind of food. Flesh. The particular subject of discussion here. "I will," says St, Paul, "abstain from flesh altogether rather than by eating it lead a weaker brother into sin." While the world standeth. The same expression is elsewhere rendered "forever." Literally it means to the aeon. St. Paul is often led into these impetuous expressions of the depth of his feelings. The reader will find the whole question argued in s similar spirit in Romans 14:19-22. Lest; namely, in the case supposed. In reality there was no need for taking so severe a pledge of abstinence. 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 A twofold knowledge. "Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to knew. But if any man love God, the same is known of him." Here a new subject is introduced. Paul had already touched on four difficult points in connection with the Corinthian Church—points on which it seems some of the members had written to him for information. One referred to matrimony, another to ecclesiastical ritualism, another to slavery, and another to the eating of meats that were offered to idols. Meats used for sacrificial purposes in the heathen temples were, according to custom, offered in Corinth for sale as food. In that Church there were some who had scruples about the eating of such meat, and some who had not. Paul’s counsel was sought on that subject, and in this chapter he supplies it. In this sketch I shall confine my attention to the twofold knowledge to which he here refers. I. A PRIDE . "Knowledge puffeth up." By this knowledge he means, I presume: 1. A knowledge that is merely intellectual—a stock of mental conceptions concerning the various objects brought under attention: they might be material or spiritual, those referring to body or those referring to mind, to the creature or to the Creator. Now, such knowledge, even though it be of a theological and ecclesiastical character, tends to self conceit. 2. A knowledge that is essentially superficial. Mere intellectual knowledge has a tendency to generate pride, and the more superficial that knowledge the stronger its tendency. The men who go furthest into the essence of things, take the widest view of the domain of knowledge, enter furthest into the arcana of nature, will be the least disposed to self elation. The greater the scientist the more humble of his class. II. A MAN . "Charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him." It appears from this: 1. That "charity," or love to God, is the true knowledge. Love is the life and soul of all science. Mere intellectual knowledge, however great, is a tree without sap, without moral beauty or strengthening fruit; love is the root of the universe, and you must have love rightly to interpret it. 2. That this true knowledge builds up the soul. It "edifieth." It builds it up, not as a house is built up, by putting dead stones and timber together, but as the oak is built up, by the world appropriating force of its own life, compelling outward nature to deepen its roots, extend its bulk, multiply its branches, and push it higher towards the heavens. 3. That this true knowledge ensures the approval of God. "If any man love God, the same is known of him." The word "known" must be taken in the sense of approval. In the last day, Christ will say to those who have not this love, "Depart from me: I never knew you," that is, never approved of you. This love for God in the heart converts the tree of intellectual knowledge into the tree of life. 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 Aspects of responsibility. "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols," etc. This paragraph suggests three general remarks. I. THAT THE MORAL OF ALL MEN ARE BY THEIR TO THE ONE GOD AND HIS SON. "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." There are many objects in the world that men call gods, and treat as gods, but they are really nothing, their existence imposes on them no moral obligation. There is One, however, and only One, from your relation to whom there grows up all moral obligations. "One God." Monotheism is demon strated by all nature, by all consciences, as well as by the Bible. 1. He is a Father. "The Father, of whom," etc. The Creator of the universe, but the Father of spirits; spirits are his offspring. 2. He is the Source of all things. "Of whom are all things." The mighty universe and all it contains are but streams from him, the Fountain of life. 3. He is our End. "We in him," or "unto him," more properly. The supreme End of our existence and Object of our love. In connection with him there is another, "one Lord Jesus Christ." This one Lord Jesus Christ was not only his creative Agent, "by whom are all things," but his redemptive Agent, the Mediator between God and men. And we by him," or "through him." As Christians, we are what we are through him. Now, the will of this one God, as coming through Christ to us, we are morally bound to fulfil. An obligation this which not only can never be abrogated, but never modified by any circumstances, age, or revolution. II. THAT WHAT MIGHT BE WRONG FOR ONE MAN TO DO MIGHT NOT BE SO FOR ANOTHER. The apostle teaches that those in the Corinthian Church who had reached the conviction that an idol was nothing in the world, and that consequently there was no harm to them personally in eating of the sacrifices that were offered to idols, would commit no wrong in doing so. The meat itself had not been corrupted because it had been offered to idols, it was as good as any other meat, and as their consciences were not against it there would be no wrong in them participating in it as food. On the other hand, those who had a superstitious idea that they ought not to touch the meat they saw the priests feeding upon in heathen temples, would commit wrong in using it as food. "Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." The right or the wrong depended on each man’s conscience. That which is against a man’s conscience may not be against the eternal law of right, but is against his own sense of right, and therefore should be avoided; and that which is in accord with a man’s conscience, though it may not be in accord with the principles of absolute rectitude, would not be wrong to him. Though sincerity is not a virtue, it is always relatively binding; insincerity is always an absolute sin. Thus what is relatively wrong to one man is not so to another. Here is the principle, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Therefore, "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." III. THAT TO OFFEND THE OF A GOOD MAN, HOWEVER WEAK, IS A WRONG IN ALL. "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." Respect for the weak consciences of good men: 1. May require self denial on our part. A truly enlightened and healthy minded Christian may feel at perfect liberty to do that from which a weak minded disciple would recoil with horror. The apostle, for example, might have felt at perfect liberty to sit down in heathen temples, and feast on meat that had been offered to idols, for his great soul had risen up out of the letter and form of religion, concerning meats, and drinks, and ceremonies, and statutory laws, and exulted in that "liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free." Therefore any restriction in such matters would involve more or less self denial, and this Paul willingly accepted, rather than "offend" a "weak brother." On this principle it becomes all to act. Men who have reached the higher stages of Christly life may feel at liberty to do many things; but if they are surrounded by good people whose consciences are in the strongest antagonism to all such things, it is their duty to deny themselves of such liberty. 2. Is urged on the strongest considerations. (1) The lack of it may inflict serious injuries on the weak. (a) It may "become a stumbling block to them that are weak." This means, I presume, an occasion of sin. Their faith may be shaken, and they may become apostates; and, more, (b) they may be "emboldened," encouraged to do the wrong. Without your moral strength, imitation of you will be pernicious. (c) It may ruin them. "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" Christ died for all, tasted death for every man; yet his death, it seems, does not necessarily ensure the salvation of any. What a solemn thought, that the conduct even of an advanced Christian may lead to the spiritual ruin of others! (2) The lack of it is a sin both against the weak brethren and against Christ. "When ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." 3. Is exemplified in the sublime resolve of the apostle. "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Here is benevolent expediency, the strongest ground on which the temperance reformation can be wisely and effectively advocated. In this sublime utterance you have the self sacrificing and magnanimous spirit of the gospel. Give up all rather than ruin souls. Such an utterance as this is characteristic of Paul. "But I could wish that I myself were accursed for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh." . Where, in the state or in the Church, can you find a man who approaches in spirit the sublime philanthropy of Paul? In the state we have men who call themselves reformers, who grow eloquent in proclaiming the rights of man and the glories of liberty; but can you find either in their speeches or deeds the matchless spirit of philanthropy, beaming and booming in these words of the apostle?—"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." Are not our reformers, alas! more or less traders and hirelings? Where even in our Churches do we find preachers aglow with this unconquerable love for man? And yet this is Christianity, this is what the world wants, what it must have ere it can be morally redeemed. "There never did," says Sir Walter Scott., "and never will, exist anything permanently noble and excellent in a character which was a stranger to the exercise of resolute self denial. Teach self denial, and make its practice pleasurable, and you create for the world a destiny more sublime than ever issued from the brain of the wildest dreamer." BY C. Strength and weakness; knowledge and love. The discussions contained in this chapter relate to "things offered unto idols." Bear in mind that idolatry was not then simply a religious system, but a system immensely extended and covering a corresponding surface of political, social, and business interests. At all points it touched individuals and families, and was connected with feasts, entertainments, and etiquette. "Most public entertainments and many private meals were more or less remotely the accompaniments of sacrifice" (Stanley). How far might knowledge assert itself and put on independency? What was the true use of expediency? And what the offices of conscience? And to what extent must the strong be tender and considerate towards the weak? Two parties existed on this subject in Corinth: the one that rested on Christian liberty, and, believing that "an idol is nothing in the world," demonstrated its adhesion to this belief by buying and eating meats sacrificed to idols, and even went to the excess of attending the feasts "in the idol’s temple;" the other party looked upon such conduct with abhorrence. If, now, Christianity had been a mere scheme of human thought, an elaborate philosophy, a poetic inspiration, it is obvious that no such earnest dispute could have arisen. If, again, St. Paul had contemplated the subject on the ground only of abstract and theoretical principles, following out the logic that "an idol is nothing," and claiming the full freedom guaranteed by the assumption, a very different chapter from this would have been written. But see how he approaches the matter. His first step is to check the liberalists, and he does it efficaciously, for he convicts them of pride and recklessness on the side of intellect. Intellect he does not condemn, but its wrong use. His condemnation is founded on the fact that the intellect arrogantly claims to be the mind, to be the equivalent of the man himself, and, consequently, shuts off the recognition of anything except knowledge. St. Paul’s position at the outset is, "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." It is vigorously stated and is accompanied by evident impulse. The "knowledge" referred to is knowledge isolated from its rightful and essential associations, the knowledge of a truth, and yet without its checks and balances—an engine lacking safety valve and governor. No matter how valuable the knowledge may be in itself; call it insight, call it what you please; if it abuse itself in its use, it loses its worth. Selfishness vitiates its excellence, and makes it doubly harmful, pernicious to the possessor, and obstructive of benefit to him on whom it acts objectively. Men are prone to exaggerate knowledge as knowledge. They say, "Knowledge is power." So it is, but whether the power be for good or evil depends on the man behind the knowledge. Think of the intimate connection between the intellect and the body, and how much more it is affected thereby than other portions of the mind; think how tangled it often is in the nerves, and imprisoned in the cells of the brain,—and can you wonder at the distrust that wise men have of its functions, unless controlled, and that sternly, by principle and sentiment? What subtle poisons creep into the blood and thence into thought! A slight imprudence in eating, a bad dream last night, a household worry or a business vexation, disturbed breathing or accelerated heart action, and the intellect is warped and enfeebled. Do what we may to curtail the evils, infirmities cling to all its activities. Yet much may be done, and it is done in no other way than that suggested by the apostle. "Charity [love] edifieth [buildeth up]." By this he means that the heart must he under the influence of grace, and thus inspire the intellect so that it may be delivered from its selfishness and especially its self conceit. And so fully has Christianity indoctrinated all our best thinkers with this idea, that they have come to believe that wisdom is the conjoint product of right thought and true feeling. "If any man love God, the same is known of him," and the knowledge here predicated of God has a reflex agency on the man’s knowledge. Instead of being "puffed up," instead of an inmoderate and unjustifiable use of his Christian freedom, instead of a vaunting display of his superiority to prejudice and ignorance, he is regardful of the scruples of others, and, while aware of the difference between them and himself, turns the difference to the account of humility and forbearance. The idol is nothing, hut its nothingness is no reason for insensibility to the claims of weak brethren on his manly sympathies. For the great doctrine of "one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him," is so profoundly realized, that human brotherhood is its complement in his character and conduct. "One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him," the Mediator of the natural universe, in whose sovereignty all laws and institutions and objects have their reason and end; the Mediator of the Spiritual universe, who has consummated the manifestation of humanity in the person and work of the Holy Ghost;—this Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ of God and Lord over all, has so embodied the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of humanity in his own incarnation and office, that henceforth the grandeur of the one is the strength and joy and glory of the other. St. Paul loses no opportunity to enforce this supreme truth. Does he argue in behalf of Christian liberty? Here is his basis. Does he plead for expediency? Here is his warrant. Does he harmonize them as coexisting and cooperating sentiments? They are mutually supporting because their possessor has the knowledge which comes from God in Christ. From this sublime height he is never long absent. Thitherward is he always tending, nor will he decide any question, whatever its bearings, with a judgment detached from the great truth Christ taught: "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." All, however, have not this knowledge. The insight of some is partial and confused, "whose Christian faith is not yet so emancipated from the religious convictions of their old heathen state, and who are still in the bonds of their former conscience, moulded by heathen ideas" (Dr. Kling). Having this "conscience of the idol," looking upon the idol as a reality, and forbidden by his conscience to eat the flesh offered to an idol, the "weak brother" is offended. The meat itself is a matter of indifference, nor are you the "better" or the "worse" for the mere act of eating. A grave question, however, lies at the back of the action. It concerns "this liberty of yours," and the spirit actuating your mind in doing this thing. "Take heed;" this liberty may degenerate into a haughty self valuation, may become a "stumbling block," and may induce the "weak brother" to imitate your example, and thus sacrifice his conscience under your influence. Though the conscience be weak, it is conscience; it is his; its authority over him is sacred; obey it he must. Worse than all, your conduct, taking effect upon him, may imperil the salvation of a man, "for whom Christ died." Enlighten his conscience all you can; hell) to make it truthful as well as sincere; hut, meantime, "take heed" lest sympathy and conventionality embolden him to err. "Weak" now, you will only weaken him the mere if your liberty mislead him. The only element in him out of which strength can grow is the conscience. Use your freedom so as to liberate, not to enslave, this highest authority in our nature. Use your knowledge to illuminate, not to darken, this divinest of all the organs personal to the soul, through which truth reaches the man. Use your Church relation to build up and not pull down your brother, that you may be a coworker with God and with his conscience in making him a "temple of the Holy Ghost." Then comes the utterance of great heartedness—the declaration that he will eat no such meat forever if it make his brother to offend. This was no sudden effervescence of sentimentality. It was genuine sentiment. It was organic to the man’s nature. Impulse was strong because conscience was stronger. The current of feeling was no cataract leaping from a rocky bed into rocky depths, and dashing itself into foam, but a mighty river that could not become too full for its banks.—L. BY J.R. THOMSON Knowledge and love. In the Divine Being himself both knowledge and love are perfect; he is light; he is love. Man, made in God’s image, is capable of both; but his knowledge is and must be very limited and partial, whilst he has vast capacities for love. Not only so; as the apostle here teaches, love is better than knowledge, for whilst this puffs up, that edifies. We recognize this superiority in several particulars. I. IN ITS UPON THE ’S OWN . Paul’s observation convinced him that this was the case. There were at Corinth those who boasted of their knowledge, of their intellectual powers of discrimination, of their superiority to the ignorant vulgar. But these very persons, although Christians in name, were very far from displaying the character of Christ himself, evincing little of consideration and forbearance towards their fellow believers. In fact, they were "puffed up," their knowledge inflating them, but imparting to them no real stability or vigour of character. On the ether hand, such as were animated by the purifying and elevating principle of love were, by the action of that principle, delivered from selfishness and self seeking. They were "edified," i.e. built up, as a temple in stately proportions, upon a secure and ample foundation. This is a generalization, the justice of which is borne out by the experience of the Church of Christ. A show of knowledge is often unlovely when compared with the reality of love, which imparts a beauty and a radiance to the character beyond what human effort and culture can possibly bestow. II. IN ITS UPON HUMAN SOCIETY. It has been maintained in our own day (by Mr. Buckle) that moral beliefs have no influence in the development of society, which is due to the advance of scientific knowledge. But facts are in contradiction to this theory. Learning, science, art, are all good in themselves; but they give no guarantee that they shall be wisely and beneficially used, and they may be far from a blessing to society. But where compassion and benevolence are prevalent and ruling principles, there society feels the benefit of their operation. The Church is maintained in peace and harmony; the world around is profited by the self denying efforts made for the amelioration of its condition. We have only to compare the condition of ancient Rome with that of modern England to be assured of this. III. IN ITS TO GOD. We are not to understand that our Divine Ruler is indifferent to the progress of knowledge. "That the soul be without knowledge is not good." And there is a kind of knowledge which is near akin to love: to know God is life eternal. But mere intellectual activity, mere speculative acquaintance with truth, are vain and worthless in his sight to whom all things are known from the beginning. But love, as it is the highest expression of the Divine nature and character, is peculiarly congenial and acceptable to God. With the loveless soul God has no sympathy; but the soul that is on fire with love to God and man is preparing to dwell in the everlasting radiance which makes and. blesses heaven.—T. Intimacy between God and man. As the passage treats of man’s knowledge professed, supposed, and real, we should expect in this verse to find a statement regarding man’s knowledge of God. And by some the second clause of this verse has been interpreted in this sense. If this somewhat strains the language, and if it is necessary to understand that we have here an assertion that the lover of God is known by God, all the same the apostle must be acknowledged here to affirm a spiritual intimacy between the human spirit and the Father of spirits.. I. THE OF THIS . 1. It is a condition which could scarcely occur to man apart from revelation. Men fear God, reverence God, worship God, seek to avert the wrath of God; but to love God is not an exercise of mind which seems congruous to the relation between the Creator and his creatures. 2. It is a condition which Christianity renders possible and natural. By revealing God as love, by bringing that love home to the heart in the incarnation and the sacrifice of the Son of God, Christianity makes a claim upon human love. The manifestation of affectionate interest and benevolence in a way so remarkable, so unique, is sufficient to account for a new relationship, and for new emotions corresponding therewith. 3. It is a condition capable of universal fulfilment. "If any man love God." There are many whose natural powers of body and of mind are very limited. But there is none who has not the capacity for love. There may be a moral unpreparedness, but this may be overcome. The Gentile as well as the Jew, the illiterate as well as the learned, are capable of loving the Author of salvation. II. THE OF THIS . Love is represented as leading to, as involving, knowledge. 1. On the side of God himself. This is the explicit statement of the text: "The same," i.e. the man who loves, "is known by him," i.e. by God. Knowledge is, in Scripture, according to a Hebrew idiom, often used as equivalent to favour; even as we say we know a person intimately, meaning in the knowledge of friendship. Of course, the Omniscient knows all his creatures; but he has a friendly, fatherly, affectionate, intimate knowledge of those who love him. He reads the language of their hearts. "The Lord knoweth them that are his." He knows them to watch over and keep, to guide and govern, to strengthen and to save them. 2. On the side of man. This is the implicit statement of the text; for he who in the sense affirmed is known by God also knows God. How true it is that he who loves God knows him too! There are many respects in which we cannot know our earthly, human associates, unless we are drawn to them by the cords of love. Love opens the doors of knowledge. It creates that sympathy which gives intensity to the intuitive gaze of the soul. Thus it is that, whilst many learned and philosophic minds are ignorant of the Deity, there are to be found, among the lowly, the ignorant, and the feeble, those who, with hearts quickened and softened with grateful love, live in a hallowed intimacy with him who is the Father of their spirits and the God of their salvation.—T. 1 Corinthians 8:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6 The unity of God. The Apostle Paul had been trained in the monotheism which had from the first been the belief of the Hebrew race, and from which they had not for centuries previous to his time ever swerved. But as a preacher of Christianity, a religion which aspired to world wide empire, he was constantly brought, especially as the apostle of the Gentiles, into contact with the worshippers of idols, both philosophic and popular. And he was often called to be the counsellor of those who, although called out of heathenism, still lived in a heathen atmosphere and were entangled in consequence in not a few practical difficulties. In discussing for the benefit of these Corinthian questions of conduct arising out of their necessary association with those who practised heathen customs, Paul took his stand boldly and uncompromisingly upon the great religious doctrine of the unity of God. I. THE UNITY OF GOD IS WITH BELIEF AND WORSHIP. 1. The deities of the heathen are called gods. They are called, but they are not; it is a delusion. "An idol is nothing in the world." The grand denunciation of the Hebrew psalm occurs to the mind: "Eves have they, but they see not," etc. 2. These deities are deemed "gods" and "lords." They were and still are, in heathen lands, deemed superhuman, supernatural, and are invested by the imagination with some claims to the homage, reverence, and service of intelligent men. 3. They are in number many, every river and grove having its deity. It is well known that the heathen had. even their household gods, e.g. the Romans their lares et penates. 4. They have their several localities and ranks and. realms of dominion. They are "in heaven," as the superior Olympian deities; or "on earth," as those inferior numina which haunt this lower world, nymphs and fauns and, dryads, etc. Such was the system which Christianity found, with which Christianity came into conflict. II. THE UNITY OF GOD A CENTRE AND AN AIM FOR THE NEW LIFE OF MEN. 1. In himself he is "the one God, the Father." In itself this was a glorious revelation; and in Jesus Christ provision was made for its wide promulgation and acceptance. 2. He is the Creator and Upholder of all; "Of whom are all things." 3. And especially he is the great Object of our faith, love, and devotion. We are "for, .. unto him." It is at this point that the great revelation of the new theology becomes the great motive of the new religion. Polytheism distracted the minds of the worshippers, and made it impossible that faith in God should become the inspiration of a new and better life; for it was a question—What measure of reverence and of service shall be offered to this deity, and what to that? But Christianity revealed one God, in whom are all perfections, and who is not only the Creator but the moral Governor and Saviour of mankind. They who live to serve this God have an elevating, purifying, powerful aim in the conduct of their life. III. THE UNITY OF GOD THE NOBLEST MOTIVE TO THE NEW LIFE. 1. The one God is made known by the one Lord Jesus Christ. It is a misunderstanding of the Scripture doctrine to conceive of this view of the Redeemer as conflicting with the monotheism which is the glory of the Bible revelation. The one Lord reveals the one God, as the Word. reveals the Utterer, as the Son reveals the Father. 2. Christ is the universal Mediator, "by whom are all things." This is the doctrine of John as well as of Paul. And we may well understand the moral as well as the physical creation to be included. For all the Blessings which the Father destines for humanity he has resolved to confer by Jesus Christ. 3. We as Christians are what we are "through him." As in the former clause we recognized the great aim, so here we recognize the great means and motive of the new, the distinctively Christian life. The Divine nature and mediation of Immanuel, so far from obscuring our belief in the unity of God, is the best and strongest and most effectual support of that doctrine. Even as Jesus himself said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" and "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."—T. 1 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 8:9 Christian liberty. No doubt Paul was regarded as the great champion of liberty. The apostles at Jerusalem were more under the influence of the old Judaism; Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, gained a larger spirit of tolerance through his association with men of various races and habits. The Spirit of God set him free from restraints by which many good men were fettered. To him the party of knowledge, of emancipation, of liberalism, would naturally look for countenance and encouragement, when scruples about trifling matters of outward observance perplexed the conscience and threatened to divide the Church. And, so far as his views of religion were concerned, Paul was with this party; yet, as this passage reminds us, in his view, religion had one side turned towards God, and another side turned towards men, and he would not have this second side overlooked. I. THE , AS A MATTER OF , OF OUTWARD . 1. The general doctrine. It is not what we eat or abstain from eating that God regards, that God will judge us by. The reasons for this doctrine are obvious. (1) The nature of God, who is a Spirit, and in whose view what is spiritual is of overmastering and supreme interest. Priests in their pettiness may think matters all important which in God’s sight are trifles light as air. (2) The nature of man, who is a reasonable and spiritual being, and whose highest welfare cannot consist in what food enters into his body and what food he refrains from partaking. (3) The nature of Christianity, which is a spiritual religion, and seeks to take possession of human nature and so to influence human life. It is not ,a religion of feasts and fasts, but a religion of faith, hope, and love. 2. The special application of the doctrine. The query propounded by the Corinthians is fairly answered. It is as though Paul had said, "So far as God is concerned it makes no difference at all whether you belong to the scrupulous party, and refrain from eating meat which may possibly have been offered in idol sacrifice and worship, or to the liberal party, and, despising such distinctions, eat whatever is purchased in the market or placed upon the table. These habits of yours cannot make you either better or worse, cannot commend you to God or involve you in his displeasure; he looks at something very different from such things." So with parallel cases; matters may have importance as regards the Church, as regards human society, which are utterly unimportant as regards our relation to God. II. THE DANGER OF LIBERTY SO FAR AS TO INJURE OUR FELLOW MEN. A Christian in these early days might be himself quite superior to the small scruples by which his neighbours were influenced. But, at the same time, he might be justly called upon to consider his weak brethren, and not to put an occasion of offence in the path of any. The best things may be abused, and it is often so with liberty. Paul cared not a whit for idol feasts and sacrifices, and, had he considered only himself, he would have eaten meat that had been presented in an idol temple; but he cared for his brethren, and he cared for them all the more if their knowledge was slight, their faith feeble, their apprehensions of spiritual realities obscure. He would not break the bruised reed; he would rather abstain than injure a brother’s conscience. It was a grand view of Christian duty this which Paul took; a noble resolution this which Paul formed. A lesson to the whole Church of God in all the various phases of experience and trial through which it is called to pass. Let Christians think first, indeed, of their own position in the sight of the heart searching God. But let them not omit to think of their relation to their brethren in Christ, and let them so act that none may be troubled in conscience or caused to fall by reason of any want of consideration and sympathy, by reason of any disposition to push liberty to too great an extreme. God is our Lord; yet his people, however feeble, are our brethren. Their interests are dear to our hearts, and our intercourse with them is to be guided not only by wisdom but by charity.—T. The brother’s claim. It seems as though Paul treated of this case of conscience at inordinate length. Perhaps this would be so were it not that, in disposing of this difficulty, the apostle was really disposing of many other difficulties which should emerge in the course of the centuries. Principles are laid down in this "casuistical" portion of the Epistle which are applicable to Christian conduct in varying states of society and throughout all time. I. THE DANGER TO OF THE OF LIBERTY. Let a Christian man consider only what will commend him to God, what is in accordance with his right and liberty; and what will be the result? This passage makes this very evident, showing that for an enlightened Christian to partake of food offered to idols may prove prejudicial to weak brethren, who take such conduct as a sanction of idol worship and of idolatrous practices generally. No doubt this is a misconception, but it is a misconception which is likely, which is certain, to happen. Thus the man of weak conscience, of little enlightenment, has his nature defiled and hardened, and, according to the very strong expression of this verse, is in danger of perishing. An awful, unforeseen, consequence to follow upon the indulgence in Christian liberty. The possibility of such a consequence is in itself sufficient to make a liberal Christian pause lest he should carry his liberty too far. II. THE GREAT MOTIVE WHICH THE OF LIBERTY. The apostle calls upon the enlightened Corinthians to consider who he is whose welfare and salvation are endangered by the course supposed. 1. He is a brother. Who will say, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" On the contrary, the spiritual bond that unites the people of Christ one to another is so close and precious that anything that threatens its permanence should be regarded with suspicion and dread. 2. Not only so; he is one for whom Christ died. Observe the contrast which is so powerfully presented in this language. The Lord of glory died to ransom and to save each disciple and friend of his; submitted for his sake, not to inconvenience and restraint, but to sufferings, to the cross, to the grave. And shall any follower of the Lord Jesus treat with contempt even the weakness and prejudice of one whom the Lord of glory so pitied that he gave up his own life to save? Who are we that we should act in a manner so contrary to the action of our Divine Lord and Leader? Let him be our Example, as in other things, so in this; let his self sacrifice be our model and motive, that with a sympathizing and affectionate disposition we hold dear the security and well being of every Christian brother, however ignorant and however feeble. So far from assisting in the ruin, be it ours to promote the salvation of every member of the spiritual family, every sheep, every weak and helpless lamb, of the vast flock of that good Shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep.—T. "Sin against Christ." It is a proof of the personal and intimate character of the relation between Christ and his people, as that relation was conceived in the primitive Churches, that it should be the very climax of reproach against any professed Christians because of any course of action they followed, to charge them with sin against Christ, It is surely obvious that language like this could not be used of any merely human teacher or leader. One who was on the one hand so closely united to the Divine Father and on the other hand so truly a Son of man, as Jesus, Immanuel, could alone be spoken of thus. It was not possible to go further in expostulation than by the use of such language as this, addressed to those who considered too little the conscience of a weak brother, "Ye sin against Christ." To act without due sympathy, consideration, and charity towards a brother Christian is to sin against Christ, because it is— I. TO OFFEND AGAINST CHRIST’S . Our Lord’s great commandment, his new commandment, his oft repeated commandment, was a commandment to his disciples to love one another. He even went so far as to make obedience to this law of charity a test and note of discipleship: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." A disregard for the feelings, the conscience, the spiritual health, of a Christian brother was an evident cud flagrant violation of the Lord’s great precept, and was therefore "sin against Christ." II. TO CHRIST’S EXAMPLE. Our Lord did not enjoin a spirit or conduct which he did not exemplify in his own life. Whoever reads the record of that life must observe that his spirit in dealing with his disciples was one of forbearance, consideration, pity, and benevolence. He washed his disciples’ feet; he bore with their infirmities and their slowness to understand him; he pitied and instructed their ignorance; he overlooked and forgave their cowardice and desertion; in a word, he laid himself out in every way for their spiritual good. How then could any Corinthian, how can any other professing Christian, be a follower of the blessed Lord, if he display an inconsiderate, contemptuous, unforgiving spirit towards a brother in Christ? In so doing he sins against the Master. III. TO INJURE CHRIST IN THE PERSON OF ONE OF HIS LITTLE ONES. Jesus laid down this principle with great clearness when he identified himself with his own, assuring us that what was done—good or ill—to his little ones he should, in the judgment, regard as done unto himself. The Head is insulted when the member is injured; the King is aggrieved when his subject is attacked; the Shepherd is smitten when his sheep are scattered. Whosoever is indifferent to the welfare of the Lord’s servant sins against that Lord himself, and shall not be held guiltless. Christ expects all his people to act as if he were present in the person of every one whom he loves and for whom he died.—T. BY E. 1 Corinthians 8:1-11 The two guides—knowledge and love. I. THEY ARE BOTH . This requires no proof. The apostle who sat at the feet of Gamaliel, would have been the last to speak slightingly of real knowledge. We are made capable of an ever increasing knowledge. How much knowledge has been the means of accomplishing in this world I Ignorance is but a "fool’s paradise;" "Knowledge is power." And how excellent is love. How dull and sad this world would be without it! How much more prolific in crime and evil even than it now is! One’s only regret about love is that there is so little of it. It is the world’s great want. Herein heaven and earth contrast, seeing that there is much love there and little here. The triumphs of knowledge are great, but greater are the victories of love. II. THEY ARE . One is not without the other. 1. Knowledge without love leads to (1) pride; (2) intolerance; (3) selfishness; (4) injury to others; (5) many blunders in thought, feeling, and action. Knowledge is not enough for a people. We may have abundance of knowledge, and yet be very unwise, very injurious, and very unlovable. 2. Love without knowledge leads to moral catastrophe. It is impossible to predict what conduct may result from mere affection. Knowledge is necessary to determine within what limits we may rightly act. Knowledge can decide for us what is "lawful." Love determines what, within the circle of the lawful, we should choose. Knowledge and love united lead to that more perfect, that penetrating, that true practical knowledge, the opposite of which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 8:2. True love controlling sound knowledge leads to a deeper insight—in other words, to a truer knowledge. For example, a man may know God as God; may have some conception of the Divine attributes, etc. But when he loves God his knowledge makes incalculable strides; he now knows God so much more fully and truly that his former knowledge hi little better really, and no better practically, than crass ignorance. Knowledge "puffeth up;" by itself it is sometimes worse than ignorance. Love, not acting without knowledge, but on the lines of knowledge, "buildeth up." III. A SPECIAL CASE IN . The Corinthians had written to the apostle respecting their liberty to eat meats which had been offered to idols. The portion of victims not consumed upon the idol altars belonged partly to the priests and partly to the offerers. Much of this meat found its way to the public markets, or was consumed in private houses, at social gatherings, or at feasts in the temples. Christians would be often tempted to partake of these idol meats. 1. The apostle shows that knowledge alone would be a very unsafe guide in such a matter. An enlightened mind would perceive that meats were in themselves the same, whether offered or not offered to idols; and knowing also that "meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse;" would consider the matter as purely indifferent, and to be determined solely by inclination. But here mere knowledge would lead to error. Love, which concerns itself about others, steps in and says, "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." All do not realize the nothingness of the idol, or the fact that idol meats are unchanged by idol contact. Their immature and weak condition leads them to conclude that the idol is something, and to them the eating of idol meats is an act which identifies them with idol worship. Thus the partaking by the more enlightened may prove both a scandal and a temptation to the unenlightened. Knowledge says, "Do all that you have a right to do;" Love says, "Consider others, especially the weak." Knowledge alone leads to contempt of the weak and ignorant, and to indifference as to how they are affected: but Love champions the cause of those who specially need consideration and help. Knowledge does not take into account the weak brother, but Love yearns over his welfare, and forgets not that Christ died for him. Love kindled at the cross flames forth in Christ like self sacrifice. Love, directing its glance around, sees that the highest interests of those for whom Christ died may be imperilled if the claims of liberty be too rigidly enforced; and so she leads men to the choice of that "better part," self sacrifice for the welfare of others. This is the "shining way" once trodden by the feet of the Son of God. This is the path of the truest knowledge; for here we learn not only what we may do, but what in the highest sense we ought to do. 2. The apostle has here no occasion to show that love without knowledge would prove a faulty guide. But it evidently might. Love might lead the weak and ignorant to eat the idol meats, so as to please those more enlightened, and so as not to be a check upon their desires. We need, for safe guidance, the twin guides, knowledge and love.—H. "One God... one Lord." I. THE ONE GOD. The oneness of Deity is here emphasized. It is insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. The true Israel, ancient and modern, has been monotheistic. The conflict, contradiction, confusion, and absurdity, conspicuous enough in the polytheistic systems, find no place in Judaism or Christianity. The oneness of Deity is confirmed by (1) nature, (2) providence, (3) the moral sense. The one God is: 1. The Source of all things. "Of whom are all things." He is the great Originator; all things sprang from his creative touch. We know not how—the manner is not revealed to us, the fact is. God may have left much to man’s scientific instinct to discover; he may have intended not a little to remain enshrouded in mystery. We may travel reverently along the lines of true knowledge until they cease for us; then the great truth remains still for our enlightenment and comfort. The march backward of science is towards unity; revelation began with it. 2. The End of all things. "We unto [not ’in’] him." What is here asserted of some of God’s works ("we") applies to all (see Colossians 1:16). All things were created "unto" God; the object of their existence terminates in God, they show forth his glory, they subserve his purposes. The whole universe looks God wards. So far as intelligent creatures do not find the end of their existence in God, so far as they do not seek the Divine glory, so far they fall out of harmony with the rest of creation and bring failure into their lives. We are not created for ourselves, but for God; we should therefore "glorify God. in our Bodies, and in our spirits, which are his" and for him. II. THE ONE LORD. This is Jesus Christ—the "Son of man" and the "Son of God." We are here taught that the Head of the Christian Church was the active Power in creation. Of the Deity, as such, were all things; through the one Lord, the second person in the Deity, were all things. Some have been led by this verse to question the divinity of Christ: it appears to teach it in a very impressive and convincing manner. The administrative, mediating position occupied by Christ is indeed recognized, but the assertion that "through" him all things were seems scarcely susceptible of a fair interpretation if his divinity be excluded. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 9:1-27 The rights and the self denial of an apostle. 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 An apostle’s right to maintenance. 1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle I am I not free? The order of the best manuscripts is, Am I not free? am I not an apostle? St. Paul designed in this chapter to show that he was not only giving a precept, but setting an example, He told the "strong" Corinthians, who had "knowledge," that they should be ready to abnegate their rights for the good of others, he now wishes to show them that, in a matter which affected his whole life, he had himself abnegated his own rights. Being free and an apostle, he could, if he had chosen, have claimed, as others had done, a right to be supported by the Churches to which he preached, he had thought it more for their good to waive this claim, and therefore he had done so at the cost (as appears in many other passages: 1 Corinthians 4:12; Acts 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:9) of bitter hardship to himself. But St. Paul practically "goes off" at the word "apostle." It was so essential for him to vindicate, against the subterranean malignity of hostile partisans, his dignity as an apostle, that in asserting that authority he almost loses sight for the time of the main object for which he had alluded to the fact. Hence much that he says is of the nature of a digression—though an important one—until he resumes the main thread of his subject at 1 Corinthians 11:15. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Doubtless he mainly refers to the vision on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3, Acts 9:17; 1 Corinthians 15:8), though he received other visions and revelations also (Acts 18:9; Acts 22:14, Acts 22:18; 2 Corinthians 12:1, etc.). he had probably not seen Christ during his life on earth (see my ’Life of St. Paul,’ 1:73-75). The words are added to remind them that those who boasted of personal knowledge and relation with Jesus—perhaps the Christ party—had no exclusive prerogative. Are not ye my work in the Lord? I am not only an apostle, but emphatically your apostle (Acts 18:1-11; 1 Corinthians 4:15). 1 Corinthians 9:2 Unto others. If the emissaries from Jerusalem or the Petrine party do not choose to regard me as their apostle or an apostle at all, yet at any rate I am yours. Doubtless; rather, at least, at any rate. The seal of mine apostleship. Your conversion attests the genuineness of my claim, as a seal attests a document. Thus baptism is the seal of conversion (Ephesians 4:30; comp. Romans 4:11; John 3:33). 1 Corinthians 9:3 Mine answer; literally, my defence; the word "examine" is the word used for a legal inquiry. The Corinthians had as it were placed him on his defence at the bar of their criticism. Is this. That I was the cause of your conversion. In 2 Corinthians 12:12 he refers to other proofs of his apostolic power. 1 Corinthians 9:4 To eat and to drink. To be supported by those to whom we preach (Luke 10:7). 1 Corinthians 9:5 To lead about a sister, a wife. There can be no doubt that this represents the true reading, and that the meaning is, "We have power to lead about, that is, to travel in company with, some Christian sister to whom we are married, and who is supported at the expense of the Church." This plain meaning, however, involving the assertion that the apostles and desposyni ("the Lord’s brethren") were married men, was so distasteful to the morbid asceticism which held celibacy in a sort of Manichaean reverence, that the scribes of the fourth, fifth, and later centuries freely tampered with the text, in the happily fruitless attempt to get rid of this meaning. They endeavoured, by putting the word in the plural or by omitting "wife," to suggest that the women whom the apostles travelled with were "deaconesses." Augustine, Tertullian, Ambrose, and others explain the verse of "ministering women" (Luke 8:2, Luke 8:3). The false interpretation avenged itself on the bias which led to it. Valla adopts the wilful invention that the apostles, though married, travelled with their wives only as sisters. Such subterfuges have eaten away the heart of honest exegesis from many passages of Scripture, and originated the taunt that it is a "nose of wax," which readers can twist as they like. It was the cause of such shameful abuses and misrepresentations that at last the practice of travelling about with unmarried women, who went under the name of "sisters," "beloved," "companions," was distinctly forbidden by the third canon of the first Council of Nice. Simon Magus might unblushingly carry about with him a Tyrian woman named Helena; but apostles and true Christians would never have been guilty of any conduct which could give a handle to base suspicions. They travelled only with their wives. A sister. A Christian woman (1 Corinthians 7:15; Romans 16:1; James 2:15, etc.). A wife; i.e. as a wife. Other apostles. This is a positive mistranslation for "the rest of the apostles." It might be too much to infer positively from this that every one of the apostles and desposyni were married; but there is independent evidence and tradition to show that at any rate most of them were. The brethren of the Lord. They are clearly and undeniably distinguished from the apostles. According to the Helvidian theory (to which the plain language of the Gospels seems to point), they were sons of Joseph and Mary. This is the view of St. Clement of Alexandria in ancient times, and writers so different from each other as De Wette, Neander, Osiander, Meyer, Ewald, and Alford, in modern. The theory of Jerome, that they were cousins of Jesus, being sons of Alphseus and Mary, a sister of the Virgin, is on every ground absolutely untenable, and it was half dropped even by St. Jerome himself, when it had served his controversial purpose. The theory of Epiphanius, that they were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, is possible, but incapable of proof. It comes from a tainted source—the apocryphal Gospels (see my ’Early Days of Christianity,’ 2). Cephas. St. Paul also uses the Aramaic name in Galatians 2:9. Peter’s wife is mentioned in Matthew 8:14 and in the tradition of her martyrdom (Clem. Alex., ’Strom.,’ 7. § 63). 1 Corinthians 9:6 And Barnabas. Like St. Paul, Barnabas was in every respect a genuine apostle, by the Divine call (Acts 13:2; Galatians 2:9), though not one of the twelve. He seems to have continued in his separate mission work the practice of independence which he had learnt from St. Paul. This allusion is interesting, because it is the last time that the name of Barnabas occurs, and it shows that, even after the quarrel and separation, Paul regarded him with love and esteem. To forbear working. To give up the manual labour by which we maintain ourselves without any expense to the Churches (Acts 18:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 2 Thessalonians 3:9). If, then, St. Paul toiled at the dull, mechanical, despised, and ill paid work of tent making, he did so, not because it was, in the abstract, his duty to earn his own living, but because he chose to be nobly independent, that the absolute disinterestedness of his motives might be manifest to all the world. For this reason even when he was most in need he would never receive assistance from any Church except that of Philippi, where he had at least one wealthy convert, and where he was beloved with a peculiar warmth of affection. 1 Corinthians 9:7 Who goeth a warfare, etc.? In this and the following verses he adduces six successive arguments to prove the right of a minister to be supported by his congregation. 1. From the ordinary laws of human justice (1 Corinthians 9:7). 2. By analogy, from the Law of Moses (1 Corinthians 9:8-10). 3. A fortiori, from the obligations of common gratitude (1 Corinthians 9:11). 4. From their concession of the right to others who had inferior claims (1 Corinthians 9:12). 5. From the Jewish provision for the maintenance of priests (1 Corinthians 9:13). 6. By the rule laid down by Christ himself (vers 14). Goeth a warfare. Analogy from the payment of soldiers (2 Corinthians 10:4). At his own charges. The word used for "cost" means literally rations (Luke 3:14; Romans 6:23). Planteth a vineyard. Analogy from the support of the vine dressers (Matthew 9:37). Feedeth a flock. Analogy from the support of shepherds (1 Peter 5:2). The two latter classes of labourers are paid in kind in the East to this day. 1 Corinthians 9:8 Say I these things as a man? Am I relying exclusively on mere human analogies? The same phrase occurs in Romans 3:5; Galatians 3:13. Saith not the Law. The verbs used for "say" (λαλῶ) and "saith" (λέγει) are different: "Do I speak [general word] these things as a man? or saith [a more dignified word] not the Law," etc.? 1 Corinthians 9:9 In the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:4). He uses the same argument again in 1 Timothy 5:19. The mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; rather, an ox while treading out the corn. The flail was not unknown, but a common mode of threshing was to let oxen tread the corn on the threshing floor. Doth God take care for oxen? Certainly he does; and St. Paul can hardly mean to imply that he does not, seeing that tenderness for the brute creation is a distinguishing characteristic of the Mosaic legislation (Exodus 23:1-33. 12, 19; Deuteronomy 22:6, Deuteronomy 22:7, Deuteronomy 22:10, etc.). If St. Paul had failed to perceive this truth, he must have learnt it at least from Psalms 145:15, Psalms 145:16; John 4:11. Even the Greeks showed by their proverb that they could pity the hunger of the poor beasts of burden starving in the midst of plenty. It is, however, a tendency of all Semitic idiom verbally to exclude or negative the inferior alternative. St. Paul did not intend to say, "God has no care for oxen;" for he knew that "his tender mercies are over all his works:" he only meant in Semitic fashion to say that the precept was much more important in its human application; and herein he consciously or unconsciously adopts the tone of Philo’s comment on the same passage (’De Victim Offerentibus,’ § 1), that, for present purposes, oxen might be left out of account. The rabbinic Midrash, which gave this turn to the passage, was happier and wiser than most specimens of their exegesis. St. Paul sets the typico allegorical interpretation above the literal in this instance, because he regards it as the more important. It is a specimen of the common Jewish exegetic method of a fortiori or minori ad magus. Luther’s curious comment is: "God cares for all things; but he does not care that anything should be written for oxen, because they cannot read"! 1 Corinthians 9:10 Altogether. It is probable that St. Paul only meant the word to be taken argumentatively, and not au pied de la lettre. This application (he says) is so obviously the right application, that the other may be set aside as far as our purpose is concerned. In the margin of the Revised Version it is rendered "Saith he it, as he doubtless doth, for our sake?" In hope. St. Paul’s large experience of life, and his insight into character, sufficed to show him that despairing work must be ineffectual work. The spring and elasticity of cheerful spirits is indispensable to success in any arduous undertaking. "Life without hope draws nectar in a sieve, And hope without an object cannot live." 1 Corinthians 9:11 If we. The we is in both clauses emphatic, to show that the argument applied directly to St. Paul’s own case. Is it a great thing. An argument a fortiori. If ordinary labour is not undertaken gratuitously, is the spiritual labourer to be left to starve? St. Paul always recognized the rights of preachers and ministers, and stated them with emphasis (Galatians 6:6; Romans 15:27), although from higher motives he waived all personal claim to profit by the result of his arguments. 1 Corinthians 9:12 If others. St. Paul felt a touch of natural indignation at the thought that these Corinthians submitted to the extremest and haughtiest exactions from other teachers who had been loud in the statement of their own pretensions, while his own claims were shamefully disparaged, and he was even left, with perfect indifference, to suffer real privation. We shall find the full expression of his wounded sensibilities in 2 Corinthians 11:1-15. We have not used this power. This strong climax here asserts itself before the time. It anticipates 2 Corinthians 11:15. Suffer. The same word, which also means "to contain without leaking," is used in 1 Corinthians 13:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:1, 1 Thessalonians 3:5. All things. Any amount of privation and distress. Hinder the gospel of Christ. By giving any handle for malicious misrepresentations as to our being self interested. The word for "hindrance" means etymologically "cutting into," i.e. an impediment on a path, etc. 1 Corinthians 9:13 They which minister about holy things. Jewish priests. He adds his two final arguments—since the right which he is pleading has its own intrinsic importance—before proceeding to the example which he set in order to prevail on the strong to give up their rights and their liberty, when need was, for the sake of the weak. Live; literally, eat, or feed. The Zealots used this excuse for themselves when they broke open the temple stores in the siege of Jerusalem (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 1 Corinthians 5:13, § 6). Of the things of the temple. They shared in the victims offered (see Numbers 18:8-13; Deuteronomy 18:1). Partakers with the altar. Only certain portions of certain victims were allowed them. 1 Corinthians 9:14 Hath the Lord ordained (Matthew 10:10;.Luke 10:7). The reference has special interest, because it shows that St. Paul was at least orally familiar with the discourses of Christ. Indeed, there is nothing impossible or improbable in the supposition that some of these were already being circulated in manuscript. Should live of the gospel. If, that is, they desired and had need to do so. He does not say, "to live of the altar," because Christians have no "altar" except in the metaphorical sense in which the cross is called an altar in Hebrews 13:10. 1 Corinthians 9:15-23 Self denying ordinance of St. Paul. 1 Corinthians 9:15 I have used none of these things. None of the forms of right which I might claim from these many sanctions. He is appealing to his own abandonment of a right to encourage them to waive, if need required, the claims of their Christian liberty. His object in waiving his plain right was that he might give no handle to any who might desire to accuse him of interested motives (1 Corinthians 9:4; Galatians 6:6, etc.). Have I written; rather, do I write; the epistolary aorist. That it should be so done unto me. Do not take my argument as a hint to you that you have neglected your duty of maintaining me, and have even seen me suffer without offering me your assistance. Better for me to die. Not "to die of hunger," as Chrysostom supposes, but generally, "I should prefer death to the loss of my independence of attitude towards my converts." Than that any man should make my glorying void. The Greek is remarkable. Literally it is, than my ground of boasting—that any one should render it void. Another reading is, better for me to die than—no one shall render void my ground of boasting. 1 Corinthians 9:16 1 have nothing to glory of. He is desirous to remove all appearance of haughtiness from his tone. There was, he says, no merit involved in his preaching the gospel. He did so from the sense of overwhelming moral compulsion, and he would have been miserable if he had tried to resist it. Necessity is laid upon me. "We cannot but speak" (Acts 4:20). 1 Corinthians 9:17 If I do this thing willingly. The word rather means "spontaneously;" "without compulsion." He was preaching willingly, but still it was in obedience to an irresistible behest (Acts 9:6, Acts 9:15). I have a reward. The reward (or rather, "wage ") of such self chosen work would be the power to fulfil it (comp. Matthew 6:1). Against my will; rather, involuntarily, "under Divine constraint." A dispensation. He was appointed a "steward" or "dispenser" of the gospel, and could only regard himself at the best as "an unprofitable slave," who had done merely what it was his bare duty to do (Luke 17:10). There is no merit in yielding to a must. 1 Corinthians 9:18 What is my reward then? The answer is that it was not such "wages" as would ordinarily be considered such, but it was the happiness of preaching the gospel without cost to any. I abuse not; rather, I use not to the full, as in 1 Corinthians 7:31. It may be said that this was a ground of boasting, not a reward. It was, however, a point to which St. Paul attached the highest importance (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Corinthians 11:7-12; Acts 20:33, Acts 20:34), and he might therefore speak of it, though almost with a touch of half unconscious irony, as his "fee." There is no need to adopt the construction suggested by Meyer: "What is my reward? [none] that I may preach gratuitously;" or that of Afford, who finds the reward in the next verse. 1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free; rather, though I was free. He has voluntarily abandoned this freedom. The true rendering of the verse is, For being free from all men [Galatians 1:10], I enslaved myself to all. In acting thus he obeyed his own principle of not abusing his liberty, but "by love serve one another" (Galatians 5:13). 1 Corinthians 9:20 Unto the Jews I became as a Jew. When, for instance, he circumcised Timothy (Acts 12:3) and probably Titus also; and he was continuing this principle of action when he took the vow of the Nazarite (Acts 21:21-26), and called himself "a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees" (Acts 23:6). To them that are under the Law. That is, not only to Jews, but even to the most rigorous legalists among the Jews. It should be carefully observed that St. Paul is here describing the innocent concessions and compliances which arise from the harmless and generous condescension of a loving spirit. He never sank into the fear of man, which made Peter at Antioch unfaithful to his real principles. He did not allow men to form from his conduct any mistaken inference as to his essential views. He waived his personal predilections in matters of indifference which only affected "the infinitely little." 1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law. In other words, I so far became to the heathen as a heathen (Romans 2:12), that I never wilfully insulted their beliefs (Acts 19:1-41:87) nor shocked their prejudices, but on the contrary, judged them with perfect forbearance (Acts 17:30) and treated them with invariable courtesy. St, Paul tried to look at every subject, so far as he could do so innocently, from ’their point of view (Acts 17:1-34.). He defended their gospel liberty, and had intercourse with Gentile converts on terms of perfect equality (Galatians 2:12). Not without law to God. Not even "without law" (anomos) Much less "opposed to law" (antiheroes), though free from it as a bondage (Galatians 2:19). The need for this qualification is shown by the fact that in the Clementine writings, in the spurious letter of Peter to James, St. Paul is surreptitiously calumniated as "the lawless one." Even the Gentiles were "not without law to God" (Romans 2:14, Romans 2:15). So that St. Paul is here using language which base opponents might distort, but which the common sense of honest readers would prevent them from misinterpreting. 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak. His whole argument here is a plea for condescension to the infirmities of weak converts. A similar condescension to their prejudices might be necessary to win them to Christianity at all (1 Corinthians 8:13; "We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves," Romans 15:1). St. Paul often touches on our duties to weak brethren (1 Corinthians 8:7; Romans 14:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; Acts 20:35). All things to all men. He repeats the same principle in 1 Corinthians 10:33, "I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved;" and once more, at the end of his course (2 Timothy 2:10). This condescension laid him open to the malicious attacks of religious enemies (Galatians 1:10). But not on that account would St. Paul ever be led to abandon the fruitful aid of that universal sympathy and tolerance which is one of the best tests of Christian love. That I might by all means save some. He adds this explanation of the motive of his condescension to various scruples συγατάβασις) lest any should accuse him of men.pleasing, as some of his Galatian opponents had done (Galatians 1:10). In his desire to win souls he acted with the wisdom and sympathy taught by experience, suppressing himself. 1 Corinthians 9:23 And this I do. The better reading is, and I do all things. For the gospel’s sake. This is a wider feeling than even "for the elect’s sakes" of 2 Timothy 2:10. With you. The "you" is not expressed in the original, where we only have "a fellow partaker [συγκοινωνὸς, Romans 11:17] of it." But the word illustrates the deep humility of the apostle. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 Exhortation to earnestness as a corollary from the principles here stated. 1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all? They as Corinthians would well know the full bearing of every illustration derived from the triennial Isthmian games, which were the chief glory of their city, and which at this period had even thrown the Olympic games into the shade. The words "in a race," are rather, in the stadium. The traces of the great Corinthian stadium, where the games were held and the races run, are still visible on the isthmus. This metaphor of "the race," which has pervaded the common language of Christianity, is also found in Hebrews 12:1; Philippians 3:14; 2 Timothy 4:7. The prize. The bracium was the wreath given to the victor by the judges. The Christian prize is that of "the high calling of God in Jesus Christ," towards which St. Paul himself was pressing forward. 1 Corinthians 9:25 That striveth for the mastery; rather, that strives to win in a contest. St. Paul never allows his converts to dream of the indefectibility of grace, and so to slide into antinomian security. He often reminds them of the extreme severity and continuousness of the contest (Ephesians 6:12 1 Timothy 6:12). Is temperate in all things. One good moral result which sprang from the ancient system of athleticism was the self denial and self mastery which it required. The candidate for a prize had to be pure, sober, and enduring, to obey orders, to eat sparely and simply and to bear effort and fatigue (Epict., ’Enchir.,’ 35) for ten months before the contest. A corruptible crown. A fading garland of Isthmian pine, or Nemean parsley, or Pythian olive, or Olympian bay. An incorruptible; "unwithering" (1 Peter 2:4); "amaranthine" (1 Peter 5:4); "a crown of righteousness" (2 Timothy 4:8); "a crown of life" (James 1:12; Revelation 2:10; comp. also 2 Timothy 2:5; Revelation 3:11). 1 Corinthians 9:26 Not as uncertainly. My eye is fixed on a definite goal (2 Timothy 1:12). So fight I (Romans 7:23; Ephesians 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7); literally, so box 1. Not as one that beateth the air; rather, as not beating the air. Not what the Greeks called "a shadow battle." I strike forthright blows, not feints, or blows at random. 1 Corinthians 9:27 I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; literally, I bruise my body, and lead it about as a slave. The word tamely rendered "keep in subjection" means literally, I smite under the eyes. The pugilistic metaphor is kept up, and the picturesque force of the words would convey a vivid impression to Corinthians familiar with the contests of the Pancratum, in which boxing with the heavy lead-bound caestus played a prominent part. The only other place in the New Testament where the word occurs is Luke 18:5, where it seems (on the lips of the unjust judge) to have a sort of slang sense. How St. Paul "bruised his body" may be seen in 2 Corinthians 6:4, 2 Corinthians 6:5; Colossians 3:5; Romans 8:13. It was not by absurd and harmful self torture, but by noble labour and self denial for the good of others. When I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. "Lest"—such is the meaning of the metaphor’’ after proclaiming to others the laws of the contest (as a herald), I should myself violate those conditions, and be not only defeated as a combatant, but ignominiously rejected from the lists and not allowed to contend at all." The metaphor is not strictly adhered to, for the herald did not personally contend. No candidate could compete without a preliminary scrutiny, and to be "rejected" was regarded as a deadly insult The word "rejected," "reprobate"—hero rendered "a castaway"—is a metaphor derived from the testing of metals, and the casting aside of those which are spurious. That Paul should see the necessity for such serious and unceasing effort shows how little he believed in the possibility of saintly "works of supererogation, over and above what is commanded." "When the cedar of Lebanon trembles, what shall the reed by the brookside do?" 1 Corinthians 9:1-21 The leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister. "Am I not an apostle? am I not free?" etc. Taking these verses as a whole, they illustrate some of the leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister, and I offer the following remarks:— I. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE OF . Paul was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, ministers of Christ that ever existed. He was an apostle, and had "seen Christ"—a qualification that distinguished him as a minister from all, but eleven others, that ever lived. Besides this, his natural and acquired endowments placed him in the very first rank of reasoners, scholars, and orators. He was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, etc. But see how this great minister regarded the mere conventionalities of religious society. "Am I not an apostle? am I not free?" He refers in all probability to the preceding chapter, which treats of the eating of meat offered to idols, and concerning which he says, "if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." As if he had said, "I am free to eat that meat, and free to reject it; I am not bound by any conventional custom or ceremonial law, for I am ’an apostle.’" Now, it may be laid down as a universal truth that, the greater a gospel minister, the more independent of ceremonies. Indeed, the greater the man, always the more independent he is of forms, fashions, customs. Hezekiah called that which his countrymen worshipped "Nehushtan"—a piece of brass. Cromwell called that glittering insignia of authority on the table of the House of Commons, and at which most of the members, perhaps, trembled with awe, a "bauble." Thomas Carlyle called all the pageantry of office and the glitter of wealth "shams." Burns called the swaggering lordling a "coof." How much more would a man like Paul—who possessed that spirit of Christ which gave him an insight into the heart of things—look down, not merely with indifference, but with contempt, upon all that the world considered great and grand! The more Christly inspiration a man has, the more he will discern degradation on thrones and pauperism in mansions. A famous French preacher began his funeral address over the coffin of his sovereign with these words, "There is nothing great but God." To the man whose soul is charged with the great ideas of God, all the distinctions amongst men are only as the distinctions existing among the various bubbles on the flowing stream. Some are a little larger than others, some are tinged by the sunbeam, and some are pallid in the shade; but all have the same common nature, and all, breaking into the abyss, are lost forever. "Am I not free?" says Paul. A grand thing this, to be free from all the conventionalities of society and the ceremonies of religion. What cared Elijah for the kings of Syria, or Israel, or Judah? Nothing. Agrippa trembled before the moral majesty of Paul, even in chains. Oh for such ministers as Paul in this age of hypocrisies and forms! II. The greater the minister of Christ, the HIGHER THE SERVICE HE RENDERS TO SOCIETY. What high service did this great minister St. Paul render to the members of the Corinthian Church! "Are not ye my work in the Lord?... The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." Ye are, as far as ye are Christians, "my work." I converted you; I turned you away from idols to the one true and living God, from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of Christ. No work on earth equal to this. "He that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways," etc. This work which I effected in you "in the Lord," or by the Lord, is a demonstration of my apostleship. What work again, I ask, approaches this in grandeur and importance? It is the work of creating men "anew in Christ Jesus;" it is the work of establishing that moral moral empire in the world, which is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." The man who succeeds in accomplishing this work thereby demonstrates the divinity of his ministry. Hence Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this." Those that question or deny my apostleship I refer to the spiritual work I have accomplished; "this is my answer," my defence. Truly it might be said of Paul, "No man can do the works that thou doest, except God be with him." The only way by which we can prove ourselves true ministers is, not by words, but by spiritual works. III. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE HE IS OF THE ANIMAL OF LIFE. "Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Paul claims the privilege to eat and drink as he pleased, and to marry or not according to his pleasure, to be a celibate or a benedict. Perhaps some of the members of the Corinthian Church questioned Paul’s apostleship because he was not married. Those who belonged to Peter’s party—who was a married man—would be likely to say, "Paul cannot be an apostle, for Cephas, who is an apostle, has his wife, whom he takes about with him in the prosecution of his mission." And then the "brethren of the Lord," too, they have their wives. Paul’s reply to this is virtually, "I have the power and the right to all connubial privileges and comforts, the right to feast at banquets, and to form domestic relations; but I forego them, I am independent of them, I have higher tastes and sublimer sources of enjoyment. ’For me to live is Christ.’ He is the all and in all of my soul." The more brain and Christly inspiration a man has, the less carnal, and the less carnal the more independent of material enjoyments. IV. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE CLAIM HE HAS TO THE SUPPORT OF THOSE WHOM HE SERVES. The apostle goes on from the sixth to the fourteenth verse to say that he and Barnabas would be right if they were to forbear working for their livelihood, and claim their temporal support from those to whom they spiritually ministered. He goes on to indicate several reasons why he had a claim to their temporal support. 1. The general usage of mankind. "Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?" etc. He draws three illustrations from human life to show the equity of the principle—from the soldier, the agriculturist, and the shepherd. 2. The principle of the Jewish Law. "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also?" etc. On a space of hard ground called a threshing floor the oxen in Jewish times were driven to and fro over the corn thrown there, thus separating the husk from the grain. "God," says Matthew Henry, "had therein ordered that the ox should not be muzzled while he was treading out the corn, nor hindered from eating while he was preparing the corn, for man’s use, and treading it out of the ear. But this law was not chiefly given out of God’s regard to oxen or concern for them, but to teach mankind that all due encouragement should be given to those who are employed by us or labouring for our good, that the labourers should taste of the fruit of their labours." "Doth God take care for oxen?" Yes. He enjoined that the mouth of the working ox should not be muzzled, but should have food to eat. Is not man greater than the ox? And shall he work and be deprived of temporal supplies? 3. The principles of common equity. "If we have sown into you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" They had given to them far higher things, infinitely more important than the temporal support which they required. He who gives to his race Divine ideas gives that Which alone can secure the progress of humanity, both in temporal and spiritual good. True ideas destroy bad institutions and create good ones. 4. Other apostles and their wives were thus supported. "Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" .. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?" This language implies that all the others who worked amongst them obtained their temporal support. Why should not we? Have we done less? Is our authority inferior? 5. The support of the Jewish priesthood. "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and their which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?" "The first part of the passage refers to the general principle that the priests who were engaged in the temple services were supported from the various offerings which were brought there; and the second clause more definitely alludes to the particular fact that, when a sacrifice was offered on the altar, the sacrificing priests as well as the altar had a share of the animal." 6. The ordiniation of Christ. "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (see Matthew 10:10). "Should live of the gospel," not grow rich on the gospel, but have from it that which is needful for subsistence. Looking at all that Paul says on that question here, and at the immense service that a true minister renders to society, the conviction cannot be avoided that no man has a stronger claim to a temporal recompense for his labour than a true gospel minister. Albeit no claims are so universally ignored. What Churches in these modern times tender to their ministers as an acknowledgment of their service is regarded as a charity rather than a claim. Charity, indeed! Call the money you pay to your butcher, baker, lawyer, doctor, charity; but in the name of all that is just, do not call that charity which you tender to the man who consecrates his entire being and time to impart to you the elements of eternal life. V. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE READY TO HIS CLAIMS FOR THE SAKE OF . Great as were the claims of Paul, he magnanimously surrenders them all in order to become more useful. He would not feast at banquets, enjoy conjugal life, or take payment for his services, lest his usefulness should be in the least impaired. "But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me; for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void." I would sooner die than be dependent on you for a livelihood. Grand man! He stood before his congregations and said, "I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me." 1 Corinthians 9:22, 1 Corinthians 9:23 Moral identification with others a qualification of the evangel. These verses and the context are sometimes taken as expressive of the accommodating spirit of the apostle in his endeavours to save men. Hence he is regarded as acting in a somewhat Jesuitical way, pretending to be what he was not, coming down to the prejudices of men, and taking them as it were by guile. Such a view of the apostle is utterly untrue. From his very constitution, to say nothing of his Christianity, he could not bend to any temporizing expediency. There was nothing of the Jesuit or the diplomatist in him. All that he means, I think, by the words is that he endeavoured to put himself into the place, or rather into the views and feelings, of those whom he endeavoured to win to Christ. He transmigrated himself, so to speak, went into their souls, clothed himself with their feelings, and argued from their standpoint. Now, this way of influencing men is both right and wise. As a debater, whether in politics, philosophy, or religion, he only acts fairly and with power who endeavours to put himself into the very position of his opponent, to look at the points in dispute from the opponent’s standpoint, with the opponent’s eyes, and through the opponent’s passions. Such a man becomes mighty in debate. This is what Paul did. He made "himself all things to all men." In arguing with the Jew he made himself a Jew in feeling, with the Greek a Greek in feeling, with a slave a slave in feeling, with a master a master in feeling. Thus he was a philosopher when he spoke to the Athenians, and a Jew when he spoke to the Jews. Now, we regard this power of moral transmigration, this power of passing into another man’s soul and taking another man’s experience, as an essential qualification for a successful evangel; and this power implies at least three things. I. A HIGHLY . The phlegmatic man, whose nature is incapable of taking fire, who moves with the creeping legs of logic rather than on the wings of moral intuition, would find it all but impossible to realize another man’s experiences. He could not be a dramatist. He could not show another man to himself. No one can enter into the experience of another only on the strong warm current of social sympathy. Hence no young men should be encouraged to assume the work of the Christian ministry who have not that fervid imagination, that glowing temperament, that constitute a dramatic genius, II. A OF HUMAN LIFE. It is necessary that we should make ourselves thoroughly acquainted, not merely with the outward circumstances of the men we seek to influence, but with their inner life—their moods of thought, their habits of mind, their leading passions, their strongest proclivities. This requires study of men, not as they appear in books, but as they appear in their circle; and men, not in the mass, but in their individual character and idiosyncrasies. Can an Englishman so know a Hindoo, a Chinese, or a Japanese, as to put himself into his experience? I trow not. III. A LOVE FOR SOULS. Nothing but the constraining love of Christ can invest man either with the disposition or the power for such a work—a work requiring self sacrifice, patience, tenderness, invincible determination, and hallowed devotion. This is what gave Paul the power to be "made all things to all men." "I please all men in all things," he says, "not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." . The work of a moral redeemer is, of all works, the greatest and the most arduous. There is no work in all the departments of human labour that requires such high qualifications as the work of bringing souls to Christ. 1 Corinthians 9:24-26 The Christian race. "Know ye not that they which run in a race, run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air." The Christian life is a race, and we are exhorted to run that the prize may be obtained. "So run." How? I. Run in the COURSE. The course is marked out and measured. The starting place is at the foot of the cross, and the goal is planted in the grave. II. Run WITHOUT . "Lay aside every weight," all worldly cares, and inordinate sympathetic embarrassing prejudices, and fettering habits. III. Run WITH ALL . Shake off sloth and languor, stretch every muscle and limb, throw the whole force of your being into the effort. IV. Run WITH . Pause not, nor loiter a moment until the end is obtained. "So run, that ye may obtain." Hell after preaching. "But I keep," etc. These are terrible words, and they teach at least three things. I. THAT FROM HELL DEMANDS THE MOST EARNEST SELF . "I keep under my body." I subdue the flesh by violent and reiterated blows. The reason for this mortification of the flesh is, "lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." Self discipline may be said to consist of two things. 1. The entire subjugation of the body to the mind. The body was intended to be the organ, the servant, and the instrument of the mind, but it has become the master. The supremacy of the body is the curse of the world and the ruin of the man. 2. The subjugation of the mind to the Spirit of Christ. Though the mind governs the body, if the mind is false, selfish, unloyal to Christ, there is no discipline. The mind must be the servant of Christ in order to be the legitimate sovereign of the body. These two things include spiritual discipline. II. THAT THE OF THIS SELF CANNOT BE BY THE MOST . "When I have preached to others." Paul had preached to others. He had preached to many in different lands, preached earnestly and successfully, preached so that thousands were converted by his ministry, preached so as no one else has ever preached; yet his preaching, he felt, did not do the work of self discipline. Indeed, there is much in the work of preaching that has a tendency to operate against personal spiritual culture. 1. Familiarity with sacred truths destroys for us their charm of freshness. 2. A professional handling of God’s Word interferes with its personal application. 3. The opinions of audiences, favourable or otherwise, exert an influence unfavourable to spiritual discipline. In connection with all this, Satan is especially active in opposing the growth of spiritual piety in the preacher’s tone. So that there is a terrible danger that, whilst the preacher is cultivating the vineyards of others, he is neglecting his own. III. THE MOST MAY BE BY RUIN. "I myself should be a castaway!"—rejected! Who shall fathom the meaning of this word? A successful preacher a "castaway"—be rejected! The Tophet of him who has offered mercy to others which he has despised, urged truths on the credence of others that he has disbelieved, enforced laws on others which he has transgressed, will burn with severer fires and peal with more awful thunders. A magnifying glass held in a certain position by the hand of a child may convey sufficient fire through it to wrap the neighbourhood in conflagration, albeit the glass through which the fire has passed remains unheated, cold as flint. So a man may convey to others the rays of the sun of Righteousness, and yet his own heart remain cold as ice. Truly a terrible fact this. BY C. How St. Paul regarded his apostleship and its rights. To induce the Corinthians to deny themselves the exercise of a liberty they had in things indifferent, St. Paul bad made the argument in the eighth chapter. Liberty was amenable to conscience, knowledge secondary to love, and love was the constructing or building up power of the new spiritual edifice. Not one of these could be spared, for they were all constituents of manhood in Christ; but they must be adjusted to one another under the supremacy of love. If one had a true reverence for his own conscience, he would reverence conscience in others. The conscience of another might be weak, and he might pity the weakness, and yet this pity, if genuine, would not allow scorn or contempt. The argument was a lesson in patience and forbearance, a lesson in self abnegation, and a lesson, furthermore, in responsibility for our example; So far as the immediate issue is concerned (meats offered to idols and participating in feasts held in heathen temples), the logic is direct and conclusive. At no moment does the apostle confine himself to individual rights on the part of such as had enlightened views as to the nothingness of idols. He looks also at community rights and discusses a special duty on the ground of general interests. Here, as in the former chapters, the community man, the community Christian, is before him; and he shows the great characteristic of a teacher in the fact that his business is to mould a body of men into unity. Of what value are minds of large endowments, in their social relations, if they stand for a narrow and cramped individualism? If a man has a finer eye than others, it is that he may see further into the needs of the race. If he has more ardent sympathies, it is for their wider outgoing. Genius is nature’s protest, not against ordinary talents, but against the littleness and selfish absorption of individuality. And so far, genius is an instinctive yearning in the direction, of a world wide appreciation and love, and is one of those innumerable parables m which Christianity lies imbedded till the human mind can be prepared to receive it. Now, St. Paul was the foremost representative, in a certain sense, of this community idea, and, unquestionably, Corinth put its strength and compass to a very severe test. At his time of life, at that era in his ministry, and from just such a mixed people, this grand sentiment of universality was destined by Providence—so we may conjecture—to undergo a thorough discipline. Each truth has its own peculiar test. Some truths need a hotter furnace than others to separate the human dross and bring out the refined gold. If, then, St. Paul was experiencing a special mental and spiritual training in respect to this transcendent doctrine, we have an insight into his mode of argument, and even into the style of his illustrations and enforcement. Identified with his doctrine, he himself merging, as it were, his personality in its nature and operations, his own fortunes bound up inseparably with its fortunes,—how could he avoid citing his own example to confirm the views he so fervently advocated? One paragraph, at least, must be given to his individual portraiture as a community man, a race man, intent with his whole heart on bringing a world to the Lord Jesus. And he had sprung to this high level of his own experience and history when he said in the thirteenth verse of the previous chapter, "I will eat no flesh," etc. On that ground, remote as it was from that occupied by some of his Corinthian friends, he was perfectly at home; he knew his strength in God; he saw precisely what to say of grace and its workings in his soul, and how to say it with unanswerable force—straightforward, vivid, incisive. The movement of thought, even for him, is uncommonly rapid. Sentences are short; the words simple, intense, and closely linked. Interrogation abounds. He is an apostle; a tree apostle; an apostle who saw not Christ in his humiliation, and never knew him after the flesh, but has seen him in his glorification, and dates his conversion from the spectacle of his Divine exaltation; and, last of all, an apostle whose success among the Corinthians ("my work in the Lord;" "the seal of mine apostleship") has vindicated and verified his claims as Christ’s chosen servant. Self assertion becomes under some circumstances a very important duty, and, if self be surrendered to God, there is no way more effective to exemplify humility. One who can ascend to a height so lofty, and stand among the sublimities of the universe apart from self and even dead to self, is a far greater man in the moral scale than one who, on the low plain of this world, merely foregoes his selfishness and acts disinterestedly to comply with an earthly contingency. Full of the infinite and eternal, St. Paul’s thoughts are God’s thoughts finding tone and accent in his utterance. There is no faltering, no nice qualifyings, no hesitating apprehension lest self should insinuate its pretensions. But the view given of himself is large, massive, and, for its purpose, strikingly complete. Men cannot speak of themselves in such a strain unless an utter self forgetfulness be precedent. A thinker’s illustrations show what hold a thought has on him. In this instance St. Paul’s illustrations are significant as well as diversified. Soldiers in the field, husbandmen in the vineyard, shepherds with their flocks, supply his imagination with analogies to establish the right claimed by himself "to eat and to drink," "to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles," and "to forbear working." On all grounds, natural and civil and religious, he maintains the right, and then advances to Old Testament authority. "Doth God take care for oxen?" Yea, not only for their sakes as animals, but for man’s benefit, the providence over the lower creation being tributary to the providence that looks to man’s welfare as the final earthly cause of all arrangements in the kingdom of nature. Yea, verily, we are in the song of the bird and the muscle of the horse and the fidelity of all domesticated creatures, as surely as in the grass and the cereals and the luscious fruits of the ground. Most true it is that "More servants wait on man Than he’ll take notice of; in every path He treads down that which doth befriend him When sickness makes him pale and wan. Oh, mighty love! Man is one world, and hath Another to attend him." The prefigurations and the wondrous homologies are all from below, so that whatever may be found by industry, by science and art, in the amplitude and beneficence of material things and of animal existence, are but so many prophecies of man’s natural position of headship. Yet what incompleteness were in all this, and what a mockery of man’s exaltation, if it were all!—a vast pyramid enclosing a mummy—a magnificent temple, like the heathen temples, in which you walk through portico and corridor and hall to confront at last a worthless image in stone. To perfect this idea of man shadowed forth beneath him and ever advancing towards him, there must be a counterpart. The counterpart is the archetype above. It descends to man in Christ—Son of man because Son of God. "For our sakes, no doubt, this is written;" and all the writings, below and above, on the earth’s strata, in the Holy Scriptures, are alike in this: "for our sakes." It is all a unity or it is all nothing. And this power of manhood St. Paul declares to belong to him, and vested to the full in his apostleship. If, now, St. Paul had exhorted the Corinthians so urgently to obey the dictates of conscience in a matter clearly harmless, and thus avoid a wrong to the weaker brethren and a wrong to their own souls; and if he had avowed his own inflexible resolution to "eat no flesh" (the meat of which he bad been speaking) "forever;" it was a fit occasion to testify to his own self denial for the sake of the gospel. The solace of domestic life, the special tenderness of close sympathy, the offices of watchful affection, ministerial support, "carnal things" that might have lightened the burden of poverty and made his toil much easier,—these were cheerfully resigned. Others allowed themselves these aids and comforts; he refused them, one and all. From the common order of apostolic life he would stand aside in his own isolated lot, and "my gospel" should have in his own career the most forcible demonstration of his glorious individuality. And then, recollecting the law of the temple service which provided for the support of the priests, he would strengthen the analogical argument already presented in favour of his rights. At every touch the individual portrait of the community and race man glows more vividly on the canvas. The contrast had cost him much. Poverty, loneliness, sorrow, had been intensified, but there it was—a contrast with the soldier, the husbandman, the shepherd, the priest, the apostles—self assumed and a perpetual obligation—"lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ."—L. Reasons for this self denial. The rights had been resigned, the power to use his privileges had been unused, and the obligation, self assumed, was to be perpetual. Did any one suspect otherwise? "Better for me to die" than this matter of boasting should be taken from me. No ground for boasting existed in the mere preaching of the gospel; but he could claim and did claim that, in renouncing his right to a support and making other exceptional sacrifices, he was entitled to the boast of preaching a free gospel. A woe is upon him if he preach not the gospel, a necessity he cannot evade while true to his moral nature, and yet a necessity which he will transmute and glorify by his magnanimity in serving without remuneration. Rights; what were they? Where there was such an overpowering sense of the goodness of God and the grace of Christ as had been manifested in his personal salvation and in conferring upon him the apostleship, "better die" than measure duty by mere equivalence of action. Out of the depths of gratitude the man rises, not to the attitude of an apostle, but an apostle who felt with the utmost intensity the obligations of sentiment no less than those of principle. Freely had he received, and freely would he give, so freely indeed as to part with a portion of freedom and to gain by his loss; and in this and by means of this he had his reward. Relinquishing his rights and descending to the condition of a slave, he accommodated himself to the infirmities and prejudices of others so as to save the greater number. Whenever he could evince his regard for the Jewish nation and conform to its customs and usages without compromising Christianity, he became "as a Jew unto the Jews." Nor did he limit his concessions to his own countrymen, but he became "all things to all men," never yielding the truth, never compromising a principle, never making conscience subservient to prudence, never finding the supreme law of action in any utility, and always resolute to concede points only indifferent and equally resolute to maintain that things indifferent involved no moral obligation. And why all this? There were two reasons for it: one was for the good of the large number, "gain the more;" and the other was the benefit to himself—a follow "partaker with you" in the blessings of the gospel. "Up to this point he has been speaking of his self denial for the sake of others; here he begins to speak of it for his own sake. It is no longer ’that I may save some,’ but ’that I may be a partaker of the gospel with you’" (Stanley).—L. Self denial urged in view of the heavenly crown. Power is no self guiding instinct in itself. To be true power, it must be directed by something higher than its own nature. A vast fund of power is laid up within us, and of it two things may be said, viz. the amount of power abstractly considered is far greater than we can use; and, again, our available power must be held under check. As to the former, capacity in every man exceeds ability, and much of our education consists in converting capacity into actual ability. And this latency of power serves another purpose, inasmuch as it is a reserved fund held for an emergency. At times, sudden calls are made on our energies, drafts at sight, which demand extraordinary effort. Feats of physical strength are then performed which are amazing. The same is true of the mind; we witness its faculties, under some tremendous pressure, yielding a wisdom, a patience, a persistency, that surpass all expectation. On the other hand, our available power that can be brought any moment into play must be restrained, or injury results. The harm is manifold. It is pernicious to others. Power antagonizes the power of our fellow men much oftener than it conciliates, and, acting as a repellent instead of an attractive force it destroys unity, which is the great end of all existence, Nor is it less hurtful to the man himself, for, in pushing his power to extremes, he exhausts the very ability concerned in using the power. An undue use of power, therefore, overtaxes others and ourselves. And, accordingly, St. Paul takes both these facts into consideration, advancing from self denial for the sake of others to self denial for his own good, and in this way perfecting the argument. Was he not a philosopher of profound insight in this method of mental procedure? Dismiss, for an instant, the view of him as a Christian apostle, and look at him as an ethical thinker. To induce men to practise the self denial of power, he marshals all the social and sympathetic virtues to its aid; brings pity and compassion as humane instincts to its service, enlists the imagination and its sensibilities as a higher form of emotional energy, and crowns the ascending series of influences by conscience and moral affection in behalf of our fellow men. This is the first training of self denial. Thence it proceeds to its other task. It gathers up its strength and resources, and turns them to its self culture. Was this the method of Stoicism? Was not the method of Stoicism the precise opposite of this? If Seneca had observed this law of culture, would not his exile have presented a very different spectacle? If Marcus Aurelius had trained himself to discern the image of humanity in others, instead of looking into the mirror of Stoicism to see his own image, could he have been guilty, a man of such beautiful and noble virtues, of persecuting Christianity? Return to St. Paul as a Christian apostle. The true philosopher is here, but not complacently studying his own image in the glass that Stoicism held up before its disciples. What he first sees is the Christ of humanity in others, who, in a religious sense, are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. And there is an expression of pain on the brow, and of the sorrow of the heart in his fixed eye, as he realizes that these men are not fully conscious of their relationship to Christ, and therefore very imperfect in their appreciation of others and themselves. But he comprehends them in Christ, and he can bear their infirmities since his love is no mere aesthetic sentiment. Now, then, he can show the extent of that self denial required to attain the reward of the gospel. Of course, this must be done by figurative language, images being the perfection of language and most necessary when spiritual things are to be made clear. Naturally enough, the Grecian games occurred to him; and as the pomp and splendour of these national shows passed before him, was it the gathered multitude, the high enthusiasm, the thrilling suspense, the heart of Achaia throbbing with pride and exultation, that enlisted his interest? What a sense it was to the senses, and even more than to the senses, as Greeks interpreted its meanings! The very landscape lent a charm to the contests, and conspired with the Corinthian citadel, the sloping hills, the marble seats, and the eager crowds, to perpetuate the historic memories of a vanished Greece. Even here, degenerate as the age was, moral elements were at work. A better past had not left itself without a witness in the present. Recollections of ancestry, traditions of virtue and heroism, honourable emulation, an energetic will, hard and continuous discipline for ten months, were associated with the occasion. But St. Paul’s mind was engrossed by the symbolism of the Isthmian games. The metaphor of the racecourse attracts his attention. The preparatory training, the diet, the willing temperance and moderation, the regimen of the athlete, and the studious care to observe the conditions of success, furnish a forcible illustration of what was essential to those who would run the Christian race and win an immortal crown. Between the two there is a resemblance. Between the two there is a vast dissimilarity. "They do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.’’ Once more, St. Paul introduces himself; he is an earnest athlete bent on victory; all his energies are in training and have long been in training; and, changing the figure at this point, the boxer is mentioned: "So fight I, not as one that beateth the air"—not as one who wastes strength in random strokes, but one whose blows are delivered with skill and an achieving purpose. And now, just as one who has toiled up to some mountain summit brings back to the plain a finer light of beauty in his eye and a larger play of strength in the muscle of the heart, so St. Paul returns from the figurative to the literal with his thought enhanced in vigour. "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection"—"buffet the body," "beat it," and "bring it into bondage." What! is the body a contestant against us? Is it an adversary to be bruised and beaten, made to know its place? So indeed St. Paul argues in respect to his own body, and the fact in his case is the fact in all cases. Ideally, the body is the soul’s helper, furnishing the soul with very many true and lofty ideas, giving it much it could never have if disembodied or in an organization less sensuous, and securing it a grandeur of development not possible otherwise. Practically, the body is so sensitive to itself, so in love with its own enjoyments, so enslaved to its lusts and appetites, that it must be kept under and brought into subjection. The law is very plain. It has to be obeyed in some measure by. every one. If the epicure is nothing but an epicure and always an epicure, nature is soon in violent revolt. To be an epicure, he must have some prudence in his indulgence, and order times and seasons into the service of his pleasures. To be students, poets, artists, philosophers, ay, to be mechanics, tradesmen, farmers, we must put the body under by asserting, in a certain degree, the inherent superiority of the mind. For the most part, however, there are reactions, fearful in some, hazardous to all. Suppose, now, that the gross forms of sensuality or even the fascinating forms of sensuousness, are held under mastery. What then? Is the Divine ideal of the body realized? Nay; the body may be made a most efficient and admirable servant to the business man, to the student, to the artist, to the philosopher, and may answer all the earthly and social ends of the intellect and the natural affections, and yet be an undeveloped human body. Only in conforming to spiritual relations, only in sharing Christ’s humanity, can it be developed. Faith, hope, love, Christian principles, Christian sentiments, Christian impulses, are just as requisite to form and shape the material body to the companionship of the redeemed spirit, as food, air, sleep, are necessary for its physical existence. The argument of St. Paul implies all this, nor could it imply less and be congruous with his purpose and aim. And, therefore, when he says, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection," he means to say," I am not making my body less a part of the universe, but more a part thereof, and I am lifting this lower nature towards the higher, and developing my body in the direction of the nature and functions of the resurrection body."—L. BY J.R. THOMSON 1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Corinthians 9:2 Signs of apostleship. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 10:1-14 Warnings against over confidence in relation to idolatry and other temptations. 1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover; rather, for. He has just shown them, by his own example, the necessity for strenuous watchfulness and effort. In continuance of the same lesson, he teaches them historically that the possession of great privileges is no safeguard, and that the seductions, even of idolatry, must not be carelessly despised. Although the connection of the various paragraphs is not stated with logical precision, we see that they all bear on the one truth which he wants to inculcate, namely, that it is both wise and kind to limit our personal freedom out of sympathy with others. The reading "but" (δὲ, morever) is probably a correction of the true reading (γὰρ, for), due to the failure to understand the whole train of thought. I would not that ye should be ignorant. This is a favourite phrase of St. Paul’s (1 Corinthians 12:1; 2 Corinthians 1:8; Romans 1:13; Romans 11:25; 1 Thessalonians 4:13). The ignorance to which he refers is not ignorance of the facts, but of the meaning of the facts. All our fathers. He repeats the "all" five times, because he wishes to show that, though "all" partook of spiritual blessings, most (1 Corinthians 10:5) fell in spite of them. He says, "our fathers," not only because he was himself a Jew, but also because the patriarchs and the Israelites were spiritually the fathers of the Christian Church. Were under the cloud. The compressed Greek phrase implies that they went under it, and remained under its shadow. The "cloud" is the "pillar of cloud" (Exodus 13:21), of which David says, "He spread a cloud for a covering" (Psalms 105:39). The Book of Wisdom (1 Corinthians 10:17) calls it "a cover unto them by day," and (19:7) "a cloud shadowing the camp." All passed through the sea (Exodus 14:22). 1 Corinthians 10:2 Were all baptized. This reading, though well supported, may, perhaps, be a correction for the middle, "they baptized themselves," i.e. accepted baptism. The passing under the cloud (Exodus 14:19) and through the sea, constituting as it did their deliverance from bondage into freedom, their death to Egypt, and their birth to a new covenant, was a general type or dim shadow of Christian baptism (compare our collect, "figuring thereby thy holy baptism’’). But the typology is quite incidental; it is the moral lesson which is paramount. Unto Moses; rather, into. By this "baptism" they accepted Moses as their Heaven-seat guide and teacher. 1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat. As the cloud and the Red Sea symbolized the waters of baptism, so the manna and the water of the rock symbolized the elements of the other Christian sacrament, the Lord’s Supper. The manna might be called "a spiritual food," both because it was "angels’ food" (Psalms 78:25; Wis. 16:20) and "bread from heaven" (Psalms 78:24; John 6:31), and also because it was a type of "God’s good Spirit," which he "gave to instruct them" (Nehemiah 9:20). St. Paul only knows of two sacraments. 1 Corinthians 10:4 The same spiritual drink. The water from the smitten rock might (Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11) be called a "spiritual" drink, both as being a miraculous gift (comp. Galatians 4:29, where Isaac is said to be "born after the spirit"), and as being a type of that "living water" which "springs up into everlasting life" (John 4:14; John 7:37), and of the blood of Christ in the Eucharist (John 6:55). These "waters in the wilderness’’ and "rivers in the desert" were a natural symbol of the grace of God (Isaiah 43:23; Isaiah 55:1), especially as bestowed in the sacrament through material signs. They drank; literally, they were drinking, implying a continuous gift. Of that spiritual Rock that followed them; rather, literally, of a spiritual following Rock. This is explained (1) as a mere figure of speech, in which the natural rock which Moses smote is left out of sight altogether; and (2) as meaning that not the rock, but the water from the rock, followed after them in their wanderings (Deuteronomy 9:21). There can, however, be little or no doubt that St. Paul refers to the common Jewish Hagadah, that the actual material rock did follow the Israelites in their wanderings. The rabbis said that it was round, and rolled itself up like a swarm of bees, and that, when the tabernacle was pitched, this rock came and settled in its vestibule, and began to flow when the princes came to it and sang, "Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it" (Numbers 21:17). It does not, of course, follow from this allusion that St. Paul, or even the rabbis, believed their Hagadah in other than a metaphorical sense. The Jewish Hagadoth—legends and illustrations and inferences of an imaginative Oriental people—are not to be taken au pied de la lettre. St. Paul obviates the laying of any stress on the mere legend by the qualifying word, "a spiritual Rock." And that Rock was Christ. The writings of Philo, and the Alexandrian school of thought in general, had familiarized all Jewish readers with language of this kind. They were accustomed to see types of God, or of the Word (Logos), in almost every incident of the deliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness. Thus in Wis. 10:15 and 11:4 it is Wisdom—another form of the Loges—who leads and supports the Israelites. The frequent comparison, of God to a Rock in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:1-52., passim; 1 Samuel 2:2; Psalms 91:12, etc.) would render the symbolism more easy, especially as in Exodus 17:6 we find, "Behold, I [Jehovah] will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb." 1 Corinthians 10:5 With many of them; rather, with most of them. They were overthrown in the wilderness. A quotation from the LXX. of Numbers 14:16. All but Caleb and Joshua perished (Numbers 26:64, Numbers 26:65; comp. Jude 1:5). In Hebrews 3:17 the word used is "they fell." 1 Corinthians 10:6 These things were our examples. If this rendering be adopted, perhaps "examples" is the best equivalent of the original tupoi, as in Philippians 3:17, "Walk so as ye have us for an example (tupelō)." It may, however, mean "types," i.e. foreshadowing symbols, as in Romans 5:14, where Adam is the "figure" (tupos) of Christ. But, in spite of Alford’s decisive rejection of it, the rendering, "Now in these things they proved to be figures of us," is at least equally probable. To the intent. Of course, the events had their own immediate instruction, but the example which they involved was the ulterior purpose of their being so ordained by the providence of God. As they also lusted. (For quails, Numbers 11:4, Numbers 11:33; and see Psalms 95:7-11.) 1 Corinthians 10:7 As were some of them. As in the case of the golden calf, the worship of Moloch, Remphan, Baal-peor, etc. In the prominent instance of the calf worship, they (like the Corinthians) would have put forth sophistical pleas in their own favour, saying that they were not worshipping idols, but only paying honour to cherubic emblems of Jehovah. To play. The word is, perhaps, used euphemistically for the worst concomitants of a sensual nature worship (Exodus 32:3-6), which resembled the depraved and orgiastic worship of Aphrodite Pandemos at Corinth. 1 Corinthians 10:8 Commit fornication. This sin was not only an ordinary accompaniment of idolatry, but often a consecrated part of it, as in the case of the thousand hierodouloi, or female attendants, in the temple of Aphrodite on Acro-Corinthus. Three and twenty thousand. The number given in Numbers 25:9 is twenty-four thousand. We cannot give any account of the discrepancy, which is, however, quite unimportant. 1 Corinthians 10:9 Tempt Christ (see the note on 1 Corinthians 10:4). Christ is here identified with the angel which went before the Israelites, whom they were specially warned not "to provoke," because "my Name is in him" (Exodus 23:1-33. 20, 21). Another reading is "the Lord." "Christ" may have come in from a marginal gloss. On the other hand, since "Christ" is the more difficult reading, it was, perhaps, the more likely to be altered by copyists. The word for "tempt" means "tempt utterly," "tempt beyond endurance." As some of them (Exodus 17:2, Exodus 17:7; Numbers 14:22; Numbers 21:5, Numbers 21:6). Of serpents; rather, perished by the serpents, viz. the "fiery serpents" of the wilderness (Numbers 21:6). 1 Corinthians 10:10 Neither murmur ye (Numbers 14:2, Numbers 14:29; Numbers 16:41, Numbers 16:49). The Corinthians were at this time murmuring against their teacher and apostle. Of the destroyer. All plagues and similar great catastrophes, as well as all individual deaths, were believed by the Jews to be the work of an angel whom they called Sammael (see Exodus 12:23; 2 Samuel 24:16; Job 33:22; 2 Macc. 15:22). In the retribution narrated in Numbers 16:41, etc., fourteen thousand seven hundred perished. 1 Corinthians 10:11 For ensamples; literally, by way of figure; typically. The rabbis said, "Whatever happened to the fathers is a sign to their children." The thought is the same as in Romans 15:4, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning." The example in this instance would come home more forcibly from the sickness and mortality then prevalent among the Corinthian Christians (1 Corinthians 11:30). The ends of the world; rather, of the egos. The expression is in accordance with the view which regarded the then epoch as "the close or consummation of the ages" (Matthew 13:39; 1 Peter 4:7, "The end of all things is at hand;" 1 John 2:18, "It is the last time;" Hebrews 9:26; Matthew 13:39). 1 Corinthians 10:12 Take heed lest he fall. The Corinthians, thinking that they stood, asserting that they all had knowledge, proud of the insight which led them to declare that "an idol is nothing in the world," were not only liable to underrate the amount of forbearance due to weaker consciences, but were also in personal danger of falling away. To them, as to the Romans, St. Paul means to say, "Be not highminded, but fear" (Romans 11:20). 1 Corinthians 10:13 But such as is common to man; rather, except such as is human; i.e. such as man can bear. The last verse was a warning; this is an encouragement. Having just heard what efforts even St. Paul had to make to run in the Christian race, and how terribly their fathers in the wilderness had failed to meet the requirements of God, they might be inclined to throw up every effort in despair. St. Paul, therefore, reminds them that these temptations were not superhuman, but were such as men had resisted, and such as they could resist. God is faithful He had called them (1 Corinthians 1:9), and since he knew "how to deliver the godly out of temptations" (2 Peter 2:9), he would surely perform his side of the covenant, and, if they did their parts, would stablish and keep them from evil (2 Thessalonians 3:3). Also. The mode of deliverance shall be ready simultaneously with the temptation. Away to escape; rather, the way to escape. The way to escape is different in different temptations, but for each temptation God would provide the special means of escaping it. 1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore. As a result of the whole reasoning, which has been meant to inspire the weak with a more liberalizing knowledge, and the strong with a more fraternal sympathy. Dearly beloved. The word "dearly" should be omitted. Flee from idolatry. The original implies that they were to turn their backs on idolatry, and so fly from it. 1 Corinthians 10:15-22 The inherent disgracefulness of any tampering with idolatry. 1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. An appeal to their own reason to confirm his argument, perhaps with a touch of irony in the first clause (1 Corinthians 4:10; 2 Corinthians 11:19). The word for "I say" is φημι, I affirm. 1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing. A translation of the name cos haberachah (comp. Psalms 116:13), over which a blessing was invoked by the head of the family after the Passover. The name is here transferred to the chalice in the Eucharist, over which Christ "gave thanks" (1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:27). There seems to be a close connection between the idea of "blessing" and "giving thanks" (eucharistesas, Luke 22:19), and here, as always, St. Paul and St. Luke resemble each other in their expressions. The communion of; literally, a participation in. By means of the cup we realize our share in the benefits wrought by Christ’s precious blood shedding. The cup is at once a symbol and a medium. The blood of Christ; of which the wine is the sacramental symbol. By rightly drinking the wine, we spiritually partake of the blood of Christ, we become sharers in his Divine life. The bread; perhaps rather, the loaf, which was apparently passed from hand to hand, that each might break off a piece. Is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The best comment on the verse is John 6:41-59, in which our Lord taught that there could be no true spiritual life without the closest union with him and incorporation into his life. 1 Corinthians 10:17 We being many are one bread, and one body. It is easy to see how we are "one body," of which Christ is the Head, and we are the members. This is the metaphor used in 1 Corinthians 12:12, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Romans 12:5. The more difficult expression, "we are one bread," is explained in the next clause. The meaning seems to be—We all partake of the loaf, and thereby become qualitatively, as it were, a part of it, as it of us, even as we all become members of Christ’s one body, which that loaf sacramentally represents Some commentators, disliking the harshness of the expression, render it, "Because there is one bread, we being many are one body;" or, "For there is one bread. We being many are one body." But the language and context support the rendering of our version; and the supposed "physiology" is not so modern as to be at all surprising. 1 Corinthians 10:18 Partakers of the altar. It is better to render it "Have they not communion with the altar?" for the word is different from that in the last verse. The meaning is that, by sharing in the sacrifices, the Jews stood in direct association with the altar, the victims, and all that they symbolized (Deuteronomy 12:27). And St. Paul implied that the same thing is true of those who sympathetically partook of idol offerings. 1 Corinthians 10:19 What say I then? What is it, then, which I am maintaining (φημι)? That the idol is anything. St. Paul repudiates an inference which he had already denied (1 Corinthians 8:4). Is anything. Has any intrinsic value, meaning, or importance. In itself, the idol offering is a mere dead, indifferent thing. Of itself, the idol is an eidolon—a shadowy, unreal thing, one of the elilim; but in another aspect it was "really something," and so alone could the rabbis account for phenomena which seemed to imply the reality of infernal miracles (’Avoda Zarah,’ fol. 54, 2; 55, 1; and see note in ’Life of St. Paul,’ 2.74). 1 Corinthians 10:20 But. The word rejects the former hypothesis. "[No I do not admit that], but what I say is that," etc. They sacrifice to devils, and not to God. The word "demons" should be used, not" devils" (Deuteronomy 32:17). The argument is that, though the idol is nothing—a mere stock or stone—it is yet the material symbol of a demon (see Psalms 96:5; Psalms 106:37; Baruch 4:7). So Milton - "And devils to adore for deities; Then were they known to men by various names, And various idols through the heathen world,… The chief were those who, from the pit of hell, Roaming to seek their prey on earth, durst fix Their seats long after next the seat of God, Their altars by his altar, gods adored Among the nations round." (’Paradise Lost,’ 1.) St. Paul uses a word which, while it would not be needlessly offensive to Gentiles, conveyed his meaning. The Greeks themselves called their deities daimonia, and St. Paul adopts the word; but to Jewish ears it meant, not "deities" or "demigods," but "demons." 1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot. It is a moral impossibility that you should. The Lord’s table. This is the first instance in which this expression is used, and it has originated the name. The table of devils (see Deuteronomy 32:37). In the fine legend of Persephone, she might have been altogether liberated from the nether world if she had eaten nothing since her sojourn there; but unhappily she had eaten something, though it was only the few grains of a pomegranate; and hence she must leave the upper air, and become the Queen of Hades. 1 Corinthians 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? (Deuteronomy 32:21," They have moved me to jealousy by that which is not God"). The expression, "a jealous God," is used in the second commandment with express reference to idolatry, as in Exodus 34:14, Exodus 34:15. Are we stronger than he? Can we, therefore, with impunity, kindle his anger against us? "He is… mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered?" (Job 9:4). Verse 23—1 Corinthians 11:1.—Directions about eating idol offerings, founded on these principles. 1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me (see 1 Corinthians 6:12). The "for me" is not found in à, A, B, C, D. St. Paul repeats the assertion and its limitations, because he has now proved their force. He has shown that Christian liberty must be modified by considerations of expediency and edification in accordance with the feelings of sympathy and charity. 1 Corinthians 10:24 But every man another’s wealth. The addition of the word "wealth" is very infelicitous. Rather, as in the Revised Version, but each his neighbour’s good. 1 Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold. By this practical rule of common sense he protects the weak Christian from being daily worried by over scrupulosity. If a Christian merely bought his meat in the open market, no one could suspect him of meaning thereby to connive at or show favour to idolatry. It would, therefore, be needless for him to entertain fantastic scruples about a matter purely indifferent. The fact of its forming part of an idol offering made no intrinsic difference in the food. Shambles; rather food market. Asking no question for conscience sake. Do not trouble your conscience by scruples arising from needless investigation (ἀνακρίνων) about the food. 1 Corinthians 10:26 For the earth is the Lord’s (Psalms 24:1). Consequently, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:4). The text formed the ordinary Jewish "grace before meat." The fulness thereof. The plenitude of its created furniture—plants, animals, etc. 1 Corinthians 10:27 Bid you to a feast. It is assumed that the feast is to take place in a private house, not an idol temple (1 Corinthians 8:10). Ye be disposed to go; rather, ye wish to go, with an emphasis on the "wish," which, as Grotius says, perhaps implies that the wish is not particularly commendable, although the apostle, in his large-hearted tolerance, does not actually blame it. The rabbis decided very differently. "If," said Rabbi Ishmael, "an idolater makes a feast in honour of his son, and invites all the Jews of his town, they eat of the sacrifices of the dead, even though they eat and drink of their own" (’Avodah Zarah,’ fol. 18, 1). There are many passages of the Talmud which raise the suspicion that the rabbis are purposely running counter to the teaching of the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you. Who is the "any man" is left undefined. Perhaps some "weak" Christian is meant, who happens to be a fellow guest. This is offered in sacrifice unto idols. The true reading is probably, hierothuton, sacred sacrifice, not eidolothuton, idol sacrifice. Perhaps there is a touch of delicate reserve in the word, implying that the remark is made at the table of heathens, who would be insulted by the word eidolothuton, sacrificed to idols. Whoever the interlocutor is supposed to be—heathen host or Christian guest—the mere fact of attention being drawn to the food as forming part of a heathen sacrifice is enough to make it your duty to give no overt sanction to idolatry. In that case, therefore, you ought to refuse it. It will be seen how gross was the calumny which asserted that St. Paul taught men to be indifferent about eating things offered to idols. He only taught indifference in cases where idolatry could not be directly involved in the question. He only repudiates the idle superstition that the food became inherently tainted by such a consecration when the eater was unaware of it. In later times, when the eating of such offerings was deliberately erected into a test of apostasy, he would have used language as strong against every semblance of compliance as any which was used by St. John himself or by Justin Martyr. Difference of time and circumstances necessarily involves a difference in the mode of viewing matters which in themselves are unimportant. For the earth is the Lord’s. It is doubtful whether the repetition of this clause is genuine. It is omitted by all the best uncials. 1 Corinthians 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other. You may be well aware that you intend no sanction of idolatry, but if the other supposes that you do, you wound his conscience, which you have no right to do. Your own conscience has already decided for itself. For why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? These words explain why he said "conscience not thine own." The mere fact that another person thinks that we are doing wrong does not furnish the smallest proof that we are doing wrong. We stand or fall only to our own Master, and our consciences are free to form their own independent conclusion. Perhaps in this clause and the next verse we have an echo of the arguments used by the Corinthian "liberals," who objected to sacrifice themselves to the scruples of the weak. The independence of conscience is powerfully maintained in Romans 14:2-5. 1 Corinthians 10:30 For if I. The "for" should be omitted. There is no copula in the best manuscripts. By grace. The word may also mean "with thankfulness" (comp. Romans 14:6. "He that eateth, to the Lord he eateth, for he giveth God thanks;" 1 Timothy 4:3, "Meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving;" compare our phrase," saying grace"). Another view of these clauses interprets them to mean "You should refrain because, by net doing so, you give occasion to others to judge you"—a rule which has been compared with Romans 14:16, "Let not your good be evil spoken of." Whichever view be taken, it is clear that theoretically St. Paul sided with the views of the "strong," but sympathetically with those of the "weak." He pleaded for some concession to the scrupulosity of ever morbid consciences, he disapproved of a defiant, ostentatious, insulting liberalism. On the other hand, he discouraged the miserable micrology of a purblind and bigoted superstition, which exaggerated the importance of things external and indifferent. He desiderated more considerateness and self denial on the one side; and on the other, a more robust and instructed faith, he would always tolerate the scruples of the weak, but would not suffer either weakness or strength to develop itself into a vexatious tyranny. 1 Corinthians 10:31 All. There is much grandeur in the sweeping universality of the rule which implies that all life, and every act of life, may be consecrated by holy motives. To the glory of God. Not to the glorification either of your own breadth of mind or your over-scrupulosity of conscience, but "that God in all things may be glorified" (1 Peter 4:11). 1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence. Of course St. Paul means "give no offence in unimportant, indifferent matters" (comp. Romans 14:13). "Offence" means "occasion of stumbling." The word only occurs in Acts 24:16; Philippians 1:16. Nor to the Gentiles; rather, nor to the Greeks. 1 Corinthians 10:33 That they may be saved. All the sympathy, tolerance, forbearance, which I try to practise has this one supreme object. 1 Corinthians 10:1-15 The ages. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and. were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." From this passage several things may be inferred concerning the ages of human history. I. THE MORAL of the ages. Paul teaches here that the age of the Jew in the wilderness sustained a twofold relation to men of all future times—the relation of a representative and of an admonisher. 1. It was a representative. Things that happened in the wilderness happened as "ensamples." (1) Their blessings were "ensamples." Their "pillar" represented the Bible. Their baptism unto Moses represented the dedication of Christians to the religion of Christ. Their manna and their water from the rock represented Christ—the Bread and Water of spiritual life. (2) Their imperfections were "ensamples." Their lusts, idolatries, frivolity, discontent, represent the sins to which men are liable through all Christian times. (3) Their punishments were "ensamples." Thousands died in the wilderness in consequence of their sins, and this represents the fact that sin and misery are indissolubly connected. 2. It was an admonisher." They are written for our admonition." The principles embodied in their history are of universal application. They are: (1) The special care which God exercises over those who commit themselves to him. (2) The tendency of the depraved heart to go wrong. (3) The inviolable connection between sin and suffering. II. THE DIVINE of the ages. It is here taught that God employs one age as a minister to another. He is in all ages. He makes the events that happened to the Jews in the wilderness thousands of years ago minister to the good of men of all future times. This fact: 1. Should restrain us from hasty judgments of his providence. 2. Should impress us with the seriousness of life. III. THE GROWING of the ages. "Upon whom the ends of the world are come." The patriarchal was succeeded by the Mosaic, the Mosaic by the Christian. The Christian is the last. All the past has come down to us: 1. Through literature. Books bring down to us the poets, the sages, the orators, the preachers of past ages, etc. 2. Through tradition. Were there no books, one generation would impart its thoughts, spirit, art, institutions, to another. IV. THE COMMON of the ages. "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man," etc. Men through all times have been subject to similar temptations. (1) All men are temptable. (a) Men are constitutionally temptable. All moral creatures in the universe are temptable, even the highest angel. There is no virtue where there is no temptability. (b) All men as fallen creatures are specially temptable. Having yielded to temptation by the law of habit, they have gained a tendency to do this, and this tendency is ever on the increase. (2) All men are in tempting circumstances. In heaven there may be no incentives to wrong, no seductive influences. Earth is full of the tempting. The passage here teaches us two things. 1. That our temptations require great caution. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." The Jews in the wilderness had great privileges. Inspired men were with them. Supernatural manifestations surrounded them; God himself was specially with them. Yet they yielded to their temptations, and they fell. Wherefore let all "take heed." Privileges are no security. 2. That our temptations must be resisted. They are resistible: (1) Because God does not allow any temptation to happen to us that outmeasures our power of resistance. "He will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able." He is in all the events of life. He proportions the burden to the back. If temptations came outstripping our capabilities of resistance, our yielding to them might be a calamity, but would not be a crime. Such a case, I presume, never happens in the history of man. The righteous God would not allow it to transpire. (2) Because if we are in earnest in our resistance, he will enable us to escape. He "will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." "There is no valley so dark," says an old expositor, "but he can find a way through it, no affliction so grievous but he can prevent or remove or enable us to support it, and, in the end, overrule it to our advantage." . 1. Do not suppose that the advantages of past times were greater than ours. There are men who are constantly referring us to the past, saying the former times were better than the present. Of all the ages that are past, what age had the advantages of this? Not the patriarchal; for under it the Deluge came. Not the Mosaic; for under it came the ruin of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth. Not the apostolic; for in it grievous heresies arose and moral abominations grew rife. 2. Do not suppose that the type of excellence reached by our ancestors is high enough for us. We ought to be more noble than the old patriarchs, more enlightened and Christ like than the best Christians of apostolic times. On us, great God, on us are come The ends of rolling time; We would begin each opening day With gratitude sublime. Men after men have come and gone, Myriads have passed away; But thou hast lived unchanged, O God, And brought us to this day. The past, an ocean under thee, Bore onward thy great plan, And every billow, as it broke, Was fraught with good to man. The dispensations under which Our fathers lived and died Were only, as compared with ours, Dim daybreak to noontide. "A goodly heritage" have we, Ages of choicest lore; What "kings and prophets long’d" to see Are ours for evermore. The great men of the past are ours, To help us on life’s way; The Sun of Righteousness we have, To flood our hearts with day. All that past times have given us May we employ aright, And live a grand and godly life, Full worthy of our light. We follow in the awful march Of all the mighty dead. Eternal Father, succour us When all our years have fled! 1 Corinthians 10:16-22 The Christian feast. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" etc. The text undoubtedly refers to the feast which Christ instituted the night on which he was betrayed, and the words lead us to look at that feast in two aspects. I. AS A MEDIUM FOR . "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" The shed blood and broken body of Christ are here regarded, and must ever be regarded, as the effects and expressions of his self sacrificing love. His "flesh" and "blood" mean his spiritual life. What was that spirit life that animated and controlled him? Self sacrificing love. This made him Christ, marked him off from all other men that ever lived; it was the very "body" and "blood" of his soul. When we are commanded, therefore, to eat his flesh and drink his blood, it means that we are to take his spirit into us, his spirit of self sacrificing philanthropy. This spirit is, indeed, the only true food for souls. It alone answers the two great purposes of food—it gives strength and satisfaction. No man can become morally strong, or morally satisfied, without appropriating the self sacrificing love of Christ. Now, in the true spiritual celebration of this feast, there is a twofold "communion.’’ 1. A "communion" of the disciples with Christ. They drink in his spirit, and by a living sympathy are brought into a close and. tender fellowship with him. Christ comes in to them and sups with them, and they with him. We are always bringing those with whom we have the strongest sympathy into our inmost being. 2. A "communion" of the disciples with one another. "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." "This verse explains how the breaking of the bread was the significant act, which expressed, sacramentally, the communion of the body of Christ. There is one bread, it is broken in many pieces, and as we all (though each receives only a fragment) partake of the one bread, which, unbroken, consisted of these pieces, we, though many individuals, are one body, even the body of Christ, with whom, as well as with each other, we have communion in that act." All who have a supreme sympathy for one common object will, by a law of their nature, be brought into communion one with another. All hearts will throb with one great feeling, all thoughts will flow into one common channel. Thus all true Christians are united one with another, as all the planets are united by circling round one centre, and deriving therefrom a common impulse, a common life, and a common order. II. AS THE OF . Paul speaks in these verses of two other feasts. 1. The feast of the Jewish priesthood. "Behold Israel after the flesh." The Jewish sacrifice was divided, a portion offered on the altar, and a portion taken and eaten. 2. The feast of the idolatrous heathen. "What say I then that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything?" etc. The heathen had their feasts; they partook of that which they offered to their gods. But the spirit manifested in the partakers of both of these feasts—Jewish or heathen—would exclude from the feast which Christ ordained. In the one there was only a formal respect for Jehovah, and in the other, for demons and evil spirits. "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." None are to be admitted to Christ’s feasts who are not in vital sympathy with him. "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils." 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 Gospel casuistry. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient," etc. These verses teach us the following lessons:— I. A GOOD MAN MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT WHICH MAY NOT ALWAYS BE FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." What has not a good man a right to? He has a right to go wherever he pleases, to eat whatever he pleases, to dress as he pleases, for a good man will be actuated evermore from a good motive. But for him to use his full right would manifestly be often inexpedient and even pernicious to others. "Things lawful" for him would not always be things that would "edify," build up, souls in reverent faith and true worship. Therefore, it is not always right to stand upon our rights, it is right to conciliate and yield for the sake of others. II. SMALL ON MINOR MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE . 1. If you are over scrupulous about what you eat, it will interfere with your participation in the provisions which nature has made for you. "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake." Some of the meat which had been used for sacrificial purposes in heathen temples was afterwards exposed in the markets for sale. If it is good meat, it is not the worse for human food because used in sacrifice. Your nature is exhausted, it requires replenishment; you are hungry, there is the food hung up for sale; buy it, do not let superstitious feelings interfere with the claims of nature. How wretched and wan some of our co-religionists look, because their scruples keep them from food! 2. If you are over scrupulous about the beliefs of men, you will be deprived of social enjoyments. "If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, cat, asking no question for conscience sake." Free, genial, hearty social intercourse is one of the greatest blessings of this life. Our Saviour came "eating and drinking," but if you are over scrupulous about the credenda of your host and his provisions, you sacrifice all this and injure your nature. Remember always that the world was given for your enjoyment. "The earth hath he given to the children of men." "All things are yours." III. A TO THE OF OTHERS SHOULD ALWAYS BE . "If any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake," etc. When at the table with meats spread before you which have been sacrificed to idols, and a fellow guest conscientiously abstains from touching them, and he reminds you of the fact, then, out of deference to his weak conscience, do not you touch them. However delicious they may appear, however fragrant in aroma, however hungry you may be, out of regard to that weak brother’s conscience deny yourself. The most sacred thing under these heavens is the conscience. The weakest conscience should be respected; to wound the conscience is to wound the man. What are meats and drinks in comparison with a human conscience? IV. SUPREME REGARD FOR THE GLORY OF GOD SHOULD RULE US IN ALL. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." "These words embrace all life. The definite acts of eating and drinking are mentioned expressly, as they are the subject immediately under consideration. They are, however, to be regulated by the same principle which guides all true life. The modern idea of some acts being religious and some secular is neither here nor elsewhere recognized by St. Paul. No act of life is in itself either religious or secular. The quality of each act depends on the spirit which guides it and the motives from which it springs. The commonest thing may be done in a highly Christian spirit; the greatest deed may spring from a low and selfish motive. A religious act done in a secular spirit is secular; a secular thing done in a religious spirit is religious. This is the first great principle of Christian life." V. THE GOOD OF OTHERS, AND NOT THE OF SELF, SHOULD BE OUR AIM. "Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth." "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." BY C. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 Subject continued; arguments from the Old Testament; warning against false security. Reference had been made in the preceding chapter to the law of Moses respecting oxen, and to the priests of the temple, for whose support there was a special provision. But St. Paul had introduced a striking illustration from Grecian life to show the importance of earnest and exact discipline in matters pertaining to the soul’s salvation. The body, with its infirmities and sins, was a very serious danger, and, unless kept under by the power of grace, would acquire mastery over the spirit. Even he, though an apostle, might become "a castaway." The terrible liability was before him as a personal thing, the idea lingered and demanded a fuller emphasis, and how could he contemplate himself without considering the hazardous exposure of his brethren? Every fibre of his private heart was a public tie that bound him to others, and hence he could not see his own peril and be blind to the peril of the Church. Under the pressure of this anxiety, his mind reverts to the history of the Jewish Church. Historical examples are very powerful, and where could he find them except in the Old Testament? Grecian games pass out of view, and the stately procession of wonders, beginning in the deliverance of the elect race from Egyptian bondage ’rod progressing through the events of the desert, moves before his eye. "Our fathers" indicates how true he was to ancestral blood, and this warmhearted sense of country, in which patriotism and piety interblended, exemplifies the origin and tenacity of the feeling that prompted him in the previous chapter to put in the foreground this fact, "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew." Let us remember that his peculiar state of mind at the moment took its colouring from one single thing, viz. the hazards of moral probation because of the body. How predominant this idea was appears in the instances enumerated to show the unfaithfulness of God’s people to their covenanted engagements. Such words as "lust," "lusted," "eat and drink," "rose up to play," "commit fornication," are significant of his intense feeling, and they are as reverberations from what was to him an awful term "castaway," "rejected," "fail shamefully of the prize." According to his conception, brain and nerves, all the facts of the physical organism, had to be taken into account in looking at the practical side of Christianity. And it was a practical question, because it rested on a broad generalization of man’s place, order, and destiny in the universe. No empiric was he, but a thinker of most penetrating insight, far in advance of his times, in advance too of our century; and while he was not a psychologist nor a physiologist in our sense of the terms, yet no man has ever seen so clearly, so deeply, into the principles underlying psychology and physiology in their relations to spiritual life. His own personal experience turned his thoughts to this study. Providence made him this sort of a student, and the Holy Ghost enlarged and sanctified his investigations. Such thinkers generally come as precursors to scientists and philosophers; but St. Paul was much more than a precursor, for we find in him, not merely a knowledge of facts, but of truths, and a facility in applying them altogether remarkable. What a volume on this subject lay open in his own consciousness! A temperament of singular impressionableness; a natural activity that sprang quite as much from the interaction of his mental faculties and their quick sympathy with one another as from the accesses of the outer world; feeble health, and yet that kind of weakness in certain functions which is sometimes connected with other organs of great strength, and is consistent with astonishing power of endurance; the "thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet" him; add to all this the manner of life he led, and the physical sufferings that enemies inflicted on him;—and how could he help being reminded what a factor the body was in his manhood and apostleship? Think of the effect on the associating and suggestive faculty, on the imagination, on his use of language both for thought and expression, that this mass of disturbed sensibility must have produced, and for which there was no earthly anodyne. Observe, moreover, how the wisdom of God manifests itself in the temperament of this man and its specific discipline. Probably temperament is the secret of individuality, but whether so or not, it must be reckoned as of no little significance as to the influence of the books we read, the teachers that instruct, and the other countless agencies which make up the total of educative forces. Now, in this particular, mark the contrast between St. Peter and St. Paul. The fisherman of Galilee, healthy, robust, abounding in the instinctive joyousness of natural sensations, trustful to an extreme of his emotions, pliant towards himself, singularly impulsive; what a problem was in that temperament and its physiological laws, when the Lord Jesus began to educate his nerves, arteries, brains, for discipleship, and through the disciple to develop the apostle of the "Rock" and the "Keys"! Yet it was done, and done thoroughly, so that the changed body of St. Peter is quite as noteworthy as the changed mind, the same body but functionally subdued to a well-governed organism. During the forty days between the Lord’s resurrection and ascension, the man and the apostle emerged from the chrysalis. At Pentecost, what a commanding figure he presents! No haste, no spasmodic action, now, but equipoise and cool wisdom and the courage of repose. In temperament, no less than in official position, St. Peter is the antecedent of St. Paul. And their difference herein, according to providential ordination, was carried out in their training and culture, so that diversity, jealous of its rights in all things, is only self insistent for the sake of prospective unity. Now, St. Paul wishes to put this subject of danger on the bodily side of human life in the strongest possible light for his own benefit and that of the Corinthians. What then? A nation rises before him. By the arm of Jehovah, Egypt has been smitten, the Red Sea has opened a pathway to their triumphant march, and waves and winds have chanted the anthem of a victory in which they had no share. And this nation "passed through the sea," and "were all baptized ante Moses," as their mediatorial leader, "in the cloud and in the sea." Nay, more; the typical idea is still further wrought out, and baptism and the Lord’s Supper are conjoined. "All did eat the same spiritual meat; all did drink the same spiritual drink;" the meat and drink were from above; the Holy Ghost was present as the source of the miracles and the Divine Agent of blessing; the "spiritual" is insisted on, for "that Rock was Christ." There was a revelation to the senses and there was a revelation to the spirit. To deny the supersensuous element is to destroy the force of the analogy, since it is not a resemblance to the imagination alone, but a real likeness to the reason, Christianity and its sacraments being prominent in St. Paul’s view. It was not, then, a mere miracle to the body and for the body. It was likewise a supernatural demonstration, a gracious influence from the Holy Ghost, a prelusive blessedness brought within reach of experience in that dispensation of types and shadows. It was not our spirituality; nevertheless, it was spiritual, since "that Rock was Christ." Our Lord said in his Capernaum discourse, just after his great miracle that fed thousands, "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." Did not the miracle, wrought so lavishly for the public, wrought without solicitation, seem to the excited multitude a sign that Christ was the national Messiah their hearts craved to have? Next day, he disenchanted them by sweeping away the secular illusion and telling them plainly, "I am that Bread of life." The contrast between the manna of the wilderness and the bread of life was stated and enforced at a time, in a way, under circumstances, calculated to secure its object. It did not effect its purpose. "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him;" and henceforth the popular expectation of a worldly Messiah was a waning moon in a darkening night. And this contrast was recognized by St. Paul even while adhering most closely to the parallelism. On the ground of the parallelism, he argues the eminent privileges of the Jews, the opportunities enjoyed, the Divine manifestation, the spiritual influence secured to the nation in the desert. They failed to understand and appreciate their position. Appetite, lust, idolatry, overcame them; "they were overthrown in the wilderness," and so swift was God’s wrath and so overwhelming, that there "fell in one day three and twenty thousand." Here was a supernatural economy; here was a religion that provided for bodily necessities, and even gave "angels’ food;" here, at the same time that the claims of a true and proper sensuousness were divinely met, a "spiritual" agency was established and administered—here, in the solitudes of sand and rock, where the chosen people were alone with God, and where neither day nor night was allowed to wear its accustomed face because of the presence of the pillar cloud of glory; and yet amid such displays of the providence and Spirit of God, men fell into idolatry, murmured against God, tempted him, and perished under miraculous judgments. It is not simply a lesson from individuals to individuals. It is a warning from a community to a community. Vice as personal, vice as social, vice as an epidemic in the air,—this is the vice of bodily degradation as it exhibits its raging enormity in lust, fornication, and idol worship. "These things were our examples," "for ensamples," "written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come," the coalescence of the ages in the grand demonstration of Christianity as the completed revelation to mankind of God in Christ. "Wherefore... take heed." We have more light; larger privileges, nobler opportunities, but there is no mechanical security in these things. The crisis age has come, the crisis trial has come with it. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." To encourage their holy endeavours, he assures them that there is no fatality in temptation. Oftentimes it happens that men are morally disabled before the struggle, before an incitement to do evil has fairly set in. By this proneness to believe in fate, they surrender in advance. Remote causes are frequently more potent than proximate causes, and many a man has been the victim of a false philosophy of morals long before he has fallen as an actual prey to Satan. Bodily sins have something in them which renders their subjects uncommonly liable to this destructive belief, and "I could not help it; I cannot help it," are words that easily rise to their lips. But the doctrine of St. Paul is a protest against such a demoralizing idea. "No trial has come upon you beyond man’s power to bear" (Conybeare and Howson). "God is faithful." The laws of the universe and their administration, the presence of the Spirit as the universal Helper, and the glory of Christianity as the consummation of the ages, are so many Divine assurances that no man is doomed beforehand to fall into the snare of the devil. Satan himself is only Satan, man’s adversary, within certain limits. God holds him in check. At first, the influence of evil takes effect on the involuntary nature, sensations are awakened, passions excited, but it becomes a temptation when these lower instruments are brought to bear on the consent of the will. "God is faithful" to the human will. There is nothing in man which is so constantly quickened and energized as a defensive force. And, furthermore, as a positive and aggressive force, what resources are at its command! If temptation is subtle and insinuating, who knows the number and Variety of the Spirit’s secret avenues to the will? There is always "a way to escape," and this way is provided by our heavenly Father, who is evermore answering the prayer, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."—L. 1 Corinthians 10:14-33 Argument further enforced; fellowship with Christ by means of the communion; idolatrous feasts a communion with demons; law, expediency, conscience. "Wherefore," says St. Paul, as a deduction from the foregoing argument, "my dearly beloved," his heart kindled anew towards his brethren, "flee from idolatry." This dread of idolatry is the key to what follows. Idolatry, in those days, was a sin that included all sins, and Corinth was behind no city in the charm and splendour it threw around this iniquity. Bodily indulgences of the worst sort were notorious. Throughout Greece, Corinth was the common synonym of the most shameful vices, and that too, not in despite of idolatry, but as a constituent of religious worship, especially of Venus. Art among the Greeks had done its utmost to destroy the uglier features of the old heathenism, had called beauty and culture into the service of the priests and the ceremonial of the temples, and had succeeded in making the aesthetic a reproach to pure taste and a mocking insult to every moral virtue. Corinth was a leading centre of all the corrupting and lascivious influence of idolatry, and hence St. Paul’s tender and fervent entreaty, "My dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." The connection with his foregoing argument is clear. If the athlete must subject himself to a severe and protracted discipline; if God’s elect race so largely perished in the wilderness by reason of transgression; if any and every temptation may be successfully resisted, so that neither the throng of evil doers nor the show and fascination of a pompons idol worship can be an excuse for sin;—with what force could he urge, "Flee from idolatry"! St. Paul knew the strength of his appeal. And he credited these Corinthians with insight sufficient to see this strength, for he bade them hear him "as wise men," and "judge" what he said. Is he satisfied to leave the argument at this stage? Observation of current facts, historical examples preserved from oblivion for their warning, God’s faithfulness, have been brought to bear on the question; and yet, so far from being content to dismiss the subject, he resumes it with new vigour of thought and a deepened intensity of emotion. The language changes. Few or no metaphoric words occur. Throughout the paragraph, it is the vocabulary of pure feeling and impassioned earnestness that he employs, for the imagination has retired from its task and left the heart to consummate the work. he begins with the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, binding the argument to the point whence he had digressed at the opening of the ninth chapter. "This liberty of yours," he had said, "might prove ruinous to weak brethren ’for whom Christ died,’" and therefore such an abuse of freedom was a sin "against the brethren" and a "sin against Christ." What is the special connection of the Lord’s Supper with the completion of the argument? Obviously the position it occupies in the logic of the case is one of eminence, St. Paul having reserved it for his conclusion. It would seem that he had before his mind one particular and engrossing idea in relation to the Supper, which, although perfectly consistent with other ideas of the sacrament, and, indeed, essential to their import, was detached at the moment and set forth with very distinct and commanding prominence. It is the idea of the communion. "Cup of blessing," "bread which we break," the thanksgiving, the faith and love exercised, the recollected obligations, the spiritual conception of "the blood" and "the body of Christ" as means of an inward holiness; are not these a communication, a participation, an entering into Christ’s death, a true and real fellowship with him as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world"? If so, it means separation from all evil compliances and from all dangerous associations. "Separate from sinners" was a distinguishing fact in Christ’s life;" not only "holy, harmless, undefiled," but, by his separation from men, exhibiting in the fullest and most effective way the three characteristics mentioned. Near, very near, to all about him, and yet the nearer he was the further removed he stood in the dignity of his person and the exclusiveness of his office, so that the mysterious awe which invested him was profoundly felt by his friends even while ignorant of his nature and mediatorship as Son of God and Son of man, and on various occasions acknowledged by his enemies. And this separateness appeared even more conspicuously in his vicarious and propitiatory death. His life was a new revelation of life; his death was a new revelation of death. "Separate" was that death from all deaths actual and possible. He spoke of it as he never spake of aught else involving himself. He had feelings concerning it that he never indicated as touching other personal interests. For its loneliness and secret agony, for its public dishonour and humiliation, for its apparent triumph of his foes and its seeming discomfiture of himself, for its Jewish and Roman and world wide aspects, for its self sacrifice, for it as the divinely ordained means to reconcile God to man and man to God, he prepared himself as one who realized the infiniteness of the act. Previously to the great passion hour, nature had given him, of her own accord, no recognition of his Divine majesty. It was his act, not hers, when miracles transpired. But, at his death, she put forth the power of her attestation to the fact that he was "separate from sinners," and by the darkness, and the earthquake, and the opened graves, and the rent veil, signified that, "Truly this man was the Son of God." Now, in St. Paul’s view, partaking of the Lord’s Supper is partaking spiritually of the blood and body of Christ, and if so, it is communion with him, the communion—a special form of confessing him, a particular and most solemn act of acknowledging him as our Redeemer and Lord, in a word, a sacrament. Wine and bread are symbols; but the sacrament must not be limited to ordinary symbolism. It is a fact, a vital and absolute fact, a Divine reality, to the believer’s soul, a spiritual realization of Christ. Nothing magical and superstitious, nothing mechanical, nothing that derives virtue from priest and ceremonials in the form of sacerdotal consecration, belongs to its nature, use, and end. It is simple, it is personal to the faith and love of the humble disciples of the cross, it is sublime because so perfectly spiritual in the union and fellowship with Christ which it is intended to secure. But is this all? By no means; it is communion and fellowship among believers. "We are all partakers of that one bread." Now, there are common ties among Christians that grow out of their relation to one another in Christ considered as Son of man. If he was Philanthropist, Benefactor, Friend, Healer, Teacher, Inspirer, he has left us an example that we should follow in his steps, and this example is beautifully potent when we cooperate in these beneficent duties. Yet there is a higher expression of our union when we partake of the Lord’s Supper, since this recognizes his atoning death as the bond that makes us one. And as Christ’s works of power and mercy throughout Galilee and Judaea went forward and attained their fullest manifestation in the atonement of Calvary, so our sympathies with one another and harmonious activity in daily acts of kindness must be ratified and scaled by being "partakers of that one bread." Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." No such drawing power did he claim for his miracles, nor for other marvellous forces that radiated in every direction from him as the great Centre of blessing in his day to the poor, the diseased, the demoniac. Where he is mightiest we are most mighty; for it pleased him, in varying the manifestations of his omnipotence and adapting them to the different instincts of man as he dealt one by one with these primal qualities, it pleased him, we say, to leave similar channels of activity for us to occupy. Therefore it is that the cross lifts us up into a higher companionship with one another. Even in common life, there is no such reconciler as death. A corpse in a divided household is a peace maker. We are all brothers at a funeral. The presence of death lingers not in the senses, nor pauses in the imagination, nor rests in the understanding, but goes down into the great original instincts, where the sense of humanity lies embedded under the shadow of the infinite. Of what immeasurable value, then, is the death of Christ as a uniting influence in behalf of brotherhood! And what an appeal the communion makes to that social sentiment which is so precious to Christianity! And who can go in a devout frame of mind to the table of the Lord without feeling that "life’s poor distinctions vanish here," without a larger consciousness of the Divine loveliness of forbearance, and of patience with others, and of forgiveness of enemies, and of the blessedness unspeakable and full of glory in charity when charity as "the greatest" possesses intellect, heart, and life? God be praised for such hours! Finer spheres than sun and planets measure their coming, their stay, and. their going. Nor does the argument rest at this point. "To partake of a Jewish sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was an act of Jewish worship" (Hodge). Here are "our fathers," "Israel after the flesh," and they were "partakers of the altar;" and here are we, to whom "the ages" have brought their light and privileges and been perfected in the epoch of Christianity, and who "are all partakers of that one bread." Shall we be found feasting in idol temples? This is heathenish idolatry, this is communion with devils, this is fatal to brotherhood, this is treachery to the Lord Jesus Christ. What do I say? Do I declare that the idol is anything or the sacrifice anything? I, Paul, say to you, that ye cannot "drink the cup" consecrated to the Lord and "drink the cup" consecrated by the heathen to their demons deities to the Gentiles, evil spirits to Jews and Christians. For this use of the cup is an acknowledgment of fellowship with these "evil spirits," and a fraternization with their worshippers. Such conduct is utterly unjustifiable; it will "provoke the Lord to jealousy," and to a jealousy like that when wedded love has proved faithless to its holy vow. And can ye Corinthians withstand such a devouring flame of anger? Then he recurs to the statement made in 1 Corinthians 6:12, "All things are lawful," etc., and reaffirms the ethical principle of restraint on personal liberty. And with the mightier impulse which has just accented its deep tones of warning, the thought of expediency widens its application. What is the great tap root of all our evils? Selfishness. And this selfishness assumes manifold forms, intellectual and social, physical and commercial. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 11:1 Followers of me; rather, imitators of me; follow herein my example, as I follow Christ’s. What Christ’s example was, in that he too "pleased not himself," he sets forth in Romans 15:1-3; and the general principle of self abnegation for the sake of others in Philippians 2:4-8. This verse ought to be included in ch. 10. It sums up the whole argument, and explains the long digression of ch. 9. As I also am of Christ. This limits the reference to his own example. I only ask you to imitate me in points in which I imitate Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Rules and principles respecting the covering of the head by women in Church assemblies. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now; rather, but, on the other hand. That ye remember me in all things, and keep, etc. This is probably a quotation from their letter. He thanks them for this kind message, but points out one particular in which their practice was not quite commendable. The ordinances. The word literally means traditions, but is here rightly applied to rules which he had delivered to them. The Vulgate has praecepta. The word is used in Matthew 15:2 of the rules and precedents laid down by the rabbis. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know; rather, but I wish you to know. That the head of every man is Christ. St. Paul, as was customary with him, applies the loftiest principles to the solution of the humblest difficulties. Given a question as to what is right or wrong in a particular instance, he always aims at laying down some great eternal fact to which the duty or decision is ultimately referable, and deduces the required rule from that fact. The headship of Christ is stated in Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15; and its application to the superiority of man is laid down also in Ephesians 5:23. The subordinate position of the woman is also stated in 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Peter 3:5, 1 Peter 3:6, etc. This, however, is merely an ordinance of earthly application. In the spiritual realm "there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). The head of the woman is the man. In Christ the distinctions of the sexes are done away. It was, perhaps, an abuse of this principle which had led the Corinthian women to assert themselves and their rights more prominently than decorum warranted. The head of Christ is God. That Christ is "inferior to the Father as touching his manhood," that his mediatorial kingdom involves (so far) a subordination of his coequal Godhead, has been already stated in 1 Corinthians 3:23, and is further found in 1 Corinthians 15:27, 1 Corinthians 15:28. This too is the meaning of Joh 14:28, "My Father is greater than I." 1 Corinthians 11:4 Prophesying; that is, preaching. Having his head covered. This was a Jewish custom. The Jewish worshipper in praying always covers his head with his tallith. The Jew (like Orientals generally) uncovered his feet because the place on which he stood was holy ground; but he covered his head by way of humility, even as the angels veil their faces with their wings. AEneas is said by Servius to have introduced this custom into Italy. On the other hand, the Greek custom was to pray with the head uncovered. St. Paul—as some discrepancy of custom seems to have arisen—decided in favour of the Greek custom, on the high ground that Christ, by his incarnation, became man, and therefore the Christian, who is" in Christ," may stand with unveiled head in the presence of his Father. Dishonoureth his head. He dishonoureth his own head, which is as it were a sharer in the glory of Christ, who is Head of the whole Church. "We pray," says Tertullian, "with bare beads because we blush not." The Christian, being no longer a slave, but a son (Galatians 4:7), may claim his part in the glory of the eternal Son. The head was covered in mourning (2 Samuel 15:30; Jeremiah 14:13), and the worship of the Christian is joyous. 1 Corinthians 11:5 Or prophesieth. Although St. Paul "thinks of one thing at a time," and is not here touching on the question whether women ought to teach in public, it appears from this expression that the rule which he lays down in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 14:35, and 1 Timothy 2:12 was not meant to be absolute. See the case of Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:9 and Acts 2:17). With her head uncovered. For a woman to do this in a public assembly was against the national custom of all ancient communities, and might lead to the gravest misconceptions. As a rule, modest women covered their heads with the peplum or with a veil when they worshipped or were in public. Christian women at Corinth must have caught something of the "inflation" which was characteristic of their Church before they could have acted with such reprehensible boldness as to adopt a custom identified with the character of immodest women. Dishonoureth her head. Calvin, with terse good sense, observes, "As the man honours his head by proclaiming his liberty, so the woman by acknowledging her subjection." 1 Corinthians 11:6 Let her also be shorn. Not a command, but, a sort of scornful inference, or reductio ad absurdum. If it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. When a woman was tried by "the ordeal of the water of jealousy," her head was uncovered by the priest (Numbers 5:18). To be shorn or shaven was a sign of mourning (Deuteronomy 21:12), and was a disgrace inflicted on adulteresses. 1 Corinthians 11:7 He is the image and glory of God. Because he reflects and partakes in the glory of Christ, who is the effulgence of God and the impress of his substance (Genesis 1:27; Psalms 8:6; Hebrews 1:2). The woman is the glory of the man. As moonlight is to sunlight, or as the earthshine is to the moonshine. Man reflects God; woman, in her general nature in this earthly and temporal dispensation, reflects the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:8 But the woman of the man. An allusion to Genesis 2:21, Genesis 2:22. 1 Corinthians 11:9 But the woman for the man. As is expressly stated in Genesis 2:18. 1 Corinthians 11:10 To have power on her head. A great deal of irrelevant guesswork has been written on this verse. Under this head must be classed the idle attempts to twist the word exousia, power, or authority, into some other reading—an attempt which may be set aside, because it is not sanctioned by a single manuscript. We may also dismiss the futile efforts to make exousia have any other primary meaning than "authority." The context shows that the word has here a secondary sense, and implies some kind of covering. The verse, therefore, points the same lessons as Genesis 24:64, Genesis 24:65. This much may be regarded as certain, and this view is adopted by the steadfast good sense of our English translators, both in the Authorized and Revised Versions. The only question worth asking is why the word exousia had come at Corinth, or in the Corinthian Church, to be used for "a veil," or "covering." The simplest answer is that just as the word "kingdom" in Greek may be used for "a crown" (comp. regno as the name of the pope’s tiara), so "authority" may mean "a sign of authority" (Revised Version), or "a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband". The margin of the Revised Version, "authority over her head," is a strange suggestion. Some have explained the word of her own true authority, which consists in accepting the rule of her husband; but it probably moans a sign of her husband’s authority over her. Similarly the traveller Chardin says that in Persia the women wear a veil, in sign that they are "under subjection." If so, the best comment on the word may be found in the exquisite lines of Milton, which illustrate the passage in other ways also— "She, as a vei1, down to the slender waist Her unadorned golden tresses wore… As the vine curves her tendrils, which implied Subjection, but required with gentle sway, And by her yielded, by him best received." The fact that Callistratus twice uses exousia of "abundance of hair" is probably a mere coincidence, resembling the Irish expression "a power of hair." Nor can there be any allusion to the isolated fact that Samson’s strength lay in his hair. The very brief comment of Luther sums up all the best of the many pages which have been written on the subject. He says that exousia means "the veil or covering, by which one may see that she is under her husband’s authority" (Genesis 3:16). Because of the angels. In this clause also we must set aside, as idle waste of time, the attempts to alter the text, or to twist the plain words into impossible meanings. The word "angels" cannot mean "Church officials," or "holy men," or "prophets," or "delegates," or "’bridegroom’s men," or anything but angels. Nor can the verse mean, as Bengel supposes, that women are to veil themselves because the angels do so (Isaiah 6:2), or because the angels approve of it. The only question is whether the allusion is to good or bad angels. In favour of the latter view is the universal tradition among the Jews that the angels fell by lust for mortal women, which was the Jewish way of interpreting Genesis 6:1, Genesis 6:2. This is the view of Tertullian (’De Virg. Vel.,’ 7) in writing on this subject. A woman, in the opinion and traditions of Oriental Jews, is liable to injury from the shedim, if she appears in public unveiled; and these evil spirits are supposed to delight in the appearance of unveiled women. The objection to this view, that angeloi alone is never used of evil but always of good angels, is not perhaps decisive (see 1 Corinthians 6:3). The verse may, however, mean (in accordance with the Jewish belief of those days) that good angels, being under the possibility of falling from the same cause as their evil brethren, fly away at once from the presence of unveiled women. Thus Khadijah tested that the visitant of her husband Mohammed really was the angel Gabriel, because he disappeared the moment she unveiled her head. On the whole, however, the meaning seems to be, out of respect and reverence for the holy angels, who are always invisibly present in the Christian assemblies.. "Reverence the angels" is St. Chrysostom’s remark. 1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless. The verse is meant to correct any tendency on the part of men to domineer. Man and woman are "all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). "The two-celled heart, beating with one full stroke—Life." 1 Corinthians 11:12 By the woman; that is, "born of a woman" (Job 14:1). But all things of God. And all things also "through him and to him," made by him, and tending to him as their end (Romans 11:1-36:56). 1 Corinthians 11:13 Is it comely, etc.? An appeal to the decision of their instinctive sense of propriety. 1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you? "Nature" here has much the lame sense as "instinct." "His fair large front and eye sublime declared Absolute rule; and hyacinthine locks Round from his parted forelock manly hung Clustering, but not beneath his shoulders broad: She, as a veil, down to the slender waist Her unadorned golden tresses wore." (Milton, ’Paradise Lost,’ 4:304.) 1 Corinthians 11:15 It is a glory to her. Because it is at once beautiful and natural; and as Bengel says, "Will should follow the guidance of nature." 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious. St. Paul cuts the question short, as though impatient of any further discussion of a subject already settled by instinctive decorum and by the common sense of universal usage. "Seem to be contentious" is (like the Latin videtur) only a courteous way of saying "is contentious." If any of you wish to be disputatious and quarrelsome about this minor matter of ritual, I must content myself with saying that he must take his own course (for a similar use of the euphemistic "seem," see Philippians 3:4; Hebrews 4:1; James 1:26). We have no such custom. The emphatic "we" means the apostles and the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem and Antioch. Such custom. Not referring to "contentiousness," but to the women appearing with uncovered heads. Neither the Churches of God. If you Corinthians prefer these abnormal practices in spite of reason, common sense, and my arguments, you must stand alone in your innovations upon universal Christian practice. But catholic custom is against your "self opinionated particularism." 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Discreditable irregularities at the Eucharist and the agapae. 1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not; rather, as in the Revised Version, But in giving you this charge, I praise you not. A reference to the "I praise you" of 1 Corinthians 11:2. Ye come together. As he advances, his rebukes become more and more serious; for the present reproach does not affect a few, but the Church assembly in general. 1 Corinthians 11:18 First of all. The "second" rebuke is not clearly stated, but is no doubt meant to refer to the abuses in "speaking with the tongue." In the Church; rather, in congregation, or assembly. The reference is not to a particular building. The Lord’s Supper was administered frequently (originally every day, Acts 2:46), and often in private houses. Divisions; schisms (1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Corinthians 1:12). Here, however, he is referring to cliques and quarrels at the love feasts. Partly! cannot think, he says, in a tone of kindness, that these reports are wholly false. There must be some ground for them, even if the facts have been exaggerated. 1 Corinthians 11:19 There must be also heresies among you. It results from the inevitable decrees of the Divine providence. "It is impossible but that offences will come" (Luke 17:11). Heresies. The word does not mean "erroneous opinions," but party factions. Originally the word only means "a choice," and is not used in a bad sense; but since the opinionativeness of men pushes "a choice" into a "party," and since it is the invariable tendency of a party to degenerate into a "faction," the word soon acquires a bad sense (see its use in Acts 5:17; Acts 15:5; Acts 24:5, Acts 24:14: Acts 28:22; Galatians 5:20; Titus 3:10; 2 Peter 2:1; and Gieseler, ’Church Hist.,’ 1:149). The mutually railing factions, which in their Church newspapers and elsewhere bandy about their false and rival charges of "heresy," are illustrating the virulence of the very sin which they are professing to denounce—the sin of factiousness. That they which are approved may be made manifest among you. Similarly St. John (1 John 2:19) speaks of the aberrations of false teachers as destined to prove that they did not belong to the true Church. Good is educed out of seeming evil (James 1:3; 1 Peter 1:6, 1 Peter 1:7). Approved; standing the test (dokimoi), the opposite of the "reprobate" (adokimoi) of 1 Corinthians 9:27. 1 Corinthians 11:20 Into one place. There were as yet no churches. The Lord’s Supper was held in private houses. This is not; or perhaps, it is not possible. The Lord’s Supper. The fact that there is no article in the Greek shows the early prevalence of this name for the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating; rather, in your eating. Every one. All who have themselves contributed a share to the common meal. Taketh before other his own supper. It is as if they had come together only to eat, not to partake of a holy sacrament. The abuse rose from the connection of the Lord’s Supper with the agapē, or love feast, a social gathering of Christian brothers, to which each, as in the Greek eranoi, or "club feasts," contributed his share. The abuse led to the separation of the agapē from the Holy Communion, and ultimately to the entire disuse of the former at religious gatherings. One is hungry. The poor man, who has been unable to contribute to the meal which was intended to be an exhibition of Christian love, looked on with grudging eyes and craving appetite, while the rich had more than enough. Is drunken. "St. Paul draws the picture in strong colours, and who can say that the reality was less strong?" (Meyer). Calvin says, "It is portentous that Satan should have accomplished so much in so short a time." But the remark was, perhaps, dictated by the wholly mistaken fancy that the Church of the apostolic days was exceptionally pure. On the contrary, many of the heathen converts were unable at once to break the spell of their old habits, and few modern Churches present a spectacle so deplorable as that which we here find in the apostolic Church of Corinth. It is quite obvious that Church discipline must have been almost in abeyance if such grave scandals could exist uncorrected and apparently unreproved. 1 Corinthians 11:22 To eat and to drink in. The object of the agapē was something higher than the mere gratification of appetite. Though not a sacrament, it was an accompaniment of the Lord’s Supper, and was itself intended to be a symbolical and sacred meal. Despise ye the Church of God! The congregation of your fellow Christians. Shame; rather, disgrace, or put to shame. Them that have not. It would be natural to supply "houses." But the commentators found it difficult to suppose that any of the Corinthians had not "houses to eat and to drink in." Hence most commentators give to the phrase its classic sense, in which "those who have" means the rich, and "those who have not," the poor. They seem, however, to have forgotten that slaves at any rate could hardly be said to have "houses of their own," and it is certain that not a few of the Corinthian Christians were slaves. I praise you not. As in 1 Corinthians 11:17, this is an instance of what is called litotēs, a mild expression, suggesting a meaning much stronger than the words themselves. For. He is about to give his reason for thus strongly blaming their irregularities. 1 Corinthians 11:23 I have received; rather, I received. He thus refers the revelation to some special time, and this seems to point to the conclusion that he is not referring to any account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which may have been given him by St. Peter or one of the twelve, but to some immediate revelation from Christ. The terms in which he describes the institution of the Eucharist resemble most nearly those of St. Luke, who may very probably have derived his information from St. Paul. This passage should be compared with Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19, Luke 22:20. Was betrayed; rather, was being betrayed. 1 Corinthians 11:24 When he had given thanks. The same word is used in St. Luke εὐχαριστήσας), and is the origin of the name Eucharist. St. Mark and perhaps St. Matthew have "having blessed it" (eulogesas). Hence the Eucharist is "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." Take, eat. These words are omitted by all the best uncials, Which is broken for you. The word "broken" is of doubtful authenticity. Some manuscripts have "given," and one (D) a milder word for "broken," as though to avoid any contradiction of Joh 19:36, where, however, the word is "shall not be crushed." Since the participle is omitted altogether by à, A, B, C, there can be no doubt that it is a gloss, and accordingly the Revised Version reads, "which is for you." The "broken" is nevertheless involved in the "he brake it," which was a part of the ceremony as originally illustrated. The breaking of the bread ought not, therefore, to be abandoned, as in the case when "wafers" are used. This do. St. Luke also has this clause, which is not found in St. Matthew or St. Mark. The variations show that it was the main fact which was essential, not the exact words spoken. In remembrance of me. The words may also be rendered, for a memorial of me, or to bring me to your remembrance. 1 Corinthians 11:25 When he had supped (see Luke 22:27). ’The cup, like the cos haberachah, was given after the meal was ended. The new testament; rather, the new covenant. The Greek word diathēkē is indeed a "will," or "testament;" but in the LXX., on which the Greek of the apostles was formed, it always stands for berith, covenant. The Jews knew nothing of the practice of "making wills" till they learnt it from the Romans. The only passage of the New Testament (an expression derived from this very passage through the Vulgate) in which diathēkē means a "testament" is Hebrews 9:16, where the writer reverts for a moment only to this signification of the word to introduce a passing illustration. In my blood. The cup was a symbol of the blood of Christ, because the gospel covenant was ratified by the shedding of his blood. The Jews had an absolute horror, at once religious and physical, of tasting blood. This was the reason why the Synod of Jerusalem forbade even to the Gentiles the eating of "things strangled." If the apostles had not fully understood that our Lord was only using the ordinary language of Semitic imagery, and describing only a horror and repulsion. 1 Corinthians 11:26 Ye do show the Lord’s death. The word literally means, ye announce, or proclaim, with reference to the repetition of the actual words used by our Lord. It will be seen that St. Paul does not lend the smallest, sanction to the unfathomable superstition" of a material transubstantiation. Till he come. Accordingly the antiquity and unbroken continuance of this holy rite is one of the many strong external evidences of the truth of the gospel history. The ἂν is omitted in the Greek, to indicate the certainty of Christ’s coming. The same Greek idiom is hopefully and tenderly used in Galatians 4:19. 1 Corinthians 11:27 And drink this cup. This ought to be rendered, or drink this cup. It seems to be one of the extremely few instances in which the translators of our Authorized Version were led by bias into unfaithful rendering. They may have persuaded themselves that the apostle must have meant "and;" but their duty as translators was to translate what he said, not what they supposed him to have meant. What he meant was that it was possible to partake in a wrong spirit either of the bread or the cup. King James’s translators thought that, by rendering the word or, they might seem to favour communion in one kind only. St. Paul’s meaning was that a man might Lake either element of the sacrament unworthily. Unworthily. We are all "unworthy"—" unworthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Christ’s table;" yet not one of us need eat or drink unworthily, that is, in a careless, irreverent, defiant spirit. Guilty of. He draws on himself the penalty due to "crucifying to himself the Son of God afresh," by "putting him to an open shame." 1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself. The verb means "let him test his own feelings;" put them to the proof, to see whether they be sincere or not. He must "wash his hands in innocency," and so come to God’s altar (see Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23; 2 Corinthians 13:5). And so. Soberly, that is; seriously, humbly, and with due reverence. 1 Corinthians 11:29 Unworthily. The word is not genuine here, being repeated from 1 Corinthians 11:27; it is omitted by à, A, B, C. Eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; rather, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself There is reason to believe that the word "damnation" once had a much milder meaning in English than that which it now popularly bears. In King James’s time it probably did not of necessity mean more than "an unfavourable verdict." Otherwise this would be the most unfortunate mistranslation in the whole Bible. It has probably kept thousands, as it kept Goethe, from Holy Communion. We see from verse 32 that this "judgment" had a purely merciful and disciplinary character. Not discerning; rather, if he discern not, the Lord’s body, Any one who approach? the Lord’s Supper in a spirit of levity or defiance, not discriminating between it and common food, draws on himself, by so eating and drinking, a judgment which is defined in the next verse. 1 Corinthians 11:30 Many are weak and sickly among you. St. Paul directly connects this general ill health with the abuse of the Lord’s Supper. It is not impossible that the grave intemperance to which he alludes in 1 Corinthians 11:21 may have had its share in this result; but apart from this, there is an undoubted connection between sin and sickness in some, though not, of course, in all cases (John 5:14). Many. The word is different from the previous word for "many," and means a larger number—" not a few," "a considerable number." Sleep; i.e. are dying. 1 Corinthians 11:31, 1 Corinthians 11:32 For if we would judge ourselves, etc. These verses are very unfortunately mistranslated in our Authorized Version. They should be rendered (literally), For if we discerned (or, discriminated) ourselves, we should not be undergoing judgment (namely, of physical punishment); but, in being judged by the Lord (by these temporal sufferings), we are under training, that we may not be condemned with the world. The meaning is that "if we" (St. Paul here identities himself with the Corinthians) "were in the habit of self discernment—and in this self discrimination is involved a discrimination between spiritual and common things—we should nut be undergoing this sign of God’s displeasure; but the fact that his judgments are abroad among us is intended to further our moral education, and to save us from being finally condemned with the world." Discernment (diakrisis), by saving us from eating unworthily (Psalms 32:5; 1 John 1:9), would have obviated the necessity for penal judgments (krima), but yet the krima is disciplinary (paideuometha, we are being trained as children), to save us from final doom (katakrima). Unworthy eating, then, so far from involving necessary or final "damnation," is mercifully visited by God with temporal chastisement, to help in the saving of our souls. "Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord" (Psalms 94:12; Hebrews 12:5-12). 1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore. He now briefly sums up the practical remedies for these discreditable scenes. My brethren. Introduced, as often, into a stern passage to show that the writer is only actuated by the spirit of love. Tarry one for another. This would prevent the scrambling greediness which he has already condemned in 1 Corinthians 11:21. 1 Corinthians 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home. A reminder of the sacred character of the agapē as a symbol of Christian love and union. Unto condemnation; rather, judgment. In Greek, the same word (krima) is used which in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is so unhappily rendered "damnation." But even "condemnation" is too strong; for that is equivalent to katakrima. The rest; all minor details. It is not improbable that one of these details was the practical dissociation of the agapē from the Lord’s Supper altogether. Certainly the custom of uniting the two seems to have disappeared by the close of the first century. When I come; rather, whenever. The Greek phrase (ὡςἂν) implies uncertainty. The apostle’s plans for visiting Corinth immediately had been materially disturbed by the unfavourable tidings as to the conditions of the Church. 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Corinthians 11:2 Imitation and commendation. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am or Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." In these words we have— I. THE ON WHICH THE OF MOST MEN ARE FORMED. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." Men are imitative beings, and, from a law of their nature, those whom they most admire and with whom they most associate, they become like in spirit and in character. The request of Paul here, at first sight, seems somewhat arrogant: "Be ye followers of me." No man has a right to make such an unqualified claim on another. Hence Paul puts the limitation. "Even as I also am of Christ." The apostle undoubtedly refers to the preceding verses, m which he speaks of himself as not seeking his own pleasure or profit, but that of others. This Christ did. We are told that he "pleased not himself." He means to say, "Be like me in this respect, as I in this respect resemble Christ." Here is the principle that should regulate our imitation of men; imitate them just so far as they resemble Christ. Children should not imitate their parents, pupils should not imitate their teachers, congregations should not imitate their ministers, only so far as they resemble Christ. II. A OF MERIT WHICH MANY ARE TO RENDER. "Now I raise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as delivered them to you." In some things, if not in all, some of the Corinthian Christians pleased Paul, did what he considered right—they remembered him, and practically attended to his directions. There was much in them with which he could find fault, and did find fault, but so far as they did the proper thing he praises them. To render generously credit where credit is due is the characteristic of a great soul, but one which others have not. I take it to be a duty to render credit where credit is due; but how seldom is this attended to I In domestic matters how it is neglected! A wife will go on loyally and lovingly attending to the wants and wishes of her husband, and perhaps not from one year to another does she receive from him one word of hearty commendation. So with servants and masters: the employer, when he has paid the stipulated stipend to the most useful of his employes, feels he has done his duty, and gives not a word of commendation. So with ministers and their congregations. How many ministers are there in every Church, who give the best fruits of their cultivated minds, and, by their sweating brain and agonizing prayers, produce discourses every week admirably suited to serve the highest interests of their congregations; and yet seldom receive one generous word of hearty commendation for all their toils] Miserable criticisms they will get in abundance, but nothing else. Verily, I believe that no social service is more important, and at the same time more neglected, than the yielding of a generous commendation to the truly commendable. 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 The man and the woman. "But I would have you know," etc. Although there are some things in these verses that perhaps no one can rightly interpret, and that may have been written as personal opinion rather than as Divine inspiration, there are two or three points in relation to man and woman interesting and noteworthy. I. THERE IS BETWEEN THEM A IN NATURAL . "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." The principle of subordination, it would seem, prevails throughout the spiritual universe; one rising above another in regular gradation up to God himself. God is over Christ, Christ is over man, man is over woman. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." The ideal women and the ideal men are here, I presume, meant. It is because the man is supposed to have more brain and soul than the woman that he is the master; but in cases—and they are not few—where the woman is the greater, the greater in intellect, heart, and all moral nobleness, she, without her intention or even wish, will necessarily be the head. In the Marriage Service, the woman at the altar is called upon solemnly to vow to obey her husband. I confess I have often been struck at the incongruity of this, when I have seen a little-chested, small-brained man standing by the side of a woman with a majestic brow and a grand physique, when she is called upon to vow obedience to such a man. II. THERE IS BETWEEN THEM AN IN . "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head," etc. It is here implied that both the man and the woman are to prophesy, teach, and pray; not one instead of the other, but each independently. However closely related the man and the wife may be, however dependent one is on the other, neither can perform the spiritual and religious obligations of the other. There is no sharing of duty here, no shifting of personal obligation; each must stand alone before God. III. THERE IS A BETWEEN THEM IN OUTWARD ASPECT. There are two points here concerning the difference. 1. A difference in the way in which they are to appear in public. The man is to appear with an uncovered head, the woman with a covered head. "If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head." The woman’s head is to be covered with her hair or a veil, or both. Who shall divine the meaning of the tenth verse?—"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." To me this is utterly incomprehensible. Probably there were at Corinth women who shaved off their hair in order to obliterate the distinction of sex: shameless women. 2. This difference is adventitious rather than natural. Is there any reason in nature why a man’s head should be uncovered and a woman’s covered; why one should wear long hair and the other short? No such thing seems reasonable; the uncivilized tribes know nothing of it. The reason can only be traced to custom. And is not custom second nature? "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" But original nature does not seem to teach us that, but custom and conventional propriety. Hence Paul says, "If any may seem to be contentious, we have no such custom;" by which he means, I understand, that, whoever may contend to the contrary, such a custom—as that woman should pray and preach with uncovered heads—was not known by Paul in other Churches, and that the Church at Corinth should not allow it. 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 Religious institutions: their abuse. "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not," etc. Three practical truths may be fairly deduced from this paragraph. I. THAT ON THE OF MAY PROVE RATHER TITAN . "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse." The apostle in this verse censures the Corinthians that they came together to the Lord’s Supper, and were made "worse" rather than "better." Men cannot be made religious; an irresistible moral force is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility in fact. Hence it comes to pass that the highest redemptive forces on man often conduce to his ruin. The gospel proves in the case of all hearers either the "savour of life unto life, or of death unto death." Pharaoh’s heart was hardened under the ministry of Moses, and the hearts of the men of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were hardened under the ministry of Christ. II. THAT FOR DOES NOT IMPLY UNITY OF SOUL. "For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." The factious and schismatic spirit seems to have existed in the same Church and even at the Lord’s table. It does not follow that, because people are brought together in the same religious assembly or Church, that they are united together in spirit. Two people may sit in the same pew, hear the same discourse, sing the same hymns, partake of the same bread and wine, and yet in soul be as remote from one another as the poles. No real spiritual unity can exist where there is not a supreme affection for the same being. Christ is the only uniting Centre of souls. III. THAT THE VERY BEST ON EARTH ARE OFTEN SADLY BY MEN. For many reasons the Lord’s Supper may be regarded as one of the best ordinances. But see how it was now perverted. It was made the means of gluttony and drunkenness; men used it as a common feast. "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken." Are not men constantly perverting Divine institutions, Churches, Bibles, the Christian ministry, etc.? 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 The Lord’s Supper. "For I have received," etc. These verses give an account of what is called the Lord’s Supper. This supper was instituted by Christ himself the night in which he was betrayed, while he was observing the Passover with his disciples. On that night he virtually directed the minds of men from all Jewish ritualism and centred them on himself. "Do this in remembrance of me." True religion now has to do with a Person, and that Person is Christ. In reading the words of the apostle here, there are four things which strike us with amazement. I. THAT ANY SHOULD DOUBT THE OF . Here is an institution that was started the night previous to our Saviour’s crucifixion, which was attended to by the Church at Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost, celebrated by various other apostolic Churches as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and which Paul says here he "received from the Lord." From the apostolic age down to this hour, through eighteen long centuries, it has been attended to by all the branches of the true Church. Since its origin hundreds of generations have passed away, many systems have risen and disappeared, nations have been organized, flourished, and broken up; but this ordinance continues; what for? To commemorate the great central fact of the gospel, viz. that Christ died. Is there any other fact in history sustained by evidence half so powerful as this? II. THAT ANY SHOULD THE . Here we are distinctly told that it is to "show the Lord’s death." No language can more clearly show that it is purely commemorative. There are three abuses of this institution. 1. The gustatory. Some of the Corinthians thus used it. They introduced a love feast to immediately precede it, probably because a Jewish feast preceded its first celebration. This led to gluttony and other evils. The members of the Corinthian Church were converts from heathenism, and they had been accustomed in their heathen festivals to give way to gluttony and intemperance, Many of them, from the force of old habits, were tempted to use the Lord’s Supper in this way. 2. The superstitious. There are some who believe that, after the words of consecration are pronounced by the priest over these elements, the elements become literally the "body and blood of the Lord." This is transubstantiation. Others who would not go thus far still superstitiously regard the ordinance as a mystic medium through which grace is poured into the soul of the recipient. Fearful abuse this! 3. The formalistic. There are those who partake of the bread and wine merely as a matter of form and ceremony. We evangelical Christians are not guilty of the first nor of the second, but we may be of the third. The text tells us it is to "show" or to teach; it is an educational ordinance. III. THAT ANY SHOULD SAY THE IS NOT IN ITS . The apostle tells us distinctly that it was to "show the Lord’s death till he come." When will that be? Not just yet. The human world seems to be only in its infancy, and Christianity only just beginning its work. The billows of a thousand ages may break on our shore before he comes. On to that distant point the obligation is binding. There are some professing Christians who think themselves too spiritual to observe such an ordinance. These very spiritual ones, to be consistent, should avoid all scientific studies, for science has to do with material forms; its principles are all embodied, are made palpable to the eye and ear. They should also avoid all Biblical studies, for Biblical truths are for the most part embodied in material facts and forms. Christ himself was "flesh and blood." IV. THAT ANY WITH THE OF CHRIST SHOULD NEGLECT IT. Consider: 1. That it is to commemorate the world’s greatest Benefactor. It is to keep Christ in the memory of man. Here is a Benefactor that has: (1) Served the world in the highest way. He has delivered it from sin and death. (2) Served it by the most unparalleled sacrifice. He sacrificed his life to the work. (3) Served it with the most disinterested love. 2. That it is enjoined by the world’s greatest Benefactor. He himself has enjoined it: "Do this in remembrance of me." BY C. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 Apostolic injunctions with regard to Church services. Though the Corinthians deserved blame in some things, they were entitled to praise in that they had generally observed St. Paul’s directions. Despite their departure from certain of his instructions, he could say, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ;" by which he recognized that they had discernment enough to see the Lord Jesus in his personal and official character, and a sufficient brotherly sympathy to imitate his example. His commendation is hearty: "Ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." With this preface, short but conciliatory, he takes up his first topic, viz. the headship of man in the natural and spiritual order, established by Providence and maintained by the Spirit in the Church. In his writings, natural facts are ever reappearing in new and diviner connections, as if they had undergone a silent and wonderful transfiguration, and had been glorified in light and beauty. Instinct had always acknowledged the subordination of woman to man, nor, indeed, is the instinct of sex conceivable in the absence of this element in its nature. But St. Paul is careful to lay his doctrinal foundation on the fact "that the head of every man is Christ," assured that the ultimate strength of all truth is in its spirituality. Be it a law, a principle, a motive, an end, "other foundation can no man lay." Critics may entertain widely different estimates of the man, may be as broadly separated as M. Renan and Dr. Farrar, and yet none can deny that St. Paul had this incomparable advantage, namely, a great centre, from which he saw all objects that engaged his attention. His method is fully brought out in the third verse: the head of the man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man; the head of Christ is God—a statement clear, compact, exhaustive. One moment he is dealing with the relationship between man and woman: Eden rises to his view, the sleeping Adam wakening to find Eve at his side, "the woman of the man," and "the glory of the man;" and the next moment he is contemplating the Trinity in its economic and immanent relations. Yet from this sublime height of Christ’s exaltation at the right hand of the Father there is no break when he descends to discuss woman’s behaviour in Church assemblies. The principle involved keeps him on ground far above dress and decorum as such, and, indeed, he will not touch the matter at all until he has set forth the dignity of its associations. Let us be careful, then, lest we err by supposing that St. Paul looked upon dress and decorum, in this instance, as simply conventionalities based on whims of taste and caprices of opinion. Conventionalities they were in a certain sense, but conventionalities to be respected and observed. In brief, they were customs that had a moral meaning. If a woman appeared in public unveiled, she was deemed immodest. To wear a veil was a sign of womanly delicacy, and hence, if she went to a public assembly without her veil, she acted shamelessly. To be consistent, argues St. Paul, "let her also be shorn," and so assume the mark of a disreputable woman. A woman acting in this way sets public opinion at defiance; and as public opinion in many things is public conscience, and as such the aggregated moral feeling of a community, no woman could do this thing and not shock all right sensibility. Besides, the veil is a sign of subordination and dependence. Refusing to use this covering of the head was a mark of insubordination and independence. A symbol it was, but to cast off the symbol was to repudiate the thing signified. This was not all. If uncomely, it was also unnatural; "for her hair is given her for a covering." The argument has one passage (1 Corinthians 11:10) which is confessedly difficult to understand, but this does not detract an iota from the general directness and force. St. Paul’s purpose is unmistakable—to set forth the order of God’s economy in the relative positions of man and woman to each other, and the entire unity of their relation to God in Christ. Man’s authority is guarded against all excess, and woman’s dependence is beautified by delicacy, retiringness, and trustful love. So high an estimate is put on her character and attitude, that even her personal appearance, as to attire and demeanour, is a matter of moment, involving the honour and happiness of her husband, and intimately blended with the conservatism of society and the influence of the Church. Nor is the apostle’s manner of appeal to be overlooked. A great truth may be conveyed to the mind, while nevertheless the mode of its communication, left to haphazard impulse, or, forsooth, in downright contempt of the mind’s laws, may work an amount of harm for which the truth itself is no compensation. Rest assured that so discerning a man as St. Paul, whose eye took its seeing from sensibility no less than from reason, would not violate manner when he was discussing the worth of manners. Rest assured, too, that he would seek a very firm basis for the logic of his judgment. That such was the fact, "Judge in yourselves" demonstrates. At the very moment that he distinctly recognizes public opinion as public conscience, and counsels deference to its dicta as divinely authoritative, he yet addresses human intuitions. "There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." No other truth save this could have availed Elihu when he came to the perplexed Job and his well meaning but very mistaken friends, and, as a mediator, prepared the way to close the controversy. No other truth than the "spirit in man" and its "inspiration of the Almighty" can qualify any man to mediate where intellectual conflicts interblend with the moral and spiritual instincts. Inspiration in its highest form makes no war on inspiration in its lower form, since the inspiration that gives original truth, and that openness and sympathy which receive it, are both from God. St. Paul preached a gospel that commended itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God, and he acted in the same frame of mind when he treated of decorum and showed wherein manliness and womanliness consisted. Customs and habits vary; he goes back to the sense of custom and habit rermanent in the soul. He is not afraid of human instincts. Although he knows how they miss their way and sadly blunder in working out themselves through the mists and clouds of the intellect, yet trust them he will, nor can he suffer others to disparage their office. This inward consciousness the Holy Spirit acknowledges, and to it he brings light and warmth, in order that the intuitive judgment may be supplied with the conditions of its best activity. It is, indeed, a part of our fallen nature, but, notwithstanding that, it is a Divine remnant, and only awaits God’s voice to utter its response. The dark lumps of coal when dug from the earth give no sign of the sunbeams hidden in them, but, on being ignited, they attest their origin. Therefore, argues the apostle, "judge in yourselves," since there is no knowledge of God unaccompanied by a knowledge of ourselves. Only let your judgment be in the Lord; for only in him can man and woman be seen in the perfection of their mutuality. After all, then, may we not say, in view of this argument no less than of all his methods of thinking, that St. Paul is peculiar among the apostles by his insight into the natural economy of the universe, the apostle of nature as well as of grace, because each was a portion of the same vast scheme of Providence? According to his view, the human race was in Christ from the beginning, and Adam’s federal headship took its whole meaning from the pre-existence of Christ, as the Creator of man.—L. Special consideration of the Lord’s Supper; uses of self judgment. And what is St. Paul’s mood of mind now? "I declare unto you" (command you), and I praise you not, since I hear of "divisions" among you, and "I partly believe it." "Heresies [sects] must be among you," for in the present state of our nature there is no way to develop the good without the evil manifesting itself. The evil has its uses; the evil is not a cause but an occasion of good; the evil is overruled by the Holy Ghost and turned to the advantage of the Church; the evil does not change its character and become a good, but is instrumentally employed to, subserve other and very different purposes than itself contemplates. Thereby the genuine advocates of truth are made to appear, and truth itself is brought out in a more luminous aspect. The standpoint is that God is not only the Author of the institutions of the Church, but their Divine Guardian. The institutions are not left to themselves, nor are circumstances outside of them surrendered to their own operation, but God himself is in the workmanship of his hands, and presides over all external things, so that his providences are in behalf of a providence which has a supreme object and end. Now, the Lord’s Supper is a holy sacrament, and St. Paul approaches the discussion of it in a very marked way. We understand him to claim a direct revelation from the Lord Jesus on this subject, and, by virtue thereof, to "declare," or command, as he states in the seventeenth verse. Truth is truth, whether mediately or immediately received. Yet we do know that there are circumstances under which truth affects us in a manner singularly personal. Only one such scene as that "near Damascus" is reported in the New Testament, and only one such unique individuality as that of St. Paul is recorded for our instruction. So that we are moving in the line of all the precedents of his career when we suppose that this account of the supper was communicated directly by the Lord Jesus to the apostle of the Gentiles. In a previous discussion (1 Corinthians 10:1-33.) he had referred to a specific aspect of the supper as a communion or participation. Beyond this the argument then in hand did not require him to go. Now, however, he is full and explicit as to details—the time when it was instituted, the circumstances, the manner of the Lord Jesus, the formula employed; so that nothing might escape observation, but the utmost depth and solemnity of impression be secured. "In remembrance of me" is the heart of the holy ordinance—the "remembrance" of the broken body and the shed blood—the penalty of the violated Law endured, satisfaction offered to the Lawgiver, the sense of justice met in the human heart, the love of God expressing itself as the grace of God, and the means therewith provided for the sense of God’s grace to be awakened and developed in the human heart. Memory is the power in man this holy institution addresses. "In remembrance of me." Now, looking at memory in its position among the mental faculties, we may perchance get some light on the words just quoted. Memory is a very early and energetic activity of the mind. It begins our development and is the chief stimulant of progressive development. It is the spinal column of the faculties. Sensation, per caption, imagination, associative and suggestive functions, reasoning and conclusions reached, are all very intimately identified with its operations. Memory is the first of the intellectual powers to attain perfection, as judgment is the last, and this law of rapid maturity would seem to indicate, by its exceptional character, that memory sustains a very near relation to the growth of our moral nature. It is clear that the Lord Jesus adopted the method of storing facts in the minds of the twelve apostles, and leaving them in latency, the truths in these facts being reserved for subsequent realization. And it is equally certain that one of the chief offices of the Holy Ghost, as the Executive of the Father and the Son, was "to bring all things" to their "remembrance." Naturally, indeed, a past was formed in the memories of the twelve, but it was made a spiritual past by the Divine agency of the Spirit as a Remembrancer. Furthermore, the apostles were to be witnesses, or testifiers: "Ye also shall bear witness;" but the importance of the Spirit as a Remembrancer exhibits itself in this, that, out of the miscellaneous mass of facts deposited in the memories of the twelve, selection was to be made, for, according to the fourth Gospel, there were "many other things which Jesus did" that were not "written," while those "written" were such as were adapted to Christian faith. It seems, then, that memory was inspired by the Holy Ghost in accordance with the principle contained in the words, "These are written"—only these—"that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his Name." Aside, however, from the apostles, is there not a principle here which is recognized by the Spirit in all its gracious administrations? Memory is ordinarily the starting point in religious life when that life becomes positive and decided. It enters largely into conviction for sin and into repentance. Further back than recollection extends, impressions of God’s goodness and the need of Christ for pardon and peace were made on the soul, and there they lay like old deposits in the strata of the globe, till the Holy Ghost uncovered them to our consciousness, God keeps for us his witness in this faithful register of the past. Without being Platonists on the subject of reminiscence, or accepting all that Wordsworth teaches in the grand ’Ode on Intimations of Immortality from Early Recollections of Childhood,’ we may well believe that memory is the master organ through which grace is imparted to men. A simple hymn of Dr. Watts’s or Mrs. Barbauld’s learned in childhood; the little prayer, "Now I lay me down to sleep;" and most of all, "Our Father which art in heaven," taught by a mother’s lips; our first sight of death; our first walk in a graveyard;—come back to us in after years, and suddenly the hard grip of the world on our hearts is relaxed, and the "little child is set in the midst" of life’s scenes, and we know that Jesus has set it there for our restoration to its long lost image. No wonder, then, that it should have pleased the Lord Jesus to make the Holy Supper an institution appealing to memory. There, in that upper room, a few hours on earth remaining to him, the past three years with his disciples were gathered in a few most solemn moments. The righteousness of his perfect life of obedience, all he had taught and done and suffered, had come into this final interview, and were going forward into his expiatory death. The motive and blessedness of the act in the celebration of the Eucharist are drawn from "In remembrance of me." Christ in all his fulness, Christ in his one personality as Son of God and Son of man, Christ in the entire compass of mediation, is in this "me." At the same time, the act shows forth the "Lord’s death till he come," and accordingly is prospective. As a natural fact, memory is the great feeder of the imagination, and is ever exciting it to picture the future. Except for memory, the imagination could not exist, or, if existing, would be a very imperfect because torpid faculty. As a religious organ, the medium as we have seen of the Spirit, the memory stimulates the imagination and qualifies it to "show the Lord’s death till he come." St. Paul mentions first the "remembrance" in connection with the broken body and again with the blood, and then comes the idea of showing, or proclaiming. Of course, the supper had to be a memorial before it could be an anticipation, but the order involves more than chronological sequence. It is an inner order of ideas, and it states, we think, with force and precision the relativity of these ideas. If this analysis be correct, then the determinative idea in the institution is its memorial character (remembrance), and by this idea we are to judge its nature and influence. Yet not alone by this abstractly viewed, since memory is supplemented by imagination and its vivid sense of futurity. From this point of view we understand why St. Paul should protest so strongly against the shocking abuse of the Lord’s Supper among the Corinthians. With this feast, instituted and consecrated by Christ himself, its purpose being to bring him back into their midst and to enable them to realize his coming again, the two ideas being closely joined,—with this tender remembrance and expectation they had associated sensual pleasures, eating and drinking to excess, separating themselves into classes, despising the Church of God, and bringing condemnation upon themselves. What of Christ was in all this? Instead of memories of his sacrificial death, instead of their personal recollections of his providence and grace in their behalf, instead of touching and humbling recallings of how he had dealt with each of them, what utter forgetfulness, what a closing up of every avenue of the past opening into the present, and what a concentration in the animal gratifications of the hour! Instead of anticipation and joyous hope, looking to the Lord’s coming, what blindness to all but the transient festivities of the carnal senses! On this account (therefore) "many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." The reference is not to the weakness and sickliness that follow the violations of natural laws, nor is the sleep the falling asleep in Jesus, but a punishment sent from God and executed under the directive agency of providence. Just in proportion as a man realizes Christ in the past will he realize him in the future. Just in the degree that he loses him from the past of his own heart, in that same degree will he vacate the future of his glorious image. The present is all, and it is all of the senses. And when God arises to judgment, as in the case of the Corinthians, what a sudden intensity surcharges the present, the blessedness of the old yesterdays and the awaiting tomorrows all extinguished, and the immediate moments, once so fugitive and so eager to glorify themselves by larger additions, lingering now and lengthening in the keener consciousness of pain and remorseful anguish! "Judge yourselves," O Corinthians! Examine your hearts; return to your memories and expectations; go to the cross of Christ and learn the lesson of its self sacrifice; condemn and punish yourselves for the guilty past; and make this discipline of self a chastening for future well being. But let no true and humble soul be tortured by the thought of eating and drinking "unworthily," and thereby incurring "condemnation." Whoever comes to the Lord’s Supper after a close self examination aided by the Spirit, and brings to it a meek and trustful mind; whoever repairs to it after he has communed with his memories of Christ’s goodness to him,—will be a worthy participant in the sacred rite, and may surely expect the seal of God’s approbation. A Christian child may understand the essential idea and spirit of the institution. And yet it has connections that transcend all thought, and the soul of every devout communicant welcomes the mysterious glory with which it is invested. Charles Wesley sings for every believer when he says— "His presence makes the feast, And now our bosoms feel The glory not to be expressed, The joy unspeakable." BY J.R. THOMSON Imitation. The personal feelings of the apostle come out in these Epistles to the Corinthians perhaps more than in any other of his writings. This may well have been because at Corinth his authority was questioned, and other teachers were by some exalted as his rivals or superiors. That he should resent such treatment from those who were under peculiar obligations to him we can well understand; and it is very natural that he should be led all the more boldly to vindicate his apostolic character and to assert his apostolic authority. There is self confidence of a just and warrantable kind in the admonition and challenge of this language: "Be ye imitators of me." I. THE TO WHICH THE APOSTLE HERE APPEALS—. 1. It is a principle natural to all mankind. Most conspicuous is it in the case of children and young people, and in the case of the uncivilized and untutored, who cannot easily acquire knowledge through symbols, but who learn arts with great facility through imitation. 2. Its range of operation is as extensive as the nature of man. We trace it in exercise in the bodily life, for multitudes of acts and of arts are acquired by those who carefully copy the proceedings of others. We trace it in the mental life: ways of thinking, of regarding life generally and one’s fellow men in particular, moral judgments and habits,—all are owing largely to imitation. 3. It is of set purpose employed in all education; for the discipline and culture of the young is almost dependent upon the operation of this interesting and most powerful principle of human nature. II. THE GREAT AND GENERAL USE WHICH MAKES OF THIS . 1. In the Holy Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, men are summoned to be followers, imitators of God, in all his moral perfections. It is represented that the excellences which are supreme and glorious in him may inspire us with the desire and resolve to copy and to acquire them in our measure for ourselves. 2. Jesus Christ is set before us as the especial Object of our reverence, as the highest Model for us to study and to imitate. It is possible that, through our reverence for him as our Divine Saviour, we may lose sight of the fact that he is also our human Exemplar. We are summoned to grow up in all things unto him. 3. Yet this grace of imitation is to be ours, through our response to the love of Jesus and our participation in the Spirit of Jesus. It is not a mechanical, but a spiritual, intelligent, living process. We must love with the love of admiration, sympathy, congeniality, in order that we may be changed into the same image. III. THE SPECIAL PAUL MAKES OF THIS . 1. Religion permits us to study human models of excellence and to aim at conformity with such. Thus the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews sets before his readers illustrious examples of faith, as a practical and powerful principle governing and inspiring human nature and life. And here Paul requires of the Corinthians that they should be imitators of him. How many Christians in all ages have been fired with this noble ambition! And how wonderfully has it proved for the advantage of the Church and of the world that it has been so! 2. The limitation set to this principle: "Even as I also am of Christ." This was an acknowledgment of the Lord’s supremacy; in copying Paul, the Corinthians were only to be copying Christ, as it were, at one remove. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 12:1-31.—1 Corinthians 14:1-40.—ON GIFTS, AND THE DANGER WHICH AROSE FROM THE ABUSE OF THE "GIFT OF TONGUES." 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 On spiritual gifts in general. 1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts; rather, things spiritual. The context, however, shows that St. Paul is thinking almost exclusively of the gifts (charismata) of the Spirit. I would not have you ignorant (see 1 Corinthians 10:1). The Corinthians had doubtless inquired in their letter as to the views of the apostle on this important and difficult subject. 1 Corinthians 12:2 That ye were Gentiles. The undoubted reading is, that when ye were Gentiles. The sentence is then in form an anacoluthon; in other words, it is not grammatically finished. The ancients were much less particular about these small matters of precision and symmetry than the moderns; and writers who are deeply moved by their subject, and hurried along by the strength of their feelings, often fall into these unfinished constructions (see Romans 2:17-21; Romans 15:25-27; Galatians 2:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, etc., in the Greek). Dumb idols. This characteristic of idols (Habakkuk 2:18; Psalms 115:5; Psalms 135:16) is fixed upon to show that their "oracles" were mere falsity and pretence. We find an illustration of the epithet in the statue of Isis at Pompeii, where the ruined temple shows the secret stair by which the priest mounted to the back of the statue; and the head of the statue (preserved in the Museo Borbonico) shows the tube which went from the back of the head to the parted lips. Through this tube the priest concealed behind the statue spoke the answers of Isis. Even as ye were led; rather, howsoever ye might be led, as in the Revised Version. The Greek phrase shows that, under the oracular guidance of dumb idols, the Gentiles had been, as it were, drifted hither and thither "as the winds listed." 1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore. Their previous condition of Gentile ignorance rendered it necessary to instruct them fully respecting the nature and discrimination of the charisms of the Spirit. By the Spirit of God; rather, in the Spirit; i.e. in the state of spiritual exaltation and ecstasy. The phrase is a Hebrew one to describe inspiration. Jesus accursed. It may well seem amazing that the Corinthians should need instructing that such awful language could not be uttered by any one speaking "in the Spirit of God." It is evident, however, that such expressions had been uttered by persons who were, or seemed to be, carried away by the impassioned impulse which led to "glossolaly." (It is better to use this technical word in order to dissipate the cloud of strange misconceptions as to the true nature of this charism.) So terrible an outrage on the conscience of Christians could never have passed unchecked and unpunished, except from the obvious inability of the young community to grapple with the new and perplexing phenomena of an "inspiration" which appeared to destroy the personal control of those possessed by it. Among Jewish converts glossolaly was regarded as a form of that wild mantle "inspiration" of which we find some traces in Jewish history (1 Samuel 10:10, 1 Samuel 10:11; 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 19:23, 1 Samuel 19:24, etc.), and which was alluded to in the very name Nabo, which implied a boiling energy. Among Gentile converts the glossolaly would be classed with the overmastering influences of which they read, or which they witnessed, in the Sibyls, the Pythian priestesses, and the wild orgiastic devotees of Eastern cults. They would not like to call any one to task for things spoken in a condition which they regarded as wholly supernatural. As to the speakers, (1) some of them, not being sincere, might have really fallen under the influence of impulses which were earthly and demonish, not Divine; (2) others, not duly controlling their own genuine impulse, may have been liable to the uncontrolled sway of utterances for which they were at the moment irresponsible; (3) or again, being incapable of reasoned expression, they may have audibly expressed vague Gnostic doubts as to the identity of the "Jesus" who was crucified and the Divine Word; or (4) they may have been entangled in Jewish perplexities rising from Deuteronomy 21:23, "He that is hanged" (which was also the expression applied by Jews to the crucified) "is accursed of God;" or finally, (5) by some strange abuse of the true principle expressed by St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:16, they may have asserted in this fearful form their emancipation from the acknowledgment of Jesus "after the flesh." Similar phenomena—the same intrusions into worship of downright blasphemy or of blasphemous familiarity—have constantly recurred at times of overwhelming spiritual excitement, as for instance m the adherents of the "everlasting gospel" in the thirteenth century, and in various movements of our own day. Is accursed; rather, is anathema. The word corresponds to the Hebrew cherem, which means "a ban," and "what is devoted or set apart by a ban;" and to the Latin sacer, which means not only "sacred," set apart by holy consecration, but also "devoted to destruction." No man can say that Jesus is [the] Lord, but by [in] the Holy Ghost. It involved a strong rebuke to the illuminati, who professed a profound spiritual insight, to tell them that no man could make the simple, humble confession of the divinity of Jesus (for "Lord" is here an equivalent of the Hebrew "Jehovah") except by the same inspiration as that which they so terribly abused. There is a very similar passage in 1 John 1:2; but there the "test" of the inspiration is a confession of the humanity of Jesus as against Gnostics, who treated his human life as purely phantasmal. Here the test is the confession of his divinity as against Jews and Gentiles. (For a parallel passage, see Matthew 16:17, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.") 1 Corinthians 12:4 Diversities. This word is used in each of these verses. Gifts; charismata; endowments imparted by the Holy Spirit. The word is rendered "free gift" in Romans 5:13. The same Spirit. The gifts of the Spirit are not uniform, but display diversity in unity Just as the sunlight playing on different surfaces produces a multiplicity of gleams and colours, so the Holy Spirit manifests his presence variously, and even sometimes with sharp contrasts, in different individualities. 1 Corinthians 12:5 Administrations. Different individuals render different services, and even apply the same gifts in different ways, as we see in Romans 12:6-8. The same Lord. Who, as Head of the Church, directs all ministries and assigns all functions. 1 Corinthians 12:6 Operations. Manifestations of Divine power. The same God which worketh all in all. God is the Source of all gifts in all men. He is the Sun of the whole universe, and always in the meridian; and from him, as the Father of lights, flows every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). It will be seen that this is one of the many passages which teach with perfect clearness the doctrine of the Trinity in unity. All in all (for this expression, see 1 Corinthians 15:28; Ephesians 1:23). There are very similar passages descriptive of the diversity in unity of God’s dispensations, in Ephesians 4:4-6, Ephesians 4:11,Ephesians 4:12; Romans 12:6-8; 1 Peter 4:10, 1 Peter 4:11. 1 Corinthians 12:7 To profit withal. With reference, that is, to the general profit. 1 Corinthians 12:8 The word of wisdom… the word of knowledge. In modern usage, "knowledge" is the learning which we by use and effort acquire; "wisdom" is the insight which gradually dawns upon us from thought and experience. In the language of the New Testament, the distinction between the two words is not so clearly marked, but" wisdom" seems to belong more to the human spirit, and "knowledge "to the intellect. The "discourse of wisdom" would be that which sets forth the truth of the gospel persuasively to work conversion (1 Corinthians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 2:7); the "discourse of knowledge" would be that which enters into the speculative and theoretical elaboration of systematic theology. The first might find its illustration in the ’Imitatio Christi;’ the second in the ’Summa Theologiae.’ 1 Corinthians 12:9 To another. Various attempts have been made to classify the gifts thus enumerated, as: 1. Intellectual. (1) The word of wisdom; (2) the word of knowledge. 2. Pertaining to exalted faith (tides miraculosa). (1) Healings; (2) miracles; (3) preaching; (4) discrimination of spirits. 3. (1) Tongues; and (2) their interpretation. These attempts are not very successful. St. Paul probably uses the phrases "to one" and "to another" (ἂλλῳδὲ … ἑτέρῳδὲ) merely for variety of style (as in Hebrews 11:35, Hebrews 11:36), with no very definite classification in view, as he does not mention all the charisma (see 1 Corinthians 12:28). Faith. Faith in its highest energy, as a supernatural power; the faith that removes mountains (Matthew 17:19, Matthew 17:20). The gifts of healing. Not, that is, by medical knowledge, but by supernatural power (Mark 16:18; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:16; James 5:14, James 5:15). 1 Corinthians 12:10 The working of miracles; literally, active, efficacy of powers; such as "the signs of an apostle," to which St. Paul himself appealed in 2 Corinthians 12:12, which included "wonders and mighty powers" (comp. Romans 15:18). Prophecy. Not "prediction," but elevated and inspired discourse; the power of preaching to edification. Discerning of spirits; rather, discernings, or powers to discriminate between true and false spirits. It was necessary in those days of intense enthusiasm and spiritual awakenment to "test the spirits, whether they be of God" (1 John 4:1). There were such things as "deceitful spirits" which spoke "doctrines of devils" (lTi 2 Corinthians 4:1; Revelation 2:1, Revelation 2:2; see 1 Corinthians 14:29). Divers kinds of tongues. There is no need for the word "divers." The particular variety of the ecstatic, and often entirely unintelligible, utterance known as "the tongue" differed with the individuality or temperament of the speaker. Recent lines of research, by that historical method which can alone furnish correct results, have led to the conclusion that, whatever may be thought of the "tongues" on the day of Pentecost, the "tongue" spoken of (for the most part with relative disparagement) by St. Paul as a charism of the Spirit was closely analogous to that wild, rapt, unconscious, uncontrollable utterance which, with varying details, has always occurred in the religious movements which stir the human soul to its utmost depths. The attempts to explain the word "tongues" as meaning "foreign languages," or "the primeval language,’’ or "poetic and unusual phraseology," etc., are baseless and exploded. The notion that by this gift the early Christians knew languages which they had never acquired, is not only opposed to the entire analogy of God’s dealings, but to every allusion in the New Testament (except a prima facie but untenable view of the meaning of Act 2:4) and to every tradition and statement of early Christian history. The apostles (so far as we have any record of their missionary work in the New Testament) had not the slightest need to acquire foreign languages. Since Palestine was at this epoch bilingual, they could all speak Aramaic and Greek, and therefore could address Jews and Gentiles throughout the civilized world. Every single allusion which St. Paul makes to this subject excludes the possibility of the supposition of a miracle so utterly useless and meaningless, so subversive of every psychological consideration, and so alien from the analogy of all God’s methods, as the talking in unacquired foreign languages by persons who did not understand them. The interpretation of tongues. Sometimes, but not always (1 Corinthians 14:13), the speaker, on relapsing from his ecstasy, was able to express his outburst of unintelligible soliloquy in the form of reasoned thought When he was unable to do so, St. Paul ordains that another should convey in ordinary language the impressions left by the inspired rhapsody (1 Corinthians 14:27-29). 1 Corinthians 12:11 One and the selfsame Spirit. The unity of the source from which all the charisms flowed ought to have excluded the possibility of a boastful comparison of gifts, arid all depreciation of those gifts which, because they were less dazzling, were deemed inferior. St. Paul afterwards shows that the less dazzling might be infinitely the more valuable for purposes of spiritual edification. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 The Church compared to a body and its members. 1 Corinthians 12:12 As the body is one, and hath many members. To this favourite image St. Paul reverts several times (Romans 12:4, Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:11-16; Colossians 2:19). It is probable that he was familiar with the image from the fable of Menenius Agrippa, who had used it as a plea for civil unity (Liv., 2:32). So also is Christ. Christ and the Church form one body, of which Christ is the Head; one Vine, of which Christians are the branches (John 15:1-27.); one building, of which Christians are the living stones. 1 Corinthians 12:13 By one Spirit; rather, in one Spirit. The diffusion of one spirit is the clement of unity. Are we all baptized; rather, we were all baptized. Whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free. Moreover, as these were national and social differences, they were all obliterated by baptism, which made us all equal members of one holy brotherhood (Galatians 3:28). Have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The word "into" is probably spurious. We have all been given to drink of one Spirit, which is as the outpouring of living water (Acts 10:45; John 7:37). 1 Corinthians 12:15 If the foot shall say, etc. So Seneca says, "What if the hands should wish to injure the feet, or the eyes the hands? As all the members agree together because it is the interest of the whole that each should be kept safe, so men spare their fellow men because we are born for heaven, and society cannot be saved except by the love and protection of its elements" (’De Ira,’ 2:31). And Marcus Aurelius: "We have been born for mutual help, like the feet, like the hands, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. To act in opposition to cue another is therefore contrary to nature" (’Enchir.,’ 1 Corinthians 2:1). And Pope— ’’What if the foot, ordained the dust to tread, Or hand, to toil, aspired to be the head? What if the head, the eye, or ear repined To serve mere engines to the ruling mind? Just as absurd for any part to claim To be another, in this general frame," etc. 1 Corinthians 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, etc. In the body there is between the members an identity of common interest and a perfection of separate functions. All are not equal in strength and delicacy, but each is happy, and each is necessary to the well being of all. There could be no better image of the ideal relation of Christians to each other and to the Church. 1 Corinthians 12:18 As it hath pleased him. Not arbitrarily, but in furtherance of one wise and beneficent design, so that each may be honoured and indispensable, and therefore contented in its own sphere. 1 Corinthians 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? The interests of the individual must never overshadow those of the Church. In the Church, as in the body, the hypertrophy or the atrophy of any one member is injurious, not only to itself, but to the whole. 1 Corinthians 12:21 I have no need of thee. A rebuke to the pride of those who thought their own gifts to be exclusively valuable. 1 Corinthians 12:22 Are necessary. This is the point of the fable of the belly and the members. 1 Corinthians 12:23 Which we think to be less honourable. The shelter and ornament of clothing are used to cover those parts of the body which are conventionally regarded as the least seemly. The whole of this illustration is meant to show that rich and poor, great and small, high and low, gifted and ungifted, have all their own separate and indispensable functions, and no class of Christians can wisely disparage or forego the aid derived from other and different classes. The unity of the members in one body corresponds to "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" which should prevail in the Church. 1 Corinthians 12:25 No schism in the Body. What is exclusively called "schism" is not necessarily such. There may be difference of fold in the one flock. There may be no real discord or dissension, though there may be varieties of ecclesiastical government. Unity, as the whole argument shows, does not demand the existence of uniformity. That the members should have the same care one for another. Thus the early believers "were of one heart and of one soul;" and the moment that a complaint arose that one of the weakest and smallest interests was neglected, the supposed neglect was amply remedied (Acts 4:32; Acts 6:1-6). 1 Corinthians 12:26 Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, etc. St. Chrysostom illustrates this verse by saying that if a thorn runs into the heel, the whole body feels it and is troubled; and that, on the ether hand, if the head is garlanded, the whole man is glorified. 1 Corinthians 12:27 Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Each Church is a sort of microcosm of the whole Church. St. Paul does not mean that the Corinthian Church is a member in the body of all the Churches, but that each Corinthian Christian is a member of the Church. 1 Corinthians 12:28 Hath set; rather, appointed. First apostles. Apart from the twelve (Luke 6:13) and Paul and Barnabas, the name was in a lower sense extended to leading and eminent Christians, especially to those who had taken part in founding or ruling Churches (Romans 16:7). Prophets. Wise spiritual preachers. It is instructive to note that St. Paul places the gifts of wisdom and knowledge which these preachers require above those which we are apt to regard as exclusively miraculous. The "wonders" stood in a lower, not in a higher, position when compared with the ordinary gifts of grace. Teachers. Those who have the minor gifts of instruction and exposition (Acts 13:1). Helps. All the services rendered by the power of active sympathy; by the work of deacons, sisters of mercy, etc. (Acts 6:3, Acts 6:4). The word occurs in 2 Macc 8:19; Ecclesiastes 11:1-10:12, and the corresponding verb in Acts 20:35; 1 Timothy 6:2; Luke 1:54; see Romans 16:3. Governments. Powers of leading and organization. Diversities [kinds] of tongues. Ranked as last in value. They are emotional gifts, which had only a very subordinate part in the work of edification, and are, therefore, placed below the gifts of knowledge, of power, and of practical life, which sum up the previous enumeration. 1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? etc. It is God’s providence which "has appointed divers orders in his Church," and has "ordained and constituted the services of angels and of men in a wonderful order." 1 Corinthians 12:31 Covet earnestly; literally, be zealous for, strongly desire. That which we aim at we usually attain; and we should aim at that which really is, not at that which seems, the most splendid charism. And yet show I unto you a more excellent way. The "more excellent way" is the way of love, which he sets forth in the next chapter, and which lies open to all Christians without distinction. The verse means either, "And further" (besides bidding you aim at the better gifts), "I show you one supreme way of attaining them;" or, "And I show you a still more eminent way." I bid you desire the best gifts, and further show you a truly royal road (viam maxime vialem), a road par excellence, which leads to their attainment. The way of love would lead to them, and it was itself the best of them. "All the way to heaven lies through heaven, and the path to heaven is heaven." 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 The Christly assembly. "Now concerning spiritual gifts," etc. All throughout this chapter refers to the Christly assembly. I use this word in preference to the word "Church," for what are now called Churches are not always assemblages of genuine Christians. Overlooking the more minute parts of this remarkable chapter, and taking a broad glance at the whole, there are three important subjects very suggestive and capable of amplification, which are discoverable. These are that every member of this Christly community has passed through a radical change; that every member has received special endowments from God; and that every member should regard these endowments as parts of a vital whole. I. Every member of this Christly community has PASSED THROUGH A RADICAL CHANGE. "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led." The change here spoken of, it is to be observed, is a change from the spirit of the Gentiles, or the world, to the Spirit of Christ. The most radical change that can take place in a man is a change in his predominant disposition, or moral spirit. Such a disposition is in truth man’s moral heart. This change is here described: 1. Negatively. No man who has experienced it has anything irreverent or profane in his spirit towards Christ. "No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed." 2. Positively. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." "Can say," not of course merely the words, for all could easily do that, but with the heart and life. This change is the production of the Divine Spirit—of "the Holy Ghost." Now, no man is a member of the true Church who has not experienced this transformation; who has not renounced the spirit of the world and come under the control of the Spirit of Christ. There are such who are found in connection with no conventional Church, and there may be conventional Churches where no such are found. All such, however, wherever found, belong to the Church of the "Firstborn written in heaven." II. Every member of this Christly community has SPECIAL FROM GOD. "NOW there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit," etc. (1 Corinthians 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12:12). Without pausing to interpret the meaning of these endowments, I simply remark that they seem capable of being divided into three classes: (1) Those of intellect. "Wisdom," "knowledge," etc. (2) Those of "faith," operating faith in words, in deeds, and in "discernment." (3) Those of language. "Tongues," speaking and interpreting, Now, all responsible men have intellect of some kind and amount. All men have faith of some sort. Man has an instinctive tendency to believe; hence his credulity is proverbial. And he is necessitated to believe; he could not carry on the business of life without faith. All men also have a language of some kind or other. What, then, do we mean when we say that the endowments here refer to intellect, faith, and language? Simply this, that the man who has come into possession of the Christly Spirit and purpose, and is thus a member of the genuine Church, will receive (1) a new force and elevation of intellect; (2) a new object and energy of faith; (3) a new style and emphasis of expression—a new tongue. This great variety of endowments reveals: 1. The sovereignty of the Spirit. Why did he bestow any at all? Still more, why so different to different men? The only answer is because it pleased him so to do. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." 2. The affluence of the Spirit. All these great and varied spiritual and mental endowments came from him. He is the inexhaustible Fountain, not only of all life, but of all spiritual endowments. 3. The benevolence of the Spirit. All these varied endowments bestowed for what purpose? To "profit withal." All for the highest usefulness; spiritual happiness is the end of the creation. Since all our endowments are the free gifts of God, there is no reason for those of the humblest to be dissatisfied, nor for those who have the most splendid to be exultant. III. Every member should regard these endowments as PARTS OF A VITAL WHOLE. The whole is here called the "body of Christ." As the soul resides in the body, directs the body, reveals itself in the body, so Christ in the true Church. "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ," etc. Great is the variety in the various faculties, organs, and parts of the human body. Some are larger and more comely than others, but each, even the most insignificant and uncomely, are equally essential. "Those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary," etc. How preposterous would it be for one vital part of the body to contend with another for importance and supremacy! Yet not more absurd than for one member of a Church to contend with another. This is Paul’s argument against the divisions that were rampant in the Corinthian Church. "What if the foot, ordained the dust to tread, To be another, in this general frame: Just as absurd to mourn the task or pains, The great directing Mind of all ordains. All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body nature is, and God the soul." (Pope.) BY C. Spiritual gifts. A transition occurs here to a class of topics most important and interesting, since they involve the character and glory of the new dispensation. It was the special economy of the Holy Ghost which St. Paul was now to consider. All along we have had an insight into mistakes and disorders, into disputes and wranglings and, at times, into shameful vices. A quarter of a century had little more than passed since Christ ascended to the throne of the Father as the God Man of the universe, and the Spirit had descended as the promised Paraclete. Yet what strife and confusion! The marvellous gifts were strangely misunderstood. Once these Corinthians—so the apostle reminds them—had been Gentiles, "led away unto dumb idols, howsoever they might be led." But for them the age of "dumb idols" had ended and the great dispensation of speech had opened. No man sharing this speech from heaven—"speaking by the Spirit of God"—could call "Jesus accursed;" and only such as were enlightened and directed by the Holy Ghost could say from the heart of love and faith that "Jesus is the Lord." At the outset, this principle is laid down as fundamental to the economy of gifts; it is a Divine economy; it is the dispensation of the Holy Ghost. Something was gained whoa this was made clear. Inspiration was no wild, spasmodic, frantic thing. It was not individuality unloosed and driven into gross eccentricity. Whatever mysteries were connected with these manifestations, there was a grand system to which they appertained, and it was upheld, applied, administered, by the Holy Ghost. Such, then, is the position assumed, and it commands the whole question. This done, the places occupied by different parties, the diversity of gifts, their number and multiformity, the relativity of each to a controlling general idea, and the unity sought as a final end, could be ascertained. Naturally, then, diversities of gifts would be the first to attract attention. Difference between objects begins our perceptive education, difference in our moods of mind cultivates our consciousness, difference must be seen before the higher intellect can perform the processes of abstraction and generalization. Accordingly St. Paul starts with "diversities of gifts." It was not a new idea. The Prophet Joel had it substantially, along with the conception of universality, when he spoke of prophesyings, of dreams, of visions, and declared that servants and handmaids should rejoice in the possession of this power. Christ had closed his earthly revelation of the Father by unfolding the manifoldness of the Spirit’s office. Pentecost had made good the promise, and had shown as the firstfruits of the harvest the recovery of the world’s languages to the service of Christianity. St. Paul, however, handles the idea in a way altogether new. Genius passes old truths through its transforming brain, and they charm the world as fresh and wondrous disclosures. Inspiration honours individuality; nothing treats the personality of the man with such respect; and hence St. Paul’s specialization of the fact of diversity. Mark how he treats it. Gifts themselves, as relative to men who are their recipients, are very unlike. Capacity in each case is a pre-existent fact of providence, and the Spirit consults providence. But in the next place, gifts are ministries, and the diversities (distributions)are for various spheres. Functional work is of many kinds, offices have each its speciality, and, as earthly industry must achieve its results by division of labour, so the economy of the Holy Ghost must differentiate one form of energy from another. Ministers are servants, and these ministries are serving forces. And again, the gifts are represented as operations by whose effects, as incorporated in society, the kingdom of God is built up. "These are not to be limited to miraculous effects, but understood commensurately with the gifts of whose working they are the results" (Alford). If, in other passages of Scripture, the person of the Father or of the Son is prominently displayed, the personality of the Holy Ghost, as proceeding from the Father and the Son, is here set forth with a distinctness and emphasis characteristic of his relations to the plan of salvation. Just before (verse 3), St. Paul had declared the presence of the Holy Ghost in the confession of Jesus as Lord, and the name, by which he was known among men (Jesus of Nazareth) and recognized in his trial, condemnation, and crucifixion, is borne up from earth and glorified in his exaltation. And here he is the "same Spirit" in the opening thought, "diversities of gifts." There are "differences of administrations," but the "same Lord;" "diversities of operations," but the "same God that worketh all in all;" nor will the apostle specify the fulness of the Spirit’s gifts and the greatness of his presiding agency over the Church without connecting him with the Father and the Son. The mystery of the Trinity remains. But the doctrine becomes a very real and practical fact, and, as such, assimilable in Christian experience, when thus identified with grace in all its workings through the Church. And so true is this that the very mystery is essential to the effect the doctrine produces, by forming an infinite background, against which the fact stands in relief. Under these circumstances, mystery commends itself., not simply to reverence, but to experimental appreciation. Reason, if made conscious of its own instinct, finds a basis for itself and a vindication of its functions in the exercise of faith, and, by means of this illumination, reason is assured that the faculties of the human mind have their laws and are bound in obedience thereunto, because the law of mystery is the primal law whence they draw their lift and support. No marvel, then, that the apostle presents God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit with such prominence in the initial stage of his argument on spiritual gifts, Most closely is the doctrine identified with the experimental and. practical truths he was about to enforce. From no lower source than the mystery of all mysteries will he bring the awe, the sense of responsibility under trust, and the greatness of Church duties arising from the diversities of gifts. It is not this or that gift alone, nor this or that office bearer alone, nor this or that outwrought result alone, but their union in one economy and their combination in a totality, which he wished to emphasize. Most impressively is this done by presenting Father, Son, and Spirit as the one God of these diverse gifts, the Trinity itself being the very ground and source of the diversification. The broad scope of the diversities in the Church is indicated in the statement that the "manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." The character of the Divine communication to "every man" is defined by the word "manifestation," which expresses the agency of the Spirit in these human instruments. First of all, the Spirit is manifested to the man and then through the man. As a condition precedent to his office, the man has an experience, and it consists in his own conscious knowledge that God has come to his soul and imbued it with the Spirit. Herein, herein only, lies his capacity for usefulness; herein his safeguard against failure. And the measure of the one manifestation is the measure of the other; for in the degree that a man feels his own soul alive to God will he impart vitality to his ministrations. Preacher, Sunday school teacher, Bible reader, tract distributer, Paul on Mars’ Hill or in the prison at Rome, Bunyan writing in gaol, Hannah More at Barleywood, John Pounds with his ragged school; no matter what the manifestation, as to where made and bow modified by individuality, it is divinely human to its subject before it is made divinely human in him as an instrument. Finally, the broad scope (every man.) and the quality of the influence (manifestation) are carried forward to the object and end, viz. to profit withal. For the common advantage these gifts were bestowed; the greater the bestowment, the nearer its human connections; and the more of a recipient the man, the more of a man must he be in the outgoings of his intelligence, love, and zeal in behalf of others. "Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" Such was the argument (John 4:1-54.) to check partisanship in the Corinthian Church; but in this passage, "to profit withal" is exhibited in its positive aspect as the inspiration of motive and purpose and end of all Christian working. Is it not, then, remarkable that Christianity approaches man at a point where he is most sensitive to self, and where he is quickest and boldest to assert his unyieldingness to the claims of others, and at this very point to demand of him "the common profit"? Make any analysis of human nature you please, pride of intellect is the most lordly of all its imperious qualities. Particularly in the case of fine gifts, men who are the possessors of them are instinctively disposed to assert a despotic sway over others, or, if not that, to indulge a feeling of self gratulation and its counterpart of self isolation because of their superiority. Yet it is just here Christianity requires humility and enforces the claims of a most vigorous sympathy. How this "common profit" is to be subserved, St. Paul proceeds to show in verses 8-11. There is no large accumulation in one man, no fostering of the spirit of self aggrandizement no such exaltation of one as to prove a humiliation to another. Talents are divided out, and each talent bears the seal of God, and comes authenticated, not to the intellect, but to the spiritual sense of a redeemed man hood. Go through this catalogue as drawn out by the apostle; dwell on the significance of each specification; avail yourself of the helps afforded by our most critical scholars in the explication of "wisdom" as intuition, of "knowledge" as acquired information, of "faith" as transcending its ordinary limits as the grace of salvation, of the "gifts of healing" as adapted to various diseases, of the "working of miracles" as time and occasion called for, all these charisms proceeding from the same Spirit; continue the enumeration that includes "prophecy" or the illumination cf the mind by the Spirit and the exalted activity of its faculties, after that the eye of watchful judgment, "discerning of spirits," so as to discriminate between genuine inspiration and its alloys and counterfeits, then the "divers kinds of tongues," and the power to interpret or translate the unknown language; and all these the works of "one and the selfsame Spirit" that distributes the charism to each one in harmony with the law of individuality, and, at the same time, exercises the Divine sovereignty so that the distribution is made "severally as he will" (Alford, Hodge, Lange); and when you have thus expanded your views to the dimensions of this spiritual provision for the Church and the exquisite symmetry of its organism tell us if any interest possible to man’s present attitude, if any craving of true life in its mortal and immortal relationships, if any outreachings toward the infinite when body, soul, and spirit have interblended their instincts, and become one in the heirship of an eternal inheritance, have been left neglected or meagrely provided for? To bring this variety and unity more vividly before the Corinthians, St. Paul employs a most apt illustration taken from the human body as an organism. Already he had argued the diversity of gifts in adaptiveness to the capacities and wants of the Church. Left at that point, the argument would have been incomplete. It was needful to see what the Church itself was as an organization, and how its wholeness stood related to its individual parts. In the earlier portion of the Epistle he had combated the unhappy tendency towards an excessive individualism. Theoretic speculations had been kept out of sight, and practical questions, lying within immediate range and urgently demanding treatment, had been scrutinized. Was the work done when domestic morals had been pleaded for, when social companionships were set in a true light; when the betrayals of a lax and over accommodating sympathy in public intercourse were exposed; when the corruptions growing out of an abuse of love feasts and extending to the Holy Communion had been faithfully dealt with; when, in addition thereunto, he had expounded the Divine import and sacredness of the Lord’s Supper? Was the work done when he had opened the treasures of grace and taught his brethren how the Divine munificence had enriched their souls? Was he content to stop after delineating the correspondence between the bestowments of the Spirit in his multiformity of gifts, and the complexity of the Church as the witness to the Trinity? By no means was the subject exhausted. Specific as he had been—direct, resolute, pungent—how much remained to be said (as we shall see hereafter), to reflect back on what had been said, and bring out half latent meanings of truths stated which the argument, in its direct connections, did not exact of his logic at the instant! At this point, then, he introduces a felicitous illustration. It is done in a business like style. Image it can scarcely be called, since it has no poetic element addressed merely to the aesthetic sense, and is quite as much the product of the reason as of the imagination. We have spoken of St. Paul as one who studied the human body and was profoundly interested in considering its present and prospective condition in the light of the Christian revelation. The illustration here used extends through a large portion of the chapter, and, as a figure, is for him elaborated with unusual fulness and painstaking. Evidently it is not a creation of the moment, for there is not a mark of sudden impulse. Tracing the analogy between the Church and the human body, and recognizing the Spirit of the earlier creation in this later and more glorious one, the inspired author evinces that delight in similarity of relations which is the infallible sign both of high endowment and broad culture, and he proceeds with a quiet and steady gait till the ground has been fully traversed. 1. The human body is an organism. It is "one, and hath many members." By an organism we understand "a whole consisting of parts which exist and work each for all and all for each; in other words, which are reciprocally related as means and end" (Dr. Kling). The principle of life is a principle of organization, weaving a form for itself, shaping that form to itself, and impressing thereupon its own distinctive image. The principle assumes various organizations—simple in some, complex in others—and, in every case, the life power is the animating and determinative force. "So also is Christ" (verse 12). In the Church, which is his body, Christ is the constituting Power. He is its Life, and without him it is nothing. Through the Spirit he maintains those operations which impart vitality to all the institutions and agencies of the Church. "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (verse 13), whether "Jews or Gentiles;" such is the almighty energy of the Holy Ghost in begetting vitality and transforming national and race distinctions into its own likeness, that they are made one. This is also true of "bond or free." The characteristics of individuality as to races and social positions remain, but whatever is incapable of unity is removed and the organism subdues to itself every element and constituent it adopts. All are made "to drink into one Spirit." Viewed externally, we see Jews and Greeks, bond and free, with their peculiarities derived from the past and respected as the signs of Providence in the ages preparatory to Christ’s advent. A rich and picturesque mosaic is thus presented by the Church. Along with this, the Church is also a type of the future man, from whom all selfish antagonisms have gone and over whom the sentiment of brotherhood is supreme. 2. The human body has various correlated parts. "For the body is not one member, but many" (verse 14). Each constitutent or "member" must be recognized as something in itself, as having an autonomy, as created for a distinct function and ordained to do its own special work. Not else could the body be worthy of its place as the head of the physical world and represent the mind of man. In this wondrous organism, which may be likened to a community, every cell is an independent activity, a citizen with rights of its own and entitled to protection against all hostile influence. The fable of Menenius is introduced, and the classic reader of our day is reminded of Coriolanus as the representative of the haughty patricians and yet more of the haughtier statesman, and of the fierce contempt felt for the people. St. Paul has given due prominence to this idea of each organ as performing its functions and as essential to the whole. If the unity is brought about from within, then it follows that every member must share the animating principle. Food must be provided for blood, blood must nourish the organs, the organs must be tributary in specific ways to the organism, or the organism must perish. So in the Church, different men are different organs. Such are the numerous offices of the Holy Ghost as the Executive of Father and Son; such are his relations as Remembrancer, Testifier, Convincer; that there must needs be much diversity of gift; and hence there are gifts of healing, helping, governing, extraordinary faith, and "divers kinds of tongues." Light is distributed in colours, and colours in tints and hues, and tints and hues multiply themselves in minute differences. Sound breaks up in notes. Form assumes multitudinous shapes and attitudes. The ocean rolls in restless lines and the earth curves to a curving sky. "Not one member, but many," and the manifoldness in the magnificence of the universe is repeated, as far as may be, in the complexity of the human organism, and, in turn, this exists for the Church. But: 3. Reciprocity of action must be fully maintained. The organs of the body are distinct but not separate, since they combine in one organism and are subordinate to a unitary result. They are supplied with blood by the same heart and they are all dependent on nerves running from nervous centres. Spinal cord, medulla, cerebellum, cerebrum, are local in position, but not local in function. Not an organ, though independent in structure and functional operation, can insulate itself and be independent of the whole. Our pleasures and pains alike testify to this dominant mutuality. A beautiful landscape is not limited to the retina; a musical sound enters the rhythm of heart and lungs, and the ear is only a fragment of the joy; so that localized sensibility, however intense, becomes generalized feeling. The special senses exist for a sensorium. St. Paul regards the body, therefore, as an assemblage or confederation of organs, and enlarges (verses 15-26) on the idea in its several aspects. The section has been fitly spoken of as a colloquy in a highly dramatic style." The body itself is thoroughly dramatic. It represents and interprets mind. It acts the soul. Downward it may go and imitate the beast, even descend below the beast. Upward it may go, and go so high that the faces of Moses and St. Stephen glow with a light never on shore or sea. Now, this colloquy presents one member of the body arrayed against another and vainly asserting its independence. If a discontented foot envy the hand, or the ear envy the eye, "is it therefore not of the body," participating in its fights, enjoying its privileges, ennobled by the organism? They are for the sake of each other, so that "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you? Furthermore, in the case of feeble organs, does the body turn vindictively against them?—in the case of those less honourable, are they despised? in the case of the uncomely parts, are they treated with contempt? Nay, in the well ordered commonwealth of the body, where the instincts, endowed by the Almighty with a measure of his sovereignty, retain their sway, parts that are feeble, less honourable, less comely, appeal to pity and sympathy and taste to be cheered and comforted. The whole glandular system, though assigned to the functions of secretion and excretion, is yet a wonderful provision for emotion, not only for emotion as respects others, but as self regarding and self relieving. A whispered. need of assistance from the very humblest organ is heard in every recess of the corporeal structure. Temple it is even in ruins, and its ministers, inhabiting dim vaults and mysterious crypts, hear the prayer for compassion and aid, and hasten to give sympathy and assistance. Beyond all this, what vicarious work the organs do in their considerate kindness to one another? No doubt we are open to the charge of reading between the apostle’s lines and of going beyond his intended meaning. Be it so; on the lines or between them, no matter, if the philosophy and spirit of the thought he observed. St. Paul’s inspiration was for our day as well as his own, and perhaps it would not be very extravagant to say that the Christian scholarship of the nineteenth century sees depths in some of his conceptions that he never saw. For it is the nature of inspiration to be ever unfolding its manifoldness of meaning, holding tenaciously to its original ground, and yet pressing back its horizon to embrace fresh territory, and thus making itself a specially quickening power to successive ages. One thing, however, is very clear, namely, St. Paul saw the analogy between the Church and the human body. By virtue of the connection of its organs, he takes occasion to urge on the Church very weighty and solemn duties. Mutual forbearance, respect, honour, must be sacredly cherished. The organic life of the Church makes it Christ’s body. "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." The main thought is restated and re-enforced as to apostles, prophets, etc. (verses 28-30); and surely nothing has been left unsaid which could convince and persuade the Corinthians that their spiritual organization was not a thing to take care of itself, nor to be trusted to haphazard, nor to be surrendered to self-appointed leaders. It was a life, a sphere, a discipline and culture, a joy and blessedness, for all. Were the weakliest among them to be overlooked as useless? If there were poor widows with only two mites to cast into God’s treasury, they had their place and vocation. If there were little children, their looks and ways told of the kingdom of heaven. Were there uncomely parts? Grace was strong enough to do them abundant honour. One of the invaluable blessings of Church life is to show respect and regard for such as society excludes from its esteem, and alas! too often treats with disdain, and thereby dooms them to a fate more wretched than poverty. In honouring them, the Church teaches these persons to honour themselves, and that, once secured, improvement outward and inward is made far easier. In brief, wherever anything was lacking, there "more abundant honour" should be bestowed. And why all this? That none be neglected, that all be partakers of one another’s sufferings and pleasures, and that the community be indeed a communion of one heart and mind. "That there should be no schism." This was the dread that hung over St. Paul: "schism;" this was the terror that darkened his path far more than the enemies and persecutors that pursued his steps. "Members should have the same care one for another." Brotherhood should sanctify individuality, and consummate and crown all the gifts of the Divine Giver. What a wonder this, to set before a city like Corinth! What an ideal to lift up in its resplendent glory in a period such as the first century! And this by the "ugly little Jew," a wandering tent maker, who had nothing and would have nothing to commend him to the carnal philosophy and popular tastes of the age, and who could only speak from his own soul and the Spirit in that soul to the souls of men. Yet the doctrine of Christ’s headship of humanity was his stay and strength, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost were his tokens and pledges of victory for his cause. He would have others share his assurance and participate with him in the infinite blessedness. Therefore, he argues, "covet earnestly the best gifts," and the best way to secure these best gifts he will proceed at once to show them.— L. BY J.R. THOMSON Spiritual unity. If this be a true representation, what an honour, what a happiness it is to be a Christian! It is to be joined to the Lord of life and glory, and to be associated with the noblest, the purest, the best of mankind. I. IN WHAT CHRIST AND HIS MEMBERS ARE ONE. The expression used by the apostle is remarkable: "So also is Christ." He says, "Christ;" yet he means Christ s people; from which it appears that, in the view or the apostle, as in the view of the Lord himself, all who are his are identified with and comprehended in his own Divine personality. 1. This is a fact which is exhibited in various manners and especially by various metaphors, Not only are Christ and his people the Head and the body; they are the Vine and the branches, the Foundation and the stones, the organism and the Soul. 2. The union as spiritual is formed and sustained by faith. There are sacramental symbols of the union, but the real and vital connection is of spirit with spirit, i.e. is of faith. As mutual, it is depicted by the Lord himself, when he says, "I in you, and you in me." 3. The character and the aim of the Head and the members are identical. "As he is, so are we in this world." II. IN WHAT CHRIST’S MEMBERS ARE TO HIM. 1. He is the Giver of the life which his people have in common with him. 2. He is the Source of authority, issuing the commands which govern their activity. 3. He is the Centre of harmony; they who are his revolve around him as planets round the sun; and their orbits resemble one another, because all are drawn by the same attractive force. 4. He confers upon them the glory which is their prerogative—the moral glory which is conferred here and now, and the glory to be revealed hereafter. III. IN WHAT CHRIST’S MEMBERS ARE RELATED ONE TO ANOTHER. All are "one body." 1. Their dependence upon the one Head is the same. The unity is not simply in the organization; it is in the life. 2. They are bound by Christian law and drawn by Christian impulse to mutual affection and confidence. Love is the law of Christian social life, as in the following chapter is so exquisitely shown. 3. They have each his several service to render to the one Master; the gifts are alike consecrated, the ministrations are alike devoted, to the Divine Lord. 4. They have mutual ability and obligation to help. As in the body each member, each sense, supplies the other’s lack of service, so in the Church it is not simply the case that the gifted and the powerful render help to others less favourably endowed, but the feeblest and the most obscure may render some service for which his brethren may have reason to be for ever grateful. 5. In the blessings conferred by the Church upon the world around, each may be said to supply the other’s deficiency; and the work of evangelization, in which each performs his proper part, is advanced by the cordial cooperation of all whom Providence has qualified and grace has inclined for the work.—T. 1 Corinthians 12:15, 1 Corinthians 12:16 Contentment is better than envy. Where party spirit is rife, as it was in the Corinthian Church, there is always danger of hatred, envying, and jealousy. The rebuke to these dispositions, administered by the apostle, is founded upon the deepest principles of Christianity. The Church is not a club which each member joins for his own advantage and convenience, but a body in which each member is incorporated for mutual cooperation in common subjection to the Divine Head. I. THERE MUST NEEDS BE, IN AS IN CIVIL SOCIETY, TO VARYING GIFTS AND . As the body needs all its members, they must occupy their appointed positions for which they are severally fitted and to which they are severally called. It is so in the Church of God; and, according to the office filled, the duties performed, will be the position occupied in the regard and esteem of men. II. THOSE IN SHOULD THAT IN THE VIEW OF MEN IS NOT SUCH IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. That there is a scale of excellence cannot be questioned, but that God’s graduation agrees with man’s is not to be for a moment supposed. He judgeth not as man judgeth. Not always do those who fill most space in men’s eyes stand first in the view of God. III. AN ENVIOUS SPIRIT IS OF THE UTMOST MISERY TO HIM WHO IT. All painters and poets who have dealt with the subject have agreed in depicting envy as consumed and tortured with wretchedness. The envious man cannot enjoy his own blessings or exercise his own powers, for the sight or thought of what he deems the choicer blessings or the rarer powers of his neighbour. IV. ON THE OTHER HAND, A SPIRIT IS OF TRUE . When "the sun of sweet content" has risen in the eyes, the light is upon every feature. A holy and calm conviction that his lot is ordered by Divine wisdom gives a deep peace, an abiding cheerfulness, to a good man’s life. If one were to have regard only to his own happiness, he would do well to beware of discontent. V. IT IS TO BE THAT AN LOWLY SERVICE MAY BE AND EVEN . The foot has not so complex a structure, has not the same adaptation to a varied service, as the hand; yet, with no power of locomotion, the man would be crippled and pitiable, notwithstanding the marvellous manual mechanism of which he is master. The ear does not afford the same range of knowledge, perhaps not the same gradation of pleasure, as the eye; but the man who loses hearing is shut out from many of the joys and very much of the information which this life affords. And in the Church of Christ, what work has been done by the lowly, the feeble, the illiterate! and in how many cases do they put to shame the gifted and the eminent! VI. IF THE TRUST BE SMALLER, THE WILL BE LESS. Instead of looking up to the great, the learned, the eloquent, and sighing because we have not their gifts, let us be grateful that we have not their account to render. To whom much is given, of him will much be required.—T. Respect is better than contempt. In previous verses the apostle has expostulated with those in lowly stations and with inferior gifts who give way to the temptation to repine because of what is their own and to envy the higher position and the larger gifts of others. In this verse he exemplifies his justice and impartiality, rebuking those who despise such as are beneath them in mental or spiritual endowments. I. PRIDE FOLLOWS UPON OF THE DIVINE SOURCE OF ALL GIFTS. The man who looks down upon his fellow Christian virtually boasts of whatever he himself has which he deems a ground of superiority. Now, this is in contradiction to the precepts of the Bible and the spirit of Christ. "What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Who hath made thee to differ?" II. IMPLIES OF THE RULE OF DIVINE . Can we say to a brother, "I have no need of thee"? whilst we remember that the Head of the Church has stationed him where he is, and has given him what he possesses? To question his place in the Church, his function in the body, his service to the Head, is to dispute the wisdom and the authority of Christ himself. III. IS SELF . It rebounds upon the head of him who casts it at his neighbour. For the fact is that we are members one of another in such a sense that each one’s efficiency and usefulness is to a large extent dependent upon those of his brethren. In the figure used by the apostle, the eye and the head in which it is so pre-eminently and regally stationed, are taken as representing the great and notable among the members of a Christian society. And it is laid down as evident that they cannot say to hand, to foot, to the trunk and all the vital organs, "I have no need of you." For the fact is, they have such need. The well known fable of Agrippa may be quoted, as in Shakespeare’s ’Coriolanus,’ in illustration and proof of the mutual dependence of all parts of the organism. So is it in the Church of God. The great controversialist, the great episcopal administrator, the great Biblical scholar, the great church builder, are all doubtless and undeniably of great importance, and fill a large place in men’s eyes. But the obscure pastor, the lowly Scripture reader, the unnoticed Bible woman, the patient and unrewarded teacher of the young,—these and many others like them are the rank and file of the army, and cannot be dispensed with. To look down upon them with disdain would be a proof of folly as well as of sinful self conceit. Happily, the truly great are ever foremost to recognize the value of the labours of the humble, ever foremost to do them honour. They know full well that their own work would fall to pieces were it not for the unnoticed work of others who may be less known to fame. IV. MUTUAL RESPECT IS OF UNITY. Let there be murmuring among the lowly and disdain among the great, and there follows at once a "schism." But when each renders due honour to his brother, the society is compacted, and is made strong for its united work and witness in the world.—T. Sympathy. The desirableness and preciousness of sympathy are unquestionable. Selfishness is the curse of human nature and human society. There is a tendency towards absorption in individual interests, pleasures, and sorrows, which needs to be counteracted. Sympathy is as natural a principle as selfishness, though not so strong. Christianity tends to strengthen it for the conflict; and in the new humanity the love of the Saviour awakens and fosters regard for all those for whom Christ died. I. CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE DIVINE OF . 1. Christ’s words are the law of sympathy. It was he who uttered admonitions which have been so potent to affect the heart and influence society; e.g. "Do unto others," etc.; "Love one another," etc. And his apostles’ words are his; e.g. "Bear ye one another’s burdens;" "Look not every man," etc.; "Rejoice with them," etc. 2. Christ’s life was the model of sympathy. In the Gospels we behold him sympathizing with sufferers, mourners, doubters, and inquirers, the ignorant and uncared for, sinners who repented of sin, and others. He is still the High Priest touched with a feeling of our infirmities. 3. Christ’s cross is the motive to sympathy. It presents the Redeemer suffering with and for mankind; and those who can say, "He gave himself for me," feel the constraint of the cross, the love of Christ. 4. Christ’s Spirit is the power of sympathy—an unseen, but mighty and gracious force. II. THE VAST RANGE OF . 1. The whole Church of the Redeemer demands its exercise. Christians are members of the one body, and subject to the one Head. Their mutual relations to one another are consequent upon their common relations to their Lord. Hence their interdependence and sympathy. When the head is crowned, the whole body is glorified; when the eyes brighten, all the features respond; when a limb aches, the whole frame is depressed. In such sympathy the body is a picture of the Church as it should be, and as it is just in proportion as it is pervaded by the Spirit of the Lord. 2. The whole race of mankind is included in its scope and action. Christianity alone can attack human isolation, and serve as the bond of universal brotherhood. The wanderers have to be gathered into the fold, and to this end they must first be pitied and yearned over and sought. III. THE OF . These are especially: 1. Sympathetic suffering with the sad and distressed, as opposed to indifference or malicious pleasure in others’ misfortunes. 2. Sympathetic joy in the advancement and honors of others, as opposed to envy and jealousy. 3. Sympathetic action; for emotion leads to practical interposition and help. Aid, gifts, self denying effort, may prove the reality of the feeling expressed in words. IV. THE AND OF . 1. To those who display it, it is advantageous as developing and fostering spiritual qualities. 2. To those who partake of it, whose cheerfulness is augmented and whose sorrows are relieved. 3. To society in general, which is thus leavened by Christian spirit and influence.—T. Body and members. At Corinth there was much of the spirit of self assertion: "I," said one, "am for Paul!" "I," said another, "for Apollos!" "I," said a third, "for Cephas!" This was a selfish partisanship; and with it was conjoined a disposition on the part of many to magnify their own gifts and powers and to depreciate those of their neighbours and fellow members. To all this the apostle furnishes the true corrective. Let Christians but regard themselves in the true light, as Christ’s body collectively, and as individually living members of that body, and then inconsiderateness, selfishness, envy, and jealousy will flee away. I. , FORM THE BODY OF CHRIST. Not, of course, the body of flesh and blood which he assumed and wore; not the bread and wine of the Eucharist, which he called his body and blood; but the human representation of his presence which he has left on earth. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 The supremely excellent way of Christian love. This chapter has been in all ages the object of the special admiration of the Church. Would that it had received in all ages the loftier and more valuable admiration which would have been expressed by an acceptance of its lessons! Tertullian says that it is uttered "with all the force of the Spirit" (totis Spiritus viribus). It is a glorious hymn or paean in honour of Christian love, in which St. Paul rises on the wings of inspiration to the most sunlit heights of Christian eloquence. Like the forty-fifth psalm, it may be entitled "A Psalm of Love." Valcknaer says that the "oratorical figures which illuminate the chapter have been born spontaneously in an heroic soul, burning with the love of Christ, and placing all things lower than this Divine love." In 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 he shows the absolute necessity for love; in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 its characteristics; in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 its eternal permanence; in 1 Corinthians 13:13 its absolute supremacy. 1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. The case is merely supposed. The tongues of men are human languages, including, perhaps, the peculiar utterance of ecstatic inspiration with which he is now dealing. It is, perhaps, with reference to this latter result of spiritual exultation, at any rate in its purest and loftiest developments, that he adds the words, "and of angels." It is unlikely that he is referring to the rabbinic notion that the angels only understood Hebrew, and not Aramaic or other languages. The words are meant to express the greatest possible climax. The most supreme powers of utterance, even of angelic utterance—if any of the Corinthians had or imagined that they had attained to such utterance—are nothing in comparison with the universally possible attainment of Christian love. It is remarkable that here again he places "tongues," even in their grandest conceivable development, on the lowest step in his climax. And have not charity. It is deeply to be regretted that the translators of the Authorized Version here introduced from the Vulgate a new translation for the sacred word "love," which dominates the whole New Testament as its Divine keynote. Greek possesses two words for "love." One of these, eros, implying as it did the love which springs from sensual passion, was dyed too deeply in pagan associations to be capable of redemption into holier usage. It is characteristic of the difference between paganism and Christianity, that Plato’s eulogy in the ’Symposium’ is in honour of eros, not of anything resembling agapē. The apostles, therefore, were compelled to describe the ideal of the gospel life by another word, which expressed the love of esteem and reverence and sacred tenderness—the word agapē. This word was not indeed classical. No heathen writer had used it. But the verb agapao, corresponding to the Latin diligo, and bring reserved for this loftier kind of love, suggested at once the substantive agapē, which, together with the similar substantive agapesis (Jeremiah 31:3, etc.), had already been adopted by the LXX. and by Philo and in Wis. 3:9. The word is thus, as Archbishop Trench says, "born in the bosom of revealed religion". The Vulgate chose caritas (whence our "charity") to express this love of reason and affection, the dearness which reigns between human beings, and between man and God. This word, like agapē, is absolutely unstained with any evil association. If "charity" had been exclusively used for agapē, no objection need have arisen, although "love" is English while "charity" is Latin. But it was an Unmixed evil that, by the use of two different words for the same Greek word, English readers should have been prevented from recognizing the unity of thought on this subject which prevails among all the books of the New Testament (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:14; 1 John 4:7, 1 John 4:8, etc.). To argue that the word "love" in English is not unmingled with unhallowed uses is absurd, because those uses of the word have never been supposed for a single moment to intrude into multitudes of other passages where love is used to render agapē. Who has ever dreamed of objecting on such grounds to the favourite hymn?— "Faith and Hope and Love we see Joining hand in hand agree; But the greatest of the three And the best is Love." It is true that Lord Bacon admired "the discretion and tenderness of the Rhenish Version" in using the word "charitie," "because of the indifferencies and equivocation of the word [love] with impure love." But that objection, if it ever existed, has now been done away with by the use of "love" in such a multitude of other pure and lofty passages of Holy Writ. It is, therefore, a great gain that the Revised Version restored to this passage the word "love," which had been used by Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Bible. For in modern English usage the word "charity" is almost confined to "almsgiving," and that of a kind which is often made an excuse for shirking all real self denial, and for not acting up to the true spirit of love. Christian love is always and infinitely blessed, but the almsgiving which has usurped the name of "charity" often does more harm than good. I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal; more literally, I have become booming brass, or clanging cymbal. My "tongues" without "love" become a mere discordant, obtrusive, unintelligible dissonance. The Greek word for "clanging" (alalazon) is an onomatopoeia, like the Hebrew name for cymbals, tseltselim (Psalms 150:5). 1 Corinthians 13:2 Prophecy. The power of lofty utterance belonged to Balaam and Caiaphas; yet it availed them nothing without love. "Lord, Lord," exclaim the troubled souls at the left hand, "have we not prophesied in thy Name?" Yet he answers them," I never knew you." All mysteries. Though I can speak of the secrets of God once hidden but now revealed (Matthew 13:11; Romans 16:27; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 3:3, etc.). And all knowledge. Insight into the deeper meanings of Scripture, etc. All faith. Not here meaning "justifying faith," or "saving faith," which can no more exist without showing itself in works than light can exist without heat; but fides miraculosa, reliance on the power to work wonders. Judas, for instance, must have possessed this kind of faith, and it was exercised by "many" who will yet be rejected because they also work iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23). So that I could remove mountains. It has been supposed that this must be a reference to Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21. It is, however, much more probable that, if St. Paul derived the words from our Lord, they came to him by oral tradition. And the inference must in any case be precarious, for the phrase was so common among the rabbis that "remover of mountains" was one of their admiring titles for a great teacher. I am nothing. No expression could ’involve a more forcible rebuke to intellectual and spiritual pride. 1 Corinthians 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor. The five words, "bestow to feed the poor," represent the one Greek word psomiso, and after all do not give its force. It is derived from psomion, a mouthful, and so means "give away by mouthfuls," i.e. "dole away." It occurs in Romans 12:20 for "feed." Attention to this verse might have served as a warning against the often useless and sometimes even pernicious doles of mediaeval monasteries. Much of the "charity" of these days is even more uncharitable than this, and shows the most complete absence of true charity; as for instance the dropping of pennies to professional beggars, and so putting a premium on vice and imposture. To be burned. The reading is extremely uncertain. The change of a letter gives the reading, that I may glory (καυχήσωμαι for καυθήσωμαι). Perhaps the scribes thought that "death by burning" was as yet (A.D. 57) an unheard of form of martyrdom, though it became but too familiar ten or twelve years later in the Neronian persecution. St. Paul was, however, probably referring, not, as some have supposed, to branding, which would bare been expressed differently, but to the ease of the "three children," in Daniel 3:23, where the LXX. has, "They gave their bodies into the fire;" or to the various tortures and deaths by fire in 2 Macc. 7. At the burning of Ridley and Latimer, Dr. Smith chose this verse for his text. Its applicability is on a par with millions of other instances in which Scripture has been grossly abused by employing its letter to murder its spirit, and by taking it from the God of love to give it to the devil of religious hatred. The burning of a saint was a singular specimen of the Church’s "love." It profiteth me nothing; literally, I am nothing benefited. A consideration of this verse might have shown the Christians of the early centuries that there was nothing intrinsically redemptive in the martyrdom into which they often thrust themselves. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 The attributes of love. 1 Corinthians 13:4 Suffereth long, and is kind. Passively it endures; actively it does good. It endures evils; it confers blessings. Envieth not. Its negative characteristics are part of its positive perfection. Envy—"one shape of many names"—includes malice, grudge, jealousy, pique, an evil eye, etc., with all their base and numerous manifestations. Vaunteth not itself. The meaning would probably be most nearly expressed by the colloquialism, does not show off. It does not, for instance, "do its alms before men to be seen of them" (Matthew 6:1). The Latin perperus, which is from the same root as this word, means "a braggart," or "swaggerer." Cicero, speaking of a grand oratorical display of his own before Pompey, says to Atticus, "Good heavens! how I showed myself off (ἐνεπερπερευσάμην) before my new hearer, Pompeius!" (’Ad. Art.,’ 1 Corinthians 1:14). Is not puffed up. Has no purse proud or inflated arrogance." Love, therefore, is free from the characteristic vice of the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 4:18, 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 8:1). 1 Corinthians 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly (see 1 Corinthians 12:23; 1 Corinthians 14:40). Vulgar indecorum is alien from love, as having its root in selfishness and want of sympathy. "Noble manners" are ever the fruit of "noble minds." "Be courteous" (1 Peter 3:8). Seeketh not her own. Self seeking is the root of All evil (1 Corinthians 10:24, 1 Corinthians 10:33; Philippians 2:4; Romans 15:1, Romans 15:2). Is not easily provoked. The word "easily" is here a gloss. The corresponding substantive (paroxusmos, whence our "paroxysm") is used of the sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39). Love, when it is perfected, rises superior to all temptations to growing exasperated, although it may often be justly indignant. But, as St. Chrysostom says, "As a spark which falls into the sea hurts not the sea, but is itself extinguished, so an evil thing befalling a loving soul will be extinguished without disquietude." Thinketh no evil; literally, doth not reckon (or, impute) the evil. The phrase seems to be a very comprehensive one, implying that love is neither suspicious, nor implacable, nor retentive in her memory of evil done. Love writes our personal wrongs in ashes or in water. 1 Corinthians 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity; rather, at unrighteousness. The rejoicing at sin, the taking pleasure in them that commit sin, the exultation over the fall of others into sin, are among the worst forms of malignity (Romans 1:32; 2 Thessalonians 2:12). The Greeks had a word, ἐπιχαιρεκακία, to describe "rejoicing at the evil" (whether sin or misfortune) of others (Proverbs 24:17); Schadenfreude, "malignant joy" (Arist., ’Eth.,’ 2.7, 15). It is the detestable feeling indicated by the remark of La Rochefoucald, "that there is something not altogether disagreeable to us in the misfortunes of our best friends." Rejoiceth in the truth; rather, with the truth. There are many who "resist the truth" (2 Timothy 3:8); or who "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18); but love accepts it, keeps it pure, exults in all its triumphs (Acts 11:23; 2 John 1:4). 1 Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things (see on 1 Corinthians 9:12). Endures wrongs and evils, and covers them with a beautiful reticence. Thus love "covereth all sins" (Proverbs 10:12; 1 Peter 4:8). Believeth all things. Takes the best and kindest views of all men and all circumstances, as long as it is possible to do so. It is the opposite to the common spirit, which drags everything in deteriorem partem, paints it in the darkest colours, and makes the worst of it. Love is entirely alien from the spirit of the cynic, the pessimist, the ecclesiastical rival, the anonymous slanderer, the secret detractor. Hopeth all things. Christians seem to have lost sight altogether of the truth that hope is something more than the result of a sanguine temperament, that it is a gift and a grace. Hope is averse to sourness and gloom. It takes sunny and cheerful views of man, of the world, and of God, because it is a sister of love. Endureth all things. Whether the "seventy times seven" offences of a brother (Luke 17:4), or the wrongs of patient merit (2 Timothy 2:24), or the sufferings and self. denials and persecutions of the life spent in doing good (2 Timothy 2:10). The reader need hardly he reminded that in these verses he has a picture of the life and character of Christ. 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 The eternal permanence of love. 1 Corinthians 13:8 Never faileth. The word "faileth" (ἐκπίπτει) has two technical meanings between which it is not easy to decide. 1. It means, technically, "is never hissed off the stage like a bad actor," i.e. it has its part to play even on the stage of eternity. This is its meaning in classic Greek. 2. it means "falls away" like the petals of a withered flower (as in James 1:11; comp. Isaiah 28:4). Here, perhaps, the meaning is not technical, but general, as in Romans 9:6 and in the LXX. (Job 21:1-34:43). But the reading may be simply πίπτει (falleth), as in à, A,B,C. They shall fail. This is not the same word as the one on which we have been commenting; it means "shall be annulled" or "done away;" and is the same verb as that rendered in the next clauses by "vanish away," "be done away" (Romans 9:10), and "put away" (Romans 9:11). Thus in two verses we have the same word rendered by four different phrases. No doubt the effect of the change sounds beautifully to ears accustomed to the "old familiar strain;" but it is the obvious duty of translators to represent, not to improve upon, the language of their author. In the Revised Version the stone word is rightly kept for the four recurrences of the verb. Tongues. Special charisms are enumerated to show the transcendence of love. Knowledge. This shall be only annulled in the sense of earthly knowledge, which shall be a star disappearing in the light of that heavenly knowledge which shall gradually broaden into the perfect day. 1 Corinthians 13:9 We know in part. The expression applies directly to religious knowledge, and should be a rebuke to the pretence to infallibility and completeness which is sometimes usurped by religious men. 1 Corinthians 13:10 That which is in part shall be done away. It will be lost in perfectness when we have at last attained to "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 3:14). 1 Corinthians 13:11 I understood as a child, I thought as a child; I felt as a child, I reasoned as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things; now that I am become a man, I have done away with childish things. No specific time at which he put away childish things is alluded to, but he means that "manhood" is a state in which childishness should have become impossible. 1 Corinthians 13:12 Through a glass; rather, through (or, by means of) a mirror. Our "glasses" were unknown in that age. The mirrors were of silver or some polished metal, giving, of course, a far dimmer image than "glasses" do. The rabbis said that "all the prophets saw through a dark mirror, but Moses through a bright one." St. Paul says that no human eye can see God at all except as an image seen as it were behind the mirror. Darkly; rather, in a riddle. God is said to have spoken to Moses "by means of riddles" (Numbers 12:8; Authorized Version, "in dark speeches"), Human language, dealing with Divine facts, can only represent them indirectly, metaphorically, enigmatically, under human images, and as illustrated by visible phenomena. God can only be represented under the phrases of anthropomorphism and anthropopathy; and such phrases can only have a relative, not an absolute, truth. Then; i.e. "when the perfect is come." Face to face. Like the "mouth to mouth" of the Hebrew and the LXX. in Numbers 12:8. This is the beatific vision. "We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). "Now we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). Then shall I know even as also I am known; rather, then shall I fully know even as also I was fully known, viz. when Christ took knowledge of me at my conversion. Now, we do not so much "know" God, but "rather are known of God". 1 Corinthians 13:13 And now. The "now" is not temporal (as opposed to the "then" of the previous verse), but logical. It sums up the paragraph. Abideth. These three graces are fundamental and permanent; not transient, like the charisms, on which the Corinthians were priding themselves, but which should all be "annulled." Faith, hope, charity. It might be difficult to see how "hope" should be permanent. But if the future state be progressive throughout eternity and infinitude, hope will never quite be lost in fruition. Even "within the veil," it will still remain as "an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast" (Hebrews 6:19). The greatest of these is charity; more literally, greater than these is love. St. Paul does not explain why love is the greatest and best of the three. Various reasons may be given. 1. Love is the greatest, because it is the root of the other two; "we believe only in that which we love; we hope only for that which we love. 2. And love is the greatest because love is for our neighbours; faith and hope mainly for ourselves. 3. And love is the greatest because faith and hope are human, but God is love. 4. And love is the greatest because faith and hope can only work by love, and only show themselves by love. Thus love is as the undivided perfection of sevenfold light. Faith and hope are precious stones of one colour, as a ruby and a sapphire; but love, as he has been showing us throughout the chapter, is a diamond of many facets. Eloquence without charity. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." Two introductory truths are suggested by the context. 1. That there is great diversity in the talents with which Heaven has endowed mankind. There are "diversities" of gifts. Whilst it is true that the apostle refers especially to miraculous gifts, those very gifts have their equivalents amongst men now. True, we have no miraculous gifts of tongues; but we have great linguistical scholars, men who are the masters of many languages. Though we have no miraculous gifts of prophecy, we have men of such a far sighted sagacity as to discern the signs of the times, and. foretell events destined to occur on the earth. Though we have not the miraculous gifts of healing, modern medical science invests some men with a healing power in some respects approaching the miraculous. In sooth, the unmiraculous endowments of the present day, exhibited in the various evolutions of art, science, philosophy, are more than an adequate compensation for the loss of the miraculous endowments of apostolic times. Some men are distinguished by one faculty and some by another. Some by the faculty of creating thought, some by the faculty of combining thought, some by the faculty of oratorically presenting thought. These faculties exist in various degrees of strength; in some they are dwarfish, in some gigantic. 2. That without charity the highest kind and degree of talent is of little worth. Indeed, in this chapter Paul says, in relation to the highest faculties, and to the highest services, that without this charity man himself is nothing: "I am nothing." Now, the text directs attention to one particular faculty, and that is eloquence. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels." Angels speak. Perhaps Paul had heard their oratory when he was caught up into heaven. He means, though he had eloquence of the highest type, without charity, it would be utterly worthless. Two thoughts are suggested. I. That it is FOR OF THE HIGHEST TYPE TO EXIST WITHOUT CHARITY. Why say, "possible"? It has ever existed and still exists, dissociated from this charity, this queen of virtues, or rather this root of all moral excellence. 1. We find it in party politics. Read the party speeches delivered at the hustings or in the House of Commons. Some of those speeches are fashioned after the highest models of oratory, and delivered with all the graces of the art, but utterly destitute of charity. They beat with selfish ambition and burn with envious spleen. 2. We find it in party theology. Some of the discourses on polemic theology are, in all the attributes of true eloquence, unexcelled if not unmatched; but how destitute of charity! They are all aglow with acrimonious zeal for certain dogmas of the brain. 3. We find it in party Churchism. During the month of May men appear on the platform of Exeter Hall who have spent many a laborious day, or week, it may be, in preparing a speech on behalf of some cause, before whose brilliancy the author hopes all other speeches will pale their fire. Read the most eloquent of these speeches; and for the most part how destitute of charity! Sect zeal reigns in all. The Protestant damns the Catholic, the Evangelical the Ritualist, the Church sneers at Dissent, and Dissent at the Church, and all agree in consigning pagans and heathen of every grade to nethermost perdition. The spirit of all the speakers, as a rule, at those busy manifestations of eloquence, is, "We are the wise men, and wisdom will die with us; the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are we." II. That eloquence of the highest: type without charity is UTTERLY . It is as "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." The word ἀλαλάζον, from ἀλαλὴ or ἀλαλὰ, a war cry, properly denotes a loud cry or shout, such as is used in battle. Whilst the sound is anything but pleasant, the material is comparatively worthless, made of two pieces of common brass. The idea is worthlessness. Take the speech of a man whose idea of eloquence shall excel the theory of Quintilian, and whose practice shall excel that of Demesthenes himself; what is it if it has not charity? Paul would say, "brass," giving out a mere clanking sound. 1. It is worthless in itself. What would you give for two little pieces of brass forming a cymbal? Whatever their marketable value may be, for musical purposes they are not worth a "penny whistle." What worth is there in an organism unless it has life? and what worth is there in sentences, however eloquent, unless they have charity? There is no moral worth in any act or word apart from charity. In the sight of Heaven all else is mere rubbish. Without it, I with all my endowments, services, sacrifices, says Paul, am "nothing." 2. It is worthless in its influence. The sounds you get out of the "cymbal" are not musical, and they produce rather an irritating than an inspiring or calming influence upon the listener. What moral good can speeches without charity accomplish? They may shed some light upon the intellect, correct some error, but they have no power to win the soul of a man. They often irritate, but never soothe. Bigoted partisans are attracted by the clankings of their brass, but men pass by them as by a Punch and Judy show. Eloquence without charity is like the roar of a winter’s northeaster, irritating and destructive; but eloquence with charity is like the quiet southwester in spring, warming all things into life and touching all things into beauty. 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Corinthians 13:3 Man worth. "Though I have the gift of prophecy," etc. 1. The greatest thing in the universe is mind. All material systems would lack completeness and meaning were there no mind to observe, study, and worship the great Invisible. 2. The greatest thing in mind is love. Here the apostle teaches that whatever a human intelligence may be, if it is destitute of love it is nothing. What is this love without which humanity is nothing? It is not the gregarious sentiment which links us to and gives us an interest in our species. This is an instinct common to animal existence. We regard this element as a blessing, not a virtue. Nor is it theological love—the affection which one has for his own faith and sect, but which will look coldly and hardly on all besides. This is a demon working under the mask of an angel. It reduces the gospel to a dogma and man to a bigot. Nor is it sacerdotal love—the love which speaks from ecclesiastical chairs, consecrated altars and seats of political power, but whispers no accents of sympathy for the physical and social woes of the race. We call this priestly selfishness: not manly love. What, then, is love? We may describe it—for we cannot define it—as a generous moral sympathy for the race springing from love to the Creator. This is, in fact, the love that only can confer real worth on humanity. We observe— I. That man without this love is nothing spiritually in relation to NATURE. We say spiritually; for we assume, of course, that the spiritual is the man. Whatever does not minister to this, does not minister to him. Nature has three kinds of pleasure to, impart—the sensuous, the intellectual, and spiritual. The last is the highest in the scale, and arises from a warm and living sympathy with the being, character, and purpose of the Creator of all. It is nature looked at through the heart, through the self. It is not sensation, but inspiration; not philosophy, hut poetry; not the letter of a science, but the spirit of lift. These are the highest joys of nature and the only real joys for man as man. To impart these is nature’s highest function. But are they not confined entirely to the children of love? As nature would be nothing to the body of a man were his senses sealed up, and nothing to the intellect of a man whose reflective faculty was paralyzed, so it is nothing to the soul of a man who has not a loving heart. To the sensual nature is gratification, to the thinker it is theory, to the loving it is heaven. True it is, then, that without love "I am nothing" in relation to the spiritual enjoyment of nature. II. That man without this love is nothing spiritually in relation to the THAT IS OVER US. If I have not love, I am nothing to providence. It ministers no real good to me as a spiritual existent—as a man. As the mortally diseased must say, "I am nothing to the health giving economy of nature," so the unloving may truly say, "I am nothing in relation to the spiritual blessings of providence." But love in the heart makes providence a minister for good, and for good only. Like the bee, it transmutes the bitterest fruit into honey. "All things work together for good." III. That man without this love is nothing spiritually in relation to . Love alone can interpret love. Christianity is a revelation of love, and none but the loving can rise to its meaning. Theology is one thing, Christianity is another, the one is a "letter," the other is a "spirit." Love is the single eye of the soul, and it fills the whole body with the light of life. Still more that which renders us incapable of entering into its meaning unfits at the same time from applying its provisions. It is a system of great and precious promises. But of all the sons of the earth is there one who, uninspired with love, dare apply a single promise? They are for the children of love, and them only. Without love, then, I am nothing in relation to Christianity. IV. That man without this love is nothing spiritually in relation to the OF THE GOOD. There is a great social system in the universe—a city, a Church, a family. There are myriads of beings who mingle together as citizens, fellow members of one Church, a family. Wherever they exist they have the same bond of union, the same condition of friendship, the same principle of inspiration, and the same standard of worth. What is that? In the great community of the good love is everything. "If I have not love, I am nothing to this community. Thou art learned, but though thou shouldst speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, thou art as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." Thou art gifted; prophetic genius is thine; thou art conversant with the arcana of science: thou hast faith too, orthodox, vigorous, and earnest; but though thou hast the "gift of prophecy" and understandest "all mysteries and all knowledge, "and though "thou hast all faith, so that thou couldst remove mountains, and hast not love, thou art nothing." Thou art liberal; but "though thou bestowest all thy goods to feed the poor, and though thou givest thy body to be burned, and hast not charity, it profiteth thee nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 The immortality of love. "Charity never faileth," etc. Amongst the many things which Paul predicates in this chapter concerning "charity," or love, is its permanence. I. It will "never fail" as an ELEMENT OF MORAL POWER. Love is the strongest force in the soul. 1. It is the strongest sustaining power. Our present state is one of trial and sorrow. Burdens press on all, in all grades of society. Godly love is the best sustaining power under all. All Divine promises are made to the loving. 2. It is the strongest resisting power. We have not only burdens to oppress, but enemies to conquer and destroy. If love preoccupies the soul, temptations are powerless. 3. It is the strongest aggressive power. We have not only to bear up with fortitude under trials, and to resist with success temptations, but we have battles to fight and victories to win. Love is at once the inspiration and the qualification for the warfare. There is nothing so aggressive in the moral world as love. Man can stand before anything sooner than love. As a sustaining, resisting, aggressive power, love will "never fail." II. It will "never fail" as a OF SOCIAL UNITY. Deep in the heart of man is the desire for union with his fellow. He wishes to flow with the race as waters with the stream. His ingenuity has been taxed for ages in the invention of schemes for union. Love alone can secure this; love only is the unifying force. We are only one with those we love with the moral affections of our nature. But we can only love the lovable. Love in the moral empire is what attraction is in the material. Love "never faileth" as a principle of social unity. III. It will "never fail" as a SOURCE OF . Love is joy. 1. It expels from the mind all elements unfavourable to happiness. 2. It generates in the mind all the dements of spiritual joy. 1 Corinthians 13:9, 1 Corinthians 13:10 Partial knowledge. "We know in part." Partial knowledge is of four kinds. I. There is a partial knowledge that is a . The knowledge of the highest intelligent creature must by the necessity of nature be partial. What he knows is as nothing compared with the knowable, still less with the unknowable. "Who by searching can find out God?" II. There is a partial knowledge that is a . Our necessary ignorance is not a calamity; on the contrary, it is a benediction. The necessarily unknown acts as a stimulus to our intellectual faculties. But our ignorance of things that are really knowable must be ever more or less a disadvantage. Ignorance of true ethics, of political economy, agriculture, laws of health, beneficent rules of conduct, true religion, entails incalculable injuries. Ignorance of these things is the night, the winter, of intellect. III. There is a partial knowledge that is SINFUL. A partial knowledge of our moral condition, the claims of God, the means of redemption, where a fuller knowledge is attainable, is a sin. Ignorance of Christ in a land of churches and Bibles, is a sin, and that of no ordinary heinousness. It is a calamity to the heathen; it is a crime to us. IV. There is a partial knowledge that is . Our ignorance of our future is a blessing. Were the whole of our future to be spread out before us, with all its trials and sorrows, and all the circumstances connected with our death, life would become intolerable; it is mercy that has woven the veil that hides the future. . Our partial knowledge should make us humble, studious, undogmatic. devout. A child in time, a man in eternity. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." From all the writings of Paul you cannot select an extract more beautiful, significant, and valuable than this chapter. It touches that which is the root of the universe, the heart of God, and the fountain of all virtue and blessedness—love. The subject of the words under our notice is the Christian a child in time, a man in eternity. I. This is the case in relation to SPEECH. "When I was a child, I spake as a child." Though the word "child" here properly denotes a babe, the apostle evidently uses it with no such limitation, for an infant neither speaks, thinks, nor understands. He denotes by it the human being in the first stages of intelligence and voluntary action. The speech of a child is often marked by incoherence and unintelligibility. It is irrelevant, disconnected, and broken. So is the speech of the sagest and most eloquent Christian here as compared with his language in eternity. The Christian’s speech in eternity will be characterized: 1. By clearness. Our speech here, like that of children, is often unintelligible, mere jargon. The reason is that our conceptions are cloudy, half formed, and ill defined. Obscurity of language, either oral or written, is the result of confusion in thought. Clear speech requires a clear head. In heaven thoughts are clear and complete as balls of radiant crystal. 2. By reality. Our speech here, like that of children, is frequently nothing more than the vehicle of mental fantasies and conjecture. Words only embody and reveal the unsubstantial dreams of the mind. But speech in eternity is the organ of reality. Words there are things. They are truths made vocal. 3. By comprehensiveness. How meagre the vocabulary of a child! Our speech here, like that of children, is limited to a very small range of things. When it conveys truth, the truths are but very few; and they relate to a mere speck in the great universe of intelligence. Not so in heaven. The soul will range over the whole domain of facts, receive true impressions of all, and speak them out. 4. By sublimity. Our speech here, like that of children, is not of the most exalted and soul-inspiring character. The best only talk of the rudiments of truths which have become more or less theological platitudes. In heaven speech will be the vehicle of the most soul-inspiring and soul-unlifting realities. Every word will be electric, every sentence radiant and quickening as the sunbeam. II. This is the case in relation to . "I understood as a child." The Christian’s understanding here is like that of a child in several respects. 1. In feebleness. The child’s intellect, like his body, gets strength by nutriment and exercise. In the first stages it is very feeble. It is incapable of any great effort. It is thus with the Christian here. We say of such a man, "He has a great intellect." But in reality the greatest is very weak. How little the effort that the greatest intellect can make in search of knowledge! What a small amount of truth can the most vigorous hold within his grasp! In heaven the understanding will be strong, unencumbered by matter, unchecked by disease, unclouded by sin. It will grow young with age and strong with exercise, 2. In sensuousness. A child’s understanding is under the control of the senses. It judges by appearances; it is taken up with the forms of things. Is it not so with the Christian. He is prone to "mind earthly things," "to judge after the flesh." The theology and the ritualism even of the most spiritual are coloured by sensuousness. The hell and heaven of Christendom are sensuous worlds. 3. In relativeness. The child judges of all things by their relation to himself. His father may be an author thrilling the intellect of his age, or a statesman directing the destinies of a nation, but the child knows nothing of him in those relations, As a father only he knows him. So with the understanding of a Christian, His conceptions of God are purely relative—Redeemer, Father, Master. Thus only is he regarded. Of what he is in himself, what he is in the universe, what he is in immensity, he understands nothing. In eternity we shall "see him as he is." 4. In servility. The child yields his understanding up to others, often allows it to be used as "clay in the hands of a potter." So it is often with Christians here. They are not generally independent in their inquiries. They put themselves in the hands of Churches and priests, and call them masters, Not so in heaven. Each with a full consciousness of his individuality will be independent in his investigations and conclusions. III. This is the case in relation to . "I thought as a child." In the margin the word reasoned is put for "thought." The child reasons Logic is not mere art, it is an instinct in human nature. How does the child reason? 1. From an insufficiency of data. Having neither the power nor the opportunity of making an adequate observation and comparison, he draws his conclusions from passing impressions and unfounded conjectures. Thus it is often with the Christian here. His knowledge of the facts of God and the universe on which he reasons, is so limited that his conclusions are often inconclusive and puerile. The grave and. pompous discussions of our most learned theologues on the ways of God must appear to the ear of an angel as absurd as the prattle of children on the affairs of kingdoms does to us. 2. From the impulse of desire. In all cases the wish is the father to the thought. It is too often so with Christians here. Their likings control their logic. Not so in heaven. How sublime the difference between the Christian in time and the Christian in eternity! How vast the disparity between the speech, understanding, and reasoning of Saul, the little Jewish boy, and "Paul, the aged," the great theologian and sublime apostle! This is only a faint type of the difference between the Christian here and the Christian yonder. . This subject teaches: 1. The educational character of this life. The true view of this life is that it is a school for eternity. Here all souls are in a state of pupilage. Some are deriving the true advantages from the discipline, and some are not. Whilst thousands leave this school from year to year unimproved, incorrigible, utterly unfit for the services of eternity, worthless to God and the universe, others are being made "meet for the inheritance of the saints in light." Brother disciples, be reconciled to this state. School days are not always the most pleasant. There are restrictions, disciplines, and studies, more or less painful. Struggle on till you "put away childish things," all that is childish in speech and understanding and reasoning. We shall leave this school soon for the family mansion and the grand inheritance. 2. The organic unity of man through all the scenes and stages of his being. Though the man here talks and. judges and reasons very differently to what he did when a child, he is nevertheless the same being. He is but the child more fully developed. He is but the sapling grown into the tree. It is so with the Christian in the other world. He is the same being as he was here, he is but the child grown into the man, freed from "all childish things." Man in heaven is but the child matured. We shall never be greater than men. Whatever is brilliant and great for us in the future will be but the development of the germs that slumber in us now. 3. The necessity of modesty in the maintenance of our theological views. In the light of this subject, how preposterous it is for poor frail, fallible man to set himself up as an authority in theological matters, to assume the priest, the bishop, the pope! "I do not know," says Sir Isaac Newton, "what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself by now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." The body the dark medium of spiritual vision. "For now we see through a glass, darkly," etc. It needs no illustration to show that our vision of spiritual things is very dim. The cause of this is our subject—the medium is dark, that medium is the body. Through the five senses we gather all the lights that flash on our consciousness and form within us ideas. But why is it dark? I. The body tends to THE OF THE MIND. We "judge after the flesh." II. The body tends to SWAY THE OF THE MIND. The desires of the flesh often move and master the soul. III. The body tends to CLOG THE OF THE MIND. Business, sleep, refreshment, exercise, disease,—all these interrupt the soul. Our visions of spiritual things being so dim: 1. None should pride themselves in their knowledge. 2. Atone should arrogate infallibility of judgment. 3. All should anticipate higher and fuller visions. When the medium is removed, we shall see "face to face." Love the greatest power in mind. "And now abideth faith, hope, charity," etc. Love is here brought into comparison with two other great things in mind—faith and hope. I. The between these three. The words imply: 1. That they are all great. The apostle speaks of the "greatest." "Faith" is a great thing. It implies reason, truth, and. the investigation of evidence. It is a great thing in business, in science, in society, as well as in religion. "Hope" is a great thing, too. It implies the recognition of good, a desire for good, and an expectation of good. It makes the greatest trials of the present bearable by bringing into the spirit the blessedness of the future. 2. That they are all permanent. There "abideth" faith and hope. In virtuous souls they are as lasting as life, as lasting as mind itself. II. The of one over the others. "The greatest of these is charity." Why is it the greatest? 1. It is a virtue in itself. There is no moral virtue in faith and hope. They are, under certain conditions, necessary states of mind. But love—disinterested, godly love—is in itself a virtue. 2. It is that quality which alone gives virtue to all other states of mind. Where this love is not, faith and hope are morally worthless. 3. It is that state of mind by which the soul subordinates the universe to itself. The loving soul alone can interpret the universe. 4. It is that state of mind which links the spirit to all holy intelligences. Love is the attractive power that binds all holy spirits together. 5. It is that state of mind which includes the highest faith and hope. Love implies the both. 6. It is that state of mind which is in itself happiness. Love is happiness. We cannot say so of either faith or hope. 7. Love is the most God-like state of the soul. God is not faith or hope; "God is love." The Eternal does not believe or anticipate, but he does love—he is love. Love is the life of the soul. It warms every vein and beats in every pulse. BY C. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 Negative view of love. Again and again, in St. Paul’s writings, we have an epistle within the Epistle. Thus, the summation of practical duties (Romans 12:1-21.), the argument on the resurrection (1 Corinthians 14:1-40.), and the portraiture of love in this chapter. By this means we get a well defined view of the object without losing its connections. It is not as if we were looking at the Peak of Teneriffe rising out of the loneliness of the sea, but rather a Mont Blanc, one with the Alps, and yet a solitary form of majesty. Grandeur, as distinct from beauty and sublimity, requires some degree of isolation so as to produce an adequate impression. Here, then, the apostle makes a space for this grand delineation, every feature of which may be seen in concentrated light, and not a thing allowed to distract the eye. This is in itself a call to attention, a summons to the activity of our whole nature, and, in accordance herewith, he presents something more than a mere sketch or profile of love. It is a complete portrait. The features are individually given, and, at the same time, the expression which combines them in a most striking unity. First, then, we have the supreme excellence of love in contrast with the worthlessness of other gifts unaccompanied by its presence. Great stress was laid at that time on the gift of tongues. We are all ’Relined to set a high value on an exceptional endowment of speech. Eloquence passes for much even in a rude age; the North American Indian and the barbarous tribes of Asia acknowledge its power, while cultivated society is never stinted in admiration of its influence. And the possessor of it seldom fails to exaggerate its worth. Stated roughly, eloquent men appear to have a peculiar intensity of consciousness as respects this gift. They are singularly open to the seductions of popular applause, so much so, indeed, that the public approval which a scientific man, or a statesman, or a military hero would he unharmed by, is often ruinous to an orator. Not the common air, but the breath of the multitude, fragrant with adulation, feeds his lungs. This it is that arterializes his blood and sends it hot and poisonous to his brain. Of course, these Corinthians were the very persons to overvalue the gift of tongues. It was in the channel of their tastes and traditions. But the apostle teaches them that this wonderful power holds a subordinate rank. tie does not depreciate it; no, he appreciates it to the full: "tongues of men" are associated with "the tongues of angels;" and yet, without love, the endowment is as "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." What is it but mere noise, an idle tumult of the air? Unless love to God and man attend the gift, restrain its selfishness, destroy its vanity making tendency, and sanctify it to the welfare of others, it is worthless. But the second verse enlarges the thought. One may have the gift of prophecy and use his intellect with amazing skill and force so as to excite and captivate his hearers, and this, too, under the teachings of revelation, and, further, one may have insight into Divine secrets, and "understand all mysteries," and have them at command as "knowledge;" yet what is he without love? Can it be possible that this resplendent power could exist, and that other light kindled by love be utterly wanting? Observe, it is "all" mysteries and knowledge; the man explores every height and depth, and he has the freedom of the universe. Nay, superadd all faith, so that material nature falls in homage at your feet and the "mountains "remove in obedience to your will; but of what avail this expenditure of mighty energy, where the holiness of love is lacking? If, then, the man endowed with universality of utterance—"tongues of men and of angels;" and if the prophet with his clear and broad insight into the counsels of God, and before whose eye the panorama of distant events moves as a spectacle of today; if the miracle worker who transcends all natural capacities and exercises the delegated power of Jehovah in producing supernatural phenomena;—if these men and their gifts are compared to "sounding brass and tinkling cymbal," and verily are "nothing;" and though they are known as apostles, prophets, miracle workers, heroes of faith, instruments of the supernatural: if all these are nothingness itself without love, can anything more be said to intensify the excellence of love as a Divine principle and sentiment and impulse? The third verse answers this question. Charity, almsgiving, philanthropy, even self sacrifice at the stake, here come into view. How far may one go in the benevolent appropriation of earthly property and yet fall below the highest motive? St. Paul replies that he may "dole out" all he owns, do it gradually, do it cautiously, do it to the exhaustion of his resources, yet do it unmindful of that sovereign law which gathers into itself all other laws and imparts to them a virtue that makes them Divine. Nor is this all. One may have the philanthropic idea and sensibility so largely developed as to accept martyrdom, have the courage to face it unblenched, and to endure it with fortitude; but he may surrender life without the highest love. Love may be there—love of a truth, love of a cause, love of humanity—not necessarily the love, however, here under discussion; and hence, this distinctive Christian love, which includes the Divine and the human, being absent, the martyrdom is not for Christ’s sake, and consequently is nugatory as to its Christian character. "It profiteth me nothing." If, now, such a doctrine as this rested on a ground solely ethical, we confess our inability to see how it could be accepted as a trustworthy view of human nature. Logic in itself has no fundamental principle from which it can be deduced. Philosophy as such, and as confined to what it finds in our constitution, would be compelled to reject a conclusion so alien to its spirit. On the other hand, the doctrine may be easily and heartily received On the score of Christian logic and philosophy. For, in the scheme of Christianity, human nature is a revelation from God. It is the Divine thought of this nature which we are to embrace, to cherish, to act upon. And if we admit, as we ought to do in the presence of such satisfactory evidence, that God has spoken to man of man, and disclosed to him the once hidden mystery of himself, as well as that other and infinitely greater "hidden mystery" of his redeeming purpose in Christ—if we acknowledge this, then we cannot impeach the wisdom, the justness, the stern truthfulness, of St, Paul’s argument. The argument assumes that Christianity is of God, and, as such, advances to this point, namely, Christianity alone gives a full and complete view of our nature. Its ethical teachings, their reasons and motives and ends, are founded in Christ and in his relations to us. Our relations to him and to one another are subsequent considerations, and take their quality and bearings simply, solely, altogether, from him, the "Image of the invisible God," and the "Firstborn of every creature." Inasmuch, then, as the ideal of our nature is not as we see it in and by our own unaided consciousness, but in and by a consciousness illuminated and guided by the Holy Ghost, how could it be otherwise than that new intuitions occur, and that demands are made on us never imagined before? On this foundation St. Paul stands when he affirms that those endowments which charm, those splendid gifts that win enthusiastic admiration, even self sacrifice itself at the bidding of earth-born instincts, are nothing without that love which is purely a responsive affection, or, as St. John expresses it, "We love him because he first loved us.—L. The nature and operation of love. The negative view having been presented, the apostle considers the mature and operations of this love, And one characteristic of it, he puts in the foreground of its excellences. It can suffer. A virtue that cannot suffer is hardly a virtue at all. Certainly it is not a virtue that can lay the least claim to divineness. Wedded love, parental love, philanthropic and patriotic love, have to undergo a discipline of pain and sorrow even to symbolize the higher affection of Divine love. This holy love, of which this chapter is so laudatory, derives its very essence from the "Man of sorrows." Short of realizing, in its measure, the agony in the lonely garden and the yet lonelier cross, it dare not, it cannot stop, since only there is its test found. A beautiful aestheticism, moral, perchance semi-spiritual, may follow the lowly Jesus of Nazareth through the windings of his Galilean and Judaean journeys, cling reverently to his person, spread the palm branches in his pathway, and shout its glad hosannas to his Name, and, after all, "forsook him and fled" may be the final record of its weakness. Only when he rises to the sacrificial height of his anointing as the Christ of God’s Law and the Christ of God’s love, and bears our sins in his own body on the tree—only here, where Jehovah "lets the lifted thunder drop," can the human soul be reconciled first to its own disciplinary sufferings, and learn afterwards, by many conflicts with self, to glory in the cross. But love not only suffers, it "suffereth long." It is patient—patient towards others, and, what is quite as important, patient with itself. And under all its sufferings, instead of being irritable, it is kind. Unsanctified suffering is usually morbid. It broods over its ills; it magnifies its afflictions; often, indeed, it makes us misanthropic. Sweetness of temper and tender outgoings of sympathy are not the common results of painful experiences, but the fruits of the Holy Spirit in them. Fortitude may be shown, and it may be naught but homage at the shrine of self. This love is of God. It takes to its heart God s thought of suffering as chastening, as correction, as the supreme moral necessity of a probationary life, through which we must pass to get any deep knowledge of ourselves. For it is never pleasure, but pain, that holds the key to the secret chambers, where the latent man awaits the voice of God bidding him arise and gird himself with immortal strength. Now, what effect on this love would ensue from suffering that had become habitual and wrought patience and silent enduringness into character? By suppressing a morbid regard for self and quickening the sympathies that give width to the inner life, what would be the specific result on the relations sustained to others? These Corinthians, as we have frequently noticed, were pulling down one and putting up another, were thoroughgoing partisans, were censorious and depreciatory towards those with whom they were disinclined to affiliate. What change for the better would love bring about? St. Paul answers, "Love envieth not." Observe how quickly he turns again to the negative aspects of this "supremely excellent way," and what vigour is imparted to the argument. At every step, contrast aids him by suggesting what love excludes, while its true qualities are set in bolder relief. Envy is pain at the sight of superior excellence in another, and is always a mark of blinding selfishness. According to one s temperament, it is displeasure or something worse, and usually contains an element of hatred. "Men, that make Envy and crooked malice nourishment, Dare bite the best." Of course it leads to strife. It is a fruitful cause of schism, and as schism was a terrible evil in the apostle’s view, he could not fail to show its utter inconsistency with this cardinal virtue. Along with this he says, "Love vaunteth not"—a similar idea to the foregoing as to its bad temper, but unlike as to its mood of exhibition. Reference is here made to the foolish display of self importance after the manner of a swaggerer or braggart. Next comes the statement, "Is not puffed up," not inflated or swollen by self conceit; this is followed by, "Doth not behave itself unseemly"—is not uncourteous, but studies propriety of manner, and shows the instinct of a right demeanour, from which all good breeding proceeds. The art of behaviour is manifold. It is amenable to circumstances and classes, variable as to outward manifestations, suiting language and other demonstrations to the claims of occasion, and, in all this, its root principle is the same if it be truthful and sincere, since it loses sight of self and ministers to the happiness of others. Christian manners are the offspring of a Christian manner; the manners are external, the manner is internal; so that here, as in all else, form is created by spirit. The tones of the voice, the look of the eye, the muscular play of the countenance, are not physical facts only, but expressions and languages that have modulation, accent, emphasis, direct from the soul. Thus attended, our words take on other, fuller, more inspiriting meanings than those drawn from the dictionary; so that a man’s face, figure, gesture, attitude, give a personal import to what emanates from his heart. If one compares the spiritual expression in the face of a Madonna by Raphael with the mere sensuous beauty of the face as depicted by antique art, he sees at once that Christianity has affected art to such an extent as to modify the laws of representation. "Expression is the vivid image of the passion that affects the mind; its language, and the portrait of its situation" (Fuseli). It is not extravagant to claim that Christianity has so far changed physiological expression as to spiritualize, and thereby to heighten, its quality and force. But why limit the change to art? The fact is that Christianity has had its effect—a very distinctive and appreciable effect—on what may be termed the physiology of manner, in the intercourse of society. We seldom think of it. We rarely number this among the myriad advantages Christianity has brought to man. Yet the fact is indisputable that Christianity has given to the human voice tones of strength and tenderness never before known, and to the human eye a depth of power, of stillness, of pathos, that, without its grace, had been impossible. Nor can we doubt that this is one of the numerous ways it has adopted to establish a closer relation between mind and matter, and educate the body for the glory of the resurrection. Passing from decorum while yet retaining the general idea in his grasp, St. Pant now mentions the unselfishness of love: "Seeketh not her own." If its deportment is never obtrusive, but always becoming; if it never uses its gifts to remind others of their inferiority, but orders its manners so as to avoid everything which might tend to inflame envy; it goes still further, and manifests its disinterestedness as the soul of the "supremely excellent way." To pursue its own honour and aggrandizement, as if it had a sole proprietary interest in itself and could only exist by existing for its own reputation, influence, happiness, is forestalled by its nature and operations. The "all things" are not its, but "yours," and "ye," one and all, "are Christ’s." So he had argued in the third chapter. The echo of the great truth comes back again and again, and once more it is heard in this verse. What St. Paul has just said of love as suffering long, and as kind, as not envying and vaunting, nor conceited and indecorous, are as so many stepping stones to "seeketh not its own." Would it have anything in the universe for itself alone? If so, the very thing itself, the universe itself, would be changed into another thing and another universe, and be no more a joy and a blessedness, but a restraint and an evil and a curse. Instead of a palace, a prison; instead of sublime disinterestedness, sordidness and ceaseless descent in degradation; instead of an ideal in Christ, the idea of virtues as bare commercial utilities, and of the soul as a commodity valued by the market place. Have anything alone? This were loneliness indeed. It were grievous, it were misery, to be isolated even by goodness and greatness from the heart of humanity. It is painful to a true man to be reminded of his superiority at the expense of others, and whenever one welcomes this sort of homage and glorifies himself, he loses truth of manhood. To thank God that we are "not as other men are" is sheer Pharisaism, and all such thanksgiving is worship of self. Love has not a wish, a desire, an aim, an aspiration, bounded by the limits of itself; and as Jesus prayed, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, so is the prayer of the soul in all its greatest moments, and when the cross is nearest by, that it may be one with others, as it longs to be one with Christ and the Father. Every inch that a majestic oak goes upward or spreads laterally, down go its roots; further and wider they spread themselves out, tree above and tree below, preserving, each in its way, proportion and symmetry. And so with love. Reaching that high development indicated by capacity to suffer and yet be kind, by victory over envy and ostentation, and the transformation of daily manners into spiritual grace and beauty, it has so enlarged itself as to afford ample room even for the most generous and magnanimous emotions. It wants to be good and to be better, but where is the best? And as the years move on and the soul grows, this thought comes to be uppermost, "There is a better world;" and not alone in a better nature, and as a better being, but in a better world, it looks for its perfection. A world of love is its demand. The negative idea is still further unfolded in the words, "Is not easily provoked," or, "Is not provoked" (Revised Version). Much of peevishness, of anger, of resentment, springs from wounding the imaginary being whom we call by our name, fondle with our caresses, and idolize in our vanity. This deformed self, though apparelled in gaudy drapery and lifted to an exalted pedestal, is but too conscious of its blemishes and flaws, to be tolerant of criticism or amiable under exposure of its imperfections. It is quick to take umbrage. It is full of suspicion and keenly alive to neglect, real or supposed. A chronic ailment, this self conceit feels any fluctuation of circumstances and is acutely sensitive to wind and weather. On the other hand, love is not provoked; its temper is not quick, nor are its words hasty. How can it be otherwise, when it "thinketh no evil"? By governing its thoughts, it obtains that rare virtue of intellect which consists in no small degree of a mastery over associations and suggestions, and that is probably the most signal triumph of mind over its physical connections. "Imputeth not the evil" (Dr. Kling); "Taketh not account of evil" (Revised Version); and whereas the "evil" is real and palpable, it refuses to bear it in mind, and, by fixing attention and keeping it fixed on the wrong, to aggravate the impression. Here, as everywhere, mark the unity in our constitution. One cannot have a sore finger, or toothache, or painful limb, that the affection is not enhanced by directing thought to it. The blood is inflamed the more, and the nervous susceptibility augmented. So it is with the mind. Can we wonder, then, that St. Paul’s insight detected the relation between thinking of injury or injustice, and the moral effect on character? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 14:1-25 The gift of preaching superior to the gift tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity; literally, chase; pursue. The word is one of which St. Paul is fond (Romans 9:30, Romans 9:31; Romans 13:13; Romans 14:19; Philippians 3:12, Philippians 3:14; 1 Timothy 6:11, etc.). And desire; rather, yet be zealous for. But rather that ye may prophesy; and yet more strive after the gift of sacred preaching. 1 Corinthians 14:2 In an unknown tongue. The interpolation of the word "unknown" in our Authorized Version is quite unjustifiable, and shows the danger of giving way to the bias of mere conjectures. Probably it is this word, not found in the original, which has given rise to the perplexing, unhistoric, and unwarranted theory that "the gift of tongues" was a power of speaking in foreign languages. Speaketh not unto men. Because, as a rule, no one understands anything that he says. The word literally means "hears." It may, perhaps, imply that no special attention was given to those who gave way to these impulses of utterance. The whole of this chapter proves in a most striking way the close analogy between "the tongue" and the impassioned soliloquies of inarticulate utterance which were poured forth in tones of thrilling power among the Montanists, and in modern times among the Irvingites. In the spirit. It is uncertain whether this means "in his own spirit," or "in the Spirit of God," i.e. as a result of inspiration. Probably the former (John 4:24; Romans 8:13, etc.). Perhaps, however, the two imply the same thing. The spirit is the one Divine part of our human being, and when a man is a true Christian his spirit is in union with, is as it were lost in, the Spirit of God. St. Paul recognizes the true tongue—for it might be simulated by hysteria and even by mere physical imposture—as a result of inspiration, that is, of the overpowering dominance of the human spirit by a supernatural power. Nevertheless, he points out the extreme peril of yielding to or self inducing these emotions public, or in leaving them uncontrolled. Mysteries. Secrets revealed possibly to him, but unrevealed by this strange "tongue" to others. 1 Corinthians 14:3 To edification, and exhortation, and comfort. The "to" should be omitted. His words build up the Christian soul, by rousing its efforts and consoling its sorrows. The "Son of prophecy" (Barnabas) is, as Stanley points out, also "a Son of consolation" (Acts 4:36). "Support" (paraklēsis) involves "comfort," i.e. strength and calm. 1 Corinthians 14:4 Edifieth himself. When the "tongue" was genuine, and under due control (1 Corinthians 14:32); when it avoided the physical and orgiastic manifestations by which a sort of spiritual possession was indicated in the ancient oracular shrines; when the self consciousness was not wholly obliterated,—a sense of ennobling conviction would be produced by this spiritual outpouring. Those who have experienced the emotion describe this very result. They felt enlarged and elevated—their whole being was for a time expanded—by this emotion. The Church. Primarily the body of assembled Christians which he is addressing, and through them the Church of God in general. 1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues. The language of relative disparagement which St. Paul uses throughout these chapters may lead us to regard this with surprise. Yet it is perfectly intelligible. Montanus truly said that each human spirit is like a harp, which the Holy Spirit strikes as with a plectrum, and which yields itself to the mighty hand by which the chords are swept. We have seen all along—and history has in various ages confirmed the impression, on every occasion when these phenomena have been reproduced in seasons of great spiritual revival—that the external symptoms may be imitated with most dangerous and objectionable results both to the speaker and to others. But when the expression is genuine, the fact that the tides of the Spirit can thus sweep through the narrow channels of individuality is in itself a sign that the spirit of the man is alive and not dead; and thus he is an evidence of God’s power both to himself and to others. Those who have heard "the tongue" have told me that its force, melody, and penetrative quality produced an impression not to be forgotten. When we see the stuffed and stopped-up hearts and lives of thousands of frivolous and worldly money worshippers, we might well echo St. Paul’s wish. Greater. Not of necessity greater absolutely or morally, but greater in the fact of his wider and deeper usefulness. Except he interpret. From this we infer that sometimes, when the passion had spent its force, the speaker in the tongue could give rational explanation of the thoughts and feelings to which he had given ecstatic utterance. 1 Corinthians 14:6 Except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? My "tongue" will be useless to you unless I also speak to you of what I know by revelation, or by my thoughtful study, which may take the form of preaching or of teaching (1 Corinthians 12:28). 1 Corinthians 14:7 Even things without life giving sound. Even musical instruments—flute or harp—dead instruments as they are, must be so played as to keep up the distinction of intervals, without which the melody is ruined and the tune is unrecognizable. Much more is this the ease with the human voice. "How sour sweet music is, When time is broke and no proportion kept!" The indiscriminate use of the tongue is here compared to the dissonance of jarring and unmodulated instrumental sounds, In harmony there must be due sequence and intervals of sound. 1 Corinthians 14:8 If the trumpet give an uncertain sound. A spiritual exhortation should be like the "blowing of a trumpet in Zion;" but if, as in "the tongue," the trumpet only gave forth an unintelligible blare, its sounds were useless. 1 Corinthians 14:9 Words easy to be understood; rather, distinguishable speech. Ye shall speak; rather, ye shall be (all the time) speaking. Into the air. Mere pulses of useless inarticulate breath, spoken ins Blaue hinein. Philo has the word aeromuthos one who speaks to the wind. 1 Corinthians 14:10 It may be. A mere expression of uncertainty as to the exact number. It is one of the very few instances where even the verb which implies "chance" is recognized. The word "chance" itself (τυχὴ) does not occur in the New Testament. So many kinds of voices. This does not seem to mean "so many languages." The Jews always asserted that the languages, of the world were seventy in number. It seems to mean "classes of expressive sounds." None of them is without signification. The words rendered "without signification," literally mean dumb. The meaning must either be that "nothing—no creature—is dumb," or that "every class of sounds has its own distinct meaning." 1 Corinthians 14:11 A barbarian; in other words, unintelligible, according to the definition of the word by Ovid— "Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli." Unto me; rather, in my eyes. 1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye. A general form of conclusion from the previous remarks. Of spiritual gifts; literally, since ye are zealots of spirits. That ye may excel to the edifying of the Church; rather, seek them to the edifying of the Church, that ye may abound. The same word is used in Matthew 5:20 ("exceed"); 1 Corinthians 8:8 ("are we the better"). 1 Corinthians 14:13 Pray that he may interpret; either, so pray as to be able to interpret, or, pray with the object of afterwards interpreting. The meaning, "pray to have the power of interpretation given him," seems excluded by the next verse. 1 Corinthians 14:14 My understanding is unfruitful. I am only aware that I am praying. I have no definite consciousness as to what I say. 1 Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? A phrase like the Latin quorsum haec? What is the purport of my exhortations? I will sing. This shows that the glossolaly sometimes took the form of singing. With the understanding also. When we worship or sing we must indeed "worship in spirit," but also worship and "sing praises with understanding" (Psalms 47:7; John 4:24). 1 Corinthians 14:16 That occupieth the room of the unlearned; that is, "one in the position of an ordinary worshipper, who has no spiritual gifts." An idiotēs is a private person; one who does not possess the skill or the knowledge which is immediately in question. Say Amen; rather, say the Amen. The custom of ratifying prayer and praises with the "Amen" of hearty assent and participation existed in the Jewish as well as in the Christian Church. The sound of the loud unanimous "Amen" of early Christian congregations is compared to the echo of distant thunder. "Et resonaturum ferit aethera vocibus Amen." Being the answer of the congregation, the "Amen" was regarded as no less important than the prayer itself. 1 Corinthians 14:17 Well. It is good and honourable for thee to utter the voice of Eucharist; but if this be done in the unintelligible tongue, what does the Church profit? The other. The "layman" or "ungifted person." 1 Corinthians 14:18 I speak with tongues; rather, with a tongue. More than ye all. This is exactly what we should expect of the emotional, impassioned nature of St. Paul, who was so wholly under the influence of the Spirit of God. But it is clear from all that he has been saying that, while the personal and evidential value of this gift of yielding his whole being to the spiritual impulse, which expressed and relieved itself by inarticulate utterance, was such as to make him "thank God" that he possessed it, he must either have exercised it only in private gatherings or must have always accompanied it by interpretation. 1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the Church. In any public assembly of Christians. Five words. No disparagement of the prominence given to glossolaly could be more emphatic. "Rather half of ten of the edifying sort than a thousand times ten of the other" (Besser). That… I might [may] teach others also. The word rendered "teach" is rather instruct, the root of our "catechize" (Luke 1:4; Romans 2:8; Galatians 6:6, etc.). 1 Corinthians 14:20 Be not children in understanding; rather, in your minds. Your tendency to overvalue glossolaly shows you to be somewhat childish. It is remarkable that this is the only verse of the New Testament in which the common Greek word "mind" (phren) occurs. Howbeit in malice be ye children; better, but in wickedness be babes. The Authorized Version misses the climax involved in the change of the word. The Christian should always be childlike (Matthew 11:25; Matthew 19:4), but never childish (1 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:14). Be men; rather, become or prove yourselves full-grown; literally, perfect. 1 Corinthians 14:21 In the Law. The quotation is from Isaiah 28:11, Isaiah 28:12, but the term "the Law" was applied generally to the Old Testament, as in John 10:34; John 12:34; John 15:25; Romans 3:19). With men of other tongues, etc. The application of this Old Testament quotation furnishes one of the many singular instances of quotation which prove that the Jews often referred to the words without any direct reference to their context or original meaning. He here wishes to show that glossolaly had little or no value except as an evidence to unbelievers, and illustrates this by Isaiah 28:11, Isaiah 28:12. Now, in that passage Isaiah tells the drunken priests, who scornfully imitated his style, that, since they derided God’s message so delivered to them, God would address them in a very different way by the Assyrians, whose language they did not understand; and that even to this stern lesson, taught them by people of alien tongue, they would remain deaf. In the original, therefore, there is not the least allusion to any phenomenon resembling the "gift of tongues." But the mere words of a scriptural passage always came to Jews with all the force of an argument, independently of their primary meaning; and it was enough for St. Paul’s purpose that in Isaiah the allusion is to unintelligible utterance, and to the fact that the teaching which it was meant to convey would be in vain. And other lips. St. Paul does not quote the LXX. The Hebrew has "with stammerings of lips and another tongue will he speak" (comp. Deuteronomy 28:49). 1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore. In accordance with this illustration. Not to them that believe. Because their belief depends on other and far deeper grounds. Serveth. This word is wrongly supplied; it should be, is for a sign. Not for them that believe not. Because there is nothing necessarily startling in preaching. It might, indeed, produce conviction in the unbelieving (1 Corinthians 14:25), but it was not a special "sign" "The unbelieving" are those who used to drop in at the Christian services out of curiosity. 1 Corinthians 14:23 All speak with tongues. He does not necessarily mean that all are speaking at once; though, amid these strange scenes of self-asserting enthusiasm, even that was not wholly impossible; but he means, "if there be nothing, going on except glossolaly." Will they not say that ye are mad? This has often been the actual impression produced by these phenomena upon those who stand aloof from the spiritual influences which cause them. On the day of Pentecost the exaltation of the disciples caused mockers to charge them with drunken exhilaration (Acts 2:13). 1 Corinthians 14:24 All prophesy. If one after another speak the word of spiritual exhortation. He is convinced of all, he is judged of all; literally, he is being convicted by all, he is being examined by all; in other words, each address is calculated to awaken conviction in him and to search his heart. Thus the address of St. Peter pierced the consciences of his hearers, when the glossolaly even of Pentecost produced no effect beyond that of irreverent wonder (Acts 2:37). It is easy to see that the style and method of worship in the assemblies of Christians at this early epoch resembled that now prevalent among Quakers. The teaching was not left to recognized pastors, but any Christian might speak who had gifts which moved him to address his brethren. The externals of worship are of no eternal signifiance, but are best left to be moulded by the requirements of time and place, with reference to the teachings of past experience. No doubt St. Paul’s depreciation of glossolaly led to its rapid disappearance when it had done its work of being "a sign to unbelievers." But if ancient modes of worship were too independent of rigid conditions, modern modes are, on the other hand, too stereotyped and inelastic. 1 Corinthians 14:25 The secrets of his heart. "The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,.., and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). Falling down on his face. An Oriental. mode of showing humility and deep conviction (Isaiah 45:14; 1 Samuel 19:24). It does not furnish the shadow of an excuse for the encouragement of catalepsy by the mechanical excitement of revivalism. That God is in you of a truth. St. Paul is probably thinking both of Isa 45:14 and Zechariah 8:23, where similar phrases are used. "Truth from his lips prevailed with double sway, And fools, who came to scoff, remained to pray." (Goldsmith.) 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 Rules to check disorderly self-assertion in Christian assemblies. 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then? The same phrase as in 1 Corinthians 14:15. Every one of you hath a psalm, etc. We see here a somewhat melancholy picture of the struggling self assertion of rival claimants to attention. A doctrine; rather, a teaching, The glossolaly had probably been promoted by Syrian enthusiasts, perhaps of the Petrine party; the egotism of oratory and itch of teaching now described (James 3:1) may have been developed in the Apollonian party. Unto edifying. The object is moral improvement, not idle self display, not the ostentation of individual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7, 1 Corinthians 12:8, 1 Corinthians 12:10). To this he recurs again and again (1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 14:3, 1 Corinthians 14:5, 1 Corinthians 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 10:8; 2 Corinthians 11:19; 2 Corinthians 13:10; and the verb frequently). The substantive, as used by St. Paul, only occurs again in Romans (Romans 14:19; Romans 15:2), and in Ephesians (Ephesians 2:21, etc.). 1 Corinthians 14:27 And that by course; rather, and that in turn. He does not allow more than one glossolalist to speak at a time, and not more than three at the most in any one service. This rule alone tended to extinguish the disorderly exhibition of" tongues." To control the passion which leads to it is, sooner or later, to stop the manifestation—a result which St. Paul would probably have been the last to regret, when its purpose had been accomplished. 1 Corinthians 14:28 Let him keep silence. The "him" refers to the glossolalist, not to the interpreter. To himself. In his private devotions (as St. Paul himself seems to have done); not in the public assembly. 1 Corinthians 14:29 Two or three. If more than two or three preached, the congregation would get weary. Let the other judge; rather, let the rest discriminate the value of what is said. "Prophesyings" are not to be despised, but we are only to hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:21), and we are "to try the spirits" (1 John 4:1). St. Paul is not encouraging the Corinthians to the consoriousness of conceited and incompetent criticism, but only putting them on their guard against implicit acceptance of all they hear; which was a very necessary caution at a place where so many teachers sprang up. 1 Corinthians 14:30 Let the first hold his peace. It would be easy enough to judge whether the revelation vouchsafed to his neighbour was more pressing and important than his own address. 1 Corinthians 14:31 Ye may all prophesy; rather, ye all can; that is, "if you have the gift of prophesying." St. Paul has already implied that at every assembly there would be idiotai, unendowed worshippers, who only came to profit by the gifts of others, and that "all" are not prophets (1 Corinthians 12:29). May be comforted; rather, may be exhorted or cheered. 1 Corinthians 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Into this golden aphorism St. Paul compresses the whole force of his reasoning. The articles are better omitted: "Spirits of prophets are under the control of prophets." Mantic inspirations, the violent possession which threw sibyls and priestesses into contortions—the foaming lip and streaming hair and glazed or glaring eye—have no place in the self-controlling dignity of Christian inspiration. Even Jewish prophets, in the paroxysm of emotion, might lie naked on the ground and rave (1 Samuel 19:24); but the genuine inspiration in Christian ages never obliterates the self consciousness or overpowers the reason; It abhors the hysteria and simulation and frenzy which have sometimes disgraced revivalism and filled lunatic asylums. 1 Corinthians 14:33 Of confusion. The word is rendered "commotion" in Luke 21:9; "tumult," in 2 Corinthians 6:5 and 2 Corinthians 12:20. "Confusion" is, as St. James says (James 3:16), the result of envious and pushing egotism. But of peace; which cannot coexist with inflation and restlessness. As in all Churches of the saints. The clause probably belongs to this verse, not to the following. It is a reflection on the exceptional turbulence and disorder which disgraced the Corinthian Church. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 14:35 Rules about the public teaching by women. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the Churches. St. Paul evidently meant this to be a general rule, and one which ought to be normally observed; for he repeats it in 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:12. At the same time, it is fair to interpret it as a rule made with special reference to time and circumstances, and obviously admitting of exceptions in both dispensations (Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Nehemiah 6:14; Luke 2:36; Acts 2:17; Acts 21:9), as is perhaps tacitly implied in 1 Corinthians 11:5. But… to be under obedience (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 2:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1). Christianity emancipated women, but did not place them on an equality with men. As also saith the Law (Genesis 3:16; Numbers 30:3-12). 1 Corinthians 14:35 Let them ask their husbands. Here again St. Paul is dealing with general rules. 1 Corinthians 14:36-40 Appeal and summary. 1 Corinthians 14:36 What? An indignant exclamation. Came the word of God out from you? Are you the authors of the Christian system, that you are to lay down rules about it? No rebuke was too strong for the pretensions of these Corinthians. Or came it unto you only? Is no one to be considered but yourselves? Have you no respect for Christian custom? end that when you were by no means the first Gentile Church in Europe (1 Thessalonians 1:8)? 1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet. Test your pretensions by the capacity to recognize that I have been speaking to you what Christ approves and requires. Or spiritual. He has already said that to most of them he could only speak as carnal (1 Corinthians 3:1). 1 Corinthians 14:38 Let him be ignorant. The formula seems to fall under the idiom which refuses to say anything more about a subject ("If I perish, I perish;" "What I have written, I have written;" "He that is filthy, let him be filthy still," etc.). The readings vary considerably ("He is ignored;" "He has been ignored;" "He shall be ignored;" "Let him be ignored"). These other readings would be a statement of retribution in kind—of God "sprinkling penal blindnesses on forbidden lusts." But the reading of our translation is on the whole the best supported, and means that to invincible bigotry and ignorant obstinacy St. Paul will have no more to say (Matthew 15:14; 1 Timothy 6:3-5). 1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore. The final conclusion. Covet… forbid not. The power to preach is to be desired; all that can be said of glossolaly is that it is not to be absolutely forbidden so long as the conditions which St. Paul has laid down for its regulation are observed. But glossolaly is hardly possible under conditions of order, decorum, and self suppression, and we are not surprised that we hear no more of it in the Church, but only in the wild excitement of fanatical sects. The suppression, however, of the startling manifestation by no means necessarily involves any enfeeblement of the inspiring conviction from which it sprang. The brawling torrent which "foams its madness off" is lost in the calm and majestic flow of the deep river. 1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things. The "but" of the original should not be omitted. It is a final caution against the abuse of the permission accorded in the last clause. Decently; that is, "with decorum." Thus Milton uses the term— ’’... and held Before his decent steps a silver wand." In Romans 13:13 and 1 Thessalonians 4:12 it is translated "honestly," i.e. honourably. In order. Time, proportion, regulation, self suppression, are as necessary in worship as in "the music of men’s lives." 1 Corinthians 14:1-28, 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 Grace and gifts. "Follow after charity," etc. There are many separate verses in this chapter implying or suggesting thoughts capable of being wrought out into sermonic sketches, but my purpose now is to take a homiletical glance at the whole. The following general propositions will bring all the parts into a logical connection:— I. THE GRACE OF CHARITY IS TO ALL . I say "charity," for I prefer the word to the word "love," which the New Version gives as the substitute. "Charity" implies the highest forms of love—compassion, sympathy, benevolence. "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts." Whatever other endowments you may possess or desire, do not neglect the cultivation of charity. The remarks of the illustrious F. W. Robertson are so admirable on this point that I transcribe them here. In showing the difference between a grace and a gift, he says, "A grace does not differ from a gift in this, that the former is from God and the latter from nature. As a creative power, there is no such thing as nature; all is God’s. A grace is that which has in it some moral quality, whereas a gift does not necessarily share in this. Charity implies a certain character, but a gift, as for instance that of tongues, does not. A man may he fluent, learned, skilful, and be a good man; likewise, another may have the same powers, and yet be a bad man—proud, mean, or obstinate, Now, this distinction explains at once why graces are preferable. Graces are what the man is: but enumerate his gifts, and you will only know what he has. He is loving; he has eloquence, or medical skill, or legal knowledge, or the gift of acquiring languages, or that of healing. You only have to cut out his tongue or to impair his memory, and the gift is gone. But, on the contrary, you must destroy his very being, change him into another man, and obliterate his identity, before he ceases to be a loving man. Therefore you may contemplate the gift separate from the man, and, whilst you admire it, you may despise him. As many a gifted man is contemptible through being a slave to low vices or to his own high gifts. But you cannot contemplate the grace separate from the man—he is lovable or admirable according as he has charity, faith, or self control. And hence the apostle bids the Corinthians undervalue gifts in comparison with graces. ’Follow after charity.’ But as to gifts, they are not ourselves, but our accidents, like property, after charity. But as ancestors, birth, or position in the world. But hence, also, on the other hand, arises the reason of our due admiration of gifts: ’Desire spiritual gifts.’ Many religious persons go into the contrary extreme: they call gifts dangerous, ignore them, sneer at them, and say they are of the world. No, says the apostle, ’desire ’ them, look them in the face as goods; not the highest goods, but still desirable, like wealth or health. Only remember, you are not wealthy or good because of them. And remember, other people are not bound to honour you for them. Admire a Napoleon’s genius, do not despise it, but do not let your admiration of that induce you to give honour to the man. Let there be no mere hero-worship, that false modern spirit which recognizes the force that is in a man as the only thing worthy of homage. The subject of this chapter is, not the principle on which graces are preferable as gifts, but the principle on which one gift is preferable to another: ’Rather that ye may prophesy.’ Now, the principle of this preference is very briefly stated. Of gifts, Paul prefers those which are useful to those that are showy. The gift of prophecy was useful to others, whilst that of tongues was only a luxury for self. The principle of this preference is stated generally in the twelfth verse: ’Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church.’" II. SOME ARE TO OTHERS. In the fifth verse the apostle says, "Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues." In this chapter it is taught that the didactic faculty is greater than the linguistic. Sense is better than sound, ideas are better than words. Ideas are the seed of character and the soul of history. Of all classes of ideas, religious ideas, ideas in relation to God, are the most salutary and sublime. A man may pronounce "sun," "universe," "God," in fifty different languages, and he is not necessarily richer in ideas concerning these than the man who can only speak them in his own vernacular. It often happens that the man who has the most aptitude in acquiring languages, and the most fluency in pronouncing them, has the least capacity either for attaining or communicating great ideas. But the language of which the apostle is here speaking seems to have been of a very peculiar sort—an unintelligible vocal utterance. It was, perhaps, the inarticulate voice of new and strong emotions—an emotional language. It is not necessary to consider this gift as miraculous. We are so constituted that when there rises up in our souls a strong rush of tender emotions, we feel utterly incapable to put them into words. Sometimes they choke us. If expressed at all, they can only be in the quivering lip and the gleaming eye and the convulsive chest. No stranger or stronger emotions can enter a man’s soul than those which Christianity awakens when it first takes possession of him. The groans, the sighs, the rapturous shouts, cannot be interpreted. Albeit they are a "gift," a gift of a high type, inasmuch as they are the expression of the most priceless states of soul. Such have been manifested in all great revivals of religion. In my younger days I have heard such untranslatable sounds under the mighty sermons of grand old Welsh preachers. The words imply that these "tongues," unintelligible vocal sounds, are valuable. "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied." They are valuable: 1. Because they are symptomatic of a new spiritual life. You can talk about the facts of history, the principles of science, and the doctrines of theology, but not about the deepest and divinest things of the heart. They only come out in "groanings that cannot be uttered." 2. Because in them the soul expresses its devotions. "If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." It is delightful to think of the human soul, generally so immersed in the selfish and the sensuous, bathing itself in the rising tides of spiritual emotions. 3. Because by them the religious sympathy of the unbelieving is often excited. "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." Sounds expressive of human emotion often strike potently on the heart of the listener. The emotions of others, revealed either in sounds or "signs," groans, sighs, or tears, seldom fail to strike the deepest chords in the hearts of others. Take the most thoughtless man into some vast congregation in Wales, when all the people are singing their plaintive hymns in strains of weird music, and he will not be long, even if he understands not the language, before he feels the influence. Deep emotion often speaks in the "unknown tongue." Unsyllabled speech is often the mightiest. There are melodies that carry into the soul that which no word can express. III. The highest endowment is the ABILITY FOR . "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church." "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all." What do I mean by "teaching "? Not the mere impartation of the facts of the gospel, but rather the indoctrinating of the soul with its primary elements and spirit—taking the spirit of the truth out of the letter and transfusing it into the souls of men. On this subject the apostle’s language suggests three remarks. 1. That the gospel gives to its genuine disciples intelligent convictions that should be communicated to others. This is certainly implied in the words, "Forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church." He who has accepted the gospel in reality becomes instinct with mighty and irrepressible ideas—ideas which he "cannot but speak," for "necessity is laid" upon him to do so. They are given to him to communicate, not to monopolize, and on their communication the spiritual life, growth, and perfection of mankind depend. Paul assumes in the whole of these verses, not only that the members of the Corinthian Church ought to do so, but that they did so. "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." 2. That these intelligent convictions can only be conveyed to others by intelligible language. "Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" The apostle proceeds to say that mere "sound" is not worth much. "Things without life," such as the "pipe" and the "harp," produce sound. Nay, more, unless the sound gives out clear and distinct ideas, it is not only useless, but injurious. "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" If in battle the trumpet does not sound clearly the "advance" or "retreat" when intended, it is worse than useless. "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Whatever might be the unintelligible utterances, whether an unvernacular language or the unsyllabled expressions of emotion, he indicates their inadequacy without interpretation to convey to the hearer intelligent convictions of gospel truth. 3. That the use of a language which the listener cannot understand should not be indulged in. (1) Not in public devotion. "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful," etc. (1 Corinthians 14:14-16). Unintelligible utterances in public devotion fail to excite in the assembly a spirit of united worship. "How," in such a case, "shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" So far as the individual himself is concerned, it does not matter with what tongue he speaks, or whether he speaks at all. "For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified." (2) Not in public ministration. Alas! it is to be feared the language of many a sermon is an "unknown tongue"—to illiterate audiences, many syllabled, strangely compounded, high-sounding, technical language. Such language gratifies the vanity of the speaker, but wastes the time and tires the patience of the hearer. "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." The apostle goes on to indicate that such unintelligible utterances in the Church are: (a) Childish. "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." They who prize such utterances are infants in knowledge. (b) Useless. "In the Law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people." As if the apostle had said, "Remember, there was a time in Jewish history when unintelligible language was a sign sent by God, but it proved unavailing so far as concerned the conversion of Israel." (c) Confounding. "If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" (d) To be of any service, they must be interpreted. "If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." 1 Corinthians 14:29-33 Paul’s idea of the Christian Church in assembly. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge," etc. From these words we may infer that Paul considered— I. That the Christian Church in assembly, on the SAME , MIGHT HAVE SEVERAL TO ADDRESS THEM. "Let the prophets [or, ’teachers’] speak two or three." "For ye may all prophesy one by one." If this be so: 1. Should Christian teaching be regarded as a profession? It is so now: men are brought up to it, trained for it, and live by it, as architects, lawyers, doctors. Surely preaching the gospel should no more be regarded as a profession than the talk of loving parents to their children. 2. Is the Church justified in confining its attention to the ministry of one man? In most modern congregations there are some Christian men who, by natural ability, by experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct and comfort the people than their professional and stated minister. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later. Every Christian man should be a preacher. Were the half hour allotted in Church services for the sermon to be occupied by three or four Christly men, thoughtful and reverent, with the capability of expression withal, it would not only be far more interesting, but more profitably spent than now. II. That the Christian Church in assembly might ALLOW ONE OF ITS GODLY MEN TO RISE AND SPEAK ON THE OF THE MOMENT. "If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." This does not mean, I presume, that the one who is speaking is to be interrupted, but that after he has delivered his message another, if he felt truly inspired to do so, might rise and address the audience. May it not be that under every discourse there might be some one or more in the audience so divinely excited with a rush of holy thought, that he craves for an utterance, not for his own sake, but for the sake of others; and why should he not have the opportunity? What an interest such an event would add to a religious service! III. That the Christian Church in assembly SHOULD SUBMIT THE OF ITS TO A DEVOUT . "Let the other judge," or, as the New Version has it, "Let the others discern [or, ’discriminate’]." The people were not to accept as a matter of course all that the prophets or teachers spake to them; for even were they inspired, they were not infallible. They were to act as it is said the Bereans did, who "searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so." Ah me! if congregations were so to act, there would soon come an end to the crudities, the assumptions, and the dogmas of modern pulpits. IV. That the Christian Church in assembly SHOULD IN ALL ITS ORDER. "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the saints." It is a characteristic of a true teacher that, however full of inspiration, he can so master his impulses as to prevent confusion. This should always be done, "for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." Notwithstanding all the liberty of teaching, all the enthusiasm of the new life, where Christianity reigns there will be no disorder; all will be peace. There is an order in dead mechanism, and there is order, too, in the roar of ocean and in the thunderstorm. All that is Divine is under law. BY C. 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 Love controls zeal in behalf of spiritual gifts. In the opening verse we have three ideas, viz. love as a virtue to be diligently sought and practised, spiritual gifts as objects worthy of desire, and prophesying as a gift among gifts to be especially prized. "Rather that ye may prophesy" is the formative thought of this chapter, and it must be kept in view by the reader, since it is explicit or implicit in every associated idea. But this leading thought is closely connected with the twelfth and thirteenth chapters, and this also must be considered by the reader. To understand the reasoning of the apostle in the fourteenth chapter and sympathize with the fervour of his exhortation in the "rather that ye may prophesy," remember that he is contemplating prophecy from the standpoint of love. How else, forsooth, could he regard it, either in the logic as bearing on intellect, or in the appeal as applied to experience, or in their united effect on Christian character? Prophecy, in the light here presented, is not simply a revelation of God’s will and wisdom to others, but likewise a revelation of love as a conscious influence pervading, inspiring, controlling the soul of the prophet or teacher. It is a voice from God himself by the Spirit. It is a Divine voice, moreover, in tones and accents most truly, most thoroughly, human, became of tender sympathy with the needs of its fellow men and their dependence on it for guidance, help, furtherance, in the salvation of their souls. One of the aspects of love as the ’"greatest" instantly comes before the eye Prophecy, in the case of the man so gifted, is an organ of his love, so that he teaches, not to enjoy the activity and brilliance of his intellect, or make in any way a demonstration of himself, but solely to benefit his fellows. Actuated wholly by brotherly sentiment, he comes down from the pedestal of complacent self regard, and values his endowment in the degree that he is able to take the common level, and thereby instruct and console his brethren. Why, then, should the argument in this chapter follow the eulogy on love so closely? One reason—the chief reason—we may suppose to be that the gift of "tongues" was overvalued, and, as a consequence, the capacity to teach was depreciated. Without disparaging the "tongues" when rightly used, St. Paul lays a very proper stress on teaching, and gives it the preference, on the ground that it allows a fuller, freer, more effective manifestation of love. "Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. And so, too, now abide the "spiritual gifts," the gifts in general, "tongues" and "prophecy" m particular, but the "greatest of these" is "prophecy." The parallelism is complete. And how easily St. Paul glides from the chapter on love as the greatest among virtues to the chapter on teaching as the greatest among gifts! One would have supposed that, after such an effort of analytic and descriptive intellect and its interblending with emotional outgoings, there would be a rebound, a pause for nature to recover from an intense exertion; but this is not apparent. The strong man is still strong, the eye beams as brightly and the hand moves as firmly as before, and the eulogist of love passes into the eulogist of prophecy with no change other than that which the nature of the new topic necessitates. The argument in 1 Corinthians 14:2 takes an antithetic form. There is speaking in an unknown tongue. The speech is not a communication of wisdom to others, but a mysterious activity that exalts the speaker above the ordinary sphere of self consciousness and is ecstatic. "No man understandeth him." There is the outward hearing on man’s part, but no inward hearing. God is the only listener who comprehends him: "He speaketh... unto God;" "In the spirit he seeketh mysteries." The mysteries are things "which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from the speaker himself" (Alford). Was language a sublimer function than we have comprehended? Are there uses of expressional power of which we know nothing? Are there utterances of intuition beyond our power to grasp? Is there some one vast generalization of speech as interiorily related to pure reason, under which, as fragmentary forms of embodied thought and as representations of the functional energies of the mental faculties, all the utilities of speech are classified? We cannot tell. 1. All we know is that the speaker here under notice speaks from his "spirit;" intellect, emotion, the entire nature, are simultaneously excited. Barriers between the faculties are broken down; speech is no longer merely philosophic, or poetic, or impassioned, but it is in some occult way the articulation of the spirit in its wholeness. No man ever said anything that he could look upon as the complete expression of himself. Before he utters his greatest thoughts, he is very hopeful of doing full justice to them; afterwards he is half abashed, deplores his shortcoming, and gazes with a feeling somewhat reproachful on the ideal that retreated afar. Now, in the instance St. Paul has in view, the speaker is under the perfected sway of his spirit, and he transcends the limits of habitual consciousness. 2. All we know is that this exceptional speaker utters "mysteries." And the "mysteries," out of whose deep solitudes the voice comes, remain mysteries; neither word nor tone, neither look nor gesture, gives any solution of the meaning. The secrets have taken on sound, but the sense is concealed, and the very sound is a deeper silence. And has not such silence its uses? Is it a mere image to the fancy that Milton gives when he so finely personifies Silence in paradise as pleased with the song of the "wakeful nightingale"? Or when Thomson breathes the invocation: "Come, then, expressive Silence, muse his praise"? And, in the present case, the sound falls back into silence, but, nevertheless, the "unknown tongue" is among "spiritual gifts," and fills its sphere in the spiritual economy of Christ’s universe. What, then, is the object of St. Paul’s argument? It is a question of, comparative worth, that he discusses. These Corinthians are fascinated by the tongues, and, in their passion for high excitements, have been led to exaggerate beyond bounds the ecstatic singularity of the "unknown tongue." This unhappy craving for morbid and tumultuous agitation, this delight in sensations and emotions, threatened the decay, ay, the destruction of spirituality. It was the spirit of man, indeed, but the spirit borrowing the impulses of the lower man, instead of holding itself aloof from a depraving alliance with ungoverned blood and nerves. The remedy of the evil was in a proper estimate of the gifts as relative to brotherhood and helpfulness of others. Therefore, "desire… rather that ye may prophesy." And wherefore? That ye may "speak unto men" with three ends in view, namely, edification, exhortation, comfort. To edify is to build up the whole framework of Christian character; to exhort is to incite to duty by timely, appropriate, and effectual motives; to comfort is to show tenderness of fellow feeling and be partners of the cares, burdens, and sorrows of others. What a blessed prerogative, to go forth from the isolations of intellect and from the selfish exclusiveness that our own anxieties and sufferings not infrequently bind upon us, and impart ourselves in large sympathies to such as in their weakness need our strength! "Himself;" there the benefit lies. Lifted to a lofty height, borne upward from one sublimity to another, rapt and entranced, it is still himself that is the party concerned. There may be quickening and ennobling; the immense realm within the soul, where the surprises of possible consciousness are dormant, may suddenly yield their resources and give the soul a new and astonishing sense of itself; yet, despite of all such results, it is himself, first and last. But he "that prophesieth edifieth the Church." A community gets the benefit, not the mere man "himself." Is St. Paul depreciating the speaking with tongues? Hear his hearty wish: "I would that ye all spake with tongues." In perfect consistency with this testimony to the worth of the tongues, he adds that he desires for them more ardently the gift of prophecy. Why this more fervent wish? Because the prophet or teacher is greater than the speaker with tongues not interpreted—greater because he builds up and inspirits and cheers his brethren more than the mystical speaker with "an unknown tongue;" greater because "it is more blessed to give than to receive"—L. 1 Corinthians 14:6-13 Argument continued and illustrated. Greater is the teacher than the speaker in a tongue not interpreted, was the statement of the apostle in the fifth verse. Suppose, then, that even he were to address these Corinthians "with tongues;" would not the edification be confined to himself? There would be no exception in his case, none in his favour as the apostle of the Gentiles, and hence his usefulness, no matter what he might say, would be at an end, for lack of interpretation. "What shall I profit you?" The profit is only possible by means of doctrine and knowledge. Tongues unexplained convey no doctrine and knowledge, and hence, as relative to the hearers, are nugatory. For instance, there are musical instruments, "pipe or harp," that have a language in the broad sense of the word, and convey their meanings if skilfully used. The instrument in the hands of an intelligent performer, though in itself "without life," yet receives life as it were from him who knows how to handle it. A dead thing, yet his breath or his touch imparts a representative vitality to its sounds, and you hear in those sounds the sentiments and emotions of the soul. What a range they have, rising and falling by turns, exulting, sorrowing, shouting, wailing! To effect this, there must be "a distinction in the sounds;" the instrument must obey its laws, and the laws are dictated by the art of music. And he argues further, that a trumpet in battle can give such discriminating sounds as to direct the movements of soldiers. The commanding officer, though distant, speaks to the trumpeter, and the trumpeter conveys the order through the trumpet. A thing "without life," and yet it outreaches the compass of the living voice and is fully understood, for it gives no "uncertain sound." Musical instruments are interpreters. Their utility exists in their intelligible modulations. If it were otherwise, they would but confuse and bewilder. The comparison is promptly applied. "So likewise ye," with all your admiration for "tongues" and your disposition to give them pre-eminence among the gifts, are indulging in a wild and incoherent display, unless you "utter by the tongue words easy to be understood." Words are not sufficient; they must be words easy to be understood. The capacity of the hearer, the humblest in the congregation, must be thoughtfully regarded, otherwise they are to him idle rhapsodies; "ye shall speak into the air." If neither "pipe," nor "harp," nor "trumpet" give an "uncertain sound," still less could it be said of human voices (languages) that they are unintelligible. "Many kinds are in the world, and none of them without signification." Varieties exist. The surface of the globe is not more diversified than language, and yet, as the globe is one, so are these languages one, although very unequal as to capacity for the conveyance of ideas. But is the "tongue" like these voices? If not, then he that speaketh in this way is a barbarian; and would you barbarians in your Christian relations, outside foreigners, you and your fellow citizens in the commonwealth of Christ shut out from intelligible communication with one another? We can see, while reading St. Paul’s argument, what force it contains. Pentecost had restored what Babel had destroyed; the ambitious tower that was to reach so high had been arrested by confusion of tongues; men had scattered from one great centre, and human centralization had been stopped in the evil form threatened. Pentecost had enabled men to cooperate; all languages could now be used as vehicles of making known the gospel, and the builders could work together on the temple of the Church. Pentecost, however, was here annulled, and Corinth was making ready to scatter her Christian population, to alienate them from community of impulse and aim, and changing the members of the Church in this respect into barbarians to one another. "Even so ye," declares the apostle, who are "zealous of spiritual gifts," should esteem it your first concern to edify the Church. "Wherefore," he adds in application, let the speaker in an unknown tongue "pray that he may interpret." Whatever construction may be given this difficult passage, it is certain that St. Paul intended to teach the Corinthians the absolute insulation of this sort of speech, its essential characteristic as opposed to the true function of language, and the complete exclusion of its possessor from the fellowship of the outward world.—L. 1 Corinthians 14:14-22 Further enforcement of the argument. At this point in the discussion St. Paul refers to the distinction between the spirit and the understanding. Such a distinction must be recognized or his argument has no basis in the nature of the human mind, and, if there be no foundation in the laws of the mind for this difference between Spirit and understanding, the operations of the Holy Spirit in the two forms under notice are inconceivable. Man has a spirit—a power of introversion that withdraws itself from the avenues of outward activity; a capacity of absorption in its own thoughts and feelings as self related; a susceptibility to receive Divine influence as an experience restricted to its own intuitions and making the man himself the supreme object. Man, too, has an understanding, and its functions are to connect him with other men. But is there an impassable gulf between the two? Certainly not; the spirit may cooperate with the understanding. Left to its own ecstatic freedom, the spirit may soar and shine, but the flight is in loneliness and the resplendency unwitnessed. In this condition the body indicates occult activities that we do not comprehend, and its physiological expressions are, in a certain sense, "unknown tongues." On the other hand, this state may be translated from the unknown into the known by means of the understanding, and thus the latter, which was previously "unfruitful," becomes fruitful of thought and emotion in others. Prayer and praise will thus be mutual to spirit and understanding in the original party. No longer wilt these be dissevered forces, but coalescent for the common good, and the "unlearned" can intelligibly say, "Amen." What is worship without this true "Amen"? Response there must be; heart must go up to God with heart; and the glad "Amen" will be the assurance of this beautiful mutuality. The value of this single word cannot be measured. What a history it has! Far back in Hebrew life, when the psalms gave voice and sentiment to the thanksgiving of the nation; further back yet, when Israel wandered in the desert; in the land of promise, in the lands of captivity; heard in the acknowledgment of chastening and in the celebrations of returning light and hope; temple and synagogue, homes and booths, war and peace, repeating its loud echoes; and descending through the Christian ages with a deeper and more touching import, and everywhere an utterance precious to faith and sympathy, whether in lowly kirk or magnificent cathedral;—what a past this word preserves! "True or faithful," how could its meaning but survive in the long struggle of truth and fidelity for triumph in the world? And what honour comes to it when Christ himself is represented in the Apocalypse as the "Amen, the faithful and true Witness"! No marvel, then, that St. Paul felt the thrill of this "Amen" when he said that, though he spoke "with tongues more than ye all," yet he would "rather speak five words" with his understanding, and so teach others, than "ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." No higher estimate than this was ever put on practical wisdom. The best and profoundest utilitarian is the man who advocates utility on this high ground. St. Paul argued so warmly in behalf of the "understanding" because he felt so deeply the glory of the human "spirit." Hence the exhortation: "Brethren… in understanding be men," and this manliness is enforced by an appeal to Jewish history (Isaiah 28:11), wherein is seen the threatened judgment of Jehovah on those who despised the simplicity and truthfulness of Old Testament teaching. Then comes the significant "wherefore," followed by two ideas: (1) the tongues are a "sign" from God, and meant for unbelievers who have not hearkened to his words; and (2) prophesying or teaching was a sign to believers, a token of blessing, an earnest for the future, a proof of God’s interest in them; a sign in the one case of impending evil, in the other of good in immediate realization and good in future store. Would he not rather preach a gospel to belief than to unbelief? a gospel to hope in preference to apprehension? a gospel of exceeding great and precious promises, instead of a gospel of exceeding great and awful threatenings? "Five words" to enlighten, cheer, inspire, the heart of belief and love outweighed "ten thousand" addressed as a rebuke and a warning to men who had willed not to hearken to God’s voice.—L. 1 Corinthians 14:23-32 How a spectator would regard the tongues; the gracious effects of prophesying; interpretation or silence. Suppose that the whole Church were to assemble in one place (argues the apostle), and all "speak with tongues;" the unchecked energy pouring itself forth in many and discordant volumes, each speaker borne away on the mighty tide of his own transport; no one considerate of another; the car scarcely cognizant of the sound issuing from the lips, the eye insensible to the impression made on a beholder;—suppose such a state of things occurring in the Corinthian Church, and, amid the disorder and commotion, the "unlearned" (those unacquainted with the meaning of the exhibition) or the "unbelievers" (such as were not converted to Christianity) were to make their appearance and look upon the scene; would they not think them "mad"? Instantly he reverses the supposition. The work of teaching is in progress, and the Church is receiving the doctrines, duties, consolations, of the gospel in appropriate methods of instruction. A person, who is unlearned or unbelieving, enters the assembly. He hears, is able to understand, is "convinced of all" and "judged of all." The word reaches his inmost consciousness, and he is revealed to himself. Perception, reflection, self scrutiny, judgment, conscience, are aroused by the Holy Spirit, and for the first time, perchance, he listens to the voice of his own instincts in the articulations of others. It is usually through some mediating soul that God makes us known to ourselves In our darkness the light is reflected as that of the moon on the night, and the sunrise and the day follow afterwards. And, in this case, the unlearned or unbeliever has the "secrets of his heart made manifest." The throne of judgment is set within; the hour is calm and meditative; the man is brought to the bar; and the ministering servants of the eternal Judge are here with their testimony. Most of all, the Divine Agent is here, of whom Jesus Christ said, "He shall testify of me." Step by step the trial advances. Memory speaks from the past, fear speaks of the future. The sense of guilt is awakened, "and so falling down on his face," overpowered by his convictions, "he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." How is this? In the one case, there is an impression of madmen; in the other, God is felt to be with these men. In the former, religion was an unintelligible thing; in the latter, it was comprehensible. Recall the power of the "five words" spoken to the understanding, versus the "ten thousand" uttered in rhapsody, and the secret is explained. What, then, is the practical inference? "If, when you are met together, one is prepared to sing a hymn of praise, another to exercise his gift of teaching, another his gift of tongues, another to deliver a revelation, another an interpretation" (Conybeare and Howson); shall any of God’s gifts be suppressed or discarded? Room for all, need for all, blessings for all, blessings in all, exist; and none must be suffered to fall into desuetude or cast away as useless. Let each have time and opportunity, subject to one inflexible condition: "Let all things be done unto edifying." Edify has had emphasis after emphasis in the conduct of the argument, and surely the Corinthians can be at no loss to understand its meaning. But St. Paul will particularize. Edification allows the use of tongues. Edification requires, however, that the tongues be used in order and under strict propriety. The order and propriety are specified: "If there be any who speak in tongues, let not more than two, or at the most three, speak (in the same assembly); and let them speak in turn; and let the same interpreter explain the words of all" (Conybeare and Howson). How important the interpreter was is obvious, for he says, "If there be no interpreter," let him who speaks in tongues "keep silence in the Church." Will this destroy his devotional spirit? Nay; he may still commune silently with himself and with God. Prophets may also "speak two or three," but edification holds them likewise under rule. "Let the others judge." Inspired teachers were amenable to the Church in the persons of those who possessed the gift of discernment as a specialty from the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, edification demands, that if the Spirit suddenly and powerfully act on "another that sitteth by," let the latter be heard. "One by one;" this is the method of edification, "that all may learn, and all may be comforted." For this was a matter under each prophet’s personal control. In him the "spirit" and the "understanding" were harmonious. Consciousness kept its serene poise. There could be no reach of thought beyond the jurisdiction of the will, no passion for undue excitement, no verging towards hysterical emotion. And as heart and lungs maintain their beautiful relativity, and thus secure the maximum of health and vigour to the body, so "spirit" and "understanding" act in the prophet with no jar or jostle, but in perfect accord. For the "spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."—L. 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 Concluding views. If edification was to be the rule of conduct in everything, it is plain that the prophets must govern themselves. No matter how sincere and truthful their zeal, or how honest and excellent their purpose, feelings, and even the best feelings, must be held under firm restraint. They had this power, and it was from God; for he is "not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the saints." St. Paul directs further that "women keep silence in the Churches." If the Corinthians objected to this injunction, what right had they so to do? Usage in the Christian community as a whole was to be observed; local peculiarities offensive to the spirit and tastes of the body of Christ were not to be indulged. How could they claim exemption from a rule recognized everywhere? Were they the original Church? or did their position warrant any exclusive customs at variance with established custom? To enforce this view and the argument in the chapter, he asserts in the strongest manner that he spoke from Divine inspiration. "No more direct assertion of inspiration can be uttered than this" (Alford). If any one deny this inspiration, no controversy must be had with him. "Let him be ignorant," and, perchance, he may be self convicted of his error. Then the idea which has been so prominent in his mind is introduced again in the words, "covet to prophesy." Had he not made good its claim to a pre-eminent excellence? By the concurrent "Amen" of approval and sympathy, by his own special delight in this gift, by the manliness connected with its exercise, by the effect on spectators, by the capacity of self government which accompanied its activity and the culture given to volition and feeling, he exhorts his brethren to desire fervently this means of usefulness. What a momentum has the argument acquired before it comes to a close! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 The doctrine of the resurrection. This chapter, and the thirteenth, on Christian love, stand out, even among the writings of St. Paul, as pre-eminently beautiful and important. No human words ever written have brought such comfort to millions of mourners as the words of this chapter, which form a part of the Burial Service of almost every Christian community. It is the more deeply imprinted on the memory of men because it comes to us in the most solemn hours of bereavement, when we have most need of a living faith. The chapter falls into six sections. 1. The evidence of Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-11). 2. The resurrection of Christ is the foundation of our faith in the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). 3. Results to be deduced from Christ’s resurrection (verses. 20—28). 4. The life of believers an argument for the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:29-34). 5. Analogies helpful for understanding the subject (1 Corinthians 15:35-49). 6. Conclusion and exhortation (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 The evidence of the resurrection of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover. The δὲ of the original merely marks the transition to a new topic. The gospel. He here uses the word with special reference to the Resurrection, which is one of the most central and necessary doctrines of the "good tidings," and which always occupied a prominent place in St. Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:18; Acts 23:6), as well as in that of all the apostles (Acts 1:22; Acts 4:2; 1 Peter 3:21). Ye have received; rather, ye received. The "also" is emphatic. The Corinthians had not been like Christ’s "own," who "received him not" (John 1:11). 1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved; literally, ye are being saved. It is as if some surprise was expressed at the necessity for again making known to them a gospel which (1) he had preached and (2) they also received; and (3) in which they now stood fast (Romans 5:2; Ephesians 6:13); and (4) by means of which they were now in a state of safety, they were of the class of sozomenoi (Acts 2:47). If ye keep in memory what I preached unto you. The order, which is peculiar, is, "In what words I preached to you, if ye hold [it] fast." Possibly the "in what discourse" depends on "I make known to you." The duty of "holding fast" what they had heard is often impressed on the early converts (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Hebrews 10:23). Ye have believed; rather, ye believed; i.e. ye became believers. In vain. The word may either mean "rashly," "without evidence," as in classical Greek; or "to no purpose," "without effect," as in Romans 13:4; Galatians 3:4; Galatians 4:11. In this case they would have received the seed in stony places (Matthew 13:21). 1 Corinthians 15:3 First of all; literally, among the first things; but this idiom means "first of all." It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but is found in Genesis 33:2; 2 Samuel 5:8 (LXX.). This testimony to the Resurrection is very remarkable, because: 1. It is the completest summary. 2. It refers to some incidents which are not mentioned in the Gospels. 3. It declares that the death and resurrection of Christ were a subject of ancient prophecy. 4. It shows the force of the evidence on which the apostles relied and the number of living eye witnesses to whom they could appeal. 5. It is the earliest written testimony to the Resurrection; for it was penned within twenty-five years of the event itself. 6. It shows that the evidence for the Resurrection as a literal, historical, objective fact, was sufficient to convince the powerful intellect of a hostile contemporary observer. 7. It probably embodies, and became the model for, a part of the earliest Creed of the Church. For our sins; literally, on behalf of. The passage is remarkable as the only one in which "on behalf of" is used with "sins" in St. Paul. In 1 Corinthians 1:13 we are told that he died" on behalf of us" (Romans 5:8; see 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24). The expressions involve the image of Christ as a Sin Offering for the forgiveness of sins. According to the Scriptures. The chief passages alluded to are doubtless Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:8; Daniel 9:26; Psalms 22:1-31.; Zechariah 12:10; together with such types as the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-24.) and the Paschal lamb, etc. Our Lord had taught the apostles confidently to refer to the Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies (Luke 24:25, Luke 24:46: Acts 8:35; Acts 17:3; Acts 26:22, Acts 26:23; John 2:22; John 20:9; 1 Peter 1:11). 1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he rose; rather, that he had been raised. The burial was a single act; the Resurrection is permanent and eternal in its issues. According to the Scriptures (Psalms 16:10; Isaiah 53:10; Hosea 6:2; Jonah 2:10; comp. Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:4; Acts 2:31; Acts 13:1-52:340. 1 Corinthians 15:5 Was seen of Cephas (Luke 24:34). The appearances to the women (John 20:14, etc.) are omitted, as being evidential rather to the apostles than to the world. The twelve (John 20:19, John 20:26). Some officious scribes have in some manuscripts altered the word into" the eleven." But "the twelve" is here the designation of an office, and great ancient writers are always indifferent to mere pragmatic accuracy in trifles which involve nothing. To witness to the Resurrection was a main function of "the twelve" (Acts 2:23; Acts 3:15; Acts 10:40, etc.). 1 Corinthians 15:6 Above five hundred brethren at once. We cannot be certain whether this memorable appearance took place in Jerusalem or in Galilee. It is, however, most probable that this was the appearance on the mountain (Matthew 28:16, Matthew 28:17; comp. Matthew 26:32). Of whom the greater part remain unto this present. This sentence—a confident contemporary appeal to a very large number of living witnesses, by one who would rather have died than lied—is of the highest evidential value. It shows that the Resurrection was not "a thing done in a corner "(Acts 26:26). Fallen asleep. The beautiful and common word for death in the New Testament (Matthew 27:52; John 11:11; Acts 7:60, etc.). Hence the word "cemetery"—"a sleeping place." 1 Corinthians 15:7 Seen of James. The "James" intended is undoubtedly the only James then living, who was known to the whole Christian Church, namely, "the Lord’s brother," the author of the Epistle, and the Bishop of Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18). James the son of Zebedee had by this time been martyred, and James the son of Alphaeus was never much more than a name to the Church in general. There is no mention of this appearance in the Gospel; but in the Gospel of the Hebrews was a curious legend (preserved in St. Jerome, ’De Virr. Illust.,’ 2.) that James had made a vow that he would neither eat nor drink till he had seen Jesus risen from the dead, and that Jesus, appearing to him, said, "My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from the dead." The truth of the appearance is strongly supported by the fact that James, like the rest of the Lord’s "brothers," "did not believe" in Christ before the Crucifixion, whereas after the Resurrection we find him and the rest of "the Lord’s brothers" ardently convinced (John 12:3-5; Acts 1:14; Acts 9:5, etc.). Of all the apostles (Acts 1:3; Luke 24:50). James the Lord’s brother was only an apostle in the wider sense of the word. 1 Corinthians 15:8 He was seen of me also. The reference undoubtedly is to the vision on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5; Acts 22:14; Acts 26:16). As of one born out of due time; literally, as to the abortive born. The word means "the untimely fruit of a woman," a child born out of the due time or natural course; and hence "diminutive" and "weakly." The Greek ektroma is represented by the Latin abortivus. St. Paul, when he remembered the lateness of his conversion, and his past persecution of the saints, regards himself as standing in this relation to the twelve. 1 Corinthians 15:9 For. This and the next verse are an explanation of the strong and strange term which he had applied to himself. The least of the apostles. In St. Paul there was a true and most deep humility, but no mock modesty. He knew the special gifts which he had received from God. He was well aware that to him had been entrusted the ten talents rather than the one talent. He could appeal to far vaster results than had been achieved by the work of any other apostle. He knew his own importance as "a chosen vessel," a special instrument in God’s hands to work out exceptional results. But in himself he always felt, and did not shrink from confessing, that he was "nothing" (2 Corinthians 12:11). The notion that he here alludes to the meaning of his own name (Paulus, connected with παῦρος, φαῦρος, equivalent to "little") is very unlikely. In Ephesians 3:8 he goes further, and calls himself "less than the least of all saints," though even there he claims to have been the special apostle of the Gentiles. Because I persecuted the Church of God. This was the one sin for which, though he knew that God had forgiven him (1 Timothy 1:13), yet he could never quite forgive himself (Galatians 1:13). In my ’Life of St. Paul’ I have shown from the language used, that this persecution was probably more deadly than has been usually supposed, involving not only torture, but actual bloodshed (Acts 8:4; Acts 9:1), besides the martyrdom of St. Stephen. We can imagine how such deeds and such scenes would, even after forgiveness, lie like sparks of fire in a sensitive conscience. "Saints, did I say? with your remembered faces; Dear men and women whom I sought and slew? Oh, when I meet you in the heavenly places, How will I weep to Stephen and to you!" 1 Corinthians 15:10 By the grace of God I am. what I am. And therefore he was "in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles." However humbly he thought of himself, it would have been mere unfaithfulness to disparage his own work (2 Corinthians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 3:6). I laboured more abundantly than they all. Because God wrought effectually in him (Galatians 2:8). The word used for "labour" implies the extreme of toil (Matthew 6:28: Philippians 2:16), etc. But the grace of God. "It is God that worketh in you" (Philippians 2:13; Matthew 10:20; Colossians 1:29). 1 Corinthians 15:11 Whether it were I or they; namely, who preached this gospel to you. It is not his immediate object to maintain his independent apostolic claims, but only to appeal to the fact of the Resurrection which was preached by all the apostles alike. So. In accordance with the testimony just given (1 Corinthians 15:4-8). We preach. There are in the New Testament two words for "preaching." One is often rendered "prophesy," and refers to spiritual instruction and exhortation. The other, which is used here, is "we proclaim," or "herald" (kerusso), and refers to the statement of the facts of the gospel—Christ crucified and risen (1 Corinthians 2:2; Acts 4:2; Acts 8:5). Besides these, there is the one word for "to preach the gospel," or "evangelize." 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 The resurrection of Christ is the basis of our faith in the general resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead. St. Paul sees that if One has risen from the dead, the fact of that miracle, taken in connection with the rest of the gospel, furnishes Christians with a sufficient proof that they shall rise. "For," he had already said to the Thessalonians, "if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him" (see the same argument in Romans 8:11). That there is no resurrection of the dead. These deniers of the resurrection are usually called "the Corinthian Sadducees." After the state of social and moral laxity of which we have been reading, we can scarcely be surprised at the existence of any disorder or anomaly in the Church of Corinth. Yet it comes with something of a shock on our paralyzed sense of astonishment to read that some of these Christians actually denied a resurrection! The fact at once proves two remarkable truths, namely, (1) that the early Christian Church had none of the ideal purity of doctrine which is sometimes ecclesiastically attributed to it; and (2) that there was in the bosom of that Church a wide and most forbearing tolerance. We have no data to enable us to determine what were the influences which led to the denial of the resurrection. 1. They can hardly have been Jewish. The mass of Jews at this time shared the views of the Pharisees, who strongly maintained the resurrection (Acts 23:6). If they were Jews at all, they could only have been Sadducees or Essenes. But (1) the Sadducees were a small, wealthy, and mainly political sect, who had no religious influence, and can certainly have had no representatives at Corinth; and (2) the Essenes, though they had considerable influence in Asia, do not seem to have established themselves in Greece, nor are we aware that they were hostile to the doctrine of the resurrection. 2. Probably, then, they were Gentiles. If so, they may have been (1) either Epicureans, who disbelieved in a future life altogether; or (2) Stoics, who held that the future life was only an impersonal absorption into the Divine. Both these schools of philosophers "jeered" at the very notion of a bodily resurrection (Acts 17:32). In 2 Timothy 2:18 we read of some, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, who erred, saying "that the resurrection was past already." These teachers were incipient Gnostics, who spiritualized the resurrection, or rather said that the term was only applicable to the rising from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. The Corinthian doubters seem from the arguments which St. Paul addresses to them, to have been rather troubled with material doubts which they may have inherited from their Gentile training. 1 Corinthians 15:13 Then is Christ not risen. If the possibility of a resurrection be generically denied, it cannot in any instance be true. Yet you admit as Christians that Christ rose! and his resurrection "has begotten us again to a lively hope" (1 Peter 1:3; see 2 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; John 14:19). 1 Corinthians 15:14 Vain. You accepted our proclamation (kerugma), yet it would be utterly void if its central testimony was false. The word translated "then" has a sort of ironic force—"after all," or "it seems." The whole argument is at once an argumentum ad hominem and a reductio ad absurdum. Your faith is also vain. For it would be faith in a crucified man, not in the risen Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:15 We are found. The word means, "we are proved to be," convicted of being false witnesses. False witnesses of God; i.e. concerning God. St. Paul does not shrink from the issue. It is not one—it could not be one—between truth and mistake, but between truth and falsehood. We have testified of God that he raised up Christ; rather, the Christ. "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:32; Acts 4:33; Acts 13:30). 1 Corinthians 15:16 This verse is a repetition of 1 Corinthians 15:13, to emphasize the argument that the Christian faith in the Resurrection rests not on philosophic theory, but on an historic fact. 1 Corinthians 15:17 Vain; rather, frustrate. The word used (mataia) is different from the word used (kene) in ver 14. Ye are yet in your sins. Because a dead Redeemer could be no Redeemer. Christ’s resurrection is the pledge of his Divine power. He was "raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25). It is only "as a Prince and Saviour" that "God hath exalted him to give repentance and forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:31; Romans 5:10). 1 Corinthians 15:18 Which are fallen asleep in Christ. Christians whose bodies have sunk into the sleep of death. Are perished. A notion which he feels that Christians must reject as utterly impossible. All that goodness, faith, tenderness, love, have not been dissolved to nothing. 1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ. The word to which "in Christ" should be joined is uncertain; the order st the original is, "If in this life in Christ we have hoped only." The "only" seems therefore to qualify the whole sentence: "If we have merely hoped in Christ, and that only in this life." We are of all men most miserable; literally, we are more pitiable than all men. The remark only has an absolute bearing when Christians really are suffering from persecutions, as they did in St. Paul’s day (2 Corinthians 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:12). But to some extent all Christians have to bear their cross, and if all that they give up and suffer is sacrificed to a delusion, they deserve most pity in one sense, because they have been most conspicuously befooled. In another sense they are still the happiest of men; for their delusion, judged by its fruits, is more blessed than the dreary blank which is the only alternative. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 Results to be deduced from the fact of Christ’s resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:20 But now. Since the supposition that Christ has not risen involves so many suppositions which you will rightly reject as absurd, we may assume the eternal fact that Christ has been raised. And become the firstfruits of them that slept. As the wave sheaf (Leviticus 23:1-44. 10), which was the firstfruits of the harvest, is also a pledge of the harvest, so Christ is the firstfruits and pledge of the resurrection of all mankind. 1 Corinthians 15:21 By man came death (see Romans 5:12, Romans 5:17; Romans 6:21, Romans 6:23). 1 Corinthians 15:22 As in Adam all die. All of us partake of Adam’s nature, and are therefore liable to the death which that nature incurred as the law and condition of its humanity. In Christ shall all be made alive. It is St. Paul’s invariable habit to isolate his immediate subject; to think and to treat of one topic at a time. He is not here thinking directly and immediately of the resurrection in general. In this verse, writing to Christians who are "in Christ," he is only thinking and speaking of the resurrection of those who are "in Christ." That any can be nominally "in Christ," yet not really so, is a fact which is not at present under his cognizance; still less is he thinking of the world in general. In other words, he is here dealing with "the resurrection of life" alone, and not also with the "resurrection of judgment" (John 5:26-29). Still, as far as his words alone are concerned, it is so impossible to understand the phrase, "shall all be made alive," of a resurrection to endless torments, that his language at least suggests the conclusion that "the principle which has come to actuality in Christ is of sufficient energy to quicken all men for the resurrection to the blessed life" (Baur, ’Life of St. Paul,’ 2:219). 1 Corinthians 15:23 In his own order. The word in classic Greek means "a cohort." Here it must either mean "rank" or be used as in St. Clement (’Ad. Corinthians,’ 1:37), in the sense of "order of succession." They that are Christ’s. "The dead in Christ" (1 Thessalonians 4:16). At his coming. The word here used for the second Advent is Parousia, which means literally, presence. It is implied (apparently) both here and in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; Revelation 20:5, that there shall be an interval—how long or how short we do not know—between this resurrection of the just and the final resurrection. But all the details are left dim and vague. 1 Corinthians 15:24 The end. That "end of all things," beyond which the vision of Christian eschatology does not look. When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God. The "kingdom" delivered up is not that of the coequal Godhead, but the mediatorial kingdom. The Divine kingdom "shall have no end" (Luke 1:33, etc.), and "shall not pass away" (Daniel 7:13). But the mediatorial kingdom shall end in completion when the redemptive act has achieved its final end. When he shall have put down; rather, shall have annulled or abolished. All rule. Because then "the kingdoms of the world" shall all "have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ" (Revelation 11:15). 1 Corinthians 15:25 He must reign. He must reign in his mediatorial kingdom as the God Man. He hath put. The "he" probably means Christ himself (comp. Psalms 2:9; Hebrews 10:13), though it makes no real difference in the sense if we understand it of God, as in Psalms 110:1. 1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. This rendering might imply that other enemies should still exist, though Death should be the last who would be destroyed. The original is more forcible, and implies, "Last of enemies doomed to annulment is Death;" or, as in Tyndale’s version, "Lastly, Death the enemy shall be destroyed;" or, as in the Rhemish Version, "And at the last, Death the enemy scal be distried." The present, "is being annulled," is the praesens futurascens, or the present of which the accomplishment is regarded as already begun and continuing by an inevitable law. Death and Hades and the devil, "who hath the power of death," are all doomed to abolition (2 Timothy 1:10; Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 20:14). 1 Corinthians 15:27 But when he saith. The "he" refers to God. This indirect method of quotation is common in the rabbis. The reference is to Psalms 8:7 (LXX.), and the words, spoken of man in general, are here Messianically transferred to the federal Head of humanity, the ideal and perfect God Man, Jesus Christ. (For the fuller explanation of the matter, see Hebrews 2:5-10.) He is excepted, which did put all things under him. So our Lord says, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father" (Matthew 11:7). The universal dominion of Christ is also insisted on in Ephesians 1:20-22; 1 Peter 3:22. 1 Corinthians 15:28 Then shall the Son also himself be subject, etc. The words can only be taken as they stand. The attempts to explain them have usually been nothing but ingenious methods of explaining them away. Of these the one usually adopted by the Fathers is the limitation of the statement to Christ’s human nature (John 5:26, John 5:27, John 5:30) and mediatorial kingdom, just as we find in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The head of Christ is God." We can easily "darken counsel by words without knowledge" in dealing with this subject, and hide an absolute ignorance under a semblance of knowledge; but anything and everything which we can say in "explanation" of this self subjection of the Son to the Father is simply involved in the words which follow. That God may be all in all. "All things in all things" or "all things in all men." The words involve a complete and absolute supremacy. It is quite an easy matter for commentators to say that the scope of the words "must be confined to believers," if they chose to make "all" mean "some." Such methods often lead to an irreligious religionism and a heterodox orthodoxy. The reader will find the same phrase in Colossians 3:11. I confine myself to the comment of the profound and saintly Bengel: "There is implied something new, but also supreme and eternal. All things, and therefore all men, without any interruption, no created thing claiming a place, no enemy creating opposition, shall be subordinated to the Son, the Son to the Father. All things shall say, ’God is all things to me.’ This is the consummation; this the end and summit. Further than this not even an apostle can go." 1 Corinthians 15:29-34 Arguments from the practices and lives of Christians. The three arguments used in these verses are: If there be no resurrection: 1. Why do some of you get yourselves baptized on behalf of your dead friends? 2. Why do we face lives of daily peril? 3. How would it be otherwise possible to resist Epicurean views of life? 1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, etc.? This clause can have but one meaning, and that its obvious one, namely, that, among the many strange opinions and practices which then prevailed, was one which was entirely un-warranted-but which St. Paul does not hero stop to examine—of persons getting themselves baptized as it were by proxy for others who had died. Doubtless some of the deaths alluded to in 1 Corinthians 11:30 had happened to persons who had been cut off before they were actually baptized; and their friends had as it were gone through the rite in their stead, in the hope of extending to them some of its benefits. It is argued that St. Paul could not possibly mention such a practice without reprobation; but that is an a priori assumption not warranted by St. Paul’s methods (see 1 Corinthians 10:8; 1 Corinthians 11:6). He always confines his attention to the question immediately before him, and his present object is merely to urge a passing argumentum ad hominem. There is nothing at all surprising in the existence of such an abuse in the medley of wild opinions and wild practices observable in this disorganized Church. It accords with the known tendency of later times to postpone baptism, as a rite which was supposed to work as a charm. We also find that the actual practice of baptism on behalf of the dead lingered on among Corinthians (Epiph., ’Haer.,’ 28.7) and Marcionites. Tertullian accepts the words in their obvious sense in his ’De Praeser. Haer.,’ 48, but accepts the absurdity of "the dead" meaning "the body" ("pro mortuis tingui est pro corporibus tingui") in his book against Marcion (1 Corinthians 11:10). St. Chrysostom tells us further that the proxy who was to be baptized used to be concealed under the bier of the dead man, who was supposed to answer in his name that he desired to be baptized. How perfectly natural the custom was may be seen from the fact that among the Jews also a man dying under ceremonial pollution was cleansed by proxy. The "interpretations" of this verse are so numerous that it is not even possible to give a catalogue of them. Many of them are not worth recording, and are only worth alluding to at all as specimens of the wilful bias which goes to Scripture, not to seek truth, hut to support tradition. They are mostly futile and fantastic, because they pervert the plain meaning of the plain words. It is a waste of time and space to give perpetuity to baseless fancies. Such are the notions that "for the dead" can mean "for our mortal bodies" (Chrysostom); or "for those about to die" (Estius, Calvin, etc.); or "over the dead" (Luther); or "to supply the vacancies left by the dead" (Le Clerc, etc.). Equally unwarrantable are the "explanations" (?) which make those who are being "baptized" mean those who are "passing through a baptism of suffering" (!). Not a single argument which is worth a moment’s consideration can be urged in favour of any one of these, or scores of similar views. If we are to get rid of everything that is surprising on the ground that it is "immensely improbable," we may as well discard Scripture at once, and reconstruct early Christian history out of our own consciousness. It has been very usual to represent it as we think that it ought to have been, and not as it was. The disuse of this vicarious baptism among orthodox Christians may have been due to the discouragement of it by St. Paul when he went to Corinth, and "set in order" various erroneous customs (1 Corinthians 11:34). 1 Corinthians 15:30 Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? The verb means "Why do we incur peril?" The best comment on it will be found in 2 Corinthians 11:26. Cicero says (’Tusc. Disp.,’ 2 Corinthians 1:15) that "no one would be so mad as to live in labour and perils if our instinctive anticipation of future life were taken away." 1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest. The particle of adjuration here used (νὴ) is found nowhere else in the New Testament. By your rejoicing. This is an erroneous translation. The words mean "by my glorying in you." St. Paul’s one subject of earthly glory, his "hope, and joy, and crown of rejoicing," was the conversion of Churches (Romans 15:16, Romans 15:17). In Christ Jesus our Lord. His boasting was not a worldly boasting, but was sanctifled by its reference to the work of Christ. I die daily. St. Paul "died daily" a double death—the ever deepening death unto sin and unto the world; and the daily death of sufferings borne for Christ’s sake (see 2 Corinthians 4:10, 2 Corinthians 4:11). It is the latter to which he here alludes. "For thy sake are we killed all the day long" (Romans 8:36). 1 Corinthians 15:32 After the manner of men. The phrase is a qualification of the strong metaphor, "I fought with beasts." It is equivalent to "humanly speaking." This is Chrysostom’s view. It is the most reasonable, and accords with the use of the phrase in Romans 3:5; Galatians 3:15. Meyer, however, explains it to mean "with mere human motives." I have fought with beasts. Not literally, for in that case he would have mentioned it in 2 Corinthians 11:1-33. as one of his deadliest perils, and it must have been recorded by St. Luke in his full account of St. Paul’s life at Ephesus. A Roman citizen was legally exempt from this mode of punishment. The word points to some special peril incurred in resisting the hostility of the worshippers of Artemis (Acts 20:19), but not to the tumult in the theatre, which did not happen till after this letter was despatched (1 Corinthians 16:8, 1 Corinthians 16:9). The metaphor is not uncommon. Thus in 2 Timothy 4:17 St. Paul alludes to Nero (probably) as "the lion." David often compares his enemies to wild beasts (Psalms 22:21, etc.). When his jailor informed Agrippa of the death of Tiberius, he did so in the words, "The lion is dead." St. Ignatius writes of the ten soldiers who were conducting him to Rome as "ten leopards." Epimenides, in the line quoted by St. Paul in Titus 1:12, spoke of the Cretans as "evil wild beasts," and the pseudo-Heraclitus gives this same uncomplimentary title to these very Ephesians. Let as eat and drink; for tomorrow we die. Perhaps the "if the dead are not raised" belongs to this clause. He means that such an Epicurean maxim, if never excusable, would at least be natural, if men could only look to life in the present. The sentiment is found on the lips of the despairing and the sensual alike in Isaiah 22:13, and in the writings of the heathen (Horace, ’Od.,’ Isaiah 1:4, Isaiah 1:13-17, etc.). St. Paul would be all the more familiar with it because it formed the infamous epitaph of a statue of Sardauapalus, which he must have often seen in his boyhood at Anchiale, near Tarsus. It represented the debased king as snapping his fingers, and using almost these very words. It is strange that similar passages should be found even in the Talmud. Shemuel said to Rav Yehudah, "Seize and eat, seize and drink; for the world is like a wedding feast (soon over)" (’Eiruvin,’ fol. 54, 1). 1 Corinthians 15:33 Be net deceived. Do not be led astray by such specious maxims. They can only arise from that too great familiarity with the heathen against which I have already put you on your guard. Evil communications corrupt good manners. An iambic line from the ’Thais’ of Menander, and perhaps taken by Menander from a play of Euripides. More accurately it means "evil associations corrupt excellent morals." According to the best reading (χρηστὰ, not χρησθ), St. Paul does not quote it as an iambic, and in itself it does not offer the least shadow of proof that St. Paul was familiar with classic literature. It is just such a line as he might have seen carved on the Hermae of any Greek town, or preserved in any chrestomathy or gnomology which may have chanced to pass through his hands. His other classic quotations (from Epimenides, Titus 1:12; and Aratus or Cleanthes, Acts 17:28) are of the same common and proverbial character. It is very unlikely that he would have deliberately quoted from the immoral play of a corrupt comedian like Menander. (For the sentiment, see 2 Timothy 2:16-18.) 1 Corinthians 15:34 Awake to righteousness. The word rendered "awake" means "awake at once from a drunken sleep." This verb does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. The word rendered "awake" in Ephesians 5:14 and Romans 13:11 is a different one. The metaphor, however, occurs in the simple verb in 1 Thessalonians 5:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:8; 2 Timothy 4:5; 1 Peter 5:8, etc. The word rendered "to righteousness" is literally an adverb, righteously. It may mean "as is fit." And sin not. Here the present tense, "be not sinning," is contrasted with the instantaneous aorist, "awake." Have not the knowledge. The original is stronger, "have an ignorance." They have not a vacuum of nescience, but a plenuum of ignorance. I speak this to your shame; rather, I am speaking to shame you. The object of all I am saying is to excite your shame—not, as in some previous instances, "to spare you." 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 Material objections answered. 1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say. The objection is that of some philosophical materialist. The resurrection of the body was a difficulty alike to Sadducees and Gentiles. St. Paul meets this difficulty by natural analogies, which are intended to show that the resurrection body, though identical with the mortal body so far as the preservation of personal identity is concerned, is yet a glorified body, so that the objections urged on the ground that it is impossible to preserve the same material particles which have passed into dust, are beside the mark. St. Paul gives no sanction to the coarse physical conceptions of the resurrection which described the human being as rising (to use the words of the Christian poet Prudentius) "with every tooth and every nail." How are the dead raised up? This question is one which, of course, admits of no answer. And with what body do they come? literally, with what kind of body? St. Paul, while he only answers the question indirectly and by analogy, implies that the resurrection body is the same body, not so much by way of material identity as of glorified individuality. 1 Corinthians 15:36 Thou fool. The expression is too strong, and it is unfortunate that in English it seems to run contrary to the distinct censure of such language by our Lord. But here the Greek word is aphron, "O unreasonable!" (the nominative is used for the vocative); Vulgate, insipiens; Wickliffe, "unwise man." It is merely a reproach for neglecting to exercise the understanding. The word "fool!" (more) forbidden by our Lord (Matthew 5:22) has quite a different meaning, and implies quite a different tone. It involves moral depravity or obstinacy (Matthew 7:26; Matthew 23:1-39. 17, etc.). The milder aphron is used in 2 Corinthians 11:16, 2 Corinthians 11:19; 2 Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 5:17; and by our Lord himself. That which thou sowest. The "thou" is emphatic. It merely means "Even the analogy of human sowing ought to remove thy difficulty." The growth of the seed shows that there may be personal identity under a complete change of material conditions. Is not quickened, except it die. The metaphor is used by our Lord (John 12:24, "Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit"). It is also found in the Talmud. 1 Corinthians 15:37 Not that body that shall be. This deep remark should have checked the idly and offensively materialistic form in which the doctrine of the resurrection is often taught. But bare grain. Wickliffe, "a naked corne." In this passage, almost alone in all his Epistles, St. Paul, who does not seem to have been at all a close observer of external phenomena, uses metaphors drawn from natural life. His usual metaphors are chiefly architectural and agonistic—derived, that is, from buildings and games. That he was not a student of nature arose, no doubt, partly from his Semitic cast of mind, but chiefly from his being short sighted, and from his having spent most of his early life in large cities. It may chance; if it so happen, (see note on 1 Corinthians 14:10). The English word "chance" occurs but four times in the whole Bible (1 Samuel 6:9; Ecclesiastes 9:11). In Luke 10:31 the words rendered "by chance" mean rather "by coincidence." 1 Corinthians 15:38 But God giveth it a body. The material body of each living organism results from those laws of assimilation which God has made a part of His secret of life. They are not the life, only the instrument and expression and manifestation of the life. The "life" is the individual identity. The life of Hamlet is not in its essence the physical life of "the machine which is to him Hamlet," but the spiritual life which is linked on earth to that perpetual flux of material particles which we call the body, but is independent of those particles. As it hath pleased him; literally, as he willed. And in the word "as" lies the scope for all theories about the part played by what are called "natural laws." Their action is a part of God’s will. To every seed his own body. Each of the seeds sown is provided with a body of its own, which is not identical with the seed, bat results from the germ of life in the seed. 1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh. In other words, animal organisms differ from each other, just as do the vegetable. Another… of beasts. "The germinal power of the plant transmutes the fixed air and the elementary base of water into grass or leaves, and on these the organic principle in the ox or the elephant exercises an alchemy still more stupendous. As the unseen agency weaves its magic eddies, the foliage becomes indifferently the bone and its marrow, the pulpy brain and the solid ivory. That which you see is blood, is flesh, is itself the work, or shall I say the translucence of the invisible energy which soon surrenders or abandons them to inferior powers (for there is no pause nor chasm in the activities of nature) which repeat a similar metamorphosis according to their kind: these are not fancies, conjectures, or even hypotheses, but facts" (Coleridge, ’Aids to Reflection ’). 1 Corinthians 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial. The words are often misunderstood. The "celestial bodies" are not the sun, moon, and stars of the next verse—for that would be a false antithesis to "bodies terrestrial"—but bodies (or organisms) which belong to heavenly beings, such as the resurrection body of our Lord and of glorified saints, or even in some sense of angels (Matthew 22:30). 1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun. "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun" (Matthew 13:43). The point of the illustration is the difference between the earthly and the resurrection body; not the supposed differences between the saints themselves in glory. This is not a question under consideration, and St. Paul, as we have seen, is not in the habit of mixing up half a dozen different questions in the same immediate argument. St. Augustine says of the saints, "Their splendour is unequal; their heaven is one." This may be very true, but to deduce it from this verse is to press into the argument an illustration used for another purpose. Tertullian’s comment is very unhappy. He makes "men" mean servants of God; "beasts," Gentiles; "birds," martyrs; "fishes," those who have been baptized; the "sun," Christ; the "moon," the Church, etc. One star differeth from another star in glory. All the righteous shall shine as "the brightness of the firmament and .. as the stars forever and ever" (Daniel 12:3), and their future bodies shall differ from their present, as one star differs from another. 1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. In like manner the dead, when raised, shall have bodies which differ from their body of humiliation (Philippians 3:21). It is sown in corruption. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Genesis 3:19). It is raised in incorruption. The word means strictly, "incorruptibility." The resurrection body will not be subjected to earthly conditions (Luke 20:35, Luke 20:36). 1 Corinthians 15:43 It is sown in dishonour. "The awful and intolerable indignity of dust to dust." In glory. "Though ye have lieu among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove, that is covered with silver wings, and her feathers like gold" (Psalms 68:13). The expression shows that, throughout, St. Paul is thinking exclusively of the resurrection of the saints. 1 Corinthians 15:44 A natural body. The adjective is the word ψυχικόν, which is so difficult to translate; it means a body only animated by the psyche, or natural life. The word is sometimes in our Authorized Version rendered "carnal." A spiritual body. The apparent contradiction in terms is inevitable. The thing meant is a body which is not under the sway of corporeal desires or of intellectual and passionate impulses, but is wholly dominated by the Spirit, and therefore has no desire or capacity to fulfil the lusts of the flesh. There is. The better supported reading (à, A, B, C, D, F, G), is, if there is a natural body, etc. The existence of the one is no more impossible than the existence of the other. 1 Corinthians 15:45 The first man Adam was made a living soul (Genesis 2:7). The last Adam. A rabbinic expression also for the Messiah. A quickening Spirit. "The Son quickeneth whom he will" (John 5:21; comp. John 6:23). The best comment on the expression will be found in Romans 8:2, Romans 8:11. Christ is "a quickening," i.e. a life giving, "Spirit," here mainly in the sense that we shall only be raised by "the power of his resurrection" (John 5:24, John 5:25), but also in the sense that his Spirit dwelleth in us, and is our true Life. 1 Corinthians 15:46 That was not first which is spiritual. The imperfect precedes the perfect. 1 Corinthians 15:47 Earthy. Made of" the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7). Is the Lord from heaven. The words "the Lord" are a gloss, not found in à, B, C, D, E, F, G. The verse remarkably resembles John 3:31, and probably oral reminiscences of our Lord’s discourses were current among the apostles long before the Gospels were written. Tertullian attributes the insertion of "the Lord" to Marcion. 1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, etc. Men resemble their first parent Adam; Christians, their spiritual Redeemer, Christ (Philippians 3:20, Philippians 3:21). 1 Corinthians 15:49 We shall also bear the image of the heavenly (for the fact, see Romans 8:29; 1 John 3:2). For "we shall bear," the best manuscripts (à, A, C, D, E, F, G, etc.) read "Let us bear." Our reading is, however, supported by B, and this is just one of the cases in which manuscript evidence (or as it is called "diplomatic evidence") has a minimum value, and other evidence (paradiplomatic) is decisive. For (1) the pronunciation of the indicative and subjunctive at that time was almost identical, because in conversation the vowels seem to have been much slurred; and (2) there was a universal tendency to substitute hortative for direct forms, with a view to edification (as in 1 Corinthians 14:15; Romans 6:2, Romans 6:8; 2 Corinthians 5:11, etc.). Here the exhortation would ruin the texture of the argument. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 Conclusion and exhortation. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say. This sums up my meaning. Flesh and blood. Our mortal nature and human organism; our "earthly house of this tabernacle" (2 Corinthians 5:1; Luke 20:35). Inherit incorruption. A body liable to corruption, with all its loathly accompaniments, cannot enter into the "inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away" (1 Peter 1:4). 1 Corinthians 15:51 I show you a mystery. I make known to you a truth now made known to me by revelation. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. There is a great diversity of readings in this verse, noticed even by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. St. Jerome says that all the Latin manuscripts had "we shall all rise," and that the Greek manuscripts wavered between "we shall all sleep" and "we shall not all sleep." Some Greek manuscripts had "we shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed." This reading cannot be right, for it contradicts the next verse. There is little doubt that the reading of the Authorized version is right. It accounts for all the variations. They arose from a desire to shelter St. Paul from an apparent mistake, since he and his readers did all sleep. But (1) St. Paul may have written under that conception of the imminence of Christ’s personal return which he expresses in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, where he evidently imagines that the majority of those to whom he was writing would be of those who would be "alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord;" or (2) even if he no longer entertained that expectation, the "we" may naturally apply to the continuity of the Christian Church. For in 2 Corinthians 4:14 he uses "us" of those who shall die and be raised. The universal expectation of the immediate return of Christ in the first century rose (1) from their non apprehension of the truth that the close of the old dispensation was the "coming" to which our Lord had primarily referred in his great eschatological discourse (Matthew 24:34), and (2) from the fact that watchfulness was intended to be the attitude of the Church, and the day and hour of Christ’s coming were kept absolutely unrevealed (Matthew 24:36; Matthew 25:13). 1 Corinthians 15:52 The trumpet shall sound. The Lord, he says, in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, "shall descend from heaven with… the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." The trumpet is, of course, only a natural symbol. It is also found in rabbinic writers, and in the Old Testament (Zechariah 9:14), as well as in Revelation 11:15. We shall be changed. The dead shall be changed by resurrection, the living by transition, into a glorified body. St. Paul, dealing with the essence of the question as it bore on the difficulties of his readers, says nothing here (1) of those who will arise to judgment, or (2) of any intermediate condition. As to the former question, he scarcely ever alludes to it with any definiteness, but seems with deliberate choice to contemplate the final and absolute triumph of good (Romans 8:19-23; Romans 11:30-36). To the intermediate state he does not here allude. He is here only speaking of death and glorious resurrection. In 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 he says all that he has to say on this latter question. It was not prominent in the minds of the early Christians, who, as Calvin says, were awaiting the return of Christ "from hour to hour." 1 Corinthians 15:53 This mortal must put on immortality. When we are "clothed upon" by our "house from heaven," and have put off "this tabernacle," in which we groan being burdened, then "mortality will be swallowed up of life" (2 Corinthians 5:3, 2 Corinthians 5:4, where we also find the metaphor of a robe of immortality, mixed up with the metaphor of a building). 1 Corinthians 15:54 Death is swallowed up in victory. A free citation from the Hebrew of Isa 25:8. The words "into victory" are the LXX. rendering in other passages (Amos 1:11; Amos 8:8) for the Hebrew lanetsach, foreverse The metaphor, "is swallowed up," implying "the swallowing of the all swallower," is found in the rabbis (comp. Hebrews 2:14, Hebrews 2:15). 1 Corinthians 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? A triumphantly fervid exclamation of the apostle, loosely cited from Hosea 13:14. The apostles and evangelists, not holding the slavish and superstitious fetish worship of the dead letter, often regard it as sufficient to give the general sense of the passages to which they refer. O grave, where is thy victory? In the best attested reading (A, B, C, D, E, F, G), "death" is repeated, and in the best manuscripts this clause precedes the last. But if the reading, "O Hades," were correct, our translators, since they held it here impossible in accordance with their views to render it by "hell," ought to have taken warning, and seen the pernicious inapplicability of that rendering in other places where they have used it to express this same Greek word. Here "Hades" has probably been introduced into the Greek text from the LXX., which uses it for the Sheol of the original. 1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin. Because death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23). Death is represented as a venomous serpent. The strength of sin is the Law. The best comment on this expression is to be found in the Epistle to the Romans; see especially Romans 4:15; Romans 7:10-12. It must be admitted that this passing allusion to a distinct doctrine does not seem, at first sight, to harmonize with the glorious unity of the subject. No one can read it without a slight sense of jar, because it seems to introduce the element of dogmatic controversy. But this sense of incongruity is removed when we remember how intensely St. Paul felt that man is confronted with the horror of a broken Law, which at once reminds him of a Being infinitely holy, and of his own self condemnation (Romans 7:1-25; 2 Corinthians 3:1-18.). It is the sense that the Law in its deathful aspect is annulled, and the sinful soul delivered, which prompts the outburst of the next verse. 1 Corinthians 15:57 Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory. The victory consists in the defeat of death by the Resurrection, and the forgiveness of sin through Christ’s atone-merit, and the nailing to his cross of the torn and abrogated Law which made us slaves to sin and death (Colossians 2:14). "In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us" (Romans 8:37). Through our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, by fulfilling the Law, has robbed it of its condemning power (Romans 8:1), and by his death "hath destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the devil" (Hebrews 2:14, Hebrews 2:15). 1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore. Seeing that you ought not to despair, but to share in this confidence of triumph. Steadfast. Firmly fixed in your own conviction (Colossians 1:23; 2 John 1:9). Unmoveable. By others (Ephesians 4:14). Abounding in the work of the Lord. Doing diligently and ungrudgingly the work of your lives, which is his work. That your labour is not in vain. The thought of the verse is the same as that of Gal 6:9, "And let us not be weary in well doing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." Some general facts are very observable in this glorious chapter. 1. One is that St. Paul does not meet doubt by angry denunciation, or by crushing it with the iron mace of impatient authority. What would now be thought of Christians who denied the resurrection? Doubtless they were net mere speculative deniers of the resurrection, like Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17), but recent Gentile converts, who could not get over their pagan difficulties. Yet St. Paul meets them by personal appeals, by helpful analogies, by lofty reasoning, by the glowing force of inspiring convictions. Instead of taking refuge—more ecclesiastico—in anathema and excommunication, he meets error by the counter presentation of ennobling truth. 2. Another noteworthy fact is that St. Paul’s hope of the resurrection rests, like all his theology, on the thought that the life of the Christian is a life "in Christ." 3. A third is his superiority to false analogies—like those of the butterfly and the phoenix—which sufficed many ancient reasoners. Even Christian writers like St. Clement of Rome continued to appeal to the phoenix as a proof of the resurrection. The greatest ancient thinkers—like Tacitus—believed in the existence of that fabulous bird, and even in the genuineness of a specimen of it which had been exhibited at Rome. Was there no "grace of superintendency" at work which prevented the sacred writers from adopting the universal error of their day? Had St. Paul appealed to the phoenix, centuries of Christian writers would have continued to maintain the existence of that creature; and science, laughing the belief to scorn, would (most unjustly) have made any allusion to it a proof of mental weakness, and of the falsity of the doctrine which it was supposed to prove. 4. A fourth point to be observed is the wisdom with which St. Paul holds himself aloof from speculative fancies, tie does not, like Plato, appeal to the doctrine of "reminiscence" (anamnesis), or of unfulfilled ideas. He does not, like Kant, build any argument on man’s failure to obey "the categorical imperative" of duty. He points to the sinless Man—to the fulfilled idea of Christ. His argument, which all could understand, is summed up in the words, "Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is risen." Your resurrection from the death of sin to the life of righteousness is a pledge of your participation in Christ’s resurrection from the grave. The apostolic gospel. "Moreover, brethren," etc. On all hands we hear persons talk about the simple gospel. And it appears to us that, in the majority of cases, the expression means nothing more than a few crude notions which the speaker has received, or possibly formed, about the gospel. Some men’s "simple gospel" is an offence to reason, a dishonour to God, and, curse to Christianity. The passage under review presents to us Paul’s "simple gospel." And let us look at Christianity as here indicated. We observe— I. THAT IS BASED UPON FACTS. It is not founded upon human reason—upon any of its primitive axioms or logical conclusions. It is not founded upon human imagination; it is neither an ingenious hypothesis to account for any phenomena, nor a poetic myth to adumbrate any truth. It is based on facts. 1. These facts are personal. They are connected with a person, and that person is not Socrates, Plato, nor Caesar, but one whom Paul calls Christ. It is founded upon the personal history of one, and but one, individual, and that is Christ. 2. These facts are few. He "died," he was "buried," and he "rose." These facts are compendious facts; they imply many more, and may be reduced even to less. The resurrection of Christ involves the whole; and in the subsequent verses of this chapter, Paul uses it as such. 3. These facts are well attested. After his resurrection, Paul tells us here that he "was seen of Cephas," of "the twelve," then of "five hundred," and then of "me also." No facts on record are better attested than these. II. THAT IS FOR THE REMOVAL OF EVIL. Why did these facts take place? What is the aim of the whole? He "did for our sins." The great end of Christianity is to "put away sin" from the world, to put it away from the hearts, literature, institutions, customs, and governments of mankind. Let sin be put away, and all evil is put away; natural evil is but the effect of moral. Philosophically, there is no system on earth suited to destroy man’s sinful disposition and to change his heart but Christianity, and historically nothing else has ever done it. Let the fact ring louder and louder through the world, that the grand end of Christianity is not the formation of creeds, however correct, nor the organization of societies, however scriptural; but it is to "put away sin." III. THAT IS TO BE WITH THIS DESIGN. "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory [hold fast] what I preached unto you," etc. Paul preached that they might be saved, but they could only be saved as they renounced and hated sin. The passage suggests three ideas in relation to Paul’s preaching with this view. 1. He preached Christianity convincingly. He says, "The gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye... received." They believed his gospel; then he must have convinced them by arguments. Christianity in preaching is to be commended "to every man’s conscience." 2. He preached Christianity scripturally. He showed those facts in the light of the Scriptures, "according to the Scriptures." 3. He preached Christianity humbly. The expression "born out of duo time" evidently indicates his humility; and then in the next verse he says, "Nor I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle," etc. We thank God for such a system as this—a system built not on propositions, but on facts, personal, few in number, but well attested. Such facts are most palpable and attractive; a system which cures the evils of the moral world by taking away its sins. Let it be preached, as Paul preached it—convincingly, scripturally, and humbly. Terrible conclusions resulting from the denial of two great gospel facts. "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, it so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in rids life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." In this paragraph the apostle refers to two great facts fundamental to Christianity, and peculiar to it as a system of religion. The one is the general resurrection from the dead, and the other is the resurrection, of Christ himself. In order to make clear Paul’s process of reasoning here, I see no better way than to exhibit the conclusions which he draws from the denial of these facts. I. Conclusions resulting from the denial of the GENERAL OF THE DEAD. These conclusions are threefold. 1. The non resurrection of Christ. "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen." If you can demonstrate the impossibility of men coming to life again after they have been buried, then you prove, of course, that Christ has not risen. What is true of the whole is true of all the parts. If no man can rise from the dead, then Christ is still numbered amongst the dead. There were evidently men in the Church at Corinth who, like the Sadducees, denied the doctrine of a future resurrection. Hence Paul informs them that doing so is tantamount to the denial of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, which fact he had proclaimed amongst them. 2. That departed Christians are no more. "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." They also, as well as others. If dead men do not rise, then our fellow disciples who have departed this life, and who believed in a risen Christ, are no more. Those thousands who from the day of Pentecost accepted Christ, lived according to his teaching, and who quitted this world, have perished. Can you believe it? Are they quenched in eternal midnight? 3. That there is no more pitiable condition in this life than that of Christians. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." How many things are implied in this language! It is implied that there are men in a pitiable condition on this earth; it is implied that the pitiable condition exists in different degrees; it is implied that the degrees of pitiableness are regulated by hope. Man is always hoping; man is always, therefore, enduring one of the greatest elements of suffering, viz. disappointment. It is implied that the hope of a Christian, if false, will make him of all men the most to be pitied. Of course it is not intended to teach that, apart from the resurrection of Christ, man has no evidence of a future state, nor that, on the supposition that there is no future life, the practice of virtue is not to be preferred to that of vice. It is implied that the higher the object of our hope, and the more of the soul that goes into it, the more overwhelmingly crushing will be the disappointment. The man who has thrown his whole soul into Christianity, and who reaches a point where he is convinced of its imposture, is at that moment "of all men the most miserable." II. Conclusions resulting from the denial of CHRIST’S FROM THE DEAD. There are three conclusions here resulting from the denial of this fact. 1. That apostolic Christianity is vain. "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." It is vain, void, an empty phantom, a worthless fiction. The resurrection of Christ was the foundation stone in the temple of Paul’s teaching. Take that stone away, then it falls and becomes worthless rubbish. But not only is preaching vain, and your faith vain, we ourselves are "false witnesses." We are impostors. Can you believe this? What motives have we to impose? The supposition either that they taught falsehood, that the disciples believed falsehood, or that they were "false witnesses," is eternally inadmissible. Hence Christ did rise from the dead. 2. That the faith of the disciples was vain. "Your faith is also vain." What a wreck of faith is involved in the denial of Christ’s resurrection! Then (1) faith in the credibility of historic testimony is vain. On what stronger historical testimony can any fact rest than that of the resurrection of Christ? Then (2) faith in the accuracy of philosophic deduction is vain. The rapid progress of Christianity in the Roman empire m its first stages, and its subsequent influence throughout the world, reveal a mass of phenomena which you cannot account for if you deny the resurrection of Christ. Then (3) faith in the moral value of character is vain. Did a nobler character than Christ’s ever exist? And yet if he rose not, then is he an impostor. Then (4) faith in the righteous government of God is vain. If a being so transcendently excellent as Christ is to be crushed forever in the grave, where is the justice of Heaven? Verily, if our faith in the resurrection of Christ is vain, of what worth is any faith? 3. That the followers of Christ are still in their sins. It is here implied that faith in Christ can alone take men out of their sins. This is a fact grounded on history, consciousness, and the gospel. But the Christians at Corinth were conscious that they had got out of their sins, to a certain degree at least. "Such were some of you; but ye are washed," etc. Consciousness the highest ultimate argument, protested against Paul’s hypothesis that they were still in their sins; hence it goes to verify the fact of the resurrection of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 The resurrection of Christ. "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." These verses lead us to contemplate the resurrection of Christ as an established fact, as a significant fact, and as an influential fact. I. AN FACT. Paul asserts this fact with a spirit of triumphant certitude. This her is established: 1. On the testimony of the most competent witnesses. A competent witness is one who has a thorough knowledge of the facts whereof he affirms, and such an invincible love for truth as would render it utterly impossible for him to misrepresent them. The apostles were witnesses of this type. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 1 Corinthians 16:1-18 Directions and arrangements. 1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints. "The saints" are here the poor Christians at Jerusalem (Romans 15:26). The subject weighed much on St. Paul’s mind. First, there was real need for their charity, for at Jerusalem there was as sharp a contrast between the lots of the rich and poor as there is in London, and the "poor saints," being the poorest of the poor (James 2:5), must have often been in deep distress. Not many years before this time, in the famine of Claudius, (Acts 11:27-30), Queen Helena of Adiabene had kept the paupers of Jerusalem alive by importing cargoes of dried grapes and figs. Besides the periodical famines, the political troubles of Judaea had recently increased the general distress. Secondly, the tender heart of St. Paul was keenly alive to this distress. Thirdly, it was the only way in which the Gentile Churches could show their gratitude to the mother Church. Lastly, the Apostle St. Paul had solemnly promised the apostles at Jerusalem that he would remember the poor (Galatians 2:10). Hence he frequently alludes to this collection (2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 Romans 15:26; Acts 24:17, etc.). The enthusiastic communism of the earliest Christian society in Jerusalem had soon ceased, being, as all experience proves, an impossible experiment under the conditions which regulate all human life, and it may have aggravated the chronic distress. As I have given order; rather, as I arranged. To the Churches of Galatia. Not in his extant letter to the Galatians, but either in a visit three years before this time (Acts 18:28), or by letter. It appears from 2 Corinthians 8:10 that St. Paul had already asked for the contributions of the Corinthians. "To the Corinthians he proposes the example of the Galatians; to the Macedonians the example of the Corinthians; to the Romans that of the Macedonians and Corinthians. Great is the power of example" (Bengel). Even so do ye. The aorist implies that they should do it at once. 1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week. This verse can hardly be said to imply any religious observance of the Sunday, which rests rather on Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10; John 20:19, John 20:26. Lay by him in store. The Greek phrase implies that the laying up was done at home, but when the money was accumulated, it was doubtless brought to the assembly and handed over to the presbyters. As God hath prospered him; rather, whatsoever he has been prospered in; i.e. all that his prosperity may permit. That there be no gatherings when I come; rather, that, when I come, there may then be no collections. When he came he did not wish his attention to be absorbed in serving tables. 1 Corinthians 16:3 Whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send. It is difficult to see why the translators rendered the clause thus, unless they disliked to face the certainty that the apostle must have written many letters which are no longer extant. The true rendering is, Whomsoever ye approve, these I will send with letters. The letters would be letters of introduction or commendation (Acts 18:27; Romans 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:1) to the apostles at Jerusalem. Your liberality; literally, your grace or favour; i.e. the token of your voluntary affection. 1 Corinthians 16:4 If it be meet that I go also. Unless the collection were a substantial proof of the generosity of the Gentile Churches, it would be hardly worth while (ἆξιον) for St. Paul to go too. With me. St. Paul would not take this money himself. His "religious" enemies were many, bitter, and unscrupulous, and he would give them no possibility of a handle against him. He makes such arrangements as should place him above suspicion (2 Corinthians 8:20). It turned out that the subscription was an adequate one, and St. Paul accompanied the Corinthian delegates (Romans 15:25; Acts 20:4). The thought that they might visit Jerusalem and see some of the twelve would act as an incentive to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 16:5 When I shall pass through Macedonia; rather, when 1 have passed through Macedonia. For I do pass through Macedonia; rather, for 1 mean to pass through Macedonia. We learn from 2 Corinthians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 1:16, that it had been St. Paul’s intention to sail from Ephesus to Corinth, thence, after a brief stay, to proceed to Macedonia, and on his return to come again for a longer stay at Corinth on his way to Judaea. He had in an Epistle, now lost (see 1 Corinthians 5:9), announced to them this intention, he changed his plan because, in the present disgraceful state of disorganization into which the Church had fallen, he felt that he could not visit them without being compelled to exercise a severity which, he hoped, might be obviated by writing to them and delaying his intended visit. Nothing but his usual delicacy and desire to spare them prevented him from stating all this more fully (2 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 2:1). Mistaking the kindness of his purpose, the Corinthians accused him of levity. He defends himself from this charge in the Second Epistle, and he carried out the plan which he here announces (2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 8:1; 2 Corinthians 9:2, 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 12:14; 2 Corinthians 13:1). 1 Corinthians 16:6 Yea, and winter with you. This he did (Acts 20:3-6). That ye may bring me on my journey. The "ye" is emphatic. The acceptance of this favour at their hands was a proof of affection. It was the custom in ancient days to accompany a departing guest for a short distance (Romans 15:24; Acts 15:3; Acts 17:15). Whithersoever I go. St. Paul well knew that some uncertainty must attach to his plans. As it was, he had to change his plan at the last moment. He had meant to sail from Corinth, but, owing to a plot to assassinate him, he was obliged to go overland round by Macedonia (Acts 20:3). 1 Corinthians 16:7—For I will not see you now by the way; rather, I do not wish to pay you a cursory visit now, as I had originally meant to do. If the Lord permit. The Christians made a rule of adding these phrases in sign of dependence upon God (2 Corinthians 4:1-18:19; Acts 18:1; James 4:15; Hebrews 6:3). 1 Corinthians 16:8 I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. It is possible that this intention was frustrated by the riot stirred up by the silversmiths (Acts 19:23-41). But, in any case, he stayed at Ephesus nearly as long as he intended, for the riot only occurred when he was already preparing to leave (Acts 19:21, Acts 19:22). 1 Corinthians 16:9 A great door and effectual. A wide and promising opportunity for winning souls to God. The metaphor of "a door," perhaps suggested by our Lord himself, was common among Christians (2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3; Acts 14:27; Revelation 3:8). Many adversaries (Acts 19:1, Acts 19:8, Acts 19:9, Acts 19:19, Acts 19:20). 1 Corinthians 16:10 Now if Timotheus come. St. Paul bad already sent on Timothy (2 Corinthians 4:17), with Erastus (Acts 19:22), to go to Corinth by way of Macedonia, and prepare for his visit. But possibly he had countermanded these directions when he postponed his own visit. In the uncertainties of ancient travelling, be could not be certain whether his counter order would reach Timothy or not. It appears to have done so, for nothing is said of any visit of Timothy to Corinth, and St. Paul sent Titus. Without fear. Timothy must at this time have been very young (1 Timothy 4:12). As a mere substitute for St. Paul’s personal visit, he would be unacceptable. In every allusion to him we find traces of a somewhat timid and sensitive disposition (1 Timothy 5:21-23; 2 Timothy 1:6-8, etc.). He may well, therefore, have shrunk from the thought of meeting the haughty sophisters and disputatious partisans of Corinth. As I also do. "As a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel" (Philippians 2:22). St. Paul felt for Timothy a deeper personal tenderness than for any of his other friends, and the companionship of this gentle and devoted youth was one of the chief comforts of his missionary labour. 1 Corinthians 16:11 Let no man therefore despise him. His youth and modesty seemed to invite a contempt which was only too consonant with the character of the Corinthians. I look for him with the brethren. There was a reason for adding this. The Corinthians would see that any unkindness or contempt shown towards Timothy would at once be reported to St. Paul. Who "the brethren" are is not mentioned, for in Acts 19:22 we are only told that Timothy was accompanied by Erastus. Perhaps St. Paul means with the brethren who conveyed this letter (see Acts 19:12), and who, as he supposed, would meet with Timothy at Corinth, or fall in with him on their return to meet St. Paul in Macedonia. One of these brethren must have been Titus (2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:6, 2 Corinthians 7:7), and there were two others. 1 Corinthians 16:12 As touching our brother Apollos; rather, but as touching Apollos, the brother. It seems clear from this that the Corinthians, in their letter, had requested that this eloquent and favourite teacher might be sent to them. I greatly desired him to come unto you; rather, I besought him much. There were at Corinth persons malignant enough to have suggested that Paul had refused their request; that he would not send Apollos to them out of jealousy of Apollos’s superior oratory, and of the party which assumed his name. St. Paul anticipated this sneer. His nature was much too noble to feel the least jealousy. Both he and Apollos here show themselves in the purest light. His will; literally, there was not will. The word "will" most frequently means "the will of God," but if that had been the meaning here, the word would have had the article. It is used of human will in 1 Corinthians 7:37; Ephesians 2:3; 2 Peter 1:21. Here it means that Apollos had decided not to come at present, obviously because his name had been abused for purposes of party faction (1 Corinthians 3:5). This was all the more noble on his part because he seems to have been a special friend of Titus (Titus 3:13). St. Paul would gladly have sent his two ablest and most energetic disciples to this distracted Church. When he shall have convenient time; rather, when a good opportunity offers itself to him. Whether Apollos ever revisited Corinth or not we do not know. 1 Corinthians 16:13 Watch, etc. The brief impetuous imperatives show a sudden burst of emotion as he draws to a close. The next clause seems like an after-thought. Watchfulness (1 Thessalonians 5:6; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 3:2; Revelation 16:15), steadfastness (Philippians 1:27), and strength (Ephesians 6:10; Colossians 1:11; 2 Timothy 2:1), and love (1 Corinthians 13:1-13.; 1 Peter 4:8, etc.) were frequent subjects of Christian exhortation. The verb which expresses Christian manliness ("Play the men!") occurs here only. It is found in the LXX. of Joshua 1:6. They needed, as Chrysostom says, all these exhortations, for they were, in Christian matters, drowsy, unstable, effeminate, and factions. 1 Corinthians 16:14 Let all your things be done with charity; rather, as in the Revised Version, Let all that ye do be done in love. This is equivalent to the "Above all things, have fervent love among yourselves," of l Peter 1 Corinthians 4:8. 1 Corinthians 16:15 Ye know the house of Stephanas. This paragraph seems to have been written lest the Corinthians should be angry with Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus—who, perhaps, were slaves of the household of Chloe—for having carried to St. Paul their ill report (1 Corinthians 1:11). The firstfruits of Achaia. For which reason St. Paul had baptized Stephanas and his house (1 Corinthians 1:16). In Romans 16:5 Epaenetus is called "the firstfruits of Achaia," but there the reading ought to be, of Asia. Have addicted themselves; rather, they set themselves. 1 Corinthians 16:16 That ye submit yourselves unto such. Slaves though they may be in earthly rank, recognize their Christian authority as good men and women (see Ephesians 5:21; 1 Timothy 5:17). The verb used for" submit yourselves," or, "set yourselves under," is the same as in the previous verse. 1 Corinthians 16:17 Of the coming; rather, at the presence of. They were now with St. Paul in Ephesus. Fortunatus. A Christian of this name also carried the letter of St. Clement to Corinth. That which was lacking on your part. This sounds like a reproach in the Authorized Version, but is quite the reverse. It should be rendered, the void caused by your absence. The same word occurs in 2 Corinthians 8:13, 2 Corinthians 8:14; 2 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 11:9, etc. The nearest parallel to the usage here is Philippians 2:30. 1 Corinthians 16:18 My spirit and yours. They refreshed my spirit by telling me all about you, sad though much of the news was; and yours by this renewal of our mutual intercourse. 1 Corinthians 16:19-24 Salutations and autograph conclusion. 1 Corinthians 16:19 The Churches of Asia. Proconsular Asia. There was a constant interchange of voyages between the western coast of Asia and Corinth. Aquila and Priscilla. This admirable Christian husband and wife had no small share in founding the Churches both of Corinth and Ephesus. Being St. Paul’s partners in trade, he spent much time with them. (For all that is known of them. see Acts 18:1, Acts 18:2, Acts 18:26; Romans 16:3, Romans 16:5.) Priscilla. Most of the uncials have the shorter form, Prisca. In some manuscripts (D, E, F, G) and versions (e.g. the Vulgate) we find the addition, "with whom also I am lodging." The Church that is in their house. The time for large common churches for public worship had not yet arrived, Hence, when the Christian community numbered more than could meet in one place, the congregations were held in separate houses (Romans 16:4, Romans 16:15; Acts 2:46; Colossians 4:15; Phmon Colossians 1:2). 1 Corinthians 16:20 All the brethren. The Ephesian Church in general. With an holy kiss. The kiss of peace is mentioned in Romans 16:16; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Peter 5:14. It was a sign of the reconciliation of all dissensions. But the abuse of the practice and the hideous heathen calumnies which it helped to perpetuate, led to its abolition. In the Roman Church a shadow of it still remains in the custom of the congregation kissing the pax after the priest has kissed it. The custom still continues in the Christos voscress of Easter Day in the Greek Church, when— " See! the bearded faces kiss each other: Every Russian Christian loves his brother. Serf or noble, each today may claim Friendly kiss in that all friendly Name." 1 Corinthians 16:21 With mine own hand. Every one of St. Paul’s Epistles, except that to the Galatians (Galatians 6:11), seems to have been written by an amanuensis. The blaze of light in the vision on the road to Damascus seems to have left him with acute and permanent ophthalmia as his "thorn in the flesh;" and this would naturally disincline him to the physical labour of writing. When he did write, his letters seem to have been large and straggling (Galatians 6:11), But this was an age in which documents were frequently falsified by designing persons, and this seems to have happened to St. Paul after he had written his very first extant letter. After warning the Thessalonians not to be frightened "by epistle as from us" (2 Thessalonians 2:2), he adds, at the close of the letter, that henceforth he intends to authenticate every letter by an autograph salutation (2 Thessalonians 3:17; Colossians 4:18; Romans 16:22). To this bad and dangerous practice of forgery is due the energetic appeal of Rev 22:18, Revelation 22:19. A similar appeal to copyists, couched in the most solemn language, is found in Irenaeus (’Opp.,’ 1:821, edit. Stieren), and at the end of Rufinus’s prologue to his translation of Origen’s ’De Principiis.’ 1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not, etc. This sentence (as in Colossians 4:18; Ephesians 6:24) is part of the autograph salutation. The verb here used for "love" (philō) was perhaps suggested by the word for "kiss" (philema). The word generally used for "love of God" is agapē (Ephesians 6:24), which implies less warmth, but deeper reverence. But this passage is full of emotion. Let him be Anathema. The word only occurs elsewhere in Acts 12:3; Acts 23:1-35. 14; Romans 9:3; Galatians 1:8, Galatians 1:9 (comp. Matthew 26:74, "to curse"). It is the equivalent of the Hebrew cherem, a ban (Leviticus 27:29; Joshua 6:17, etc.). I cannot pretend to understand what St. Paul means by it, unless it be "Let personal love to Christ be the essential of Christian fellowship, and let him who has it not be regarded as apart from the Church." Commentators call it "an imprecation," or "malediction," and say that it means "Let him be devoted to God’s wrath and judgment.’’ That language is, indeed, very like the language of religious hatred and religious usurpation in all ages, but it is the very antithesis to the general tone of the apostle. If this were the meaning, it would seem to resemble the very spirit which Christ himself severely rebuked as the Elijah spirit, not the Christ spirit. But I do not believe that, even in a passing outburst of strong emotion, St. Paul had any such meaning. For (1) the Jews used cherem, not only of the severer form of excommunication (shem atha), but even of the milder and by no means severe temporary form (nidui); and (2) it cannot be more severe than "handing over to Satan" (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20), which was merciful in its purpose. Maran-atha; two words, the Lord cometh; like the Jewish shem atha, "the Name cometh," or, "the Lord comes." It seems to be an appeal to the judgment of Christ, and may possibly have been an allusion to Malachi 4:6, the words with which the Old Testament ends (see Jude 1:14, Jude 1:15). 1 Corinthians 16:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. This is a gnorisma, or "badge of confidence," which, in one or other of its forms, is found at the end of all St. Paul’s Epistles. Here it is the same as in 1 Thessalonians 5:28. "With you all" is added in 2 Thessalonians 3:18; Romans 16:24; Philippians 4:23. In Galatians and Philemon we have "with your spirit." In the pastoral Epistles and Colossians, "Peace be with you." In Ephesians 6:24 it is confined to those "who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity." In 2 Corinthians 13:14 alone we have the full "apostolic benediction." 1 Corinthians 16:24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Added as a last proof that, if he has written in severity, he has also written in love. Amen. Perhaps genuine, though omitted by B, F, G. The superscription to the Epistle, rightly omitted in the Revised Version, does not possess the smallest authority, and is absolutely erroneous. It contains two positive misstatements, which show with what utter carelessness these superscriptions were written in the later manuscripts. The Epistle was not written from Philippi (a mere mistaken inference from 1 Corinthians 16:5), but from Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:8), and was not conveyed by Timotheus. 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 Christian philanthropy. "Now concerning the collection for the saints," etc. At the outset three truths are suggested. 1. That in the highest theological discussion the urgency of practical benevolence should never be overlooked. Immediately after the apostle had passed through the discussion on the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, he says, "Now concerning the collection." Practical benevolence is for many reasons more important than the grandest theological doctrine; it is doctrine demonstrated, exemplified, and reduced to utility; it is the blossom run into fruit. 2. That the grandest institutions are likely to break down in a world of depravity. The young Church at Jerusalem adopted the principle of Christian socialism. As many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the prices of those sold "and laid them down at the apostles’ feet," and distribution was made to every man according as he had need. A magnificent social system this, a system suited to bind all classes and races of men into the unity of a loving brotherhood. But the swelling tide of human depravity soon bears it away; for here we find Paul urging a collection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem, many of whom were shut up m prison, and those of them who were released reduced to abject destitution,—hence the collection. How many magnificent schemes for the world’s good are constantly being dashed to pieces by the black billows of popular depravity! 3. That the practical sympathy for human suffering which Christianity generates is a Divine element. Here are Galatia and Corinth drawn in sympathy for one common object, and that object was "suffering saints at Jerusalem." These people lived widely asunder, and were separated by many striking peculiarities, but here they meet together. This is the Divine principle that will one day draw all men together in Christ. Our subject is Christian philanthropy, and here we have— I. ITS CLAIMS . "Now concerning the collection." Paul was the advocate, and his advocacy glows with zeal. We find that in this matter he proposes the Galatians as an example to the Corinthians, the Corinthians an example to the Macedonians, and both as an example to the Romans (2 Corinthians 9:2; Romans 15:26). Were it not for the earnest advocacy of Christly men, the probability is that the Divine element of pure and practical social sympathy would become extinct. It is the living ministry of the gospel that keeps it alive, and in this it fulfils the grandest of all missions. II. ITS WISELY . Paul directed: 1. That the contributions should be personal. "Let every one of you lay by him in store," No one was exempted, however poor; the widow’s mite was acceptable. If no coin, then give service. 2. That the contributions should be systematic. "Upon the first day of the Week." Begin the week with deeds of practical benevolence. 3. That the contributions should be religious. "As God hath prospered him." This was the principle to rule the amount. Were this principle acted upon, some of the men who subscribe their ten thousand pounds, and who are lauded the world over as philanthropists, would be found to be churls after all, and those who subscribed their few shillings would appear as princes in the domain of practical charity. But, alas! how men reverse this principle! The more they have the less they give. III. ITS . "And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me." It is your duty to see that what you have subscribed shall be honestly distributed, and for this purpose, send men as your almoners, and if it seems necessary to secure the honest distribution, I will go with them. How sadly is this duty frequently neglected! How much money given for charitable purposes is dishonestly used and misappropriated every year! 1 Corinthians 16:5-9 God’s will the rule, and spiritual usefulness the end of life. "Now I will come unto you when I shall pass through Macedonia," etc. Two remarks are suggested. I. GOD’S WILL SHOULD BE THE RULE OF LIFE. "But I trust to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit." The text tells us that Paul had made a plan to visit the Corinthians, to "tarry a while" with them, and to spend the winter with them, after he had passed through Macedonia, and tarrying, at Ephesus until the Pentecost; but see, he rests this plan (no doubt dear to his heart) on the Lord’s will—"if the Lord permit." 1. There is a belief implied here. The great truth implied in this expression of Paul’s is that God is in the history of individual man. He is not merely in the great material universe, in angelic hierarchies, in human empires, communities, Churches, families, but in the individual man himself. He is not too absorbed in the vast for this, not too great for this. Paul believed that God was interested in him personally, and that he arranged for him personally. There is something sublime, bracing, and ennobling in the thought that God knows me, cares for me, arranges for me. 2. There is an acquiescence implied here. "If the Lord permit." This means, "I have no will of my own." As if he had said personally, "Consulting merely my own will, I should like to winter with you, my Corinthian friends, but I subordinate my will to the will of my God. I feel myself in his hands, and am ready to act in everything according to his arrangements." II. SHOULD BE THE AIM OF LIFE. "But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries." Three remarks are here suggested. 1. That wherever the gospel signally triumphs, great opposition may be anticipated. Paul was now at Ephesus, where he had laboured for a considerable time, and with such signal success that a deep and widespread opposition was excited, even to passion (see Acts 19:9-20). It has ever been so: wherever there has been a great revival of religion there has been unusual opposition. The latent enmity of the serpent is ever roused by the dissemination of spiritual light. Christ kindled a fire upon the earth. 2. That opposition to the gospel often affords specially favourable opportunities for the labour of the evangelist. "For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries." Religious excitement is ever more favourable to the spread of religion than religious monotony. You stand a better chance of converting an earnest sceptic than a traditional religionist. Excitement opens a "door." 3. That the true evangelist will be stimulated in his labours rather than discouraged by opposition. Instead of quitting Ephesus, where there were so many adversaries, Paul says, "I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost." Little souls are dismayed by difficulties, great souls are roused to action by them. Difficulties awaken their courage, stimulate their activities, and marshal their faculties for battle. 1 Corinthians 16:10-12 Wholesome teaching for the older ministers. "Now if Timotheus come, see that he maybe with you," etc. Taking these verses as the foundation for an address to the senior ministers of the gospel, we say to them— 1. SHOW A TENDER REGARD FOR THE OF YOUNG . "Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do." Timothy was young in years and in the faith as well; a man, too, perhaps of delicate frame and nervous temperament, and probably not distinguished by any great gift, natural or attained. In Corinth there were men of philosophic fame, brilliant genius, and oratoric force. He would perhaps feel somewhat abashed in the presence of such; hence the considerate counsel which Paul addresses to the Corinthians to treat him kindly, not to "despise him," nor in any way to dispirit him. Alas! it is not an uncommon thing for elder ministers to disparage the younger ones, and often treat them with disrespect, and even rudeness. II. RISE TO ALL . If Paul had been capable of feeling jealousy towards any brother minister, it would have been towards Apollos. He seems to have been a man of distinguished ability and splendid eloquence. Moreover, he was very popular in Corinth, greatly admired and extolled by not a few, perhaps more popular even than Paul himself, the head of one of the factions of the Church against which Paul had been contending. Had he been jealous, Paul would have kept him out of Corinth as long as he could, and have treated him as a rival, instead of which he says, "As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren." Jealousy amongst ministers of the gospel, though a most antichristian sentiment, is not a very uncommon thing; nay, it is rife, and shows itself often in detracting innuendoes and symbolic looks and shrugs. III. BE NOT IF NOT IS YOUR DESIRES. Both the Christian experience and ministerial ability of Apollos were inferior to that of Paul. Notwithstanding this, he did not comply with Paul’s request: nor did Paul seem displeased. "His will was not at all to come at this time: but he will come when he shall have convenient time." If Paul had no authority to enforce his wishes on his brethren, how arrogant it seems for any uninspired minister to attempt it! The only authority which one genuine minister has over another is the authority of superior intelligence, experience, and moral force. 1 Corinthians 16:13, 1 Corinthians 16:14 The demands of Christianity on its adherents. "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith," etc. Here are certain demands which Christianity makes on all men. I. A demand for . "Watch ye." A military metaphor this, derived from the duty of those who are stationed to guard a camp or to observe the motions of an enemy. There were many evils, as we have seen, in the Corinthian Church—dissensions, heresies, inchastities, intemperances, etc. Hence the necessity of watchfulness. But where do not evils abound? Hosts surround us all, hence, "Watch ye." "Watch and pray," says Christ. II. A demand for . "Stand fast in the faith." Do not be vacillating, wavering, "tossed about by every wind of doctrine." Strike the roots of your faith deep into the soil of eternal realities. Firmness is no more obstinacy than the stony rock is the deep-rooted oak. III. A demand for . "Quit you like men." Be courageous, invincible, well equipped, manly. Be an ideal man; you can be nothing higher than this, nothing greater. There are great philosophers, great poets, great statesmen, great orators, great warriors, who are small men, if men at all, leagues away from the ideal. A great functionary is often a very small man. "Quit you like men." Be heroes in the strife, Here is— IV. A demand for CHARITY. "Let all your things be done with charity" or love. Man’s life consists of many acts, many "things done." Activity is at once the law and the necessity of his nature. He only really lives as he acts; inactivity is death. But whilst the acts of men are numerous and varied, the animating and controlling spirit should be one, and that spirit is love. 1 Corinthians 16:15-18 Our duty to the truly useful. "I beseech you, brethren," etc. The subject of these verses is our duty to the truly useful, and— I. FOR THE TRULY USEFUL WE SHOULD CHERISH THE HIGHEST RESPECT. There are three useful persons that Paul mentions here. "Stephanas." He was one of Paul’s first converts of Achaia; he and. his house were baptized by Paul, and he and his family were "addicted" to the ministries of love. "Fortunatus and Achaicus" are also mentioned here. To these three personages Paul calls the special attention of the Corinthians, and that because they were useful. They had all ministered to Paul. The latter had supplied to him what the Corinthians had neglected, and they refreshed both his spirit and theirs; hence for this he says, "Acknowledge ye them that are such." The truly useful are the truly honourable. A man is to be honoured, not because of his ancestry, his office, his wealth, but because of what he is morally, and what he does generously in the way of helping the race. The philanthropist is the true prince. II. WITH THE TRULY USEFUL WE SHOULD . "That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth." 1. Cooperate with useful men. 2. In your cooperation let them take the lead. They have proved themselves worthy of your cooperation. 1 Corinthians 16:19, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 1 Corinthians 16:23, 1 Corinthians 16:24 Salutations. "The Churches of Asia salute you," etc. On these salutations we cannot do better than transcribe the remarks of F.W. Robertson:—"We make a remark respecting salutations generally. This Epistle has many, but they are not so numerous as in that to the Romans. In both of them individuals are mentioned by name. It was no mere general assurance of attachment he gave them, but one of his personal knowledge and affection. I. ST. PAUL’S WERE NOT LOST IS GENERAL . That because he entertained regard for the Churches, and for bodies of men, he did not on this account ignore the individuals composing them. It is common enough to profess great interest and zeal for humanity whilst there is indifference all the time about individual men. It is common enough to be zealous about a cause, about some scheme of social good, and yet to be careless respecting individual welfare. But St. Paul’s love was from Christ’s own Spirit. It was love to the Church generally, and, besides, it was love to Aquila and Priscilla. And is not this, too, the nature of God’s love, who provides for the universe, and yet spends an infinity of care on the fibre of a leaf? II. THE VALUE OF THE OF LIFE. There are many minds which are indifferent to such things, and fancy themselves above them. It is a profound remark of Prescott’s that ’liberty is dependent upon forms.’ Did not the solemn, slow change in the English constitution, and our freedom from violent submersions, arise from the almost superstitious way in which precedent has been consulted in the manner of every change? But what is of more importance to remember is, that love is dependent upon forms, courtesy of etiquette guards and protects courtesy of heart. How many hearts have been lost irrecoverably! and how many averted eyes and cold looks have been gained from what seemed perhaps but a trifling negligence of forms!" 1 Corinthians 16:21, 1 Corinthians 16:22 A negative crime and positive punishment. "If any man love not," etc. The words contain two things. I. A CRIME. "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ," etc. We make three remarks on this state of mind in relation to Christ. 1. It is unreasonable. There is everything in him to call out the highest love. There are three kinds of love to which we are susceptible, and which are incumbent on us—gratitude, esteem, and benevolence. The first requires a manifestation of kindness; the second, of moral excellence; the third, a purpose for the common good. Christ manifests all these, and therefore deserves our highest love. 2. It is ascertainable. We can soon ascertain whether we love Christ or not. There are infallible criteria. For example, the chief object of love will always be (1) the engrossing subject of thought; (2) the attractive theme of conversation; (3) the source of the greatest delight in pleasing; (4) the most transformative power of character; and (5) the most identified with our conscious life. 3. It is deplorable. This love is the only true regulative power of the soul. Where this is not, all the powers of our nature are misemployed, and. all is confusion. II. A . "Let him be Anathema Maran-atha." These words intimate two things concerning the punishment. 1. Its nature. "Let him be Anathema." The word expresses some terrible amount of suffering. It is one of Paul’s strong words to express a terrible evil. Excommunication from all that is pure and good and happy is undoubtedly involved. The soul cut off from Christ, its Centre, Root, Fountain, Life, is utterly destroyed. 2. Its certainty. "Maran-atha," which means, "The Lord will come." This word is probably introduced by Paul in order to convey the certainty of the destruction of those who "love not the Lord Jesus Christ." Paul had written the other part of this letter by an amanuensis, but to write these terrible words he takes up the pen himself. "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand." He felt the utmost recoil of heart for those who "love not the Lord Jesus Christ," and had the most overwhelming idea of the misery to which such will be exposed. Men are accursed, not merely because they hate Christ, rebel against his authority, and profane his ordinances, but because they do not love him. BY C. 1 Corinthians 16:1-5 Charity; its systematic mode of exercise. If these Corinthians shared the thoughts and emotions of St. Paul on love, on the uses of gifts, and on the resurrection, they were well prepared to have practical duties urged on their immediate attention. At that time "the collection for the saints" was a very important matter. These saints were poor disciples in Jerusalem, who needed foreign help, the Church in that city being unable, because of impoverishment, to render them adequate assistance. Furthermore, it was important as a means of spiritual discipline. Giving to others, and especially to the household of faith, is an acknowledgment of God in Christ, a testimony to brotherhood, and an active cooperation with providence, the last being a duty we are particularly liable to forget. The religion of providence, the sense of Christ in providence, and the sentiments thereby inspired, is a weak influence in many professing Christians, and it is certainly very desirable that we should have the mind of the Spirit on this subject. Apart from these reasons for "the collection for the saints," the evidential value of the act appears in this, that in about a quarter of a century a Christian community had grown up in the Roman empire, had spread over much of its territory, and had the means and the heart to aid poorer brethren. Nor must we fail to notice that Jerusalem was an object of much interest to Galatia and Corinth. The days of adversity were gathering upon her, but she was Jerusalem, and to no one more of a Jerusalem than to St. Paul. His zeal in her behalf won upon the sympathies of the Gentiles, and they were ready to join him in this work of the Lord. Observe, then, that he enters into no argument to prove the obligation of charity. This is presupposed to exist. The sentiment, too, is alive, the impulse is awake and operative. He makes no doubt of their readiness to cooperate with him. What he wishes to do is to organize the sentiment and impulse. Habits are the safeguards of good inclinations, habits are the most conservative of forces, and habits, after having been made by us, get the mastery and make us. Habits are as necessary for Churches as for individuals, and, therefore, he will have these Corinthians to do this work methodically. "As I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye." Notice the apostolic method. It required a fixed time—"the first day of the week," the Lord’s day. Would not the day cultivate and hallow the feeling? Are the associations of a given time for a given task unworthy of consideration? The heavens and the earth are obedient to periodicity, the human body is an organism of periodicity, the sabbath is an institution of periodicity, and benevolence cannot be a habit in the best import of the term unless it have stated periods of activity. Therefore, "the first day of the week." It was to be done by "every one." It was to be done individually and privately—"lay by him in store." And, again, it was to be performed with reference to accumulation, set apart, added to, kept in store. Finally, there was to be an examination of their daily business; intelligence was to be exercised, prudence and piety were to go hand in hand, and this was to be done in a religious spirit—"as God hath prospered him." Now, this looks as if St. Paul had given much thought to this matter. It was charity, not as mere charity, nor as a spasmodic impulse, nor as a thing of imposing occasions, but charity organized and habitual, regular as the sabbath, incorporated into the sanctity of the day, a product of the week’s review, a commemoration of God’s goodness in prospering their business; it was this sort of charity he directed them to practice. They practised many virtues in this one virtue. Too much of benevolent giving involves nothing beyond our sympathies and the wants of others. It is an education of the hand, the purse, the soul. But what of the spirit’s higher culture? What of the calling into play the spiritual nature that was going forward to robe itself in a spiritual habiliment at the resurrection? The essence of this lay in the thought of God as prospering the man for the sake of others as well as for his own sake. Business, then, was not simply personal, it was relative also, and charity, no less than utility, entered into it as a component. What, now, is St. Paul’s idea of making money? It is acquiring the means of your own support and of contributing to the relief of those in want. It is making wisdom and openness of heart and fraternity of sentiment, while making money. It is making the religion of brotherhood while making money. If the Corinthians would adhere to this plan, there would be no need of collections when he came, as the work would have been done already. Was not this one way of being steady, unmoved, "always abounding in the work of the Lord," and would it not prove by its self action that it was not "in vain in the Lord?" And was it not one way, and a great way, of demonstrating that there was a business in religion as well as a religion in business? Throughout his statement of the matter, you see the apostle’s large mindedness. The cheerful giver is portrayed, the man who naturalizes and domesticates charity; nothing is said of tithes and tithing; it is Christianity and Gentile Christianity alone that is in view, and, instead of Jerusalem being a centre of power or metropolitan sovereignty, Corinth and Galatia are sources or bead-springs of blessing to her. What a stride forward this, in the evangelization of the world! We may know that the end draweth nigh, when the money of the world—the stronghold of sin and Satan—is recovered for Christ. St. Paul bad faith in the sentiment of these Corinthians. Disorderly as were some of their practices, shameful indeed, loose as was their Church discipline, erroneous certain of their tenets, yet, despite of all, they had the root of the matter in the willing mind of love, so that when be visited them, he would have nothing more to do than to accredit their messengers and commend them to the Church in Jerusalem. Come to them he would; and, if the collection were liberal, he might deem it advisable to accompany their messengers to Jerusalem. And what a spectacle it suggests at this distance to us, who can recall the old-time enmity between Jew and Gentile, and have the offset in a scene as beautiful as that presented by a delegation from Corinth, bearing its gifts to a suffering and down-trodden people!—L. 1 Corinthians 16:6-18 St. Paul and his purposes; his friends; earnest exhortation. If the apostle were before us in his Epistles as an inspired man of genius only, whose intellect teemed with great thoughts, and whose heart was absorbed in supplying fervency to those thoughts, his hold upon us would be weakened. The man has nothing about him of the intellectualist. Among the varieties of mind and character that have arisen from time to time in the development of humanity, turn for a moment to the ideal of an apostle, and tell us if the conception of such a person is not something unprecedented, an idea altogether original with Christianity. A new and most marvellous form of a public man—not a representative man, not a typical man, in no sense either the one or the other, since the man antedated the Church and had no continuation in the Church after its opening century. Take your ideals of philosopher, poet, military chieftain, statesman, ruler, and tell us what resemblance these bear to the character St. Paul sustained and the office he filled. Or take the worthiest dignitaries of the Church, and follow the procession as it moves, now in splendour and then in gloom, from the hills of Rome, over the Alps, through the forests of Germany, by the Rhine and the Rhone, over England, Scotland, and America, and see how they compare with him who fought with beasts at Ephesus and died daily. Quite as remarkable as the conception of this ideal was its realization in St. Paul from his conversion to his death. Look at the matter in another connection. What is the final test of greatness viewed in relation to society? Is it not the ease and freedom of access to the common heart of humanity, the magical power to create sympathy and fellowship, the God-like capacity to pass through the shallow feelings of admiration and conventional honour—often more of a tribute to our own vanity than to the worth of others—and to gain entrance to the depths of truthful affection? Beyond doubt, this was St. Paul’s greatness. Just from an argument, that must have put an extraordinary pressure even on his great abilities, and which was well calculated, as all intellectual men know, to make him insensible, or at least indifferent, at the moment to the details of life, he is not forgetful of his brethren, but hopes to pass the winter in their midst. "A flying visit" (by the way) will not satisfy his love. But, for the present, he must "tarry at Ephesus." Why he would stay in this city, he states—"a great and effectual door is opened unto me;" the field of usefulness is large and promises vast results. Stay he would, moreover, because "there are many adversaries." Adversaries were the men to convert; if not that, to silence; but, any way, he will not desert a post of duty to gratify his desire to see the Corinthian brethren. If the Lord will permit, he will refresh himself among them, but, for a time, he will face the worshippers of Diana and bear the brunt of persecution. Then he thinks of the young Timotheus. If he visit you according to his expectation, be thoughtful of his youth, be specially considerate of his modesty, and see that his stay among you is "without fear," disturbed by none of your rivalries and factions. Honour him for his work’s sake, for "he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do." "Let no man therefore despise him;" on the contrary, "send him on without annoyance, with good understanding, and kindly affection," that he and his travelling companions may come unto me. Again, some of the partisans at Corinth might suspect him of jealousy as to Apollos. The name of the eloquent and holy man had become a watchword of strife. Lest they should do St. Paul this dishonour, he tells them of the affectionate relations between them; nor will he say my brother, but "our brother Apollos," whom he wishes "greatly" to visit the Church at Corinth. But see! One of those sudden changes which originate in the soul, which pass from the soul into the nerves, and from the nerves into the muscles—one of those quick escapes from memory and stored up emotion—occurs, and what an intenser expression settles in the muscles about the eyes, and in the eyes themselves! There is a break in the thought. Two verses intervene before the main idea is resumed. And it could hardly have been otherwise. It is nature to the life; it is St. Paul in the very soul of his temperament. It was scarcely possible for the apostle to mention Apollos without being reminded of the unhappy divisions at Corinth, for we can neither think nor feel except by means of association and suggestion. Each faculty, each sensibility, is an individual centre of these activities. No wonder, then, that there is an abrupt transition, all the more true to the laws of mind because abrupt. "Watch ye." Ah! if there had been Christian watchfulness in the Corinthian Church, what criminations, what reproaches, what humiliations, had been averted! To be a man, one must be apprehensive of the dangers ever lurking in ambush; must have the sentinel spirit and habit, and must exert it every moment. "Stand fast in the faith." Occasional watching will not do; steadfastness must go along with watchfulness, and fortify you against the wiliest assault. "Quit you like men." No manhood can live without courage; be manful. Fighting is your safety, business, profession; fight like men, fight on, fight to the end. "Be strong," or as it is in Ephesians 3:16, "Strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man." But fight how? There are many sorts of fighting—business fighting, professional fighting, legislative fighting, alas! even Church fighting. And there they are, each class of fighters with his particular weapons and his code of warfare. Only in this are they all alike, viz. the fighter gets the help of the animal soul. Beastly fighting he abhors; the fighting which brings hot blood and excited nerves and quick breathing into service, he admires, encourages, and depends upon for victory. Not so is St. Paul’s view. "Let all your things be done with charity"—love, and, after his grand discourse on "love," an allusion is enough. To have a gentlemanly intellect in our fighting is a rare thing and a great thing, but to have a loving intellect in fighting for what we believe to be truth is much rarer and infinitely greater. Christian fighting is a very unusual excellence. From this emotional digression, he returns to "the house of Stephanas." This family were "the firstfruits of Achaia." How he likes the figure! St. Paul had baptized this household. They have "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." What the precise ministry was, we know not, but we know that it was a kind, beautiful, noble service, fur it was rendered to the "saints." Think of the manifold ministries that Christianity set a going. It is Anno Domini, say, 57. Christianity has in its Churches men of the generation that saw Christ die, that beheld him risen, that witnessed Pentecost. Jerusalem, though approaching her overthrow, still shows the temple where he taught, the spot where he was crucified, and the grave where he was buried. In this short space of time, what numerous workers have entered on careers of beneficence! From the apostles downward through all grades of kind and loving agencies, mark the variety, the diffusion, the heterogeneous civilizations, the unity, the accordant response, the consecration, pervading these Christian ministries. Mark it, we say; for it is a solitary phenomenon, up to this time, in human annals. Mark it, we repeat; for all the antagonistic forces of the world are in league to crush it, and they are reinforced and augmented by Satanic power. Take a single specimen, the household of Stephanas. No information is given as to his social position, no mention made of the sphere or spheres of usefulness filled. Enough to know, it was a "ministry" and a blessed one, since it was "a ministry to the saints." Yet we may picture that Corinthian home in the midst of a mongrel and licentious population, keeping alive the fervour of its love and the purity of its private heart, watching, standing fast in the faith, courageous and strong, and abounding in the work of the Lord. We may be sure that the poor, the sick, the infirm, were duly cared for and helped, and that the home itself was devoted to hospitality. Now, says the apostle, "submit yourselves unto such." There are two kinds of submission—one to authority, the other to influence. We need both. We need law, we need grace. Law and grace are coexisting constituents in modern civilization so far as Christianity has permeated, and, in our times, influence has assumed a very significant relation to government and society. We are governed much more by influence than authority. St. Paul urges that Stephanas and his household be respected and honoured, their wishes consulted, their judgments followed. And not only they, but "every one that helpeth with us and laboureth." Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus had come from Corinth and visited St. Paul at Ephesus, and "they have refreshed my spirit and yours." They had been sent as representatives of the Corinthian Church. The comfort and cheer were mutual; let them be acknowledged (valued, recognized) for these good offices. Wise instruction this; to be influenced by excellence in others, and submit our minds to such a gracious power, is the strongest of all evidences that we are on the path of culture and piety. For it has pleased God, our Father, not only to reveal himself in Jesus our Lord, but he manifests himself also in those who are Christ’s. Discipleship is a revelation and an inspiration. All the ministries are of God. They are his presence, his helpfulness, his glory, among the habitations of men. And whether it be the "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation," or the lowly ministrations that fall in the silent dew and breathe in the hidden violet, they are alike from him who "worketh all in all."—L. Closing words. The salutations follow: first, from the Churches of Asia; then from Aquila and Priscilla, honoured names in the Churches; again front the Ephesian brethren. Let them renew their fellowship and pledge their love again "with a holy kiss." The work of the amanuensis over, St. Paul adds the salutation from himself with his own hand, "The salutation of me Paul." And the words follow, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema," let him become accursed; "Maran-atha,’ the Lord comes. Between the greeting "of me Paul" and "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you," followed immediately with "my love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen," this utterance of intense feeling occurs. What his tone of mind was, we understand fully from the chapter, which expresses confidence, hope, and brotherly affection. What his emotions were at the instant, we know from the salutation which precedes and the benediction which succeeds the Anathema Maran-atha. The warning is terrible, but it is one of love and tenderness. Had he been less conscious of the obligation to love the Lord Jesus Christ, less sensible of its immeasurable worth to the soul, less aware of the stupendous folly and guilt of rejecting it; or if the profound sense of that love had not been present in the full blaze of his own consciousness;—then, peradventure, words less stern and denunciatory might have been used. As it is, he speaks from the same high level of love to God and man, and the sentence of condemnation has its preface in a greeting and its sequel in a benediction. So closes this wonderful Epistle. Writing under the zenith of his years, if we rate those years by the chronology of his preaching and pen, St. Paul comes before us in its successive pages as one whose temperament, nervous vigour, observation, culture, experience, had been so far coordinated and interblended as to fit him, in an eminent degree, to give birth to this production. Never did a human soul exhibit its individuality more perfectly through all its organs of expression. Those organs are varied in every man. They were singularly diversified in the apostle. He cannot reason long without waking other forces of utterance. Imagination, in its form of relativity rather than its creative quality, is stirred into activity. Most of all, impassioned emotion is quickly evoked. And, in this Epistle, the transitions from one topic to another, and from one aspect of a topic to its contrast, are vivid tokens of his superabundant energy. Much is left without minute elaboration. Hints are given that might be expanded into essays and disquisitions. But he was not writing these; he was writing apostolic letters, and "first and last and midst" he adhered to his plan and method. Judging from his recorded speeches, he is quite as much or more of a speaker when writing than when addressing a multitude. The spirit in him is often impetuous and finds it easy work to loose itself from restraints. Keenly conscious of himself, still more keenly conscious of Divine truth in himself, his personality is as nearly merged in his apostleship as we can conceive possible, and hence it is Paul, the servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the pre-eminence in all the manifestations of his genius and character. This Epistle, a manual of Church order, an epitome of cardinal principles adapted to the ever changing externality of Church life, presents many a germ-idea for future development. Not one of his Epistles bears so directly on certain questions of the day. If we study the human body from the Pauline point of view, we shall be rid very soon of those dangerous teachings which some of our physiologists are pressing on popular acceptance. If we follow St. Paul, we shall know more of the human soul than most of our philosophical systems teach us. There are no "wandering mazes" here in which men are "lost," but over every realm he traverses, light gathers as he advances, and the splendour always hangs its noon where the radiance is most wanted. Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. Christ is therefore his Power and Wisdom, wherever the duties of the apostleship have to be discharged and its sorrows have to be endured. The day has not come for this Epistle to be fully understood and appreciated. Science has many years of apprenticeship to serve before it can reach the plane of thought on which St. Paul stood. And our Christian thinkers have much to learn before culture and piety can open to them the hidden treasures of this Epistle. As true Biblical criticism advances, the profundity of this letter to the Corinthians grows more apparent, and we feel in our day, as was never felt, before the amazing compass of its power. Here are ideas which wait on time and have given as yet scarcely more than a fragment of themselves to our foremost scholars. Here are latent inspirations that will one day astound the world. Nothing that he wrote has a better-grounded assurance of a great future, and when that future shall come, the world will have a far juster sense of its indebtedness to St. Paul as a grand teacher.—L. BY J.R. THOMSON Church gifts. There are few interests in human life which can be separated from the consideration of money. Money is the first necessity of governments, and it is the sinews of war. In business, in professional life, in industrial pursuits, pecuniary considerations are prominent, perhaps paramount. It is no otherwise in religion; and, however some superfine Christians may object to associating anything so base as money with what is the loftiest of human interests, no way has been found of excluding money matters from the Church of Christ. Indeed, as Christianity claims to affect and to control all that is human, there seems no possibility of excluding anything so important as money from its range. I. THE TO WHICH CHURCH GIFTS SHOULD BE DEVOTED. The contributions gathered in Achaia, Macedonia, and other places, at the instance of the apostle, were for the poor Christians of Jewish race at Jerusalem. There is no reason to suppose that all the methods and practices of the primitive Churches were unexceptionable. We have to deal with aims, with impulses and principles, not with details of method and administration. And we cannot question that the relief of the poor, and especially of the Christian poor, is a lawful and becoming means of displaying practical brotherly love. Wisdom, discrimination, ought indeed to be exercised, but for the direction and not for the extinction of liberality. II. THE METHOD IN WHICH CHURCH SHOULD BE MADE. From this passage, containing principles of apostolic authority, we learn that such setting apart of our substance to benevolent and ecclesiastical purposes should be: 1. Periodical. Some have, indeed, held that the words of the apostle especially sanction the devotion of money as an observance peculiarly appropriate to the Lord’s day. In any case, regularity is enjoined. 2. In proportion to means. There is both common sense and Christian feeling in the apostle’s direction as to the measure of liberality. The poor man gives of his poverty, and the rich man of his wealth; whatever is consecrated being regarded as an acknowledgment that all is from God. 3. In preparation and accumulation. To avoid a sudden levy or collection upon the apostle’s arrival, he recommends that each shall lay by him in store, so that the product may be ready to hand when the day comes that it is wanted. III. THE WAY IN WHICH CHURCH GIFTS SHOULD BE AND . Paul showed his wonted wisdom in the arrangements he suggested. 1. Personal ministration should be employed. Everything, especially everything connected with money, should be open and above board. The givers choose the bearers of the gift. 2. The manner of apportionment should be altogether above any possibility of suspicion. Of such precautions Paul has set us an admirable and excellent example.—T. The open door and many adversaries. Ephesus evidently had, as a scene of labour, many attractions for the ardent and fearless spirit of the Apostle Paul. Its vast population, its devotion to idolatry, the excitability of its inhabitants, all rendered it a congenial field for such a worker. And the opposition he encountered and the danger he braved, it is plain from the narrative, made him feel the city all the more to be an honourable and attractive post for a bold and faithful soldier of Jesus Christ. I. THE OF SERVICE FOR CHRIST IN THIS . A door offers the means of admittance to a house, and an open door invites approach and entrance. In Scripture a door is often used to express the opportunity to do God’s will and advance his cause. So here, the apostle represents by this figurative language the summons which Providence addressed to him to evangelize this great city of Asia Minor. The citizens and visitors were numerous, the idolatry and vice which prevailed were flagrant, human sorrows and difficulties and temptations abounded; so that there was abundant room for evangelistic and pastoral labour. Further, there seems to have been in some quarters a remarkable and gratifying readiness to hear the gospel of Christ. II. THE TO SERVICE FOR CHRIST HERE ALLUDED TO. 1. Observe from what quarters it came. The narrative in the Book of the Acts makes it evident that opposition to Christian preaching arose from both Jews and Gentiles. On different grounds sinful men oppose the truth. It always has been so. It was so in the time of our Lord, and the disciple, the servant, must not expect or desire to be above his Master. 2. Observe what forms it took. Slander and secret misrepresentation was one way in which adversaries sought to hinder the truth. And another was open hostility and violence. This we know to have been put in motion at Ephesus against the apostle. The ignorant and impassioned mob was stirred up to oppose the work of Paul; in this sense, at all events, he fought with beasts at Ephesus. III. THE OF GREAT AND MANY . It is certainly a paradoxical statement. Yet reflection will show that there is no real inconsistency. 1. Hindrances, calumnies, serve to draw attention to any cause, and the gospel is sure to profit by anything which leads men to inquire into it. 2. These obstacles serve to test the quality of the labourers, and to bring out courage and resolution and patience where such qualities are required. 3. They always answer a valuable purpose in testing the sincerity of the converts. Times of persecution are times of testing. IV. THE THIS HAD FOR THE APOSTLE. 1. It called forth and employed his many and remarkable powers. 2. It enabled him to realize his fellowship with his Master. 3. It promised great results of spiritual good. . 1. Enter in, Christian labourers, at every open door! 2. Be fearless of adversaries!—T. The word of command to Christian soldiers. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/